Works Cited
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 April 2020
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ennius' AnnalsPoetry and History, pp. 310 - 338Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Works Cited
Acosta-Hughes, B. and Stephens, S. A. 2002. “Rereading Callimachus’ Aetia fragment 1,” Classical Philology 97: 238–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, J.-P. 2017. “Carpentry, Roman,” in Goldberg, et al. (eds.), http://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8057 (accessed January 15, 2019).Google Scholar
Adams, J. N. and Mayer, R. G. (eds.) 1999. Aspects of the language of Latin poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adler, E. 2011. Valorizing the barbarians: Enemy speeches in Roman historiography. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ahl, F. M. 1976. Lucan: An introduction. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 39. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Aicher, P. 1989. “Ennius’ dream of Homer,” American Journal of Philology 110: 227–232.Google Scholar
Albrecht, M. von 1964. Silius Italicus: Freiheit und Gebundenheit römischer Epik. Amsterdam: P. Schippers.Google Scholar
Álvarez Salas, O. 2007. “I frammenti ‘filosofici’ di Epicarmo: Una rivisitazione critica,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 5: 23–72.Google Scholar
Aly, W. 1936. Livius und Ennius. Neue Wege zur Antike II.5. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J., and Nisbet, R. G. M. 1979. “Elegiacs by Gallus from Qaṣr Ibrîm,” Journal of Roman Studies 69: 128–155.Google Scholar
Arduini, P. et al. (eds.) 2008. Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli. 2 vols. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
Arnim, H. F. A. von (ed.) 1903–1924. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Aroles, S. 2007. L’énigme des enfants-loups: Une certitude biologique mais un déni des archives, 1304–1954. Paris: Publibook.Google Scholar
Ash, R. 2002. “Between Scylla and Charybdis? Historiographical commentaries on Latin historians,” in Gibson, and Kraus, (eds.), pp. 269–294.Google Scholar
Ash, R. et al. (eds.) 2015. Fame and infamy: Essays for Christopher Pelling on characterization in Greek and Roman biography and historiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, R. G. 1977. P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber sextus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baier, T. 2001. “Lucilius und die griechischen Wörter,” in Manuwald, (ed.), pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
Barbantani, S. 2001. Fatis nikeforos: Frammenti di elegia encomiastica nell’età delle Guerre Galatiche. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar
Batstone, W. W. 1996. “The fragments of Furius Antias,” Classical Quarterly 46: 387–402.Google Scholar
Batstone, W. W. 2007. “Literature,” in Rosenstein, and Morstein-Marx, (eds.), pp. 543–564.Google Scholar
Baudry, R. and Hurlet, F. (eds.) 2016. Le prestige à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Paris: de Boccard.Google Scholar
Beck, H. and Walter, U. (eds.) 2001. Die frühen Römischen Historiker. 2 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Beck, H. et al. (eds.) 2011. Consuls and res publica: Holding high office in the Roman republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beecroft, A. 2008. “World literature without a hyphen: Towards a typology of literary systems,” New Left Review 54: 87–100.Google Scholar
Beecroft, A. 2015. An ecology of world literature: From antiquity to the present day. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Biesinger, B. 2016. Römische Dekadenzdiskurse: Untersuchungen zur römischen Geschichtsschreibung und ihren Kontexten (2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr.). Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Biggs, T. 2014. “A Roman odyssey: Cultural responses to the first Punic War from Andronicus to Augustus.” Dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Biggs, T. 2015. Review of Fisher 2014, Goldschmidt 2013, and Elliott 2013, American Journal of Philology 136: 713–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggs, T. 2017. “Primus Romanorum: Origin stories, fictions of primacy, and the first Punic War,” Classical Philology 112: 350–367.Google Scholar
Biggs, T. forthcoming (a). Poetics of the first Punic War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Biggs, T. forthcoming (b). “War and cultural memory at the beginnings of Latin literature,” in Dinter, and Guérin, (eds.).Google Scholar
Bignone, E. 1929. “Ennio ed Empedocle,” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 57: 10–30.Google Scholar
Blänsdorf, J., Büchner, K., and Morel, W. (eds.) 2011. Fragmenta poetarum latinorum epicorum et lyricorum. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bonner, S. 1977. Education in ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Braun, M. et al. (eds.) 2000. Moribus antiquis res stat romana: Römische Werte und römische Literatur im 3. und 2. Jh. v. Chr. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 134. Munich: K. G. Saur.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breed, B. W. 2018. “Lucilius’ books,” in Breed, , Keitel, , and Wallace, (eds.), pp. 57–78.Google Scholar
Breed, B. W. and Rossi, A. (eds.) 2006. Ennius and the invention of Roman epic. Arethusa 39.3. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Breed, B. W., Keitel, E., and Wallace, R. (eds.) 2018. Lucilius and satire in second-century bc Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. 1987. “Romulus, Remus and the foundation of Rome,” in Bremmer, and Horsfall, (eds.), pp. 25–48.Google Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. and Horsfall, N. M. (eds.) 1987. Roman myth and mythography. Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies Supplement 52. London: Institute for Classical Studies.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1972. “Ennius and the Hellenistic worship of Homer,” American Journal of Philology 93: 547–567.Google Scholar
Brink, C. O. 1982. Horace on poetry. Epistles Book II: The letters to Augustus and Florus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briquel, D. 2004–2005. “‘Ils rapportent à son sujet une foule de récits extraordinaires’ (Denys d'Halicarnasse, II, 60, 4),” Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 40–41: 37–53.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J. 1973. A commentary on Livy, Books XXXI–XXXIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J. (ed). 1986. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XLI–XLV. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Briscoe, J. 1991. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita libri XXXI–XL. 2 vols. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Brock, R. 1995. “Versions, ‘inversions’ and evasions: Classical historiography and the published speech,” Papers of the Leeds Latin Seminar 8: 209–224.Google Scholar
Brunt, P. A. 1980. “On historical fragments and epitomes,” Classical Quarterly 30: 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkert, W. 1962. Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon. Nuremberg: H. Carl.Google Scholar
Burnett, A. 2007. The letters of A. E. Housman. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Busdraghi, P. et al. (eds.) 1996. Osberno, Derivazioni. 2 vols. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo.Google Scholar
Butterfield, D. J. (ed.) 2015. Varro varius: The polymath of the Roman world. Cambridge Classical Journal Supplement 39. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.Google Scholar
Calame, C. 1995. The craft of poetic speech in ancient Greece. Trans. Orion, J.. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Candau Morón, J. M. 2005. “Polybius and Plutarch on Roman ethos,” in Schepens, and Bollansée, (eds.), pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Cardinali, L. 1988. “Le Origines di Catone iniziavano con un esametro?” Studi classici e orientali 37: 205–215.Google Scholar
Casali, S. 2006. “The poet at war: Ennius on the field in Silius’ Punica,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 569–593.Google Scholar
Casali, S. 2007. “Killing the father: Ennius, Naevius and Virgil’s Julian imperialism,” in Fitzgerald, and Gowers, (eds.), pp. 103–128.Google Scholar
Cassio, A. C. 1985. “Two studies on Epicharmus and his influence,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 89: 37–51.Google Scholar
Castagna, L. and Riboldi, C. (eds.) 2008. Amicitiae templa serena: Studi in onore di G. Aricò. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar
Champion, C. B. 2015. “Livy and the Greek historians from Herodotus to Dionysius: Some soundings and reflections,” in Mineo, (ed.), pp. 190–204.Google Scholar
Chaplin, J. D. 2010. “The Livian Periochae and the last republican author,” in Horster, and Reitz, (eds.), pp. 451–468.Google Scholar
Chaplin, J. D. and Kraus, C. S. (eds.) 2009. Oxford readings in classical studies: Livy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. J. 2007. Divine qualities: Cult and community in republican Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, F. 2011. “Authenticity, antiquity, and authority: Dares Phrygius in early modern Europe,” Journal of the History of Ideas 72: 183–207.Google Scholar
Clark, Jessica H. 2017. “Defeated, not? The afterlife of scholia on Aen. 11.305–307.” Vergilius 63: 3–16.Google Scholar
Clark, J. H. and Turner, B. (eds.) 2018. Brill’s companion to military defeat in ancient Mediterranean society. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Clauss, J. J. 2010. “From the head of Zeus: The beginnings of Roman literature,” in Clauss, and Cuypers, (eds.), pp. 463–478.Google Scholar
Clauss, J. J. and Cuypers, M. (eds.) 2010. A companion to Hellenistic literature. Chichester and Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cole, S. 2006. “Cicero, Ennius, and the concept of apotheosis at Rome,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 531–548.Google Scholar
Columna, H. (ed.) 1590. Q. Ennii poetae vetustissimi quae supersunt fragmenta. Naples: H. Salvianus.Google Scholar
Compagnon, A. 2004. Literature, theory, and common sense. Trans. Cosman, C.. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Connors, C. 2005. “Epic allusion in Roman satire,” in Freudenburg, (ed.), pp. 123–145.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1986. The rhetoric of imitation: Genre and poetic memory in Virgil and other Latin poets. Edited and with an introduction by Segal, Charles. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 1994. Latin literature: A history. Trans. J. B. Solodow, rev. D. P. Fowler and G. W. Most. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Conte, G. B. 2007. The poetry of pathos: Studies in Virgilian epic. Ed. S. J. Harrison. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbeill, A. 2015. Sexing the world: Grammatical gender and biological sex in ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corbier, M. 2006. Donner à voir, donner à lire: Mémoire et communication dans la Rome ancienne. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
Cornell, T. J. (ed.) 2013. The fragments of the Roman historians. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornwell, H. 2017. Pax and the politics of peace: Republic to principate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cranz, F. E. (ed.) 1986. Catalogus translationum et commentariorum VIII. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Crowther, N. B. 1970. “OI NEΩTEPOI, poetae novi, and cantores Euphorionis,” Classical Quarterly 20: 322–327.Google Scholar
D’Angour, A. 2016. “Between Scylla and Charybdis: Text and conjecture in Greek lyric commentary,” in Kraus, and Stray, (eds.), pp. 157–172.Google Scholar
D’Anna, G. 1986. “Il frammento enniano dei ‘settecento anni’ e qualche considerazione di metodo,” in Studi in onore di Adelmo Barigazzi, vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, pp. 181–184.Google Scholar
D’Ippolito, F. 2003. Problemi storico-esegetici delle XII Tavole. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane.Google Scholar
Da Vivo, A. and Spina, L. (eds.) 1992. Come dice il poeta … Percorsi greci e latini di parole poetiche. Naples: Loffredo.Google Scholar
Damon, C. 1997. The mask of the parasite: A pathology of Roman patronage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damon, C. 2010. “Déjà vu or déjà lu? History as intertext,” Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 14: 375–388.Google Scholar
Damon, C. and Pieper, C. (eds.) 2018. Eris vs. aemulatio: Valuing competition in classical antiquity. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Davies, J. 2016. “The historical commentary,” in Kraus, and Stray, (eds.), pp. 233–249.Google Scholar
Degrassi, A. (ed.) 1963. Inscriptiones Italiae, volumen XIII Fasti et elogia, fasciculus II Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani; accedunt feralia, menologia rustica, parapegmata. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato.Google Scholar
Delignon, B., Le Meur, N., and Thévenaz, O. (eds.) 2016. La poésie lyrique dans la cité antique: Les Odes d’Horace au miroir de la lyrique grecque archaïque. Paris and Lyon: Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3.Google Scholar
Delvigo, M. L. 2013. “Per transitum tangit historiam: Intersecting developments of Roman identity in Virgil,” in Farrell, and Nelis, (eds.), pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
Dench, E. 2005. Romulus’ asylum: Roman identities from the age of Alexander to the age of Hadrian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deremetz, A. 2013. “Numa in Augustan poetry,” in Farrell, and Nelis, (eds.), pp. 228–243.Google Scholar
Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D. 1981. “A new aspect of the evolution of the trimeter in Euripides,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 111: 43–64.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. and Chahoud, A. (eds.) 2010. Colloquial and literary Latin. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diels, H. (ed.) 1882–1895. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros … commentaria. 2 vols. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar
Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (eds.) 1951–1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6th ed. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Diggle, J., Hall, J. D., and Jocelyn, H. D. (eds.) 1989. Studies in Latin literature and its tradition in honour of C. O. Brink. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dillery, J. 2009. “Roman historians and the Greeks, audiences and models,” in Feldherr, (ed.), pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Dinter, M. and Guérin, C. (eds.) forthcoming. Cultural memory in republican and Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dionisotti, A. C. 1997. “On fragments in classical scholarship,” in Most, (ed.), pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Dousa, F. 1597. C. Lucili Suessani Auruncani Satyrographum principis, equitis Romani, Satyrarum quae supersunt reliquiae. Leiden.Google Scholar
Dutsch, D. 2014. “The beginnings: Philosophy in Roman literature before 155 bc,” in Garani, and Konstan, (eds.), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Dyck, A. 1996. A commentary on Cicero, De officiis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Dyck, A. 2004. A commentary on Cicero, De legibus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Edinburgh, University 1926. The Edinburgh University calendar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Edmunds, L. 2001. Intertextuality and the reading of Roman poetry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Eigler, U. et al. (eds.) 2003. Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. 1920. “Philip Massinger,” in The sacred wood: Essays on poetry and criticism. London: Methuen, pp. 112–130.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2007. “The voices of Ennius’ Annals,” in Fitzgerald, and Gowers (eds.), pp. 38–54.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2008. “Ennian epic and Ennian tragedy in the language of the Aeneid,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 104: 241–272.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2009a. “Ennius’ ‘Cunctator’ and the history of a gerund in the Roman historiographical tradition,” Classical Quarterly 59: 532–542.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2009b. “Livy’s Papirius Cursor and the manipulation of the Ennian past,” Classical Quarterly 59: 650–653.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2010. “Ennius as universal historian: The case of the Annales,” in Liddel, and Fear, (eds.), pp. 148–161.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2013. Ennius and the architecture of the Annales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. 2015. “The epic vantage point: Roman historiographical allusion reconsidered,” Histos 9: 277–311.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. 2016. “Commenting on fragments: The case of Ennius’ Annales,” in Kraus, and Stray, (eds.), pp. 113–156.Google Scholar
Engels, J. 2008. “Agathokles (472),” in Worthington, (ed.) (accessed 23 November 2018).Google Scholar
Erasmo, M. 2006. “Birds of a feather? Ennius and Horace, Odes 2.20,” Latomus 65: 369–377.Google Scholar
Ernout, A. 1926. Review of Steuart 1925, Revue critique d’histoire et de littérature 93: 167–168.Google Scholar
Erskine, A. 2001. Troy between Greece and Rome: Local tradition and imperial power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrizi, V. 2012. Mores veteresque novosque: Rappresentazioni del passato e del presente di Roma negli Annales di Ennio. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Fakas, C. 2001. Der hellenistische Hesiod: Arats “Phainomena” und die Tradition der antiken Lehrepik. Serta Graeca 11. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Fantham, E. 2006. “Dic si quid potes de Sexto Annali: The literary legacy of Ennius’s Pyrrhic War,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 549–568.Google Scholar
Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. 2004. Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farney, G. D. 2007. Ethnic identity and aristocratic competition in the Roman republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farney, Gary D. 2008. “The Mamilii, Mercury and the limites: Aristocratic genealogy and political conflict in the Roman republic,” Athenaeum 96: 249–258.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 1991. Vergil’s Georgics and the traditions of ancient epic: The art of allusion in literary history. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2005. “The origins and essence of Roman epic,” in Foley, (ed.), pp. 417–428.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. 2014. “Looking for Empedocles in Latin poetry: A skeptical approach,” Dictynna 11 https://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/1063 (accessed 4 May 2019).Google Scholar
Farrell, J. and Nelis, D. P. (eds.) 2013. Augustan poetry and the Roman republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 1998. Literature and religion at Rome: Cultures, contexts, and beliefs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2007. Caesar’s calendar: Ancient time and the beginnings of history. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Feeney, D. C. 2016. Beyond Greek: The beginnings of Latin literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fehling, D. 1989. Herodotus and his ‘sources’: Citation, invention and narrative art. ARCA 21. Leeds: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
Feldherr, A. (ed.) 2009. The Cambridge companion to the Roman historians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Felgentreu, F., Mundt, F., and Rücker, N. (eds.) 2009. Per attentam Caesaris aurem: Satire – die unpolitische Gattung? Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Ferrero, L. 1955. Pitagorismo: Storia del pitagorismo nel mondo Romano. Turin: Fondazione Parini-Chirio.Google Scholar
Fisher, J. 2014. The Annals of Quintus Ennius and the Italic tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, W. and Gowers, E. (eds.) 2007. Ennius perennis: The Annals and beyond. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society supplementary volume, 31. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.Google Scholar
Flashar, H., Bremer, D., and Rechenauer, G. (eds.) 2013. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 1: Frühgriechische Philosophie. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Flores, E. 1998. La Camena, l’epos e la storia: Studia sulla cultura latina arcaica. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Flores, E. 2001. “Ennio e il pitagorismo,” in Ghidini, Tortorelli et al. (eds.), pp. 507–512.Google Scholar
Flores, E. 2011. Cn. Naevi Bellum poenicum: Introduzione, edizione critica e versione italiana. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Flower, H. I. 1995. “Fabulae praetextae in context: When were plays on contemporary subjects performed in Rome?” Classical Quarterly 45: 170–190.Google Scholar
Flower, H. I. 2017. The dancing Lares and the serpent in the garden. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, J. M. (ed.), A companion to ancient epic. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Forsythe, G. 1994. The historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman annalistic tradition. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. 2000. “Opening the gates of war: Aeneid 7.601–640,” in Roman constructions: Readings in postmodern Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–192.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (ed.) 2004, The Cambridge companion to Homer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, E. 1945. “Some aspects of the structure of Aeneid 7,” Journal of Roman Studies 35: 1–14.Google Scholar
Franchini, L. 2002. “Osservazioni in merito alla lex Acilia de intercalando,” Annali Libera Università degli studi Maria SS. Assunta 2002: 323–340.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. 2001. Satires of Rome: Threatening poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freudenburg, K. (ed.) 2005. The Cambridge companion to Roman satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furtwängler, A. 1900. Die antiken Gemmen: Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum, 3 vols. Leipzig: Gesecke & Devrient.Google Scholar
Gabba, E. 1967. “Considerazioni sulla tradizione letteraria sulle origini della Repubblica,” in Les origines de la république romaine. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 13. Vandoeuvres: Fondation Hardt, pp. 133–169.Google Scholar
Gaertner, J. F. 2010. “The style of the Bellum Hispaniense and the evolution of Roman historiography,” in Dickey, and Chahoud, (eds.), pp. 243–257.Google Scholar
Gaeta, S. A. 2003. “La construcción de la memoria genealógica en Ennio (Annales, I),” Cuadernos di filología clásica. Estudios latinos 23: 323–324.Google Scholar
Gamberale, L. 1989. “Gli Annali di Ennio alla scuola del grammaticus,” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 117: 49–56.Google Scholar
Gangloff, A. 2010. “Rhapsodes et poètes épiques à l’époque impériale,” Revue des études grècques 123: 51–70.Google Scholar
Garani, M. 2007. Empedocles redivivus: Poetry and analogy in Lucretius. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garani, M. 2014. “The figure of Numa in Ovid’s Fasti,” in Garani, and Konstan, (eds.), pp. 128–160.Google Scholar
Garani, M., and Konstan, D. (eds.) 2014. The philosophizing Muse: The influence of Greek philosophy on Roman poetry. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Garbarino, G. 1973. Roma e la filosofia greca dalle origini alla fine del secolo II a.C. 2 vols. Turin: G. B. Paravia.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. 2002. “‘Cf. e.g.’: A typology of ‘parallels’ and the role of commentaries on Latin poetry,” in Gibson, and Kraus, (eds.), pp. 331–357.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. and Kraus, C. S. (eds.) 2002. The classical commentary: Histories, practices, theory. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. 2003. “The ‘annalist’ before the annalists: Ennius and his Annales,” in Eigler, et al. (eds.), pp. 93–114.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. 2007. “Virgil vs. Ennius, or: The undoing of the annalist,” in Fitzgerald, and Gowers, (eds.), pp. 73–102.Google Scholar
Girton College, Cambridge 1948. Girton College register, 1869–1946. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glare, P. G. W. and Stray, C. 2012. Oxford Latin dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glazer, K. 1936. “Numa Pompilius,” Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 17.1: 1242–1254.Google Scholar
Goh, I. 2014. “An Isocratean allusion in a Lucilian letter (181–8M=182–9K),” Philologus 158: 187–191.Google Scholar
Goh, I. 2018. “Pikes, peacocks, and parasites: Lucilius and the discourse of luxury,” in Breed, , Keitel, , and Wallace, (eds.), pp. 255–278.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2005. Constructing literature in the Roman republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2006. “Ennius after the banquet,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 427–447.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2010. “Fact, fiction, and form in early Roman epic,” in Konstan, and Raaflaub, (eds.), pp. 166–184.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. 2018. “Lucilius and the poetae seniores,” in Breed, , Keitel, , and Wallace, (eds.), pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. and Manuwald, G. 2018. Fragmentary republican Latin: Ennius. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. M. et al. (eds.), Oxford classical dictionary. Digital ed. http://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8057.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. 2013. Shaggy crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Virgil’s Aeneid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, N. and Graziosi, B. (eds.) 2018. Tombs of the ancient poets: Between literary reception and material culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
González, J. M. 2013. The epic rhapsode and his craft: Homeric performance in a diachronic perspective. Hellenic Studies Series 47. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_GonzalezJ.The_Epic_Rhapsode_and_his_Craft.2013 (accessed 4 May 2019).Google Scholar
Goodyear, F. R. D. 1972. The Annals of Tacitus. Vol. I: Annals 1.1–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gotter, U. 2003. “Die Vergangenheit als Kampfplatz der Gegenwart: Catos (konter)revolutionäre Konstruktion des republikanischen Erinnerungsraumes,” in Eigler, et al. (eds.), pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
Gotter, U. 2009. “Cato’s Origines: The historian and his enemies,” in Feldherr, (ed.), pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (eds.) 1968. The Greek anthology: The Garland of Philip, and some contemporary epigrams. 2 vols. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 2006. “The wisdom of Ennius,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 471–488.Google Scholar
Habinek, T. N. 1998. The politics of Latin literature: Writing, identity, and empire in ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haimson Lushkov, A. 2010. “Intertextuality and source criticism in the Scipionic Trials,” in Polleichtner, (ed.), pp. 93–133.Google Scholar
Haimson Lushkov, A. 2013. “Citation and the dynamics of tradition in Livy’s AUC,” Histos 7: 21–47.Google Scholar
Haimson Lushkov, A. 2015. Magistracy and the historiography of the Roman republic: Politics in prose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E. and Wyles, R. (eds.) 2016. Women classical scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. 2009. Politeness and politics in Cicero’s letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hankins, J. and Putnam, M. C. J. (eds.) 2004. Maffeo Vegio: Short epics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.) 2000. Apollonius Rhodius. Hellenistica Groningana 4. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Hardie, A. 2016. “The Camenae in cult, history, and song,” Classical Antiquity 35: 45–85.Google Scholar
Hardie, Philip 1995. “The speech of Pythagoras in Ovid, Metamorphoses 15: Empedoclean epos,” Classical Quarterly 45: 204–214.Google Scholar
Hardie, P. 2007. “Poets, patrons, ruler: The Ennian traditions,” in Fitzgerald, and Gowers, (eds.), pp. 129–144.Google Scholar
Hardie, Philip 2009. Lucretian receptions: History, the sublime, knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardie, Philip 2012. Rumour and renown: Representations of Fama in western literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. 1990. “Cicero’s De temporibus suis: The evidence reconsidered.” Hermes 118: 455–463.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. J. 2002. “Ennius and the prologue to Lucretius’ DRN (1.1–148),” Leeds International Classical Studies 1: 1–13.Google Scholar
Hass, K. 2007. Lucilius und der Beginn der Persönlichkeitsdichtung in Rom. Hermes Einzelschriften 99. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Hau, L. I. 2013. “Nothing to celebrate? The lack or disparagement of victory celebrations in the Greek historians,” in Spalinger, and Armstrong, (eds.), pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Häussler, R. 1976. Das historische Epos der Griechen und Römer bis Vergil: Studien zum historischen Epos der Antike. Teil I: von Homer zu Vergil. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Haynes, J. 2016. “Citations of Ovid in Virgil’s ancient commentators,” in Kraus, and Stray, (eds.), pp. 216–232.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, G. L. and Hubbel, H. M. 1939. Cicero: Brutus. Orator. Loeb Classical Library 342. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herter, H. 1975. “Kallimachos und Homer,” in Xenia Bonnensia. Bonn: F. Cohen, pp. 50–105 (reprinted in Vogt, [ed.], pp. 371–416).Google Scholar
Herzog, R. and Schmidt, P. L. (eds.) 2002. Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike. Erster Band: von den Anfängen bis Sullas Tod (Suerbaum, W., ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Heslin, P. 2015. The Museum of Augustus: The Temple of Apollo in Pompeii, the Portico of Philippus in Rome, and Latin poetry. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum.Google Scholar
Hickson, F. 1993. Roman prayer language: Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Hillgruber, M. 2000. “Homer im Dienste des Mimus: Zur künstlerischen Eigenart der Homeristen,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigrafik 132: 63–72.Google Scholar
Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and intertext: Dynamics of appropriation in Latin poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holford-Strevens, L. 2003. Aulus Gellius: An Antonine scholar and his achievement. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2016. “Prestige en construction dans la République romaine: La classe dirigeante et ses stratégies de représentation publique,” in Baudry, and Hurlet, (eds.), pp. 21–37.Google Scholar
Hollis, A. S. 2007. Fragments of Roman poetry c. 60 bc–ad 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, W. D. and Ash, H. B. 1934. Cato, Varro: On Agriculture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horsfall, N. 2013. Virgil, Aeneid 6: A commentary, vol. 2: Commentary and appendices. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horster, M. and Reitz, C. (eds.) 2010. Condensing texts – condensed texts. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Houghton, L. B. T. 2013. “Epitome and eternity: Some epitaphs and votive inscriptions in the Latin love elegists,” in Liddel, and Low, (eds.), pp. 349–364.Google Scholar
Howley, J. A. 2018. Aulus Gellius and Roman reading culture: Text, presence, and imperial knowledge in the Noctes Atticae. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. M. et al. 2012. “Quantitative patterns of stylistic influence in literature,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 7682–7686.Google Scholar
Hunter, R. 2006. The shadow of Callimachus: Studies in the reception of Hellenistic poetry at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutcheon, L. and Valdés, M. 2002. Rethinking literary history: A dialogue on theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2006. Propertius: Elegies Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, G. O. 2013. Greek to Latin: Frameworks and contexts for intertextuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. 2001. The poem of Empedocles: A text and translation with an introduction. Rev. ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, F. (ed.) 1954–1964. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist). 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jefferson, E. 2012. “Problems and audience in Cato’s Origines,” in Roselaar, (ed.), pp. 311–326.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1967. The tragedies of Ennius: The fragments, edited with an introduction and commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1972. “The poems of Quintus Ennius,” in Temporini, , Haase, , and Vogt, (eds.), pp. 987–1026.Google Scholar
Jocelyn, H. D. 1989. “Romulus and the di genitales (Ennius, Annales 110–111 Skutsch),” in Diggle, , Hall, , and Jocelyn, (eds.), pp. 39–65.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. A. 2000. “Toward a sociology of reading in classical antiquity,” American Journal of Philology 121: 593–627.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. A. and Parker, H. N. (eds.) 2009. Ancient literacies: The culture of reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (eds.) 1983–. Poetae comici graeci (PCG). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kaster, R. A. (ed.) 1995. C. Suetonius Tranquillus: De grammaticis et rhetoribus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keane, C. 2018. “Conversations about sermo,” in Breed, , Keitel, , and Wallace, (eds.), pp. 217–235.Google Scholar
Ker, J. and Pieper, C. (eds.) 2014. Valuing the past in the Greco-Roman world. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kingsley, P. 1995. Ancient philosophy, mystery, and magic: Empedocles and the Pythagorean tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kneebone, E. 2017. “The limits of enquiry in imperial Greek didactic poetry,” in König, and Woolf, (eds.), pp. 203–230.Google Scholar
Knox, P. E. 1986. Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the traditions of Augustan poetry. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society supplementary volume, 11. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.Google Scholar
Knox, Peter E. 2004. “The poet and the second prince: Ovid in the age of Tiberius,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 49: 1–20.Google Scholar
Koch, C. 1960. Religio: Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Römer. Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft, 7. Nuremberg: H. Carl.Google Scholar
König, J. and Woolf, G. (eds.) 2017. Authority and expertise in ancient scientific culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koning, H. H. 2010. Hesiod, the other poet: Ancient reception of a cultural icon. Mnemosyne Supplements 325. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. and Raaflaub, K. A. (eds.) 2010. Epic and history. Chichester and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koster, S. 1983. “Poetisches bei Sallust,” in Tessera: Sechs Beiträge zur Poesie und poetischen Theorie der Antike. Erlanger Forschungen Reihe A (Geisteswissenschaften), Bd. 30. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg, pp. 55–68.Google Scholar
Kraggerud, E. 2014. “Zum Verständnis von Ennius, Ann. 220–221 Sk.” Glotta 90: 174–179.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. 1994a. Livy: Ab urbe condita, Book VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kraus, Christina S. 1994b. “‘No second Troy’: Topoi and refoundation in Livy, Book V,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 124: 267–289.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. 2002. “Introduction: Reading commentaries/commentaries as reading,” in Gibson, and Kraus, (eds.), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C. 2016. “Form and content,” in Kraus, and Stray, (eds.), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. and Stray, C. (eds.) 2016. Classical commentaries: Explorations in a scholarly genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. 2006. “Leonides Laco quidem simile apud Thermopylas fecit: Cato and Herodotus,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49: 93–103.Google Scholar
Krebs, C. 2015. “The buried tradition of programmatic titulature among republican historians: Polybius’ Πραγματεία, Asellio’s Res Gestae, and Sisenna’s redefinition of Historiae,” American Journal of Philology 136: 503–524.Google Scholar
Kyriakou, K. 1994. “Empedoclean echoes in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica.” Hermes 122: 309–319.Google Scholar
Laird, A. 1999. Powers of expression, expressions of power: Speech presentation and Latin literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laks, A. and Most, G. W. (eds.) 2016. Early Greek philosophy, volume III: Early Ionian thinkers, part 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leeman, A., Pinkster, H., and Nelson, H. 1985. M. Tullius Cicero: De oratore libri III. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. R. 2012. The lives of the Greek poets. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Leigh, M. 2010. “Early Roman epic and the maritime moment,” Classical Philology 105: 265–280.Google Scholar
Lentricchia, F. and McLaughlin, T. (eds.) 1995. Critical terms for literary study. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leutsch, E. L. and Schneidewin, F. G. (eds.) 1839–1851. Corpus paroemiographorum graecorum. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (reprinted, 1958–1961 Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar
Levene, D. S. 2011. “Historical allusion and the nature of the historical text,” Histos Working Papers 2011.01 (cited with the author’s permission and accessed 4 May 2019) https://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/WP2011.01LeveneHistoricalAllusion.pdf.Google Scholar
Lévi, N. 2008. “Le De rerum natura de Lucrèce ou la subversion épicurienne de la révélation pythagoricienne des Annales d’Ennius,” Revue de philologie 82: 113–132.Google Scholar
Lévi, Nicolas 2013. “L’Épicharme et le prologue des Annales d’Ennius ou Les débuts de la révélation pythagoricienne dans la littérature latine,” Vita Latina 187–188: 18–38.Google Scholar
Liddel, P. and Fear, A. T. (eds.) 2010. Historiae mundi: Studies in universal history. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Liddel, P. and Low, P. (eds.) 2013. Inscriptions and their uses in Greek and Latin literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberg, G. 1973. “Die ‘theologia tripertita’ in Forschung und Bezeugung,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 1.4: 63–115.Google Scholar
Lieberg, Godo 1982. “Die theologia tripertita als Formprinzip antiken Denkens,” Rheinisches Museum 125: 25–53.Google Scholar
Lindsay, W. M. (ed.) 1903. Nonii Marcelli De compendiosa doctrina libros xx … edidit Wallace M. Lindsay. 3 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Lindsay, W. M. (ed.) 1913. Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Lipsius, J. 1611. Justi Lipsi opera omnia quae ad criticam proprie spectant. Antwerp: Officina Plantiniana (orig. published 1585).Google Scholar
Liuzzi, D. 1973–1974. “Ennio ed il pitagorismo,” Annali della Facoltà di magistero dell’Università degli studi di Lecce 3: 281–299.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. et al. (eds.) 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Love, R. L. 2019. “Writing after Livy: Historical epitomes and the Livian tradition.” Dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Lowe, D. 2015. Monsters and monstrosity in Augustan poetry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Luce, T. J. 1977. Livy: The composition of his history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, T. J. and Woodman, A. J. (eds.) 1993. Tacitus and the Tacitean tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Luraghi, N. 2013. “The stories before Herodotus: Folktale and traditional narrative in Herodotus,” in Munson, (ed.), pp. 87–112.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, K. A. 2009. “Choerilus of Samos’ lament (SH 317) and the revitalization of epic,” American Journal of Philology 130: 219–234.Google Scholar
Maggiali, G. 2008. “Ennio in Catullo 15: Dall’apoteosi alla ῥαφανίδωσις,” Paideia 63: 157–161.Google Scholar
Maiuri, A. 2018. “La simbologia del pavone tra tradizione pitagorica e mondo latino,” in Andai al palazzo per far conoscienza. Rome: EdUP, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Malkin, I. 1998. The returns of Odysseus: Colonization and ethnicity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mankin, D. (ed.) 2011. Cicero: De oratore, Book. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2009. “Concilia deorum: Ein episches Motiv in der römischen Satire,” in Felgentreu, , Mundt, , and Rücker, (eds.), pp. 46–61.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. 2015. “Editing Roman (republican) tragedy: Challenges and possible solutions,” in Harrison, (ed.), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Manuwald, G. (ed.) 2012. Tragicorum romanorum fragmenta. Vol. 2: Ennius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. 1997. Authority and tradition in ancient historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. 2007. “Speeches in Greek and Roman historiography,” in Marincola, (ed.), vol. 1, pp. 118–132.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. 2009. “Ancient audiences and expectations,” in Feldherr, (ed.), pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. (ed.) 2007. A companion to Greek and Roman historiography. 2 vols. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mariotti, S. 1955. Il Bellum Poenicum e l’arte di Nevio: Saggio con edizione dei frammenti del Bellum Poenicum. Rome: Signorelli.Google Scholar
Mariotti, Scevola 1986. Livio Andronico e la traduzione artistica: Saggio critico ed edizione dei frammenti dell’Odyssea. Urbino: Università degli studi di Urbino.Google Scholar
Mariotti, Scevola 1991. Lezioni su Ennio. 2nd ed. with additions. Urbino: Quattroventi.Google Scholar
Mariotti, Scevola 1994. “Ennio, Annali, dubia v. 6sg. Skutsch,” in Storia, poesia e pensiero nel mondo antico Studi in onore di Marcello Gigante. Naples: Bibliopolis, pp. 425–431.Google Scholar
Marmodoro, A. and Hill, J. (eds.) 2013. The author’s voice in classical and late antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marpicati, P. 1991. “Il compianto di Romolo e le luminis oras (Ennio Ann. 115sgg. Sk. = 110sgg. V.2),” Giornale italiano di filologia 43: 81–104.Google Scholar
Martelli, F. 2018. “Ennius’ imago between tomb and text,” in Goldschmidt, and Graziosi, (eds.), pp. 69–82.Google Scholar
Martina, M. 1979. “Ennio, poeta cliens,” Quaderni dell’ Istituto di filologia classica dell’ Università di Trieste 2: 13–74.Google Scholar
Martindale, C., and Hopkins, D. (eds.) 1992. Horace made new. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mastandrea, P. 2008. “Mamurra ‘ennianista’: Catullo 115 e dintorni,” in Arduini, et al. (eds.), pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
Maurenbrecher, B. (ed.) 1891. C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum reliquiae. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
May, J. M. and Wisse, J. (eds.) 2001. Cicero: On the ideal orator. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. 2016. “Margaret Alford (5 September 1868–29 May 1951): The unknown pioneer,” in Hall, and Wyles, (eds.), pp. 243–259.Google Scholar
McElduff, S. 2013. Roman theories of translation: Surpassing the source. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McNeil, M. C. et al. 1984. “Feral and isolated children: Historical review and analysis,” Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded 19: 70–79.Google Scholar
Medcalf, S. 1992. “Horace’s Kipling,” in Martindale, and Hopkins, (eds.), pp. 217–239.Google Scholar
Mele, A. 1981. “Il pitagorismo e le popolazioni anelleniche d’Italia,” AION (archeol ) 3: 61–96.Google Scholar
Merkelbach, R. and West, M. L. (eds.) 1967. Fragmenta hesiodea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Merula, P. 1595. Quinti Enni Annalium libb. XIIX Fragmenta conlecta, composita, inlustrata ab Paullo Merula. Leiden: Paetsius & Elzevirius.Google Scholar
Michels, A. K. L. 1949. “The calendar of Numa and the pre-Julian calendar,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 80: 320–346.Google Scholar
Moatti, C. 2015. The birth of critical thinking in republican Rome. Trans. Lloyd, Janet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moles, J. L. 1994. “Livy’s preface,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39: 141–168 (reprinted in Chaplin and Kraus [eds.], pp. 49–87).Google Scholar
Momigliano, A. 1978. “The historians of the classical world and their audiences,” The American Scholar 47: 193–204.Google Scholar
Montanari, F., Rengakos, A., and Tsagilis, C. (eds.) 2009. Brill’s companion to Hesiod. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Moore, D. W. 2017. “Learning from experience: Polybius and the progress of Rome,” Classical Quarterly 67: 132–148.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. 2010. Musa pedestris: Meter and meaning in Roman verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morel, W. and Büchner, K. (eds.) 2011. Fragmenta poetarum latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Enni Annales et Ciceronis Germanicique Aratea. 4th ed. cur. Blänsdorf, J.. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. (ed.) 1997. Collecting fragments/Fragmente sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Moxon, I., Smart, J., and Woodman, A. J. (eds.) 1986. Past perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman historical writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Munson, R. V. (ed.) 2013. Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murgia, C. E. and Kaster, R. A. (eds.) 2017. Serviani in Vergili Aeneidos libros IX–XII commentarii. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, M. Y. 2018. “Import/export: Empire and appropriation in the Gallus papyrus from Qasr Ibrim,” in Loar, M. P., MacDonald, C and Padilla Peralta, D. (eds.), Rome, empire of plunder: The dynamics of cultural appropriation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 214–236.Google Scholar
Nelis, D. P. 2000. “Apollonius Rhodius and the traditions of epic poetry,” in Harder, et al. (eds.), pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Nelis, D. P. 2001. Vergil’s Aeneid and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. ARCA 39. Leeds: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
Nelis, D. P. 2014. “Empedoclean epic: How far can you go?” Dictynna 11. https://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/1057.Google Scholar
Nethercut, J. S. 2014. “Ennius and the revaluation of traditional historiography in Lucretius’ De rerum natura,” in Ker, and Pieper, (eds.), pp. 436–461.Google Scholar
Newlands, C. E. 1995. Playing with time: Ovid and the Fasti. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, J. K. 1983. “Memini me fiere pavom: Ennius and the quality of the Roman aesthetic imagination,” in Newman, (ed.), pp. 173–193.Google Scholar
Newman, J. K. (ed.) 1983. Hirsutae coronae: Archaic Roman poetry and its meaning to later generations. Illinois Classical Studies 8.2. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Nicolai, R. 2007. “The place of history in the ancient world,” in Marincola, (ed.), pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. [1887] 2001. The gay science. Ed. Williams, Bernard, trans. Nauckhoff, Josefine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nipperdey, K. 1915. P. Cornelius Tacitus: Erster Band. 11th ed., rev. Andresen, G.. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. 1970. A commentary on Horace, Odes Book I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Hubbard, M. 1978. A commentary on Horace, Odes Book II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N. 2004. A commentary on Horace, Odes Book III. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Norden, E. 1915. Ennius und Vergilius: Kriegsbilder aus Roms grosser Zeit. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Northwood, S. 2000. “Livy and the early annalists,” in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 10. Brussels: Collection Latomus, pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
Oakley, S. P. 1997–2005. A commentary on Livy, Books VI–X. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oberhelman, S. and Armstrong, D. 1995. “Satire as poetry and the impossibility of metathesis in Horace’s Satires,” in Obbink, (ed.), pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Obbink, D. (ed.) 1995. Philodemus and poetry: Poetic theory and practice in Lucretius, Philodemus, and Horace. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, R. M. (ed.) 1974. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita. Tomus I: Libri I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Oliensis, E. 1998. Horace and the rhetoric of authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, J. 2005. “Cicero’s Pro Caelio 33–34 and Appius Claudius’ Oratio De Pyrrho,” Classical Philology 100: 355–358.Google Scholar
Otto, A. 1890. Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Pailler, J.-M. 1988. Bacchanalia: La répression de 186 av. J.-C. à Rome et en Italie. Bibliotheque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 270. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Palombi, D. 2017. “Sacra Argeorum: Rituel et espace urbain,” in de Souza, M. (ed.), Les collines dans la représentation et l’organisation du pouvoir à Rome Bordeaux: Ausonius, pp. 15–47.Google Scholar
Panitschek, P. 1990. “Numa Pompilius als Schüler des Pythagoras,” Grazer Beiträge 17: 49–65.Google Scholar
Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J., and Frangoulidis, S. A. (eds.) 2013. Generic interfaces in Latin literature: Encounters, interactions and transformations. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pascucci, G. 1959. “Ennio, Ann., 561–6 vs 2 e un tipico procedimento di ΑΥΞΗΣΙΣ nella poesia latina,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 31: 79–99.Google Scholar
Patterson, L. 1995. “Literary history,” in Lentricchia, and McLaughlin, (eds.), pp. 250–262.Google Scholar
Pauly, A. F. von et al. (eds.) 1894–1980. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Neue Bearbeitung. 49 vols. in 58. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Peirano, I. 2012. The rhetoric of the Roman fake. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. 1993. “Tacitus and Germanicus,” in Luce, and Woodman, (eds.), pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
Perrin, B. 1967. Plutarch’s Lives: I. Theseus and Romulus, Lycurgus and Numa, Solon and Publicola. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Petersmann, H. 1999. “The language of early Roman satire: Its function and characteristics,” in Adams, and Mayer, (eds.), pp. 289–310.Google Scholar
Piras, G. 2015. “Cum poeticis multis uerbis magis delecter quam utar: Poetic citations and etymological enquiry in Varro’s De lingua latina,” in Butterfield, (ed.), pp. 51–70.Google Scholar
Pittenger, M. R. P. 2008. Contested triumphs: Politics, pageantry, and performance in Livy’s republican Rome. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Poccetti, P. 2018. “Another image of literary Latin: Language variation and the aims of Lucilius’ Satires,” in Breed, , Keitel, , and Wallace, (eds.), pp. 81–131.Google Scholar
Polleichtner, W. 2010. “Fabius, Scipio, and the Sicilian Expedition: A practical lesson on reading Thucydides,” in Polleichtner, (ed.), pp. 67–92.Google Scholar
Polleichtner, W. (ed.) 2010. Livy and intertextuality: Papers of a conference held at the University of Texas at Austin, October 3, 2009. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Powell, J. G. F. 2013. “The Embassy of the Three Philosophers to Rome in 155 bc,” in Kremmydas, C. and Tempest, K. (eds.) Hellenstic oratory: Continuity and change, pp. 219–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, J. U. (ed.) 1925. Collectanea alexandrina: Reliquiae minores poetarum graecorum aetatis ptolemaicae, 323–146 A.C., epicorum, elegiacorum, lyricorum, ethicorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Primavesi, O. 2013. “Empedokles,” in Flashar, , Bremer, , and Rechenauer, (eds.), pp. 667–739.Google Scholar
Rambaud, M. 1953. Cicéron et l’histoire romaine. Nogent-le-Rotrou: Imprimerie Daupeley-Gouvernour, publié avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Rankov, B. 1987. “M. Iunius Congus the Gracchan,” in Whitby, et al. (eds.), pp. 89–94.Google Scholar
Rawson, E. 1972. “Cicero the historian and Cicero the antiquarian,” Journal of Roman Studies 62: 33–45.Google Scholar
Rawson, E. 1985. Intellectual life in the late Roman republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Reggiani, R. 1979. I proemi degli Annales di Ennio: Programma letterario e polemica. Rome: Ateneo & Bizzarri.Google Scholar
Reinsch-Werner, H. 1976. Callimachus hesiodicus: Die Rezeption der hesiodischen Dichtung durch Kallimachos von Kyrene. Berlin: Mielke.Google Scholar
Rengakos, A. 1993. Der Homertext und die hellenistischen Dichter. Hermes Einzelschriften 64. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Ribbeck, O. (ed.) 1887–1898. Scaenicae romanorum poesis fragmenta. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner (reprinted, 1962 Hildesheim: Olms).Google Scholar
Rich, J. 2010. “Structuring Roman history: The consular year and the Roman historical tradition,” Histos 5: 1–41.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. jr. 1992. A new topographical dictionary of ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. J. D. 1942. “Direct citation of Ennius in Virgil,” Classical Quarterly 36: 40–42.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2018. “The ones who paid the butcher’s bill: Soldiers and war captives in Roman comedy,” in Clark, and Turner, (eds.), pp. 213–239.Google Scholar
Rodgers, B. S. 1986. “Great expeditions: Livy on Thucydides,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 116: 335–352.Google Scholar
Rolfe, J. C. 1927. Gellius, Attic Nights. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roller, M. 2011. “The consul(ar) as exemplum: Fabius Cunctator’s paradoxical glory,” in Beck, et al. (eds.), pp. 182–210.Google Scholar
Roller, M. 2018. Models from the past in Roman culture: A world of exempla. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, E. 2008. “Oracoli divini e responsi di giuristi: Note sulla interpretatio enniana nell’Euhemerus,” in Castagna, and Riboldi, (eds.), pp. 1433–1448.Google Scholar
Roselaar, S. (ed.) 2012. Processes of integration and identity formation in the Roman republic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rosenstein, N. S. and Morstein-Marx, R. (eds.) 2007. A companion to the Roman republic. Chichester and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, D. O. Jr. 1969. Style and tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, A. 2017. “Ennius revisited: New readings of the Annales,” Classical Philology 112: 276–284.Google Scholar
Rossi, A. and Breed, B. W. 2006. “Ennius and the traditions of epic,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 397–425.Google Scholar
Roth, R. 2010. “Pyrrhic paradigms: Ennius, Livy, and Ammianus Marcellinus,” Hermes 138: 171–195.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 1987–1989. “Les lieux de la mémoire publique: Quelques remarques sur la fonction des tableaux dans la cité,” Opus 6–8: 101–117.Google Scholar
Rubincam, C. 2003. “Numbers in Greek poetry and historiography: Quantifying Fehling,” Classical Quarterly 53: 448–463.Google Scholar
Rüpke, J. 2000. “Räume literarischer Kommunikation in der Formierungsphase römischer Literatur,” in Braun, et al. (eds.). pp. 31–52.Google Scholar
Rüpke, J. 2001. Von Göttern und Menschen erzählen: Formkonstanzen und Funktionswandel vormoderner Epik. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Rüpke, J. 2006. “Ennius’ Fasti in Fulvius’ temple: Greek rationality and Roman tradition,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 489–512.Google Scholar
Rüpke, J. 2012. Religion in republican Rome: Rationalization and ritual change. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Rüpke, J. 2011. The Roman calendar from Numa to Constantine. Chichester and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Russell, A. 2016. The politics of public space in republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russo, A. 2017a. “ΙΕΡΑ ΑΝΑΓΡΑΦH, Sacra historia, Sacra scriptio, un passo dell’Euhemerus di Ennio (54 Winiarczyk = 64–82 V.2) e un passo di Lattanzio (epit. 3.13),” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 145: 347–380.Google Scholar
Russo, A. 2017b. “Appunti sulla sopravvivenza della letteratura latina arcaica in età tardoantica: Il caso dell’Euhemerus di Ennio,” Pan 6 n.s.: 5–21.Google Scholar
Russo, F. 2011. “Le statue di Alcibiade e Pitagora nel ‘Comitium’,” Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, serie 5, 3: 105–134.Google Scholar
Sacks, K. 1990. Polybius on the writing of history. University of California Publications in Classical Studies, 24. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Santangelo, F. 2008. “The fetials and their ius,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 51: 63–93.Google Scholar
Schanz, M. 1890. Geschichte der römischen Litteratur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian, vol. 1. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Schauer, M. (ed.) 2012. Tragicorum romanorum fragmenta. Vol. 1: Livius Andronicus, Naevius, tragici minores, adespota. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Schepens, G. and Bollansée, J. (eds.) 2005. The shadow of Polybius: Intertextuality as a research tool in Greek historiography. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Schierl, P. 2006. Die Tragödien des Pacuvius. Ein Kommentar zu den Fragmenten mit Einleitung, Text und Übersetzung. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schierl, P. 2015. “Roman tragedy – Ciceronian tragedy? Cicero’s influence on our perception of republican tragedy,” in Harrison, (ed.), pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C. M. 2006. “Hesiod in the Hellenistic imagination.” Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Schubert, C. and Brodersen, K. (eds.) 1995. Rom und der griechische Osten. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
Schultze, C. 1986. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his audience,” in Moxon, , Smart, , and Woodman, (eds.), pp. 121–141.Google Scholar
Sciarrino, E. 2004. “Putting Cato the Censor’s Origines in its place,” Classical Antiquity 23: 323–357.Google Scholar
Sciarrino, E. 2011. Cato the Censor and the beginnings of Latin prose: From poetic translation to elite transcription. Columbus, OH: University of Ohio Press.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. 1987. “Horace, Lucilius, and Callimachean polemic,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91: 199–215.Google Scholar
Scodel, R. 2018. “Hesiodic Eris and the market,” in Damon, and Pieper, (eds.), pp. 29–50.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1998. Lucretius and the transformation of Greek wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1965–1970. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, K. E. 2011. “Livy’s Cossus and Augustus, Tacitus’ Germanicus and Tiberius: A historiographical allusion,” Histos 5: 266–282.Google Scholar
Simms, R. 2018. Brill’s companion to prequels, sequels, and retellings of classical epic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Sistakou, E. 2009. “Callimachus hesiodicus revisited,” in Montanari, et al. (eds.), pp. 219–252.Google Scholar
Skard, E. 1956. Sallust und seine Vorgänger: Eine sprachliche Untersuchung. Oslo: Brøgger.Google Scholar
Skutsch, F. 1905. “Q. Ennius,” Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 5: 2589–2628.Google Scholar
Skutsch, O. (ed.) 1972. Ennius: Sept exposés suivis de discussions. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, 17. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.Google Scholar
Slater, W. J. (ed.) 1991. Dining in a classical context. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. J. 2005. “The Origo gentis romanae: Facts and fictions,” Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies 48: 97–136.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. 1986. “Aeneas founded Rome with Odysseus,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90: 93–110.Google Scholar
Solmsen, F. et al. (eds.) 1990. Hesiodi Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum; fragmenta selecta ediderunt R. Merkelbach et M. L. West. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Solodow, J. B. 1986. “Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: A study of a poetic word order,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90: 129–53.Google Scholar
Spalinger, A. and Armstrong, J. (eds.) 2013. Rituals of triumph in the Mediterranean world. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
[S]pangenberg, E. [P. J.]. 1825. Quinti Ennii Annalium Libb. XVIII Fragmenta. Leipzig: Libraria Hahniana.Google Scholar
Spentzou, E. 2002. “Introduction: Secularizing the Muse,” in Spentzou, and Fowler, (eds.), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Spentzou, E. and Fowler, D. (eds.) 2002. Cultivating the muse: Struggles for power and inspiration in classical literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stadter, P. A. 1972. “The structure of Livy’s history,” Historia 21: 287–307 (reprinted in Chaplin and Kraus [eds.], pp. 91–117).Google Scholar
Starr, R. J. 1989. “The Ennianist at Puteoli: Gellius 18.5,” Rheinisches Museum 132: 411–412.Google Scholar
Steinby, E. M. (ed.) 1993. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae, vol. 1 (A–C). Rome: Edizioni Quasar.Google Scholar
Stephens, S. 2002. “Commenting on fragments,” in Gibson, and Kraus, (eds.), pp. 67–88.Google Scholar
Steuart, E. M. 1921. “The earliest narrative poetry of Rome,” Classical Quarterly 15: 31–37.Google Scholar
Steuart, E. M. 1925. The Annals of Ennius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (reprinted, 1976 Hildesheim: Olms and 2014 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Steuart, E. M. 1927. Review of G. B. Pighi, Il proemio degli Annali di Q. Ennio, Classical Review 41: 151.Google Scholar
Steuart, E. M. 1932. Review of T. B. De Graff, Naevian studies, Classical Review 46: 185.Google Scholar
Stocks, C. 2014. The Roman Hannibal: Remembering the enemy in Silius Italicus’ Punica. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Storchi Marino, A. 1991–1994. “Il rituale degli Argei tra annalistica e antiquaria,” AION(archeol) 12: 263–308.Google Scholar
Storchi Marino, Alfredina 1992. “C. Marcio Censorino, la lotta politica intorno al pontificato e la formazione della tradizione liviana su Numa,” AION (archeol) 14: 105–147.Google Scholar
Storchi Marino, Alfredina 1999. Numa e pitagora: Sapientia constituendae civitatis. Naples: Liguori.Google Scholar
Strassler, R. B. (ed.) 2009. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories: Trans. Andrea L. Purvis. Introduction by Rosalind Thomas. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Stroup, S. 2013. “‘When I read my Cato, it is as if Cato speaks’: The birth and evolution of Cicero’s dialogic voice,” in Marmodoro, and Hill, (eds.), pp. 123–151.Google Scholar
Strzelecki, W. (ed.) 1964. Cn. Naeuii Belli Punici carminis quae supersunt. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Suerbaum, W. 1968. Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung älterer römischer Dichter: Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Suerbaum, W. 1995a. “Der Pyrrhos-Krieg in Ennius’ Annales VI im Lichte der ersten Ennius-Papyri aus Herculaneum,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigrafik 106: 31–52.Google Scholar
Suerbaum, W. 1995b. “Rhetorik gegen Pyrrhos,” in Schubert, and Brodersen, (eds.), pp. 251–265.Google Scholar
Sumi, G. S. 2005. Ceremony and power: Performing politics in Rome between republic and empire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. 2016. Texts, editors, and readers: Methods and problems in Latin textual criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Temporini, H., Haase, W., and Vogt, J. (eds.) 1972. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Vol. 1.2. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thilo, G. and Hagen, H. (eds.) 1884. Servii grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii: Vol. 2.1, Aeneidos librorum IX–XII commentarii. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. F. 1982. “Catullus and the polemics of poetic reference (64.1–18),” American Journal of Philology 103: 144–164.Google Scholar
Timpanaro, S. 1948. “Per una nuova edizione critica di Ennio IV,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 23: 5–68.Google Scholar
Timpanaro, S. 1994. Nuovi contributi di filologia e storia della lingua latina. Bologna: Patrón.Google Scholar
Tischer, U. 2015. “Zitat, Fragment und Kontext: Enn. Ann. Frg. 6,14 Sk. und die Rolle kontextueller Aspekte bei der Deutung von Fragmenten,” Hermes 143: 333–355.Google Scholar
Todd, R. B. 2004. The dictionary of British classicists. 3 vols. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum.Google Scholar
Tortorelli Ghidini, M. et al. (eds.) 2000. Tra Orfeo e Pitagora: Origini e incontri di culture nell’antichità. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Tränkle, H. 1972. “Livius und Polybius,” Gymnasium 79: 13–31 (a lecture delivered on 2 December 1969 at the University of Zurich, trans. and reprinted in Chaplin and Kraus [eds.], pp. 476–523).Google Scholar
Treggiari, S. 2012. “Kipling and the classical world,” in The new readers’ guide to the works of Rudyard Kipling, www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/bookmart_fra.htm (accessed 15 January 2019).Google Scholar
Trundle, M. 2013. “Commemorating victory in Classical Greece: Why Greek tropaia?” in Spalinger, and Armstrong, (eds.), pp. 123–138.Google Scholar
Ullmann, R. 1932. “Quelques remarques sur Polybe, III, 64, et Tite Live, XXI, 40–41,” Symbolae Osloenses 10: 57–60.Google Scholar
Van den Hout, M. P. J. (ed.) 1988. M. Cornelii Frontonis epistulae. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Verbrugghe, G. P. 1989. “On the meaning of Annales, on the meaning of annalist,” Philologus 133: 192–230.Google Scholar
Vesperini, P. 2012. La Philosophia et ses pratiques d’Ennius à Cicéron. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Vinchesi, M. A. 1984. “Il Bellum Histricum di Ostio, epos storico ennianeggiante,” in Tandoi, (ed.), pp. 35–59.Google Scholar
Viparelli, V. 1992. “Esordi dattilici in prosa (Liv. Praef. 1): Tra allusione e citazione,” in Da Vivo, and Spina, (eds.), pp. 99–117.Google Scholar
Volk, K. 2013. “The genre of Cicero’s De consulatu suo,” in Papanghelis, et al. (eds.), pp. 93–112.Google Scholar
Walsh, P. G. (ed.) 1996. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita. Tomus VI: Libri XXXVI–XL. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walter, U. 2004. Memoria und res publica: Zur Geschichtskultur im republikanischen Rom. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike.Google Scholar
Walters, C. F. and Conway, R. S. (eds.) 1919. Titi Livi Ab urbe condita. Tomus II: Libri VI–X. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walther, A. 2016. M. Fulvius Nobilior. Politik und Kultur in der Zeit der mittleren Republik. Heidelberg: Verlag Antike.Google Scholar
Warde Fowler, W. 1916. Virgil’s “Gathering of the Clans.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Warmington, E. H. 1935. Remains of Old Latin, vol. 1: Ennius and Caecilius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warmington, E. H. 1940. Remains of Old Latin, vol. 4: Archaic inscriptions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warmington, E. H. 1967. Remains of Old Latin, vol. 3: Lucilius; the Twelve Tables. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, A. 1993. International law in archaic Rome. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Welch, T. 2013. “Was Valerius Maximus a hack?” American Journal of Philology 134: 67–82.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1985. The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its nature, structure, and origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West, M. L. 1989. Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitby, M. et al. (eds.) 1987. Homo viator: Classical essays for John Bramble. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Whitton, C. 2013. Pliny the Younger: Epistles Book II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiater, N. 2017. “Expertise, ‘character’, and the ‘authority effect’ in the Early Roman History of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in König, and Woolf (eds.), pp. 231–259.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, T. 1986. “The fetiales: A reconsideration,” Classical Quarterly 36: 478–490.Google Scholar
Winiarczyk, M. 1994. “Ennius‘ ‘Euhemerus sive Sacra Historia’,” Rheinisches Museum 137: 274–291.Google Scholar
Winiarczyk, Marek 2013. The “Sacred History” of Euhemerus of Messene, translated from Polish by Witold Zbirohowski-Kościa. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1979. Clio’s cosmetics: Three studies in Greco-Roman literature. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1994. Historiography and imagination: Eight essays on Roman culture. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1998. Roman drama and Roman history. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2006. “Fauns, prophets, and Ennius’ Annales,” in Breed, and Rossi, (eds.), pp. 513–529.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2015. The Roman audience: Classical literature as social history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 1983. Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan narrative (2.41–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 2012. From poetry to history: Selected papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 2015a. Lost histories: Selected fragments of Roman historical writers. Histos Supplement 2, https://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/SV02WoodmanLostHistories.pdf (accessed 6 May 2019).Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 2015b. “Tacitus and Germanicus: Monuments and models,” in Ash, et al. (eds.), pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 2017. The Annals of Tacitus: Books 5 and 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. 2018. The Annals of Tacitus: Book 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, A. J. and Martin, R. H. 1996. The Annals of Tacitus: Book 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodruff, L. B. 1910. “Reminiscences of Ennius in Silius Italicus,” University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series 4.4: 355–424.Google Scholar
Woolf, G. 2009. “Literacy or literacies in Rome?” in Johnson, and Parker, (eds.), pp. 46–68.Google Scholar
Worthington, I. (ed.) 2008. Brill’s new Jacoby. Leiden: Brill (accessed online 23 November 2018).Google Scholar
Yardley, J. C. 2018. Livy. History of Rome, volume X: Books 35–37. Loeb Classical Library 301. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 1983. “Catullus, Ennius, and the poetics of allusion,” in Newman, (ed.), pp. 251–266.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 2007. “The influence of Cicero on Ennius,” in Fitzgerald, and Gowers, (eds.), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Zetzel, J. E. G. 2018. Critics, compilers, and commentators: An introduction to Roman philology, 200 bce–800 ce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar