as she demonstrates how the scholarly debates in the early twentieth century replayed
these ancient chauvinist maneuvers, arguing for or against Phoenician or Greek prior-
ity as colonizers. The debate continues, even if not conducted in these chauvinist
terms: J. Hall 2004, 35 with n. 1.
- J. Z. Smith 1990, 51.
- Suggestive remarks in Curti 2002.
- On such motifs in colony-foundation myths, see Mazzarino 1966, 1:212 – 17;
Dougherty 1993; on the importance of seeing the foundation of Rome as such a
colony-foundation, see Piérart 1983, 57; Cornell 1983, 1110 – 11; 1995, 70 – 72; Poucet
1985, 133 – 34, 189; Vattuone 1991, 291; Purcell 1997. - Sanders 1908, 319.
- Bickerman 1952, 67, developed by Cornell 1975, 25 – 27, and Gruen 1992, 38 – 40.
- In both poets Romulus is the son of Aeneas’s daughter, Ilia (Serv. Auct. Aen.
1.273); Eratosthenes had said that Romulus was the son of Aeneas’s son, Ascanius
(ibid. = FGrH241 F 45). - Following M. Barchiesi (1962, 524) in the opinion that Naevius had read
Fabius. - Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.1.74.1 = Peter, HRRel.F 4 = FGrH810 F 1.
- Jocelyn (1972, 1012 – 13) very oddly says that Ennius was following “a local
tradition” in giving the conventional Hellenistic epoch of just after the Trojan War. - Gruen 1992, 36 – 37: “The origins of the Roman people in Troy were the
paramount point, long since entrenched and firm”; cf. M. Barchiesi 1962, 527. Naevius
strenuously kept open the gap between myth and history, even though there was an
aetiological power to the mythical portion, since he had no continuous narrative join-
ing his mythical and historical sections. Even the style differs between the mythic and
historical sections; M. Barchiesi 1962, 225, 328 – 29.
182.Semigraeci(Suet. Gram.1). Erskine (2001) inadvertently reveals the impor-
tance of the Greekness of Naevius and Ennius. He stresses, even to excess, how small
a role the Troy legend played in Roman life and literature before Julius Caesar and
Augustus on occasions when “Romans were addressing other Romans” (37). His
rather strained arguments about Naevius and Ennius, trying to show that the impor-
tance of the Troy legend in their poems is not an exception to his case, are unnecessary.
Naevius and Ennius, mediating between Greece and Rome and participating in Roman
culture from the outside, as semigraeci,in fact corroborate the power of his general
insight in the book, that it is precisely such interstitial spaces that are the prime venue
for the mobilization of the Trojan myth. He is able to do more justice to Fabius Pic-
tor’s treatment of the Trojan myth of descent, as a result of seeing him as someone who
writes in Greek in order to mediate between the worlds of Rome and Greece (38 – 41). - Horsfall (1974), however, crucially stresses how remarkably independent Vir-
gil could still be in manipulating the by now canonical dates of Troy and Rome. On the
notes to pages 98 – 99. 255