FORSYTHE, A critical history of early Rome, 2005

Forsythe, like Cornell, tries to involve archaeological findings in reconstructing history, but he does a due
presupposition saying that archaeology cannot solve every historical problem. But he says at page 79,
archaeology should not be considered as a servant of ancient literary tradition and it should have its own
dignity and autonomy. According to Forsythe, a field in which archaeology and literary tradition often
coincide is Roman topography, especially thanks to the antiquarian tradition.
He states that Rome is not special because of the extension in space of its conquests, but of its ability to
maintain it for generations. In making so, Rome has always tried to include conquered peoples in its
political system, not an easy thing, considering that, even only for early roman territory the three people
of Sabine, Etruscans, Latins were involved.
Forsythe agrees with Finley when he says that we underestimate the ability of ancients to invent and
believe, in fact he thinks that Romans did not write their own history until 200 BC: by then there was a
well-established tradition about early king and early republic, constantly reshaped by 30 BC, until Livy and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote their works.
In chapter 1 (pp.13-14), Forsythe seems very skeptical about what kind of contribution archaeology can
really give to history. He states that archaeology can only discover practical/visive aspect of a society, like
a pavement, a funerary practice or the diet, but not the social and political structure or the religious
beliefs. He provides the example that when we find a certain object of a foreign culture in a site, this
could either mean that there were commercial trades or result of people’s migrations: or it could also be
that two different culture with different languages shared the same material culture. Especially for the
prehistory time he states this, because is the period for which we do not have written accounts.
Then, he seems stating the opposite in page 29, when he says that the recovering of a bronze statuette of
a Semitic god from XIV-XIII c. BC in Sicily could mean that Phoenician and Syrian traders were in Sicilian
waters in the Late Bronze Age, being partly responsible for the distribution of the Mycenean pottery in
southern Italy and islands. Then he uses a passage of the Bible (Old Testament) to support this statement,
which says that in X c. BC Phoenician vessels were sent for three-years missions to the west Mediterranean
and they returned full of precious materials and animals. So it seems that material findings are reliable for
him, when supported by written sources (isn’t the bible a religious text? Can we really use it selectively
when we need historical account?).
Etruscans: immigrants or indigenous? Phoenician and Greek impact VS non-Indo-European language.
Herodotus and Hellanicus of Lesbos (both V c. BC) gave us myths for the formation of Etruscan civilization
(the first says that the people was from Lydia and split up because of famine, remaining half in the
mainland and half in Italy) and Hellanicus says that they were some Pelasgians from Thessaly that migrated
across the Adriatic, before the coming of the Greeks.
As for the immigrant theory, we have a Lemnos’ inscription of 600 BC in Greek letters but Etruscan-similar
language morphology and the fact that late VIII c BC Etruscan sites passed from Villanovian characteristics
to eastern Mediterranean ones. At the end Fortsythe seems agreeing with the major idea that Etruria
interacted with eastern civilizations, as Greek society did at the same time (orientalizzante), without
invoking any “Levantine invasion”.
At the end of chapter 2 it is clear how Forthsythe (p.55) though considers, for Osteria dell’Osa Latial culture
site (IX-VIII c. BC near Gabii), the grave goods as a good way to delineate the social status and the acting
role in society of the buried person (example: high mortality of infants > children poor grave goods). He
also considers finding mixing bowls in female graves (VII-VI c. BC Latin community of Politorum, Castel di
Decima, via Ostiaensis) a sufficient reason for their participation in symposia (p.57). This seems a bit
confusing, if we think about how skeptical he was at the beginning with archaeological findings and,
furthermore, he seems not providing any written source support, in this case.
Sources, chapter 3 > As for sources in general, Forsythe seems treating them in a more dynamic way than
Cornell: not in an order author by author, but in a chronological approach to the style they have in various
period.
By the II c. BC historic accounts of Rome were dry report of names and dates composed by senators.
Detailed Greek histories (Polybius) influenced Romans in writing lengthier works. Starting from now, the
accounts were much more expanded, I.e. Gellius used completely invented events such as speeches and
battle descriptions to be more entertaining, but Fortsythe does not support with clear evidence why he
thinks Gellius invents, except reporting that Quadrigarius (paraphrased by Livy) starts his work from 390
BC because everything before the Gauls capture was destroyed and every source until that moment is
invented (because of the exaggerated reports of Gellius).
Also, in last generation of Roman Republic we have this inclination to embellish history with some details
in order to support some point of view: Forsythe states that for example Macer was not reluctant to this,
if it was useful to support his interest in struggle of orders. At the end, Forsythe states that even when we
consider Livy and Dionysius, our most important sources but writing centuries later that facts, we must
know that their sources also included these questionable ones, so we must treat very carefully even them.
For Livy he says that his value is in being both entertaining and loyal to his sources, using them with
“judiciousness and discriminating restraint”, without making original research in official documents. His
dryness must have been a bit influenced by his aim of being patriotic and moralizer, thinking that role of
history is providing good and bad models. For Dionysius he says he is too verbose and sumptuous, but he
justifies the latter saying that the Greek audience to which he was speaking to, needed more information
about Roman history than Livy’s one.
Cicero's citation of Cato’s Origines tells us about a similar aoidos tradition also in Roman culture. Not a
“bardic tradition”, as Niebuhr says, but a form of entertainment with ancient myths and history of Rome
could have been possible. Also, Forsythe says that we should accept that Roman history, as the famous
one of the abandoned twins was a popular legend coming from the east, was a mix of historical episodes,
adaptation of Greek myths and Roman tradition.
Kings: chronology is rejected based on human mortality and stating that their non-historicity is proved by
the fact that their reign are too long, not reliable (Romulus’ reign is too long for having been full of wars),
and too structured in couples (I.e. multiples of 8). Tarquins’ story was based on myths, similar at
Pisistratidi affair in Greece, also it is used to explain the struggles of the passage from the monarchy to
the republic. Forsythe agrees with Cornell in Rome as an Etruscan city under Tarquins and he states that
acceding to priestly college was fundamental in patrician’s career > struggle of the orders.
Archaic period: passage to stone foundations and terracotta roofs, floral and faunal offers to temple, but
also Greek imported pottery, metal and amber artifacts were offered, spindle whorls and perfumes,
religious remains on Capitoline and Quirinal.
Forsythe agrees with Cornell saying that state formation and urban development have not to be parallel
processes. Of course, we need an organized political structure to plan an urban development, but this last
one has to be in some way happening if the State decides to better structure it.
Three signs of Rome opening to the foreign world at the end of the regal period (753-509 BC): Sybilline
Books, as acquisition of sacred Greek literature (and evidence of early Roman relations with Greeks of
Campania, around late VI c. BC); Aventine temple of Diana, built by Servius Tullius, to rival the one of
Diana at Aricia (famous among Latins), modelling the cult statue based on the Massilia ones, which was
based on Efeso’s one, the most important cult of Diana over Mediterranean, and specifically from Greece;
Rome’s first treaty with Carthage, in which Rome had to follow some conditions in conducting trade in
North Africa, Sardinia and Sicily and Carthage has not to harm the Latins subject to Rome, in which, despite
some towns were not technically under its control, Rome was strong enough to claim them under its
sphere of influence.
Religion: calendar’s ancient festivals say that archaic Roman religion was made from peasant farmer,
whose priority was that agriculture was successful.
Twelve tables: Forsythe states that they were basically about private issues and that they restitute the
picture of a traditional agrarian society, but he also says that we cannot trust them, because they could
have been modified through the years. He bases this statement on Cicero’s account that Sextus Aelius
Paetus misunderstood one of the dispositions, the one about the prohibition of plebeians-patricians
marriage that, according to Forsythe, never existed.
Struggle of the orders: high magistracies were held by patricians, according to literary sources, at least
until the Licinian-sextian Law in 367 BC, when also plebeians could aspire to the consulship, despite the
fasti reported plebeians name in V c. BC. Forsythe thinks that the latter are more valuable because they
derived from pontifical records, while literary sources can be later fabrications. He also says that
consulship was reserved to patricians at the end of V c. BC, saying that patricians inherited their condition
of priestly class, that hence was not political. The tribune of the plebs was not the expression of the
struggle, in order to defend the plebs from patricians’ potential domination, but a domestic office to
complement the consuls. But one of the dispositions in the twelve tables law does not consent the mixed
marriage, so the problem existed, especially if we consider that the Lex Canuleia (another result of
misunderstanding, for Forsythe) cancels this disposition. Moreover, the Licinian-sextian laws (367 BC)
meant that the struggle existed, especially if we consider that the consular tribune disappeared after
those, maybe because no more necessary. Finally, for the consular tribunes, he says it was not to control
the struggle, but because Rome was expanding.
Other reviews, in addition to prof. Fronda’s one: Filippo Canali de Rossi rejects most of book, underlines
mostly the inconsistency of Forsythe reasoning and gives him only the label of expert, who writes an
informative study. Canali de Rossi writes only a little summary of every chapter and spends his review in
listing all the parts where the way of thinking of Forsythe is unreliable. Wiseman criticizes some
excessiveness of skepticism, but at the end he admires Forsythe’s work.
I personally do not think that this could be a text for a multiple audience, as the author states at the
beginning. In my opinion undergraduate students needs to study before a more plan and dry account of
roman history with all the main historical interpretations that are generally accepts by the scholars and,
only later, can approach to a critical book like this.