- On the significance of the number, Hubaux 1958, 38, 60 – 88; Mazzarino 1966,
2.2:44 with n. 496; Pinsent 1988, 3. At 5.40.1 Livy speaks in rounder numbers, of 360
years since the foundation. Cassius Hemina, writing in the second quarter of the sec-
ond century b.c.e., mentioned that the sack occurred in the 363rd year after the foun-
dation of the city (Macr. Sat.1.16.22 = Peter, HRRel.F 20 = Chassignet 1999, F 23);
it looks as if Livy is using the Julian calendar to tidy up and improve upon what was
presumably a fortuitious and unsymbolic numeral in his predecessor. - The crucial point about Camillus’s halfway position between Romulus and
Augustus was seen by Miles (1995, 95), even if his arithmetic does not quite work as he
claims, to locate the year 27 b.c.e.as the other end of the calculation. See, rather, Pin-
sent 1988, 3 – 4. - Dilke 1967, 323 – 24; P. Hardie 1986, 351 n. 51. For Virgil’s detailed exploitation
of Livy’s first pentad in this section of his poem, see Woodman 1989. - In addition to the already cited works of Miles (1986), Serres (1991), Kraus
(1994b), and Edwards (1998), note Rossi 2003, chaps. 1 and 8, on the fall of Troy and
Alba Longa and the new identity of Rome; and, in general, Woodman 1988, 138 – 39,
on the importance of cyclical views of history to Livy. - Kraus 1994a, 25 – 26; cf. Kraus 1994b, esp. 269 and 283 – 84. Livy’s language to
describe the span of 1 – 5 looks very like a description of a self-contained work about a
city’s entire history from beginning to end: ab condita urbe Roma ad captam eandem
(6.1.1); but searching in FGrHyields no traces of any such works, nor does examining
the interesting section “The City Necrology” in Pomeroy 1991, 255 – 57 (my thanks to
Tony Woodman for this reference). Corinth, Thebes, and Carthage are the obvious
candidates. - Kraus 1994a, 26; cf. Henderson 1998, 318: “Was I – V a mythical preface to the
history ‘proper’ of VI – CXX?”; J. H. C. Williams 2001, 140 – 41. - The talk of lost written records and a new clarity in the refounded history is,
naturally, specious —fifth-century Rome did not have archives, and later writers did
not use such material for the early period. Cf. Oakley 1997 – 98, 1:382: “Books ii – x
become increasingly more full of useful material, but there is no clear point at which
authentic records begin.” - Frier 1999, 121 – 23; Kraus 1994a, 25, pointing out how Livy improves on
Claudius by beginning his new book with the recovery, not the sack; cf. Oakley 1997 –
98, 1:381 with n. 1, 718; J. H. C. Williams 2001, 182, on “the date of the sack of Rome
as ‘Year 0’ in later Roman chronologies.” Note that Livy’s Camillus, when recapitu-
lating the events that led to the sack, marks the war with Veii using the same demar-
cating language of “firstness” with which Livy opened the History. Iam primum omnium
satis constat Troia capta,says Livy in the History’s first sentence; Iam omnium primum
Veiens bellum,says Camillus (5.51.6). - See above, p. 48 It is clear from Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.1.74.4 that the Gallic sack
notes to pages 101 – 103. 257