BOOK I

T H E first five books were planned and published as a unity, and

Book i states the overall theme—the greatness of Rome. Rome
was a great city both as a physical entity and as a world-power. From
the very outset L. stresses the strength of the city (9. 1 iam res Romana
adeo erat valida; cf. 11. 4, 21. 6) and reiterates its increasing size (8. 4
crescebat interim urbs; cf. 9. 10, 30. 1, 33. 9, 35. 7, 37. r, 44. 5). R o m e
early became and remained a great city. And corresponding to her
physical greatness was an imperial greatness. R o m e was to be, as
L. is at pains to repeat, caput rerum (16. 7, 45. 3, 55. 6).
Book r also adumbrates the other themes which form the dominant
threads in the later four books. Book 2 is preoccupied with the nature
and problems of libertas. Already in 17. 3 we are given a foreboding
of this (libertatis dulcedine nondum experta; cf. 46. 3, 48. 9, 56. 8)« T h e
consequence oflibertas, as of free enterprise, is discordia as is illustrated
by the events of the latter half of Book 2 and as is already hinted in
r. 17. 1 or 1. 42. 2. A free society requires for its preservation the
exercise by individual citizens of the social virtues. T o give way to
avaritia and to scorn modestia must entail the disruption of society
(Praef. 11 n.). This is clearly seen in the course of Book 3 ; and the way
is prepared in Book 1 where Ancus Marcius' pillaging (35. 7) is in
contrast with Romulus' forbearance (15. 4). It is in modestia and the
corresponding virtue of moderation the theme of Book 4, that the last
Tarquin is egregiously deficient. Book 5 is shot through with pietas:
Rome's success depends both on divine will and on her own observance
of divine ordinance. In many ways this was a daring and novel theme.
Divine causality had been banished from history since Herodotus /
(Cicero, de Orat. 2. 63) but in reintroducing it L. caught the mood of
his generation. Once again he foreshadows it in Book 1. Aeneas, like
Gamillus, is afatalis dux (1.4) and R o m e is founded under the guidance
of the fates (7. 15). M u c h attention is given to the desirability of
performing due rites and ceremonies (18. 10, 19. 7, 36. 6) for only so
can divine co-operation be secured. L.'s own attitude to the gods and
the alleged stories of their intervention on earth is often sceptical and
rationalistic (4. 2 n.). H e will offer a naturalistic interpretation side-
by-side with a miracle.
T h e structure of the book is dictated by the length and character
of the reigns of the kings. Tradition had already given each king a
distinctive personality before the philosophies of constitutional his­
tory began to press them into the moulds of fxovapxia^ /WiAeia, or
30
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
Tvpawis. L. accepts the general philosophy of deterioration. Tullus
and Ancus are decadent counterparts of Romulus and Numa. Each
is singled out for some one particular quality: Romulus for military
expertise, Numa for the creation of the religious observances of peace­
time, Tullus for ferocity, Ancus for the ceremonies of war; and the
comparison between them is expressly drawn (22. 2 (Tullus) ferocior
. . . quam Romulus; 32. 5 Numa in pace religiones, a(b Anco) bellkae caeri-
moniae). As N u m a founded divine law, so Servius Tullus founds the
social order (42. 4). superbia characterizes the last Tarquin. Thus each
section within the book has its own place within a general framework
and the corresponsion between the two halves of the book gives the
whole a symmetrical shape.

The Foundation of Rome

/ The Facts
There are a few traces of Ghalcolithic and Bronze Age settlement
at Rome, chiefly from the Esquiline, which may correspond to the
legends about Sicels and Aborigines but the first extensive evidence
comes from the middle of the eighth century. A series of post-holes
have been found on the two ridges of the Palatine, the Palatium and
the Germalus, which can be dated stratigraphically and by the
pottery associated with them, which is characteristic of the Early Iron
Age, to c. 750. Contemporary with this earliest community at Rome
was a cemetery in the Forum. Excavations have shown that both
cremation and inhumation were practised. T h e ashes were regularly
placed in a small urn in the shape of a hut which was stored with other
utensils in a large funerary jar. The hut urns correspond precisely
with the plan as it can be reconstructed of the Palatine huts whose
memory was also preserved in the casa Romuli. The primitive culture of
the Palatine community is found at the same period elsewhere in
Latium, particularly at Alba Longa. It is a regional variant of the
Villanovan culture which was widespread throughout Italy in the
eighth century. Little can be hazarded about the ethnic origins of
these earliest inhabitants. T h e linguistic character of the Latin lan­
guage has suggested to some that they were a wave of Indo-European
immigrants who came from Central Europe c. 1000 B.C. and who found
their abode in Latium about 800 B.C. The community was a resident
nucleus of shepherds and swineherds.
Very shortly after the first huts had been built on the Palatine and
the first graves sunk in the Forum, other groi )S settled on other hills
of Rome. Cemeteries have been found in e Esquiline and the
Quirinal, which imply the existence of vl"agc ' ommunities on those
hills as well. T h e excavations on the Quirinal were significant in that

3i
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
they disclosed only inhumation-graves, a fact which lends colour to
the traditional belief that the inhabitants of the Quirinal were of
different racial origin from the inhabitants of the Palatine and that the
mixture of inhumation and cremation to be found in the Forum results
from the gradual fusion and intermingling of the Latins and an off­
shoot of the Osco-Umbrians, the Sabines. M a n y of the oldest names at
Rome appear to be Sabine, and Latin demonstrably contains many
Sabine words. T h e duality is to be seen in the formal title populus
Romanus Quirites.
In summary it can be said that a settlement had existed on the
Palatine from pre-historic times, that it expanded in the middle of the
eighth century, that soon afterwards the Quirinal was settled by a dif­
ferent, possibly Sabine, community, that the two communities together
with others on other hills gradually coalesced, and that the process of
synoecism was completed by the draining of the Forum and the build­
ing of a market-place c. 625-575. T h e salient points of Roman tradition
are thus vindicated."All the attendant details and legends tell nothing
about the actual history of Rome but much about how that history
was written and how it came to be regarded.
T h e archaeological evidence is most conveniently to be found in
the three volumes of E. Gjerstad's Early Rome. T h e best general intro­
duction in English is R. Bloch, The Origins of Rome, in the series
Ancient Peoples and Places, published by Thames and Hudson. See also
E. Gjerstad, Legends and Facts of Early Roman History, 6 ff.

The Legends
T w o mutually exclusive legends, of Romulus and of Aeneas,
attend the foundation of Rome. Of these Romulus was the older and
the more deep-rooted; it is assumed in an official R o m a n dedication
at Chios of c. 225 B.C. T h e legend of Aeneas became current\in the
sixth century and represents the view which the Greeks of that time
took of Rome. It was left to later historians to effect a synthesis of the
two.
Romulus is the eponymous founder of Rome. T h e suffix -ulus is
Etruscan a n d denotes a /cricmfc: Gaeculus is the mythical founder
of Praeneste. In the earliest legends he is variously associated with
Latinus, the eponymous hero of the Latins, who had penetrated Greek
consciousness as early as Hesiod (Theog. 1011). I n one version Latinus
was the father of R h o m e and R h o m y l o s . J n another Latinus had a
sister R h o m e and was himself the founder of Rome. In yet another
Latinus had a daughter who married Italus from whom Rhomos was
born. All these accounts say n o more than that Rome was founded
by the Latins. Equally the two dominant facts about the personality
of Romulus as they materialized in later telling, the antagonistic
32
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
rivalry with his brother and the aggressive militarism which contrasts
so abruptly with the piety of his successor, correspond to no historical
actuality. They represent a peculiarly R o m a n form of myth much
older than Rome which belong to the very core of Indo-European
thought. Romulus and Remus are Cain and Abel or J a c o b and Esau.
Romulus and N u m a are Varuna and Mitra or Uranus and Zeus. T h e
detailed biography with which the name of Romulus was clothed
was m a d e up from a series of myths most of which are aetiological in
nature explaining objects and monuments and ceremonies. Many
have been supplemented from the resources of Greek mythology.
They are studied individually in their place.
T h e legend of Aeneas can be more closely determined. Scattered
groups of migrants from Greece or Asia Minor may well have touched
the coast of Latium in the seventh and sixth centuries but the first
connexion of Aeneas with central Italy is revealed by statuettes from
Veii, Greek vases from Etruria and Spina, and on Etruscan scarabs
all portraying Aeneas carrying his father on his shoulders and all
dating from the end of the sixth century. T h e first literary allusion to
Aeneas in Italy occurs a century later (D.H. 1.47-48. 1 = Hellanicus,
F.Gr. Hist 4 F 31 Jacoby) but it is possible that the tradition was
already known to Stesichorus if the Tabula Iliaca, which depicts
Aeneas departing with his father and the sacra eV rqv 'EmrepLav is
based on Stesichorus. T h e route by which the legend reached Italy
is not certain. Weinstock conjectured that it was mediated through
Sicily. More recently Bomer has argued that it came with the
Phocaeans when they fled to the west c. 540. T h e important point is
that it was a Greek view imposed on Italy. T h e Greeks attributed to
heroes of the Greek world the discovery and settlement of the com-
munities of the west with which they had dealings. Diomede, Evander,
and, above all, Ulysses provided pedigrees in their wanderings.
Aeneas found a home in the Etruscan world and in particular at Rome.
Initially the Aeneas story was widely spread in Etruria. It became
localized at Rome partly because the Greeks already recognized in
the Romans of the early fifth century those same qualities of pietas
which distinguished Aeneas and partly because of the accidental
occurrence of a pre-Indo-European place name Troia on the coast
near R o m e (1.311.).
T h e legend represented the changing image of Rome, first as seen
through Greek eyes, then in relation to her position in Latium and
Italy, finally as the adversary of Carthage. Simultaneously a more
mechanical process was at work synthesizing the conflicting stories of
Romulus and Aeneas and devising relationships which would co­
ordinate the two incompatibles. These early stages are not germane,
for it was only when Eratosthenes fixed a date for the Fall of Troy
814432 33 D
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
that the chronological gap between Aeneas and Romulus the founder
of Rome became manifest and required bridging. It is probably that
both Fabius Pictor and Ennius were aware that a prolonged sojourn
at Alba was required if Aeneas and Romulus were to be retained in
the tradition but Cato, who calculated the interval between the Fall
of Troy and the foundation of Rome as 432 years (fr. 17), was the first
to fill the gap with circumstantial events drawn from local traditions.
His version may be briefly summarized. Latium was inhabited by
Aborigines under King Latinus. Aeneas, landing with his father
Anchises (fr. 9), founded Troia (fr. 4). Latinus granted him an
area of 2,700 iugera and the hand of his daughter Lavinia (frr. 8, 11)
and the united peoples adopted the name of Latins. T h e Trojans,
however, dishonoured the treaty by embarking on a foray (fr. 10). I n
disgust, the Latins (Aborigines) turned to Turnus the king of Rutu-
lians who nursed a grievance against Aeneas for marrying Lavinia
(fr. 12). In the resulting war both Latinus and Turnus were killed,
while Aeneas disappeared from human sight. Aeneas' son Ascanius,
now called from his beard lulus, killed Mezentius who had come to
Turnus' aid and ruled over the city of Laurolavinium (frr. 9, 10, 11).
During the disturbances Lavinia had fled to the woods, where she
bore a son Silvius. Thirty years after the Trojan arrival in Italy
Ascanius handed Laurolavinium over to Lavinia and Silvius his half-
brother, and himself founded Alba Longa (fr. 13). Finally he trans­
ferred Alba Longa also to Silvius who thus became the father of the
dynasty of Alban kings, the last of whom, Numitor, was father of a
daughter variously known as Ilia, Rhea, or Silvia. It was she who was
the mother of Romulus and Remus.
The Alban king-list did violence to history in order to preserve a
literary chronology. Rome was not the late-born offspring of Alba
Longa. T h e two villages shared a contemporary culture. Nonetheless
Cato's account of early Roman history became the standard vulgate
from which later writers only diverged to assert their individuality.
It finds typical expression in the elogium of Aeneas from Pompeii
(Inscr. Ital. 13 no. 85 : there were elogia of Aeneas and the Alban kings
also at Rome), or in the numerous versions assembled by D . H . T h e
surviving fragments of Cassius Hemina (fr. 2), Sisenna (fr. 2), and
Sempronius Tuditanus (fr. 1) show no disagreement of substance. W e
know of several minor modifications. T h e Aemilii substituted an
Aemilia for Rhea Silvia (Plutarch, Romulus 2). Others doubted the
paternity of Romulus (D.H. 1. 77). Varro added religious and
antiquarian refinements.
It is to this late stage in the synthesis of the legends that the two
authorities which L. consulted belong (1. 6 n., 3. 2 n.). Unlike Virgil,
who appears to have relied on the epic tradition created by Naevius and

34
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E i. i. 1-3
Ennius rather than the Catonian, L. followed recent historians (3. 8 n.).
There is no trace of Ennius in his account. Since nothing survives of
Valerius Antias 5 or Licinius Macer's treatment of the Trojan pre­
history of Latium, L.'s sources cannot be certainly identified. T h e only
significant idiosyncrasy is that in L. Ascanius is the son of Aeneas and
his second wife, Lavinia, and Silvius is the grandson not the son of
Aeneas.
T h e principal modern works on the subject are J . Perret, Les
Origines de la Legende Trqyenne de Rome, reviewed by Momigliano, J.R.S.
35 ( r 945) 9 9 _ I O 4 J F- Bomer, Rom und Troia, 1955; A. Alfoldi, Die
Troian. Urahnen d. Romer, 1957; see also P. Ducati, Tito Livio e le
origini di Roma. T h e thesis that L. is dependent upon Ennius is main­
tained among others by W. Aly, Livius und Ennius; M . Ghio, Riv. FiL
Class. 29 (1951), 1 ff.

1. 1-3. The Legend of Antenor

Nothing is known historically or archaeologically about the Euganei
who were supposed to inhabit in classical times the sub-alpine regions
above the Po valley. A number of inscriptions from the Val Camonica
dating from later than c. 500 B.G. have been adduced as evidence of
the Euganean language, for Cato ap. Pliny, N.H. 3. 134 listed the
Camunia as part of the Euganean people. T h e language is Italic,
having a closer relationship with the Latin-Faliscan group than with
the Osco-Umbrian. This does not, however, tell anything about the
ethnic or cultural character of the people since the language may well
have been acquired at a late stage in their history. Indeed place-names
from the region have been used to support the traditional account
that the Euganei were very old inhabitants of the area who pre­
dated any Indo-European contamination.
Much more is known about the Veneti (5. 33. 10). Their chief
centres were Padua and Este (Ateste), where a settled culture, distinct
from the Villanovan, can be traced from the tenth to the second
century. T h e Veneti were distinguished for their metal-work and for
their horse-breeding and had commercial contacts with the Greeks
from before the sixth century. Their language also is now generally
agreed to have had its closest affinity with the Latin-Faliscan group
although its alphabet was borrowed from the Etruscans and some
words have been claimed as Illyrian. T h e phenomena can be explained
by the cultural pressures to which the Veneti were by their very situa­
tion subjected. T h e ethnic origin of the Veneti remains in doubt.
Herodotus (1.196) speaks of 'IWvpt&v 'Everol but the long-fashionable
theory that the Veneti were a wave of migrating Illyrians is no longer
accepted and cannot be supported by the widespread distribution
of the name (e.g. the Venetulani in Latin, the Veneti of Armorica, the

35
i . i. 1-3 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
Slavonic Venidi, & c ) . T h e traditional account that the Euganei were
displaced by Venetic infiltration may be true. It is at least as likely that
the two groups were originally akin culturally as well as linguistically
but that the Euganei in their isolated region were gradually out­
stripped by the more adaptable and progressive Veneti.
T h e connexion of Antenor and his Eneti with the Veneti belongs,
however, not to history but to Greek romancing about the Adriatic.
It is natural that it should be as old as the commercial penetration
of the area by the Greeks and hence there is no difficulty in believing
that it formed the basis of Sophocles' Antenoridae (Strabo 13. 608; see
Pearson, The Fragments of Sophocles, 1. 86-90; it was perhaps adapted by
Accius; see Polybius 2. 17. 6 with Walbank's note). It is at least cer­
tain that the Antenoridae, although not necessarily Antenor, had a
cult as far west as Gyrene by the fifth century (Pindar, Pyth. 5. 80-88).
Initially, then, the Antenor legend represented the Greek attitude to
the Veneti. It was inspired by no more than a casual play on names
(cf. Pliny, N.H. 3. 130, 6. 5 ; Suidas s.v. 'EVCTOI: see Page on Alcman,
Partheneion 51). Gato was perhaps the first Roman to interest himself
in it and so to link the destinies of the Veneti and the Romans
(fr. 42). As propaganda his work was well timed, for the Veneti were
peacefully absorbed by the Romans in 184 B.C. T h e identification
was reiterated by the geographer Polemo c. 180 B.C. (E Euripides,
Hipp. 231) and thenceforth had a firm place in Roman history
(Tacitus, Annals 16. 21 ; Servius, ad Aen. 1. 243).
T h e linking of the two Trojan foundations in Italy through the
parallel legends of Aeneas and Antenor was thus a late action. It was
chiefly motivated by political considerations but folk-memory or
academic research may have recalled the curious fact that however
separated they might be geographically and culturally the Veneti
and Latins were linguistically near kin. But for L. the legend had
a special meaning. He was a Paduan and the story of his home city
was thereby joined to the history of the capital city. Hence he begins
his history with Antenor not Aeneas (but see 1. 1 n.) and takes for
granted as common knowledge that Antenor founded Padua.
For the history of the Veneti see Storia di Venezia 1 (1957); R.
Battaglia, Bull, di Paletn. Italiana, 1959, with bibliography; G.
Capovilla, Miscellanea Galbiati, 1. 238 ff.; for the Venetic language see
M. S. Beeler, The Venetic Language; Palmer, The Latin Language, 41 ff.;
for the Antenor legend seeThallon A. J.A. 28 (1924), 47 fT.; Beaumont,
J.HS. 56 (1936), 159 ff-; Ferret i57~ 2 5 6 -

1 . 1 . iam primum: the opening of the history is unusual. T h e conven­

tional practice was to state at the outset the name of the historian (cf.
the openings of Herodotus and Thucydides: see Gow on Theocritus
36
 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E i. i. i

i. 65) or the name of the subject (cf. Polybius 1.5. 1; Tacitus, Annals
1. 1 urbemRomam; Agricola 4. 1 Cn. Iulius Agricola \ D.H. 1. 8. 9). This
peculiarity led Wex to doubt whether the opening survives in its
original form {Neue Jahrb.f. PhiloL 71 (1855), 123-5). He n o t e d that
Servius (ad Aen. 1. 242) appeared to credit L. with having told of
Aeneas' betrayal of Troy (hi enim duo (Antenor et Aeneas) Troiam pro-
didisse dicuntur secundum Livium; cf. Origo Gentis Romanae 9. 1-2) and he
observed that L. never uses iam primum to begin a paragraph (cf.
5. 51. 6, 28. 39. 5, 39. 52. 8, 40. 3. 3). From this he concluded that a
sentence or sentences had been lost. But L.'s reason for not naming
Rome at the very beginning is that he gives pride of place to his native
district of Padua and iam primum is not strictly the opening for it
follows on from the general introduction contained in the Praefatio.
satis constat: implying that L. has consulted more than one authority
(48. 5. 5- 33- 5, 37- 34- 7)-
vetusti: Antenor had entertained Menelaus and Odysseus when they
came to Troy (Iliad 3. 207 with 2J) and had recommended the sur­
render of Helen (Iliad 7. 347 ff.; Horace, Epist. 1. 2. 9). T h e earliest
versions do not associate Aeneas in these negotiations but cf., e.g.,
Quint us Smyrn. 13. 291 ff.
1 . 2 . et sedes: the sense is that they had lost their homes because they
had been driven out of Paphlagonia and their leader because Pylae-
menes had been killed.
Pylaemene: cf. Iliad 2. 851, 5. 576.
1. 3 . Troia: so also Steph. Byz. s.v. Tpola. T h e same place-name is
better attested on the coast of Latium ( 1 . 4 ; Gato fr. 4 ; Paulus Festus
504 L . ; D.H. 1. 53. 3 ; Servius, ad Aen. 1.5, 7. 158, 9. 47). An Etruscan
oinochoe from Caere depicting a labyrinth has the inscription Truia
and the very primitive military rite at R o m e was known as the lusus
Troiae. Stephanus glosses the name by x^paZ- This evidence, whether
it be coupled with the name of old Troy itself or not, has been taken
to indicate that Troia was a pre-Indo-European term, used as a place-
name, meaning a fortified place (Rehm, Philologus, Supp. Band, 24
(1932), 46 ff.). When once the Greeks began to spread the Trojan
legend to Italy they naturally attached it to similar names. T h e Latian
Troia is to be sited at or near Zingarini.

1. 4 - 3 . Aeneas and the Alban Kings

1. 4. maiora: by enallage with rerum.
fatis: 4. 1 n.
Macedoniam: the old town of Rakelos in Macedonia-Thrace changed
its name to Aineia (Herodotus 7. 123. 2 ; Lycophron 1236 with U)
and issued coins of Aeneas carrying Anchises, on his shoulders (Head,
37
i. i. 4 F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E
Historia Numorum, 214). T h e change is perhaps to be associated with
Pisistratid control of the area (Aristotle, Ad. -TTOX. 15. 2 ; see Ath.
Tribute Lists 1. 465). T h e connexion of name was, however, long­
standing in the district (cf. Ainos) and taken with Iliad 20, 303 ff.,
suggests that the Aeneadae had come to Troy from the Balkans in the
thirteenth or fourteenth century leaving traces of their passage in the
place-names en route. See Malten, Archiv f. Relig.-Wissen. 29 (1931),
33 ff.
Siciliam: Thucydides (6.2. 3 drawing on Antiochus) called theElymi
whose chief towns were Segesta and Eryx Trojan refugees, and Hel-
lanicus (F. Gr. Hist. 4 F 31) named Elymus as a companion-in-arms
of Aegestus and Aeneas, though in another context saying that the
Elymi came from Italy (4 F 79 b with Jacoby's note). Their culture
was characterized by elements which were more Phoenician than
Greek, lending colour to the belief that they reached Sicily from the
East before the Greeks (details in Dunbabin, The Western Greeks,
336-7). T h e specifically Trojan origin may have been devised, or at
least published, by Stesichorus of Himera and inspired by the cult
of Aphrodite Aeneias at Eryx (D.H. 1. 53). T h e Aeneas story was
rooted in Sicily at the end of the sixth century and Sicily was a possible
channel by which it could have reached Rome.
Laurentem: 1. 10 n.
tenuisse: sc. cur sum 'he had held course with his fleet to the land of
the Laurentes', cf. 31. 45. 14; for classe cf 36. 7. 15. L.'s use oftenere
is, however, awkward here so close to two places where it is used
in the meaning 'inhabit5 (1. 3 eas tenuisse terras', 1. 5 ea tenebant loca).
Frigell proposed deletion.

1. 5. Aborigines', the inhabitants of Latium were known to Hesiod as

Latini. T h e Aborigines (ab origine) figure first in Gallias (F. Gr. Hist.
564 F 5 a and b) apparently because the introduction of the Aeneas
legend entailed that the Latins could not have been an autochthonous
race but must have been the result of the fusion of Trojan and native
(aboriginal) stock (Cato frr. 9-11 P.). Thereafter they remained a
constant element in the story (for Lycophron's Bopelyovoi cf. Zielinski,
Deutsch. Philol. 1891, 4 1 ; de Sanctis, Storia, 1. 173; Kretschmer,
Glotta 20 (1932), 198),
1 . 6 . duplex: the second version, which spares the Latins the humilia­
tion of defeat and the Romans the infamy of aggression, doubtless
gained currency from the late fourth century when the foundation
legend was invoked to improve relations with the Latins. It is in sub­
stance the version of Cato, Virgil (7. 170 ff.), and Varro (cf. D.H.
1. 57-60, 64). T h e first version, which makes Aeneas the aggressor is,
like the dismissal of Julian pretensions in 3. 2 (n.), anti-dynastic.
38
 FOUNDATION OF ROME i. 1.6
Laurentinum: at i. 4 N read Laurentem, which has the authority
here against 7r5s Laurentinum. L. uses neither form elsewhere.
1. 9. penates: 1. 10 n.
1. 10. Lavinium'. identified by inscriptions (C.I.L. 14. 2067-8) with
the modern Pratica di Mare. T h e relation of the ager Laurens and the
people known as Laurentes to the city of Lavinium was obscure even
in classical times. No town of Laurentum is attested in inscriptions,
itineraries, or historical sources (but cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. ^vreia), but
the adjective Laurens denotes a people as early as the first Cartha­
ginian treaty (Polybius 3. 22. 11 with Walbank's note: apevrlvajv as
emended) and the Arician League (Gato fr. 58 P.) In classical in­
scriptions it is almost invariably linked with Lavinas (C.I.L. 14.
2070-8) and always from the site of Lavinium. It is thus scarcely to be
believed that there existed in classical antiquity a town of Laurentum
distinct from Lavinium. T h e proles biformis Laurolavinium cited only
by Servius (adAen. 1. 5, 4. 620, 6. 760, &c.) is an antiquarian invention.
Further Lavinium lay in the ager Laurens (Obsequens 7 3 ; Val. M a x .
1. 6. 7), a coastal strip some 14 miles long adjoining the land of Ardea.
Thus either Laurens was the name of the people, Lavinium of the city
(cf. the populus Ardeatis Rutulus in the Aricia inscription) or Lavinium
absorbed at a very early date a short-lived community on a different
site called Laurentum (to be sought between Ostia and A r d e a ; cf.
C.I.L. 14. 2045 vicus Augustanus Laurentium, 7 miles from Lavinium).
Both Laurentes and Lavinates figure in the list of thirty peoples given
by D . H . (2. 18. 3 n.) which might be used to support the former
alternative. See H . Boas, Aeneas' Arrival in Latium, 96-126, especially
for the etymology of Laurentes; Philipp, R.E., 'Lavinium 5 .
T h e part played by Lavinium in the development of the Trojan
legend at Rome is one of the most obscure problems in Roman
tradition. T h e Aeneas story was widely dispersed through Etruria by
the end of the sixth century: it subsequently became monopolized
by Rome. Alba Longa was incorporated into the story partly for
mere chronological convenience to supply the gap between 1184 and
750 and partly because of the intimate cultural affinity of the two
communities. In this scheme Lavinium would seem to have no place.
Yet the connexion was long established. Tradition spoke of Lavinium
as being Aeneas 5 first foundation in Italy (Timaeus 566 F 59 Jacoby ;
Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 144) and substance for the claim is provided
by the annual ceremony which Roman magistrates performed at Lavi­
nium soon after vacating office (14. 2, 5. 52. 8). It was further claimed
that the Trojan penates came to Rome from Lavinium and this
has been largely confirmed by the discovery of a fifth-century dedica­
tion to Castor and Pollux at Pratica (2. 20. 12 n.). T h e cult of Aeneas
Indiges, i.e. Aeneas as divine ancestor, which was attested at the river

39
I- I . 10 FOUNDATION OF ROME
Numicius near Lavinium (Fabius Pic tor fr. 4 P . ; Naevius ap. Macro-
bius 6. 2. 31) has recently been confirmed by a fourth-century cippus
found at Tor Tignosa 5 miles inland from Lavinium and inscribed
LARE AiNEiA D(ONOM) to be of comparable antiquity with the
Lavinian Penates (Guarducci, Bull. Commun. 76 (1956-8) 3 ff.; Wein-
stock, J.R.S. 50 (1 g6o), 114-18). Now the cult of Aeneas never reached
Rome, although the legend did, and the explanation of the role played
by Lavinium in the Trojan origins of Rome may lie in the significance
of that fact coupled with the peculiar nature of the R o m a n Penates.
In one form the Penates certainly reached Rome from Lavinium but
the word penates must originally have designated the gods of the perms
rather than either di patrii or national protectors like the Dioscuri.
T h e basic meaning is in accord with their association with Vesta (D.H.
8. 4 1 . 3 ; Cicero, Har. Resp. 12). They were the gods of the store-house
and are to be recognized in the primitive statuettes found buried with
hut urns in the earliest graves at Rome and Alba. At some point
therefore a synthesis must have taken place which converted the
primitive penates into the complex and manifold deities with their
Trojan links which are familiar in classical times, and that synthesis
must have been made in the period 520-480 B.C. T h a t is precisely
the period when Rome became mistress of the neighbouring towns
of Latium including Lavinium. T h e hegemony implicit in the first
Carthaginian treaty is finally regularized by the treaty of Sp. Cassius.
Rome developed the Aeneas myth so that it became centred on her
while leaving a transient, if memorable, part for Lavinium; whereas
in fact it was Lavinium with the nearby Troia which had been
the first place in Latium to take u p the myth seriously and to claim
Aeneas and the Trojans as ancestors. Lavinium retained the honour
as the foundation of Aeneas and as the first home of the Penates and
throughout historical times was accorded appropriate respect by the
Romans, but it had become a mere res ting-point on the Trojan path
to Rome.
T h e bibliography is very extensive but is usefully assembled by
Weinstock, R.E. Tenates' and J.R.S., loc. cit., and Bomer, Rom und
Troia.
1. 11. Ascanium: 3. 2 n.

2. 1. Turnus rex Rutulorum: for the name Turnus see 50. 3 n., for the
Rutuli see 57. 1 n. T h e addition of Turnus and, above all, of Mezen-
tius to the Aeneas saga is later than and dependent on the synthesis
of the Lavinian and R o m a n tradition analysed above (1. 10 n.),
although it was firmly settled by the time of Cato (cf. Servius, ad Aen.
1. 267) and admitted only of minor adjustments such as the insertion
of the dream-oracle found in D.H. 1. 57 and Virgil, Aeneid 7. 81 ff.
40