Timothy J. Cornell (ed.), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, Vol. 3

Contents
Find Location in text

Main Text

pg 55263C. Julius Hyginus

COMMENTARY

F1 See on Antias 25 F21, with Münzer, Beiträge … Plinius, 169–70, and Marshall, A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia, Mo., 1985), 104–5; R. G. Lewis, Asconius Commentaries (Oxford, 2006), 208. In this passage Asconius is seeking to test Cicero's claim that no one before him had had his house built at public expense (what Cicero should have said is that his was the first house to be rebuilt at public expense: see Nisbet (on Cic. Pis. (Oxford, 1961), ad loc.). After citing Antias on the house of M. Valerius (cos. 505) on the Palatine (on the cognomen Maximus see comm. on Antias 25 F21), Asconius refers to Hyginus as the conduit for Varro's opinion on the matter. The first part of Hyginus/Varro's report appears to agree with Antias, although it is credited with the additional detail that M. Valerius' house was a reward for his victory over the Sabines. And they alone are cited in connection with the house of P. Valerius Publicola. Most of the surviving historical accounts have the simple story that Publicola demolished his house on the Velia when the people suspected him of monarchic ambitions, and then rebuilt it at the foot of the hill (Cic. rep. 2.53; Livy 2.7.6–12; DH 5.19.1–2; Val. Max. 4.1.1; uir. ill. 15.2; cf. Serv. Aen. 4.410). Although Plutarch (uniquely) says that Publicola's new house was given him by the people (Plut. Popl. 10.3–4), other sources are careful to say that the site, but not the house itself, was publicly provided (Plin. nat. 36.112; the distinction is crucial for Cicero at har. resp.16). This was evidently the version favoured by Varro and Hyginus. The fragment adds two further details: that the house was located at the site of the temple of Victoria (in Livy 2.7.12 and Plut. Popl. 10.6 it is called the temple of Vica Pota, an archaic divinity later identified with Victoria: Wissowa, RuK2 140; Weinstock, RE 8A. 2014–15; Ogilvie, Comm. 251–2), and that the site was granted to Publicola as a result of a law proposed by himself. No such lex Valeria is recorded elsewhere in the tradition. For the contemporary relevance of the topic, see Weinstock, Divus Iulius, 276–81; for discussion of the tradition on the houses of the Valerii, and the topography, see Coarelli, Foro Romano, 1. 79–83.

This is only one item in a series in which Hyginus acknowledges or is ascribed dependency on Varro; see also F11, 13.

There is a conflict between libro priore (implying a work in two books) in this passage and the minimum of six books indicated in F2; for discussion of this problem see introduction, I. 478–9.

F2 Gellius ascribes the fragment to the sixth book, which appears to conflict with Asconius' implication that book 1 was the first of two (see on F1 above and introduction, I. 478–9).

pg 553

As for the fragment itself, there can be little doubt of the extent of the report from Hyginus, despite the move from oratio obliqua to direct speech in §2: that section contains the point of the story, which Gellius evidently took in its entirety from Hyginus. The story appears also in Val. Max. 4.3.6, and is paralleled by an identical tale involving M'. Curius Dentatus: Cic. sen. 55; rep. 3.40; Val. Max. 4.3.5; Plut. Cat. Mai. 2.2. C. Fabricius Luscinus, cos. 282 and 278, and censor 275, always as colleague of the patrician Q. Aemilius Papus (on their association Cic. amic. 39; and see Cornell, Beginnings, 343), had long been held up as an example of frugalitas and integrity in a new man. Most famously he had refused both to accept bribes from Pyrrhus of Epirus and to have him poisoned (note e.g. Quadrigarius 24 F41 and Antias 25 F25; further references in Broughton, MRR 1. 194); as censor he expelled the patrician P. Cornelius Rufinus, a forebear of Sulla the Dictator, for possessing ten pounds of silver vessels (sources in MRR 1. 196). An interesting feature of the story as told in the fragment is that the Samnites offered the money to Fabricius not as a bribe (as in the Pyrrhus episode), but as a payment for services rendered after peace had been concluded. It thus provides an early example of the patronage that a victor came to exercise over defeated enemies (the same point in Val. Max. 4.3.6a, where it is said that Fabricius held all of the Samnites in his clientele (uniuersos in clientela habebat), and in the parallel story involving M'. Curius Dentatus, for whom the Samnites were 'formerly enemies, now clients' (quondam hostes iam clientes: Cic. rep. 3.40)).

F3–4 The two fragments come from a continuous passage of Gellius, but are separated here (as in Peter 2. 46–7) because the two stories about Scipio were probably not taken from a continuous passage in Hyginus (or Oppius).

On the substance of the stories, and the evidence for the 'Scipionic legend', see on Oppius 40 F1–2.

The two fragments at least make it clear that Africanus was one of Hyginus' illustres uiri. But as with all multiple citations it is not certain precisely which elements of Gellius' account should be ascribed to Hyginus, and which to Oppius and 'the others who have written about Africanus'. The same applies to the further story which Gellius adds at the end of 6.1, without specifying the source(s), about Scipio's ability to predict the future (cf. on Oppius 40 F1–2). It is possible, but not certain, that Gellius' whole chapter, including the references to Oppius and other sources, was taken from Hyginus (for the allegedly derivative character of his work and his supposed lack of originality, see introduction, I. 481).

In any case, Gellius' references to other sources is itself enough to refute the suggestion that the presence of similar stories about Scipio in uir. ill. 49.1–2 confirms Hyginus as the source of uir. ill. (see introduction, I. 478 and nn. 22–4).

F5 The passage of Virgil to which Macrobius refers is Aen. 7.684–9, which describes the rustic followers of Caeculus (on whom see Cato 5 F67), who included the Hernici of Anagnia, going into battle wearing protection for only one foot (7.688–9). Macrobius says that the custom was unknown in Italy (5.18.14), it seems wrongly: refs. and bibliography in G. Capdeville, Volcanus (Rome, 1995), 56, with nn. 61–4; Macrobius claims that it was derived from Aetolia (cf. Serv. Aen. 7.689: a Graeciae more), and that Virgil, in attributing it to the followers of Caeculus, was pg 554making a learned allusion to the Pelasgian origin of the Hernici (an interpretation doubted by Horsfall, on Aen. 7.690; in general see Briquel, Pelasges, 525–40).

The Hernici lived in the Upper Sacco valley and had been allied to Rome since the early fifth century. Their main centres were Anagnia, Ferentinum, Aletrium, and Verulae: see G. Colonna in Italia omnium terrarum alumna (Milan, 1988), 519 (=Colonna, Italia ante Romanum Imperium 1.2 (Pisa and Rome, 2005), 598–9); Cornell, Beginnings, 300–1; Oakley, Comm. 1, on Livy 6.2.3. Hyginus is cited for the idea that they took their name from their Pelasgian leader, Hernicus. Although this explanation is unique to Hyginus, Briquel suspects that he is retailing a well-established tradition (Pelasges, 535–6). Other sources have a different etymology: Schol. Veron. Aen. 7.684 and Paul. Fest. 89 say the name comes from herna, the Marsic word for 'stone'; Servius (Aen. 7.684) says it was a Sabine word, and that some Sabines were induced by one of their leaders to live in the stony mountains, and were known as Hernici ('people of the rocks').

F6 The difficulty here is to know what exactly is being attributed to Hyginus, especially as the key part of the text is hopelessly corrupt. Servius is commenting on Virgil's Caulonisque arces ('the heights of Caulon'), which must refer to the ancient Greek city of Caulonia (modern Punta Stilo, near Marina di Monasterace), on the east coast of Bruttium (modern Calabria). Virgil's lines (3.351–3, reproduced here in full) indicate the general location and make it clear beyond all doubt that Caulonia is meant. Servius is therefore mistaken in associating 'the heights of Caulon' with Horace's Aulon (carm. 2.6.18), a ridge famous for its wines, situated above Tarentum in Messapia (ancient Calabria). Servius appears to locate the city of Caulonia on this ridge. This emerges both from the phrase in quo oppidum fuit and from the final Danieline note that others attribute its foundation to Caulus, where 'it' can only be Caulonia. This raises the question of what should be read in place of the meaningless olim non est. The sense requires the name of the town, or a phrase explaining its name; but neither can be produced by a minor change, and we have to suspect a major corruption. Schoell's a coli (=cauli) nominatum est and Samter's Caulon nunc est are clever conjectures, but conjectures they remain. Peter accepted Samter's emendation because Strabo (6.261) has a very similar version to the one being proposed for Hyginus, namely that the place now called Caulonia was formerly known as Aulonia, because of the valley (αὐλῶν‎) that lay in front of it. To Peter (2. 76 n.) this indicated that Strabo and Hyginus were following the same erroneous tradition; but Strabo knew where Caulonia was, and his text locates it correctly. His statement that it was formerly called Aulonia was probably a faithful report of what he found in his source; that source may have been Hyginus. If not, they were following a common tradition, which can in fact be shown to go back to Hecataeus (FGrHist 1 F84; cf. ps.-Scymn. 318–22). It is far more likely that the error was committed by Servius (or his source), who mistakenly identified Hyginus' Aulonia with Horace's Aulon, and wrongly located Virgil's Caulonis arces in the hills above Tarentum.

Whether Hyginus was also the source of the Danieline parenthesis that Caulonia was founded by Locri cannot be known, but is certainly likely. Locri was situated south of Caulonia and the two cities shared a common border; but other sources made Caulonia an Achaean (Strabo 6.261; Paus. 6.3.12) or Crotoniate (ps.-Scymn. 318–19; pg 555Solin. 3.74; Steph. Byz. s.v. Αὐλών‎) foundation. Full discussion of the sources in S. De Vido in M. C. Parra (ed.), Kaulonia, Caulonia, Stilida (e oltre), ASNP Quaderni 11–12 (Pisa, 2001), 1–12; see also G. De Sanctis, MAL 23 (1914), 685–98=Scritti Minori 3 (Rome, 1972), 498–510.

F7 'Ardea' means 'heron'. Hyginus is the only source to use this fact to explain the name of the city (although J. T. Dyson, CQ 47 (1997), 314–15, detects in Virgil a word play between auis ('by our grandfathers') and auis ('bird'); for a cautious verdict Horsfall ad loc.), which is elsewhere attributed to an eponymous founder, Ardeias the son of Odysseus and Circe (Xenagoras FGrHist 240 F29). In a typical flight of fancy Ovid (met. 14.573–80) inverts Hyginus' etymology, and has a heron rise from the ashes of the fallen city; the bird, never before seen, is thus given the name ardea. Ovid and Hyginus were friends (see introduction), and Funaioli (GLF 534), like Peter, suspects that Ovid made use of Hyginus here.

F8 Cf. Serv. Aen. 10.183. The Etruscan city known to the Romans as Caere (mod. Cerveteri) was called Agylla by the Greeks (thus, already, Hdt. 1.167), and had a tradition of close contact with the Greek world, even maintaining a treasury at Delphi (Strabo 5.220). Hyginus' statement that the inhabitants were Greeks is likely to be based, however, on his view that the Etruscans were of Pelasgian origin (see F13 and comm.); along with other ancient writers he probably believed that the Pelasgians were Greeks (Strabo 5.221; DH 1.17.1–2; at 1.20.5 DH says that Caere, then called Agylla, was one of the cities built by the Pelasgians). In any case, Hyginus' story of how the city of Caere got its name is found also in Strabo 5.220 (another case where the two authors coincide; cf. comm. on F6), but with the important difference that in Strabo it is the Etruscans who approach the city and are hailed by its Greek-speaking Pelasgian inhabitants, and after occupying it change its name to Caere (χαῖρε‎ (chaire)='greetings'), whereas in Hyginus the Pelasgians and Etruscans are the same people (F13; so too the authors cited in DH 1.28), and it is the Romans who receive, and misunderstand, their greeting. Strabo (or his source) evidently shared the view of DH (1.29–30) that the Etruscans were different from the Pelasgians; and their opinion that the Etruscans did not speak Greek was an observable fact. The identification of Pelasgians and Etruscans was not a problem for those who believed that the Pelasgians were not Greek (e.g. Hellanicus of Lesbos FGrHist 4 F4=DH 1.28.3), but Hyginus evidently thought they were. Whether he tried to resolve this problem, and if so how, we do not know. See Briquel, Pelasges, 169–224, esp. 172–4.

We have not emboldened the first sentence of the Servius passage (the origin of the name Agylla) because we cannot be certain that it is from Hyginus (although it probably is). Tuscia as an alternative to Etruria (cf. Tusci, Etrusci) is found mainly in late Latin texts and may not have occurred in Hyginus. Note that Tuscia/Etruria only partially coincides with modern Tuscany; in fact Caere (Cerveteri) is in modern Lazio.

F9 There are two textual problems in the key part of this fragment. First, we cannot believe that the active appellare is right; on the suggestion of JB we have printed appellari. Second, we have accepted Bücheler's Casperini as the most plausible pg 556emendation of Casperin, the reading of F, the only DS witness at this point. Daniel's conjecture, Casperuli, which has been accepted by subsequent editors and commentators, including Peter and J. Poucet (below), is based on Casperula at Sil. 8.415 (cited below: Casperula is the reading of all the extant MSS; Casperia is cited by Heinsius from the lost Cologne MS). There is then the difficult issue of how the sentence is to be translated. Our version follows the natural order of words, taking Persarum with partem. We are aware, however, that the result is not easily comprehensible, and that there may be merit in Poucet's interpretation, which emphasizes the explicative force of nam, and takes Persarum with nomine, thus: 'La preuve en est qu'une fraction des Sabins a commencé par porter le même nom que certains Perses: Caspiri, appellation qui a été corrompue dans la suite en Casperuli' (Poucet, in Études étrusco-italiques (1963), 204). The problem, however, is that understanding Sabinorum or eorum with partem seems a rather desperate measure.

The passage immediately precedes the text printed as Cato 5 F51 and Cn. Gellius 14 F20, both of whom, according to DS, traced the origin of the Sabines to Sabus the Lacedaemonian. Although there are problems with this as far as Cato is concerned, since his F50 describes Sabus as the son of Sancus, a native deity, it is nevertheless likely that Cato connected the Sabines in some way with Sparta (see comm. on Cato 5 F50–1). From the present fragment it appears that Hyginus also did so, while at the same time suggesting a non-Spartan (Persian) origin for Sabus. Poucet believes that Hyginus took the idea of a Persian Sabus from either Alexander Polyhistor or Protarchus of Tralles (see F10) and then tried to reconcile it with the well-established Spartan tradition by making Sabus call in at Sparta on his way to Italy (Poucet, in Études étrusco-italiques (1963), 212). Hyginus also seems to have found evidence of the Persian connection in the name of the Casperini, who are generally taken to be the inhabitants of Casperia, an unidentifiable place in Sabine territory (Virg. Aen. 7.714 with Horsfall ad loc.; Poucet, in Études étrusco-italiques (1963), 205). Peoples and places named Caspii, Caspiri, Casperia, etc. (most obviously the Caspian Sea: mare Caspium) are found throughout the territory of the old Persian empire, as Hyginus is likely to have known (for his eastern interests see Poucet, in Études étrusco-italiques (1963), 207–8). Whether this etymological link itself gave rise to the idea that the Sabines were (at least in part) of Persian origin (thus Firpo, Athenaeum 83 (1995), 515 n. 9), or whether it was held merely to confirm it, cannot be known. For Silius Italicus, who probably drew upon Hyginus, it provided an opportunity for a learned allusion (Punica 8.414–5): hunc Amiterna cohors et Bactris nomina ducens | Casperia (C: Casperula cett.) ('hither the forces of Amiternum, and Casperia, taking its name from the Bactrians … ').

F10 The work is not specified, and the attribution of this fragment to the De Italicis urbibus is only the most probable of several possibilities. Other works from which it could be taken include the commentary on Virgil, the De proprietatibus deorum (note in particular the description of the characteristics of Janus in §20), or even the De uiris illustribus, if Hyginus included mythical kings among his subjects. It is also uncertain how far the Hyginus fragment extends. The passage we have printed forms the first of three different explanations given by Macrobius of the origin of the Saturnalia; the second, introduced by an anonymous traditur, ascribes the festival to Hercules pg 557(1.7.27), while the third, from Varro (1.7.28–32), traces it back to the Pelasgians, who migrated to central Italy and established the cult and festival of Saturn there (cf. DH 1.19). The first of the three versions forms a coherent story that is given unity by the Janus theme, and there must be a prima facie case for attributing the whole of it to Hyginus (and his source, Protarchus of Tralles). We have therefore printed all of it, while recognizing that only the first sentence can be credited to the named sources with absolute certainty (and is accordingly printed in bold type). Even so, it would not follow that Hyginus was the only source. Some of the digressions and passing comments may come from elsewhere, e.g. on Janus' two faces (NB creditur) and Anteuorta and Postuorta (§20), on coin-tossing (§22), on their twin foundations, with the quotation from Virgil, and on months (§23). These could be glosses inserted by Macrobius or an intermediary source (note that the latter sections are omitted by Peter). The final sections (§§25–6), characterizing Saturn and his festival in general terms, are commonplaces that could come from anywhere (Peter, ad loc., suggests Varro), but there is no reason in principle why they too should not have been in Hyginus, and we have therefore included them in the fragment (cf. M. Wifstrand Schiebe, Vergil und die Tradition von den römischen Urkönigen (Stuttgart, 1997), 87–95).

Once again Hyginus' dependence on an earlier writer is explicitly acknowledged: Protarchus of Tralles is virtually unknown apart from this passage (the only other citation is from Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὑπεροβόρεοι‎), which serves to date him no later than the first century bc (K. Ziegler, RE 23. 923–4).

The story of Janus and Saturn is a classic example of euhemerism (see introduction to Hemina (6), I. 223). Janus and Saturn are here represented as early kings of Italy, a tradition that is present in Virgil (Aen. 7.180) and may be older, although nothing before Virgil refers to Janus as a king, and this fragment, if indeed from Hyginus, is the earliest evidence for the story that he welcomed Saturn to Italy and ruled jointly with him (cf. Horsfall ad loc.). Euhemeristic accounts of Saturn as an ancient Italian king, on the other hand, go back to Ennius and Cassius Hemina (see comm. on Hemina 6 F1). The origin of this idea was Euhemerus' own Sacred History, which Ennius had translated, and the identification of Cronus with Saturn (already in Livius Andronicus, Od. fr. 2, 16); the Saturnian 'golden age' thus took its starting point from Hesiod (erga 109–11). In Ennius' Annals the 'Saturnian land' (Saturnia terra: ann. 21 Sk.) was probably confined to Latium, although it later came to signify Italy (Skutsch ad loc.), and the cult of Saturn was firmly located in Rome, where his altar, and subsequently his temple, were situated at the foot of the Capitol (LTUR s.v.; Coarelli, Foro Romano, 1. 199–226). According to Varro, the Capitol itself was also known as the mons Saturnius and the town that stood on it as Saturnia (Varro ling. 5.42; cf. Fest. 430); Janiculum and Saturnia appear as twin foundations of Janus and Saturn in Virgil (Aen. 8.357–8).

The story of how Saturnus was welcomed at Rome by Janus, and how this scene came to be represented on early bronze coins, appears also in Ovid (fast. 1.229–48), which may support the attribution of the whole of the present fragment to his friend Hyginus. Further coincidences between the two texts include the description of Saturnus as sickle-bearing (falcifer: 1.234), and the idea that Janus reigned over Latium from his citadel on the Janiculum (1.245–7). Although the explanation is pg 558fanciful, the coin types themselves are real enough: from the Second Punic War to the end of the republic the standard obverse type of bronze asses was the bearded laureate head of Janus, and the standard reverse type the prow of a ship (Crawford, RRC nos. 36–530 and plates; discussion on pp. 718–19). The story, and the aetiology of the coin types, appear frequently (with variations of detail) in later sources, including Plut. mor. 274E–F; Tert. apol. 10.7–8; id. nat. 2.12; Min. Fel. Octav. 23.10; Cypr. idol. 2; Serv. Aen. 8.319, 357; Lact. inst. 1.13.6–7; OGR 1.3; 3.1–8; Aug. ciu. 7.4. But Ovid, Hyginus, and the mysterious Protarchus of Tralles provide the earliest evidence in the historical/antiquarian tradition, which clearly suggests that it must have originated with them. The absence of any sign of it in Varro and the republican historians is undoubtedly significant; if they had known of it they would certainly have been cited by later sources, especially the Virgil commentators.

The fragment is also notable for its suggestion of divided kingship. Janus first agrees to share his kingdom with the wholly mysterious Camesis, to whom this is the only surviving reference (so too Camesene as a place-name), and subsequently with Saturn: the story is thus potentially a parallel to that of Romulus and Titus Tatius, the Sabine king who shared sovereignty with Romulus until his assassination at Lavinium (Livy 1.10.1; 14.3), and the notion that Romulus ruled jointly with Remus (Hemina 6 F14 and comm.). For other examples of shared kingship in early Latium see Cornell, Beginnings, 236. Finally we may note that Saturnus becomes a god when Janus establishes a cult in his honour after his disappearance. This motif (the idea that the disappearance of a person's physical body implies assumption into heaven) has many parallels, including the Roman examples of Aeneas (Cato 5 F7; Cassius Hemina 6 F8; Diod. 7.5.2; DH 1.64.4; OGR 14.2), Latinus (Festus 212), and Romulus (Cic. rep. 2.17; Liv. 1.16.1; DH 2.56.2; Plut. Rom. 27.6–9, Numa 2.1–2).

F11 Once again the work is not specified, but the phrase de situ urbis ('about the site of the city') may indicate the work on Italian cities (cf. esp. F6: de situ urbium Italicarum); in that case it would follow that Hyginus' Italian cities included Rome. Here too Hyginus is again cited alongside Varro. The secret name of Rome, mentioned also by Pliny, nat. 3.65, is elucidated by H. Zehnacker ad loc. (Budé edn. (Paris, 1998), 175–6). Deducing from its place in Pliny's alphabetical list (of inland cities in Region I, Latium and Campania) that it began with V, he suggests Valentia (cf. Hyperochus ap. Fest. 328 (=FGrHist 576 F4); Ateius Capito ap. Serv. Aen. 1.273 (=GRF F5); Solin. 1; Plut. Rom. 1.1), or Volupia, with their associations with strength and wolves; the reason for the prohibition was that the Romans feared that they might become victims of their own practice of euocatio, the summoning of a city's patron deity to the city of their enemies. Varro's story of the tribune, named Valerius Soranus by Pliny, is discussed by R. Helm, RE 8A. 225.

F12 For this fragment, and for F13, attribution to the work on Italian cities is only one possibility; Hyginus' commentary on Virgil would be equally likely. Hesperia as Italy features in Ennius (ann. 20 Sk.), in the Augustan poets (Virgil, Aen. loc. cit.; 1.569; 3.163, 185–6, 503; 7.4, 44, 503; etc.; Hor. carm. 3.6.8), and in Greek writing of the period (Agathyllus, in DH 1.49). In general see N. Horsfall, JHS 99 (1979), 39; G. Maddoli, EV 2 (1985), 390–1. Hesperus is mentioned by Diodorus (4.27.1–2) as pg 559brother of Atlas and father of Hesperis, who married Atlas and became the mother of the Hesperides (a different version in Diod. 3.60.2–3, where Hesperus is the son of Atlas). The story of Hesperus' expulsion by Atlas and flight to Italy is known only from this fragment.

F13 On the question of attribution see above on F12. If it is not coincidence, this looks like another instance of Hyginus following Varro, though dicit might be a simplification of an extended discussion. The Pelasgians were believed to have been an autochthonous people of the Aegean region, who were credited with colonizing central Italy, including Etruria, in prehistoric times; thus DH 1.17–30, who cites Thucydides (4.109.4, at 1.25.3) and Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 F4 at 1.28.3) for the view that the Etruscans were originally called Pelasgians—a view that he (DH) vigorously disputes (1.29–30). In general see F. Schachermeyr, RE 19. 252–6, esp. 255 (Etruria); Briquel, Pélasges; and cf. above, on F5 and F8.

F14 This is the only certain fragment of Hyginus' work on Trojan families. Presumably Entellus had some role in the origin legend of one of Rome's great families, but we cannot begin to guess which one. Entellus was the eponymous hero of Entella, one of the Elymian cities in western Sicily, whose Trojan connections can be traced back at least as far as Thucydides (6.2.3). While Virgil (Aen. 5.387–484) makes him, along with Acestes, Elymus, and Eryx, a native Sicilian, Hyginus regarded him as Trojan, probably in reaction to Virgil (the text should not be taken to imply that Virgil wrote after Hyginus). The compromise position adopted by DH (1.52), namely that Elymus and Aegestus (=Acestes) were born in Sicily but of Trojan descent, and had fought at Troy against the Greeks before returning to Sicily (cf. Fabius 1 F28 and comm.), was probably not suitable for Hyginus, if his aim was to trace the ancestry of one of Rome's Trojan families back to Entellus; the families in question claimed descent from the Trojans who had accompanied Aeneas to Italy and settled at Alba Longa. On Entellus see K. Tümpel, RE 5. 2649; L. Polverini, EV 2 (1985), 321. For ancient sources on Entella, M. Lombardo, ASNP ser. 3.12 (1982), 1087–96.

F15 The fragment is included here because it is explicitly said to come from a historical work (and Hyginus is cited together with Tubero), although it is an open question which work is actually meant. The commentary on Virgil would be the obvious choice, were it not for the fact that it is described as historia; other possibilities include the work on Trojan families, which may have included some reference to the Trojan horse, or the De uiris illustribus, if Hyginus' 'distinguished men' included heroic figures such as Aeneas. Even the work on Italian cities cannot be ruled out, since Epeus, the creator of the wooden horse, was connected in one tradition with the foundation of Pisa (Serv. Aen. 10.179, and see comm. on Cato 5 F70). For the rationalization of the legend of the Trojan horse, see comm. on Tubero 38 F1.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out