Review of CORNELL, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars

(1000-
264 BC), 1995
One of the most important aspect that we have to recognize in Cornell is the fact that, due to the period in
which was written (‘90s) and the audience (anglophone), it has the value of giving to the Anglo-Saxon
academic panorama a work about Roman history updated with archaeological discoveries until that time,
whose publication mainly in Italian made them usually hardly accessible to an English speaker public.
His enthusiasm in discussing the monarchical age, for which the evidence was at that time basically
archaeological and mythical, and his attempt to find some proof of it, made him embrace some
interpretation later revealed as misleading. This is the case of Capitoline she-wolf, considered as an original
dating back around 500 BC, later revealed as a medieval artifact. Also, the fact that it was standing and not
breastfeeding, as acutely noticed by Harris in his review of Cornell’s work, should have been a clue, together
with the fact that the twins were clearly of the Renaissance. Despite he tries as much as possible to say that
an archaeological artifact cannot be used to confirm an historical account, his approach seems extremely
based on trying to confirm literary sources. He tries is best in recognizing that sources about archaic Rome
have a tradition of mythical/oral transmission, but he cannot resist in writing “the tradition records”. He is
also very stigmatizing with those who are not trustful as him with literary sources.

Sources > Reasons for not studying periods before the Punic Wars: few written sources, evidence too
uncertain, written accounts produced later archaic Rome events.
All the sources were written centuries after the events they are writing about: who are the sources of our
sources? We are sure that Roman historians did not make original researches, but they present facts that
they received, in a new way, with a rhetorical, artistic, moral or political aim. Livy and Dyonisius came at the
end of a long line of historians (the annalists) because they followed a year-by-year arrangement and often
called their work annals. They were Cato the Censor, Ennius (both lived between II and I c. BC) and Fabius
Pictor.
If the first century annalists produced longer works than the 2nd century BC ones, it does not mean that the
second added invented facts, but maybe, Cornell states, that they elaborated in a rhetorical way what was a
mere facts list.
The earliest Roman historians lived in the second half of 3rd century BC: where did they find their information
about facts of centuries before? > Greek historians (Plutarch, Timeo), family records (funeral eulogies), oral
traditions (Dramas: Naevius drama about Romulus, maybe also other historical dramas; supposed oral
poetry: Cicero says that in Cato’s Origins it was written the ancestors’ custom of singing during banquets
centuries before Cato), ancient documents and archives (annales maximi – important public events, also
celestial ones, annual magistrates, year by year recorder by pontifex maximus – written on the tabula
dealbata outside pontifex’s door; priestly colleges records plebeians records in Ceres’ temple). Despite
Cornell admits that all these documents cannot provide a clear and complete picture of archaic Rome, they
contribute a lot and he states that we cannot consider an invention all quotations from and reference to
archaic documents.

One of his good points for that time, were both his understating of the way of burying people as a distinctively
cultural element and of the presence of Mycenean pottery as, again, a confirmation of migration myths
(Argonauts, Odysseus).

Monarchy: he states that the last three kings have not to be considered as responsible of the transformation
of a city and validates the possibility that the last two kings were usurpers and compares them to the
contemporary phenomenon of Greek tyranny, together with the fact of considering Servius Tullius of servile
origin, dismissing the etiologic explanation for the name. Obviously, Forsythe skeptical approach to the
interpretation of king’s names and actions, emerges already in his review of Cornell, in which he dismantles
the reliability of existence and names of every single king.
Cornell tries to dismiss the diffused opinion, at that time, that Rome was an “Etruscan city” during the last
three kingdoms, but some objections that were moved to his argument underlined the fact that Roman
sources were not that happy to admit that in the past their culture have been in some way subjugated to the
Etruscan one. Cornell stands for the more latin-portrayed and cosmopolitan Rome of the VI c. BC, that took
from Etruscans only dresses and insignia of magistrates.
According to McDonnell’s review, saying that Rome was Etruscan because of Tarquins is like saying that it
was Sabine because of Numa or Titus Tatius. The technologic innovations, monuments and rituals are the
result of the melting pot between Etruscan, Greek, Latins and Campanian cultures.
His attempt to dismantle also Etruscan influence in Campania should be taken more cautiously, though. While
in Latium we cannot speak about strong evidence of Etruscan inscription, this is not the same for Campania,
whose little town also, would have been likely easily ruled by Etruscans, rather than Rome.
This approach is too revisionist even for Forsythe, that stands a bit more, in his review, for some Etruscan
aspects in Roman culture, as the –al suffix in some word as a remaining of the Etruscan genitive.

Struggle of the orders: 10-12 chapters.

His trustworthy approach is more evident in facing the issue of the struggle of the orders, to which
archaeology can poorly contribute and his discussion of the sources is far from being critical.
Contrary to Forsythe, Cornell accepts as a truth the ban of intermarriage in Twelve tables law and his
abrogation with the lex Canuleia, furthermore believing that patricians as an order had not only ethnic reason
of being, but also had their origin under the monarchy. Forsythe keeps criticizing Cornell conservative
approach in accepting as a truth plebeans secessions and valerian horatian laws of 449.

During war of conquest one of the main developments was the central role taken by the Senate, that became
the most important institution, controlled by elite. In the 2nd c. BC Senate dominated all the aspects of
public life: economy, military, foreign affairs and law. In early republic and archaic period Senate was not
that powerful, but just an advisory council. Cornell proposes that it could have happened that the Senate, at
the beginning including only magistrates in office, started to include ex-magistrates until being senators
became a lifelong position.

Lex Ovinia > earlier than 318 BC, when Senate was elected by the censors, later than 339 BC, when Lex
Publilia stated that one of the censors must have been plebeian. In 332 BC Publilius Philo was censor, then
Lex Ovinia> between 339-332 BC. Roman Republic was not that democratic. The power of enrolling senators
passed from magistrates to censor and also plebeians were involved (maybe the wealthy ones) > Senate
became a permanent independent institution, the most important in Rome.