¹ The ed. here followed is that by F. Pichlmayr, 1911, but older editions must be compared (S. Pitiscus, 1696; J. Arntzen, 1733; J. F. Gruner, 1787; F. Schroeter, 1829–31). Modern bibliography in Schanz, , Röm. Lit. IV, I, 1914, 65–77Google Scholar; Teuffel, , Röm. Lit., 6 ed., 1913, III, 244–247Google Scholar.

² Roulez, , Bulletin de l'Acad. royale de Belgique I, 17, 1850, 261–268Google Scholar. Mommsen, ‘Zu den Caesaren des Aurelius Victor’, Sitzb. Preuss. Ak. 1884, 951–958. Cf. Roth, K. L., Jahns Jahrbücher, Suppl. 19, 1853, 314–315Google Scholar; Opitz, Th., Fleckeisens Jahrbücher 133, 1886, 140–144Google Scholar; Behrens, H., Unters. über das anonyme Buck de Viris Illustribus, Heidelberg 1923, especially p. 29, n. 1Google Scholar; Corbett, P. B., Scriptorium 3, 1949, 254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ F. Masai, the learned librarian of the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, very generously provided me with the following details about the Pulmannianus in a letter of 26th February, 1958: ‘A vrai dire, je ne puis pas ajouter grand’ chose à ce qu'a déjá relevé Paul Thomas dans le catalogue de nos manuscrits d'auteurs latins classiques. Comme il l'a noté, notre manuscrit provient de la “Maison professe” (Domus professa) de la Compagnie de Jésus à Anvers. Il est entré dans la collection de la Bibliothèque royale au XVIII^e siècle, lors de la suppression des Jésuites. Ceux-ci l'avaient acquis sans doute à la mort de Poelman, qui est mort à Anvers comme vous le savez. Mais je ne puis vous dire comment ce manuscrit est allé chez les Jésuites de cette ville plûtot que chez Plantin, où sont conservés, pour la plupart, les manuscrits de cet humaniste (voyez l'article de Max Roosess dans la “Biographie nationale”, t. 17, col. 883). Poelman avait lui-même acquis le manuscrit, directement ou à travers quelque autre propriétaire qui n'y a pas laissé d'ex-libris, d'un chapelain de la collégiale Saint-Denis à Liège. Cet ecclésiastique a, en effet, mis sa marque de propriété, en cursive gothique, au verso du dernier feuillet blanc du livre: “Liber d(om)ni Joh(ann)is Loemel cap(ella)ni ecclesie s(anc)ti Dyonisii Leodien(sis)”. Cet ex-libris peut remonter à la fin du XV^e siècle. Quant au manuscrit il ne peut être de beaucoup antérieur: son papier au filigrane de l'agneau pascal, variété du type 26 de Briquet, me le fait considérer comme du dernier tiers du XV^e s., et l'écriture est semblable à celle que les humanistes employaient dans nos régions à cette même êpoque.’

⁴ Cohn, A., Quibus ex fontibus S. Aurelii Victoris libri de Caesaribus etc.. fluxerint, diss. Berlin, 1884, 70–106Google Scholar; cf. Haverfield, F., Journ. Phil. 15, 1886, 161–163Google Scholar. The MS was first noticed by Hildesheimer, Hirsch, the author of De libro qui inscribitur de vir. ill. urbis Romae quaestiones historicae, diss. Berlin, 1880 (cf. also Cohn p. 71Google Scholar).

⁵ For the text of the letter by Bessarion to Cardinal Julian see A. Cohn, o. c. p. 71, I gratefully acknowledge the help of Dr. R. Hunt in questions connected with the date of this MS.

⁶ The essential evidence is collected by B. Sepp in the preface and in the appendix to his second edition (Eichstadt, 1885; first ed. München 1879) of De origine gentis Romanae. But see also Jordan, H., Hermes 3, 1869, 390–91Google Scholar and the introduction to J. H. Smit's edition (Victoris, Ps. Liber de Origine gentis Romanae, Groningae, 1895Google Scholar). On every aspect of the Origo, Peter, H., ‘Die Schrift Origo gentis Romanae,’ Berichte Sächs. Gesell. Leipzig 64, 1912, 71–166Google Scholar (text and introduction) has to be consulted.

⁷ The letter in B. Sepp, De origine gentis Romanae denuo recensuit 1885, 40. Metellus apparently meant to prepare an edition founded upon his own MS. Thence Schottus's hurry. See his letter to Iustus Lipsius in Sepp p. xiii. About the manner of dating MSS during the Renaissance it is good to remember the warning of Schapiro, M., ‘The Carolingian Copy of the Calendar of 354’, The Art Bulletin 22, 1940, 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Maehly, J. A., Jahns Jakrbúcher f. Philologie, Suppl. 18, 1852, 144Google Scholar expunges ‘nostrae memoriae proclamans historia Liviana’. I take ‘memoriae nostrae’ to be dative, but cf. Jordan, , Hermes 3, 425Google Scholar. I may mention here that H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo gentis Romanae 1912, 98, n.1. does not persuade me to regard ‘Verrio Flacco Antiate’ as one name: the compiler knew who (Valerius) Antias was and clearly implies that Verrius Flaccus quoted Antias.

⁹ Baehrens, W. A., Mnemosyne 40, 1912, 251–252Google Scholar; id., Bursians jahresber., 208, 1926, 5.

¹⁰ p. 216 Lindsay = 198 Muller.

¹¹ ‘Quod nos interim praetermisso, sic ut promisimus, omnem Gothorum texamus originem.’ Instead of ‘originem’ Cod. L(aurentianus) has ‘ordinem’. The fourth (?) century Origo Constantini Imperatoris, which is the first part of the Anonymus Valesianus (latest edition R. Cessi, Rer. Ital. Script. 1913), is a life of Constantine from birth to death. Cf. also Cassiod. Variae 9, 25Google Scholar: ‘originem Gothicam historiam fecit esse Romanam’ (for the pattern ‘origo-historia’ cf. Variae I, 45: ‘ut Graecorum dogmata doctrinam feceris esse Romanam’.)

¹² For the date, Manitius, M., Latein. Liter, des Mittelalters I, 1911, 268Google Scholar, but the nucleus of the work goes back to Rothari's time: Wattenbach-Levison, , Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter II, 1953, 207Google Scholar (text in MGH, Script. Rer. Lang. I, 2–6Google Scholar).

¹³ Malalas, , Chron. 8, p. 211 BonnGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ de Ghellinck, J., Arch. Latin. Medii Aevi 15, 1940, 113–126Google Scholar. Cf. also Wagner, I. K., Quaestiones neotericae imprimis ad Ausonium pertinentes, diss. Leipzig, 1907, 5–10Google Scholar and Freund, W., Modernus und andere Zeitbegriffe des Mittelalters, Köln, 1957, 6–7Google Scholar.

¹⁵ PL 23, 381 c. The story comes, of course, from Seneca Rhet., Controv. 4, Praef. 7.

¹⁶ Ammianus 21, 10, 6. Cf. especially Opitz, Th., ‘Quaestionum de Sex. Aurelio Victore capita tria,’ Acta Soc. Phil. Lipsiensis II, 2, 1874, p. 200Google Scholar; 207 (here the opinion that the author of the ‘Origo’ is a grammarian of the fifth cent.). A. Klotz, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1913, 1552, n. 1. suggested, acutely but not cogently, that the De vir. ill. and Caes. formed a ‘historia bipertita’ before the accretion of the so-called ‘Origo’. But I agree with Klotz about the date of the formation of the ‘historia tripertita’; in fact I had reached the same conclusion before reading his excellent review of H. Peter.

¹⁷ H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo gentis Romanae 1912, p. 97 identifies the compiler with the interpolator.

¹⁸ On this question cf. also Peter, H., Die geschichtliche Litteratur über die römische Kaiserzeit II, 1897, 367–372Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Cf. the introduction by Wijga, I. R. to his own edition, Liber de viris illustribus urbis Romae, Groningen, 1890, 7Google Scholar.

²⁰ Cf. Landolphus Sagax, Historia Romana (= Historia Miscella), ed. A. Crivellucci (‘Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia’), 1912, 1, p. xiii; xxxvii–xlii.

²¹ Cod. Bambergensis sec. xi; Cod. Bernensis sec. xii. On the Vat. 1984 cf. Crivellucci p. liii. More research is needed on the medieval tradition of Landolphus; and my remark is tentative.

²² Epistula Ioannis Metelli Sequani in B. Sepp's second edition, 1885, p. 40, ‘Accepi a clarissimo viro Cornelio Valtero Gandavo antiquissimum scriptum codicem’. On the anonymous De Caesaribus discovered by F. Biondo in 1423 (Guarino Epistolario, ed. Sabbadini, 1, 374) see my forthcoming note in Athenaeum.

²³ Cf. Hartke, W., De Saeculi Quarti Exeuntis Historiarum Scriptoribus Ouaestiones, diss. Berlin, 1932Google Scholar.

²⁴ See the ed. by Kisch, G., Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Indiana, 1949Google Scholar. Cf. Eissfeldt, O., ‘Zur Kompositionstechnik des Pseudo-Philonischen Liber Antiquitatum biblicarum,’ Interpretationes … S. Mowinckel missae, Oslo, 1955, 53–71Google Scholar. For another type of late Roman compilations, Billanovich, G., ‘Dall'antica Ravenna alle biblioteche umanistiche,’ Annuario della Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, 1955–57, Milano, 1958, 73–107Google Scholar.

²⁵ Cf. Momigliano, , Journ. Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 17, 1954, 22–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Mommsen, , ‘Ueber den Chronographen vom J. 354,’ Abh. Sächs. Gesell. I, 1850, 549–693Google Scholar, only partially reprinted in Gesamm. Schriften VII, 536–579. Cf. H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo pp. 104–113 with important remarks. Stern's, H. great work Le Calendrier de 354, 1953Google Scholar, is not concerned with our problem.

²⁷ See Mommsen, , Abh. Sächs. Gesell. I, 599Google Scholar = Ges. Schriften VII, 558 and cf. his edition in Chronica Minora I, 1892, p. 143Google Scholar. In his original paper Mommsen (p. 599) wrote ‘Dass der Schreiber ein Christ war, ist nicht zu bezweifeln, da die Stadtchronik ja ein Theil der christlichen Weltchronik ist’. But he himself destroyed the only evidence by observing that in the sentence referring to Diocletian, ‘circum templa domini posuerunt’, ‘Domini ist Zusatz eines christlichen Copisten’ (p. 655). In Chron. Min. I, 148 another more likely (but equally non-Christian) interpretation of ‘domini’ is suggested: ‘potest accipi pro nominativo pluralis’.

²⁸ Cf. the excellent paper by Starr, Ch. G., ‘Aurelius Victor: Historian of the Empire’, Am. Hist. Rev. 61, 1956, 574–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But Corbett, P. B., Scriptorium 3, 1949, 256CrossRefGoogle Scholar expressed another opinion: ‘Constant reading of the De Caesaribus is depressing; which is why I have insisted elsewhere that one should not injure the fame of Aurelius Victor by ascribing the work to him.’ I hope to examine in a paper ‘Pagan Historiography and Christian Historiography in the fourth century’ some of the more general questions connected with the study of origins in the fourth century. Cf. meanwhile the basic paper ‘Origines gentium’ by Bickerman, E. J., Class. Philol. 47, 1952, 65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Beck, J. W., ‘De sermone libelli “Origo gentis rom.” adnotatiunculae,’ Mnemosyne 22, 1894, 338–344Google Scholar. On the ‘Origo’ in general cf. Maehly, J. A., Jahns Jahrbücher f. Philologie, Suppl. 18, 1852, 132–153Google Scholar; Jordan, H., Hermes 3, 1869, 389–428Google Scholar (essential); Opitz, Th., Rh. Museum 29, 1874, 184–186Google Scholar; Mommsen, Th., Hermes 12, 1877, 401–8Google Scholar = Ges. Schriften VIII, 434–441; E. Baehrens, Fleckeisens Jahrb, 135, 1887, 769–781; Smit, J. H., ‘Prolegomena’ to his ed. of the ‘Origo’, Groningen 1895, pp. 1–70Google Scholar; H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo quoted 69–166 (on the language 101–103); Behrens, H., Quaestiones de libello qui Origo gentis romanae inscribitur, diss. Greifswald, 1917Google Scholar (very valuable); Baehrens, W. A., Bursians Jahresb. 208, 1926, 8–18Google Scholar; Bickel, E., ‘Lucius Caesar Cos. 64 in der Origo gentis Romanae,’ Rh. Museum, 100, 1957, 201–236Google Scholar. Sinclair, Th., The Origin of the Roman Race in Humanities, London, Trübner, 1886, 39–70Google Scholar can be quoted as a curiosity.

³⁰ Niebuhr, , Röm. Gesch. I, 4 ed., p. 94, n. 274Google Scholar; II, 10, n. 11; Vorträge über Röm. Geschichte ed. L. Schmitz-G. Zeiss, 1844, 1, 27 ‘Diese Schrift ist ein unverschämtes Machwerk eines literarischen Betrügers aus dem fünfzehnten oder sechzehnten Jahrhundert’. For early approval of Niebuhr's theory see Schwegler, A., Röm. Geschichte I, 1853, 117Google Scholar.

³¹ Maehly, J. A., Jahns Jahrbücher f. Philologie, Suppl. 18, 1852, 132 ffGoogle Scholar. In support of Mähly cf. also Münzer, F., Cacus der Rinderdieb, Basel, 1911, 105Google Scholar, n. 124.

³² Cf. Mommsen, , Ges. Schriften VI, 537Google Scholar; VIII, 440; 617. Cf. also his edition of Jordanes (MGH) p. xxviii·xxix. Mommsen's theory was further complicated by Enmann, A., ‘Eine verlorene Geschichte der römischen Kaiser’, Philologus 4, 1884, 490Google Scholar, without much evidence. Puccioni, G. ‘S. Girolamo, Paolo Diacono e l'Origo gentis romanae’ Ann. Scuola Normale Sup. Pisa 2, 24, 1955, 237–259Google Scholar is rightly sceptical of Mommsen's theory. He is also right in stating that Helinandus (thirteenth cent.) depends not on the ‘Origo’, but on Paulus Diaconus or on the Historia Miscella (against F. Pichlmayr, in his preface to the text, p. vii); this, however, had already been said by Maehly, , Jahns Jahrb., Suppl. 18, 1852, 139Google Scholar and Opitz, Th., Rh. Mus. 29, 1874, 186Google Scholar. Cf. also Baehrens, E., Fleckeisens Jahrb. 135, 1887, 778Google Scholar; W. Ensslin, ‘Des Symmachus Historia Romana als Quelle für Jordanes,’ Sitzb. Bayer. Akad. 1948, 3, 16–17, and Puccioni, G. ‘Il problema delle fonti storiche di S. Girolamo’, Ann. Pisa 2, 25, 1956, 191–212Google Scholar. See the following note. [G. Puccioni has now reprinted his paper in Annali 1955, on La fortuna medievale della ‘Origo Gentis Romanae’, Messina-Firenze, 1958, 21–62. See my review in Riv. Stor. Ital. 1958.]

³³ Die Chronik des Hieronymus, 2 ed., 1956, p. xxvi. Cf. ‘Hieronymos und Eutrop,’ Rh. Mus. 76, 1927, 138–170Google Scholar: 254–306. Helm's conclusions are on p. 304: ‘Man muss jedenfalls auch dieser Vermutung Enmanns zustimmen, dass einmal ein corpus einer Latina historia existiert hat, welches die römische Geschichte von den Albanerkönigen bis zur neuesten Zeit in biographischer Form enthalten hatte’. Helm may well simplify too much, but is surely right against Mommsen.

³⁴ Tert. Apol. 10; Cyprian (?), Quod idola dii non sint, I; Minucius Felix, Oct. 21, 5. Samter, E., Quaestiones Varronianae, diss. Berlin, 1891, 6Google Scholar thinks that Tertullian and Minucius ultimately follow Varro in attributing the origin of coinage to Ianus. This can hardly be true. Tertullian: ‘ab ipso [Saturno] primum tabulae et imagine signatus nummus’. Cyprian (?) is even more explicit: ‘hic [Saturnus] signare nummos in Italia primus instituit.’

³⁵ Cf. the good remarks by A. Crivellucci in his edition of Landolphus Sagax, Historia Romana (‘Fonti Storia d'ltalia’) 1912, pp. xxviii–xxix. [G. Puccioni's theory, La fortuna (o. c), 155–206, that Landolphus combined the ‘Origo’ with Dio Cassius seems to me fantastic] The Historia Pseudo-Isidoriana 3 (Mommsen, , Chron. Min. II, 379Google Scholar) apparently depends on Landolphus.

³⁶ C. Frick, ‘Zu Mommsens Philologischen Schriften,’ Berl. Phil. Woch. 1911, 254–255. The marginal notes are the work of C. Lascaris. In the Catalogue of the library of St. Riquier (A.D. 831) there is ‘De summa temporum et de origine actibusque Romanorum I vol.’ (Becker, G., Catal. Biblioth. Antiqui, Bonnae, 1885, p. 28Google Scholar, n. 199.) I do not know whether this is our ‘Origo’. A. Viscardi, Le Origini, 1939, 434 seems to be certain of the identity and goes so far as to say: ‘Questi testi di cui abbiamo riconosciuto la costante presenza in tutte le biblioteche ecclesiastiche medievali sono i seguenti: il De origine gentis romanae (che si indica col titolo De origine et actibus Romanorum nel catalogo di S. Riquier), breviario del IV secolo …’ Manitius, M., Rh. Mus. N. F. 47, 1892Google Scholar, Ergänzungsheft p. 152 states: ‘die Origo gentis romanae wird ausgebeutet im Additamentum codd. 2.2. ab. 3 des Gotefridus Viterbiensis spec, regum 1, 32.34 etc. (M.G. SS. XXII 55). ‘But the statement is not repeated in Lat. Liter, des Mittelalters III, 394. I have not been able to find any trace of the ‘Origo’ in Gotefridus [nor has G. Puccioni, La fortuna (o. c), 105–133.]

³⁷ On this cf. especially H. Behrens, Quaestiones, quoted 1917, p. 66 and passim.

³⁸ See Sepp's first edition, 1879 and second edition, 1885 ad l. But cf. Jordan, , Hermes 3, p. 399Google Scholar. I cannot agree with Peter, p. 98 ‘die Namen des Verrius und Varro, die im Texte fehlen, sind sicherlich nicht im Sinne des Verfassers hinzugefügt worden’. Peter himself pp. 120–121 says ‘so lag es jedenfalls in dem Plane des Verfassers, die Or. als ein Werk des Verrius selbst oder eines seiner Zeitgenossen erscheinen zu lassen’. I suspect that the compiler of the ‘corpus’ found in the original preface of the author of the ‘Origo’ the statement by Verrius Flaccus on the name ‘Antias’. Cf. above n. 8.

³⁹ Serv. Dan., Aen. 8, 203Google Scholar ‘Solus Verrius Flaccus dicit Garanum fuisse pastorem magnarum virium, qui Cacum afflixit, omnes autem magnarum virium apud veteres Hercules dictos’. Cf. Winter, J. G. The Myth of Hercules at Rome, New York (Univ. Michigan Studies IV), 1910, 202Google Scholar; Toutain, J., Rev. Ét. Lat. VI, 1928, 212Google Scholar. ‘Noster Maro’ in Macrobius 2, 1, 1; 3, 4, 9; 3, 12, 4. But Virgil is ‘poeta non nostri iam studii’ to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 22, 3).

⁴⁰ On Ptolomaeus Chennus, R. Hercher in Fleckeisens Jahrbücher, Suppl. I, 1856, 267–293Google Scholar; contra, not persuasively, Chatzis, A., Der Philosoph und Grammatiker P.Ch., Paderborn, 1914Google Scholar, (the other bibl. in Schmid, W., Gesch. Griech. Lit. II, 1, 1920, 422Google Scholar). On Ps.-Plutarch, , Jacoby, F., Mnemosyne 3, 8, 1940, 73–144Google Scholar = Abhandl. zur Griechischen Geschichtschreibung 1956, 361–422. On Fulgentius, M. Zink, Der Mytholog Fulgentius, Würzburg, 1867, 75–93; F. Skutsch, P–W, 7, 220. I have of course taken to heart Jacoby's warning Abhandl. 422, n. 192: ‘Das zeigt Ptolemaios Chennos und ebenso die Falle der Origo gentis Romanae und des Fulgentius, wo die gelehrte Affektation deutlicher zu erkennen ist (obwohl wenigstens die Origo ebenfalls Epitomierung erfahren hat). Vielleicht finden sie gerade deshalb jetzt auch wieder ihre Verteidiger.’ My disagreement with Jacoby is hesitant and open to correction. Cf. also W. A. Baehrens, Bursians Jahresb. 208, 1926, 8–16.

⁴¹ On this problem cf. also J. Rubino, Untersuchungen über italienische Vorgeschichte 1868, 107 (a posthumous work) and the sensible Semple, W. T., Authenticity and Sources of the Origo gentis romanae, diss. Princeton, 1910Google Scholar (also Cincinnati Studies 4, 6, 3, 1910). Rotter, H., De Auctore libelli de origine gentis rom., Progr. Cottbus 1858Google Scholar, is a spirited defence of Niebuhr's theory.

⁴² A glance at Fulgentius, Mitologiarum Libri Tres, ed. Helm, , can show the difference: I, 15, p. 25–26Google Scholar Anaximander Lampsacenus et Zenophanes Heracleopolites;’ … unde et Epicharmus comicus in Difolo (Difilo) comoedia ait’; I, 21, p. 32 Theocritus (Theocnidus) antiquitatum historiographus; III, 3, p. 62 Anaximenes qui de picturis antiquis disseruit, etc. In De Aetatibus mundi et hominis notice (p. 130 Helm) ‘librorum bisduodenum volumen Xenofontis poetae in singulis libris singulis litteris diminutis’. As for Ptolomaeus Chennus, his declared aim is to give new facts with the support of new authority, whereas the author of the ‘Origo’ retells well known stories with the help of well known authorities. Cf. also Timpanaro, S., Studi Urbinati, 31, 1957, 169, n. 50Google Scholar.

⁴³ Strabo 14, 1, 25, p. 642; Cicero, ad Att. 2, 22, 7Google Scholar. H. Peter, Die Schrift Origo p. 94–95 believes that the author of the ‘Origo’ conflated Alexander of Ephesus, Alexander of Miletus (‘Suidas’, s. v.) and Alexander Polyhistor. Cf. F. Gisinger, ‘Cicero und der Geograph Alexandras Lychnos von Ephesos,’ Phil. Wochenschrift, 1929, 1167; Bickel, E., Rh. Mus. 100, 1957, 222Google Scholar. Jacoby, , F. Gr. Hist. II, p. 917Google Scholar clearly implies that he considers Alexander of Ephesus genuine only as a geographer.

⁴⁴ Lucullus, for instance, wrote a Ἑλληνική τις ἱστορία τοῦ Μαρσικοῦ πολέμου (Plut., Luc. I, 8Google Scholar), very relevant to our question. Cf. Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. II, n. 185 and commentary.

⁴⁵ Caecilius of Calacte: Athen. VI, 104, p. 272 F (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. 183 F 1).

⁴⁶ Sisenna fr. 1–3 Peter. On Sisenna and Sallust cf. Peter, , Hist. Rom. Rel. I, 2 ed., CCCXLGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Cf. Mommsen ap. Jordan, , Hermes 3, 1869, 402Google Scholar. L. Roth, Vultacilius et Piso is less good. See Peter, Origo p. 91, n. 2, and cf. J. Perret, Les Origines de la légende troyenne de Rome, 1942, 105, n. 3, who revives the suggestion ‘Lutatius’ instead of Vulcatius.

⁴⁸ Octavius, author of ‘De sacris saliaribus Tiburtium’ (Macrobius 3, 12, 7), has been suggested by Jordan, p. 402, but cf. Baehrens, W. A. Bursians Jahresb., 208, 14Google Scholar. Another less likely suggestion by Baehrens, Cornelius Labeo, Gent-Leipzig, 1918, 102.

⁴⁹ Cf. also Cic., de div. I, 26, 55Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ On Caesar, Gaius see Jordan, , Hermes 3, 401Google Scholar. Speculations on this subject can be seen in J. Carcopino, Points de vue sur l'mpérialisme romain, 1934, 113–114 and J. Perret, Les Origines, quoted, pp. 564–570. I do not quite see why Jordan ib. 403 is suspicious of ‘Aufidius in epitomis’ (18, 4) and ‘epitomarum Pisonis secundo’ (18, 3). For fourth century love of epitomes cf. SHA Trig. Tyr. 30, 22 already quoted by Jordan. Egnatius (23, 6) is beyond suspicion. He may or may not be identical with the author of a De rerum natura (Macrob. 6, 5, 2; 12) and with the victim of Catullus's witticisms.

⁵¹ Cf. A. Rosenberg, P-W I, A, 1091–1092. On the unusual topography of Lavinium see Jordan, , Hermes 3, 412Google Scholar and cf. in general Schwegler, A., Römische Geschichte I, 1853, 291Google Scholar.

⁵² Cf. the acute remark by Ehlers, W., Mus. Helv. 6, 1949, 170, n. 24Google Scholar on ‘Origo’ 20, 1. One cannot help feeling that H. Peter, Origo 118–120 argues in a circle.

⁵³ The reference to Fabius Pictor in 20, 3 is correct. The story of Prochyta (10, 1) is substantially confirmed by Naevius fr. 17, Morel, on which cf. Mariotti, S., Il Bellum Poenicum e l'arte di Nevio, Roma 1955. 40–47Google Scholar, and Zicari, M., La Parola del Passato, 56, 1957, 397Google Scholar. The list of Alban Kings is shorter than that of Livy, Diodorus, and Dionysius and prima facie looks older, as H. Peter, Origo p. 111 recognises. A strict demonstration, however, is hardly possible, and therefore I do not propose to enter into the question of the list of the Alban Kings, on which cf. Trieber, C., Hermes 29, 1894, 124–142Google Scholar; Pais, E., St. di Roma I, 1, 1898, 186Google Scholar; de Sanctis, G., St. dei Romani I, 204Google Scholar; O. Leuze, Röm. Jahreszählung 1909, 80–90; Jacoby, F., F. Gr. H. 273 F 70, p. 282Google Scholar and their bibl. The reference to Lutatius in 9, 2 is indirectly made plausible by Serv. Dan., Aen. 9, 707Google Scholar ‘Postumius de adventu Aeneae et Lutatius communium historiarum Boiam Euximi comitis Aeneae nutricem … dicunt’. Notice that the story of Aeneas’ treachery allegedly reported by Lutatius is pre-Augustan (cf. Dionysius I, 48, 3). It is also interesting that Peter, H., Hist. Rom. Rel., I, 2 ed., 1914, p. cxxxiiiGoogle Scholar, n.1. writes: ‘Incerti auctoris Origo c. 11–13 tenorem Catonis plerumque recte exposuit, eius tamen auctoritatem aliis rebus adpinxit.’ This, if true, depicts a muddler, not a forger. Baehrens, E., Fleckeisens Jahrbiicher 135, 1887, 769 ffGoogle Scholar. is worth meditating. Cf. also Perret, Les Origines 524–544; 557, n. 13.

⁵⁴ See Peter, H., Hist. Rom. Rel. I, 2 ed., pp. cxxxii–cxxxiiiGoogle Scholar with the bibl. quoted.

⁵⁵ Cf. E. Norden, Neue Jahrb. 1901, 257, n. 5.

⁵⁶ This is, for instance, the opinion of H. Behrens, Quaestiones de libello qui Origo …inscribitur 1917, p. 65. Alternatively one can take the view that the author of the ‘Origo’ got his Cato and L. Caesar second-hand and misunderstood what his source attributed to them. Negligence is not the same as forgery. Cf. also the remarks by Baehrens, E., Fleckeisens Jahrbücher 135, 1887, 773Google Scholar. The statement ‘Iulum … a quo Iulia familia manavit, ut scribunt Caesar … et Cato’ poses three problems: (1) whether L. Iulius quoted Cato on lulus; (2) whether Cato really did mention lulus; (3) whether Servius and (or) Servius Daniel, on Virgil, , Aen. I 267Google Scholar can be taken to support a positive answer to (1) and (2). As Servius (on whom see Fraenkel, E., JRS 38, 1948, 133Google Scholar) is at least sufficient to establish the bona fides of the author of the ‘Origo’ in saying what he says, I leave the solution of the three problems to a much needed study of Cato's Origines.

⁵⁷ Bickel, E., Rh. Mus. 100, 1957, p. 227Google Scholar. Peter, Origo, p. 93 by referring to Servius, , Aen. 8, 63Google Scholar provides by implication an argument in favour of the natural interpretation of this passage: ‘sane totus hic locus Ennianus est.’ Notice, however that the MSS of the ‘Origo’ have Annius or Aennius.

⁵⁸ Mommsen, , Römische Forschungen II, 1879, 14–15Google Scholar. Cf. Gellius, , NA 7, 7, 8Google Scholar. As for Mommsen's opinion, repeated by Baehrens, W. A., Bursians Jahresb. 208, 11Google Scholar, that Valerius Antias did not yet know of Acca Larentia as ‘Romuli nutrix,’ it is enough to refer to Th. Zielinski, Quaest. comicae, Petropoli 1887, 86, n. 3, approved by G. Wissowa, P–W, s. u. ‘Acca’, 133.

⁵⁹ Cf. Pareti, L., Storia di Roma I, 1952, 14Google Scholar; Fraccaro, P., JRS 47, 1957, 62Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ I, 6 ‘quare autem addiderit “tutus” suo loco plenissime annotavimus in commentatione, quam hoc scribere cepimus, (“occoepimus scribere”, codex Metelli), cognita ex libro qui inscriptus est “De origine Patavina”.’ This seems to be the likely meaning of the passage, taking ‘cognita’ as an ablative with ‘commentatione’: cf. Jordan, , Hermes 3, 399Google Scholar. The general meaning would change if we were to take ‘cognita’ as an accusative depending on ‘annotavimus’, as H. Peter, Origo, p. 122 does. He translates: ‘Weshalb er (Virgil) aber tutus hinzugefügt hat, dies habe ich in einer Abhandlung die zu schreiben ich angefangen habe, angemerkt, und zwar habe ich es aus einem De or. Pat. betitelten Buche entnommen.’ But I do not quite see why ‘in commentatione cognita ex libro etc.’ should be ‘eine Unmöglichkeit’. Schanz IV, 1, 67, n. 1 agrees with me against Peter. J. H. Smit ad loc. postulates a lacuna and reads ‘in commentatione ‘quam scripsimus ante-’ quam hoc scribere coepimus. (Cognitum ex eo libro, qui inscriptus est ‘de origine Patavina’).’ On the text cf. also Baehrens, W. A., Bursians Jahresb., 208, 4Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Cf. O. Gigon, ‘Zur Geschichtsschreibung der römischen Republik,’ Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung, Festschrift A. Debrunner 1954, 161. The whole essay is of the greatest importance. On p. 155 his opinion on the ‘Origo’: ‘Dass wir einen Schwindelautor vor uns haben, ist nicht bewiesen; dass die Gelehrsamkeit aus dritter und vierter Hand stammt, ist selbstverständlich; dass zuletzt ein historisch-antiquarischer Traktat Suetons oder Varros zugrunde liegt, ist denkbar.’

⁶² Cf. G. Wissowa, Gesammelte Abhandlungen 1904, 95–129; S. Weinstock, P-W, s. v. Penates 451.

⁶³ Peter, Die Schrift Origo, p. 85. On the name Allodius in Dionys., I, 71, 3 see Pais, E., St. di Roma I, 1, 1898, 190Google Scholar, n. 2 strangely overlooked by Sanctis, De, St. dei Romani I, 1907, 205Google Scholar, n. 1.

⁶⁴ Doubts on Peter's thesis have already been expressed by A. Klotz, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1913, 1554.

⁶⁵ Cf. especially Samter, E., Quaestiones Varronianae, diss. Berlin., 1891, 1–31Google Scholar. It is perhaps relevant to quote p. 23, n. 1: ‘Auctor de origine G.R. c. 6 narrationem exhibet, quae Verrianam doctrinam (Serv., Aen. VIII, 203Google Scholar) quodammodo redolet. Dicit autem ille aram Maximam ab Hercule dedicatam esse patri Inventori. Qua e re si quis Verrium commemorasse illam aram, quam dicunt Solinus et Dionysius, falsariumque abusum esse Verrianis coniecerit, equidem non adversabor. Sed primarium quem vocant fontem Varronem fuisse Dionysius satis docet.’ E. Wörner, Die Sage von den Wanderungen des Aeneas bei Dionysios von Halikarnasos und Vergilius, Programm Leipzig, 1882; Jacobson, A., Das Verhältnis des Dionysios von Hal. zu Varro in der Vorgeschichte Roms, Progr. Dresden, 1895Google Scholar; Schur, W., Die Aeneassage in der späteren römischen Literatur, Strassburg, 1914, 2–16Google Scholar. On Varro's method cf. for instance Agahd, R., Fleckeisens Jahrb., Suppl. 24, 1898, 153Google Scholar; P. Fraccaro, Studi Varroniani, 1907, 62–64.

⁶⁶ An alternative theory is presented in two different versions by Baehrens, W. A., Cornelius Labeo, Gent-Leipzig, 1918, 81–105Google Scholar and Bursians Jahresb. 208, 10. According to him scholia on Virgil were the main direct source of all the ‘Origo’. This theory cannot account for ch. 18 ff. and raises other difficulties. But I am far from rejecting it as impossible. Cf. also W. T. Semple's dissertation quoted above, p. 67, n. 41.

⁶⁷ Asconius Pedianus: Io. Metellus Sequanus in Epistula quoted. Verrius Flaccus: B. Sepp in his first edition, p. 45 and in a modified form (‘excerpta’ from Verrius Flaccus) Baehrens, E., Fleckeisens Jahrb. 135, 1887, 778Google Scholar. Ti. Claudius Donatus: H. Behrens, Quaestiones quoted, 79–80. L. Caesar Cos. 64 B.C.: Bickel, E., Rh. Mus. 100, 1957, 207Google Scholar. It is not quite clear from Metellus's Epistula whether the name of Asconius Pedianus appeared in his MS. The sentence reads: ‘Quam ab rem hanc inscriptionem indidit: Q. Asconi Pediani Patavini De Origine Principibusque Gentis Liber. Dicitur in eius anonymo titulo collectus et digestus, a quo vero, non scribitur.’ But Sepp's conjecture ‘indidi’ seems to me unavoidable in the context. A new theory was briefly stated by J. W. Beck in Deutsche Literaturz. 1912, 2332: ‘entweder der anonyme Exzerptor hat ein grösseres Werk des Lactanz benutzt, oder der Autor-Exzerptor ist Lactanz selbst.’ The evidence for this theory, as far as I know, has never been made public. It is worth mentioning that Bechmannus, G., Disput. circ. de S. Aurelio Victore, Altdorf, 1685Google Scholar, defended the thesis that Aurelius Victor wrote the ‘Origo’.

⁶⁸ The ‘Origo's’ method of quoting is, of course, comparable with that of Verrius Flaccus: cf. for instance Festus p. 182 M. = 196 L. in Originum Lib. I. For current practice in the fourth century cf. for instance Macrobius, I, 13, 20 ff.: for the influence of Varro cf. Mirsch, P., Leipziger Studien 5, 1882, 64Google Scholar; 124. On the type of the late Roman epitome see Wölfflin, E., Arch. f. Latein. Lexikographie 12, 1902, 333–344Google Scholar. Cf. also B. Sepp., 1879 ed., p. xiii.

⁶⁹ Cf. H. Behrens, Quaestiones de libello qui Origo … inscribitur, 1917, 58.

⁷⁰ Cf. H. Behrens, Quaestiones, p. 61. The influence of Livy may of course go back to the source of the ‘Origo’. But at the moment I am not prepared to simplify and to conclude, with Helm, R., Rh. Mus. 76, 1929, 147Google Scholar and elsewhere, that ultimately both Jerome and the ‘Origo’ depend on a ‘Latina historia ’ which had been influenced by Livy or by Livy's epitome.

⁷¹ J. Carcopino, Aspects mystiques de la Rome paienne, 1942, 199–206, leaves me unconvinced. As R. Syme pointed out to me, the Imperial Pinarii are not necessarily the direct descendants of the Republican family. Cf. also Münzer, F., Philologus 92, 1937, 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 28. On the cult of Hercules in the fourth century A.D., see Bloch, H. Harv. Theol. Rev. 38, 1945, 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² I am grateful for help to S. Mariotti, S. Timpanaro and S. Weinstock. [On the new edition of the ‘Origo’ published by G. Puccioni in August, 1958, see my forthcoming note in Athenaeum ‘Per una nuova edizione dell’ Origo gentis Romanae.’]