Kings and Consuls. James Richardson

Chapter 3. In the same context of treaty-making, assumptions about the existence and nature of the Roman state have also led to various anachronistic retrojections being accepted as historical, see Richardson 2017.

55 See the discussion in Ampolo 1983b and Cornell 1995, 97–103.

56 See the various discussions (some of which are now out of date in some respects) on the formation of the Roman city and state (the two need not go together and may, in fact, have not) in, for example, Ampolo 1980; Drews 1981; Ampolo 1983b; Cornell 1988; Cornell 1995, 81–118; Forsythe 2005, 82–93; Hall 2014, 138–41; Fulminante 2014, especially Chapter 1 for a discussion of various approaches to urbanisation and state formation (but cf. n. 17 above).

57 Does some indication of increasing specialisation in the production of pottery, for instance, reflect internal developments or external influences?

58 Terrenato 2011 (see 236, 237 and 243 for the several quotes).

59 The influence of such ideas is still detectable in recent work; even apart from Carandini’s own work (where the influence is obviously predictable), note for instance Terrenato 2011, 235, who talks of ‘the time when the decision to create a city-state was taken’; 241, ‘cities were the result of conscious decisions made by individuals.’ But it is most unlikely that, at least as far as the earliest city-states are concerned, individuals did indeed make conscious decisions at some particular moment in time to create a city-state: this is the ancient model, which is entirely unsatisfactory.

60 The division was, predictably enough, said to have gone back to Romulus’ time: Cic. Rep. 2.14 and 2.23; Livy 1.8.7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.8; Plut. Rom. 13.1–3. The reality may very well have been much more complex; see, for instance, Cornell 1983; Cornell 1995, 242–58.

61 Livy 2.32.2–33.3; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.45–89. On the tribunate, see, for example, Smith 2012, with references to earlier work; in this context, note Drogula 2017.

62 Assembly: the evidence is difficult; Livy says that a law was passed in 471 bc to allow plebeian tribunes to be elected in the tribal assembly (2.56.2–58.2; also Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9.41–9), but Livy does not say how they had been chosen previously; some sources say that they had been elected in the curiate assembly (Asc. 76C; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.89.1, 9.41.2); for different assessments, see, for example, Ogilvie 1965, 380–1; Cornell 1995, 260–1; Forsythe 2005, 177–9. For the keeping of records, see Livy 3.55.13; Pompon. Dig. 1.2.2.21; Zonar. 7.15. For the plebeians’ efforts to get a law-code drafted, see Livy 3.9.2–32.7 passim; there are various difficulties in the evidence, see Ogilvie 1965, 411–13, 449–54; Cornell 1995, 272–6; Forsythe 2005, 202.

63 Livy 2.44.9: duas civitates ex una factas, suos cuique parti magistratus, suas leges esse [two states had been created out of one; each faction had its own magistrates, it own laws], also, for example, 2.24.1, 3.19.9; see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.88.1 for the concern that two states might be formed in one (μή ποτε δύο πόλεις ποιήσωμεν ἐν μιᾷ); Mommsen 1887b, 145; Cornell 1995, 258–65; see also Momigliano 2005, 178–80. For arguments against this idea, see Forsythe 2005, 176.

64 Note Cornell 1995, 265: ‘The later vestiges of the [plebeian] movement … were gradually recognised and integrated with the institutions of the state. … What is remarkable is not only the way in which plebeian institutions matched those of the state, but the fact that their organisation was in many ways more advanced and sophisticated. In the period down to 367 bc the plebeian institutions were either integrated into the constitution, or were themselves imitated by the “patrician state”.’

65 Cornell 1995, 311; see also Richard 1990a.

66 Compare Cornell’s comments in 1988, 94: ‘Si può, però, facilmente sospettare che guerre gentilizie di questo genere fossero un fenomeno comune e forse caratteristico dell’epoca.’

67 See n. 31 above. There was another version, which put his migration in Romulus’ time; but on this, see Wiseman 1979b, 59–61.

68 As Badian 1990a, 215 notes, ‘the inscription [from Satricum] calls into question the whole interpretation of the Roman social and political structure that we get in Livy: the suodales cannot be plausibly matched, or fitted into the background we are given. They point to a social organization plausible in itself, but irreconcilable with the late Republican version of the “Struggle of the Orders” that we have come to take for granted.’ This is perhaps something of a slight exaggeration, since there is other evidence that seems to fit with the circumstances implied by the inscription, but it certainly is true that such evidence only rarely accords, and never easily, with what is implied and assumed by Livy.

69 See, for example, Smith 2006a; and also Forsythe 2005, 193–5, 239–41, 259–62 for a sceptical assessment of the evidence.

70 Livy 3.15.5–18.10; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10.14–16.

71 Livy 3.15.5: exsules servique, ad duo milia [Ogilvie, OCT: quattuor milia] hominum et quingenti [exiles and slaves to the number of 2,500 [Ogilvie: 4,500] men]; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10.14.1, in contrast, has Herdonius gather together his clients and the most courageous of his attendants (συνήθροιζε τοὺς πελάτας καὶ τῶν θεραπόντων οὓς εἶχε τοὺς εὐτολμοτάτους; on θεράποντες, see Versnel 1980, 117); Herdonius’ plan, however, Dionysius says (10.14.3), nonetheless involved calling on exiles, slaves, those in debt and the like. Cf. Torelli 2011, 232. Livy’s choice of words is, however, likely to be due to first-century influences, see Ogilvie 1965, 423–5, also Forsythe 2005, 205.

72 Cornell 2003, 84–91.

73 Note Maras 2010, 189, 195 for the evidence that the Twelve Tables contained legislation aimed at restricting the actions of sodalitates with respect to public law.

CHAPTER 2 The King and the Constitution: Elections and Hereditary Succession in Regal Rome

      I

      At the end of the nineteenth century, scepticism in the historicity of the literary evidence for early Rome could hardly have been greater. This was a time when it could be claimed in all seriousness that Rome’s kings had never existed and that the kings the ancient authors wrote about were nothing other than river, solar or other such deities.¹ In an environment such as this, the discovery made by G. Boni of an archaic inscription on which