Early Rome

Myth and Society

Jaclyn Neel

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781119083801, 9781119083795
• eBook ISBN: 9781119083825
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Roman Ancient History
• Index: History

The scholarly community has become increasingly aware of the differences between Roman myths and the more familiar myths of Greece. Early Rome: Myth and Society steps in to provide much-needed modern and accessible translations and commentaries on Italian legends.

This work examines the tales of Roman pre-and legendary history, discusses relevant cultural and contextual information, and presents author biographies. This book offers updated translations of key texts, including authors who are often absent from classical mythology textbooks, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Servius. Editor Jaclyn Neel debunks the idea that Romans were unimaginative copyists by spotlighting the vitality and flexibility of Italian myth — particularly those parts that are less closely connected to Greek tales, such as the story of Caeculus of Praeneste. Finally, by calling attention to the Italian rather than Roman nature of the collection, this book suggests that Roman culture was broader than the city itself. This important work offers:

• Up-to-date and accessible translations of Roman and Italic legends from authors throughout antiquity
• Examination of compelling tales that involve the Roman equivalent of Greek "heroes"
• Unique view of the strength and plasticity of Roman and Italic myth, particularly the parts less closely connected to familiar Greek tales
• Intelligent discussion of relevant cultural and contextual information
• Argument that Roman culture reached far beyond the city of Rome

Fresh and readable, Early Rome: Myth and Society offers essential reading for students of ancient Rome as well as those interested in Roman and Greek mythology.

1
Introducing Early Rome

Introduction

In 44 BCE, graffiti appeared on the statue of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic. It explicitly called on him for help against Julius Caesar, Rome's leader at the time, who had taken to wearing traditional royal symbols. This Brutus had received the nickname “The Liberator” for driving out Rome's kings (7.6, 8.1); by requesting his aid, the writer suggested that Caesar was a king too, and had to be eliminated.

Some men scrawled ‘If only you were alive!’ on the statue of Lucius Brutus. Similarly, on Caesar's own statue they wrote a ditty: ‘Brutus kicked out the kings and became the first consul; Caesar kicked out the consuls and then was made king.’ (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 80)

Caesar's biographer Suetonius linked the graffiti to Caesar's assassination. If you know the quote et tu, Brute, you might too: Brutus' descendant Marcus Brutus, a friend of Caesar's, was one of the leaders of the conspiracy. By reminding fellow citizens of a past heroic act, the anonymous writer made a statement that was politically, socially, and culturally relevant to his own day. Nor was such historical modeling limited to periods of political strife.

Myths and legends held long-term significance in many aspects of Roman society. In fact, stories about the city's past formed a backbone of shared cultural knowledge. These tales taught men and women, natives and foreigners how to behave, what qualities were valuable, and how to make sense of the world and their community. In addition to teaching Romans about their past, these stories also gave advice about the future and helped create meaning for the entire Roman community. Modern scholars study Roman myth to learn about the city's culture, customs, history, and literature.

1.1 What Is a “Myth”?

You're probably familiar with the terms “myth” and “legend” from books, movies, or previous courses. Sometimes these words are used interchangeably, but often they refer to different types of traditional stories. These differences are sometimes defined by a spectrum of truth value (Calame 2003, 9–11). For example, a “myth” can be defined as a tale that explains the origin of natural features, such the formation of mountains or cities; it does not need to have a basis in scientific fact, but is rather a divine explanation for a visible phenomenon. In contrast, a “legend” is usually based on a factual event and has been exaggerated. The elaboration of these tales may include fantastic elements such as the use of magic or the possession of special powers by the hero or his companions – but the legend still must have a “kernel of truth.” A “folktale,” in contrast, may or may not have a basis in fact; it more often has a basis in social standing. Myth and legends tend to retell stories of extraordinary people, often of high status; folktales focus on the lives and deeds of ordinary people.

In studying the classical world, “myth” is usually applied to traditional Greek stories about gods and heroes. Similar stories from other parts of the ancient world are called “legends.” This distinction and definition are increasingly seen as problematic for a number of reasons. For one thing, we know about many Greek myths thanks to the works of Roman authors like Ovid. So “Greek” is not an exclusive category; in many ways, “Greco-Roman myth” is a better term.

But this term leads to a second problem: how do you pinpoint what is “Greek” or “Roman” about a given narrative? We do not have much information about Roman society before it had contact with Greece. Yet there are clearly traditional tales from Rome that do not appear in any surviving classical Greek evidence. Is this the best way to define “Roman” myth?

Another problem is that many Roman traditional tales do not involve gods or semi-divine humans, but rather ordinary people who do extraordinary things. This led early researchers to conclude that Romans did not have myths of their own. Instead of the anthropomorphic gods associated with Greek myth, these researchers found that early Romans believed in numina (divine powers). Because these powers did not necessarily have faces and names, like “Athena” or “Ares” in Greece, there was no need to develop stories about them. Later, Romans learned about Greek myths; they were captivated by the Greeks' creativity and adopted their gods and traditional tales as their own. As a result, Roman myths are simply copies of Greek mythology. This theory of Rome's “mythless society” was popular for many decades, and is now thought to be wrong.

Instead, scholars now realize that Roman traditional tales are quite different from Greek traditional tales. As Mary Beard (1993, 48) has written, “the observation (or complaint) that Rome has no myth is probably no more than an observation that it does not have Greek myth.” In other words, “myth” has been defined in such a way that only a limited number of story patterns will match it. Greece offers the gold standard for such tales; other societies, including Rome, inevitably fall short. In order to study Roman myths, we must first understand that not all myths match the Greek model of gods with human qualities who fall in love, misbehave, cause trouble, rescue men, or otherwise interfere in human affairs.

Together with this redefinition of Roman myth, classicists are coming to realize that even Greek myth is not unitary. Not only did Greeks recognize many variations of their “standard” tales, but they also retold narratives that we do not recognize as mythic in structure. As Claude Calame (2003) has argued, the Greeks did not recognize “myth” as a category distinct from “legend,” “folktale,” or “fiction.” These modern distinctions have been wrongly applied to the ancient material, confusing our understanding of how ancient narratives worked in context.

Some scholars have argued that Rome has a special type of mythology, which can be called “historical myth” (e.g., Fox 1996). They prefer this term to “legend,” which (as we saw above) implies that the tale contains a certain amount of truth. “Historical myth,” in contrast, shares the dubious reality of myth; it is true to the culture, but need not be true outside of that culture. Unlike the traditional category of “myth,” which tells stories from a timeless past, the tales of “historical myth” take place in a concrete and historically defined period. For those studying ancient Rome, that period is called “early Rome” (see 1.5). Roman myths take place in specific locations (in and around the city) and in specific eras. Although the dividing line between “myth” and “history” is intensely debated by modern scholars, many would agree that stories about the gods or their children are mythical, while stories that had contemporary documentary support are historical.

But there is substantial disagreement about what records were available to ancient authors. We aren't sure what records were kept before approximately 300 BCE; we also don't know how much Romans cared about preserving strict historical accuracy versus imagining the past. The debate about how to deal with the “memory” of the past through oral and visual means is ongoing in ancient history, as well as other fields. This book takes a broad view of “myth.” It includes stories about larger-than-life heroes, some of whom may have existed historically. They are “mythical” because their actions are unrealistically exaggerated. By including characters who would typically be considered “legendary,” this book suggests that the exact distinction between “myth” and “legend” may not be helpful for understanding Roman society. Rather, the myths that were told about early Rome can help us understand how Romans thought about their history. Myths tell us which stories were worth retelling; what degree of variance between different versions was acceptable; how authors decided that an event was believable (or not); and how authors expected or wanted their audiences to interpret the story's outcome.

An example of how one well-educated Roman understood the city's traditional tales can be found in Cicero, On the Laws 1.5. Discussing the material that's appropriate for history and poetry, Cicero distinguishes two types of tale: the fabula (more fictional) and the historia (more truthful). The criteria for determining what makes a fabula fictional are vague, suggesting that questions of veracity were left to individual discretion, at least to a certain degree. In reading narratives in this book, you'll come across the judgments of authors themselves. Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Plutarch are particularly prone to reflect on the likelihood of various alternative narratives, and their judgments offer modern historians the best evidence for what was credible (or not) in antiquity. But be careful: these authors often disagree, leaving modern historians unsure about how their readers would have interpreted the story. Ancient authors also include stories that they claim are false or suspicious. The inclusion of such tales in historical writing has long puzzled scholars, and there is no currently accepted boundary between “true history” and “myth.” This boundary is something you should consider as you read, but don't worry if you can't find a single answer!

It is important to recognize that these terms – myths, legends, “historical myths” – are not universally recognized or mutually exclusive. Modern historians disagree on the appropriate vocabulary to use when discussing Rome's traditional tales. Some scholars will use the terms myth, legend, and folklore interchangeably; others use them to indicate different themes or truth values. It is in your best interest to read this scholarship carefully, paying particular attention to definitions. Be careful: these are sometimes found in footnotes (or endnotes).

From this point forward, this book will refer to all traditional tales about the regal period and early Republic as “myths,” regardless of likely historicity. This choice underlines an important aspect of Roman traditional stories: that regardless of whether modern scholars view them as true or false, they had continuing value to the elite Romans who read and wrote the works we examine. In that sense, they all try to communicate some “truth” to their audience. Stories that had no value to society were not retold.

1.2 Types of Stories You Will Read in this Book

As you probably realize by now, “Roman myth” includes a variety of different stories. These can be categorized into a number of different subtypes, which are not unique to Rome (although the stories themselves may be). These labels are not mutually exclusive – a story can easily fit into two or more categories. The point of such categorizations is not to fence in similar stories and protect them from alternative classification; rather, by identifying themes of various stories, we can better understand what interested Romans about their past and the type of question they asked (and didn't ask) about their contemporary society. You'll notice that Romans often asked different questions than we do! In understanding their questions, we can better understand how these authors understood their world, both in the past and in their own day.

Some of the uses of myth can be striking to those not used to ancient patterns of thought. Romans sometimes used tales of the city's early past as...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Abbreviations & Symbols
• 1 Introducing Early Rome
• 2 Rome Before the City
• 3 Founding Rome
• 4 Images and Text
• 5 Rome's Kings
• 6Italy Outside Rome
• 7 Rome's Women
• 8 Rome's Heroes
• 9 Conclusion
• Appendix 1 Author Biographies
• Appendix 2 Greek Mythical Characters
• Appendix 3 Greek and Roman Gods
• INDEX
• Wiley End User License Agreement