¹ p. 165 of ‘La Dea Giunone nell Eneide di Virgilio’, Atene e Roma 11 (1966), 145–65Google Scholar.

² p. 165 (general discussion pp. 162–7, 169). Cf. Boyancé, P., La Religion de Virgile (Paris, 1963), p. 27Google Scholar, ‘L'évolution qui conduit Junon de son hostilité du debout á son acquiescement de la fin est une des données capitales de la religion de l'Énéide’; Buchheit, pp. 133–50, esp. p. 147; idem, ‘Junos Wandel zum Guten’, Gymnasium 81 (1974), 498–503Google Scholar; Wilson, C. H., CQ n.s. 29 (1979), 365 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thornton, Agathe, The Living Universe. Gods and Men in Virgil's Aeneid (Mnemosyne Supplement 46, Leiden Brill, 1976), pp. 144 f., 152 ff.Google Scholar; Williams, Gordon, Technique and Ideas in the Aeneid (Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 76 fGoogle Scholar.

³ Ann. 291 V.

⁴ cf. Buchheit, p. 54: ‘Juno war bisher, bis zum 2. Punischen Krieg, den Römern feindlich gesinnt. Da sie ihre Feindschaft in Verbindung mit dem punischen Krieg aufgibt, muss sie als die grosse Gegenspielerin Roms auf der Seite der Karthager dargestellt gewesen sein’. See, too, Haussler 2, pp. 195 ff. Silius Italicus in the Punica is following Ennius as well as Vergil in his use of Juno as Rome's divine antagonist in the Hannibalic war: see Woodruff, L. B., Reminiscences of Ennius in Silius Italicus (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, vol. 4, New York, 1910), pp. 403 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Norden, , Ennius und Vergilius. Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit (Leipzig, 1915), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar, contended that the whole setting here was Ennian, based on a putative council in Annales 7, at the beginning of the second Punic war. But his case has been undone by Friedrich, W. H., Hermes 76 (1941), 113–16Google Scholar; Timpanaro, S., SIFC 23 (1948), 37 ff.Google Scholar; Wigodsky, M., Vergil and early Latin Poetry (Hermes Einzelschriften 24, 1972), pp. 65 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶ It is not simply a promise of a future war between men, as interpreted by Simpson, V., p. 26 of ‘The annalistic tradition in Vergil's Aeneid’, Vergilius 21 (1975), 22–32Google Scholar; see Norden, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 51Google Scholar; Haussler 2, p. 190.

⁷ e.g. by Austin, R. G. in his commentary on Book 1 (Oxford, 1971), on 281Google Scholar: ‘Iuno will amend her design…For her yielding see 12. 841’.

⁸ Form und Gehalt in Vergils Aeneis(Munich, 1963), p. 14Google Scholar.

⁹ p. 3 of ‘Dido in the light of history’, PVS 12 (1973–1974, 1–13Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Il 4. 51–4. Ovid follows a similar line in Fast. 6, where he has Juno boast of the sacrifices she made for the Romans' sake: he is more systematic, including Homer's three towns plus Samos, mentioned in Vergil's proem as Juno's second favourite city (A. 1. 16); ‘paeniteat Sparten Argosque measque Mycenas | et ueterem Latio supposuisse Samon’ (6. 47 f.).

¹¹ Od. 1. 77 f.

¹² Lucr. 3. 833–7, ‘ad confligendum uenientibus undique Poenis, | omnia cum belli trepido concussa tumultu | horrida contremuere sub altis aetheris oris, | in dubioque fuere utrorum ad regna cadendum | omnibus humanis esset terraque marique’; Liv. 29. 17. 6 (quoted by Kenney, in his commentary on Lucr. 3 (Cambridge, 1971), on 832–42Google Scholar), ‘In discrimine est nunc humanum omne genus, utrum uos an Carthaginienses principes orbis terrarum uideat’; idem 30. 32. 2, ‘Roma an Carthago iura gentibus daret ante crastinam noctem scituros’.

¹³ On 832–42. One sees a sign of the same formulation in Polybius, who refers to Carthage and Rome as τ πολτεματα τ περ τς τν ὂλων ρξῆς μφισβητσαντα (1.3. 7). But Polybius generally speaks of a solely Roman bid for surpemacy (see the passages in Walbank's note on 1.3. 4), while for the Roman literary tradition Ennius will have been the true parent.

¹⁴ See Bailey on Lucr. 3. 835, Kenney on 3. 834–5.

¹⁵ Horsfall draws attention to the force of the words, art. cit. n. 9, p. 3.

¹⁶ e.g. Buchheit, p. 147: ‘Während Ennius erst den zweiten punischen Krieg, Horaz den Tod des Romulus, also die Zeit nach der Gründung Roms, dafür ausgewählt hat, verlegt Vergil die Versöhnung zurück in die romische Urzeit [I return to Horace below]…Juno ist sozusagen von Beginn der römischen Geschichte an die Freundin Roms’. See the works cited in nn. 1 and 2 above.

¹⁷ ‘The influence of Euripides on Vergil's Aeneid’ (Diss. Princeton, 1960), pp. 236 ffGoogle Scholar. (‘discrepancies’ and ‘contradictions’, p. 237); cf. Moseley, N., Characters and Epithets. A Study in Vergil's Aeneid (Yale, 1926), pp. 38 f.Google Scholar; Häussler 2, pp. 189 ff. (‘diese verräterischen Inkongruenzen’, p. 189). Haussler sees the references back to the Ennian tradition as an untidy and unwholesome element: ‘Und zugleich schien uns deutlich geworden zu sein, dass eine Aeneis ohne diese Riicksicht und mit einer vorbehaltlos definitiven Versohnung Junos als Abschluss an Einheit der Motivation und religiosem Ethos nur hatte gewinnen konnen’ (p. 193).

¹⁸ e.g. Büchner, , RE 2R 16. 1457Google Scholar: ‘Der Kampf und damit die Handlung kommt erst zu Ende, als Iuno beigibt (12. 841). Nicht für immer: ist ihr doch vom Schicksal in der Zukunft noch grosse Möglichkeit verheissen, für Karthago zu kämpfen (10. 11 ff.).’ Cf. Conway on 1. 281 (see n. 26 below).

¹⁹ Darkness Visible. A Study of Vergil's Aeneid (University of California, 1976), pp. 123–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ A. 10. 60–2, ‘Xanthum et Simoenta | redde, oro, miseris iterumque reuoluere casus | da, pater, Iliacos Teucris’. On the important theme of ‘Pergama recidiua’ in the Aeneid, see Anderson, W. S., ‘Vergil's second Iliad,’ TAPA 88 (1957), 17–30Google Scholar; Suerbaum, W., ‘Aeneas zwischen Troja und Rom. Zur Funktion der Genealogie und der Ethnographie in Vergils Aeneis’, Poetica 1 (1967), 176–204Google Scholar; Knauer, G. N., Die Aeneis und Homer, Hypomnemata 7 (Gottingen, 1964), pp. 351 ffGoogle Scholar.

²¹ art. cit. n. 9, p. 2.

²² cf. Büchner, , RE 2R. 16. 1339Google Scholar.

²³ On this identification, see RE 2R. 4.2184; Pease on A. 4. 91; Lieberg, art. cit. n. 1, 153 n. 37; Picard, G.-Ch., Les Religions de l'frique antique (Paris, 1954), pp. 65, 109Google Scholar. Bailey, C. confuses the two faces of Juno here (Religion in Virgil (Oxford, 1935), pp. 131 f.)Google Scholar: ‘out of this hatred of the Trojans arises the special position which Juno tolds in the Aeneid of the patron-goddess of the newly founded Carthage’.

²⁴ See especially Horsfall, art. cit. n. 9, on the crucial importance of the Carthaginian theme in the early books; cf. Pöschl, V., The Art of Vergil. Image and Symbol in the Aeneid (tr. Seligson, G., University of Michigan, 1962), pp. 13 ff., esp. p. 15Google Scholar, ‘Juno…is first the mythical personification of the historical power of Carthage’; Fowler, W. Warde, Virgil's ‘Gathering of the Clans’ (Blackwell, 1916), p. 40Google Scholar, ‘At the outset of his poem, with all the emphasis he can use, Virgil associates [Juno] in interest – an interest perverse in the eyes of all Romans – with the most deadly enemy Rome ever had to meet, and with the mythical queen of Carthage, the Cleopatra of his poetic fancy.’ Wigodsky (op. cit. n. 5, p. 29) is quite mistaken to assert that ‘Vergil is not interested in the Punic Wars as such’; while Robert Coleman plays down Juno's association with Carthage, as a result of taking Juno's reconciliation in 12 as complete (n. 53 to ‘The Gods in the Aeneid’, G&R 29 [1982], 143–68Google Scholar).

²⁵ 4. 622 ff.

²⁶ As seen by Conway, in his note on Jupiter's promise of Juno's reconciliation (1. 281, ‘in melius referet’): “The time of this final acquiescence of Juno in the greatness of Rome is left unspecified both here and in 12. 841, where she desists merely from persecuting Aeneas on condition that the language, religion and government of Rome shall be Italian, not Asiatic’.

²⁷ The result is very close to Johnson's, , op. cit. n. 19, p. 126, esp. n. 106Google Scholar. The passage is much discussed: bibliography in Kiihn, p. 164 n. 9; add Wigodsky, , op. cit. n. 5, pp. 67 ff.Google Scholar, on ‘Saturnia’.

²⁸ On 12. 830. Servius'interpretation is similar to the comments ofthebT scholia on/l. 15. 212, where Poseidon stops supporting the Greeks – for the moment: εὐσχμονα τν παλλαγν ρζεται, πιτενων τ ργν ες ὒστερον. On such shared themes in the Greek and Latin commentators see Fraenkel, , JRS 39 (1949), 151–4Google Scholar.

²⁹ loc. cit. n. 17.

³⁰ I find some of Johnson's comments of the evil of Jupiter disconcerting (op. cit. n. 19, p. 126 and n. 110); also his suggested interpretation of ‘his mentem retorsit’ (p. 127).

³¹ On these correspondences see Halter, , op. cit.. n. 8, pp. 14 ff., 78 ff.Google Scholar; Knauer, , op. cit. n. 20, pp. 324 ff.Google Scholar; Kühn, pp. 164f.; Buchheit, , art. cit. n. 2, pp. 499 ffGoogle Scholar.

³² See Servius on A. 1. 300s; Heinze, R., Virgils epische Technik ³ (Leipzig, 1915), p. 299Google Scholar; Pease, , ed. Cic. N.D., pp. 716 f.Google Scholar; Buffière, F., Les Mythes d'Homere el la Pensee Grecque (Paris, 1956), pp. 107 fGoogle Scholar. Note Juno's, ‘aeria.…sede’, 12. 810Google Scholar.

³³ ‘excedit caelo’ is puzzling to me. What does it mean to say that Juno ‘left the caelum’, and what is the relation between this phrase and ‘nubemque relinquit’? In the scheme that saw Juno as ‘aer’, Jupiter was the ‘caelum’ (Pease, , ed. Cic.N.D., pp. 715 f.Google Scholar; Buffière, , op. cit. n. 32, p. 106Google Scholar). Hence I have sometimes been tempted to read ‘cedit’ (in the sense of‘deferring’ or ‘yielding to’, OLD s.v. 8 and 10): ‘she deferred to the Jupiter-element and left her own’. I am by no means confident of this; but note the parallelism between ‘cedit caelo nubemque relinquit’ and the words spoken earlier in the scene by Juno: ‘et nunc cedo equidem pugnasque exosa relinquo’ (818).

³⁴ JHS 101 (1981), 56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ 61.

³⁶ Il. 3. 381, 20. 444. Johnson is good here, op. cit. n. 19, p. 124. Griffin, J., Homer on Life and Death (Oxford, 1980), p. 189Google Scholar, has convincing observations on the gods’ ‘ease’ in Homer, and on the Euripidean ‘contrast between human misery and the radiant unconcern of the gods’. Vergil's passionately involved deities are, in this regard, rather closer to Homer's than to Euripides’.

³⁷ Besides Davies, see Macleod on Il. 24. 25–30 (‘the judgement of Paris’): ‘Homer heightens and extends his tragedy by taking us back to where it started. This reminds us that even if for the moment “the gods” are to unite in allowing the ransom of Hector's body, the gods hostile to Troy still have reason to be as angry as ever; and the city they hate must fall.’

³⁸ Discussion tends to resolve itself into deciding either for or against the proposition that a real project of moving the capital lies behind the insistence on Troy's total disappearance: Fraenkel has a history of the dispute (a dispute which also involves Liv. 5. 51–4, on transferring the capital to Veii): Horace (Oxford, 1957), pp. 267–9Google Scholar. See further n. 80 below.

³⁹ frr. 60–5 V; see Vahlen, pp. clix–clxi.

⁴⁰ LL 7. 5 f., ‘Dicam in hoc libro de uerbis quae a poetis sunt posita…incipia m hinc: “unu s erit quem tu tolles in caerula caeli | templa”.‘

⁴¹ cf. Vahlen, p. clx, ‘Nam Ennianu messe Ovidius quidem non dicit, sed Varro de LL vii 6 etsi non monet aperte, tamen indicat non obscure ei qui novit morem Varronis.’

⁴² After the interview with Jupiter, Mars descends and snatches up Romulus in his chariot (Met. 14. 818 ff.; Fast. 2. 496, as befitting the genre, a much more elliptical version). The line from the Fasti (‘rex patriis astra petebat equis’) resembles Horace's reference to Romulus' ‘death’ (‘Martis equis Acheronta fugit’, Carm. 3. 3. 16): it is natural to assume a common Ennian model (indeed, Horace's ‘Martis’ has been emended to ‘patris’ on analogy with Ovid's line: see Bentley ad loc.).

⁴³ cf. Vahlen, p. clix; Pasquali, G., Orazio Lirico. Stud ² (Florence, 1964), p. 687Google Scholar; Oksala, T., Religion und Mythologie bei Horaz, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 51 (Helsinki, 1973), pp. 102, 156Google Scholar. It seems to be taken for granted that Horace sets the council after Romulus has been snatched away by Mars (exceptions include Haussler 2, p. 195 n. 23). But this snatching away is part of what the council is there to decide. Ovid gives us naturally to understand that the gods decided in advance that Mars would be allowed to rescue his son for immortality, and I see nothing in Horace's poem that is at odds with this picture.

⁴⁴ As does Lucilius, in his parody: ‘uellem concilio uestrum, quod dicitis olim, | caelicolae, hie habitum, uellem adfuissemus priore | concilio', frr. 20–2 W.

⁴⁵ No comment, for instance, from Williams, Gordon, The Third Book of Horace's ‘Odes’ (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar, who rather views the speech as ‘a sort of answer to a problem raised by the contemporary epic, the Aeneid: how and when did Juno's hostility to Rome cease?’. Fraenkel, , op. cit. n. 38, p. 267Google Scholar, and Kiessling-Heinze, , on Carm. 3. 3. 15Google Scholar, only refer to Horace's taking from Ennius the motif of a ‘concilium deorum’: in his discussion of the speech itself, Fraenkel does not mention Ennius.

⁴⁶ cf, e.g., Vahlen, p. clix; Oksala, , op. cit. n. 43, p. 156Google Scholar (both doubting); Pasquali, , op. cit. n. 43, p. 687Google Scholar; Haussler 2, p. 195 n. 23; Buchheit, p. 146 (all denying: ‘vor allem aber war in diesem “concilium deorum” schwerlich von Troia die Rede’, Buchheit, loc. cit. n. 626).

⁴⁷ Steuart, E. M., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Cambridge, 1925), p. 176Google Scholar; Heinze, R., Vom Geist des Romertums (Leipzig, 1938), pp. 230 ff.Google Scholar; Wilkinson, L. P., Horace and his Lyric Poetry (Cambridge, 1946), pp. 73 fGoogle Scholar; Waszink, J. H., WS 70 (1957), 325Google Scholar; Commager, Steele, The Odes of Horace: A Critical Study (New Haven and London, 1962), p. 222 n. 122Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Wigodsky, , op. cit. n. 5, p. 147Google Scholar, draws the same conclusion, but refers to Ann. 8, not Ann. 1.

⁴⁹ Bibliography on the priority question in Wigodsky, loc. cit. previous note; Buchheit, p. 146 n. 626.

⁵⁰ Though one may speculate about one poet being ‘put onto’ the subject by the other.

⁵¹ cf. Vahlen, p. clix, denying that Juno spoke as Horace says: ‘Infesta enim antiquitus Romanis dea iram in secundo demum bello Punico delenivit. Cf. Servius in Aen. 1. 281 “bello Punico secundo, ut ait Ennius, placata Iuno coepit favere Romanis” (VIII fr. XVIII). Quid igitur turn incipiat favere, quae iam ante Romanis ut regni fines late proferrent concesserit?’ Identical reasoning in Buchheit, p. 146.

⁵² In favour of Ennius’ originality, see, e.g., Wilamowitz, , Der Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin, 1932), ii. 422 n. 2Google Scholar; Elter, A., Donarem Pateras…Horat. Carm. 4, 8 (Bonn, 1907), pp. 40, 31 ff.Google Scholar; against, e.g., Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), p. 84Google Scholar.

⁵³ See especially Elter, op. cit. n. 52; also Newman, J. K., Augustus and the New Poetry, Coll. Latomus 88 (Brussels, 1967), pp. 68 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ p. 71; cf. n. 2, ‘The coincidence of Theocritus and Ennius here (cf. the same phenomenon in Horace, Odes, IV, 8) shows that they were both drawing on common Hellenistic material, not that Ennius knew the work of Theocritus’.

⁵⁵ cf. Anderson, A. R., HSCPh 39 (1928), 31Google Scholar, ‘The identification of Romulus as a successor of Hercules was further helped by the fact that each was the mightier twin’. See generally Anderson 29 ff.

⁵⁶ ‘subito coorta tempestas cum magno fragore tonitribusque tam denso regem operuit nimbo ut conspectum eius contioni abstulerit; nee deinde in terris Romulus fuit. Romana pubes sedato tandem pauore postquam ex tarn turbido die serena et tranquilla lux rediit, ubi uacuam sedem regiam uidit, etsi satis credebat patribus qui proximi steterant sublimem raptum procella, tamen uelut orbitatis metu icta maestum aiiquamdiu silentium obtinuit. deinde a paucis initio facto, deum deo natum, regem parentemque urbis Romanae saluere uniuersi Romulum iubent,’ Liv. 1. 16. 1–3; cf. D.S. 4. 38. 4 f., εὐθὺς δ κα κεραυνν κ το περιχοντο πεσντων, πυρ πσα κατεφλχθη. μετ δ τα࿦τα οἱ μν περ τν Ἰόλαον »;θόντες π τὴν στολογίαν, λα μηδν ὂλως εύρόντες, ὑφλαβον τν Ἡρακλέα τοῖς χρηςμοῖς κολύθως ξ νθρώπν εἰς θεοὺς μεθεστάσθαι. As Ogilvie notes (op. cit. n. 52, p. 84), this is all typical of the passing of Greek heroes.

⁵⁷ West ad loc. says that taking ν θαντοισιν with ναει produces a very awkward hyperbaton; but the parallel passages incline one to accepting it.

⁵⁸ The rage of Hera is famous since Homer; cf. ll. 18. 119, λλ μοῖρ' δμασσεκα ργαλοσ χλοσ “ηρησ; Hes. Th. 314f., ['γδρην] Λερναην, ἥν θρψε θɛ λευκώλενοσ 'ηρη/ἄπλητον κοτουσα βῃ 'ηρακληῃ.

⁵⁹ 4. 39. 2 f., προσθετον δ' μῖν τοῖς εἰρημνοις ὅτι μετ τν ποθωσιν αὐτο Zεὐς 'ηραν μν ἔπεισν υἱοποισασθαι τν 'ηρακλα κα τ ‘ηρακλα κα τ λοιπν εἰς τ λοιπν εἰς τν ἅπαντα χρνον μητρς εὔνοιαν παρχεσθαι…τν δ’ 'ηραν μετ τν τκνωσιν μυθολογογοσι συνοικσαι τν 'ηβην τῷ 'ηρακλεῖ.

⁶⁰ PublishedAnn. d.lnst. 19 (1847), pl.T; a reproduction conveniently in Roscher's Lexicon, 1.2.2259.

⁶¹ So Winter, J. G., The Myth of Hercules at Rome (Macmillan, New York, 1910), p. 179 n. 2Google Scholar, against the earlier interpretations, as represented by Peter in Roscher. Cf. Bayet, J., Les Origines de VHercule Romain (Paris, 1926), pp. 380 ff., esp. p. 381Google Scholar, ‘La scène s'analyse done strictement comme la réconciliation d'Hercule et Junon au seuil des demeures divines: e'est une variante de l'apothéose du héros”.

⁶² cf. Elter, , op. cit. n. 52, p. 40, 33Google Scholar; Anderson, loc. cit. n. 55; Newman, , op. cit. n. 53, p. 68Google Scholar.

⁶³ Enniana (London, 1968), pp. 132–7Google Scholar (with introductory bibliography on the discussion, p. 132). Of course, the apotheosis of Romulus and the identification with Quirinus are two separate issues.

⁶⁴ p. 133.

⁶⁵ Note that Horace has Hercules prominently on display as a paradigm for the deification of Augustus: ‘hac arte Pollux et uagus Hercules / enisus arces attigit igneas, / quos inter Augustus recumbens / purpureo bibet ore nectar’, 9–12. On such paradigms in Horace and Vergil, see Pietrusiński, D., ‘Apothéose d'Auguste par la comparaison avec les héros grecques chez Horace et Vergile’, Eos 66 (1978), 246 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ The one obvious difference between Ennius' Romulus story and the Greek Heracles legend is that in Ennius the accommodations are made before Romulus' ‘death’, while with Heracles it seems that it was regular to have them settled after Mt Oeta. See n. 78 below.

⁶⁷ Steuart, , op. cit. n. 47, p. 176Google Scholar. Cf. Page on 38 ‘exules’: ‘the word is employed however with a certain amount of contempt; with all her magnanimity Juno is not above the feminine weakness of saying something unpleasant (cf. the sneer implied in “peperit sacerdos”, 1. 32…)’. I should not make too much of Juno's ‘magnanimity’ in this poem.

⁶⁸ loc. cit. n. 67.

⁶⁹ Vahlen, p. clxi; Skutsch, op. cit. n. 63, p. 131; Warmington, E. H., Remains of Old Latin I (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, and London, 1935), on fr. 57 WGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ Rosenberg, RE ‘Romulus’ 2 R 1. 1097 f.; Waszink, art. cit. n. 47, 325. This location seems more likely, as being of far greater moment: no w is decided the beginning of the state whose achievements are the subject of the whole work. In the Fasti, Ovid has Juno tell of how Mars helped placate her by promising that she would be powerful in the city of her grandson: ‘ipse mihi Mauor s “commendo moenia” dixit | “haec tibi. tu pollens urbe nepotis ens”’ (6. 53 f.). Mars ‘bribes’ Juno as Vergil's Jupiter does (12. 838–40); if both scenes go back to Ennius' ‘concilium deorum’, Mars' words are very apt as spoken to mollify his mother when the city of Rome is on the point of being established: ‘commend o moenia haec tibi…’.

⁷¹ In favour of the city's name as a topic of debate in Ennius, I find only Mueller, L., Q. Enni Carminum Reliquiae (Petersburg, 1884), p. 178Google Scholar, and Valmaggi, L., Q. Ennio. I Frammenti degli Annali (Turin, 1947), pp. 18 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷² ‘Ilia’ is the original name in the myth, where she was the daughter of Aeneas (see next note). ‘R(h)ea Silvia’ was invented after Ennius as part of the scheme that devised the Alban king lists: see Rosenberg, ‘Rea Silvia”, RE 2R 1. 341–5, Bömer on Ov. Fast. 2. 383. As Bomer observes on the significance of the name ‘Ilia’, ‘Diese Version setzt die troische Abkunft, speziell die Vaterschaft des Aeneas voraus’. This is the version to which Horace alludes, ‘Troica quem peperit sacerdos’, 3. 3. 32.

⁷³ cf. Serv. ‘auct.’ on A. 1. 273, ‘Naeuius et Ennius Aeneae ex filia nepotem Romulum conditorem urbis tradunt’; cf. Serv. A. 6. 777, ‘dicit…Iliam fuisse filiam Aeneae’.

⁷⁴ cf., e.g., Serv. A. 1.5, ‘Troiam autem dici, quam primum fecit Aeneas, et Liuius in primo (1.1.4) et Cato in Originibus testantur’. Extensive parallel passages, bibliography and discussion in Schröder, W. A., M. Porcius Cato: Das erste Buch der Origines. Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente (Meisenheim am Glan, 1971), pp. 95 ffGoogle Scholar. As Schröder, says, ‘Fast alle antiken Autoren nennen die erste trojanische Niederlassung in Latium übereinstimmend Troia’ (p. 96)Google Scholar. It must be stressed that there is no direct evidence that Ennius utilized this tradition. But the tradition is virtually unanimous in saying that the Trojans arrived at an area called the ‘ager Laurens’, and there forthwith founded ‘Troia’ (cf. passages listed in Schröder, pp. 95 f.: Paul. p. 504. 11 L; Liv. 1. 1.4; D.H. Ant. 1. 53. 3; App. Reg. fr. 1. 1; Dio fr. 4. 4). A line of Ennius gives the first half of this version: ‘quos homines quondam Laurentis terra recepit’ (34 V). I do not see it as unlikely that he gave the second.

⁷⁵ cf. Waszink, art. cit. n. 47, 325, who argues, on the basis of Lucil. fr. 31, that Neptune in Ennius may have objected to the foundation of a ‘noua Troia’.

⁷⁶ Schröder, op. cit. n. 74, pp. 102 ff., conveniently collects the various historical and poetic accounts of the name changes and adoptions involved in the Trojan immigrants' losing their proper title.

⁷⁷ cf. Ov. Fast. 2. 485–8 (Mars is speaking): ‘redde patri natum. quamuis intercidit alter, / pro se proque Remo, qui mihi restat, erit. / “unus erit, quern tu tolles in caerula caeli” / tu mihi dixisti: sint rata dicta Iouis.’ Is there a contrast with Castor and Pollux, twins who were both deified?

⁷⁸ Here would be the explanation of Ennius' placing of the reconciliation of Juno before Romulus' death, rather than after it, as the strict example of Heracles required: cf. n. 66 above. I realize that in Horace Juno speaks only of Romulus as a candidate for immortality, but it is reasonable to allow ground for Horace's tact in recasting the story of how Augustus' model joined the gods. After all, by any reconstruction of the council, there must have been some mention of the embarrassing Remus, if we follow the evidence of Ovid that Jupiter spoke of both twins, promising immortality for only one of them (‘unus erit quern tu tolles’…etc.; ‘“unus” is clearly said in contradistinction to “ambo”’, Skutsch, op. cit. n. 63, p. 131). Horace is suppressing some talk of Remus: it is only a question of how much.

⁷⁹ cf. N. W. De Witt, CR 34 (1920), 66, on the ‘similarity of treatment’ in A. 12 and Hor. Carm. 3.3: ‘Juno is reminded that Aeneas is to become a deity under the title “Aeneas indiges”, and to this she tacitly consents, just as she assented to the assumption of Romulus, but she again makes stipulations.’ Cf. Commager, op. cit. n. 47, p. 222. This is not to say that Aeneas was elevated to heaven in Ennius, a notion argued against by Skutsch, op. cit. n. 63, p. 131.

⁸⁰ The Suetonius passage is Jul. 79. 3; see Fraenkel, op. cit. n. 38, pp. 267 flf. Professor Nisbet suggests to me that the notion of a literal rebuilding of Ilium is perhaps too lightly rejected; there was no question of moving the capital, but the site was of high strategic value, especially for a Parthian campaign, an d might have been built u p as a base of the type Agrippa maintained in Lesbos. We must await the commentary.

⁸¹ p. 269: cf. the works cited in Commager, op. cit. n. 47, p. 222 n. 121. Oksala too is cautious about possible ‘Allegorie’, op. cit. n. 43, p. 102.

⁸² For Horace, note especially the first lines of Juno's speech (3.3. 18–24). On the degeneracy of Troy in the Aeneid, see now Richard F. Thomas (taking the speech of Numanus Remulus as his text, 9. 598–620): Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The Ethnographical Tradition (Cambridge Philological Society, Suppl. vol. 7, Cambridge, 1982), pp. 98 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸³ On various allegorical interpretations of Troy in the ode see Commager, , op. cit. n. 47, pp.215 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁴ Thus Commager, , op. cit. n. 47, pp. 216 ffGoogle Scholar. My approach owes a great deal to his discussion.

⁸⁵ Thomas, , op. cit. n. 82, p. 99Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ On this development, see the works cited in n. 20 above.

⁸⁷ Commager's phrase, op. cit. n. 47, p. 221.

⁸⁸ loc. cit. n. 24. On this disparity between Juno's cult in Rome and the other local towns, see Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Römer ² (Munich, 1912), pp. 187 ffGoogle Scholar. She was, of course, part of the Capitoline triad from Etruscan times, but dramatically inferior to Jupiter in cult.

⁸⁹ On the identification, see n. 23 above.

⁹⁰ cf. Dumezil, G., La Religion romaine archaïque (Paris, 1974), pp. 665–7Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Liv. 28. 46. 16 (cf. Cic. Div. 1. 48); cf. Dumezil, p. 465; Bloch, R., p. 388 of ‘Héra, Uni, Junon en Italie centrale’, Comptes Rendus de V Académie des Inscriptions el Belles Lettres (1972), 384–95Google Scholar; Basanoff, V., Evocatio. Étude d'un rituel militaire romain (Paris, 1947), pp. 63 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹² Bloch, 394. What most Romans of this era knew about Aeneas and the Trojans is a controversy best left untouched here.

⁹³ Liv. 27. 37. 7; cf. Horsfall, art. cit. n. 9, 2.

⁹⁴ As suggested by Steuart, op. cit. n. 47, pp. 175 ff., and Buchheit, pp. 144 f., esp. n. 620. Other suggestions include a ‘concilium deorum’ after Cannae (Vahlen, p. clxxxix); a dialogue between Jupiter and Juno at the same date (Norden, op. cit. n. 5, pp. 168 f.); a divine discussion upon Hannibal's appearance before the walls of Rome (on the basis of Sil. Pun. 12; Fürstenau, G., ‘De Silii Italici imifatione quae fertur Enniana’ (Diss. Berlin, 1916), pp. 61, 63)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ At Veii, Falerii Veteres, Carthage (the fourth is Vertumnus at Volsinii); see Ogilvie, op. cit. n. 52, p. 674.

⁹⁶ A comprehensive discussion by Rawson, E., in JRS 63 (1973), 168 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁷ loc. cit. n. 95.

⁹⁸ pp. 54 ff.

⁹⁹ On 2. 1.25.

¹⁰⁰ De Is. et Os. 369A ff.

¹⁰¹ 369B (fr. 21 Nauck).