¹ On Homer's Aeneas, see (e.g.) Roscher, E.Wörner, i. 157 ff.Google Scholar, Karl, G.Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, 1969), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

² 20.187 ff.; cf. Leaf, W., Troy (London, 1912), pp. 245 f.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Hackett's, Sir John light-hearted but perceptive comments, PCA 68 (1971), 15. 15.Google Scholar

⁴ 5.180 etc.; Galinsky, (n. 1), p. 36. But I am not here concerned with the survival and development of his reputation for sagacity.Google Scholar

⁵ Drummond, A., JRS 62 (1972), 219, against Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 41 f. et passim.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Heine, R., Virgils epische Technik ³ (Leipzig, 1928), p. 10Google Scholar, who compares, inter alia, the explanation for the Roman defeat at Cannae in Val. Max. 7.4. ext. 2 ‘decepti magis quam victi sumus’. See too Liv. 21.54. 1 ff. and 22.48.2 ff. with Bruckmann, H., Die röm. Niederlagen im Geschichtriverk des T. Livius (diss. Minster, 1936), pp. 61, 85, et passim.Google Scholar

⁷ Appendix to Eur. Phoen. ed. Geel (Leyden, 1846), p. 281Google Scholar, Powell, , Coll. Alex., p. 112Google Scholar, Schmidt, M., Troika (diss. Göttingen, 1917), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar, Gow-Page, , HE ii. 511Google Scholar, Bethe, E., Homer, ii.2, 177Google Scholar, Perret, J., Les Origines de la Legende troyenne de Rome (Paris, 1942), p. 370Google Scholar, Griffin, J., JHS 97 (1977), 51 n. 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Huxley, G. L., Greek Epic Poetry (London, 1969), p. 199 (n. on p. 156) remains unconvinced.Google Scholar

⁸ For further discussion of this fragment, cf. p. 000.

⁹ Proclus' use of I find hard to explain; neither Hwtley's ‘in their dismay’ (n. 7, p. 146) nor Evelyn-White's ‘alarmed’ (Hesiod etc., Loeb edn., p. 521) render the word accurately.

¹⁰ Gatinsky (n. 1) renders (p. 47) ‘cowardly escapes’; this is not in the Greek.

¹¹ Possibly seventh-century: Richardson, N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter Cephalon of Gergis (Oxford, 1974), p. 11Google Scholar, Lesky, A., RE Suppl. xi. 829 f.Google Scholar

¹² 13, pp. 607 f.; cf. Huxley, (n. 5), p. 131Google Scholar, Reinhardt, K., Die ilias and ihr Dichter (Göttingen, 1961), p. 509 n. 2Google Scholar, Hoekstra, A., The Sub-Epic Stage of the Formulaic Tradition (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 40.Google Scholar

¹³ Tr. Leaf, W., Strabo on the Troad (Cambridge, 1923), p. 275.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Thus nearly a native of the Troad, as Hellanicus' follower, Damastes of Sigeum (on whom see p. 382) actually was. Curiously, Cephalon of Gergis (= Hegesianax of Alexandreia in the Troad) has no time for local claims and has Aeneas found Pallene, in Thrace (FGrHist 45 F 7).

¹⁵ FGrHist 47 2 F5; Festus s.v. Romam p. 269M; for the date, see Cornell, T. J., PCPS 1975, 19 n. 3; hereafter ‘Cornell’.Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the anti-Roman political implications of Aeneas' continued sojourn in the Troad, I refer to Cornell, pp. 26 f.

¹⁷ Tr. Evelyn-White, Hesiod etc., Loeb edn., 523.

¹⁸ Austin, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, Bethe, , Homer, ii. 2,254 f.Google Scholar, Worner, E., Roscher iii. 1302Google Scholar, Gross, K., Die Unterpfander der röm. Herrschaft (Berlin, 1935), pp. 69 f.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Galinsky, (n. 1), pp. 106 ff., for a recent account of the problems and implications for the Aeneas-legend if the evidence of the Tabula be accepted as authentic.Google Scholar

²⁰ Attested at least as far back as Welcker, F. G., Ann. Inst. 1 (1829), 234, n. 10.Google Scholar

²¹ Paulcke, M., de Tabula Iliaca quaestionesStesicboreae (diss. Konigsberg, 1897), p. 89 n. 200.Google Scholar

²² Cf. Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1961), pp. 105 f.Google Scholar

²³ Mancuso, U., Mem. Acc. Linc. xiv. 8 (1909), 669.Google Scholar

²⁴ For reproductions, cf. (e.g.) Sadurska, A., Les Tables iliaques (Warsaw, 1964) p1.1Google Scholar, Guarducci, M., Epigrafia greca, iii (Rome, 1974), pl. 161aGoogle Scholar, Bömer, , Rom and Troia (Baden-Baden, 1951), p1.2.Google Scholar

²⁵ A. R. 3.311, Agathyllus ap. D. H. 1.49.2, Enn. Ann. 23; cf. Virg. Aen. 1.530 = 3.163.

²⁶ Cf. Hubaux, J., AC 2 (1933), 161.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Shefton, B. B., Wiss. Ztscbr. Rostock 16 (1967), 534 n. 25.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Zazoff, P., Etr. Skarabiten (Mainz, 1968), p. 41.Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. Fuchs, W., ANRW i.4. 616 ff.Google Scholar, Zazoff, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Seeliger, K., Die Uberlieferung der gr. Heldensage bei Stesicboros (progr. Meissen, 1886), p; 33.Google Scholar

³¹ Wilamowitz, , Kl. Schr. v.1. 498Google Scholar, Speyer, W., Die Lit. Falschung im Altertum (Munich, 1971), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

³² Aineia: whence a coin of c. 490–480, showing Anchises sitting on Aeneas' left shoulder (cf. p. 000): Price, M. and Wagoner, N., Archaic Greek Coinage, The Asyut Hoard (London, 1975), pp. 43 f., pl.B, 194.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Jacoby, , RE viii.115 ff.Google Scholar, Schur, W., Klio 17 (1921), 149;CrossRefGoogle Scholar compare D. H. 1. 49.1 (= FGrHist 391 F 4 and 45 F 7), 50.1, and Conon, , FGrHist 26 F 1 (46.3 f.).Google Scholar

³⁴ EarlyIonian Historians (Oxford, 1939), pp. 188 ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Bickerman, E. J., CW 37 (1943–1944), 94.Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. (e.g.) Cauer, F., Die corn. Aeneassage, Jhb kl Phil, Supplbd. xv (1886), 162 ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Momigliano, , JRS 35 (1945), 100Google Scholar = Terzo contributo, p. 680.Google Scholar

³⁸ 1.8.3, col rag is intrinsically different because in the plural. See Pais, E., Storia critica i (Rome, 1918), 233 n. 1Google Scholar and Kullmer, H., Die Historiai des Hellanikos, Jbb kl Phil Supplbd. xxvii (1902), 645.Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Jacoby, , RE viii. 144Google Scholar, Kullmer, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, Sanctis, G. de, Storia dei romani i (Turin, 1907), 198 n. 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Pace Cauer, F., dé fabulis Graecis (diss. Berlin, 1884), p. 12 n. 19.Google Scholar

⁴¹ As even Perret (n. 7, p. 378 n. 3) admits!

⁴² Ap. Serv. ad Aen. 3.256, Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3.349; cf. D.H. 1.51.1, Aen. 3.466; note that at Aen. 3.294 ff., Aeneas does not go inland.

⁴³ Cf. Christ, W., SBMünchen 1905.1.111, Perret (n. 7), p. 370Google Scholar, Boyancé, P., REA 45 (1943), 285 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Against Perret, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, cf. Boyance, , loc. cit. (n. 43), Pind. Nem. 7.37 ff., 4.50 ff., Paean 6.110 ff., etc.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. Perret, (n. 7), p. 370Google Scholar, Wörner, E., Roscher i. 167.53 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Pace Hammond, N. G. L., Epirus (Oxford, 1967), p. 385Google Scholar, Gruppe, O., Gr. Myth. i.218 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Loc. cit.; cf. Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, n.d.), p. 279, who supposes that in Lycophron Aeneas travelled from Thrace to Etruria by land.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Proclus, , Nostoi p. 108.28 f.Google Scholar, Pind, Allen. Paean 6.110Google Scholar, Hammond, , op. cit., p. 383.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Strab, . 13, p. 608: a settlement near Macedonian Olympus is no exception.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. above, p. 377, Lye. 1236 f., with scholia and Aen. 5.537.

⁵¹ Cf. Jacoby ad loc., Perret (n. 7), pp. 371 ff., Pearson (n. 34), p. 191 n. 1, Cornell, p. 18 n. 7, with further bibliography.

⁵² Perret (n. 7), p. 373, Sanders, H. A., CPb 3 (1908), 318 f.Google Scholar, Cauer, F. (n. 40), p. 7; but cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.273 = FGrHist 819: Clinias (??) made Aeneas' wife Rhome the daughter of Telemachus; a chronological horror: cf. Cornell, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁵³ N. 7, 373 and Lat. 28 (1969), 7 respectively.

⁵⁴ Cf. Phillips, E. D., JHS 73 (1953), 60 f., 67.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cf. Horsfall, , JRS 63 (1973), 73.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Bickerman, E. J., CPb 47 (47), 66.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Galinsky, (n. 53), pp. 1 ff. Phillips (n. 54), p. 67, Cornell, pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ JRS 63 (1973), 78.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ At least therefore he must mean Cortona not Croton.

⁶⁰ On Hdt. 1.57.1, cf. Fritz, K. von, Die gr. Geschichtsschreibung i Anm. (Berlin, 1967), 226 f. n. 35.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Brelich, A., Gli eroi greci (Rome, 1958), pp. 235 f.;Google Scholar for a sane and sceptical discussion of the problems, see Hartmann, A., Unters. über die Sagen vom Tod des Od. (Munich, 1917), pp. 154 ff.Google Scholar

⁶² Modona, A. Neppi, Cortona etrusca e romana (Florence, 1925), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ Geffcken, J., Timaios' Geogr. d. Westens, Phil. Unters. xiii (1892), 44 f.Google Scholar, Pallottino, M., L'origine degli etruschi (Rome, 1947), pp. 17 ff. etc.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. Hieronymus, of Cardia, FGrHist 154 F 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ FGrHist 115 F 354; cf. Horsfall, , CQ N. S. 26 (1976), 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ See recently, StJosifovic, , RE Suppl. xi. 896.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Hartmann (n. 61), pp. 156 f. does not.

⁶⁸ i.e. Etruscan; so, e.g., Geffcken (n. 63), p. 44.

⁶⁹ TestLingEtr² ed. M. Pallottino, p. 441.

⁷⁰ CPb 47 (1952), 66.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Kiessling, A., de D. H. Antiquitatum auctoribus Latinis (diss. Bonn, 1858), p. 40.Google Scholar

⁷² Cf. Bickerman (n. 70), p. 78 n. 14, Cornell, p. 18.

⁷³ FGrHist 830 F 136, ap. Festus s.v. Romam p. 269M; cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.273, Solin. 1.2; compare, however, Aristotle, fr. 609R (= D. H. 1.72.4; cf. Plut. Q. R. 6) who localizes the episode in ‘a place in the land of the Opicans which is called Latinion, lying near the Tyrrhenian Sea’. Cf. further n. 122.

⁷⁴ Strabo 7, fr. 25, Conon, FGrHist 26 F 1.13, S. Byz. s.v. Scione, Polyaen. 7.47.

⁷⁵ Strabo 7, p. 264, S. Byz. s.v.; cf. Tz. ad Lyc. 1075, Geffcken (n. 63), p. 22.

⁷⁶ Lyc. 921, 1074 ff., MythogrGr ed. Wagner i. 220 (= Apld. fr. ap. Schol. ad. Lyc. 921), Strab. 6. p. 262, etc.; cf. Geffcken (n. 63), p. 22 n. 1.

⁷⁷ Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 10.179; cf. Justin 20.1.11, Geffcken (n. 63), p. 148, Rîitter, R., de Timaei fabulis…. (diss. Halle, 1901), p. 21.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cf. Cornell, pp. 18 f. We should be wary of eliciting any special or historical significance from the nationality of the ships burned; cf. Schur (n. 33), pp. 146 ff., Perret (n. 7), pp. 396 ff., Hoffmann, W., Rom and die gr. Welt, Phil. Supplbd. xxvii (1934), 112 n. 254Google Scholar, Alföldi, A., Troj. Urahnen (Basel, 1957), p. 10Google Scholar, Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. i (Tubingen, 1867), 404 n. 29.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. F. Cauer (n. 40), pp. 15 f.

⁸⁰ Cf. above, pp. 375 f. and JHS 99 (1979).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cf. Ciaceri, E., Studi storici 4 (1895) 508, Schwegler (n. 78), p. 304 n. 10; contra, de Sanctis (n. 39), i. 198 n. 7.Google Scholar

⁸² (n. 34), p. 191; cf. Bickerman, , CW 37 (1943-1944), 94.Google Scholar

⁸³ Too many of the difficulties are ignored in Horsfall, , CQ N. S. 24 (1974), 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁴ FGrHist 840 F 10; cf. Cornell, p. 19 n. 3.

⁸⁵ FGrHist 560 F 4 = 840 F 12; cf. Cornell, p. 7 n. 11.

⁸⁶ FGrHist 472 F 5 = 840 F 18–9; cf. Cornell, p. 19 n. 3.

⁸⁷ FGrHist 240 F 9 ð 840 F 17; cf. Cornell, p. 20 n. 4.

⁸⁸ Aristotle (above, n. 73 = FGrHist 840 F 13) does not after all mention Rome by name in this passage.

⁸⁹ Jacoby, on FGrHist 566 F 59–61Google Scholar, Geffcken (n. 63), pp. 39 ff., Horsfall (n. 83), p. 112, Momigliano, , Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford, 1977), pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. p. 376 above, Fuchs, W., ANRW i.4. 616 ff.Google Scholar, Horsfall, , JHS 99 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ Cf. Acusilaus, FGrHist 2 F 39, a crudely rationalist interpretation of Il. 20.300 ff.

⁹² RE s.v., 1913. 61 ff.

⁹³ Ibid. 1917. 61 ff., Jaeger, W., Paideia (tr. Highet) iii (Oxford, 1945), 329 n. 130.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Drummond, A. (JRS 62 (1972), 219Google Scholar, cites Jaeger, loc. cit., and di Benedetto, , Maia 19 (1967) 22 ff., 230 ff. Cf. too, withgreat caution, Xénophon, L'art de la chasse, ed. E. Delebecque (edn. Budé), p. 42.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Radermacher, L., RhM 52 (1897), 25.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Geffcken, 147. 10 ff.: Lyc. Alex. 1263 ff. and D. S. 7.4; cf. Varr. Res Hum. ap. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 2.636 and Historiae 2 ap. Schol. Ver. ad Aen. 2.717; also Apld. Epit. 5.21 and Q. S. 13.345 ff.

⁹⁷ Cyn.: Lyc .

⁹⁸ (n. 1), pp. 42 ff.; particularly p. 54: I fail to see how Galinsky reaches the conclusion that Aeneas' carrying of his father was not represented as an act of pietas before Sen. Ben. 3.37. If what is required is formal testimony, then Auct. ad Herenn. 4.46 will serve: (as example of paradox) ‘ut si quern impium, qui patrem verberaverit, Aenean vocemus’; the remark is pointless unless Aeneas' pietas erga patrem, symbolized, what is more, by a concrete act, is already so familiar as to be proverbial.

⁹⁹ Ibid., pp. 53 ff., accepted without question by Cornell, p. 13.

¹⁰⁰ ARV 385, no. 223; for varying traditions about Anchises'age and physical condition, cf. Austin on Aen. 2.649. Certainly, if Aeneas is leading, not carrying his father, he is better ready to resist pursuers.

¹⁰¹ Gerhard, E., Arch Ztg 5–6 (1847-1848), 226 f.Google Scholar, with pl. xv, Trendall, A. D., South Italian Vase-painting (London, 1966), p. 20 with p1.7, Galinsky (n. 1), p. 57 with pl. 42. The identifications are highly likely, rather than certain.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 40 f., Cypria 103.1 Ghali-Kahil, Allen L., Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Helène (Paris, 1955), pp. 29, 53, et passim.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood kindly drew my attention to Brelich (n. 29), for a full survey of ambiguity in conduct as an essential characteristic of the Greek mythological hero.

¹⁰⁴ Alföldi (n. 47), pp. 283 f., followed unhesitatingly by Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 154 f. The BF amphora described by Galinsky (n. 1), p. 55, n. 104, as in a private collection in Hamburg and as published by Alföldi is in fact in the Museum für Kunst u. Gewerbe (1906.380) and has been published widely: ABV 397, K. Schauenburg, Gymn. 67 (1960), 176 ff.: no. 7, with pl. viii.l. The figure behind Aeneas was identified by Alföldi (loc. cit.) as Antenor without any justification: cf. Ballheimer, R., Griech. Vasen aus dem Hamburg. Mus., 48 Versamml. Deutscber Pbilologen (Hamburg, 1905), p. 14 with pl. 3Google Scholar, von Mercklin, E., Fiihrer durch das Hamburg. Mus., (1930), 30, no. 82Google Scholar. Neither Ballheimer nor von Mercklin were prepared to identify the figure. The same applies to the Ilioupersis calyx-crater by the Altamura painter in Boston: see Vermeule, C. C., Ill. London News, 10 Oct. 1959, pp. 398 f.Google Scholar, Beazley, J. D., Attic Vase Paintings in. Boston (Boston, 1963), p. 62Google Scholar, ARV ² 590, no. 11. There is again nothing whatever to suggest that the figure marching ahead of Aeneas is Antenor. For further arguments against the interpretations of Alföldi and Galinsky, cf. now Davies, Mark I., Lex. Icon. Myth. Class. i (1974), 17.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 48 f., Momigliano, , JRS 48 (1958), 70Google Scholar, Wlosok, A., Die Göttin Venus (Heidelberg, 1967), p. 47Google Scholar, Gabba, E. in I canali della propaganda nel mondo antico ed. M. Sordi (Milan, 1976), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar, and R. Scuderi, ibid., pp. 39 ff.

¹⁰⁶ K. Schauenburg, loc. cit. (n. 104), Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 103 ff., W. Fuchs (n. 90), pp. 615 ff., etc. To the list in Brommer³, three additions, for which I am indebted to Miss M. Loudon, may be made: (i) Münster Inv. 738 = Boreas 1 (1978), 189 f. (no provenance); (ii) Sotheby, Catal. 10, Apr. 1978, no. 216, p. 56. (no provenance); (iii) Beazley Archive, Ashmolean Museum: Amphora type B. Box 2 (Delos).

¹⁰⁷ Note that Brommer, nos. 12 and 13 are one and the same vase, München 1546; see Beazley, , Paralipomena, p. 172. Despite Beazley, ABV 483.1 (cf. Catal. Ravenstein i (1871), 190 f.) I share Brommer's unease about the identification of the figures on Brussels R312 (p. 388, sub fin.). The head and shoulders of the figure carried are suspiciously far forward: a corpse?Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Schauenburg (n. 104), p. 186. Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 123, 130.

¹⁰⁹ A reference for which I am indebted to Mr. Dyfri Williams.

¹¹⁰ On the identification, see Brommer, Satyrspiele² no. 149; Caskey-Beazley, ii. 39.

¹¹¹ Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 125 ff.; to this number, I have not been able to add.

¹¹² Apparently it is only in Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 1.242 that his wife Theano travels with him.

¹¹³ Cf. Pearson, Soph. Frag. i. 86 ff.

¹¹⁴ Unique certainly at the fall of Troy: for the Catanian story of Amphinomus and Anapias, cf. V. M. 5.4.4, Galinsky (n. 1), p. 56, Fuchs (n. 90), p. 624.

¹¹⁵ As was done notably by F. Böuner (n. 24), pp. 47 ff.; he has had many followers —e.g. Knoche, U., Festschr. Snell (Munich, 1956), p. 90Google Scholar, Boyancé, P., Religion de Virgile (Paris, 1963), pp. 61 f., Schauenburg ((n. 104), pp. 189 f. Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 57 ff. and 130 f., and Cornell rightly insist that this argument is gravely fallacious. The vases are distinctively Etruscan (not Roman) in provenance; the virtue is not.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Roma medio-reppublicana (1973), pp. 335 f. etc.Google Scholar; for a summary, Perret, J., REL 49 (1971), 41 ff.Google Scholar and Cornell, T. J., LCM 2 (1977), 78.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Cornell, p. 14 n. 5, with further references.

¹¹⁸ Cf. (pro) Sommella, P., RendPontAcad 44 (1971-1972), 47 ff.Google Scholar and Gymn. 81 (1974), 273 ff.Google Scholar, Galinsky, G. K., Vergilius 20 (1974) 2 ff.Google Scholar; (contra): Cornell, T. J. (n. 116), pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Palmer, R. E. A., Roman Religion and Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 1974), p. 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gantz, T. N., PP 29 (1974), 358 n. 32. I am most grateful to Dr. Cornell for an advance view of his LCM paper; I disagree with much in it and in his PCPS contribution, but have benefited immensely from his articles and from extended discussions with him.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Cf. Fuchs (n. 90), p. 620 on the Parthenon metopes.

¹²⁰ Galinsky (n. 1), pp. 147 ff., Alföldi (n. 47), pp. 258 f., Castagnoli, F., Atti viii Convegno … Studi Magna Grecia (1968/1969), p. 97, etc.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Pans. 7.2.11; cf. Plut. Them. 10.4, Weinstock, S., RE xix. 435.4 ff.Google Scholar, Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City (Manchester, 1964), p. 14.Google Scholar

¹²² Kiessling's emendation of to at D. H. 1.72.3 is inadmissible normalizing, nor need the whole passage, strictly speaking, be relevant to this discussion; cf. n. 73.

¹²³ Lavinium, F. Castagnolii (Rome, 1972), 99; his whole discussion is admirable in its caution and scepticism.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ There is apparently no difficulty in suggesting that the Veii statuettes might belong to a period as late as the late fourth century or even later; cf. n. 116. Torelli's proposal (loc. cit.) that they symbolized the pietas of the new Roman colonists at Veii is clearly ingenious rather than mandatory.