- Degrassi 1947, xiii; for the date, above, p. 143.
- Degrassi 1963, xx; Rüpke 1995b, 341 – 45.
- Degrassi 1963, xx, citing Macr. Sat.1.12.16 (March and June); Varro Ling.6.33
(a translingual etymology from Greek to explain April); Censorinus DN22.9 (Romu-
lus’s names for the months). - Skutsch 1985, 313; Rüpke (1995b, 362) is more guarded.
- For Ennius’s use of consuls as part of his intermittent cultivation of an annalis-
tic format, see Rüpke 1995a, 200 – 201, citing fr. 290 Skutsch (Quintus pater quartum fit
consul= 214 b.c.e.) and fr. 304 – 6 (additur orator Cornelius suauiloquenti/ore Cethegus
Marcus Tuditano collega/Marci filius= 204 b.c.e.). - It is not necessarily surprising that later sources should not cite the consular
fastiof Fulvius in the way they cite the calendrical fasti.Antiquarians who work on the
calendar are working in a tradition that encourages citation from earlier antiquarians,
and once Fulvius’s calendar is in the tradition it is going to get cited. Antiquarians,
however, do not write on the consular fasti;it is historians who use the consular fasti,
but it is not part of their tradition to cite their sources and haggle over them in the anti-
quarian manner. - Gildenhard 2003, 95 – 96. Whether the names of censors as well as consuls were
on this early list is not certain. - Gildenhard 2003, 97. Gildenhard ’s view is explicitly indebted to the important
research of Jörg Rüpke. It is, however, at odds with Rüpke ’s own idiosyncratic con-
viction that the Fulvian consular list did not extend back in time from the temple ’s ded-
ication but rather began in 179 b.c.e.and will therefore at first have contained only a
few lines (Rüpke 1995b, esp. 365; 1995a); Rüpke himself sees the main burden of the
complex’s historical meaning residing in Fulvius’s calendrical fasti,especially with the
new addition of temple-dedication notices (Rüpke 1995b, 354 – 55, 359 – 60; 1995a, 199).
I do not have space here to argue the case in detail, but I see an extensive consular list
reaching some way back into the past as having far more symbolic and historical power
than the anonymous, year-less, and sparse dedication notices of the calendar, which
overlook the great majority of past military successes. It seems perverse to locate more
historical denotation in the calendrical than the consular fasti.Rüpke ’s main ground
for believing that the Fulvian consular list began around 179 is that this is where the
Fasti Antiates’ consular list may have begun. It is in fact uncertain at what date the Fasti
Antiates began, since there may well have been more slabs before (i.e., to the left of )
our first surviving piece (Degrassi 1947, 164: the consular list is only 1.36 m wide com-
pared to the 2.5 m of the calendar); anyway, if there is a connection between the two
consular lists, it is more economical to suppose that the Fasti Antiates began where
the Fulvian fastileft off. Rüpke sees the Fasti Antiates as intimately dependent on the
Fulvian fasti,so that, for example, no more temple-dedications have been added to
the Fulvian ones; yet it is not certain that the Fasti Antiates contained no temple-
notes to pages 169 – 170. 287