^{page 252 note 1} Fast. Praen. 23 Mart., C.I.L. i². 234 (Q. Lutatius Catulus); GeU. 13. 14. 5 (M. Valerius Messala Rufus); Prop. 4. 1. 50; 6. 43 f.; Ovid, fast. 4. 815 ff.; 5. 151; Paul. Fest. p. 276. 10 M.; Dion. Hal. 1. 86; Plut. Rom. 9; Sen. brev. vit. 13. 8; Val. Max. 1. 4 prf.; Flor. 1. 1. 1. 6 f.; Aelian, hist. an. 10.22; Orig. gent. Rom. 23.1; Serv. Aen. 6. 779; Schol. Cic. Bob. p. 319 (148); Iordan. Rom. 89.

^{page 253 note 1} daunt & atqueB; deuouerat quae A; deuoueratq. V.

^{page 253 note 2} I disregard L. Mueller's view that Romulus was on the Palatine and Remus on the Aventine from the beginning, and that it was Ennius who ‘propter causam nescio-quam’(!) interchanged their positions.

^{page 253 note 3} Ges. phil. Schriften, ii. 388 ff. (Berlin Akad. 1894, pp. 1143 ff.). ‘Vahlen’ throughout refers to this paper.

^{page 254 note 1} Enniusstudien, Diss. Frankfurt, 1956 (unpublished).Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} Jordan-Hülsen, iii. 150: ‘Es kann nun nichts sicherer sein, als dass der Ort des Auguriums des Remus auf dem Südhügel bei S. Balbina lag (s.u.S. 180), … zu diesem aber stellt Ennius den Aventinus in offen baren Gegensatz’; ibid. J8I: ‘Der höchste Punkt der südlichen Höhe (bei S. Balbina) heisst Saxum, und gait als der Ort der Auspicien des Remus. Aber den Namen Remoria hat vielleicht erst spätere willkürliche Umgestaltung der Sage hier fixiert.’

^{page 254 note 3} Other factors may have contributed. auspicia urbana was a technical term for auspices taken within the pomerium, and the Aventine was outside it. It may well have been felt that the auspicia condendae urbis ought to be urbana.

^{page 255 note 1} Gilbert, O., Gesch. u. Topogr. d. Stadt Rom im Altertum (Lips., 1883–1890)Google Scholar; Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographic d. Stadt Rom im Altertkum, I. iii (Berol., 1907), 181 f.Google Scholar; a convenient survey in Merlin, A., L'Aventin dans l'antiquité (Paris, 1906), pp. 8 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 255 note 2} Agreement on this point is not universal, but those who do not question the genuineness of the name, as, e.g., Collart, J. in his commentary on Varro, L.L. 5 (Paris, 1934), p. 244Google Scholar, seem unaware of the general condemnation.

^{page 255 note 3} So all MSS. except O and P, which contain the whole corpus of Origo, de vir. ill., and Aurelius Victor, and are interpolated from Landulf 's Historia Miscella (see the penetrating studies of Momigliano, A., JRS xlviii (1958), 56 ff.Google Scholar; Athenaeum xxxvi (1958), 248 ff.Google Scholar, especially 253). O and P read Auenlinum et Ianiculum monies, Landulf 1. 10 Auentinum montem civitati adiecit et Ianiculum ( = Paul. Diac, Hist. Rom. = Eutrop. 1. 5; cf. St. Jerome, , chron. p. 97 HelmGoogle Scholar). The reading of a lost MS. is reported by Schottus in his edition of de vir. ill., 1577, as follows: V.C. Metelli et Mediolan. addit et Murcium. On the codex Metelli and the Mediolanensis, presumably a printed text, see Mariotti, S., St. Class, e Orient. 10(1961),102 ffGoogle Scholar. The question whether Schottus attests, as on a strict interpretation he would seem to do, Auentinum et Ianiculum et Murcium, or merely Auentinum et Murcium, is of little interest here although it may have a certain bearing on the problem, raised by Momigliano and rightly answered in the negative, whether the codex Metelli can be considered the archetype of O and P. Momigliano seems to me unduly meticulous in making, against his own view, the reservation that Schottus may here not be referring to the old MS. of Metellus but a more recent one: ‘V(etus) C(odex)’ leaves little room for doubt.

^{page 256 note 1} Murcium et laniculum Schott, Pichlmayr. Other editions omit Murcium.

^{page 256 note 2} I give the distances from the midpoint of the arc, but the shrine may of course have been a little nearer to the western hill.

^{page 257 note 1} ad murcim, corrected by Spengel. ad Murciae, used by Livy i. 33. 5 as the name of the place between Palatine and Aventine where the Latins were settled by Ancus, is attested as a part of the Circus in C.I.L. i2. 189, elog. V: locus ipsi posterisque Admurciae spectandi causa dalus.

^{page 257 note 2} It is interesting to note that die writer of the elogium C.I.L. i². 189, no. V likewise does not seem to analyse Admurciae as ad Murciae. Ordinarily he separates words by a dot. After a preposition he puts no dot but leaves a clear space: 7 de Sabinis; 8 de sacro; 9 cum patribus; 14 in senatum; but 1. 13 he writes admurciae as one word. Certain in consistencies, however, are found in the odier elogia and do not allow the point to be pressed: no. I has tn Italiam and in deorum, no. IV indeorum; nos. VII to XXI separate a preposition by a dot (15 instances); but no. X has incensura as against de Samnitibus and cum Pyrrho.

^{page 257 note 3} The assumption that by Murtea Venus Varro means the dea Murcia is made by everybody and seems inevitable, although Serv. Dan. Aen. 8. 636 strangely Tefers to her as Venus Verticordia (but see Wissowa, , R. u. K. p. 290, n. 12Google Scholar; Latte, , R.R. p. 137, n. 2Google Scholar); cf. Pliny, n.h. 15. 121 ara uetus fuit Veneri Myrteae quam nunc Murciam uocant; Plut. quaest. Rom. 20.

^{page 257 note 4} Latte, p. in, n. 2, is sceptical of Piso's story (Dion. Hal. 2. 40. 3) that sacrifice was made to Tarpeia (be it as a genius loci: Reinach, S., M.C.R. iii. 253Google Scholar, or as a patron goddess of the gens Tarpeia: Otto, F. W., Rh. Mus. lxiv [1909], 465Google Scholar), and is prepared to believe only in offerings at the shield-covered tropaion which has given rise to the Tarpeia legend. Since, however, on the following page he accepts as a fact the worship of Ortsgottheiten I cannot quite understand why he refuses that distinction to the divinity of mons Tarpeius.

^{page 258 note 1} Jordan, l.c., p. 8, removed the redundancy by deleting secundam, but it is difficult to see how the word could have intruded. Jordan's objection to secundam was shown to be unfounded by Vahlen's reference to the corresponding use of atoios in Dion. I. 86 .

^{page 258 note 2} Thes. L.L. v. 882. 57 ff.: Cic. dom. 145; red. 1; Ps. Cic. ep. ad Oct. to; Caesar, B.G. 3. 22. 3; Sail. hist. i. 125; Virg. Aen. 12.234; Hor. c. 4. 14. 18; Livy 6. 14. 8; 28. 34. 5; Sen. contr. 2. 2. 4; Val. Max. 2. 6. 11.

^{page 258 note 3} post nonum regni mei, post <uitae>uicesimum atque octauum annum uideorne uobis in excolenda gloria, cui me uni deuoui, posse cessare ? I insert uitae before uicesimum, rather than, with Jeep and K. Müller, before uideorne.

^{page 258 note 4} See the preceding line, and Comm. praet. ap. Varro, L.L. 6. 91 (restored); Fest. 241. 17 M.; Cic. fam. 10. t2. 3; leg. 2. 20 (restored); Livy 34. 14. 1; 38. 26. 1.

^{page 258 note 5} Ennius might have used the ablative monti (Neue-Wagener³ i. 365); cf. 440 tum caua sub monte late specus intus patebat, where, however, Timpanaro, S.I.F.C. xxii (1947), 65, suggests stlate (monte late Festus and Priscian, montis latet Nonius).

^{page 259 note 1} The idea of Jordan, I.e., p. 8, and Marx (ap. Vahlen, I.e., p. 391, n. 2) that mons alone could denote the Palatine is untenable. Serv. Aen. 9. 242 Palatium in monte est, non in uallibus, adduced by Marx, obviously does not prove that mons was so used. But even if such usage were established it would still be impossible where the Palatine is referred to in contradistinction to another hill.

^{page 259 note 2} Petersen, I.e., p. 42. Petersen's reconstruction is another unsuccessful attempt to introduce the Palatine: hinc Remus auspicio se deuouet atque secundam Quaerit Auentino; at Romulus pulcher in alto Solus Palatino seruat genus altiuolantum. Compare also Davies's edition of de diuinatione (1721), and Wopkens, , Lectiones Tullianae (Amsterdam, 1730), p. 262.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 3} est moles natiua, loco res nomina fecit; appellant Saxum, pars bona montis ea est.

It will be noted that Ovid here refers to the hill merely as mons without giving the name. This, however, is probably due to metrical considerations—the reader would infer the identity of the hill from the mention of the Saxum—and cannot support the reading in monte in Ennius.

^{page 260 note 1} e.g. aha 187/9; auspicio 78/9.

^{page 260 note 2} Koller, H., Mus. Helv. viii (1951), 63 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 98, n. 4. Koller's observation may not mean that the historical present belonged originally to perfective verbs only, but merely that it belongs to them more naturally. Here, however, it is certainly remarkable that expectant is preceded by certabant and taken up by expectabat. Koller holds the following spectant responsible for the present tense; I should prefer the metrical explanation given above. Note also that the transition to the present may be eased by the omission of the auxiliary verb (erat) in the preceding sentence.

^{page 260 note 3} Iliad 13. 389

and 13.570

^{page 260 note 4} P. Merula thought he was the first to make it; Lambinus ascribed it to Turnebus; but it goes back farther still: Wendelin of Speyer prints it in his edition of the de diuinatione (Venice, J471), while Schweyn-heym and Pannartz in the same year at Rome print ore timebat.

^{page 260 note 5} incer o uoltu is parallel to and does not qualify pawns.

^{page 261 note 1} Virgil's metu and Ovid's pauebant denote a real fear, which, though ordinary cows would probably chew the cud, poetical cows are bound to feel at the sight of mighty bulls engaged in mortal combat. Ennius' timebat is thus by his imitators given a meaning more definite than in its own context it can possess.

^{page 261 note 2} The similarity of this phrase may impart to the other a connotation of religious awe, not inappropriate, though the people are not actually present at the auspice-taking, to the impending religious act. It need not, however, be so, since Ennius uses ore fauere (ann. 437) and fauere faucibus (of cocks; scen. 219) without such connotation. There is certainly no hint of religious awe in the Plutarch passage cited above.

^{page 261 note 3} With correct instinct for what the situation requires Warmington translates ora tenebat ‘held their tongues’.

^{page 261 note 4} Warmington seems to consider it an ablative.

^{page 262 note 1} No instance is known to me. For metuo the Thesaurus records one example of a dative and a ne-clause in St. Augustine, none of a dative and an indirect question.

^{page 262 note 2} Th. Bergk, Kl. Schriften, i. 236 ff.

^{page 263 note 1} It receives no support from the adjective: the moon is never called alba. albus is the contrast word to ater, denoting the darkness of night, and sol albus is .

^{page 263 note 2} The point is well made by Fleckenstein; see p. 254, n. 1.

^{page 264 note 1} Castiglioni, L., Rendic. 1st. Lomb. 74 (1941), 410 f. refuses to see the difficulty.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Herm. Ixx (1935), 245 ffGoogle Scholar. cedunt is apparently said technically; but must it therefore be decedunt ‘they leave the sky’ rather than accedunt (so Turnebus, comparing Plaut. Aul. 526 ibi ad postremum cedit miles, ties petit) ? The action progresses in either case, since accedunt implies leaving the sky. The doves of Aeneas (Aen. 6. 191) caelo uenere uolantes et uiridi:edere solo.

^{page 265 note 2} Bergk, I.e., p. 244, objecting to the use of conspicit for intellexit and to the absence of emphasis on the subject, wrote quom specit, inde sibi data Romulus esse priora auspicia, ac regni stabilita scamna solumque.

His text, not least because it leaves the apodosis without a verb, is unacceptable, but the coincidence between his reasoning and mine, of which I became aware only after my view was formed, greatly increases my confidence that our objections are not unfounded.

^{page 266 note 1} Studien z. Verständnis d. röm. Litteratur, p. 249.

^{page 266 note 2} Ennius u. Homer (Diss. Leipz., 1926), p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 3} The sense in Lucr. 2. 925 genus humanum propritim de quibus auctum est ‘what mankind is given (in addition to faculties possessed by all animals) as its very own’ is precisely the same as in Ennius, and it is the sense which the suffix demands: an individual gift, as opposed to distribution to everybody (uiritim). I state this because Mueller's conjecture was impugned on semantic grounds by J. Kvíčala in the article mentioned above.

^{page 266 note 4} Nothing other than probaúit would seem to offer, but the process of corruption, , could hardly have been completed before the date of the archetype.

^{page 267 note 1} We must probably add Asin. 856 meum uirum frugi rata, where frugi is strongly suspect but the conjecture fueram ruled out by the echoing reply in 858. As against these three or four instances of the unaccompanied participle there are seven in which the auxiliary verb is added (Amph. 656, As. 861, Bacch. 549, Capt. 256, Men. 900, Pseud. 1318, Trin. 303). Poen. 557 and Rud. 1386 are ambiguous; also Epid. 596 quia tuam gnatam es ratus, if P correctly omits es.