¹ ‘The Disappearance of the Earliest Latin Poetry,’ CR 26, 1912, 48–9Google Scholar = Roman Essays and Interpretations 71–2 (cf. pp. 238–40).

² Storia dei Romani I, 1907, 22–5; cf. ‘La Légende historique des premiers siècles de Rome’, Journal des Savants 1909, 126–132, 205–14Google Scholar; 1910, 310–319. De Sanctis was followed by E. Ciaceri, Le Origini di Roma 1937, 47–56 and passim. Kornemann, E., Der Priestercodex in der Regia (Tübingen, 1912), 7Google Scholar, n. 5, mentioned De Sanctis with contempt for this return to Niebuhr.

³ Rostagni, A., Storia delta Letteratura latina (2nd ed., Torino, 1954) I, 38–52, 63–5Google Scholar. This is a very detailed discussion with up-to-date bibliography. Rostagni takes the ‘Carmen Priami’ and the ‘Carmen Nelei’ to be banquet songs (‘carmi convivali’): but the ‘Carmen Nelei’ was probably dramatic, and the ‘Carmen Priami’ is probably not archaic: see below. C. Barbagallo, Il problema delle origini di Roma da Vico a noi (1926), does not examine the history of the controversy on the ballad theory.

⁴ Pareti, L., Storia di Roma I (1952), 4 ffGoogle Scholar. For a different opinion cf. Mariotti, Scevola, Livio Andronico e la traduzione artistica (Milano, 1952) 32–3Google Scholar. See also above, pp. 59 ff., for P. Fraccaro's views.

⁵ Bowra, C. M., Heroic Poetry (1952) 46, 383Google Scholar.

⁶ I quote from C. Cornelii Taciti et C. Velleii Paterculi scripta quae extant (Parisiis, 1608), 123. Lipsius of course already combines Germ. 2, 3, with Ann. 2, 88, 4, ‘caniturque adhuc barbaras apud gentes’ and Einhardus, Vita Karoli Magni 29, ‘Item barbara et antiquissima carmina quibus veterum regum actus et bella canebantur, scripsit memoriaeque mandavit.’ Lipsius probably derived his information about American ‘cantiones’ from F. Balduinus, De historia lib. I, in Artis Historicae Penus I (Basileae, 1579), 649.

⁷ Gramm. Lat. I, p. 484, Keil.

⁸ I quote from the Soncino ed. of Pesaro 1511, no page, but the same text also in the Venice ed. 1495. Thence Coelius Rhodiginus, Led. Antiq. Libri Triginta (Basileae, 1542, quoted by me from the Geneva ed. 1620, col. 324): ‘Epica digne omnium primus scripsit Livius qui decem et octo libris Romanorum res gestas perscripsit.’ But Rhodiginus did not transcribe the whole passage of Diomedes and therefore cannot be the source of Vico, as has been suggested.

⁹ Scienza Nuova Seconda, ed. Nicolini, 1942, II, 2, 5 (vol. II, p. 201, prg. 471). Here Vico refers to the above quoted passage of Tacitus, Germania, and to Lipsius' commentary on it. cf. Nicolini, F., Commento Storico alia Seconda Scienza Nuova I (1949), 192Google Scholar. G. l.Vossius, De Historicis Latinis (2 ed., 1651) 6, had noticed the mistake of the editors of Diomedes, but it is typical of Vico's lack of scholarly accuracy that he did not pay attention to Vossius's warning.

¹⁰ For instance, L. Pareti, Storia di Roma 1, 4, ‘che buona parte della storia di Roma nei primi secoli sia stata primamente raccolta e formulata dall'epica popolare, è una verità percepita già dal Perizonio (1685) e dal Vico (1710 sgg.).’ cf. also De Sanctis, Journ. d. Savants 1909, 132.

¹¹ Animadversiones Historicae (Amstelaedami, 1685) 204Google Scholar: ‘De Arabibus similia pene observavit vir Excellentiss. P. Dan. Huetius, quum originem Fabularum Romanensium explicuit.’ The reference is to De Origine Fabularum Romanensium ex Gallico latine reddidit G. Pyrrho (Hagae Comitis, 1682) 13. Perizonius may also have read the following passage in F. Balduinus, De Historia, lib. I, in Artis Historicae Penus I, 648: ‘Sed iuvat admirari singularem Dei providentiam qua factum est, ut et olim multis modis rerum praeteritarum memoria conservata sit. … Quid dicam, carminibus tantum, quae ediscerentur, et cantionibus quae iactarentur, vulgata diu fuisse, quae postea tandem literis consecrata sunt ? Fateor tamen multa esse amissa. Cicero in Bruto: Utinam (inquit) extarent ilia carmina etc.’ Balduinus did not think that the ‘carmina’ had been used by Roman historians (see p. 650). cf. also J. Selden, Opera II (Londini, 1726), 969–982 (Janus Anglorum, L. 1), and Perizonius's note on Valerius Maximus II, 1, 10, ed. A. Torrenius, Leidae, 1726.

¹² I do not know of any monograph on Perizonius, who certainly deserves one. See the Oratio Funebris by A. Schultingius (Lugduni Bat. 1725) and the Vita by E. L. Vriemoet reprinted in the ed. of the Animadversiones by Th. Chr. Harles (Altenburgi, 1771): also the Elogium in Actis Eruditorum Lips. (1716) 95–6, and the Vita by Westhovius, F. G. preceding Orationes XII (1740)Google Scholar. Other references in Knappert, L., Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek V (1921), 467–9Google Scholar. Knappert's article does not mention the Animadversiones.

¹³ Cluverius, Italia Antiqua (Lugduni Bat. 1624) III, c. 2, pp. 820–855; S. Bochart, Lettre à M. de Segrais (1663), which I read in the Latin translation by J. Schefferus, De quaestione num Aeneas unquam fuerit in Italia in appendix to S. Bochart, Geographia Sacra (Francofurti, 1674). Cluverius wrote: ‘Merum igitur figmentum est quod post Homerum sive poetae sive λοуοуράϕоι ac μνθоλόуоι de Aeneae in Italiam adventu regnoque inibi constituto tradiderunt’ (p. 834). Also ‘Hactenus igitur falsus urbis Romanae conditor Romulus satis remotus est. Quo prostrato nihil est quod aliquis mihi heic amplius proavos eius, certa serie ab Aenea stirpem ducentes, obtendat’ (p. 832). Bochart was attacked by Perizonius's predecessor at Leiden, Th. Ryckius, in his appendix to L. Holstenius, Notae et Castigationes Postumae in Stephani Byzantini ΕΘΝΙΚΑ (Lugd. Bat., 1684) 395–467. Later H. Dodwell, De Veter. Graecorum Romanorumque cyclis (Oxonii,1701), 675–680, joined the sceptics with his remarks on the kings of Alba. Dodwell, though a friend and an admirer of Perizonius (with whom he corresponded), was more radical. He did not believe that there had been authentic records of the Alban kings and added ‘Caeterum ego tarn longe me abesse fateor ut Regum Albanorum tempora certa putem, ut vel Romuli habeam suspecta’. Also J. Gronovius, Dissert. de origine Romuli (Lugd. Bat., 1684) expressed doubts on the Romulus legend: he thought that Romulus came from the East. On the historical pyrrhonism of this time see Momigliano, Contributo alla storia degli studi classici (1955) 79 ff.

¹⁴ This very important ‘oratio’ was reprinted in Orationes XII (Lugduni Bat., 1740) 103–154.

¹⁵ Vorträge über römische Geschichte I (ed. M. Isler, 1846), 71, ‘Von 1684 an ist eigentlich philologisch für die römische Geschichte so gut wie nichts geschehen’ (this N. said in 1828–9, perhaps repeating his lectures of 1826–7).

¹⁶ Preface to the Clavis Ciceroniana, 1739, ‘Perizonii animadversiones … harum litterarum studiosis valde necessarias putamus.’

¹⁷ Dissert. De Rep. Romana quae agit de Historia Romuli et Romanae Urbis Origine in Dissert. Septem (Lugduni Bat., 1740), 681–714. The date of this dissertation is not known to me, but is certainly later than 1693. It was apparently never printed during Perizonius's life-time.

¹⁸ See Mem. Acad. Royale Inscriptions vols. 4 and 6 (1723 and 1729). An occasional reference to the ‘chants, où l'on célebroit les bienfaits des Dieux, la grandeur de Rome naissante et les belles actions des illustres Romains’ is to be found there (cf. ’Mém. 6, 127, and also Mém. 4, 389). But they do not go nearer to the ‘carmina’. It is perhaps not useless to remind the reader that during this discussion l'Abbé Sallier produced a devastating exposure of the so-called Parallela minora attributed to Plutarch. Others had preceded him (see Vossius, De Historicis Graecis 112; Perizonius, Animadversiones ch. 1, p. 9) but none was so thorough. Notice also the article ‘Tanaquil’ in Bayle, Dictionnaire (ed. 1697, II, 1123) which establishes the debt of seventeenth-century Pyrrhonism to L. Valla.

¹⁹ 'Επίκρισιѕ ϕλολγική ‘sive stricturae in nuperum Franci cuiusdam libellum de incerto historiae Romanorum antiquissimae’, Miscellanea Lipsiensia Nova I (1742), 40–79; II (1743), 409–495; II (1743), 620–712 (671–4 on the carmina vetusta); III (1744), 235–329.

²⁰ Röm. Gesch. I ed., 1, 169, n. 8; 4 ed., 1, 256, n, 660. ‘Es giebt ausser Italien und Griechenland für den Philologen keinen heiligeren Ort, als den Saal der Universität zu Leyden.’ cf. Nachgelassene Schriften (Hamburg, 1842), 141 (the account of the visit to Leiden contained in this book is most significant for Niebuhr's development. See especially p. 133). The first edition of the Röm. Geschichte was, as is well known, published in 1811–12 (in two vols.). The second edition of the first volume was published in 1827, the third in 1828. The second volume had a second edition in 1830. A third volume appeared in 1832 after Niebuhr's death. I quote from the so-called 4 ed. of vol. I (1833) and from the so-called 3 ed. of vol. II (1836), which are reprints.

²¹ A portrait of Perizonius was painted by K. de Moor and is still hanging in the University Library of Leiden. A copy of it for the Senate Room of the University was made by H. van der Mij, c. 1737. I owe this information to Professor W. den Boer, of Leiden.

²² See Vorträge über Römische Geschichte I, 71; Röm. Geschichte 4 ed., preface and I, 268, with the note ‘Dass mir dies unbekannt war als ich zuerst über diesen Gegenstand schrieb, gestehe ich nicht ohne Erröthen; doch wussten es auch wenigstens die nicht, welche mich bestritten’.

²³ Kramer, G., Elogium Jacobi Perizonii (diss. Berlin, 1828)Google Scholar: its origin explained on p. 3. The Elogium is dedicated to Niebuhr, and of course Perizonius is the predecessor of Niebuhr (p. 29). It is quoted by Sandys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship III (1908), 79Google Scholar, n. 2, but is not available either in the British Museum or in the Bodleian. I have used the copy in the Leiden Library. About Niebuhr in Bonn cf. F. von Bezold, Geschichte der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (1920) 260–275.

²⁴ Besides A. W. Schlegel quoted below, n. 30, see Wachsmuth, W., Die ältere Geschichte des römischen Staates (Halle, 1819) 19–23Google Scholar. Wachsmuth quite rightly emphasized the differences between Greek and Roman historiography and criticized the attribution of the ‘carmina’ to the plebeians. Also Bernhardy, G., Grundriss der römischen Litteratur (Halle, 1830) 71Google Scholar, disagreed with Niebuhr: the disagreement is expanded in later editions, for instance 5 ed. (Braunschweig, 1872), 42 and 196. cf. Zell, K., ‘Ueber die Volkslieder der alten Römer,’ Ferienschriften (1829) II, 97–224Google Scholar (especially 170–200), and Corssen, W., Origines poesis romanae (Berlin, 1846), 112–124Google Scholar.

²⁵ Röm. Gesch. II, 3, ed., 7. Among the points on which Niebuhr changed his mind there is the value of Cato's evidence (1, 4 ed., 268). He now recognized that Cato talked about the past. But his description of the ‘Lieder’ remained substantially the same (cf. I, 4 ed., 272–4, with I, 1 ed., 178): some were longer (‘die [Geschichte] von Romulus bildet fur sich eine Epopöe’), some shorter (for instance, about Numa). With L. Tarquinius Priscus a poem started that ended with the battle of Lake Regillus. Niebuhr also thought that Ennius had used these ballads in his poem. In the second edition he tried to establish some connection between the ballads, the ‘neniae’, and the inscriptions of the Scipiones; this may be disregarded here.

²⁶ A study of the evolution of Niebuhr's critical methods from the first to the second edition of the Römische Geschichte has not yet been written. I know that Dr. G. Giarrizzo is collecting material for this purpose. Niebuhr's debt to Wolf is clear from the start (Briefe I, 31; 437 cf. Lebensnachrichten II, 7), and Herder (who had written a famous letter to Niebuhr's father, Werke 24, 467) is in the background. About 1810 Niebuhr was interested in the Nibelungen (Briefe I, 129) and must have read the brothers Grimm's earliest researches. But the rise of German and Romance philology happened between the two editions of the Römische Geschichte. cf. on Niebuhr's early phase Dilthey, W., Gesammelte Schriften III, 1927, 269–275Google Scholar; Kuentzel, G., ‘Niebuhrs Römische Geschichte und ihr zeitgenoessischer politischer Gehalt’, Festgabe für F. C. Ebrard (Frankfurt, 1920), 177–190Google Scholar; Norvin, W., ‘N. og den historiske kritik,’ Scandia 4, 1931, 155–170Google Scholar (162–7 on the ballad theory); E. Kornemann, Histor. Zeitschrift 145 (1932), 277–300. On the romantic theories of epic poetry cf. the bibliography given by I. Siciliano, Les origines des chansons (1951), and by M. Thorp, The Study of the Nibelungenlied (1940). D. Comparetti, Il Kalevala o la Poesia tradizionale dei Finni (1891) is now available in Poesia e Pensiero del Mondo Antico (Napoli, 1944), 278–552Google Scholar. See also K. Wais, Frühe Epik Westeuropas (1953).

²⁷ Most typical is his section on ‘Die innern Fehden der Patricier’ (3 ed. II, 141–6). ‘Von den Fehden unter den Patriciern ist in der Geschichte jede Erwähnung ausgetilgt … Was die Chronikene ewiger Vergessenheit übergaben, darüber durften die Ritualbücher nicht schweigen.’ cf. also II, 188–193, on Sp. Cassius. Niebuhr is not always very kind towards the annalists themselves, e.g. 11, 281.

²⁸ cf. Röm. Gesch. 3 ed., I, 255 = 4 ed., I, 241.

²⁹ What poetic sources Niebuhr ascribed to Herodotus is not always clear. One source was Choerilus (Vorträge über alte Geschichte ed. Niebuhr, M. (Berlin, 1847) I, 387Google Scholar), but others are more vaguely indicated as ‘Volkssagen, poetische Sagen’ (I, 205, indirectly used by Herodotus? 402 ff.). cf. also Römische Geschichte 4 ed., I, 260, ‘bei den Griechen hat noch der Perserkrieg den Charakter freier epischer Dichtung.’ Niebuhr repeatedly emphasized the epic character of Livy: Briefe I, 318 (1804)Google Scholar; Kleine Schriften I, 1828, 90Google Scholar.

³⁰ Werke XII, 444–512, from HeideVbergische Jahrbücher 1816, 833 ff.; the opinion on the ‘carmina’, 448, 497. On p. 453, ‘Wo Hr. Niebuhr einen Nachhall altitalischer Poesie zu vernehmen glaubt, da spüren wir nichts als griechische und gräcisierende Rhetorik.’ Among the supporters of the Greek origin of some Roman traditions there is Pais, E. in his ‘prima maniera’: Studi Storici 2, 1893, 145–189Google Scholar, 314–357; Storia di Roma I, 1, 1898 (on the ‘carmina’, pp. 8–10); Ricerche storiche e geografiche (Torino, 1908), 306–449Google Scholar. W. Soltau unconvincingly analysed the Roman tradition in terms of Greek substance and Roman form: Die Anfänge der roemischen Geschichtsschreibung (1909).

³¹ Nitzsch, K. W., Die Römische Annalistik (Berlin, 1873) 249Google Scholar; cf. Historische Zeitschrift II, 1864, 1–30Google Scholar; Niebuhr, Röm. Geschichte I, 4 ed., 274, had written: ‘Wenn die pontificischen Annalen die Geschichte für die Patricier verfälschten, so herrscht in dieser ganzen Dichtung plebejischer Sinn.’ On Nitzsch and Niebuhr, Merzdorf, H., K.W.N. Die methodischen Grundlagen seiner Geschichtsschreibung (Leipzig, 1913) 4–40Google Scholar, is important.

³² Römische Geschichte I (1853), 53–73Google Scholar, with a very complete bibliography, and cf. Willenborg, H. C., De Diode Peparethio … deque Niebuhrio etc. (diss. Münster, 1853)Google Scholar. cf. Lewis, G. C., An Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History I (London, 1855), 202–242Google Scholar. On the importance of G. C. Lewis see my remarks in Contributo alla storia degli studi classici (1955), 249–262. Among the supporters of Niebuhr there was Schlegel, Friedrich, Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur (1812), Berlin, 1841, 75–8Google Scholar. Later Krepelka, M. A., ‘Römische Sagen und Gebräuche,’ Philologus 37 (1877), 450–523Google Scholar (the second part of this study does not seem to have appeared). H. Usener's ‘Italian myths’ have nothing to do with Niebuhr's ‘Roman ballads’.

³³ Röm. Forschungen II (1879), 113–152Google Scholar. Bachofens', J. J. attack against it (1870) in Die Sage von Tanaquil, Gesammelte Werke 6 (1951), 380–405Google Scholar (see also E. Kienzle's Nachwort, 455). Bachofen's criticisms are very damaging to Mommsen (especially on the point of the meaning of ӏσοΨηφία), but do not contribute anything positive. Mommsen's approach to early Roman history is defined in Röm. Geschichte I (8 ed. 1888), 88Google Scholar: ‘nur durch Rückschlüsse aus den späteren Institutionen.’

³⁴ Mommsen-Wilamowitz, Briefwechsel 1935, 43, ‘die Niebuhrsche Wahnkritik.’ cf. Die römischen Tribus in administrativer Beziehung (1844) p. viii. Elsewhere Mommsen was more guarded in his expressions about Niebuhr's method, cf. Reden und Aufsdtze 1905, 199, and the juvenile utterances in Juristische Schriften (Gesamm. Werke) III (1907), 465, 586Google Scholar. The introduction by Gerhard, D. to Die Briefe B. G. Niebuhrs I (1926), lvi–lviiGoogle Scholar, is still too conventional on this matter, cf. A. Heuss, Theodor Mommsen und das 19. Jahrhundert (Kiel, 1956) 22Google Scholar, and the important letter from Mommsen published by Wucher, A., Th. Mommsen (Gottingen, 1956), 131–2Google Scholar.

³⁵ Röm. Geschichte I, 8 ed., 1888, p. 229. ‘Nur die Griechen und die Deutschen besitzen den freiwillig hervorsprudelnden Liederquell.’

³⁶ Röm. Gesch. I ed., 1, 430; 3 ed., II, 273. The analysis of Coriolanus' legend is very different in the two editions. In the first edition Niebuhr emphasizes the peculiarity of the surname Coriolanus and the various versions of his death; in the second edition he makes a determined effort to explain why Coriolanus remained a hero to t he Romans (II, 271; the whole page is typical of Niebuhr's method). He suggests that Coriolanus gave up the idea of bringing political exiles back to Rome.

³⁷ Die Römische Annalistik 249.

³⁸ Storia dei Romani I, 22, n. 44, ‘il Niebuhr che qui, come altrove, ha segnato la via giusta smarrita poi da'suoi successori.’ Among earlier Italian supporters of Niebuhr, notice Bonghi, R., Storia di Roma II (1888), 244–8Google Scholar.

³⁹ Valer. Max. 2, 1,9, ‘maiores natu in conviviis ad tibias egregia superiorum opera carmine comprehensa pangebant, quo ad ea imitanda iuventutem alacriorem redderent.’ Cato in his carmen de moribus had expressed another view about early Roman poetry: ‘Poeticae artis honos non erat. Si quis in ea re studebat aut sese ad convivia adplicabat, crassator vocabatur’ (Aul. Gell. N.A. 11, 2, 5). I admit that the relation between this statement and the other about the banquet songs is not clear to me (perhaps it was not clear to Cato either). It is idle to speculate about Cato's sources, but it is good to remember that Roman jurisprudents were bound to know something about the various kinds of ‘carmina’. See below, p. 113, n. 61.

⁴⁰ Carm. 4, 15, 26–32. cf. Quintil 1, 10, 20. It is traditional to assume that both Horace and Quintilian refer to the banquet songs, and I do not want to disagree; but their words are by no means explicit.

⁴¹ Atene e Roma 4 (1923), 51–4Google Scholar. It is worth recalling Suet., Aug. 100, ‘canentibus neniam principum liberis utriusque sexus,’ on which cf. H. de la Ville de Mirmont, Études sur l'ancienne poésie latine (1903) 361.

⁴² Storia di Roma I, p. 4. cf. also Manni, E., ‘Intorno alla questione dei carmi conviviali etc.,’ Mondo Classico 5, I, 1935, 130–9Google Scholar. But contra, Riposati, B., Varronis, M. Terenti, De Vita Populi Romani (Milano, 1939) 187–193Google Scholar.

⁴³ H. Dahlmann, ‘Zur Ueberlieferung über die altrömischen Tafellieder,’ Abh. Akad. Mainz 1950, n. 17, 1191–1202. He is approved by Gigon, O., Festschrift A. Debrunner (Bern, 1954), 151Google Scholar n. cf. W. Kroll, P-W, s.v., ‘Nenia’, col. 2393; F.Altheim, Epochen d. röm. Geschichte I (1934), 223–4. Reitzenstein, R., Hermes 48, 1913, 268–272Google Scholar, tried to eliminate both ‘caniturque adhuc barbaras apud gentes’ about Arminius (Tac., Ann. 2, 88) and Dionys. VIII, 62, about Coriolanus as evidence for ‘Heldenlieder’. I am not sure that he has succeeded in either case. On Coriolanus see below, p. 111. In the case of Tacitus Reitzenstein did not take into account the contrast ‘canitur—Graecorum annalibus ignotus’ to be compared with ‘celebrant carminibus antiquis—quod unum apud illos … annalium genus est’. As E. Norden said, ‘Dass wirkliche Lieder zu verstehen seien, hatte nie bezweifelt werden dürfen’ (Germanische Urgeschichte 273, n. 3).

⁴⁴ F. Wehrli, Dikaiarchos (Schule des Aristoteles 1), fr. 88 and commentary. But see also R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm und Skolion (1893) 3–44; Aly in P-W s.v. ‘Skolion’.

⁴⁵ Pax 1265 ff.; Eccles. 678. cf. also Nub. 1365; Plat., Tim. 21b. For children eating with their fathers, Plato, Lach. 179c; Xenoph., Symp. 1, 8. I take it that Greek and Etruscan children might sing assa voce. Arist., Eccles. 678, is worth quoting καὶ ῥσψωδεῖν ἔσται τοῖς παιδαρίοισιν τοὺς ἀνδρείους ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ. But I do not claim to see clearly the development of the rhapsodos' art. cf. Patzer, H., Hermes 80 (1952), 314–325Google Scholar; Koller, H., Philologus 100 (1956), 159–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Older bibl. in Aly, P-W, s.v. 'Rhapsodos’.

⁴⁶ Müller's text is accepted by Steuart, E. M., ‘The Earliest Narrative Poetry of Rome,’ The Class. Quart. 15 (1921), 31–7Google Scholar, and by implication, by C. M. Bowra, Heroic Poetry (London, 1952) 46. Cichorius' conjecture (Römische Studien 1922, 33–6; cf. fr. 37 Morel, Fragmenta poet. Lat. epic. et lyric. 1927) is rightly considered with some suspicion by Mariotti, S., Il Bellum Poenicum e l'arte di Nevio (Roma, 1955), 92–5Google Scholar. As Festus is talking in the same context of M. Terentius Varro as a legate of Pompey in the war against the pirates, it is worth mentioning that P. Atilius was another legate in the same war (Appian., Mithr. 95). The allusion, for all that we know, may even be to him. The coincidence is remarkable. I should perhaps mention that F. Altheim (Geschichte d. Latein. Sprache (1951), 446) argued that a ‘carmen’ was the source of Livy 8, 38–39. Apart from other considerations Livy himself rules out this suggestion: ‘nec quisquam aequalis temporibus illis scriptor extat’ etc.

⁴⁷ Pasquali, G., Preistoria della poesia romana (Firenze, 1936), 74Google Scholar, who follows Leo, F., Gesch. d. Rom. Lit. I (1913), 19Google Scholar, ‘dass der freie Knabengesang alt und ursprünglich ist, der andere, Rundgesang zur Flöte, griechischem oder etruskischem Brauch entspricht.’ Niebuhr was already in doubt about the meaning of the passage on Coriolanus (II, 3 ed., 273). cf. also H. Stuart Jones, CAH VII, 326; E. Bickel, Geschichte d. römischen Literatur (1937) 383.

⁴⁸ This is suggested by A. Rostagni, Storia I, 46–7. cf. also E. Norden, Die Röm. Literatur 4 ed. (1952), 6. The idea that Dionysius simply copied his source and never knew what he was talking about cannot be disproved, but does not commend itself to me.

⁴⁹ Ann. Scuola Normale di Pisa, 1947, 194–200. Timpanaro follows Leo's suggestion, Der Saturnische Vers (1905), 32.

⁵⁰ Rostagni sees here a banquet song, Storia I, 45, 64. But Virgil clearly implies a ‘carmen’ sung by the Salii. cf. Diomedes I, p. 476, Keil, ‘cum Salios iuniores aequis gressibus circulantes induceret’ and Geiger, P-W, s.v. ‘Salii,’ 1878; also E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (reprint 1956) 153. On the song of Mamurius Veturius (Varro, LL vi, 49; Festus s.v. ‘Mamuri Veturi’, p. 131 M. = 117 L.), E. Norden, Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern (1939) 231.

⁵¹ On Diocles cf. my remarks JRS 33 (1943) 102Google Scholar.

⁵² On Callim., Dieg. V, 25, see Pfeiffer, R., Callimachus I, 110Google Scholar, with the essential correction in 11, 114 (‘Bellum igitur Etruscum et Horatii Coclitis πήρωσιѕ a Callimacho narrata esse possunt’). Callimachus is enough to show the weak point of J. M. Nap, Die Römische Republik um das j. 225 v. Chr. (Leiden, 1935).

⁵³ On F. Altheim's theory (first presented in Griechische Götter im alten Rom (1930), 13) cf. Römische Religionsgeschichte (Sammlung Göschen (1956), II, 45), see Wilamowitz, , Glaube d. Hellenen II, 329–330Google Scholar; Walde-Hofmann, Lat. Etym. Wört. s.v. ‘Iuturna’. V. Basanoff, Evocatio 1947, 152 ff., agrees with Altheim on many points.

⁵⁴ See H. Peter, Hist. Rom. Rell. 1, 2 ed., p. 32, fr. 17, from Livy II, 40, 10. cf. t h e telling passage of Cicero, Brut. 10–11, 41–3. E. Pais, ‘Intorno alla genesi della leggenda di Coriolano,’ Studi storici 3 (1894), 71–91, 263–282, does not improve on Mommsen, but his conjecture that Fabius Pictor may have had something to do with the present form of the tradition of the Fabii at Cremera deserves attention, Studi Storici 3 (1894), 339–352Google Scholar. Pais gave another explanation of the Coriolanus legend in Storia di Roma I, 1 ed. (1898), 500. E. Ciaceri, Le origini di Roma 366–9, accepts the tradition on Coriolanus as substantially true. cf. also Salmon, E. T., CQ 24 (1930) 96–101Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Livy I, 24, 1. cf. Münzer, P-W, s.v. ‘Curiatius’ and ‘Horatius’, col. 2322. On G. Dumézil, Horace et les Curiaces (1942), cf. Rose, H. J., JRS 37 (1947), 185Google Scholar. See also F. Bömer, ‘Ahnenkult und Ahnenglaube im alten Rom,’ Archiv.f. Religionsw. Beiheft I, 1943, and G. Dumézil, Aspects de la fonction guerriere chez les Indo-européens (1956), 25–39.

⁵⁶ cf., for instance, Noailles, P., Fas et lus (Paris, 1948) 187–221Google Scholar. It is not our business to decide whether Virginia's Ur-Legende would fit into a ballad.

⁵⁷ F. Münzer, P-W, s.v. ‘Marcius,’ col. 1536; W. Schur, Fas et lus, Suppl. V, s.v. ‘Marcius’ (which replaces his former research in Hermes 59 (1924), 451–3Google Scholar). Schönberger, O., Hermes 83 (1955), 245–8Google Scholar (following W. Aly, Livius und Ennius (1936) 37), tries to establish Livius' debt to Ennius; and Ennius would have imitated Ilias 9, 526 ff.

⁵⁸ E. Pais' efforts against ‘gli argomenti alemanni’ and for the authenticity of the story are more patriotic than convincing (Ricerche sulla storia di Roma IV (1921), 411–437Google Scholar). cf. now Walbank, F. W., A historical commentary on Polybius I (1957), 92–4Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ It will be enough to refer to the wise remarks by P. Fraccaro, ‘La storia romana arcaica’ (1952) in Opuscula I (1956), 1–23Google Scholar, especially 20 and see above, pp. 59 ff. An excellent example of analysis of an episode is given by O. Gigon, ‘Zur Geschichtsschreibung der römischen Republik,’ Festschrift A. Debrunner (Bern, 1954) 151–177. About the especially difficult case of Tarpeia, see the bibliography in Momigliano, ‘Tre figure mitiche,’ Pubblicazioni Facolta Lettere Università Torino (1938) 23–8. Later: G. Dumézil, Tarpeia (1947) 249–291; Gansiniec, F., ‘Tarpeia,’ Ada Soc. Arch. Polon. I (1949)Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., JRS 45 (1955), 239Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Lebensnachrichten über B.G. Niebuhr III (1839), 299Google Scholar. ‘Der letzte politische Vorgang an welchem Niebuhr lebhaften Antheil nahm, war der Process der Minister Carls X, er wurde mittelbare Veranlassung zu seinem Tode.’

⁶¹ I have found much of interest in the chapter ‘Some remarks on historical truth in ballad poetry,’ by J. C. H. R. Steenstrup (trans, by E. G. Cox), in the volume The Medieval Popular Ballad (Boston, 1914) 237–251Google Scholar. The author, among other things, remarks that in many Germanic countries heavy penalties were attached to the composition of satirical ballads. He also mentions that in Icelandic legislation there is to be found a provision which forbade the composition of a poem on an individual, even though it contained no satire (two lines, however, were permitted), cf. Hyperides 2 (4) in Phil. 3 for Athens. I have often wondered whether the Decemviral legislation may not have had something to do with the decline and end of ballad poetry in Rome. ci. JRS 32 (1942), 122Google Scholar.

On types of ballad poetry cf., for instance, W. M. Hart, Ballad and Epic. Boston (1907); Bryant, F. E., A History of English Balladry (Boston, 1913)Google Scholar; Entwistle, W. J., European Balladry (Oxford, 1939Google Scholar, reprinted 1952); Ph. Becker, A., ‘Vom Kurzlied zum Epos,’ Zeitschrift f. französ. Sprache und Literatur 63 (1940), 299–341, 385–444Google Scholar. von Scholz, W., Die Ballade, Berlin, 1942Google Scholar, I have not seen.

⁶² See J. Heurgon, ‘La vocation étruscologique de l'empereur Claude,’ C.R. Acad. Inscr. 1953, 92–7. This is a very important paper.

⁶³ cf. my remarks in JRS 36 (1946), 198–9Google Scholar, discussing Mazzarino, S., Dalla monarchia allo stato repubblicano. Mazzarino is followed by Pareti, Storia di Roma I, 312Google Scholar, and by Heurgon, J., Historia 6 (1957), 75Google Scholar. They ultimately depend on Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch. II, 1 ed., 529. De Sanctis, as is well known, tried to identify Mastarna with Porsenna. St. dei Romani I, 447, but see Fraccaro, Opuscula I, 13–14. About Porsenna, cf. Tac., Hist. 3, 72; Pliny, NH 34, 139.

⁶⁴ On this treaty Perizonius, Dissertationes VII, 696; De Beaufort, Dissertation, 1 ed., 33–43; 2 ed., 33–40, should not be forgotten.

⁶⁵ cf. Skutsch, O., ‘The Fall of the Capitol,’ JRS 43 (1953) 77–8Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ On Corsica Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. 4, 8, 2; cf. Mazzarino, S., Introduzione alle guerre puniche (Catania 1947) 89Google Scholar; Macrobius III, 9, 6. Sammonicus (early third century A.D.) quoted ‘Furii vestustissimi libri’ as his source. Wissowa, P-W, s.v. ‘evocatio” takes the ‘evocatio’ of the gods of Carthage to be an invention by Sammonicus, but Horace, Carm. II, 1, 25 (‘Iuno et deorum quisquis amicior Afris inulta cesserat impotens’), seems to know it, as Ed. Fraenkel once pointed out to me: cf. his Horace (1957), 237. A conjecture on Furius (L. Furius Philus cos. 136 ?) in Hertz, M., Fleckeisens Jahrbücher 85 (1862), 54Google Scholar; cf. V. Basanoff, Evocatio, 1947, 4: Basanoff gives the other bibliography. I am reminded by E. Gabba that the mysterious fragment of republican painting published by D. Mustilli, Il Museo Mussolini (1939), 15, seems to describe events unknown to the literary tradition (cf. CAH IX, 825).

⁶⁷ This paper owes much to discussions with Ed. Fraenkel, G. Giarrizzo, O. Skutsch, S. Timpanaro and S. Weinstock.