Passing from great poetry to mere antiquarianism, we may spend a few moments over the legends of the kings. Here, however, we are on dangerous ground. The Etruscan dynasty of the Tarquins has some claim to historical backing, for that Etruscans ruled once in Rome is an ascertained fact, and the names of the last three kings, and one misunderstood title[1] have a true Etruscan ring; but these are not the people we are concerned with, for we know already that the Etruscans were matrilinear. The stories of the first four kings are perhaps the most worthless pseudo-folklore in the world, except the tales of the kings of Alba.[2] However, on the off chance of there being some scrap of real tradition among all the Hellenised inventions of grammarians and annalists, let us note that the king's successor is never his son. Here is the list, as given by Livy in his first book, with whom other authors agree in substance:
1. Romulus, and for part of the reign, Titus Tatius. No son of either king is mentioned.
2. Numa Pompilius, elected by the senate. A foreigner. No son, but a daughter, presumably by Egeria the nymph.
3. Tullus Hostilius, grandson of one of Romulus' officers. Elected by the people with the concurrence of the senate. No son mentioned. On his death "the power, as had been the custom from the very beginning, passed into the hands of the senate" (32, 1), and
4. Ancus Martius, son of Numa's daughter, is elected king. His sons are passed over (35) in favour of Tarquinius Priscus; i.e. the Etruscan conquest takes place.
- ↑ Servius Tullius' first name is probably unconnected with seruos, but a corruption of Etr. çerfio (prince). The story that his mother was a slave-woman is a bit of etymologising. Tarquinius is good Etruscan.
- ↑ For criticism, see the late J. H. Carter in Roscher's Lexikon, s.v. Romulus, and for more extensive treatment of the whole matter, Ettore Pais, Storia di Roma, pt. i. The latter goes perhaps rather too far in his destructive attitude towards the myths.
