Caesar\'s Calendar. Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (Sather Classical Lectures)

(WallPaper) #1


  1. Veyne 1988, 76 – 78; Alcock 1997, 33 – 34; S. Hornblower 2001, 136 – 37.
    65.FGrH239 §§ 1, 3, 12, 21; cf. Dowden 1992, 51 – 52.




  2. It is telling that when geographers reach their limit of knowledge at the edges
    they resort to language very similar to that of historians at the limit of their time charts:
    see Romm 1992, 172 – 73, for Herodotus’s refusal to commit himself about matters on
    the edge of known space, just as he will not commit himself to matters on the edges of
    known time. In the Germania,Tacitus uses very similar language of noncommital
    agnosticism when he is talking about the remote past of the heroic epoch (3.3) and of
    the remote edges of the nations he describes (46.4).




  3. Alcock 1997 and Greene 1997; Higbie 2003, 163, 207 – 8, well evokes the first-
    century b.c.e.mentality, visible in the “Lindian Chronicle,” of a seamless web of time
    going back to Lindos, Cadmus, Minos, and Heracles; cf. Chaniotis 1988, 178, on the
    way that the local histories show “Anachronismen, Fehlen einer Unterscheidung zwis-
    chen Mythos und Geschichte, Vergegenwärtigung uralter Ereignisse.”




  4. Adler 1989, 18 – 19.




  5. Adler and Tuffin 2002, xxxiii – iv.




  6. E.g., Green 1997, 38.




  7. Jacoby 1954, 382 – 83; Momigliano 1977b, 192; Asheri 1988, xxxviii.




  8. Sacks 1990, 65.




  9. On the issues involved in this kind of periodization, see the stimulating discus-
    sion of I. Morris 1997.




  10. On the likelihood that Varro’s divisions here ultimately go back to Eratos-
    thenes, see Jacoby, FGrH241, Komm., 709; cf. Adler 1989, 15 – 16. For Castor of
    Rhodes as the proximate source, see Ax 2001, 301 – 2; Cole 2004.




  11. In general, Porter 2004, 320.




  12. Just before §§1 and 25. Jacoby does not signal these spatiain his text in Jacoby
    1904 or FGrH239; he discusses their significance in Jacoby 1904, V – VI, 88.




  13. Fraser 1972, 1: 456 – 57.
    78.FGrH241 F 1a ( = Clem. Alex. Strom.1.138.1 – 3) gives the time intervals from
    the fall of Troy to the death of Alexander.




  14. Horsfall 2000, 175.




  15. Jacoby 1902, 10.




  16. Feeney 1999, 19. The details are obscure thanks to textual corruption in Cen-
    sorinus DN21.2; see Cole 2004, 419 – 20.




  17. Helm 1956, 6.8 – 7.3; Burgess 2002, 26.




  18. One may compare the way that Cato in his Originesdid not date the foundation
    of Rome by Olympiads, but from the fall of Troy (Feeney 1999, 16, on Dion. Hal. Ant.
    Rom.1.74.2). De Cazanove 1992, 95 n. 139, well points out that when Solinus (1.27)
    refers to nostra temporahe is counting from the fall of Troy, while Graeca tempora
    means “Olympiads.”




  19. notes to pages 80 – 83



Free download pdf