Kings and Consuls. James Richardson

26 For the inscription, see Stibbe 1980.

27 The inscription reads: ‘[…]IEI STETERAI POPLIOSIO VALESIOSIO SVODALES MAMARTEI’ [The companions of Poplios Valesios set this up[?]; to Mars]; on sodales, see Versnel 1980, 108–27; Versnel 1997, esp. 181–2.

28 See the classic study of Ampolo 1976–7; also, for example, Cornell 1995, 157–9; Cornell 2003, 86–7; Bradley 2015, 102–5. Rome’s nobility actually long remained open to outsiders; much of the evidence was assembled long ago by Münzer 1920, 46–97; this openness may have been more extensive than the evidence suggests: most people are usually not visible; see pp. 135–45.

29 As Cornell 1995, 158 says, ‘such concepts as nationality and citizenship are anachronistic in the context of the seventh and sixth centuries bc.’

30 Livy 1.34; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.46.3–48.2. See Zevi 2014, also for further references to the ancient evidence and, for the early source, see Alföldi 1965, 56–72 as well; Gallia’s objections to this argument (2007) are not convincing.

31 Livy 2.16.4–5; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.40.3–5; Suet. Tib. 1.1. For references to further evidence and an analysis of the various differences in the several accounts, see Wiseman 1979b, 59–64.

32 Livy 1.34.10, 1.35.1–6; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.48.2, 3.49.1.

33 Succinctly stated by Claudius, ILS 212: quondam reges hanc tenuere urbem, nec tamen domesticis successoribus eam tradere contigit. supervenere alieni et quidam externi. [Kings once held this city, yet they were not able to pass it on to successors of their own line. Strangers intervened, and even some foreigners.] On these matters, see Chapter 2.

34 See, for example, Momigliano 1989a, 97–8; Cornell 1995, 141–50.

35 See Versnel 1980, 120–1 and Maras 2010 for optimistic assessments.

36 Claud. ILS 212: Servius Tullius, si nostros sequimur, captiva natus Ocresia, si Tuscos, Caeli quondam Vivennae sodalis fidelissimus omnisque eius casus comes, post quam varia fortuna exactus cum omnibus reliquis Caeliani exercitus Etruria excessit, montem Caelium occupavit et a duce suo Caelio ita appellita[vit], mutatoque nomine (nam Tusce Mastarna ei nomen erat) ita appellatus est, ut dixi, et regnum summa cum rei p(ublicae) utilitate optinuit. The translation is Cornell’s (1995, 133–4).

37 For Caeles as a possible king, see Alföldi 1965, 212–31 (Claudius’ story implies that Caeles had died, but there were other versions); a slightly stronger case can be made in favour of Caeles’ brother, Aulus Vibenna; again, see Alföldi’s discussion; Cornell 1995, 144–5. On the problems in the king-list and the chronology of the regal period, see De Cazanove 1988; De Cazanove 1992; Cornell 1995, 121–6; Forsythe 2005, 98–9; Feeney 2007, 88–91; various problems were already observed in antiquity, see Cic. Rep. 2.28–9 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.6–7. See further Chapter 2.

38 Cf., for example, Cornell 1995, 144; Cornell 2003, 88; Torelli 2011, 230.

39 For the frescoes, see for instance, Moretti Sgubini 2004, and especially the chapter in the same volume by Andreae (2004, 52–4); further bibliography can be found in Richardson 2015.

40 On the handling of the evidence for Caeles Vibenna, see Richardson 2015.

41 See Smith 2006b on the gentes in general, and 32–44 on mythical ancestors; see also Kvium 2008 for a different approach.

42 Momigliano 1989a, 99; Cornell 1995, 84–5; Smith 2006b; and see below for the approach of Terrenato.

43 Cf., for instance, Torelli 2011, 226–7, and below for the hypotheses of Terrenato.

44 See Momigliano 1989a, 98–9; Versnel 1997, 182; and the hypotheses of Kvium 2008. See the next note as well.

45 For the various issues, see, for example, Richard 1990a (note 255–6 on the Fabii and their sodales); Richardson 2012, 81–3, 106–7, 119–20, 139–42, 150–1.

46 Diod. 11.53.6. Cf. Richard 1990a, 248–51.

47 On the location of the tribus Fabia, see Taylor 2013, 40–1 and Linderski’s defence of her argument (p. 363 of the same volume). On the tribes named after gentes, see Cornell 1995, 173–9; Wiseman 2004, 56; Taylor 2013, 4–6, 35–7.

48 See Livy 2.19.2 for the capture of Crustumeria; at 2.21.7, Livy says only that twenty-one tribes were created (tribus una et viginti factae), which is an ambiguous phrase. Among Livy’s twenty-one tribes was presumably the tribus Clustumina.

49 Livy 6.5.8, 7.15.11, 8.17.11, 9.20.6, 10.9.14, Per. 19; Taylor 2013, 47–68. The tribus Poblilia appears to have been named after the Publilii; this may be the result of political circumstances, see Taylor 2013, 50–2.

50 See Cristofani 1990, 22–3, 58–9 for the evidence. On the symbolic value that an inscription could have, see the discussion in Williamson 1987.

51 It is telling that even this could have once been doubted, as it famously was by Pais, who argued in the first volume of his Storia di Roma (1898) that Rome’s kings were in origin gods; unfortunately for Pais the inscription from the Forum was discovered in 1899, so just after his book had appeared. That Pais could have even argued what he did at all is nonetheless a reflection of the immense difficulties that exist in the literary evidence. It is worth noting as well that ancient authors who mention the stele from the Forum had absolutely no idea what it was and offered all manner of explanations for it. On these matters, see pp. 47–50.

52 See Chapter 2.

53 Polyb. 3.22, 3.25.6–9.