Aeneas before Virgil
more from Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities (text
taken from the Loeb volume of his works)
Book 1 chapter 72:
LXXII. 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,2 who was the leader of the colony and one of Aeneas’
sons; he adds that Aeneas had four sons, Ascanius, Euryleon,
Romulus and Romus. And Demagoras,3 Agathyllus and many
others agree with him as regards both the time and the leader of
the colony. But the author of the history of the priestesses
at Argos4 and of what happened in the days of each of them
says that Aeneas came into Italy from the land of the
Molossians with Odysseus5 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 Sigeum6 and some others agree with him. But
Aristotle, the philosopher, relates7 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,1 lying on the
Tyrrhenian sea. 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. Callias,2
who wrote of the deeds of Agathocles, says that Rome, 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 sons,
Romus, Romulus and Telegonus, ...and having built a city, gave
it the name of their mother. Xenagoras, the historian,3
writes that Odysseus and Circê had three sons, Romus,
Anteias and Ardeias, who built three cities and called them
after their own names.1 Dionysius of Chalcis2 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.
LXXIII. 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.3 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 many other
good offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them
his successors to some part of his kingdom. 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 Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather,
Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was
afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome, after
himself.1 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.2 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.3 He says that when Morges
reigned in Italy (which at that time comprehended all the
seacoast from Tarentum to Posidonia1), 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 Sicelus.” 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 what has already been said is
sufficient.
LXXIV. As to the last settlement or founding of the city, or
whatever we ought to call it, Timaeus of Sicily,2 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 Olympiad3; Lucius Cincius, a member of the senate,
places it about the fourth year of the twelfth Olympiad,4 and
Quintus Fabius in the first year of the eighth Olympiad.5 Porcius
Cato does not give the time according to Greek reckoning, but
being as careful as any writer in gathering the data 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,1 corresponds to the first year of the
seventh Olympiad.2 That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I
have shown in another treatise,3 where I have also shown how the
Roman chronology is to be synchronized with that of the Greeks.
For I did not think it sufficient, like Polybius of Megalopolis,4
to say merely that I believe Rome was built in the second year of
the seventh Olympiad,5 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. 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,6 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.7 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. This is proved in many other ways, but particularly
by the records of the censors, which the son receives in
succession from the father and takes great care to transmit to his
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.” 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.1
LXXV. 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. 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. 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.1 For the count of the years requires
this; and that each king reigned the number of years stated is
shown in that treatise of mine to which I have referred.
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 ...