Livy and Early Rome: A Study in Historical Method and Judgment 9783515074957, 3515074953

Citation preview

GARY FORSYTHE LIVY AND EARLY ROME

HISTORIA ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ALTE GESCHICHTE ‘REVUE D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTA DI STORIA ANTICA

EINZELSCHRIFTEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VON MORTIMER CHAMBERS/LOS ANGELES HEINZ HEINEN/TRIER FRANCOIS PASCHOUD/GENEVE : HILDEGARD TEMPORINI/TÜBINGEN GEROLD WALSER/BASEL

HEFT 132

O FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 1999

GARY FORSYTHE

LIVY AND EARLY ROME A STUDY IN HISTORICAL METHOD AND JUDGMENT

O FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 1999

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme [Historía / Einzelschriften]

Historia : Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte. Einzelschriften. - Stuttgart : Steiner Früher Schriftenreihe

Reihe Einzelschriften zu: Historia Bd. 132. Forsythe, Gary: Livy and early Rome. - 1999 Forsythe, Gary: Livy and early Rome : a study in historical method and judgment /

Gary Forsythe. — Stuttgart : Steiner, 1999 (Historia : Einzelschriften ; Bd. 132)

ISBN 3-515-07495-3

69 (SO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes auBerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulássig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Übersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikroverfilmung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie für die Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen. © 1999 by Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Gedruckt auf sdurefreiem, alterungsbestándigem Papier. Druck: Druckerei Proff, Eurasburg. Printed in Germany

CONTENTS Introduction .............sesesseseessssssssesesee nna nnr tette trennen tenent netten nnne Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data .....................

sss

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome... enne ener retten rnnt nen nne

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability and of Other Methods to Resolve Discrepancies ..................eeeesssssseeeeeeeeee entere Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism ...................................

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech ...........................

esses

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine 200.00... cccsssscseeeeensetereseetsetsoeeeaereceeneenseeens Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade...................

esee

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade .......................... Chapter 9: Some Final Assessments .............. esee Bibliography 20.0...

eene

ee eee eesee cee eceeceneeeeeeeeeterseresaaseseseesssesednssasesdenesuscaneassaeeses

General Index ...................ssssssseesesseeseeeeeeeenen tatnen tnn nntnn nenne tn arta Index of Livian Citations... nenne nennen nennen nter nete teen nnne

INTRODUCTION Livy and his historical writing have long occupied an ambiguous place within the field of modern classical scholarship. On the one hand, ancient historians primarily interested in historical events have generally treated Livy's narrative as simply an important source for much of Roman republican history, while viewing the surviving books of the Ab Urbe Condita as little more than Livy's rather clumsy and unimaginative redaction of the works of his annalistic predecessors. On the other hand, classicists chiefly concerned with matters of language and style have been interested in Livy's masterful shaping of the received historical tradition into well defined episodes with interlocking or overlapping themes. Consequently, these two approaches have spawned two rather distinct types of Livian historiography, which for the sake of convenience can be termed “the historical school" and "the literary school." The former has largely consisted of mechanical and subjective source criticism in which Livy's very infrequent citation of his sources by name are used to divide his narrative into large sections and to attribute them to different authors such as Licinius Macer, Valerius Antias, Aelius Tubero, and Claudius Quadrigarius. The unsatisfactory nature of this methodology is clear from the fact that different scholars, after examining the same text, have come up with conflicting analyses of Livy's use of his sources. One typical example of this kind of analysis is Volkmann's article on Valerius Antias in Pauly-Wissowa (Series 2, Band VII, Pt. 2, Columns 2312-40). Despite the relative abundance of fragments from this author's lost work (66 in Peter's HRR?),

Volkmann's

treatment expends very

little space on the content of the actual fragments but is largely devoted to an analysis of Livy's surviving books and the question of which portions of them can be attributed to Valerius Antias. Another example of such source criticism is to be found in R. M. Ogilvie’s article, "Livy, Licinius Macer, and the Libri Lintei" in JRS 48 (1958) 40-7. This latter study is particularly illustrative in demonstrating the degree to which the historical school of Livian historiography has been dominated by the simplistic methods of late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century German Quellenforschung: for, despite Ogilvie's exceptional appreciation of Livy's mastery of language and narrative techniques as evident from his 1965 commentary on Livy's first pentad, Ogilvie's overall approach to Livy's use of his sources does not differ significantly from earlier

scholarship. ! The literary school, largely developed by E. Burck and T. J. Luce, has in recent years been further elaborated by the monographs of James P. Lipovsky, ! For similar observations along these same lines see S. P. Oakley. A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X, Vol. I, Introduction and Book VI, Oxford 1997 16—9. This work will hereafter be cited as Oakley 1997 I.

8

Introduction

Timothy J. Moore, Gary B. Miles, Mary Jaeger, Andrew M. Feldherr, and articles written by various other scholars.? Virtually all of this recent work is characterized by its application of the analytical tools of modern literary criticism to Livy's historical writing, which has the effect of treating the Livian text as if it were a kind of historical novel. Although this work has enhanced our appreciation of Livy as a literary craftsman, it has done nothing to advance our understanding of early Roman history, the annalistic tradition, or Livy's relationship to either of these subjects. With few exceptions practitioners of Livian literary criticism are uninterested in questions of historical veracity and are indifferent to the tralatician nature of the annalistic tradition to which Livy was heir. Rarely, if at all, do such studies make use of the historical fragments of Livy's predecessors. If they examine Livy from a historical perspective, members of the literary school usually view Livy's work only in the historical context of the Augustan Age. Such a limited historical and historiographical focus often results in erroneous conclusions as to Livy's supposed originality or the Augustan character of Livian

ideas and motifs? The one major exception to the foregoing comments concerning the shortcomings of both the historical school and literary school of Livian historiography is the 1977 study of T. J. Luce (above, n.1). This work (especially pp.139~298) succeeded in demolishing the earlier notion of the historical school concerning Livy's working methods as a writer of Roman history. Rather than seeing Livy as an unimaginative scissors-and-paste compiler of earlier authors, Luce demonstrated that he began by first carefully and thoughtfully reading his sources and then proceeded to construct his own narrative, picking and choosing items from his authorities and shaping it all with his own considerable literary and rhetorical skills. Although members of the literary school of Livian historiography have attempted to build upon Luce's study by carefully examining Livy's narrative artistry, Luce's important conclusions concerning Livy's working methods as an ancient historian have thus far not been taken up and pursued by members of the historical school. This study is intended in part to proceed farther along the path first pioneered by Luce some twenty years ago. It is a work written by an ancient ? E. Burck, Die Erzühlungskunst des T. Livius, Berlin-Zurich 1964; T. J. Luce, Livy: The Composition of his History, Princeton 1977; James P. Lipovsky, A Historiographical Study of Livy Books VI-X, New York 1981; Timothy J. Moore, Artistry and Ideology: Livy's Vocabulary of Virtue, Frankfurt am Main 1989; Gary B. Miles, Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome, lihaca NY 1995; Mary Jaeger, Livy's Written Rome, Ann Arbor 1997; Andrew M. Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livy's History, Berkeley 1998; and e.g., David Konstan, "Narrative and Ideology in Livy Book I," CA 5 (1986) 198-215; Patricia K. Joplin, "Ritual Work on Human Flesh: Livy's

Lucretia and the Rape of the Body Politic," Helios

17 (1990) 51—70; Francesca S. L'Hoir.

"Heroic Epithets and Recurrent Themes in Ab Urbe Condita." TAPA 120 (1990) 221-41; and Christina S. Kraus, "Initium Turbandi Omnium A Femina Ortum Election of 367 B.C., " Phoenix 45 (1991) 314-25.

Est: Fabia Minor and thc

* Sec, for example, the author's review of G. B. Miles' book (above, n.1) in BMCR 7 (1996)

135-40, as well as T. J. Luce's "Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum," Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher. Berkeley 1990 123-38.

Introduction

9

historian of early Rome from a decidedly historical perspective and is aimed primarily at other ancient historians interested in early Roman history and Livian historiography. The seed of this work was first planted fifteen years ago when I was researching and writing my dissertation on the Roman historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi. Since three of Piso's fragments occurring in Livy's text involve other variants and Livy's acceptance or rejection according to the older account or the one found in the larger number of writers, the question naturally arose in my mind as to how Livy went about trying to resolve discrepancies encountered in his different historical sources. My initial posing of this question was not pursued further until four years later when during the summer of 1987 I was preparing to teach a graduate seminar at Bryn Mawr College on Livy's first decade for the coming fall semester. Soon after [ began reading the Latin text of Livy's first book, I was struck by the great frequency with which Livy alludes to variant versions or qualifies statements by using impersonal or general attributions. This practice stands in sharp contrast to his very infrequent citation of authors by name, a fact that helps to explain the conflicting and unsatisfactory results of much of the source criticism generated by the historical school. Consequently, as I read my way through Livy's first decade, I took careful notes on all instances in which Livy alludes to alternative accounts or qualifies various statements, but after compiling this material, circumstances intervened to keep me from analyzing these data until the summer and fall of 1989, at which time I first organized the Livian material into a data base and presented the preliminary results of my analysis in December of that year at the annual convention of the American Philological Association in Boston. A four-year hiatus then followed. In December of 1993, while at the Institute for Advanced Study, [ returned to this project, and over the course of the next four months I produced what is essentially the present

text, although numerous minor additions and alterations have been introduced over the past five years. Now that the genesis and chronology of this work have been sketched, it remains to explain its overall thrust and nature. The present monograph is narrowly focussed in two respects. As suggested by the title, it confines itself to Livy's first ten books; and as indicated by the subtitle, it is concerned with Livy's historical judgment and his methods as a historian of the quasi-historical traditions of early Rome. Given the first decade's extraordinary importance for early Roman history, such concentrated attention is well deserved. Moreover, Livy's first ten books stand apart from the rest of the extant work both chronologically and in terms of the nature and quality of their historical content, thus further justifying their own special study. The examination of Livy's historical methods and judgment will be conducted in reference to a well defined body of material: Livy's own personal remarks, his qualified statements, his references to variants, alternatives, or discrepancies, and his attempts to resolve historical and historiographical problems. Such rigor is necessary if we wish to avoid the subjective and arbitrary use of information from the narrative or speeches as evidence for Livy's own views and methods. Despite their importance in

Introduction

10

understanding Livy the historian of early Rome, these data have never been systematically collected,’ nor have they received the thorough and comprehensive attention which they clearly deserve. Moreover, since this study hinges upon Livy's precise wording in qualifying portions of his narrative, a substantial number of these Livian statements and passages will be liberally quoted throughout this study. To those who may object that much of the material contained in the data base seems to concern rather unimportant, if not actually trivial elements of Livy's narrative, [ respond simply by quoting Ronald Syme's famous methodological dictum that "one uses what one has, and there is work to be done." Indeed, it is hoped that other scholars will find the material in the data base to be useful and interesting, and that it will stimulate further investigation. Although this project was first inspired by curiosity as to the methods employed by Livy to resolve discrepancies encountered in his sources as a means of arriving at a better understanding of the annalistic tradition of early Rome, as well as of Livy's own methods as a historian and his relationship to his annalistic predecessors, careful examination

of the data suggested that topics other than

methods of resolution, such as Livy's use of the historical speech, his attitude toward miraculous occurrences, and his use of digressions, might also be profitably studied in view of the data here assembled. Consequently, after explaining and displaying the data base in the first chapter, the next six chapters treat particular themes or topics by drawing upon material from the data base that occurs in both short passages and major episodes. Chapters 2 and 3 form the reverse and obverse of the same question that originally inspired this study: Livy's avoidance of or efforts at resolving problematic issues raised by his narration of early Roman history. These two chapters begin with a summary of the pertinent quantitative results, and this is followed by a detailed narrative in which these quantitative trends are illustrated and enlarged upon by the discussion of numerous Livian statements, passages, and major episodes. A similar practice has been employed in the next four chapters. To my knowledge chapter 7 is the first systematic study of Livy's use of digressions in the first decade. Chapter 8 makes considerable use of quantitative results in exploring differences and similarities between individual books as well as employing corresponding data and quantitative results from Books XXIV and XXXIX to serve as comparanda from the later surviving portions of Livy's history. Although the innumerate reader may find the quantitative analyses confusing and distracting, the nature of this study judges them to be

essential in disclosing both major and minor patterns in Livy's thinking and methods. In addition, rather than relegating the data base and the quantitative analysis to an appendix, I have chosen to integrate them fully into the text to reflect the way in which my own study of this material evolved and took shape. I have tried to select the illustrative examples from all the books in a representative fashion. In addition to critiques of many well known incidents, I

hope that [ will bring before the reader numerous

lesser known

passages of

Livy's anonymous attributions 5 It should, however, be noted that Oakley (1997 I. 13-5) lists

and citation of variants for thc second pentad.

Introduction

Il

considerable historiographical interest. In order to be of service to as many readers as possible, all Livian quotations have been translated into English in the text, and the corresponding Latin passages have been placed in the notes. There is an occasional untranslated Latin word or phrase in the text, but its meaning is usually clear from the context. In those few instances in which it is not, it is hoped

that the beginning student of early Roman history will be encouraged either to improve his Latin or to engage someone fluent in Latin in a fruitful discussion.

ASSEMBLING

CHAPTER 1: AND DEFINING THE DATA

Livy's first ten books are by far our single most important ancient source for early Roman history, but Livy's account of early Rome was itself the culmination of a complex historiographical process that spanned nearly 200 years. Although there survive numerous fragments from the lost histories of Livy's annalistic predecessors, the material is far from complete, so that more often than not we are left to deal with Livy's account of a particular episode or series of events that can sometimes be supplemented by the parallel narrative of Dionysius of Halicarnassus or information from Plutarch, Cicero, or some other source.! Consequently, a detailed understanding of Livian historiographical methods and historical judgment in the first decade should assist modern historians in analyzing various problems of early Roman history. Moreover, although Livy is quite reticent in citing his sources by name (29 authors mentioned in only 23 passages throughout the first decade for an average of about three authors per book), he makes personal remarks or anonymous attributions and notes discrepancies in his sources with much greater frequency, and a careful quantitative and thematic analysis of this more abundant material can, I think, offer illuminating insights into how Livy handled quasi-historical traditions. In fact, given the vast length and complexity of Livy's narrative, such a study would seem to be a necessary supplement and corrective to more impressionistic modern approaches to understanding Livy's aims and methods. Like popular Biblical exegesis, Livian historiographical studies can arrive at any number of different conclusions if they pick and choose their testimonia and key passages carefully, but a quantitative approach to the subject holds out the promise of giving us a much more textured view of Livy's account of early Rome and can also attach relative weight and importance to the various trends and approaches detected. It is surprising to realize that despite the considerable attention which Livy's historica! writing has received, no modern work has thus far exploited this rich material. ! An excellent and detailed survey of Livy, his annalistic predecessors, and numerous questions associated with early Roman history can be found in Oakley 1997 I. 3-108. The present author has elsewhere examined many of the major problems of early Roman history and

historiography through a detailed analysis of the fragments of Piso. See The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham MD 1994, especially chapters 2-4. Two excellent general but detailed surveys of early Roman history are volume VIL2

of the second

edition of The Cambridge

Ancient History (Cambridge

1989) and T. J.

Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 B.C.), London-New

York

1995, which the author reviewed in BMCR

8 (1997) 313-

2]. The author himself intends to publish soon a detailed historical survey of early Rome entitled A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War.

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

13

My own reading of Livy’s first ten books has revealed 380 statements found in 276 passages. Since Livy’s first ten books comprise 530 chapters, the average distribution of these statements is approximately one per one and a half chapters, or one passage for about every two chapters. After compiling this material from a close reading of the first decade, its analysis for this study has been greatly facilitated by arranging the information into tabular form and by classifying and labeling each statement in four different ways. A tabular exposition of the data offers the two advantages of rapid columnar scanning and the discernment of

various patterns in the data. As a result, each of the 380 Livian statements has been assigned one line in the data base, the technical term for which is a ‘record’. Consequently, throughout this study the term ‘record’ will be sometimes used to refer to the various statements encoded in the data base. The term therefore simply serves as a convenient technical synonym for each of the 380 Livian statements from the first decade that form the basis of this study. Each record or line of the data base in turn contains seven distinct parts that characterize the statement in specific ways. ‘Field’ is the technical term for these seven different parts of each record. Given the spatial constraints of the tabular format, codes have been devised to label each statement. The remainder of this chapter will explain this notation, followed by the tabulation of the data. In addition to providing each statement's text citation (occupying field 1), its most characteristic wording in Latin (field 6), and a brief English description of its content (field 7), each statement has received four coded labels concerning the remark's type, form, method of resolution, and subject matter (fields 2-5 respectively). The various distinctions outlined below may initially strike the reader as too numerous and/or too refined for practical use, but as the data were repeatedly analyzed, the codes were developed in direct response to the perceived needs of the present study. Thus, although it may seem confusing and cumbersome, the coding system is an accurate reflection of the great diversity and complexity of the Livian material's form and content. It is therefore hoped that this data base will be useful to scholars studying various aspects of Livy's narrative as it relates to early Roman history. For example, the subject matter labels in field 5 could be used to locate quickly all passages in Livy's first ten books that relate to problems of the consular fasti or to episodes in the struggle of the orders that contain some kind of anonymous attribution or qualification. Similarly, given the extraordinary variation in Livy's language, the codes in field 3 are very useful in locating statements with the same basic semantic form. Apart from the difficulty of establishing clear demarcations for some of the labels, such as ‘antiquarian’, or of distinguishing between a personal opinion (po) and a minor personal remark (mp), Livy's own highly economic use of language often requires the modern critical reader to consider what his terse statements presuppose. The latter problem frequently arises in trying to determine whether or not some degree of probabilistic reasoning lies behind a Livian statement. Consequently, the labeling of the data has required dozens of borderline judgments. Accordingly, the data have been carefully examined category by category in order to make the labeling as consistent as possible. Yet, despite these efforts

14

Chapter I: Assembling and Defining the Data

careful readers of Livy's text may find themselves sometimes differing with the author's classification, but such instances will probably not be numerous enough to upset major quantitative trends in the data. In the following outline I have first defined each of the four field's general terms and have then listed and described all the codes used in reference to each field. With the exception of ‘Type’ in field 2 all abbreviated labels are listed in alphabetical order to facilitate quick and easy reference. The number enclosed within parentheses following each abbreviated label indicates how many times the code occurs in the data base. Thus, not only can the outline be used as a reference guide to check the meaning of a code, but these numbers allow one to conduct quick comparisons with other figures mentioned throughout this study. Brief examples have also been given in connection with the codes for greater clarification. "Type' in field 2 indicates the degree of a passage's complexity. S (174) means 'simple' and indicates that the passage contains a single attributive or qualifying word or phrase, such as ferunt (1.5.1-3), traditum memoriae est (2.36.8), in quibusdam annalibus invenio (2.54.3), (4.21.10), satis constat (6.4.3), Piso auctor est (2.58.1-2).

alii ... alii ...

C (47) means 'complex' and indicates that the passage contains more than one attributive or qualifying word or phrase, such as both ferunt and dicitur (4.24.8-9), or ferunt and seu... seu ... (1.14.3).

Cm (159) means 'complex multiple'. Some passages are so complex and contain two, three, or more attributions, citations, and/or personal remarks and for the purpose of analysis are best resolved into these separate components. Consequently, although the data base comprises 276 Livian passages, it consists of 380 records, because 55 passages have been resolved into 159 records. Cm

therefore indicates that more than one record of data has been used to encompass all aspects of a particular passage. When cm is used, a serial letter (a, b, c, etc.) is attached to the text citation as well to indicate that these records comprise a single passage. Thus, for example, 9.46.2—7 is a passage that describes the activities of Cn.

Flavius during his curule aedileship of 304 B.C., but the material of this

single passage has been resolved into three distinct records. 'Form' in field 3 specifies a statement's verbal, semantic, or grammatical form. There are 15 simple kinds of citation, attribution, or personal remark, but they are often combined in various ways to form 13 other complex forms. A (8) means 'accipio' or 'accepimus' and indicates that Livy has used one of

these words in qualifying a statement or passage. See 1.38.1-2 concerning the deditio of Collatia. Alt (41) means 'alternatives' and indicates that Livy has cited two different

versions. See |.1.6—9 concerning how Latinus made peace with Aeneas. C (3) means ‘citation’ and indicates that Livy has cited an author by name. See 7.3.7 where Livy cites Cincius concerning the driving of an annual nail into the temple of Nortia at Volsinii. The other two records with this form are 4.7.12 and 10.11.9.

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

15

Cal (2) means ‘citation with alternatives’ and indicates that Livy has given alternatives in addition to citing an author by name. The only two records of this form in the entire data base are found in a single passage, 4.23.1-2 that has been resolved into two records. In these two sections Livy cites Licinius Macer, Valerius Antias, and Aelius Tubero together with alternative views concerning the eponymous magistrates for the year 434 B.C. Cv (13) means 'citation as variant' and means that Livy has cited an author by name for a variant version to the one in his own narrative. See 9.38.16 where Livy cites Licinius Macer for a variant interpretation of the inauspicious vote of the Curia Faucia for the lex de imperio. G (33) means 'general' and indicates Livy's use of an attributive verb in the

third person plural in the active voice, such as ferunt or tradunt. Gal (2) means 'generai with alternatives' and indicates that Livy has used a general attributive verb together with alternatives. See 1.14.3 where Livy uses ferunt together with seu ... seu ... in narrating that Romulus was not bothered by T. Tatius" murder at Lavinium. The only other record with this form is 9.16.13—9 concerning laudatory anecdotes about L. Papirius Cursor that Livy uses to introduce his digression on Alexander the Great. Gi (2) means 'general and impersonal' and indicates that Livy has used both a general attributive verb and an impersonal attributive verb phrase within the

same passage. See 10.7.1-8 where Livy uses both ferunt and dicitur in describing the public debate between Ap. Claudius Caecus and P. Decius Mus in 300 B.C. over the passage of the Ogulnian Law. The only other passage with this form is 4.24.8-9. Gn (1) means 'general attribution in a negative sense' and indicates that "they do not record ...." The only such passage of this nature is 2.17.3 where Livy remarks that writers do not add which of the two consuls was wounded and nearly killed by the Aurunci. ] (70) means ‘impersonal’ and indicates Livy's use of an attributive verb or verb phrase in the third person passive, such as rraditur, proditum est, dicitur/ dicuntur. Ia (1) means

‘impersonal with accepimus' and indicates that Livy has used

accepimus in conjunction with an impersonal attributive verb phrase. The only such occurrence of this combination is 3.39.1-2 where Livy uses both accepimus with proditum memoriae est in qualifying the speeches delivered in the senate in opposition to the second board of decemvirs. Ial (2) means ‘impersonal! with alternatives’ and indicates that Livy has used an impersonal attributive element together with alternatives. See 7.6.1 where Livy uses seu ... seu... along with dicitur to record the opening of a chasm in the

Forum associated with the devotio of M. Curtius and the aetiology of the Lacus Curtius. The only other occurrence of this combination is at 10.42.6 concerning L. Papirius Cursor at the battle of Aquilonia in 293 B.C. In (6) means ‘impersonal attribution in a negative sense’ and indicates that "it has not been recorded ...." Thus, at 10.11.10 Livy indicates that the state reverted

to an interregnum, but the reason for this was not recorded.

16

Chapter ]: Assembling and Defining the Data

P (54) means 'personal' and indicates that the passage contains a personal remark made by Livy himself. For example, at 4.13.2 Livy offers his own opinion that the grain shortage of 440/39 B.C. was exacerbated by Sp. Maelius' purchase of grain through his network of clients and friends. Pac (3) means ‘personal together with alternatives and an author citation’ and means that Livy has provided alternative views together with an author citation and has given his personal opinion as weil. See 10.9.10-3 where Livy cites the alternative views of Licinius Macer and Aelius Tubero vs. Piso concerning the identity of the curule aediles of 299 B.C. followed by Livy's own explanation for the confusion. The other two statements with this form are 1.55.8-9 concerning the plunder realized from the capture of Suessa Pometia and 8.30.8-10 concerning the battle at Imbrinium in 324 B.C. Pal (15) means 'personal with alternatives' and indicates that Livy has given alternative views and has followed them up with personal remarks. See 1.8.3 where Livy gives alternative explanations for the origin of the twelve including his own view that they were of Etruscan origin.

lictors,

Pc (3) means 'personal with a citation' and indicates that the passage contains an author citation and Livy's own personal remarks. See 3.5.12-3 where Livy cites Valerius Ántias concerning precise battle casualties accompanied by his own opinion. The other two statements with this form are 4.13.7 and 4.20.8-10. Pf (19) means 'preface' and indicates that the passage is similar in thought to Livy's praefatio either in terms of moral outlook or with respect to the uncertain or fabulous character of early traditions. See 7.2.13 and 5.21.8—9. In the former passage Livy remarks that Roman stage performances had a healthy beginning but have progressed to insane extravagance in his own day. [n the latter passage concerning how the Romans tunneled into the citadel of Veii and carried off the entrails of the sacrificial victim, Livy notes the fabulous character of this tale and uses language similar to that found in the Preface in refusing to affirm or deny the story. Pin (2) means 'personal with an impersonal attribution in a negative sense' and indicates that in addition to stating that something has not been recorded, Livy has offered a personal suggestion. See 3.70.14—5 and 7.26.15. Pn (2) means 'personal in a negative sense' and indicates that the phrase "I do not find" has been used in reference to something not recorded. See 2.40.1 and 6.20.4. Ppn (1) means 'personal remark with personal in a negative sense' and indicates that in addition to stating “I do not find,” Livy has offered an explanation.

The only passage of this nature is 10.6.7-8 concerning the number of the augurs in 300 B.C. at the time of the Ogulnian Law. Pv (22) means ‘personal with a variant’ and indicates that Livy has recorded a variant version together with personal remarks. See 4.16.3—4 where Livy argues against a variant tradition according to which Minucius, the praefectus annonae of 440/39 B.C., transferred to the plebs and was coopted as an eleventh plebeian tribune following the downfall of Sp. Maelius. R (2) means 'rhetorical' and indicates that the passage contains a rhetorical

Chapter |: Assembling and Defining the Data

remark. See 6.20.5 concerning the trial of M. concerning Ap. Claudius Caecus' reform of Maxima and the ensuing rapid extinction of the U (19) means ‘unanimous’ and indicates which

is commonly

agreed.

These

17

Manlius Capitolinus and 9.29.10 the cult of Hercules at the Ara Pinarii and Caecus' own blindness. that Livy has recorded something

statements often contain the element satis

constat. but in more complex passages involving discrepancies Livy sometimes simply uses the adverb certe to indicate common agreement on one point. See 5.33.5 and 8.6.2 respectively for these two basic forms. Ual (7) means ‘unanimous with alternatives’ and indicates that Livy has given alternative views and also states what is commonly agreed upon. See 1.24.1 concerning the famous story of the Horatii and Curiatii. Livy uses satis constat to indicate that this tale was commonly accepted in the historical tradition, but he also indicates that authors disagreed concerning which set of triplets belonged to Rome and Alba. Un (5) means ‘not unanimous’ and indicates that Livy has failed to find any common agreement and has simply recorded this fact. See 2.33.2 concerning the first secession of the plebs and the election of the first plebeian tribunes. In recording the tradition that three tribunes were added to the first two elected, Livy indicates that Sicinius was one of these three additional

tribunes, but there was

little agreement concerning the identity of the other two. Uv (3) means ‘unanimous with a variant’ and indicates that Livy has recorded

a variant version and then states what is commonly agreed upon. See 9.37.1 1-2 where Livy records a variant concerning the battle fought with the Etruscans beyond the Ciminian Forest in 310 B.C. According to this variant tradition the battle was fought at Perusia in northern Etruria, and the city of Rome was in great

fear that the Roman army would be cut off by the combined forces of the Etruscans and Umbrians. Livy concludes that wherever the battle took place, Roman arms were victorious. The other two passages with this form are 4.26.6—8

and 10.5.14. V (39) means ‘variant’ and indicates that Livy has added a variant either in juxtaposition to his principal narrative or in preference to what he has just written. See 3.57.10 where the engraving of the Law of the Twelve Tables is attributed to the plebeian aediles rather than the consuls. ‘Method of resolution’ in field 4 specifies what method or methods Livy has used to ascertain the truth or to resolve discrepancies in his sources. Agn (24) means 'agnostic' and indicates that Livy has expressed uncertainty. doubt, or even skepticism with respect to some issue. See 2.7.2-3 and 5.22.6 where Livy renders homage to the received tradition by recording the tale of Silvanus' utterance after the battle of the Arsian Forest in 509 B.C. and the story of the statue of Juno of Veii saying that she was willing to come to Rome. Livy

recounts and qualifies both incidents as marvels. Agr (28) means 'agreement' and indicates that Livy is following what is commonly agreed upon. See 6.4.3 where Livy indicates general agreement on the point that the three gold saucers preserved in the Capitoline temple at the feet of

18

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Juno's statue down to the time of the temple's destruction by fire in 83 B.C. had been dedications made by Camillus to commemorate his military success over the Volscians, Aequians, and Etruscans in 389 B.C. L (55) means ‘logic’ or ‘likelihood’ and indicates that Livy has used some kind of reasoning or probabilistic logic in offering a personal opinion or in deciding in favor of one version over another. See 7.26.15 where a report of a Greek fleet off the Latin coast in 348 B.C. is conjectured to have been from Sicilian tyrants rather than from mainland Greece. Lo (2) means

'logic used with the oldest or older source or sources'

and

indicates that Livy has used probability together with the older or oldest evidence on a matter. See 7.3.5-6 and 8.30.810. In the former instance Livy cites an old law written in archaic letters to help in explicating the custom of having a dictator drive a nail into the wall of the Capitoline temple. In the latter passage Livy supports his interpretation of the actions of Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus, the master of horse in 324 B.C., by citing Fabius Pictor, the most ancient of Roman historians.

Lon (5) means 'logic with oldest or older source or sources used negatively' and indicates that in addition to appealing to older accounts in order to reject a later version, Livy has likewise employed logic to reach his conclusion. Thus, in 7.9.5-6 Livy rejects Licinius Macer's political explanation for why the consul Licinius point as Licinian Loo

appointed a dictator. Livy appeals to the silence of older accounts on this well as Macer's unreliability on matters concerning members of the family. (2) means 'logic over oldest or older source or sources' and indicates that

Livy has used some kind of reasoning to argue away the evidence of his older source or sources. See 2.8.5 and 4.7.10-1 where Livy uses similar reasoning to explain why the consulship of Lucretius in 509 B.C. and the suffect consuls of 444 B.C. were not to be found in older writers. M (7) means 'majority' and indicates that Livy has followed the version found in the larger number of accounts. See 6.42.5-6 where Livy cites Claudius Quadrigarius for the view that the famous duel between T. Manlius Torquatus and the Gaul occurred in the year 367 B.C., but Livy follows the majority of writers in assigning this event to the year 361 B.C. Mp (21) means 'minor personal' and indicates that Livy has offered a personal opinion on a matter of relatively minor historical significance. These remarks do not actually pertain to the resolution of a historical problem or any discrepancy among authors. See 8.11.1 where Livy justifies his antiquarian discussion of the devotio ceremony by appealing to the efficacy of things archaic. Mr (7) means 'minor remark' and refers to a remark made concerning a very minor detail but whose form and/or content are nevertheless relevant for Livy's

views on early Roman history. Consequently, the labels mp and mr mark minor statements in which method of resolution is not at issue. Thus, since 14 of the 276 Livian passages are nothing more than isolated statements labeled mp or mr. the data base comprises 262 passages in which the method of resolution actually figures. See 3.4.1 where Livy informs the reader that some authors write the name

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

19

Furius as Fusius. This remark is made so that if the ancient reader were to encounter the name Fusius in another parallel account, he would realize that the two names refer to the same person. Na

(19)

means

'not applicable'

and

is used

only

in records of complex

multiples because it indicates that method of resolution is not applicable since Livy has employed some method or methods of resolution in one or more of the

other records of the same passage. See 8.18.1 where alternative explanations are given for deaths in Rome in the year 331 B.C. (plague vs. poisoning), but Livy does not address the discrepancy in this section but in the following two. Nagr (4) means 'no agreement' and indicates that Livy has found no agreement in his sources on this point, and he has therefore left the matter unresolved. See 5.12.12 concerning Licinius Calvus' election as the first plebeian consular tribune. Nc (171) means ‘no comment’, ‘not critical’, or ‘noncommittal’ and indicates that Livy has offered no comment on the issue and has thereby expressed no clear opinion or criticism. This code is by far the most common one in field 4, and it

very frequently occurs in records of simple type in which Livy uses a single attributive or qualifying word or phrase..

Nr (10) means ‘no record’ or ‘not recorded’ and indicates that Livy has failed to find any record in his sources concerning the issue and has consequently passed no judgment on it. See 6.18.16 where Livy indicates that none of his sources made it clear why or with whom M. Manlius Capitolinus began to aspire to tyranny. O (7) means 'oldesvolder' and indicates that Livy has followed the oldest or older version. See 8.30.7 where Livy indicates that some authors recorded two

battles fought at Imbrinium by the master of horse in 324 B.C., while other writers passed it over in silence, but the oldest accounts recorded only one battle, which is the version that Livy adopts in his narrative. On (2) means

‘oldest/older in a negative sense’ and indicates that Livy has

hesitated to accept a later version by finding no record of it in older sources. See 3.23.7 and 4.20.6—7. The former concerns the report in some accounts of Antium's revolt and capture in 459 B.C. The latter occurs in the famous passage concerning when and in what official capacity A. Cornelius Cossus won the spolia opima from Lars Tolumnius. Although Livy has followed all writers before his time in dating this event to the first year of the war with Fidenae when Cossus served as a military tribune under the command of a dictator, Livy still hesitates somewhat in accepting this because he has heard that the Emperor Augustus found the word

‘consuls’ written on Cossus" linen corcelet in the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius, and Livy regards this venerable record as casting doubt upon the established annalistic tradition. Po (16) means 'personal opinion' and indicates that Livy has expressed a personal opinion in such a way or concerning a matter which makes it of more than minor interest. Thus, records bearing this label are of greater historiographical interest than those labeled ‘mp’. See 6.1.1—3, Livy's remarks introducing his second pentad, where he contrasts the obscurity of events described in the first five books with the greater clarity of those following the Gallic capture of the city.

20

Chapter |: Assembling and Defining the Data

‘Subject matter’ in field 5 can be of six kinds and specifies the nature of the statement's content. Ant

(53)

means

'antiquarian'

and

indicates

that

the

subject

matter

is a

relatively minor detail of antiquarian interest. See 4.37.1 where Livy discusses the etymology of the toponym Capua.

Dom (93) means 'domestic' and indicates that the subject matter is an aspect of public affairs in Rome itself. See 2.32.8-12 concerning the famous parable told by Agripa Menenius at the time of the first secession of the plebs. Fas (38) means ‘fasti’ and indicates that the subject matter concerns the identity or name of a chief magistrate for a particular year. See 7.18.10 concerning alternative names for one of the consuls of 354 B.C. Frn (143)

means

'foreign'

and indicates that the subject matter concerns

Rome's foreign affairs. See 10.14.9 concerning the battle with the Samnites at Tifernum in 297 B.C. Mir (30) means

'miraculous'

and indicates that the statement contains an

element of a miraculous or marvelous nature. See 8.6.9-10 concerning the same dream experienced by the two consuls of 340 B.C. on the eve of the great battle with the Latins. Rel (23) means 'religious' and indicates that the passage concerns a religious celebration or an event in Rome's religious history. See 5.13.7-8 concerning the first celebration of a lectisternium in 399 B.C. and 9.30.5-10 concerning the secession of the flute players to Tibur during the censorship of Ap. Claudius Caecus.

Fields 6 and 7 respectively contain key Latin wording from the statement and an English description of the statement's content. Given the constraints of space, the wording in these two fields is often highly compressed and elliptical, and abbreviations such as ‘dict’ for dictator or 'cos' for consul are sometimes used. When read together, however, the Latin and English should provide the reader with a fairly clear picture of the statement's overall nature and content, but readers interested in particular passages should obviously consult the Livian text itself. Omitted Latin words are rarely noted by an ellipsis, and commas are used

to distinguish between different grammatical and semantic parts of a statement.?

? A tabulation by book of the number of the different types. subject matters, and methods of resolution can be found at the beginning of chapter 8.

DATA BASE

22

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

1.1.1-4

S

u

agr

ant

iam primum omnium satis constat Troia capta

1.1.6-9 1.3.2a 1.3.2b

S cm cm

alt alt pf

ne agn agn

fm ant ant

duplex fama, alii ... alii — haud ambigam -ne an quis rem tam veterem pro certo adfirmet — ubicumque quacumque, certe natum Aenea constat

1.3.3¢

cm

ou

agr

ant

1.3.3d 1.4.1 1.42 1.4.5 1.4.6-7a 1.4.6b 1.4.7c 1.5.1-3 1.7.1

cm s s em cem cm s s

alt p alt g i g v g i

na po ne nc nc nc nc nc nc

ant opulentam urbem matri seu novercae relinquit mir — debebatur, ut opinor, Fatis tantae origo urbis mir seu ita rata seu quia deus auctor culpae honestior ant — Romularem vocatam ferunt mir tenet fama lupam mammas, Larentiae uxori datos ant — Faustulo fuisse nomen ferunt ant — sunt qui, inde locum fabulae ac miraculo datum ant — Lupercal ferunt, Evandrum, insidiatos, Remum captum mir priori Remo augurium venisse fertur sex voltures

1.7.2

S

v

m

ant

— vulgatior fama, quicumque ... transiliet moenia mea

1.7.4 1.8.3 1.8.7a 1.8.7b 1.9.12 1.11.7a 1.11.8b 1.11.9¢ 1.13.7 1.13.8 1.14.3 1.16.4a 1.16.5-8b 1.18.2-4 1.24.1 1.24.4-9a

S c cm cm $ cm cm cem s s c cm cm c c cm

g pal alt p g alt i v in un gal p i py ual a

nc 1 nc ] nc nc nc nc nr agn nc l nc | m nc

ant ant ant ant ant fm fm frn ant ant dom dom mir ant ant ant

— Herculem memorant Geryone interempto prope Tiberim alii putant, me haud paenitet eorum sententiae — sive numerus satis sive soli qui creari patres — patres certe ab honore patriciique progenies eorum — unam raptam ferunt, inde nuptialem vocem factam X seu vi capta arx videretur seu prodendi exempli = additur fabula, scuta pro aureis donis congesta — sunt qui fraude visam agere, peremptam mercede — id non traditur aetate an dignitatibus an sorte Lucerum nominis et originis causa incerta est ferunt seu infidam seu haud iniuria caesum credo, manavit enim haec quoque sed perobscura fama addita rei dicitur fides, lulius gravis ut traditur — falso edunt, centum post annos constat, opinor — satis constat, auctores utroque tradunt, plures — tum ita factum accepimus nec vetustior memoria

1.24.6b 1.31.4

em S

p alt

mp nc

ant mir

quae longo effata carmine non operae referre est seu voce caelesti (traditur) seu haruspicum monitu

1.31.8

s

g

nc

mir

tradunt fulmine ictum cum domo conflagrasse

1.34.9

I

nc

mir

accepisse id augurium laeta dicitur Tanaquil

1.35.2-5 1.36.4a 1.36.5b 1.37.3 1.38.1-2 1.39.12 1.39.5~6 1.43.13 1.44.2

em cm 8 s s c $ c

i g g £ a g pal P cv

nc nc nc nc nc nc | po o0

dom primus petisse regnum, orationem dicitur habuisse mir eludensque artem ut ferunt, discidisse cotem ferunt ant — cotem memorant ad posteros miraculi eius monumentum fm ita incurrisse ab lateribus ferunt ut in fugam ant — deditosque accipio eamque deditionis formulam esse mir caput arsisse ferunt, ab regina moveri vetuisse ant credere prohibet, eorum magis sententiae sum ant partes eas tribus, ut ego arbitror, ab tributo dom dicuntur, adicit scriptorum antiquissimus Fabius

1.44.4-5 1.45.4

c 5

p i

l nc

ant mir

— postmoerium interpretantur, est magis circamoerium bosin Sabinis dicitur miranda magnitudine

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data English Description of Content Antenor & Aeneas left Troy and arrived in [taly How peace was made between Aeneas & Latinus Ascanius' identity, whether he was born of Creusa or Lavinia Who could be sure about this ancient matter Ascanius was certainly the son of Aeneas Ascanius left Lavinium to either his mother or stepmother Despite Amulius' crimes, Rome was ordained by the Fates Why Ilia said that Mars was the father of the twins The ficus Ruminalis was called Romularis The wolf nursed the twins, they were taken to Larentia The herdsman Faustulus found the twins

This tale arose from Larentia being a whorish she-wolf The Lupercalia, Palatium is derived from Evander, Remus was captured by Albans Remus first saw 6 vultures Remus was slain while jumping over the pomerium. Romulus' declaration Hercules came to Rome from Geryon to rest The twelve lictors come from the Etruscans, not Romulus’ vultures

Why Romulus chose 100 senators Senators called fathers as honorific title, their descendants were patricians Sabine maiden was taken to Thalassius, whence derives the wedding custom Sabines killed Tarpeia either as a ruse or as a lesson for treachery Sabines wore gold armillae, Tarpeia demanded them but killed by their shields Tarpeia wanted their shields and was killed by them How Romulus named the curiae from the Sabine women Ramnenses & Titienses, but it is uncertain whence comes the name of the Luceres

Romulus did not mind Tatius being murdered at Lavinium Some at the time thought that the senators had killed Romulus Belief in Romulus' deification, Proculus Julius came forward to give testimony Pythagoras did not teach Numa, impossible by chronology and distance Dispute over nationality of Horatii & Curiatii but I follow the majority view Fetial treaty between Rome & Alba is the oldest It is not worth it to relate the long fetial formula Institution of the novendiale sacrum Tullus was struck by lightning while using Numa's books Tanaquil accepted the omen of the eagle removing Tarquinius Priscus' cap Priscus was the first to seek the kingship and was first to deliver a speech Priscus mocked Attus Navius, but he cut the whetstone with a razor Whetstone is also with Navius' statue as a memorial of the miracle The Roman cavalry was decisive in defeating the Sabines Collatia surrendered, deditio formula used Fire burned on Servius' head, Tanaquil forbade any disturbance Servius was not a slave but was born in captivity after Corniculum was taken The urban regions were termed tribus by Servius from tributum First census was 80,000, according to Fabius they were capable of bearing arms They derive pomerium from post murum but it is just as much murus post id A cow of wondrous size and appearance was born among the Sabines

23

24 Citation

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

m po nc agr nc nc agn nc I na ne nc lon

ant mir dom dom ant dom ant frn fm frn mir mir frn

filius neposne parum liquet, pluribus filium Fortuna, credo, populi Romani quo diuturnius creditur admonitu Tulliae id factum carpento certe, satis constat, in Forum invecta traditur scelus, vicum vocant, egisse fertur quidam auctores sunt ni scelus intervenisset si famae credimus, ab Ulixe deaque Circa oriundus neid quidem rulisse tacitum ferunt, dixisse credo, dubiae fidei videbatur, nihil voce responsum tacitus summa papaverum capita dicitur baculo ad indicandam tanti imperii molem traditur deos caput humanum integra facie dicitur apparuisse antiquior, neque ex unius tum urbis praeda

1.46.4 1.46.5 1.48.5a 1.48.5b 1.48.7c 1.48.9 1.49.9 1.50.9 1.54.6a 1.54.6b 1.55.3 1.55.5 1.55.8-9

cm cm s s c

alt P i ou i v l g p i i i pac

1.56.9

$

i

nc

dom

1.56.10 1.59.11 2.1.1-6

s s s

zg P p

nc l po

mir — ferunt, qui vestrum primus osculum matri tulerit dom credo quae haudquaquam relatu scriptoribus facilia dom hinc peragam, deinceps conditores, procellis

em cm cm

— — —

—

dicitur, per ambages effigiem ingenii sui

2.1.11

E:

i

nc

ant

2.2.2-3 24.2 2.5.3-4a 2.5.4b 2.5.10a 2.5.10b 2.7.2-3 2.8.5a 2.8.5b

s 8 cm cm cm cm c em cm

p in i p | v g v p

mp nr na | nc nc agn na loo

dom dom ant ant ant ant mir fas fas

2.8.8

8

in

nr

dom

2.10.11 2.13.10

5 s

P i

agn nc

frn frn

— rem ausus plus famae habituram quam fidei — productis omnibus, elegisse impubes dicitur

2.14.14 2.17.3

c s

pal gn

1! nr

ant frn

— mos traditus ab antiquis. aut - aut, proximum vero — utrum auctores non adiciunt, prope interfecerunt

2.18.4a 2.18.5b 2.18.6—7c 2.20.12 2.21.3a 2.21.4b 2.32.2a

cm cm cm E: cm cm cm

un v pal i v p i

2.32.3b

cm

cv

m

dom

ea frequentior fama est quam cuius Piso auctor est

2.32.8-12 2.33.2a

8 cm

i un

nc nagr

dom dom

prisco illo dicendi horrido modo narasse fertur Sicinium, de duobus minus convenit

2.33.3b

cm

v

nc

dom

sunt qui duos tantum in Sacro Monte, sacratam legem

2.34.12 2.36.8 2.39.12

s s s

p i i

po nc nc

dom haud facile dictu est, arbitror aliud miraculum, pedibus suis traditum memoriae est mir frn — sacerdotes isse supplices traditum est

nagr o | nc nc agn nc

— rraditumque fertur qui patres quique conscripti

— — — — — |

nescio an nimium modum excesserint conscii, quorum vetustate memoria abiit seges farris dicitur, in vadis acervos sedisse posrea credo additas moles manuque adiutum ille dicitur primum vindicta liberatus quidam vindictae nomen tractum ab illo Vindicio adiciunt miracula huic pugnae, haec dicta, certe apud quosdam veteres auctores non invenio Lucretium credo, nulla gesta res, memoria intercidisse nec traditur certum nec interpretatio est facilis

fas nec... (traditur) nec quis primum satis constat fas — apud veterrimos tamen auctores T. Larcium invenio fas | adducor ut credam Larcium quam M'. Valerium frn — aedem Castori vovisse fertur ac militi praemia fas hoc anno apud quosdam invenio, collega dubiae fidei fas aliter apud alios, nec tanta vetustate digerere dom dicitur de caede. doctos, Sicinio secessisse

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

25

English Description of Content Superbus was son or grandson of Priscus, but the majority make him the son Mismatched marriages of the Tulliae and Tarquins allowed Servius to rule longer Superbus killed Servius on Tullia's advice Tuilia drove her carriage into the Forum & was the first to hail Superbus king The Vicus Sceleratus is named from Tullia driving over her father's body Servius intended to free the country by laying aside his kingship Octavius Mamilius of Tusculum was descended from Odysseus and the goddess Circe Turnus Herdonius rejected Superbus delay by a dispute between a father and son Superbus did not reply in words because he distrusted the Gabine messenger Superbus struck off the heads of the tallest poppies The gods indicated Rome's empire by Terminus not moving from the Capitol A human head with its face intact was unearthed on the Capitol Pictor preferred to Piso about booty from Suessa Pometia for Capitoline temple Brutus carried a gold rod in a hollow wooden staff to Delphi The oracle declared that rule would come to him who first kissed his mother Brutus used Tarquin's crimes in his speech to stir up the people Now I write of a free state, the kings were founders who made freedom possible Henceforth senators were summoned as patres and conscripti Was it excessive to exile Collatinus merely because of his Tarquin name The names of the other young noble conspirators have been lost by time Tarquin's cut grain settled in the Tiber to begin forming the Island The Island was later strengthened to bear temples He was the first slave freed by the procedure of vindicta Vindicta took its name from this slave Vindicius Silvanus was heard after the battle of the Arsian Forest, both armies departed Lucretius is not found as consul of 509 in some old writers Lucretius' consulship was not memorable and was therefore forgotten It is difficult to know why Horatius was not moved by son's reported death Cocles swam Tiber fully armed, a deed more famous than believable Cloelia chose to free the children hostages Origin of selling bona Porsennae, perhaps from his abandoned camp Writers do not add which consul was wounded and nearly killed by the Aurunci It is not agreed who was first made dictator, the consuls were not trusted T. Larcius first dictator in oldest authors with Sp. Cassius magister equitum Larcius first dict, Valerius not yet consul, his father more likely candidate The dictator at Regillus made a vow to Castor and promised rewards to soldiers Regillus was fought this year, Postumius became dict, his colleague suspected Confusion abounds, hard to tell who were consuls and what was done Plebs considered killing coss, crime not undo their oath, seceded to Mons Sacer The secession was to the Mons Sacer, not to the Aventine as in Piso Agrippa Menenius told the plebs the parable of the body and the belly Sicinius was one of the 3 additional tribunes, less agreernent on the other two Just 2 tribunes were chosen on the Mons Sacer with a lex sacrata Whether the senate should or could have used grain to roll back plebeian gains After discharging his duty, Latinius miraculously returned home on his own feet Priests with their insignia also went as suppliants to Coriolanus' camp

26

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M

2.40.1 2.40.10a 2.40.10b 2.40.10-le 2.41.10a

$ em cm cm cm

pn g alt cv ou

nr nc ne o agr

(m publicum an muliebris timor fuerit, parum invenio fm — invidia rei oppressum perisse tradunt fm alii alio leto frn — apud Fabium longe antiquissimum, refert certe dom ubi primum magistratu abiit, damnatum constat

2.41.10b

em

v

nc

dom

sunt qui patrem auctorem eius supplicii, signum

241.11c 2.41.12d 2.50.11 2.52.5 2.53.5 2.54.3 2.58.1-2 3.3.9 3.4.1 3.5.12-3 3.8.2 3.8.10 3.10.6 3.18.11 3.20.5 3.23.7 3.24.10

cm cm $ s s $ S S c c s c s $ s c S

pv | ual agr u agr g nc P ] v agn cv nc i nc pv mr pc agn v mr py ! i nc i nc pf | mp pal on g nc

dom dom frn dom frn fas dom dom fas frn fas fm mir dom rel fr dom

invenio apud quosdam, idque propius fidem est sive illud domesticum sive publicum, damnatur trecentos sex perisse satis convenit, unum relictum negant tulisse ignominiam aegritudinemque missus consul, mos (credo) non placebat sine duce in quibusdam annalibus consulem invenio, quoscumque perinde ac duo antea Piso auctor est, nominat censa civium capita dicuntur praeter orbos orbasque Fusios scripsere quidam, id admoneo ne quis putet difficile ad fidem in antiqua re adfirmare, Antias sive ille Vetusius fuit in quibusdam annalibus, etsi adiectum numero, certe carne pluit, quem numerus avium rapuisse fertur ín consulis domum plebes quadrantes iactasse fertur nondum haec quae nunc tenet neglegentia deum apud plerosque, adfirmare non ausim, vetustiores lustrum ab origine urbis decimum conditum ferunt

3.26.7a

cm

pf

mp

fm

ual i g g p ia p ou i pal pf v p a a pin pf v pv c alt un

agr nc nc nc | nc agn agr nc | mp nc J nc nc | mp nc loo o — agn na

frn rel rel dom dom dom X dom dom dom ant rel dom frn dom fm dom dom fm fas fas fas fas

3.26.9b 3.29.5 3.29.9 3.33.6 3.35.2 3.39.1-10 3.47.5a 3.47.5b 3.54.12 3.55.8-12 3.57.7 3.57.10 3.60.2 3.67-8 3.69.8 3.70.14-5 4.6.12 4.7.2 4.7.10-la 4.7.12b 4.8.1c 4.8.7d

cm S $ S $ c cem cm s c $ S $ s s c s S | cm cm cm cm

Key Latin Wording

—

—

— — — X

— —

operae pretium est audire seu fodiens seu araret, operi certe constat — epulae instructae dicuntur ante omnium domos — lupos visos ferunt, lustratum Capitolium graves quoque aetate electos ferunt metu, credo, ne tanti possessio imperii dictas sententias accepimus, proditum memoriae est auctores antiqui, nusquam veri similem invenio id, quod constat nudum, videtur proponendum eius quem primum tribunum proditum memoriae est — iuris interpretes negant, fuere qui, refellitur — parvi ponderis, religiones pie magis quam magnifice sunt qui aediles functos scribant — quodsi ... haud scio an ín hanc sententiam locutum accipio . haec omnia adeo mature perfecta accepimus ut nec accipio nec traditur, ego conicio hanc modestiam ubi nunc inveneris sunt qui tot simul bella, sine mentione neque in annalibus priscis neque in lib mag, credo — Macer, Libri Lintei, Ardeatinum foedus seu tribunos modo seu suffectos consules quoque quorum de consulatu dubitatur

Chapter |: Assembling and Defining the Data English Description of Content Whether matrons to Coriolanus' mother and wife by public policy or women's fear After withdrew army from Rome, Coriolanus perished from resentment of the deed Coriolanus' death is variously explained by different authors Fabius has him as an old man, remarking that exile is harder for an old man Sp. Cassius was condemned & executed as soon as he left office He was executed by his father, a statue to Ceres was made from his peculium Quaestors tried him before the people, his house was torn down However he was tried, he was executed in this consulship All 306 Fabii were killed, a single child left behind to continue the family The consul Menenius was fined for the Cremera, died by disgrace and illness It was thought unsuitable for the allies to operate without Roman leadership Vopiscus Julius is given as cos instead of Verginius, but whoever they were... Tribunes were now increased from two to five in Piso, who gives their names

The census of 465 B.C. counted 104,714 citizens Some write Fusius for Furius Hard to assign numbers to ancient things, Antias gives precise casualty figures Vetusius as alternative form of Veturius, consul of 462 B.C.

Precise Volscian losses given, certainly was great victory even if exaggerated Many birds flocked to eat rained meat that did not rot despite its exposure The plebs in 460 B.C. contributed to the funeral of the dead consul Valerius The plebs in 460 B.C. honored their military oath Antium revolted and was captured, but this is not in older writers The tenth /ustrum from the beginning of the city was closed in 459 B.C. Cincinnatus is a worthwhile example for those who scorn honor and virtue Whether digging or plowing, Cincinnatus was working his farm when made dictator People banqueted before their homes for Cincinnatus' triumph A lustration was performed for dogs chasing wolves on the Capitol Five elderly decemviri were chosen to counter the others The leading men kept the unworthy out of the second decemvirate Senatorial speeches of 450, Valerius & Horatius opposed the decemvirs Nothing probable is related for Appius’ speech on Verginia's verdict There is simply agreement that Appius’ verdict was in favor of slavery Sicinius tr. pl. of 449 was descended from the first Sicinius tr. pl. of 494 Debate over the meaning & applicability of sacrosanctity Latins gave small gold crown to Capitoline Jove, worshipping modestly The tribunes had the aediles engrave the Twelve Tables, not done by the consuls Whether there would have been a Roman defeat if they had fought right away Direct speech of the consul Quinctius in 446 B.C., when the enemy near Rome The army was quickly mobilized and was at the tenth milestone that same day Despite antiquity, conjecturing why the coss of 446 did not request a triumph Plebeian virtue in electing all patrician first consular tribunes Consular tribunes were created for wars, not from political strife Why the suffect consuls of 444 were overlooked in old sources Macer found these consuls in the Linen Books and the treaty with Ardea Whether 444 B.C. had just tribunes or also consuls, the next year had consuls The dubious suffect consuls of 444 were the first elected censors

27

28

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

4.8.5 4.9.2a 4.9.3b 4.12.7 4.13.2 4.13.7 4.16.3-4 4.17.3-5 4.17.8 4.20.5a 4.20.6b 4.20.6-7c 4.20.8-10d 4.20.1 le 4.21.10 4.23.la 4.23.2b 4.23.3c

s cm cm 5 s c c c 5 cm cm cm cm cm s cm cm cm

p i p alt P pc. py pv p u p pv pc p alt cal] cal p

l nc mp ne l ! | | | agr ] on o agn ne na na agn

dom fm frn dom dom fas dom frn fm fas fas fas fas fas fas fas fas fas

4.24.8-9

c

gi

nc

dom

4.25.13 4.26.2 4.26.6-8 4.29.3 4.29.5-6 4.29.8a 4.29.8b 4.34.6 4.37.1a 4.37.1b 4.37.1c 4.41.1-7 4.41.12 4.46.4 4.46.11 4.48.5-9 4.49.10 4.51.3 4.54.4—5 4.55.8 4.56.3 4.56.9-l3a 4.57.6b 4.57.9c 4.60.1 4.61.10-1 5.12.12

s s c s c em em c cm cm cm s s S s S c s $ c s cm cm cm $ € S

pf i uv £ py | p pv i p pal i i i alt i pal i a ual g g pf p i py alt

mp nc agr nc ! nc mp lon nc mp | nc nc nc nc nc |! nc nc agr nc na mp I nc | nage

dom fas frn fm frn fm fm fm frn fm ant fm dom fm fas dom fm dom dom fm dom dom dom dom dom frn dom

Key Latin Wording patres laeti, credo, tribuni intuentes — traditur ex certamine factionum — fuerunt eruntque pluribus populis exitio quam bella seu seu, utrumque traditur per hospitum clientiumque ministeria, credo — seu refectus seu quoad, nihil constat, Lintei apud quosdam transisse, vix credibile, refellit — levant quidam regis facinus, incred, propius fidem credo, primus cis Anienem cum rege Veientium | omnes ante me auctores secutus Cossum tribunum — dux duci detraxit, auspicio bellum geritur — titulus arguit consulem, Augustum legisse audissem — error, veteres annales, linteos Macer, funesti — libera coniectura, ego arbitror, vana versare — cui Prisco alii. alii Structo cognomen tradunt | apud Macrum, Valerius Antias et Q. Tubero — scriptor. antiquis, Macer linteos, Tubero incertus — inter cetera vetustate cooperta hoc in incerto ferunt, dicitur

parva nunc res et vix serio agenda quae tunc | eidem et Poeno cognomen additur — sunt qui. satis constat, Servilius inquit — consulem signum intra vallum iniecisse ferunt — qui tradunt, nec libet credere. argumento — insigni magnis rebus anno additur tum primum nihil tum ad rem Romanam pertinere visum X quidam rem incredibilem, a veteribus accepimus = traditur eo anno facta peregrina res sed memoria digna ab Capye vel, quod propius vero, a campestri agro — oratio incompta dicitur militariter gravis profuisse ei Cincinnati patris memoria dicitur dicitur Q. Servilius institisse filio — ur rradidere quidam, alii Ahalam scribunt Ap. Claudius dicitur dixisse. familiare consilium = magis adducor ut credam quam satis creditum est auctores liberi populo suffragii Icilios accipio — incertum auctores faciunt, non dissentiunt artem adhibitam a patriciis ferunt ferunt, tribuni plebi laeti discordia dicerent exemplo, opportuniora non cupientibus credo ob iram dictatoris creati nihil acceptum a plebe tanto gaudio traditur = sunt qui Artenam Veientium, praebet errorem nec satis constat cur primus, alii credunt, alii

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data English Description of Content Why the tribunes of the plebs allowed the patricians to have the censorship Armed violence broke out in Ardea from political factions Strife is destructive to more peoples than war, famine. disease Bad weather or involvement in city politics caused food shortage in 440 Maelius' purchase of grain contributed to the crisis Minucius continued as praefectus annonae in 439, recorded in the Linen Books Minucius transferred to the plebs and was an eleventh tribune, this is unlikely Tolumnius' throw of the dice was not misinterpreted about the Roman ambassadors Sergius Fidenas took his surname from the war with Veii Cossus was military tribune when he won the spolia opima Spolia opima are taken from a leader by a commander under his own auspices I have heard that Augustus saw Cossus' corselet that termed him consul Are the old records wrong, Cossus' consulship six years later was uneventful It is anyone's conjecture, but Cossus termed himself consul What was the surname of Q. Servilius, the dictator of 435 B.C.

Macer vs. Antias and Tubero concerning the names of the consuls of 434 B.C. Macer and Tubero follow Linen Books, admitting mil trs cp in older accounts Let this matter also lie shrouded by the passage of time Dictator was demoted for limiting censors' term of office, quelled mob violence Law forbade candidates to whiten their clothing, hardly serious now T. Quinctius L. f. Cincinnatus, consul in 431, is also given the surname Poenus How the senate used the tribunes to end consular opposition to a dictator The consul threw a standard into the enemy camp to spur the Roman assault Dictator Postumius executed son, but proverbial imperia Manliana against this The Carthaginians in 431 B.C. first invaded Sicily It did not seem pertinent then to Roman affairs Record of fleet (classis) used against Fidenae in 426 B.C., hard to believe The Samnites took over Capua in 423 B.C. Samnite capture of Capua is a foreign matter but is worthy of record Capua derives its name from campus, not from a leader Capys A cavalryman's rough and plain military-type speech in 423 B.C. Dictator Quinctius acquitted, aided by his father's reputation Senatorial father urged his son Servilius mil tr cp to raise forces The dictator Servilius Priscus chose his son or Ahala to be magister equitum Claudius informed the senate how to divide the plebeian tribunes Army angered by mil tr denying them booty, not because of booty's small amount The murderers of the military tribune Postumius committed suicide 3 Icilii made trs pl because responsible for first plebeian quaestors in 409 Whether one or both consuls against Carventum in 409, but Verugo was captured Clever patrician electioneering for mil trs to exclude plebeian candidates Mil trs and senate quarreled over dictator, while trs pl remained neutral Ahala was made magister equitum, which serves as an example of unsought honor Mil trs held comiria for mil trs because angry over dictator's appointment Nothing so pleasing to the plebs as institution of military pay in 406 This Artena Volscian not Veientine, Etruscan one was destroyed by the kings

Why Licinius Calvus first plebeian mil tr cp in 400, kinship vs. timely speech

29

30

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

5.13.4 5.13.7-8 5.20.4 5.21.8-9 §.21.14-6 5.22.5a 5.22.6b 5.22.6-7c 5.25.9 5.27.12-4 5.31.3 5.33.2-3a 5.33.4b 5.33.5c 5.33.7-8d 5.34.1-35.3e 5.34.6f 5.35.3g 5.41.3 $.41.9-10 5.42.12 $.46.2-3 5.46.10-1 5.47.2 5.48.4 5.55.1 6.1.1-3 6.1.12 6.4.3 6.8.3-4 6.9.3 6.12.1 6.12.2a 6.12.3b 6.12.4-5c 6.12.5d 6.12.6e 6.16.4 6.18.16 6.20.4a 6.20.5b

E S S c s cm cm cm

cm cm cm cm cm em cm E s s $ c $ $ s s $ s s s s cm cm cm cm cm $ c cm cm

alt g [i pf i alt | a E i g | p u p a p ual v i alt alt pal alt i i P v u g p alt p p pal pf u u in pn p

nc nc nc agn nc ne agn agr nc nc nc na l agr l na agn agr nc nc nc nc | nc nc nc po nc agr nc po nc mp nr | po agr agr nr nr |

dom rel dom mir mir mir mir mir ant frn rel frn frn frn ant frn ant fm rel fm frn rel fm frn frn dom ant tel ant frn mir frn frm fm frn fm frn dom dom dom dom

6.20.5c

cm

Fr

mr

dom

iud notandum videtur ut sciant homines

6.20.6—9d 6.20.12 6.33.5

em s s

i v i

nc nc nc

dom dom mir

homines produxisse dicitur, nudasse pectus sunt qui per duumviros de perduellione eos arcuisse dicitur vox horrenda edita templo

6.34.7

$

P

l

dom

credo fortunatum visum suique ipsam paenituisse

sive ex intemperie caeli sive alia qua de causa — ferunt iurgiis temperatum, dempta vincula quem primum dixisse a filio interrogatum ferunt — inseritur fabula neque adfirmare neque refellere dicitur precatus, traditur memoriae, idque omen seu spiritu divino tactus seu iuvenali ioco fabulae adiectum, vocem dicentis velle auditam — motam certe accepimus levem ac facilem tralatu ob eam munificentiam ferunt matronis carpentis — introducti ad senatum ita locuti rraduntur — dedicationem ingenti matronarum studio tradunt — eam gentem traditur fama dulcedine vini captam — haud abnuerim ab Arrunte seu quo alio adductos — eos non fuisse qui primi satis constat — quantum potuerint nomina sunt argumento = de transitu ... haec accepimus — haud miror, nisi de Hercule fabulis credere libet . comperio, parum certum est solamne an adiutam = sunt qui devovisse eos se pro patria tradant . dicitur barbam, scipione in caput, trucidatos — seu non delendi libido seu ita placuerat — seu attonitis Gallis miraculo seu religione motis seu quod magis credere libet — seu vestigio notato seu sua sponte animadverso dicitur panis de Capitolio iactatus Movisse eos cum alia tum religiones maxime dicitur res vetustate nimia obscuras, clariora deinceps — quidam, postridie idus Quinct. non litasset = ante Capitolium incensum in lovis cella constat — emissum signum Camilli iussu ferunt credo dis cordi fuisse, vim fortuna avertit seu celeritate opus erat seu vires se additurum — non dubito legentibus illud quod mihi unde milites X abantiquis tacitum, cuique coniectanti — simile veri aut intervallis aut non ex iisdem aut nunc vix servitia ab solitudine vindicant X ingens certe, quod inter omnes auctores conveniat satis constat vestem mutasse, capillum promisisse dicitur, sed nec ... nec ... satis planum traditur praeter pertinentia apud neminem auctorem invenio nec dubito haud parva, damnandi mora non in causa

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

English Description of Content Why a hot summer with plague in 399 followed a harsh winter First lectisternium in 399, homes thrown open, quarrels ceased, chains removed Calvus was first called upon by son in senate debate about booty from Veii Romans from tunnel, bore off exta to Camillus, more worthy of the stage Camillus prayed, then fell, portended own fall and Gallic capture of Rome Youth asked Juno of Veii if she wanted to come to Rome Additional tale that Juno was heard to say that she was willing Juno was easily moved and carried to Rome Women given honor of attending games in carriages for giving gold to Apollo Faliscan ambassadors spoke thus in the senate, praising the Romans Dedication of Juno's temple in 395 was celebrated by matrons with great zeal Gauls came into Italy lured by Arruns’ wine and expelled the Etruscans I do not reject that Gauls lured to Clusium by Arruns or by someone else These Gauls were not the first ones who crossed the Alps into Italy Earlier Etruscan power is shown by the names of the Tuscan and Adriatic Seas Tradition of the Gallic tribes' migration into Italy Gauls rightly thought Alps uncrossed unless we believe myth of Hercules Senones attacked Clusium and Rome but uncertain whether alone or with others Elderly senators devoted themselves for the country Senators were slaughtered, followed by plundering and burning Why the city at first was only partly burned

Why the Gauls did not harm Fabius Dorsuo How the people on the Capitol appointed Camillus dictator in absentia at Ardea How the Gauls found the path near Carmenta's shrine to ascend the Capitoline When taunted with famine, the Romans threw loaves down from the Capitoline The Romans were moved by Camillus' speech, especially about religion Early events obscure by time, no writing, Gallic fire, things hereafter clearer Dies postriduani from unfavorable omens July 16 and battle fought July 18 Camillus’ three inscribed gold saucers in Capitoline temple till burned Camillus had standard thrown into enemy lines, and the enemy was driven back Trouble in Nepet and Sutrium spared Antium, this was ordained by the gods Why dictator Camillus ignored domestic trouble and set out against the Volsci How to account for Volscian and Aequian manpower from so many defeats Ancients were silent about this, I can only conjecture on my own Population rebounded in peacetime, not from same areas, more numerous than now Now scant recruiting grounds, now slaves reclaim these areas from depopulation All writers agree on there being a big army then despite their recent defeat The plebs went into mourning when Manlius was imprisoned Manlius now began seeking regnum, it is not recorded why or with whom Not know what Manlius' accusers said except what pertained to charge of regnum I do not doubt that the charges were serious, place not case thwarted verdict People should know how regnum renders all good deeds hateful and base Manlius listed his deeds, bared his chest, prayed looking at the Capitol Manlius was tried and condemned by duumviri for perduellio A voice from the temple stopped Latins from burning Mater Matuta in Satricum Fabia Minor envied her sister's marriage and regretted her own

31

32

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

6.38.9-13

c

pal

|!

dom

seu (ut scripsere quidam)

6.39.4

s

a

nc

dom

aegre patres passos accipio, dictatorem se excusare

6.40-1 6.42.5-6 7.1.8 7.2.4a 7.2.8-9b 7.2.13c 7.3.3-4a 7.3.5-6b 7.3.7c 7.3.9 7.6.1a 7.6.3-5b 7.6.6c 7.8.4 7.9.3a 7.9.4b 7.9.5-6c 7.10.5 7.18.2 7.18.10 7.21.6-7 7.22.3 7.25.8a

S $ $ cm cm cm em cm cm S cm cm cm S cm cm cm s 5 $ s s cm

i ev g i | pf id g c alt ial g p P wu cv p g alt v pf alt i

nc m nc nc nc mp nc lo o nc nc nc l po agr na lon agn nc nc mr nc na

dom fm dom rel rel rel rel ant ant dom mir ant ant fm fas dom frn frn fm fas dom fas frn

dicitur locutus in hanc fere sententiam Claudius, pluribus auctoribus magis adducor ferunt, pro portione et ex multitudine alia inter alia placamina instituti dicuntur suorum carminum actor dicitur, canticum egisse ab sano initio res in hanc insaniam repetitum ex seniorum memoria dicitur lex vetusta priscis litteris verbisque, ferunt Volsiniis in templo Nortiae Cincius adfirmat seu vi seu verecundia victus seu motu terrae seu qua vi alia, dicitur ferunt armatum immisisse, ab hoc appellatum fama rerum, vetustas, fidem, insignitius fabula neque facile dictu est, nisi perpetua Fortuna dictatorem eo anno fuisse satis constat Macer comitiorum habendorum, pravae cupiditati leviorem auctorem, vetustioribus annalibus, certe id quoque memoria dignum antiquis visum est sive duorum ut scripsere quidam, seu Sulpicio in quibusdam annalibus invenio per omnium annalium monumenta celebres nominibus quidam Caesonem, alii Gaium praenomen adiciunt decem legiones scriptae dicuntur

7.25.9b

cm

pf

po

frn — haud facile efficiant, divitias luxuriamque

7.25.10-1 7.26.15 7.27.8-9 7.28.9 7.28.9 7.29.1-2 7.40.1-2 7.42.1-2a 7.42.3-6b 7.42.7c 8.3.6 8.6.la 8.6.2b 8.6.3c 8.6.9-10 8.7.8 8.9.1 8.10.11-4a

s c c E 5 s 5 cm cm cm s cm cm cm s S s cm

alt pin py i in pf pf pv v ual uv i u pv i alt i p

nc 1 |» nc nr mr mp | nc agr agr nc agr agn nc nc nc mp

fm frn frn dom fas frn dom dom dom dom frn fm frn mir mir fm mir ant

vel... vel nomen faustum — nihil certi, Siciliae tyrannos crediderim — sunt qui, magis veri simile quam deditos venisse iudicia eo anno populi in feneratores traduntur — haud ulla insigni ad memoriam causa — maiora hinc, in hanc vix sustinetur imperium nondum tam fortes ad sanguinem civilem nec bella praeter haec invenio apud quosdam, apparet aliis annalibus proditum est per consules rem actam nihil praeterquam seditionem compositam constat — eo anno Alexandrum in Italiam constat proditur memoriae vocem Anni spernentis auditam certe lapsus per gradus, ut sopiretur — non omnes, in incerto relictum, vera et ficta eadem dicitur species viri dicentis victoriam fore seu ira seu pudor seu inexsuperabilis vis Fati Decio dicitur ostendisse, Manlium egregie litasse — adiciendum videtur; ni moritur, tum signum

8.11.Ib

cm

pf

mp

rel

— haec haud ab re duxi verbis, ut tradita, referre

8.11.24

s

v

nc

frn

— apud quosdam, Latinis praetorem dixisse ferunt

— — — — —

— — — —

| — —

seu, potius credam

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data English Description of Content Camillus resigned dictatorship either vitio creatus or by threatened fine Dictator Manlius justified to the senate his choice of Licinius as mag. eq. Ap. Claudius' speech against passage of the Licinian Sextian Laws Quadrigarius dated Torquatus' duel with the Gaul to 367 B.C. Plague killed a censor, a curule aedile, three tribunes, and many others Ludi scaenict were first introduced to appease divine anger during a plague Andronicus acted out own verses, more vigorous when gave cantica to singer Drama has progressed from a healthy beginning to insane extravagance It was remembered that a plague was once relieved by a dictator driving nail Praetor maximus drove nail Sept. 13, numbering years, Minerva invented number Yearly nails in Nortia's shrine in Volsinii according to Cincius Nail dictator levied troops, resigned from shame or forced by tribunes The Forum gaped open by an earthquake or by some other force Curtius plunged armed into the chasm, Lacus Curtius not from ancient Sabine The name of the Lacus Curtius is better known from this more recent tale The Fortune of each people decided even battle with the Hernici in 362 B.C. T. Quinctius Poenus was dictator with Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis as mag. eq. Consul Licinius appointed a dictator to thwart his colleague's reelection Macer unreliable about Licinii, nothing in older sources, Gallic War that year Ancients even recorded that the Gaul stuck out his tongue Empulum taken from Tibur by both consuls or when Sulpicius against Tarquinii Plebeian M. Popilius recorded as consul of 354 B.C. for patrician T. Quinctius The quinqueviri mensarii of 352 B.C. earned lasting repute by their fairness Alternatives for the praenomen of T. Quinctius Poenus, consul of 351 B.C. Ten legions were levied from urban and rustic youth in 349 B.C. This is impossible now despite world empire, we are just richer Why the consul Camillus himself set out against Gauls, not appointing dictator Greek fleet off Latin Coast, from Sicily not mainland Greece that under Macedon Consul Corvus sold 4000 Volscian captives, more likely slaves than dediti Money lenders were tried by the aediles before the people in 344 B.C. State reverted to interregnum for no reason worthy of record Hereafter recording greater wars leading to empire that is scarcely sustained Military confrontation ended peacefully, not yet knew civil war Apparent major disturbance if the three Leges Genuciae conceded to the plebs No dictator involved, but consuls quelled very different sedition Nothing agreed upon except that a sedition arose and was quelled Alexander King of Epirus sailed to Italy in 340 B.C. The Latin Annius scoffed at Roman Jove invoked by the consuls in the senate

Annius fell down the steps, struck his head, and was knocked out All not agree that Annius died with thunder & high winds, leave it undecided Same dream appeared to both consuls that army of devoted leader would win Whether anger, shame, or Fate motivated Torquatus' son to fight the duel Haruspex showed Decius the liver before battle, it was favorable for Manlius Additional antiquarian details concerning devotio These things relevant despite nova peregrinaque preferred to priscis ac patriis Samnites late to aid Rome in battle, Latin praetor's saying about heavy price

33

34 Citation

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

8.12.1 8.15.8 8.18.1a 8.18.2-13b 8.18.2 8.19.13-4 8.20.4 8.20.6 8.22.7 8.23.17 8.24.1a 8.24.18b 8.26.6 8.30.4a

cm cm c s s s s s em em c em

u p alt pv pal cy i alt alt v i p py alt

agr po na agn agn ne nc nc nc nc nc mp | (nc

dom ant dom dom fas frn fm fm frn fas fm frn fm frn

seniores exisse constat, iuventutem aversatam credo ab incesto id ei loco nomen factum seu intemperie caeli seu humana fraude pervelim proditum falso, nec omnes auctores, sicut varie in annalibus invenio, parvi refert quid veri animadversum in eos scribit Claudius opificum quoque vulgus minime militiae dicuntur duplex fama, alii vi captam, alii in deditionem cum ... tum ... freta sive pestilentiae fidens Cursorem in aliis annalibus invenio proditum conditam, interfectum sortes adfirmasse haec de Alexandri eventu paucis dixisse satis sit Haud ignarus, traditur, dignius, similius vero seu indignitate accensus seu occasione

8.30.4b

cm

g

mr

ant

8.30.7c 8.30.7d 8.30.810€ 8.37.3 8.37.4-6 8.37.12 8.38.10 8.40 9.3.9-10 9.5.2-5a 9.11.13b 9.7.2-5 9.12.5 9.14.6

cm cm cm E c s s c s ecm cm

i nc alt (o pac ilo v nc pv. |! u ] i nc pv — agn i nc cv | p po i nc u agr alt nc

fm fm frn fas fm ani frn fm frn frm frn frn frn fm

— viginti milia hostium caesa eo die traduntur = auctores bis, apud antiquissimos una, quibusdam seu votum seu credere Fabio, argumentum, certe — Aulium quidam annales habent X sunt qui, ceterum fortuna Samn, propius vero memoriam ad patrum aetatem constat ab hora diei tertia ad octavam anceps dicitur . quidam, nec discrepat, ambigitur, reor falsis — dicitur ita ferme locutus esse — non ut vulgo credunt Claudiusque etiam scribit — forsitan et publica, sua certe liberata fide — dicitur silentium Samnitibus clamores excitaturum — fuisse et Satricanos cum iis satis constat quia aut pacem vere cupiebant aut simulare

9.15.8a

cm

v

nc

fm

. quibusdam in annalib invenio, minus miror obscurum

9.15.9-10b 9.15.11 9.16.1 9.16.11a 9.16.12b 9.16.13-9c 9.16.19d 9.17-19 9.23.5

cm

em cm cm cm c s

alt alt u v p gal pf p v

ne nc agr na po na mp po nc

fm — magis mirabile ambigi -ne an consulum id decus sit fas — error Cursorne an, in cognomine erratum sit fm convenit iam inde per consules reliqua belli frn — scribunt qui eo duce Luceriam auctores sunt fm haud dubie dignus omni bellica laude frn — ferunt seu virium vi seu exercitatione, destinant fm illa aetate, qua nulla virtutum feracior fuit frn — deverticula amoena, tacitus volutavi animum fm invenio apud quosdam adversam pugnam Romanis

9.26.7

s

alt

nc

fm

9.27.14 9.28.5 9.29.10-la 9.29.10b 9.30.5-10 9.36.2

s s cm em

i alt i sf P alt

nc nc nc mr mp — nc

fmrn fm mir rel rel fm

— — — — | — —

ad Imbrinium (ita vocant locum)

sive timoris seu conscientiae vi, Calavios

— caesa aut capta proditum memoriae est — sive dict sive cos, utrumque traditur, adiciunt traditur intra annum exstinctos, censorem deum ira — dictu mirabile, quod religionem facere posset — rem dictu parvam praeterirem ni ad religionem Caesonem alii, C. Claudium quidam tradunt

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

35

English Description of Content The elders alone came out to greet Manlius, but cursed by the young men Campus Sceleratus takes its name from the Vestal's crime (scelus) of incestum Many deaths in 331 B.C. caused either by bad weather or by poisoning I prefer plague but state tradition, first poisoning, women guilty, nail driven Surname of consul Valerius either Flaccus or Potitus, truth hardly matters Leading conspirators killed, 350 Fundani sent to Rome, senate refused deditio Emergency military levy of city folk for tumultus Gallicus in 329 B.C. Privernum and Vitruvius either taken by force or surrendered Palaepolis opposed Rome, relying upon Samnites or plague distracting Romans Some have L. Papirius Cursor consul for 326 B.C. for L. Papirius Mugillanus Alexandria founded this year, Alexander's death confirmed Oracle of Dodona Though not campaigned against Rome but in Italy, enough said about Alexander Naples surrendered by Samnite treachery, but treaty argues against this Why magister equitum Fabius engaged the Samnites at Imbrinium The site of this battle is called Imbrinium 20,000 of the enemy were slain in this battle Two battles recorded by some, one in oldest, completely passed over in others Magister equitum Fabius burned spoils, vow or not sharing glory with dictator Some accounts have Aulius as consul of 323 B.C. for Aemilius Whether cos Aemilius was sent to hostile or friendly Apulia, probably hostile Tusculans hereafter hostile to Pollia tribe for cruel vote on treachery charge Battle with Samnites in 322 B.C. was a complete stalemate for several hours Consuls not dictator waged war, hard to know truth, false family traditions Pontius' father brought into camp, explained his two conflicting opinions Caudine Peace was repudiated, which against common view and Quadrigarius Pontius released Caudine hostages, their own and perhaps public fides redeemed Campanian Calavius' speech about Roman shame and character, danger for Samnites Satricans were with Samnites in taking the Roman colony of Fregellae Why Samnites not engage Romans at Arpi when Tarentines intervened to make peace Pontius also sent under yoke at Luceria, no wonder that it is obscure

Whether dictator Cursor or consuls avenged Caudium at Luceria Whether L. Papirius Cursor or L. Papirius Mugillanus elected consul for 319 Henceforth it is agreed that the consuls of 319 finished off the campaign Cursor as consul in 319 took rebel Satricum, then to Rome for triumph Cursor indeed was worthy of all warlike glory Cursor unbeatable runner, other anecdotes, match for Alexander the Great No other age has been richer in virtues What if Rome had fought Alexander the Great Lautuiae in 315 B.C. was Roman defeat, not draw, magister equitum Aulius killed Suicide of Campanian Calavii to avoid dictator Maenius' inquiry 30,000 Samnites were killed or captured at Maleventum in 314 B.C. Whether dict or cos took Nola, cos took Atina and Calatia, dict for plague Potitii died out within the year, Ap. Claudius blinded by the gods This is marvelous to describe, could cause scruple for removing rites' status Secession of the flute players to Tibur, minor but concerns religion Name of consul M. Fabius' brother, scouting Ciminian Forest in 310 B.C.

36

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M

Key Latin Wording

9.36.3-4 9.36.4

C s

py i

|! nc

ant — habeo auctores vulgo tum Romanos, propius vero frn — servus ei dicitur comes unus fuisse

9.36.7-8

s

i

nc

fm

9.37.11-2 9.38.16 9.40.16 9.42.3 9.44.34 9.44.7-15 9.45.] 9.46.2a 9.46.3b 9.46.4-Tc 9.46.8-9 9.46.15 9.46.15 10.2.3 10.2.14—5 10.3.3—4a 10.3.6-8b 10.5.13 10.5.14 10.6.7-8 10.7.1-8 10.9.3-6 10.9.10-3a 10.11.9b 10.11.10 10.14.9 10.17.11a 10.17.12b 10.17.12c 10.18.1d 10.18.7a 10.18.7b 10.18.10c 10.19.13

c s s s C s S cm cm cm $ s s s 5 cm cm S C C c S cm cm S s cm em cm cm em cm em s

uv agr cv nc i nc v nc ev | alt ne alt nc v nc cv nc ual agr pf mp g nc i nc v nc p I pal | p l v nc uv — agr ppn | gi nc pf po pac ion c nc in nr alt ne v nc v nc v nc p agn v m alt agn p po £g nc

10.19.17

S

1

10.21.8 10.24.1-4 10.25.11-2a 10.25.13-8b 10.26.5c 10.26.6d 10.26.7e

s c cm cm em cm cm

i pal alt v v pv ou

10.26.10-la

cm

v

na

Camertes penetrasse dicuntur, de societate

frn rel rel dom fas frn fm dom dom dom dom dom rel fm ant fas fm frn dom rel dom dom fas dom fas frn fm fm frn fm fm frn írn frn

— ad Perusiam quidam auctores, ubicumque pugnatum — Macer tertia etiam clade ad Cremeram — natum initium dicitur Fori ornandi ab aedilibus petisse consulatum in quibusdam annalibus invenio Piso, memoriane an consulto incertum est alii Samnites victos, alii aequo Marte, quidam seu finem seu dilationem belli quaerentes invenio in quibusdam annalibus tabulam posuisse ante desisse scriptum facere arguit Macer id quod haud discrepat, civile ius, fastosque haud memorabilem rem, nisi documentum, referam ferunt Maximi cognomen ordinum temperatione ab eodem institutum dicitur equites idibus . in quibusdam annalibus invenio — multi supersunt qui viderunt Patavi, monumentum id magis credo quam, ex cognomine errorem a Fabio abhorret bellicis laudibus, memor — habeo auctores sine proelio, Cilnio cum plebe tradidere quidam, id unum non ambigitur — quemadmodum nisi morte, non invenio ferunt, rettulisse dicitur Decius parentis speciem reor paucorum plebis, credo. tum pudor, nunc vix Macerac Tubero, vetustior Piso, credo errorem scripsere quibus aedilem fuisse Fabium placet X nec traditur causa, interregnum initum — sive ... seu ..., aliquantum praebuerunt terroris . in quibusdam annalibus, tradunt X sunt qui consulum hanc gloriam faciant — quidam L. Volumnii, ei Samnium provinciam evenisse dum ea in Samnio cuiuscumque ductu geruntur litteras ad collegam in trinis annalibus invenio — piget in certo ponere, inter consules disceptatio — Appium credo animum habuisse iratum, ingrato animo — Appium addubitasse ferunt, signum dedisse

nc

rel

— dicitur Appius ita precatus esse

nc |! ne nc nc agn agr

ant dom fm dom fm dom frn

— ubi Sinope dicitur Graeca urbs fuisse ordinum reor certamen, certe contentio in senatu — sive sponte sua sive s. c., utrumque auctores ab Appio quidam volunt, Decium censuisse ferunt . invenio apud quosdam extemplo profectos sunt qui (ne satis fuerit) adiecerint — constare res incipit quo profecti ambo ad bellum

fm

. deletam quidam auctores sunt, suspensa capita

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

English Description of Content Romans used to learn Etruscan, but he was special in daring to go among enemy This scout went with single slave who also knew Etruscan Scout came to Umbrian Camertes and concluded alliance Perusia was site of this battle, fear in Rome, great victory wherever fought Curia Faucia bad omen for lex de imperio, Cremera with Allia and Caudium Origin of aediles adorning Forum with silver shields when public processions Censor Ap. Claudius sought consulship. blocked by tribune, abdicated censorship Piso omitted consulships for the two years 307—6, overlooked or deliberate How Samnites beaten and Bovianum taken in 305, whether consul Minucius died Samnites sent ambassadors to Rome in 304, seeking either delay or end of war Scribe Cn. Flavius laid aside tablets and swore not to be scribe Flavius already tribune, triumvir nocturnus, & triumvir coloniae deducendae Contended with nobles, published civil law and calendar. dedicated Concordia

Lesson in freedom against nobles' arrogance, Flavius visited sick colleague Censor Rullianus named Maximus for concord by freedmen into urban tribes Censor Fabius Rullianus also began yearly transvectio equitum of July 15

Dictator not consul against Cleonymus 302 but left Italy before Romans arrived Rostra from Cleonymus at Patavium in Juno's shrine, victory celebrated yearly Aemilius Paulus magister equitum, not Fabius Maximus, error from surname Magister equitum beaten in dictator's absence, could not have been Fabius Max

Dict pacified Etruria without battle, Cilnii of Arretium reconciled with plebs Dict Corvus made cos in absence by interrex, at least cos with Apuleius Pansa Not know how augurs decreased from six to four by 300 B.C. unless by death Debate of Ogulnian Law between Claudius and Decius, devotio of Decius' father Lex Valeria needed renewal, powerful few vs. plebs, shame stronger than now Rullianus aed cur with Cursor, other names in Piso, surname caused confusion

Fabius Maximus used his great talents as aedile to handle a grain shortage It is not recorded why the state reverted to an interregnum in 299 B.C. Samnites frightened Romans in battle at Tifernum, by numbers or great occasion Greater glory to Fabius taking Ferentinum & Romulea, Decius took Murgantia This military glory went to the consuls of 296, Ap. Claudius & L. Volumnius Glory went to L. Volumnius alone who was assigned to Samnium While these things in Samnium were being conducted by whomever Consul Claudius summoned colleague Volumnius by letter from Samnium to Etruria This matter is uncertain, Appius denied sending, Volumnius affirmed receiving Claudius checked joy at Volumnius' arrival, either rightly angry or ungrateful Claudius grudgingly entered battle to aid Volumnius Claudius’ archaic direct speech, vow to Bellona for victory Roman colony of Sinuessa founded at former Greek site of Sinope Fabius & Decius friends, conflict from the orders, contention in senate Consul Fabius returned to Rome, either own decision or by senate's decree Praetor Claudius urged Fabius' recall, Decius against this After entering office, Fabius and Decius set out for Etruria without contention Some add further contention among Claudius, Fabius, and Decius Sources begin to agree when both consuls set out for the war Gauls destroyed camp legion, news to consuls by advancing Gallic cavalry

37

38

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M_

Key Latin Wording

10.26.12b 10.26.13c 10.30.4a 10.30.5-6b 10.30.7c 10.37.13a 10.37.13b 10.37.14-5c 10.40.9-10 10.41.5 10.42.6 10.46.7

cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm s S c c

v pal p pv v un cv cv pf v ial pv

na | I | m nagr na na mp nc nc lon

fm — sunt qui Umbros victos esse captivosque fm — similius vero est a Gallo hoste quam Umbro fm magna... fama est, etiam vero stanti fm superiecere augendo fidem, Volumnium adiciunt fm in pluribus annalibus consulum victoria frn huiusanni parum constans memoria est fm auctor est Claudius fm Fabius ambo consules, non adiecit, lovis Statoris rel — iuvenis ante doctrinam deos spernentem natus fm X Octavium Maecium quidam eum tradunt frn | memoriae traditur seu ingenio seu fiducia rel — apud neminem veterem auctorem invenio, neque

Chapter 1: Assembling and Defining the Data

English Description of Content Umbrians attacked foragers, camp legion came out and defeated them Roman defeat by Gauls because Rome frightened by tumultus Gallicus that year Sentinum was a great victory even by a truthful reckoning 600,000 enemy foot, 46,000 horse, 1000 chariots, proconsul Volumnius added Sentinum was fought by the consuls, Volumnius was successful in Samnium The tradition is not consistent about the activities of the consuls of 294 Atilius enjoyed Etruscan triumph, Postumius was beaten, driven into Luceria Both consuls in Samnium and Luceria, someone to Etruria, Jove Stator vowed Youth reported pullarii dispute to consul, born before religious skepticism

Octavius Maecius was commander who raised dust at Aquilonia in 293 No general more joyful than Cursor, either by own nature or confidence Cursor dedicated Quirinus' shrine vowed by father, not vowed at Aquilonia

39

CHAPTER 2: LIVY'S CAUTION TOWARD THE HISTORICAL TRADITIONS OF EARLY ROME!

The single most dominant characteristic revealed by the data base is Livy's caution toward the historical traditions of early Rome. After subtracting from the 380 records the 21 minor personal remarks (mp), the 7 minor remarks (mr), and

the 19 records labeled "not applicable" (na), which by their definition involve no attempted resolution of an issue, there remain 333 records for which method of resolution is relevant, but among these 333 records there are 210 (63.196) that are either qualified statements with no Livian comment or assertions which Livy has openly questioned or has been hesitant to accept. These 210 records have the following distribution in terms of their method of resolution: 24 in which Livy has professed agnosticism or outright skepticism (agn); 4 concerning which his sources were not in agreement, and which Livy has therefore left unresolved (nagr); 10 issues about which Livy has found nothing recorded in his sources, and on which he has reached no conclusion (nr); | instance in which Livy has not

dared to register as certain what was found in some authors but was not mentioned in older writers (1 of 2 on); and, by far the most numerous, 171 records in which he has cited a variant, has given alternatives, or has used an impersonal or anonymous attribution without offering his own opinion (nc). Table of Quantitative Results

Total

NC

AGN

NR

NAGR

ON

210 10096 333?

171 81.4% 51.496

24 114% 7.2096

10 4.76% 3.00%

4 1.90% 1.20%

] 0.476% 0.300%

! With this chapter the reader may profitably compare the first chapter of Gary B. Miles’ Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome, Ithaca NY

1995, “History and Memory in Livy's Narrative”

pp.7-84. Pages 16-47 and 61-2 in particular complement and parallel many of the ideas expressed in this chapter concerning Livy's agnosticism and use of qualifying language. On the other hand, Mary Jaeger’s Livy's Written Rome, Ann Arbor 1997 concerns itself with what might be considered the antonym of the theme of this chapter: namely, the importance of memory and monuments in Livy’s narrative. See especially Chapter 1, “The History as Monument.” 2 In addition to listing what percentage each of these different sets of Livian statements contribute to the total of 210 records in which Livy fails to resolve issues, it also seems appropriate to set forth in what proportion these same sets of data make up the total of 333 records for which method of resolution is relevant. These percentages can therefore be compared with those involving resolved issues set out at the beginning of the next chapter.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

4]

Similarly, when these same data are classified according to type, the dominant pattern which clearly emerges is Livy's overall reticence to comment or pass judgment on the credibility of numerous aspects of the early Roman historical tradition. 131 of these 210 records (62.4%) are simple in type. These generally include a single attributive or qualifying word or phrase with no comment or judgment on Livy's part. Of the remaining 79 records 12 are complex, and 67 are complex multiples. Moreover, since by their very nature record of simple and complex type correspond to discrete passages, these simple and complex records together comprise

143 or 54.6% of the 262 passages of the entire data base to

which method of resolution is applicable.? In addition, in 13 other which have been resolved into complex multiples, Livy has left undecided or without any significant comment.‘ Thus, 156 or 59.5% issues raised by Livy throughout the course of his first ten books are go without comment or remain unresolved. This reluctance to become in controversies over historical facts agrees with Livy’s programmatic in ss.4—12 of his praefatio:

passages, the matter of the 262 allowed to embroiled statement

I have no doubt that [Rome's] origins and matters following close upon them

will afford less pleasure to many of my readers, who shall jump ahead to recent affairs in which the might of a people, dominant for a long time, is exhausting itself. 5 I, on the other hand, shall seek reward for my effort in turning myself away from the sight of the evils which our age has beheld for so many years, for at least as long as I am fully contemplating those famous deeds of yore.... 6 It is not my intent either to affirm or to refute (nec adfirmare nec refellere) our city's traditions preceding or connected with its

foundation, things which are more fitting for poetic tales (poeticis fabulis) than the uncontaminated records of events. 7 This indulgence is granted to antiquity: to make the beginnings of cities more august by combining the ? Although the 380 records of the data base derive from 276 passages, method of resolution is not explicitly involved in 14 passages: 2.2.2, 3.4.1, 3.8.2, 3.20.5, 3.57.8, 4.6.12, 4.25.13, 7.21.6-7, 7.29.1—2, 7.40.1-2, 8.10.11—11.1, 9.30.5-10, 9.46.8-9, and 10.40.9-10. Nevertheless, many implicitly involve Livy's tacit acceptance of various details of alleged facts. Thus, some of these 14 passages will be discussed throughout this study. The index of Livian passages can be used to locate treatments of specific passages. * They are the following: 1.4.6—7 (whether Romulus and Remus were nursed by a she-wolf or by a prostitute), 1.11.7-9 (Tarpeia), 1.24.4—9 (first fetial treaty between Rome and Alba). 1.36.4-5 (Tarquinius Priscus and Attus Navius), 2.21.3-4 (the date of the battle at Lake

Regillus), 4.23.1-3 (the chief magistrates of 434), 5.22.5—6 (details concerning the evocario of Juno from Veii), 7.2 (the origin of drama at Rome), 8.18.1-3 (whether plague or poisoning caused deaths in 331). 8.24 (digression on the foundation of Alexandria and on the death of Alexander of Epirus in southern Italy), 9.15.8-10 (how the Caudine disaster was avenged). 10.17.11-18.1 (who received the military glory for 296), and 10.18.7 (whether Ap. Claudius summoned Volumnius by letter into Etruria). Livy's brief and non-committal treatment of the story of Tarpeia stands in sharp contrast to the lengthy and elaborate account of Dionysius of Halicarnassus

(2.38—40),

who

cites Fabius

Pictor and Cincius

Alimentus

for the traditional

version and juxtaposes it to Piso's revised form of the tale. Dionysius was clearly captivated by the latter's use of probability.

42

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

human with the divine. If any people be permitted to enshrine their origins and to trace their founders back to the gods, such is the military renown of the Roman people that when they claim Mars above all to be their ancestor and father of their founder, nations should permit this also with as much equanimity as they endure Rome's dominion. 8 Yet, in no wise will I regard these things and things like them of great importance, however they are considered and judged. 9 In my view, each person should keenly observe for himself what were their life style and character, and by what men and skills at home and abroad an empire was both acquired and increased. Let him observe how next, when discipline was slowly declining, morals first sunk, gradually slipped, and then began to fall headiong until they reached these times in which we can endure neither our vices nor their remedies. 10 What is especially salutary and profitable in the study of history is that you observe lessons of every example (omnis exempli documenta) set down in a distinguished record, from which you may take for yourself and your state what you wish to emulate, and to avoid what is foul in its inception or foul in its issue. 11 Indeed, either fondness of the work undertaken has deceived me, or no other state has ever been greater, more virtuous, or more richly endowed with

good

models

of conduct

(bonis

exemplis).

Neither

did

greed

and

extravagance enter into a state so late, nor were poverty and frugality anywhere held in such great honor and for so long a time. 12 To be sure, there was less covetousness inasmuch as there were fewer possessions, but now wealth abounding in greed and pleasures has introduced the desire of perishing and of destroying everything through luxury and caprice.? 5 Livy praef. 4-12: Et legentium plerisque haud dubito quin primae origines proximaque originibus minus praebitura voluptatis sint, festinantibus ad haec nova quibus iam pridem praevalentis populi vires se ipsae conficiunt: 5 ego contra hoc quoque laboris praemium petam, ut me a conspectu malorum quae nostra tot per annos vidit aetas, tantisper certe dum prisca tota illa mente repeto. avertam.... 6 Quae ante conditam condendamve urbem poeticis magis decora

fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est. 7 Datur haec venia anriquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat; et si cui populo licere oportet consecrare origines suas et ad deos referre

auctores, ea belli gloria est populo Romano. ut cum suum conditorisque sui parentem Martem potissimum ferat, tam et hoc gentes humanae patiantur aequo animo quam imperium patiuntur.

8 Sed haec et his similia, utcumque animadversa aut existimata erunt, haud in magno equidem ponam discrimine: 9 ad illa mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit; labente deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentes primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, tum ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec tempora quibus nec vitia

nostra nec remedia pati possumus perventum est. 10 Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac frugiferum. Omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri; inde tibi tuaeque rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu quod vites. |I Ceterum aut me amor negotii suscepti fallit, aut nulla unquam res publica nec maior nec sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit, nec in quam civitatem tam serae avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint, nec ubi tantus ac tam diu paupertati ac parsimoniae honos fuerit. 12 Adeo quanto rerum minus, tanto minus cupiditatis erat: nuper divitiae avaritiam et abundantes

voluptates desiderium per luxum aique libidinem pereundi perdendique omnia invexere.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

43

Livy makes it abundantly clear that he is not interested in critically evaluating the historicity of every detail or claim associated with early times. Rather, he concerns himself with what he considers to be the larger moral themes. As will be discussed in the fourth chapter, the latter approach is fraught with its own difficulties and involves Livy in accepting many unhistorical events and circumstantial details. Nevertheless, Livy's basic caution is clearly emphasized from the very beginning of the work: for immediately after the preface Livy begins his first chapter with the words: "Now

first of all, it is agreed..." (iam

primum omnium satis constat...). This phrase, signifying agreement in Livy's sources, introduces an indirect statement describing how Antenor and Aeneas left Troy to establish new nations in Italy, and this sentence occupies the first four sections of the history (1.1.1—4). Moreover, 1.1.6—9 sets forth alternative accounts

of the encounter between Aeneas and Latinus. Thus, 8 of the 11 sections of Livy's first chapter are qualified with the anonymous attributions satis constat... and duplex inde fama... alii... alii.... After briefly describing the war between Aeneas and Turnus in chapter 2, Livy states at 1.3.2 that he will not bother debating whether Ascanius

was

born of Creusa

at Troy

or of Lavinia

in Latium, but he

dismisses the matter by invoking agreement on the point that he was the son of Aeneas (certe natum Aenea constat). Livy even asks rhetorically: "Who would claim (adfirmet) certainty on such an ancient subject ?"6

Livy's use of adfirmet clearly recalls the preface's agnostic phrase nec adfirmare nec refellere, and the theme of 'the long passage of time' (vetustas) as a major obstacle in ascertaining the truth is a leitmotif that runs throughout the first decade. Wording most closely resembling that of the preface is encountered in Livy's description of the Roman capture of Veii at 5.21.8-9: “At this point there is added the tale (fabula) that while the king of Veii was sacrificing, the voice of the haruspex was heard saying that victory would belong to him who cut off for sacrifice the entrails of the sacrificial victim, and the Roman soldiers were moved to throw open the siege tunnel, seized the entrails, and brought them to the dictator (sc. Camillus)" Livy rejects this obvious melodramatic fiction by commenting:

"But in matters so ancient

| would be content if probable things

were accepted as true. It is not worthwhile either to affirm or to refute these things, which are more fitting for a stage performance that revels in marvels rather than what is believable."5 Similarly, in closing his narration of the events For modern discussion of Livy's praefatio see L. Amundsen SO 25 (1947) 31-5, P. G.

Walsh AJP 76 (1955) 369-83, I. Kajanto Arctos N.S. 2 (1958) 55-63, R. M. Ogilvie A Commentary on Livy Books 1—5, Oxford 1965 23-9 (hereafter cited as Ogilvie 1965), M. Mazza. Storia e Ideologia in Tito Livio: per un' Analisi storiografica della Praefatio ai Libri ab urbe condita, Catania 1966 77-128, and J. Moles PCPS 39 (1993) 141-68.

$ Livy 1.3.2: Quis enim rem tam veterem pro certo adfirmet? ? Livy 5.21.8: Inseritur huic loco fabula: immolante rege Veientium, vocem haruspicis. dicentis qui eius hostiae exta prosecuisset, ei victoriam dari, exauditam in cuniculo movisse Romanos milites, ut adaperto cuniculo exta raperent et ad dictatorem ferrent.

8 Livy 5.21.9: Sed in rebus tam antiquis, si quae similia veri sint pro veris accipiantur, satis habeam: haec ad ostentationem scenae gaudentis miraculis aptiora quam ad fidem neque adfirmare neque refellere est operae pretium.

44

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

of 459 Livy (3.23.7) observes: “I find in several authors that the Antiates revolted in this year, and that the consul L. Cornelius conducted the war and captured the city. I would not dare to assert its certainty (certum adfirmare ... non ausim) because there is no mention of the matter in older writers.”? Two other passages best illustrate the Livian notion of vetustas. In imitation of the historical preface of Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, whose work began with the Gallic capture of Rome (see Plut. Numa 1.1), Livy (6.1.1—3) prefaces his second pentad with the following words: I have set forth in five books Roman affairs from the city's foundation to its capture, its foreign wars and domestic seditions, occurring first under the kings and then under consuls, dictators, decemvirs, and consular tribunes — matters obscure not only by the extreme passage of time (vetustate nimia) as if they were things seen from a great distance, but especially because writing, the only reliable guardian for the recording of deeds, was rare in those days, and because even if there were things contained in the pontifical commentaries and in other public and private records, they perished for the most part when the city was burned. Henceforth greater clarity and certitude will characterize the recounting of foreign and domestic affairs of the city, which rose more

luxuriant and fruitful from its second origin as if sprung from shoots.!° Despite this optimistic forecast, Livy concludes

his eighth book as follows

(8.40):

Some authors write that this campaign was conducted by the consuls, that they triumphed over the Samnites, and that Fabius even advanced into Apulia and thence carried off much booty. There is no disagreement that A. Cornelius was dictator that year, but it is disputed whether he was appointed for conducting war or in order to be the one who gave the signal to the chariots at the Roman Games (since the praetor L. Plautius happened to be incapacitated by a serious illness), and who resigned from office after performing this For modern discussions of the dramatic character of ancient historiography see B. L. U!lman TAPA 73 (1942) 25-53 and F. W. Walbank Historia 9 (1960) 216-34. Alternatively, T. P. Wiseman in Roman Drama and Roman History, Exeter 1998 1-74 has used this Livian passage along with much other ancient material to argue that dramatic stage performances were important during republican times in crystallizing many Roman tales, which historians then incorporated into their narratives. ? Livy 3.23.7: Eodem anno descisse Antiates apud plerosque auctores invenio; L. Cornelium consulem id bellum gessisse oppidum cepisse. Certum adfirmare, quia nulla apud vetustiores scriptores eius rei mentio est, non ausim.

10 Livy 6.1.1-3: Quae ab condita urbe Roma ad captam eandem Romani sub regibus primum, consulibus deinde ac dictatoribus decemvirisque ac tribunis consularibus gessere. foris bella, domi seditiones, quinque libris exposui, 2 res cum vetustate nimia obscuras velut quae magno ex intervallo loci vix cernuntur,

tum quod rarae per eadem tempora litterae fuere, una

custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, et quod, etiam si quae in commentariis pontificum aliisque publicis privatisque erant monumentis, incensa urbe pleraeque interiere. 3 Clariora deinceps certioraque ab secunda origine velut ab stirpibus laetius feraciusque renatae urbis gesta domi militiaeque exponentur.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

45

undistinguished duty. It is not easy to prefer one thing over the other or one author over another.

I think that the tradition has been

contaminated

by

funeral eulogies and by false inscriptions on busts, since various families have fraudulently arrogated to themselves the repute of deeds and offices. As a result, both individuals' deeds and the public records of events have certainly been thrown into confusion. Nor is there any writer contemporary

with those times who could serve as a reliable standard.!! In describing the conspiracy in Rome to restore the Tarquins during the first

year of the republic, Livy at 2.4.1—2 states that the plot involved the Vitellii, Aquillii, the two sons of the consul Brutus, and some other noble youths "record of whom has disappeared due to the passage of time" (quorum vetustate memoria abiit). In 7.6.1-6 for the year 362 Livy narrates how a chasm opened in the middle of the Forum, and how M. Curtius sacrificed himself for the preservation of the Roman state. The entire passage is heavily qualified, beginning with seu ... seu ... in explaining what might have caused the chasm. Dicitur is then used to describe the chasm's appearance, the Romans’ inability to fill it with earth, and the soothsayers' interpretation of its divine significance. Livy then employs ferunt to begin an indirect statement which recounts M. Curtius" self immolation and expresses the view that the Lacus Curtius took its name from this man, not from the Sabine warrior Mettius Curtius who served under T. Tatius. Livy concludes the passage with the tortuous personal observation: "Diligence would not be lacking if some path were to lead the inquirer to the truth. In a situation in which the passage of time (vetustas) makes certainty impossible, we must now stand by the historical tradition (fama rerum); and the name of the pool is better known from this more recent tale (fabula)."!? In describing the military events for the year 464 Livy (3.5.12-3) offers the following comment on Valerius Antias"

recording of precise battle casualties: In so ancient a matter it is difficult to maintain for certain with an exact figure (ad fidem ... exacto adfirmare numero) how many fought and fell in battle. Nevertheless, Valerius Antias dares to specify the figures: that 5800 Romans I Livy 8.40: Hoc bellum a consulibus bellatum quidam auctores sunt, eosque de Samnitibus triumphasse; Fabium etiam in Apuliam processisse atque inde magnas praedas egisse. 2 Nec discrepat quin dictator eo anno A. Cornelius fuerit; id ambigitur belline gerendi causa creatus sit an ut esset qui ludis Romanis, quia L. Plautius praetor gravi morbo forte implicitus erat, signum

mittendis quadrigis daret functusque eo haud sane memorandi

imperii ministerio se

dictatura abdicaret. 3 Nec facile est aut rem rei aut auctorem auctori praeferre. vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, 4 dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallente mendacio trahunt; inde certe et singulorum gesta

et publica monumenta rerum confusa. 5 Nec quisquam aequalis temporibus illis scriptor exstat, quo satis certo auctore stetur. For a discussion of this passage's context and its historical and historiographical significance see below pp.68-70. 12 Livy 7.6.6: Cura non deesset, si qua ad verum via inquirentem ferret. Nunc fama rerum standum est, ubi certam derogat vetustas fidem; et lacus nomen ab hac recentiore insignitius

fabula est.

46

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

fell in Hernican territory; that of the Aequian raiders who roamed about pillaging Roman territory, the consul A. Postumius killed 2400; that another body, driving off plunder, fell upon Quinctius and was destroyed in a totally uneven slaughter, which according to Antias' subtle reckoning resulted in

4230 dead.!3 This last passage raises the interesting question of Livy's attitude toward the authenticity and recording of figures in his first ten books. He in fact records very

few precise numbers in the first pentad.!* The overwhelming majority of figures given in the first decade are found in Books IX-X, apparently because Livy believed that the Second and Third Samnite Wars stood at the early dawn of truly historical times, and the figures recorded in association with their events were

more credible.!? Especially noteworthy in this regard is that 10.46, the penultimate chapter of the first decade, contains the decade's only precise figures for booty carried in a triumph. His handling of census figures adheres to this same pattern. In recording the first census conducted by Servius Tullius, Livy at 1.44.2 qualifies the figure of 80,000 with dicuntur and adds the variant detail from Fabius Pictor that this number represented those capable of bearing arms. Moreover, Livy is careful to reinforce Pictor's testimony by terming him scriptorum antiquissimus. Unlike Dionysius of Halicarnassus who records census figures for 508, 498, 493, and 474,!6 Livy fails to give any census statistics again until 465, where at 3.3.9 he once more qualifies the figure with dicuntur; and when at 3.24.10 he mentions the census of 459, he attaches ferunt to the statement that this was the tenth census, after which he gives the census figure for that lustrum. Conversely, although Livy records the election of censors from the mid fifth century onwards, the only two other census figures recorded in the first decade are at 9.19.2 for 319 and at 10.47.2 for 294—3, and in neither case does Livy qualify the census return in any way. '3 Livy 3.5.12-3: Difficile ad fidem est in tam antiqua re, quot pugnaverint ceciderintque. exacto adfirmare numero. Audet tamen Antias Valerius concipere summas: 13 Romanos cecidisse in Hernico agro quinque milia octingentos; ex praedatoribus Aequorum, qui populabundi in finibus Romanis vagabantur, ab A. Postumio consule duo milia et quadringentos caesos; ceteram multitudinem praedam agentem, quae inciderit in Quinctium, nequaquam pari defunctam esse caede: interfecta inde quartuor milia et, exsequendo subtiliter numerum, ducentos ait et triginta.

Two sections further on Livy states that the Roman senate dismissed virtually in disgrace 1000 Antiate soldiers for their late arrival. Three chapters later at 3.8.10 he records a devastating defeat

of the

Volscians

in which

13,470

were

killed,

1750

were

captured,

and

standards were taken. Livy says that he found these numbers in quibusdam annalibus Valerius Antias), "where even if something has been added to the numbers. it was great slaughter." 14 2.22.5 (6000 Latin captives returned after the battle of Lake Regillus), 3.15.5 Ap. Herdonius with 2500 men seized the Capitoline in 460), 4.57.7 (3000 captured in Fucine Lake

in 408), 4.59.8 (2500 captured in the Roman

27 military

(doubtless certainly a (the Sabine a fort at the

storming of Anxur in 406), 5.32.3

(8000 Sappinates rounded up and disarmed by the Roman cavalry in 391). 15 The only other places in the decade where Livy qualifies figures for battle casualties are at 8.30.7 and 9.27.14.

16 See respectively Dion. Hal. 5.20, 5.75.3, 6.96.4, and 9.36.3.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

47

Livy's approach to problems of the consular fasti reveals both cautious agnosticism and indifference to minute matters of nomenclature. The difficulties caused by vetustas are twice mentioned in this regard. After describing the battle of Lake Regillus under the year 499, Livy remarks as follows when he comes to the year 496 (2.21.34):

I find in certain writers that the battle at Lake Regillus was finally fought in this year, and that because A. Postumius' colleague was of questionable loyalty, he resigned from office and was appointed dictator. So great then are the chronological errors, since the magistrates are arrayed in one way by one author and differently by another, so that one cannot outline what consuls followed which, or what was done in each year, because the passage of time so greatly (tanta vetustate) enshrouds not only the events but also the authors.!” Similarly, in discussing the identity of the chief magistrates for 434 Livy at 4.23.1—3 cites the different views of Licinius Macer,

Valerius Antias, and Q.

Tubero, as well as alluding to scriptores antiqui and to Macer's use of the Libri Lintei, but Livy closes the matter by remarking, "let this also be left in uncertainty along with other things obscured by the passage of time (vetustate)."'8 Of the 38 records whose subject matter concerns the consular fasti, there are ten instances in which Livy merely notes briefly that a discrepancy existed with respect to a magistrate's name. His general attitude toward such things is perhaps best illustrated by 8.18.2 for the year 331, one of whose consuls was C. Valerius.

Concerning his surname Livy observes: "I find the consul's cognomen variously recorded in the annals as Flaccus and Potitus, but it matters little what the truth is."!? Likewise, at 2.54.3 for the year 473 Livy writes: "L. Aemilius and Opiter Verginius entered upon the consulship. In some annals I find Vopiscus Julius as

consul in place of Verginius. In this year, whoever the consuls were,...."?9 Livy then narrates the events of this year in such a way that he is never obliged to mention either consul by name, apparently in order not to be troubled with having to make a decision concerning the one consul's identity. In eight other passages Livy's extremely terse reference to similar discrepancies over a magistrate's name conveys the distinct impression that Livy is not too concerned about such things but feels obliged as a historian of the Roman state to at least record these

anomalies.?! U Livy 2.21.3-4: Hoc demum anno ad Regillum Lacum pugnatum apud quosdam invenio; A. Postumium, quia collega dubiae fidei fuerit, se consulatu abdicasse; dictatorem inde factum. 4 Tanti errores implicant temporum, aliter apud alios ordinatis magistratibus, ut nec qui consules secundum quos, nec quid quoque anno actum sit, in tanta vetustate non rerum modo sed

etiam auctorum digerere possit. I8 Livy 4.23.3: Sit inter cetera vetustate cooperta hoc quoque in incerto positum. 19 Livy 8.18.2: Flaccum Potitumque varie in annalibus cognomen consulis invenio. Ceterum in eo parvi refert quid veri sit. 20 Livy 2.54.3: L. Aemilius et Opiter Verginius consulatum ineunt. Vopiscum lulium pro Verginio in quibusdam annalibus consulem invenio. Hoc anno, quoscumque consules habuit... ?! See 4.21.10, 4.26.2, 4.46.11, 7.18.10, 7.22.3, 8.23.17, 8.37.3, and 9.15.11. Cf. 3.4.1 and 3.8.2 concerning remarks on alternative spellings of Furius and Veturius.

48

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

Livy's relationship to the annalistic tradition on early Rome was a complex

one, involving critical rationalism and romantic idealism mediated by his deep respect for Roman traditions and his conscientious sense as a historian to record what he found generally accepted in his sources. The intersection of these perspectives is well demonstrated by Livy's comment on the famous exploit of Horatius Cocles and his explanation for numerous deaths in Rome during the year 331 B.C. In describing the former's soie defense of the bridge across the Tiber in the face of Porsenna's advancing army, Livy at 2.10.11 characterizes Cocles’ dive into the river while still fully armed and his swim to safety as "a thing intended to confer more fame than belief in the eyes of posterity" (rem ausus plus famae habituram ad posteros quam fidei). Thus, by this single terse expression Livy has discharged his duty as a recorder of received tradition but has also clearly intimated his own skeptical disbelief. Writing a century or more before Livy, Polybius (6.55.1—4) recorded Cocles' bravery as an illustration of Roman civic values in his description of the Roman constitution, but in his version the hero more aptly drowns in the Tiber, so that his heroism lies not only in his sole defense of the bridge but even more in his selfless act of supreme sacrifice. Later writers, however, motivated by a different sense of patriotic pride, recast the story to have the hero saved from death and heaped with public honors. Livy's reverent skepticism stands in sharp contrast to what we find in Dionysius (5.24.3) and Plutarch (Publ. 16.4), both of whom record Cocles' marvelous swim to safety with no hint of disbelief. At 8.18.1-3 concerning many deaths in Rome during 331, for which the sources variously gave plague and poisoning as explanations, Livy writes:

The following year was hideous either due to the intemperate weather or from human deceit.... The authors are not in agreement. I would prefer that it has been falsely reported that poisoning killed those whose deaths by plague made the year infamous. Nevertheless, in order that [ not deprive any writer

of credit (fidem), the matter must be set forth just as it is reported.?? Although Livy prefers the less scandalous explanation of plague. he devotes the remainder of this chapter to narrating how the deaths were caused by a poisoning conspiracy of Roman women, and how the plot was detected, punished, and expiated. Livy clearly saw one of his primary duties as a historian of early Rome to record faithfully the various traditions, whether true or false, and whether or not he believed them. In describing the famous duel between T. Manlius Torquatus and the Gaul, Livy at 7.10.5 relates the detail of the Gaul taunting Manlius by sticking out his tongue "because even that seemed to the

ancients to be worthy of record. "?? 22 Livy 8.18.1-3: Foedus insequens annus seu intemperie caeli seu humana fraude fuit.... 2 Hiud pervelim (nec omnes auctores sunt) proditum falso esse venenis absumptos, quorum mors infamem annum pestilentia fecerit. 3 Sicut proditur tamen res, ne cui auctorum fidem abrogaverim, exponenda est. 23 Livy 7.10.5: quoniam id quoque memoria dignum antiquis visum est. This detail is also found in the account of Claudius Quadrigarius (Gell. 9.13.12), who, unlike Livy, records it asa matter of fact without any qualification: deinde Gallus inridere coepit atque linguam exeriare.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

49

Livy was certainly not unique in maintaining respectful reverence and agnostic rationalism toward hallowed historical traditions. In fact, this symbiosis of seemingly contradictory attitudes was probably widely shared by well educated

persons of Livy's day. Livy's intellectual stance can be further contextualized by the opening sections of Cicero's De Legibus (1.1—5):

Atticus: "Indeed, that is the famous grove, and this is the well known oak tree of Arpinum, about which I have often read in your poem ‘Marius’; for if that oak tree still stands, this is certainly it, and it is very old indeed." Quintus: "To be sure, Atticus, it still stands and always will because it has been planted by genius. A plant cannot be propagated by the tending of a farmer as long as it can by the verses of a poet." Atticus: "In what way, Quintus, or what kind is it that poets plant? By praising your brother you seem to me to be canvassing for yourself." 2 Quintus: "So be it. Yet, as long as Latin literature lives, this place will not lack an oak tree called Marian. As Scaevola says concerning my brother's poem ‘Marius’, the oak tree shall continue to sing for countless ages, unless by chance your Athens has been able to keep the olive tree on the Acropolis everlasting, or they point out today the same tall slender palm tree which Homer's Odysseus said that he saw at Delos. Many other things in many places remain longer through remembrance than they could have stood by nature. Therefore, let this now be that famous acorn bearing oak from which there once flew forth 'the golden messenger bird of Jupiter of wondrous form'. Although it will be consumed by weather or the passage of time (vetustas), yet there will be in this locale an oak tree which they will call the Marian oak." 3 Atticus: "I don't doubt it at all, but now I'll ask this not of you, Quintus, but of the poet himself. Did your verses plant this tree or did you receive (acceperis) that it happened as you write concerning Marius?" Marcus: “I'll certainly give you a reply, but not before you yourself, Atticus, answer me whether Romulus in fact, while walking not far from your house after his disappearance, told Proculus Julius that he was a god and was called Quirinus, and he ordered a temple to be dedicated to him in that place, and whether it is true that also not far from that venerable home of yours in Athens the North Wind carried off Orithyia; for thus it has been related (est traditum)." 4 Atticus: "For what purpose and why do you ask these things?" Marcus: "For no reason at all except in order that you not inquire too closely into those things which have been handed on to posterity (memoriae sint prodita) in this way." Atticus: "But it is asked of many things in your *Marius' whether they are true or have been invented (fictane an vera). Some demand the truth from you because it involves recent times and a man from Arpinum." Marcus: “By god, I do not want to be considered a liar (mendacem), but nevertheless, those ‘some’ of yours, Titus, act unwisely, who purpose to exact the truth not from a poet but from a witness in the court room. I have no doubt that these same fellows think that Numa conversed with Egeria, and that an eagle placed a cap upon Tarquin's head." 5 Quintus: "I understand you, my brother, to say that one set of rules is to be observed in writing history, and another in poetry." Marcus: Of course, Quintus, since in the

50

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

former everything is recorded with a view to truth, whereas in the latter several things are related with a view to giving delight — although even in Herodotus, the father of history, and in Theopompus there are countless tales (fabulae)." The conceptual content and even the vocabulary of this Ciceronian passage are strikingly similar to what we encounter in reference to Livy's handling of early Roman history. Cicero's use of the phrases est traditum and memoriae sint prodita clearly indicates that Cicero is concerned here with the nature and proper literary treatment of tralatician traditions. In fact, these and similar verbs in the third person, passive voice constitute the most common form of qualifying statements in the Livian data base. Cicero's acceperis signifies the formal receipt and transmission of information from some other source but without necessarily requiring the actual endorsement of the intermediary. Eight records of the data base are distinguished by Livy's use of a form of accipio. Cicero's strict standards for historical truth and far more indulgent expectations of poetry are paralleled by the contrast made in Livy's preface between poeticis fabulis and incorruptis

rerum gestarum monumentis.^* It should be emphasized that this distinction was one which both Livy and Cicero consciously recognized. Indeed, Cicero ridicules those who misapply the two standards, resulting in their uncritical acceptance of the marvelous. Even Cicero's allusion to Herodotus helps to elucidate Livy's relationship to early Roman history. Both authors labored under the difficulties of writing non-contemporary histories. Much of what Herodotus described had transpired 150 to 50 years before his own day, whereas Livy was removed from the events of his first decade by 700 to 250 years. Herodotus acquired much of his information from oral sources, and the material was often of a tralatician nature, which the Greek historian qualified in various ways (see in particular Hdt. 7.152). Livy, on the other hand, found his information already set down in written form in a well defined historiographical tradition, but he also qualified much of what he found in his sources. In the above passage of the De Legibus Cicero mentions three traditional tales: Romulus’ deification and epiphany to Proculus Julius, Numa’s conversing with the nymph Egeria, and the omen of the eagle placing a cap on Tarquinius Priscus' head, all of which, Cicero suggests, should be given their proper respect, but an intelligent person cannot actually be expected to give them credence. It is noteworthy that at 1.16.5 Livy qualifies the tale involving Proculus Julius with 24 Although Livy applies this phrase in his preface specifically in reference to Rome's foundation, his remark at 2.1.2 that the seven kings of Rome constituted a series of founders (deinceps conditores) may be taken to mean that Livy regarded the entire regal period (and hence the content of his first book) as relating to Rome's foundation. This interpretation of the wording of s.6 of Livy's praefatio is reinforced by 2.1.2 of Cicero's De Re Publica, which indicates that Cato the Elder regarded the Roman state as the product not of a single man but of many extending over several lifetimes. Moreover, the broader applicability of Livy's poericis fabulis is clearly indicated by the words haec et his similia in s.8 of the praefatio, which have no chronological bounds attached to them, and also by Livy's use of fabula in 5.21.8-9 and 5.22.6 in connection with the events of 396 B.C.

Chapter 2: Livy's Caution Toward the Historical Traditions of Early Rome

the words dicitur the eagle removed his wife Tanaquil to Rome, Livy at

51

and ut traditur. Similarly, after describing in oratio recta how and replaced the cap on Tarquinius Priscus' head while he and were riding in their carriage on the Janiculum in their journey 1.34.9 then uses dicitur to qualify Tanaquil's joyful acceptance

of this occurrence as an omen. Moreover, Livy (1.19.5) asserts that Numa only

pretended to converse with Egeria in order to instill a proper fear of the gods into his unruly subjects and to render his religious enactments more acceptable.?5 Finally, unlike Valerius Antias who described a marvelous encounter between Numa and Jupiter on how to expiate lightning bolts (Arnobius 5.1, cf. Plut. Numa 15), Livy at 1.20.7 much more modestly depicts Numa obtaining such information

by the normal means of a Roman augur. Yet, despite all that has been said here about Livy's caution, he was by no means a modern minimalist or hypercritic of early Roman traditions. The following chapters will explore other aspects of Livy's historical judgment and will clarify more precisely the limitations of his caution.

?5 To be sure, the concept of a culture hero using pia fraus was a well established motif in Greek literature. See Hdt. 4.93-6 concerning the Thracian Zalmoxis, who was thought to have been a pupil of Pythagoras, just as Numa was alleged in some sources. The notion of pia fraus was doubtless attached to Numa by Rome's earliest historians (sce Lucilius F 484 Marx = 524 Warmington, and Polyb. 6.56.6-12), but even if the story of Numa's pretended consultation of Egeria was a commonplace when Livy wrote, this does not exclude the possibility that Livy himself found this rationalistic interpretation quite satisfying in his own mind.

CHAPTER 3:

LIVY'S USE OF HISTORICAL PROBABILITY AND OF OTHER METHODS TO RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES The preceding chapter surveyed in general terms the 210 records in which Livy either clearly expresses reluctance to pass historical judgment or exhibits no apparent interest in expressing an opinion on a subject. The present chapter will therefore focus attention on the other 123 records (36.9%) remaining from the set

of 333 Livian statements for which method of resolution is relevant. These 123 records form a total of 106 issues or 40.596 of the total of 262 issues encompassed by this study. In attempting to resolve issues Livy employs five different methods (agreement, majority view, probability, personal opinion, and following the oldest authority) in nine distinct ways. Their distribution is as follows: 55 records (44.7%) in which Livy employs some form of probabilistic reasoning (1); 28 records (22.8%) in which common agreement in the sources is used (agr); 16 records (13.0%) in which Livy openly expresses a personal opinion (po); 7 records (5.69%) in which Livy invokes the majority view of his sources (m); 7 records (5.69%) in which Livy follows an older source (0); 5 records (4.07%) in

which Livy uses probability in conjunction with an older source to reject something in a later writer (lon); 2 records (1.63%) in which Livy uses both probability and an older source to argue in favor of his conclusion (lo); 2 records (1.63%)

in

which Livy employs probability to reject what he finds in older writers (100); and | record (0.813%) in which Livy uses older sources to counter what he finds in a later source (on).! Thus, probability, common agreement, and personal opinion are by far the three most frequently used means to resolve discrepancies. Moreover, since Livy employs probability in conjunction with or against an older source in 9 additional records, likelihood figures in 64 records (52.0%). Conversely, two of the least used methods are appeals to majority view or to the oldest account, which one might suppose prima facie to have been the two simplest means of deciding issues, given the highly problematic nature of the subject matter of Livy's first decade and of his literary sources. Livy, however, uses an older source as a discriminating criterion in 8 additional records, so that it actually figures in 15 issues (12.296).

! There are actually two records of this type (3.23.7 and 4.20.6-7), but in the former passage Livy uses the silence of older sources to withhold judgment with the consequence that this passage has been included among the 210 records treated in chapter 2.

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

53

Table of Quantitative Results

Total

123

100%

333?

L AGR PO M O LON LO LOO ON

55 28 16 7 7 5 2 2 l

44.7 % 22.8 % 13.0 % 5.69 9b 5.69 % 4.07 % 1.63 % 1.63 % 0.813%

16.5 % 8.41 % 4.80 % 2.10 % 2.10 95 1.50 % 0.601% 0.601% 0.300%

Even though this chapter is devoted to Livy ’s techniques of settling factual historical dilemmas, it must be emphasized that using the possessive form 'Livy's' in reference to particular solutions must not be misconstrued to mean Livian originality. Probabilistic reasoning was a standard element of ancient historiography,

and

it was

well established

in Roman

historical writing

long

before Livy's day.? There are two instances in which what appears to be Livy's own opinion turns out to be something repeated from another source. At 1.18.24 Livy dispels the erroneous notion that Numa had been a pupil of Pythagoras. Similar passages in Cicero (De Re Pub. 2.28) and Dionysius (2.59) show that this matter had become incorporated into the Roman annalistic tradition and was probably set forth by several different historians. Likewise, as seen from Plutarch's Numa 1.1 and 17.2 of Aulus Gellius! Noctes Atticae, Livy's remarks at 6.1.1—3 concerning the dubious nature of Roman history before the Gallic capture of the city are patterned after the historical preface of Claudius Quadrigarius. Thus, there always exists the possibility that what seems to be Livian historical reasoning is little more than tralatician annalistic material.* Yet, although we should be extremely cautious in making claims of Livian originality, we can nevertheless assert that whatever their ultimate source, the personal remarks and historical argumentation found in the first decade are clearly Livian inasmuch as they represent Livy's own considered judgment. A careful examination of the relevant data clearly demonstrates that Livy's

use of historical probability is in general quite inadequate for the difficult task of ? As

at the beginning

of the preceding

chapter,

this table

not only

lists each

group's

percentage within the set of 123 records but also within the larger set of 333 records for which method of resolution is relevant. in fact, the two most striking examples of the use of historical probability in the fragments of Livy's annalistic predecessors belong to L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who wrote toward the end of the second century. See Dion. Hal. 2.38-40 and 4.6-7. Cf. 4.30.2-3 and 4.64.2-3. ^ The notion of the early kings as representing a series of city founders, mentioned by Livy in his prefatory remarks at 2.1.1—6, had been expressed hy Cato. probably in his Origines. See Cic. De Re Pub. 2.2.

54

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

critically analyzing the historical traditions of early Rome. On the few occasions in which it is correctly employed, it never goes beyond the application of common sense. Far more frequently, however, Livy erects his conclusions upon dubious premises. These two aspects of Livian logic are perhaps best exemplified by 3.8.10 and 7.26.14—5. In the latter passage Livy reports for the year 348 that a Greek fleet appeared off the Latin coast but was prevented from landing by the Roman army. Concerning the fleet's precise identity he writes: "There is nothing certain as to which people and to what nation this fleet belonged, but I should think that they were in particular the tyrants of Sicily, since mainland Greece at that time was exhausted from internal war and was already in fear of the Macedonian power."5 The annalistic information concerning this abortive sea raid is to be accepted as historical, and the sea raiders themselves were most likely Sicilian Greeks, but Livy's surmise is hardly profound. His maxime Siciliae fuisse tyrannos crediderim is extremely vague and is reminiscent of Dion. Hal. 7.1 where the Greek historian criticizes Cn. Gellius, Licinius Macer, and other Roman historians for their chronological carelessness in having Roman grain commissioners of 492 visit Dionysius I, the famous tyrant of Syracuse (cf. Livy 2.34.3-7). As already discussed in the preceding chapter, Livy cites Valerius Antias at 3.5.12-3 in connection with precise Volscian casualty figures in 464. Despite his Stated caution in accepting such precision on matters of the distant past, only three chapters later we find Livy employing the following reasoning: “There the Volscian name was nearly wiped out. I find in some annals that 13,470 Volscians were killed in the battle and flight, and that 1750 were taken alive along with 27 military standards. Even if the numbers have been somewhat inflated, there certainly was a great slaughter." Rather than critically questioning the probable factual basis for Roman military affairs during the fifth century, Livy contents himself with doubting the arithmetic embellishment while accepting in general the patriotic conclusion of a great Roman victory. Thus, Livy's caution toward early Roman historical traditions is not buttressed by truly critical analysis. Apart from the rare outburst such as 2.21.3-4, 6.1.1—3, and 8.40 where the historian seems to call into question the overall framework and evidentiary basis of early

Roman history, Livy invariably accepts rather uncritically the fictitiously detailed narratives of his sources and erects his own probabilistic conclusions upon their unsustainable foundations." In mitigation of this harsh pronouncement upon Livy

5 Livy 7.26.15: Cuius populi ea cuiusque gentis classis fuerit, nihil certi est. Maxime Siciliae tyrannos fuisse crediderim; nam ulterior Graecia ea tempestate intestino fessa bello iam

Macedonum opes horrebat. * Livy 3.8.10: /bi Volscum nomen prope deletum est. Tredecim milia quadringentos septuaginta cecidisse in acie ac fuga, mille septingentos quinquaginta vivos captos, signa viginti septem militaria relata in quibusdam annalibus invenio, ubi etsi adiectum aliquid numero sit, magna certe caedes fuit. ? Examples of this phenomenon are numerous. See, for example, 1.54.6. 1.59.11, 2.53.5, 3.35.2, 3.60.2, 3.70.14-5, 4.49.10, 4.57.9, 5.46.10—1, and 6.12.4—5.

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

55

let it be noted that this form of source criticism and historical analysis continues

to typify much of modern scholarship on early Rome.? The complex blend of uncritical acceptance and common sense which characterizes much of Livy's historical judgment can perhaps be most fully illustrated by 10.24-30 which describes the Sentinum campaign of 295.? Livy begins by devoting an entire chapter to the supposed contention over the allotment of Etruria as a province to one of the consuls, Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus or P. Decius Mus. The controversy is doubtless a late annalistic fiction, designed to enliven the historical narrative with another event in the supposed struggle of the orders. Livy accepts this interpretation and merely offers the personal opinion at 10.24.2 that the contention was more between the patricians and plebeians than between the two consuls themselves, whose mutual good will, he notes, was a

matter of record: two joint consulships and one joint censorship. After relating in 10.25.1—10 Fabius’ initial maneuvers in northern Etruria, including two anecdotes illustrating the man's supposed great confidence, Livy states at 10.25.11—2 that Fabius then returned to Rome, either on his own accord or because he had been recalled by the senate. Livy then fills the remainder of the chapter (10.25.13-8)

by setting forth a variant in which the urban praetor Ap. Claudius was for Fabius’ recall. In this additional fiction the patrician Claudius is meddlesome and timorous, whereas the plebeian Decius exhibits worthy of a consul. In 10.26.1—4 Livy shifts back into oratio recta in order to recount

responsible depicted as the gravity the alleged

proceedings in the senate and before the people following Fabius' arrival in Rome, which results in the decision to despatch both consuls against the combined

enemy forces in northern Italy. Finally, at 10.26.5 Livy unwittingly lets the historiographical cat out of the bag by noting that in some writers the two consuls set out for Etruria as soon as they had entered office without any contention over the assignment of provinces. Livy (10.26.6) next comments that some writers, not being content with the political disputes already related, included Claudius? complaints before the people and another confrontation between the consuls. Thus, Livy accepts the initial controversy over the assignment of consular provinces, offers no critical comment on the variant concerning Ap. Claudius’ involvement in Fabius’ recall, accepts Fabius’ return to Rome and the decision to send out both consuls, but balks at receiving the report of further political contention. Consequently, up to this point Livy has steered what he apparently 8 The following can be offered as illustrative of the convergence between ancient Livian and modern historical approaches to early Rome. At 6.34.7 Livy opines that the. younger daughter of Fabius Ambustus began to regret her marriage to the plebeian C. Licinius Stolo when she was confronted with the large retinue attendant upon the consular tribune Ser. Sulpicius, the patrician husband of her older sister. In an otherwise judicious examination of social structure and political conflict in early Rome T. J. Cornell has upheld the historicity of this Livian anecdote. See Tria Corda, Scritti in Onore di Arnaldo Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba. Como

1983 114-5. ? For modern discussion of the battle and its ancient sources sec E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge 1967 263-8, and W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria, Oxford 1971 69-74.

56

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

considers to be a safe middle road between the most highly embellished versions and those which described no political maneuvering at all. Livy's judgment, however, has produced muddled historiographical mediocrity. At 10.26.7 Livy makes the welcomed observation that the course of events begins to be consistent from this point onward. Indeed, he fares much better in his evaluation of his source material for the two other noted discrepancies in this campaign. In 10.26.10-3 he records two versions of an enemy attack upon a Roman legion in its encampment near Clusium in the absence of the consuls. According to some, the attackers were Gauls, who succeeded in annihilating the Roman forces; but according to others, the camp was attacked by Umbrians, who were successfully repulsed. Livy correctly prefers the former, noting that it was more in accord with the tumultus Gallicus at the time. After describing the preliminary maneuvering and the actual battle at Sentinum in 10.27-9 (which should be accepted as generally accurate, probably derived ultimately from Fabian family oral tradition through Fabius Pictor), Livy (10.30.4-7) makes the

following closing remarks: The fame of that day on which the battle was fought in the territory of Sentinum is great even by a true account, but some have gone beyond credibility in their exaggeration by writing that in the enemy army there were 640,000 infantry, 46,000 cavalry, and 1000 chariots, including the Umbrians and

Etruscans,

whom

they

report

to have

been

present

at the battle.

In

addition, in order to increase the Roman forces, they add the proconsul L. Volumnius and his army to the consuls and their legions. In most annals the victory belonged to the two consuls, while L. Volumnius at the same time

was conducting affairs in Samnium....!? On 28 occasions Livy invokes general agreement in his sources in support of a particular point or in finding common ground between discrepant versions. As seen from the tabulation of data at the beginning of chapter 8, this particular method of resolution has the most even distribution throughout the first decade. Eight of these instances are simple in type and merely qualify a statement with satis constat or an equivalent expression. In fact, Livy begins his historical work with satis constat in describing how Antenor and Aeneas left Troy and came to Italy to establish new communities (1.1.1—4). In the other 20 records, however,

Livy employs generai agreement in conjunction with a variant or alternatives. The degree of agreement varies widely, and Livy's use thereof ranges from actual resolution of an issue to merely stating alternatives, followed by an observation noting wherein they concur. I? Livy 10.30.4—7: Magna eius diei, quo in Sentinati agro bellatum, fama est etiam vero stant; 5 sed superiecere quidam augendo fidem, qui in hostium exercitu peditum sexiens centena milia, equitum sex et quadraginta milia, mille carpentorum scripsere fuisse, scilicet cum

Umbris Tuscisque. quos et ipsos pugnae adfuisse; 6 et ut Romanorum quoque augerent copias, L. Volumnium pro consule ducem consulibus exercitumque eius legionibus consulum adiciunt. ?

In pluribus annalibus duorum ea consulum propria victoria est, Volumnius in Samnio interim res gerit...

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

57

At 3.47.5 Livy remarks that ancient writers have perhaps related something truthful in reference to Ap. Claudius' speech justifying his possessory interdict concerning Verginia, but since he nowhere found anything which struck him as being likely, he has simply recorded the bare fact that Claudius granted possession to the one who claimed her to be a slave. Livy's approach here is characteristic of his verbal economy and of his caution toward the historical traditions of early Rome, and it stands in sharp contrast to those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who devotes an entire chapter (11.36) to the supposed speech delivered by Ap. Claudius. For the year 361 Livy (7.9.3-6) observes that the sources agreed in recording T. Quinctius Poenus as dictator with Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis as his master of horse, but according to Licinius Macer the consul C. Licinius appointed the dictator for conducting elections in order to thwart the other consul's ambition to be reelected. Livy, however, faults Macer for his untrustworthiness on matters

concerning members of his family, and he sides with older accounts that explained the dictator's appointment in terms of a tumultus Gallicus. Livy is often content merely to record alternatives and to register their mutual agreement. At 9.46.2-7 Livy first indicates that according to some annals Cn. Flavius was elected curule aedile in 304 while serving as a public scribe. He then cites Licinius Macer for the opposing view that Flavius had previously held the offices of plebeian tribune, triumvir nocturnus, and colonial commissioner. Livy offers no critical comment on either assertion but simply proceeds to record Flavius' official aedilician activities about which there was general agreement. Similarly, after narrating in 7.3941 how the dictator M. Valerius Corvus peacefully suppressed a mutiny hatched by soldiers stationed in winter quarters in Campania in 342, Livy (7.42) adds that some sources also recorded the passage of three laws

promulgated by the plebeian tribune L. Genucius. Then after commenting that other writers narrated a very different disturbance quelled by the consuls, not by a dictator, Livy concludes by observing: "thus, there is no agreement among ancient writers of history except that there was a sedition, and it was settled."!! Even more striking is Livy's account of the trial and execution of Sp. Cassius at 2.41.10-2: It is agreed (constat) that he was condemned and executed as soon as he left

office. There are those who say that his father was the author of his punishment, and that after the case had been investigated at home, he had him beaten and killed and consecrated his peculium to Ceres, and from it there was made a statue bearing the inscription ‘from the Cassian household’. I find in other writers (and this is more believable) that a day for his trial for treason was set

by the quaestors K. Fabius and L. Valerius, he was condemned by judgment of the people, and his house was publicly demolished. It is the area in front of the temple of Tellus. Yet, whether there was a domestic or public trial, he was condemned in the consulship of Ser. Cornelius and Q. Fabius.!? I! Livy 7.42.7: Adeo nihil praeterquam seditionem fuisse eamque compositam inter antiquos rerum auctores constat. 7 Livy 2.41.10-2: Quem, ubi primum magistratu abiit, damnatum necatumque constat.

58

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

After introducing this short passage with the commonly agreed assertion that Cassius was tried and executed as soon as he left office, Livy sets forth two different accounts of how Cassius was tried, and what became of his property. Even though Livy remarks that the public trial was the more believable version, he nevertheless undercuts this opinion with the closing statement, which reformulates the passage's introductory sentence by reducing the alternative versions to the simple common element of Cassius' execution in the year 485. The 16 issues on which Livy advances what appears to be a personal opinion cover a wide variety of topics. Two merely concern etymologies (1.43.13 and 8.15.8), and two other passages (2.1.1—6 and 6.1.1—3) expound general historical and historiographical observations at significant points in the narrative. On three occasions (6.12.5, 7.25.9, and 10.9.3-6) Livy expresses personal opinions on specific matters of the fourth century in order to compare unfavorably contemporary conditions with those of the distant past. Four remarks (1.4.1, 1.46.5, 6.9.3, and 7.8.4) concern the role of Fate, Fortune, and the gods in Roman history and will be treated in detail in chapter 6. The five remaining personal opinions (2.34.12, 9.11.13,9.16.12, 9.17—9, and 10.18.10) exhibit Livian judgment in reference to questions of Roman military and political affairs. The most elaborate of these opinions is Livy's excursive discussion of the hypothetical question of how Alexander the Great would have fared against the Romans. The other four resemble many of the instances in which Livy uses probability in that the opinions expressed relate to issues of dubious historicity. The last occasion in the first decade on which Livy offers a personal opinion reveals him engaged in writing the worst kind of psychological history, if viewed according to modern standards. In narrating the events of 296 Livy (10.18) tells how the sudden outbreak of a major war in Etruria compelled the senate to despatch the consul Ap. Claudius into the area, but when he arrived on the scene, he found himself confronting a formidable enemy. Livy states that according to three writers Claudius summoned by letter his colleague L. Volumnius from Samnium, but Livy is loath to put this down with certainty since, he says, the consuls argued over the letter's existence, Appius denying that he had sent it, and Volumnius asserting that he had received it. How utterly extraordinary! Livy's hesitation does not rest upon the failure of other sources to record this dispute, but it results from the alleged quarrel between the consuls, which is doubtless a circumstantial detail fabricated by a late annalist. In addition, when describing Volumnius' joyful reception by Claudius’ army on his arrival in Etruria and Claudius’ own cool attitude, Livy remarks: “I believe that Appius behaved in accordance with his own personal knowledge, being deservedly angry if he had written nothing, but dissembling with an ungenerous and ungrateful mind if he Sunt qui patrem auctorem eius supplicii ferant: eum, cognita domi causa, verberasse ac necasse peculiumque filii Cereri consecravisse: signum inde factum esse et inscriptum "ex Cassia

familia datum.”

11 Invenio apud quosdam (idque propius fidem est) a quaestoribus Caesone

Fabio et L. Valerio diem

dictam perduellionis, damnatumque populi iudicio, dirutas publice

aedes. Ea est area ante Telluris aedem.

12 Ceterum sive illud domesticum sive publicum fuit

iudicium. damnatur Servio Cornelio Q. Fabio consulibus.

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

59

had been in need of assistance."? Ignoring the fact that Claudius’ cool reception of his colleague is hardly likely to have been a factual detail accurately transmitted to later times, Livy is here attempting to ascribe a motive to Claudius' alleged behavior, an endeavor sufficiently hazardous in writing contemporary or nearly contemporary history. The most striking feature of the seven instances in which Livy appeals to the majority view of his sources is their distribution. Three alone (1.7.2, 1.24.1, and

1.46.4) occur in the first book on the regal period.!* As will be shown in chapter 8, the overall analysis of the data base indicates that Livy regarded the traditions surrounding Rome's early kings with greater skepticism than the events reported for the early republic. It seems likely that Livy found the principle of majority view to be a simple and easy means to settle discrepant traditions of the murky regal period, which is superseded by more sophisticated methods of resolution when dealing with the early republic. Citing alternative views and siding with the more commonly held opinion are consistent with Livy's verbal economy, his reluctance to linger over seemingly insignificant details, and his obligation as a

historian to record faithfully the various accounts of events preserved in his sources. When introducing Tarquinius Superbus and his nefarious machinations to become king. Livy (1.46.4) comments: "It is hardly clear whether he was the

son or grandson of King Tarquinius Priscus, but I should believe the more numerous writers in that he was his son."!5 Thanks to the parallel account of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, we know

that Livy is here briefly alluding to an

antiquarian controversy stirred up by Piso's revision of the Tarquin family's

genealogy.!6 This issue, more clearly than any other, reveals the vast differences between Livy's and Dionysius' attitudes and purposes in writing about early Rome. Livy's treatment of the matter is extremely perfunctory, stating hardly more than what is necessary to acknowledge the controversy's existence. Dionysius, on the other hand, devotes two lengthy chapters (4.6-7) to a detailed refutation of the traditional father-son relationship of the two monarchs, and not being content with this exhaustive exegesis, he later (4.30.2-3 and 4.64.2-3) applies the same reasoning to other members of the Tarquin line. Although only 7 records are classified with the letter ‘o’ in the data base for their method of resolution, there are 8 additional records in which Livy appeals to older sources in resolving an issue (2 lo + 5 lon + 1 on). The fact that 7 of these

records involve the use of older accounts as a check against later ones testifies to 3 Livy 10.18.10: Appium ex conscientia sua credo animum habuisse: haud immerito iratum si nihil scripserat, inliberali et ingrato animo, si eguerat ope, dissimulantem. H The other four are 2.32.3, 6.42.5-6, 10.18.7, and 10.30.7. In the first two passages Livy employs the principle of majority view to reject a version of an author cited by name. As indicated in the preceding paragraph. in 10.18.7 Livy cites three sources (probably constituting a majority) concerning Ap. Claudius summoning L. Volumnius to Etruria by letter, but contrary to his use of majority view in the other six cases, Livy leaves the matter undecided. 5 Livy

1.46.4: Prisci Tarquini regis filius neposne fuerit, parum

liquet; pluribus tamen

auctoribus filium ediderim.

16 For a detailed discussion of this matter see G. Forsythe, The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham MD

1994 227-34.

60

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

Livy's awareness that later writers often embellished earlier accounts with fictitious additions, but as demonstrated by numerous other instances, Livy's realization of this historiographical phenomenon often failed to hinder him from accepting what he found in the later annalistic accounts. In narrating the events of the first year of the republic, for which the later established historical tradition recorded five consuls, Livy (2.8.5) observes that some old writers failed to mention the suffect consulship of Lucretia's father. Rather than concluding that this item was a later invention, Livy surmises that Lucretius' consulship was overlooked by some due to the fact that he performed no memorable deed during his brief tenure of office. Ten chapters further on, however, at 2.18.4—7 Livy rightly follows his oldest authorities that made T. Larcius the first man to be dictator, as opposed to other sources which awarded this honor to M'. Valerius. In four of the five passages in which Fabius Pictor is cited, Livy adds further weight to his testimony by reminding the reader of his temporal priority to other writers. In his description of Servius Tullius' institution of the census Livy (1.44.2) uses dicuntur to record the first census of Roman citizens as 80,000 and

then cites "the most ancient Fabius" for the additional detail that this number described those capable of bearing arms. At 1.55.8-9 Livy employs probability together with Pictor's greater antiquity to counter Piso's figure for the amount of booty obtained from the capture of Suessa Pometia, which was spent in constructing the Capitoline temple. At 2.40.10-1 Livy concludes his account of the story of Coriolanus by recording various versions of his death: Then after his legions had been withdrawn from Roman territory, they relate that he perished, overtaken by the resentment aroused by his action: Some

say by one means, others by another. I find in Fabius, our oldest writer by far, that he lived to be an old man. In fact, he reports that in his old age he often expressed the view that exile was much more miserable for an old man.'? Livy does not actually endorse or reject any of these different explanations of Coriolanus' death, but as in the case of the Servian census, he places Pictor's testimony at the end and stresses his great antiquity. Livy's most interesting use of Fabius Pictor is found in 8.30 concerning the battle at Imbrinium,

fought in 324 between the Samnites and Romans under the

master of horse Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus against the orders of the absent dictator L. Papirius Cursor. Livy says that only one battle was recorded in the

oldest Since spoils glory, Livy,

writers, and this is the version of events which Livy adopts in his narrative. he cites Fabius Pictor for the belief that the master of horse had burned the taken from the enemy in order to keep the dictator from robbing him of his it is quite clear that Livy's apud antiquissimos scriptores refers to Pictor. however, also notes that some writers did not mention this battle at all, but

U Livy 2.40.10-1: Abductis deinde legionibus ex agro Romano, invidia rei oppressum perisse tradunt, alii alio leto. Apud Fabium longe antiquissimum auctorem usque ad senectutem vixisse eundem invenio. 11 Refert certe hanc saepe eum exacta aetate usurpasse vacem multo miserius seni exsilium esse.

Cf. Cic. Brutus 41—4 and Dion. Hal. 8.57-9.

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

61

according to others two battles were fought. Apparently Fabius Pictor knew of this battle and of Imbrinium, a toponym otherwise unattested, from members of the Fabian family. Thus, Livy has preserved for us an incident reported by Fabius Pictor from oral tradition concerning his kinsman's exploits during the Great Samnite War. Some of Pictor's immediate successors failed to mention the engagement altogether, but the later annalists added a second fictitious battle for the greater glory of Rome and for the enhancement of their narratives. In addition, as is clearly evident from Livy's text (see 8.31-6), they fully exploited the ensuing conflict between Cursor and Rullianus. In fact, Livy himself becomes so caught up in the melodrama of this episode that although his narrative in 8.30 has depicted a single military engagement as having taken place at Imbrinium, Livy nevertheless has Rullianus' father in the course of his passionate defense of his son before the irate dictator refer to his son's two victories in battle (see 8.33.21).

But to return to the major point at hand, Livy's account of the battle is probably derived in part from Pictor, but later writers are likely to be the source of some elements, such as the report of 20,000 enemy dead. On the other hand, Livy's elaborate description of the battle's political fallout is most likely based entirely upon later accounts. A more complicated case is encountered in the events of 444. After describing the election to office of the first military tribunes with consular power, Livy (4.7.7—12) tells how after their resignation due to flaws in taking the auspices at the time of their election, an interregnum ensued, resulting in the election of suffect consuls. Livy notes that the names of these consuls were not found in old annals and the books of magistrates, but according to Licinius Macer they were preserved in a treaty concluded between Rome and Ardea and in linen books kept in the temple of Juno Moneta. Livy's unqualified account of the consular tribunes" abdication and of the interregnum suggests that he prefers Macer's later interpretation over the silence of older histories. Yet. it should be realized that in doing so Livy has clearly been swayed by Macer trumping his annalistic predecessors with even older documentary material. Nevertheless, Livy's remarks at 4.8.1 and 4.8.7 seem to constitute a retraction of his endorsement of Macer's reconstruction by summing up and recasting the discrepancy into opposing alternative views. Although this sort of cautious hedging of bets is not uncommon in Livy, his hesitation in this instance seems well placed. As Livy records, Macer's alleged suffect consuls of 444 were the first censors ever to be elected in 443. Given the fact that the censors probably took over from the consuls the task

of conducting the census, and the creation of the censorship coincided with the institution of the consular tribunate, it seems reasonable to suppose that the censors were treated as eponymous magistrates in the official documents of the day, and Licinius Macer, confused by what he found, exercised creative but erroneous ingenuity in redacting the data by converting the censors into suffect consuls.!? '8 In my view the confusion over the identity of the chief magistrates of 434 has also resulted from Macer's incorrect reinterpretation of the names of censors preserved in the Linen

62

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

One of Livy's more interesting uses of higher antiquity is found in 7.3.3-8 where he explains the custom of the clavus annalis. In 7.2 Livy tells how stage performances were first instituted in 364 to win back divine favor and thereby to avert a pestilence, but when the plague did not abate, the Romans in the following year revived the lapsed practice of appointing a dictator to drive a nail (apparently into the wall of Jupiter's shrine in the Capitoline temple). Livy begins his explanation of this peculiar custom with an impersonal attribution (dicitur), stating that according to the recollection of the elders an epidemic had once been alleviated by appointing a dictator to drive the nail. Livy next mentions an old law, written in archaic letters and preserved in the Capitoline temple, which prescribed that “whosoever was praetor maximus should drive the nail on Sept. 13," the dies natalis of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Having invoked the authority of this ancient law, Livy sets forth its interpretation, using ferunt: "Since writing was rare in those times, they say that the nail served as a marker for the number of years, and the law was dedicated to Minerva's shrine because she was the inventor of numbers."!? Livy's use of dicitur and ferunt suggests his cautious acceptance of what he found in one of his sources. His next statement seeks additional ancient literary and archaeological support for the interpretation by

citing Cincius Alimentus, described as "a diligent authority of such records," for the fact that similar annual nails were to be seen driven into the temple of Nortia at Volsinii.2° Trusting in the foregoing antique testimonia, Livy concludes this explanation with the final unqualified statement: The consul M. Horatius dedicated the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in accordance with the law in the year after the kings' expulsion. Afterwards the rite of driving the nail was transferred from consuls to dictators, because the latters' power was greater. Then, after the custom had lapsed, the matter was viewed as worthy in itself to warrant the appoinument of a dictator.?!

Books. Macer's inept tampering created confusion, which in turn encouraged his two successors,

Valerius Antias and Aelius Tubero, to make their own meddlesome conjectures. See Livy 4.23.1-3 and Diod. 12.53.1. I? Livy 7.3.6: Eum clavum, quia rarae per ea tempora litterae erant, notam numeri annorum fuisse ferunt, eoque Minervae templo dicatam legem quia numerus Minervae inventum sit. 20 | do not accept Heurgon's arguments that the Cincius whom Livy cites here is to be

identified with the antiquarian of the late republic or early principate. See J. Heurgon Athenaeum N.S. 42 (1964) 432-7. More reasonable in my view is Verbrugghe's conjecture that he is the historian contemporary with Fabius Pictor, and that his interest in the clavus annalis may somehow involve his reconstruction of early Roman chronology. Scc G. P. Verbrugghe Philologus

126 (1982) 320. According to Dion. Hal. 1.74.1 Cincius assigned Rome's foundation to the year 729/8 B.C. Cincius' family may have been of Etruscan origin, and this fact could help explain

his peculiar knowledge of such Etruscan lore. For the possible Etruscan origin of Cincii see R. Syme Historia

13 (1964) 114.

?! Livy 7.3.8: M. Horatius consul ex lege templum lovis Optimi Maximi dedicavit anno post reges exactos.

A consulibus postea ad dictatores,

quia maius imperium

erat, sollemne

clavi

figendi translatum est. Intermisso deinde more, digna etiam per se visa res, propter quam dictator crearetur.

Chapter 3: Livy's Use of Historical Probability

63

Perhaps the most unusual but most historically significant passage in which an appeal to antiquity figures prominently is Livy's discussion in 4.20.5-11 of when and in what official capacity A. Cornelius Cossus won the spolia opima from Lars Tolumnius, the king of Veii.? After describing Cossus' duel with Tolumnius at 4.19.1—5 and his dedication of the spolia opima to Jupiter Feretrius at 4.20.1—4, Livy ends his account of the episode with a lengthy treatment of its date. He begins with the emphatic words, "I have followed all authors before me in setting forth that A. Cornelius Cossus brought the second spolia opima to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius as a military tribune.?? The phrase omnes ante me auctores secutus, which stands at the very beginning of this discussion, is unparalleled, approximated only by inter omnes auctores conveniat at 6.12.6, and it serves to notify the reader that Livy has followed an unanimous literary tradition in assigning this event to 437 when Cossus was allegedly serving as a mere military tribune under the dictator Mam. Aemilius. Moreover, the emphasis establishes a clear antithesis between Livy's narrative and Augustus' claim that Cossus won the spoils while consul. Livy next raises two objections to his own narrative: (1) spolia opima were supposed to have been the spoils taken from the enemy's leader by the Roman commander, under whose auspices the campaign was conducted; and (2) according to Augustus, who restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, the inscription on the linen corselet of Cossus' dedication recorded his official title as consul. Livy admits that the latter refutes his own and all earlier accounts, and his final remark in the passage suggests that he was actually inclined to accept what he had heard reported by Augustus. Faced with this obvious discrepancy, Livy observes that it is anyone's guess whether the old annals and Licinius Macer's Linen Books are in error in dating Cossus' consulship to 428. This remark once again reaffirms the unanimity of the annalistic tradition against Augustus. Livy seems to cast further doubt upon the Augustan claim by next noting that according to received tradition Cossus' consulship was uneventful, thus making it difficult merely to transfer the

event from 437 to 428. Livy finally concludes the discussion with the personal observation (ut ego arbitror) that it is idle to speculate further. Thus, Livy leaves the issue unresolved, while clearly advertising his adherence to the unanimous annalistic tradition.

?: On this much discussed issue see, for example, H. Dessau Hermes 41 (1906)

D. Bishop Latomus 7 (1948)

142-51, J.

187-91, R. Syme HSCP 64 (1959) 43-7, P. G. Walsh PACA

(1961) 30, T. J. Luce TAPA 96 (1965) 211-7. R. M. Ogilvie

4

1965 563-4 (containing additional

bibliography), E. Mensching MH 24 (1967) 12-32, L. J. Daly Ancient World 4 (1981) 49-63, and G. B. Miles, Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome, Ithaca NY 1995 40-7. I intend to publish soon in A Critical History of Early Rome a treatment of this subject in which I offer a historical and historiographical solution to this problem. In my view there is no need to suppose that this passage was a later interpolation made by Livy, nor should it be thought that Livy received a direct communication from Augustus on this matter. Livy's audissent indicates that the historian was merely reporting what had circulated as common knowledge. 23 Livy 4.20.5: Omnes ante me auctores secutus, A. Cornelium Cossum tribunum militum secunda spolia opima lovis Feretri templo intulisse exposui.

64

Chapter 3: Livy’s Use of Historical Probability

When compared with 4.7.7-8.1, Livy seems to exhibit greater appreciation of Macer's Linen Books than of Augustus’ interpretation of Cossus’ linen corselet. The passage contains no subtle irony or criticism of Rome's first citizen. The tone throughout is serious and respectful, lacking all subservience and displaying Livy's independence of judgment. Its somewhat confused ambiguity results from Livy's own shortcomings as a historian of early Rome, abundantly demonstrated by other passages throughout the first decade. In sum, his handling of the matter reveals his respect for the established historical tradition, his cautious conservatism and reluctance to embrace drastic innovations, and his intellectual inability to

find solutions to complex historical and historiographical problems.

CHAPTER 4:

HISTORICITY VERSUS MORALITY AND PATRIOTISM!

In ss.4-12 of his praefatio (see above pp.41-2) Livy expresses his preference for early Roman history on the grounds that the Roman people in early times had not yet been corrupted by wealth, greed, luxury, and various pleasures. He proclaims his lack of interest in affirming or refuting the veracity of early traditions, but he urges instead that his readers closely observe the character and qualities of the early Romans by which they acquired their empire. In addition, he asserts that history is salutary and profitable in that it offers one lessons of every example (omnis exempli documenta) to be imitated or avoided. Thus, in Livy's view early Roman history constitutes a rich storehouse of good models of conduct from which the careful reader can benefit.? These Livian remarks are not idle animadversions set forth merely to grace his preface with customary tropes. Rather, as made clear from numerous stories in the narrative itself, they accurately reflect Livy's most strongly held convictions. Indeed, 17 of the 19 records labeled ‘pf’ in form in the data base agree with Livy's praefatio in extolling Rome's ancient virtues or in contrasting them with contemporary practices.? Three records included in the data base best illustrate in their language and content Livy's notion of morally edifying documenta and exempla. In 9.46.8—9 Livy describes how the freedman's son Cn. Flavius, curule aedile in 304, conducted himself in the presence of several insolent noble youths while visiting his sick colleague. He introduces the anecdote with the comment: "I shall record a thing not at all memorable in itself except for being a lesson (documentum) of plebeian liberty against the insolence of the nobles."^4 For the year 408 (4.56—7) Livy tells how two of the three consular tribunes obstructed the senate in its desire to have a ! The importance of moral and patriotic themes in Livy's history has been much discussed in recent decades. See, for example, P. G. Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge 1963 82-109, Ogilvie 1965 passim, T. J. Luce, Livy: The Composition of his History, Princeton 1977 230ff, and J. P. Lipovsky, A Historiographical Study of Livy Books VI-X, Salem New Hampshire 1981 passim. Jane D. Chaplin is rumored to be working on a study concerning Livy's exempla, but at the time of this book going to press her monograph has not yet been printed. As indicated by the title of this chapter, I confine my attention here to passages in which Livy's handling of variant accounts involves the clash of historicity with his own and his sources' moralizing and patriotic attitudes. ? Similarly, in his prefatory remarks at the beginning of his Roman Antiquities Dionysius (1.5.3) declares that no other state can show so many examples of justice, moderation, and bravery as the Romans. 3 The 17 statements are the following: 3.20.5, 3.26.7, 3.57.8, 4.6.12, 4.25.13, 4.57.6, 6.12.5, 7.2.13, 7.21.6. 7.25.9, 7.29.2, 7.40.1—2, 8.11.1, 9.16.19, 9.46.8, 10.9.3-6, and 10.40.9-16. 4 Livy 9.46.8: Haud memorabilem rem per se, nisi documentum sit adversus superbiam nobilium plebeiae libertatis, referam.

66

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

dictator appointed to deal with a major threat of the Volscians and Aequians. The deadlock was finally broken when the third consular tribune, C. Servilius Ahala, patriotically worked the senate's wil! by naming a dictator. Livy (4.57.6) concludes the episode with the remark: "His own [Ahala's] appointment by him as master of horse provided an exemplum to those looking upon him and his colleagues as to how influence and office sometimes come more opportunely to those not wanting them."5 Finally, Livy describes Cincinnatus' appointment as dictator in 458 (3.26.7—9) as follows:

For those who reject all human things in preference to wealth, and who think that there is no place for great honor or virtue except where riches abound profusely, it is worthwhile to hear that the sole hope of the Roman people's power, L. Quinctius, was cultivating a farm of four iugera across the Tiber opposite the place where the shipyards are now, and which are called the Quinctian Meadows. There the envoys greeted him and in turn received his salutation, as he was leaning on a spade digging a ditch or while he was plowing. What is agreed is that he was definitely engaged in farm work....$ Livy's vivid portrayal of Cincinnatus' summons from his small farm by the senate to rescue a Roman army besieged by the Aequians brings into focus a glaring inconsistency in Livy's approach to early Roman history. While professing his unwillingness to accept or reject as true the standard historical traditions, Livy at the same time is eager to depict early Rome and its inhabitants as having possessed the pristine virtues of a simple and pure distant past, untainted by the intrusion of later foreign corrupting influences. The inconsistency, of course, lies in the fact that in order to set forth his idealized portrait of early Rome, Livy must accept as true many historical traditions along with their morally instructive circumstantial details. It is noteworthy that Cicero in De Senectute 56 portrays Cincinnatus as being summoned from his farm to rescue the state from the sedition of Sp. Maelius in 439, not to rescue Minucius and his army besieged by the Aequians in 458. Clearly, the precise historical circumstances of Cincinnatus' dictatorship were of little consequence. The important point was the moral of the story. The moral and patriotic character of Livy's historical outlook has profoundly influenced how he interprets historical facts and how he evaluates the relative merits of variant traditions. All too often the result is that historicity has lost out to patriotism or morality. The effect of Livy's patriotic and moralizing tendenz can be seen, for example, in his inferences made with respect to Volscian and Aequian manpower (6.12.2—6) and the Lex Valeria of 300 (10.9.3-6): 5 Livy 4.57.6: Ipse ab eo magister equitum creatus exemplo fuit collegas eumque intuentibus, quam gratia atque honos opportuniora interdum non cupientibus essent.

5 Livy 3.26.7-9: Operae pretium est audire qui omnia prae divitiis humana spernunt neque honori magno locum neque virtuti putant esse, nisi ubi effuse afluant opes. 8 Spes unica imperii populi Romani, L. Quinctius, trans Tiberim, contra eum ipsum locum ubi nunc Navalia sunt,

quattuor iugerum colebat agrum, quae Prata Quinctia vocantur. 9 [bi ab legatis - seu fossam fodiens palae innixus, seu cum araret, operi certe, id quod constat. agresti intentus — salute data

invicem redditaque...

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

67

I do not doubt that to those reading of the continuous wars with the Volscians in so many books now beyond measure there will come to mind what has also been a source of amazement to me in perusing authors closer in time to these events: to wit, from what source the Volscians and Aequians, defeated so many times, obtained their soldiers. Since this has been passed over in silence by the ancients, in what respect might I be an authority except in my own opinion, which each person can have by his own conjectures. It is probable that just as happens now in the Roman levies, due to the intervals between campaigns they made use of one generation of adult males at one time and of another generation at another time for renewing the fighting so many times, or the armies were not always enrolled from the same peoples although the same nation always carried on the fighting, or there was a countless multitude of free persons in those places which nowadays Roman slaves reclaim from desolation with hardly a scant seed bed of soldiers remaining. Although their resources had been recently cut into under the leadership and auspices of Camillus, the Volscian army was certainly huge, as all authors agree.’ In the same year the consul M. Valerius carried a law on appeal, a law enacted rather conscientiously. It was then passed for the third time since the expulsion of the kings and always by the same family. The reason for renewing it so often was, I think, none other than that the resources of the few were more powerful than the liberty of the plebs. Yet, the Porcian Law alone seems to have been passed to protect the backs of citizens, because it severely punished anyone who beat or killed a Roman citizen. Although the Valerian Law forbade anyone who had appealed to be beaten with rods and to be executed with an axe, it added that if anyone acted otherwise, it was nothing more than ‘wickedly done’ (improbe factum). Given people's sense of shame at that time, that seemed, I suppose, a sufficiently strong legal restraint, but nowadays anyone would hardly seriously make such a threat.? ? Livy 6.12.2-6: Non dubito praeter satietatem tot iam libris adsidua bella cum Volscis gesta legentibus illud quoque succursurum, quod mihi percensenti propiores temporibus harum rerum auctores miraculo fuit, unde totiens victis Volscis et Aequis suffecerint milites. 3 Quod cum ab antiquis tacitum praetermissum sit, cuius tandem ego rei praeter opinionem, quae sua cuique coniectanti esse potest, auctor sim? 4 Simile veri est aut intervallis bellorum, sicut nunc in dilectibus fit Romanis, alia atque alia subole iuniorum ad bella instauranda totiens usos esse,

aut non ex iisdem semper populis exercitus scriptos, quamquam eadem semper gens bellum intulerit, 5 aut innumerabilem multitudinem liberorum capitum in eis fuisse locis quae nunc vix seminario exiguo militum relicto servitia Romana ab solitudine vindicant. 6 Ingens certe, quod inter omnes auctores conveniat, erant, Volscorum exercitus fuit.

quamquam

nuper Camilli ductu atque auspicio accisae

res

8 Livy 10.9.3—6: Eodem anno M. Valerius consul de provocatione legem tulit diligentius sanctam. Tertio ea tum post reges exactos lata est, semper a familia eadem. 4 Causam renovandae saepius haud aliam fuisse reor quam quod plus paucorum opes quam libertas plebis poterat. Porcia tamen lex sola pro tergo civium lata videtur, quod gravi poena. si quis verberasset necassetve civem Romanum, sanxit. 5 Valeria lex cum eum qui provocasset virgis caedi securique necari vetuisset, si quis adversus ea fecisset, nihil ultra quam 'improbe facrum" adiecit. 6 Id. qui tum pudor hominum erat, visum, credo, vinclum satis validum legis: nunc vix serio ita minetur

quisquam.

68

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

The explanation for the seemingly inexhaustible manpower of the Volscians and Aequians lies in nothing more mysterious than the normal workings of the patriotic annalistic tradition that magnified minor engagements into major battles or simply invented them ex nihilo. In the matter of the Lex Valeria Livy and/or his source or sources have misinterpreted the archaic meaning of improbus. A clause from the Twelve Tables, preserved by Gellius (15.13.11), suggests that in early Roman law the adjective had the same meaning as infamis did in later times: namely, a person found guilty of an egregious breach of trust, such as giving false

testimony or mismanaging a ward's estate, was henceforth regarded by the law as dishonest and was forbidden to make a will or to serve as a witness in legal ceremonies, such as mancipatio.? Thus, the penalty specified by the Lex Valeria was not a mere matter of name calling, but it punished its violator with a meaningful legal disability that lasted the person's lifetime. For the year 346 Livy (7.27.5-9) records the consul M. Valerius Corvus’ capture and destruction of Satricum, including the surrender of 4000 combatants. After stating that Valerius led these 4000 dediri before his chariot in his triumph and then sold them into slavery, Livy gives the following variant, which he endorses: "There are those who write that these captives were slaves; and this is more likely than that surrendered persons were sold."!? On the contrary, given the fact that the Romans destroyed Satricum, it seems far more likely that they actually did sell into slavery 4000 free persons who had surrendered into the fides of the Roman people; but since such harshness was repugnant to later Roman historians, the latter reinterpreted the harsh reality to fit their notion that Rome's actions were always honorable or at least justified.

Perhaps the lengthiest and most elaborate illustration of how patriotism affected the annalistic tradition and Livy's use of it is his narrative of events preceding, including, and immediately following the Caudine disaster of 321. In 8.38-9, the antepenultimate and penultimate chapters of the book, Livy recounts Roman military affairs against the Samnites for the year 322. Since there were reports of an extraordinary military levy being conducted among the Samnites, the Romans entrusted the campaign to a dictator and master of horse rather than the two consuls, who carried out their own special recruitment of soldiers. Yet, despite these measures, the dictator encamped so carelessly in Samnite territory

that he was forced to withdraw by night. On the next day, when the Roman march was severely hampered by the Samnites, the Romans were compelled to give battle where they were. Because the Romans were fighting on unfavorable ground,

and

because

the Samnites'

courage

was buoyed

up by this fact, the

ensuing battle was a complete stalemate from the third to the eighth hour of the

day.!! While the Samnite cavalry was engaged in a disorderly sacking of the 9 For a survey of infamia's meaning and use see A. H. J. Greenidge, Infamia: Its Place in

Roman Public and Private Law, Oxford 1894.

10 Livy 7.27.9: Sunt qui hanc multitudinem captivam servorum fuisse scribant, idque magis

veri simile est quam deditos venisse.

! Livy (8.38.10) qualifies this last point with dicitur: Et Hercule illo die ab hora diei tertia

ad octavam ita anceps dicitur certamen stetisse, ut neque clamor, ut primo semel concursu est

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

69

Roman baggage, the master of horse attacked them with complete success and then turned against the rear of the enemy infantry. The latter panicked, and the Roman foot renewed its effort, resulting in a total defeat of the Samnites, including the death of their commander. Livy (8.39.10—5) describes the battle's aftermath as follows: In the end this battle so shattered Samnite resources that in all their meetings there were grumblings that it was not the least surprising if they were enjoying no success in an impious war undertaken contrary to treaty, because

the gods were deservedly more hostile than were men; the war would have to be expiated and atoned for at a great price; and it was only a question whether the punishment of a few would accomplish this with their guilty blood or it would be done by the innocent blood of all. Some were even emboldened now to name the authors of the war. One name especially, that of Brutulus Papius, was heard in the concourse of their clamoring. He was a powerful nobleman and without a doubt was the breaker of the recent truce. The praetors were forced to make a motion concerning him, and they decreed that Brutulus Papius should be surrendered to the Romans, that all the Roman booty and captives should be sent with him to Rome, and that everything which had been requested through fetials according to treaty should be restored in accordance with law and justice. As decreed, fetials were sent to Rome together with Brutulus' lifeless body. He had avoided disgrace and punishment by a voluntary death. It was decided that his property also be surrendered with his body. Yet, none of these things was accepted except the prisoners of war and whatever of the booty was recognized by its owner. The surrender of the other things was made null and void.!2 Very little, if any at all, of 8.38—9 can be accepted as historical. The lack of any topographical information in Livy's account could be accidental, merely stemming from Livy's own indifference, but it might also indicate that no such information was to be found in Livy's source or sources, because the fabrication did not include such information due to the authors' preoccupation with other sublatus,

iteratus sit, neque signa promota

loco retrove recepta,

neque

recursum ab ulla sit

parte. 12 Livy 8.39.10-5: Hoc demum proelium Samnitium res ita infregit, ut omnibus conciliis fremerent minime id quidem mirum esse, si impio bello et contra foedus suscepto, infestioribus merito deis quam hominibus nihil prospere agerent: 11 expiandum id bellum magna mercede luendumque esse; id referre tantum utrum supplicia noxio paucorum an omnium innoxio praebeant sanguine; audebantque iam quidam nominare auctores armorum. 12 Unum maxime nomen per consensum clamantium Brutuli Papi exaudiebatur; vir nobilis potensque erat, haud dubie proximarum indutiarum ruptor. V3 De eo coacti referre praetores decretum fecerunt, ut Brutulus Papius Romanis dederetur, et cum eo praeda omnis Romana captivique ut Romam mitterentur, quaeque res per fetiales ex foedere repetitae essent secundum ius fasque restituerentur.

14 Fetiales Romam,

ut censuerunt, missi et corpus Brutuli exanime: ipse morte

voluntaria ignominiae se ac supplicio subtraxit. Placuit cum corpore bona quoque eius dedi. 15 Nihil tamen earum rerum praeter captivos ac si qua cognita ex praeda sunt acceptum est; ceterarum rerum inrita fuit deditio.

70

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

matters. Many aspects of this supposed Roman victory and attempted Samnite surrender are later annalistic inventions designed to offset the historical Roman disaster at the Caudine Forks in the very next year. The only reason why the Samnites were able to hold their own in this battle against the Romans is that the latter were fighting on unfavorable ground. Thus, this Roman victory serves to mitigate the Samnites' entrapment of Roman forces in a defile at Caudium. The reported death of the Samnite commander makes their defeat total. The alleged discontent following the battle clearly portrays the Samnites as impious treaty breakers, and their attempted surrender has been fashioned to counterbalance the real Roman surrender of the next year. Attaching the war guilt and its expiation to a single man, Brutulus Papius, not only anticipates but helps to lend credence to the way in which the Romans are supposed to have extricated themselves from the Caudine Peace. Moreover, the Roman partial acceptance of the surrender upholds Roman dignitas but also has the effect of shifting some of the divine displeasure onto the Romans, so that the disaster of the following year can be seen as resulting from temporary Roman shortsightedness rather than from Samnite superiority in arms (see Livy 9.1.3-11). 8.40, the last chapter of the book, is devoted to Livy's recording of a variant

to the events of this year and his complaint on the confused nature of the historical traditions for this period. The entire passage was quoted in chapter 2 to illustrate Livy's cautious agnosticism toward the traditions of early Rome (see above pp.44—5), but when viewed in its full context, the picture which emerges is one in which Livy seems to proclaim historical agnosticism while at the same time the material chosen for his preceding narrative is unhistorical but is best suited to his patriotic ideology. According to the variant in this chapter, the military campaign of 322 was conducted by the consuls, and the dictator was chosen merely to conduct affairs in the city in their absence. Besides the fighting in Samnium,

the variant included a successful campaign

in Apulia led by the

consul Q. Fabius Rullianus. Livy gives the impression that both accounts agreed in the matter of the fighting in Samnium, but this may not have been the case. Failure to record significant differences could simply result from Livy's own reticence and verbal economy. Brutulus Papius is probably an invention patterned after C. Papius Mutilus, a prominent Samnite commander during the Social War and Bellum Sullanum, who, like Brutulus Papius, died by his own hand." Thus, the historical tradition which Livy has chosen to follow in 8.38-9 would appear to date to the last decades of the republic. This raises the strong possibility that the rejected variant ultimately derived from a much older source which was not replete with the various elements anticipating and counterbalancing the Caudine disaster. If so, Livy seems to have set aside a more likely historical account in preference to one whose patriotic tendenz he found more satisfying. Livy describes in considerable detail the Roman army's entrapment at the Caudine Forks in 9.1-7 and the Roman repudiation of the agreement entered into '3 For his involvement in the Social War see Appian Bell. Civ. 1.40, 42, and 51. For his suicide during the Bellum Sullanum see Livy Per. 89 and Gran. Lic. 36.10.

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

7]

by the consuls in 9.8-11.! [n 9.5.2-4 he states that contrary to common belief and to what Claudius Quadrigarius wrote, no binding treaty (foedus) was made, but the consuls in the field merely bound themselves by a promise (sponsio) to

have the question of a treaty laid before the Roman people. In addition to offering arguments in this passage to support his contention, Livy uses the occasion of the debate

in the Roman

senate,

described

in 9.8-9,

to develop

even

further a

refutation of the belief that the Romans had agreed to a treaty in 321. Then after narrating the fetial's surrender of the consul Sp. Postumius Albinus and the indignant rejection of the surrender by the Samnite commander C. Pontius, Livy (9.11.13) concludes his account of the entire episode with the remark that those

surrendered to the Samnites returned to the Roman camp with their own fides intact and perhaps even having freed the state from its obligation. Livy therefore gives the appearance that his resolution of this controversy is based upon probabilistic reasoning, but in light of the whole tenor of this portion of his narrative it seems more accurate to conclude that whether done consciously or not, the reasoning simply serves to rationalize what Livy's patriotic outlook inclines him to accept as true. The story of the Caudine Peace's repudiation is unhistorical and was doubtless first formulated in the aftermath of the heated debate over the legitimacy of the foedus Mancinum of 137.15 Livy's citation of Claudius Quadrigarius is particularly interesting. In two other passages (25.39.12 and 35.14.5) Livy cites Quadrigarius in such a way as to suggest that his version of events was taken from the history of

C. Acilius.!é Moreover, a statement in the Summary of Livy's 53rd book suggests that Acilius published his history in 142, five years before the foedus Mancinum and its attendant debate.'’ It is therefore possible that as in several other matters,

Quadrigarius' account of the Caudine Peace was taken from Acilius, who described the Romans as actually having been forced to sign a treaty with the Samnites in

321.'8 However, other historians of the late republic, whom Livy chose to follow, fabricated a scenario which redeemed Roman patriotic pride by denying the historicity of the treaty. Thus, once again we find that Livy's historical judgment has been dominated by patriotic preconceptions. In the next eight chapters (9.12—9) Livy consistently follows the same patriotic tack which denied the existence of the Caudine Peace. Having once rejected the '5 Quintilian (10.1.101) observes that no historian was better than Livy in depicting emotions. The latter's portrayal of the Roman soldiers’ stupor, frustration, and depression in 9.2.10—3.2 and 9.5.6-6.13 exceeds credibility and becomes melodramatic and pathetic. !5 On this matter see M.

H. Crawford

"Foedus

and Sponsio.’

PBSR

41

(1973)

1-7. For

modern discussions of Roman affairs in Spain in 137 B.C. and the ensuing political fallout in Rome involving Mancinus see H. Simon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, Frankfurt 1962 145-59, and N. Rosenstein "Imperatores Victi: The Case of C. Hostilius Mancinus," CA 5 (1986) 230-52.

I6 Livy 25.39.12: Auctor est Claudius. qui annales Acilianos ex Graeco in Latinum sermonem vertit... Livy 35.14.5: Claudius, secutus Graecos Acilianos libros...

U Livy Per. 53: Acilius senator Graece res Romanas scribit. '8 1f Quadrigarius is also the source of the variant which Livy mentions in 8.40 concerning the events of 322, his account could have been taken from Acilius and could have differed substantially from what Livy records in 8.38-9.

72

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

alternative view of Quadrigarius and others on this matter, Livy never alludes to variants that reflect this version of events. All variant accounts mentioned in 9.14—6 pertain to patriotically revised versions. In 320, the year after the Roman humiliation at the Caudine Forks, the consuls Q. Publilius Philo and L. Papirius

Cursor are described as having obtained immediate, full, and appropriate revenge from the enemy. After invading Samnium, Philo and his army inflict a crushing defeat upon the Samnites, who are so terrified that they are pursued into Apulia. When Philo joins up with Cursor at Luceria, the two consuls enjoy similar success in storming the enemy camp. The two battle narratives (9.13.1—4 and 9.14.9-12) are utterly fantastic, being nothing more than military cartoons cast into the form of Latin prose. In 9.15.3-7 Cursor forces the Samnite garrison inside Luceria to surrender, sends them under the yoke in retaliation of the same ignominy imposed upon the Romans in the previous year, and liberates the Roman

hostages given to the Samnites at the Caudine Forks. Livy (9.15.8-11)

then comments: Virtually no other victory of the Roman people is more distinguished by its sudden reversal of affairs, if in fact, as I find recorded in some annals, Pontius, the son of Herennius, the Samnite general, was also sent under the

yoke along with the others in order to atone for the consuls’ disgrace. Yet, I am less amazed that this point concerning the enemy leader's surrender and submission is an obscure one. What is more remarkable is that it is disputed whether the dictator L. Cornelius with L. Papirius Cursor as his master of horse conducted these operations at Caudium

sole avenger of Rome's triumph up to that time belonged to the consuls, follows this one: whether

and then at Luceria, was the

disgrace, and enjoyed perhaps the most fitting following that of Furius Camillus, or this honor and especially to Papirius. Another disagreement at the next elections Papirius Cursor was chosen

consul for a third time with Q. Aulius Cerretanus for the second time and had

his office continued for his success at Luceria, or L. Papirius Mugillanus was consul, and there has been a mistake in the surname.!? Livy seems willing to concede that the detail concerning Pontius is too good to be true, but his language appears to be deliberately guarded and noncommittal. He is more surprised at the discrepancy over the identity and rank of the Roman commander or commanders who allegedly conducted these military operations in 1? Livy 9.15.8-11: Haud ferme alia mutatione subita rerum clarior victoria populi Romani est, si quidem etiam, quod quibusdam in annalibus invenio, Pontius Herenni filius, Samnitium imperator, ut expiaret consulum ignominiam, sub iugum cum ceteris est missus. 9 Ceterum id minus miror obscurum esse de hostium duce dedito missoque; id magis mirabile est ambigi Luciusne Cornelius dictator cum L. Papirio Cursore magistro equitum eas res ad Caudium

aique inde Luceriam gesserit 10 ultorque unicus Romanae ignominiae haud sciam an iustissimo triumpho ad eam aetatem secundum Furium Camillum triumphaverit, an consulum, Papirique praecipuum, id decus sit. || Sequitur hunc errorem alius errar Cursorne Papirius proximis comitiis cum Q. Aulio Cerretano iterum ob rem bene gestam Luceriae continuato magistratu consul tertium creatus sit an L. Papirius Mugillanus et in cognomine erratum sit.

Chapter 4: Historicity Versus Morality and Patriotism

73

320. Livy himself has followed a version in which the two consuls were in charge, but according to some other source or sources, L. Cornelius oversaw these operations in the capacity of dictator. It seems likely that this latter variant arose subsequently to the one which Livy has adopted in his narrative. Some historian of the late republic, not content with what he found in his predecessors, introduced the dictator L. Cornelius, perhaps on the grounds that since Rome's later wars with Carthage, Antiochus, Numantia, and the Italian allies had been successfully concluded by members of the Cornelian family (i.e., by Scipio Africanus, Scipio Asiagenus, Scipio Aemilianus, and L. Cornelius Sulla), it seemed fitting to have a Cornelius be the avenger of the Caudine disaster. If so, the innovation is an illuminating testimony to the creative caprice of the late annalists whom Livy used. Although Livy has indicated the existence of a discrepancy concerning the identity of one of the consuls for 319, he leaves the matter unresolved for the time being. After devoting a single section (9.16.1) to Q. Aulius' military activities, Livy recounts in the next nine sections (9.16.2-10) the other consul's successful

recapture of Satricum, which had defected to the Samnites following the Caudine disaster. Throughout this episode Livy is careful never to refer to the consul by name. He is designated only by the title 'consul'. Finally, at 9.16.11 Livy states that according to those who ascribe the military operations of the previous year to the consuls, it was Papirius Cursor who as consul in 319 took Satricum and returned to Rome to celebrate a triumph. Livy (9.16.12) now reopens the question of the consul's identity and opines that Cursor was certainly worthy of all military glory. The latter conclusion and remark serve to introduce the remainder of the chapter (9.16.13—9), a digression recording various anecdotes in praise of Cursor, ending with a favorable comparison with Alexander the Great. This last comment in turn introduces 9.17—9, Livy's digression on the hypothetical question

of what would have happened if Rome and Alexander had confronted one another. As should be expected from Livy's patriotic perspective, his answer is that Rome would have been victorious over the greatest general of the Greek world. Thus, the digression has been artfully introduced and carefully calculated to assert most forcefully Roman military supremacy in order to obliterate completely the disgrace of the Caudine disaster. In conclusion, Livy's primary goal throughout this portion of his history has been the patriotic vindication of Roman honor, not the strict adherence to historical truth.

CHAPTER 5:

LIVY AND THE HISTORICAL SPEECH!

From the very beginning of historical writing among the Greeks the speech was a standard literary device used to impart dramatic vividness to the narrative and to bring issues into clear focus.? Herodotus not only included in his account of the Persian Wars speeches attributed to the great figures of the not too distant past for which he could have had fairly reliable direct or indirect testimony, but he also ascribed to personages of much more distant times words in oratio recta, which could not have been authentic. Thucydides employed the historical speech to great effect in his detailed description of the contemporary events of the Peloponnesian War, and at the beginning of his history (1.22.1-2) he even laid down a

strict ruling concerning his use of this literary device by assuring his readers that even though he was unable to reproduce verbatim speeches delivered on various occasions, he set forth their essentials and adhered to their wording as closely as possible. His successor and continuator, Xenophon, who wrote a contemporary history of Greek affairs for the years 411—362, seems to have maintained the Thucydidean

standard

with

respect

to the

historical

speech.

But

with

the

establishment of rhetoric as a highly specialized discipline in the Greek world during the fourth century some historians, such as Theopompus and Timaeus, came under criticism for investing too much care in their speeches or for writing inappropriately.? Polybius, who wrote a detailed history of contemporary and nearly contemporary events covering the years 264—146, prided himself on writing a sophisticated account of political and military affairs to be used by the professional statesman; and although his history was quite lengthy, he made very sparing use of the historical speech. As he makes clear in his criticism of Ti! The term ‘historical speech' used throughout this chapter will refer to an author's attribution of words in oratio recta to a person in the historical narrative. The ‘speech’ need not be of great length but can simply be a single sentence. The important point is that the historian depicts a person in his narrative as having actually uttered certa verba in direct speech. For other modern discussions of speeches in Livy's history, especially those of the later books, see H. V. Cantor AJP 38 (1917) 125-51, idem AJP 39 (1918) 44-64, R. Ullman, La Technique des Discours dans Salluste, Tite Live et Tacite: La Matiere et La Composition, Oslo 1927 49-196, idem, Etude sur le Style des Discours de Tite Live, Oslo 1929, H. Bornecque, Tite-Live, Paris 1933 155-74, K. Gries AJP 70 (1949) 118-41, P. G. Walsh Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge 1963 219-44, R. Treptow, Die Kunst der Reden in der 1. und 3. Dekade des Livianischen Geschichtwerks, Diss. Kiel 1964, and T. J. Luce in Livius: Aspekte Seines Werkes, Xenia 31 (1993) 71-88. ? For a general survey of this topic see C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley

1983 142-68.

3 For Theopompus see Cic. De Or. 3.36, Brutus 204, ad Au. 6.1.12, and Quintilian 2.8.11. For Timaeus see Polyb. 12.25A-B, Cic. Brutus 325, and Pseudo-Longinus De Sublimitate 4.1.

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

75

maeus' speeches (see the preceding note), he agreed with Thucydides in that the historian should be accurate in setting forth the essentials of what was actually said. Consequently, since the historical speech had long been a permanent fixture in Greek historiography, by the time that Livy came to write Roman history the historical speech had likewise become an accepted element in Roman historiography. Although Polybius had been chiefly responsible for introducing the Romans to the genre of detailed contemporary or nearly contemporary history,

fragments from lost histories of republican date indicate that he was not responsible for introducing Roman writers to the historical speech, and that by the close of the republic this device had even been employed at least to some extent in reference to the poorly documented events of the regal period and early republic. At 2.40.11 Livy reveals that Fabius Pictor ascribed to Coriolanus the conviction that exile was more wretched for an old man. Even if this sentiment was expressed in indirect discourse, it is highly significant that Rome's earliest native historian felt comfortable in attaching such a specific opinion to a figure of the distant past. In 3.7 of the Artic Nights Gellius quotes a passage from Cato's Origines in which the former censor employed direct speech in depicting the interchange between a . Roman consul and a military tribune in the year 258 in Sicily during the First Punic War. Three other passages of the Attic Nights indicate that the historical speech was used by Piso, Cn. Gellius, and Claudius Quadrigarius in connection

with the regal period and early republic. 11.14 contains a quotation from Piso's history in which words in oratio recta are ascribed to Romulus. 13.23.13 reveals that Cn. Gellius composed for Romulus' wife Hersilia a historical speech with which she addressed T. Tatius when the Romans and Sabines were doing battle in the Forum. 17.2.16 contains a brief quotation from Quadrigarius' first book which appears to be taken from a speech delivered by the legendary demagogue

M. Manlius Capitolinus. F 20 of Licinius Macer, a brief quotation preserved by Priscian, is of uncertain context, but it comes from the second book and is probably part of a historical speech assigned to some figure of early Rome.* Thus, Livy apparently had ample precedence in using the historical speech throughout his first decade. Cicero's well informed observations on the early history of Roman oratory in ss.53-62 of the Brutus are quite relevant for evaluating the historicity of Roman historical speeches and of ancient attitudes thereon. The earliest Roman whom Cicero regards as an eloquent orator is M. Cornelius Cethegus, who was consul in 204. Cicero reaches this conclusion solely on the testimony of the ninth book of Ennius" Annales, not on the basis of any extant speeches of Cethegus. Cicero notes that Cethegus' consulship preceded his own by a mere 140 years. Concerning the existence of earlier Roman orators Cicero lists eleven prime candidates by conjecturing from the traditional deeds attributed to them that they must have been good speakers: (1) L. Junius Brutus, Rome's republican forefather and first 5 Perversum esse, alii modi postulare Pyrrhum in te atque in ceteris fuisse. The 'Pyrrhus of another sort’ I understand as referring to Neoptolemus, Achilles’ son, not to Pyrrhus the king of

Epirus.

76

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

consul; (2) M'. Valerius Maximus, who in one tradition was responsible for reconciling the senate and people at the time of the first secession in 494; (3) L.

Valerius Potitus, the consul of 449 who was chiefly responsible for the overthrow of the second board of decemvirs; (4) M. Popilius Laenas, who allegedly ended a sedition during the fourth century; Ap. Claudius Caecus, who persuaded the senate not to make peace with Pyrrhus; (6) C. Fabricius, who was despatched as ambassador to Pyrrhus to recover Roman prisoners of war; (7) Ti. Coruncanius,

whom in Cicero's view the pontifical commentaries reveal to have been highly gifted in intellect; (8) M'. Curius Dentatus, who as plebeian tribune successfully

obstructed the designs of Ap. Claudius Caecus while serving as interrex; (9) C. Flaminius, who as plebeian tribune carried an agrarian law in the face of strong senatorial opposition; (10) Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator; and (11)

Q. Caecilius Metellus, the consul of 206. Cicero concludes his overview with the following remarks, which bear a striking resemblance to Livy 8.40 (see above pp.44—5): After this Cethegus came Cato next in age, whose consulship was nine years after his. We regard Cato as quite ancient (perveterem). He died in the consulship of L. Marcius and M'. Manilius, 86 years before my consulship. Nor in fact do I think that there is anyone more ancient whose writings I think should be adduced for sure, unless perchance someone likes this same speech of Ap. Caecus concerning Pyrrhus and some funeral eulogies. By Hercules, they do indeed exist. The families themselves preserved them as their own trophies and records, to be used when someone in the family died, for remembering the praises of their house and for demonstrating their noble lineage, despite the fact that our country's history has been made less accurate by these eulogies. Written in them are many things which did not occur: false triumphs, too many consulships, even forged genealogies, and transitions to the plebs in which people of lower station have been inserted into a clan of the same name, as if 1 should claim to be descended from the patrician M'. Tullius who was consul with Ser. Sulpicius in the tenth year after the

expulsion of the kings.? As can be surmised from allusions to him in Seneca the Elder, Livy was himself a professional rhetorician.© We may therefore safely assume that Livy 5 Cic. Brutus 61-2: Hunc igitur

Cethegum consecutus est aetate Cato, qui annis 1X post eum

fuit consul. Eum nos ut perveterem habemus, qui L. Marcio M'. Manilio consulibus mortuus est,

annis LXXXVI ipsis ante me consulem. Nec vero habeo quemquam antiquiorem, cuius quidem scripta proferenda putem, nisi quem Appi Caeci oratio haec ipsa de Pyrrho et non nullae mortuorum laudationes forte delectant. 62 Et Hercules eae quidem exstant: ipsae enim familiae Sua quasi ornamenta ac monumenta servabant et ad usum, si quis eiusdem generis occtdisset, et

ad memoriam laudum domesticarum et ad inlustrandam nobilitatem suam. Quamquam his laudationibus historia rerum nostrarum esi facta mendosior. Multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt: falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus, ut si ego me a M'. Tullio esse dicerem, qui patricius cum Servio Sulpicio consul anno X post exactos reges fuit. 5 Seneca Controv. 9.1.14, 9.2.26, and 10. Praef. 2; cf. Quintilian 8.1.3.

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

77

was quite familiar with Cicero's writings on rhetoric, including the Brutus, a treatise which surveyed the history of Roman oratory. Yet, even if Livy did not read ss.53-62 of the Brutus with a view to writing a history of early Rome, his own general remarks on the problematic nature of early Roman historical traditions (note especially 8.40) suggest that Livy would have generally agreed with Cicero’s interpretation of the early history of Roman oratory. It can therefore be confidently concluded that Livy must have been well aware that no reliable text existed for any Roman speech prior to the Pyrrhic War. On the other hand, as already indicated, Livy was heir to a historiographical tradition in which the historical speech was a standard element; and since he was no radical either in his historical methodology or in matters of style, he apparently accepted this convention, according to which the historian was expected to employ from time to time the literary device of the historical speech.’ Another important factor in Livy's use of the historical speech must have been his rhetorical training in probabilistic reasoning used in declamation. Rhetoricians were themselves expected and expected their students to be able to develop arguments both for and against any hypothetical or historical conundrum or situation. In fact, this aspect of ancient rhetoric may best explain why Livy uses probability more often than any other method of resolution. Ancient historians contrived their historical speeches in accordance with their understanding of the historical situation at hand. This practice and Livy's reaction thereto are well illustrated by 3.47.5 concerning the decemvir Ap. Claudius’ possessory interdict concerning Verginia: "Ancient authors have perhaps recorded something true as

regards the speech which he offered in justification of his decision, but since I find nowhere anything probable (veri similem) in such an outrageous verdict, it seems

best to set down

the one thing which

is agreed upon, that he awarded

possession in favor of slavery." In contrast, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, also a professional rhetorician, did not hesitate to devote an entire chapter (11.36) to report Appius' alleged speech on this occasion. Three other passages show how Livy constructs speeches from the supposed facts and then goes even one step farther in drawing conclusions from his own contrived speech, thereby creating a circular argument. In 2.34 Livy reports a grain shortage for the year 492 and the sending of ambassadors to purchase food from Etruria, Campania, and Sicily. He says that in the next year there was a debate in the senate as to how much people should be charged for the grain, and some senators expressed the view that it was now time to take back from the plebs the powers which the latter had extorted from them by their recent secession. After noting that Coriolanus was foremost among these senators, Livy in 2.34.911 constructs a speech attributed to Coriolanus which urges the senate to use the 7 |n 5.120 of his Orator Cicero notes that harangues before the people and addresses to the army before battle were a standard literary device in historical works: inferponuntur etiam contiones et hortationes.

8 Livy 3.47.5: Quem decreto sermonem praetenderit, forsan aliquem verum auctores antiqui tradiderint: quia nusquam ullum in tanta foeditate decreti veri similem invenio, id quod constat nudum videtur proponendum decresse vindicias secundum servitutem.

78

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

grain crisis to their own political advantage. Livy concludes the chapter with the personal observation that it is not as easy to say whether this should have been done as Livy thinks that it could have been done. In describing the supposed popular disturbance of 495, which was thought to have culminated in the first secession of the plebs in the next year, Livy (2.29.9-12) assigns to the consul Ap. Claudius (the members of whose family henceforth are monotonously portrayed as patrician reactionaries)? a speech in which he advises the senate to quell the sedition by appointing a dictator. The speech is immediately followed by a statement which seems to combine the alleged view of many senators in 495 and Livy's agreement therewith: "Appius' opinion seemed harsh and cruel to many, as it was."!? Similarly, after setting forth Canuleius' eloquent speech advocating the abrogation of the prohibition of intermarriage between patricians and plebeians, allegedly enacted by the second board of decemvirs five years earlier, Livy (4.6.1—2) writes:

After the consuls had come forward in the public meeting, and the matter had gone from uninterrupted speeches to quarreling. the tribune asked why a plebeian could not be elected consul, and one of them replied in a manner as hardly prudent in the present contention as it was perhaps true that no plebeian had auspices, and that the decemvirs had accordingly deprived them of the right of intermarriage in order that the auspices not be thrown into confusion by someone of uncertain progeny.!! An examination of historical speeches in the first decade in terms of their length and distribution reveals some interesting patterns, especially when divided into the following three groups: (1) brief quotations or short speeches numbering less than 150 words, (2) speeches of moderate length ranging from 150 to 550 words, and (3) long speeches numbering over 550 words. Speeches of the first type are most numerous. Book I alone contains 29 such passages, averaging about one every two chapters. Conversely, in the entire first decade there are only 16 speeches of the second type!? and 7 of the third type.!? In addition, Livy employs ? It is noteworthy that after setüng forth this hardline speech assigned to the first patrician Claudius of Roman history, Livy seems to exhibit some degree of skepticism toward this stereotypical portrayal of Claudii by qualifying their speeches on three later occasions throughout the first decade: 4.48.5-9 in giving the senate advice on how to divide the plebeian tribunes in 416 B.C., 6.40-1 concerning opposition to the passage of the Licinian Sextian Laws of 367, and 10.7.1-2 concerning opposition to the passage of the Ogulnian Law of 300 B.C. 10 Livy 2.30.1: Multis, ut erat, horrida et atrox videbatur Appi sententia. ! Livy 4.6.1—2: Cum in contionem et consules processissent et res a perpetuis orationibus in altercationem vertisset, interroganti tribuno cur plebeium consulem fteri non oporteret, 2 ut

fortasse vere, sic parum utiliter alter in praesens certamen respondit, quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet, ideoque decemviros conubium diremisse ne incerta prole auspicia turbarentur. 12 317.2-6 (182 words), 3.19.6712 (304), 6.15.9-13 (162), 6.18.5-15 (307), 7.13.3-10 (310), 7.35 (207), 7.40.4-19 (443), 8.4 (320), 8.13.11-8 (197), 9.1 (271), 9.4.8-16 (240), 9.8.310 (200), 9.9 (SO8), 9.11 (320), 9.26.14-9 (178). and 10.7.9-8.12 (419), 13 367.8 (763 words), 4.3-5 (1033), 5.3-6 (1432), 5.51—4 (1425), 6.40-1 (991), 7.30 (584), and 9.34 (653).

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

79

only the first type in his first two books. Longer speeches first make their appearance in Book III. Livy's experimentation with speeches of moderate length comes at 3.17.2-6 and 3.19.6—-12 (182 and 304 words respectively), and the first

long speech is set out at 3.67-8 (763 words). Book IV has at its beginning Canuleius' oration (4.3-5, numbering 1033 words), perhaps Livy's best speech of all and arguably the most eloquent ancient plea for introducing innovations into a state.!? The next two speeches of any length occur in Book V: one coming at the beginning of the book (5.3—6), and the other at its end (5.51—4). Moreover, these two speeches are almost exactiy identical in length (1432 vs. 1425 words).

and happen to be the longest two speeches of the entire decade. One other noteworthy fact is that the episode of the Caudine Peace alone contains 5 of the 16 speeches of moderate length. They perhaps best illustrate how the historical speech could be used to clearly delineate and explain complicated

and contentious issues. Rather than carrying on a lengthy scholarly historical debate with Claudius Quadrigarius and others over the historicity of the Caudine Peace's repudiation, Livy briefly sets out his thoughts on the matter in 9.5.2-5, and throughout the episode he employs speeches, even ascribing them to the Samnite C. Pontius, in order to set out fully before his readers the thorny moral and legal issues pertaining to the situation. Furthermore, this episode and its use of speeches demonstrate that Livy's use of oratio recta does not imply his agreement with the views expressed. In fact, the historical speech is a convenient means by which the historian can set forth disagreeable or unpopular opinions by ascribing them to a person in the narrative. By doing so the historian can do justice to Clio by airing both sides of an issue, but he avoids having to express thoughts critical of Rome in the impersonal voice of the author. Livy's use of this technique is seen in 8.4 where he attributes an anti-Roman speech of 320 words to the Latin praetor Annius, who gives voice to the grievances of the Latins on the eve of the Latin War. The preceding outline suggests that Book HI represents an important turning point in Livy's use of the historical speech. In his first two books Livy is content to employ the brief direct quotation or short speech. Hesitation in attributing speeches to the regal period is suggested by two considerations. Of the 9 records in the data base in which Livy qualifies a direct quotation, 5 instances occur in the first book alone (see below n.19). Further reluctance to use oratio recta is perhaps detectable in 1.35.2-5 and 1.59.8—11. In the former passage Livy writes that Tarquinius Priscus was the first man who delivered a public oration in order to win popular favor in his pursuit of the royal throne. Livy not only qualifies this remark with dicitur, but he summarizes Priscus' alleged speech in oratio obliqua. In the latter passage Livy describes in general terms the content of the speech which Brutus was thought to have used in arousing the Roman people against Tarquinius Superbus following Lucretia's rape and suicide. He declines to be 14 [n fact, this speech served as a model for an oration of Livy's most famous pupil, the Emperor Claudius, justifying his enrollment into the senate of persons from the Three Gauls. See ILS 212. Cf. Tac. Ana. 11.23-5.

80

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

more specific by commenting: "By telling these and other more heinous things. I suppose, which the outrageous state of affairs at that time suggested to hirn, but which are not at all easy for writers to relate, he drove the incensed populace to abrogate the king's imperium and to declare L. Tarquinius, his wife, and his children to be exiled."!5 Similarly, when recounting how the first secession of the plebs was ended in 494, Livy (2.32.8-12) qualifies the famous story of Agrippa Menenius with the phrase narasse dicitur and proceeds to tell the fable in the form of a lengthy indirect statement. In contrast, Dionysius of Halicarnassus drawing upon similar annalistic material does not hesitate to attribute to Brutus a speech of considerable length (4.77—83). Likewise, his account of the ending of the first secession is far more elaborate and contains several historical speeches (see 6.49—87).

As indicated, Livy's third book has the first two speeches of moderate length toward its beginning and the first long one at its end. Livy's decision to make use

of longer speeches in this book can perhaps be explained in two ways, which may not be mutually exclusive. One possibility is that it stems from a shift in Livy's perception of the nature of early Roman history. He has so organized his material that Book III is the central book of the first pentad, and the rise and fall of the tyrannical board of decemvirs forms the center piece of Book III and hence of the pentad itself. The earliest extant corpus of Latin was the Law of the Twelve Tables, and this fact may have persuaded Livy that the events of the mid fifth century

B.C.

were somewhat

less murky, thereby justifying the use of longer

historical speeches. Another possibility is that the change reflects Livy's growing confidence as a writer of Roman history. It is noteworthy that the first speech of moderate length contains 182 words, but the second one two chapters later has 304 words. In addition, as if not wanting to compose too long a speech in oratio recta, Livy has continued the first speech of moderate length into 3.17.7-8 by writing in oratio obliqua for another 58 words. Furthermore, two other details reinforce the notion that in this book Livy becomes more venturesome and seems to have found his full voice with respect to this historiographical convention. First of all, when introducing the first long speech attributed to the consul of 447, T. Quinctius Capitolinus, Livy exhibits some degree of caution in the qualifying remark, “I accept (accipio) that he spoke in the following manner."!6 Secondly, Livy's wording earlier in the same book conveys even greater caution toward the use of historical speech in describing in 3.39.1—10 the senatorial meeting in 449 during which Valerius and Horatius first challenged the decemvirs’ illegal tenure of power. Rather than composing a historical speech of moderate length, he uses oratio obliqua to record in 205 words the tenor of Horatius' alleged remarks. In addition, he employs two qualifiers to introduce the passage:

'S Livy 1.59.11: His atrocioribusque, credo, aliis, quae praesens rerum indignitas haudquaquam relatu scriptoribus facilia subicit, memoratis incensam multitudinem perpulit, ut imperium regi abrogaret exsulesque esse iuberet L. Tarquinium cum coniuge ac liberis.

16 [ ivy 3.67.1: Ibi in hanc sententiam locutum accipio.

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

81

We have received (accepimus) that there was more obedience in the senate

coming into session than there was subservience in the stating of opinions. It has been handed down (proditum memoriae est) that after Ap. Claudius had made his motion but before senators were asked their opinions in order, L. Valerius Potitus, though the decemvirs attempted to prevent him with threats, raised a tumult by demanding that he be permitted to speak on the condition of the state, declaring that he would go before the plebs; and that M. Horatius

Barbatus entered the struggle no less fiercely, calling them ten Tarquins ....'7 Dionysius, on the other hand, once again exhibits his rhetorical incontinence by devoting 18 chapters (11.4—21) to a detailed description of this senatorial debate, including historical speeches attributed to Ap. Claudius, his uncle C. Claudius, L. Valerius, M. Horatius, and M. and L. Cornelius. The comparison between the two historians demonstrates Livy's rigorous observance of the principle of verbal economy and how it has exercised an important role in Livy's use of direct and indirect speech. Moreover, Livy's hesitation to compose longer speeches may be further suggested by the fact that after setting forth Canuleius' oration in 4.3-5, Livy decides to cast Cincinnatus' speech of 258 words in 4.15 into oratio obliqua. Admittedly, however, the desire for literary variatio may also be important in determining the passage's grammatical form. Livy in fact freely alternates between direct and indirect speech. For example, he very rarely uses direct speech in setting forth opposing views. His general rule is to pair a speech in oratio recta with one in oratio obliqua. A related Livian technique is to begin recording a person's remarks in the form of an indirect statement and then to shift

abruptly into direct discourse (cf. 10.7.1—8.12).!8 Although Livy's historical caution and verbal economy have influenced his sparing use of the longer historical speech, no such hesitation exists with respect to the brief quotation or short speech. Their frequent use and the fact that they are rarely qualified by dicitur or the like clearly indicate that Livy viewed them as entirely appropriate, even if their precise wording could not be vouched for in

strict historical terms.!? In fact, Livy can perhaps be considered the master of this literary device. In these passages Livy often succeeds in combining verbal economy with the ability to depict graphically people's emotions or states of U Livy 3.39.1-3: Sed magis oboedienter ventum in Curiam esse quam obnoxie dictas sententias accepimus. 2 L. Valerium Potitum proditum memoriae est post relationem Ap. Claudi. priusquam ordine sententiae rogarentur, postulando ut de re publica liceret dicere, prohibentibus minaciter decemviris, proditurum se ad plebem denuntiantem, tumultum excivisse; 3 nec minus ferociter M. Horatium Barbaium isse in certamen, decem Tarquinios appellantem .... 1$ For an exhaustive treatment of Livy's varied use of indirect discourse see A. Lambert, Die indirekte Rede als künstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius, Diss. Zürich 1946. I? [n fact, of the 24 records in the data base (6.3296) in which Livy has used a simple word or phrase to qualify a direct quotation or an indirect statement attributed to à historical figure. only 9 records involve direct quotations (1.7.2, 1.24.4-8, 1.36.4, 1.38.1-2, 1.56.10, 3.67-8. 5.27.12-4,

6.40-1,

10.19.17),

whereas

15 pertain

to indirect discourse

(1.35.2—5,

1.39.1-2.

1.50.9, 2.7.2, 2.32.8-12, 3.39.1-10, 4.41.1-7, 4.46.4, 4.48.6-9, 5.21.14—5, 6.20.6-9, 8.11.2-4, 9.3.9-10, 9.7.1-5, 10.7.1-8).

82

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

mind. In addition, Livy exercises good judgment in their placement at critical points in the narrative or at the end of an episode. In the latter case a character's words in oratio recta frequently serve as a forceful culmination or statement of a moral theme. Thus, Livy employs the historiographical convention of the historical speech to advance the patriotic and moral program of his history. Accordingly, even though Livy (2.10.11) casts doubt upon Horatius Cocles' exploit of swimming to safety while fully armed, he nevertheless attributes to the man a suitably heroic invocation of Father Tiberinus before leaping from the Pons Sublicius into the river's current. Livy's effective use of the brief quotation or short speech stands in sharp contrast to Dionysius' soporific verbosity. What forcefulness the latter's set orations could possess is drowned in the sheer volume of words. Livy's complex use of historical speeches and of indirect discourse, as well as his ambivolence toward early Roman traditions, are well illustrated by his account in 6.11—20 of the sedition of M. Manlius Capitolinus.?? By Cicero's day the popular belief was that the early republic had been thrice disturbed by attempted usurpations led by Sp. Cassius in 486, by Sp. Maelius in 440—439, and by M. Manlius Capitolinus in 385—4.?! From Gracchan times onwards their suppression by the state was manipulated to justify the optimates' use of armed violence to do away with popular leaders, such as the Gracchi, Saturninus, and Catiline. As a result, the historical accounts of these three early republican demagogues were described in terms of the political strife and violence of the late republic, thus making it difficult to ascertain precisely the historicity of the three men and their seditious activities.2* Political unrest of some sort arising from indebtedness during the 380's B.C. in the aftermath of the Gallic capture of Rome is certainly within the realm of possibility, since indebtedness appears to have been a problem a generation or so later.2? Yet, such an inference is a far cry from accepting as historical Livy's narration of the Manlian sedition. Ancient historians intended that it be a graphic illustration of a reversal of fortune: the man who had saved the state by repulsing the Gauls from the Citadel was found guilty of attempting to become tyrant of that same state and was hurled to his death from the very spot where he had erstwhile defended his country. In fact, it is Manlius’ association with the Capitoline which Livy is most at pains to stress throughout his narration of the episode. F's 6-9 of Claudius Quadrigarius preserved in Gell.

17.2.13—4 and 16—7 constitute the earliest extant evidence on this event and show that it was already well developed in Quadrigarius' history. Thus, Livy must have 20 For other modern analyses of this Livian episode see E. Burck Gymnasium 73 (1966) 86— 109, T. P. Wiseman

Historia 28 (1979) 32-50, C. S. Kraus, Livy: Ab Urbe Condita, Book

VI,

Cambridge 1994 146-218, M. Jaeger. Livy's Written Rome, Ann Arbor 1997 74-93, and especially Oakley 1997 I. 476—568. ?! Cic. De Re Pub. 2.49, Phil. 2.87, and 2.114. Cf. Val. Max. 6.3.1-3, Florus 1.17.26.7-8, and Ampelius 27.24. 22 For modern treatments of these traditions see Th. Mommsen Hermes 5 (1871) 228-80, Ogilvie 1965 337-45 and 552-7, A. W. Lintott Historia 19 (1970) 12-29, G. Forsythe, The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition. Lanham Md. 296—310, and T. P. Wiseman, Roman Drama and Roman History, Exeter 1998 90—105.

?* See Livy 7.21.5-8 and 7.42.1. Cf. Appian Bell. Civ. 1.54.

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

83

been heir to a rich historical tradition for this tale, no doubt replete with speeches,”4 from which he has crafted his own account. Livy carefully lays the groundwork for this episode by first narrating in 6.2— 10 Camillus' unchallenged military preeminence in the state following the Gallic catastrophe, because when Manlius is introduced in 6.11 as a self seeking popularis, he is described as having been partly motivated out of envy of Camillus, the other man whose efforts were chiefly responsible in defending the Roman state from the Gauls in 390. F 7 of Quadrigarius (2 Gell. 17.2.14) suggests that this element was present in the historical tradition in Quadrigarius' day. When beginning the year 385 in 6.11, Livy says that there was a Volscian war abroad and a sedition at home, and the latter resulted in A. Cornelius Cossus' appointment as dictator. In 6.12.1 Livy apparently follows his source or sources in having the dictator set out against the Volscians, and using the construction seu ... seu ..., he gives alternative explanations as to why Cossus left the city in the face of a looming domestic crisis. Livy then digresses in 6.12.2—6 to ponder the question of Volscian manpower (cf. above p.67).

The Manlian episode begins in earnest in 6.14. In this and the following three chapters Livy employs both indirect discourse and brief historical speeches to

dramatize Manlius' activities and his confrontation with the ruling oligarchy, including three highly melodramatic short quotations ascribed to Manlius in 6.14.4, 6.14.10, and 6.16.2. The honorable centurion whom Manlius rescues from

indebtedness in 6.14.3~8 is a stock character of the annalistic tradition. He has his counterpart in Livy 2.23 at the beginning of the debt crisis which culminated in the first secession of the plebs. In 6.16.4 Livy uses satis constat to qualify the detail that a large part of the plebs went into mourning when Manlius was imprisoned for the first time. 6.18.5-15 is the rhetorical masterpiece of the entire episode. It is a historical speech of 307 words in which Manlius harangues his supporters in his house, urging them to stand by him, to take courage in their numbers, and to be resolute against their far less numerous enemies. Livy begins this oration with the evocative words quo usque tandem, a clear literary allusion to the initial phrase of Cicero's First Catilinarian and to Sallust's imitation and adaptation of the latter in 20.9 of his Bellum Catilinae.*> Just as Sallust has Catiline speak these words when addressing his assembled supporters in his house for the first time, so Livy has Manlius utter them in an analogous situation. The obvious literary allusion prompts the reader to associate Manlius with Sallust's sinister characterization of Catiline. Moreover, just in case the dull reader does not immediately catch on, Livy includes in the same initial sentence of Manlius' speech the words quas natura ne beluas quidem, which echo pecora quae natura that occur in the 24 EF 9 of Quadrigarius (= Gell. 17.2.16) is certainly quoted from a speech: Nam haec maxime versatur deorum iniquitas, quod deteriores sunt incolumiores, neque optimum quemquam inter nos sinunt diurnare.

23 On Sallust’s conscious imitation of Cicero see R. Renehan CP 71 (1976) 99-100. Cicero's Quo usque tandem abutere, tandem patiemini, o fortissumi viri.

Catilina, patientia nostra becomes

Sallust's quo usque

84

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

memorable gnomic sententia at the very beginning of Sallust's Catilinarian monograph. Furthermore, the Livian and Sallustian compositions even resemble one another in how they end. Livy's vestrum appellabitis ducem, eo utemini in 6.18.15 corresponds to Sallust's vel imperatore vel milite me utimini in 20.16 of the Bellum Catilinae. In fact, the Catilinarian shading of Manlius' character can be discerned by the careful reader at the episode's very outset: for in 6.11.7 Livy comments that Manlius "preferred to be of a great reputation rather than of a good one.”26 The sentiment represents a deliberate inversion of Sallust's famous judgment of Cato the Younger, that "he preferred to be rather than to seem to be

good."?" In sum, Livy has artfully incorporated Sallustian echoes into this historical speech and has thereby made the speech convey much more than the literal meaning of its words. Yet, immediately after using this historical speech to cast Manlius into the mold of a Catiline, Livy subverts this portrayal by observing: "From this point is said (dicitur) to have begun his play for tyranny (de regno), but it is not recorded with sufficient clarity (nec ... satis planum traditur) with whom and to what end his designs came."?? In fact, Livy's speech agrees with this indeterminance. Manlius proposes nothing more than the vague assertion that "it is time to attempt even greater things" (tempus est etiam maiora conari, 6.18.13). Livy balances Manlius’ oration in 6.18 by a description of the opposition's meeting in 6.19. After first recording in 6.19.2 in oratio obliqua the opinion of many that the times called for a Servilius Ahala who would end the internal war by the loss of a single citizen, Livy (6.19.3) adds late republican political verisimilitude to the debate by his anachronistic reporting of a senatus consultum ultimum against Manlius. The discussion ends with a single short speech of 76 words in 6.19.6—7 attributed to the two plebeian tribunes M. Menenius and Q. Publilius, who propose to prosecute the demagogue before the people on the invidious charge of regnum. The names of the two tribunes are certainly fictitious, taken over by Livy from one of his sources. The names have been deliberately chosen to lend further legitimacy to the senate's actions. Menenius recalls Agrippa Menenius, who was chiefly responsible in reconciling the two orders at the time of the first secession; and the name Publilius suggests Volero Publilius and Q. Publilius Philo. The former was thought to have been the author of a law in 471 which gave the tribal assembly the power to elect the plebeian tribunes (see Livy 2.56.1—5, 57.4, and 58.1-2); and the latter as dictator in 339 was supposed to have

passed three laws of a populist nature (see Livy 8.12.12-7). The political significance of Menenius' name is even anticipated in 6.19.1 where Livy alludes to the meeting in Manlius' house as "the secession of the plebs into a private home" (secessione in domum privatam plebis).

The episode's climax and denouement are finally reached in 6.20. After using indirect discourse in 6.20.3 to report the popular belief that Manlius was being 26 Livy 6.11.7: famaeque magnae malle quam bonae esse.

27 Sall. Bell. Cat. 54.6: esse quam videri bonus malebat. 28 Livy 6.18.16: Inde de regno agendi orium initium dicitur; sed nec cum quibus nec quem ad finem consilia pervenerint, satis planum traditur.

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

85

put down because he had defected from the patricians to the plebeians, Livy (6.20.4-9) writes:

I find in no author what the accusers alleged against the defendant which pertained specifically to the charge of regnum apart from meetings of the multitude, seditious utterances, largess, and false testimony. 5 I have no doubt that they were not trivial, since the people's hesitation to convict him lay not in the case but in the place. The following should be noted in order that people understand how the desire for tyranny renders not only foul but even hateful honorable deeds, no matter what or how great they are. 6 He is said (dicitur) to have brought forth nearly 400 persons to whom he had loaned money without interest, whose property he prevented from being sold, and whom he kept from being led away as addicti. 7 In addition, he not only told of his achievements in war, but he even displayed conspicuous spoils of enemy dead, 30 in number, as well as 40 awards from commanders, among which were prominent two mural crowns and eight civic crowns. 8 Besides, he brought forth citizens rescued from the enemy, among whom was named the absent master of horse C. Servilius. Then after he had also narrated his deeds in war, using oratory as grand as the height of his achievements, matching his deeds with his words, he bared his chest distinguished with scars received in battle, and 9 looking again and again toward the Capitol, he called upon Jupiter and the other gods to aid him in his misfortune, praying that just as they had inspired him to protect the Capitoline Arx for the safety of the Roman people, they would bestow the same thought upon the Roman people in his hour of peril; and he besought them one and all to reach their verdict concerning him while gazing upon the Capitol and Arx and while

facing the immortal gods.?? It is quite interesting that although Livy has employed oratio recta on eight other occasions in this episode, he declines to do so in narrating the trial itself, which would have allowed him to compose set speeches by the prosecuting 29 Livy 6.20.4—9: Quae praeter coetus multitudinis seditiosasque voces et largitionem et fallax indicium pertinentia proprie ad regni crimen ab accusatoribus obiecta sint reo, apud neminem auctorem

invenio: 5 nec dubito haud parva fuisse, cum damnandi mora plebi non in

causa sed in loco fuerit. Hlud notandum videtur, ut sciant homines quae et quanta decora foeda cupiditas regni non ingrata solum sed invisa etiam reddiderit: 6 homines prope quadringentos produxisse dicitur, quibus sine fenore expensas pecunias tulisset, quorum bona venire. quos duci addictos prohibuisset; 7 ad haec decora quoque belli non commemorasse tantum sed protulisse etiam conspicienda spolia hostium caesorum ad triginta, dona imperatorum ad quadraginta,

in quibus

insignes duas

murales

coronas,

civicas octo;

8 ad hoc servatos

ex

hostibus cives [produxisse], inter quos C. Servilium magistrum equitum absentem nominatum; et cum ea quoque quae bello gesta essent pro fastigio rerum oratione etiam magnifica, facta dictis aequando, memorasset, nudasse pectus insigne cicatricibus bello acceptis et 9 identidem Capitolium spectans lovem deosque alios devocasse ad auxilium fortunarum suarum precatusque esse ut, quam mentem sibi Capitolinam Arcem protegenti ad salutem populi Romani dedissent, eam populo Romano in suo discrimine darent, et orasse singulos universosque ut Capitolium atque Arcem intuentes, ut ad deos immortales versi de se iudicarent.

86

Chapter 5: Livy and the Historical Speech

tribunes and by Manlius himself. Instead, having set up the confrontation by using historical speeches in the preceding two chapters, Livy wishes to bring the clash to a speedy resolution by summarizing the arguments of the prosecution in a lengthy personal remark and by casting Manlius' entire defense into a very long indirect statement.?? As in the case of Manlius’ activities, Livy indicates that the accusers in the ancient sources made no substantive charges against the defendant. Nevertheless, Livy in both instances, despite this vagueness, accepts the overall picture of the tradition. As already noted earlier in this chapter, similar ambiguity, ambivolence, and acceptance are encountered in Livy's dramatic narration of Verginia's death, in which Livy (3.47.5) expresses doubt about the words which his sources attached to Ap. Claudius’ infamous possessory interdict. In the present episode he uses the historical speech to depict Manlius as a Catilinarian demagogue, and he conjectures in 6.20.4 that despite the lack of evidence, serious charges must have been adduced. The situation reveals Livy's basic honesty in reporting what he finds or does not find in his sources, as well as showing his naive historical judgment in following uncritically the late annalistic tradition. Livy now rapidly concludes the episode in three sections (6.20.10—2). As soon as the plebeian tribunes realize their mistake in holding the trial in the Campus Martius, they adjourn and retry the case in a grove outside the Porta Flumentana, whence the Capitol and Arx could not be seen. Manlius is condemned, and his reversal of fortune is completed when he is hurled to an ignominious death from the very place where he had performed his greatest service to the state in repulsing the Gauls. Livy also adds a final note that according to some writers he was found guilty by duumviri perduellionis. 6.20.13-6 concerns other concluding details: the leveling of Manlius' house, the Manlian clan banning the use of the praenomen Marcus, the people's desire for their lost hero, and the outbreak of a plague which was thought by some as a sign of divine displeasure. The last item is reported in the form of an indirect statement.

V? Although it may not be apparent from the English translation, 6.20.6—9 is a single indirect statement depending upon dicitur in s.6.

CHAPTER 6: LIVY AND THE DIVINE!

The data base contains 53 records (13.9%) which are personal remarks or qualified

statements concerning matters of Roman religious history (rel) and marvelous or miraculous events (mir). There

are 23 records of the former (6.0595) and 30

records of the latter (7.89%). To these data should be added five other personal remarks and qualified statements concerning oracles or mythological or semidivine figures and their relations with mortals (1.5.1—3, 1.7.4, 1.49.9, 5.34.6, and 8.24.1). This body of material offers interesting glimpses into Livy's views on religion and what influence the gods exercise over historical events. Just as Livy indicates in the praefatio his belief that the early Romans

led

simpler and more virtuous lives, so in three passages of the first decade itself he makes clear his view that they were a more pious and godfearing people. For the year 460 Livy (3.15—8) first narrates the episode of the Sabine Ap. Herdonius' seizure of the Capitol, its recapture by the Tusculans and Romans, and the death of the consul P. Valerius Publicola amid the fighting. When L. Quinctius Cincinnatus is elected suffect consul and orders mobilization against the Aequians, the plebeians initially refuse, saying that they had taken the military oath to serve under

the

dead

Valerius,

but

they

finally

relent,

whereupon

Livy

(3.20.5)

comments: "Not yet had come the neglect of the gods which prevails now in our own age; nor did each person make the oath and the laws suit himself by quibbling, but instead he accommodated his behavior to them."? After adding in 8.10.11—4 further antiquarian details to his account of P. Decius Mus' devotio and death in the year 340, Livy (8.11.1) returns to the main narrative with the remark: "Even though the remembrance of all divine and human tradition has disappeared through the preference for all things new and foreign to the ancient and ancestral, J have thought it not at all off the subject to record these things even in their very words as they have been handed down and were spoken.'? In 10.40.9-10 Livy ! For other modern discussions of this topic see 1. Kajanto. God and Fate in Livy, Turku 1957, P. G. Walsh “Livy and Stoicism" AJP 79 (1958) 355-75, Walsh 1963 46-81. W. Liebeschuetz “The Religious Position of Livy's History" JRS 57 (1967) 45-55, D. S. Levene. Religion in Livy, Leiden 1993 and J. Linderski "Roman Religion in Livy" in Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes, Xenia 31 (1993) 53-70. The present discussion differs from the ones here cited in that it is restricted to the first decade and does not put trust in rhetorical remarks made in Livian speeches or found in the narrative. Rather, it uses as evidence only those statements or passages where Livy expresses some opinion of his own or clearly qualifies in some way traditional material taken over from his sources. ? Livy 3.20.5: Nondum haec quae nunc tenet saeculum neglegentia deum venerat, nec interpretando sibi quisque iusiurandum

et leges aptas faciebat, sed suos potius mores ad ea

accommodabat. ? Livy 8.11.1: Haec, etsi omnis divini humanique moris memoria abolevit nova peregrinaque

88

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

relates the following anecdote before the battle at Aquilonia in 293 between the Romans and Samnites: While the commander was absorbed in these things, a quarrel arose among the keepers of the sacred chicken (pullarii) concerning the auspices for that day, and it was overheard by the Roman knights. Thinking it a matter not at all to be scoffed at, they informed Sp. Papirius, the consul's fraternal nephew, that there was a dispute over the auspices. The young man, born before the time when learning scoffs at the gods, reported the matter to the consul after looking into it so as not to report something unfounded.^ Livy completes the story in the next four sections by telling how the consul placed the pullarii in front of the army as it went into battle, and the lying diviner received condign punishment when he was killed by a randomly thrown javelin. In two other passages Livy contrasts the simplicity of ancient religious practices with the unbounded extravagance of his own day. In 3.57.7 for the year 449 Livy records the following religious event: "Meanwhile, Latin and Hernican ambassadors came to Rome to express thanks for the harmony between the senate and people, for which they brought as a gift to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol a gold crown of small weight, because states were not at all rich, and religion was observed with more piety than splendor." At the close of his digression on the origins of Roman drama Livy (7.2.13) opines: "As in other matters, the very origin of performances, it seems, must also be placed among small beginnings, whence it appears how the situation has proceeded from a healthy start to the present insanity which is scarcely sustainable by rich kingdoms." The same picture of early Roman simplicity and wholesomeness in matters of religion is also found in Livy's description of the Romans' celebration of the first lectisternium in 399 (5.13.7—8): They say (ferunt) that people throughout the entire city oened their doors, set everything out in public for common use, hospitably entertained both acquaintances and strangers, and even engaged their enemies in kind and courteous conversation. There was a cessation of quarrels and lawsuits, and

omnia priscis ac patriis praeferendo, haud ab re duxi verbis quoque ipsis, ut tradita nuncupataque sunt, referre. * Livy 10.40.9-10: Dum hís intentus imperator erat, altercatio inter pullarios orta de auspicio eius diei exauditaque ab equitibus Romanis, qui rem haud spernendam rati Sp. Papirio, fratris filio consulis, ambigi de auspicio renuntiaverunt. 10 luvenis ante doctrinam deos spernentem natus rem inquisitam, ne quid incompertum deferret, ad consulem detulit.

5 Livy 3.57.7: Inter haec ab Latinis et Hernicis legati gratulatum de concordia patrum ac plebis Romam venerunt, donumque ob eam lovi Optumo Maximo coronam auream in Capitolium tulere parvi ponderis, prout res haud opulentae erant colebanturque religiones pie magis quam magnifice. $ Livy 7.2.13: Inter aliarum parva principia rerum ludorum quoque prima origo ponenda visa est, ut appareret quam ab sano initio res in hanc vix opulentis regnis tolerabilem insaniam venerit.

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

89

even those in bondage were released during those days. Afterwards there was

a religious scruple to bind those whom the gods had assisted." Since Dionysius (12.9) in his parallel account cites Piso for the assertion that there were no complaints of petty theft or disorderly conduct due to drunkenness, this idealized portrait of an early Roman celebration is evidently at least as old as Piso, who may be the writer lurking behind Livy's ferunt. Thus, Livy's view of the simple and pious character of early Roman worship was an integral part of the tralatician annalistic tradition, which Livy inherited and fully accepted. When all the records of the data base are viewed according to subject matter, it is not surprising to find that foreign affairs (frn) and domestic affairs (dom) lead the other four categories with

143

(37.6%)

and 93 (24.5%)

records re-

spectively. Religious matters and miraculous events bring up the rear, coming behind antiquarian matters having 53 records (13.9%) and even behind issues related to the fasti with 38 records (10.0%). This distribution is, however, quite

misleading if seen merely in terms of overall numbers and percentages, because Livy's first decade is primarily concerned with the narration of Roman foreign and domestic affairs. Consequently, even though these two subjects dominate the data base, there are even more aspects of foreign and domestic affairs which Livy has not bothered to qualify or comment on. The converse is true for miraculous events. Although they contribute only 30 records to the data base, they constitute almost a complete set of all miraculous or marvelous occurrences mentioned in the first decade. According to my reading of Livy’s first ten books, there are only six marvels in the entire decade which have not been qualified: the portent of the snake gliding out of a wooden column in the Tarquin palace (1.56.4), prodigies portending the unchastity of a Vestal and her execution in 483 (2.42.10-1), the sudden rise in the level of the Alban Lake in 399 and the prophecy of the Veientine seer (5.15), the Delphic oracle on draining the Alban Lake (5.16.8—-10),

M. Caedicius' report in 391 of having heard a voice warning him of the Gauls (5.32.6—7), and the tale of the false pullarius just mentioned above (10.40.9-14).

This nearly uniform pattern of qualifying marvelous events is quite remarkable and represents a powerful argument for Livy's general caution in accepting such things. As discussed in chapter 2, Livy no doubt felt obliged to record such matters because they were standard elements in the tralatician annalistic tradition; and as Livy himself confesses in s.7 of his praefatio, antiquity is allowed to render a city's origin more august by combining the human and the divine. Nevertheless, it is quite striking that three of the six unqualified passages come from Book V alone. Modern scholars have recognized that in this book Livy has clearly chosen to make piety a central theme. It is through pious observance that the Romans finally succeed in capturing Veii, and it is due to its neglect that the Romans are defeated by the Gauls at the Allia, and Rome itself is captured.? The ? Livy 5.13.7-8: Tota urbe patentibus ianuis promiscuoque usu rerum omnium in propatulo posito,

notos ignotosque passim advenas in hospitium ductos ferunt,

et cum

inimicis quoque

benigne ac comiter sermones habitos; 8 iurgiis ac litibus temperatum; vinctis quoque dempta in eos dies vincula; religioni deinde fuisse, quibus eam opem di tulissent, vinctri. 8 See, for example, Ogilvie 1965 626 and Liebeschuetz (above, n.1) 49-50.

90

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

book ends with the Romans being recalled to their customary piety through Camillus’ lengthy speech in 5.51—4 urging the Romans not to move to Veii. At its conclusion Livy (5.55.1) remarks, "Camillus is said (dicitur) to have moved them

by his speech, but especially with that part which pertained to religion."? Livy ends the book with the story of the centurion giving the order to halt in the Forum, remarking that it seemed to be a good place, and the senators, who are debating the issue whether to move the city to Veii or to remain in Rome, overhear the remark and interpret it as an omen to keep the city at its present site. Since the portentous rise of the Alban Lake, its draining, and Caedicius' report contribute to the book's principal theme, qualifying them would have diminished their significance. Thus, it appears that despite his general caution in accepting the report of marvelous occurrences, Livy is willing in Book V to subordinate any personal doubt to the greater thematic purpose of the book. His willingness in this regard resembles his proclivity to sacrifice historicity in order to satisfy the needs of patriotism and morality. 15 of the 30 records labeled 'mir' are simple in form and are wonders that have been qualified with a single word or phrase, such as dicitur and have received no comment. Four of these marvels are attested already in the fragments of Rome's earliest historians. Livy's mention in 1.31.8 of Tullus Hostilius' death by lightning, resulting from a botched attempt to conjure Jupiter as Numa had done,

is found

in Piso (Pliny NH

2.140 and 28.14). The

two famous

omens

accompanying the construction of the Capitoline temple, the refusal of Terminus to be exaugurated and the unearthing of a human head during the preliminary digging, reported by Livy in 1.55.3—6, are found respectively in fragments of Cato's Origines (Festus 160L s.v. nequitum) and of Fabius Pictor (Arnobius 6.7).

In the former fragment Festus actually quotes Cato, and the quotation shows that unlike Livy, the former censor recorded without any qualification Terminus’ refusal to be exaugurated. In the latter case it is worth noting that although Livy mentions the finding of the human head and its interpretation very briefly in two sections, Dionysius of Halicarnassus embellishes his account with a lengthy story involving a famous Etruscan diviner and his attempt to appropriate the portent's significance to himself (4.59-61). Cicero (De Div. 1.55) shows that Fabius Pictor explained the origin of instauratio in terms of Latinius’ dream, his report to the senate, and

his miraculous

cure. In his account of the same

tale Livy

(2.36)

qualifies with traditum memoriae est its most sensational element: how Latinius walked out of the senate house by himself, although he had been carried in on a litter. Livy's cautious handling of the marvelous is further suggested by his failure to include in his narrative of the regal period Numa's conjuring of Jupiter Elicius and the mysterious appearance and disappearance of the Sibyl, who sold the Sibylline Books to Tarquinius Superbus. The former tale was told in lavish and fantastic detail by Valerius Antias (Arnobius 5.1, cf. Plut. Numa 15), and Dionysius recounts the latter in his Roman Antiquities 4.62. * Livy 5.55.1: Movisse eos Camillus cum alia oratione tum ea quae ad religiones pertinebat maxime dicitur.

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

91

Two other passages perhaps best encapsulate Livy's view and handling of miracles associated with early Roman history. After describing a hotly contested battle fought by the Romans against Tarquinius Superbus and his Etruscan allies in the first year of the republic, Livy (2.7.1—3) writes: After the battle had been fought in this manner, such great fear came upon Tarquin and the Etruscans that the armies of both Veii and Tarquinii each went home, disregarding the night and thinking the cause lost. They add marvels to this battle: that during the silence of the ensuing night there was heard a mighty voice issuing from the Arsian Forest, believed to be that of Silvanus, saying that the Etruscans fallen in battle were more numerous by one, and the Romans were victorious in war. Indeed (certe), they did depart in

this way, with the Romans as victors and the Etruscans as the vanquished.!? Just as in his brief account of the trial and execution of Sp. Cassius in 2.41.10-2, Livy begins and ends the passage with similar remarks that frame the controversial material and state what is generally accepted. His use of the adverb certe in the reiterated remark at the end signifies that whatever is to be believed, the armies did in fact separate as victors and vanquished. A similar cautious approach is encountered in Livy's description of Juno Regina's evocatio from Veii in 5.22.5-7: Then when someone asked either from divine inspiration or as a youthful jest "do you want to go to Rome, Juno," the others exclaimed that the goddess nodded. To this story (fabula) has been added that there was even heard an utterance of her saying that she was willing. We have in fact (certe) received (accepimus) that she was light and easy to move from her place by supports with little effort, as if she were following them; and that she was brought intact to her permanent abode on the Aventine, whither the vow of the Roman dictator had summoned her.!!

On three occasions throughout the first decade Livy makes personal remarks bearing on the role of the Fates, Fortune, and the gods in human affairs. The first

of these statements stands at what could be termed the very beginning of his Roman historical narrative. After describing Rome's Trojan and Alban antecedents in the first three chapters of Book I, Livy concludes his account of the Alban king list by mentioning Amulius’ seizure of power from his older brother Numitor, as well as the killing of the latter's son and the condemnation of his daughter to U Livy 2.7.1-3: Ha cum pugnatum esset, tantus terror Tarquinium atque Etruscos incessit, ut omissa inrita re nocte ambo exercitus, Veiens Tarquiniensisque, suas quisque abirent domos. 2 Adiciunt

miracula

huic pugnae:

silentio proximae

noctis ex Silva Arsia

ingentem

editam

vocem; Silvani vocem eam creditam. Haec dicta: uno plus Tuscorum cecidisse in acie; vincere bello Romanum. 3 Ita certe inde abiere, Romani ut victores, Etrusci pro victis. I! Livy 5.22.5-7: Dein cum quidam, seu spiritu divino tactus seu iuvenali ioco, "visne Romam ire, luno" dixisset, adnuisse ceteri deam conclamaverunt. 6 Inde fabulae adiectum est vocem quoque dicentis velle auditam. Motam certe sede sua parvi molimenti adminiculis sequentis modo accepimus levem ac facilem tralatu fuisse, 7 integramque in Aventinum aeternam sedem suam, quo vota Romani dictatoris vocaverant, perlatam.

92

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

childlessness by making her a Vestal. Livy then introduces the birth of Romulus and Remus by commenting at 1.4.1-2:

But in my view (ut opinor) the origin of such a great city and of the greatest empire pursuant to the gods' power owed its beginning to the Fates. On being violated and giving birth to twins, the Vestal declared Mars to be the father of the illegitimate offspring, either because she thought it so, or because a god was a more honorable reason for her fault.!? It is important to note that after assigning the Fates the responsibility of thwarting the evil designs of Amulius, Livy does not record the marvelous tale of Mars raping the maiden. Instead, he attributes the claim of divine paternity directly to the Vestal herself with alternative explanations for the assertion: one marvelous, and the other rational. In this way he avoids committing himself to upholding the tradition of the twins' divine descent. The Origo Gentis Romanae 19.5-20.1 indicates that Livy's alternative explanations represent a very terse summary

of the traditional

account

found

tn Fabius

Pictor and other

Roman

writers versus the rationalized redaction of Licinius Macer. According to the latter Amulius raped his niece in the Grove of Mars and later had the twins exposed in order to cover up his crime.

In 1.46 Livy describes how the two daughters of Servius Tullius were married to the two sons of Tarquinius Priscus in such a way that a gentle Tullia was matched with a ruthless and ambitious Tarquinius, and vice versa. The result was that the Tullia and Tarquin of a similar harsh disposition made common cause, plotted against their docile spouses, did away with them, remarried, and then proceeded to conspire against Servius Tullius. In 1.46.5 Livy comments as follows concerning the initial mismatching of these two couples: "It so happened by chance that the two persons of violent disposition were not joined in marriage, I suppose, by the Fortune of the Roman people in order that Servius’ reign might last longer and the state's traditions could be established.” The last phrase refers, of course, to the centuriate organization ascribed by ancient writers to Servius and considered to be the keystone of the republican constitution. Thus, in Livy's view Fortune at this juncture played a critical role in Rome's constitutional history. Finally, in 6.6-10 Livy gives the following account of Rome's military affairs for 386. Camillus as consular tribune and his colleague P. Valerius defeat near Satricum the combined forces of the Volscians, Latins, and Hernicans. After the Latins and Hernicans return home, the Romans quickly capture Satricum and then move against the much stronger Volscian town of Antium. At 6.9.1-3 Livy writes: 2 Livy

1.4.1—2: Sed debebatur,

ut opinor, Fatis tantae origo urbis maximique secundum

deorum opes imperii principium. 2 Vi compressa Vestalis cum geminum partum edidisset. seu ita rata seu quia deus auctor culpae honestior erat, Martem incertae stirpis patrem nuncupat.

3 Livy 1.46.5: Forte ita inciderat, ne duo violenta ingenia matrimonio iungerentur Fortuna. credo, populi Romani, quo diuturnius Servi regnum esset constituique civitatis mores possent.

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

93

The general's [Camillus'] mind was intent upon a greater enterprise: Antium. As the capital of the Volscians, it had been the origin of the recent war. But because such a strong city could not be taken except with considerable artillery and siege equipment, he left his colleague behind with the army and set out for Rome to urge the senate to undertake Antium's destruction. During his speech (I suppose that the gods wished the Antiate state to endure a while longer) ambassadors arrived from Nepete and Sutrium, requesting assistance against the Etruscans and saying that there was little time to

spare.!^ Livy then tells how Camillus broke off operations before Antium and rescued the two colonies threatened by the Etruscans.

The three brief personal remarks embedded in these passages are meager evidence indeed. They could be dismissed as nothing more than Livian rhetorical flourishes, but the prominent placement and evasive character of 1.4.2 suggest to me that there is something more to these comments. One thing commonly shared among them is that Livy never attaches a miraculous element to these issues. The Fates, the Fortune of the Roman people, and the gods are viewed as having guided the course of human affairs through their normal operation. Thus, Livy appears to have been a theist who believed that the gods could and did influence the outcome of human events, but that they did so impersonally without transgressing nature's laws. This picture agrees in part with Walsh's conclusion that Livy “wrote from a Stoic standpoint, "5 but in my view he has gone too far in depicting Livy as having fully embraced the philosophical perspective of the New Stoics. Given Livy's strong attachment to an idealized Roman past, including religion, it is probably more accurate to say that he wrote from a traditional Roman standpoint which had been tempered and rationalized through a century or more of Stoic influence. I therefore find myself in agreement with Liebeschuetz, who sees Livy's religious outlook as having been basically rational but also involving a deep fondness for Roman traditions.'® In addition, Kajanto is correct in concluding that in the Livian world view history is largely determined by the actions of men, not of the gods or of Fortune. As Livy stresses in s.9 of the praefatio, Rome acquired its empire through the virtues of its citizenry, not as the fortuitous gift of the gods or of fickle Fortune."? Since there are two major episodes in Livy's first decade in which marvels play a prominent role, it seems proper to conclude this discussion of Livy and the divine with a critical overview of this material. The first passage is 1.4-7 which ^ Livy 6.9.1-3: Ceterum animus ducis rei maiori, Antio, imminebat: id caput Volscorum, eam fuisse originem proximi belli. 2 Sed quia nisi magno apparatu. tormentis machinisque, tam valida urbs capi non poterat, relicto ad exercitum collega, Romam est profectus, ut senatum ad excidendum Antium hortaretur. 3 Inter sermonem eius (credo rem Antiatem diuturniorem manere dis cordi fuisse) legati ab Nepete ac Sutrio auxilium adversus Etruscos petentes veniuni, brevem occasionem esse ferendi auxilii memorantes. I5 P. G. Walsh AJP 79 (1958) 356.

16 W. Liebeschuetz (above, n.1) 53-5. '7 |, Kajanto (above, n.1) 23-53 and Arctos N.S. 2 (1958) 58-9.

94

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

recounts Rome's traditional foundation story. As noted above, Livy begins his account in 1.4.1-2 with a personal remark concerning the role of the Fates, followed immediately by an extremely compressed summary of two divergent explanations for how the twins' mother was impregnated. Livy, however, is careful neither to affirm nor to refute either version. After describing in traditional terms how the twins were exposed at the foot of the Palatine, Livy in 1.4.5 ascribes to unnamed writers (ferunt) the antiquarian detail that the fig tree near which the twins were exposed was called the Ficus Romularis. In fact, as Livy himself makes clear, the tree's real epithet was Ruminalis. It took its name from Rumina, a minor divinity of suckling, beside whose precinct the tree stood; and their proximity to the Lupercal obviously prompted later antiquarians and historians

to incorporate them into Rome's foundation story with suitable aetiologies.!? In the next section (1.4.6) Livy records the tale of the she-wolf suckling the infants.

The story is ascribed to tradition (tenet fama) and receives no comment of approval or disapproval, but after referring once again to unnamed writers (ferunr) for the antiquarian detail concerning the name and identity of the one who rescued the twins (i.e., Faustulus), Livy, as in the case of the Vestal's rape, gives in 1.4.7 a rationalized alternative, according to which Faustulus' wife received the name of she-wolf because she was a prostitute, and the story of the twins being suckled by a real wolf grew out of this fact. Macrobius (Sar. 1.10.16—7) indicates that this latter version was at least as old as Cato's Origines and may have been recorded by Licinius Macer as well. Livy once again merely acknowledges the variant interpretation without offering any comment of his own. After briefly noting in 1.4.8—-9 the twins’ arrival at early manhood and their livelihood as chivalrous herdsmen who attacked and robbed local brigands, Livy in 1.5.1—3 casts into a lengthy indirect statement attributed to unnamed authors (ferunt) an account of how Remus was taken captive by herdsmen from Alba, who ambushed the brothers while they were celebrating the Lupercalia near the Palatine. The sentence contains the Arcadian Evander's establishment of the Lupercalia and his settlement on and naming of the Palatine, as well as Remus’ capture by the Albans. Thanks to Dionysius’ parallel account in 1.79.13-80.2, we can determine that Aelius Tubero is the author lurking behind Livy's ferunt. Tubero explained Remus' abduction by the Albans in this very manner, whereas

Fabius Pictor and other Roman historians said that it occurred when Romulus was away performing rites at Caenina, and Remus fell into an ambush while pursuing Albans who had attacked the twins' settlement. The remainder of this and the following chapter are written in oratio recta without further qualifications and describe very economically how Romulus and Remus overthrew Amulius, how

they reinstated their grandfather Numitor on the Alban throne, how they decided to found their own city, but when they could not agree on who should be its king, how they took their respective stations on the Palatine and Aventine whence to take auspices in order to settle the matter. 18 See G. D. Hadzsits CP 31 (1936) 305-19.

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

95

In 1.7.1—2 Livy gives two different accounts of Remus’ murder by Romulus. The chapter begins with the assertion that Remus first received an omen in the form of six vultures. This marvel is qualified with fertur, but Livy then shifts into oratio recta once again to conclude the tale of Romulus' sighting of twelve vultures and of Remus' murder amid the ensuing quarrel over which brother had received the stronger endorsement from heaven. Livy next adds what he terms "the more common report" (vulgatior fama), according to which Romulus killed his brother when the latter in jest leaped over the city wall which Romulus was building. This variant is written in the form of an indirect statement, including Romulus' famous utterance "so be it then to anyone else who shall overleap my walls!"!? This version not only explained Remus’ death but also served as an aition for the holy character of the pomerium. Thus, by invoking the principle of majority rule Livy seems to reject the story of the augury in favor of Remus' death as having resulted from a misunderstood jest. In this regard it is noteworthy that in 1.8.3 Livy likewise rejects the claim that Romulus established the lictors' number as twelve because of the augury of twelve vultures. Livy instead prefers the rational explanation which derived the number from Etruscan practices. Finally, in 1.7.4 Livy records as Romulus' first act as king, following his fortification of the Palatine, his establishment of sacred rites to the gods according to Alban custom except for Hercules, whose worship had already been instituted by Evander. Livy then devotes the remainder of the chapter to telling the story of Hercules' sojourn in Rome, his slaying of Cacus, and his erection of the Ara Maxima, including in direct discourse in s. 10 Evander's salutation to the hero and Carmenta's prophecy of his worship. At the very beginning of this excursus Livy uses memorant to qualify the statement that after killing Geryon, Hercules drove

his herd of wondrous cattle to Rome, where he lay down beside the Tiber to rest and to pasture the animals. The rest of the tale, however, is narrated in oratio recta. Thus, the only portion of the story which Livy qualifies concerns Hercules’ killing of Geryon, a three-headed or three-bodied creature, and the driving off to Rome of the monster's cattle of wondrous form (mira specie). Cacus, on the other

hand, is simply described as a local shepherd of great strength. This strict interpretation of the text suggests that Livy has been careful to qualify what is patently marvelous in this Herculean episode. In this regard it is noteworthy that in his digression on the Gallic immigration into Italy Livy (5.34.6) alludes to Hercules' fabled crossing of the Alps with the remark: "The Alps stood in their [the Gauls'] way. Indeed, [ am not at all amazed that they seemed impassable since, as far as there is a continuous tradition, they had not yet been crossed by

any road, unless we should believe the stories (fabulis) concerning Hercules.”?° Livy's caution in accepting the claims of traditional mythology is also seen in 1.49.9, where he qualifies his statement concerning the assertion of the Mamilii of Tusculum to be descended from Odysseus and Circe. In this connection it I? Livy 1.7.2: Sic deinde quicumque alius transiliet moenia mea. 20 Livy 5.34.6: Alpes inde oppositae erant. Quas inexsuperabiles visas haud equidem miror, nulladum via, quod quidem continens memoria sit, nisi de Hercule fabulis credere libet, superatas,

96

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

should be remembered that Livy is careful in committing himself even on the matter of Aeneas and Antenor migrating from Troy to Italy to establish respectively the Latin people and Livy's native Patavium: for the initial sentence of the history in 1.1.14, which describes this, is an indirect statement depending upon satis constat, expressing general agreement among writers. The other major episode in the first decade in which the marvelous figures prominently is the year 340 B.C., the first year of the Latin War described in 8.6.1-11.1. After recounting in 8.5 a heated interchange between the Roman consul T. Manlius Torquatus and the Latin praetor L. Annius during a senatorial session on the Capitol in which Annius demanded that one consul be chosen from among the Latins, Livy (8.6.1—3) writes: After the senators'

indignation followed upon the consul's utterance, it is

recorded (proditur memoriae) that against the frequent invocation of the gods, whom the consuls were repeatedly calling upon as witnesses of the treaties, there was heard the voice of Annius scoffing at the divine power of Roman Jupiter. While flinging himself in anger with hurried step from the temple's vestibule, he did in fact (certe) fall down the steps and struck his head so severely on the bottom stone that he lost consciousness. Since all authors do not say that he died, I too may leave the matter in uncertainty along with the report that amid the calling of the gods to witness the broken treaties a gale blew forth with a mighty crash of thunder: for they can be both true and made up specifically to illustrate the gods’ wrath.?! After recording the two consuls' military mobilization and pitching camp near the enemy at Capua, Livy at 8.6.9-10 qualifies with dicitur a prophetic dream, writing as follows: There is said to have appeared to each consul, while sleeping there, the same figure of a man greater and more august than a human shape, who said that there were owing to the Di Manes and to Mother Earth a commander from one battleline and the army of the other side, and that victory would belong to that people and party whose military commander had devoted himself as well

as the legions of the enemy." Livy then describes a military consilium in which the consuls report the dream to their subordinate officers and agree that the one to devote himself ?! Livy 8.6.1—3: Cum consulis vocem subsecuta patrum indignatio esset, proditur memoriae

adversus crebram implorationem deum, quos testes foederum saepius invocabant consules, vocem Anni spernentis numina lovis Romani auditam. 2 Certe, cum commotus ira se a vestibulo templi citato gradu proriperet, lapsus per gradus capite graviter offenso impactus imo ita est saxo,

ut sopiretur.

3 Exanimatum

auctores quoniam

non omnes sunt, mihi quoque

in incerto

relictum sit, sicut inter foederum ruptorum testationem ingenti fragore caeli procellam effusam; nam et vera esse et apte ad repraesentandam iram deum ficta possunt.

22 Livy 8.6.9-10: Ibi in quiete utrique consuli eadem dicitur visa species viri maioris quam pro humano habitu augustiorisque, dicentis ex una acie imperatorem, ex altera exercitum Deis Manibus Matrique Terrae deberi; 10 utrius exercitus imperator legiones hostium superque eas se devovisset, eius populi partisque victoriam fore.

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

97

should be the consul whose army first begins to give way to the enemy. They also issue the order that no one is to leave their post to engage the Latins. This latter point, of course, sets up Manlius Torquatus' execution of his own son for fighting (albeit successfully) in a cavalry duel. In concluding his description of how the Tusculan Geminus Maecius goaded the young Torquatus into combat, Livy (8.7.8) remarks, “either anger, shame of declining the contest, or the ineluctable

force of fate motivated the young man's fierce mind."2 Although Livy's preceding account of the interchange between the two cavalrymen is consistent with both anger and shame as rational explanations of Torquatus'

behavior, the fatalistic

prophecy mentioned in the previous chapter likewise lends credibility to the view that the young Torquatus was unable to escape his destiny. This correspondence of ideas has the appearance of deliberate literary composition. Whether Livy or an earlier source is responsible for this conceptual parallelism, the handling of the two key elements agrees with Livy's overall view of the divine: he qualifies with dicitur the dream involving a wondrous figure uttering a prophecy, whereas he lists fate as one of three possible reasons why an ordinary cavalry duel was fought.

After digressing in 8.8 to outline Roman and Latin military organization and battle tactics practiced at this time, Livy's narrative for this year finally reaches its culmination in the battle fought between the Romans and Latins, which is dominated by Decius' devotio. Livy's account of the latter in 8.9.5-10 is solemn and moving, represents one of his finest passages, and exhibits his ability to employ Roman religious language and ideas to great rhetorical effect: The pontiff bade him put on his purple bordered toga, to stand upon a spear cast beneath his feet, and to speak thus with his head veiled and with his hand thrust out from under the toga and touching his chin: "Janus, Jupiter, Father Mars, Quirinus, Bellona, ye Lares, Divi Novensiles, Di Indigetes, in whose

power are we and our enemies, and ye Manes, 1 beseech and worship you, and I seek and receive your favor that you bestow might and victory upon the Roman people the Quirites, and that you afflict the enemies of the Roman people the Quirites with terror, dread, and death. According as I have spoken,

so do I devote myself with the legions and auxiliaries of the enemy to the Manes and Tellus on behalf of the state of the Roman people the Quirites and the army, legions, and auxiliaries of the Roman people the Quirites." After thus praying, he ordered his lictors to go to T. Manlius to inform his colleague immediately that he had devoted himself for the army. Armed and girt with a Gabine cincture, he vaulted upon his horse and plunged into the midst of the enemy, a conspicuous sight for both armies and appearing somewhat more august than a human form, as if sent from heaven as an expiation of the gods' full wrath, who was averting destruction from his own people and bringing it

upon the enemy.”4 23 Livy 8.7.8: Movet ferocem animum iuvenis seu ira seu detractandi certaminis pudor seu inexsuperabilis vis fatt.

^ Livy 8.9.5-10: Pontifex eum togam praetexiam sumere iussit et velato capite, manu

98

Chapter 6: Livy and the Divine

After describing the rest of the battle and its immediate aftermath, Livy rounds off the episode by appending a final footnote in 8.10.11—4 that provides additional antiquarian details about the devotio procedure. This in turn is concluded with the remark at 8.11.1, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, in which Livy justifies this final addition by lamenting the loss of such ancestral traditions in favor of the novel and foreign. Thus, the key religious and marvelous elements in this passage clearly illustrate Livy's view of the divine. He is reluctant to accept the more fantastic annalistic details of Annius' "accidental" fall on the Capitol, and he qualifies the prophetic dream experienced by both consuls before the battle. On the other hand, he suggests the possibility that the young Torquatus' execution was due to fate. Finally, his treatment of Decius' self immolation and of the devotio itself reveals his power as a writer to conjure up before the reader a vivid and stirring image, as well as his own romantic attachment to Rome's antique religious traditions.

subter togam ad mentum exserta, super telum subiectum pedibus stantem sic dicere: 6 "lane, luppiter, Mars Pater, Quirine, Bellona, Lares, Divi Novensiles, Di Indigetes, Divi, quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque, Dique Manes, 7 vos precor veneror, veniam peto feroque, uti populo Romano Quiritium vim victoriam prosperetis hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. 8 Sicut verbis nuncupavi, ita pro re publica populi Romani Quiritium, exercitu, legionibus, auxiliis populi Romani Quiritium, legiones auxiliaque hostium mecum Deis Manibus Tellurique devoveo." 9 Haec ita precatus lictores ire ad T. Manlium iubet matureque collegae se devotum pro exercitu nuntiare; ipse incinctus cinctu Gabino, armatus in equum insiluit ac se in medios hostes immisit, 10 conspectus ab utraque acie, aliquanto augustior humano

visu, sicut caelo missus piaculum

aversam in hostes ferret.

omnis deorum

irae qui pestem

ab suis

CHAPTER 7:

DIGRESSIONS

IN THE FIRST DECADE

The digression, like the historical speech, was a standard literary device used by Greek and Roman

historians. In fact, Herodotus, the father of history, found it

indispensable in narrating the affairs of several states simultaneously. The digression, however, was far less frequently used in monographs on a single war or in describing the history of an individual state. Nevertheless, it was still useful in introducing new places and/or peoples, as in Thucydides’ description of Sicily in 6.2-5 preceding his account of the Athenian expedition against the island. The digression, however, could be abused, so that in addition to being a proper means of relating information to the reader, it was often treated as a form of literary entertainment by pleasantly diverting both the author and reader from the main subject at hand. Consequently, in s.57 of his treatise, How to Write History, Lucian was obliged to counsel the prospective historian to exercise strict judgment in such matters in order to keep his treatment of historical events in their proper proportion to one another. In April of 55 B.C. Cicero (ad Fam. 5.12) wrote a letter to L. Lucceius in which he urged him to compose a historical monograph on Cicero's career from his consulship (including the Catilinarian conspiracy of course) to his return from exile. Like Lucian's treatise on writing history, this letter offers valuable insights into ancient standards and expectations of historical writing. In s.4 Cicero observes: The period from the beginning of the conspiracy until our return, it seems to me, could be encompassed in a treatise of modest size, in which you could employ the well known study of political change in states by explaining either the reasons

for revolution or by proposing

remedies

(remediis)

for

problems, since in stating the reasons therefore you will blame those things which you think worthy of censure and will approve what is pleasing...! Cicero's allusion to "the study of political change in states" recalls not only the fifth book of Aristotle's Politics but especially Thucydides' famous digression in 3.81-3 concerning the nature and horrors of stasis in Greek states during the Peloponnesian War. Lucceius never produced the historical monograph which Cicero so greatly desired, but soon after the latter's death Sallust composed his Bellum Catilinae, whose scope and nature turned out to be quite different from what Cicero had intended. Rather than describing the vicissitudes of Cicero's ! Cic. ad Fam. 5.12.4: A principio enim coniurationis usque ad reditum nostrum videtur mihi modicum quoddam corpus confici posse, in quo et illa poteris uti civilium commutationum scientia vel in explicandis causis rerum novarum vel in remediis incommodorum, cum et reprehendes ea quae vituperanda duces et quae placebunt exponendis rationibus comprababis...

100

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

career from his consulship to his return from exile, the work focused narrowly upon the Catilinarian conspiracy and took Catiline as its chief character, who was depicted as an anti-hero. Furthermore, although Cicero receives high marks in the work for his handling of the crisis, Cato the Younger emerges as the true man of the hour. Nevertheless, just as Cicero recommended to Lucceius, Sallust used the event to trace the Roman state's decline into moral and political bankruptcy. and in 37-9 he even digresses in Thucydidean fashion to describe the nature and origin of political strife in Rome. One other significant aspect of the Ciceronian passage just quoted is the reference to "remedies for problems." Cicero's use of remediis immediately brings to mind Livy's complaint in s.9 of his praefatio that the Romans of his day have reached the point where they can endure neither their vices nor their remedies. Modern scholars have generally wished to see in Livy's remedia an allusion to Augustus' reform of the Roman state, but Cicero's language clearly demonstrates that there is no need to see a specific Augustan allusion in Livy's wording, because not only had it become accepted for the historian to use digressions for tracing political and moral degeneration within a state, but the same was true with regard to him proposing remedies. As mentioned on several occasions throughout this study, one striking feature of Livy's style of writing history is his rigorous verbal economy. It manifests itself in the compact way in which he treats narrative episodes, as well as in his use of direct and indirect speech. The same verbal economy can be seen in his sparing use of digressions, of which there are only seven in the first decade: (1) 4.29.8, the first Carthaginian military expedition into Sicily; (2) 4.37.1-2+4.44.12, the Samnite seizure of Capua and Cumae; (3) 5.33.2-35.3, the Celtic migration into northern Italy; (4) 7.2, the origins of Roman drama; (5) 8.3.6—7--8.24, the Italian expedition of Alexander of Epirus; (6) 9.17-9, rhetorical essay on how

Alexander the Great would have fared against the Roman people; and (7) 10.2.4— 15, the Spartan Cleonymus' sea raid on Patavium.? When viewed in terms of their distribution throughout the ten books, the pattern somewhat resembles that of longer speeches discussed in chapter 5. The first three books contain no digressions at all, and Book IV contains two very brief ones. The first major digression occurs in Book V, carefully placed in the middle of the book to divide the Veientine narrative from the Gallic one. Book VI contains no digressions at all, and the remaining four books have just one each. Thus, as in the case of Livy's use of longer speeches, the historian might have become receptive to digressions

only slowly as he composed the first pentad and was careful not to abuse this literary device.

? ] treat as single digressions 4.37.1—2 and 4.44.12 as well passages concern the same foreign development at two different two describe the Samnite capture of Capua in 423 and of Cumae concern Alexander of Epirus. 8.3.6 is merely a brief notice Alexander first crossed over into Italy, whereas 8.24 recounts his the foundation of Alexandria.

as 8.3.6 and 8.24. Each pair of chronological points. The first in 420. The other two passages recording the year in which campaign and death along with

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

101

In fact, Livy's reluctance to veer off the main course of narrating Rome's major domestic and foreign affairs is quite evident from remarks made in four other passages. In the very middle of describing the fetial procedure for making a treaty Livy at 1.24.6 justifies his decision not to quote the entire litany verbatim by stating that it is not worthwhile to do so. After adding some final antiquarian details to the devotio of P. Decius Mus in 340 B.C. Livy (8.11.1) feels compelled

to justify to the reader his insertion of this material into the narrative. Similarly, 9.30.5 and 9.46.8 concerning respectively the secession of the flute players to Tibur and of the curule aedile Cn. Flavius' visitation upon a sick colleague contain comments which both justify and apologize for the inclusion of these seemingly trivial events. In the former case Livy indicates that he would pass over it except that it pertains to the state religion; and in the latter instance he confesses that the anecdote is not at all memorable except that it affords a lesson of plebeian freedom in the face of noble arrogance. Three digressions (4.29.8, 4.37.1—2--4.44.12, and 8.3.6—748.24) concern nonRoman foreign affairs. These will be termed ‘extraneous’. Two others (5.33.2-

35.3 and 7.2) are directly relevant to Roman history. These shall be called ‘internal’. One other (10.2.4—15) concerns Livy's own birthplace of Patavium and can therefore be termed 'epichoric'; whereas the last passage (9.17-9) is a 'rhetorical digression'. Although the last named passage begins with a suitably apologetic justification for departing from the main narrative, Livy fails to qualify the epichoric digression, probably because he felt reasonably secure in his knowledge of Patavium's local history. The other five, however, are introduced by a qualifying word such as constat or traditur. All three extraneous digressions are qualified with an impersonal verb or verb phrase: 4.29.8, additur, 4.37.1, traditur, 8.3.6 constat; and 8.24.1 proditum. In addition, Livy concedes that ali three matters are not directly related to his immediate Roman narrative, but he offers some justification for their inclusion. The reason why all three have been qualified is probably to be sought in the fact that they concern non-Roman affairs, and Livy, being a historian of Rome, not of Carthage, the Samnites, or of Epirus, is not entirely confident in recording these events in his narrative.? Moreover, just as Livy has regularly qualified in a similar way miraculous events which he has encountered as standard stories in the annalistic tradition, so it seems to me that he has likewise merely followed earlier Roman historians in noting these extraneous events. If so, it would be wrong to credit Livy with any additional research on these matters. At the very end of his narrative of the year 431, which is dominated by the military activities of the dictator A. Postumius Tubertus described in 4.26—9, Livy (4.29.8) adds the final note: "to a year distinguished by great affairs there is added (additur) a thing which seemed at the time not at all relevant to the Roman

state, that the Carthaginians, such great future enemies, then for the first time 3 [n this context il is worth noting that in recording the Roman establishment of the colony of Sinuessa Livy (10.21.8) mentions that the site had once been occupied by Greeks and was called Sinope. This information about the site's earlier non-Roman history is qualified with dicitur.

102

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

crossed over into Sicily with an army to assist one party during a time of general sedition.”* The Livian notice is puzzling since no other literary source mentions a similar event during this time. Thucydides’ silence is of no account since he was writing the history of the great war between Athens and Sparta and their respective allies. On the other hand, Diodorus’ history for the fifth century is well informed on Sicilian affairs; and we should expect a native historian of the island not to have overlooked a major event of the sort reported by Livy. Moreover, since the

first major Carthaginian military expedition into the island against the Greeks had occurred in 480 culminating in the battle of Himera (Hdt. 7.165-7), Livy's tum primum is clearly mistaken. In 409 the Carthaginians invaded the island with a large army and besieged and captured Selinus (Diod. 13.54—63). This marked the beginning of a war which lasted until 392, seriously threatened the whole of Greek Sicily, and resulted in the tyranny of Dionysius of Syracuse. In fact, this war was the first in a series of wars between Carthage and Syracuse which continued intermittently down to the First Punic War. It therefore seems likely that the Livian passage refers either to the battle of Himera in 480 or to the Carthaginian capture of Selinus in 409. Livy's tum primum makes the former the more likely candidate. In addition, the phrase per seditiones Siculorum agrees with Herodotus' account of Sicilian interstate politics which allowed Carthage to intervene militarily in 480. Thus, it appears that some earlier Roman historian committed a chronological error of approximately 50 years in attempting to synchronize the Roman fasti with the affairs of Carthage and the Western Greeks. Such a mistake need not cause too much surprise if it be remembered that Cn. Gellius and Licinius Macer both described Roman grain commissioners of 492 as having visited the court of Dionysius I of Syracuse (Dion. Hal. 7.1). Consequently, whether he realized it or not, Livy was wise to qualify the statement in 4.29.8 with additur and thereby to deny indirectly any special expertise in these matters. In 4.37.1—2 under the year 423 Livy records the Samnite capture of Capua in the following words: A foreign matter but one worthy of record is related (traditur) as having occurred in this year. The Etruscan city of Volturnum, which is now Capua, was captured by the Samnites and was called Capua from their leader Capys? 4 Livy 4.29.8: Insigni magnis rebus anno additur nihil tum ad rem Romanam pertinere visum, quod Carthaginienses, tanti hostes futuri, tum primum per seditiones Siculorum ad partis alterius auxilium in Siciliam exercitum traiecere. 5 Ogilvie (1965, 580) attempts to redeem this Livian statement from chronological nonsensicality. He invokes Athens' treaties made with Rhegium and Leontini, known only from inscriptions and often dated to 433/2, as possible evidence for political discord among the Sicilian Greeks at this time, which Carthage exploited. For the inscriptions see R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1969 171-6. For their date see H. B. Mattingly Historia 12 (1963) 272. 5 For Vei-, Vol-, and Vul- as common elements in Etruscan proper names see G. Forsythe AJP 113 (1992) 410-1. ? Although Capys in this passage is alleged to have been the name of the Samnite leader, the

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

103

or, what is closer to the truth, from its flat territory (campestri agro). 2 They were first received into partnership in the city and land after the Etruscans had been worn out by war. Then on a festival, when the oid inhabitants were heavy with sleep and banqueting, the new settlers rose up, slew them at night,

and seized the city.? Seven chapters later at 4.44.12 under the year 420 Livy supplements the preceding passage with the brief notice: "In the same year Cumae, a city inhabited at that time by Greeks, was captured by the Campanians."? After qualifying the first section of 4.37.1—2 with traditur, Livy shifts into oratio recta in s.2 to describe more precisely how the Samnites seized control of Capua; but he uses no qualifying word or phrase in the simple brief statement recording the Campanian seizure of Cumae. Unlike 4.29.8 concerning the first Carthaginian military expedition into Sicily, these two Livian passages have parallels in Diodorus 12.31.1 and 12.76.4, but the latter author includes them under the Roman years 445 and 428 respectively. The similarity of the two accounts and their chronological divergence have received

the

attention

of modern

scholars.!Ü

Cornell

(art.

cit.

203-5)

has

persuasively argued that the material in both Livy and Diodorus ultimately derives from Cato's Origines, and that the chronological discrepancy has arisen from later Roman writers' attempts to relate Cato's description of Campanian affairs to the Roman fasti. In fact, a likely route by which the Catonian material

has found its way into Livy can be postulated. The fragments of Cn. Gellius clearly demonstrate his interest in the various peoples of Italy and their earliest origins.!! It is therefore very likely that he made use of Cato's Origines. Moreover, Dionysius’ joint citation of Cn. Gellius and Licinius Macer in 4.6.4, 6.11.2, and 7.] indicates that Macer used Gellius as a major source: and since there is no evidence that Livy ever made direct use of Gellius, he could have obtained the Campanian material from Licinius Macer. The same information, however, must have reached Diodorus by a different route, thereby accounting for the chronological discrepancy. One element found in both authors has a bearing on Livy's historical judgment. Since Diodorus also derives the ethnic ‘Campanian’ from the plain of the region, it is clear that the alternative explanations given by general ancient view was that he was the mythical Trojan founder of Capua. See Steph. Byz. s.v. Kanva = F 62 of Hecataeus (Jacoby I. 1), Suet. /ul. 81, Sil. Ital. 11.30 and 297, Statius Silvae 3.5.77. and Serv. Aen. 10.145 (citing Coelius Antipater). 8 Livy 4.37.1-2: Peregrina res, sed memoria digna

traditur eo anno facta,

Volturnum

Erruscorum urbem, quae nunc Capua est, ab Samnitibus captam, Capuamque ab duce eorum Capye vel, quod propius vero est, a campestri agro appellatam. 2 Cepere autem, prius bello fatigatis Etruscis, in societatem urbis agrorumque accepti, deinde festo die graves somno

epulisque incolas veteres novi coloni nocturna caede adorti. ? Livy 4.44.12: Eodem anno a Campanis Cumae, quam

Graeci tum urbem

tenebant.

capiuntur.

? See Ogilvie 1965 580-1, N. K. Rutter CQ N.S. 21 (1971) 55-61, and T. J. Cornell MH 31 (1974) 193-208. !! See E. Rawson Laromus 35 (1976) 713-7.

104

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

Livy and his rejection of Capua's alleged derivation from the personal name Capys have been taken over from an earlier account. The third and last extraneous digression concerning the military campaign of Alexander of Epirus in southern Italy involves a similar chronological problem. The ancient sources for his career are quite meager. According to Diodorus 16.72.1 he was installed as king of Epirus by his brother-in-law Philip of Macedon in the Athenian archonship of 342/1. In the spring of 336 he was married to Philip's daughter Cleopatra, and it was at this wedding celebration that Philip was assassinated (Diod. 16.91-5). Arrian (Anab. 3.6.7) suggests that he was already campaigning in Italy at the time of the battle of Issus, which was fought in the fall of 333; and in s.242 of his speech Against Ctesiphon, delivered during the summer of 330, Aeschines alludes to Alexander's death and indicates that enough time had elapsed for the Athenians to have sent an official embassage to Queen Cleopatra to express their condolences. Thus, his entire reign would appear to have been no longer than eleven or twelve years, and his Italian expedition must have occurred sometime during the period of mid-summer 336 and spring of 330. Livy mentions the Epirote king on three separate occasions. At 8.3.6—7 under the Varronian year 340 he merely records his crossing into Italy, which he qualifies with constat: "It is agreed that in this year Alexander the king of Epirus sailed a fleet to Italy. This war no doubt would have extended to the Romans if its beginnings had been sufficiently prosperous. The same time frame includes the deeds of Alexander the Great, the son of this man's sister, whom, invincible in war in another part of the world, Fortune carried off by illness in his youth."'? Then at 8.17.9—10 under the Varronian year 332 Livy writes as follows in oratio

recta: "The Samnites brought the war with Alexander the Epirote upon the Lucanians. The two peoples fought a pitched battle against the king as he was marching up from Paestum. Alexander was victorious in the struggle and made peace with the Romans. It is uncertain with what faith he would have observed it if his affairs had progressed accordingly."!* Finally, in 8.24 under the Varronian year 326 Livy gives a summary account of his campaign and death. Although the narrative is written

in direct discourse, Livy (8.24.1418)

begins and ends the

passage with the following qualified statement and closing remark: It is recorded (proditum) that in the same year Alexandria Egypt, and the killing of Alexander the king of Epirus by confirmed by its outcome the lots of Zeus of Dodona.... Let written thus briefly concerning the sad fate of Alexander the

was founded in a Lucanian exile it suffice to have Epirote, because

'2 Livy 8.3.6—7: Eo anno Alexandrum Epiri regem in lialiam classem appulisse constar. Quod bellum, si prima satis prospera fuissent, haud dubie ad Romanos pervenisset. 7 Eadem aetas rerum Magni Alexandri est, quem sorore huius ortum in alio tractu arbis, invictum bellis, iuvenem Fortuna morbo exstinxit. 7 Livy 8.17,9-10: Ceterum Samnites bellum Alexandri Epirensis in Lucanos traxit. Qui duo populi adversus regem escensionem a Paesto facientem signis collatis pugnaverunt.

certamine superior Alexander pacem cum Romanis fecit.

10 Eo

— incertum qua fide culturus, si perinde cetera processissent —

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

105

he conducted campaigns in Italy, albeit Fortune withheld him from a war

with the Romans.!* The only portion of this material likely to have derived from Roman records of the period is the conclusion of a treaty between Rome and Alexander. This item resembles Livy's reporting of treaties between Rome and Carthage at 7.27.2 and 9.43.26 under the Varronian years 348 and 306 respectively (cf. Livy 7.38.1— 2). It is noteworthy that whereas Diodorus differs with Livy on the dating of events in Campania during the late fifth century, the two authors place the conclusion of a treaty between Rome and Carthage in the same consular year of 348 (Diod. 16.69.1). The remaining Livian material on Alexander most likely derives ultimately from Greek sources.!5 Since Livy's own chronology does not include the dictator year of 333, there is an interval of 13 years in Livy's narrative between Alexander's alleged landing in Italy and his death. This time span is far too long for the Epirote king's Italian expedition and even for his entire reign. Rather, it corresponds exactly to the length of the reign of Alexander the Great. In fact, if one ignores the four dictator years included in the standard Varronian chronology (i.e., 333, 324, 309, and 301 B.C.) as late republican annalistic

inventions,'© the Varronian years 340 and 326 become respectively 336 and 323 B.C., which are the years of the accession and death of Alexander the Great. It

therefore seems likely that due to the latter's extraordinary military renown and his unique historical importance in shaping the Hellenistic world that Rome came to rule during the first half of the second century B.C., some early Roman historian incorporated into his chronological narrative references to the beginning

and end of the great Macedonian king's reign, and that subsequent writers further expanded these brief chronological notices by including the material concerning the Italian expedition of Alexander's maternal uncle. As will emerge below in the discussion of the rhetorical digression concerning the counter factual question of Alexander's encounter with the Romans, Livy and/or his annalistic predecessors have deliberately selected and conflated this material concerning the two Alexanders in order to use the one's failure to discredit the other's unsurpassed military achievements. Consequently, Livy's narrative is utterly useless in dating precisely major events associated with Alexander of Epirus.

5 Livy 8.24.1 «18: Eodem anno Alexandream in Aegypto proditum conditam Alexandrumque Epiri regem ab exsule Lucano interfectum sortes Dodonaei lovis eventu adfirmasse.... 18 Haec de Alexandri Epirensis tristi eventu, quamquam Romano bello eum Fortuna abstinuit, tamen,

quia in Italia bella gessit, paucis dixisse satis sit. 'S Note the exsules ... cum fortuna mutabilem gerentes fidem of 8.24.6, which resembles the notion of fickle Fortune. a common motif in Hellenistic Greek historiography. Livy's escensionem ... facientem of 8.17.9 appears to be a Latin translation of Greek avaBaivovta or a similar military expression. The idea of Alexander leaving Epirus and coming to Italy in order to avoid the place of his predicted death only to stumble upon an Malian site of the same name is also characteristic of Greek historiography. See Plut. Lysander 29 and Pelopidas 20. '6 For the argument that the dictator years were invented by Atticus during the 40's B.C. see A. Drummond Historia 27 (1978) 550-72.

106

Chapter ?: Digressions in the First Decade

This Livian material contains two other chronological difficulties. One concerns the year in which Alexandria was founded. According to the foregoing reconstruction, Livy dates the city's beginning to the actual year in which Alexander the Great died, whereas in fact the city was founded on April 7 in 331." Apparently, as in the case of Alexander of Epirus, Livy or his source or sources have simply attached the statement concerning Alexandria's foundation to one of the notices pertaining to the regnal years of the Macedonian monarch. The city's inclusion doubtless derives from its fame and preeminence in the Greek East, its prominence in Roman foreign affairs during the closing decades of the republic, and (perhaps most importantly) its incorporation into the Roman empire in 30 B.C. The other chronological difficulty concerns the date recorded for the alliance between Rome and Alexander of Epirus. Subtracting the three fictitious dictator years of 324, 309, and 301

from the Varronian date of 332

produces what we should regard as an absolute date of 329, but as demonstrated above regarding the date of the Epirote king's death, this result is clearly impossible. Thus, if this datum did in fact derive from Roman records, it strongly suggests that defects existed in the Roman consular fasti for the period of the late fourth century. Indeed, the dictator years were devised at least in part to heal such problems recognized by scholars such as Cornelius Nepos, Atticus, and Varro. If

Rome entered into the agreement with Alexander in 331, the error in the consular fasti would be one of only two years. In conclusion, the three extraneous digressions

reveal the checkered success of Roman historians to tie events of an independent historical tradition into their annalistic framework of the early republic. Although they probably reproduced with substantial fidelity the actual descriptions of foreign events encountered in non-Roman sources, their synchronisms are clearly not above criticism, and in the case of Livy 4.29.8 there seems to be an error of as much as 50 years.

The epichoric digression in 10.2.4—15 concerning Livy's native Patavium is integrated into his account of the Spartan Cleonymus' military expedition in Magna Graecia in response to Tarentum's appeal for assistance. It is recorded under the Varronian consular year of 302, and its nature and wealth of detail warrant its quotation in full. In the same year a Greek fleet under the leadership of Cleonymus the Lacedaemonian landed on the coast of Italy and captured the city of Thuriae among the Sallentini. 2 The consul Aemilius was sent against this enemy and in a single battle forced him to flee to his ships. Thuriae was restored to its former inhabitants, and the Sallentine territory was granted peace. 3 I find in some annals that the dictator Junius Bubulcus was sent against the Sallentini,

and that Cleonymus left Italy before he had to fight with the Romans.!? 4 Thence he sailed around the promontory of Brundisium and was carried by ? For the date of Alexandria's foundation see C. B. Welles Historia 11 (1962) 273-84 and R. S. Bagnall AJAH 4 (1979) 46-9.

1$ According to the Fasti Triumphales Junius celebrated a triumph over the Aequians in this year.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

107

the winds up the middle of the Adriatic Gulf. Since he feared on his left Italy's harborless coastline and on his right the wild tribes of the Illyrians, Liburnians, and Histrians, notorious in large part for their sea raiding, he finally arrived at the shores of the Venetians. 5 A few men were disembarked

to scout out the area. On hearing that the shore stretching before them was narrow behind which there were lagoons well watered from sea currents, and not far off were seen level country and hills even farther beyond, 6 and that there was the mouth of a rather deep river where their ships could be sailed around to a safe anchorage (the river was the Meduacus), he ordered the ships to sail thither and to proceed upstream. 7 The river's depth did not allow passage to the heaviest of the ships. The mass of armed men was transferred onto lighter vessels and arrived at the land inhabited by the three coastal villages of the Patavians, dwelling along the bank. 8 They disembarked there, left a small force at the ships, and stormed the villages. They burned the dwellings and drove people and cattle off as plunder. Their desire for plunder carried them rather far away from the ships. 9 When these things were reported at Patavium (the neighboring Gauls kept them constantly under arms), they divided their men of military age into two parts. One group was led into the area where the scattered pillaging was reported to be. The other group was led to the ships' anchorage 14 miles distant from the town by another route so as not to encounter any of the brigands. 10 The pickets were caught unawares and were killed. An attack was made against the ships, and the sailors were forced by fear to sail the ships across to the river's other bank. There had been an equally successful battle on land against the roving marauders. When the Greeks fled to the anchorage, the Venetians stood in their way. 11 The enemy were thus caught in the middle, surrounded, and killed. Some captives informed them that the fleet and King Cleonymus were three miles away. 12 After the prisoners had been placed under guard in a nearby village, they embarked part of their armed men onto river craft built with flat bottoms for clearing the shallows of the lagoons, and the other part went aboard the captured vessels. They set out for the fleet and attacked it from all sides. 13 The ships remained motionless, fearing the unfamiliar places even more than the enemy. They pursued them to the mouth of the river, as they fled to the open sea more vigorously than they fought back. They returned victorious after capturing and burning some of the enemy's

ships which had been driven in panic onto the shoals. 14 Cleonymus departed with barely one fifth of his ships unscathed and having approached successfully no area of the Adriatic Sea. There are many who have seen at Patavium the ships' beaks and the Laconian spoils mounted in the old shrine of Juno. 15 Every year on the day on which the battle was fought a reenactment of the naval fight is performed in the middle of the town by a ceremonial naval

contest.!? 19 Livy 10.2: Eodem anno classis Graecorum Cleonyma duce Lacedaemonio ad ltaliae litora adpulsa Thurias urbem in Sallentinis cepit. 2 Adversus hunc hostem consul Aemilius

108

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

Diodorus’ account (20.104—5) of Cleonymus' activities in Italy is quite different and can be summarized as follows. When the Tarentines were involved in a war with the Lucanians and Romans, they sought assistance from Sparta. After raising 5000 mercenaries at Taenarum, Cleonymus sailed to Italy where he hired more soldiers no fewer in number, as well as recruiting 20,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry. He first won over the Greeks of Italy and the Messapians. The Lucanians made peace with Tarentum. He and the Lucanians forced Metapontum to submit, from which he exacted 600 talents and 200 maidens as hostages. He then sailed off to Corcyra, from which he exacted more money. and upon which he imposed a garrison. He rebuffed alliances offered by Cassander and Demetrius Poliorcetes. After learning of revolts in Italy, he sailed back and landed near the Barbarians. He seized an unnamed town, sold its people into slavery, and ravaged the land. He also took Triopium along with 3000 prisoners. The barbarians united and attacked his camp at night, killing 200 and capturing about 1000. At the same time a violent storm destroyed 20 of his ships. Whereupon he sailed back to Corcyra. Diodorus' information doubtless derives from a Greek source (probably Timaeus), whereas Livy's account contains some

very brief information from

missus proelio uno fugatum compulit in naves; Thuriae redditae veteri cultori Sallentinoque agro pax parta. 3 lunium Bubulcum dictatorem missum in Sallentinos in quibusdam annalibus invenio et Cleonymum, priusquam confligendum esset cum Romanis, ltalia excessisse. 4 Circumvectus inde Brundisii promunturium medioque sinu Hadriatico ventis latus, cum laeva importuosa ftaliae litora, dextra lllyrii Liburnique et Histri, gentes ferae et magna ex parte latrociniis maritimis infames. terrerent, penitus ad litora Venetorum pervenit. 5 Expositis paucis qui loca explorarent, cum audisset tenue praetentum litus esse, quod transgressis stagna ab tergo sint inrigua aestibus maritimis, agros haud procul campestres cerni, ulteriora colles

videri; 6 esse ostium fluminis praealti quo circumagi naves in stationem tutam possint (Meduacus amnis erat), eo invectam classem subire flumine adverso iussit. 7 Gravissimas navium non pertulit alveus fluminis; in leviora navigia transgressa multitudo armatorum ad frequentes agros tribus maritimis Patavinorum vicis colentibus eam oram pervenit, 8 Ibi egressi praesidio levi navibus relicto vicos expugnant, inflammant tecta, hominum pecudumque praedas agunt, et dulcedine praedandi longius usque a navibus procedunt. 9 Haec ubi Patavium sunt nuntiata (semper autem eos in armis accolae Galli habebant) in duas partes iuventutem dividunt. Altera

in regionem qua effusa populatio nuntiabatur, altera, ne cut praedonum obvia fieret, altero itinere ad stationem navium (milia autem quattuordecim ab oppido aberat) ducta. 10 In naves ignaris custodibus interemptis impetus factus, territique nautae coguntur naves in alteram ripam

amnis

traicere.

Et in terra prosperum

aeque

in palatos praedatores proelium fuerat

refugientibusque ad stationem Graecis Veneti obsistunt; 11 ita in medio circumventi hostes caesique. Pars capti classem indicant regemque Cleonymum tria milia abesse. 12 Inde captivis proximo vico in custodiam datis, pars fluviatiles naves, ad superanda vada stagnorum apte planis alveis fabricatas, pars captiva navigia armatis complent, profectique ad classem immobiles naves et loca ignota plus quam hostem timentes circumvadunt; 13 fugientesque in altum acrius quam repugnantes usque ad ostium amnis persecuti captis quibusdam incensisque navibus hostium, quas trepidatio in vada intulerat, victores revertuntur. 14 Cleonymus vix quinta parte navium incolumi, nulla regione maris Hadriatici prospere adita discessit. Rostra navium spoliague Laconum,

in aede

lunonis

veteri fixa, multi supersunt qui viderunt Patavi.

15 Monumentum

navalis pugnae eo die quo pugnatum est quotannis sollemni certamine navium in oppidi medio exercetur.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

109

Roman records amply supplemented by Patavian local lore. The former author makes no mention of the Romans except at the very beginning, where they are mentioned together with the Lucanians as warring against Tarentum. Nor does he say anything about Cleonymus being blown off course and falling foul of the Venetians. Similarly, Livy's narrative bears no trace of having been influenced by Hellenistic Greek accounts. Diodorus (20.102.1) places these events under the Athenian archonship of 303/2 and the Varronian consular year of 303, whereas Livy dates Cleonymus' activities to the following consular year. The two accounts can be made to agree chronologically if we assume (as is plausible) that Diodorus has described the military operations of two seasons under a single Athenian archonship. Cleonymus'

activities up to his sailing back to Corcyra for the first

time could have occurred during 303, whereas his return to put down revolts may not have happened until the following year. Moreover, the Romans could be included in Diodorus' vague reference to Barbarians, and the unnamed town captured by Cleonymus might possibly be Livy's Thuriae among the Sallentini.

Roman activities in the area in early 302 would account for the revolts mentioned by Diodorus. Even so. it should be recalled that the Varronian year 301 is a fictitious dictator year, so that Livy's date of 302 should be lowered by one year.

On the other hand, it may have been this particular problem in synchronizing Greek and Roman affairs which induced Atticus to insert into the Roman fasti the last of the four dictator years in order to harmonize Greek and Roman historical accounts. Unlike the other digressions which are introduced and/or concluded with an apologetic or justificatory comment or qualifying word or phrase, 10.2.4-15 contains neither. Livy shifts smoothly from Cleonymus' activities in Magna Graecia to his landing among the Venetians, and the digression merely ends with Livy's allusion to a local annual celebration commemorating the historical incident. The comfortable ease with which this passage is inserted into the narration of Roman affairs is clearly due to the fact that it concerns Livy's own birthplace. A similar integration of Roman and Patavian events is exhibited in l.1.1-4 where Livy does not hesitate to begin his entire history by describing how Aeneas and Antenor left Troy and migrated to Italy to become the founders respectively of the Latin people and of Patavium. The Patavian portion of 10.2 is far more detailed and much longer than Livy's account of Roman operations among the Sallentini directed against Cleonymus: 320 words vs. 55 words. The whole episode is told from the Patavian perspective and must represent the canonical local story associated with the annual celebration. In Livy's account Cleonymus is described as having made no landfall except the one near Patavium between the time

that he leaves southern

Italy and returns home

to Greece.

The

Patavian

forces are described as completely victorious, and apart from their acts of unprovoked marauding, the Greek troops are depicted as having been thoroughly routed and defeated. Like the epichoric digression just discussed, 5.33.2-35.3 concerning the Celtic migration into northern Italy reflects in part Livy's natural interest in the history of the region of his birth. The digression introduces Livy's narration of

110

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

the Gallic capture of Rome and begins in 5.33.2-3 with the story of Arruns of Clusium, who used wine to entice the Gauls into Italy and then led them against his own countrymen in order to settle a private score. Livy qualifies the latter tale with traditur, which suggests that it was to be found in the accounts of Livy's predecessors. In fact, F 36 of Cato's Origines concerns this story and shows that it was already part of Rome's historical tradition by the middle of the second century B.C. Unfortunately, there are no other historical fragments which bear upon the Celtic migration as found in Livy's digression.?? Nevertheless, the fact that Polybius prefaced his brief account of Rome's capture by the Gauls in 2.18.1-2 with a summary description of the migration of various Celtic tribes into Italy in 2.17 suggests that such prefatory digressions as we have in Livy on this subject were well established before Livy wrote. If so, Livy's digression should be viewed as coming at the end of, as well as drawing upon, the rich heritage of the annalistic tradition. As already noted, Cn. Gelius is known to have been very interested in the origins of the peoples of Italy, and his history's vast scale of treatment is certainly compatible with the inclusion of such digressions.?! In fact, Diodorus’ brief comments in 14.113.1-2 concerning the Celtic expulsion of the Etruscans from northern Italy, which precede his account of Rome's defeat and capture by the Gauls, appear to be a highly compressed account of the same material encountered in Livy's digression. Since both authors obtained this information independently of one another, it indicates that it constituted a tralatician element in the annalistic tradition. This reasonable surmise renders unnecessary the shaky conjectures of Homeyer, Ogilvie, and other modern scholars who have

concluded that Livy's source for the Celtic migration was Varro or Timagenes.?? We therefore need not assume that Livy was the very first Roman historian who

decided to preface his account of 390 with a digression on the Celtic migration into northern Italy, and that he was obliged to lift his information from antiquarians or Greek historians. After recording the traditional story of Arruns of Clusium, Livy (5.33.4—-5)

follows it immediately with the personal remark that he would not deny the possibility of these Gauls having been led into Italy by Arruns or by some other

person of Clusium, but, he notes, it is agreed (satis constat) that these were not the first Gauls to have entered Italy. By this careful wording Livy introduces a revisionist view but does not reject out of hand the traditional tale of Arruns. The approach accurately reflects his cautious conservatism and respect for hallowed 20 Other historical fragments. however, indicate that certain episodes or aspects of the Gallic capture of Rome were already present in the historical tradition at a relatively early date. Macrobius (Saf. 1.16.21—4) cites Cassius Hemina and Cn. Gellius together for explaining the origin of the dies postriduant in terms of the military disaster at the Allia in 390. F's 1, 4, and 5 of Claudius Quadrigarius suggest a very detailed account. ?! Macrobius (Sar. 1.16.21) cites his fifteenth book for the senate's decision on the dies postriduani in the year 389, whereas Livy treats the same matter in the first chapter of his sixth

book.

22 See Ogilvie 1965 700-1 (arguing for Timagenes) and H. Homeyer Historia 9 (1960) 348 (arguing for Varro). The latter study cites earlier scholarship.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

111

historical traditions. Moreover, Livy's use of satis constat should mean that there

was general agreement in his sources on the fact that the Gauls had entered Italy long before they moved against Clusium and Rome in 391—0. Livy now shifts into oratio recta and states that the first Gauls crossed the Alps 200 years earlier, and that Clusium was not the first Etruscan community against which they contended because the Etruscans themselves had settled the Po Valley and conflicts with the Gauls had been frequent. In 5.33.7-8 Livy employs probability to show the great extent of Etruscan power in early times by noting that the two seas to the east and west of the Italian peninsula each took their names from the Etruscans: the Tuscan Sea; and the Adriatic, derived from the Etruscan colony of

Hatria.?* Livy (5.33.9-11) concludes this chapter and the first part of his digression by briefly noting the Etruscan foundation of twelve colonies in the Po Valley, a fact also mentioned by Diodorus in 14.113.1-2. Livy also records the Etruscans' linguistic legacy among the Alpine tribe of the Raetians. This last point is not found in Diodorus but occurs in Justin's brief account of the Gallic occupation of the Po Valley (20.5.9, cf. Pliny NH 3.133).

The remainder of the Celtic digression is much more straightforward in terms of qualifying elements or personal remarks. 5.34.1 begins with the words, “we have received (accepimus) the following concerning the crossing of the Gauls

into [taly."?5 This remark qualifies the rest of the digression and indicates that Livy has taken this material from existing accounts. It could be derived from a single source, but it seems more probable to me that its basic gist represents the consensus view of Roman historians of the late republic, and that Livy has adopted particular details from one or two sources. All of 5.34 recounts how Ambigatus, the King of the Bituriges and the ruler of central Gaul, sent out his two nephews Segovesus and Bellovesus to settle respectively the Hercynean Forest and northern Italy. Bellovesus took with him people from seven different Celtic tribes: Bituriges, Arverni, Senones, Aedui, Ambarri, Carnutes, and Aulerci. Ogilvie (1965, 710) correctly observes that this list of tribes reflects the geography of Central Gaul of later historical times, not of the early sixth century B.C. After crossing the Alps, these tribal groups settled the area of Transpadane Italy east of the Ticinus River. In 5.35.1—3 Livy describes four successive migrations involving the Cenomanni, the Libui and Salluvii, the Lingones and Boii, and finally the Senones. The first two groups of immigrants settled respectively the area around 23 [n 5,34.1 Livy dates the migration to the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, which according to the Varronian chronology would have been 616—577 B.C. Reference to the Greek colonization of Massilia in 5.34.8 indicates that a Greek source lies ultimately at the heart of this chronological reconstruction. Massilia was founded by the Phocaeans ca.600 B.C. and received additional settlers ca.540-35. For the ancient evidence and modern bibliography see Ogilvie 1965 711-2. Its foundation story and early history involved interaction with its Celtic neighbors. See Justin 43.3-4.

For

the archaeological

evidence

on

the Celtic

migration

into northern

Italy see

L.

Barfield, Northern italy before Rome, New York-Washington 1972 150ff. 24 This observation resembles !.2.5 where Livy underscores the might of the Etruscans by noting that their fame stretched from the Alps to the Sicilian Strait as seen in the name of the Tyrrhenian Sea.

3 Livy 5.34.1: De transitu in Italiam Gallorum haec accepimus.

112

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

Brixia and Verona and the area west of the Ticinus, whereas the last two incoming populations were forced to cross the Po and settled in Cispadane Italy. This account is clearly the product of some later historian's reconstruction based upon the geographical distribution of Celtic tribes in northern Italy during the last two centuries B.C. This portion of the narrative is interrupted only once by a personal comment and is concluded by another. At 5.34.6 Livy observes that he is not surprised that the Gauls viewed the Alps as uncrossable, since they had not yet been crossed by any road unless credence is to be given to the stories concerning Hercules. This oblique and rather dismissive allusion is the only reference to Hercules in the entire digression. Thus, Livy's account of the Celtic migration contains no fantastic or marvelous element. In contrast, Diodorus, Livy's Greek contemporary, in his Celtic ethnography (5.24) records that Hercules founded the town of Alesia, later famous as the last bastion of Vercingetorix, and in keeping with Greek mythographic and ethnographic tradition Hercules impregnated a huge and comely Celtic princess, and her son predictably received the eponymous appellation

Galates.*6 Livy (5.35.3) ends the digression with the words: “At that time the Senones,

the most recent of the immigrants, occupied the territory from the River Utens to the Aesis. I find (comperio) that it was this tribe which came thither against Clusium and Rome, but it is hardly certain whether they came alone or were assisted by all the peoples of the Cisalpine Gauls."?? Since Diodorus (14.113.23) agrees with Livy in singling out the Senones as the ones who attacked Clusium and Rome, it is likely that this detail was a commonly accepted element in the historical tradition during the first century B.C. Nevertheless, Livy's uncertainty whether the Senones received any reinforcements from other tribes hints at the existence of alternative versions. Pliny (NH 3.125) cites Cornelius Nepos for the

view that on the same day on which Camillus captured Veii, the Insubres, Boii, and Senones destroyed the Etruscan town of Melpum in the Po Valley. This peculiar synchronism was probably designed to anticipate the Gallic capture of Rome, and according to this view Rome may have been defeated and occupied by the same three Celtic tribes that destroyed Melpum. Strabo in fact (5.1.6) mentions these three tribes together with the Gaesatae (= mercenaries) as the ones who came against Rome. Thus, Livy's concluding remark may allude to this variant. The matter becomes even more interesting when it is remembered that Cornelius Nepos was a native of the Insubrian district of Cisalpine Gaul (see Pliny Ep. 4.28.1). If Livy derived his knowledge of this variant from Nepos himself, it would suggest that Livy was quite familiar with the literary works of his northern Italian compatriots, and that this knowledge has to some degree enriched his Celtic digression. 26 Noteworthy in this regard are Polybius" polemical remarks in 3.47.6-9 against other historians who embellished their accounts of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps by the introduction of "gods and sons of gods."

27 Livy 5.35.3: Tum Senones. recentissimi advenarum, ab Utente flumine usque ad Aesim fines habuere. Hanc gentem Clusium Romamque inde venisse comperio; id parum certum est, solamne an ab omnibus Cisalpinorum Gallorum populis adiutam.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

113

The other internal digression is 7.2 and concerns the early history of Roman drama. For the year 364 Livy records the outbreak of a pestilence in Rome and the celebration of a lectisternium to win divine favor, but when the plague continued without abatement, the Romans for the first time introduced stage performances (ludi scaenici) from Etruria. This latter innovation is qualified with dicuntur. Livy then proceeds in the remainder of the chapter to sketch in oratio recta how stage entertainment evolved at Rome. According to Beare's analysis of the

passage Livy outlines seven distinct phases.?? Livy's sketch is drawn in the most general terms, giving no specific dates but merely mentioning the seven phases as coming one after the other. In 7.2.8 Livy mentions the only particular person in the entire chapter. He ascribes to Livius Andronicus the innovation of using one person to sing to the flute music while he acted out the action with his physical gestures and movements. Like the dating to 364 of the introduction to Rome of ludi scaenici, this very specific assertion is qualified with dicitur. After recording three further stages in the evolution of early stage performances, Livy concludes this brief outline with a personal remark in 7.2.13, complaining that from such small beginnings the theatrical profession has advanced to the point where it can

scarcely be sustained by the wealth of kingdoms. Given the fact that this passage of Livy discusses the early history of Roman drama, it should come as no surprise that it has attracted considerable attention from modern scholars interested in Roman drama. Jahn in 1867 postulated that

the Livian information derives from Varro, but this conjecture was refuted by Leo.?? Hendrickson argued that Livy 7.2 and Horace Epistles 2.1.139-63 both take their information about early Roman comedy from Accius’ Didascalica,?? but Leo pointed out that in mentioning the beginning of /udi scaenici at Rome in a manner similar to Livy 7.2, Festus (436L s.v. Salutaris Porta) cites historici as his source, thereby suggesting that the material was recorded by Roman historians. In my view the question of Livy's source in 7.2 resembles the same question with respect to his digression on the Celtic migration into northern Italy. As Leo realized, simply trotting out the ever convenient Varro as an answer is not convincing. The Livian passage is an annalistic notice of a plague accompanied by an important religious innovation, which must certainly have derived ultimately from priestly archives, but the simple notice has been supplemented by extraneous material on the early history of stage performance at Rome. The annalistic material obviously suggests that the Livian passage formed part of the tralatician annalistic tradition, but the supplemental information could have been incorporated by a Roman historian from some other source.

One possible annalistic source for this digression is the history of Cassius Hemina. The extant fragments clearly reveal Hemina's strong interest in literary, religious, and cultural history and his relative lack of interest in narrating military affairs. According to Gellius 17.21.3 he included in his history the information that Homer and Hesiod had flourished 160 years after the Trojan War. Pliny NH ?8 W. Beare Hermathena 54 (1939) 36. 20. Jahn Hermes 2 (1867) 225, and F. Leo Hermes 39 (1904) 74—5. 99 6. L.. Hendrickson AJP 19 (1898) 285-311.

114

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

13.84—6 shows that he described in some detail the discovery of the spurious books of Numa on the Janiculum in 181 B.C. In f 28, an enigmatic verbatim quotation preserved by Nonius Marcellus, Hemina described someone as "a purely lettered person" (homo mere litterosus). Pliny in NH 29.12-3 cites Hemina for the rather unusual information that the first Greek physician to practice in Rome was Archagathus, the son of Lysanias, a man from the Peloponnesus, who arrived in Rome in 219, was given a shop at public expense, and specialized in treating wounds (no doubt due to the carnage of the early years of the Hannibalic War), but he quickly earned the nickname 'executioner'. In addition, almost a third of the extant fragments pertain to matters of religion. Thus, it is very likely that Hemina had something important to say concerning the early history of stage performance in Rome. Moreover, although Hemina's history had probably passed into almost total obscurity by the end of the republic, comparison of his fragments with those of his immediate successors and with Livy's own history strongly suggest that his history's content was quickly absorbed into the works of other historians and thereby became part of the tralatician mainstream of the annalistic

tradition.?! My redating of Hemina's literary activity to the third quarter of the second century B.C. (art. cit. 327ff) raises the distinct possibility that he supplemented his account of the institution of stage performances in 364 B.C. with information from his contemporary Accius, who in his Didascalica had tried to reconstruct the early history of the /udi scaenici. It has long been recognized by modern scholars that the different phases outlined by Livy have been in part influenced by Greek literary theory. As Hendrickson argued, Accius is the most likely author of this reconstruction. Since there are only a few fragments from the Didascalica, little can be actually determined concerning its organization and content, but Gellius in 3.11 indicates that in this work Accius employed some very peculiar argumentation in postulating that Hesiod had lived before Homer. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Hemina stated in his history that Homer and Hesiod had lived 160 years after the Trojan War. This statement might indicate Hemina's use of Accius, because in writing thus Hemina could have been correcting what he found in Accius' recently published treatise. The last digression to be examined is Livy's only rhetorical one in 9.17—9 in which he considers the question of what would have happened if the Romans and Alexander the Great had contended against one another. This digression is by far the most peculiar of all and has been the subject of much modern discussion. Livy himself recognizes the unusual nature of the passage and at its very outset offers the following justification: From the beginning of this work nothing could seem less my should depart further from the proper narration of events and it were, a pleasant diversion for the reader and rest for my embellishing the work with digressions. Nevertheless, the

goal than that I should seek, as own mind by mention of so

| For Hemina's interest in religion see G. Forsythe Phoenix 44 (1990) 343-4, and for his history's incorporation into the annalistic tradition see p.344 of the same article.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

115

great a king and leader prompts me to bring out into the open the thoughts which I have often pondered in silence, wherefore I am pleased to ask what would have been the outcome for Roman affairs if there had been a war with

Alexander.?? The reader is then treated to a lengthy and highly rhetorical essay on the subject, in which Livy compares and contrasts Alexander and the Roman state in three respects: the quality and quantity of their fighting forces, the virtues of the commanders, and the latters’ fortune in war. The digression is 1288 words in length, which is surpassed in the first decade alone by the two long speeches in Book V (5.3-6 and 5.51-4 = 1432 and 1425 words respectively). Anderson suggested that this passage was originally a rhetorical exercise of Livy's youth which the historian later inserted into his history without significant changes. The scholar offered various arguments of style and of content in support of his hypothesis, but Luce has refuted Anderson's observations and has proposed instead to view the piece as the text of an oration which Livy publicly delivered in Rome shortly before 23 B.C. in order to defend the Roman state against charges recently made by Greek writers.>4 The theory is an ingenious one.

To be sure, Livy was a professionally trained rhetorician, and we could expect him to have declaimed on this subject at some point during his life, but the notion of Livy publicly delivering an oration on this matter with the expressed purpose of refuting contemporary Greek writers seems to be undermined by Livy's very own words: "the mention of so great a king and leader prompts me to bring out into the open the thoughts which I have often pondered in silence." Breitenbach has opened up another avenue of inquiry with his conjecture that

this digression was already part of the annalistic tradition before Livy wrote. In support of this idea he makes two acute observations. After gradually leading up to the digression by highlighting in 9.16.13—9 the virtues of L. Papirius Cursor,

whose military achievements Livy has been describing in the preceding chapters, Livy (9.16.19) ends this much smaller digression and turns to the larger one on

Alexander with the remark: "There was no single man upon whom the Roman state more relied and was upheld.

Indeed, they make (destinant) him a leader

equal in courage to Alexander the Great if the latter had turned his arms from a

conquered Asia to Europe.'?? Livy's use of destinant implies that other writers had already made the comparison of Cursor with Alexander. Breitenbach further observes that Dio Cassius in F 36.23 records an edifying anecdote concerning 2 Livy 9.17.1-2: Nihil minus quaesitum a principio huius operis videri potest quam ut plus iusto

ab

rerum

ordine

declinarem

varietatibusque

distinguendo

opere

et legentibus

velut

deverticula amoena et requiem animo meo quaererem. 2 Tamen tanti regis ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitus cogitationibus volutavi animum,

eas evocat in medium,

ut quaerere libeat

quinam eventus Romanis rebus. si cum Alexandro foret beliatum, futurus fuerit. 9 Ww. B. Anderson TAPA 39 (1908) 94-9. On p.94 Anderson characterizes the digression as

“a youthful dissertation, an exercise composed by Livy about the age of eighteen when he was a pupil in the school of a rhetor at Patavium." M T. J. Luce TAPA 96 (1965) 218-29.

35 Livy 9.16.19: Nemo unus erat vir quo magis innixa res Romana staret. Quin eum parem destinant animis Magno Alexandro ducem, si arma Asta perdomita in Europam

vertisset.

116

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

Cursor which is not found in Livy.?6 The story occurs in the very same context as Livy's eulogy of the Roman general. This points to a well established pre-Livian literary tradition on this subject. It is highly significant that the anecdote recorded by Dio involves Cursor's very limited consumption of wine, because one common criticism leveled against Alexander was drunkenness. Part of the same tradition must be Pliny's enigmatic reference in VH 14.91 to an incident in which Cursor vowed a small goblet of wine to Jupiter before engaging the Samnites in battle. Additional considerations can be adduced to reinforce the notion of a preLivian tradition on this subject. As Luce points out (art. cit. 222), Livy's use of language in 9.18.6 to refer to Rome's Greek detractors clearly shows that this issue was an actual on-going debate, not a hypothetical conundrum of Livy's own devising: "The most frivolous of the Greeks, who applaud the glory of the Parthians even against the Roman name, are accustomed to saying again and again that the Roman people could not have withstood ... the greatness of

Alexander's name."?? Luce views Livy's reference to the Parthians as indicating that his excursus on Alexander was directed specifically against Timagenes, a Greek historian of the Augustan age, who must have used Rome's military failures against Parthia during the last decades of the republic as a principal argument in favor of Alexander's superiority. The conjecture is quite plausible, but Livy's allusion to Parthia need not mean that the rhetorical debate of Rome versus Alexander the Great did not come into being until the Augustan age. In fact, as Luce himself recognizes, another Greek writer who is likely to have used Alexander as a rhetorical cudgel with which to beat the Romans is Metrodorus of Scepsis, a courtier of Mithridates VI of Pontus (Plut. Lucullus 22), who according

to Pliny (NH 34.34) was a hater of Rome and asserted in writing that the Romans had made off with 2000 statues from Volsinii in 264 B.C. This detail suggests that Metrodorus had more than just a passing acquaintance with Roman history. [n addition to charging the Romans with avarice, on the basis of the Caudine disaster he also could have denied their possession of true military virtue and could have further argued that they would have fallen victim to Alexander the Great. Indeed, Rome's wars, hegemony, and rule in the Greek East during the second and first part of the first centuries B.C. aroused no small amount of ill will among its inhabitants, and it would not be at all surprising that this hostility found expression in literature, including the claim of Alexander's superior generalship.?? In fact, at the beginning of his Roman Antiquities (1.4) Dionysius of Halicarnassus alludes to unnamed Greek historians who, wishing to flatter kings, have denigrated Rome by asserting that its empire was the capricious gift of Fortune, who lavishes her favor upon the base and undeserving. Such assertions are likely to have been known to the Romans and would not have gone unanswered. 46H. R. Breitenbach MH 26 (1969) 146-7, V Livy 9.18.6: Levissimi ex Graecis, qui Parthorum quoque contra nomen Romanum gloriae favent, dictitare solent, ne maiestatem nominis Alexandri ... sustinere non potuerit populus Romanus.

95 For a brief discussion of this matter with further bibliography see E. Gabba, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome, Berkeley 1991 36-8.

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

117

Livy places this digression not after the Caudine disaster but after the annalistic fiction of how the Romans repudiated the treaty and totally avenged themselves upon the Samnites. Thus, Livy's vigorous defense of Roman arms in the rhetorical debate serves to diminish further the disgrace of Caudium. Moreover, just as Livy has apparently foliowed his annalistic predecessors in recording Alexander's foundation of Alexandria, the crossing into Italy of Alexander of Epirus, and the latter's death in Lucania, so he is likely to have followed the same writers in his placement of this digression. It comes at a point in the narrative which is roughly the time at which Alexander the Great actually died. As just noted with respect to Metrodorus, if anti-Roman Greek writers had been sufficiently well informed on Roman history, they would have integrated the Caudine disaster into their demonstration of Alexander's military superiority, whereas Roman historians would have shifted the issue to the less embarrassing context of Rome's postCaudine self vindication. Two key elements in Livy's defense of Rome's military superiority to Alexander concern the concept of changing fortune and the character of Alexander's Persian adversary. In 9.17.5—6 Livy counters Alexander's untarnished military career by observing that he died young, and by noting that both Cyrus the Great and Pompey the Great, despite their youthful successes, lived long enough to experience catastrophic reversals of fortune. The obvious implication is that the same reversal would have eventually overtaken Alexander if he had lived long enough to have led his forces against Rome. Also in disparagement of Alexander's military reputation is Livy's contention that the various peoples of the Near East were not a really formidable enemy. In 9.19.10-1 Livy makes effective rhetorical use of the alleged dying words of Alexander of Epirus that his young nephew went east to fight against women, while it was his fate to turn west and to fight against men (see Gell. 17.21.33). This utterance was no doubt a later

Roman fabrication designed to arm Rome's advocates in the debate with powerful ammunition. In fact, the linkage of the two Alexanders in this spurious anecdote offers a new perspective on Livy's earlier digressions in 8.3.6—7 and 8.24 on Alexander's uncle. In both passages Livy not only mentions the Epirote's crossing into Italy

and describes his death, but he is careful to juxtapose his career with that of his more famous nephew. In the earlier passage Livy links the Epirote's crossing into Italy with an allusion to his nephew's contemporaneous campaign in the East. Moreover, Livy here and again at 8.17.10, where he records the Epirote's peace treaty with Rome, raises the possibility of a war between him and Rome if his campaign in southern Italy had turned out differently. This issue is offered quite gratuitously and can have no other function than that it serves to anticipate and to

prejudice in Rome's favor the debate encountered later in 9.17—9.39 Similarly, in 9 [n this connection it is worth noting that in 8.17.10 Livy employs the word pacer. not foedus, to characterize the agreement between Rome and Alexander of Epirus: for using pax can suggest that in its absence a state of hostility would otherwise exist between the two parties. Furthermore. the phrase "pacem cum Romanis fecit" portrays the Epirote king as actively seeking out the friendship of the Romans and thereby depicts Rome as the superior of the two.

118

Chapter 7: Digressions in the First Decade

8.24 Livy first records the Macedonian's foundation of Alexandria in Egypt and then concentrates entirely upon the Epirote's ignominious death at the hand of a mere Lucanian exile and carefully adds that his cremated remains were received by Olympias and Cleopatra, the mother and sister respectively of Alexander the Great. The clear implication is that if the uncle had fared so poorly against mere Lucanians, how could his homonymous nephew have ever remained invincible against the Romans? Thus, the debate in 9.17-9 has determined in large measure the content of the earlier two passages, and the latter have been written in order to predispose the reader to agree with Livy's conclusion in 9.17—9. Lastly, given the fact that the content of 8.3.6—7 and 8.24 is most likely derived from earlier annalistic accounts, it seems probable that the selection of the material preceded Livy as well. In conclusion, contrary to much other modern scholarship that has focused merely upon a single Livian excursus, this comprehensive examination of all the digressions in the first decade has disclosed no sign that Livy has decided on his own to insert extraneous material where none existed before in the annalistic tradition. The sole exception to this generalization is, of course, the epichoric excursus concerning his native Patavium. The other six digressions appear to be Livy's own reworking of material already existing in his sources. This fact testifies to his basic conservatism as a historian and to his rigorous verbal economy and discriminating judgment as a writer. Moreover, Livy uses qualifying elements in order to place a comfortable distance between himself and portions of this intrusive or extraneous material.

CHAPTER 8:

PATTERNS IN INDIVIDUAL BOOKS OF THE FIRST DECADE

Thus far in this study the Livian data chosen for analysis have been examined according to specific themes or topics. In this chapter the data's distribution in the various books of the first decade will be tabulated and scrutinized for the purpose of disclosing distinctive patterns. In addition, two other books of Livy's history, Books XXIV and XXXIX from the third and fourth decades, will be analyzed in a similar fashion, and the results will be used to determine how and in what ways the books of the first decade differ from Livy's later books which describe better historically documented events. To facilitate quick and easy comparison, the relevant factors have been set out in a table on the following page. The following table lists for each book its word count, number of passages and records, and its concentrations of passages and issues, as well as listing the number of different types, subject matters, and methods of resolution. In addition to giving each book's percentage of the total word count, percentages and quotients are set out for passages, issues, the three different types (simple, complex, and complex multiple), and for unresolved and resolved issues. The chart also tabulates similar data for Books XXIV and XXXIX. The column of totals excludes the latter two books and pertains only to the total sums of factors in the first decade.

120

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

Table of Comparative Data Factor

Total

B.1

B.2

B.3

B.4

B.5

Wrdcount

158,971

16,987

17,824

20,202

16,806

16.379

Percent

100

10.7

11.2

12.7

10.6

10.3

Passages

262

48

29

21

34

19

Percent

100

18.3

11.1

8.02

13.0

7.25

Quotient Conc-Pas

1.00 607

1.71 354

0.991 615

0.631 962

1.23 494

0.704 862

Issues

333

59

40

22

4l

25

Percent Quotient Conc-Iss

100 1.00 477

17.7 1.65 288

12.0 1.07 446

6.61 0.520 918

12.3 1.16 410

7.51 0.729 655

Simple

162

32

18

13

17

15

Percent

48.6

54.2

45.0

59.]

41.5

60.0

Quotient Complex Percent Quotient C-M Percent Quotient Method Agn Nagr Nc Nr On-

1.60 46 13.8 1.00 125 37.5 1.00

1.12 7 11.9 0.862 20 33.9 0.904

0.926 2 5.00 0.362 20 50.0 1.33

1.22 6 27.3 1.98 3 13.6 0.363

0.854 10 244 1.77 14 34.1 0.909

1.23 2 8.00 0.580 8 32.0 0.853

24 4 171 10 ]

4 0 35 ] 0

4 2 16 4 0

2 0 12 0 1

3 0 18 0 0

3 ! 15 0 0

Unr-Iss

210

40

26

15

21

19

Percent Quotient Agr L Lo Lon

63.1 1.00 28 55 2 5

67.8 1.07 3 8 0 |

65.0 1.03 3 5 0 0

68.2 1.08 2 5 0 0

51.2 0.811 3 12 0 i

76.0 1.20 3 3 0 0

Loo

2

0

I

0

1

0

M Oo On+ Po Res-Iss Percent Quotient

7 7 ] 16 123 36.9 1.00

3 I 0 3 19 32.2 0.873

I 2 0 2 14 35.0 0.949

0 0 0 0 7 31.8 0.862

0 2 l 0 20 48.8 1.32

0 0 0 0 6 24.0 0.650

Ant

48

27

5

l

1

3

Dom Fas

82 32

9 0

15 7

12 0

12 13

4 0

Fra Mir Rel

125 30 16

8 15 0

11 2 0

6 ] 2

15 0 0

9 5 4

Type

Sub-Mat

121

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

B.6

B.7

B.8

B.9

B.10

B.24

B.39

13.457 8.47 17 6.49 0.766 792 22 6.61 0.780 612

13.211 8.31 18 6.87 0.827 734 26 7.81 0.940 508

12,935 8.14 23 8.78 1.08 562 28 8.41 1.03 462

16,023 10.1 29 11.1 1.10 553 33 10.0 0.990 486

15.147 9.53 24 9.16 0.961 631 37 HA 1.16 409

14.144

14,750

7

9

0.300 2021 7

0.370 1639 14

0.236 2021

0.453 1054

12 54.5 1.12 3 13.6 0.986 7 31.8 0.848

10 38.5 0.792 2 7.69 0.557 14 53.8 1.43

15 53.6 1.10 4 14.3 1.04 9 32.1 0.856

20 60.6 1.25 4 12.1 0.877 9 27.3 0.728

10 27.0 0.556 6 16.2 1.17 21 56.8 1.51

6

5

I

I

0

12

0 0 8 3 0 I1 50.0 0.792 3 4 0 0 0 ] 0 0 3 11 50.0 1.36

] 0 13 l 0 15 577 0.914 2 4 ] l 0 0 l 0 2 11 42.3 1.15

4 0 15 0 0 19 67.9 1.08 3 3 | 0 0 0 l 0 1 9 32.1 0.870

0 0 23 0 0 23 69.7 1.10 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 30.3 0.821

3 l 16 l 0 21 56.8 0.900 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 16 432 1.17

2 0 4 0 0 6

I 0 8 l 0 10

l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

l 0 0 2 0 0 l 0 0

2 10 0 7 2 i

4 6 4 8 l 3

2 2 3 18 3 0

l 5 2 21 l 3

2 7 3 22 0 3

0 0 0 5 | 1

0 10 0 8 0 ü

122

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

One matter of interest in the present study is how often Livy qualifies a statement, acknowledges a discrepancy, mentions a variant, or otherwise raises an issue of historical or historiographical significance. Quantitative parameters can be devised to gauge this frequency, and its variation from book to book raises important questions concerning Livy's literary artistry and historical judgment. Since the present volume is concerned with Livy's methods and judgment as a historian, the analysis should involve only those passages and records in which method of resolution is involved. This excludes from consideration the 21 records labeled ‘mp’, the 7 records labeled ‘mr’, and the 19 records labeled ‘na’, thereby leaving 333 of the 380 records in the data base. Furthermore, since method of resolution is not actually involved in 14 of the 276 passages from which the 380 records come, the analysis need be concerned only with the remaining 262 passages. The average frequency at which these passages occur throughout the entire first decade can be calculated by dividing the total number of words of Livy's first ten books (158,971 words) by 262, which yields 607 and means that one of the 262 passages occurs on the average throughout the decade every 607 words. This quantity will be termed "the concentration of passages" and can be calculated for each book simply by dividing the book's word count by the number of passages occurring in the book. Moreover, since one passage often contains multiple records that concern related but separate issues, a similar "concentration of issues" can be calculated by dividing the word count by the number of records. Thus, the average concentration of issues for the entire decade is 158,971 divided by 333 = 477. It should be noted that an inverse relation exists between the number of a book's passages or issues and its corresponding concentration, so that the higher the concentration, the lower the figure. In the interest of easier comparison another numeric quantity termed "quotient" has been devised, which normalizes all figures for concentration to the simple standard of unity (1.00), where unity represents the average concentration of passages or issues for the entire decade. A quotient for a book's concentration of passages or issues can be calculated by dividing the book's percentage of the total number of 262 passages or 333 issues by the book's percentage of the decade's entire length. A quotient greater than unity means that the book's concentration exceeds the average by as much as the quotient exceeds 1.00. Conversely, a quotient less than unity means that the book's concentration falls below the average in proportion to its ratio to unity. For example, Book VI is 13,457 words long and contains 17 passages, so that its concentration of passages is 792. These 17 passages form 6.49% of the total 262 passages, and the book constitutes 8.47% of the decade. The quotient for the book's concentration of passages is found by dividing 6.49 by 8.47, which yields 0.766. This means that the book's concentration of passages is 76.6% or slightly more than three fourths as dense as the average for the entire decade.

Another (and perhaps less confusing) way to dividing the average concentration for the entire the book in question. Thus, to repeat the example concentration of passages for Book VI is 607

calculate these quotients is by decade by the concentration of just given, the quotient for the divided by 792 = 0.766. This

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

123

alternative method has been used in normalizing the concentrations of passages and issues for Books XXIV and XXXIX to the averages of the first decade. This permits the concentrations for the later two books from Livy's history to be easily compared with the corresponding values of the first ten books. In addition to the overall concentration of passages and issues in a book, another important factor is the type of issues, whether they are simple, complex, or complex multiples because a book's preponderance toward issues simple in type suggest a reluctance to become too embroiled in sorting out discrepancies, whereas a preference for complex multiples points to the converse.! Consequently, the preceding table not only includes the number of a book's issues classified according to type but also each type's percentage of the total number of issues in a book. Their corresponding quotient is normalized to the specific type's overall proportion in the 333 records. Calculating this quotient differs somewhat from those for concentration described in the preceding paragraph. The 333 records consist of 162 simple (48.6%), 46 complex (13.8%), and 125 complex multiples (37.5%). Book III contains 22 issues, of which 6 or 27.3% are complex in type. The quotient for this book's complex issues is arrived at by dividing 27.3 by 13.8, which

yields

1.98. This means

that this book's

issues have about double

the

average proportion of complex records. Another quantitative diagnostic tool can be devised which measures the proportion of resolved and unresolved issues in a book against their respective averages for the decade as a whole. These quotients serve to indicate a book's shift toward or away from resolving issues. The different methods of resolution have been tabulated in two groups: those which leave matters unresolved, and those which attempt a resolution. This distinction conforms to the one made in chapters 2 and 3. The unresolved issues constitute 210 of the 333 records (63.1%), and the issues involving an attempted resolution form the other 123 records (36.990). A book's quotients for resolved and unresolved issues are

calculated in a way similar to the quotients for the three different types. For example, Book X contains 37 issues, of which 21 (56.8%) are unresolved, and 16 (43.2%) contain an attempted resolution. The book's quotients are determined by dividing these percentages by the percentages of the resolved and unresolved issues for the entire decade: 56.8 divided by 63.1 = 0.900, and 43.2 divided by 36.9 = 1.17. These figures indicate that the records in Book X exceed the decade's average by about one sixth in attempting to resolve issues, but it is one

tenth below the decade's overall average in terms of unresolved issues. Livy's first book stands apart from the other books of the decade in having by far the highest concentrations of passages and issues. The book's 59 records and 48 passages represent 17.790 of the 333 records and 18.3% of the 262 passages. Since the book is 10.7% of the decade's length, it has quotients of 1.65 and 1.71 with respect to issues and passages. The book's quotients for complex multiples and records of simple type are 0.904 and 1.12 respectively, and its quotients for ! [t should be noticed that the 333 records under discussion consist of 162 of simple type.

125 complex multiples, and only 46 of complex type. The last represent a rather small data sample. so that its distribution over the books is a less reliable indicator.

124

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

resolved and unresolved issues are 0.873 and 1.07 respectively. The book contains 3 of the 7 records in which Livy has resolved a discrepancy by the simple means of siding with the majority view. Moreover, as already discussed in chapter 5 (see above pp.79-80), Livy seems hesitant to use direct discourse in his first two books, choosing to use historical speeches only in the form of brief quotations or short speeches numbering less than 150 words. In addition, five of the nine instances in which Livy qualifies a direct speech occur in the first book alone. Taken together, all these data suggest that Livy viewed the traditions of the regal period with greater caution than those of the other books of the decade and was

somewhat unwilling either to commit himself on various matters or to attempt to resolve differences encountered in his sources. It is also noteworthy that Book I alone accounts for exactly half of the data concerning marvelous events (15/30) and over half the records labeled antiquarian (27/48). This imbalance reflects

accurately the nature of the historical traditions surrounding Rome's early kings because with them were associated many marvelous tales and the establishment of virtually all of Rome's archaic institutions and practices. When viewed in terms of concentrations of passages and issues, the remaining nine books of the first decade fall roughly into two groups. Books II, IV, and VII-

X have concentrations which approximate or exceed the average, whereas Books III and V-VI have markedly lower concentrations. In order to facilitate the reader's comprehension, these trends are illustrated graphically on the following page. Due to the relative abundance of records of complex type, Book IV alone has concentrations which both exceed the average by a substantial margin. Thus, there is no neat linear pattern in which the concentrations of the books steadily decline as Livy progresses from the murky events of the fifth century to the somewhat more historical traditions of the late fourth and early third centuries B.C. Nevertheless, if one considers the books' scale of treatment in terms of years covered, there seems to be an actual rise in concentration in chronological terms.

My own impression of early Roman republican history (established long before this study was undertaken) is that the fifth century represents a kind of historical

dark age, and this characterization largely applies to the first half of the fourth century as well, but the historical traditions of the second half of the fourth century on the whole have the appearance of somewhat greater credibility. Books II and IV each cover 42 years (509—468 and 445—404), whereas Books III, V, and VI treat periods roughly half as long: 22 years (467-446), 14 years (403-390), and 23 years (389-367). The last four books of the decade describe periods of 25 years or less with each successive book covering fewer years: VII, 25 years (366342); VIII, 20 years (341—322): IX, 18 years (321-304); and X, 11 years (303293). Thus, the much shorter time spans of Books IIT, V, and VI could explain in part why their concentrations are significantly lower than those of Books II and IV. Moreover, even though Books II, IV, and VII-X all have concentrations approximating or exceeding the average, Books If and IV cover time spans at least twice as long as Books VII-X, so that the roughly equivalent concentrations

for the narrower time frames of the later books could be interpreted as a greater concentration of passages and issues in chronological terms.

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

125

Concentration of Passages

1.5

-

1.

0.5 0

|

7

Concentration of Issues

1.5

.

0.5 .

ALTER I Avg

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

Books

B6

B7

BS

BS

B10

B24

B39

126

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

One factor contributing to this phenomenon can perhaps be found in Livy's prefatory remarks at 6.1.1—3 in which he draws a distinction between the historical traditions preceding and following the Gallic capture of Rome. Livy states that his first five books covered events of the distant past, whereas his narrative henceforth will deal with matters of greater certitude and clarity. It could therefore be surmised that Livy felt more comfortable in attempting to resolve discrepancies in his sources for the period after 390. The conjecture can be tested by determining the quotients for resolved and unresolved issues for the first and second pentads. The first five books account for 187 of the 333 issues, of which 121 (64.7%) are

unresolved and 66 (35.3%) are resolved. These figures yield respective quotients of 1.03 and 0.957. The other five books of the decade contain 146 issues, of which 89 (61.0%) are unresolved and 57 (39.0%) are resolved. These figures yield respective quotients of 0.967 and 1.06. Thus, in the first pentad there is a slight deviation from the average in favor of unresolved issues, whereas the converse is true for the second pentad. The difference, however, is not very great. A somewhat larger discrepancy exists between the two pentads when viewed in terms of complex multiples and records of simple type. The first five books contain 95 (50.3%) records of simple type and 65 (34.4%) complex multiples, which translate into respective quotients of 1.03 and 0.917. The second pentad has 67 (45.9%) records simple in type and 60 (41.1%) complex multiples, which give respective quotients of 0.944 and 1.10. The figures suggest a slightly greater degree of complexity in the passages of the second pentad, but it must be noted that enormous variations exist in these quotients from book to book in both pentads. In this regard it may be significant that of the 16 records labeled ‘po’ (= personal opinion) only five occur in the first pentad, whereas the second pentad has the other eleven. Plutarch's Numa 1.1 shows that Livy's remarks in 6.1.1—3 have been borrowed from Claudius Quadrigarius, who began his history of Rome with the year 390 on the grounds

that all earlier events were of questionable

historicity since in Quadrigarius' opinion all public records had been destroyed by the Gauls in their sacking of Rome. Nevertheless, the slight differences in these data between the two pentads suggest to me that Livy's comments in 6.1.1—

3 are to be considered as reflecting Livy's own view of Roman history and are more than a mere rhetorical repetition of Quadrigarius' own historical preface. One very important factor which doubtless accounts for much of the variation in qualifying statements, referring to discrepancies and variants, and attempting to resolve issues is the matter of literary style and artistry. Anyone who has tried to write a narrative essay on a significant portion of early Roman history knows how difficult it is to maintain a sensible balance between readability and historical objectivity.? On the one hand, the modern scrupulous author is inclined to qualify his retelling of the ancient accounts with phrases such as "according to the annalistic tradition," or “the later Romans believed," but on the other hand, * This problem was first clearly brought home to the present author when writing a modern critical narrative of early Roman history for the fifteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (see vol. 20 pp.280-7); and it has been further reinforced by the recent completion of a detailed narrative history of early Rome: A Critical History of Early Rome (forthcoming).

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

127

extreme scrupulosity in such matters can easily lead the writer into repetitious unreadability. Thus, the author must exercise great care in sketching the accepted ancient historical tradition and in juxtaposing it to critical modern analysis and interpretation. In addition, the scholar must use judgment in deciding what variant traditions are worth mentioning. Somewhat similar problems faced Livy, but rather than writing a history of early Rome in accordance with modern critical standards, he composed his history according to literary conventions of ancient historiography. Consequently, questions of selection, emphasis, thematic unity, and the like doubtless exercised a powerful influence on Livy's decisions to qualify statements, to refer to discrepancies, or to pause in his narrative in order to clear up some issue. An inverse relation between literary artistry and critical historical analysis is most clearly discernible in Books III and V. These two books exhibit thematic structure more obviously than the other books in the decade. Book III, the central book of the first pentad, has as its center piece the rise and fall of the tyrannical board of decemvirs, and the beginning and end of the book are dominated by episodes involving patrician Quinctii. Livy's deliberate selection and emphasis of material in this book are revealed by the book's mere length. In order to accommodate

all the chosen material, Livy was obliged to make it his longest

book. If thematic structure had not been important to him, he could have easily begun or ended the book at some other point and would have thereby made its length conform more closely to those of the other books in the decade. Book V displays large scale thematic structure and literary artistry far more than any other book in the first decade. The first half of the book is devoted to Rome's war against Veii, and the second half describes the events surrounding the Gallic capture of the city. These two halves of the book are marked off from one another by the digression on the Celtic migration into northern Italy in 5.33.2-35.3. In addition, the two longest direct speeches of the entire decade stand at the book's beginning and end (5.3—6 and 5.51—4). From a purely stylistic perspective, citing variants or attempting to resolve issues can be a messy business because they tend to interrupt the flow of the narrative. Such an aesthetic sentiment helps to explain the nature of the data in these two books. They have by far the two lowest concentrations of passages and issues. Each book contains only two passages which have been resolved into complex multiples (3.26.7—9, 3.47.5, 5.22.5-7, and 5.33.2-35.3). Book III has the lowest quotient for complex multiples, an astonishing 0.363. The same figure for Book V is relatively high (0.853) due to the fact that the digression on the Celtic migration is distributed among six complex multiples. Only Book IX has a higher quotient for issues simple in type. Book III contains only one author citation (Valerius Antias at 3.5.12-3), and Book V has none. The latter also has the highest quotient for unresolved issues and the lowest for resolved ones. As already noted in chapter 6 (see above p.89), Livy is very careful to qualify marvelous occurrences, and there seem to be only six instances in the entire decade where he fails to do so. Three of them happen to be in Book V, whose major theme is the importance of divine favor for the welfare of the Roman state.

128

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

The three matters in question (the sudden rise in the level of the Alban Lake and the prophecy of the Veientine seer, the Delphic oracle concerning the draining of the Alban Lake, and M. Caedicius' report of having heard a voice warning him of the advance of the Gauls) are integral to Livy's moral lesson in the book. Qualifying them with ferunt or dicitur would have diminished their credibility and would have undermined the book's didactic message. Thus, despite his general caution in accepting the report of marvelous occurrences, Livy appears to be willing in this book to subordinate any personal doubt to his greater thematic

purpose. Books If and IV offer a sharp contrast to Books III and V. Although they contain major episodes, the fact that each covers 42 years of domestic and foreign affairs makes it far more difficult to impose thematic structure upon the material. The varied nature of the events and the annalistic framework cause these books to be far more disjointed, and this disjointedness is probably a contributory factor to Livy's frequent qualification of statements and reference to discrepancies. If the narrative is already somewhat discontinuous by its very nature, why not take advantage of the fact by noting variants and attempting to resolve issues? Conversely, the impression that an inverse relationship often exists between literary artistry of narration and records in the data base is the fact that no qualifying or attributive statements interrupt Livy's narration of the 300 Fabii and the Cremera disaster in Book II. After briefly treating the trial and execution of Sp. Cassius at the end of 2.41, the narrative runs along smoothly for nine chapters until at 2.50.1! at the close of the Cremera episode Livy uses satis

convenit to qualify the view that all 306 Fabii fell in battle, and only one male child survived to continue the family line. Similarly, there is an uninterrupted stretch of about eleven chapters between

2.21.4 and 2.32.2 containing

Livy's

dramatic account of the circumstances leading up to the first secession of the plebs. On the other hand, apart from the political conflict of 445 B.C. and the sedition of Sp. Maelius, Book IV has no major episode covering several chapters. but its succession of yearly events contains a relatively even distribution of records from the data base. Book II's concentrations of passages and issues are very close to the average, but those of Book IV are among the highest. Likewise, Book II's quotients for resolved and unresolved issues are close to unity, whereas Book IV has one of the highest quotients for resolved issues. Book II has the third highest quotient for complex multiples, and Book IV has the highest quotient for records of complex type. One reason for Book IV's high quotient for resolved issues is that it covers several years in which there were discrepancies concerning the names and status of the state's chief magistrates, largely due to Licinius Macer's use of the Linen

Books to supplement or correct the established tradition of the consular fasti. Although there are only 32 records in the data base whose subject matter concerns the fasti, 13 of them occur in Book IV alone. Book II has the next highest number with seven, so that the two books together account for almost two thirds of these

records. In contrast, none is to be found in either Book III or Book V.

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

129

Books V and VI share both similarities and differences. They form the center of the decade, and Livy has chosen their beginning and end so as to make Camillus the central figure of the entire decade. Book V begins with the year 403, the first year in which Camillus is recorded to have held public office, whereas Book VI ends with the year 367, the last year in which he held office. Moreover, just as Book V begins with a speech of an Ap. Claudius opposing the introduction of military pay, so Book VI ends with another Claudian speech arguing against the passage of the Licinian Sextian Laws. This thematic unity might suggest that the two books share other traits. In fact, their concentrations of passages and issues and their quotients for complex multiples and for records simple in type are all quite close to each other. Like Book V, Book VI contains only two passages which consist of complex multiples (6.12.2—6 and 6.20.4—9). Even the distribution of their records' subject matter is similar, but the two books differ widely in their quotients for resolved issues. Book V has the lowest value for this quantity in the decade, whereas Book VI has the highest. The latter fact is rather surprising and could be a statistical fluke since Book VI contains only 22 issues, which is the

smallest number occurring in the books of the first decade. It contains 3 of the 16 personal opinions, but on the unresolved side of the ledger it also has 3 of the 10 records labeled ‘nr’. The concentrations of passages and issues for the remaining four books of the decade nearly exhibit a steady increase, but when examined in terms of their other quotients, the books comprise two pairs: Books VII and X, and Books VIII and IX. The records of the former display a considerable degree of complexity and interest in resolving issues, whereas the records of the latter have a clear preponderance toward the simple type and an avoidance of resolving issues. Books VII and X have the two lowest quotients for records simple in type, whereas Book IX has the highest. Conversely, Books VII and X have the two highest quotients for complex multiples, and those of Books VIII and IX fall well below the average. The latter have the second and third highest quotients for unresolved issues, whereas the formers’ quotients for resolved issues are exceeded only by Books IV and VI. These major variations can be explained in part as resulting from a major shift in subject matter and Livy's concomitant treatment thereof. This shift actually comes five eighths the way through Book VII. At 7.29.1-2 Livy announces the beginning of the Samnite Wars, and his scale of treatment abruptly changes. The preceding 28 chapters of the book have narrated the events of 23 years, but the book’s remaining 14 chapters describe the affairs of only two years. This difference in narrative style resembles the differences between Books II and IV and Books III and V of the first pentad. The difference is also clearly reflected in the number of qualified statements or issues raised. The book’s first 28 chapters comprise 8201 words and contain 23 records, whereas the last 14 chapters are 5010 words long and have only 3 records, all of which occur in the book's very last chapter concerning the domestic sedition of 342. These figures yield respective concentrations of issues equal to 357 and 1670, which translate into quotients of 1.34 and 0.286.

130

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

Data Base for Books XXIV and XXXIX

Citation

TP

FRM

M-R

S-M

Key Latin Wording

24.3.7 24.4.2 24.17.4 24.40.10-1 24.42.4 24.43.7 24.49.4 39.21.9

C s s s s s S s

d 1 alt u id i d in

agn nc agn agr nc nc nc nr

mit miracula adfinguntur ut plerumque, fama est aram fm futura cernens Hiero dicitur liberas puerili frm errore viarum an exiguitate temporis incertum est frn satis constaret intrasse ac pervenire potuisse frn ad duodecim milia dicuntur caesa. prope tria capta rel — ludos per quadriduum primum memoriae proditur fm rriginta milia hominum caesa dicuntur fm nihil traditur quae causa numero aucto

39.22.9-10

s

c

nc

dom

Valerius Antias auctor est demum in senatu actum

39.34.10 39.41.6

$ c

1 pc

nc agn

fm dom

Casander veneno creditur sublatus si Antiati Valerio credere libet, ad duo milia

39.42.6a

cm

i

nc

dom

patrum memoria institutum fertur ut censores notas

39.42.6-12b 39.43.1-3c 39.43.4d 39.43.5e 39.48.6a 39.49.2b 39.50.7c 39.50.10-1d 39.51.2-3 39.52.1a 39.52.3b 39.52.1—-6c

cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm s cm cm cm

c cv ual c p g g v alt cv cv pal

na lon agr 0 mp nc nc nc nc na na lon

dom Catonis, gravissima in L. Quinctium oratio dom Antias fabulae sine auctore credidisset dom facinus, sive censor obiecit, sive Valerius tradit dom in extrema oratione Catonis condicio fertur fm | immemor sim propositi quo statui non ultra fm effugere tradunt, sed pudor relinquendi equites fm = accepto poculo nihil aliud locutum ferunt fm aquibusdam memoriae mandatum tres claros fm = seu a Flaminino obiectum seu ipse ut gratificaretur dom Scipionem et Polybius et Rutilius mortuum scribunt dom Antiatem auctorem refellit, oratio Africani dom ego neque his neque Valerio adsentior

39.56.7

s

cv

nc

frn

— Antias Valerius est auctor legatis missis praeter

Perhaps the biggest difference between Books IX and X can be seen in Livy's treatments of the Caudine disaster and the Sentinum campaign. The former is described in the first eleven chapters of Book IX, in which there occur only 4 of the book's 33 records. One contributory factor to this low representation is the fact that these chapters contain five of the 16 speeches of moderate length occurring in the entire decade. Moreover, Livy is quick to embrace the fiction of the Roman repudiation of the agreement and is therefore eager to move on to less embarrassing matters. His description in 9.14—6 of fictitious military operations in which the Romans exact condign revenge from the Samnites accounts for six additional issues, but since Livy's primary interest is the telling of the story, only two are resolved. On the other hand, the seven chapters in Book X (10.24—30) which narrate the Sentinum campaign of 295 account for 12 of the book's 37 records, and unlike the Caudine disaster, Livy is willing to discuss discrepancies in his sources and to sort out the later annalistic exaggerations. As Livy observes in 10.30.4, the battle was a great Roman victory and was in no need of later fictions. Unlike the Caudine disaster, Rome's splendid victory at Sentinum allowed Livy to be generous in exercising historical judgment.

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

131

Data Base for Books XXIV and XXXIX English Description of Content Hera's famous shrine in Croton, ashes never blown from altar by wind Aged Hiero foresaw things, wished to leave Syracuse free from childish despot Held up by time or roads, Nero was unable to position forces behind Hannibal Romans by night entered Macedonian camp, could have come to Philip's tent 12,000 Carthaginian dead at Munda, 3000 captured with 57 standards Stage performances were conducted first time for four days by curule aediles Punic Syphax lost 30,000 in battle to young pro-Roman Masinissa It is not recorded why the more numerous Celtiberians were defeated After trial L. Scipio legate to Asia, alleged vowed games discussed in senate Philip had Casander poisoned on route to Rome to prevent testimony Antias says that praetor Naevius executed 2000 poisoners Institution of the censors’ nota for removing senators Cato's speech against L. Flamininus, Boian noble killed to please male lover Antias ignores Cato's speech, L. Flamininus killed prisoner for female lover However the murder was done, it was a dreadful deed amid a banquet In his speech Cato challenged him to deny these charges with a sponsio I should not digress on the causes and course of the Achaean war with Messenia Philopoemen could have avoided capture but held by shame of deserting cavalry Before taking poison Philopoemen asked if Lycortas and the cavalry had escaped Some make Philopoemen equal to Hannibal and Scipio by their deaths in same year Goaded by Flamininus or wishing to please, Prusias plotted Hannibal's death Polybius and Rutilius write that Scipio Africanus died this year Antias' date is bound up with the plebeian tribunate of M. Naevius I reject all these authors, Scipio died before Cato's censorship Hannibal died this year, legates to Prusias but not including Flamininus

Finally, the conclusions reached on the basis of the data from the first decade can be checked and controlled by examining similar data in Books XXIV and XXXIX set out above in a table similar in layout to the data base in chapter 1. The most obvious and striking differences between Books XXIV and XXXIX and Livy's first ten books are the concentrations of passages and issues. Book XXIV contains only 7 passages and 7 issues, whereas Book XXXIX has 9 passages and 14 issues. The concentrations of passages and issues in Book XXIV are both 2021, whereas those of Book XXXIX are 1639 and 1054. When measured against the average values in the first decade, they translate into quotients of 0.300 and 0.236 for Book XXIV and 0.370 and 0.291 for Book XXXIX. It is assuring that these values are of the same relative magnitude, thus indicating that they are probably indicative of Livy's later books in general. Furthermore, their drastically lower values with respect to Livy's first ten books demonstrate the latters' uniqueness, resulting from the peculiar nature and quality of the historical traditions surrounding early Rome, and thereby constituting confirmation of a fundamental working hypothesis of this study.

132

Chapter 8: Patterns in Individual Books of the First Decade

Despite these great differences in concentration, the wording and nature of the records from these two later books conform closely to those of the first decade. The very first record in the preceding table comes from Livy's description of a famous shrine of Hera at Croton in southern Italy. Livy is careful to qualify a marvelous claim associated with this sanctuary just as he does with similar matters in the first ten books. Likewise, just as Livy is reluctant to digress unduly from his main narrative in the first decade and is in the habit of marking his digressions with qualifying or apologetic language, so we find him doing the same in 39.48.6 when introducing his excursus on the death of Philopoemen. Battle casualties are qualified in 24.42.4 and 24.49.4, and as in 3.5.12-3, Livy is reluctant in 39.41.6 to accept numbers found in Valerius Antias. In addition, Book XXXIX contains two passages which exhibit Livy's use of historical probability, of which one is particularly relevant for Livy's use of historical judgment in the first decade. Chapters 42—3 describe Cato the Censor's expulsion from the senate of L. Quinctius Flamininus, the brother of the famous T. Flamininus. In explaining the grounds for Cato's act Livy cites an extant speech

of the censor in which Cato told how L. Flamininus had capriciously murdered a Boian noble deserter amid a banquet in order to gratify a lover. Livy then relates a variant

account

of the same

incident

recorded

by

Valerius

Antias.

When

introducing Antias' version, Livy scoffs at him for narrating a variant without any factual basis and with complete indifference to the evidence in the Catonian speech. Nevertheless, after recounting both versions and clearly siding with the testimony of Cato himself, Livy seems to back away from passing final judgment by ending his account of the episode in 39.43.4 with the remark: "Whether the crime was committed in the way in which the censor alleged, or as Valerius records, it was savage and cruel." The same exposition of alternative accounts and backing away from a firm conclusion are exhibited in 2.41.10—2 in Livy's description of the trial and execution of Sp. Cassius. In conclusion, Livy's methods of qualifying statements and of handling variants and discrepancies appear to be uniform throughout his history, but their frequency is a function of the historical material and of Livy's own literary and stylistic concerns.

* Livy 39.43.4: Facinus, sive eo modo quo censor obiecit, sive ut Valerius tradit, commissum est, saevun atque atrox.

CHAPTER 9:

SOME FINAL ASSESSMENTS

As indicated in the Introduction, the present study had its inception in the author's earlier work on the Roman historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi. While working on the Pisonian fragments preserved in Livy's text, the question naturally arose as to how Livy went about trying to resolve discrepancies encountered in his sources for early Roman history. In order to answer this question, it seemed necessary first to gather from Livy's first decade all passages in which Livy qualifies statements, makes personal remarks, cites variants. alternatives, or discrepancies, and attempts to resolve issues. These and only these kinds of passages were considered for analysis. Once collected, their quantitative analysis designed to reveal major and minor trends required that they be codified and labeled in various ways and cast into the form of a data base. The treatment of relevant data in chapter 2 reveals that Livy was more likely by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 (210 vs. 123 records) simply to register variants or to make qualifications or attributions without any comment or exegesis on his part. His oft repeated historical agnosticism, however, was coupled with a deep respect and reverence for the various traditions handed down over generations. Like Herodotus (compare Hdt. 7.152 with Livy 8.18.1-3), Livy obviously believed that as a historian of Rome one of his primary duties was to give these traditions their due by recording them in his narrative, even if he personally did not or could not vouch for their credibility. Similarly, the analysis of the data in chapter 3 has dispelled the author's earlier erroneous impression that when attempting to resolve an issue, Livy usually took the easy way out by simply following his oldest source or by following the majority view. It was therefore something of a major surprise when the data clearly revealed that his most common method of resolving issues is probability, and that invocation of majority view or the oldest source is rather uncommon. This result, which has decisively disproven an obviously incorrect impressionistic conclusion, constitutes a powerful argument for the need to base major scholarly conclusions upon a careful consideration of Livy's entire text, not just a handful of selected conform to an author's preconceived notions.

passages

which

happen

to

The same point clearly emerges from Chapter 6, which perhaps produced the single most startling result of this study. Despite the considerable amount of scholarly attention devoted to the question of Livy's views on religion and the divine, no modern researcher had thus far detected the obvious pattern that Livy rarely fails to qualify in some way a miraculous or marvelous event or claim. It is therefore hoped that these conclusions and their underlying methodology will persuade other scholars to give careful consideration to the data here collected and

to reexamine

Livy's

treatment of early Roman

traditions

in view

of his

134

Chapter 9: Some Final Assessments

qualified statements, personal remarks, and attempted resolutions. Too much modern scholarship on Livy suffers from the failure to make a careful distinction between what Livy himself actually says or thinks and what is written in his text. Too much modern work fails to take into account adequately the tralatician nature of the annalistic tradition and to realize that Livy represents its endpoint. For example, Chapter 7 has attempted (quite successfully, in my view) to illustrate these issues by examining the digressions in Livy's first ten books and by showing that Livy has nowhere been innovative in including this material in his narrative but has simply followed the lead of his annalistic predecessors. This analysis of the assembled data has added depth, texture, and sharpened focus to my own view of Livy. For example, it is questionable whether any amount of impressionistic reading of the first decade ever would have led me to realize with what caution Livy viewed much of the received historical tradition. Such basic caution, as reflected in his frequent use of qualifying or attributive language (especially in Book I), clearly displays Livy's awareness of the problems involved in writing on early Rome. All! the results, when taken together, argue in favor of Livy's fundamental commonsense, which can be regarded as the historiographical counterpart to his verbal economy and literary artistry. On the other hand, as demonstrated in Chapters 3-5, it is all too evident that Livy's overall caution toward the historical traditions of early Rome was not sufficient in and of itself to permit him to write a critical and historically sound account of early Rome. Livy clearly did not possess the necessary critical acumen. but in fairness to him we should perhaps ask whether anyone living in his day could have been so equipped. Livy despite his caution is all too often willing to allow his fundamental commonsense to be overridden by his moral and patriotic outlook, but here again, we should remind ourselves that such an outlook was the prevailing one in Greek and Roman historiography of the first century B.C. This ambivalent assessment of Livy's historical judgment can perhaps be brought into clearer focus if he is compared with other contemporary ancient historians and with his immediate annalistic predecessors. As noted on several occasions throughout this study, Livy exhibits far more discrimination than Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the matter of speeches, but in my view the same evaluation applies to the two writers' historical judgment. Their different approaches to early Roman historical traditions are most clearly seen in their treatments of Tarpeia and in Piso's revision of the Tarquin family. In both instances Livy (1.11.7-9 and 1.46.4) is careful to observe brevity in dealing with such antique and esoteric matters. Even though Livy records variant versions of Tarpeia's death, he is careful to remain aloof and refuses to offer any personal comment. Dionysius (2.38—40, 4.6—7, 4.30.2-3, and 4.64.2-3), on the other hand, indulges in the most excessive and arid exercises of probabilistic reasoning in discussing both issues. Similarly, despite Sacks' recent attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of Diodorus, Livy in my judgment is by far the better historian.! Livy also cornes out far ahead when compared with his immediate annalistic predecessor ! See K. S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century, Princeton

1990.

Chapter 9: Some Final Assessments

Valerius Antias, whose

135

fragments reveal to have been a truly colossal liar.

Licinius Macer can be credited with diligence for having sought out the Linen

Books in the temple of Juno Moneta, but my own assessment of him as a historian and of his use of this material is that he interpreted it with little real understanding and in fact was overly fond of introducing his own fictions into his narrative.? In 1.5-7 of his De Legibus Cicero complained that Rome had not yet produced a great historian to rival the Greeks. One wonders what his judgment of Livy would have been. My own considered opinion is that given Livy's sober commonsense,

his respect for Rome's hallowed historical traditions, his moral and patriotic outlook, and his consummate skill as a writer, Cicero would have found in him a historian fully worthy of Rome's greatness.

2 See, for example, Livy 7.9.3—6, 9.38.15, 9.46.3, 10.9.10-3, and 10.11.9. For a more detailed exposition of my assessment of Licinius Macer see The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham MD 1994 229-32, 292-3, and especially 309 and 340-8. Additional analysis of Licinius Macer will be published in Chapters 8-9 of my forthcoming book, A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aili, Hans. "Livy's Language: A Critical Survey of Research," ANRW II. 30.2 (1982) 1122-47. Alfóldi, A. Early Rome and the Latins, Ann Arbor 1965. Amundsen, Leiv. "Notes to Livy's Preface," SO 25 (1947) 31-5.

Anderson, William B. "Contributions to the Study of the Ninth Book of Livy.” TAPA 39 (1908) 89-103. Badian E. “Livy and Augustus,” Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes, Xenia: Konstanzer althistorische Vortráge und Forschungen 31, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, Constance 1993 9-38. Bagnall, Roger S. "The Date of the Foundation of Alexandria," AJAH 4 (1979) 46-9.

Barfield, Lawrence. Northern italy Before Rome, New York-Washington 1972. Beare, W. "The Italian Origins of Latin Drama," Hermathena 54 (1939) 30-53. Bishop, J. D. "Augustus and A. Cornelius Cossus Cos.," Latomus 7 (1948)

187-91.

Bornecque, Henri. Tite-Live, Paris 1933. Breitenbach, Hans Rudolf. "Der Alexanderexkurs bei Livius," MH 26 (1969) 146—57. Brunt, P. A. "Cicero and Historiography,” Miscellanea di Studi Classici in Onore di Eugenio Manni, Rome

1980 I. 311—40.

Burck, Erich. Die Erzdhlungskunst des T. Livius, Berlin 1934, reprinted with new introduction Berlin-Zurich 1964. -. "Actuelle Probleme der Livius-Interpretation," Gymnasium Beiheft 4 (1964) 21—46. -. "Zum Rombild des Livius: [nterpretationen zur zweiten Pentade," Vom Menschenbild in der

rómischen Literatur, ed. E. Lefevre, Heidelberg 1966 321-53. —, "Das Bild der Revolution bei rómischen Historikern," Gymnasium 73 (1966) 86-109.

- (editor). Wege zu Livius, Darmstadt 1967. Cantor, H. V. "Rhetorical Elements in Livy's Direct Speeches. Part I," AJP 38 (1917) 125-51. -. “Rhetorical Elements in Livy's Direct Speeches. Part 1I," AJP 39 (1918) 44-64.

Cornell, T. J. "Notes on Sources for Campanian History in the Fifth Century B.C." MH 31 (1974) 193-208. -. The Beginnings of Rome: ltaly and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 B.C.), London-New York 1995. Crawford, Michael H. “Feedus and Sponsio," PBSR 41 (1973) 1-7. Daly,

Lawrence J. "Livy's Veritas and the Spolia Opima: Politics and the Heroics of A. Cornelius Cossus (4.19-20)," The Ancient World 4 (1981) 49-63. Dessau, H. "Livius und Augustus,” Hermes 41 (1906) 142-51. Deubner, L. "Die Devozion der Decier," ARW 8 (1905) 66-81.

Dory, T. A. (editor). Latin Historians, London 1966. - (editor). Livy, London 1971. Drachmann, A. B. Diodors rómische Annalen bis 302 a. Chr, samt dem Ineditum Bonn 1912.

Vaticanum,

Drummond, A. "Some Observations on the Order of Consuls’ Names," Athenaeum N.S. 56 (1978) 80-108. ~. "The Dictator Years," Historia 27 (1978) 550-72.

-. "Consular Tribunes in Livy and Diodorus," Athenaeum N.S. 58 (1980) 57-72. Dunkle,

J. Roger.

“The Greek Tyrant

TAPA 98 (1967) 151-71.

and Roman

Political

Invective of the Late Republic,”

Bibliography

137

~. "The Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus," 12-20.

CW 65 (1971)

Earl, D. C. The Political Thought of Sallust, Cambridge 1961. Foresti, L. A. "Zur Zeremonie der Nagelschlagung in Rom

und in Etrurien,” AJAH 4 (1979)

144—56.

Fornara, Charles W. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley 1983. Forsythe, Gary. "Some Notes on the History of Cassius Hemina,” Phoenix 44 (1990) 326-44. -. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, Lanham MD 1994. Fraccaro, Plinio. "The History of Rome in the Regal Period," JRS 47 (1957) 59-65. Frank, R. I. "The Dangers of Peace," Prudentia 8 (1976) 1-7. Frier, Bruce W. "Licinius Macer and the Consules Suffecti of 444 B.C.," TAPA

105 (1975) 79-

97. Fritz, Kurt von. "The Reorganization of the Roman Government in 366 B.C. and the so-called Licinio-Sextian Laws." Historia | (1950) 3-44. Gabba, Emilio. "Considerazioni sulla Tradizione letteraria sulle Origini della Repubblica," Les Origines de la République Romaine, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique. Tome 13 Geneva 1968 135—69. -. Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome, Berkeley 1991. Gries, Konrad. "Livy's Use of Dramatic Speech." AJP 70 (1949) 118-41. Hadzsits, George Depue. "The Vera Historia of the Palatine Ficus Ruminalis," CP 31 (1936) 305-19. Haffter, H. "Rom und rómische Ideologie bei Livius." Gymnasium 71 (1964) 236—50. Harris. W. V. Rome in Etruria and Umbria, Oxford 1971. Hendrickson, George L. "The Dramatic Satura and Old Comedy at Rome," AJP 15 (1894) 1-30. ~. “A Pre-Varronian Chapter of Roman Literary History," AJP 19 (1898) 285-31]. Heurgon, Jacques. "L. Cincius et la Loi du Clavus Annalis," Athenaeum N.S. 42 (1964) 432-7,

-. The Rise of Rome to 264 B.C., tr. by P. J. Cuff. Berkeley 1973. Hickson, Frances V. Roman Prayer Language: Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil, Stuttgart 1993.

Holland, Louise Adams. “The Purpose of the Warrior Image from Capestrano," AJA 60 (1956) 243-7. Homeyer, Helene. "Zum Keltenexkurs in Livius' 5 Buch (33.4-35.3)," Historia 9 (1960) 34561. Horsfall. Nicholas. "The Prehistory of Latin Poetry: Some Problems of Method," RFIC 122 (1994) 50-75. Howard, Albert A. "Valerius Antias and Livy," HSCP

17 (1906)

161-82.

Jaeger, M. Livy's Written Rome, Ann Arbor 1997. Jahn, O. "Satura," Hermes 2 (1867) 225-51.

Janssen, L. F. "Die Livianische Darstellung der fra in der Geschichte von Coriolan." Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 25 (1972) 413-34. -. "Some Unexplored Aspects of Devotio Deciana,” Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 34 (1981) 357-81. Kajanto, I. God and Fate in Livy, Turku 1957. -. "Notes on Livy's Conception of History," Arctos N.S. 2 (1958) 55-63. Kissel, Walter. "Livius 1933-1978: eine Gesamtbibliographie,”

ANRW

II. 30.2 (1982) 899-997,

Klotz, Alfried. "Livius' Darstellung des zweiten Samniterkriegs: cin Beitrag zur Quellenkritik des neuten Buches des Livius," Mnemosyne Ser. 3, 38

—. Livius und seine Vorgdnger, Leipzig-Berlin 1940.

(1938) 83-102.

138

Bibliography

Kraus, Christina S. "Initium Turbandi Omnia A Femina Election of 367 B.C." Phoenix 45 (1991) 314—25.

Ortum

Est:

Fabia

Minor

and

the

—. Livy: Ab Urbe Condita, Book VI, Cambridge 1994. Laistner, M. L. W. The Greater Roman Historians, Berkeley 1947. Lambert, André. Die indirekte Rede als künstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius, Diss. Zürich

1946.

Leeman, A. D. "Are We Fair to Livy? Some Thoughts on Livy's Prologue," Helikon 1 (1961) 28-39. Lefévre, E., and E. Olshausen (editors). Livius: Werk und Rezeption, Festschrift für Erich Burck zum 80. Geburtstag, Munich 1983. Leo, F. "Varro und die Satire," Hermes 24 (1889) 67-84. -. "Livius und Horaz über die Vorgeschichte des rómischen Dramas,” Hermes 39 (1904) 63-77.

Levene. D. S. Religion in Livy, Leiden 1993. L'Hoir, Francesca Santoro. "Heroic Epithets and Recurrent Themes in Ab Urbe Condita," TAPA 120 (1990) 221-41. Liebeschuetz, W. "The Religious Position of Livy's History," JRS 57 (1967) 45-55. Linderski, Jerzy. "Roman Religion in Livy,” Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes, Xenia: Konstanzer althistorische Vortráge und Forschungen 31, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, Constance 1993 5370. Lintott, A. W. "The Tradition of Violence in the Annals of the Early Roman Republic," Historia 19 (1970) 12-29.

-. "Imperial Expansion and Moral Decline in the Roman Republic." Historia 21 (1972) 626-38. Lipovsky. James P. A Historiographical Study of Livy Books VI-X, Salem New Hampshire Luce. T. J. "The Dating of Livy's First Decade," TAPA 96 (1965) 209—40.

. "Design and Structure in Livy V," TAPA

1981.

102 (1971) 265-302.

l

I

. Livy, The Composition of His History, Princeton 1977.

. "Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum," Berween Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub and Mark Toher, Berkeley 1990 12338. . "Structure in Livy's Speeches," Livius: Aspekie seines Werkes, Xenia: Konstanzer althistorische Vortrage und Forschungen 31, ed. Wolfgang Schuller, Constance 1993 71-88.

Mazza. Mario. Storia e Ideologia in Tito Livio: per un' Analisi storiografica della Praefatio ai Libri ab urbe condita, Catania 1966. McDonald, A. H. "The Style of Livy," JRS 47 (1957) 155-72. -. “Theme and Style in Roman Historiography.” JRS 65 (1975) 1-10. Mensching, E. "Livius, Cossus, und Augustus," MH 24 (1967) 12-32. Merten, Marieluise. Fides Romana bei Livius, Diss. Frankfurt am Main 1965. Miles, Gary B. Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome, Ithaca N.Y. 1995. Mitchell, Richard E. "Historical Development in Livy," Classical Texts and Their Traditions, Studies in Honor of C. R. Trahman, ed. by David F. Bright and Edwin S. Ramage, Chico CA 1984 179-99. Moles, Jahn. "Livy's Preface," PCPS 39 (1993) 141—68. Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Some Observations on the Origo Gentis Romanae," JRS 48 (1958) 56-

73. Mommsen, Theodor. "Sp. Cassius, M. Manlius, Sp. Maelius, die drei Demagogen des 3 und 4 Jahrhunderts der rómischen Republik," Hermes 5 (1871) 228-80.

Moore, Timothy J. Artistry and Ideology: Livy's Vocabulary of Virtue. Beitráge zur klassischen Philologic, Athenáum Monografien, Band 192, Frankfurt am Main 1989. Morel, J. P. "La fuventus et les Origines du Théátre romain (Tite-Live, VII.2; Valére Maxime,

11.4,4)," REL 47 (1969) 208-52. Muller, F. "Zur Geschichte der rómischen Satire," Philologus 78 (1923) 230—80.

Bibliography

139

Nissen, H. "Die caudinische Friede," RM 25 (1870) 1—65.

Oakley, S. P. "Single Combat in the Roman Republic," CQ N.5. 35 (1985) 392-410. -. A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X, Vol. 1, Introduction and Book VI, Oxford

1997.

Ogilvie, R. M. "Livy, Licinius Macer, and the Libri Lintei," JRS 48 (1958) 40—7. -, "The Maid of Ardea," Latomus 21 (1962) 477-83.

-.

A Commentary on Livy Books [-5. Oxford 1970.

1965, reprinted with additions and corrections

Packard, D. W. A Concordance to Livy, 4 volumes, Cambridge Mass. 1968. Palmer, Robert E. A. "The Censors of 312 B.C. and the State Religion," Historia 14 (1965) 293323. Panitschek, P. “Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius, M. Manlius als Exempia Maiorum," Philologus 133 (1989) 231-45. Perl, Gerhard. Kritische Untersuchungen zu Diodors rómischer Jahrzühlung. Berlin 1957. Peter, Hermann. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, Second Edition, Vol. I. Leipzig 1914. Phillips, E. J. "Roman

Politics During the Second Samnite War," Arhenaeum

N.S. 50 (1972)

337-56. Phillips, Jane E. "Verbs Compounded in trans— in Livy's Triumph Reports," CP 69 (1973) 54— 5. -. "Form and Language in Livy's Triumph Notices," CP 69 (1973) 265-73.

~. "Livy and the Beginning of a New Society," CB 55 (1979) 87-92. -. "Current Research in Livy's First Decade

1959-1979," ANRW II. 30.2 (1982) 998-1057.

Raaflaub, Kurt A. (editor). Social Struggles in Archaic Rome, New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders, Berkeley 1986. -. "Politics and Society in Fifth-Century Rome," Asti dei Convegni Lincei 100 (1993) 129-57. Rawson, E. "Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian,” JRS 62 (1972) 33-45.

-. "The First Latin Annalists," Latomus 35 (1976) 689-717. Reitzenstein, Richard. "Livius und Horaz über die Entwicklung des rómischen Schauspiels,” Aufsütze zu Horaz, Abhandlungen und Vortrdge aus den Jahren 1908-1925, Darmstadt 1963 29-54. Ridgway. David and Francesca R. (editors). /taly Before the Romans: The lron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan Periods, London-New York 1979. Ridley, Ronald T. "Fastenkritik: A Stocktaking,” Arhenaeum N.S. 58 (1980) 264—98. -. "The Enigma of Servius Tullius,” Klio 67 (1985) 147-77. Roberts, Lucy George. "The Gallic Fire and Roman Archives," MAAR 2 (1918) 55-65. Rosenstein, Nathan. "Imperatores Victi: The Case ofC. Hostilius Mancinus," CA 5(1986) 230-

52. Ruch, M. M. "La Capture du Devin (Tite Live V,15)," REL 44 (1966) 333-50. Rutter, N. K. "The Campanian Chronology in the Fifth Century B.C." CQ N.S. 21 (1971) 5561. Salmon, E. T. "The Pax Caudina," JRS 19 (1929) 12-8. —, "Historical Elements in the Story of Coriolanus," CQ 24 (1930) 96-101.

~. "The Resumption of Hostilities after the Caudine Forks," TAPA 87 (1956) 98-108. —. Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge 1967. Santini, Carlo. / Frammenti di L. Cassio Emina: Introduzione, Testo, Traduzione e Commento, Testi e Studi di Cultura Classica, 13, Pisa 1995. Schónberger, Otto. "Motivierung und Quellenbenutzung in der Deciusepisode des Livius," Hermes 88 (1960) 217-30.

Schwarte, Karl H. "Zu Ausbruch des zweiten Samnitenkrieges 326—304 v. Chr." Historia 20 (1971) 368-76.

140

Bibliography

Seager, Robin. "Populares in Livy and the Livian Tradition," CQ N.S. 27 (1977) 379-90. Simon, Helmut. Roms Kriege in Spanien, Frankfurt 1962. Solodow, J. B. "Livy and the Story of Horatius, 1.24—26," TAPA 109 (1979) 251—68. Sordi, M. "Alessandro e i Romani," RIL 99 (1965) 435-52. Springer, Lawrence A. "The Cult and Temple of Jupiter Feretrius," CJ 50 (1954/5) 27-32. Stadter, Philip A. "The Structure of Livy's History." Historia 21 (1972) 287-307. Staveley, E. Stuart. “The Constitution of the Roman Republic 1940-1954," Historia 5 (1956) 74-119.

-. "The Political Aims of Appius Claudius Caecus," Historia 8 (1959) 410-33. —. "The Nature and Aims of the Patriciate," Historia 32 (1983) 24-57. Steele, R. B. "The Historical Attitude of Livy," AJP 25 (1904) 15-44. Syme, Ronald. "Livy and Augustus," HSCP 64 (1959) 27-87. Trünkle,

Hermann.

"Der Anfang

des rómischen

Freistaats in der Darstellung des Livius,"

Hermes 93 (1965) 311-37.

Treptow, R. Die Kunst der Reden in J. und 3. Dekade des Livianischen Geschichrwerks, Diss. Kiel 1964. Ullman, B. L. "History and Tragedy," TAPA 73 (1942) 25-53. Ulimann, Ragnar. La Technique des Discours dans Salluste, Tite Live et Tacite: La Matiere et la Composition, Oslo 1927. —. Étude sur le Style des Discours de Tite Live, Oslo 1929. Vasaly, Ann. "Personality and Power: Livy's Depiction of the Appii Claudii in the First Pentad," TAPA 117 (1987) 203-26. Verbrugghe, Gerald P. "L. Cincius Alimentus—His Place in Roman Historiography,” Philologus 126 (1982) 316-23. Versnel, H. S. "Two Types of Roman Devotio," Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 29 (1976) 365-410. —. "Self-Sacrifice. Compensation, and the Anonymous Gods," Le Sacrifice dans l'Antiquité. Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique, tome 27 Geneva 1980 135-85. Walbank, F. W. "History and Tragedy," Historia 9 (1960) 216-34. Walsh, P. G. “Livy's Preface and the Distortion of History," AJP 76 (1955) 369-83.

. "Livy and Stoicism," AJP 79 (1958) 355-75. . "Livy and Augustus," PACA 4 (1961) 26-37.

[

. Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge 1963. -. Livy, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics 8, Oxford 1974. Waszink, J. H. "Varro, Livy and Tertullian on the History of Roman Dramatic Art," Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 224-42. Welles, C. Bradford. "The Discovery of Sarapis and the Foundation of Alexandria," Historia 11 (1962) 271-98. Wiseman, T. P. “Topography and Rhetoric: The Trial of Manlius.” Historia 28 (1979) 32-50. . Clio's Cosmetics, Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature, Leicester 1979.

. "The Credibility of the Roman Annalists," LCM 8 (1983) 20-2. . Remus: A Roman Myth, Cambridge 1995. . Roman Drama and Roman History, Exeter 1998.

Woodman, A. J. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies, London 1988.

GENERAL INDEX Capitoline 17, 18, 25, 27, 31 46, 60, 62, 82, 85, 90 Capua 20, 29, 96, 100, 102-104 Capys 29, 102, 104 Carmenta 31,95 Carthage 73, 101, 102, 105

Accius 113, 114 Acilius 71 Aelius Tubero 7, 15, 16, 29, 47, 62, 94 Aeneas 14, 23, 43, 56, 96, 109

Aequians 18, 31, 46, 66—68, 87, 106 agnostic 17, 43, 49 Agrippa Menenius 25, 80, 84 Alban king list 91

Carthaginian (see Punic) 131

29,

100,

102,

103,

59. 61, 72, 83, 92, 94, 103, 112, 123, 132 Amulius 23, 91, 92, 94

Cassius Hemina 110, 113 Sp. Cassius 25, 27, 57, 82, 91, 128, 132 Catilinarian 83, 84, 86, 99, 100 Catiline 82-84, 100 Cato the Elder 50, 53, 75, 76, 90, 94, 103, 110, 131, 132 Cato the Younger 84, 100 Caudine (Forks, Peace, disaster) 35, 4i, 68, 70-73, 79, 116, 117, 130 caution 40—51, 54, 57, 80, 81, 89, 90, 95, 124, 128, 134

Annius (Latin leader) 33, 79, 96, 98 annual nail (see clavus annalis) 14, 18, 33, 35

cautious 47, 53, 61, 62, 64, 70, 90, 91, 110 Celtic digression 111, 112

Antenor. 23, 43, 56, 96, 109 Antium 19, 27, 31, 92, 93 Apulia 35, 44, 70, 72

Celtic migration 100, 109-113, 127 census 23, 27, 46, 60, 61 Cicero 12, 49, 50, 53, 66, 75-77, 82, 83, 90, 99. 100, 135

Alban Lake Alesia 112

89, 90, 128

Alexander of Epirus 106, 117 Alexander the Great

33, 35, 41, 100,

104—

15, 35, 58, 73, 100, 104-

106, 114-118 Alexandria 35, 41, 100, 104, 106, 117, 118 Allia 37, 89, 110 alternative

Aquilonia

9, 15-17,

19, 20, 27, 43, 47, S8,

15, 39, 88

Ara Maxima 17, 95 Ardea 27, 29, 31, 61 Arruns of Clusium 31, 110 Ascanius 23. 43 Atticus 49, 105, 106, 109 Attus Navius 23, 41

Cincinnatus 27, 29, 66, 81, 87 Cincius Alimentus 14, 33, 41, 62

Augustus

8, 19, 29, 63, 64, 100

Circe. 25, 95 Cisalpine Gaul (see Po Valley) 112 Claudius Quadrigarius 7, 18, 33, 35, 44, 48, 53, 71, 72, 75, 79, 82,83, 110, 126 Ap. Claudius 33, 129

Aventine

25, 91, 94

Ap. Claudius (cos. 495)

Brutulus Papius Cacus

69, 70

95

Caedicius 89, 128 Calpurnius Piso Frugi 9, 12, 14, 16, 25, 27, 37, 41, 53, 59, 60, 75, 82, 89, 90, 133135 Camillus 18, 31, 33, 43, 67, 72, 83, 90, 92, 93, 112, 129 Campania 35, 57, 77, 103, 105 Canuleius 78, 79, 81 Capitol 25, 27, 31, 85-88, 96, 98

78

Ap. Claudius Caecus 15, 17, 20, 35, 37, 41, 55, 58—59, 76 Ap. Claudius decemvir 57, 77, 81, 86 clavus annalis (see annual nail) 62

Cleonymus 37, 100, 106—109 Cleopatra (sister of Alexander the Great) 118 Clusium 31, 56, 110-112 common agreement (se general agreement)

104,

17,

52 complex multiple 14, 19, 41, 119, 123, 126129 Corcyra 108, 109

142

General Index

Coriolanus

107, 110-112, Cn. Gellius. 54, 75, general agreement 17, 56, 57, 96, L. Genucius (tr. pl. Geryon 23, 95

25, 27, 60, 75, 77

Cornelius Cethegus (cos. 204) Cornelius Cossus

Cornelius Nepos

75

19, 29, 63, 64, 83

106, 112

Cremera (see Fabii) 27, 37, 128 Creusa 23, 43 Croton 131, 132 Cumae 100, 103 Curtius (Marcus)

15, 33, 45

haruspex 33,43 Hatria 111

Curtius (Mettius)

45

Hera

Decius Mus (cos. 340) Decius Mus (cos. 295)

deditio Delphi devotio dictator

33, 87, 97, 98, 101 15, 37, 55

102-105,

108-112,

131, 132

Hesiod

134

early kings (see regal period) 53, 59, 124 early republic 59, 75, 82. 106 Egeria 49-51 Ennius 75 Etruria 17, 37, 39, 41, 55, 58, 59, 77, 113 Etruscan 16, 29, 31, 37, 39, 62, 90, 91, 95, 102, 111, 112 Etruscans 17, 18, 23, 31, 56, 91. 93, 103. 110, iil Evander 23, 94, 95 evocaiio 41,91

113, 114

Himera 102 Homer 49, 113, 114 Horatii and Curiatii. 17, 23

Horatius Barbatus (cos. 449)

27, 80—81

Horatius Cocles 25, 48, 82 Horatius Pulvillus (cos. 509)

25, 62

Ilia 23, 92, 94 Imbrinium 16, 19, 35, 60, 61 instauratio 90

Janiculum 51,114 Junius Brutus (cos. 509)

Jupiter Elicius 90 Jupiter Feretrius 19, 63 25, 41, 46, 47

Larcius (first dictator) 18, 37, 55, 60, 61,

18, 25, 41, 46, 56, 60-62,

75,

Lars Tolumnius

19, 29, 63

Latin War 79, 96 Latinius 25, 90

90, 92, 94 fasti 13, 20, 47, 89, 102, 103, 106, 109, 128

Latinus

14, 23, 43

Lavinia

23, 43

Fates 23, 91-94 Faustulus 23, 94

lectisternium

fetial 23, 41, 71, 101 Flamininus 131, 132 Cn. Flavius

14, 37, 57, 65, 101

flute players 20. 35, 101 foedus Mancinum 71 Fortune 33, 82, 86, 91-93, 104, 105, 115—117 Gauls

25, 60

Larentia 23, 94

70 Fabius Pictor

25, 45, 75, 79, 80

Juno 17, 18, 31, 37, 41, 61, 91, 107, 135 Jupiter 19, 27, 33, 39, 49, 51, 62, 63, 85, 88, 90, 96, 97, 116

Lake Regillus 27, 128

Fabius Dorsuo 31 Fabius Maximus Rullianus

57

Herdonius (Turnus) 25 Herodotus 50, 99, 102, 133 Hersilia 75

Dionysius of Halicarnassus 12, 41, 46, 48, 53, 54, 57, 59, 65, 77, 80-82, 89, 90, 94, 103, 116, 134 Dionysius I of Syracuse 54, 102 Dodona 3$, 104

Fabii (see Cremera)

128 103, 110 common agreement)

Hercules 17, 23, 31, 76, 95, 112 Herdonius (Appius) 46, 87

14, 23, 35, 69 25, 89, 128 15, 18, 31, 33, 37, 87, 97, 98, 101 years 105, 106, 109

Diodorus Siculus

126, 102, (see 111 342)

31, 33, 37, 39 56, 79, 82, 83, 86, 89, 95,

20, 31, 88, 113

Leges Genuciae 33 Lex Valeria 37, 66, 68 Libri Lintei

7, 47

Licinius Macer 7, 15, 54, 57, 61-64, 75, 128, 135 linen books 27, 29, 61, Livius Andronicus 33, logic (see probabilistic 54

16, 18, 27, 29, 33, 47, 92, 94, 102, 103, 63, 64, 128, 135 113 and probability)

18,

143

General Index

plague (see pestilence) 19, 31, 33, 35, 41, 48, 62, 86, 113 Plutarch 12, 48, 53, 126

Lucania 117 Lucanian 104, 118 Lucceius 99, 100 Luceria 35, 39, 72

Lucian Lucilius Lucretia

Po Valley (see Cisalpine Gaul)

99 51 8, 60, 79

ludi scaenici (see stage performances) 113, 114 Lupercalia 23, 94 Maelius majority Mamilii Manlius

33,

16, 29, 66, 82, 128 view 23, 52, 59, 124, 133 25, 95 Capitolinus 17, 19, 31, 75, 82

Manlius Torquatus

18, 33, 35, 48, 96-98

Mars 23, 42, 92, 97, 98 marvelous (see miraculous) 20, 35, 48, 50, 51, 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 112, 124, 127, 128, 132, 133 Massilia , Melpum

Lit 112

Metapontum 108 Metrodorus of Scepsis

116

Minerva 33, 62 miraculous (see marvelous)

10, 20, 87, 89, 90,

93, 101, 133 Mithridates 116 Mons Sacer

111, 112

poisoning 19, 35, 41, 48, 131 Polybius 48, 74, 75, 110, 112, 131 pomerium 23,95 Pontius (Samnite leader) 35, 71, 72, 79 Porcian Law 67 Porsenna

25, 48

Potitii 35 praetor maximus 33, 62 probabilistic (see logic) 13, 18, 52-54, 71, 77, 134 probability 18, 41, 52-64, 77, 111, 132, 133 Proculus Julius

23, 49, 50

Publitius Philo 72, 84 Volero Publilius 84 pullarii

39, 88

Punic (see Carthage and Carthaginian) 102, 131 Pyrrhic War 77 Pyrrhus 75, 76 Pythagoras 23, 51, 53 Quirinus

39, 49, 97

regal period (see early kings)

50, 59, 75, 79,

90, 124

25

Nepete 31,93 Nortia 14, 33, 62 Numa Pompilius 23, 44, 49—51, 53, 90, 114, 126 Numitor 91,94 Odysseus 25, 49, 95 Ogulnian Law 15, 16, 78 older 9, £8, 19, 27, 29, 33, 40, 44, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61, 70, 91 oldest 18, 19, 23, 25, 35, 52, 60, 133 Olympias 118

Remus 23, 41, 92, 94, 95 Romulus 15, 23, 41, 49, 50, 75, 92, 94, 95 Ruminalis (ficus) 23, 94 Sallust 83, 84, 99, 100 Samnite War

61

Samnites 20, 29, 33, 35, 37, 44, 55, 60, 68-73, 88, 101-104, 116, 117, 130 Samnium 37, 39, 55, 56, 58, 70, 72 Satricum secession

31, 35, 68, 73, 92 17, 20, 25, 35, 76—78, 80, 83, 84,

101, 128 Selinus

Senones

102

31, 111, 112

Palatine 23, 94, 95 Papirius Cursor the Elder 15, 35, 37, 60, 61, 72, 73, 115, 116 Papirius Cursor the Younger 15, 39, 88 Papius Mutilus 70 Patavium 37, 96, 100, 101, 106, 107, 109, 115, 118

Sentinum 39, 55, 56, 130 Servilius Ahala 66, 84 Servius Tullius 23, 25, 46, 60, 92

pestilence (see plague)

spolia opima 19, 29, 63 stage performances (see ludi scaenici) 62, 113, 114, 131

Philopoemen Pinarii 17

75,

131, 132

62, 113

Sibyl 90 Sicily 29, 33, 54, 75, 77, 99, 100, 102, 103 Silvanus 17, 25, 91 Social War 70

16, 44,

144

Genera] [ndex

struggle of the orders Suessa Pometia Sutrium 31, 93

Syracuse

13, 55

43

Umbrians

17, 37, 39, 56

54, 102, 131

Tanaquil 23, 51 Tarentum 35, 106, 108, 109 Tarpeia 23, 41, 134 Tarquin family 25, 45, 59, 89, 134 Tarquinii 33, 91 Tarquinius Priscus 23, 41, 49, 50, 51, 59, 79, 92, 111 Tarquinius Superbus 25. 59, 79, 90, 9] Tatius 15, 23, 45, 75 Terminus

Turnus

16, 25, 60

25, 90

Theopompus

50, 74

Thucydides 74, 75, 99, 102 Thuriae 106, 108, 109 Tibur 20, 33, 35, 101 Timaeus 74, 75, 108 Timagenes 110,116 tralatician 8, 50, 53, 89, 110, 113, 114, 134 Trojan War 113, 114 Troy 23, 43, 56, 96, 109 Tullus Hostilius 23, 90

Valerius Antias 7, 15, 16, 27, 29, 45—47, 51, 54, 62, 90,127, 131, 132, 135

Valerius Corvus

33, 37, 57, 68

Valerius Potitus (cos. 449) 27, 76, 80-81 Varro 106, 110, 113 Veientine 29, 89, 100, 128 Veii 16, 17, 29, 31, 41, 43. 63, 89-91, 112, 127

Vercingetorix. 112 Verginia 27, 57, 77, 86 Vestal 35, 89, 92, 94 Volscians 18, 27, 29, 31, 33, 46, 54, 66-68. 83, 92, 93 Volsinii 14, 33, 62, 116 Volumnius (Flamma Violens, cos. 307 and 296)

37, 39, 41, 56, 58, 59

Xenophon Zalmoxis

74 51

INDEX OF LIVIAN CITATIONS praefatio 16, 41, 43, 50, 65, 87, 89, 93, 100 1.1.14 22, 43, 56, 96, 109 1.1.6-9 14, 22, 43 1.2.5 I1 1.3.2 22,43 22, 92, 94 1.4.1-2 22. 94 1.4.5 22, 41, 94 1.4.6 1.4.7 22. 94 14, 22. 87, 94 1.5.1-3 1.7.1-2 232, 95 1.7.4 22, 87, 95 1.8.3 16, 22, 95 1.11.7-9 22, 41, 134 1.16.5 22, 50 1.18.2-4 22. 53 1.19.5 51 1.20.7 51 1.24.6 22, 101 1.31.8 22, 90 1.34.9 22. 51 1.35.2-5 22, 79. 81 22. 46. 60 1.44.2 1.46.4 24, 59, 134 24, 58, 92 1.46.5 1.49.9 24, 87, 95 1.55.3-6 90 1.55.8-9 16, 24, 60 1.56.4 89 1.59.8-11 79 1.59.11 24, 54, 80 2.1.2 2.4.1-2 2.7.1-3 2.8.5 2.10.11 2.18.4-7 2.21.34 2.29.9-12 2.30.1 2.32.8-12 2.34 2.34.9-11 2.36 2.40.10-1

50 45 91 18, 24, 24, 48, 24. 60 24, 41, 78 78 20, 24, 54, 58, 77 14,90 26, 60

60 82

2.41.10-2 2.42.10-1 2.50.11 2.54.3

26. 57,91, 132 89 26, 128 14, 26, 47

3.3.9 3.5.12-3 3.8.10 3.15-8 3.17.2-6 3.17.7-8 3.19.6-12 3.20.5 3.23.7 3.24.10 3.26.7-9 3.39.1-3 3.39.1-10 3.47.5 3.57.7 3.67.1 3.67-8

26, 16, 26, 87 78, 80 78, 26, 19, 26, 26, 81 26, 26, 26, 80 26,

4.3-5 4.6.1-2 4.7.7-12 4.8.1 4.8.7 4.15 4.20.5-11 4.23.1-3 4.23.3 4.29.8 4.37.1-2 4.44.12 4.48.5-9 4.56-7 4.57.6

78, 79, 81 78 61 26, 61 6i 8l 28, 63 28, 41, 47, 62 28, 47 28, 100-103, 106 28, 100-103 100, 101, 103 28. 78 65 28, 65, 66

5.3-6 5.13.7-8 5.15 5.16.8-10 5.21.8-9 5.22.5-7 5.32.6-7

78, 20, 89 89 16, 30, 89

46 26, 45, 46, 54, 127, 132 46, 54 79 79 41, 65, 87 26, 44, 52 46 66, 127 80, 81 57, 77, 86, 127 88 78, 79, 81

47, 54

80, 81 77

79, 115, 127 30, 88, 89

30, 43, 50 91. 127

146

Index of Livian Citations

5.33.2-35.3 5.33.2-3 5.33.4-5 5.33.7-8 5.33.9-11 5.34.1 5.34.6 5.34.8 5.35.1-3 5.35.3 5.51-4 5.55.1

30, 100, 109, 127 30, 110 30, 110 30, 111 30,141 30. 111 30, 87, 95, 112 30, 111 30, [tl 30, 112 78, 79, 90, 115, 127 30, 90

6.1.1-3 6.6-10 6.9.1-3 6.1 1-20 6.11 6.11.7 6.12.1 6.12.2-6 6.12.6 6.14.3-8 6.14.4 6.14.10 6.15 6.16.2 6.16.4 6.18.5-15 6.18.13 6.18.15 6.18.16 6.19 6.19.2 6.19.3 6.19.6-7 6.20 6.20.3 6.20.4-9 6.20.1002 6.20.13-6 6.40-1

19, 30, 92 92. 93 82 82-84, 84 30, 83 30, 66, 30, 63 83 83 83 78 83 30, 83 78.83 84 84 19, 30, 84 84 84 84 84—86 84 30, 85, 86 86 32, 78,

7.2 7.2.8 7.2.13 7.3.3-8 7.3.6 7.3.8 7.6.1—6 7.6.6 7.9.3-6 7.10.5

62, 32, 16, 62 32, 62 32, 32, 32, 32,

44, 53, 54, 58, 126

103

67, 83, 129

84

129

81

100, 101 113 32, 65, 88, 113 62 45 45 57, 135 48

7.27.5-9 7.27.9 7.29.1-2 7.39-41 7.42 7.42.7

68 32, 32, 57 32, 32,

8.3.6-7 8.6.1-11.1 8.6.1-3 8.6.9 8.7.8 8.9.5-10 8.10.11-4 8.11.1 8.17.9-10 8.18.1-3 8.18.2 8.24 8.24.1 8.30 8.38-9 8.38.10 8.39.10-5 8.40

100, 101, 104, 117, 118 96 32, 96 20, 32, 96 32, 97 97 32, 87, 98 18, 32, 65, 87, 98, 101 104 34, 41, 48, 133 34, 47 41, 100, 101, 104, 117, 118 34, 87, 101, 104, 105 60-61 68-71 34, 68 69 34, 44, 45, 54, 70, 71, 76, 77

9.1-7 9.1.3-11 9.2.10-3.2 9.5.2-4 9.5.6-6.13 9.8-9 9.8-11 9.11.13 9.13.1-4 9.14.9-12 9.15.3-7 9.16.1 9.16.2-10 9.16.11 9.16.12 9.16.13-9 9.16.19 9.17-9

70 70 7 34, 71 71 71 34, 72 72 72 34, 73 34, 34, 15, 34, 34, 118 115 117 116 117 20, 14, 36, 36,

9.17.1-2 9.17.5-6 9.18.6 9.19.100-1 9.30.5 9.46.2-7 9.46.8 9.46.8-9

68 41, 129 57, 82 57

71

58. 71

73 73 58, 34, 65, 58,

73 73, 115 115 73, 100, 101, 114, 117,

34, 36, 41, 41,

41, 101 57 65, 101 65

147

Index of Livian Citations

10.2.4-15 10.7.1-8.12 10.7.1-2 10.9.3-6 10.18 10.18.10 10.21.8 10.24-30 10.25.1-10 10.25.11-2 10,25.13-8 10.26.14

36, 81 36, 36, 58, 36, 36, 55, 55 36, 36, 55

101, 106, 109 78 58, 65-67 58, 59 101 130 55 55

10.26.5 10.26.6 10.26.7 10.26.10-3 10.27-9 10.30.4-7 10.40.9-10 10.40.9-14

36, 36, 36, 38, 56 38, 38, 89

25.39.12

71

35.14.5

71

55 55 56 56 56 41, 65, 87, 88