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

(WallPaper) #1

  1. Feeney 1991, 119.

  2. Naevius fr. 8 Büchner; see Feeney 1991, 118, for discussion and earlier
    bibliography.

  3. Purcell 1995, 139.

  4. Rawson 1989.

  5. Rawson 1989, 428, 430, 434, 438, 446.

  6. Purcell 1994, 403.

  7. Rawson 1989, 446.

  8. Polyb. 15.35.6; cf. Rawson 1989, 434, 438.

  9. Wiseman 2000, esp. 299, well brings out the Roman interest in Athens from
    around 300 b.c.e.at least; cf. Purcell 2003, 22, on Hellenistic antiquarian interest in
    “elucidating the complexities of the vast and singular Athenian state” — an interest
    Romans will have shared as they contemplated their own vast and singular state. On
    the power of Athens as a potential counterweight to Rome in Ovid ’s Metamorphoses,
    see Gildenhard and Zissos 2004, esp. 71. Lamberton (1997, 153 – 54) rather exaggerates
    the lack of interest in the Athenian political paradigm during the Hellenistic period, but
    he well captures the enduring power of Athens as a cultural magnet over the long term.

  10. Jacoby, FGrH239 §52 (Plataea), with Komm., 666 – 67. Compare Gellius’s
    description of Chaeronea as an Athenian defeat (NA17.21.30), above, p. 41.

  11. Above, p. 20.

  12. Grafton and Swerdlow 1988, 24. Cf. Champion 2000, esp. 429 – 30, for how
    Polybius could treat Romans as “honorary Greeks.” Plutarch’s Livesare the most dra-
    matic instantiation of this Athenocentrism: see Lamberton 1997, esp. 156. There are ten
    Athenians; four Spartans; two Macedonians; two Thebans (one, Epaminondas, now
    lost); then five more, scattered. Tellingly, there is no Sicilian apart from Dion, son-in-
    law of Dionysius I and friend of Plato, who is there as a pair for Brutus as a “philoso-
    pher in politics.” Another major figure from Sicilian history, Timoleon, finds his way
    in, but he is by origin a Corinthian, whose mission in life is to overthrow Sicilian
    tyrants.

  13. For a lucid account of his operating principles, see Walbank 1972, 97 – 114; cf.
    Walbank 1975.

  14. Esp. 2.37.4; 5.31.6; see Wilcox 1987, 83 – 84, and Clarke 1999a, 114 – 28, on the
    universal ambitions of Polybius’s history.

  15. Walbank (1975, 201) points to the treaty of Naupactus in 217 b.c.e.as the
    moment when the weaving together (sumplokhv) really became operative in linking all
    the regions (4.28.3 – 4; 5.105.4 – 9).

  16. The quoted phrase is from Purcell 1995, 139.

  17. Wilcox 1987, 85.

  18. Cf. Clarke 1999a, 118.

  19. In general, Clarke (1999a, 307 – 28; 1999b) sets the scene very well.


notes to pages 56 – 59. 237

Free download pdf