933mi 22-12-1998 13:29 Page 77

MISCELLANEA 77

DEATIKA, CR 55 (1941), 59 ff.; H.M. Hubbell, The Chronology of the Years 435-431 B.C., CPh 24 (1929), 217 ff.; HCT i 56-65 (1945, 198-225, viz. 222-4, 421-4); C. Edson, Strepsa ( 1.61.4), CPh 50 (1955), 169 ff.; ATL iii 314 ff.; W.E. Thompson, The Chronology of 432/1, AJP 82 (1961), 216 ff.; J.A. Alexander, Thucydides and the Expedition of Callias Against Potidaea, 432 B.C., AJP 83 (1962), 265 ff.; Potidaea: Its History and Its Remains ( 1963), 64 ff.; D. Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Cornell 1969), 391; G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972), 317-328; J.B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 B.C. (Oxford 1984), 292 ff. This list, however, is not exhaustive. 4) ATL iii 64-5; Th. I 59,1-2. Very few items are concrete in the chronology sur- rounding Athens’s Thracian Campaign ca. 432-429 and the Battle of Potidaea. The payment of tribute and Archestratus’s departure, however, would seem to be the exception. 5) E.g., HCT i 62.5-6 (1945), 219; J. Hatzfeld, Alcibiade (Paris 1951), 65; W.M. Ellis, (London 1989), 27; K.J. Dover (ed.), Plato Symposium (Cambridge 1980), 165; C.H. Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form (Cambridge 1996), 185 n. 3; cf., A.E. Taylor, Plato: The Man and His Work6 (New York 1952), 49 and Guthrie, Hist. Gk. Phil. IV 155 n. 3 who ignore the diffi- culties. 6) Presumably it is this final comment which hinders scholars from associating the battle with Plato’s description (e.g., Dover, Symposium, 165). Alcibiades could not have received the award from the generals since they all perished. 7) Isocrates, however, claims Alcibiades departed for Thrace under Phormio (16.29). There are several difficulties with this observation, but the most important objection is that Phormio never engaged in a battle—not to mention a ‘severe’ bat- tle (Thuc. I 64). Isocrates’s motivations for his historical gloss have been discussed by Hatzfeld (65 n. 1). 8) describes the battle as ‘in (or at) Potidaea’ ‘§n tª Poteida¤&’—which could mean ‘in the district of’ or ‘in the area of’ Potidaea (LSJ9 s.v. ‘§n’)—but, in any case, the identification should not be surprising. As IG I3 365 shows, the Athen- ians had sent their expeditions against ‘Macedon and Potidaea’. Socrates’s army, furthermore, was stationed at Potidaea for over three years, operated out of and about Potidaea, and the final battle continued until the Athenians were pursued back to the walls of Potidaea. Socrates, furthermore, would have left Thrace from Potidaea.

TURNUS AND TERMINUS IN AENEID 12

In the effort to determine whether or not Aeneas deserves the status of hero, most commentators overlook the importance of the rock which Turnus throws at Aeneas (Aen. 12.896–907), preferring instead to discuss the Homeric qualities of Turnus’ last action in combat1). The Homeric par- allel does, in fact, exist, and it neatly completes two important ring struc- tures: one begins in the Iliad when Diomedes breaks Aeneas’ leg with a stone (5.302 ff.), and has as its object the development of Aeneas into a hero capable of defeating a second Diomedes in Turnus2); the other ring structure, which is the subject of this paper, begins in the first book of the Aeneid when we first meet Aeneas, and has desecration as its theme3). Both involve a hero throwing a rock at Aeneas, but the rock that Turnus throws

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Mnemosyne, Vol. LII, Fasc. 1 933mi 22-12-1998 13:29 Page 78

78 MISCELLANEA

in the Aeneid has an added element: religious significance as a boundary stone4). The description of the rock, then, as six times the size of any rock thrown in the Iliad is more than a mere literary conceit, for Vergil uses it to emphasize the gravity of Turnus’ choice of weapon and bring the theme of desecration to its culmination. In the middle of the single combat between Aeneas and Turnus, Vergil describes the rock: nec plura effatus saxum circumspicit ingens, saxum antiquum ingens, campo quod forte iacebat, limes agro positus litem ut discerneret arvis. vix illud lecti bis sex cervice subirent, qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus … (12.896–900) In the first two lines, he emphasizes the size of the rock by repeating the words saxum ingens and by the heavy use of spondees5). He returns to the size of the rock in the last two lines of the passage, recalling a distant, hero- ic past, when men who were stronger could have lifted it more easily than even twelve men of modern times6). In the second line of the passage he adds antiquum to the description to make its age equal to its size. The length and detail of this description signal the occurrence of something important. Of the four passages in the Iliad that serve as a model for this scene7), only one has more than two lines devoted to a description of the rock that the hero throws, and the one exception occupies a place of importance that jus- tifies its length—it comes at the end of the first half of the poem, as Hector smashes his way through the wall that protects the Achaean camp (12.445 ff.). The justification for the length of Vergil’s description comes with the identification of the rock as a boundary marker, for it is then that it be- comes apparent that Turnus is about to commit a final act of sacrilege. According to tradition8), Numa had established a law regarding bound- ary stones, presided over by Terminus, the god of boundaries. The law stat- ed that a person who moved a boundary stone, even by mistake while plowing a field, could be condemned as sacer and killed with impunity9). Vegoia spoke in apocalyptic terms of what might happen if someone dis- turbed a boundary stone10): sed qui contigerit moveritque, possessionem promovendo suam, alte- rius minuendo, ob hoc scelus damnabitur a diis. … motores autem pessimis morbis et vulneribus efficientur membrisque suis debilitabun- tur. tum etiam terra a tempestatibus vel turbinibus plerumque labe movebitur. fructus saepe ledentur decutienturque imbribus atque gran- dine, caniculis interient, robigine occidentur. All of this concern for observing boundary markers must stem from the basic facts of agrarian life. Land disputes were common occurrences in ancient societies11), and laws were established to maintain peaceful relations among citizens. For the Romans, however, the observance of boundary stones was more than a matter of law: it had religious significance through Terminus, the god of boundaries. Terminus stands for law, tradition, and civilization, guarding not only