Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T00:18:00.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek Historical Influence on Early Roman History*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2017

Matthew Trundle
Matthew Trundle*
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland M.Trundle@Auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study employs a comparative approach using Greek models of historical enquiry, especially those of Herodotus, to illustrate how Romans prior to the Punic Wars, and indeed as early as the fifth and fourth centuries BC, might have developed their own historical consciousness and historical traditions concerning their early past in much the same way as we know the Greeks had done by the fifth century BC. What follows is not at all new. Many have identified Roman historical and historiographical roots, connections, and even parallels with Greek history and historians.1 What follows reiterates those connections, explicitly by assessing how Herodotus presented his inquiries to his Greek audience, laying the foundations for the discipline of historia, and then by examining specifically the story of the Fabii at the Cremera in Livy, Dionysius and Diodorus. Through this one historical example, I hope to show that the roots of genuine historical thought can be found in the sources of our sources for early Roman traditions. Despite the fact that these traditions appear in works written much later than the events they describe, the nature of the stories preserved in our extant accounts suggests similar historiographical roots and interest as those preserved by Herodotus for the Greeks in the stories he told in his Histories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 51: Thematic Issue: Politics and Power in Early Rome 509-264 BC , 2017 , pp. 21 - 32
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am very grateful to the external reader for presenting such a thorough and informed response to my original draft. This paper is much the better for their comments and includes a far richer bibliography in addition. All errors naturally remain my own.

References

Bakker, E. J. (2002), ‘The Making of History: Herodotus’ Historiês Apodexis ’, in E. J. Bakker, H. van Wees, and I. J. F. de Jong (eds), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. 3-32. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, M. (1993), ‘Looking (Harder) for Roman Myth: Dumézil, Declamation and the Problems of Definition’, in F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft: Das Paradigma Roms. 44-64. Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chassignet, M. (1996), L’Annalistique Romaine, I: Les Annales des Pontifes. L’Annalistique Ancienne. Paris.Google Scholar
Chassignet, M. (2003), L’Annalistique Romaine, II: L’Annalistique Moyenne. Paris.Google Scholar
Cornell, T. J. (1982), Review of T. P. Wiseman, Clio’s Cosmetics , JRS 72, 203-206.Google Scholar
Cornell, T. J. (1995), The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars c. 1000-264 BC. London.Google Scholar
Darbo-Peschanski, C. (2007), ‘The Origin of Greek Historiography’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. 27-38. London.Google Scholar
Derderian, K. (2001), Leaving Words to Remember. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewald, C. (2002), ‘“I didn’t give my own genealogy”: Herodotus and the Authorial Persona’, in E. J. Bakker, H. van Wees, and I. J. F. de Jong (eds), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. 267-289. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillery, J. (2015), ‘Roman Historians and the Greeks: Audiences and Models’, in A. Feldherr (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. 77-107. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. (2007), Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, M. A. (1998), ‘Simonides, Ephorus, and Herodotus on the Battle of Thermopylae’, CQ 48.2, 365-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucher, A. (2000), ‘Nature et formes de l’«histoire tragique» à Rome’, Latomus 59.4, 773-801.Google Scholar
Frier, B. W. (1979), Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum. The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition. Rome.Google Scholar
Gentili, B. and G. CerriCerri, G. (1975), Le teorie del discorso storico nel pensiero greco e la storiografia romana arcaica. Rome.Google Scholar
Gould, J. (1989), Herodotus. London.Google Scholar
Hart, J. (1982), Herodotus and Greek History. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Hartog, F. (2000), ‘The Invention of History: The Prehistory of a Concept from Homer to Herodotus’, H&T 39, 384-395.Google Scholar
Holleman, A. W. J. (1976), ‘Myth and Historiography: The Tale of the 306 Fabii’, Numen 23.3, 210-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, F. (1949), Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens. Oxford.Google Scholar
Lateiner, D. (1989), The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marincola, J. (2001), Greek Historians. Oxford.Google Scholar
Mazzarino, S. (1966), Il pensiero storico classico II. Rome-Bari.Google Scholar
Mehl, A. (2011), Roman Historiography. Oxford.Google Scholar
Münzer, F. (1909), ‘Fabius’, RE 6, 1739-1887.Google Scholar
Musti, D. (1970), ‘Tendenze nella storiografia romana e greca su Roma arcaica: studî su Livio e Dionigi d’Alicarnasso’, QUCC 10, 3-159.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, R. M. (1965), A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5. Oxford.Google Scholar
Pais, E. (1906), Ancient Legends of Roman History, translated by M. E. Cosenza. London.Google Scholar
Pais, E. and J. BayetBayet, J. (1926), Histoire romaine, 1: Des origines à l’achèvement de la conquête (133 avant J.-C.). Paris.Google Scholar
Pearson, L. (1987), The Greek Historians of the West. Timaeus and His Predecessors. Atlanta.Google Scholar
Poucet, J. (1987), ‘Temps mythique et temps historique. Les origines et les premiers siècles de Rome’, Gerión 5, 69-85.Google Scholar
Purcell, N. (2003), ‘Becoming Historical: The Roman Case’, in D. Braund and C. Gill (eds), Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome. 12-40. Exeter.Google Scholar
Richard, J.-Cl. (1989), ‘ L’affaire du Crémère: recherches sur l’évolution et le sens de la tradition’, Latomus 48, 312-325.Google Scholar
Richard, J.-Cl (1989), ‘Trois remarques sur l’épisode du Crémère’, Gerión 7, 65-73.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. H. (2012), The Fabii and the Gauls: Studies in Historical Thought and Historiography in Republican Rome. Stuttgart.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbloom, D. S. (1994), ‘Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theatre: Phrynichus’ Production of the Destruction of Miletus’, Philologus 137, 159-196.Google Scholar
Scapini, M. (2011), Temi greci e citazioni da Erodoto nelle storie di Roma arcaica. Nordhausen.Google Scholar
Smith, C. J. (2004), ‘ Adfectatio Regni in the Roman Republic’, in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny. 49-64. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2000), Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. (1979), Clio’s Cosmetics. Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Leicester.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. (1994), Historiography and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture. Exeter.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. (1995), Remus: A Roman Myth. Cambridge.Google Scholar