“In the town thou buildest worship undying found
To gods ancestral; guard them, sacrifice,
Adore with choirs. For whilst these holy things
In thy land remain, Zeus’ daughter’s gifts of old
Bestowed upon thy souse, secure from harm
Thy city shall abide forevermore.”
[69.1] Dardanus, accordingly, left the statues in the city which he founded and named after himself, but when Ilium was settled later, they were removed thither by his descendants; and the people of Ilium built a temple and a sanctuary for them upon the citadel and preserved them with all possible care, looking upon them as sent from Heaven and as pledges of the city’s safety. [2] And while the lower town was being captured, Aeneas, possessing himself of the citadel, took out of the sanctuary the images of the Great Gods and the Palladium which still remained (for Odysseus and Diomed, they say, when they came into Ilium by night, had stolen the other away), and carrying them with him out of the city, brought them into Italy. [3] Arctinus, however, says that only one Palladium was given by Zeus to Dardanus and that this remained in Ilium, hidden in the sanctuary, till the city was being taken; but that from this a copy was made, differing in no respect from the original, and exposed to public view, on purpose to deceive those who might be planning to steal it, and that the Achaeans, having formed such a plan, took the copy away. [4] I say, therefore, upon the authority of the men above-mentioned, that the holy objects brought into Italy by Aeneas were the images of the Great Gods, to whom the Samothracians, of all the Greeks, pay the greatest worship, and the Palladium, famous in legend, which they say is kept by the holy virgins in the temple of Vesta, where the perpetual fire is also preserved; but concerning these matters I shall speak hereafter. And there may also be other objects besides these which are kept secret from us who are not initiated. But let this suffice concerning the holy objects of the Trojans.
[70.1] Upon the death of the Ascanius in the thirty-eighth year of his reign, Silvius, his brother, succeeded to the rule. He was born of Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, after the death of Aeneas, and they say that he was brought up on the mountains by the herdsmen. [2] For when Ascanius took over the rule, Lavinia, becoming alarmed lest her relationship as step-mother might draw upon her some severity from him, and being then with child, entrusted herself to a certain Tyrrhenus, who had charge of the royal herds of swine and whom she knew to have been on very intimate terms with Latinus. He, carrying her into the lonely woods as if she were an ordinary woman, and taking care that she was not seen by anyone who knew her, supported her in a house he built in the forest, which was known to but few. And when the child was born, he took it up and reared it, naming it, from the wood, Silvius, or, as one might say in Greek, Hylaios. [3] But in the course of time, finding that the Latins made great search for the woman and that the people accused Ascanius of having put her to death, he acquainted them with the whole matter and brought the woman and her son out of the forest. From this experience Silvius got his name, as I have related, and so did all his posterity. And he became king after the death of his brother, though not without a contest with one of the sons of Ascanius, — Iulus, the eldest, — who claimed the succession to his father’s rule; [4] the issue was decided by vote of the people, who were influenced chiefly by this consideration, among others, that Silvius’ mother was heiress to the kingdom. Upon Iulus was conferred, instead of the sovereignty, a certain sacred authority and honour preferable to the royal dignity both for security and ease of life, and this prerogative was enjoyed even to my day by his posterity, who were called Julii after him. This house became the greatest and at the same time the most illustrious of any we know of, and produced the most distinguished commanders, whose virtues were so many proofs of their nobility. But concerning them I shall say what is requisite in another place.
[71.1] Silvius, after holding the sovereignty twenty-nine years, was succeeded by Aeneas, his son, who reigned thirty-one years. After him, Latinus reigned fifty-one, then Alba, thirty-nine; after Alba, Capetus reigned twenty-six, then Capys twenty-eight, and after Capys, Capetus held the rule for thirteen years. [2] Then Tiberinus reigned for a period of eight years. This king, it is said, was slain in a battle that was fought near a river, and being carried away by the stream, gave his name to the river, which had previously been called the Albula. Tiberinus’ successor, Agrippa, reigned forty-one years. [3] After Agrippa, Allocius, a tyrannical creature and odious to the gods, reigned nineteen years. Contemptuous of the divine powers, he had contrived imitations of lightning and sounds resembling thunder-claps, with which he proposed to terrify people as if he were a god. But rain and lightning descended upon his house, and the lake beside which it stood rose to an unusual height, so that he was overwhelmed and destroyed with his whole household. And even now when the lake is clear in a certain part, which happens whenever the flow of water subsides and the depths are undisturbed, the ruins of porticoes and other traces of a dwelling appear. [4] Aventinus, after whom was named one of the seven hills that are joined to make the city of Rome, succeeded him in the sovereignty and reigned thirty-seven years, and after him Proca twenty-three years. Then Amulius, having unjustly possessed himself of the kingdom which belonged to Numitor, his elder brother, reigned forty-two years. [5] But when Amulius had been slain by Romulus and Remus, the sons of the holy maiden, as shall presently be related, Numitor, the maternal grandfather of the youths, after his brother’s death resumed the sovereignty which by law belonged to him. In the next year of Numitor’s reign, which was the four hundred and thirty-second after the taking of Troy, the Albans sent out a colony, under the leadership of Romulus and Remus, and founded Rome, in the beginning of the first year of the seventh Olympiad, when Daïcles of Messenê was victor in the foot race, and at Athens Charops was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon.
[72.1] But as there is great dispute concerning both the time of the building of the city and the founders of it, I have thought it incumbent on me also not to give merely a cursory account of these things, as if they were universally agreed on. For Cephalon of Gergis, a very ancient writer, says that the city was built in the second generation after the Trojan war by those who had escaped from Troy with Aeneas, and he names as the founder of it Romus, who was the leader of the colony and one of Aeneas’ sons; he adds that Aeneas had four sons, Ascanius, Euryleon, Romulus and Remus. And Demagoras, Agathyllus and many others agree with him as regards both the time and the leader of the colony. [2] But the author of the history of the priestesses at Argos and of what happened in the days of each of them says that Aeneas came into Italy from the land of the Molossians with Odysseus and became the founder of the city, which he named after Romê, one of the Trojan women. He says that this woman, growing weary with wandering, stirred up the other Trojan women and together with them set fire to the ships. And Damastes of Sigeum and some others agree with him. [3] But Aristotle, the philosopher, relates that some of the Achaeans, while they were doubling Cape Malea on their return from Troy, were overtaken by a violent storm, and being for some time driven out of their course by the winds, wandered over many parts of the sea, till at last they came to this place in the land of the Opicans which is called Latinium, lying on the Tyrrhenian sea. [4] And being pleased with the sight of land, they hauled up their ships, stayed there the winter season, and were preparing to sail at the beginning of spring; but when their ships were set on fire in the night and they were unable to sail away, they were compelled against their will to fix their abode in the place where they had landed. This fate, he says, was brought upon them by the captive women they were carrying with them from Troy, who burned the ships, fearing that the Achaeans in returning home would carry them into slavery. [5] Callias, who wrote of the deeds of Agathocles, says that Romê, one of the Trojan women who came into Italy with the other Trojans, married Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, by whom she had three son, Romus, Romulus and Telegonus, . . . and having built a city, gave it the n
ame of their mother. Xenagoras, the historian, writes that Odysseus and Circê had three sons, Romus, Anteias and Ardeias, who built three cities and called them after their own names. [6] Dionysius of Chalcis names Romus as the founder of the city, but says that according to some this man was the son of Ascanius, and according to others the son of Emathion. There are others who declare that Rome was built by Romus, the son of Italus and Leucaria, the daughter of Latinus.
[73.1] I could cite many other Greek historians who assign different founders to the city, but, not to appear prolix, I shall come to the Roman historians. The Romans, to be sure, have not so much as one single historian or chronicler who is ancient; however, each of their historians has taken something out of ancient accounts that are preserved on sacred tablets. [2] Some of these say that Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was their father; that they were delivered as hostages by Aeneas to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty was made between the inhabitants and the new-comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them might good offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. [3] Others say that after the death of Aeneas Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces of the Latins into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Remus. He himself, they say, built Alba and some other towns; Remus built cities which he named Capuas, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of another colony, which the Albans sent out under the leadership of Romulus and Remus, it received again its ancient name. So that, according to this account, there were two settlements of Rome, one a little after the Trojan war, and the other fifteen generations after the first. [4] And if anyone desires to look into the remoter past, even a third Rome will be found, more ancient than these, one that was founded before Aeneas and the Trojans came into Italy. This is related by no ordinary or modern historian, but by Antiochus of Syracuse, whom I have mentioned before. He says that when Morges reigned in Italy (which at that time comprehended all the seacoast from Tarentum to Posidonia), a man came to him who had been banished from Rome. His words are these: “When Italus was growing old, Morges reigned. In his reign there came a man who had been banished from Rome; his name was Seicelus.” [5] According to the Syracusan historian, therefore, an ancient Rome is found even earlier than the Trojan war. However, as he has left it doubtful whether it was situated in the same region where the present city stands or whether some other place happened to be called by this name, I, too, can form no conjecture. But as regards the ancient settlements of Rome, I think that what has already been said is sufficient.
[74.1] As to the last settlement or founding of the city, or whatever we ought to call it, Timaeus of Sicily, following what principle I do not know, places it at the same time as the founding of Carthage, that is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first Olympiad; Lucius Cincius, a member of the senate, places it about the fourth year of the twelfth Olympiad, and Quintus Fabius in the first year of the eighth Olympiad. [2] Porcius Cato does not give the time according to Greek reckoning, but being as careful as any writer in gathering the date of ancient history, he places its founding four hundred and thirty-two years after the Trojan war; and this time, being compared with the Chronicles of Eratosthenes, corresponds to the first year of the seventh Olympiad. That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I have shown in another treatise, where I have also shown how the Roman chronology is to be synchronized with that of the Greeks. [3] For I did not think it sufficient, like Polybius of Megalopolis, to say merely that I believe Rome was built in the second year of the seventh Olympiad, nor to let my belief rest without further examination upon the single tablet preserved by the high priests, the only one of its kind, but I determined to set forth the reasons that had appealed to me, so that all might examine them who so desired. [4] In that treatise, therefore, the detailed exposition is given; but in the course of the present work also the most essential of the conclusions there reached will be mentioned. The matter stands thus: It is generally agreed that the invasion of the Gauls, during which the city of Rome was taken, happened during the archonship of Pyrgion at Athens, in the first year of the ninety-eighth Olympiad. Now if the time before the taking of the city is reckoned back to Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls at Rome after the overthrow of the kings, it comprehends one hundred and twenty years. [5] This is proved in many other ways, but particularly by the records of the censors, which receives in succession from the father and takes great care to transmit to posterity, like family rites; and there are many illustrious men of censorian families who preserve these records. In them I find that in the second year before the taking of the city there was a census of the Roman people, to which, as to the rest of them, there is affixed the date, as follows: “In the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus, in the one hundred and nineteenth year after the expulsion of the kings.” [6] So that the Gallic invasion, which we find to have occurred in the second year after the census, happened when the hundred and twenty years were completed. If, now, this interval of time is found to consist of thirty Olympiads, it must be allowed that the first consuls to be chosen entered upon their magistracy in the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the same year that Isagoras was archon at Athens.
[75.1] And, again, if from the expulsion of the kings the time is reckoned back to Romulus, the first ruler of the city, it amounts to two hundred and forty-four years. This is known from the order in which the kings succeeded one another and the number of years each of them ruled. For Romulus, the founder of Rome, reigned thirty-seven years, it is said, and after his death the city was a year without a king. [2] Then Numa Pompilius, who was chosen by the people, reigned forty-three years; after Numa, Tullus Hostilius thirty-two; and his successor, Ancus Marcius, twenty-four; after Marcius, Lucius Tarquinius, called Priscus, thirty-eight; Servius Tullius, who succeeded him, forty-four. And the slayer of Servius, Lucius Tarquinius, the tyrannical prince who, from his contempt of justice, was called Superbus, extended his reign to the twenty-fifth year. [3] As the reigns, therefore, of the kings amount to two hundred and forty-four years or sixty-one Olympiads, it follows necessarily that Romulus, the first ruler of the city, began his reign in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, when Charops at Athens was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon. For the count of the years requires this; and that each king reigned the number of years is shown in that treatise of mine to which I have referred.
[4] This, therefore, is the account given by those who lived before me and adopted by me concerning the time of the settlement of the city which now rules supreme. As to its founders, who they were and by what turns of fortune they were induced to lead out the colony, and any other details told concerning its settlement, all this has been related by many, and the greatest part of it in a different manner by some; and I, also, shall relate the most probable of these stories. They are as follows:
[76.1] When Amulius succeeded to the kingdom of the Albans, after forcibly excluding his elder brother Numitor from the dignity that was his by inheritance, he not only showed great contempt for justice in everything else that he did, but he finally plotted to deprive Numitor’s family of issue, both from fear of suffer punishment for his usurpation and also because of his desire never to be dispossessed of the sovereignty. [2] Having long resolved upon this course, he first observed the neighbourhood where Aegestus, Numitor’s son, who was just coming to man’s estate, was wont to follow the chase, and having placed an ambush in the most hidden part of it, he caused him to be slain when he had come out to hunt; and after the deed was committed he contrived to have
it reported that the youth had been killed by robbers. Nevertheless, the rumour thus concocted could not prevail over the truth which he was trying to keep concealed, but many, though it was unsafe to do so, ventured to tell what had been done. [3] Numitor was aware of the crime, but his judgment being superior to his grief, he affected ignorance, resolving to defer his resentment to a less dangerous time. And Amulius, supposing that the truth about the youth had been kept secret, set a second plan on foot, as follows: he appointed Numitor’s daughter, Ilia, — or, as some state, Rhea, surnamed Silvia, — who was then ripe for marriage, to be a priestess of Vesta, lest, if she first entered a husband’s house, she might bring forth avengers for her family. These holy maidens who were intrusted with the custody of the perpetual fire and with the carrying out of any other rites that it was customary for virgins to perform in behalf of the commonwealth were required to remain undefiled by marriage for a period of not less than five years. [4] Amulius was carrying out his plan under specious pretences, as if he were conferring honour and dignity on his brother’s family; for he was not the author of this law, which was a general one, nor, again, was his brother the first person of consideration whom he had obliged to yield obedience to it, but it was both customary and honourable among the Albans for maidens of the highest birth to be appointed to the service of Vesta. But Numitor, perceiving that these measures of his brother proceeded from no good intention, dissembled his resentment, lest he should incur the ill-will of the people, and stifled his complaints upon this occasion also.
Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79) Page 9