I should like to thank particularly the Rosa Morison Fund of University College London for a grant towards illustrating this paper, Simon James for his figures, Walter Cockle for his lettering, Armando Petrucci, Jaynie Anderson, Ellen Rice, Carlotta Griffiths and my mother for their assistance in obtaining illustrations and copyright, the editors of Röm. Mitt. and Mem. Acc. Linc. for permission to reproduce Figs 1–3, and Eugenio La Rocca for the new photograph here published as Plate II.

¹ Most conveniently accessible in Sadurska, A., Les Tables Iliaques (Warsaw 1964)Google Scholar; hereafter Sadurska.

² For locations and for the conventional forms of reference, see appendix, p. 48. 20Par. is published separately: Sadurska, A, Mél. Michalowski (Warsaw 1966) 653–7Google Scholar.

³ Plin. (xxxv 144) refers to a Theorus who painted a ‘bellum Iliacum plurimis tabulis, quod est Romae in Philippi porticibus’. Sadurska 9–10 rightly insists that Theorus and Theodorus are not to be identified; cf. further EAA s.v. ‘Theodoros’ no. 10.

⁴ Sadurska (11) suggests that a further five Tabulae may be unsigned products of Theodorus' workshop.

⁵ Sadurska 9–10. Cf. Guarducci, M., Epigrafia Greca iii 433Google Scholar (hereafter Guarducci); Richter, G. M. A., MMA Catalogue of Greek Sculptures 117Google Scholar; Paulcke, M., De Tabula Iliaca Quaestiones Stesichoreae (diss. Königsberg 1897) 112Google Scholar (here after Paulcke).

⁶ Guarducci 430. For ‘epigrafi di artisti’ cf. 377–561; G. Kaibel, Epigr. Gr. index vi s.v. ‘artificis nomen’; Bua, M., Mem. Acc. Linc. ser. viii xvi (1971–1972) 13Google Scholar (hereafter Bua).

⁷ J.-M. 92; perhaps most recently, Schefold, K., Wort und Bild (Basel 1975) 130Google Scholar (hereafter Schefold W.u.B.). Suda s.v. ‘Palaiphatos’ refers to one Theodoras of Ilium, author of Troica; cf. (?) Serv. ad Aen. i 28, Schol. A.R. iv 264. All this proves nothing: the name is exceedingly common.

⁸ Thus Aristotle compiles a Συναγωγή of earlier τέχναι (Fuhrmann op. cit. [Göttingen 1960] 124 n. 2) and Cetius Faventinus a privatis usibus adbreviatus liber of the ars of Vitruvius (Schanz-Hosius ii⁴ 393).

⁹ DS s.v. ‘Iliacae Tabulae’ 379; hereafter Michon.

¹⁰ For the supplement, cf. Bulas, K., AJA liv (1950) 114Google Scholar.

¹¹ Τ]έχνην is clearly mandatory. For its use on the Tabulae inscriptions, see above. The rest of the supplement appears to follow from the epigram on 1A, p. 31.

¹² Compare, in the 1A epigram τάξιν Ὁμήρου / ὅφρα δαείς.…

¹³ Bua 23; cf. Sadurska, A., Schr. der Sekt. für Altertumswiss. der deut. Akad. zu Berlin xiii (1959) 122Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Sadurska (10 n. 11a) now prefers a (?) Lycian origin for Theodorus, without developing her arguments sufficiently; cf. Bua 23.

¹⁵ Sadurska 8. The ‘apotheosis of Alexander’ to which Sadurska (n. 13) 122 refers is mystifying. There is no reference to it in her book five years later.

¹⁶ b.3; Sadurska 81.

¹⁷ For linguistic details, see J.-M. 78. The Latin spelling Πραινєστῷ (18L; b.27) stands too much in isolation to serve as the basis for hypotheses.

¹⁸ Michon 382; Guarducci 432.

¹⁹ CIL iv 2400d—g, etc.; Guarducci, M., Arch. Class. xvii (1965) 261–2Google Scholar with n. 135.

²⁰ Guarducci (n. 19) 265; CIL iv Suppl. 8297.

²¹ (i) ἤδη μοι Διὸς ἅρα πηγὴ παρά σοι, Διομήδη, Anth. Plan. xvi 387c1 = CIL iv 2400a, iv Suppl. p. 265; PSI 1965, 3.14; Epigr. Gr. 1124; Guarducci (n. 19) 254, 261. (ii) Sid. Ap. ix 14 ‘illud antiquum “Roma tibi subito motibus ibit amor”’: Guarducci (n. 19) 255 quotes a probable instance from Pompeii and (249–56) an example from Hungary of the early second century A.D. (iii) Anth. Plan. xvi 387b—c: some of these verses are identifiable as the work of Byzantine men of letters; they are learned curiosities cast in a popular and traditional mould.

²² Preisendanz, K., PW s.v. Palindromos; PGM iii 2. 279–80Google Scholar; Dornseiff, F., Das Alphabet ² (Berlin 1925) 63Google Scholar.

²³ Bua 3–35; Gardthausen, V., Gr. Paläographie ii ² (Leipzig 1913) 64–;6Google Scholar.

²⁴ The supplement is Professor Guarducci's (426); cf. Bua 8–9. The beginning and end of the line are to be found on 2NY and 3C respectively.

²⁵ Sadurska 71. Bua (13) sees 15Ber. as equally close to the manner of Theodorus.

²⁶ Bucolici Graeci (ed. Gow) 182–5; cf. Wilamowitz, , Kl. Schr. v 1.511Google Scholar.

²⁷ CR xxi (1971) 8.

²⁸ PGM iii 2.286; Dornseiff (n. 13) 59.

²⁹ Gardthausen (n. 23) 65; Bua 23. From Xois, in the Sebennytic nome.

³⁰ Not. et Extr. xviii 2 (1866) 43–76.

³¹ Pack² 369; Hultsch, PW s.v. ‘Eudoxos’ §24.

³² V. Bartoletti, EAA s.v. ‘Papiro’ 945–6; Weitzmann, K., Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton 1947) 47–50Google Scholar (hereafter Weitzmann IRC); id., Ancient Book Illumination (Cambridge 1959) 5–30 (hereafter Weitzmann ABI).

³³ Acrostics are in fact not nearly so rare or arcane as word-squares in the ancient world: Gardthausen (n. 23) 63; Page, Gk. Lit. Pap. 469; Cic. Div. ii 111 with Pease's note. Examples of authors' signatures, probably contemporary with Ps-Eudoxus, but non-Egyptian are provided by Nic. Ther. 345–53 and (?) Alex. 266–73; see Lobel, E., CQ xxii (1928) 114Google Scholar.

³⁴ Supplevit Mancuso, , Mem. Acc. Linc. xiv 8 (1909) 730Google Scholar (hereafter Mancuso). Cf. p. 27.

³⁵ Discussion and bibliography, Sadurska 18. The supplements have been proposed by Welcker, , Sylloge epigrammatum (Bonn 1828) 239Google Scholar, ὦ φίλє παῖ, and Lehrs, , RhM ii (1843) 354Google Scholar Θєοδ].

³⁶ Marquardt-Mau, , Privatleben der Römer 109–10Google Scholar. CGI iii 56.48–57 may attest the use of such aids; the wording is unclear and at least 200 years later than Theodorus.

³⁷ For the use ὑποθέσєις, see Plut, . Mor. 14eGoogle Scholar; J.-M. 86; CGI iii 56–69, 383–4. Reifferscheid's suggestion (Ann. Inst. xxxiv [1862] 107) that CGI iii 56.48–57 (third century A.D. at the earliest) is evidence for illustrated compendia is not convincing; see J.-M. 90 and Th. Birt, , Die Buchrolle in der Kunst (Leipzig 1907) 303–4Google Scholar for the suggestion that the passage refers to the classroom use of mythological illustrations. Miss E. H. Scheuer's London M.A. thesis (1976) has made the study of the Hermeneumata Pseudo-Dositheana substantially simpler.

³⁸ Mancuso 693–4; J.-M. 78.

³⁹ Most of the above arguments of course apply against their use (suggested by Marquardt ibid.) by tutors coaching individual children. On the suggestion that they were employed as school prizes (Bethe, E., Buch und Bild [Leipzig 1945] 77Google Scholar; hereafter Bethe), see Bianchi Bandinelli, R., Hellenistic-Byzantine Miniatures of the Iliad (Olten 1955) 26–7Google Scholar (hereafter BB) and Hausmann, U., Hellenistische Reliefbecher (Stuttgart 1959) 51Google Scholar (hereafter Hausmann).

⁴⁰ Cf. further, p. 38. Sadurska's suggestion (19, cf. 32) that at least the signed Theodorus tablets and perhaps too the more miscellaneous ‘fourth group’, which ‘représente les héros très populaires à Rome’ (12) were presents to the emperor or to courtiers does not convince.

⁴¹ Most of the evidence is set out, though not as clearly as one might wish, by Ashby, Thomas in PBSR v (1910) 282–3Google Scholar.

⁴² See R. Lanciani, Abbozzo della Carta Archeologica di Roma al 25000; Zona Ciampino—Lago Albano—Frascati—Monte Porzio Catone = Frutaz, A. P., Le Carte di Lazio iii (1972) no. 411Google Scholar.

⁴³ Pace Lippold, PW iv A (1887) 15–16.

⁴⁴ For the correct interpretation of CIL xiv 2431, cf. Mommsen, Th., CIL x p. 617Google Scholar and Hirschfeld, O.Klio ii (1902) 65Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. (Berlin 1913) 539.

⁴⁵ Sadurska 80, with further bibliography.

⁴⁶ So Michon 380–1; contra (e.g.) J.-M. 81–2.

⁴⁷ Not so Lippold (n. 43) 1893; cf. Sadurska 45.

⁴⁸ Schefold, W.u.B. 40Google Scholar; Helbig, W., Führer dürch die öffentliche…Sammlungen…in Rom ii ⁴ (1963-) 116Google Scholar; Spinazzola, V. and Aurigemma, S., Pompeii alla Luce degli Scavi Nuovi i (Roma 1953)Google Scholar (hereafter S.-A.). Professor Jane M. Cody prompted my own studies in the Sala delle Colombe, which led to similar conclusions; I am most grateful for her support and encouragement.

⁴⁹ Bienkowski, P., Röm. Mitt. vi (1891) 202 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Epigr. Gr. 1095; Ludwich, A., RhM xxxii (1877) 10–11Google Scholar; Schrader, H., JhB. kl. Phil. xxxiv (1888) 577–609Google Scholar. The lines quoted should not be dismissed as unmetrical; see Kaibel ad loc.

⁵¹ J.-M. 82; Michon 382.

⁵² Cf. Pfeiffer, R., Hist. Class. Schol. i 126–7Google Scholar (hereafter Pfeiffer).

⁵³ Sadurska 54; Pfeiffer 126–7.

⁵⁴ Kl. Schr. v.1 497–501; hereafter W.-M.

⁵⁵ Pfeiffer 195; A. Ludwich (n. 50) 11–12; Pack² 1185, 1190, 1208, etc.

⁵⁶ W.-M. 499; J.-M. 87; Bethe, E., Homer ii ².2 208–9Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Pfeiffer 116; Cauer, P., Grundfragen der Homerkritik ³ (Leipzig 1923) 579–80Google Scholar; Bouquiaux-Simon, P., Les Lectures Homériques de Lucien (Bruxelles 1968) 46–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Schefold W.u.B. 135.

⁵⁹ Contrast certain Homeric scenes at Pompeii, labelled in Latin, S.-A. 579. Cf. Smith on Petron. 48.8 for the knowledge of Greek in Petronius' circle; note his use of a Latin translation when following the Homeristae (59.3).

⁶⁰ One has probably to suppose that those panels where both recto and verso are inscribed were suspended from hooks, hinged, or placed on mounts so that both sides could be read; Sadurska 18–19. Their presence is altogether compatible with that we know (Marquardt [n. 36] 615) of ancient library decoration.

⁶¹ ‘Mit ihren bildern kopiert’, Birt [n. 37] 285.

⁶² Cf. Aus. Epigr. 7 (44) p. 313 Peiper; Wendel, C.–Gröber, W., Hdb. der Bibliothekswissenschaft iii 116Google Scholar.

⁶³ 29.9; perhaps with labelled figures. Cf. 29.4 with Smith's note.

⁶⁴ That is, presumably, Orpheus and Mopsus: see Smith ad loc.

⁶⁵ Sen. Apoc. 5.4; Lucian, Merc. Cond. 11Google Scholar; Juv. vii 232–6 (with Mayor's notes); Quint, i 8.18 (with Colson's notes); Lehrs, K., De Aristarchi studiis Homericis ³ (Leipzig 1882) 210–15Google Scholar; Sandys, J. E., Hist. Class. Schol. i 202Google Scholar; Marache, J., La Critique Littéraire… (Rennes 1952) 259Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Sadurska (n. 1) 653. Compare Weitzmann, K., AJA xlv (1941) 166–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A similar arrangement is to be observed in reliefs in honour of Hercules, Cybele and, notably, Mithras: cf. Saxl, F., Mithras (Berlin 1931) 38–9Google Scholar; Will, E., Le Relief Cultuel (Paris 1955) 432–7Google Scholaret passim.

⁶⁷ Wilamowitz, , Homerische Untersuchungen (Berlin 1884) 333, 360Google Scholar; Sadurska 31.

⁶⁸ Strong, E. in Jones, H. Stuart, Catal. Mus. Capit. (Oxford 1912) 169Google Scholar (hereafter Strong); Toynbee, J. M. C., ‘Some notes on artists in the Roman World’ in Coll. Latomus vi (1951) 22Google Scholar; etc.

⁶⁹ Cf. Sadurska 35; Mancuso 721; Schmidt 82 ff.; Karl Galinsky, G., Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton 1969) 107Google Scholar (hereafter Galinsky).

⁷⁰ It is in no way unusual for Hellenistic works of art to cite literary sources in such detail; see Guarducci 433 et passim and Webster, T. B. L., Hellenistic Art (London 1967) 102Google Scholar. I am grateful to Miss D. Quare for the latter reference and for much valuable discussion.

⁷¹ Eos liii (1963) 36–7.

⁷² PW xv 2042; cf. Sadurska 33–4.

⁷³ The case for including 9D and 14G in this argument rests on tendentious hypotheses (cf. Sadurska 57, 70). I do not take them into account.

⁷⁴ Sadurska pl. 9 and Weitzmann, K., AJA xlv (1941) 168Google Scholar, fig. 3.

⁷⁵ κα[ is preserved after the title.

⁷⁶ One, rather than two. For P. Oxy. 2803, see Page, D. L., PCPS n.s. xix (1973) 64–5Google Scholar; contra Haslam, , Quad. Urb. xvii (1974) 57Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Cf. (e.g.) Seeliger, K., Die Überlieferung der gr. Heldensage bei Stes. i (progr. Meissen 1886) 33Google Scholar; hereafter Seeliger.

⁷⁸ Welcker, F. G., Ann. Inst. i (1829) 234Google Scholar n. 10; Preller, L., Röm. Mythologie ²670Google Scholar; Nissen, H., Jhb. kl. Phil. xi (1865) 379Google Scholar; etc.

⁷⁹ Konstas, C., Iliupersis nach Stesichorus (diss. Tübingen 1876) 41 ffGoogle Scholar. (hereafter Konstas); Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry ²105–6Google Scholar, against Welcker, F. G., Alte Denkmäler ii 193Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Mancuso (709) tries valiantly but altogether unconvincingly to wriggle out of the trap.

⁸¹ Though Athen. iv 172d hesitates between Stes. and Ibycus as authors of the Ἀθλα ἐπὶ Πєλίᾳ, there is no trace of confusion when it comes to the episode in the story of Helen.

⁸² Mancuso 721; Seeliger 34; Paulcke 106; Sadurska 35; Galinsky 107; etc.

⁸³ Schmidt 84; Galinsky 109; Brüning, A., JdI ix (1894) 163Google Scholar; Niebuhr, B. G., Hist. of Rome i (Eng. tr.) 179Google Scholar; Perret, J., Les Origines de la Lègende Troyenne de Rome (Paris 1942) 113Google Scholar (hereafter Perret).

⁸⁴ Three scenes, not four. ΑΙΝΗΑΣ in the scene of Demophon and Acamas helping their grandmother Aethra is far from being a certain reading, pace Sadurska 30; see IG xiv 1284 (p. 330). Nor is it easy to see how Aeneas could have been relevant to this scene.

⁸⁵ By Mancuso 714; Sadurska 29. Cf. Paulcke 70; ‘a kneeling Trojan’, Strong 169.

⁸⁶ Schmidt 84 f.; Austin on Aen. ii 320; Heinze, R., Vergils epische Technik ³33–5Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ Plate II; the drawings of details from the Tabula which go back to J.-M. pl. i and which have been reproduced widely, are not reliable.

⁸⁸ A case in point: the J.-M. drawing (= Galinsky, pl. 86b) so reproduces the Tabula as to lead us to suppose that Polyxena and Odysseus have some part in this scene!

⁸⁹ Misenus bears a single burden, not easily identified, but it is (pace Sadurska 29) in all probability a trumpet, since (cf. Hubaux, J., Ant. Class. ii [1933] 161Google Scholar, followed by Perret 111) Misenus will neither have required his oar in battle nor have had time to fetch it. Note above all that the ship's oars are already in place.

⁹⁰ Cf. Agathyllus Arcas, incertae aetatis elegiacus (ap. D.H. i 49.2): αὐτὸς (sc. Aeneas) δ' Ἑσπєρίην ἔσυτο χθονά.

⁹¹ Ann. 23 ‘est locus, Hesperiam quam mortales perhibebant’.

⁹² Aen. i 530 (= iii 163) ‘est locus Hesperiam Grai cognomine dicunt’.

⁹³ See Wülfing—von Martitz, P. in Ennius, Entr. Hardt xvii (1971) 271 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. further Galinsky 108; Seeliger 32–3; Schmidt 73. D.H.'s statement (i 35.3) that the Greeks called Italy Hesperia/Ausonia before the time of Heracles is a corollary of his ltalia/vitulus etymology and should not be taken as testimony of the word's antiquity.

⁹⁴ Contrast Ἰταλία: a name of great antiquity; see Hellanicus, , FGrH 4 F 111Google Scholar; Antiochus, , FGrH 555 F 5Google Scholar. The initial letter could easily have been lengthened for convenience in dactylic verse earlier than Callimachus; see Norden on Virg. Aen. vi 61.

⁹⁵ Geffcken p. 145.19; Strabo i p. 26. Cf. Plb. xxxiv 11.5 = Strabo v p. 242. See too Perret 109; Robert, C., Gr. Heldensage ii ⁴ (1894–1921) 152Google Scholar (hereafter Robert).

⁹⁶ Origo Gentis Romanae 9.6; see Schanz-Hosius i⁴ 600. Cf. D.H. i 53.3: Misenus as a distinguished follower of Aeneas.

⁹⁷ Schmidt 73–4; Perret 109; Galinsky 108.

⁹⁸ Dio Chrys. Or. ii 33 = PMG fr. 203.

⁹⁹ See (e.g.) scholia to Il. xviii 219.

¹⁰⁰ Contrast J.-M. fig. 1 (= Galinsky fig. 29, enlarged) with the excellent photograph, Guarducci 427, fig. 161a and with Plate II.

¹⁰¹ Austin on Aen. ii 163; Bethe, , Homer ii ²2, 254 f.Google Scholar; E. Wörner in Roscher, iii 1302Google Scholar, etc. Discussed fully by Horsfall, , CQ xxix (1979)Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Gross, K., Die Unterpfander der röm. Herrschaft (Berlin 1935) 69–70Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Galinsky 156; see Fuchs, W., Aufstieg u. Nied. d.r. Welt i 4.617Google Scholar n. 10 (hereafter Fuchs).

¹⁰⁴ Livy v 40.7–8. See Riis, P., Entr. Hardt xiii (1966) 70–2Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1965) 284–7Google Scholar; Schauenburg, K., Gymn. lxxvii (1960) 191Google Scholar; etc. On luggage, cf. Fuchs, loc. cit.; Shefton, B. B., Wiss. Ztschr. Rostock xvi (1967) 534Google Scholar n. 25. I am grateful to Miss M. Loudon for much helpful discussion of this problem; she informs me that the rectangular case carried by a woman in the Departure of Aeneas scene on a BF hydria, Orvieto (Faina) 2198 (= Schauenburg [n. 104] no. 42; Brommer³ 388 no. 44) is overpainted. A nearly identical case on a BF kalpis, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts 33Cb 1 (= Schauenburg no. 39 with pl. xiv 2, Brommer no. 46), is securely to be identified as a piece of hard luggage; see further, Horsfall, , Ant. Kunst xxii 2 (1979)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Fuchs 617 n. 9; Alföldi (n. 104) 286; Zazoff, P., Etr. Skarabäen (Mainz 1968) 42Google Scholar (hereafter Zazoff).

¹⁰⁶ Zazoff 44; Alföldi, A., Die Trojanische Urahnen der Römer (Basel 1957) 16Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Crawford, RRC no. 458; cf. Fuchs, 425. Perhaps earlier: Crawford no. 307 = id., JRS lxi (1971) 153. C. seeks to identify a doliolum on a denarius of c. 107 B.C.; the correlation of (obverse) P(enates)P(ublici) and heads of Dioscuri with (reverse) a (slightly) jar-shaped object is striking. But the object should not be identified as a doliolum, whose shape is known and distinct (cf. above) and a comparison of the Munich holdall is misleading.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Aen. ii 721; Virgil does not specify a shoulder, but Aeneas would not have had to cover his latos umeros subiectaque colla with a lionskin, had Virgil envisaged him as carrying his father in the posture familiar from classical Greek art.

¹⁰⁹ I refer particularly to Anchises' extraordinary posture on a Nikosthenes cup, Louvre F.122 (= Schauenburg [n. 104] no. 52), Beazley, , ABV 231.6Google Scholar, CVA Louvre 10.III.He, pl. 99.1. There Anchises sits with his back to Aeneas' back and with no visible means of support.

¹¹⁰ Fuchs 616–18; Zazoff 41–3; Schauenburg, K., Röm. Mitt. lxxi (1964) 62–3Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Röm. Mitt. lxxi, pl. 4; Beazley, Paralipomena 147Google Scholar.

¹¹² Price, M. and Waggoner, N., Archaic Greek Coinage, The Asyut Hoard (London 1975) 43 f.Google Scholar, Pl. B no. 194: this is the best-preserved specimen of the coin and no earlier photographs are to be trusted.

¹¹³ On which, see now Cornell, T. J., Liverpool Class. Month. ii (1977) 78Google Scholar, with further bibliography. On the (irrelevant) acroteria of the Portonaccio temple at Veil, cf. id., PCPS n.s. xxi (1975) 11 n. 5.

¹¹⁴ Fuchs 625; cf. Schmidt 84.

¹¹⁵ Note Aen. ii 723–4 ‘dextrae se parvus Iulus implicuit’; so too on the Tabula.

¹¹⁶ Heinze (n. 86) 58 n. 2; Robert 1518.

¹¹⁷ The parallel manner in which the death of Astyanax is implied (supra p. 38) may be compared. With Virgil's account of Cybele's role in the rescue of Creusa from slavery (ii 788) cf. Paus. x 26.1; this version is later than the Epic Cycle (Austin on Aen ii 788) but clearly need not (pace Austin on ii 795) be Stesichorean.

¹¹⁸ Austin on Aen. ii 795; Schauenburg (n. 104) 183; Robert 1516–17.

¹¹⁹ It is curious that all three instances do not seem to have been discussed together. The lines of Marcellus have been compared with the Tabula at least since J.-M. 36: cf. (e.g.) Schmidt 90; Paulcke 76. The painting was published in 1953 (S.-A. ii 955) and its connexions with the Tabula have been noticed by (e.g.) S.-A. i 577, ii 955–6; Galinsky 31; Schefold W.u.B. 129; Sadurska, , Eos liii (1963) 35–6Google Scholar. I am not sure that the reference to Hermes building a ship for Aeneas in Naevius (Bell. Pun. fr. 7 Strz. = Serv. Dan. ad Aen. i 170) is—pace Galinsky 106—of any relevance for this discussion. Texts of Marcellus' poem are to be found at (e.g.) IG xiv 1389, Epigr. Gr. 1026.

¹²⁰ S.-A. i 593 fig. 644 = ii 955 fig. 971= Galinsky fig. 28.

¹²¹ 31 f.; cf. Schefold, W.u.B 129Google Scholar.

¹²² Schefold, K., Die Wände Pompejis (Berlin 1957) 18Google Scholar, followed by Sadurska 19 n. 24: c. 30 B.C. Beyen, , EAA vi 358Google Scholar: 40–25. Strong, Donald, Roman Art (Harmondsworth 1976) 34Google Scholar: a little after 40.

¹²³ For the relationship of the two works cf. further p. 48.

¹²⁴ 90, cf. Texier, R., Rev. Arch. cxv (1939) 19–20Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ W.-M. 498. Cf. Schwartz, E., De Dionysio Scytobrachione (diss. Bonn 1880) 5–10Google Scholar for some similar bad habits.

¹²⁶ For an introduction to the world of bogus sources, cf. Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968) 118–25Google Scholar, Momigliano, A., JRS xlviii (1958) 67Google Scholar n. 42 and particularly Speyer, W., Die literarische Falschung im Altertum (München 1971) 75–8Google Scholar.

¹²⁷ (H)agias as the possible author of an Iliou Persis: cf. E. Bethe, Homer ii².2 225–6, highly sceptical, but providing the main references. Add Robert, C., JdI xxxiv (1919) 72Google Scholar and Severyns, A., Le Cycle Épique (Liège 1928) 403Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ Konstas 66; Seeliger 33; Schwegler, A., Röm. Gesch. i (Tübingen 1853) 299–300Google Scholar; Hoffmann, W., Rom u. die gr. Welt, Philol. Supplbd. xxvii. 1 (1934) 109 n. 245Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ Homer: i 46.1, et passim. Soph. Laoc.: i 48.2; cf. i 12.2, i 25.4. Aesch. P.V.: i 41.3 Agathyllus: i 49.2. Alcaeus: v 73.3. Arctinus (sic):i 68.2. (Cf. further p. 37.)

¹³⁰ C.Q. xxix (1979). Cf. Galinsky 108–13, who examines the inferences to be drawn from the ‘facts’ of a sixth-century Himeran poet who refers to a trumpeter whose patria was the Bay of Naples (Misenus) and to Trojans in Hesperia (wherever that was; Campania and Sicily are the two most popular identifications).

¹³¹ Bibliography, Schefold, W.u.B. 197Google Scholar n. 209.

¹³² From Orient, Hellas und Rom (Bern 1949) 212–16 ff. (after Bethe 75–83). Cf. Hausmann 43.

¹³³ Polygnotus generally labelled his figures in the Lesche (Paus. x 25.3, Guarducci 433); given the cramped scale on which Theodorus was working, the extra explanation provided by the ὑπόθєσις was clearly desirable.

¹³⁴ Schefold, W.u.B. 40, 129Google Scholar; Hausmann 43.

¹³⁵ Cf. Robertson, Martin, History of Greek Art i 574–5Google Scholar.

¹³⁶ S.-A. 577; Weitzmann, ABI 37–8Google Scholar; Sadurska 17, 34 and 96–9.

¹³⁷ Sadurska 17, citing Schefold, W.u.B. 125–6Google Scholar and Will (n. 66) 418.

¹³⁸ On 1A and 2NY, cf. Bulas, K., AJA liv (1950) 112–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Sadurska 40; on 6B, cf. Sadurska 50, J.-M. 26, etc.

¹³⁹ Bua 23; Sadurska, , Eos liii (1963) 35–6Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ Particularly in the case of Il. xxi, Weitzmann, ABI 37–8Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ Cf. supra p. 42 for Aeneas himself, and see further Schefold, W.u.B. 129Google Scholar with n. 636.

¹⁴² For Rome, cf. Sadurska 19 n. 24, Vitr. vii 5 and Petr. 29. At Aen. i 454 Virgil begins to describe if not actual paintings, then paintings of a very familiar type. For the Portico of Philippus, see n. 3.

¹⁴³ Sadurska 17. The indebtedness of the Tabulae to such papyri has been championed most eloquently by Weitzmann, Kurt: AJA xlv (1941) 180–1Google Scholar; ABI 31–51, IRC 40–4.

¹⁴⁴ Montevecchi, O., La Papirologia (Torino 1973) 359–94Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Montevecchi 61; V. Bartoletti, EAA s.v. ‘Papiro’ 945–6; Weitzmann, ABI 5–30Google Scholar; those of Pap. Louvre 1 (p. 29) are probably the very earliest.

¹⁴⁶ Gerstinger, H., Die gr. Buchmalerei (Wien 1926) 10–11Google Scholar; Thiele, G., De antiquorum libris pictis (diss. Marburg 1897)Google Scholar; Th. Birt, , Kritik u. Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des ant. Buchwesens (München 1913) 305–7Google Scholar; Bethe 75–83; Wendel, C., Die gr.-röm. Buchbeschreibung (Halle 1949) 96–7Google Scholar; Gasiorowski, S. J., Malarstwo Minjaturowe Grecko-Rzyms-kie (Krakow 1928) 12–15Google Scholar; BB 31–2; K. Dziatzko PW s.v. ‘Buch’ 963.60–965.43 and notably Th. Birt (n. 37) 309.

¹⁴⁷ Notably collections of Roman imagines, Plin. xxxv 8,11; also works of geography and botany, id. xxv 4; authors' portraits at the beginning of rolls, Mart. xiv 186; possibly fable: CGl iii 39.49–56 with Birt (n. 37) 304–5. It is hard to know quite what to make of Seneca's comment on illustrated books in the libraries of the rich (Tranqu. An. 9.7; see p. 35).

¹⁴⁸ P. Oxy. xxxii 2652, 2653; cf. PSI vii 847.

¹⁴⁹ Kahil, L., Entr. Hardt xvi (1969) 248–51Google Scholar and (with Charitonidis, S. and Ginouvès, R.) Les Mosaïques de la Maison du Ménandre à Mityléne, Antike Kunst, Beiheft vi (1970) 102–5Google Scholar. See too Trendall, A. D. and Webster, T. B. L., Illustrations of Greek Drama (London 1971) 2Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Cf. further Binsfeld, W., Grylloi (diss. Köln 1956) 29Google Scholar; here we are at the level of poor childrens' comics.

¹⁵¹ Cf. Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri (Oxford 1968) 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵² So Plin. xxxv 11: ‘M. Varro benignissimo invento insertis voluminum suorum fecunditati etiam septingentorum illustrium aliquammodo imaginibus, non passus intercidere figuras…quando immortalitatem non solum dedit verum etiam in omnes terras misit.’ On the survival of these Imagines, see Gerstinger, H., Jhb. öst. byz. Gesell. xvii (1968) 269–77Google Scholar, Weitzmann, ABI 122Google Scholar.

¹⁵³ Or perhaps slightly later: for the dating of Cod. Ambros. F.205 P. Inf. to c. A.D. 500, see BB 156, 163–5.

¹⁵⁴ Weitzmann, ABI 34–5Google Scholar, IRC 43–4; BB 114–5.

¹⁵⁵ Note also a striking parallel with the Munich papyrus: BB 118; Weitzmann, ABI 32Google Scholar, IRC 54–5.

¹⁵⁶ ABI 31–9, IRC 37–44. Cf. BB 26–7; Robertson (n. 135) 575.

¹⁵⁷ The same principle of concentration is to be observed in Megarian bowls illustrating Od. xxii: Weitzmann, IRC 37–8Google Scholar, ABI 40; Robert, C., Homerische Becher, 50 Winckelmannsprogramm (1890) 8–20Google Scholar (hereafter Robert Becher).

¹⁵⁸ Weitzmann, K., AJA xlv (1941) 180Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁹ Five are extant on 1A; the left-hand edge is missing and it is completely legitimate to supplement our information from 6B.

¹⁶⁰ This argument disposes of Mme Sadurska's chief objection (17) to Weitzmann's conclusions: the problem of how illustrations deriving from a full text came to be linked with the briefest of summaries. Theodorus may not, of course, have had equally full sequences of illustrations, of whatever kind, for all parts of the Epic Cycle. Mme Sadurska's own explanation of Theodorus' primary artistic source as monumental (17) does not take sufficient account of the highly complex relationship oF ὑποθέσєις, literary original and illustrations on the Tabulae.

¹⁶¹ As in the depictions of Il. xxii 396 ff. and xxiv 509 ff. Cf. further Paulcke 13 et passim.

¹⁶² For example, the Cyclopes helping Hephaestus in Il. xviii on 1 A; cf.. Konstas 17 ff.; Schmidt 61 ff.; Bulas 131. Compare too Schefold, W.u.B. 79Google Scholar on the relationship of the Casa del Criptoportico to Homer.

¹⁶³ Supra p. 34; cf. Sadurska 32.

¹⁶⁴ Mancuso 694; Bulas 131; Lonstas 33 ff.

¹⁶⁵ Since J.-M. Cf. W.-M. 500–1; Bua 20; Sadurska 17 n. 6 for further bibliography.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. p. 33 and Pack² 1157 and following, passim.

¹⁶⁷ 26, et passim. It is no more than an interesting accident and one, perhaps, of importance in tracing the interrelationship of the ancient ὑποθέσєις, that the ὑπόθєσις of Il. i on 6B coincides quite closely with that found in Parisinus 2690; cf. n. 168 and J.-M. 87, Michon 377–8.

¹⁶⁸ Printed as an appendix to Bekker's edn of the Homer-scholia (1825).

¹⁶⁹ J.-M. 26; Michon 378.

¹⁷⁰ W.-M. 499–500; Bethe 76.

¹⁷¹ P. Par. 2 = Pack² 246 = SVF ii (p. 57) 180.20 = Bethe, , Homer ii.²2 192Google Scholar, and P. Oxy. xiii 1611, 148–9 = Bethe 169 are utterly inconclusive. Stesichorus is of course another matter.

¹⁷² W.-M. 500; certainly by the beginning of the third century: Bethe 169.

¹⁷³ Bethe 204–11 ; Vian, F., Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne (Paris 1959) 88Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁴ A. Rzach, PW s.v. ‘Kyklos’ 2349; Heinze (n. 86) 198; W.-M. 499; Teuffel-Schwabe-Kroll⁶ §228.6; Fraenkel, E., Philol. lxxxvii (1932) 247–8Google Scholar = Kl. Beitr. ii 178; Assereto, A. M., Mythos, Scripta in honorem M. Untersteiner (Genova 1970) 51–8Google Scholar; Jackson Knight, W. F., Vergil's Troy (Oxford 1932) 77Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ As Weitzmann supposes, ABI 44 et passim.

¹⁷⁶ That of the Aethiopis on 9D, whose analogies with Proclus' version have often been noted: J.-M. 83; Bethe, Homer ii².2 167, nos. 3,9. But if both texts are concerned to reduce the same story to the very simplest language, then similarities are hardly to be wondered at and should not be viewed as particularly significant.

¹⁷⁷ Note that 10K is no basis, as Sadurska 59 and even Weitzmann, ABI 42Google Scholar with n. 28 acknowledge, for arguing that an illustrated Thebaid once existed. The Theban myths on the verso of 9D have nothing to do with the texts or reliefs on the recto.

¹⁷⁸ Robert, Becher 47Google Scholar; there is no trace of metrical structure in the lines.

¹⁷⁹ Hausmann 52 no. 5; Robert, Becher 26–9Google Scholar; Weitzmann, ABI 43–4Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁰ τινὲς γράφουσιν.

¹⁸¹ Hausmann 45; Bethe 76; Bua 20; W.-M. 497–501; Sadurska 17.

¹⁸² In a ratio of, roughly, one illustration to every three lines of text. Contrast Weitzmann, ABI 35–7Google Scholar, who argues for an illustrated Iliad with a ratio of one picture to every 28–30 lines of text. The Ambrosian Iliad will originally have contained 240 pictures (so Weitzmann, ABI 33Google Scholar, IRC 42), or perhaps 180–200 (BB 157) to some 15683 lines.

¹⁸³ Used here only in the sense of ‘summary of contents’; cf. Pfeiffer 193. The ὑποθέσєις preserved among the Pindar-scholia are of a fundamentally different character.