virgils roman chronography.pdf

8/11/2019 virgils roman chronography.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/virgils-roman-chronographypdf 1/6

Virgil's Roman Chronography: A ReconsiderationAuthor(s): Nicholas HorsfallSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 24, No. 1 (May, 1974), pp. 111-115Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/638231 .

Accessed: 23/06/2014 11:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.240.247 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:08:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/stable/638231?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/638231?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classical

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



VIRGIL'S

ROMAN

CHRONOGRAPHY:

A

RECONSIDERATIONI

JUPITER,

in

his

prophetic speech

to Venus

(Aen.

I.

257 ff.)

foretells that

Aeneas

will rule

for

three

years

in

Italy,

that Ascanius will

complete

the

thirty years

of

rule

at

Lavinium,

and

that

he will then

found

Alba,

under

whose

kings'

rule

300

years

will

elapse

until the birth

of Romulus.

The

sequence 3-30-300

is

un-

mistakeable:

tertia

(265)

and

ternaque 266)

...

triginta (269)

... ter

centum

(272)

;

no effort is

required

to

see

that

the

total of

these numbers

is

333

and

the

total

is

clearly

more

significant

than the

antiquarian

associations of

the

individual

numbers (cf. R. E. A. Palmer, ArchaicCommunityf the Romans[Cambridge,

1970],

54).

In

the context

of

ancient

attitudes

to

number,

333

is

remarkable n

two

ways:

3

is

'the

magic

number

par

excellence'

Gow

on

Theocr.

2.

17-63)

and

both

powers

(3":

cf. Ecl.

8.

77,

H.

Diels,

Sibyllinischelitter

[Berlin,

I89O],

41

;

33:

cf.

Soph.

O.C.

483,

Diels,

42

ff.)

and

repetitions

of

3

(Liv.

22.

10o.

7:

333,333

I/3;

Theocr.

I7.

82

ff.:

33,333)

retained

the

same

character;

333

is

of course

a

threefold

repetition Secondly, 333,

as

half

of

666,

may

well have

enjoyed

a

little

of

that

number's

glory

;

to the

Pythagoreans

666

will have

been remark-

able

as

a

doubly

'triangular'

number: the sum of

the numbers

from

I

to

36, 36

being

in

turn the sum

of

the

numbersfrom

I

to

8,

the

sacred

ogdoad.3

Such

lore

was not the exclusive preserve of mathematicians and philosophers: it is

enough

to refer

to Donatus' Vita of

Virgil (15)

maximemathematicae

peram

dedit,

and to the

fact

that

Euphorion

actually

composed

a

Mopsopia

n

which

'perfect

numbers'

(e.g.

6 as

being

the sum

of

its

parts:

1+2+

3)

were

discussed

(L.

G.

Westerink,

Mnem.

ser.

4.

xiii

[1960], 329 f.).

But the

explicit presence,

in

a classical

poetic

text,

of a

large

number with such rich

mathematical

associations is

without close

parallel (cf.

G. E.

Duckworth,

Structural

atterns

and

proportions

n the

Aeneid

Ann

Arbor,

1962],

75),

and

the

unique

character

of

Virgil's

333

becomes even

more

apparent

when

considered

in

its

chrono-

graphic

context.

The earliest Greek historians

to

recount

the

foundation of Rome

(with

the

exception

of

Antiochus,

F.G.H.

555

F

6)

placed

it at

most three

generations

after

the fall

of

Troy:4

for

example,

Hellanicus

(F.G.H.

4

F

84)

and Damastes

of

Sigeum

(F.G.H.

5

F

3)

make

Rome

a

joint

foundation

by

Aeneas

and

Odysseus,

after

a

Trojan

woman, Rhome,

had

burned

their

ships,

while

Alcimus

(F.G.H.

560

F

4;

mid-c.

4)

relates that the

city

was

founded

by

Rhomus,

a

grandson

of

Romulus,

son

of

Aeneas. The same

chronological

outline was

adopted

by

Naevius

and

Ennius,

who made

Romulus a

grandson

of Aeneas

(Serv.

Dan.

ad

II

am

grateful

to

Miss E. Rawson

and

Dr. T. J. Cornell for their help and advice.

2

Apoc.

I3.

18

has no

place

in

this

dis-

cussion: it

is

explicable

within the tradition

of

gematria,

he

assigning

of

numerical

values

to

the

letters of the

alphabet;

cf. F.

Dornseiff,

Das

Alphabet

in

Mystik

u.

Magie

(Leipzig,

1925),

Io6ff.

P.

Maury

claims

(Lettres

d'Humanitd

iii

[I944],

144)

that

in

our

passage

333

conceals

KAICAPA:

in

terms

of

gematria

this

is

quite

correct;

Boll

(Aus

der

Offenbarung

Johannis [repr. Amsterdam,

1967], 26 ff.) and Dornseiff have demon-

strated the wide

diffusion

of

this lore

in

antiquity,

but its

application

here is

clearly

inappropriate.

3

Cf. Plut.

Mor.

382

A,

Theon

Smyrn.

I9,

van

den

Bergh,

Ztschr.

.

neutest. Wiss. xiii

(19I2), 295

ff.

4

Cf.

H.

A.

Sanders,

C.Ph.

iii

(1908),

317

ff.,

Cato

Origines

I,

ed.

W. A.

Schr6der,

pp.

76

ff.







112

NICHOLAS

HORSFALL

Aen.

I.

273;

cf.

Vahlen,

Ennius2,

cliii

ff.

and

Eratosthenes,

F.G.H.

241

F

45)-

However,

the

development

of Greek

chronography

had

long

since

rejected

the

dating implied by

these

genealogies.

Timaeus'

date for the fall

of

Troy

is

variously attested as lying between I

I93/4

and 1346 B.C.xIt is probable that in

his

general

history

he

followed

the

conventional

account which

placed

the

foundation of

Rome some

two

generations

after

the

Trojan

War

(Jacoby,

Comm. on

F.G.H.

566

F

59-61);

but

in

his

work on

Pyrrhus,

he

linked

the

foundation

of Rome with that

of

Carthage,

placing

both

in

814/3

(F.G.H.

566

F

60o).

What

attempt

if

any

he

made to

fill

the

gap

between

Troy

and Rome

implied by

this

dating

is

not

known,

but

clearly

he

had now

supplied

the

chronological

framework

required

by

the

Alban

king-list.2

Diodes

of

Pepare-

thus

(F.G.H.

820

F

2)

may

have

referred to

a line

of

Aeneas'

descendants

ruling

at

Alba,

and there

is

no

prima

facie

reason to

doubt

Plutarch's state-

ment that Fabius Pictor,who placed the foundation of Rome in 748/7 (1. 8. I;

fr. 6

P)

'followed

him

in

most

points'.

Thereafter,

the

Alban

kings,

even

though

their names

and

reigns

were

not

stabilized

until

later,

formed

an

integral

part

of the Roman historical

tradition,

and we

may

now

consider more

closely

how

Virgil's

chronology

is

related to this

tradition.

On

the first

three

elements

in

the

chronology

of the

Troy-to-Rome

period,

there

is

only

room

for minor

disagreement:

(I)

The

voyage

of

Aeneas:

Aen.

I.

755

f.

nam te

iam

septima

portat

...

aestas,

and

5.

626

septima post

Troiae

excidium

iam

vertitur

aestas;

cf.

D.H.

I.

63.

I

Lavinium

founded two

years

after the

departure

from

Troy

(though

D.H.

alludes to

disagreement

on the

subject);

'Cephalon

of

Gergis' (F.G.H.

45

F

I2

(b)

=

D.H.

I.

72.

I)

:

two

years;

Hemina fr.

7

P:

two

years

of

voyages;

D.S.

7.

5.

2

three

years

between the

capture

of

Troy

and

Aeneas

becoming king

of

the

Latins

(contrast Jerome's

version,

Eus.

Chron.

[I1179

B.C.]

three

years-sive,

ut

quidam

olunt

ight

from the

capture

of

Troy

to the

beginning

of Aeneas'

reign

in

Italy);

Cosconius

fr.

4

Funaioli

(a pre-Varronian

grammarian)

: Lavinium

built

in the

fourth

year

after

the fall

of

Troy;

Clem. Strom.

I.

21.

137

ten

years

from

the

fall

of

Troy

to the arrival in

Italy

and

foundation

of

Lavinium.

Cf.

A.

Schwegler,

Rbmische

Geschichte

(Tiibingen,

1853),

284

n.

I.

(2)

Aeneas' rule in

Italy.

In the

Aeneid,

he

apparently

defeats

Turnus,

marries

Lavinia,

and founds

Lavinium soon after

landing;

at

Lavinium

he

reigns

for

three

years

(I.

265

f.)

;

cf.

App. Reg.

fr.

I.

2:

joint

rule with Faunus

for

three

years,

and

three

years

sole

rule;

D.H.

I.

64.

I

:

the

third

year

after

Aeneas

left

Troy

he

ruled over

the

Trojans

alone,

but

in

the

fourth

year

Latinus died and

he

succeeded

to his

kingdom, dying

himself

in

the

seventh

year

after

leaving

Troy

(I.

65.

I);

D.S.

7.

5.

2

and

Eus.-Jerome:

three

years'

rule;

Eus.-versio

rmenia:

ight

years'

rule;

Syncellus,

p.

423:

various

lengths

of

rule.

(3)

Ascanius.

Virgil

tells

us

(i.

269

ff.) triginta magnos

volvendis

mensibus

annos

imperioexplebit, regnumque sede Lavini transferet t Longammulta vi munietAlbam.

The sentence

is more

ambiguous

than has been

recognized.

Does V. mean

that Ascanius

will rule

for

thirty years

at Lavinium

(the

first

explanation

in

Forbiger),

or for

thirty years

partly

at Lavinium

and

partly

atAlba

(Williams)

or

SCf.

Jacoby,

Comm.

on

F.G.H.

566

F

125-6,

H.

Fynes

Clinton,

Fasti Hellenici

iii

(Oxford,

1834), 490

note x.

2

Cf.

Jacoby, Commentary, pp.

565, 575,

E.

Gabba,

EntretiensHardt

xiii

(1966),

142.

3

Rom.

3.

I;

cf.

Gabba

loc.

cit.,

A. Momi-

gliano,

Terzo

Contributo

Rome,

1966),

62

f.,

Quarto

Contributo

Rome,

1969),

489.







VIRGIL'S

ROMAN

CHRONOGRAPHY:

A

RECONSIDERATION

113

that

Ascanius

will

complete

the

thirty years

of

rule

assigned

to

the

city

of

Lavinium

and will then

found Alba

(implied

by

Conington

and secundo

oco

by

Servius)

?

The

third

meaning

does no violence

to

the Latin

('will

complete

the

thirty years') and is the only one in keeping with parallel accounts of the

legend.

Fabius

Pictor

(fr.

4

P) perhaps

devised

the

symbol

of

the

thirty piglets

born

to the

sus

alba

for the

thirty years

that

would

elapse

before

Alba

Longa

was

founded

(cf.

A.

Alf6ldi,

Early

Rome and the

Latins

[Ann

Arbor,

n.d.],

274,

etc.);

cf.

Cato

Orig.

r.

13

P,

Varr. R.R.

2.

4.

18,

D.S.

7.

5.

6,

Aen.

8.

47

f.,

D.H.

I.

56.

4

f.;

in

none

of these

texts is

a

precise

terminus

quogiven,

but

elsewhere

the

thirty

years

run

specifically

from

the

foundation of

Lavinium

to

the

foundation

ofAlba :

Varr.

L.L.

5.

144,

Liv.

I.

3

4,

D.H.

I.

66.

I,

D.C.

I.

fr.

I.

3,

O.G.R.

17.

I

(completis

n

Lavinio

triginta

annis).

Ascanius

continued

to

reign

at Alba

after

its foundationfor a total of thirty-eightyearson the throne (cf. D.H. I. 66. I,

with

I.

70.

I, App. Reg.

fr.

I.

3,

Eus.

Chron.

II1176

.C.).

Cf.

Clinton

op.

cit. i.

136

f.,

Schr6der

op.

cit.

140

ff.,

Schwegler op.

cit.

i.

337

n.

I,

W.

Ehlers,

M.H.

vi

(1949),

169

f.

(4)

Kings

of Alba.

Various

adjustments

must be

made before we

can obtain

figures

to

compare

with

Virgil's 300 years.

First,

we should

recall

that

his

300

years

run

down

to

the birth of

Romulus,

and

not

to the

foundation

of

the

city,

which,

by

general

agreement,

took

place

I8

years

ater

(D.H.

2.

56.

7, Eusebius).

Secondly,

we must

subtract

from the

figures

below

a

sum to cover

the

interval

between

the fall

of

Troy

and the

foundation

of Alba

(36

or

40

years)

:

Author

From To

rears

Cato

Orig.

r.

17

P

Fall

of

Troy

Founding

of

Rome

432

(Varro)x

Aeneas'arrival

n

Founding

of

Rome

439

Italy

D.H.

I.

71.

5

Fall of

Troy Founding

of

Rome

432

Vell.

I.

8.

4

Fall of

Troy Founding

of

Rome

437

D.S.

7. 5.

2 Fall of

Troy Founding

of

Rome

433

Sol.

I.

27

Fall of

Troy Founding

of

Rome

432

Eus.-Jer.

Aeneas'accession

n

Founding

of

Rome

426

Italy

Strab.

5. 3.

2

Founding

of

Alba.

Rivalry

between

Amulius

400

and Numitor

For

some other

dates,

cf.

below,

and

Th.

Mommsen,

Rimische

Chronologie,

(Berlin,

1859),

155

n.

294,

L.

Holzapfel,

Rimische

Chronologie Leipzig,

1885),

270.

When

all

adjustments

have been

made,

it

will be seen that there

is a

basic

divergence

between

Virgil's

years

between

the

foundation of

the Alban

monarchy

and the birth

of Romulus

(300)

and the

380-odd implied by

other

writers.

But

it

would seem that the

figure

of

3oo

has some

independent support:

though Justin's

reference

(Epit.

43.

I.

I3)

to

Alba as

having

been a

caput regni

for

300 years

s

probably

no more than a

Virgilian

reminiscence

(cf.

O.

Leuze,

Die

riimische

Jahrzdhlung

[Tiibingen,

I909],

289

n.

356), Livy's

mention

of

Alba

(I.

29.

6;

cf.

Arnob.

7.

28), captured

by

Tullus Hostilius about a

century

after the

foundation of

Rome,

as

quadringentorum

nnorum

pus (rather

than

I

Lyd.

Mag.

I.

2,

alleging

that the

date

given

is

that of

Cato

and

Varro.

Since the

date

given

is

wrong

for

Cato,

there

is

no

good

reason

why

it should

be

right

for

Varro.

I







114

NICHOLAS HORSFALL

quingentorum)

oints

clearly

to the

same

pattern

of

reckoning

that

Virgil

used,

as does Arnobius'

420

years

(quot

apud

Albam

regnatum

st

annis,

2.

71).

Yet

we are no nearer

answering

the

question

of

why

Virgil gives

us a

date

for

the Alban kingswhich he must have known to have been at variancewith the

common historical

tradition,

in

order to

produce

a

symmetrical

progression

of

numbers

(3-30-300)

and

a

magical

total

of

years (333).

O.

A. W. Dilke

(C.

Q.

N.s.

xvii

[1967],

322

ff.)

sets the

passage

in

a

disputable

context of

Virgilian

obsession with such

multiples.2

The

evidence

of

Livy

and Arnobius

must

rule

out an

explanation

purely

in terms of

the

poet's

arithmocratic

Muse.

Nor does

the

interpretation

of

Virgil's 333

years

as

the

old

Roman

chronology,

unin-

fluenced

by

Greek

learning, carry

any

conviction;

there

is

no

evidence

at all in

its

favour.3

That

some form

of

magical

or

mystical

calculation lies

behind

Virgil's

figure

has

long

been

recognized,4

and the

correctness

of

this

view

is

demonstratedby the peculiarcharacter of the number333 (seeabove, p.

I1I).

Yet

the antecedents of

Virgil's

arithmetic have

almost

completely

escaped

discussion: Mommsen

(loc. cit.) suggests

the

influence of

the

'Augustan'

saeculum f

I

Io

years,

pointing acutely

to

Aen.

12.

826

sint Albani

per

saecula

reges.s

Three

I Io-year

saecula,however,

make

only 330 years,

and

though

we

cannot rule

out the

possibility

of 'secular'

theories

having

influenced

Virgil's

Alban

dating,

the

difference between

330

and

333

is

crucial;

330

has

neither

the

symmetry

nor the

qualities

of

the

larger

number. In

considering

the

in-

fluence

of

numerology

on

chronography,

we must

be careful to

give

blind

Chance her due: Miss

Sordi's

explanation

of

333

(see

this

page,

n.

2)

shows her

busily

at

work;

better still is the

example

furnished

by

the

Regum

series

ecundum

nterpretem

rmenium

Eus.

Chron.,

d.

Sch6ne,

i.

app.

i

col.

12)

:

under

Latinorum

eges

we read that from the

accession

of Aeneas

to

the

fall

of

Tarquinius

Superbus

there

elapsed

666

years

Yet

occasionally

the

ancients'

awareness of

the freakish

conjunction

of

chronology

and

arithmetic can be

demonstrated,

as

in

the case of the

365th

year

of the

city (Liv.

5.

54- 5,

with

Ogilvie's note).

No

statement

so

explicit

illuminates

the darkness

around

Virgil's 333 years, yet

I

would

like to

suggest-very

tentatively-a

context

in

which

number-mysticismmay

well have

been

applied

to Roman

chronology:

in 88

B.c.,

among many other portents,a trumpet was heard in the heavens;

the

haruspices

ere consulted

by

the

Senate,

and

(Plut.

Sull.

7. 3)

LEroafloXAv

ErEpov

EVOvC

aiTEalWOVTOV7

a2l

ETaKOC/LJCv

TrrOC7)/LaCtVEW

T0

rEpac.

Two

orthree

I

Holzapfel,

268

f.

ingeniously

points

out

that

when

Eutropius gives

294 years

as the

average

(ut qui plurimum

minimumque

radunt,

I.

i)

for

the

lapse

of

time

between

the fall

of

Troy

and

the foundation

of

Rome,

this

figure

is in fact the

average

of

Virgil's

333

(though

358

would

be

more

accurate )

and

the

455 years

implied by

Cincius

Alimentus

fr. 4 P.

2

Cf.

L. P.

Wilkinson,

The

Georgics of

Virgil (Cambridge,

1969),

316

ff. But

one is

grateful

for

Dilke's

firm

rejection

(323 f.)

of

M.

Sordi's

hypothesis

(Athen.

N.S.

xlii

[1964],

83)

that V. has

transferred his

333

from

the

lapse

of

years

between the

capture

of Veii

and

the

birth

of

Augustus.

3

Cf.

Holzapfel,

277,

Mommsen,

I58

n.

31

I,

and

particularly

Leuze, 289.

4

Cf.

Heyne

exc.

iii

on

Bk. xii

videtur

etiam secutus sse

arcanum

quid,

Maury, 144

f,

Schwegler,

i.

344,

Mommsen,

I58.

s

This

was

known to

Varro

(de gente

fr.

2

Fracc.

=

Aug.

C.D.

22.

28).

Cf.

too Momm-

sen,

135,

who took Cincius

Alimentus'

foundation date

of

729/8

as

presupposing

a

duration of two I

Io-year

saecula for the

monarchy,

and

identified

C.

in

consequence

with the

late

republican antiquary

(G.R.F.,

371

f.);

cf.

however,

Holzapfel,

234,

Peter,

H.R.R.

i.

cxiii

f.

Note too

that Cic.

Rep.

2.

fr.

93

Heck

(

=

Non.

p. 526. Io)

gives

as

220

years

the

period during

which

the constitutio

Romuli

.

. firma

mansisset:

the work

of

chance?







VIRGIL'S

ROMAN CHRONOGRAPHY:

A

RECONSIDERATION

I15

years

earlier,

most

probably,

the

'Prophecy

of

Vegoia'

(Grom.

Vet.

I,

p.

348

ff.)

was written 'on

account of

the

greed

of

the

eighth

saeculum

ow almost at

its

end'

(tr.

W. V.

Harris,

Rome

in Etruria and Umbria

[Oxford,

1971],

34

n.

2).

The lore about the ten ages assigned to the Etruscan people had not been

clarified or formalized

by

the first

century

B.C.,

and

apparently

never was

(cf.

Harris,

36

f.,

S.

Weinstock,

Divus

lulius

[Oxford,

1971],

I92),

but this

does

not

mean

that it

was

particularly

obscure or

unfamiliar.

Even

though,

according

to

the

Tuscaehistoriae

ited

by

Varro

(Cens.

17.

6),

this

system

was

specifically

concerned with the

fate of the

nomen

Etruscum,

t is

worth

observing

that

88,

a

year

of

prophecy

and

portent,

was,

to

the

Romans,

666

A.V.C.,

and it

would not

be

surprising

f

by

this

date

numerological theory

had

exercised

some

influence

on Etruscan

priestcraft (certainly

one can see both Etruscan

and

Pythagorean

elements

in

Nigidius

Figulus,

a

generation

later),

and

if

a

year

fatal

for the

Etruscans was also in some way epochal for Rome. The full extent of 'secular'

speculation

around

the

year

666

A.V.C.

remains

obscure

to

us,

but

if,

as I

suggest, play

was

made with the

mystical aspects

of this

date,

then an

exten-

sion of

number-mysticism

n

closely

parallel

terms,

beyond

the era

A.V.C.,

to

cover the

era a

Troia

capta

as

well,

is

an

attractive

inference,

and

if

it

were

correct

would

be

a

likely

source for

Virgil,

whose

333

years

cannot

simply

be

dismissed

as a

poet's

idiosyncratic

disavowal of

the

'facts'

of

history

for the sake

of an

unspecified

'magical'

effect.

University College

London

NICHOLAS

HORSFALL





virgils roman chronography.pdf

Documents