Perspectives On and Of Livy's Tarpeia - EuGeStA

184 TaRa WeLCh
new husband (which would be required once the marriage became formalized),
while willingness to choose reflects more freedom and self-determination
38 . Livy’s women are situated at the point of conflict between these
two ideologies – women as objects, as subjects – and not surprisingly
the results are ambiguous: while fathers find themselves at risk in this
tense situation, and daughters also often suffer, husbands (or their nonespoused
analogues, i.e., Tatius) generally come out ahead 39 . In other
words, individuals and families lose some ground, but the state broadens
its citizen base. The only winner, in fact, is the groom – the one whose
social role is most beneficial to an expanding state.
Because women’s actions lead to the growth of the Roman state,
in some sense their choice of husbands over fathers is also a choice of
fatherland over fathers. In this way these women prefigure Brutus’ vivid
choice to be a statesman rather than a father (2.5.8). In his earliest book
Livy builds for his readers the notion that Rome’s growth and success was
a collective achievement. his women are part of that collective and add
to that achievement, even though its primary beneficiaries are men. at
the beginning of Book 2 Livy summarizes that securities of spouses and
children inspired the community feeling that enabled the state (2.1.5).
finally, the force of these Roman myths comes into sharp focus when
we compare them to similar stories from Greek myth. Greek myth is
rich with tales of girls caught between their fathers and their lovers, but
unlike their Roman analogues, loyalty swings both ways in the Greek
stories. Medea and scylla, for example, betray their fathers out of loyalty
to their husbands or potential husbands, but the danaids (except for
hypermestra), Procne, and antigone choose their natal families over
potential suitors. Contrast this with the general trend in Roman myth, in
which the Roman Tullia, horatia, and Lavinia, cleave to foreign men 40 .
Perhaps the difference lies in the ways these two cultures conceived of
their origins: Greek communities rooted their identity strongly in the
land they occupied; the athenians and Thebans even sprang from that
land itself. The Romans, on the other hand, had always been – and, as
imperialists, would always be – composed of someone else 41 .
38 — for various tensions or opportunities a women might feel as a fiancée or bride in a
variety of circumstances, see dixon 1992: 71-97 and 133-159, hersch 2010: 202, and Treggiari
1993: 13-36.
39 — alas for horatia’s alban fiancé.
40 — even Cloelia, a possible foil to this short list, is equivocal, because, whatever her motive
and outcome, she remains with Porsenna.
41 — dench’s discussions in Romulus’ Asylum (2005) treat Roman secondarity at length; see
especially her first chapter, on ethnographies (pp. 37-92).