In this section, I will link the name of the river to the evidence of its possession by Etruscans and Latins, through the evidence provided by Livy. The idea that the Romans could control the finis might also be useful to help us comprehend the diverse attitude toward the Tiber when compared with the conceptual ‘line’ shared by the Etruscans and Latins. ‘Possessing’ a finis can provide diverse advantages, the principal of which is the control of passage points on the finis itself. As we can see, the Romans applied different strategies to the Tiber, rivers and natural features in general, considering them a connecting feature between their two sides and capable of joining two different areas.[2.2.8; 6.2.3, 6.2.7]
The first point allows me to determine that, in the Etruscan conception, any river – or at least the Tiber – was always in a state of possession. As the Tiber has been considered as finis, we will focus on its possession in Livy’s passages. The Augustan literary circle seems to have had common directions in considering the Italian geo-onomastic. When reminding us of the mythic origins of Mantua, Virgil
calls the Tiber ‘Thyrrenus Thybris’371 and three times as Tuscus amnis,372 because the provenance is from Etruria.373 Horace names the Tiber as Tuscus amnis374 and
Tuscus alveus,375 and when he talks to his friend Gaius Cilnius Mecenas, who had Etruscan origins, he names it ‘paterni fluminis ripae’.376 To the eyes of the Romans of the Early Empire, the northern bank of the Tiber still nominally belonged to the Etruscans, as it is shown in Pliny’s historical and geographical digression.377 Horace again explains that the Tiber ‘clashes’ with the northern bank:
Vidimus flauom Tiberim retortis litore Etrusco uiolenter undis.378
We saw the ‘blonde’ Tiberis waves hurled backwards from the Tuscan shore.
In the brief paragraph on Tiber, Pliny seems to have adopted the Augustan tradition, which differs from the Varronian one because the Albula would be the oldest name of the river: “Tiberis, ante Thybris appellatus et prius Albula”379 (The Tiber or Tiberis, formerly called Thybris, and previously Albula).380
371
Virg. Aen. 7.242. The Etruscan forms recall the ancestral name of the river: [th]eprinie (ET, Ve 3.41, 6th cent. B.C.), thefarie (ET, Cr 4.4 early 5th cent. B.C.), thefri(-sa) (ET, Pe 1.307, 2nd cent. B.C.:3), thefrina (ET, Ta 7.60, 4th cent. B.C.:3). On the Etruscan origin of the Tiber cf. Schulze 1933:247, 582.
372
Virg. Aen. 8.473; 10.199, 11.316. Cf. Perkell 1999:193.
373
Gnilka 2001:225.
374
Hor. Serm. 2.2.33. Tiberis, whose declention has got the accusative in -im and ablative in –i, would confirm the Etruscan origin of the name as the other terms borrowed from Etruscan: amnis,
amussis, axis, cratis, curis, glanis, rumis, turris, tussis, etc.: cf. Ernout 1930:22) e dopo da Bonfante
1985:204. 375 Hor. Carm. 1.20.5. 376 Hor. Carm. 3.7.28. 377
The role of the Tiber as finis is underlined several times in Pliny’s short statements (N.H. 3.53), which rises as a narrow stream, “media fere longitudine Appennini finibus Arretinorum profluit” (flowing down from nearly the central part of the chain of the Apennines, in the territory of the Arretini). The translation of this passage is quite difficult to understand. The meaning can be either the most academically considered (see above) or that the Tiber flowed ‘through’ the fines or boundaries. In this latter case, fines might be translated as boundaries or borders, as opposed to territories.
378
Hor. Odes 1.2.14. cf. Hor. Carm. Saec. 38; Serv. ad Aen. 11.598: s. ‘litus Tuscus’. Bianchi Bandinelli & Torelli 1976:33; Gnilka 2001:225.
379
Plin. N.H. 3.9.1.
380
However, Pliny’s (N.H. 3.9.4.) conception is slightly different from the Augustan view as the course of the Tiber ‘dirimens’ (divides or splits) different regions: “…Etruriam ab Vmbris ac Sabinis,
mox citra X’V’I’ p. urbis Veientem agrum a Crustumino, dein Fidenatem Latinum que a Vaticano dirimens” (winds along for a course of 150 miles, passing not far from Tifernum, Perusia, and
Ocriculum, and dividing Etruria from the Umbri and the Sabini, and then, at a distance of less than sixteen miles from the city, separating the territory of Veii from that of Crustuminum, and afterwards that of the Fidenates and of Latium from Vaticanum).
However in a later period, the Latins – due to their growing power (“tantum tamen
opes creuerant”381) – would have imposed their influence up to the southern bank of the Tiber, giving to it their own name: Albula.382 The etymological root of the Latin name Albula could be linked to the whitish colour of the river383 and therefore have a crucial meaning in the context of the bordering practices. Indeed, Servius384 had connected the name of the river with the white colour of the water, as well as the waters of the river Nar.385 The same root Alb- has been identified in several places across Romanised Europe, especially in the bordering practice areas, and the white colour may have been the main indicator of peripheral areas of the Empire, perhaps already in Livy’s time.386 Despite criticisms of this theory, it is therefore important to keep in mind the possibility that the colour might have been associated with some of the ‘bordering concepts’.387
381
Liv. 1.1.5.
382
The name recalls the colour white, in Latin: albus. It might be due to the fact that the deposits of sulphur (and calcium) in the Tiber basin did actually give the water a whitish colour, and this is what the Romans probably would have connected with the name (Virg. Aen 7. 82.: “oracula Fauni. adit
lucosque sub alta consulit Albunea, nemorum quae maxima sacro fonte sonat saeuamque exhalat opaca mephitim”). At Tivoli the water of the Anio is charged, not with sulphur, but with carbonate of
lime (Burn 1871:394). The sulphurous springs called Aquae Albula(e) were used medicinally (Vitr. 8.3; Mart. Ep. 1.12; Statius 1.3.74.) and are connected with the nymph Albunea (Hor. Odes 1.7.12.), who dwelt in the white cascades of the Anio next to the Tibur (Tivoli) (Virg. Aen. 7.83-4; Serv. ad
Aen. 8.332). Burn (1871:360-1) speculated that the ancient Aquae Albulae were sulphur-ponds more
than five miles from Tivoli on the plain below near Bagni, confirming the tradition (Statius 1.3.74) that the site is so attractive that the river-deities Anienus and Albula bathe in its waters and Tiburnus reclines in the shade of its trees. Tiburnus is mentioned because, like Anienus and Albula, he is a local deity and has a grove of his own. Hallam & Ashby (1914:125; cf. Dunbabin 1933 and Tilly 1934) point out the grove: “The ‘luculus’ is, of course, the grove where King Latinus went to consult Faunus as described by Virgil (Aen. 7.82: “Lucosque sub alta Consulit Albunea”). However, the true site of Virgil’s Albunea was discovered long ago by Bonstetten. It was a wood with a sulphur-spring in it at the Zolforata, 5 km from Lavinium (Pratica), the ancient city of the Laurentes (cf. Probus Georg. 1.1 “itaque etiam oraculum eius (sc. Fauni) in Albunea, Laurentinorum silua, est”; cf. Dunbabin 1933:56).
383
Ettema 2004:113.
384
Virg. Aen. 8.332: “albula nomen antiquum hoc nomen a colore habuit”; cf. Paul. Fest. 4L.
385
Enn. Ann. 260.5; Virg. Aen. 7.517: “sulpurea Nar albus aqua”.
386
The tribe of Albani along the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea, Alba Longa, the modern Albanians (south of Montenegro), but also with Albion (the ancient name of the British Isles) and Alba = Scotland or the river Albis, the modern Elbe (lat. Albis) in Germany. The confirmation of the colour white is detectable in the slavish languages as in Czech the name is Labe and the first segment of the river is also called ‘Bílé Labe’ (White Elbe). See on the etymology of the Elbe: Krahe 1954:52-3, 101; Laur 1981:118. However, Haupt (1925:16) had already affirmed that Alba cannot be combined with the Latin ‘albus’ (white) and that “the designation Albion is not derived from the chalk- cliffs of Dover, and the old name of the Tiber, Albula, cannot mean White River”. Ogilvie (1965:330- 1) following Haupt’s argument, supported the theory that Albula had nothing to do with Latin albus and also that the Alps would derive instead from a pre-Indo-European word, which meant ‘mountain’ or ‘stone’: cf. Eden 1975:108-9 and Bertoldi 1936.
387
To verify, the color red (rubrum) is present in other border areas and on toponyms which are connected with bordering areas: see Saxa Rubra in the war against Veii.
The practice of changing the name of the Tiber might even have affected political or ethnic identity, such as in the case of the Etruscans or Latins, when exerting their authority over this particularly sensitive area of Italy. And the undeniable duality which dominates this sensitive area of Italy and Rome’s origins is traceable in Piccaluga’s book, in reference to another mythical period when Silvanus on the Latin side and Jupiter on the Etruscan side shared the leadership in being the official protectors (divinities) of boundaries (termini).388 But while archaeology might have provided some confirmation of different stages in the relationship between Etruscans and Latins in the protohistoric age, unfortunately any conclusions drawn are currently limited and often disputed – in spite of the efforts of some scholars to construct a rough picture of them.389 Taking all this into consideration, the pax that included the Albula (Tiber) as finis between the two populations might have limited the Etruscan expansion in some way, as the name was later universally recognised as Tiber. Taking the definition of finis, the Tiber is confirmed as finis and not just in the Etruscan-Latin context.
Livy only rarely uses the verb habere (to have) to define the possession of a finis. [APPENDIX 2]He normally prefers the verb esse (to be) and those instances where
habere is used are limited to the case of Finis A.390 In using the verb esse, Livy seems almost to neutralise the value of finis by not assigning the possession to anyone, mainly when the finis might be disputed. However, Livy does entertain the possibility that a finis, particularly a river, might belong to someone. In his usual way of delimiting a population or a geopolitical area within two ‘natural features’ working
388
Piccaluga 1974:148: the Latin-Etruscan (Silvanus-Iuppiter) dualism on the notion of borders, s.
Silvanus orientalis and Vegoia’s prophecy.
389
At an early stage of its history, Veii reveals a propensity for inhuming people which corresponds with others who penetrated into Latium at the same time, probably by way of the Tiber roads on both sides of the river. Von Duhn (1924:368-9) notes that Faliscan cremation graves are away from the Tiber toward the West, while the strongest inhuming element is in places more accessible from the valley roads. For progress westward of the inhuming rite, see Sundwall 1932:167; Colini 1914:361. The change reaches Veii before the coast (Sundwall 1932:93). Variants of an opposing theory are put forward by Säflund (1938:27) and Pareti (1947:5). They contend that inhumation was the original Italic rite, and that graves of that type are older than cremation tombs on sites where the two are mixed from an early period. Their hypotheses deserve thoughtful consideration, but the question of the physical relation between the two types seems against them. Inhumation graves of the Forum break into cremation pits in such a way as to prove the priority of the latter (Scott 1929:25-6,36). The poor and conservative contents of the graves cannot be dated accurately enough to override such evidence. Cf. Holland 1949:290-1.
390
In the idiom ‘finem habere’: Liv. 33.35.12; 36.35.14; 37.26.10; 40.9.5.
as limits/outlines, Livy records that a population habuere (had/possessed) the fines, which corresponded with two rivers:
tum Senones, recentissimi advenarum, ab Utente flumine usque ad Aesim fines habuere.391
Then the Senones, the latest to come, had their fines from the river Utens all the way to the Aesis.392
Livy seems to place special emphasis on the presence of the Senones as recent arrivals (recentissimi advenarum) in the territory between the rivers Utens (modern Uso) and Aesis393 (modern Esino), and the verb habuere seems to be justified by their occupation, which came with no agreement on the fines.394 I insist on the name because – as Ogilvie pinpointed – the change of name from Thybris/ Thebris to Albula is crucial and “represents the victory of the Etruscan language (Thebris) over the indigenous”.395 However, is it just a victory of the language or a tangible possession, which is reflected in the name?
Tiber was chosen to define a territorial end (finis) with the aim of avoiding future wars. In other words, it was a process which had ancient roots, as Livy pinpoints, where both parties counterbalanced each other through the use of reciprocal power. And this polarity became embedded in Rome’s nature, as demonstrated by the double or possibly triple name given to the Tiber.The dualism between Etruscans and Latins concerning the Tiber is important in order to understand the way the Tiber worked as, or became, that complementary agreed line between two populations. The explanations outlined above for these two different traditions, which would seem to be the most reasonable, would have contributed to the ultimate authority wielded on this geographical area, due to the historical process of conquest, expanding and holding territories. This dichotomy between Latins and 391
Liv. 5.35.3.
392
Husband 1911:386.
393
On the name of the Aesis: Whatmough 1937:189.
394
The Aesis-Utens area is problematic and for this reason might have received a different approach from Livy. The river Aesis was the old ‘frontier’ of peninsular Italy, before it shifted to the Rubicon, which is the river next to the Utens. Probably Sulla shifted the boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy proper from the Aesis River to the Rubicon, which furnished his justification for extending the
pomerium, thus satisfying Seneca’s criterion: see Mommsen 1873:122; cf. Sumi 2002:426; Ewins
1955:76. The whole area between the two rivers (Ager Gallicus: see Mason 1992:77, n.11; Sherwin- White 1973:76,n.5) is clearly a sensitive area. On the line Arnus-Aesis as ‘bounday’ of Italy before Sulla: Hardy 1916:65-6. Is that the reason why Livy justifies the possession of the fines?
395
Ogilvie 1965:330 ff; cf. Eden 1975:109.
Etruscans, which in all likelihood deeply affected the Roman conception of finis, can be seen in the future relationships between Rome and her neighbours: the same Latins and Etruscans from which Rome inherited her historical and political background.