"The fictional nature of the accounts of early Roman history, particularly that

of the early republic to the alleged date of the twelve tables (conventional
dates 509 to 449 B.C.)".
By David Bruce Gain.

1: Thesis.
The following account attempts to show the fictional nature of the accounts of
Roman history up to the twelve tables (conventional date 449 B.C.) If any
significant facts are imbedded in the accounts, they are irrecoverable. 449
B.C. has been chosen as the end date, as the continuous account of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (hereafter mostly abbreviated to D) ends around then,
depriving us of our principal check on Livy (hereafter mostly L), our only
continuous surviving account from around that point. I have mostly ignored
the entirely or largely uncheckable. Hence much more is said of the
republican period (conventional start: 509 B.C.) for which exact dates are
alleged, than the vaguely dated regal period before it, whose accounts have,
in any case, been rightly received with very considerable scepticism, a
scepticism which I maintain should also be extended to the subsequent period
in a much fuller form than it has generally had in the past.
2: The sources: purveyors of fiction.
Since the sources available to Livy and Dionysius were much the same,
Dionysius' account of his sources is also, more or less, an account of Livy's.
At 1.6 Dionysius gives the following account of previous writers on (1) "the
early period of the Romans" (the period he proposes to treat). Greek writers
"took no trouble to be accurate, but merely recorded a few things that chance
had brought to their ears. (2) The Romans who followed them did exactly the
same when they wrote (in Greek) of the early days of the settlement. The
earliest of these writers are Quintus Fabius and Lucius Cincius, who both
flourished at the time of the wars with the Phoenicians. They both wrote,
from knowledge, clear accounts of their own times, but ran through the events
after the founding of the settlement, events long before their own time, only
summarily".
Fabius' and Cincius' dates can be given more precisely. Orosius 4.13.5 and
Eutropius 3.5 say Fabius fought in a battle of 225 (all dates hereafter are B.C.
unless A.D. is specifically mentioned). Cincius was captured by Hannibal and
talks of his crossing into Italy in 218 (L21.38.2). It can be seen from these
dates that they were born well after 449, so could not have known of our
period from personal experience or the experience of their contemporaries.
Thus, when writing of it: "they took no trouble to be accurate, but merely
recorded a few things that chance had brought to their ears".
Dionysius continues (in 1.7) "(1) it is best that I state in advance the
accounts and records I base my work on ... (3) I was taught some of it by
men most skilled with words, with whom I associated. Some of it I have
gathered from the accounts of writers whom the Romans themselves praise:
Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, Aeliuses,
Gelliuses, Calpurniuses and many others beside them, men of some note. My
account is based on their works (which are not unlike the Greek records of
periods)".
Dionysius mentions four writers individually, three in the plural, meaning
either two or more men of the same name or the man mentioned and one or
more writers like him. Clearly the ones mentioned individually are the ones
Dionysius would like his readers to think are more important. Why? Because
he used them more or because they are more praised by the Romans
themselves or for both reasons? He leaves it unclear. Cato was well known
and may well have been praised to Dionysius, but he was not a source for the
early republic, which he didn't treat. Fabius Maximus (consul 143) may well
have been respected as a learned pontifex maximus - the most important
Roman religious official - (one of his fragments is on religious ritual) but he
is not mentioned elsewhere as a source. I come to Valerius Antias later.
Licinius Macer (died 66) can't have been a major source for the early
republic, as he is already treating Pyrrhus (entered Italy in 280) in Book 2
(an ancient book, or roll, contained, on average, very roughly about 60
pages of an average sized reasonably closely printed modern book) (the
reference to Book 2 has been generally taken as corrupt, but no compelling
argument has been constructed to show that this must be the case). Aeliuses
seems to refer to Lucius Aelius Tubero, a contemporary of Cicero's who, in
60, refers to his history in 1.3.10 of his letters to his brother Quintus, and
Quintus Aelius Tubero, who fought at Pharsalia in 46, whose work Livy
quotes at 4.23.1 and 10.9.10. Tubero's account was about half the length of
Livy's. Only one writer Calpurnius is known - Lucius Calpurnius Piso
(consul 120). His treatment of the early republic is very brief - little more
than a book. Book 3 was already treating 304. Who the writer or writers like
him were is unknown. Only one writer Gellius is known - Gnaeus Gellius.
We come now to Claudius Quadrigarius, whom Livy quotes at 6.42.3,
8.19.13, 9.5.1 and 10.37.13. He also is brief. He started with the Gallic
occupation of Rome of 390 and Book 3 is already talking of 276 (i.e. he
covered in less than 2 books what Livy covered in 5). He says (quoted in
indirect speech by Plutarch Numa 1) "that the ancient records of the settlement
disappeared during the suffering under the Gauls and that those that now exist
were forged by men who wanted to win the favour of men who wished it to
be believed that they belonged to the most distinguished houses and the first
families, with whom, in reality, they had no connection". Accounts of early
Roman history after the Gallic occupation of 390 are as fictional as before, so
his reference to loss of records then (implication: there were records after the
occupation) must be invention to justify his starting the account with the
occupation. But his statement that the accounts of the early republic that he
knew consist of a series of fictitious exploits which members of a particular
clan {e.g. the Valerii} {I use {} to bracket my own additions} have fathered on
people from it who happen to have had the same name seems to be basically
true. Cicero: Brutus 16.62 is similar: "These eulogies have falsified our
history. Much written in them is fiction, fictitious triumphs, more consulships
than an individual actually had, false clan names and false reckonings of some
as plebeians, since men of lower status have been falsely introduced into
unrelated clans which happen to have the same name". Livy 8.40.4-5 says:
"History has been falsified in funeral eulogies and with false captions to
portraits, from families' desire for fame from bogus deeds and positions of
honour. This has infected both records of individual families' deeds and also
public monuments. Nor is there any other surviving author from around this
time {322} in whom we can put out trust".
This then is the meager and unreliable story of the early republic which
Claudius surveyed. But things were about to change. Unreliable was not, but
meager certainly was. A mass of fiction was about to be unleashed. Gnaeus
Gellius and Valerius Antias came on the scene. Gellius treated 216 in Book 33
(=Livy 23), Valerius 204 in 45 (=Livy 29), ie. their accounts were about one
and a half times the length of Livy's. This vast accession of material, not
found in their predecessors, where does it come from? There can be only one
answer - free invention. Gellius, it is true, denies this. Cicero "On the
orator" 2.12.52 quotes him (he can hardly be quoting Valerius, whom he
never mentions): "So that the history of the people could be recorded, the
Pontifex Maximus, up to the time of the pontificate of Publius Mucius, used
to record all the doings of every year and put them on a white board and put
it up in front of his house so that the people could read it". Everything in
this account could be true, except for the only important detail, which is
certainly false. We know that the Pontifex Maximus did not record all the
doings of every year, because Cato (234-149) tells us in the fourth book of
his Origins what the boards really contained. He says (quoted by Aulus
Gellius 2.28.6): "I have no desire to write about the sort of things found on
the board displayed by the Pontifex Maximus - how often grain is dear, how
often the moon's or the sun's light is darkened".
3: The length of Gnaeus Gellius' and Valerius Antias' accounts.
In section 2 I said: "Gellius treated 216 in Book 33 (=Livy 23), Valerius 204
in 45 (=Livy 29), i.e. their accounts were about one and a half times the
length of Livy's". These statements need justification.
Charisius 1 p55K says: Gellius says in Book 33: "They cleaned his skull
bones and gilded them". This corresponds to Livy 23.24.12 (216): "When
they had cleaned his head they gilded the skull". Aulus Gellius 6.9.9 says:
Valerius Antias in Book 45 of his annals writes: "Afterwards the plebeian
tribune Licinius charged him with treason and in the assembly asked the
praetor Marcus Marcius to set a date for the trial". A Marcus Marcius was
praetor urbanus in 204 (L29.22.3). Against this could be urged Gellius 6.9.12:
Valerius Antias in Book 22 ... "Tiberius Gracchus, who had been Gaius
Mancinus' quaestor in Spain and the others who had pledged themselves to a
peace". Gracchus was quaestor in Spain in 136. But this could also come
from an excursus in an account of the battle of the Caudine Forks of 319
(whose details have been invented from Mancinus' 136 activities). This gives
Livy 7 books to 319, Valerius 22 (Dionysius is 16), Livy 29 to 204, Valerius
45. Perfectly plausible. Against taking the Book 22 reference as part an
account of Tiberius Gracchus (133) - this requires Marcus Marcius to be an
unknown praetor of later than about 110 and a treason trial of that time to be
otherwise unknown - improbable for that period. It also requires Valerius to
have written only 22 books up to 133 to Livy's 69 (i.e. to have been about a
third of the length of Livy). But in Book 2 he is still talking of Numa, the
second of the seven kings, whom Livy has finished with a third of the way
through book 1. Livy 38.50-60, on the trial of Scipio, which takes up nearly a
sixth of the book, comes from Valerius. Would Valerius have treated this trial
in such detail if his work up to 133 was only a third the length of Livy's? It
also requires Valerius to have become vastly more detailed and to have
written at least 53 books on the period from 133 to about 80 (quotations
show he wrote at least 75 books), i.e. a book a year. Livy who, on this
reckoning, was three times as detailed as Valerius before 133, suddenly
becomes only half as detailed (a book of his in this period covered an average
of 2 years).
4: The census figures before 234/3 are all fictitious.
Year Author reference and numbers alleged
Servius L1.44.2: 80,000; Eutropius 1.7: 83,000; D4.22.2: 84,700
508 D5.20.4: about 130,000; Polybius 12.3: 130,000
503 Hieronymus Olympiad 69,1: 120,000
498 D5.75.3: 150,700
493 D6.96.4 & 9.25.2: over 110,000
474 D9.36.3: a little over 133,000
465 L3.3.9: 104,714
459 L3.24.10: 117,319
393/2 Pliny the elder 33.16: 152,573
340/39 Armenian Eusebius Ol.110,1: 160,000; Hier. Ol.110,1:165,000
c.323 L9.19.2: 250,000 Plut. Fort.Rom 13: 130,000 Oros 5.22.2: 150,000
293 L10.4.72: 262,321
290-87 L 11: 272,000
280/79 L13: 287,222
276/5 L14: 271,224
265/4 L16: 382,234; Eutr. 2.18: 292,234
252/1 L18: 297,797
247/6 L19: 241,212
241/0 Hier. Ol. 134,1: 260,000; Euseb. Armen. Ol. 134,1: 250,000
234/3 L20: 270,212
L1.44.2 says the number for king Servius' time is of men able to bear arms
and is from Fabius Pictor {who wrote around 200}. This is the purpose for
which figures would be useful and must be the presumed basis of the other
figures.
We start with the figure 270,212 for 234/3. This is near Fabius Pictor's own
time and is presumably reasonably reliable. But Rome's territory tripled
between 293 and 264. Hence we should expect the true figure for 293 to be
around 90,000, instead of 262,321. It is clear that all the early figures are
grossly inflated. They are the inventions of more than one man. We can
distinguish the sources giving approximate figures (earlier stages of the
invention) from the sources giving exact figures (later stages of the
invention). The approximations start with Fabius Pictor's grossly inflated
80,000 of Servius' time, which is inflated (by an amount considered
appropriate for the supposed growth of Rome) to 130,000 by 508. This
figure is also found at D6.63.4 (498) as the figure for the most recent
previous census. It seems as though D's source at this point had no
knowledge of the supposed 503 and 498 censuses, and is referring to the
supposed 508 census. The 503 result of 120,000 and the 493 of 110,000 seem
to come from different sources from the 130,000 of 508 (why the decrease in
numbers?) and to be independent inflations of the Servian 80,000. For 498
(150,700) and 474 men have been at work trying to make the figures more
believable by being more precise. The true figure for 474 seems to be
133,000, not the alternative 103,000. which seems to be the result of
haplography. (Here and afterwards, because I am confined to the letters of
the Roman alphabet, I transcribe the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet as
follows: abgdezETiklmnxoprstyPKSO, never capitalizing any letter). triskai
was omitted from trisKiliOntekaitriskaidekamyriadOn. The figures seem to
come from two independent sources, as the decline from the 150,700 of 498
to the 133,000 of 474 is unexplained (we have already seen that the source of
D6.63.4 had no knowledge of the supposed 503 and 498 censuses).
Plutarch's 130,000 for around 323 is the same as he gives for 508.
Presumably his 323 source came up with the same figure as 508 from a vague
memory of the 508 number. Livy's 250,000 for around 323 comes from his
excursus on Alexander. He (or his source, if he didn't compose this excursus
himself) is here trusting to memory, which is here wildly inaccurate. The
figures found in the rest of Livy are the work of a forger who thought people
might be gullible enough to believe that such precise figures must be
absolutely accurate. But he wasn't too concerned to cover his tracks. His need
to have fun with figures sometimes got the better of him. The 84,700 for the
Servian census is 7x12 + 700. The 465 census number of 104,714 is
(neglecting the 0) 14 + 7 + 14 and the 252/1 is 297,797 (note the love of 7 and
its double 14). The 276/5 271,224 and 247/6 241,212 are also obviously
connected inventions, based on the 270,212 of 234/3.
5: A period of Firsts. Early praetorships are partly fictitious.
The sources, when they begin the republic, date the years with a series of
officials, two per year, whom they call consuls, readers being expected to
assume that they are the two equal colleagues found in the later republic. But
it appears from L3.55.12 that the chief officials of the earliest republic were
not called consuls but praetors ("leaders"). He says: "In those days {449} a
consul was called a praetor". Now this term does not imply equality, and it
appears that these early praetors were not equal. L7.3.5 says: "There is an old
law, written in archaic language and lettering, which says that the First {Latin
"praetor maximus", literally "most important leader"} should drive in a nail ...
These nails, they say, since little was written then, were used to mark the
passage of the years". From 444 on the sources do not transmit a regular
succession of chief officials. When two, the sources call them consuls, when
three or more, military tribunes. It is not neat and regular, as in fictional
lists. This suggests that the lists from 444 on are not fictional but
essentially accurate. The period of Firsts then seems to have ended in 445
or earlier - exactly when we have no means of knowing.
How much of the pre 444 list of chief officials is genuine is unclear. Some
of it can be confidently rejected as fiction (see sections 9, 14, 15, 40, 58,
including all the Fabii praetors before the 442 one, who may be genuine).
Some can be assigned to the "suspect or fictitious" class. These are discussed
in the following sections. Some names belong to clans which have
disappeared from later lists of officials. It seems unlikely that there were
clan members influential enough to interpolate them in the lists, so they are
very likely to be genuine. They are: 509 Horatius, 506 Larcius, Herminius,
503 Menenius, 502 Verginius, 501 Cominius, Larcius, 500 Tullius, 498
Larcius, 496 Verginius, 494 Verginius, 493 Cominius, 492 Geganius, 490
Larcius, 486 Verginius (on the 479 Verginius see section 40), 477 Horatius,
Menenius, 476 Verginius, 475 Nautius, 473 Verginius, 469 Verginius, 458
Nautius, 457 Horatius, 456 Verginius, 455 Romilius, 454 Tarpeius, Aternius,
452 Menenius, 451 Genucius, 449 Horatius, 448 Herminius, Verginius, 447
Geganius, 445 Genucius.
6: The characters assigned to early republican individuals are fictitious.
As no reliable information survived about the actual character of any
individual in the early republic, the characters assigned to them are
fictitious. The Valerii are constantly praised, the Claudii denegrated.
Members of other clans are either praised or denigrated according to the role
assigned to them in the particular story invented for them. Since people
belonging to one clan must, on average, over a period of some 200 years
(509 to 293 - the date of the end of Livy's first decade - his second is lost)
have been about as good or bad as the people of any other clan, the good
Valerii bad Claudii sequence is fiction. Although its exact origin and
development is unclear, Valerius Antias certainly had a hand in it. In the
following, the number at the beginning of an entry indicates the section in
which more detail is given:
9: Tarquin 2 being evil, his sons are therefore evil.
10: Stories involving tribunes.
13: Brutus the liberator (of 509) is good, his enslaving sons and their allies
bad. Publius Valerius, being a Valerius, is good.
14: His role in the story invented for him makes the fictitious 509 praetor
Spurius Lucretius good.
15: In the original story, assigned to 509, Horatius is good, the Valerius bad.
Someone, who assigns it to the year 507, has rewritten it so that Valerius is
good, Horatius bad.
16: The praetor Publius Valerius and an invented Valeria of 507, being of the
Valerian clan, are good.
19: The praetor Marcus Valerius of 505, being a Valerius, is good.
20: The praetor Publius Valerius of 504, being a Valerius, is good.
22: The first dictator (of 501) becomes a Valerius. This invented Valerius
praised.
23: The battle of Lake Regillus contains heroic Valerii combatants. Only the
men of Valerius Antias' Antium are prepared to help their side.
24: A Claudius of 498 is bad, a Valerius good.
28 & 30: A Claudius of 405-3 is bad, a Laetorius good.
31: Praise heaped on an Agrippa is praise of Augustus' Agrippa.
33 & 34: A condemned Brutus is a surrogate for Caesar's assassin.
34: An invented Valerius praised.
40 & 41: Consulships and glorious deaths invented for Fabii.
48: A bad Claudius and good other man pair for 471 and the third of the good
Valerius bad Claudius pairs (470).
58: An invented Valerius highly praised.
59: Different writers have a good and a bad Claudius.
60: A fictional Valerius is a hero.
62: Cincinnatus invented as a model Roman of old.
70: A story invented about an anonymous evil man later applied to an Appius
Claudius.
7: Battle details for the early republic are fictitious.
Real battles are very varied, being often extended, complicated, messy,
indecisive, very unpleasant or even sometimes dull. Any one combatant may
have little idea of what happened as a whole and even an honest recorder of a
real battle in ancient times was faced with very real difficulties in
constructing a connected account of what actually happened. The fictional
battles of the early republic composed for Roman readers are usually
different, being composed to satisfy the readership. They contain such
features as: a satisfying role for commanders, satisfying emotions, satisfying
rewards in possessions and or power and or prestige, Romans who are
generally intelligent and or good and or victorious, enemies who are
generally stupid and or bad and or defeated.
8: Fiction in early Roman colony stories (particularly before 449).
Livy 27.9.7-10.8 lists the 30 colonies of 209. Absence from the list suggests
the colony is fictitious, presence that it is factual. This is most certainly no
guarantee of the date. The colonies alleged before 449 are the following.
Those on Livy's list are starred (as I am not on the whole concerned with the
regal period, I ignore those alleged only for it):
Fidenae: Romulus, 498. Against: Not on Livy's list, contradictory dates,
clearly fictional nature of much of the accounts of the period.
Ostia: Ancus Marcius.
*Signia: Tarquin 2, 507, 495. Against: contradictory dates, clearly fictional
nature of much of the accounts of the period. 507 is a manufactured year. See
section 16.
Cora: Tarquin 2
Pometia: Tarquin 2
Velitrae: 494, 401, 338 and *Norba 492. Against: contradictory dates.
D7.13.5 says a colony was sent to Norba a few days after people were forced
to go to Velitrae. Palpable fiction.
Antium: 467, 338. Fiction. See section 51.
Later colony stories in Livy to 293 are highly suspect. Many of the alleged
colonies are not in his 209 list. The number of colonists, when alleged, is
almost always an exact multiple of 500 (usually of 1000), which sounds very
unlikely. His dates of foundation and Velleius' are almost always
contradictory.
9: Early republican Tarquin stories are fictitious.
As shown in section 11, the number of kings of Rome (7) and their length of
reigns were invented on the basis of a story from Athenian history. Athenian
history was similarly the basis for various stories about Tarquin 2 when he
had been invented out of an original single Tarquin (on the original single
Tarquin see section 11).
The Athenian tyrant Hippias married his daughter off to an influential man
(Thucydides 6.59) so the Roman tyrant Tarquin is made to do the same
(L1.49.9, D4.45.1). Herodotus 3.154-8 has Darius capturing a settlement by
having someone go there and pretend to be their friend by recounting Darius'
tyranny, then defeating some of Darius' forces and so being entrusted with
supreme command and so betraying the settlement. So (L1.53.4-55, D4.55-8)
Tarquin is made to do the same. A Greek tyrant teaches his son how to deal
with opponents by lopping the top off plants (Herodotus 5.92.6 (24) so
Tarquin is made to do the same (L1.54.6, D4.56). A relative of the Athenian
tyrant Hippias wanted to make someone his sex slave. His designs were
resisted and, as a result, this person died. This led to the overthrow of the
tyranny (Thucydides 6.53-8). So the same is represented as happening at
Rome (L1.57.4-end, D.4.64-end).
One of Tarquin 2's sons, Arruns, is represented as slaying and being slain
by the praetor Brutus (see section 13) in single combat, a favourite device of
fiction. Another, Sextus, is represented as killed on the overthrow of the
monarchy (L1.60.2) but in Dionysius, in contradiction, as active after this,
only dying at the battle of Lake Regillus (on this battle see section 23).
D5.3.1 represents Tarquin, on his overthrow, as going to Gabii. This
contradicts L1.60.2, who says he went to Caere, whereas his son Sextus went
to Gabii, and was killed there. The events of 509 (see section 13), 508 and
507 (see section 14) and Dionysius' of 500 (see section 17) being fictitious,
Tarquin's role in them is also. On his fictional role in the battle of Lake
Regillus see section 23.
D6.21.3 and L2.21.5 say he died living with Aristodemus, tyrant of Cumae,
but they give contradictory dates, Dionysius 496, Livy 495. This story was
invented because it was thought that the monster of evil Tarquin should
consort with the monster of evil Aristodemus. But they are both fictional
monsters, as is clear from the accounts of Tarquin (some are given in this
section) and Dionysius' lurid account of Aristodemus, which he has taken
from some writer (Timaeus?) with a penchant for fiction as great as some
Roman writers'.
A Tarquinius Collatinus was invented and given a role in the expulsion of
Tarquin 2, in order to make him one of the first praetors (L1.60.4). This
fiction contradicts the earliest individually known writer to list the 509
praetors, Polybius, who (3.22.1) gives them as Brutus and Horatius only.
Tarquinius' praetorship (L2.2, D5.11-12.3) is merely a device to lead up to
his exile. The message is: "The tyrant-overthrowing Romans were of just as
strong a moral fibre as their contemporary tyrant-overthrowing Athenians.
Both had such a hatred of tyranny and resolve to protect their new won
liberty that they exiled relatives of the banished tyrants. The Athenians
{Aristotle: Government of Athens 22} exiled Hipparchus son of Charmes, the
Romans Tarquinius Collatinus, despite his good work in overthrowing his
relative Tarquin. A desire to protect liberty was rightly paramount".
Lavinium is chosen as his place of exile because (D5.11.3) it is "the mother
settlement of the Latins", so suiting Tarquinius Collatinus.
10: The sources' contradictions in numbers and names of tribunes at different
times.
L2.32-33.3 and D6.45-90 assign the creation of the tribunate to 494-3, as does
Piso, quoted by Livy. Varro ("On the Latin Language" 5.81) links it to the
secession to Crustumerium, which L3.51.8 assigns to 449. In the same
passage, contradicting this or at least the date 449 (i.e. following another
source) he says the military tribunes (established in 444) were older than the
creation of the civil tribunate. Diodorus (hereafter generally d) 11.68.8 seems
to assign it to 471 (see below). These variations suggest free invention was
given free rein. As to the 494-3 story, the summary of Livy's lost book 11
says, of 287: "Debt caused extended and severe civil discord and finally
secession of the populace to the Janiculum". The same is made to happen in
494-3, except that some writers replace the Janiculum with the Sacred
Mountain, some with the Aventine. The secession being an invention, the
creation of the tribunate, which is said to have happened as a result of the
secession, is also an invention. Some say two tribunes were created
(L2.33.3), Tuditanus (consul 129) quoted by Asconius on Cicero "For
Cornelius" p68K says the two were Lucius Albinius (variant Albinus)
{doubtless an invention of the writer Aulus Postumius Albinus (consul 151)}
and Lucius Sicinius {presumably invented from the tribune invented for 471}.
Since there were ten tribunes later, the number five was invented as half way
to ten. D's list of 5 (6.89.1) drops Albinus, includes Sicinius and adds Lucius
Iunius Brutus (a blatant invention to honour the supposed liberator praetor of
the first year of the republic) and Gaius and Publius Licinius (invented by the
writer Gaius Licinius Macer, himself an ex-tribune, to glorify his own clan as
tribunes and defenders of the people) and Gaius Visellius (seemingly from
Cicero's cousin Gaius Visellius, a learned jurisconsult (Cicero "Brutus" 264,
"On the Orator" 2.2). Visellius will be a later addition, included by dropping
Albinus.
Tribunes assigned to 471 vary between four and five. Four is invented by
doubling the two invented for 494-3, five by halving the later ten, in both
cases a progression using two seeming an appropriate step. As two is original
for 494-3, so four is original for 471. It is given by d11.68.8: "Then a board
of four tribunes was first set up. Gaius Sicinius, Lucius Numitorius, in
addition Marcus Duillius and Spurius Icilius". The five tribunes elected for
471 are given by Piso, quoted by L2.58.2. They are d's four (with Gnaeus
Siccius for Gaius Sicinius) with the addition of Lucius Maecilius, invented
from the similarity of Maecilius to the preceding Icilius. It being prestigious
to be one of the first board of four tribunes, four extremely prestigious names
were chosen. Gaius Sicinius/Gnaeus Siccius presumably derives from the
consul of 487, with its inventor including a note that he was a relative of the
consul. That consul's name is variously given as Siccius (D8.64.1) or Sicinius
(L2.40.14). Diodorus' source had the consul as Sicinius, so named the tribune
Sicinius, Piso's as Siccius, so naming the tribune Siccius. King Numa being
highly regarded, Numitorius was invented for the next tribune. Gaius Duillius
also being highly regarded (in 260 (summary of Livy's lost book 17) "The
consul Duillius defeated the Phoenicians' fleet and was the first Roman
commander to triumph for a victory at sea. He was honoured by, whenever
he returned home from dinner, being accompanied by a piper and a wax
torch") the name Duillius was invented for the next tribune. The opening up
of the Aventine for settlement being considered very important, the name
Icilius was invented for the fourth tribune after the name of the tribune
considered to have been responsible for opening up the Aventine for
settlement (assigned by our sources to 456). Valerius Maximus 6.3.2 (quoted
in section 39) talks of ten tribunes around 485, L2.44.6 of ten in 480. At
3.30.7, following a different source, he (as D10.30.6) says the number was
only raised to 10 in 457. d12.25.2, contradicting them, says this only
happened in 449. Early writers had doubtless assigned this raise to ten to the
year of a Horatius, giving rise to these two divergent guesses where to put it
(a Horatius is represented as consul in both these years). It is inserted as an
afterthought in 457 (L3.30.5-6, D10.30.2-6) as part of an account of the
mythical Terentius' mythical law (on which see section 58) and not at all by L
and D under 449. If the year of a Horatius is the only evidence (presumably
from a vague oral tradition) the raise to ten tribunes could also be assigned to
the year of a military tribune Horatius - 425, 386 or 378.
11: Seven Roman kings invented from seven Athenian rulers.
It is said that the Roman republic was preceded by a period when Rome was
ruled by kings. This could well be true. But nothing recorded of the period
need be accepted. We don't know how long this period lasted, not even if it
was continuous (it could have been interrupted by a period or periods of
other forms of government). We don't know how many kings there were
(e.g. there may have been some whose names are unrecorded). Seven names
have been transmitted, in order: 1 Romulus; 2 Numa Pompilius; 3 Tullus
Hostilius; 4 Ancus Marcius; 5 Lucius Tarquinius; 6 Servius Tullius; 7 Lucius
Tarquinius 2. Romulus can be rejected as invented in an attempt to explain the
name Rome (D1.9.4: "Romulus founded the settlement named after himself").
Tarquin 1 and 2 seem to have been invented out of an original single Tarquin,
in order to create a satisfying narrative: "Liberty is uncertain under the
absolute ruler Tarquin 1, but blossoms under Servius Tullius, but this liberty
is all too short, as he is murdered by the monster of evil Tarquin 2; his
tyranny becomes more and more terrible until liberty is at last restored by the
republic". The story invented for the original single Tarquin contained these
elements (the first reference is to the first Tarquin, the second to the
second): He built the drains (L1.38.6; 1.56.2) the stadium (1.35.8, 1.56.2)
and began building the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol (1.38.6-7; 1.55-56.1).
He conquered various Latins (1.37; 1.53.4-54). He was driven on by an
ambitious woman (1.34.4-7; 1.46.4-48.7).
Romulus had a co-ruler invented for him, the mythical founder of the tribe
Tities (L1.13.8: "The Titienses are named after Titus Tatius"). Some or all of
Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius and Lucius Tarquinius may
have been actual kings, but nothing recorded of them need be accepted as
factual, e.g. that Numa was a foil to Romulus: "He proceeded to found the
settlement, founded on force of arms, anew, giving it a code and a code of
conduct" (L1.19.1).
The date of the foundation of Rome, the number of kings and their length of
reigns and the end of the regal period and incidents at the end of it and the
start of the republic (for the last two see sections 9 and 14) have been
invented from what is recorded of Athenian history. Eusebius' Greek
chronicle says that in 753 (actually 753/2, the Greek year beginning in mid
summer - hereafter I only give the first year for Greek years) Athens began to
be ruled by a succession of 7 rulers, each ruling for 10 years. Then, in 510,
the tyranny which had developed was replaced by a republic. So a similar
thing is made to happen at Rome. The monarchy is made to begin in 753, and
end in 510. The message: "The Romans are just as good as the Athenians.
They established a system of rule in the same year and also liberty in the same
year". The Athenians had 7 rulers from 753, so the Romans are made to have
7 kings from 753. The Athenian rulers ruled for 10 years each, so the Roman
kings are made to rule for multiples of 10 years, giving 3 eighties, rulers 1 +
2 for 37 + 43 = 80 years, rulers 3 + 4 +7 for 32 + 24 + 24 = 80 years, rulers 5
+ 6 for 37 + 43 = 80 years. This was the original figure, given by Cicero "On
the State" 2.52: "The 240 years of the kings". This takes us down to 514. But
the Athenian republic was established in 510, so 4 more years were added,
by adding 1 each to kings 5, 6 and 7 and 1 year because "after Romulus'
death the senate ... was in control for a year" (D1.62.1). This gives the
figures found in L1 and D1-4. Cicero (part of whose text is lost) seems to
have had the same (correct the XXIII an ancestor of his manuscript had for
ruler 4 to XXIIII to agree with LD) except that to reduce the 244 years to
240, which he thought correct (see above) he reduced king 2 from 43 to 39
years (2.27).
12: Fourteen kings of Alba Longa invented from seven Roman kings.
Aeneas, a character in Homer's Iliad, was thought to be connected with the
foundation of Rome. But since the Trojan war was thought to have been
fought many years before Rome's founding, it was necessary to fill the gap in
some way. This was done by inventing a line of kings of Alba Longa,
descended from Aenas and, in turn, ancestors of Romulus, the alleged first
king of Rome. These kings appear in the principal sources as follows (S =
Silvius) They are given in the order Livy (1.3.3-10) Dionsysius (1.70-1),
Ovid (Metamorphoses 14.610-22 - note that this list is incomplete, since
Ovid's subject Pomona is alleged to have lived under Proca), Ovid (Fasti
4.39-53), Diodorus (7.6-12).
1: Ascanius, Ascanius, Ascanius, Iulus, Ascanius.
2: Silvius, Silvius, Silvius, S. Postumus, Silvius.
3: Aeneas, Aeneas S, -, -, Aeneas.
4: Latinus, Latinus S, Latinus, Latinus, Latinus.
5: Alba, Albas S, Alba, Alba, Alba S.
6: Atys, Capetus S, Epytus, Epytus, Epitus S.
7: Capys, Capys S, Capys, Capys, Capys.
interpolation: Capetus, Calpetus S, Capetus, Calpetus, Calpetus.
8: Tiberinus, Tiberinus S, Tiberinus, Tiberinus, Tiberius S.
9: Agrippa, Agrippas S, Remulus, Agrippa, Agrippa.
10: Romulus, Allodius S, Acrota, Remulus, Aramulius S.
11: Aventinus, Aventinus S, Aventinus, Aventinus, Aventius.
12: Proca, Procas S, Proca, Proca, Proca S.
13: Amulius, Amulius S, -, (Numitor), Amulius.
14: Numitor, Numitor, -, -, Numitor.
The length of reigns (found only in Dionysius and Diodorus) was suggested
by the lengths ascribed to the kings of Rome. They are (rejecting an
interpolation between 7 and 8) 1 + 13: 38 + 42 = 80; 2 + 3: 49 + 31 = 80; 4 +
5: 51 + 39 = 90; 6 + 7 + 8: 26 + 28 + 8 = 60; 9 + 10: 41 + 19 = 60; 11 + 12: 37
+ 23 = 60. Two eighties are followed by a ninety and three sixties. An
interpolation between 7 and 8 (13 years, invented as half of 6's 26) disturbs
the numbers, and can be rejected as a restoration, in the wrong place, of 6,
Capetus, correctly restored to its place by D, but replaced by the unsuitable
Atys in L's list (Atys has no connection with Troy or Italy and was suggested
by the Alba and Capys before and after it) and the unsuitable Epytus in the
other lists (it was suggested by the following Capys but, being the name of a
mere herald in the Iliad, is unsuitable for a king). I have ignored various
secondary versions in d, but accepted his 49 (D has 29) for king 2.
The kings' names are invented as follows (their number, 14, was invented as
twice the number 7 of the kings of Rome): (1) Ascanius, Aeneas' son, was
also called Iulus, reputed founder of the line of Julius Caesar, whose
successor Augustus Ovid compliments by using this form. (2) The name
Silvius (Latin "silvae" = "woods") seems to have been invented in order to
conjure up a picture of a far off time of rural bliss, also conjured up by, for
example, Virgil in Eclogues 3.46, talking of the mythological musician
Orpheus playing his lyre and the woods following him. (3) Aeneas is
invented from his ancestor Aeneas, (4) Latinus from his ancestor Latinus (a
name invented as the origin of Latium, the region of the Latins, including the
Romans). (5) Alba is named after his town, Alba. (6) Capetus alludes to the
Capitol in Rome. Calpetus is a variant honouring the clan of the Calpurnii,
perhaps invented by the writer Calpurnius Piso (censor in 120). (7) Capys is
named after Aeneas' grandfather. {Capetus/Calpetus between 7 and 8 is
spurious; see above.} (8) Tiberinus is said to have given his name to the Tiber
by being drowned in it. (10) Acrota and (9) Agrippa: Acrota refers to the Arx
in Rome (Greek "akro-"). It was changed to Agrippa in honour of Augustus'
famous general, regarded as successor material. (9 & 10) Romulus is named
after Rome's founder. Remulus is a combination of his name with that of his
brother Remus. Aramulius is a combination of Romulus and (13) Amulius.
Allodius is a (rare) Latin name. Since he is represented as evil, it is perhaps
meant to suggest the Greek "allOs" (the o is also long in Allodius), which can
signify "useless" and or the Latin "odium", "hatred", which he deserves. (11)
Aventinus is a name invented to explain the name Aventine of the Aventine
hill in Rome. (12) Proca = leader, a name suiting a king. (13) Amulius (an
actual name) was perhaps chosen for its similarity with Romulus. (14)
Numitor is taken from the Roman king Numa, both being represented as good
kings. Since he is represented as starting his reign the same time as Romulus,
his length of reign is ignored, the kings of Alba Longa, with the advent of
Rome, having lost their importance.
13: Lucius Iunius Brutus of 509 invented? His story certainly is. A good
Valerius invented.
One of the two praetors of the first year of the republic is said to have been a
Lucius Iunius Brutus (L1.60.4). There are a series of Iunius consuls from 317
onwards (317, 313, 311, 292, 291, 277, 266, 249, 230). An important clan.
They could well have invented an ancestor and put him at the very beginning
of the republic, representing him as the man who liberated Rome from
tyranny. The Horatius clan was relatively insignificant and, if they claimed
the same role for the Horatius said to be his colleague, their claim has not
survived. He may, however, have given his name to the Horatius alleged to
have single-handedly repulsed Porsenna's forces from the bridge over the
Tiber (see section 17).
Even if the praetorship of Lucius Iunius is not actually an invention, there is
nothing transmitted about it that need be accepted. His line's disappearance
was felt to need explaining, so an explanation was duly invented - all died in
509. His sons were made to die in a manner befitting their glorious hero
father. He, though their father, condemned them to death, the right end for all
traitors (L2.5.5-8; D5.8.3-6).
Vitellii (Manius and Tiberius) are invented as co-conspirators to restore
Tarquin, Vitellii being suitably sordid as (Suetonius, Vitellius 2) founded by
a freedman cobbler made rich as an informer and by buying up confiscated
estates, who married a prostitute, the daughter of a baker. These activities are
not dated, but must have happened some time before 29, when Quintus
Vitellius is attested as a senator (T. P. Wiseman: "New men ..." 505). The
model for the Aquillii (Lucius and Marcus) seems to be a certain Manius
Aquillius, the source of information being Cicero's speech for Cluentius
127-9, where Cicero represents Manius Aquillius and Tiberius Gutta as
certainly deserving their expulsion from the senate in 70 for notorious bribe
taking when serving on juries. Note that the inventor has included Gutta as
well, by giving his forename Tiberius to one of the Vitellii.
A Vindicius is invented as the discoverer of the conspiracy. His name is
invented so that he can give his name to the liberating rod (vindicta) used to
touch slaves when freed (it is alleged he was the first to be freed this way -
L2.5.9).
Material favouring the Valerii is also invented. Vindicius uncovers the
conspiracy, not to the consuls, but to Valerius Poplicola, who acts promptly
(D5.7.3-5) (The source of L2.2.11 or Livy himself has made Valerius a
consul already, so makes Vindicius go straight to the consuls, of whom
Valerius is one - L2.4.6). Valerius is highly praised (D5.12.3) and his right
wing is victorious in battle (D5.15.4) whereas the enemy put the left wing to
flight. Then Valerius presses on and is victorious (D5.16.3). He then builds
his house lower down, as a favour to the people, and introduces many fine
laws (D5.19).
Since senate numbers had been reduced by war and slaughter in
proscriptions, Sulla added "three hundred of the foremost men of equestrian
rank to the senate (Appian "Civil Wars" 1.100.5). So (L2.1.10) Brutus is
made to act similarly: "Senate numbers had been reduced by slaughter
perpetrated by the king. So he added the foremost men of equestrian rank to
give a total of three hundred".
14: The praetor Lucretius of 509 is fictitious.
The cause of the Roman tyranny's overthrow was invented from an episode
of Athenian history (see section 9). This was elaborated into the king's son's
rape of one Lucretia - her name was invented in order to honour the Lucretian
clan. The clan was also honoured by inventing a father for her - Spurius
Lucretius, represented as sometimes commander of the settlement (D4.82.1:
"The tyrant, when he went to war, appointed him commander of the
settlement"). His office and his name Spurius are invented from the similar
sounding Spurius Larcius, represented as commander of the settlement by
D8.64.3. To honour the Lucretian clan further, a consulship was also invented
for Spurius Lucretius (L2.8.4). The same passage of Livy makes him die
conveniently after a few days, so allowing Horatius to become consul. His
life has been invented to illustrate the virtues of Romans of old: (1) his deep
concern for his raped daughter - "the childlessness of Tricipitinus - his
daughter's death will be the cause of his own even more miserable and
undeserved death" (L1.59.8), (2) his deep concern for his son in law -
"Spurius Lucretius, his father in law, was concerned that he might be
wantonly driven both from office and from his country", (D5.11.2), (3) that
Valerius Poplicola "yielded precedence ot him as the older man" (Cicero "On
the State" 2.55).
15: A Valerius and a Horatius were not praetors together in 509. Their
praetorship of 507 is fictitious.
L2.8.6-8, under events of the first year of the republic, has the following
story: "The temple of Jupiter on the Capitol had not yet been dedicated. The
consuls Valerius and Horatius drew lots to decide who would. The lot fell to
Horatius. Publicola went to war with Veii. Those close to Valerius took it
badly that the dedication of such an important temple should be given to
Horatius. They tried by any means they could to prevent it. When all else had
failed and the consul had already grasped the door post and the gods were
being invoked, a disgraceful story was concocted, that his son had died and
that, when the household was in mourning, it was not right that he should
dedicate the temple. Either he did not believe the story or he was resolute (we
are not told which and it is not easy to decide). The story did not deflect him
from his purpose. He merely told the messenger to order the body to be
buried. He continued holding onto the doorpost, invoking the gods, so
dedicating the temple". Most of the story looks like literary embellishment,
but a kernel looks like tradition handed down by the Horatii. A Horatius, not
a Valerius, dedicated the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, and the Valerii took
it badly. If this is true, it could refer to 386, four years after the Gallic
capture of Rome. Conceivably, gratitude for Jupiter's protection of the
Romans from the Gauls may have led to a rededication of his temple on the
Capitol - perhaps mainly inspired by the Horatii and hence resented by the
Valerii. The rededicator would have been Lucius Horatius, one of the
consular tribunes of that year. One of his colleagues was Publius Valerius
(names in L6.6.3).
Conceivably, the tradition, with the identity of the Horatius and Valerius
forgotten, was used by early writers (around 200) as the basis of a story
which assigned it to the heady first years of the republic, when liberty was
won. But there was a problem. There was no year that would do. So two
writers got to work and came up with two separate solutions. The first went
to work on the first year of the republic (509) whose consuls were said to be
Brutus and Horatius (Polybius 3.22.1). Horatius was there, but no Valerius.
No problem. Brutus was made to die. Being Rome's liberator, he had to die a
hero, and die a hero her duly does (L2.6.6-9, D5.15.1-3) in single combat
with an enemy commander - a stock device of fiction. The way was now
clear to fill the vacant consulship with a Valerius, and fit the Horatius
Valerius story into this year (as L2.8.6-8).
The second writer tried a different tack. No joint consulship of a Horatius
and a Valerius to attach the story to? No problem. He simply invented one,
taking the Horatius from the Marcus Horatius of 509 and the Valerius from
the Publius Valerius of 508. The invented joint consulship is found at
D5.21.1, but not in Livy. The story of the dedication given above is found in
D at the end of his account of 507, but rewritten, presumably by Valerius
Antias, so that a Valerius, not a Horatius, is the hero: "The temple of Jupiter
on the Capitol ... Marcus Horatius, one of the two consuls, managed to
dedicate it and have his name inscribed on it before his colleague could get
back. It so happened that Valerius and a force under his command had set out
from the settlement to the rescue of those in the country districts".
16: The writer who emptied 508 filled it with inventions.
As argued in section 15, someone, in order to fit the story of the Horatius
Valerius dedication of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol in somewhere,
invented a year 507. He then transferred the events of 508 to this invented
year. This left this year empty, so he filled it in. His fillings in are found
in D5.20, but not in Livy. They consist of an invented census that at least
one writer was ignorant of (see section 4) and sending a garrison to a place
the archetype of D's manuscripts seems to call signoyrion (not found
elsewhere - on Signia see section 8). D probably wrote signian, oyrion
coming from the end of a gloss Proyrion written above signian (taken from
the Proyrion ("garrison") found later in the sentence).
17: The details of the war with Porsenna are fictitious.
The sources talk of a conflict with a Lars Porsenna, king of the Etruscan
settlement of Clusium. L2.9-15 and D5.21-35.2 say he failed to take Rome.
In contradiction, Tacitus Histories 3.72 says he did: "The abode of Jupiter
Supremely Good and Great ... which ... Porsenna, when the settlement was
surrendered ... had not been able to violate".
L2.15 has Porsenna, in an obvious piece of patriotic fiction, admiring the
Romans' love of liberty. Contradicting this, Pliny the elder 34.139 claims that
"in a treaty which Porsenna made with the Roman people after the expulsion
of the kings we find it specifically stated that iron should only be used for
agriculture". This is a treaty imposed by a superior on an inferior, who are
allowed only inferior, non-iron weapons.
Livy's and Dionysius' accounts are fiction, embedding as they do the legend
of Horatius singlehandedly defending the bridge over the Tiber, Scaevola
heroically burning off his right hand (a myth to explain the name "Scaevola",
meaning "left-handed") and Cloelia heroically swimming the Tiber, showered
by missiles. L2.9.5-8 has the people encouraged by the abolition of carriers'
tax, a fiction invented from its actual abolition by Metellus in 60 (Cicero:
"Letters to Atticus" 2.16.1). The consul Publius Valerius is made to play a
distinguished role in the defence (L2.11.4-10). Annius Fetialis, quoted by
Pliny the elder 34.29, records Cloelia changed to Valeria. Both these
inventions are doubtless the work of Valerius Antias.
18: Livy's omission of a college of praetors.
D5.36 gives the 506 praetors as Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius. Larcius
is found four times in the praetor list, Spurius (506, 490) and Titus (501,
498). Herminius is found twice (506, 448). After that both disappear. What
motive can there have been for later writers to interpolate them here? They
seem genuine. L2.14.5-9 assigns the events D assigns to this praetorship to
the end of the previous praetorship (these events, unmotivated kindness of
Romans to defeated Etruscans, seem to be patrotic fiction). There being
seemingly no motive for the deliberate omision of praetors' names, the
omission seems to be accidental, either by Livy's source or by his copy of
his source.
19: The praetor Marcus Valerius of 505, being a Valerius, is good.
L1.16.1-2 has a very abbreviated account. D 5.37-9 is much fuller. It has all
the appearance of fiction, glorifying the Romans, in particular Valerius. The
enemy are the aggressor, the Romans only fight when unable to obtain
satisfaction by negotiation. The praetor Marcus Valerius has a brilliant victory
against the incompetent enemy. Then there is an exciting battle in which the
Roman commanders again behave brilliantly. Only night saves the enemy
from total annihilation. D's account concludes (5.39.4): "It was voted that
Valerius should have a site given to him for his house on the most desirable
part of the Palatine hill and that the cost should be borne by the people. The
house stands near the brazen bull and its folding doors are the only ones,
whether the building be public or private, that open outwards". This comes
from Valerius Antias, as shown by Asconius on Cicero's speech against Piso
p12K. He says: "Valerius Maximus, as Antias says, was, among other
honours, given a huge house on the Palatine built at public expense whose
doors, to make it more distinguished, turn outwards onto public property, that
is, open past what is privately owned". Such a house must certainly have
existed, but it seems very unlikely that an authentic tradition could have
survived linking it unambiguously with this Valerius (that is, assuming he
actually existed - see section 5). The conclusion coming from Valerius Antias,
it seems reasonable to conclude that the rest of the Valerius glorifying
account does as well.
20: The praetor Publius Valerius of 504, being a Valerius, is good.
504 is treated by L2.16.2-6 and D5.40-43. The narrative seems to be an
invention glorifying the praetor Publius Valerius Publicola. The enemy are
very menacing but, in the nick of time, as Valerius deserves, the Claudian
clan, driven by injustice elsewhere, come to just Rome and save it. The mass
migration may well have some factual basis in an oral tradition of the clan,
but its insertion here is plainly for the sake of the story. No fixed time for
the migration was recorded. Suetonius (Tiberius 1) says they came in the
time of Romulus, Appian (Kings 12) in the time of the Tarquins. Valerius'
plan of campaign (as described in D) was brilliant, and the enemy were
totally defeated, 13,500 being slain and 4,200 made prisoners. This looks
like the work of Valerius Antias, who enjoyed making up such numbers (see
also the example in section 55). 135 is 5x27, and Valerius is known to have
invented 527 raped virgins (Plutarch Romulus 14). 3 is a potent magic
number and 27, being 3x3, very potent. Hence a girl in Virgil Eclogues
8.72-4 uses 27 in her magic. She has 3 sets of 3 threads, each with 3 colours
and carries a picture of the boy she wants around the altar 3 times. Valerius
Antias himself mentions 27 sacrificial calves (quoted by Priscian 8 p489H).
Julius Obsequens 46 mentions a chant of 27 girls, at 48 27 girls purifying the
settlement.
One edifying fiction represents Publius Valerius as rich - Plutarch
"Publicola" 1: "While Rome was still ruled by kings, he was well known both
for his eloquence and his wealth, using the one faithfully and fearlessly in the
pursuit of justice and the other freely for the poor and needy". Another,
equally edifying, represents him as poor: L2.16.7: "Publius Valerius, whom
all agreed to be supreme both in war and peace, died the next year, when
Agrippa Menenius and Publius Postumius were consuls. His renown was
vast, but his property so little that his funeral had to be provided by the
people". An edifying invention, of an outstanding public benefactor not
having enough to pay for his own funeral and the people paying, has been
attached to Valerius here and also to Menenius (see section 31) and
Cincinnatus.
21: Contradictory inventions for 503 and 502.
For these years L2.16.7-17 has successful wars with the Aurunci, D5.44-7
successful wars with the Sabines, and a totally different account from Livy.
They each follow a different source and these sources, seeing nothing
recorded for the years, filled them up with totally contradictory inventions.
22: Contradictory accounts of the year 501.
L2.18.2 has a story of Sabines seizing prostitutes at games at Rome. Sabines
wanted the worst Roman women. Romans, on the contrary, had used games
at Rome to seize Sabine women as wives (L1.9.10) - i.e. they got the best
Sabine women. Palpable patriotic fiction. Livy says this seizure "seemed to
threaten a renewal of war". This contradicts 2.16.6 (504) which says the
Sabines had been so crushed that "no war there need be feared for a long
time". Livy has used two different, contradictory, sources.
D5.51.3 says slaves conspired to fire Rome at several points and seize the
heights, but were informed on and crucified. The same story in D12.6.6 and
L4.45.1 (419). Recycled fiction.
L2.18.3 mentions briefly D's 5.50-51.2 story that unjust Latins unjustly
refuse just Romans their just right of being present at the assembly of the 30
Latin peoples. Marcus Valerius (invented by Valerius Antias from the consul
of 495) asks them to stop plunderers plundering Roman territory in violation
of the treaty but the Latins, being unjust, refuse to listen. More patriotic
fiction.
There are contradictory stories about the appointment of the first dictator (in
later times a dictator and his deputy, the controller of the cavalry, were
appointed for a limited period to meet special needs - often a military crisis).
L2.18.4 (on 501) says: "The earliest writers say Titus Larcius was the first
dictator, Spurius Cassius the first controller of the cavalry". Livy also
records the variant that the first dictator was "Manius Valerius, son of
Marcus, grandson of Volesus". The name Larcius is found four times in the
consul list, Spurius (506, 490) and Titus (501, 498). After that it disappears.
It is hard to see what motive a falsifier would have had for replacing Valerius
with Larcius. It is all too easy to see what motive a falsifier would have had
for replacing Larcius with Valerius - glorification of the Valerii. Festus'
dictionary under the word optima p16L talks of: "Manius Valerius, son of
Marcus, of the Volscian clan, whom the people elected as the first dictator".
Valerius Antias must be the source of this note. He invents the dictatorship to
glorify the Valerii. And he also makes his creation Manius Valerius come
from his own ancestral home. The coname Antias in "Valerius Antias" refers
to Antium and "Antium was the Volscian capital" (L6.9.1). Valerius invented
Manius' father Marcus from the consul Marcus Valerius of 505. Livy's
variant is also from Valerius Antias, but he has garbled it. He was
understandably puzzled as to why Manius Valerius was a Volscian (regularly
represented as enemies of Rome) so he changed Valerius Antias' description
to "Manius Valerius, the son of Marcus, grandson of Volusus". But this
creates the oddity of the forename of the man and his father being given, but
the coname of his grandfather.
D5.59-75.2 assigns the dictatorship of Titus Larcius, with Spurius Cassius
his deputy (5.75.2) to 498. There are thus 3 years between Livy's 501 and
Dionysius' 498. There are also 3 years between Livy's date of 499 for the
dictatorship of Aulus Postumius (Titus Aebutius being his deputy) and his
command of the Romans at the battle of Lake Regillus (L2.19.3) and
Dionysius' date of 496 (6.2.3). This is no coincidence. The evidence suggests
the following: The earliest Roman writers who (Dionysius, quoted in section
2) "took no trouble to be accurate, but merely recorded a few things that
chance had brought to their ears" said (L2.18.4, quoted above) "Titus Larcius
was the first dictator, Spurius Cassius the first controller of the cavalry".
Livy also says: "There is no agreement as to what year he was appointed in,
or who were the Tarquin-favouring consuls" {necessitating his appointment}.
Livy is here describing two distinct sets of sources. One set disagreed about
the year he was appointed. Their accounts have survived. One account
assigned his appointment to 501, one to 498 (see above). The other set is
Livy's "earlier writers". They wrote that Tarquin-favouring consuls
necessitated his appointment. This story of Tarquin-favouring consuls
necessitating his appointment is not found in the later writers, Dionysius'
sources, and Livy's elsewhere for this year. They were presumably variously
represented as either the consuls for 501 or 498. The early writers had an
undated story that Titus Larcius was the first dictator (and Spurius Cassius his
deputy). The list of praetors had him as praetor in 501 and 498. So one writer
guessed he was dictator in 501, one that he was dictator in 498. They had
another story, that Aulus Postumius was the second dictator (and Titus
Aebutius his deputy) and that this dictatorship occured 2 years after the first
(Larcius'). Hence the writer assigning Larcius to 501 assigned Postumius to
499, the writer assigning him to 498 assigning Postumius to 496. A necessary
consequence to this is that all the stories involving these dictators in 501,
499, 498 and 496 are fiction.
22A: Manius Tullius of 500 is modelled on Marcus Tullius Cicero of 63.
Of this year L2.19.1 says: "The consuls were Servius Sulpicius and Manius
Tullius. Nothing worthy of note happened". So Livy's source. But Dionysius'
(5.52-57), seeing the consul Manius Tullius, invents for this year a conspiracy
modelled on the Catilinarian conspiracy of Marcus Tullius Cicero's
consulship of 63. The 63 conspiracy flourishes when men are "weighed
down by debt" (Cicero: "Against Catiline" 2.19) so the 500 one is made to be
the same (D5.52.2-3). The 63 conspirators are alleged to be stirring up slaves
(Sallust: "Catiline" 24.4) so the 500 are made to do the same. A Tarquinius
turned state's evidence against the 63 plotters (Sallust: "Catiline" 48.3-8) so
a 500 one is made to do the same (D5.54).
23: Contradictory accounts of 499.
Livy's account of this year (2.19-20) and Dionysius' (5.58) both mention war
with Fidenae, but are otherwise contradictory, D having war with Signia,
Livy with Crustumeria and Praeneste and the battle of Lake Regillus. In D the
consul Aebutius stays in Rome, in L he takes an active role in the battle of
Lake Regillus. In D Sextus Tarquinius is busy fighting the Romans, in L he is
10 years dead, having been killed on the overthrow of the monarchy (1.60.2).
Tarquin 2 was born, at latest, 9 months after his father's death. Servius
Tullius reigned 44 years, he 24 (see section 11), he was expelled some 10
years before 499, therefore at the time he must be at least 79. Nevertheless, in
L2.19.6 he is represented as engaging in single combat with the Roman
dictator. Dionysius (6.11.2) says this comes from Licinius and Gellius and
rejects it as incredible. Valerius Antias invents heroic Valerii combatants for
the battle of Lake Regillus (D6.12.1-2) and only the men of his ancestral
home Antium being prepared to help their side in the war (D6.3.2 and 6.7.4).
24: The first of the good Valerius bad Claudius pairs.
Of 498 L2.21.1 says "there was neither war nor clear peace". D5.59-end
contradicts this, with a long desciption of war, clearly fiction. The year
contains a Valerius Claudius pair (on them see section 6). They are invented
from nearby consuls, Valerius (D5.64) from the consul of 505, Appius
Claudius (D5.66) from the consul of 495. As expected, Valerius gives good
advice, Claudius bad.
25: Latin women prefer Rome. Contradictions and fictions (497).
Of 497 L2.21.1 says "there was neither war nor clear peace". D6.1.4
contradicts this, saying there was "profound peace". L2.21.1 says the temple
of Saturn was dedicated in this year. D6.1.4 says some say it was dedicated
this year, some say in the previous year, some say by Postumus Cominius
{praetor 493}. Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.8.1 says: "I have read that Tullus
Hostilius dedicated the temple of Saturn ... Varro writes that the dictator
Titus Larcius dedicated it ... Gellius writes that ... the military tribune
Lucius Furius was in charge of dedicating it". All contradictory, all fiction.
D6.1.1-3 says Roman and Latin women were given the choice of living in
Rome or in a settlement of the Latins. All but two chose Rome. Patent
patriotic fiction.
26: Livy's and Dionysius' accounts of 496 are contradictory.
D6.2-22 has the battle of Lake Regillus with its preliminaries and sequels in
this year. I discuss it under 499 (section 23). It is all fiction (see
discussion in section 22).
The consuls for this year are given as Aulus Postumius and Titus Verginius.
L2.21.3 says: "some say Aulus Postumius, because his colleague was
unreliable, resigned his consulate. He was then made dictator". D6.2.3's
source contradicts this, saying: "Aulus Postumius, the younger of the consuls,
was appointed dictator by his colleague Verginius" and Verginius is
represented in the battle which follows as the reverse of unreliable. Both
accounts seem to be fiction. Livy is obviously abbreviating a fuller source,
now lost. But, even from his account, there seems to be a recycling of material
between this account and the account of 402 (L5.8-9) where the consular
tribune Verginius is unreliable and a threat to name a dictator is made.
27: 300 killed hostages from Pometia and Cora feature in both 505 and 495.
L2.16.8-9 (505) and 2.22.2 taken in conjunction with D6.30.1 (495) both
have 300 hostages from Pometia and Cora killed. It looks like an invention
for one of these years was recycled into the other. A similar recycling, also
with the number 300, occurs for the Fabii (see section 41).
28: The second of the good Valerius bad Claudius pairs (495).
Valerius Antias' other Valerius Claudius pairs are listed in section 7. Here
(495) he saw a Claudius, Appius Claudius, listed as consul, so he attached the
second of his good Valerius bad Claudius pairs inventions to this year.
Claudius was "harsh and arrogant" (D6.24.1) but Manius Valerius "most
sympathetic to the people" (6.23.3). The narrative of civil disturbance is
merely an invention to justify these epithets.
29: A Laetorius Claudius pair of 212 the basis of Laetorius Claudius pairs of
495 and 471.
The dispute between the consuls over who should dedicate the temple of
Mercury (discussed below) seems to have been invented in imitation of the
dispute over who should dedicate the temple of Jupiter (see section 15).
In 212 the senate sent Gaius Laetorius to instruct the defeated consul Appius
Claudius (L25.22.2-3). From this a mere centurion (surely an incredible
choice) Marcus Laetorius is made to dedicate the temple of Mercury in 495
instead of Claudius or his colleague (L2.27.6) and, in 471, he, now an
(invented) tribune is made to launch a violent attack on another consul Appius
Claudius (L2.56.7-16) (see section 48).
30: The second of the good Valerius bad Claudius pairs continued, with
contradictory praise of Claudius (494-3).
Valerius Antias' Valerius Claudius pairs are listed in section 6. Here he
continues with the Appius Claudius Manius Valerius pair introduced in the
previous year 495 (see section 28). Appius Claudius, "savage by nature and
made even savager by the people's hatred" was about to be made dictator, but
good sense prevailed and the gentle Manius Valerius was appointed instead
(L2.29.9-30.5). D6.57.2-58 has similar praise of Valerius and condemnation
of Claudius under 493. But in 6.59 he totally contradicts this condemnation of
Claudius, praising him highly: "his private life was self-controlled and
seemly, his public noble and such as to make the well-born valued" and
indicating he was generous to those indebted to him. This must come from a
source subsequent to Valerius Antias (perhaps Aelius Tubero), inserting it
perhaps in honour of the imperial family (Augustus' stepson, the future
emperor Tiberius, was a Claudius).
31: The story of Agrippa modified in honour of Augustus' Agrippa.
D6.83.2 says a speech of Agrippa Menenius which he gives was found "in all
the older accounts". It praises concord, comparing those others say are
merely exploiters to parts of the body which say the stomach is merely an
exploiter; it isn't - it is necessary. The story of the stomach has been copied
from Greek sources. It is found in Xenophon "Memorable Things" 2.3.18 and
elsewhere.
Agrippa here has been invented from the consul of 503. But he has been
modified in honour of Augustus' Agrippa, very powerful under Augustus and
considered successor material (similarly, the king of Alba Longa Acrota was
changed to Agrippa in his honour. See section 12). He is praised lavishly
(D6.49.2, 6.83.1-2) and (L2.32.8) said to be dear to the ordinary people,
because one of them (this contradicting his position as a former consul). He is
doubtless so represented because Agrippa himself was of obscure origin (T.
P. Wiseman: "New men..." 497).
An edifying invention of an outstanding public benefactor not having
enough to pay for his own funeral has been attached to Menenius here
(D6.96) and also to Valerius Publicola (see section 20) and Cincinnatus.
32: The board of ten men of 493 and 451. A recycled idea.
L2.32.8 says Menenius Agrippa was sent as an envoy to the seceders,
contradicting by implication D6.69.3-4 who says a board of ten envoys was
sent, 9 of the 10 being ex consuls. 2 names are lost. The 8 surviving names
are, in order (the date after the name is the date of his consulate): Agrippa
Menenius (503), Manius Valerius (505), Publius Servilius (495), Publius
Postumius (496), Titus Aebutius (499), Servius Sulpicius (500), Aulus
Postumius (496), Aulus Verginius (494). The missing names are Titus Larcius
(501 and 498) whom D praises and represents as speaking at 6.81.2-4 and the
non ex consul Spurius Nautius (488) whom D represents as speaking at
6.69.1-2 (just before the list is given). The list of 10 has thus been invented
from nearby consuls, as the 451 board of 10 (see section 70).
33: The Brutus of 493 modelled on Caesar's assassin of 44.
The source of D6.89.1 invented a Lucius Iunius Brutus as a tribune of 493 in
compliment to Brutus the first consul. Caesar's assassin Marcus Iunius Brutus
issued coins inscribed "liberty" and "Lucius Brutus, the first consul"
(Sydenham 1287, 1295). The message is: "The first Brutus got you your
liberty by driving out the kings; I, the second, have got you your liberty by
killing Caesar, who tried to make himself another tyrannical king". The source
of D6.70-71.1 dissociates himself violently from this by saying of the 493
Brutus : "most men considered him a joke, because of his love of what was
useless and, when they wished to mock him, they used to call him Brutus"
(Brutus was his coname, but the Latin word also means "stupid"). He is
contrasted with Manius Valerius "who was most sympathetic to the people ...
the crowd showed their affection for him by the enthusiasm of their
greetings". Valerius Antias is presumably the source of the praise of Valerius.
But he is too early for the attack on Caesar's assassin. That probably comes
from Tubero.
34: Famine, civil strife and wars in 492 all fiction.
The civil strife of 494 and 493 being fiction (see section 10) the famine of 492
resulting from it is also fiction. Valerius Antias has been at work here. Grain
buying expeditions to the Pomptine Plains and Cumae were miserable
failures, that to Etruria produced very little, whereas the successful one to
the further off Sicily was led by - you guessed it - a Valerius (Publius
Valerius, invented from the consul of 475 - D7.1-2.3, 7.12.3). The source of
L2.34.1 says there was no war or civil strife this year, showing that the war
and civil strife described in D7.12.3-19 is invention. Brutus, modelled on
Caesar's assassin of 44 (see section 33) is said (D7.14.3) to have prepared a
very malicious speech.
35: A Marcius story recycled. Coriolanus.
An original story, of a Marcius thwarted in his pursuit of power and forced
into exile with Volscians, has been recycled. At L1.40 there are two Marcii,
and their exile is at Suessa Pometia, which is in Volscian territory (L2.22.2).
Here there is one, similarly forced into exile in Volscian territory (L2.35.6).
His host there is said to be Attus Tullius (L2.35.7). Both these names are
taken from the first story, Attus Navius (so named at L1.36.3) being an augur
whose disappearance the Marcii try to blame on the king, but Servius Tullius
successfully defends him (D3.72.3-7). The story of the later Marcius is
embellished, being made more poignant, firstly by making him a military hero
(he deriving his coname Coriolanus from his conquest of Corioli - L2.33.5-9)
and, secondly, by having him dissuaded from attacking his ungrateful native
Rome by the pleas of his mother (L2.39-40.12). Valerius Antias invents a
Valeria, who plays a prominent part in persuading Coriolanus' mother to
plead with him (D8.39-42).
36: A story of 280 retrojected to 490.
Macrobius Saturnalia 1.11.3 says that "in the 474th year after the foundation
of the settlement {280} a certain Autronius Maximus whipped his yoke
carrying slave around the stadium before the games began" and that a certain
Annius dreamed that the games had to be renewed as a result. This story,
which may be true or have some factual basis, has been retrojected to 490
(L2.36, D7.68.3-69), the whipper being anonymous, the dreamer having the
name Titus Latinius invented for him, the name suggesting that any inhabitant
of Latium could have been the privileged recipient of such a dream.
The rest of Livy's account of this year (2.37.8) being concerned with the
fictional Coriolanus and the fictional Attus Tullius (see section 35) is
fiction.
37: Livy's (2.39-40.13) and Dionysius' (8.1-67) accounts of 489 and 488,
being concerned with the fictional Coriolanus (see section 35), are fiction.
38: Livy's and Dionysius' accounts of 487 are contradictory.
L2.40.14 says the consul Aquilius succeeded in war, but Sicinius' campaign
was indecisive. D8.64-72 contradicts him, saying both succeeded, but Siccius
(his name for Livy's Sicinius) more.
39: A 441 Spurius story recycled into 486-5. A nine burned men story
recycled.
A story invented of a Spurius Maelius of 441 trying to buy power but instead
losing his life (L4.13-16.6) has been recycled into 486-5, where the same is
made to happen to another Spurius, Spurius Cassius (L2.41, D8.68-76). His
death can be twice rejected, as itself invented, and as occuring in an invented
year (485 - see the next section). The story has been modified, to create
pathos - Dio Cassius fragment 19: "the very Romans Cassius helped killed
him" (also D10.38.3, in a speech of Siccius).
A story of 9 men burned has been recycled. In 133 the tribune Marcus
Octavius was deposed and replaced by a Mucius (Plutarch: Tiberius
Gracchus 10). This forms the basis of a recycling. In Valerius Maximus 6.3.2
the tribune Publius Mucius has his 9 colleagues burned alive for supporting
Spurius Cassius. Dio fragment 22 sets this differently, blaming the patricians
because "on one occasion the people burned nine tribunes". d12.25.3 talks of
a 450 law that if the tribunes didn't have new tribunes appointed in their place
they should be burned alive. Festus p180 has a partially preserved entry for
"nine" (the dates I've added refer to the year of the person's praetorship):
"Sicinius {487} ... they fought against ... they are said to have been burned
... built of white stone ... as Verginius {502}, Valerius {dictator 501},
Cominius {501}, Tullius {500}, Sempronius {497}, Verginius {496}, Mucius
Scaevola, Fusius {488}". They are presumably said to have been cremated at
public expense and their ashes put in white stone containers. The story is
found nowhere else. Mucius is not recorded elsewhere as a praetor. Is
Valerius Maximus' story, with a Mucius, the earliest preserved?
40: The 485-479 Fabii consulships are all fictitious.
Ancient writers tell us of clans inventing fictitious consulships for themselves
(see section 3). These years provide an instance. The Fabii clan have
interpolated a continuous series of Fabii consulships into the years which
were to them 486-80 (485-479 after the interpolation of a fictitious year 507 -
on which see section 15) ending in a fictitious battle in which all but one
Fabius (saved to preserve the line) perish, proving the clan had heroes as
great as the Spartans at Thermopylae in 480, on which their fictitious battle is
modelled (see section 41). Not only does the battle prove the Fabii are heroes,
it also provides a convenient explanation for their consulships suddenly
ending. d11.27-51 has the other fictitious years, but not 482 (his 481 Athenian
archon is the one immediately after the 483 one). The omission is doubtless
accidental, a scribe's eye slipping from one Fabius to another.
Section 5 lists the consular names very likely to be genuine. Not one occurs
in 485-80. The very likely genuine name Verginius appears in 486 and 479.
The interpolator reused the Verginius he found just before his interpolations
began to provide the colleague for his last Fabius. The other colleagues were
taken from distinguished clans, who would not object to their clan members
being honoured with consulships. Note that no explanation is provided for
the sudden row of Fabius consulships, although one is certainly needed. The
interpolator has provided a neat succession of Fabius consuls, a Quintus, then
a Caeso, then a Marcus, then all three in order for the second time, a device
beloved of fiction, very improbable as fact.
The colleagues invented for the Fabii from 485 to 480 are, in order, a
Cornelius, Aemilius, Valerius, Iulius, Furius and Manlius. The consul list
gives Quintus Fabius a Cornelius colleague in 459, an Aemilius in 467, an
Aemilius and a Valerius as colleagues in 470 and a Furius and Manlius as
colleagues in 474. It looks like the interpolator worked backwards through
the consul list to invent colleagues for the Fabii he had invented. Gaius Iulius
seems to have been taken from the consul of that name of 489 (D 8.1.1 gives
him the coname Iullus, also the coname of the Iulius with a Fabian colleague -
8.90.5).
The accounts of 484 are contradictory, L2.42.3 saying the consul Aemilius
was victorious, D8.84-87.1 that he was defeated. The second account comes
perhaps from Valerius Antias, patriotically representing the man who dared to
march against his ancestral Antium (D8.84.1) as defeated.
The accounts of 483 are also contradictory, L2.42.9 saying: "War broke out
with the Veii and the Volscians renewed their war", D8.88 describing both
consuls fighting the Veii only.
In 216 two vestal virgins, Opimia and Floronia, lost their virginity. Opimia
was buried alive near the Colline gate. Floronia killed herself. The man who
had had intercourse with Floronia was beaten to death (L22.57.2-4). Opimia
{so D8.89.4-5, the Oppia of Livy's (2.42.10) manuscripts is a corruption
consequent on the loss of mi after pi in Opimia} has been retrojected into this
year and duly "buried alive inside the walls of the settlement" (Dionysius).
The man who had had intercourse with her has also been retrojected into this
year and duly beaten to death. For good measure, the man who had had
intercourse with Floronia has also been retrojected into this year and also
duly beaten to death. Floronia has been spared the same retrojection.
A tribune Spurius Icilius (D9.1.3) has been invented from a tribune Lucius
Icilius of 456, his forename Spurius doubtless taken from that of one of the
consuls, Spurius Furius. L2.48.3 calls him Spurius Licinius, the change to
Licinius being doubtless the invention of Licinius Macer.
41: A 480 battle invented from the 480 battle of Thermopylae.
d11.53.6 records what is presumably an undated oral tradition, which may be
accurate or partly accurate: "In Italy war broke out between the Romans and
the Veiians and a great battle was fought at a place called Cremera. The
Romans were defeated and many of them perished". He adds: "Among their
number, according to some writers, were 300 Fabii". The absence of the Fabii
from some accounts damns them as inventions, as is clear from their origin.
They are made to be heroes as big as those at Thermopylae of 480. Cremera
is accordingly dated to the same year (the source of L2.50-51.1 and D9.19-22
and d delays the battle to 477, in order to fill up the empty years with
material). At Thermopylae there were 300 slain Spartan heroes and 4,200
other Greeks (H(erodotus) 7.202) so Cremera is given 300 slain Fabii heroes
(the 306 of D, which Livy says is the number given by the majority of
writers, is a later modification of the kind we see in the census figures of
section 4) and "about 4,000" other Romans (D). A higher position gives both
enemies the advantage (H7.213, D9.20.2), festivals hinder both Greeks and
Romans (H7.206, D9.19.1) and of the Spartans and Fabii only one boy
survives (H7.221, L2.50.11, D9.22.1) The battle also conveniently explains
the sudden end of the seven invented Fabii consulships (on which see section
40).
42: Livy's and Dionysius' 476 battle accounts are contradictory.
L2.51.4-9 says the pillaging enemy suffered heavy losses in an ambush, then
crossed the Tiber and fought, suffering more heavy losses. They retired
across the Tiber to the Janiculum hill. The consul Servilius attacked, but
suffered even heavier losses than the enemy had, but was rescued by his
colleague Verginius. The enemy were cut down. D9.26.2-6 says both consuls
crossed the Tiber and attacked the enemy (seemingly on level ground),
getting the better of the engagement. Servilius attacked uphill, but suffered
considerable losses, but was rescued by Verginius. The enemy were almost
all destroyed. The enemy occupying the Janiculum, who had not been
engaged in the battle, then left.
It can be seen that the accounts are contradictory.
43: The prosecution of Menenius in 476 is fictitious.
L2.52.3 and D9.27.2 say Quintus Considius and Titus Genucius prosecuted
Menenius, a consul of the previous year. No Considius is known till the end
of the republic. He seems an anachronism here. The Quintus Considius here
seems to have been invented from a Quintus Considius of that period. T. P.
Wiseman : "New men ... 132" lists five mentions, of a senator, a tax farmer, a
banker, a businessman and an official at Clusium. Some certainly, perhaps
even all, are the one man, obviously important. Titus Genucius seems to have
been invented from a consul of 451 (L3.33.4; D10.54.4).
Menenius here is said (D9.27.5) to have been seized by a wasting disease.
The same is said of another Menenius, also from the year 451 (D10.54.5).
More recycled material.
44: The prosecution of Servilius in 475 is fictitious.
L2.52.6-8 and D9.28-33 say two tribunes, Lucius Caedicius and Titus Statius,
prosecuted Servilius, a consul of the previous year, but he was triumphantly
acquitted. Caedicius was perhaps suggested by Considius, the prosecutor of
the previous year (see section 43). Statius is not known (except as a forename
of non Romans) before the late republic, and is clearly anachronistic here. He
is probably modelled on the Samnite leader Statius, made a senator by Sulla
(Appian "Civil Wars" 4.25), hence suitably unsavoury.
45: The prosecution of Furius and Manlius in 473 is fictitious.
L2.54 and D9.37-38.3 say a tribune, Gnaeus Genucius, prosecuted Furius and
Manlius, consuls of the previous year, but was found dead in his bed, so
halting the proceedings. Gnaeus Genucius seems to have been invented from
the military tribune of the same name of 396, who died in battle because of his
incompetence (L5.18.8). D's account, which emphasizes his death was
natural, contradicts L, who strongly implies it was murder.
46: Volero Publilius of 473 invented from three sources.
L2.55 and D9.39 say an ex centurion was about to be scourged for refusing
to serve as a common soldier. The invention comes from three sources.
Volero Publilius is invented from Volero Publilius, military tribune in 399
(L5.13.3), a centurion's refusal to serve as a common soldier from a 171
incident (L42.32-4), the threatened scourging from an actual scourging of a
Gaius Publilius (L8.28, D16.5 (9)). A tribunate is invented for Volero
Publilius for the following two years (L2.56-57, D9.40-49). The inventor
makes him try to do something in 472, but fail. This is to delay the action
until 471, when an Appius Claudius is recorded as a consul, and he can be
made to continue the bad Claudii theme whose parts are listed in section 6.
47: Killing a vestal virgin in 472 allegedly stops a plague.
D9.40.1-2 says the year began with prodigies, soon followed by a plague
attacking women only. This is impossible - men and children would also have
been attacked - and is contradicted by L2.56.6, who makes no mention of
prodigies and plague and even says "the year had just begun, and it was this
law that took precedence over everything else". The plague is an invention to
justify the killing of a vestal virgin who had lost her virginity - it is
alleged that doing this this time caused the plague to stop - another
impossibility.
D3.67.3 (reign of Tarquin 1) has a story of a vestal virgin Pinaria, daughter
of Publius, being killed for losing her virginity. The name Pinaria seems to
have suggested making this year the one for an invented loss of virginity,
since one of the consuls was a Lucius Pinarius. The name of the vestal,
Urbinia, is very implausible for this time - Urbinia and Urbinius are derived
from the north east Urbinum (Modern Urbino) or an Urbinum in central Italy
and first attested in the late republic. A later (unattested) Urbinia seems to
have been retrojected here.
48: A bad Claudius good other man pair for 471 and the third good Valerius
bad Claudius pairs (470).
L2.56.5-61 and D9.43-50 have a fictional account of a bad Appius Claudius
and a good consular colleague, continuing the bad Claudius theme whose
parts are listed in section 6. Valerius Antias continues his bad Claudius good
Valerius theme, inserting a speech by a Valerius approved by all (D9.49.3-5)
and continuing the contrast, with Valerius now consul for 470 (D9.51-4).
D9.54.4 makes Claudius kill himself, L2.61.8 contradicting this, making him
die a natural death. Two tribunes for 471 are invented, Laetorius (see section
29) to attack Claudius and Publilius (see section 46).
49: Livy's recycled Verginius material contradicts Dionysius (469).
A consul Verginius for the invented year 479 (invented: see section 40) is
made to suffer defeat due to his rashness (L2.48.5; D9.14.2-3) so the same is
made to happen to a consul Verginius of 469 (L2.63.5). This contradicts
D9.56.4, who makes him victorious.
50: Livy's and Dionysius' divergent accounts of 468.
L2.64-5 and D9.57-58 differ. In L the Sabines ravage Roman territory, in D
they allow the Romans to ravage theirs. In L the consul has trumpets blown in
the night to tire the enemy while his own men (somewhat improbably) sleep
through the racket. D knows nothing of this.
51: The 467 and 338 colonizations of Antium are fictitious.
L3.1 (467) says so few wanted to be colonists that Volscians were added as
colonists. D9.59.2 contradicts him, saying the added colonists were Latins
and Hernicians and that some of the land was left to the Antiates. Livy
records much fighting with Antium in subsequent years, contradicting the 467
story of colonization.
The 467 colonization story seems to be a duplicate of the one assigned to
338, which survives in L8.13.10-14.8, which says the Antiates could be
enrolled as colonists, as in D's 467 story. The consul Lucius Furius is
represented as playing a leading role in the 338 colonization. A Lucius Furius
(who is alleged to have been consul in 474) is alleged to have been one of the
three 467 commissioners setting up the colony (D9.59.2). The other names
(there are 3 because actual historical colonization had 3 commissioners) are
invented from nearby consuls, Titus Quinctius of 471 and Aulus Verginius of
469. The year 467 was chosen because a Tiberius Aemilius was recorded as
one of the consuls, the same name as the Tiberius Aemilius of 339, who will
have been represented as playing a part in the alleged 338 colonization
(Livy's 339 narrative (8.12.4-17) which doesn't give him a part, is the
invention of another writer). Antium is not one of the colonies of the 209 list
(see section 8), suggesting both the 467 and the 338 colonization stories are
fiction. L9.20.10 (317) says the Antiates asked the Romans for laws. He says
they had no officials, a palpable invention.
The consul Fabius of this year 467 is an invention (see section 58). Unless
his name has replaced some other name, the whole year seems to be an
invention.
52: Contradictory accounts of 466.
L3.2.1 says the consul Servilius went out to attack and camped in Latin
territory, where his army was attacked by plague and unable to act. D9.60.7
seems to know of three contradictory accounts: (1) divine intervention
prevented the army being sent; (2) plague prevented it; (3) Servilius took a
small army to the Latin frontier {no mention, as in Livy, of it being attacked
by the plague}. "Small" may not have been in his source, and may be his
attempt to reconcile this story with the others.
D9.60.3-6 has an embassy of Fabius in this year, L3.2.3-6, contradicting
him, in the following year, the accounts containing the usual fiction of Roman
honourable dealing and the opposite in the enemy.
53: Livy's and Dionysius' contradictory accounts of 465.
In D9.61 the consul Fabius does all the fighting, the consul Quinctius nothing,
in L3.2.2-3.10 they both fight. The two accounts have little in common.
L3.3.9 has a fictional census (on the censuses see section 4) in the middle of
the year, then new fighting. That a census should have been taken in the midst
of such fighting is unbelievable. It is alleged widows and orphans weren't
counted, i.e. only men and men-headed households (i.e. women and children
in them as well as the men). Such a distinction makes no sense. Either count
all women and children or none. The consul Fabius is an invention (see
section 58). Unless his name has replaced another name, the whole year is an
invention.
54: A Quinctius story recycled in 464 and 458.
The story is that a consul goes out with an army but his timid staying in his
camp makes the enemy so bold that his army is in danger of being destroyed.
But he manages to send horsemen to Rome asking for assistance. The other
consul is not up to the task, so a Quinctius is sent instead. This has been
recycled, at 464 (D9.62.3-63.2) and 458 (L3.26.3-6).
55: Livy's and Dionysius' divergent accounts of 464.
The accounts are found at L3.4-5 and D9.62-66. In L the consul Furius goes
to the territory of their allies the Hernici, where he is repulsd by the more
numerous enemy. In D the enemy leave the territory of the Hernici and go to
the Roman camp, which is therefore not in the territory of the Hernici. In D
Furius moves to another camp, in L he stays in the same one. In D the enemy
get reinforcements, in L they don't. In L he sends horsemen to Rome asking
for help, in D it is the allies who ask for help. In D Quinctius sets out with
Romans, in L he sets out with allies. In D the enemy attack the Roman camp
before Quinctius can arrive, in L only some of the enemy besiege the camp;
Quinctius fights various dispersed enemy, not bothering to relieve the camp.
In L the other consul, Postumius, attacks dispersed plundering enemy, who
flee in disorder. In D a force of enemy come later, in a body, and meet
Postumius calmly, although outnumbered, and fight well. They are attacked
by Furius, but retreat in order. Only two writers before L and D wrote at
length (see sections 2 and 3), Gnaeus Gellius and Valerius Antias. Valerius
Antias is L's source - L has a Valerius defending Rome, absent in D, and the
men of Valerius Antias' ancestral home Antium fighting with the greatest
spirit, whereas in D their thoughts are sick and (even more importantly) L's
account differs from D's but agrees with Valerius Antias, whom he quotes
(3.5.12-13): "Valerius Antias ventures to give numbers: 5,800 Romans died in
the territory of the Hernici; the consul Aulus Postumius killed 2,400 Aequian
plunderers roaming and pillaging Roman territory; the other plundering mob,
whom Quinctius fell in with, suffered even worse - losing 4,000 and, he says,
with careful attention to the exact number, 230". The manufacture of exact
numbers is typical of Valerius. See for example, section 20. Valerius Antias'
account is well written, the other, which, by elimination, is the work of
Gnaeus Gellius (see sections 2 and 3) is poorly written, agreeing with
Cicero's low estimate of his abilities ("On the laws" 1.2.6).
56: Livy's and Dionysius' divergent accounts of 462.
L3.6.7 says the enemy "came to the third milestone on the Gabinian way",
D9.68.4 that they came right up to the wall but the Romans prevented them
from entering.
57: The tribune Sextus Titius of 462 is invented from the tribune Sextus Titius
of 99.
D9.69.1 says: "Sextus Titius, one of the tribunes, tried to revive the measure
for the distribution of land, but the people would not permit it and deferred
the matter to a more suitable occasion". This is clearly copied from an incident
recorded by Julius Obsequens 46 (from a lost book of Livy): "Sextus Titius, a
tribune of the plebeians, kept on trying to have a measure for the distribution
of land to the people passed against the opposition of his colleagues. Two
crows, flying high above the assembled people, tore each other with beak and
claw. The diviners from entrails said a propitiatory offering should be made
to Apollo and the proposed measure abandoned".
58: Gaius Terentius and Quintus Fabius of 462 invented from Gaius Terentius
and Quintus Fabius of 216. Consequent inventions.
D9.69.1 says of 462: "In this consulship ... all civil disputes, both public and
private, ceased", contradicting L3.9, whose source had the story of a conflict
taken from the source of L22.38.6-39, where Gaius Terentius is represented
as criticizing nobles like Quintus Fabius (the conqueror, by his delaying
tactics, of Hannibal) violently and Fabius in turn criticizing Terentius (very
justly, as it turns out, as Terentius is then defeated by Hannibal at Cannae).
This has been retrojected here. A Gaius Terentius is made to criticize the
Fathers violently and a Quintus Fabius (awarded the critical office of
commander of the settlement) replying that Terentius' actions gravely
endanger the state, pressed as it is with enemies (just as Terentius in 216
gravely endangered the state by being defeated at Cannae). He is Terentius in
D10.1.5, clearly original. L calls him Terentilius, clearly secondary, the name
not being found at all of Roman officials and only a few times in the late
republic.
A necessary consequence of the invention of a Quintus Fabius here is that
the Quintus Fabius, alleged consul in 467, 465 and 459 and member of the
board of ten in 449 is fictitious. This is in any case clear from his invention
as the sole Fabius survivor after the fictitious massacre of the Fabii at the
battle of the Cremera (see section 41). He is represented as there a boy,
making him far too young to be consul in 467. The details of the invention of
the early Fabii are unclear, but the writer Quintus Fabius Pictor must certainly
have had a hand in their propagation.
Livy's source (L3.9.5) alleges that Terentius sponsored a law "that a board
of five men should be set up to write laws defining consular power",
Dionysius' source (D10.1-3) a law establishing "equal freedom of speech",
"that a board of ten men should be set up ... to write laws on everything, both
public and private". Terentius being fiction, his law is fiction, in both its
contradictory formulations. But both contradictory formulations agree in
being inventions to set the scene for fictional confrontations (L3.10-31;
D10.1-30) and for the fictional boards of ten men of 451 and 450 (see section
68). The confrontations being fictional, so are the characters (except perhaps
for the consuls, taken from the consul lists). 461 has an invented tribune
Aulus Verginius (L3.11.9; D10.2.1) his name being taken from the consul of
469. 459 has invented quaestors (L3.24.3) Aulus Cornelius (invented from
the consul of 428) and Quintus Servilius (invented from the consul of 468 and
463). Their vast difference in age doesn't seem to have troubled their
inventor. 458 has more invented quaestors (L3.25.2) Marcus Valerius
(invented from the consul of 456, presumably by Valerius Antias, as he is
highly praised) and Titus Lucretius (invented from the consul of 471, 468 and
465).
59: The character ascribed to Gaius Claudius, praetor 460, is fictitious.
L3.15.1-4 contains various rumours invented for 460. D10.9-13 has these
rumours and also a set rhetoricians' debate between the fictitious tribune
Aulus Verginius (on whom see section 58) and the consul Gaius Claudius.
Verginius being fictional, the debate is fiction.
60: The capture of the capitol by Herdonius in 460 is fiction.
There was an undated story that a Mamilius of Tusculum was an ally of the
Romans and another, undated, that a Herdonius was an enemy. These stories
have been worked into fictional narratives at two points, here, and under
Tarquin 2. Under Tarquin 2 L1.49.9-51 seems to have transmitted the earlier
narrative. Tarquin married his daughter to Mamilius then, unrelated event,
murdered Herdonius. In Dionysius (4.45-48) Mamilius is present at the
murder. Someone (probably Valerius Antias - the consul Valerius is a hero of
the story) created another fictional narrative out of the two undated stories,
making Herdoniuus take the Capitol, Mamilius save Rome (L3.15.5-18;
D10.14-16).
61: Livy's and Dionysius' divergent accounts of 459.
L3.22 says the consul Fabius defeated enemy encamped near Antium, while
the consul Cornelius stayed at Rome. D10.21, contradicting him, says
Cornelius took Antium. L3.23.7 says the older writers do not mention Antium
{showing that the contradictory Antium stories were invented after their time}.
L3.23.4 says: "fighting at Tusculum lasted some months". D10.19.7 says
some say they {the enemy} came out willingly {i.e. immediately, not after
some months}. The consul Fabius is an invention (see section 58). Unless his
name has replaced some other name, the whole year seems to be an invention.
62: Recycled Cincinnatus material.
The story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus called from the plough to be
dictator is a folk legend, not history. It was popular, so recycled, being found
of 458 (L3.26.6-12; D10.23.5-24.2) and also 439 (L4.13.11-14). There is
further recycling. Mutineers of 342 (L7.39.11-13) make a Quinctius living on
a farm in the territory of Tusculum their general.
63: Cloelius in 458 and Cluilius in 443. More recycled material.
The enemy generals Cloelius in 458 (L3.25.5-28) and Cluilius in 443
(L4.9.12-10.7) both circumvallate the enemy and are circumvallated in turn.
Both, defeated, have their armies pass under the yoke. More recycled
material.
64: A Minucius' 217 resignation the source of a Minucius' 458 resignation.
In 217 the incompetence of a Minucius gravely endangers his army, but the
dictator saves him and Minucius resigns his command. Minucius is succeeded
in his command by Quintus Fabius (L22.28-30.6). So the same is made to
happen here (L3.26.3-4; 3.29.1-3 & 7).
65: Diodorus' consuls between 458 and 457 and between 457 and 456.
Diodorus had consuls between 458 and 457, but they have been lost with the
loss of a year (Athenian archon Chaerephanes) in a lacuna between 11.90 and
11.91. Their names being unknown, nothing can be said about their
authenticity. His consuls between 457 and 456 (12.3) are Lucius Quinctius
Cincinnatus (see section 62) and Marcus Fabius Vibulanus (consul 442). The
second set was presumably invented as a repository for Cincinnatus material.
The names are ones likely to be invented. There is no obvious reason for their
accidental omission from other sources.
66: Livy's (3.31.1) and Dionysius' (10.31-2) contradictory accounts of 456.
Livy's floods causing grain shortage is condemned by is absence from D, D's
strife between tribunes and consuls condemned by L's statement that things
were quiet at home.
67: Livy's and Dionysius' contradictory accounts of 455-4.
L3.31.2-6 says the consuls of 455 {acting quite defensibly} gave booty to the
impoverished treasury instead of the soldiers and were consequently
impeached in 454, Romilius by Gaius Calvisius Cicero, a tribune, Veturius by
Lucius Alienus, a plebeian aedile. D10.33-52, contradicting Livy, in whom
Romilius and Veturius act honourably, makes them the villains. They decide
to contrive a war, to forestall possible (perfectly legitimate) opposition at
home. They conduct the levy very harshly, whereas the tribunes act with
great moderation in the circumstances. A certain Siccius speaks effectively
against the consuls and they try to murder him by sending him to his certain
death in battle, but fail. Hence next year it is not Calvisius (as in Livy) but
Siccius (now a tribune) who prosecutes Romilius. This is all fiction. Sending
someone you want to get rid of to certain death in battle is a favourite device
of fiction (compare David's sending Bathsheba's husband to his death in
battle, 2nd Samuel 11). The coname Cicero is invented from the famous
Marcus Tullius Cicero and is only found in the late republic, of his clan the
Tullii. The names Calvisius and Alienus are not found elsewhere until the late
republic. The men the Calvisius and Alienus here are invented from seem to
be Gaius Calvisius (T. P. Wiseman "New men ... 96") and Aulus Allienus
(21).Details are lost, but Allienus was co-author of a land bill, almost
certainly as a tribune in 55 (E. Gruen "Last generation ..." pp. 401-3) and a
proconsul in 48-6, Calvisius legate, praetor and proconsul between 48 and
28. He could well have been a tribune earlier. For Calvisius the manuscripts
have Calvius, but this name is not associated with Roman officials even in the
late republic and seems to have arisen from the accidental omission of si after
vi. Siccius seems invented from an earlier invented tribune (on him see
section 10).
68: The stories about the twelve boards of laws are fiction.
Diodorus 12.11-21 has the laws of the just founded South Italian settlement of
Thurii, based on the best existing laws, drawn up in 453. So the Romans are
made to do the same. An embassy (D10.52.4; L3.31.8) of three men - Spurius
Postumius (invented from the consul of 466), Aulus Manlius (invented from
the consul of 474) and Servius Sulpicius (invented from the consul of 461)
{Livy's P for Publius is secondary, probably derived from the P commonly
used in his manuscripts to indicate a proper name} is made to go to Athens in
454 to get a copy of Solon's laws. Ambassadors are also made to go to Greek
settlements in Italy. All arrive back in 452 (D10.54.3). Heraclitus of Ephesus
(lived around 500) quoted by Diogenes Laertius 9.2, says: "All Ephesian men
should hang themselves and hand the settlement to boys. They've driven out
their most useful citizen, Hermodorus, saying: 'No Ephesian ought to be
useful; if there is anyone who is, he ought to go and live somewhere else'".
This passage presented an opportunity too good to pass by. A story was
invented specifying Rome as the place he went to. Pliny the elder 34.21 says:
"In the place of assembly there stood a statue erected by the people. It was of
Hermodorus of Ephesus, the explainer of the laws the board of ten men were
writing". In other words, he was in Rome while the board of ten men were
writing the twelve boards of laws in Latin, clarifying for them the exact
meaning of the Greek of Solon's and other Greek laws, the basis of theirs.
This story contains the satisfying fiction that the Romans were clever enough
to employ a man the Greeks were too stupid to appreciate. Clearly, the twelve
boards of laws did not come into existence in this way. How and when they
came into existence is unknown.
L3.33.3-4 and D10.56.4 give Appius Claudius and Titus Genucius as
consuls for 451. They say these two consuls became two of a board of ten.
The other eight are invented from consuls {the date I give after a name is the
date he is said to have been consul} Publius Sestius (452), Titus Veturius
(462), Gaius Iulius (447), Aulus Manlius (474), Servius Sulpicius (461)
{Livy's P for Publius seems to be secondary, from the P commonly written in
manuscripts to indicate a proper name}, Publius Horatius (457) {Livy's
Curiatius seems to come from a gloss, the glossator referring to the well
known legend of the fight between the Horatii and Curiatii - L1.24-25)}, Titus
Romilius (455) and Spurius Postumius (466) (L3.24.6; D10.57.5-7). They are
invented as the writers of the good law boards {for another board of ten, also
invented from consuls, see section 32}. L3.35.1, D10.50.4 and d12.24 list the
bad second board of ten. It seems that the list can be restored as follows {the
date I give after a name is the date he is said to have been a consul} Appius
Claudius again, Quintus Fabius (467, 465 and 459), Marcus Cornelius (436),
Lucius Sergius (437) {the forename seems to have been lost, LD's Marcus
and d's Gaius being separate attempts to supply it} Lucius Minucius (458),
Quintus Publilius {the li was written once, giving d's impossible Quintus
Publius (Publius is a forename), LD's source emended Publius to Poetelius}
and Gaius Duillius {LD's Caeso Duillius comes from the abbreviation C for
Gaius being mistakenly taken as the abbreviation for Caeso (which is actually
K). The name is lost in d, who says there were 10 men, but his manuscripts
only list 7}. (Quintus Publilius and Caeso Duillius are invented from two of
the members of a board of five of 352 - L7.21.6), Spurius Veturius (invented
from the Titus Veturius of the good first board - Spurius {"spurious"}
suggesting he doesn't belong with the good Titus, i.e. is bad {d has Veturius,
DL Oppius. Veturius was lost after Spurius and the gap filled from an
(invented) tribune of 449 (L3.54.13) Gaius Oppius}, Titus Romilius {d has it
in the corrupt form Romulus} is recycled from the decemvir of the previous
year. It is missing in DL. I suggest that the words Romilius Quintus were
omitted from the sequence "Titus Romilius, Quintus Antonius" in LD's source
{Quintus Antonius of LD's source is invented from the consular tribune of
422 (L3.42.2) who also has the coname Merenda, which L gives to Antonius
here}. This gives LD 11 decemvirs. I suggest Manius Rabuleius was added to
make up the 10 after Romilius' omission. He is the odd man out. The original
ten are the work of a man who invented them from various office holders.
Rabuleius was added by another man, who invented him because the name
was thought to suit the bad board of ten, since Rabuleius suggested "rabula"
("mad").
These decemvirs are bad because they are made to add two extra boards to
the ten already formulated, to make up the twelve boards. The two extra
boards of laws are bad because they contain a prohibition of patrician
plebeian intermarriage (D10.60.5, Cicero "On the state" 2.63: "They added
two boards of unjust laws. One cruel law prohibited something which unites
peoples - it prohibited patrician plebeian intermarriage").
69: 453 fictions.
L3.33.2 gives Publius Curiatius as one of the consuls, D10.53.1 Publius
Horatius. The rarer Curiatius is more likely to be original, Horatius being an
inadvertent substitution by someone very familiar with the story of the Horatii
and Curiatii (L1.24-5). L3.33.3 has an augur Gaius Horatius (invented from
the consul of 477 and 457) dying and being replaced by Gaius Veturius
(invented from the consul of 455). This seems to have inspired the invention
(D10.53.6) of the consul Sextus Quinctilius dying and being replaced by
Spurius Furius (invented from the consul of 464). L also records the death of
the flamen of Quirinus, Servius Cornelius (invented from the consul of 485).
The invention of a plague for this year was obviously thought to require the
invention of various plague deaths.
70: The Verginia of 449 and the Verginia of 295. Recycled material.
There seems to have been a story of a Verginia, a paragon of womanhood,
associated with a goddess whose cult reinforced her womanly virtues. A
story justifying patrician plebeian intermarriage is also associated with it.
This story has been used as the basis for a story of a Verginia in 295
(L10.23.1-10). Here people object to her, a patrician, being married to a
plebeian. She has been excluded from the shrine of patrician chastity, so sets
up in her house one of plebeian chastity, proving that being married to a
plebeian has not altered in the slightest her status as a paragon of
womanhood.
This story was also used as the basis for an early form of the Verginia story
of 449. The early form of the story is that a patrician Verginia was betrothed
to a plebeian but their marriage was prevented, with the tragic consequence of
her death, a death, however, near a shrine of a goddess of purity, so proving
that being married to a plebeian would not have altered in the slightest her
status as a paragon of womanhood. This early form has not been preserved
entire, but parts of it have. Her patrician satus is suggested by d12.24.2, who
calls her "well born". Her betrothal to a plebeian is found at L3.44.3 and
D11.28.2, her death near the shrine of a goddess of purity Cloacina at
L3.48.5. Pliny the elder 15.119 says: "The Romans and the Sabines ... when
they had laid down their weapons, were purified at the place which now
contains the statues of Venus Cloacina". This story illustrates the basic theme
- the second board of ten men were evil, because they prohibited patrician
plebeian intermarriage (see section 68).
The developed form of the Verginia story, found in d12.24.2-4, L3.44-48
and D11.28-37 is that Verginia's father killed her to save her being violated
by one of the board of ten men. "One of the board of ten men" is exactly how
he is referred to by Cicero "On the state" 2.63 and d12.24.2, suggesting that
he was at first anonymous. His identification with Appius Claudius and the
lengthy stories of his monstrous behaviour in L and D will then be
subsequent embellishment.