PRIMER FORO INTERNACIONAL Mujeres Indígenas,

[FIG 13]Livy narrates the revenge sought by three Sabine cities, Caeninae,617 Antemnae and Crustuminum, following the abduction of some Sabine women, an act that had caused the greatest offence.618

Caeninenses Crustuminique et Antemnates erant ad quos eius iniuriae pars pertinebat. lente agere his Tatius Sabinique visi sunt: ipsi inter se tres populi communiter bellum parant. ne Crustumini quidem atque Antemnates pro ardore iraque Caeninensium satis se impigre movent; ita per se ipsum nomen Caeninum in agrum Romanum impetum facit. sed effuse vastantibus fit obvius cum exercitu Romulus levique certamine docet vanam sine viribus iram esse. exercitum fundit fugatque, fusum persequitur: regem in proelio obtruncat et spoliat; duce hostium occiso urbem primo impetu capit.619

The men of Caenina, Crustumium, and Antemnae, were those who had had a share in the wrong. It seemed to them that Tatius and the Sabines were procrastinating, and without waiting for them these three tribes arranged for a joint campaign. But even the Crustuminians and Antemnates moved too slowly to satisfy the burning anger of the Caeninenses, and accordingly that nation invaded alone the Roman territory. But while they were dispersed and engaged in pillage, Romulus appeared with his troops and taught them, by an easy victory, how ineffectual is anger without strength. Their army he broke and routed, and pursued it as it fled; their king he killed in battle and despoiled; their city, once their leader was slain, he captured at the first assault.

Only the inhabitants of Caenina (Caeninaenses) took action, with impatience and anger (pro ardore iraque), invading Roman territory (in agrum Romanum

impetum facit). The subsequent battle saw the Romans emerge victorious, and

Romulus did not limit himself to victory on the field. He chased the fleeing enemy’s army and, having caught the opposing king, slew him (exercitum fundit

fugatque, fusum persequitur: regem in proelio obtruncat). Livy does not give as

much detail in his account as is found in Plutarch’s narration above, but

assume the position of Jupiter Feretrius is indicated by the fact that Augustus had the scene of Romulus dedicating spolia opima engraved on the door of the temple of Mars Ultor (Ovid, Fasti 5.559-66). In 1913 a painting of Romulus shouldering the spoils of Acron was found on the Via dell’Abbondanza in Pompeii. (Edwards, Gadd & Hammond, et al. 1989:177, fig. 2). Also, in the forum of Pompeii was found an elogium to Romulus (CIL 1:283). In the temple of Mars Ultor were deposited the Roman standards which Crassus had lost to the Parthians and which Augustus had recovered through peaceful negotiations. See Springer 1954:27-28, 31-32.

617

Plin. N.H. 3.68: In prima regione praeterea fuere in Latio clara oppida Satrtictum Pometia

Scaptia Politorium Tellenae Tifata Caenina Ficana Crustumeriium Ameriola Maedulliun Corniculum, Saturnia ubi nunc Roma est, Antipolis quod nunc Ianiculum in parte Romae, Antemnae Camerium Collatia Amitinum Norbe Sulmo.

618

McPherson 2010:21.

619

Liv. 1.10.1-4.

otherwise the distinction between the two authors’ accounts may not appear to be extremely marked. On the one hand, Livy seems to focus on a sort of symbolism, choosing to condense his account and centre the attention of the audience on specific keywords. On the other hand, Plutarch gives many more exhaustive details when telling the story, which leads to the setting up of the first temple of Rome.620 But a closer analysis reveals deeper differences. In Plutarch’s version, the Romulean victory invokes substantially different details. The two kings, Acron from Caeninae and Romulus, had agreed on a pact before the fight: they would challenge and fight each other, while their armies would remain quiet under arms (_{   }     ).621 Initially, this procedure recalls not just the duel between Horatii and Curiatii, but chiefly the pact struck by the fetials before the combat between Rome and Alba.[4.3.2] Plutarch’s passage provides both diverse information and a political/territorial message, hardly detectable in Livy. Livy seems to take for granted or disregard the importance of Plutarch’s sources, which is most evident in the last of Romulus’ semiotic invocations to Jupiter. More importantly, in Livy and Plutarch the single parts of the fights are inverted. In Livy, Romulus triumphs over the Caeninaenses and

then he slays their king (exercitum fundit fugatque, […] regem in proelio obtruncat), while in Plutarch’s narrative, first he kills the king in one-to-one

combat, and then he chases the opposing army (_{} )622 This is not a simple victory; we are facing a different concept of conquest, with the population being moved from their previous residence to Rome. This is made clear in Plutarch’s later lines: after defeating Acron, Romulus captured the Caeninenses, not harming them, but on the contrary, ordering them to tear down their dwellings and accompany him to Rome, where, he promised that they would be citizens with equal rights (_

620

Florus 1.1.11: Spolia insuper opima de rege Agrone Feretrio Iovi manibus suis rex reportavit.

621

Plut. Rom. 16.4.

622

Plut. Rom. 17.1.

  623

The occupation of the enemy territories and cities is confirmed by a third version of the story, given by Dionysius. Here Romulus defeats two allied cities together, Caeninae and Antemnae. Then, in celebrating his triumph, he summoned the inhabitants of the two cities to Rome, promising a merciful solution: Roman colonists would have to be sent to the two cities and their inhabitants invited to migrate to Rome (which 3000 of them immediately did).624 Livy is keen to make clear that a political distinctiveness existed between the cities of Caeninae and Rome. They both had an inhabited centre and their territories were distinct from one another, as Livy states: on their own account, men of Caeninae (ita per se ipsum nomen Caeninum) made an attack (impetum

facit) upon Roman territory (in agrum Romanum).625 Yet this distinction between territories was undoubtedly removed when Romulus decided to grant Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of the defeated cities (according to Plutarch and Dionysius).

Clearer and more evident elements relevant to the existence of ‘fines’ between Caeninae and Rome have been provided by Propertius’ elegy, probably one of the most important passages on the temple of Jupiter Feretrius.626

Now I begin to reveal the origins of Feretrian Jupiter and the triple trophies won from three chieftains. I climb a steep path, but the glory of it gives me strength: I never delight in wreathes plucked on easy slopes.

Nunc Iovis incipiam causas aperire Feretri armaque de ducibus trina recepta tribus. magnum iter ascendo, sed dat mihi gloria vires: non iuvat e facili lecta corona iugo.

imbuis exemplum primae tu, Romule, palmae huius, et exuvio plenus ab hoste redis,

tempore quo portas Caeninum Acrona petentem victor in eversum cuspide fundis equum.

Acron Herculeus Caenina ductor ab arce,

Romulus, you set the pattern first for this prize, and returned burdened with enemy spoils, victorious at the time when Caeninian Acron was attempting the gates of Rome, whom you spilled with your spear from his fallen mount. Acron the chieftain from Caenina"s citadel, descendant of Hercules, was once the scourge of your country, Rome. He dared to hope for spoils from

623

Plut. Rom. 17.2.

624

Dion. Hal. 2.35; Liv. 1.11.2.

625

Liv. 1.1.3.

626

Prop. 4.10:1-48 Templum Jovi Feretri.

Roma, tuis quondam finibus horror erat. hic spolia ex umeris ausus sperare Quirini ipse dedit, sed non sanguine sicca suo. hunc videt ante cavas librantem spicula turres Romulus et votis occupat ante ratis:

“Iuppiter, haec hodie tibi victima corruet Acron”. voverat, et spolium corruit ille Iovi.627

Quirinus’s shoulders, but gave his own, not un-moistened by his blood. Romulus saw him, testing his spear against the hollow towers, and anticipated him with a pre- destined vow: “Jupiter this Acron falls as a victim today to you”. He vowed it and Acron fell as Jupiter’s spoil.

In Propertius, different elements recalling the existence of bordering practices have also been emphasised by Welch. In his article, the scholar primarily points out the importance of the ‘spolia optima’ preserved in the temple of Jupiter.628 In his analysis he also briefly deconstructs Propertius’ passage, emphasising different scenarios, which are both part of the narration and serve also as distinctive delimitation of reciprocal sovereignty.629 In Propertius’ poetry, Acron, descendant of Hercules, the chieftain from Caenina, when leaving his Citadel (Acron Herculeus Caenina ductor ab arce), was once a cause of fear along Rome’s borders (Roma, tuis quondam finibus horror erat).630 The latter passage is reminiscent of the Livian in agrum Romanum impetum facit but with an explicit reference to the borders (finibus) rather than to territory (agrum): Caeninae and its king Acron were responsible for the limiting, curbing, and inducing of fear on the Roman borders. Acron represents a real danger for the integrity of Rome as he was attempting to assault the gates of Rome (tempore

quo portas …petentem).631 Romulus fought within sight of his own arx, in defence of his own hollowed towers (cauae turres), which Acron boldly attacked, leaving the arx of Caenina (hunc uidet ante cauas librantem spicula

turres Romulus et uotis occupat tante rates).632 The gates and towers are elementally linked with the city’s wall, the last bulwark against the conquest of 627 _{Prop. 4.10:1-16.}

628

Welch 2005.

629

Cf. the poetic fragment in Terent. Maur. 2632-3: opima adposui senex Amori arma Feretrio.

630

Prop. 4.10.9-10. Three more references seems to refer to boundary lines in Propertius. At 4.10.31: At Veii the situation is the reverse of that at Caeninae; Tolumnius is on the defensive in sight of his own arx, above the gateway to which Cossus advances for the parley (forte super

portae dux Veiens astitit arcem). Cf. Richmond 1916:112. Propertius (4.10.23-4) attests that

before the war against Veii there was no sound of war over the Tiber, the furthest conquered city was Nomentum and three iugers from Cora (necdum ultra Tiberim belli sonus, ultima

praeda Nomentum et captae iugera terna Corae). While at Prop. 4.10.23-40, Claudius threw

Viridomarus and his army back when they crossed the Rhine (Claudius a Rheno traiectos arcuit

hostis). Cf. also Bettenworth 2002:125, n.18.

631

Prop. 4.10.7.

632

Prop. 4.10.13. Richmond 1916:111-2.

the city. But they are also the element of distinction between the city and the surrounding territory (ager), forming a structural boundary, a type of ring around the city, of a similar shape to the ager around the city walls. Thus we may affirm through the comparison of the Livian and Propertian passages that the arx is considered the last rampart in defence of the City. The arx was positioned inside the city and possibly surrounded by walls; beyond the walls we find the

ager and over the ager, the fines.[3.3.3; 4.2.3] Once Rome conquered her first territory, may we consider the fact that, in joining the two (or three) political and territorial entities, the fines of Rome were also modified?