THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE:

FACTS AND FICTIONS

C. J. SMITH
Abstract The authenticity of the fragments of Roman historiography contained in the Origo
Gentis Romanae, a fourth century account of the beginnings of Rome, have been frequcntly
called into question, notably by Peter, who excluded them from his collection of the Roman
historical fragments, and by J acoby in a famous article. Photius, Pscudo-Plutarch, and
Fulgentius, among others, have been brought into the argument. This paper re-examines the
nature of the citations in the Origo Gentis Romanae and, by looking at samples of the other
works, offers a re-evaluation of their historical and historiographical worth.
Introduction
Sometime in the fourth century BC, Heraclides of Pontus quarrelled with another
philosopher, Dionysius the Renegade. ... Dionysius forged a [new] tragedy, the
Parthenopaeus, and ascribed it to Sophocles. Heraclides, who had done some forgery
of his own and should have known better, duly quoted it as genuine. And Dionysius in
turn proclaimed that the supposed tragedy [contained] an acrostic: the first letters of
the lines spelled out the true message (in this case, the name of Dionysius boyfriend,
Pankalos). Heraclides replied that the appearance of the name could be accidental.
Instructed to read on, he found that the acrostic continued with a coherent couplet:
An old monkey isnt caught by a trap.
Oh yes, hes caught at last, but it takes time.
Further initial letters spelled out a crushing verdict: Heraclides is ignorant of letters.
When Heraclides had read this, we are told, he blushed.
This story is quoted by Antony Grafton at the beginning of his book Forgers and critics, and
indicates the pitfalls presented by the clever literary genre of literary forgery. From time to
time, the Origo gentis Romanae has been overshadowed by the imputation of falsehood, with
the consequence that its most precious gift to us, several otherwise unknown authors and
works, and several unknown quotes from other known authors, has been refused acceptance,
notably in Peters collection of the fragments of the Roman historians. In his recent book,
I A. Grafton, Forgers and critics: crea/ivi/y and duplicily in Western scholarship (Princeton 1990) 3-4; the story
comes from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the philosophers 5 92-3.
2 H. Peter, Hisloricorum Romanorum Fragmenra (Lcipzig 1906-14): cf. the BudC edition by M Chassignet
L Annalisfique Romaine (three volumes so far, Paris 1996, 1999 and 2004) and by the same author Ca/on. l e s
Origines (Paris 1986). and a German edition by H. Beck and U. Walter, Diefiuhen romrschen /fis/oriker (Ilarmstadt
BICS-48 2005
91
98 BICS-48 - 2005
Alan Cameron has introduced a case for the defence, though in his version the Origo gentis
Romanae is a compendium of Virgilian scholarship at second, third or fourth hand.? This
paper cannot prove the case for or against the defendant, but hopes to introduce some
mitigation, and question some circumstantial evidence used against it.
The Origo gentis Romanae
The Origo gentis Romanae survives in two manuscripts, the Codex Bruxellensis and the
Codex Oxoniensis. I n both, it is bundled together with two other works, the Liber de viris
illustribus urbis Romae (which survives also in other manuscripts), and the Aurelii Victoris
historiae abbreviatae, or Caesares. Both are independent copies of a lost manuscript. The
work, taken as a whole, was sometimes called Origo gentis Romanae and gives a complete
history of Rome, with a large part concerned with origins, and a significant biographical
i ntere~t.~ In this paper, I shall use the title solely of the first part.
The complex arguments regarding the date ofthe works, and the date of their compilation,
have been admirably presented in a famous article by Momigliano and reconsidered
thoroughly by Richard in his edition, and therefore I may summarize here. First, the
compiler of the work was not the author of any of the works contained. He is represented
only by his interference in the first chapter of the De viris illustribus, and his introduction to
the work as a whole:
origo gentis Romanae a lano et Saturn0 conditoribus, per succedentes sibimet reges,
usque ad consulatum decimum Constantii, digesta ex auctoribus Verrio Flacco, Antiate
(ut quidem idem Verrius maluit dicere quam Antia), tum ex annalibus pontificum, dein
Cincio, Egnatio, Veratio, Fabio Pictore, Licinio Macro, Varrone, Caesare, Tuberone,
atque ex omni priscorum historia; proinde ut quisque neotericorum asseveravit, hoc est
Livius et Victor Afer.
The origin of the Roman people from the founders J anus and Saturn, through successive
kings, up to the tenth consulship of Constantius, excerpted from Verrius Flaccus, Antias
(as indeed Verrius preferred to call him rather than Antia); then from the pontifical
annals, then Cincius, Egnatius, Veratius, Fabius Pictor, Licinius Macer, Varro, Caesar,
Tubero, and all the early historians; and then as some of the recent historians have
written, that is Livy and Victor Afer.
Thirdly, the De viris illustribus contains interpolations from Eutropius and Orosius. These
passages themselves derive from a work from the eleventh century by Landolphus Sagax; but
2001. 2004) A new English text, translation and commentary entitled Thefragmen/ury Roman hrsforrans is in
preparation, edited by E. Bispham, T. J . Cornell, J . W. Rich and myself, and I owe a great debt to all involved in that
prqject for their assistance and comments on earlier versions of this paper.
3 A. Cameron, Greek mythography i n fhe Roman world (Oxford 2004) 328-34; this paper was written before the
appearance ofCamerons work but it is gratifying to have drawn similar conclusions on the nature of the citations and
their contribution to Roman historiography.
4 For summary information and bibliography, see Texrs and transmission: a survey of the Latin clussrcs, ed.
L. D. Reynolds (Oxford 1983) 149-53.
5 A. Momigliano, Some observations on the Origo Gentis Romanae, J RS 48 ( I 958) 56-73 (=Secundo con/rrhufo
allu s/orru degli s/zrdr clussici [Rome 19601); J -C. Richard, Pseudo-Aurilrus Viclor, Les orrgines du peuple Romuin
(Paris 1983) 7-71 (hereafter, Richard, OGR).
C. J . S MI TH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE 99
the style of the introduction, and the information it contains (for instance, the African origin
of Aurelius Victor), make it unlikely that the interpolator and the compiler are one and the
same - in other words, the interpolations do not prove that any other part of the work, or its
compilation, was of eleventh-century date. Moreover, there is nothing to support the idea that
Landolphus Sagax, or St. J erome and Paul the Deacon, had a longer text of the Origo, of
which ours is a late abridgement.
Fourthly, Niebuhrs suggestion that the first part of the work was a Renaissance forgery
cannot stand. Three key pieces of evidence stand against it; the unique use of the name
Recaranus for Hercules (Ch. 6) was not given any confirmation until the publication of
Servius Danielis Aen. 8.203, and the name Garanm6 Secondly, we have a list of colonies
founded by Latinus Silvius, the grandson of Silvius brother of Ascanius, the son of Aeneas
(Ch. 17). In itself, the list is an oddity; it does not fit with the list of popuf i Albenses in Pliny
NH 3.68; or with the lists of Latins who opposed Rome in the first Latin War given at DH
5.6 1 or Cat0 Origines 58P. Livy mentions the foundations only in general at 1.3.7; a longer
list but with the names in the same order appears in Diodorus, but our only source for this,
the Aramaic translation of Eusebius, did not appear until 18 1 7. 7 Thirdly, Remus phrase in
ch. 23 multa in hac urbe temere sperata atque praesumpta felicissime prouentura sunt finds
its only parallel in the excerpta vaticana of Diodorus 8.5, published in 1827:
iirt bpvtesuophvov PCpou K al PopiAou mpi 0i~iop06 ~r ohs o~, K al F?K TQV 6s{iQv
p~pQv Fiovpiav ywioeat cpaoi, Kazanhayhvza Fd T ~ V PEpov 6ntcp06y5apxov E ~ K E ~
r@ c&hcp@ iizt &v ra6q rq noh~t 7 ~ 0 h h h ~ t ~ Enapiotkpoy pouhelipaoiv F?mF6@o~
&COhOUefio&l TCXTl.
The date of the compilation is given its terminus post quem by Aurelius Victors work on
the Caesars which is dated to AD 360. We thus have to decide the date of the compilation,
and then of the Origo itself. On the first point, Momigliano argues for a date not much after
the composition of the Caesares, in other words the fourth century. Richard, following
Puccioni and others, and basing his argument on the influence on Cassiodorus Historia
ecclesiastica tripertita and apparent references to a grouping of the Caesares and the
Epitome de Caesaribus in Paul the Deacon and J ohn Lydus, rather than our own trilogy,
suggests a date around 580.9 DAnna prefers Momiglianos date. On the second, and for us
more crucial point, once the possibility of a humanist forgery had been removed, a degree of
unanimity was reached; from Peter to DAnna, a fourth-century date has been approved,
though for various reasons: on the grounds of the relationship between the work of Aurelius
6 Note here, with N. Horsfall, review of Richard, CR 37 (1987) 194, that Richard is wrong to emend the text to
Trecaranus.
7 The list in the Origo is Praeneste, Tibur, Gabii, Tusculum, Cora, Pometia. Labici, Crustumium, Cameria, Bouillae;
in Diodorus, in the Latin transliteration of the Aramaic, Tiburam, Praenestum, Kabios, Tiskalum, Koram. Kometiam.
Lanuuium, Labikam, Skaptiam, Satrikum, Arkiam, Telenam, Okostomeriam, Kaeninum, Phleganam. Kmcrium.
Mediplium, Boilum quam nonnulli Bolam vocant.
8 Momigliano, Some observations (n. 5 above) 59.
9 Richard, OGR, 16-19
10 G. DAnna, Origrne delpopulo roman0 (Milan 1992).
I00 BICS-48 - 2005
Victor and the anonymous compiler of the corpus; on stylistic grounds; and on a suggested
relevance ofthe work in pagan arguments against Christianity, a line strongly taken by Peter
himself. I
All this provides us only with a sharpened notion of the key problem, which is the
reliability of the information contained in the Urigo as a true reflection of late Republican
scholarship. I 2 In particular, for Peter, once he had established a polemical purpose, it was all
the more easy to assert that the work also deliberately falsified its apparatus of scholarship, to
appear more impressive. Momigliano argues more convincingly that the polemical purpose
might rather be attributed to the compiler ofthe whole rather than the author ofthe Origo; the
Caesares from a pagan point of view, was excellent, but could become even more
impressive against the background of the origins of Rome and of the glorious Republican
times. The compiler discovered a pamphlet in which the origins of Rome were presented in
an enlightened euhemeristic fashion with a wealth of references to the fashionable archaic
writers: the very thing to be enjoyed by a Macrobius. Then he chose another booklet in which
the Roman Republic was nothing less than a gallery of great men. In the tripartite corpus
the picture of the true orbis Romanus was thus complete: there was no invidious Christian
thought to disturb
It must however be admitted that the Origo unnerves one by reason of its citations, and
even Momigliano was tentative in his assessment; on the dishonesty ofthe author, he states I
conclude with verdict of non-proven.14 The direction of the attack comes from a comparison
with other authors, whose guilt in the matter of faking citations has been widely assumed; the
Scriptores historiae Augustae, Ptolemaeus Chennus, Ps.-Plutarch Parallela minora and De
fluviis, and Fulgentius. This question needs to be re-examined, and the main purpose ofthis
paper is to conduct that comparison.
I give in Table 1 a summary of all the citations in the Urigo. Some features are
immediately obvious. First, the work changes character notably around the end of Chapter 9.
In Chapters 1-6 in particular, all the focus is on Virgil, and from 7 to 9, although Virgil is
quoted less frequently, the concern is with the relationship between the traditions the author
of the Origo reports, and Virgils own line. This changes when, from 1 1 on, Virgil is
effectively absent.
Secondly, the author is fond of quoting two or even three sources for the same view - so
Caesar and Lutatius at 1 1.3; Caesar and Cat0 at 15.5. This is in sharp contrast to the practice
of pseudo-Plutarch, or Ptolemaeus Chennus, who tend to cite one source only at a time. The
work is profoundly doxographical, then, and as Horsfall notes (see n. 6 above, 193), it is
11 H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo gentis Romanae, Berichte der Suchsischen Gesellschafr: Phr/.-llrst. 64 (1912) 71-166.
12 Interestingly, the Origo seems not to have used scholarship much after the end of the Republic; all the known
authors cited in the text are Republican, except Virgil; most ofthe conjectured authors fall into the Republican period.
Only the pontifical annals fall definitively into the imperial period, ifthat IS one believes Friers theory ofan Augustan
recension which produced the pre-Republican material (see below). Livy and Verrius Flaccus are only mentioned in the
preface, which as we have seen was not by the author of the Origo.
13 Momigliano, Some observations (n. 5 above) 62-63.
14 Momigliano, Some observations (n. 5 above) 69.
15 This approach is essentially that of J acoby; see below
C. J . SMI TH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE 101
after all our only piece of scholarly writing in Latin about this period of Roman history to
survive in extenso. It is worth saying at this point that, if nothing else, the work may give us
an insight into what works like Postumius de adventu Aeneae actually looked like; if it is a
forgery, an imposture, shall we say a parody, then it needs in some sense to reflect the
expectations of the genre.
Thirdly, there is much in the Origo which passes without a source reference (Chapters 8
and 14 have no citations at all). Moreover, the author misses the opportunity for some
citations which would have retrieved some credit for his scholarship; I think particularly of
10.1 on Boia, where the Origo reads:
addunt praeterea quidam Aeneam in eo litore Euxini cuiusdam comitis matrem <Baiam>
ultimo aetatis affectam circa stagnum quod est inter Misenon Auernumque extulisse atque
inde nomen loco inditum [qui etiam nunc Euxinius sinus dicitur]
and Servius Danielis Aen. 9.707 reads:
Postumius de adventu Aeneae et Lutatius Communium Historiaruin Boiam Euximi
comitis Aeneae nuticem, et ab eius nomine Boias uocatas dicunt. ueteres tamen portum
Baiam dixisse. Varro a Baio, Ulixis comite, qui illuc sepultus est, Baias dictas tradit.
One suspects here some sort of common source, which both the Virgilian commentator and
the author or source of the Origo are reporting awkwardly.
Fourthly, it can be clearly seen from the notes - taken from Richards excellent
commentary - that the Origo is very close throughout to the Virgilian commentators. Sources
such as Lutatius, Postumius and Lucius Caesar are common to both; and though the Origo
and the commentaries disagree (sharply in the case of L. Caesar on lulus name), they are
recognizably inhabiting the same mental world.
Fifthly, and following on, the Origo holds relatively few surprises. The oddities (that is
items which we find in no other extant source) are listed by Momigliano (see n. 5 above, 68):
2. The connection between Ion and J anus: this is a particularly condensed chapter, but the
etymology is undoubtedly innovative; cf. Plutarch QR 22 for J anus brought from Greece.
4.3 Picus allows the Aborigines to stay in his land. This is unattested elsewhere, and may
be an invention by the author of the Origo; structurally, in Chapter 4, he is making a tran-
sition from the Aborigines to Aeneas; Picus is passed over with this one sentence, which
leads on to Faunus; the next chapter begins with a time-check; 60 years until Aeneas.
9. Agamemnon allows Aeneas to retreat to Mount Ida; we do not have this elsewhere, but
then Alexander of Ephesos (to whom we shall return) is not cited elsewhere, so this may
all be his unique contribution.
10.1 The Euxinius Sinus; part ofthe messy section quoted above; alleged by Sepp to be a
marginal gloss that has crept into the text; by Peter to be a misunderstanding.(
12.4 The duo maria of Lavinium; presumably from some topographical feature, but it is
very unclear.
16 Peter ,Die Schrift Origo gentis Romanae ( t i . 1 I above) 91
I02 BICS-48 - 2005
13.4 Introducing Turnus Herdonius (otherwise the name of a leading citizen of Aricia,
ordered to be killed by Tarquinius Superbus, Livy 1.5 1.8-9) as the betrothed of Lavinia is
surely simply an error, and is not attributed to any author.
15.5 The etymology of Iulus name, which is not only odd (love ortum) but out of step
with Servius explicit citation of the same source.
18.5 Aventinus dead in battle; possibly from Varro, since the same wording is found in
Augustine (CD 18.2 1 ; Momigliano, see n. 5 above, 72).
19.2 The details of the arrangement between Amulius and Numitor are odd, but not far
from the story that Amulius usurped power and Numitor chose a life of otium (Livy
1.3.1 1; DH 1.71.4), or that there was a division of power (Plut. Rom. 3.2-3).
21.4 Remus and remores - now satisfactorily explained by T. P. Wiseman, Remus
(Cambridge 1995) 8-9, 107- 17.
22.2 The details of Remus capture omit the Lupercalia or similar festival, but the ambush
is traditional.
23.6 Remus outlives Romulus, attributed to the unknown Egnatius; of all the problems the
most startling, and with the inaccurate reference to L. Caesars etymology of Iulus name,
and the Delphic prophecy regarding Lavinium from Domitius, one of the few to be
directly attributed to a source.
For all the doubts that have been raised, there is very little in the work which takes us
aback. As Richard shows in his commentary, there is scarcely a line of the text which cannot
be paralleled elsewhere. I will return to this later, but for now, I simply quote Ps.-Plutarch
Par. min. 38 (Mor. 3 1%): When Hercules was driving through Italy the cattle of Geryon, he
was entertained by king Faunus, the son of Mercury, who was wont to sacrifice his guests to
the god that was his father. But when he attacked Hercules, he was slain. So Dercyllus in the
third book of his Italian History. By comparison, the Origo is refreshingly sober.
Finally, the disputed authors, or Schwindelautoren in J acobys phrase. Momigliano
identified only six of the 27 cited as open to su~pi ci on ; ~ I suspect this was optimistic.
9.1 Alexander Ephesius: known to Cicero and to Strabo, and not to be condemned for
subject matter, though there may still be a degree of conhsion in the citation.
10.2 Vulcatius et Acilius Piso - the text is undoubtedly corrupt here, although that does
not mean that one should insert known authors here to make it better; nonetheless it is
hard to condemn the author of the Origo on the basis of a faulty transmission.
12.1, 12.3, 18.4 Domitius; the suggestion of Domitius Calvinus, found in Plinys index as
a writer on insects, animals and crops, is attractive, given that the subject matter includes
a reference to parsley, though it does not help with the Delphic prophecy or Aremulus
Silvius death in an earthquake; given Plinys odd lists of authors, one cannot really be
sure about this individual.
12.2, 19.5 M. Octavius; possibly the author of a work De sacris Saliaribus Tiburtium
(Macr. Sat. 3.12.7); the first reference explains why Aeneas covered his head at the
sacrifice, the second relates the rituals which Rhea Silvia was carrying out when she was
raped.
17 Momigliano, Some observations (n. 5 above) 67
C. J . SMI TH: THE ORlCO GENTIS KOMANAE I rn
16.4 Sextus Gellius and Caius Caesar; Momigliano's solution that the test had Caesar et
Gellius and two wrongpraenomina were introduced is the most economical.
However, Momigliano is silent on some other problematic works and individuals.
6.7 Cassius. Cassius Hemina is assumed, but Servius Danielis only cites Verrius Flacc~ts
for this information.
7. I , 22.2 Libri Pontificalium. Clearly not the same as the Annales Maximi; I shall return
to these two passages later.
10.4 Sempronius. Not Sempronius Asellio, who wrote on his own times; perhaps
Sempronius Tuditanus, though the shape of his work is disputable. He ought to predate
any of the possible Caesars, and so appear through a tralatician citation.
17.3, 17.5, 18.3, Annales Pontificum. The Oiigo, as is well known, is the only source to
imply that this work had a pre-Republican section: the work, also known as the Annales
Maximi, appears to have had year by year entries listing magistrates. plagues. portents
and so forth. We cannot be sure that they went back even to the beginning of the
Republic, but the regal material does not fit the evidence we have for the rest ofthe work.
Hence Frier suggested that Verrius Flaccus produced an edition with prefatory material
on the regal period, though this is by no means uncontroversial.
18.3 The epitome of Piso: elsewhere unknown and an odd thing to quote. given that Piso
is straightforwardly quoted at 13.8. To have only reached Aretnulus Silvius by Book 2 of
an epitome does not suggest ruthless abbreviation.
23.6 Egnatius. Possibly a poet who wrote a De i em/77 ~ ( ~ [ Z W L I (Macr. St i f . 6.5.2. I ?) , or
Egnatius Calvinus whom Pliny the Elder quotes for alpine birds ( , Vl l I0.134): neither
sounds plausible.
I t would be particularly damning ifwe had independent evidence of mistakes which could
prove the falsity ofthe information in Origo, but this is not the case.") At 20. I , the citation of
Fabius is corroborated. but the story is extremely famous. There are problems over the
citation of Cat0 the Elder at 13.5 and 15.5; both are contradicted by Servius. but in both
instances we cannot be wholly sure what Cato said. Similarly, Ol-igo 6-7 gives a different
version of the Hercules and Cacus story from that found at Serv. i l en. 8.203. but that only
demonstrates that the Servian commentator did not have Hemina's version. not that the
version in Origo cannot have been from Hernina. We cannot condemn the Orijp because at
20.3 it attributed to Ennius a story about Acca Larentia which Mominsen believed to have
appeared first in the later Licinius Macer."' When Aulus Gcllius (7. 7. 5-6) discusses Acca
Larentia, he does not specifically say that Antias made her the nurse of the t\vins Romulus
and Remus, but he is contrasting Antias' account with that of Sabinus Masurius not on that
point but on a different one. There is no instance therefore where Or i p can be clearly
convicted by another source of error let alone falsehood.
I04 BICS-48 - 2005
Lastly, on sources, we must consider again the introduction to the work, which has been
assumed to be that of the compiler. The sources given are odd, because they follow no
recognizable order, and include Verrius Flaccus, Veratius and Varro, none of whom appears
in the text. On Veratius, we could perhaps emend to Veranius (pace Horsfall who has
confused himself here); Veranius is a distinguished authority cited for works on religious
matters.2 The same error is seen at Macrobius Sat. 3.5.6 and 3.6.14. Sepp emended to
introduce Veranius at 7.1 and 22.2; the text reads at uero in libris Pontificalium and at uero
libro secundo Pontijkalium; Macrobius 3.6.14 writes sed Veranius Pontificalium eo libro,
quem fecit de supplicationibus, and goes on to discuss the Pinarii. Alternatively we might
read Veratius in all three places, though that creates an otherwise unknown author writing on
subjects identical to Veranius.
Momigliano suggested that the compiler, who certainly interfered with the beginning of the
De viris illustribus, did the same with the Origo, and summarized a preface which may have
set out more extensively the rationale of the work, and indicated its debt to previous
authorities. However, that still leaves significant questions about why these authors are not
found in the text, though as can be seen from the appendix, Varro and Verrius gave versions
of the tradition that match the Origo; see especially Origo 6.7 and 18.5.
Momigliano admitted that he found signs of abbreviation in the text, and Richard presses
the case hrther (38-48), but neither is sure that there is a single work on which the Origo
depends. If we look again at the structure of the work, this may become clearer. At the outset,
the author is concerned with Virgils authority. Aeneas is primus to reach Italy, even though
Antenor beat him to it, because Aeneas is more important than Antenor. Virgil is right about
Saturn and J anus, and their different contributions to the civilizing ofthe Aborigines. Virgil
is right about the derivation of Palatine from Pan. In 7, unless the author is horribly confused,
Virgil is said to have rejected the idea found in the Pontifical books that Faunus sought
Hercules friendship; and Virgil does indeed focus exclusively on Evander. At 9.7, Virgil
gets Misenus right by implying that he was both helmsman and trumpet-player. This is a
strong attempt to defend Virgil against his obtrectatores, but it then fades away, despite the
fact that we are still in Virgilian territory. For whatever reason, the work proceeds as a
doxographical account of the foundation of Rome down to the death (or not) of Remus,
without reference to Virgil. It would appear that the author did make an effort to shape his
work in a particular direction, but did not carry it through, and it may be that one reason for
the various oddities we have seen is that he was working not from a single work, but from
several, and not from the original texts, but from dictionaries like that of Festus.
Some support for this derives from Schmidts work.* He notes a variety of links between
the Origo and Festus, a text which derives from Verrius Flaccus. They are close on the Potitii
and Pinarii, on the etymology of Aborigines from Aberrigines and errare; on Misenus; on
Ulysses almost interrupting Aeneas sacrifice; on the surname Silvius (see Table 2) . This is
not to say that the author ofthe Origo necessarily had Festus, or Verrius, to hand; indeed, it is
21 Horsfall, Review of Richard (see n 6 above), 192-94, Veranius was cited by Macrobius and Festus,
P H Huschke, Iurrsprudentrae anferustrnranae (Leipzig 1880) SO-52
22 Momigliano, Some observations (n S above) 66
23 P L Schmidt, RE Suppl XV (1978) s v (Aur )Victor 1583-1634, at 1614-15
C. J . S MI T H: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE 10.5
a moot question as to whether the author had very much to hand, or was cudgelling his
memory; the point is that this work is a hotch-potch, and the possibilities for error and mis-
understanding, especially in a work whose nature seems to have changed half-way through,
are high. Nevertheless, looked at from another point of view, a brief account of early Roman
history, which reinforced Virgils authority, was superficially learned, short, and relatively
reader-friendly, may have suited the compiler very well. Not just the best books survive.
One last point. Despite the title of Richards book, as far as we know there is no question
of pseudepigraphy in the Origo; it was the compiler who added it to a genuine work by
Aurelius Victor, and there is no evidence that the author ofthe Origo did anything to conceal
his identity or to pretend to anothers.
All this still does not definitively acquit the author of the Origo from the charge of having
made things up - the old student trick of inventing a reference and hoping no one will check.
Is Sempronius just another name thrown in to make weight? Did an Epitome of Piso ever
exist? Did anyone, let alone the unknown Egnatius, believe that Remus outlived his brother,
or is that the last laugh, the joke at the end which makes us realize we have been duped, and
blush like Heraclides? Whenever this problem arises, as noted above, a handful ofreprobates
are called as evidence that the crime exists, so that the author of the Origo may be thought
capable of it. Literary forgery however is a complex matter, and deserves a little attention of
its own.
Literary forgeries
Forgery has become a rather topical academic subject lately, and the more it has been
studied, the more varied have its forms become. Speyer in his exhaustive account of the
subject devotes a third of his book to methodological and definitional issues.24 It was clearly
recognized in antiquity, as is shown by Quintilian 1.8.18-2 1 :
I n addition to this he will explain the various stories that occur: this must be done with
care, but should not be encumbered with superfluous detail. For it is sufficient to set forth
the version which is generally received or at any rate rests upon good authority. But to
ferret out everything that has ever been said on the subject even by the most worthless of
writers is a sign of tiresome pedantry or empty ostentation, and results in delaying, and
swamping the mind when it would be better employed on other themes. The man who
pores over every page even though it be wholly unworthy of reading, is capable of
devoting his attention to the investigation of old wives tales. And yet the commentaries
of teachers of literature are full of such encumbrances to learning and strangely unfamiliar
to their own authors.
It is, for instance, recorded that Didymus, who was unsurpassed for the number of
books which he wrote, on one occasion objected to some story as being absurd, where-
upon one of his own books was produced which contained the story in question. Such
24 W Speyer, Die lrterarrsche Falschung rm herdnrschen und Chi rsllrchen A//er/um ern Iersuch r h r er Deuliing
(Handbuch der Altertumswissenschafi I 2 [Munich 19711) 3-106, cf R Symc, Fraud and Imposturc, Pseud-
eprgrupha J Pseudopythagorrca - Lettres de Platon - LrtIPrature pseud~pigruphrque j ur v e (Entreticns Fondation
Hardt IS, Geneva 1971) 3-17 at 13
I06 BICS-48 - 2005
abuses occur chiefly in connection with fabulous stories and are sometimes carried to
ludicrous or even scandalous extremes: for in such cases the more unscrupulous com-
mentator has such ful l scope for invention, that he can tell lies to his hearts content about
whole books and authors without fear of detection: for what never existed can obviously
never be found, whereas ifthe subject is familiar the careful investigator will often detect
the fraud. Consequently I shall count it a merit in a teacher of literature, that there should
be some things which he does not know (Loeb tran~lation).~
Forgery or pseudepigraphy, criminal act, or imposture, or literary game, all depend upon the
conscious attempt to deceive, or to give the impression of trying to deceive, an audience,
which can be a dupe, or knowing co-conspirators in the game. I wish to take in turn the three
authors commonly accused of the particular form of academic fraud of which the author of
the Origo is accused - the invention of sources to give an impression of scholarship. First,
Ptolemaeus Chennus.
Ptolemaeus Chennus
Ptolemaeus Chennus work is known through a few fragments, but most importantly through
a summary of his seven volume Kaine Historie in Photius. He lived in Alexandria in the
reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, according to the Suda, at a time when the eyewitness
accounts of the Trojan War by Dares and Dichtys were being written. Eustathius and Tzetzes
used it extensively; but Photius seems to have had the measure of it. He says it was useful for
those who wanted historical polymathia; you could learn in short order from Chennus what
would take a lifetime to gather from all the different sources. His work was ful l of the
portentous and the ill-conceived, and the author was boastful, and had to defend himself in
his own day for his method. Photius concludes that most of what he has to say, as much as is
not completely incredible, is unusual and diverting.
The summary of the work is indeed out of the ordinary, and refers to sources who are
unknown, or known sources whose cited works are unknown and sometimes implausible. In
Book 1 he corrects Herodotus 1.34 on the death of Atys son of Croesus; he was called
Agathon, and he died, not accidentally in a hunt, but in a quarrel over a quail. Antipater of
Acanthus tells us that Dares, who wrote the Iliad before Homer did, was Hectors teacher.
Plesirrhoos the Thessalian was Herodotus lover and wrote his preface; the unknown
Athenodorus of Eretria cites the unknown Antiochus for a dispute between Thetis and Medea
as to who was more beautiful; Idomeneus gave the palm to Thetis, and Medea in her anger
25 His accedet enarratio historiarum, diligens quidem illa, non tamen usque ad superuacuum laborem occupata: nam
receptas aut certe claris auctoribus memoratas exposuisse satis est. Persequi quidem quid quis umquam uel
contemptissimorum hominum dixerit aut nimiae miseriae aut inanis iactantiae est, et detinet atque obruit ingenia
rnelius aliis uacatura. Nam qui omnis etiam indignas lectione scidas excutit, anilibus quoque fabulis accommodare
operam potest: atqui pleni sunt eius modi impedimentis grammaticorum commentarii, uix ipsis qui composuerunt satis
noti. Nam Didymo, quo nemo plura scripsit, accidisse compertum est ut, cum historiae cuidam tamquam uanae
repugnaret, ipsius proferretur liber qui eam continebat. Quod euenit praecipue in fabulosis usque ad deridicula
quaedam, quaedam etiam pudenda, unde improbissimo cuique pleraque fingendi licentia est, adeo ut de libris totis et
auctoribus, ut succurrit, mentiantur tuto, quia inueniri qui numquam fuere non possunt. nam in notioribus
frequentissime deprenduntur a curiosis. Ex quo mihi inter uirtutes grammatici habebitur aliqua nescire.
C. J . SMI TH: THE ORICO GENTIS ROMANAE 107
declared that all Cretans were liars. Ephialtes was implausibly reading an unknown comedy
by Eupolis when he died - implausibly because Eupolis had not yet been born.2 J acoby did
not believe that there existed a Hypermenes who wrote a History of Chios in which he told of
Homers slave, Skindapsos, who failed to cremate his master and was fined a thousand
drachmas.
No more need be said: this is a farrago of obvious invention, potentially fun to dip into, and
apart from a few poetic tags, and a basic knowledge of enough history and mythology to be
able to play games, wholly and patently untrustworthy. It is very funny to say that Heracles
immolated himself when he got to the age of 50 because he could no longer string his own
bow, but one cannot believe it fooled anyone. Moreover, and this is most important, it is
surely completely unreasonable to set this work against the Origo. Their date, aim, audience
and scholarship are of a completely different mark.
To be fair, Chennus is known largely though a summary, so any sort of objective
comparison is perhaps impossible. We can do rather more with Ps.-Plutarch and Fulgentius.
Ps. -Plutarch
In 1940, J acoby wrote a devastating attack on the Ps.-Plutarchan Parallela minora, which
justified his decision to omit all authors solely mentioned there from his collection of the
Greek historians, in contrast to Mullers approach. In his last footnote, he cites Ptolemaeus
Chennus, Fulgentius and the Origo gentis Romanae as parallels (J acoby thought that the
Origo was an epitome). Although the work (or its original) fooled Stobaeus, and the De
fluviis took in Stephanos of Byzantium, J acoby saw no merit in their inventions.
In Appendix 2 1 give the authors cited in the Parallela minora, and in Appendix 3 the
Roman stories quoted there. The majority of the Roman stories are indefensible, though
interestingly the Greek ones are sound enough; perhaps that is the point? In Appendix 4 I
give the sources for Defluviis 1-5; there is a considerable overlap between the sources cited
in the two works, and a sample is enough to reveal that they are recognisably similar in
nature. In both cases, whilst some of the sources can be defended, many cannot. Is the
similarity between this and the Origo, then, the clear indication that the Origo is itself full of
Schwindelautoren?
The Ps.-Plutarchan works share a sufficient number of authors and a similar style, and have
therefore frequently been linked; it has even been suggested that they were written by
Ptolemaeus Chennus. But interestingly, there are some slight indications emerging that may
change the way we think about these works.* The De,fluviis is preserved in the same
26 See P. J . Bicknell, Ephialtesdeath in bed, LCM 13.8 (1988) 114-15
27 F. J acoby, Die [J berlieferung zu Ps Plutarchs Parallela minora und die Schwindelautoren. Alnemosyne 8 ( 1940)
73-144. J acobys attack was directed towards J . Schlereth, De Plutarchr quae.feruniurparal/e/rs mrnorrhus (Frciburg
1931), which received more favourable treatment from W. Schmid in his review of Schlereth in Phrlolog.
Wochenschrifr 52.2314 (1932) 626-34. Ajudicious commentary, with fiill trcatment ofthe sources, i s now provided by
A. de Lazzer, Plutarco, Parallelr minor/ (Naples 2000). J acobys vicw that the surviving works may wcll be epitomes
is borne out by the truncated versions of some of the stories.
28 See J . L . Lightfoot, Parrhenrus of,vrcaeu. /hepoe/rca/,frugmen/s and /he EPOTIKB rra0lipnra (Oxford 1999) for
what follows.
108 BICS-48 - 2005
Heidelberg manuscript that gives us Antoninus Liberalis Metamorphoses and Parthenius
Erotika pathemata. Ps.-Plutarchs Parallela minora 2 1 quotes Parthenius for the story of
Leucone, at Erotikapathemata 10. Stobaeus, so close to Ps.-Plutarch, attributes the story to
Sostratus Book 2 On hunting. J acoby thought that Plutarch had rationalised Parthenius, and
Stobaeus had invented Sostratus; but Lightfoot preserves Sostratus, pointing out that his
brother Aristodemus had contributed to other parts of Parthenius work.29 In the story of the
incestuous Byblis, there is a parallel with an odd story in De,fluviis 1 1.3 on a brother and
sister who call each other Zeus and Hera, which also appears in Ovid; an anomalous version
appears in Nonnus Dionysiaka 13.546-61, and in Conon.
Lightfoot notes that the mythographers have much in common; stories are created by the
juxtaposition of elements from various places; of the Parallela minora she writes most of
the stories ... are generated in this very way, some none too competently, and the authors
jigsaw-piece approach to the construction of a narrative shows itself in the way he throws
story-motifs injudiciously together, resulting in sequences that are badly determined, or over-
determined, or both and for the Roman stories, we may add, fabrications because of the
application of this approach to history and not solely to myth. Many are slightly reworked
calques of well-known Greek myths (Hippolytus, Meleager, the Oresteia). Many end with a
romantically tragic death. Lightfoot goes on, the adaptation of myth to a new context, the
lifting of motifs from one story and recasting them elsewhere, are clearly not confined to the
Hellenistic period: but this is a particular type of borrowing and rewriting which is
characteristic of that time, and reflects the copying of motifs between specifically literary
sources; mass-production of pleasantly familiar goods by literary assembly-line, as Horsfall
well puts it.
In this context it is worth briefly noting Parthenius younger contemporary Conon, whom
we know from the summary in Photius, and also from P.0xy. 3648.32 Part of the preserved
text (fragments 1 and 2) tell the story of Aeneas and the foundation of Lavinium, Alba and
Rome, before going on to deal with Althaemenes and the colonization of Crete. We have the
eating of the tables story, but not the sow; and notice that Lavinium is 6 d p rqq Bahaooqq -
on the sea-coast perhaps, rather than, as in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 24 stades inland;
might this help with the duo maria in the OGR? Aeneas may also here found Alba Longa and
Rome. We are reminded of the vast range of sources available for early Roman history, most
lost, and the fine line between scholarly disagreements and the free rein of imagination.
The conclusion I wish to draw here is that the Ps.-Plutarchan works can only be properly
understood in the context of Hellenistic and later poetry. They were not passing themselves
off as historical works with an apparatus of false scholarship. Whether anyone ever believed,
or cared, at the time of composition that their sources were, it appears, a mixture of the
genuine, the recondite, and the invented seems to me to be moot; it may well have been part
ofthe pleasant familiarity. What is more, unlike the Origo, the Virgilian commentators, and
29 Lightfoot, Parthenrus (n 28 above) 428-29
30 Lightfoot, Parthenrus (n 28 above) 433-36
3 1 Lightfoot, Parthenrus (n 28 above) 234, the quote IS from N Horsfall in J Bremmer and N Horsfall, Roman myth
and mythography (London 1987) 5-6
32 H Cockle et al , The Oxyrhynchuspapyrr, vol 52 (London 1984) 3648
C. J . SMI TH: THE OKlGO GENTIS KOMANAE I09
Macrobius, but like Ptolemaeus Chennus, the Ps.-Plutarchan works do not offer us controv-
ersy or alternatives. This was never meant to be scholarship, and nothing was at stake except
the presentation of a good story, to which the named sources added a frisson of learning and
perhaps exotic appeal that was as much a part of the experience as the myth itself. This was a
world which may well have seemed strangely unserious to Virgils readers in later antiquity.
Fiilgentiiis
We turn now to Fulgentius. Momigliano is dismissive of Fulgentius; a glance ... can show
the difference. Actually, more than a glance is quite instructive, as Baldwin and Whitbread
have showed. We cannot definitively identify Fabius Planciades Fulgentius: bishop
Fulgentius of Ruspe may be a different person; both belong to the late fifth century and our
author may have come from Africa. Since Baldwin has done much ofthe work, I have merely
sampled the first twelve definitions of his expositio se~nioniitii antiqirotwni. and Book 1 of his
Mifologiae. Five main types of citation have been identified in Fulgentius:
1. correct and surviving
2. incorrect but surviving, for instance inisattributions
3. probably correct but not surviving, for instance where Fulgentius is citing a non-extant
work by an author whom he has quoted verifiably correctly elsewhere
4. known authors but unknown works
5. unknown authors, unknown works.
The authors we find in expositio scrmoniini antiqzrorwn I - 12 ( 1 I 1 - 15 I lelm) are given in
Appendix 5. Rutilius Geminus is completely unknown; we have a Sosicrates but not a
Solicrates. Stesiinbrotus of Thasos and Mnaseas are unlikely to have explained a Latin word,
Diophontus of Sparta wrote a Pontica, Cincius Alimentits is not known to have written on
Gorgias, and Fulgentius has got the wrong play for Pacuvius. For the work as a whole, he
cites the wrong Plautus comedy correctly three times, and incorrectly six times. The rest are
not wholly implausible; Labeos fifteen books on Etruscan lore may be excessive, though
Pliny the Elder claims to have read similar material, but n?analcJ.s Itrpidelcs do appear
elsewhere, traced back to Varro. Valerius Maxitnus at 3.2.24 tells the story of1,ucius Sicciits
Dentatus and cites Varro; Fulgentius attributes it directly to an unknown work of Varro.
Baebius Macer is found in Servius; there are a number of plausible suggestions for the
Manilius (or Manlius) who wrote on iniuges hoves;6 and Apuleius is always cited more or
less correctly.
For the Mitologiae, in Appendix 6 , the pattern is the same: some spot-on. some plausible.
some muddled, some wrong. I cannot pass over .just one more source li-omthe e\-lw.sifio
.semonirni untiqiionitn, the book ofjokes by Cornelius Tacitus, which not even Macrobius
I10 BICS-48 - 2005
knew. There is a spirit of invention in Fulgentius, and some of these may well be his own
doing. At the same time, we know nothing of this mans resources at the time of writing,
bishop or no bishop. How much came ffom a faulty memory? Finally, we must allow that if
Fulgentius sets out to deceive, he also sometimes tells the truth; Timpanaro and J ocelyn both
accept a line of Ennius comedy Telestis, not least because it is in a metre which Fulgentius is
highly unlikely to have known or been able to repr~duce.~
Macrobius
Finally, I wish to consider Macrobius Saturnalia, a work which seems not to have come
under the same sort of criticism as the Origo, yet is of much the same period (taking
Momiglianos preferred fourth-century date for the Origo), and, as can be seen from
Appendices 1 and 7, shares similar interests and authors. In Appendix 7, I have given an
account of the Roman historical and antiquarian sources quoted by Macrobius, using Williss
index. This is just a sample of the 250 authors in all cited by Macrobius.
This list is intended to be illustrative of the ways in which Macrobius cites authors, and the
presence of the authors he cites in other works of a scholarly nature. Macrobius Saturnalia is
an extremely important, but very odd, work. Modern accounts have concentrated on the
misrepresentation it makes both of the cultural milieu in which it is set, and indeed of the
views of participant^.^' Consideration of the citations is itself very interesting. There is
considerable bunching of citations around particularly disputed topics; intercalation, the
nundinae, sacrifices to the gods, the names of the gods. A great deal of this material is put in
the mouth of Praetextatus; and one of the other characters, the rude Evangelus, complains
about his pedantic parade of learning (Sat. 1.1 1. I ).
The table shows that the majority of Macrobius citations are from authors known to
grammarians and Virgilian commentators. There are relatively few oddities, and at least some
of these can be explained as textual corruption, though to emend becomes dangerous. There
are instances of known authors and unknown works, but there is nothing particularly
startling.39 The nature of the material transmitted is also of a kind which we meet elsewhere
readily enough; strange etymologies are particularly common, against the backdrop of
calendrical speculation and Virgilian exegesis. It is easy to be seduced however by
Macrobius parade of learning into regarding the information as the key value of the work,
not least because it is so often simply plundered for fragments. Although, on the one hand,
Praetextatus extraordinary learning is a reflection of what Kaster calls the belief that the
37 H. D. Jocelyn, The tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge 1967) 412 with references.
38 A. Cameron, The date and identity of Macrobius, JRS 56 (1966) 25-38, concluding that it is a tendentious and
idealized portrayal of the saeculum Praetextati; R. Kaster, Guardians oflanguuge: fhe grammarian andsociety in
late antiquity (California 1988) 60-62 and 171-72 on the misleading idealization ofthe figure of Servius, the Virgilian
commentator.
39 There are problems over the identity ofcingius, Geminus, Hyllus, Tertius, Titus and Titius, some ofwhich may be
due to the text; Octavius Hersennius might be M. Octavius at Origo 12.2, but is otherwise unknown; Julius Festus and
C. Julius Caesar on auspicia may be mistakes or faulty transmission; we cannot identify with confidence Laelius,
Mallius or Messala; Cloatius Verus ordinutorum graecorum; Fabius Maximus Servilianus iuris pont$cii libri and
Masurius Sabinus Fasti are works unknown outside Macrobius; Tuditanus on intercalation and Rutilius on nundinae
are not easy to fit into our perceptions of their work, but that may simply highlight our ignorance.
C. J . SMITH: THE ORlGO GENTIS ROMANAE I l l
cultural tradition continues as a living presence, influencing and validating every aspect of a
mature and learned mans life, it is also evident that the piling up of alternatives gradually
leaches away the concept of
One of the characteristics of the Saturnalia is the tension between the ludic nature of the
discourse, and the serious intent of the author, in showing the significance of pagan learning
and the authority of the grammarian. The preface and dedication to Macrobius son
characterize the work as bringing together many sources to form one whole (pr. 8, ex
omnibus colligamus unde unumfiat, Let us gather from all sources and from them form
one), and appropriately enough uses three metaphors for this one process, numbers, scents,
and voices in a choir. I n concluding this metaphor, Macrobius writes, ita .singulorum illic
latent voces, omnium apparent, etfit concentus ex dissonis (pr. 9 and so the voices ofall are
hidden, but the voices of all are heard, and there is harmony from dissonance). The
concentus is the sense of the value of knowing about past discourse.
One interesting aspect of Macrobius Saturnalia, which emerges very clearly from the
table, is that even in its central claim of being a carefully wrought gathering of facts and
information into one coherent whole, Macrobius has been economical with the scholarly
truth. Several times, as the table shows, Macrobius has simply lifted his information straight
from Aulus Gellius; yet he nowhere cites or mentions Gellius. The debt is profound - even
the preface as a dedication to his son is a copy of Gellius own dedi ~ati on.~ The differences
between Macrobius and the Origo begin to lessen the more one looks at them. They both
purvey out-of-the-way knowledge; they both present an appearance of scholarship; they both
use sources largely only known to the community of grammarians and Virgilian scholars;
they share a number of sources; the names oftheir sources, or the books they cite, where not
confused by textual transmission, are sometimes abbreviated or not absolutely accurate; and
it is by no means clear that either ofthem got all their learning at first hand. Whilst bearing
little if any relationship to Ptolemaeus Chennus, the author of the Origo appears to be a
somewhat inferior cousin of Macrobius.
Conclusion
My conclusion is brief. The Origo is a genuine and unique work of fourth-century pagan
scholarship. It displays little if any genius or inspiration. It has probably lost its preface. It
does not really cohere, having started off as one thing and then become anothcr without any
.justification. It does not have much in common with the works it is bound with, except
perhaps in terms of length. It may well be that not all of the sources it cites are rcal, but it in
40 Kaster, Guurdrmr qflunguuge (n. 38 above) 172.
4 I For Gellius and Macrobius, see L. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellrus (London 1988), esp. 84-85. 117, 12 I 11. 38, 210
n. 86, and a trenchant remark drawn from Wissowa at 53, in regard to arguments that Gelliiis had himself used
intermediaries to gain his information; Wissowa denied the source-critics assumption that Gellitis, who wrote when
authors were still read, should be reduced to the level of a Nonius, a Macrobius, or an lsidore My point here is not
concerned with Macrohius use of intermediaries, but his denial of the existence of one of the most important.
42 R. B. Lloyd, Republican authors in Servius and the Scholia Danielis. HSCP 65 ( 1 961 ) 29 1-34 I , argued that
Servius tried to produce a pared-down version of Aelius Donatus fourth-century commentary on Virgil, and the D
scholia tried to reinstate the original with limited success. Cameron, Greek niyhogruphj~ (11 2 above) 198-99,
demonstrates the likely similarity between Donatus and Macrobius.
I12 BICS-48 - 2005
no sense replicates the kind of imposture which Ptolemaeus Chennus and Ps.-Plutarch
perpetuate; and it gives no sense of being a parody. Its faults are likely to be due to its
distance from original sources, which makes its citations pr~blematic.~ Other authors,
notably Macrobius and the Virgilian commentators, found better media for the display of
their learning, but both they and the Origo had to do with a tradition that had not always been
so serious, and both had to do with a store of original works, epitomes and dictionaries which
could create, and allow them to perpetuate, errors, much as, in the Greek tradition, Stobaeus
and Stephanus preserved as scholarship what was intended as imaginative fiction. Even ifthe
Origo contains mistakes, such as faulty attributions and misremembered authors, and there
appear to be relatively few clear instances where that is the case, what it does do is give us a
picture of what Roman historical scholarship looked like to someone of the fourth-century
AD, and that is why, with all due caveats, Peter was wrong to exclude its citations from his
collection of Roman historical fragments.
University of St Andrews
43 Compare Cameron, Greek mythogruphy (n. 2 above) 334; the OGR citations are no less (though also no more)
reliable than a good many texts cited in the Vergil scholia.
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X

1

~
_
_

O
G
R

,

W
O
R
K
C
I
T
E
D

1

1

-

-
~

V
i
r
g
i
l
,

A
e
n
.

8
.
3
1
9
-
2
0

1
.
5

V
i
r
g
i
l
,
A
e
n

8

3
1
9
-
2
0

_
_

_
_
_
_
-

1
.
6

d
e

o
r
i
g
i
n
e

P
a
t
a
u
i
n
a

1
.
7

V
i
r
g
i
l

A
e
n

2

2
6
3

3
.
2

I
I 1
V
i
r
g
i
l

A
e
n
.

8

3
1
4
-
1
8

_
_
_
_
_

-
-

~
-

3
.
3

V
i
r
g
i
l

A
e
n
.

8

3
2
1
-
3

I
I

-
L

3
.
7

V
i
r
g
i
l

A
e
n
.

8
.
3
5
7
-
8

3
.
8

V
i
r
g
i
l

A
e
n
.

7
.
4
5
-
6

-
-
~

1
3
.
8

S
a
i
l
.

C
a
t
.
;

I

-
,

-

4
.
5

E
n
n
i
u
s

2
0
7

S
k
u
t
s
c
h

~
-

5

3

V
i
r
g
.

G
e
o
r
g
.

3
.
3
9
2

~
_
_
_
~

~
~
~
-

-

~~
-

-
~

-

-

F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

~
~
-

-

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

p
n
m
u
s

a
b

A
e
t
h
e
n
o

u
e
n
i
t

S
a
t
u
r
n
u
s

O
l
y
m
o
,

A
n
t
e
n
o
r

p
o
t
u
i
t

m
e
d
i
i
s

e
l
a
p
s
u
s

A
c
h
i
u
i
s

~
a
n
n
a

I
o
u
i
s

f
u
g
i
e
n
s
e
t
c
-

,
I
l
l
y
n
c
o
s

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
r
e

s
i
n
u
s

a
t
q
u
e

i
n
t
i
m
a

t
u
t
u
s

e
t
c
_

E
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
u
t
u
s

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
g

V
i
r
g
i
l

q
u
o
t
e

-
_
_
_
_

-
_
-

-
~

p
r
i
m
u
s
q
u
e

M
a
c
h
a
o
n

h
a
e
c

l
o
c
a

i
n
d
i
g
e
n
a
e

F
a
u
n
i

N
y
m
p
h
a
e
q
u
e

t
e
n
e
b
a
n
t

~~
I
t

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r

o
f

O
G
R

h
i
m
s
e
l
f

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

a

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

t
h
i
s

w
o
r
k
.

I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
L
n
s
e
c
u
n
d
o

A
e
n
e
i
d
o
s

I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

i
n

o
c
t
a
u
o
,

l
o
c
a

s
h
o
u
l
d

r
e
a
d

n
e
m
o
r
a

I
I

g
e
n
s
q
u
e

u
i
r
u
m

t
r
u
n
c
i
s

e
t

d
u
r
o

r
o
b
o
r
e

n
a
t
a

q
u
i
s

n
e
q
u
e

m
o
s

n
e
q
u
e

c
u
l
t
u
s

e
r
a
t

n
e
c

i
u
n
g
e
r
e

t
a
u
r
o
s

a
u
t

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
r
e

o
p
e
s

n
o
r
a
n
t

a
u
t

p
a
r
c
e
r
e

p
a
r
t
o
,

i
s

g
e
n
u
s

i
n
d
o
c
i
l
e

a
c

d
i
s
p
e
r
s
u
m

m
o
n
t
i
b
u
s

a
l
t
i
s

c
p
e
r
u
i
c
&
u
e
n
a
t
u
s

a
l
e
b
a
t

I

I
c
o
m
p
o
s
u
i
t

l
e
g
e
s
q
u
e

d
e
d
i
t

L
a
t
i
u
m
q
u
e

u
o
c
a
r
i

I
I
~
~~~
-

m
a
l
u
i
t

e
t
c
.
-
-

~
h
a
n
c

I
a
n
u
s

p
a
t
e
r
,

h
a
n
c

S
a
t
u
m
u
s

c
o
n
d
i
d
i
t

a
r
c
e
m

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-

i
a
n
i
c
u
l
u
m

h
u
i
c
,

1
1
1
1

f
u
e
r
a
t

S
a
$
m
i
a

n
o
m
e
n

.

.

r
e
x

a
r
u
a

L
a
t
i
n
u
s

e
t

u
r
b
e
s

I

l
a
m

s
e
n
i
o
r

l
o
n
g
a

p
l
a
c
i
d
a
s

i
n

p
a
c
e

r
e
g
e
b
a
t
.

-
-

~
c
u
m
q
u
e

h
i
s

A
b
o
n
g
i
n
e
s
,

g
e
n
u
s

h
o
m
i
n
u
m

a
g
r
e
s
t
e
,

s
i
n
e

l
e
g
i
b
u
s
,

s
i
n
e

i
m
p
e
r
i
o
,

l
i
b
e
r
u
m
a
t
g
u
e

s
o
l
u
t
u
m

~
u
e
r
s
i
b
u
s

q
u
o
s

o
h
m

F
a
u
n
i

u
a
t
e
s
q
u
e

c
a
n
e
b
a
n
t

q
u
o
t
e
d

i
n

C
i
c

B
r
u
t

7
5
-
6
,

o
r
a
t

1
5
7
,

1
7
1
,

V
&
&

l
i
n
g
.

7

3
6

(
=
>

D
S

G

1

1
I
)
,

C
i
c

d
i
i
c

1

1
1
4
,

Q
u
i
n
t
i
l

9

4

1
1
5
,

r
e
f
s

i
n

F
e
s
t
u
s

4
3
2
L
.

M
a
r

V
i
c
t

6

1
3
8
f
,

P
s
.
-
P
l
a
c
i
d

F
1
5

~
~
~
-
~
~
-

_
_
~

~~ P
a
n

d
e
u
s

A
r
c
a
d
i
a
e

c
a
g
a
r
n
-
t
e
,

L
u
n
a
,

t
e
f
e
l
l
i
t

~
_
_

W
O
R
K
C
I
T
E
D

-
~

V
i
r
g
.

E
c
l
.

4
.
5
8
-
9
.

~
-

-

P
I

a
u

t
u

s

C
a
s
s
i
u
s

(
=

C
a
s
s
i
u
s

H
e
m
i
n
a

5

S
a
n
t
i
n
i
,

C
h
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
t
)

~
-

O
G
R

i
W
O
R
K
C
I
T
E
D

-

-

7
.
1

'
L
i
b
r
i

P
o
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
l
i
u
m

_
_

~
9
p
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r

E
p
h
e
s
i
u
s
,

B
e
l
l
u
m

1

M
a
r
s
i
c
u
m

I
.

-
.

-

_
_

F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

P
a
n

e
t
i
a
m
,

A
r
c
a
d
i
a

m
e
c
u
m

s
i

i
u
d
i
c
e

<
c
e
r
t
e
t

P
a
n

e
t
i
a
m

A
r
c
a
d
i
a

d
i
c
a
t

s
e

i
u
d
i
c
e
>

u
i
c
t
u
m

[
i
n
]

p
a
r
t
e
m

H
e
r
c
u
l
a
n
e
a
m

~~
R
e
c
a
r
a
n
u
s
,

a

h
u
g
e

G
r
e
e
k

h
e
r
d
s
m
a
n
,

l
o
s
e
s

h
i
s

c
a
t
t
l
e

t
o

C
a
c
u
s
,

a

s
l
a
v
e

o
f

E
v
a
n
d
e
r
;

E
v
a
n
d
e
r

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
s

t
h
e
m
;

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

a
l
t
a
r

t
o

J
u
p
i
t
e
r

I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r

c
a
l
l
e
d

M
a
x
i
m
a
;

v
o
w

o
f

a

t
i
t
h
e

o
f

c
a
t
t
l
e
;

C
a
r
m
e
n
t
i
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
t
t
e
n
d
,

s
o

a
l
l

w
o
m
e
n

a
r
e

b
a
n
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

r
i
t
u
a
l
s
;

h
a
e
c

C
a
s
s
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o
.

~
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

~~
F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

H
e
r
c
u
l
e
s
,

s
o
n

o
f

A
l
c
m
e
n
a

a
n
d

J
u
p
i
t
e
r
,

g
r
a
z
e
s

G
e
r
y
o
n
'
s

c
a
t
t
l
e

i
n

t
h
e

C
i
r
c
u
s

M
a
x
i
m
u
s
;

a

h
u
g
e

t
h
i
e
f

s
t
e
a
l
s

t
h
e
m
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
i
r

l
o
w
i
n
g

a
l
e
r
t
s

H
e
r
c
u
l
e
s
,

w
h
o

k
i
l
l
s

t
h
e

t
h
i
e
f

C
a
c
u
s
;

E
v
a
n
d
e
r

t
h
a
n
k
s

h
i
m

f
o
r

t
h
e

l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

t
e
l
l
s

F
a
u
n
u
s

o
f

H
e
r
c
u
l
e
s
'

p
a
r
e
n
t
a
g
e
,

a
n
d

F
a
u
n
u
s

s
e
e
k
s

H
'
s

f
r
i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
.

~ T
r
o
y

i
s

b
e
t
r
a
y
e
d

b
y

A
n
t
e
n
o
r
,

A
e
n
e
a
s

i
s

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

t
o

l
e
a
v
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

h
i
s

p
i
e
t
a
s
;

o
n

t
h
e

a
d
v
i
c
e

o
f

a
n

o
r
a
c
l
e

h
e

l
e
a
v
e
s

w
i
t
h

m
e
n

a
n
d

w
o
m
e
n

f
o
r

I
t
a
l
y
.

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

P
e
t
e
r
'
s

e
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.

B
a
c
c
h
.

6
6
5
;

S
t
i
c
h
.

2
3
3
,

3
8
6
;

T
r
u
c
.

5
6
2
.

D
S

A
e
n
.

8
.
2
0
3

G
a
r
a
n
u
s
,

c
i
t
i
n
g

V
e
n
i
u
s

F
l
a
c
c
u
s
,

b
u
t

n
o
t

C
a
s
s
i
u
s

H
e
m
i
n
a
,

d
e
f
e
a
t
s

C
a
c
u
s
;

D
H

1
.
3
9
.
4
,

S
o
l
.

1
.
7

f
o
r

J
u
p
i
t
e
r

I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
;

C
a
c
u
s

a

s
l
a
v
e

L
i
v
y

1
.
7
.
3
,

D
H

1
.
3
9
.
2
,

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

8
.
1
9
0
;

f
o
r

t
h
e

a
b
s
e
n
c
e

o
f

w
o
m
e
n

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

P
r
o
p
.

5
.
9
.
6
7
-
9
,

P
l
u
t
.

Q
R

6
0
:

G
e
l
l
.

1
1
.
6
.
2
:

M
a
c
r
.

S
a
t
.

1
.
1
2
.
2
8
.

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
2

H
e
r
c
u
l
e
s

h
a
s

a
n

e
s
c
o
r
t

(
h
o
m
i
n
e
s

s
u
i
)
;
t
h
e

c
h
a
p
t
e
r

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

q
u
a
m

o
p
i
n
i
o
n
e
m

m
e
t
u
i
t

s
e
q
u
i

n
o
s
t
e
r

M
a
r
o
,

w
h
i
c
h

m
u
s
t

r
e
f
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

F
a
u
n
u
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

o
r

b
e

e
m
e
n
d
e
d

(
S
c
h
o
t
t
)

t
o

m
a
l
u
i
t
.

C
h
a
p
t
e
r

8

g
i
v
e
s

t
h
e

s
t
o
r
y

o
f

t
h
e

P
o
t
i
t
i
i

a
n
d

P
i
n
a
r
i
i

d
o
w
n

t
o

t
h
e

c
e
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p

o
f

A
p
p
i
u
s

C
l
a
u
d
i
u
s

C
a
e
c
u
s
.

T
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r

i
s

k
n
o
w
n

(
S
t
r
a
b
o

1
4
.
1
.
2
5

C

6
4
2
;

C
i
c
.

A
t
t
.

2
.
2
0
.
6
,
2
.
2
2
.
7
)

b
u
t

n
o
t

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

w
o
r
k
;

P
e
t
e
r

t
h
i
n
k
s

t
h
i
s

i
s

a

c
o
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r

P
o
l
y
h
i
s
t
o
r

(
E
u
s
.

C
h
r
o
n
.

1
.
2
6
3

S
c
h
.

f
o
r

h
i
s

I
t
u
l
i
k
a
)

a
n
d

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r

o
f

M
i
l
e
t
u
s

(
S
u
i
d
a
s
,

s
.
v
.
;

a
l
s
o

i
n

P
s
.
-
P
l
u
t
.

P
a
r
.

M
i
n
.

4
0
,

M
Y
l
l
e
r

F
H
G

I
!
!
.
p
2
3
0
f
)
.

c
o
n
t
r
a

M
o
m
i
g
l
i
a
n
o

p
6
7
;

H
o
r
s
f
a
l
l

p
1
9
4

c
i
t
i
n
g

P
l
i
n
y

N
H

7
.
1
5
.

O
G
R

9
.
2

~~~
9
.
6

9
.
7

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
2

1
0
.
4

~
-
~

~~
W
O
R
K

C
I
T
E
D

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

C
a
e
s
a
r

P
o
n
t
i
3
c
a
l
i
u
m

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m

V
i
r
g
.

A
&
.

6
.
2
3
2
-
3

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s
?

A
c
i
l
i
u
s
?

P
i
s
o
?

C
a
e
s
a
r

F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

a
t

u
e
r
o

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

n
o
n

m
o
d
0

A
n
t
e
n
o
r
e
m
,

s
e
d

e
t
i
a
m

i
p
s
u
m

A
e
n
e
a
m

p
r
o
d
i
t
o
r
e
m

p
a
t
r
i
a
e

f
u
i
s
s
e

t
r
a
d
i
t
.
.
.
.

~
~
-
~

e
x

c
u
i
u
s

n
o
m
i
n
e

u
r
b
e
m

M
i
s
e
n
o
n

a
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
a
m
,

u
t

s
c
r
i
b
i
t

e
t
i
a
m

C
a
e
s
a
r

P
o
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
l
i
u
m
,

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o
,

q
u
i

t
a
m
e
n

h
u
n
c

M
i
s
e
n
u
m

n
o
n

g
u
b
e
m
a
t
o
r
e
m
,

s
e
d

t
u
b
i
c
i
n
e
m

f
u
i
s
s
e

t
r
a
d
i
t
.

a
t

p
i
u
s

A
e
n
e
a
s

i
n
g
e
n
t
i

m
o
l
e

s
e
p
u
l
c
r
u
m

i
m
p
o
n
i
t

s
u
a
q
u
e

a
r
m
a

u
i
r
o

r
e
m
u
m
q
u
e

t
u
b
a
m
q
u
e
.

B
u
r
i
a
l

o
f

P
r
o
c
h
y
t
a

A
<
a
h
o
v
e

A
s

a
h
o
v
e

C
a
i
e
t
a

a
s

a

s
u
r
n
a
m
e
,

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

b
u
r
n
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

b
o
a
t
s
;

G
r
e
e
k

e
t
y
m
o
l
o
g
y
.

_
_
_
.
_

-

-
~

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

~~
A
u
t
h
o
r

'
k
n
o
w
n
'

-

t
h
o
u
g
h

i
d
e
n
t
i
t
y

u
n
c
l
e
a
r

-

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

D
a
p
h
n
i
s
?
;

f
o
r

t
h
e

t
r
e
a
c
h
e
r
y

s
e
e

D
H

1
.
4
8
.
3

(
c
i
t
i
n
g

M
e
n
e
c
r
a
t
e
s

o
f

X
a
n
t
h
u
s
)
;

T
e
r
t
.

n
u
t
.

2
.
9
;

P
o
r
p
h
.

H
o
r
.

A
r
s

4
1
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

1
.
2
4
2

(
a
l
l
e
g
i
n
g

L
i
v
y

t
h
o
u
g
h
t

A
e
n
e
a
s

a

t
r
a
i
t
o
r

l
i
k
e

A
n
t
e
n
o
r
)
;

i
b
i
d
.

1
.
4
8
8
,

6
4
7
;

e
t
c
.

V
i
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

6
.
1
6
4
-
5
;

H
o
r
s
f
a
l
l

p
1
9
4
,

J
H
S

9
9

1
9
7
9

3
9
-
4
0
.

L
.

C
a
e
s
a
r

w
r
o
t
e

l
i
b
r
i

a
u
s
p
i
c
i
o
r
u
m

o
r

a
u
s
p
i
c
i
o
r
u
m

(
M
a
c
r
.

S
a
t
.

1
.
1
6
.
2
9
;

F
e
s
t
u
s

p
1
5
4
L
;

P
r
i
s
c
i
a
n

6
.
1
6
.
8
6
,
8
.
4
.
1
5

(
=

B
r
e
m
e
r

I
A

1
.
~
1
0
6
-
7
;

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
e
d

a
s

c
o
s
.

9
0
;

R
i
c
h
a
r
d

p
1
3
9
,

c
o
s
.

6
4
)

C
i
t
e
d

f
o
r

V
i
r
g
i
l
'
s

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
n
f
l
a
t
e

t
w
o

o
p
p
o
s
i
n
g

t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

M
i
s
e
n
u
s
'

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
.

-
~

T
e
x
t

r
e
a
d
s

u
u
l
c
a
t
i
u
s

e
t

a
c
i
l
i
u
s

p
i
s
o
;

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

i
s

v
a
r
i
o
u
s
l
y

e
m
e
n
d
e
d
.

D
H

1
.
5
3
.
3
;

D
S

A
m
.

9
.
7
1
2
;

c
o
n
t
r
a

P
l
i
n
y

N
H

3
.
8
2
,

b
u
t

c
o
n
f
u
s
e
s

P
r
o
c
h
y
t
a

a
n
d

C
a
i
e
t
a
.

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

i
A
s
a
b
o
v
e

S
a
m
e

S
e
m
p
r
o
n
i
u
s

a
s

D
H

1
.
1
1
.
1

o
n

t
h
e

A
b
o
r
i
g
i
n
e
s

1
-

S
e
m
p
r
o
n
i
u
s

T
u
d
i
t
a
n
u
s
?

F
o
r

t
h
e

e
t
y
m
o
l
o
g
y

s
e
e

i
I
1

1
S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

7
.
1
;

D
S
1
0
.
3
6

r

-

W
O
R
K

C
I
T
E
D

C
a
e
s
a
r

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

D
o
m
i
t
i
u
s

~ M
a
r
c
u
s

O
c
t
a
v
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o

.
-
.
_
_
_

D
o
m
i
t
i
u
s

C
a
t
0

o
r
i
g
o

g
e
n
e
r
i
s

R
o
m
a
n
i

F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

_
.

P
r
o
p
h
e
c
i
e
s

t
o

A
n
c
h
i
s
e
s
;

t
h
e

e
a
t
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

t
a
b
l
e
s
;

t
h
e

s
o
w
;

t
h
e

t
h
i
r
t
y

p
i
g
l
e
t
s
;

t
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

L
a
v
i
n
i
u
m
.

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

T
h
e

t
a
b
l
e
s

a
s

l
e
a
v
e
s

T
h
e

o
r
i
g
i
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

v
e
i
l
e
d

h
e
a
d

a
t

s
a
c
r
i
f
i
c
e

-

A
e
n
e
a
s

t
r
y
i
n
g

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

b
e
i
n
g

s
e
e
n

b
y

U
l
y
s
s
e
s
.

D
e
l
p
h
i
c

o
r
a
c
l
e

-

L
a
v
i
n
i
u
m

a
t

d
u
o

m
a
r
i
a
.

T
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

L
a
v
i
n
i
u
r
n
;

t
h
e

m
o
v
e

t
o

A
l
b
a

L
o
n
g
a
.

Z
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

~
_
_
.
_
_

F
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
h
e
c
y
,

N
a
e
v
.

P
u
n
.

f
r
.

9

S
t
r
z
.

=

S
c
h
o
l
.

V
e
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

C
o
d
.

P
a
r
i
s

7
9
3
0
,

7
.
1
2
3

(
b
o
o
k
s

o
f

p
r
o
p
h
e
c
y

g
i
v
e
n

b
y

V
e
n
u
s
)
;

E
n
n
.

A
n
n
.

1
5
-
6

S
k
.

a
n
d

p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
s

c
i
t
e
d

t
h
e
r
e
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

t
a
b
l
e
s
,

V
i
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

3
.
2
5
5
-
7
,
3
9
4
;

7
.
1
0
9
-
1
6
;

D
H

1
.
5
5
.
3
-
4
;

C
l
a
u
d
.

D
o
n
.

4
e
n
.

3
.
2
5
7
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

1
.
7
0
9
,
7
3
6
,
7
.
1
1
1
;
D
S

A
e
n
.

3
.
2
5
7
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

p
i
g
l
e
t
s
,

V
a
r
r
o

l
i
n
g
.

5
.
1
4
4
,

r
u
s
t
.

2
.
4
.
1
8
;

V
i
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

3
.
3
8
9
-
9
3
;

D
H

1
.
5
5
.
4
-
5
6
.
2
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

3
.
3
9
0
,
8
.
4
3
;

D
S

A
e
n
.

3
.
3
9
2

A
u
t
h
o
r

c
i
t
e
d

a
t

1
2
.
3
,

1
8
.
4
;

n
o
t

k
n
o
w
n

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

O
G
R
,

b
u
t

B
e
h
r
e
n
s

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d

D
o
m
i
t
i
u
s

C
a
l
v
i
n
u
s
,

c
i
t
e
d

a
s

a

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
n

P
l
i
n
y

N
H

1

f
o
r

w
o
r
k
s

o
n

i
n
s
e
c
t
s

a
n
d

a
n
i
m
a
l
s

a
n
d

c
r
o
p
s
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

v
a
r
i
a
n
t
,

D
H

1
.
5
5
.
3
.

D
H

1
2
.
1
6
.
2
2
;

V
i
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

3
.
4
0
5
-
7
;

P
l
u
t

Q
R

1
0

(
D
i
o
r
n
e
d
e
s
)
;

F
e
s
t
u
s

p
4
3
2
L

s
v

S
a
t
u
m
i
a
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

2
.
1
6
6
;

3
.
4
0
7
;

D
S

A
e
n
.

3
.
4
0
6
,
5
4
5
.

F
o
r

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
,

c
i
t
e
d

h
e
r
e

a
n
d

a
t

1
9
.
5

(
a
l
s
o

o
n

s
a
c
r
a
)
,
c
f
.

p
e
r
h
a
p
s

M
a
c
r
.

S
a
t
.

3
.
1
2
.
7

l
i
b
e
r

q
u
i

i
n
s
c
r
i
b
i
t

d
e

s
a
c
r
i
s

S
u
l
i
u
r
i
b
u
s
.

F
o
r

a
u
t
h
o
r

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e

1
2
.
1
;

t
h
e

o
r
a
c
l
e

i
s

u
n
k
n
o
w
n
,

b
u
t

c
f
.

D
H

1
.
5
5
.
4
.

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

1
1
.
3
1
6

c
i
t
i
n
g

L
i
v
y
,

S
i
s
e
n
n
a

a
n
d

C
a
t
0

f
o
r

t
h
e

l
a
n
d

a
t

L
a
v
i
n
i
u
m
;

f
o
r

i
t
s

i
n
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
,

F
a
b
.

M
a
x
.

H
i
s
t
.

1
;

D
H

1
.
5
6
.
2
-
3
,
6
6
.
6
;

f
o
r

A
l
b
a

L
o
n
g
a

V
a
r
r
o

r
u
s
t
.

2
.
4
.
1
8
;

l
i
n
g
.

5
.
1
4
4
;

D
H

1
.
5
6
.
4
-
5
,
6
6
.
1
;

V
i
r
g
.

A
e
n
.

8
.
4
7
-
8
;

D
S

A
e
n
.

1
.
2
6
9

(
q
u
o
t
i
n
g

C
a
t
o
)
.

~
O
G
R

1
3
.
7

_
_

1
3
.
8

1
5
.
4

1
5
.
5

1
1
5
s

1
1
6
.
4

.
_

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
3

1
7
.
3

I
1
7
5

_
_

~~
F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

~~
~
A
e
n
e
a
s

d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d

k
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
e
n
t

o
f

a
l
l

t
h
e

L
a
t
i
n
s

W
O
R
K
C
I
T
E
D

_
_

_
_

-
-

_
_

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

t
e
r
m

P
i
s
o

(
K
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
e
)

A
u
l
u
s

P
o
s
t
u
m
i
u
s

d
e

a
d
u
e
n
t
u

A
e
n
e
a
e

C
a
e
s
a
r

l
i
b
r
o

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

~
-

~
I

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p

b
e
t
w
r
&
u
r
n
u
s

a
n
d

A
m
a
t
a
,

A
m
a
t
a
'
s

d
e
a
t
h

~
L
u
c
i
u
s

C
a
e
s
a
r

l
1
b
y
m
p
n
r
n
o

T
r
e
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e
L
a
t
i
n
s

a
n
d

M
e
z
e
n
t
i
u
s

~~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-

~~
7

I
u
l
u
~
d

t
h
e

M
i
a

f
a
m
l
i
a

-

~
-

C
a
t
o

i
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
i
b
u
s

-

-
-

C
a
i
u
s

C
a
e
s
a
r

-

c
r
e
d
i
t

f
o
r

r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

L
a
v
i
n
i
a

~
S
e
x
t
u
s

G
e
l
l
i
u
s

i
n

o
n
g
i
n
e

g
e
n
t
i
s

r
o
r
n
a
n
a
e

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

~
~~~
~
~
-
~

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

D
H

1

6
4
.
4
,

S
t
r
a
b
o

5

2

2

C
2
2
9
,

Z
o
n
a
r
a
s

7

I
,

n
o
t
e

t
h
e

s
h
i
f
t

t
o

r
e
x

L
a
t
i
n
o
r
u
r
n

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

1
2
.
6
0
3
.

_
_
_
_
_
_

-

I
1

D
H
J
.
6
5
.
5

D
S

A
e
n

9
.
7
0
7

P
o
s
t
u
r
n
i
u
s

d
e

a
d
u
e
n
t
u

A
e
n
e
a
e

e
t

L
u
t
a
t
i
u
s

(
o
n

B
o
l
a
)

D
S

A
e
n
.

1
.
2
6
7

c
i
t
e
s

L
.

C
a
e
s
a
r

f
o
r

I
u
l
u
s

f
r
o
m

I

~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~

I

1

I

i
)
O
b
O
f
l
O
J

(
s
k
i
l
l
e
d

i
n

a
r
c
h
e
r
y
)

o
r

I
)
/
O
U
~
O
J
(
y
o
u
n
g

1
_
_

t
-
-

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

~
~~
[
i
n
]

A
n
n
a
l
i
u
r
n

P
o
n
t
i
f
i
c
u
r
n

l
i
b
r
o

q
u
a
r
t
o

L
a
v
i
n
i
u
m

t
o

A
l
b
a

L
o
n
g
a

C
i
n
c
i
i

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

1
T
h
e

i
m
p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

m
o
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
u
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

D
e
i

P
e
n
a
t
e
s

f
r
o
m

~
~~
~
~
-
~

~
~
1

_
_
_
_
_
_

~~
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~

C
a
e
s
a
n
s

s
e
c
i
i
n
d
o

T
u
b
e
r
o
n
i
s

p
r
i
r
n
o

~~
~
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
~

~~
~
1
A
n
n
a
l
i
u
r
n

P
o
n
t
t
f
i
c
u
r
n

l
t
b
r
o

q
u
a
r
t
o

A
l
l

t
h
e

k
i
n
g
5

o
t

A
l
b
a

L
o
n
g
a

s
u
r
n
a
m
e
d

S
i
l
v
i
u
s

~
.

m
a
n
'
s

b
e
a
r
d
)
.

~
~
-
~
i

~~
~
D
H

1
.
7
0
.
1
-
3
.

U
s
u
a
l
l
y

c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d

~~
~
t
o

L
u
c
i
u
s
.

~
~
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

C
n
.

G
e
l
l
i
u
s

t
h
e

a
n
n
a
l
i
s
t
,

o
r

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

G
e
l
l
i
u
s

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

C
i
c
.

d
i
v
.

1
.
5
5

a
n
d

D
H

1
.
7
.
3

w
h
o

s
p
e
a
k

o
f

G
e
l
l
i
i
.

D
H

1
.
6
7
.
1
;

V
a
l
.

M
a
x
.

1
.
8
.
7

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
t
o
r
y
.

T
h
e

t
e
x
t

i
s

e
m
e
n
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

i
n

A
n
n
a
l
i

P
o
n
t
i
&
x
r
n

q
u
a
r
t
o

F
o
r

C
i
n
c
i
u
s
,

s
e
e

L
.

C
i
n
c
i
u
s

(
F
u
n
a
i
o
l
i

p
3
7
1
-
8
2
;

h
e

w
r
o
t
e

o
n

a

v
a
r
i
e
t
y

o
f

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
s

a
n
d

i
s

q
u
o
t
e
d

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y

b
y

F
e
s
t
u
s
)

o
r

L
.

C
i
n
c
i
u
s

A
l
i
m
e
n
t
u
s
.

~~~
~~
l
i
b
r
o
-

.
~

~
~
~
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

-

~~~
Q

A
e
l
i
u
s

T
u
b
e
r
o

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

h
E

f
a
t
h
e
r

~
L
i
v
c

8
,

D
H

1

7
0
3
,

F
e
s
t
u
s

p
4
6
0
L

s
v

S
i
l
u
i
i
,

H
i
e
r

C
h
r
o
n

p
6
4

H
e
l
m
,

O
r
i
g
o

R
o
m

C
h
r
o
n

1
.
1
4
3
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

6
.
7
6
0
,

7
6
3
,

7
6
6
,

7
7
0
.

I
t

i
s

w
o
r
t
h

n
o
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

n
e
x
t

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

t
h
e

A
l
b
a
n

1
-

_
_
~

~
c
o
w

l
i
s
t
.

~
-

-
~

~
-

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
~

_
_

.

.

.
.
~
I
~
-
.

1

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

I

V
a
r
r
o

l
i
n
g
.

5
.
3
0
;

L
i
v
y

1
.
3
.
8
;

D
H

1
.
7
1
.
2
;

S
e
r
v
.

I

A
e
n
.

8
.
3
3
0

(
c
o
n
t
r
a
d
i
c
t
i
n
g

L
i
v
y
)

~
-
~

~~
W
O
R
K

C
I
T
E
D

~~~~
j
F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

D
e
a
t
h

o
f

T
i
b
e
r
i
u
s

S
i
l
v
i
u
s

a
n
d

n
a
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

T
i
b
e
r
.

~
.

~
L
u
c
i
u
s

C
i
n
c
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o

L
z
&
s

l
i
b
r
o

t
e
r
t
i
o

-

~~
~
-
&
-
.
-

-

~~
~~~~~~
;
s
f

~
~
~
_
_
_
~
~

~
~~
~~~~
1

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

~
~
-

'
O
G
R

t
-
-
-

i
1
8
.
3

1
8
.
3

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
4

1
8
.
5

~
~
1
9
.
4

+
-

i

1
9
.
5

i

1
9
.
5

W
O
R
K

C
I
T
E
D

-

A
n
n
a
l
i
u
m

<
P
o
n
t
@
x
m
>

l
i
b
r
o

q
u
a
r
t
o

E
p
i
t
o
m
a
r
u
m

P
i
s
o
n
i
s

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

A
u
f
i
d
i
u
s

i
n

e
p
i
t
o
m
i
s

-

D
o
r
n
j
t
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
i
m
o

L
u
c
i
u
s

C
a
e
s
a
r

l
i
b
r
o

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

-
~

~
_
_
_
_
_

.
_

V
a
l
e
n
u
s

A
n
t
i
a
s

l
r
b
r
o

p
n
m
o

M
a
r
c
u
s

O
c
t
a
v
i
u
s

_
_
_
~
_
_
_
-

-

~
L
i
c
i
n
i
u
s

M
a
c
e
r

-
-

_
~

2
0
.
1

F
a
b
i
u
s

P
i
c
t
o
r

l
i
b
r
o
p
r
i
m
o

I
-
~

~
-

-

_
_

~~
.
_
_
_
_

F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

A
r
e
m
u
l
u
s

S
i
l
v
i
u
s
'

d
e
a
t
h

f
r
o
m

a

l
i
g
h
t
n
i
n
g

b
o
l
t

a
n
d

s
t
o
r
m

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

A
r
e
m
u
l
u
s

S
i
l
v
i
u
s
'

d
e
a
t
h

f
r
o
m

a
n

e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e

~~
-

~
-

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

A
v
e
n
t
i
n
u
s

S
i
l
v
i
u
s

b
u
r
i
e
d
a
t

t
h
e

f
o
o
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
v
e
n
t
i
n
e

-
~

~
A
m
u
l
i
u
s

m
a
k
e
s

R
h
e
a

S
i
l
v
i
a

a

V
e
s
t
a
l

V
i
r
g
i
n

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

h
e
r

f
r
o
m

R
h
e
a

S
i
l
v
i
a

r
a
p
e
d

b
y

A
m
u
l
i
u
s

A
s

a
b
o
v
e

R
h
e
a

S
i
l
v
i
a

r
a
p
e
d

b
y

M
a
r
s

b
e
a
n
n
g

a

c
h
i
l
d

-

~
~
-

_
_
_

I
~~
~~
~
-

V
e
n
n
o
n
i
u
s

I

~~
_
~
~
_
_
_
.
_
.

~~
C
O
M
M
E
N
T
S

~~
_

L
i
v
y

1
.
3
.
9
;

O
v
.

M
e
t
.

1
4
.
6
1
7
-
1
8
,

F
a
s
t
i
4
.
5
0
;
E
u
s
.

C
h
r
o
n
.

1
.
2
7
4
,

2
8
7
-
9
S
c
h
;

H
i
e
r
.

C
h
r
o
n
.

p
7
9

H
e
l
m
;

O
r
o
s
.

1
.
2
0
.
5
;

P
a
u
l
.

H
i
s
t
.

R
o
m
.

1
.
l
a
.

E
d
i
t
o
r
s

o
m
i
t

t
h
e

p
o
n
t
i
f
i
c
e
s

t
o

m
a
k
e

b
o
t
h

t
h
e

A
n
n
a
l
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

E
p
i
t
o
m
e

b
e
l
o
n
g

t
o

P
i
s
o
.

P
l
i
n
.

N
H

2
8
.
1
4

f
o
r

T
u
l
l
u
s

H
o
s
t
i
l
i
u
s

b
e
i
n
g

s
t
r
u
c
k

C
i
c
.

T
u
s
c
.

5
.
1
2
,

o
n

C
n
.

A
u
f
i
d
i
u
s

(
p
r
a
t
.

1
0
7
)
,

G
r
a
e
c
a
m

s
c
r
i
b
e
b
a
t

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
a
m

e
t

u
i
d
e
b
a
t

i
n

l
i
t
t
e
r
i
s

-

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y

a

L
a
t
i
n

e
p
i
t
o
m
e
?

_
_
_
.
~

h
l
i
g
h
t
n
i
n
g
.

-
.

V
a
r
r
o

l
i
n
g
.

5
.
4
3
;

L
i
v
y

1
.
3
.
9
;

D
H
1
.
7
1
.
4
;

O
v
.

m
e
t
.

1
4
.
6
2
0
-
1
;

E
u
s
.

C
h
r
o
n
.

1
,
2
7
4
,
2
8
9
S
c
h
.
;

.
H
i
e
r
.

C
h
r
o
n
.

p
8
1

H
e
l
m
;

L
a
c
t
.

Z
n
s
t
.

1
.
1

1
.
5
9
.

A
u
g
.

C
D

D
H

1
.
7
6
.
3

1
8
.
2
1

i
s

a
l
m
o
s
t

i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l

(
M
o
m
i
g
l
i
a
n
o

p
7
2
)
.

_
-

~
~~
-
~
~

L
i
v
y

1
.
4
.
2
;

D
H

1
.
7
7
.
2
;

O
v
.

F
u
s
t
i

3

2
1
;

S
r
v
.

A
e
n

1
.
2
7
3
.

O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

k
n
o
w
n

f
r
o
m

D
H

4
.
1
5
.
1

(
c
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

F
a
b
i
u
s
)
,

C
i
c
.

l
e
g
.

1
.
6
,
A
t
t
.

1
2
.
3
.
1

~~~~
-
2

~ I
-

_
_

_
_

~
_
_
_

_
_

~
-
-

_
_
~

_
_

-
-

-
~

~~~
C
O
M
M
E
W
S

-
~

_
_
_

~
~
G
R
T
O
R
K
C
I
T
E
D
-

~
F
R
A
G
M
E
N
T

-
_

_
_
_
_
_

2
0

3

k
n
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
n
m
o

(
=
B
o
o
k

I

x
l
i
v

k
s
t
u
l
u
s

r
e
s
c
u
e
s

t
h
e

t
w
i
n
s

w
h
o

a
r
e

b
e
i
n
g

s
u
c
k
l
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

w
o
l
f

c
f
l
l
i
u
s

7

7

5

(
V
a
l
e
n
u
s

A
n
t
i
a
s
)

a
n
d

M
a
c
r
o
b

~
S
k
u
t
s
c
h
)

2
0

3

C
a
e
s
a
r
x
r
o

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

2
1

1

V
a
l
e
n
u
s

I
I
~~
7- I

2
2
.
2

+
-
-
-
-

~
l
t
b
r
o

P
o
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
l
t
u
r
n

s
e
c
u
n
d
o

J
-
-
-
-

~
~
p
3
.
5
-

L
i
c
i
n
i
u
s

M
a
c
e
r

l
t
b
r
o
p
r
r
m
o

,

.
.

~
2
3

6

E
g
n
a
t
i
u
s

l
i
b
r
o

p
r
t
m
o

~
-

_
_

a
n
d

g
i
v
e
s

t
h
e
m

t
o

h
i
s

w
i
f
e

A
c
c
a

L
a
r
e
n
t
i
a
.

-
~
-
_
_

~
A
s
a
b
o
v
e

_
_
-

1
F
a
u
s
t
u
l
u
s

g
i
v
e
s

t
h
e

t
w
i
n
s

t
o

h
i
s

f
n
e
n
d

A
c
c
a

L
a
r
e
n
t
i
a
,

a

1

p
r
o
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

-
~

~
_
_
-

-

~
~
-

A
m
u
l
i
u
s

s
e
n
d
s

m
e
n

t
o

a
m
b
u
s
h

R
e
m
u
s
,

h
e

i
s

r
e
s
c
u
e
d

b
y

h
i
s

b
r
o
t
h
e
r
.
-
-

~
~
~
~
~
~
_
_

~~
-

I

T
h
e

d
e
a
t
h

o
f

R
e
m
u
s

~
R
e
m
u
s

o
u
t
l
i
v
e
s

h
i
s

b
r
o
t
h
e
r

-
~

c
-
-

S
a
t
.

I

1
0

1
7

(
L
i
c
i
n
i
u
s

M
a
c
e
r
)

f
o
r

A
c
c
a

L
a
r
e
n
t
i
a

a
s

F
a
u
s
t
u
l
u
s
'

w
i
f
e

-
+

-

-
~
_
_
_
_
_
_

~
r
-
-
-

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

L
i
v
y

1
.
4

7
;

D
H

1
.
8
4
.
4
;

P
l
u
t
.

R
o
m
.

4
.
4
;

L
a
c
t
.

I
n
s
t
.

1
.
2
0
.
2
;

H
i
e
r
.

C
h
r
o
n

p
8
5

H
e
l
m
.

'
N
o
t

k
n
o
w
n

q
u
i
t
e

i
n

t
h
i
s

f
o
r
m
;

c
f

L
i
v
y

1

5
.
2
-
3
;

-

1
0

I

L
i
v

1
.
7
.
2
;

D
H

1
.
8
7
.
1
;

S
e
r
v
.

A
e
n
.

1
.
2
7
3
;

6
.
7
7
9
.

1

*

1

D
H

1
.
8
4
.
6
;

P
l
u
t
.

R
o
n
.

7
.
1
-
3
.

-

1
z
:
h
o
r

u
n
k
n
o
w
n
;

p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
s

o
n
l
y

i
n

t
h
e

d
y
a
r
c
h
y

2

3

(
C
a
s
s
i
u
s

H
e
m
n
a
)

-
~
.
-
_

~
-

120 BICS-48 - 2005
APPENDIX 2: Sources cited in Ps.-Plutarch, Parallela minora 1-10
Author
Agatharchides of
Samos
Chrysermus
Callisthenes Metamorphoses, Macedonian
1 Historv
Trisimachus
Italian History
Theotimus Italian History
Eratosthenes I Erigone
Cleitonymus I Italian History
Comments
Toponym confused with the writer of
erotic stories, fabulae Milesiae?
Agatharchides of Cnidos is a famous
aeomaDher: no Samian known.
Strabo had a neighbour (14.645) who
wrote on medical matters and was
quoted by Pliny; another Chrysermus
was a famous Stoic.
The Macedonian history might belong
to the famous Callisthenes.
Unknown
cf. Festus 439L on the Salii of
Samothrace?
Restored at Serv. Aen. 3.334: sicut
Alexarchus historicus graecus et
Aristonicus referunt.
Wrote on Cyrene and Rhodes,
according to two references in the
Scholia to Pindar.
Unknown
cf. Thrakika, De.fluv. 3.4
C. J . S MI TH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE 121
APPENDIX 3: The Roman stories
1. Glaucon loses his hands grabbing on to Hasdrubals ship, under the consul Metellus. This
could be 251 BC, but the engagement is unknown, and there is a better-known version
attributed to a soldier of Caesar (Val. Max. 3.2.22; Suet lul. 68.4; Plut. Cam. 16). Aristeides
the Milesian, Sicilian History Book I .
2. Porsenna and Mucius Scaevola (Scaevola takes 400 men with him). Aristeides the
Milesian, Histories Book 3.
3. Postumius Albinus and the battle of the Caudine Forks (321 BC); the text is corrupt and
has also been emended to Minucius Augurinus (cos. 305 BC). During the night after the
disaster, Albinus briefly revives, despoils the Samnites and sets up a shield with an
inscription in his own blood; Fabius Maximus Gurges (cos. 292, 276 [triumphs over
Samnites], 265) replaces him, defeats the Samnites, and sends their king to Rome. Aristeides
the Milesian, Italian History Book 3.
4. Fabius Maximus with 300 men makes a successful but suicidal attack on Hannibal; Lydus
refers this to the First Punic War, but the 300 men recalls Cremera. Aristeides the Milesian.
5. Mettius Curtius; the version given at Livy 7.6.1-6. Aristeides the Milesian, Histories
Book 40.
6. Aemilius Paulus builds an altar during the war with Pyrrhus, at the place where the noble-
man Valerius Conatus was swallowed by the earth; it still gives oracles. No Aemilius Paulus
is known for the period. Critolaus, Epeirote History Book 3.
7. Tullus Hostilius and Metius Fufetius - same story as at Livy 1.23, DH 3.5. Alexurchus,
Italian History Book 4.
8. Porsenna and Horatius Cocles (who loses an eye like Philip [I), cf. Livy 2.10. Theotimus,
Italian Histoty Book 2.
9. Lutatius Catulus precinct and altar of Saturn (reference to restoration oftemple ofJ upiter
in 78 BC); unknown oracle from Delphi. Critolaus, Phaenomena Book 4.
10. Cassius Brutus tried to betray the Romans in their war with the Latins under P. Decius
(cos. 340); he flees to the temple of Minerva Auxiliaria (unknown) and is starved to death by
his father Cassius Signifer. A conflation with the story of Sp. Cassius (cos. 493)?
Cleitonymus, Italian History.
11. Tarquin is expelled by Brutus and with the aid of the Etruscans fights Rome; he is
betrayed by his sons, whom he beheads. Confusion with Brutus and his sons? Aristeides the
Milesian.
122 BICS-48 - 2005
12. Manlius Imperiosus kills his son for fighting the Samnites without permission; Manlius
was fighting the Latins with the Samnites, and the detail that he had gone to Rome for the
consular elections is wrong. Aristeides the Milesian.
13. Valerius Torquatus (?) in a war against the Etruscans demands the Etruscan kings
daughter; she throws herself off the battlements but, thanks to Venus and her dress, floats to
earth where Valerius rapes her and is exiled to Corsica. Theophilus, Italian History.
14. When Rome was fighting the alliance of Carthage and Sicily, Metellus (L. Caecilius
Metellus, cos. 25 1 ?) was prevented from sailing because he had not sacrificed to Vesta, so he
had to offer up his daughter; Vesta took pity, substituted a heifer and transported her to
Lanuvium to be the priestess of the serpent there. Pythocles, Italian History.
15. The story of Tarpeia; necklaces substituted for arm-bands. Aristeides the Milesian.
16. The story of the Horatii and Curiatii. Aristeides the Milesian.
17. Antylus (L. Caecilius Metellus) warned by an omen not to leave Rome (this is not
canonical); returns to see the shrine of Vesta on fire, and saves the Palladium, but is blinded
(24 1 BC); then regains sight (unique). Aristeides the Milesian.
18. The devotiones of the Decii. Aristeides the Milesian.
19. Aruntius despises Bacchus, who makes him drunk; he rapes his own daughter, who kills
him at the (unknown) temple of Fulgora. Aristeides the Milesian.
20. Marius sacrifices his daughter to defeat the Cimbri; two altars in Germany which give the
sound of trumpets. Dorotheus, Italian History.
2 1. Aemilius of Sybaris suspects his wife, and follows her, whereupon she is set upon by
dogs, and he kills himself (the story has been abbreviated by Ps.-Plut. in a very confusing
way). Cleitonymus, History of Sybaris.
22. Valeria Tusculanaria falls in love with her father; with the help of a nurse she tricks him
into sleeping with her; she fails to abort the baby and gives birth to Aegipan/Silvanus; her
father kills himself. Aristeides, Italian History.
23. Calpurnius Crassus, fighting with Regulus in Africa, is captured but helped to escape and
win by the kings daughter, who then kills herself (256 BC; Crassus was a legate, but the
story is only here). Hesianax, Libyan History.
24. L. Tiberius gives his son to Valerius Gestius for safe-keeping in the Hannibalic War, but
Gestius kills the boy, and Tiberius on his return crucifies Gestius (another version of this in
the Greek paradoxographers; see De Latzer ad loc.). Aristeides the Milesian.
25. One brother kills the other in a hunt, and is exiled. Aristocles, Italian History.
26. An Italian version of the Meleager story. Menyllus, Italian History.
C. J . SMITH: THE ORIGO GENTIS KOMANAE I23
27. Calpurnius violates a girl called Florentia, whose father gives her up to be drowned, but
the guards take pity on her, and sell her into slavery; she is by chance bought by Calpurnius
who marries her. No author.
28. An instance of incest leads to the suicide of both parties. Chrysippus, Italian History.
29. Fulvius Stellus hated women and consorted with a mare who gave birth to the goddess
Epona. Agesilaus, Italian History.
30. The origins of the slave festival on the Nonae Caprotinae; cf. Plut. Rom. 29, Cam. 33,
though here it is the Gauls not the Latins who are the enemy. Aristeides the Milesian.
3 1. In a war against the Gauls, Cinna reduces the grain distribution, and is stoned to death for
adfectatio regni. Aristeides the Milesian.
32. Romulus restores the grain dole, and the Senate tear him to pieces; J ulius Proculus
proclaims him deified; the grain dole element is unique. Aristobulus, Italian History.
33. A stepmother tries to kill her stepson; he tells the truth before dying and she is banished.
Dositheus, Italian History.
34. An ltalian version of the Hippolytus story. Dositheus, Italian History.
35. A plague at Falerii, warded off by virgin sacrifice until Valeria Luperca i s given an
alternative. Aristeides.
36. Amulius, Numitor, Silvia, Romulus, Remus. Aristeides the Milesian.
37. The family of Fabius Fabricianus (unknown) in a version of the Agamemnon,
Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes story. Dositheus, Italian History.
38. Whilst driving the cattle of Geryon Hercules slays Faunus, who was wont to kill his
guests. Dercyllus, Italian History.
39. A version ofthe Phalaris story from Segesta. Those who rule with great cruelty are called
Aemilii after this Aemilius. Aristeides.
40. Annius king ofthe Etruscans tries to stop his daughter's affair, but is turned into the river
Anio; Latinus and Salius are born, whence the nobility trace their descent. Aristeides the
Milesian, Alexander Polyhistor.
4 1. Telegonus founds Praeneste; unique. Aristocles, Italian History.
I24 BICS-48 - 2005
Hydaspes
APPENDIX 4: Sources cited in Ps.-Plutarch, Defluuiis 1-5
Chrysermus, lndica Only in Ps.-Plutarch
Archelaos, On Rivers Unknown
Dercvllos. On Mountains Athen. 111.86f for an Arpolica
1 River I Source I Comments I
Ismenos Sostratos, On Rivers In Stobaeus
Leon of Byzantium, Boiotica
Hermesianax of Cvorus. Histories Unknown
J ohn Lydus for a workperi lithon
Ganges
I Ebros I Timotheus, On Rivers I In Stephanos of Byzantium I
Kleitonymus, Thrakika Unknown
Call i sthenes, Cynegetica
Kaimaron. lndica Unknown
Alexanders general? A Callisthenes of
Sybaris also quoted in Defluviis.
I Phasis I Ctesiuuos, Scvthica I The friend of Euicurus? Work unknown. I
I I Cleanthes, Theornachia I The philosopher? Work unknown. I
C. J . SMITH: THE ORICO CENTIS ROMANAE 12.5
APPENDIX 5:
Sources cited in Fulgentius, Exposilio sermonum antiquorum 1 11.1-1 15. 2 (Helm)
Word Author
Stesimbrotus
Thasius
Antidamas of
Heraclea. On
Alexander
Comments
Author well known, but the word is Latin. sandapila
uispillo
Mnaseas,
Europiaka
Europiaka quoted by Athcnaeus ( I 58d,
296b, 530c) and mentioned by J erome, as
wcll as in Mythologhe 2.16. The word is
Latin. and mistranslated here. where porters
of corpses (irespillo) in the dctinition is
replaced by robbers of corpses (uispellio) in
the examnlc.
pollinctor Plautus,
A4enaechmi
Poenulus 63
Apuleius,
Hermaeoras
References are largely concoctions. In S.4 3.
the Hermagoras is also attested by Priscian.
Serv. Aen. 3.175; Festus 1281,: Non. Marc.
S.V. ~rulluni =Varro, De iiitn popidi Roman;
I(198 Funaioli): Amob. 2.62. Maw.
1.16.29. 1.12.20-1 for Cornelius not
Antistius Labeo.
manales lapides Labeo, De
disciplinae
Etruscae Tagetis et
Bacitidis XI
neferendi sues Diofontus of
Sparta, De sacris
deorum
Solicrates Sosicratcs (Athenaeus 422d) wrote a work
on the Diadochoi.
Varro Pliny Nlf 7.28 gives thc same information of
Lucius Siccius Dentatus scars: Val. Max.
3.2.24 eivcs the information citine Varro.
3mbiguaea ovcs Baebius Maccr,
Fastalia sacrorum
(=Petcr f r KR 11.71-2): cf. Scrv. Aen. 5.556.
Ecl. 9.44.
juggrundaria Rutilius Geminus,
Astyanax
Cincius Alimcntus,
De Gorgia
Leontino
Also cited in this work for 1,ihrr
Pontificales: otherwise unknown: though cf.
Geminus at Macr. Sat. 1.16.33.
(=Cincius, I hbi a velfalsa 34 Funaioli)
On Gorgias long life. cf. Philostratos I S
494.
;ilicernius
wal es fratrcs Rutilius Geminus,
Libri oontificales
See above
niuges boves Manilius Crestus,
De deorum himnis
Varro 1,L. 5.3 I Manlius on liuropa
(Manilius in some MSS); cf. Pliny NH 10.4;
DH 1.19: Gellius3.3.1.
I26 BICS-48 - 2005
Fulg.
11
12
Word Author
semones Varro,
Mistagogorum
liber
blatterare Pacuvius
Comments
Fragments in Funaioli pp. 84-5; Varro LL
5.32; Arnob. 3.38 on nouensiles (also citing
Piso, Granius, Varro, Cornificius, Cincius);
Festus S. V. sexagenarii.
Work unknown.
Play Pseudo, character Sceparnus; cf.
Plautus Pseudolus, and Sceparnus in
Rudens, cf. 125.57 - a tragedy called
Thyestis =Ennius Thyestis (cf. J ocelyn. p.
4 12); the line non illic luteis aurora biiugis
recalls Virg. Aen. 7.26 aurora in roseis
fulnebat lutea binis.
C. J . S MI TH: THE OR E 0 GENTIS HOMANAE
APPENDIX 6: Sources cited in Fulgentius, Mitologiae Book I
127
Fulg.
1 . 1
Subject
unde idolum
Author Comments
Diophantus of
Sparta, Libri
antiauitates XI V
primus in orbe
deos fecit timor
Petronius =Buechcler fr. 27; cf. Statius, 777eh. 3.661
M intanor Unknown and followed by nzusiczts in
crumatopoion which is a pun
deum doloris
quem prima
compunctio
humani finxit
generis
bibite,
pergregamini
polucibiliter
Saturn f or
sacrum nun
1.2
I .2
Plautus, Epidicus =A4ostellaria 22. 24.
Apollofanes, In
epico carmine
Tert. De aninza for a disciple of%cno ofthe
same name: c!: Athen. 281d: Eusebius I f E
6.19, quoting Porphyr).. Adv ('l7ristianos.
Porphyry is blaming Origen for using a
number of philosophcrs (incl. Apollophanes)
for their allegorical method and applying it
to J ewish stories. Myth. J i l t . 3.2.6 for the
etymology; cf. Martianus Capella 2.2.6:
Tertullian Adv. I'alent. 7.7.
1.3 The power of
fire
Heraclittis Cf. e.g. Cic. h'D 3.14: Aug. ( - D 6. 5: Serv
Aen. 1 1.196.
1.3 J uno bound
with chains by
J ovc
Theopompus,
Cipriacum carmen
=Theopoinpus of Colophon?
1.3 As above llellanicus. Dios
Politia
(inknown
1.9
1.13
On Harpies
On the crow
Virgil. Aen. 6.289
Petronius
~ ~
=Buechcler fr. 25.
1.13 As above 4naximander,
3rneoscopica
Not in the list of works at DI, 2.1-2 or in the
Suda, but cf. Censorinus D N 4.7 Ibr
zooeonic material.
1.13
1.14
As above
The laurel
Pindar
4ntiphon.
Philochorus,
4rtemon and
Serapion
IJ nknown reference.
cf. Tertullian. De animn 46. I 0 listed among
others as Yestif'ying to the truth ofdrcams' -
note I:. adds Ascalonites. and on11 cites a
non-extant work ofTertullian (De fato. SA
1 16.20).
=Anaximenes of Lampsacus, c. 380-20 BC?
Athenaeus 231c. 531d: cited at A1 62.107
1. 15 4naximander of
Lamosacenum
The Muses
128 BICS-48 - 2005
1. 15 As above Zenophanes of
Heraclea
of Colophon, or the biographer (Athen.
424c, 576d); or Xenophanes from Tert. De
anima 43.2. who wrote on sleen?
1.15 As above Pisander, Fisicus =Pisander the eDic poet?
1.15 As above Euximenes,
Theologumena
Unknown; for the title cf. Fulgcntius on
Sosicles Atticus (M 65.8); Suet. Aug. 94
(Asclepiades of Mendes, otherwise known
as the author of a Harmonia from the Sudu).
1.15 As above Epicharmus,
Dipholus
Hermes,
Opimandra
Lucan
cf. Tertullian, De anima 46.10, 1 1 for
reference to his writing.
Poirnandrae - genuine quote from Book I . 1. 1.15 As above
~
Mercurv Phars. 1.662 1.18
I .20 J ove against the
Titans;
Ganvmede
Anacreon Lactantius, Inst. Div. 1.1 1 for the same
interpretation.
1.21 Perseus and the
Gorgons
Lucan Phurs. 9.620ff.
Ovid
Theocnidus,
Antiquitates
Tiberianus
Met. 4.617ff.
Unknown
1.21
1.21
As above
As above
1,21 Pegasus
hinnientem
transuolaturus
ethram
PLM 111.263-9; preserved by Servius, Aen
6.532.
C. J . S MI TH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE I29
APPENDIX 7: Macrobius and his sources
This appendix endeavours to gather, in alphabetical order, all sources quoted by Macrobius in the
Saturnalia that are from Latin historical or antiquarian writers. The source is given first as presented
by Macrobius; the notes give an indication of context and parallels. I have given references to the
presentation of sources in 1-1. Peter, Historicorum Romanovum reliquiae, 1-11 ( I .eipzig, 1906- 14)
(whence may be derived references in M. Chassignet, Caton: Les Origines (l'aris, 1986), and
L 'Annalistique Romaine, I, I I (Paris, 1996, I999), and H. Beck and U. Walter. Di e l,iuhen rornisclzen
Historiker 1; von Fabius Pi ctor bis Cn. Gelliics (Darmstadt, 2001)); H. Funaioli, Crammaticue
Romanaefragmenta (Leipzig, 1907); F. P. Bremer, Iurisprudentiae antehadrianae qiiae supersunt 1-11
(Leipzig, 1896-8); P. H. Huschke, E. Seckel and B. Kubler, lurispurudentiae Anteiustinianae (Leipzig,
1908-27) (abbreviated HSK). Only consideration of all these volumes will in some cases reveal the full
extent of a particular author's activity. Numbers in brackets within names of sources indicate RE
entries. Finally I have indicated in the broadest terms those authors who have also citcd the particular
source, using the following abbreviations:
F. Festus; G. Aulus Gellius; Gr. grammatical works; S. Servius; V. other Virgiiian commentaries. A
question mark indicates that the authenticity ofthe citation is doubtful.
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
C. Aelius Gallus
6.8.16 (=Cell. 16.5.3) =F7 Funaioli. F23 Bremer. F5 HSK. lihro de
Vestibiclum
C. Aelius (58) Gallus: Funaioli 545-54. Bremer 1.245-52. I ISK 1.37-42
F.. S.
A. Albinus
a) I ur. 14 (=Cell. 11.8.2) =FI Peter. res Komanas orationc. Praeca
Albinus on his own work.
A. Postumius (3 I ) Albinus: HRR 1.53-4: cf. also Serv. (DS) Aen. 9.707 (1:3
G.. s.
Antonius Gniuho
3.12.8 =F2 Funaioli. in libro quo disoutat aitid sit festra
cf. Festus 80L.
Funaioli 98-100: mentioned at Suet. Gramm. 7
Gr.. V.
Asinius Pollio
1.4. I2 ut Asinius Pollio vectiaaliorum fieauenter usurnet
Not in Peter or Funaioli.
C. Asinius (25) Pollio: Peter 11.67-70: Funaioli 493-502
G.. Gr.. S?
Aemilius Asoer
3.5.9 =F32 Wessner
on Mezentius
Aemilius (29) Asoer: P. Wessner. Aemilius Asmr:
Gr.. S.. V.
Ateius Cauito
3.10.3. 7 =F1V.I Rremer (D. 279). F14 ITSK (not in Funaioli). De
sacrificial victims
C. Ateius ( 7 ) Cauito: Funaioli 563-8: Bremer 11.261-87. IISK 1.62-72
F.. (i .. Gr.. S.
I30 BICS-48 - 2005
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Aterianus wammaticus
3.8.2 on Calvus F7 Morel
Serv. Aen. 2.632 uses the same line for the same Duruose but without
Haterianus (2): RE VII. 2512-13. Wessner.
s.. v.
Caelius
1.4.25 (=Cell. 10.24.6) =F25 Peter. F28 Henmann. Historiarum secundo
Maharbal and Hannibal
L. Coelius (7) Antiuater: HRR I. 158-77: W. IHerrmann. Die tlistorien des
Gr.. V.
a, b) Cassius Hemina: c. d) Cassius
I . 16.2 1 (=Cn. Gellius F25 Peter) =F20 Peter. F24 Santini. historiarum
dies oostriduani: cf. Livv 6. I . 1 1: Cell. 5.17. auoting Verrius Flaccus
HRR 1.98-1 11. Funaioli 17: C. Santini. I fiammenti di L. Cassio Emina
G.. Gr.. S.
Cat0
3.5.10 =F12 Peter. Oriainum wi mo
On the treaty with Mezentius (cf. F. Praen.. IDegrassi. Inscr. Ital. 13.2. 446-7: DH 1.65. Ovi
HRR 1.55-97: Funaioli 9-14; Malcovati.
F..G..Gr..S..V.
Cingius
1.12.12. 13 =F6 Funaioli. F1 HSK. De fastis libro I
Auril not sacred to Venus. cf. Varro (Macr. 1.12.13 =F409 Funaioli).
Identified bv Funaioli as L. Cincius (3). 371 -82. Bremer 1.252-60. HSK
F..G..Gr..S.
Claudius Ouadriearius
1.4. I 8 =F45 Peter. annuli tertio
for the word noctu: it is clear from the lemma that this was discussed in the
0. Claudius (308) Ouadriearius: HRR 1.205-37.
G.. Gr.. S.
Cloatius Verus
3.18.4 =F5 Funaioli. in libro a Graecis tractorum
iuglans
Cloatius (2) Verus: Funaioli. 467-73
F.. G.
Cornelius Balbus
3.6.16 =FI Funaioli. ExZppatikGn libro octavo decimo
Customs at the Ara maxima: same information at Serv. Aen. 8.176
L. Cornelius (70) Balbus: Funaioli 541-2
s.. V.?
Cornelius Labeo
I . 16.29. vrimo Fastorum libro
on nundinae: note Wissowa suggests that this should be attributed to
Cornelius (168) Labeo: Wissowa. RE IV. 135 1-5
S.
C. J . SMITH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE 131
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Cornificius prammaticus
1.9.1 1 =F2 Funaioli. Etvmorum libro tertio
on J anus. quoting Cic. ND 2.67
Cornificius (1 1) Lonaus: Funaioli, 473-80
F. Gr.. S.
Cornutus
Exnlanation of Virg. Aen. 4.698.
I,. Annaeus ( 5 ) Cornutus: RE 1. 2226-7 (v. Arnim).
G.. Gr.
5.19.2-3
Fabius Maximus Servilianus
1.16.25 =F4 Peter. F1 Bremer, Dontifex in libro duodecimo
On black davs
0. Fabius ( I 15) Maximus Servilianus: HRR I. 117-1 8. Bremer 1.28 (notc
Gr.. S.. V.
Fenestella
1.10.5 =F11 Peter
Date of the Saturnalia: Masurius also cited
G.. Gr.
HRR 11.79-87
Festus: a, b) Pomneius, c) J ulius
3.3.10
relipiosi. cf. Festus 348L. 366L
Sextus Pomoeius (145) Festus
Gr.
Fulvius Nobilior
1.12.16 =FI Funaioli. in fastis auos in aede Herculis Musaruni nosuit
etvmoloav of Mav (Romulus and the maiores): cf. Censorinus d.n. 22.9.
M. Fulvius (91) Nobilior: Funaioli. 15-16
Gr.. S.
Furius Bibaculus
2.1.13
A ioke in Cicero: according to Skutsch. RE VII. 320-2 this nrohablv came
M. Furius (371 Bibaculus
Not elsewhere cited excent as a poet.
Furius
3.9.6 =FI Bremer. FI HSK. Furii cuiusdam uetustissimus liher
Pravers of evocatio and devotio. auoted from Furius in Saminonicus
Bremer. 1.29-30 and Munzer RE VII. 360 suggested L. Furius (78) Philus
Gavius Bassus
1.9.13 =F9 Funaioli. in libro auem de Dis comuosuit
J anus: cited with Cornificus: book onlv mentioned here.
Funaioli. 486-91
G.
I32 BICS-48 - 2005
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Gellius
1.16.2 I =F25 Peter. annalium libro auinto decimo
dies uostriduani. cf. Cassius Hemina F20 Peter
Cn. Gellius (4): HRR I. 148-57
G.. Gr.. S.
Geminus
1.16.33
nundinae and Servius Tullius: cui rei etiam Varro consentit.
Peter. HRR 11. D. 5 1 suggests this passage is not bv Tanusius Geminus. and
a) Granius Flaccus. b) Granius (codd. carmini)
1.18.4 =Granius Flaccus B Criniti
Auollo and Dionvsus on Parnassus: cited with Varro
Granius (12) Flaccus: M. Criniti. Granius Licinianus (Leiuzig. 1981 ). xii-
F.
Granius ( 13) Licinianus
I . 16.30 =Granius Licinianus A Criniti. libro secundo
nundinae
Granius (13) Licinianus: M. Criniti. Granius Licinianus (Leinzig. 198 I ).
S.
Hvginus
1.7.19 =Peter F6. F17 Funaioli. Hvpinus motarchum Trallianum secutus
details of J anus and Saturn: cf. Serv. Aen. 1.533. Peter suggests forsitan a
C. J ulius (278) Hvginus: HRR 11.72-6: Funaioli. 525-37
G.. S.
Hvllus
3.2.13 =Funaioli. 537
uitula: Funaioli includes this under Hvginus as falsurn.
C. lulius Caesar
1.16.29. sextodecimo Ausuiciorum libro
nundinae
Perhaus L. J ulius (143) Caesar. Bremer 106-7. and uerhaus add OGR
F.. Gr.
C. Iulius Caesar
1.5.2 (=Cell. 1.10.4) =F2 Funaioli. urimo Analopiae libro
avoiding rare words
C. Iulius (131) Caesar: Funaioli. 143-57
G.. Gr.
Iulius Modestus
1.4.7 (=Valerius Antias F4 Peter). de feriis
Saturnalia
C. Iulius (363) Modestus: RE X.680-I (Tolkiehn)
G., Gr.. V.
C. J. SMITH: THE ORIGO GENTIS ROMANAE I33
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Iunius
1.13.20 =F4 Bremer
Intercalation
M. Iunius (68) Congus Gracchanus: Funaioli 120-1: Bremcr 1.37-40
F.. G.
Labeo
3.10.4 =F6 (1.56) HSK. sexapesimo ef octavo libro
Sacrificial rules
Funaioli. 557 whilst not printing the passage, accepts that this is M.
F.. G.
Lael i u s
1.6.13
Expiation in the Second Punic War: cf Livv 22.1.8.
M. Laelius (8): HSK 1.94-5 identifi as M. Laelius (17) ( RE XII. 416
cr
Licinius Macer
I . 10.17 =FI Peter. F2 Walt. historiarum lihro Drimo
Acca Larentia: cf. Gell. 7.7.8
C. Licinius ( I 12) Macer: HRR 1. 298-307: S. Walt. Die Historiker C.
Gr.
Ma1 I ius
1.10.4
Augustus and the Saturnalia
?Manilius (4) RE XIV. 11 15 (Munzer): Funaioli. 84-5. Bremer 1.
F.. G.
Masurius Sabinus
3.6.1 I =FV.2 Bremer. FI 5 HSK. Memorabilium Imetnorialium?
Hercules Victor
Bremer 11.313-581. HSK 1.72-9
G.
07.
libro
Messala
1.9.14 a wu r
J anus
M. Valerius (261) Messalla Rufus: Funaioli 427-9
F.. G.
Metellus
3.13.10, Metellus Dontifix maximus in indice quarto
The pontifical dinner
0. Caecilius (98) Metellus Pius
Musonius
1.5.12 =Cell. 18.2.1
remittere animurn quasi amittere est in the context of Gellius Saturnalia
C. Musonius (1) Rufus: D. 133 Hense
G.
I34 BICS-48 - 2005
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Nigidius
6.9.5 (=Gell. 16.6.12) =F81 Swoboda in iibro auem de extis comuosuit
bidentes
P. Nigidius Figulus. Swoboda makes Macr. 1.12.20 from Labeo also a
G..Gr..S..V.
Nisus
1.12.30
Etvmolom of month J unius
RE XVII, 760-1 (Kroll)
Gr.. V.
Octavius Hersennius
3.12.7 =FI Bremer de sacris Saliaribus Tiburtium
Hercules and the Salii
Octavius Hersennius: Bremer I. 1 10
Pavirius
3.15.8
Varro auotes Papirius on lamurevs
?
Pictor Fabius
3.2.11 =F5 Peter. F5 Bremer. FI HSK. urimo uontificii iuris libro
vitulari
HRR 1.1 14-16: Bremer 1.9-12: HSK 1.2-5
F..G..Gr..S.
Piso
1.12.18 =F42 Peter. FIO Forsvthe
Maiesta wife of Vulcan
L. Calpurnius (96) Piso Frugi: HRR I. 120-38. G. Forsvthe. The Historian
G.. Gr.. S.
Rutilius
1.16.34 =FI Peter. F4 Bremer. F1 HSK
nundinae
P. Rutilius (34) Rufus: HRR I . 187-90. Bremer 1.43-5. HSK 1.14-5
G.. Gr.
Sammonicus Serenus
3.9.6. in auinto rerum reconditarum
auoting Furius on evocatio and devotio
RE 1. 2129-31 (Funaioli)
Servius Suluicius
3.3.8 =F14 Funaioli. FX.3 Bremer. F14 HSK
relipiosus. Gell. 4.9.8 gives the same etvmologv but ascribed to Masurius
Ser. Sulvicius (95) Rufus: Funaioli. 421-6: Bremer 1.139-242; HSK 32-6
F.. G.
C. J . SMITH: THE OKIGO GENTIS ROMANAE I35
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited by:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notcs:
Author details:
Cited bv:
Source:
Reference:
Notes:
Author details:
Cited bv:
a) Tarquitius Priscus: b) liber Tarauitii
3.20.3. Tarauitius Priscus in Osfentario arhorario
on trees
Tarauitius (7) Priscus: RE IV2 2392-4 (Kroll)
F.. S.
Tertius
3.1 1.5 =FI Bremer
Inabilitv to exchin Virp. Aen. 1.736
Funaioli suggests this should be emcnded to Titius. 555- 6: cf. I3remcr 11. 9.
Titus
I . 16.28
nundinae
Funaioli suggests this should be the samc aerson as Tertius. 556
Titius
3.2. I I
Titius on Pictor on vitulari. The name has been emended to Cincius: the
Funaioli, 556
F.
Trebatius
I . 16.28 =FII.4 Bremer, F2 HSK
nundinae
C. Trebatius ( 7 ) Testa: Funaioli 437-8. Brciner 1.376-424. HSK 43-6
G.. s.
Tud itanus
I . 13.21 =F7 Peter. F1 Bremer. F1 HSK. l i h o tertio mapistratunz
intercalation
C. Semoronius (92) Tuditanus: HRR 1.143-7. I3remer 1.35-6. HSK 1.9-10
G.
Valerius Antias
I . 13.20 =F.5 Peter. libro secundo
intercalation
Valerius (98) Antias: HRR 1.238-75
G.. Gr.
Velius I,ongus
3.6.6
commenting on Virg. Aen. 3.84
Velius (10) Longus: RE VIII.I2. 632-4 (Ilihle)
Gr.. S.. V.
V eran i u s
3.5.6 =F4 Funaioli. F8 Bremer. F4 HSK. in Pontificalihus Ouaestionihus
on sacrificial victims
Veranius (1): Funaioli 429-33. Bremer 11.5-9. I-ISK 1.50-2: oossiblv add
F.
136 BICS-48 - 2005
Source: Verrius Flaccus
Reference:
Notes: Saturnalia
Author details:
Cited bv:
1.4.7. in eo libello aui Saturnus inscribitur
M. Verrius (2) Flaccus: RE VII1.2* 1636-45
G.. Gr.. S.. V.?