dedications after Rüpke ’s terminus post quemdate of 173 b.c.e.(Sehlmeyer 1996), and it
is very striking that the Fasti Antiates do not follow the Fulvian fastiin having their dis-
tinctive learned exegetical comment, of which there is not a trace in the surviving frag-
ments from Anzio (Degrassi 1963, 28). I thank Jörg Rüpke for generous correspondence
on these issues; at the time of writing, we each remain unpersuaded by the other.
Wallace-Hadrill 1987, 223.
Compare the observations of Williamson (1987) on the functions of legal doc-
uments inscribed on bronze tablets, concentrating on their “symbolic functions which
are distinguishable from the efficient functions usually given priority by scholars”
(161): my thanks to Nicholas Horsfall for this reference.
Shaw 2003, 29 — an important discussion.
Related points in connection with Greek eponymous lists in Hedrick 2002, 27 –
28; Shaw 2003, 29 – 34: n.b. 32: “In ancient Greek societies the original function of ep-
onyms, calendars, and systems of reckoning was not chronological per sealthough...
they could be put to such use.” Cf. Stern 2003, 59, on the difference between calendars
and chronologies.
Cornell 1995, 401, quoted also by Shaw 2003, 29.
Laurence and Smith 1995 – 96, 142. My selection of this sentence is not meant to
question the great value of this excellent paper, from which I have learned much.
See Woodman and Martin 1996 on Tac. Ann.3.52.1, C. Sulpicius, D. Haterius
consules sequuntur, inturbidus externis rebus annus.
Lucidly expounded by Michels (1967, 98): “The consular year defines the
period during which a particular pair of consuls was in office. It can begin on any day
of the calendar year and it may be shorter than a calendar year if the consuls leave office
before their full term has expired.... The calendar year, on the other hand, contains
no variable elements, but is valid for any year. Its function is to provide dates within
any one year, or dates which recur in a regular cycle. The dates of religious obser-
vances are determined by the calendar year, as are those of business transactions. In
treaties between Rome and other states periods of time were defined in terms of the cal-
endar year.”
Livy Per.47.
Bickerman 1980, 70. On the varying dates of entry to the office, see Mommsen
1859, 86 – 104; for the early Republic, Oakley 1997 – 98, 2:612 – 14.
Richardson 1986, 128 – 32.
I have found the following studies of particular value for the large subject of the
Principate ’s reconfiguring of time and consequent impact on the fastiof both kinds:
Beard 1987; Wallace-Hadrill 1987; Fraschetti 1990, 5 – 120 (“Parte prima:Il tempo”);
Hinds 1992; Newlands 1995; Rüpke 1995b, 396 – 416; A. Barchiesi 1997, esp. 47 – 78;
Pasco-Pranger 2006. Much of this work relates to Ovid ’s calendar poem, Fasti,which
has been central to the rethinking of the ideological power of Augustus’s work on time.
notes to pages 170 – 172