the burning of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus). For a Timaean date of “1335/4,” see
the arguments of Asheri (1983, 55 – 60; 1991 – 92, 69 – 70).
- The first two of the four books of Apollodorus’s Chronicaare organized to
bring out this pattern in history, since book 1 went from the fall of Troy to the Persian
Wars, and book 2 from the Persian Wars to Alexander: Jacoby 1902, 10. - Lane Fox 1973, 111 – 15, 124; Asheri 1983, 65 – 67; Higbie 2003, 238 – 39.
- Gratwick 1982, 65.
- Cic. Brut.79, with Livy 39.44.10 for the year of the colony’s establishment.
- Cornell 1986, 250, seeing a link back to the opening of book 1, with the first
treaty between Aeneas and Latinus (frr. 31 – 32). The second pentad may well have
ended with a restatement of the Romans’ Trojan descent, in the appeal of the people of
Lampsacus in 197 or 196 b.c.e.(frr. 344 – 45). - Gratwick 1982, 65: “It can hardly have escaped the attention of contemporaries
that Cato became censor 1,000 years after the fall of Troy.” - On the crucial signifiance of the poem’s culmination with the importation of
the Muses into Fulvius’s temple, see Skutsch 1985, 144 – 46, 553, 649 – 50; on the nexus
of Muses and temple, see further Goldberg 1995, 130 – 31; Hinds 1998, 62 – 63; A.
Hardie 2002, 195 – 200; Gildenhard 2003, 95 – 97. H. I. Flower (1995, 184 – 86) provides
an up-to-date account of the evidence for the triumph and temple. - Livy 38.9.13; cf. Pliny HN37.5 for Pyrrhus’s famous agate ring depicting
Apollo and the Muses, each Muse with her appropriate emblems. - Skutsch (1985, 143 – 44) does not convince me that Musaewas not the first word
of the poem, even though the fragment is not explicitly attested as the first line. - Jocelyn 1972, 1005.
- Pythagoreanism may provide another dimension, if Pythagorean numerologi-
cal schemes of incarnation underpinned the Trojan date calculations of Heraclides
Ponticus and Eratosthenes (Asheri 1983, 95); on the importance of Ennius’s
Pythagorean interests for his own account of reincarnation and for the programme of
Fulvius’s Hercules Musarum, see Skutsch 1985, 144 – 46, 164 – 65; A. Hardie 2002, 199 –
- Jacoby, FGrH97, Komm., 301; cf. above, p. 87.
- Nilsson 1920, 1719. The arithmetic may look incorrect, since 753 + 248 = 1001,
not 1000, but in calculating anniversaries across the b.c.e./c.e.watershed it is impor-
tant to remember that there is no year 0, and we pass directly from 1 b.c.e.to 1 c.e.—
except for astronomers, for whom, tidily, 1 b.c.e.is year 0, and “2 b.c.is -1, 3 b.c.is -2,
and so on” (Blackburn and Holford-Strevens 1999, 782). The c.e.figure is therefore
always one more than it would be in simple mathematics: the bimillenary of Horace ’s
death in 8 b.c.e.was 1993, not 1992, and the bimillenary of Virgil’s death in 19 b.c.e.
was 1982, not 1981: Horsfall 1982b. Needless to say, this is a problem only for moderns,
not for the Romans: Philip was using a totally different calculus.
notes to pages 143 – 144. 275