phy for the analogous reason that scholars could not agree on the date of Christ ’s birth
(above, p. 8).
17.BM Coins, Rom.Emp.III.cxxxii; Schmidt 1908, 81 n. 1.
Grant 1950, xv n. 2.
Oakley (1997 – 98, 2:191 – 92) collects examples; Pinsent (1988, 4) well brings
out the symbolic significance of Livy’s examples, focusing on constitutional change
and on the subdividing of his material in groups of books.
Cf. Frier (1975, 86 n. 28), who collects cases.
Macr. Sat.1.16.22 = Peter, HRRel.F 20 = Chassignet 1999, F 23; similarly Gel-
lius, also cited by Macrobius ad loc. = Peter, HRRel.F 25 = Chassignet 1999, F 24.
Pliny HN29.12 = Peter, HRRel.F 26 = Chassignet 1999, F 29. Hemina also
notes that the fourth Ludi Saeculares took place in the 608th year: Censorinus DN17.11
= Peter, HRRelF 39 = Chassignet 1999, F 42.
Censorinus DN17.13 = Peter, HRRel.F 36 = Chassignet 1999, F 39.
Wilcox 1987, 94.
Above, pp. 13 – 14.
Mommsen 1859, 197 – 200, citing, inter alia,Varro Rust.1.2.9, Cic. Rep.2.60,
Brut.62; cf. Pinsent 1988, 5 – 6. Whether the Republic was as a matter of fact founded
in the same year as the temple — or indeed what it means to speak of the Republic being
“founded” in a certain year — is another question altogether, once that does not con-
cern us in investigating beliefs from the later Republic: on the question, Cornell 1995,
chap. 9, esp. 218 – 23.
Oakley 1997 – 98, 2:75, on this tradition; of course, the story of the annual nail
is not the only piece of evidence that links the foundation of both the temple and the
Republic.
Purcell 2003, 27 – 30; cf. above, pp. 89 – 90.
Cornell 1995, 219 – 21.
Magdelain 1969, 266 – 68; Richard 1978, 442 – 44.
Purcell 2003, 26 – 33; cf. on the temporal power of the Capitoline complex,
Hölkeskamp 2004, 139 – 42, 144 – 46. On Juno “Remembrancer” (the translation is that
of Linderski 1985), see also the important paper of Meadows and Williams (2001).
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.1.74.2 = Peter, HRRel.F 17 = Chassignet 1986, F 17;
above, p. 99.
Clem. Alex. Strom.1.39.2 is the testimonium for Duris (FGrH76 F 41);
Mendelssohn (1876, 185 – 86) made the case that this was Timaeus’s date as well. Jacoby
repeatedly argued that Timaeus cannot have used the date of “1335/4,” but rather the
date of “1194/3” transmitted by Censorinus (DN21.3): Jacoby 1902, 147; FGrH566 F
125 – 26, Komm., 587. He argues partly on the basis that Timaeus can have had no inter-
est in Alexander panegyric; but note F 106 (linking the profanation of Apollo of Gela
with the capture of Tyre by Alexander) and F 150 (linking the birth of Alexander with
notes to pages 140 – 142