Livy: The Composition of His History 9780691198897

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter I: The Structure of his History
Chapter II: Books 31-35
Chapter III: Books 36-40
Chapter IV: Books 41-45
Chapter V: Livy and His Sources
CHAPTER VI. Livy's Working Methods
CHAPTER VII. The Roman National Character and Historical Change
Bibliography
Index of Passages
General Index

Citation preview

LIVY The Composition of His History

LIVY The Composition of His History

by

T.]. LUCE

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

Princeton, New Jersey

C o p s right (£' 1Q77 l>\ P r i n c e t o n L ' n n e r s i n

Press

Published bv Princeton L ' n i v e r s i n Prevs, P r i n c e t o n , N e w J c r s c v In the U n i t e d K i n g d o m P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, G u i l d f o r d , Surrc\" All Righrs Reserved L i b r a r v of C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g in Publication Data will be f o u n d on rhc last printed page of this h o o k Publication of this b o o k has been aided b v a g r a n t f r o m the Paul M e l l o n F u n d of P r i n c e t o n I ' n n c r s i r v Press T h i s b o o k has been c o m p o s e d in L i n o t y p e J a n s o n P r i n t e d in the U n i t e d States of A m e r i c a b\ P r i n c e t o n L ' n i v e r s i n Press, P r i n c e t o n , \ c u J e r \ e \

Princeton Legacy Library edition 2019 Paperback ISBN: 978-0-691-61047-4 Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-691-65626-7

Dedicated

to Marvin

Mandelbawn

Contents

Preface

IX

Abbreviations

Xl

Introduction

xv

Chapter I: The Structure of tbe History

3 3 9 25

Chapter II: Books 3 1-35

33 33 39 46 47 53 74

Books 1-45 Books 46- 1 42 Structure within Pentads

The General Design Book 33 Book 34 Book ]1. 33-5 0 , Book Book JI. 1-3 2 Conclusions

]2,

and Book 35

Chapter III: Books 36-4 0

The General Design Book 36 Book 37 Book 38. I. I-5 0 . 3 The Trials of the Scipios: 38.50.4-60. 10 Book 39 Book 40 Conclusions

Chapter IV: Books 41-45

4 1-45

The General Design of The Outbreak of the War with Perseus Books 46-50 Conclusions Vll

75

75

76

84 90

92 I04 109 I 12

II4

lIS 123

135 137

CONTENTS

Chapter V: Livy and His Sources Chapter VI: Livy's ~Vorking Methods The First Stage The Second Stage The Third Stage Non-Polybian Adaptation Conclusions

139 18 5

188 193

205 2Z I

227

Chapter VII: The Roman National Character and Historical Change 23 0 Early Rome Later Rome National Character: Causes, Mutability, Remedies Conclusions

234 250 276 294

Bibliography

299

Index of Passages

3I

General Index

318

Vlll

I

Preface

I WISH to thank Princeton University for its generous leave policy, which has enabled me over the past few years to complete this book, and for a grant of money to defray the expense of the final typescript. In addition, I have benefitted from the comments and criticisms of Professors B. C. Fenik, E. Gabba, E. S. Gruen, and R. E. A. Palmer, who read parts of the present study, and of James P. Lipovsky, who read all of it. I particularly wish to thank Professor Konrad Gries, one of the readers selected by Princeton University Press, for his detailed suggestions for improvement. Natu­ rally none of the above is responsible for errors that may remain or for the views expressed. The histories of Livy and Polybius are cited frequently in this study. In the interest of simplicity and clarity book numbers of these authors are given in arabic numerals, itali­ cized; italics are not used for numbers of chapters or subsec­ tions: e.g. Livy 38. 38.18; Pol. 16. 1. When referring to Polybius' extant text, I have abbreviated the author's name as Pol.; when referring to passages in Livy based on Polybius, the initial P alone is used. The initial R denotes passages in Livy based on Roman sources. —T. J. Luce Princeton, June 1976

Abbreviations

Periodicals are abbreviated according to the system used in UAnnee Philologique. Short abbreviations for works frequently cited are listed below. Bayet, Livre I Briscoe, Comm.

J. Bayet, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine. Livre V (Paris 1961). J. Briscoe, A Cormnentary on Livy. Books XXXI-XXXIII (Oxford '973)•

Burck, Einfiihrung

E. Burck, Einfiihrung in die dritte Dekade des Livius (Heidelberg 1950). Burck, Erzahlungskunst E. Burck, Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin 1934; repr. with a new introduction, Berlin/Zurich 1964). CAH The Cambridge Ancient History. CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. P. Guenther. FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden 1923- ). Hellmann, L-I F. Hellmann, Livius-biterpretationen (Berlin 1939). Hoch, Darstellung H. Hoch, Die Darstellung der politischen Sendwig Roms bei Livius (Frankfurt 1951). Holleaux, Etudes M. Holleaux, Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, vol. 5 (Paris 1957). xi

ABBREVIATIONS

HRR

Jal, Livres XL1-XLII

Kahrstedt, Annalistik

Klotz, Livius

MRR

Nissen, KU

Ogilvie, Comm. ORF2 Pedech, Methode Petzold, Erdjfnung

RE Walbank, Comm.

H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae2, vol. i (Leipzig 1914); vol. 2 (Leipzig 1916). P. Jal, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine. Livres XLl-XLU, vol. 31 (Paris 1971). U. Kahrstedt, Die Annalistik von Livius. B. XXXI-XLV (Berlin 1913). A. Klotz, Livius und seine Vorgdnger. Neue Wege zur Antike (Leipzig/Berlin 1940-1941; repr. Amsterdam 1964). T . R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 1 (New York 1951); vol. 2 (New York 1952); Supplement (New York i960). H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen der vierten und fiinften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863). R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965). Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2, ed. H. Malcovati (Pavia 1955). P. Pedech, La Methode historique de Poly be (Paris 1964). K.-E. Petzold, Die Eroffnung des zweiten romisch-makedonischen Krieges (Berlin 1940; repr. Darmstadt n.d.). Paulys Real-Ency clopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. F. W . Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. 1 (Oxford 1957); vol. 2 (Oxford 1967). xii

ABBREVIATIONS

Walsh, Livy

Weissenborn Wille, Aufbau

Witte, Darstellung

Zimmerer, CQ

P. G. Walsh, Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge 1961). W. Weissenborn and H. J. Muller, T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri ed (Berlin 1860-64; - 1880). G. Wille, Der Aufbau des Livianischen Geschichtsiverks (Amsterdam 1973). K. Witte, u t)ber die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Geschichtswerk," RhM 65 (1910) 270-305, 359-419; repr. separately (Darmstadt 1969). M. Zimmerer, Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Quadrigarius (Munich 1937)-

xiii

Introduction

IN THE nineteenth and early part of the present century Livy was the subject of much scholarly attention, particularly in Germany. Study of the historian's sources dominated the field, although valuable work was also done on topics such as his latinity and style. But after a time the spate of Quellenforschung began to abate, partly because the material was nearing exhaustion, partly because the Quellenforscher began to bicker among themselves, and partly because some began to have misgivings about the validity of some of their methods and results. But by and large, as the era of Source Criticism drew to its close, most viewed the results as a solid and convincing achievement. P. G. Walsh, in an ex­ cellent and judicious book published in 1961, gave voice to the communal opinion: "After more than a hundred years of systematic research (chiefly by German scholars), the boundaries between reasonable certainty and ingenious speculation are now closely defined."1 The waning of Quellenforschung caused Livian studies to languish somewhat for a time; recently, however, interest has revived, particularly in Great Britain. The achievements of P. G. Walsh, A. H. McDonald, R. M. Ogilvie, and J. Briscoe stand out, and major studies by other scholars are announced or forthcoming. The renaissance we are now experiencing has mostly turned away from Quellenforschung (although it has built on its results or is strongly in­ fluenced by them) and is no longer dominated by one or two topics of interest. Diversity is clearly in evidence; we are witnessing new advances in establishing the text, full 1 Walsh, Livy 114. M. L. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman His­ torians (Berkeley 1947), is the major dissenter.

INTRODUCTION

commentaries, and in studying Livy's literary techniques. 2 Most of the new scholarship has tended in one of two directions. The first is chiefly concerned with consolida­ tion and integration; Walsh's book mentioned above and Ogilvie's Commentary on Books i—$ are excellent examples. The other is concerned with coming to a better understand­ ing of particulars, whether they be analyses of individual parts of the history, investigations into special literary techniques and narrative devices, or thematic studies that focus on questions such as Livy's allegiance to the Augustan regime,3 In much of this scholarship, however, Livy himself has been largely lost sight of; the question of his own con­ tribution has been either ignored or considered of second­ ary importance. This was especially true when the tide of Quellenforschung was flowing strong, for on all sides it pointed to Livy's total dependence on his sources in mat­ ters of fact, for the ordering and development of material, for many of the ideas and interpretations expressed and for most of those implied, and to some extent even in vocabulary and style. On this last point, however, almost all were willing to credit him with being a fine stylist in A . H . M c D o n a l d i s s u e d a n e w O x f o r d t e x t o f B o o k s 31-35 in it is to be hoped that Books 36-45 will be forthcoming; T. A. Dorey has produced a new Teubner text of Books 21-22 ( 1 9 7 1 ) · R. M. Ogilvie has contributed much to the text of Books 1-5, and a new Oxford text is the result (1973). New commentaries are by R. M. Ogilvie on Books 1-5 (cited as Ogilvie, Connn.), and J. Briscoe on Books 31-33 (cited as Briscoe, Comm.). On literary studies, in addi­ tion to Walsh's book, see his article in RhM 97 (1954) 97_II4< an ^ A. H. McDonald, "The Style of Livy" JRS 47 (1957) 155-172. Walsh has recently written a general assessment of Livy in the light of recent scholarship: Livy, Greece and Rome. Neiv Surveys in the Classics, N o . 8 (Oxford 1 9 7 4 ) . 3 For examples of individual episodes, see Walsh, Livy 2 4 9 - 2 5 3 ; T. J. Luce, TAPhA 102 (1971) 265-302; for special narrative devices, J.-P. Chausserie-Lapree, UExpression narrative chez Ies historiens latins (Paris 1 9 6 9 ) ; for Livy's loyalties, R. Syme, HSPh 64 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 2 7 8 7 ; H. J. Mette, Gymnasium 6 8 ( 1 9 6 1 ) 2 6 9 - 2 8 5 ; H. Petersen, TAPhA 9 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) 4 4 0 - 4 5 2 ; Walsh, P A C A 4 ( 1 9 6 1 ) 2 6 - 3 7 . 2

1965;

XVl

INTRODUCTION

his own right and to believe that the rhetoric of the speeches, the prominence given to episodes illustrative of old-time virtues, and scenes of high drama and vivid presentment were also chiefly the historian's own doing. These views are not much changed today. Livy is a stylist, not an inter­ preter—a writer concerned with producing a dignified, stimulating history of his people that would rival those of the great historians of Greece: "He writes . . . to enshrine in literature persons and events that have given him a thrill of excitement as he studied them."4 Scholars believe that Livy also saw himself in this light, and when he declares in the Preface that new writers invariably believe they can either bring new and more reliable facts to light or surpass their predecessors in the eloquence of their presentation, it was the second goal he chose for himself, not the first.5 The historian's personal contribution to his history has been judged almost entirely in terms of individual scenes and episodes. According to this view, when he came upon passages in his sources that lent themselves to fine writing and exciting reading, he proceeded to reshape and color the material according to his own interests and predilections; for the more pedestrian material in the intervals he hastily and rather mechanically reproduced what he found in the sources before him.6 Kurt Witte, in a pioneering work show­ ing how Livy adapted Polybius according to single episodes Ogilvie, Comm. 24-25. Praef. 2: Novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt. That Livy was inspired by Cicero's complaint of the lack of a great national history and the need to rival the Greeks in this department of literature (De or. 2. 55.62-64; De leg. 1. 5-6) is altogether probable. That Livy was not the man Cicero was seeking may be true, although I doubt that Cicero would have found Tacitus more congenial: cf. E, Rawson, JRS 62 (1972) 44-45. 6 This is Walsh's appraisal of Livy's use of Polybius in the later books (Livy 144): "A clear and somewhat damning picture emerges of a mind rapidly and mechanically transposing the Greek, and com­ ing to full consciousness only when grappling with the more congenial problems of literary presentation." 4

5

XVll

INTRODUCTION

(Einzelerzahlungen), sums up as follows: "The question may briefly be raised at this point as to whether particular groups of such episodes (and thereby larger sections of Livy's history) are arranged to form integrated units. The answer is no. Just as Livy began the composition of his work without having prepared himself much in advance and in particular failed to give at the start an outline of the con­ tents, so he passed hurriedly from event to event, from scene to scene without taking the trouble to combine the separate accomplishments of the Roman people into larger, integrated units."7 With one notable exception,8 this fairly sums up scholarly opinion. Professor Syme has perhaps best expressed the communis opinio: "Admirable as Livy is in the eloquence of a speech, in descriptive colouring, and in narra­ tive movement, he shows no comparable skill when events have to be grouped and interrelated—and no instinct for historical structure. For disposition as for material he is content on the whole to follow his sources."9 This book is in part concerned with testing the truth of these assertions. It will examine to what extent Livy tried to organize and structure his history according to larger units: the book, the pentad, and groups of pentads. Two additional problems are necessarily involved. The first con­ cerns how Livy went about t(i£ actual process of composi­ tion: in particular, what his different methods of adapta"(jber die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Geschichtswerk," RhM 65 (1910) 418-419, reprinted separately (Darmstadt 1969) 9697: "Hier sei nur noch die eine Frage kurz erortert, ob bestimmte Gruppen solcher Einzelerzahlungen und damit grossere Abschnitte des livianischen Geschichtswerkes unter sich geschlossene Einheiten bilden. Die Antwort lautet: nein. Wie Livius ohne langere Vorbereitungen an die Ausfiihrung seines Werks ging und vor allem es unterliess, im voraus eine Gesamtdisposition zu entwerfen, so eilte er rasch von Ereignis zu Ereignis, von Szene zu Szene, ohne sich die Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Taten des romischen Volkes zu grosseren Einheiten angelegen sein zu lassen." 8 E. Burck, Erzahlungskunst, concerns the design and structure of Books i~s· 9R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 1, 148 (cf. 139). 7

INTRODUCTION

tion were, how far he had read ahead in his sources before beginning to write, and the reasons for his selection of sources and for his shifting back and forth among them as he did. The second concerns the problem of the way in which he tended to view and interpret the course of Roman history. The problem arises because a study that focuses on structure and on methods of composition inevitably raises questions about the division of history into epochs and the selection of major turning points within them. These ques­ tions also involve consideration of the meaning and significance that Livy found in the seven and a half centuries of Roman history he wrote about. Essentially, then, this is a study of how and to what extent Livy can be said to have "informed" his history. No doubt many knowledgeable students of Livy will shake their heads in dismay at this proposal. Livv the Stylist, Livy the Narrative Artist, and Livy the Rhetorician are topics of hope and promise; Livy the Organizer and Livv the Thinker are not. The results of Quellenforschung, as noted above, seem at variance with the first possibility: Livy's dependence on his sources is nearly total; he trusts himself to follow only one at a time (rather than producing a conflation), and when he is forced to alternate among several over long stretches, an appalling pastiche could sometimes result: skewed chronology, contradictions, the same story repeated twice, cross-references to stories told not at all. It would seem improbable that a conscious at­ tempt at organization could produce this sort of thing. On the other hand, Livy the Thinker has been equally dis­ countenanced. He seldom expresses his own ideas, prefer­ ring to retire behind the persons and events he writes about. It has been charged that on the few occasions when he does speak in his own person, he trots out commonplaces and cliches; they may be deeply felt, but they are unoriginal and superficial.10 Indeed, we find him deploring the ugliness of the present and avowedly preferring a romanticized past 10 Cf.

Ogilvie's remarks on the Preface, Comm. 23.

INTRODUCTION

—the product partly of his own imagining, ignorance, and wishful thinking (e.g. Praef. 4-12, 26.12). There is no evidence that he was ever a senator or involved in public life; hence his treatment of the workings and traditions of government betrays ignorance and naivete. Moreover, we even find him taking over the ideas of his sources as if they were his own—sometimes to the point of parroting judg­ ments to which he supposedly does not subscribe, or on one occasion transferring the ideas of his source on the importance of an event to the words and thoughts of the crowd that witnessed it. 11 And as for having ideas about change and development in Roman history, few have found reason to suppose that Livy had any. Some in fact have denied that he was conscious of historical change at all. R. G. Collingwood in his The Idea of History asserts that all the ancient historians were tainted with the sin of "substantialism," by which he means the failure to account for how things come into being, develop, and pass away; rather, the ancients were concerned chiefly with unchanging verities that lie outside history and that history cannot ex­ plain: the gods, human nature, the concept of Eternal Rome, and so forth. Collingwood believes that for Livy "Rome is a substance, changeless and eternal. From the beginning of the narrative Rome is ready-made and complete. To the end of the narrative she has undergone no spiritual change." 12 An example of the former is given by Nissen (KU 2 4 9 ) in refer­ ence to the passage at 42. 30.2-7 (based on Polybius): of the three groups of Greek leaders during the war with Perseus, some favored the king, some the Romans, and some wished to maintain a balance of power between Rome and Perseus; Polybius clearly counted him­ self among this third group. Livy calls this the pars . . . optima et prudentissima, rather than the faction favoring the Roman cause. Yet it is unreasonable to expect him to extoll the pro-Roman faction, most of whose members were only interested in using Rome as a power base for their own selfish ends (30.2-3). The second example is at 33- 33-5- 8 (P°l· '£.46.13-15): the proclamation of the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games. 12 R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford 1 9 4 6 ) 4 4 , 11

INTRODUCTION This pronouncement is admittedly extreme, and one won­ ders about Collingwood's reading of Livy's Preface; never­ theless, no one has ventured to dispute the underlying prem­ ise that Livy was largely oblivious to historical development. Particular scenes and episodes, then, have excited admira­ tion, but not the history as a whole, although the 142 books may impress by virtue of their sheer number. And little respect has been accorded to Livy's critical abilities. Indeed, the general feeling is that he was a romantic novelist who wandered into history by default. There are, of course, rea­ sons for this. Two examples come to mind. The first concerns the opening of Book 21 and the outbreak of the war with Hannibal. At 6. 3 Livy dates the fall of Saguntum to the con­ sulship of P. Cornelius Scipio and Ti. Sempronius Longus: 218 B.C. By chapiter 15 (3-6) he realizes that something is not right; it seems, he tells us, that he may have started the narrative in the wrong year. He speculates for a few lines about what might have gone wrong: maybe all the events took a shorter span of time than he said they did, or maybe the siege of Saguntum occurred in the previous year and only its fall took place in 218. He then abruptly abandons the puzzle, leaving the narrative as he wrote it (and begins the next section with sub idem -fere tempus. . . : 16. i). 13 The second example concerns the notorious Trials of the Scipios in Book 38 (50.4-60. 10). For five chapters Livy reproduces the version of the historian Valerius Antias (50. 5). At a point roughly two-thirds of the way through the story he interrupts to inform us that there is absolutely no agreement among the authorities he has consulted, in­ cluding Antias, on even the most basic facts he has just told and that he has no idea whom or what to believe (56. 1). After discussing some of the knottier problems for two chapters, he returns to Antias' account in order to finish off the story (58. 1-60. 10). 14 It is passages such as these that have produced the crush13 For

a discussion, see pp. 141-142. For an analysis, see pp. 92-104, 142-143.

INTRODUCTION

ing verdict of incompetence in his chosen field. The cause of such imperfections, it is universally felt, is due not to his failure to adapt satisfactorily the single source before him, but to his alternating over long stretches among two or more sources that disagreed with each other on essential points of fact and interpretation. The chief evidence for this view comes from Books 31-45, where we possess an original source (Polybius) and where line-by-line comparison shows that Livy has by and large done a faithful, competent job of transmission; but when he tries to alternate between Polybius and Roman sources, he can be shown to be guilty of gross errors and contradictions. This fact, of course, means not only that Livy is a faithful mirror of single sources, but also—since he did not possess the critical acu­ men to solve the problems inherent in combining them— that he is a faithful mirror of the differences among the sources, and thus also of the points where the switch was made from one to another. Hence the picture of Livy func­ tioning as a kind of "Transparent Overlay." Livy the Wanderer is its companion. That is, he had not read ahead very far in the sources before he began his adaptation, but wandered from one to another, uncertain as to exactly what was coming up next or where the narra­ tive would lead. This seems to be the case in both the exam­ ples cited above, for they appear to show that only after he had completed most of his adaptation did he become aware that part or all of what he had written must be wrong. And so transparent (or lazy) was he that he forbore to correct the errors that he had already committed to paper. After prolonged exposure to passages of this sort and to the strictures on them by the Source Critics, most readers of Livy come to believe that the man himself contributed little to his history, and of that little there is next to nothing that a serious student of history can admire or respect. Livy thus shrinks to a shade or cipher. So pervasive and seductive is this attitude that on occasion the historian dwindles to

INTRODUCTION

less than nothing, if such is possible. Even so good a critic as Nissen can commit such absurdities; for example, he writes in reference to chapter 49 of Book 42, where Livy describes the ceremonial departure from Rome of the first consul chosen to wage war against Perseus of Macedon: "The simplicity and graphic quality of the description betray PoIybian authorship. In any case a foreigner must be the author, for that a Roman could have written this would be inconceivable: 'semper quidem ea res cum magna dignitate ac maiestate geritur.' " 15 An example of the same attitude on a larger scale is of­ fered by Margarete Zimmerer in her monograph on the historian Claudius Quadrigarius. It is her judgment that Livy selected Claudius, Valerius Antias, and Polybius as his three chief (if not sole) sources for Books 31-45 because they contrasted nicely among themselves in types of material, narrative techniques, and styles. Livy endeavored to mirror faithfully their differences in all of these areas because by moving back and forth among them he could bring liveliness and variety to his narrative. 16 The author views this as a new and somewhat heretical approach—one that dares to take account of Livy 1 S personal contribution and artistic aims; in fact, she chides some of her predeces­ sors for treating Livy like an automaton and for attribut­ ing changes of source to considerations of content alone. 17 Now there may be an embryo of insight and truth in this notion; but in the form in which Zimmerer puts it, it seems 254: "Die Einfachheit und Anschaulichkeit der Schilderung verrat den Polybios. Sie gehort jedenfalls einem Fremden an; denn wie ein romischer Geschichtsehreiber sie so hatte abfassen konnen, ware unbegreiflieh [semper quidem ea res cum magna dignitate ac maiestate geritur eqs.]." x6Zimmerer, C Q 41: "Darum glaube ieh, dass die genannten drei Beriehte nur dazu eingearbeitet sind, um in die Erzahlungen etwas Leben und Abvvechslung zu bringen"; 67: "Er macht sich auch hier die sdlistischen Eigentiimliehkeiten seiner Quellen fiir seine kunstlerischen Zweeke zunutze." 17 Zimmerer, C Q 22-24. isKU

XXlll

INTRODUCTION

to be a step backward: even style and narrative techniques are not his own, but those of his sources, conscientiously made to appear in their native hues through the trans­ parency. The belief that Livy is capable of almost anything causes even the most judicious scholars to make hypotheses that in the case of another author would be considered extreme. In the account of Coriolanus in Book 2 (39. 1-6) there is a serious inconsistency in the text that is difficult to explain. 18 R. M. Ogilvie accounts for it in this way. 18 Livy began to describe Coriolanus' campaigns as they appeared in his source. Accordingly, he located Coriolanus in the vicinity of the Via Latina. But midway through the first sentence he halted and decided for the first time to read ahead in his source. It was then he discovered that Coriolanus was engaged in two separate campaigns. After some thought he decided to lump them together in order to achieve greater cohesion and unity; for economy's sake he chose to describe the second campaign, which took place along the Via Ardeatina, first. But he realized that in order to make geo­ graphical sense the order of the cities conquered in this campaign would have to be reversed, since he wanted to move Coriolanus closer to Rome, not away from it. All this was decided and planned halfway through the first sentence—which half he left as he had first written it, merely continuing the sentence in accordance with his new plan. 18 2. 39. 2-4: Circeios profectus primum colonos inde Romanes expulit liberamque earn urbem Volscis tradidit; inde in Latinam viam transversis tramitibus transgressus, Satricum, Longulam, Foluscam, Coriolos, Mugillam (novellam•. ms.), haec Romanis oppida ademit; inde Lavinium recepit; tunc deinceps Corbionem y Veteliam, Tolerium (Trebium: ms.), Labicos, Pedum cepit. The first list of cities (Satricum, etc.) is situated in the area of the Via Ardeatina, the second (Corbio, etc.) of the Via Latina. Conway in his OCT text transposed inde in Latinam . . . trangressus to a place after Lavinium recepit. 19 Comm. 331—332 (the text as given in n. 18 is his).

INTRODUCTION

Even granting that anything is possible in Livy, this hypothesis strains belief. Something is clearly wrong with the text or with the facts, but Ogilvie's is unlikely to be the true explanation. On the one hand we have a Livy so con­ cerned with thematic unity that two campaigns are made into one; on the other, so ignorant of what lay ahead and so careless in writing that major changes are formulated in mid-sentence, the first part left untouched to clash with the last; so ignorant of geography that he thought Satricum, Longula, Polusca, Corioli, and Mugilla were all on the Via Latina; so knowledgeable that he realized their order as given in his source had to be reversed in order to move Coriolanus from south to north in his campaign. 20 Part of the purpose of this book is to urge that Livy be approached in a more understanding and more cautious spirit than has sometimes been the case. The notions of Livy the wanderer, the transparency, the cipher, the man capable of almost anything, are extreme. Of the many charges leveled against him some are unfounded, some over­ stated, and some misdirected—most often because of a failure to perceive or appreciate the problems that Livy faced in the ongoing process of adapting and combining his sources; the unstated assumption in many of these criti­ cisms is that there was a diflFerent and better way for him to proceed. But these "different and better" ways on analysis often turn out to be those of modern historical methods and criticism; they are not those of Livy's day. Some scholars airily dismiss the notion that the ancients are un­ deserving of being judged and sentenced on the basis of our modern code. They are wrong. The first task of the his­ torian is to understand the milieu of the period he studies 20 See the pertinent comments of R. S. Conway, CQ 4 (1910) 274275, and G. Meyer, Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita. Libri I et Il (Basel 1944) 39. 3«. (p. 162). The fact that I differ with some of Ogilvie's conclusions (chiefly in regard to Livy's sources) is not to be taken as representative of my reaction as a whole. The Commentary is a masterly achievement; my debt to it will be everywhere apparent

in this study.

INTRODUCTION

and to judge it on the basis of the ideas and standards of the time. On the other hand, some will think me much too hard on Livy here and there. Yet some of the charges leveled against him cannot be rebutted or reduced to less serious offenses; they seem to me to be true and well founded. Livy was an uneven writer, capable of great care and great carelessness in almost the same stroke of the pen; he was often hasty, sometimes mechanical, and sometimes bored by certain stretches of material that he felt obliged to plow through. Nor will it be claimed that he was one of the leading intellects of the ancient world. Livv was not a deep thinker, or even a very consistent thinker; but he was intelligent and ought to be treated as a thinking adult who had ideas concerning the subject he chose to write about. Nor will it be claimed that he is a master of struc­ ture on a par with a Vergil or a Tacitus. Although for most matters of fact and for manv of interpretation he had to follow what his sources reported and although he did not possess the (mostly modern) critical tools to evaluate, select, and combine their various elements to form a version essen­ tially of his own making, he was nevertheless still free to omit, expand, abridge, and change sources over long stretches; hence, it will be argued, he was able to impose a design and structure of his own on the larger units of his history. In this respect, I believe, he was in control of his sources, rather than an immovable victim caught in their toils. The structure, however, was not usually one of great complexity; it involved mostly the selection of features that lent themselves to full-scale development and by their place­ ment at the start, center, and end of books and pentads gave special point or focus to the narrative. The traditional view, mentioned above, that Livy's chief contribution to his history was in the adaptation of individual scenes and episodes is probably true. This study would only claim that the matter does not end there. 21 21 HeIlmann L-I 60 n. 1, well and eloquently stressed the necessity 1 of first appreciating the overall design of the history before proceed­ ing to analyze its separate parts.

XXVl

INTRODUCTION

The first chapter will examine Livy's attempt to give design and structure to the larger units of his history: the pentad and multiples thereof, and, within the pentad, individual books and groups of books. Chapters II, III, and IV will present detailed analyses of Books 31-35, 36-40, and 41-45, respectively. The reason for choosing these books is that for them we have extensive extracts from one of Livy's chief sources: Polybius. A close comparison between the two historians will show the general way Livy has structured these books and some of the problems he encoun­ tered in adapting his sources, as well as some of the methods he used in attempting to solve these problems. Chapters V and VI are based on those that precede: the fifth examines Livy's use and attitude toward his sources generally throughout the history, the sixth the methods of work that he followed while preparing himself to write and during the actual business of composition. The last chapter will con­ centrate on Livy's views of historical change and develop­ ment, particularly as they relate to the genesis and decline of the Roman national character; his overall design and his methods of composition were naturally affected by his conception of the seven hundred and fifty years of Roman history that he spent a lifetime writing about.

XXVll

LIVY The Composition of His History

CHAPTER

I

The Structure of the History

BOOKS 1-45 SCHOLARS are agreed that in the extant books, including the

missing decade 11-20, Livy blocked out his material ac­ cording to pentads and decades. Even those who picture him wandering through his sources, uncertain as to exactly what was coming up next, concede this. Nor has anyone ventured to posit imitation of a source; by common and tacit consent this structure is deemed to be the historian's own creation. Finally, there is little disagreement as to what the blocks of material are. By means of special prefaces, major points of departure, and climactic denouements Livy has marked the turning points so clearly that few have mistaken their way. In the preface to Book 2 Livy looks back over the regal period and argues that it was a necessary prelude to the establishment of a stable Free Republic (1. 1-6). The first five books form a larger unit, as his preface to Book 6 makes clear (1. 1-3: quinque libris exposui). The Sack of Rome by the Gauls, which concludes the first pentad, marks a turning point for two reasons. The first concerns the reliability of the evidence. Prior to the sack written records (una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum) were brief and scanty, and most of those that had existed were de­ stroyed in the conflagration; those early events were "ob­ scure because of their great antiquity, like objects that are difficult to make out when seen from a long distance away." 1 The second reason is that Rome experienced a new found­ ing. "As if from a root stock the city sprang up a second 1

6.1. 2: res .

.

.

vetustate nimia obscuras, velut quae magno ex

intervallo loci vix cernuntur.

LIVY

time in a more vigorous and flourishing growth. 1 ' 2 The first fifteen books together formed a still greater unit, for in his preface to Book 31 (1. 1-5) Livy contrasts this pars tanti operis with the next fifteen books covering the Punic Wars. Book 16 appears to have had its own preface: Origo Carthaginiensium et primordia urbis eorum rejeruntur is the first sentence of its Periocha; and Book 21 has a special introduction to the Hannibalic War. At the start of Rome's conquest of the East (31. 1. 1-5) Livy looks back upon the first thirty books and in some dismay confesses that he is beginning to realize the enormous dimensions of his promise to write the entire history of the Roman people: "I now see in my mind's eye . . . that my task is almost increasing, which as I finished each of the earlier parts I fancied was becom­ ing shorter." 3 The next three pentads are dominated by suc­ cessive wars in the East: 31 opens with the declaration of war against Philip V (with a special introduction: 31. 1.610); 36, with that against Antiochus the Great; and 45 con­ cludes with the defeat of Perseus and the end of the king­ dom of Macedon. Most scholars regard the prefaces as the prime indicators of the major divisions, and view each as a separate step in a simple linear progression: 1, 2-5, 6-15, 16-20, 21-30, 31-45. The structure, however, is somewhat more complex, as G. WilIe has recently argued. 4 Livy contrasts early Roman his­ tory (Books 1-15) with the period of the Punic Wars (Books 16-30). The latter has two subordinate sections (1620, 21-30). The former also has two {1-$, 6-15), of which the first is further subdivided, each with a preface of its own (', -2-j)· The last three pentads (31-40) concern Rome's conquest of the East. Prefaces, then, do seem to mark off the three major sections and most (but not all) of their subordinate parts; the assumption that they indicate units of 6. 1 . 3 : velut ab stirpibus laetius feraciusque renatae urbis, provideo anhno . . . crescere paene opus, quod prima quaeque perficietido minui videbatur. 2

3 Iam

4 Wille,

Aufbau, passim.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

publication as well is attractive.5 But this was not their sole use, for they could begin individual books or could stand within them. Book for example, has a preface of its own (i. i-8); later at 23. 5-24. 13 the coming war with Perseus has a special introduction.6 The notion that the decade is Livy's chief unit of com­ position has at times wrongly obscured the picture.7 It is clear that in late antiquity his work was copied out and cited according to decades.8 But this conception does not go back 5 See for example, Nissen, RhM 27 (1872) 542; Walsh, Livy 6-7. 1 There is no evidence that the opening of Book 41, which is lacking in our sole surviving manuscript, contained a preamble of its own: so Bayet, Livre I xiii. I do not understand P. A. Stadter's remark, Historia 21 (1972) 291, that "the loss of the beginning of XLI denies us the preamble which we might have expected to clarify the struc­ ture of the preceding books" (italics added). No preamble is required at the scart of 41; the death of Philip at the end of 40 (57.2 flf.) and the repeated foreshadowing of the Third Macedonian War (from 39. 23.5 fi.) make it clear where the narrative has been and where it is going; cf. Jal, Livres XLI-XLIl xiv; Wille, Aufbau 21-23. That the history was published in parts would be an inevitable supposition even if we did not have evidence for it. The first book dates between 27 and 25 B.C.: the emperor has the title Augustus (voted on Jan. 16, 27), but the second closing of the temple of Janus during his reign in 25 is not mentioned (1.19.2-3). The writing of the first book or pentad may even have been completed some years before: see Luce, TAPhA 96 (1965) 209-240. The superscription to the Periocha of Book 121 tells us that Books 121-142 were published after the death of Augustus in A.D. 14. 6 It concerns the long-range causes of the war (185 B.C.: thirteen years away at this point) and is based on PoIybius (cf. 22.18 [8], 6 [9]). The Samnite wars are briefly introduced in the middle of Book 7 (29.1-2). Book 109 opened with a discussion of the causes and be­ ginnings of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar—doubdess cast in the form of a preface. 7 Cf. R. E. A. Palmer, RFIC 99 (1971) 406, n. 3. Jal, Livres XLIXLII vii-xviii, discusses the problem fully and cautiously. Despite his caution, I cannot agree with the conclusion that the decade 41-50 formed a unit such as 21-30. See pp. 135-137. 8 Pope GeIasius in a letter of A.D. 496 writes: Livius secunda decade loquitur . . . (CSEL 35, p. 457, line 6 = frg. 63 of Livy). Bayet, Livre

LIVY

to the historian himself, who refers only to libri (6. ι. i: quinque libris), partes (21. 1. 1, 31. 1. 2), and volumim* and it takes no account of major divisions in the middle of decades: Books 6, 16 , 36, and 45. Bayet is probably correct in supposing that the later division of his work by decades satisfied the copyists' desire for manuscript units of roughly equal size and that the specific choice of ten was suggested by the historian's preference for writing in pentads or multiples thereof. 10 Livy's basic structural unit was therefore the pentad. Sometimes it could stand quite independently (Books /-5, for example) and sometimes a pair of pentads formed the dominant unit (6-15, 2/-30). Whether he intended to create a noticeable break halfway through all decade units is disputed. The majority opinion is that such a break exists between 25 and 26 but not between 10 and n . 1 1 The structure of Books 1-4 J is thus something more than blocks of five and ten books strung out one after the other. Symmetry and subordination are present. Three sections of equal length mark out the chief phases of Roman history down to 167: Early Rome (Books 1-15), The Punic Wars (Books 16-30), The Conquest of the East (Books 31-45). The subdivisions of the first two parts are also parallel: /-5 form a separate division, as do 16-20, each of which is fol1 xvi, η. i, suspects that some of the Nicomachean manuscripts may have been copied in units of five. 9 10. 31. 10: per quartum iam volumen·, 31. 1. 3; aequa nmlta voluviina (i.e. two sets of fifteen). 10 Bayet, Livre I xv-xvi. 11 Stadter, Historia 21 (1972) 294, advocates a break between 10 and 11; denied by Wille, Aufbau 54—5^6; by E. Burck, "Zum Rombild des Livius: Interpretationen zur zweiten Pentade," AU 3 (1957) 37; repr. Vom Metischenbild in der romischen Literatur, ed. E. Lefevre (Heidelberg 1966) 323-324; and by Syme, HSPh 64 (19J9) 30. On the structure of 21-30 and the break between Books and 26, see Burck, Einjiihrung 7-56, summarized in his article on the third decade in Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey (London and Toronto 1971) 21-46; it is recapitulated briefly, with approval, by Wille, Aufbau 48-53.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

lowed by a unit of ten books. The last group is composed of three equal units, the first element of which balances the last in the sequence Macedon-Syria-Macedon; note the introduction to the war with Philip at 5/. 1. 6-10 and Livy's "epitaph" on the kingdom of Macedon at 45. 9. 2-7. 12 f / - j : From the Founding r i : i-iS'- Early Rome J to the Sack i ~5 [fi-zj': The Conquest of Italy 2

:

The Regal Period The Early Republic

. ,,, f 16-20: The First Punic War 16-30: The Punic Wars T h e Second Punic W a f

31-45:

I" 31-35- The War with Philip V The Conquest of the East J 36-40: The War with Antiochus \_4i-4y. The War with Perseus

How far in advance did Livy sketch out this large-scale structure? Since his original intention was to write the whole of Roman history down to his own times (Praef., esp. 4; cf. 31. 1. 2), Nissen tended to the belief that he blocked out the general scheme for the entire history at the start.13 He has found f e w adherents. Wolfflin and Klotz (among others) 14 cite as a counter argument the introduction to Book 5/, where Livy confesses that he is only now beginning to realize the immensity of his task and compares himself to one who wades into the shallows by the seashore only to be carried out over his head "into depths more vast and, 12

WiIle's view that Books 31-45 comprise a Macedonian Pentekaidecade is oversimplified ( A u f b a u 9). The war with Antiochus is as major as either the Second or Third Macedonian Wars, and the great center section of which it is a part has little to do with Macedon: the war with Philip is finished by the middle of 33, the coming conflict with Perseus is not introduced until 39.23. 5-24. 13, while the outbreak comes at 42. 30. 8 ff. ™RhM 11 (1872) 542-543. Cited with approval by T . Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin 1882) 136-137. 14 E . Wolfflin, Philologus 33 (1874) 146-147; A . Klotz, RE 25 (1926) s. v. Livius, 820; cf. Briscoe, Comm. 51; Trankle, WS N.S. 2 (1968) 136-/37; Jal, Livres XL1-XL11 xi-xii.

7

LIVY

as it were, into the abyss."15 The sentiment should not be taken wholly at face value, however. Although he refers a number of times to the great size of his task, it proved no deterrent, as the subsequent 112 books show.16 Indeed, in a preface to one of these books Livy wrote that "he had al­ ready achieved a sufficient measure of fame and could have stopped writing, were it not that his restless spirit thrived on hard work."17 And he certainly realized at an early stage what the topics in the coming books would have to be and 15 31. 1.1-5: Me quoque iuvat, velut ipse in parte laboris ac periculi juerim, ad finem belli Punici pervenisse. Nam etsi profiteri ausum perscripturum res omnes Romanas in partibus singulis tanti operis fatigari minime conveniat, tamen, cum in mentem venit tres et sexaginta annos—tot enim sunt a prima Punico ad secundum helium finitum—aeque multa volumina occupasse mihi quam occupaverint quadringenti duodenonaginta anni a condita urbe ad Ap. Claudium consulem, qui primum bellum Carthaginiensibus intulit, iam provideo animo, velut qui proximis litori vadis inducti mare pedibus ingrediuntur, quidquid progredior, in vastiorem me altitudinem ac velut profundum invehi et crescere paene opus, quod prima quaeque perficiendo minui videbatur. 16 Praef. 4, 12; 7. 29. 1-2; 10. 31.10-15; 31. 1.1-5; 33· 20. 13; 3;. 40.1; 39.48.6; 4/.25.8. On 31.1.1-5 see Hellmann's perceptive remarks: L-I 19 n. 2. 17 Pliny, NH praef. 16: Profiteor mirari me T. Livium, auctorem celeberrimum, in historiarum suarum quas repetit ab origine urbis quodam volumine sic orsum: iam sibi satis gloriae quaesitum et potuisse se desidere, ni animus inquies pasceretur opere. This must have stood in one of the later books that treated the history of his own times, since it is unlikely, in view of his promise to write the whole of Roman history, that he would have stopped prior to, say, the death of Julius Caesar (Book 116) or of Cicero (Book 120). The suggestion has been made—and it is attractive (e.g. Nissen, RbM 27 (1872) 557-558; cf. Stadter, Historia 21 (1972) 299-300; Wille, Aufbau 81) that the preface in question was to Book 121. The last twentytwo books were published after the death of Augustus, as the super­ scription to 121 says: qui editus post excessum Augusti dicitur. It has been suggested that this information came from the preface to the book: so e.g. Klotz, RE 25 (1926) s.v. Livius, 823, which Syme has questioned (HSPh 64 [1959] 38-39). But we are concerned with probabilities here, and I believe they favor Klotz's view that the excerptor gained this information from the text itself; for this a preface is the most likely source.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

what a large task it would be to write them up (7. 29. 1 -2): "Henceforth [343 B.C. ] wars greater by virtue of the strength of the enemy, the territory involved, and their duration will be related. For in this year hostilities were begun against the Samnites, a people strong in resources and arms. The Samnite struggle, which was waged with varying good fortune, was followed by that with Pyrrhus, and the Carthaginians came next. How vast a series of events! How often we experienced extreme danger in order that our empire might attain its present size—now so huge that it can scarcely be supported!" 18 AU of this suggests that the passage at 31. i. 1-5 ought not to be taken too seriously. Yet should it be discounted altogether? Probably not; such complete disingenuousness is foreign to Livy's manner and tempera­ ment as we see them elsewhere. The passage does suggest that he was not aware at the start that he would need as many books to recount the sixty-three years from 264 to 201 as he would for the preceding 487 years. If the material in Books 1-45 was structured by stages, rather than blocked out as a unit, I would guess either that the prefaces give the clue to the groupings, or, more probably, that the dimensions of these groupings were more generous: e .g. the whole of ι-ij or of 16-30. In any case, the elements of parallelism or symmetry would not have been the result of chance or acci­ dent; when planning a new section Livy clearly looked for opportunities to achieve balance and contrast with what he had written before. BOOKS 46-142

More paper and ingenuity have been expended on the structure of the lost books than on that of those we do is Maiora iam hinc bella et viribus hostium et lo?iginquitate vel regionum vel temporum quibus bellatum est dicentur. Namque eo anno adversus Samnites, gentem opibus armisque validam, mota anna; Samnitium bellum ancipiti Marte gestum Pyrrhus hostis, Pyrrhum Poeni secuti. Quanta rerum moles! quotiens in extrema periculoruni ventum ut in banc magnitudinem quae vix sustinetur erigi imperium posset!

LIVRY

have. The results have proved disappointing despite the ex­ penditure. Qitot homines tot schemata·, each scholar pro­ poses his own plan and none is found who accepts an­ other's. 19 The reasons for this lack of agreement are various. The first is the widespread belief that at the point where the extant books end Livy abandoned composition by pentads and multiples thereof. 20 Most assume that once he divorced epochs and major historical turning points from the pentaddecade pattern, only the former remained. The door is thus opened to suggestions as to what they might have been: an irresistible invitation for many. Unfortunately the responses are based more on the personal views held by each scholar on the course of Roman history from 166 to 9 B.C. than on what Livy may have thought or on the evidence of the Periochae. The chief reason, of course, is the unsatisfactory nature of these epitomes. They vary widely in quality and length and do not necessarily report events in the order in which they occurred in the original. 21 Occasionally we can even detect pieces of misinformation and displacement from 19 The chief schemata are these: H. Nissen, RhM 27 (1872) 539561 (cf. E. Wolfflin's additions and corrections, PhiIologus 33 [1874] 139-147); A. Klotz, RE 25 (1926) 819-820; H. Bornecque, Tite-Live (Paris 1933) 14; Bayet, Livre I xii-xv; R. Syme, HSPh 64 (1959) 3037; P. A. Stadter, Historia 21 (1972) 287-307; Wille 1 Aufbau 56 ff.; P. G. Walsh, Livy, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics, No. 8 (Oxford 1974) 8-1 r. 20 Cf. Syme, HSPh 64 (1959) 31. Stadter, Walsh (Livy 5-8), and Wille are the only scholars who believe that a pentad-decade pattern was continued. 21 The length ranges from three lines (Per. 135, 138) to 95 lines (Per. 49) in the Teubner text; those for Books 136 and 131 are miss­ ing. Most sentences toward the end of a periocha beginning res praeterea . . . continet appear to be later additions and sometimes list items in reverse order: i.e. moving from back to front in the book. Per. 9 is an example, the episode concerning the aedile Cn. Flavius answers to 51.46, the passage on Alexander the Great to 17-19; cf. A. Klotz, Philologus 91 (1936) 67-88. On the Periochae generally, see Wille, Aufbatt 56-58.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

one book to another.22 And if it is true that on the whole the Periochae of the extant books "give a reasonably faith­ ful summary of contents,"23 they frequently fail to give information vital for determining structure. For example, no trace of the prefaces to the existing books is preserved, including the main preface.24 They also fail to note many of the major speeches, which are important structural devices within books and pentads. More important, there is little indication of the scope and prominence that Livy gave to events. In Periocha 33, for example, a notice about the defeat of C. Sempronius Tuditanus in Spain is almost as long as Livy's one sentence concerning the matter (55.25.9), while the famous scene at the Isthmian games of 196, when the freedom of Greece was proclaimed (the focal point of the book and the pentad), finds no mention.25 22 An example of displacement is Aemilius PaulIus' prayer that misfortune might befall his own house rather than the state; it is mentioned at Livy 41.8, but is reported in the Periocha of Book 44. Per. 26 says that Hannibal rode up to the Porta Capena (so also Val. Max. 3.7.10), but Livy's text has the Collina (26.10.3). C. M. Begbie, CQ 17 (i9^7) 334 n. 9, cites the confusion of Capena for Collina as a misreading of names; but the appearance of the error in Valerius Maximus makes this questionable. We are occasionally able to discern clear cases of misinformation in the Periochae for the missing books: e.g. the election of Scipio Aemilianus to the con­ sulship is reported in both Per. 49 (wrongly) and 50 (correctly). 23 This is Begbie's conclusion, CQ 17 (1967) 338. 24 Stadter, Historia 21 (1972) 292, emphasizes this point. The state­ ment of Per. 21 (belli Punici seeundi ortum narrat) can hardly be a precis of the preface to the book. I doubt that the opening of Per. 31 is an allusion to its preface: Belli adversus Philippum, Macedoniae regem, quod intermissum erat, repetiti causae reieruntur hae. Tem­ pore initioriim duo iuvenes Acarnanes . . . ; cf. Wille, Aufbaii 21 11 . 198. The opening of Book 104 (prima pars. Iibri situm Germaniae moresque continet) may have been more of a geographical and ethno­ graphical excursus than a true exordium (cf. the digression on the Gauls in j·. 33.1-35.3). 25 On the importance of the event for Livy (33. 30-35) see pp. 33, 45. Prior to the notice about Tuditanus and the death of Attalus (=Livy 33.21. 1-5) the Periocha reports: pax petenti Philippo Graecia liberata

LIVY

The Periochae are thus of limited use in assaying to which events Livy attached special importance. This fact, coupled with the belief that pentads and decades ceased to be used as structural units, means that little remains to guide the way; in the end scholars perforce fall back on their own interpretations of the history of the later Republic. Yet this procedure has its dangers; the notion that Livy conceived of history largely in terms of eras or epochs may be im­ perfect and can lead to oversimplification. It is true that some of the chief divisions within the extant books are marked by major episodes both at the beginning and end: from the Founding to the Sack (Books j - j ). Some lack this feature, but are dominated by a unifying theme: The Con­ quest of Italy (6-15). Others have both elements: the Regal Period in Book 1 (from the arrival of Aeneas to the expul­ sion of Tarquin) and the War with Hannibal in 2 1 - 3 0 (from the fall of Saguntum to the triumph of Scipio Africanus). Still others have a major point of departure only: the start of the first war with Carthage in Book 16, of the war with Philip in 5/, and of that with Antiochus in 36·, or a climactic conclusion: the end of the kingdom of Macedon in 45. Note that the first war with Carthage is finished at the end of Book /57, that with Philip by the center of 3 3 (35. 12), and that with Antiochus by the center of 3 8 (39. 1), and that the war with Perseus does not begin until the middle of 42 (30. 8 ff.). Most of the interstices within each of these pentads are several books long. Nor do any of the pentads in question answer to an historical "epoch": from 264 to 219 B.C. in 1 6 - 2 0 , from 201 to 192 in 3 1 - 3 5 , from 191 to 179 in 36-40 , and from 178 to 167 in 41-45. In fact, much of the last half of the seventh pentad looks to the coming war with Antiochus in the eighth, while the data est. This derives from the passage at 12-13 (adapted from Polybius) concerning the conference in Greece preliminary to send­ ing legates to Rome about final peace terms.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

causes of the coming war with Perseus are enunciated as early as the middle of 39 (23.5-24. 13). An interlocking effect is produced, for as the chief subject that begins this type of pentad nears its conclusion part-way through, Livy begins to set the stage for the next major event; its beginning could coincide with the start of the next pentad (e.g. Book 3 6 ) or its conclusion with the end (e.g. Book 4 5 ) . 2 e There are three possibilities to the search for structure in the lost books.27 Either the pentad-decade principle was continued, or it was abandoned in favor of a design based on divisions by major episodes and themes, or, in default of either, there was no particular design whatever. The last possibility seems unlikely, both because of the careful struc­ ture of the extant books and in light of the ancient, and particularly the Augustan, penchant for design and structure in almost all literary works.28 It is possible but not likely 2S

See Wille, Anfbau 27-45, for more examples. might add a theoretical fourth: that the pentad-decade ar­ rangement was replaced by a different scheme—say, based on hexads or some such. Mercifully no such alternate scheme has yet been proposed. 28 The theory that Tacitus composed the 30 (Jerome, Comm. ad Zach. 3. 14) books of his Historiae and Annates according to hexads has its most persuasive advocate in R. Syme; Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 253-270, 686-687: r-6 for Tiberius, 7-12 for Gaius and Claudius, 13-18 for Nero (or, better, to the end of A.D. 68), 19-24 for the year 69 and Vespasian, 25-30 for Titus and Domitian. F.R.D. Goodyear's confidence in having "disposed" of the theory is premature·. Tacitus, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics, No. 4 (Oxford 1970) 17-18. That Tacitus would require two and a half books to narrate the end of Nero's reign and the rest of A.D. 68, and only a boolt and a half to complete the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 70-79), generally suits the nature and amount of historical material for each period (the last six years of the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius each re­ quired a single book). The most damaging evidence against the hexad theory is the titling in the Second Medicean manuscript of Historiae 1-5 as Liber XVII, XVIII, etc.—damaging (if not fatal) if we assume that the numbering was made when all thirty books were extant; cf. Goodyear, The Amials of Tacitus (Cambridge 1972) 1, 86 n. 4. 27 One

LIVY

that Livy ended his historv of Rome by writing books "like a shoemaker knocking out one pair of boots after another." 23 The second solution, in default of sure guidance by the Periochae, essentiallv reduces to what each scholar thinks Livv could have, must have, or ought to have thought; the missing books thus become susceptible of almost anv arrangement. The chief theorizers would mark breaks after the following books: Nissen (1872): 46, 68, 90, 108, 133. Klotz (1926): 80, 90, 103, 108, 116. Bornecque (1933): 70, 80, 90, 103, 108, 116, 133. Bayet (1940): 47, 52, 70, 76, 90, 96, 103, 108, 116, 133. Syme (1959): 48, 52, 59, 70, 80, 89, 99, 108, 116, 124, 133. Aside from the penchant for increasing elaboration with the passing of the years, two features are striking here. The first is the nearly unanimous agreement that Books 109-116 form a unit. This is in large part due to the subtitle given these books in the Periochae: qui est civilis belli primus, secundus . . . etc. It is also true that this is how these books were sometimes referred to by others in late antiquity. 30 But it is doubtful whether they represent the historian's own conception, any more than do the subscriptions in certain manuscripts to Books 31-35 that list them as the first through fifth books de bello Macedonico. Book 116, after all, covers the period after Munda (through the dictator's assassination and funeral), while the peace settlement with Philip is recorded in the middle of 55. 31 Note also that the Periocha to /55, after recording Octavian's triple triumph in 29, adds that he ended the civil wars in their twentysecond year, which ought to mean a continuous period from phrase is Nissen's, RhM 27 (1872) 541: "als ein Schuster, der ein Paar Stiefel nach dem andereri fertigt." 30 Frg. 32a comes from prima libro belli civilis, frgs. 40 and 41 from libro quarto belli civilis—all scholia to Lucan's Pharsalia. See R. T. Bruere, CPh 45 (1950) 221; Stadter, Historia 21 (1972) 298. 31 Cf. Wille, Aafbait 107-108. 29 The

STRU CTXJRE OF THE HISTORY

50 through 29 or 49 through 28 B.C. The second feature is the large measure of agreement that major breaks oc­ curred at least after Book 70 (71 begins with Livius Drusus' agitation on behalf of the allies in 91 and the start of the Social War), Book 80 (ends with the death of Marius and appraises his effect on Rome for good and bad), and Book 90 (the death of Sulla1 followed by the revolt of Lepidus and the start of Sertorius' rebellion). This agreement sug­ gests that P. G. Walsh, P. A. Stadter, and G. Wille may be correct in maintaining that some kind of pentad-decade structure was continued beyond Book To these examples might be added Marius' assumption of command against Jugurtha in 66 and the obviously contrasted fortunes of Caesar in Gaul and Crassus in Parthia in 106 , following the year of Pompey's and Crassus' second consulship in 55 B.C. (Book 105). Moreover, the superscription to Book 121 notes that it was published after the death of Augustus in A.D. 14.32 A break is thus indicated between 120 and 121·, and since it was most likely a division of Livv's own making, it tends to confirm that the pentad-decade principle was still opera­ tive.33 32 See above, n. 17. Livy's death is conventionally dated to A.D. (Jerome, ad Euseb. Cbron. ad ann. Abr. 2053); 64 B.C. seems more likely as the date of birth than 59: cf. Luce TAPhA 96 (1965) 231 n. 61. 33 Cf. Wille, Aufban 80-81. Book 120 concerned the formation of the Second Triumvirate and the proscriptions that followed, ending with the death of Cicero in December of 43 (Livy's account is pre­ served by the elder Seneca, Suas. 6. iy.22 — frg. 50). I doubt that the aged Livy wrote all of 121-142 after the death of Augustus; the Periocha merely says editus·, cf. Syme, HSPh 64 (1959) 39, correct­ ing Bayet, Livre I xvi. The books were more probably composed before the emperor's death. The reason why they were not published until after might be either that Livy intended from the start to pub­ lish I2t flf. as a unit but was still writing the last few books when the emperor died, or he had finished earlier but was withholding the last books for reasons of tact and unwillingness to give offense. If the second hypothesis is correct, it occasions some surprise that the most reprehensible part of Augustus' career had already been put to paper

LIVY

On the other hand, there are other indications that perhaps these examples are fortuitous and coincidental, or at most that if Livy did continue with structure by pentads, he modified and reduced its application. It is best for the moment to leave aside personal judgments concerning the pertinence of "turning points," whether fixed at the junc­ ture of pentads and decades or irregularly at places of our own choosing. Arguments for and against almost any date can be endlessly devised. But the Periochae do contain four indications of "periods" or "eras" that presumably derive from the historian himself and do not coincide at any point with the pentad-decade pattern. The first concerns the fiveyear period of the Third Punic War (Per. 49: Tertii Punici belli initium . . . intra quintum annum . . . consimrmati), which started in Book 49 (dating to late 150 evidently) and ended in j/ (146 B.C.). The second and third are mentioned in Periocha 96: Sertorius was killed in the eighth year of his command (octavo ducatus mi anno), whereas Pompey re­ covered Spain in approximately the tenth year after war had broken out (decimo jere anno quam coeptum erat belIum)?* These dates answer to Books 90-96 (79-72 B.C.) and and given to the world. Walsh (Livy 8) wonders: "Was Augustus' reaction one of pained disappointment, and did Livy accordingly postpone publication of his account of 42 to 9 B.C.? Such discretion in launching contemporary history would not be unparalleled in Western letters." A plausible hypothesis. Certainly the last books (109-120) did not make a wholly favorable impression on the em­ peror; Livy depicted Pompey favorably (Tac. Ann. 4. 34. 3) and Julius Caesar unfavorably (Sen. QN 5.18.4, Oros. 6.15.3). On the other hand, from the point where Octavian makes his appearance (Per. j 16) the Periochae suggest that Lhy treated him quite well (note the phrase in Per. 118 in reference to Brutus: sub praetexto rei publicae). 34 The meaning is not fully clear. The war, of course, began with Sertorius himself; presumably Livy dated it to his expulsion from Spain by C. Annius in 81 and his return later that same year (Sail. Hist. 1.94-103M; Plut. Sert. 7. i-n.i). Sertonus continued to do battle in 80 (Sail., Hist. 1.104—109ΛΙ, Plut. Sert. 12. 3); Livy, however, clearly dated the opening of the "great war" (ingens bellum·. Per. 90)

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY Books 89-96 (81-72 B.C.) respectively. The last comes in Periocha 133, where, after a report about Octavian's triumph in 29 B.C., he is said to have ended twenty-two years of civil wars.35 This must mean from 50 to 29 or from 49 to 28, and would answer to Books 109-133; the Periocha of 109 con­ firms the earlier date, for it opens with the words causae civilium armorum et initia rejeruntur; this topic, one would think, most probably was cast in the form of a preface. In the face of the many arguments pro and con one might be justified in arriving at a verdict of non liquet. Yet it seems on balance that the scales are weighted in favor of a pentaddecade pattern and that the circumstantial evidence, insuf­ ficient though it is, obliges one to pronounce in its favor. The divisions proposed by Walsh and Stadter make as much sense by and large as those proposed by their opponents, and have additionally the distinct merit of continuing the scheme which we know Livy favored and used in Books 1-45. Stadter finds it particularly suspicious that this system should break down "at exactly the point where the extant books give out"; 30 we have the right, he argues, to assume that Livy continued with this pattern of organization in the lost books unless clear proof to the contrary is forthcom­ ing. He rightly stresses that for Livy the book and the pentad were flexible units that varied greatly in length. He is there­ fore hesitant to agree that Livy might have been forced out of his structural plan by the nature of his material. Both his caution and his admonition are salutary. Never­ theless, it is clear that the material in question changed to 79, when Hirtuleius defeated and killed the proconsul Domitius Calvinus (cf. MRR i, 83). But these difficulties do not obscure the point here at issue: neither reckoning coincides at the start or end with a pentad-decade pattern. 35 lmposito fine c'tvilibus bellis altero et vicesimo anno. Doubtless the ceremonial closing of the temple of Janus in 29 marked the formal end of hostilities in Livy's mind: cf. /.19.3-4: pace terra marique porta (see Ogilvie's remarks, Comm. ad Ioc.). 3 s Historia 21 (1972) 288.

LIVY

markedly after the defeat of Perseus. For one thing, it was becoming more complex. 37 Almost the entire Mediterranean had been opened up as a theater for Roman operations, and from 167 on many important events occurred in widely scattered places at nearly the same time: witness the destruc­ tion of both Carthage and Corinth in 146, which Livy soon would have to narrate (Books 51-52). Domestic imbroglios would add further complications: e.g. the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus in the same year as the fall of Numantia. It is true that with the advent of the Social and Civil Wars events at home and abroad became more closely interconnected. But at the same time the historical evidence was becoming ever fuller and more detailed. Livy covered the approxi­ mately seventy-five years from 166 through the beginning of 91 in twenty-five books—an average of three years per book; from mid-91 to the end he required 72 books for some 87 years: a little over one year per book. That the year 91 was pivotal for Livy is shown by the Periochae for Books 70 and 7/. Book 70 covered the period from 98 through the first part of Livius Drusus' tribunate in 91; but at the point when Drusus began to agitate for the grant of citizenship to the allies, Livy elected to begin a new book and a new decade. Book 7/ was devoted to the remainder of 91, from Drusus' initial proposals in favor of the socios et ltalicos popalos to his murder at the year's end: invisus etiam senatui factus velut socialis belli auctor. As the amount and types of evidence increased in the period that followed, the temporal pace would slacken, transitions from year to year and from event to event would stand further and further apart. It seems probable that structure based on epochs, major episodes, and turning points (whether fitted to a pentad-decade design or not) would be similarly af­ fected. Events and years would be viewed under increased magnification, as it were, with dimensions scaled up propor­ tionately. If this hypothesis has merit, units much larger 37

Walsh, Livy 6, stresses this point.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

than five or ten books would sometimes be required to mark off epochs and to build up to pivotal events. Yet it was not the historical material alone that changed after 167. It seems clear that if Livy indeed continued to use a pentad-decade pattern, it also underwent modification. Even without the extant books the Periochae would make their general design fairly clear; at many points the begin­ nings and ends of important events (particularly wars) coincide with a pattern of five and ten books. But this is seldom true after 45; in fact, the only major war so treated is the Social War. The list of those which do not correspond is long: the Third Punic War, the Achaean War, the Jugurthine War, the invasions of the Cimbri and the Teu­ tons, the Mithridatic wars, the war with Sertorius and that against Spartacus, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey and that between Octavian and Antony. G. Wille in his recent book on the structure of Livy's history emphasizes this point. 38 But his own belief that Livy continued to use fifteen-book units exclusively, basing them on the leading Roman of the day, is forced and unconvinc­ ing. He gives the following limits and themes for the fourth through eighth Pentekaidecade: 166-123 B.C.: The Age of Scipio Aemilianus (Books 46-60); 122-89 B - c - : The Age of Marius (Books 61- 75); 89-78 B.C.: The Age of Sulla (Books 76-90); 78-55 B.C.: The Age of Pompey (Books 91-ioj); 54-43 B.C.: The Age of Caesar to the end of the Republic (Books 106-120). Most of these dates do not fit. Nor does the claim that they reflect achievements rather than life­ spans convince. 39 The division between the ages of Marius and Sulla reveals the weakness of the scheme. Sulla's great exploits in the Social War were recounted in Book 7j, at the end of which he returns to Rome to stand for the cons ^Aufbau 39 Wille,

104-105.

Aufbau 105: ". . . so kommt es wieder nicht auf die

Lebenszeiten, sondern auf die Leistungen der gestaltenden Personlichkeiten an."

LIVY

sulship: this is the conclusion of the "Age of Marius." The first pentad of the "Age of Sulla" is dominated largely bv Marius and ends with an account of his sudden death and with a memorable summing up of his career. 40 In short, such personalities may have been important in Livy's general in­ terpretation of the period, but the evidence Wille adduces to show that they were used as structure—at least in the sense of strict Pefitekaidecade—does not stand up. On the other hand, it is remarkable how many major events from 1 66 on are placed at the juncture where pentads and decades meet—a technique different from that in the earlier books. Instead of concluding a major event at the end or introducing it at the start of a pentad, Livy often splits an event between pentads or decades. The divisions, which are made at particularly significant or climactic moments, enabled Livy to end one pentad on a high note of foreshadowing and imminent resolution and to begin the next with the resolution itself, or with the beginning of it. Walsh has noted three instances of the technique. 41 The first concerns the Third Punic War, begun in Book 49 and con­ cluded in j/; the return to Africa of the newly elected con­ sul Scipio Aemilianus at the start of Book 51 marks the 40 Per.

80; rVir cuius si examinentur cum virtutibus vitia, baud facile

sit dictu utrum bello melior an pace perniciosior fuit; adeo, quam rem publicam armatus servavit, earn primo fraudis, postremo armis hostiliter evertit. 41

togatus omni

genere

Livy 6; cf. Nissen, RhM 27 (1872) 541-542; Jal, Livres XLl-XLII

xi; Wille1 Aufbau 88-89. Walsh also believes with Wille that the later pentads may have been "constructed not around particular campaigns, but around the dominant Roman of the day" (p. 7). Even if we grant that Scipio Aemilianus dominated the sixth decade, he was also very prominent in Books 48, 49, and 50, and his death falls in Per. 59, not 60. Marius' main career does in fact span fifteen books (65-80), although he must have been prominently featured in 64. So with Sulla, whose successes in the Social War were recorded

in 75·, the period from his consulship in 88 to his death, however, does span exactly fifteen books (76-90). Pompey's first appearance is not in 91, but in Sj (he appears also in Per. 89 and 90).

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

decisive moment. In the second Livy breaks the Jugurthine War (covering Books 64-66) at the point where Marius wins his first consulship in 107 and returns to take command. There are many parallels between the two events. Both con­ cern wars in Africa, both take up three books, both are di­ vided at the same place and for the same reason, and in each the war is concluded in one book. The arrival of the suc­ cessful commander is as significant and portentous an event as either the start or end of these conflicts—or, for that mat­ ter, the subsequent triumphs (each reported in the fourth book in its series: Per. 52 and 67). Walsh's third example concerns the closing years of Julius Caesar's life. Book /// concludes with the last in the series of victories over his enemies (Munda in 46 B.C.). The start of Book 116 finds him at the height of his power: his fifth triumph ex Hispania and the series of extraordinary honors voted to him by the Senate; the book ends with his assassination and funeral. 42 Quite a few additional examples of the same technique can be observed. The ignominious end of C. Hostilius Mancinus' career was divided between 55 and 56, with his defeat con­ cluding the earlier book and the surrender of his person to the Numantines at or near the start of the new pentad. 43 The career of C. Gracchus is split between 60 and 61. The divi­ sion is not between his two tribunates, as one might expect, but somewhere toward the end of his second, when dis­ enchantment with his person and acts had reached a high point; 60 thus ended with an account covering the bulk of 42 Livy

doubtless took full advantage of the many possibilities for irony, suspense, arid foreshadowing, as Plut. Caes. 63.6 (=frg. 46) and Serv. ad Ge org. 1.472 (= f rg. 47) suggest. The book must have had something of the effect of Book 4;, which opens with Aemilius Paullus at the height of his good fortune and ends with the deaths of his two sons. 4 S Livy's account of the disaster at the Caudine Forks at 9 . 1-15 suggests with what interest and emphasis he may have treated the later episode; his version of the Caudine Forks is partly modeled on the fate and treatment of Mancinus and his army.

LIVY

his activities while in office, 61 narrated the end of the year 122 and his death in 121. 44 A decade later the tribunate of Livius Drusus is divided according to the same principle. The war with Sertorius breaks out in Book 90·, the arrival in Spain of the successful general, Cn. Pompeius, begins Book 91. Book 100 narrated the passing of the Gabinian Law and Pompey's first acts in his campaign against Mithridates; Book 101 recounted Mithridates' defeat (Per. 102 begins: Cn. Pompeius in provinciae formam Pontum rede git). Other examples might be detected, but these are enough to sug­ gest that the technique is probably not due to coincidence. The parallels between the accounts of Scipio Aemilianus and of Marius and between those of C. Gracchus and Livius Drusus are particularly striking. The arrival of the success­ ful general and the deaths of famous men seem to have been favorite points at which to make such divisions. 45 This technique, of course, emphasizes the close intercon­ nection and continuity of events rather than a division by epochs. The main preface suggests that this is how Livy tended to view the history of the later Republic; he com­ pares Rome in this period to a building whose foundations settle, crumble, and in the end pull the whole edifice down Book 60 evidently ended with the focus on Gracchus; the matters included in the section beginning res praeterea . . . continet at the end of Per. 60 suggest that they are not reported in their true order (above n. 21). The Periocha narrates the activities of his first tribun­ ate and most of his second continuously. Book 61 opens with an event dated to 122 (the founding of Aquae Sextiae by C. Sextius), followed by the successes of Cn. Domitius against the Allobroges in 121, before reporting the end of C. Gracchus' tribunate and his death. E. Gabba dates Gracchus' death to the end of June on the basis of Plut, C. Gracchus 13.2: Appiani Bellorwn Civiliwn Liber Primus (Florence 1958) 85-86. Note the deaths of Perseus and Aemilius Paullus in 46, of Sertorius in 96, of Crassus in 106, of Julius Caesar in 116·, or, at the end of a decade, of Masinissa in 50 (Cato's death was undoubtedly also recorded in this book), Marius in So, Sulla in go, Cicero in 120. 44

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

headlong to ruin.46 Such a conception does not suit the type of narrative that proceeds by frequent fits and starts, now dwelling on a major event, now moving quickly forward to the point where another begins—which is the sort of thing one often finds in the early books.47 This seems to have occurred only rarely in the lost books; on the whole the years are apportioned fairly evenly, the temporal pace from book to book proceeds regularly and steadily.48 Continuity rather than structure by epochs thus seems to have been the effect for which Livy was striving. It is doubtful, however, that he viewed the entire period from 166 to 9 B.C. as a simple continuum; in this writer's view major breaks can be detected at least at 7/ (Livius Drusus and the start of the Social War), 109 (the start of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey), and 120 (ending with the death of Cicero, Books 121-142 appearing after Augustus' death). It can be argued, of course, that this change in Livy's use of the pentad-decade pattern amounts to little more than 46

Praef. 9: Ad ilia mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat cminium, quae vita, qui mores fuerhu, per quos viros qwbusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperiuvi sit; labente deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentes primo mores seqimtur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, turn ire coeperint praecipites, donee ad haec tempora quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus perventum est. 47 Books 16-20 were apportioned among the years 264-219 as follows (the figures are based on Stadter's calculations, Historia 21 [1972]-, cf. his remarks on pp. 293, 301, 303-304); 16: 4 years (264261), H• 4^2 years (260-256 1 ), 18: 4/2 years (256-252), 19: 10'A years (251-241 1 ), 20: 11V1 years (24i 2 -2i9). Books 36 through 45 show a similar pattern for the periods between wars: 36: 1 year (191), 37: 1V2 years (190-189 1 ), 2 years ( i S g 2 - ^ 1 ) , 39: 4!4 years (187^183), 40: 4 years (182-179), 41: 5 years (178-174), 42: 2% years ( ^ - ^ i 1 ) , 43: 2 years (171 2 -i6p 1 ), 44: one year (i69 2 -i68 1 ), 45- i'/z years (168 2 167). 48 The chief exceptions are the fourteen years covered in Books 46 and 47 (166-153 B-c-)> t h e seven years in Book 7o (^-qi1), and the five years in Book 103 (62-58).

23

LIVY

its abandonment; numerous instances can be found where events are split between books that are not part of the structure by pentads or multiples thereof. This is true. If the hypothesis is to have merit and convince, the episodes must be major and the points of division fixed at striking and pivotal moments. The chief evidence in its favor can be summarized as follows: (ι) the start of the Third Punic War/the return of Scipio as commander-in-chief (Books jo/ji); (2) the tribunate of C. Gracchus/his fall from favor (Books 60/61)·, (3) the Jugurthine War/the arrival of Marius to take command (Books 65/66)·, (4) the tribunate of Livius Drusus/his attempt to secure citizenship for Rome's Italian allies (Books 70/7/); (5) the death of Marius/ the start of the Cinnan regime (Books 80/81); (6) the death of Sulla/the arrival of the young Pompey in Spain (Books 90/9/); (7) the Manilian Law/Pompey's Mithridatic cam­ paign (Books 100/101); (8) Caesar's last victory over his enemies/his assassination and funeral (Books 115/116); (9) the formation of the Second Triumvirate and the proscrip­ tions with which it began (Book 120). Few would quarrel with the dramatic potential or historical importance of these events. Objection might indeed be raised to the absence of certain items: notably Ti. Gracchus' tribunate, the formation of the First Triumvirate, and the start of the civil war be­ tween Pompey and Caesar. Nor are all the parallels exact: for example 101 opens not with Pompey's arrival in the East (since he was already there) but (apparently) with his initial push into Pontic territory. 49 But on balance the num­ ber of supporting examples is large; a few are quite striking. 50 49Compare

Per. 100 and 101 with App. Mitb. 98-99. c a n f i n d n o p a t t e r n i n B o o k s 121-142·, the Periochae in most cases are so brief and so incomplete (often only events overseas are reported) that analysis is difficult. Whether Livy intended to end his history with the death of Drusus in 9 B.C. or whether he died "pen in hand" is difficult to decide. Syme advocates the first alterna­ tive (HSPh 64 [1959] 38-39, 70-71); I do not find this as plausible as the hypothesis that Livy intended to end with the death of Augustus in a projected Book 150. 50I

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY STRUCTURE WITHIN PENTADS

The individual book both in itself and as part of a larger design has excited little interest. The chief cause has been Source Criticism, whose results pointed to so many imper­ fections in Livy's adaptation that few were encouraged to believe he was in command of the larger blocks of material. And certain early literary studies strengthened this opinion; for example, Kurt Witte at the end of his study on Livy's use of Polybius stated flatly that Livy did not look beyond the single episode or attempt to combine the Einzelerzahlungen into larger, integrated units.61 Since Livy generally preferred to follow a single source over long stretches, the subject matter as well as its order and arrangement derived largely from his sources. There thus seemed little room for postulating a design of his own making. The question of why one book stops where it does and another begins, if it was asked at all, was usually that "when one had reached a customary length, Livy began a new one."52 The question of how he managed to make units of five such books coin­ cide with the beginning and ends of epochs and with major turning points was not asked. Witte, of course, may have been led to his conclusion as much by the fragmentary nature of the Polybian text as by the evidence of Livy's own narrative. In 1934 the only scholar who to date has ventured any extensive exploration of structure within pentads analyzed Books i-y. the result was Erich Burck's Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius.53 By using the parallel account of Dionysius of Halicamassus for 51

Quoted above, p. xviii, n. 7. Nissen on the division between

52 So

44 and 45 (KU ιηι)\ "da

zugleich das XLIV. Buch . . . den gewohnlichen Umfang erreicht hatte, fangt er ein neues an." 53 Published in Berlin; reprinted Berlin/Zurich (1964) with a new introduction and review of scholarship that appeared between the two printings. Ogilvie in his Commentary accepts most of Burck's findings and often improves and elaborates on them.

LIVY

comparison, he showed in detail that Livy designed and ar­ ranged the material of the first pentad in a pervasive, thor­ ough, and masterful fashion. In later years he went on to examine the structure of the third decade, albeit not in as much detail as in the earlier work. 54 His studies show that Livy employed two chief methods in designing his narrative. The first is thematic unity—a technique especially striking in those early books that cover a considerable span of time and involve a great many diverse incidents and personalities. Book 2 is a good example, for it covers a period of forty-two years (509-468) and includes a host of famous exempla virtutis. The narrative easily could have dissolved away into a panorama of particulars, fixed in their places only by the requirements of correct chronology. To give point and focus to these events Livv selected the motif of libertas. The book begins with the words Libert iam hinc populi Romani res pace belloque gestas . . . ; the theme is reinforced repeatedly, especially at the start (the word libertas appearing thirteen times in the first two chap­ ters). Burck showed how Livy has worked the theme throughout chapters 1-21, 55 from the abdication of Collatinus (2. 3-11) to the death of Tarquin in exile at Cumae (21.5-6). Included are the conspiracy of the Vitellii and Aquillii (3-5), the war against Veii and Tarquinii (6. 1-7. 4), the episode concerning Valerius Poplicoia's house on the Velia (regnum eum adfectare fama fere bat: 7.5-12), the war with Porsenna (9-15)—which included the famous exploits of Horatius Codes, Mucius Scaevola, and Cloelia 1 and finally events leading to and including the Battle of Lake Regillus; the death of the aged Tarquin closes the sequence. Ogilvie expanded on Burck's thesis by showing that the chief 5i Emfiihrung

7-56, summarized in his article on the third decade in Livy1 ed. T. A. Dorey (London and Toronto 1971) 21-46. 5 5 Erzahlungskunst 51—61. H. Trankle has investigated even more deeply Livy's own contribution to the construction of chs. 1-15: H e r m e s 93 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 3 1 1 - 3 3 7 .

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

theme in the last half of the book is the threat to liberty from internal discord, whether by overbearing patricians (cf. 21.6; Appii Claudii receive star billing), the plebeian agitation for the tribunate and the secession to the iVlons Sacer, attacks on the city by citizens from outside (Coriolanus), or a coup from within (Sp. Cassius). 5 0 The second method is architectonic. By placing important and carefully developed episodes at certain preferred points within books or pentads, special focus, balance, and even symmetry could be achieved. A striking example is offered in Book

which was composed in two contrasting halves. 5 7

The first

concerns the conquest of Veii, Rome's greatest

victory up to that time (i. 1-32. 5); the second relates her greatest defeat, the rout at the Allia and the Sack of Rome. The speeches of Appius Claudius (3-6) and of Camillus (51-54) are the supports placed at each end of the structure. In the center a digression on the origin and migrations of the Gauls serves as the point of transition between the two parts. The third decade shows many of the same features. The first half opens with the fall of Saguntum and is dom­ inated by the theme of Roman reversals and defeat; the second opens with the fall of Capua and the revival of Roman fortunes; both record a march of Hannibal on Rome near the start. Hannibal predominates in the former, Scipio Africanus in the latter. The paired speeches of P. ScipioHannibal before the Battle of Ticinus in Book 21 (40-41, 43-44) balance those of Hannibal-Scipio Africanus before the Battle of Zama in the last book (30. 30-31). 5 8 Reinforc­ ing the structure are the divisions between the first two and Comm. 233. For examples of other themes in the first pentad (e.g. modestia in Book 4, pietas in j) see ibid., 30-31, 390, 526-527, 626; also F. Hellmann, L-I 41-81. 57 See Burck Erzahlungskunst 109-136; Ogilvie, Comm. 626; Luce, 56 Ogilvie,

TAPhA 102 (1971) 265-302. 58 These are the only examples in Livy of paired speeches before battle.

LIVY

the last two books, as well as between the two halves of the decade: all coincide with the ends of consular years and are the only ones in the decade that do so. Moreover, the first two books, which together depict Hannibal's sweep of vic­ tories from Saguntum to Cannae, are balanced by the last two, where the scene shifts to Scipio and his campaign in Africa. The Roman defeat at Cannae at the end of 22 is balanced by Hasdrubal's defeat at the Metaurus River in 2η (the contrast is explicit at 27.49.5). The same type of architectural balance is evident in the first pentad also. The first and last books are marked off by their special themes: the Regal Period and the contrast of the fall of Veii with the Sack of Rome. Books 2-4 cover the intervening period of a little over a hundred years (509-404); in the middle of the period and of the pentad (3. 33-54) stands the pivotal event of the fifth century: the Decemvirate, with the institution of the Twelve Tables and the story of Verginia. The first part of Book ^ is chiefly concerned with sketching events that led to the establishment of the Decemvirate, the last part with the aftermath, culminating in the first long speech of the history (that of T. Quinctius Capitolinus, 67-68). The book for Livy was a unit of considerable flexibility; the longest (3), for example, is almost twice the length of the shortest ( 32). But the variation is greatest when books from different pentads are compared; those within pentads are more uniform. Here is a further indication that when blocking out his history by pentads and decades Livy also determined the book divisions within each section before beginning composition. The first ten books illustrate how greatly pentads, but not necessarily the books within them, vary in length: 5 9 T h e figures are taken from Stacker's tables, Historia 21 (1972) 304-30j. The pages refer to the Teubner text. D. W. Packard, A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge, Mass. 1968) 1, v, gives an ap­ proximate word count for each pentad. The first has 88,400, the sec­ ond 70,800. 59

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

p p p p p

a a a a a

g g g g g

e e e e e

s s s s s

p p p p p

a a a a a

g g g g g

pages

e e e e e

s s s s s

pages

On the other hand, the two pentads of the third decade are remarkably even: 00 p p p p p

a a a a a

g g g g g

e e e e e

s s s s s

p p p p p

a a a a a

g g g g g

pages

e e e e e

s s s s s

pages

The next two pentads again suggest that each was planned as a separate unit: 01 p a g p a g p a g p a g p a g pages

e e e e e

s s s s s

p p p p P

a a a a

a

g g g g g

e e e e

e

s s s s s

pages

On the other hand, the last pentad is the same length as 3640, which tends to confirm the point which will be argued later, that 36-45 were designed as a unit:62 pages pages pages pages pages pages 60

Packard's word count is 76,000 for 21-25, and 76,700 for 26-30. Packard's word count is 62,000 for 31-35 and 74,300 for 35-40. 62 For the calculations on the original length of books 41, 43, and 44, see p. 114; large portions of these books are lacking in the sole surviving manuscript. 61

29

LIVY

The next three chapters will be chiefly concerned with examining the structure of Books 31-45, some of the prob­ lems that Livy encountered in composing them, and some of the solutions he found for these problems. An analysis of Books 6-10 and a more detailed study of 21-30 than Burck was able to make would be too large a task for one book. The chief reason for choosing the last three pentads is that for these we possess some solid external evidence con­ cerning the sources that Livy drew on and the points where he made the transition from one to another. Significant por­ tions of Polybius' original text survive, Livy's chief source in these books for events in the East. Equally important for this study is Nissen's work on Livy's sources for the fourth and fifth decades, which distinguished clearly and convinc­ ingly between those parts of 31-45 based on Polybius and those based on Roman sources. Hence, even when we do not have the Polybian original, we are usually able to determine accurately Livy's points of transition. (A word must be said in praise of this great work, written over a century ago by one of the giants of classical scholarship. It is the best book yet written, or likely to be written, on the subject of Livy's sources, and is probably the best book on the sources of any ancient author. The criteria that Nissen established for determining the Polybian and Roman por­ tions are solid and convincing; no one has ventured to chal­ lenge or has seriously modified the basic conclusions of his work. Only particular points, most of them minor, have met with objection or correction. The debt this book owes to Nissen's work will be everywhere apparent.) 63 63 The portions based on Roman sources are another matter. In my view none of the many studies by scholars such as Soltau, Kahrstedt, Klotz, or Zimmerer has succeeded in formulating solid criteria that would distinguish the various strands. Briscoe, Comm. 3 ff., has stated the case against them fully and fairly: "All attempts to divide L. into his sources on the basis of inconsistencies are doomed to failure" (p. 4). Cf, E. Cavaignac, RPh 39 (1915) 5-23.

STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY

The aim will be not only to establish the large-scale design of these books, but with the help of Polybius and Nissen to come to some understanding of Livy's ongoing methods of adaptation and composition. It is comparatively easy to point out the foundation, supports, and other prominent architectural elements of the completed edifice. But when we ask what materials Livy had to hand before he started and how he may have gone about the process of construc­ tion, we are faced with more basic and more difficult ques­ tions. This study will also attempt some kind of reconciliation or synthesis between the "literary" school of criticism (best represented by Burck) and those whose approach is more historical (e.g. Nissen or Klotz). On the one hand, the evidence that Burck amassed concerning Livy's efforts at design and structure is so great in quantity and quality that although additions and corrections may be made on this or that point, no one to my knowledge has ventured to dis­ prove or question his general results. Instead, these results have suffered a curious fate—something like Juvenalian probity: laudantur, algent. For they have been praised and then either ignored or simply cited side by side with the negative evidence of Quellenforschung. Nissen, on the other hand, took a dim view of Livy's ability to control his material.64 He pointed to numerous examples of ineptitude and error, a few of which have been cited in the Introduc­ tion to this book. One of the reasons why the divergence between these two schools has not been as keenly 6iSome

years later, and enjoying a wider perspective than the meticulous analysis of the Kritische JJntersuchungen had afforded, he showed a sympathetic and lively appreciation of Livy's artistic aims and methods; see the opening pages of his article in RhM 27 (1872) 539-541. Instructive is his aside in reference to the wide divergence in the length of pentads (ibid. 543 n. 1): "erhalten die Stellen, an denen Livius grossere Partien des Polybios iiberschlagen zu haben andeutet— sie sind in meinen Unters. 81.82 illustrirt—durch diese Betrachtung ein neues Licht. Ausser den sachlichen Erwagungen verbot die aussere Oekonomie ihr Aufnahme."

LIVY appreciated as it might have been is that the literary critics have tended to focus their attention chiefly on the earlv books, the historians on the later. The general feeling is that Livy took more pains with the earlier portions, where he found the materiai especially congenial. 63 For the period after the Hannibalic War he found the subject matter more prosaic, the source material greater in amount and more confusing. 60 There is an element of truth in this, but onlv an element; source problems and literary aims, after all, are pertinent to all parts of the Ab Urbe Condita. The differ­ ences between the earlv and the later books do not explain the basic question of how Livy could manipulate his material to excellent artistic and historical advantage and at the same time become frequently mired—now unwittingly, now wit­ tingly—in confusion and uncertainty. 65 In the Preface (4-5) Livy states his preference for the early period, contrasting it with conspectu malorum quae nostra tot per annos vidit aetas. 66 K.-E. Petzold, Eroifnung 114-115, is an extreme exponent of this point of view.

CHAPTER

II

Books 31-351

THE GENERAL DESIGN BOOK

31 opens with the vote for war against Philip V of Macedon in 200, Book 36 with the vote for war against Antiochus the Great in 191. These points of departure fixed the time span of the pentad (a little over nine years) and its two chief themes: the war with Philip, followed by the principal events that led to the outbreak of war with Antiochus. Livy chose the center of the central book as the climax and pivot: the proclamation of the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games in 196 (33. 32-35). 2 This left two and a half books on either side within which to arrange the material of each part, and it narrowed the possible choices of where to place the book divisions. Livy made these divisions by searching out significant episodes that lent themselves to special full-scale treatment, such as a speech or set of speeches, a battle, a vote for war, or ratification of peace. These he regularly assigned to the start or the end of a book. For example, he chose to open Book 33 with the decisive engagement of the war with Philip: the Battle of Cynoscephalae (1-10). The end of 32 was thus chrono­ logically fixed. Was there an episode just preceding the bat­ tle that could be developed at this point? Yes: the sequence of negotiations at Nicaea, Thronium, and Rome (32-37), based on Polybius, would enable him to end 32 on a high

have not seen H. Bruggmann, Komposition und Enttvicklungstendenzen der Bticher 31-35 des Titus Livius (Diss. Kiel 1955). Wille, Aufbau 17 ff., reports on some of its contents. 2 Cf. F. W. Walbank in Livy, ed. T. A. Dorey (London and Toronto 1971) 48; Wille, Aufbau 41; H. Trankle, Gymnasium 79 11

(1972) 27-31.

LIVY

note and at the same time to present res Graeciae for 197 in a single sweep: Haec per hiemem gesta. biitio autem veris Qiiinctius . . . (33. 1. 1).3 The unifying subject of the last two and a half books is the coming war with Antiochus.4 At the conclusion of ^3 (45.6-49.7) Hannibal escapes from Carthage and flees to the court of Antiochus: Ephesi re gem est consecutus, ftuctuantem adhuc animo incertumque de Romano bello, sed baud parvum momentum ad animum ems moiiendum adventus Hamiibalis fecit (49. 7). The end of S4· shows the consequences of this association: Hannibal's advice to the king on how best to conduct the coming war (60) and the adventures of his spy Aristo in Carthage (61 ).5 Finally, 35 concludes with the arrival of Antiochus in Greece and with an account of how the first blood was drawn (42-51); the stage is set for the formal vote for war in Rome at the start of the next pentad. For the openings of Books 31 and 34 powerful material was also at hand. Book 31, of course, opens with the declara­ tion of war against Philip. The announcement is grave and 3 Livy achieved this by placing res Galliae for the summer of 197 (32.29.5-31.6) before events in Greece of the previous winter. Hence the misleading transition at 32. i: Hiems iam eo tempore erat —the winter of 198/7, not 197/6, as the context implies: Briscoe, Comm. 228. Klotz, Livius 30, on the basis of 33. 24.3 (exitu ferme anni [197] litterae a T. Quinctio venerunt se sigms conlatis cum rege Pbilippo in Thessalia pugnasse, hostium exercitum fusum fugatitmque), believes that the Roman version which Lhy was following re­ served its account of res Graeciae to the end of the year, but that Livy pulled it forward to stand near the start. Possibly; but a single lener would not be a likely vehicle for recounting, even summarily, the events contained in 3^.32.1 through 33.21.5. More probably its mention at 33.24. 3 was simply to give the occasion for the five-day supphcatio decreed by the Senate; for further discussion see Briscoe, Comm. 294. 4 Its coming is announced at 33. 19. 6-7, just before the final peace settlement with Philip is recounted. 5 The account of the negotiations in Rome carried on between the ambassadors of Antiochus and the ten commissioners, also based on Polybius, is given full and special treatment just prior to that of these events (34.57.4-59.8).

BOOKS 31-3*)

impressive (5.1): Anno quingentesimo quinquagesimo primo ab urbe condita, P. Sulpicio Galba C. Aurelio consulibus, bellum cum rege Philippo initnm est, paucis mensibus post pacem Carthaginiensibns datam." The speech of SuIpicius to the comitia (7) is given central prominence within the formal procedures and ceremonies connected with the vote for war (5-9). Book 34. opens with the debate on the repeal of the Lex Oppia, with a fine set of speeches by Cato and L. Valerius (1. 1-8. 3). The person of Cato in fact gives unity to the first third of the book, since the account of his famous victories in Spain follows immediately (8. 4-21. 8). Livy was also fond of selecting episodes for special treat­ ment in the middle of books. In 31 it is the conference of the Aetolian League in the spring of 199. A set of three speeches is reproduced, the last replying to the charges in the first, the balanced effect reinforced by the sequence of oratio recta (29.4-16: Macedonian), obliqua (30: Athenian), and recta (31: Roman). In the center of 32 is a full account of the conference of the Achaean League in 198; the long speech of Aristaenus is the highlight (21). The chief division of the pentad comes in the middle of 33: the ratification of peace with Philip (25.4-7) and the proclamation of the freedom of Greece (32): Hunc finem bellmn cum Philippo habuit (35. 12). The middle third of Book 34 (22.4-41. 10) contains a detailed account of the war with Nabis; halfway through Livy features a pair of speeches by Nabis and Flamininus (31-32). These, then, are the chief divisions and turning points of the pentad. Around them the rest of the material had to be shaped and arranged. The technique is no different from that employed elsewhere throughout the Ab Urbe Condita, The "On the style, see A. H. McDonald, JRS 4 7 (1957) '55 _r 59· Livy's decision to end the third decade with the return and triumph of Scipio Africanus meant that the events of 201 subsequent to the triumph had to be reserved for the opening of the next pentad. But he places the war vote as near the start as he can.

LIVY

design is clearly not accidental; it presupposes that book divisions and major blocks of material were planned in ad­ vance. Livy knew where his narrative was going, what the chief points of emphasis would be, and where they would be placed. Moreover, his choice of subjects for special em­ phasis in 31-35 is admirable both from an artistic and an historical viewpoint: Book^/ (5ochs.) Start: Middle:

Book

32

End: (40 chs.) Start: AyIiddle: End:

Book

33

(49 chs.) Start: Middle: End:

Book 54 (62 chs.) Start: Middle:

End:

Book 3S (si chs.) Start: Middle: End:

Declaration of war against Philip (5-10) Conference of the AetoIian League (29-32) Conference of the Achaean League (19. 1-23. 3) Negotiations at Nicaea, Thronium, Rome (32-37) Cynoscephalae (1-10) Proclamation of the freedom of Greece (32-35) Flight of Hannibal to Antiochus (45. 6-49. 7) Debate on the Lex Oppia (1. 1-8. 3) War with Nabis; paired speeches of Nabis and Flamininus (31-32) Hannibal's advice to Antiochus; his spy in Carthage (60-61)

Antiochus' arrival in Greece (4 2 ~5θ

Noteworthy here is his recognition of the worth and pos­ sibilities of the PoIybian material. It is doubtless true that his

BOOKS 31-35

Roman sources provided the chronological framework within and between years, but it is instructive to note how often it was Polybius who guided him to an appreciation of the significance of events. The outline above also makes it clear that sometimes Livy could discover no episode suit­ able for special development and emphasis. Indeed, the "gaps" at the end of 31, at the start of 32, and at the start and middle of 35 illustrate the kind of problem that his source material sometimes presented. For example, no episode seemed particularly important or suitable for full-length treatment at the end of the year 200 or at the start of 199. Hence Livy made the end of 31 coincide with the end of the consular year. Such coincidence assumed for him special structural importance. The consular year is used only to end those books that stand first and last in each of the three pentads in Books 31-45: 31 and 35, 36 and 40, 41 and 45. Similarly, only the first, middle, and last books of the third decade (2/, 26, 30) open with the start of a consular year.7 The start of Book 35 likewise offered nothing worthy of special emphasis. On the other hand, despite the lackluster quality of the material, its arrangement is rather complicated and it is spun out at considerable length—so much so that some of it looks suspiciously like padding (see below). The central part of the book treats the res Graeciae of 192 (2539), based on Polybius. It is a bit surprising that although some of the material could have lent itself to special treat­ ment, Livy made no effort to develop it. 8 All in all, 35 ap­ pears to be one of the least structured of Livy's books. And Wille, Aufbau 18 and n. 157, 49-50; Burck, Einfiihrung n-13. For example, the speeches of Menippus, the Athenians, and FIamininus at the conference in Aetolia (jj. 52-33) are all brief and in oratio obliqua. Yet, further on, well past the center of the book, Livy narrates fully and carefully the killing of Nabis, followed by the deaths of his Aetolian assassins (55·. 35. 1—37- 3) · What engaged his particular interest, of course, were the dramatic elements, the neat peripeteia, and the just retribution visited upon all the parties. 7See

8

LIVY

except for the ending, which contains some fine writing,9 the narration of most episodes is flat and uninspired. A consideration of some of the general problems that Livy encountered in the disposition of his material shows that, while most of his decisions concerning book divisions and the selection of episodes for special emphasis are admir­ able, the strategic placement of these episodes at the start, middle, and end of books created problems. Chief among these is that the remaining material had to be tailored to fit properly into the interstices. Since the selection of episodes for special emphasis and the decision as to where they were to be placed were made before actual composition, the amount and nature of the remaining material were not the only factors that determined the amount of space it was to occupy. To be sure, Livy felt free to vary considerably the length of his books. Still, the very decision to give over a certain amount of material to book-length treatment in­ volved some requirements and constraints in respect to the scope and amplitude of its development. More confining were the spaces on either side of an episode that had been placed in the center of a book for special treatment; each space had to be roughly equal to the other, and the material adapted accordingly. One would expect that two kinds of problems would tend to arise. Sometimes there would be an overabundance of material; pruning and abbreviation would be necessary. And sometimes there would be danger­ ously little; in this case the historian might feel obliged to use almost all of his source material, including the trivial and tangential; embroidery and expansion might be required; and he could be driven to search for supplementary material outside of the authorities he regularly consulted. Books 3/35 illustrate all of these features. 9 For example the speech of Thoas (42.3-43.2), the speech of the AetoIians paired with that of the people of Chalcis (46.5-13), and the conference in Achaea (48-49).

BOOKS 31-35 BOOK 33 For the first part of Book 33 we have considerable amounts of Polybian material, including two gratifyinglv long extracts, 10 which show how the overall design that Livy chose for a book could affect the composition of its separate parts. At the start stands the Battle of Cynoscephalae (1-10). Livy handled the material with great care. There are few omissions, and those few negligible. Instead, he included material that for less important events he might have abridged or left out. For example, each stage in the move­ ments 'of the two commanders as they moved to the final encounter is given in detail and with frequent alternation back and forth in order to delay the climax and heighten the suspense. 11 Noteworthy is the inclusion of Polybius' digression on the comparison between the Greek and Roman vallum·, it is the sort of technical military subject for which Livy ordinarily had little interest and no enthusiasm. Here its presence helps to heighten the suspense by delaying the confrontation. 12 Nor was he satisfied with following the order of the Polybian analysis. The Greek historian com­ pares procedures: the ease of transporting the stakes, their The first major extract is Pol. / 8 . 18-39, reflected in Livy 3 3 , 5.413. 15. There is a slight gap in the Polybian text between 33 and 34. The second is Pol. 18. 44-48, reflected in Livy 33. 30-35. Smaller ex­ cerpts are Livy 33. 21. 1-5 = Pol. iS. 41 (eulogy of King Attalus), 10

Livy 33. 27. 5-28. 3 = Pol. 18. 43

(Flamininus and Boeotian affairs),

Livy 33. 39-40 = Pol. 18. 49-51 (conference at Lysimachea). i i Philippus quoque primo vere . . . ( 3 . 1 ) , et Quinctius per ferme dies ab Elatia profectus . . . (3.6), Philippus cognita tione ab Elatia Romanorum . . . (3. n), Quinctius ad Thebas ticas castra cum movisset . . . (5.1), circa Larisam est rex.

eosde?n profecPhthioCertior

iam factus Romanum ab Thebis Pheras movisse . . . (6.3), and so on to the site of Cynoscephalae. On the technique, see Luce, TAPhA 102 (1971) 285-287. 12 On the insertion of digressions prior to climactic episodes, cf. Luce, TAPhA 102 (1971) 282-283.

LIVY

size and shape, their placement; Livy regroups the material along national lines (the Greek method: 5. 5-8, the Roman: 5.9-12). The first portion of the battle (up to the point where the Macedonian phalanx charges downhill upon the Romans: 9. 1 ff.) is fully and accurately reproduced. Thereafter Livy's account becomes garbled. His chief errors concern: ( 1 ) a misunderstanding of Philip's order to his phalanx to lower their spears and charge, (2) his description of Philip's battle line as having a media acies which stood by spectaculo velut nihil ad se pertinentis pugnae interna (9. 4), and (3) his failure to state that Flamininus shifted from his left to his right wing before launching the attack that routed the Macedonians. None of these should be attributed to perfunctory writing or to a lack of interest in the material as a whole. The first is due to ignorance of the technical military meaning of a single word, 13 the second to his stereotyped belief that all battle lines had to consist of two wings and a center.14 Both arose from his desire to correct what he regarded as deficiencies in the Polybian text. In the first instance the Greek historian seemed to say that the phalanx threw down their long pikes and charged weaponless upon the enemy. Livy realized that this would not do and tried to correct it (8. 13): Macedonum phalangem hastis positis, quarum longitudo impedimento erat, gladiis rem gerere iubet. A passable solution, he must have thought, and bound to be an improvement on the original in any case. The third 13 Livy interpreted "lower") in Polybius' phrase

to mean "throw down" (rather than

(18. 24.9): roU p,kv a\ayyirais eS661\

The technical military usage is rare; it does not find its way into the Liddell and Scott entry, for example. See P. G . Walsh, G&R 5 (1958) 84-85. E. Pianezzola's contention that Livy knew the real meaning of the word, but deliberately changed it in order to lessen Polybius' praise for the temporary success of Philip's right wing is not convincing: Traduzione e ideologia, Livio tnterprete di Polibio (Bologna 1969) 85-88. 14 See Walsh, Livy 161-162. Perhaps Polybius* phrase at iS. 25. 3 suggested

the role ot the medta acies to Livy. 40

BOOKS 3/-3J

error was due to simple carelessness. Military maneuvers per se did not particularly interest him. He was more concerned to depict the psychology of the combatants. So here, where he even anticipates a bit by adding to the Polybian material that those arriving on Philip's left were in a state of confu­ sion and alarm even before Flamininus' attack (9. 3). Earlier he was at pains to describe the king's state of mind by add­ ing that Philip debated with himself whether or not to re­ turn to his camp before committing the whole of his forces to the battle and that he felt his own person to be in danger (8. 10-11). And Livy's visual imagination led him to add many realistic details: e.g. the soldiers wandering in the mist (7. 2, cf. Pol. 18. 20. 8), Philip's view of the mountain as the mist rose (7. 9, cf. Pol. 22. 2), the bodies scattered over the summit after the initial clash of light-armed troops (8. 9, cf. Pol. 24. 3), the flash of Roman arms that Philip sees from a nearby hill after having taken flight (10. 2, cf. Pol. 26. 9). These additions show that Livy was writing "carefully" here and that he believed a full and detailed adaptation would help to emphasize the importance of the event. The extant text of Polybius continues (with a slight break between 18. 33. 8 and 34. 1) for another seven chapters after the account of Cynoscephalae, but Livy's method of adapta­ tion changes markedly. Frequent omissions, considerable abridgment, and some perfunctory writing appear. The rea­ son is clear. The decisive engagement was over, the telos of the narrative reached. If the peace with Philip and the scene at the Isthmian games were to come in the middle of the book, the rest of 197 would have to be finished and 196 begun soon. Considerable Polybian, as well as Roman, material was involved. Hence abridgment begins im­ mediately after Philip's flight from the field. Patriotic rea­ sons are doubtless involved in some particulars, for Livy omits to mention the stripping of the corpses and the gathering of prisoners. He then appends (and condemns) the casualty figures of Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius (10.8-9), and pays Polybius a handsome compli-

LIVY

merit (despite what he must have regarded as inadequacies at a few points on the part of the Greek historian): non incertum auctorem cum omnium Romanarum return turn praecipue in Graecia gestanvm (10. 10). His subsequent omissions include Polvbius' digression on the nature of the phalanx (18. 28-32) and his appraisal of Philip's behavior in the face of misfortune (33. 3-7). He reduces sharply Polvbius' comment on the attribution of venality to Flamininus by the venal Aetolians ( 18. 34. 6-8 = Livy 55. 11. 7), and omits entirelv Polybius' digression on venality in general among the Romans, a digression in which the Romans come off very well indeed—an interesting omission (35). 15 Instead, he concentrates on reproducing those parts of Polybius that concern the peace negotiations. Toward the end, however, his desire to reach a quick conclusion causes him to leave out Flamininus' statement concerning the legitimacy of the Aetolian claims to Larisa Cremaste, Pharsalus, Phthiotic Thebes, and Echinus (Pol. 18. 38.4-5), apparently because he wished to proceed at once to the sharp exchange of words between Flamininus and Phaneas the Aetolian. Hence his statement disceptatio inter imperatorem Romanum et Aetolos orta est de Thebis (13. 7) is wrong, for what Flamininus disputed was not the claim to Thebes, but to the other three towns. 1R In sum, then, Livy has compressed seven chapters of Polybius (33-39) into three of his own (11-13): 90 lines as opposed to 231 lines in the Teubner texts of the respective authors. Livy continued to adapt Polvbius from 14. 1 through 15 For a discussion of the state of the Polybian text and Livy's abridgment, see Holleaux, Etudes 5, 86-10$ = RPh 57 (1931) 193— 208. In an effort to bolster his case he goes too far in describing the adaptation as one "ou des naivetes, des gaucheries, des repetitions et des contradictions, des obscurites trahissent I'embarras du tres infidele 'adapteur' qua ete en l'occasion Tite Live" (p. 102). See Briscoe, Comm. 266-267. 161 do not think that the passage is evidence for Livy's weakness in comprehending Greek; cf. Walsh, G&R 5 (1958) 86 and Briscoe, Comm. 35. 13. 7 n.

BOOKS S 1 S S

2i. 5, but because the pertinent parts of Polybius are miss­ ing,17 we cannot in most cases be sure to what extent Livy abridged and omitted. The victory of the Achaeans over Philip's forces at Corinth (14-15) and the siege of Leucas (17) seem fully and carefully done; the ensuing account of the Rhodian capture of the Peraea (18) is quite detailed, although written in a rather mechanical manner. The post­ script on Philip's victory over the Dardani is brief (19. 1-5). Res Syriae for 197, also based on Polybius, were the next topic. At this point, however, Livy decided to interrupt his narrative in order to underscore the importance of a new theme: the coming war with Antiochus (19.6-7). At the same time he points to the dangerous situation that was developing in Spain: this in preparation for Cato's cam­ paigns in the next book, He then turns back to Polybius. In a little less than two pages he sketches the following events: Antiochus' moves in eastern Asia Minor, the warning by Rhodes not to do anything that would help Philip during the war with the Romans or to hinder the Roman libera­ tion of Greece, Antiochus' conciliatory reply, the news of the Batde of Cynoscephalae, and Rhodes's help and advice to cities allied with Egypt and threatened by Antiochus. At this point Livy breaks off (20. 13): Non operae est persequi ut quae que acta in his locis sint, cum ad ea quae propria Komani belli sunt vix sufficiam. Critics have taken this to be a makeshift device adopted by a weary writer who could summon neither energy nor interest to continue, 18 or who 17

At 53.21.1 -5 Livy reproduces Polybius' eulogy of King Attalus

(1S.41), but rearranges some of the material. 18For

among

example Nissen, other

things

KU

81. In this section Polybius recounted

Antiochus'

occupation

of

Ephesus and

other

Greek cities. T h a t Livy's decision to omit such matters pertaining to the Asian Greeks was deliberately taken is clear from passages later in the book. The sequel to the conference at Lysimachea

(39-

40 = Pol. 18.49-51), in which legates from Smyrna and Lampsacus have their say (Pol. 18. 52), was left out, although Livy's continuation at 41. ι ff.

is clearly based on Polybius. F. W , Walbank is mistaken,

I think, to explain this

omission

by saying, "Livy wearies of the de-

LIVY

absent-mindedly continued adapting material beyond the point where he should have stopped.19 These strictures miss the point. Livy regularly omits great amounts of Polybian material, but feels no obligation to inform his readers of the fact. Moreover, he is capable of giving a genuine epitome, rather than a line-by-line adaptation, if he feels it necessary or appropriate. Nor is his statement here very remarkable. Similar sentiments and similar expressions of self-doubt occur elsewhere in the Ab Urbe Condita.20 He did not view them as gauche or disfiguring. What is noteworthy about the res Asiae for 197 is not that he broke off the narrative at the point he did, but that he included any of it at all. His motive is clear: the coming war with Antiochus was to be the principal device for organizing and grouping his material in the rest of the pentad.21 It was necessary to back up his tail": Comm. 2,28. It was more probably planned in advance. Note that earlier, in the speeches given at the conference, Livy carefully excluded PoIybius' reference to these cities (18. 50.7: speech of the Romans; 18. 51.7: speech of Antiochus). I do not think Briscoe is right in seeing it "as a sign of L's des­ peration of living to complete his work" (Comm. 288). 19

20 For

example Praef. 1-2; 5/.1.1-5; 55.40.1; 4 1 . 25. 8. The intro­

duction to his account of the death of Philopoemen at 39. 48. 6 is noteworthy: if he should describe the causes and course of the Messenian War, he says, immemor sim propositi quo statui non ultra attingere externa, nisi qua Romanis cohaererent rebus. Nothing daunted, he gives the death of Philopoemen in full. F. W. Walbank, JHS 58 (1938) 6t n. 28, observes: "The fact was . . . Livy liked the story and was not going to leave it out." Cf. H. Trankle, Gymnasium 79 (1972) 23. One might compare the characteristic complaint in Tacitus concerning the inglorious and petty nature of his material: Ann. 4.32, 6.38.1, 16.16. 21

Note that he reserves mention of the fear of an impending war

with Antiochus for the last point in his adaptation of Polybius 18.

39 (=55.13,15). The king is mentioned frequently throughout

the rest of the book (27.6, 31.6, 31,10-11, 34.2-3, 35.6); toward the end res Asiae for 197 (separated from res Graeciae) bring him

BOOKS

statement at 19. 6-7 concerning its importance by sketch­ ing, even if only in part, something of the king's threaten­ ing moves, which were beginning to reach out toward the Aegean. The "confession" at 20. 13 was intended as an apology not so much for failing to continue with his account of res Asiae as for having included any of them at all. At the same time, it was also necessary to move his narrative forward rather quickly if he were to reach Polybius' res Graeciae for the following year by mid-book. It took some managing to do so. First, as noted, the bulk of Polybius' res Asiae had to be omitted. Next, he had to finish his account of the year 197 and get 196 underway; this meant a return to his Roman source (s). He confined the events at the end of 197 and at the start of 196 to six chapters (21. 6-25. 3 for 197, 25.4-27. 5 for 196). They are "packed": reverses in Spain, a debate on whether the consuls should be given a triumph, elections, a report of the victory in the East, appointment of the ten commissioners, colonists sent to Cosa, games, ratification of the peace with Philip, further reverses in Spain, division of military forces for 196, assignment of provinces, prodigies, and an ovatio. The normal annalistic format required that the activities of the consuls of the year be recounted next; at the least they should be ensconced in their respective provinciae before other matters are taken up. This is not the case here. The proclamation of a proconsul takes precedence; the deeds of the consuls are reserved for later exposition (36. 4 if.). This is the last in the series of omissions, abridgments, and reorderings that enabled Livy to place the peace with Philip in the center of the central book of the pentad. Moreover, the material at mid-book required that he revert to the sort of full and careful adaptation that he had used in the section again into full prominence at the Conference at Lysimachea (39-40 — Pol. >8.49-yi); at the end of the book he is the subject of an alarm­ ing report by the ten commissioners at Rome (44.5-45· 5) and is also reported to have provided a refuge for Hannibal (45.6-49.7).

LIVY on Cynoscephalae. Comparison with the extant text of Polybius (/#.44-48 answers to Livy 53. 30-35) shows the accuracy and completeness of his account of the various settlements made in Greece and the peace terms with Philip. Livy lavishes the most attention, of course, on the scene at the games, adding his own introduction (32. 1-2) and con­ clusion (33. 1-3), and transferring Polybius' comments on the importance of the event to the thoughts and words of the crowd. 22

BOOK 34 Book 33 betrays no sign that Livy was hard pressed for material; it has a strong beginning, middle, and end, and is generally written with liveliness and care. So with Book 34, which divides rather sharply into three parts. In the first (1—21), Cato is at center stage, first with a speech against the abrogation of the Lex Oppia and then in a detailed ac­ count of his campaigns in Spain. The second part (22-41) features a full account of the War with Nabis, based on Polybius. The last part is more heterogeneous. Livy's goal was to reach Polybius' report of res ltaliae and res Africae for 193, which concerned the coming war with Antiochus (this included an account of the special hearing at Rome that the ten commissioners granted the ambassadors of the king [57. 4-59. 8]), 23 and then the following sequence: Han­ nibal's advice to Antiochus on the conduct of the coming war (60), the adventures of Hannibal's spy Aristo in Carthage (61), and a postscript on the territorial dispute be­ tween Carthage and Masinissa (62). In order to reach this point, however, Livy had to move his narrative along 22 On Livy's adaptation, see Witte, Darstellung 281-283, 362-363; Walsh, Livy 184, 205; Trankle, Gymnasium 79 (1972) 17-31. 23 The sequence of speeches is carefully done: Menippus in oratio obliqua (57.6-11), Flamininus in recta (58.1-3), Hegesianax in obliqua (5-7), Flamininus in recta (8-13), ending with a brief ex­ change in recta between P. Sulpicius and Menippus (59.1-3).

BOOKS J 1 SS quickly between 41. 1 ο (end of the war with Nabis) and 57. 4 (start of the hearing in Rome for Antiochus' ambas­ sadors). W h a t was t o o c c u p y these sixteen chapters, in fact, were the end of 195, t h e whole of the year 194, and the beginning of

193.

In

short,

Livy

had

an

abundance of

material f o r this book as well as f o r t h e preceding one. T h e same is t r u e f o r t h e first

BOOK

31. 33 -50,

BOOK

part of Book 31 (discussed b e l o w ) .

32,

AND BOOK

35

T h e case is quite different f o r t h e remaining parts of t h e pentad. In the last part of 31 and throughout much of 32 and 3$ t h e r e are signs t h a t there was a dearth of adequate, o r a t least interesting, material. T h e chief reason was Livy's decision t o d e v o t e a full five

books t o t h e period f r o m late

201 t o t h e end of 192: slightly o v e r nine years. N o t until another thirty-five books had been p u t o n paper would he again devote a pentad t o such a short period of time (Books

ηι-η$ and the period of the Social W a r ) . It is true that the third

decade covered

but

eighteen

years,

but

there

the

material was abundant and the years packed with important episodes. T h e same cannot be said of 200-192. It would be a knowledgeable student of Roman history who could, with­ o u t recourse t o a reference w o r k o r t w o , recall t h e events of 199, 194, 193, and 192, and even after learning t h e facts, he might find

i t difficult t o justify their filling

t h e equivalent of

nearly t w o books. T h e size of t h e pentad is also an indica­ tion of t h e p a u c i t y of material: i t is t h e shortest of t h e seven that are extant. I t covers 237 T e u b n e r pages as compared with 270 f o r t h e next smallest (Books 6-10). I t contains, in fact, the first,

third, fifth,

and sixth shortest books (32, 33,

55, and 31 respectively); Book 34 alone is of average length (ranking eighteenth o u t of 35). 2 4 I t was noted before t h a t t h e end of Book 31 coincided with w h a t L i v y represents as t h e end of t h e consular year 24 See

304-307.

p. 29 and the charts of P. A. Stadter, H i s t o r i a 21 (1972)

LIVY 2oo. NO particular episode seemed worthy of or suitable for special treatment at the conclusion. The reason was doubt­ less the nature of the material; during the campaigning season of his proconsulate Sulpicius Galba fought a series of indecisive engagements with Philip that resulted in a stand­ off. Livy found none of them particularly exciting or signifi­ cant. 25 There is, in consequence, some lackluster adapta­ tion, For example, military maneuvers and topographical details that in other contexts he tended to abridge or omit are here strung out in a flat, unadorned manner, e.g. 33. 4-11 and 39. 4-7; the narrative of the year's naval activities at 45-46 is the clearest example. He even includes some types of Polybian material that elsewhere he tends to omit: e.g. the discussion on the merits of the strategies adopted by Sulpicius and Philip at Ottolobus (38) and the postscript on the recruiting of Aetolian mercenaries for Egyptian service (43. 4-7). He also includes some purely Greek material that was not (for his purposes) of great importance and that in­ volved no Romans: e.g. the plundering expedition of the Aetolians in Thessaly and its defeat by Philip (40. 7-42. 9). Next came the start of Book 32 and the year 199; the material for it was thin stuff indeed. The consul Villius did nothing against Philip: nihil memorabile a Villio actum integrumque bellum insequentem consulem T. Quinctium accepisse tradunt (52.6.8). The censorship of Scipio Africanus and Aelius Paetus was marked by such harmony and goodwill that no senator lost his seat (sine ullius nota: 7. 3). And when in consequence of a reverse suffered in Gaul the consul hurried north to right matters, neque ipse consul memorabile quicquam gessit (7. 8). In fact, for the whole of this book—despite its being the shortest of the extant thirtyfive—information was not plentiful. Livy appears to have included almost everything he found. First, the Polybian material. Minor geographical and topographical details are everywhere present (e.g. 13-15: Thessaly; 18: Phocis); phrases such as aliaque castella iuxta ignobilia (14.3, cf. 25 His account of the capture of the pass at Eordaea (31. 39) is the best developed.

BOOKS 5/-·?J

18.9) describe the nature of much of the subject matter. Abortive efforts, such as the sieges of Atrax (17. 4-17) and of Corinth (23. 4-13), are fully described, as are such purely Greek events as Philip's unsuccessful attempt on Thaumaci (4). The Roman sources were no better. In 198, as in 199, nothing was achieved in Gaul. Livy records the melancholy fact twice.28 And he regularly drew on at least two Roman sources in this book in order to eke out his material. For res Galliae of 197 (29. 5-31. 6 ) he used a second source to supplement the bare description of the battle fought against the Insubres.27 It is also likely that 32. 26 derives from a source different both from that of 9. 5 and 2. 3-4.28 More­ over, the praetor urbanus is given as L. Cornelius Lentulus 2eNeque

memorabilis rei quicquam gessit ( 9 . 5 ) ; nihil sane mem­ orable ctb Sex. Aelio consule gestum (26.1). T. A. Suits, Phiblogus 118 (1974) 257-265, believes the repetition deliberate. 27 Non tulerunt lnsubres primum concursum. Quidam . . . auctores sunt . . . (30. n). See Klotz, Livius 83-84, for the correct in­ terpretation (contra, Nissen, KU 59). Klotz believes the main source was Antias, the variant Quadrigarius; Zimmerer, CQ 28-29, the re­ verse. 2 8 26. 1 -3 ( res Galliae) is a doublet of 9. 5. The later version is more detailed and precise, nor do the names recorded in each take precisely the same form; from 9. 5 we learn that Aelius intended to wage a military campaign, from 26. 3 that he spent his time return­ ing to their respective homes the colonists from Cremona and Placentia who had been scattered during the recent war. Suits (Phiiologus n8 [1974] 257-265) suggests that the repetition was one of a number of framing devices in the book. Moreover, at 26.4-14 Livy describes an insurrection threatened by the slaves of the Carthaginian hostages who were housed at Setia; at 2. 3-4, however, he records that in the previous year these hostages had been permitted to shift their residence from Norba, which was unsuited to their life-style, to Signia and Ferentinum. Klotz, Livius 83 (cf. Hermes 50 [1915! 485-486, esp. 485 n. 2) sees no discrepancy: the hostages were natu­ rally lodged in a number of different places; the burden of lodging all of them would not have fallen on one or two alone (cf. Nepos, Hann. 7.2). Klotz is undoubtedly right—historically; but this is not the representation of Livy or his source (s): qui non reddebantur obsides ( 2 . 4 ) , obsides Carthaginiensium Setiae custodiebantur (26.5). Kahrstedt's analysis of the problem is at the same time overly subtle and mechanical: Annalistik 58-65.

LIVY

at 26. 8, earlier at 7. 13 and 8. 5 as L. Cornelius Merula. These discrepancies, taken individually, would not argue strongly for source changes. Taken together, they do. Livy also resorted to using his Roman sources to supplement his Polybian material—not merely for variant statistics on amounts of booty or for battle casualties, but for entire in­ cidents—an unusual step. In particular, he used the res Graeciae of Valerius Antias for 199 to fill out the meager re­ port of Polybius. Moreover, he makes it clear why Polybius had not included some, if not all, of this material: Valerius had made it up. 29 On the other hand, although it is true that Livy drew on a wide variety of sources in his search for material, T. A. Suits has recently shown with what apparent care this some­ times ordinary, sometimes humdrum material was arranged (especially 7. 8-28. 9). 30 Three subjects, ordered chiastically, form the larger frame: Flamininus' election and his con­ tinuation of command (7. 8-12; 28. 3-9), embassies from Attalus (8.9-16; 27.1), and Aelius' activities in Gaul (9.5; 26. 1-3). The bulk of the material for 198 is devoted to res Graeciae, in which the chief contrast is between the siege of Atrax and the siege of Elatea; within each a digression on simultaneous naval activities is inserted (16. 1-17. 3; 19. 1-5 and 23. 4-13). Within the latter and at about the center of the book comes the conference of the Achaean League (19. 5-23. 3), the highlight of which is the lengthy speech of Aristaenus—again in the center of its section (21). Book except for the ending based on Polybius (42-51), shows that for most of the years 193 and 192 Liw was again faced with insufficient or petty material. He resorts to many of the same remedies as before: lengthy sections adapted 2 0 32.6. 5-7 records the variant of Antias. The report of the atrox seditio that Villius on arriving in Macedoniam found among Galba's soldiers (3) is probably from the same or a different Roman source: Briscoe's argument (Comm. 172) for a Polybian provenance is not convincing to me. ' w Fhilologus 118 (1974) 157-265.

BOOKS 3/-55

from Polybius containing mostly Greek material (e.g. the Achaean war against Nabis: 25-30), 31 and supplementing res Graeciae of Polybius with information from Roman sources —in this instance Claudius Quadrigarius on the meeting between Scipio and Hannibal (14. 5-12), and the use of two Roman sources for other episodes.38 A new technique ap­ pears for the first time: that of dividing up material (most of it quite ordinary) and placing the various parts at suc­ cessive stages throughout the year. This gives the impression that much more was going on than in fact was. For example, res Hispaniae for 193 are divided into three parts (1, 2. 2-9, 7. 6-8); the problem of holding the levy into two (34. 56, 35. 2. 3-9); the events in north Italy concerning the con­ suls' activities there into six: (1) 34. 56 (a tiimultus is declared before the consuls depart), (2) 35. 3-5 (Minucius' activities in Liguria, Merula's in Gaul), (3) 35.6. 8-10 (a private report on Merula's poor conduct by a legate to friends in Rome), (4) 8 (Merula arrives in Rome to hold elections; a dispute in the Senate over the worth of his per­ formance), (5) χι (activities in Liguria extremo eius anni), (6) 21.-j-ii (activities of Minucius in Liguria before the arrival of the new consuls of 192). The elections for 193 and 192 are similarly treated. In 193 there is a lengthy, obviously padded, wrangle as to which consul should hold them (6. 1-7. 5); a bit later the consul chosen arrives in Rome for this purpose (8. 1), but the subject is inexplicably dropped; at 10. 1 if. we read in exitu iam annus erat and that the elections were at last held among a large number of rival candidates. For the year 192 Livy reports that the magis31

This is not to deny that the war had implications for Rome:

3^.25, 30. 11-13·

As opposed to using a second source simply for odd bits of material to supplement a single main source (for example, Valerius Antias is the variant at 35.2.8-9). The events at the end of 193 in Liguria (ir) are clearly from a different source from that used in 3. The section 40. 2-4, concerning consular activities in Gaul for 192, is a doublet of the same events reported at 2. 3-4: each derives from a different source. 32

HVY

trates were elected primo quoque tempore (24. 1) in antici­ pation of the coming conflict with Antiochus, and that they drew lots almost at once for their respective provinces (24, 7). Yet it is not until 41. 1-2 that the drawing takes place. It is difficult to know whether this "interlocking" tech­ nique was Livy's own invention or whether he took it over from his source(s). In any event, the organization of most of this book leaves much to be desired. For example, at 10. 1 we learn that when Merula (cos. 193) arrived in Rome to hold the elections, the year was almost over; yet between his arrival at 8. 1 and the end of the narrative for the year (19. 7) the following have yet to occur: end of the censor­ ship (9. 1), report of prodigies and their expiation (9. 2-6), the founding of a colony (9. 7-8), activities of the aediles (10. 11-i 2), events in Liguria extremo eius amii (11), all of res Graeciae as adapted from PoIybius (12. 1-13. 3) and all of res Syriae from the previous winter (ea hieme at 13.4) and early spring (principio verts at 13. 5) to the following win­ ter. The transition to res Graeciae at 12. 1 is also peculiar: Sed neque Boii neque Hispani, cum quibus eo anno bellatum erat, tam inimice infesti erant Romanis quam Aetolorum gens. Yet Livy has just been discussing the war in Liguria, which earlier (6. 2-7) was deemed so much more serious than the conflict with the Boii that the consul in charge of the latter campaign was summoned to Rome to hold the elec­ tions; in Spain, moreover, the conflict by the historian's own admission had amounted to very little: nequaquam tantum belli fuit quantum auxerat jama (7.6). His command of the material for 192 was even less sure. At 22. 3-4 we read of the activities of the two consuls in northern Italy; at 24. 1 the decision is made that, in face of the impending war with Antiochus, the magistrates for the following year should be elected primo quoque tempore. One of the consuls returns to Rome (24. 3) and holds the elections (24.4-6); the new magistrates begin the sortition for their provinces (24. 7-8). Livy then switches over to Polybius and res Graeciae for

BOOKS S l ~ 3 5

192 (25-39). After fifteen chapters we find this transition back to events in Rome (40. 1): Abstulere me velut de spatio Graeciae res immixtae Romanis, non quia ipsas operae pretium esset perscribere sed quia causae cum Antiocho fuerunt belli. Consulibus designatis—hide namque deverteram—L. Quinctius et Cn. Domitius consules in provineias profecti sunt, Quinctius in Ligures, Domitius adversus Boios . . . (40. 1-2). Livy then narrates for a second time the same events that he had described earlier at 22. 3-4, although here it clearly comes from a different source, since in the pre­ vious version the consuls had already completed their assign­ ments in north Italy, while here they have not yet left Rome. Moreover, Livy breaks off his narrative at 24. 7-8 at the moment of sortition (dum novi magistratus sortirentur provineias . . .)· It is not until 41. 2 that the sortition is resumed, and now tarn fere in exitu annus erat (41. 1), whereas at 24. 1 ad rem pertinere visum est consules primo quoque tempore creari. All of this illustrates "grosse Eilfertigkeit" on Livy's part.33 The truth is that the events of 193-192 did not warrant nearly a book and a half for ex­ position and that in consequence his interest in the meager and humdrum material often flagged, For the nine-year period as a whole, three, or at most four, books would seem to have been enough. BOOK 3/. 1-32 Book 5/, and especially chapters 1-32, exhibit some peculiar features of design and composition. An analysis of the Livian narrative and of the extant extracts from Polybius reveals much about how Livy could on occasion manip­ ulate and rearrange his material. First, these chapters are carefully written and well organ­ ized. Subject matter and structure are complex: the events of 200 in the East are given in two stages (14-18, 22.433

176.

Nissen's phrase, KU 174. See his analysis of the book: KU 166-

LIVY

47. 3), those in Gaul in three (10. 1 - 1 1 . 3, 21. 1-22. 3, 47.47). Transitions are marked by resumptive phrases or appropriate tags (10. 1, 14. 4-5, 18. 9, 21. 1, 22. 4). The section concerning the war vote and the dispatch of Sulpicius Galba to the East is particularly intricate. Religious matters appear in four places (5. 3-4, &. 3-4, 9. 6-10, 12. 1 - 1 3 . 1), embassies in two (9. 1-5, n . 4 - 1 2 ) , with interruptions for an account of the Gallic tumultus (10. 1 - 1 1 . 3) and for the problem of satisfying the state creditors from the Hannibalic War (13. 2-9). Again the transitions are carefully marked (9. 1, 9.5, 10. 1, 13. 1, 14. 1). The dominant role of the Senate gives special coherence; except for the Gallic tumultus the scene throughout remains fixed in Rome and the focus is on that body's deliberations and decisions.34 The Polybian sections are also well done. An example is the siege of Abydus. Not only are the style and diction striking and imaginative, as A. H. McDonald has pointed out, but a tripartite structure (which Livy favored for sieges) has been fashioned out of the mass of Polybian material: 35 the first attack (17), Aemilius' ultimatum to Philip (18. 1-4), the final assault and 34

On the role of the Senate, see Klotz, Livius 24-28. It may be that some or all of res Galliae of 200 are from a second Roman source, but I see no way of making a probable case for it: cf. Zimmerer, CQ 26-28. A f e w items suggest that the Roman notices for the end of 201 may derive from a different source than for 200: ( 1 ) 31. 49. 5 concerning land allotments to Scipio Africanus' veterans might be a doublet of 4. 1-3—but see Briscoe, Comm. 161; (2) res Galliae of 201 at 2. J - I 1 do not fit well with those of 200 at 10. 1 - 1 1 . 3 , since, whereas the consul of 201 had failed to check the Boii or avenge the death of his praefectus sociorum, in 200 we find the Senate disbanding most of his army (10.5) and taken by surprise by a Gallic tumultus (10. 1). These facts are suggestive, but no more; the transition at 10. 1 could well be Livy's imaginative addition; see Kahrstedt, Amialistik 58-59; A. H . McDonald, JRS 53 (1963) 189, in a review of B. Ferro, Le Origini della 11 guerra macedonica. Nissen, KU 131, may be correct that the Roman notices for the book are from a single source. 35 JRS 47 (1957) 169. On the structure, see Witte, Darstellung 293-296, 362-363.

54

BOOKS 3/-5J

capture (18. 5-9). 36 His account of events in the East prior to the opening of the regular spring campaign is also care­ fully done (22.4-32.5). The arrival of Claudius Cento at Athens (22. 4-8) and at Chalchis (23) is balanced by Philip's arrival at ChaIchis (24. 1-3) and then at Athens (24.4-18). The contrast between the faithful ally protected and the faithful ally left to the mercy of the enemy (22. 5-7 and 24. 5) is pointed and explicit. The sequence is completed by an account of Philip's failure to enlist Achaean support (25) and his return to the attack on Athens and Attic territory (26). 37 After a brief account of the exploits of L. Apustius (27) and a review of the allies and plans of both sides (28) 36 Livy omits the reasons Polybius gives for Philip's siege ( 1 6 . 2 9 . 1 -2), the account of the location and the topography of Abydus (29.3-14), Polybius' introductory remarks on the general nature and fame of the siege (30. 1-3), and his comparison of the Abydeni with the Phocians and Acarnanians (32. 1 —6) ; he compresses all of Polybius' 16. 33 into six lines (3;. 17. 10 -11). The comparison with Saguntum is added at the start and at the end (17.5, 18-9), with rabies as the leitmotif (17.5, 17.10, 18.6). By tripartite structure I mean that the course of a siege is interrupted before the denoue­ ment by a digression or special episode—chiefly of course to heighten suspense and delay the ending. Compare the siege of Leucas at 33. iy. 3-15 (based on Polybius), which is interrupted after the siege is underway by an excursus on the topography of the site (17.5-8). It is difficult to believe that in Polybius it appeared at this point rather than at the start. Livy dispensed with Polybius' description of the topography of Abydus; the meeting of Philip with Aemilius was sufficient for the "interruption." The siege of Saguntum (21. 7. 1 -15.2), the most famous and well developed in Livy's history (and perhaps archetypal as well), is broken into three phases, punctuated b y the speeches of Hanno (10.1-11.2) and of Alorcus (12. 3-13.9). See P. G. Walsh, RhM 97 (1954) 97" 100·, idem, Livy 196. 37 Philip's failure in every attempt at strategem, surprise, and cleverness is emphasized throughout: he could not prevent the sack of Chalcis (24.3), he failed to take Athens by surprise or assault (24.4-18), he could not win over the Achaeans (25.8); even when attacking Athens in concert with his general Philocles, to say noth­ ing of Eleusis (26.3-12), he fails; the leitmotif of ira and furor re­ inforces the theme (24. 11, 12, 18; 26.11, 1 3 ) .

HVY

the high point at mid-book is reached with the conference of the Aetolian League. At the same time there are some odd structural features. Chief among them is the transition to res Graeciae at 14. 15, based on a Roman source; the phrases secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus, longis navibus, and in Macedoniam traiecit strongly suggest the identification.38 The source described the Athenian plea for help in lifting Philip's siege and the dispatch of C. Claudius Cento to Athens cum viginti longis navibus et mille militum. It was this piece of information in a Roman source that was the signal to Livy to switch over to Polybius' more detailed account of these same events. The narrative at 14. 4 if. is therefore based on the Greek historian.39 Livy begins by assuring us that Philip was not personally engaged in the siege of Athens, but rather in that of Abydus, and that al­ though he had not fared well in two previous naval engage38 Briscoe {Comm. 10 n. 4, 172) believes that in Macedoniam is not necessarily a sign of Roman origin; Livy could be expressing Polybian material in a Roman manner. This is possible but unlikely: no passage shows this to have been the case, while most that have the phrase in Macedonian1 betray additional signs of coming from a Roman source. Compare 3/. 14.2 (R: Sulpicius . . . in Macedoniam traiecit) with 3/.22.4 (P: consul alter cum , . . in provinciam venisset, circa Apolloniant hibernabat)—both referring to the same event; or 32.3.1 (R: P. Villius in Macedoniam cum venisset) with 32.6. ι (P: consul . . . cum Corcyrae hibernasset)—both also referring to the same situation. Other passages deriving from Polybius such as 32. 9.6, 42.49. 9-10 and 44. 1. 3-4 also have exact place names. Contrast these with 44.22.17 (R: et consul et praetor Cn. Octavius in Maeedoniam profecti sunt) and the report based on Polybius of the same event (30.1): consul Aentilius in Macedonian?, Octavius Oreu?n ad classem—Paullus' destination being the Roman camp at the Elpeus River, which was inside Aiacedonian territory. 39 Briscoe (Comm. 94) is right, I think, in maintaining that 14.4-5 (possibly 14.3 as well) is a general summary of the situation in the East based on Polybius (i.e. it was not copied or derived from one specific passage in the Greek historian) and that Livy may have tailored some of the information to make it fit with the preceding Roman version.

BOOKS 31-35

ments against Rhodes and Attalus, ferocia insita as well as his recent agreement with Antiochus to carve up the king­ dom of the new boy-king of Egypt gave him high hopes for the future. There follows a flashback (14. 6-18. 9) giv­ ing some of the earlier events of the year in the East (based on Polybius) and bringing the reader up to the point of departure—Philip's siege of Abydus and the consul's arrival in Greece (18.8-9): Philippus imposito Abydi praesidio in regnum rediit. . . . Nuntii occurrerunt consulem iam in Epiro esse et Apolloniam terrestres copias, navales Corcyram in hiberna deduxisse. At this point one looks for a continua­ tion of events in the East; there was much to tell about the activities of Claudius Cento, Philip, and the consul (22. 4 through 27. ι or 32. 5) prior to the earliest days of the fol­ lowing spring (33. 2: principio veris, cf. 28. 3). Livy instead inserts here three and a half chapters based on a Roman source (19. 1-22. 3): a report on the success of the legation sent to Africa (continued from 11. 12), a dispute over the triumph of the Spanish governor, and the successes of the praetor L. Furius in Gaul (continued from 11. 3, to be con­ cluded at 47. 6-7). This done, he resumes his account of Eastern events at the point where he had left it at 14. 1-4 and again at 18. 9. The transition is clearly marked: Consul alter cum autiimno jerme exacto in provinciam venisset, circa Apolloniam hibernabat. Ab classe, quae Corcyrae subducta erat, C. Claudius triremesque Romanae, sicut ante dic­ tum est, Athenas missae . . . (22. 4-5). Thus we can see that Livy's Roman source recorded East­ ern events during the consulate of P. Sulpicius Galba at a fairly early point in its narrative (i.e. answering to 14. 1-5). It is doubtful that it recorded events that had occurred earlier in Greece during 200, since the dispatch of Claudius Cento to Athens is given as the first order of business.40 The 4 0 Some

or all of

the following events as recorded by Polybius

may have been part of the Roman historian's subsequent account: Claudius' activities at (31.22.4-23.12),

Athens and his surprise

Philip's arrival at Chalcis and

assault

on Chalcis

assault on Athens

LIVY

arrangement of material in this Roman source was therefore simpler than that in Livy- After the vote to war and the accompanying ceremonies, the source followed Sulpicius to the East and recounted events there during his consular (and perhaps his proconsular) year; the source concluded the year 200 with activities in Gaul (of the praetor Furius 1 fol­ lowed by those of the consul Aurelius) and in Rome; that is, the materials in 19. 1-22. 3 and 47.4-49. 12 were given together in a continuous narrative. This simple arrangement (Roman material—the East—Roman material) is commonly found elsewhere in Livy (e.g. in the years 199, 198, 197,

194)· It is also clear that Livv is responsible for the division of the Polybian material into two parts and for the division of the Roman material that remained after 14. 3 also into two parts. His reason seems clear. Sulpicius did not arrive in his provincia until the end of autumn, and he went immediately into winter quarters. And because Liw had read ahead both in his Roman source(s) and in Polybius, he knew that he ought to include a flashback to at least some of the events in Greece that occurred before the consul's arrival, and that certain other events which took place elsewhere and which the Roman source placed after the arrival of Sulpicius in Greece must logically have occurred before it: e.g. the vic­ tories of the praetor Furius in Gaul. Here, then, is one rea­ son why Livy did not at once continue with Eastern events after the flashback based on Polybius at 14.4-18.9. He wanted to narrate the year's events in an order closer to the one in which they must have occurred: i.e. to make better chronological sense. It was Polybius' dating of the consul's arrival to the end of autumn that prompted him to make these changes (18, 9, 22. 4). (24), his failure to secure Achaean support (25), and his further at­ tacks in concert with Philocles on Attic territory (26). Klotz, on the other hand ( Livitts 3, but cf. 27), believes that the source gave few additional details or episodes- nihil memorabile gessit. He may be right.

BOOKS

There was another reason. In the long section from 22. 4 to 47. 3 Livy gives a continuous account not only of res Graeciae of the winter of 200, but also of those of the spring and summer of 199. Since all of this material was to be grouped together, he had to reserve it to as late a point as possible in the account of the year 200. Some believe that he was oblivious of the time-lapse and hence unaware that he had included events of 199 in his account of 200. 41 But this belief is questionable in light of the careful recording of the passing of the seasons in sections dependent on Polybius: the end of autumn at 22.4; winter quarters at 18.9, 22.4, and 28. 3; the beginning of spring at 33. 2; summer activities at 44. ι and 47. 3; the approach of the autumn equinox at 47. i. Polybius used no word for autumn; it will not do to picture a barely conscious Livy mechanically reproducing from Polybius phrases such as those at 22. 4 and 47. i. 42 On the other hand, at 47. 4, when moving from events in Greece of 199 to those in Gaul of 200, he makes no acknowledg­ ment of the transition. But when one tries to imagine what he could say by way of explanation, his reluctance to men­ tion the problem is understandable. Only a lengthy, involved paragraph could do justice to the difficulties he found in merging his Roman source (s) and their consular dating with Polybius and his reckoning by Olympiads. Rarely, and only for major cruces, such as at 21. 15.3-6 and 38. 56-57, was Livy willing to disfigure his narrative with such interrup­ tions. There are several probable reasons for the inclusion of events in the East of 199 with the account of the year 200. The first concerns the start of the Roman consular year, which Livy knew took place in this period on March 15th (5.2, cf. 32. i. r). But it is doubtful whether he or his Roman source also knew that the Roman calendar was ap­ proximately a month and a half behind at this time 43 and See Klotz, Livius 4. Cf. Briscoe, Comm. 2-3, 115. Pedech, Methode 461-464; Walbank, Comm. 1, 257; 2, 529. 43 The solar eclipse of March 14, 190 (Julian) is dated by Livy 41

42 See

LIVY

that the entrance of the consuls of 200 into office on March 15th in fact took place in late January, reckoning by the Julian calendar. 4 1 Hence Livy would naturally suppose that the winter events described at 22. 4 to 27. 1 (or 32. 5) would fall within the consular year 200. The difficulty was know­ ing at just what point in Polybius' continuous narrative the Roman consular year of 199 began: a pretty problem (today as then). 45 Polybius' terminology did not help, since he seldom differentiated magistracy from promagistracy. Thus Livy styles Sulpicius consul throughout (33.4, 37. 1, 38. 10, 39. i, 40. 6, 47. 3); only later and in a passage based on a Roman source is he acknowledged as proconsul (32. 1. 12). Livy wisely refrained from making what would have been the arbitrary decision of assigning the start of the consular year 199 to a point of his choosing within the Polybian nar­ rative. He gives chronology its due by noting the passing of the seasons; for the rest, the presence and command of Sulpicius gave unity and coherence to the whole of 22.447.3. Another consideration may have entered. Cynoscephalae was to begin the central book of the pentad and the peace with Philip was to stand in the middle of that book. If Livy had broken the Polybian narrative at, say, 27. ι or 32. 5, he would have had to recount the start of 199, if not the whole of that year, in Book 31. This would have left even less material for 32, which, as it stands, is the shortest of the extant books. (37-4.4) to July I i (Roman): a gap of 1 1 7 days: see E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (London 1968) 46. This was caused by a failure to intercalate during the 190s, as P. Marchetti (AC 4 2 [ 1 9 7 3 ] 4 7 3 - 4 9 6 ) and P. S. Derow (Phoenix 3 0 [ 1 9 7 6 ] 265-281) show, basing their argument largely on the dating for the year 2 0 3 provided by Polybius at 14. 2 - 1 0 and by Ovid, Fasti 6 . 7 6 3 - 7 7 0 . - il Derow, Phoenix 3 0 ( 1 9 7 6 ) 2 6 5 - 2 8 1 , fixes Mar. i j , 2 0 1 (Roman) at Feb. 3 , 2 0 1 (Julian) and Mar. 1 5 , 2 0 0 (Roman) at Jan. 2 4 , 2 0 0 (Julian). 45 He might profitably have employed the device he used later in describing Cn. Manlius' activities in Asia (3S. 3 7 . 1): Hienie ea, qua haec Romae gesta sunt, ad Cn. Manlium consulem primum, dein pro consule, hibernantem in Asia, legationes . . . conveniebant.

BOOKS

S l ~S5

Livy's Roman source placed the vote for war and Sulpicius' departure for Greece at an early point in its narrative of the year 200. In fact, the entire burden of this account is that the events from the Senate's vote in favor of war to the consul's arrival in Macedoniam formed a unitary se­ quence that was pushed on urgently and rapidly by Senate and magistrates. It began toward the end of 201, when com­ plaints of several allies, especially Athens, prompted the dispatch of an investigative force. Its report was alarming: Philip was making vast preparations for war by land and sea. The report opportunely arrived in time to be read at the meeting of the Senate on the first day of the new consular year; the first order of business of that body was a decree in favor of war (5. 2). Events follow one after the other with no indication of undue delay: sortitio, rogatio, rejec­ tion by the comitia, speech of the consul urging acceptance, vote for war, consultation of the fetial priests, assignment of military forces, and vows (5-9). Further events (Gallic tumultus, embassy to Africa, and religious matters, including prodigies) are represented as almost simultaneous with those described before, since 14. 1 picks up at the point where 9. 10 leaves off: Tum P. Sulpicius secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus ab urbe Brundisium venit et . . . altero die quarn a Brundisio solvit in Macedoniam traiecit. Ibi ei praesto fuere Atheniensium legati orantes ut se obsidione eximeret. Missus extemplo Athenas est C. Claudius Cento cum viginti longis navibus et mille militum. In short, the Roman account depicted a series of events that follow quickly upon one another; there is no hint here of long intervals; in fact, they are rather precluded. Note that the Roman source had yet to describe events of the summer of 200 in Gaul, Africa, and Rome (19-22). Of course recruitment of legions, discharge of veterans, and enlistment of volunteers required time for completion be­ fore actual embarkation (31. 8. 5-6, 9. 5, 14. 1-2); but there is no suggestion of a significant delay. Polybius, on the other hand, reported that the consul arrived at the end of autumn and at once went into winter quarters (18. 9, 22. 4). It was

LIVY

this fact, as we have seen, that prompted Livy to shift about his material in order better to reconcile the Roman and the PoIybian versions. Two other chronological problems should be mentioned here. First, the much discussed and puzzling embassy of C. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus, and P. Sempronius Tuditanus was, according to a Roman source, sent out late in 201 to visit King Ptolemy (31. 2, 3-4). But according to Polybius by April-May of 200 it had only reached Athens, evidently having taken over two months to visit Phoenice, Athamania, Naupactus, and Aegium en route (Pol. 16. 2527, esp. 27. 4). 46 While at Athens it delivered an ultimatum to Nicanor, Philip's general, who was ravaging Attic terri­ tory. From Athens it took another four months for the embassy to reach Rhodes, since it was from there around the month of September that Aemilius sailed to Abydus to deliver the Roman ultimatum to Philip in person (Pol. 16. 29-35, Livy S 1 · 17-18 [P])· 47 Second, the ravaging of Attica by Philip and his generals. According to the Roman source (31. 1. 10), it had begun by late 201 and was again going on early in 200 (5. 6) as well as after the formal war vote (9. 3); on the other hand, according to Polybius (16. 25-26) it was not until the spring of 200 that at the urg­ ing of Attalus Athens was prevailed upon to vote for war. The invasion of Nicanor followed (Pol. 16. 27-28) and then that of Philocles (Livy 3/. 16. r-2 [P]), 48 and was still in progress when the Athenians appealed to Sulpicius on his 46 See 47

Walbank, Comm. 2, 538.

This is Walbanlc's reconstruction, Philip V of Macedon (Cam­

bridge 1940; repr. with a new Foreword 1967) 315 and n. 5. It may be, however, that from Athens the embassy went straight on to visit Ptolemy and Antiochus, as Polybius says (16. 27.5), and that Rhodes was a stopover on their return trip. Such a journey could be com­ pleted between the ultimatum to Nicanor and the siege of Abydus. That Nicanor was a subordinate of Philocles and that the two invasions are doublets is possible but not likely: see Walbank, Comm. 43

2, 536-537; Briscoe, Comm. 44, 100.

BOOKS S 1 SS

arrival in Greece later that autumn (Livy 5/. 14. 3 [R], 22. 5 [P]).

In all these cases the nature and cause of the problem are the same: Roman dating at the start in combination with Polybian dating at the end. It is only from Polybius that we know Sulpicius arrived in late autumn of 200 and went im­ mediately into winter quarters. It is only from Polybius that we hear of the embassy traveling to Athens and to Rhodes: in the Roman version Egypt was the destination. And it is only from Polybius that we hear that relief by the Romans arrived late in the year 200. The Roman account mentions none of these things. On the contrary: taken on its own terms, it presents the Senate's vote for war, the first rejec­ tion by the people, the consul's speech, the second vote, the preparations for war, and Sulpicius' arrival in Greece as occurring in swift succession and as the first sequence of events in the consular year 200. Sulpicius' arrival in Greece and the aid he sent to Athens were narrated before the events of the summer of 200. This account suggests that Livy's Roman source did not know of the late arrival of the consul—quite the reverse, in fact. The cause of this ignorance, moreover, is that often it had no information about the dating of events within the consular year. The account based on Roman sources of the following two years, 199 and 198, confirms the hypoth­ esis. The year 199 follows the same pattern as 200. That is, the consul received the provincia of Macedonia by sortition on his first day of office {32. 1. 1 ff.). After Livy recounts briefly the sort of annalistic material usually placed at the start of a new year, such as the assignment of provinces, division of military forces, prodigies, and reception of embassies by the Senate, the consul Villius is reported as arriving in Macedoniam and as taking over the province from SuIpicius (32. 3. 2). As in 200, no date is given for his arrival, but since it comes early in the narrative, the natural and intended impression is that it came early in the year. The impression is strengthened when, after Villius' activities are

LIVY

disposed of, events in Rome and Italy, and then the actions of the other consul in Gaul, are related. It is only from Polybius (Livy 32. 6. 1 [P]) that we hear that Villius, like Sulpicius, arrived in the East so late in the year that he went at once into winter quarters. Next, the year 198. Polybius reported that Quinctius Flamininus, unlike his two predeces­ sors, arrived in Greece early in his year of office (32.9.6 [P]): that is, in early to mid-spring. Not only was the Roman version unaware of this fact, but it appears actually to imply the reverse: that is, that Flamininus arrived rather later in his year than his two predecessors had in theirs. At the start of the year 197 we read in Livy this review from his Roman source of the previous three years of warfare: "Sulpicius had spent the greater part of his year of office in seeking an opportunity to engage the king and his army; Villius had been recalled while actually engaging the enemy but before he could reach a decision; Quinctius had been detained in Rome for the greater part of his year of office, attending to his religious duties." 48 The evidence is clear. Not only did Livy's Roman source not know in what part of a consular year these Eastern events occurred, but when faced with having to set them in some context, the source made three wrong guesses out of three. I believe that this ignorance may account for the fabrica­ tion that Valerius Antias concocted for the year 199. Ac­ cording to Polybius (32.6. 1-4 [P]), the consul Villius had arrived in Greece so late in 199 that he went at once into winter quarters; in early spring of 198 he moved his troops into the Aous valley where Philip had deployed his forces; but before he could engage the king, Flamininus arrived and took over the command. Livy remarks that all the Greek and Roman writers that he had consulted, with the exception of

Antias, reported

that

Villius did

nothing

32.28.5-6: quaerendo regem et exercitum etus Sulpicium maioreni partem anni absumpsisse; Villium congredientem cum hoste infecta re revocatum; Quinctium rebus divinis Romae maiorem partem anni retentum. 49

books 3/-35

worthy of note during his tenure of command.50 Valerius, on the other hand, described in detail a great battle in which Villius defeated Philip and took the king's camp by storm. Now Valerius' mendacity is well known.51 But it is less clear why he tended to fabricate as he appears to have done. In this instance we can see a possible reason. He believed that Villius arrived in Greece fairly early in his year of office. But then came a hiatus: no activities were reported. Villius and Philip apparently sat facing each other in the Aous valley month after month doing nothing. Horror vacui temporis affected the sensibilities of Antias (after all, they must have done something). This thought stimulated his creative impulse, and he met the challenge fully. He not only dreamed up a great battle and described with gusto the storming of the king's camp, but, in characteristic fashion, appended the following statistics: 12,000 enemy died and 2,200 were captured, along with 132 standards and 230 horses.52 This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the vexed problem of the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War. It is enough to point out that the chronology of events that Livy's Roman source gave is demonstrably in error on some major points, since no one would quarrel with the premise 32.6.8: Ceteri Graeci Latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego Iegi annates, nihil memorabile a Villio actum integrumque bellum insequentem consulem T. Quinctium accepisse tradunt. The tradition upon which Pausanias (7.7.8-9, 10. 36.6) drew for his account of Villius (whom he calls Otdlius) is unknown; he credits him with destroying Hestiaea in Euboea and Anticyra in Phocis. The former (=Oreus) was taken by L. Apustius in 199 (31.46.6-16), the latter by Flamininus in 198 (3.2.18.4-6). His account, then, is wholly garbled. 51 Nullus mentiendi modus est, Livy exclaims on one occasion: .25.49.3. 5^The reason why Antias alone and (presumably) no other his­ torian felt the need to invent things for Villius to do cannot be known. Doubtless the greater scale and richer detail of his history (with the exception of that of Cn. Gellius) may have made Antias especially aware of the "hiatus" in this instance. SD

LIVY

that the Polybian dating must form the basis of any recon­ struction. The differences among scholarly interpretations reduce essentially to how much trust one is willing to put in the information of Livy's Roman sources. Some, such as Nissen, Petzold, Walbank, McDonald, and Broughton, take a dim view of most of it; others, such as Balsdon, Bickermann, and Briscoe—while admitting there are shortcomings here and there—are willing to accept much more.55 The allegiance of the present writer is to the first group; as we have it in Livy, the Roman account is incomplete and gravely defective. First, it separates sharply the events in the East from those in Rome: for example, there is nothing in it concerning the recent death of Ptolemy IV Philopator, the accession of his young son Ptolemy V Epiphanes, or the alleged pact between Philip and Antiochus to divide up between themselves Ptolemaic possessions outside Egypt.54 Most scholars believe that all this was suppressed for various patriotic or blinkered reasons; they work on the assumption that the Roman historians in fact knew of the tradition we find in Polybius. But did they? More consideration should be given to the possibility that their omissions occurred not by calculation and design but out of ignorance: i.e. that they may not have known about the late dating of the PoIybian tradition and that their own early dating was based more on a desire to begin a year artistically with its most important event rather than because they had sure informa53 Nissen, KU 119 ff.; Petzold, Erofftiung passim; Walbank, Philip V 306-317; idem, Comm. 2, 497-515, 533-544; A. H. McDonald and F. W. Walbank, JRS 27 (1937) 180-207; MRR 1, 322, n. 3 and 4; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS 44 (1954) 30-42; E. J. Bickermann, RPh 61 (1935) 59-81, 161-176; idem, CPh 40 (1945) 137-148; Briscoe, Comm. 36-47, 49-139. C. P. T. Naude, Pro Munere Grates, Studies Presented to H. L. Gonin (Pretoria 1971) 127-141, believes that the Roman account may be due not so much to later fabrication as to contemporary propaganda; his views are not convincing, particularly his identification of Livy's source as the Annales Maximi. 54 Compare 31. 2.3-4 an ^ 9- 1 S (R) w ' r h 1 4 . 5 (P).

BOOKS 31-35

tion about the true sequence of events.55 It should at least give us pause that it is only from them that we learn that the Senate's war resolution and the first vote of the comitia occurred at the start of the year. This is not to say that these events did not take place then, but the assertation that they did deserves at least critical examination.

A final problem in Book 3 1 concerns the passage at 14. 1115.8, adapted from PoIybius (16. 25-26). The subject is the meeting of Roman ambassadors, King Attalus, and legates from Rhodes at Athens in the spring of 200, the warm reception accorded them (especially Attalus), and the Athenian vote for war. Livy reproduced the episode fully, but omitted all mention of the presence of the Romans. Shortly thereafter he also cut out of his account the invasion of Attica by Nicanor, Philip's general, and the ultimatum delivered to him by these same ambassadors (Pol. 16.2η). Scholars have naturally been puzzled by these omissions and have been hard pressed to explain them. 55 Note that the appeal of an allied Athens (31.5.8; 9.3, 4) for Roman help late in 201 and again on the first day of consular 200, the dispatch of Valerius Laevinus with thirty-eight ships to the East in late 2or, and the report that he and the legate M. Aurelius made to the Senate on Philip's preparations for war are the chief props to this early dating. One or all of them may be true, although some scholars regard them as outright fictions (cf. Walbank, Philip V 127 and 11. 7; MRR 1, 322 n. 3). Instructive, too, is Sulpicius' speech to the comitia (31. 7 [R]): if the Romans do not act at once, the argument runs, Philip, like Hannibal, will bring the war to Italy rather than the Romans the war overseas into enemy terri­ tory, and if Athens, the faithful ally who was under siege and in­ voicing the fides of Rome, were not helped at once, another "Saguntum" would result. Athens, of course, was not under siege, but this is how the Roman tradition represented it, doubtless under the in­ fluence of the exemplum Saguntinum. A strong secondary theme is that of Philip as a potential second Pyrrhus about to invade Italy: 3 .6 (Aurelius' letter to the Senate), 7. 8-1 r (Sulpicius' speech). Cf. Petzold, Eroffnung 55, 78-79.

LIVY

Holleaux believed Livyr began Book 5/ according to a Roman version that made Rome Athens' chief ally and source of support, but that later, when he began adapting Polybius, it dawned on him—too late—that the rather cool reception accorded to the Roman legates at Athens did not square with the Roman version that he had already put on paper.56 This explanation, however, gives more credit to Liw's ability as a source critic than most scholars are will­ ing to grant. Hence De Sanctis proposed that the rather shabby treatment given the Romans at Athens did not square with Livy's conception of "la grandezza di Roma." 57 But this suggestion in turn gives too little credit to Liw's will­ ingness to improve on his sources when Romans did not appear in a sufficiently favorable light. Yet both Holleaux and De Sanctis, as Balsdon has pointed out, 58 have misread Polybius: the Romans in fact were given a good reception (16. 25. 6); moreover, the explanation of neither scholar ac­ counts for the omission of the Nicanor episode. Another explanation is that Livy saw the chronological inconsistency concerning the dispatch of the Roman embassy to Egypt in late 201 and its appearance in Athens in 200—apparently still on its way to its destination.59 The hypothesis is not persuasive. Holleaux anticipated it by pointing to 18. i,eo where Livy shows his willingness to include the presence of the embassy in the Aegean in 200: Ante deditionem [sc. Abydenorum] ex Hs legatis Romanis qui Alexandream rmssi 56 Holleaux, Etudes 5, — 22 (1920) 91-92; CAH 8 (1930) 161 n. 2, 163. ^Storia dei Romani 42 (Florence 1969) 31 n. 65. 5 8 JRS 44 (1954) 40-41. 59 Walsh, Livy 148-149. A related theory is that since the Roman source said the embassy was sent to Alexandria, Livy felt he must make his version of Polybius' account consistent with this mission: McDonald and Walbank, JRS 27 (1937) 190 n. 63; cf. Walbank, Comm. 2, 534, 536-537. The ensuing discussion will show that I favor this view, although not in quite the same sense nor for the same reasons. 60 REzi 22 (1920) 92 η. i.

BOOKS ^/-5J

erant Μ. Aemilius trium consensu, minimus natu, audita obsidione Abydenorum ad Philippum venit. Balsdon's belief is that Livy did not regard the presence of the legates at Athens or their activities there as of first importance. But, as Walsh remarks, "from a Roman viewpoint they were of greater interest than the Athenian reception of Attalus." 61 Most recently Briscoe has proposed a different theory:® 2 the omissions are an effort to suppress the miscalculation of the Senate in anticipating the vote of the comitia to go to war; the ultimatum given by the legates to Nicanor occurred before the comitia had passed in favor of the war resolu­ tion. Either Livy made the changes on his own initiative or he read a Roman writer who had done so, and, suitably impressed, decided to combine this interpretation as best he could with what he read in Polybius. Briscoe inclines to the second alternative. 63 But in order for the unknown Roman historian to be motivated to make such changes, he must have known of the late dating in Polybius. Yet no one has yet produced a convincing argument to show that any of Livy's Roman sources used Polybius or the Polybian tradition 64 or that the changes Livy made in adapting PolybJRS 4 4 ( 1 9 5 4 ) 4 0 - 4 1 ; Walsh, Livy 1 4 8 - 1 4 9 . Comm. 3 6 - 4 7 , esp. 4 6 - 4 7 . 6 3 Comm. 4 7 : "It follows that chapters 1 4 - 1 8 are neither annalistic nor Polybian. They are L.'s own reworking of two discordant ac­ counts." That is, Livy has produced a conflation. Briscoe {Comm. 42, ioj ) believes that two changes in chapter 18 are especially sig­ nificant (both concern Aemilius Lepidus' meeting with Philip during the siege of Abydus): in Polybius the decision of the legates to confront Philip was made under orders of the Senate (/5.54 . 2 κατά τα? έντολά;), in Livy by mutual agreement {trium consensu·. 18. 1); second, Livy omits Lepidus' reference to Athens because of the earlier omission of the legates' role at Athens. Yet the siege of Abydus, which occurred around September, took place after the comitia's vote for war on almost any reckoning (including Briscoe's, who puts it in March or April: Comm. 45 and n. 1). Hence there was no need for "adjusting" the facts here: the ultimatum had the sanction of both Senate and people behind it. 84 Briscoe, Comm. 8, says that the case "can . . . be argued," yet neither his own example nor the opinion of Gelzer he cites (Gno81Balsdon,

62

LIVY

ius were patterned after those of an intermediate source. Most damaging to the theory, however, is the Roman version as we see it in Livy. Most modern reconstructions of the events of 200 postulate a gap of some three to four months between the comitia's first vote and its second. The time lag that bothers Briscoe, however, would not have bothered Livy's Roman source, for that source represented the two votes as taking place in rather quick succession. The impres­ sion is that all these events occurred early in the year; there would be no difficulty in having the legates at Athens issue the ultimatum to Nicanor on hearing of the war vote in Rome. The difficulty that Briscoe feels was not a difficulty felt by Livy's Roman source. The failure of so many good scholars to reach even the glimmering of a consensus suggests that the problem may be insoluble. Certainly anyone who proposes still other solu­ tions should do so with diffidence; it is in this spirit that the present writer offers the following observations. All explanations proposed to date assume that Livy under­ stood the basic facts of the Roman and Polybian traditions, and that, based on this knowledge, he made the changes he did. His motive, however, is the stumbling block: no ex­ planation suffices. Yet the assumption that he understood all the facts might be mistaken; ignorance rather than knowledge may provide an answer. All assume that the legates at Athens were in fact C. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus, and P. Sempronius Tuditanus; most also assume that their embassy at Pol. 16. 25-34 i s t ^ e same as that at Livy 3/.2. 3-4 (R). 65 They are most probably correct. But mon 18 [1942] 226 = Kleitie Schriften [Wiesbaden 1964] 3, 275} provides a convincing instance. Briscoe further states (Comm. 8 n. 4) that the arguments of Klotz (SIFC 25 [1951] 243-265) "only show that it cannot be proved that they did"—which, in the circum­ stances, is as strong a case as has been made to date. 65 H. H. Scullard, A History of the Rornan World from 7y_j to 146 B.C. 3 (London 1 ςκ5r) 232 η. 3, suggests that there may have been two embassies, one in 201 and the other in 200, each with the same personnel.

BOOKS 31-35

note that no names and no identification appear in the Polybian text as we have it. If this was true also of the full text that Livy had before him, he may have found himself wholly in the dark. Who were these legates, when were they sent out, and what was their mission? He had no idea, and he could not very well mention their presence without some sort of identification. It would not occur to him to equate this embassy with the one mentioned in his Roman source; the latter, after all, was sent out in a different year, to a dif­ ferent destination, and for a different purpose. Later on he might have suspected the answer, when he came to the Abydus episode. Here Polybius identified the embassy by naming one of its members (16. 34); Livy promptly made the connection (qui Alexandream missi erant). Still, he would probably assume that the legates were on their way back from Alexandria, if he assumed anything. That they were the same legates as those who had been in Athens some months earlier would by no means be certain in his mind, or even likely to occur to him. One wonders, however, about his reading of PoIybius' res Italiae for 201/0 (Olympiad 144/3). For there is no doubt that Livy read it and that in it Polybius recorded the sending of the embassy—although its purpose would have been different and possibly the date of its dispatch as well. Res Italiae for 201/0 doubtless came shortly before—perhaps immediately before—res Graeciae. 68 This fact would ex­ plain why Polybius in his res Graeciae did not bother to name the legates or identify the embassy: he had just given an account of its dispatch shortly before. Moreover, Livy PoIybius reports events of each theater in "a fixed order, which is only rarely broken" (Walbank, Comm. 1, 1): Italy, Sicily, Spain, Africa, Greece and Macedonia, Asia and Egypt. There was ap­ parently little, if anything, to report in Sicily, Spain, and Africa in this year. Cf. Polybius' comments on the dispatch to Rome of a Rhodian embassy in 169: 28. ιό. 5—11 states the fact of its dispatch, while earlier at 28. 2 (res ltaliae) their reception in Rome had been recorded. A similar example is at /j. 25. 13, 19: cf. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley 1972) π ι . e6

LIVY

had read this account: at 30. 45. 4-5 he cites from the res Italiae of 201/0. But that was at the close of the previous decade. In the preface to Book 31 Livy tells us that he breathed a sigh of relief when at long last he finished his account of the First and Second Punic wars; in fact, he likens himself to a man drowning in the vastness of his undertaking (_?/. 1. 1-5). If ever a passage points to an author's having taken a wellearned vacation between major parts of his work, this is it. Hence, although he had read Polvbius' res Italiae for 201/0 before he wrote 31. 15-16, it had been sometime in the past and done with an eve to finishing off his account of the war with HannibaL li7 In beginning to write Book 3/ he would probably pick up Polybius at the point where he had left off, and so when he came upon the presence of these Roman ambassadors in Athens he was at a loss as to who they were. Unable to identify them and unwilling to in­ clude them without identification, he chose to drop them altogether. This hypothesis, of course, is based on the premise that the actual names of the legates were not given by Polybius in this section of his res Graeciae·, certainly they do not appear in the two sizable extracts preserved to us. The theory would also seem to presuppose that when Livy reached 14. 6 ff. he did not go back to review Polybius' account of the embassy's dispatch. Yet even if he had done so, he would have been faced with two accounts of an embassy that disagreed about its date, purpose, and destina­ tion—on everything, in fact, save the personnel. Nor is it reasonable to expect that our modern preferences would or should have been his; in his eyes Polybius was good but not infallible, while his Roman sources deserved nearly as Livy cites Polybius for a detail concerning Scipio Africanus' triumph (30.45.5 = Pol. 16.23). The mention of the Insubres (40.4) and Mantua (40.7) in Book 16 of Polybius probably answers to Livy 31. 10. ι ff. (R). See Walbank, Comm. 2, 547. 67

BOOKS ^l - $ J

much respect as did the Greek historian."8 Uncertainty as to which version was correct would explain why he decided to retain the Roman account at 2, 3-4, while adding as much from the Polybian as did not contradict or clash with it. He did a patchwork job, in other words, and probably regarded it as rather successful. A lengthy aside about the divergent accounts (which would have disfigured an other­ wise impressive account of the opening of a great war) was thereby avoided. Credit had been given to both sources —or at least as much as was possible without becoming mired in lengthy explanations. Then, too, the ultimatum at Abydus, not that at Athens, was the decisive act; the earlier preliminaries could be dispensed with without undue dis­ tortion. In proposing these two alternate explanations I am admit­ tedly asking to have things both ways: that is, Livy may have been genuinely in the dark because he did not go back to reread Polybius' account of the embassy's dispatch, or, if he did reread the account, he would have been unsure as to which of the two versions he had before him was correct, and so would decide to include as much of both of them as would fit together. The first explanation may seem to involve an excessive lack of curiosity or enterprise on his part. But the situation is not unparalleled elsewhere in the history.69 Note, too, that Livy had read the Polybian passage in question (30.45. 5): he may have felt no need to look into something again that he had taken account of earlier. As for the second possibility, a number of cases will be cited in the ensuing chapters showing that the procedure imagined for him here is similar in aims and method to other instances where he had to combine the divergent accounts of Polybius and his Roman sources. 68 See

the discussion on pp. 147-150. example, 4.23.2-3, where he reports that both Aelius Tubero and Licinius Macer cite the libri lintei for opposing facts; yet he himself will not consult them to see which authority is correct: Sit inter cetera vetustate cooperta hoc quoque in incerto positwm. 69 For

LIVY CONCLUSIONS

The present chapter has argued that in attempting to give structure to whole books and to pentads Livy selected cer­ tain major events for special presentation. They might be a speech, a pair of speeches, or a conference that involved a number of speeches; major events such as the opening of a war, a battle, or a peace settlement might also be chosen. These he usually placed at the start, middle, or end of books. This kind of structure meant that the intervening events had to be fitted into the spaces remaining. Particularly striking in 31-35 are instances where Livy was faced with a comparative shortage of material; for these he seems to have included almost everything he could find—sometimes re­ sorting to outright padding. Less frequent in these books are examples where considerable abridgment was necessary in order to fit the material to the space allotted to it. An important aspect of Livy's methods of source adaptation is illustrated by the first half of Book 31. Here he was con­ fronted with the sort of situation that would become fre­ quent in the coming books: disagreement between Polybius and his Roman authorities. Particularly interesting is his attempt to combine as much of both as possible without be­ coming involved in outright contradictions or impossibilities. His aim was to salvage as much of each as he could bv judicious pruning, embroidery, or restructuring; when faced with an intractable residue, however, he appears simply to have left it out.

CHAPTER

III

Books 36-401

THE GENERAL DESIGN THE eighth pentad covers a period of thirteen years, from the opening of the war against Antiochus at the start of 191 to the death of Philip V and the accession of Perseus at the end of 179. The years are unevenly apportioned: one year for Book 36, one and a half for 37, two for 38, four and a half for 35», and four for 40. The chief theme of the first half of the pentad is the war against Antiochus. At what point to end the pentad was largely decided on the basis o f t h e d e s i g n t h a t L i v y c h o s e f o r t h e w h o l e o f 3 1 - 4 5 . Book 45 was to conclude with the year 167 and the triumph of Aemilius Paullus over Perseus. Taken together, the three pentads form a thematic unit: "The Conquest of the East" —the seventh opening with the declaration of war against Philip, the eighth with that against Antiochus, the ninth ending with the victory over Perseus. The period between the ratification of peace with Antiochus (middle of 38) and the opening of the war with Perseus (middle of 42) spans sixteen and a half years (mid-188 to the end of 172). The death of Philip and the accession of Perseus at the end of r 79 thus seem a logical, even irresistible, choice, since they divide the time period roughly in half and form a n a t u r a l t h e m a t i c p i v o t . F r o m t h e m i d d l e o f B o o k 3ρ ( 2 3 . 5 if.: 185 B.C.) the coming war with Perseus is repeatedly foreshadowed (see below), even though the outbreak does not take place for another thirteen years. 1 1 have not seen F. Kern, Aufbau und GedankengatTg der Bucher 36-45 des T. Livius (Diss. Kiel i960). Wille 1 Aiifbaii 17 ff., reports on some of its contents.

LIVY The structure of Books 36-4.0 has a number of parallels with that of Books 31-35. Both pentads open with the declaration of a great war: solemn, ritualistic, and in fulldress ceremony. In both the peace settlement is placed in the center of the central book (33. 30-35, 38. 37-39). In the remainder of each pentad Livy is concerned with setting the stage for the next major conflict; this in fact is his chief organizing device in these parts. The wars themselves are narrated according to a similar pattern. The first book of each pentad is devoted to the first

year of the war: res

Graeciae are put very early in the narrative, with res Galliae, conducted by the other consul, following, and both con­ cluding with elections for the next year. In the case of 36, the result is an extremely short book in comparison with those that follow: 43 pages in the Teubner text as opposed to 62 for Book 31, 64 for Book 38, and 55 each for Books 39 and 40 (36 is the second shortest of the extant books). The division between the second and third books of each pentad is also similar: a year is divided in two, with Polybius' account of the spring and summer campaigning in the East beginning the third book and with material from PoIybius and Roman authors concerning events of the win­ ter and early spring concluding the second

(32. 28-40,

57.48-56). The central book of each pentad also has the same format: at the start are Eastern events of a year begun in the previous book, in the center a full year and the final peace settlement, at the end half of the events of the fol­ lowing year (taken chiefly from Roman sources). A few of these parallels may be coincidental, but there are enough to suggest that most of it was the result of conscious plan­ ning.

BOOK 3 6 Book 3 6 contains a clear example of how Livv could write carefully and carelessly at the same time. The phenomenon is not infrequent in the history, but it is one, curiously, that

BOOKS 36-40

has been seldom discussed. On the one side are those who are convinced by the errors and carelessness that Livy had no firm notion of what was coming up next; for them the possibility of long-range planning and careful design is remote. On the other side are those whose enthusiasm for the fine writing of individual passages is such that they ignore or gloss over the defects. Yet both are characteristic of Livy's narrative and both need to be explained. The specific instance of carelessness in 36 concerns the twicerecorded ovatio of Fulvius Nobilior (21. 10-11, 39.1-2), most probably taken from the same source each time.2 The setting of the first notice permits us to divine something of Livy's working methods. He has just completed a full and lively account of the Battle of Thermopylae of 191, based on Polybius; after describing Antiochus' flight to Asia (21. 1-3), he tells us how the consul Acilius dispatched Cato to Rome to announce the victory. 3 The shift to Rome was a signal to Livy to consult a Roman source for these events.4 Cato, this source reported, went straight to the praetor M. Iunius, who called a meeting of the Senate early the next morning. L. Cornelius Scipio, who had been dis­ patched by the consul a few days before Cato—evidently also to report the news of the victory (aliquot die bus mite a consule dimissus·. 21.7), entered the Senate while Cato was in the middle of his report. The Senate voted that both 2 So A. Klotz, Hennes 50 (1915) 500-502; contra, Kahrstedt, Annalistik 89. There is no factual discrepancy, for example, concern­ ing the amounts of money deposited in the treasury—the sort of thing that his Roman sources tended to disagree on and Livy was prone to report. 3 The precise details of Cato's itinerary suggest Polybian author­ ship through section 5 of 36.21: Nissen KU 184. Contra, Klotz Livius 98; idem, Hennes 50 (>915) 501. 4Compare a similar shift later in the book at 35.8 ff. The em­ bassy of the Epirotes to Rome is clearly from Polybius (8-11), but the account of Philip's embassy sub idetn tempus (12-13) must be from a Roman source, since it does not square with the extant Polybian version (21. 3). See Nissen, KU 185-186.

LIVY

envoys should jointly make a public announcement de rebus in Aetolia gestis. A three-dav supplicatio was decreed, and the praetor was ordered to sacrifice forty hostiae maiores. Livy then reports the ovation of Nobilior, which occurred per eosdem dies, after which he turns back to Polybius in order to describe the subsequent actions of the consul Acilius in Aetolia (22-30). The context in which Livy read this notice about Nobilior in his Roman source was probably that which we find for the second notice. After adapting the whole of Polybius' res Graeciae for the year (5-35), Livy turned back to his Roman authorirv to narrate events that occurred after Acilius' departure from the city but before the other consul left for his province of Gaul. Games, temple dedica­ tions, and prodigies (36-37) come first, then victories of the proconsul Minucius in Liguria and of the consul Cornelius over the Boii (38). For the latter a supplicatio was decreed and a sacrifice of victimae maiores was ordered (38. 7). The second notice about Nobiliors ovation follows (39. 1-2). The report concerning the victory at Ther­ mopylae in the Roman source probably came just after the notice about the supplicatio for Cornelius and just before the one concerning the ovation of Nobilior (i.e. between 38.7 and 39· ι)· Thus, when Livv consulted his Roman source concerning Cato's report of the victory at Rome, he discovered the simultaneous appearance of L. Scipio (which apparently Polybius did not know of and did not report). Livy's eye also dropped to the next notice, which was probably introduced by per eosdem dies or a similar phrase and which concerned Nobilior. The synchronization, and perhaps the impulse of the moment, prompted him to add it, although it stands alone and oddly out of place in the midst of the surrounding Polybian material. More sur­ prising is that when he came to the same notice a second rime and when reading over what he had written he failed to notice the doublet. The coincidence of a supplicatio, hostiae maiores, and the

BOOKS 36-40

return of Nobilior at both 21.9-n and 38.7-39.2 caused Nissen to theorize that Livy was guilty of even greater care­ lessness: i.e. that L. Scipio was not the emissary of Acilius concerning the victory over Antiochus in Greece, but of Cornelius concerning his victory over the Boii in Gaul.® The hypothesis is strained, and does not account for the unlikely assumption that Livy mistook a report of a Gallic victory for one in the East. Scullard, on the other hand, in­ terprets the missions of Cato and L. Scipio as the result of rivalry between hostile political groups. 6 This interpreta­ tion is attractive in a number of ways, but does not explain why the privilege of reporting the victory was deemed important (as far as we know nothing resulted save a supplicatio and public sacrifice) or why Acilius would allow two different emissaries to report the same piece of news. Moreover, the manner in which Livy narrates the incident is peculiar. If the break between the Polybian and Roman material is indeed between section 5 and 6 of 36. 21 as Nissen thought (and as appears likely), 7 the presence and mis­ sion of L. Scipio is a Roman, not a Polybian, addition. An­ other peculiar item (overlooked by commentators) is that Cato and L. Scipio were ordered by the Senate to report to a public meeting on what had transpired in Aetolia (de K U 182-184. Klotz subscribed to it: Hermes 50 (1915) 501-502; Livius 98. 6 H . H . S c u l l a r d , Roman Politics 220-150 B. C? (Oxford 1973) s

125. 7 K U 184. Weissenborn, 36.21.10n., was doubtful about the at­ tribution of sections 21.6-9 to a Roman source because Appian's account (Syr. 20), which probably derives ultimately from Polybius, mentions the sacrifice (although not the sending of an embassy to report the victory). But in that case Livy did not use a Roman source at all for the victory announcement and one wonders how or why he lighted upon the notice about Nobilior's ovation per eosdem dies. Moreover, the passage at 21.6-9 is uncharacteristic of Polybius: e.g. the time of day for the Senate meeting, the sudden appearance of L. Scipio (of whom the previous Polybian material makes no men­ tion), the supplicatio, and the sacrifice (ut quadraginta hostiis maioribus praetor, quibus diis ei videretur, sacrificaret),

LIVY

rebus in Aetolia gestis). This is incongruous, since the events at 5. i ft. occurred in the regions of Thessaly and Thermopylae. Events in Aetolia have yet to be narrated (22-30, 34. 1-35. 1 1 ) . This may be a sloppy reference to the war in general, but it could be a sign that the muddle is greater than hitherto suspected. On the other hand, the phrase in Aetolia might be Livy's own contribution. Elsewhere in his history he locates Thermopylae on Aetolian soil. In Book -j/ (32. 3-4) the conference of the Aetolian League takes place there; a passage in Book (35. 8), together with the Polybian original (18. 48. 5), shows the cause of the error. Livy misidentified the Aetolian city of Thermum with Thermopylae.8 Thus no explanation is completely satisfactory, but perhaps that of Scullard is the best offered to date (Livy himself adding de rebus in Aetolia gestis). The Nobilior doublet, then, is a clear example of careless composition. On the other hand, the large-scale design of Book 36 appears well thought out and executed. As in Book 31 and the opening of the war with Philip, Livy has put his adaptation of Polybius' res Graeciae immediatelv after the formal vote to war and the accompanying ceremonies (5. 1 ff.). The activities of the other consul and religious notices (including prodigies) come after he has finished the long section based on Polybius (36. 1 ff.); the prodigy list, for example, is introduced bv these words: Principio eius nnni quo haec iam profecto ad helium AT Acil'to, manente 8

31.32.3-4: in Panaetolico et Pylaico concilio and a few lines later in Panaetolico ant Pylaico concilio-. 53.35. 8: Cornelius Tbermopylas, abi frequens Graeciae statis diebus esse solet conventus—Py laicu?n appellant—, venit\ Pol. 18. 48. 5: Cf. Nissen, KU 29, 127; J.A.O. Larsen, TAPhA 83 (1952) 1-8, 16 n. 27. Walsh, Livy 154, attributes the confusion "more to carelessness than ignorance." Ignorance, however, seems the better answer: Livy makes the error at least twice, in the second instance in an attempt to elucidate Polybius. K . Gries, Hommages a Marcel Renard, Collection Latomus 101 (Brussels 1969) J, 385-387, believes with some reason that Livy may have traveled extensively in Greece and Asia Minor; if so, he did not go to Aetolia, it would seem.

80

BOOKS 36-40

adhuc Romae P. Cornelio consule agebantur, boves duos . . . (37. ι). This placement enables Livy to begin almost at once with the most important events of the year, and to place the decisive battle of Thermopylae at mid-book (ending at 19. 12). He in fact took considerable pains to develop the battle as a central and prominent feature. This is shown by his full and lively description of the encounter itself (1819), and even more by the preliminaries. Into the Polybian material he has inserted a full-blown hortatio of Acilius to his soldiers in direct speech (17. 2-16); it is almost certainly his own invention. 9 He has also included a geographical excursus on the site of Thermopylae (15. 6-12) that has generally been taken to derive from Polybius. 10 But this derivation is not certain. The excursus attempts to fix the site of the pass by sketching the chief features of Greek geography from Leucas in the west to Euboea in the east, and from Thessaly in the north to the Peloponnesus in the south—information one would expect to be known to most of Polybius' readers. Note that Aetolia is the first country mentioned as situated south of the pass: intra fauces ad meri­ diem verglint Aetoliae pars maior et Acarnania et cum Locride Phocis et Boeotia . . . (15.8). On the other hand, there is scarcely any specific information about the site it­ self, save for the width of the pass. Items that are important later find no mention here: the peaks Rhoduntia and Tichius (16. 11, 17. i, 19. 1), the harborless sea, and the treacherous morass (18.4). Appian's description, which most presume derives ultimately from Polybius, although a bit garbled (Syr. 17), is concerned with just these features, not with fixing the position of the pass in the context of Greek geog9 So

Nissen, K U 180-181; Weissenborn _j£. 17. 16«.; see p. 253, n. 51. Nissen, K U 75, 180; the correspondence between Appian and Livy on the meaning of the name Thermopylae is not very re­ markable, and is not a strong indicator that Polybius is Livy's source here (Appian's version presumably derives from Polybius). What is noteworthy (as Nissen himself admits) is that nothing else between the two accounts corresponds. 10 So

LIVY

raphy in general. The section 15.6-12, then, might be Livy's own contribution. In Book 5/ Livy appended the year's naval activities in the East immediately to his narrative of events on land (44. 1-47. 3); the book (and the first year of the war) ends with Roman material concerning events in the West. In 36 the arrangement is different. Naval activities are separated from the rest of the Polybian material and reserved for the end. Livy's reason is clear: he wishes to end with the Bat­ tle of Cyssus, Antiochus' first defeat in Asia—a presage of the decisive defeat at Myonnesus, to be narrated in the cen­ ter of the next book. 11 The battle is fully and carefully described, as Walsh has pointed out, and it shares many fea­ tures in common with the account of Myonnesus. 12 Book 36 thus opens with the declaration of a great war; in the center the decisive engagement that drove Antiochus from Europe is recounted; at the conclusion is the account of his first defeat by sea in home waters. Moreover, the presence and advice of Hannibal is featured on each occa­ sion; he is cast in the role of the vates who correctly foretells the outcome of the king's course of action but whose advice is not followed. At the council held in Demetrias near the start of the book he is given a speech in oratio recta (7. 221). The subject for discussion concerns the situation in Thessaly; Livy merely alludes to the numerous other speeches that were delivered (6. 8-10). When it is his turn to speak, Hannibal passes over the immediate question and turns to a consideration of the war effort as a whole: in universi belli cogitationem regem atque eos qui aderant tali 11 The debate in the Senate concerning the claim of P. Cornelius to celebrate a triumph over the Boii is rather briefly reported and is given in or. obi.·. 39.5-40.9. It could, of course, have been ex­ panded into a set piece for the end of the book; but the East and the acts of Acilius and his lieutenants axe clearly where Liw wishes to put the chief emphasis. 12 As well as that of the Battle of Phaselis: 37. 23-24: see P. G. Walsh, RhM 97 (1954) 100-102, who compares the narratives of all three battles.

BOOKS 36-40

oratione avertit. His advice is ignored in the sequel (8. 1), but afterwards at Thermopylae the king comes to appreciate the Carthaginian's worth (15. 2): Hannibalem vero non nt prudentem tantum virum sed prope vatem omnium quae turn evenirent admirari. In the end, after Antiochus had fled back to Asia, Hannibal again is the only one who sees what would truly be at issue in the coming struggle (41. 5-6): Desineret Afitiochus pacem sibi ipse spe vana facere: in Asia et de ipsa Asia brevi terra marique dimicandum ei cum Romanis esse, et aut imperium adimendum orbem terrarum adfectantibus, aut ipsi regmmi amittendum. Unus vera et providere et fideliter praedicere visus. The Battle of Cyssus follows. The thirty-sixth book is thus by and large strongly struc­ tured and well written.13 But the doublet concerning Nobilior, together with the somewhat clumsily written ac­ count of the double report of the victory at Thermopylae, is instructive. Both show that although Livy may have selected the major episodes and may have planned the overall design of the book in advance, lesser incidents and notices were treated as they came up. His consultation of a Roman account concerning the report of the victory at Thermopylae in Rome is understandable—in fact, com­ mendable. The notice concerning Nobilior's ovation per eosdem dies caught his eye and he recorded it; he may even have intended it to serve as a respite from the mass of Polybian material, which runs on for thirty-one chapters (5-35). He regularly reports this type of Roman material (triumphs, founding of colonies, temple dedications, etc.) 13Cf. Wiile, Aufbau 27. Although 36 is the second shortest book, there is no evidence that Livy was hard pressed for material as in some of the books in the previous pentad. Observe that he com­ presses some four pages of Polybius (20.4-7: on the degeneration of the Boeotians after Leuctra) into a little over three lines at 6.2; a comparison of chapters 27-29 with Pol. .20.9-11 (Antiochus' peace overtures) shows several examples of abridgment and omission of minor material, notably that concerning the subsequent fate of Nicander (Pol. 11.9 -10).

LIVY

in the form of disconnected notices and in a manner that has a clipped, "official" style about it—no doubt because it reflected both the manner and the style of the old-time a?males, whether official or literary. The form is essentially that of a chronicle; Livy seldom attempts to show how these incidents were interconnected or formed part of a larger pattern. They were recorded because predecessors recorded them and because they were expected in Roman historical writing. Livy was not moved to give much real thought to most of them: often there was little to think about. Hence doublets could arise. But it is surprising that the Nobilior doublet was not caught when Livy reread what he had writ­ ten. If his rereading was interrupted for some reason at a point between 22. 1 and 38. 7, however, it would be easier to understand how the twin notices could have slipped through; observe that 35. 14 is a natural stopping point: Bellumy quod cum Antiocho rege in Graecia gestnm est α Λί' Acilio consule^ hunc finem habuit. BOOK 57

The bulk of this book is taken up with the events of 190 (ι -47). The last thirteen chapters embrace a miscellany of all the events of 189 save for res Graeciae and res Asiae, which come at the start of 38. The opening of the book coincides with the start of the consular year 190; no episode receives special emphasis or elaboration here.14 The book 14 The book opens (1. 1-6) with the appearance of an Aetolian embassy before the Senate; it is the first item of business for the year, coming before the assignment of provinces, the division of military forces, and the like. Nissen, KU 13, 188, believed that this material derived from Polybius (21.1). He is probably correct, if we suppose that the Constanrinian excerptor abridged some parts of the original (i.e. yet/ομένων δέ πλειόνων 7rap' άμφοϊν λά-γων is given in greater detail at 1.2-4 ln Livy) and that Livy himself abridged a bit, e.g. the presence of legates from Acilius Glabrio and the supplicatio for the naval victory at Cyssus. This chapter links up directly with the next Polybian section at 57. 4. 6 £F: Aetoli, postquam legati

BOOKS 36-40

falls into two halves. The first concentrates on the naval activities in the East, based on Polybius (8-32),15 and ends at mid-book with the Battle of Myonnesus, which drove Antiochus' forces from the waters of the Aegean. The preliminaries (26-28) and the engagement itself (29-30) are given carefully and in detail. Livy stresses the importance of the battle and the consequences of defeat for the sub­ sequent fortunes of Antiochus.16 Note, too, the "tag" end­ ing, which is regularly used at the end of major episodes (30. 10): Hoc maxime modo ad Myonnesum navali proelio pugnatum est. Almost immediately after, and hence also at mid-book, Livy records the crossing of the Hellespont by the Roman army (31. 1-7). The event is foreshadowed at numerous points early on.17 Note that when the narrative brings the Scipios to the Hellespont at 7. 16 the account of naval activ­ ities that follows is in the form of a flashback. The antici­ pated crossing is repeatedly mentioned here also,18 and the long delay (twenty-five chapters) before events are resumed from where they had been left at 7. 16 serves to increase suspense. Events by land climax in the Battle of Magnesia, which Livy narrates with care and in detail (38. 1-44. 2).19 ab Roma retulerunt nullum spem pacts esse . . . (i.e. as Livy moves to res Graeciae for 190). Nearly the same situation obtains at the start of 189, later in the book (49), where the dismissal of an Aetolian em­ bassy is placed before the assignment of provinces, division of mili­ tary forces, etc. It, too, is probably from Polybius (Nissen, KU 197198). Livy shows an increasing reliance in these books on Polybius' res ltaliae for matters concerning the embassies from the East that came before the Senate. 15 Res ltaliae, based on Roman sources, are at 1.7-4.5 ; res Graeciae, based on Polybius, at 4.6-7.16 (the actions of Acilius prior to the arrival of the Scipios). 18 See 26.2-3 (cf. 8.1) and 31.1-3. 17 36.41; 57-2.3, 3· 9-10, 6. j, 7.7. ls 37.9.6-11, 12.4, 18.10-11, 22.1, 25.4 ff., 26.3, 31-1-4· In the sequel, cf. 45. 13 and 47.3-5. 19 Note the elaborate description of the battle lines (39.7-13: Ro-

LIVY

It is somewhat surprising, however, that he did not end the book at this point; it would have fallen nicely into two parts (uneven in length, however), with naval affairs and A y Iyonnesus in the first part contrasting with events on land and Magnesia in the second. The length would have been suitable: longer by a few pages than the preceding book. Livy instead chose to push on to a point midway through the following year. Myonnesus and the crossing of the Hellespont thus fall in the center, not toward the end. The discussion in the Senate of the final peace settlement (featur­ ing paired speeches of Eumenes and the Rhodians: 53-54) and the triumph of L. Scipio de rege Antiocho (58. 6-59. 6) form the ending. It is clear that Livy had planned this as the conclusion well in advance, for considerable dislocation and rearrangement are apparent. He divided the events of 189 between Books 57 and 38 by reserving Polybius' res Graeciae (Fulvius Nobilior's Aetolian War: 1-11, 28-34) and res Asiae (Cn. Manlius' Gallogrecian War: 12-27) for the first half of 38, where they form a unit whose parts con­ trast nicely with each other, unblemished by distracting material from Roman sources, save for a brief notice at 28. 1-4. 20 All other Roman material for 189 has been pulled man; 40. 1-41. 1: Seleucid)—especially that of the king's forces, with the many exotic tribes and peoples (reminiscent of the description of Xerxes' army in Herodotus). 20 It reports a flood of the Tiber and the end of the censorship of T. Flamininus and Claudius Marcellus, and comes at a natural break in the Polybian material: after the accounts of the Aetolian and Gallogrecian Wars have been finished but before the siege of Same

in Cephallenia (3^.28.5-29.11) and events concerning the Achaean League and Sparta (50-34). It was Livy's general habit to narrate the election of censors, the bulk of their acts in office, and the closing of the lustrum separately. Thus the election of Flamininus and Claudius comes at 37.57.9-58.2 and the closing of the lustrum at 3^.36. 10. At 39. 40. ι —41. 4 only one chapter separates the election of Cato and Valerius Flaccus in 184 from the account of their ac­ tions and decisions (42.5-44.9); the closing of the lustrum for their censorship is not recorded.

BOOKS 36-40

forward to the end of Book 37, including items dated to the very last days of the year: the founding of Bononia on December 30th (57. 7), the naval triumph of Aemilius RegilIus on February 1st (58.4), and the triumph of L. Scipio on the last day of the intercalary month (59.2). These events, if put into the proper sequence, should come after chapter 34 of the next book. Note also that he omits Polyb­ ius' reference to Lucius' triumph (21. 24. 16-17) in his adaptation of negotiations in Rome at 57. 52.6-56. 10 be­ cause he already has in mind using a fuller Roman version later on near the end of the book. 21 Livy begins the account of the embassies that came to Rome concerning the peace settlement after Magnesia (5256) according to a Roman source (52. 1-5). A brief open­ ing speech of King Eumenes is recorded (52. 3-5), in which he thanks the senators for the help that Pergamum had re­ ceived in the war and congratulates them on their victory; he ends by saying that he will not recount his own exploits, but prefers that the senators hear of them from their own officials. At this point (52.6) Livy changes over to Polvbius (21. 18. ι fF.): when the senators urged Eumenes frankly to reveal what rewards he wished to receive from the Senate and the Roman people, the king replied (in a second speech) that he preferred not to speak to the point, but wished to leave it to the good judgment of the Senate. After Eumenes left the temple, the Senate persisted in its desire that he speak his mind. Livy then gives in full a third speech he delivered on being ushered back in (53 = Pol. 21. 19-21). Nissen believed that we have here a doublet: i.e. that the first speech is the distorted Roman version of the second speech based on Polybius. He judged "this amalgamation of two different sources" by Livy to be "inept in the ex21

The book ends with a brief "postscript," probably based on

Polybius, concerning the arrival of Cn. Manlius in the East and the activities of Fabius Labeo on Crete (60); a variant from Antias is recorded at 60.6.

LIVY

treme." 2 2 Inept probably, a doublet almost certainly. How did it come about? It might appear to be a case of the his­ torian stumbling ahead in the dark: that is, Livy r began by adapting a Roman source for his account of the reception of the embassies; part way through (since the subject con­ cerned the East) he decided to look into Polvbius. He liked what he saw there—particularly the opportunity to repro­ duce in full his own version of the speeches of Eumenes and the Rhodians. He abandoned the Roman authority and be­ gan with Eumenes' first appearance before the Senate ac­ cording to the Greek historian, merely tacking it on to what he had taken from the Roman source. This is a possible ex­ planation. But the text could equally be the result of fore­ thought rather than of switching sources on the spur of the moment. After all, the Roman version of Eumenes' remarks, conventional though they are, is not the same as the sub­ stance of his initial remarks in Polvbius. Quite likely they did not appear to Livy to be two versions of the same thing. Hence in his adaptation of Polvbius he decided to add some material from a Roman source that—as it appeared to him —the Greek historian had not recorded or had not known about. Livv follows the Polybian order of arguments in Eumenes' main speech quite closely, although he gives it a pr'mcip'nmi ab adversaries (53. 1-;) and a "statement of theme" (κατάσταση: 53. 3) before getting underway. He reserves all exhortations (cf. Pol. 2 1 . 19. u, 21. 1) until the conchtsio proper begins (53. 25), and adds embellishments and new arguments here and there. 2 3 He also follows Polvb­ ius quite closely for the speech of the Rhodians up to 54. 15 ( =Pol. 2/.22.5-23.4), but omits the conclusion of the Greek historian (23.7-12), substituting his own longer K U 198: "Diese Verquickung zweier verschiedener Quellen ist hochst ungeschickt." 23 Esp. at 53. 17-20, doubtless suggested by Polybius' words woWovs μϊν -yeyovoras αυτόπτας at 21.21. 1 (referring to Eumenes' services dur­ ing the war). 22

BOOKS 3 6 - 4 0

composition (54. 18-28). In this the Rhodians assure the Romans that the Greeks living in Asia, though colonists, are just as good as their relatives living in mainland Greece (•nec terra mutata mutavit genus aut mores) and that they should not on this account be thought less of. From a rhetorical point of view (and from that of a home-keeping Italian of Augustan times) this argument may have had merit and appeal, but it is gauche and out of place in the historical context.24 Book 57 follows in large part the activities of the two Scipios from the first day of Lucius' consular year until his triumph over Antiochus. No episode is specially featured at the start; in the middle stand the Battle of Myonnesus and the crossing of the Hellespont. Negotiations in Rome concerning the peace settlement (particularly the paired speeches of Eumenes and the Rhodians) and the description of L. Scipio's triumph make for an especially strong ending. Numerous short speeches, particularly of Scipio Africanus, are distributed throughout the book.25 Finally, the extant portions of Polybius (as well as the length of the book) show that Livy had an abundance of material from which to fashion his narrative.26 24 The statement that in 189 Romans were frequent visitors to the Greek cities of Asia {54.20) is also anachronistic. Polybius says the Rhodians spoke perplus Kal KaXws (23.13); at the end of his own composition (53.28) Livy says apta magnitudini Romanae oratio visa est. Cf. Hoch, Darstellung 12-16. On Livy's ending see further pp. 282-283. 25 A speech of Africanus is at 7.8-10, of Eumenes at 19. 2-5, of Africanus at 36.3-8, of Africanus paired with Zeuxis at 45.7-9, n - 1 8 (all in or. rect.). Note also the letters of Antiochus and Africanus to King Prusias at 25.4-12; Polybius (21.11.1-1) merely alludes to the contents of Antiochus' messages: SieHfnreTo o-vvex&s K-p&s npovcnov,

irapatcaKQv airov tis tt)v however, is clearly from res Macedoniae, which in Polybius were regularly separated from res ltaliae bv events in Sicily, Spain, and Africa. 12 Livy therefore must have read the whole of the Polybian material for the year before beginning to write. The decision to combine these two parts of Polybius also required him to reshape as well the material at the start of the Greek historian's res Macedoniae, as 23. 10 shows. Polybius' general remarks on the role of Tyche punishing Philip (10. 1-3) and the intro­ ductory lines on Philip's dilemma in deciding between his two sons (10. 13-15) were dropped. 13 12 Livy

gives events for the year in Spain (40.1.4, 7; 2. 5; 16. 7-11) and in Africa (17. 1-6) according to Roman sources. 13 Livy does say at 40. 5.1: . . . ut vulgo ipsum liberosque exsecrarentur; qme dirae brevi ab omnibus diis exauditae ut saeviret ipse in suum sanguinem effecerimt, which answers to Pol. 23.10.14, al­ though not exactly. The excerptor evidently omitted the story of Theoxena and Poris, recorded by Livy at 40.4, although nothing in the text betrays the omission. The lengthy tale in fact seems rather ill suited to a position after 10. π in Polybius, delaying as it would so long Polybius' third reason for believing that Tyche punished Philip for his wickedness (10. 4 -πρώτον μεν . . ., ΙΟ. 8 μετά Se ταύτα . . ., 10. Ii τρίτον δ' , . .). It may be that Livy has transferred the story from a context other than 23.10, if so, it would be proof of even

LIVY

The best evidence for the "second stage," however, is found in the combination of Roman and Polybian material. The accounts of Eastern embassies to the Senate provide particularly clear examples. At times a simple transition from one version to the other suffices—a desire for fullness and supplementation apparently being Livy's chief motives for including parts of both. Hence the transition at 34. 57. 3-4, where a Roman source provides the account of the reception of Eastern embassies in 193 (57. 1-3) and Polybius completes it (57. 4-59. 8). 14 Similarly, at 37. 52. 1 ff. the Roman version (52. 1-5) is followed by the Polvbian (52.6 ff. = Pol. 21. 18 ff.), but Livy then substitutes his own ending for the speech of the Rhodians (54. 18-28) and omits PoJvbius' reference to Scipio's triumph ( 2 1 . 24. 1 6 - 7 7 ) because he knows that the version of his Roman source is coming up and he intends to use it rather than that of the Greek historian (58.6-59.6). The lengthy passage at 17-25 illustrates the somewhat complex process of integration that Livy could occasionally undertake. He be­ gins with an account from the Roman tradition of the East­ ern affairs that came before the Senate: the assigning of the commissioners to settle the affairs of Macedon and of Illyria and the determination of the general guidelines for the set­ tlement (17-18), The appearance of Attalus before the Senate, however, comes from Polybius (19. 1-20. 3 =Pol. 30. 1-3): Livy was evidently attracted by the dramatic and rhetorical possibilities in Stratius' advice to the young prince. The Greek historian's continuation (jo. 4-5) concerning the reception and treatment of the Rhodian embassy is also extant, but it is clear that Livv has now gone back to a Roman source. It is also clear why: that source was much more complex rearrangement. The exclusion of Polybius' generaliz­ ing remarks and the inclusion of the concrete, dramatic episode is typical of Livy's adaptation. 14 Nissen, K U 163: the first instance of Livy's use of Polybius1 res Italiae in Books 31-45. Another example is 42. 11. 1-3: Valerius Antias is cited for ri. r-;, the Polybian account begins at 11. 4 f f .

WORKING METHODS

fuller and more detailed. Even though a full folium is miss­ ing after 21. &, the text as it stands (20. 4-25. 6) has 225 lines as opposed to Polybius' 67 (30. 4. 1-5. i). 15 The speech of Astymedes is its chief feature; Polybius gives only a brief report on its contents (which are quite different from those in the Roman version). Later on, at 25. 6 ff., Livy returns to Polybius (30. 5. 2 ff.) when the scene shifts back to Rhodes and the effects of the Senate's decision are described. Other examples of manipulation of PoIybius and the Roman historians have been noted in earlier chapters; they show that Livy had read ahead for considerable stretches before beginning to write. Because Livy has certain favorite subjects for which he likes to add information from secondary sources (such as battle casualties, amounts of booty, treaty terms, 16 and the reception of Eastern embassies), scholars have tended to the belief that his coming upon such subjects in a Hauptquelle served as the signal for him to look into secondary sources for the first time. Thus the popular and mistaken conception of how he discovered the conflicting versions of the Trials of the Scipios: the peculiar amounts of gold and silver (38. 55. 8-9) prompted him to consult someone other than Antias; a chain reaction followed, one version leading him to look into another. But this supposition is wrong. Enough other material is left to show that Livy regularly read ahead through all his chief sources for periods of at least a consular year before 15 Line numbers from Livy and Polybius here and elsewhere are taken from the Teubner text of each author. "See 33.30 (= Pol. ^.44); 39.6-40. 1 (= Pol. 2 1 . 44, 45) for treaty terms, JJ. 30 is discussed below, n. 51. Nissen's belief (KU 209) that Polybius' excerptor omitted Ilium and Dardanum (Livy 3#, 39.10) is questionable in light of Livy's penchant for adding ma­ terial in such contexts from Roman writers (thus Mommsen postu­ lated a Roman origin: Romische Fonchungen [Berlin 1879] 2, 538); E. Pianezzola's belief that Livy added them himself as a compliment to the gens Iulia is farfetched: Traduzione e ideologia, Livio interprete di Polibio (Bologna 1969) 90-92.

LIVY

putting anything to paper and that he was on the lookout for supplementary material of all sorts. Res Graeciae in his Roman sources proved useful at times despite Polybius' full and circumstantial narrative; for example, we find

inserted

into Polybian material variants on the capture of Scipio's son

(57. 34. 3-8),

the

eclipse

of

the

moon

at

Pydna

(44. 37. 5-9, cf. Pol. 29. 16), and events in Thessaly at the

end of

171

(42.66. 9-10).

Antias and Quadrigarius are

named on occasion: e.g. the latter for the meeting of Scipio with Hannibal (35. 14. 5-12); the former for the false cam­ paign of

the consul Villius (32. 6.5-8), Fabius Labeo's

activities on Crete in 189 (57. 60. 5-6), and the false variant on the behavior and treatment of Eumenes (44. 13. 12-14). These and other passages show that Livy at the start regularly read through the accounts of both Polybius and his Roman sources concerning res Graeciae. 1 " Polybius, too, was consulted for res Italiae other than for embassies: e.g. on the date of Scipio Africanus' death (39. 52. 1) and for part of the speech of Aemilius Paullus

to the people before departing for the East (44. 22. 8-10 = Pol. 29. i). 18 And, like Valerius and Claudius, he could

supply a mere variant: e.g. the behavior of King Prusias in Rome after Pydna (45. 44. 19-20 = Pol. 50. 18). Yet even though Livy had read through his chief sources prior to writing, the amount of material borrowed from Polybius for events other than those in the East or in Africa and from Roman writers for those in the East is not very great. Most of the time Livv was not concerned to correct or to make substitutions in his main source. The rapidity with which he sometimes worked may have had something 17

This remark applies to other parts of the history also: e .g. res

Africae during the Hannibalic War. At 50.3.6 a variant from Antias is cited near the start of a Polybian section: (3-10); see Klotz, SlFC 25 (1951) 251. 18

The Polybian fragment is brief, but enough is left to suggest

him as a source for 22.8-10; other parts of the speech may be based on a Roman source: Nissen KU 263-264.

WORKING METHODS

to do with this. More important were the difficulties—not infrequently the insurmountable difficulties—that he en­ countered in trying to combine or reconcile the different traditions; with dismaying frequency the Roman versions were utterly at variance both with the Polybian version and among themselves. The safer and saner course was to select a main source to follow for the bulk of what was to be told. Yet the most important reason, for Livy's failure more frequently to add further information from other sources was that he generally chose as his main source the fullest and the most detailed he could find. Supplementary informa­ tion was therefore not likely to be frequent; substitution was dangerous because of the often conflicting versions in the different traditions; correction was possible if one could be sure which was correct: fortunately the more flagrant of Antias' falsehoods could be pressed into service now and again. What evidence can be mustered to show that Livy at times did not know what was coming up in his sources and that he consulted them serially? A number of passages that critics have cited in support of this claim have been discussed in earlier chapters; on close inspection the evi­ dence cited is frequently susceptible of other, more com­ pelling explanations. 19 But there is a residue that tends to 19 Notably the Trials of the Scipios at β. jo. 4-60.10, discussed on pp. 92-104, and the opening of the war with Perseus at 42.2949: see pp. Γ23—135. In the latter example Polybian material begins the year (171): a review of those loyal to Perseus and to Rome (42.29.1-30.7). Roman material connected with the war vote fol­ lows (30.8-36.7); then comes Polybius' res Graeciae (36.8 if.). At 29. 29.4 Livy writes of King Masinissa's meeting with Scipio: quern [sc. Masinissam] quidam cum ducentis baud amplius equitibus, plerique cum duum milium equitatu tradunt venisse. He then ap­ pends a lengthy digression based on Polybius (29.6-33.10) concern­ ing Masinissa's previous adventures in losing and attempting to re­ gain his kingdom. At the end (33.10) he concludes: Haec animum inclinant ut cum modico potius quam cum magno praesidio equitum ad Scipionem quoque postea venisse Masinissam credam; quippe ilia

LIVY

support the claim on occasion. The passages are few in num­ ber, however, and none proves unequivocally that Livy had not read ahead before beginning to write. At the least they show that when he did read ahead, it was chiefly to plot out the main blocks of material and to fix on the main thrust of the action; some details, minor topics, and variants of secondary importance were apparently first dealt with in the ongoing process of composition. Some of the passages seem to show Livy catching himself up on a point in midcourse.20 For example, when switching from res ltaliae for 169 based on a Roman source (43. 12. 1-17. 1) to res Graeciae (17. 2-23. 8) based on Polybius (cf. 28. 3-5, 8-9), he makes it appear that the legates sent to tour Greece, C. Popillius and Cn. Octavius, were dispatched from Rome (qui in Graeciam rmssi erant: 17. 2); only at the end do we regnanti multitudo, haec paucitas exsulis fortunae conveniens est. Walsh, Livy 143, writes: "It is perfectly obvious that Livy had not read this extract of Polybius when he recorded the divergences of opinion on the size of Masinissa's force." Yet Livy cites the smaller Polybian figure at the start of the digression (quid-am•. 29.4); more important, Walsh's contention requires us to suppose that Livy be­ gan adapting sources without knowing what they were about. Be­ sides, it would have been awkward to say at the start something like: "But the smaller figure is the more likely in view of the state of Masinissa's fortunes at the time—in order to illustrate which I will now give the following digression"—especially since the point at issue will not be clarified for another four and a half chapters. The dis­ crepancy mentioned at 29. 4 might have been suitably delayed until after the digression, however. But Livy appears to be using it as a framing device for the digression: a form of ring composition. 20 For example, the long, confused sentence on the opposing tra­ ditions concerning the political sympathies of the praetor Terentius Culleo (38. 55.2-4: the anacoluthon is particularly awkward); or the incongruity in blending the Polybian and Roman accounts of the meeting of Antiochus' legate with P. Scipio and of the capture of Scipio's son (37.34)—note particularly the non prius . . . quam sen­ tence at 34.3 (21.5.1-3 is similar): Polybius reserves the business about the capture until later in his account (it comes at 21.15.1 ff.); Livy pulls it forward and adds variant information from a Roman source (34.3-8).

WORKING METHODS

learn that HostiJius (the proconsul already in Greece) had sent them: Larisam ad Hostilium proconsulem—ab eo enim missi erant—legati redienmt (17.9). This looks as if Livy may have plunged into Polybius straightway; if he had looked ahead before writing it could only have been cursorily and in haste. The Rhodian embassy headed by Astymedes that came to Rome after Pydna in 167, as noted above, is part of a somewhat involved combination of the Roman and Polybian traditions {4$. 19-25). It required reading ahead in both and some careful planning. Neverthe­ less, one of the "details" caught Livy up. While following the Roman source Livy came upon the Senate's reply to Astymedes and his fellow legates and recorded it (25.6): In praesentia dedncere ante certain diem ex Lycia Cariaque iusserunt praefectos. Later on he found Polybius putting the decree (30. 5. 12: couched in somewhat different terms) at a later time—after the initial defection of Rhodes's sub­ jects—and assigning it to an embassy headed by Theaedetus. He omitted the Polybian version and was now forced to add on his own the reason why the Rhodians had to take energetic steps against subjects other than Lycia and Caria if they were not to lose them as well (25. 12). It looks as if he took over the first version of the Senate's decree he came across; when he arrived at the second he patched over the difficulties with a few quick strokes. Finally, two references to what Livy took to be the same Rhodian embassy in Rome in the years 169-168 suggest that Livy's second stage of preparation may have been generally restricted to units of a consular year. At 44. 14. 5-15. 8 he describes the embassy according to Roman sources, dated to 169; the presumptuous and insulting remarks of the Rhodians made a strong impres­ sion (14. 13): Ne nunc quidem haec sine indignatione Iegi audirive posse certum habeo; inde existitmri potest qui habitus animorum audientibus ea patribus fuerit. The Sen­ ate's response is given according to two Roman versions: that of Quadrigarius (15. 1) and another unnamed (15.3: alii). Later at 45. 3. 3-8 Livy gives what he took to be a 2Ol

LIVY

reference to the same embassy in Polybius ( 2 9 . 19), dated a year later: Tradidere quidem legates Rhodios, nondam dimissos, post victoriam mintiatam velut ad ludibrinm stolidae superbiae in senatum vocatos esse . . . (3· 3)· Livv had thus looked into at least two Roman accounts for the first passage, but evidently had not yet read ahead in Polybius for the following year. 21 There are also a few references that have been taken to suggest that on occasion Livy delayed consulting his Roman sources until he had written up res Graeciae according to Polybius. At 34. 41. 8-10 he discusses an alternate version of the siege of Sparta (38. 1-40.4: based on Polybius) during the war with Nabis. In the interval (less than a page) the simultaneous victory at Argos is recorded, followed by the reception of the victory news at the Nemean games. The delay is slight; it could equally be due to Livy's desire to avoid breaking the thread of what little of the narrative was left rather than to his consulting the Roman historians after the Polybian section was on paper. A second passage (3^.41. u-15) concerns Claudius Quadrigarius' version of the march of the Scipios through Thrace to Asia—an event that took place two years before (cf. 37. 7. 16 and 33. 1-3). Nissen and others believe that Livy had not got around to reading Quadrigarius for the preceding few years until this point in Book 38. 2i Yet the fact that Claudius is cited in the interval (3#. 23. 8) for an event during the Gallogrecian War weakens the hypothesis. Most damaging, however, is its inherent improbability. It is difficult enough to believe that a writer would habitually look up variants of an episode 21

The two passages refer in fact to nvo different embassies: see

P. S. Derow1 Phoenix 27 (1973) 351-352. But that they do so does not affect the argument here, which is concerned with Livy's own perception of events. Note that he does not regard the Polybian ac­ count as a doublet, but as a second interview before the Senate that took place many months later. Hence he did not drop it altogether·, to his mind it was additional information, not a repetition. 22 KU 210; Weissenborn ad loc.

WORKING METHODS

only after adapting the first source that came to hand, but that he should go about collecting and recording the variants after two additional years had been put to paper is wellnigh incredible. The passage in question is not given as a variant for its own sake but because it contrasts so sharply with the demoralized behavior of this same group of men (57· 5°· 3) on their return under the leadership of Cn. Manlius—a topic of central importance in Livy's analysis of the moral collapse of the Republic.23 The passage shows, if anything, that Livy could reserve a bit of information that he came across earlier for use at a point much further on. A final passage concerns Valerius Antias' reference to the death of Hannibal, which comes at the end of Book 39 (56.7) rather than in its proper place at chapter 51. Yet Antias' variant does not concern the death scene itself but the composition of the embassy sent from Rome to King Prusias. The notice probably comes from Antias' res Italiae for the year, not his res Graeciae·, Livy may have been aware of it when writing up chapter 51, but decided to include it in the context of res Italiae in which he found it in Antias: it is the last in a string of brief notices ending the year 1 8 3 (54-56: yet whatever the explanation, the variant is awk­ wardly placed). In short, the passages that can be cited in support of the theory that Livy had not read ahead in his sources and con­ sulted secondary sources only after composing a narrative based on the main source are few; and of these few, some are susceptible of a different explanation. The conclusion must be that before writing up long sections comprising a consular year or more, he almost always had read ahead in his sources before going back to write up the narrative sec­ tion by section. Nissen rightly argued that his Roman sources furnished the basic framework within which Livy operated24—neces23

See pp. 255-260. The passage probably refers to the return journey

(after the Battle of Magnesia). ™KU 46.

LIVY

sarily so, because a Roman chronology was needed and only they provided it. But chronology is tied to events. Hence Livy had to depend on them also for the number and some­ times the order of events within the consular year. When their chronology clashed with that of Polybius (a not in­ frequent occurrence), Livy was put to the test. When pos­ sible he patched the several accounts together; when not, he would sometimes set down the variant accounts side by side. When he had to prefer one to the other he tended to follow the Roman chronology, although the principle sometimes seems to be that he adopted the dating of the version chosen to be written up first. 25 Nissen, however, went further. He believed that Livy followed his Roman sources as if feeling his way along a guide rope on a dark night. When he came to their res Graeciae, res Asiae, or res Africae for the year, it was the signal for him to turn to Polybius; when Polybius' account returned to Rome, even temporarily, Livy went back to the native tradition again. This conception undoubtedly has a measure of truth in it, but Nissen went too far in thinking it an invariable rule. First, the scene should be set in daylight, not the dark: Livy knew where he was going and had looked ahead—he had, in fact, been over the route once before in his preliminary survey of sources. Moreover, his Roman authorities were not what first caused Livy to look into Polybius in a given year, for he sometimes begins with Polybian material: e.g. the years 190, 189, 26 171 (42. 29. 1-30. 7), and 168 (45. 1. 15, cf. 3. 3-8). For two consular years a large block of 25 The

embassy of the Lycians which came to Rome to complain of Rhodian mistreatment would be a probable example if we could accept Nissen's dating of the Polybian version O5·, 4) to late sum­ mer 177 (KU 239); the Roman account, which Livy follows, falls in 178 (41.6. 8-12). P. S. Derow, Phoenix 27 (1973) 350-354, argues that the Polybian version also belongs in 178; there are difficulties with this view, but on balance the arguments in its favor outweigh those for 177. 26 37. 1.1-6 (190: cf. Pol. 21. 2) and 37 . 4 9 (189). Both concern Aetolian embassies in Rome and are probably from Polybius.

WORKING METHODS

Polybian material comes first, all notices from Roman sources being reserved for a few compressed chapters at the end: 185 (^p. 23. 5-29. 3) and 184 (55). 33-37). These passages show that while the Roman historians provided the consular chronology, Livy's guide rope was consciously chosen from among sources read ahead of time: Polybius regularly led him back to res ltaliae and occasionally within consular years furnished the basic framework, as well as the materials. THE THIRD STAGE

When Livy began actual composition based on Polybius, he commonly employed one of three methods: (1) close adaptation: i.e. retaining all major items of information and the order in which the Greek historian gave them; (2) re­ casting rather thoroughly, yet retaining the essential points of the original: e.g. shifting the order about, omitting minor items, making additions, elaborating certain facts or ideas; (3) extensive abridgment: i.e. not only being as succinct as possible, but omitting facts, episodes, and ideas of im­ portance. Rarely does he undertake what might be termed a true epitome. It is not possible to establish firm rules regarding Livy's use of one or another of these methods; sometimes his mood at the moment was the determining factor. But useful generalizations can be formulated. For example, close adaptation is often found in passages containing involved, technical, or detailed information, such as treaties, military procedures, and geographical movements.21 Recasting (a "Example

of

treaties and

peace negotiations:

37.18.10-19.7 =

Pol. 21. 10; 37.4J. 4-21 = Pol. 21.16-17; 38.38.1-39. 2 = Pol. 21.4143; cf. Walsh, Livy

150-151. Of technical military matters: 42.65.

9-10=: Pol. 27.11. Of

geographical

movements:

33.35 =Pol.

18.

48; 43.19. 13-20.4 = Pol. 28.8. The method is not confined chiefly to technical or detailed matters; it can on occasion be employed in embassy scenes (e.g. 45.

3. 3-8 == Pol. 29.19),

moments of high drama

LIVY

more common method) is characteristic of passages involving rhetoric, high drama, and ethical questions.28 Extensive abridgment, equally frequent, is a reflection of perhaps the most pervasive and typical feature of the Livian adaptation: concise expression and economy in selection of source material. His aim is always to achieve a tightly knit, quickly paced narrative.29 Sometimes the compression is more stylistic than substantive.30 Elsewhere, considerable abridgment and omission are involved. The meeting between Antiochus and Popillius Laenas in Egypt illustrates the most common form the method takes (45. 12. 3-8 = Pol. 29. 27): an important scene or idea is selected for special development, while the introductory and concluding material is pruned and compressed, often severely. The encounter scene is reproduced from Polybius accurately and fully: it was a famous and dramatic moment. The preliminary debate in Achaea on whether to send help to Egypt against the king and a short section concerning Antiochus' ethics in starting the invasion are omitted (Pol. 29. 23-26). The scene over, Livy typically wished to end the sequence as quickly as possible; his haste is apparent, for he has made a victory of Antiochus' land forces over Egyptian troops in Cyprus into a naval battle.31 (e.g. 38. 5.1-5 = Pol. 21.27.1-6: the start of the siege of Ambracia), and speeches (e.g. 33.39 = Pol. 18.49-50; 37. 52. 7-10 = Pol. 21.18. 5-10; 37. 54.4-15 = Pol. 21.22.5-23.4). 28 Rhetoric: 33.40 = Pol. 18. 51; 36.27-29 = Pol. 20.9-11; 37.53 = Pol. 21.19-21; 40. 8.11—16 = Pol. 2 3 . 1 1 ; 19.10-17 = Pol. 30. 2.4-9. Drama: 3/. 17-18 = Pol. 16.30.4-34.12; 33. 32 = Pol. 18.46.1-10. Ethics: 37.25.4-26.2 = Pol. 21.11; 37. 33.6-36. 9 = Pol. 21.11-16. 29 See Witte, Darstellung passim; Walsh, Livy 173-218; Luce, TAPhA 102 (1971) 265-302. 30 For example 39.34.1-35.4 (46 lines) = Pol. 22. 13-14 (76 lines); a more extreme example: 3/. 17. 10-11 (7 lines) = Pol. 16.33 (27 lines). 31 45. 12.7 = Pol. 27.10. The Polybian text is somewhat obscure, however: cf. Nissen, KU 274; H . Trankle, Gymnasium 79 (1972) 21-22; Witte, Darstellung 291-292.

206

WORKING METHODS

In fact, his desire to abridge and to move forward rapidly often leads him to write "diagonally": that is, he will omit important steps or phases in the action; nor in such instances is he above tampering with the facts or inventing a bit for the sake of a well-paced, well-proportioned story line. For example, a banquet followed by a private interview in an­ other room is combined into one scene by the simple ex­ pedient of the other diners being asked to get up and leave: dimissis aliis (36.29. 3-11= Pol. 20.11). Elsewhere two days of negotiations are collapsed into one (39. 34. 1-35. 4 = Pol. 22. 13-14), or the first of two embassies economically conducts the business of both (42. 46 = Pol. 2η. 4-5). When Livy tires of excessive technical details, similar shortcuts can be taken: for example, Polybius describes how, during the siege of Ambracia, thinly hammered metal sheets were used to detect underground tunneling by means of sym­ pathetic vibration (21. 28); Livy has the Ambraciotes put their ears to the ground (38. 7.4-8. 1). Moreover, his in­ terest in the drama of a confrontation can cause him to garble the preliminary statement on the specific points of dispute.32 Some of these examples are due to haste or error and some to deliberate choice. A clear example of the latter is found in his version of the young Attalus before the Sen­ ate in 167 (45. 19-20 = PoI. 30. 1-3). The edifying lecture to the young prince by his physician Stratius is clearly the telos of the episode; throughout Livy is also at pains to omit or palliate the discreditable role that the Senate played in the negotiations.33 Much of the end is therefore suppressed: particularly the senators' promise to give the prince the cities of Aenus and Maronea and their subsequent withdrawal of the offer when Attalus refused to vilify his brother, King Eumenes, as the Senate wanted and expected. Much of the bad odor of the Polybian account is thus shut out, Livy 3Z 33-

'3 — P°l· *$· 38: see p. 217. in PoIybius (50.1.7-10; evioi των Επιφανών άνδρών) be­ come quidam Romanorum quoque non boni auctores in Livy (45. 33 Senators

19.4).

Ln r Y himself going so far as to conclude (20. 3): Raro alias quisquam rex aut privatus tanto favore tantoque omnium adsensu est auditus: omnibus honoribus muneribusque et praesens est cultus et proficiscentem prosecuti sunt. True epitomes are rare: that is, brief summaries in which the length of the original is reduced by three-fourths or so. Rather than summarize, Livy preferred simply to omit, as he expressly says on a number of occasions. 34 Indeed, factual summaries were alien to Livy's artistic temperament and basic approach to history, as they were to most of the historians of antiquity until later in the Empire, when epitomes came into their own and became the fashion. 35 For Livy and others history was chiefly a series of scenes and episodes; the historian's main task was to develop them in order to express fully both the dulce and the utile of teach­ ing by examples. The brief notices of events at home and abroad in the Roman tradition had to be included, of course, but were of secondary importance. The tendency through­ out the course of historiography in the Republic was to greater detail and fullness; even the relatively brief early his­ tories of Fabius, Cato, and Piso contained many developed episodes and speeches. Occasionally, however, we find Livy giving what can be considered an epitome. The passage at 42. 44 (30 Iines = Pol. 2 7.1-2, 79 lines) concerning example 41.25.8: Lycii quoque per idem tempus ab Rhodiis bello vexabantur. Sed externorum inter se bella, quo quaeque modo gesta sint, persequi non operae est satis superque oneris sustinenti res a populo Romano gestas perscribere. Cf. 3 5 . 2 0 . 13; 3 5 . 4 0 . 1 ; 39. 4 8 . 6 ; Nissen, KU 81-82. 35 The beginnings of this trend are discernible around Livy's time; e.g. Velleius Paterculus' two-volume abridgment of Roman history. Velleius continually emphasizes the brevity of his work and the rapidity with which he worked (e.g. 1. 16. 1). He planned to write a fuller history of the period from the civil wars to his own day (cf. 2.48.5). This and the full-scale works of other historians he refers to as iusta opera or lusta volumina ( 2 . 4 8 . 5 , 89.1 , 9 9 . 3 , Γ03.4, 119. 1). He uses transcursus to describe his own shorter work: 2. 86. 1, 34 For

99· 4 (cf- 55· ·).

WORKING METHODS

Roman legates in Boeotia and Argos in 171 approaches it; at least half the details have been omitted. At 43. 17. 2-9 (22 lines = Pol. 28. 3-5, 89 lines) Livy gives only the highlights of the tour in 169 of Roman ambassadors to Thebes, the Peloponnesus, the Achaean and Aetolian Leagues, and Acarnania. When he explains the decisions that the Senate took in 183 concerning Sparta {39. 48. 2-4: 10 lines = Pol. 23. 4: 45 lines), his language makes clear that he is giving a summary: Lacedaemonii deinde introdncti sunt. Multae et parvae disceptationes iactabantur: sed quae maxime rem continerent erant . . . (48. 2). Rarely whole pages of Polybius are merely alluded to: e.g. the latter's 46 lines (22. 18) on the false opinions concerning the outbreak of the war with Perseus become (39. 23. 5) -non unde plerique opinantur, nec ab ipso Perseo causas cepit·, similarly, the long digression on the degeneration of the Boeotians after Leuctra (20.4-7) i s reduced to a clause or two (36. 6. 2): per multa iam saecula publice privatimque labante egregia quondam disciplina gentis et multorum eo statu qui diuturnus esse sine mutatione rerum non posset.36 Of the few epitomes there are, most are confined to the last ten books, particularly from Book 39 on. It seems that Livy may have been experimenting with a relatively new type of composition. His two usual methods after all left a restricted choice: either omit or reproduce rather com­ pletely. The advantages of a method that permitted a bit of both approaches would naturally have been attractive now and again. The experiments as we can see them, however, are infrequent, involve comparatively small amounts of material, and are on the whole not particularly successful. The art of writing good epitomes, even if not one of the higher forms of literary endeavor, is nevertheless one that requires skill gained from application and experience. As an example of epitomizing to not quite so severe a degree, compare 42.63. ι-z (7 lines) with Pol. .27.9-10 (70 lines), which concerns the reaction in Greece to Perseus' victory at Callinicus. 36

LIVY

How may we suppose Livy went about the actual business of writing? Did he, for example, begin "translating" straight off, or did he first read ahead through a whole episode? His version of Cn. Manlius' meeting with the tyrant Moagetes (38. 14.3-14 = Pol. 2/.34) typical and gives the answer. Polybius' phrase at the end, "little by little Moagetes added to the money he'd offered" (34. 13: καΐ προσΐτίθίΐ Kara βραχν τών χρημάτων), prompted LlVV tO invent an earlier stage in the negotiations in which Moagetes raised his ante from fifteen to twenty-five talents. Manlius' indignant outburst in oratio recta owes much to Livy's invention,7 as does the more elaborately • delineated final stage: Et paulatim illiberali adiectione nunc per cavillationem, nunc precibus et simulatis lacrimis ad centum talenta est perductus—Livy adding that it took six days to collect the money. 37 Conversely, Livy often reserves information in Polybius for a later, more effective point in the narrative —which again must mean that he had read over the whole of the episode in the Greek historian first and adapted it as a unit. The account of the peace treaty with Antiochus at 3^.38. 1-39.2 (=Pol. 21. 41-43) is an example. He gives the terms, with one or two minor omissions, accurately and in order, except that the names of those to be surrendered to Rome is delayed some thirty-two lines, coming next to last in the series. This is done for special effect, since Hannibal's name heads the list: Livv probably has in mind the dramatic death scene coming up in the next book (39. 51). The passage at 42.6 2-3-15 (= Pol. 27.8) concerning Perseus' peace overtures after his victory at Callinicus illustrates both procedures. Polybius' remarks toward the middle on how the Romans bear good and bad fortune (8. 8 = Livy 62. 11) prompted Livy to elaborate at the start of his version (62. 3-4) reflections by Perseus' friends on the mutability of 37 Polybius'

text has probably been abridged by the excerptor at the end, and possibly between sections 2 and 3 as well; Livy's ac­ count is 38 lines, Polybius' 34. See Nissen, KU 15; Witte, DarstelIimg 276-278.

WORKING METHODS

fortune, especially good fortune, both as a foil to the later passage and because throughout Perseus is viewed as a particularly exemplary documentum hnmanorum casuum (45. 40. 6). Conversely, Livy delays specifying Perseus' two chief proposals until the scene at the consul's consilium (62. 10); Polybius puts them at the start, when Perseus' friends first advise him ( 8 . 2 ) . Philip's discourse at the Conference of Nicaea is an ex­ ample of more thorough recasting. In characteristic fashion Livy not only seeks greater brevity—forty lines in Polybius (18. 4. 5-5. 9) become fourteen lines (32. 34.4-6) —but he gives the Polybian order of topics in reverse order: (1) Lysimachea, ( 2 ) Cius, t h e charges t h a t t h e Aetolians ( 3 ) plunder friend and enemy alike and (4) assume they are on an equal footing with the Romans in ordering the king from Greecebecome (4), (3), (2), (1) in Livy. Letters and dispatches show a similar technique. In his account of the attempts by Antiochus and P. Scipio to win over King Prusias,38 Polybius merely alludes to Antiochus' message, but gives at some length the contents of Scipio's letter. Hav­ ing read the second letter, Livy (57. 25. 4-26. 2: 41 lines) decided to preface it by detailing the arguments Antiochus might have used (25. 4-7) in order to achieve a neater and more pointed contrast. The conference at Lysimachea (33• 39-4°·' 47 Iines = Ρ°1· l$- 49~5I: Iines) is a somewhat more complex example. In the Roman speech (39) Livy follows the Polybian order, but for Antiochus' reply ( 4 0 ) he reorders the points in his source in order to make them follow the sequence in the first speech. He then omits entirely the sequel, in which legates from Smyrna and Lampsacus have their say (Pol. 18. 52), although his con­ tinuation at 41. ι if. is clearly from Polybius. Walbank com­ ments: "Livy wearies of the detail, omits all mention of the free cities, and leaps ahead to events which no longer survive μ 2 1 . i t : 48 lines; the excerptor has abridged the end: Nissen, KU 14, 191.

LIVY

in our text." 39 Yet the fact that earlier Livy had excised men­ tion of the autonomous cities of Asia in both the first speech (Pol. 50. 7) and in the second (51. 7) makes Walbank's in­ terpretation questionable. The omissions show that the passage as a whole was carefully designed in advance. A further question arises: how did Livy generally go about writing after he had read over an episode and made his plans for recasting it? Did he, for example, keep his eye continuously on Polybius' text while writing? The bulk of the evidence suggests that he did not as a rule: the units into which he divided his sources were adapted as units α memorial he did not generally refer back to the original for every idea or sentence. No other method seems adequate to explain even such a short passage as the eulogy of King Attalus (55. 21. 1-5 = Pol. 18. 41). Polybius' 34 lines are compressed into fourteen, and his order of topics—(1) wealth, (2) lofty spirit, (3) favors to his friend, (4) con­ quest of the Gauls, (5) the fact that he deserved the title of king, (6) age, (7) length of reign, (8) qualities as a husband and father and (9) as a friend and ally, (10) death fighting for the liberty of Greece, (11) the concord among his four sons concerning the succession—is given by Livy as (6), ( l ) , ( 0 , (2). (4)» (5). (9)1 ( 8 ) ' (3)» (1O1 with (10) omitted. 40 Even in technical military matters, in which he ordinarily had little expertise or interest, this same thorough recasting is in evidence. An example is PoIybius' lengthy contrast of the Greek and Roman vallum (18. 18: 54 lines), which Livy reduced to a spare 22 lines, at the same time giving up Polybius' comparison according to procedures (ease of transporting the stakes, size and shape, placement) in favor of a division along national lines (the Greek: 55. 5. 5-8, the Roman: 5. 9-12). The accounts of Eastern embassies in Rome show that Comm. 2, 28. Compare a similar case in the character sketch of Antiochus Epiphanes at 41.20.1-9 (= Pol. .26.1.6-11). Although the texts of both authors are defective, enough is left to show that Livy has thoroughly recast Polybius. 39

40

WORKING METHODS

for certain subjects he had worked out a set pattern for unscrambling and reforming the Polybian unit.41 For ex­ ample, when a large number of legations is present, the Greek historian will first list them and then detail in what order the Senate dealt with each; if negotiations with one legation or on one subject were treated in stages, each stage is noted. Livy's aim was to concentrate on the more im­ portant embassies or topics and to reduce the rest as sharply as possible. He would do so by pulling together separate passages on a single subject. An example is at 39. 46. 6-48. 5 (=PoL 23. 1-4), where the presence of Prince Demetrius (Pol. i. 5), his formal appearance before the Senate (Pol. i. 8-2. u) and—in a still later passage—the favorable (and insidious) treatment of the young man and its pernicious effects for the future (Pol. 3. 4-10) are joined by Livy into one continuous passage (47. r-48. 1: 41 lines; 98 lines in Polybius). Another step was simply to omit lesser matters: so the two sections that interrupt the Demetrius sequence are dropped, despite the fact that each (Pol. 1.7, 3. 1-3) concerns the Senate's replies to Eumenes' delegation, whose presence and purposes Livy had mentioned earlier (46.9). Instead of listing the various legations and taking each in turn, 42 he sometimes prefers to group them according to the kinds of responses the Senate gave them. So at 40. 2. 6-3. 2 (= Pol. 23. 9) he pulls together embassies from Eumenes, Pharnaces, and Rhodes because the same reply is given to each: an investigatory embassy would be sent out. Philip and the Peloponnesians are joined because each was given an answer based on a report of the legate Q. Marcius. Yet 41

Compare Walsh's analysis of narrative patterns for sieges, naval

battles, and the like: RhM 97 (1954) 97—114. 42 Cf. 57.52.1 ff., where Livy begins his account of Eastern em­ bassies according to a Roman source, switching to Polybius part way

through

(52.6-56.10 = Pol.

21. 18-24).

The

Roman

source

failed to mention some embassies that appear later in Polybius (Livy 54.1-2, 55.4); Polybius names at the start all of those present (18. 1-2). There is no proof here that Livy did not know what was com­ ing up in Polybius, since it was his general habit to mention the presence of an embassy only when its turn came before the Senate.

LIVY

in his compression Livv never says what the responsa were. The reason is clear: he wants to concentrate on the main thrust of Marcius' report (Philip's preparations for war) and to move quickly to res Graeciae for the year 182. 4 3 Livv follows many of the same procedures for the next year (40.20. 1-2 =Poi. 24. 1): the legations are not reviewed

at the start but are grouped according to the type of response given; again, his desire for brevity causes the grounds of complaint between Eumenes, Ariarathes, and Pharnaces to be omitted, and again, a quick transition to Polybius' res Macedoniae is uppermost in his mind (20. 5 ff·). Livy thus worked through Polybius unit by unit and, keeping the information in his mind, wrote his adaptation without referring back to the source very often to refresh his memory. One indication is the frequency with which variations occur in short lists, such as those of cities and of individuals. If he were merely looking at Polybius' text and translating sentence by sentence, it is difficult to see why he should have shifted the order as frequently as he did, unless it was for reasons of euphony. For instance, where Polybius (/#.3.12) has (1) Echinus, (2) Phthiotic Thebes, (3) Pharsalus, and (4) Larissa, Livy {32. 33. 16) has (2), (1), (4), (3); later on (Pol. 18. 8.9-10) proposals concerning (1) Aetolia, (2) Rhodes, (3) Achaea, (4) Rome, and (5) Attalus become (4), (5), (2), (1), (3)—Rome appropriately heading the list (52. 35. 9-11). A great many other examples can be cited. 44 Such changes occur as fre­ quently 43

in

those

that

follow

Polybius'

text

See p. 110.

44Other

examples from the seventh pentad: 52.32.11 = Pol. 1 8 . 1 .

z-j; 32.33.6-7 = Pol. Pol,

passages

/ i . 2. 3-4; 33. 13.6 = Pol.

>8.39. j; 33.31 = P o l .

18. 38. 3; 33.13.14 =

/#.45; 33.34.6 = Pol. 18.47.6. A t 33. 32.

5, in a list of eight peoples ( = Pol. 18. 46. 5), Livy has the order (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (5): probably an example of an excel­ lent but not quite perfect short-term memory. These passages show the expectation that Livy would retain the order of such lists in his sources to be mistaken: cf. Ogilvie,

Comm.

123.

WORKING METHODS

closely as in those that have been subjected to considerable recasting; they suggest (but do not prove) that unit com­ position from memory was the method Livy generally used. No doubt he checked back with his source now and then in mid-course, but the evidence suggests that this may not have been a regular habit. 45 A number of passages further suggest that garbling of the original often occurs toward the end of the unit—partic­ ularly of the longer units—when the details of the original were not as fresh in Livy's mind. The long section concern­ ing t h e Battle of Cynoscephalae, f o r example (23. 5 . 4 - I O . 7 , io = Pol. 18. 18-27), breaks up naturally into five units:

1. digression on the vallum 2. movement of Macedonians and Romans that bring them to Cynoscephelae 3. skirmish of light-armed troops 4 . main battle 5. aftermath

Polybius

Livy

18.2-18(4911.)

5 · 5 - 1 2 (22 11.)

19. 1 - 2 0 . 7 (6? H·)

6 (34II-)

2 0 . 8 - 2 2 . 6 ( 5 8 11.)

7 ( 4 1 11.)

2 2 . 7 - 2 6 . 1 2 ( 1 5 7 11.)

8 . 1 - 1 0 . 5 ( 8 6 11.)

2 7 .1 - 6 ( 2 4 1 1 . )

1 0 . 6 - 7 (611.)

Compare Livy's method of work with that of his Penguin translator A. de Selincourt, as reported by B. Radice, Livy, the War with Hannibal (Baltimore 1965) 21· "The manuscripts he left in 45

his clear handwriting were almost entirely free from afterthoughts and corrections; he could read a half-page of Livy, carry it in his head and put the translation down on paper in its finished form. This suggests to me a real affinity with his subject; neither de Selin­ court nor Livy would suffer the forward surge of the narrative to be held up by details like the exact spelling of a disputed Spanish place-name."

LIVY

The longest section, the main battle, contains a number of shifts and additions and becomes increasingly garbled as it nears its end. The changes at the start are well done. The order of topics at the start of Polybius is (i) Flamininus ( 18.22. j ), (2) Philip (22.8), (3) a discussion of topography (22.9-10), (4) back to Flamininus (23.1 ff.). Livv drops the topographv and describes Philip's move­ ments (8. 1-2) before those of FIamininus (8. 3 ff.). He next places the description of the Roman battle order in front of Flamininus' speech to his soldiers (8. 3-5 = Pol. 23. 1-7), besides reversing references within the speech to the vic­ tories at Eordaea and in Epirus. In the passage describing Philip's forces and leading to the howler at hastis positis (8. 13), 46 he reverses Philip's orders to his phalanx and an account of how the king arranged the troops on his right wing (8. 12-14). But by the time he reaches 9. 3 ff. con­ fusion sets in. Polybius first describes how Philip's forces on the left were still arriving on the top of the hill in march­ ing order (25. 3), then Flamininus' appraisal of the chances of his right and left wings (25. 4), and finally his movement from his left to his right wing in order to attack those arriving on the enemy's left (25.5). Livy 1 on the other hand, describes the king's troops still on the march as being in confusion and alarm even before Flamininus' attack (sine alio or dine trepidabatur: 9. 3; incompositos·. 9. 6); he then creates a media acies (9.4) "which stood by watching the proceeding as if it was something they had no part in" (.stabat spectaciilo velut nihil ad se pertinentis pugnae in­ terna), apparently basing it on Polybius' phrase τα μίν ίχόμινα των Kti -SwivovToir iv αποστάσω των πολεμίων ην at 25. 3. He next backtracks to describe more fully those arriving on the sum­ mit, this time merely calling them the phalanx (9.5). Finally, he recounts Flamininus' appraisal of the situation and his attack in a single sentence (9. 6). He has omitted, however, to state the crucial step: Flamininus' move from 40 The passage is not to be explained as garbling, but an honest attempt to correct what he took to be an error in Polybius: see p.

40.

WORKING METHODS

his left to his right wing. This confusion doubtless owes something to Livy's ignorance of military matters. But it also looks as if he began to lose his grip on the actual order of events as his adaptation neared the finish. Another example is furnished by his account of the peace negotiations after Cynoscephalae (55. 11. 1-2, 11. δ­ ι 3. 15 = Pol. 18. 33-39). At the start he omits considerable amounts of Polybian material: the digression on the phalanx (/£.28-32), the appraisal of Philip's conduct in misfortune (33. 3-7), and the digression on venality among the Romans (35). At 11. ι ff. he dovetails neatly the remaining bits of Polybius (33.1-2, 33.8-34.4). 47 He then reproduces suc­ cinctly, but accurately and in order, the preliminary con­ ferences of the allies at Tempe (12 =PoI. 34.5-37.12), adding on his own a reference to the Illyrians at 12. 10. The divergences begin with the main conference with Philip (13 = Pol. 38-39). A list of four cities at Pol. 38. 3 becomes (2), (1), (4), (3) (13.6); he omits Flamininus' discussion on the status of these cities (Pol. 38.4-5), evidently be­ cause he wants to concentrate on the clash between Flamininus and Phaeneas the Aetolian. Hence his statement disceptatio inter imperatorem Romanum et Aetolos orta est de Thebis (13. 7) is in error, for it was not Thebes but the other towns whose status was in dispute. Note also that he delays mention of the coming war with Antiochus to the end of the passage (13.15 answers to Pol. 39.2-3) and severely abridges the passage that includes Polybius' remarks on the Aetolian reaction to Flamininus' somewhat discredit­ able motives in wanting a quick peace (13. 13 =Pol. 39. 14). Finally, Livy gives in reverse order the three main stipulations of the truce (13. 14 = Pol. 39. 5). This looks as if he may have selected the whole of Polybius 36-39 as a unit for adaptation. The beginning follows the original closely; toward the end divergences and garbling occur. Livy's delay in mentioning the site of the conferences until 4 7 There

is a lacuna between Pol. 1 8 . 33.8 and 34.1; Livy 11.2-7

(.hauddum satis . . . animi v'mim )

derives from the missing material.

LIVY

3- ι suggests that chapters 36-39 of Polvbius were indeed taken over as a unit. Polybius gives the site at the start (36. 1, which answers to 12. 1 in Livy). A third example is at 36. 27-29 (= Pol. 20. 9-11); it con­ cerns the abortive attempt of the Aetolians to come to terms with the Romans in 191 B.C. Once again two conferences, one preliminary to the other, take place, of which the first is reproduced accurately and in order (27 = Pol. 9). The central scene of the second, which describes Acilius Glabrio's threat to put the Aetolians in chains in order to teach them the meaning of deditio in fidem, shows increas­ ing divergences; some may be due to literary aims: e.g. Livy's statement that an actual decree was shown to Glabrio (28. 2), his omission of the plea of Valerius Flaccus and others that Glabrio be lenient, or the addition of Flaccus' request for a ten-day truce (28.8: in Polvbius Glabrio determines this). But others look to be the result of simple garbling and misremembering: e.g. the omission of Glabrio's order that the Aetolians not cross into Asia (Pol. 10.4); the assertion that the Aetolian apocleti judged the Roman conditions should be met (28. 9), which is not in Polvbius; or, more surprising, the creation of a meeting of all Aetolians (29. 1), whereas Polvbius depicts their anger at the Roman response as so great that they refused to convene (10. 15). There are other divergences as well. Taken together, they suggest that Livy may have been "winging it" a bit: i.e. intent on the drama of the catem-scent and not troubling to check back with Polvbius toward the end to refresh his memory. Polybius 20. 9-10 is a lengthy passage to retain in one's mind: some 93 lines in the Teubner text. 48 Unit composition in Livv has perhaps its clearest illus­ tration in lengthy passages where changing methods of 1

48

On Livy's adaptation, cf. Witte, Darstellung

The episode concerning the adventures of

284-287,

360-362.

Nicander that follows

forms a naturally separate unit (36. 29.3-11 = Pol. 20. τι). Livy ties it to the preceding scene (29.2-3) smoothly; but he is in a hurry to round out the sequence, as his compression and the omission of the subsequent fate of Nicander (Pol. 11.9-10) show.

WORKING METHODS

adaptation follow the changes in the stages of the action. The section at 39. 33. 1-35.4 i s an example. Chapter 33 is from Polybius' res ltaliae and concerns legations from Greece before the Senate in 184 (=Pol. 22. 11-12); 34. 135. 4 is from his res Macedoniae and recounts Philip's mas­ sacre at Maronea and the dispatch of Demetrius to Rome (22. 13-14). Livy has joined the two and has fashioned a good transition. 49 The first part is a prime example of thorough recasting: rearrangement, omission, and compres­ sion predominate. The second follows the original closely; Livy's language is compressed, but he omits no essential fact and retains the Polybian order. 50 Longer passages show similar alternations in technique. His account of the set­ tlement in Greece of 196 is an example: 53.30-35 =Pol18. 44-48. The sequence naturally divides into five stages: (1) the terms of the treaty (chapter 30 = Pol. 44), (2) the reaction of the Aetolians and the conference at Corinth (31 =Pol. 45), (3) the proclamation of the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian games (32-33 =Pol. 46), (4) the hearing given by the ten commissioners to the various Greek states (34 — Pol. 47), (5) the dispersal of the commissioners to various parts of Greece (35 = Pol. 48). The first is an example of close adaptation; variants from Roman sources are also added, some inserted at appropriate points in the Polybian material, others grouped as an appendix at the end. 51 The second is an example of recasting; the Polybian 39· 34· 1: Dimissis eis legationibus Philippus a suis certior factus cedendum civitatibus deducendaque praesidia esse, infensus omnibus 48

in Maronitas ham effundit. 50 He specifies the complaints of the Roman legation headed by Appius Claudius at jp. 34. 3; some of them may have been suggested by the later Polybian passage at 22.14. 6. Livy also compresses two days of negotiations into one (Pol. 14.1, 3) and gives some psycho­ logical elaboration to Philip's fright: non color . . . non vultus . . . deinde collecto tandem animo (34.7); he omits other actions taken later by Appius' embassy: Pol. 22.15. 5l The bulk of Polybius' provisions is given first: 53.30.1-5. Livy then adds two more, concerning restrictions on Philip's land forces, that are not in Polybius: 30.6; most scholars believe that these are

LIVY

order of topics has been shifted about, as have lists of brief items within the topics. The third shows considerable expan­ sion and elaboration: Livy has added an introduction of his own (32. 1-2) and a passage on the character and constitu­ tion of Flamininus toward the end (33. 1-2); he has trans­ ferred Polybius' remarks on the importance and nature of the event to the words and thoughts of the crowd that witnessed it. The fourth reverts to close adaptation, al­ though the shift in the order of a number of brief items sug­ gests that this was not a clause-by-clause translation but was largely composed as a unit from memory. The last shows no discrepancies; it reproduces Polybius exactly. Perhaps the most pervasive characteristic of Livy's nar­ rative technique is his habit of breaking down a narrative sequence into stages or episodes (Witte's EinzelerzahIungen). Livy fixed on a central act or idea toward which the narrative was to move. This received his greatest at­ tention and the greatest care in elaboration; introductory and concluding material was abbreviated and compressed Roman in origin, a few that Polybius' excerptor left them out: see Nissen 1 KU 145; Walbank, Comm. 2, 609-610. Then comes the amount of the indemnity according to Polybius (30.7), followed by the figures given by Antias and Quadrigarius (30.8). Next comes an additional sentence on Eumenes from Quadrigarius (30.9). The matter of hostages (30. 10) is not attributed to anyone, although the context points to Quadrigarius—Polybius does not mention it (Polybius in any case is giving the principal clauses, which are those of the senatus consultum, not of the treaty itself). Finally we have ad­ ditional provisions from Antias concerning Attalus, Rhodes, and Athens. At first sight this looks to be a muddled conflation. But there is an order of sorts. Polybius' mention of the number of ships at 30.5 prompted Livy to add items concerning restrictions on land forces (which were probably in both Roman writers, since neither is named). Then came the indemnity figures according to Polybius, Antias, and Quadrigarius. At the end are given additions peculiar to Quadrigarius and to Antias that could not be ranged alongside Polybius' provisions for comparison. Hence the material is ordered by topics until the miscellany at the end (9-11), where the provisions are grouped by authors.

WORKING METHODS

sharply. No doubt this technique was due chiefly to personal choice. But a strongly reinforcing factor must have been his manner of working through his sources, for it could only strengthen the tendency to write narrative according to discrete, well-defined stages. NON-POLYBIAN ADAPTATION

Critics are generally agreed that on the whole Livy repro­ duced his Polybian material conscientiously and accurately. Can the same be said of the way in which he used his Roman sources, both in the Polybian books and in other parts of the Ab Urbe Condita, particularly the early books? Most have assumed so, although there are reasons for thinking that Polybius should not be taken as wholly typical of Livy's sources. For one thing, Livy did not so regard him. He is, in fact, the only historian for whom he has words of praise, and this not once but twice. In Book 30 (45. 5) he is "a writer who should on no account be ignored": handquaquam spernendus aiictor·, and in 55 (10.10) "a reliable authority for all of Roman history, particularly for events in Greece": non incertum auctorem cum omnium Romanarum rerum turn praecipue in Graecia gestarum. There is probably an element of self-advertisement here, however: Polybius is Livy's "discovery" so to speak. The first passage hints at undeserved neglect, the context of the second fea­ tures the exaggerations of Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius, neither of whom appears to have known or used the Greek historian. It has been argued earlier, how­ ever, that Livy did not view Polybius as vastly superior or inherently preferable; what his Roman sources reported deserved as much credence, if not always as much respect, as PoIybius' history.52 Walbank's view on possible differences in adaptation is this: "It is in general true that, whereas his main concern when using Polybius as a source is to simplify and ab52 See

pp. 147-149.

LIVY

breviate, where he follows an annalist he develops and romanticizes his account with all the devices developed bv the rhetoricians." 53 This conclusion is questionable for a number of reasons. First, there is scarcely an original scrap left of Livy's Roman sources in Books 5/-4(/. 54 Real com­ parison is thus denied us, and onlv inference based on likelihood can be made. And the postulate that Livy worked up his material according to exactly opposite principles from source to source is inherently improbable. Conciseness and a well-paced storv were almost surely consistent aims throughout the Ab Urbe Condita; Burck has illustrated both in a close comparison of Books /-j with the surviving parts of Livy's contemporary, Dionvsius of Halicarnassus. 55 iVloreover, that Livy romanticized his Roman sources and by con­ trast gave a sober adaptation of Polvbius is also dubious. The trial scene that begins the "Fall of the House of Macedon" in Book {38.

40

(5. 1-16. 3), the storv of the noble Chiomara

24 ^ Pol. 2/.38) and that of the hapless Poris and

Theoxena

(40.

4) are from Polvbius, after all. If anything,

thev have a touch more of "romance" than do comparable Roman stories, such as the love between Aebutius and Hispala Faecenia

(39.

9. 1—14. 3), the Trials of the Scipios

(5#. 50.4-60. 10), or Aemilius Paullus' final discourse on fortune

{45.

41). Besides, even if a greater concentration of

romance is judged to exist in the sections based on the Roman tradition, it is more likelv due to the nature of his sources than to Livv himself. 56 5 3 Livy,

ed. T. A. Dorey (London 197 r), 58. No ipsissima verba of Antias survive except for a few words and phrases cited by Gellius and later grammarians. Claudius stirred more interest (e.g. frg. 10b ap. Aul. Gell. 9. 13. 7-19), but there are no verbatim quotations for the years 201-167. 5 5 Erzahhmgsktmst, passim. Livy selected only a small portion of the material available for much of early history, especially the Regal Period. 56 On the question of romance, see J. M. K. Martin, G&R 11 (1942) 124-129; Walsh, AJPh 76 (1955) 37® an( l n - 4454

WORKING METHODS

Yet it would be surprising if Livy's methods in dealing with his Roman sources were not somewhat different. If so, the difference was probably in degree not in kind. Perhaps most significant was the nature of much of the native tradi­ tion: rather abbreviated accounts on a wide variety of dis­ connected subjects. Such material was suitable chiefly for heterogeneous groupings that could serve as introductions, conclusions, or dividers to the longer, more important, and more unified blocks of material. Lengthy episodes that lent themselves to full-scale development, such as the Trials of the Scipios, the Bacchanalian Conspiracy, and Cato's Spanish campaign, he doubtless treated much as he did comparable subjects in Polybius. Another factor that made for a differ­ ence in method was the need to combine two or more Roman historians when neither seemed suitable as a Hauptquelle. This would apply not so much to the major blocks of material (e.g. Antias is clearly the chief source for the Trials) as to the shorter, discrete notices. Here Livy at times doubtless moved among sources rather frequently; I do not mean that he conflated their accounts on one topic into a single version told by no one of them, but that in a string of items he might shift from one source to another for the individual notices, depending on which gave the fuller, more appealing account. Unfortunately the many at­ tempts of Quellenforschung to distinguish the different strands of the Roman sources in Books 51-45 have not pro­ duced convincing results or the glimmerings of a consensus. How often Livy switched among them (rather than follow­ ing single sources for a string of notices) cannot be known, but there is no doubt that he sometimes did so and that for many consular years at least two different Roman sources were drawn upon fully and in equal measure. The idea that Livy's adaptation of his Roman sources for Books 31-45 was essentially different from his adaptation of Polybius is therefore unprovable, but a priori unlikely. Variation in treatment most likely is due more to differences

LIVY

in the types of material that these sources contained than to Livy's attitude toward them. At the same time it cannot be denied that among all his historical sources Livy regarded Polybius in a special and favorable light. A further question arises: can his rather faithful adapta­ tion of Polybius be assumed to apply to the first decade? R. M. Ogilvie believes that it can: "It stands to reason that although his methods may be more tentative and more ex­ perimental in the early books, the basic technique will be the same."57 Hence Ogilvie feels justified in differentiating quite precisely the Valerian and Licinian passages in the first pentad. But reservations are justified, for in the first ten books Livy's freedom in adapting and inventing seems to have gone far beyond anything we find in the later books. The celebrated incident of how Manlius Torquatus slew the Gaul in personal combat is an illustration. Livy states at 6.42. 5-6 that he is acquainted with Claudius Quadrigarius' version of this event, but he prefers with other authorities to date it some years later.58 It so happens that we have Claudius' version preserved for us by Aulus Gellius.59 Now, despite the fact that this is one of the rare instances when Livy refers to an entire episode rather than to an isolated factual variant and is one of those even rarer Comm. 5. years or more, to be exact (the year is 367 B.C.): Pluribus auctoribus ?nagis adducor ut credam decern baud minus post annos ea acta. Yet the incident is dated six years later (361: 7.9.6 ff.), which illustrates at once both carelessness and knowledge of what was com­ ing up in his sources—in this case his knowledge extended over a number of consular years to events he would narrate in the next book. The similar combat of Valerius Corvinus with a Gaul at 7.26 is probably based also on. Quadrigarius: HRR frg. 12. Certain addi­ tions by Livy to the Torquatus episode seem to have been suggested by Quadrigarius' account of Corvinus: e.g. the armor of the GauI {armisque auro praejulgentibus) and the request for permission from the commander to fight 58 Aul. Gell. 9.13.7-19 = HRR frg. 10b. 57

38Ten

WORKING METHODS

instances when a passage alluded to has survived, most scholars have refused to believe that Livy used Claudius when he came to the incident nine chapters later.60 The rea­ son is clear: Livy has made numerous and sweeping changes. For example, he adds a scene between Torquatus and his commander in which the former asks permission to engage in the duel.61 He dresses the Gaul up in multicolored cloth­ ing, resplendent in armor that is painted and embossed in gold. He makes the Gaul so huge and Manlius of such mid­ dling height that instead of stabbing into the Gaul's breast, as in Claudius, Livy's Manlius can reach only the stomach and groin. But all of these details could have come from Livy's own imagination; there are parallel examples in the Polybian sec­ tions. What is unusual here is that the alterations are so many and in so brief a space. Source critics are naturally reluctant to admit that Claudius could be the source here, for if they are prepared to grant that Livy could recast his source material so thoroughly in these early books, the pos­ sibility of identifying and appraising these sources becomes highly problematical. And, in fact, there are enough correspondences to show that Claudius most probably is the source here: there are exact details which Livy would not invent, such as Manlius' pedestre scutum and Hispanus gladius. Moreover, it is with reluctance that Livy refers to the Gaul prancing about and sticking his tongue out at the Romans: "even this the ancients thought worthy of menexample, Zimmerer, CQ 142; KIotz1 Livius 207; B. Sypniewska, Charisteria Casimiro de Morawski (Cracow 1922) 177-178; H. G. Plathner, Die Schlachtschilderungen bei Ltvius (Breslau 1934) 29. Plathner is one of the few who think Livy capable of conflation of sources, chiefly because he sees that Livy must be using Claudius here for some items, but cannot bring himself to believe that he would adapt as freely as in fact he did. 61A wholly apt invention, for this is the Manlius who later will order the execution of his son for disobeying his orders as com­ mander in the field (8. 7). 60For

LIVY

tion"; the detail is in Claudius. 62 In Claudius, Manlius cuts off the Gaul's head; Livv refuses to include an act so barbarous and so repugnant to Augustan sensibilities. He therefore writes: "The Gaul's body was not violated in anv way, save for the removal of the neck chain, which—all bloodied—Manlius put around his own neck." 63 The detail points clearly to a source which did contain such a viola­ tion: it is a riposte to Claudius' version. Note also that Liw includes the touch about the neck chain being bloodied, al­ though there is no way for this to have occurred, since he has denied that the head was cut off and has permitted A-Ianlius to strike no higher than the belly and the groin. Other passages can be cited to illustrate the sort of sweep­ ing changes that Livv could and did make in the earlv books." The reason is not so much that Livv's use of his sources was more tentative and more experimental at this stage (although undoubtedlv such was the case) as that the nature of his historical material was vastly different. In these books he covered manv more years and hence a much greater variety of incidents than in sections of comparable length later on. And since he seems to have Iargelv r deter­ mined source selection on the basis of subject matter (e.g. Polvbius is the Hauptquelle for events in the East and in Africa and for manv embassies from the East), it seems inherentlv more likely that he switched sources more fre­ quently in these early books. But even if this theory be denied or set aside as unproved, it is also clear that Livv's 02 7. 9. 5: Armatuvi adornatumque adversus Galium stolide laetum et—quomam id quoqae memoria dignum antiquis visum est—linguam etmn ab inrisu exserenteni producunt. Claudius: Deinde Gallus inridere coepit atque lmgumn exertare. " 7 . 9 . 1 1 : lacentis inde corpus ab omni alia vexatione intactum uno torque Spoliavit 1 quern respersum cruore collo circumdedit suo. Claudius. Ubi eum evertit, caput praecidit, torquem detraxit earn que sanguinulentam s'tbi in collum inpomt. 64J. 32-55, concerning the Gallic Sack of Rome, owes much to Livy's own literary aims and invention: Luce, TAPhA 102 (1971) 265-302.

WORKING METHODS attitude toward the reliability of the historical evidence for the early period was different. He repeatedly emphasizes the uncertain nature of almost everything connected with the early tradition. Since most of the facts were unverifiable and had occurred before writing was either in existence or had become common, 65 free adaptation and invention were permissible even for one as conscientious as Livy—provided of course that one did not overdo it or violate the basic out­ line of the received tradition. It is therefore questionable whether we should assume that the same faithfulness in adaptation and the same habit of following single sources over long stretches were as prevalent in the early books as in the later. 66 Yet once these two basic props of Quellenforschung have been recognized as shaky and of question­ able strength, the possibility of identifying particular sources in the early books becomes a hazardous business. It is un­ fortunate, but we cannot pretend to more accuracy than the probabilities of the evidence allow. CONCLUSIONS Before outlining the chief conclusions of this chapter, it is worth re-emphasizing two points. First, the investigation has necessarily proceeded by inference and hypothesis; sec­ ond, the results are generalizations only: Livy's approach and method of writing could and did vary from time to time. With these points in mind, we have argued that Livy went through three steps in preparing to write. The first was extensive reading in long periods of Roman history. The 65

6. i . z : litterae . . . una custodia fidelis

tarum; 8. 40.

5·

memoriae reruvi ges-

Nec quisquam aequalis temporibus illis scriptor exstat

quo satis certo auctore stetur. 68

There is, of course, always the possibility that Livy's method

of adapting his sources changed in certain basic respects over the years, above and beyond those differences that reflect changes in the nature of the historical material. But I see no proof or indica­ tion that such is the case.

LIVY

design of the extant books suggests that this reading in­ volved at a minimum stretches of material that would later each fill fifteen books: from the founding to the outbreak of the First Punic War (753-264), the First and Second Punic Wars (264-201), and the Conquest of the East (201167). Livy's aim was to determine what the sources were like, how much material was available and how it could be arranged by books, pentads, and multiples of pentads, what main episodes lent themselves to special development and where they should be placed within the structure of books. After this stage, Livy went back to the start once more. The second step was to read through the main blocks of source material for periods of at least a consular year in the later books (and doubtless for longer periods in the early books). At this stage the exact sequence he would follow in joining his source material together was determined, odd notices from secondary sources searched out, and plans made for the methods of adaptation that would be necessary for the various sections. The final step was to go back to the start yet again in order to write up the material section by section. That is, the materia] was broken down into episodes or units ranging from a few lines for the briefer notices from Roman sources up to a hundred or so for some of the longer Polybian sections. Livy generally did not translate sentence by sentence. The frequent changes which he makes in the order and arrangement of topics show that he usually read over the material by units and wrote them up from memory by units. The procedure applies both to those parts that he recast rather extensively and to those where he follows the Polybian order closely; the many changes in the order of simple lists of three to eight items suggest composition from memory here as well. He naturally checked back with his main source from time to time in the course of adapta­ tion, but the garbling of information toward the end of cer­ tain sections, particularly some of the longer ones, suggests that this was not an invariable practice. Finally, the question to what extent these methods can be applied to his adapta-

WORKING METHODS

tion of his Roman sources does not permit a definitive answer. That there were differences seems likely, given the different nature of the material. Especially likely is a much freer, more inventive approach to the material for the early books, where, as Livy repeatedly stresses, sure knowledge of particulars was generally impossible and where general out­ lines only were discernible.

CHAPTER

VII

The Roman National Character and Historical Change

IN HIS Preface Livy writes: "The chief merit and benefit of

history is to behold in the record of a great nation examples of every sort of conduct; from it vou may select for your­ self and for your country those things worthy of imitation and those that, whether wrongly begun or wrongly con­ cluded, you should avoid." 1 The Roman national character concerns him most particularly: "Either my love for the task I have set myself deceives me, or there never has been a state greater, purer, or richer in good examples, or one in which avarice and luxury found a home so late, or where modest wealth and thrift were so much honored and for so long." 2 Throughout the extant books of the Ab Urbe Condita this outlook abides; Livy is convinced that Roman achievement and Roman failures have their most basic ex­ planation in the values of the actors in the historical drama. He did not, for example, share Polybius' belief in the over1 Praef. io: Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum saiubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita vionumento intuert; inde tibi titaeque rex publicae quod imitere capias, inde joedum inceptu foedum exitu quod vites. On the meaning of monumentnm see B. O. Foster, TAPhA 42 (1911) Ixvi; Ogilvie, Comm. 28. 2 Praef. 11: Aut me amor negotii suscepti fallit, aut nulla unquam res publica nec maior nec sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit, nee in qaam civitatem tarn serae avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint, nec nbi tantus ac tarn diu paupertati ac parsimoniae honos fuerit. I am not convinced by G. Stiibler, Die Religiositat des Livius (Stutt­ gart 1941; repr. Amsterdam 1964) 5, that in ascribing Rome's suc­ cess to national character Livy was directly drawing on ideas in Pericles' funeral speech in Thucydides.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

riding importance of institutions, such as those of the Roman constitution. For him it was the people who counted most: not simply what they did but in what frame of mind they did it.3 The form in which his belief is expressed is also typically Livian: few asides in his own person and few generalized disquisitions (both typical of the Greek historian); Livy preferred concrete stories exemplifying Roman virtues and their opposites. Hence the absence almost everywhere of personal remarks on the significance of events. Hence, too, the preoccupation with telling a vivid, dramatic story that speaks for itself.4 To a large extent this approach caused him to treat history as a panorama—a series of episodes embodying moral values. The pantheon of virtues such as fides, pudicitia, disciplina, and so forth, are consistently put on display for the edification and enjoyment of Roman readers. Sometimes whole books or sections of books, particularly in the first pentad, have been designed around such themes: e.g. Iibertas in Book 2, moderatio-modestia in 5, moderatio again in 4, pietas in j.5 Nor have the vices been slighted. Temeritas, libido, ferocia, and the like appear and reappear in stories of often remarkably similar shape and construction; sometimes particular vices characterize whole clans down through the centuries.® 3 Polybtus

does emphasize the importance of Ίθ-η και νόμοι but not to the extent that Livy does, nor with as much understanding: see F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley 1972) 8, 147, 153-154. 4 On the "indirect method," see Witte, Darstellung 274-187; Walsh, Livy 82-85; idem, RhM 97 (1954) 105-107. The best proof is Livy's frequent omission of Polybian digressions in which moral excellence or decay is discussed and in which the Romans sometimes come off quite well, either by direct statement or by implied contrast: e.g. Pol. 18. 35 (cf. Livy 33. 11. 8 IT.), Pol. ztf.41.2-4 (cf. Livy 33. 21. 1-5), Pol. 29.8-9 (cf. L i v y 4 4 . 24. 7-26. 2). 5 See Hellmann, L-/ 46-81; Ogilvie, Comm. 233, 390, 526, 626; Walsh, AJPh 76 (1955) 369-383. 6 See Walsh, Livy 89-90. The Claudii are conspicuous: the son of the decemvir is described as impigrum iuvenem et iam inde ab

LIVY

Scholars have therefore studied Livy's view of the Roman character as a set of beliefs exemplified in the vitae, mores, viri, and artes of the past.7 According to this view the Roman character in a sense is outside of history, for being both an ideal and a "given," it is not itself subject to change: history provides a setting in which the Roman character can be displayed; it does not explain why it is as it is. Influenced by this standard conception among scholars at large as well as by his own thesis of substantialism in ancient historiography generally (that is, its concern with unchanging verities that lie outside history), R. G. Collingwood posited a continuously increasing intrusion of substantialistic concepts into ancient historiography until "by the time of Livy history is frozen solid."8 In Collingwood's view Livy had no conception of historical change. His specific criticisms are these: Livy set himself the task of writing a history of Rome. Now a modern historian would have interpreted this as meaning a history of how Rome came to be what it is, a history of the process which brought into existence the characteristic Roman institutions and moulded the typical Roman character. It never occurs to Livy to adopt any such interpretation. Rome is the heroine of his narrative. Rome is the agent whose actions he is describing. There­ fore Rome is a substance, changeless and eternal. From the beginning of the narrative Rome is ready-made and complete. To the end of the narrative she has undergone incunabulis imbutum odio tribunorum plebisque (4.36.5). Political agitation by the plebeian Icilii is velut pensum nominis familiaeque (4- 52· *)· 7 Walsh, Livy 46-109, gives an excellent survey. Of particular studies, H. Hoch's Die Darstellung der politischen Sendung Roms bei Livius (Frankfurt 1951) stands out. s Tbe Idea of History (Oxford 1946) 43; see also p. xx. He con­ cludes his survey of the ancient world by saying (44-45): "GrecoRoman historiography can therefore never show how anything comes into existence."

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

no spiritual change. The traditions on which Livy relied projected such institutions as augury, the legion, the Sen­ ate, and so forth, into the very first years of the city, with the assumption that they remained thereafter unchanged; hence the origin of Rome, as he describes it, was a kind of miraculous leap into existence of the complete city as it existed at a later date.9 The purpose of the present chapter is to examine the question of historical change and the Roman character in Livy. Attention will be focused on the twin problems of genesis and decline. First, does history for Livy explain why the Roman character came into existence and why it took the form that it did? Second, what are the causes of the decline of Roman values, when did the process begin, and what form did it take? It will be argued that in large meas­ ure Livy's instincts were "historical" even in Collingwood's terms: that is, the Roman character was historically deter­ mined and was subject to historical development. It must be emphasized at the start, however, that no tidy formula­ tion of Livy's views will result, He did not have a wellarticulated, consistent system of thought on the subject. On some points he had come to hold quite settled views; others he found difficult and problematic, and appears to have been wrestling with them in the course of writing. Some will find it surprising that Livy had ideas at all. He has generally been regarded as an intuitive soul whose approach to history was more instinctive and emotional than analytical. There is a measure of truth to this belief; but it has sometimes been carried to extremes. Equally over­ simplified is the idea that for him history was chiefly or exclusively episodic. To be sure, when engaged in the actual business of writing he was preoccupied with the im­ mediacy of events and took them up serially, unit by unit. 9 Coliingwood, Idea of History 43-44. On Livy's failure to ap­ preciate historical change, see also C. N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford 1944) 95—113.

LIVY But in his large-scale planning and in the wide reading that he undertook preliminary to writing he was necessarily con­ cerned with whole epochs of Roman history and with the sweep and direction of events. Hence the connection with the preceding chapters, for it will be argued in what fol­ lows that the views he formed in the course of this broad study significantly affected his choice and treatment of much of his material. Moreover, these views are illustrated chiefly in a series of passages that are his own composition and cannot be claimed to have been lifted wholly, thinkingly or unthinkingly, from single sources. These are the Preface, the introductions to Books 2 (1. 1-6) and 39 (1), the end of the speech of the Rhodians at ^7. 54. 18-28, and two speeches of encouragement to soldiers awaiting battle: that of Acilius before the Battle of Thermopylae in 191 (36. 17) and that of Cn. Manlius before the Battle of Mt. Olympus in 189 (38. 17). 10 How much in these passages is original to him and how much derives from the intellectual climate of his day is difficult to gauge. Doubtless most if not all is derivative. But original or not, Livy took the ideas over and made them his own. These passages will form the basis and point of departure for the following discus­ sion; with them as a guide we can draw upon remarks else­ where in the history that reinforce or amplify the ideas present in them.

EARLY ROME In his critique Collingwood emphasizes the schematic, anti-historical nature of early history in Livy. To a degree he is correct: institutions and customs appear on a sudden and ready-made, the results of the excogitations of this or that king. Moreover, the contrasting characters of the kings are schematic and artificial. Romulus the militarist is a foil 10 Livy has added his own ending to the Rhodian speech, as the Polybian original shows (21. 22-23). On the hortationes see below, nn. 51, 57.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

to the peace-loving and religious Numa. Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Marcius repeat the contrast; the former reverts to the martial arts (with special emphasis on the conduct of international relations), the latter wishes to imitate his grandfather Numa (and so he institutes the religious cere­ monies of wartime). Servius Tullius is the great constitu­ tional innovator; on either side are the two Tarquins: Priscus, the constitutional monarch, and Superbus, exemplifying the degeneration of monarchy into tyranny. There is much here that shows unmistakable Greek in­ fluence: e .g. the kings as individual innovators of legal, social, political, and religious institutions; character types such as Tarquin the tyrant; specific stories such as the fall of Gabii. 11 Native institutions and customs have been par­ celed out in accordance with the scheme of characterization and their beginnings assigned to the inspiration of this or that individual. The assumption that the contrasting characters of the kings were the product of a long historical tradition is 11 Gabii

at /.53.4-54. 10 is modeled on two stories in Herodotus: the capture of Babylon (3.154) and the story of Thrasybulus and Periander (5.92.6). Synchronization with Greek chronology showed the necessity of inserting the Alban king list between the arrival of Aeneas and the founding of Rome, when it was realized that a gap of some four centuries existed between the two events (see Ogilvie, Comm. 43-44); Fabius Pictor was conscious of the gap, as a recent inscription shows: G. Manganaro, PP (1974) 394. Numa as the pupil of Pythagoras is an example of erroneous synchronization (/,18.2-4: it died hard, however, for Valerius Atitias continued to maintain it, as the passage at 40.29.8 attests). The account of Tarquin's expulsion owes much to the synchronous expulsion of the Pisistratids from Athens. E. Gabba has argued that the reason Rome's early historians devoted proportionately greater space to the founding and the Regal Period than to the early Republic is that they drew in significant measure on the works of early Greek historians, who took a much greater interest in Rome's beginnings than in rhe period from the start of the Republic to the Samnite Wars: Les Origi?ies de la ripublique romaine, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 13 (Geneva 1966) 135-169; cf. A. Momigliano1 RAL 15 (i960) 310-320.

LIVY

doubtless correct; the equally common assumption that Livy here reflects his sources and contributed nothing of his own may not be. It would be rash to postulate inven­ tion on his part, however; there is no direct evidence for it and it is foreign to his historical method as we know it elsewhere. Yet the distinctive portraits of the kings probably owe much to his use of a wide variety of material, which when combined produced an overall picture of the period different from that in any one of his sources. Those, how­ ever, who assign long stretches in the early books to single sources and who restrict these sources to historians of the Sullan period or later naturally reject this possibility. Yet in a great many instances the extant fragments of these late historians concerning the Regal Period are at variance with Livy's account. Hypotheses have been devised to explain or palliate this, but they are unconvincing. In addition, the use of Pictor, Piso, and certain specialist works is scouted, al­ though Pictor is cited by name twice (/.44.2, 55.8) and Piso once (/.55.9). 12 In fact, scholars have flatly rejected attestation that Livy used writers other than Sullan his­ torians. For example, when Livy's contemporary Dionysius expressly names Piso as the only source for an identification to which Livy also refers, it is assumed that Liv\^ must have gotten his information not from Piso directly, but through a Sullan intermediary. 13 Even \vhen an ancient writer 12 On Piso compare 7.31.8 with Pliny N H 28.14; 7.46.4 with D. H. 4. 7. 5. On Fabius see Ogilvie, Comm. 156, 159, 177: "It is most unlikely that L. consulted him at first hand" (178). Specialist works are likely, for example, for the fetial formula in declaring war: /.32.5-14 and the deditio formula at /.38.2 (cf. Ogilvie, Comm. 168). Trankle has argued effectively for an early writer (probably Piso) as the source for some parts of 2. 2— 15: Hermes 93 (1965) 311-

337·

13 The

point in question concerns identifying Tarquinius Superbus as the son of Priscus (D.H. 4.7.5): enelvos yap [sc. Πείσω»] ev rah {ί>ιαυσι'οιϊ ττρο^ματβίαΐϊ τονθ' ίστόρηκε μόνο;. This passage answers to Livy /.46.4; Ogilvie, Comm. 187, postulates Antias as an interme­ diary, despite Dionysius 1 knowledge and citation of that writer (1.7.3; 2. 13.2).

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

specifically names as Livy's source someone other than a Sullan historian, the information is disallowed and a Sullan intermediary postulated. 14 Moreover, there is a surprising amount of information in the first book that is unusual or unique—some of it, at least, probably found by Livy him­ self in certain out-of-the-way sources. For example, the ascription of magisterial emblems to Romulus is found nowhere else; 15 the source for the view that Numa wished to use religion as a political device to weld together a disciplined nation is unknown; 16 the assigning of the fetial formulae for making treaties to Tullus Hostilius (i. 24. 4-9) and of that for declaring war to Ancus Marcius (32. 5-14) —both of which are central to Livy's characterizations of these two kings—is atypical. 17 These and other passages result in a picture of the Regal Period that in some im­ portant respects is original and distinctive; it reflects a view that doubtless owes much to Livy himself. Collingwood criticizes Livy's failure to account for the origins of Roman customs and institutions. He cites augury, the legion, and the Senate as examples. Yet no one today is able adequately to account for their origins: they are lost in the twilight of prehistory. Only guess and hypothesis are 14 Servius (ad Aen. 8. 72, 330) says that Livy follows Alexander Polyhistor, a first century author of an encyclopedia of antiquities in Greek, in his statement that the Tiber was named from the Alban king Tiberinus, who drowned in it. Antias is again Ogilvie's candidate {Comm. 44), 15 Ogilvie, Comm. 6(, ascribes it to Macer: "L. is not likely to have invented such an unconventional doctrine for himself"—true, but not a reason for assigning it to Macer in particular. 16 Ogilvie, Comm. 90, who eliminates Macer as a possibility, posits Antias as the source; there can be no certainty: see pp. 167-168. Since the matter is chiefly one of interpretation, Livy himself may be largely or wholly responsible. 17 Ogilvie, Comm. 106, 129, suggests AntLas as the source for Ancus, Macer for Hostilius. This is hypothesis, of course. Even if the iden­ tifications are accepted, they would show that the portrait of each king owes something to Livy's selectivity in drawing on his sources. Dionysius describes the fetials under the reign of Numa (2.72).

LIVY

available, and, as Livy observes on more than one occasion, conjecture is open to anvone who cares to make it { 6 . 12. 3; 29. 14. 9). Antiquarians might profitably ferret out authentic details then as now; the ancient historian was faced with a sterner task: fixing them in time and giving them a home among men and events; he was accordingly forced either to indulge in a certain amount of schematic reconstruction or to omit early history altogether (as apparently Claudius Quadrigarius did). In short, Collingwood expects Livy to account for the unaccountable—at least in the setting of a narrative of res gestae. The remarkable aspect of Livy's account of the Regal Period is not its lack of historical merit but the striving to lend the material as much historicity as possible. The central theme of his narrative is that the growth of Rome and the genesis of her institutions was a gradual, piecemeal process that took many centuries. In the introduction to Book 2 he declares that the kings before Superbus "may be justly reckoned the successive founders of those parts of the city that they added to accommodate the newcomers ad­ mitted." 18 That development did not stop with the inception of the Republic, however, but was part of a more general view of Rome's past—one that was common in the later Republic and went back at least to Cato. In the second book of Cicero's De re publica Scipio Aemilianus is represented as saying: "Cato used to declare that our constitution sur­ passes all others because in most of them individuals estab­ lished laws and institutions, as Minos did in Crete, Lvcurgus in Sparta. . . . Our nation, on the other hand, was established not bv the genius of one man but of many, not in one lifetime but over many centuries and ages." 19 The contrast lg

2. 1 . 2 . Priores ita regnarunt ut baud immerito omnes deinceps

conditores

partium certe urbis, quas novas ipsi sedes ab se auctae

viulntudinis addiderunt, mmierentur. Cf. /.11.4., 3°· i , JJ- 5, 44.3· l y

D e re p. 2.2: Is

[sc.

Cato] dicere solebat ob banc causam prae-

stare nostrae civitatis statum ceteris civitatibus, quod in illis singuli fuissent

fere

quorum

suam

quisque

legibtis atqite institutis suis, ut

rem

Cretuvi

publicavr

Minos,

constituisset

Lacedaemoniorum

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

with the usual Greek manner of accounting for origines is explicit. More important, the process is viewed in an his­ torical perspective: that is, it was one of accretion, its stages interconnected and fixed in time, its causes explicable in terms of human character and actions. This conception, however, created difficulties when one was faced with nar­ rating that part of the process that lay in the realm of myth and fable. For the narrator of res gestae origins had to be tied to specific acts and personalities; chapters on "Political institutions in Early Rome," "Archaic Religious Beliefs," and "The Primitive Roman Army" were not permissible substitutions, even if one felt able to write them. Hence the Greek method of explaining origines proved useful if not indispensable for at least this earliest stage. Nevertheless, a typically Roman perspective asserts itself almost at the start. Romulus was not saddled with inventing all or even most of the Roman system·, major discoveries were assigned to each of the kings. Nor was their characterization taken to extremes. Romulus was not the exclusive originator of military practices, Numa of religious observations, or Servius TuIIius of the constitution.20 Lycurgus, . . . nostra autem res publica non unius esset ingenio sed multorum, nec una hominis vita, sed aliquot constituta saeculis et aetatibus. I have omitted from this quotation the example of Athens, similar to Rome in that its constitution too was produced by the efforts of many individuals (Theseus, Draco, Solon, Cleisthenes, turn multi alii) and was revived by Demetrius of Phalerum. Just what Cato conceived the essential difference to be between Athenian and Roman development is unclear. Perhaps the Athenian is thought of as a discontinuous series of different systems (quae persaepe commutata esset), the Roman as unitary. Yet the Roman too passed through various stages: monarchy, the Decemvirate, and the mili­ tary tribunate with consular power (cf. Livy 3.33.1; 4.4.1-3, 7.1). 20 Most of the kings are represented as versatile and many-sided: e.g. Ancus Marcius (/.35.1): Regnavit Ancus annos quattuor et viginti, cuilibet superiorum regum belli pacisque et artibus et gloria par. Numa cuts the most simplistic figure, engaging in no military exploits (7 .20.2) quia in civitate bellicosa plures Romuli quam Numae similes reges putabat fore . . . ; cf. 32.4 and D.H. 2.60.4.

LIVY

Thus in Livy's view Rome during the Regal Period grew and developed by stages. Collingwood was wrong to say that from the beginning she is "ready-made and complete." Take the three examples he cites: the legion, augury, and the Senate. First, the Senate. Created by Romulus (8. 7), it originally consisted simply of one hundred patricians. Tullus Hostilius added the principes Albanorum and built the Sen­ ate house that bore his name (30. 2). Tarquinius Priscus added one hundred more new senators—those from the minores gentes (35.6). It was not until the start of the Republic that plebeians were added and the number brought up to three hundred. 21 There may be little or nothing of historical value here; yet what is of great interest for the historiographer is that, despite some schematic and rudi­ mentary features, an attempt is made to see the Senate tak­ ing shape over a considerable period of time. Save for Romulus' initial inspiration, the historical process accounts for it as an institution; it is not simplv part of a stockpile of substances that have leaped into historv fully formed. Augurv is subject to a similar process. The citv was founded by Romulus according to augural signs (6. 4-7. 1), although the source of the rite is not recorded. Numa in imitation wished his election as king to receive the sanction of the gods (18. 5-10): he established a permanent priesthood and defined more closely the augural ritual. Later, in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, the celebrated storv of how the augur Attus Navius sliced through the whetstone with a knife marks the next stage: thereafter augural science be­ came so respected that no public business could be con­ ducted without it. 22 This last comment is particularly reveal2. ι . I I . D i o n y s i u s ( 2 . 1 2 . 3 ) d o e s n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n patres and cotiscripti\ he dates both to the reign of Romulus. 2 2 7. 36. 6 : Auguriis certe sacerdotioque augurum tantus honos accessit ut nihil belli domique postea nisi auspicate gereretur, concilia populi, exercitus vocati, samma rerum, ubi aves non admisissent, dirimerentur. Dionysius describes augural science in its fully devel­ oped form under Romulus (2.5-6); his account of Navius is not presented as a more advanced stage in the historical process (3.7021

70.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

ing because it is interpretative and gratuitous. Despite Romulus' use of it and Numa's reputation as the founder of religious observances, augury did not come fully into its own until a great many years had passed. Finally, the legion. It is true that on occasion Livy refers to one or more Roman legions in the Regal Period. Yet its origins are never dis­ cussed, much less attributed to any one person's invention; the word legio in the first book (infrequent in any case) ap­ pears to be little more than a substitute word for milites and is used to describe the armies of other peoples also.23 That the Roman army was different from that of the later periods and went through a process of growth and change is made clear from many passages: e.g. the description of the army of Servius Tullius' day (/.43) and later discussions of the military system, such as that at 8. 8. This "developmental" interpretation applies in equal meas­ ure to Livy's account of the early Republic: Rome was not yet complete, much less ready-made, even after her first two hundred and fifty years. In 509 many fundamental institu­ tions are still waiting in the wings: all the magistracies other than the consulship, together with the tribunate; moreover, the long course that the struggle of the orders took would not be concluded until the Lex Hortensia of 287. The enact­ ment and codification of laws are in the future, together with a host of other social, religious, and political changes.24 One is tempted to turn Collingwood's argument upside down and assert that the Roman desire to put things in a historical context proved so strong that even the stuff of myth, fable, and invention is delineated in well-articulated stages of accretion and development. When we come to the Roman character, however, the case would seem different. A number of passages in the early books show or assume it to be in existence almost from the start. The young Tarquin, unable to take Gabii by attack or siege, resorted to deceit and trickery (/. 53.4), minime =3 Roman contexts: /. 11.1, 2J.6, 28.3, 29.1, 30.3. Fidenae: 27.5; the Sabines: 37.3. 2 4 Cf. 4 . 4. ι ff. (the speech of the tribune Canuleius).

LIVY

arte Romaiw, fraiide ac dolo. In a battle with the Volscians C. Sempronius proved rash and negligent: adeo ut disciplinae Romanae plus in Volsco exercitu quam in Romano esset (¢. 37. 7). The religious scruples of Timasitheus of Lipari were such that "he was more like a Roman than his own people" (j. 28. 3): Romanis vir similior quam suis. Yet in these and similar passages the Roman character is described as more of an ideal than an historical realitv: it answers to what the Romans should be, not what thev always are.- 5 The point is best brought out in Livy's account of the disas­ ter at the Allia. The Fabian ambassadors who violated ius gentium acted "more like Gauls than Romans" (5.36. 1): mitis legatio, ni praeferoces legatos Gallisque magis quam Romanis similes habuisset. Later in the battle itself a near reversal of identity takes place: not a single Roman behaved like a Roman (5. 38. 5: in altera acie nihil simile Romanis, jion a pud duces, non apud ??iilites erat), whereas the Gauls (of all peoples) did everything with foresight and circum­ spection (38.4): adeo non fortuna modo sed ratio etiam cum barbaris stabat. On the other hand, implicit in such passages is the belief that the normal state of things is the reverse of that described: in most cases ideal and behavior are the same or indistinguishable. This point comes across best in passages in which the Romans expound their national character to foreigners. For example, Mucius Scaevola in the second year of the free state so instructs King Porsenna (2. 12. 9): et facere et pati fortia Romanum est. Some years later Camillus lectures the Faliscan schoolmaster along similar lines (5.27.8): ego Romanis artibus, virtute opere arviis, sicut Veios vincam. The Roman character is thus a blend of ideal and reality. As an ideal it is substantialistic: the historical process does not explain its existence or its 25 The attitude is not confined to the early books; at 22. 57. 6, for example, the human sacrifice of two Gauls and two Greeks in the Forum Boarium is vtinime Romano sacro·, in the next chapter (58.8) one of the survivors of Cannae who attempts to circumvent his oath is minime Komani ingenii homo.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

nature. But this is not the predominant outlook. The intro­ duction to Book 2 argues eloquently that the Roman charac­ ter, like Roman institutions, was historically determined (1.3-6):

There is no doubt that Brutus, who won so much glory in expelling Superbus, would have done a grievous wrong if out of a premature desire for liberty he had wrested rule from one of the earlier kings. What would have happened to the plebs, a mixture of shepherds and adventurers who had fled their own lands, when they won immunity if not liberty under the sacred protection of asylum? Uncowed by the absolute power of a king, they would have been stirred up by tribunician agitation and would have begun to sow dissent with the senators in a city not their own, before they had become united in spirit by commitment to wives and children and by love for the soil—a love that takes a long time to develop. The nation, not yet grown up, would have been torn apart by dissension. But as it was, a calm and moderate exercise of governmental authority fostered and nourished it so that when it matured and grew strong it was able to enjoy the excellent fruits of liberty. 26 This is a remarkable statement in several ways, not least because of the recognition that the Roman national charac­ ter was a product of the historical process—explicable, in 26 Neque ambigitur quin Brutus idem qui tantum gloriae superbo exacto rege meruit pessimo publico id facturus juerit, si libertatis immmirae cupidine priorum regum alicui regnum extorsisset. Quid enim juturum fuit, si ilia pastorum convenarumque plebs, transfuga ex suis populis, sub tutela inviolati templi ant libertatem aut certe impunitatem adepta, soluta regio metu agitari coepta esset tribumciis procellis, et in aliena urbe cum patribus serere certamina, priusquam pignera coniugum ac liberorum caritasque ipsius soli, cui longo tem­ pore adsuescitur, animos eorum consociasset? Dissipatae res nondum adultae discordia forent, quas fovit tranquilla moderatio imperii eoque nutriendo perduxit ut bonam frugem libertatis maturis iam viribus

ferre posset.

LIVY

fact, only in terms of that process. As far as I know the view is peculiar to Liw and may have been original with him·, it is a complementary but not a necessary adjunct to the concept of the development of institutions.27 The idea is developed throughout the first book. For ex­ ample, had Tullia initially married L. Tarquinius rather than his unambitious brother Arruns, Servius Tullius might not have had sufficient time to initiate those reforms so necessary for the formation of Roman mores.28 The kings are described often as adopting dictation rather than persuasion in their quest to form a strong and unified nation: e.g. the leges datae of Romulus (8. i): multitudine quae coalescere in populi unius corpus nulla re praeterquam legibus poterat. Ancus Marcius believed that fear would insure proper con­ duct (33. 8): cum in tanta multitudine hominum, discrimine recte an perperam facti confuso, facinora clandestina fierent, carcer ad terrorem increscentis audaciae . . . aedificatur. Numa resorted to deceit at times (19.5, 21.3), but the religious practices he instituted were designed to build a strong national character (21. 1): ut fides ac ius iurandum pro legum ac poenarum metu civitatem regerent. These and other passages show that the Roman character was some­ thing that required time and manipulation to achieve.29 Nor had it reached maturity by the start of the Republic. Book 2, as Burck and Ogilvie have shown, is organized around the theme of how libertas was realized actually and in men's minds: threats from without dominate the first half (Por27 Compare Sallust's quite different conception (BC 6,2): Hi [sc. Troiani et Aborigines] postquam in una moenia convenere, dis­ part genere, dissimuli lingua, alii alio more viventes, incredibile niemoratu est quam facile coaluerint; ita brevi multitude divorsa atque vaga concordia civitas facta erat. 28/.46.5: Forte ita inciderat ne duo violenta ingenia matrimonio iungerentur, fortuna, credo, populi Romania quo diuturnius Servi regnum esset constituique civttatis mores possent. 29 On virtutes Romanae as acquired and learned cf. N. Erb, Kriegsursachen und Kriegsschuld in der ersten Pentade des T. Livius (Winterthur 1963) 31.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

senna, Tarquin), those from within, the second (Coriolan us, Sp. Cassius).30 In the sequel the theme is carried further. In fact, the prominence given to the struggle of the orders and the strong thread that runs from the initial clashes early in Book 2 through Book 4 and beyond doubtless owe much to Livy's selectivity and personal outlook. His narrative of the early Republic is above all a story of success born from adversity, of wisdom acquired from harsh experience. The historical process was long and arduous: learning by mis­ takes, recovery from setbacks, crises that threatened but never quite ended in collapse. In seeking to illuminate Livy's view of the Roman national character, therefore, it is not enough to show how he exem­ plifies abiding moral ideals in specific episodes. There is another side of the subject of equal importance: he sees that not only are institutions and customs the products of his­ tory, but values also. This developmental conception of the Roman national character meant that for him the Romans of the past were in certain respects different from those of the present. The most obvious manifestation of this view is his comparison of the behavior of the ancients with that of contemporaries; in every instance the latter come off badly,31 It is a conventional and simplistic attitude, chiefly because of the underlying assumption that present behavior ought not and need not have changed; its premise is that the ideals of the past are really those of the present, how­ ever much contemporaries fail in translating them into actions. In this respect, then, Collingwood's charge of substantialism holds good. But in other respects it does not. On occasion Livy ap­ pears to regard the past as something essentially different Erzahlungskunst 51-89; Ogilvie, Comm. 233. w I would guess that upwards of half of his references to his own rime i mply such comparisons: e.g. Praef. 9; 3. 20. 5; 4.6.11—12; 7. 2. 13, 25.3-9; 10. 9.3-6; 26.12. 15; see Hellmann, L-I 26-31; W. Hoffmann, A&A 4 (1954) 171-186= Wege zu Livius, ed. E. Burck (Darmstadt 1967) 68-95. Tacitus had a better perspective: Ann. 3.55. 30 Burck,

LIVY

from the present in values as well as behavior. He seldom goes so far as to express criticism; his belief in the superiority of the maiores prevails. But he does look upon the past now and then as somewhat alien; even traces of dismay are discernible. In the Regal Period the bulk of the population was a mixture of the worst sorts of people: fugitive crim­ inals, runaway slaves, shepherds, and adventurers. Livy's conception of Rome's beginnings is quite different from that of Dionysius or Cicero. The former viewed the early Romans as transplanted Greeks of great culture and high sophistication. For Cicero the age of Romulus was one of considerable intellectual attainment (De re p. i. 8-20): iam doctis hominibus ac temporibus ipsis eruditis .... haec aetas autem iam exculta (19). In contrast, Livy repeatedly stresses the low status and dubious backgrounds of the earliest Romans: a motley crew like that needed a long period of time before it could be welded into one nation capable of enjoying the potentially hazardous benefits of libertas.32 Rome for him was a self-made city: for example, he refuses to admit that Numa was inspired by Pythagorean doctrine not only because of the chronological impossibility but even more because the simple native tradition was more than adequate to explain the king's wisdom (/.18,4): Suopte igitur ingenio temperatam animum virtutibus fuisse opinor magis instructumque rton tam peregrinis artibus quam disciplina tetrica ac tristi veterum Sabinornm, quo genere nullum quondam incomiptius fuit. In insisting on the humble origins of the first Romans Livy was rejecting a belief popular in his time that Greeks had contributed significantly to Rome's founding. 33 His contemporary 32/.4.9, 6.3, 8.1, 8.4-7 ( eo [sc. Iuco asyli] ex fi?iitimis populis turba omnis, sine discrimine liber an servus esset, avida novarum

rerum perfugit),

9.3,

17.3

( libertatis

dulcedine ncmdum experta),

(in tanta multitudine hominum, d i s c r i m i n e r e c t e a n p e r p e ra m f a c t i c o n f u s o ) , 4 0 . 5 . 19.4, 23.2, 32.4, 33.1-2, 33.5, 33.8 33 See

E. J. Bickerman, CPb

(Γ974) 625-642.

47

(1952)

65-81;

E. Gabba, RSl

86

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

Dionysius was greatly upset by the charge that the early Romans were runaway slaves and barbarians;34 he goes to great lengths to refute it, and proves to his own satisfaction that the Aborigines were Greek colonists from Arcadia (not from Achaea as Cato had thought).35 Livy, on the other hand, was unperturbed by the charges:36 the earliest Romans were indeed a mixed and lowly bunch, and their eventual achievements as a unified nation redounded all the more to their credit precisely because of their ignoble origins. He felt no need to apply a Greek disinfectant to them—both because he had no great admiration for Greeks generally and, more important, because he believed the simple native values were inherently better than those of other peoples. Livy viewed early Rome and the early Romans as different in a number of fundamental respects from Rome of his own day and his contemporaries, and even from those who lived, say, during the Hannibalic War: e.g. in the physical appearance of the city, the character of the people, their lack of sophistication, the small size and insularity of the town, and so forth. Phrases like ut in ea aetate and illis saeculis are frequent in the first book; even Numa is described as consultissimus vir, ut in ilia quisquam esse aetate poterat (18. i ).37 Certain episodes of a bizzare or alien nature 34

Cf. Justin 28.2.8-10; H . Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstcmd gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (Berlin 1938) 12-17, 40-47; J. Deininger, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 211-86 v. Chr. (Berlin 1971) 25-27, 34-37, 265. 35 See 1.4-5, 10-11. Heraclides Ponticus thought of Rome as a iroXis 'EAA»jm (Plut. Cam. 22.2). A number of learned Greeks of the first century B.C. maintained that Latin was a dialect of Greek related to Aeolian: cf. D.H. 1.90. 1; E. Gabba, Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Turin 1963) 188-194; C. Wend el, RE 39 (1941) 196 s.v. "Philoxenos" (27). He did, however, react sharply to the taunts by levissimi ex Graecis (9. 17-19) that Alexander the Great would have defeated Rome had he invaded Italy and that the Romans of his own day had been worsted by the Parthians: cf. Luce, TAPhA 96 (1965) 218Cf. 7.4.6, 7-8, 8.4, 9.7,

19-4. 23-3i 3 -4* 33- , 56.6, 57.1. 2

247

8

LIVY

rouse in Livy emotions variously compounded of repulsion, fascination, and fastidiousness: the barbaric punishment of Mettius Fufetius (/.28.11), the devotio of Decius Mus (8. 9. 1-11, ι), human sacrifice ( 22 . 57. 6), or even the crude latinity of Livius Andronicus (2η. 37. 13). Such comments are infrequent, of course. The tendency then, as it is today, was to view the past in terms of contemporary interests and value systems. Livy's predecessors had done a rather thorough job of dressing up early history in the habiliments of the successive ages in which they lived—the Gracchan and SulIan eras being most in evidence. And of course Livy has added his own and the Augustan viewpoint. Yet what is of particular interest here is his appreciation, however fleeting and imperfect, that the attitudes of the past were in some respects different from those of the present. In this respect he has the instincts of an historian. He rejected interpreta­ tions that viewed the early Romans as cultivated contem­ poraries. He also forebore rationalizing or explaining away impossibilities in the early myths: ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in ammo est (Praef. 6). If anything, he rather plays up the fairy-tale qualities and the improbabilities—drawing the line, however, at epiphanies: these he omitted al­ together. 38 His introduction to the prodigy list of 169 B.C. best illustrates his attitude (43. 13. 1-2): "I am not unaware that the same disregard of religion that leads many nowadays to believe that the gods portend nothing is also the reason why prodigies are no longer publicly announced and no longer recorded by historians. And yet as I write of bygone days my mind in some inexplicable way becomes old-fash38 One wonders about Livy's attitude toward deification and ruler cult. On his disregard for verisimilitude in the early books, see Luce, TAPhA 102 (Γ971) 297-302, and remarks such as the one that ends his version of Horatius at the bridge (2. 1 0 . u ) : rem ausus plus famae habitnram ad posteros quam fidei. On epiphanies, see 2. 1 9 - 2 0 , where he has eliminated the Dioscuri from the Battle of Lake RegiIIus (cf. Ogilvie, Comm. 287-289); compare his comments on Scipio Africanus' habit of communing with Jupiter Capitolinus (26. 1 9 . 3 - 9 ) .

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

ioned, and I am prevented by religious scruples from con­ sidering things that those sensible men judged to be matters of public concern as unworthy to be recorded in my his­ tory." 39 This is a remarkable statement; as far as I know it is unique in antiquity. First, Livy is saying that as he writes he is drawn into the milieu of the past and begins to view things in unaccustomed ways (antiquus fit animus). He sidesteps the question of whether he believes in prodigies in general or the prodigies that immediately follow in particuar (they include a talking cow and a rain of blood). 40 His point is that the milieu of the past is not that of the present, and it must be worthwhile to record the things that men of earlier times thought worthy of concern. This attitude comes re­ markably close to Collingwood's chief requirement for good history: the injunction to historians to re-create the "mind of the past. 1 ' 41 Only by immersing oneself in the traditions and values of a past era can one begin to explain why the people who lived then behaved as they did. It is not being claimed that Livy was able to do this: his success in re­ creating the "mind of the past" is minimal on any reckon­ ing. What is remarkable is that the notion came to him at all. 39 Non sum nescius ab eadem neglegentia qua nihil deos portendere vidgo nunc credunt neque imntiari admodum ulla prodigia in publi­ cum neque in annales referri. Ceterum et mihi vetustas res scribenti nescio quo pacto antiquus fit animus, et quaedam religio te?iet quae illi prudentissimi viri publice suscipienda censuerint ea pro indignis habere quae in meos annales referam. 40 The implication is that normally he would indeed tend to regard them as indigna. See Weissenbom's comment: 43.13. in·, W. Hoff­ mann, A&A 4 (1954) 184= Wege zu Livius 93-94. It is not being suggested that Livy disbelieved in prodigies in general; cf. Plut. Caes. 47; Sriibler1 Die Religiositat des Livius 99 £f. 41 Idea of History, 282 ff. Numerous episodes, especially those in the early books, have an antique, even alien coloring. Cf. W. Liebeschuetz, JRS 57 (1967) JJ: "Descriptions like the devotio of Decius read like an attempt to evoke something which belonged to a long-

vanished state of mind."

LIVY LATER ROME

Despite the emphasis in the main Preface on the moral decline of the later Republic (4-5, 9-12), few scholars have said anything about Livy's views on its inception and development. There are two reasons. The first is the belief that it lay largely or wholly beyond the point where our present text leaves off. This seems to have been Collingwood's view. When he writes "to the end of the narrative she [Rome] has undergone no spiritual change," he no doubt means "to the end of the extant narrative," for the pessimism of the Preface leaves no doubt about Livy's overall conception. A few have seen some hints of what was to come (notably at 39. 6. 3-9), but most opine that for Livy the beginning of the collapse came at some point after 167 B.C.42 The destruction of Carthage in 146 is gen­ erally selected as a likely date: here the influence of Sallust is believed to have been paramount. The Preface has in fact a number of verbal and thematic reminiscences of the earlier historian.43 R. M. Ogilvie argues convincingly that Livy was consciously correcting one of Sallust's leading ideas by making ambitio a characteristic of the early Romans; but he regards this (wrongly, I think) as an excep­ tion that proves Livy's acceptance of the rest: "Apart from the omission of ambitio L. does not dispute the traditional diagnosis fully set out by Sallust (Catiline 10-12)."44 Here we catch a glimpse of the second reason: Livy had few 42 This is the conclusion of I. Kajanto, Arctos 2 (1958) 55-63, who addresses the question directly (61): "Livy's history , . . ends with the events of the year 167 B.C., whereas the decay was regarded as having really set in after the year 146 B.C." Hellmann in a brief note anticipated some of the conclusions that follow (L-I 59 n. 1), as did E. Burck, Die Welt als Geschichte 1 (1955) 457-459 =Wege zu Livius, ed. Burck (Darmstadt 1967) 121 -123. J a '< Livres LXI-LXll Ixxi-lxxvi, stresses the picture of decline found in Books 4 1 and 4 2 . 43 See Ogilvie, Comm. 23 and the notes to sections 9-11. The cor­ respondence between 9 and Hist. 1, frg. 16M is particularly striking. 44 Comm. 29.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

interpretations of his own to offer; most points of view in his work are those of sources. His failure to give an analysis of the causes and course of the moral decline therefore means to some that he had not yet come to this topic in his sources. Accordingly, these scholars select as the source and the date those that are best known to them: Sallust and the year 146. It will be argued in what follows that this interpreta­ tion is largely mistaken. The later books, especially 34-45, contain a carefully developed exposition of the beginnings of Rome's moral collapse—accomplished, however, in a Livian, not a Sallustian, manner and according to a Livian, not a Sallustian, interpretation. That is, there are few com­ ments in his own person and no lengthy or generalizing analysis; Livy intended the narrative to speak for itself. As for his interpretation, it will be argued below that in most major respects it differs sharply from that of Sallust.

The theme receives its first

major treatment in the debate

between Cato the Elder and L. Valerius concerning the repeal of the Lex Oppia in 195 (34. 1-7). 49 The law had been passed twenty years before, during the war with Han­ nibal, when Rome's fortunes were darkest: it restricted the use by women of gold, of purple garments, and, within the city, of carriages (1.3)- The issue was not, as Livy concedes, of great historical importance (res parva dictu: 1. 1), nor does it seem to have occasioned a famous speech by Cato. 46 There are scattered remarks and incidents in Books 21-33 that help to prepare for what follows, notably at 25.4.0.1-3, where Livy writes in reference to Marcellus' importation into Rome of Syracusan works of art: Inde primunt initium mirandi Graecarum artium opera licentiaeque hinc sacra profanaque omnia volgo spoliandi factum est. Cato picks the theme up in his speech: infesta signa (34.4.4): cf. A. W. Lintott, Historia 21 (1972) 629, n. 22. 46 An oratio pro Lege Oppia is not attested elsewhere: see Trankle, Cato in der vierten und funften Dekade des Livius, Ak. der Wiss. und der Lit. No. 4 (Mainz 1971) 10-12, and Malcovati, ORF2 p. 14. 45

LIVY

Doubtless Livy's desire to put Cato in the limelight was a factor in his decision to feature the debate so prominently: this is Cato's first major appearance in the history· 47 When, however, the reply by Valerius is given equal prominence (in fact, it is somewhat longer), one suspects that the subject itself was the major attraction, for while Valerius argues on the basis of the immediate situation, Cato is made to look at the issue partly from a larger perspective (4. 1-4): the avarice and luxury that now afflict the state are the twin evils that topple all great empires (4. 2): diversisque duo bus vitiis, avaritia et luxuria, civitatem laborare, quae pestes omnia magna imperia everterunt. He continues: "As the fortunes of our country daily become greater and richer and as our empire grows larger—for we have already crossed into Greece and Asia, places filled with allurement to satisfy every desire, and we have even put our hands on the treasures of kings—I am even more fearful that these things may take control of us rather than we of them." 48 What Cato says in the aside about royal treasures and Asia, of course, is not true: the Romans have so far done neither. Livy is here casting him in the role of a prophet. He is, of course, the ideal spokesman for such views, as Valerius con­ cedes: "Your speech against luxury fits your strict moral If he had a model to work from, it most probably was in a Roman source. At 4;. 25. 3 he says he has no intention of paraphrasing Cato's speech on behalf of the Rhodians when anyone can read it in the original for himself. i7 See

in particular 34.4.1; 5.2, 6-7 (where evidence from the

Origines, written many years later, is used by Valerius to combat Cato's own argument!); 6. 2. 48

4 . 3 : Haec ego, quo melior laetiorque in dies fortune rei pub-

licae est, quo magis imperium crescit—et iam in Graeciam Asiamque transcendimus omnibus libidmum inlecebris repletas et regias etiam attrectamus gazas—, eo plus horreo, ne illae magis res nos ceperint quam nos illas.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

character": 49 the views expressed here will be recapitulated in powerful fashion in the account of his famous censorship some books later. Note that Livy has given Valerius nothing to say in rebuttal to this argument of Cato. The reason is that Livy believed it to be true, for it is repeated later and in his own person ( 3 9 . 6 . 3-9). The crossing

into

Antiochus, some five

Asia came during

the war

with

years after Cato's speech. The king's

behavior is typical of the country he rules, for after con­ tracting a new marriage during his sojourn in Greece in the winter of 192-191, he indulged without limit "in banquets and in the pleasures that follow intoxication until, more from weariness than from satisfaction, he gave himself over to sleep." 50 The soldiers imitated the luxuria of their king; in the end (36.

no vestige of

military discipline remained

11. 3-5). A few chapters later Acilius Glabrio in ad­

dressing his troops before the Battle of Thermopylae picks up the theme and develops it (17. 2-16). 51 He contrasts the 49 6.2: haec [sc. oratio] adversus luxuriam severissimis moribus conveniebat. 50 36. ι (.2: omissa omnium rerum cura, in conviviis et vinum se­ quent i bus voluptatibus ac deinde ex fatigatione magis quavi satietate earum in somno traduxit. Polybius' version is at 20.8. 51 Scarcely anyone believes this speech to be Polybian in origin: see Nissen, KU 180-181, 204; Weissenborn $5.17. 16«.; Briscoe, Comm. 18. Pedech1 Methode 277-278, is the exception, although he gives no reasons and does not cite the similar hortatio of Cn. ManIius at 38.17 as also Polybian. Some items at the very least cannot be from the Greek historian: e.g. the description of the Asiatic Greeks as vilissima genera hominum et servituti nata (17.5: cf. Cic. Prov. Cons. 10: liidaeis et Syris, natiombus natis servituti), the description of Antiochus' new wife as obscuri etiam inter popularts generis uxorem (whereas her father is epos των ΐνιφανων i n Polybius: 20. 8.3), and the forecast of Roman dominion ab Gadibus ad mare rubrum (17.15). Livy may be basing the speech on a Roman source, al­ though the links with the Polybian context in which it is set and with ideas Livy expresses elsewhere in his own person lead me to believe that it is his own composition.

LIVY

warlike tribes of Macedonians, Thracians, and Illvrians that the Romans had encountered in the second Macedonian W ar with their present opponents: "Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the most worthless sorts of people, and born for slavery." He then turns to the respective commanders: Philip had been toughened by years of fighting with barbarian neigh­ bors; Antiochus had done his training in the nuptial bed, and now, "a new husband and stuffed, one might say, from the nuptial carouse, he presents himself for combat": novas maritus, velut saginatus nuptialibus cents, ad pugtmm processit (17. 8-9). At the end Glabrio describes the rewards that await the soldiery: not only will they gain the riches in the king's camp, but "you will be opening up Asia to Roman rule and then Syria, and all the richest kingdoms as far as the rising sun"; Asiam deinde Syriamque et omnia usque ad ortum solis ditissima regna Romano imperio aperturos (17. 14). Despite Acilius' rhetoric there was some truth in his remarks. Antiochus in person did not measure up to the reputation that preceded him (^7. 51. 9, 59. 2), and on arriv­ ing home, Acilius was accused of enriching himself from the spoils of the enemy (57. 57. 12: the prosecution ceased when he withdrew from candidacy for the censorship). The same charge was leveled at Fulvius Nobilior in Greece, and at Publius Scipio, Lucius Scipio, and Cn. Manlius in Asia. The subject dominates the end of Book 3 8 , The disputes over the claims of Fulvius (43. 1-44. 6) and of Manlius (44. 9-50. 3) for triumphs are followed by a mams certamen (50.4): the Trials of the Scipios (50.4-60. 10). The theme also carries over to the start of 39, where both Fulvius (4-5) and Manlius (6. 3-7. 5) reply to the charges against them and win the right to triumph. In none of these cases does Livy seem to credit the charges of peculation by the commanders-in-chief. 52 The pernicious effects were Certainly not in the case of FuKius and the Scipios. Fulvius was attacked by M. Aemilius because of the personal quarrel be52

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

otherwise. First, a situation had been created wherein com­ manders of base character could use the wealth of defeated enemies to curry favor with their soldiers and among the people. Second, the city was infiltrated by unaccustomed wealth, alien customs, and evil superstitions.53 Cn. Manlius is made to bear much of the blame for the beginning of these trends, partly by Livy's deemphasizing Fulvius Nobilior and the Scipios. He makes it clear, for example, that Nobilior was attacked by an unscrupulous personal enemy; Livy himself rebuts the (later) charge that he illegally plundered Ambracia by adding to the Polybian original on his own initiative: nihil prcteterea tactum violatumve.54 Later C. Flaminius {38, 43.7-13) and Fulvius himself (39. 4. 5-13) reply to the charges by assert­ ing that the treatment of Ambracia was no different from that of any other enemy city that had closed its gates to the Romans and had been captured by siege. Nor is Fulvius' excessive generosity in giving money to his soldiers at his triumph mentioned: Cato criticized it severely (Aul. Gell. 5. 6. 24-26). As for the Scipios, it is clear that Livy is com­ pletely on their side. The elder Pliny's belief that their cam­ paign and that of Manlius bore equal responsibility for im­ porting to Rome the vices and extravagant habits of the East is not Livy's.55 The charges of peculation, receiving bribes, and the like are discountenanced, and there are no sugges­ tions that these men were themselves avaricious or pandered tween them

( 3 8 . 43.1-44.6, 3 9 . 4); the monies that L. Scipio was

charged with having appropriated were not found in his personal fortune (38. 59. 8-9, 60. 8). 53 Livy emphasizes the wealth in his detailed descriptions of the many triumphs of the period: 57.46.1-6, 58. 3-5, 59. 3-6;

39· S- '3"1?-

7.1-5; contrast, however, Scipio Nasica's boast at 38. 59,3. 3 8 . 9.14. Cf. Pol. 2 1 . 29-30. sr. NH 37.12: Victoria tamen ilia Fompei primum ad margaritas

54

gemmasque mores inclinavit, sicut L. Scipionis et Cn. Manli ad caelatum argentum et vestes Attalicas et triclinia aerata.

LIVY

to the avarice of their soldiers (see 39. 6. 5). Publius is ad­ mitted to have enjoyed his comforts, but is exempted from the charge of luxuria (37. 7. 15): a comitate quae sine luxuria esset non aversion. More significant, Livy omits any descrip­ tion of the return of their booty-laden army through Thrace; the matter appears later, but only in order to illus­ trate how much more booty Manlius had on his journey than the Scipios on theirs (38. 40-41). 56 Livy also fails to note that the denarii given by L. Scipio to his soldiers at his triumph was the first occasion on which silver was issued in place of bronze (37. 59· 6)· Instead, Cn. ManIius receives the brunt of the criticism. The different sections which concern him, however, assort somewhat oddly together—chiefly, no doubt, because they derive from different sources. The accounts of the Gallogrecian War and of the return through Thrace are based on Polybius; the exception is Manlius' speech to his soldiers before the Battle of Mt, Olympus (38. 17), which is either Livy's own invention or derives in some measure from a Roman source.57 Polybius' account, as we see it in Livy's adaptation, depicted Manlius as a daring and on the whole capable commander conducting a necessary and legitimate campaign. In the passage in Book 38 based on Roman sources, however (44. 9-50. 3), his enemies in Rome accuse him of waging an illegal and unauthorized war for private gain and of behaving rashly and incompetently at the Bat­ tle of Mt 1 Olympus, where he miraculously bested a weak and ineffectual foe, while being disgracefully worsted by On this passage, see pp. 202-203. The hortatio is full of commonplaces typical of Roman rhetoric: e.g. the conventional picture of the Gallic national character (17. 2-8) and the exempla from Roman history (6-9). The picture of the degeneration of the GauIs by interbreeding with the Greeks does not fit with the passage based on Polybius at 3η. 8.4: Bellicosiores ea tempestate erant, Gallicos adhuc, nondum exoleta stirpe gentis, servantes animos, In theme and argument it is much like Acilius' speech before the Battle of Thermopylae. 56

57

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

some second-rate Thracian bandits on his return: latrunculos Thraecas (46.6). Much here does not fit with Polybius' account. On the other hand, in Book 39 Livy in his own per­ son accuses Manlius of treating his sojdiers solute ac neglegenter (1.4; cf. 6. 5-6) in order to win their favor: ducem indulgentem ambitioswnque (7. 3). Furthermore, the start of foreign luxury was introduced into the city by the soldiers returning from Asia (39.6. 7), and Livy specifies some of these luxury items: bronze couches, costly coverlets, tapestries, one-legged tables, sideboards, female musicians, and—perhaps worst—cooks: vilissimum antiquis mancipium et aestimatione et usu (39.6. 9). This passage (and perhaps the whole of 6. 3-7. 5) derives, probably directly, from the early historian Calpurnius Piso.58 It does not fit in with the other passages concerning the debate over Manlius' right to triumph: his enemies there make no mention of his shortcomings as a disciplinarian or of the behavior of his men on their return; for these charges they substitute private vices.59 These differences among the sources, however, are rela­ tively minor. The special pleading of Manlius' enemies is made clear by the narrative of the campaign itself, Manlius' lengthy and rather effective rebuttal (38. 47-49), and the support he received from the auctoritas seniorum of the Senate (50. 2). The accounts of Polybius and of Livy-Piso, moreover, are not incompatible for the most part, and on a number of points reinforce one another, largely because of the unusually detailed manner in which Livy adapted 58Piso, frg. 3 4 ( = Plin. NH 3 4 . 1 4 ) : Triclinia aerata abacosque et monopodia Cn. Manlium Asia devicta primum invexisse triumpho suo, quem duxit anno urbis DLXV11, L. Piso auctor est. Livy 39.6.7: it primum lectos aeratos . . . et quae turn magnificae supellectilis habebantur, monopodia et abacos Romam advexerunt. 59 Pacent pretio venditantes (38.4 2 . 11: coupling him with Nobilior); tuum privatum latrocinium: (45.7); consul mercenarius (45.9). This in my view is a tradition disanct from that represented

by Piso.

LIVY

Polybius. 60 He follows step bv step the circuitous route that Manlius took to Galatia so that every place where Manlius permitted the local inhabitants to buy peace for a price or his soldiers to engage in plunder would stand on record: 25 talents at Tabae (38. 13. 13), 100 from the tyrant Moagetes (14.14), the sack of Lagum (15.3), 50 talents each from Termessus, Aspendos, and the Pamphylians (15.6), and 50 more from the Pisidians (15. 11). By the time the army approached the town of the Beudi, "he was dragging after him a line of march so weighted down with booty that it could scarcely cover five miles a day." 61 There­ after, when the people of Oroanda came seeking amicitia, the price was all of 200 talents (18. 2). Still later, at the Battle of Mt. Olympus, his lieutenant C. Helvius could not restrain his men from plundering the Gallic camp that other contingents had captured (23.4): nec continere suos ab direptione castrorum valuit. Manlius had a similar experience after the defeat of the Tectosagi. His soldiers refused to be turned aside from their purpose to plunder the enemy camp; the general's orders to give pursuit were ignored. 62 The return journey through Thrace and the defeat suffered at the hands of the Thracians are given in an equally detailed man­ ner some chapters later (38. 40-41), The sorry spectacle of the booty-laden army inching forward is again empha­ sized: modicis itineribus grave praeda omriis generis agmen One indication is the inclusion of local lore, which is not his usual practice: the temple of Apollo at Hiera Come (38. 12. 10-13. ')> the source of the Meander River (13.5), the contest of Marsyas and Apollo that took place at Calaenae (13.6), how the Indus River (.14.2) and the district of Axylon (18.4) got their names, the fish of the Sangarius River (18.7-8). 61 38. 15. 14: Quorum praeda iam grave agmen trabens v'tx quinque milium die toto itinere perfecto ad Beudos, quod vetus appellant, pervenit. 62 38. 27.3-j: in castris cupiditate praedae haeserunt nec sequebatur qitisquam. . . . Consul quia ingressos in castra ab direptione abstrahere non poterat. . . . Compare Polybius' description of the usual Roman method of dividing booty: 10. 16. 1-17.5. 60

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

trahens (40.4), as is the paradox of the plunderers being plundered: alibi praedo, alibi praedae ν hide χ cadit (40. 13). In fact, the theme of the avaricious preying on the avaricious is woven throughout the account as a whole: the Romans are not materially different from their enemies, the Gauls and the Thracians. In the introduction to Book Livy steps forward in his own person in order to contrast the effects on the soldiery of fighting the poor and warlike tribes of Liguria with the experience of the troops that sojourned among the pleasant and wealthy cities of Asia. In the case of Liguria "no other province did more to sharpen military valor"; but the peo­ ples of Asia were weak and flabby: thev made the soldiers "richer rather than braver." The more difficult journey through Thrace and a tougher foe exposed the weakness of Manlius' armv. ei The contrast between the warlike barbarian and the enervating civilization of the East is a constant theme in these books: it is found in Cato's speech in support of the Lex Oppia (34. 4. 3), Acilius' hortatio before Ther­ mopylae (36. 17. 4-5), the end of the speech of the Rhodians that Livy has added to the Polybian original {3η. 54. 1823), and the speech of Manlius himself before the Battle of Mt. Olympus (38. 17). In this last passage the commander is made to anticipate the deleterious effects that both he and his men are soon to experience: "By heaven, you men of Mars must guard against and flee the comfortable life of Asia as soon as you can: so great is the power of foreign pleasures to destroy your vigor and spirit, so great is the contagion that contact with the life and character of these 1.2-4: Is hostis [sc. Ligures] velut natus ad continendam inter magnorum intervalla bellorum Romants militarem disciplinam erst; nec alia provincia militem magis ad virtutem acuebat. Nam 63

Asia et amoenitate urbium et copia terrestrium maritimarumque rerum et mollitia hostium regitsque opibus ditiores quam fortiores exercitus faciebat. Praecipue sub imperio Cn. Manlii solute ac neglegenter habiti sunt. Itaque asperius paulo iter in Thracia et exercitatior hostis magna clade eos castigavit.

LIVY

natives can bring."® 4 In the introduction to Book 39 Livy castigates Manlius particularly for his lax treatment of his soldiers (1.4): praecipiie sub imperio Cn. Manlii solute ac neglegenter habiti sunt. A few chapters later, in the descrip­ tion of his triumph (6. 3-7. 5), he recapitulates his views: the rumor that Manlius had ruined military discipline among the soldiers he took over from L. Scipio was confirmed by what everyone could see for himself; Livy lists some of the more objectionable items and practices they brought back (6.6-9), and castigates his motives in distributing huge rewards to his men (7.3): carminaque a militibus ea i?i imperatorem dicta, ut facile appareret in ducem indulgentem ambitiosumque ea dici, triumphum esse militari magis favore quam populari celebrem. The general result of Manlius' campaign is bluntly stated: Luxuriae emm peregrinae origo ab exercitu Asiatico invecta in nrbem est (6.7). The consequence of foreign influence is seen at once in the account of the Bacchanalian Conspiracy that follows. Throughout the long and elaborate narrative (59.8-19) Livy is at pains to emphasize the foreign origin and alien nature of the rites, and the ghastly vices that they promoted. In order to make the incident follow as closely as possible upon the triumph of Manlius and his army, Livy has moved it forward to the start of his account of 186: topics such as games, prodigies, and the like are reserved for the last chap­ ters devoted to the year (20. 1-23.4). 65 At the outset the origin is assigned to a Graecus igfiobilis who took up residence in Etruria, whence the contagion spread to Rome 04

38.17. 18: Vobis mehercule, Martiis viris, cavenda ac fugienda

quam primnm amoenitas est Asiae: tantum hae peregrinae voluptates ad exstinguendum vigorem animorum disciplinae vtorisque accolarum valet. e5

possunt;

tantum contagio

The dislocation also results in some awkwardness if not seem­

ing contradiction: compare 8.3 with 20. 1 concerning the provinciae of the consuls: see p. 106. Note that at 8.1 his account of the year begins with the conspiracy; the sortition for provinces is given in an aside (8.2) before the narrative begins in earnest at 8.3 ff.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

(8. 3, 9. ι).ββ Later we are told that the perversion of the Bacchic ritual began in Campania.67 It is likely that Livy has stressed its Eastern origin at the start in order to con­ nect the story more closely with what has gone before. The account as a whole, of course, is an indictment of foreign influence (see 16. 6-8 especially). The evil effects that the superstition will have on the Roman soldier receives partic­ ular emphasis (15. 13-14). Livy gives the story in great detail not merely because of its intrinsic interest but also because it serves as a paramount example of how foreigners and foreign excesses modified the Roman character. The account of Cato's censorship later in the same book (59. 42. 5-44. 9) stresses most forcibly the themes of luxuria and debased morality.88 It is preceded by a character sketch (40.4-12), the inclusion of which at this point in the his­ tory helps to throw into relief Cato's role as the exemplar of 66 Veluti contagione morbi—the same comparison that ManIius had used (38. 17. 18). The great size of the city permitted the supersti­ tion to take root and grow unnoticed by the authorities (9.1): Primo urbis magnitudo capactor patentiorque talium malorum ea celavit. Note that Livy prepares for this idea a few chapters earlier (3.4-6), where he describes the expulsion of 12,000 Latins to their native towns: tam turn multitudine alienigenarum urbem onerante. On the conspiracy in general and Livy's account, see A. Bruhl, Liber Pater (Paris 1953) 82-116. 67 13.9: Paculla Annia Campana is specifically named as the inno­ vator. Of four chief culprits named later (17.6), none is from Etruria proper, although L. Opicernius is a Faliscan. See Bruhl, Liber Pater 85-86. 08 In the interval between the Bacchanalian Conspiracy and Cato's censorship note particularly the account of the games of Fulvius Nobilior (39.22.1-2): Decern deinde dies magno apparatu hidos M. Fulvius, quos voverat Aetolico bello, fecit. Multi artifices ex Graecia venerunt honoris eius causa. Athletarum quoque cenamen turn prima Romanis spectaculo fuit, et venatio data leonum et pantherarum, et prope huius saeculi copia ac varietate ludicrum celebratum est. The ten-day games of L. Scipio are mentioned but not de­ scribed at 22.8-10; the funds are said to have come from the kings and states of the East: turn collatas ei pecunias cojigregawsque per Asiam artifices (Antias is cited as the source).

LIVY

mos antiquus. 60 The appraisal of his versatility, his accom­ plishments in war, and his eloquence precede what for Livy are his two most remarkable attributes: his strict moral character (40.10: invicti a cupiditatibus animi, rigidae innocentiae, contemptor gratiae, divitiarum) and his love of contentious rivalry, which he continued undiminished into advanced old age. Cato canvassed for L. Valerius, his col­ league in the consulship of 195, as well as for himself, "declaring that with him as colleague he could chastise the vices that had newly appeared and could revive old-time morality." 70 The severity of the censorship is given with appropriate detail and emphasis. Cato's first major appear­ ance five books earlier in defense of the Lex Oppia is re­ called in his severe assessment of women's jewels, clothes, and carriages. 71 The effects of Cato's repressive measures, however, were short-lived; the character of the old Romans could not be recalled. Hannibal's death scene at the end of Book -jj? emphasizes this truth. Flamininus and the Romans with him prevailed on King Prusias of Bithynia to murder Hannibal, who had fled to him for protection and was his guest-friend. For Livy it was moot whether Flamininus first made the request or whether Prusias anticipated it (55). 51. 2-3). Hannibal's words, when the last avenue of escape had been 69 Character

sketches are relatively infrequent in Livy (despite the Elder Seneca, Suas. 6.21): Hannibal's is given at his first appearance (2/.4. 3-9: a second appraisal is at 28. 12. 1-9), although some come at the time of death: e.g. Camillus (7.1.9-10), Scipio Africanus (39. 53.9-11), Cicero in Bk. 120 (frg. 50). The sketches of Valerius Corvinus (7.33 .1 -3) and Papirius Cursor (p. 16. 11-19), like that of Cato, come in mid-career, although in Cursor's case the reason is most likely to have been Livy's desire to provide an introduction to the digression on Alexander the Great (p. 17-19). 70 3P. 41.4: Et simiil L. Valerio suffragabatur: illo uno collega castigare se nova flagitia et priscos revocare viores posse. 71 44.2: Ornamenta et vestem ?mdiebrem et vehicula, quae pluris quam quindecim miliuvi aeris essent, decie?is tanto pluris quam quanu essent in censum referre iuratores iussi.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

cut off and before he drank the poison, are these: "Let us relieve the Romans of their chronic anxiety, since they can­ not wait the time it would take an old man to die. Flamininus will win a petty and contemptible victory from the death of one who is defenseless and has been betrayed. This day is proof of how the Roman character has changed. When their enemy King Pyrrhus was under arms and in Italy, the senators of that time warned him to beware of a plot to poison him; today's senators have sent out a consular as ambassador with instructions that Prusias should crim­ inally murder a guest in his house." 72 Livy adds nothing that would gainsay or palliate this verdict. The scene brings to a climax the themes of moral decline, foreign influence, and luxury, introduced early in Book 34 and emerging into increasing prominence thereafter until they come to dominate most of Books

38

and 39. They are

also present in the following two books, but in the form of isolated notices rather than developed episodes. Extrava­ gance and public display are stressed: erection of the first gilded statue in Italy (40. 34. 5), expensive aedilician games (40.44. 12), and lavish funeral games given by a private individual

(41.

28. 11). Livy points by contrast to the simple

triumphs celebrated over such tribes as the Ligurians. 73 A second theme is the loss of military discipline and leadership, for which Livy considered Cn. Manlius to have been respon­ sible; examples are the low morale and threatened in­ subordination of soldiers in Spain

(40. 1.4,

36.4) and poor

72 3$. 51.9-11: " Liberemus," inquit, "diuturtia cura populum Romanum, quando mortem senis exspectare longum censent. Nec magTiam nee memorabilem ex inermi proditoque Flamininus victoriam feret. Mores quidem populi Roviani quantum mutaverint, vel hie dies argumento erit. Horum patres Pyrrho regi, hosti armato, exercittm in Italia habenti, ut a veneno caveret praedixerunt: hi legatum consularem, qui auctor esset Prusiae per scelus occidendi hospitis, miseruntr 73 40. 34.8: Transtulit coronas aureas quinque et viginti, nec praeterea quicquam auri argentique in eo triumpho latum; cf. 41.11.8 in reference to the Istrians: praeda, ut in gente inopi, spe maior fuit.

LIVY

generalship and panic reaction in the Istrian War ( 4 1 . 2 . 53.5, 7.4-10). In the lost quaternion after 41. 18.15 Liv\' detailed the punishment meted out to the army of the consul Q. Petillius, who was killed in combat with the Ligurians because, the Senate charged, the soldiers had not given him sufficient support in the engagement. 7 * Beginning with Book 4 2 Livy marks out a second major phase in the decline. A new theme is introduced—the mis­ treatment of non-Romans, whether allies, friends, or enemies —while two old problems deepen and take on new com­ plications: military leadership and military discipline. Book 42 forms an introduction: the chief themes are set forth in the events leading to the outbreak of the war with Perseus, the declaration itself, and the first year's campaign in Greece. Book 43, fragmentary though it is, was clearly dominated by the theme of Roman failure, both military and moral. Book 44 is its foil, opening at the point when Roman fortunes begin to change; the reversal becomes especially marked as the figure of Aemilius Paullus emerges, and reaches a high point with the Battle of Pydna. In 45 the pendulum swings back somewhat; Paullus on his return is subject to unprincipled attacks by his enemies, and the soldiers whose greed he had failed to satisfy become openly critical. The opposition is not sufficient to prevent the triumph, but the full savor of his victory is soured by the hostility of his soldiers and by the sudden deaths of his two young sons. At the beginning of Book 4 2 the theme of the dishonor­ able and arrogant treatment of non-Romans is introduced by three developed episodes that follow in quick succes­ sion. 75 The opening section (1.6-12) describes the requisi­ tions made by L. Postumius Albinus (cos. 173) on the allied 74 Val.

Max. 2.7. ιj; Frontinus, Strat. 4. 1.46. The theme is not wholly new: cf. 40.44.12 on the exaction of money from allies and provincials by Ti. Sempronius for his aedilician games. 75

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

town of Praeneste, the first occurrence of its kind (1.8) and one that set an evil precedent for the future (1. 12). In the next section (3) Livy records the stripping of the roof tiles of the temple of Juno Lacinia by the censor Q. Fulvius Flaccus in order to use them for his temple of Fortuna Equestris at Rome; the senators (and Livy) wax wroth at the sacrilege, not least because a censor was involved (3. 7): ad id censorem moribus regendis creatimi? At 7.3 ff. a more elaborate episode is recounted: the unprovoked attack on the Statellate Ligurians by the consul M. Popillius Laenas. Though they surrendered unconditionally (deditio in fidem·. 8. 1-2, 5-6), Popillius destroyed the town, confiscated all property, and sold the inhabitants into slavery. Again a lively scene of outrage and recrimination in the Senate is described (8. 4-8): both the immediate act and its effects for the future (pessimo exemplo: 8. 6) are deplored. Later in the book, as the war between Rome and Macedon is about to break out, King Perseus is the victim of Roman duplicity: the envoy Q. Marcius, relying on Perseus' trust in him and his family, deceived the king into believing a negotiated set­ tlement was still possible, whereas his real aim was to give the Romans time to deploy their forces advantageously be­ fore hostilities began. 76 When on his return Marcius pridefully expounds his deception to the Senate, most approve, but some of the older members, moris antiqui memores (42. 47. 4), deplore this "new and overly cunning wisdom": nova ac nimis callida sapientia (47. 9). They cite two exempla from past history to illustrate the straightforward dealing of their ancestors (47. 5-8): Camillus' treatment of the FaIiscan schoolmaster (y. 27) and, picking up the words of the dying Hannibal, the offer of Pyrrhus' physician to poison his king. 77 They conclude on a more practical note by questioning the long-range effectiveness of such tactics: 76

42.38.8-43.3: the conference at the Peneus River.

77

Cf. Per. 13; 24.45.3; ip.51.11.

LIVY

enemies worsted by cunning or accident are less prone to accept defeat than those who succumb in hand-to-hand combat "in a just and righteous war." T8 The stage has been set for a series of wanton and shock­ ing acts of cruelty and duplicity, beginning with the an­ nihilation of Haliartus by C. Lucretius at 42. 63. 3-12: urbs diruta a fundamentis. The theme appears repeatedly in Book 43 and serves as a framing device. The book opens with complaints of the avaritia superbiaque of several governors in Spain (2)·, after two of the accused anticipated convic­ tion by going into voluntary exile, the Senate passed a decree outlawing specific abuses of power on the part of Roman magistrates in that province. 79 After 43. 3 there is a great gap of four quaternions. In it the depredations and perfidy of magistrates in Greece were detailed: chiefly those of P. Licinius Crassus, cos, 171, and the praetors C. Lucretius and L. Hortensius. Among Licinius' many misdeeds (complures in Graecia urbes expugnavit et crudeliter corripuit: Per. 43), we hear later, when our text resumes, specifically of his treatment of Coronea (4. 11), which prompted a decree of the Senate forbidding such acts in the future. Lucretius and Hortensius also repeatedly misbehaved: item a praefectis classium Romanarum nrulta impotenter in socios facta (Per. 43). The sack of Abdera (4. 8-13) and of Calchis (7. 5-11) are also referred to in later passages; in each case the Senate issued further prohibitory decrees. In addition, 78 42.47.8: I W t o ac pio bello. The passage doubtless derives from Polybius, although the historical exempla and the references to versiitiarum Funicarum and to caUiditatis Graecae, apud quos fallere hostem quam vi superare gloriosins fuerit, suggest that Livy has em­ bellished the original. It would seem that he sides with the older senators rather than ea pars senatus cui potior utilis quam honesti cura erat\ Polybius, on the other hand, may not have. See F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley 1972) 175 n. 115; on nova sapientia, see J. Briscoe, JRS 54 (1964) 66-77. 79 41.1.12: . . . ne frumenti aestimationem magistratus Romanus haberet neve cogeret vicensimas vendere Hispanos quanti ipse vellet, et ne praefecti in oppida sua ad pecunias cogendas importerentur.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

Alpine tribes and other peoples of north Italy came to Rome to complain of the unprovoked acts of hostility that C. Cassius, cos. 171, inflicted on them after he had returned from his harebrained attempt to reach the theater of war in Macedon by striking through Illyria (43. 5). The book thus be­ gins by emphasizing the mistreatment of the Spaniards: a decree of the Senate is the response; thereafter, in the gap after 43. 3, the scene shifted to Greece. When our text resumes at 43. 4. 1 ff. the situation in Spain, which has im­ proved markedly, is compared to the state of affairs in Greece at that moment (4. 5): Haec lenitas praetoris [i.e. in Spain], qua sine sanguine ferocissimam gentem domuerat, eo gratior plebi patribusque fuit, quo crudelius avariusque in Graecia bellatum et ab consule Lieinio et ab Lueretio praetore erat. The design is complete when near the end of the book (43. 17. 2-10) we hear that the senatorial sanctions concern-' ing the Greeks have succeeded in checking misconduct and in regaining the good will of the natives, as they had earlier in Spain. Book 4 4 is the foil to 43. The theme is picked up at the outset: honorable treatment is beginning to insure the loyalty and safety of the allies in Greece: soeiis cum fide cultis et ab omni genere iniuriae defensis (1. 5, cf. 7.2). On the arrival of the praetor Anicius in Illyria to take com­ mand against King Gentius in the following year, most of the cities surrendered voluntarily (30. 15-31. 1), induced in large part by the dementia in omnes et iustitia praetoris Romani. A similar statement in reference to Aemilius Paullus is missing; one may have stood in the gap of two folia after 32. Ii in which his arrival in Greece and journey to the Roman camp were described. The theme of military discipline is also much to the fore in these books: already in Book 42 Livy points out that many veterans reenlisted only because they believed that they would become as rich as those who had served in the wars against Philip and Antiochus (42. 32. 6); others needed the patriotic encouragement of the simple soldier Sp. Ligus-

LIVY

tinus ( 3 4 · Ι- 35· 2 )· Despite the fragmentary nature of Book 45, the surviving parts suggest that the decline in military discipline and morale was a major theme: we hear that the quartering of naval crews in private homes in both summer and winter resulted in the abuse of persons and property (7. 11), commanders granted indiscriminate leaves and dis­ charges per ambitionem (11. 10, 14. 7-10, 15 .6 -8), and the same motive prompted certain consuls (non consulibus sed ambitiosis consulibus) to refuse to enlist those who were un­ willing to serve (14. 2 ff.)· In 44 correction is begun at once (1. 5): ad internum militarem disciplmam ab effusa licentia formato milite. The arrival of Aemilius Paullus marks a return to full discipline and rigor; his wisdom and example win great respect and create self-confidence among the troops (33.4, 34.6-9): vulgo etiam veteranis fatentibus se illo primum die, tamquam tirones, quid agendum esset in re militari didicisse. In Book 44 greater emphasis is placed upon the role of the commanders-in-chief than upon that of the common soldier. Men such as P. Crassus, C. Lucretius, and L. Hortensius are now replaced by men of honor and competence. A. Hostilius (cos. 170) and his successor Q. Marcius are transi­ tional figures. They enjoy harmonious relations with each other (1 .8), and revive military discipline and honorable treatment of allies. Marcius achieves considerable military success—more, however, from Perseus' failure of nerve than f r o m h i s o w n f o r e s i g h t a n d g o o d s t r a t e g y ( 4 . 9 , 6 . 3 ff., 7 . 7 , 20. 2-4). The election of Paullus to the consulship and his appointment to the command is the climax. The victory is foreshadowed (e.g. at 22. 17), and Livy builds to Paullus' arrival in the Roman camp with care and skill. The narra­ tive is divided into a number of separate steps, both for emphasis and to create suspense: Paullus' request that a fact­ finding commission be sent out before the start of the new year (18. 1 -5), the wait for its return as the new year opens ( 1 9 . ι f f . ) , t h e r e p o r t o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o n its r e t u r n ( 2 0 ) , the speech of PaulIus to the people in which he attacks the

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

gossips and armchair generals who attempt to second-guess the commanders in the field (22.2-15). When the scene shifts to Greece (30. 1), the arrival and success of Anicius are recounted first (30. 2-32. 11) in order both to leave the rest of the book to Paullus and to delay his expected arrival a bit longer. When he does come to the Roman camp, great emphasis is placed on the many steps he takes to insure military discipline (3 3), on his caution and foresight in pre­ paring to engage the enemy (36. 1 fif.), and—picking up the theme of his speech to the people before departing Rome— on his remarks to his soldiers (34. 2-5) and to his staff (3839) on the necessity to obey unhesitatingly the decisions of the commander. Book provides a suitable conclusion for the theme. It opens on a high note: the victory announcement in Rome and the joy that it produced (1-3). During Paullus' return, however, a sour element intrudes: the dissatisfaction of his troops with their share of booty (34.7). When Paullus reaches Rome, Sulpicius Galba, one of his military tribunes and a personal enemy, supports the soldiers' complaints in the debate in the Senate over the triumph. Livy makes Galba's discreditable motives clear: prensando ipse et per suae legionis milites sollichando (35.8); iam nunc nimis saepe per ambitionem peccari (36.8). Galba's attacks on Paullus' old-fashioned discipline (35. 6, 36. 3-4) are met with sharp anger by the leading senators (36. 7-8), who com­ plain that generals are now being subjected to the license and greed of the soldiery. The aged and doughty M. Servilius steps forward as Paullus' champion. In a long and vigorous speech he defends antiqua disciplina (37.2), at­ tacks Galba for pandering to the licentia and avaritia of the troops (37. 11)1 a nd wins the citizens over to his way of thinking. The triumph is celebrated with impressive pomp and display (40. 1 ff.). Somewhat surprising, however, is Livy's failure to con­ demn the questionable treatment of many of Rome's friends and foes after Pydna. Certainly there were plenty of ex-

LIVY

amples that called for comment: e.g. the hostility shown to King Eumenes (19. 1 ff.) and to Rhodes (10. 4 ff., 20. 4 ff.), the mistreatment of the Aetolians (28.6-7, 3 1 · I-2 )i t ^ ie harsh measures taken against Greek leaders in many states that had not wholeheartedly supported Rome (31.3 ff.)» the shocking sack of Epirus (34. 1-6). Some of these Livy quite clearly approved of: there is little evidence, for ex­ ample, that he feels much sympathy for the Rhodians. Other items he tones down or subtly alters: the Senate's recep­ tion of the young Attalus is a case in point. The Polybian original shows that that body played a much more discredit­ able role than Livy will allow. 80 Still other matters are re­ ported briefly and matter-of-factly—the rape of Epirus especially so. 81 The reason for Livy's attitude is partly his lack of sympathy for most of these groups (some of whom he clearly believed were treated as they deserved) and partly his desire not to damage Paullus' image. That general's concern for fair dealing is emphasized repeatedly (28. 6-10, 32. 1-7); when harsh measures are enacted his personal involvement is either played down or omitted. Books 42-45 therefore have as a leading theme a further stage in the decline of Roman morality. The self-seeking of commanders grows, and to it are added incompetence and savagery. The soldiery becomes increasingly difficult to control; it may appreciate discipline when facing the enemy on the battlefield (4.4. 34. 6) but resents it otherwise, and clamors for spoils and booty. Friends, allies, and enemies receive treatment variously compounded of deceit, insolence, and brutality.

Perhaps the most notable feature of Livy's general presen­ tation is that the genesis and growth of Roman moral decline developed slowly and proceeded by stages. The 4 5 . 19. 1-20. 3 = Pol. 50. 1-3. See pp. 207-208. 81

Orher examples are the sack of Aeginium and Agassae (45. ιη.

1-4), the investigation of the Aetolian charges at 31. 1-2, the treat­ ment of

Acarnania, and

(31.12-15).

the beheading of

Andronicus and

Neon

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER Asian campaign of Manlius, although featured prominently, cannot properly be called a turning point. Livy says that it could scarcely be regarded as "even the seeds of the luxuria to come." 82 The point is stressed often in these books;83 phrases such as iam magnificentia crescente at 44. 18. 8 (168 B.C.) express his basic outlook. Sallust, on the other hand, depicted the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C., when the metus Punicus was removed, as decisive: be­ fore that date Roman virtus had reigned supreme, after it avarice and luxury entered Roman life.84 Later, when writ­ ing the Historiae, he modified this conception somewhat, recognizing a period of discordia at the time of the expul­ sion of the kings and the struggle of the orders; he now believed that the high point of Roman morality, when optimi mores and maxima concordia prevailed, came in the years between the Second and Third Punic Wars. 85 The contrast with Livy could not be greater, since for the latter it was precisely this period that saw the beginning of the moral decline. This is not to deny that the destruction of Carthage may have figured prominently in Livy's interpreta­ tion of the decline. There is no doubt, for example, that he believed in the efficacy of the metus hostilis,SB which for Sallust was the chief reason for selecting the year 146 as 39.6.9: Vix tanten ilia quae turn conspiciebantur semina erant futurae luxuriae. 83 For example -#0.5.7 o r 45- 3 2 · Ι0 ί compare, however, 55.22.2. 8 4 Cf. BC 9.1-3; Bf 41.2. D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge 1961), esp. 41 ff., gives a thorough analysis of Sallust's views. 85 Hist. r, frgs. 11, 12, 16M. Earl (Political Thought 42) believes that Sallust may have changed his mind in response to criticism of his earlier idealized view as published in the Bella. Even so, the cen­ tral point remains. The period of idealization has been delimited, 82

not eliminated. 8 6 1.19. 4: ne luxuriarent otio animi quos metus hostium disciplinaque militaris continuerat; 2. 39. 7: externus timor, maximum concordiae vinculum·, cf. also 2. 54.1; 3.9.1; 6.21. 2; 30.44.8; J4.9.4; 39.1.2. Livy's adherence to this view, however, should not be overempha­ sized (as it is by I. Kajanto, Arctos 1 [1958] 55-63), it is not men­ tioned in the main Preface: Ogilvie, Comm. 24.

LIVY

the turning point; it is also clear that the debates between Scipio Nasica and Cato played a significant role in Books 48 and 49." Nevertheless, even if Livv did stress the im­ portance of the event, he would not have done so from a Sallustian viewpoint. His conception of historical change was not pegged to turning points or to preconceived his­ torical constructs. For him such change came gradually and was inextricably bound up with the myriad threads running through the complex fabric of Roman life. Ogilvie has summed up his approach well: "L. had the truer historical judgement. Where Sallust tailored his material to fit his view of the historical process, L. presupposed no such determinism. For him the course of history was not a straight progression from black to white but a chequered patchwork in which good and evil had always been inter­ woven."88 I would add only that this patchwork was not statically conceived; Livyr, too, saw a progression, but of a different sort from Sallust. Livy and Sallust are representative of two chief schools of thought concerning the moral decline of the late Repub­ lic. The one to which Sallust belonged derives mainly from Posidonius, who stressed, with particular reference to the ?netits Pwiiciis , the unifying effect on the internal structure of a state that the fear of an external enemy has.89 D. C. 87 Per. 48 records three debates, apparently at the start, middle, and end of the book. Per. 49 begins with still a fourth exchange. Whether Nasica really espoused the idea of metus bostilis is disputed (Diod. 34-33-3-6 =FGH 2, A, Posidonius [No. 87] frg. 112, 3-6). For example, M. Gelzer in a famous article thought that he did: Philologus 86 (1931) 261-299; W. Hoffmann, Historia 9 (1960) 309-344, considers it a post eventum invention. I myself see no reason to deny the historicity of the argument: see Earl, Political Thought 48, A. Astin, Scipio Amiilianus (Oxford 1967) 276-280, s s Comm. 24. S9 F. Klingner, Hermes 63 (1928) 165-192. The general idea was commonplace in earlier Greek thought: Plato Laws 3.698 b ff.; Arist. Pol. 7.1334 a-b; Pol. ¢.18, 57.5; 37.13.6. Cf. also Plut. Cat. Mai. 27.2; App. Lib. 69-, Diod. 34.33.4-6.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

Earl identifies the other as deriving from a senatorial tradi­ tion of the second century.90 Livy's appraisal of the return to Rome of Cn. Manlius and his army, for example, un­ doubtedly is based in part on the Gracchan historian Piso.91 This school stressed the importation into Rome of pernicious foreign ideas and practices, especially those from the Greek East. It is a view that is in substantial agreement with Cato the Elder's strictures about the Greeks.82 On some points the two "schools" are not at variance: the idea of the metus hostilis, for example, can be found in both. Yet for Sallust bad behavior occurs when men, no longer obliged to fight for survival, are left to their own devices. The basic cause is man's evil nature, which requires the stimulus of fear of an outside enemy to keep it occupied and under control. For Livy it is a matter of association with alien cultures. The word immigrare in the Preface strikes the keynote (11): nec in quam civitatem tarn serae avaritia luxuriaque

The basic cause is social and cultural: the contamination of sound native traditions by ideas and prac­ tices from outside. There is disagreement as to how representative of general opinion these schools of thought were in the later Republic. Some believe the standard was the SaIlustian interpreta­ tion,83 others the senatorial. Of the latter, D. C. Earl is inclined to regard Sallust as something of a maverick in his time, but one who set the fashion for the future.94 The evidence is admittedly slight, yet what we do have seems to support Earl's thesis. Unfortunately we do not know how immigraverint.

90 Political

Thought 44. Probably directly, in my view. Piso dated the subversion of pudicitia to 154 B.C. (Plin. NH 17. 244 = Piso frg. 38): M. Messalae C. Cassi censorum hmrο, a quo tempore pud'icitiam subversam Piso gravis auctor prodidit. Why Piso was of this opinion is unclear; apparently the replacement of a palm tree by a fig tree growing on the altar of the Capitoline Jupiter signaled the fact (Plin. ad loc.). 92 See esp. Plut. Cat. Mai. 19.3, 22-23. 93 For example Ogilvie, Comm. 23-24; Syme, HSPh 64 (Γ959) 30. si Political Thought 44-49, esp. 47. 91

LIVY

the historians of the first century B.C. prior to Sallust viewed the period after zoo B.C. But for two of them, Antias and Quadrigarius, we can make a few inferences. These writers appear to have been unabashedly chauvinistic in their inter­ pretation, especially of events in the Greek East. The war with Perseus is the clearest example—particularly in respect to the events leading to the outbreak, the role of Rhodes, and the treatment afterward of those connected with it (such as Prusias).95 Concerning domestic events they ap­ pear to have concentrated on the dramatic clashes of politi­ cal rivals: e.g. the attacks on Fulvius Nobilior, Cn. Manlius, and the Scipios reported at the end of Book 39. The analysis made earlier of the different types of sources on Manlius gives us a glimpse of what their approach may have been like as a whole.98 The passage at 38. 44. 9-50. 3 undoubtedly derives from them—or at least from Antias: it is of a piece with the section on the Trials of the Scipios that follows. The focus is on the charges against Manlius of private vices and ineptitude. At 39. 6. 3-7. 5, however, which derives from Piso, emphasis is placed on Manlius' lax discipline, his ingratiating behavior toward his men, and the alien prac­ tices and ideas that the army brought back—none of which finds mention in the earlier section. The difference suggests that the Sullan historians—Antias especially—may not have adopted the "senatorial tradition" concerning the moral decline. The hypothesis is reinforced by their failure to make much or any use of Polybius and Cato (e.g. 39. 43. 1: Antias), both of whom are prime sources for the decline. Hence these later writers may have rather idealized the period between the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War and the Gracchan troubles. Cicero with his rosy pic­ ture of the heyday of Scipio Aemilianus reflects this tradi­ tion, as does Sallust himself. It was not the view, however, 95^j:. 44.4-21, where Livy contrasts the Roman version of Prusias' reception in Rome with the very different one in Polybius. On the general topic, cf. E. S. Gruen, CQ 25 (1975) 58-81. 96 See pp. 256-257.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

of Cato, Piso, Polybius, or their follower Livy.97 A tenta­ tive conclusion might then be drawn: in his picture of the decline Livy rejected the interpretation both of the Sullan historians and of Sallust; he went back instead to the sena­ torial tradition of the second century as we glimpse it in Cato and Piso. Of course the picture of the Roman world after 200 as given by later historians cannot have been wholly favorable. The many accounts of the ineptitude and duplicity of Roman officials in Spain and Italy that we have in Livy presumably derive from them. It is impossible to know what construction they put upon these events and how much of the moral disapproval we see in Livy is due to Livy himself. On the other hand, the political infighting of which the Sullan historians were fond was not for Livy one of the symptoms of the decline—or at least one of the major symptoms. No mention is made of it in the Preface. It was the hallmark of Cato's career (39. 44. 9), and serves more to provoke Livy's interest than his censure. Ambitio, the term used to describe its worst features,88 does not figure prominently as a cause except when generals attempt to ingratiate themselves with the troops by relaxing discipline: this is the one aspect that does indeed provoke Livy's strong condemnation. 97

For Polybius the moral decline began with Rome's first

wars

overseas, by which he appears to mean those from the Second Macedonian War on (cf. 18. 34-35); the process came significantly to the fore, however, in the years after Pydna Walbank, Comm. 1, 647-648; 2, 594-595;

(31.

idem >

25·, 35.1.10): see

Polybius (Berkeley

1972) 170-173; A. W. Lintott, Historta 21 (1972) 629 and n. 18. 98 Although

not always: see 1. 35.2, 6 and cf. Sail. BC 11.1-2; Sed

primo magis ambitio quam avaritia anivios hominum exercebat, quod tamen vitium propius virtutem erat. Nam gloriam, honorem, imperium bonus et ignavus aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille vera via nititur, huic quia bonae artes desunt, dolis atque

fallaciis contendit. The

electioneering of Appius the Decemvir at 5.35. 1-7 gives the full stereotype.

2 75

LIVY NATIONAL CHARACTER: CAUSES, MUTABILITY, REMEDIES

Livy tended to view nations and peoples as stereotypes: Numidians have strong sexual appetites, Greeks prefer to talk than to act, Campanians combine hauteur with luxuri­ ous living." The Rhodian Astymedes in his speech to the Senate in 167 is represented as saying this: "Nations have characters just as individuals do: some peoples are hot­ headed, some daring, some timid, some given to drinking or to sex. The Athenians have the reputation of engaging in swift and daring action beyond their powers, the Lace­ daemonians of being slow and of scarcely attempting enter­ prises in which they have confidence. Nor would I deny that Asia as a whole produces men of rather hollow talents or that the rhetoric of my own people is somewhat full­ blown."100 Much of this characterization is simplistic, some of it painfully so. The Gauls, for example, uniformly have huge frames, but tire quickly and wilt under a hot sun.101 Yet these stereotypes are not materially different from those "Numidians: rp. 23.4; 50.12.18; Greeks: 8.11.8, Campanians (es­ pecially Capua): 7.29.5, 31.6; .23.2.1, 3.5-6, 8.6; 25.18.2. For further examples, see Walsh, Livy 108-109; Hoch1 Darstellung 4953, analyzes Livy's depiction of Aetolians. 100 23.14-16: Tam civitatium quam singulorum hominum mores sunt: gentes quoque aliae iracundae, aliae audaces, quae dam timidae, in vinum, in Venerem proniores sunt. Atheniensium populum jama est celerem et supra vires audacem esse ad conandum, Lacedaemoniorum cunctatorem et vix in ea quibus fidit ingredientem. Non negaverim et totam Asiae regionem inaniora parere ingenia, et nostrorum tumidiorem sermonem esse. The speech derives from a Roman writer, not Polybius: see p. 197. The reference to Athens and Sparta comes from Thuc. 1.68-71; it answers to the contemporary character of neither state (on which, see 35.37.1 ff, for Sparta, 3/.44.9 for Athens). Interesting, too, is the classification of Rhodian oratory as typical of the "Asian" school. Cicero specifically exempts Rhodian style from the charge of having been adulterated: Brut. 51; cf. Quint. 12.10. 18. Livy, on the other hand, regarded the Rhodians as essentially Asiatics: 37. 54. 18-20. These sentiments in the speech, therefore, are probably his own contribution. 101 5.48. 3; /0,28.4; -"-2.4; ^7.48.16-17; 38.1y.6-j.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

of today: the taciturn Scot, the voluble Greek, the amorous Frenchman, the melancholy Russian, the bibulous Irishman. The national character of our own country has been a favorite subject of presidents and politicians, who over the years have untiringly instructed the nation and the world about the American work ethic, American know-how, and American values.102 What caused the Roman character to be as it was? It has been argued earlier that for Livy the historical process ac­ counts for much of it: without a long period of strong authoritarian government the early Romans could not have coalesced into a unified nation nor could they have embarked successfully on the hazardous course of libertas. The explanation is essentially humanistic and historical. In addition there is a significant religious element. Livy believes that the gods, fate, and fortune helped to select the site of the city and determined its imperial destiny.103 The head unearthed when the foundations of the Capitolium were excavated portended that Rome would be the arx imperii caputque rerum (/. 55.6)—a manifestation of the fortuna populi Romani and in particular the fortuna loci that at102 Compare this exchange between Thomas Jefiferson and his young daughter Martha: To the Girls and Boys, ed. E. Boykin (New York 1964) 24, 27. March 25, 1787; "Titus Livius puts me out of my wits. I can not read a word by myself, and I read of it very seldom with my master; however, I hope I shall soon be able to take it up again." March 28: "I do not like your saying you are unable to read the ancient print of your Livy but with the aid of your master. We are always equal to what we undertake with resolution. . . . It is a part of the American character to consider nothing desperate; to surmount every difficulty by resolution and contrivance." 10s For example, /.4.1: Sed debebatur, ut opinor, fatis tantae origo urbis maximique secundum deorum opes imperii principium; /.46.5: Forte ita inciderat ne duo violenta ingenia matrimonio iungerentur, fortuna, credo, populi Romani, quo diuturnius Servi regnum esset constituique civitatis mores possent. On the signifi­ cance of this latter passage see p. 244; on the general subject: I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (Turku 1 9 5 7 ) .

LIVY

tached to the site.101 In the great speech that ends the first pentad CamiIlus stresses these points in the famous passage on the laudes Romae; in the conclusion he asks (j\ 54. 6): Quae . . . ratio est expertis {talia) alia experiri, cum iam ut virtus vestra transire alio possit, fortuna certe loci huius transferri non possit?105 Thus divine will, historical circumstances, and historical development together formed the Roman national charac­ ter. Some believe that Livy had an organic or biological view of the historical process: nations grow and decline just as individuals do; the question was not whether Rome would ultimately decline, but when.106 Yet the clause in the Preface (11), nec in quam civitatem tam serae avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint, does not commit him to a bio­ logical interpretation such as we find in Polybius.107 There is nothing else in his history that suggests he held such a theory; the expression probably reflects the commonsense view that nothing forever remains the same. Yet his attitude toward the general problem of historical change is ambiva104On

3 n.

the significance of caput rerum, see Ogilvie, Comm. 1. 45.

Kajanto in his book God and Fate in Livy underplays the di­ vine element too much in my view (although I agree that Livy offers humanistic explanations for the most part). I find his belief that the religious arguments in this speech were chosen primarily "to make effective arguments" (p. 37) and that we should not consider his speech as even "an indirect interpretation of the religious experience of the Augustan age" (p. 36) unconvincing. Kajanto also argues that the concept of the fortuna populi Romani is chiefly Ciceronian in origin and that Livy may derive the idea from him: 66-67, 70-71· On religion in general in Livy, see W. Liebeschuetz's good article, ]RS 5 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 4 5 - 5 5 . 106I. Kajanto, Arctos 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 5 5 - 6 3 . 107For example, 6.4. rr-13, 9 . Γ 0 - Γ 3 , 5 1 . 4 - 8 , 57 .1-9·, cf. Cic. De re p. 2.\ ff. I do not believe that for Livy the Regal Period marked a progression from μοναρχία to βασίλεια to rvppavis (cf. Ogilvie, Comm. 30-31, 195; Walbank, Comm. 1, 663-664), although this theory may have influenced his sources. See C. J. Classen, Historia 1 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) 3 8 5 - 4 0 3 , M. A. Giua, SCO 1 6 ( 1 9 6 7 ) 3 0 8 - 3 1 9 . 105

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

lent. On the one hand, he stresses the many innovations over the years that created Roman institutions and the Roman character. On the other, he resisted the corollary that those institutions and that character ought therefore to be subject to further change. He frequently deplores the fact that the present is not like the past,108 and on a few occasions refers to possible remedia that might arrest the course that events had taken in recent times (notably at Praef. 9). Then again, he expresses belief in Roma aeterna, an idea that was just making its appearance at the time he began writing the his­ tory. His first mention of it is in the speech of the tribune Canuleius, who in the same breath urges the necessity and desirability of change and innovation (4.4.4): "Who can doubt that in a city founded for eternity and growing to an immense size new commands, priesthoods, and privileges for families and individuals must be instituted?"109 As far as I can see, there is nothing in Livy that would lead to the conclusion that for him decline was ultimately necessary or inevitable. For him there was no inherent defect within the state or its citizens. The damage came from outside; in origin and effect it was like a contagious disease. The people of Massilia are said to have preserved 108 Praef. 4-5, 9; 4.6.12; 7.2.13, 25.9; /0.9.6; .26.22.14. Cf. 34. 54.8: Adeo nihil motion ex antique probabile est: veteribus, nisi quae usus evidenter arguit, start malunt. 1 0 8 The whole passage deserves quotation (4.4.1-4): At enhn nemo post reges exactos de plebe consul fuit. Quid postea? NiiUane res nova institui debet? et quod nondum est factum—multa enim nondum sunt facta in novo populo—ea ne si utilia quidem sunt fieri oportet? Povtifices, augures Ronndo regnante nulli erant; ab Numa Pompilio creat't sunt. Census in civitate et descriptio centuriarum classiumque non erat; ab Ser. TuUio est facta. Consules nunquam fuerant; regibus exactis creati sunt. Dictatoris nec imperium nec nomen fuerat; apud patres esse coepit. Tribuni plebi, aediles, quaestores nulli erant; institutum est ut fierent. Decemviros legibus scribendis intra decern hos annos et creavimus et e re publica sustulimus. Quis dubitat quin in aeternum urbe condita, in immensum crescente nova imperia, sacerdotia, iura gentium hominumque instituantur? See also j. 7. ΊΟ, 52-7; 6.23.7; 26.27.14; 28. 28.11 and Ogilvie 1 Comm. 4.4.4η.

LIVY

their national character sincerum integrum que a contagione accolarum: the passage is from the ending that Liw added to the Rhodian speech to the Senate in 189, the first part of which is adapted from Polvbius. 110 Foreign ideas and prac­ tices tend to pervert the healthy and the simple, particularly when unexpected opportunities to acquire monev and power present themselves. Livy's view of human nature, then, is not overly rosy or idealized. Men require the con­ straints of a simple life of hard work and challenge in a community that values and promotes patriotism and right conduct. When these conditions are contaminated, virtus can seldom survive unimpaired. 111 Hence for Livy environment and historical conditions are extremely important. In his effort to understand Rome's development he also considered other peoples and speculated about the lessons that could be learned from them. One of his special concerns focused on place: the geographical and topographical situation of a people. When describing the four republics into which iMacedon was divided after the defeat of Perseus, he says about the fourth region: "The whole area is cold, difficult to farm, and rugged: the charac­ ter of the inhabitants matches the charactcr of the land. In addition, barbarian neighbors make them even fiercer—in wartime by testing their mettle, in peace bv transmitting their own practices to them." 112 His judgment of the Cam110 37.54. ι ff. = Pol. 21.22. ι ff. Sections 18-28 of ch. 54 are Livy's substitution. Medical metaphors and comparisons are common else­ where in this connection: e.g. remedia and sahtbre ac frugiferti?n in the Preface 9-10, contagio disciplinae morisque accolarum (38. 17. 18: the effects of the Asian natives on the Roman soldier); veluti con­ tagione morbi (39. 9. 1: the Bacchanalian Conspiracy). 111 On Livy's realistic, occasionally pessimistic, appraisal of human nature, see K. Gries' interesting paper: Hommages a Marcel Renard, Collection Latomus 101 (Brussels 1969) 1, 383-393. 112 45.30. 7: Frigida haec omnis duraque cultu et aspera plaga est; ctdtormn quoque ingenia terrae similia habet. Ferociores eos et accolae barbari faciunt, nunc bello exercentes, nunc in pace miscentes ritus suos. The idea that character is the reflection of the environ­ ment had a long pedigree: e.g. Airs, Waters, Places in the Hippocratic corpus, esp. 12 ff.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

panians and Samnites is similar: "The Samnites at that time lived in the mountains in villages. They raided the plain and the litoral, contemptuous of the inhabitants who were of a softer character and—as is nearly always the case—resem­ bled the land in which they lived, while they themselves were rough mountaineers."113 In the same way the geo­ graphical situation of Rome complements the Roman charac­ ter and Roman successes. In a passage based closely on Cicero Camillus is made to discourse on the advantages of the site: "the salubrious hills, the river ideally situated for transporting produce from the interior and receiving goods from overseas, a sea close by for our convenience but not so near that we are exposed to the navies of other peoples, situated in the heart of Italy : a site uniquely fitted to foster the growing prosperity of the city."1" More important than site and topography were neigh­ boring peoples. Livy was particularly fascinated by those who had been transplanted to new surroundings: he speculates about their ability to retain their national charac­ ter and the extent to which they were affected by a new environment. His interest is made clear by the two free 113 ^.13.7: Scminites, ea tempestate in montibus vicatim habitantes, campestria et maritima Ioea contempto cultorum molhore at que., ut evenit fere, locis simili generi ipsi montani atque agrestes depopulabantur. Cicero (De leg. agr. 2.95) also stresses environment over genetic inheritance: 1ion ingenerantur hominibus mores torn a stirpe generis ac seminis quam ex eis rebus quae ab ipsa natura nobis ad vitae consuetudinem suppeditantur, qutbus alimur et vivimus. He goes on to maintain that the character of the Carthaginians (fraudulenti et mendaces), the Ligurians (duri atque agrestes), and Campanians (semper superbi) has been determined by the location and situation in which each people lives. 114 J. 54.4: saluberrimos colles, flimien opportnmmu quo ex mediterraneis locis fruges devehantur, quo maritimi commeatus accipiantur, mare vicinum ad commoditates nec expositum mmia propinquitate ad pericula classiwn externarum, regionem Italiae mediam-ad incrementum urbis natuni unice locum. Cf. Cic., De re p. 2. ro-11 and his rather different description at De leg. agr. 2.96; Vitruvius

6. r. 10—11.

LIVY

compositions of his own in Books 57 and 3 8 . The first is the ending to the Rhodian speech that he added to the Polybian original (-77. 54. 18-28), the second is the speech delivered by Cn. Manlius to his soldiers before the Battle of Mt. Olympus (38. 17). In the first the speaker urges the Senate not to think that because the Rhodians were originally colonists from the mother country they are less worthy than the mainland Greeks: nec terra mutata mutavit genus aut mores (jj. 54. 18).115 He cites the people of Massilia as an example: "If the character of the land they live in were able to overcome their inborn nature, the savage and numerous peoples surrounding them would have barbarized them by now."116 He continues: "They have preserved pure and free from contamination from their neighbors not only speech, dress, and outward appearance, but above all customs, laws, and character."117 The speech of Manlius is quite different. After enumerating the conventional at­ tributes of the Gallic character (38. 17. 3-9) he argues that in Asia it had been adulterated by intermarriage and the fusion of cultures: "So it is with crops and animals: the seed does not have as much power to insure genetic inheritance as has the particular soil and climate in which the seed grows the power to change it."118 He gives as examples the Macedonians who settled in Alexandria, Seleucia, and Babylon and who had degenerated into Egyptians, Syrians, and Parthians. Even the people of Massilia, he says, had us Livy classes the Rhodians as Asiatic Greeks, a people for whom he had no high regard. See above, n. 100. 116 54.21: Massilienses, quos, si natura insita velut ingenio terrae vinci posset, iam pridem efferassent tot indomitae circumfusae gentes. 1 1 7 5 4 . 2 2 : Non en'vm sonum modo linguae vestitumque et habitum, sed ante omnia mores et leges et ingenium sincerum integrumque a contagione accolarum servarunt. 118 ^i. 17. 9-10: Hi iam degeneres sunt, mixti, et Gallograeci ν ere, quod appellantur; sicut in frugibus pecudibusque non tantum semina ad servandam indolem valent quantum terrae proprietas caelique sub quo aluntur mutat.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

taken on something of the temperament of their Gallic neighbors, while in Tarentum no vestige of the discipline of their Spartan founders remained:119 "Whatever grows in its own soil is truer to its inheritance: that which is trans­ planted to alien land degenerates into that in which it is nourished, for its very nature is altered."120 Manlius' speech is clearly a riposte to that of the Rhodians. The latter denies that a change of place neces­ sarily changes character, the former affirms it. The com­ positions show clearly that the subject greatly interested Livy and that he could argue the case from either side.121 A cautious conclusion would be that his personal opinions on the subject cannot be known. But evidence from the rest of the history points to his favoring Manlius' general posi­ tion. That is, he may not have subscribed to the particular arguments he puts in Manlius' mouth and may have been of two minds on certain general issues, but he did think that national character will be changed by contact with alien cultures. Those whose lives are simple and rigorous will be adversely affected by peoples richer, more cosmopolitan, and more pleasure-loving than they.122 When the latter are 119

17. 12: Massilia, inter Gallos sita, traxit aliquantum ab accolis

animorum; Tctrentinis quid ex Spartana dura tlla et horrida disciplina mansit? Animi is not necessarily pejorative; it may merely refer to their warlike spirit. Compare the quite different appraisal of the Gallograeci at 37,8.4 (based on Polybius): Bellicosiores ea tempestate erant, Gallicos adhuc, nondum exoleta stirpe gentis, servantes animos

(the year is 190

B.C.).

Concerning the changes that the

Achaean League made in Sparta in 189 Livy writes (38. 34.9): Per haec velut enervata civitas Lacedaemoniorum diu Achaeis obnoxia fuit; nulla tamen res tanto erat damno quam disciplina Lycurgi, cui per octingentos annos adsuerant, sublata. Cf. 39. 37.1 ff.

(the speech

of Lycortas). 120 17. 13: Est generosius, in sua quidquid sede gignitur; insitum alienae terrae i?i id quo alitur, natura vertente se, degenerat. 121 See

38.46. 1

and 49.4 for further twists on the theme (the de­

bate in Rome on Manlius' right to a triumph). 122 The introduction to Book 3 9 ( 1 ) and the passage a few chapters later on Cn. Manlius' triumph (6.3-7.5) show clearly what Livy

LIVY

surrounded by the former, the influence may be invigorat­ ing and beneficial.123 There is therefore a strong tendency in Livyr toward exclusiveness and isolationism, especially in respect to those cultures of the East characterized by copia rerum and amoenitas (38. 17. 17-18; 3$. 1.3). In this tendency he is a disciple of the elder Cato. Nearby places could also be treacherous and demoralizing: "Capua even at that time [342 B.C.] was far from healthy for military discipline; it beguiled the soldiers' minds because it had the capacity to gratify their every desire and it made them forget their native city."124 This isolationism is one of the chief reasons for his being so Rome-centered and for his failure to show more interest in or to be more appreciative of foreign peo­ ples, At times it blunts his moral sensibilities in a most dis­ turbing way. For example, the slaughter at Satricum by the Volsci and Praenestini is condemned (6. 22. 4), but when thought; at 38. 17. 17-18 Manbus is cast in the role of a prophet who foresees what the amoenitas Asiae will do to his men. The section at 41.20. 11-13 affords a wry instance of a Roman custom (gladiatorial combat) adversely affecting the Syrians. Interesting, too, are Liv-y's diverse comments on Greek art and learning. At jp. 8.3 he speaks of a Qraecus igvobilis . . . nulla cum arte earwn quas ynultas ad animorum corporumque cultum nobis erudttissima omnium gens invexit, sacnficidus et vates. Of the Greek art brought to Rome from Syracuse by Marcellus he writes (25. 40.2): hide primum initium mirandi Graecarwn artium opera licentiaeque hinc sacra profanaque omnia volgo spoliandi factum est. Cf. A.. Rostagni, Scritti Minori 2, 2 (Turin 1956) 222-248. 123 So with the fourth region of Macedon (4;. 30.7): Ferociores eos et accolae barban faciunt, nunc bello exercentes nunc in pace miscentes ritus suos. This is probably part of the explanation for the good character of the Massiliotes (3#. 17. 12). Cf. 36. 17.6 and above, n. 116. 124 7.38.5: lam turn ininime salubris militari disciplinae Capua instrumento omnium voluptatium delenitos militum aminos avertit a memoria patriae. By iam turn Livj' is doubtless alluding to the de­ moralization of Hannibal's troops while in winter quarters in Capua: 2-j. 18. 10-16, 45.2-6. In Marcellus' words: Captiam Hannibali Cannas fuisse (45.4).

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

the soldiers of three Roman armies are permitted to sack Anxur "this act of generosity on the part of the com­ manders was a first step toward reconciling the plebeians and patricians."125 Again, the treacherous and shocking mas­ sacre of the people of Henna is passed off as "an act either wicked or necessary."126 Particularly surprising in a man from Patavium is his attitude toward Italian peoples other than Romans: he seems to have no special regard for any of them save for his own townsmen and possibly for the early Sabines; toward some he is quite uncharitable.127 Here he was clearly not a follower of Cato. There is a possibility that this attitude is in part due to a desire to achieve his­ torical verisimilitude: i.e. to recreate imaginatively a time when those who later became citizens were still regarded as outsiders and enemies. There seems to be little evidence to support the possibility, however. Somewhat surprising also is his failure to realize the importance of Rome's subjugation of north Italy in the second century.128 The 125 4. 59. 10: Qui ubi venerunt, oppidum vetere fortuna opulentum tres exercitus diripuere; eaque primum benignitas imperatorum plebem patribus eonciliavit. 120 24. 39.7: Ita Henna aut malo aut necessario facinore retenta, Marcelliis nec factum improbavit et praedam Hennensium militibus concessit. For the cases of both Anxur and Henna, see Walsh, Livy

73·

12 ^Patavium: /. 1. 1-3; /0.2.4-15; 41. 27. 3-4; Walsh, Ltvy 2·, Ogilvie, Comm. 1. Sabines: /.18.4. The Volscians, for example, are no­ table for their fickleness (2.22.3): Nec ita multo post Volscis levatis metu suum rediit ingenium. Rursus occuhum parant bellum. Even one of their own members admits the charge a few chapters later: Nimio plus quam velim nostrorum ingenia sunt mobilia (37.4). Cf. 7. 27.7: Volse't, ferocior ad rebellandum quam ad bellandum gens. Hoch, Darstellung 41 ff-, emphasizes that good portraits may be given of individual enemy commanders, but scarcely ever of whole peoples. Cf. E. Burck, Die Welt als Geschichte 1 (1935) 457-460 = Wege zu Livius 107-110. R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 1, 139140, believes that Livy may have shown more sympathy to the Italians in the lost account of the Social War. 128 On this, see Walbank in Livy, ed. T.A. Dorey (London 1971)

58-59.

LIVY

campaigns in Liguria, for example, though useful for main­ taining military discipline, to him were mere interludes be­ tween major wars (59. 1. 2). Doubtless his extensive use of Polybius, with that historian's Greek orientation, is partly responsible. Still, it was Livv's homeland. Transpadane Gaul, after all, had only recently been enfranchised; there is a good chance that Livy was not even born a Roman cit­ izen. 129 If so, this fact might help to explain his attitude: those recently admitted to an exclusive group sometimes be­ come its most blinkered champions. To this writer, Livy's failure to appreciate non-Romans is one of the most disappointing features of his work. He shows scarcely any trace of the great change in the attitude toward the subject peoples of the empire that got underway in his lifetime. He is not interested in foreign cultures and says next to nothing to suggest that Rome had any obliga­ tions to provide positive benefits for those she controlled or that a community of interest might or should develop. He favors, of course, "correct" treatment of enemies and subjects because ethical principles are involved. But often this attitude easily gives wav to callousness and indifference: the cases of Anxur, Henna, and the sack of Epirus in 167 are instances. Even in Books 42 and 43, where the brutal behavior of commanders in Spain, Italy, and Greece is deplored, he is concerned very little with the victims. It is the effect on Roman soldiers and Roman leaders that distresses him. Roman enemies are so much cannon-fodder, although on occasion he may praise them for their per­ tinacity. 130 When allies, friends, or neutrals are mistreated, their visible suffering is not as important as the invisible hurt to the moral character of the Romans. This attitude is partly due to his conviction that from ca. 200 B.C. on the Romans at P. Fraccaro, Opuscula (Pavia 1956) 1, 81-101. example, 7.33.16 and /0.31.13-14 in reference to the Samnites; contrast this with Camillus' question to his men at 6. 7. 3: Hostis est quid aliud qua?n perpetua materia virtutis gloriaeque vestrae? 129 Cf.

130 For

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

bottom were the real victims, not those they had conquered; it was the latter who transmitted a disease that not even Rome's healthy constitution could withstand. In some respect this appraisal does not fit with the usual picture of Livy as the champion of Roman imperialism. Of course he believed utterly in the gloriousness of Rome's achievement. Military conquest needed no apology. Nor does he feel the need to justify the continuance of Roman rule after the conquests had been achieved, except in an ethical sense: the excellence of Rome's national character showed that she was fit to rule; in fact, it elicits on occasion confessions of her worth from her stoutest adversaries.131 But there are few words about positive benefits, only vague phrases such as iura etiam Romana late pollebant (p. 20. 10), occasional references to the practice of admitting defeated enemies to Roman citizenship (e.g. 8. 13. 16; contrast 45. 7-8), and the championing of Greek freedom for a time in the early second century.132 On the other hand, the number of negative statements about Roman rule put in the mouths of opponents is surprisingly large. Hoch has col­ lected them and has endeavored to account for them; his attempt is successful by and large, for many are the natural product of a man rhetorically trained to argue both sides of a case effectively.133 Still, the number is so large and some of the criticisms so trenchant that one is left with the feeling that Livy at times viewed Rome's motives and record with a certain measure of disapproval.134 One of the facets of this topic that Hoch does not treat is Livy's pessimistic referHoch, Darstellung 91-95. The attitude of the Faliscans is an extreme example (5.27.12): Patres conscripti, victoria cui nec deus nec homo quisquam invideat victi a vobis et imperatore vestro, dedimus nos vobis, rati, quo nihil victori pulchrius est, melius nos sub imperio vestro quam legibus nostris victuros. 132 Examples in Hoch, Oarstellung 85-90. 133 Cf. Pol. 2 1 . H . 1 with Livy 37.25.4-7; Po1 · 21 • '4-4-* 5 wlth Livy 37· 35· 5-7· 134 Hoch, Darstellung 95-106. Some especially telling criticisms: 131 See

21.19.9-10; 3/.29.3-16; 33· 3 l - i- 5' 4°·

LIVY

ences to the state of the empire in his own time. In addi­ tion to its moral shortcomings he believes that its great size was a source of weakness. In the Preface (4) he writes: eo creverit ut iam magnitudine laboret sua and iam pridem praevalentis populi vires se ipsae conficiunt; in Book 7 (29. 2): Quotiens in extrema periculorum ventum, ut in hanc magnitudiinem quae vix sustinetur erigi imperium pos­ set! In short, the acquisition of the empire was a source of the greatest glorv, but it brought with it two of the greatest evils: first, contact with foreign peoples adulterated the high moral character of the native Roman; second, the huge size of the empire so dissipated its energies that it had become dangerously weak. 135 In an illuminating note to /. 19. 4 con­ cerning the closing of the gates of Janus, Ogilvie has well argued that Livy cared more for peace than for war. War brutalizes: efferari militia animos (19. 2); nor did he think, as did Sallust, that there must be an external enemy to prevent the state from becoming enfeebled through luxuri­ ous living and idleness. A proper fear of the gods could serve the same function, as the wise Numa foresaw (19. 4). Livy clearly believed that the metus deorum was serviceable not only for the rough and uneducated Romans of Numa's day, but for the men of his own times as well: Camillus' great speech at the end of the first pentad makes this clear, as do episodes such as that at 27. 8. 4-1 o. 138 A final question remains: did Livy think anything could be done to recall or recapture the old Roman character? One might be tempted from the dark pessimism of the Pref­ ace to say no. Indeed, when in the earlier Republic the 135

Some other passages alluding to present or recent weakness

are Praef. 9, 6. 12.5, and 7.25.9; compare Hannibal's words at 50. 44.8: Nulla magna civitas diu quiescere potest; si foris bostem non habet, domi invenit, ut praevalida corpora ab externis causis tuta videntur, suis ipsa viribus onerantur. Cf. E. Dutoit, REL 14 (1936)

365-373· 13e In

Camillus' speech (5.51-54), see especially ji.4-52.7. On Livy's pessimistic appraisal of religion in his own day, see 5.20.5; 8.

11.

i; 10,

40. 10.; 43. 13. 1.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

Roman character was at its height, Livy gives us to under­ stand that right conduct was largely the spontaneous result of that character. Legislation as a rule was unneces­ sary; when laws regulating conduct did appear later they were a sign of a sick society. Cato is made to assert that previously there had been no need of a Lex Oppia because "no luxury existed that required correction. Just as there must be diseases before there are remedies to cure them, so wrongful desires precede the laws that are meant to regulate them."137 When laws were passed in this period they were sometimes leges imperfectae: that is, laws that stipulated no physical or monetary penalties. Thus, in describing the Lex Valeria de provocatione of 300 B.C., Livy writes: "Although the Lex Valeria forbade a man who appealed to be whipped or killed, if someone did these things, it provided no sanction beyond calling it 'a wicked act.' This seemed, I suppose, a sufficiently strong deterrent—such was the sense of honor of men in those times. Nowadays scarcely any­ one would take such a threat seriously."138 Yet the decline in the Roman character was not, as argued earlier, inherent or inevitable. Since the corrupting in­ fluences came from outside, in Livy's eyes they should be in some measure controllable. This belief is reinforced in his account of how that character was formed: by conscious planning and manipulation. The leges datae of Romulus are examples (/.8. 1), as is the religious legislation of Numa, who intended to instill thereby fear of the gods in the peo­ ple ne luxuriarent otio animi (19-4) and to make religious ritual so much a part of their lives (21. 1) ut fides ac ius iurandum pro legum ac poenarum metu civitatem regerent. 137 34· 4- 7"~8: Nulla erat luxuria quae coerceretur. Sicut ante morbos necesse est cognitos esse quam remedia eorum, sic cupiditates prius natae sunt quam leges quae Hs modum facerent, 138/0.9.5-6: Valeria lex cum eum qui provocasset virgis caedi securique necari vetuisset, si quis adversus ea fecisset, nihil ultra quam i Hmprobe facttnn" adiecit. Id, qui turn pudor hominum erat, visum, credo, vinculum satis validum legist nunc vix serio ita minetur quis-

quam.

LIVY

Ancus Marcius believed that the sight of a prison in the center of the city would deter from wrongdoing the large number of residents who were unable to differentiate be­ tween criminal and permissible conduct (/. 33. 8). And the constitutional reforms of Servius TuIlius were designed to establish firmly Roman mores (/.46.5). These passages show that Livy was convinced of at least the partial efficacy of legislation in bringing about right conduct—a typically Roman attitude. The stimulus was both the fear of the laws and their punishments (/. 21. 1) and the fear of the gods (19.4). In Rome's formative period, however, dictation, intimidation, and even deception (19. 5) had been necessary. Even later, when the Roman character showed itself superior in the darkest days of the Hannibalic War, stern authoritarian measures were required to counteract some of the evils that the climate of war spawned.139 If this interpretation is correct, we must conclude that Livy viewed the situation of his own day as analogous in some respects to that of the Rome of the kings. In each case strong steps were required to initiate (or revive) a moral climate: that is, severe laws and even a measure of authoritarianism to promulgate and enforce them. This is one important way in which Livy was "Augustan" in tem­ perament and sympathies. His description of the monar­ chical government as tranquilla moderatio imperii (2. 1. 6) 24.18.2: Censores . . . ad mores hominum regendos animum adverterunt castigandaque vitia quae, velut diutinis morbis aegra corpora ex sese gignunt, eo enata bello erant. Livy consciously echoes Thucydides (1.1) at the start of Book 21 when he claims that the war he is about to relate surpasses others in greatness and importance. The Athenian character, as Thucydides emphasizes (2.53; cf. 3.8284), broke down under the stresses of war; in Livy's eyes the Ro­ man character's "finest hour" came in response to the disaster at Cannae (22. 54. 10): Nulla profecto alia gens tanta mole cladis non obruta esset. I think, however, that Stubler, Die Religiositat des Ltvius 5-6, 113 fF., goes too far in his picture of Livy's direct in­ debtedness to Thucydides in 21-30. 139

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

would probably have pleased Augustus as a description of his own regime. Equally important, Livy was heartily sick of civil war;140 the pax Augusta comes in for special praise very early in the history (/.19.3). Moreover, Augustus' apparent policy of making relatively few new additions to the empire and of establishing defensible frontiers would have met with his full approval. Tacitus' complaint that Tiberius was a princeps proferendi imperi incuriosus (Ann. 4. 32. 2) is not a Livian attitude; for him the empire was al­ ready overlarge. As for positive remedia, Augustus' efforts to revive old customs that had been neglected and to rebuild the temples that had fallen into disuse were wholly to his liking: Augustum Caesaremr templorum omnium conditorem ac restitutorem (4. 20. 7): fear of the gods was one of the keystones in the building of the Roman national charac­ ter. The other was legislation designed to promote right conduct; the failure of Augustus' marriage legislation in 28 B.C. must have been a keen disappointment: nec vitia nostra nee remedia pati possumus.™ When it succeeded later in 18 he featured it prominently, as Periocha 59 makes clear: "Q. Metellus, the censor [130 B.C.], proposed that every­ one be required to marry in order to produce children. His speech is extant, and Augustus Caesar read it to the Senate when proposing his law de maritandis ordinibus, just as if it had been written for the situation of his own day."142 In short, Augustus' measures to bring back the climate of the 4-5; 7.40.2; p. 19. ij-17. Praef. 9. The connection between this passage and the failure of the law to pass (Prop. 2.7.1: Gavisa est certe sublatam Cynthia legem) was first proposed by H. Dessau, Festschrift O, Hirschfeld 140 Praef.

141

(Berlin 1903) 461-466. 142 Q. Metellus censor censuit ut cogerentur omnes ducere uxores liberorum creandorum causa. Exstat oratio eius, quam Augustus Caesar, cum de maritandis ordinibus ageret, velut in haec tempora scriptam in senatu recitavit. Cf. Suet. Aug. 89. On Livy's concern for the contemporary decline in population see ¢.12.5; 7-25-8-9; P. Fraccaro, Opuscula 1 (Pavia 1956) 81-101; Hellmann, L-I 33-34.

LIVT

earlier Republic found an eager supporter in Livy; indeed, Livy's enthusiasm may have sometimes been a spur to Augustus rather than the other way round. The friendship between the two is thus easy to under­ stand."3 Yet the form that it took has been disputed. Some have viewed Livy as an uncritical champion of the whole of the Augustan dispensation, and even as the spokesman of official views.144 Others see him merely as coolly "correct" in his relations, going so far as to caution the Princeps against the monopoly and abuse of power.145 Neither extreme is persuasive.146 Our judgment on the matter will be influenced by what we believe Livy's attitude was toward the great individuals of history—a point on which scholars again are divided. In the opinion of some he had little faith in the populace at large: it was mercurial, and incapable if not unfit to con­ trol its destiny; rather, Rome's history was essentially a sequence of great leaders: Romulus, Servius Tullius, Camillus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Scipio Africanus, and Aemilius Paullus.147 This was Augustus' conception when he laid the plans for his new forum: in the porticos that led to the temple of Mars Ultor were placed the statues with elogia of the great heroes of the past. Those opposed to this view maintain that there is only one hero in Livy's his­ tory: the Roman people.148 He did not choose to write Ann. 4.34.3; Suet. Claud. 41. 1. Cochrane, Christianity a?id Classical Culture 98-103; Sriibler, Die Religiositat des Livius 201-204; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 317, 464. 145 Cf. H. J. Mette, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 269-285; H. Petersen, TAPhA 92 (1961) 440-452. 145 Walsh gives what is to me the most balanced and convincing appraisal of their relationship: PACA 4 (1961) 26-37; cf, his Livy, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics, No. 8. (Oxford 1974) 5-7· 147 Cf. Sriibler, Die Religiositat des Livius 206; Hoch, Darstellung 42; Kaj an to, Arctos 2 (1958) 60. 148 See Burclc, Die Welt als Geschichte 1 (1935) 452-458= Wege zu Livius 101-108, Mette, Gymnasium 68 (1961) 269-285, 143 Tac. 144 Cf.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

biographies, but history—specifically the res populi Romani, as he declares in his opening sentence. Rome, as Cato had said, was the product not of a few individuals but of many over the course of centuries. Nor was Livy a hero worshiper, or a man with a savior-complex. At no point could or should any one individual become too powerful; for him libertas was the mean between dominatio and servitium (cf. 24. 25. 8). The answer undoubtedly lies somewhere in between—or perhaps the question needs to be posed somewhat differ­ ently. It goes without saying that for Livy the populus Romanus embraced both leaders and the led: one could not exist apart from the other. Initiative and leadership are provided by individuals acting within a traditional frame­ work of government; the greatest are those who have the good fortune to be confronted by a great challenge and who meet it successfully. As such they deserve a prominent place in the judgment and esteem of contemporaries and posterity. But a great leader is not above or coequal with the state. In some respects he should be judged as a good pater familias is judged: the res familias belongs not to him but to those who have died, those now living who are in his power, and those who are to come. But unlike that of the pater familias, the tenure of a great leader should last only so long as his office or a crisis situation obtains. The best was he who successfully completed the task assigned to him in the shortest time. It was a point of pride with early dictators, for example, to resign their office as soon as possible, for to do so was proof of their worth and suc­ cess. On the other hand, individuals could not achieve a full measure of glory for themselves unless the people whom they led were amenable to direction and were themselves bene moratos. It thus becomes clear that in Augustus Livy had much to admire: a leader who had arrested the sickness that plagued a war-torn world by giving it peace, but who real­ ized that a permanent cure could be achieved only by

LIVY

restoring it to moral health as well. One may well believe that, on the analogy of early Rome, Livy was able to stomach a bit of authoritarianism in the effort. He would hardly, however, have approved Augustus' clear intention of transmitting his power to a relative. 149 Nor would cer­ tain other facets of Augustus' career and acts have been likely to meet with his full support. Finally, although Augustus and Livy may have agreed that the decayed edifice of the state needed thorough restoration, they would probably have disagreed about the method to be used. Liv\ r , with his belief that Rome had been corrupted from with­ out, probably thought that the building, like a good Roman house, should look inward, walled off from the world. Augustus had a more ecumenical perspective. CONCLUSIONS

Livy had a developmental concept of history: the genesis and growth of the Roman national character, no less than that of Roman institutions, were determined by historical circumstances. Furthermore, Rome's moral decline was not narrated only in books now lost to us; its beginning is clearly set forth in those that survive. Livy conceived of the decline as slow and complex: some of the causes could be glimpsed in embryo before 200 B.C., but the catalyst that triggered its growth was contact with the rich king­ doms of the Greek East earlv in the second century. The chief cause of the decline thus came from outside; Livy frequently likens it to a disease that is communicated to a healthy body. In speculating about its causes and nature he became particularly fascinated by peoples that had been transplanted to alien surroundings; the reason is that he believed environment to be a controlling factor in the formation of a national character. Some, such as the GalIogrecians, degenerated and failed to maintain their war­ like spirit; others, such as the fourth Macedonian republic 149 Cf.

M. A. Giua 1 SCO 16 (1967) 326-528.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

and the Massiliotes, benefited from tough, bellicose neigh­ bors, who not only kept them alert but also communicated to them something of their own vigorous habits. There is a strong tendency in Livy, then, to admire the uncultivated and the primitive: the early Romans and even the Ligurians are examples. In this respect he anticipates Tacitus' even greater preoccupation with the contrast between the sim­ ple savage and the questionable amenities of "civilization." The idea became a commonplace in ancient thought; yet to say so does not mean that Livy or Tacitus felt it any less keenly, or, for that matter, that there is not a profounder truth hidden in its sometimes simplistic formulation. Finally, it has been argued that Livy believed in the pos­ sibility of moral reform in his own day and of Augustus' ability—at least in the early stages—to bring it about. Since authoritarian measures had been necessary to create the Roman national character in the first place, he may have thought that its restoration required analogous treatment— at least for a time. It is difficult to believe he supported the creation of a dynasty, however; and, as the long years of Augustus' tenure stretched out and in the face of such incidents as the scandals that befell the two Julias, it may be that disillusionment set in and that Livy's pessimism deepened. It has been the fashion in recent years to affirm that only senators were fit to write Roman history: they alone knew the workings of government and the secret springs of power. Tacitus and Sallust thus receive the accolade, along with senators whose works are wholly lost. Denied it are the outsiders: Livy and the mendacious Sullan historians with whom he allied himself. This article of faith produces judgments such as the following: "Pollio knew what history was. It was not like Livy."150 A bold assertion, given the eight scraps from Asinius Pollio's work in Peter's collection. 150

Syme, The Roman Revolution 486.

LIVY

Bolder yet is the certainty that one knows what history "is." That the senatorial class provided leadership in Rome does not mean that the only acceptable form of history is one written chiefly about that class by one of its mem­ bers. A writer's being a senator is not a guarantee of good history, nor will a non-senator necessarily produce inferior history. The latter may in fact offer some positive advan­ tages: divorcement from the partialities and bitterness engendered in the course of a political career, a loftier vantage point than the floor of the Curia sometimes af­ forded, a broader perspective than that represented by the imagines and tituli in the atria of great Roman houses. Livy came to history at a moment when these new perspectives could best be appreciated: after the era of the senatorial nobility had passed its zenith, when men looked to the past for guidance in solving some of the problems of the present and when the desire for unity and the yearning for national purpose were strong. In this new climate it was Livy, not Pollio, who met the challenge.151 Not having been engaged himself in the struggle for position and offices, he was able to lift his eyes from the struggles of the immediate past: he had a vision of the whole sweep of Roman history as well as an explanation for the successes Rome had achieved and for her collapse. His is the viewpoint of an Italian and a provincial: as such he explains as few could Augustus' appeal and success. What history needed in the Augustan age was what Livy wrote, as the instant success of his work and his personal fame attest. Indeed, his appeal extended far beyond the confines of Italy; the anecdote about the man from Cadiz in Pliny's letters (2. 3. 8) suggests that he be­ came in his lifetime something of a living legend in the empire at large, perhaps almost an institution (cf. Tac. Dial. 10. 2): "Have you never heard the story of the man from Cadiz, who was so impressed by the name and reputa151 Pollio's absence in Quintilian's review of great Roman his­ torians at 10. i. 101-104's noteworthy and surprising. Cf. F. Klingner, Romische Geisteswelt (Munich 1961) 461-462 = W e g e zu Livius 61.

ROMAN NATIONAL CHARACTER

tion of Titus Livius that he journeyed from the end of the inhabited world just to see him, looked, turned about, and went back home?" Numquamne legisti Gaditanum quendam Titi Livi nomine gloriaqiie commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse, statimque ut viderat abisse?

Bibliography

Astin, A. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford 1967. Badian, E. "The Early Historians." In Latin Historians, ed. T . A. Dorey. London 1966. 1-38. . "Cicero and the Commission of 146 B.C.," Hommages a Marcel Renard, Collection Latomus 101, 1. Brussels 1969. 54-65. . Publicans and Simiers. Ithaca 1972. Balsdon, J . P. V . D. "Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century B.C.," CQ 47 (1953) 159164. • . "Rome and Macedon, 205-200 B.C.," JRS 44 (1954) Bayet, J. Tite-Live, Histoire romatne. Livre I7. Paris 1961. (Cited Bayet, Livre I.) Begbie, C. M. "The Epitome of Livy," CQ 17 (1967) 332338. Bickermanri, E. J. ( = Bickerman). "Les preliminaires de la seconde guerre de macedoine," RPh 61 (1935) 59-81, 161-176. . "Bellum Philippicum: Some Roman and Greek Views Concerning the Causes of the Second Macedonian War," CPh 40 (1945) 137-148. . "Origines Gentium," CPh 47 (1952) 65-81. , "Notes sur Polybe III," REG 66 (1953) 479-506. . Chronology of the Ancient World. London 1968. Birt, T. Das antike Buchwesen. Berlin 1882. Bomer, F. "Naevius und Fabius Pictor," SO 29 (1952) 34-53. "Thematik und Krise der romischen Geschichts299

BIBLIOGRAPHY

schreibung im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr.," Historia 2 (1953) 189—209. Bornecque, H. Tite-Live. Paris 1933. Bredehorn, U. Senatsakte?i in der republikanischen Annalistik. Marburg 1968. Briscoe, J. "Q. Marcius Philippus and Nova Sapiential JRS 54 O964) 66-77. . A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXI-XXXI1I. Oxford 1973. (Cited Briscoe, Comm.) Broughton, T . R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. 1, N e w York 1951. Vol. 2, N e w York 1952. Supplement, N e w York i960. (Cited MRR.) Bruere, R. T . " T h e Scope of Lucan's Historical Epic," CPh 45 (1950) 217-235. Bruhl, A. Liber Pater. Paris 1953. Burck, E. Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius. Berlin 1934. Repr. with a new introduction, Berlin/Zurich 1964. (Cited Burck, Erzahlungskunst.) . "Livius als augusteischer Historiker," Die Welt als Geschichte 1 (1935) 446-487 ( = Wege zu Livius, ed. Burck, 96-143). . Einfuhrung in die dritte Dekade des Livius. Heidelberg 1950. (Cited Burck, Einfiihrung.) . "Zum Rombild des Livius. Interpretationen zur zweiten Pentade," AU 3 (1957) 34-75 (repr. Vom Menschenbild in der romischen Literatur, ed. E. Lefevre [Heidelberg 1966] 321-353). , ed. Wege zu Livius. Darmstadt 1967. . " T h e Third Decade." In Livy, ed. T . A. DoreyLondon and Toronto 1971. 21-46. Carney, T . F. "Formal Elements in L i v y , " PACA 2 (1959) 1-9. Cavaignac, E. "Quelques remarques sur l'historicite de TiteLive, X X I - X L V , " RPh 39 ( 1 9 1 5 ) 5-23. Chausserie-Lapree, J.-P. UExpression narrative chez les historiens latins. Paris 1969. 300

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cichorius, C. "Das Geschichtswerk des Sempronius Tuditanus," WS 24 (1902) 588-595. Classen, C. J. "Die Konigzeit im Spiegel der Literatur der romischen Republik," Historia 14 (1965) 385-403. Cochrane, C. N. Christianity and Classical Culture. Oxford 1944. Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of History. Oxford 1946. Conway, R. S. "Restorations and Emendations in Livy I-V," CQ 4 (1910) 267-276. Cornelius, Fr. "Cannae. Das rnilitarische und das literarische Problem," Klio Beiheft 26 (1932). Deininger, J. Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 211-86 v. Chr. Berlin 1971. Derow, P. S. "The Roman Calendar, 190-168 B.C.," Phoenix 27 (i973) 345-356. . "The Roman Calendar, 218-191 B.C.," Phoenix 30 (1976) 265-281. De Sanctis, G. Storia dei Romani2. 4 vols. Florence 19561969. Dessau, H. "Die Vorrede des Livius." In Festschrift O. Hirschfeld. Berlin 1903. 461-466. Dorey, T . A., ed. Latin Historians. London 1966. , ed. Livy. London and Toronto 1971. Dutoit, E. " L e Theme de la force qui se detruit clle-meme (Hor., Epod. 16, 2) et ses variations chez quelques auteurs latins," REL 14 (1936) 365-373. Earl, D. C. The Political Thought of Sallust. Cambridge 1961. Erb, N. Kriegsursachen imd Kriegsschuld in der ersten Pentade des T. Livius. Winterthur 1963. Foucalt, J.-A. "Tite-Live traducteur de Polybe," REL 46 (1968) 208-221. Fraccaro, P. "I processi degli Scipione," Studi Storici per 301

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FAntichita Classica 4 ( 1 9 1 1 ) 217-414 ( = Opuscula 1, 263392 )• . "Catone il Censore in Tito Livio," Studi Liviani 211-236. Rome 1934. ( = Opuscula 1, 1 1 5 - 1 3 7 ) . . Opuscula. Vol. 1, Pavia 1956. Frank, T . Life and Literature in the Roman Republic. Berkeley 1930. Fuchs, H. Der geistige IViderstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. Berlin 1938. Gabba, E. Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus. Florence 1958. . "II Latino come dialetto greco." In Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di August0 Rostagni. Turin 1963. 188-194. . "Considerazioni sulla tradizione letteraria sulle origini della repubblica." In Les Origines de la republique romaine, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 13. Geneva 1966. 135-169. . "Storiografia greca e imperialismo romano (III-I sec. a.C-)," RSI 86 (1974) 625-642. Gelzer, M. "Nasicas Widerspruch gegen die Zerstorung Karthagos," Philologus 86 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 261-299. (= Kleine Schrifteti 2, 39-72). . "Der Anfang romischer Geschichtsschreibung," Hermes 69 (1934) 46-55 (— Romische Geschichtsschreibung, ed. V . Poschl, 130-143 = Kleine Schriften 3, 93110). . Review of Klotz, Livius imd seine Vorgajjger, Gnomon 18 (1942) 220-230 (= Kleine Schriften 3, 2702

79). "Nochmals iiber den Anfang der romischen Geschichtsschreibung," Hermes 82 (1954) 342-348 ( = Romische Geschichtsschreibung, ed. V . Poschl, 144-153 — Kleine Schriften 3, 1 0 4 - n o ) . . Kleine Schriften, 3 vols. Wiesbaden 1962-64. 302

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Giua, M. A. " L a Valutazione della monarchia a Roma in eta. repubblicana," SCO i6 (1967) 308-329. Goodyear, F. R. D. Tacitus, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics. No. 4. Oxford 1970. . The Annals of Tacitus. Vol. 1: Annals 1. 1-54, Cambridge 1972. Gries, K. " T h e Personality of T . Livius." In Hommages a Marcel Renard, Collection Latomus 101, 1. Brussels 1969, 383-393Gruen, E. S. "Rome and Rhodes in the Second Century B.C.: a Historiographical Inquiry," CQ 25 (1975) 58-81. Hellmann, F. Livius-Interpretationen. Berlin 1939. (Cited Hellmann, L-l.) Heurgon, J. "L. Cincius et la loi du clavus annalis," Athenaeum 42 (1964) 432-437. Hoch, H. Die Darstellung der politischen Sendung Roms bei Livius. Frankfurt 1951. (Cited Hoch, Darstellung.) Hoffmann, W . "Livius und die romische Geschichtsschreibung," A&A 4 (1954) 171—186 ( — Wege zu Livius, ed. E. Burck [Darmstadt 1967] 68-95). . "Die romische Politik des 2. Jahrhunderts und das Ende Karthagos," Historia 9 (i960), 309-344. Holleaux, M. "Ltudes d'histoire hellenistique XI-. Le Pretendu recours des Athetiiens aux Romains en 201/200," REA 22 (1920) 77-96 ( = Etudes 5, 9-28). . " L e Consul M. Fulvius et le siege de Same," BCH 54 (1930) 1-41 (—Etudes 5, 249-294). . "Notes sur Tite Live. III. L e Caduceator envoye par Philippe V a T . Quinctius Flamininus en 197 (33, 1 1 , 3-4)," RPh 57 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 193-208 ( = Etudes 5, 86103). . Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques. Vol. 5, Paris 1957. (Cited Holleaux, Etudes.) Holtzapfel, L. "Sull'eta di Valerio Anziate," Riv. di storia ant. 4 (1899) 51-60. 303

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Howard, A. A. "Valerius Antias and L i v y , " HSPh (1906) 161-182.

17

Jal, P. Tite-Live, Histoire romaine. Livres XLI-XLII, Vol. 31, Paris 1971. (Cited Jal, Livres XL1-XL1I.) Jumeau, R. "Remarques sur la structure de 1'expose livien," RPh 65 (1939) 21-43. . "Un Aspect significatif de l'expose livien dans les livres X X I et X X I I . " In Hommages a Jean Bayet, BrusselsBerchem 1964, 309-333. Kahrstedt, U. "Zum Ausbruche des dritten romisch-makedonischen Krieges," Klio 11 ( 1 9 1 1 ) 415-430. . Die Annalistik von Livius. B. XXXI-XLV. Berlin 1913. (Cited Kahrstedt, A?malistik.) Kajanto, I. God and Fate in Livy. Turku 1957. . "Notes on Livy's Conception of History," Arctos 2 (1958) 55-63. Klingner, F. "Ober die Einleitung der Historien Sallusts," Hermes 63 (1928) 165-192. . "Livius." In Romische Geisteswelt. Munich 1961. 444-468 ( = Wege zu Livius, ed. Burck, 48-67). Klotz, A. "Zu den Quellen der vierten und fiinften Dekade des Livius," Her?nes 50 ( 1 9 1 5 ) 481-536. . "Die Quellen Plutarchs in der Lebensbeschreibung des Titus Quinctius Flamininus," RhM 84 (1935) 46-53. . "Zu den Periochae des Livius," Philologus 91 (1936) 67-88. . "Diodors romische Annalen," RhM 86 (1937) 206224. . Livius und seme Vorgdnger, Neue Wege zur Antike. Leipzig/Berlin 1940-1941; repr. Amsterdam 1964. . "Die Benutzung des Polybios bei romischen Schriftstellern," SIFC 25 ( 1 9 5 1 ) 243-265. . "Caesar und Livius," RhM 96 (1953) 62-67. 304

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Laistner, M. L. W . The Greater Roman Historians. Berkeley *947Larsen, J . A. O. " T h e Assembly of the Aetolian League," TAPhA 83 0 9 5 2 ) 1-33. Latte, K. "Eine Episode aus dem Biirgerkrieg und ihre Darstellung bei Livius," Mus. Helv. 16 (1959) 140-142. . Der Historiker L. Calpurnius Frugi, Sitzungsberichte der deutsch. Ak. der Wiss. %u Berlin. N o . 7. Berlin i960. Leo, F. " V a r r o und die Satire," Hermes 24 (1889) 67-84. . "Livius und Horaz. Ueber die Vorgeschichte des roemischen Dramas," Hermes 39 (1904) 63-77. Liebeschuetz, W . " T h e Religious Position of Livy's History," JRS 57 (1967) 45-55Lintott, A. W . "Imperial Expansion and Moral Decline in the Roman Republic," Historia 21 (1972) 626-638. Luce, T . J . " T h e Dating of Livy's First Decade," TAPhA 96 (1965) 209-240. . "Design and Structure in L i v y : 5. 32-55," 102 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 265-302.

TAPhA

McDonald, A . H. " T h e Style of L i v y , " JRS 47 (1957) 1 5 5 172. . Review of B. Ferro, Le Origini della II guerra macedonica, JRS 53 (1963) 187-191. and F. W . Walbank. "The Origins of the Second Macedonian W a r , " JRS 27 (1937) 180-207. Malcovati, H., ed. Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2. Pavia 1955. (Cited ORF2.) Manganaro, G. "Una Bibliotheca storica nel ginnasio di Tauromenion et il P. Oxy. 1241," PP (1974) 389-409. Marchetti, P. " L a Marche du calendrier romain de 203 a 190 (annees varr. 5 5 1 - 5 6 4 ) , " AC 42 (1973) 473-496. Martin, J . M. K . " L i v y and Romance," G&R n (1942) 124-129. 305

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mensching, E. Review of Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books /-/, GGA 218 (1966) 246-256. Mette, H. J. "Livius und Augustus," Gymnasium 68 ( 1 9 6 1 ) 269-285. Michels, A . K . The Calendar of the Roman Republic. Princeton 1967. Momigliano, A . "Linee per una valutazione di Fabio Pittore," RAL 15 (1960) 310-320. . Review of Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books i-5, JRS 57 O967) 2 77" 2 7 8 Mommsen, T . Romische Forschungen, 2 vols. Berlin 186479Naude, C. P. T . " T h e Alleged Embassy of C. Terentius Varro, C. Mamilius, and M. Aurelius Cotta to Greece in 203 B.C." In Pro Munere Grates, Studies Presented to H. L. Gonin. Pretoria 1971. 1 2 7 - 1 4 1 . Nissen, H. Kritische TJntersuchungen uber die Quellen der vierten und fiinften Dekade des Livius. Berlin 1863. (Cited Nissen, KU.) . "Das Geschichtswerk des Titus Livius," RhM (1872) 539-561.

27

Ogilvie, R. M. " L i v y , Licinius Macer, and the Libri Lintei," JRS 48 (1958) 40-46. . A Commentary on Livy, Books 1Oxford 1965. (Cited Ogilvie, Comm.) Oost, S. I. "The Roman Calendar in the Year of Pydna (168 B . C . ) , " CPh 48 (1953) 217-230. Packard, D. W . A Concordance to Livy, 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass. 1968. Palmer, R. E. A . " T r e lettere in cerca di storico," RF1C 99 ( i 9 7 0 3 8 5-4°9Pedech, P. La Methode historique (Cited Pedech, Methode.) 306

de Poly be. Paris 1964.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Peter, H. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae2. Vol. i, Leipzig 1914. Vol. 2, Leipzig 1916. (Cited HRR.) Petersen, H. " L i v y and Augustus," TAPhA 92 (1961) 440-452. Petzold, K.-E. Die Eroffnung des znxeiten romisch-makedonischen Krieges. Berlin 1940; repr. Darmstadt n.d. (Cited Petzold, Eroffnung.) Phillips, J. E. "Form and Language in Livy's Triumph Notices," CPh 69 (1974) 265-273. Pianezzola, E. Traduzione e ideologia, Livio interprets di Polibio. Bologna 1969. Plathner, H.-G. Die Schlachtschilderungen bei Livius. Breslau 1934. Poschl, V., ed. Romische Geschichtsschreibung. Darmstadt 1969. Rawson, E. "Prodigy Lists and the Use of the Annates Maximi," CQ 21 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 158-169. . "Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian," JRS 62 (1972) 33-45. Rostagni, A. "Roma et la Grecia in Tito Livio." In Scritti Minori 2, 2, 222-248. Turin 1956. ( = Studi Liviani, q.v., 185-236). Scullard, H. H. A History of the Roman World from 753 to 146 B.C.3 London 1961. . Roman Politics 220-150 B.C.2 Oxford 1973. Soltau, W . Livius1 Geschichtsvoerk. Leipzig 1897. Stadter, P. A . " T h e Structure of Livy's History," Historia 21 (1972) 287-307. Steele, R. B. " T h e Historical Attitude of L i v y , " AJPh 25 (1904) 15-44. Studi Liviani. Rome 1934. Sriibler, G . Die Religiositat des Livius. Stuttgart 1941; repr. Amsterdam 1964. Suits, T . A. " T h e Structure of Livy's Thirty-Second Book," Philologus 118 (1974) 257—265. 307

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sumner, G. V. The Orators in Cicero's "Brutus": Prosopography and Chronology. Toronto 197 3. Syme, R, The Roman Revolution. Oxford 1939. Tacitus, 2 vols. Oxford 1958. . " L i v y and Augustus," HSPh 64 (1959) 27-87. Sypniewska, B. "De Claudii Quadrigarii fragmentis ab A. Gellio traditis quaestiones selectae," Charisteria Casimiro de Morawski (Cracow 1922) 149-179. Trankle, H. "Der Anfang des romischen Freistaats in der Darstellung des Livius," Hermes 93 (1965) 3 1 1 - 3 3 7 . . "Beobachtungen und Erwagungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache," N.S. 2 (1968) 103-152. . Cato in der vierten und fiinften Dekade des Livius, Ak. der Wiss. und der Lit. No. 4. Mainz 1971. . "Livius und Polybios," Gymnasium 79 (1972) 1 3 1 3Walbank, F. W . " $ I A i n n 0 2 TPArniAOYMENOS" JHS 58 (1938) 55-68. . Philip V of Macedon. Cambridge 1940; repr. with a new Foreword 1967. . " A Note on the Embassy of Q. Marcius Philippus, 172 B.C.," JRS 31 ( 1 9 4 1 ) 82-93. . A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 1, Oxford 1957. Vol. 2, Oxford 1967. (Cited Walbank, Comm.) . "Polybius." In Lati?i Historians, ed. T . A. Dorey. London 1966. 39-63. . "The Fourth and Fifth Decades." In Livy, ed. T . A. Dorey. London and Toronto 1971. 47-72. Polybius. Berkeley 1972. Walsh, P. G. " T h e Literary Techniques of L i v y , " RhM 97 (i954) 9 7 _ 1 r 4 . "Livy's Preface and the Distortion of History," AJPh 76 (1955) 369-383. "The Negligent Historian: 'Howlers' in L i v y , " G&R 5 (1958) 83-88. 308

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods. Cambridge 1961. (Cited Walsh, Livy.) . " L i v y and Augustus," PACA 4 (1961) 26-37. •. Livy, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in the Classics. No. 8. Oxford 1974. Waszink, J. H. "Varro, Livy, and Tertullian," V. Christ. 2 (1948) 224-242. Wessely, C. Livius, Codex Vindobonensis Lat. 15. Leyden 1907. Wiehemeyer, W . Pro ben historischer Kritik aus Livius XX1-XLV. Emsdetten 1938. Wille, G . Der Aufbau des Livianischen Geschichtswerks. Amsterdam 1973. (Cited Wille, Aufbau.) Witte, K . "Ober die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Geschichtswerk," RhM 65 (1910) 270-305, 359-419; repr. separately, Darmstadt 1969. (Cited Witte, Darstellung.) Wolfflin, E. "Die dekaden des Livius," Philologus 33 (1874) 139-147. Zimmerer, M. Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Munich 1937. (Cited Zimmerer, CQ.)

309

Quadrigarius.

Index of Passages

Q. Aelius Tubero, frg. 9 HRR: 175« Appian, Syr. 17: 81; 20: 7972 Aulus Gellius, 4.5: 15572, 17577; 4.18: 92n, 9772; 5.6: 255; 6.9: 17472; 6(7). 19; 9277, 9777; 9. 13: 224-26; 16. 4: 16072

Frontinus, Strat. 4.1.46: 264m

nm,

Cn. Gellius, frgs. 13, 18-20, 25, 26, 29 HRR: 17pm Hecataeus, frg. 324a FGH: 15377 Herodotus, 1. 5; 2. 70-73, 99, 142,

Cassius Hemina, frg. 38 H R R : 17472 Cato, frg. 77 H R R : 19277; frgs. 86, 87, 95: 17377; frgs. 106-09: 17377 ' Cicero, Cato 42: 14877; De lege agr. 2.05-06: 2817772; De leg. 6 „ ^ , 1 , 5 : i8im, 1.8: 17677, 2.29: 167; De or. 2.51-64: 182, 2.52: 17577, 2. 53: 19277; De re p. 2. 2: „ „ , 238, 2.8-20: 246, 2. 1 0 - 1 1 : 28177; Prov. Cons. 10: 25372 Claudius Quadrigarius, frg. 10b

HRR: 224-26; frg. 12: 22472;

'47 : i53«; 3-

Jer

°me'

Comm

2g 2 2

-

W

ad Zach

-

H:

2

S n ' ' ' , . . . , ,.n_ Ljcimus Macer, frg. 22 H R R : "

r, f •• Praef. 2: xvii77, 184 ^ ^ g.' 2 8

^

frg. 53: 94«, 18077; frg. 57: ifon; frg. 73: 9472, l74 ?z; frg.

'o"

9_Jo.

jgon

22_23i

: J

75 74»

^

^

1 0 - 1 1 : 230 u : 273, 278

Diodorus Siculus, 34.33: 27277 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1.4-5, IO~II: 247; 2. 5-6: 2407?, 2 . 1 2 : 24077; 3.70-71: 24077; 4.6: 17571, 4.7: 2367277; 6. 1 1 : 17572; 7 . 1 : 175*1

;

6: 240 g. 2 4 0 i 2 4 4 i 2g9 17-21: 167-68 1 7 : 246?7 18: 23577, 240, 146-47 19: 577, 1777, 18777, 244, 27177, 288-91 20: 23977

Fabius Pictor frgs. 30b, 32, 33 FGH: 17377

311

INDEX L i v y (cont.) 21: 244,289-90 24: 160, 237 28: 248 30: 240 31: 23672 32: 160, 23677, 237 33: 244, 24672, 290 35: 23972, 240, 27577 36: 240 38: r6o, 23677 43: 241 44: 14972, 236 46-48: 16977 46: 2367772, 244, 27777, 290 53~54 : 2 3 J « 53: 241-42 55: 14972, 16772, 236, 277 2. 1 - 2 1 : 26-27 1 :

22: 284 42: 224 7. 1: 26272 2-3: 160 6; 150, 157 9-10: 224-26 25: 29177 26: 22472 27: 28577 29: 572, 9, 288 33: 26277, 28672 38: 284 8, 8: 241 9 - 1 1 : 248 13: 287 rS: 144-45 40: 14472, 22777 9. 13: 281 16-19: 24777, 26277

3 , 2 3 4 , 2 3 8 , 24077, 2 4 3 ,

20:

290-91 2-15: 23672 10: 24872 12: 242 19-20: 24872 22: 28572 37: 28572 39: xxiv-xxv, 27m

3.35: 7 5 «

7 5 55«

2

- I

^.4: 24172, 279 20: 18772, 291 23: 7372 36: 23172 37: 4 52: 23177 59: 285 5.27: 242, 28772 28: 242 32-55: 22677 36-38: 242 51-54: 288 54: 278, 281 6. 1: 3, 6, 156, 177, 22772 7: 28672 12: 146-47, 238, 29172 2

287

45: 287 10. 9: 17577, 289 31: 28672 37: 161 21. r: 6 4: 26277 5: 20077 6: xxi :

15: xxi, 140-42, 156-57 38: 178-79 40-41, 43-44: 27 ^ . 7 : 162, 178 57-58: 2427Z, 248 24.18: 29072 25: 293 2J. 39: 178, 285 40: 25172, 28372 rtf. 19: 24877 49: 6572, 17872 27.8: 288 37: 248 49: 28 28.12: 26277 22-23: 18872

2

312

INDEX 29. 14: 14672, 238 22: 178, 181 29-33: 19972 30.3-10: l 8 7 2 3°~3 ! : 27 44: 28872 45'- 7^73, " i 31.1-32:53-73 1:3-4,672,7-9,188-89 2: 62, 70-73 5' 7- 35 14-18: 56-58 14-15: 67-73 14: 13172 17-18: 54-55, 18872 22: 56-59 29-31: 35 32: 80 33-50: 47-48 4 4 - 4 7 : 82 47-49: 58-59 49: 5477 32: 48-50 1; 60 3: 63 6: 64-65, 148, 198 9: 64 20-21: 190 21:35 28-40: 76 28: 64 29-32: 3472 32-37: 33, 191 33: 214 34: 211 35: 214 33: 39-46 i-io: 33 1:34,119 5-10: 215-17 5: 212 7-10: 191 IO: 221

19: 3477 21: 212 24: 34.71 25-35: 35 3o-35: 76, 219-20 30: 19772 3 2 -35: 33 33.-XX7Z 35:80 39-41: 211-12 45-49: 34 34: 46-47 1-8: 35, 251-53 2-7: 190 4: 259, 289 8-21: 35, 162-63 10: 16672 15: 164, 181 31-32: 35 4 1 : 10272, 202 44: 16772, l8l 52: 16711 54: 27972 56: 51 57-59: 34", '96 60-61: 34 35- 50-53 14' 17872, 17972, 198 3^-33, 35~37: 37« 4 J - 5 ' : 34 36: 76-84 1-4: 19277 6: 209 253 i7 : 234- 253-54, 259 27-29: 218 29- 131". 207 36-40: '92 37:84-89 I: 20472 4 : 59" 7: 256 8: 2572, 28372

9

11-13:217-18

25-26: 211

34: '98, 20072

17: 5J72

313

INDEX L i v y (cont.) 48-56: 76 49: 2047Z 50: 203 52-56: 196, 213n 54: 234, 259, 280-83 57- 254 59: 256 60: 166w, 198 38. 1-50: 90-92 7-8: 207 9: 255 12-27: 258-59 14: 210 17-23: 190 17: 234, 25377, 256, 259-60, 2 6 1 7 7 , 28072, 282-84

20-23: 191 22: 26172, 271n 23ff.: 75 23-29: 205 23-24: 5, 13, 209 : 9° 33-37: 205 33-35: 207, 219 40-44: 8672, 261-62 40: 164 42-44: 95«, 148, 163, 16472, 181, 274-75 46-48: 213 48: 4072, 209 51: 210, 262-63 52: 9277, 95, 99-100, 104, '42-44, J 98

23: 98, 14872, 202 24:

5 3 : 26272

222

56:

28-29: 8677 34: 28372 36: 8672 37-39: 76 37: 6072 38-39: 210 39-40: 19772 40-41: 256, 258-59 41: 14877, 202-203 43-60: 190, 254-58 44-50: 274 50-60: xxi, 92-104, 142-44, 222 55: 197, 20072 60: 150 3P: 104-109 I-7: 254-59 1: 5, 234, 259-60, 28322, 284, 286 3: 26172 6-7: 250, 253, 260, 271, 274, 28377 8-23: 260-61 8-19: 191 8: 28372 9-14: 222

10272,

203

4 0 : 109-112 1: 263 2-5: 194-95 2-3: 2 1 3 - 1 4 4-16: 222 5: 27177 20: 214 29: 23577 34 : 26372 36: 263 44: 263, 26472 41: 121-22 2-3: 264 6: 20472 7: 264 1 1 : 26372 20: 21272, 28372 25: 20877 27: 174K 28: 263 42: 120-121 1-8: 264-65 10-49: i 2 3 - 3 5 1 1 - 1 6 : 191 11—13: 146 1 1 : 19677

314

INDEX 25: 251n 28: 270 30' 280, 284n 32: 270, 27 In 34-40 : 269-7 0 38 : 9917

25: 145, 149 29-36: 199n 29-30: 146, 204 30: XX17 32-35: 26 7-68 38-43: 26 5

44: 208-209 46 : 207 47: 26 5-66 49: XXlll 61: 210-lI 63: 209n, 266 66: ]98 41: 120 1-2: 266 4-1I: 266--67 7, II: 268

40:

115,

41:

222

211

44: 198, 27417

Per. 9: IOn 16: 4

ZI, 26, 31, 33: II, lIn17

4 1 : 164 43: ]ZO, 266 44: I In 45: 13517 47,48 : 135-3 6, 27 2 49: 1 In, 16, 165, 135-36, 272 50: 135-3 6 51: 20 55-56: Zl 59: 29 1 60-61: 21-22 65: 21 66: 15

12-23: 200--201 13: 248-49 14ff.: 268 17: 209, 2 6 7 44: I19-ZO I: 267-68 13= 198 14-15: 201

14: 117 18-22: 268-69 18: 271 22: 56n, 198, 2,68 30-32: 267, 269

70-71: 15, 18,23

30;

96: 16

75: 19

8o: 15,

56n

33-39: 268-7 0 37: 1Z717, 14717, 19 8

45:

100-101: 22,24 104: lIn 106: 15

115- 1 9

1-3: 26 9 I: 204

3:

109-116: 14 109: 5n, 17,23 1I5-16: Zl 118: 16n 120-21: 5n,817, 15,23 133: 14, 17

20[-202

9: 7,

I1In,

137

10-31: 27 0

206 [7- 2 5: 196-97

12:

19-25: 201 19-20: 207-208, 27° 2,2-25: 164-65 23: 276

20

90: 15, 16n 9D-91: 22

Martial, 14.19°: 139 Cornelius Nepos, CatO 3: 17317

315

INDEX Origo Gentis Romanae 17-18: 15572, 17522 Ovid, Fasti 6. 763-770: 6072

48: 80 4 9 - 5 2 : 4372, Z I I - I 2 20. 4-7: 8372, 209

Pausanias 7.7, 10.36: 6572 L. Calpurnius Piso, frg. 19 HRR: 17377; frg. 34: 257; frg. 38: 27372; frg. 39: 1737777 Pliny the Elder, iV.H. praef. 16: 8; 13.84-. 17477; 17.244: 27372; 28.14: 23672; 34.14: 25777; 37. 12: 255 Pliny the Younger, Ep. 2. 3: 296 Plutarch, Caes. 47: 11872, 24972; Cat. Mai. 19-23: 2ji?i\ Flam. 14: 16677, 16772 Polybius

9 - 1 1 : 8377, 13177, 218 1 1 : 207 21. 2: 8472, 20472 1 1 : 8972, 211 i5ff.: 20077 18-24: 1 9 6 , 2 1 3 7 7 18-21: 87-88 22ff.: 28072 22-23: 88, 23472 24: 87 28: 207 29-30: 25572 34: 210

8:

3- 33. 56: 178-79

3

25377

8 :

41-43: 2 1 0 44-45: 19777 22. 11 — I 5: 219

2: 154 9.1: 154 7 0 . 16-17: 2 5 8 M

14. 2-IO: 6072

13—14: 207

25. 25: 7t?z, 11972 76.23: 7272 25-34: 70-73 25-27: 62-63, 67-73 27: 6272

18: 5?2, 10877, 209 1-4: 10672, 108, 213 4: 209 5: I o 6 ? 7 9-10: 194-95

2 9 - 3 5 : J 5 « i 62

9 : 11072, 2 1 3 - 1 4

30-34: 188?2 34: 6977 78. 3: 214 4-5: 211 8: 214 18-39: 19477

10—11: 10977 1 2 - 1 3 : 10672 14: 97n 16-17: 10622 24. 1 : 1 1 0 , 214 2$. 4: 20472 26. la, t: 12277,

18-27: 215-I7 l8: 212

2 1222

27.1-2: 126-27, 208-209

24-25: 407777 33-39: 217-18 34-35: 4 Z ' 2 75« 38: 42 39: 4472 41: 212 44-48: 219-20 44: 19772

2: I29-3O, 133 3: 12522, I32 4-5: 207 6: 124, 134 8: 2 1 0 - 1 1 9-10: 20972 28. 2: 7177, 11972 3-5: 209

46: XX72

16: 7777, 11977

316

INDEX 29. 1: 198 16: 119n, 147n 19: 118, 119m, 202 27:206 3 0 . 1 - 5 : 116-17, 196-97, 207, 2Jon

5: 101 l8, g 32.25: 27552 ,J 39- l: 27572 Propertius 2 . 7. 1:

29172

Quintilian 10. 1. 101-104: 15572, 29621 Sallust, BC 9: 27m; 1 1 : 27572; Bf 41: 27m; Hz'rt. 1 frgs. 11, 12, 16M: 271; frg. 16M: 25072

Seneca the Elder, Suas 6. 21-22: 155, 26272 Servius, ad Aen. 1.373: 17572, 19222; 8. 72,330: 23722 Suetonius, Cal. 34: 139, 187; Claud. 41: 29222 . Tacitus, ^7277. 4. 32: 291; 4.34: 2Q272; Dial. 10: 296 v ' Thucvdides 1 . 2 1 : 15322 } Valerius Antias, fragmenta: 16668; frg. 15 HRR: 15572, 17472; f r g - 4 J . 92ff.. f r g . J 7 ; , 7 4 „ Valerius Maximus 2.7: 12172, 26472; 3. 7: I 172 Velleius Paterculus 1. 16; 2. 48, 55, 86, 89, 99, 103, 119: 20872 Vitruvius 6. 1: 28172

317

General

Abydus, 54-55, 57, 62, 6gn, 71, 73, 18872 C. Acilius, 178*2, 17972 M' Acilius Glabrio (cos. 191), 77-79, 81, 84, 8572, 19272, 218, 234, 253-54, 25672, 259 Q. Aelius Tubero, 7372, 159, 169, 17572, 177 M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 187, 175), 54, 62, 69-70, 10577, 25477 L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 182, 168), I 172, 2 122, 2272, 75, 91, I I 177, I 15-17, 119, 137, 222, 264, 267-70, 292 Aequi, 146-47 Aetolia (site), 79-81 Aetolians, national character, 276 Alexander the Great, 1022, 24777, 26272 Alexander Polyhistor, 23772 ambitio, 250, 275 Ambracia, 20522, 207, 255 Ancus Marcius, 235, 237, 23922, 244, 290 L . Anicius Gallus (cos. 160), 116, 119, 267, 269 Annales Maximi, 6677, 155, 17572, 176, 192 Antiochus III, the Great, 4, 7, 12, 33-36, 43-47, 52, 57, 66, 75-79, 82-84, 89, 112, 115, 13172, 14872, 20472, 206, 2 1 0 - n , 267; Asiatic character, 253-54 Antiochus I V Epiphanes, 122, 21272 Anxur, 285-86

Index

Aristaenus, 35, 50, 190, Asia, national character, 252-54, 259-60, 271, 276, 28072, 282-83, 295 C. Asinius Pollio (cos. 40), 295 Astapa, 18872 Astymedes, 116, 197, 201, 276 Athenians, national character, 276, 29022 Attalus I, 11?2, 3977, 4377, 50, 57, 62, 67, 69, 212, 214, 21922 AttaluS II, I 16, 196, 207 Attus Navius, 240 augury, its growth, 240-41 Augustus, xvi, 577, 877, 14-17, 19, 23, 2472, 13977, 15572, 18372, 28897 Bacchanalian Conspiracy, 105106, 191, 223, 260, 28072 Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 143), 18372, 291-92 Callicrates, 121 L . Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cos. 133), 14922, 159, 161, 171-73, 17622, 177-78, 183-84, 208, 236, 257, 273-75 Campania, character of, 261, 276, 280-81 C. Canuleuis (tr. pi. 445), 279, Capua, national character, 27622, 284. See also Campania Carthage, destruction of, 18,

318

INDEX 2jo, 271; national character, 28172 Cassius Hemina, 17472, 176 C. Cassius Longinus (cos. 1 7 1 ) 120, 267 Cicero, see Tullius L . Cincius, 145, 16a, 177, 183 L . Cincius Alimentus (pr. 210), 178 Claudius Quadrigarius, xxiii, 41, 49?2, 51, 9077, 96-99, 102, 104, 148, 159, 161-62, r65, 171, 177, 17972, 180-181, 183, 198, 201202, 2I9?2, 22 1, 22272, 224-26, 238; as a chief source f o r L i v y , 159, 161-62, 165, 1 7 1 ; scope of history, 174, 180-84; knowledge of Polybius, 221, 274; on Rome's decline, 274-75 Clodius Licinus, 178, 181 Coelius Antipater, 159, 178-80, 184 L. Cornelius Scipio (cos. 190), 77-79, 86-87, 89, 93-98, 101, 196, 254-56, 260, 26172, 274 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205, 194), 12, 27-28, 48, 5472, 7272, 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 19977, 24877, 292; character, 256, 26272; trial and death, 92-102, 105, 143-44; in war against Antiochus, 51, 89, 17972, 198-200, 2 1 1 , 254-56, 274 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (cos. 162, 155), 136,272 Cornelius Tacitus, xvii?2, xxvi, 1377, 4472, 152, 291, 295 Cynoscephalae, 33, 36, 39-41, 43, 46, 60, 15172, 171, 191, 194,

215-17

Epirus, sack of, 270, 286 Eumenes, 86-89, 10622, 108, 12425, 128, 146, 191, 198, 207, 2 1 3 14, 21972, 270 Q. Fabius Pictor, 14972, 159-62, 171-73. '77-78, 183, 208, 23572, 236 M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189), 77-80, 83-84, 86, 90-91, 19222, 254-55, 25777, 26172, 274 M. Furius Camillus (tr. mil. cos. pot. 401, 398, 394, 386, 384, 381), 27, 242, 262?2, 265, 278, 28672,288,292 Gauls, national character, 25672, 276, 282-83 Cn. Gellius, 6572, 15572, 175-76, 178, 181, 184 Gentius, 132, 267 Greeks, national character, 273, 276, 284 Hannibal, xxi, 1177, 12, 27-28, 6772, 72, 10m, 105-107, 10972, 115, 142, 178, 288; and Antiochus, 34, 36, 4472, 46, 8283; character o f , 26272; death of, 106, 203, 210, 262-63; meeting with Scipio, 51, 17972, 198; military strategy, 171 Henna, 285-86 Heraclides Ponticus, 24772 Herodotus, 152-53 Horatius Codes, 26, 15572, 17572, 176, 24877 L - Hortensius (pr. 170), 266,268 A . Hostilius Mancinus (cos. 170),

12072, 2 0 I , 268

Cyssus, 82-84, ' 9 r Demetrius, 105, 1 0 7 - 1 1 1 , 194, 213 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 25, 155, 161, 169, 176-77,246-47

Isthmian games, xx7z, n , 33, 41, 46, 92, 219 C. Iulius Caesar (cos. 59, 48, 4644). ' 4 - 1 6 ' '9> 21-24.

319

INDEX Lacus Curtius, 150 Leucas, 43, 5572 Lex Oppia, 35-36, 16511, 190, 25153, 262, 289 Lex Valeria de provocatione, 289 2 libertas, 26-27, 244' 93 libri magistratuum, 104, 142 P. Licinius Crassus (cos. 171), 120, 127, 130, 266-68 C. Licinius Macer (pr. 73), 7377, 14177, 159, 161, 165, 168, 1757222, 177, 224, 2377272 Liguria, character of, 10577, 259, 263, 28172, 286, 295 Liternum, 93, 9977, ior T . Livius: dating, 59-66, 68-73, 9072, 126-34, 20 4' death, 1577; ending of history, 2472; history as res gestae, 157-58, 161, 172, 238-39; publication of history, 577,872,15,139 knowledge-, of Greek, 4072, 4272, 159-60, 169-70; of government, xx; of Roman history generally, 189-90; of military matters, 39-41, 216-17 opinions: antiquarianism, 160-61, 238; Augustus, xvi, 15n, 288-97; early history, xix-xx, 3-4, 32, 14172, 146, 154-57, 176-77, 226-27, 248, 277-78; eternal Rome, xx-xxi, 279; empire, 9, 277-78, 287-88; environment and national character, 279-84; foreign peoples, 284-87; historical change, xx-xxi, 272-75, 277if; later Republic, 22-23, 154—55, 24572, 250-75, 278-80, 294-95; length of history, 7-9, 43-44, 72, 174; national stereotypes, 276-77; religion, 248-49, 27872; worth of personal opinions, 146-47, 237-38 working methods: careless-

ness, xxiv, 53, 76-80, 83-84, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 139-40, 190-91, 12472; doublets, 4977, 5172, 53, 5472, 7780, 83, 87-88, 1177272, 123-24, 127-28, 132-34, 140, 187, iqzn, 20277, epitomes, 44, 205, 208209; general theories about, 95-104; later additions, 101104, 187; "unit composition," 12672, 210-21, 228 sources-, criteria of selection, 747-J 1 ! '72-84; critical attitude toward, 140-49; dependence on, 25, 142-51, 172; identification of, xxiii, 158-71; Polybius, adaptation of: 168-71; Polybius, appreciation of: 36-37, 41-42, 72—73, 1 4 1 7 7 , 145, 147-48, 182, 22 r-24; Polybius, use of in Bks. 22-30, 189; Roman sources, 6367,72-73,157 structure-, annalistic format, 45, 54, 61, 63-64, 83-84, 107, 112, 17372, 191-93, 223; Einzelerzahlungen, xvii-xviii, 25, 220-21; flashback, 57-58, 61, 85, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132-33, 135, 138, 146; "interlocking" technique, 51-52, 12122; length of books, 25, 29, 38, 47, 53, 60, 76, 8377, 89, 114, 118, 121-22; prefaces, 3-8, n , 17; use of consular year, 37, 47, 84, 106, 116, 121; use of speeches, 11, 27-28, 35-38, 50, 74, 91, 11516, 119, 121, 190-91; within pentads, 25-38, 74-76, 115-16 See also Index of Passages C. Lucretius Gallus (pr, 171), 12077, 124, 127, 134, 266-68 luxuria, 252-53, 256-57, 260-63, 271-75 in Macedonian1, 56, 61, 63, 126, 134

320

INDEX Magnesia, 85-87, 89??, 20372 L. Manlius Torquatus (cos. 347, 344, 340), 224-26 Cn. Manlius Vulso (cos. 189), 60n, 86-87, 90-9'» 148^2, 203, 210, 234, 253-63, 271-74, 282-83 Cn. Marcius Coriolanus, xxivxxv, 27, 245 Q. Marcius Philippus (cos. 186, 169), no, 120, 124, 126-34, 145, 195, 213-14, 265, 268 Masinissa, 2272, 46, 136, 19972 Massilia, national character, 27980, 282-84, 295 merus hostilis, 271-73 Moagetes, 210, 258 Myonnesus, 82, 89

events, 71, 110, 119W, 195; on Rome's decline, 275, 278; as source for Trials of the Scipios, 95, 9772, 100, 104, 14243; as source for Bks. 21-30, 178-80; time period of history, >52-54, 156; use of in the Republic, 69, 129?1, 18872 See also Index of Passages T . Pomponius Atticus, 14472 C. Popillius Laenas (cos. 172), 2o6 p o r c l u s C a t 0 ( c o s , 9 j ) ) 22?2) M 77-79, 93, 141W, '48, 172,g 4 i y h l8l< 2o8i 255; campaign in Spain, 43, 46, I 9 0 ) 2 2 J . cen sorship, 8672, 95,

M. Naevius (tr. pi. 184), 9272, 94-95, 9772, 9972 Nicanor, 62, 67-70 Numa Pompilius, 15522, 167-68, 17472, 176, 235-41, 246-47, 288-89

9972, 105, 107, 142, 261-62; as a chief source, 161-66; debate o n t h e Lex Oppia, 35, 46, 190, 251-53, 259, 289; debate with Scipio Nasica, 136, 272; on early Rome, 238, 247, 293; on Rome's decline, 273-75, 284-

Octavian, see Augustus Olympus, Battle of Mt., 90, 14872, 190, 234, 256, 259, 282 Patavium, 11872, 285 Periochae, .0-12, 19, i 3 s » Perseus, xxm, 4-5, 7, 12-13, 18, 2272, 7j, 1 0 5 - m , 115-2i, 12335. 137-38. 145, 149- >94- '9971, 209-211, 264-65, 268, 274 Philip V , 4, 5n, 7, >2, >4, 33-36, 40-49, 54-57- 60^7, 69* 75,

85; scope of history, 172-73, 17671, 184 p ru sias, gg^ 2 0 3 i 262-63, 274

Pydna, 117—19, l6

14772, 198,

Pythagoras, 167, 23572, 246 L

Quinctlus 2)

T

"

Q

nCtlUS

!?>•

-

Flamininus (cos.

i&

! fi^

86H

8o, 9 . 4 , >05-1 >2,115-16,137,

y 15172, 171, 190, 194-95, 2 I , t 214 19, 254, 267 Philocles, 5572, 5772, 62 r.L-1 L Philopoemen, 4472, 105-107 Piso, see Calpurnius Polybius; dating methods, 59-

12772,

l6t)

35

'

. .

FbmlmnUS 5

i6

i;

,9

°-

°'

4

2i6 17

5

'

- '

220, 262-63; character, 4272

Rhodians, national character, . 276; speech by in Bk. 37, 86, Joa , „ „ 0 88 8 2 " 9> 34, 2 59, 28o, 282-83 Romulus, 168, 17572, 234, 237, 2

39~4>, 244, 2«9, 2 9 2

60, 63, 127-29, 132; order of

321

INDEX P. Rutilius Rufus (cos. 105), 95, 104, 142-43 Sabines, national character, 285 Saguntum, xxi, 12, 27-28, 5572, 6722, 141-42, 179, 188n C. Sallustdus Crispus (pr. 46), 152, 156, 24472, 250-51, 271-75, 288,295 Samnites, national character, 281, 28672 Same, 8677, 90 Senate, its growth, 240 T i . Sempronius Gracchus (cos. .77, 163), 93"~99, 104, jg n

c • t ir «• Servius Tullius, 16972, 235, 239, 24I, 244, 290, 292 M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (cos. 202), 116, 269 Cn. Sicinius (pr. 183, • ?*), 124Silenus, 178 c

Sparta,

. , , national character,

Thermopylae (site of), 80-81, '7° Thermopylae, Battle of, 77-78, 81, 83, 234, 253, 25612, 259 Thermum, 80, 170 Thucydides, 139, i5*-53> 156, 2 3 ° " , 29022 Trasimene, 162 Trials of the Scipios, xxi, 91-104, ri 3> ' 3 8 . '4 2_ 44i ^ o - S 1 , 1 57' '64. 166, 190, 197, 19977, 22223, 254- *74 M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 63), 2 3, i 6 7; 2 8 , ; Uv

a

ra sal of

Pf iRome,' picturey*of early 24647; views on history, xviin, „ 14472, 181-84 TT , T Tullus Hostilius, 235, 237, 240 Valenus

A

™ f ' f111'

49".

50, 5172, 64-65, 8772, 90, 10277,

I09

. 276,

"'

203.. ' 9 « , 2

26m

as g

I2 * l86' 22222, 2 2 4 - 235-37' ^ ^ chjef

tabulae dealbatae, 17372, 192 Tacitus, see Cornelius Tarquinius Priscus, 235, 23672,

171, 178, 180-83; ignorance of ^ C a t Q a n d P o l y b i u S i ,4,Wi zzi, 274; Livy's attitude toward, 147-49; mendacity, 50, 64, 14177, 148-49, 199, 221; on Rome's decline, 274-75; scope of history, 174-76, 180, 184; as source for the Trials of t h e Scipios, xxi, 92-104, 142-43, 150-51. 223 M. Valerius Corvus (cos. 348,

4° Tarquinius Superbus, 12, 26, 16977, 176, 235, 23622, 238,

3 4 . 3 4 3 , 3 3 5 , 3 ° o , 299), 22472, 26222 L. Valerius Flaccus (cos. 195),

substantialism, xx, 232, 245 P. Sulpicius Galba (cos. 211, 200), 35, 48, 5072, 54, 57-58, 60-64, 6771, 165, 17372, 18377, 269

2

2

6

44-45 Q. Terentius Culleo (pr. 187), 93, 9722, 100, 102, 20072

8622, 95, 9972, 142, 262 P. Villius Tappulus (cos. 199), 48, 5022, 63-65, 198

M. Terentius Varro, 160

Volsci, 146-47, 284, 28572

322

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Luce, Torrey James, 1932Livy: the composition of his history. Bibliography: p. Includes index. i. Livius, Titus. Ab urbe condita. 2. Rome— History. I. Title. DG207.L583L83 937 77-72126 ISBN 0-691-03552-0