Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:14:19.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeneas and the twins: the development of the Roman foundation legend1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

T. J. Cornell
T. J. Cornell
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is often observed that the familiar story of the origins of Rome appears to combine two distinct and incompatible legends: that of Aeneas, and that of Romulus and Remus. The first of these was in origin a development of a Greek story, with its roots in the epic tradition. Aeneas, the son of Venus and Anchises, escaped from Troy with his family and friends and after a series of adventures arrived in Italy where he founded Rome. The other story, that of Romulus and Remus, was localised in Latium. Romulus and Remus were the twin sons of the god Mars and Rea Silvia, daughter of a king of Alba Longa. On the orders of their grandfather they were cast into the Tiber. The river happened to be in flood, and when the waters receded the boat containing the infants was left high and dry at the foot of the Palatine, under a fig tree later known as the ficus Ruminalis. There they were suckled by a she-wolf, whose den was the near-by cave of the Lupercal. Rescued by shepherds, the boys grew up and after the death of Remus in suspicious circumstances Romulus founded a city on the Palatine, where his original dwelling, the casa Romuli, was preserved in later times.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 21 , 1975 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 2 The incompatibility of the two stories is noted for example by Ogilvie, R. M., A commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), p. 32Google Scholar; Schröder, W. A., M. Porcius Cato. Das erste Buch der Origines (Meisenheim am Glan, 1971), p. 61Google Scholar. These two books contain useful discussions of the Roman foundation legends. There is of course an enormous bibliography on the subject. I list here a few of the more important works consulted for this study. They will henceforth be referred to in the notes by abbreviations which will, I hope, be self-explanatory. Niebuhr, B. G., History of Rome2, trans. Thirlwall, C. (London, 1853)Google Scholar; Schwegler, A., Römische Geschichte 1 (Tübingen, 1853)Google Scholar; Lewis, G. C., An inquiry into the credibility of the early Roman history (London, 1855)Google Scholar; Mommsen, T., ‘Die Remuslegende’, Hermes XVI (1881), 1–23Google Scholar (= Gesammelte Schriften 4, pp. 1–20Google Scholar); Niese, B., ‘Die Sagen von der Gründung Roms‘, Historische Zeitschrift LIX (1888), 481–506Google Scholar; Kretschmer, P., ‘Remus und Romulus’, Glotta 1 (1909), 288–303Google Scholar; Carter, J. B., ‘Romulus, Romus, Remus’, in Roschers mythologisches Lexikon 4 (1909)Google Scholar, coll. 164–208; Rosenberg, A., ‘Romulus’, in P.-W. 1A (1914)Google Scholar, coll. 1074–1104; Carcopino, J., La Louve du Capitole (Paris, 1925)Google Scholar; Malten, L., ‘Aineias’, Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft XXIX (1931), 33–59Google Scholar; Hoffmann, W., Rom und die griechische Welt im 4. Jhdt (Philologus Suppbd. XXVII. I, Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar; Wikén, E., Die Kunde der Hellenen von dem Lande und den Völkern der Apenninenhalbinsel bis 300 v.Chr. (Lund, 1937)Google Scholar; Perret, J., Les origines de la légende troyenne de Rome (Paris, 1942)Google Scholar; Bömer, F., Rom und Troia: Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte Roms (Baden-Baden, 1951)Google Scholar; Bickermann, E. J., ‘Origines Gentium’, Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gigon, O., ‘Zur Geschichtsschreibung der römischen Republik’, in Festschrift A. Debrunner (Bern, 1954), pp. 151–69Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die trojanischen Urahnen der Römer (Basle, 1957)Google Scholar; Schauenburg, K., ‘Aeneas und Rom’, Gymnasium LXVII (1960), 176–91Google Scholar; Classen, C. J., ‘Zur Herkunft der Sage von Romulus und Remus’, Historia XII (1963), 447–57Google Scholar (and idem, in Philologus CVI (1962), 174–204Google Scholar, and Historia XIV (1965), 385–403)Google Scholar; Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes Kyros und Romulus (Meisenheim am Glan, 1964)Google Scholar; Kramer, H. J., ‘Die Sage von Romulus und Remus in der lateinischen Literatur’, in Synusia: Festgabe W. Schadewaldt (Pfullingen, 1965), pp. 355–402Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, 1965)Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage von der Gründung Roms (Sb. Heidelb. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl., Heidelberg, 1968)Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, N.J., 1969)Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die Struktur des voretruskischen Römerstaates (Heidelberg, 1974)Google Scholar.

page 1 note 3 On these sites see the references collected in Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T., A topographical dictionary of ancient Rome (London, 1929), pp. 208 and 329Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Ficus Ruminalis’ and ‘Lupercal’.

page 2 note 1 Dion. Hal. 1. 79. 11; cf. Platner, –Ashby, , Topogr. Dict., pp. 101 f.Google Scholar, s.v. ‘casa Romuli’.

page 2 note 2 Class. Phil, XLVII (1952), 65–81Google Scholar; cf. also the remarks of Niese, B., Hist. Zeitschr. LIX (1888), 485 f.Google Scholar; Rose, H. J., A handbook of Greek mythology (London, 1928), p. 306CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 2 note 3 These categories of material formed the basis of Greek historical writing about the remote past, as Polybius informs us, 9. 1. 4; cf. 12. 26d. 2, with reference to Timaeus; 34. 1. 3–5 = Strabo 10.3.5, p. 465 C (on Eudoxus and Ephorus); cf. Hal., Dion.Ep. ad Pomp. 6.4Google Scholar (on Theopompus), etc.

page 2 note 4 Diod. 2 28–39; Strabo 3. 5. 5, p. 171 C; Arrian, , Indica 5. 8 f.Google Scholar; 7. 5 f.; 8. 4f.; etc. (from Megasthenes). Cf. Bickermann, , Class. Phil, XLVII (1952), 79Google Scholar n. 51.

page 2 note 5 Polyphemus and Galatea: Callimachus fr. 378 with Pfeiffer's note; Timaeus, , F. Gr. Hist. 566 FGoogle Scholar. 69 with Jacoby's Comm. ad loc. Son of Heracles: Diod. 5. 24. 2–3; Dion. Hal. 14. 1. 3–5; Parthenius 30, etc.

page 2 note 6 Herodotus 1. 94; followed for example by Timaeus, , F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 62Google Scholar; other versions in Dion. Hal. 1. 38, etc.

page 2 note 7 An autochthonous origin is implied for example in the story of Tages, one of the founders of the Etruscan religion, who sprang from the soil of Tarquinia. See Cicero, , de Div. 2. 50Google Scholar; Ovid, , Met. 15. 553 ff.Google Scholar; Censorinus, , de Die Nat. 4. 13Google Scholar; Lyd., Joh., De Ost., 2–3Google Scholar. Discussion in Müller, K. O.–Deecke, W., Die Etrusker (Stuttgart, 1877), 11, 23 ff.Google Scholar, 39 ff.; Pareti, L., Le origini etrusche (Florence, 1926), pp. 13 ff.Google Scholar; Pallottino, M., L'origine degli Etruschi (Rome, 1947), pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar Whether the famous statement of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1. 30) represents a tradition or a scholarly conjecture is uncertain. The latter view is taken by Bickermann, , Class. Phil, XLVII (1952), 69Google Scholar; general discussion by Scullard, H. H., in Ancient society and institutions, Studies presented to V. Ehrenberg (London, 1966), pp. 225–31Google Scholar, and The Etruscan cities and Rome (London, 1967), pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar Some curious ideas in Musti, D., Tendenze nella storiografia…su Roma arcaica (Quaderni Urbinati X, Urbino, 1970), pp. 7 ff., 18 ffGoogle Scholar. On Tarchon see Cn. Gellius fr. 7P; A. Caecina and Verrius Flaccus ap. Schol. Veron. ad Verg, . Aen. 10. 200Google Scholar; Verg, . Aen. 8. 481 ff.Google Scholar; 10. 290 ff.; 11. 729 ff.; Italicus, Silius, Pun. 8. 472 ff.Google Scholar; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ταρχώνιον and Ταρκυνία; and refs. cited below, notes 1, 2, 3.

page 3 note 1 Lycophron, , Alexandra 1245 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Dion. Hal. 1.28.1; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ταρχώνιον. The source of Lycophron here cannot be Timaeus in view of F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 62. See Jacoby, Comm. ad loc. and n. 324; Perret, J., Les origines, pp. 356 ff.Google Scholar

page 3 note 2 Cato, , Origines fr. 45 P.Google Scholar

page 3 note 3 Strabo 5. 2. 2, p. 219C.

page 3 note 4 For the acceptance of the Lydian story by the Etruscans see Tacitus, , Ann. 4. 55Google Scholar. The fact that Tarchon appeared as son of Tyrrhenus in the Origines of Cato (fr. 45 P) is probably a sign that the Greek version had by then been integrated into the Etruscan national tradition. A parallel example is provided by the case of the Sabines. There was a story that the Sabines were descended from the Spartans (Cato, , Origines fr. 50, 51 PGoogle Scholar = Cn. Gellius fr. 10 P; Ovid, , Fasti 1. 260Google Scholar; 3. 230; Italicus, Silius, Punica 2. 8Google Scholar; 8. 412; cf. Bérard, J., La colonisation grecque2 (Paris, 1957), pp. 467 f.)Google Scholar. Strabo tells us that this notion had been invented by the citizens of Tarentum in the fourth century B.C. (5. 4. 12, p. 250 C); but we happen to know that the Sabines themselves were retailing this ‘tradition’ in the time of Cato the Elder (Origines fr. 50 P = Dion. Hal. 2.49. 2–5 ). See Bickermann, , Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 74Google Scholar; Rawson, E. D., The Spartan tradition in European thought (Oxford, 1969), p. 99Google Scholar. I am not convinced by the contrary view of Poucet, J., ‘Les origines mythiques des Sabins’, in Études étrusco-italiques (Louvain, 1963), pp. 155 ff.Google Scholar, and Mazzarino, S., Il pensiero storico classico 2 (Bari, 1966), pp. 89 ff.Google Scholar Concerning the influence of hellenocentric legends on local traditions in Italy, see, apart from Bickermann, A. Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. I, 81Google Scholar.

page 3 note 5 Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 2 = Hellanicus, , F. Gr. Hist. 4 F. 84Google Scholar, and Damastes of Sigeum, F. Gr. Hist. 5 F. 3Google Scholar.

page 3 note 6 Lycophron, , Alexandra 1232 f.Google Scholar; Eratosthenes, , F. Gr. Hist. 241 F. 45Google Scholar. Doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the Eratosthenes fragment, e.g. by Bickermann, , Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 79 n. 23Google Scholar; but there seems no justification for this. Eratosthenes' knowledge of Rome is shown by Strabo 1. 4. 9, p. 66 C, who quoted him as saying that Rome and Carthage had marvellous constitutions: . In general see Jacoby, , Comm. on 241 F. 45Google Scholar, and Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 1, 457 and 769Google Scholar; II, 660–1 notes 81–2, and p. 1075 n. 370. Romulus and Remus appear as sons of Aeneas also in Hegesianax, (F. Gr.Hist. 41 F.9)Google Scholar, Apollodorus (ap. Festus s.v. ‘Romam’ p. 326L) and others (Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 1), and as his grandchildren in Dionysius of Chalcis (fr. 11 Müller = Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 6 = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 10) and in Ennius and Naevius (see next note).

page 3 note 7 Serv. (auct.), Aen. 1. 273Google Scholar = Remains of old Latin, ed. Warmington, E. H. (London, 1967), I, 56Google Scholar (Naevius), 11, 16 (Ennius).

page 4 note 1 Timaeus, who had access to indigenous sources (see below, p. 24 n. 1), had already dated the foundation of Rome in 814/13 B.C, the same year as Carthage, (F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 60)Google Scholar. Roman historians preferred a somewhat later date, some time in the mid eighth century. Fabius Pictor placed it in 748/7 (fr. 6 P = F. Gr. Hist. 809 F. 3a); Cincius Alimentus in 729/8 (fr. 4P = 810F. 1), and Cato in 752/1 (Origines fr. 17P). The date which later became canonical (754/3) was fixed by Varro. On Timaeus' dating see below, p. 24 n. 3.

page 4 note 2 Dion. Hal. 1. 73. 3. The story of the desertion of the first settlement and its subsequent refoundation by a second pair of brothers is not a rationalised addition by Dionysius himself, as is sometimes suggested (e.g. by Perret, , Les origines, pp. 388–94Google Scholar); the story of the second colony may be a rationalisation, but it appeared in Dionysius' (Roman) source, as is proved by the grammar of the sentence, and by his concluding remark ‘…’. Thus, correctly, Martin, P. M., Latomus XXX (1971), 23–44Google Scholar, esp. p. 27, who suggests that Dionysius’ source was Varro. Martin argues that the first part of the story (Romus the founder of Capua, Anchisa, Aeneia and Rome) goes back to an Etruscan tradition of the sixth century B.C, and that it reached the Romans through the Tuscae Historiae (Varro, ap. Censorinus, de Die Natali 17. 6). He suggests that Romus' foundation of Rome and Capua (cf. Hegesianax, , F. Gr. Hist. 45 F. 8Google Scholar) reflects the rule of the Etruscans over Latium and Campania. This all seems highly unlikely. The version is more probably to be dated to the fourth or third century B.C. (thus Niese, B., Hist. Zeitschr. LIX (1888), 490Google Scholar; Classen, C. J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 480 n. 1 etc.Google Scholar), although even this is conjectural. Schur, W., Klio XII (1921), 146Google Scholar thought that it derived from a Campanian source. Judicious discussion in Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 450–1Google Scholar, who points out that the version expresses interests which are ‘probably not so much historical or geographical as genealogical’.

page 4 note 3 It cannot be established with certainty when, or by whòm, the Alban king list was first invented (thus, rightly, Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, pp. 170–1Google Scholar). Alföldi suggests that the list was forged by Pictor, Fabius (Early Rome, p. 126Google Scholar, rejected by Momigliano, , Quarto contribute, p. 489Google Scholar). It is certainly clear that Fabius acknowledged the gap between Aeneas and Romulus. This emerges from the inscription from Taormina, recently published by Manganaro, G. (La Parola del Passato CLVIII–CLIX (1974), 389 ff.Google Scholar, with photographs and discussion), which outlines the content of Fabius' work. It refers to Fabius' account of Heracles, Lanoios (an eponym of Lanuvium), Aeneas and Ascanius. It continues as foliows: Strictly speaking the text does not tell us that ‘a consistent list of Alban kings was already known to Fabius Pictor’, as is stated by Musti, D., Tendenze nella storiografia… (cit. p. 2 n. 7)Google Scholar, p. 31 n. 4 (cf. Ogilvie, R. M., Class. Rev. n.s. XXIV (1974), 65Google Scholar). Strasburger conjectures that an Alban dynasty appeared already in Timaeus, (Zur Sage von der Gründung Roms, p. 17)Google Scholar, but without any substantial argument. Ogilvie, thinks that ‘Cato was the first to fill the gap with circumstantial events drawn from local traditions’ (Comm. on Livy, p. 34Google Scholar; cf. Grant, M., Roman myths (London, 1971), pp. 106–7)Google Scholar. But this seems to me most unlikely.

page 5 note 1 The most important discussions of this evidence include Bömer, F., Rom und Troia, esp. pp. 11–49Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Urahnen, esp. pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar; Schauenburg, K., Gymnasium LXVII (1960), 176 if.Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 278 ff.Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 122 ff.Google Scholar See also the items cited below, p. 11 n. 5.

page 5 note 2 Archaeological evidence in Gjerstad, E., Early Rome IV (Lund, 1966)Google Scholar, passim, esp. pp. 581 ff.; cf. Bloch, R., The origins of Rome (London, 1960), pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar; Riis, P. J. in Les origines de la république romaine, Entretiens Fondation Hardt 13 (Vandceuvres—Geneva, 1966), 67 ff.Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., The Etruscan cities and Rome (London, 1967), pp. 243 ff.Google Scholar Contacts between Rome and Veii in the regal period: Plin., N.H. 35. 157Google Scholar, and Gjerstad, E., Early Rome IVGoogle Scholar, index s.v. ‘Veii’; cf. Alföldi, A., Early Rome, p. 234Google Scholar. Alfoldi's theory that Rome was actually conquered by Veii in the age of the kings is refuted by Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo, p. 494Google Scholar. Cf. Momigliano's, essay ‘The Origins of the Roman Republic’ in Interpretation, theory and practice, ed. Singleton, C. S. (Baltimore, 1969), pp. 12 f.Google Scholar Evidence for relations between Rome and Vulci is furnished by the stories concerning Aulus and Caeles Vibenna (Volcientes fratres) and their companion Mastarna: Imp. Claudius ap. Dessau, ILS 212Google Scholar; Varro, , de Ling. Lat. 5. 46Google Scholar; Dion. Hal. 2. 36. 2; Festus, s.v. ‘Caelius mons’ (p. 38L)Google Scholar; s.v., ‘Tuscum victim’ (p. 486L)Google Scholar; Serv. Aen. 5. 560, and the painting from the Tomba François at Vulci (fourth century B.C ?), illustrated in Messerschmidt, F., Nekropolen von Vulci (Jahrb. deutsch. arch. Inst., Ergänzungsheft XII, 1930), plates 14–26Google Scholar; for the date see Cristofani, M., Dialoghi di Archeologia 1 (1967), 186–219Google Scholar. Discussion in Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 212 ff.Google Scholar, with earlier bibliography; cf. Heurgon, J., La vie quotidienne des Étrusques (Paris, 1961), pp. 63 ff.Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., The Etruscan cities and Rome, pp. 122 ff.Google Scholar; Hus, A., Vulci étrusque et étrusco-romaine (Paris, 1971), pp. 102 ff.Google Scholar; and my paper ‘Etruscan Historiography’, to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa.

page 5 note 3 It is worth quoting Pallottino, M. (Studi Etruschi XXVIII (1958), 236Google Scholar, reviewing Alföldi's Urahnen): ‘Alföldi dimostra la esistenza di una tradizione culturale indigena molto antica concernente gli antenati di Roma in connessione con la saga di Enea, e seppellisce definitivamente la tesi – già del resto condannata dal Bömer, ma dura a morire – di una origine letteraria e tardiva, nel ambito della mitografia ellenistica, delle legende sulla ascendenza troiana dei Romani.’

page 6 note 1 von Schlegel, A. W., Sämmtliche Werke XII (Leipzig, 1847), 489Google Scholar (review of Niebuhr); Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. I, 398 ff.Google Scholar; Lewis, G. C., Credibility of the early Roman history, I, 408Google Scholar; Bauer, A., ‘Die Kyros-Sage und Verwandtes’, Sitzungsb. Akad. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl., c (1882), 495 ff.Google Scholar, esp. pp. 539 ff.; etc. (cf. also the works cited below, n. 5). An exhaustive study of exposure myths from many societies can be found in Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes (see pp. 125 ff. for the Greek material)Google Scholar. Cf. also Gierth, L., Griechische Gründungsgeschichten als Zeugnisse historischen Denkens vor dem Einsetzen der Geschichtsschreibung (Diss. Freiburg i. Br. 1971), PP. 9 ff.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2 The evidence is collected by Binder, , Die Aussetzung des Königskindes, pp. 146 ff.Google Scholar

page 6 note 3 Miletos, son of Apollo and Akakallis, and eponymous founder of Miletus, was exposed by his mother and suckled by wolves sent by Apollo. Anton. Liber. 30; cf. Herodorus, , F. Gr. Hist. 31 F. 45Google Scholar; Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes, p. 137Google Scholar.

page 6 note 4 Cf. e.g. Niese, B., Hist. Zeitschr. LIX (1888), 497Google Scholar; Ogilvie, R. M., Comm. on Livy, p. 53Google Scholar.

page 6 note 5 Trieber, C., Rh. Mus. XLIII (1888), 569–82Google Scholar; Soltau, W., Archiv f. Religionswissenschaft XII (1909), 101–25Google Scholar; Carter, J. B., Amer. Journ. Arch. XIII (1909), 20 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Myth. Lex. IV, 169 ff.Google Scholar; Pais, E., Storia critica di Roma I (Rome, 1913), 289 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Early Rome v (Lund, 1973), pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar

page 6 note 6 Cited above, p. 1 n. 2.

page 6 note 7 Alcimus, , F. Gr. Hist. 560 F. 4Google Scholar = 840 F. 12 = Festus p. 326L: Alcimus ait Tyrrhenia Aeneaenatum filium Romulum fuisse atque eo ortam Albam Aeneae neptem, cuius filius nomine Rhomus condiderit urbem Romam. For the date see below, p. 7 n. 1.

page 6 note 8 The presence of Tyrrhenia in this genealogy may well reflect an old tradition linking Aeneas with the Etruscans. See e.g. Lycophron, , Alex. 1239 ff.Google Scholar; Verg., Aen. 8. 478 ff.Google Scholar; 10. 163 ff. etc., and cf. Gagé, J., Mél. École Française de Rome XLVI (1929), 115–44Google Scholar; Schachermeyr, F., Etruskische Frühgeschichte (Berlin, 1929), pp. 205 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Wiener Studien XLVII (1929), 154 ff.; on the archaeological evidence for Aeneas in Etruria see below, p. 11 nn. 4 ff. A curious interpretation of the literary evidence can be found in Sordi, M., I rapporti romano-ceriti (Rome, 1960), pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar, 177 ff.; and Athenaeum XLII (1964), 80 ff.Google Scholar; Ogilvie, R. M., Comm. on Livy, p. 628 (arguing that Aeneas' relations with the Etruscans were modelled on the events of the great war between Rome and Veii)Google Scholar.

page 7 note 1 Alcimus wrote a work entitled Sikelika (Athen. 7. 322A = F. Gr. Hist. 560 F. 1), of which five fragments survive, dealing with the antiquities of Sicily and Italy. None of these fragments furnishes any clear indication of the date of Alcimus. Everything in fact depends on whether the author of the Sikelika is to be identified either with the rhetor mentioned by Diogenes Laertius 2. 114 (= 560 T. 1), or with the author of a philosophical treatise entitled Πρὸς Ἀμύνταν (Diog. Laert. 3. 9 = 560 F. 6), or with both. The question cannot be answered with certainty (cf. Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. III B, Kommentar p. 518)Google Scholar, and consequently there can be no certainty about the date of Alcimus. On this Perret, J. (Les origines, pp. 386 f.)Google Scholar has said all that is necessary. Cf. Classen, C. J., Historia XIV (1963), 448 n. 4Google Scholar.

page 7 note 2 For the present I shall assume that Romus is the equivalent of Remus. The question of the names is discussed below, pp. 27 ff.

page 7 note 3 Callias, , F. Gr. Hist. 564 F. 5Google Scholar = Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 5. Cf. Festus p. 329L, which clearly refers to Callias, although the MSS have ‘Caltinus’. Less certain is the identification of Callias with ‘Galitas’, mentioned by Festus p. 329L (= F. Gr. Hist. 818). Mommsen, (Ges. Schr. 4, pp. 3 f.)Google Scholar identified both Galitas and the anonymous author cited by Plutarch, (Rom. 2. 3)Google Scholar with Callias. They are differentiated by Jacoby, and Strasburger, (Zur Sage…, p. 13)Google Scholar. Bickermann is almost certainly mistaken when he equates Clinias (F. Gr. Hist. 819), Galitas, , and Callias, /Caltinus, (Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 79 n. 24)Google Scholar.

page 7 note 4 Livy 10. 32. 12. The statue mentioned in this passage is not the famous ‘Capitoline Wolf’ preserved in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. The latter is an archaic piece of Etruscan workmanship and dates, according to the latest judgments, from the middle of the fifth century B.C. (Riis, P. J., Entretiens Fondation Hardt 13, pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar; Matz, F., Studies presented to D. M. Robertson, I (Saint Louis, Miss., 1951), pp. 154 ff.Google Scholar; Classen, C. J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 481 n.)Google Scholar. It is doubtful whether the Capitoline wolf can be used as evidence for the date of the Romulus story. Its original provenance is uncertain (Riis, loc. cit., suggests Vulci), and how it found its way to Rome is a matter of conjecture. Moreover there is no way of knowing what significance it may have had for the Romans in the age of the early Republic. It may have had no connection with the story of Rome's origins (thus Bickermann, E. J., Riv. Fil. Istr. Class. XCVII (1969), 395Google Scholar; Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage (Cambridge, 1974), I, 403)Google Scholar, although to my mind the prominent and distended udders of the she-wolf tell against such a negative conclusion. This point is made strongly by Alföldi, A., Die Struktur…, pp. 107–8Google Scholar.

page 7 note 5 Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage I, no. 20. For the date see 1, 35 ff.Google Scholar; 11, 714 n. 6.

page 7 note 6 Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, p. 19Google Scholar.

page 8 note 1 Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

page 8 note 2 These items are listed by Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, p. 23Google Scholar.

page 8 note 3 Justin, 38. 6. 7–8: atque ut ipsi ferunt conditores suos lupae uberibus altos, sic omnem illum populum luporum animos inexplebiles sanguinis, atque imperii divitiarumque avidos ac ieiunos habere.Cf. Sallust, , Ep. Mithr. ( = Hist. 4. 69 M) 17Google Scholar.

page 8 note 4 Dion. Hal. 1. 4. 2–3; 1. 89. 1; 2. 8. 3; 7. 70. 1, etc. Cf. Fuchs, H., Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom (Berlin, 1938), p. 14Google Scholar and n. 40; Jones, C. P., Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971), pp. 89 f.Google Scholar

page 8 note 5 E.g. Tertullian, , Ad Nat. 2. 9. 19Google Scholar; de Spect. 5. 6; Min. Felix 25. 2; Lactantius, , Inst. 1. 15. 32Google Scholar; Orosius 2. 4; Augustine, , Civ. Dei 2. 17Google Scholar; 3. 5 f.; 3. 13; 4. 5; 15. 5; 18. 21; 22. 6. Cf. Maier, F. G., Augustin und das antike Rom (Stuttgart, Cologne, 1955), pp. 102 ff.Google Scholar, with further references; H. Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand, n. 85; Wagenvoort, H., Studies in Roman literature, culture and religion (Leiden, 1956), pp. 172 ff.Google Scholar; Kramer, H. J. in Synusia: Festgabe W. Schadewaldt (Pfullingen, 1965), pp. 378 f.Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage…, p. 43Google Scholar.

page 8 note 6 Fabius Pictor frs. 5 and 7P = F. Gr. Hist. 809 F. 4–5.

page 8 note 7 Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, p. 33.Google Scholar

page 9 note 1 Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, pp. 38 f.Google Scholar He does not however exclude the possibility that the legend may have been further affected by hostile Etruscan or Sabellian propaganda (p. 41).

page 9 note 2 E.g. Jocelyn, H. D., PCPS n.s. CXCVII (1971), 51 ff.Google Scholar

page 9 note 3 See e.g. Galinsky, G. K., Class. Weekly LXIII (1969), 60Google Scholar; Köves-Zulauf, T., Gymnasium LXXVIII (1971), 158–61Google Scholar; Classen, C.J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 479–84Google Scholar; Schröder, W.A., Cato, Origines I, pp. 62 f.Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, p. 107Google Scholar.

page 10 note 1 N.B. esp. Polyb. 1. 14. 3 = F. Gr. Hist. 174 T. 2 (Philinus) = 809 T. 6 (Pictor); cf. Gelzer, M., Kleine Schriften III (Wiesbaden, 1964), 51 ff.Google Scholar; Hanell, K., in Histoire et historiens dans l' Antiguité, Entretiens Fondation Hardt 4 (Vandœuvres–Geneva, 1954), pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar, esp. pp. 63 ff. Strasburger, himself (Zur Sage…, p. 41)Google Scholar recognises the importance of this aspect of Fabius' work, but fails to see that its implications are disastrous for his thesis.

page 10 note 2 Plutarch tells us that Diodes of Peparethos was the first author to put before the Greek reading public a version of the canonical account of the foundation of Rome (Plut., Rom. 3Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 820 T. 2a). He further informs us that Fabius Pictor followed Diodes in most essentials (ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις). It cannot be certain that Diodes really was the source of Fabius, but Plutarch or his source evidently thought he was. It is of course impossible to determine exactly which elements of Plutarch's account of the birth of the twins (Rom. 4–8) should be attributed to Diodes. Evidence concerning Diodes is assembled by Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. 820Google Scholar. For a clear statement of the limitations of our knowledge see Momigliano, A., Secondo contributo, p. 403Google Scholar; most recently see Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), II, p. 1076 n. 373Google Scholar.

page 10 note 3 Cf. Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 50, 62Google Scholar, and especially 649 ff.

page 10 note 4 Dion. Hal. 1. 79. 4 = Cato, , Origines, fr. 15Google Scholar P. Dionysius also tells us that Fabius was followed by L. Cincius Alimentus, L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, and ‘most other historians’. It is very likely that Cato had read fairly widely in Greek sources, particularly Timaeus (cf. my remarks in Mus. Helv. XXXI (1974), 208)Google Scholar.

page 10 note 5 Thus, rightly, Classen, C. J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 481.Google Scholar

page 10 note 6 Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage…, pp. 20 f.Google Scholar; cf. Altheim, F., Transactions International Numismatic Congress, 1936 (London, 1938), p. 144Google Scholar, who connects the silver coins of 269 B.C. (showing the wolf and twins) with the fact that Q. Ogulnius was consul in that year. This interpretation is refuted by Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage II, 714 n. 6Google Scholar, who argues convincingly that the censors were responsible for issuing the didrachm coinage (1, 42–3).

page 11 note 1 This is the view of M. H. Crawford (see previous note).

page 11 note 2 Jocelyn, H. D. (PCPS n.s. CXCVII (1971), 53)Google Scholar follows Strasburger in attributing the invention of the Romulus legend to ‘some resentful victim of Roman imperialism’, but then goes on to argue that by the time of Fabius Pictor it ‘had become too widely known and commonly accepted to be ignored’. I have stated my own view in the text, and I leave it to the reader to decide which interpretation is the more convincing.

page 11 note 3 E.g. Republic 337D ff. Strasburger asserts that most Roman legends, in contrast to the Romulus story, were the product of the ‘patriotic Roman mentality’ (Zur Sage…, p. 37; this is also the principal thesis of M. Grant's book Roman myths); but this is far too sweeping, as is shown for example by the stories of the traitor Coriolanus and the traitress Tarpeia (the latter story caused much embarrassment to the upright historian Piso – Dion. Hal. 2. 38 ff. = Piso fr. 5 P). The point is rightly emphasised by Köves-Zulauf, T. in Gymnasium LXXVIII (1971), 160Google Scholar. On Tarpeia notice Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 479 ff.Google Scholar

page 11 note 4 F. Bömer argued in his book Rom und Troia that the Romans regarded Aeneas as their founder at an early date; but elsewhere he states that the Romulus legend was very ancient (Ahnenkult und Ahnenglaube im alten Rom (Leipzig, 1943), p. 55Google Scholar). He does not however discuss the problem which inevitably arises from this contradiction. Cf. Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 74Google Scholar.

page 11 note 5 Ferri, S., Arch. Class. VI (1954), 118–20Google Scholar; the identification of the ‘kourotrophos’ with the wife of Aeneas was first suggested by Fuhrmann, H., Arch. Anzeiger (1941), 423Google Scholar. See Alföldi, A., Urahnen, p. 17Google Scholar and Early Rome, p. 287. Reservations are expressed by Pallottino, M., Arch. Class. II (1950), 122–78Google Scholar; Schauenburg, K., Gymnasium LXVII (1960), 177Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 134 ff.Google Scholar Part of a further statue of the same size and date, and representing Aeneas carrying Anchises, is supposed to exist in a private collection. It is described by Schauenburg (p. 177 n. 10), but curiously the publication he refers to, H., and Jucker, I., Kunst und Leben der Etrusher (Cologne, 1956)Google Scholar, in fact mentions no such statue, as is pointed out by Galinsky, p. 134 n. 78.

page 12 note 1 Galinsky, , Aeneas, pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar, rightly points out that Aeneas often appears in other contexts in vase-paintings; the majority of these vases also come from Etruria.

page 12 note 2 Schauenburg, K., Gymnasium LXVII (1960), 186 ff.Google Scholar Fifty-two of the fifty-seven items collected by Schauenburg are black-figure work and date from the last quarter of the sixth century B.C. The remaining five (red-figure) are of the early fifth century.

page 12 note 3 Alföldi, A., Urahnen, pp. 16 f.Google Scholar; Early Rome, pp. 284 f. The most important items are the Munich red-figure amphora of the early fifth century (from Vulci), and the Etruscan scarab from the Luynes collection in Paris, dating probably from the first half of the fifth century (thus Pallottino, M., Studi Etruschi XXVI (1958), 337)Google Scholar. Photographs in Alföldi, , Early Rome, plates XXV and xiv. 1Google Scholar.

page 12 note 4 First published by Giglioli, G. Q., Bull. Mus. Impero Romano XII (1941), 3–16Google Scholar, with photographs; see also Alföldi, A., Urahnen, plate xiii. 3Google Scholar and G. K. Galinsky, Aeneas, plate III. On the cult implications of the statuettes see Alföldi, , Urahnen, p. 17Google Scholar; Early Rome, p. 287: ‘They bear witness’, he writes, ‘to the role of Aeneas as founder.’ I am not sure that the evidence is as conclusive as that (cf. Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo, p. 629)Google Scholar. I can see that if Aeneas really was exceptionally popular (the vague term ‘popular’ has become conventional in this context) in Etruria, the explanation may well be that the Etruscans thought he had come to their country. But it does not necessarily follow that they regarded him as a ἥρως κτίστης; it is also unclear whether there was a connection between the presence of the Aeneas legend in Etruria and the notion that the Etruscans had migrated to Italy from Asia Minor.

page 12 note 5 Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 73 n. 44Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 132–3Google Scholar. Galinsky sees some significance in the fact that Aeneas is not featured on any of the Greek pottery found in Rome, although we possess 451 fragments of Greek painted vases from the period 575–450 B.C. But it must be pointed out in fairness that the majority of these finds (illustrated in Gjerstad, E., Early Rome, IVGoogle Scholar) are tiny sherds which give no idea of what pictorial theme(s) might have appeared on the original vases.

page 12 note 6 For the view that the Romans adopted Aeneas as a consequence of Etruscan domination in the sixth century see e.g. Alföldi, A., Urahnen, pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar; Early Rome, pp. 278 ff.; Grant, M., Roman myths, p. 76Google Scholar; but there is no good reason to suppose that Rome was under the political domination of another power during the regal period. See A. Momigliano's criticism of Alföldi, in Quarto contributo, pp. 492 f.Google Scholar, and the fundamental discussions of Bickermann, E. J., Riv. Fil. Istr. Class. XCVII (1969), 396 ff.Google Scholar, and Momigliano, A., ‘The origins of the Roman republic’ (cit. p. 5. n. 2), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 Thus Bömer, F., Rom und Troia, pp. 39–40, 47–9Google Scholar. Ogilvie, R. M. thinks that the story was localised in Rome ‘partly because the Greeks already recognised in the Romans of the early fifth century those same qualities of pietas which distinguished Aeneas’ (Comm. on Livy, p. 33)Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 3 ff.Google Scholar

page 13 note 3 Cf. Heurgon, J., Latomus XII (1953), 233Google Scholar; Perret, J., Rev. Étud. Latines XXX (1952), 490Google Scholar.

page 13 note 4 Alföldi, A., Urahnen, pp. 1–8Google Scholar; Early Rome, pp. 158–9; followed for example by Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 188–9Google Scholar. For some criticisms see Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 451–2Google Scholar and n. 32, pointing out that Rhome is an entirely Greek construction. The hypothesis is discussed at length, and refuted, by Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage, II, 721 ff.Google Scholar

page 13 note 5 Sallust, , Cat. 6. 1–2Google Scholar.

page 13 note 6 Cf. the discussion of Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 69Google Scholar.

page 13 note 7 Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar

page 13 note 8 The sources for the cult of Vesta and the Penates at Lavinium are cited in full in Castagnoli, F. (ed.), Lavinium 1: Topografia generale, fonti e storia delle ricerche (Istituto di Topografia antica dell' Università di Roma, Rome, 1972), pp. 71–2Google Scholar; on Indiges cf. below, p. 14 notes 1 and 2. On the annual sacrifices: Serv. (auct.) Aen. 2. 296; 3. 12; 8. 664; Schol. Veron., Aen. 1. 239Google Scholar; Macrob. 3. 4. 11; participation of the Latins: ILS 5004. See Weinstock, S., P.-W. s.v. ‘Penates’, 429 f.Google Scholar; Koch, C., P.-W. s.v. ‘Vesta’, 1720Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 246 ffGoogle Scholar. (with further references); Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 146 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Early Rome V, pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar

page 13 note 9 Castagnoli, F., Bull. Comunal. LXXVII (1959–1960), 145 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Arch. Class. XIX (1967), 235 ff.; Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 265 ff.Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 152 ff.Google Scholar; comprehensive discussion of the archaeological material from the sanctuaries at Pratica di Mare is promised in the forthcoming Lavinium III, to be published by the Istituto di Topografia antica of the University of Rome.

page 14 note 1 On Indiges see Koch, C., Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien (Frankfurter Studien, 3, Frankfurt a. M., 1933), esp. pp. 100 ff.Google Scholar; Eisenhut, W., Der Kleine Pauly 2 (Stuttgart, 1967), 1394–5Google Scholar with further bibliography; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar; Palmer, R. E. A., Roman religion and Roman empire (Philadelphia, 1974), pp. 120 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 14 note 2 Cato, , Origines, fr. 10PGoogle Scholar; Cassius Hemina fr. 7P; Dion. Hal. 1. 64. 4–5; Livy 1. 2. 6; Festus p. 94L; Tibullus 2. 5. 43–4; Ovid, , Met. 14. 596–608Google Scholar; Origo Gentis Romanae 14. 2Google Scholar; Serv. Aen. 1. 259Google Scholar; 4. 620; 7. 150; 12. 794; Schol. Veron., Aen. 1. 259Google Scholar; Schol. Juven. 11. 63; Arnobius, , adv. Nat. 1. 36Google Scholar. Cf. Alföldi, A., Early Rome, p. 253Google Scholar; Castagnoli, F., Arch. Class. XIX (1967), 242 f.Google Scholar; Lavinium 1 (cit. p. 13 n. 8), pp. 65–6, where all the sources are quoted in full.

page 14 note 3 For discussions of these finds see Sommella, P., Atti pont. accad. rom. Arch. Rendiconti XLIV (1971–1972), 47–74Google Scholar; idem, Gymnasium LXXXI (1974), 273–97; idem, Arch. Class. XXI (1969), 18; Castagnoli, F., Atti VIII convegno studi Magna Grecia, Taranto, 1968 (Naples, 1969), pp. 95 f.Google Scholar; Ampolo, C., Dialoghi di Archeologia IV–V (1970–1971), 51Google Scholar; Moscati, S., Il Messaggero, 31 January 1972Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Early Rome v, 44 n. 1Google Scholar; Castagnoli, F. (ed.), Lavinium 1, 94Google Scholar; Palmer, R. E. A., Roman religion and Roman empire, p. 121Google Scholar and n. 183; Gantz, T. N., Parola del Passato CLVIII–CLIX (1974), 358 f.Google Scholar

page 14 note 4 The Tor Tignosa cippus was first published by Guarducci, M., Bull. Comunal. LXXVIGoogle Scholar (Bull. Mus. Civiltà Romana XIX (1956–1958)), 3–13Google Scholar; cf. Année Épigraphique 1960, no. 138; ILLRP 2, no. 1271. Discussion in Weinstock, S., Journ.Rom. Studies L (1960), 114 ff.Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 255 ff.Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., Mélanges A. Piganiol (Paris, 1966), pp. 663 ff.Google Scholar; Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 158 f.Google Scholar; Kolbe, H.-G., Röm. Mitt. LXXVII (1970), 1 ff.Google Scholar (further bibliography p. 2 n. 13); M. Guarducci, Ibid. LXXVIII (1971), 73 ff.; Palmer, R. E. A., Roman religion and Roman empire, pp. 80 ff.Google Scholar, esp. pp. 114 ff., and see next note.

page 14 note 5 A number of difficulties arise from this reading. In her original publication (see previous note) Ms Guarducci read Lare Aineia d(onom) = LARII AINIIIA D. This was universally accepted by scholars until 1970, when Kolbe produced an alternative reading of his own: Lare Vesuia Q.f. In the following year Ms Guarducci raised strong arguments against Kolbe's interpretation, but modified her own reading to Lare Aenia d(onom) = LARII AIINIA D (references in previous note). This raises some obvious problems. Aenia is a very curious rendering of Aeneae, and in any case the diphthong Ae would surely be impossible at such an early date. Thus Palmer, , Roman religion and Roman empire, p. 251 n. 143Google Scholar; the same point was made independently by Mr R. G. G. Coleman in the discussion which followed the presentation of this paper. Palmer has accepted Kolbe's reading, and convincingly explains the difficulty of a dedication to a single Lar by suggesting that Lare could be an abbreviation of the dative plural Lare(bos) (cf. ILLRP 1, no. 20, with Degrassi's addendum in vol. 11, p. 380). Palmer draws far-reaching conclusions from the reading Lare Vesuia Q.f., but as he himself remarks (p. 251 n. 143), ‘From the stone itself and from photographs one can be certain of the reading Lare and of nothing else’. After studying the photographs I am very much inclined to agree.

page 14 note 6 F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 59. For discussion of the objects described by Timaeus see Weinstock, S., P.-W. s.v. ‘Penates’, 437 ff.Google Scholar; most recently Gjerstad, E., Early Rome V, 44 f.Google Scholar

page 15 note 1 See the references collected above, p. 13 n. 8, and cf. Val. Max. 1. 6. 7; Asconius p. 21 C; Script. Hist. Aug., M. Ant. Phil. 27. 4Google Scholar.

page 15 note 2 On the feriae Latinae see Alföldi, A., Early Rome, passim, esp. pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar, with references to the sources.

page 15 note 3 Dion. Hal. 1. 67. 1–3; Val. Max. 1. 8. 7.

page 15 note 4 Varro, , de Re Rust. 2. 4. 17 f.Google Scholar; on the myth of the sow see Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 271 ff.Google Scholar

page 15 note 5 Fabius Pictor fr. 4P = F. Gr. Hist. 809 F. 2. On the etymology see further Varro, de Ling. Lot. 5. 144; de Re Rust. 2. 18; Verg., Aen. 8. 42–8Google Scholar; Serv. Aen. 1. 270; 3. 392; Propertius 4. 1. 35; Origo Gentis Romanae 17. 1 etc.

page 15 note 6 Thus, already, Cato, , Origines frs. 8–13 P.Google Scholar

page 15 note 7 Naevius, , Bell. Poen. 1. 21–2Google ScholarWarmington, (Remains of Old Latin II, 57)Google Scholar.

page 15 note 8 Cf. Ogilvie, R. M., Comm. on Livy, p. 47Google Scholar.

page 15 note 9 See e.g. Cato, , Origines fr. 21PGoogle Scholar: Antemna veterior est quam Roma (on the text see Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, pp. 181 f.)Google Scholar. Cf. Dion. Hal. 1. 16. 5; 2. 35. 7; Ital, Sil.. Pun. 8. 365Google Scholar; Liv. 1. 9. 8–9; 1. 10. 2, etc.; Plut., Rom. 17. 1–2Google Scholar.

page 16 note 1 The Trojan families which migrated to Rome after the destruction of Alba Longa are listed by Livy 1. 30. 2, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3. 29. 7. On the Trojan families and the antiquarian research which they attracted, see Weinstock, S., P.-W. s.v. ‘Penates’, 446 f.Google Scholar; Palmer, R. E. A., The archaic community of the Romans (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 209 ff.Google Scholar

page 16 note 2 The Julii at Bovillae: ILLRP 1. 270; Tac., Ann. 2. 41. 1Google Scholar; 15. 23. 3; Suet., Aug. 100. 2.Google ScholarLonga, Alba and Bovillae, : Origo gentis Romanae 17. 6Google Scholar; ILS 6188 f. (Albani Longani Bovillenses); see the discussions of Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 241 f.Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., Divus Julius, pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar; Palmer, R. E. A., Roman religion and Roman empire, pp. 137 f.Google Scholar

page 16 note 3 On the dangers of speaking of an ‘official version’ (Strasburger, , Zur Sage…, pp. 8, 14, etc.Google Scholar) see Classen, C. J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 481Google Scholar; Köves-Zulauf, T., Gymnasium LXXVIII (1971), 160Google Scholar.

page 16 note 4 These chronological limits are only approximate. It is possible that some of the versions reported by Plutarch and Servius date from the imperial period; and again it is possible that some of the Hellenistic versions may be based on much older traditions.

page 16 note 5 Most of the relevant material is collected by Jacoby, F., F. Gr. Hist. 809–40Google Scholar. The precise number of versions depends on how one defines a version. For example Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1. 72. 1) tells us that Agathyllus (an Arcadian poet) agreed with Cephalon of Gergis (a pseudonym of Hegesianax) on the date of the foundation (two generations after the Trojan War) and the leader of the colony (Romus). But we know from another passage of Dionysius (1. 49) that according to Hegesianax/Cephalon Aeneas died in Thrace, whereas Agathyllus brought him to Italy. It depends on one's method of classification whether these reports are to be distinguished as separate versions, or merely as variants of a single version. It does not matter much.

page 17 note 1 As for example in Promathion (ap. Plut., Rom. 2Google Scholar). It is likely that many of the versions were in origin merely incidental references, particularly in the case of early writers such as Hellanicus. This perhaps explains why Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes Hieronymus of Cardia as the first writer to deal with the archaeologia of Rome (1. 6. 1). Earlier writers had only referred to the city in passing and had not concerned themselves with it directly as a subject of interest in its own right. How Dionysius' statement is to be reconciled with that of Pliny, , N.H. 3. 57Google Scholar (Theophrastus qui primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius scripsit) is not entirely clear, but presumably Theophrastus did not deal systematically with the archaeologia of Rome. On Theophrastus see below, p. 23 n. 4.

page 17 note 2 Greek: Heraclides Ponticus, ap. Plut., Camill. 22. 2Google Scholar (= F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 23). Etruscan: Anon. ap. Dion. Hal. 1. 29. 2. Pelasgian: Anon. ap. Plut., Rom. 1. 1Google Scholar (= F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 40e).

page 17 note 3 Refs. in previous note. The play on words (Ῥώμη = strength) is found also in Promathion (ap. Plut., Rom. 2Google Scholar), Lycophron, (Alex. 1233)Google Scholar and Hyperochus (Fest. p. 328L = F. Gr. Hist. 576 F. 3), the author of a Cumaean history. Hyperochus wrote that the original settlement was called Valentia, which was changed to Ῥώμη by Greek-speaking followers of Evander and Aeneas. On Hyperochus see Jacoby, Comm. on no. 576; Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 56 f.Google Scholar; Gabba, E., Entretiens Fondation Hardt 13 (1966), 144 f.Google Scholar; and my remarks in Mus. Helv. XXXI (1974), 206 f.Google Scholar, with further references.

page 17 note 4 Plutarch, , Rom. 2. 1Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 40e: Romis, tyrant of the Latins, drove out the Etruscans and founded Rome (see below, p. 22 n. 1); Romanos, a son of Odysseus and Circe.

page 17 note 5 According to one anonymous version (Plutarch, , Rom. 2. 3Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 40 e), Romulus (and possibly also Romus – see Classen, , Historia XII (1963), 453 n. 37Google Scholar) was the son of Rhome and grandson of a second Rhome. In Alcimus Romus is grandson of Romulus (F. Gr. Hist. 560 F. 4). Romus and Romulus appear as brothers in Callias (564 F. 5), Galitas (818 – if he is not the same as Callias: see above, p. 7 n. 3), Hegesianax (45 F. 7), Agathyllus (Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 1; 1. 49. 1), Eratosthenes (241 F. 45), Anon. ap. Plut., Rom. 2. 2Google Scholar, and possibly in a certain Apollodorus (ap. Fest. p. 326L). The last named is known only from a very corrupt passage: Apollodorus in Euxenide (?) ait Aenea et Lavinia natos. Mayllem (?), Mulum (Romulum?), Rhomumque atque ab Rhomo urbi tractum nomen. On this author see Bickermann, E. J., Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 78–9Google Scholar n. 18; Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 78Google Scholar (identifying him with Apollodorus of Gela, a contemporary of Menander).

page 17 note 6 Antigonus ap. Fest. p. 328L = F. Gr. Hist. 816 F. 1 (Romus son of Zeus). A version cited by Dionysius of Chalcis (on whom see below, p. 19 n. 3) made Romus the son of Emathion (ap. Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 6 = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 10 = Müller, , Fr. Hist. Graec. IV, 393 f., fr. 11)Google Scholar. We can supplement this report with the anonymous citation in Plutarch, , Rom. 2. 1Google Scholar, that Romus, the son of Emathion, was sent from Troy by Diomedes. On Antigonus see the remarks of von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin, 1881), p. 176Google Scholar, and Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo, p. 482Google Scholar.

page 18 note 1 Odysseus and his descendants appear in the versions of Xenagoras (Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 5 = F. Gr. Hist. 240 F. 29), Galitas, (F. Gr. Hist. 818)Google Scholar, Clinias, (F. Gr. Hist. 819)Google Scholar, and in several anonymous versions.

page 18 note 2 On Odysseus in Italy see Phillips, E. D., Journ. Hellenic Studies LXXIII (1953), 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bérard, J., La colonisation grecque2, pp. 303 ff.Google Scholar On Aeneas see above, p. 5 n. 1, p. 11 n. 5, etc.

page 18 note 3 Theogony 1011–16. For the date see West, M. L., Hesiod, Theogony (Oxford, 1966), p. 436Google Scholar.

page 18 note 4 Tabula Iliaca: I.G. 14. 1284 = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 6b. For an up-to-date discussion of the problem of whether or not this document really represents Stesichorus see Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, pp. 106 ff.Google Scholar For the date of Stesichorus West, M. L., Class. Quart. n.s. XXI (1971), 300 ff.Google Scholar

page 18 note 5 Thuc. 6. 2. 3, almost certainly drawing on Antiochus of Syracuse. On the traditions concerning the origin of the Elymians see van Compernolle, R., Phoibos v (1950–1951), 183 ff.Google Scholar

page 18 note 6 His companion in Hellanicus and Damastes, (F. Gr. Hist. 4 F. 84Google Scholar; 5 F. 3); his wife according to Anon. ap. Plut., Rom. 2. 1Google Scholar (F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 40e). According to Agathocles of Cyzicus, Rhome was the daughter of Ascanius (Fest. p. 328L = F. Gr. Hist. 472 F. 5 = 840 F. 18). Cf. Solinus 1. 3 ( = 840 F. 19b).

page 18 note 7 F. Gr. Hist. 4. F. 84 = Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 2. The reading μετ' Ὀδυσσέως is certainly to be preferred to μετ' Ὀδυσσέα. On this question see Malten, L., Arch. f. Religionswiss. XXIX (1931), 50Google Scholar; Perret, J., Les origines, pp. 371 ff.Google Scholar; Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 66 n. 10.Google Scholar

page 18 note 8 Serv. (auct.), Aen. 1. 273 = F. Gr. Hist. 819. This Clinias is not identifiable. For one conjecture cf. above, p. 7 n. 3.

page 18 note 9 Heraclides Lembos: Fest. p. 329L = Solin. 1. 2. = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 13b. Cf. Plut., , Qu. Rom. 6, p. 265 B–CGoogle Scholar; idem, Mul. Virt. 1, 243E ff.

page 19 note 1 The distinction was important for Perret, J., Les origines, passim, esp. pp. 402 ff.Google Scholar, who tried to argue that the Trojan legend originated with Pyrrhus, and that earlier sources such as Callias had made Rome a Greek foundation. Cf. Piganiol, A., Rev. Phil. n.s. XVII (1943), 215Google Scholar. For different reasons G. K. Galinsky also tried to make capital out of the distinction between ‘Greek’ and ‘Trojan’ versions (Aeneas, pp. 137 ff.).

page 19 note 2 Antigonus, Galitas, Clinias, Apollodorus and Promathion (on these authors see p. 17 nn. 5–6, p. 18 n. 8, p. 25 n. 4).

page 19 note 3 Agathocles of Cyzicus (F. Gr. Hist. 472)Google Scholar was the author of a local history of Cyzicus, of which a few meagre fragments survive. Schwartz, E. (P.-W. s.v. ‘Agathocles’ (no. 24), 758–9Google Scholar) placed him in the fifth or early fourth century B.C.; followed by Last, H., Camb. Anc. Hist. VII, 365Google Scholar; Rosenberg, A., P.-W. s.v. ‘Romulus’, 1078Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., P.-W. s.v. ‘Penates’, 432Google Scholar. But the arguments on which this dating is based are without foundation (as was shown decisively by Perret, J., Les origines, pp. 380 ff.)Google Scholar. Agathocles cannot be earlier than 310/309 B.C. if the fragment mentioning the siege of Syracuse by Hamilcar (F. 7) is to be attributed to him. He may have been a pupil of Zenodotus (died c. 260), but this is not certain (Jacoby, Comm. on no. 472). Classen, C. J. follows Jacoby's conjectural date of the ‘second third of the third century’ (Historia XII (1963), 452Google Scholar). Agathocles' reference to a temple of Fides on the Palatine is often taken to preclude a date before 300 B.C. Thus Hoffmann, W., Rom und die griechische Welt, p. 120 n. 276Google Scholar; F. Jacoby, Comm. on 472 F. 5; but notice the perceptive remarks of Pasquali, G., Enc. Ital. XXIXGoogle Scholar, s.v. ‘Roma’, p. 907. Perret, loc. cit., attempts to date Agathocles in the second century B.C., and while his positive arguments are not conclusive there can be no real objection to this. Classen argues that Agathocles' version must be earlier than Fabius Pictor, but such reasoning is invalid, as I shall try to show.

Dionysius of Chalcis is a very interesting figure who needs further study. He wrote at least five books of ‘Foundations’ (Ktiseis) – Ps.-Scymn. 115 Müller; cf. Harpocration, s.v. Ἡραίων τεῖχος (= F.H.G. fr. 3 Müller)Google Scholar. As an antiquarian writer he belongs to that section of F. Gr. Hist. which Jacoby did not live to complete. Thirteen fragments can be found in Müller's, C.Fragm. Hist. Graec. (Paris, 1851), IV, 393 ff.Google Scholar His date is entirely uncertain. Attempts to place him in the fourth century B.C. (Schwartz, E., P.-W. s.v. ‘Dionysius’ (no. 107), 929Google Scholar; Schmid, B., Studien zu griechischen Ktisissagen (Diss. Freiburg in der Schweiz, 1947), pp. 92 f.Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., marginal note on F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 10Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage…, p. 12Google Scholar) are based on flimsy evidence (Perret, op. cit. p. 388), and A. Baumstark argued on good grounds that he is unlikely to be earlier than Lysanius of Cyrene, the teacher of Eratosthenes (Philologus LIII (1894), 703 ffGoogle Scholar, esp. 707; cf. Schmid, W.–Stählin, O., Geschichte der griech. Litteratur 2. 1 (Munich, 1920), p. 213 n. 6Google Scholar; Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 451 n. 22)Google Scholar. The work certainly looks Hellenistic. A terminus ante querm of the mid-second century B.C. is provided by Strabo 12. 4. 8 p. 566C, if that passage derives from Demetrius of Skepsis (Perret, op. cit. p. 388). Otherwise the earliest author to refer to Dionysius is the pseudo-Scymnus, writing at the start of the first century B.C.

On the uncertain date of Alcimus see above, p. 7 n. 1; and on Xenagoras below, nn. 2 ff.

page 20 note 1 The main arguments concerning the date of Lycophron's Alexandra are outlined by Momigliano, A., Secondo contributo, pp. 431 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 437 ff. and 446 ff., who follows tradition in dating it to the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Ziegler, K., P.-W. s.v. ‘Lykophron’ (no. 9), 2316 ff.Google Scholar, who argues for a date after 195 B.C., on the grounds that lines 1446 ff. refer to Flamininus (esp. coll. 2361 f.). P. M. Fraser has recently revived the theory that the poem as a whole dates from the third century, but that the passages referring to Rome (1226 ff. and 1446 ff.) are second-century interpolations. See his Ptolemaic Alexandria II, 1065 ff.Google Scholar, n. 331, with full discussion.

page 20 note 2 Xenagoras, F. Gr. Hist. 240 F. 29 =. 840 F. 17 = Dion. Hal. 1. 72. 5. The same version can be found in Steph. Byz. s.vv. Ἄντεια and Ἄρδεα.

page 20 note 3 Xenagoras' is cited twenty-one times in the chronicle. For references see Blinkenberg, C., Die lindische Tempelchronik (Bonn, 1915)Google Scholar, index I, s.v. Discussion in Laqueur, R., P.-W. s.v. ‘Lokalchronik’, 1107Google Scholar.

page 20 note 4 A third-century date is suggested by Jacoby, F., Comm. on no. 240, p. 702Google Scholar; Hoffmann, W., Rom und die griech. Welt, p. 101Google Scholar. n. 249; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage…, p. 12Google Scholar; Walbank, F. W., Journ. Rom. Studies LIII (1963), 2Google Scholar; Susemihl, F., Gesch. d. griech. Lit. i. d. Alexandrinerzeit, II, 399Google Scholar. Cf. Perret, J., Les origines, p. 410Google Scholar (c. 310 B.C.); Wikén, E., Die Kunde der Hellenen, p. 180 n. 1Google Scholar (c. 200 B.C.); Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria II, 1070 n. 343Google Scholar (before 338 B.C.). The evidence is in fact very slight. Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1. 72. 5 lists Xenagoras after Callias and before Dionysius of Chalcis; but this is of little help since we do not know the date of the latter (cf. above, p. 19 n. 3). It is possible, but by no means certain, that Xenagoras the historian is identical with Xenagoras the father of Nymphis of Heraclea, mentioned by the Suda (s.v. ‘Νύμφις’), who lived c. 350–280 B.C. (Wickert, K., P.-W. s.v. ‘Xenagoras’ (no. 3), 1416)Google Scholar. The uncertainty is rightly stressed by Classen, C. J., Gnomon XLIII (1971), 480Google Scholar. A full and up-to-date discussion in Gisinger, F., P.-W. 9 A s.v. ‘Xenagoras’ (no. 1), 1409 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 20 note 5 Thus, e.g., Jacoby, F., Comm. on no. 240, p. 702Google Scholar; Hoffmann, W., Rom und die griech. Welt, p. 101. 249Google Scholar; Wikén, E., Die Kunde der Hellenen, p. 180 n. 1Google Scholar; Piganiol, A., Rev. Phil. n.s. XVII (1943), 215Google Scholar; Rosenberg, A., P.-W. s.v. ‘Romulus’, 1078Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Urahnen, p. 26Google Scholar; Strasburger, H., Zur Sage…, p. 12Google Scholar; Gisinger, F., P.-W. s.v. ‘Xenagoras’ (no. 1), 1413Google Scholar; Pasquali, G., Encichpedia Italiana XXIX, s.v. ‘Roma’, p. 906Google Scholar.

page 21 note 1 This would accord well with what we know of the method of Xenagoras, whose antiquarian interests are well attested in other fragments. See Gisinger, F., P.-W. s.v. ‘Xenagoras’ (no. I), 1410 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 21 note 2 I refer to Xenagoras, not to his ‘source’, because I see no reason to believe that his version was derivative. Thus rightly Fraser, P. M., Class. Rev. n.s. IX (1959), 64 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘(Xenagoras) records, and apparently established, the story that Odysseus and Circe had three sons named Rhomus, Antias and Ardeas, named evidently from the three Latin cities of which he must have known.’

page 21 note 3 Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 451–2Google Scholar; Gnomon XLIII (1971), 480Google Scholar.

page 21 note 4 A-priori considerations have led some scholars to see political significance in versions which connect the founding of Rome with the Etruscans, e.g. Dion. Hal. 1. 29. 2; Plut., Rom. 1.2Google Scholar; Lycophron, , Alex. 1245 f.Google Scholar; Alcimus, , F. Gr. Hist. 560 F. 4Google Scholar; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ταρχώνιον. According to Schachermeyr, F. (Etruskische Frühgeschichte, pp. 205 ff.Google Scholar; Wiener Studien XLVII (1929), 154 f.Google Scholar) these reports reflect a patriotic Etruscan version, which found its way into Greek literature by way of Timaeus (cf. Schur, W., Klio XVII (1921), 137 ff.Google Scholar). See also P. M. Martin's interpretation of Dion. Hal. 1. 73. 3 (above, p. 4 n. 2). But I can see no reason why such reports should not be based simply on learned Greek reconstructions. Again the curious version of Promathion (Plut., Rom. 2. 3–6Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 817), which contains Etruscan elements (a cruel king Tarchetius, an Etruscan oracle, etc.), is sometimes thought to reflect a memory of Etruscan rule in Latium (Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 190, 280Google Scholar), or even perhaps an attempt to justify the regime of the Tarquins (Pareti, L., Storia di Roma e del mondo romano 1 (Turin, 1952), 296 f.Google Scholar). Notice above all the eccentric views of Mazzarino, S., Studi Romani VIII (1960), 389 ff.Google Scholar, and Il Pensiero storico classico I, 190 ff.Google Scholar; 11, 64 f. On Promathion see further below, p. 25 n. 4.

page 21 note 5 Notice especially Alexandra 1229–30, and the remarks of Momigliano, A., Secondo contributo, pp. 431 ff.Google Scholar Cf. above, p. 20 n. 1.

page 21 note 6 See e.g. Alföldi, A., Early Rome, p. 188Google Scholar, and the criticisms of Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo, pp. 490–1Google Scholar.

page 22 note 1 For example it might be possible to make something of the anonymous version in Plutarch, (Rom. 2. 1Google Scholar; cf. above, p. 17 n. 4), that Romis, tyrant of the Latins, drove out the Etruscans. Rosenberg for example speculates that it may be a reflection of Rome's conquest of Veii (P.-W. s.v. ‘Romulus’, 1079)Google Scholar. But as we do not know either the date of the fragment or the circumstances in which it was composed (i.e. its provenance), we cannot be certain that it relates to a real political event. It may be just some piece of nonsense.

page 22 note 2 Dion. Hal. 1. 6. 1. It is also possible that the foundation story was related by Philinus of Acragas, whose main narrative of the First Punic War began in the second book of his history (Polyb. 1. 15. 1 = F. Gr. Hist. 174 F. 2). What did book 1 contain? K. Hanell vaguely suggested that Philinus may have been minded to introduce his work, which was designed for Greek readers, with an account of the early history of Rome and Carthage (Entretiens Fondation Hardt 4 (1956), 158Google Scholar).

page 22 note 3 On this question see Geffcken, J., Timaios' Geographic des Westens (Berlin, 1892)Google Scholar; Ziegler, K., P.-W. s.v. ‘Lykophron’, 2338 ff.Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., F. Gr. Hist. III BGoogle Scholar, Noten, p. 312, with bibliography; Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 47 f.Google Scholar

page 22 note 4 Galinsky, G. K., Aeneas, p. 139Google Scholar; cf. Grant, M., Roman myths, p. 89Google Scholar.

page 22 note 5 I fail to see why a version in which the founder of Rome is a descendant of Aeneas (e.g. that of Alcimus, whom Galinsky, p. 142, himself places in the middle of the fourth century) should be more acceptable than one in which the foundation is ascribed to Aeneas himself. In Alcimus Aeneas is said to have married Tyrrhenia. This draws the following observation from Galinsky: ‘Tyrrhenia of course is the daughter of Tyrrhenus, the Etruscan ancestor. If Rome had been founded by Romulus (son of Aeneas and Tyrrhenia), it would be an Etruscan foundation, and therefore Romulus is awkwardly duplicated by Rhomus whose Latin/Alban credentials are more impeccable’ (pp. 142–3). This kind of sophistry is common in modern discussions of the subject. But why should Alcimus have been so sensitive? For a more judicious comment on the Alcimus fragment see Classen, , Historia XII (1963), 448Google Scholar.

page 23 note 1 Bickermann, E. J., Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 66Google Scholar. On the vagueness of Hellanicus' knowledge of Latium see von Fritz, K., Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, 1 (Berlin, 1967), 493Google Scholar.

page 23 note 2 A clear statement of this hypothesis, that the picture of Rome changed as the Greeks became increasingly familiar with its local traditions, can be found e.g. in Hoffmann, W., Rom und die griechische Welt, pp. 104 ff.Google Scholar; and E. Wikén, Die Kunde der Hellenen, passim.

page 23 note 3 The most recent discussion is that of Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria I, 761 ff.Google Scholar, whom I have followed closely in the text.

page 23 note 4 Cf. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria I, pp. 763 ff.Google Scholar Before Timaeus the peripatetics seem to have taken some interest in Rome; but this interest was spasmodic, in conformity with their general attitude to historical research; they tended to collect isolated items of information (customs, biographical anecdotes, etc.) in a systematic manner, rather than construct historical narratives (on this see the instructive pages of Momigliano, A., The development of Greek biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), pp. 66 ff.)Google Scholar. Thus Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus mentioned the sack of Rome by the Celts (Plut., Camill. 22Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 23), and Theophrastus, as Pliny informs us, wrote something about Rome (N.H. 3. 57, quoted above, p. 17 n. 1). The only known statement of Theophrastus on Rome deals with an attempt to colonise Corsica at an unknown date (Hist. Plant. 5.8 = F. Gr. Hist. 840 F. 24b). The passage has provoked a good deal of speculation. See e.g. Sordi, M., I rapporti romano-ceriti, pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar; Mazzarino, S., Il pensiero storico classico 1, 190 ff.Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., ‘The origins of the Roman republic’ (cit. p. 5 n. 2), pp. 10 f.Google Scholar; P. M. Fraser, op. cit. 11, 1064 n. 326 and 1068 f. n. 339, with further bibliography.

page 24 note 1 F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 36, 59, 61. In general see Momigliano, A., Terzo contribute, pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar; esp. pp. 44 ff. On Timaeus' account of Servius Tullius (F. 61 Jac.) see Alföldi, A., Röm. Mitt, LXVIII (1961), 64 ff.Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 649 ff.Google Scholar; Crawford, M. H., Roman republican coinage I, 36 f.Google Scholar, 41 n. 2. Ampolo, C., Parola del Passato CLVIII–CLIX (1974), 382 ff.Google Scholar

page 24 note 2 Dion. Hal. 1. 74. 1 = F. Gr. Hist. 566 F. 60.

page 24 note 3 Thus for example Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Early Rome VI, 86Google Scholar (where he summarises the results of his earlier studies); cf. Grant, M., Roman myths, p. 97Google Scholar. But J. Heurgon points out that Timaeus is unlikely to have synchronised the foundation dates of Rome and Carthage unless he had some data to suggest that they were roughly contemporaneous; and he conjectures, quite reasonably, that Timaeus may have learned something about the date of the founding of Rome from his researches at Lavinium (The rise of Rome to 264 B.C. (London, 1973), p. 130)Google Scholar.

page 24 note 4 Thus Pallottino, M., Arch. Class. XII (1960), 8 f.Google Scholar; J. Heurgon, loc. cit. (above, n. 3). It is frequently assumed that the agreement between the traditional and the archaeological dates is due to pure chance, and that the ancients placed the foundation of the city in the eighth century simply by counting back seven generations from the end of the monarchy, the date of which was fixed by the Fasti. But in fact we do not know what their procedure was (cf. Momigliano, A., Quarto contributo, p. 489)Google Scholar. Of course the length of the regal age in the traditional accounts (c. 245 years) works out as seven generations of 35 years each. The traditional date of the foundation may therefore be no more than a calculation based on a firm tradition that there had been seven kings. But it is equally possible, as Pallottino and Heurgon have argued, that the number of kings was secondary, and was only fixed at seven because of an independent tradition that Rome had been founded in the eighth century. There is no good reason to suppose that a tradition of seven kings was the starting point for all calculations of the foundation date. Heurgon points out that the archaic statues on the Capitol, supposedly of the old kings, were eight in number, not seven. Again, how is one to explain the fact that some Roman writers, such as Cincius Alimentus, gave the regal period a number of years which is not divisible by seven? Gjerstad's arithmetical contortions around this problem (Early Rome VI, 86Google Scholar) are just as arbitrary as the procedure he attributes to Cincius.

page 24 note 5 Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria I, 765Google Scholar; and cf. the fundamental paper of Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, pp. 23–53Google Scholar, with bibliography on pp. 51 ff.

page 24 note 6 E.g. Eratosthenes, , F. Gr. Hist. 241 F. 45Google Scholar; Hegesianax, , F. Gr. Hist. 45 F. 7Google Scholar.

page 25 note 1 Cf. Pasquali, G., Encicl. Ital. XXIX, s.v. ‘Roma’, p. 906Google Scholar.

page 25 note 2 Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 447 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 25 note 3 This is implied for example in the following statement: ‘In den rund fünfundzwanzig erhaltenen griechischen Zeugnissen über die Gründung Roms, die dem Einsatz der römischen Geschichtsschreibung um 200 v. Chr. mit Sicherheit vorausliegen und die Entwicklung der Tradition von ausgehenden 5. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert im Uberiß zu übersehen erlauben…’, etc. (Zur Sage…, p. 9). A similar idea lies behind Classen's remark in Historia XII (1963), 452Google Scholar n. 29 (cf. above, p. 19 n. 3).

page 25 note 4 Thus, on the bizarre version of Promathion, which is probably in fact to be dated to the first century B.C., Strasburger writes: ‘Jedenfalls kann man sich schwer vorstellen, daß nach Timaios, Diokles oder gar Fabius Pictor, das heißt nach der Entwicklung der für später gültig bleibenden Grundlinien der Romulus-Remus-Sage, irgendein Erzähler noch einmal auf so ausgefallene Züge hätte regredieren können' (his italics) (Zur Sage…, p. 16 n.). The basic arguments for a late date for Promathion were established by Mommsen, (Ges. Schr. 4, p. 5 n. 1)Google Scholar, and have recently been reaffirmed by Gabba, E. (Entretiens Fondation Hardt 13 (1966), 148 f.)Google Scholar, who speculates further that Promathion may have been affected by the ‘etruscomania’ of the late Republic. On Promathion in general see the items cited on p. 21 n. 4, and add Heurgon, J., La vie quotidienne chezles Étrusques, pp. 312 ff.Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, p. 182Google Scholar.

page 25 note 5 Bickermann, E. J., Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 67Google Scholar.

page 25 note 6 Hegesianax, , F. Gr. Hist. 45 F. 8Google Scholar. For his visit to Rome as an ambassador of Antiochus III see Livy 34. 57. 6 = F. Gr. Hist. 45 T. 5.

page 26 note 1 Polyb. 6. 11 a. 1 (= Dion. Hal. 1. 31. 5). Contrast Cato, Origines fr. 11 P. Cf. Bickermann, , Class. Phil. XLVII (1952), 67Google Scholar.

page 26 note 2 On Promathion see above, p. 21 n. 4, p. 25 n. 4. A further example of the way in which Greek authors felt free to adapt the Roman tradition is provided by Antigonus' version of the story of Tarpeia. Apparently he wrote that Tarpeia was the daughter of Titus Tatius and that Romulus was forcibly keeping her as his mistress: Plut., Rom. 17. 5Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 816 F. 2 (cf. above, p. 17 n. 6). And a poet called Simylos, quoted by Plutarch, separated the story from its traditional context and made Tarpeia betray the city to the Gauls (Plut., Rom. 17. 6Google Scholar). Such arbitrary distortion must have been common in Hellenistic writing about Rome. On Simylos see Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, p. 482Google Scholar (an important discussion of Hellenistic manipulation of local traditions).

page 26 note 3 Dion. Hal. 1. 4. 2.

page 26 note 4 Strabo 13. 1. 53, p. 607C.

page 26 note 5 Livy 37. 37. 1–3; Justin 31.8. 1–4. It is impossible to say how far Demetrius was acquainted with the details of the Roman foundation legend, but it is worth noting that he knew of Diodes of Peparethos (Athenaeus 2. 44E = F. Gr. Hist. 820 T. 1).

page 26 note 6 Gabba, E., ‘Storiografia greca e imperialismo romano’, Riv. Stor. Ital. LXXXVI. 4 (1974), 625–42, esp. pp. 630 ffGoogle Scholar. The controversy was still alive in the time of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1. 53).

page 26 note 7 Gabba, art. cit. p. 633. On Apollodorus' silence see Jacoby, F., Apollodors Chronik (Berlin, 1902), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar; F. Gr. Hist. 11 B Comm., p. 723.

page 27 note 1 The same considerations led Dionysius of Halicarnassus to attempt to forestall criticisms that he had chosen an obscure subject (1. 4. 1):

page 27 note 2 Dion. Hal. 1. 4. 2. This whole aspect of the problem was first brought to my attention by Professor A. Momigliano.

page 27 note 3 For example contrast the statement of Zenodotus of Troezen (mid-second century B.C.), that Praeneste was founded by Praenestus son of Odysseus, with the local legend of Caeculus, reported in Cato's Origines (Zenodotus, , F. Gr. Hist. 821 F. 1Google Scholar: Cato, , Origines fr. 59 P)Google Scholar. One wonders also what authority Zenodotus had for his curious account of the rape of the Sabine women, an account, Plutarch tells us, which was contradicted by many (Plut., Rom. 14. 6–7Google Scholar = F. Gr. Hist. 821 F. 2).

page 28 note 1 Thus, e.g. Rosenberg, A., P.-W. s.v. ‘Romulus’, 1079Google Scholar.

page 28 note 2 Niese, B., Hist. Zeitschr. LIX (1888), 495Google Scholar; Carter, J. B., Myth. Lex. s.v. ‘Romulus, Romus, Remus’, 169–71Google Scholar; idem, Amer. Journ. Archaeol. XIII (1909), 20–2; Last, H., Camb. Anc. Hist. VII, 368Google Scholar.

page 28 note 3 Kretschmer, P., ‘Remus und Romulus’, Glotta I (1909), 288–303Google Scholar.

page 28 note 4 Thus e.g. Niese, B., Hist. Zeitschr. LIX (1888), 482–3Google Scholar.

page 28 note 5 Admitted e.g. by Kretschmer, , Glotta I (1909), 288 ff.Google Scholar; Rosenberg, , P.-W. s.v. ‘Romulus’, 1079–80Google Scholar; Carter, , Myth. Lex. s.v. ‘Romulus…’, 171Google Scholar; cf. Schulze, W., Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin, 1904), p. 219Google Scholar; Pasquali, G., Encicl. Ital. s.v. ‘Roma’, p. 907Google Scholar; Schröder, W. A., Cato, Origines I, p. 62Google Scholar.

page 28 note 6 Schulze, W., Zur Gesch. lat. Eigennamen, pp. 219, 579 ff.Google Scholar; Fraenkel, Ernst, P.-W. s.v. ‘Namenwesen’, 1655Google Scholar.

page 28 note 7 Thus Last, Carter, Rosenberg, Kretschmer, opp. citt. (above, nn. 1–3).

page 29 note 1 Cato, , Origines frs. 50, 51, 53, etcGoogle Scholar.

page 29 note 2 Classen, C. J., Historia XII (1963), 452Google Scholar.

page 29 note 3 Such versions are those of Alcimus, , F. Gr. Hist. 560 F. 4Google Scholar; Hegesianax, , F. Gr. Hist. 45 F. 7Google Scholar; Anon. ap. Dion. Hal. 1. 73. 3.

page 29 note 4 Ennius, , Ann. 86Google Scholar Warmington; Dion. Hal. 1. 85. 6; 86. 2; 87. 3; Plutarch, , Rom. 9. 4Google Scholar; 11. 1; Festus, s.v. ‘Remurinus ager’, p. 345 LGoogle Scholar; Origo gentis Romanae 23. 1; ILLRP no. 252. Cf. Schulze, W., Zur Gesch. lat. Eigennamen, p. 219Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, p. 116Google Scholar.

page 29 note 5 Mommsen, T., Ges. Schr. 4, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 30 note 1 Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, pp. 86 ff.Google Scholar, incorporating the results of his earlier studies: Mus. Helv. VIII (1951), 211Google Scholar; Early Rome, pp. 45, 245. Cf. Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes, pp. 96 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 30 note 2 Ovid, , Fasti 2. 375–80Google Scholar; Origo gentis Romanae 22. 1, etc.

page 30 note 3 Cf. the remarks of Weinstock, S., Divus Julius, p. 332Google Scholar.

page 30 note 4 Dion. Hal. 2. 70. 1, 3. 32. 4; Livy 1. 20. 4, 1. 27. 7; cf. Serv., Aen. 8Google Scholar. 285. Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1960), p. 115 n. 1Google Scholar.

page 30 note 5 See e.g. Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Römer2 (Munich, 1912), p. 555Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Legends and facts of early Roman history (Scripta Minora, 1960–1961, 2, Lund, 1962), pp. 25 f.Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Terzo contributo, p. 554Google Scholar.

page 30 note 6 Vergil, , Aen. 7. 670Google Scholar.

page 30 note 7 Ovid, , Fasti, 5. 143Google Scholar; cf. the denarius of L. Caesius, of 112 or 111 B.C. (no. 298 Crawford).

page 30 note 8 Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. I, pp. 434 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Seeley, J. R., Livy Book I (Oxford, 1881), pp. 31 fGoogle Scholar.

page 30 note 9 Ges. Schr. 4, p. 1 n. 1.

page 30 note 10 Weinstock, S., Divus Julius, p. 292Google Scholar. Ogilvie, R. M. writes: ‘Romulus and Remus were the ancestors of the Roman people and so on death became lares par excellence’ (Comm. on Livy, p. 50)Google Scholar. Weinstock gives the bibliography in Journ. Rom. Studies L (1960), 116Google Scholar, where he enlists the aid of the ‘Lar Aeneas’ inscription. But the view that the Lar was a divine ancestor can probably be established independently of the Tor Tignosa inscription, which may in fact turn out to be a mare's nest (see above, p. 14 n. 5).

page 31 note 1 The various cult relics are listed by Alföldi, , Die Struktur, pp. 166 ffGoogle Scholar. One of these survivals, the practice of placing pairs of laurel trees outside sacred buildings in the Palatine area of the city, is discussed further in Alföldi's, recent study Die zwei Lorbeerbäume des Augustus (Bonn, 1973)Google Scholar.

page 31 note 2 Livy 1. 3.6; Dion. Hal. 1. 70.2. On Silvius notice the very interesting remarks of Mazzarino, S., Il pensiero storico classico I, 193 f.Google Scholar, concerning reges nemorenses in early Latium.

page 31 note 3 Cato, , Origines fr. 11 PGoogle Scholar.

page 31 note 4 [Hesiod], Theogony 1011–16, = ‘living wild’. Alföldi, A., Urahnen, pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Gigon, O., Festschrift A. Debrunner, p. 155Google Scholar. Weinstock's, S. doubts about the identification of Agrios and Silvius (Journ. Rom. Stud. XLIX (1959), 170)CrossRefGoogle Scholar are decisively set aside by Alföldi, in Early Rome, p. 239 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 31 note 5 Alföldi, A., Early Rome, pp. 238 ff.Google Scholar; Die Struktur, pp. 74, no, 165, etc.

page 31 note 6 Cato, , Origines fr. 59 P.Google Scholar

page 31 note 7 Cf. the story of Servius Tullius: Dion. Hal. 4. 2. 1 f.; Ovid, , Fasti 6. 627 f.Google Scholar; Pliny, , N.H. 36. 204Google Scholar; Plutarch, , de Fort. Rom. 10, etc.Google Scholar; the version of the Roman legend in Promathion, ap. Plut., Rom. 2. 3–6Google Scholar; and the legend of Modius Fabidius, the founder of Cures: Varro ap. Dion. Hal. 2. 48 with the remarks of Altheim, F., Griechische Götter im alten Rom (Giessen, 1930), pp. 53 fGoogle Scholar. In general see Alföldi, , Die Struktur, pp. 182 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 32 note 1 Vergil, , Aen. 7. 678Google Scholar, and Servius ad loc.; Solinus 2. 9.

page 32 note 2 N.B. especially Cassius Hemina fr. 11 P. See further Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, pp. 109 f.Google Scholar, with references to the sources.

page 32 note 3 Cf. Dumézil, G., Archaic Roman religion (Chicago, 1970), p. 253Google Scholar.

page 32 note 4 Serv., Aen. 7. 678Google Scholar.

page 32 note 5 Binder, G., Die Aussetzung des Königskindes, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Alföldi, A., Die Struktur, pp. 107 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 32 note 6 Heurgon, J., Trots études sur le ‘ver sacrum’ (Collection ‘Latomus’ XXVI, Brussels, 1957)Google Scholar.

page 32 note 7 Frazer, J. G., The Fasti of Ovid (London, 1929), 11, 381Google Scholar.