in Search of The Romans Second Edition James Renshaw Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

In Search of the Romans Second
Edition James Renshaw

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/in-search-of-the-romans-second-edition-james-rensha
w/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Ghost Particle In Search of the Elusive and Mysterious

Neutrino 1st Edition Alan Chodos James Riordon
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ghost-particle-in-search-of-the-
elusive-and-mysterious-neutrino-1st-edition-alan-chodos-james-
riordon/
The Complete Arrogant Series 1st Edition Winter Renshaw
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-complete-arrogant-series-1st-
edition-winter-renshaw/
The Whale and the Reactor A Search for Limits in an Age

of High Technology Second Edition Langdon Winner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-whale-and-the-reactor-a-search-
for-limits-in-an-age-of-high-technology-second-edition-langdon-
winner/
Three Voyagers in Search of Europe: A Study of Henry

James, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot Alan Holder
https://ebookmeta.com/product/three-voyagers-in-search-of-europe-
a-study-of-henry-james-ezra-pound-t-s-eliot-alan-holder/
The Divine Human Relationship in Romans 1 8 in the
Light of Interdependence Theory 1st Edition Yoonjong
Kim
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-divine-human-relationship-in-
romans-1-8-in-the-light-of-interdependence-theory-1st-edition-
yoonjong-kim/
In Search of Returns 2nd Edition John Looby
https://ebookmeta.com/product/in-search-of-returns-2nd-edition-
john-looby/
The Greek Perfekt Tense in the Gospel of Marc and the

Epistle to the Romans Soon Hi Kong
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-greek-perfekt-tense-in-the-
gospel-of-marc-and-the-epistle-to-the-romans-soon-hi-kong/
International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral

Sciences Second Edition James D Wright
https://ebookmeta.com/product/international-encyclopedia-of-the-
social-behavioral-sciences-second-edition-james-d-wright/
To the Ends of the Earth An Application of the Book of

Romans 2nd Edition Jason Cockayne
https://ebookmeta.com/product/to-the-ends-of-the-earth-an-
application-of-the-book-of-romans-2nd-edition-jason-cockayne/
In Search of
the Romans
i
Also available from Bloomsbury
Augustan Rome, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill
Pompeii, Alison Cooley
The Roman Army, David J. Breeze
Rome Victorious: The Irresistible Rise of the Roman Empire, Dexter Hoyos
Women in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook, Bonnie MacLachlan
In Search of the Greeks (Second Edition), James Renshaw
Online resources to accompany this book are available at:
www.bloomsbury.com/renshaw-romans-2e.
Please type the URL into your web browser and follow the instructions to
access the Companion Website. If you experience any problems, please contact
Bloomsbury at: contact@bloomsbury.com
ii
In Search
of the
Romans
SECOND EDITION
James Renshaw
iii
BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA
BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in Great Britain 2012

This edition published 2020
Copyright © James Renshaw, 2012, 2020
James Renshaw has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988,
to be identified as Author of this work.
For legal purposes the Sources of Illustrations and Quotations on pp. 435–42 constitute an
extension of this copyright page.
Cover design: Terry Woodley

Cover image © mammuth/Getty
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information
storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any
third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this
book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret
any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist,
but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Renshaw, James, author.
Title: In search of the Romans / James Renshaw.
Description: Second edition. | London ; New York, NY : Bloomsbury Academic,
[2019] | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019015298| ISBN 9781474299916 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781474299930 (epdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Rome—Civilization. | Rome—History. | Rome—Social life and
customs. | Rome—Antiquities.
Classification: LCC DG77 .R46 2019 | DDC 937—dc23 LC record available at
https://lccn.loc.gov/2019015298
ISBN: PB: 978-1-4742-9991-6

ePDF: 978-1-4742-9993-0
eBook: 978-1-4742-9992-3
Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.
iv
Contents
Introduction 1
1 From Kingdom to Republic 3

2 The Emperors 73
3 Running an Empire 135
4 Roman Religion 179
5 Roman Society 229
6 Roman Entertainment and Leisure 289
7 Pompeii 339
8 Herculaneum 391
Appendices
1 Roman Currency Values 419
2 Roman Clothing 421
3 Roman Names 423
4 Roman Time 425
Glossary 428
Sources of Quotations 431
Sources of Illustrations 437
Index 439
v
vi
Introduction
A s the title In Search of the Romans suggests, this book is designed for those
seeking to explore ancient Roman civilisation and history, perhaps for the first
time. The first two chapters narrate the broad sweep of Roman history, from the city’s
beginnings in the 8th century BCE to the fall of the western Roman Empire in the
5th century CE . Chapters 3–6 then look at key aspects of Roman life: how the empire
was run, the character of Roman religion, the nature of Roman social life, and the
phenomenon of Roman entertainment and leisure. The final two chapters explore
the detailed picture of Roman life that Pompeii and Herculaneum provide us with. The
chapters are designed to be independent but inter-related and so there are a number of
cross-references between them. After the first two chapters, they need not be read in
sequence, since each investigates a distinct aspect of the ancient Roman world.
While the study of the ancient world can be very exciting, it can also be daunting
for new students, with so many new terms, ideas and themes, and I hope that In
Search of the Romans will give readers a firm foundation for studying the ancient
Roman world. To use a mountaineering analogy, it is intended to provide a secure
base camp from which the reader can journey higher. With this in mind, the text is
interspersed with the following extension exercises and resources:
● Review and Reflect boxes encourage the reader to think more deeply about
issues raised in the preceding section.
● In Their Own Words boxes highlight passages written by ancient writers
that give an insight into a particular topic. Readers are encouraged to read and
reflect on them for themselves. To this end, a vast array of Latin (and Greek)
texts, in the original and in English translation, can be found at the following
website: www.perseus.tufts.edu, while a wide range of resources
for the study of women and gender in the ancient world are provided at
www.stoa.org/diotima.
1
2 Introduction
● Further Reading boxes give suggestions for books that would help readers
deepen their knowledge on the topics covered in In Search of the Romans.
● Website This book is supported by a website – www.bloomsbury.com/
renshaw-romans-2e – which has a range of resources and photographs to
support the text:
● Learn More About: weblinks with information and activities to help you
study the topics in each chapter.
● In Their Own Words: links to online extracts specified in these text
boxes.
● Academic Debate: find out more about controversial topics.
● Quizzes: multiple-choice quizzes for each chapter.
● Galleries: a range of extra photographs grouped by region and site.
● Timelines: digital versions of the timelines from the textbook.
Why is it important to study the Romans? On one hand, we can marvel at their
achievements in art and architecture, their extraordinary technological advances, and
their remarkable literature. Many modern systems of law and government derive
from Rome, while the Latin language has directly influenced some of the major
world languages today, including English, French and Spanish. We can admire the
Romans for their commitment to civic order and structure, and be impressed by their
tolerance of most religions. On the other hand, there is no escape from the very dark
side of their civilisation; their achievements were interwoven with great cruelty,
be it in the crushing of opponents, the treatment of slaves or the gladiatorial shows
where huge crowds enjoyed the killing of fellow human beings. For good or for ill,
the many centuries of Roman rule have had a profound influence on our world today.
By learning about the Romans, we can come to understand our own societies more
deeply.
Once again, I have received tremendous support from a number of people while
writing this second edition, and I am extremely grateful to all of them. Above all,
James Morwood’s influence on this book is pervasive, and I would like to dedicate
this edition to his memory.
From Kingdom
to Republic
1
Rome was not built in a day.
This saying is so well known that it is easy to forget the truth behind it. The first
settlements in the region of Rome were established in the late Bronze Age, and later
Romans liked to believe that the city itself was founded in 753 BCE , but it was not for
another four centuries that the city began to extend its power beyond central Italy. Its
first overseas conquest came in 264 BCE , and over the next three centuries Rome
established one of the largest empires in the ancient world by conquering swathes of
Europe, North Africa and the Near East. By the early 1st century CE , the Romans
ruled from Britain in the north to Egypt in the south, and from Portugal in the west to
Iraq in the east.
This chapter aims to give an overview of the first half of ancient Roman history,
up to the moment in 31 BCE when Augustus became the sole ruler of the Roman
Empire and the man regarded as its first emperor. Chapter 2 then continues the
narrative from this point, examining Rome under the emperors until the fall of the
western empire in the 5th century CE .
Sources for Early Roman History

It is difficult to piece together with confidence a detailed history of Rome before 300
BCE . The archaeological evidence is limited by the fact that the city has been built
over so many times. Each new building project has dug through and destroyed
archaeological layers below, which also means that there are few available places to
dig up and find out about the city’s earliest stages. None the less, the archaeological
evidence for Rome’s early history that we do have gives an overview of the main
developments.
3
4 Chapter 1 From Kingdom to Republic
The written tradition of Rome’s early history provides a more difficult set of
problems. The two earliest recorded Roman historians are Fabius Pictor and Cincius
Alimentus, who wrote in the late 3rd century BCE . Neither of their works has survived
beyond fragments, but they were used as sources by later historians whose works
have survived. How reliable could the accounts of Pictor and Alimentus have been?
The two writers would have been able to conduct research about events in the two or
three generations before their time by talking to people about their memories and
those of their parents and grandparents. This would stretch back to about 300 BCE ;
but any further back in time than this, their accounts must have moved quickly from
history to legend.
Despite this, it is clear that by the time of Pictor and Alimentus the Romans
were telling an elaborate history of their city. They believed that the Trojan warrior
Aeneas had led refugees to Italy in the 12th century BCE, and that his descendent
Romulus had founded Rome in the middle of the 8th century – 753 being the most
commonly accepted date. There was then a detailed narrative of Roman history down to
their own day. Modern scholars agree that this literary narrative should be regarded as a
set of legends rather than accurate history – it is sometimes referred to as the ‘literary
tradition’.
How did this narrative develop? It seems that it was a complex mixture of Roman
tradition handed down by word of mouth, interwoven with Greek history and
legend. In the 3rd century BCE , Greek culture was starting to have a significant influence
on the Roman world, and this influenced Pictor and Alimentus enormously; despite
being Roman senators, both men wrote in Greek for a Greek audience, to whom they
sought to justify Rome’s rise to power in the western Mediterranean. Both seem to
have drawn heavily upon celebrated Greek historians, such as Herodotus and
Thucydides, who had written in the 5th century BCE . Indeed, a number of stories in the
Roman literary tradition seem to have been patterned on an equivalent set of events in
Greek history.
Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Titus Livius, or Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus have left us our most detailed
surviving accounts of early Roman history, although there are references to the
literary tradition in many other authors too. Livy (59 BCE –17 CE ) came from Patavium
in northern Italy, and set out to write, in Latin, a history of Rome from its foundation
up until his own day. It consisted of 142 books, 35 of which still survive complete,
including those that cover the city’s earliest history. It is significant that Livy was
writing during the reign of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, who wished to
promote the traditions of the Roman past (see p. 77). Livy believed in the new
Augustan regime, and for him history writing was primarily about providing moral
lessons for his readership.
Dionysius came from Halicarnassus, a Greek city on the south-west coast of Asia
Minor (a region roughly equivalent to the western two-thirds of modern Turkey). A
contemporary of Livy, he came to Rome in 30 BCE to teach rhetoric. His Roman
Chapter 1 From Kingdom to Republic 5
Antiquities were written in Greek for a Greek audience, and covered the years from
the foundation of the city down to 264. Only the first eleven books of twenty have
survived complete, covering events down to 449. Although Dionysius is often long-
winded compared to Livy, he assumes that his Greek readership has a limited
knowledge of the Roman world and so provides helpful additional information.
Moreover, his account of some events differs from that of Livy, suggesting that the
earlier Roman sources themselves were sometimes at odds with one another.
How should the modern historian interpret the Roman literary tradition? Two
approaches can usefully be applied. One is to recognise that the stories of early
Roman history are legendary, but to assume that they have some basis in real events.
The task is then to work out how much truth lies behind each story. It is on this
point that scholars tend to debate and disagree. A second approach is to recognise that
the literary tradition was a key part of the development of a Roman identity. Since
these stories therefore give us insight into fundamental Roman cultural values,
beliefs and anxieties, they give us a deeper understanding of how the Romans saw
themselves.
There is a further reason why the stories of early Roman history remain important
today, which is that they have been a source of inspiration for artists and writers from
the European Renaissance onwards. For example, both Botticelli and Titian painted
the story of Tarquin and Lucretia, Shakespeare wrote a play about Coriolanus, while
Purcell composed an opera entitled Dido and Aeneas. These stories are entwined in
the western cultural heritage, and an awareness of them gives the modern reader a
deeper cultural literacy.
I Origins and Kingdom

In considering the development of Rome down to 509 BCE , the literary tradition and
the archaeological evidence will be examined separately.
1 The Literary Tradition

There are two complementary legends about how the city came to be founded, one
which traces Roman origins back to the heroic age of the Trojan War in Greek
mythology (which was believed to have happened in the early 12th century BCE ), the
other which is based in native Roman folklore.
Aeneas
The legend of the Trojan War had been a key part of storytelling in the Greek world
for hundreds of years. It recounted the abduction of Helen of Sparta by the Trojan
prince Paris, which provoked a huge Greek armada to sail to Troy to win her back.
The legend tells of many great heroes, both Greek and Trojan, including Achilles,
Hector, Agamemnon and Odysseus. The two great Homeric poems, the Iliad and the
Odyssey, tell respectively of events in the final year of the war and of the challenging
journey home of Odysseus in its aftermath. One relatively minor character in the
Iliad is Aeneas, a member of the Trojan royal family; he is the son of the goddess
Aphrodite and of a mortal man, Anchises. At one point in the poem, the god Apollo
justifies rescuing him from certain death in a duel against Achilles so that the Trojan
race (whose founder was Dardanus) might live on:
Aeneas is destined to live on, so that Dardanus’ race itself might survive,
Dardanus whom Zeus loved above all his children by mortal women. The Son of
Cronos [Zeus] has come to hate Priam’s line, and mighty Aeneas will be the
Trojan king, as his descendants will in time to come.
Homer, Iliad, 20.302–308
This prophecy gave other storytellers plenty to work with, and a tradition soon grew
up that Aeneas had escaped during the sack of Troy and led Trojan survivors to Italy.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus refers to several early Greek traditions which made
Aeneas the founder of Rome or ancestor of the later Romans: they claimed that he had
settled his people in Latium, the region of central Italy where Rome would one day be
founded (people from Latium were known as Latins, and the Latin language also
takes its name from this region). It is unclear when the people of Latium first adopted
this tale for themselves, but it is likely that it became prominent in the Roman identity
during the 3rd century BCE , when the Romans began to absorb Greek culture and
accordingly wished to associate themselves with the heroic world of the Trojan War.
According to the Roman version of the legend which grew up, following a long
and arduous journey Aeneas arrived in central Italy, near the future site of Rome.
After a war with the local people, the Latins, he made a treaty with them and married
Lavinia, the daughter of their king, Latinus, and founded a new city, Lavinium,
where the Trojans and the Latins lived together as one people. Aeneas’ son, Ascanius
(also known as Iulus), later founded another city nearby, called Alba Longa. Although
Aeneas did not found the city of Rome, his descendants would go on to do so
centuries later, and so he was regarded as the founder of the Roman race. The
definitive version of the Aeneas story was created by the poet Virgil when he wrote a
national epic poem, The Aeneid, in the late 1st century BCE (see p. 89).
The greatest quality that later Romans admired in Aeneas was his pietas. This is
not an easy word to translate, but it means something like ‘sense of duty’, with the
duty being to one’s family, country and gods. Aeneas is often seen as the first and
finest example of this dutiful Roman. In particular, one famous moment of his pietas
was often portrayed in paintings and statues (Fig. 1.1 and Fig 1.18 on p. 64): as
Aeneas escaped from the flames of Troy, he carried his elderly father on his shoulders
and led the young Ascanius by the hand; Anchises himself carried the household
gods of Troy (the Penates – see p. 238), as grandfather, father and son all escaped
from the city to found a new Troy. This image of familial, civic and religious duty
symbolised for later Romans the pietas expected from each one of them.
Fig. 1.1 This terracotta figurine was

discovered in Pompeii. It depicts the
classic moment of Aeneas’ pietas as
he carries Anchises out of Troy and
leads little Ascanius beside him.
Romulus and Remus

The second legend recounts the foundation of Rome itself. It was originally
completely separate from the Aeneas tale, but at some point Romans joined up the
two by making Aeneas a distant ancestor of Romulus. Twelve generations after
Ascanius, so the story went, his descendant Numitor was overthrown as king of Alba
Longa by his wicked brother Amulius. Amulius wanted to eliminate any threats to his
power, and so he had Numitor’s sons killed and his daughter, Rhea Silvia, instituted
as a Vestal Virgin (the most important office of priestess in Rome – see p. 204),
meaning that she would never be able to marry or have children. However, at this
stage, the god Mars intervened by impregnating Rhea Silvia, so that she gave birth to
twin sons, Romulus and Remus.
Upon discovering this, a furious Amulius ordered that the twins be drowned in the
river Tiber. However, the boys were washed onto a dry patch of land, where they were
suckled by a she-wolf (Fig. 1.2). Soon afterwards, they were discovered by a shepherd
named Faustulus who, along with his wife Acca Larentia, brought them up as his own
children. When the twins reached manhood, they discovered their true identity and
took revenge on Amulius, killing him and restoring Numitor to his rightful throne.
Romulus and Remus next decided to found a city of their own near the point of
the river Tiber where they had been exposed as infants. Each wanted to name the city
Fig. 1.2 The she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus. This bronze masterpiece was long thought to
have been made by an Etruscan artist in c. 500 BCE , although there is a modern theory that it was
made in the 11th century CE . The figures of Romulus and Remus were certainly added during the
15th century CE .
after himself, and so they looked for a sign from the gods through the flight of birds
(a practice known as augury – see p. 202). Remus, standing on the Aventine Hill, was
the first to see birds in flight – six vultures. However, Romulus, positioned on the
Palatine Hill, then saw twelve vultures. Each brother claimed to have been chosen by
the gods – Remus because he had seen birds first, Romulus because he had seen
twice as many. A fight then broke out between their supporters; Livy describes how
Remus met his death:
From a war of words, anger turned them to bloodshed. In the heat of the melee,
Remus met his death. The more common story is that in mockery of his brother’s
claim, Remus jumped over Romulus’ half-built walls whereupon the enraged
Romulus struck him down, crying ‘So be it for any other who overleaps my walls!’
Romulus thus became sole sovereign and gave his name to the city so founded.
Livy, History of Rome, 1.6–7
The traditional date for the foundation of the city was 753 BCE , although this was
based on the calculations of Varro, a writer of the 1st century BCE . The line that
Romulus was believed to have ploughed to mark out his city was known by later
Romans as the pomerium, Rome’s religious boundary which was later designated by
white marker stones.
It seems that even the Romans were troubled by such a violent foundation story.
However, two points could be highlighted: the first is that through much of its later
history Rome was dogged by civil wars, and so it is perhaps no surprise that Romans
believed that their city had been founded at a moment of inter-family strife; secondly,
the story is also a very patriotic one, since Romulus sets the example that nothing –
not even a tie of blood – is as important as defending one’s city.
The Sabine Women

In a further legend, Romulus is supposed to have populated his new city by offering
citizenship to men from nearby settlements – whether slave or free. It is notable
that immigration is prominent in the early Roman narrative; the city was believed to
have been open to people of all backgrounds from elsewhere, who were permitted
to become ‘Romans’ as long as they dedicated themselves to Rome’s service.
The population swelled, but Rome was very short of womenfolk. After trying
unsuccessfully to make marriage alliances with people from nearby cities, the
Romans came up with a new plan. They invited people from these cities to a
chariot racing festival. Amongst the visitors were the Sabines, a local hill tribe.
During the festival, a signal was given and each Roman snatched one of the Sabine
women and took her off as his wife. The Sabine men were naturally enraged and
a battle followed. The Sabine women, however, became the agents of peace by
running between the two battle lines and addressing their fathers as follows:
Turn your anger against us. We are the cause of this war, we the cause of
husbands and fathers lying wounded and slain. Only one side can win this
fight. As for us, it is better to die than to live, for we must do so either as
widows or as orphans.
Livy, History of Rome
e, 1.13
Rome,
Moved by these words, the two peoples came to terms with one another and
formed an alliance that joined them together as one.
Fig. 1.3 The Intervention of the Sabine Women was painted by the French artist
Jacques-Louis David in 1799. It is a famous example of the many works of art that have
been inspired by stories from Roman history.
The Seven Kings

Romulus was the first of seven kings of Rome who, according to legend, between
them ruled from 753 to 509 (it is clearly impossible that the city had just seven
kings over such a long period). Romulus’ six successors were, in order: Numa
Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius and
Tarquinius Superbus. Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus were not Romans,
but Etruscans from the region of Etruria further north (see p. 13). Each of the seven
kings is credited with bringing specific innovations to the city. For example, Romulus
is said to have established the Senate, Numa Rome’s priesthoods and cults, and
Servius Tullius the Roman constitution and the first city walls.
Much of this does not survive historical scrutiny, although it is clear, for example,
that the Roman calendar of religious festivals does date to an early period in the
city’s history. It is hard to know whether these kings are based on historical figures.
In Romulus’ case, the name suggests not – it simply means ‘the Roman’ or ‘Mr
Rome’. Other kings may be based on the lives of real people, but if so their
achievements have been heavily mythologised. The scholar Mary Beard puts it as
follows: ‘These rulers were assumed to be historical characters . . . but again, it is
clear that much of the tradition which has come down to us, far from reality, is a
fascinating mythological projection of later Roman priorities and anxieties into the
distant past.’
The Overthrow of the Monarchy

According to the tradition, Tarquinius Superbus became increasingly tyrannical. He
forced the Roman citizens to toil ceaselessly on grand building projects, and had
senators who opposed him assassinated. Eventually, he became so unpopular that in
510 the Etruscan ruling class was driven out of the city by an uprising of Roman
aristocrats. The catalyst for this revolution was apparently the rape of a noble Roman
woman, Lucretia, by Sextus Tarquinius, the son of Tarquinius Superbus. Lucretia
made her father and husband take revenge on Sextus, and then took her own life from
shame. This story is an example of one which seems to be patterned on a key moment
in Greek history – the expulsion of the tyrant Hippias from Athens, which led to the
birth of Athenian democracy. Notably, Hippias too was said to have been expelled in
510 following a sexual crime by one of his relatives.
In Livy’s account, Sextus Tarquinius, who was killed in revenge, symbolised the
arrogance and abuse of power associated with his father’s rule; in fact, the Latin
word superbus could mean ‘arrogant’. The uprising that followed Lucretia’s suicide
was led by an aristocratic Roman called Lucius Junius Brutus. Yet Brutus was to
suffer personal tragedy in the course of events. For when his two sons were found to
be conspiring with the enemy, they were sentenced to death. Brutus was duty bound
to support these sentences and watched in silence as they were both beheaded –
another example of a man from Rome’s early history putting patriotic duty ahead of
ties of blood.
In Their Own Words 1.1

1 Compare the accounts of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus on the legend
of Aeneas (Livy 1.1–3, DH 1.72–4), and on the foundation myth of Romulus
and Remus (Livy 1.3–7, DH 1.73–88). What impression do you form of each
historian from these passages?
2 Read Livy’s account of the kings of early Rome from 1.14 to 1.60. To what
extent does the character of each king match his reforms?
3 Read Livy’s account of the conflict with Lars Porsenna at 2.9–15. What
might we learn about later Roman values from this passage?
4 Read the following prophetic passages from Virgil’s Aeneid: 6.752–885;
8.306–369; 8.626–651. How do these passages reflect the importance of
early Roman history to Romans of Virgil’s day?
Although Tarquinius had been driven into exile, he set out to recapture his
throne. He formed an alliance with a nearby Etruscan king, Lars Porsenna of
Clusium, whom he persuaded to declare war on Rome. Livy’s account of this war
is a masterpiece of Roman propaganda: Porsenna was apparently so impressed by
the bravery of the Romans – in particular of Horatius Cocles, Mucius Scaevola, and
the unmarried woman Cloelia – that he agreed to come to terms with them. Finally
free of their Etruscan rulers, the Romans chose to abolish the monarchy for good
and to replace it with a system of government that prevented any one individual
from taking – and abusing – sole power in the city. They called this system the
Republic. Thereafter, the Latin word rex (‘king’) would be a hateful one to
Roman ears.
2 The Archaeological Evidence

Prehistoric Italy
As with any region, human settlement in Italy was defined by its landscape (Fig. 1.4).
Geographically, the country is divided into two distinct areas, each defined by a
mountain range. The northern range, the Alps, descends into the Po Valley, a fertile
plain whose river runs eastwards into the Adriatic Sea. South of the Po Valley is the
Italian peninsula, with the Apennine Mountains running down its middle like a spine.
Either side of these mountains, the peninsula consists of hill country and a number of
plains, including those of Etruria, Latium and Campania on the western side, and of
Apulia to the south-east. The three western plains all possess a rich volcanic soil and
a good climate for agriculture. In addition, the plain of Etruria was especially rich in
mineral deposits.
Fig. 1.4 A relief map of Italy.
Human habitation in Italy stretches back thousands of years. However, while

there were great Bronze Age civilisations in Greece and the lands further east
(collectively known as the ‘Near East’) during the second millennium BCE , no such
advanced civilisation rose in Italy in this period. One possible reason for this is that
early Italians did not develop a tradition of sea-travel; although the Italian peninsula
has a coastline of some 2000 miles, and no point of land south of the Po Valley is
more than 70 miles from the sea, it has few navigable rivers. This seems to have
discouraged the development of sea-faring, which would have increased trade and
development.
From about 1100, iron began to replace bronze as the state-of-the-art technology
in the eastern Mediterranean. The working of iron did not come to Italy until relatively
late, around 900, and even then it took another 200 years or so for it to displace
bronze as the metal of choice. None the less, the plain of Etruria was a rich source of
mineral resources, and this attracted traders and prospectors from the more developed
civilisations to the east. These traders carried with them their knowledge and expertise
in other areas, and so acted as a catalyst for the Etruscans (the people of Etruria) to
develop the first major civilisation of Italy during the 8th century.
The geography of Italy also fostered linguistic diversity. The four most spoken
languages – Venetic, Latin, Umbrian and Oscan – belonged to the Indo-European
family of languages, although the origins of the Etruscan language were completely
different and remain a mystery to this day.
Etruscans, Greeks, and Phoenicians

Archaeological evidence shows that the Etruscans were the most powerful people in
Italy between 800 and 500 BCE . They traded in particular with two peoples to the
east: the Greeks and the Phoenicians. During the 8th century, the Greeks had
established cities and trading posts at coastal points of southern Italy and Sicily.
Indeed, Romans later came to call the region Magna Graecia (‘Great Greece’), and
Greek culture was dominant there. The Phoenicians came from the region which is
today Lebanon, and were renowned traders and seafarers. They had also settled
beyond their homeland, notably in north Africa, where they founded the city of
Carthage in about 800. Both peoples were central to the development of Etruscan
civilisation at this time; in the words of one archaeologist: ‘The Etruscan civilisation
offers the single best testimony to the extraordinary impact that Phoenician and
Greek settlement and commercial activity in the western Mediterranean had upon the
people of Italy.’
As Phoenicians and Greeks began to travel to Etruria for trade, they brought with
them new ideas and technologies. Among them was the very concept of urban
settlement: until this time, Italians had been living in circular, single-room huts
in small settlements. Soon after 700, larger settlements grew up in Etruria; their
buildings were constructed on stone foundations, arranged in grid formation, and
often surrounded by stone walls with a monumental gateway. These new Etruscan
settlements displayed advanced engineering features, such as underground drains
and cisterns, aqueducts, bridges and tunnels. They also had extensive trading links:
there is evidence of amber from the Baltic; gold, silver and tin from Carthage; and
ivory and an ostrich egg from other parts of Africa. As these Etruscan cities developed,
so followed changes to social and political organisation, including the construct of
social classes with a division between the aristocracy and the ‘common people’.
Other innovations came too: wheel-made pottery, specialisation of arts and crafts,
the adoption of writing, artistic representation of Greek myths on pottery, bronze
sculpture, wall painting, and monumental architecture (as the Etruscans did not have
ready access to marble, they became adept at sculpting in terracotta). The best
surviving evidence for Etruscan art comes from the elaborate tombs built for the
aristocracy. These often depict people feasting, dancing, taking part in athletic
contests, as well as hunting, fishing and riding on horses; the figures are dressed
elaborately, with fine jewellery. Indeed, Etruscan bronze-casting and jewellery-
making were of such high quality that they remain a source of wonder to art historians
today (Fig. 1.5). One tomb shows women reclining at a banquet alongside men,
while in other paintings women wear outdoor clothing; both scenes suggest that
Etruscan women of high status led more public lives than women further east.
Fig. 1.5 This ‘sarcophagus of the spouses’ from Caere is one of the masterpieces of Etruscan art.
Made of terracotta, over a metre in height and nearly 2 metres in width, it was originally brightly
painted and depicts an Etruscan couple reclining at a banquet together in the afterlife.
An Alphabet
Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the Greeks to the Roman world has been its
alphabet, which was transmitted via the Etruscans. The Greeks themselves had for
centuries not used writing until the mid-8th century, when they borrowed the
Phoenician script, adapting it into an early version of the Greek alphabet still in use
today. Greek traders introduced their alphabet to the Etruscans in about 700, and
they developed it for their own language (the Etruscan language remains something
of an enigma today, even though we can sound out its words). The Romans themselves
learnt the art of reading and writing from the Etruscans soon afterwards, and adapted
the Etruscan script to their own Latin language. This is of course the script still used in
many parts of the world today. In addition, it was from the Etruscans that the Romans
developed their numeral system, which today we know as Roman numerals.
The Etruscan cities never formed one unified state, but remained a collection of
independent cities that shared cultural, religious and linguistic ties. During the 7th
century some Etruscans settled as far south as Campania, where they founded the
city of Capua, which was to become the most powerful city of the region. Others
headed north to the Po valley, where they founded towns that would grow into
important modern cities, such as Bologna, Milan, and Ravenna (Fig. 1.6).
NS
E TIA
GAUL )
S
VEN
ELTS
(C
LIGURIANS
A
dr
ia
tic
Se
Ligurian
a
Sea
ETRUSCANS Perusia
UM
Clusium
BR
IA
SABINES
NS
Ti
be
Tarquinia r
AEQUIANS
Veii
Caere
Rome
VOLSCIANS
SA
LAT MN
INS ITE
S
Ty Capua
r CA
rh MP
AN
en IAN
S
ia
n
Se
a
N
Etruria in 750 BC
Etruscan expansion between

750 and 500 BC 0 50 100 150
Kilometers
Fig. 1.6 Etruscan expansion between 750 and 500.

Early Rome
Archaeology suggests that the area around the Palatine hill in Rome was inhabited by
the 10th century BCE , and the remains of huts dating to the 8th century at the latest
have been found. However, the region of Latium did not develop as quickly as Etruria
at this time, since it did not have the same mineral deposits to attract foreign traders,
and it was not until about 650 BCE that houses there were first built on stone
foundations. The city did not develop in a recognisably urban form until the last
quarter of the 7th century. At this time the marshy valley between the Palatine and the
Capitoline was drained and filled; the area was developed as the forum, the
community’s religious, social and political heart.
The process of urbanisation continued during the 6th century, and from this time
onward the archaeological evidence becomes more visible. It is notable that the
literary tradition records that the last three kings of Rome carried out major building
works just at the time that the city was indeed growing and developing significantly.
This century saw the construction of public buildings such as temples, and there is
evidence for skilled metal-working and pottery manufacture, increased agricultural
production, and the development of social classes with a wealthy elite at the top. It is
probably at this time that poorer farmers and farm labourers came to depend on
an aristocratic master, something which would develop into the patron/client
relationship in later Roman history.
Rome became the leading centre of Latium at this time because of its strategic
position on the river Tiber, which formed the boundary between Latium and Etruria.
This ensured close Roman contact with the more advanced Etruscans. Moreover,
the river was ever a hub of trade: merchants travelling on the north–south route
between Etruria and Latium needed to cross it, while salt fields at its mouth drew
others down the river from inland on the east–west route. At the site of Rome, about
16 miles in from the sea, a little island in the Tiber made the river easy to cross and
enabled it to become a stopping point for such merchants. On the east bank of the
river here grew up the Forum Boarium, a market that remained important throughout
the city’s history as a centre of trade, religion and entertainment. The geography of
Rome therefore encouraged an ethnically and culturally diverse population to
develop.
Later Romans knew their city as the city of seven hills, although in fact there are
more than seven in the vicinity. The association with seven specific hills probably
originates from a reinterpretation of an annual religious festival, the Septimontium,
which dates back to Rome’s earliest history, and which involved seven areas of the
city. Of the seven ‘official’ hills of the city, the Palatine, Capitoline and Aventine lay
close to the river and were separated from one another by valleys. Three others – the
Quirinal, Viminal, and Esquiline – were really westward projections of a plateau to
the east of the city. The other hill, the Caelian, was located between the Esquiline and
Aventine (see Fig. 1.8 on p. 26).
One archaeological discovery from this period caused particular excitement
(Fig. 1.7). A Latin inscription, uncovered at the Capitoline end of the forum and
tentatively dated to the late 6th century, bears the word recei, an early version of the
word rex, meaning ‘king’. Although it is impossible to understand the inscription as
a whole, it was clearly some sort of public notice and suggests that Rome at this
period had a ruler who was called a king – just as the literary tradition records.
However, we should think here not of the kings described by Livy, who head a
developed Roman constitution and political system, but more of a chieftain who held
sway over his community. Indeed, the great battles described by Livy must be greatly
exaggerated: they all occur within 12 miles of the city, and probably had something
more like the character of skirmishes between local communities.
There is no archaeological evidence for any significant Etruscan ‘take-over’
either, as related in the literary tradition. Rather, it seems that Rome benefited from
being on the borders of Etruria, and that its early development was strongly influenced
by interchange with Etruscan peoples. However, Etruscan civilisation went into
sharp decline in the early 5th century, as maritime trade routes moved to the Adriatic
and to Spain. It is perhaps no coincidence that at this time the literary tradition
records the Romans expelling their Etruscan rulers and creating a new political
system. By this time, Rome had grown into the largest city in Latium, with an
estimated population of between 20,000 and 30,000. This meant that it was still a
very ordinary city in international terms; in the same period, the Persians ruled over
a Near-eastern empire of some 20 million people.
None the less, at the turn of the 5th century there is evidence for Rome’s growing
status beyond its borders. Contact with the Greek cities of Magna Graecia is
Fig. 1.7 This early Roman

inscription, written in archaic
Latin with letters that look
more like Greek, contains the
word recei.
Date Literary Tradition Date Archaeological Evidence

c. 1200 Aeneas leads his Trojan exiles to
Latium
c. 1000 Early settlement at the site of

Rome
753 Romulus founds Rome 8th Urbanisation in Etruria begins

century Wooden huts on the Palatine
753–716 Reign of Romulus
715–673 Reign of Numa Pompilius c. 700 Emergence of Etruscan and Latin

alphabets
673–642 Reign of Tullus Hostilius
642–616 Reign of Ancus Marcius c. 625 Urbanisation at Rome begins
616–579 Reign of Tarquinius Priscus
578–535 Reign of Servius Tullius
535–509 Reign of Tarquinius Superbus late 6th Substantial building developments

century at Rome;
?recei inscription stone set up?
509 Establishment of Roman Republic
c. 508 Conflict with Lars Porsenna of c. 500 Rome now the largest city in Latium,
Clusium with a population of between
20,000 and 30,000
suggested by the tradition that one of the Tarquins purchased the Sibylline books,
prophetic books written in Greek (see p. 184). Moreover, by this time a temple to
Diana had been built on the Aventine hill in the fashion of temples to the goddess
Artemis founded by Greeks elsewhere in the Mediterranean, most famously at
Ephesus in Asia Minor. The construction of such a temple indicates a Roman desire
to welcome and impress Greek visitors. Finally, it is to this period that the first treaty
between Rome and a foreign people is dated. According to the historian Polybius,
in the year 509 the Romans made a treaty with the Carthaginians that covered
Carthaginian commercial concerns in territory controlled by Rome. Although the
date of 509 is too precise, Phoenician texts written in the same era seem to corroborate
the existence of this treaty. By 500, it seems, Rome was becoming a name in the
affairs of the wider world.
Review and Reflect 1.1
1 Which aspects of the two foundation legends do you think later Romans
would have valued most, and why?
2 What similarities are there between Aeneas and Romulus, and legendary
figures from other cultures such as Heracles, Perseus, Zeus, Moses and
Cyrus of Persia?
3 How important are the examples of virtuous women to the stories of early
Rome?
II The Early Republic (509–264 BCE )

While Livy and Dionysius continue to offer wonderful stories of heroism, which
were no doubt believed by later Romans, we must continue to be sceptical about the
literary account of events of the 5th and early 4th centuries BCE . Archaeology also
continues to have its limitations. By contrast, the closer we get to the 3rd century, the
stronger the evidence becomes, both literary and archaeological.
1 The Literary Tradition

According to Livy and Dionysius, after the expulsion of the Tarquins the victorious
Roman aristocrats immediately came up with a fully-formed new political system.
This political system was called the Republic (from the Latin words res publica –
‘the public matter’), and it was designed to prevent any one individual from holding
absolute power. Each year, the citizens elected two senior politicians to govern. They
became known as the consuls (the earliest known use of this term is not until 200
years later and they may originally have been called praetors), and they ran the city
together – no decision could be taken unless they were both in agreement. Two key
principles were therefore established: that power should be shared by elected
officials, and that power should change hands on an annual basis. A key theme of
Livy’s writing about this period is that the Roman citizens had won for themselves
libertas, ‘freedom’.
We cannot know exactly how the structures and offices of the Republic
developed in these early years, but over the next two centuries a constitutional
system emerged with other elected officials below the level of the consuls, an
advisory council known as the Senate, and citizens’ assemblies (this constitution is
described on pp. 38–47). While the new system cannot have emerged as smoothly as
the literary sources relate, these writers were no doubt correct to record that the
young Republic faced external challenges as well as internal political dissent and
conflict.
External Challenges
According to the literary tradition, the other Latin cities soon felt threatened by a
newly independent Rome. They formed an alliance – known today as the Latin
League – and in the early 490s the two sides fought a battle to the south of Rome. The
Romans won, supposedly with the assistance of the divine twins Castor and Pollux,
together known as the Dioscuri (‘the sons of Zeus’), who belonged to the world of
Greek myth but were adopted for worship at an early stage by the Romans.
Although the Romans had won, soon afterwards they entered into an alliance
with the Latin League. This alliance was to become very important for the
Romans as a template for how to bring other cities into their sphere of control,
while allowing them some rights and a degree of freedom in return. The Latin cities
were required to provide equal shares of a common defensive army and to split any
spoils of war. In return, the Romans gave citizens of the Latin cities three important
rights:
1 The right to own property in any other Latin town and to do business without
hindrance.
2 The right for a Latin of one state to marry a Latin of another state without
legal complications.
3 The right for a Latin citizen to move to any other Latin town and
automatically take up full citizenship there.
These rights are often referred to today as ‘Latin status’. This Latin status was used
by the Romans as a model over the following centuries for giving rights to people
well beyond the borders of Latium.
Once they had settled the Latin question, the Romans faced other challenges:
first from the Sabines who lived further inland up the Tiber, and then from two tribes
based in the hills beyond, the Aequi and the Volsci. The Sabines were defeated by
the middle of the 5th century, but the two hill tribes continued to provide a
major threat throughout the century as they tried to move into the more fertile
lands below. Livy’s account of how the Romans faced these threats is full of
fine moral examples, such as the story of the dictator Cincinnatus, who supposedly
was called out of retirement on his farm to lead the state in a crisis. The qualities
shown by such early Roman heroes, such as courage, industry, and simplicity, were
collectively known by later Romans as the mos maiorum – ‘the customs of our
ancestors’.
Internal Dissent: The Conflict of the Orders

The literary tradition also tells us that Roman society in the early Republic was
highly polarised between the small group of wealthy, land-owning aristocrats, known
as the patricians, and the poor majority of citizens, known as the plebeians (from
the Latin plebs, which means ‘common people’). At the start of the Republic, it was
the patricians who held all the positions of power in the city, and who filled the
Patricians and Plebeians – A Continued Struggle

The new office of tribune did not solve all the plebeians’ problems at once.
According to the literary tradition, the Conflict of the Orders continued for more
than two hundred years until 287 BCE , at which point all plebiscita passed by the
plebeian assembly were made legally binding on the whole population. It is no
coincidence that this happened just as Rome was taking control of the whole of
Italy, and needed all citizens to work together in managing the growing sphere of
her power. Between 494 and 287 ancient authors record important stages on the
road to full equality between patrician and plebeian. For example, in 455 a ban on
inter-marriage between the two orders was lifted. In 367, a law was enacted that
one of the consuls had to be plebeian. In 326, a ban was introduced on enslaving
citizens who could not repay their debts: at that moment, Roman citizenship had
become an inalienable right to all those born into it.
Senate (the senators were known as patres, or ‘fathers’, as they were seen to be the
fathers of the state). The plebeians soon came to resent this, and insisted on having
their own representatives in the political system. The conflict between the two groups
is known as the Conflict of the Orders.
Tradition records the first key date in this conflict as 494 BCE . The plebeians were
apparently plagued by problems of debt, and so staged a mass walkout from the city
to try to force reform on the patricians. They were successful and a new political
office was created, that of the Tribune of the People. Tribunes were elected annually
by a new plebeian assembly to represent the views of the plebeians to the patricians.
The assembly could pass its own laws known as plebiscita (from which is derived the
English word plebiscite).
The Conquest of Veii and the Sack of

the Gauls
By the end of the 5th century, Rome was the leading power in Latium and looked
to expand. In 396, the Romans defeated their main regional rival, the Etruscan city
of Veii, which lay about 10 miles away (see Fig. 1.6 on p. 15). Veii was now
incorporated into Roman territory: this was Rome’s first major moment of territorial
expansion. Indeed, the land now controlled by Rome is estimated to have grown by
60%. Livy and other writers frame this war as Rome’s version of the Trojan War: it
apparently lasted ten years and Roman soldiers showed enormous bravery under the
command of a general called Camillus.
However, soon afterwards, disaster struck the Romans: in about 387, the city
was sacked by a marauding tribe of Gauls from the Po Valley in the north. They
defeated the Roman army at the River Allia, a few miles north of Rome, and advanced
on the defenceless city. When the Gauls arrived in Rome they found it deserted
apart from a garrison on the Capitoline Hill, and also the senators, who had chosen to
remain in their houses, dressed in togas and wearing the full insignia of their rank, and
to wait for death. However, the Gauls were interested only in acquiring booty, and
the Romans agreed to pay them 450kg of gold if they would leave Rome in peace. This
was to be the last time the city would be invaded by barbarians until 410 CE
(see pp. 129–130), and the memory of it was held deep in the Roman psyche: the
supposed date of the battle, 18th July, was regarded as a dies atra in the Roman
calendar – a ‘black day’.
In the decades that followed, Gallic incursions to central Italy probably continued
to challenge the Roman state. However, at this time other measures were put in
place which allowed the city to surge forward. It is significant that the tradition
records that plebeians were first eligible for the consulship from 367; this allowed a
wider talent pool to be elected to high office, which was now defined by wealth rather
than birth.
The Latin and Samnite Wars

Between 343 and 338, Rome won two wars which propelled it forward. The much
shorter conflict, the Latin War, was fought between the Romans and the Latin states
from 340 to 338. It arose out of Latin fear of Roman expansion, and the potential loss
of their status. The conflict ended in a Roman victory; Rome dissolved the Latin
League, and most of the Latin states were absorbed into the Roman state at this time.
Their citizens were given Roman citizenship, but allowed to retain management of
their own local affairs.
Between 343 and 290, Rome engaged in three conflicts with the Samnites, a loose
confederation of hill tribes living in the Apennine Mountains. Since their resources
were scarce, the Samnites looked to expand their territory into the plains below. This
brought them into conflict with the growing Roman state. The first Samnite War was
fought between 343 and 341. Rome was drawn into it by an appeal for help from the
city of Capua, which was under Samnite threat. After some fighting, in 341 the two
sides negotiated a peace. Rome now become allied with Capua, one of the largest
cities of Italy at the time, as well as with Capua’s Campanian allies. It soon came to
dominate the alliance.
The Second Samnite War lasted from 327 until 304. From 311, the Samnites
were boosted by Etruscan support. A peace was made in 304 but did not last long,
and a third Samnite War broke out in 298. At the battle of Sentinum in 295, the
Samnites were supported by a loose coalition of Etruscans, Umbrians and Gauls. The
Romans won, and over the following two decades they subdued these peoples,
forcing them to join the Roman state. Through conquest and alliance, the city
now dominated northern and central Italy. Only the Greek cities of the south stood
apart.
A Pyrrhic Victory
Pyrrhus is famous for giving us the phrase ‘a Pyrrhic victory’, describing a victory
that is achieved at such a cost that it is not worth the effort. When Pyrrhus’ army
defeated the Romans at Asculum in 279, the losses on his own side were extremely
heavy: the majority of his soldiers lay dead, including almost all his closest
confidantes and commanders. The story goes that when he was congratulated on
his victory, Pyrrhus replied: ‘If we defeat the Romans in one more battle, we shall
be utterly destroyed.’
Magna Graecia
The Greeks of Magna Graecia had long traded with the Romans, and the peoples had
generally had good relations. By 282, however, the people of Tarentum, the most
powerful city in the region, were becoming nervous of the encroaching power of
Rome. The Tarentines summoned help from King Pyrrhus of Epirus in north-west
Greece. He arrived in Italy with a force of 20,000 skilled professional infantry, 3,000
cavalry and about 20 elephants. This was the greatest army yet faced by Rome, and
Pyrrhus won the first two battles in 280 and 279.
After this, however, Pyrrhus answered a call for help from the Sicilians, and
while he was away his Greek and Italian allies changed sides. When he returned
to Italy in 275, he was defeated, and withdrew to Epirus. Tarentum surrendered to the
Romans three years later, and by 270 the whole of Magna Graecia was under Roman
control. Within another five years, the Romans had brought the whole Italian
peninsula under their control. International recognition soon followed: Ptolemy II of
Egypt, one of the most powerful rulers of the day, sent envoys to Rome to make a
pact of friendship.
Reasons for Roman Success

The conquest of Italy between 343 and 270 was a definitive period in Rome’s rise.
Military strength was clearly a key factor in this, but the Romans also followed up

1 Read Livy’s account of the stories of Coriolanus (2.33–40) and Cincinnatus
(3.25–29). How does Livy present these stories as moral lessons for Romans
of his own day?
2 Read Livy’s account of the sack of Rome by the Gauls (5.32–48). Are there
any positives that later Romans could take from this calamitous defeat?
1 Do we have anything like the mos maiorum in our society today? What
words do you think best communicate our most cherished values?
2 Are there other societies, ancient or modern, which have extended limited
citizen rights to non-citizens to the benefit of both parties?
conquests with farsighted policies. Rather than trying to oppress defeated foes, they
offered them the chance to join them as junior allies. These new allies were allowed
to manage their own local affairs, but they had to provide manpower for the Roman
army and to follow Roman foreign policy. The allies benefited in turn since they
could share any future war booty following Roman conquest.
As well as the prospect of war booty, the allies were given a series of rights by the
Romans. Many of the Latin towns were given full Roman citizenship: Latium
effectively became an extension of the Roman state in 338. However, a few Latin
towns retained greater independence, and they kept Latin status. A second status was
called ‘citizenship without the vote’. As the name suggests, allies with this status
could not vote in Roman elections but had the legal rights of a citizen at Rome. A
third group, sometimes known as ‘Italian allies’, had fewer rights. In all cases, the
Romans aimed to ensure that it was always more advantageous for these peoples to
stay allied to them than to oppose them. The Romans themselves benefited greatly
from this network of alliances: their military strength increased enormously, while at
the same time they did not have the administrative burden of having to rule the allied
communities directly.
In addition to this, Rome founded new settlements called colonies, which were
largely inhabited by settlers from Rome. Some of these settlers retained their Roman
citizenship, but most gave up their citizenship and received Latin status instead. The
trade-off was that they would have more land to farm and a better quality of life. Colonies
were formed at key strategic points in Italy, such as river crossings, junctions of key
roads, and places where the local population were thought likely to revolt. The presence
of men loyal to Rome in these colonies ensured the security of the Roman state.
2 Archaeological Evidence
In contrast to the literary sources, the archaeological evidence suggests that the 5th
century BCE was a period of significant decline in Rome. There was serious burning
in the city around 500, and this was followed by a sharp drop-off in imported pottery
during the first quarter of the century; furthermore, temple construction ceased for
decades after about 480. This may imply that Rome endured a period of great pressure
from hill-tribes who attacked the coastal plains for their resources.
One fascinating insight into the world of 5th-century Rome comes in a set of
written legal instructions known collectively as the Twelve Tables. These were
believed to have been first set down on bronze tablets in the middle of the century;
the original tablets have not survived, but some of the instructions have been
preserved in the works of later Roman writers. It is hard to understand the exact
meanings of many of the legal clauses written on the Tables, which typically prescribe
solutions for domestic issues such as private property and inheritance. They are
written in an early form of Latin that does not make much use of nouns or pronouns,
and so makes little sense without interpretation:
‘If he summons to law, he is to go. If he does not go, he is to call to witness,
then is to seize him.’
This law is usually reworded to mean:

‘If a plaintiff summons the defendant to court, the defendant is to go. If he does
not go, the plaintiff is to call someone else to witness, then is to seize the
defendant.’
The surviving laws of the Twelve Tables reveal a far less sophisticated society
than the one that Livy portrays. However, the codification of laws is usually a key
moment in the formation of a state; once laws are written down, it is much harder for
those in power to manipulate the legal system. Moreover, at times the Tables mention
elements of society that correspond with the literary tradition; for example, they refer
to plebeians and patricians, patrons and clients, and a Vestal Virgin. Some of the key
elements of later Roman society are therefore visible at this early stage.
Scholars agree that the 4th century was a period of dynamic change for Rome.
One important piece of archaeological evidence for this still visible in places today
is the Servian Wall, which was built around the city in around 370 (it is named after
the king Servius Tullius, who was believed by the Romans – incorrectly – to have
commissioned it centuries earlier) (Fig. 1.8). This is the first time that the city had a
substantial defensive wall, and it may have been a response to the Gallic invasion
(although there is no archaeological evidence for the Gallic sack recorded in the
literary tradition). The wall was seven miles long, and in places four metres thick; it
was built from blocks of tufa stone obtained from quarries near Veii, confirming that
Rome had indeed by now taken control of that city.
In the late 4th century there are further signs of the growth of Rome in line with
its victories against the other peoples of Italy. One patrician, Appius Claudius Caecus,
gave his name to a new road, the Appian Way, which he commissioned in 312. This
road ran from Rome to Capua, enabling faster journeys for soldiers and traders
between these two important cities. A by-product of this road-building was the
emergence of Roman coinage for the first time, which was used to pay builders (and
soldiers) in southern Italy, where the Greeks had long used coinage. Until this point,
the city had used weights of metal to determine monetary value. Caecus also oversaw
the construction of Rome’s first aqueduct, which drew water from hills ten miles
away.
ber
Ti
Quirinal
Viminal
Capitoline Esquiline
Palatine
Caelian
Aventine
Servian Wall
City limits of Rome
under Augustus
Fig. 1.8 The seven hills of Rome and one potential route of the 4th-century Servian Wall.
Numismatics
The study of coinage, known as numismatics, can provide the historian with
valuable information. On the ‘heads’ side of a coin, the obverse, was originally
depicted a god or gods. In the 1st century BCE , images of notable deceased Romans
also started to appear, and in the 40s BCE Julius Caesar was the first living Roman
to have his head minted on a coin at Rome, a practice then followed by the
emperors (coins during the imperial period are almost all datable to the year of
issue). On the other side of the coin, the reverse, was usually depicted an image
that promoted the ideology of the person minting the coin (usually a general or an
emperor). Such men recognised the propaganda value of coinage, which would
be used daily by their soldiers and other ordinary Romans. Coins do not just give
information from their imagery; almost all of them also have brief texts on either
side to explain the image or say more about where, when, or why the coin had
been issued.
At the start of the 3rd century, the archaeological record becomes richer. One
famous tombstone inscription, dated to about 280, is probably the first biographical
narrative to survive from ancient Rome (Fig. 1.9). It commemorates the life of a
certain Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus:
L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, born of his father Gnaeus, a brave and wise man,
whose handsomeness was most equal to his excellence, who was consul, censor,
and aedile among you. He captured Taurasia and Cisauna in Samnium; he
subdued all of Lucania; and he took away hostages.
CIL VI.1285
Here we have evidence of the achievements of a leading Roman as he wished them

to be remembered. It is notable that he had served in three of the offices of magistrates
that are recognised as part of the republican system (see pp. 39–41). His successful
career is also closely bound up in military achievement. This was someone whose
life and career would have been recognisable to a Roman living centuries later.
By now, Rome was one of the biggest cities in the Mediterranean world, with an
estimated population of between 60,000 and 90,000. It also controlled much of central
and southern Italy, and could call on perhaps as many as 500,000 troops. The
extraordinary scale of this manpower comes sharply into view when compared with
the army of Alexander the Great, which in the 330s and 320s conquered the Persian
Empire: about 50,000 men are estimated to have followed Alexander on his campaigns.
Fig. 1.9 The sarcophagus of Scipio Barbatus. Although made of tufa, a local Italian stone, and far
less impressive than later monuments of marble, this was a highly impressive monument for its
day in c. 280.
Date Literary Tradition Date Archaeological Evidence

c. 496 Battle of Lake Regillus. Rome c. 500 Major burning evident at Rome
defeats the Latin League 500–475 Sharp drop in imported pottery
494 Creation of plebeian tribune and c. 480 Temple construction ceases for
plebeian assembly decades
493 Coriolanus and the Volsci defeated
458 Cincinnatus leads the defeat of c. 450 Writing of the Twelve Tables
the Aequi
396 Rome conquers Veii
c. 387 Rome sacked by the Gauls
367 Law enacted that one consul c. 370 Construction of the Servian Wall
should be plebeian
338 Rome wins the Latin War and

absorbs the region of Latium
326 Law introduced banning the

enslavement of indebted citizens
343–290 Three Samnite Wars end in victory c. 312 Construction of the Appian Way
for Rome and the Appian Aqueduct; first
Roman coinage appears
280–272 War against Pyrrhus and cities c. 280 Scipio Barbatus’ tombstone set up
of Magna Graecia ends in c. 270 Rome now one of the largest cities in
victory for Rome, so that it the Mediterranean, with a population
controls all of peninsular Italy of between 60,000 and 90,000
Further Reading 1.1

Barker, Graeme and Rasmussen, Tom, The Etruscans (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).
Beard, Mary, Confronting the Classics (London: Profile, 2013), chapter 6.
Beard, Mary, SPQR (London: Profile, 2015), chapters 1–4.
Claridge, Amanda, Oxford Archaeological Guides: Rome (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010).
Cornell, Tim, The Beginnings of Rome (London: Routledge, 1995).
Flower, Harriet (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chapter 1.
Forsythe, Gary, A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 2005).
Hopkins, John, The Genesis of Roman Architecture (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2016).
Smith, Christopher, The Etruscans: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2014).
III The Middle Republic (264–133 BCE )

Over the following 130 years or so, the Romans moved from controlling Italy to
being masters of most of the Mediterranean. They did this predominantly through
two different sets of conflicts – one with the Carthaginians of North Africa, and the
other with the Greek kingdoms to the east.
1 The Punic Wars

In the early 3rd century BCE , the greatest power in the western Mediterranean was
Carthage, a city in north Africa (its site lies in what is today Tunisia) founded in
about 800 by settlers from Tyre in Phoenicia. Like the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians
were notable traders, and they controlled the major maritime routes into the western
Mediterranean with trading posts in North Africa, the western half of Sicily, Sardinia,
Corsica and Spain. On Sicily they engaged in frequent conflicts with the Greek cities,
especially Syracuse, which was the dominant power on the island. Sicily was both
fertile and strategically important for controlling shipping routes.
It seems that until 264 the Carthaginians had maintained reasonably good relations
with the Romans, although they must have viewed their growing power with some
nervousness. At this date, however, the two cities entered into the first of three conflicts,
which were to be fought until 146. These wars were known as the Punic Wars – the
Romans called the Carthaginians Poeni, the adjective of which was Punicus. The word
Poeni was itself derived from the Greek Phoenikikos (‘Phoenician’).
The 1st Punic War (264–241)

The first war started in Sicily in 264 when the Carthaginians and the Romans were
drawn into supporting opposing sides in a local conflict, which soon escalated into a
full-scale fight for control of the island. Although the Romans had little naval tradition,
they built themselves a significant fleet for the first time, and had some successes with
their tactic of using boarding ramps to clamber onto Carthaginian ships and fight hand
to hand. None the less, the Romans also suffered great disasters – effectively losing
two fleets – and it was only with a rebuilt fleet that they won the conflict and took
control of Sicily in 241. The island now became Rome’s first overseas province.
The 2nd Punic War (218–201)

In the aftermath of their victory, the Romans possessed a larger fleet than the
Carthaginians. In 238, they seized the islands of Sardinia and Corsica as a combined
province, further weakening Carthaginian trade. Carthage therefore looked to open
up new markets and expanded its control in Spain where it founded new settlements.
This mission was led by a Carthaginian noble called Hamilcar Barca, a veteran of the
First Punic War. Hamilcar had a young son, whom he made swear undying hatred of
the Romans. That boy’s name was Hannibal, and he was to become synonymous
with the next, and decisive, conflict between the two peoples.
As the Carthaginians expanded in Spain, the Romans were initially distracted by
problems to the north. They defeated pirates in the northern Adriatic, making the
region of Illyria across that sea into a protectorate in the 220s. Soon afterwards, in
220, they subdued the region of the Po valley, which they called Cisalpine Gaul
(‘Gaul this side of the Alps’), in order to protect themselves from Gallic attack. None
the less, the Romans soon became nervous about growing Carthaginian power in
Spain, and a full-scale war broke out in 219 after Hannibal besieged Saguntum, a
Spanish town allied with the Romans. The Roman plan was to send a fleet over to
Spain to fight Hannibal there. However, Hannibal had other ideas, and set out on an
overland invasion of Italy with an army of about 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry, and
a battalion of elephants (Fig. 1.10).
It was a treacherous journey, with terrible weather conditions and various conflicts
with local tribes, all of which paled in comparison with the crossing of the Alps, a
journey of about fifteen days which resulted in enormous loss of life – the army is
said to have arrived in Italy with only 26,000 men and 21 elephants. The following
passage describes the dramatic moment when they arrived in Italy:
Setting out at dawn, the army struggled slowly forward over snow-covered
ground, with exhaustion and desperation showing in every face. Seeing their
despair, Hannibal rode ahead and at a vantage point where there was a view out
far and wide, he gave the order to halt, pointing to Italy far below, and the Po
Valley beyond the foothills of the Alps. He told them that they were now not
only scaling the walls of Italy, but of Rome itself; the rest of the way would be
level or downhill; and after one, or at the most, two, battles, they would have in
their hands and in their power the citadel and the capital of Italy.
Livy, History of Rome, 21.35
The Carthaginians inflicted three early defeats on the Romans at the River Trebia,
Lake Trasimene and, most spectacularly, in 216 at Cannae, where the Romans lost
somewhere between 40,000 and 70,000 men in one day. The defeat added to a general
sense of unrest at Rome and traumatised the Romans so much that they even resorted
to the extremely rare practice of human sacrifice, burying alive in the forum two
Greeks and two Gauls.
Rome was now at the mercy of Hannibal, but the senators held their nerve and
refused to give in: they ordered the city walls to be manned by slaves, boys and old
e
River Ticino
on
Po
Rh
River Trebia
Massilia
Lake
Trasimene ILL
Tib
YR
IA
A
r
RSIC
Ebr
CO
o Rome
Capua MACEDONIA
Cannae
IA
IN
Tarentum
RD
SA
EP
Saguntum
IR
US
Baleraic Is. Croton
Rhegium
New Carthage SICILIA

Utica Syracusae
Carthage
NUMIDIA
Zama
Mediteranean Sea
Carthage possessions Roman possessions

before 2nd Punic War Key battles
before 2nd Punic War
Route of Hannibal
Fig. 1.10 Hannibal’s route into Italy (the Alps route is an approximation) and his key battles there.
31
men. Hannibal’s cavalry commander, Maharbal, begged Hannibal to send him ahead
to Rome, suggesting that they could be dining on the Capitoline Hill within three
days. Yet Hannibal hesitated, unsure of his ability to hold the city with his shattered
troops. According to Livy, Maharbal told his leader sadly: ‘You know how to win,
Hannibal, but you do not know how to use your victory.’ Instead, Hannibal preferred
to pursue a policy of undermining Roman strength by attempting to win over the
Italian allies. This had limited success: some cities of southern Italy and Sicily went
over to the Carthaginians, including Capua and Syracuse; but many more allies,
including those of central Italy, remained loyal to Rome.
With help from the allies that remained loyal, Rome rebuilt its army and Hannibal
withdrew to southern Italy, where a stalemate ensued. Once again, it was Roman
manpower that was the defining factor: a census in 220 indicated that the total
number of Romans and allies able to bear arms was more than 700,000 infantry
and 70,000 cavalry. The Romans were able to sustain even the losses at Cannae
and fight on.
In 205, a dynamic young Roman general was elected consul for the first time.
Publius Cornelius Scipio (Fig. 1.11) – the great-grandson of Scipio Barbatus – had
made his name defeating Carthaginian forces in Spain between 211 and 206. As
consul, he advocated the controversial policy of sending a Roman army to north
Africa to threaten Carthage itself, so as to draw Hannibal’s forces out of Italy.
The motion was passed after heated debate in the Senate, and the plan worked.
In 202 the Romans won a great and final victory at Zama. Scipio became known
ever afterwards as ‘Scipio Africanus’. The Romans imposed severe peace terms
Fig. 1.11 This portrait bust of Scipio

Africanus is typical of the veristic style of
the late Republic; this sought to portray
Roman statesmen in a ‘warts and all’
style, which emphasised their life
experience and hard-won wisdom.

1 Read Livy 22.59–61. What can we learn about the Roman character from
the response to the defeat at Cannae?
2 Read and research Horace’s Ode 3.5. How does this poem reflect the
importance that later Romans placed on the Punic Wars?
on the conquered Carthaginians, reducing their navy to ten ships and stripping
them of their possessions outside Africa. Spain was divided into two Roman
provinces: Nearer Spain and Further Spain. The Carthaginians were also forbidden
to declare war on others and forced to pay 800,000 pounds of silver over a 50-year
period.
Hannibal himself was spared and remained in Carthage to help the city recover.
However, the Romans soon became afraid of his continuing presence, and he was
forced to flee east, where he fought for various kingdoms in their wars against the
Romans. Eventually, Rome demanded that he be surrendered; in response, Hannibal
committed suicide sometime after 183.
The 3rd Punic War (149–146)

Despite this disastrous defeat, Carthage recovered economically and quickly paid
off its levies. It became a small but prosperous city, which posed little threat to
Rome. However, many Romans felt that it should have been wiped out completely
after Zama; most notable among them was the senator Marcus Porcius Cato, an
Cato the Elder

Marcus Porcius Cato, often known as Cato the Elder to distinguish him from his
great-grandson introduced on p. 60, lived between 234 and 149 and was a
remarkable figure in the life of the Republic. He came from a plebeian family noted
for its military service and had served in all the major offices of state by 184.
Thereafter, he held no public office, but for the last 35 years of his life was a
powerful voice in the Senate advocating a traditionalist and conservative agenda.
In particular, he was alarmed at what he saw as the corrupting influence of new
ideas emerging from the Greek world.
Cato is also an important figure in the history of Roman literature. He was the
first to write a history of Italy in Latin, Origines, while his other works include
On Agriculture, a manual for farmers. This treatise reveals that, for all his contempt
for the Greeks, Cato was prepared to employ the tricks of Greek rhetoric and
display the Greek learning that he claimed to despise.
arch-conservative who visited Carthage as part of a Roman delegation in 157 and

was alarmed by its prosperity. He apparently always ended any speech in the
Senate, no matter its topic, with the words delenda est Carthago (‘Carthage must
be destroyed’).
These hawks were given their opportunity in 150 when Carthaginians attacked
a neighbouring city, thereby breaking the terms of their surrender after Zama.
The Romans sent a force led by another Scipio, Scipio Aemilianus, who was the
grandson of Scipio Africanus by adoption. After a hard-fought three-year war, the
city was burnt to the ground in 146 and its 50,000 surviving inhabitants sold into
slavery. The surrounding area was annexed and turned into the province of Africa.
Rome now had six provinces, five of which had been gained through the wars with
Carthage.
2 Rome and the East

In the eastern Mediterranean, Greek civilisation had been predominant since
the 320s, when Alexander the Great had conquered vast swathes of land as far
as northern India. After Alexander’s death, his vast empire had been split into
various kingdoms: the three largest were those of Macedonia (covering most of
central and northern Greece, as well as the lands to the north of the Aegean Sea), the
Seleucid kingdom (covering most of Asia Minor and the Near East), and Egypt.
There were other smaller states; we have already read of the kingdom of Epirus
in north-west Greece, the kingdom of Pergamum in north-west Asia Minor was a
great centre of culture, and the Aegean island of Rhodes was a centre of trade and
commerce. In mainland Greece, many of the southern cities remained independent,
but belonged to one of two political Leagues – the Aetolian League and the Achaean
League.
During the Second Punic War, the Macedonian king Philip V made an alliance
with the Carthaginians, hoping to benefit from their defeat of the Romans. Rome did
not have the manpower to launch a full-scale attack in the east, but instead formed an
alliance with the Aetolian League, which was itself an enemy of the Macedonians.
The half-hearted conflict lasted between 214 and 205 and was known as the First
Macedonian War. However, after defeating Hannibal in 202, the Romans came to
focus on the east.
In 200 the Aetolian League asked Rome for help in the continuing conflict with
Macedonia. A Second Macedonian War ensued, in which the Romans portrayed
themselves as ‘liberators’ of the Greeks from the Macedonian king Philip V. The
Roman commander Flamininus even announced their liberation – to reportedly
rapturous enthusiasm – at the Isthmian Games at Corinth in 196. Over the following
decades, the Romans continued to be involved in Greek affairs, most notably
during a Third Macedonian War between 171 and 167, by the end of which they
had destroyed the kingdom of Macedonia. However, throughout this period, Roman
policy remained one of alliance with supportive Greek peoples rather than of
conquest.
This changed in 149, by which time the Romans had grown tired of the infighting
amongst the Greeks, and their policy turned to one of conquest. The following year,
Macedonia was annexed as a Roman province; in 146, the Achaean League was
defeated too and the major cultural centre of Corinth was sacked and destroyed – all
the men were killed and the women and children were sold into slavery. Within the
space of a few short months, Rome had all but obliterated both Carthage and Corinth,
two of the great cities of the Mediterranean world.
Hellenisation
We have seen that the Romans had interacted with Greeks for many centuries, both
directly and via the mediation of the Etruscans, and had absorbed various aspects
of Greek culture. This process of absorption gathered pace during the 3rd century,
when Rome took control of the Greek cities of Magna Graecia, and then even
more so during the 2nd century, when Greece itself came under Roman control.
By now, many Greeks were living in Rome – the majority forcibly as slaves, some
as free men. This brought about an enormous cultural revolution in the city;
today it is known by scholars as Hellenisation (from ‘Hellas’, the ancient name for
Greece).
Greek culture now became mainstream in Rome. New buildings, public and
private, copied Hellenistic fashions; Greek orders of architecture became common,
and marble was used to adorn buildings for the first time. Greek sculptures were put
on display, in particular after the sack of Corinth; Greek sculptors followed – in fact,
most of the famous Greek statues that can be seen today are copies of Greek originals
produced during the Roman era. Greek medicine, philosophy, drama and literature
came to be studied and appreciated more deeply, and the Roman education system
began to model itself on that of Greece. As the Roman poet Horace would later
put it: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit – ‘captured Greece captured her savage
conqueror’. The Roman aristocrat most associated with embracing Hellenisation was
Scipio Aemilianus, who is said to have gathered around him a circle of intellectuals
to discuss these new ideas. Among them were the philosopher Panaetius of Rhodes,
who introduced the doctrines of Stoicism to the Romans (see p. 214), and Polybius,
the Greek historian of Rome whose analysis of the Roman constitution is examined
on pp. 46–47.
It is in the emergence of Roman literature that Hellenisation remains most visible.
The man regarded as the father of Roman literature, Livius Andronicus (c. 270–
c. 200 BCE ), was a Greek from Tarentum who had been captured in war. In 241, he
adapted into Latin a Greek tragedy; when it was performed the following year, it was
the first time a tragedy had been shown in a Roman theatre. Livius also produced the
first Latin translation of Homer’s Odyssey. We have already seen that, towards the
end of the 3rd century, Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus wrote the first histories
Roman Satire
Although the Romans looked almost entirely to the Greeks for literary inspiration,
they did invent one genre of literature themselves: satire. The first satirist we hear
of is Lucilius (c. 180–102), who wrote in hexameter verse (his work was therefore
partly a response to epic poetry, which is also written in hexameters). Only
fragments of his work have survived, but they suggest that he was a sharp social
critic who was keen to show up hypocrisy, especially when practised by public
figures. Lucilius acted as a model for later Roman satirists, among them Horace,
Persius, and Juvenal.
It is notable that Lucilius was the first poet we know of to hail from the Roman
upper classes – he was a close friend of Scipio Aemilianus and a member of his
circle. This suggests that at this time writing poetry was first being taken seriously
by the Roman educated elite, who were both Lucilius’ target audience and his
friends.
of Rome, in Greek for a Greek readership. A contemporary of theirs was Gnaeus

Naevius, who adapted Greek comedies and tragedies into Latin, and wrote a poem
about the First Punic War. The earliest Roman literature to have survived in any
amount came soon afterwards, with the comedies of Plautus and Terence, which
were heavily based on Greek models (see pp. 320–323). Around 200, Quintus Ennius
wrote his Annals, the first Roman epic poem in hexameter verse, which recounted
the history of Rome from the fall of Troy down to his own day. In the following
generations came two playwrights who focused on tragedy, Marcus Pacuvius and
Lucius Accius (see p. 319).
While many Romans welcomed this new cultural influx, it also provoked a
backlash from conservative Romans who found it threatening; they saw Greek
culture as soft, effeminate, and inappropriate for the supposedly austere Roman
character. One example of this is related by Livy. In 204, senatorial critics of Scipio
Africanus sought to smear the general by criticising him for ‘going Greek’ while in
Syracuse:
Passions were inflamed in support of Scipio and against him, and as a result
not all opinions could be gathered that day . . . there were even criticisms of
the commander’s personal appearance – not simply unlike a Roman, but
unlike a soldier. He would saunter around the gymnasium in a Greek cloak
and sandals, it was said, and spend his time on books and exercising – and his
entire staff enjoyed as much idleness and easy living, tasting the delights of
Syracuse.
Livy, History of Rome, 29.19
The most prominent critic of Hellenisation was Cato the Elder, who is quoted warning
his son about the dangers of the Greek influence on Roman culture as follows:
I shall tell you what I discovered at Athens, and convince you that it is good to
skim through their literature, but not to study it in depth. They are a worthless
and intractable lot – in this area accept me as a prophet. For when the Greeks
give us their literature it will undermine our whole way of life, and even more so
if they send us their doctors.
Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 29.14
Yet Cato and his kind failed to halt the spread of things Greek: over the following
centuries, Greek culture became so much a part of Roman society that it is more apt
to refer to Graeco-Roman culture from this time on.
Date Event
264–241 First Punic War between Carthage and Rome

241 Sicily becomes Rome’s first overseas province
238 Rome establishes a combined province on the islands of Sardinia and Corsica
230s Carthage expands its territory in western Spain
220s Rome conquers first Illyria then Cisalpine Gaul
218–202 Second Punic War
218 Hannibal crosses the Alps and defeats Rome at Ticinus and Trebia
217 Battle of Trasimene – Romans defeated
216 Battle of Cannae – Romans suffer catastrophic defeat
214–205 First Macedonian War
211 Hannibal’s march on Rome fails
204 Scipio Africanus invades Carthaginian territory in North Africa
202 Battle of Zama – final defeat of Carthage; Roman provinces of Nearer Spain and
Further Spain established
200–197 Second Macedonian War
171–167 Third Macedonian War
149–146 Third Punic War
148 Roman province of Macedonia established
146 Sack of Corinth
146 Sack of Carthage; Roman province of Africa established
1 How might history have been different if the Carthaginians had won the
Punic Wars?
2 Why do you think societies often have vigorous debates about the merits of
influences from other cultures?
Further Reading 1.2

Bagnall, Nigel, Essential Histories: The Punic Wars 264–146 BC
C (Oxford: Osprey,
2014).
Beard, Mary, SPQR (London: Profile, 2015), chapter 5.
Feeney, Denis, Beyond Greek: The Beginnings of Latin Literature (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2016).
Flower, Harriet (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chapters 9, 12, 13, 15.
Goldsworthy, Adrian, Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265–146 BC
C (London:
Cassell, 2003).
Gruen, Erich, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1992).
Gruen, Erich, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policyy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990).
Hoyos, Dexter (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,
2011).
IV The Political Structure of

The Republic
At this point in our account of Roman history, we turn to look at how the Roman
political constitution had come to work by 146 BCE, by which point the Romans had
become the dominant power in the Mediterranean.
The literary tradition gives a detailed description of the development of the
constitution from the moment the kings were expelled in 509; this should of course be
treated with scepticism. However, there can be little doubt that two basic principles –
that power should be shared, and that it should be rotated on an annual basis – were
there from the start. Beyond this, it seems clear that the constitution had evolved and
adapted over the generations. Indeed, according to Cicero, Cato the Elder believed
that this was one of its great strengths:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
VII.
Negyed kilencre járt és Ronda még mindig nem jött. Az osztály

élt a szabadságával, lármázott, hogy belekábult és belebutult.
Mindenki kiabált, de senkise tudta miért:
– Ronda! Ronda!
Némelyek arról hallottak, hogy meghalt. Mások arra esküdtek,
hogy a gazdasszonyát otthon bezárta a dutyiba, halálra éheztette és
most a tanár ur a börtönben hüsöl. Lohmann, Ertzum és Kieselsack
csak hallgatott.
Ronda észrevétlenül, hosszu lépésekkel a dobogóra surrant,
vigyázatosan a székre ült, mintha fájnának a csontjai. Sokan észre
se vették és tovább bömböltek:
– Ronda!
Ronda azonban ezuttal nem igen iparkodott, hogy »megcsipje«
őket. Vánnyadt és szürke volt, türelmesen várt, mig szóhoz
engedték, a felelőkkel pedig – szinte betegesen – bakafántoskodott.
Tiz percig hagyta, hogy egy diákja, akinek különben segiteni szokott,
rosszul forditson. A másiknak nyomban, haragtól tajtékozva, a
szavába vágott. Ertzumon, Kieselsackon és Lohmannon közönyösen
keresztülnézett, – de csak rájuk gondolt. Azon tépelődött, nem
látták-e, mikor tegnap éjjel hazafelé botorkált, egy ház sarkánál, ahol
két kezét a falra tapasztva tapogatózott. Azt hitte, hogy beléjük
botlott, hogy bocsánatot is kért tőlük… Az esze azonban még most
is ép maradt, világosan látta, hogy nem kell mindent az emberek
orrára kötni, ami bensejében elviharzott.
Pokolian szenvedett, hogy ebben a dologban nem lát világosan.
Mit tudott a három elvetemült?… És mi történhetett tegnap, azután,
hogy otthagyta őket? Visszamentek a Kék Angyalba? Lohmann
visszasompolygott az öltözőbe?… Frölich szinmüvésznő sirt;
lehetséges, hogy már aludt is. Talán Lohmann keltette fel… Ronda
égett a vágytól, hogy őt a legnehezebb részből feleltesse meg. De
nem volt hozzá mersze.
Lohmann, Ertzum gróf és Kieselsack folyton fixirozták.
Kieselsack a helyzetet kómikusnak, Ertzum megalázónak, Lohmann
szánalmasnak találta; de ettől függetlenül mindhárman
beleborzongtak, valami titkos rémület szállta meg őket, hogy a
zsarnokkal sötét egyetértésben halásztak a zavarosban.
Az iskola udvarán, a tizperc alatt, Lohmann a napfényes falhoz
támaszkodott, összekulcsolta karjait és amint tegnap a füstös terem
fala mellett a boldogtalanságát hallotta felcsendülni verseiben,
Ertzum egyszerre csak ott termett és tompán kérdezte:
– Igaz hogy az asztalon feküdt és aludt? Nem hittem.
– De igen és horkolt. Ronda leitatta.
– Gazember! Ha még egyszer…
Ertzum elszégyelte magát és elharapta a fogadkozását. Némán
az iskola járma alá hajolt. Rondánál jobban utálta a saját
nyavalyáját. Érezte, hogy nem méltó Rózára!…
Kieselsack ide-oda surrant a diákok közt, a két cinkostárs mellett
és kezét a szájára tapasztva, ferdült szájjal, a szörnyü ujjongástól
rázva, odasugta nekik:
– Lépre kerül, meglátjátok, hogy lépre kerül.
Aztán, mielőtt továbbment volna, gyorsan kérdezte:
– Eljöttök ma?
Két társa megvetően a vállát vonta. Persze, hogy elmennek.
Rondának a szinésznő látogatása kötelességévé lett és annál
jobban örült neki, minél inkább összebarátkozott vele. Hogy
Lohmann meg ne előzze, mindig elsőnek ment a Kék Angyalba.
Elrendezte a nő toalettszereit, kikereste a tiszta alsónadrágokat és
bugyogókat, amit foltozni kellett, félretette egy székre. A szinésznő
későn jött, mert tudta, hogy Ronda mindezt elintézi. Lassanként
megtanulta azt is, hogy szürke ujjait hegyesen összefogja, a nő
szalagjának a bogát feloldta, csokrait egyenesre huzta, tüit ügyesen
kihalászta a ruháiból. Mikor a nő festette magát, siető karjának
rózsás és halványsárga játékát lassanként értelmes mozdulatokra
tagolta. Arca palettáján kiismerte magát, a szines rudak és
üvegcsék, a poros-zacskók és iskatulák, a zsiros-dobozok és
szelencék nevét és mirevalóságát megtanulta; csendben és buzgón
gyakorolgatta magát. A nő észrevette előmenetelét. Egy este a tükör
elé telepedett egy székre és ezt mondta Rondának:
– Gyerünk.
És Ronda oly gyöngyül megcsinálta a fejét, hogy a nőnek
egyetlenegy ujját se kellett kenőcsbe mártani. Csodálkozott is a
tanár ur készségén s tudakolta, hogy tanult bele ennyire. Ronda
vörös lett mint a rák és valamit dadogott; de a nő kiváncsiságát nem
tudta kielégiteni.
Ronda örült, hogy az öltözőben ily sokra vitte. Lohmann most
már nem üti ki a nyeregből. Észrevenné-e például Lohmann, hogy
azt a rózsaszin spanyol köpenyt már át kell festetni? Igen, hogyha
emlékezetét Homérosz versének szorgos beemlékezésével
megedzette volna! Most kisül, micsoda a hanyagság
következménye!… És a földön heverő fehérnemük s a butorok közt
ugy surrant át Ronda, mint egy nagy, fekete pók, ügyesen kapkodta
ki ezt-azt vékony, begörbitett ujjaival. Szürke, szögletes kezei alatt
suhogva és zizegve simultak ki a porhanyó kelmék. Némely
ruhadarab idomokká gömbölyült, amelyeket a ruhák simán
megőriztek, – egy karrá, egy combbá, amire Ronda elfogódottan
bandzsitott, ezt gondolván:
– Igen ám, – ugy bizony.
Ilyenkor az ajtóhasadékhoz lopódzott, kikukucskált, hogy lássa a
nőt, akinek hangja a zongora dörgése közben sipolt és rikoltott, a
tagjai beleböktek a füstbe, a bamba, puffadt fejekbe, amelyek mint
buta tulipánok egy virágágyban, bámulták. Büszke volt a nőre,
megvetette a termet, hogyha tapsolt, felfröccsent a gyülölete,
hogyha hallgatott; – és egész különös érzelmekkel viseltetett a terem
iránt, hogyha hörgött a kéjtől, mert ekkor a nő mélyen meghajolt és a
csupasz mellét odaforditotta. Ekkor Ronda kéjesen bizsergő
fájdalmat érzett…
… Majd berobbant a nő, a tetszés szélrohama söpörte be az
ajtón és Ronda vállára tette az esti köpenyét, a nyakát kissé szabad
volt bepuderezni.
Amellett még szeszélyeskedett is őnagysága. Aszerint
következtek Ronda számára a jó vagy rossz órák, amint vagy a
vállát nyujtotta felé nagykegyesen, vagy pedig a puderes puflit vágta
a képibe, hogy szegény majd megvakult tőle. Ronda nőbuvárló
tekintete tul a ruhán és a testen ismeretlen mélységekbe hatolt.
Rájött, hogy a ruhadarabokon és a puderen érezni, szinte szagolni
lehet a lelket; hogy puder és ruha csaknem egyet jelent a lélekkel…
A müvésznő hol türelmetlenül bánt vele, hol pedig barátságosan.
És Rondát kihozta a sodrából, ha őnagysága hirtelen, minden
átmenet nélkül barátságot pózolt. Sokkal kellemesebb volt a dühe…
Időnként, előre kieszelt terv szerint kezelte Rondát, de a terv
keresztülvitele untatta; miheztartási szabályokat irt elő
sajátmagának, amiket betartott ugyan, de minden meggyőződés
nélkül. Majd hirtelen adta az előkelőt és modorában enyhén
érzelmes árnyalatokat vegyitett. Odaadó arcot mutatott; olyant,
amilyet minden nőnek ajánlatos használni olykor, hogyha komoly
férfival akar kikezdeni. De egyszerre megint félrelökte Rondát, mint
egy csomó alsószoknyát a székről és ilyenkor Ronda – maga se
tudta miért – megkönnyebbülten lélekzett fel.
Egyszer arcul is legyintette. Utána sebesen kapta vissza a kezét,
jól megnézte, megszagolta és mereven mondta:
– Hiszen maga zsiros.
Ronda irult-pirult. És Rózából kibuggyant a szó:
– Ez festi magát! Ttyhü az áldóját! Hát azért tudta ugy? Titokban
saját magán tanulmányozta! Oh, maga – Ronda!
Ronda elképedt.
– Ugy bi-zony: maga Ronda!
Körültáncolta.
És Ronda boldogan mosolygott… Hát tudja a »nevét«, Lohmann
mondhatta meg neki és a többiek, bizonyára már kezdettől fogva
tudja. Ronda rázkódott az izgalomtól, de ez az izgalom nem volt
kellemetlen, hanem inkább jóleső. Ez szeget ütött a fejébe és
enyhén elszégyelte magát. Miért oly boldog most, hogy Frölich
kisasszony csufnevén nevezte. Mindegy, boldog volt. Azonkivül nem
is volt szabad gondolkoznia ezen, Rózácska sörért küldte.
Ronda nemcsak megrendelte a sört, de a vendéglőst követte is,
mikor a poharakat vitte a termen keresztül és azáltal, hogy ilymódon
hátulról eltakarta a poharakat, sikerült megakadályoznia, hogy
mások utközben elkapkodják. Egyszer a »Kék Angyal«-hoz cimzett
vendéglő tulajdonosa azt ajánlotta Rondának, hogy vigye be ő maga
a sört. Ronda oly előkelő tartózkodással utasitotta vissza ezt az
ajánlatot, hogy nyomban beléfojtotta a szót.
Mielőtt őnagysága ivott volna, igy szólt:
– Isten éltesse, Ronda!
Azután elgondolkozott:
– Fura ugy-e, hogy Rondának hivom? Hát bizony ez kissé fura.
Hiszen semmi közünk sincs egymáshoz. Mióta is tart már az
ismeretségünk? Hogy meg lehet szokni valakit… De nem, nem igaz.
Kiepert és a felesége mehetnének akár a fenébe is énmiattam, egy
könyet se ejtenék értük. Maga azonban, maga más…
A szemei lassacskán elmélyültek és megmerevültek. Elmerengve
kérdezte Rondát:
– De hát mi lesz, hát mi a szándéka?
VIII.
Erről maga Ronda se gondolkozott és csak egy dolog

nyugtalanitotta őt, hogyha estente elvált a nőtől: az, hogy nem tudja,
hányadán van Kieselsack-kal, Ertzummal és Lohmannal. Minthogy
roppant félt attól, amit ők a tilosban müveltek, azt hitte, hogy minden
lehetséges, az emberek között lévő határok pedig nem is léteznek.
Künn a »Kék Angyal«-ba vivő utcán egyszer hallotta a lépteiket.
Halkitotta a lépteit, nehogy feltünjék nekik, hogyha megállapodik.
Egy házsarok mögött lesbe állt és észrevétlenül – a fejét elforditva –
rajtuk ütött. A diákok visszatorpantak; de Ronda vidáman, szikrázó
tekintettel mondta:
– Nos, amint látom, önök – nemde ugyebár – a müvészetre
szomjaznak. Ez szép önöktől. Csak jöjjenek, a hallottakat még
egyszer élvezzük, közösen, igy legalább alkalmam lesz megtudni,
minő előmenetelt tanusitottak.
A három diák megállott és mert semmiképp sem értették meg a
zsarnoknak ezt az ijesztő pajtáskodását, igy folytatta Ronda:
– Minthogy látom, miképpen készülnek s ezuttal fogalmat
alkothattam magamnak általános müveltségükről is, megjegyzem
önöknek, – igen ám ugy bizony – hogy e tapasztalatom majd
sulyosan latba esik az évvégi bizonyitványok idején.
Lohmannt karon ragadta, a másik kettőt pedig előre küldte.
Lohmann fanyalogva ment vele; de Ronda minden teketória nélkül a
hetedikes kupléjáról kezdett beszélni.
»Bolygó szerelmem sir fel epedezve« – idézte Ronda. – A
szerelem mint elvont dolog, mint absztraktum egyáltalán nem sir fel.
Minthogy azonban ön a szerelmet ugy akarja látni, mint a saját
lelkiállapotának megszemélyesitését, perszonifikációját és minthogy
ez a költői csapongás önből kitör és egy állitólagos ezüst tó mellett
sir, hagyján. Nekem azonban, mint tanárjának, meg kell jegyeznem,
hogy az emlitett lelkiállapot egy hetedikeshez, egy olyan
hetedikeshez, akinek nincs rendben a szénája, semmiképp sem illik.
Lohmann megriadt és elkeseredett, mert a lelke egy darabját
Ronda száraz ujjai között nyomogatta s igy szólt:
– Ez, tanár ur, elejétől végéig költői szabadság. Merész és hazug
játék, l’art pour l’art, ha tetszik ismerni ezt a kifejezést. A lelkemmel
semmi köze sincs.
– Igen ám, tulajdonképpen – makogta Ronda. – A dalocska
sikerét – jól jegyezzük – egyedül a szinmüvésznő lendületes
előadásának köszönheti.
Ronda e név emlitésére halhatatlan büszkeséget érzett, amit
azzal fojtott el, hogy a lélekzetét visszatartotta. Többet nem is
beszélt róla. Korholta Lohmann regényes költészetét s Homérosz
szorgalmas tanulmányozását ajánlotta neki. Lohmann azt állitotta,
hogy Homérosz nehány költői passzusát is régen tulhaladták már. A
haldokló kutya, amelyet Odysseus visszatérésénél rajzol Homérosz,
sokkal jobban meg van irva Zola regényében, La joie de vivre-ben.
– Ha tetszett róla hallani a tanár urnak – tette hozzá.
Végre a Heine-szobor elé értek és Ronda parancsoló hangon,
boszusan kiáltott az éjszakába, Lohmann felé:
– Nem! Soha!
A város kapuja elé érkeztek; Rondának el kellett volna válni.
Ehelyett azonban Kiselsackot magához intette s tovább ment vele a
sötét réteken:
– Most menjen Ertzum barátjával – szólt Lohmannhoz. Hirtelenül
minden atyai gondját Kieselsackra összpontositotta. Ennek a
diáknak családi viszonyai meglehetősen ziláltak voltak. Az apja éjjeli
révhivatalnok volt, Kieselsack azt mondta, hogy a nagyanyjánál
lakik. Ronda pedig elgondolta, az az öregasszony nem igen
korlátozhatja éjjeli kiruccanásait. És a »Kék Angyal« kapuja sokáig
nyitva volt…
Kieselsack sejtette, hova akar kilyukadni. Igy szólt:
– Bizony a nagyanyám néha el is agyabugyál.
Ertzum Ronda éber tekintetének hatása alatt ökölbe szoritotta
kezét, pár lépéssel haladt a tanárja előtt és tompán mondta
Lohmannak:
– Ajánlom az öregnek, hogy ne nagyon hepciáskodjék, mert most
cudarul megjárhatja. Végre mindennek van határa.
– Csillapodjál – mondta Lohmann. – Ne ragadtasd el magadat.
Ertzum tovább szikrázott:
– Most bevallok neked valamit… Itt magunk vagyunk, lámpa
sincs, a legközelebbi rendőr csak Blöss asszony háza előtt áll. Ha
megfordulok és leütöm őt, ugy-e nem fogtok le… Az a lány… az a
lány egy ilyen hitvány, egy ilyen dög karmai között van! Az ő hamvas
szüzisége!… Meglátod, valami iszonyu történik!
Ertzum egyre jobban belemelegedett, mert érezte, hogy
csodálják. Ez nem zavarta, a hetvenkedését se szégyelte, mert ma
képesnek érezte magát mindenre, ma állta a szavát.
Lohmann vonakodott.
– Kétségtelenül nagy dolog lenne, ha agyonütnéd – jegyezte meg
fáradt hangon. – Csakhogy egyetlen bátor gesztust se merünk
megtenni… egy ajtót se merünk felszakitani… inkább mögéje bujunk
és félünk, hogy megcsipnek, attól tartunk, hogy valaki belülről
kinyitja.
Lohmann hallgatott, feszülten várta, hogy a társa a szemébe
mondja, leleplezze, hogy Dom Breetpoot asszonyt szereti.
Gondolatban egy revolverrel játszott, amely ilyen esetben mindig
készen várt rá… De vallomását nem hallotta meg, szétpukkant a
levegőben.
– Más kérdés az – és Lohmann elhuzta a száját – hogy
megteszed-e. Persze, hogy nem teszed meg.
Ertzum vadul hátratorpant, Lohmann látta jól, mert Blöss asszony
lámpája már odavilágitott, hogy a barátja elalél, az ájulat környékezi.
Megragadta a karját:
– Ne bolondozz!
Lohmann tetette magát, hogy el se hitte a rosszullétét:
– Ugyan kérlek, hisz ez nem is komoly ügy. Nézd meg ezt az
alakot, kérlek. Ezt gyilkolnád meg? Ezen csak mulatni lehet, az
ember a vállát vonja. Nem szégyelnéd, ha az öreg Rondával együtt
kerülnél be az ujságokba? Ez kompromittálna.
Ertzum nehéz, sürüvérü szédülete elült. Lohmann kissé
megvetette, hogy ily hamar magához tért.
– Látod, – jegyezte meg – multkor is tenned kellett volna valamit
és nem tetted meg. Kértél Breetpoot-tól pénzt?
– Neem.
– Látod. A gyámod elé akartál lépni, be akartad vallani a
szenvedélyed és azt, hogy el akarsz szökni a nővel, hogy már férfi
vagy és hogy inkább szolgálsz két évig, minthogy a kedvesedet egy
fenevad tönkretegye. Miatta mindent otthagytál volna: ezt akartad.
– Semmit se értem volna el.
– Miért?
– Pénzt ugy se adott volna. Csak erősebben fogott volna. Most
nem is találkozhatnék Rózával.
Lohmann is valószinünek tartotta, hogy a gyám igy cselekszik.
– Tudunk neked háromszáz márkát keriteni – mondta hanyagul. –
Ha meg akarsz vele szökni…
Ertzum a fogai közt sziszegte:
– Köszönöm.
– Nem? Akkor nem.
Lohmann halkan és kajánul nevetett.
– De igazad van. Az ember százszor is meggondolja, grófnővé
tegyen-e valakit. És Róza másképp nem hajlandó.
– Én sem akarnám másképp – mondta Ertzum megtörten és
egyszerüen. – De ő sehogyse akar… Ó, ha tudnád. Senkise sejti,
hogy vasárnap óta kétségbe vagyok esve. Nevetséges, hogy ti ugy
beszéltek velem, mintha még mindig a régi lennék – és én is ugy
beszélek.
Hallgattak. Lohmann nagyon elégedetlen volt; érezte, hogy
megrontották, sértették Dora Breetpoot iránt való szerelmét, mert
Ertzum e kómikus nő miatt szintén tragikus helyzetbe sodródott.
Ertzum és Róza nagyon is közel kerültek hozzá.
– Nos? – kérdezte Lohmann, homlokát ráncolva.
– Igen, vasárnap történt, mikor kirándultunk Hünengrab-ba,
veled, Kieselsack-kal és – Rózával…
Róza egészen velem, kivételesen Ronda nélkül: olyan boldog
voltam. Biztos voltam a dolgomban.
– Igen. Eleinte kitünő kedved volt. Olyan ricsajt csaptál.
– Igen. Ha erre a ricsajra gondolok, – ez azelőtt volt – akkor még
más ember voltam… Reggeli után az erdőbe mentünk, Róza és én;
te és Kieselsack aludtatok. Nekiduráltam magamat; az utolsó
pillanatban inamba szállt a bátorság. De azért olyan jól bánt velem,
sokkal jobban, mint veled… ugy-e? Csak a vallomásomat várta.
Pénzt vettem magamhoz, biztosan hittem, hogy vissza se megyünk
a városba, az erdőn keresztül egyenesen az állomásra szaladunk.
Elnémult. Lohmann meglökte.
– Talán nem szeret – eléggé?
– Azt mondta, hogy még nem ismer. Nem tartod ezt ürügynek?…
Pedig akart, mindketten el voltunk határozva; de azt mondta, hogy
könnyen becsukhatják, mert elcsábitott egy kiskorut.
Lohmann dühösen küzdött a nevetéssel.
– Ez a hidegség – válaszolta erőlködve – nem helyes. Legalább
azt hiszem, hogy te sokkal jobban szereted őt. Meg kellene
fontolnod, nem lenne-e okosabb, hogyha ezután félárbocra
eresztenéd a vitorlát… Nem érzed, e kirándulás után nem érdemli
meg, hogy egész jövődet odavesd neki?
– Nem, nem érzem – mondta Ertzum komolyan.
– Akkor semmit se lehet csinálni – felelte Lohmann.
Thelander pap házához értek. Ertzum a póznán felmászott az
erkélyre. Ronda Kieselsack és Lohmann közt állt és utána nézett.
Mikor Ertzum belépett az ablakba, Ronda révetegen elindult. Arra
gondolt, hogy Ertzum ujra lemászhat, ha kedve szottyan… De
Ertzumtól nem tartott; megvetette az együgyüségét.
A két diákot visszavezette a városba és Kieselsackot elkalauzolta
addig a házig, ahol a nagyanyja lakott s átadta a nagyanyai
fennhatóságnak.
Aztán Lohmannt is elvezette az atyai házba, hallotta amint a
kapu bezárult, látta, amint a fény fönn felgyulladt, nyügösen várt,
amig kilobbant és aztán még egy darabig várt. Semmise történt.
Ronda csak aztán mert lefeküdni.
IX.
A kiváncsiakat mind elriasztotta Ronda a müvész-szoba ajtaja

elől. Az idegen matrózok azt gondolták, hogy ő a gazda, aki az
artistákat felfogadta. Azok, akik nem a társulat direktorát sejtették
benne, azt hihették, hogy a müvészgárda egyik tagjának az
édesapja. Közbül pedig ültek azok, akik ismerték és sunyin
vigyorogtak fölötte.
Eleinte hangosan gunyolták. Ronda nem törődött velük. Neki itt
különös jogai voltak. A többiek csakhamar rájöttek erre. Érezték,
hogy ők itt a megalázottak, akik olcsó pénzükért bámészkodnak – és
Ronda megértő tekintettel tárta fel Frölich Róza szinmüvésznő,
mindnyájuk közös vágya előtt az ajtót. Akaratuk ellenére tisztelni
kezdték Rondát és hiába igyekeztek, nap-nap után kevésbé sikerült
őt nevetségesnek látni. Csak a háta mögött sugdosódtak, a
nagykereskedések hátsó irodáiban. Az első hirek, Ronda uj élete
folyásáról, innen szivárogtak ki. A városban nem hitték el azonnal.
Az öreg Ronda régi diákjai egyik nap azt állitották, hogy bezárta a
gazdasszonyát a dutyiba, másnap megint valami mást pletykáltak.
Ez rá vallott, az egész város nevetett rajta.
Egyik fiatal tanár, a legöregebb professzornak, egy nagyothalló
aggastyánnak védelme alatt, elment a »Kék Angyal«-ba és
meggyőződést szerzett az igazságról. Másnap reggel, a tanári
szobában, a süket professzor fenkölt szónoklatot tartott a tanári állás
méltóságáról. A fiatal tanár cinikusan mosolygott hozzá. A többiek
félrenéztek; sokan a vállukat vonogatták. Ronda megrémült. Ugy
érezte, hogy az ő hatalmi területére betörnek. Az álla csattogott és
ezt nyögte ki:
– Ehhez önnek – jól jegyezzük meg – nincsen semmi köze.
Még egyszer megfordult.
– Az én méltóságom – nemde, ugyebár – a legszemélyesebb
magánügyem.
Nehányat nyeldekelt és reszketve ódalgott el. Még félutról is
vissza szeretett volna menni. Napokig keseritette az a gondolat,
hogy nem tisztázta ezt az ügyet. Ki kellett volna jelentenie, hogy
Frölich Róza szinmüvésznő különb valamennyi tanárnál, szebb, mint
a süket, öreg professzor, még az igazgatóhoz se mérhető. Nincs
több olyan kiváló teremtés, mint ő és méltó Rondához, magasan
fölötte áll az egész emberiségnek és mindenki halálos bünt követ el,
aki megbántja, vagy kételkedik benne.
Csakhogy ezek a vélemények sokkal mélyebbre voltak rejtve,
sokkal hozzáférhetetlenebbek voltak, hogysem akárki fiával
közölhette volna. Ezek a vélemények pokolian fojtogatták; magányos
szobájában rohamok fogták el, hogy a fogát csikorgatta és az öklét
rázta.
Vasárnap politikai gyülésre ment Kieperttel a városvégi piactérre,
a szociáldemokraták tanyájára. Mindez hirtelen elhatározás
eredménye volt. Annak az osztálynak a hatalma, ahová Lohmann
tartozott, ugy vélte Ronda, nagyon hamar el fog tünni. Eddig az
artista minden invitációját gunyosan, higgadt mosollyal fogadta: ez
egy felvilágosult zsarnok mosolya volt, aki az egyházat, a
militárizmust, a rendetlenséget és a merev erkölcsöt támogatja s a
saját érveiről inkább nem is nyilatkozik. Ma egyszerre elhatározta,
hogy ezeket az elveket sutba veti; egy követ fujj a csőcselékkel,
harcol a sötét népgyilkosok ellen, a népet a palotába hivja és az
általános anarchiában vérbefojtja a berzenkedő nagyurakat. A nép
nehéz páráiban, amelyek zsirosan ülték meg a szociálisták tanyáját,
megbomolt Ronda; és beteges lángra gyult halálos pusztitó kedve.
Vörös bütykökkel hadonászott a sörösüvegek között és kiabált:
– Jogot a népnek! Le a nemzetgyilkosokkal!…
Ordináré mámor volt; másnap megbánta. Ezenfelül megtudta,
hogy mig ő ott a nagy zürzavarban hadakozott, Frölich kisasszony
eltünt a városból. Az első percben, a félelemtől dermedten,
Lohmannra gondolt.
Lohmann nem volt ma iskolában! Micsoda elvetemültségeket
csinálhatott ezalatt? Ahogy Ronda kitette a lábát, nyomban Frölich
kisasszonynál termett! Biztosan nála van most is! A szobájában ül!
Rondát heves vágy fogta el, hogy lássa a szobáját és átkutassa.
Ezeken a napokon Ronda reszketett a gyanutól. Az iskolában
dühöngött, a hetedikesek utját állta, mint egy gyilkos. Az öltözőben
azzal vádolta a kövér nőt, hogy kártékony befolyást gyakorol Rózára.
A nő kiméletesen nevetett. Róza maga válaszolt:
– Fusson ki mind a két szemem, hogyha leülök azokkal a
diákokkal, nekem azok különben is – ilyen fiatalok.
Ronda haragosan nézett őnagyságára. Aztán, mivel azt akarta,
hogy a szinmüvésznő ártatlan legyen, tiszta, mint a hó, a kövér nőre
ripakodott:
– Mindenért ön felelős! Mit tett a gondjaira bizott Frölich
szinmüvésznő őnagyságával?
A nő nyugodtan válaszolt:
– Ugyan ne gyerekeskedjék.
Kinyitotta az ajtót és még egyszer visszajött:
– Folyton csak beszél.
Aztán mikor kiment, igy szólt:
– De tenni nem tud semmit.
Ronda vörös lett, mint a paprika. Róza nevetett.
– Még mindig nem tudja, hogy mit kell tenni – mondta Róza, hogy
egyedül maradtak.
Később aztán semmit se beszéltek egymással.
Valahányszor azonban bejött a kövér házaspár, Ronda
pukkadozott a dühtől. Már régóta szigoruan bánt velük. Minél
fontosabbá vált lelkében Róza, minél erősebben védte őt, minél
határozottabban szembeállitotta őt a léha csőcselékkel; annál
kevesebb hely maradt az öltözőszékjein a kövér házaspár ruhái
számára. Fájt a sikerük és lármás, jó kedélyük. Az artistát az
akrobata mutatványai után kiutasitotta az öltözőből, mert nagyon
izzadt és ez egy oly müvésznő jelenlétében, mint amilyen Frölich
Róza kisasszony, nem illik. Kiepert jókedvüen kotródott s ezt
gondolta:
Aj de finnyásak lettetek angyalkáim.
A felesége sértékeny volt, de nevetett és meglökte Rondát.
Ronda letörülte a kabátját. Erre aztán a nő komolyan megsértődött.
Róza pedig vihogott. Mindig meg volt tisztelve, minden hizelgett
neki. Csak a kövér házaspár boszantotta, hogy a hazafias dalukat
oly nagy siker kisérte. Ronda ismételten azt állitotta, hogy csak Róza
»müvésznő«. Naiv intrikával szitotta a becsvágyát és azzal vonta
magához, hogy rávette, sajnálja le az egész világot; arra
kényszeritette, hogy csak benne, feltétlen lovagjában bizakodjék.
Megkövetelte tőle, hogy mélyen megvesse a zsufolt termet,
amelynek ágált, hogy lenézzen külön-külön minden nézőt, akinek
tapsát akarta. Ronda a kövér nőt különösen azért gyülölte, mert
pletykákat hozott a teremből és beszámolt, milyen sikert aratott
Róza.
– Hogyan! Lehetséges ez! – kiáltott Ronda. – Hogy merészkedik
az az ember megmukkani. Az a Meyer, aki tizenkilenc éves korában
is elhasalt. S aztán három évig kellett szolgálnia.
Róza mosoly alá rejtette el a zavarát, hogy mégis csak tetszik
neki az a szegény Meyer. Szerette volna, hogyha nem tetszenék.
Természetétől fogva tanulékony volt s méltányolta, hogy egy olyan
képzettségü pedagogus, mint Ronda, méltónak találta arra, hogy
foglalkozzék vele. Ilyen megtiszteltetés még nem érte. Amikor a
kövér nő tovább is védeni próbálta Meyert, Róza dühösen letorkolta.
Máskor meg egy hervadt rózsával csiklandta Ronda orrát.
– Ezt a rózsát az a kis kövérke adta, aki ott ül, mindjárt a zongora
mögött.
– Édesem, – mondta a kövér nő – az egy trafikos. Finum ember.
Kiepert is nála vásárol. Nagyszerüen megy az üzlete.
– Nem tudom, mit szól hozzá Ronda ur – kérdezte Róza.
Ronda azt mondta, hogy egyik leghitványabb diákja volt és mint
üzletember is hitvány, mert minden számláját ugy állitja ki, hogy a
neve kezdőbetüjét más, oda nem illő betüvel helyettesiti. A kövér nő
azt mondta, ez semmi. Ronda hazudozott, hogy az üzlete se szolid.
Frölich Róza nézte a professzort, aki tüzet okádott, riszálta a derekát
és szagolgatta a lankadt rózsát.
– Na, maga a kákán is csomót talál – jegyezte meg a kövér
hölgy. – Mondja meg az Isten szerelméért, miért ácsorog itt?
És mivel Ronda hallgatott, mint a csuka, folytatta:
– Csak lopja itt az időt.
– Semmire a világon nem jön rá – szólt Frölich kisasszony és a
térdire csapott.
Ronda fülig pirult.
– Akkor csak hagyja a faképnél, hadd bölcselkedjék magában, –
követelte a kövér asszonyság – jó magának butább is, azok se
akárkik és legalább néhanapján tudják, mit kell tenniök. Maga ért
engem, Rózácska. Tudja, ugye, hogy miért adok ilyen tanácsot,
végre itéletnapig én se várhatok.
Erre kiment, hogy Kiepertjével elénekeljék a csatadalt. Frölich
kisasszony siró keserüséggel mondta:
– A szentségit, ugy megcsipett, hogy kék folt marad a helyin!
A karját fogta.
– Ha jól meggondolom – tette aztán hozzá, kissé higgadtabban –
ez a perszóna már nagyon is pimasz lett.
Megállt és kétségbeesetten fakadt ki:
– Magában pedig egy szikra szánalom sincs!
És Ronda egyszerre érezte a nap-nap után szinte észrevétlenül
felhalmozódott kötelességek terhét, melyektől most már nem tudott
szabadulni.
Mig odakünn zengett a csatadal, Róza kisasszony sóhajtozva
járkált fel s alá az öltözőben.
– No de most adok nekik!… Mindig mondtam magának, hogy
undorodom ezektől a kövérektől. Na hát most aztán megkapják a
magukét.
És alig fejezte be a Kiepert-házaspár a német hősiességet
dicsőitő éneket, Róza kisasszony viharosan kirobbant és a
hazafiasságtól csöpögő terembe belerikácsolta:
A férjem német tengerész,

Csatázik folyton ő,
De akkor is csatára kész,
Mikor az ágyba jő…
Először elképedtek az emberek, azután hangosan felzudultak,

végül pedig jót mulattak a furcsa helyzeten. Frölich kisasszony
merészsége sikerült, győzelemtől ittasan tért vissza az öltözőbe.
A kövér asszonyság ezuttal komolyan fel volt indulva.
– Mi ketten tótágast állunk, csakhogy a közönség egy kis
magasabb müélvezethez juthasson. És maga legszentebb
érzelmeinket kicsufolja. Ennél nagyobb szemtelenséget még nem
ettem!
Ronda Frölich kisasszony pártjára állott, kijelentette, hogy a
müvészetben minden iránynak van jogosultsága; müvészet az, amit
a nagy müvészek csináltak; és minden javak között legszentebb
Frölich Róza szinmüvésznő talentuma. Fejtegetéseit néhány a kövér
hölgyhöz intézett szóval fejezte be:
– Maga nekem…
Ebben a pillanatban Kiepert lépett a szobába. Vele volt egy
ember, akinek husos, veres képe pirosas kendővel volt köröskörül
kötve. A veresképü felhuzta a szemöldeit és igy szólt:
– Tyhü az áldóját, de csinos jószág maga lelkem! Tyhü ha! E mán
teszi… Mer hát én is kapitány volnék, vagy mi és ha kedve
szottyana, hogy valamit igyék…
Ronda beleszólt:
– Frölich Róza szinmüvésznő őnagysága – jól jegyezzük meg –
senkivel sem óhajt inni. Ön téved, ha azt hiszi. Egyébiránt kegyed
nyilván félreismeri, ennek a duty… ennek az öltözőnek a
magánjellegét.
– Maga tréfál – mondta a kapitány és még magasabbra huzta a
szemöldjeit.
– Egyáltalában nem – világositotta fel őt Ronda. – Hanem
kioktatom önt ama kötelességében, hogy hagyja el ezt a szobát.
Kieperték megsokalták a dolgot.
– Tisztelt tanár ur, – mondta boszusan és zsörtölődve az artista –
azt hiszem, jogom van behozni a barátomat, akivel éppen most ittam
pertut.
A felesége kitálalt:
– Láttak már ilyet? Senkinek nem ad egy árva fityinget, csak
rontja itt a levegőt és elriasztja a vendégeket. Róza, rögtön menjen a
kapitánnyal.
Ronda elkékült, reszketett.
– Frölich Róza szinmüvésznő őnagysága – kiáltotta mélyről jött
hangon és közben a félelemtől dühösen kancsalitott a müvésznő felé
– nem olyan jöttment, hogy önnel sörözni üljön le.
Szurós tekintetet vetett Rózára; a lány sóhajtott.
– Menjen innen, – mondta – látja, hogy hiába jött.
És Ronda győzedelmesen, halántékáig elvörösödve ugrott egyet:
– Hallja? Őnagysága maga mondja önnek. Frölich Róza
szinmüvésznő számüzi önt a közeléből. Engedelmeskedjék! Előre!
Szedje a sátorfáját!
És máris megmarkolta a kapitányt, gallérjánál fogta, a kijárat felé
lökdöste. Az erőteljes ember ellenállás nélkül türte. Mikor azonban
Ronda elbocsátotta, megrázta magát. Csakhogy akkor már kivül volt
a küszöbön és az ajtó hevesen csapódott be elámult szemöldökei
előtt.
Az artista öklével az asztalra vágott:
– Szerencsétlen, maga, ugy látszik…
– Maga pedig…
Ronda tüszkölve rontott feléje. Kiepert megijedt.
– Jegyezze meg magának, – igen ám, ugy bizony – hogy Frölich
Róza szinmüvésznő az én oltalmam alatt áll és nincs szándékomban
megengedni, hogy őt sértegessék – igen ám, ugy bizony. – Irja ezt le
magának és többször mondogassa!
Az artista morgott valamit, de már kissé meghunyászkodva.
Lassacskán odébb állott. Róza Rondára nézett és hangosan
elnevette magát, utána még egyszer nevetett, sokkal, sokkal
halkabban, gunyosan és szeretettel, mintha elgondolkozott volna
kettejükön, előbb Rondán, azután saját magán: hogy miért oly
büszke erre az emberre, akit máskülönben annyira nevetségesnek
tart.
A kövér hölgy erőt vett haragján és Ronda vállára tette a kezét.
– Hallgassa meg, mit mondok – szólt.
Ronda félig elfordulva és tökéletesen megbékülve, a homlokát
törülgette. Zsarnoki dühe elfáradt, féktelen toporzékolása ujra néma

in Search of The Romans Second Edition James Renshaw Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

in Search of The Romans Second Edition James Renshaw Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

in Search of The Romans Second Edition James Renshaw Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Search of the Romans Second

Edition James Renshaw

Ghost Particle In Search of the Elusive and Mysterious

The Complete Arrogant Series 1st Edition Winter Renshaw

The Whale and the Reactor A Search for Limits in an Age

Three Voyagers in Search of Europe: A Study of Henry

In Search of Returns 2nd Edition John Looby

The Greek Perfekt Tense in the Gospel of Marc and the

International Encyclopedia of the Social Behavioral

To the Ends of the Earth An Application of the Book of

Augustan Rome, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill

Pompeii, Alison Cooley

The Roman Army, David J. Breeze

Women in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook, Bonnie MacLachlan

In Search of the Greeks (Second Edition), James Renshaw

Online resources to accompany this book are available at:

BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of

First published in Great Britain 2012

Copyright © James Renshaw, 2012, 2020

Cover design: Terry Woodley

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: PB: 978-1-4742-9991-6

Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk

1 From Kingdom to Republic 3

Rome was not built in a day.

Sources for Early Roman History

Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus

I Origins and Kingdom

1 The Literary Tradition

Fig. 1.1 This terracotta figurine was

Romulus and Remus

The Sabine Women

The Seven Kings

The Overthrow of the Monarchy

In Their Own Words 1.1

2 The Archaeological Evidence

Fig. 1.4 A relief map of Italy.

Human habitation in Italy stretches back thousands of years. However, while

Etruscans, Greeks, and Phoenicians

Etruscan expansion between

Fig. 1.6 Etruscan expansion between 750 and 500.

Fig. 1.7 This early Roman

Date Literary Tradition Date Archaeological Evidence

c. 1000 Early settlement at the site of

753 Romulus founds Rome 8th Urbanisation in Etruria begins

753–716 Reign of Romulus

715–673 Reign of Numa Pompilius c. 700 Emergence of Etruscan and Latin

673–642 Reign of Tullus Hostilius

642–616 Reign of Ancus Marcius c. 625 Urbanisation at Rome begins

616–579 Reign of Tarquinius Priscus

578–535 Reign of Servius Tullius

535–509 Reign of Tarquinius Superbus late 6th Substantial building developments

509 Establishment of Roman Republic

Review and Reflect 1.1

II The Early Republic (509–264 BCE )

1 The Literary Tradition

Internal Dissent: The Conflict of the Orders

Patricians and Plebeians – A Continued Struggle