Such legends have little historical basis, but they create many problems. The dual monarchy of Romulus and Tatius may be an attempt to explain the origin of the collegiate magistracy of the Roman Republic. The story of the asylum, which was a right used in Greek cities, might have been invented to reflect Rome’s later generosity in extending her citizenship, or else to explain the origin of a ‘holy’ spot on the Capitol, for instance a place struck by lightning. Some historians would dismiss the rape of the Sabine women either as an attempt to find an historical explanation for certain features of Roman marriage customs or for some other reason. Others believe that the tradition of a Sabine settlement on some of the hills of Rome and its union with a Palatine settlement, together with all the related legends, should be completely rejected. But there was a Sabine element in Rome which seems to have been very early: not only was there a small infusion of Sabine words into the vocabulary of the Romans, but the latter also received a few specifically Sabine deities among their state cults. One of these was the mysterious Quirinus who was identified by the Romans with both Mars and the deified Romulus; the word may be connected with the Quirinal and also the Quirites, a name by which the Romans sometimes called themselves. Since the archaeological evidence points to the appearance of an inhuming people who occupied the Quirinal and Esquiline in early times, it seems reasonable to equate this new element with the people the Romans knew as Sabines. The word Tatius is more probably the latinized form of a Sabine rather than of an Etruscan name, but he is such a shadowy figure even in the legend that he must surely be consigned to limbo, and his name explained as designed to account for the ‘Romulean’ tribe Tities and the priesthood of sodales Titii. But nevertheless his legend may reflect a general historical truth.10
The figures of the next three kings stride dimly through the mists of legend: mighty priests, warriors and law-givers – but men? Naturally many institutions and deeds were wrongly attached to these heroic figures, but when they have been stripped of all their trappings by modern critics there still remains the possibility, or even the probability, that they were in some form historical persons.
Numa Pompilius was said to have been a Sabine who settled on the Quirinal. Though the name Numa may be Etruscan, Pompilius is Sabine, the Roman form being Quinctilius, and he bears witness in all probability to the existence of those people who buried their dead on the outer hills of Rome. Moving later to a new home near the Forum, he built a palace (the Regia) and reigned in peace for forty-three years. He is the priest-king who according to Roman tradition organized the religious life of the community by establishing regular cults and priests (flamines, pontifices, Salii and the Vestal Virgins) and by reforming the calendar: he correlated the lunar and solar year by introducing a twelve-month in place of the ‘Romulean’ ten-month year. All this cannot be taken quite at its face value, since some of the changes may have been earlier, some later. Thus the Salian priests had armour of the Bronze Age type which points to an earlier institution, while the reform of the calendar seems more likely to have been the work of the later Etruscan kings. However, as few would deny the existence of Moses, though not attributing all the Mosaic legislation to the lawgiver, so some of the religious organization that took place during the regal period at Rome may well have been the work of one man who was strong enough to impose reform on the people. Thus Numa Pompilius may well have had a more material existence than his legendary counsellor, the nymph Egeria.
To the peaceful Numa succeeded the warrior Tullus Hostilius, who reigned traditionally for thirty-two years (673–642), repulsed an Alban invasion, destroyed Alba itself and transferred its population to Rome. Although there is no archaeological evidence for a catastrophic sacking of Alba in the mid-seventh century, the Iron Age settlement there gradually disappeared at about this time, and thus may have provided a basis for the story of Hostilius’ action. Further, the name of the Alban Mettius Fufetius, who succeeded the dead king as commander, may be historical (Mettius is the Latin form of an Oscan magistrate called meddix). Tullus Hostilius has one monument in favour of his existence, the Curia Hostilia, where the Senate met; as the Hostilii did not reach the consulship or become prominent until the second century, long after the establishment of the Curia and the enrolment of Tullus in the regal canon, there is here some ground for the king to stand on.
Like Hostilius, his predecessor, Ancus Marcius belonged to a family whose later members did not reach the consulship until long after his name had been incorporated in the list of kings: the Marcii first gained the consulship in 357 BC, and they were plebeians. Thus there are two good reasons to suggest the historical reality of Ancus. He was the king wise in peace and strong in war, and although some of his exploits were invented to please the later Marcian family, he may be credited with extending Roman influence to Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber. He did not found a colony there, as asserted by tradition, but he probably gained control of the salt-pans south of the river, in rivalry with the Etruscans who held those on the north bank as well as controlling the crossing of the Tiber at Fidenae above Rome. This salt could be traded with the tribes of the interior to the east, but as it first had to be brought over the Tiber, the tradition that Ancus built the first bridge at Rome is reasonable: the fact that this Pons Sublicius was made entirely of wood (sublica means a ‘pile’) indicates its antiquity, and its construction may be linked with the pontifices, whose name means ‘bridge-builders’. Though Ancus probably did not incorporate the Janiculum hill into Rome, as tradition tells, he may well have established a bridge-head on it to protect the salt route and his new bridge. Finally it was during his reign that Tarquinius came to Rome.
4. THE SIXTH-CENTURY KINGS
The three last kings, L. Tarquinius Priscus (616–579 BC), Servius Tullius (578–535) and L. Tarquinius Superbus (534–510), form a strong contrast to their Latin or Sabine predecessors. They emerge a little further from the twilight of legend: there can be no reasonable doubt concerning the historicity of at least two of them, and they represent a period during which Rome was either continuously or intermittently under the domination of Etruria. However much patriotic Roman tradition tries to disguise the fact, this domination was political as well as cultural; at least one Etruscan king reigned in Rome, even if an Etruscan dynasty did not establish itself. But despite the cultural influence of Etruria, Rome remained essentially a Latin city even when under direct political control. So far from being overwhelmed, she was soon able to shake off the foreign yoke and with it the monarchy.
The connection of the Tarquins with Rome is attested by Etruscan, as well as by Roman tradition. A wall painting from the François tomb at Vulci, dating from the fourth century or a little later, depicts the rescue by Macstrna (Mastarna) and Aule Vipinas (Aulus Vibenna) of Caile Vipinas (Caelius Vibenna) who had been captured by Cneve Tarchu Rumach (Cn. Tarquinius Romanus); and the killing of Tarchu himself by Marce Camitlnas. The assumption that these men were historical rather than fictitious characters is strengthened by the welcome discovery of a bucchero vase which was dedicated by a certain Aulus Vibenna at Veii in the mid-sixth century, whether or not this man was the same as Mastarna’s friend. Attempts have been made to discredit the elder Tarquin as the double of Superbus, since many details of their careers are similar; but then though many of the deeds of Elijah are also attributed to Elisha, it is not thought necessary for that reason to roll the two prophets into one. Since the first Roman annalists to record this period lived some three hundred or more years after it, and the fuller historians, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, lived half a millennium after the fall of the Roman monarchy, it is not surprising that uncertainties may have arisen as to which of two similarly named men certain actions should be ascribed. (The fact that both also traditionally shared the name Lucius need not invalidate the evidence of the Vulci painting, since the name may be due to confusion with the Etruscan title lucumo.)
But if Tarquinius Priscus is to be retained because arguments against his exis
tence are not strong, it must be admitted that little can be attributed to him with any certainty. If his end was violent, as depicted in the Vulci fresco or told in Roman tradition, which assigned his death to men suborned by the sons of Ancus Marcius, his beginnings were peaceful enough: coming from Caere or Tarquinii, he is said to have driven to Rome in a cart (Henry Tudor’s later triumphal entry into London in a coach of a type used by women instead of riding on a war-horse, caused the citizens great astonishment). This tradition, even if exaggerating his peaceful entry, suggests that the Etruscan element was at first small. With a few well-chosen armed retainers he may have seized a city already surrounded by his kinsfolk and have retained his position by the beneficent influence of Etruscan culture. He was traditionally the son of Demaratus who had emigrated from Corinth to Etruria, and no doubt followed his father’s interest by promoting the pottery industry (p. 21). He is said to have added a hundred members to the Senate, who were called minores gentes; this tradition, together with the occurrence of several Etruscan family names among the titles of the tribes established by his successor Servius (e.g. Papiria, Voltinia), suggests that Tarquin encouraged many Etruscan families to settle in Rome, where they would strengthen his power. Among other innovations attributed to him were the construction of the Cloaca Maxima to drain the Forum Valley, and the establishment of the Roman Games. Since both drainage works and games were typically Etruscan interests, he should not be denied these achievements, even though this first Cloaca was only an open drain.11
Servius Tullius, traditionally Tarquin’s son-in-law, secured the throne through the boldness of his wife Tanaquil. One line of tradition represents him as a Latin, another as an Etruscan whose name was Mastarna. As ‘Macstrna’ rescued Caeles Vibenna during the mêlée in which Tarchu was killed, according to the tradition depicted on the Vulci tomb, he might well have become Tarquin’s successor, as the antiquarian emperor Claudius later believed. Yet the great veneration in which Servius was held by later Romans suggests a Latin origin rather than an equation with the Etruscan Mastarna, while his historicity is supported by his Latin name which was later used only by plebeians: a fictitious king would have been given a patrician name. But even if a Latin king was thus sandwiched in between two Etruscan Tarquins, Etruscan influence nevertheless continued in Rome throughout his reign, and he perhaps even encouraged the fusion of the two cultures.12
Servius’ reign was remarkable for many reforms, though some are falsely assigned to him. Some authorities would even rob him of his Etruscan wife, Tarquin’s daughter, arguing that she was invented to illustrate the hereditary nature of the monarchy; however, the importance of women in Etruscan society advises caution. Servius’ major reform was to institute new military units and property classes and thus to create a timocratic constitution. Details of this are discussed below (pp. 64ff.): it strengthened the monarchy against the nobles by advancing the middle class who supplied the legionary hoplites for the army, and it enfranchised many men whom increasing trade and industry had attracted to Etruscan Rome. He protected the city by constructing earthworks over the eastern hills, though probably not the continuous stone wall which was named after him (p. 53). He also asserted Rome’s political leadership in Latium, perhaps at the expense of Aricia, an older centre of the Latin League, by establishing on the Aventine hill (a plebeian quarter of Rome) a cult of Diana, as a common federal sanctuary to which some neighbouring Latin towns had agreed.13
Finally, the younger Tarquin, the son or more probably the grandson of Priscus, was instigated by his ambitious wife, Tullia, Servius’ own daughter, to murder Servius. He then usurped the throne, set aside the Ordinances of good king Servius and oppressed his people; he was represented in the literary tradition as a Greek tyrant dressed up in Roman regalia, but neither his historical existence as the last king of Rome nor his Etruscan nationality should be questioned. Further, his achievements were not all bad: his buildings in Rome included the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and the Cloaca Maxima (pp. 51, 52) which would provide employment for many at Rome besides any artists or workmen that he summoned from Etruria, while he extended Roman influence in Latium and made a treaty with Gabii (p. 55). The story of his son Sextus and the rape of Lucretia may have little historical value, but it should not be denied that Tarquinius Superbus was deposed by a revolution that established the Republic. Though the Roman festival of the Regifugium has no connection with the ejection of Tarquinius, yet the hatred which he engendered is demonstrated by the fact that the word rex continued to stink in the nostrils of the Romans until the end of the Republic. The story of his fall will find its place in the account of Rome’s relations with her neighbours (pp. 67ff.).
5. ETRUSCAN ROME
Whatever impetus the Etruscans may have given to the unification of the villages, they certainly provided the architectural and engineering skills that created the new buildings that made Rome into a city. The ground of the later Forum had to be prepared for a civic centre by drainage, which was traditionally carried out by both the Tarquins; there is some evidence for such work in c. 620 and c. 570 BC (though the cappellaccio work in the Cloaca Maxima dates to after 350). A pebble floor was then laid over the older graves and the huts, which were replaced with houses of sun-baked brick with tiled roofs early in the sixth century. The main street, the Via Sacra, followed the course of the controlled stream: it ran between the Regia and the temple of Vesta and so on towards the Capitol, while the Vicus Tuscus diverged from the Forum to the Cattle Market (Forum Boarium). Around this Vicus, in which stood a statue of the Etruscan god Vortumnus, lived Etruscan craftsmen and traders.
On the north side of the Via Sacra the early huts were replaced by a complex building, the Regia. This was described as having a double character, being both the house (domus) of a rex (the king or possibly the priestly rex sacrorum ? Later it became the seat of the Pontifex Maximus) and also a fanum, a sacred area containing the sacraria of Mars and Ops Consiva, together with an altar. Recent excavations have revealed something of the history of the Regia buildings, but their precise functions remain uncertain. The first buildings belong to the period of 590–570 and were decorated with bright terracottas and reliefs of animals and a Minotaur; a second phase, around 540, was marked by rebuilding and the use of terracottas showing Etrusco-Ionian influence. These earlier buildings were replaced c. 500 BC with a new Regia. Although the arrangement of the earlier sixth-century buildings has suggested to some that they were the dwelling of the rex sacrorum, the traditional view that the Regia was in fact the home of the king, at any rate in his capacity as head of Roman religion, may well be true. The word rex scratched on a bucchero cup of the seventh century, found during earlier excavations in the Regia, is significant and (like the regei on the cippus under the Lapis Niger in the Forum) may well refer to king rather than to priest.14
On the opposite side of the Via Sacra was the temple of Vesta which is dated c. 575–550 BC by the Greek pottery found in its votive deposits. At the northwest corner of the Forum was the Comitium, the later assembly-place of the Roman people which may have been used as such when its first pavement was laid; but below this was a gravel surface of c. 575 BC. Terracottas similar to those of the Regia suggest a building here corresponding to the first phase of the Regia. Nearby, under a black stone (the Lapis Niger) are the remains of a shrine (sacellum), with a later altar flanked by two lions which was held to be the tomb of Romulus; an aedicula, dedicated to a primitive but unknown deity, dates to c. 575 BC. This Lapis Niger complex, rather than a site near the north corner of the Forum, may represent the sanctuary of Volcanus, an altar in an enclosed area which formed a platform from which the king could address his people.15
This great outburst of building in the sixth century is matched by similar developments in the neighbouring Forum Boarium, as excavations around the church of Sant’ Ombono have revealed. A primitive altar was superseded by a temple that was erected c. 575 BC on a moulded podium; its terracottas resemble those of the firs
t phase of the Regia and of the Comitium. In the third quarter of the sixth century it was reconstructed on a large new podium, with many new architectural features, together with statues of Athene and Heracles. Whether or not this archaic temple was dedicated to either Fortuna or Mater Matuta, it lay below two temples which were dedicated to these two deities, and which were built about the beginning of the fifth century. They were attributed to Servius Tullius, who may well therefore have been responsible at least for the rebuilding of the archaic temple, since its date accords with the traditional period of his reign. The site has yielded much Greek pottery from c. 575–450; the terracotta plaques depicting horses and charioteers are especially pleasing.16
The Tarquins extended the city to include the Capitoline hill where on the south side they built a great temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, making it the religious centre of the city. Traces of other early buildings have been found, together with a bucchero bowl inscribed with one of the three Etruscan inscriptions so far discovered in Rome.17 Jupiter’s temple was the crowning architectural glory of Etruscan Rome; vowed by Priscus, it was almost finished by Superbus and dedicated in the first year of the Republic. Only parts of its massive stone foundations and fragments of its terracotta antefixes and tiles still survive. It contained three cellae: for Jupiter, flanked by Juno and Minerva. An Etruscan master-sculptor, Vulca, was summoned from Veii to make the terracotta cult-statue of Jupiter. The temple was 180 feet wide, 210 feet long and 65 feet high, with three rows of six columns, eight feet in diameter, forming a pronaos in front of the cellae. Its gaily-coloured painted terracotta, which covered the wooden superstructure, its figured friezes and the towering figure of Jupiter in a four-horse chariot (quadriga) over the pediment provided an impressive yet cheerful sight.
A History of the Roman World Page 9
