Enniana IV: Condendae urbis auspicia

Author(s): O. Skutsch
Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Nov., 1961), pp. 252-267
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/637715
Accessed: 17-04-2019 09:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV

Condendae urbis auspicia

CICERO, de div. I. 107, has preserved the longest fragmen

piece of twenty lines, describing how Romulus and Remus
to decide which of them should found, give his name to, and r
Mommsen, Ges. Schr. iv. I ff., declared that such auspice-t
patible with Roman augural practice and indeed with the
augury: the birds could approve or disapprove but not select;
be done by lot (p. I1). The impossible story, he argued, aro
(Remus according to him, Romulus according to P. Kret
[1909], 294 ff.) intruded into the original version which knew
only; the auspices, because they were an integral part of that
adapted to the two actors. Little is heard of Mommsen's t
seems to have been contradicted explicitly only by E. Peterse
42, and since his arguments, such as the finding of the large
Navius (Cicero, de div. I. 31), are perhaps not decisive, t
briefly settled.
Cicero makes his brother Quintus prove his case that augury
as some sceptics maintain, a clever invention intended to dec
(105) neque enim in pastoribus illis quibus Romulus praefuit neque
calliditas esse potuit ut ad errorem multitudinis religionis simulacr
proceeds to quote the augury of Marius, as described in M
returns with great insistence to the point made before: (107)
auguratus pastoralis non urbanus fuit; nec fictus ad opiniones impe
acceptus et posteris traditus. itaque Romulus augur, ut apud Enniu
item augure 'Curantes magna cum cura .. .'. It seems hardly conc
context Cicero should have introduced a story which ran cou
nature of augury. In case, however, it should be argued that
augur himself and author of a work de auguriis, was not in a
what was and what was not consistent with Roman augural p
evidence of a different nature may be found in Festus, p. 24
consulum potestate reported that, when it was the turn of the Ro
general for the Latin League, complures nostros in Capitolio . . . a
solitos; ubi aues addixissent, militem illum qui a communi Latio mis
aues addixerant praetorem salutare solitum qui eam prouinciam obtine
Whatever one may think of the generalship of the Latin Lea
the Staatsrecht returns to the passage and its historical signi
again, without observing its implication for augural practice)
to the ability of the birds not only to approve but by their
one of several rival competitors is unshakeable. The auspice-t
by Ennius is correct.
Of the individual problems posed by the fragment one of th
sial concerns the positions taken up by the two brothers
uniformly assigns the Aventine to Remus and the Palat
x Fast. Praen. 23 Mart., C.I.L. ij. 234
Valerius Messala Rufus); Prop. 4. I. 50;
6. 4314.
(Q. Lutatius Catulus); Gell. I3. f.; Ovid,
5 (M.fast. 4. 815 ff-t; 5. I5I; Paul.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 253

Ennius, while vague, as our tex

places Romulus on the Aventine
77 (V.) curantes magna cum cu
regni dant operam simul au
tin monte Remus auspicio s
8o solus auem seruat. at Rom
quaerit Auentino, seruat gen
Theoretically in the circumstan
is emended so as to make Enniu
assumed that Ennius has preserved
view is taken, Ennius' Remus may
in which case the twins in the lat
sen; Valmaggi; Heurgon); or he
merely in a lower position than R
Htilsen; Platner-Ashby; E. Steuar
the name of Remuria came to be attached.
Stanley Pease, in his learned commentary on de divinatione, adopts, however
hesitatingly, the view that emendation assigning the Palatine to Romulus is
necessary. It must therefore be stated categorically that this solution is inad-
missible. As has long been pointed out, the position of Romulus on the Aventine
is attested also by Servius, Aen. 3. 46: Romulus captato augurio hastam de Auentino
monte in Palatium iecit. Since we have this unambiguous testimony it is unneces-
sary to speculate whether Naevius, in deriving Auentinus from aues (Varro, L.L.
5. 43), was thinking of the birds of Romulus and thus likewise attests the
Aventine. Nor, on the other hand, is it necessary to refute the view that old
augural transmission supports the Palatine. H. Jordan, Acad. Alb. Regim., 1885,
p. 7, tried to refute it with Varro's statement (Censor. 17. 15) that he had heard
Vettius, an expert in augury, say: si ita esset ut traderent historici de Romuli
urbis condendae auguriis et duodecim uolturiis, Rome would last twelve hundred years ;
but what is here by implication shown to be unknown to augural transmission
may be merely the detail of the twelve vultures, not the auspice-taking itself.
We may content ourselves in the meantime with stating that neither the
preservation of Romulus' lituus, in accordance with a pontifical decree, in the
curia of the Salii on the Palatine, nor the appearance of Messala Rufus 'Augur'
among the witnesses for the Palatine gives the least proof of an old augural
transmission placing Romulus on the Palatine. The date when this version of
the story arose will be discussed presently.
Ennius' Romulus, then, was on the Aventine. Where was Remus ? With all the
respect due to Mommsen and the other adherents of that theory it must be said
that the Palatine is out of the question: only sheer perversity could place the
loser where his successful rival was to found the city. Nor does Vahlen's view3
that Remus was on a lower slope of the Aventine seem to me at all tenable. It is
based on the impression-which I do not share-that the adjective of in alto
Fest. p. 276. Io M.; Dion. Hal. I. 86; Plut. Romulus was on the Palatine and Remus on
Rom. 9; Sen. brev. vit. 13. 8; Val. Max. 1. 4the Aventine from the beginning, and that it
prf.; Flor. I. . I. 6 f.; Aelian, hist. an. 10. 22;was Ennius who 'propter causam nescio-
Orig. gent. Rom. 23. I; Serv. Aen. 6. 779; Schol.quam' (!) interchanged their positions.
Cic. Bob. p. 319 (148); Iordan. Rom. 89. 3 Ges. phil. Schriften, ii. 388 ff. (Berlin
' deuou & atqueB; deuouerat quae A; deuoueratq.Akad. 1894, pp. 1143 ff.). 'Vahlen' through-
V. out refers to this paper.
2 I disregard L. Mueller's view that

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 254 0. SKUTSCH

Auentino is deliberately repeate

I do not understand-that it shou
giving Remus by contrast a lo
rightly points out, expect in sum
natural assumption that alto,
epitheton ornans. Moreover, Aue
by its position and by the sub
introduce the Aventine in contradistinction to another hill.
The identity of that hill has been no puzzle to the topographers of Rome, and
their solution was rightly adopted by Miss Steuart and H. Fleckenstein.I The
Aventine consists of two hills, the Aventine proper to the north of the via portae
Raudusculanae, and the hill to the south of it, which did not originally bear the
name of Aventine. Whilst the majority of the accounts listed above p. 252, n. I,
place Remus on the Aventine without any further specification, Ovid more par-
ticularly places him on the Saxum, the highest elevation on the north side of the
south-eastern hill, above the shrine of the Bona Dea Subsaxana (fast. 5. 150 f.).
There can be little doubt but that all accounts, if they mean any particular
spot, mean the Saxum.2 No more than Ovid's Auentinum cacumen (fast. 4. 816,
clearly not contradicting his statement in 5. 150 f.) can Festus 276. 9 ff. in
summo Auentino be pressed to specify the north-western hill, which is very slightly
(Io feet) higher than the south-eastern hill. The later tradition, then, conforms
to the view that Ennius' Remus was on the south-eastern hill and thus faced
Romulus on the north-western hill, then alone called Aventine. This surely
must be the original version of the story. It provides its own confirmation by
explaining why it was subsequently altered. Having been on opposite hills
before, the twins, when the name of Aventine was extended to include the
south-eastern hill, came to be on one and the same hill. Augural practice did
not forbid this, as we learn from Cincius, quoted above. But the archetypal
picture was of rivals on opposite hills, and thus one of them had to be moved.
Naturally the founder of Rome was moved to the Palatine.3
As far as I can see it is not possible to say precisely when the name of Aven-
tine first came to be used in the wider sense. The process would obviously be
gradual. The fact that Ennius takes no account of it does not prove that it had
not begun in his day. Nor can we be very positive about the time when the
process was completed. Q. Lutatius Catulus (see p. 252, n. i), almost certainly
the conqueror of the Cimbri, in saying that the staff with which Romulus had
inaugurated the city was found on the Palatine, may perhaps be taken to
indicate that the auspice was believed to have taken place there. If so, the
change in the story which was occasioned by the change of the name had
occurred by the end of the second century. Nor is it probable that it occurred
later. Miss Steuart's attempt to explain the allocation of the Palatine to Romu-

' Enniusstudien, Diss. Frankfurt, 1956 (un- Auspicien des Remus. Aber den Namen
published). Remoria hat vielleicht erst sp~itere willkiir-
2 Jordan-Hiilsen, iii. 150: 'Es kann nun liche Umgestaltung der Sage hier fixiert.'
nichts sicherer sein, als dass der Ort des I Other factors may have contributed.
Auguriums des Remus auf dem Stidhtigel auspicia urbana was a technical term for
bei S. Balbina lag (s.u.S. I8o), ... zu diesem auspices taken within the pomerium, and the
aber stellt Ennius den Aventinus in offen- Aventine was outside it. It may well have
baren Gegensatz'; ibid. I81: 'Der h6chste been felt that the auspicia condendae urbis
Punkt der siidlichen H6he (bei S. Balbina) ought to be urbana.
heisst Saxum, und galt als der Ort der

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 255

lus as inspired by Augustus th

Messala's concern was to give a
pomerium, and his explanation th
ceived there by Remus presupp
Romulus on the Palatine, as kno
fabrication in a treatise on augu
seded what would have been u
historiography, and popular trad
The evidence supporting the view
of the north-western portion of t
scholars,' and is cautiously sum
ment that has been reached on
A. Merlin, p. 8: 'I1 y a par suite t
deux elevations, qui, sous l'empir
vue onomastique, son individua
sans doubt depuis les premiers
n'est pas parvenuejusqu'd nous.' It
name of one of the more importa
living use when Ennius wrote the
birth of Aelius Stilo, should have
fact seem to have survived, altho
lose Grammatikererfindung' (Jor
follows: Paul. Fest. 148. io M. Mur
antea Murcus uocabatur; Serv. Aen
ideo Murcia dicta est quia quidam uic
ill. 5. I f. Ancus Marcius... Latinos b
addidit, noua moenia oppido circumde
I think I can see three reasons
eastern hill clamours for a name,
grammarians' inventions. In the f
name to the Aventine as a whole,
Festi, although the original ver

O. Gilbert, Diac., Hist. Rom.

Gesch. u. = Topogr.
Eutrop. I. 5; cf. St. d. St
Rom im Altertum
Jerome,(Lips., 1883-90);
chron. p. 97 Helm). The reading of a Jo
Hiulsen, lost MS.
Topographie d. is reported
Stadt by Schottus
Rom in his im
edition Alter
of de vir.
I. iii (Berol., 1907), 181 ill., 1577,
f.;as follows: V.C. Metelli
a convenien
vey in A. Merlin, et Mediolan.
L'Aventinaddit et Murcium. On dans
the codex l'ant
(Paris, i9o6), pp. Metelli
8 f. and the AMediolanensis, presumably
2 Agreement on athis
printed text,
point see S. Mariotti,
is not St. Class. e
unive
but those who do not
Orient. Io (196 question
1), I02 ff. The questionthe
whether gen
ness of the name, as,
Schottus e.g.,
attests, J.interpretation
as on a strict Collart i
commentary on heVarro,
would seem to do, L.L.
Auentinum5 et(Paris,
Janiculum 1
p. 244, seem unaware ofAuentinum
et Murcium, or merely theet genera
Murcium,
demnation. is of little interest here although it may have
3 So all MSS. except O and P, which con-a certain bearing on the problem, raised by
Momigliano and rightly answered in the
tain the whole corpus of Origo, de vir. ill., and
Aurelius Victor, and are interpolated from negative, whether the codex Metelli can be
Landulf's Historia Miscella (see the penetrat- considered the archetype of O and P.
ing studies of A. Momigliano, JRS xlviii Momigliano seems to me unduly meticulous
in making, against his own view, the reserva-
(1958), 56 ff.; Athenaeum xxxvi (1958), 248 ff.,
especially 253). O and P read Auentinum ettion that Schottus may here not be referring to
Ianiculum montes, Landulf I. Io Auentinum the old MS. of Metellus but a more recent one:
montem civitati adiecit et Ianiculum ( = Paul.'V(etus) C(odex)' leaves little room for doubt.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 256 0. SKUTSCH

been sub colle montis Auentini qu

Servius is a little ambiguous; bu
distinguish between Aventine
editions hitherto' clearly indic
however, would in any case be
able that, as in ordinary usage
both hills, so the name of the e
to both. Matters would perhaps b
grammarians ascribed the nam
Festus (p. 148) et Servius (ad
paravant Murcus mons; ii ne t
attacher aucune valeur a ces temoi-
gnages (Jordan, Topogr. i. I8o; Hiil-
sen, RE, ii. 2283) et il est inutile de
supposer que I'Aventin avait au
debut un autre nom.' But neither do
they say anything of the sort, nor is
S.MURCIAE?
it implied in their statements. The
MONS0
sacellum Murciae was in the southern AUENTINUS
bend of the Circus (Jordan-Hiilsen
I. iii. I13), and when Paulus Festi
says sub monte Auentino there is, as the
accompanying sketch-map shows,2
MONS
little reason why this should be under- MURCUS
stood of the north-western hill rather
than the south-eastern, let alone the
Aventine as a whole. If the Circus
valley had been called uallis Murcia after mons Murcus, as Servius says, mons
Murcus would indeed more probably be the western Aventine; but the name
uallis Murcia is late (Platner-Ashby, p. 348), and it is derived from ad Murciae
the name of the southern end of the Circus (Varro, L.L. 5. 154, quoted below)
and from the metae Murciae, the southern turning posts, not from the name o
the hill itself. The quidam of whom Servius speaks were in all probability, lik
Festus, explaining the name of the dea Murcia, and their uicinus mons may wel
have been the south-eastern Aventine.
Secondly, as a fictitious name mons Murcus would not be unparalleled. Mons
Saturnius is mentioned as the original name of mons Tarpeius, later Capitolium
(Varro, L.L. 5. 41 f.), mons Agonus as that of the Quirinal (Fest. p. 254.9 M.; cf.
Paul. Fest. Io. 7), and Querquetulanus as that of Mt. Caelius (Tac. Ann. 4.65) ;see
Jordan-Huilsen I. iii. 221. This, however, establishes no more than the possi-
bility that the name Murcus is fictitious. It remains just as probable that it is to
be paralleled with Latiaris, Mucialis, and Salutaris, the names of three heights
of the Quirinal which fell into disuse when collis Quirinalis, the name of the
fourth, began to be applied to the Quirinal as a whole, and which would be
forgotten but for their being cited in the rites of the Argei, Varro, L.L. 5. 52.
Thirdly, it may perhaps be argued that, if Varro knew of Mt. Murcus, he
would have mentioned it where he discusses the etymology of ad Murciae, or, as
of the arc, but the shrine may of course have
' Murcium et laniculum Schott, Pichlmayr.
Other editions omit Murcium. been a little nearer to the western hill.
2 I give the distances from the midpoint

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 257

editors should rather print, Admu

uocatur, ut Procilius aiebat, ab urcei
declinatum quod ibi id fuerit; cuius
Murteae Veneris. Professor H. Da
argumentum ex silentio, very kin
void; in fact, he gave it as his
Murcus, it was almost certainly
eminent Varro specialist I who
hypothetical argumentum ex silen
Procilius, Varro here turns a blin
with the dea Murcia.2 As far as P
seems to be am urcei (or urceae
Beitrdge, Upps. Univ. Arsskr.,
himself would be arguing in a
Admurciae as ad Murciae (sacellum
proof of the existence of the murt
derived. If, then, he does not e
Admurciae, his silence about Mt.
We have now, I believe, dispose
raised against taking mons Murcu
name of the south-eastern Aventi
and which we should therefore ex
whether Murcus, attested by Pau
the author of de vir. ill., is the b
seem to support Murcius since
p. 196; add, e.g., LG. iii. 50. 45) an
list of Roman hills bearing the
Oppius, Cispius, and Tarpeius. The
deities with family names such as
p. 58), and her relation to the
Palatium, or Vaticanus, the deus
16. 17. 1), or that of the divinity
Particularly interesting, if admis
ad murcim, corrected by
X has incensura as against Spengel.
de Samnitibus and
Murciae, used by Livy I. 33. 5 as the
cum Pyrrho.
of the place between3 The assumption that by Murtea Venus
Palatine and Ave
where the Latins Varro means the dea
were Murcia is made by by Anc
settled
everybody
attested as a part of and seems inevitable,
the Circus although in C.I.
189, elog. V:
locusServ.ipsi
Dan. Aen. 8.posterisque
636 strangely refers to her Admu
spectandi causa as Venus Verticordia (but see Wissowa, R. u.
datus.
2 It is K. p. 29o,
interesting to n. I2;note
Latte, R.R. p.that
137, n. 2); the wr
of the elogium CI.L. iz.
cf. Pliny, n.h. 15. 121 ara189, no. V lik
uetus fuit Veneri
does not seem to Myrteaeanalyse
quam nunc Murciam uocant; Admurciae
Plut.
Murciae. Ordinarily quaest. Rom.he
2o. separates word
dot. After a preposition 4 Latte, p. I I I, n. 2, ishe
scepticalputs
of Piso's no do
leaves a clear space: story (Dion.7 Hal.de2. 40. 3) Sabinis;
that sacrifice was 8 de
9 cum patribus; made 14to in Tarpeia senatum;
(be it as a genius loci: S. but 1.
writes admurciae as one word. Certain in- Reinach, M.C.R. iii. 253, or as a patron god-
consistencies, however, are found in the dess of the gens Tarpeia: F. W. Otto, Rh.
other elogia and do not allow the point to be Mus. lxiv [I909], 465), and is prepared to
pressed: no. I has in Italiam and in deorum, believe only in offerings at the shield-covered
no. IV indeorum; nos. VII to XXI separate tropaion which has given rise to the Tarpeia
a preposition by a dot (15 instances) ; but no. legend. Since, however, on the following
4599.3 S

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 258 0. SKUTSCH

we should here have a second

name of a place and that of a
more probable form. Mere pr
the fact that in the form M
Murcus. Etymologically Murcu
relationship to the name Mure
Etruscan in origin. As to its f
parable among Roman hills.
slightest doubt against the ge
We now return to the text o
the position of Remus calls for
contains two utterly indefens
with the latter: se deuouere o
below'. Used in a wider sense i
Quintus Curtius, 9. 6. 21, is the
no longer involved, but even t
The meaning 'to devote one's
a fact thrown into relief rath
as 'mit frommer Hingabe'. Pas
correct it was overlooked, app
sible restoration designed to p
endo Palatino sedem cap
Romulus solus auem seru
quaerit Auentino, seruat
However misguided this rec
certainly an improvement. F
seems advisable to cut out the
correction of in monte. Wha
auspices. Such a term, since th
secundum augures sedere est ausp
se det and wrongly extended to
be taken over from the fixed
explanation, its use may be
OpVLULc KaOEodoLEvoS , which
observation confirming sedet
The case against taking in mo
at length. The slight irregular

page he accepts
Hor.as
c. 4. a
14-. fact the
8; Livy 6. 14. wor
8; 28. 34- 5;
Ortsgottheiten I Sen. contr. 2. 2. 4; quite
cannot Val. Max. 2. 6. 11.
unders
he refuses that distinction to uicesimum
3 post nonum regni mei, post <uitae) the di
mons Tarpeius. atque octauum annum uideorne uobis in excolenda
'Jordan, 1.c., gloria, p. cui 8, removed
me uni the
deuoui, posse cessare ? I insert
dancy by deleting uitae before uicesimum, ratherbut
secundam, than, withit i
to see how the word could have intruded. Jeep and K. Muiller, before uideorne.
Jordan's objection to secundam was shown 4 to
See the preceding line, and Comm. praet.
be unfounded by Vahlen's reference to
ap.the
Varro, L.L. 6. 91 (restored) ; Fest. 241. 17
corresponding use of aatLoS in Dion. M.;
I. Cic.
86 fam. o. 12. 3; leg. 2. 20o (restored);
OvAbdU-rrE oLovoVS adatovS. Livy 34- 14- I; 38. 26. I.
2 Thes. L.L. v. 882. 57 ff.: Cic. dom. 145;
5 Ennius might have used the ablative
red. I; Ps. Cic. ep. ad Oct. Io; Caesar, monti
B.G. (Neue-Wagener3 i. 365); cf. 440 turn
caua
3. 22. 3; Sall. hist. i. 125; Virg. Aen. 12. sub monte late specus intus patebat, where,
234;

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 259

monte can obviously not stand as a

above, seems to be strongly em
has substituted in monte for an
feasible but we shall require a go
introduced so unsatisfactory a co
assumed, with Vahlen, that Cicer
the place: it seems improbable
allotted more space than the line
which is to balance in Auentino should be contained in the first molossus or
choriamb of this line. Shorter, of course, it can hardly be. This is the reason
why, as stated above, the redundant foot had to be removed in correcting
se deuouet rather than at this point.
The muster of proper names which could have been replaced by in monte is
short. Remuria or (as Ennius for metrical reasons would have been compelled
to say) Remora seems ruled out by the fact that Remora appears in line 82 as the
name of Remus' proposed city, which could no more be identical with the
name of his auguraculum than it was in the case of Romulus. Saxum, the name
used by Ovid, fast. 5. I493 (cf. Cic. dom. 136), is equally inadmissible: no con-
ceivable reason could have made either Cicero or a copyist replace in Saxo by
in monte. The only proper name available, therefore, seems to be Murcus, the old
name, as shown above, of the south-eastern Aventine. If Ennius wrote in
Murco, the trivializing version in monte was liable to intrude, be it that Cicero
judged the name no longer comprehensible, or that a copyist failed to compre-
hend it.

Our text continues:

82 certabant urbem Romam Remoramne uocarent.
omnibus cura uiris uter esset induperator.
expectant ueluti, consul cum mittere signum
85 uolt, omnes auidi spectant ad carceris oras
quam mox emittat pictis e faucibus currus:
sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat
rebus utri magni uictoria sit data regni.

Here I observe in passing that in 1. 84 expectant is probably correct, althou

it exhibits certain features which may arouse suspicion: (i) the sequen
expectant ... spectant ... expectabat is unusually clumsy even for Ennius who d
however, Timpanaro, S.LF.C. xxii (1947),
deuouet atque secundam Quaerit Auentino; at
65, suggests stlate (monte late FestusRomulus
and pulcher in alto Solus Palatino seruat
Priscian, montis latet Nonius). genus altiuolantum. Compare also Davies's
' The idea of Jordan, 1.c., p. 8, and
edition of de diuinatione (1721), and Wop-
Marx (ap. Vahlen, 1.c., p. 391, n. 2)kens,
thatLectiones Tullianae (Amsterdam, I730),
mons alone could denote the Palatine is un-
p. 262.
tenable. Serv. Aen. 9. 242 Palatium in monte
3 est moles natiua, loco res nomina fecit;
est, non in uallibus, adduced by Marx, ob- appellant Saxum, pars bona montis
viously does not prove that mons was so ea est.

used. But even if such usage were established It will be noted that Ovid here refers to the
it would still be impossible where the Pala- hill merely as mons without giving the name.
tine is referred to in contradistinction to This, however, is probably due to metrical
another hill. considerations-the reader would infer the
2 Petersen, 1.c., p. 42. Petersen's recon-
identity of the hill from the mention of the
struction is another unsuccessful attempt to
Saxum-and cannot support the reading in
monte in Ennius.
introduce the Palatine: hinc Remus auspicio se

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 260 0. SKUTSCH

not shun repetition of

poet can do nothing w
comparison unfolds; (2
according to which, as
fragment; (3) the histo
another historical presen
e specula would offer (a
spectators could be so ca
Misenus ab alta), or spec
as a dative, would hav
scene. But the twofold ir
fact that a molossus is
demand a preceding m
exempli gratia by Vahlen
in the comparison or in
nor is the verb repeat
attached to a compare
reading.
In 1. 87 ore timebat is the only reading which has any authority. Ora tenebat,
still printed by Valmaggi, Steuart, and Warmington, by the two former with-
out any critical note, is a Renaissance conjecture,4 suggested obviously by
Virgil, Aen. 2. i, conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant. Columna's explanation of
the transmitted reading, 'vultu populus animi trepidationem commotionemque prae se
ferebat' is supported by Vahlen, 1.c. 399, who refers to Cicero, Mil. 79 quid
uoltu extimuistis?, and a number of passages collected in Lachmann's edition of
Propertius (1816), p. 7: Prop. i. 5. 16 timor informem ducit in ore notam; Stat.
Theb. 12. 222 nil corde nec ore pauescens (aure codd.) ; Val. Flacc. 4. 664 pauor ora
uirum, pauor occupat artus; 5. 373 regina attonito quamquam pauor ore silentem
exanimat; Sall. Jug. I0o6 Maurus incerto uoltu pauens ad Sullam adcurrit: sibi . ..
cognitum Jugurtham haud procul abesse.5
These passages establish that ore timere can mean 'to show one's fear in one's
face'. But is that sense appropriate here? It seems to fit neither the men waiting
for the decision which of two equally loved leaders is to be king, nor the crowd
in the circus to whom they are compared. In all the passages adduced the
feeling shown is real fear, not anxious suspense. Should we then adopt ora
I e.g. alta I8719; auspicio 78/9. 6' a/iov 7TEAEKE(CTL VE7KEUL V7)LOV ELVaL'
2 H. Koller, Mus. Helv. viii (195i), 63 ff., S7TpdaO' 8OLTrwTv Ka &GbpoV KELTO -ravv-
esp. 98, n. 4. Koller's observation may not
mean that the historical present belonged and I3- 570 4 8' EadTOLEvos 7IEEp o80vpl
originally to perfective verbs only, but
77aracp' S -OTI floov, rdTv 7' oOPEUa fPovKdAOL
merely that it belongs to them more
naturally. Here, however, it is certainly UArd odutv 0K 0o77 8(?) 3 7)u av-OrE O a V'
remarkable that expectant is preceded by cer- C0 0 TErvTls 7UT-ra~pe tlvvvVOd 'TEp, Ov rL t PdAa
tabant and taken up by expectabat. Koller
holds the following spectant responsible for 4 P. Merula thought he was the first to
the present tense; I should prefer the metri- make it; Lambinus ascribed it to Turnebus;
cal explanation given above. Note also thatbut it goes back farther still: Wendelin of
the transition to the present may be eased Speyer prints it in his edition of the de
by the omission of the auxiliary verb (erat) indiuinatione (Venice, I471), while Schweyn-
the preceding sentence. heym and Pannartz in the same year at
3 Iliad 13. 389 Rome print ore timebat.
7)pL7TE 8 'S OE LS pTVs 7)pLITEV XEPWISOJL, s incer o uoltu is parallel to and does not
-qE V3 Aw6Jp", rTv7 ' T OVPEtL TEKToVES LVaapEs qualify pauens.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 261

tenebat after all, especially

understand ? Fortunately, e
compared first by Merula
manuscript reading, could n

met. 9- 46 if. non aliter u

... spectant armenta pauentque,
nescia quem maneat tanti uictoria regni.

The situation here, a contest for the kingship, its outcome anxiously awaited
by the future subjects, is essentially the same,. and Ovid's dependence on
Ennius is proved conclusively by the remarkable phrase uictoria regni, which, to
the best of my knowledge, is not read elsewhere in Latin literature. Ovid, of
course, knew our passage well: another of its lines, 92 simul aureus exoritur sol,
recurs in met. 7. 663 iubar aureus extulerat sol. But Ovid is not following Ennius
directly: for the transference of rivals and spectators from the narrative into
a simile taken from the animal sphere he is indebted to Virgil, Aen. 12. 716 ff.
cum duo conuersis inimica in proelia tauri
frontibus incurrunt ...
stat pecus omne metu mutum mussantque iuuencae
quis nemori imperitet, quem tota armenta sequantur.

Here a relationship is found between three Latin poets which is perhaps more
frequently observed between a Greek original and an earlier and a later Latin
imitator: following the earlier imitator the later yet in some respects approaches
more closely to the original. Ovid's pauentque confirms that Ennius wrote
timebat; from Virgil, though his wording is a little more distant, we learn how
that fear' expressed itself: stat pecus omne metu mutum. The people were 'hushed
with apprehension'. So, to give only the nearest parallel, was the crowd
awaiting the outcome of Numa's auspication, Plutarch, Num. 7 Y-7q aoW-rosu
Jr AOEL -rourav'p T7V J-y7op'dvI KaEnXE KapasoKov'viwv Ka' ovvawpov/ovwv To
I -'AAoV , It'Xp' oi~ vrpo cvav opvtOS ya0 oKatav "aL
From the reflection of Ennius in Virgil-Ovid, and from the close parallelism
of the situation described by Plutarch we must, I believe, infer that ore timere,
like orefauere,2 could mean 'to be silent'.3 No direct parallel exists but a passage
in Virgil, said to be singular in the connexion of a verb denoting emotion with
an ablative of the part of the body affected, comes very close: Aen. 5. 505 (the
frightened pigeon) timuit . . . pinnis. In both instances the ablative is limitative-
instrumental, though it implies action in Virgil, the opposite in Ennius.
In the following line the dative4 rebus, taken with the preceding verb, is
unsatisfactory and has long been felt to be so. Hence Peerlkamp's attempt,

the impending religious act. It need not,

I Virgil's metu and Ovid's pauebant denote
a real fear, which, though ordinary cows however, be so, since Ennius uses ore fauere
would probably chew the cud, poetical cows (ann. 437) and fauere faucibus (of cocks; scen.
219) without such connotation. There is
are bound to feel at the sight of mighty bulls
engaged in mortal combat. Ennius' timebat certainly no hint of religious awe in the
Plutarch passage cited above.
is thus by his imitators given a meaning more
definite than in its own context it can possess.3With correct instinct for what the situa-
2 The similarity of this phrase may imparttion requires Warmington translates ora
to the other a connotation of religious awe,tenebat 'held their tongues'.
not inappropriate, though the people are4 Warmington seems to consider it an
not actually present at the auspice-taking, ablative.
to

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 262 O. SKUTSCH

convincingly refuted by V
a genitive; hence Sauppe's
erecta multitudine, Tac. h
hardly compatible with ore
'Mit ore timebat aber wi
Construction Rebus verbin
wie an dem Hauptverbum
with usual syntax certainl
concerned; a combination
the case against rebus is no
in the fatuity of the who
only for want of a better
have to be considered wha
right in arguing that it
manded. Perhaps the Ovi
help us again:
spectant armenta pauentque,
nescia quem maneat tanti uictoria regni.
If we had only the last two letters of (reb)us nobody could possibly doubt
that they were the remnant of an adjective, going with populus as nescia goes
with armenta, and governing, like nescia, the indirect question. Nor could we
have any doubt as to what adjective should precede utri. In a situation not
entirely dissimilar Lucretius, 3. 836, says:
in dubioque fuere (omnia) utrorum ad regna cadendum
omnibus humanis esset terraque marique.
I therefore take it that Ennius wrote dubius, and that the unusual synizesis was
the reason why rebus was substituted. auium in 1. 94, which shows the same
synizesis in the same position, remained because it was less easy to replace.

The text continues:

89 interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.

90 exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux,
et simul ex alto longe pulcherrima praepes
laeua uolauit auis. simul aureus exoritur sol,
cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta
auium, praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant.
95 conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse propriam
auspicio regni stabilita regna solumque.
The difficulties of this passage are considerable. Why, if we know that augurs
took up their station after midnight,2 are we told in 1. 89 that the sun went
down, when apparently in 11. 79 f. Romulus and Remus are already on the
Aventine and Mt. Murcus? The light-hearted reply 'Bei der ersten r6mischen
Vogelschau war es eben anders' confuses history and literature. We are not
concerned with the beginnings of Roman augural discipline but with what
Ennius in the second century described as augural practice and what Cicero
considered suitable to exemplify and illustrate that practice. Nor can we accept
' No instance is known to me. For metuo of a dative and an indirect question.
the Thesaurus records one example of a2 Th. Bergk, KI. Schriften, i. 236 ff.
dative and a ne-clause in St. Augustine, none

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 263

Bergk's transposition of 1. 89 t
preparations made on the prece
there too brief and vague to de
should we expect the explanatio
etc.) to follow here and not a
p. 258, n. 4 that auspicio operam
for') the auspices'. Lines 77 f. th
79 ff., and the two statements
expedient,' making sol albus
Warmington, most pertinently
that the moon must set before t
mentioned at all? The correct e
by Vahlen, pp. 401 f, who rec
tinuous narrative which remain
lines state that the auspices are
The next six lines explain wh
interest the people were takin
display itself on the preceding d
silentio surgit. Appropriately the
this the sun went down.' At th
which now proceeds with exin
me so obviously correct that it
firmed by analysing the tense
ments of the first part are mad
part of an historical narrative d
verbs used are all durative, n
quaerit; seruat). Most welcome s
above for lexicographical and
into the scheme, which would b
by Pascoli's sedem capit. This th
background of events, the reaso
All this is cast, with the natural
(certabant; erat: I fail to see wh
dependent esset, taken by some
tenebat). expectant in 1. 84, call
expectabat, seems to defy the or
emended or, more probably, to
narrative proper suitably beg
changes eventually (simul ... exor
be needed, to be a sub-clause to
normal tense of Ennius' narrati
first, 'thematic' section, are all p
de-cedunt) .
It was demonstrated above that Bergk's transposition of 1. 89 is not ac-
ceptable. This deprives us of what might seem the most natural solution to
another difficulty: it is surprising that the statement 'then it became light'

It receives no support from the doS geloto.

adjective: the moon is never called alba. 2 The point is well made by Fleckenstein;
albus is the contrast word to ater, denoting
see p. 254, n. I.
the darkness of night, and sol albus is AEVKO'

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 0. SKUTSCH

follows directly upon the line

Homeric passages in which sunse
Vahlen was inclined to tolerate
such as 'they rested' always in
might have omitted a line at
omission. Kvicala, Ztschr. ister.
here mentioned the birds appear
coming even of the first light,
have been seen, and it will be
granted to Remus. H. Fleckens
that a council of the gods was re
and whilst it is conceivable, tho
that by some device of suspendi
pedantic reckoning would show
made explicit by 'the sun wen
the conclusion that the surpr
Having stated in the 'thematic
each on his hill the poet could ha
He could not say that they wait
Disdaining a mere stopgap-in
dark for some time, thus incide
above-he preferred to go straigh
A major question now remain
alone receive an auspice, or did
auspice, that of Remus being ec
gave one to Remus, our text mu
must be assumed that Cicero ha
served by Remus. The latter p
Cicero quotes the passage to ill
ceivable that he should have om
purpose. The only circumstance
be that the account of Remus'
after that of Romulus, and that
story of the victorious omen; bu
Vahlen therefore, convinced t
station demanded an auspice g
the laeua auis of 11. 91 f. was ob
we should expect that vital fact
more ingenious than convincin
whereas Romulus
81 seruat in 1.
the auis of 1. 92, in contradist
clearly belonged to Remus. Mor
for altiuolantes, the birds comin
bird of Remus coming 'from be
ex alto, an interpretation not on
subtle and elaborate distinctio
sense, the word previously held
We need hardly add that the att

I L. Castiglioni, Rendic. Ist. Lomb.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 265

for an auspice immediately to b

to show that Vahlen's case is untenable.
We must therefore return to the view of Columna, adopted by Merula and
Valmaggi, and modified in some important detail by H. Fuchs.' Both parts of
the auspice belong to Romulus. auis in 1. 92 is a generic singular, as it is in 1. 8o
and in augural language generally. The action progresses with the approach
of the birds, now stated to be twelve. Columna's remark 'quas cum propius
accessissent, duodecim esse cognouit' may be entirely correct but perhaps
gives a little too much play to rationalism: even if there was no doubt about the
number from the start the appearance of a 'flight' may well have been stated
generally at first, to be particularized later.
There is, however, one point which remains unsatisfactory. Reporting a con-
test between rival augurs and describing an auspice granted, the poet ought to
say clearly and explicitly which of the two was the recipient; he ought to say
'Romulus it was who saw them'. But the decision for which the reader has been
waiting does not seem to be given in this direct and most impressive form. It is
conveyed in a more abstract fashion, somewhat out of tune with the lively
narrative of the preceding lines, by 'It was understood by Romulus from this
observation that to him was given, etc.' And yet, the verb conspicio in its most
common meaning provides just that element of dramatic narrative which we
expect. Should we really, instead of giving it the concrete meaning so natural
in the context, either take it, with the Thesaurus, as an equivalent of intellego,2
or assume, on no evidence that I can discover, that in augural language it
could combine, as I tried to do in the translation, the two senses of 'to behold'
and 'to deduce'? Cicero, in the passage of his Marius poem which he quotes
immediately before our fragment (de div. i. Io6), and which seems to be in-
fluenced in its diction by Ennius, uses conspicio in its natural sense, and adds the
inference in a separate verbal statement:
hanc ubi praepetibus pinnis lapsuque uolantem
conspexit Marius, diuini numinis augur,
faustaque signa suae laudis reditusque notauit.
Perhaps Ennius did the same. If he used a second verb, conspicit, set off by a
colon, would have both its natural meaning and the dramatic function which
effective narrative demands. Thus also we should gain the necessary emphasis
on the subject. It would not, as it is with the transmitted reading, be relegated
to an insignificant position but, postponed to go with the second verb, it would
meet the tension created by a dramatically isolated conspicit. The postpone-
ment of an emphasized subject from the first to the second verb is not uncom-
mon in hexametrical poetry. Book 5 of the Aeneid provides several examples:
' Herm. lxx (1935), 245 ff. cedunt is appar- quom specit, inde sibi data Romulus esse
ently said technically; but must it therefore priora
be decedunt 'they leave the sky' rather than auspicia, ac regni stabilita scamna solumque.
accedunt (so Turnebus, comparing Plaut. Aul.
His text, not least because it leaves the
526 ibi adpostremum cedit miles, aes petit) ? The
apodosis without a verb, is unacceptable,
action progresses in either case, since accedunt
but the coincidence between his reasoning
implies leaving the sky. The doves of Aeneas
and mine, of which I became aware only
(Aen. 6. 191) caelo uenere uolantes et uiridi
sedere solo. after my view was formed, greatly increases
my confidence that our objections are not
2 Bergk, 1.c., p. 244, objecting to the use unfounded.
of conspicit for intellexit and to the absence of
emphasis on the subject, wrote

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 266 0. SKUTSCH

151 effugit ante alios p

turbam inter fremitum
318 primus abit longeq
324 ecce uolat calcemqu
In Virgil the postponed n
a position denied to the d
syndetic. inde, however, in
of the postponement as su
the second verb to take
strongly by recommended
the progress of the actio
nouncing the result. Sim
detailing individual action
this instance, to the imper
incedunt arbusta per
percellunt magnas qu
fraxinus frangitur at
pinus proceras peruo
arbustum fremitu siluai frondosai.

The most obvious place at which to look for the missing verb would seem to
be the end of the line, which is certainly corrupt. The last word is written in the
manuscripts as propriam, which in the Vossianus B is corrected to priora.
Vahlen realized and stated explicitly (p. 408) that only propriam was trans-
mitted, but he nevertheless adopted priora, interpreting it as the equivalent, in
a contest between two, of prima 'first place' (Virg. Aen. 5. 338 prima tenet) or A

rpin-ra (rrpowrEa) 'first prize'. He was followed, among others, by W. Kroll' and
Pease, and v. Kameke2 even believed that priora recalled the Circus simile of
11. 84-86. But to compare the expectancy of the people to that of the onlookers
in the Circus is one thing; to compare an auspice to a chariot race is another.
Ifpriora were transmitted we should perhaps have to accept it. In fact, however,
it is so clumsy a correction that one marvels how a critic as conservative as
Vahlen could have brought himself to accept it. propria and priora may indeed
be confused but the final -m remains wholly unexplained since the context con-
tains only neuter plural accusatives. Immeasurably superior is L. Mueller's
propritim, which Vahlen saw fit to exclude from his critical apparatus: it gives
a smoother sentence, the change from ti to a is almost imperceptible palaeo-
graphically, and the corruption is explained by the rarity of propritim, which, as
it occurs only in Lucr. 2. 925,3 was almost certainly unknown to the copyist.
In fact, propritim is so obviously correct that the attempt to find the missing
verb here must be abandoned.4 Correct also, on the surface, is data, as the word
naturally expected in the context. But it involves the slight awkwardness of the
' Studien z. Verstdndnis d. rdm. Litteratur, opposed to distribution to everybody (uiri-
p. 249. tim). I state this because Mueller's conjec-
2 Ennius u. Homer (Diss. Leipz., 1926), p. ture
19. was impugned on semantic grounds by
3 The sense in Lucr. 2. 925 genus humanum J. Kvifala in the article mentioned above.
propritim de quibus auctum est 'what mankind 4isNothing other than probauit would seem
given (in addition to faculties possessed tobyoffer, but the process of corruption,
all animals) as its very own' is precisely pbau
the > pfd> propriam, could hardly have
same as in Ennius, and it is the sense which
been completed before the date of the arche-
the suffix demands: an individual gift, as
type.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ENNIANA IV 267

double participle data and stab

it to intrude. I should therefo
conspicit: inde sibi ratus
auspicio regni stabilita
The participle ratus has a mar
uses it so several times: Amph
ratusne (est) istic me esse, etc.
the epic style at Aen. 2. 25 no
occurs, probably as an archais
here, its replacement by data
occurrence of the alliterating
sense,at an. 75 occiduntur. ubi
port. But I will assert no more
and that ratus offers a possibl

University College London O. SKUTSCH

' We must probably add Asin. 856 meum
auxiliary verb is added (Amph. 656,
uirum frugi rata, where frugiBacch. 549, Capt.
is strongly sus- 256, Men. 900, Pse
pect but the conjecture fueramTrin. 303).
ruled outPoen.
by 557 and Rud. 13
the echoing reply in 858. As against these
ambiguous; also Epid. 596 quia tuam g
three or four instances of the unaccompanied
ratus, if P correctly omits es.
participle there are seven in which the

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:42:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms