Roman Kingship

Christopher Smith
{"title":"Roman Kingship","authors":"Christopher Smith","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Romans developed an account of their early history which was organized by the reigns of seven kings. By the 1st century bce, they had settled on a standard chronology for these kings, and in the following sequence: Romulus 753–717, Numa Pompilius 716–674, Tullus Hostilius 673–642, Ancus Marcius 641–617, Tarquinius Priscus 616–578, Servius Tullius 578–534, Tarquinius Superbus 534–509. It is clear from archaeological evidence that Rome from the 8th to the 6th century bce was in a period of significant growth and transformation. There are a number of exciting finds which have been related to the historical account. This account however was the product of a long period of development, and the narrative as it developed came to reflect the contemporary concerns of Roman politics. So research on Roman kingship has to take account of both the possibility of genuine history underlying the account, and the literary and artistic motivations which led to the transformations of the story over time. The relationship between these two is the subject of significant methodological discussion, on a spectrum from attempts to directly relate the historical account to archaeological finds, to significantly more skeptical claims that connections are coincidental and that the historical record is wholly unreliable. The third strand of investigation is institutional history and includes the controversy over the so-called leges regiae, the alleged legal precursors to the codification of law in the Twelve Tables from the mid-5th century bce, and the transformation of the Roman constitution into one characterized by shared time-limited office-holding. A quite different approach sees the kings as encoding deep mythological structures, and argues for a reconceptualization of the early history of Rome as a mythical rather than a historical sequence. Although this has been less popular recently, aspects of this scholarly approach have been influential in other fields of study. This is particularly true of social anthropology and the history of religion, where Dumézil’s classification of the Roman kings has been influential but controversial (see section Roman Kings and Indo-European Mythology).","PeriodicalId":82164,"journal":{"name":"Nigeria and the classics","volume":"63 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigeria and the classics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Romans developed an account of their early history which was organized by the reigns of seven kings. By the 1st century bce, they had settled on a standard chronology for these kings, and in the following sequence: Romulus 753–717, Numa Pompilius 716–674, Tullus Hostilius 673–642, Ancus Marcius 641–617, Tarquinius Priscus 616–578, Servius Tullius 578–534, Tarquinius Superbus 534–509. It is clear from archaeological evidence that Rome from the 8th to the 6th century bce was in a period of significant growth and transformation. There are a number of exciting finds which have been related to the historical account. This account however was the product of a long period of development, and the narrative as it developed came to reflect the contemporary concerns of Roman politics. So research on Roman kingship has to take account of both the possibility of genuine history underlying the account, and the literary and artistic motivations which led to the transformations of the story over time. The relationship between these two is the subject of significant methodological discussion, on a spectrum from attempts to directly relate the historical account to archaeological finds, to significantly more skeptical claims that connections are coincidental and that the historical record is wholly unreliable. The third strand of investigation is institutional history and includes the controversy over the so-called leges regiae, the alleged legal precursors to the codification of law in the Twelve Tables from the mid-5th century bce, and the transformation of the Roman constitution into one characterized by shared time-limited office-holding. A quite different approach sees the kings as encoding deep mythological structures, and argues for a reconceptualization of the early history of Rome as a mythical rather than a historical sequence. Although this has been less popular recently, aspects of this scholarly approach have been influential in other fields of study. This is particularly true of social anthropology and the history of religion, where Dumézil’s classification of the Roman kings has been influential but controversial (see section Roman Kings and Indo-European Mythology).
罗马王权
罗马人根据七位国王的统治整理了他们的早期历史。到公元前1世纪,他们已经确定了这些国王的标准年表,顺序如下:罗穆卢斯753年至717年,努玛·庞皮利乌斯716年至674年,图卢斯673年至642年,安库斯·马西乌斯641年至617年,塔尔奎尼乌斯普利库斯616年至578年,塞尔维乌斯图利乌斯578年至534年,塔尔奎尼乌斯苏布尔534年至509年。从考古证据可以清楚地看出,公元前8世纪到6世纪的罗马正处于一个显著增长和变革的时期。有许多与历史记载有关的令人兴奋的发现。然而,这种叙述是长期发展的产物,随着叙述的发展,它反映了当时罗马政治的关注。因此,对罗马王权的研究必须考虑到真实历史的可能性,以及导致故事随着时间变化的文学和艺术动机。这两者之间的关系是方法论讨论的重要主题,从试图将历史记载与考古发现直接联系起来,到明显更加怀疑的说法,即联系是巧合,历史记录完全不可靠。调查的第三个方面是制度历史,包括对所谓的leges regiae的争论,所谓的leges regiae是公元前5世纪中期《十二表法》中法律编纂的先驱,以及罗马宪法转变为一个以共享有时间限制的职位为特征的宪法。另一种截然不同的观点认为,国王是深层神话结构的编码,并主张将罗马早期历史重新概念化,将其视为神话,而不是历史序列。虽然最近不太流行,但这种学术方法在其他研究领域也有影响。在社会人类学和宗教史上尤其如此,dumsamzil对罗马国王的分类很有影响力,但也有争议(参见罗马国王和印欧神话部分)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信