Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:08:39.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Problems in the Aeneas Legend

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Nicholas Horsfall
Nicholas Horsfall
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If the Iliadic Aeneas has a fault, it is that he fails to die: 20.302 . In Homer, he is not memorable, but closer inspection reveals a warrior of authentic distinction.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , December 1979 , pp. 372 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1979

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

1 On Homer's Aeneas, see (e.g.) Roscher, E.Wörner, i. 157 ff.Google Scholar, Karl, G.Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, 1969), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

2 20.187 ff.; cf. Leaf, W., Troy (London, 1912), pp. 245 f.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Hackett's, Sir John light-hearted but perceptive comments, PCA 68 (1971), 15. 15.Google Scholar

4 5.180 etc.; Galinsky, (n. 1), p. 36. But I am not here concerned with the survival and development of his reputation for sagacity.Google Scholar

5 Drummond, A., JRS 62 (1972), 219, against Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 41 f. et passim.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Heine, R., Virgils epische Technik 3 (Leipzig, 1928), p. 10Google Scholar, who compares, inter alia, the explanation for the Roman defeat at Cannae in Val. Max. 7.4. ext. 2 ‘decepti magis quam victi sumus’. See too Liv. 21.54. 1 ff. and 22.48.2 ff. with Bruckmann, H., Die röm. Niederlagen im Geschichtriverk des T. Livius (diss. Minster, 1936), pp. 61, 85, et passim.Google Scholar

7 Appendix to Eur. Phoen. ed. Geel (Leyden, 1846), p. 281Google Scholar, Powell, , Coll. Alex., p. 112Google Scholar, Schmidt, M., Troika (diss. Göttingen, 1917), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar, Gow-Page, , HE ii. 511Google Scholar, Bethe, E., Homer, ii.2, 177Google Scholar, Perret, J., Les Origines de la Legende troyenne de Rome (Paris, 1942), p. 370Google Scholar, Griffin, J., JHS 97 (1977), 51 n. 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Huxley, G. L., Greek Epic Poetry (London, 1969), p. 199 (n. on p. 156) remains unconvinced.Google Scholar

8 For further discussion of this fragment, cf. p. 000.

9 Proclus' use of I find hard to explain; neither Hwtley's ‘in their dismay’ (n. 7, p. 146) nor Evelyn-White's ‘alarmed’ (Hesiod etc., Loeb edn., p. 521) render the word accurately.

10 Gatinsky (n. 1) renders (p. 47) ‘cowardly escapes’; this is not in the Greek.

11 Possibly seventh-century: Richardson, N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter Cephalon of Gergis (Oxford, 1974), p. 11Google Scholar, Lesky, A., RE Suppl. xi. 829 f.Google Scholar

12 13, pp. 607 f.; cf. Huxley, (n. 5), p. 131Google Scholar, Reinhardt, K., Die ilias and ihr Dichter (Göttingen, 1961), p. 509 n. 2Google Scholar, Hoekstra, A., The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 40.Google Scholar

13 Tr. Leaf, W., Strabo on the Troad (Cambridge, 1923), p. 275.Google Scholar

14 Thus nearly a native of the Troad, as Hellanicus' follower, Damastes of Sigeum (on whom see p. 382) actually was. Curiously, Cephalon of Gergis (= Hegesianax of Alexandreia in the Troad) has no time for local claims and has Aeneas found Pallene, in Thrace (FGrHist 45 F 7).

15 FGrHist 47 2 F5; Festus s.v. Romam p. 269M; for the date, see Cornell, T. J., PCPS 1975, 19 n. 3; hereafter ‘Cornell’.Google Scholar

16 For the anti-Roman political implications of Aeneas' continued sojourn in the Troad, I refer to Cornell, pp. 26 f.

17 Tr. Evelyn-White, Hesiod etc., Loeb edn., 523.

18 Austin, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, Bethe, , Homer, ii. 2,254 f.Google Scholar, Worner, E., Roscher iii. 1302Google Scholar, Gross, K., Die Unterpfander der röm. Herrschaft (Berlin, 1935), pp. 69 f.Google Scholar

19 Cf. Galinsky, (n. 1), pp. 106 ff., for a recent account of the problems and implications for the Aeneas-legend if the evidence of the Tabula be accepted as authentic.Google Scholar

20 Attested at least as far back as Welcker, F. G., Ann. Inst. 1 (1829), 234, n. 10.Google Scholar

21 Paulcke, M., de Tabula Iliaca quaestionesStesicboreae (diss. Konigsberg, 1897), p. 89 n. 200.Google Scholar

22 Cf. Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1961), pp. 105 f.Google Scholar

23 Mancuso, U., Mem. Acc. Linc. xiv. 8 (1909), 669.Google Scholar

24 For reproductions, cf. (e.g.) Sadurska, A., Les Tables iliaques (Warsaw, 1964) p1.1Google Scholar, Guarducci, M., Epigrafia greca, iii (Rome, 1974), pl. 161aGoogle Scholar, Bömer, , Rom and Troia (Baden-Baden, 1951), p1.2.Google Scholar

25 A. R. 3.311, Agathyllus ap. D. H. 1.49.2, Enn. Ann. 23; cf. Virg. Aen. 1.530 = 3.163.

26 Cf. Hubaux, J., AC 2 (1933), 161.Google Scholar

27 Cf. Shefton, B. B., Wiss. Ztscbr. Rostock 16 (1967), 534 n. 25.Google Scholar

28 Cf. Zazoff, P., Etr. Skarabiten (Mainz, 1968), p. 41.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Fuchs, W., ANRW i.4. 616 ff.Google Scholar, Zazoff, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

30 Cf. Seeliger, K., Die Uberlieferung der gr. Heldensage bei Stesicboros (progr. Meissen, 1886), p; 33.Google Scholar

31 Wilamowitz, , Kl. Schr. v.1. 498Google Scholar, Speyer, W., Die Lit. Falschung im Altertum (Munich, 1971), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

32 Aineia: whence a coin of c. 490–480, showing Anchises sitting on Aeneas' left shoulder (cf. p. 000): Price, M. and Wagoner, N., Archaic Greek Coinage, The Asyut Hoard (London, 1975), pp. 43 f., pl.B, 194.Google Scholar

33 Cf. Jacoby, , RE viii.115 ff.Google Scholar, Schur, W., Klio 17 (1921), 149;CrossRefGoogle Scholar compare D. H. 1. 49.1 (= FGrHist 391 F 4 and 45 F 7), 50.1, and Conon, , FGrHist 26 F 1 (46.3 f.).Google Scholar

34 EarlyIonian Historians (Oxford, 1939), pp. 188 ff.Google Scholar

35 Cf. Bickerman, E. J., CW 37 (1943–1944), 94.Google Scholar

36 Cf. (e.g.) Cauer, F., Die corn. Aeneassage, Jhb kl Phil, Supplbd. xv (1886), 162 ff.Google Scholar

37 Momigliano, , JRS 35 (1945), 100Google Scholar = Terzo contributo, p. 680.Google Scholar

38 1.8.3, col rag is intrinsically different because in the plural. See Pais, E., Storia critica i (Rome, 1918), 233 n. 1Google Scholar and Kullmer, H., Die Historiai des Hellanikos, Jbb kl Phil Supplbd. xxvii (1902), 645.Google Scholar

39 Cf. Jacoby, , RE viii. 144Google Scholar, Kullmer, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, Sanctis, G. de, Storia dei romani i (Turin, 1907), 198 n. 7.Google Scholar

40 Pace Cauer, F., dé fabulis Graecis (diss. Berlin, 1884), p. 12 n. 19.Google Scholar

41 As even Perret (n. 7, p. 378 n. 3) admits!

42 Ap. Serv. ad Aen. 3.256, Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3.349; cf. D.H. 1.51.1, Aen. 3.466; note that at Aen. 3.294 ff., Aeneas does not go inland.

43 Cf. Christ, W., SBMünchen 1905.1.111, Perret (n. 7), p. 370Google Scholar, Boyancé, P., REA 45 (1943), 285 ff.Google Scholar

44 Against Perret, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, cf. Boyance, , loc. cit. (n. 43), Pind. Nem. 7.37 ff., 4.50 ff., Paean 6.110 ff., etc.Google Scholar

45 Cf. Perret, (n. 7), p. 370Google Scholar, Wörner, E., Roscher i. 167.53 ff.Google Scholar

46 Pace Hammond, N. G. L., Epirus (Oxford, 1967), p. 385Google Scholar, Gruppe, O., Gr. Myth. i.218 n. 4.Google Scholar

47 Loc. cit.; cf. Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, n.d.), p. 279, who supposes that in Lycophron Aeneas travelled from Thrace to Etruria by land.Google Scholar

48 Proclus, , Nostoi p. 108.28 f.Google Scholar, Pind, Allen. Paean 6.110Google Scholar, Hammond, , op. cit., p. 383.Google Scholar

49 Strab, . 13, p. 608: a settlement near Macedonian Olympus is no exception.Google Scholar

50 Cf. above, p. 377, Lye. 1236 f., with scholia and Aen. 5.537.

51 Cf. Jacoby ad loc., Perret (n. 7), pp. 371 ff., Pearson (n. 34), p. 191 n. 1, Cornell, p. 18 n. 7, with further bibliography.

52 Perret (n. 7), p. 373, Sanders, H. A., CPb 3 (1908), 318 f.Google Scholar, Cauer, F. (n. 40), p. 7; but cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.273 = FGrHist 819: Clinias (??) made Aeneas' wife Rhome the daughter of Telemachus; a chronological horror: cf. Cornell, p. 18.Google Scholar

53 N. 7, 373 and Lat. 28 (1969), 7 respectively.

54 Cf. Phillips, E. D., JHS 73 (1953), 60 f., 67.Google Scholar

55 Cf. Horsfall, , JRS 63 (1973), 73.Google Scholar

56 Bickerman, E. J., CPb 47 (47), 66.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Galinsky, (n. 53), pp. 1 ff. Phillips (n. 54), p. 67, Cornell, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar

58 JRS 63 (1973), 78.Google Scholar

59 At least therefore he must mean Cortona not Croton.

60 On Hdt. 1.57.1, cf. Fritz, K. von, Die gr. Geschichtsschreibung i Anm. (Berlin, 1967), 226 f. n. 35.Google Scholar

61 Cf. Brelich, A., Gli eroi greci (Rome, 1958), pp. 235 f.;Google Scholar for a sane and sceptical discussion of the problems, see Hartmann, A., Unters. über die Sagen vom Tod des Od. (Munich, 1917), pp. 154 ff.Google Scholar

62 Modona, A. Neppi, Cortona etrusca e romana (Florence, 1925), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

63 Geffcken, J., Timaios' Geogr. d. Westens, Phil. Unters. xiii (1892), 44 f.Google Scholar, Pallottino, M., L'origine degli etruschi (Rome, 1947), pp. 17 ff. etc.Google Scholar

64 Cf. Hieronymus, of Cardia, FGrHist 154 F 17.Google Scholar

65 FGrHist 115 F 354; cf. Horsfall, , CQ N. S. 26 (1976), 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 See recently, StJosifovic, , RE Suppl. xi. 896.Google Scholar

67 Hartmann (n. 61), pp. 156 f. does not.

68 i.e. Etruscan; so, e.g., Geffcken (n. 63), p. 44.

69 TestLingEtr2 ed. M. Pallottino, p. 441.

70 CPb 47 (1952), 66.Google Scholar

71 Cf. Kiessling, A., de D. H. Antiquitatum auctoribus Latinis (diss. Bonn, 1858), p. 40.Google Scholar

72 Cf. Bickerman (n. 70), p. 78 n. 14, Cornell, p. 18.

73 FGrHist 830 F 136, ap. Festus s.v. Romam p. 269M; cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.273, Solin. 1.2; compare, however, Aristotle, fr. 609R (= D. H. 1.72.4; cf. Plut. Q. R. 6) who localizes the episode in ‘a place in the land of the Opicans which is called Latinion, lying near the Tyrrhenian Sea’. Cf. further n. 122.

74 Strabo 7, fr. 25, Conon, FGrHist 26 F 1.13, S. Byz. s.v. Scione, Polyaen. 7.47.

75 Strabo 7, p. 264, S. Byz. s.v.; cf. Tz. ad Lyc. 1075, Geffcken (n. 63), p. 22.

76 Lyc. 921, 1074 ff., MythogrGr ed. Wagner i. 220 (= Apld. fr. ap. Schol. ad. Lyc. 921), Strab. 6. p. 262, etc.; cf. Geffcken (n. 63), p. 22 n. 1.

77 Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 10.179; cf. Justin 20.1.11, Geffcken (n. 63), p. 148, Rîitter, R., de Timaei fabulis…. (diss. Halle, 1901), p. 21.Google Scholar

78 Cf. Cornell, pp. 18 f. We should be wary of eliciting any special or historical significance from the nationality of the ships burned; cf. Schur (n. 33), pp. 146 ff., Perret (n. 7), pp. 396 ff., Hoffmann, W., Rom and die gr. Welt, Phil. Supplbd. xxvii (1934), 112 n. 254Google Scholar, Alföldi, A., Troj. Urahnen (Basel, 1957), p. 10Google Scholar, Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. i (Tubingen, 1867), 404 n. 29.Google Scholar

79 Cf. F. Cauer (n. 40), pp. 15 f.

80 Cf. above, pp. 375 f. and JHS 99 (1979).Google Scholar

81 Cf. Ciaceri, E., Studi storici 4 (1895) 508, Schwegler (n. 78), p. 304 n. 10; contra, de Sanctis (n. 39), i. 198 n. 7.Google Scholar

82 (n. 34), p. 191; cf. Bickerman, , CW 37 (1943-1944), 94.Google Scholar

83 Too many of the difficulties are ignored in Horsfall, , CQ N. S. 24 (1974), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84 FGrHist 840 F 10; cf. Cornell, p. 19 n. 3.

85 FGrHist 560 F 4 = 840 F 12; cf. Cornell, p. 7 n. 11.

86 FGrHist 472 F 5 = 840 F 18–9; cf. Cornell, p. 19 n. 3.

87 FGrHist 240 F 9 ð 840 F 17; cf. Cornell, p. 20 n. 4.

88 Aristotle (above, n. 73 = FGrHist 840 F 13) does not after all mention Rome by name in this passage.

89 Jacoby, on FGrHist 566 F 59–61Google Scholar, Geffcken (n. 63), pp. 39 ff., Horsfall (n. 83), p. 112, Momigliano, , Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford, 1977), pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar

90 Cf. p. 376 above, Fuchs, W., ANRW i.4. 616 ff.Google Scholar, Horsfall, , JHS 99 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91 Cf. Acusilaus, FGrHist 2 F 39, a crudely rationalist interpretation of Il. 20.300 ff.

92 RE s.v., 1913. 61 ff.

93 Ibid. 1917. 61 ff., Jaeger, W., Paideia (tr. Highet) iii (Oxford, 1945), 329 n. 130.Google Scholar

94 Drummond, A. (JRS 62 (1972), 219Google Scholar, cites Jaeger, loc. cit., and di Benedetto, , Maia 19 (1967) 22 ff., 230 ff. Cf. too, withgreat caution, Xénophon, L'art de la chasse, ed. E. Delebecque (edn. Budé), p. 42.Google Scholar

95 Radermacher, L., RhM 52 (1897), 25.Google Scholar

96 Geffcken, 147. 10 ff.: Lyc. Alex. 1263 ff. and D. S. 7.4; cf. Varr. Res Hum. ap. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 2.636 and Historiae 2 ap. Schol. Ver. ad Aen. 2.717; also Apld. Epit. 5.21 and Q. S. 13.345 ff.

97 Cyn.: Lyc .

98 (n. 1), pp. 42 ff.; particularly p. 54: I fail to see how Galinsky reaches the conclusion that Aeneas' carrying of his father was not represented as an act of pietas before Sen. Ben. 3.37. If what is required is formal testimony, then Auct. ad Herenn. 4.46 will serve: (as example of paradox) ‘ut si quern impium, qui patrem verberaverit, Aenean vocemus’; the remark is pointless unless Aeneas' pietas erga patrem, symbolized, what is more, by a concrete act, is already so familiar as to be proverbial.

99 Ibid., pp. 53 ff., accepted without question by Cornell, p. 13.

100 ARV 385, no. 223; for varying traditions about Anchises'age and physical condition, cf. Austin on Aen. 2.649. Certainly, if Aeneas is leading, not carrying his father, he is better ready to resist pursuers.

101 Gerhard, E., Arch Ztg 5–6 (1847-1848), 226 f.Google Scholar, with pl. xv, Trendall, A. D., South Italian Vase-painting (London, 1966), p. 20 with p1.7, Galinsky (n. 1), p. 57 with pl. 42. The identifications are highly likely, rather than certain.Google Scholar

102 Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 40 f., Cypria 103.1 Ghali-Kahil, Allen L., Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Helène (Paris, 1955), pp. 29, 53, et passim.Google Scholar

103 Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood kindly drew my attention to Brelich (n. 29), for a full survey of ambiguity in conduct as an essential characteristic of the Greek mythological hero.

104 Alföldi (n. 47), pp. 283 f., followed unhesitatingly by Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 154 f. The BF amphora described by Galinsky (n. 1), p. 55, n. 104, as in a private collection in Hamburg and as published by Alföldi is in fact in the Museum für Kunst u. Gewerbe (1906.380) and has been published widely: ABV 397, K. Schauenburg, Gymn. 67 (1960), 176 ff.: no. 7, with pl. viii.l. The figure behind Aeneas was identified by Alföldi (loc. cit.) as Antenor without any justification: cf. Ballheimer, R., Griech. Vasen aus dem Hamburg. Mus., 48 Versamml. Deutscber Pbilologen (Hamburg, 1905), p. 14 with pl. 3Google Scholar, von Mercklin, E., Fiihrer durch das Hamburg. Mus., (1930), 30, no. 82Google Scholar. Neither Ballheimer nor von Mercklin were prepared to identify the figure. The same applies to the Ilioupersis calyx-crater by the Altamura painter in Boston: see Vermeule, C. C., Ill. London News, 10 Oct. 1959, pp. 398 f.Google Scholar, Beazley, J. D., Attic Vase Paintings in. Boston (Boston, 1963), p. 62Google Scholar, ARV 2 590, no. 11. There is again nothing whatever to suggest that the figure marching ahead of Aeneas is Antenor. For further arguments against the interpretations of Alföldi and Galinsky, cf. now Davies, Mark I., Lex. Icon. Myth. Class. i (1974), 17.Google Scholar

105 Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 48 f., Momigliano, , JRS 48 (1958), 70Google Scholar, Wlosok, A., Die Göttin Venus (Heidelberg, 1967), p. 47Google Scholar, Gabba, E. in I canali della propaganda nel mondo antico ed. M. Sordi (Milan, 1976), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar, and R. Scuderi, ibid., pp. 39 ff.

106 K. Schauenburg, loc. cit. (n. 104), Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 103 ff., W. Fuchs (n. 90), pp. 615 ff., etc. To the list in Brommer3, three additions, for which I am indebted to Miss M. Loudon, may be made: (i) Münster Inv. 738 = Boreas 1 (1978), 189 f. (no provenance); (ii) Sotheby, Catal. 10, Apr. 1978, no. 216, p. 56. (no provenance); (iii) Beazley Archive, Ashmolean Museum: Amphora type B. Box 2 (Delos).

107 Note that Brommer, nos. 12 and 13 are one and the same vase, München 1546; see Beazley, , Paralipomena, p. 172. Despite Beazley, ABV 483.1 (cf. Catal. Ravenstein i (1871), 190 f.) I share Brommer's unease about the identification of the figures on Brussels R312 (p. 388, sub fin.). The head and shoulders of the figure carried are suspiciously far forward: a corpse?Google Scholar

108 Schauenburg (n. 104), p. 186. Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 123, 130.

109 A reference for which I am indebted to Mr. Dyfri Williams.

110 On the identification, see Brommer, Satyrspiele2 no. 149; Caskey-Beazley, ii. 39.

111 Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 125 ff.; to this number, I have not been able to add.

112 Apparently it is only in Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.242 that his wife Theano travels with him.

113 Cf. Pearson, Soph. Frag. i. 86 ff.

114 Unique certainly at the fall of Troy: for the Catanian story of Amphinomus and Anapias, cf. V. M. 5.4.4, Galinsky (n. 1), p. 56, Fuchs (n. 90), p. 624.

115 As was done notably by F. Böuner (n. 24), pp. 47 ff.; he has had many followers —e.g. Knoche, U., Festschr. Snell (Munich, 1956), p. 90Google Scholar, Boyancé, P., Religion de Virgile (Paris, 1963), pp. 61 f., Schauenburg ((n. 104), pp. 189 f. Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 57 ff. and 130 f., and Cornell rightly insist that this argument is gravely fallacious. The vases are distinctively Etruscan (not Roman) in provenance; the virtue is not.Google Scholar

116 Roma medio-reppublicana (1973), pp. 335 f. etc.Google Scholar; for a summary, Perret, J., REL 49 (1971), 41 ff.Google Scholar and Cornell, T. J., LCM 2 (1977), 78.Google Scholar

117 Cornell, p. 14 n. 5, with further references.

118 Cf. (pro) Sommella, P., RendPontAcad 44 (1971-1972), 47 ff.Google Scholar and Gymn. 81 (1974), 273 ff.Google Scholar, Galinsky, G. K., Vergilius 20 (1974) 2 ff.Google Scholar; (contra): Cornell, T. J. (n. 116), pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Palmer, R. E. A., Roman Religion and Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gantz, T. N., PP 29 (1974), 358 n. 32. I am most grateful to Dr. Cornell for an advance view of his LCM paper; I disagree with much in it and in his PCPS contribution, but have benefited immensely from his articles and from extended discussions with him.Google Scholar

119 Cf. Fuchs (n. 90), p. 620 on the Parthenon metopes.

120 Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 147 ff., Alföldi (n. 47), pp. 258 f., Castagnoli, F., Atti viii Convegno … Studi Magna Grecia (1968/1969), p. 97, etc.Google Scholar

121 Pans. 7.2.11; cf. Plut. Them. 10.4, Weinstock, S., RE xix. 435.4 ff.Google Scholar, Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City (Manchester, 1964), p. 14.Google Scholar

122 Kiessling's emendation of to at D. H. 1.72.3 is inadmissible normalizing, nor need the whole passage, strictly speaking, be relevant to this discussion; cf. n. 73.

123 Lavinium, F. Castagnolii (Rome, 1972), 99; his whole discussion is admirable in its caution and scepticism.Google Scholar

124 There is apparently no difficulty in suggesting that the Veii statuettes might belong to a period as late as the late fourth century or even later; cf. n. 116. Torelli's proposal (loc. cit.) that they symbolized the pietas of the new Roman colonists at Veii is clearly ingenious rather than mandatory.