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

(WallPaper) #1

  1. Feeney 1991, 130 – 31, on Virg. Aen.1.12 – 28.

  2. On Aeneas as the last of the demigods, a theme glimpsed in the Homeric Hymn
    to Aphrodite, see Clay 1986, 166 – 70. A. Barchiesi (1999, 117) is right to call this an
    “(unprovable I think) theory,” but it coheres closely with Virgil’s vision.

  3. This helps the interpretation of the vexed lines 469 – 70, namque aliud terris,
    aliud regionibus ipsis/euentum dici poterit quodcumque erit actum.Here terrismust be
    “the world quabody,” with regionibus“places quaspace,” as suggested by Long and
    Sedley 1987, 2:26: two lines later terrisis picked up by materies,and regionibusis picked
    up by locus ac spatium(471 – 72).

  4. In general, Jacoby, FGrH239 – 61 (Zeittafeln), Komm., 663; Samuel 1972, 189 –
    90; Bickerman 1980, 75 – 76.
    88.FGrH566, Komm., 538; a judicious discussion in Möller 2004.
    89.FGrH566 T 10 = Polyb. 12.11.1; on this point, see Vattuone 2002, 223 – 24.

  5. Möller 2004, 176 – 77, on the Timaean evidence, and on the “so-called
    Olympiad chronicle from Athens.”
    91.FGrH241, Komm., 707: “E die eigentliche beglaubigte geschichte erst mit
    Ol. 1 begann.” Jerome ’s Chroniclehas a revealing note on the first Olympiad: Ab hoc
    tempore Graeca de temporibus historia uera creditur. Nam ante hoc, ut cuique uisum est,
    diuersas sententias protulerunt(“From this time Greek chronological history is held to
    be true; for before this they gave different opinions as each one saw fit,” Helm (1956,
    86 [d]).

  6. Censorinus’s report of Varro’s divisions, which very probably are ultimately
    Eratosthenic, has a fascinating remark on the tantalizing status of the last years of the
    “mythical” period, before the first Olympiad: these years, “although they are the last
    of the mythical time, some have wanted to define more precisely, because they are adja-
    cent to what is transmitted by historians” (quamuis mythici temporis postremos, tamen
    quia a memoria scriptorum proximos quidam certius definire uoluerunt, DN21.2). Grafton
    1995, 25, well catches the (potentially fruitful) ambivalence of the whole passage: “It
    divides the age of myth into periods and both reflects and criticizes efforts to define the
    last of these very precisely. The original passage could thus have served as a warrant
    for, as well as a critique of, chronological argument about the mythical time that pre-
    ceded the first Olympiad.” Cf. van Groningen 1953, 105 – 4, on the “genealogical no
    man’s land, which has no other function than to establish a connection, to join the his-
    torical and the mythical.”

  7. See the references to Mazzarino 1966 in chapter 1, n. 27.

  8. Grafton 1995 skewers this fat target with relish; cf. Möller 2004.

  9. Even the highly judicious Mosshammer (1979, 96). See, rather, Hedrick 2002
    for skepticism on the use of records, and for an interesting discussion of the kind of
    monumental sources the first list compilers could have used.

  10. See Shaw 2003, 50, on this crucial point; cf. Möller 2004, 180. The other Pan-


notes to pages 83 – 85. 247

Free download pdf