Customer Reviews

The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264 BC) (The Routledge History of the Ancient World)

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Like Professor Cornell, I am a Romanist, and during the 1980s, I lived and worked in the old city. Doing so was a stimulus to read what was being written about archaic Rome by Italian and other scholars, and produced a sigh or two of discouragement: the ideas put forward in those works were not readily available to my students nor to non-academics who might have an interest in that period of Roman and Italian history. Professor Cornell has not only absorbed all those ideas, he has presented them and his own with clarity and insight, and has done so in a highly readable, occasionally piquant, style. If you're curious about the origin and early history of Rome, I can recommend no better introduction to and presentation of the best work being done, not to mention an insightful critique and development of much of it.

This is an excellent book that I think is primarily intended for a scholarly audience (experts in the field, professional historians and archaeologists, etc.) but is also very valuable to an interested amateur like myself.

Cornell goes through the early history of Rome and sets out what the evidence is and what we can reliably conclude from it. One of the best features of the book is his willingness, all too rare even among scholars, to recognize when the evidence is inconclusive and to admit that we have no way of knowing the answer to a particular question. He is also clear about the limitations of archaeological data, and recognizes the way it is often misused to support historical theses when, in fact, it is rather the histoprical ideas that allow for the interpretation of the archaeologucal data in the first place.

However, while Cornell is pretty good about presenting the narrative historical tradition, the book generally covers the history with fairly large brushstrokes and jumps from one large topic to another without trying to string together a coherent narrative. Because of this, this book is best used as a second reference on early Roman history. That is, it shouldn't be the first book you read on the topic. I think you'd be best served by first reading a good narrative history to provide the framework, and then read this work to fill in the details and show up any inaccuracies.

It is well written and suprisingly readable, not at all dry. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has some knowledge of early Roman history but would like to learn more about the "state of the art" in that field.

I've read this book twice. The reason I love it, aside from the inherent interest of the subject, is that Professor Cornell is so careful with the evidence. He starts out by telling us exactly what the evidence IS, as well as what it is not. He then discusses the major theories in light of the evidence. When a theory is clearly the result of muddy thinking, unsupported by the facts, he says so. This rigor is wonderful and makes the book a joy to read.

There are 15 chapters. From the first, introductory, chapter ("The Evidence") to the last ("Rome in the Age of the Italian Wars"), the book is well written and illuminates an era of history that has been dark for too long.

For once, I agree with every word of the editorial reviews above. Buy this book and you will treasure it as I do.

A book that was much needed in the field. Scholarly but not overly pedantic and certainly not impenetrable.
The author relies much archeology and offers no easy solutions to theoretical problems.
The conclusions offered are in various shades of gray depending on the reliability and amount of evidence. However the reader should be aware that certain theories are being pushed here with which many might disagree.
Rome certainly did not come from a monolithic source and the author provides a survey of the many cultures that inhabited that peninsula as well as the outside civilizations that colonized it. However the book is not without certain controversies.
One of the author's great strengths in this book is his knowledge of current archaeological discoveries Etruria and in Latium as well as period of orientalization and early Iron Age. Thus, the book's greatest strength is its careful synthesis of historical and archaeological data for the period preceding the republic; and it is likewise excellent concerning Roman external affairs and conquest of Italy. Perhaps the books biggest weakness is its insufficiently critical treatment of the ancient literary sources .
The book's 15 chapters are methodically presented and are augmented with very helpful illustrations and tables. A brief overview of human culture in Italy from the Bronze Age to the early Iron Age. The author's treatment of the importance of ascribing cultural difference between inhumation and cremation I personally found somewhat controversial.
In this reviewers opinion he rightly dismisses some of the value of the written tradition of the formation of Rome.
Further controversy is raised in chapter four with the authors contention that the clan did not proceed the city-state and heroic graves but were enmeshed together. It does give one something to think about.
Yet another controversy offered in this book which personally I take issue with is the minimization of the influence of the Etruscans on Roman culture.
Actually there is quite a bit to chew on here yet I do not what to dissuade the reader form picking it up. Just be aware that there is a lot of theory in this book some of which many academics might take issue.
One thing the book successfully establishes is that by the beginning of the early third century B.C. Rome had acquired the political structure which laid the foundations for its later greatness.

One would hope the reader after being inspired by this volume would look into authors that offer equally compelling alternative theories.
Highly recommended.

This is one of the best books I have ever read. And I do not mean just books about ancient Rome or history books. I have read it three times and just for the kick of it. I am neuroscientist and not a classical scholar but I love history and this is history writing at its best: scholarly, fair, witty, and elegantly written (sometimes donwright dazzling). Cornell lets the readers into his secret cabinet and shows them the raw materials the professional historian works with. Amazingly, this does not detract from the magic of the "story" but makes it all the more enthralling. Don't walk run and buy this book!

This volume of the Routledge History of the Ancient World by Cornell is simply brillant. I read it three times and I will surely read it again. It provides a fascinating comparison between the myths and legends of archaic Rome and the reality that lies behind it. One of the most beautiful examples is the part when Cornell analyses the historic bases of a figure like the Roman king Servius Tullus. He cites a stunning piece of scholarship of the emperor Claudius where he explains to his fellow Romans that Servius Tullus was called by the Estruscan Macstarna (which may mean in Latin "Magister" signifying that he was the right hand of the king serving as a magister equitus at that time of his career), information that lets you "feel history" when Cornell then makes you look at a drawing of an Estruscan wall painting showing possibly this Macstarna involved in some action of killing enemies. Everytime when I read this passage of the book I get a chicken skin...to my mind the author really understands to tell a story out of some facts that may themselves be rather dry.

The other reviewers have touched on the qualities of this book. I think you can guess my feelings from my title. As far as that goes, I will only say that Cornell is a graceful and lucid writer and an exemplar of how to weigh and present evidence.
What I want to do is to tell you a little more about some of the themes of the book which the other reviewers only touch upon.
Cornell's book was published in 1995. He was the first writer (that I know of) to try to sum up the results of contemporary archeological work and to lay out how that changed our understanding of the history of early Rome.
Our traditional understanding of that history comes from literary sources; above all Livy, but other historians such as Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, Plutarch and Fabius Pictor (whose writings we only know through summaries of his work in other writers). We also have the antiquarians such as Varro, the Fasti (the list of the consuls) and whatever other documents might exist. All present problems- not least that the purposes of historical writings at the time were far different from our times.
Against that traditional history, Cornell presents what we can glean from the archeological record.
He is extremely careful about this. He frequently asserts that the archeological record can only be understood on the basis of what we know from the traditional history. One of the pleasures, indeed one of the main values of the book for the non-historian (me! me! me!), is to read him weighing the evidence, arguing his point of view against other scholars and trying to understand the evidence in all its inherent ambiguity (polysemy?).
I want to emphasize that he is presenting some controversial ideas here. This book obviously challenged many of the orthodoxies of his field at the time. One of the other reviewers mentions Cornell's dismissing of the influence on the Etruscans on the Romans. It seems to still be a common interpretation of the evidence about the earliest period of Roman history that it culturally was heavily influenced by Etruscan culture and that the early kings were Etruscans.
Cornell is instead arguing for a Hellenistic "koine" (e.g., p. 163 or p. 167). He is suggesting that both the Romans and the Etruscans were influenced in that period by a dominant Greek culture that had begun to be felt in Italy at the time. This is probably the most controversial part of the book. I would love to read someone argue the other point of view. All I will say is that at times in this part of the book (Chapter 6 is central), Cornell's arguments seemed at his weakest. For example, on p. 169, Cornell asserts that "Formal dress, magisterial symbols, ceremonial trappings, ritual technicalities and architectural forms- these amount to little more than outward tokens". To which I can only say, "If you say so".
There is much else in the book that is utterly convincing. It is difficult to read Livy (or any one else on Roman history) for very long and not become discombobulated by the whole patrician/plebeian thing. Cornell sorts that out very lucidly. His basic argument is that the war of the orders was between two different elites. One was a traditional family based elite (the patricians), the other was formed by men of ambition and skill who sought leadership by channeling the dissatisfaction of the lower classes. Cornell argues that the Licinio-Sextian Laws were the turning point at which the two elites came to a working agreement and thereby created a new nobility which successfully ruled Rome for the next several hundred years (p. 340). I find this part of his argument conclusive.
Cornell is also somewhat controversial in his attitude toward traditional sources like Livy. Livy's is by far the most complete and detailed we have of this early phase of Roman history. I find Cornell's (generally positive) assessment of Livy's trustworthiness to be very convincing. But I should mention that Gary Forsythe, who has written another very well received history of this period of Roman history is much more skeptical of Livy (or so I understand, I have not read Forsythe yet). Cornell's book offers plenty of examples of places where he reads Livy with a skeptical eye (see, e.g., picked at random from my notes, p. 334).
In many ways, this is the perfect scholarly book. I don't care if you are an amateur historian or someone whose life has been devoted to early Rome (a noble fellow, you)this is a book you should know and read. You may not agree with Cornell but you will want to listen to, to discuss and to argue with him.
The one problem I have with the book is its age. Much of the archeological work that he references was unpublished at the time. It would be nice to have an updated bibliography. It would be nice to read how the work of the last 15 years has effected his opinions. Ergo, a new updated edition is needed.
Since I am a nervy guy, I wrote Prof. Cornell and asked about that possibility. He said that a new edition was being talked about but that he had to finish a current project on Roman historians. He also stated that he believes he would probably have to rewrite the whole thing.
So my suggestion is to read this version, write the publisher or Prof. Cornell if you would like to see an update and then read that when it comes out. That's what I plan to do.

An informative and thorough discussion of the history of early Rome. "The Early History of Rome" provides an intense discussion of archaeological and legendary evidence and attempts, with great success, to separate actual history from the legends. A must have book for any student of Rome and of things Roman. A standing ovation to T.J. Cornell for an excellent study.