American Journal of Ancient History 9781463206734, 1463206739

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

6.2

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 6.2 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1981 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0673-4

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

JohnJ. Keaney:Aristotle, Politics 2.12.1274a22-b28 ...............

97

Walter Donlan: Scale, Value, and Function in

the Homeric Economy...................................... Lawrence A. Tritle:

Phokion Phokou Potamios? ..................

Robert Drews: The Comingof the City to CentralItaly ............

101 118

133

KennethWellesley:What Happenedon the Capitol in December AD 69? .......................................

166

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

JohnJ. Keaney:Aristotle, Politics 2.12.1274a22-b28 ...............

97

Walter Donlan: Scale, Value, and Function in

the Homeric Economy...................................... Lawrence A. Tritle:

Phokion Phokou Potamios? ..................

Robert Drews: The Comingof the City to CentralItaly ............

101 118

133

KennethWellesley:What Happenedon the Capitol in December AD 69? .......................................

166

ARISTOTLE,

POLITICS 2.12.1274a22-b28

The final chapterof the secondbookmaybe conveniently dividedinto twoparts,whichwe maycallA (73b27-74a21) andB (74a22-b28).After a briefprogrammatic introduction (73627-33),A beginswith a description and defenseof Solon'sconstitutionalactivity and continueswith a capsule-description of Athenianconstitutional development from Solon to the fourthcentury(v•v: 74a10). The contentsof B are a mixedbag, with a focuson archaiclegislators:(1) Zaleucusand Charondas;(2) a refutationof a chronological concatenation (by Ephorus?) of legislators, which ended with Zaleucus and Charondas;(3) a narrative accountof

the fate of Philolausof Corinth; (4) Philolaus'legislationat Thebes; (5) Charondas; (6) Phaleas; (7) Plato; (8) Draco; (9) Pittacus; (10) Androdamas.

For over a century• questionshavebeenraisedaboutthe relationof the chapter,in whole and in part, to the rest of Book 2. The major perceiveddifficultieshave beenfour: (a) the chapteras a whole is not concordant withtheprogramme announced at thebeginning of thebook;2 (b) only someof partA speaksto theprogrammeannounced at thebeginning of the chapter;3 (c) if B is not condemnedas a whole,4 at least 7469-15 is to be excised, for Plato and Phaleas have already been mentionedin book 2, and what the text says about Plato here is inconsistentwith what Aristotle had said at 66a34 if. ;5 (d) the [t•v at

the end of the chapter(74626) has no answering6• at the beginning of book 3. 6

The lasttwo pointsare weak. The final [t•v occursin a summarizing [t•v oOv.It is not quite relevantto point out that a final [t•v oily at

theendof Book6 (1323a9)is notpickedupby 6• at thebeginning of Book 7, for originally 7 did not follow 6.7 It is relevantto note that a final [tkv oOvis found in ch. 11 (73624), which, accordingto the

viewthatch.12is anaddition,will originallyhavebeenthefinalchapter. The allegedinconsistency 8 is illusory.At 66a34,Aristotlesaysthatno one but Plato has innovatedas regardscommunityof women and children, and women's messes;at 74b10, the text addsto theseinnova-

tionsin community of property andothermeasures. Thecorrespondence betweenthetwopassages is inexact,buttheyarehardlycontradictory. 97

¸ 1984by E. Badian.All rightsreserved.

98

JOHN

J. KEANEY

I shall arguebelow that what is said earlier aboutPlato and Phaleas demands their inclusion in B.

It seemsto me that the more substantialdifficulties are capableof solution,if sufficientattentionis paidto the contentsof the chapterand to someof its implicationsfor the development of Peripateticpolitical research.There is no reasonto deny that ch. 12 is an additionto the original plan of the book. To admit this is to raise two further questions:wasAristotleresponsible for theaddition;andwhenwasit made? The characteristic feature of B is the series of remarks on what is in-

dividual (•&ov) in eachlegislator'sactivity. Jaeger,9 who believedin Aristotle'sauthorship,thoughtthatthe "tendencyto collectall possible individualcases,andthe methodof examiningcharacteristics, suggestthat it belongsto the late period[viz., after 335], whenAristotle wasusingsimilarmethodsin thedescription of nature." In fact,to point to whatis idionin legislationhasalmostnothingto do with biological investigation,and since1948 Jaeger'sdatingof the biologicalworks hasbeenquestionable. lOI suggest thatB is evidencethatresearchinto politicalinstitutions by Aristotleis earlierthanJaegerwaswilling to put it. 11 In content,B remindsof nothingso much as of Theophrastus'great collection of Greek law, the N6•tot or FIs0• v6•tcovin 24 books.12So

far as it is possibleto tell from the longerfragments,the distinguishing featureof thatwork wasthatit drewon comparative knowledge of Greek law to dealwith specificlegalquestions, 13insteadof discussing thework of a singlelaw-giver,TMor severallaw-givers,15or the institutionsof individual •6•stq. 16 Now comparativeknowledgeof Greek law is implicitin B. If, asis thecasewith sixof the sevenlaw-giversmentioned (beginningwith Philolaus),it is statedthat a law or a featureof a law is •&ov to a particularlaw-giver, the statementshouldentail that its authoris sufficientlyknowledgeableof other legal codesto make the statementwith confidence.Secondly,if it is statedthata law-giverwas the first to institutea law (Charondas),the statemententails a further claim, to chronologicalknowledge.17 Both kindsof knowledgeare implicit in Book 2. Apart from cases of generaland vague information(64a23: the life of farmersgv m•q &XXatq •6Xsot; 69638: the usefulness of women •o•sp

•v •patq

•6•.sotv), thereare threeinstancesof precisecomparativeknowledge: 66a39, Phaleasof Chalcedonnp•zoq introducedequal sharesof property; 66b17, thereis legislationof Solon}cainap' &•.•,otqlimiting the acquisition of property;69a10, Hippodamus thoughthe wasinnovative 18 in his law providingstate-support for the childrenof war-victims,but this provisionexistedat Athens •caigv g'rgpcttq z•)v x6Xsmv.

ARISTOTLE,

POLITICS

2.12.1274A22-B28

99

It isthecomparative approach which provides theorganizational principlefor thecatalogue beginningwith Philolausandit is thisapproach whichsuggests why PhaleasandPlatowerereferredto again:thesewere the only legislatorsmarkedas innovatorsin the earlierpart of Book 2. Presumably,bothcouldhavebeenomittedhere, if all of Plato'sinnovations hadbeendiscussed previously:two of them(thelaw on drinking, ambidexterity in militarytraining)hadnotbeen,because theywere totallyirrelevantin the contexts.Thus, Platohadto be includedhere, and, if Plato, Phaleas.

On the otherhand,the originalprincipleof organizationturnedout to be notentirelyadequate. It wasappliedweaklyto Charondas (nothing idionexcepthisinventionof the•io•:,l•tq) andto Draco(nothingidion worthmentioning,exceptseverepenalties)andnotat all to Androdamas (nothingidion). This looksas if one of the functionsof B was to be an appendixto the legislatorsdiscussed in the restof Book2, andwith Book2 to providea completelist of legislatorsknownto Aristotleat the time.

It is pointlessto suggestthat B comesfrom worksaboutwhich we know nothing,like Theophrastus'Nogo0g'rttt or Aristotle'sN6got.•9 The comparativeapproachis advertedto in the Epicureanchargethat Aristotleand his pupil were caughtxo6qre v6[tot)qouvti¾cov...•:tt•x/tq xoott6xttq no3.txeittq.We must assume that the contents of B were

selected at a certainstagein thecollection of thismaterial.No precise datehas evenbeen suggested for the additionof B, but one pieceof evidencehasbeenoddly neglected.Aristotle'slittle narrativeon the career of Philolausof Corinth endswith his deathand burial at Thebes,

wherevOv•xt $•t•rv6ouotxobqx6(pooq.Thebeshadbeendevastated by Alexanderin 335, andtherewill havebeenno tourist-guides to show thegravesafterthatdate.To dateB to theperiodof Aristotle'stravels in Asia Minor

is consistent with other indications

Princeton University

in Book 2. 2•

John J. Keaney NOTES

1. The essential bibliographical detailsare in L. Bertelli,Historiae methodos (1977) 7 n. 22; 79-81. 2. Newman, Politics of Aristotle 2 (1887) 372.

3. Newman373: "the morevaluableportionof it--that relatingto Solon-rathercorrectscurrentmistakesasto the natureof his legislationthancriticizes it, and the remainderis little more than a collectionsof jottings." Part A is in fact a kind of ur-AthPol, and I think that Newman would not have written

this after the discoveryof the Londonpapyrus.

100

JOHN J. KEANEY

4. Susemihl, ed., ad 74a22. 5. 7469-15 is bracketed in Newman's 6. Newman 384.

text.

7. The chronologicalassumption hereis thatthe orderof compositionwas Pol. 7,8,2,3, AthPol, Pol. 4,5,6: cf. J.J. Keaney, "Hignett's HAC and the authorshipof the Athenaionpoliteia", LCM 5 (1980) 51-56. 8. Newman's "the two passages seeminconsistent"(p. 383) hashardened into "s'oppose h ce qui est dit" in J. Aubonnet(ed.), Aristote,Politique 1 (1960) 174.

9. Aristotle2 285 n. 1 (Eng. tr.).

10. H.D.P. Lee, "Place-names andthedateof Aristotle's biological works," CQ 42 (1948) 61-67. Lee's conclusions havenot, I think, beenrefutedby F. Solmsen, Hermes 106 (1978) 467-484. 11. Cf. R. Weil, Aristote et l'histoire (1960) 179-323 (with the caveatsof P.J. Rhodes,A commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia (1981) 59) andG. Huxley, "On Aristotle'shistoricalmethods,"GRBS13 (1972) 157-169, at 158-9, 163.

12. F. Jacoby,Atthis 386 n. 51, thoughtthat Plato in the Laws "made an early use of the materialcollectedunder the supervisionof Aristotle". The stateof the evidencemakesa judgmentimpossible. 13. Law of sale:F 21 Szegedy-Maszak = 97 Wimmer; capitalcasesandthe selectionof magistrates:the Vatican fragments,TAPA 104 (1974) 179-194; 106 (1976) 227-240.

14. As in theH•O{•6)vZ67•tovoq &•6vtovascribedto Aristotleby Hesychius no. 140, p. 16 Rose (Arist. Frag.). 15. As probablyin theNolxo0•ztxt ascribedto Theophrastus by Diog. Laert. 5.45. 16. As in the •to•.tz•at

of Aristotle.

17. There is a link to Theophrastusin the fact that two of the laws were concernedwith drinking, anda fragment(117 Wim.), doubtlessfrom his rle0i [t•0rlq, deals with similar laws.

18. Cf. Newman ad loc. for this interpretation. 19. Diog. Laert. 5.26. 20. Preservedby Philodemus,Vol. Rhet. 2.57 Sudhaus. 21. Somedetailsseemto stemfrom knowledgegainedlocally: the laws of Mytilene, Miletus andChalcedon;the anecdoteaboutAtarneus(67a31), where AristotlestayedwithHermeias; thehomicide law of Cyme,arguablytheAeolian town.

I thank the Journal'srefereesand editor for suggestions.

SCALE, VALUE, AND FUNCTION IN THE HOMERIC ECONOMY

Comparativeanalysisof material exchangeis a relatively recentdevelopmentin Homericstudies.For this approach,which concentrates on the sociologyof exchangeandon the relationof mechanisms of exchangeto socialstructure,classicalscholarsare largely indebtedto the work of M.I. Finley. The worm of Odysseus,first publishedin 1954 and now in its secondrevision, introducedstudentsof early Greeceto the ideasof culturalanthropologists who had studiedthe connections betweensystemsof materialexchangeand the political and socialinstitutionsof primitivepeoples.This connectedness was mostforcefully expressedby the economichistorian, Karl Polanyi (whose InterdisciplinaryProject at Columbia University influencedFinley), who showedthat in pre-marketsocietiesthe economywas "embedded", as he put it, in the total social structure. In one of his earliestwritings Polanyi statedthe principlethat "the outstanding discoveryof recenthistoricalandanthropological research is that man's economy,as a rule, is submergedin his socialrelationships". The implicationsof thisrule for our understanding of Homeric society• are great, sinceits corollaryis that materialgoodsare valued only insofaras they servethe end of an individual's "social standing, his social claims, his social assets"; in all pre-market societies"the economicsystemwill be run on noneconomicmotives".2 If it is so, that all economicinteractionsare indivisiblyentwinedin the whole culturalpattern,it followsthat by observingthe movements of goodsin the materialeconomywe canpicturemoreclearlythe nature of the societal

structures

in which

those activities

are embedded.

Specifically,this paperexaminesthe correlationsbetweennumerical scalein economictransactions of differentclassesof goods,the relative "value" of thesetypes of goods, and the social functionof certain economicexchanges.By "economic transaction" or "economic exchange"I meansimplythetransferof goodsfrom onepointto another, by anymeanswhatever--whichmayrangefromplunderto gift-giving. The argumentproceedsfrom the following observations. A classof goods,conventionally called"treasure", consists in Homer 101

102

WALTER

DONLAN

of a variety of objects,mostlyartifactsof metal or cloth, andunworked metal (gold, iron), easilytransportedand stored.Women, horses, chariots,mules,alsocomeunderthiscategory,althoughthecommonest Homeric expression--keimglia--shows that small, portableitemsconstitutedthe essentialnotion of treasure.In all transactionsinvolving treasuretheactualnumericalscaleof thegoodsis alwayssmall,although the accompanying descriptivelanguagealwaysimplieslargequantities. Thus,Odysseus returnsto Ithacafromthelandof thePhaeacians bringing with him/•oneza b•0•x, "gifts unspeakably great", which, we are told, were more than "Odysseuswould ever have taken from Troy, if he had comeunharmed,havinggottenhis fair shareof the booty". 3 The actualtally of the Phaeaciangifts is thirteeneachof cloaks,tunics, talentsof gold, tripods,cauldrons;plusone gold cup, and one sword with ivory scabbard(Od. 8.392,403,430; 13.13). This total, it should be emphasized,representstwo separatedonationsby Alcinousandthe twelve lesserPhaeacianbasileis(as well as by Euryalus), part of the costof which was to be repaidby an assessment on the dgmos:"for it is difficult for one man to grant withoutrequital" (Od. 13.13-15). The "boundlessrecompense"(&n•p•/ot' •notw) offeredto Achilles by Agamemnonis by far the largestmaterialdonationin the Iliad, intendedto givethe impressionof unparalleledgenerosity(ll. 9.120-57; cf. !•t)piefi6)pe,9.699). It amountsto seventripods,ten talentsof gold, twenty cauldrons,twelve racing horses,sevenwomen(plus Briseis). Agamemnonalso promisesan unspecified,but large, amountof gold andbronzeandtwentywomen,whenTroy fell; and, on their safereturn to Greece,one of his daughters"without marriagegifts" (t•v6efivov), and with a large "dowry" (•ei•.te nO•6). 4 The ransomof Hector,alsocalled(•ne0eiot'/•notw(//. 24.276, 502), and !C•t•tfl)•t0t •O3.3.•t!C•ti. •O0)•6(//. 24.381; cf. 555, 685), consistsof twelve eachofpeploi, mantles,coverlets,cloaks,tunics,ten talentsof gold, two tripods, four cauldrons,one cup (//. 24.229-34). Similarare the fi6•0e•etv/l•ewhichOdysseus, posingas a stranger, boasts to Laertesthathehadoncegivento Odysseus. These•6•0a gt•0ie

(Od. 24.283) were a silver mixing-bowl,twelve each of mantles, coverlets,cloaks,tunics,andfour women(Od. 24.273-79).5 Finally, Polybusof Thebesin Egypt, "wherethe mostwealth(ktgmata)is laid awayin houses",gaveMenelaustwo silverbathing-tubs, two tripods, ten talentsof gold. His wife gaveHelen a goldendistaffanda silver basketwith wheels(Od. 4.125-32). Otherwise,treasure-transactions in Homerconsist of onlyoneto three

items.OeneusandBellerophon hadexchanged guest-gifts: a belt and

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

103

a gold cup (//. 6.218). Hector and Ajax cementeda temporarypeacepactwith an exchangeof a sword,scabbardandtelamonfor a belt (//. 7.299). A boar'stuskhelmetwasa xeingionfromAmphidamas to Molus (//. 10.269). Hector promisesto give a 156•0ov [tgyaas "payment" (rnisthos) for a spyingmission:a chariotandtwohorsesfromtheAchaean spoils(ll. 10.303; cf. 321-23). An elaboratebreastplatewas a guestgift from Cinyrasto Agamemnon(//. 11.19). Hera's gifts to Hypnos are a goldenchair and a foot-stool(//. 14.238). Phyleuswas given a breastplateby his xeinosEuphrates(//. 15.532). Echepolushad given a mareto Agamemnon asa gift in lieuof war-service (//. 23.296). PhoeniciansgaveThoasa largesilvermixing-bowlasa gift (II. 23.744). Priam offersHermesa "fine cup" to guidehim to Achilles'hut (II. 24.429). In Odyssey9.201 Odysseusrecountsthat Maro had givenhim seven talentsof gold,a silvermixing-bowl,andtwelvejars of wine. Menelaus' guest-giftsto Telemachuswere a cup anda silver mixing-bowl;Helen gavehim a peplos(Od. 15.102). Wooing gifts from individualsuitors to Penelopewerean elaborate peplos,a goldenchainwith amberbeads, a pair of earrings,a necklace(Od. 18.291). The disguisedOdysseus tellsPenelopethathe hadoncegivena sword,cloak,andtunicto Odysseusas guest-gifts(Od. 19.241). IphitusandOdysseus hadinitiateda xeinos-relationship by exchanginga bow for a swordand spear(Od. 21.31). Thetis gave a goldenurn to hold the bonesof Achilles and Patroclus,which had been a gift from Dionysos(Od. 24.73). Finally, we may citetwo passages thatindicatethe limited numerical scaleof usualtreasure-transactions. In Iliad 8.286 if. AgamemnonpromisesTeucerapresbgionin exchangefor Teucer'sbowmanship; when Troy is takenhe will givehim "eithera tripod,or twohorseswithchariot, or a woman". And in Odyssey15.80-85 Menelausoffersto accompany Telemachuson a gift-collectingjourney "through Hellas and midArgos.... Nor will anyonesendus away as we are, but will give one thing at least to carry off, either a fine bronze tripod or a cauldron, or two mules, or a gold cup." The foregoingexamplesshowclearlythat, while the numericalcount of treasure-itemsis small, from the perspectiveof epic societythese representbothgreatquantityandsplendor.6 When we turnfrom treasure to enumerationof animals,we find, on the contrary,thatnumericalscale is alwayslarge. Thus,in Iliad 11.244 a mangave 100 cattle,with promiseof 1000 goatsandsheep,as marriage-hedna. Nestorrelateshow he andhisfellow Pyliansdroveoff 200 flocksandherdsof cattle,sheep, swine,andgoats,togetherwith 150 mares,andmanyfoals,in a reprisal raid againstthe Eleans(II. 11.677); out of this bootyNestor'sfather,

104

WALTER

DONLAN

Neleus,chosefor himself300 catfieandsheep,togetherwith theirherders (ll. 11.696). Aeneas' ancestor,Erichthonius, "richest of mortal men", had 3000 mares(ll. 21.220). On the islandof ThrinaciaHelios had seven herds of cattle and sevenflocks of sheep, for a total of 700 animals

(Od. 12.127). The situationin Ithacais similar:Eumaeus,Odysseus' swineherd,tended600 sowsand360 hogs,despitetheconstant depredationsby the suitors(Od. 14.13; cf. 15.556); thetotalof flocksandherds belongingto thechief'soikosis fifty-nine(Od. 14.99; cf. 20.211). Men from Messenehad once "lifted" 300 sheep,with their shepherds,from Odysseus(Od. 21.18). 7 The unequalnumericalcorrelationbetweentreasure-wealth and smallanimal-wealth

is reflected in their relative "economic value".

Whenever

equivalenciesare indicatedbetweenthe two typesof goods,the value of the formeris alwaysfar greater.In the Homeric, asin manyprimitive economies, therewasa standardof measurement whichexpressed a conventionalratioof valuebetweendifferentclasses of objects.In theepics, "Cattle were the measuringstick of worth" (althoughthey were not, as Finley properlyemphasizes,"a mediumof exchange").sThus, each of the goldentasselson Athena'saegiswas "of the worth of 100 cattle" (hekatomboios, ll. 2.449). Glaucus'gold armor, we are told, was worth 100 cattle, and Diomedes' bronze armor was worth nine (ll. 6.234). The TrojancaptiveLycaon"fetched" 100cattle'sworthin Lemnosfor Achilles, and securedhis releaseby payingthreetimesthat (ll. 21.79). The FuneralGamesin honorof Patroclusoffer someexamples of value-equivalents. Firstprize for wrestlingwasa largetripod"which the Achaeansprized(riov)amongthemselves at twelvecattle'sworth"; secondprize was a skilledwoman, "and they prized (riov) her at four cattle'sworth" (ll. 23.702). A prize for spear-throwing wasa cauldron, "worth an ox" (ll. 23.885). Laertes "bought with his possessions" Eurycleia,giving twenty cattle'sworth (Od. 1.430). Facingdeathat the handsof Odysseus,the suitorspromisethat eachof themwill give recompense (time)in bronzeandgold, worthtwentycattle(Od. 22.57). Clearly,itemsof treasure,measured againstthebasicobjectsof economic livelihood, were both scarceand "expensive". In otherexchangesituations,whereno cattle-equivalency is expressed, it is still possibleto gain someroughnotionof relativevaluation amongtreasure-objects. In general,we can saythat smallermetalartifactshave a higher "value" than othertreasureobjects.In his offer of a presb•ionto TeucerAgamemnonequatesa tripod,two horseswith chariot, and a woman (ll. 8.829). When Menelaus offers three horses with chariotasguest-gifts,Telemachus requestssomekeim•lioninstead

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

105

of thehorses,andis givena fine silvermixing-bowl,rimmedwith gold (Od. 4.598 ff.; cf. 15.113 if.). Plainly, portableobjectslike tripods andbowlshadequivalentvaluewith race-horses andwomen,themselves

highly prized items. In a generalstatement,a "great prize" •t•0•,ov)for a chariotrace is saidto be "either a tripod or a woman" (II. 22.163), and in Iliad 24.234 a "very beautifulcup" is a •c'r•Oc•q. 9 A similarscaleof relativevalueis seenin the prizesfor the most prestigiouscontestin the Funeral Games, the chariot race: first prize is a womanand a tripod, secondis a mare heavy with mule foal, third is a cauldron,fourth is two talentsof gold, fifth is a phialg.10 From the foregoing, a numberof further observationsand conclusionsmaybe madeaboutthestructure of thepoliticaleconomyin Homer. We begin with the mostobvious.First, althoughsmall-animalflocks (cattle, sheep,goats, swine) form a basisof material wealth, that is, livelihood,a muchgreaterratio of "value" inheresin keirnglia,which aremadeup of goodspossessing intrinsicallylessutilitarian(subsistence) valueandno, or little, productivecapability.These,ashasbeennoted, are chiefly manufactureditems--clothingandothercoverings,a fairly wide rangeof metal objects(mostlyarms and armor) and articlesof personaladornment,goldand(occasionally) iron in theirnaturalstates-all easilytransported andstored.The reasonswhy certainnon-portable goods (women, race-horses,chariots, mares, mules) also circulate togetherwith keimgliaare not difficult to discern,as we shall see. Second,the modesof acquisitionof treasureare limited. All cloth

goods,whichmakeupa considerable portionof thematerialexchanged, appearto have beenmade at home; horses,mulesand women can also

be produced withintheoikos.Mostitemsof keimgliaproperaremade by specialists notattached to anoikos.11Accordingly, asidefromhome production, treasureis obtainedonlyby someformof competitive activity (as booty, prize, reward), or by gift, or by commissionfrom a craft-specialist, or by purchasefrom foreigntraders.Every meansof acquisition,therefore,presumeshigh statusor incipienthigh status-economic,military,political--onthepartof theacquirer.As far asproductionat homeis concerned,a surplusbeyonddomesticneedsnaturally impliesa large and wealthyoikos:animalsfor raw materials,women to spinandweave,horsesto breedandto win prizes.The factthatracehorses (with chariots), mares, and women are themselves treasure-

producershelpsto explaintheir inclusionin the categoryof treasure.12 Whateveritscomponents, treasureconstitutes a classof eagerlysought after,scarce,luxurygoods,with little connection to economicsubsistence or to productivewealth. Its employmentis equallyrestricted;onceac-

106

WALTER

DONLAN

quiredit can only be givenaway or exchangedfor equivalentitemsof treasurein transactions betweenhigh-rankingmen.We mayassertwith absolutecertaintythat treasure'spotencyin the Homeric economylay not in its minimal substantivevalue, but in its symbolic/ritualvalue, whichderivedfrom qualitiespeculiarto treasure:rare, costly,aesthetic, individualized; hencethegreatemphasis ondescription, provenance and circulation-historyof many treasure-objects. •3 • nlra, with a very few exceptions,othertypesof commodities--food, smallanimals,land,men,toolsandimplements--are notusedin prestige transactions;conversely,keirn•lia are not usuallyexchangedfor subsistence goods.14Giftsto socialinferiorsareusuallyfood,clothing,and othersubstantive goods,not treasure.•5 It seemsevidentthat treasure items, especiallythe mosthighly valued, like tripods,cauldronsand bowls,circulatedonly amongthewarrior6litein gift transactions. When an elementof pay or reward is present,subsistence goodsmay be exchanged. We may conclude,therefore,that, despitesomeoverlapping,there were two separateand distincteconomicspheresin Homeric society: one "real" or "substantive",pertainingto livelihood,participatedin by all membersof the community;the other "social-symbolic",with restricted participation. Social-symbolic economic exchanges takeplace only at the highestlevelsof the societyand in a very limited rangeof situations: peaceandalliancecompacts, gift-giving,andgift-exchange. Treasureis the sole, and scarce,currencyof this exclusivesocial interaction.The existenceof separateandindependent spheresof exchange in primitiveeconomies hasbeennotedby anthropologists. In a 1959 article, Paul Bohannon(inspired by Polanyi's distinctionbetween "general-purpose" and "special-purpose" money)introduced the concept of the "multi-centriceconomy", in which

a society'sexchangeable goodsfall intotwo or moremutuallyexclusivespheres,eachmarkedby differentinstitutionalization and different

moral values. In some multi-centric

economies these

spheres remaindistinct,thoughin mosttherearemoreor lessinstitutionalizedmeansof convertingwealth from one into wealth in another. •6

The important considerationof the prestige spherein primitive economies,in whichscarceandvaluablegoodsare exchangedonly for other prestigeitems, is that what is gainedby the possessor is not economicadvantageper se, but recognitionand status.So, a Tiv man

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

107

"who successfullyconverts his wealth into higher categoriesis successful--he hasa 'strongheart.' He is bothfearedandrespected."17 Among the Kachin of HighlandBurma wealth objects"have value primarilyasitemsof display.... "Accordingly,the"possessor of wealth objectsgainsmeritandprestigemainlythroughthepublicityheachieves in gettingrid of them". lg Malinowski'sassessment of Kula valuables (armshells andnecklaces), endlessly exchanged andreexchanged in ritual tradingamongtheTrobriandislanders,is similar.These,andother"socalledceremonialobjectsare nothingbut simplyovergrownobjectsof use,whichpreciousness of materialandamountof labourexpendedhave transformed into reservoirs of condensed economic value". 19The func-

tion of the Kula Ring and like ritualizedexchangearrangementswas to reinforcetradingalliancesand to providea meansfor prestigious displayamongmajorchiefsandotherhigh-rankingmen("... the conventionalized valueattachedto an objectcarrieswith it power,renown, andthepleasure of increasing themboth'').20Sotoo, in Homericsociety, possession, displayanddispositionof treasureconferrenownon both possessor and exchange-partners, and publiclyaffirm the high status of both. As a parallel function,the variouspermutationsof treasuregivingandexchangeeitherinitiateor cementtiesof friendship,alliance, or dependencyamongmen of power and their oikoi.

Themechanics andpurpose of social-symbolic economic transactions in Homerare thusapparently simple.Indeed,muchof thepreceding discussion is littlemorethananexpansion andconfirmation of Finley's perceptive analysis of treasure andgift-exchange. 21However,suchapparentsimplicitytendsto obscurethefactthatwhatwe areobserving is actuallya complexchainof interdependent andmutuallyreinforcing factors,theultimatepurpose of whichwasthevalidationandmaintenance of the established politicalhierarchy. The redundancy of theprocessis readilyseen.In a culturein which externalshowis highlyprized,generous givingenhances the giver's prestige.Thereis, concomitantly, a sizeablecompetitive component in giving,for a Homericmanwhocangivedemonstrates thatheis wealthy in thosegoodswhichconferrenown.So, participation in gift-giving andexchange, by itself,is anautomatic signof highstatus,whilegrand prestations give specialrecognitionto bothgiver and receiver.22Importantsocietaleventsare expressed in termsof the social-symbolic economic exchanges whichinvariablyaccompany them.23The rivalry betweenAgamemnon andAchillesin theIliad occasions, at itsclimax, the mostlavishceremonial donationin epic;theransomfor Hector's

108

WALTER

DONLAN

corpseatteststo the greatness of Hector,theoilcosof Priam, andAchilles; the funeraland gamesof Iliad 23 not only enlargePatroclus'reputation, but alsoafford Achillesan opportunityto out-displayhis rival in front of the assembledhost;the collectivegifts of the Phaeacianchiefs materiallyexpressthe fameof Odysseus--and alsodemonstrate the impossibilityof a treasureless hero, a contradictionin terms. Odysseus

couldnothavecometo Ithacanaked,a truebeggar.Despitehisyearning to return home, Odysseustells his host that he would remainin Scheriaa year if it meantgettinggifts: "And it would be better (kerdion) for me to cometo my dear nativeland with fuller hand; and I would be more respectedand more loved (ai8ot6a:spoq •ca•tOf3.a:spoq) to all men who saw me returningto Ithaca" (Od. 11.355-61; cf. 14.231-34). In addition,sincealliesanddependentfollowersare essentialelements in competitionfor power, dispersalof treasureis also a requirement for political activity: lateral dispositionfor developingand sustaining guest-friendand maritalalliances,downwarddispositionfor the creationandmaintenance of a following.24Circulationof treasure,therefore,

is thenecessary instrument of enhancing reputation andof increasing politicalinfluence, andbotharedirectlyproportional to theamount of prestige goods whicha mancontrols. However,circulation of prestige objects doesnot,byitself,yielda disposable surplus; sincemostsocialsymbolicexchanges are reciprocal(eitheron the spotor at somelater date)andequivalentin quantityandvalue, thereis no net increasein

theamountavailableto eitherparty.Accordingly, theamassing of a quantityof treasure--scarce relativeto othergoods--inamounts sufficientfor theexerciseof effectivepoliticalleverage,is difficult.Some surplusmaybe generated by production withintheoikos,by commission,or by purchase; butthesemeansof acquisition, aswe haveseen, requirepreviouslyestablished wealth. Similarly, a surplusfund of treasuremay be built up if onehasa large networkof donors,either xeinoior politicalinferiors.If a manhasmanyxeinoi(i.e., is already politicallypotent)hemaymakeexpeditions to gathergifts,whichneed notbepaidbackuntiltheyvisitin turn.Suchforaysyielda temporary surplus of prestige goods,strengthen guest-friend alliances, andincrease the renownof the participants (seeOd. 15.80; cf. 3.301, 312). The principalmeansof increasingthe supplyof all goodsis the raid for booty--a "negative"economictransaction--which hasa prominent placeamongthe activitiesof the Achaeanwarriors,andwhichis given strongpositivesocialsanction.The successful raid-leaderenricheshis followers,thusinsuringtheir loyalty anddependence,is granteda dis-

THE HOMERIC

ECONOMY

109

proportionate shareof the collectivespoils,whichgiveshim a continuing economicedge,andenhances his reputationin a societywhichputs a premium on courage, planning, and warcraft. It is important to remember,however, that items of treasure,becausethey are scarce, are but a small part of the spoilsof a raid. And most of these go to the best warriors, either as armor they have strippedfrom fallen opponentsin singlecombat,or as a geras,thatextraandchoiceportion awardedto theleaderor otheroutstanding figure,ashisdue,apartfrom the generaldistribution.Yet the geras is itself only a fractionof the booty.25The inevitableresultis that only thosefew who are stationed towardsthe top of the socialhierarchyare able to siphonoff enough treasureto retaina considerable surplusevenafter dispersaloutwards and downwards.

26

To conclude.In the epicsystemof valuesonemotivepredominates: to win andto augmentfameandinfluencefor oneselfandone'soikos. To accomplishthis endthe Homeric warrior mustengagein the game of "get and give", an intensecompetitionto acquirescarceprestige goodsand to give them away. Institutionally,this meansparticipation in social-symbolic transactions with peers,superiors,andsubordinates. To gain possession of the requiredexchange-medium he mustalready be anoutstanding warriorwith a following,or, alternatively,be in close associationwith an establishedleader. Extensiveholdingsof treasure presuppose a wealthyhouseholdanda largecircleof donorsin the form of xeinoi, subordinates, and followers.Redundantly,thesealliancesand connectionsdependon lavish disbursementof treasure. Functionally,the social-symbolic sphereof the Homericeconomysustainsandperpetuates a gradedstatus-system, enablingthoseat the top to preserve their positionsrelative to those below. Entrance of new membersto the 6lite stratumis restricted,andcarefullycontrolled,since

movementupwardsdependson the establishment of personaltieswith thosewho possess significanthoardsof treasure,accessto whichis the necessarystarting-pointfor a political career.27 In a socio-economicsystemlike the one describedin the epics, characterizedeconomicallyby a relativelyequalitariandistributionof the spoilsof raidsandsociallyby classstratification in its initial stages, a structuredmechanismwhich regulatesranking is necessaryfor the perpetuationof an establishedhierarchyand its transformationinto a permanent6lite. Suchan instrumentof controlis particularlyimportantin a highly competitivesocietyin whichlinesof authorityare informal and fluid. The ag•n betweenAgamemnonand Achillesin the

110

WALTER

DONLAN

Iliad is anidealillustration.In respectto thequalitiesmosthighlyregarded in the culture,Achillesis clearly superior,universallyr•ognized as the "best of the Achaeans". But Agamemnonis politically more powerfulby virtueof a muchlargerfollowinganda muchmoreextensive networkof politicalalliances,which guaranteea steadyupward flowof scarce treasure to theparamount chief,whocanorderitsdisbursement for his own ends. The profusionof treasureoffered to his recalcitrant subordinate is demonstration of therankingfigure'sability

to exercise politicaldominance by controlling themovement of prestige goods (see ll. 9.160-61).

Linguisticsupportfor the views set forth here is providedby the generalizeduseof tirngandgerasas metaphoricalequivalentsfor the "office" itself of chief. So, AchillestauntsAeneas,askinghim if he hashopesof rulingover (av6•atv) the tirngof Priam, andassuringhim that Priam "will not put his gerasin your hand;for he hassons.... " (ll. 20.180-82). 28

As a postscript we may addthatwhenthe 6lite stratumcomesto be definedaccordingto the genealogical principleandlarge-scaleownershipof land (bothof which factorsare present,but are not centrally important,in the Homerictexts), the role of social-symbolic transactionsin the regulationof socialrelationsrecedes,and treasurecomes to havea mere displayfunction.At that point, by 700 BCat the latest, the "economic" sphere,with its focuson naturalproduction(as well ason tradeandcommerce),comesto the forefront,andthe entiresystem by which rank is establishedand maintainedis altered.29 PennsylvaniaState University

Walter

Donlan

NOTES

1. An underlyingassumption of thisarticleis thatthe social"background" discerniblein the Homeric epicsbelongsto an actual,living society,which is roughlydatableto the tenthandninthcenturiesBCin mainlandGreece.Clearly, the correctnessof this propositionis as unprovableon the basisof the available evidenceas is its opposite:that the institutionsdepictedin Homer are "an artificial amalgamof widely separatedhistoricalstages"(A.M. Snodgrass, Thedarkageof Greece(1971) 389; cf. Snodgrass, "An historical Homericsociety?"JHS 94 (1974) 114-25).M.I. Finleyhasconsistently championedthe view thatthe socialandculturalinstitutionsdescribedin the epics constitute"the raw materialsfor thestudyof a realworldof realmen, a world of historyand not of fiction" (The world of Odysseus(1965) 44), a position he has steadfastlymaintainedsince 1954, the date of the first edition.

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

111

I have discussedthis crucial questionat greater length elsewhere,with referencesto variousmodernopinions("Reciprocitiesin Homer", CW 75 (1982) 137-38, 172; "The politicsof generosityin Homer", Helios 9 (1982) 1-15, notes1-3). Two pointsdeserveemphasis.The first is Finley's insistence on the "profound qualitativedifferencebetweennarrativeand institutions(or background)".The narrativecontents are "essentiallyworthlessassources .... The institutions,on the other hand, are described(more often, intimated)with considerable accuracy"("Homer andMycenae:Propertyandtenure",Historia 6 (1957) 146-47). Second, it can be demonstratedthat the institutional background--that is, theeconomic,political/social (includingrankandstatus), kinship,andethico-religious systems--isconsistent andnon-contradictory within and betweenboth epics. Moreover, thesesocialand cultural institutionsconform, bothbroadlyand,to a remarkabledegree,in detail,to modelsor "idealtypes", inducedby anthropologists from dozensof ethnographical cases,of the primitive "chiefdom" form of polity. If the backgroundof the Iliad and Odysseyis fictional,suchinterlockingcongruence amongnumerous,diverse aspectsof socialbehaviorwouldbe a remarkableaccident.And whenwe considerthat this patternof reinforcingsystemsconformsin mostessentialsto the theoreticalconstructs of modernanthropological research,it seemsmore properto view Homer's pictureof Dark Age socialstructureas "real" than as a productof poeticalfancy or a compositepiecedtogetherfrom scrapsof sociologicalreality culled over a period of four centuries. 2. K. Polanyi,Thegreat transformation (1944) 46; cf. 153. Polanyiwas influenced by earlierscholars, notablyB. MalinowskiandR. Thurnwald.Thurnwald, a studentof Max Weber,in hisEconomics in primitivecommunities (1932) 12, had maintained that "economic values do not stand isolated in their own

specialfield, but arecloselyinterwoven with thewholetextureof society". This view of the role of the economyin primitivesocieties hasbeenvery influentialin anthropological circles,buthasnotwonuniversalacceptance. The theoriesof Polanyiandhis students developedfrom thedistinctiontheymade

between the"formal"and"subsiantive" definitions of "economy". The"formal" (modern)concept,theyargue,is applicableonlyto systems of market exchange;andto refer rationalnotionslike "scarcity", "allocation", "maximizing", etc. to marketlesseconomies(which haveto do with the relational processesby which people securea livelihood--hence,"substantive")is anachronisticand misleading.The "formalists" counterthat such rational modelscan in factbe usefullyappliedto the workingsof tribal andpeasant

societies. Fora fulldiscussion of thecontroversy andanassessment of Polanyi's contributions to the studyof the primitiveeconomy,seeS.C. Humphreys, "History,economics, andanthropology: The workof Karl Polanyi,"History and Theory8 (1969) 165-212( = ch. 2 of Anthropology andtheGreeks(1978) 31-73).

3. Od. 13.135-38;cf. 5.3840. In 14.323-25(cf. 19.294-95)thedisguised Odysseussaysthat the kt•mata that Odysseushad gathered"would feed (l•6mco0a succession of heirs even to the tenthgeneration". 4. The furtherpromiseof "seven well-settledptoliethra" (II. 9.149) has

112

WALTER

DONLAN

occasioned difficultiesfor historians.It may well be a Dark Age retrojection into the dimly rememberedMycenaeanpast.Irrespectiveof its historicalcorrectness,it serveshere to underscorethe fabulouscharacterof the most lavish

recountingof treasure-exchange in Homer. Agamemnonhandsover only the specifiedgifts, of course(ll. 19.243). 5. Lines 276-77=I/. 24.230-31 (Hector's ransom). In both casescloth goods,which are itemsof subsistence as well as treasure,are bracketedby the rarer and more valuable metal and women--another

indication of the scar-

city of true treasuregoods.See notes12 and 15. 6. ¬vaare often •tnspefota(II. 1.13, 372; 6.49, 427; 9.120; 10.380; 19.138; 24.276, 502,529; H. Ven. 140), or {i¾•xtd(ll. 1.23, 111,377). 156)pit are !xup[tt(ll. 9.699; Od. 24.283), &orceztt(Od. 13.135; 20.342), !xs¾d•.tt (ll. 10.401), no•.•.d(ll. 18.449=no•.•.6t •gOtK)•u'rti);9.598. Od. 15.537; 17.164; 19.310), K•.u'rd(ll. 24.458; Od. 8.417), •xgOtK)•u'rti (ll. 9.121; 7.299), •ti•.•.tgtt (Od. 4.130; 8.439; 15.206), •xeOtKtt)O•tt (Od. 8.420; 16.327), •t¾•.ati(often).

7. In the samepassage,Iphitus had come to Messeneto reclaim twelve brood mares with mule foals; compareOd. 4.632-37; II. 5.263-73, 640; 11.698-700.Thehorseis a specialanimal.Horsesarenotpartof thesubsistence economy;theirpossession (andexchange)is confinedto thehigherranks;they arelessplentifulandmorehighlyvaluedthanotheranimals.Asidefrom their usein war they are itemsof luxury anddisplay.SeeW. Richter, "Die Landwirtschaft im homerischenZeitalter" (ArchaeologiaHomerica II, Kapitel H (1968) 70 if.). Mules, of course,are utilitarian.Other indicationsof the large numericalscaleof small animalsare II. 4.433-34 (6/•q... !lup[ttt);II. 15.630-32

(136•q...!xupkn). In ll. 18.573if. (Achilles'shield)thecattlerequirefourherders andnine dogs(compareOd. 14.20 if., whereOdysseus'960 pigsare tended by five swineherds andfour dogs).Seealsoll. 14.124; Od. 9.183. For large numbers of animals consumedat feasts see Od. 3.5 (81 bulls in honor of Poseidon);II. 9.466; 23.31; Od. 14.249.

8. Wormof Odysseus (1965) 65. The difficultnotionsof "equivalency" and"value", alongwith themorecomplexconcepts of"price" and"money" in primitive societiescannotbe discussed here. Sufficeit to say that no one "paid" suchand sucha numberof cattlefor suchand suchan object. One of the pointsmadein thispaperis thatcertainkindsof socio-economic transactions employed onlycertaintypesof goods.Basicreferences areK. Polanyi, "The semantics of money-uses"in G. Dalton (ed.), Primitive,archaicand modem economies(1968) 175-203, and G. Dalton, "Primitive money" in Dalton (ed.) Tribal and peasanteconomies(1967) 254-81. See note 16. 9. Thesilvermixing-bowl thatMenelaus givesto Telemachus is "the most beautifulandmostvaluable" 0cti•.•.to'rov •cttizuxrl•o'm•ov)of all the keim•lia in his oikos(Od. 4.614 = 15.114). Four prize-winninghorses(with chariots) constitutea "great debt" (•peioqg•¾tt)in ll. 11.698; seealso738. Women andhorsesconstitute specialcategories of treasurein certainobviousrespects. Like metal treasurethey are relativelyscarce,and, therefore,valuableitems of exchange. Unlikekeirn•liaproper,however,womenandhorses havedefinite

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

113

economicfunctions,andacquirefurthervalue as objectsof sentimentalattachment. Cf.//. 17.426 ff. and 19.400 ff., wherethe horsesof Achillesweepand converse.The high sentimentalvaluationput on women is expressedvery forcefullyby Agamemnonand Achilles in referenceto Chryseisand Briseis (//. 1.111-15; 9.335-43). 10. ll. 23.262 if. We may note that Idomeneusand Ajax, son of Oileus, wager "a tripodor a cauldron"on which teamis in the lead (23.485); in 558 Achillesoffersto give Eumelusa breastplateas a compensatory prize, near equivalentto the marethatAntilochushad won. The prizesin the othercontests(generally)reflectthe samepriorityof value.In theboxingmatchtheprizes are a muleanda cup (654); footrace:a silvermixing-bowl,an ox, a half talent of gold (740; see 796); fight in armor: a swordwith scabbardand telamon, and (to be dividedequally) Sarpedon'spanoply(798); discusthrow: a lump of unwroughtiron (826); archery:ten doubleaxesandten singleaxes,of iron (850). 11. In a not yet publishedpaper, "A theoryof the demiourgoiof the late Dark Ages", B. Qviller surveysthe Homeric evidenceand concludesthatthe Homericcraftsmanwasnotpermanentlyattachedto an oikos("... the demand for specialistcraftswithin an oikoswas too low to supportpermanentunfree craftsmen.... ") and that Homeric craftsmen were itinerant and mobile. Clothing is made not only by female domestics,but also by free membersof the household;the garmentgiven to Telemacbusby Helen is kallistosand rnegistosof all the œeploishe herselfhad made (Od. 15.104). 12. The importanceof race-horses(&•0)•o•060ot) as producersof keirn•lia: II. 9.123-27; 11.698-700; 22.162-64; 23.410-13; the valueof womenas producersof clothgoods:II. 6.288-92, wherewomenimportedfromSidonto Troy madeelaboratepeœ1oi.Women were prized both as workersin cloth and as bed-mates:e.g., II. 1.31, 115; cf. Od. 24.278-79. The fifty drnrai in Alcinous'

household are describedprimarilyas workersin cloth, but they alsoground grain (Od. 7.95-111; cf. 20.105-11) andperformedotherhousekeeping tasks. Becausethey are manufacturedat home, cloth goodsare the commonestand mostplentifulitemsof treasure-exchange; a man whosehousedoesnot producea surplusof cloth goodsis calledpoor (penichros,Od. 3.346-51). See also notes 7 and 9.

13. E.g. II. 2.101; 4.141; 7.146, 219; 10.261; 11.19; 12.294; 15.529; 18.478; 23.741; 24.234; cf. 4.105; 14.178; Od. 4.125; 4.615= 15.115; 7.91;

11.609; 19.55;21.31; 24.74; cf. 15.90. Women,race-horses, gold,andiron also shared these attributes.

14. In ll. 7.472, for example,the Achaeansbarteredbronze,iron, hides, cows,andmalecaptivesfor winebroughtto Troy by Lemnians.The bartered goods,all spoilsof war, aremainlynon-treasure items;thebronzeand"gleamlng (a[0tov)iron" weremostlikely armsandarmor,the mostnumerous and mostreadilyavailableform of metaltreasure,accessible to all warriors.In the samevoyageEunefisgave (•56•Kav) a thousandmeasuresof wine to the Atreidae

(astrading"dues"?).We arenottolddirectlyforwhatkindsof goodsAchilles

114

WALTER

DONLAN

sold Lycaonand other capturedsonsof Priam in Lemnos,Samosand Imbros

(ll. 21.40, 79; 24.75). The LemnianEuneiis,sonof Jason,gaveto Achilles as5nosfor Lycaon100cattle'sworth(ll. 21.41, 79). Lycaonwasransomed for three times that amountby a xeinos,Ettion of Imbros (ll. 21.42, 80). Presumably,the silvermixing-bowlwhichAchillessetout as a prize for the foot-racewasthetJnos whichEuneiispaidto Achillesfor Lycaon(//. 23.740-47), althoughthe text saysthat Euneiisgaveit to Patroclus(asAchilles'agent?). If thisis so,thenthesalepriceof Lycaonmighthavebeena keimglion,a silver mixing-bowlof the worth of 100 cattle. From this we may reasonablyconcludethatprisonersaleandransomwas (at leaston occasion)in treasure.See II. 2.229, wheregoldis specificallymentionedastheransom-price. In marital transactionsand in wooing situations(as we learn from a general statement in Od. 18.276) gifts were both subsistence and treasuregoods. The only instanceof food as a gift in a prestigetransactionis in Od. 9.201 if., where,in additionto treasure,Maro gaveOdysseus twelveamphorae of wine. Of course,Odysseus' possession of wineis necessary to theplothere; alsothe transaction hasan aspectof payment,becauseOdysseusandhis men hadgivenMaro andhis family protection.As other"exceptions"we maynote ll. 22.159, where we are told that the a•thlia for a foot-race are a sacrificial

animalor anox-hide.This is in interesting contrastto thecostlytreasure-prizes offeredby Achillesin the Gamesfor Patroclus(cf. ll. 23.750, 851, wherean ox andiron axesare prizes).Similaris the reward(dosis)offeredto volunteers for a spyingmission,a ewe with lamb from eachof the leaders(ll. 10.213 if.). 15. See Od. 8.474; 14.62, 131; 15.330, 338, 490; 16.79; 17.532; 18.43, 360. Beggarsbeg "for scraps,not for swordsor cauldrons"(Od. 17.222). In oneof his lying talesOdysseus tellshow he receivedOdysseus andgave him hospitality(•vtooct) from the manythingsthatwere in theoikos,while to Odysseus'hetairoi he gave from the public store(•5•lg60•v)foodstufffor a sacrificeandfeast(Od. 19.194).On theotherhand,Aegisthus gavehiswatchmantwo talentsof goldaspay (Od. 4.525), andin Od. 21.338 Penelopepromisesto give the beggarnot only clothesbut a javelin and sword, if he can bendthebow of Odysseus (cf. 16.79). Clothingandarmsconstitute thecommonest,mosteasilyacquired,and, therefore,the lowliest,categoryof treasure. For obviousreasons, thesebelongalsoto therealmof substantive goods;usually only the finer examplesqualify as treasure. 16. Paul Bohannon,"The impact of money on an African subsistence economy", in Dalton (ed.), Tribal and peasant economies(note 8) 124 (=Journal of Economic History19 (1959)591-603).Thus,amongtheTiv of Nigeriadifferentgoodswereexchanged for differentpurposes. Brassrodswere the main "currency" of the "prestige sphere", in which the rods were exchangedfor the mostvaluedgoods,(rightsin) womenand slaves.Food was exchanged for food(subsistence sphere);foodmightalsobeexchanged for brass rods,but suchan exchangewas considered a "bad" transaction amongthe Tiv. A similarsetof operations is foundamongtheSianeof New Guinea."Some goodscanbe exchanged only for subsistence items,andothersonly for items

THE

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

115

whichconferstatusandprestige"(M. Nash, "The organization of economic life", in Dalton (ed.), Tribal andpeasanteconomies 6). Thereare hintsin Homer of a formal (asopposedto an institutional)distinctionbetweensubsistence goodsandtreasure-objects. Telemachus tellsthesuitors that it would be better(kerdion)for him if they were to "eat up my treasure and my flocks" (•cat[tfl)•td xa x06[30toiv xa, Od. 2.74). Menelauswanderedin Egypt, "gatheringmuchlivelihood(biotos)andgold" (Od. 3.301; cf. 4.90). Hector tells Poulydamasthat Troy's "fine treasure" (•cat[t/13,ta •ca3,d)have perishedfrom their homes,and "many goods" (no•.•.•t•cx/l[taxa)have been soldabroad(//. 18.290;cf. 17.225).A similardistinction appearsat II. 9.406-07, whereAchillessaysthatcattleandsheepcanbe "plundered"(lgistoi)andtripods andhorses"acquired" (ktgtoi).In the epics,biotos(andz6g, Odysseyonly) always refer to livelihood or to the meansof livelihood (land, food, animals); kt•mata,kt•sis,kteras,kteana(onlyin dat. •cx•dx•oot), whichsignifythatwhich is acquiredor possessed, embracebothsubsistence goodsandtreasure(although in contextmostreferences pertainto livelihood).In otherwords,keimgliaare subsumed underktgmata,thoughnever underbiotos.This both indicatesthe awareness of a formaldistinctionbetweensubsistence goodsandprestigegoods, and alsopointsup the fact that prestigegoodsare a fractionalportionof all possessions (cf. Od. 23.355-58). The linguisticanalysesof E. Benvenisteconfirm the existenceof a formal distinction.Benvenistedemonstrates thatthe oppositionkeim•lia/probasisin Od. 2.74 indicatestwo categoriesof wealth, "richessesgisantes,immobiles/ richesses marchantes".Keimgliaare "all that which 'lies' (keitai)", while ta probata are "wealth on the hoof". Thus, in Homeric society "la richesseest une r•alit• multiple, consid•r•e dans ses diversesvaleursqu'on distingueen keim•lia et probata" (12 vocabulairedes institutionsindo-europ•ennes I (1969) 43-44; seefurther47-61, on *pekuand pecunia). 17. Bohannon(note 16) 130. 18. E.R. Leach, Thepolitical systemsof Highland Burma (1954) 142-43. Ordinary foodstuffsand mostanimals(cattle, pigs, chickens)are not "ritual wealthobjects";waterbuffalo,gongs,guns,andcertainothernon-perishable items are. While these do have some market value, Leach is careful to em-

phasizethat"sometypesof ritualwealthobjectshaveno ordinarycommercial value, and that the value of a wealth objectin ritual exchangeis not in any casewholly determinedby its ordinarycommercialvaluein the openmarket" (p. 144). L. Gernetnotedthat keim•lia in early Greeceformed "la mati•re d'un commercenoble", anddifferedfrom anotherorderof goodsthatwasinferior andfunctionallydifferent(Anthropologiede la Grbceantique(1968) 96; cf. 97, 134-35, 136). 19. B. Malinowski, Argonautsof the WesternPacific (1922) 90. 20. Malinowski351; see511: it is "by arousingenvyandconferringsocial distinctionand renown that theseobjectsattain their high value". 21. See Wormof Odysseus, 58-66, 98-103,127, 129-33. E.g., treasurehas utilitarianand aestheticworth, but its real value was "as symbolicwealth or

116

WALTER

DONLAN

prestige wealth",anditstwinuseswere"in possessing it andgivingit away" (58). Onlythe"aristocracy" possessed treasure in significant quantity;there were "ratherstrictlinesof giving,andgradesandranksof objects"(102); gift-givingfunctioned"as an actthroughwhichstatusrelationswerecreated, andwhatwe wouldcall politicalobligations"(103). Finleyalsostresses the importance of givingaswellasreceiving asa measure of socialworth(129-30). Where I disagreewith Finley is in his insistencethat Homerictreasurediffers fromthe "prestigesymbols"of primitivesocieties ("The worldof Odysseus wasnot a primitiveworld...",

129), whichhave "liMe or no intrinsicworth".

"Even thoughtheuseof [Homeric]treasurewassolelyin display,solelyin its prestigefunction,only its intrinsicworthgaveit propervalue" (129; cf. 132). As a result,perhaps,of his emphasis on the material,economicvalue of treasuregoods,Finleygivesinsufficient weightto theroleof competitive displayandgenerosity, andtheprestige theyconfer,asmechanisms ofpolitical control.

22. Thisis evidentevenin "ordinary" ceremonial exchanges. As examples we can cite Od. 1.309 if., where Telemachus offers Mentes/Athena the hospitalityof the house(an importantelementof the ritual transaction)and a

girl, "honor-laden(•t[tq•v), very beautiful,whichwill be a keimglionto you from me, the sort philoi xeinoi give to xeinoi", and Od. 4.589 if., where Menelausoffersto give Telemachusa "beautifulcup, so thatyou may make libationsto the immortalgodsand be mindful (memngmenos) of me all your days". Cf. Od. 15.51-55; 19.332-34. 23. CompareMalinowsld'sinsistence "that thewholetribal life ispermeated by a constantgive and take; that every ceremony,every legal andcustomary act is doneto the accompaniment of materialgift andcountergirl; thatwealth, given and taken, is one of the main instrumentsof socialorganization,of the power of the chief, of the bondsof kinship, and of relationshipsin law" (Argonauts(note 19) 167). 24. Examplesof lateraldisposition of treasurein Homer are socommonthat theyneedno detailinghere.Downwarddisposition of treasureis lessfrequently observed;see,e.g., II. 8.287; 9.334,480; 10.303; 11.123; 17.229; Od. 2.184; 17.79. In eachinstancethe ability of the superiorto give treasureto subordinatescreatesor strengthensthe bond of obligationand loyalty. M. Mauss, whoseshortclassic work,Essaisurle don,formearchaiitue del•change(1925), studiedthe functionof gift exchangein primitivesocieties(utilizingmanyof Malinowski'sandothers'findingsamongtheTrobriandislanders andthepotlach of North America), did not includethe early Greeksin his discussion,but his conclusionsare directly applicable.In primitive societies,"if one hoards,it is only to spendlater on, to put peopleunderobligationandto win followers. Exchangesare madeas well, but only of luxury objectslike clothingandornaments,or feasts.... "By generous giving"the hierarchyis established .... To give is to showone'ssuperiority,to showthatoneis somethingmoreand higher,thatoneis magister.To acceptwithoutreturningor repayingmoreis to face subordination,to become a client and subservient,to becomeminister"

(Engl. transl. by I. Cunnison(1967) 72-73).

THE

25. E.g., //.

HOMERIC

ECONOMY

117

1.118-20, 122-26, 161-62, 166-68, 367-69; 9.364-68;

11.625-27; cf. 1.133-34; Od. 7.10; 11.533-34; cf. 9.159-60.

26. Achilles' complaintaboutAgamemnon'sretentionof mostof the spoils in//. 9.328-36 is a perfectexample.Seealso//. 2.225-33,255 (Agamemnon); 17.229-32 (Hector); Od. 229-34 ("Cretan" Odysseus);cf. Od. 14.323-25; 19.294-95 (Odysseus).Note thatthe sevenLesbianwomenofferedto Achilles aspartof theapoinawerefrom Agamemnon's shareof thebootywhenLesbos was taken CoyAchilles himself! //. 9.128-30). Even after the distributionof large amountsof treasureas prizes in the Gamesfor Patroclus,Achilles has plentyleft (ll. 23.549-52).Ransoming of prisoners, like plunderandthedespoiling of corpses,is a purely "economic"transaction,and yieldsa high return in treasure(seenote14); and,like thestrippingof armor,prisoner-ransom brings profit mainly to the high-statuswarriors.SeeII. 2.229, whereThersitescomplainsthat the ransom(in gold) of prisonerscapturedby him or anotherof the Achaeansgoesto Agamemnon.Finally, of course,inheritancefrom father to sonconfersan obviousnaturaladvantage in theamassing of a surplusof treasure, and,notincidentally,contributes greatlyto theestablishment of socialstratification based on descent.

27. E.g., Bellerophon(ll. 6.191-95); Phoenix(ll. 9.478-84); Lycophron(ll. 15.430-39); Patroclus(ll. 23.85-90); cf. Od. 7.311-15 (Odysseusin Scheria). 28. Time: ll. 6.193; 9.616; Od. 24.30. Geras: Od. 7.150; 11.175, 184; 15.522. See also //. 1.278; 2.197; 3.170, 211; 15.189; Od. 11.495, 503. Benveniste(Vocabulaire (note 16) II 43 if.) arrives at a similar conclusion, althoughhe doesnot mark the differencebetweenthe concreteand extended usagesof thesetwo words. So too, in the distinctionhe drawsbetweengeras (whichis givenby men)andtim• (whichis conferredby fate), Benveniste misses an importantnuance.At thehighestlevelof rank(humanor divine)thequalification betweenprivilegesand honorsgrantedby menand thosebestowedby fate blurs and disappears. 29. G. Dalton arguessuggestivelythat the prestigesphereof primitive economies,"usedby the eldersandthe powerfulasdevicesof socialcontrol--to control accessto statuspositionsand to direct and initiate communityactivities...", disappearswith the establishmentof more complex states, characterized by (amongotherthings)coinedmoney,centralizedgovernment, commercial(market) exchange("Peasantriesin anthropologyand history",

in Dalton(ed.), Tribalandpeasanteconomies 255 n. 17; cf. 257 n. 27).

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

The demoticof the Atheniangeneraland politicianPhocion,the son of Phocus,haslongpuzzledscholars.It wasoncearguedthathisdeme wasIphistiadaiof thetribeAkamantis,butlaterepigraphical testimony madethisview untenable. • Phocionis thus"the mostprominentAthenianof any agewhosedemeis unknown", andthe mostrecentstudy of the Athenianpropertiedclassrepeatsthis view. 2 Plutarchstatesthat he had seen Phocion's house in the urban deme of Melite. 3 But this in-

formation,evenif reliable,contributes little to establishing hisdemotic, since Athenian

citizens were not restricted to residence within

their

ancestraldemes.4A pieceof evidencethatmay answerthe questionof Phocion'sdemotichas receivedsurprisinglylittle attention.This is a bouleuticlist from the secondhalf of the fourthcenturyBCthat records a bouleut•sPhocionrepresenting the threePotamosdemesof the tribe Leontis.5 Thoughthepaucityof evidencefrustratesa positiveidentification, it may be that the Phocionnamedon this list is in fact the famous generaland politician. The list in questionis probablyan honorificbouleuticdedicationof 336/5.6The inscription'seditorsuggested thisdatefrom historicaland genealogical datainferredfrom the councilorsidentifiedon thelist. He noted that several of the councilors could not have been selected for

theboul• beforeca. 340 on accountof their ages;thedeathof Demades of Paiania(who also servedin thisboule-)provideda terminaldateof 320/19. Other prytanyor bouleuticlists and historicalevidence(i.e. eventsof Demades'politicalcareer)eliminatedmostof the yearsbetweenthesetwo dates.The editoralsoarguedthatthe honorificnature of the inscriptioncorresponds to a year in whichthe boul• performed its prescribedduties,which includedthe buildingof ships.The boul• of 336/5 successfully fulfilledthisrequirement.All availableevidence seemsto indicatethat this year providesthe mostplausiblehistorical context for the inscription.7 Thoughthe evidencesuggests that the list recordshalf of the boul• of 336/5, a dateshortlybefore341/0 hasalsobeenadvanced.The argumentfor this earlier date restson the theorythat between350 and 341 a reapportionment of bouleutic quotasoccurred. 8Theevidence, however, 118

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

119

t¾ombouleuticandprytanylistsweighsagainstthis view. Information drawn from several tribes, e.g. Erechtheis,Leontis, and Antiochis, arguesstronglyagainstany bouleuticreapportionment.Moreover, the theorypaysno attentionto the mosteconomicalexplanationfor blank spacesin prytanyandbouleuticlists, viz. that the blank spacessimply indicatean absenceof names.9 These argumentsoffer soundreasons for rejectingthe proposedearlier date and acceptingthe date 336/5. This allowstheapproximate ageof thebouleut•sPhocionto be determined. The minimumage requirementfor membersof the Councilof Five Hundred (i.e. that they be at leastthirty years old) dictatesa terminusante quemof 365/4 for the birth of the councilorswho served

in thisboul•.•oOf thosefourth-century AtheniansnamedPhocion,only Phocion,the sonof Phocus,is known to have beenborn beforethis date(in 402/1). •• The datesof birth of his namesakes,on the otherhand, can only be conjectured. The namePhocionis amongtherarestin Attic prosopography. Sources attestonly six men of this name for all periodsof Athenian history, and three of them lived sometimein the fourth century. Two of those named Phocion--Phocion, the son of Phocus(PA 15076), and another Phocion,alsoof unknowndemotic--arepossiblecandidates for identificationwith the bouleut•sof 336/5. •2The third attestedfourth-century Phocionis from the demePhyle, andis clearly not the bouleut•sPhocion. His identitymustalsobe considered,though,sincehe might be Phocion, the sonof Phocus. The Phocion recordedon the bouleutic list,

then, representseithera previouslyunknownindividual(i. e. a seventh Phocion),or his identityis to be foundin oneof thosethreemenalready known.

An otherwiseunknownPhocion(PA 15074) is recordedasthe father

of Androcles(PA 855), whoparticipated in theSoteriafestivalin 272/1 or 271/0. Androcles'participation in the athleticcompetitionsuggests that his birth occurredca. 300 or evenlater. This chronologyandthe bouleuticagerequirement weakenthisPhocion'scandidacy for service in the boulg in 336/5, sincehe would have been well into his sixties

(if notolder)atAndrocles' birth.Thisseems unlikely,asdoeshisidentity with Phocion, the son of Phocus. Plutarch and other sourcessuggest

thatPhocionhadonlyonesonwhosurvivedto adulthood: Phocus,clearly namedfor hispaternalgrandfather. •3Theseconsiderations suggest that Androcles' father was not the bouleutgs Phocion of 336/5 or Phocion, the son of Phocus.

The remainingfourth-century Phocion(PA 15078)belongedto the demePhyleof the tribe Oineis.His daughterPraxo(PA 12182),the

120

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

wife of Aristocrates(PA 1920), died sometimein the late fourth or ear-

ly thirdcentury.44Phocionof Phyleis notthebouleutgs Phocionof 336/5. But is he the sonof Phocus,andthe famousgeneralandpolitician?The evidence is inconclusive, but there is reasonto doubt the identification

of Phocion, the son of Phocus,with Phocionof Phyle. Plutarch identifies two children of Phocion, the son of Phocus: a son

Phocusanda daughtermarriedto Charicles,oneof Phocion'spolitical adherents.45No source alludes to a son other than Phocus, and his act

of solitaryvengeanceuponhis father'sprosecutors(ca. 317) seemsto confirm his lack of brothers.Evidenceis lessclear concerningPhocion'sdaughter(s).SinceGreek sourcescommonlyignorewomenand especiallydaughters,Plutarchmay have read aboutonly one of two, or of several,of Phocion'sdaughters. In thiscaseit is possiblethatPraxo is an otherwiseunattesteddaughterof Phocion,the sonof Phocus.Accordinglythe latter's demoticwould be Phylasiosand not Potamios. A few argumentsmay be offered againstthis view. ThoughPhocion could have had other children, there is no evidencethat he in fact did.

Moreover,Plutarchappearsgenerallyto be well informedon Phocion's family. He mentionsPhocion'stwo wives in a passagedevotedto domesticdetails, but remarksthat little was said of them and even their

nameswere unknown.46Perhapstheir nameswere neverrecorded.But the detailsof Plutarch'saccountsuggestthathe hadlearnedall thathe couldconcerningPhocion'swivesandchildren.It seemslikely thatPlutarch discussed the two children of Phocion that he did discuss because

only they had survivedto adulthood.47 The natureof the evidencedoesnot permit a definitesolutionto this problem.But it appearsunlikelythatPraxowasa daughterof Phocion, the sonof Phocus.If so, thenPhocionof Phyleis not the famousgeneral and politician,just as he is not the bouleut•sof 336/5. The limited evidencethus suggeststhat Phocion,the father of Androcles,is probablyneitherthebouleut•sPhocionnor Phocion,the son

of Phocus,andthatPhocionof Phyle, while clearlynot the bouleut•s Phocion, is unlikely to be Phocion,the son of Phocus. Phocion, the son of Phocus, remains a candidate for identification

with thebouleut•sPhocion,asdoesa previouslyunrecorded individual of the samename.Argumentfor suchan unknownPhocion,however, is unpersuasive,sinceno other record of sucha personsurvives.48 Moreover, it seemsquestionable to multiply men of sucha rare yet famous name in the face of the evidence. Though the absenceof patronymicson the list weakensthe strengthof thisidentification,Phocion, the son of Phocus, is the best candidate for identification with

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

121

the bouleutgs Phocion of the Potamos demes in 336/5. His date of birth

conformsto the bouleuticagerequirement,andthe rarity of the name itselfrequiresconsideration, especially sinceit appearsin a periodwhen Phocionwas politically prominent. Plutarch'sdescriptionof Phocion'spublic servicecorroboratesthe argumentadvancedherethatthe bouleutgsPhocioncouldbe the same man as Phocion,the sonof Phocus.Phocion,accordingto Plutarch, foundpublic affairs divided into the military and political spheresof generalsand orators.This Phocionwishedto changeby combininga military careerwith thatof a politician,as in the daysof Aristeidesand Pericles.19Plutarchalso providesan importantaccountof Phocion's role in Athenianpoliticsafter Chaeronea,which may explainwhy he took bouleutic

service at this time. 2ø

Shortlybeforethe campaignthat led to Chaeroneabegan,Phocion returnedhomefrom the northernAegeanwherehe hadbeencommanding a naval expedition.2• Lysicles,Chares,and probablyStratocles, had alreadybeengiven commandof the campaignby popularvote.22 In this situation Phocion could do little more than advise on the cam-

paign'sstrategy.23 Immediatelyafterthedefeatat Chaeronea,however, Phocionfiguredprominentlyin eventsin Athens.Philip's victory left Athensopento attack,andhysteriasweptthecity as a Macedonianadvanceseemedimminent.Amid the generalpanicandconsternation the AreopagusCouncilpersuaded the dgmosto entrustthe city to Phocion rather than to Charidemus.

24

Thisbrief andimpreciseaccountby Plutarchleavesseveralquestions unanswered,mostimportantperhapsthe natureof Phocion'sappointment.It seemsunlikelythatPlutarchis relatingtheelectionof generals for 337/6. His accountof a strife-filledcity describesAthensjust after Chaeroneafar more appropriatelythan the more tranquildays of the followingspringwhenthe electionof generalswouldhaveoccurred.25 The conflict betweenthe "revolutionarymasses"and the "terrified wealthy", the partisansof Charidemusand Phocionrespectively,that Plutarchdescribespointsto the days,hoursperhaps,after Chaeronea, when the anticipationof a Macedonianadvancepanickedthe city. Lycurgusand Demosthenes also attestthis panic, which providesthe mostlikely backgroundto Plutarch'saccount. Plutarch's misunderstanding of Athenian politics, evident in the rhetoricaldistinctionbetweenthe "revolutionarymasses"andthe ''terrifled wealthy", complicates interpretation of hisaccount.26 Nonetheless he apparentlyrelied on a well-informedsourcefor the eventshe relates, asthe detailsof the strugglebetweenthe two generalssuggest.Thus,

122

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

while his coloringof politicalfactionsis unacceptable, hisnarrativeprovides a reliable, thoughbrief, accountof political tensionand discord in Athens

after Chaeronea.

The "revolutionarymasses",accordingto Plutarch,demandedthat Charidemusbe general(stratggein).The simplestinterpretationis that they wantedhim electedgeneralsothathe couldtakecommandof the city's defense.Clearly Charidemuswas notamongthoseelectedgeneral for 338/7 the previousspring.27Whether he would have replaceda generalkilled at Chaeroneaor deposedafterwardsis unknown,but Plutarchimpliesthathis electionwasa necessary prerequisite to assuming the command.Plutarch, however, saysnothingaboutany electionof Phocion.He statesonly that the AreopagusCouncilprevaileduponthe dgmosto entrustthe city to Phocion.The mosteconomicalinterpretation is that therewas no questionof an electionfor Phocion,only of his appointment.The only explanationfor this is that he was already stratggosfor 338/7 and thuseligible for the command. TMThe distinction that Plutarch draws between the two generals seems clear. Charidemushad to be electedgeneralfirst before assumingany command,while Phocion,alreadygeneral,hadonly to be appointedto the commandin question. After Chaeroneaa heateddebateevidentlyoccurredin the ecclgsia over what actionto take in anticipationof a Macedonianadvance.It was alsounclearto whom the city shouldbe entrusted.Lycurgus'later prosecution of Lysiclesindicates thatthegenerals whofailedat Chaeronea (and survived)were discreditedand their leadershiprejected.29PhocionandCharidemus weretwo veterancommanders presentin thecity andunconnected withthegreatdefeat.Thecity'sleadership andmilitary defense thus fell to them. An effort was made to elect Charidemus

stratggos,probablyat a hastilyconvenedmeetingof the ecclgsia,and therebyplacehim in commandof the city. He wasprobablythe staunchestenemyof Macedonpresent,andhiselectionwouldcertainlyhave pleased thosewhostilldreamed of resisting theMacedonians. ButPhilip could draw the sameconclusion,too, and thosewho saw the futility (underthecircumstances) of furtherresistance, i.e. theAreopagusCouncil, prevaileduponthed•mosto reconsider andabandon thisprovocative

policy. ThusPhocion,alreadystrat•gos,waschosenandthe city entrustedto him.30Phocionwas an experiencedandcompetentgeneral, whosesuccessagainstPhilip at Byzantiumshowedthat he coulddefend the city if that becamenecessary. 31Sincehe had arguedearlier for negotiation withPhilip,hisappointment alsorevealedAthenianwillingnessto compromiseand reluctanceto take extrememeasures.

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

123

The Atheniandecisionto entrustthingsto Phocionsuggests thathe exercised considerable influencein Athensduringthiscrisis.But PlutarchalsoreportsthatPhilipgreatlyadmiredPhocion,andonemay suspect thatthiswasbecause Philipcouldnotbuyhim.32It is Phocion's reputation withtheMacedonians, particularly Philip,thatsurelyexplains his choiceby the frightenedAthenians.In placingPhocionin charge of the city, they probablyhopedthat he couldusehis influencewith Philipandsecurethe bestpossiblesettlement for Athens.But events turnedoutotherwise,asPhiliptreatedtheAthenians with generosity ratherthanhumiliation.He returnedtheirdeadandprisoners without ransom, and left Athens free and autonomous.33 Phocion's role as

mediator thusbecame unnecessary, though heprobably retained enough prestige tobereturned in thefollowingspringto thestratggia for 337/6. In the winterand springthatfollowedChaeronea,Philipmovedto settleaffairsin Greecepriorto hisAsianexpedition. A majorpartof thissettlement included theorganization of theLeagueof Corinthunder hisleadership. 34Thedebatethatthisissuestirredin Athensmayhave weakened Phocion's popularity andstanding. WhileDemades supported Athens'participation in thisorganization, Phocionspokeotherwise.He advised theAthenians to postpone entryintotheLeagueuntiltheirprospectivemilitary obligationsunder it were stated.35 The Athenians,

however,rejectedhis prudentadviceandjoinedthe League,to their later regret.

Phocion's failuretopersuade theAthenians onthisissuesuggests that his viewsdid notdominatethe city.36His causewasperhapsnoble, butcertainlyuntimely.TheAthenians hadalreadyshownthemselves eagerto appease Philip,havinggrantedhim citizenship andhonoring himin otherways.37WhenPhocion opposed whatPhilipclearlywanted, theAthenians mayhavedecided to repudiate publiclyhisstubborn refusal to cooperate withtheMacedonians. In thesecircumstances it mayhave happened thatasthedgmos rejected hisadvicein theecclgsia, theyalso rejectedhis candidacyfor the stratggiafor 336/5.38 Phocion'spoliticaleclipsemayhavecontinued in factfor somemonths

into336. Thepubliccelebration thatthenewsof Philip'sassassination in Macedoniaaroused in AthensagainshowsPhocionfailingto assert hisviewsin publicpolicy.Phocion opposed thepublicsacrifices decreed to celebratePhilip'sdeath,arguingthatit wasdishonorable, andthat thearmythathaddefeatedthemat Chaeronea wasonlyonemanless in number. 39Phocion'slackof politicalinfluenceat thistimeis most apparentperhapsin thepopularityof Demosthenes, whoreveledin the newsof Philip'sdeath,andledAthensin itscelebration.4ø Plutarch plain-

124

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

ly attestsPhocion'slack of popularityandpoliticalfailureat thistime.

Thebouleutic listof 336/5,recording thebouleut•s Phocion, mightwell providethe additionalconfirmationthat Phocionindeedsuffereda politicaldefeat. Phocion'sstatureasapoliteuornenos suggests thathe wouldnothave remained idle even if he had failed to win election. Since the election

for generalspreceded theselection of bouleutaiandothercivilianposts, therewouldhavebeenampletime for Phocionto find an alternateform of service.4• A seatin the boul• wouldhaveofferedan appropriateand influentialform of public service. Bouleuticservicewasnotnecessarily a positionof minorsignificance. The Councilof Five Hundredhasbeendescribedas the "linch-pin of the democracy",and it was an institutionthat not only preparedthe business of theecclesia, butalsoexercised powerfulexecutive andjudicial functions. 42While a numberof councilorswereaverageAtheniansperformingtheir civic duty, therewere alsothepoliteuornenoi who satin theboul• andlargelydominatedits activities. 43Demosthenes commented on this distinction,and the appearancein the Council of suchpoliticiansasLycurgus,Demades,Androtion,andDemosthenes himself,supportshisstatement. 44Xenophonalsonotedtheimportance of bouleutic service,andthe politicaladvantages broughtby friendsin thatbody.45

It wouldnothavebeendifficultfor Phocion,or anypolitician or citizen for thatmatter,to servein theboul•in a particularyear.Onlyimmediately prior servicein the Council,or someact (e.g. prostitution)bringing civicdisqualification, couldbar onefromparticipating in theallotment for councilors.n6 Corruptionin the selectionof bouleutaialsoexisted. AeschinesonceassailedDemosthenes,who he claimedhad gaineda seatin the Councilthroughcorruption.47ThoughAeschines'rhetoric is suspect,his remark reflectsAristotle's descriptionof the selection of magistrates.Bouleutaiandothermagistrates were onceselectedin the demes, and Aristotle statedthat the demesliterally sold theseofrices.This procedurewaslater reformedandthe selectionof mostofricescameunderthejurisdictionof thetribes.The allotmentof bouleutai, however, remained in the hands of the demes.48 The corruptiondescribedby Aristotleandimpliedby Aeschines pro-

bablyresultedfromtheheavyannualdemandof theboulguponthemanpowerresources of Athens.A recentstudyof the Councilhassuggested thatthis demandplacedsucha heavyburdenon the citizenpopulation that a number of men from the thetic census would have served in the

boulg.Moreover,the obligationsof bouleuticserviceso discouraged competitionthatmenwere eligibleto servetwo terms.49The bouleutic

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

125

list of 336/5 supportsthesearguments.In this boulgwere councilors who servedfor a secondtime, andotherswho were sixty yearsof age or more.5oAdditionally,two of the five tribeslisted, Aigeisand Leontis, were unableto provide a full contingentof bouleutai.5• This evidenceagreeswith the statements of AeschinesandAristotle, andsuggests that servicein the boulgcouldbe readilyobtained.Manpower shortageswere so severein somedemesthat no one was willing or ableto serve.In theseinstances a demewouldsimplygounrepresented in theCouncil.52Sucha situationcouldbe abusedby theunscrupulous, and Aristotle plainly indicatesthat this occurred.Conversely,honest citizens shouldhave been able to come forward too, and offer to serve

whenevertheywere willing or ableto assumethe burdenof publicservice.Sincemanydemesandtribeswerefrequentlyshorthanded, it would seemthat suchwillingnesswould have been welcomed.53 Phocionwouldhave becomeeligible for the boulgin 373/2. By this time, however, he was well establishedin the political hierarchyof Athensthroughhis alliancewith Chabrias.54His many tenuresof the stratggiain thefollowingdecades andotheractivities(e.g. hisCypriote campaignof 349) would have deniedhim the opportunityof assuming bouleuticdutiesor anylesseroffice. But asPlutarch'saccountsuggests, Phocion'spolitical stockmay have fallen in the aftermathof Philip's reorganizationof Greece after Chaeronea.In late 337/6, at the election of generalsfor the nextyear, Phocionperhapsfailed to secureelection

to thestratggiafor the first time in manyyears.Suchpoliticalsetbacks occurredat Athens,and to the mosteminentpoliticiansand generals, includingPericles,Iphicrates,and Timotheus. 55At this pointhe may have decided to settle for a seat in the boulg. The role of the Council

in the democracy,and the presenceof leadingpoliticiansin it, attests its political importance.Here Phocioncould still influencethe course of political affairs in Athens, and remain nearly as effectiveas if he were stratggos. A shortageof sourceshindersany r•onstructionof Phocion'scareer, but Plutarchand the bouleuticlist of 336/5 supportsucha scenario. One final consideration deserves mention. In Athens Phocion's contem-

porariesrecognized him for hisunequaled dikaiosyng. 56LatertheAthenianshonoredhim aschrgstos. 57Thisterm,thoughsometimes translated "good", actually means "useful" and carries an active connotation, i.e. one who doesuseful things for the community.58Phocionwas a just and public-spiritedcitizen, who servedAthens, as Plutarch tells

us, asbothmilitarycommander andpublicservant.Perhapshe sawthat his tribe Leontislackedqualifieddemesmen(as it clearlydid), andso

126

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

allowedhis nameto go forward in the allotmentfor bouleutaiand was selected.Manpowershortages andthelack of competitionfor bouleutic servicesuggestthat this was not an empty gesture,and Phocionwas probablysureof selection.59 Suchservicewould not only benefitthe community,but wouldalsoenablehim to repairhis recentlydiminished political standingin Athens. Thoughthe bouleutgsPhocionmay be a previouslyunknownman of that name,it is very unlikelythathe canbe oneof the knownfourthcenturyPhocionsexceptfor Phocion,the sonof Phocus.It is hoped, however,thattheproposed identification of thebouleut•sPhocionwith Phocion,the sonof Phocus,makesthebestsenseof theexistingevidence. Loyola Marymount University

Lawrence

A. Tritle

NOTES

1. D.M. Lewis, "Notes on Attic inscriptions(II)", BSA 50 (1955) 33, refutedtheearlieridentificationof H.G. Lolling, "AthenischeNamenslisteaus dem vierten Jahrhundert", MDAI(A) 5 (1880) 352. 2. Lewis 33, followedby J.K. Davies,Athenianpropertiedfamilies(1971) 559.

3. Plut. Phoc. 18.8. Plutarch'sstatement,however,posesmoreproblems thanit solves.It is unlikely thatthe housePlutarchdescribescouldhavebeen the samehousethatPhocionowned,thoughtraditioncontemporary to Plutarch wouldhavesoalleged.The survivalof a housefor four to five hundredyears seemsimprobable,but especiallysinceMelite wasin the areaof Athensthat sufferedmostduringSulla'ssiegeof 86 (Plut. Sulla 18.6). The strongest reason, however,for rejectingPlutarch'sclaim is his descriptionof Phocion'shouse as "plain andsimple",theexactstereotype of Phocionhimself.Cf. alsoW.J. Slater, "Pindar's house", GRBS 12 (1971) 147-51. 4. C. Hignett,A historyof the Athenianconstitution (1952) 136, 351. 5. S. Charitonides,"The first half of a bouleuticlist of the fourthcentury B.C.", Hesperia30 (1961) 31-33. Tribal order adheresto the official order priorto 307/6, andPhocionappearson line 205 (SideC). The inscriptionhas subsequently appearedin SEG 19 (1963) 149, andmostrecentlyin B.D. Meritt andJ.S. Traill, eds., TheAthenianAgora, Vol. 15: Inscriptions:TheAthenian councillors(1974) 42. None of the abovepublications eitherdiscussed Phoo cionor recognizedthe potentialsignificance of his presenceon the list. This neglectextendsalsoto the mostrecentwork on Phocion,H.J. Gehrke,Phokion: Studienzur ErfassungseinerhistorischenGestalt(1976), who omitted all threepublications.On the locationof the Potamosdemes(Upper Potamos, Lower Potamos, and Potamos Deiradiotes) see J.S. Traill, The political organizationof Attica (1975) 44-45. -- All dates are BE unlessindicated otherwise.

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

127

6. Charitonides 53-54.

7. Charitonides 54-56. See also IG 1121623, lines 286-89, which attestthe

buildingof shipsin 336/5. Charitonides'chronologyis nowusuallyaccepted; see,e.g., P.J. Rhodes,TheAthenianboule(1972) 4 n. 9; P.J. Bicknell, Studies in Athenianpolitics and genealogy(1972) 13; and Meritt-Traill 42. 8. J.A.O. Larsen,"A noteon the representation of demesin the Athenian boule", CP 57 (1962) 104. 9. Traill

16 n. 20.

10. Xen. Mem. 1.2.35. SeealsoHignett224, andR.A. deLaix, Probouleusis at Athens(1974) 148; Rhodes1 n. 7 suggests that the requirementmay have beensatisfiedby entryintothethirtiethyear, i.e. attainment of agetwenty-nine. 11. Plut. Phoc. 24.5 indicates Phocion's date of birth.

12. Davies 559 notesthe rarity of the name. The numberscited are those establishedfor Attic prosopography by J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica (1901-03) 2, 401-03 (hereafterPA). 13. Androcles: PA 1, 65; Phocus: cf. Plut. Phoc. 20.1, 35.5, Athen. 4. 168E-169A.

14. PA 2, 227. 15. Plut. Phoc. 20.1, 21.5, 35.5.

16. Plutarch describesPhocion's first wife as a sister of the sculptor Cephisodotus(Phoc. 19.1); detailsof the secondwife (Phoc. 19.1-4) are less informative,and influencedby Phocion'sreputationfor virtue. Plutarchalso refersto a daughter(Phoc.21.5) whomarriedCharicles,but addsnothingfur-

ther. Thesedetails,andthoseconcerning Phocus(seeaboven. 13), suggest thatPlutarchexhausted hisauthorities'accounts of informationconcerning Phocion's family. 17. C.G. Starr, Theeconomicand socialgrowthof early Greece,800-500 B.C. (1977) 4142, 205 rejectssuchmodels,which he noteswould produce a growthof one-thirdin the populationover a century.This, he argues,is impossiblein theclassical periodandunlikelyeventoday.Plutarchdoesnotrecord (astherewasprobablyno information)if Phocion'schildrenwere bornto one wife, or if each bore one child.

18. New names,however,sometimes appearon bouleuticandprytanylists. In the list of 336/5, Charitonides(37, 38, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53) notedthirteennamesappearingfor the first time in Attic prosopography. The obscurity of thesemendoesnot necessarily attestpoverty.But their politicalinactivity sharplycontrastswith the prominenceof the namePhocionat this time.

19 Plut.Phoc.7.5-6. Plutarch'sstatement nonetheless hasbeenexaggerated, as I hopeto showelsewherein a paperon the politicalactivitiesof Athenian generals. 20.

Plut. Phoc.

16.

21. Plut. Phoc. 16.1. ThoughPlutarch'schronologyis vaguehere, his referencesto the selectionof generalsfor the war with Philip (whichPhocion missed by his absence)and Phocion's return from the islands afterwards (presumablyin commandof a fleet, thusa general;cf. Plut. Phoc. 14, 16.1,

128

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

Dem. 18.302, andPhocion'sAegeannavalserviceca. 340/39-338/7), strongly suggestthat the eventsdescribedoccurredin 338/7 and that Phocionwas strate-gos that year. See furtherAppendixto the Notes. 22. Plut. Phoc. 16.2. On the generalsat Chaeroneasee Diod. 16.85.2 (LysiclesandChares)andPolyaen.4.2.2 (Stratocles); Diotimuswasalsogeneral in 338/7 (IG II 2 1638, lines 396-97; 1629, lines 915-16; 1631, lines 10-11), but there is no evidence that he shared the command

at Chaeronea.

The col-

legiatenatureof thestrat•giasuggests thathe (andothergeneralsaswell) could have been there, but no evidence attests this. 23.

Plut. Phoc.

16.3.

24. Plut. Phoc. 16.4. Lycurg. 1.41, Dem. 26.11 mentionHypereides'proposalto free the slavesand enfranchiseothersto defendthe city. Thoughthe Atheniansrejectedthis motion,and later prosecuted Hypereidesby a graph• paranom•n, it indicatesclearlythe fear that sweptAthensafter Chaeronea. On Hypereides'prosecutionseeM.H. Hansen,The sovereigntyof the People's court in Athensin thefourth centuryBC and the public action against unconstitutional proposals(1974) 36-37. 25. On the electionof generalssee n. 41 below. 26. Plutarch'sdistinctionbetweenthe "revolutionarymasses"andthe "terrifiedwealthy"is reminiscent of thepopulares-optimates antithesis, whichhad becometraditionalby his time. This distinctionreflectshis limitedunderstan-

dingof Athenianinstitutions, as notedby A.W. Gomme,A historicalcommentary on Thucydides1 (1945) 59-60, 73-74.

27. Gehrke61 n. 62 arguesthat strat•geindoesnot meana new election to the strat•gia,sincePlutarchis only talkingaboutthe militarycommandof thecity.This,however,ignores whatPlutarch in factsays,i.e. thatthe"revolutionarymasses" demanded thatCharidemus begeneral,whichmustimplythat he was not. Thuspace Gehrke,strat•geinindicatesthat Charidemuswas to be electedgeneralsoas to takecommand of the city. SeefurtherAppendix to the Notes.

28. Pace Gehrke63, who arguesthat Phocionhad to be electedby a byelectionsincehe wasnotholdingoffice.Gehrke'sargumentrestsuponhis in-

terpretation of Plut.Phoc.16.1(seehisp. 51 n. 55) asmeaning thatPhocion returned fromthenorthern Aegeanin 339/8andwasnotelected tothestrat•gia subsequently. SeeAppendix totheNotesonthechronology of Plut.Phoc.16.1. 29. Diod. 16.88.1. Charesevidentlydid not figurein thisstruggle;he may haveperceived Lysicles'fate(andremembered thatof thegenerals whoreturned homefrom Arginusaein 406) anddecidednotto returnto Athens.The next referenceto him in thesources occursin spring334, whenhe welcomesAlexanderto Asia in the Hellespont.See Arr. 1.12.1, and A.B. Bosworth,A historicalcommentaryon Arrian's historyof Alexander(1980) 1.94. 30. Plutarchwrites that the d•rnoswere persuaded•7CtXpl•q/tlt XqV•x6)•tvto Phocion(Phoc. 16.4). Thuc. 2.65.4 recordssimilarly that the Atheniansentrustedthings(xOnOti¾1mxtx gngxOcultxv) to Periclesin 430. Gomme2.183 com-

mentsthatThucydides probablymeanstheAthenians entrusted Pericleswith

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

129

everything"in the senseof beingpreparedalwaysto follow his advice". Both ThucydidesandPlutarchusethesephrasesin a non-technicalsenseto indicate the influenceheld by both statesmen.Pace Gehrke 61 n. 52, 63, Plutarch's phraseprobablymeansthat the peopleagreedto supportPhocion,his plans and leadership;the phraseis unlikely to imply an election to office. 31. See, e.g., Plut. Phoc. 14.2-5; Diod. 16.77.2-3. Phocion'sdefenseof Byzantiummay also have earnedhim Philip's respect(as Plutarchalso tells us) as much as it raised Athenian hopesof his leadershipafter Chaeronea. 32. Plut. Phoc. 17.6, Diod. 16.54. 33. Diod. 16.87.3, 18.56.7, Plut. Alex. 28.1.

34. Organization of the Leaguefollowedthe separate treatiesthatPhilipmade with his Greek enemies.SeeT.T.B. Ryder, Koine Eirene: Generalpeaceand local independencein ancient Greece (1965) 150-54. 35. Plut. Phoc. 16.5-7; see also Ryder 153. 36. Phocionwaswell connected politically,ashis association with Chabrias andotherpoliticiansshows;his recordforty-fiveelectionsto thestratggia(Plut. Phoc. 8.2) alsoindicateappreciablepublicsupportandrecognition.But he did not alwayssucceedin establishing his views aspublicpolicy (cf. alsohis later oppositionto the Lamian War), which suggeststhat, thoughprominent,Phocion (like manypoliticianspastandpresent)hadhis shareof politicalfailures. 37.

Plut. Dem.

22.3.

38. Phocion'sCypriote expeditionin 349 (Diod. 16.42.6-7) indicatesthat he did not hold the stratggiaconsecutively,and there were at leasteight other yearswhenhe did not serveas general(andpossiblyfour more, sincehis prominentrole at the battle of Naxos in 376 suggests that he held a responsible rank, perhapsthatofstratggos;seePlut. Phoc. 6.5-6; Diod. 15.34.5, andXen. Ahab. 2.6.30 for generalsunder age thirty). There were, then, interruptions in histenureof thestratggia,andinstanceswhenhe wouldhaveservedin nonmilitary positions.Moreover, Phocionwould not have beenthe first Athenian general/politician to losepopularsupport.Seethe discussion at n. 55 andtext. 39. Plut. Phoc. 16.6-17. Ironically Philip's death and the ensuingperiod of political tensionsin GreecesurroundingAlexander'saccessionmay have helpedPhocionrepair his political fortunes. Plut. Phoc. 17.1 clearly places Phocionin the stratggiafor 335/4, the year in which Alexanderdestroyed Thebes. 40. Plut. Dem.

22.

41. Arist. AP 44.4 placesthe electionof generalsin the seventhprytany, if the omens were favorable. Bouleutai were selectedlater, at the time when the new bouleuticyear began.Phocionhad probablybeenelectedgeneralfor 337/6 whenhe spokeagainstAthens'participationin the Leagueof Corinth (duringthewinterof 338/7). In theelectionsa yearlater, however,hisoppositionto thisgrandallianceandthe majorityview possiblycosthim an election. 42. A.W. Gomme, "The working of the Atheniandemocracy", in More essaysin Greek historyand literature (1962) 186; seealsoRhodes(n. 7 above) 214-15, and V. Ehrenberg, The Greek state (1960) 63-64.

130

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

43. Dem. 22.36-37, 24.147. See also the commentsofAr. Eq. 395-96, V. 31-36 on the ecclesia and boul•.

44. Demosthenes:Dem. 19.154, 234; Aeschin. 2.17; Demades:Charitonides

43; Lycurgus:IG II 2 1672, line 302 (seealsoRhodes63 n. 3); Androtion:IG II 2 61, lines 6-7, Dem. 22.38.

45. Xen. Hipp. 1.8. 46. Arist. AP 62.3; Hignett 152; Rhodes2. 47. 48.

Aeschin. 3.62. Arist. AP 62.1.

49. E. Ruschenbusch, "Die sozialeZusammensetzung des Ratesder 500 in Athenim 4. Jh.", ZPE 35 (1979) 177-80discusses theparticipation ofth•tes in the boul•. His argument,however,that the boul• drew heavily from the theticcensusseemsexcessively theoretical.The arguments of Rhodes3-6 on the financial burdensof bouleutic service, and the number of men of trierar-

chic wealthin the boul•, would seemto weakenthe casefor theticparticipation in the Council.

50. Charitonides54. Examplesof suchserviceinclude:Polycrates,Procleides,Phanostratus,Timandrus, and Aeschylides,all bouleutaifor the second time (see ibid. 40, 42, 46: Timandrus servedearlier in the fourth century, see$EG 23 (1967) 87, and Phanostratus servedfor the secondtime in 333/2); andCharedemus andpossiblyAntichares,bothover sixtyyearsof age (see ibid. 53, 47). 51.

Charitonides

32-35.

52. Traill 14, 19 notes several small demes in Erechtheis and Oineis that

were occasionally unrepresented in the boul•. 53. See M. Lang, "Allotment by token", Historia 8 (1959) 83-84 for a description of the selectionof bouleutai.Shenotesthe shortages of available demesmen, andthebouleuticlist of 336/5 (recordingtwo tribeswith only fortynine bouleutai)supportsthis view. Theseshortages alsoindicatethe absence of a largepoolof alternates. This suggests furtherthatthenumberof demesmen who offered to serve may not have been great. 54.

Plut. Phoc.

6.4-6.

55. The slightestfailureor imaginedactof treasoncouldmomentarilytarnisha politicalcareer(e.g. Pericles),or endone(e.g. Timotheus).SeeThuc. 2.65.3-4 (Pericles),Diod. 14.92.2aphicrates); andDiod. 16.21.4,Isoc. 15.129, Din. 1.41, 3.17 (Timotheus).There are manyotherexamplesfrom the fourth century,e.g. Callistratusof Aphidnaand the elder Leosthenes(seeLycurg. 1.93, Hyp. 3.1, Diod. 15.95.3, Aeschin.2.124). 56.

Aeschin.

2.184.

57. Plut. Phoc. 10.4; Nep. Phoc. 1.1; Ael. VH 3.47, 12.43; $uidaeLexicon, ed. A. Adler (1928-38) 4.768, s.v. Phrynonand Philokrates. 58. A.W.H. Adkins,Merit andresponsibility: a studyin Greekvalues(1960) 32; andK.J. Dover, Greekpopularmoralityin thetimeof PlatoandAristotle (1974) 296-97. Serviceon foreignexpeditions,contributions to the state,and otheractsof publicservicewouldmerit suchrecognition.

PHOKION

PHOKOU

POTAMIOS?

131

59. Rhodes34 andE.S. Staveley,GreekandRomanvotingand elections (1972)53-54alludeto boththeserviceof politicians in theboulgandthelack

of competition in theallotment of bouleutai. Theshortages of 336/5andPhocion'sstaturesuggest thathisselection wouldhavebeenprobable in viewof the limited number of fellow demesmen who shared the allotment. In such cir-

cumstances thereis no needto suppose thatPhocionwouldhavebeeninvited to volunteer for bouleutic service (cf. Rhodes 2).

APPENDIX

TO THE

NOTES

Gehrke63 arguesthatPhocionwasnotgeneralin 338/7, andthata by-election was necessaryto electhim generalprior to takingthe commandof the city. This argumentis baseduponhisinterpretation of Phoc. 16.1 (51 n. 55), which he claims(withoutdiscussion) asevidencethatPhociondid notholdthe stratggia for 338/7. AdmittedlyPlutarch'schronologyhereis vague,but his composition of the Life of Phocion,as well ashis choiceof words, indicatesthat 16.1 refersto the outbreakof the campaignthat led to Chaeronea. The composition of thePhocionrequiresdiscussion first. Plutarchcomposed his works using notesand perhapsa few booksat hand, but mostly writing asmemorypromptedhim to organizethe structureof hishero'slife andcareer (see Gomme 1.84). In the Phocionwe can clearly see Plutarchat work. The bulk of ch. 14 describesPhocion'sachievement in frustratingPhilip's ambitionsagainstByzantium.Plutarchknew, aswell aswe do, that Philip's defeat herewas but a preliminary(andminor setback)to the muchgreaterstruggle that was to lead to Chaeronea.

But after he had narrated Phocion's relief of

Byzantium(followedin 14.8 by his raids alongthe Thraciancoast),Plutarch apparentlyremembered from his readingthatPhociononceled an expedition to Megara, which was threatenedby internalsedition.He thenproceededin ch. 15 to recordthis little venturethat was possiblyorganizedby Philip, or at leastimpliedassuchin his sources,wherePhilipwasagainthwarted.(The dateof this campaignhascreatedmuchscholarlydebate;its mostlikely date is 343, certainly not between Byzantium and Chaeronea. See, e.g., (3. Cawkwell,Philip of Macedon(1978) 126,201 n. 33 for discussion.) After this digression Plutarchthenrecordsin ch. 16theclimaxof thesepreliminaryevents, the clashbetweenPhilip and the (3reeksat Chaeronea.Phocion'sactionsin theeventsthatfolloweddominatethischaptersomuchthatPlutarchevenomits the nameof the battlefield. This indicatesnot only Plutarch'semphasison his hero, Phocion,but alsohis organizationaroundthe principaleventsin which his hero figured. Plutarchhad discussedearlier Phocion'sactionsat Byzantium andMegara. Therewouldseemto be no reasonfor him to refer to these eventsagain.ThuswhenthePhocionis examinedfromthestandpoint of literary composition,it can be seenthat Plutarchshapedmajor eventsinto an easily

132

LAWRENCE

A. TRITLE

recognized structure.(See,e.g., D.R. Stuart,Epochsof Greekand Roman biography(1928) 64 andF. Wehfii, "Gnome,Anekdote,undBiographie", MH 30 (1973) 193, for discussion of the structuresandanalysesof Plutarchan biography.)

Thisorganization, andtheplacement of ch. 16 in 338/7, seemsconfirmed alsoin Plutarch'schoiceof words.He states(16.1) thaton all sides(navx4tnaot) war was beingprepared(•c•e•oLs[tc0[t•vc0v). This wordingseemsmore applicableto the eventsof 338/7, i.e. the Greek allianceagainstPhilip, thanto eventsof 340-39, which Plutarch had previouslydiscussed.His subsequent discussion of Athensafter Chaeroneaalsosuggests that he is now beginning his accountof Phocion'srole in this campaign. Plutarchthentells us that other generalshad beengiven the commandof the AthenianforcesagainstPhilip, when Phocionreturnedfrom the islands. His choiceof gq nap6vxoqto describePhocion'sabsence,followed by his accountof the selectionof othergenerals,suggests thatPhocioncouldhavebeen eligibleif he hadbeenpresent.From this it canbe inferredthat Phocionwas generalfor 338/7, but by his absencemissedthe debateandselectionof commandersfor Chaeronea.Most likely he hadleft Athenswith a fleet soonafter enteringoffice in the early summer(i.e. to keep the sealanesopen:Athens wasvulnerablehereafterall), just asothergeneralswere commanding troops in centralGreecein the weeksbefore Chaeronea(seeCawkwell 143-45). Phocion was probablyrecalledwhen the anticipateddecisionwith Philip finally materialized,but returnedtoo late to figure in the appointmentof generals. Plutarch'sdescription of Phocion'sstragglewith Charidemus afterChaeronea (16.3-4) reinforcesthe argumentthat Phocionwas generalin 338/7. In this accountPlutarchsaysnothingabout Phocion'selectionto office, but clearly indicatesthat this was necessaryto Charidemus'assumption of the command of Athens.This arguesstronglyfor theview thatPhocionwasalreadygeneral in 338/7, andonly hadto be grantedthiscommandby populardecree.In denyingPhocionthestratggiathisyear, Gehrke(51 n. 55) alsodoesnotexplain how Phocion,whohadsoablydefendedByzantiumagainstPhilip,wouldhave failedto capitalizeon thisfameandwin reelectionto officein the yearsimmediatelyafterward, including338/7.

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

TO CENTRAL

ITALY*

We are accustomed to readingthatthe city in CentralItaly wasthe result of a long and gradualevolution. The emphasison this point seemsto derive especiallyfrom two controversies.The one concernsthe date of Rome'sorigin:in oppositionto E. Gjerstad'sthesis,nowthoroughly battered, • that Rome was founded ca. 575 BC, it has been stressedthat

on the siteof Romecontinuityof settlement,a differentiatedeconomy, and thereforepresumablyan aristocraticclass,go back at leastto the middleof theeighthcentury.H. Miiller-Karpe'sZur Stadtwerdung Roms (1962) hasbeenespeciallyeffectivein urgingthatthe formationof the cityof Romebeganin theeighthcenturyandcontinued throughthesixth.2 A secondcontroversywhich is importantfor our purposesconcerns the identityof the Etruscans.Many archaeologists and Etruscologists, amongwhom MassimoPallottinodeservesspecialmention,have long beenengagedin showingthat the Etruscans,far from arriving in Italy as immigrantsca. 700 }•c, were descendedfrom the peoplewho had lived in Etruria during the Italian Iron Age, and whoseculture goes by the name "Villanovan". A crucialargumentin supportof this contention hasbeen that the Etruscancities of the Archaic Period (700-500

}•c) developedwithoutinterruptionfrom "pre-urban"or "proto-urban" settlementsof the early Iron Age (900-700 }•c). The battleon Etruscanoriginsis, I think, nearlyover, with a consensus emergingthat for the most part the Etruscanswere indeed of "Villanovan" descent. And the demonstrablecontinuity between Villanovan sitesand Archaic citieshasbeena major factor in deciding the outcome.An evolutionistdescriptionof the origin of Etruscancities was thereforejustifiably emphasizedfor the last thirty years, but the balance now needs to be redressed toward the "creationist"

view. For

the fact that in a very important way the cities were purposefully created--something whichtheancientstookfor granted,andwhichwas not seriouslychallengeduntil a few decadesago--is in somedanger of beingobscured.In a recentpublicationPallottinonotedwith satisfaction that scholarsno longeridentifythe birth of Rome "with a definite 133

134

ROBERT

DREWS

event and a precisemomentin time". 3 Instead, Pallottinocontinues,

the observationof "Realien", allied with the evolutionaryspirit of thetimes,graduallybroughtscholarsto seetheoriginof Rome astheprogressive expansion of oneor moreprehistoricsettlements leadingto the full growthof thecity; andthisideahasbeenconsistentlyconfirmedby later discoveries. Whereasa "foundation"or Stadtg 'rtindung waswhattheancients thought of when they thoughtof the beginningsof Rome, "the modernview is the diametricallyopposedone of a long and complex urbanization to which,afterMfiller-Karpe,we mayapplytheterm 'Stadtwerdung'".4 It may be that this is "the modernview", and even that "the evolutionaryspirit" is more characteristicof our own timesthanof the early twentiethcentury(althougheven in the biologicalsciencesthere now are "punctuationalists"who believethat the evolutionof a speciesis not a gradualprocess,but occursin suddenleapsof quantumspeciation). Modern or not, however, the view is flawed, and its flaws need

to be pointedout. An excellentstarthasbeen madeby ProfessorCarmine Ampolo, who in severalrecentstudieson the beginningsof Rome hasshownthat for that city, at least, the conceptof Stadtgriindungstill has a place besidethat of Stadtwerdung. 5 The samecasecan be made for all the citiesof CentralItaly. It is bestto be quiteexplicithereabout what "foundation"means.I havein mindnotonly andnotevenprimarily the ritualsof foundation--theauspiciousday, the yokedbull and cow, andthe rest. Theseare includedandimportant,but by themselvesthey could be empty rituals, as eventuallythey were in the "foundation" of titulary Romancoloniesduringthe Empire.6 The essenceof the Latin phraseurbemcondereis the "puttingtogether"or the "construction" of a city. To say that Vetulonia, for instance,was "founded" means thaton thesitewhereVetuloniaeventuallystoodthereoncewasnothing calledVetulonia; that at somepoint somebodydecidedto constructon the site somethingnew; and that after a year or two of building, this newphenomenon hadlargelymaterialized,andthebuilderscalledwhat they had created "Vetulonia".

This may seema somewhatunnaturalway for citiesto begin. It is nothow mostAmericancitiesarose,nor hasthefoundingof citiesbeen a regularactivityof civilizedpeoplesover the last 5,000 years.In ancientEgyptandMesopotamiathereformeda consensus thatall proper citieshadbeenfoundedby thegodsat theCreation,andthatfor humans to founda city wasan intrusionupondivineprerogatives.(Agadewas

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

135

acknowledged to havebeenbuilt by Sargon,but Agadecameto a bad end.) Probablynot until the eighthcenturywas it discovered,by the Greeksor the Phoenicians, thatcitieswere secularphenomena,andthat mencouldprosperin citiesthattheythemselves hadbuilt.7The Greeks, of course,threw their energiesinto the projectwith enthusiasm(the Milesiansaloneare saidto havefoundedninetycities).The building of a city wasscarcelylessPromethean thanour own generation'shurling of a satelliteintothe sky, andunderstandably requiredthemostaccreditedoracularsanction.By the fifth centurythe foundingof a city wasa routineactivity, thoughit was still locally spectacular,and foundationsremainedcommonplace underAlexander,theHellenistickings, andthe Romansof the Republicandthe earlyEmpire.After Hadrian, the foundationof a city wasa rare occasion,andmostof the citiesthat originatedin the late secondand the third centuryformedgradually aroundthenucleusof a permanentlegionarycamp(evenin thesecases, however,onemustrememberthatthe buildingof the castraitselfwas a "punctuational"event).8 Sincefor much of the Mediterraneanthe buildingof citieswassucha prominentfeatureof the period750-500 BE, one would supposethat the cities of Archaic Latium and Etruria may alsohavebeenfoundedcities.The Realienof archaeologysupport that probability. Specifically,there is considerableevidencethat in the seventhcentury, quitesuddenly, peoplein thewesternregionsof CentralItaly began to replacetheirtraditionalsettlements with something new:a compact settlementconsistingof housesand other buildings,all joined and separatedby narrowwalkwaysor streets.Sucha settlement--usually calledan urbs, an oppidum,or a spur9 in historicaltimes (we recall thatfor the morerigid Etruscans"non putatasiustasurbesin quibus nontresportaeessentdedicataeet tot viae et tot templaIovis, Iunonis, Minervae")•ø--will perhaps be regardedby mostof usasa typicalancient city. The term "typical ancientcity" is usedwith premeditation.The unmodifiednoun"city" is notof muchusein thepresentinquiry.If, with Webster,onedefinesa city as "a town, or otherinhabitedplace", the term is too vagueto help us in makingdistinctions betweenkindsof settlements. Mostsitesfavoredby nature,afterall, havebeen"inhabited places"sinceneolithictimes.On the otherhand,elaborateprescriptive definitionsof "the city" areperiodicallyhammeredout, andthese rangefrom theopaque(' 'urbanization maybe regardedastheorganiza-

tioncomponent of a population's achieved capacityfor adaptation")• to thecomplex.V. GordonChilde,for example,in defininghisterms

136

ROBERT

DREWS

for "the urban revolution", which he identified as an event that oc-

curredat thebeginningof theBronzeAge, settledupontencriteriafor "the city", mostlyhavingto do with specialization of labor, the collection and distribution of surpluses,and social and cultural heterogeneity. •2Ironically, no soonerhadChilde's "urbanrevolution" won its way into the scholarlyvocabularythanKenyondug up neolithicJericho,andMellaartfoundt•atalHfiyfik.NeitherplacecouldconceivablyhavemetChilde'scriteria,andbothplacesantedated the "urban revolution" by severalmillennia. Yet both look for all the world like cities,and sothey are usuallycalledby archaeologists. It will be best to concedethat "a city" cannot,like a triangle, be madeinto a closed concept,capableof being definedby necessaryand sufficientconditions.Rather,thepastandpresententitiesthatin commonparlanceare referredto as "cities" seemto constitutean opencontinuum,in any segmentof whichonecandiscernwhatWittgenstein hascalled"a family resemblance". The endsof thecontinuum continueto diverge,ashitherto unknown "cities" are discovered, and as the "cities of the future" become realities.

If we look at that segmentof the continuumoccupiedby thoseplaces in the ancientworld that are commonlycalledcities, we find, I believe, sufficientlystrongfamily resemblances amongthe membersto allow usto speakof a "typical ancientcity". The resemblances may be either institutional or physical,sincea cityis bothaninstitutional anda physical fact, andsomevery un-typicalancientcities(Sparta,for example)may qualify as "cities" mostlybecauseof their institutions.But let us concernourselveshere with physicalfacts.It is on the physicallevel, first of all, that we can speakmostconfidentlyaboutthe settlements of Archaic Italy; and the physicalfamily resemblancethat manifestsitself in the ancientcitieshasbeeninsufficientlyremarkedby eitherhistorians or archaeologists. When one looksat the 10,000 m2 that Woolley excavatedat Ur, andthenat the ruinsof Olynthusor Pompeii,one finds similaritiesso obviousthat they go unmentioned:in eachplace there were buildingsandstreets(or walkways)andvery few openareas.And thuswe conceptualize "a typicalancientcity". Thisbit of commonsense hasprevailedall along.Accordingly,whenarchaeologists haveunearthed a compactsettlementof streetsand houses--whethera historicalplace suchas Alalakh, or a (to us) namelesscommunitysuchas the Minoan settlementat Gournia--archaeologists andhistoriansinstinctivelyrefer to it asan ancientcity, andnobodyis misledby the designation.Surely it is becauseJericho and t•atal Hfiyiik resemblethese other places (althought•atal Hfiyfik was so compactthat it had no walkways,and

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

137

accessto one'shousewasby way of one'sneighbors'roofs)thatthey too have been called ancient cities.

Thistypicalancientcity--a compactsettlement of streetsandhouses--is what appearedin CentralItaly in the seventhcentury.The very differentsettlement thatin Italy precededthistypicalancientcity may also becalled,by thosesoinclined,a "city" or a "proto-city".Suchterms, however,maybe misleading,for theytendto raisecertainexpectations that are not met. At any rate, their usemustnot be allowedto obscure the sharpcontrastbetweenthe earlier and the later settlements,and to bring that contrastinto focusis the purposeof this article.

Let us see what evidence there is for the evolution of cities in Villanovan

Italy. Urban statushasbeenclaimedfor severalsettlements of theperiod, notablyoneat Bologna.The metal-richareaaroundBolognaattracted numeroussettlersas early as the eighthcentury. Foundriesand habitationsbelongingto thesesettlerswere long ago discoveredbeneaththe streetsandhouses of modernBologna,andin 1888M. Zannonipublished the finding of more than five hundredhuts and foundries.•3 On this evidenceA. Grenierproposed,in a 1912 bookon VillanovanandEtruscanBologna,thatalreadyin the ninthcenturyVillanovanBolognawas a ville ratherthan a village, and that it grew until it was a very large city indeed:it coveredbetween200 and 300 hectares(threetimes the area of ancient Cumae, and twice the size of medieval Orvieto), and it counted"une populationd'au moins20.000 habitants".•4 Grenier's Villanovancity, it is true,hada mixedreception.Randall-Maclver noted in 1924 that Grenier's suggestion"has beenunanimouslyrejectedby thebestarchaeologists", andproposed insteadthatin VillanovanBologna "there can only have been severalisolatedpagi or hamlets,perhaps four in number".•5More recently,LuisaBanticoncludedthat "independentgroupsof huts" stoodonthesiteof VillanovanBologna.•6G. Montanari,however,espouses a middleview anddescribesseveralvillages which eventuallymay be said to "aver concorsoa formareun'unith urbana".•7And G.A. Mansuelli,who is todaythe leadingauthorityon prehistoricBologna,comesto a similarconclusion: originallytherewere separateVillanovanvillagesin what is now the heart of Bologna,but in thecourseof time thesevillagesexpandeduntil theywerecontiguous. Finally, Mansuelliconcludessomewhatcryptically,"knowledgeof the city name Felsina indicatesthat the urban unit was formed as a result of thisconvergence, thoughthismayonlyhavehappened fromtheclosing

138

ROBERT

DREWS

decades of thesixthcenturyB.C.onwards,whenthecultureof thiscity became 'Etruscan'

"is

Whetherthesettlement beganwith onenucleusor wire fouris ultimately not of muchimportance.There is no doubtthat, if not in the ninth century,at leastfrom the eighththroughmostof the sixththerewere hundreds of hutsin andaroundtheareathatis now Bologna.The distance betweenhutsvaried considerably,but mostoften was on the order of 5 m. •9There wasa road, parallelto the mountainline, thatran through the settlement;Grenier's "v•ritables rues", however, have proved illusory.2øNo tracesof public buildingshave beenfound. Shall we call this hut-settlementa city? Montanari and Mansuelli assumethat oncethe severalvillageshave run together,to form one continuous settlement, we havean "urbanunit". Butonemustnotneglect to say that a hut-settlement,however large, would have borne no resemblanceto the typical ancientcity, from Hector's Troy to Trajan's Timgad. Now at somepointwhatthe Romanscalledan urbs, andwhat very likely was a typical ancientcity, aroseat or near Bologna.The city of Felsinastoodsomewherein this vicinity (Banti suggested that "perhaps, like other Etruscancentres, it was on the hill"). 2• Its cemeteries, which have been found, indicate that until its destruction

at thehandsof theGauls,earlyin thefourthcentury,it wasa prosperous city. Althoughthis city of Felsinahasnot yet beenfound, one can imaginewhatit lookedlike. It undoubtedly resembled thelatesixth-century city excavatedat Marzabotto,some30 km up the Reno valley from Bologna.This city (ancientMisa?), which was also a metal-working center,22was laid out with streetson an orthogonalpattern,two rows of back-to-backhousesmakingup eachinsula (seeFig. 1). Although fortificationwalls are not attested,there is evidencefor temples:their foundations,made of blocks, have been found on the acropolis.The walls of housesat Marzabotto were made of sun-dried bricks, i.e. mud-

bricks,restingon rubblefoundations. 23The settlementcoveredan area of approximately500 x 500 m, or 25 hectares,aboutonetenththe area Grenierproposedfor his "Villanovan city" at Bologna.However, its densityof populationwasat leastfour timesgreaterthanthatof a hutsettlement.

Insteadof sayingthat the hut-settlements at Bolognamay be saidto "aver concorsoa formare un'unith urbana", and that "the urban unit

was formedas a resultof this (i.e. the hut-settlements')convergence", one may more exactly say that the Villanovan settlementat Bologna never did "become" the fifth- and fourth-centurycity of Felsina. The hutswere occupieduntil late in the sixth century. At that point their

THE

50

COMING

OF THE

CITY

139

fO0

I

!

/

/

c

Fig. l' Plan of sixth-centurycity at Marzabotto From J.B. Ward-Perkins, Citiesof AncientGreeceand Italy: Planning in ClassicalAntiquity (New York 1974)

140

ROBERT

DREWS

occupantsremovedthemselvesto new quarters,presumablyto a housesettlement.The hutswereabandoned andfell into ruins.What happened in the Reno valley in the sixth century, if we keep our words and conceptsclear, is thatthe minersexchangedonekind of settlementfor another.The newsettlement, asat Marzabotto,undoubtedly lookedlike a conventionalancientcity, andwascalledan urbsby the Romans.To saythat the hut-settlement"evolved" into a house-settlement at sixthcenturyBolognais as incorrectas it is to saythat arrowsevolvedinto cannonballsin the late Middle Ages. What we are dealingwith is not an evolutionbut a sequence. On the plateautodaycalledVeio, wherethe city of Veii oncestood (the city was so thoroughlyplunderedthat by Hadrian'stime its very sitehad beenforgotten),therealsowere manyhutsuntil ca. 600 BC. At variouspointsalong the edgeof the great plateau,at least, traces of hutshavebeenfound. There is againdebatewhethertheseare the remainsof severaldistinctvillages,or whetherone continuoussettlementcoveredthe entireplateau.J.B. Ward-Perkinsposited"independent village groups" and an "expansionoutward from the original nuclei". 24That by the endof the seventhcenturytherewere hutsover

thewholeplateauis notknown,but maybe grantedfor the sakeof the argument.What may have broughtthe increasein populationis not knowneither,butperhapsit hadto do with the factthattheinlandroute from Etruriato CampanialedpasttheVeianplateauto theTiber (which it crossedat the point that would becomeFidenae). What is known, thanksto the fact that Veio (unlike Bologna)lies in the tufa belt, is the physicalform of the huts. Postholesandchannelsat the wall-line, all cut into the tufa, show that the hutswere circular or oval, and indicated

to Ward-Perkinsthat walls of brushwoodand clay were set into the channels. 25The roofs are assumedto have beenof straw. Altogether, the hutswere in shapeand structurevery similar to thoseattestedat Rome. For a visualimpressionof an Iron Age hut one can todaylook at the model of a Palatinehut displayedin the PalatineAntiquarium (PlateI). And A. Davico'sreconstruction of a groupof huts(PlateII), alsobasedon postholesand channelsfoundon the Palatine,can help us to visualize a hut-settlement ca. 600 BC.

such as that which stood at Veio until

If onethinksof severalhundred hutsasanancientcity,thenundoubtedly an ancientcity evolvedon the Veian plateauduringthe eighthand seventhcenturies.Conventionally,however,evenif we do not insist, with the Etruscans,that an urbs iusta have at least three streets,three

gatesandthreetemples,we do assumethat a typicalancientcity will

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

141

havehad at leastsomeof thesethings.On an even more elementary level, we usuallyassumethattherewere housesin an ancientcity, and thatthingsweremadeof bricksandblocksratherthanwattleanddaub.26 Confirmingthe testimonyof ancientwriters, somescantremainsshow that the sixth-and fifth-centurycity of Veii that rivalled Romehadthe propercredentials. 27The Portonaccio temple(whichyieldedthe famous Apollo, alongwith otherstatuesandpaintedterracottas)anda smaller templeon the citadel--thePiazzad'Armi--are the mostimpressiveof theseremains,but they did not standalone. Recentexcavationssuggestthat on the Piazzad'Armi streetswere laid out at right angles.2s Further to the north, excavationsearly in this centuryuncoveredthe blockfoundations of threecontiguous houses,frontingon a street.Like housesat other early sites, thesewere small. The best preservedhad two rooms: an anteroom of 4.8 x 1.8 m, and a main room of 4.6 x

4.2 m. A fortificationwall, describingall 180 hectaresof the plateau, was erectedin the fifth century; near the Northwest Gate, in an area excavatedby Ward-Perkinsin 1958, it cut in two anotherArchaichouse, the walls of which

were mudbrick

on stone foundations.

29

Becausethe archaeologicalevidencefor masonryfrom Veii is so limited, it hasbeensuggested that evenin 396 }•cVeii wasfor the most part not a masonrycity.3oThat suggestion,however,is difficult to accept. One neednot rely on detailsin Livy's accountof the siege--that, e.g., the Veientesspenta cozy winter insidethe city while the Romans shiveredoutside(5.2.6), or thatthe Veientesthrew rooftilesdown upon the Romanswhen the latter finally burst into the city (5.2.10). More cogentis thegeneralconsideration thatthe RomanscouldnotburnVeii, althoughtheVeientesrathereasilysetfire to, anddestroyed, theRomans' woodensiegeworks.Most importantis Livy's long storyon the debate, after Romeitself hadbeensackedby the Gauls, whetheror not to move the Romanpopulationto the vacant.cityof Veii. Apparentlythe dwellingsat Veii were substantial,anddid not havethatchedroofs. That not many rooftileshave been turned up on the plateaumay be becausein rebuildingRome, after the Gallic Sack, the Romansmay have carted off from Veii whateverbuildingmaterialswere usable(the city at San Giovenale,also destroyedin the early fourth century, seemsto have beendespoiledof its rooftiles).3• Livy tells us that for the rebuilding of the housesin Rome the stateprovidedtiles, and permittedthe cutting of stoneandtimber whereverit wasavailable(5.55.3). Within one year the city was rebuilt (6.4.6). As for the absenceof blocksat Veio, we must not forget that the tufa mostesteemedby the early Romans wasthe yellow cappellacciofrom the GrottaOscuraquarrynearVeio.

142

ROBERT

DREWS

That the Romanswouldhaveinsistedon cuttingtheir own blocksin theGrottaOscura,ratherthanusingthosealreadyavailablein thefallen city of Veii, is not likely. The city of Veii is for the mostpart irretrievable, but what little is known of it indicatesa settlementin which

privatehousesshowedthe skillof professional stone-cutters andmasons, andtemplesthatof architectsandartists.(It will be recalledthat it was

fromVeii thatTarquinius Superbus supposedly hiredanexpert,Vulca byname,toproduce thearchit•tonic terracottas fortheCapitoline temple of Jupiter.32) Did thecity of Veii evolvefrom thehut-settlement? There is no reason to doubtthat the peoplewhosehutsdottedthe vast plateaubeforeca. 600 BCcontinuedto live on theplateau,mostof themconstructing stonefoundedhouses,thereafter.Thus there surelywas somecontinuityof population,butthatdoesnotanswerour question.Otherconsiderations tell againstan evolutionist view. The storiesaboutthecity of Veii, reputed to bethewealthiestandmostpowerfulof theEtruscancities,arefabulous indeed.But one cannotblink the fact that its populationwas sizeable. Althoughwe maydoubtPlutarch'sstatement thatin Camillus'time Veii's army was no smallerthan Rome's, we must supposethat a city which fell onlyaftera lengthy(evenif nota ten-year)Romansiegewasdefended by an army not hopelesslyoutnumberedby Rome'slegions.33In earlier timesRomansuperioritymay havebeenthinnerstill, to judge from the traditionsaboutindecisivestrugglesbetweenthe two cities. If, then, we wish to form someestimateof thepopulationof sixth-centuryVeii, our guidemustbe the notoriouscensusfiguresfor sixth-centuryRome. Therewe havethe figureof 80,000 for ServiusTullius' Rome, 130,000 for 508 BC, and 120,000 for 503 BC. Scaling these figures down drastically,anddisregardingFabiusPictor'sinsistence thatthey stand for the numberof men capableof bearingarms, we are still left with theprobabilitythatthepopulationof sixth-centuryRome, andtherefore of Veii, was measuredin the tens of thousands.34(Estimatesof the populationof major Etruscancitiesgravitatearound25,000, but have rangedup to 80,000.35) Nor can we supposethat most of the citizens will have lived in smalltownsat someremovefrom the city itself. In a surveyof theager Veientanus Ward-Perkinsconcludedthatsuchtowns did not exist: "Veio era il centro incontestato di tutta la zona", with

roadsradiatingfrom the city, and from nowhereelse, to all sectorsof theager.36That a populaceof tensof thousands couldhavebeenspawned by the plateau's seventh-century hut-dwellersis hard to believe (in antiquitya growth-rateof even33 % over a hundredyearsseemsto have beenunusual).37The mosteconomicalexplanationfor all of this is that

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

143

ca. 600 BCthereoccurreda synoikismos, in whichpeoplefrom miles aroundabandoned their traditionalsettlements and movedto the city beingbuilton theVeianplateau.As an analogyfromdocumented times onemay notethataccordingto Pausanias (8.27) forty-onesettlements in southern Arcadiawerediscontinued whenMegalopolis, "theyoungest city of the Greeks", was founded in 370 BC.

The very limited archaeological evidenceon Veii suggests that the houseswere notbuilt singlyandcatch-as-catch-can, in differentdecades and at different pointson the plateau,but in concert.Of the three contiguoushousesin the MacchiaGrandearea, two were surelybuilt at the sametime, sinceblocksof their party wall were settransverseto supportinteriorwalls. And all threehouseswere obviouslybuilt in conjunctionwith the street.38On the Veian plateau,as at Marzabotto,the buildingof a masonrysettlement musthavebeenin largeparta planned enterprise,with agreements aboutorientation,dimensions andlocation, with co-ordinationof designandconstruction of houses,andwith communitylabor on the streetsand "public" places.It is difficult to see how onecouldget from a hut-settlement to any city of masonry,to say nothing of a city the size of Veii, without a purposefulcreation. Let usmoveon to present-dayTarquinia,wherethetombsuncovered in four cemeterieshave for long shownthat the area'spopulationincreasedsignificantlyduringthe eighthcentury.30Peoplecameto the place, apparently,in order to participatein the mining, working and exportingof metalsfrom the Monti della Tolfa, which lie betweenTarquinia and Cerveteri. One is reminded of the story that Demaratus emigratedfrom Corinthto settleat Tarquiniiin the middleof theseventh century.Had Demaratusarrivedin the middleof the eighthcenturyhe would not havefounda city of stoneandbrick. For at that time, it now appears,the metalworkers livedin an extensivesettlement, or settlements, of huts. On Monterozzi, the oldest of the four cemeteries, traces of huts

haverecentlybeendiscovered.Sometwentyhavebeenexcavated,scattered over an area of more than two hectares(that is, approximately one hut per 1000 m2 of land).4øThe huts are dated by their contents to the middleof the eighthcentury.4• In the seventhcenturyMonterozzi was no longer used for habitation,and was set aside as the principal cemeteryof Tarquinii. When and where the city was built is not certain. But a dateearly in the seventhcenturyis likely, andsomeevidence supportsthe old traditionthat Tarquinii lay on Pian di Civith, about

3 km eastof thepresentcity of Tarquinia,andslightlyover 1 km northeastof Monterozzi.If so, evenat its zeniththe city probablycovered anareaof no morethat 135hectares. •2 At Tarquiniatoo,presumably,

144

ROBERT

DREWS

List of Plates

Rome, PalatinusMons: Reconstructionof a hut belongingto the archaic settlement

on the Germalus

F. U. 6402: Photocourtesyof FototecaUnione,pressoAccademia Americana, Roma II.

Rome, PalatinusMons: Reconstructionof an archaichut-settlement

Photo courtesyof the Soprintendenza archeologicadi Roma III.

Acquarossa:Opusquadratumof the "monumentalbuilding" Photo courtesySvenskaInstitutet i Rom

IV.

Acquarossa: Rooftilesandreconstructed roofof HouseA, ZoneB Photo courtesySvenskaInstitutet i Rom

V.

Acquarossa:Foundationsof HouseB, Zone B Photo courtesySvenskaInstituteti Rom

Plate

III

Plate IV

Plate

V

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

145

therewasa sharpcontrastbetweenan earlier,sprawlingsettlement of huts and the later city of Tarcluinii.

Were boththe hut-settlement anctthe masonrycity namedTarquinii (Tarchnaor Tarchuna,in Etruscan)? The generalquestion of place-names in prehistoricItaly is, by the natureof things,virtuallyimpenetrable, but a few observationscan be made. First, one may not assumethat a hut-settlement hada name.In primitivesocieties,it seems,settlements are not perceivedas havingan existenceapart from the clansthat occupythem, andthereforehave no propernames.(This wastrue even among those native North American tribes whose villages were perennial.43)There is a slight indicationthat the situationin Central Italy wassimilar.In thegenerallyrespected list of thirtypopuliAlbenses providedby Pliny the Elder, the populi seemto be identified with topographical or geographical references. 44In otherwords,an eighthcenturypeasantwho lived alongthe Anio mighthave said, "Today I shallgo to the villageon the Palatine,"but it is unlikelythathe could havesaid,"TodayI shallgo to Rome." On the otherhand,it is quite clearthat the masonrycitiesof the sixthcenturyhad eachits proper name.For Tarquinii(Tarchna)specificallywe haveevidencein thepersonalnameTarquinius.For other cities, evidenceis suppliedby the city-namesin the FranqoisTombpaintings,in the oftendebatedsixthcenturytreatybetweenRomeandCarthage,andin thebilingualinscription from Pyrgi. Althoughthisis notdemonstrable, onewouldsuppose thatthe masonrycitieshadnamesfrom their inception,if only because elsewhere in theancientworldthetypicalancientcityhada propername. Havinglookedat thehut-settlements at Bologna,Veio andTarquinia, andhavingestimatedtheir relationshipto the citiesof Felsina,Veii and Tarquinii, let us briefly noticesomeothercommunitiesthat figure in the discussionof the "evolution" of the city in Italy. An influential studyon this questionis an article writtenby R. Peroni, originally publishedin Italian, but recentlytranslatedinto Englishand assured of wide circulation.45 Peroni tried to isolate the economic, historical

and socialfactorsthat led to urbanizationin Italy, andto follow them carefullyfromtheEarlyBronzeAgethroughtheEarly Iron Age. Peroni of coursespeaksof the "Villanovancity" at Bologna,andemphatically remarksthat "the great 'Villanovan' centresof Etruria... from the outset have the same extent as the historical Etruscan cities of the future. 46

(In fact, as we have seen,the Villanovansettlements had a greater extent than the cities that followed them; but the crucial differences be-

tweenhutsandhouses,andbetweenspaciousand compactsettlements, are not discussed by Peroni.) In additionto Bolognaand the sitesin

146

ROBERT

DREWS

Etruria, Peroni sees in several Sicilian and South Italian communities

"the beginningsand first developmentsof proto-urbanevolution".47 These are Pantalicaand Cassibilein Sicily, and Canale Ianchinaand other sitesin Calabria. Pantalicaand Cassibilewere large settlements indeed, thoughshort-lived,formed in the difficult times that followed the MycenaeanAge. The sites, which Bernab6Brea characterizesas inaccessibleand hard to live in, were chosenbecauseof their "defensive possibilities".48Perhapsit would not be misleadingto describe themas refugee-cities,whoseoccupantsfoundprotectionin their great numbers.The sitesin SouthernItaly are muchsmaller•andlater, than thetwo Siciliancenters.A scholarwhohasrecentlystudiedtheCalabrian sites remarks that "these communities, which Peroni has describedas

'proto-urban', are villages with, in some cases, several hundred inhabitants".49However that may be, in what senseany of Peroni's SouthItalian sitesare proto-urbancentersis difficult to see,sincenone of them developedinto cities. Cities did cometo SouthernItaly in the eighthcentury,buttheywerebuilt by theGreeks,andnoton thesesites. III

So far as the realitiesof CentralItaly are concerned,the distinctionbetween "urban" and "proto-urban" (or, better, "non-urban") is much simpler,I think, thanPeroni'sanalysisassumes.It is a distinction,above all, between a settlementof huts and a settlementof houses, or between

buildingsof wattle and daub and buildingsof bricks and blocks. The SouthItalian communities,like the Villanovan communitiesin the north,

consisted of huts,mostof themapsidal."The wallswereprobablymade of branchesand held up by posts;tracesof the post-holesare still visible."5øIt is apparentthatthroughoutItaly, beforethe arrival of the Greeks,peoplelived in huts.And theylived in huts,it is transparently clear, becausethey did not know how to build anythingbetter. 'fhe only "stonehouses"in CentralItaly which antedate700 BC, so far as I know, are the curious structures which the Swedish Institute

in Romehasexcavatedat Luni sulMignone.5• Luni liesbehindthe Tolfa hills, approximately30 km upstreamon the Mignone, which flows to the seasouthof Tarquinia. The metalliferousarea in which it lies was in touchwith theAegeanworldduringtheMycenaeanAge, andperhaps at that time enjoyeda foretasteof the prosperitythat characterizedit from the eighthcenturyto the sixth. At any rate, at Luni there have been found four "stone structures", at least three of which date from

the end of the BronzeAge. Althoughthesethree havebeeninterpreted

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

147

by C. (Sstenberg ashouses, theyappear somewhat inappropriate for humanhabitation.One fully excavatedstructuremeasures42 x 4 m, with no evidenceof crosswalls,andanother(only partiallyexcavated) wasperhapsjust aslong. The upperwallsof the structures were of piled stones,irregularin sizeandoftenfiat. No mortarwasusedto bindthem. The mostremarkablefeatureof the structureswasthattheywere mostly subterranean: theyweredugoutof thestone,to a depthvaryingfrom 1.2 to 2.0 m. The tufa floor of the "houses"wasroughandirregular,

andthecorners of thedugout wererounded. •)stenberg concluded, understandably, thatthetoolsandtechniques availableto thestone-cutters were very primitive: they seemto have useda mallet and a wedge,

possibly evena stone wedge. 52Thestructures, which(Sstenberg dated to ca. 1350-1000 BC,53were not destroyed.They were simply abandoned, an odd fate for "houses" so laboriouslyconstructed. A fourth stonestructureat Luni was possiblyfashionedduring the Iron Age, though it too may belong to the Bronze Age.54 This "monumentalbuilding", as it hasbeencalled,measured9 x 17.5 m. Like the otherthree structures,it was dug out of the tufa. In this instance,however,thedugoutwasnolessthan3 m deep.Sinceit isunlikely that anyonewould have excavated600 m3 of tufa only to live ten feet below the ground,it is supposed that a woodenfloor was suspended close to groundlevel.55 The entire structurewas, accordingto P. Hellstr6m, a "giant capanna".56Yet it lackedcertainamenitiesthat the ordinary hut had: if there was a woodenfloor somedistanceabove the dugoutfloor, the dugoutitself would havebeenimpossiblydark; andtherewas no hearthin the structure.That this huge,dark and cold cavitywasthe chieftain'shouse,as hasbeensuggested, or that it was a house at all, is doubtful.57

If the Luni structureswere indeedhouses,they are only the exception thatprovesthe rule: before700 BCthe peoplesof CentralItaly did not know how to build masonryhouses.This rule is hardlya startling observation.An authoritativework on Etruscanarchitecturepresents it as a matter of fact that wattle-and-daubconstruction,in use from the third millenniumBC, cameto an end with "dramatic vividness" in Cen-

tral Italy in the sevenfib century,andthat foundations of roughlysquarestructures suddenlysuperseded the old village. We meetwith rectangularhousesandthe common Mediterranean mannersof buntung,whichfrom the... Etruscan coastaltownsspreadto theout-of-the-way comersof inlandEtruria, Latium and all centralItaly.58

148

ROBERT

DREWS

What hasbeenrecognizedby historiansof architecture,however,has beeninadequatelyappreciatedby historiansdiscussingthe originsof cities in Central Italy. These discussions have centeredon the transition from Stammstaatto Stadtstaat,or on the quickeningmomentum of economicactivity, andhavelargelyignoredthemuchmoreconcrete matterof building,andof residential traditions.What we call "the beginningof cities" in CentralItaly is, if lookedat objectivelyanddescribed accurately,a synonymfor the transitionfrom hut-settlements to housesettlements, a transition that transformed the lives and institutions of Etruscans

and Latins.

Let us appreciatewhatthetransitionfrom hut to housemeantin practical terms.59The advantages of living in a housewere enormousand many, but threestandout. The safetyof the house,especiallythe fact thatit wasunlikelyto catchfire (but alsoits ability to withstandwind and high water), gave the occupantsa security unknown in the chimneyless hut. A relatedadvantagewasthe house'sgreaterwarmth in the winter: the hearthfire couldburn hotterand longer, and could warm the little structure,the bricksand stoneservingbothto insulate and to storeheat. Most important,perhaps,was the durabilityof the house.A hut mightlasta decadeor more, but in the end it wasno less perishablethana cart or a cloak.6øThe house,on the otherhand, was a permanentconstruction.It would of courseoutlastthe builder, and promisedto servehis descendants for centuries.Blocksand terracotta tiles are obviouslydurable, but so, in the normal courseof events,are mudbricks.In praisingthe qualitiesof the mudbrick,Vitruviusnoted that whereasrubblewallswere depreciatedat the rate of oneeightieth of their construction price eachyear, becausethey were expectedto lastfor only eightyyears,mudbrickwallswere not depreciatedat all.6• So long as they are plumb, they do not deteriorate. How much Etruscans of the late seventh and sixth centuries cherished

their housesis indicatedby their tombs. At many sitesin Etruria the chamber-tombmakesas suddenan appearanceas the house,and is nothinglessthana housefor the dead.Built of blocks(asat the Crocefissodel Tufo necropolisat Orvieto), or cut from the rock (asat Caere,

Tarquinii,andseveralinteriorsitesof southern Etruria),thetombusually consistedof one or two small chambers.62If there was an anteroom,

it led into the main room (conventionallycalled a tricliniurn), which in housesof the living necessarilyservedbothas a placeto sleepand as a place to eat. The unstinted labor that the Etruscans devoted to their chamber-tombs

is usuallychargedagainstthemasevidenceof theirobsession with the

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

149

afterlife. Perhapsthis interpretationis valid as far as it goes,but it is only half the story. Concernsaboutthe afterlife were felt long before the seventhcentury,andin placesotherthanEtruria. What wasidiosyncratic aboutthe Archaic Etruscanwas the determinationto spendthe afterlifein a house.It is notdifficultto imaginethe firstEtruscanhousedwellers'love for their houses.A husbandand wife who had grown up in huts,andwhoseparentsandgrandparents hadneverseena structure finer than a hut, wouldhave felt unspeakable pride and pleasure in becominghouse-dwellers. It is no wonderthat sucha couplewould insistuponhavinga housealsoin the afterlife.The figureswho recline on ArchaicEtruscansarcophagi havegoodreasonto gazeserenelyat their superbtriclinia. IV

When the Etruscansand Latins learnedof the house,they learned of

it as a fixture in a muchlarger andmorecomplexentity. The model whichthey followedwas apparentlynot the free-standing house,such as the solitaryfarm-housethat one can seetoday in rural areas. Nor doesit seemthatthe construction of housesin a givencommunityordinarily beganwith two or threeof the more energeticfamilieseach buildinga housein the midstof their morecomplacent neighbors'huts (thoughthismay havehappenedoccasionally,Ficanabeinga possible instanceof it). Instead,it appearsthat when masonryconstructionwas at last venturedupon,what was regularlyprojectedwasan entiresettlement:a typical ancientcity. This, at least, is what musthave happenedat Roselle, at San Giovenaleand at Acquarossa,three sitesat whichseventh-century citieshaverecentlybeenexcavated.At Roselle, Germanand Italian archaeologists have discoveredenoughof ancient Rusellaeto warrantthe statementthat sometimeearly in the seventh centurya full-fledgedmasonrysettlement wasbuilt.63Whetherhutshad earlier stoodon the site is not clear. The early seventh-century constructionwas entirelyof mudbrick(Rosellelies northof the tufa belt), house-wallshavingno stonesocle.Publicbuildingswere locatedin a depression between thetwo elevations onwhichthehouses stood.Among them was a circularbuildingreminiscentof the Temple of Vesta at Rome.64At leastpartof the seventh-century city wasgirdedby a wall, itsmudbricksuperstructure restingon smallstones, thoughit is notclear whetherthe wall servedasa fortification.In a secondbuildingperiod, beginningin the middleof the sixthcentury,therewascertainlya fortificationwall, builtof largepolygonalstones.House-walls of thatperiod were carried by small-stonefoundations.

150

ROBERT

DREWS

The excavations at San Giovenale, above the headwaters of the

Mignone (seeFig. 2), have beenconductedby the SwedishInstitute in Rome.65At the beginningof the seventhcenturythe entireplateau wasstill dottedwith typicalVillanovanhuts.Aboutthe middleof the seventhcentury66 a masonrysettlementwas built over a part of the plateau.It wasdestroyedearlyin thefourthcentury.This tiny city may havebeenContenebra,an ally of Tarquinii destroyedby the Romans in 388 BC, during their war with Tarquinii.67 The buildingsat San Giovenale rest on tufa blocks. Walls were of mudbrick, and roofs were

tiled. Re-usedblocksin a fifth-centuryfortificationwall mayhavecome from an earlier public building? thoughto date no public buildings have been found. Most of the acropolisat this very importantsite, however,remainsunexcavated.In general,the housesthathavebeen found are contiguous,frontingon passageways or "streets" that are more often tortuousthan orthogonal.(The questionof when and why the Etruscansbeganbuildingstreetson a grid patternhasbeenmuch debated? when and why they beganbuildingstreetsat all is not so interestinga question,butthe answersare of course"the seventhcentury" and "to provideaccessto the houses".)In onezone at the very edgeof the plateau,designatedas Area E, hutsand housesstoodinterspersed.Ingrid Pohl concludesthat Area E was "a peripheraldepressedareafor the poorandsociallydiscriminated partof thepopulation" and sheoffersthis as an explanationfor "the coexistence in the seventhcenturyof hutsandinferior 'Etruscan'houses.Whoevercould notafforda cheaperandpoorlyconstructed half-timberedhousewould have to content himself with the traditional hut."7ø In the central zones

the construction is entirelyof masonry.Amongthefirst to be excavated were parallel blocksof houses:

The blocksare about65 feet long, about16 deep, separated by a narrow, 7«-foot alley.... The east block, which is better preserved,is dividedintotwo separatehouseswith a commoncentral wall. Each house has two rooms, one in front, the other in back. TM

The interlockingof the houseswithin eachblock, the "streets" which servedboth to separateblocks and to tie them together, and the simultaneityof constructionall suggestthat the settlementwasbuilt as an organicunit. Onceit wasbuilt it continuedto grow, andto evolve, but thereis no likelihoodthat it originatedin an evolutionaryprocess. The city at Acquarossa, alsoexcavated by theSwedishInstitute,seems to have been built--perhapsthe word "founded" will now be

THE COMING

OF THE CITY

M•fz•botto

Fig. 2: Archaiccitiesandcity-sitesto whichthepresent article refers

151

152

ROBERT

DREWS

permitted--inthelastquarterof theseventhcentury.72It wasdestroyed' andabandoned shortlybefore500 BC.Lying8 km northof Viterbo(Fig. 2), andonly a few hundredmetersfrom the ruinsof RomanFerentium, it may itself have borne the nameof Ferenfium. All of the buildings at Acquarossa had tufa block foundations.Someof the superimposed walls were of mudbrick, othersof lath and adobe, and still othersseem to havebeenconstructed entirelyof tufa blocks.73The opusquadratum of the latter is of a relativelyhigh quality(seePlate 1II). Most of the blocksusedat Acquarossameasurea uniform 90 x 50 x 50 cm, and may havebeenmass-produc•at the quarl'y.TMRooftiles,on the other hand,showa bewilderingvarietyin theseventhcentury,thoughanearly

favoritewasanAegeantype(seePlateIV) thatis stillcommon in Italy.TM The housesat Acquarossa, asat SanGiovenale,tendedto be contiguous, andwere againfairly simple(PlateV): 4 or 5 m wide, 10 to 13 m long, with an anteroomanda mainroomfor eatingandsleeping.Somehouses were more commodious:

House A in Zone B measured 12 x 10 m and

had five rooms. House C in the samezone, adjoiningHouse A, had its entry on the southwestwall, whereasHouseA openedto the northwest. Zone B as a whole was not laid out on an orthogonalpattern.76 A preliminaryreport, however,indicatesthat a sixth-centuryaddition to the city did have "una piantaad angoloretto": Zone N, uncovered in 1978,contains a piazzettaandfive housesopeningonparallelstreets. 77 Sincethe city at Marzabottoandthe "city of the dead" at Orvieto (the Crocefissodel Tufo necropolis)showthe samepattern,it may be that duringthe sixthcenturynew construction wascommonlyrangedon an orthogonalplan.

Especiallyremarkable at Acquarossa is themonumental buildingin Zone E, datingfrom the originalconstruction of the city in the late seventhcentury.The buildingis a trapezoidalcomplex,with a colonnaded courtyardand flanking rooms (includinga "triclinium"),TM strongly resembling theRegiain theRomanForum.79LiketheRegia,the buildingat Acquarossa wasdecorated with paintedarchitectonic terracottas.Not surprisingly,it hasbeenidentifiedas the politicaland religiouscenterof the city. There is someevidencethatthe hut-settlements at Rome were replaced

by a masonrycity ca. 625 BC.Unlikethe destroyed andabandoned townsof interiorEtruria, however,Komehaspreservedalmostnone of her originalstone-founded structures.One house,possiblyof Archaicdate,wasdetected abovetheSepulcretum in the Forum.Its plan

suggests thatRomewas,asFrankBrownremarks,"in this,asin other respects, in thecommon cultureof herneighbors". 8oThebestevidence

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

153

for masonryconstruction in the seventhcenturycomesfrom the Regia. Soon after 625 BE the huts that had until then stood in the area of the

future Forum were dismantled,and their debriswas buried in fossae whichwerethensealed.The groundon whichtheyhadstoodwaslevelled andpaved.The entireprocess,Brown suggests,constituteda ritual of liberatio, which transformedthe area into a ternplum.There was then built on the site the structureknown as the Regia. This earliestRegia was in designand dimensionssimilar to the successiveRegiae of the Republicanperiod. Its foundationwas a singlecourseof tufa blocks, of irregularsize, whichseemsto havecarrieda mudbrickwall. Its roof was tiled. 8•

That the Regia was the only masonrybuildingerectedca. 625 BE, and that the rest of the hut-settlementremained intact, is perhapsa theoreticalpossibility.It is far more likely, however, that the stonecuttersand masonswho constructedthis public building in the Forum alsobuilt houseson the hills, and that a city of bricksand blockswas foundedat this time. On the Velian hill, in pozzi datedto the end of the seventhcentury,rooftileshavebeenfound.82Wheneverit tookplace, the removalof the hut-settlement and the buildingof a masonrysettlementseemsto havebeencommemorated in thatenigmaticprecinct,Roma

Quadrata.Thereweredeposited,accordingto Festus,thethings"quae solentboni ominisgratiain urbecondendaadhiberi". And apparently (the text is corrupt) at the entranceof the precinctstooda symbolof the foundation,a block of stoneshapedin speciemquadratam.•3 Also preservedon the Palatine, as a souvenirof the hut-settlements,was a

singlehut, periodicallyrepairedandre-thatched.Centurieslater,,when the city's founderswere personifiedas Romulus,the hut was known as the AedesRomuli. In the sixth century,one supposes,it was symbolic of the dwellingsfrom which all Rome's foundershad come.'4 Romemay nothavebeenthe first masonrysettlementin Latium. Tradition held that Lavinium was the oppidumprimurnconditumin Latio, and impressiveArchaic masonryhas been found there.•5 Two other coastalsiteshavealsoyieldedsomelate seventh-century structuresin bricks and blocks: housesat Satricum, and at Ficana both housesand

a "monumentalbuilding" comparableto that foundat Acquarossa. '6 It is alsopossiblethatPolitoriumand, furtherinland,Gabii andPraeneste had been foundedby 600 BE.87 Before any of the cities in Latium were founded,the Etruscanshad undoubtedly built CaereandTarquinii,buttheevidenceis unfortunately onlycircumstantial. In thecemeteries of thesecitieswerechamber-tombs constructed well before625 BE. The Regolini-Galassitomb and other

154

ROBERT

DREWS

tombesemisotterranee at Cerveteri,usuallyfeaturinga dromosor gallery built of largeblocks,are datedto the middleof the seventhcentury.88 This is thereforethe terminusante quemfor the appropriationin this localityof the artsof cuttingandmovingtufa blocks.At Cerveterithe earliestchamber-tombs whichclearlyimitatehouses,R. Prayon'sType

B2, are datedby Proto-Corinthian and Proto-Atticpotteryto ca. 625 BC.89At Tarquiniathe BocchorisTomb, the gravegoodsof whichare no laterthan675 }•c, wasreportedto havetheshapeof a chamberwith a gabledroof.Thedescription cannotbeverified,sincethetomb'slocation is unknown. 9ø V

The masonrycity was for the peoplesof Central Italy just as mucha culturalborrowingas was the alphabetor black-figuredpottery. Accustomedas we are to thinkingin evolutionaryterms, historianssince Mommsen and Fustel de Coulangeshave tended to assumethat the Etruscanand Latin city was a "natural" development.But of course it was not. The ancientcity, from Babylonand Troy to Pompeii, was amongotherthingsa physicalartifact.And it cameto CentralItaly in the seventhcentury,alongwith so muchelsethat wasof profoundimportance,from anthropomorphic deitiesto the domesticated olive, the vine andthechicken.If it werepossibleto identifypreciselywhotaught the Etruscansand Latins to cut tufa blocks, to lay mudbricks,and to tile roofs, we would know who taughtthem to build cities. Although studyonthesetopicshasbarelybegun,specialists havemadea few observationsaboutarchitecturalinfluencesin CentralItaly. It hasbeennoted that the tiles usedon many roofs at Acquarossaare of a type attested in Greek cities in the Aegeanand in Sicily and Magna Graecia;9• that the dimensionsof the mudbricksusedin seventh-centuryRusellaefit Vitruvius' descriptionof the "Lydian" brick;92and that the practice of buildingmudbrickwalls withouta stonesocle,againcharacteristic of Rusellae,wasfamiliar in the Aegeanandin westernAnatolia.93But far moregeneralobservations, madeyearsagobut insufficientlyadvertised, need to be underlined:the mudbrickper se (no matter what its dimensions),the roofiile as such, and cut-stoneblockswere all unknown

in CentralItalyuntiltheseventh century. 94Theseartifacts andmaterials had been in use in the Near East for millennia, and by 700 BC (the art

of stone-cutting havingbeenrecoveredin the eighthcentury95)were familiar alsoin the Aegean.In the seventhcenturymasoningcameto CentralItaly, in association with, andin the form of, the masonryset-

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

155

tlement,and it was probablyfrom the Phoeniciansor Greeksthat the art waslearned.It will be recalledthatthe Latin nounoppidumis likely to havecomefrom the Greek adjectiveempedon,which in the Homeric epicsmeans"firmly planted" or "sturdily standing".96 For the EtruscansandLatinswho first sawsucha thing, the masonry city musthavebeenan incomprehensible phenomenon.Perhapsat first theyfoundit ludicrousthatanyonewouldexpendsomucheffortin making a settlement,whena hut-settlement couldbe setup in a few weeks. Oncetheyrealizedits vastsuperiorityoverthehut-settlement, anddared to build one for themselves,they copiedit as carefullyas they could. Undoubtedlyprofessional technicians werecalledin. The Greekmasons' markson blocksin the "ServianWall" at Romebelongto a later time; but a tile from the Regia built ca. 625 BChas on it the letter koppa, suggestingthat the hut-settlerswere not completelyon their own.97 Builidingone of the new settlements was a momentousundertaking, requitingnotonlya hostof newtechnicalskills,butalsoreligiousprecautions.In abandoning thehutsandtheoldway oneriskedoffendingvarious numina;yet the new way seemedalso to enjoy divine protection,so long as one got the new way right. The Etruscanswrote down in libri rituales all of the rules: quo ritu condantururbes. Cities in Latium, accordingto Varro, were set up accordingto the samerites.98 This essaywouldbe incompletewithouta suggestion aboutthemodel whichinspiredtheEtruscans andLatinsto buildcities.Amongthevery first citiesbuilt by the peoplesof CentralItaly were Caere, Tarquinii andRusellae,all of whichwereperhapsstandingby 675 BC.It is significantthat, like Laviniumin Latium, all threelay near, thoughnot on, thecoast.The masoningartsandthemasonrycity seemto havetravelled from the coastto the interior, oftenfollowingriver valleys:the Tiber (Rome),theMignone(SanGiovenale),andtheOmbrone,amongothers. In thevalley of the Ombrone,upstreamfrom Rusellae,the siteof Poggio Civitate (Fig. 2) has producedremainsof a "monumental" mudbrickbuildingdatedto themiddleof the seventhcentury.99By 600 BC therewerecitiesasfar inlandasAcquarossa, andby theendof the sixth centurythecity hadcrossedtheApennines,to MarzabottoandBologna. It is safeto say that a maritime peoplefrom the easternMediterraneantaughtthe EtruscansandLatinsto buildcities.And surelyit must have been from some settlement built in the west that the lesson was

learned. One thinks first of Cumae, foundedca. 750 BC, or of Tarentum, Syracuse,or evenof Carthage.Yet thesecities,evenCumae,are somewhatfar afield. It is not likely that a groupof Latinsor Etruscans touredthe Southand returnedto CentralItaly determinedto build for

156

ROBERT

DREWS

themselvesone of the new settlementsthat they had seen.It is far more crediblethat an easternpeoplebuilt a masonrysettlementon the coast of Etruria or Latium. There is plenty of evidencefor trade-routesfrom theeast,reachingalongtheCentralItaliancoastto Elba,andthencrossing to the northerntip of Corsicaand extendingsouthto Sardinia, rich in metals.•ooTradein metalsbroughtthefirst Greeksettlement to thewest. Pithecusaewas foundedas a metal-workingcenter ca. 775 BC, and metals worked there came from as far north as Elba. The Phoenicians

hadevenearlierbegunexportingmetalsfrom Sardinia,andat Pithecusae therewas an enclaveof immigrantsfrom either Syria or Phoenicia.•o• There is also evidencefor Phoenicianand Greek settlementsalong the coastsof Latium andEtruria, thoughfor nonesoearly asthe eighth century.At Gravisca,knownas the "port-city" of Tarquinii, a Greek sanctuary datingto ca. 580 BChasrecentlybeenfound,alongwith many temple-dedications (mostinterestingof which is that madeby Sostratus, an Aeginetantrader famousfrom the pagesof Herodotus).1o2It is not impossiblethat still earlier evidence for the presenceof Greeks at Graviscawill be found, which is what onewould expectfrom the story of Demaratus.1o3It is alsopossiblethat easternerscamevery early to Pyrgi, knownas a "port-city" of Caere. The Etruscanand Phoenician inscriptionsfoundin 1964 revealedthat ca. 500 BCtherewas an enclave of Phoenician-speakers at Pyrgi.1o4 Whentheyfirstarrivedis notknown. The originalnameof Caere, Agylla, is usuallyregardedas a Semitic name,5o5andit is quiteprobablethatthe Phoenicianshad a stationnear the southernpart of the Monti della Tolfa range long before 500 BC. Butit wouldalsoseemthat,wheneverthePhoenicians arrivedat Pyrgi, the Greeksprecededthemthere. Caerehad no lessthan three "portcities":Pyrgi, AlsiumandPunicurn.The latterwasobviouslya Phoenicianor Carthaginianemporium,andit is logicalto assumethat it was established beforePhoenicians were welcomed,or admitted,at Pyrgi. Most importantis the fact that "Pyrgi" is a Greek name.1o6 It canalsobe deducedthatat theoutsetplacessuchasPyrgi, Punicum andGraviscawere not "port-cities" belongingto large Etruscancities furtherinland(i.e. CaereandTarquinii).Instead,thecoastalsettlements would have been establishedfirst, and by maritime peoplesfrom the easternMediterranean.They were established,certainly, as emporia at which PhoenicianandGreek goodscouldbe exchangedfor Etruscan metals,and as lading-portsfor thesemetals.When the emporiawere built, the Etruscanswouldhavebeenstill living in hut-settlements such as that discoverednear Tarquinia. Only after the emporiawere built wouldthe Etruscanshavebeeninspiredto build similarsettlements for

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

157

themselves--thecitiesof CaereandTarquinii. To closewith somefanciful speculation, onemay evenwonderwhetherEtruscanspur,though a generic noun, may have come from the proper noun Pyrgoi. In summary,somefactsand someprobabilitiesmay be statedabout what from a modernperspectivecan be calledthe comingof the city to Central Italy. Prior to 700 BC the Etruscansand Latins lived only in hut-settlements, and had no traditionof building in stoneor mudbrick. Whenthefirstmasonryhouseswerebuiltby Etruscans andLatins, in the seventhcentury,they were built in that networkof" streets"and that clusterof masonrystructures--privateand public--typical of the ancientMediterraneancity. The modelfor the CentralItalianswascertainly providedby either the Greeks or anothereasternMediterranean people,and it was probablyin the form of one or more masonryset-

tlementsbuilt alongthe coastof southernEtruria ca. 700 BC. Robert

Vanderbilt University

Drews

NOTES

*I wrote the presentarticle while holdinga J.S. GuggenheimFellowship in 1980-1981, andI wish here to expressmy gratitudefor that support.I am also gratefulto the AmericanAcademyin Rome, where muchof this study was completed,and to Frank Brown and Emeline and LawrenceRichardson, who patientlyansweredmany naivequestions.Finally, I thankProfessorBadianandhisAJAH refereesfor pointingout somemajordefectsin theoriginal draft of this paper. 1. See, e.g., R.E.A. Palmer's critical review (AJA 79 (1975) 386-390) of Gjerstad'sEarly RomeV and VI (1973); and D. Ridgway's comments,pp. 187-192(subtitled"The Swedishschoolof thought")of hisessay,"Early Rome andLatium: An archaeological introduction",in the valuablecollectionItaly beforetheRomans:TheIron Age, OrientalizingandEtruscanPeriods,ed. David and FrancescaR. Ridgway (1979). 2. See also Mfiller-Karpe's earlier study, Vom Anfang Roms (1959). 3. M. Pallottino, "The originsof Rome: A surveyof recentdiscoveries anddiscussions",in Italy beforethe Romans208. This article, which includes a spiritedcriticismof "Gjerstad's inclinationfor a decisivedistinctionbetween 'pre-urban'and'urban'phases of earlyRome" (ibid.), appeared firstin Aufstieg undNiedergangder rOmischen WeltI 1, ed. H. TemporiniandW. Haase(1972) 22 -47.

4. Pallottino, "Origins" 209. 5. C. Ampolo,"Le originidi Romae la 'Cit6 antique'". MF.FI½09 t1980) 567-575; id., "Die endgiiltigeStadtwerdung Romsim VII. undVi. Jn. v. cnr.

158

ROBERT

DREWS

Wann entstanddie Civitas?", in Palast undHfitte (InternationalSymposium of the A. von Humboldt-Stifiung,held in Berlin in 1979). I am indebtedto ProfessorAmpolo for making availableto me the proofsof this article. 6. E.T. Salmon,Romancolonizationunderthe Republic(1970) 24 and 168 n. 27, concludesthat the rituals must have originatedin a "primitive period". For performance of theceremonies at titularcoloniesseepp. 24 and 152-153

of the same work.

7. The HittitesandthelaterAssyriankingsmayhaveoccasionally founded cities,but did not makea practiceof it. The EgyptianandMesopotamian notion, not widelyappreciated in modernscholarship, is well documented by Paul Lampl, Citiesandplanningin the ancientNear East (1968) 7-8. The various specialistswho contributedto the article "St/idtebau" in RE IIIA, cols. 1974-2124,seemnotto haverecognized thatthepurposeful foundation of cities wasessentiallya first-millenniuminnovation,nor is this observedin J.B. WardPerkins, Cities of ancient Greeceand Italy: Planning in ClassicalAntiquity (1974). MasonHammond,Thecityin theancientworld(1972), doesnotdiscuss the matter of foundations.

8. K. Lehmann-Hartleben, "St/idtebau", RE IIIA, cols. 2099-2102, lists

the "natfirlichgewachsene Stfidte",especiallythosewhicharosefrom camps and canabae,from Corbridge to Carnuntum. 9. For a recent, thoughunhelpful, attemptto explore the semanticfield of EtruscanspurseeG. Alessio,"Osservazionisui riflessilatini e sabinidell'etr. spur- 'citth' ", in Studisullacitt&antica:Atti del Convegnosullacittdetrusca e italica preromana (1970) 361-363. 10. Servius, at Aen. 1. 422. 11. Eric Lampard, "Historical aspectsof urbanization", in The studyof urbanization, ed. P. Hauser and L. Schnore(1965) 521-522. 12. V.G. Childe,"The urbanrevolution",TownPlanningReview21 (1950) 3-17.

13. M. Zannoni, La fonderia di Bologna(1888). 14. A. Grenier, Bolognevillanovienneet ftrusque. VIlle-IV e si•clesavant notre •re, BEFAR 106 (1912) 36. 15. D. Randall-MacIver, Villanovansand early Etruscans(1924) 9. 16. L. Banti, Etruscan cities and their culture (1973) 7-8. 17. G. Montanari, "Appunti di demografiae poleografianel Bolognese", in Studi sulla cittd 137.

18. G.A. Mansuelli, "The Etruscancity", in Italy beforetheRomans(n. 1) 366. In an earlierarticle, "Strutturaed economiadi Bolognavillanoviana", in Civiltddel Ferro. Studipubblicatinella ricorrenzacentenariadella scoperta di Villanova(n.d. [1959]) 108, Mansuelliproposedthat over time the individualsettlements becameweldedtogether,andthatthis saldaturamay have led to "un regime di simpolitia" 19. Grenier, Bologne 36. 20. Grenier, Bologne37. 21. Banti, Etruscancities 8. For Felsinaas urbs see, e.g., Livy 33.37.4.

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

159

22. On the recentlydiscoveredevidencefor iron-working at the site see Mansuelli, "The Etruscancity" 356, and Banti, Etruscancities 8-9. 23. For a gooddescription seeJ. Heurgon,Daily life of theEtruscans (1964) 138-140.

24. J.B. Ward-Perkins,"Veii. The historicaltopographyof the ancient city," PBSR 29 [n.s. 16] (1961) 22. 25. J.B. Ward-Perkins, "Excavationsbesidethe north-westgate at Veii, 1957-1958", PBSR 27 [n.s. 14] (1959) 50.

26. Thoughnot statedoftenenough,this is a widely sharedassumption. Cf., for example,T.J. Cornell in ArchaeologicalReportsfor 1979-1980 88, expressingthe hopethat a site will be foundwhich clearly illustratesthe formationof a city: "Otherwisewe areleft with assumptions--for example... that the changefrom oval hutsto rectangularhousessuggests'urbanisation'." 27. Little hasbeenwrittenaboutthecity'shistory(Veii doesnotevenhave an entry in RE), and one can still read with as muchprofit as pleasureGeorge Dennis, Cities and cemeteriesof Etruria 13(1883) 1-42. 28. For G. Colonna'sdiscoveryof evidencefor an orthogonalpatternsee Ward-Perkins,Cities25 and 111n. 20. On theart andarchitecture of thetemples seeE. Richardson,TheEtruscans(1964) 100-102 and 184. On the Piazzad'Ar-

mi templecf. A. Boethius,in BoethiusandWard-Perkins,EtruscanandRoman Architecture(1970) 29: "It wasa rectangular (15.15 by 8.07 m.) timber-framed house(with mud-brick),withoutpronausor podium,andthe foundationconsistedof coarsetufablocks.It hada friezeandantefixesof crudeworkmanship." 29. For thethreecontiguous housesseeEnricoStefani,NSA 1922379404. AlthoughStefanicalledthemhouses"del VIII-VII sec.av. Cr.", theyare more likely to have been built ca. 600 }•c; cf. Ward-Perkins, s.v. "Veii", in Princetonencyclopedia of classicalsites,ed. R. Stillwell (1976) 958. On the house at the Northwest Gate see Ward-Perkins, "Excavations" (n. 25) 66. 30. Ward-Perkins, "Veil" (n. 24) 27-28: "from the amountof domestic

potterythat is now being ploughedout withoutany associated masonry,it is very likely that muchof the domesticarchitectureof Veii continuedto be of timber, with walls of mud-brickor wattle anddaub,right down to the destruction of the city." By suggesting that house-walls,evenif madeof mudbricks, were a "continuation" of Villanovan practices,this statementobscuresthe distinctionbetween huts and houses.In fact, mudbricks at the site are not at-

testedbefore ca. 600 }•c. Dennis, Cities 13, supposedthat bricks were used at Veii andotherEtruscancities"in the remotestages", sinceeventhe Tower of Babel was made of bricks.

31. l•rjanWikander,"Architectural terracottas fromSanGiovenale", ORom 13 (1981) 70. 32. Pliny, NH 35.157. Cf. A. Rumpf, "Vulca", RE IXA 1223-1226. 33. Plutarch,Camillus2.3. The storythattheRomans,aftertheGallic Sack, contemplated movingto Veii ratherthanrebuildingtheir own housesalsosuggeststhat Veii's populationhad been roughly equivalentto Rome's. 34. For the censusfiguressee P.A. Brunt, Italian manpower225 B.C.-

160

ROBERT

DREWS

A.D. 14 (1971),TableI (p. 13).Bruntarguesagainst TenneyFrank'ssuggestion thatthe early figuresmustrepresent the populationof all men, women andchildren,andconcludes with Belochthattheyrepresent the numberof all adultmales,iunioresandseniores,ingenuiandlibertini(24-25). Bruntadvises (33) thatonemust"be scepticalof all the figuresdownto the first Punicwar at earliest". Cf. alsoR.M. Ogilvie, A commentary on Livy books1-5 (1965), at Livy 1.44.2 (pp. 177 f.). 35. The questionof populationis seldom addressedin books on the Etruscans. For a discussion of thesubject,andsupportfor thefigureof 25,000, see Heurgon, Daily life (n. 23) 145-148. 36. J.B. Ward-Perkins, "Citt• e pagus.Considerazioni sull'organizzazione primitiva della citth nell'Italia centrale," Studi sulla cittd (n. 9) 293-297. 37. ChesterG. Starr, The economicand socialgrowthof early Greece (1977) 41-42. 38. Stefani, NSA 1922 379-404.

39. Hugh Hencken, Tarquiniaand Etruscanorigins(1968) 22. 40. R.E. Linington,F. Delpino, andM. Pallottino,"Alle originidi Tarquinia: Scopertadi un abitatovillanovianosuiMonterozzi", SE 46 (1978) 12. 41. D. Ridgway, ArchaeologicalReportsfor 1979-80 66. 42. Banti, Etruscan cities (n. 16) 71.

43. I do not know of any studyon the origin and spreadof the practice of naming settlements.George R. Stewart, Names on the globe (1975), has muchthatis of intereston "the mindof thenamer", andon primitivepeoples' tendencyto namewhateverwasdistinguishable, usable,andpermanent: rivers, lakes, isolated mountains, etc.

44. Pliny, NH 3.69. Pallottino,"Le offginidi Roma", ArchClass12 (1960) 27, suggested that the list reflectsthe Latin communitiesca. 650 Bc. According to A. Alf61di, Early Romeand the Latins (1964) 14, the list "illustrates theimportantfactthattheoriginalmembersof the Latin Leaguewerenoturban communities".See also J. Heurgon, The rise of Rome (1973) 30-31. 45. R. Peroni,"Per unostudiodell'economia di scambioin Italia nel quadro dell'ambienteculturaledei secoliintornoal Mille a.C.", PP 24 (1969) 134-160. The Englishtranslation,underthe title "From BronzeAge to Iron Age: Economic,historicaland socialconsiderations",now formsthe first chapter (pp. 7-30) in Italy before the Romans(n. 1). 46. Peroni, "From BronzeAge to Iron Age" 25. 47.

Peroni 23.

48. L. Bernab6 Brea, Sicily before the Greeks (1966) 143.

49. J. de La Geni•re "The Iron Age in southernItaly", Italy beforethe Romans64. Aproposhere is a commentby Ampolo, "Origini" (n. 5) 567: "purtroppospessopochiframmenticeramicidell'ethdel bronzofannoparlare di 'citth': piccoli insediamentivengonodefiniti 'protocitth'e si pafia di fasi protourbane perrealthcheconla 'Citthantica'hannopocoo nullaachevedere." 50. La Geni•re, "Iron Age" 64.

51. C.E. (Sstenberg, LunisulMignone eproblemi dellapreistoria d'Italia. Skrifter utgivnaav SvenskaInstituteti Rom, 4 ø, XXV (1967).

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

161

52. Qstenberg, Luni96-109. 53. Ostenberg148-149.

54. P. Hellstr6met al., Thezoneof thelargeIron AgeBuilding.Lunisul Mignone II 2 (1975). 55. Hellstr6m93-97. Somepreliminarydescriptions of the four Luni structuresreportedthatabovegroundlevelthewallswereof tufaor limestoneblocks.

See,e.g.,A.W. VanBuren's Newslette{ inAJA68 (1964)375;H. Riemann's Fachberichtin Gymnasium72 (1965) 350; R. Prayon,Frahetruskische GrabundHausarchitektur.MDAI(R) Erg•inzungsheft 22 (1975) 127. Were blocks

in factusedin thes..e buildings, thepointof thepresent articlewouldbesomewhat blunted.NeitherOstenberg's Luni nor Hellstr6m'sdefinitivepublicationof the

Iron AgeBuil..ding (whichappeared afterPrayon'sbookwentto press)mentionsblocks.Ostenberg,Luni 105, describedthewallsof thethreeearlierstructuresas "costruitea seccoconpietrepiattesovrapposte". Hellstr6m,Iron Age Building71, saysthatthe MonumentalBuilding's"thatchedroof... probably restedpartly on the bedrockitself, partly on a low rubblewall", and on the samepage speaksof "a wall of tuff stonesaroundthe dugout". 56. Hellstr6m, Iron Age Building93. 57. Hellstr6m,ibid. Peroni,"From BronzeAge to Iron Age" 23, describes this dreadful structureas a" 'princely' mansion" and seesit as evidencefor a "proto-urban centre" 58. Boethius,Architecture(n. 28) 27-28. Boethiusdid not saythat before the seventhcenturythe peoplesof Central Italy did not know how to make masonrystructures,but no other deductionseemspossible. 59. For a detaileddescriptionof the hut, and a vivid evocationof what life in the hut was like, see Frank E. Brown, "Of huts and houses", in In

Memoriam Otto J. Brendel. Essaysin archaeologyand the humanities(1976) 5-12. For a first-handimpressionof shepherds'capannesee Dennis, Cities (n. 27) 17 f.

60. How long a hut usuallylastedis debatable.Estimatesrangeas high asthirtyyears(Hellstr6m,Iron AgeBuilding97), thoughmostarchaeologists give it a shortlifespan.At SanGiovenaleno lessthanfourteenstrataare accounted for by a BronzeAgehut-settlement that"may well haverunitscourse withina few generations .... In general,theseprimitivehutshada rathershort life." So Krister Hanell, "Excavations... in San Giovenale and its environs:

TheAcropolis",in Etruscanculture,landandpeople.Archaeological research and studiesconductedin San Giovenaleand its environsby membersof the Swedish Institutein Rome(1962) 291. In disagreeing with Hellstr6m'sestimate,

IngridPohl, TheIron Agehabitations in area 3. SanGiovenaleIII 3 (1977) 97, observesthat at San Giovenalethe stratigraphyshows"that there was actuallymuchrebuilding,restorationandclearingof the ground". Cf. also her comment(97 n. 52): "Personalexperienceof the autumnrainsandstorms at San Giovenalemakesme inclinedto presumethat the huts sufferedbad

damagequiteoften.Sometimes thelessstablehutswereprobablysweptaway completely." 61. Vitruvius, de Arch. 2.8.8-9. All of 2.8 is devoted to a demonstration

162

ROBERT

DREWS

thatfor centuriesthehumblemudbrickservedwell in carrying-wallsof singlestory buildings. 62. For the sequenceof chamber-tombsat Cerveteri see Prayon, FrahetruskischeGrab- und Hausarchitektur(n. 55). This book can be recommendedfor its discussionof particulararchitecturalelements,as well as for its excellenttabularanalysesandplates.However, Prayondoesnot recognize house-architecture (along with its subsidiarymaterialsand techniques,from tufa block foundationsto rooftiles)as an innovationin seventh-century Italy.

And sohisbookdoesnot satisfactorily exploretherelationship betweenhouses and chamber-tombs

in Etruria.

63. C. Laviosa, "L'urbanistica delle citth arcaiche e le strutture in mat-

toni crudi di Roselie", Studi sulla cittd (n. 9) 209-216. See also R. Bianchi Bandinelli, "L'esplorazione di Roselie", ibid. 141-144. 64. Laviosa, "L'urbanistica" 215.

65. ! wish to thank Mr. Carl Nylander, Director of the SwedishInstitute, for callingto my attentionvariousparticularsaboutthissite, andfor granting me accessto the Institute's photo-archive.Although publicationof the San Giovenaleexcavationscontinues,much informationon the masonrycity has alreadybeenpresented.See,e.g., Hanell, "The Acropolis" (n. 60) 289-312, and Erik Welin, "The tombs at San Giovenale" 281-289, also in Etruscan

culture(n. 60); Boethius,"Gli scavia S. Giovenalee Luni, 1956-1966", Studi sulla cittd 161-164; Wikander, "Architecturalterracottas"(n. 31). 66. The dateis still underdebate.SeePohl, Iron Agehabitations(n. 60) 97. 67. Livy 6.4.8-9. 68. I owe this informationto ProfessorNylander. 69. That the Etruscans'orthogonaltown-planningreflectscosmological beliefsinherited,via theTerramaricoli,fromthemostprimitivetimes,is argued in J. Rykwert, The idea of a town (1976). As Ward-Perkinsobjectedin his TLSreviewof thisbook(March 11, 1977, p. 265), Rykwertincorrectlyassumed that orthogonaltown-planningwas an ancienttraditionamongthe Etruscans, when in fact it beganonly in the sixth century.Anotherincorrectassumption, even more basic, is that cities and the foundingof cities were old Etruscan traditions.

70. Pohl, Iron Age habitations 102. 71. Hanell, "The Acropolis" 299. 72. On Acquarossaseethe lavishMed Kungenpd Acquarossa(1972); C.

(Sstenberg, Caseetrusche di Acquarossa (1975);A. Vid•n, "AcquarossaFerentium. Campagnadi scavo 1978", ORorn 13 (1981) 63-68.

73. (Sstenberg, Caseetrusche 11-14. 74. Vid•n, "Acquarossa"67.

75. Qstenberg 12. 76. Ostenberg47. 77.

Vid•n

66.

78. Onthebuilding asa wholesee(Sstenberg, Caseetrusche 17-26and 4445. On the tricliniurnseeBirgittaBergquist,"Was therea formaldining-

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

163

room,sacredor civic,ontheacropolis of Acquarossa?" ORom9 (1973)21-34. Althoughit is regularlyassumed thata tricliniumor a heptaclinium (which, Bergquist suggests, is whatwe haveat Acquarossa) wasa dining-room, it can be arguedthatin theseearlyhouses therewerenotseparate roomsfor eating andsleeping, andthattheearlytricliniumwasprimarilya placeto sleep,and only secondarilya place to dine. 79. F.E. Brown, "La protostoriadella Regia", RPAA 47 (1974-1975) 34-35.

80. Brown, "Of huts and houses" (n. 59) 10. 81. Brown, "Protostoria" 21.

82. C. Ampolo, "Periodo IV B (640/30-580 a.C.)," DA n.s. 2 (1980) 166-167; E. Gjerstad, Early Rome III (1960) 132. 83. Festus, pp. 310-312 (Lindsay): "Quadrata Roma in Palatio ante templumApollinis dicitur, ubi repositasunt, quae solentboni ominis gratia in urbecondendaadhiberi,quiasaxotrninitust estinitio in speciemquadratam." F. Castagnoli,"Roma Quadrata", Studiespresentedto D. M. RobinsonI, ed. G. Mylonas (1951) 389, lists all ancienttexts mentioningRoma Quadrata. Castagnolisuggested in thisarticlethatthenameoriginatedwith ServiusTullius' divisionof the city into four tribes.In a subsequent article, "Sulla topografia del Palatinoe del Foro Romano", Arch Class16 (1964) 178-180,Castagnoli proposedthatwhen,in thethirdcentury,theRomansbeganfoundingcolonies with orthogonalcity-plans,they began to supposethat their own city had originallybeensetup by Romuluson a rectangularplan; and for this city of their imaginationtheycoinedthetermRomaQuadrata.I find the secondsuggestionno more convincingthanthe first. It is more likely thatthe term gave rise to the misconception,ratherthanthe otherway round: someRomansof theLateRepublic,notknowingwhatRomaQuadratameant,imaginedRomulus settingup a city with all streetsat right angles.Cf. Ward-Perkins,Cities (n. 7) 110n. 19. 84. For referencesand discussionsee Brown, "Of huts and houses" 8.

85. Varro, de Lingua Latina 5.144. Pratica di Mare, ancientLavinium, hasproducedthe seventh-century tombthateventuallybecamethe Heroonof Aeneas, and the seriesof thirteen altars, two of which date from the sixth cen-

tury. For bibliographyseeCastagnoli,"Lavinium", Princetonencyclopaedia of Class. sites492. 86. Apparentlyhutsstoodalongside housesat Ficana.Cornellwrites(Arch. Rep.for 1979-80 88) that "houseson stonefoundationsare well attested,but the patternof scatteredand sporadichabitationwithin the area of settlement continuedas before. Ficana is not a city." The huts, and the monumental buildingwith foundations"in blocchidi tufo", havebeendescribedin an exhibitioncataloguepublishedby the Scandinavian Institutesin Romeandby the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia,Ficana.Rassegna preliminaredellecampagne archeologiche1975-1977 (1977). On SatricumseeAmpolo, "Periodo IV B" (n. 82) 172.

87. At thesethree sitesseventh-century tombshave beenfound, but no

164

ROBERT

DREWS

masonrysettlements. On Politorium(Casteldi Decima)seeD. Ridgway,Arch. Rep.for 1973-4 46; on Gabii (Osteriadell'Osa) seeA.M. Bietti Sestieri,"I1 sepolcretodell'Osteriadell'Osa sulla Via Prenestina"7 if. in Ricerca su una comunitddel Lazio protostorico(1979). 88. Prayon, Grab- undHausarchitektur(n. 55) 52 andTafel 85, liststhree examplesat Cerveteriof short-dromos tombsof thiskind, andone(theRegoliniGalassiTomb)of thelong-dromos variety;all four aredatedto ca. 680-630Bc. 89. Prayon50 notesthat althoughceramicfindsfrom tombsof this type have been scanty,in one the inventorywas completelypreserved. 90. On the dateof the grave-goodsseeAnnetteRathje, "Oriental imports in Etruria in the eighthand seventhcenturiesB.C.: Their originsand implications", Italy before the Romans(n. 1) 152. For an accountof the tomb and its discovery,seeH.O'N. Hencken,Tarquinia,Villanovansand early Etruscans (1968) 365.

91. (Sstenberg, Caseetrusche (n. 72) 12:"Questo genere di tegolee attestatoin Grecia, da cui e sicuramenteoriginario: e lo incontriamoinoltre in Sicilia e nelle citth greche dell'Italia meridionale." 92. Laviosa, "L'urbanistica" (n. 63) 214. 93.

Laviosa 213.

94. On the mudbrickseeBoethius,in Architecture(n. 28) 28. G. Lugli, La tecnicaedilizia romana I (1957) 169, notedthat the Greeksbroughtopus quadratumto Italy. On rooftilesseeWikander, "Architecturalterracottas"(n. 31) 88: "The fundamentalidea of the terracottaroof probablydid not reach Etruriabeforethethirdquarterof theVIIth century." (For thecoast,onewould suppose,a slightly earlier date would be more likely.) 95. On this seeA.C. Brookes,"Stoneworkingin the GeometricPeriod at Corinth", Hesperia50 (1981) 285-290. The earliestattestedrooftilesin Iron Age Greece are thoseof the CorinthianTemple of Apollo, built ca. 700 BC. SeeH. Robinson"Excavationsat Corinth:TempleHill: 1968-1972", Hesperia 45 (1976) 231-235. 96. A. Walde andJ. Hofmann,Lateinischesetymologisches WOrterbuch 3 (1954), s.v. oppidumand oppido. 97. Brown, "Protostoria" (n. 79) 22: the letter suggests"che la tegola sia statafabbricataaltrovee quindi numerataper la successiva messain opera sul tetto". The craftsman could have been a Greek, an Etruscan, or even a

Latin from a more advancedcommunity. 98. Festus,p. 285 (Lindsay); Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5.143. 99. On the "Lower Sanctuary"at PoggioCivitateseeKyle Phillips,"Bryn Mawr College excavationsin Tuscany, 1971", AJA 76 (1972) 252-254. 100. See, mostrecently,D. Ridgway,Arch. Rep.for 1979-1980 59-61. 101. M.W. Frederiksen,Arch. Rep. for 1976-1977 44. 102. As H.H. Scullard,A historyof the Romanworm 753-146B.C. 4 (1980) 23, observes,Herodotus4.152 doesnot say that Sostratusmadehis stupendousfortunein Spain, and we may now assumethat he madeit in Etruria; for bibliographyon GraviscaseeScullard,ibid. n. 23.

THE

COMING

OF THE

CITY

165

103. For proto-Corinthian pottery,andan early seventh-century immigrant, at Tarquinia see Richardson,The Etruscans(n. 28) 65-66. 104. J. Heurgon, "The Inscriptionsof Pyrgi", JRS 56 (1966) 1-15. 105. For the name Agylla see Herodotus1.167; see Strabo 5.2.3 for a credulousaccountof how the namewaschanged.On the Semiticorigin of the name seeHiilsen, s.v. "Agylla", in RE I, col. 913, and s.v. "Caere", RE III, col 1281.

106. R. Enking, s.v. "Pyrgoi", RE XXIV, col. 24.

WHAT

HAPPENED ON THE CAPITOL IN DECEMBER AD 69?

The intentionalor unconsciousomissionsof Tacitus have sorely perplexedthe reader.Year by year the progressof Romano-Britishstudies displaysmoreclearlytheinadequacies of theAgricolaevenasan obituary laudation.The accountin the Historiesof the springcampaignof AD 69 in the plains of northernItaly has long challengedunderstanding. The story of the Germancampaignsof Germanicusin the Annalscontainsalarminggapswhichcanseldombe attributedto a faultymanuscript tradition.Thechronology andtopography of eventsontheeasternfrontier of the empirein Nero's reignare fraughtwith mysteriesalmostasdeep as those attendingthe revolt of Boudica.• The extentof theselacunaeand the absenceof goodparallel sources or othercontrolsusuallystultifyreconstruction. But thereare moments whenthe narrativeof Tacitusis sofull andthe interlockingof connected eventsso tight that he both invites and permits a keen scrutiny. Such is the situation in the second half of the third book of the Histories,

which describesthe Flavian marchon Rome andthe captureof the city by AntoniusPrimus,the generalof Vespasian.The presentpaperseeks partly to set out more fully than was possiblein a brief commentary 2 the difficulties

which beset us after the first flush of admiration

for a

brilliantnarrativehassubsided,andpartlyto considera new hypothesis advancedby ProfessorT.P. Wiseman in a recent study publishedin thisjournal. Suchan examinationmay helpto illustrate,in one specific instance,the strengthsand weaknessesof Tacitusas a narrator, if not as an historian.

It will be convenientto prefacedetailedconsideration of the eventsof 19 and 20 December,as describedby Tacitus, by a brief retrospectin the shapeof a plausiblechronologicaltable. Only two hard datesare providedby him in thisportionof Historiesiii: the allusionto theSaturnalia (78,1) andthe precisestatement(67,2) that Vitellius' abortiveabdicationtook placeon 18 December.We may add, as a third element, 166

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

MAP

AncientCapitol with Forum and AdjacentAreas With Acknowledgmentto T.P. Wiseman

167

KENNETH

168

WELLESLEY

the near certainty, afforded by the careful calculationsof Holzapfel, that Vitellius

was executed on 20 December. 3 All other dates must be

arguedby extrapolation. I giveseriatima timetableof the salientevents of 15-20 December69 and appendnotesin justification. 1.

15 December

Vitellian troops capitulateat Narni and

2.

16

Terni Antonius

Otricoli and Petilius Cerialis per agrum Sabinum Lucius Vitellius capturesTerracina

Primus

moves from Narni

to

3.

17/18, night

4.

17-18

The Flavians at Otricoli

5. 6.

18 18

Vitellius attemptsabdication Sabinustakesrefuge on the Capitoline

7.

18 p.m. or 19 a.m.

Hill News of the fall of Terracina Vitellius

8.

19 a.m.

10.

reaches

The messagefrom Sabinusreaches Antonius

9.

celebrate the Saturnalia

at Otricoli

19 a.m.

An attack on Rome by Petilius is repulsed

19 a.m.-p.m.

The CapitolineHill is attackedand stormed

The populaceis armed, a senateheld and negotiatorssentto Antonius

11.

19 p.m.-20 a.m.

12.

19/20, night

and Petilius Antonius reaches Saxa Rubra

13.

20

Rome is capturedby the Flavians and Vitellius

executed

The evidencefor the dating of each item is as follows: 1. 63,1. The dateof the capitulationis not statedin any ancientsource. It was triggeredby the newsof the deathof Valens (62,1), which in view of his journey to the harbourof Pisa on hearingof the resultof the secondbattle of Cremona(securelydatedto 24-25 October), his voyageto the Iles d'Hy•res via Monaco, his arrestand returnunder guardto CollemancionearBevagna--aseriesof eventsoccupyingover a monthon any reasonableestimate--cannothaveoccurredearlier than 1 Decemberandmoreprobablydid soa few dayslater.4 The surrender was knownto Vitellius in Rome by 17 December,for it inducedhim,

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

169

afterlongnegotiations (66-67,2), to acceptabdication,andto announce thisintentionto histroops(Suet.Vit. 15,2). If the capitulation is postponedto 16 December,it is impossible to construct a plausibletimetable for the movements of PetiliusandAntonius.If it is placedearlier,an incredible gap separatesthe arrival of the bad news in Rome (15 December or earlier) from the decisionto abdicate. 2. 78,1. Narm-Otricoliis a distanceof 11 mp. The despatch of Petilius (78,3) transuersisitineribusper agrumSabinumandhis useof the Via Salariastronglysuggest,thoughthey do not prove, the route NarniTerni-Rieti. This is a longeronethanthat of the Via Flaminiafollowed by Antonius(70 as opposedto 53 mp). His force of 1,000 cavalryincludedratherfewerthan400 Vitellianswho hadchangedsides(61,1-2 and 79,2). 3. 77. Terracinawas capturedin a night/dawnsurpriseattackafter Luciushadwaitedoutsidethe town for severaldays. The evidencefor dating is threefold: a) The wait andcapturetook placewithin the sameperiod, isdem diebus,aseventspreviouslynarrated(76,1). The probablemeaningof isdemdiebusmaybe conjectured by referenceto Tacitus'narrativetechnique,whichorganizesa complicated narrativein a succession of scenes or blockseachcenteringarounda prominentcharacter,androughlydated in relation one to another, thus: 1. 49-53

(49,1 ... post Cremo-

2. 54-58

(54,1 ... fractis apud

nam ...

25 October-end November

Vitellius

25 October-early

Antonius

December 1-15 December

)

Cremonam rebus ... 3. 59-63

Antonius

(59,1 ... pauidus ... discessus... )

4. 64-75

(64,1 at ... incitabant... ) 5. 76-77 (76,1 isdem diebus ... 6. 78-84 (78,1 dum haec ...

)

Sabinus

?November19 December

) L. Vitellius 16-20 December Antonius

agitabat)

It is reasonable to supp6se thatisdemdiebusat thebeginning of scene 5 means'withintheperiod1-19December' andperhaps especially 'withinthe latterpart of the period1-19 December',sincethis was freshest in the reader's mind.

b) TheTerracinaepisode coincided in timewithscene6, Antonius' activities between 16 and 20 December. Thus the field is narrowed to 16-19 December.

170

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

c) The dateof the captureof Terracinamustbe suchas to permit Tacitusto say with plausibilityand emphasis:ipse (Lucius)lauream gestaeprospererei ad fratrem misit,percunctatusstatimregredise an perdomandaeCampaniaeinsistereiuberet.quodsalutarenonmodopartibus Vespasianised rei publicaefuit. nam si recensuictoria miles ... Romamcontendisset, haudparua mole certatumnec sine exitio urbis foret (77,3-4). Thatis, if Luciushadknownhisbrother'sdesperate position, he couldhavereachedRomeby the eveningof 19 Decemberand takenpart in the street-fighting on the followingday, whenthepresence of nine (ratherthan three) praetoriancohortson Vitellius' sidewould haveseriously prolonged thestruggle,whichasit waslastedmanyhours. Terracinawas thereforecapturednot later than 18 Decembera.m. It was not capturedearlier either (that is, on 16 or 17 December a.m.) sincein that casethe laurelledletter, obviouslysentpost-haste,must havearrivedat thepalaceon theeveningof 16 or 17 Decemberor during the nightsfollowing,thusencouraging a standat Romeanddiscouragingabdication.The arguments of Vitellius' entourageagainstabdication are advancedat ch. 66; they make no allusionto Terracina. On the other hand, the slaveof Vergilius Capito who facilitatedthe capture had been able to travel (perhapswith the bearer of the laurelled letter)to Romeandreceivea decorationfrom Vitellius in person:77,1; iv 3,2. The awardmusthavetakenplaceon 19 Decemberin the short

periodof euphoriawhichmarkedVitellius'behaviouron theafternoon of thatday (no. 11). The slaveseemsfromthe contextof iv 3 to have got away againto TerracinabeforeRomefell and to have displayed the ringswhile he foolishlyimaginedit wasstill safeto do so, thatis, on 20 December.

It follows from theseconsiderations that Terracinawas capturedat dawn on 18 December.

In fact the arrival

of the news late on 18

Decemberor, moreprobably,by middayon 19 Decemberaccountsfor Vitellius' recoveryof nerve that afternoon(no. 11). 4. 78,1. Civiliansandmilitarycelebrate theSaturnalia on 17 December andthe followingdays.The evidenceis assembled by H.H. Scullard, Festivalsandceremonies of theRomanRepublic205; for theparticipationof troops,cf. Macrobiusi 10,1andG.R. Watson,TheRomansoMier 103, 220. 5. 67,2. 6. Linked to 5 (ch. 69). 7. 77,3-4 and 84,4. See 3 above.

8. 69,4. Themessage wassenturgentlyontheeveningof 18December. The distanceto Otricoli is 42 mp, so that it shouldhavearrivedvery early on the following morning, 19 December. Antonius moved

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

171

southwardsimmediatelyin response(cf. 12 below). 9. 78,3; 79. Petiliusis blamedby Tacitusfor travellingratherslowly, althoughhis orderscouldnot have includedhaste.This suggests a pace inferior to the 25 mp upwardsper day normally expectedof cavalry.If he wasdispatchedas under2 above,the daysusedto cover the 70 mp are 16, 17 and 18 December,implyingan averagespeedof 23-24 mp daily. 10. 69-71. The date is guaranteedby 5 above. The final assaultwas probablyin the afternoon,in view of the failure of the early attack; and the early dusk will have facilitatedDomitian's escape(74,1). 11. 80-81. The peoplewere armed and stationedafter the repulseof Petiliusand beforethe entry into Rome of the main Flavian army. At first light on 20 December,the uexilla of theseimprovisedlevieswere seenfulgentia per colles, alongthe rising groundof the Parioli hills. The legati (80,1) were senton 19 p.m. or very early on 20 a.m. The narrativerunsfrom 80,1 ntoxonwardsunotenore.The final negotiators were Vestals, who will hardly have setoff late on 19 December.I supposethem thereforeto haveappearedbeforeAntonius(contrast81,2 (cunt honore) with 80,2) at dawn on 20 December. 12. 79,1. See 9 above. 13. 82-5. See Holzapfel (cit. note 3). II

The mainpurposeof the aboveis to setthe scenefor the eventswhich follow. At 71,1, with fine timing, Tacitusswitchesthe scenefrom the Capitolineand PalatineHills to the suddenarrival of Vitellian troops in central Rome:

uixdumregressoin CapitoliumMartialefurensmilesaderat,nullo duce, sibi quisqueauctor.cito agmineforum et imminentiaforo templapraeteruectieriguntaciemper aduersumcollem usquead primasCapitolinaearcisfores. erantantiquitusporticusin latere Cliui dextraesubeuntibus, in quarumtectumegressisaxistegulisque Vitellianos

obruebant.

The questionthat mustbe askedhere (but neveris) is why this suddenundisciplinedfury hadarisenandwhencethe attackerscame.Such a violentmovewascertainlynotorderedby Vitelliusor by anyresponsibleofficer, nor wasit on any showingin the emperor'sinterest.Duringthenightof 18/19 December,thebesiegedFlavians,casuallyringed

172

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

by a socorscustodia, hadbeenableto getpotentialhostages intothe Capitol andsenda messenger northwards toAntonius Primus. Thenight wasquiet;andTacitusalleges--perhaps on his own interpretation of thefacts,butmoreprobably because hewasechoing a laterclaimmade by Antonius Primus in answer to his critics--that Sabinuscould have

gotawaysinenoxa.On thefollowingmorningSabinuswasableto send hisrepresentative CorneliusMartialisto VitelliusonthePalatine,and

themessenger arrivedwithoutdifficulty.Suchtroopsaswerewiththe emperorobviouslyofferedno objection.It wasperhapsfelt thatthe smallforceontheCapitol(partlyciviliansandwomen)presented no real threat.But while Martialiswasin the palace,the sinisternoteof theimpending disaster is sounded. If muchof whatTacitusputsinto hismouthin ch.70 isthehistorian's imaginative reconstruction oratorio genere,the final sentenceseemsfactual:et [Vitellius]monuitMartialem utper secretamaediumpartem occulteabiret, ne militibusinternuntius

inuisaepacisinterficeretur:ipsenequeiubendinequeuetandipotens non iam imperator sed tantum belli causa erat. And no sooner had

Martialis(obviously by thesecretroute)regainedthe Capitolthanthe frenziedtroopsappearedbeforeit. Severalquestionsarise. What unitsof the Vitellian army launched the attack?What is the chronologicalrelationshipbetweenthis attack and the repulseof Petilius?What troopsdefendedNE Rome against him?We needanswersto thesequestionsbeforeany clear pictureof theeventsof 19-20Decembercanemerge,anduntilwe haveconstructed this picture, we are in no positionto appreciatethe skill or otherwise with whichTacitushaspaintedit. There is clearlythe dangerof a circularargumenthere, sinceSuetoniusandJosephus provideonly slight checks.My view is thatthedetailedaccountof Tacitus,thoughclearly incomplete,inasmuchasthe questions indicatedaboverisein our minds, is self-consistent.I assumea priori that it is accurate,and hold that, if it is not, the deficiencywill automaticallybe revealed. III

An attemptmustfirst be madeto estimatethe characterand numbers of the forcesavailableto Vitelliusin Rome.The enquiryis frustrating. Neither of the Flavian nor of the Vitellian army doesTacitusgive a clear order of battle. By dint of evidenceavailable from the first half of Book iii one might indeedmake someappreciationof Antonius' legionarystrength;but eventhis wouldbe stultifiedby the remark(at 63,2) that on the capitulationof the Vitellian praetoriansat Narni (ap-

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

173

parently seven cohorts) relictae simul e uictricibuslegionesneque quiescentibus graueset aduersuscontumaciamuaIidae. Unlessthe text is at fault, we are left to guessthat this meanstwo legions,of unknown identity.5Their role as POW guardswasinglorious:why botherabout details?And Tacitusmay havefelt, ashe did for the untidystreetfighting in Rome, that it was unnecessary to observethe precisionwith which he had describedthe contestants in the two great battlesat Cremona in April andOctober.In the captureof the capitalthe essentialelements were the violent aggressiveness of the Flavian legionaries,the grim determinationof the Vitellian praetoriansand the uselessness, not to sayfrivolity, of all others.For our purposeof determiningthe garrison of Rome, someslightinformationmay be derivedfrom a passagewhich dealswith the situationof Sabinuson the eveningof 17 Decemberand the morning of the following day (69,1): scripseratqueFlauius Sabinuscohortium tribunis, ut militem cohiberent.igiturtamquamomnisrespublicain Vespasianisinum cessisset, primoressenatuset pleriqueequestrisordinisomnisque miles urbanuset uigiles domumFlauii Sabini compleuere. The wordscohortiumtribunisare not explicit. The referencefollowing themto the cohortesurbanaeand uigilesmakesit probablethat we are dealingwith a catalogueand that the unitsnot representedat Sabinus' housewere the praetoriancohorts,deeply attachedas they were to Vitellius. Their potentiallyhostileattitudemust have been obviousto the prefect of the city. On the eveningof 17 DecemberSabinusmay well haveconsideredhimself, in view of the impendingabdicationand the desertionof the praetorianprefectsat Narni (61,3), as bothlegally andmorallyentitledto orderthepraetoriantribunesto keepa tighthold on theirmen.If theyhadsenseandcontrol,theycouldensurea peaceful hand-overof power. As for the uigiles, they may be dismissed:they get no further mentionin Tacitus' narrative. But what is meantby omnismilesurbanus?Of the four Vitellian millenaryurbancohorts(ii 93,2), onehadbeendispatched to dealwith the Misenoinsurrection(iii 57,2). It then disappearsfrom sight. Freis and Heubnerthink that, like the gladiators,it went over to the rebels, but Tacitusmakesno mention of it in suitablecontexts(76,1; 77,2) and it may well have returnedto Rome.6 In that eventall four urbancohortswere in the capital,andthey arewhatis meantby omnismilesurbanus,a forceof 4,000 men.Tacitus can hardly mean that 4,000 urbanicianiand 7,000 uigiles could be physicallyaccommodated,togetherwith leadingsenatorsand equites,

174

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

within the walls of Sabinus'house,howeverlordly; nor indeed,if so largea bodyof menhadbeenconcentrated aroundthepraefectusurbi, can one explainthe fearsof the gatheringand the unfavourableupshot of the streetfracasthat developeda few hundredyards away, or the needto seeksafetyon the Capitol. I thereforehold that Tacitusreally refers, as the situationpostulates,to the officersof theseunits. Freis plausiblysuggests that the 500 Vitellian legionariesdraftedinto each urbancohortin the summerwere privates,sinceofficerswould have neededa particularknowledgeof policing Rome. In that case the representatives of the urbancohortswere all ex-Othonianofficershaving no particularattachment to Vitellius,especiallyasit wasannounced that his abdication was imminent.

On the auxiliarycohortsremainingin RomeTacitusis entirelysilent. Three cohortssentto assistValens in October (41,1) seemto have been

auxiliary, thoughTacitusis not specific:their military value was nil, and the urgencyof Valens' requestfor assistance and his disappointmentat the response promptthe supposition thatVitelliuswasscraping the barrel and would have sentmore or betterunits if he had disposed of them.

We thereforearriveat thefollowingrathervagueestimateof theforces availableto the emperorin Rome in December: Praetorians:probably 3 cohorts = 3,000 men Urban Cohorts: 3 or 4 units = 3,000-4,000

men

Auxiliary Cohorts: a few, totalling perhaps5,000-6,000 men or roughly 12,000 men in all, mostly of poor quality. Though on Vitellius' first entry into Rome in the summerwith a large legionary and supportingforce, his army had been quarteredall over the city,

at thisstagethisrelativelysmallnumberof praetorians andauxiliaries wouldnaturallyhavebeenhousedin the CastraPraetoria.The restwere disposedthroughoutthe variousregionsof the city in whichthey normally did duty. The identityof theforcewhichattackedSabinusis notexplicitlystated by Tacitus.He refersmerely to miles/milites(67,2; 68,2; 69,4; 70,4; 71,1; 73,1) or Vitelliani(71,1; 73,2). Thereis of coursea strongprima facie probability that these desperatemen were not membersof the cohortesurbanae,whoseloyaltywasdividedandwhosesupremecommanderwas Sabinushimself, nor of the poor residueof the auxiliary cohorts,but ratherof the praetorianguard,whomtiesof loyalty, tradition and self-interestdroveto supportVitellius evenwhenVitellius no longerwishedit. That therewere threepraetoriancohortsin Romeat the time is consistentwith, thoughit cannotbe deducedfrom, the data

WHAT HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

175

we possess. 7But something morethangeneralprobabilitymaybe within our grasp.

Therewerenolegionarytroopsin Romeat thistimeandall thecavalry unitshadbeensentto Umbria. There may indeedhavebeena few auxiliary cohortesleft over from the thirty-fourthat enteredRome in the summer,if they had not beenthoughtgoodenoughto be includedin the electaauxilia sentto the front in September. 8 In an incidentaland rhetoricalallusionat 78,2 we learn, late in the day, thatthe assailants comprisedtres cohortes,but whetherthesewere praetorian,auxiliary or urban the historian fails to mention. The omission here is at first

sightunfortunate.In general,he leavesusto infer thenatureof a cohors from the context,and there is usuallylittle confusion.In Historiesiii 1-50, which dealswith legionaryfightingin northernItaly, all mentions of cohors/cohortesseem to allude to auxiliaries, with the sole ex-

ceptionof a passageat 40,2 where they are preciselydefined:accitis ex urbepraetoriis cohortibus.In the latter half of the book, with which we are particularlyconcerned,the unqualifiedcohors/cohortes causes the attentivereadera little trouble.It is usedof threedistinctgroups: a) the Vitellian praetoriancohortswho surrenderedat Narni: alluded to at 61,1 and 62,1 (cf. 67,2);

b) theVitellianpraetorian cohorts defending Rome:probablyalluded to at 64,2: paucasVitelliocohortescontrasted with the preceding proprium[sc. Sabino]militemcohortiumurbanarum;andat 69,1 (as we have seen,the mentionof tribuni, notpraefecti,andthe contrast withomnismilesurbanus (ibid.)makesthepraetorian naturereasonably clear);9

c) ex-Othonianpraetoriansattackingthe CastraPraetoria:84,1. At the division of the book around ch. 50, when the march on Rome

beginsandthemindof thereadermustbe concentrated on theresistance that Vitellius can muster,he is particularlycarefulto remindus that cohortsare not necessarilyauxiliary: 55,1 curequattuordecim praetoriis cohortibus 57,2 urbanacohorset gladiatores

61,1 Vitellianaecohortes: clearlyat Narniandclearlypraetorian. It seemsthatTacitusemployscohorswithoutrealambiguity,though he expectshis readersto interpretthe wordby its context. The conclusion is thatin thelatterhalfof Bookiii unqualified cohors is to beunderstood aspraetorian if thecontextsuggests or permitsit. The question at issuefor us is thenatureof thetrescohortes of 78,2, wherein a rhetoricalexerciseTacitusrepresents criticsof Sabinusas contrasting hisinabilityto defenda strongCapitolagainst theassault

176

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

of these tres cohortes with the surrender of ualidissirnae cohortes, that

is, the (seven)Vitellian cohortsof praetoriansat Narni. The point of this antithesiswould be lost if the speakerswere comparinglike with unlike, and the mere proximityof the two expressions,separatedby four linesof text, must,in thelight of theaboveobservation of Tacitus' practiceelsewhere,link them in meaning. IV

Let us now considerthe timing of the assaultby PetiliusuponNE Rome and the nature of the Vitellian force by which it was repelled. The evidence for the former is to be found in ch. 79, 1-2, in which Tacitus

describesthe movementof the main Flavian army underAntoniusfrom Otricoli

to Saxa Rubra on 19 December:

Antoniusper Flaminiamad SaxaRubra multo iam noctisserum auxiliumuenit.illic interfectumSabinum,confiagrasse Capitolium, tremereurbem, maestaomniaaccepit;plebemquoqueet seruitia pro Vitellio armari nuntiabatur.et Petilio Ceriali equestreproelium aduersumfuerat; namqueincautumet tamquamad uictos ruentemVitelliani, interiectusequiti pedes,excepere.pugnatum baud procul urbe inter aedificia hortosqueet anfractusuiarum, quaegnaraVitellianis,incompertahostibusmetumfecerant.neque omnis equesconcors,adiunctisquibusdamqui nuper apud Narniam dediti fortunampartium speculabantur.capiturpraefectus alae Iulius Flauianus;ceteri foedafuga consternantur,non ultra Fidenas secutis uictoribus.

That Cerialis had beendefeatedis statedin the indicativeas a fact, by an elegantstylisticdevicefor which there are parallels.lOBut this is a part of the bad news, maestaomnia, that greetedAntoniusat Saxa Rubra; andfuerat indicatesa regressionin time of up to a few hours, a reference,it mightbe thought,to the morningof 19 December.The afternoonis not on this evidenceimpossible,but every military considerationtells in favour of first light;TMand any time muchlater than this would make it difficult

to accommodate

the events described in ch.

80-81 as followingthe repulse:the armingof the populace,the calling of the senate,the despatchof envoysto the two armies(thatof Petilius at Fidenaeand that of Antoniuson the Via Flaminia), to say nothing of the final appeallaunchedby the VestalVirgins. On the otherhand, the encountercannotbe pushedback in defianceof this argumentto

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

177

the eveningof 18 December,for in that eventthe bad newswould have been sentto Otricoli, reachingAntoniusthere at the sametime as the appealfrom Sabinussentlate on that day and before he set off on his forced march of 35 mp. The concludingsentenceof ch. 78 is indeed a clear pointerto the time of Petilius' attack:

ne PetiliusquidemCerialis,cummille equitibuspraemissus [sent aheadof the main army from Otricoli or more probablyNarni] ut transuersis itineribusper agrumSabinumSalariaVia urbemintroiret, satismaturauerat,donecobsessiCapitolii fama cunctos simul exciret.

SobothAntoniusandCerialistookactionat theearliestpossibletime-and at the sametime--on the receipt of the news of the impositionof the siege:Antoniussetoff early in the morningof 19 Decemberfrom Otricoli, and Cerialis, nearer to Rome and surely known by Sabinus to be advancingalongthe SalarianWay, launchedearly in the morning of the sameday his unsuccessful attackon the NE suburbs. •2 As to the natureof the defendingforce, the effectivenesswith which it threw back 1,000 Flavian cavalry (even thoughtheseincluded400 recentturncoats,if we are to believe the apologeticstatementof an historianwho wishedto saythebesthe couldof a relativeof Vespasian and a dashinggeneral) arguesa vigour worthy of the praetorians. Moreoverit wouldbe surprisingif an engagement foughtso closeto the CastraPraetoriaby troopsfamiliar with the lanesand bywaysleft the praetoriansuncommitted.Again, the force is describedas interiectus equitipedes. The descriptionwould suit the infantry and cavalry components of a praetoriancohorttrainedto cooperatein a manoeuvre apparentlyattributedto legionariesand auxiliarycavalryat 18,2 mixtuspedesequesque.It would also, of course,suita cohorsequitataof theauxiliaryarmy. But cohortesequitataeknownwith certaintyto have been stationedin Germany prior to AD 69 (as theseshouldhave been) are not numerous;and if suchhad formed part of the Vitellian forces occupyingRome before the autumncampaign,they must have been strongcandidatesfor inclusionin the electaauxilia drainedaway in September.The balanceof probabilityis that the mixed infantry and cavalry force was praetorian,either wholly or in large part. From theseconsiderations I arguethat bothattacks--thatof Petilius on the Colline Gate area, and that of the praetorianson the Capitol-tookplaceon themorningof 19 December,andinvolvedon theVitellian side the sametroops,the three praetoriancohorts.The attackon the Capitol thereforecloselysucceededthe defenceof NE Rome.

178

KENNETH

WELLESLEY V

We return now to the central puzzle of this narrative, the arrival of VitelliantroopsbeforetheCapitolin a stateof fury, thereasonfor which Tacitushasnotbotheredto explain.He mayindeedhaveregardedviolent andirrationalimpulsesastoo commonin civil war, whereloyaltiesare divided and treacherya possibility, to call for any comment;or his dramaticsensemay have rejectedlengthyexplanations;or his sources may have left him in doubtand inducedsilence.But whateverTacitus' motivesfor secrecy,the historicalfact of a violentonslaughtuponthe amiableSabinus,a man who, thoughthe brotherof a rival pretender to the principate,had been retainedin high office by Vitellius, calls for our comment.What had causedsucha suddenand viciouschange of atmosphere overnight?It is true thaton 18 Decemberthe bodyguard accompanying Vitelliuson hisway to abdicatepreserveda rninaxsiIentiurn, and the emperorhad beencompelledto desistand return to the palace.But the agreementbetweenhim and Sabinushad alreadybeen announced,andthe fracaswhichforcedthe latterto take refugeon the Capitolhadbeenthe work of a few hard-liners,andtotally unexpected by the victims.Any misunderstandings couldhavebeenclearedup that evening. Since the street-fightingthe night had passedquietly. The besiegersof the Capitol, if siegethis was, were not sufficientlyalert to preventmessages for helpgoingoutandpersonscomingin. The only plausibleexplanationfor the fury of the morningattackis a preceding attackby Petilius, promptingthe suspicion--perhaps confirmedby the interrogation of prisoners--thatSabinus,AntoniusandPetiliushadacted in concertandthatthe so-calledpeacemaker,the auctor inuisaepacis, was nothingmore than the leader of a fifth column. It seemsreasonable to suppose, in viewof thechronological andlogical

sequence, thatPetilius'attackledimmediately to theassault ontheCapitol and not vice versa.It might, however,be claimedby thosesceptical of theargument above(p. xx) thatthetwoengagements werefortuitously simultaneous andthatwhilePetiliuswasthrownbackby thepraetorians the Capitolwasattackedby unknownurbanor auxiliarycohorts.This wouldbe a situationwhichnothingin Tacituscommends,but it cannot be entirelyexcludedunlessit demandsthe presenceof the samemen in two differentplacesat the sametime. We haveseenthe highprobability that the praetorians,with or withoutothers,foughtto defend the area of the Castra Praetoria. If it could be shown that the assailants

of the Capitolwere also, in wholeor part, praetorian,our casewould be virtuallycomplete.The wordscitoagrnineforurnet imrninentiaforo

WHAT HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

179

templapraeteruectiare crucialin more than one respect.They have not receivedfrom any commentator(not excludingHeraeus,Heubner andmyself)the scrutinytheydeserve.The translators(myselfincluded) slur the meaningof praeteruectiand even the admirableGerber and Greef commita rare error in translatingthe word as 'vorbeiziehend', 'passing by'. Thecorrectversionis 'ridingby (or beside)',nomoreand no less.The verbuehoris notusedby Tacitusor anyotherLatin author of travellingon foot, or in any othersensethan 'I am conveyedby a horse,a shipor by a currentof air or water'. A vehicleis of the essence. Thephrasecitoagminepointsin thesamedirection,asa naturaldescriptionof cavalrymovement(cf. ii 40 citusequo;iii 16,1 cituseques). But urbanand auxiliarycohortswere not mounted.Unlesswe prefer to inventthe improbableavailabilityof oneor moreunattested cohortes equitatae,it followsthat the initial attackon the Capitolwasdelivered by thecavalrycomponent of someor all of thethreeavailablepraetorian cohorts. It was as sensible for them to use their mounts to cover the

longtwo milesfrom Campto ForumRomanurn asit wasfor theirOthonianpredecessors ona similarerrandfromCampto Palace:i 80,2 rapta arma, nudati gladii; insidentesequisurbem ... petunt. VI

We now turn to the actual attack. If the assailants came from the Castra

Praetoria,the slopeoppositethem at the foot of the Capitolbore the Cliuus Capitolinus. The orthodox view is that they charged southwestwards pastthe Templesof ConcordandSaturnup the Cliuus, whosepaving,discoveredin 1817 andfurtherrevealedin 1940, may be seento-dayleadingpart of the way up to the front of the siteof the Temple of JupiterO.M. Subsequentand successfulattackscame from the NW (i.e. the Via delle Tre Pile) and SE (i.e. the CenturnGradus). Wiseman•3hasrecentlyproposeda new interpretation.The first attack, we aretold, camefrom thePalatineandproceeded by way of theForum Romanurnup the slopeoccupiednow by the steppedVia dell'Arco di Settimio Severo; the later oneswere delivered from the W and NE: we

mustimagineSabinusand his party concentrated not aroundthe Tem-

ple of Jupiter,butuponthenorthernheightnowoccupiedby S. Maria in Aracoeli. This doctrineWisemanholdsto be plausibleand selfconsistent,as well as faithful to the true meaningof Arx Capitolina, a phrasethreetimesusedby Tacitus(seebelow, p. x) to indicatethe place of refuge. What is theadvantagewhichWisemanclaimsfor hisnew interpreta-

KENNETH

180

WELLESLEY

tion?It is, I think, commongroundthattheNE summitof the Capitoline Hill often is, or seemsto be, describedas the Arx. And accordingto Wiseman(p. 164), whenwe attemptto explainTacitus'useof thephrase Arx Capitolina,we mustbelievethat 'in a Capitolinecontext,as here, arx shouldmeanthestronghold, thecitadelpar excellence, andanyother sensewould be impossiblymisleading':thusthis is 'the naturalsense of the phrase'andto renderit 'CapitolineHill' (asI did in my translation of the Histories,commentaryon Historiesiii and TheLong Year) is a mistranslation.

If therefore it can be shown that Tacitus' narrative

is compatiblewith the doctrinethat Sabinusoccupiedthe NE summit, we mustabandonour previoussupposition thathe heldthe SW hill and the Temple of Jupiter.

In the first place,it mightbe objected,if only as a meredebating point,thatit is hardlylogicalto concede ontheonehand(asWiseman and all othersdo) that the term Capitoliumis ambiguousand means, in Tacitus and elsewhere,sometimesthe temple of Jupiter O.M., sometimes the SW summitwhichsupportedit andmanyothershrines, and sometimes the wholeCapitolineHill includingbothsummitsand

the interveningsaddle;and yet in the samebreathto claim for Arx Capitolinaan unambiguous andlimitedsenseastheNE heightalone. ThetermsArx andCapitoliumareoftencombined(Arx Capitoliumque); buttheyarealsoopposed (inArceaut Capitolio),sothatherea distinctionis evidentlyintended.Butsinceambiguitysometimes arises,aswe haveseen,with Capitolium,whatis contrasted with it mustitselfbe ambiguous. If Capitoliummeansthetemple,Arx couldbethecombined height;if it meansthe SW summit,thenArx is likely to meanthe NE one; if Capitoliummeansthe wholeheight,thenArx couldmeansome portion of that height especiallycapableof defence.

An examination of usagebearsoutmerelogic.The senses of arx are carefullysetoutin ILL: 'hill', 'fortress','placeof refuge', 'town', 'a particularheightin Rome'. If onesurveysthe evidenceasa whole,it seems thatArx Capitolina--and it isthisphrasealone,asusedin Histories iii, thatnowparticularlyconcerns us--shouldmeannotwhatWiseman holdsit shouldmean,but 'a/the, heighta) associated with the Temple of Jupiter';or b) 'comprising theSW eminence'; or c) 'comprising both eminences'.The only way to determinewhetherthis theoryis sound is to itemizeandcategorize the 12 passages in whichArx Capitolina (Arx Capitolii,ArcesCapitolinae)occursin extantLatin literature: a) Let the threepassages underdiscussion in Hist. iii standfirst: 69,3 Sabinus, re trepida,quodtutissimum in praesentibus, arcem

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

181

Capitolii inseditmixto milite et quibusdamsenatorumequitumque

...

71,1 cito agmineforum et imminentiaforo templapraeteruecti eriguntaciemper aduersumcollemusquead primasCapitolinae arcis fores.

78,2 cunctafestinatione deindeignauiaSabinicorrupta,quisumptis temerearmismunitissimam Capitoliiarcem ... aduersustres cohortestueri nequisset. It shouldbe mentionedthat, disregardingthe useof Capitoliumwhere the Temple is obviouslymeant,we find the phrasepickedup in the interveningpassages by Capitolium(69,4), Capitolio(70,2), Capitolium (71,1), Capitolii (71, 2), Capitolii (71,3). b) In threepassages arx Capitolinais associated with theJupiterwhose temple stoodon the SW height:

Livy vi 20,9 Capitolium spectans... Iouem deosquealios precatusesseut quammentemsibi Capitolinamarcemprotegenti ...

dedissent, eam ...

daret ...

id. xxviii 39,15 Ioui ... praesidiCapitolinaearcis Sil. Ital.

xii 339-40

in Capitolinascertatim scanditurarces sternunturque Ioui et delubrumsanguinehonorant.

The nameof Livy promptsa commentuponhis understanding of the storyof the Gauls, the geeseand Manlius Capitolinus.The Gaulsare imaginedas climbingup at the southernend of thejoint hill: Livy v 47,2 namqueGalli, seuuestigionotatohumano,qua nuntiusa Veiis peruenerat,seusua sponteanimaduersoad Carmentissaxoadscensu aequo ... in summumeuasere. Luckily there is no debateabout the approximatelocationof the Ara Carmentalis,which cannotbe far from the PortaCarmentalisandthe Tiber. But at vi 20,13, with a precision sorelyto seekelsewhere,he indicatesthe siteof Manlius' house:adiectae mortuonotaesunt:publica una, curedomuseiusfuissetubi nuncaedes atqueofficinaMonetaesunt, latumad popMumest, ne quispatricius in arceaut Capitoliohabitaret.... Here the disjunctionof Arx and Capitoliummustreflecta distinctionin Livy's mind(if notin the words of the statute)betweenthe NE and SW summits,and possiblyan attemptto bridgethe gap betweenthe two. It was awkwardfor the narratorthatManlius'housewassofar removedfrom theplaceof hisheroic exploit, and this may be the reasonfor the cautiousformulationof v

182

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

47,4 anseresnonfefellere,quibussacrislunonis[thisstatement,otherwise unsupported,may be designedto introducethe NE summit] in summainopia cibi tarnenabstinebatur.quae res saluti fitit; narnque clangoreeiusalarurnquecrepituexcitusM. Manlius, qui triennioante consulfiterat, uir belloegregius,armisarreptis,sirnulad arma ceteros ciensuaditetdurnceteritrepidant,Gallurn,qui iarnin surnmo constiterat, urnboneicturndeturbat.The rewardoffar andwinegrantedto Manlius wasbroughtat/aedeseius,quaein Arceerant;andthenfollowsa mention of thepunishment awardedto theguiltysentriesdescribedasuigiles eius loci quafefellerat adscendens hostis.We seemthereforeto find in Livy a senseof spatialseparation betweentheArx andtheCapitolium; butit is alsoLivy who (at vi 20,9, quotedsupra)associates the Capitolina arx with Jupiter, and Manlius is specificallydescribedas having protected the national

shrine.

c) There are three inconclusivepassages:

Val. Max. viii 14,1 quamdiu ... terrarum ... orbis summum columenarx Capitolinapossideret .... Sil. Ital.

iii 86f. uictor

in Capitolina tumulum mihi uindicet arce. Veget. iv 1 quantumprofeceritmurorumelaborataconstructio, Romae documentumest, quae salutemciuium Capitolinaarcis defensione

seruauit.

iv 26 ingressiCapitolinamarcem Galli

d) Finally,therearetwo passages whoseauthors,bothlate, seembeyond reasonable doubt to allude to the SW summit:

Aug. Ciu. Dei iii 29 Galli quidemtrucidaueruntsenatum,quidquideiusin Vrbe totapraeterarcemCapitolinam,quaesolaiterumque defensaest, reperirepotuerunt... ipsumCapitoliumquod a Gallis tutum fuit (cf. Tac. Hist. iii 72,1).

Hier. Ep. 23,3 (consul)qui quaside subiectishostibustriumpharet Capitolinasascenditarces.

Therearenootherpassages in whichCapitolinaarx or Capitolinaearces occurs,but on the basisof the evidencesetout, the term is compatible with two definitions: the SW summit or both NE and SW summits; and

sincefive of the eightnon-Tacituspassages (thoseunderb) and d)) incline to the former sense,it is not permissibleto claim, with Wiseman

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

183

(p. 177), that 'the naturalsenseof the phrase'is the NE peak alone. If we are right in this proposition,his alternativeinterpretationof the attackis unnecessary. Yet the meritsof this explanationper se should be examined. VII

Did the initial assaultcome from the north, as commonopinion supposes,or from the south-east,as Wisemanholds?What appearsto be a conclusiveargumentwith regardto the directionof attackhasnot so far been explicitly set out. It seemsnecessarynow to do so. 'Accordingto Wellesley', remarksWiseman(p. 166), 'the Vitellians camefrom the CastraPraetoria';andin n. 5 he adds:'The significance of the Praetorianbarracksin Wellesley'snarrative... is not basedon anythingin Tacitus (iii 78-9).' It is indeedtrue that Tacitus doesnot tell us in so many words that the initial attackwas launchedfrom the camp;but our examinationof thehistorian'saccountof whatis a complex of closelyinterlockingeventshas shownthat this is likely to be so. If so,theysurelytooktheobviousroute,alongthe Alta Semita(Via Venti Settembre)down the Vicus Laci Fundaniand the CliuusArgentarius(thepre-MussoliniVia di Marforio, now againthe Clivo Argentario), keepingwest of the Fora of Augustusand Caesar. But Wiseman

holds that this initial attack came not from the Castra

PraetoriaandtheCliuusArgentarius,butfromthePalaceandtheForum Romanumin a NW direction.There are severalreasonswhy this seems unlikely. In thefirstplacewe haveseenthata considerable force--andVitellius' troopswere few--had repelledthe attackon the NE peripheryof the city. Thepalaceguardnormallyconsisted of onevirtuallyunarmedcohort (Hist. i 38,2), andit is improbable,in view of thethreatenedapproach of AntoniusPrimus,thatthewholepraetorianforceof Vitelliusin Rome shouldhave abandonedthe Ca,straPraetoriaand their arsenalin order to huddletogetherin whatmusthavebeenextremelyconstricted quarters in a cornerof the Palace.Certainly,their strategyon 20 Decemberwas to opposethe invadersstreetby street,to abandonthe Palaceto emptinessand fall back upon their spiritualpatria, the Castra. And had the three cohortsbeen in the palace, the questionarisesas to the identity of the vigorousforcethat in fact threw back Petiliuson the very same day as the Capitol was attacked. Secondly,considerthe secretreturnof Martialis from the Palaceto the Capitoland his earlier--and by implicationnon-secret--arrivalat

184

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

the tbrmer. A palace heavily mannedby three praetoriancohorts,to whompax wasjust as inuisain the early morningas an houror solater, couldhardly havefailed to detecthis arrival and either preventhis seeing the emperoror makesurethattheywererepresented at the interview. Thirdly, in arguingfor an approachfrom the Palace,Wisemanseems to fall victim to a delusioncausedby the oratoriumgenusto which Tacitus'writings,ashe rightlypointsout, belong:the view that 'it was from the Palatium itself that the soldiers had attacked Sabinus and his

followersthe previousday' (i.e. 18 December)is borrowedfrom Martialis' speechas thoughit supportedWiseman'sthesis.But he hasnot observedthat this is a statementin oratio obliqua, renderingan allegation. It may be a pure inventionon the part of the speech-writerTacitus, distortingor neglectingtruth; it may howeverbe intendedto illustrate Sabinus'own misunderstanding. The promptissimiVitellianorumwho clashedwith Sabinus'party, as it descendedthe Vicus Laci Fundani, obviouslycame from the Forum seethingwith the pro-Vitellian mob, which had blockedthe emperor'sway as he attemptedto reach his brother'shouseor the Templeof Concord(68,3). But Sabinus,andconsequentlyMartialis his messenger,cannothaveknown,asthey reviewed the eventsof the day on the evening of 18 December, that their assailants camefrom the Palaceor wereactingon Vitellius' orders.What Sabinusor Martialis thoughtor alleged is not evidence. Fourthly,Tacitus'languageshouldbe studied:forum... praeteruecti is linguisticallyimpossibleas a descriptionof troopspassingacrossthe Forum from the Palatineto the neighbourhoodof the Carcer. I concludethat the forceattackingthe Capitoldid not comefrom the Palace or cross the Forum. 14 VIII

If thenthe)Curens milesof 71,1 camefrom the northandpenetratedthe ServianWall by the only conveniententry, that by which the Cliuus Argentariusgave them admission,it follows that the slopeopposite (aduersuscoilis) was that up which the Cliuus Capitolinusled to the front of the Templeof Jupiter.This initial attackwasdeliveredtowards the south,andthe subsequent attacksat differentand/oroppositepoints. The ambiguityof diuersosCapitolii aditus is unfortunate;but if it is onceestablished thatthe initial onslaughtwasuponthe areaaroundthe Temple, it follows that there is a strongprobabilitythat the other attackscamefrom westandeastof the interveningsaddle.In the present passage,imminentiaforotempla(thesecondobjectofpraeteruecti)wood

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE CAPITOL?

185

be the Templesof Concordand Saturn,on Wiseman'sinterpretation that of Castoralso. The directionand slopeof the CliuusCapitolinus are suchasto renderquiteintelligiblethe existenceof porticoeson the righthandasyouascendit. Of theseporticoesnothingremains,unless we reckon the later Porticus Deorum Consentium at their foot to be

a successor: it wouldnot be surprisingif in the courseof his public workson the Capitol Vespasianhad omitteda reconstruction of the galleries;and indeedthis is what is impliedby Tacitus'phrase'erant antiquitusporticusin latere Cliui dextraesubeuntibus.... •5 The sourcesspeakof only one Cliuus Capitolinus.But Wiseman's thesissupposing an attackfrom the Forum Romanumcompelsus to believethat therewas a secondCliuus, leadingup to the saddleon the line of the Via dell'Arco di Settimio Severo, now a staircaseof some

80 stepswhich givesaccessfrom the Forum to the Piazza del Campidoglio.But we cannotreconcilethe doctrineof a secondCliuuswith the testimonyof the sourcessuchas Cicero,pro C. Rabirio 31 si C. Marius, quodfistulas quibusaqua suppeditabaturlouis Optimi Maximi templisac sedibus praecidi imperarat,quodin Cliuo Capitolinoimproborumciuium .... Here our textsbreak off, but the implication is clear. That between the time of Cicero and AD 69 a second Cliuus

Capitolinushadbeenbuilt aboutwhich our sourcesare silentis quite incredible.16Wiseman does not deal with this silence;thoughhe accountsfor the absenceof any tangibleremainsof suchconstruction by anargumentwhichdefiesrefutation:'The present-day staircase disguises thetopography completely: a betterideaof thegradientof theproposed cliuus[which he perceivesto be an objection,as indeedit is] may be had from photographsof the nineteenth-century Via dell'Arco di Settimio Severo.'•7But sincewe cannotrecoverwith completeprecision the appearance of the placein the early Principate,it is difficultto see how anybodycanknowthata nineteenth-century photograph approaches closer to the unknownthan a twentieth-centuryone. The cliuus of Wiseman'sdevisingwouldnecessarily,however,be notlesssteep(and probablysteeper)than the modernflight of stairs, and the mind can aslittleconceiveof suchan architectural monstrosity asof soldierspoised precariouslyin defenceuponit. As for the quantityof statuesneeded by Sabinusto block theprimasfores, Wisemanis compelledto supposethatthesecamefrom the templesof the Arx: 'JunoMoneta, Concord, etc.' This sourceis perhapsjust possible,but unattractiveas an alternativeto theknownpresence of a massof shrinesontheSW height. There is, however, a passagein Tacituswhich rendersWiseman's supposition that Sabinusoccupiedthe arx ratherthan the Capitolium

186

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

impossible: Hist. iii 71,3 tumdiuersosCapitoliiaditusiuxtaLucum Asyliet qua TarpeiaRupesCentumGradibusaditur .... The localiza-

tion of the TarpeianRockis not now in greatdispute:sinceDureau dela Malleit hasbeenplacedat thesouthern or southwestern edgeof theCapitoloverlooking thePiazzadellaConsolazione and/ortheForum Boarium. 18Theessential linksin theargument areasfollows:1. Livy v 47,2 (above,p. ): anentrytotheCapitolwasobserved bytheGauls

bya pathad Carmentis; 2. Livyvi 17,4:theGauls,following thislead, climbupper Tarpeiam rupem;3. Manliuscasts downtheleading Gaul andhis followers,and is later punished at the samespot:Livy vi 20,12 tribunidesaxoTarpeiodeiecerunt locusque idemin unohomine et eximiaegloriae et poenaeultimaefuit. This nexus of evidence is fatal to Wiseman

and he seeks to break it

by relying (p. 169) on four dubioussupports.Two of these(Dion. Hal. vii 35,4 and viii 78,5) describingthe Rock as overlookingthe Forum do not precludea southernlocalization.Festuss.v. SaxumTarpeium (p. 464 L, xumTarpeium... nolueruntfunestumlocumr ... Capitoliconiungi)provesnotthattheTarpeianRockwasremovedspatially from the Capitol, but that it was railed off only by somesortof barrier from the Area Capitolina.Finally, Dio's account(lviii 11) of the deathof Sejanusin nowayhelpsto fix thepositionof theTarpeiaRupes. Now if Sabinusand his followerswere concentrateduponthe Arx in the north, it is impossibleto understand why any Vitellian attackshould havebeenmountedfrom a pointat the extremesouthof thejoint hill. If however, as I suppose,one of the secondaryprongsof attack approachedthe Temple from the NW and the other from the SE, it is reasonablefor Tacitus to comparetheir respectiveproximity to the beleaguered Flavianson theCapitolandto claim(correctly,asit seems) that the Asylum (NW) attackwas nearer and more serious,because launchedthrougha seriesof flats,thanoneconstricted by the narrowness of the CenturnGradus, which were in any caseconsiderablyfurther from the Temple of Jupiter. IX

We come now to the fire which engulfedthe housesbuilt againstthe hill, the porticoaroundthe Area Capitolinaandthe greattempleitself:

hic ambigitur,ignemtectisobpugnatores iniecerintanobsessi, quae crebriorlama, nitentesac progressos depulerint.indelapsusignis in porticusadpositasaedibus,mox sustinentes fastigiumaquilae uetereligno traxeruntflammamalueruntque.

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

187

Here Wisemanagreesthat theporticusin questionare thoseon the NW edgeof the Area Capitolinawhich (themselvesor their successors) are picturedin theConservatori reliefof MarcusAureliussacrificingbefore the Temple. Heubner (ad loc.) has suggestedvery plausiblythat the

aquilaeare the seriesof rafterssupporting the roof. Along theseand the purlinsthe fire spreadfrom backto front of the building. So much seemsclear. But Wisemanis now in a difficulty. He hasplacedSabinus upon the NE summitand must now explain why the burninghouses abuttingon the Arx in its strict senseresultedin the fire of porticoes anda templesomeway off. The distancebetweentheporticusadpositae aedibus(louis) and the tenementsbuilt againstthe NE summitis considerable,especiallyasthe greatestproximitybetweenTempleandporticusis decidedlyat the NW edge, i.e. on the sideturnedaway from theTempleof Juno.At thepointwheretheConservatori Palaceis closest to the CapitolineMuseum,the modernPiazzadel Campidogliohasa width of 40 metres, and the distance between the foundations of the

Templeof JupiterO.M. and thoseof the insulaeabuttingon the Arx is decidedlymore.We are thereforeenvisaginga situationwheresparks jumpeda distanceof about100 metresto setfire, contraryto all expectation,to the greatnationalshrine.The thingis of coursepossible,given a high wind: of this we know nothing,thoughwe do know that on the previousnighttherehad beenhibernusimber repentefusus,a rain sufficientlylong (accordingto some)to makean escapeof the besieged easy. And this rain would have decreasedthe flammabilityof rafters exposedat the eaves.Wisemanis of courseawareof thisimprobability in his account,and seeksto counterit by narrowingthe gapbetween the aedificia adjacentto the NE summitand thoseadjacentto the SW summit.But if a blaze so considerableas to jump a gap of 80 or 100 metreshad beenlit uponor nearJuno'stemple,why did her building not sharethe fate of Jupiter's?Why was Vitellius afterwardsso anxious to securean admissionthat his troopshad not set fire to the flats andthereforeultimatelyto the Templeof Jupiterwhenit wasobvious thatonly a remotestrokeof ill-luck, a chancesparkcarriedby a strong wind, couldhavemadethattemplethe victimof a manoeuvredirected againstthe NE summit?That the fire destroyednotthe Templeof Juno Morteta,butthatof JupiterOptimusMaximus,is anotherargument fatal to Wiseman'shypothesis. X

To conclude. Ourhesitations concerning thewholeCapitoline episode arisefrom doubtconcerningthe directionof the initial attack,a doubt

188

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

which cannotbe resolveduntil we achieveclarity aboutthe identityand motives of the attackers; these Tacitus has failed to make clear. That

so long a debatecan arisefrom an attemptto understandhis narrative of the siegeand captureof the Capitol--an absorbingtale splendidly told--is not uninstructivein a wider field. Drama, eloquenceand sustained verbal virtuosity we find in abundance.But unansweredquestionsare plentiful. We havealludedto a few. They couldbe multiplied interminablyeven within the limits of thesechapters.The missinginformation,importantfor our graspof the story, couldeasilyhavebeen suppliedfrom the plentiful source-materialavailableto the historian. A modestaddition--onmy reckoningsome18 linesof a modernstandard text--would have satisfiedthe reader on these points without materiallyaffectingthe speedandimpetusof the story.Nor cana desire to avoid expandingthe book beyondits presentbulk have playedany part in dictatingomissions.The first threebooksof theHistoriescover respectively53, 54 and 51 pagesof Teubnertext, and the fourth runs to no less than 59.

Thesesilences andobscurities mustspringfrom an inabilityto perceive or stressthe nexusof causeand effect; or from a wilful neglectof this nexusin thepresumedinterestof literaryeffectiveness; or possiblyfrom a combinationof thesetwo. It may well be that Tacitusrefrainsfrom explainingfurens milesbecausehe desiresto train his spotlightupon a particularmomentof time and action. The absenceof footnotesand cross-references in the volumencomplicatesthe writer's task. The accountof Petiliushasbeenfragmented(59,2; 61,1; 78,3; 79; 80,2; 82,3) as an easysacrificeto the continuous expositionof the mainnarrative, andthe disadvantage of this fragmentation he hasnot observed.Some troubles--thefailure to indicatethe night of 19/20 or the circumvention of the Milvian Bridge--are merely the resultof inattention. Many minor andsomemajor shortcomings havebecomeobviousin the courseof this enquiry. Most of them will have puzzledthe Roman readeralso. It is moreoverimportantto note the precariousnatureof someof Tacitus' historicaljudgments:to describeAntonius'wait at Otricoli as a praua mora designedto placatea jealousMucianusis to be blind to what could well have been an honourable trait in his hero,

thedesireto avoidthe final catastrophe of a bafflein the streetsof Rome. But this woulddemanda longerandmore complexstudythanthe presentone. I contentmyselfnow with the remarkthat Tacitus'military and politicaljudgmentsshouldbe treatedwith reserve. The modernhistorianof modemtimes, whoseliterary style seldom lays claim to elegance,will perhapssympathizewith the predicament

WHAT

HAPPENED

ON THE

CAPITOL?

189

of a literaryoratorconfronted by a massof evidence or allegation contemporary withtheeventsto bedescribed. Thedeathof a Romanemperor wasalwaysthe signalfor a tideof controversy,asmensoughtto secure fameor satisfyrevenge.The supporters of Antonius,Mucianusand Sabinus must have been as vocal as their detractors: here and there the

attentivereaderwill hearechoesof thedin. On thewholeTacitusmanages

to keepa clearstory-lineandevenspeakskindlyat timesof theVitellius whomall denounced.Until Mucianusarrivedin Rome, publicopinion

musthavebeenquiteunfettered,andevenafterthe arrivalof Vespasianit remainedrelatively free. The literatureon the year of the four emperorswas immense,in Greek and Latin. The reductionof many conflicting versions to a single,highlyreadable account demanded enormousskill; andthe slightinadequacies in the tellingof the tale which we havenoticedarevenialin theeyesof thegeneralreader.Neveragain, so far as we canjudge, was Tacitusable to rise so brilliantlyto the level of his themein choiceness of language,effectiveness of structure and vigour of impact. KennethWellesley

Edinburgh NOTES

1. The MS evidence is compatible with this spelling, advocatedon philologicalgroundsby K.H. Jackson,Britannia 10 (1979) 255. 2. The Histories, Book iii (1972); add The Long Year, A.D. 69 (1975). 3. L. Holzapfel, 'R6mischeKaiserdaten',Klio 13 (1913) 295-304. 4. Especiallyif we hold that the corrupttext at 66,3 capriurnet captis diebusreseruatum(M) shouldread, not captiuumet casibusdubiisr. with Class Ia and mosteditors,but captiuumet paucisdiebusr. with L--a very acceptable emendation.Valenswas kept in custodyat Collemanciofor a few days while an enquiryconcerninghis disposalwas sentto Antoniusas the latter crossedthe Apennines. 5. At leastI makethis guess.Heraeusand Heubnerare silent.J. Mfiller, Innsbrucker Festgruss ... (1909) 4-5 ingeniously conjectured simul (singulae) e, that is, one legion at Terni and one at Narni. 6. Note the ambiguityof urbana cohorset gladiatoresquibusIulianus praeerat.

7. Set out in my commentary(The Histories,cit. n. 2) at pp. 220-221. 8. ii 89; 100; iii 55,1.

9. A few lines later, Tacituscalls thesecohortsGerrnanicae(cf. ii 93,2) because a reference to omnis miles urbanus has intervened.

10. Kfihner-Stegmann ii 548-9;Furneaux,AnnalsI-Vie p. 72 (Intro. 5.94). 11. Military attacksarenotnormallymountedin theevening,asvisualcom-

190

KENNETH

WELLESLEY

munication(especiallyessentialin ancientconditions)is likely to be lost; and in Decemberat Rome the sunset about4.26 p.m. (G. Bilfinger, Die antiken Stundenangaben(1888). 12. The pluralcunctosat 78,3 accordswithFlauianosducesat 69,4, though the latter expression is sometimes usedof the commanders of the mainarmy. Sabinushad been in touchwith Antoniusfor somedays, and the latter would certainlyhave informedhim of the Via Salariaprobe. 13. 'Flavianson the Capitol', AJAH 3 (1978) 163-78. 14. Movementto and throughthe Forum is expressedby Tacitusby such phrasesasforum inaudere, inrumpere,petere, foro uehi, in forum ruere or similar. The indexof Gerber-Greef,or indeedany gooddictionary,reveals thatpraeter-(alsoprae-)positively excludes theideaof enteringintoor crossing, andconveyspreciselythe ideaof passingby or alongwithoutentry. Tacitus normallyemployspraeuehi.In somecontexts(e.g. Virg. Aen. vii 166; Livy

x 36,6)praeuectus mayhavethesense of ridingpast,andsooutstripping, other troops.Here the fuller praeteruectiseemsto put beyonddoubtthe senseof riding 'alongside'or 'past' staticobjects. 15. I am notpersuaded by L. Richardson(AJA84 (1980) 60-62) who holds, contraryto Tacitus, that suchporticoescould not have existedbecausethey would have obstructedthe Cliuus and provided shelter for the attacking Vitellians. We do not know the depthfrom front to back of buildingswhich disappearedsoonafter or perhapsduringAD 69; they may in fact have been quiteshallow.As for thetheorythattheVitellianswouldhavebeenprotected, astheyclearlywerenot,by thesestructures, theporticoes mayhavebeendiscontinuous(asTacitus'pluralsuggests) andnotof a heightto accommodate mounted men. Note alsoprominenteraporticum(ibid.). 16. OLD s.v. 'cliuus'2 hastheentry 'dixeratconsulse.... i Capitolini[i.e. wherethe Tullianumwas situated]poenasab equitibusRomanisrepetiturum Cic. Red. Sen. 32' and thus commits

itself to a localization

of the Cliuus of

which Wisemanwould approve.The true explanationmay be foundin ad Att. ii 1,7 nuncuero cureequitatusille quemego in cliuo Capitolinote signifero acprincipecollocaramsenatumdeseruerit,nostriautemprincipesetc.: cf. Sest. 28; Ph. ii 16.

17. He refersto E. Nash, Pictorialdictionaryof ancientRome2 (1968) 1,292, fig. 344. 18. TarpeianRock: seeG. Lugli, RomaAntica:II centromonumentale (1946) 18 f. and Dureaude la Malle, M•moire sur la positionde la rocheTarp•ienne

(1819). The ancientliteraryevidenceis collectedby H. Lyngby,Beitrdige zur TopographiedesForumBoarium-Gebietes in Rom (Skr. utg. av SvenskaInst. i Rom, 1954) 77 ff. and to this we must add a fragmentof the marble plan (Carettoni etc., La pianta marmorea ... pl. xxix).