Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome Erich S. Gruen & DUCKWORTHFirst published in Great Britain in 1993 by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. The Old Piano Factory 48 Hoxton Square, London Ni 6PB © 1992 by Cornell University All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0 7156 2442 3 Printed in the USAWaAaWOED CONTENTS Illustrations Preface Abbreviations Introduction . The Making of the Trojan Legend . Cato and Hellenism . Art and Civic Life . Art and Ideology . The Theater and Aristocratic Culture . The Appeal of Hellas . Lucilius and the Contemporary Scene Bibliography Index Viti 131 183 223 272 319 339ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1. Frieze, column of Aemilius Paullus Plate 2 Plate 3. Plate 4. Plate S$. Plate 6. Plate 7. Thiasos frieze, altar of “Ahenobarbus” Census frieze, altar of “Ahenobarbus” Terra-cotta death mask Barberini “Imagines” statue Funerary busts Egyptian portrait busts Plate 8. Agora Priest Plate gy. Gold stater of T. Quinctius Flamininus Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate 10. tL 12, 43 14 Vs Denarius of Marcellus Denarius of Restio Hellenistic portrait heads Bust of Cato from Volubilis Bust of “Marius” Portraits from Roman funerary reliefs {viii 171 172 172 173 174 17S 175 176 177 177 177 178 179 180 181PREFACE Writing a preface always brings a sense of relief. The principal labors have been discharged, and it remains only to express gratitude to those who have assisted and encouraged the project. The latter duty, while pleasant and welcome, also carries the burden of inadequacy. A large number of persons have helped to advance or improve this work, often inadvertently and unknowingly; only a portion of them can be regis- tered here. Stimulus for the book came first from the Classics Department at Cornell University. They paid me the signal honor of an invitation to deliver the Townsend Lectures in the spring semester of 1991, a chal- lenging and exciting opportunity. Happily, they also provided a grace period of a few years. Presentation of ideas and circulation of drafts during the interval brought useful reactions and allowed for intermit- tent progress. The bracing atmosphere of graduate seminars in Berke- ley and Princeton subjected several of the preliminary notions to severe scrutiny. And then the Guggenheim Foundation, through the generous award of a second fellowship, made it possible for me to have a year of uninterrupted research and writing in 1989/1990. Much of the book took shape in the hospitable confines of the American Academy in Rome and the Institute of Classical Studies in London. That invaluable interlude allowed me to arrive in Ithaca with a manuscript in hand. Responses to the lectures from colleagues at Cornell provoked further rethinking and revisions. The final product owes much to many. Several friends and colleagues commented on draft chapters, fix]PREFACE prompting needed improvements. I note with gratitude the generous advice of Timothy Cornell, Arthur Eckstein, Elaine Fantham, Sander Goldberg, Nicholas Horsfall, Jerzy Linderski, Miranda Marvin, Niall Rudd, Andrew Stewart, Peter Wiseman, and Paul Zanker. A special dcbt is owed to the expertise and searching criticisms of Ann Kuttner. Exchanges with graduate students in seminars sharpened a number of the ideas. | thank, in particular, Anthony Corbeill, Alison Futrcll, Christopher Hallett, and Kenneth Lapatin. The Cornell community bestowed warmth and hospitality well beyond the call of duty. It would be quite impossible to name all those who contributed to the pleasures of that semester in Ithaca. Some of them also left their mark on the manuscript (though they might not recognize or acknowledge it): Fred- erick Ahl, Jacqueline Collins-Clinton, Judith Ginsburg, David Mankin, Pictro Pucci, Jeffrey Rusten, Danuta Shanzer, Barry Strauss, Abby Westerveld, and Jane Whitehead. Three persons in particular came to my aid in the last stages. Anthony Bulloch provided advice at a crucial time on matters of the computer. Preparation of the final manuscript owes much to the energy and intelligence of Alison Futrell. Peter Wyetzner’s proofreading caught numerous errors. And much of the index stands to his credit. E.S.G. Ix]AHB AION AJA AJP AnnPisa Ann UnivCagliari ANRW AntCl AR Arch Delt Arch. v. Religionswiss. ArchAnz ArchStorMessinese AthMitt AutiAccad d'Italia AttiAccad Torino BAGB BCH B BullComm cA cy ContristStorAnt ABBREVIATIONS Ancient History Bulletin Annali dell’ Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa. Annali, Lettere, Storia e Fil- osofia Universita di Cagliari, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, Annali Aufstieg und Niedergang der rémischen Welt L’Antiquité Classique Archaeological Reports “Apxauohoyixov Aedrior Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft Archdologische Anzeiger Archivio Storico Messinese Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiologischen Instituts (Athens) Atti dell’ Accademia d’talia Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in Roma Classical Antiquity Classical Journal Contributi dell'Istituto di storia antica dell’Universita del Sacro Cuore [xi]ce CQ CR CRAL CSCA DialArch EMC FondHardt HSCP IORGZ Mt JUS JOAL JPhilol IRS MEFRA Mem AccadPatav MIL NIbb NotSe PBSR POPS: Philol PP Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. (QuadStor (guad Urb RE REA REL RendAccadL ine RendIstLomb RendPontAce RendPontAccadArch RevBelge RAM RivCultClassMed RivFilol ABBREVIATIONS Classical Philology ical Quarterly Classical Review Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles: California Studies in Classical Antiquity Dialoghi di Archeologia Echos du Monde Classique Entretiens Fondation Hardt Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Jahrbuch des Rimisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Journal of Hellenic Studies Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts Journal of Philology Journal of Roman Studies Liverpool Classical Monthly Les Etudes Classiques Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts (Rom) Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de |’ Ecole Frangaise de Rome Memorie dell’ Accademia Patavia Museum Helveticum. Revue suisse pour I’Etude de l’Antiquité classique Newe Jahrbiicher fiir Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita Papers of the British School at Rome Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Philologus La Parola del Passato Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Quademi di Storia Quailerni Urbinati di cultura classica Paulys Realencyclopédie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Revue des Eudes Anciennes Revue des Etudes Latines Rendicomti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’ Accademia dei Lincei Rendiconti dell’ Istituto Lombardo Rendicomti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia Revue Belge de Philologie et d’ Histoire Rheinisches Museum Rivista di Cultura classica e medioevale Rivista di Vilologia ¢ di Istrazione Classica [xii]RivlstArch RivStorAnt RSI SCI SitzHeid Stud Ital FilolClass TAPA Wiss. Zeitschr. der Humboldt-Univ- ersitat zu Berlin WS YCS ZPE ABBREVIATIONS Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte Rivista Storica dell’Antichita Rivista Storica Italiana Scripta Classica Israelica Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica Transactions of the American Philological Association Wissenschafiliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt-Universitiét zu Ber- lin, Gesellschafis und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe Wiener Studien Yale Classical Studies Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphike [xiii]INTRODUCTION The topic embarked upon here is fascinating but formidable. Few experiences in antiquity had more resonant or enduring effects than the encounter of Rome with the legacy of the Greek East. One can trace influence and impact from nearly the beginnings of Roman history. But the pivotal time came when circumstances called forth a form of collec~ tive introspection, when the Roman elite felt compelled to articulate national values and to shape a distinctive character for their own corpo- rate persona. The process cannot, of course, be confined to precise chronological limits. It occupied much of the third and second centuries B.C., the period to which this book largely devotes itself, but it could, in certain aspects, be readily extended in either direction. The expansion of Roman authority into the sphere of Hellas prompted a profound reap- praisal of national responsibilities—a reappraisal that transcended the bounds of politics, power, and imperial dominion. The Romans strove to establish their place in the cultural world of the Mediterranean. The lure of Hellenism stirred the consciousness of Rome’s leaders in this era, driving them to a new plane of self-awareness. The reaction was complex, enigmatic, and dissonant. Roman nobiles projected them- selves as custodians of the nation’s principles, champions of its charac- teristic virtues, and guardians of the mos maiorum. Yet these very same nobiles were the persons most drawn to Greek literary achievements, religion, and visual arts. Hellenic culture challenged and intimidated them—even when it proved irresistible. This book partly builds upon and extends themes traced in a previous fi)CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME work, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden, 1990). The latter explored some particular episodes that illustrate the transforma- tion of Hellenic cultural traditions on the Roman public scene: for instance, installation of the cult of Magna Mater from Asia Minor ata critical time in the Hannibalic War, persecution of the Bacchic worship to promote the collective ascendancy of the Roman ruling class, pov- ernment encouragement of early Latin poetry as celebratory of national values, the plays of Plautus as a vehicle for conveying Roman attitudes toward Hellenism, and the simultaneous repression of Greek professors and cultivation of their subjects in the training of the young. A central theme runs through those topics: the intersection of cultural activity and state interest. The present work endeavors to broaden and deepen the investigation. It pursues its subject beyond manipulation of the Hellenic legacy for the public and political purposes of Rome. The goal is to comprehend Rome's groping toward cultural maturity and self-definition. Each chapter has its own rationale and constitutes an independent entity. All, however, address in some fashion the lengthy and often tortuous pro- cess through which Romans gradually came to terms with a culture that both fascinated and deeply troubled them—one that they affected to scorn but in fact assimilated and absorbed. The relationship between Hellenism and Roman cultural evolution is complex and entangled. Scholarship conventionally concentrates on a familiar issue: the extent to which Roman intellectual achievements depended on Greek models and inspiration rather than on the well- springs of native soil. The pages that follow train their focus elsewhere, on the confrontation itself, its meaning and implications. The phenom- enon has received a variety of characterizations: a love-hate relationship, the working out of an inferiority complex, a creative tension. But labels mislead and oversimplify. Collective psychologizing is suspect, and the idea of a tense and anxious association that endured for well over a century strains the imagination. A different approach would be salutary. ‘This book strives to probe past paradox toward some resolution. Its principal aim is to understand the relationship not simply as tense and discordant but as an evolving process through which the Romans shaped their own values and gained a sense of their distinctiveness. ‘The endeavor begins with a matter of fundamental importance to the Roman image: the development of the legend of Trojan origins. The legend emanated in a bewildering variety of versions, invented by Greek intellectuals, modified by Sicilian historians, and eventuallyINTRODUCTION adapted by the Romans themselves. The chapter on this topic explores the vicissitudes the tale underwent at the hands of Hellenic and Roman writers before it took the familiar form canonized by Vergil’s Aeneid. Inquiry proceeds into when, how, and to what purpose the Romans embraced the story and into the part it played in their own emerging selfconsciousness. Acceptance of a Trojan rather than a Greek deriva- tion reveals a sense of special place in the complex of inherited tradi- tions. And manipulation of the legend in international diplomacy al- lows insight into the image Rome projected in the Mediterranean world. Cato the Censor holds the next place in the discussion. Traditionally cast as a cranky conservative, he presents, in the general conception, the archetypal paradox. He was a fierce critic of Greek culture and de- nouncer of Greeks and at the same time widely read in Greck literature and profoundly influenced by Hellenic intellectual traditions. Inter- preters have cither subordinated one side of Cato to the other or aban- doned the matter as irreconcilable contradiction. Yet Cato represents a central figure for understanding Roman attitudes toward Hellenism. To reckon him as a schizophrenic or as tortured by a divided soul has little plausibility and affords little advance. This chapter undertakes to sur~ mount the impasse. Cato’s critiques of Greek oratory, philosophy, and institutions were neither random nor irrational. They constituted a deliberate design that drew out the distinctive character and superior strain in the Latin achievement. Cato is here reinterpreted asa subtle and sophisticated thinker who played a pivotal role in elevating the self- esteem of his countrymen. The reception of Greek art forms the topic of the third chapter. A common misconception brands Romans as boorish louts who indis- criminately snatched Greek masterpieces as spoils to display the might of the conqueror. Ancients lamented the moral decline that came with showy opulence, and moderns rebuke the conqueror for neglect of the aesthetic value and religious character of captured art treasures. The facts are quite different. Roman interest in and appreciation of art had a much more refined edge. The Romans rededicated cult images, ac- knowledged the separate spheres of public and private art and of sacred and secular representations, promoted sculptors and painters, and en- couraged creative work to celebrate achievement or distinction. Artistic treasures from the Hellenic world served to enhance the civic and us institutions of Roman society and to advertise them as cultural beacons to the Mediterranean. (3]CULTURE AND IDENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME Admiration for Greek art and cultivation of Greek artists transformed the appearance of Roman public life. But this development renders more acute the question of where, if anywhere, lay a distinctive Roman contribution in the realm of art. The fourth chapter addresses that question—or, more particularly, the Romans’ perception of their dis- tinctive contribution. It concentrates on selective monuments and styles commonly reckoned as conveying a special Roman character, namcly, historical reliefs and veristic portraiture. The genres, however, need to be seen in close conjunction with Hellenistic conventions. Insofar as the Romans succeeded in transmitting special qualities it was by directing Greek artists and adapting Greek forms to convey a Roman character within a Hellenistic context. From visual arts the book moves to dramatic arts. This topic, too, requires selectivity, with no pretense at exhaustive coverage. The chap- ter treats neither the literary features of the drama nor the architectural features of the theater. Its subject lies at the intersection of political, social, and cultural history, centering upon the era of transition from Plautine to Terentian comedy. Drama gained considerable popularity in this period, becoming a public activity of highly conspicuous form combining entertainment with religious celebration and civic function. A number of controversial and interconnected matters come under scrutiny here: the role of the theater in the promotion of political careers, the relationship of playwright to backers and supporters, the implications of segregated seating arrangements, the tenacious resis- tance to the building of a stone theater, and the level of taste and understanding that could be expected of a Roman theatergoing au- dience. Treatment of these ostensibly disparate issucs in combination yields the outline of a more general pattern: employment of the drama as part of an aristocratic cultural strategy. The sixth chapter takes on the broader topic of philhellenism in the circles of the Roman nobility. Attitudes of the leadership seem, on the face of it, riddled with ambiguities and inconsistencies, simultaneously welcoming and resisting the legacy of Hellas. Romans learned Greek, adopted Greek cults, and associated their past with Hellenic traditions, while also frowning on Greek character, expelling Greek intellectuals, and mocking Hellenic pretensions. The phenomenon is not to be ex- plained by postulating party differences or feelings of collective in- feriority. Closer study reveals a fundamental consistency and conti- nuity. Roman command of the Greek language and familiarity with Greek conventions and institutions combined with a drive to distin- lalINTRODUCTION yuish Roman from Greek qualities, thereby permitting the westerner both to expropriate and to subordinate the Hellenic heritage. By the later second century the Roman clite had established its place and asserted its superiority in the sphere of high culture. But a narrow line separated pride from pretentiousness. In the age of the Gracchi and Marius, tensions and upheavals cast a harsher light upon the nobility. Cultivation seemed more like affectation. The circumstances helped to promote an art form that was distinctively Roman: satire. The fiercely independent poct Lucilius, pioneer in the genre, furnishes an appropri- ate coda to this book. His satires not only illuminate contemporary Roman politics and society; they mock moralism and puncture pom- posity. Lucilius incisively penetrated the cultural crusade of the nobilitas, ridiculing its excesses and exposing its foibles. A new age had dawned with the coming of the late Republic. The posture of the privileged seemed increasingly anomalous and antique—a suitable stimulus for satire. Isl[1] THE MAKING OF THE TROJAN LEGEND The canonical tradition on Rome’s origins had taken firm root by the age of Augustus. As the orthodox tale had it, the city derived from a settlement of Trojan refugees, adversaries of the Greeks, remnants of a people defeated by the Achaean expedition that sacked Troy. Survivors of that calamity, under the leadership of the intrepid hero Aeneas, made their way west, suffered hardships and detours, and eventually reached the shores of Italy. There they faced still further struggles with the indigenous inhabitants before establishing themselves on a permanent basis. The progeny of Aencas ultimately effected the founding of Rome—via Lavinium and Alba Longa, and after many generations. That story, at least in essentials, held sway in the Augustan cra, en- shrined in Vergil’s epic and endorsed in Livy’s history. Yet the tale did not commend itself to everyone—even in the saecula aurea of Caesar Augustus. Some Greek intellectuals demurred. Eager as they were to assure themselves a place in the larger world of the Roman Empire, they felt discomfort with the idea that Rome owed her begin- nings to a people perccived as the preeminent foe of Hellas. The geogra- pher Strabo dissented, citing the authority of Homer to the effect that Acneas never left the Troad. And he noted other versions, such as the local tale at Skepsis that had Aeneas found a dynasty there or the legends that brought him either to Macedonian Olympus or to Arcadia.! Each 1 Strabo, 14.1.53 (607-608). lo]Tur MAKING OF THE TROJAN LEGEND of them posed an implicit challenge to the doctrine that made Italy the destination of the ‘Trojans. But the doctrine dominated. The rhetorician and historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus conceded its validity but reinterpreted its meaning. He took as his mission the demonstration of Rome’s Hellenic origins. Indeed, for Dionysius, Rome is a Greek city many times over. Succes- sive bands of Hellenic transplants peopled the peninsula. Aborigines, coming from Arcadia, drove out the Sicels. Then the Pelasgians arrived from Argos via Thessaly.? There followed a band of Arcadian colo- nizers under Evander, sixty years before the Trojan War, who occupied a hill near the Tiber and named it Pallantium, after their own Arcadian home town, thus to account for the later appellation of Palatine. That saga, however, told only part of the tale. The legends of Heracles served Dionysius’ purposes as well. The great Greek hero made a detour to Italy on his way home from Spain, fought some successful battles, married the daughter of Evander, and left both offspring and a garrison to help mold the future of the peninsula.4 Dionysius could now turn to Aeneas. The Trojan leader’s role in Rome’s beginnings was too well entrenched to be discarded or ignored. So Dionysius did the next best thing: he made Aeneas a Greek. The Trojans, in his reconstruction, stemmed from the Peloponnesus, from Dardanus, son of Zeus and member of the ruling house of Arcadia. Dardanus led out an expedition after his native land had been devastated by flood and eventually settled in the Troad.5 That tradition stands in sharp contrast to the account retailed by Vergil, who claimed that Dardanus, ancestor of the Trojans, came from Etruria. The race of. Aeneas held Italy as its patria. By leading his compatriots to those shores, Aeneas returned to the land of his forefathers.© Dionysius rejects 2. Dion. Hal, 1.60.3, 1.89.1-2. On the traditions that brought the Pelasgians to Italy, see now the exhaustive study of D. Briquel, Les Pélasges en Italie (Paris, 1984), passim: 3. Dion, Hal. 1.31, 1.60.3, 1.89.2. 4. Dion, Hal. 1.41-44. 5. Dion, Hal. 1.60-61. This version of Dardanus’ origin not only circulated among Greek writers but had the authority of Varro; Servius, Ad Aen. 3.167, 7.207. 6. Vergil, Aen. 1.378-380: sum pius Aeneas. . . / Italiam quaeso patriant; 3.94-96, 3.167-168, 7.206-207, 7.240. That Vergil fabricated the idea of Dardanus’ Italian heri- lage was argued by V. Buchheit, Vergil iaber die Sendung Roms (Heidelberg, 1963). 151~ 166; persuasively questioned by N. Horsfall, JRS, 63 (1973), 74-79, now in J. N. Bremmer and N. M. Horsfall, eds., Roman Myih and Mythography (London, 1987), 99— tog. Note the Etruscan inscription from North Africa in which settlers from Etruria, probably in the carly first century #,¢., associate themselves with Dardanii; J. Heurgon, Siripta varia (Brussels, 196), 433-447. IhCULTURE AND IDENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME the idea altogether, In his text, when Acneas reaches Italy and confronts Latinus, with both armies drawn up to contest for supremacy in Italy, the Trojan declares unequivocally: “We are Trojans by race, inhabitants of one of the the most celebrated cities of the Greeks.”7 Latinus’ gracious response duly laid the basis for reconciliation between the forces of the two peoples: “I have a soft spot for the whole Hellenic race."* As Dionysius characterized the Trojans, “One would find no people more ancient or more Greek.” So Aeneas is a Greck. Dionysius, as is clear, engaged in Hellenic overkill, swamping Rome with repeated waves of eastern immigrants to confirm its role as torch- bearer for Greek civilization. He even goes so far as having Romulus defend the rape of the Sabine women by assuring the victims that this was an ancient Hellenic practice. But then Dionysius was fighting a rearguard action in the age of Augustus—a time when Rome's non- Greek, Trojan origins ranked as orthodoxy." It had not always been so. Nor was Dionysius by any means the first to insist upon the Hellenic sources of Roman history. Reports of Greck expatriates making their way to Italian shores recur with frequency in Greek literature and historiography, combined in complex and diverse ways with legends on the founding of Rome. The fact deserves cm- phasis: a strong and tenacious Greek component exists in the fabric of tales surrounding Rome’s origins. That component may, in fact, be carlicr than the Aeneas story. And it retained vitality well beyond the emergence and development of that story. How did this happen and what does it mean? An appropriate starting point can be detected: the age of overseas 7. Dion. Hal. 1.58.2: Hmeis yévos ev Tpdés Soper, Toews 6¢ ob THs davert- cerns év "Exanow syevouede. 8. Dion, Hal. 1.58.5: @AN’ Eywye edvoudy Te mpas dav 76 'EdAquexey yévos Byw. 9. Dion. Hal. 1.89.2: rovren yap dv o¥8év evipot tev é6vav bre &pausrepor obre “EAAnvuxaorepov. 10. Dion. Hal. 2.30.5: "EAAvuKéy re Kai dpyaiov drobaivar 76 8608. 11, It does not follow that Dionysius was consciously reacting against anti-Greck prejudice among the Romans, as is inferred by H. Hill, JRS, 51 (1961), 88-93; similarly, P. Toohey, Arethusa, 17 (1984), 9-12. E. Gabba, RSI, 71 (1959), 365-368, believes Dionysius sought to combat a Greek historiographical tradition hostile to Rome and to provide a justification for the Roman empire. P. M. Martin, MEFRA, 101 (1989), 113— 142, has a similar view. The matter is examined now in extenso by Gabba, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley, Calif., 1991), passim; especially, t-22, 93-118, Tat 200, [8]THE MAKING OF THE TROJAN LEGEND colonization. That cra naturally sparked an interest in the West. Greeks, i characteristic fashion, inclined to interpret the western past in light of their own national traditions. Ancient tales of voyagers and migrants took on renewed vigor as anticipation of or justification for colonizing activity. The circumstances would naturally call attention to such leg- ends as the western adventures of Heracles or the settler-heroes of the Nostoi—most particularly the wanderings of Odysseus. The West was the special sphere of Odysscus. The Homeric Odyssey contains several references to Sicily and southern Italy.!2 The hero reappears regularly in stories of western settlement and in connection with Greek coloniza- tion.'3 Those traditions eventually connected with legends on the ori- gins of Rome. An important and intriguing item occurs very early in the record. The concluding lines of Hesiod’s Theogony register the union of Odys- seus and Circe, which produced as offspring Agrius and Latinus, future rulers over the Tyrrhenians.'4 The passage has noteworthy implica- tions. Debate continues on the precise specification of the term “Tyrrhe- nians,” the significance of “Agrius,” and the date of the passage. The ‘Theogony as such probably dates to the late eighth century, but the concluding appendix most likely represents a later insertion. Etruscans, it has been argued, would hardly have entered Greek consciousness before the sixth century: hence an allusion to that people and to an association with Latium belongs no earlier.'5 But that theory presup- poses a strict designation that would be uncharacteristic of early Greek writers on Italy. The Greeks, in fact, used the term “Tyrrhenoi” loosely and broadly, sometimes as equivalent to Pelasgians, sometimes to en- compass Latins, Umbrians, and Ausonians.'© Encounters with Italian peoples, including those of Etruria and Latium, through commercial contact and Greek settlements, extend back to the eighth century and 12, Homer, Odyssey, 1.182, 20.383, 24.211, 307, 366, 380. 13. See J. Bérard, La colonisation grecque de l'Italie méridionale et de la Sicile? (Paris, 1957), 403-322; E. D. Phillips, JHS, 73 (1953), 53-55, 64-66; cf. L. Pearson, YCS, 24 (1975), Uy8=1¥0, 14. [Hesiod], Theog. 1011-1016: Kipxn 8 ‘Heddov évydernp ‘Yrreptovibao / ysivar’ ‘Vdveam}os Tadacidpovos Ev purdrnte / “Aypov 38 Aarivoy &pipove te Kparepsv te, | 08 84 Tot pada THAE MUXd Gov lepdwy | Tow Typrnvoiow dyaxdeLToicw tiveucrcrov: 15. E. Wikén, Die Kunde der Hellenen von dem Lande und den Volker der Apenninenhal- Insel his 300 v. Chr. (Lund, 1937), 76-77 ; M. Durante, PP, 6 (1951), 216; M. L. West, Hesiod: Theogony (Oxford, 1966), 435-436. 16, Dion. Hal. 1.29. 1-2. lolCULTURE AND IDENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME may find reflection here.!? The name Agrius remains problematic, possibly an equivalent of Faunus or of Silvius, both figures in the mythical genealogy of ancient Latium. '* “Latinus,” in any case, points to a location with adequate specificity. Whether the Hesiodic lines belong in the seventh or sixth century, they disclose Hellenic interest in central Italy, possibly Etruria and certainly Latium, and the introduc tion of those lands into the Greek legendary complex. And most signifi- cant, Odysseus takes the role of ultimate ancestor to the rulers of those regions. The passage appropriately exemplifies the Greek penchant for reshaping foreign experiences by imposing Hellenic lore. A long time would pass before Rome itself attracted the attention of Greck intellectuals; just how long no one can specify. Rome captured Veti at the beginning of the fourth century, thus achieving superior powcr in Latium and Etruria. As Rome entered into relations with the Greek cities of Campania in the mid—fourth century, Hellenic writers took notice of the town previously just on the margins of their con- sciousness. And when they did, they claimed the site, as so often, for Hellas. Heracleides Ponticus, philosopher, scientist, and pupil of Plato, writing in the mid—fourth century, referred to Rome simply as a “Greek city.”!? The matter seemed straightforward and uncomplicated. Greeks assumed that all cities of stature could be traced to Hellenic roots. Once the assumption is made, invention follows—and an effort to incorpo- rate the origins within the matrix of Greek legend. The school of Aristotle had a hand in shaping the tales—or rather some of the tales. Aristotle himself endorsed a version that had Achaean, not Trojan, warriors driven by storm to Italy while trying to return home after the fall of Troy. They got no farther. In an act of defiance the Trojan women brought as captives burned the ships. The stranded Achaeans had to remain in Italy and took up permanent residence at a site Aristotle called Latinium.”° Aristotle's pupil Heracleides Lembos sharpened the identification. He noted that Achaeans returning from ‘Troy were shipwrecked in Italy and made their way to the point on 17. Cf. Phillips, JHS, 73 (1953), 35-56; G. Dury-Moyaers, Enée et Lavinium (Brus- sels, 1981), 39-41; T. P. Wiseman, JRS, 79 (1989), 131-132. See, in general, the collec tion of papers, with archaeological testimony, in PP, 32 (1977), passim, and PP, 36 (1981), 18. Sco . Altheim, A History of Roman Religion (London, 1938), 214-216; Durante, PP, 6 (1951), 216-217; A. Alfldi, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1965), 24% 239, Dury-Moyaers, Enée et Lavinium, 43-44. ty, Plat, Cam, 22.2: wok EXAqviba ‘Pony. go Dron. Hak 172.34 [rolTHE MAKING OF THE TROJAN LEGEND the ‘Tiber where now sits Rome, and there they settled when Trojan captives, instigated by a certain Rhome or Rhomes, set their vessels ablaze.21 So Greck intellectuals stretched the legends attaching to the fall of Troy to extend to the origins of Rome. But this rendition, as is clear, pave Achaeans, not Trojans, credit for settling the site at its beginning.?? The notion of Rome as Greek in character and lineage earned wide- spread credence. Plutarch, in his life of Romulus, conveys a bewildering variety of accounts of how Rome derived its name. One postulated a certain Rhome, daughter of Telephus, the son of Heracles. Another pointed to Rhomanos, son of Odysseus and Circe. Still another sug- gested Rhomos, sent from Troy by Diomedes. And yet one other named Rhome, granddaughter of Telemachus, and thus descendant of Odysseus.?> These reconstructions by no means exhaust the extant versions, or even those transmitted by Plutarch, but they indicate both the diversity and the tenacity of tales that presume a Greek derivation. The same holds for the variant retailed by Xenagoras, perhaps in the carly third century. He recorded three sons of Odysseus and Circe: Rhomos, Anteias, and Ardeias, the founders, respectively, of the Latin towns, Rome, Antium, and Ardea.?+ Xenagoras’ conjecture, however mechanical, suggests a quickened interest among Greeks in the cities of Latium. The fabricated genealogies, despite divergences and inconsis- tencies, underscore the persistence with which Greek writers ascribed Hellenic descent to Rome. That conviction can be illustrated by a quite different story. Alexander the Great and, after him, Demetrius Polior- cetes, it is reported, remonstrated with the Romans for failure to check Etruscan piracy, which harassed Greek p ions. Demetrius ap- pealed to the Romans for collaboration on the grounds of common kinship with the Greeks.?5 21. Festus, 329, L. The tale of incendiarism itself had several variants; cf. Dion. Hal 1.92.4; Plut, Rom. 1.2; Virt. Mul. 1; Strabo, 6.1.14 (C264); Vergil, Aen. 5.613. But Heracleides’ text is the first extant one to attach Rhome as chief arsonist to the foundation ol the city; see E. J. Bickermann, CP, 47 (1952), 78, n. 14; T. J. Cornell, PCPS, 201 (1975), 18; N. Horsfall, CQ, 29 (1979), 381-382; F. Solmsen, HSCP, 90 (1986), 102-107. 22. Still another pupil of Aristotle, the learned Theophrastus, was reportedly the first non-Roman to write with some care about Roman affairs; Pliny, NH, 3.57. What he said and how much remain unknown. We cannot be sure even that he dealt with the origins of the city. 23. Plat, Rom. 2.1, 2.3 . Dion, Hal. 1.72.5. Xenagoras’ date is quite uncertain. See F. Gisinger, RE, 9A.2 (1967), 1410-1411, n, 1; Cornell, PCPS, 201 (1975), 20-21, with good bibliography. 15. Strabo, 5.3.5 (C232): 8e& rp mpés Tods "EAAnvas ovyyéverav. Cf. L. Braccesi, Messandro ¢ i Romani (Bologna, 1975), 47-72. fedCULTURE AND [DENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME None of this, to be sure, shows any deep or abiding curiosity about Rome by Greek intellectuals. The first Greek writer even to provide a sketch of early Roman history, we are told, was Hieronymus of Cardia in the first half of the third century.?° What it does show is a familiar form of Hellenic intellectual imperialism, a spinning out of tales in accord with Greek legends, and ascription of foreign cities to Greek founders.?7 Aeneas’ part in the legend was, of course, as much a Greek creation as Odysseus’, but it may have come later—and been slow to gain asi dancy. A formidable obstacle stood in the way: the authority of Homer. In book 20 of the Iliad, Poseidon predicts that “the might of Aencas and the sons of his sons shall rule over Trojans.”28 Much the same statement recurs in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. The goddess here forecasts for Anchises the glorious future of his progeny: his son and descendants will reign among Trojans.”” That forecast would seem to preclude western migration on the part of Aeneas, or at least to discourage speculation along those lines. The Homeric verses, it may be inferred, represent prevailing opinion on the subject in archaic Greece.* Indeed, they remained a formidable stumbling block for long thereaf- ter. When the link between Aeneas and the origins of Rome had been forged, the Homeric lines became an embarrassment. Greek writers expended considerable energy to reinterpret or to explain them away. Some tried to reconcile the traditions by postulating two men named Acneas, one of whom went to Italy, while the other remained in the Troad. A different version had Aencas bring the Trojans to Italy and then return to the Troad to reign there and turn the kingdom over to his son.*! A third effort sought to evade the implications of the Homeric nes through emendation of the text. By altering Homer's Tpéecow to mévtecow, the emendcr would have Aencas and his progeny exercise universal rule, a retrospective anticipation of the Roman Empire.>? The 26, Dion, Hal. 1.6.1. 27. Cf. Bickermann, CP, 47 (1952), 65-81. 28. Homer, Iliad, 20.307-308: viv 8é By) Aiveiao Bin Tpdeoow dvager/ kai raidwv ibes, Toi Kev weTémurbe yéevovrat. 29. Hom. Hymn Aphr. 5.196-197: ot 8° derrae pidos vids bs év Tpdecow advdger / Kai maides waiberot Supmepés éxyeydovran, yo, Nothing in the epic cycle suggests western movement by Aeneas or his offspring; of, Horstall, CQ, 29 (1979), 373-375; Dury-Moyaers, Enée et Lavinium, 37-38; P. M South, HSCP, 85 (1981), 25-28. s. Dion Hal 1.53.4. te. Strabo, 14.1.5 (Cook); ef. Vergil, Aen. 3.97-08.Tue MAKING OF THE TROJAN LEGEND resort to emendation itself implies that the natural reading of the pas- sage interfered with the development of the Trojan legend to explain the origins of Rome. The incongruity continued to trouble writers as late as the end of the Republic and the era of Augustus. Strabo, in fact, appealed to Homer as powerful testimony against those who would have Aeneas reach the land of Italy and perish there.3> Dionysius of Halicarnassus acknowledged the force of those lines and felt obliged to offer an exegesis: “rule over Trojans” could mean “rule over Trojans in Italy”—hardly what Homer had in mind. Dionysius thus held to the text but also saved the legend.*4 It is plain enough from the refutations and rationalizations that the most obvious reading of the text still caused discomfort several centuries after Homer. At the time of the composi- tion of the Iliad and the Homeric hymns, the tale of Aeneas’ adventures in Italy had evidently not yet obtained a foothold. And given the authority of Homer, its acceptance would be some time in coming. A possible fragment of the sixth-century Sicilian poet Stesichorus suggests that the story might be in formation in his day. The evidence comes from the Tabula Iliaca Capitolina, a carved relief of the Augustan period, combining scenes from the Iliad and later poems of the epic cycle.35 The central panel includes a representation of Aeneas carrying Anchises who holds the household gods, leading Ascanius, and being uuided by Hermes. The hero is evidently departing from Troy. An inscription, which describes the scene, cites the Iliupersis of Stesichorus and reports that Aeneas is heading eis rv “Eomepiav.*° Does this constitute evidence that the Trojan legend of Rome’s foundation was already circulating in the sixth century? The authority of this text has more than once been called into ques- tion. Discrepancies exist between the scenes depicted on the relief and 33. Strabo, 13.1.53 (C608). Strabo's inference that the Homeric text definitively leaves Aeneas in Troy, however, is inaccurate. A. Momigliano, Settimo contributo alla woria degli studi dassici e del mondo antico (Rome, 1984), 443, misleadingly suggests that the message of the Homeric poems unambiguously excludes emigration by Aeneas or his descendants. 44. Dion. Hal. 1.53.4-5. That interpretation, of course, may not have been original with Dionysius, 45. See A. Sadurska, Les Tables Iliaques (Warsaw, 1964), 24-37. The purpose of those 1epresentations has been much debated: as classroom aids for schoolchildren, as votive offerings, or as labeled objets d’art for the newly rich. N. Horsfall, JHS, 99 (1979), 31— 1s, makes a strong case for the last alternative; see also W. McLeod, TAPA, 115 (1985), 153-165. 16. Stesichorus, FGH, 840 Fob: ‘IAiov [épors karé Erncixopov . . . Aiveias obv ies CStous drraipww els THY ‘Eoepiav. [ralCULTURE AND IDENTITY IN REPUBLICAN ROME the extant fragments of Stesichorus. The term éo7repia does not other- wise appear in Greek literature before Apollonius Rhodius. And Diony- sius of Halicarnassus, who knew Stesichorus’ work well, cited forty-six authors on Aeneas’ travels—but never Stesichorus. Hence, it has been maintained, the inscription as well as the pictorial representations retlect knowlege of the Aeneid, and cannot convey genuine Stesichorus.'/ ‘The skepticism is salutary but excessive. The relief certainly mirrors the understanding and expectations of the Augustan era, and the wording need not accurately reproduce Stesichorus’ lines, but a citation of that poet could hardly have come out of the blue. Some basis for it should exist. The Iliupersis of Stesichorus, however garbled and contaminated, gave reason for its use as a caption for the carved relief.38 But even if the fragment be taken as given, it does not bring Aeneas to Italy, let alone to Rome. That limitation may help to explain why his version is ignored by Dionysius. The most that can be inferred is that the tradition known to Stesichorus had Aeneas migrate westward. That itself, however, is significant. Stesichorus came from Himera in Sicily. For western Greeks, the stories of heroic wanderers after the ‘Trojan War held special appeal. It would not be unreasonable to suppose that Sicilian writers cultivated the tale of Trojans voyaging west. By the late fifth century Sicilian traditions have Trojans reaching their island. The fact is attested by the best of authorities. Thucydides reports the tradition that after the fall of Ilium, Trojan fugitives crossed the seas to Sicily, where they settled, took the name of Elymaeans, and founded the cities of Eryx and Segesta.*? Aeneas receives no mention in this text. 37. J. Perret, Les origines de la légende troyenne de Rome TI0-115, 306~309; Horsfall, JHS, 99 (1979), 35—43; iden Castagnoli, Studi Romani, 30 (1982), 7-8. 38. See, inter alios, P. Boyancé, Etudes sur la religion romaine (Rome, 1972), 1160; G. K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton, N.J., 1969), 106~113; Dury-Moyaers, eet Lavinium, 48-53. 39. Thuc. 6.2.3; cf. Paus. 5.25.6. Thucydides’ source is generally taken to be Anti- ochus of Syracuse; K. J. Dover, in A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1970), IV, 199-202; questioned by Solm- sen, HSCP, 90 (1986), 97; K. J. Rigsby, CQ, 37 (1987), 334. But there is no good reason to doubt that his data ultimately derived from Sicilian traditions. In addition to Trojan migrations Thucydides speaks of “Phocians” sailing from Troy and driven by storm first to Libya, then to Sicily. Rigsby, 332-335, proposes emendation to “Phrygians,” thus suggesting that Thucydides followed the Homeric distinction between Trojans and Phrygians from Troy. But that would be at variance with customary fifth-century usage that amalgamated the two terms—and it is hardly an obvious correction, 231-81) (Paris, 1942), 84-89, CQ, 29 (1979), 375-376; F. [ra]