¹ P.Lond. 131 and P.Berol. P. 5009 (formerly P. 163).

² The identification of the author as Heraclides Lembus was demonstrated by Bloch, H., ‘Herakleides Lembos and his Epitome of Aristotle's Politeiai’, TAPhA 71 (1940), 27–39Google Scholar.

³ See especially Dilts, M.R., ‘The manuscript tradition of Aelian's Varia Historia and Heraclides’ Politiae’, TAPhA 96 (1965), 57–72Google Scholar.

⁴ Dilts (n. 3), 64. On the lost Vatican codex, see especially Canart, P., ‘Démétrius Damilas, alias le “librarius Florentinus”’, RSBN 14–16 (1977–1979), 281–348Google Scholar, at 287–307. The Vatican codex is described in a number of old catalogues written between 1475 and 1518, published in Devreesse, R., Le fonds grec de la Bibliothèque Vaticane des origines à Paul V (Vatican City, 1965)Google Scholar, 54 no. 221 (1475), 108 no. 616 (1481), 143 no. 605 (1484), and 221 no. 709 (1518). See also Canart (this note), 318–20; Müntz, E. and Fabre, P., La Bibliothèque du Vatican au XV^e siècle d’après des documents inédits (Paris, 1887), 232Google Scholar (on the 1475 catalogue); and Bertòla, M., I due primi registri di prestito della biblioteca apostolica Vaticana. Codici Vaticani Latini 3964, 3966. Pubblicati in fototipia e in trascrizione con note e indici (Vatican City, 1942)Google Scholar, 52 n. 2 (on the 1518 catalogue). The codex is also mentioned in several loan records: Bertòla Registro I fol. 27^r p. 27.21–2, fol. 33^v p. 35.18–22; Registro II fol. 9^v p. 52.1–6, fol. 19^r p. 61.4–7, fol. 40^v p. 77.28–30, fol. 45^r p. 83.20–4, fol. 84^v p. 107.1–5. These documents show that the codex included the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomonica and De mirabilibus auscultationibus, Aelian's Varia historia, Heraclides’ Περὶ πολιτειῶν, the Pseudo-Plutarchan Vitae decem oratorum, the epitome of Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists and excerpts from Stobaeus.

⁵ There is one red herring. In the codex Parisinus suppl. gr. 352 (V), Aelian's De natura animalium is cited as ἐκ τῶν Αἰλιανοῦ περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος βιβλίον πρῶτον (fol. 23^r), even though the manuscript contains the entire text of Aelian's De natura animalium: see De Stefani, E.L., ‘I manoscritti della “Historia animalium” di Eliano’, SIFC 10 (1902), 175–222Google Scholar, at 182. This could technically mean that Heraclides’ work, too, might be preserved in its entirety. However, the other manuscripts of De natura animalium (De Stefani's β family) show that, in all likelihood, the archetype (which included De natura animalium, Varia historia and Heraclides) had Αἰλιανοῦ περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος. Further, the presence of the title ἐκ τῶν Αἰλιανοῦ περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος βιβλίον πρῶτον in Parisinus gr. 1694 (Dilts b = De Stefani E) (fol. 73^r) is no counterevidence, since b is known to have copied De natura animalium (which was not part of the lost Vatican codex) from Parisinus suppl. gr. 352 (V): see De Stefani (this note), 183–4.

⁶ Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 15 (ὅτι τοὺς Εἵλωτας κατεδουλώσαντό ποτε Λακεδαιμόνιοι, Θετταλοὶ δὲ τοὺς Πενέστας); 23 (ὅτι Ἀμαυρὸς χωλὸς τοὺς πόδας ἐβασίλευσε ταύτης); 31 (ὅτι ἐν τοῖς Σαμίοις ἐφάνη λευκὴ χελιδὼν οὐκ ἐλάττων πέρδικος). See Polito, M., Dagli scritti di Eraclide sulle costituzioni. Un commento storico (Naples, 2001), 232Google Scholar.

⁷ Scholarship has usually revolved around the debate whether Heraclides’ transmitted text offers excerpta excerptorum (Schneidewin) or fragmenta excerptorum (Holzinger). See also Susemihl, F., ‘Bericht über Aristoteles und die ältesten Akademiker und Peripatetiker für 1891’, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft 75 (1894), 80–114Google Scholar, at 133; Schöffer, V. von, ‘Bericht über die im Jahre 1891 und der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 1892 erschienene Litteratur zu Aristoteles’ Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία’, Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft 75 (1894), 1–54Google Scholar, at 39–40; Polito (n. 6), 230–3. This terminology is somewhat confusing, however. By fragmenta excerptorum Holzinger, C. von, ‘Aristoteles’ athenische Politie und die Heraklidischen Excerpte’, Philologus 50 (1891), 436–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 444 means that Heraclides merely made an anthology of loose excerpts from Aristotle's Πολιτεῖαι and Νόμιμα βαρβαρικά (this is the excerptorum part) without paying any attention to transitions. In other words, already Heraclides’ text itself was no continuous text but consisted merely of excerpts. Of these excerpts, according to Holzinger, a small number has survived the course of transmission (this is the fragmenta part). This essentially eliminates the existence of a later excerptor, since Holzinger considered the selection of what survived to be the result of sheer coincidence rather than the deliberate choice of an excerptor. Holzinger's comments are explicitly directed against Schneidewin, F.G., Ἐκ τῶν Ἡρακλείδου περὶ πολιτειῶν. Heraclidis Politiarum quae extant (Göttingen, 1847), xliGoogle Scholar, who called Heraclides’ text excerpta excerptorum. Schneidewin seems to have meant that Heraclides’ text was an epitome of an epitome. Holzinger's discussion is misguided, however. Comparing Heraclides’ section on Athens with Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, Holzinger explained that a twofold process of ‘excerpting’ (read ‘epitomizing’) was unlikely, since it would have changed the text more with regard to Aristotle's original text. Holzinger justified this by claiming that excerpting is a more loose way of transmitting a text than copying it. However, Heraclides’ section on Athens can hardly be considered a real excerpt from the original Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία; despite sharing some vocabulary with the Ἀθηναίων πολιτεία, it is clear that Heraclides has almost always rephrased the text, sometimes introducing errors in the process: see Polito (n. 6), 201–13. Moreover, if the extant text were truly mere pieces which happen to survive, the scribe would not have introduced the text with ἐκ τῶν Ἡρακλείδου in the title, but would probably have written simply Ἡρακλείδου περὶ πολιτειῶν or perhaps no title at all. To avoid further confusion, it is better to avoid the terminology used by Schneidewin and Holzinger and instead dub the text ‘excerpts from Heraclides’ epitome’.

⁸ Other lost works of Aelian cited by the Suda are Περὶ προνοίας (FF 9–10 Domingo-Forasté) and Περὶ θείων ἐναργειῶν (FF 21–4 Domingo-Forasté).

⁹ See Stob. 4.44.63 ~ Ael. VH 3.3; Stob. 3.22.33 ~ Ael. VH 3.28; Stob. 3.29.60 (= Ael. VH 7.7b) ~ Ael. VH 7.7a; Stob. 2.46.14 ~ Ael. VH 9.18; Stob. 4.25.39 (= Ael. VH 9.33b) ~ Ael. VH 9.33a; Stob. 4.8.24 ~ Ael. VH 10.5; Stob. 3.13.67 (= Ael. VH 14.3b) ~ Ael. VH 14.3a.

¹⁰ See Hercher, R., Aeliani De natura animalium, Varia historia, Epistolae et fragmenta. Porphyrii philosophi De abstinentia et De antro Nympharum. Philonis Byzantii De septem orbis spectaculis (Paris, 1858), iv–xGoogle Scholar; Dilts, M.R., ‘The testimonia of Aelian's Varia Historia’, Manuscripta 15 (1971), 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Heraclides Lembus, FHG III.168 F 3 = Ath. Deipn. 8.333a–b (Ἡρακλείδης γοῦν ὁ Λέμβος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν; on a frog plague in Paeonia and Dardania); F 4 = Ath. Deipn. 13.578a–b (Ἡρακλείδης δὲ ὁ Λέμβος ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ καὶ τριακοστῇ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν; on Demo being the mistress of Demetrius Poliorcetes and being loved by Antigonus I Monophthalmus); F 5 = Ath. Deipn. 3.98e–f (ἱστορεῖ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Λέμβος ἐν τῇ τριακοστῇ ἑβδόμῃ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν; on the arcane vocabulary used by Alexarchus, the younger brother of Cassander and founder of the city of Uranopolis). Heraclides’ Ἱστορίαι were later epitomized by the rhetorician Heron, son of Cotys: see Suda η 552 s.v. Ἥρων (ἐπιτομὴν τῶν Ἡρακλείδου Ἱστοριῶν).

¹² I quote the text as edited by Lindsay, W.M., Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1913), 329Google Scholar with one exception: I have adopted Ursinus’ conjecture quosdam for the corrupt quendam in quosdam tempestate deiectos in Italiae regiones secutos. Havet, L., Notes critiques sur le texte de Festus (Paris, 1911), 11–12Google Scholar, in contrast, assumed a lacuna after quendam, which contained the name of the founder and a phrase et eius socios or the like.

¹³ Festus (or perhaps already Verrius Flaccus, whose work Festus epitomizes) seems to think that Lembus is Heraclides’ proper name, whereas, in fact, Λέμβος was his nickname: see Diog. Laert. 5.94. The expected way of referring to Heraclides would be Heraclides qui appellatur Lembos.

¹⁴ G.S. Bucher, BNJ 840 F 13b translates auctoritate uirginis cuiusdam tempestiuae nomine Rhomes as ‘by the authority of a certain girl opportunely named Rhome’. However, it is more likely that tempestiuus is a translation of the Greek ὡραῖος ‘of marriageable age’ here: see Müller, K.O., Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatione quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome (Leipzig, 1839)Google Scholar, 268 n. 26.

¹⁵ This passage was wrongly attributed to Heraclides Ponticus by Wehrli, F., Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, vol. 7: Herakleides Pontikos (Basel, 1969 ²), 35, 94Google Scholar. See Schütrumpf, E., ‘The origin of the name of Rome—A passage wrongly attributed to Heraclides Ponticus’, Philologus 151 (2007), 160–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ I quote the text as edited by Thilo, G., Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentari, vol. 2: Aeneidos librorum VI–XII commentarii (Leipzig, 1881), 102Google Scholar.

¹⁷ I quote the text as edited by Mommsen, T., C. Iulii Solini collectanea rerum memorabilium (Berlin, 1895), 1Google Scholar.

¹⁸ In addition to the canonical story about Romulus and Remus, there are numerous traditions (both Greek and Roman) about the foundation of Rome. The most important sources on those ancient traditions are Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.72–3 (= FGrHist 840 F 40a), Festus 17 pp. 326–30 Lindsay, Serv. Dan. Aen. 1.273 (= FGrHist 840 F 40d) and Solin. 1.1–3. Some of these traditions also involve women burning the ships: see Hellanicus Lesbius, FGrHist 4 F 84 = 840 F 8 and Damastes Sigeus, FGrHist 5 F 3 = 840 F 9 (= Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.72.2) and the authors cited in n. 28 below.

¹⁹ This source might have been Varro. Indeed, Varro was an important source for Verrius Flaccus, whose work Festus epitomized. However, Verrius often did not cite Varro by name but tacitly adopted material from him: see Glinister, F., ‘Constructing the past’, in Glinister, F. et al. (edd.), Verrius, Festus & Paul. Lexicography, Scholarship, & Society (London, 2007), 11–32Google Scholar; Lhommé, M.-K., ‘Varron et Verrius au 2ème siècle après Jésus-Christ’, in Glinister, F. et al. (edd.), Verrius, Festus & Paul. Lexicography, Scholarship, & Society (London, 2007), 33–47Google Scholar. Kiessling, A., De Dionysii Halicarnassei Antiquitatum auctoribus Latinis (Leipzig, 1858), 41–2Google Scholar assumed Varro to also be the source of Dionysius, but see Jacobson, A., ‘Das Verhältnis des Dionys von Halicarnass zu Varro in der Vorgeschichte Roms’, in Jahresbericht der Drei-König-Schule (Realgymnasium) zu Dresden-Neustadt (Dresden, 1895), 3–18Google Scholar, at 10–11.

²⁰ I quote the text as edited by Fromentin, V., Denys d'Halicarnasse. Antiquités romaines. Texte établi et traduit, vol. 1: Introduction générale et Livre I (Paris, 1998), 185Google Scholar.

²¹ I.e. the Oscans.

²² It is possible that the section on the Romans at one point circulated as a separate work. This is suggested by the fact that Νόμιμα Ῥωμαίων is mentioned separately in the so-called Appendix of the Vita Aristotelis Menagiana, no. 186 p. 18 Rose³ = p. 89 Düring = p. 28 Gigon.

²³ There are four sections in Heraclides’ epitome which concern non-Greek nations: Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 43 (Lycians), 44 (Etruscans), 48 (Lucanians), 58 (Thracians). This is further indicated by F 607 Rose³ = F 472 Gigon = Ath. Deipn. 1.23d (Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν Τυρρηνῶν Νομίμοις), a fragment of Aristotle's Νόμιμα βαρβαρικά, which overlaps with Heraclides’ section on the Etruscans.

²⁴ P.Oxy. 1367 = Hermippus, FGrHist 1026 T 5 + F 3.

²⁵ Rose, V., Aristoteles pseudepigraphus (Leipzig, 1863), 541–2Google Scholar; id., Aristotelis opera, vol. 5: Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Scholiorum in Aristotelem supplementum. Index Aristotelicus (Berlin, 1870), 1571; id., Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta (Leipzig, 1886), 369. Assuming that the fragment of Heraclides belonged to his Ἱστορίαι, Bloch (n. 2), 38 claimed that Heraclides drew on Aristotle in writing his Ἱστορίαι and therefore concluded that Heraclides made the epitome of Aristotle in preparation of writing his Ἱστορίαι. So also Ottone, G., Libyka. Testimonianze e frammenti (Tivoli, 2002), 72Google Scholar. However, this logically implies that the fragment ultimately goes back to Heraclides’ epitome. Schorn, S., Studien zur hellenistischen Biographie und Historiographie (Berlin and Boston, 2018), 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 59 is also sceptical about Bloch's theory.

²⁶ So also Hose, M., Aristoteles Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 20.3: Die historischen Fragmente (Berlin, 2002), 256Google Scholar.

²⁷ I quote the text as edited by Boulogne, J., Plutarque. Œuvres morales, vol. 4: Traités 17 à 19. Conduites méritoires de femmes. Étiologies romaines—Étiologies grecques. Parallèles mineurs. Texte établi et traduit (Paris, 2002), 109–10Google Scholar.

²⁸ See also Strabo 6.1.14 p. 264 C. The story of Trojan women setting Greek or Trojan ships on fire was also set at the following locations:

• –

  – the Neaethus (or Nauaethus) river (‘Ship Burner’) near Croton (Strabo 6.1.12 p. 262 C; Ps.-Apollod. Epit. 6.15c = schol. Lycophr. 921; Etym. Magn. s.v. Ναύαιθος p. 598 Kallierges; schol. Theoc. 4.24a–b Wendel)

• –

  – the Caieta harbour (Serv. Aen. 7.1, 10.36; [L. Iulius] Caesar [omitted in FRHist: Appendix 1 A24] and [C.] Sempronius [Tuditanus; FRHist 10 F 5 C.J. Smith] = Origo gentis Romanae 10.4)

• –

  – Sybaris (Lycoph. 1075–82; Etym. Magn. s.v. Σηταῖον p. 711 Kallierges; Steph. Byz. σ 124 s.v. Σήταιον; Tzetz. schol. Lycoph. 1075)

• –

  – Pisae (Serv. Dan. Aen. 10.179)

• –

  – Sicily (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.52.4; Verg. Aen. 6.604–69)

• –

  – Crete (Zenobius Vulgatus 5.50 = Zenobius Athous 2.7 Bühler ~ Suda οι 83 s.v. οἱ Κρῆτες τὴν θυσίαν ~ Recensio Bodleiana B 719 Gaisford)

• –

  – Daunia (Ps.-Arist. Mir. ausc. 109)

• –

  – Pallene (Conon, FGrHist 26.13 = Phot. Bibl. codex 186 p. 133a Bekker; Strabo 7 F 14a Radt = F 25 Jones; Polyaenus, Strat. 7.47)

See R.G. Basto, ‘The Roman foundation legend and the fragments of the Greek historians. An inquiry into the development of the legend’ (Diss., Cornell University, 1980), 51–76; Martínez-Pinna, J., ‘Helanico y el motivo del incendio de los barcos: “un hecho troyano”’, GIF 48 (1996), 21–53Google Scholar. In Virgil, it is Jupiter who prevents the ships from being burnt down.

²⁹ See Schultze, C., ‘Authority, originality and competence in the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, Histos 4 (2000), 6–49Google Scholar. According to F. Krampf, ‘Die Quellen der römischen Gründungssage’ (Diss., University of Leipzig, 1913), 17, in contrast, the genuine Aristotelian account is found in Plutarch.

³⁰ See Rose, H.J., The Roman Questions of Plutarch. A New Translation with Introductory Essays (New York, 1974), 11–50Google Scholar.

³¹ So Leo, F., De Plutarchi Quaestionum Romanarum auctoribus (Halle, 1864), 10–13Google Scholar; Peter, H., Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographieen der Römer (Halle, 1865), 146–9Google Scholar; Förstemann, A., Zur Geschichte des Aeneasmythus. Litterargeschichtliche Studien (Magdeburg, 1894), 20–1Google Scholar; Perret, J., Les origines de la légende troyenne de Rome (281–31) (Paris, 1942), 401, 406Google Scholar; Stadter, P.A., Plutarch's Historical Methods. An Analysis of the Mulierum Virtutes (Cambridge, 1965), 30–4Google Scholar; Basto (n. 28), 48–50; Vanotti, G., ‘Roma polis Hellenis, Roma polis Tyrrhenis. Riflessioni sul tema’, MEFRA 111 (1999), 217–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 227–8; 229 with n. 46. Plutarch repeats the same story in Rom. 1.2–3 and De mul. vir. 243e–244a. Although he seems to have read Aristotle's Πολιτεῖαι, his knowledge is not always direct: see Schettino, M.T., ‘Le Πολιτεῖαι aristoteliche nel corpus plutarcheo’, in Jiménez, A. Pérez, López, J. García and Aguilar, R.M. (edd.), Plutarco, Platón y Aristóteles. Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid–Cuenca, 4–7 de Mayo de 1999) (Madrid, 1999), 643–55.Google Scholar

³² Martínez-Pinna (n. 28), 31–3; id., Las leyendas de fundación de Roma. De Eneas a Rómulo (Barcelona, 2011), 33–4.

³³ See Rhodes, P.J., A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981), 60–1Google Scholar.

³⁴ See Polito (n. 6), 201–28.

³⁵ Basto (n. 28), 29–30, 37–44, 55–8.

³⁶ So also Schröder, W.A., M. Porcius Cato. Das erste Buch der Origines. Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente (Meisenheim am Glan, 1971), 70Google Scholar and Martínez-Pinna (n. 32), 33.

³⁷ I quote the text as edited by Fromentin (n. 20), 184–5. However, unlike Fromentin, I have adopted the reading Σιγειεύς, found in Eusebius (in Syncellus p. 227 Mosshammer; cf. also Euseb. arm. p. 132 Karst: der Sigeer), against the otherwise unattested form Σιγεύς, as it is read in the manuscripts of Dionysius.

³⁸ See the table in Basto (n. 28), 47.

³⁹ Bickerman, E.J., ‘Origines gentium’, CPh 47 (1952), 65–81Google Scholar, at 78 n. 14 and Horsfall, N.M., ‘Some problems in the Aeneas legend’, CQ 29 (1979), 372–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 383 n. 88 also claimed that Aristotle did not mention Rome. Likewise, according to Perret (n. 31), 389 and Solmsen, F., ‘“Aeneas founded Rome with Odysseus”’, HSPh 90 (1986), 93–110Google Scholar, at 105 n. 46, the Trojan woman named Rhome was not mentioned by Aristotle, but was introduced by Heraclides Lembus.

⁴⁰ According to Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.72.1 (FGrHist 45 F 9 = 840 F 21), ‘Cephalon Gergithius’ (the pseudonym of Hegesianax) claimed that Rome was founded by Rhomus, one of Aeneas’ four sons (the other three being Ascanius, Euryleon and Romulus); according to Festus 17 p. 326 Lindsay (FGrHist 45 F 10 = 840 F 40b), in contrast, Cephalon spoke only vaguely of a certain companion of Aeneas (ab homine quodam comite Aeneae). Similarly, according to Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.72.5 (FGrHist 564 F 5a = 840 F 14a), Callias, the court historian of King Agathocles of Syracuse, claimed that the Trojan woman Rhome married Latinus, king of the Aborigines, and their children (Romus, Romulus and Telegonus) later founded Rome, which they named after their mother. In Festus 17 p. 329 Lindsay (who erroneously calls him ‘Caltinus’), however, Latinus is said to be one of the Trojans, is already married to Rhome, conquers Italy and founds Rome himself.

⁴¹ According to Basto (n. 28), 40, Aristotle deliberately did not mention Rome by name because he was suspicious of the invention of the eponymous woman. However, in his Πολιτεῖαι, Aristotle himself does not shy away from such etymologies. Thus, the Ionians are named after Ion (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] F 381[1] Rose³ = Politeia 5 [Athens] F 1[2] Gigon = Harp. α 194 Keaney s.v. Ἀπόλλων πατρῷος ὁ Πύθιος; Arist. F 381[2] Rose³ = Politeia 5 [Athens] F 1[1] Gigon = Titel 143.1.1 Gigon = Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 1), the Dryopes after Dryops (Arist. F 482 Rose³ = F 488 Gigon = Strabo 8.6.13 p. 373 C), the city Adramyteion after its supposed founder Adramytos (Arist. F 484 Rose³ = F 467 Gigon = Steph. Byz. α 60 s.v. Ἀδραμύτειον), the island Cephallenia after its settler Cephalus (Arist. F 504[1] Rose³ = F 509 Gigon = Etym. Magn. s.v. Ἀρκείσιος p. 144 Kallierges = Etymologicum Genuinum α 765 Lasserre–Livadaras s.v. Ἀρκείσιος; Arist. F 504[2] Rose³ = F 510 Gigon = Tzetz. Antehomerica 479; Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 45 = Arist. F 611.45 Rose³ = Titel 143.1.17 Gigon), the town Cius after its founder Cius (Arist. F 514 Rose³ = F 519.1 Gigon = schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1.1177 p. 107 Wendel), the island Paros after its settler Paros (Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 25 = Arist. F 611.25 Rose³ = Titel 143.1.8 Gigon), the island Ceos after its settler Ceos (Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 26 = Arist. F 611.26 Rose³ = Titel 143.1.9 Gigon) and the city Croton after its founder Croton (Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 686 = Arist. F 611.68 Rose³ = Titel 143.1.37 Gigon).

⁴² Λατίνιον is the reading of the manuscripts of Dionysius. The Excerpta Eusebiana (Anecd. Ox. 2.162 Cramer) and Syncellus (p. 227 Mosshammer), in contrast, have Λάτιον (Euseb. arm. p. 132 Karst has Latinos). See Perret (n. 31), n. 1. Kiessling in Jacoby, K., Dionysi Halicarnassensis Antiquitatum Romanarum quae supersunt, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1885), 116Google Scholar conjectured Λαουίνιον (so Lavinium). Schilling, R., La religion romaine de Vénus depuis les origines jusqu'au temps d'Auguste (Paris, 1954), 71Google Scholar corrected it to Λαβίνιον, but this transcription of the name is unlikely, since elsewhere Dionysius uses Λαουίνιον and never Λαβίνιον. Jacoby, FGrHist 84 F 13a also considered correcting Λατίνιον to Λαύρεντον, so Laurentum, where Aeneas is said to have arrived according to Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.45.1, 1.52.4, 1.53.3 and Strabo 5.3.2 p. 229 C. A much less likely conjecture is that of Capovilla, G., ‘Lazio prelatino e problema ligure-siculo laziale’, RIL 89 (1956), 505–58Google Scholar, at 544, who (while incorrectly stating that Hellanicus is Dionysius’ source) corrected Λατίνιον to Λακίνιον as derived from the Attic hero Lacius. Another conjecture which has not received any following is that of Bayard, L., ‘Elpénor à Antium?’, MEFR 40 (1923), 115–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who corrected Λατίνιον to Ἄντιον (so Antium, an old harbour town in Latium).

⁴³ It is debated whether Dionysius wrote μετ᾿ Ὀδυσσέως ‘with Odysseus’ or μετ᾿ Ὀδυσσέα ‘after Odysseus’ and whether this should be taken with εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντα ‘Aeneas came to Italy with/after Odysseus’ or with οἰκιστὴν γενέσθαι τῆς πόλεως ‘Aeneas founded the city with/after Odysseus’. The genitive Ὀδυσσέως is read by the codex Chisianus R VIII 60 (A), whereas the accusative Ὀδυσσέα recurs in the β family (which comprises the codex Urbinas gr. 105 [Bb] and the codex Marcianus gr. 3722 [S]). See the discussion in Perret (n. 31), 371–5; Phillips, E.D., ‘Odysseus in Italy’, JHS 73 (1953), 53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 57–8; Horsfall (n. 39), 379–80; Basto (n. 28), 80–94; Musti, D., ‘Etruschi e Greci nella rappresentazione dionisiana delle origini di Roma’, in Gli Etruschi e Roma: Incontro di studio in onore di Massimo Pallottino (Rome, 1981), 23–44Google Scholar, at 27 n. 5; Solmsen (n. 39), 93–5; Martínez-Pinna, J., ‘Nota a Helánico, FGH 4F84: Eneas y Odiseo en el Lacio’, in Arqueólogos, historiadores y filólogos. Homenaje a Fernando Gascó, vol. 2 (Sevilla, 1995), 669–83Google Scholar; Fowler, R.L., Early Greek Mythography, vol. 2: Commentary (Oxford, 2013), 564–5Google Scholar; V. Costa on BNJ 5 F 3. Since the indirect transmission agrees with A (see Euseb. arm. p. 132 Karst: nach Italia gekommen mit Odysseus; Syncellus p. 227 Mosshammer: εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἐλθόντα σὺν Ὀδυσσεῖ), the genitive is the most likely reading. This is now accepted by most scholars.

⁴⁴ The text is based on Kaibel, G., Athenaei Naucratitae Dipnosophistarum libri XV, vol. 3: Libri XI–XV et indices (Leipzig, 1890), 247–8Google Scholar. However, I have not adopted Kaibel's conjecture <ἀνὴρ> ὁ κάλλιστος, since the quotation of Athenaeus in Eust. Il. 24.771 (4.985 van der Valk) does not have ἀνήρ either: ἐθαυμάζετο δέ, φασί, καὶ κατὰ Σπάρτην μᾶλλον ὁ κάλλιστος καὶ ἡ καλλίστη. Further, I have adopted the correction διὸ καί φασιν <περὶ> Ἀρχιδάμου τοῦ βασιλέως, found in the editio princeps. There might also be a lacuna between γυνὴ ἡ καλλίστη and καλλίστας γεννώσης τῆς Σπάρτης τὰς γυναῖκας.

⁴⁵ Sparta was famous for its beautiful women: see already Hom. Od. 13.412 (Σπάρτην ἐς καλλιγύναικα). This reputation goes back to Helen, as Eust. Od. 13.412 (2.56 Stallbaum) observes (ὅτι καλλιγύναικα τὴν Σπάρτην κἀνταῦθα λέγει διὰ τὴν Ἑλένην). It is also seen in the oracle given by the Pythia to the inhabitants of Aegium: see Parke, H.W. and Wormell, D.E.W., The Delphic Oracle, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1956), 1.82–3, 2.1–2Google Scholar; Fontenrose, J., The Delphic Oracle. Its Responses and Operations with a Catalogue of Responses (Berkeley–Los Angeles–London, 1978), 276–7Google Scholar. In reply to their question whether any nation was better than theirs, the oracle listed cities that were superior to Aegium, specifying in what regard the city in question was better and concluding that Aegium was not third, fourth or even twelfth best; Sparta is listed for its women (Λακεδαιμόνιαί τε γυναῖκες, with minor variations): see Mnaseas F 58 Cappelletto and Ion Chius F 88 Leurini = Zenobius Athous 2.35 Bühler; Phot. Lexicon υ 47 Theodoridis s.v. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Μεγαρεῖς, οὔτε τρίτοι οὔτε τέταρτοι = Suda υ 108 s.v. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Μεγαρεῖς, οὔτε τρίτοι οὔτε τέταρτοι; Tzetz. Chil. 9.291; Strabo 10.1.13 p. 449 C; Oenomaus F 11a Hammerstaedt = Euseb. Praep. evang. 5.29.1–7; Ath. Deipn. 7.278e; Theodoretus, Graecarum affectationum curatio 10.35; Eust. in Dionys. Per. 473; Tzetz. Chil. 10.330; Epistulae 61 p. 92 Leone, 71 p. 102 Leone. According to an alternative version, it was the Megarians who consulted the oracle: see Deinias, FGrHist 306 F 6 = schol. Theoc. 14.48/49a Wendel; Anth. Pal. 14.73; Phot. Lexicon υ 47 Theodoridis s.v. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Μεγαρεῖς, οὔτε τρίτοι οὔτε τέταρτοι = Suda υ 108 s.v. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Μεγαρεῖς, οὔτε τρίτοι οὔτε τέταρτοι.

⁴⁶ Not Archidamus III, as Olson, S.D., Athenaeus. The Learned Banqueters. Edited and Translated, vol. 6: 12–13.594b (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 2010), 279Google Scholar n. 95 claims.

⁴⁷ Athenaeus does not explicitly say that Archidamus had to marry, but the parallel with Theophrastus suggests that this is the most likely context.

⁴⁸ Theophr. F 605 FHS&G = Plut. Ages. 2.6. The same story recurs (without reference to Theophrastus) in Plut. Mor. 1D (De liberis educandis 2).

⁴⁹ Heraclides Lembus βασιλίσκους ἀντὶ βασιλέων τᾷ Σπάρτᾳ γεννᾶν προαιρεῖται ~ Theophr. οὐ γὰρ βασιλεῖς, ἔφασαν, ἁμῖν, ἀλλὰ βασιλείδια γεννασεῖ.

⁵⁰ See n. 11 above.

⁵¹ On the Spartans, see Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 13 and Aristotle's discussion of Spartan women in Arist. Pol. 1269b12–1270a34. For other Aristotelian Πολιτεῖαι/Νόμιμα, see Arist. F 503(2) Rose³ = Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 73 (Iasians); Arist. F 547(1) Rose³ = F 554.2 Gigon = Polyb. 12.5.4–6, 12.6b.2–4, 12.6b.9/10 (Locrians); Arist. F 569 Rose³ = F 586 Gigon = schol. Pind. Ol. 7 inscr. Drachmann (Rhodians); Arist. F 607(1) Rose³ = F 472 Gigon = F 704 Gigon = Ath. Deipn. 1.23d; Arist. F 607(2) Rose³ = Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 44 (Etruscans); Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 28–9 (Ceians), 43 (Lycians), 53 (Athamanians), 58 (Thracians).

⁵² See Xen. Lac. 1.3–10; Nic. Dam. FGrHist 90 F 103z = F 25 Giannini = Stob. 4.2.25. The relation of Nicolaus to Xenophon and Aristotle is a debated issue. According to Trieber, C., Quaestiones Laconicae. Pars I. De Nicolai Damasceni Laconicis (Berlin, 1867)Google Scholar, especially 61–5, the entire section on the Spartans in Nicolaus is based on Xenophon's Spartan Constitution. So also E. Parmentier-Morin, ‘L’œuvre historique de Nicolas de Damas’, vol. 2 (Diss., Paris Nanterre University, 1998), 362 n. 384. Reimann, E., ‘Quo ex fonte fluxerit Nicolai Damasceni παραδόξων ἐθῶν συναγωγή’, Philologus 54 (1895), 654–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 675–6 and Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist). Zweiter Teil. Zeitgeschichte A. Universalgeschichte und Hellenika (Berlin, 1926), 259Google Scholar, however, were more sceptical. See also the discussion in Curnis, M., ‘Frammenti di storia etnografica: Nicolao Damasceno e la Ethôn Synagogé’, Sileno 32 (2006), 41–74Google Scholar, at 57–9. Dümmler, F., ‘Zu den historischen Arbeiten der ältesten Peripatetiker’, RhM 42 (1887), 179–97Google Scholar, at 192–5, in contrast, considered Aristotle to be the sole source for Nicolaus’ entire Ἐθῶν συναγωγή. Following him, Gigon, O., Aristotelis opera, vol. 3: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta (Berlin and New York, 1987), 573–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar included all the fragments of Nicolaus’ Ἐθῶν συναγωγή among the fragments of Aristotle. So also Dietze-Mager, G., ‘Die Politeiai des Aristoteles und ihre Beziehung zu den Nomima barbarica’, Mediterranea 2 (2017), 35–72Google Scholar, at 54.

⁵³ See Arist. Pol. 1270b6–1271a9, 1301b17–21, 1313a23–33; Heraclides Lembus, Excerpta Politiarum 10. A similar involvement of the ephors recurs in the case of King Anaxandridas (Hdt. 5.39–40). When he did not beget children with his first wife, the ephors attempted to force him to divorce her; ultimately, they agreed that he was allowed to keep his first wife but had to marry a second one. Ephors also had the authority to fine the kings: see Plut. Ages. 6.