Livy: The Fragments and Periochae: Volumes I and II Pack 9780198888536, 9780192871220, 9780192871237, 0198888538

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Livy The Fragments and Periochae

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Livy The Fragments and Periochae Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by

D. S. LEVENE

Volume I Fragments, Citations, Testimonia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © D. S. Levene 2023 The moral rights of the author have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2023933546 ISBN 978–0–19–888853–6 (Pack) ISBN 978–0–19–287122–0 (Vol. I) ISBN 978–0–19–287123–7 (Vol. II) Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

For Gabrielle and Aurelia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Preface Zu kurz, zu lang—wer ein End’ da fänd!   Wer meint hier in Ernst einen Bar? Auf ‘blinde Meinung’ klag’ ich allein: sagt, konnt’ ein Sinn unsinniger sein? Too short, too long, who could find an end there!   Who seriously thinks there’s a ‘Section’ here? But my sole complaint is ‘obscure sense’: Tell me, could a meaning be more meaningless? Richard Wagner, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, Act I Even by the eclectic standards of classical commentaries, this commentary, on what one may roughly refer to as the ‘para-Livian’ material surviving from an­tiquity (the summaries, the fragments, and, in addition to those, all other places where Livy is explicitly cited or mentioned by name), is eccentric. A small part of its strangeness comes from its origins: this is a project which, albeit in a very different form, was begun well over fifty years ago. Robert Ogilvie, then Fellow and Tutor at Balliol College, Oxford, was commissioned by Oxford University Press to produce an Oxford Classical Text of Livy Books 41–45, along with the fragments of the lost portions of Livy’s works, in collaboration with A. H. McDonald. Before Ogilvie’s untimely death in November 1981 he had produced a full text and apparatus of the fragments, but neither he nor McDonald appears to have made any progress with the remainder of the work. Ogilvie’s material was passed to Christopher Pelling, who agreed to take on the project in collaboration with Michael Crawford. The plan to include Books 41–45 fell by the wayside, not least because of the superlative Teubner edition of those books produced by John Briscoe in 1986, which seemed (and seems) unlikely to be superseded, since those books depend on a single manuscript. Instead, the idea emerged to combine the fragments with an edition of the Periochae, and also of Obsequens and the Oxyrhynchus Epitome, thus assembling all the evidence for the ‘lost books of Livy’. In 1992 Pelling and Crawford convened in Oxford a sem­ inar of scholars of Roman historiography, of whom I was one, which considered various issues which such an edition needed to address; one conclusion that had emerged by that point was that the problems raised by these texts were sufficiently severe that more annotation and commentary would be required than could be contained within the standard format of an Oxford Classical Text.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

viii Preface Following that seminar, however, little systematic work was done on the edition, since both Pelling and Crawford had a large number of other commitments. After Pelling’s appointment to the Regius Professorship of Greek in Oxford in 2003, he felt that it was unlikely that he would be able to do a large-scale project on a Latin text for the foreseeable future. For that reason, he approached me and invited me to take it over; with Crawford’s agreement, I inherited the material. I began working on it in the summer of 2011. My original plan was to reproduce Ogilvie’s text and apparatus of the fragments, but to supplement it with a commentary, and to add my own text and commentary on the Periochae and the other summaries. Dr Ogilvie’s wife and daughter very kindly gave me permission to make use of his work as part of my edition. However, as I continued to work with the material, I found myself regularly disagreeing with Ogilvie’s choices, both textual and with regard to the selection and identification of ‘fragments’; under those circumstances it made little sense for me to use his text and apparatus. Moreover, the one part of Ogilvie’s material which was actually published (albeit posthumously), namely his edition and brief commentary on the palimpsest fragment of Book 91 (Ogilvie (1984)), needed to be completely re-edited using the spectacular digital images of the manuscript (in both regular and ultraviolet light) produced by the Vatican since his time. I remain, however, very grateful to Dr Ogilvie’s family, since his notes and other material were of immense help to me as I formulated my own edition, and also to Professors Pelling and Crawford, who likewise gave their working materials to me. One major change I made to the project I inherited was the decision to add to the fragments and the summaries all other ancient references to Livy, both general references to his work and its reception, and specific references to the surviving books. I have long been of the belief that one cannot make sense of the fragments of the lost portions of an ancient author without a close examination of the citations and references to the surviving portions, which provide the essential context to the way in which those ‘fragments’ are preserved. Accordingly, I decided early on that this project would include all of that material. This edition, therefore, not only treats the ‘lost books of Livy’, but gives as complete a picture of his ancient reception as I have been able to assemble. This summary of the history of the project should alone be enough to make it clear why this edition is something of a baggy and amorphous monster; but the bulk of the bagginess (and indeed the monstrosity) is the consequence of a number of other choices that I made in the course of writing it. A full commentary (both literary/linguistic and historical) on the fragments was a major de­sid­er­ atum, since that was the core of the project and had never been done previously. There was clearly no need for commentary on the other references to Livy to be anything like as full: if an ancient author accurately refers to a surviving book of Livy, there would appear to be little need for commentary at all, at least from the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Preface  ix perspective of understanding Livy (there might be need for commentary with regard to that author’s own work, but that would be a different project altogether). But a substantial portion of the ancient citations of the surviving books are to a greater or lesser degree inaccurate, and in those cases enough commentary needs to be offered to draw attention to and explain the inaccuracy, since this may well have a bearing on the accuracy or otherwise of comparable references to the lost books. As for ‘testimonia’ to Livy’s life, work, and reception, it has long been commonplace in editions of ‘fragments’ to eschew commentary on those altogether; but I  regard this as an unfortunate practice, since such testimonia not infrequently offer interesting understandings of the reception of the author, and many of them are not transparent in what they tell us about it. Accordingly, I offer commentary (albeit usually only brief ) on over half of the citations of the surviving books of Livy, and also, at a slightly greater length, on around two-thirds of the Testimonia. The commentary on the Periochae is more variable still. There is a major distinction between the commentary on the parts of the Periochae where Livy’s original text survives, and those parts where it does not. With the latter, I offer a full historical commentary alongside linguistic and literary analysis (I will say more about the nature of that historical commentary below). Where Livy’s ori­ gin­al text survives, however, there seems to be little point in offering historical analysis—a reader interested in the history should be reading Livy and commentaries on Livy, not the Periochae and commentaries on the Periochae—except in those (not infrequent) cases where the Periochae provides a version of the history at variance with Livy’s own. Where the Periochae’s version is essentially the same as Livy’s, I confine my commentary to linguistic and literary questions, examining both the nature of the author’s choices (i.e. what elements from Livy to select for his summary) and his manner of compressing an episode into a brief notice. This means that there are some places where the change in the manner of commentary may feel abrupt. This is most obvious in the transition from surviving to lost Livy in Books 10–11, and then back to surviving Livy in Book 21; but it is even more jarring in the commentaries to Books 41 and 43, where a substantial portion of Livy’s original text is lost, and the Periochae becomes a major source both for what was in those books and for the historical events they related. The commentary in those books lurches between the literary and the historical in a way that looks puzzling if it is not appreciated that it correlates to the gaps in Livy’s text. The nature—and length—of my historical commentary on those parts of the Periochae corresponding to the lost books may also occasion some surprise (and perhaps discomfort). The actual narrative of the Periochae is extremely jejune: my historical commentary is frequently the opposite. What is more, much of the commentary has a somewhat old-fashioned feel, revisiting basic factual questions

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

x Preface about dates, places, times, and events which do not tend to be the primary interest of most contemporary classicists (myself included). My rationale, however, is very simple. The bulk of the narrative of the Periochae offers bare and ostensibly unadorned factual material about Roman history. A commentator, accordingly, needs to focus on that factual material. This is unproblematic and can be done suitably succinctly when the facts are uncontested. However, with almost all the material corresponding to the Second Decade of Livy (and many of the other decades also), our sources are scanty and the historical information they purport to provide can and should be questioned and challenged. The alternatives I had were (a) to announce ex cathedra the ‘correct answer’ to the historical questions, or (b) to refer readers to someone else’s discussion leading to that ‘correct answer’ (even if that discussion is not necessarily sufficiently nuanced), or (c) to show explicitly the evidence for the different options, along with my own reasoning as to which the most probable answer is. (c) seems to me both the most helpful and the most intellectually honest approach, although also the one which requires the greatest prolixity. Hence readers will find in my commentary extended discussions of such old chestnuts as the existence of the Treaty of Philinus (I don’t believe in it, though I also don’t believe that all the arguments against it are equally valid, and I have done my best to set out clearly and fairly the arguments on both sides) or the timing of the embassies between Pyrrhus and Rome. Readers will also, perhaps more importantly, find many discussions of questions which should be old chestnuts, but where the questionableness of the information has been forgotten and one version has unjustifiably become canonical. An example is the date of the Lex Hortensia, which was probably not ‘287 bc’, nor can it even be described properly as ‘c.287 bc’, although virtually every scholarly reference to it in the last seventy years has characterized it using one or another of those formulations. And the fact that I approach the material via a comparison of the narrative of the Periochae and other parallel narratives allows some reconsideration of questions that are of greater interest even nowadays, such as the nature of the (alleged) social struggle that led to the Lex Hortensia being passed in the first place. I should also briefly comment on the linguistic data I provide in the commentaries. On many occasions, I refer to some Latin phrase or usage as ‘unparalleled’ or ‘unparalleled except for X’. Despite my authoritative rhetoric, it is often the case that I cannot be sure that this is true, although I have done my best to ascertain it. I have primarily obtained the data from searchable online databases: above all the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) Classical Latin Texts (https://latin.packhum. org/index) and the Library of Latin Texts (https://www.brepols.net/series/llt-o), along with (where available) the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (https://tll.degruyter. com/). All of these have their weaknesses: for example, the Library of Latin Texts has a far more comprehensive set of texts than the PHI database, but is far more restricted in the kinds of searches it permits. Moreover, there are Latin texts from

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Preface  xi antiquity that currently appear in neither database, though they have usually been sampled by the TLL. This paragraph should therefore stand as a universal asterisk, qualifying all my dogmatic statements about uniqueness or near-uniqueness in Latin usage. As usual with projects of this size, I have received support from many or­gan­ iza­tions and individuals. In 2013 I held a Visiting Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford, and a Global Research Initiatives Fellowship at NYU Berlin; in 2017–18 I was a Visiting Scholar at NYU’s Institute for the Study of the Ancient World. I am grateful to all of these for their support and hospitality. Much of the edition was produced over successive summers in Rome, where I primarily worked in the superb library of the École Française de Rome, and I would like to thank all of the staff there for their help. I would also like to thank Federica Orlando, who en­abled me to gain access to the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana at a time when the Virus looked likely to deprive me of it at a crucial moment. One person stands out in the assistance that he has provided: Tony Woodman has read, and commented in painstaking detail on, every page of this book, and he has constantly been available for consultation on all questions. I cannot ad­equate­ly express my gratitude for all he has done. Jane Chaplin and Jim Zetzel have also read substantial portions of the draft manuscript, and I am most grateful to both of them for their acute and critical comments. Other people I have consulted at various times include Roger Bagnall, the late Larissa Bonfante, John Briscoe, Claire Bubb, Eva von Dassow, Andrew Dufton, Robert Kaster, Vanessa Léon, Michael Peachin, Lori Peek, Jeremia Pelgrom, Jonathan Prag, Calloway Scott, David Sider, Jonathan Valk, and Martin Worthington; I greatly appreciate their help. In addition, I have given papers based on this material at New York University (both the Classics department and ISAW), All Souls College, Oxford, the Institute of Classical Studies, London, Yale University, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, the University of Southern California, the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the Annual Meeting of the Society for Classical Studies; in all cases I am grateful to those in the audience for their comments and criticisms. My wife and daughter, Gabrielle and Aurelia, have lived with this book as long as I have: indeed, for Aurelia it has formed the backdrop to her entire life. I am immensely grateful to them for their endless patience and support through all the vicissitudes of its writing, and I dedicate the book to them.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Contents Abbreviationsxv Introductionxvii i. Introductionxvii ii. Patterns of Citation xxii iii. Note on the Text xxxi Siglaxxxiii

TE XT AND TR ANSL ATION Fragments Citations Testimonia

COMMENTARY Fragments Citations Testimonia

1 2 64 106 139 140 288 301

Concordances of Fragments319 Bibliography323 Index of Sources for Fragments, Citations, Testimonia 341 General Index 345 Index of Latin and Greek 352

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Abbreviations AE R. Cagnat et al. (eds), L’Année épigraphique (Paris, 1888– ). BarrAtl R.  J.  A.  Talbert (ed.), The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Carandini, Atlas A.  Carandini with P.  Carafa (eds), The Atlas of Ancient Rome (tr. A. Campbell Halavais, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017). CIL T.  Mommsen et al. (eds), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1853– ). CNNM J. Mazard (ed.), Corpus Nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque (Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques, 1955). CS W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (eds), The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2003). De Sanctis G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani (2nd edn, Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1956–69). [Page numbers of 1st edn in square brackets.] Degrassi, A. Degrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, 2 (Rome: La Libreria dello   Fast. Ann. Stato, 1963). FGrH F.  Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923–30; Leiden: Brill, 1940–58). FRHist T.  J.  Cornell et al. (eds), The Fragments of the Roman Historians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Funari R. Funari (ed.), Corpus dei papiri storici greci e latini. Parte B. Storici latini. 1. Autori noti. Vol. 1. Titus Livius (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra, 2011). H-S J.  B.  Hofmann and A.  Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik: Syntax und Stilistik (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1965). IGRRP R. Cagnat et al. (eds), Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes (Paris: E. Leroux, 1906–27). I. Ilion P. Frisch (ed.), Die Inschriften von Ilion (Bonn: Habelt, 1975). ILLRP A. Degrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae (2nd edn, Florence: Biblioteca di studi superiori, 1963–5). ILS H.  Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892–1906). K-S R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre (Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1914). LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek–English Lexicon (9th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940). LTUR E.  M.  Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1993–2000). Mommsen, StR3 T.  Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (3rd edn, Leipzig: S.  Hirzel, 1887–8). MRR T. R. S. Broughton with M. L. Patterson, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York: American Philological Association, 1951–86).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xvi Abbreviations Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968–82). H.  Malcovati (ed.), Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae (3rd edn, Turin: G. B. Paravia & C., 1953). Pinkster H.  Pinkster, The Oxford Latin Syntax (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015–21). PIR1 E.  Klebs et al. (eds), Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Saec. I, II, III (1st edn, Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1897–8). PIR2 E.  Groag et al. (eds), Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Saec. I, II, III (2nd edn, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1933–2015). RE A.  E.  von Pauly et al., Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie der classische Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1894–1963). RRC M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Rüpke, FS J.  Rüpke and A.  Glock, Fasti sacerdotum: A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 bc to ad 499 (rev. edn, tr. D.  M.  B.  Richardson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). SIG W.  Dittenberger (ed.), Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (3rd edn, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1915–24). SVF H.  F.  A.  von Arnim (ed.), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1903–24). TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1890– ). W-M W.  Weissenborn, H.  J.  Müller, and O.  Rossbach, Titi Livi: Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Berlin: Weidmann, 1880–1924, latest edn of each volume reprinted 1965). Woodcock E. C. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax (London: Methuen & Co., 1959). OLD ORF3

Abbreviations of titles of journals are taken from L’Année Philologique. Abbreviations of ancient texts and authors are taken from LSJ for Greek texts and TLL for Latin, with some adaptations: notably Per. is used as the abbreviation for the Livian Periochae (with P. as its author), and EpOxy to designate the Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy. Cassius Dio is abbreviated to Dio, Jerome to Jer., Josephus to Jos., Xenophon to Xen. Also, particular works are sometimes identified by title (for example with Dionysius’ Antiquitates Romanae or Plutarch’s Moralia or Seneca’s Dialogues or Claudian or Priscian) where LSJ or TLL prefers to leave them either unspecified or specified only by number: in those cases I have created my own (I hope reasonably clear) abbreviations for the titles. Conversely, Florus’ so-called Epitome and Orosius’ Historiae Adversus Paganos are abbreviated to ‘Flor.’ and ‘Oros.’ respectively, with the title omitted.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Introduction i. Introduction The texts that I have collected for this project represent every1 reference to Livy made between his own time and the end of classical antiquity, which I have (largely—though not entirely—arbitrarily) designated as ad 650; in addition I include later references to him in a handful of cases where the citing author appears to have access to otherwise unattested information from the earlier period. The object is to provide as complete a picture as I can of the evidence both for the three-quarters of Livy that has been lost and for his ancient ­reputation—even when (as sometimes appears to be the case) that reputation is not based on actual acquaintance with his text—as well as a sense of the way that he was used and read by later writers. It should not, of course, be assumed that the material here is all that could be adduced for these ends: in particular, there are many places where later historians can be plausibly argued to have employed Livy as a source without citing him explicitly, and also many places where we can detect more or less secure allusions to or adaptations of Livy’s language. But the boundaries of those are fuzzy and contentious. The identification of historical sources has long been a matter for controversy in all but the most clear-cut cases, and the identification of allusions scarcely less so. Moreover, to include even the most secure instances would multiply the scope of this already long project many times over. It is, admittedly, improbable that the references to Livy by name can be used as a simple proxy for the manner in which he is used in the cases where he is not named; but at the same time a comprehensive study of the former is likely to be the closest we will ever come to solid answers about the general reputation and use made of Livy in antiquity. One class of texts that I am studying in this project consists of the texts which explicitly summarize Livy; three of these survive, one (the Periochae) almost complete, the other two far less so. I shall be discussing these in the Introduction to Volume II. In addition, and to be considered as falling under the same heading, is the Liber Prodigiorum of Julius Obsequens. This does not ex­pli­cit­ly represent

1  At least as far as I have been able to discover them. My knowledge of the extensive surviving patristic literature in particular is less good than it should be, and databases and search engines are sometimes less comprehensive than one might expect. I do not imagine that I have overlooked many references to Livy, but I would not be especially surprised to discover that there are one or two which I have failed to catch. I would be grateful for any supplements that readers can send me.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xviii Introduction itself as derived from Livy, but a comparison of the places where Obsequens’ text overlaps with Livy shows conclusively that Obsequens has excerpted his material from Livy. Since we do not appear to have the beginning of Obsequens’ work, it is a reasonable hypothesis that he would have acknowledged the relationship there, and even if he did not, the connection is so clear as to set it on a different level from any other text that has been assumed to depend on Livy. One may, for example, contrast Florus, whose MSS describe his work as a Livian epitome (T 50), a claim which does not survive even a relatively cursory comparison between Florus (who never mentions Livy in the body of his work)2 and the surviving books of the Ab Urbe Condita; for further consideration of why Florus might, despite this, have been thought of as an epitome of Livy in later antiquity, see below, xxi–xxii. Hence Florus, and other summary historians of the imperial period whose works show some affinities with Livy’s narrative but are not overtly purporting to summarize him, such as Eutropius or the De Viris Illustribus, have been excluded from consideration, except for comparative purposes. I have divided other references to Livy into three broad categories, which I refer to as ‘Fragments’, ‘Citations’, and ‘Testimonia’.3 (i)  Fragments are perhaps the least surprising category, not least because they have been collected several times by previous scholars. These consist of allusions to the lost parts of Livy—Books 11–20 and 46–142. As is usual with collections of fragments from historical authors (e.g. FGrH, FRHist), I have included all allusions which describe some aspect of Livy’s narrative, not only those which purport4 to quote him verbatim (which consist of only a small minority of these ‘fragments’), and also the fragments from Livy’s writing on rhetoric. I have also included (under the heading of dubia aut spuria) a number of places where it is asserted by the alluding author (or at least by the MSS of that author) that a quota­tion derives from Livy, but where that is in fact very unlikely to be true.

2  See, however, Hudson (2019), arguing that Florus repeatedly alludes covertly and indirectly to his own brevity and so implicitly contrasts himself with large-scale Latin historiography of the Republic, Livy above all. 3  Note to the reader: these labels, and the divisions between the different categories, do not exactly correspond to those used in other fragment collections. This should not be taken to mean that those other collections are flawed in the modes of selection and division they adopt. The division here is very specifically designed to be useful in this particular project, and to enable me to include all references to Livy in a way that is transparent to the reader while remaining methodologically consistent: other collections are used for other purposes and legitimately adopt different criteria. For general discussion of the concept of a ‘fragment’, and how it has varied in different contexts, see the essays in Most (1997). With regard to the issues raised by historians in particular, Schepens (2000) is especially useful; more recently a powerful and thoughtful set of discussions is found in the ‘Working Papers’ by Pelling (2014), Marincola (2014), Pitcher (2014), and Malloch (2014) (all derived from a panel on the then newly published FRHist at the Classical Association Annual Conference in Nottingham organized by Catherine Steel). 4  I emphasize ‘purport’: from our perspective, ancient habits of supposedly ‘verbal quotation’ often include deliberate as well as accidental alterations to the original (see esp. Whittaker (1989)).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Introduction  xix I have, however, excluded from this section references to the general Tendenz of Livy’s work which are not easily pinned down to a single section, although some of these have been categorized as ‘fragments’ in the past;5 these are listed under ‘testimonia’ (see below).6 For similar reasons, I have excluded under this heading the places (mostly from grammarians) which comment on broad aspects of Livy’s word-usage, even when that particular usage is not attested in the surviving part of his work. (ii)  Citations are references to the surviving books of Livy: they are, in effect, passages that would have been considered ‘fragments’ under the definition above, had they come from lost books rather than surviving ones. Except when they are included in a textual apparatus for the purposes of textual criticism, such passages are ignored by most scholars, both in the case of Livy and in those of other ancient authors whose texts are partly but not wholly lost. But they give an essential context to the ‘fragments’: they allow us to see the kinds of distortions that arise with the different citing authors by comparison with Livy’s original text, and so we can assess more precisely how and where references to the lost books may have been similarly distorted. Combining ‘fragments’ with ‘citations’ also gives us a more comprehensive picture of how much Livy was and was not being read in an­tiquity, and which parts of his work attracted attention. (iii)  Testimonia comprise all references to Livy in antiquity which do not qualify as ‘fragments’ or ‘citations’. They fall into three broad categories. The first is the most traditional kind of ‘testimonium’: factual information about Livy’s life (listed in a rough chronological order of his career) and work which does not offer the kind of specificity about particular parts of the text that is found in the ‘fragments’ and ‘citations’. The second, and largest, group is later references to Livy, either in terms of his general reputation, or by someone who mentions reading or owning his text: these are listed in chronological order of the citing authors. The third group is linguistic; authors (often grammarians) who mention aspects of Livy’s regular vocabulary choices without reference to any particular text in which he uses the words. These three groups between them, along with the various epitomes, comprise every reference to Livy in ancient sources. The first thing to note, and perhaps the most surprising, is that they are relatively few in number. A precise count is difficult, because it depends on the criteria used to identify a ‘different’ citation or fragment or testimonium.7 But, with that said, we can at least provide a range. 5  For example, both W-M and Jal (1979) treat as a ‘fragment’ the famous reference to Livy’s warmth towards Pompey in Tacitus’ speech of Cremutius Cordus (Ann. 4.34.3 = T 7). It is very hard to see why this should count as a ‘fragment’ when (for example) Hist. Aug. Prob. 2.3–7 (T 32) does not: my suspicion (perhaps unjustified) is that the inclusion was based less on methodological consistency and more on the scholars’ unwillingness to omit so famous a passage from their collection. 6  For a similar procedure cf. FRHist 1.13–14. 7  If Quintilian refers to Livy, and then Charisius refers to Livy, not from any independent know­ ledge of Livy, but simply copying Quintilian, does that count as two references or one? When two

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xx Introduction There are between 81 and 91 fragments of the 107 lost books of Livy, excluding the three preserved directly on parchment and also the ‘dubia aut spuria’, but including the four (or five) fragments of the rhetorical works. There are between 81 and 98 ‘citations’ of the thirty-five surviving books of Livy. There are between 62 and 68 references to Livy of the sort I have characterized as ‘testimonia’, excluding the three inscriptions that probably or possibly refer to Livy and his family, and counting the subscriptions to the MSS of the First Decade (T 37) as a single ‘testimonium’. In other words, there are between 225 and 257 references to Livy in all of post-Livian literature. To give some points of comparison, there are over 550 surviving fragments of the five books of Sallust’s lost Histories, to add to the references to his monographs and many other allusions to him as a writer. FRHist offers over 150 fragments and over 20 testimonia (based on the traditional def­in­ ition of a testimonium, not the more expansive one I have used here) from the seven books of Cato’s Origines; ORF3 adds more than 250 fragments of Cato’s speeches.8 And this is not even to enter into the uncountably greater number of references in later literature to Virgil and Cicero, Horace and Ovid. The existence of so many summaries attests to a continued interest in Livy—he is not a writer who is overlooked for much of antiquity, in the way that (arguably) Tacitus was— but although he was not forgotten, he also does not appear to have been at the forefront of the minds of later writers to the same degree as Sallust, so often paired automatically with him.9 This requires some explanation. One relatively simple explanation is that it is the product of a series of chances: certain kinds of texts which offer a large number of quotations from and references to earlier literature happen to have been written by people with little or no interest in Livy. Aulus Gellius, notoriously, does not make a single reference to him, and this is more probably the result of conscious omission than ignorance, since he quotes a story about a Paduan diviner which must have originated with Livy (see Gell. 15.18 with F 47n.); similarly, he is never mentioned by Macrobius. It is an annoying fact that Livy is almost entirely absent from the grammarians (with the important exception of Priscian, the single writer of any period with the most references to him); this is in part the result of his absence from the late antique classroom and also, no less importantly, the perceived lack of eccentricity in his Latin, at least by comparison with Sallust and his archaic predecessors.

separate scholiasts of Horace or Lucan cite the same passage of Livy, is that two fragments or one? When Lactantius mentions a story that combines material from two entirely separate passages from Livy, is that two citations or one? With all of these one could make a case for either version, depending what one is using the data for. 8  Admittedly there is some overlap, since Cato famously inserted some of his own speeches into the narrative of the Origines, and these are contained in both of the fragment collections. 9  Nineteen of the post-Livian references link him to Sallust; that can be increased to twenty if one notes the juxtaposition of Martial’s gift-epigram on Livy (14.190 = T 23) with that on Sallust (14.191).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Introduction  xxi But even that can only be considered a partial explanation. The second most prolific citer of Livy is Servius,10 who mentions him thirty-one times. But that number is dwarfed by Servius’ references to and quotations from Sallust, which number in the hundreds. Plainly it is neither an entrenched hostility to Livy nor a lack of linguistic relevance which generates the difference. Something discouraged ­writers from quoting Livy; and it is not hard to guess what that might be. The sheer length of Livy’s text—the same feature that led to his being so frequently abridged and summarized—was a major deterrent to achieving familiarity with the work, in antiquity as it is nowadays. Part of that was the basic economic ­difficulty of owning or gaining access to a text that in its complete form ran to 142 volumes (see further below); but the economy of time and attention was perhaps at least as important. Symmachus, a highly literate and literary man, who on his own account possessed a complete text of Livy (T 36), shows no sign in his published writings of ever having read any of it (Cameron (2011), 511–12). Unlike Sallust, moreover, even those parts of Livy which could be separated into discrete and coherent sections (see below) are relatively lengthy, apart perhaps from Book 1, which, unsurprisingly, is by far the most cited part of his work. Livy is thus a relatively unusual figure among surviving writers from Latin antiquity: an author who is repeatedly mentioned by later writers as one of the two canonical authors of a major literary genre, and yet whose readership is not commensurate with his reputation.11 It is accordingly likely that many of the references to Livy that we do have, like Symmachus’, are more in the manner of paying lip service to his cultural importance rather than showing actual acquaintance with his text or his writing. Most notably, it appears probable that there was a vague assumption that all traditions of Republican history derived from Livy, whether or not those traditions were actually present in his text. This is, for example, the most natural explanation for Florus, Eutropius, and the De Viris Illustribus all at different times being spoken of as epitomes of Livy (TT 29, 48, 50, 52; cf. C 10), although none of them articulate their works in the same way as he does his, and even though all of them present non-Livian versions of history at innumerable points. It also explains how Servius in particular occasionally ascribes to Livy versions of Roman history that he does not in fact tell (CC 3, 6, 36); the same phenomenon is visible in some other citations from Livy, such as by Pompeius in his commentary on Donatus (C 12), and especially John Malalas (CC 13, 23). The same reasoning helps to explain why even the actual epitomes of Livy which survive, while

10  Here and elsewhere in the introduction ‘Servius’ includes not only Servius’ own commentary, but also ‘Servius auctus’ (a.k.a. ‘Servius Danielis’ or ‘DServius’), an early mediaeval commentary which rewrites Servius partly by fusing his text with elements of an older commentary, very possibly Donatus: cf. also F 5n. 11  Cf. Bessone (1977), 191–3, esp. 193: ‘La fortuna di Livio fu inversamente proporzionale alla ­conoscenza diretta della sua opera.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxii Introduction ex­pli­cit­ly articulating their narrative around Livian books (in this respect and in many others certainly far closer to him than Florus, Eutropius, or the De Viris Illustribus), regularly introduce details which are not present in Livy’s original text, but which are sometimes widespread elsewhere in the historical tradition. Livy and Republican history became effectively identified.

ii.  Patterns of Citation Citations of Livy are, naturally, not evenly distributed across his work, and, equally naturally, are concentrated in certain authors. This, notoriously, has the potential to lead to major misunderstanding: see above all the fundamental study of Elliott (2013), demonstrating how past scholars have been seduced by the patterns of quotations from Ennius by later writers into believing that they are somehow representative of Ennius’ actual work. Elliott shows that they are massively distorted by the particular interests of the citing authors and, accordingly, that Ennius’ own work may well have had entirely different interests and emphases.12 In the case of Livy, however, we have two alternative methods of assessing the overall run of his work which are not available for Ennius. The first, and most obvious, is the survival of a quarter of it intact, which can, as noted above, be used to check the reliability of the citations from that part, which can then, in principle, be extrapolated to citations by the same author of the lost portions. This is especially important, since there is a significant danger with a prose writer like Livy which does not apply to poets like Ennius (Schepens (2000), 6–7). With poetry the metre usually makes it uncomplicated to distinguish quotation from paraphrase, and to distinguish the poet’s own contribution from that of the citing author. Historians, as noted above (xviii), are more often paraphrased than quoted, which makes it still harder to demarcate the parts that are being cited from the citing author’s commentary or elaboration. The guidance offered by citations of surviving books is, accordingly, invaluable, although here too it can sometimes be difficult to parse.13 Even here, however, one needs some measure of caution. One aspect of Livy’s surviving work which is less often remarked upon than it should be is its extreme variability: the Third Decade is very unlike the First, the Fourth is like neither,

12  For a survey focusing on fragments of historians, far briefer and less detailed but reaching comparable conclusions, see Brunt (1980). 13 Here too Brunt (1980) provides a useful survey. The difficulties can be seen in the case of Athenaeus, who repeatedly cites surviving Greek historians as well as lost works; but there is a good deal of controversy among scholars about how we should assess his reliability overall, about the kinds of markers that might separate reliable citations from less reliable ones, and about the ease of extrapolation from the surviving works to lost ones: for different views, see e.g. Ambaglio (1990), Pelling (2000), Lenfant (2007), Maisonneuve (2007), Olson (2018). See also Lenfant (1999) for a survey of citations of Herodotus by a variety of authors.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Patterns of Citation  xxiii and even the Fifth shows some surprising points of difference from the Fourth.14 It is, accordingly, intrinsically probable that Livy’s lost books, especially (but not only) those that relate to events of his own lifetime, will show significantly different features from his surviving work. Naturally, Livy, like any writer, has substantial elements of consistency even across the parts of his work that vary in other respects; but the danger of extrapolation from the surviving part of his work to that which is lost considerably outweighs the danger of falsely assessing the work by the seventy or eighty references to or quotations from the lost portion. A second check, perhaps even more important, is the Periochae. This provides us with a sketch of the contents of the lost books, enabling us to see the broad run of events represented and their distribution across Livy’s work; in a very crude and rough way, we can get a reasonably reliable sense of Livy’s emphases, at least with regard to the amount of space that he allotted to particular periods of Roman history. But the potential for distortion here is even greater. The author of the Periochae has particular interests and emphases of his own, which are dem­on­ strably not the same as Livy’s; what is more, he does not always provide an ac­cur­ ate representation of Livy’s version of history, not infrequently adding material that was absent from Livy, or substituting other versions of history for Livy’s own (see the more detailed discussion in the Introduction to Volume II). But combining the evidence of the Periochae with the impressions of Livy’s interests and manner in his surviving work gives us a far greater and more useful context for assessing the lost portion than we have for almost any other fragmentary author, although, even with that taken into account, the gaps in our information are massive, and the level of uncertainty about Livy’s manner of treatment is high. Fragments are, accordingly, vastly less important for Livy than for Ennius in allowing us to determine the overall shape of his work, but they do have the potential to supply a more finely grained sense of particular details than we can get from any other source, and a determination of how reliably they are likely to reflect his text is immensely useful. Two authors between them contribute around half of the citations and fragments, namely Priscian and Servius. Both of these show distinctive patterns. Priscian’s references map relatively closely onto the surviving books—more closely, indeed, than the bare numbers might suggest. Of his fifty-one quotations, forty-one derive from the surviving books, and of the ten fragments from lost books, five relate to a single issue, namely illustrating the declension of African names ending in -d in Books 112–14 (the only issue concerning which Priscian cites these books at all). It is plausible to assume that Priscian is not citing these five passages directly from a text of Livy, but from the collection of some earlier grammarian, since, had he known those books himself, one would have thought he would have collected other matters of interest from them. The citations from 14  I demonstrated this in Levene (1993); cf. also Levene (2010), vii–viii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxiv Introduction the surviving books are spread fairly evenly across them: eleven from the First Decade, twelve from the Third, seventeen from the Fourth (five of which are from his work De Figuris Numerorum, and hence relate specifically to numbers). There is also one from the Fifth, which is more surprising—it is in fact the only surviving citation of Books 41–45 (see below). In these cases, however, there is no particular reason to doubt that Priscian knew the text at first hand. As for the remaining five fragments from the lost books, here too there is no reason to infer simply from their content that Priscian is citing them at second hand: there is no particular pattern with regard to the points for which they are cited. But the distribution across books raises some suspicions: they derive from Books 13, 17, 56, and 118, while one where the book number has been corrupted (F 68: see ad loc.) may be tentatively assigned to the Second Decade. This might suggest that Priscian knew the Second Decade directly, but the very uniqueness of the citations of Book 56 and 118 (especially the former, which is a part of the work otherwise almost forgotten in the later tradition: see below) suggests that they are less likely to come from his own readings. As for Priscian’s accuracy, the vast majority of his forty-one quotations from the surviving books are identical or very close to Livy’s transmitted text, though occasionally he slightly alters the wording or omits words extraneous to the point he is citing Livy to illustrate (he also sometimes appears to be using a text of Livy that is less reliable than our own). There are, however, two exceptions to this (CC 74, 80), both in the same chapter of Priscian, both taken from Livy Books 39–40, and both of which seriously misrepresent his text. It is unclear why Priscian should be so unreliable here and only here, but it is reasonable to assume that the quotations from the lost books (even if, as argued above, most of them are tralatician) are more likely to reflect the reliable majority of his work than the unreliable minority. Servius’ thirty-one15 citations form a very different pattern. Nearly half—thirteen—come from Book 1 alone, but the remaining eighteen show no particular sign of matching the books’ survival: only six come from extant books (four from the remaining books of the First Decade), as against twelve from the lost books. Of those twelve fragments, four cannot be identified by book, and the remaining eight come from just three sections of Livy’s work: two from the 90s, one from (probably) Book 109, and five from the Second Decade (cited by Servius more often than any other part of Livy except Book 1). This pattern is best explained from Servius’ interests rather than his reading. Unlike Priscian, whose interests are purely linguistic, in the great majority of instances Servius cites Livy either in order to supply a background narrative to historical figures or historical events which Virgil referred to in passing 15  This figure counts as separate citations the three occasions when Servius twice cites the same passage of Livy (CC 4, 8, 9: all passages in Book 1). If those are considered one citation each, then Servius cites Livy twenty-eight times in total, ten of which are from Book 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Patterns of Citation  xxv (sometimes correcting Virgil’s history in the process), or else, along related lines, to provide antiquarian information concerning something that Virgil mentions obliquely; only in a minority of cases (CC 31, 45, FF 69, 73, 76) does Servius cite Livy on a linguistic matter. This explains the focus on Book 1, the part of the work where Livy’s narrative intersects most obviously with Virgil’s, and also the cluster from Book 16, where Livy recounted the foundation of Carthage. However, with all of Servius’ citations, there must be some suspicion that he does not know the text of Livy at first hand. Admittedly, only a handful of his cit­ ations are demonstrably unreliable, but one is spectacularly so—Livy could not possibly have recounted Claudius Pulcher’s failure at the battle of Drepana in anything like the form Servius claims he did: Servius has manifestly conflated Claudius’ story with that of his consular colleague L. Julius Pullus (see F 12n.). There are also a few cases where Servius attributes to Livy recognizable versions of Roman history, though not the ones which Livy himself happened to tell (CC 3, 6, 36nn.)—these cases, as noted above, are part of a broader pattern of linking Livy to all traditions of early Roman and Republican history. But all of them suggest that, at least some of the time, Livy is not being cited at first hand: Servius (or Donatus, in the case of the cit­ations deriving from ‘Servius auctus’) clearly drew material from earlier Virgilian commentaries, and in that process some of the material was distorted. It can hardly be proved that Servius did not know Livy himself, and he sometimes purports to quote his words verbatim (though not, as it happens, with any of the citations from the surviving books). And even with those references that are tralatician, that does not mean that they do not represent Livy accurately: given that the great majority of the citations from the surviving books are fair reflections of Livy’s text, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate similar trust to the fragments from the lost books, at least in those cases where we have no independent reason to assume that some form of misrepresentation has taken place. The third most prolific citer of Livy is Plutarch, who cites him fifteen times,16 though only in limited portions of his work. He mentions Livy twice in the Moralia, both with relation to a single part of his work, namely the opening chapter of Book 6 (CC 32–33)—although, interestingly, Plutarch draws on two very different points from that chapter. Seven of the Lives cite Livy: Camillus, Marcellus (including the comparison with Pelopidas), Flamininus, Cato Major, Sulla, Lucullus, and Caesar. One very revealing moment, however, comes with Marcellus, where Plutarch’s citations are highly inaccurate, and one of them (C 53) is demonstrably derived not from Livy’s own text, but an early epitome (see ad loc.; also Volume II, xii–xiv); the citation in Camillus (C 30) also presents a version of the history which is not found in Livy, but could easily derive from an

16  Or fourteen times, if the two separate citations from Livy 39.42.6–12 (C 75) are treated as a single one.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxvi Introduction epitome. This does not mean that Plutarch never consulted Livy at first hand— the two citations from Book 6 concern points of detail that seem extremely unlikely to have been included in an epitome, and the extended account of the Paduan diviner in the Caesar (F 47), with Livy mentioned as an acquaintance of the protagonist, likewise appears to suggest direct knowledge of Livy’s version. But it should not be assumed that Plutarch’s remaining references to Livy are either reliable or based on a first-hand reading of his text. The last source for a significant number of citations of Livy’s text is the various scholia to Lucan, which offer eleven (counting F 46, which appears in different wording in two separate scholia, as a single citation). All of them offer historical background or corrections to matters that appear in Lucan’s text, sometimes purporting to quote Livy verbatim (their interest is presumably related to the fact that Lucan derived much of his information from Livy,17 so a comparison between their texts is especially revealing). Since (unsurprisingly) none of these citations refer to the surviving books, there is no direct check on their reliability. A few show elements of garbling (FF 31, 46a, 48, 55); and in one case (F 42) an overlap with the language of Orosius in what appears to be a summary of a wider portion of Livy’s text suggests that the scholiast may be deriving its information from an epitome. But the garblings are mostly minor (F 48 is an exception); on the whole, we may tentatively assume that these scholia (or, more precisely, the commentary traditions on which these scholia are drawing) depend on a solid knowledge of the relevant portions of Livy’s text. No other author cites Livy more than seven times, and so it is hard to discern any patterns to their citations. Sometimes (e.g. John Malalas) it is obvious that the author has no direct knowledge of Livy; in other cases, particularly with the ­writers from the first and early second centuries ad, it is either a reasonable sup­ pos­ition or a near certainty (as in the case of the elder Seneca’s quotations of Livy on the death of Cicero: FF 61–62) that they are depending directly on his text. But all of these need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, as I have done in the commentary. Putting all of these citations and fragments together, however, allows us to see patterns of a different sort. The surviving books of Livy are on average cited more than the lost books, but even that is not entirely consistent. Book 1 is cited far more than any other (22–25 times, depending how one counts the double cit­ ations by Servius: see above), which is hardly surprising; leaving that book aside, there are approximately equal numbers of citations from the rest of the First Decade (22), the Third Decade (20), and the Fourth Decade (21–22 times, depending how one counts the double citations by Plutarch in C 75)—but that is only because Priscian has a surprisingly large number of citations from the Fourth

17  Lucan’s use of Livy was carefully and systematically demonstrated by Pichon (1912), esp. 51–164. See also FF 40, 44, 45, 49, 53, 55, with notes ad locc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Patterns of Citation  xxvii Decade: without Priscian, there would be just 4–5 (one from Servius, one from Quintilian, the rest from Plutarch). Even the Third Decade is Priscian-heavy, if to a lesser degree: he supplies 12 of the 20 citations. There is only one citation (also from Priscian) from Books 41–45, but those books have an anomalous transmission compared with the other surviving books, since they were unknown through the entire period of the mediaeval and Renaissance copyings, and were only rediscovered in the sixteenth century in the form of a single fifth-century MS with a number of leaves missing. Moreover, among the lost books there are massive discrepancies. Large portions of Livy are hardly ever cited at all. There are just three citations/fragments— two by Priscian, one by Censorinus—from Books 41–75, although these thirty-five books represent a quarter of Livy’s total text. There are just 5–7 (depending on how one counts double citations by different Horace commentators) fragments from Books 121–142: 3–5 in the commentators on Horace, one each by Censorinus and Apponius. Some of this may be chance, but it would be reasonable to assume that these books were read far less than 1–10 and 21–30, where there is a moderate range of citing authorities. Indeed, it would be reasonable to assume that not only 41–75 and 121–142 but also the surviving books 31–40 were read less than the lost books 11–20, from which we have 12 fragments from a fair selection of authors: it is presumably no coincidence that those books certainly were being copied and read as late as the fifth century ad (cf. below). So we can see a broad pattern: Book 1 gets cited a lot, the rest of the First Decade relatively widely, the Second less so, the Third and then the Fourth increasingly less, with only Priscian providing a counterbalance that makes the number of citations appear superficially even. Then citations disappear almost entirely for thirty-five books. This is perhaps unsurprising with a long and complex narrative in multiple volumes: vastly more people cite Du côté de chez Swann than Le temps retrouvé, and the vast majority of the people who cite Du côté de chez Swann cite only the first few pages. But the difference with Livy is that cit­ ations then pick up: there is a modest spate of fragments in Books 76–83, dealing with the civil wars of the 80s bc, then a far more significant number in Books 91–120, the books covering the last generation of the Republic and Caesar’s dictatorship: 40–44 of them.18 Part of that is the result of the concentrated group of fragments concerning the Civil War in the Lucan scholia (above), but even leaving those aside, this set of books is regularly cited by a wider range of authors than any other set except Books 1–20. The likely reason is that this period of the Republic was as iconic as any in Roman history, and contains a large proportion of the most familiar characters and anecdotes that became central in the exemplary traditions of the Empire. It is hardly surprising that this part of the work of

18  Depending whether one counts the duplicate citations in different scholastic traditions in FF 27, 33, 46, and 56 as separate fragments.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxviii Introduction the iconic historian of the Republic would attract particular interest, although here, as elsewhere, the sheer length of Livy’s text did not make him an immediate recourse for most readers. One further issue that is worth mentioning in this context is that the pattern of citation described above very approximately (with some significant exceptions) correlates with the balance of the narrative of the Periochae. I will be discussing in the introduction to Volume II the way in which the Periochae offers a narrative of Livy’s history with a distinctive focus of its own; but despite the author’s particular interests and constraints, it is striking that the pattern among the average lengths of the summaries of the individual books (see Fig. 1) is not entirely unlike the patterns of quotation and citation of Livy set out above. Thus the summaries of the First Decade are relatively long (averaging 256 words apiece);19 those of the Second, Third, and Fourth Decades somewhat shorter (respectively: 139, 226, and 160 words). Those of the later decades are shorter still: Books 121–142 average just 56 words, while Books 61–120 average 110 words apiece, though within that Books 101–120, covering the late Republic and Caesar, are treated a little more spaciously: those books average 120 words. These represent some small ­differences from the citation patterns: in the Periochae the Second Decade is less generously covered than the Third and the Fourth, and Books 91–100, at 70 words apiece, are more succinctly summarized than any other section apart from Books 121–142. But the huge and surprising anomaly, when one compares the Periochae with the citation patterns of Livy, is the generous treatment allotted to the Fifth and Sixth Decades: averaging, respectively, 262 and 194 words per book. This is partly because of the Periochist’s remarkable interest in the period of the Third Punic War and its preliminaries: Books 48 and 49 are by far the longest books of the entire summary; he also shows a particular interest in the period of the Gracchi and in the career of Scipio Aemilianus (cf. Volume II, xliv–xlv), both of which are completely overlooked by later citers of Livy’s text. In the earlier discussion I spoke of the likelihood that a good proportion of those citing or referring to Livy were not doing so on the basis of direct acquaintance with his text. This, of course, has no necessary connection with the survival of his text: Plutarch sometimes cites Livy from an epitome (cf. above, xxv), even though MSS of the relevant books were presumably available to him. But although not all tralatician references to Livy are the result of the absence of his full text,

19  Here and elsewhere I take the figures for the book-lengths of the Periochae from my own text, using the ‘word-count’ facility in Microsoft Word. Some minor problems should be noted: there is occasional undercounting (when I have marked a likely lacuna in the text) and overcounting (when the text includes words which I argue should be deleted). These are, however, likely to be negligible in the overall figures, with the exception of the loss of the first half of Book 1, which, if on the scale of the second half, would have made that book closer to 600 words than 300, and would, accordingly, make the average word-length of the books of the First Decade more like 286 words than 256: that decade, therefore, was probably (unsurprisingly) the longest of all. Note also that the average for Books 121–142 excludes the two missing books: 136–137.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Patterns of Citation  xxix 800

Length in Words

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141

0

Books of the Periochae

Fig. 1  Length of Books of the Periochae

the converse is obviously true: when Livy’s text was not available, he could only be cited at second or third hand, or his name might be (and sometimes clearly was) attached to a narrative which bore little relation to his actual text, on the grounds of his iconic status as the canonical historian of the Republic. To understand the reception of Livy, we therefore need to examine what we know about the early transmission and survival of his text. With the surviving books, that is relatively unproblematic. All of them manifestly were still in circulation in the fifth century ad.20 Moreover, some of the lost books were demonstrably being copied at the same time. The surviving parchment scrap of Book 11 (FF 1–2) was written in the middle of that century, and Pope Gelasius I cites ‘the Second Decade’ explicitly at the end of the century, implying that those books were still circulating as a unit (F 4). The fifth-century MS of Books 41–45 ends with the incipit for Book 46, implying that it originally contained that book, and presumably the rest of the Fifth Decade. The more difficult question is whether the same is true of Books 51–142: whether those books remained in circulation as late as the fifth century. The last clear testimony we have of the survival of the complete history is a letter of Symmachus, dated 401, which mentions his ownership of it, and indeed promises to have a copy made for his correspondent Valerianus (T 36). That copy is presumably the same one as is attested21 as being made around the same time by members of the circle of Symmachus. But it is far from clear whether in the event the copy actually extended to the complete work, and whether Valerianus actually received it. 20  Indeed, we possess fifth-century copies of Books 1–10, 21–30 (forming the archetype of Books 21–25), and 41–45 (the last of which was subsequently lost and only rediscovered in the sixteenth century: it represents our only MS of those books); there are also fragments of Books 31–40 surviving in fifth-century copies. 21  In the subscriptions to most of our MSS of the First Decade (T 37: see ad loc.).

xxx Introduction However, that at least some of those later books were transferred from roll to codex form is proved by the fourth-century palimpsest copy of Book 91 (F 23), and so in principle they could easily have been available to be read over the next century. Certainly the fragments preserved in Augustine (FF 19, 21), Jerome (F 58),22 and Orosius (FF 38–39) look plausibly first-hand;23 none reveal elem­ ents that Livy could not have included, and all concern points of detail and sometimes even of wording which are less likely to be found in an epitome: it is not that no epitome could ever contain such things (some manifestly did), but epit­ omes would not do so consistently, and it is improbable that all of these five cit­ ations by authors of the late fourth and early fifth centuries would happen to pick up the fine-grained details that an epitome would provide only occasionally. That Augustine and Orosius sometimes used epitomes is clear (see Volume II, xviii– xxxi), but, as I will discuss, that is not incompatible with them sometimes having recourse to the original text as well. The other possibility is that these are all tralatician, but here too, without any obvious source for tralatician references such as we can assume for the grammatical and scholiastic traditions, our default assumption should be that they derive from Livy himself. This does not, of course, mean that Augustine, Jerome, or Orosius had a complete text of Livy to hand: there is a high chance that they did not. Manifestly the history did not circulate as a single unit, and there is reason to believe that even the author of the Periochae was working from an incomplete text (see Volume II, lviii–lix). It would be far from surprising if the little-cited Books 121–142 were hard to come by in the late fourth century, and even if Symmachus possessed a copy of them, as he says, it might have been an old one. The same may well have been true of some of the other books, such as the Seventh Decade, which is never cited by anyone. One further issue may be of relevance in this context. There is good evidence that Books 109–116 circulated as a separate unit with its own numbering. The numbering is referred to both in the headings to those books of the Periochae and in the scholia to Lucan. The latter use only the separate numbering, not the continuous numbering for the whole work, which suggests that that numbering was not merely some form of sub-heading, but was the primary form of reference in the Livy edition that was used by the original source for those scholia. The fact that two of Orosius’ three explicit references to Livy (the other is his citation of Book 10: C 44), and Jerome’s only explicit citation outside the Chronicle, come from the Civil War books may suggest that they, too, had access to that edition; and later in the fifth century, Sidonius Apollinaris could still refer to those books 22  On the other hand, F 34, also from Jerome, looks more likely to derive from an epitome, but that fragment is anomalous because it comes from the Chronicle: see ad loc. 23  For Augustine as a close reader of Livy see esp. Conybeare (1999), arguing persuasively for a systematic intertextual engagement between the first five books of City of God and Livy’s first pentad. For Orosius’ direct use of Livy, cf. Lippold (1954), 257. It may be relevant to note that when Orosius cites Pompeius Trogus via the epitome of Justin, he openly acknowledges that he is doing so (1.8.1–5, 1.10.1–6, 4.6.1, 4.6.6).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Note on the Te xt  xxxi in a manner which at least gives the impression that he, too, had direct access to them (T 43).

iii.  Note on the Text The text of the fragments, citations, and testimonia derive from over fifty separate authors and scholiastic traditions. Hence I have not, with the exception of the MSS that are the sources of F 13 and F 23, examined any MSS personally. I have drawn my accounts of the MS readings from published editions: see pp. xxxiii–xliii for a list of the editions I have used, along with a brief summary of the MSS mentioned in the apparatus for each author. However, I have not hesitated to adopt textual readings at variance with the editions from which I have been working, where an alternative reading appears justified. Likewise, the apparatus is my own, and designed to be useful for those working with Livy: hence, for example, I have generally ignored orthographic variations in the MSS of the transmitting authors, even when they are assiduously recorded in the editions I have been using.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigla Acta Sancti Sebastiani Martyris (C 51). From Patrologia Latina. Agroecius, Ars de Orthographia (F 30). From the edition of H. Keil (Grammatici Latini). B C

Bern 432. 9th century. Bern 338. 9th century.

Anon., De dubiis nominibus (FF 78, 85–86, T 63). From the edition of H.  Keil (Grammatici Latini). L Laon 463. 12th century. M Munich 14252. 9th century. Apponius, Commentary on Song of Songs (F 66). From the edition of B. de Vregille and L. Neyrand (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina). R S

Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, Sessorianus 12 (1572). 11th century. Sélestat, B.M. 77. Dated 1506.

Ars Anonyma Bernensis (F 56b). From the edition of H. Keil (Grammatici Latini). Asconius (F 24, C 25). From the edition of A. C. Clark (OCT). M Florence, Laurentianus 54.5. 15th century. P Madrid 8514. 15th century. S Pistoia, Forteguerriana 37. 15th century. Augustine, City of God (FF 19, 21). From the edition of B. Dombart and A. Kalb (Teubner). Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus (T 30). From the edition of P. Dufraigne (Budé). Ausonius (T 34). From the edition of R. P. H. Green (OCT). Cassiodorus, Chronica (TT 46–47). From the edition of T. Mommsen. Cassiodorus, Institutiones (T 40b). From the edition of R. A. B. Mynors. H Hereford O. 3.2. 9th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxxiv Sigl a Cassius Dio (T 24b). From the edition of U. P. Boissevain. Censorinus, De Die Natali (FF 11, 15, 67). From the edition of N.  Sallmann (Teubner). C G H I O P Q R U V

Cologne 166. 8th century. Görlitz 144. 15th century. London, British Library, Harleianus 3969. 14th century. Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, Iesuiticus 344. 15th–16th century. Vatican, Ottobianus 1170. Dated 1470. Vatican, Palatinus 1588. 9th century. Vatican 5190. Dated 1467. Vatican, Rossianus 1050. 15th century. Vatican 4498. 15th century. Vatican 4929. 9th century.

Charisius (FF 10, 77b, TT 55–57). From the edition of K. Barwick (Teubner). b excerpta Bern 123. 10th century. N Naples IV A.8. 7th–8th century. p excerpta Paris 7530. 8th century. Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum (F 33a, 42, 44–45, 46b, 48–49). From the edition of H. Usener (Teubner). C

Bern 370. 10th century.

Dialogus de scientia politica (F 79). From the edition of C. M. Mazzucchi. Diomedes, Art. Gramm. (FF 77c, 80, C 11). From the edition of H. Keil (Grammatici Latini). A Paris 7494. 9th century. B Paris 7493. 9th century. M Munich 14467. 9th century. Florus (T 50). From the edition of O. Rossbach (Teubner). B L N

Bamberg E.III 22. 10th century. Leiden, Vossianus O.14. 10th–11th century. Heidelberg, Palatinus 894. 9th century.

Fragmentum Bobiense De Nomine et Pronomine (T 58). From the edition of H. Keil (Grammatici Latini). Frontinus, Stratagems (FF 22, 26). From the edition of R. I. Ireland (Teubner).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigl a  xxxv Gelasius Papa, Epist. adv. Andromachum (F 4). From the edition of G. Pomarès. O V

Vatican, Ottobonianus 1105. 16th century. Vatican 3787. 11th century.

Historia Augusta (TT 31–33). From the edition of H. Hohl (Teubner). Ch Vatican, Chigianus H VII. 239. 15th century. P Vatican, Palatinus 899. 9th century. R Paris 5807. 15th century. Isidore, Etymologiae (TT 38b, 65b). From the edition of W. M. Lindsay (OCT). B C K T

Bern 101. 9th–10th century. Leiden, Vossianus F 74. 9th–10th century. Wolfenbüttel, Weissenburg 64 (Codex Carolinus). 8th century. Madrid, Toletanus 15.8. 8th–9th century.

Jerome, Chronicon (F 34, TT 1, 11). From the edition of R. Helm. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (TT 39, 64). From the edition of F. Glorie (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina). A F M R

Autun 17. 9th century. Munich 6303. 8th–9th century. Munich 4597. 8th–9th century. Munich 14082. 8th–9th century.

Jerome, Commentary on Hosea (F 58). From the edition of M. Adriaen (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina). A Cologne, Dombibliothek 53. 10th century. C Kassel, Landesbibliothek, Theol. Fol. 22. 8th century. K Cologne, Dombibliothek 54. 8th–9th century. N Namur, Musée archéologique, Fonds de la Ville 16. 9th century. O  Orléans, Bibliothèque municipale 192 fol. 28 and Paris 8305 fols 1–2. 7th–8th century. P Paris 1836. 9th century. Jerome, Epistulae (TT 6b, 40a, 41). From the edition of I. Hilberg.

λ H P Σ D S

St Petersburg I 15 Quarto. 8th–9th century. Munich 6299. 8th–9th century. Le Mans 126. 9th century. Zurich 41. 9th century. Vatican 355 + 356. 9th–10th century. Vienna 746. 13th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxxvi Sigl a John of Antioch (F 18a). From the edition of U. Roberto. John Malalas (CC 13, 23, TT 48–49). From the edition of H. Thurn. O Sl

Oxford, Bodleian Barocc. 182. 12th century. Slavonic translation.

Jonas, Vita S. Columbani (F 83). From the edition of B. Krusch. E H M S T W

Einsiedeln 257. 10th century. Heidelberg, Salem IX, 21. 13th century. Munich 4628. 11th century. St Gall 553. 10th century. Trier, Bibl. Cath. 5. 12th century. Würzburg Mp.th. f. 139. 12th century.

Jordanes, Getica (F 37). From the edition of A. Grillone. A B H L P V X

Milan, Ambrosianus C 72 inf. 11th–12th century. Breslau 106. 11th century. Heidelberg 921. 8th–9th century. Florence, Laurentianus Pluteus 65.35. 11th century. Vatican, Palatinus 920. 10th century. Valencia 95. 9th century. Cambridge, Trinity College 0.4.36. 11th century.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (F 32). From the edition of S. A. Naber (Teubner). Justin (T 10). From the edition of O. Seel (Teubner). Lactantius, Div. Inst. (C 43). From the edition of E.  Heck and A.  Wlosok (Teubner). Livy. Subscriptions to First Decade (T 37). From Zetzel (1980). A D E H M O P

London, British Library, Harleianus 2493. 14th century. Florence, Laurentianus S. Marci 326. 11th century. Einsiedeln 348. 10th century. London, British Library, Harleianus 2672. 10th century. Florence, Laurentianus 63.19. 10th century. Oxford, Bodleian Auct. T. 1.24. 11th century. Paris 5725. 9th century.

Martial (TT 22–23). From the edition of W. M. Lindsay (OCT). A B

Leiden, Vossianus Q 56. 11th century. Leiden, Vossianus Q 121. 12th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigl a  xxxvii C E f G L P Q V X

Leiden, Vossianus F 89. 14th century. Edinburgh, Adv. 18.3.1. 9th century. Florence, Laurentianus 35.39. 15th century. Wolfenbüttel, Gudianus 157. 12th century. Berlin fol. 612. 12th century. Vatican, Palatinus 1696. 15th century. London, British Library, Arundel 136. 15th century. Vatican 3294. 9th century. Paris 8067. 9th century.

Lydus, De Mensibus (F 33b). From the edition of R. Wuensch (Teubner). Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis (T 42). From the edition of J. Willis (Teubner). Nonius Marcellus (FF 87–88, CC 34, 42, 48). From the editions of L. Müller and W. M. Lindsay (Teubner). G Wolfenbüttel, Gudianus 96. 10th century. H London, British Library, Harleianus 2719. 9th–10th century. L Leiden, Vossianus F 73. 9th century. Origo Gentis Romanae (C 10, T 29). From the edition of J.-C. Richard (Budé). M Readings by J. Matal from a lost codex. O Oxford, Bodleian, Canon Lat. 131. 15th century. P Brussels 9755–63. 15th century. Orosius (FF 38–39, C 44). From the edition of M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet (Budé). C D Δ F H J L P Q U Z

Munich 6308. 8th century. Donaueschingen 18.2. 8th century. Berlin, Rehdigeranus 107. 9th century. Laon 137. 8th century. Paris 9665. 8th century. Einsiedeln 351. 9th–10th century. Florence, Laurentianus pl. 65. 6th century. Vatican, Palatinus 829. 9th century. Vatican, Reginensis 296. 9th century. Valenciennes 545. 9th century. St Petersburg FV 1 n. 9. 9th century.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History Book 1 (F 75, T 19). From the edition of J. Beaujeu (Budé). E T

Paris 6795. 9th–10th century. Toledo H.P. plut. 47 nr. 14. 13th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xxxviii Sigl a a d e l p q

Vienna 234. 12th–13th century. Paris 6797. 13th century. Paris 6796 A. 13th century. London, British Library, Arundelianus 98. 12th century. Munich, Pollinganus 11301. Dated 1459. Paris 7701. 13th century.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History Book 3 (FF 71–72). From the edition of H. Zehkacker (Budé). Pliny the Younger, Epist. (TT 6a, 20). From the edition of R. A. B. Mynors (OCT). Plutarch, Moralia (CC 32–33). From the edition of W. Nachstädt, W. Sieveking, and J. B. Titchener (Teubner). F g J P S y

Paris 1957. 11th century. Vatican, Palatinus 170. 15th century. Milan, Ambrosianus 881. 13th century. Heidelberg, Palatinus 153. 12th–13th century. Vatican 264. 14th century. Vatican 1009. 14th century.

Plutarch, Lives (FF 17, 27a, 28, 47, 59, CC 30, 52–53, 60–61, 75–76). From the edition of K. Ziegler (Teubner). A B C K L M Mo P S U V b

Paris 1671. Dated 1296. Paris 1672. 13th–14th century. Paris 1673. 13th–14th century. Venice, Marcianus 386. 11th century. Florence, Laurentianus conv. soppr. 206. 10th century. Venice, Marcianus 385. 14th–15th century. Munich 85. 12th century. Heidelberg, Palatinus 168 + 169. 11th century. Seitenstetten 34. 11th–12th century. Vatican 138. 10th–11th century. Vienna 60. 12th century.

Pompeius, Commentum Artis Donati (C 12). From the edition of H.  Keil (Grammatici Latini). A B C L

Wolfenbüttel, Weissenburg 86. 8th–9th century. Paris, Sangermanensis 1179. 9th century. Paris, Sangermanensis 1180. 9th century. St Paul in Lavantal 24. 8th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigl a  xxxix Porphyrio, Commentary on Horace (FF 63a, 65a). From the edition of A. Holder. P V

Paris 7988. 15th century. Vatican 3314. 9th century.

Priscian, Fig. Num. (CC 62–65, 70). From the edition of H.  Keil (Grammatici Latini). A P R V

Paris 7501. 10th century. Paris 7530. 8th century. Paris 7496. 9th century. Leiden, Vossianus 12.8.

Priscian, Inst. Gramm. (FF 3, 8, 16, 50–52, 56a, 57, 60, 68, CC 18, 21, 26–27, 29, 35, 37–41, 46–47, 49, 54–59, 66, 68–69, 72–74, 77–83, TT 60–62). From the edition of M. Hertz (in H. Keil, Grammatici Latini). A B D G H K L M N O P R V

Amiens 425. 9th century. Bamberg class. 43. 9th century. Bern 756.64. 9th–10th century. St Gall 904. 9th century. Codex Halberstadiensis (lost). 9th–10th century. Karlruhe 223. ad 822. Leiden, University Library 67. 9th century. Munich 280A. 11th century. Vienna 348. 10th century. Paris 7499. 9th century. Paris 7530. 8th century. Paris 7496. 9th century. Leiden, Vossianus O.12. 9th century.

Ps-Acro, Commentary on Horace (FF 63b, 64, 65b). From the edition of O. Keller (Teubner). V b c ζ r γ

Vatican 3257 marginalia. 12th century. Bamberg K.2. 10th century. Wolfenbüttel, Lat. Aug. 81.31. 15th century. Paris 7985. 15th century. Paris 9345. 10th–11th century. Paris 7975. 11th century.

Quintilian (FF 77a, 90, 93, CC 2, 14–15, 71, TT 9, 25–28, 53–54). From the edition of M. Winterbottom (OCT). A B

Milan, Ambrosianus E. 153 sup. 9th century. Bern 351. 9th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xl Sigl a G P

Supplement of Bamberg M. 4.14. 10th century. Paris 7723. 15th century.

Salvian, Letters (C 16). From the edition of G. Lagarrigue. Scholia Gronoviana in Ciceronis orationem pro Ligario (F 43). From the edition of T. Stangl. C

Leiden, Vossianus Q.138. 10th century.

Scholia ad Lucanum (F 46a, 53, 55). From the edition of I.  Endt, Adnotationes super Lucanum (Teubner). A D G P R U W

Paris 7900 A. 10th century. Berlin f. 35. 13th century. Brussels 5330–32. 10th century. Prague, University Library 1627 (VIII H 9). 12th century. Munich 14505. 11th century. Leiden, Vossianus XIX f. 63. 10th century. Augsburg, Wallerstein I 2. 11th–12th century.

Scholium Vratisl. ad Lucanum (F 89). From the edition of C. F. Weber. Seneca the Elder (FF 61–2, 91–2, TT 4, 15). From the edition of L.  Håkanson (Teubner). A Antwerp 411. 10th–11th century. B Brussels 9581–95. 9th century. D Brussels 9144. 15th century. E Excerpta. M Montpellier H 126. 9th century (excerpts). T Brussels 2025. 13th century. V Vatican 3872. 9th century. Seneca the Younger, Epistulae (TT 2, 18). From the edition of L. D. Reynolds (OCT). B C D E Q R W X

Bamberg V.14. 9th century. Vatican, Palatinus 869. 12th century. Baltimore 114. 13th century. Avranches 239. 12th century. Brescia, Quirinianus B. II. 6. 10th century. Rouen 931. 12th century. Vienna 123. 12th century. Florence, Laurentianus 45.24. 12th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigl a  xli Seneca the Younger, De Tranquillitate Animi (F 54), De Ira (F 74). From the edition of L. D. Reynolds (OCT). A R V

Milan, Ambrosianus C.90 inf. 11th century. Vatican 2215. 14th century. Vatican 2214. 14th century.

Seneca the Younger, De Beneficiis (T 17). From the edition of F. Préchac. N Vatican, Palatinus 1547. 9th century. Seneca the Younger, Natural Questions (F 20, C 50). From the edition of H. M. Hine (Teubner). A B F H P R U V W Z

Leiden, Vossianus O.55. 12th century. Bamberg M.IV.16. 12th century. Oxford, Merton College 250. 12th century. Paris 8624-I. 12th century. Paris 6628. 12th-13th century. Escurial O.III.2. 13th century. Munich 11049. 15th century. Vatican, Palatinus 1579. 12th–13th century. Venice, Marcianus Z.268. 14th century. Geneva 77. 12th century.

Q. Serenus, Liber Medicinalis (F 35). From the edition of R. Pépin. A

Turin W 78. 9th century.

‘Sergius’, Explanationes in Donatum (F 82). From the edition of H. Keil (Grammatici Latini). L

St Paul in Lavantal 2, 1. 8th century.

Servius, ad Verg. Aen. 1–8 (FF 5–7, 12, 14, 29, 69–70, 73, 76, CC 3–4, 8–9, 17, 19, 24, 36, 67, TT 38a, 59, 65a). From the edition of G. Thilo. A B C D F G H K L

Karlsruhe 116. 9th century. Bern 363. 9th century. Kassel Ms. Poet. Fol. 6. 9th century. Paris 7965. 15th century. Paris 7929. 9th century. Bern 167. 9th century. Hamburg 52. 11th century. Karlsruhe 186. 9th century. Leiden B.P 52. 8th–9th century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

xlii Sigl a M P R S T

Munich 6394. 11th century. Paris 1750. 9th–10th century. Vatican, Reginensis 1674. 10th century. St Gall, 861/2. 10th century. Bern 165. 9th century.

Servius, ad Verg. Aen. 9–12 (FF 25, 84, CC 5–6, 20, 28, 45). From the edition of C. E. Murgia and R. A. Kaster. A E F G J L M N O Ottob. Pa Pb Pc Q U W Y

Karlsruhe, Aug. 116. 9th century. Escorial T.II.17. 9th century. Paris 7929. 9th century. Bern 167. 9th century. Metz 292. 9th century. Leiden B.P 52. 8th–9th century. Munich 6394. 11th century. Naples 5. 10th century. Oxford, Bodleian Laud. 117. 11th century. Vatican, Ottobonianus 1290. 15th century. Paris 7959. 9th century. Paris 16236. 10th–11th century. Paris 7961. 10th–11th century. Florence, Laurentianus Pluteus 45.14. 9th century. Berlin, lat. Quart. 219. 12th century. Guelph 2091. 13th century. Trent 3388. 9th century.

Servius, ad Verg. Ecl. & Geo. (FF 40, 81, CC 7, 22, 31). From the edition of G. Thilo. A B H M P V

Karlsruhe 116. 9th century. Bern 363. 9th century. Hamburg 52. 11th century. Munich 6394. 11th century. Paris 7959. 9th century. Vatican 3317. 10th century.

Sidonius Apollinaris (TT 43–45). From the edition of P. Mohr. C F M P

Madrid BNac 9449. 10th–11th century. Paris 9551. 12th century. Florence, Laurentianus S. Marci 554. 10th century. Paris 2781. 10th–11th century.

Statius, Silvae (T 21). From the edition of E. Courtney (OCT).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Sigl a  xliii Suetonius (TT 8, 16, 24a). From the edition of R. A. Kaster (OCT). Suidas (FF 18b, 27b, TT 5, 52). From the edition of A. Adler. Symmachus (TT 35–36). From the edition of J.-P. Callu (Budé).

Γ Giphaniensis (manu script. ed. Lectii 1587 = Parma 1383, II, IX 2; ed. Scioppii 1608). Π Divionensis (ed. Iureti 1580). Syncellus (T 51). From the edition of A. A. Mosshammer (Teubner). Tacitus, Agricola (F 36). From the edition of R. M. Ogilvie (OCT). A B e

Vatican 3429. 15th century. Vatican 4498. 15th century. Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, Vittorio Emanuele 1631. Previously known as Aesinas 8. 15th century (other parts from 9th century).

Tacitus, Annals 4 (T 7). From the edition of A. J. Woodman. M Florence, Laurentianus Mediceus 68.1. 9th century. Valerius Maximus (F 9). From the edition of J. Briscoe (Teubner). A G L N

Bern 366. 9th century. Brussels, Royal Library 5336. 11th century. Florence, Laurentianus Ashburn 1899. 9th century. Nepotianus. Vatican 1321. 14th century.

Velleius Paterculus (TT 13–14). From the edition of W. S. Watt (Teubner). M A B P

Murbach codex (lost). Prob. 8th century. Basel A.N. II.38. 1516. Readings appended to P, drawn from M by J. A. Burer. Editio princeps (Basel, 1520/1).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Text and Translation

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments LIBER XI F1 col. I

col. II

[        ].e [       ]ens [± 4/5].nt ha[u]t pro[cul G]abiis [u]rbe. cu(m) [Ga]bios novos exer[cit]us indictus [e]ṣset ibique centuriati milites essent, cum duob(us) milib(us) pe[.]ditum profect[u]s in agru(m) suom cons[ul . . . ]

p[ n[ c.[ ce[ u.[

u[ h[ .[ o[

C  PNaqlun inv. 15/86 saec. V ]ens C ing]ens Bravo | [  ]nṭ C ei era]nt Bravo | ḥa[u]t C ha[u]d Bravo  |  pro[cul G]abiis [u]rbe Meyer | [Ga]bios Bravo [. .]ụịos C | exer[cit]us indictus [e]ṣset Bravo | profect[u]s Cra­w­ ford | cons[ul Bravo cons[uluit Gigante

F2 col. I

col. II ]ị ]ui ]e ]c̣as ]e

].a̅

g[ aṛ[ se[d] reaps[e ± 4/5] tam eo dicto f [ac-] turum quoa[d in-] iussu suo in pr[ovi(n)-] cia maneat, et [si] pergat dicto non

C  PNaqlun inv. 15/86 saec. V se[d] ṛẹapṣ[e Bravo | -]tam C nega-]tam Griffin veti-]tam Bravo  |  ẹo [[e]]dic̣ṭọ f̣ [ac-]turum quoa[d in-]iussu suo in pṛ[ovi(n)-]cia maneat, et [si] Bravo

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

BOOK 11 F1 . . . not far from the city of Gabii. Since it was at Gabii that the new army had been ordered to assemble and the soldiers had been organized in centuries, the consul set off with two thousand infantrymen for his own land . . .

F2 . . . but in reality forbidden (?) by that decree, he [sc. Fabius] would be doing as long as he remained in the province without his [sc. Postumius’] authorization, and if he continued to disobey the command, he [sc. Postumius] would exert his authority against him. Fabius, after receiving these instructions . . .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

4 te xt parer[e], [s]e [i]n praese(n)tem �in�hibiturum

]ṇus ]. .

imper[i]um. Fabius, [acc]eptis manda[tis      ]

]ị

parer[e], [s]e [i]n Bravo parer[.] [i]n C [s]e add. super linea, fortasse m.2 | �in�hiḅiturum Bravo hạḅiturum C  |  imper[i]um. Fabius, [acc]eptis mandạ-[tis Bravo

LIBER XIII F 3 (= 3 W-­M, 2 J) Prisc., Inst. 15.11 (69 K) Livius in XIII: privato nos tenuissemus. in XIII om. G in om. LK

LIBER XIV ? F 4 (= 14 W-­M, 13 J) Gelasius Papa, Epist. adv. Andromachum 11–12 dic mihi: cum saepenumero in Romanis historiis legatur, Livio auctore, saepissime in hac urbe exorta pestilentia infinita hominum milia deperisse, atque eo frequenter ventum ut vix esset unde illis bellicosis temporibus exercitus potuisset adscribi, illo tempore deo tuo Februario minime litabatur an etiam cultus hic omnino nihil proderat? illo tempore Lupercalia non celebrabantur? nec enim dicturus es haec sacra adhuc illo tempore non coepisse, quae ante Romulum ab Evandro in Italiam perhibentur illata. Lupercalia autem propter quid instituta sunt, quantum ad ipsius superstitionis commenta respectat, Livius in secunda decade loquitur; nec propter morbos inhibendos commemorat, sed propter sterilitatem, ut ei videtur, mulierum, quae tunc acciderat, eximendam. auctore Cerafa orare V oratore Günther | celebrabantur Thiel celebrantur V  |  non coepisse quae O2 cepisse qui V | respectat Günther respectant V | eximendam Thiel exhibenda V exigendam Lobbe exsolvendam Weissenborn

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  5

BOOK 13 F 3 (= 3 W-­M, 2 J) Livy in Book 13: ‘we (I) would have remained at home’.

BOOK 14? F 4 (= 14 W-­M, 13 J) Tell me: since one frequently reads in the Roman histories, those authored by Livy, that very often in this city countless thousands of people perished from plagues that started up, and it often reached such a state that in those warlike times it was scarcely possible to conscript an army, is it the case that no one propitiated that god of yours, Februarius, at that time, or was it that even this ceremony was of absolutely no use? Was the Lupercalia not celebrated at that time? For you are not going to tell me that these rites had still not started at that time, which they say were brought to Italy by Evander before the time of Romulus. But Livy in his Second Decade speaks of the reasons for the introduction of the Lupercalia, paying regard to the fictions of that superstition, and he records that it was not in order to prevent diseases, but, in his view, to eradicate the female sterility which had occurred at that time.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

6 te xt

LIBER XVI F 5 (= 4 W-­M, 3 J) Serv. auct., Aen. 1.343; cf. Mythogr. Vat. 1.214 nam Sychaeus Sicarbas dictus est; Belus, Didonis pater, Mettes; Carthago Cartha, ut lectum est et in historia Poenorum et in Livio. Betus . . . lectum est om. g: suppl. C3 | Mettes LH metthes BC3 methes M | Cartha CM ex Serv. ad Aen. IV 670 Caracha B Caraca LH

F 6 (= 5 W-­M, 4 J) Serv., Aen. 1.366 Carthago est lingua Poenorum nova civitas, ut docet Livius.

F 7 (= 6 W-­M, 5 J) Serv., Aen. 1.738 Bitias classis Punicae fuit praefectus, ut docet Livius.

LIBER XVII F 8 (= 7 W-­M, 6 J) Prisc., Inst. 14.38 (44 K) pridie Nonas, pridie Idus. Livius ab urbe condita XVII.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  7

BOOK 16 F 5 (= 4 W-­M, 3 J) For Sychaeus was called Sicarbas; Belus, Dido’s father, was called Mettes; and Carthage was called Cartha, as one can read in the history of the Carthaginians and in Livy.

F 6 (= 5 W-­M, 4 J) Carthage is ‘New City’ in the language of the Carthaginians, as Livy informs us.

F 7 (= 6 W-­M, 5 J) Bitias was the commander of the Punic fleet, as Livy informs us.

BOOK 17 F 8 (= 7 W-­M, 6 J) The day before the Nones, the day before the Ides. Livy: Ab Urbe Condita Book 17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

8 te xt

LIBER XVIII F 9 (= 9 W-­M, 8 J) Val. Max. 1.8 ext. 19 quae quia supra usitatam rationem excedentia attigimus, serpentis quoque a T. Livio curiose pariter ac facunde relatae fiat mentio: is enim ait in Africa apud Bagradam flumen �anguem⟩ tantae magnitudinis fuisse ut Atili Reguli exercitum usu amnis prohiberet, multisque militibus ingenti ore correptis, compluribus caudae voluminibus elisis, cum telorum iactu perforari nequiret, ad ultimum ballistarum tormentis undique petitam silicum crebris et ponderosis verberibus ­procubuisse, omnibusque et cohortibus et legionibus ipsa Carthagine visam terribiliorem, atque etiam cruore suo gurgitibus imbutis corporisque iacentis pestifero adflatu vicina regione polluta Romana inde summovisse castra. adicit beluae corium centum et viginti pedum in urbem missum. Bagradam N Bagrada ALG | anguem tantae magnitudinis Luterbacher tantae magnitudinis ALG tantae magnitudinis anguem dett. tantae anguem magnitudinis Hertz eam tantae magnitudinis Rossbach | adicit Foertsch dicit ALG

F 10 (= 8 W-­M, 7 J) Char., Gramm. 122.9–14 Barwick; cf. Beda, De Orthographia 276 K, Anon. ap. Barth Adversaria 37.14 inberbi autem dicuntur, non imberbes . . . Titus Livius autem XVIII ‘inberbis’ singulariter. singulariter Keil vulgariter Np cf. Beda Titus Livius autem inberbis singulariter

LIBER XIX F 11 (= 10 W-­M, 9 J) Cens. 17.10

tertii ludi fuerunt, Antiate Livioque auctoribus, P. Claudio Pulchro L. Iunio Pullo consulibus, �anno quingentesimo quinto, at ad XVvirorum commentarios� anno quingentesimo duodevicensimo P. Cornelio Lentulo C. Licinio Varo consulibus. anno quingentesimo quinto, at ad XVvirorum commentarios add. Jahn

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  9

BOOK 18 F 9 (= 9 W-­M, 8 J) Because we have touched on these matters that exceed the usual measure, let me refer also to the snake that Titus Livy describes with no less precision than eloquence. He says that in Africa at the River Bagrada there was a snake of such size that it kept the army of Atilius Regulus from using the river. Many soldiers were seized in its huge mouth, and a number were crushed by the coils of its tail; since it could not be pierced by the throwing of weapons, in the end it was attacked from every side by the missiles of catapults and succumbed under the frequent and heavy blows of the rocks. For all the cohorts and legions its appearance more dreadful than Carthage itself; and, because the river currents were stained with its blood and the neighbourhood was polluted by the poisonous vapour from the corpse, it caused the Roman camp to be moved away from the area. Livy adds that the skin of the beast, which was more than 120 feet long, was sent to the City.

F 10 (= 8 W-­M, 7 J) People are described as inberbi, not imberbes . . . But Livy in Book 18 uses inberbis as the singular.

BOOK 19 F 11 (= 10 W-­M, 9 J) The third [Secular] Games, according to Antias [FRHist 25 F 26 = fr. 22P] and Livy, were in the consulship of P. Claudius Pulcher and L. Junius Pullus, in the 505th year, but according to the commentarii of the quindecimvirs, in the 518th year, in the consulship of P. Cornelius Lentulus and C. Licinius Varus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

10 te xt F 12 (= 11 W-­M, 10 J) Serv., Aen. 6.198 nam Romani moris fuit et in comitiis agendis et in bellis gerendis pullaria captare auguria. unde est in Livio quod, cum quidam cupidus belli gerendi a tribuno plebis arceretur ne iret, pullos iussit adferri. qui cum missas non ederent fruges, irridens consul augurium ait, ‘vel bibant’; et eos praecipitavit in Tiberim. inde navibus victor revertens in mari cum omnibus quos ducebat exstinctus est. revertens Thilo  revertens ad Africam tendens RHM  |  cum omnibus quos ducebat exstinctus est RH cum omni periit exercitu in mari cum omnibus quos ducebat extinctus est M

LIBER X X F 13 (= 12 W-­M, 11 J) Anonymus, Collectio Juris Canonici par. 417 (ex codice Parisiensi Latino 3858C, 37v) Livius libro xxo: P. Cloelius patricius primus adversus veterem morem intra septimum cognationis gradum duxit uxorem. ob hoc M.  Rutilius plebeius sponsam sibi praeripi novo exemplo nuptiarum dicens seditionem populi concitavit, adeo ut patres territi in Capitolium perfugerent. xxo P sed fortasse melius xio: vid. comm. | Cloelius Krüger Celius P

F 14 (= 13 W-­M, 12 J) Serv., Aen. 6.859 possumus et, quod est melius, secundum legem Numae hunc locum accipere, qui praecepit prima opima spolia Iovi Feretrio debere suspendi, quod iam Romulus fecerat; secunda Marti, quod Cossus fecit; tertia Quirino, quod fecit Marcellus . . .  varie de hoc loco tractant commentatores, Numae legis immemores, cuius facit mentionem et Livius. Cossus fecit ASHM  fecit Cossus F | fecit Marcellus ASHM  Marcellus fecit F | et Livius AS et Livias H et Libius F om. M (in marg. suppl. m)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  11 F 12 (= 11 W-­M, 10 J) For it was the Roman custom, both when holding assemblies and when wa­ging war, to take auguries from chickens. Hence the story is in Livy that, when a certain person, who was anxious to wage war, was prevented from going by the tribune of the people, he ordered the chickens to be brought. When they did not eat the food they were offered, the consul, mocking the augury, said, ‘In that case let them drink!’, and threw them into the Tiber. In consequence, when he was returning victorious with his fleet, he was wiped out at sea, along with all those he was commanding.

BOOK 20 F 13 (= 12 W-­M, 11 J) Livy in Book 20: The patrician P. Cloelius was the first, contrary to the ancient custom, to marry a woman within the seventh degree of relationship. On account of this the plebeian M. Rutilius, saying that this unprecedented marriage had torn away his fiancée from him, raised a sedition among the people, to the point that the senators in terror escaped to the Capitol.

F 14 (= 13 W-­M, 12 J) We can also—­a better solution—­understand this passage according to a law of Numa, who decreed that the first spolia opima were to be hung up for Jupiter Feretrius, which Romulus had already done, the second to Mars, which Cossus did, the third to Quirinus, which Marcellus did . . . Commentators explain the passage in a variety of ways, in ignorance of the law of Numa, which Livy too mentions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

12 te xt

LIBER XLIX F 15 (= 15 W-­M, 14 J) Cens. 17.11 de quartorum ludorum anno triplex opinio est. Antias enim et Varro et Livius relatos esse prodiderunt L. Marcio Censorino M’. Manilio consulibus, post Romam conditam anno sescentesimo quinto. at Piso Censorius et Cn. Gellius sed et Cassius Hemina, qui illo tempore vivebat, post annum factos tertium adfirmant Cn. Cornelio Lentulo Lucio Mummio Achaico cons., id est anno DCVIII; in XVvirorum autem commentariis notantur sub anno DCXXVIII �M.� Aemilio Lepido L. Aurelio Oreste cons. vivebat codd. vivebant Sigonius | DCVIII Manutius DCIII codd. | DCXXVIII Vinetus DCXXIII C DCXXVIIII OQIGU | M. add. Manutius

LIBER LVI F 16 (= 16 W-­M, 15 J) Prisc., Inst. 18.264 (344 K) Livius LVI ab urbe condita: Q. Pompeius morbum excusasse ferunt ne, cum interessent deditioni, animos Numantinorum irritaret. LVI M LVII VRO XLVI N | Q. Hertz q̅ VR quae O qui MN

LIBER L X XVI F 17 (= 17 W-­M, 16 J) Plu., Sull. 6.10

καὶ παρελθὼν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὕπατος μὲν ἀποδείκνυται μετὰ Κοΐντου Πομπηΐου, πεντήκοντα ἔτη γεγονώς, γαμεῖ δὲ γάμον ἐνδοξότατον Καικιλίαν τὴν Μετέλλου θυγατέρα τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. ἐϕ’ ᾧ πολλὰ μὲν εἰς αὐτὸν ᾖδον οἱ δημοτικοί, πολλοὶ δὲ τῶν πρώτων ἐνεμέσων, οὐκ ἄξιον ἡγούμενοι τῆς γυναικὸς ὃν ἄξιον ὑπατείας ἔκριναν, ὥς ϕησιν ὁ Τίτος.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  13

BOOK 49 F 15 (= 15 W-­M, 14 J) There are three different opinions about the year of the fourth [Secular] Games. Antias [FRHist 25 F 64 = fr. 55P] and Varro and Livy have recorded that they were held in the consulship of L. Marcius Censorinus and M’. Manilius, in the 605th year after Rome’s foundation. However, Piso Censorinus [FRHist 9 F 41 = fr. 39P] and Cn. Gellius [FRHist 14 F 30 = fr. 28P] and moreover Cassius Hemina [FRHist 6 F 40 = fr. 39P] (who lived at the time) state that they were held three years later, in the consulship of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and Lucius Mummius Achaicus—­in other words in the 608th year; while in the commentarii of the quindecimvirs it is listed under the year 628, in the consulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Aurelius Orestes.

BOOK 56 F 16 (= 16 W-­M, 15 J) Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 56: ‘They say that Q. Pompeius offered illness as an excuse, out of concern that, when they were present at the surrender, he would be a ­provocation to the Numidians’.

BOOK 76 F 17 (= 17 W-­M, 16 J) And when he [Sulla] returned to the city he was appointed consul with Quintus Pompeius, at the age of fifty, and he made a most distinguished marriage to Caecilia, the daughter of the pontifex maximus Metellus. According to Titus [Livy], the commoners sang many songs targeting him with regard to the marriage, and many of the leading citizens were resentful, thinking a man whom they judged worthy of the consulship to be unworthy of his wife.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

14 te xt

LIBER L X XVI/L X XVII F 18 (= 18 W-­M, 17 J) (a)  John of Antioch, Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica fr. 145.2.63–73 (Roberto) = 98.7 (Mariev); cf. Excerpta Planudea 37 (ap. Boissevain (1895), cxxi)

ἐπισημῆναι δὲ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων κακῶν ϕορὰν ἄλλα τε πολλὰ Λίβιός τε καὶ Διόδωρος ἱστόρησαν καὶ ἐξ ἀνεϕέλου τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ αἰθρίας πολλῆς ἦχον ἀκουσθῆναι σάλπιγγος, ὀξὺν ἀποτεινούσης καὶ θρηνώδη ϕθόγγον. καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀκούσαντας ἅπαντας ἔκϕρονας ὑπὸ τοῦ δέους γενέσθαι; τοὺς δὲ Τυρρηνῶν μάντεις μεταβολὴν τοῦ γένους καὶ μετακόσμησιν ἀποϕήνασθαι σημαίνειν τὸ τέρας. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων ὀκτὼ γένη, διαϕερόντων τοῖς βίοις καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀλλήλων; ἑκάστῳ δὲ ἀϕωρίσθαι χρόνον ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, συμπεραινόμενον ἐνιαυτοῦ μεγάλου περιόδῳ. τῆς δ’ οὖν προτέρας περιόδου τελευτώσης καὶ ἑτέρας ἐνισταμένης κινεῖσθαί τι σημεῖον ἐκ γῆς ἢ οὐρανοῦ θαυμάσιον, ᾧ δῆλον εὐθὺς τοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα σοϕοῖς γίνεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ τρόποις ἄλλοις καὶ βίοις ἄνθρωποι χρώμενοι γεγόνασι καὶ θεοῖς ἧττον τῶν προτέρων μέλοντες. (b) Suid. Σ 1337 (Adler)

ἐπισημῆναι δὲ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων κακῶν ϕορὰν Λίβιός ϕησι καὶ Διόδωρος. ἐξ ἀνεϕέλου τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ αἰθρίας πολλῆς ἦχον ἀκουσθῆναι σάλπιγγος, ὀξὺν ἀποτεινούσης καὶ θρηνώδη ϕθόγγον. καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἀκούσαντας ἅπαντας ἔκϕρονας ὑπὸ δέους γενέσθαι; τοὺς δὲ Τυρρηνῶν μάντεις μεταβολὴν τοῦ γένους καὶ μετακόσμησιν ἀποϕήνασθαι σημαίνειν τὸ τέρας. εἶναι μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων ηʹ γένη, διαϕέροντα τοῖς βίοις καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀλλήλων; ἑκάστῳ δὲ ἀϕωρίσθαι χρόνον ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, συμπεραινόμενον ἐνιαυτοῦ μεγάλου περιόδῳ. τῆς γοῦν προτέρας περιόδου τελευτώσης καὶ ἑτέρας ἐνισταμένης, κινεῖσθαί τι σημεῖον ἐκ γῆς ἢ οὐρανοῦ θαυμάσιον, ὃ δῆλον εὐθὺς τοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα σοϕοῖς γίνεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ τρόποις ἄλλοις καὶ βίοις ἄνθρωποι χρώμενοι γεγόνασι καὶ θεοῖς ἧττον τῶν προτέρων μέλονται. ἄλλα τε πολλὰ Lambros ex excerpta Planudea  ἃ Cod. Iviron 812

LIBER L X XVII F 19 (= 19 W-­M, 18 J) Aug., Civ. 2.24 Sulla . . . cum primum ad urbem contra Marium castra movisset, adeo laeta exta immolanti fuisse scribit Livius, ut custodiri se Postumius haruspex voluerit capitis supplicium subiturus, nisi ea, quae in animo Sulla haberet, diis iuvantibus implevisset.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  15

BOOK 76/77 F 18 (= 18 W-­M, 17 J) (a) Both Livy and Diodorus [38/39.5] recounted that, among many other signs of the crop of evils that was about to begin, the sound of a trumpet was heard from a cloudless and entirely clear sky, prolonging a shrill and lamentous note. And all those who heard it went insane with fear; and the prophets of the Etruscans announced that the omen signified change and revolution of the age. For there are eight ages of men, who differ from each other in their lives and their habits. The god has made for each one a separate time, completed in the cycle of a great year. When the previous cycle ends and another begins, a certain miraculous sign is moved on earth or in heaven, by which it becomes instantly clear to those learned in such matters that humans different in their lives and in their customs have been born, being less of a concern to the gods than their predecessors. (b) Livy and Diodorus [38/39.5] say that there was a sign of the crop of evils that was about to begin: the sound of a trumpet was heard from a cloudless and entirely clear sky, prolonging a shrill and lamentous note. And all those who heard it went insane with fear; and the prophets of the Etruscans announced that the omen signified change and revolution of the age. For there are eight ages of men, each of which differs from the others in lives and in habits. The god has made for each one a separate time, completed in the cycle of a great year. When the previous cycle ends and another begins, a certain miraculous sign is moved on earth or in heaven, which becomes instantly clear to those learned in such matters that humans different in their lives and in their customs have been born and they are less of a concern to the gods than their predecessors.

BOOK 77 F 19 (= 19 W-­M, 18 J) Livy writes that as soon as Sulla . . . moved his camp towards the city against Marius, the entrails were so propitious when he sacrificed that the haruspex Postumius was willing to be put in custody and to be executed if Sulla, with the gods’ support, failed to fulfil the intentions he had in mind.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

16 te xt

LIBER L X X X F 20 (= 58 W-­M, 19 J) Sen., Nat. 5.18.4 quod de C. Mario vulgo dictatum est et a T. Livio positum, in incerto esse utrum illum magis nasci an non nasci e re publica fuerit, dici etiam de ventis potest. de C. Mario vulgo Oltramare de·G·mariorvolgo Z  de Caesare maiori BW  decens maiori AVFHPU |  dictatum est om. H  dictum est Z  |  an non nasci om. HAB

LIBER L X X XIII F 21 (= 20 W-­M, 20 J) Aug., Civ. 3.7 eversis quippe et incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Minervae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Livius, integrum stetisse perhibetur.

LIBER XCI F 22 (= 21 W-­M, 22 J) Frontin., Strat. 2.5.31 hoc primum proelium inter Sertorium et Pompeium fuit. decem milia hominum de Pompeii exercitu amissa et omnia impedimenta Livius auctor est.

F 23 (= 22 W-­M, 21 J)

1. �nocte� tamen insequenti, ipso pervigilante, in eodem loco alia excitata turris prima luce miraculo hostibus fuit. simul et oppidi turris quae maximum propugnaculum fuerat, subrutis fundamentis, dehiscere ingentibus rimis et tum [xiii–xiv litt.]ịṇ[i–ii litt.]ṣọ[v litt.]ịạm igni coepit; incendique simul et ruinae metu territi V  Codex Vaticanus Palatinus 24 1 nocte add. Giovenazzi | tum [xiii–xiv litt.]ịṇ[i–ii litt.]ṣọ[v litt.]ịạm V tum �demum praebere� in�fu�so �mater�iam Levene tum �procumbere coniec�to �pas�sim (vel �cir�cum) R. P. H. Green tum �inflammari (vel concremari) iniec�to (vel concep�to) �pas�sim (vel �cir�cum) Ogilvie tu�gurium conflagrare correp�tum Niebuhr

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  17

BOOK 80 F 20 (= 58 W-­M, 19 J) What has been commonly said about C.  Marius and has been stated by Titus Livy—­that it is unclear whether it would have been more in the national interest that he was born or that he was not born—­might equally be said about the winds.

BOOK 83 F 21 (= 20 W-­M, 20 J) For although all the cult statues were destroyed and burned along with the town, that of Minerva alone, as Livy writes, is said to have stood intact under the massive ruin of her temple.

BOOK 91 F 22 (= 21 W-­M, 22 J) This was the first battle between Sertorius and Pompey. According to Livy, ten thousand men were lost from Pompey’s army, along with the entire baggage-­train.

F 23 (= 22 W-­M, 21 J) 1. But during the following night, which he [Sertorius] spent awake, another tower was erected in the same location; at dawn the enemy thought a marvel had occurred. At the same time, one of the town’s towers, which had been its most important bulwark, had had its foundations undermined, and it started to gape with huge crevices and then [the tower itself ?] began to [provide fuel?] for the fire [that had been set into

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

18 te xt Contrebienses de muro trepidi refugerunt; et ut legati mitterentur ad dedendam urbem ab universa multitudine conclamatum est. 2. eadem virtus quae inritaverat oppugnantem victorem placabiliorem fecit. obsidibus acceptis pecuniae modicam exegit summam armaque omnia ademit. transfugas liberos vivos ad se adduci iussit; fugitivos, quorum maior multitudo erat, ipsis imperavit ut interficerent. iugulatos de muro deiecerunt. 3. cum magna iactura militum quattuor et quadraginta diebus Contrebia expugnata, relictoque ibi L. Insteio q̣ụị p̣ṛ�aeesset oppido� ipse ad Hiberum flumen copias reduxit. ibi hibernaculis secundum oppidum quod Castra Aelia vocatur aedificatis ipse in castris manebat; interdum conventum sociarum civitatium in oppido agebat. 4. arma ut fierent pro copiis cuiusque populi per totam provinciam edixerat; quibus inspectis referre vetera arma milites iussit, quae aut itineribus crebris aut oppu[c. xxx litt.] facta erant, novaque iis per centuriones divisit. equitatum quoque novis instruxit armis, vestimentaque praeparata ante divisa, et stipendium datum. 5. fabros cum cura conquisitos undique exciverat, quibus in officina publica inc̣ḷụṣịṣ �opus d�ịṿịṣịṭ ratione inita quid in singulos dies effici posset. itaque omnia simul instrumenta belli parabantur; neque materia artificibus praeparatis ante omnibus enixo civitatium studio, nec suo quisque operi artifex deerat. 6. convocatis deinde omnium populorum legationibus et civitatium, gratias egit quod quae imperata essent sine detrectatione praesti�tissent�; quas ipse res �in adiuvandis sociis� quasque in oppugnandis urbibus hostium gessisset exposuit et ad reliqua belli cohortatus est paucis edoctos quantum Hispaniae provinciae interesset suas partes superiores esse. 7. dimisso deinde conventu, iussisque omnibus [i litt.]ṛạ[xiii–xiv litt.] in civitate�s� �conve�ṛṭẹre suas, principio veris M.  Perpernam cum viginti milibus peditum, equitibus mille quingentis, in Ilercaonum gentem misit ad tuendam regionis eius maritimam oram, datis praeceptis quibus itineribus duceret ad defendendas socias urbes quas Pompeius oppugnaret, quibusque ipsum agmen Pompei ex insidiis adgrederetur.

2 quae inritaverat oppugnantem Weiske quae inritantem oppugnaverat V qua inritante oppugnaverat Madvig || 3 Contrebia Vc Contebria V  |  qui pr�aeesset oppido� Levene q̣ụị p̣ṛ[xi–xii litt.] V qui oppido praeesset Ogilvie, cf. 27.43.12 cum modico praesidio Kreyssig | interdum Levene interdiu V   ||  4 fierent Vc fieret V | oppu[c. xxx litt.] V �oppugnationibus continuis inutilia� coniecit Ogilvie, nisi fracta scribendum est (cf. 21.40.9) �oppugnationibus et proeliis inutilia� Niebuhr | iis Madvig periis V viris Niebuhr   ||  5 inclusis �opus div�isit Mommsen inc̣ḷụṣịṣ [vi litt.]ịṣịṭ V instituta uteretur Niebuhr | civitatium Bruns civitium V   ||  6 sine detrectatione praesti�tissent� proponit Mommsen ex litteris male conservatis in pedestres copias praesti�tissent� Niebuhr | ipse res �in adiuvandis sociis� C. B. R.  Pelling ipse res [xvii–xviii litt.] V ipse res �in defendendis sociis� Niebuhr ipsi res �fortiter fecissent� Mommsen | gessisset fortasse gessissent | quantum Bruns quatum V   ||  7 [i litt.]ṛạ[xiii–xiv litt.] V �p�ra�eparatis animis� Levene �bono animo esse atque� Niebuhr | civitate�s� Bruns civitate[i litt.] V | �conve�ṛṭẹre A.  J.  Woodman per litteras [. . . . . .]re V �reve�ṛṭẹre Krüger �redi�re Niebuhr �discede�re H. J. Müller �decede�re Ogilvie | Ilercaonum Bruns Ilurcaonum V | Pompeius edd.; hic et alibi V scribit Ponpeius

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  19 it?]. The Contrebienses were panicked out of fear of the blaze and the collapse, and in terror retreated from the wall. The entire people shouted that envoys should be sent to surrender the city. 2. The same courage which had caused annoyance to the victor when he was attacking made him more amenable; he took hostages and made them pay a moderate amount of money and took away all their weapons. He ordered all free deserters to be handed over to him alive; but with runaway slaves, who formed the majority, he commanded the people to put them to death. They slit their throats and threw them from the wall. 3. Contrebia had been attacked for forty-­four days, with considerable military casualties. L. Insteius was left there [to be in charge of the town?]; Sertorius himself led his army back to the river Ebro. There he built winter quarters next to the town called Castra Aelia, and remained there himself in camp, though he occasionally held meetings of allied states in the town. 4. He had proclaimed that throughout the whole province weapons should be produced in proportion to each people’s resources; after they had been examined, he ordered the soldiers to return their old weapons, which had been rendered [useless?] either by frequent marches or [by constant sieges?], and distributed new ones to them via the centurions. He also equipped the cavalry with new weapons, and distributed clothing that had been prepared previously, and gave them their pay. 5. He had assiduously sought out craftsmen and summoned them from every quarter; he put them into public workshops and divided tasks among them, on the basis of what could be produced day by day. In this way all the materials for war were being prepared at the same time, and all the craftsmen who had been readied in advance by the strenuous efforts of the states had the material they needed, and every craftsman had his own work to do. 6. After that, Sertorius summoned delegations from every tribe and state, and thanked them for unhesitatingly providing what he had ordered. He set out the things that he had personally done in support of his allies and in attacking the enemies’ cities and he urged them on for the remainder of the war, after briefly explaining to them how important it was for the province of Spain that their side should prevail. 7. Then, after dismissing the meeting, and ordering everyone to [prepare themselves and?] return to their own states, he sent M. Perperna at the beginning of spring with twenty thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry to the people of Ilercaona, so that they could guard the sea-­coast of that region; he gave him instructions as to the routes he should take to defend the allied cities that Pompey was going to attack, and the ones he could use to attack from ambush Pompey’s own marching column.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

20 te xt 8. eodem tempore et ad Herennium, qui in isdem locis erat, litteras misit et in alteram provinciam ad L.  Hirtuleium, praecipiens quem ad modum bellum administrari vellet; ante omnia ut ita socias civitates tueretur ne ạc̣ịẹ c̣ụṃ Ṃ�etello dimi�caret, cui nec auctoritate nec viribus par esset; ne ipsi quidem consilium esse ducere �a�ḍversus Pompeium. neque in aciem descensurum eum credebat. 9. si traheretur bellum, hosti, cum mare ab tergo provinciasque omnes in potestate haberet, navibus undique commeatus venturos; ipsi autem, consumptis priore aestate quae praeparata fuissent, omnium rerum inopiam fore. Perpernam in maritimam regionem superpositum ut ea quae integra adhuc ab hoste sint tueri posset et, si qua occasio detur, incautos per tempus adgressurum. 10. ipse cum suo exercitu in Berones et Autricones progredi statuit, a quibus saepe per hiemem, cum ab se oppugnarentur Celtiberiae urbes, inploratam esse opem Pompei conpererat missosque qui itinera exercitui Romano monstrarent; et ab ipsorum equitibus vexatos saepe milites suos, quocumque a castris per oppugnationem Contrebiae pabulandi aut frumentandi causa progressi essent. 11. transitum quoque sibi per Arvacos in Carpetaniam in expedito fore, unde velut ex bello consilium se initurum utrum prius hostem, utram provinciam �petat�, maritimamne oram ut Pompeium ab Ilercaonia et Contestania arceat, utraque socia gente, an ad Metellum et Lusitaniam se convertat. 12. haec secum agitans Sertorius praeter Hiberum amnem per pacatos agros quietum exercitum sine ullius noxa duxit. profectus inde in Bursaonum et ­ Cascantinorum et Graccuritanorum fines, evastatis omnibus proculcatisque segetibus, ad Calagurrim Nasicam, sociorum urbem, venit; transgressusque amnem propinquum urbi ponte facto castra posuit. 13. postero die M.  Marium quaestorem in Arvacos et Pelendones misit ad conscribendos ex iis gentibus milites, frumentumque inde Contrebiam, �qua�e Leucada appellatur, comportandum, praeter quam urbem opportunissimus ex Beronibus transitus erat, in quamcumque regionem ducere exercitum statuisset; et C. Insteium, praefectum equitum, Segoviam et in Vaccaeorum gentem ad equitum conquisi�tionem� ṃịṣịṭ. iussum cum equitibus Contrebiae sese opperiri. 14. dimissis iis ipse profectus, per Vasconum agrum ducto exerc�i�tu, in confinio Beronum posuit castra. postero die cum equitibus praegressus ad itinera exploranda, iusso pedite quadrato agmine sequi, ad Vareiam, validissimam regionis eius urbem, venit. haud inopinantibus iis ṇoc̣ṭụ advenerat. undique equitibus et suae gentis et Autrico�num� . . . 8 Herennium Münzer Herennuleium V | ạc̣ịẹ c̣ụṃ Ṃ�etello dimi�caret textum supplevit Bruns | �a�ḍversus Niebuhr [.].versus V | Pompeium in fine versus esse videtur, sed iam vel tam post latere credidit Krüger   ||  10–11 Autricones Vc Autricores V | paene omnia ab aut frumentandi usque ad unde velut nunc vix legi possunt, nisi quod . . . itum quoque et Arvacos in Car . . . et expedito satis appareant. ea quae hic edita, ab Krüger et Mommsen lecta aut coniecta sunt, sed Ogilvie progressi essent proposuit, ubi Krüger accessissent habet, alii quoque alia | Arvacos V Arevacos Weissenborn | petat add. Niebuhr | Lusitaniam Bruns Rusitaniam V  || 12 agros Vc agos V | segetibus Niebuhr segitibus V || 13 Pelendones Giovenazzi Cerindones V | �qua�e Niebuhr [ . . . ]e V | Insteium Bruns Instelum V | Vaccaeorum Bruns Vacaeorum V | conquisi�tionem� ṃịṣịṭ Bruns conquisi�. . . . .� ṃịṣịṭ V || 14 Beronum Bruns veronum V | ṇoc̣ṭụ Niebuhr ex verbo male conservato hostis legit Krüger | Autriconum Giovanezzi Autrico[ V

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  21 8. At the same time he sent letters to Herennius as well, who was in the same area, and to L. Hirtuleius in the other province, instructing him how he wanted the war to be conducted. His primary instruction was to defend the allied states in such a way as not to join battle with Metellus, since he was not his equal in either authority or strength. Even he himself was not planning to lead his army against Pompey, nor did he believe Pompey would go into battle. 9. If the war was prolonged, the enemy, since he had the sea in his rear and all the provinces in his power, would receive supplies in ships from every quarter; Sertorius himself, on the other hand, once he had used up all the supplies that had been prepared the previous summer, would be completely devoid of resources. So Perperna would be put in charge of the coastal region, so that he could protect from the enemy the parts that were still intact, and, if he had any opportunity, he should attack them unawares at the appropriate time. 10. Sertorius himself decided to advance with his army to the Berones and Autricones. While he was attacking the cities of the Celtiberi during the winter, he had learned that these peoples had regularly begged for help from Pompey, and that they had sent messengers to show the Roman army the routes; moreover, his soldiers had often been harassed by their cavalry, wherever they had advanced from the camp during the siege of Contrebia to find fodder and grain. 11. Also it would be easy for Sertorius himself to cross via the Arvaci into Carpetania, from where, depending how the war went, he could decide which of the two enemies and provinces to attack first, if it should be the coastal region in order to keep Pompey from Ilercaonia and Contestania, or if he should turn his attention to Metellus and Lusitania. 12. While he was privately debating these matters, Sertorius led his army peacefully along the river Ebro, through pacified territory, without doing harm to anyone. From there he set off for the territory of the Bursaoni and the Cascantini and the Graccuritani, devastating everything and trampling down the crops, and came to Calagurris Nasica, a city of his allies. He crossed the river near the city and pitched camp, after building a bridge. 13. On the following day he sent his quaestor M.  Marius to the Arvaci and Pelendones to enrol troops from those ­peoples, while grain needed to be brought in from there to Contrebia, which is called Leucada; there was a very convenient crossing from the Berones next to that city, which would give him access to whatever region he decided to lead his army. And he sent C.  Insteius, the prefect of the cavalry, to Segovia and to the people of the Vaccaei, in order to requisition cavalry, and he was ordered to meet him at Contrebia with the cavalry. 14. Once he had sent them away he himself set off, leading his army through the territory of the Vascones, and pitched camp in the borders of the Berones. On the next day he advanced with his cavalry to scout out the routes, ordering his infantry to follow him in square formation, and came to Vareia, the strongest city of that region. He had arrived by night, though they were well aware of him. From all sides, with cavalry both of their own nation and of the Autricones . . .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

22 te xt

LIBER XCI/ XCII/ XCIII F 24 (= 23 W-­M, 23 J) Ascon., Corn. 66–67C videntur autem in rebus parvis fuisse leges illae, quas cum tulisset, rettulit de eis abrogandis ad senatum. nam neque apud Sallustium neque apud Livium neque apud Fenestellam ullius alterius latae ab eo legis �est� mentio, praeter eam quam in consulatu �tulit invita� nobilitate, magno populi studio, ut eis �qui tribuni plebis� fuissent, alios quoque magistratus capere liceret, quod lex �a� dictatore L. Sulla paucis �ante annis� lata prohibebat: neque eam Cottae legem abrogatam esse significat. est add. Bücheler  |  in consulatu tulit invita Madvig in contione SPM in contione tulit invita Manutius non consentiente tulit Stangl | eis Manutius his SPM  |  qui tribuni plebis suppl. Manutius | capere liceret Manutius aliter et SPM | a add. Manutius | ante annis suppl. Manutius | prohibebat Manutius prohibebant SP | significat S significant PM

LIBER XCIV F 25 (= 24 W-­M, 24 J) Serv. auct., Aen. 9.715 et putatur nove dictum ‘Inarime’, quod et singulari numero et addita syllaba dixerit, cum Homerus εἰν Ἀρίμοις posuerit, ut prior syllaba praepositionis locum obtineat. Livius in libro nonagesimo quarto Inarimen in Maeoniae partibus esse dicit, ubi quinquaginta milia terrae igni exustae sunt. hoc etiam Homerum significasse vult. quinquaginta milia terrae FG quinquaginta milia iugera terrae Burman | Homerum Salmasius numerum F

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  23

BOOK 91/92/93 F 24 (= 23 W-­M, 23 J) Those laws which, after he had passed them, he referred to the Senate about repealing them, apparently related to trivial matters, since there is no mention in either Sallust [Hist. 2.49M] or Livy or Fenestella [FRHist 70 F 20 = fr.19P] of any other law passed by him apart from the one which he passed during his consulship, against the wishes of the nobility but with great popular enthusiasm, granting permission for people who had been tribunes of the people to acquire other offices as well (this had been forbidden by a law passed a few years previously by the dictator L. Sulla). But he [sc. Cicero] does not indicate that this law of Cotta had been repealed.

BOOK 94 F 25 (= 24 W-­M, 24 J) And it is thought that ‘Inarime’ is a recent name, in as much as he [Virgil] says it both in the singular and with an additional syllable, whereas Homer [Iliad 2.783] put down ‘among the Arimoi’: the first syllable takes the place of the preposition. Livy in Book 94 says that Inarime is in the region of Maeonia, where the land was burned by fire over a range of fifty miles. And he claims that Homer is also referring to this.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

24 te xt

LIBER XCVII F 26 (= 25 W-­M, 25 J) Frontin., Strat. 2.5.34 triginta quinque milia armatorum eo proelio interfecta cum ipsis ducibus Livius tradit. receptas quinque Romanas aquilas, signa sex et viginti, multa spolia inter quae quinque fasces cum securibus.

LIBER XCVIII F 27 (= 26 W-­M, 26 J) (a) Plu., Luc. 28.7

Λίουϊος δ’ εἴρηκεν ὡς οὐδέποτε Ῥωμαῖοι πολεμίοις ἀποδέοντες τοσοῦτον πλήθει παρετάξαντο; σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐδ’ εἰκοστόν, ἀλλ’ ἔλαττον ἐγένοντο μέρος οἱ νικῶντες τῶν ἡσσημένων. τοσοῦτον Sintenis τοσούτῳ SUA

(b) Suid. Λ 688 (Adler)

καὶ Λίβιος ἔϕη τήνδε τὴν μάχην ἐκπληττόμενος, οὐδέποτε γάρ ϕησι τοσόνδε πολεμίων ἀποδέοντας Ῥωμαίους παρατάξασθαι; εἰκοστὸν γὰρ δὴ μέρος οἱ νικῶντες ἦσαν τῶν ἡττωμένων.

F 28 (= 27 W-­M, 27 J) Plu., Luc. 31.8

ϕησὶ δ’ ὁ Λίουϊος ἐν μὲν τῇ προτέρᾳ μάχῃ πλείονας, ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ γνωριμωτέρους πεσεῖν καὶ ληϕθῆναι τῶν πολεμίων.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  25

BOOK 97 F 26 (= 25 W-­M, 25 J) Livy reports that 35,000 armed men were killed in that battle, along with the commanders themselves; that five Roman eagles were recovered, twenty-­six standards, and many spoils, including five fasces with axes.

BOOK 98 F 27 (= 26 W-­M, 26 J) (a) Livy has said that the Romans never were arrayed against their enemies while falling so short of them in numbers. For the victors barely had even a twentieth part of the vanquished, but were even less than that. (b) And Livy spoke in amazement at this battle; for he says that the Romans had never been arrayed against their enemies while falling so short of them. For the victors had a twentieth part of the vanquished.

F 28 (= 27 W-­M, 27 J) Livy says that in the previous battle a greater number of the enemy was killed and captured, but in this more distinguished ones were.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

26 te xt

LIBER XCIX F 29 (= 28 W-­M, 28 J) Serv., Aen. 3.106 et primo quidem centum habuit civitates, unde hecatompolis dicta est, post viginti et quattuor, inde, ut dicitur, duas, Gnoson et Hierapydnam, quamvis Livius plures a Metello expugnatas dicat.

LIBER CII F 30 (= 29 W-­M, 29 J) Agroec., Ars de Orthographia 115 K Livius de morte Mithridatis: quod cum diluisset. Mithridatis: quod cum diluisset Keil  Metridatis quod diluisset B  Mitridatis quam diluisset C

F 31 Scholium ex cod. Bern. 45 ad Lucanum 2.593 templum Iudeorum destruxisse fertur Pompeius. dicit enim Titus Livius in hoc loco in Iudea—­hoc est in Hierosolyma—­esse templum Iudeorum, quod modo dicitur Pompeius triumphasse.

F 32 (= 30 W-­M, 30 J) Jos., AJ 14.66–8

καὶ γὰρ ἁλούσης τῆς πόλεως περὶ τρίτον μῆνα τῇ τῆς νηστείας ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὴν ἐνάτην καὶ ἑβδομηκοστὴν καὶ ἑκατοστὴν ὀλυμπιάδα ὑπατευόντων Γαΐου Ἀντωνίου καὶ Μάρκου Τυλλίου Κικέρωνος οἱ πολέμιοι μὲν εἰσπεσόντες ἔσϕαττον τοὺς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, οἱ δὲ πρὸς ταῖς θυσίαις οὐδὲν ἧττον ἱερουργοῦντες διετέλουν, οὔτε ὑπὸ τοῦ ϕόβου τοῦ περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς οὔθ’ ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἤδη ϕονευομένων ἀναγκασθέντες ἀποδρᾶναι πᾶν θ’ ὅ τι δέοι παθεῖν τοῦτο παρ’ αὐτοῖς ὑπομεῖναι τοῖς βωμοῖς κρεῖττον εἶναι νομίζοντες ἢ παρελθεῖν τι τῶν νομίμων. ὅτι δὲ οὐ λόγος ταῦτα μόνον ἐστὶν ἐγκώμιον ψευδοῦς εὐσεβείας ἐμϕανίζων, ἀλλ’ ἀλήθεια, μαρτυροῦσι πάντες οἱ τὰς κατὰ Πομπήιον πράξεις ἀναγράψαντες, ἐν τρίτον codd.  τέταρτον Scaliger | ϕονευομένων codd.  πεϕονευομένων Niese

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  27

BOOK 99 F 29 (= 28 W-­M, 28 J) And initially it [Crete] in fact had a hundred states, and hence was called heca­ tompolis. Subsequently there were twenty-­four, and then, so it is said, two, Cnossus and Hierapydna, although Livy says that more were stormed by Metellus.

BOOK 102 F 30 (= 29 W-­M, 29 J) Livy on the death of Mithridates: ‘When he had mixed it’.

F 31 Pompey is said to have destroyed the temple of the Jews. For Titus Livy says that the temple of the Jews was in this place in Judaea—­namely Jerusalem—­which Pompey is said to have recently triumphed over.

F 32 (= 30 W-­M, 30 J) And in fact when the city was captured in the third month on the day of the fast in the 179th Olympiad in the consulship of Gaius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero, the enemy burst in and slaughtered those in the Temple, while those engaged with sacrifices continued their holy office regardless, not driven to run away either by fear for their lives or by the numbers of people now being massacred. They thought it better to endure at the altars whatever they had to suffer, rather than overlook any of the ordinances. That this is not merely a story eulogizing a fictional piety, but the truth, is attested by all the people who recorded the deeds

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

28 te xt

οἷς καὶ Στράβων καὶ Νικόλαος καὶ πρὸς αὐτοῖς Τίτος Λίβιος ὁ τῆς Ῥωμαϊκῆς ἱστορίας συγγραϕεύς. F 33 (= 31 W-­M, 31 J) (a)  Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 2.593 Livius de Iudaeis: Hierosolymis fanum cuius deorum sit non nominant, neque ullum ibi simulacrum est; neque enim esse dei figuram putant. (b) Lyd., Mens. 4.53

Λίβιος δὲ ἐν τῇ καθόλου Ῥωμαϊκῇ ἱστορίᾳ ἄγνωστον τὸν ἐκεῖ τιμώμενόν ϕησι; τούτῳ δὲ ἀκολούθως ὁ Λούκανος ἀδήλου θεοῦ τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ναὸν εἶναι λέγει, ὁ δὲ Νουμήνιος ἀκοινώνητον αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα πάντων τῶν θεῶν εἶναι λέγει, ἀπαξιοῦντα κοινωνεῖν αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς τινα. F 34 Jer., Chron. ad 63 a.Chr. ea quae de Catilina Cethego Lentulo et consule Cicerone Sallustius scribit et Livius hoc gesta sunt tempore.

LIBER CIII F 35 (= 32 W-­M, 32 J) Ser., Med. 718–25 horrendus magis est, perimit qui corpora, carbo: urit hic inclusus, vitalia rumpit apertus. hunc veteres olim variis pepulere medellis. tertia namque Titi simul et centesima Livi charta docet, ferro talem candente dolorem exactum aut poto raporum semine pulsum; ni fieret, dixit, vix septem posse diebus vitam produci: tanta est violentia morbi.

720

725

719 apertus A2 acerbus codd. | 720 olim A quondam A2 codd. | 724 ni fieret A2 inficeret codd. | dixit, vix Vollmer  dixit bis A  dicens vix codd.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  29 of Pompey, including Strabo [FGrH 91 F 15] and Nicolaus [FGrH 90 F 98], and, in addition to those, Titus Livy, the chronicler of the Roman history.

F 33 (= 31 W-­M, 31 J) (a) Livy on the Jews: At Jerusalem they do not name which of the gods the shrine belongs to, nor is there any image there; for they think that the god has no form. (b) Livy in his general history of Rome says that the god honoured there is unknown. Lucan, in agreement with him, says that the temple in Jerusalem is of an uncertain god, and Numenius says that he has no partnership with all the gods, and is their father, and does not think any is worthy to share with him in that honour. F 34 Those things which Sallust and Livy write about Catiline, Cethegus, Lentulus, and the consul Cicero were done at this time.

BOOK 103 F 35 (= 32 W-­M, 32 J) Carbo, which destroys bodies, is more horrifying. It burns when it is inside, and bursts the vital organs when it is exposed. In the past the ancients dispelled it with a variety of remedies. For the hundred and third book of Titus Livy teaches that such a malady was excised with a red-­hot blade or dispelled with drink made from turnip seeds; he said that if this were not done, life could scarcely be prolonged for seven days—­so great is the violence of the disease.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

30 te xt

LIBER CV F 36 (= 33 W-­M, 33 J) Tac., Agr. 10.3 formam totius Britanniae Livius veterum, Fabius Rusticus recentium eloquentissimi auctores oblongo scutulo vel bipenni adsimulavere. et est ea facies citra Caledoniam, unde et in universum fama. oblongo scutulo Lacey  oblongae scutulae eA  oblongae scupulae B  oblongae scapulae Ogilvie-­Richmond

F 37 (= 34 W-­M, 34 J) Jord., Get. 2.10 nunc autem de Britannia insula, quae in sinu Oceani inter Hispanias, Gallias et Germaniam sita est, ut potuero, paucis absolvam. cuius licet magnitudinem olim nemo, ut refert Livius, circumvectus est, multis tamen data est varia opinio de ea loquendi. quam diu siquidem armis inaccensam Romanis, Iulius Caesar proeliis ad gloriam tantum quaesitis aperuit. pervia deinceps mercimoniis aliasque ob causas multis facta mortalibus, non indiligenti quae secuta est aetati certius sui prodidit situm. magnitudinem V2LBX magnitudine HPV | refert LBX fert HPV | inaccensam HV inaccensa P inaccessam LABX | pervia HPVL perviam B om. X

LIBER CIX F 38 (= 35 W-­M, 35 J) Oros. 7.2.11 nam septingentesimo conditionis suae anno, quattuordecim vicos eius incertum unde consurgens flamma consumpsit, nec umquam, ut ait Livius, maiore incendio vastata est, adeo ut post aliquot annos Caesar Augustus ad reparationem eorum quae tunc exusta erant magnam vim pecuniae ex aerario publico largitus sit.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  31

BOOK 105 F 36 (= 33 W-­M, 33 J) The most stylish authors—­Livy among older writers, Fabius Rusticus [FRHist 87 F 1 = fr. 4P] of the more recent ones—­have compared the shape of Britain as a whole to an elongated little shield or a double axe. That is indeed its shape this side of Caledonia, and the story about the whole island came from there.

F 37 (= 34 W-­M, 34 J) But now I shall set out in a few words, as far as I am able, information about the island of Britain, which is located in a bay of the Ocean between Spain, Gaul, and Germany. Although no one in the past sailed around it because of its size, as Livy describes, nevertheless many people have expressed a variety of opinions when talking about it. After it had not been set alight for a long time by Roman arms, Julius Caesar opened it up with battles which were undertaken only for glory. Subsequently, after it became accessible to many people through trade and for other reasons, it revealed its location more reliably to the assiduous generation which followed.

BOOK 109 F 38 (= 35 W-­M, 35 J) For in the seven hundredth year of its existence, a blaze of unknown origin devoured fourteen of its [sc. Rome’s] neighbourhoods, nor, as Livy says, was it ever devastated by a larger fire, to the point that some years later Caesar Augustus bestowed a vast quantity of money from the public treasury to restore the things that had been burned up at that time.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

32 te xt F 39 (= 36 W-­M, 36 J) Oros. 6.15.3 Caesar Rubicone flumine transmeato, mox, ut Ariminum venit, quinque cohortes, quae tunc solas habebat, cum quibus, ut ait Livius, orbem terrarum adortus est, quid facto opus esset edocuit.

F 40 (= 57 W-­M, 57 J) Serv., Georg. 1.472 malum enim omen est, quando non fumi sed flammarum egerit globos: et, ut dicit Livius, tanta flamma ante mortem Caesaris ex Aetna monte defluxit ut non tantum vicinae urbes sed etiam Regina civitas afflaretur. quando non fumi codd.  quotiens Aetna mons Siciliae non fumum vulgo

F 41 (= 37 W-­M, 37 J) Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 3.182 Livius in primo libro belli civilis ait: nam Athenienses de tanta maritima gloria vix duas naves effecere. Athenienses Usener Aetnienses C

LIBER CIX /C X F 42 (= 38 W-­M, 38 J) ut �ait� Livius, Marcum Catonem expulit provincia. Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 3.59 ait add. Usener

F 43 (= 45 W-­M, 40 J) Scholia Gronoviana in Ciceronis orationem pro Ligario p. 291 (Stangl) navigavit Tubero cum Pansa patre. cum venissent ad Africam, pro Pompeio mandavit illis Varus: ‘decedite; iam ego teneo Africam: Pompeianis commissa est.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  33 F 39 (= 36 W-­M, 36 J) Caesar, after crossing the river Rubicon, as soon as he arrived at Ariminum explained to five cohorts—­the only ones he then had, with which, as Livy says, he attacked the world—­what needed to be done.

F 40 (= 57 W-­M, 57 J) For it is a bad omen, since it [Etna] discharged balls not of smoke, but of flames; and, as Livy says, so much fire flowed down from Mount Etna prior to Caesar’s death that not only the cities nearby, but also the town of Regina was blasted.

F 41 (= 37 W-­M, 37 J) Livy in the first book of the Civil War says: ‘For the Athenians, from such great naval glory, scarcely managed to produce two ships.’

BOOK 109/110 F 42 (= 38 W-­M, 38 J) As Livy says, he drove Marcus Cato from the province.

F 43 (= 45 W-­M, 40 J) Tubero sailed with Pansa (the father). When they came to Africa, Varus, acting on behalf of Pompey, instructed them ‘Go away; now I am holding Africa: it was put in the hands of the Pompeians.’ In the meantime, as Livy has said, Tubero and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

34 te xt interea, sicut dixit Livius, oppressus est Tubero et Pansa; fugerunt ad Pompeium, cum quererentur. inter has moras supervenit Curio ad Africam. cum quererentur Stangl  cum quaereretur C quaererentur C2  �quo� cum quaererentur Orelli

LIBER C X F 44 (= 39 W-­M, 39 J) Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 4.354 Livius: et duceremur imbelles milites, per quos tibi licuit sine sanguine vincere. quod Caesari pulchrum est, petimus: quibus armatis pepercisti, deditis consulas. et duceremur imbelles milites Levene  et duces sumus in bello milites C  et duces ulli usui in bello milites Usener  et duces sumus in bello inutiles H. J. Müller ei denique fuimus in bello milites Novák inutiles sumus in bello milites Ogilvie  |  sine sanguine vincere. quod Caesari pulchrum est Usener sine sanguine quod Caesar pulchrum est vincere C  |  armatis pepercisti, deditis consulas Usener armatus pepercisti dedisti consulas C

LIBER C X /C XI F 45 (= 40 W-­M, 41 J) Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 5.494 Livius de hoc: veniant si modo mei sunt.

LIBER C XI F 46 (= 41–2 W-­M, 42–3 J) (a)  Scholium ad Lucanum 7.471 proprium nomen est ‘Crastine’ eius militis qui primus tela iaculatus est, ut ait Titus Livius: primus hostem percussit nuper pilo sumpto primo Gaius Crastinus. ut ait Titus Livius . . . Gaius Crastinus WU om. P

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  35 Pansa were overwhelmed. They fled to Pompey, when they complained. During this delay, Curio appeared in Africa.

BOOK 110 F 44 (= 39 W-­M, 39 J) Livy: And we would have been considered unwarlike soldiers, through whom you have been allowed a bloodless victory. We are seeking what is noble for Caesar: that you look to the interest of those who surrendered, whom you spared when they were armed.

BOOK 110/111 F 45 (= 40 W-­M, 41 J) Livy says about this: ‘Let them come provided they are mine’.

BOOK 111 F 46 (= 41–2 W-­M, 42–3 J) (a) ‘Crastine’ is a personal name, of that soldier who was the first to hurl weapons, as Titus Livy says: ‘Gaius Crastinus, who had recently become senior centurion, was the first to strike the enemy.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

36 te xt (b)  Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 7.470 Crastinus dictus est hic qui primus iaculatus in Pompei aciem pilum bella conmisit . . . de quo Titus Livius dicit tunc fuisse evocatum, proximo anno deduxisse primum pilum Gaium Crastinum qui a parte Caesaris primus lanceam misit. tunc Usener hunc C

F 47 (= 43 W-­M, 44 J) Plu., Caes. 47.3–6

ἐν δὲ Παταβίῳ Γάϊος Κορνήλιος, ἀνὴρ εὐδόκιμος ἐπὶ μαντικῇ, Λιβίου τοῦ συγγραϕέως πολίτης καὶ γνώριμος, ἐτύγχανεν ἐπ’ οἰωνοῖς καθήμενος ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν. καὶ πρῶτον μέν, ὡς Λίβιός ϕησι, τὸν καιρὸν ἔγνω τῆς μάχης, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας εἶπεν ὅτι καὶ δὴ περαίνεται τὸ χρῆμα καὶ συνίασιν εἰς ἔργον οἱ ἄνδρες. αὖθις δὲ πρὸς τῇ θέᾳ γενόμενος καὶ τὰ σημεῖα κατιδών, ἀνήλατο μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ βοῶν; “νικᾷς ὦ Καῖσαρ.” ἐκπλαγέντων δὲ τῶν παρατυχόντων, περιελὼν τὸν στέϕανον ἀπὸ τῆς κεϕαλῆς ἐνώμοτος ἔϕη μὴ πρὶν ἐπιθήσεσθαι πάλιν, ἢ τῇ τέχνῃ μαρτυρῆσαι τὸ ἔργον. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ Λίβιος οὕτως γενέσθαι καταβεβαιοῦται. πρῶτον L πρῶτος PHAD | ἐνώμοτος Solanus  ἐνωμότως PLHAD | ἐπιθήσεσθαι PLHAD περιθήσεσθαι Van Herweden

F 48 (= 44 W-­M, 45 J) Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 7.62 ROMANI MAXIMUS AUCTOR TULLIUS ELOQUII: fingit hoc. nam Titus Livius eum in Sicilia aegrum fuisse tradit eo tempore quo Pharsaliae pugnatum est et ibi eum accepisse litteras a victore Caesare, ut bono animo esset. in Sicilia aegrum Usener  insiciliae grum C  Diracii aegrum Usener fortasse recte

LIBER C XII F 49 (= 46 W-­M, 46 J) Commenta Bernensia ad Lucanum 8.91 hunc locum poeta de Livio tulit, qui Corneliam dicit dixisse Pompeio: ‘vicit, Magne, felicitatem tuam mea fortuna. quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domo recipiebas nisi ut minueretur magnitudo tua?’ dicit Usener dixit C | minueretur Usener minueret C

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  37 (b) Crastinus is the name of the man who started the war through being the first to hurl a javelin into Pompey’s line. Titus Livy says about him that Gaius Crastinus, who was the first person on Caesar’s side to throw a spear, was at that time an evocatus, who had been a senior centurion the year before.

F 47 (= 43 W-­M, 44 J) In Padua Gaius Cornelius, a man well known for divination, a fellow-­citizen and acquaintance of the historian Livy, happened to be sitting observing bird omens on that day. And first of all, as Livy says, he identified the time of the battle, and said to the people around that the matter was reaching the crisis and men were joining in fight. And turning once more to look and seeing the signs, he sprung up, shouting in inspiration ‘You are victorious, Caesar!’ And when the bystanders were astonished, he removed the garland from his head and swore that he would never put it back until the outcome bore witness to his skill. Livy has affirmed that it happened in this manner.

F 48 (= 44 W-­M, 45 J) TULLIUS, THE GREATEST MODEL OF ROMAN ELOQUENCE. He [sc. Lucan] is inventing this. For Titus Livy records that he [Cicero] was sick in Sicily at the time when the battle at Pharsalia took place, and that he there received a letter of encouragement from the victorious Caesar.

BOOK 112 F 49 (= 46 W-­M, 46 J) The poet took this passage from Livy, who says that Cornelia said to Pompey: ‘My fortune, Magnus, has defeated your luck. For what did you receive from the deadly house of Crassus except that your greatness was diminished?’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

38 te xt F 50 (= 47 W-­M, 47 J) Prisc., Inst. 6.22 (213 K) inveni tamen apud Livium in CXII ab urbe condita in d desinens barbarum nomen regis Maurorum ‘Bogud’, cuius genetivum secundum tertiam declinationem ‘Bogudis’ protulit, ut: castra quoque diversis partibus Cassius et Bogud adorti haud multum afuere quin opera perrumperent. haud DHr aut AGLK hau PR

F 51 (= 48 W-­M, 48 J) Prisc., Inst. 6.22 (213–14 K) in eodem: quo tempore firmandi regni Bogudis causa exercitum in Africam traicere conatus sit. traicere ALPR traiecere BG (traiicere g)  velociter traiicere HK  velociter mittere gloss. add. r

F 52 (= 49 W-­M, 49 J) Prisc., Inst. 6.22 (214 K) idem in eodem: Cassius gessisset cum Trebonio bellum, si Bogudem trahere in societatem furoris potuisset.

F 53 (= 50 W-­M, 50 J) Scholium ad Lucanum 10.471 legatos quos rex miserat duo fuerunt, Dioscorides et Serapio, quorum alter occisus est, ut Titus Livius meminit libro quarto. legatos . . . quarto UW  legati quos miserat rex duo fuerunt, quorum unus erat Dioscordides et alter Apio. ex his unus occisus est ADGPR | Serapio Endt ex Caes. BC 3.109.4 Apio ADGUW Capio R

F 54 (= 52 W-­M, 52 J) Sen., Tranq. An. 9.5 quadraginta milia librorum Alexandriae arserunt; pulcherrimum regiae opulentiae monumentum alius laudaverit, sicut T. Livius, qui elegantiae regum curaeque egregium id opus ait fuisse. quadraginta ARV quadringenta Pincianus ex Oros. 6.15.31–2 | T. Madvig et ARV

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  39 F 50 (= 47 W-­M, 47 J) But I have found in Livy, in Book 112 of the Ab Urbe Condita, a foreign name ending in -d, of the king of the Mauri ‘Bogud’, whose genitive he has given according to the third declension as ‘Bogudis’: for example: ‘Cassius and Bogud, after also attacking the camp from different sides, were not far off breaking through the defensive works.’

F 51 (= 48 W-­M, 48 J) In the same place: ‘at the time when he attempted to take his army over into Africa in order to bolster Bogud’s kingdom’.

F 52 (= 49 W-­M, 49 J) The same person in the same place: ‘Cassius would have waged war with Trebonius, if he could have brought Bogud into an alliance with his madness.’

F 53 (= 50 W-­M, 50 J) Those whom the king had sent as envoys were two, Dioscorides and Serapio, of whom one was killed, as Titus Livy records in his fourth book.

F 54 (= 52 W-­M, 52 J) Forty thousand books burned at Alexandria; another person would have praised that most beautiful monument to royal opulence, like Titus Livy, who says that it was a noble work of the elegance and care of the kings.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

40 te xt F 55 (= 51 W-­M, 51 J) Scholium ad Lucanum 10.521 ARSINOE soror Ptolemei fuit; hanc Ganymedes quidam, spado puellae acceptissimus, in castra Achillae perduxit, cuius iussu Achillas occisus est et exercitui Ganymedes praepositus. hanc postea Caesar victis Aegyptiis in triumphum duxit, ut meminit Livius in libro quarto civilis belli. exercitui Ganymedes praepositus U exercitu ignymedes praepositus W exercitui praeponitur Ganimedes ADGPR | hanc UW hunc ADGPR | triumphum ADGPRW triumpho U | civilis belli ADGPRU  belli civilis W

LIBER C XIII/C XIV F 56 (= 53 W-­M, 53 J) (a) Prisc., Inst. 6.22 (214 K) idem in CXIII (al. CXIIII) oppidi nomen in d desinens per accusativum casum neutro genere protulit: et ipse circa Pulpud oram tuebatur. CXIII KBcHc CXIIII BHGL | casum om. HKL | ipse BHK ipsa GL | Pulpud HGKL Pudpud B

(b)  Ars Anonyma Bernensis 123 K item Pudpud oppidi nomen est: hinc Livius: et ipse circa Pudpud oram tuebatur.

LIBER C XIV F 57 (= 54 W-­M, 54 J) Prisc., Inst. 5.10 (146 K) Bogud, nomen barbarum, quod Livius in centesimo quarto decimo declinavit Bogudis. Bogud Hertz  Bogud Bogudinis RAHGKc  Bogud Bogudis DLKHc | quarto decimo RAHG XIIII K CXII Hearne

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  41 F 55 (= 51 W-­M, 51 J) ARSINOE was the sister of Ptolemy; a certain Ganymedes, a eunuch who was much favoured by the girl, brought her to Achillas’ camp. On her orders Achillas was killed and Ganymedes placed in charge of the army. Subsequently Caesar, after defeating the Egyptians, led her in triumph, as Livy records in the fourth book of the Civil War.

BOOK 113/114 F 56 (= 53 W-­M, 53 J) (a) The same author in Book 113 [or: 114] has provided a town’s name ending in -d in the accusative with a neuter gender: ‘And he himself was guarding the coast around Pulpud.’ (b) Likewise Pudpud is the name of a town: hence Livy: ‘And he himself was guarding the coast around Pudpud.’

BOOK 114 F 57 (= 54 W-­M, 54 J) Bogud, a barbarian name, which Livy in Book One Hundred and Fourteen declined ‘Bogudis.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

42 te xt F 58 (= 55 W-­M, 55 J) Jer., In Os. II, 5:6–7 tamen magis optarem illud mihi contingere quod Titus Livius scribit de Catone, cuius gloriae neque profuit quispiam laudando nec vituperando nocuit, cum utrumque summis praediti fecerint ingeniis. significat autem M.  Ciceronem et C. Caesarem, quorum alter laudes, alter vituperationes supradicti scripsit viri. quispiam PKCOA quisquam N | nocuit PKCOA docuit N | M.  Ciceronem PKCOA maceronem N | C. om. N | vituperationes PKCOA vituperationem N

LIBER C XVI F 59 (= 56 W-­M, 56 J) Plu., Caes. 63.9

οἱ δ’ οὔ ϕασι τῇ γυναικὶ ταύτην γενέσθαι τὴν ὄψιν, ἀλλ’, ἦν γάρ τι τῇ Καίσαρος οἰκίᾳ προσκείμενον οἷον ἐπὶ κόσμῳ καὶ σεμνότητι τῆς βουλῆς ψηϕισαμένης ἀκρωτήριον, ὡς Λίβιος ἱστορεῖ, τοῦτ’ ὄναρ ἡ Καλπουρνία θεασαμένη καταρρηγνύμενον ἔδοξε ποτνιᾶσθαι καὶ δακρύειν.

LIBER C XVIII F 60 (= 59 W-­M, 58 J) Prisc., Inst. 9.40 (477 K) Livius in CXVIII: adversus interfectores Gai Caesaris ultoribus manum conparans concibat.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  43 F 58 (= 55 W-­M, 55 J) But I would rather hope that the thing happen to me which Titus Livy writes about Cato, whose glory no one either advanced by praising him or damaged by insulting him, although people endowed with the greatest abilities did both. Livy is referring to Marcus Cicero and Gaius Caesar, one of whom wrote praises of the aforementioned man, the other insults.

BOOK 116 F 59 (= 56 W-­M, 56 J) And there are those who say that this was not the vision that came to the woman, but there was some sort of pediment attached to Caesar’s house, which the Senate had voted him for decoration and as a mark of reverence, according to Livy, and in this dream Calpurnia thought that she saw it broken down and herself lamenting and weeping.

BOOK 118 F 60 (= 59 W-­M, 58 J) Livy in Book 118: ‘Against the assassins of Gaius Caesar by raising a force for his avengers he was stirring up.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

44 te xt

LIBER C X X F 61 (= 60 W-­M, 59 J) Sen., Suas. 6.16–17 T.  Livius adeo retractationis consilium habuisse Ciceronem non dicit, ut neget tempus habuisse; ita enim ait: T. LIVI. M. Cicero sub adventum triumvirorum urbe cesserat pro certo habens, id quod erat, non magis Antonio se eripi quam Caesari Cassium et Brutum posse. primo in Tusculanum fugerat, inde transversis itineribus in Formianum ut ab Caieta navem conscensurus proficiscitur. unde aliquotiens in altum provectum cum modo venti adversi rettulissent, modo ipse iactationem navis caeco volvente fluctu pati non posset, taedium tandem eum et fugae et vitae cepit regressusque ad superiorem villam, quae paulo plus mille passibus a mari abest, ‘moriar’ inquit ‘in patria saepe servata’. satis constat servos fortiter fideliterque paratos fuisse ad dimicandum; ipsum deponi lecticam et quietos pati quod fors iniqua cogeret iussisse. prominenti ex lectica praebentique immotam cervicem caput praecisum est. nec �id� satis stolidae crudelitati militum fuit: manus quoque, scripsisse aliquid in Antonium exprobrantes, praeciderunt. ita relatum caput ad Antonium iussuque eius inter duas manus in rostris positum, ubi ille consul, ubi saepe consularis, ubi eo ipso anno adversus Antonium quanta nulla umquam humana vox cum admiratione eloquentiae auditus fuerat. vix attollentes �prae� lacrimis oculos homines intueri trucidati membra Ciceronis poterant. T.  Livius Usener huius ABV Livius ed. Rom. | retractationis Schott detractionis A detractationis B detrectationis V | T. LIVI Bursian L. LIVI ABV | se suppl. dett. post eripi; post Antonio Håkanson ponit | Tusculanum V2  Tuscula non ABV | fugerat B2 fuerunt ABV fugit V2 | quietos dett. quias AB quia V | fors ABV sors dett. |  nec �id� H.  J.  Müller nec ABV nec �hoc� Gertz | �prae� add. Gronovius �madentes� add. Håkanson | homines ABV humentes C. F. W. Müller | trucidati Haase trucidata ABV truncata H. J. Müller | Ciceronis Woodman civis ABV cives C. F. W. Müller eius Watt

F 62 (= 61 W-­M, 60 J), cf. T 15 Sen., Suas. 6.21–2 [T 15] . . . Ciceroni hoc, ut Graeco verbo utar, ἐπιτάϕιον Livius reddit: T.  LIVI. vixit tres et sexaginta annos, ut, si vis afuisset, ne immatura quidem mors videri possit. ingenium et operibus et praemiis operum felix, ipse fortunae diu prosperae; sed in longo tenore felicitatis magnis interim ictus vulneribus, exilio, ruina partium pro quibus steterat, filiae exitu tam tristi atque acerbo, omnium adversorum nihil ut viro dignum erat tulit praeter mortem, operum dett. operarum ABV | sed Gertz et ABV at Håkanson  delendum susp. H. J. Müller | partium V2 partitum ABV | filiae dett. filii ABV | morte ante exitu ABV del. Madvig amatae Gertz | ut viro dignum erat ABV quod viro dignum esset Frank | praeter mortem ABV prae morte Woodman 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  45

BOOK 120 F 61 (= 60 W-­M, 59 J) Titus Livy is so far from saying that Marcus Cicero had a plan to retract, that he says that he did not have time to do so. For this is his account: TITUS LIVY: ‘Marcus Cicero had left the city just before the triumvirs arrived, reckoning it as certain (and in fact it was the case) that he had no more chance of escaping Antony than Cassius and Brutus had of escaping Caesar. He had fled first to his Tusculan villa, and then he made for the one at Formiae by a round­ about route with the intention of taking a ship from Caieta. He launched a ­number of times into the open sea from there, but sometimes unfavourable winds drove him back, while at other times he himself could not bear the ship’s tossing as random waves rolled it around. At last he was overcome by weariness both of flight and of life, and, returning to the upper villa, which is a little more than a mile from the sea, he said “Let me die in the country that I have so often saved.” It is generally accepted that his slaves were boldly and faithfully ready to fight, and that he himself ordered them to put down his litter and to endure quietly what unjust chance compelled them to. As he leaned out of the litter, offering his neck motionless, his head was cut off. Nor was that enough for the soldiers’ obtuse cruelty: they also cut off his hands, cursing them for having written something against Antony. So his head was brought back to Antony, and, by his orders, was placed between his two hands on the Rostra, the very place where he as consul, and often as ex-­consul, and in that very year against Antony had been heard with admiration for eloquence that no human voice had ever equalled. People, lifting their eyes with difficulty because of their tears, were able to look upon the limbs of the butchered Cicero.’

F 62 (= 61 W-­M, 60 J), cf. T 15 [T 15] . . . Livy gave this epitaphion (to use the Greek word) for Cicero: TITUS LIVY: ‘He lived sixty-­three years, so, if violence had not been involved, it could seem that his death was not even premature. His genius was fertile both in his works and in the rewards he received for those works, and he personally for a long time shared in prosperous fortune; but in that long run of good luck he was occasionally struck with major wounds—­exile, the destruction of the faction for which he had taken a stand, the death of his daughter, so sad and bitter. Of all

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

46 te xt

quae vere aestimanti minus indigna videri potuit, quod a victore inimico �nihil� crudelius passus erat quam quod eiusdem fortunae compos victo fecisset. si quis tamen virtutibus vitia pensarit, vir magnus ac memorabilis fuit, et in cuius laudes exequendas Cicerone laudatore opus fuerit. . . . [T 15] quae D2 quam ABV | nihil suppl. Lipsius qui nil scribit | compos victo Mommsen, Rebling composito ABV compos ipse Lipsius | pensarit V2 pensaret ABV | exequendas Gronovius equendas ABV

LIBER CXXVII F 63 (= 62 W-­M, 61 J) (a) Porph., Hor. Sat. 1.5.27 dissensione orta inter Caesarem Augustum Antoniumque  L.  Cocceius Nerva, avus eius qui postea imperavit, petit a Caesare ut aliquem, cum quo de summa rerum tractaret, mitteret Tarracinam. et primum Maecenas, mox et Agrippa adgressi sunt, hique qui pepigerant fidem confirmatissimam, in una castra conferri signa utriusque exercitus iusserunt hoc et Titus Libius in libro CXXVII refert excepta Fontei Capitonis mentione. L. Cocceius Pauly ex Pseudoacrone Luccius P Lucilius V | hique qui Pauly  hi quoque VP | in om. P | una P uno V | conferri V conferre P

(b)  Ps-­Acro, Hor. Sat. 1.5.27–8 Cocceius Nerva proavus Nervae fuit, qui inperavit Romae Cocceius Nerva, avus Nervae, qui postea inperavit, mandavit Augusto, ut mitteret qui de summa rerum tractaret. ergo missus est Maecenas cum Agrippa, qui utrumque exercitum in una castra coegerunt. hoc Livius libro CXXVII. Cocceius Nerva proavus . . . Romae rγbV om. cζ | qui postea inperavit rγbV qui postea imperavit Romae cζ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  47 his misfortunes he bore none in a manner worthy of a man apart from his death, which, if one judges honestly, could seem less un­deserved, because his victorious enemy had inflicted nothing crueller on him than he would have done to his defeated foe if he had achieved the same fortune. But if one weighs up his vices against his virtues, he was a great and memorable man, and to accomplish his eulogy would need a Cicero as a eulogizer . . . ’ [T 15]

BOOK 127 F 63 (= 62 W-­M, 61 J) (a) When dissension arose between Caesar Augustus and Antony, L. Cocceius Nerva, grandfather of the later emperor, asked Caesar to send someone to Tarracina with whom he might confer about the crisis in the government. To start with Maecenas approached, subsequently also Agrippa, and these men, who had pledged the firmest agreement, ordered the standards of both armies to be brought together into the same camp. Titus Livy also mentions this in Book 127, apart from the reference to Fonteius Capito. (b) Cocceius Nerva was the great-­grandfather of Nerva, who was the emperor at Rome. Cocceius Nerva, the grandfather of Nerva, who was later emperor, instructed Augustus to send someone to confer about the crisis in the government. Therefore Maecenas was sent with Agrippa, and they compelled both armies to join in a single camp. Thus Livy in Book 127.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

48 te xt

LIBER C X XVIII F 64 Ps-­Acro, Hor. Epod. 9.7 (Γ´ rec.) Sextus Pompeius, filius Gn. Pompei, qui piraticam exercuit in Siculo mari, ibique victus atque fugatus est. Neptunium autem non ita debemus accipere quod in mari dux fuerit sed quod ea fuerit elatus insania ut Neptuni se esse filium iactaret, vel quod ea veste uteretur qua Neptunus usus fuerit. qui sese dicebat filium esse Neptuni, ut Livius dicit, aut Neptunius ideo quoniam multa prospera egisset in mari aut quia in habitu Neptuni pugnabat. qui sese . . . pugnabat rγ  om. al.

LIBER CXXXIII F 65 (= 63 W-­M, 62 J) (a) Porph., Hor. Carm. 1.37.30–2 scilicet invidens privata d. s. m. h. n. t.: invidens scilicet Augusto, ne captivitas sua illi gloriosiorem honestioremque triumphum faceret ornatunam et Titus Libius refert, illam cum de industria ab Augusto in captivitate indulgentius tractaretur, identidem dicere solitam fuisse: οὐ θριαμβεύσομαι, id est non triumphabor ab alio. id est . . . alio del. Meyer

(b)  Ps-­Acro, Hor. Carm. 1.37.30 invidens: Augusto invidens, ne captivitas sua illi speciosiorem faceret triumphum. nam et Livius refert Cleopatram, cum de industria ab Augusto capta indulgentius tractaretur, dicere solitam ‘non triumphabor’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  49

BOOK 128 F 64 Sextus Pompeius, son of Gnaeus Pompey, engaged in piracy in the Sicilian sea, and was defeated there and put to flight. We should not think of him as ‘Neptunian’ because he was a naval commander, but because he was puffed up with the insane idea of boasting that he was the son of Neptune, or because he wore the same costume that Neptune wore. He who used to say he was the son of Neptune, as Livy says, or he is ‘Neptunian’ because he had had many successes in the sea, or because he fought in the costume of Neptune.

BOOK 133 F 65 (= 63 W-­M, 62 J) (a) ‘No doubt, as a woman far from lowly, grudging to be led as an ordinary person in a proud triumph’: no doubt grudging Augustus, so that her captivity should not make his triumph more glorious and honourable by her adornment. For Titus Livy also records that when she was deliberately being treated unusually leniently in captivity by Augustus, she repeatedly used to say οὐ θριαμβεύσομαι [Greek: I shall not be triumphed over], in other words, ‘I shall not be triumphed over by another’. (b) Grudging: grudging Augustus, so that her captivity should not make his triumph more spectacular. For Livy also records that when Cleopatra, after being captured by Augustus, was deliberately being treated unusually leniently, she used to say ‘I shall not be triumphed over’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

50 te xt

LIBER C X X XV F 66 (= 64 W-­M, 65 J) Appon. 12.53 in cuius apparationis die, quod Epiphania appellatur, Caesar Augustus in spectaculis, sicut Livius narrat, Romano populo nuntiat, regressus a Britannia insula, totum orbem terrarum tam bello quam amicitiis Romano imperio pacis abundantia subditum. ex quo tempore etiam et Syrorum, instigante diabolo, bella oriuntur: tamen, interveniente pace, hoc est Christi praesentia, quantocius sedari probantur. a Britannia insula R  ad Britannias insulas S | quam S qua R | Syrorum Bottino et Martini Syrarum SR

LIBER C X X XVI F 67 (= 65 W-­M, 63 J) Cens. 17.9 item Titus Livius libro CXXXVI: eodem anno ludos saeculares Caesar ingenti apparatu fecit, quos centesimo quoque anno—­is enim terminus saeculi—­fieri mos erat. is enim terminus saeculi edd.  terminari saeculi CPV  terminum saeculi ROG  terminantur saecula H his putant enim terminis saeculum terminari Urlichs  his enim terminari saeculum Cholodniak his enim terminari saeculi �modum solemus� Pighi  is enim terminalis saeculi Giusta

FR AGMENTA INCERTAE SEDIS F 68 Prisc., Inst. 5.16 (151K) ‘linter’ quoque, quod apud Graecos masculinum est, ὁ λουτήρ, apud nostros femininum est. Livius in †VI†: iam in altum expulsa lintre. VI codd. obelis notavi: fortasse XVI

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  51

BOOK 135 F 66 (= 64 W-­M, 65 J) In the day of his [sc. Christ’s] appearance, which is called Epiphany, Caesar Augustus, as Livy narrates, announced to the Roman people at the games, after returning from the island of Britain, that the entire world had been subdued under the Roman empire with an abundance of peace, both through war and through alliances. At that time wars also arose among the Syrians, at the instigation of the Devil; nevertheless, when peace intervened, in the form of the presence of Christ, they were shown to be rapidly settled.

BOOK 136 F 67 (= 65 W-­M, 63 J) Likewise Titus Livy in Book 136: ‘In the same year Caesar held Secular Games with a grand array, which were customarily held every hundred years—­for that is the end of a saeculum.’

FR AGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN LOCATION F 68 linter (‘bath’, ‘skiff ’) also, which is masculine for the Greeks (ὁ λουτήρ), is fem­in­ ine for us. Livy in Book VI (?): ‘with the skiff having already been driven out into the deep’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

52 te xt F 69 (= 1 W-­M, 1 J) Serv. auct., Aen. 1.456 Livius: ni Pyrrhus unicus pugnandi artifex magisque in proelio, quam bello bonus.

F 70 Serv. auct., Aen. 4.37 Livius autem [Andronicus] refert eos de Romanis saepius triumphasse suasque porticus Romanis spoliis adornasse. [Andronicus] del. Klotz; fortasse tamen verbum aut legit aut inseruit auctor ipse: vid. Comm.

F 71 (= 69 W-­M, 69 J) Plin., Nat. 3.3–4 XV passuum in longitudinem quas diximus fauces oceani patent, V̅ in latitudinem, a vico Mellaria Hispaniae ad promunturium Africae Album, auctore Turranio Gracile iuxta genito. T. Livius ac Nepos Cornelius latitudinis tradiderunt minus VII passuum, ubi vero plurimum, X̅ .

F 72 (= 70 W-­M, 70 J) Plin., Nat. 3.132 Alpis in longitudinem deciens centena milia passuum patere a supero mari ad inferum Coelius tradit. Timagenes XXV passuum deductis, in latitudinem autem Cornelius Nepos centum milia, Titus Livius tria milia stadiorum, uterque diversis in locis. deciens centena milia Sillig X̅ codd.

F 73 (= 71 W-­M, 71 J) Serv., Aen. 2.148 et sunt, ut habemus in Livio, imperatoris verba transfugam recipientis in fidem: ‘quisquis es, noster eris.’ et sunt, ut habemus in Livio, imperatoris verba PHM et verba sunt, ut habemus in Livio, imperatoris C et sicut habemus in Livio, imperatoris verba L post sunt lacunam proposuit Klotz

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  53 F 69 (= 1 W-­M, 1 J) Livy: ‘except for Pyrrhus, the singular expert at fighting, and one successful more in battle than in war’.

F 70 But Livy reports that they [sc. the Africans] have often triumphed over the Romans and decorated their colonnades with Roman spoils.

F 71 (= 69 W-­M, 69 J) The Ocean’s straits of which we spoke extend fifteen miles in length and five in breadth, from the village of Mellaria in Spain to the Alban promontory in Africa, according to Turranius Gracilis, who was born nearby. Titus Livy and Cornelius Nepos [Exempla fr. 8P] have reported that the breadth is less than seven miles, but at its maximum point ten miles.

F 72 (= 70 W-­M, 70 J) Coelius [FRHist 15 F 51 = fr. 13P] records that the Alps extend a thousand miles in length from the upper sea to the lower. Timagenes [FGrH 88 F 7] twenty-­five miles less, but in breadth Cornelius Nepos [Exempla fr. 11P] records a hundred miles, Titus Livy three thousand stadia, though each at different points.

F 73 (= 71 W-­M, 71 J) And there are, as we have in Livy, the words of a commander accepting the surrender of a deserter: ‘Whoever you are, you will be ours.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

54 te xt F 74 (= 66 W-­M, 66 J) nec est quod existimes verum esse quod apud disertissimum virum �T.� Livium dicitur: vir ingenii magni magis quam boni. Sen., De Ira 1.20.6

virum �T.� Livium Gertz  virum  Livium RVA2  om. A1

F 75 (= 68 W-­M, 68 J) Plin., Nat. 1 Praef. 16 equidem ita sentio, peculiarem in studiis causam eorum esse qui difficultatibus victis utilitatem iuvandi praetulerint gratiae placendi, idque iam et in aliis ­operibus ipse feci et 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. profecto enim populi gentium victoris et Romani nominis gloriae, non suae, composuisse illa decuit: maius meritum esset operis amore, non animi causa, perseverasse et hoc populo Romano praestitisse, non sibi. praetulerint l praetulerunt cett. | mirari me T.  Livium T me mirari Livium p mirari et Livium cett.  |  iam sibi satis p  satis iam sibi l  iam sibi cett. | potuisse se codd.  potius sese d a p  potius se l | desidere ni codd. desiderent a  desiderare ut d2 p l | inquies T, vulg. inquiesce d E e q  in quiete a p l

F 76 (= 73 W-­M, 72 J) Serv., Aen. 6.861 qui pro hoc aere gravi donatus est, id est massis: nam sic et Livius argentum grave dicit, id est massas. sic et  ALHMTD  et sic SR et FG | dicit ALHMSRTD dixit FG

F 77 (= 75 W-­M, 74 J) (a) Quint., Inst. 8.3.53 vitanda macrologia, id est longior quam oportet sermo, ut apud T. Livium: legati non impetrata pace retro domum, unde venerant, abierunt. etiam add. Christ post vitanda, fortasse recte

(b) Char., Gramm. 357.12–16 (Barwick) macrologia est oratio longa sine cultu, ut apud Livium: legati non impetrata pace retro, unde venerant, domum reversi sunt. nullum enim pondus adiecit sententiae longitudo, sed magis decorem abstulit. legati ex Diomede legio N

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  55 F 74 (= 66 W-­M, 66 J) Nor is there any reason why you should consider true what is said in the work of that most eloquent man Titus Livy: ‘a man of great rather than of good character’.

F 75 (= 68 W-­M, 68 J) Personally, I am of the opinion that there is a special place in scholarship for those people who, after overcoming difficulties, prefer the usefulness of helping people to the gratitude from pleasing them. I have myself done this already in my other works as well, and I admit that I am astonished by Titus Livy, that most famous author, who began one of the volumes of his history which he traced from the beginning of the city, as follows: he had already acquired enough glory for himself, and could have relaxed, were it not that his restless spirit was feeding on his work. For certainly he ought to have composed those things for the glory of the people who was victorious over the nations and of the Roman name, not his own glory; there would have been greater merit if he had persevered through love of the work, not for the sake of his spirit, and had provided it for the Roman people, not himself.

F 76 (= 73 W-­M, 72 J) In return for this he [sc. Virgil] was given aes grave, in other words bullion. For Livy too similarly speaks of argentum grave [lit.: heavy silver], in other words bullion.

F 77 (= 75 W-­M, 74 J) (a) Prolixity should be avoided—­in other words, a longer expression than necessary, as in Titus Livy: ‘the ambassadors without obtaining peace went away back home, from where they had come’. (b) Prolixity is a long speech without elegance, as in Livy: ‘the ambassadors without obtaining peace returned back home, from where they had come’. For the length of the sentence added no weight, but rather removed the grace.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

56 te xt et apud Livium: legati non inpetrata pace �retro�, unde venerant, domum reverterunt. hic enim non tantum pondus �non� adiecit sententiae longitudo, sed magis decorem abstulit (c) Diom., Gramm. 449 K

retro ex Charisio om. ABM | hic AM hinc B | �non� adiecit Keil adiecit ABM

F 78 (= 83 W-­M, 81 J) Anon., Dub. Nom. 592 K vepres generis feminini, ut T. Livius: has vepres.

F 79 Dialogus de scientia politica 5.161

Λίβιος δὲ “τοῖς κρατοῦσιν”, ϕησί̣, “γηρῶσι μὲν σ̣υγγηράσκει, ἀσ̣θενοῦσ̣ι δὲ συνασθενεῖ, εὖ τε ϕρονοῦσι καὶ κακῶς συνδιατίθεται τ̣ὰ̣ πολιτικὰ πράγματα”. F 80 Diom.¸ Gramm. 381 K solent in verbis etiam peritiores errare, incerti utrum cum r an sine r debeant proferri. quirito Livius †in attico quirit Varro ad Ciceronem de† Fenestella quiritatur. in attico . . . de obelis not. plerique | in attico BM  in actico A | post Livius et post de lacunas indicavit Keil

FR AGMENTA DUBIA AUT SPURIA F 81 (= 77 W-­M, 75 J) = C 31 Serv., Georg. 3.1 deinde etiamsi unum sit, scimus concessum esse scribentibus ut iteratione prooemii legentium reficiant interdum laborem: nam et Livius frequenter innovat principia, ut incensa a Gallis urbe †ut completis consulibus†, et Cicero in Verrinis, qui in frumentaria conciliavit auditorum animos iteratione principii, ut ‘omnes qui alterum, iudices’. unum AMHPV  unum carmen B | legentium BV legentum AMHP  |  ut completis consulibus obelis notavi | post iudices add. DServ ex Cicerone nullis impulsi inimicitiis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  57 (c) And in Livy: ‘the ambassadors without obtaining peace returned back home, from where they had come’. For here not only did the length of the sentence add no weight, but rather it removed the grace.

F 78 (= 83 W-­M, 81 J) vepres [‘thorn bush’] in the feminine gender, like Titus Livy: ‘this thorn-­bush’.

F 79 Livy says, ‘It [sc. the state] ages together with its ageing rulers, it grows sick with them as they sicken, and affairs of state are administered according as they think well or badly’.

F 80 Even more skilled people are accustomed to make mistakes in words, uncertain whether they should be offered with an r or without an r. quirito Livy [?] has quirit in Atticus. Varro to Cicero about [?]. Fenestella [FRHist 70 F 29] quiritatur.

DOUBTFUL OR SPURIOUS FR AGMENTS F 81 (= 77 W-­M, 75 J) = C 31 Then, even if they were a single work, we know that it is permitted to writers occasionally to refresh the effort of readers by means of another prologue: for both Livy frequently makes new prefaces, as when the city was burned by the Gauls [= C 31], as with the consuls completed [?], and Cicero in the Verrines, who in the Speech on Grain (sc. II Verr. 3.1) won over the minds of the listeners by means of another preface, namely ‘Members of the jury, all who another person . . . ’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

58 te xt F 82 ‘Sergius’, Explan. in Don. 542 K item apud Livium: erant [ablativo ab his tapetibus] et equorum inaurata tapeta. Livium L Lucilium Keil ex Probo: vid. comm.  |  ablativo ab his tapetibus del. Keil

F 83 (76 W-­M) Jonas, Vita S. Columbani 1.3 sed cum se egregius milis tantis pilis undique urgueri conspiceret et micantem sicam callidi hostis se contra erigi conspexisset, expertus fragilitatis humanae, cito ad procliva labendo demergi, ut Livius ait, nihil tam sanctum religione tamque custodia clausum quo penetrare libido nequeat, evangelicum clipeum leva tenens ensemque ancipitem dextra ferens, contra inmanes cuneos hostium pugnaturus paratur pergere. ut Livius ait, nihil tam sanctum SEWMT  nichil ait esse utulius vel tucius, nil tam sanctum H

F 84 Serv., Aen. 10.388 haec fabula in Latinis nusquam invenitur auctoribus. Avienus tamen, qui totum Vergilium [al. Livium] iambis scripsit, hanc commemorat, dicens Graecam esse. Vergilium Ottob. Livium FJLWNU  vel Virgilium Livium E  vel Virgilium et Livium PbY

F 85 Anon., Dub. Nom. 572 K bracas, non braces, ut Livius ‘laxisque bracis’. ut Livius M om. L | laxisque L laxique M

F 86 Anon., Dub. Nom. 575 K cancer bubo generis neutri, ut Livius ‘malum latere solet inmedicabile cancer’. Livius L Lius M | latere L latet M

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  59 F 82 Likewise in Livius: ‘there were also gilded covers of horses’.

F 83 (76 W-­M) But when that outstanding soldier saw that he was pressed on all sides by such great spears, and had seen the flashing dagger of his cunning foe raised against him, and, well aware of human frailty, that he was swiftly over­bal­an­cing on a slope and being overwhelmed (as Livy says, nothing is so sanctified by religion or so sealed off by guards that lust cannot get into it), holding the shield of the Gospel in his left hand and bearing a two-­edged sword in his right, he prepared to proceed, ready to fight against the monstrous armies of the enemy.

F 84 This story is not found in any Latin authors. However, Avienus, who wrote the whole of Virgil [OR: Livy] in iambics, recounts it, saying that it is Greek.

F 85 bracas, not braces, as Livy says ‘And with loose breeches’ [bracis].

F 86 A tumour (cancer) is a swelling of neuter gender, as Livy says: ‘An evil incurable tumour is accustomed to lie hidden.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

60 te xt F 87 Non. 306L gelu, neutri generis. [Titus] Livius pisi† Aiace mastigophoro virtuti laus praestatur, set gelu multo ocius vento tabescit. Titus codd. del. Iun.  |  virtuti . . . tabescit sic Lindsay: de ordine verborum ipsisque verbis dissentiunt cum codd. tum edd.

F 88 Non. 586L [Titus] Livius: vestis pulla purpurea ampla Titus codd. del. Hertz

F 89 Scholium Vratisl. ad Lucanum 1.319 Pompeius quinque annis fuit praefectus annonae, et illud officium usurpavit superveniente fame. nec erat vile, cum dicat Lv: si quis quondam annonam in urbe factitasset, magnus habebatur; nec immerito, quia Roma volebat omni die LXXX millia modiorum annonae; et sic per hoc acquisivit sibi multos clientes. Lv cod. Livius F. W. Otto Bo Schneider

FR AGMENTA AD ARTEM RHETORICAM PERTINENTIA F 90 (= 84 W-­M, 82/1 J) fuit igitur brevitas illa tutissima quae �est� apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta, legendos Demosthenem atque Ciceronem, tum ita ut quisque esset Demostheni et Ciceroni simillimus. (a) Quint., Inst. 10.1.39

est add. ed. Ven. 1493 om. G

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  61 F 87 gelu [ice], neuter gender. [Titus] Livius in Ajax the Whipbearer:   Praise is given to virtue, but ice much more quickly   melts in the wind.

F 88 [Titus] Livius: A garment, dusky, purple, ample

F 89 Pompey was prefect of the grain supply for five years, and he carried out that responsibility when famine threatened. And it was not insignificant, since Livy [?] says: ‘If anyone had at some point in time handled the grain supply in the city, he was considered great’; and not undeservedly so, since Rome wanted 80,000 modii of grain every day, and so through this he obtained for himself many clients.

FR AGMENTS REL ATED TO THE ART OF RHETORIC F 90 (= 84 W-­M, 82/1 J) (a) Therefore the safest thing was the brief advice which one finds in Livy’s letter to his son: that one should read Demosthenes and Cicero, and then every writer who is most similar to Demosthenes and Cicero.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

62 te xt (b) Quint., Inst. 2.5.20 Cicero, ut mihi quidem videtur, et iucundus incipientibus quoque et apertus est satis, nec prodesse tantum sed etiam amari potest: tum, quem ad modum Livius praecipit, ut quisque erit Ciceroni simillimus.

F 91 (= 85 W-­M, 83/2 J) Sen., Contr. 9.1.13–14

do, inquit, operam, ut cum optimis sententiis certem, nec illas corrumpere conor sed vincere. �multa oratores, historici, poetae Romani a Graecis dicta non subripuerunt sed provocaverunt� tum deinde rettulit [qua] Thucydidis ­sententiam: δειναὶ γὰρ αἱ εὐπραξίαι συγκρύψαι καὶ συσκιάσαι τὰ ἑκάστων ἁμαρτήματα, deinde Sallustianam: res secundae mire sunt vitiis optentui. cum sit praecipua in Thucydide virtus brevitas, hac eum Sallustius vicit et in suis illum castris cecidit: nam in sententia Graeca tam brevi habes, quae salvo sensu detrahas: deme vel συγκρύψαι vel συσκιάσαι, deme ἑκάστων; constabit sensus, etiamsi non aeque comptus, aeque tamen integer. at ex Sallusti sententia nihil demi sine detrimento sensus potest. Titus autem Livius tam iniquus Sallustio fuit, ut hanc ipsam sententiam et tamquam translatam et tamquam corruptam dum transfertur obiceret Sallustio. nec hoc amore Thucydidis facit, ut illum praeferat, sed laudat quem non timet et facilius putat posse a se Sallustium vinci, si ante a Thucydide vincitur. cum AB eum V  |  multa . . . provocaverunt om. ABV sed in E inventum est: hic inseruit Castiglioni | qua ABV del. Håkanson quandam dett. aliquam Bursian | brevitas AB brevitate V | salvo sensu E salvu sensus A  salvus ensuis B  salvo sen V | constabit V constavit AB | at V ad AB | detrimento E detrimentis ABV | facit, ut V faciet AB | sed AB om. V | putat V putas AB | vincitur ABV vincatur E

F 92 (= 86 W-­M, 84/3 J) Sen., Contr. 9.2.26 Livius de oratoribus qui verba antiqua et sordida consectantur et orationis obscuritatem severitatem putant, aiebat Miltiaden rhetorem eleganter dixisse: ἐπὶ τὸ δεξιὸν μαίνονται. Libius BV  Titus Libius in excerptis | aiebat D aiebant BV | δεξιὸν Hertz aeξιὸν BV  λεξικὸν Bursian

F 93 (= 87 W-­M, 85/4 J) Quint., Inst. 8.2.18 in hoc malum a quibusdam etiam laboratur: neque id novum vitium est, cum iam apud Titum Livium inveniam fuisse praeceptorem aliquem qui discipulos obscurare quae dicerent iuberet, Graeco verbo utens σκότισον. unde illa scilicet egregia laudatio: ‘tanto melior: ne ego quidem intellexi.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  63 (b) Cicero, in my personal opinion, is both pleasant even for beginners and readily transparent, someone who can not only be useful but even loved. Then, as Livy advises, whoever will be most similar to Cicero.

F 91 (= 85 W-­M, 83/2 J) ‘I take care’, he [sc. Arellius Fuscus] said, ‘to compete with the best epigrams: I do not try to ruin them but to overcome them. Roman orators, historians, and poets have not stolen many sayings from the Greeks but have challenged them’. Then he relayed an epigram of Thucydides: ‘Success is clever at hiding and obscuring the faults of every person’, followed by Sallust’s version [Hist. 1.55.24M]: ‘Success is a wonderful screen for faults.’ Even though Thucydides’ primary virtue is brevity, Sallust has beaten him at it and has killed him in his own camp: for in the Greek epigram, despite its brevity, there are things which you can take out without losing the meaning: remove either ‘hiding’ or ‘obscuring’, remove ‘of every person’; the sense will remain, equally intact, even if not equally elegant. But from Sallust’s epigram nothing can be removed without damage to the sense. But Titus Livy was so unfair to Sallust as to object to this very epigram of his, both on the grounds that it was taken over, and on the grounds that in being taken over it was ruined. He does not express this preference out of fondness for Thucydides, but he praises the person he does not fear, and thinks that Sallust can be more easily defeated by him, if he has previously been defeated by Thucydides.

F 92 (= 86 W-­M, 84/3 J) On the subject of orators who search out archaic and vulgar words and who think that obscurity in a speech is austerity, Livy said that the rhetor Miltiades neatly said: ‘They are mad towards the right hand.’

F 93 (= 87 W-­M, 85/4 J) There are some who even strive for this vice: nor is this a new problem, because I already find in Titus Livy that there was a teacher who instructed his students to obscure what they were saying, using the Greek word ‘Darken!’ Presumably it is from here that one gets the famous compliment: ‘So much better: even I didn’t understand it.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations C1 Cf. Livy, Praef. Codex Parisinus 7530 (from K. Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores pp. 588–9) principiorum ad historiam pertinentium species sunt tres: de historia, de persona, de materia. aut enim historiae bonum generaliter commendamus, ut Cato, aut pro persona scribentis rationem eius quod hoc officium adsumpserit reddimus, ut Sallustius eo loco, ubi dicit: sed ego adulescentulus initio, sicuti plerique, studio ad rem publicam latus sum, aut eam rem quam relaturi sumus, dignam quae et scribatur et legatur ostendimus, ut Livius ab urbe condita.

C2 Cf. Livy, Praef. 1 sed initia initiis non convenient, �ut〉 T. Livius hexametri exordio coepit: ‘facturusne operae pretium sim’ (nam ita editum, estque melius quam quo modo emendatur). Quint., Inst. 9.4.74

〈ut〉 add. Weidner  |  estque P1  est quod A  est qui G

C3 Cf. Livy 1.1.1 Serv., Aen. 1.242 non sine causa Antenoris posuit exemplum, cum multi evaserint Troianorum periculum, ut Capys qui Campaniam tenuit, ut Helenus qui Macedoniam, ut alii qui Sardiniam secundum Sallustium; sed propter hoc, ne forte illud occurreret, iure hunc vexari tamquam proditorem patriae. elegit ergo similem personam; hi enim duo Troiam prodidisse dicuntur secundum Livium, quod et Vergilius per transitum tangit, ubi ait ‘se quoque principibus permixtum agnovit Achivis’, et excusat Horatius dicens ‘ardentem sine fraude Troiam’, hoc est sine proditione: quae quidem exusatio non vacat; nemo enim excusat nisi rem plenam suspicionis. Sisenna tamen dicit solum Antenorem prodidisse. quem si velimus sequi augemus exemplum: si regnat proditor, cur pius vagatur? posuit CHKLMP  ponit B  |  multi om. K  |  Troianorum periculum CHKLP  Troianum bellum M periculum B  |  ubi ait BM  ut K  alibi ubi ait ut L  ut ubi ait ut H  |  plenam . . . Antenorem om. K

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

C1 There are three kinds of prefaces relevant to history: concerning history, concerning character, concerning the topic. For we either recommend the value of history in a general way, like Cato [FRHist 5 T 9], or with regard to the character of the writer we give an explanation for his taking up the task, like Sallust in the place where he says ‘But I as a young man initially, like a lot of people, threw myself keenly into politics’ [Catil. 3.3], or we show that the subject which we are about to narrate is worthy both of being written and of being read, like Livy, Ab Urbe Condita.

C2 But [verse] beginnings will not suit [prose] beginnings, as Titus Livy begins with the opening of a hexameter: facturusne operae pretium sim (for that was the way it was published, and it is better than how it is corrected).

C3 He offered the example of Antenor with good reason, although there were many who escaped the danger of the Trojans (for example, Capys, who occupied Campania, Helenus, who occupied Macedonia, and others who, according to Sallust [Hist. fr. 2.8M], occupied Sardinia), but he named him so that no one should think that he was harassed rightly as a traitor to his country. So he chose a similar person [sc. to Aeneas]; for those two, according to Livy, are said to have betrayed Troy, and Virgil too touches on that in passing, when he says that ‘he recognized himself, too, mixed among the Achaean leaders’ [Aen. 1.488], and Horace exculpates him, saying ‘Troy burning without deceit’ [Carm. Saec. 41], in other words without betrayal, and indeed that exculpation is not empty, since no one offers exculpation unless the matter is highly suspicious. But Sisenna says that Antenor alone was the traitor [FRHist 26 F 1 = fr. 1P], and if we choose to follow him, we improve the example: if the traitor rules, why does the dutiful one wander?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

66 te xt C4 Cf. Livy 1.1.5 (a) Serv., Aen. 1.5 DUM CONDERET URBEM tres hic sunt significationes. aut enim Troiam dicit, quam ut primum in Italiam venit, fecit Aeneas . . . Troiam autem dici quam primum fecit Aeneas, et Livius in primo et Cato in Originibus testantur. in Italiam venit HLM  venit in Italiam B  venit CK  |  et Livius . . . testantur om. B

(b) Serv., Aen. 7.158 et sciendum civitatem, quam primo fecit Aeneas, Troiam dictam secundum Catonem et Livium. Aeneas om. LMR

C5 Cf. Livy 1.1.7–10 Serv., Aen. 11.316 hoc loco Donatus erravit dicens agrum quem Latinus donare disponit esse in Campania iuxta Uventem fluvium . . . sed constat omnia illa loca esse campestria, nec procedit quod dicitur ‘celsi plaga pinea montis’. unde sequenda est potius Livii, Sisennae et Catonis auctoritas: nam paene omnes antiquae historiae scriptores in hoc consentiunt. Cato enim in originibus dicit Troianos a Latino accepisse agrum, qui est inter Laurentum et castra Troiana. donare  JLWNU  danare  F  donatur  et  Q  donat  et  Pa  donaturum  se EPbYM  |  disponit  FAOPaPbQ   debuit JL  |  sed om. F

C6 Cf. Livy 1.2 Serv., Aen. 9.742 nam si veritatem historiae requiras, primo proelio interemptus Latinus est: inde ubi Turnus Aenean vidit superiorem, Mezentii inploravit auxilium: secundo proelio Turnus occisus est, et nihilo minus Aeneas postea non conparuit; tertio proelio Mezentium occidit Ascanius. hoc Livius dicit et Cato in originibus. post Latinus est add. in arce FPaPc

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  67 C4 (a) UNTIL HE COULD FOUND A CITY. There are three meanings here. Either he is speaking of Troy, which Aeneas founded as soon as he arrived in Italy . . . the first city Aeneas founded was called Troy, as both Livy in Book 1 and Cato in the Origines [FRHist 5 F 4 = fr. 4P] bear witness. (b) And one should know that the city which Aeneas initially founded was called Troy according to Cato and Livy.

C5 In this place Donatus made a mistake, saying that the territory which Latinus set out to give is in Campania by the river Uvens . . . But it is agreed that all that land is flat, and ‘the pine-­clad tract of the lofty mountain’ (as it is called) [Aen. 11.320] does not occur. So one should instead follow the authority of Livy, Sisenna [FRHist 26 F 2 = fr. 2P], and Cato, for almost all writers of ancient history agree in this. For Cato in the Origines [FRHist 5 F 5 = fr. 8P] says that the Trojans received from Latinus territory which is between Laurentum and the Trojan camp.

C6 For if you are asking the historical truth, Latinus was killed in the first battle. Then, when Turnus saw that Aeneas was superior, he begged for Mezentius’ help. In the second battle Turnus was killed, and nevertheless Aeneas did not appear afterwards. In the third battle Ascanius killed Mezentius. This is what Livy says, and Cato in the Origines [FRHist 5 F 7 = fr. 10P].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

68 te xt C7 Cf. Livy 1.2.5 (also 5.33.7–8) Serv. + Serv. auct., Georg. 2.533 FORTIS ETRURIA CREVIT secundum historiam: nam constat Tuscos usque ad fretum Siculum omnia possedisse. et aliter: maximum enim imperium Etruscorum in Italia fuit, ut ait Livius, ab Alpibus usque ad fretum Siculum: unde totum mare quod a dextra Italici litoris est Tyrrhenum dicitur. et aliter . . . dicitur Servius auctus

C8 Cf. Livy 1.3.2–3 (a) Serv., Aen. 1.7 Albam ab Ascanio conditam constat, sed a quo incertum est, utrum a Creusae an a Laviniae filio: de qua re etiam Livius dubitat. (b) Serv., Aen. 6.760 sed cum Ascanius flagraret invidia, evocavit novercam et ei concessit Laurolavinium, sibi vero Albam constituit. qui quoniam sine liberis periit, Silvio, qui et ipse Ascanius dictus est, suum reliquit imperium: unde apud Livium est error, qui Ascanius Albam condiderit. flagraret   A SHMFC   deflagrasset   R   |   evocavit  A SMR   vocavit  HFC   |   condiderit  A SHMRC  condiderat  F

C9 Cf. Livy 1.3.8 (a) Serv., Aen. 8.72 Thybrin vero alii a rege Aboriginum dictum volunt, qui iuxta dimicans interemptus est; alii ab eo rege quem Glaucus, Minois filius, in Italia interemit; alii, inter quos et Livius, ab Albano rege qui in eum cecidit. ab eo rege M  ab rege ASF  a rege R  ab origine LH

(b) Serv., Aen. 8.330 nam quod Livius dicit, ab Albano rege Tiberino Thybrin dictum, non procedit ideo, quia etiam ante Albam Thybris dictus invenitur.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  69 C7 ETRURIA GREW STRONG according to history: for it is accepted that the Etruscans owned everything right up to the Sicilian strait. Putting it another way: The largest extent of the empire of the Etruscans in Italy was, as Livy says, from the Alps as far as the Sicilian strait: consequently the whole sea which is on the right of the Italian coast is called the Tyrhennian Sea.

C8 (a) It is accepted that Alba was founded by Ascanius, but it is uncertain by which one, by the son of Creusa or the son of Lavinia: even Livy is doubtful on the subject. (b) But since Ascanius was blazing with jealousy, he called his stepmother out and gave her Laurolavinium, but founded Alba for himself. Since he died childless, he left his power to Silvius, who was also called Ascanius himself: hence there is a mistake in Livy as to which Ascanius founded Alba.

C9 (a) Some want it to have been called the Tiber after a king of the Aborigines, who was killed fighting next to it; some after that king whom Glaucus, the son of Minos, killed in Italy, others, including Livy, after the Alban king who fell into it. (b) For as to what Livy says, that the Tiber was named for the Alban king Tiberinus, it does not make sense, because it is found to have been called the Tiber even before Alba.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

70 te xt C 10 Cf. Livy 1.7.2 Linking passage between Origo Gentis Romanae and De Viris Illustribus (cf. T 29n.) sed horum omnium opinionibus diversis repugnat nostrae memoriae proclamans historia Liviana, quae testatur quod auspicato Romulus ex suo nomine Romam vocavit cumque muniret moenibus edixit ne quis vallum transsiliret; quod Remus irridens transsiluit et a Celere centurione rutro vel rastro ferreo occisus. cumque muniret Schott  muniret codd.

C 11 Cf. Livy 1.7.2 Diom., Gramm. 374 K salio: perfectum suavius enuntiare videmur salii, quasi munii; sed plerique veterum salui dixerunt, ut Vergilius ‘saluere per utres’, id est saluerunt; item Livius ab urbe condita libro primo ‘novos transiluisse muros’. suavius enuntiare BM  suavius et nuntiari A  |  transiluisse muros B1  transiluisse se muros ABM

C 12 Cf. Livy 1.7.8 Pomp., Gramm. 98 K constat apud omnes Carmentem nympham illam, Evandri matrem, quae Nicostrata dicebatur, Latinas litteras invenisse. ipsa primum transtulit in Italiam Latinas litteras. hoc habemus initio Livii, et ‘Evander vir mirabilis veneratione litterarum’ (omnino verba sunt ista Livii) ‘rei novae inter rudes homines’. initio Livi BC  initio libri AL  |  rei ABC  res L

C 13 Cf. Livy 1.9 John Malalas, Chron. 7.6 pp. 177–8 Dindorf

καὶ ἀθυμῶν ὁ Ῥῶμος ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μαντεῖον; καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ χρησμός, ὥστε ἐπιτελέσαι ταῖς γυναιξὶν θέαν ἱππικοῦ, ἵνα ἀγάγηται ἑαυτῷ ὁ στρατὸς γυναῖκας. καὶ συνάξας τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ στρατοῦ ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ ἐπετέλεσεν ἱππικόν, κελεύσας μόνον γυναῖκας θεωρῆσαι τὸ ἱπποδρόμιον. καὶ ὡς παραξένου τινὸς θέας μελλούσης γίνεσθαι ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς περιχώρου καὶ τῶν πόρρωθεν πόλεων παραξένου O1  παρὰ ξένουO

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  71 C 10 But the history of Livy contradicts the different opinions of all of these people, and has a claim on our memory. It bears witness that Romulus, after taking auspices, called Rome by his own name, and when he was fortifying it with walls he proclaimed that no one should leap over the rampart; Remus, in mockery, leaped over it and was killed by the centurion Celer with a spade or an iron rake.

C 11 Salio: we seem to pronounce the perfect more euphoniously as salii, like munii; but most of the ancients said salui, like Virgil ‘they leaped [saluere] over the skins’ [Georgics 2.384] (that is: saluerunt); likewise Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Book 1: ‘leaped across [transiluisse] the new walls’.

C 12 Everyone agrees that that nymph Carmentis, the mother of Evander, who was called Nicostrata, invented the Latin alphabet. She herself first brought the Latin alphabet to Italy. We have this at the beginning of Livy, even ‘Evander, a man remarkable through the veneration of letters’ (those words are entirely Livy’s) ‘a novelty among uncivilized men’.

C 13 And despairing, Romulus went away to the oracle, and a prophecy was given to him that he should put on a spectacle of chariot-­racing for women, so that the army could acquire women for itself. And, assembling the army in the palace, he put on the chariot-­racing, inviting only women to watch the races. And as an unusual spectacle was about to happen, a mass of women came into the city of Rome from all of the surrounding neighbourhood and distant cities and villages. And the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

72 te xt

καὶ κωμῶν ἦλθον ἐν τῇ πόλει Ῥώμῃ πλήθη γυναικῶν, καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσαν τὸ ἱππικὸν γυναῖκες ὕπανδροι καὶ νεώτεραι παρθένοι· ἦλθον δὲ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες τῶν λεγομένων Σαβίνων, χώρας πλησίον τῆς Ῥώμης οὔσης, γυναῖκες εὐπρεπεῖς. καὶ δοὺς ὁ Ῥῶμος μανδᾶτα λάθρᾳ γυναῖκα ὕπανδρον οὖσαν Ῥωμαίαν πολίτιδα μὴ θεωρῆσαι, κελεύσας καὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ στρατῷ, ὥστε ὑπάνδρου γυναικὸς μὴ τολμῆσαι ἅψασθαι, ἀλλὰ τὰς παρθένους ἁρπάσαι καὶ τὰς μὴ ἐχούσας ἄνδρας καὶ μόνας. ἀνελθὼν ἐν τῷ ἱππικῷ ὁ Ῥῶμος ἐθεώρει. καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐπιτελεῖσθαι τὸ ἱπποδρόμιον ἀπολυθεὶς ὁ στρατὸς ἐκ τοῦ παλατίου ὥρμησαν ἐν τῷ ἱππικῷ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν βάθρων ἀνέσπασαν τὰς παρθένους γυναῖκας καὶ τὰς μὴ ἐχούσας ἄνδρας· καὶ ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας. τοῦτο δὲ πρὸς ἅπαξ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ῥῶμος γενέσθαι, καθὼς ὁ σοϕώτατος Βεργίλλιος ποιητὴς ἐξέθετο· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Πλίνιος ὁ Ῥωμαίων ἱστοριογράϕος συνεγράψατο, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λίβιος. μόνας Dindorf  μόνος coniunct. cum sequ. O  |  ποιητὴς add. Thurn ex Chron. Pasch. 211,4  |  Πλίνιος OSl  Ἀπολλώνιος Chron. Pasch. 211,4  |  Λίβιος OSl  Σίλβιος Chron. Pasch. 211,6

C 14 Cf. Livy 1.9.3 Quint., Inst. 9.2.37 unde apud historicos reperiuntur obliquae adlocutiones, ut in Titi Livi primo statim: ‘urbes quoque ut cetera ex infimo nasci, deinde, quas sua virtus ac di iuvent, magnas opes sibi magnumque nomen facere’. Livii B  libro A  |  deinde AB  dein codd. Liv.  |  quas ed. Vasc. 1542  quos B  quod A  qua codd. Liv. corr. Aldus

C 15 Cf. Livy 1.12.1 Quint., Inst. 1.5.44 quid? non Livius circa initia statim primi libri ‘tenuere’ inquit ‘arcem Sabini’ et mox: ‘in adversum Romani subiere’?

C 16 Livy 1.13.1–4 Salv., Epist. 4.20 paratum, ut ait Livius, inter Romanos Sabinosque bellum et (quod difficilius sedari potest) coeptum, preces quondam et interventus carorum pignorum sustulerunt; cumque una eorum gens esset natura ferox, alia dolore fervens, tantum tamen visio affectus mutui valuit ut nec Romanus memor esse belli, nec Sabinus posset iniuriae, et illi paulo ante feri ac semibarbari, cognati sanguinis cupidi, sui

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  73 s­ tadium was filled with women, both married and younger virgins. And also there came the beautiful daughters of the people called the Sabines, from a district near to Rome. And Romulus secretly gave orders that no married Roman citizen woman should watch, and he commanded his own army not to dare to lay hands on a married woman, but to seize the virgins and unmarried women and those alone. Romulus went back into the stadium and watched. And while the races were being held, the army was loosed from the palace and rushed into the stadium, and dragged from the benches the virgins and those who did not have husbands. And they made them their wives. This Romulus allowed to be done once only, as the very wise poet Virgil has set out. Pliny, the historian of the Romans, and likewise also Livy, narrated it in the same fashion.

C 14 Hence in historians are found indirect addresses, such as at the beginning of the first book of Titus Livy: ‘[sc. they said] that cities, too, like other things, are born from the lowest position, and then, if their own virtue and the gods assist them, make for themselves great resources and a great name’.

C 15 Well? Did not Livy say around the very beginning of Book 1 ‘The Sabines held the citadel’, and afterwards: ‘The Romans went up against them’?

C 16 A war, as Livy says, between the Romans and the Sabines was prepared for and actually begun, thus being one which is able to be settled only with greater difficulty, but the prayers and interventions of dear children put an end to it; and although one of those peoples was naturally aggressive, the other was boiling with grief, the sight of their mutual object of affection had so much effect that the Romans were unable to think of the war or the Sabines of their grievances, and that those who shortly before had been wild and half-­barbarian, eager to shed their relatives’ blood and unsparing of their own, began to embrace each other

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

74 te xt prodigi, amplecti se mutuo inciperent, quia pignus mutuum iam habere coepissent, fieretque unus uterque populus, quia unus utriusque esset affectus.

C 17 Cf. Livy 1.13.8 Serv., Aen. 5.560 nam constat primo tres partes fuisse populi Romani: unam Titiensium a Tito Tatio, duce Sabinorum, iam amico post foedera: alteram Ramnetum a Romulo: tertiam Lucerum, quorum secundum Livium et nomen et causa in occulto sunt.

C 18 Cf. Livy 1.21.3 Prisc., Inst. 6.76 (260 K) sed Livius etiam singulari numero hoc ponit masculinum in I ab urbe condita: ‘lucus erat, quem medium ex opaco specu fons perenni rigabat aqua’.

C 19 Cf. Livy 1.22.1–2 Serv. auct., Aen. 6.813 de hoc Livius inde Tullum, qui ferox et Romulo quam Numae similis.

C 20 Cf. Livy 1.24.4–9 Serv., Aen. 10.14 nam Ancus Marcius cum videret populum Romanum, ardentem amore bellorum, [et] plerumque inferre bella gentibus nulla iusta extante ratione, et exinde pericula creari, misit ad gentem Aequiculanam et accepit iura fetialia, per quae bellum indicebatur hoc modo, sicut etiam de Albanis retulit Livius. nam siquando homines vel animalia ab aliqua gente rapta essent populo Romano, cum fetialibus, id est sacerdotibus qui faciendis praesunt foederibus, proficiscebatur etiam pater patratus et ante fines stans clara voce dicebat belli causam, et nolentibus res raptas restituere vel auctores iniuriae tradere, iaciebat hastam, quae res erat pugnae principium, et iam sic licebat more belli res rapere. [et] seclusit  Murgia  |  creari  EPbYM procreari FPa2Pc  recreari AOPaQ  gravia creari WN

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  75 mutually, because they already had begun to have a shared posterity, and they both became one people, because there was a single object of affection for both.

C 17 For it is agreed that there were originally three parts to the Roman people: one was the Titienses, after Titus Tatius, the Sabine general, and now a friend following the treaties; the second was the Ramnetes after Romulus; the third was the Luceres, whose name and the reason for it are, according to Livy, obscure.

C 18 But Livy also makes this [sc. specus] masculine in the singular in Book 1 of Ab Urbe Condita: ‘There was a grove, the middle of which a spring from a shady cave irrigated with constant water’.

C 19 Concerning this Livy says ‘Then Tullus’, who was aggressive and similar to Romulus rather than Numa.

C 20 For when Ancus Marcius saw that the Roman people, burning with passion for wars, was often waging war on peoples with no justifiable reason behind it, and in consequence dangers were arising, he sent to the Aequiculani people and received the fetial laws, through which war was declared in the following way, just as Livy recorded also about the Albans. For if at any time people or animals were seized from the Roman people by some nation, the pater patratus would set off along with the fetials (namely the priests in charge of making treaties), and standing in front of the border would proclaim in a loud voice the reason for the war, and if they refused to return the stolen goods or hand over those responsible for the outrage, he would throw a spear, which marked the beginning of the war, and then it was permitted to plunder in this way by the rules of war.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

76 te xt C 21 Cf. Livy 1.31.1, 21.62.5, 22.36.7, 24.10.7 Prisc., Inst. 10.11 (503 K) Livius in I ab urbe condita et in XXI et in XXII: lapidibus pluvisse et in XXIIII: sanguine pluvit. in I ab urbe condita om. G

C 22 Cf. Livy 1.31.8 Serv., Ecl. 6.42 nam quadam arte ab eodem monstrata supernus ignis eliciebatur, qui mortalibus profuit, donec eo bene usi sunt: nam postea malo hominum usu in perniciem eorum versus est, sicut in Livio lectum est de Tullo Hostilio, qui eo igni exustus est cum omnibus suis; Numa vero Pompilius impune eo usus est tantum in sacris deorum.

C 23 Cf. Livy 1.57–2.5 John Malalas, Chron. 7.9 pp. 181–3 Dindorf

ὁ δὲ Ταρκύνιος ἐξεβλήθη τῆς βασιλείας τῷ τρόπῳ τούτῳ . . . ἢ μόνον δὲ προῆλθεν ὕπατος ὁ Βροῦτος, εὐθέως ἐπὶ τῆς συγκλήτου καὶ τοῦ δήμου ἀγαγὼν τὸν ἴδιον δοῦλον τὸν Βινδίκιον ὑπὲρ εὐχαριστίας, ὅτι πιστὰ ἐϕύλαξε τῷ ἰδίῳ δεσπότῃ, καὶ ἐπιτελέσας ἑορτὴν πανηγυρικὴν τῇ Δίκῃ καὶ καθίσας ἐν τῷ ὑψηλῷ βήματι ἀνήγαγε τὸν Βινδίκιον ἐν ὕψει ἄντικρυς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ χεῖρα, καὶ τῇ παλάμῃ αὐτοῦ πληγὰς τρεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ παρειὰν ἐπαγαγὼν μετὰ κραυγῆς ἔϕη ταῦτα; “ἀποτιναξάμενος τὴν τῆς σῆς δουλείας τύχην, ὦ Βινδίκιε, καὶ τὸν ταύτης ἐκδυσάμενος ζυγὸν ἔνδυσαι Ῥωμαϊκῆς ἐλευθερίας θώρακα τὸν ἅπαντα τῆς ζωῆς σου χρόνον.” καὶ ἀϕελόμενος ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας χειρὸς δακτύλιον χρυσοῦν ἐπέβαλεν εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν αὐτοῦ χεῖρα, δεδωκὼς αὐτῷ καὶ ἀξίαν κόμητος καὶ μέρος τῆς αὐτοῦ περιουσίας, καλέσας τὴν αὐτὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἑορτῆς Κονσίλια, ἅπερ ἑρμηνεύεται παροχῆς ἡμέρα, προστάξας καὶ τοῖς παρ’ αὐτοῦ προβληθεῖσιν ὑπατικοῖς ἄρχουσιν τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ κατ’ ἔτος ἱερὰν παννυχίδα καὶ ἑορτὴν τῇ Δίκῃ ἐπιτελεῖν εἰς μνημόσυνον τῆς κατὰ τοῦ Ταρκυνίου νίκης καὶ τῆς κατ’ ἀξίαν ἐλευθερίας τοῦ Βινδικίου εἰς τὸ προτρέψασθαι τοὺς λοιποὺς τοὺς πανταχοῦ οἰκέτας εὐγνωμονεῖν τοῖς ἰδίοις δεσπόταις καὶ τοιαύτης ἐλευθερίας ἀξιοῦσθαι καὶ τιμῆς. ἅτινα Κονσίλια οἱ ὑπατικοὶ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν ἕως τῆς νῦν ἐπιτελοῦσιν πανηγυρίζοντες. περὶ ὧν καὶ Λίβιος ὁ σοϕὸς καὶ ἕτεροι πολλοὶ συνεγράψαντο. post ἐϕύλαξε add. μᾶλλον τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ Sl

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  77 C 21 Livy in Book 1 of Ab Urbe Condita and in Book 21 and in Book 22: ‘to have rained with stones’; and in Book 24: ‘It rained with blood’.

C 22 For by a certain skill shown by that same person [sc. Prometheus] heavenly fire was drawn down, which was of benefit to mortals, as long as they made good use of it: for afterwards through men’s misuse it was turned to their ruin, as one reads in Livy about Tullus Hostilius, who was burned up by that fire along with all his people; but Numa Pompilius used it without harm only in the rites of the gods.

C 23 Tarquinius was expelled from his kingship in the following way . . . Immediately on taking office as consul, Brutus brought his slave Vindicius before the Senate and the People to thank him, because he had kept faith with his master. He celebrated a solemn feast in honour of Justice, and seated on the high platform, led up Vindicius to a high place opposite him, and stretching out his right hand he slapped him three times on the cheek with his palm, and loudly proclaimed the following: ‘Vindicius, now you have shaken off your lot of slavery, and have put aside its yoke, put on the breastplate of Roman liberty for the whole of your life.’ And he removed the golden ring from his own hand and placed it on Vindicius’ right hand, giving him both the rank of comes and a share of his own possessions, and he called the day of the festival Consilia, which is understood as the day of giving. He commanded those appointed by him as consular governors of the provinces to celebrate a sacred all-­night vigil and festival to Justice on that same day every year in memory of the victory over Tarquin and the freedom deservedly received by Vindicius, in order to encourage the other slaves everywhere to be well disposed to their masters and to deserve such freedom and honour. Consular governors of the provinces up to this day solemnly celebrate this festival of Consilia. The wise Livy and many others have written about these things.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

78 te xt C 24 Cf. Livy 2.8.7–8 Serv., Aen. 6.8 unde in Livio habemus Horatium Pulvillum, cum Capitolium dedicare vellet, audisse ab inimico mortuum filium, et, ne pollutus dedicare non posset, respondisse, cadaver sit. Horatium  Pulvillum  FCGD  Pratium  Pavivillum  R  Pracium  Pravivillum  AS  Patium  Pavivillum  H  Horatium Pavillum M   |  audisse RMFCGD  audisset ASH   |  respondisse RFCGD respondisset ASHM

C 25 Cf. Livy 2.33.2 Ascon., Corn. 76–77C ceterum quidam non duo tribunos plebis, ut Cicero dicit, sed quinque tradunt creatos tum esse, singulos ex singulis classibus. sunt tamen qui eundem illum duorum numerum quem Cicero ponant: inter quos Tuditanus et Pomponius Atticus, Livius quoque noster. idem hic et Tuditanus adiciunt tres praeterea ab illis duobus qui collegae 〈essent〉 〈lege〉 creatos esse. nomina duorum qui primi creati sunt haec traduntur: L. Sicinius L. f. Velutus, L. Albinius C. f. Paterculus. quidam Beraldus  quidem SPM  |  quos PM  duos S  |  Livius quoque SM  Liviusque P  |  qui collegae SM  collagas P  |  essent add. Clark  |  lege add. Purser  |  Sicinius P  Sicinus SM  |  L.  Albinius corr. ex Livio  Labinius M  Libinius S  Lavinius P

C 26 Cf. Livy 3.38.9 Prisc., Inst. 8.75 (430 K) Livius in III ab urbe condita: circumspectare omnibus fori partibus senatorem raroque usquam noscitare.

C 27 Cf. Livy 3.43.1 Prisc., Inst. 15.15 (72 K) Livius in III ab urbe condita: duo nefanda facinora decemviri belli domique adiciunt. III Krehl  II codd.  |  ab urbe condita om. G

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  79 C 24 Hence in Livy we learn that Horatius Pulvillus, when he wanted to dedicate the Capitol, heard from an enemy that his son was dead, and, lest he be unable to perform the dedication through pollution, replied ‘Let him be a corpse’.

C 25 Yet some people record that not two tribunes of the people, as Cicero says, but five were elected at that time, one from each of the classes. There are nevertheless those who offer the same number of two [tribunes] as Cicero, including Tuditanus [FRHist 10 F 7 = fr. 4P] and Pomponius Atticus [FRHist 33 F 3 = fr. 3P], as well as our Livy. This same man and Tuditanus add that three further colleagues were appointed by those two under a law. The names of the two who were first elected are recorded as Lucius Sicinius Velutus (son of Lucius), Lucius Albinius Paterculus (son of Gaius).

C 26 Livy in Ab Urbe Condita Book 3: They looked in every part of the Forum for a senator, and rarely recognized one anywhere.

C 27 Livy in Ab Urbe Condita Book 3: The decemvirs added two unspeakable crimes in war and in the city.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

80 te xt C 28 Cf. Livy 4.37.1 Serv., Aen. 10.145 sed Livius vult a locis campestribus dictam in quibus sita est. apud DServ. sic legitur: sed Capuam vult Livius a locis &c.

C 29 Cf. Livy 5.15.6 Prisc., Inst. 10.3 (496 K) Livius ab urbe condita libro V: ad colloquium vatem elicuit. C 30 Cf. Livy 5.22.4–5 Plu., Cam. 6.2

Λίουιος δέ ϕησιν εὔχεσθαι μὲν τὸν Κάμιλλον ἁπτόμενον τῆς θεοῦ καὶ παρακαλεῖν, ἀποκρίνασθαι δέ τινας τῶν παρόντων ὅτι καὶ βούλεται καὶ συνακολουθεῖ προθύμως. ἀποκρίνασθαι cett. codd. ὑποκρίνασθαι S  |  καὶ βούλεται καὶ συνακολουθεῖ S καὶ βούλεται καὶ συγκαταινεῖ καὶ συνακολουθεῖ UMA

C 31 = F 81 Cf. Livy 6.1.1–3 Serv., Georg. 3.1 deinde etiamsi unum sit, scimus concessum esse scribentibus ut iteratione prooemii legentium reficiant interdum laborem: nam et Livius frequenter innovat principia, ut incensa a Gallis urbe †ut completis consulibus†, et Cicero in Verrinis, qui in frumentaria conciliavit auditorum animos iteratione principii, ut ‘omnes qui alterum, iudices’. unum AMHPV  unum carmen B  |  legentium BV  legentum AMHP  |  ut completis consulibus obelis notavi  |  post iudices add. DServ ex Cicerone nullis impulsi inimicitiis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  81 C 28 But Livy prefers that it [Capua] is named after the flat lands in which it is situated.

C 29 Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Book 5: He invited the prophet to a conversation.

C 30 Livy says that Camillus prayed, laying his hands on the goddess and inviting her, and some of those present replied that she both wanted and followed eagerly.

C 31 = F 81 Then, even if it were a single work, we know that it is permitted to writers occasionally to refresh the effort of readers by means of another prologue: for both Livy frequently makes new prefaces, as when the city was burned by the Gauls, as with the consuls completed [?], and Cicero in the Verrines, who in the Speech on Grain [sc. II Verr. 3.1] won over the minds of the listeners by means of another preface, namely ‘Members of the jury, all who another person . . .’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

82 te xt C 32 Cf. Livy 6.1.2 Plu., Fort. Rom. 326A

ἀλλὰ τί δεῖ περὶ ταῦτα διατρίβειν, ἃ σαϕὲς οὐδὲν οὐδ’ ὡρισμένον ἔχει τῷ καὶ τὰ γράμματα διαϕθαρῆναι τῶν Ῥωμαίων καὶ συγχυθῆναι τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ὑπομνηματισμούς, ὡς Λίβιος ἱστόρηκε; ἃ σαϕὲς cett. codd. ἀσαϕὲς gJSyF  |  τῷ cett. codd. τὸ Pg om. JSy  |  γράμματα Reiske πράγματα codd.

C 33 Cf. Livy 6.1.12 Plu., Quaest. Rom. 269E “διὰ τί τὴν μετὰ καλάνδας ἡμέραν καὶ νόννας καὶ εἰδοὺς ἀνέξοδον καὶ ἀνεκδήμητον τίθενται?” πότερον, ὡς οἱ πλεῖστοι νομίζουσι καὶ Λίβιος ἱστορεῖ, μετὰ τὰς Κυιντιλίας εἰδούς, ἃς νῦν Ἰουλίας καλοῦσιν, ἐξάγοντες οἱ χιλίαρχοι τὸ

στράτευμα περὶ τὸν Ἀλλίαν ποταμὸν ἐκρατήθησαν ὑπὸ Κελτῶν μάχῃ καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἀπώλεσαν, νομισθείσης δὲ τῆς μετὰ τὰς εἰδοὺς ἀποϕράδος προήγαγεν ὥσπερ ϕιλεῖ πορρωτέρω τὸ ἔθος ἡ δεισιδαιμονία καὶ κατέστησεν εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν εὐλάβειαν τήν τε μετὰ νόννας καὶ τὴν μετὰ καλάνδας? προήγαγεν Wyttenbach προσταγὲν codd.

C 34 Cf. Livy 6.40.18 Non. 288L Titus Livius: quaenam ista societas, quaenam consortio est?

C 35 Cf. Livy 7.39.10 Prisc., Inst. 15.9 (66 K) idem in VII: quem autem ab Roma posse exciri? posse cett. codd.  possem B  |  exciri correctum est ex Livio excipi codd. Prisc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  83 C 32 But why must one spend time on these matters, which contain nothing clear or defined, as a result of both the destruction of the Romans’ writings and the confusion of their records, as Livy has recounted?

C 33 ‘Why do they make the day after the Kalends and the Nones and the Ides unsuitable for going out or travelling?’ Is it because, as most people think and Livy records, after the Ides of Quintilis, which they now call July, the tribunes led out the army and were defeated by the Gauls in battle at the River Allia and lost the city, and once the day after the Ides was considered ill-­omened, superstition, as usual, extended the custom further, and established the same reverence for both the day after the Nones and the day after the Kalends?

C 34 Titus Livy: What kind of partnership is that, what kind of fellowship?

C 35 The same author in Book 7: But who could be summoned from Rome?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

84 te xt C 36 Cf. Livy 8.7 Serv., Aen. 6.824 hic ad urbem pergens, praecepit filio ut tantum castra tueretur. ille provocatus ab hostibus, nacta occasione, victoriam consecutus est. reversus postea pater laudavit fortunam populi Romani, sed filium, ut dicit Livius, fustuario supplicio necavit. tueretur ASLHRM  meteretur FC  |  provocatus ab hostibus add. DServ. (ostilibus F corr. Daniel)  |  supplicio add. DServ.

C 37 Cf. Livy 8.8.19 Prisc., Inst. 15.9 (66 K) in eodem: qua via ad Veserim ferebat. qua cett. codd.  quae R

C 38 Cf. Livy 8.11.1 Prisc., Inst. 9.54 (490 K) Livius in VIII: etsi omnis divini humanique memoria aboleverit. post humanique add. moris Hertz ex Livio

C 39 Cf. Livy 8.12.7 Prisc., Inst. 15.9 (66 K) Livius in VIII ab urbe condita: venerant et ab Lanuvio Antioque auxilia. in VIII ab urbe condita om. G  |  VIII cett. cod.  VIIII K

C 40 Cf. Livy 8.37.3 Prisc., Inst. 15.16 (72 K) Livius in VIII ab urbe condita: utroque exercitus missi. in VIII ab urbe condita om. G  |  VIII cett. cod.  VIIII B

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  85 C 36 As he set off for the city, he ordered his son merely to guard the camp. But the son, challenged by the enemy, seized the opportunity and achieved victory. When the father afterwards returned, he praised the fortune of the Roman people, but, as Livy says, killed his son by the punishment of cudgelling.

C 37 In the same book: Where the road led to Veseris.

C 38 Livy in Book 8: Although the memory of everything human and divine has faded.

C 39 Livy in Book 8 of Ab Urbe Condita: Auxiliaries had also come from Lanuvium and Antium.

C 40 Livy in Book 8 of Ab Urbe Condita: Armies were sent in both directions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

86 te xt C 41 Cf. Livy 9.33.2 Prisc., Inst. 15.9 (66 K) Livius in VIIII: et Fabius supplementum ab Roma adduxit. VIIII cett. cod.  VIII BK

C 42 Cf. Livy 9.40.3 Non. 286L Livius lib. IX: auratae vaginae, aurata baltea illis erant.

C 43 Cf. Livy 10.23.12 (cf. 1.4.7) Lact., Inst. 1.20.1 sed auctor est Livius, Larentinae esse simulacrum et quidem non corporis, sed mentis ac morum. fuit enim Faustuli uxor et propter vulgati corporis vilitatem lupa inter pastores id est meretrix nuncupata est; unde etiam lupanar dicitur.

C 44 Cf. Livy 10.30.5 Oros. 3.21.6 fuisse autem absque Etruscis et Umbris, quos astu Romani bello avocaverunt, Gallorum et Samnitium peditum CXL milia CCCXXX, equitum vero XLVII milia Livius refert, et carpentarios mille in armis contra aciem stetisse Romanam. CXL milia LUP1CJ  CLXL milia F  CXL HZ  CL milia QΔ  centum quadraginta milia D  CCL milia P  |  XLVII milia LU  CCCCVII milia F  XLVI milia H  LVII milia QΔP  quadraginta sex milia D  XLVII C  CCCCVI milia J

C 45 Cf. Livy 21.35.9 Serv., Aen. 10.13 ALPES INMITTET APERTAS emphasis est: non enim dixit ‘per Alpes inmittet exercitum’, sed ipsas Alpes, quas patefecit non sibi tantum sed omnibus gentibus. quae secundum Catonem et Livium muri vice tuebantur Italiam.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  87 C 41 Livy in Book 9: And Fabius brought up replacements from Rome.

C 42 Livy Book 9: They had gilded scabbards, gilded belts.

C 43 But according to Livy, there is a statue of Larentina, not in fact one of her body, but of her mind and way of life. For she was the wife of Faustulus, and because of the cheapness of her prostituted body she was called a she-­wolf among the shepherds, in other words a whore. And that is also the source of the word ‘brothel’ [lupanar].

C 44 Livy says that apart from the Etruscans and Umbrians, whom the Romans deflected from the war by trickery, from the Gauls and the Samnites there were 140,330 infantry and 47,000 cavalry, and a thousand cart-­drivers stood armed against the Roman line.

C 45 HE WILL DESPATCH THE OPEN ALPS is emphasis: for he did not say ‘He will despatch the army through the Alps’, but the Alps themselves, which he [sc. Hannibal] opened not only for himself but for all peoples. These, according to Cato [FRHist 5 F 150 = 85P] and Livy, protected Italy like a wall.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

88 te xt C 46 Cf. Livy 21.40.9 Prisc., Inst., 9.34 (470 K) Livius ab urbe condita XXI: fame, frigore, illuvie, squalore enecti.

C 47 Cf. Livy 22.4.6 Prisc., Inst. 10.43 (533 K) Livius in XXII ab urbe condita: qua cuique proximum fuit, decucurrerunt. qua cuique cett. codd.  quacunque K

C 48 Cf. Livy 22.14.8 Non. 290L feminino Livius lib. XXII: ‘nisi pecorum modo per angustos saltus et devias calles’—idem sic frequenter. XXII Lipsius  XII LHG  |  per angustos saltus Lipsius  fert angusto saltu LHG (post u ras. H)

C 49 Cf. Livy 22.24.11 Prisc., Inst. 9.36 (472 K) Livius in XXII: iusta quoque acie et collatis signis dimicatum, quidam auctores sunt. XXII correxi  XXXIII codd.  |  iusta cett. codd.  iuxta B  |  quidam auctores sunt DGL om. K, eras. in H quidam auctores sunt usi B  quidam auctores sunt usi in compositione rationabiliter dimicavi R

C 50 Cf. Livy 22.43.10, 22.46.8–9 Sen., Nat. 5.16.4 ab oriente hiberno eurus exit, quem nostri vocavere volturnum. T.  Livius hoc illum nomine appellat in illa pugna Romanis parum prospera, in qua Hannibal et contra solem orientem exercitum nostrum et contra ventum constitutum venti adiutorio ac fulgoris praestringentis oculos hostium vicit. T. Gertz  et codd.  |  constitutum Skutsch  constituit. tum ZABFHUW  constituit cum PR  instituit. tum V

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  89 C 46 Livy Ab Urbe Condita Book 21: Worn out with hunger, cold, filth, squalor.

C 47 Livy in Book 22 of Ab Urbe Condita: They ran down, each by the route nearest to him.

C 48 The feminine [sc. of callis] used by Livy Book 22: ‘Unless in the manner of sheep through narrow glades and out-­of-­the-­way paths’—and this author often does this.

C 49 Livy in Book 22: There are some authorities who say that it was fought as a straight battle with the standards facing off against each other.

C 50 The Eurus comes from the winter sunrise; we Romans called it the Volturnus. Titus Livy calls it by this name in that battle which was so unfortunate for the Romans, in which Hannibal, with the assistance of the wind and of the glare dazzling the eyes of the enemy, defeated our army, which was drawn up both against the rising sun and against the wind.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

90 te xt C 51 Cf. Livy 22.49.15 Act. Seb. 42 nam si recenseas decadas stylo Livi digestas, illic invenies Iovi thura ponentes una die viginti tria milia Romani exercitus iuvenes cecidisse. sed et illud non es immemor, quod Senonenses Galli etiam Capitolium occupaverunt et omnem Romanam manum suis ludibriis subiugarunt.

C 52 Cf. Livy 23.16, 23.44.6–46.4, 27.13.11–14.15 Plu., Comp. Pel. Marc. 1.5

ἡμεῖς δὲ Λιβίῳ καὶ Καίσαρι καὶ Νέπωτι καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν Ἰόβᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ πιστεύομεν ἥττας τινὰς καὶ τροπὰς ὑπὸ Μαρκέλλου τῶν σὺν Ἀννίβᾳ γενέσθαι; μεγάλην δ’ αὗται ῥοπὴν οὐδεμίαν ἐποίησαν, ἀλλ’ ἔοικε ψευδό〈πτω〉μά τι γενέσθαι περὶ τὸν Λίβυν ἐν ταῖς συμπλοκαῖς ἐκείναις. καὶ  Καίσαρι  C  Καίσαρι  alii codd.  |  Ἰόβᾳ  τῷ βασιλεῖ  Sintenis  τῷ  βασιλεῖ  Ἰόβᾳ  codd.  |  ψευδό­ 〈πτω〉μά τι Bryan  ψευδόματι PL (sed τ ras. ex ν)  ψευδο**** K (lac. 8–10 litt.) ψεύδωμά τι CBVbL1  ψευδόμαντος  Mo

C 53 Cf. Livy 23.16.15–16 Plu., Marc. 11.4

ὁ δὲ Λίβιος οὕτω μὲν οὐ διαβεβαιοῦται γενέσθαι μεγάλην 〈τὴν〉 ἧτταν, οὐδὲ πεσεῖν νεκροὺς τοσούτους τῶν πολεμίων, κλέος δὲ μέγα Μαρκέλλῳ καὶ Ῥωμαίοις ἐκ κακῶν θάρσος ἀπὸ τῆς μάχης ἐκείνης ὑπάρξαι θαυμαστόν, οὐχ ὡς πρὸς ἄμαχον οὐδ’ ἀήττητον, ἀλλά τι καὶ παθεῖν δυνάμενον διαγωνιζομένοις πολέμιον. οὐ codd. om. K  |  Ἰόβᾳ τῷ βασιλεῖ Sintenis  τῷ βασιλεῖ Ἰόβᾳ codd.  |  〈τὴν〉 add. Coraes

C 54 Cf. Livy 23.49.5 Prisc., Inst. 6.13 (205 K) Livius in XXIII ab urbe condita: Iliturgi oppidum obpugnabatur Livius . . . oppidum om. D  |  Livius AHL  Libius B  Liusius GLK

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  91 C 51 For if you survey the decades organized by the pen of Livy, you will find there that those who offered incense to Jupiter, twenty-­three thousand young men of the Roman army, fell in a single day. Moreover you are not unaware of the fact that the Senonian Gauls even seized the Capitol and subdued the entire band of Romans with their mockeries.

C 52 But I prefer to trust Livy and Caesar [sc. Augustus: Orationes fr. 14 (Malcovati)] and Nepos [fr. 48 (Marshall)] and, among the Greeks, King Juba [FGrH 275 F 25], that Marcellus achieved some victories and routs in his fights with Hannibal. These did not have any significant influence, but it is likely that the African made some sort of fake fall in these encounters.

C 53 But Livy will not affirm that the defeat was so great, nor that so many corpses of the enemy fell, but says that there was great fame for Marcellus, and from their previous problems a remarkable boldness arose in the Romans as a result of that battle, because they were not fighting against an unfightable or unconquerable enemy, but one who could also suffer in some way.

C 54 Livy in Book 23 of Ab Urbe Condita: The town of Iliturgi was being attacked.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

92 te xt C 55 Cf. Livy 25.3.19, 25.4.4 Prisc., Inst. 18.182 (293 K) Livius in XXV ab urbe condita: ‘tribuni plebis in ordinem redacti’ pro ‘contemptissimi habiti’.

C 56 Cf. Livy 25.11.3 Prisc., Inst. 10.43 (533 K) idem in XXV: et si ferocius procucurrissent. XXV Sigonius  XX codd.

C 57 Cf. Livy 26.13.16 Prisc., Inst. 10.19 (512 K) Livius in XXVI ab urbe condita: nedum eos Capuae parsuros credam. in . . . condita om. G  |  XXVI Eckstein  XXV ex XXXV corr. R XXV cett. codd.

C 58 Cf. Livy 26.14.9 Prisc., Inst. 10.18 (510 K) Livius in XXVI ab urbe condita: descitum ab Romanis in . . . condita om. G  |  XXVI Hertz  XXV codd.

C 59 Cf. Livy 26.15.13 Prisc., Inst. 6.68 (253 K) Livius in XXVI: profecto satis compotem mentis esse. XXVI Hertz  XXV codd.  |  mentis esse ex Livio  menti* esse B  menti messe R  menti inesse GL menti. inesse D  menti in.esse H  menti in esse K

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  93 C 55 Livy in Book 25 of Ab Urbe Condita: ‘The tribunes of the people were reduced to the ranks’, meaning ‘were held in utter contempt’.

C 56 The same author in Book 25: And if they charged more fiercely.

C 57 Livy in Book 26 of Ab Urbe Condita: Still less do I think that they would spare Capua.

C 58 Livy in Book 26 of Ab Urbe Condita: There was a defection from the Romans.

C 59 Livy in Book 26: Certainly he was of sufficiently sound mind.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

94 te xt C 60 Cf. Livy 27.2.3 Plu., Marc. 24.4

καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Λίβιός ϕησιν ἀναγνωσθέντα τὰ γράμματα μὴ τῆς λύπης ἀϕελεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ϕόβῳ προσθεῖναι, τῶν Ῥωμαίων μεῖζον ἡγουμένων τοῦ γεγονότος τὸ κινδυνευόμενον, ὅσῳ Φουλβίου κρείττων ἦν Μάρκελλος. C 61 Cf. Livy 27.28.1 Plu., Marc. 30.1–4

Ἀννίβᾳ δὲ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων ἐλάχιστος ἦν λόγος, Μάρκελλον δὲ πεπτωκέναι πυθόμενος, αὐτὸς ἐξέδραμεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον, καὶ τῷ νεκρῷ παραστάς, καὶ πολὺν χρόνον τήν τε ῥώμην τοῦ σώματος καταμαθὼν καὶ τὸ εἶδος, οὔτε ϕωνὴν ἀϕῆκεν ὑπερήϕανον, οὔτ’ ἀπ’ ὄψεως τὸ χαῖρον, ὡς ἄν τις ἐργώδη πολέμιον καὶ βαρὺν ἀπεκτονώς, ἐξέϕηνεν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιθαυμάσας τὸ παράλογον τῆς τελευτῆς, τὸν μὲν δακτύλιον ἀϕείλετο, τὸ δὲ σῶμα κοσμήσας πρέποντι κόσμῳ καὶ περιστείλας ἐντίμως ἔκαυσε, καὶ τὰ λείψανα συνθεὶς εἰς κάλπιν ἀργυρᾶν καὶ χρυσοῦν ἐμβαλὼν στέϕανον, ἀπέστειλε πρὸς τὸν υἱόν. τῶν δὲ Νομάδων τινὲς περιτυχόντες τοῖς κομίζουσιν ὥρμησαν ἀϕαιρεῖσθαι τὸ τεῦχος, ἀντιλαμβανομένων δ’ ἐκείνων ἐκβιαζόμενοι καὶ μαχόμενοι, διέρριψαν τὰ ὀστᾶ. πυθόμενος δ’ Ἀννίβας καὶ πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας εἰπὼν “οὐδὲν ἄρα δυνατὸν γενέσθαι ἄκοντος θεοῦ,” τοῖς μὲν Νομάσιν ἐπέθηκε δίκην, οὐκέτι δὲ κομιδῆς ἢ συλλογῆς τῶν λειψάνων ἐϕρόντισεν, ὡς δὴ κατὰ θεόν τινα καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς καὶ τῆς ἀταϕίας παραλόγως οὕτω τῷ Μαρκέλλῳ γενομένης. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ περὶ Κορνήλιον Νέπωτα καὶ Οὐαλέριον Μάξιμον ἱστορήκασι; Λίβιος δὲ καὶ Καῖσαρ ὁ Σεβαστὸς κομισθῆναι τὴν ὑδρίαν πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν εἰρήκασι καὶ ταϕῆναι λαμπρῶς. διέρριψαν LCK  διέτριψαν P  |  Οὐαλέριον L1  Οὐατόριον LK  Οὐατώριον C

C 62 Cf. Livy 31.5.1 Prisc., Fig. Num. 22 (413 K) quingentesimus vel quingesimus: Livius ab urbe condita XXXI: anno quingesimo.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  95 C 60 And Livy says that the reading of these letters did not remove their grief, but added to their fear, since the Romans thought that their endangerment was greater than in the past to the same degree as Marcellus was superior to Fulvius.

C 61 Hannibal paid very little account to the rest, but when he learned that Marcellus had fallen, he ran personally to the place and stood by the corpse, and spent a lot of time contemplating the strength of his body and its appearance, and he did not express a boastful sound, nor did he express joy at the sight, as one would with a troublesome and dangerous enemy one had killed, but marvelling at the miscalculation of his death, he removed his ring, and adorning the body with suitable ornaments and clothing it he burned it h ­ onourably, and gathering together the remains he placed them in a silver urn, and placed a golden garland on it, and sent it to the man’s son. But some of the Numidians fell in with those carrying the urn and attempted to take it away; when the latter resisted they turned to violence and fought, and scattered the bones. When Hannibal learned this, he said to those around him ‘So nothing happens when God wants otherwise’. He punished the Numidians, but no longer paid attention to gathering and escorting the remains, on the grounds that it was because of some god that Marcellus had died and remained unburied in this manner. This is the version given by Cornelius Nepos [fr. 49 (Marshall)] and Valerius Maximus, but Livy and Augustus Caesar [Orationes fr. 13 (Malcovati)] have said that the urn was brought to his son and honourably buried.

C 62 quingentesimus or quingesimus: Livy, in Ab Urbe Condita 31: In the five-­hundredth [quingesimo] year.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

96 te xt C 63 Cf. Livy 34.50.6–7 Prisc., Fig. Num. 12 (409 K) Livius in XXXIIII ab urbe condita: multitudinis eorum argumentum sit quod Polybius scribit centum talentis eam rem Achaeis stetisse, cum quingentos denarios pretium in capita, quod redderetur dominis, statuissent. mille enim ducentos ea ratione Achaia habuit captivos Italicos. XXXIIII RPA  XXXIII V  |  Acheis P  athęis RV  atheis A  |  ea ratione P  et ratione RA  et ratio V

C 64 Cf. Livy 34.52.6 Prisc., Fig. Num. 13 (409 K) denarii autem illo tempore nummi argentei erant viginti quattuor siliquarum, quod in eodem libro ostendit Livius: signati argenti LXXXIIII milia fuere Atticorum: tetrachma vocant. trium fere denariorum in singulis argenti est pondus. argenti om. RVA add. P  |  LXXXIII RVA  LXXX P  |  tetrachma VA  tethraema P  tetradrachma R

C 65 Cf. Livy 35.23.11 Prisc., Fig. Num. 25 (414 K) Livius in XXXV: et bina equestria arma. Livius . . . arma RVA om. P  |  XXXV  PVA  XXU R  |  et bina equestria PR  et binequestria V  ut bina equestri A

C 66 Cf. Livy 37.3.4 Prisc., Inst. 6.17 (208–9K) et Titus Livius XXXVII ab urbe condita: Latinaeque instauratae, quod Laurentibus carnis, quae dari debet, data non fuerat. XXXVII correxi  XXVI codd.

C 67 (= F 2 W-­M, F 64 J) Cf. Livy 37.41.5–8 (cf. 37.40.12) Serv., Aen. 1.476 curribus falcatis usos esse maiores et Livius et Sallustius docent.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  97 C 63 Livy in Book 34 of Ab Urbe Condita: Let a proof of the large number of them be that Polybius writes that the matter cost the Achaeans a hundred talents, since they had fixed the price which should be given to the masters at five hundred denarii per person. For by that calculation Achaea held two hundred Italian captives.

C 64 At that time, denarii were silver coins of twenty-four siliquae, which Livy shows in the same book: Of coined silver there were 84,000 Attic coins (they call them tetrachma, each one having around the same weight of silver as three denarii).

C 65 Livy in Book 35: And two sets of cavalry armour.

C 66 Livy in Book 37 of Ab Urbe Condita: The Latin festival was repeated, because the obligatory meat had not been given to the Laurentes.

C 67 (= F 2 W-­M, F 64 J) Both Livy and Sallust [Hist. 3.21M] tell us that the ancients used scythed chariots.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

98 te xt C 68 Cf. Livy 37.54.19 Prisc., Inst. 17.165 (191 K) Livius in XXXVII ab urbe condita: certare pio certamine cuiuslibet bonae artis et virtutis ausi sumus cum parentibus quaeque civitas suis. ausi sumus R1  ausimus RMNL  hausimus S  |  civitas suis RMNL  civitatis suis IS

C 69 Cf. Livy 38.29.6 Prisc., Inst. 6.96 (281–2 K) similiter Lucretius protulit et Livius in XXXVIII: et est non simplicis habenae, ut Balearica aliarumque gentium funda, sed triplex scutale crebris suturis duratum, ne fluxa habena volutetur in iactu glans, sed librata cum sederit, velut nervo missa excutiatur. XXXVIII correxi  XXVII RBADHGK  XXIIII L |  suturis ed. Mediolan. an. 1511 ex Livio  sutoris RBDH  scutoris A  scotoris G scutoris LK  |  in iactu BADH  iniacta GLK  acta R  |  librata R1  liberata RDGLK

C 70 Cf. Livy 38.38.13 Prisc., Fig. Num. 13–14 (409 K) idem Livius in XXXVIII ab urbe condita ostendit magnum talentum Atticum octoginta habere libras et paulo plus, cum supra dictorum computatio manifestet octoginta tres libras et quattuor uncias habere talentum, quod est sex milia denariorum: Livius ‘talentum ne minus pondo octoginta Romanis ponderibus pendat’; id est, sic decrevit senatus, ut non plus quam ternae librae et quaternae unciae singulis desint talentis. et sciendum, quod secundum Livii computationem centum minae Atticae, quarum singulae septuaginta quinque drachmas habent, faciunt talentum magnum. XXXVIII Keil  XXXUII PRA  XXXUI V

C 71 Cf. Livy 38.54.1 Quint., Inst. 8.6.9–10 comparatio est cum dico fecisse quid hominem ‘ut leonem’, tralatio cum dico de homine ‘leo est’. huius vis omnis quadruplex maxime videtur: cum in rebus

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  99 C 68 Livy in Book 37 of Ab Urbe Condita: Every state of ours has dared to compete with its parents in dutiful rivalry of every kind of noble art and virtue.

C 69 Lucretius presented it in a similar way, and Livy in Book 38: And it is not made out of a single strap, like the sling of the Baliares and other nations, but it has a triple thong hardened with close stitching, so that the bullet does not spin when thrown because the strap is loose, but when it is set in motion and has held its position, it is shot out as though it were launched from a bowstring.

C 70 The same Livy in Book 38 of Ab Urbe Condita shows that the large Attic talent is a little over eighty pounds, since the calculation of what was said above shows that the talent has eighty-­ three pounds and four unciae, which is six thousand denarii—­Livy: ‘that the talent should not weigh less than eighty Roman pounds’; in other words, that is what the Senate decided, that not more than three pounds and four unciae should be missing from each separate talent. And one should know that according to Livy’s reckoning a hundred Attic minae, each of which contain seventy-­five drachmas, make a large talent.

C 71 Simile is when I say that a man has done something ‘like a lion’, metaphor when I say of a man ‘he is a lion’. The entire effect of the latter seems to fall essentially into four classes: with regard to animate beings when one is substituted for

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

100 te xt animalibus aliud pro alio ponitur, ut de agitatore ‘gubernator magna contorsit equum vi’, aut [ut Livius Scipionem a Catone ‘adlatrari’ solitum refert] inanima pro aliis generis eiusdem sumuntur, ut ‘classique inmittit habenas’. aut ut A  aut B  |  ut Livius . . . refert del. Christ

C 72 Cf. Livy 39.5.3 Prisc., Inst. 8.21 (388 K) Livius in XXXIX ab urbe condita: nec alieni momentis animi circumagi stipularique irato consuli tribunum plebei. XXXIX Krehl  XXXIII codd.  |  consuli RDHB  consul GLK  |  tribunum Gronovius ex Livio tribuno. m̃ RDGK  tribuno m. L  tribuno mar̃ H  tribunum nomen B

C 73 Cf. Livy 39.35.7 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) idem in XXXVIIII: Areus et Alcibiades. in om. GK  |  XXXVIIII  Hertz  XXXVIII  codd.

C 74 Cf. Livy 39.36.2, 39.36.12 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299–300 K) in eodem: quod Areum et Alcibiaden ne Lacedaemonii possint reprehendere. ne cett. codd.  nec D  |  possint RADH  posuit GL

C 75 Cf. Livy 39.42.6–12 (a) Plu., Flam. 18.4

ὁ δὲ Λίβιος ἐν λόγῳ Κάτωνος αὐτοῦ γεγράϕθαι ϕησίν, ὡς Γαλάτην αὐτόμολον ἐλθόντα μετὰ παίδων καὶ γυναικὸς ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας δεξάμενος εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον ὁ Λεύκιος ἀπέκτεινεν ἰδίᾳ χειρί, τῷ ἐρωμένῳ χαριζόμενος. λόγῳ K  λόγῳ ἃ cett. codd.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  101 another, such as in the case of a charioteer ‘The helmsman wrenched the horse aside with great force [Ennius, Ann. 465 Sk.], or [as Livy mentions that Scipio was accustomed to ‘be barked at’ by Cato] inanimate objects are substituted for other things of the same class, such as ‘and he gave rein to the fleet’ [Virgil, Aen. 6.1].

C 72 Livy in Book 39 of Ab Urbe Condita: Nor should a tribune of the people be led around by the influences of another person’s mind and be exacting a promise for an angry consul.

C 73 The same in Book 39: Areus and Alcibiades.

C 74 In the same: Because not the Spartans could blame Areus and Alcibiades.

C 75 (a) Livy says that in a speech of Cato himself it is written that a Gallic deserter came with his children and wife to the doors, and Lucius, after inviting him into the banquet, killed him with his own hand as a favour to his beloved.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

102 te xt (b) Plu., Cat. Ma. 17.4

ὁ δὲ Λίβιος αὐτόμολον εἶναί ϕησι Γαλάτην τὸν ἀναιρεθέντα, τὸν δὲ Λεύκιον οὐ δι’ ὑπηρέτου κτεῖναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ’ αὐτὸν ἰδίᾳ χειρί, καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐν λόγῳ γεγράϕθαι Κάτωνος. τὸν δὲ S  καὶ τὸν UA  |  ἐν S  ἐν τῷ UA

C 76 Cf. Livy 39.51.8–11 Plu., Flam. 20.5

Λίβιος δέ ϕησι ϕάρμακον ἔχοντα κεράσαι, καὶ τὴν κύλικα δεξάμενον εἰπεῖν; ἀναπαύσωμεν ἤδη ποτὲ τὴν πολλὴν ϕροντίδα Ῥωμαίων, οἳ μακρὸν ἡγήσαντο καὶ βαρὺ μισουμένου γέροντος ἀναμεῖναι θάνατον. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ Τίτος ἀξιοζήλωτον ἀποίσεται νίκην οὐδὲ τῶν προγόνων ἀξίαν, οἳ Πύρρῳ πολεμοῦντι καὶ κρατοῦντι τὴν μέλλουσαν ὑποπέμψαντες κατεμήνυσαν ϕαρμακείαν. Λίβιος P1  Λεύκιος cett. (Λίβιος . . . εἰπεῖν om. K)

C 77 Cf. Livy 40.5.5 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) Livius in XL ab urbe condita: odio, cui Perseus indulgeret. in R1 om. RADGLK

C 78 Cf. Livy 40.5.5 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) in eodem: Perseo sese adiungunt. Perseo sese RGLK  Perseum ad sese AD  |  adiungunt RADK  adiungit G  adiunguit L

C 79 Cf. Livy 40.5.9 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) in eodem: totus in Perseum versus. totus ADGL  tutus K

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  103 (b) Livy says that the person killed was a Gallic deserter, and Lucius did not have his attendant kill the man, but did it personally with his own hand, and that this is written in a speech by Cato.

C 76 Livy says that he ordered a poison which he had in his possession to be mixed, and when he took the cup he said: ‘Let us now bring a halt to the great concern of the Romans, who considered it long and hard to wait for the death of a hated old man. But not even Flamininus will take away an enviable victory, or one worthy of his ancestors, who sent secretly to Pyrrhus and warned him of an impending poisoning, even though he was fighting successfully against them.’

C 77 Livy in Book 40 of Ab Urbe Condita: Hatred, which Perseus fostered.

C 78 In the same book: They join themselves to Perseus.

C 79 In the same book: Turned completely to Perseus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

104 te xt C 80 Cf. Livy 40.22.12–13 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) in eodem: transgressus Perseum filium.

C 81 Cf. Livy 40.24.3 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) in eodem: Perseum Amphipolim mittit. Perseum Amphipolim mittit R  Perseum misit. Amphipolim mittit H  Perseum misit Amphipolim B

C 82 Cf. Livy 40.56.11 Prisc., Inst. 7.16 (299 K) in eodem: ad Perseum misit. Perseum A1  Persea BADH

C 83 Cf. Livy 41.21.13 Prisc., Inst. 4.29 (134 K) Livius ab urbe condita XLI: Lanuvini Caeritesque anguem iubatum apparuisse nuntiarunt. iubatum ADLR  vibratum GK

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  105 C 80 In the same book: Having surpassed [?] his son Perseus.

C 81 In the same book: He sends Perseus to Amphipolis.

C 82 In the same book: He sent to Perseus.

C 83 Livy in Ab Urbe Condita Book 41: The people of Lanuvium and Caere announced that a crested snake had appeared.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia T1 Jer., Chron. ad 59 a.Chr. Messala Corvinus orator nascitur et Titus Livius Patavinus scriptor historicus.

T2 Sen., Epist. 100.9 nomina adhuc T. Livium: scripsit enim et dialogos, quos non magis philosophiae adnumerare possis quam historiae, et ex professo philosophiam continentis libros: huic quoque dabo locum. dabo locum B  dabo dialogum QCDRE cedam WX

T3 (a)  CIL V 2865 v. f. T. Livius Liviae T. f. Quartae l. Halys Concordialis Patavi sibi et suis omnibus. (b)  CIL V 2883 Prutio Petroni Aeli dispensatori quem Livia T. f. Quarta testamento . . . T. f. Mommsen I. f. Salomonius

T4 Sen., Contr. 10 pr.2 pertinere autem ad rem non puto, quomodo L. Magius, gener T. Livi, declamaverit (quamvis aliquo tempore suum populum habuerit, cum illum homines non in ipsius honorem laudarent sed in soceri ferrent). pertinere recc. excerpt. om. AB pertine V  |  ad rem non M  non ad rem ABV | aliquo V  alio quo AB

T5 Suid. Κ 2098 (Adler) = Ael. fr. 86 (Domingo-­Forasté)

δύο συγγραϕέε Ῥωμαίων ἤστην, Τῖτος Λίβιος, οὗ διαρρεῖ πολὺ καὶ κλεινὸν ὄνομα, καὶ Κορνοῦτος. πλούσιον μὲν οὖν ἀκούω καὶ ἄπαιδα τοῦτον, σπουδαῖον δὲ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

T1 The orator Messala Corvinus is born and Titus Livy of Padua, the his­tor­ic­al writer.

T2 Also name Titus Livy: for he wrote both dialogues, which you could count as history no less than philosophy, and books expressly dealing with philosophy. I will also give a place to him.

T3 (a) During his lifetime Titus Livius Halys, freedman of Livia Quarta (daughter of Titus), priest of Concordia, set this at Padua for himself and all of his family. (b) To Prutius, steward of Petronius Aelius, whom Livia Quarta (daughter of Titus) in her will . . . T4 But I do not think it is relevant how Lucius Magius, the son-­in-­law of Titus Livy, declaimed (although he at one point had his own audience, although people praised him not to honour him but his father-­in-­law).

T5 There were two historians of the Romans, Titus Livy, whose name is widespread and famous, and Cornutus. I hear that the latter was wealthy and childless, and not in any way important. But there was a vast difference between these men in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

108 te xt

οὐδὲν ὄντα. τοσαύτη δὲ ἦν ἡ διαϕορότης ἐς τούσδε τοὺς ἄνδρας τῶν ἀκροωμένων, ὡς τοῦ μὲν Κορνούτου παμπλείστους ἀκούειν, θεραπείᾳ τε καὶ κολακείᾳ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς συρρέοντας καὶ διὰ τὴν ἀπαιδίαν, ἐλπίδι κληρονομίας; τοῦ γε μὴν Λιβίου ὀλίγους, ἀλλὰ ὧν τι ὄϕελος ἦν καὶ ἐν κάλλει ψυχῆς καὶ ἐν εὐγλωττίᾳ. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπράττετο. ὁ χρόνος δὲ ὁ ἄπρατός τε καὶ ἀδέκαστος καὶ ἡ τούτου ϕύλαξ καὶ ὀπαδὸς καὶ ἔϕορος ἀλήθεια, μήτε χρημάτων δεόμενοι, μήτε μὴν ὀνειροπολοῦντες ἐκ κλήρου διαδοχήν, μήτ’ ἄλλῳ τῳ αἰσχρῷ καὶ κιβδήλῳ τε καὶ καπήλῳ καὶ ἥκιστα ἐλευθέρῳ ἁλισκόμενοι, τὸν μὲν ἀνέϕηναν καὶ ἐξεκάλυψαν, ὥσπερ κεκρυμμένον θησαυρὸν καὶ κεχανδότα πολλὰ καὶ ἐσθλά, τὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου, τοῦτον τὸν Λίβιον; τοῦ δὲ πλουσίου καὶ μέντοι καὶ περιρρεομένου τοῖς χρήμασι λήθην κατέχεαν τοῦ Κορνούτου. καὶ ἴσασιν ἤ τις ἢ οὐδεὶς αὐτόν. μήτε χρημάτων Herder  μηδὲ χρημάτων codd.

T6 (a) Plin., Epist. 2.3.8 numquamne legisti Gaditanum quendam Titi Livi nomine gloriaque commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse, statimque ut viderat abisse? (b) Jer., Epist. 53.1 ad T.  Livium lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantem visendum de ultimo terrarum orbe venisse Gaditanum quendam legimus; et quem ad contemplationem sui Roma non traxerat, unius hominis fama perduxit. visendum H vissenno λ om. cet.  |  ultimo terrarum orbe venisse Gaditanum quendam Hilberg ultimis Hispaniae Galliarumque finibus quosdam (quondam S) venisse nobiles PΣDS ultimo Hispaniae vel terrarum orbe venisse ad thaianum quendam H  Hispaniae vel terrarum orbe venisse tatianum quendam λ | quem λH quos PΣDS

T 7 (= F 67 W-­M, 67 J) Tac., Ann. 4.34.3 Titus Livius, eloquentiae et fidei praeclarus, in primis Cn. Pompeium tantis laudibus tulit ut Pompeianum eum Augustus appellaret; neque id amicitiae eorum offecit. Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas, quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insignes viros nominat. post praeclarus interpunxit Woodman, post in primis alii | vocabula imponuntur Beroaldus vocabulum ponuntur M | insignes Beroaldus insigni M

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  109 their audiences, since large numbers came to hear Cornutus, flocking to the man out of obsequiousness and flattery and because of his childlessness, hoping for a legacy. Few came to Livy, but those who did benefited with regard to both beauty of soul and eloquence. That was how it was; but time, which cannot be purchased or bribed, and truth, which guards and attends and rules over it, since they neither need money nor dream of inheriting a legacy, and since they are not captured by any other thing that is shameful and fraudulent and dishonest and slavish, brought this man Livy to light and revealed him, like a hidden treasure ‘containing many fine things’, as Homer puts it [Od. 4.96]: but on Cornutus, who was rich and with an overabundance of possessions, they bestowed oblivion, and virtually no one knows him.

T6

(a) Have you never read that a certain man of Cadiz, moved by the name and glory of Titus Livy, came from the end of the world in order to see him, and as soon as he had seen him went away?

(b) We have read that a certain man of Cadiz came from the end of the world in order to see Titus Livy, a flowing source of milky eloquence; and he whom Rome had not drawn to contemplate herself, was brought by the reputation of a single man.

T 7 (= F 67 W-­M, 67 J) Titus Livy, most famous for eloquence and reliability, exalted Gnaeus Pompey ahead of everyone with such praises that Augustus called him a Pompeian; and that did not hinder their friendship. He nowhere refers to Scipio, Afranius, this very Cassius, this Brutus, as bandits and parricides, which are the names currently used for them, but often as distinguished men.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

110 te xt T8 Suet, Claud. 41.1 historiam in adulescentia hortante T. Livio, Sulpicio vero Flavo etiam adiuvante, scribere adgressus est.

T9 (a) Quint., Inst. 1.5.56 taceo de Tuscis et Sabinis et Praenestinis quoque (nam ut eorum sermone utentem Vettium Lucilius insectatur, quem ad modum Pollio reprendit in Livio Patavinitatem): licet omnia Italica pro Romanis habeam. reprendit Radermacher reprehendit A deprendit B

(b) Quint., Inst. 8.1.2–3 verum illic tantum ne vitiosa essent praecepimus; hic non alienum est admonere ut sint quam minime peregrina et externa. multos enim quibus loquendi ratio non desit invenias quos curiose potius loqui dixeris quam Latine, quo modo et illa Attica anus Theophrastum, hominem alioqui disertissimum, adnotata unius adfectatione verbi hospitem dixit, nec alio se id deprendisse interrogata respondit quam quod nimium Attice loqueretur: et in Tito Livio, mirae facundiae viro, putat inesse Pollio Asinius quandam Patavinitatem. quare, si fieri potest, et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. invenias ed. Campanus inveniam A

T 10 Just. 38.3.11 quam orationem dignam duxi, cuius exemplum brevitati huius operis insererem; quam obliquam Pompeius Trogus exposuit, quoniam in Livio et in Sallustio reprehendit quod contiones directas pro sua oratione operi suo inserendo historiae modum excesserint.

T 11 Jer., Chron. ad 17 p.Chr. Livius historiographus Patavii moritur.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  111 T8 He [Claudius] started to write history in his youth, with the encouragement of Titus Livy, and also with the assistance of Sulpicius Flavus.

T9

(a) I say nothing about the Etruscans and the Sabines and even the Praenestines (for as Lucilius attacks Vettius for using their language, in the same way Pollio reproves the ‘Paduanity’ in Livy): I may treat everything Italian as equivalent to Roman.

(b) But there [sc. in Book 1] I merely advised that words should not be faulty; here it is relevant to warn that there should be as few as possible imported or foreign words. For you may find many who speak in a coherent way, but whom you would say speak pedantically rather than in proper Latin: thus even that old Attic woman called Theophrastus, a man very eloquent in other respects, ‘Foreigner’, when she observed the affected use of a single word. On being questioned, she replied that she had detected it precisely because he spoke with excessive Atticism. And in Titus Livy, a man of amazing eloquence, Asinius Pollio thought there was a certain ‘Paduanity’. Hence, if you can, let both all your words and your accent be redolent of a foster-­child of this city, so that the speech may seem to be fully Roman, not naturalized.

T 10 I thought it worth inserting a copy of this speech [sc. of Mithridates] into this brief work; Pompeius Trogus set it in indirect discourse, since he found fault in Livy and in Sallust that by inserting direct speeches into their work as if they were their own words they exceeded the limits of history.

T 11 Livy the historian dies at Padua.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

112 te xt T 12 CIL V 2975 = ILS 2919 T. Livius C. f. sibi et suis T. Livio T. f. Prisco f., T. Livio T. f. Longo f., Cassiae Sex. f. Primae uxori.

T 13 Vell. 1.17.2 historicos etiam, ut Livium quoque priorum aetati adstruas, praeter Catonem et quosdam veteres et obscuros minus LX X X annis circumdatum aevum tulit, ut nec poetarum in antiquius citeriusve processit ubertas. etiam Vossius et PA

T 14 Vell. 2.36.3 paene stulta est inhaerentium oculis ingeniorum enumeratio, inter quae maxime nostri aevi eminent princeps carminum Vergilius Rabiriusque et consecutus Sallustium Livius Tibullusque et Naso, perfectissimi in forma operis sui. (nam vivorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura difficilis est.) princeps BA principes P | perfectissimi Gelenius perfectissime PA

T 15, cf. F 62 quotiens magni alicuius 〈viri〉 mors ab historicis narrata est, totiens fere consummatio totius vitae et quasi funebris laudatio redditur. hoc, semel aut iterum a Thucydide factum, item in paucissimis personis usurpatum a Sallustio, T. Livius benignus omnibus magnis viris praestitit. sequentes historici multo id effusius fecerunt . . . [F 62] . . . ut est natura candidissimus omnium magnorum ingeniorum aestimator T. Livius, plenissimum Ciceroni testimonium reddidit. Sen., Suas. 6.21–2

viri add. Gronovius | a Thucydide ed. Herv.  adhuc hydide AB  adhuc itidem V | T. Livius T 2 L. Livius ABV | praestitit ed. Frob. praestitisse ABV

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  113 T 12 Titus Livius, son of Gaius, for himself and his family: his son Titus Livius Priscus (son of Titus), his son Titus Livius Longus (son of Titus), his wife Cassia Prima (daughter of Sextus).

T 13 Also when it comes to historians, provided you add Livy too to the period of his predecessors, an age comprising less than eighty years produced them (apart from Cato along with some antique and undistinguished ones), just as the rich supply of poets has not extended to more ancient or nearer times.

T 14 It is almost ridiculous to list the geniuses who are right before our eyes, among whom the most important of our time are Virgil, the leader in poetry, and Rabirius, and Livy, who succeeded Sallust, and Tibullus and Ovid, the most consummate writers in their respective genres. (While there is immense ad­mir­ation for the living, judgement on them is difficult.)

T 15, cf. F 62 Whenever the death of some great man is narrated by the historians, a summary of his whole life and, as it were, a funeral eulogy is usually offered. This was done once or twice by Thucydides, and likewise the practice was adopted for a handful of characters by Sallust. Titus Livy kindly offered it for all great men. Subsequent historians did it much more expansively . . . [F 62] . . . As Titus Livy is naturally the most clear-­hearted judge of all great geniuses, he rendered Cicero the fullest testimonial.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

114 te xt T 16 Suet., Cal. 34.2 sed et Vergili ac Titi Livi scripta et imagines paulum afuit quin ex omnibus bibliothecis amoveret, quorum alterum ut nullius ingenii minimaeque doctrinae, alterum ut verbosum in historia neglegentemque carpebat.

T 17 Sen., Ben. 7.6.1 libros dicimus esse Ciceronis; eosdem Dorus librarius suos vocat, et utrumque verum est. alter illos tamquam auctor sibi, alter tamquam emptor adserit; ac recte utriusque dicuntur esse, utriusque enim sunt, sed non eodem modo. sic potest T. Livius a Doro accipere aut emere libros suos.

T 18 Sen., Epist. 46.1 librum tuum quem mihi promiseras accepi et tamquam lecturus ex commodo adaperui ac tantum degustare volui; deinde blanditus est ipse ut procederem longius. qui quam disertus fuerit ex hoc intellegas licet: levis mihi visus est, cum esset nec mei nec tui corporis, sed qui primo aspectu aut Titi Livii aut Epicuri posset videri. levis codd. brevis Muretus

T 19 Plin., Nat., Book 1 Cites Titus Livius as source for Book 2, Book 3, Book 7. Livio filio is cited as a source in Book 5 and T. Livio filio in Book 6.

T 20 Plin., Epist. 6.20.5 dubito, constantiam vocare an imprudentiam debeam (agebam enim duodevicensimum annum): posco librum Titi Livi, et quasi per otium lego atque etiam ut coeperam excerpo. ecce amicus avunculi qui nuper ad eum ex Hispania venerat, ut me et matrem sedentes, me vero etiam legentem videt, illius patientiam securitatem meam corripit. nihilo segnius ego intentus in librum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  115 T 16 But he [Caligula] was also close to removing the writings and images of Virgil and Titus Livy from all the libraries: he criticized the first of these as being of no intelligence and of little learning, the other as prolix and careless in his history.

T 17 We say the books are Cicero’s; Dorus the bookseller says they are his, and both statements are true. One makes the claim of ownership as the author, the other as the purchaser, and they are correctly said to belong to both. Thus Titus Livy can receive or buy his own books from Dorus.

T 18 I have received your book, which you had promised me, and I opened it up as though I was going to read it at my leisure and only wanted a taste of it; then its very charm meant that I carried on further. How eloquent it was you may understand from this: it seemed to me smooth, as if it were neither part of my work or yours, but could seem at first sight to belong to either Titus Livy or Epicurus.

T 19

T 20 I am not sure whether I ought to call this persistence or imprudence (for I was in my eighteenth year): I asked for a book of Titus Livy, and I was reading it as if at leisure, and was even excerpting it as I had begun to do. And then a friend of my uncle’s, who had recently come to him from Spain, when he saw me and my mother sitting, and me also reading, was critical of her patience and my indifference. I continued to concentrate on my book just as assiduously.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

116 te xt T 21 Stat., Silv. 4.7.53–6 sed tuas artes puer ante discat, omne quis mundi senium remensus orsa Sallusti brevis et Timavi   reddis alumnum.

T 22 Mart. 1.61.3 censetur Aponi Livio suo tellus. Aponi LPQf W Apono EXAVBGC

T 23 Mart. 14.190 Titus Livius in membranis. pellibus exiguis artatur Livius ingens,   quem mea non totum bibliotheca capit.

T 24 (a) Suet., Dom. 10.3 . . . Mettium Pompusianum quod habere imperatoriam genesim vulgo ferebatur et  quod depictum orbem terrae in membrana contionesque regum ac ducum ex  Tito Livio circumferret quodque servis nomina Magonis et Hannibalis indidisset . . . membrana Lugd. Bat. 1596 membranas codd.

(b)  Dio 67.12.4 (from the epitome by Xiphilinus)

ἐκεῖνος δὲ πρότερον μὲν ἐς Κύρνον ἐξώρισε, τότε δὲ καὶ ἐϕόνευσεν, ἐγκληθέντα ἄλλα τε καὶ ὅτι τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν τοῖς τοῦ κοιτῶνος τοίχοις εἶχεν ἐγγεγραμμένην, καὶ τὰς δημηγορίας τὰς τῶν βασιλέων τῶν τε ἄλλων ἀνδρῶν τῶν πρώτων, τὰς παρὰ τῷ Λιουίῳ γεγραμμένας, ἐξειλόχει τε καὶ ἀνεγίνωσκε.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  117 T 21 But let the boy first learn your arts, by which, retracing all the ageing of the world, you render the works of concise Sallust and the foster-­son of the Timavus.

T 22 The land of Aponus is judged by its own Livy.

T 23 Titus Livy on parchment. Vast Livy, the whole of whom does not fit in my library, is reduced onto slender skins.

T 24

(a) [Domitian executed] Mettius Pompusianus because he was popularly regarded as having an imperial horoscope and because he carried around with him a map of the world on parchments, along with speeches of kings and generals from Titus Livy, and because he had given his slaves the names Mago and Hannibal . . .

(b) He [Domitian] first exiled him [Mettius Pompusianus] to Corsica, then actually executed him, charging him with various things, including that he had a map of the world painted onto the walls of his bedroom, and that he had excerpted and read the speeches of kings and other leading men that had been written in Livy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

118 te xt T 25 Quint., Inst. 2.4.18–19 narrationibus non inutiliter subiungitur opus destruendi confirmandique eas, quod ἀνασκευή et κατασκευή vocatur. id porro non tantum in fabulosis et carmine traditis fieri potest, verum etiam in ipsis annalium monumentis: ut, si quaeratur ‘an sit credibile super caput Valeri pugnantis sedisse corvum, qui os oculosque hostis Galli rostro atque alis everberaret’, sit in utramque partem ingens ad dicendum materia; aut de serpente, quo Scipio traditur genitus, et lupa Romuli et Egeria Numae. nam Graecis historiis plerumque poeticae similis licentia est. saepe etiam quaeri solet de tempore, de loco, quo gesta res dicitur, nonnumquam de persona quoque, sicut Livius frequentissime dubitat et alii ab aliis historici dissentiunt. destruendi A restruendi B | materia om. A | aut A ut B

T 26 Quint., Inst. 2.5.18–19 quod si potuerit optineri, non ita difficilis supererit quaestio qui legendi sint incipientibus. nam quidam illos exiliores, quia facilior eorum intellectus videbatur, probaverunt, alii floridius genus, ut ad alenda primarum aetatium ingenia magis accommodatum. ego optimos quidem et statim et semper, sed tamen eorum candidissimum quemque et maxime expositum velim, ut Livium a pueris magis quam Sallustium (et hic historiae maior est auctor, ad quem tamen intellegendum iam profectu opus sit). exiliores Innes minores codd.

T 27 Quint., Inst. 10.1.32 itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit eum qui non speciem expositionis sed fidem quaerit. qua P quia G

T 28 Quint., Inst. 10.1.101–2 nec opponere Thucydidi Sallustium verear, nec indignetur sibi Herodotus aequari Titum Livium, cum in narrando mirae iucunditatis clarissimique candoris, tum

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  119 T 25 To narrations it is useful to append the exercise of refuting and confirming them, which is called anaskeue and kataskeue. That can moreover be done not only in fantastic narratives and those transmitted in verse, but also in the very monuments of the annals: so that, if one were to ask ‘whether it is credible that a raven settled on the head of Valerius as he was fighting, which struck at the face and eyes of the enemy Gaul with its beak and wings’, there would be a great deal of material for speaking on either side; or of the snake which is said to have begotten Scipio, and Romulus’ wolf and Numa’s Egeria. In Greek his­tor­ies there is often similar licence to poetry. There are often also questions about the time and the place where an event is said to have happened, and sometimes about the protagonist also, such as Livy very often shows doubt over and different historians differ one from the other.

T 26 If this point [sc. the importance of reading history and oratory] is accepted, there remains the fairly easy question of who should be read by beginners. Some people have recommended so-­called drier writers, because understanding them seemed easier, others the more florid kind, as being more suited to nourish the intellects of the very young. Personally I recommend the best ­writers both at the start and always, but, of those, I prefer those who are most clear-­sighted and transparent, such as Livy rather than Sallust for boys (the latter is the greater historical authority, but one needs further progress to understand him).

T 27 Therefore, as I have said, that brevity of Sallust, which is the most ideal thing when heard by ears that are unoccupied and learned, should not be adopted by us when we are dealing with a judge who is occupied with different thoughts and often unlearned, and that milky richness of Livy will not be ad­equate to teach the person who is looking for reliability rather than elegance of exposition.

T 28 And I would not fear to set Sallust against Thucydides, nor would Herodotus complain about being matched with Titus Livy, a writer both of extraordinary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

120 te xt in contionibus supra quam enarrari potest eloquentem, ita quae dicuntur omnia cum rebus tum personis accommodata sunt: adfectus quidem, praecipueque eos qui sunt dulciores, ut parcissime dicam, nemo historicorum commendavit magis. ideoque illam inmortalem Sallusti velocitatem diversis virtutibus consecutus est. nam mihi egregie dixisse videtur Servilius Nonianus pares eos magis quam similes.

T 29 Orig., Preface origo gentis Romanae a Iano et Saturno conditoribus, per succedentes sibimet reges usque ad consulatum decimum Constantii, digesta ex auctoribus Verrio Flacco, Antiate, ut quidem idem Verrius maluit dicere quam Antia, tum ex annalibus pontificum, dein Cincio, Egnatio, Veratio, Fabio Pictore, Licinio Macro, Varrone, Caesare, Tuberone atque ex omni priscorum historia, proinde ut quisque neotericorum asseveravit, hoc est et Livius et Victor Afer. Antiate . . . Egnatio OP om. M | Antia, tum Schott Antiatum OP | Macro Schott Marco OP om. M  |  atque ex omni OP  et omni M | et Livius OP Livius M

T 30 Aur. Vict., Caes., titulus LIBER DE CAESARIBUS AURELII VICTORIS HISTORIAE ABBREVIATAE ab Augusto Octaviano, id est a fine Titi Livii, usque ad consulatum decimum Constantii Augusti et Iuliani Caesaris tertium.

T 31 Hist. Aug., Aurelian 2 et quoniam sermo nobis de Trebellio Pollione—­qui a duobus Philippis usque ad divum Claudium et eius fratrem Quintillum imperatores tam claros quam obscuros memoriae prodidit—­in eodem vehiculo fuit, adserente Tiberiano quod Pollio multa incuriose, multa breviter prodidisset, me contra dicente neminem scriptorum, quantum ad historiam pertinet, non aliquid esse mentitum, prodente quin etiam in quo Livius, in quo Sallustius, in quo Cornelius Tacitus, in quo denique Trogus manifestis testibus convincerentur, pedibus in sententiam transitum faciens ac manum porrigens iocando praeterea: ‘scribe’, inquit, ‘ut libet. securus quod velis dices, habiturus mendaciorum comites quos historicae eloquentiae miramur auctores.’ iocando Salmasius iocandam P iudicandam al.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  121 delight and the most limpid clarity in narrative, and one indescribably eloquent in speeches, such that everything said is fitted to both the situations and the characters. In fact, in the case of emotions, no historian (to put it briefly) has portrayed them more attractively, especially the gentler ones. That is how he measured up to that immortal rapidity of Sallust with different virtues. For Servilius Nonianus [FRHist 79 F 1] seems to me to have spoken excellently, when he said that they were equal more than similar. T 29 The origin of the Roman people from their founders Janus and Saturn, through the successive rulers up to the tenth consulship of Constantius, summarized from the authors Verrius Flaccus, Antias (since the same Verrius preferred to say ‘Antias’ rather than ‘Antia’), then from the annals of the pontifices, then Cincius, Egnatius, Veratius, Fabius Pictor, Licinius Macer, Varro, Caesar, Tubero, and from all the history of the ancients, exactly as all of the later historians have affirmed, namely both Livy and Victor the African.

T 30 THE BOOK OF THE CAESARS OF THE ABRIDGED HISTORY OF AURELIUS VICTOR from Octavian Augustus (namely from the end of Titus Livy), up to the tenth consulship of Constantine Augustus and the third of Julian Caesar.

T 31 And in the same carriage we were discussing Trebellius Pollio, who placed on record the emperors, both famous and undistinguished, from the two Philips up to the deified Claudius and his brother Quintillus. Tiberianus insisted that Pollio had produced a lot of careless and brief work, but I objected that there was no writer, as far as history went, who had not lied in some matter, and even offered points in which Livy, Sallust, Cornelius Tacitus, and finally Trogus could be refuted by demonstrable evidence. He came over to my opinion and, stretching out his hand, added jokingly ‘Write as you will. You will safely say what you want, since you will have companions in your lies whom we admire as authors of ­historical eloquence.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

122 te xt T 32 Hist. Aug., Prob. 2.3–7 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? Publium Scipionem Africanum, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? longum est omnia persequi quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. illud tantum contestatum volo, me et rem scripsisse quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 〈ut〉 non Sallustios, Livios, Tacitos, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 〈ut〉 non Peter non P

T 33 Hist. Aug., Quatt.Tyr. 6.3–4 sed haec scire quid prodest, cum et Livius et Sallustius taceant res leves de his quorum vitas arripuerunt? non enim scimus quales mulos Clodius habuerit aut mulas Titus Annius Milo, aut utrum Tusco equo sederit Catilina an Sardo, vel quali clamide Pompeius usus fuerit [purpura]. vitas Ch vita PR vitam edd.  |  quali clamide usus fuerit codd.  quali in clamide Klein | [purpura] del. Eyssenhardt

T 34 Auson., Commem. Profess. Burg. 20.9 historiam callens Livii et Herodoti.

T 35 Symm., Epist. 4.18.5 priscas Gallorum memorias deferri in manus tuas postulas. revolve Patavini scriptoris extrema quibus res Gai Caesaris explicantur, aut, si inpar est desiderio tuo Livius, sume ephemeridem C.  Caesaris, decerptam bibliotheculae meae ut tibi muneri mitteretur. haec te origines, situs, pugnas, et quidquid fuit in moribus aut legibus Galliarum, docebit.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  123 T 32 Who, after all, would have known of Gnaeus Pompey, radiant with the three triumphs of the Pirate War, the Sertorian War, and the Mithridatic War, and lifted by the magnificence of many achievements, if Marcus Tullius and Titus Livy had not recorded him in literature? Surely darkness would own and cover over Publius Scipio Africanus—­in fact, all of the Scipios, whether Luciuses or Nasicas, had not historians, famous and obscure alike, existed as their recommenders. Even if I kept quiet, it would take a long time to go through everything which requires deploying in order to illustrate things like this. I want to call one thing only to witness: that I have also written about a matter which, if anyone wants, he may present more honourably and with loftier eloquence; and in describing the lives and times of the Emperors I was intending to imitate not the Sallusts, the Livys, the Tacituses, the Troguses, and all of the most eloquent men, but Marius Maximus, Suetonius Tranquillus, Fabius Marcellinus, Gargilius Martialis, Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, and the others who have recorded for posterity these and related matters not eloquently so much as truthfully.

T 33 But what is the use of knowing these things [sc. trivial details about Firmus], when both Livy and Sallust are silent on minor details of those whose lives they have appropriated? For we do not know what sort of male mules were owned by Clodius, or female mules by Titus Annius Milo, or whether Catiline rode an Etruscan or a Sardinian horse, or what kind of cloak Pompey used.

T 34 [Of the rhetor Staphylius] Knowledgeable in the history of Livy and Herodotus.

T 35 You ask that the ancient records of the Gauls be sent to you. Read over the final volumes of the Paduan writer, in which the deeds of Gaius Caesar are set out, or, if Livy is unequal to your wishes, take the diary of Gaius Caesar which I have selected from my little library to be sent to you as a gift. This will teach you the origins, landscape, battles, and everything else related to the customs and laws of Gaul.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

124 te xt T 36 Symm., Epist. 9.13 munus totius Liviani operis quod spopondi etiam nunc diligentia emendationis moratur. sed a te praedicti muneris posco vectorem, quia meos praetorius ­apparatus sparsim in longinqua egit. retinet et ignotos. praetorius Modius praeconos Γ | sparsim Iuretus pars codd.  |  retinet et ignotos Γ om. Π ante retinet lacunam ind. Seeck

T 37 Subscriptions to MSS of Livy Books 1–9 (a)  Victorianus v.c. emendabam domnis Symmachis (Books 1–9) Found in: Books 1, 4–9 M  Books 2–7 H  Books 8–9 D  Book 8 A  Books 4–5 E  Book 5 O  Books 1, 4 P

(b)  Nicomachus Dexter v.c. emendavi (Books 3–4) Found in: Book 4 MEP  Books 3–4 H

(c)  Nicomachus Dexter v.c. emendavi ad exemplum parentis mei Clementiani (Book 5) Found in: MHEO

(d)  Nicomachus Flavianus v.c. III praefectus urbis emendavi (Book 6) Found in: MH

(e) emendavi Nicomachus Flavianus v.c. ter praef. urbis apud Hennam (Books 7–8) Found in: Books 7–8 M  Book 7 H Hennam MH (Book 7)  term M (Book 8)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  125 T 36 The gift which I promised you of the entire work of Livy is still being delayed by the care with which it is being corrected. But I am asking you for someone to convey the aforementioned gift, because the preparations for the praetorship have scattered my people far and wide. It occupies even the unknown ones.

T 37

(a) I, the distinguished gentleman Victorianus, was correcting this for the lords Symmachi.

(b) I, the distinguished gentleman Nicomachus Dexter, corrected this.

(c) I, the distinguished gentleman Nicomachus Dexter, corrected this against the text of my relative Clementianus.

(d) I, the distinguished gentleman Nicomachus Flavianus, thrice Prefect of the City, corrected this.

(e) I, the distinguished gentleman Nicomachus Flavianus, thrice Prefect of the City, corrected this at Henna.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

126 te xt T 38 (a) Serv., Aen. 1.373 inter historiam et annales hoc interest: historia est eorum temporum quae vel vidimus vel videre potuimus, dicta ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱστορεῖν, id est videre; annales vero sunt eorum temporum quae aetas nostra non novit: unde Livius ex annalibus et historia constat. temporum quae aetas BC  annorum et temporum, quae aetas Stephanus  temporum annorumque, quae aetas Lion

(b) Isid., Orig. 1.44.4 inter historiam autem et annales hoc interest, quod historia est eorum temporum quae vidimus, annales vero sunt eorum annorum quos aetas nostra non novit. unde Sallustius ex historia, Livius, Eusebius et Hieronymus ex annalibus et historia constant. vidimus CT videmus BK | historia, Livius Dressel ex Servio historialibus codd.

T 39 Jer., In Dan. Prol. ad intellegendas autem extremas partes Danielis, multiplex Graecorum historia necessaria est: Sutorii videlicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronici cognomento Alipi, quos et Porphyrius secutum esse se dicit, Iosephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Iosephus, praecipueque nostri Livii, et Pompeii Trogi, atque Iustini, qui omnem extremae visionis narrant historiam, et, post Alexandrum usque ad Caesarem Augustum, Syriae et Aegypti id est Seleuci et Antiochi et Ptolemaeorum bella describunt. secutum esse se MF  esse se secutum R  secutum se esse A | omnem MF omnes R

T 40 (a) Jer., Epist. 22.35 . . . Josephus, Graecus Livius . . .

(b) Cassiod., Inst. 1.17.1 ut est Ioseppus, paene secundus Livius, in libris Antiquitatum Iudaicorum late diffusus, quem pater Hieronymus, scribens ad Lucinum Betticum, propter magnitudinem prolixi operis a se perhibet non potuisse transferri. paene ceteri codd. Plinius H

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  127 T 38

(a) This is the difference between history and annals: history is of those times which either we have seen or could have seen, and is named apo tou historein [sc. ‘from enquiry’], in other words seeing. Annals, however, are of those times with which our generation is not acquainted. Consequently Livy consists of annals and history.

(b) This is the difference between history and annals, that history is of those times which we have seen, annals, however, are of those years with which our generation is not acquainted. Consequently Sallust consists of history, Livy, Eusebius, and Jerome of annals and history.

T 39 To understand the final parts of Daniel, a multiplicity of histories of the Greeks is required, namely of Sutorius, Callinus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, Claudius Theon, and Andronicus surnamed Alipius, all of whom Porphyry, too, says that he followed. Then there is also Josephus and those whom Josephus cites, and in particular our own Livy, and Pompeius Trogus, and Justin, who narrate the entire history of the final vision, and describe the wars after Alexander up to Caesar Augustus, those of Syria and Egypt, in other words of Seleucus and Antiochus and the Ptolemies.

T 40

(a) . . . Josephus, the Greek Livy . . .

(b) As Josephus, almost a second Livy, expands far and wide in his books of The Jewish Antiquities; of him father Jerome, writing to Lucinus Betticus, says that he is unable to translate him because of the massiveness of his verbose work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

128 te xt T 41 Jer., Epist. 58.5 poetae aemulentur Homerum, Virgilium, Menandrum, Terentium; historici, Thucydidem, Sallustium, Herodotum, Livium; oratores, Lysiam, Graccos, Demosthenem, Tullium.

T 42 Mart. Cap. 5.550 narrationum genera sunt quattuor: historia, fabula, argumentum, negotialis vel iudicialis assertio. historia est, ut Livii.

T 43 Sidon., Epist. 9.14.7 simile quiddam facis et ipse, si proposita restituas eque diverso quae repeteris expedias. namque imminet tibi thematis celeberrimi votiva redhibitio, laus videlicet peroranda, quam edideras, Caesaris Iulii. quae materia tam grandis est ut studentum si quis fuerit ille copiosissimus, nihil amplius in ipsa debeat cavere quam ne quid minus dicat. nam, si omittantur quae de titulis dictatoris invicti scripta Patavinis sunt voluminibus, quis opera Suetonii, quis Iuventii Martialis historiam quisve ad extremum Balbi ephemeridem fando adaequaverit? imminet Wilamowitz eminet codd. | quam edideras PF  quam idideras M  quae dederas C quam edixeras Wilamowitz  quam meditaris Anderson | omittantur PM dimitantur F demitantur C

T 44 Sidon., Carm. 2.188–9           quicquid in aevum mittunt Euganeis Patavina volumina chartis.

T 45 Sidon., Carm. 23.145–6 quid vos eloquii canam Latini Arpinas, Patavine, Mantuane?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  129 T 41 Let poets rival Homer, Virgil, Menander, Terence. Historians: Thucydides, Sallust, Herodotus, Livy. Orators: Lysias, the Gracchi, Demosthenes, Cicero.

T 42 There are four genres of narrations: history, fable, fiction, and the statement of business or law. History is like Livy’s.

T 43 You yourself will be doing something similar if you pay back the things I have mentioned and dispatch to me in return the things for which you are being asked. The desired recompense is available to you, in the form of the distinguished topic, namely the encomium that you produced, delivered on the subject of Julius Caesar. That is such an expansive theme, that the most resourceful of students ought to be afraid of nothing more in it than of his speech falling short. For if one overlooks the things written about the renown of the unconquered dictator in the volumes of the Paduan, who could speak in a way to equal the works of Suetonius, the history of Juventius Martialis, or finally the diary of Balbus?

T 44 [He read] whatever the volumes of the Paduan send to the ages on Euganean pages.

T 45 Why should I sing of you who are of Latin eloquence, you the Arpinan, the Paduan, the Mantuan?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

130 te xt T 46 Cassiod., Chron. 564 cuius temporibus floruerunt Vergilius, Horatius et Livius.

T 47 Cassiod., Chron. 1370 a Bruto et Tarquinio usque ad consulatum vestrum, sicut ex Tito Livio et Aufidio Basso et paschali clarorum virorum auctoritate firmato collegimus, anni sunt MXXXI.

T 48 John Malalas, Chron. 8.28

καὶ μετὰ δόξης ἀνῆλθεν ὁ Σκηπίων ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ καθὼς ὁ σοϕώτατος Φλῶρος ὑπεμνημάτισεν ἐκ τῶν Λιβίου 〈τοῦ σοϕωτάτου〉 συγγραμμάτων. 〈τοῦ σοϕωτάτου〉 add. Sl.

T 49 John Malalas, Chron. 9.2

ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς οὖν χρόνοις Λίβιος ὁ σοϕὸς Ῥωμαίων ὑπῆρχεν ἱστορικός, ὃς ἐξέθετο πολλὰ περὶ Ῥωμαίων. T 50 Flor., titulus L.  ANNAEI FLORI EPITOMAE DE TITO LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM DCC L.  ANNAEI FLORI EPITOMAE DE TITO LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM DCC Rossbach EPITHOMA IULI FLORI DE TITO LIVIO BELLORUM OMNIUM ANNORUM SEPTINGENTORUM LIBRI N DUO FELICITER B L.  ANNAEI FLORI EPITOMA DE TITO LIVIO INCIPIT LIBER PRIMUS LEGE FELICITER N  INCIPIT LIBER PRIMUS EPITOMARUM ANNEI FLORI DE TITO LIVIO L

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  131 T 46 In his [sc. Augustus’] time Virgil, Horace, and Livy flourished.

T 47 From Brutus and Tarquin to your [sc. Eutharic’s] consulship [ad 519], as we have learned from Titus Livy and Aufidius Bassus and the Easter calendar supported by the authority of famous men, there are 1,031 years.

T 48 And Scipio returned to Rome in great glory, as the most learned Florus recounted, following the writings of the most learned Livy.

T 49 At the same time [sc. during Caesar’s dictatorship] Livy was alive, the learned historian of the Romans, who produced extensive works about the Romans.

T 50 THE EPITOMES OF LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS OF ALL THE WARS OF 700 YEARS FROM TITUS LIVY

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

132 te xt T 51 Syncellus, p. 385 (Mosshammer)

ἐπὶ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ϕιλόσοϕοι ἤκμαζον ἐπίσημοι οὗτοι; Βιργίλιος, Σαλούστιος, Λίβιος, Ὁρτένσιος, Τερέντιος, Ὁράτιος, Ἀθηνόδωρος Ταρσεὺς καὶ Σιτίων Ἀλεξανδρεύς. T 52 Suid., Κ 342 (Adler)

Καπίτων, Λύκιος, ἱστορικός. οὗτος ἔγραψεν Ἰσαυρικὰ βιβλία ὀκτώ, μετάϕρασιν τῆς ἐπιτομῆς Εὐτροπίου, Ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐπιτεμόντος Λίβιον τὸν Ῥωμαῖον, καὶ περὶ Λυκίας καὶ Παμϕυλίας. T 53 (= F 78 W-­M, F 76 J) Quint., Inst. 1.7.24 ‘sibe’ et ‘quase’ scriptum in multorum libris est, sed an hoc voluerint auctores nescio; T. Livium ita his usum esse ex Pediano comperi, qui et ipse eum sequebatur; haec nos I littera finimus. sibe et quase B  sive et quare A

T 54 Quint., Inst. 8.6.20 maxime autem in orando valebit numerorum illa libertas. nam et Livius saepe sic dicit: ‘Romanus proelio victor’, cum Romanos vicisse significat.

T 55 Char., Gramm. 70.8–9 (Barwick) Romanus autem in libro de analogia VII refert sic: anforum ut Plinius eodem libro VI et Livius. analogia . . . Livius non legi in N potest; supplendum est ex codicibus deperditis ab Cauchio et Putschen lectis | VII ab Cauchio legitur  autem in VII Putschen

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  133 T 51 Under Caesar Augustus these distinguished philosophers flourished: Virgil, Sallust, Livy, Hortensius, Terentius, Horace, Athenodorus of Tarsus, and Sition of Alexandria.

T 52 Capito, a Lycian historian. He wrote eight books on Isauria, a paraphrase of the epitome of Eutropius (the Latin epitomizer of Livy the Roman), and on Lycia and Pamphylia.

T 53 (= F 78 W-­M, F 76 J) sibe and quase are written in many people’s books, but I am not sure whether the authors wanted this. I have learned from Pedianus [sc. Asconius] that Titus Livy used these spellings, and he himself followed him; but we end these words with the letter I.

T 54 That freedom over number will be especially effective in oratory. For even Livy often speaks like this: ‘The Roman, victor in the battle’, when he means that the Romans were victorious.

T 55 But Romanus in De Analogia Book 7 says thus: ‘anforum, like Pliny in the same Book 6 [Dub. Serm. fr. 61 (Della Casa)] and Livy’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

134 te xt T 56 Char., Gramm. 98.5–8 (Barwick) et Livius in significatione scuti neutraliter saepius et Pomponius in Capella, cum ait ‘clipeum in medium fixum est’.

T 57 Char., Gramm. 224.9–12 (Barwick) praeterea apud auctores historicos, velut Sallustium Livium, parare arcere facere adire pro parabant arcebant faciebant adibant, ut ex ipsis lectionibus cognosci poterit. praeterea apud auctores historicos N  praeterea dicebatur infinito apud veteres auctores praesertim historicos b

T 58 (= F 81 W-­M, F 79 J) Fragmentum Bobiense De Nomine et Pronomine p. 564 (Keil) haec antiqui etiam singulari numero sicut masculina et feminina declinabant, dicentes huius genus et huius cornus et huic genui huic cornui. unde et Lucanus ‘cornus tibi cura sinistri, Lentule, cum prima, quae tum fuit o. b. e. q. l. d.’, et Livius ubique in historia. sinistri correxi ex Lucano sinistra cod. Bob. apud Keil

T 59 (= F 74 W-­M, F 73 J) Serv., Aen. 7.10 in hoc summo oppidum fuit, quod et Circeium dictum est et Circei; nam utrumque Livius dicit. Circeium A cir///eum S Circetum RH Circeum LM Circaeum F | post dictum est add. D a Circe | Circei ARH Circaei SLF Circeium M

T 60 Prisc., Inst. 18.172 (286 K)

δεκαπέντε καὶ πεντεκαίδεκα; nos contra ‘quindecim’ et ‘decem et quinque’; Livius tamen frequenter etiam sine coniunctione septemdecem et decemseptem.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  135 T 56 And Livy more often uses it [sc. clipeum] in the neuter in the sense of a shield, and Pomponius in ‘The She-­Goat’ [Ribbeck pp. 274–5], when he says ‘The shield [clipeum] was fixed in the middle’.

T 57 Besides, in authors of histories, like Sallust and Livy, [one finds] parare, arcere, facere, adire, in place of parabant, arcebant, faciebant, adibant, as can be seen from reading them.

T 58 (= F 81 W-­M, F 79 J) The ancients also declined these in the singular like masculines and feminines, saying huius genus and huius cornus and huic genui and huic cornui. Thus both Lucan says [7.217–19] ‘You, Lentulus, were in charge of the left wing, when you were granted the first legion, the best at that time for war, and the fourth’, and Livy everywhere in his history.

T 59 (= F 74 W-­M, F 73 J) On the top of this there was a town, which was called both Circeium and Circei; for Livy says it both ways.

T 60 dekapente and pentekaideka; we correspondingly say quindecim and decem et quinque; but Livy frequently also without the conjunction says septemdecem and decemseptem.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

136 te xt T 61 (= F 79 W-­M, F 77 J) Prisc., Inst. 18.231 (323 K) Livius frequenter ‘in milites’ pro ‘in singulos milites’.

T 62 (= F 80 W-­M, F 78 J) Prisc., Inst. 18.292 (365 K) unde et ‘assertio’ tam a servitute in libertatem quam a libertate in servitium trahi significat, quod apud Livium in multis legimus locis. et om. D

T 63 (= F 82 W-­M, F 80 J) Anon., Dub. Nom. 591 K scalper generis masculini, sicut culter, ut T. Livius, quamvis quidam scalprum dicant. quamvis . . . dicant om. M

T 64 Jer., In Dan. II, 5:7c rem quidem facio ridiculam ut in expositione prophetarum de verborum generibus quasi grammaticus disputem, sed quia a quodam nihil sciente et omnia pollicente reprehensus sum cur torquem genere feminino transtulerim, breviter annotabo quod Cicero in Mario torquem in genere feminino, Titus Livius masculino dixerint. in mario MFR  et Maro A in marg. alt. m. recent.  in Manlio Glorie | dixerint AF dixerit MR

T 65 (= F 72 W-­M) (a) Serv., Aen. 4.242 unde secundum Livium legati pacis caduceatores dicuntur.

(b) Isid., Orig. 8.11.48 unde secundum Livium legati pacis caduceatores dicuntur.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

transl ation  137 T 61 (= F 79 W-­M, F 77 J) Livy frequently says ‘to soldiers’ instead of ‘to individual soldiers’.

T 62 (= F 80 W-­M, F 78 J) Hence assertio, too, equally means someone being brought from slavery to freedom and from freedom to slavery, which we read in many places in Livy.

T 63 (= F 82 W-­M, F 80 J) scalper, like culter is of the masculine gender, as in Titus Livy, although some ­people say scalprum.

T 64 I indeed regard it as a ludicrous matter to debate the genders of words like a schoolmaster when I am explaining the prophets, but, because someone who knows nothing and promises anything has criticized me for having translated torquem in the feminine gender, I shall only briefly note that Cicero in the Marius [fr. 19 (Courtney)] said torquem in the feminine gender, Titus Livy in the masculine.

T 65 (= F 72 W-­M)

(a) and (b) Hence, according to Livy, peace envoys are called caduceatores.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Commentary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments FF 1–2 These fragments were discovered in 1986 by Polish excavators working at Gebel el Naqlun in Egypt. They consist of opposite sides of a small scrap of parchment; the piece now resides at the Coptic Museum in Cairo. It derives from a high-­quality codex written in the middle of the fifth century ad;1 each fragment contains two columns of text, but all of the identifiable material is from just one of the columns on each side of the page, with no more than a handful of letters surviving from the other. The text was first published in 1988 by Benedetto Bravo and Miriam Griffin, who identified it as a portion of Livy Book 11. The grounds for the identification were that the two fragments relate to separate parts of the year 291 bc; they thus derive from a continuous large-­scale history rather than an epitome or a set of discrete anecdotes, and no large-­scale Latin history of the Republic other than Livy’s is likely to have been copied so lavishly in the fifth century in Egypt (or copied elsewhere and brought to Egypt). The fragments moreover contain some dis­tinct­ ive­ly Livian phrasing, and are largely congruous with his manner and with what little other evidence we have for his treatment of these events (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 464–70, 494–6, 514–19). The fullest surviving account of the events is in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (AR 17/18.4.3–5.4), though it is also alluded to in Dio fr. 36.32. L.  Postumius Megellus, the consul of 291, sent two thousand of his soldiers to his estate to cut down a grove, then kept them there as forced labour; then, against sen­at­or­ial opposition, he violently forced Q. Fabius Gurges out of his proconsular command against the Samnites in order to take over the war himself. He was victorious in his campaign, capturing Cominium and Venusia, but the Senate’s opposition kept him from involvement in the subsequent foundation of a colony at Venusia. His dispute with the Senate culminated in his handing the spoils of the campaign over to his troops, disbanding his army before his successor could take it over, and celebrating a triumph which had not been decreed to him by the Senate or the people. Accordingly, following his de­part­ure from office, he was prosecuted and convicted by the tribal assembly. These fragments of Livy preserve elements from two of these episodes: first, Postumius’ sending his troops to work on his estate, and second, the point when he sought to compel Fabius to give up his command. Both of these raise issues about the social and political background to Postumius’ actions: surviving narratives present them as violating accepted norms of behaviour, and as such they would have contributed to the alienation of him among the Roman populace that 1  For the date see Bravo and Griffin (1988), 464; Liberman ((1992): cf. also (1994), 22) on the basis of similarities with the Puteanus MS of the Third Decade, proposed to date the MS earlier in the fifth century, but see contra Funari 243–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  141 culminated in his conviction, but it has been argued that Postumius might have seen himself as exercising valid rights as commander. In the first case, Emilio Gabba (cited in Bravo and Griffin (1988), 503) argued that Postumius might have regarded his soldiers as effectively his clients, and himself as entitled to employ their labour: there was also a problem of the avail­abil­ity of labour, since nexum had been abolished (Livy 8.28), and slavery may not have been widespread enough for Postumius to acquire sufficient slaves to work a large estate (cf. also Gabrielli (2003), 254–7). Against Gabba’s theory, however, there is little evidence that soldiers would ever have been regarded in the category of clientes; slavery appears to have been widely used well before this time (cf. Oakley (1998), 182–3), and, despite the abolition of nexum, other forms of debt-­bondage continued to exist in Rome (Brunt (1988), 285–6). Hence there is no evidence for a labour shortage at this period, and in any case Gabba does not consider the possibility that Postumius might simply have paid labourers for the work. A more limited but also more plausible version of the same idea is presented by  Terrenato (2019), 164–5 (following a suggestion by Gabrielli (2003), 255–6; cf. also Grossmann (2009), 164), who argues that Postumius’ behaviour was a remnant of the earlier structure in the Republican army, with generals as quasi-­warlords whose troops owed them a personal loyalty rather than seeing their primary ­loyalty as to the state. Even if so, however, as Terrenato implies, the active use of those soldiers as estate labour was felt to cross a substantial line, at least by the early third century, and this accounts for his prosecution. Postumius was indeed outrageously and unacceptably abusing his authority as commander—­it is far from unparalleled even in modern times, when there are clear rules forbidding people in positions of public authority to employ those under them on their private business, for egregious violations of those rules to occur. On the other hand, when it comes to Postumius’ removal of Fabius from his proconsulship, there is a stronger case to be made that he might have been seeking to preserve traditional authority in a relatively novel situation. It was not new for Fabius Gurges to have had his consular command extended into a proconsulship, but the institution extended back less than thirty years (although some dubious examples are reported from the early Republic, the first securely authenticated instance was P. Publilius Philo in 326), and, to judge from Livy’s narrative, it only began to be used routinely in the years 296–295. It is possible that there was an anomaly in Fabius’ appointment, since Dionysius’ account only mentions a sen­at­ or­ial measure although ratification by the assembly was required (cf. Mommsen, StR3 III 1090), but probably Dionysius has merely failed to describe the full legal procedure (as Livy himself does at various times).2 It is more likely that the prorogation was constitutionally correct, but Postumius was angered by what he saw as 2  Cf. Plb. 6.15.6 for the misleading suggestion that prorogation in his day could take place by sen­at­ or­ial fiat; this is accepted as historical by e.g. Walbank (1957), 688–9, but see contra e.g. Oakley (1998), 660–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

142 Commentary the usurpation of his rightful place as consul to take the leading role in the war (cf. Staveley (1963), 475).3 The surviving portion of F2 supports this latter in­ter­ pret­ation, since it allows us to fill in something of the arguments that Livy put into Postumius’ mouth: Postumius suggested that Fabius’ refusal to surrender his command was not genuinely in accordance with the decree of prorogation, since Postumius himself (so he claimed) had the ultimate authority to decide whether or not Fabius was allowed to remain in the province (cf. Bravo and Griffin (1988), 512–13). One other issue that arises from the material in the fragments relates to the nature of the work that Postumius had his men carry out. It appears to have involved the cutting down of a sacred grove: that the grove was sacred is nowhere stated directly, but is implicit both in Dionysius (AR 17/18.4.3, who refers to the soldiers having to perform the task ‘without iron’ (ἄνευ σιδήρου), and in Dio, where the soldiers subsequently fall ill, which was blamed on their activities in the grove. The surviving fragment of Livy makes no mention of this, but it is altogether plausible that, given his regular interest in correlating the successes and failures of Romans to questions of piety and divine reward or punishment, he had something of it also. For full palaeographical details of the parchment see Bravo and Griffin (1988), 449–64. It has subsequently been re-­edited by Funari 239–58, although he, like me, did not personally examine it, instead relying solely on Bravo’s readings and the accompanying photographs. Other studies of the fragments, focusing on their historical implications, include Palmer (1990) and Gabrielli (2003), (2012). F1 ]ens [±4/5].nt: Bravo proposed ingens ei erant; he suggests that the entire phrase was along the lines of villa et ager ingens ei erant or ager et saltus ingens ei erant (cf. 22.14.8 villarum agrorumque and 27.26.6 agros saltusque, though the context there is very different): Livy would, on this view, have described Postumius’ farm directly before recounting his decision to send his troops there (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 474). However, while this reconstruction suits the context, it is too speculative to be offered as more than a tentative possibility. ha[u]t: Bravo corrected to haud, but the MS form should probably be retained. Even in the short scrap surviving from this MS, it, like other fifth-century MSS of  Livy, contains several archaic forms; the usual practice among editors is to ‘normalize’ them to the classical forms (cf. Briscoe (1986), ix), but it can hardly be asserted that they were not used by Livy himself. pro[cul]: Bravo’s reconstruction is overwhelmingly probable: haud procul is a regular phrase in Livy (Pinkster 1.691–2). 3  Loreto (1993), 52–3 argues that Postumius’ objection was less constitutional than geographic: that Fabius was exercising his command in a geographical region which was rightfully within Postumius’ sphere. However, that interpretation fits less well with Dionysius’ narrative of the dispute.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  143 G]abiis: Gabii (BarrAtl Map 43 C2) was a Latin town around 18 km east of Rome, on the slopes of an extinct volcano now known as the Lago di Castiglione. According to Roman tradition, it came into conflict with Rome in the late regal period, the war resulting in a Roman victory and the in­corp­or­ation of the Gabine population as Roman citizens. From then on little is heard of Gabii as an independent political unit, although it appears to have been one, and various references to it in religious contexts attest to its cultural influence on Rome (see esp. Varro, Ling. 5.33). According to a report in Macrobius (Sat. 3.9.13), at an unspecified point in history Gabii was ‘devoted’—consecrated for destruction; however, it clearly survived or was refounded in some form, since it is recorded as a municipium in the early empire (CIL XIV 2802 = ILS 948); but by the Augustan period it had become proverbial as a decayed community (e.g. Hor., Epist. 1.11.7–8, Prop. 4.1.34; cf. Cic., Planc. 23). Palmer (1990) explores possible historical connections between Postumius and Gabii, which could explain his ownership of an estate and a sacred grove in the vicinity. His argument is largely speculative, but the most concrete point is that, according to Dionysius (AR 4.58.4), there was a record of the treaty between Rome and Gabii in the temple of Dius Fidius Semo Sancus, a temple which Dionysius elsewhere reports was dedicated by one of Postumius’ ancestors (AR 9.60.8). He also connects Postumius’ cutting down of a sacred grove with the ‘devotion’ of the town, which he dates to the time of the Latin war in 338, when (he suggests) Postumius’ family may have come into possession of their estate. For the archaeology of the town see Guaítoli (1981a), (1981b), and esp. Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato (2009). [Ga]bios: Bravo’s reconstruction from the MS [..]ụịos; no possible location in the region ends with -uii, while the confusion of b and u reflects the changes in the pronunciation of Latin in the late antique period (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 475). novos: For the archaizing spelling of the nominative see above. exer[cit]us indictus esset: A distinctively Livian phrase for the enrolment of an army in a particular location: it is used in no other author (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 487). centuriati: This verb is not unique to Livy, but he employs it more than any other writer does (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 487). pe[.]ditum: A hole in the MS shows that a letter has been lost; however, the context shows that the word certainly is peditum, and the missing letter, accordingly, must have arisen from a scribal error (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 460). suom: For the archaic spelling cf. above. cons[ul: The most plausible reconstruction of the text: Postumius is certainly the subject of the sentence, and probably needed to be mentioned explicitly (contra Gigante (1993)), since the previous sentence looks as if it may have had a plural subject, to judge by the verb ending in -nt earlier in the fragment.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

144 Commentary F2 se[d] reaps[e: This is the most problematic feature of Bravo’s reconstruction. reapse is not a term that Livy uses elsewhere; when he contrasts appearance and reality he typically uses phrases such as re ipsa or re vera. Nevertheless, the letter combination ap is clear enough in the MS to rule out those readings, and no better reconstruction has been proposed that would fit both the space and the sense.4 Bravo tentatively proposed that it may be a scribal error for Livy’s original re ipsa, or else that one or more of the examples of re ipsa elsewhere in Livy should in fact read reapse, or that Livy is seeking to give an archaic flavour to Postumius’ words (Bravo and Griffin (1998), 489–90). All of these appear desperate expedients (with the last, one should note that reapse, though archaic, was specifically associated with Cicero, as appears not only from its use in his surviving works, but also from Sen., Epist. 108.32). It may be preferable to assume that the loss of 75 per cent of Livy’s text means that expressions we consider non-­Livian were in fact used by him, perhaps even relatively often: note esp. TT 55, 58–59, 61 for words and phrases which ancient grammarians regard as typical of Livy, but which do not appear in his surviving text. ]tam: It is possible, as Bravo and Griffin propose ((1988), 481) that this is the end of a word for ‘forbidden’, such as negatam or vetitam, perhaps agreeing with an earlier rem. eo dicto: The MS reads edic̣ṭọ, but the first letter has a deletion mark over it. [s]e: This word, barely visible,5 has been inserted above the line; it is unclear whether it was written by the scribe of the main text or a later corrector (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 460–1). 〈in〉hibiturum: The MS reading is hạḅiturum, but habere imperium would not mean ‘employ authority’ against someone; for that, the phrase is inhibere im­per­ ium, an archaism, but one especially favoured by Livy (Briscoe (1981), 5). It is likely, as Bravo suggests, that habiturum arose from the scribe not understanding the archaic language, since in all other contexts inhibere has the sense of preventing rather than applying something (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 482–3).

[acc]eptis manda[tis: In Dionysius (Rom. Ant. 17/18.4.4–5), Postumius makes his demands on Fabius twice: first he sends him a letter demanding that he give up his command, then, when Fabius refuses, he leads his army against him and physically drives him from the camp. It is possible that Livy had a different sequence of events, such that either (a) Fabius responded to the initial demand by 4  Liberman (1992; also (1994), 23–4) accepts the reading, but proposes that it is a scribal error for rem ab se; however, this leads to uncomfortably clumsy Latin, with the (presumed) negatam or vetitam qualified by both a personal agent before it and an instrumental ablative after it. Liberman proposed to solve that by translating rem negatam ab se as ‘a thing denied to him’, but that is less plausible as Livian Latin than simply reading reapse would be. 5  Bravo engagingly confesses that he failed to notice it on his initial examination of the parchment, and only found it on the photograph when its necessity for the grammar was pointed out to him (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 460 n. 19).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  145 giving up his command, or (b) that Postumius’ attack on Fabius was ac­com­pan­ ied by a message. But there is no particular reason to assume either of these: the fragment fits perfectly well with Dionysius’ sequence if we take this to be the message Postumius originally sent, and that the fragment goes on to recount Fabius’ refusal (Bravo and Griffin (1988), 511–12). F3 The fragment comes from Priscian; he is using it to illustrate adverbs formed from the dative of the adjective privatus (so Priscian’s implausible description; modern scholars regard it as an adverbial use of the ablative of the noun privatum (TLL X.2 1396.43–4)). The context is naturally impossible to determine with any degree of certainty, but the use of the first person shows that it comes from a speech, and it is tempting to hypothesize that it is from the best-­known speech in the period covered by Livy Book 13, namely the speech of Appius Claudius Caecus advising the rejection of Pyrrhus’ peace proposal. There are good reasons for believing that Livy included a version of Appius’ speech in his history (see Per. 13.3n.), and a plaus­ ible context for the phrase here would be the exordium of the speech, with Appius explaining his reasons for attending the Senate despite the blindness that had kept him away in recent years (cf. Per. 13.3 propter valetudinem oculorum iam diu consiliis publicis se abstinuerat); for the phrasing cf. Livy 23.7.10 nec . . . privatim se tenuit, of Decius Magius appearing in public after Hannibal took over Capua. privato: This is a unique instance of privato used adverbially; Livy, like other authors, elsewhere employs privatim as the adverbial form. nos tenuissemus: On the hypothesis above, that the speaker is Appius Claudius referring to his earlier absences from the Senate, this is reflexive; it is, however, theoretically possible (if unlikely) that nos is nominative, with Priscian’s truncated quotation having omitted the object of the verb: ‘we had held . . .’ F4 We owe this fragment to a pamphlet by Gelasius I, who was pope in ad 492–6. In the course of a wide-­ranging attack on the festival of the Lupercalia as still practised in his day, he refers to Livy, mentioning both the fact that he frequently records plagues in his text, and, more specifically, that in the Second Decade he gave an aetiology for the Lupercalia, namely that it was introduced in response to the women of Rome being afflicted with sterility.6 That in the latter part of the passage Gelasius is referring to Livy Book 14 is not certain, but it is highly probable. Oros. 4.2.1–2 refers to a plague in the year 276 (a

6  For the significance of Gelasius’ pamphlet in the context of the performance of the festival in the fifth century ad, see esp. Pomarès (1959), Holleman (1974), McLynn (2008).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

146 Commentary year covered by that book) which made the birth-­rate plummet by killing unborn foetuses and causing miscarriages (cf. also Aug., Civ. 3.17). This is not a common feature of Roman plague or prodigy narratives, and it is, accordingly, unlikely that two such events were recorded in the period covered by Livy’s Second Decade. It is therefore reasonable to presume that Gelasius was alluding to the same events as Orosius; Livy may well have been Orosius’ source as well as Gelasius’. Gelasius’ argument needs to be considered in some detail if we are to draw evidence from it about Livy’s own treatment. His primary aim in this part of the pamphlet is to debunk the idea that the plague from which Rome was apparently suffering in his own time was the result of any failure to perform the Lupercalia rites, and with respect to that, he marshals evidence from Livy for two distinct purposes. First, he notes that Livy frequently records plagues, plagues which must have occurred at the time when the Lupercalia was practised, since the festival, according to tradition, was introduced by Evander: hence there is no connection between the performance of the ceremony and protection from plague. Second, he observes that Livy ‘in the Second Decade’ does not connect the introduction of the Lupercalia with protecting from plagues in any case, but specifically with ster­ il­ity in women. The potential problem for Gelasius is that the two points are not entirely compatible: if Livy is right that the Lupercalia was introduced in the third century bc because of a problem of female sterility, then it clearly did not go back to the time of Evander, and hence the earlier plagues in Roman history cannot be used as proof of the inefficacy of the Lupercalia to prevent plague. Gelasius’ solution is to accept the early introduction of the rite, and to treat the passage from Livy’s Second Decade as a fiction (commenta)—but a fiction which nevertheless is revealing about what the purpose of the rite was thought to be. How much of what Gelasius says here derives from Livy Book 14? That Livy discussed the introduction of the rite at this point, and that he related it to assisting female fertility, may be considered all but certain. Gelasius claims that Livy did not relate it to the plague, but that may well be a distortion for the purposes of his argument (North (2008), 151–2): according to Orosius, the sterility occurred as part of a wider plague, and Livy is unlikely to have sep­ar­ated them explicitly when recounting the introduction of the Lupercalia, even if he referred to its primary purpose in terms of its effects on the sterility that the plague caused. If Livy described the introduction of the Lupercalia at this time, he was contra­ dict­ing another part of his own narrative, since at 1.5.1–2 he referred to its introduction by Evander. It is possible that Livy relayed the events of Book 14 in such a way as to reconcile the two, for example by referring only to particular parts of the rite connected with fertility, such as the striking of women with thongs (cf.  below), as being introduced then (so e.g. Otto (1913), 183–5, Holleman (1974), 12, Wiseman (1995a), 84, (1995b), 14), or indeed by not recounting any sort of innovation at all, but merely connecting the per­form­ance of the Lupercalia with fertility (so e.g. Duval (1977), 252–3, North (2008), 151–2). However, that is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  147 not what Gelasius says,7 and Livy does record incom­pat­ible aetiologies elsewhere in his text.8 It also would be highly unlike his usual manner to describe a routine performance of the Lupercalia merely in order to note that it was used to solve the Romans’ problems with fertility, as North suggests. Hence, even if we accept that Gelasius in principle may have distorted Livy for polemical purposes, it is preferable to conclude that this aspect of his account should be taken at face value—­for all that it is manifestly unhistorical, since it is extremely unlikely that a cult that was so little understood by the Romans themselves was introduced so recently in their history. There is a further, related question. As noted above, Gelasius cites Livy twice, once for the general idea that plagues were common at Rome from early times, to the point that they hindered levies, and slightly later for the specific claim about the introduction of the Lupercalia; between these two references, Gelasius also comments in passing that the god propitiated was Februarius.9 It might be suggested that all of this material derives from Book 14—that Livy there identified Februarius as the god to whom the rite was addressed, and that the plague in Book 14 was said by Livy to hinder the levy. Per. 14.3 (also Val. Max. 6.4.3) refers to a failed levy in the year after the plague, and some scholars (e.g. Wuilleumier (1939), 134, Forsythe (2005), 357) have related the two; but see contra my note ad loc. With regard to the current passage, as explained above, Livy is being cited for two very different and indeed potentially contradictory parts of Gelasius’ argument, which makes it far less likely that Gelasius was drawing on a single passage for the whole of his material. It should also be noted that Februarius was referred to by Gelasius as the god of the Lupercal earlier in his pamphlet (Epist. adv. Androm. 3), so it is more prob­able that he was repeating that here from his own knowledge than that he was deriving it from Livy (contra Wiseman (1995b), 6). With regard to Livy’s discussion of the Lupercalia at this point in his history, it might be thought relevant that Augustus took an interest in the cult. He records at R.Gest. 19.1 that he rebuilt the Lupercal, and Suet., Aug. 31.4, records that he revived the ceremony and also placed an age-­limit on participants. However, the claim of revival seems to be at best a gross overstatement by Suetonius, since we can detect little change in the performance of the ceremony in the late Republic 7  Otto justifies his interpretation with the claim that Gelasius’ phrase instituta commemorat, propter sterilitatem . . . quae tunc acciderat refers not to the period covered by Livy’s Second Decade, but to some unspecified earlier period when Livy said that the rite was originally introduced. This is, however, both an unnatural reading of Gelasius and an unlikely reconstruction of Livy’s original narrative, and it would still leave an inconsistency in Livy between his original aeti­ology at 1.5.1–2 and the one offered here (cf. Holleman (1974), 15–20). 8  Most famously the lacus Curtius at 1.13.5 and 7.6.1–6, but an even more pertinent parallel is the apparent double aetiology for the Saturnalia at 2.21.2 and 22.1.19–20. 9  Holleman (1974), 10 less plausibly proposes that Gelasius is using the word adjectivally: that deo Februario means ‘the god of February’; that he believed the god to be Faunus (cf. his later reference to him at Epist. adv. Androm. 23 as monstrum nescioquid pecudis hominisque mixtura compositum ‘some monster or other made of a mixture of beast and human’), but declined to use that name.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

148 Commentary and early empire (North and McLynn (2008), contra e.g. Wardle (2014), 254–5). As for the rebuilding, we have no idea at what point this happened—­it would have to have been relatively early in Augustus’ career for it to predate Livy writing Book 14—and, in any case, Livy’s surviving work tends to downplay rather than highlight sites in Rome associated with Augustus (Levene (2019)). auctore: Cerafa’s correction of the MS orare: Livio auctore stands in ap­pos­ition to historiis Romanis. Günther proposed oratore, but while this is palaeographically closer to the MS reading, it is less probable that Gelasius would have referred to Livy as an ‘orator’: the remainder of the passage shows his awareness that his fame was as an historian. saepissime in hac urbe exorta pestilentia . . . atque eo frequenter ventum ut vix esset unde . . . exercitus potuisset adscribi: Livy often, especially in his early books, records plagues at Rome, some with the specific comment that they hindered the levying of troops (esp. 1.31.5, 3.6.8, 5.31.5, 40.19.6–8, 40.36.14, 41.21.5; other plagues, without any mention of effects on conscription, occur at 3.32.2–4, 4.21.1–6, 4.25.3–4, 4.52.3–4. 5.13.4–5, 6.20.15–16, 7.1.7–3.4, 7.27.1, 8.17.4, 8.22.7, 10.31.8, 10.47.6–7, 27.23.6–7, 38.44.7; cf. 8.18.1–3, 9.28.6). Gelasius may have had all or any of these in mind. Februario: No one except Gelasius refers by this name to the god propitiated at the Lupercalia. A god Februus is referred to as the eponymous god of the month of February by a number of late antique sources (Serv., Georg. 1.43, Macr., Sat. 1.13.3, Anth. 117.4 (Riese), Lyd., Mens. 4.25, Isid., Orig. 5.33.4), but only Lydus specifically relates him to the Lupercalia. As discussed above, it is unlikely that Gelasius drew on Livy here; it is more probable that this was his own (mis)interpretation of the rite and the god worshipped. Livy himself, in his surviving discussion of the Lupercalia, calls the god ‘Inuus’, although he also indicates that that name was no longer current in his day (1.5.2). He identified Inuus with Lycaean Pan from Arcadia (so also Macr., Sat. 1.22.2); it was widely accepted that the god of the Lupercalia was Lycaean Pan (e.g. Eratosth. ap. Schol. Plato, Phaedr. 244b, D.H., AR 1.32.3–5, 1.80.1), although even those who accepted that Lycaean Pan was the god could not agree on the Latin equivalent: suggestions included Lupercus (Just. 43.1.7, presumably a back-­ formation from the name of the festival),10 Faunus (Ov., Fast. 2.267–8, 5.99–102; cf. Acilius, FRHist 8 F 1 = fr. 2P (ap. Plu., Rom. 21.7) for Faunus as the god of the Lupercalia),11 and either Enyalios (i.e. Mars) or Liber (Serv., Aen. 8.343); an alternative view, found in Paul., Fest. 75–6L, is that the Lupercalia was dedicated

10  Cf. Varro’s comment (ap. Arnob., Nat. 4.3.1) that a goddess called Luperca protected Romulus and Remus after their exposure. 11  Similarly, various other authors in later antiquity identify Inuus with Faunus, albeit not in relation to the Lupercalia: Ps. Aur. Vict., Orig. 4.6, Serv., Aen. 6.775, Probus, ad Geo. 1.10, Rut. Nam. 1.231–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  149 to Juno Februata, although, for obvious reasons, he does not identify her with Pan.12 Manifestly, like other aspects of the ceremony (cf. below), the god involved was obscure even to the participants, let alone its Christian opponents. For full discussion, see esp. Wiseman (1995b). Lupercalia: Festival celebrated on 15 February. The chief participants were the college of priests called the Luperci, and the centre of the ceremony was at the Lupercal at the foot of the Palatine. Goats (and a dog) were sacrificed; the goats were skinned and the skins were cut into strips. The Luperci took them and ran naked (or all but naked: they appear to have worn the goat skins in some form of loincloth or cape: see Wiseman (1995b), 12) through the city striking with the strips the people they met en route. The name of the festival seems to be related to lupus, although nothing in the known rites explicitly links them to wolves;13 hence both ancient and modern scholars have offered a variety of aetiologies and in­ter­ pret­ations that would explain the connection.14 The festival has been extensively studied: among the most important works are Michels (1953), Scholz (1981), Ulf (1982), Pötscher (1984), Köves-­Zulauf (1990), 221–89, Wiseman (1995a), 77–88, (1995b), Ziolkowski (1998–9), Valli (2007), North (2008). respectat: Günther’s correction of the MS respectant. The subject is Livy; on the MS reading it would have to be Lupercalia, but it is hard to see in what sense the Lupercalia could ‘have regard for’ its own fictions. in secunda decade: Cf. C 51n., and also Volume II, lxxv.

12  North (2008), 150–1 argues that Paulus’ summary of Festus has omitted a key phrase, and that Festus did not identify Juno Februata as the deity of the Lupercal. However, North appears to have misunderstood the Latin. Paulus writes Februarius mensis dictus, quod tum . . . populus februaretur, id est lustraretur et purgaretur, vel a Iunone Februata . . . quod ipsi eo mense sacra fiebant, eiusque feriae erant Lupercalia; North believes that the vel requires a later vel referring to another god (such as Inuus), whose name has been omitted between fiebant and eiusque: he suggests that something like vel ab Inuuo, quod ei quoque sacra fiunt needs to be inserted; these two gods, on his view, were the ones by whom (ab) the population was purified. But Paulus’ entry makes perfect sense as it stands: the vel shows that the name of the goddess is providing an alternative etymology for the month: ‘The month is called February, because then the people was purified, that is lustrated and cleansed, or else after Juno Februata, because sacrifices were made to her in that month, and her festival was the Lupercalia.’ 13  Note, however, the attempt to explain this away with a different etymology that relates directly to the rites: deriving the word from luere per caprum = ‘expiate with a goat’ (Quint., Inst. 1.5.66, Serv., Aen. 8.343). 14  The most common ancient versions either (a) connect the name with the myth of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a wolf (Ov., Fast. 2.381–422, Plu., Rom. 21.4–8, Serv., Aen. 8.343), or (b) see a reference to the supposed Arcadian origins in the rites of Pan Lykaios, with lupus as the translation of the Greek λύκος (Varro, ap. Aug. Civ. 18.17, suggesting that in the Arcadian cult men were turned into wolves; Virg., Aen. 8.343–4, D.H., AR 1.32.3; Ov., Fast. 2.423–4; Just. 43.1.7; Serv., Aen. 8.343, proposing that Pan Lykaios protected against wolves). Modern scholars have come up with a great variety of hypotheses: for example that it began as an initiatory rite where young men lived wild as wolves (Wiseman (1995a), 85), or as a protection against supernatural wolves associated with the dead (Michels (1953), 47–51), or that Faunus was in origin a wolf-­god (Kerényi (1949), 136–47).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

150 Commentary propter sterilitatem, ut ei videtur, mulierum: In stating that the ceremonies of the Lupercalia were a fertility rite directed at women, Livy aligned himself with one strand of Roman interpretation (cf. e.g. Ov., Fast. 2.425–46, Serv., Aen. 8.343; cf. Plu., Rom. 21.5, Caes. 61.3, Juv. 2.142). It was not the only explanation for the festival that was canvassed: an even more popular one was that it was aimed at the purification of the city (e.g. Varro, Ling. 6.13, 6.34, D.H., AR 1.80.1, Plu., Rom. 21.3, Num. 19.5, Quaest. Rom. 280B–C, Paul., Fest. 75–6L, Cens. 22.15), and a further suggestion was that it was an agricultural rite to ensure a good harvest (Lyd., Mens. 4.25). It may well be that the division is an artificial one, and that in the rites of the Lupercalia rituals of purification and fertility (whether human or not) were intimately linked (so e.g. Köves-­Zulauf (1990), 284–5, North (2008), 151–2); but it is also likely that, as with the god worshipped, there was no determinate ‘meaning’ of the festival to be found, but rather a range of conflicting interpretations (Beard, North, and Price (1998) 2.119–20). eximendam: Thiel’s proposal for the MS exhibenda: Lobbe’s exigendam is also possible (though it would be ambiguous); Weissenborn’s exsolvendam somewhat less so. F5 This fragment appears in Servius auctus’ note on Virgil’s first mention of Dido’s former husband Sychaeus, explaining that Virgil often changes names for euphony or metrical reasons, and giving three examples: Sychaeus himself, Dido’s father, and the city of Carthage. He names as his sources ‘the history of the Carthaginians and Livy’. The bulk of the expanded material in Servius auctus is widely believed to derive ultimately from the fourth-­century commentator Aelius Donatus,15 and he may plausibly be assumed to be the source of the statement here. Donatus sometimes quotes or cites material that is unlikely to have survived to his day (including various of the pre-­Livian historians), and in those cases it is likely that he has simply taken it over from earlier commentators (cf. Cameron (2011), 410). Naturally, the same could be true of his citations of Livy, but with most of them it is equally pos­ sible that he found them for himself, since texts of Livy certainly existed in his day. In the case of this particular citation, however, the issue is complicated by the reference to ‘the history of the Carthaginians’. Donatus manifestly cannot have read any history written by Carthaginians, and it is unlikely that he had even read a non-­Livian history which purported to be dependent on such a source. There are, therefore, three possibilities. (1) Donatus read these names, ascribed to a ‘Carthaginian history’, in an earlier Virgil commentator; he then compared them with the text of Livy, and realized that he offered the same names. (2) The 15  See esp. Rand (1916); also Stok (2012), 466–76; contra e.g. Daintree (1990), but cf. Cameron (2011), 574.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  151 earlier commentator who was Donatus’ source, or that source’s ultimate source, was sufficiently widely read to cite the historical information both from Livy and from another historian he had studied, and the latter claimed that his information derived from the Carthaginians’ own history. (3) Donatus (or perhaps his source) found the information about the original names only in Livy, and it was Livy who referred to the fact that these names were the same in the Carthaginians’ own history—­not that Livy himself in his surviving work ever claims to have read a history written by Carthaginians, but it is not improbable that he had read another author who was able to draw on Carthaginian traditions, especially since even the Carthaginians themselves may have written their histories in Greek (Baurain (1992)). Option (3), that Donatus/Servius preserves information not only about the names found in Livy but also about the sources he claimed to depend on, is a seductive possibility; however, it seems considerably less likely than (1) or (2). As the material in Servius auctus stands, it is framed as a critique of Virgil, pointing to three names that Virgil used inaccurately. Livy at some point in his early history of Carthage may have described it as deriving ultimately from Carthaginian material, but, since he had no reason to highlight non-­Virgilian names (he was probably working on his Second Decade around the same time as Virgil was composing the Aeneid), he would not have attached his citation specifically to those names—­and in that case, Donatus is unlikely to have seen ‘the history of the Carthaginians’ cited in Livy as an additional authority to set against Virgil. It is harder to decide between (1) and (2), but since some of the material in this note must come from an earlier commentator, it is probably best on balance to assume that it all did: that some learned early commentator on Virgil put together Livy’s information about Carthaginian origins with that derived from some Carthaginian-­dependent historian or antiquarian, of whom there were several extant in the late Republic and early empire (see below). That the citation is from Book 16 is overwhelmingly probable. Per. 16.1 (see also ad loc.) says that Livy discussed origo Carthaginiensium et primordia urbis eorum in this book, prior to his account of the opening of the First Punic War. This presumably means that, like Pompeius Trogus a little after him (cf. Just. 18.3–7), he described the Carthaginians’ migration from Tyre and the foundation of the city, and this is a natural context in which he would have introduced the names of Dido’s husband and father, and also discussed the name of the city. The Phoenician16 provenance of the Carthaginians is historical; little else in Trogus’

16  A word I use with considerable caution: see Quinn (2018), arguing that ‘Phoenician’ is essentially a construct created by outsiders (both ancient and modern) rather than expressing an identity that most of the people(s) in question would have recognized as applying to themselves. But the basic fact that the Carthaginian language was a dialect of that used in the cities of the Levant is sufficient demonstration of the historicity of the link: and as Carthage’s power expanded, the Carthaginians seem to have attempted to promote a common ‘Phoenician’ identity with other speakers of the language

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

152 Commentary account of early Carthage is, centring as it does on the probably fictional Elissa, identified with Dido, who in Roman literary tradition (most famously the Aeneid) became the lover of Aeneas (Huss (1985), 40–3).17 But in its general outline this narrative was the standard version of Carthaginian origins at Greece and Rome (as noted by App., Pun. 1).18 It is possible that Livy may (like App., Pun. 1) have also have had some reference to the (equally fictional) alternative version, going back at least to Philistus (FGrH 556 F 47; also Eudox. fr. 360 (Lasserre)), in which Carthage was founded by Azorus (or Azarus or Zorus) and the eponymous Carchedon, or else the version hinted at in Cic., Nat. Deor. 3.42 and Ampel. 9.12, where the eponymous Carthago is the daughter of Hercules. But nothing of these appears in the surviving fragments or the epitome. The primary focus of the fragment is on the names Livy used, which Donatus implies were more authentic than the familiar versions found in the Aeneid. Since Dido/Elissa probably did not exist, the concept of ‘authenticity’ is nebulous; but it is arguable that at least some of the names in the text of Servius auctus do go back to Punic originals (see further below). However, it is essentially impossible to determine the forms of the names in Livy, partly because of potential corruptions in the transmitted text of Servius, and partly because at least four stages (Livy’s source, Livy, Donatus’ source, Donatus) are likely to have intervened between any authentic Phoenician version of the names and their appearance in the Servius MS tradition. For the history of Carthage see Huss (1985), Lancel (1995), Hoyos (2010). Sychaeus Sicarbas dictus est: No other source gives Sicarbas as the name of Dido’s first husband; in Just. 18.4.5 Dido (there called Elissa: see above) marries her uncle Acherbas (cf. Mythogr. Vat. 3.12–13). However, the Livian version appears to be authentically Phoenician: it derives from Sacharba‘al = ‘Ba‘al has remembered’ (Harris (1936), 99). Belus, Didonis pater, Mettes: In Just. 18.4.3 Dido’s father is called Mutto; in Mythogr. Vat. 3.12–13 he is Meton, in Menander of Ephesus, FGrH 783 F 1 (ap. Jos., Ap. 1.125) ‘Mettenos’. Honeyman (1947), 79 suggests that the original name was Methres, which is the spelling of the name in the MSS of Serv. auct., Aen. 1.642, since Metreh is a Punic title used in religious contexts (Honeyman (1940)). However, it is far more likely that the story preserves folk memories of a Tyrian king by the name of Mattan (Metenna), mentioned in an Assyrian document from the reign of Tiglath-­Peleser III (744–727 bc: see CS II.117D);19 this also (Quinn (2018), 86–90), and also to have played up their supposed origins as a Tyrian settlement (Quinn (2018), 127–9). 17  Contra e.g. Hoyos (2010), 7–12, who is prepared to grant more credence to the Elissa trad­ition, though his grounds for doing so are very tenuous. 18  It first appears in Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 82), and later not only in Virgil, Justin/Trogus, and Appian, but also (e.g.) Menander of Ephesus, FGrH 783 F 1 (ap. Jos., Ap. 1.125), Enn., Ann. 297 Sk., Cato, ORF3 fr. 194 ap. Sol. 27.10 (Mommsen), Str. 17.3.15, Vell. 1.6.4, Sil. 1.21–6. 19  Some scholars, assuming the basic reliability of the Greco-­Roman chronology, hypothesize an earlier Mattan ruling Tyre in the ninth century (so e.g. Katzenstein (1973), 116–20; cf. 185–9), but

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  153 seems to be around the earliest period for which we have archaeological evidence of settlement in Carthage (Lancel (1995), 25–34),20 although the Greco-­Roman traditions which attributed the foundation to Dido consistently dated it nearly a century earlier, in the late ninth century bc (Timaeus, FGrH 566 F 60, ap. D.H., AR 1.74.1, Cic., Rep. 2.42, Vell. 1.12.5, Just. 18.6.9, Serv., Aen. 1.12).21 Whichever version is correct, however, there is no way of identifying the form of the name in Livy (cf. above). The report here makes it slightly more probable—­but far from certain—­that Livy used the name ‘Dido’ rather than the alternative ‘Elissa’. It would not be especially surprising if he had called her ‘Dido’, since that is the name preferred not only in Virgil, but in Ennius, and it goes back at least to Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 82); but if he had used only ‘Elissa’, as Justin later would, Donatus/Servius might well have ignored the fact, since it would have added an unnecessary complication to the note. Carthago Cartha: ‘Carthage’, as a different citation of Livy from Servius correctly reports (see F 6n.), derives from the Phoenician for ‘New Town’—Qart Ḥadasht. This appears on the face of things inconsistent with the claim here that Livy gave its name as ‘Cartha’. The most likely explanation is that Livy offered the same information as is found in Sol. 27.10 (Mommsen), citing a speech of Cato (ORF3 fr. 194), namely that the original name of Carthage was Carthada; but the name was corrupted somewhere in the transmission between Livy and our texts of Servius (cf. above). historia Poenorum: A significant number of Greek and Roman historians writing about Carthage are likely to have drawn on local knowledge: these include Philinos (FGrH 174—see esp. T 2) and the Emperor Claudius (FRHist 75 T 2). Note also that Sall., Jug. 17.7, claims to have drawn on ‘Punic books’ of King Hiempsal, though it is unclear precisely what form those took: Sallust’s language indicates they were actually written in Punic, but many scholars have been scep­ tic­al (e.g. Baurain (1992), 168–71; cf. Feeney (2016), 318). F6 Servius is commenting here on Virgil’s ingentia cernis / moenia surgentemque novae Karthaginis arcem (Aen. 1.365–6: ‘you see the huge walls and the citadel of

there is no direct record of such a king, and the entire approach is methodologically questionable (cf. Dochhorn (2001)). 20  Note, however, that some cattle and sheep bones from the earliest settlement layers at Carthage have been radiocarbon-­dated to the late ninth or early eighth century, although there are complexities about other aspects of the archaeological context in which they were found, which still appear to point to a later date. See Docter et al. (2004), Docter et al. (2008); but also the more sceptical discussion by Botto (2004), 586–8. 21  The tradition in which the founders were Azorus and Carchedon (see above) dated it prior to the Trojan War.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

154 Commentary new Carthage rising’); he is suggesting that Virgil’s novae shows an awareness of the etymology of the name of the town, citing Livy in support of that etymology. As with F 5, this is likely to derive from Livy’s account of the foundation of Carthage in Book 16. Servius is probably right that Virgil was tacitly punning on the name (he does the same in a number of other places in Books 1 and 4: see O’Hara (1996), 123). The etymology is also relayed in Sol. 27.10 (Mommsen) and Isid., Orig. 15.1.30, and is in fact correct: the Phoenician name for the city, Qart Ḥadasht, means ‘New Town’. Livy could conceivably have been Virgil’s source, but it is more likely that they independently derived the information from some Punic-­influenced historian (cf. F 5n.). F7 At the feast at the end of Aeneid 1, Dido, after drinking, passes the cup to ‘Bitias’; Servius, commenting on the passage, records from Livy that Bitias was the commander of the Carthaginian fleet. The context in Servius assumes that Bitias commanded the fleet at the time of the foundation, and not at a later period (for the name in later Carthaginian history, cf. the Numidian leader at the time of the Third Punic War referred to by App., Pun. 111 and Zonar. 9.30.3); hence, like the previous two fragments, it is naturally to be assigned to Book 16. Bitias: Bitias is also referred to among the founders of Carthage by Sil. 2.409, pre­ sum­ably dependent on Virgil rather than Livy, since he presents him as an elderly sage, not a military figure. An epigraph on a Carthaginian pendant dating from the earliest period of the city mentions the name Pidiya, whom Krahmalkov (1981), 190–1 identifies with the figure here, suggesting that Virgil and Livy had access to reliable information about the city’s founders, but his argument is more speculative than plausible. F8 Priscian concludes a discussion of the use of prepositions with the accusative with the example of pridie used prepositionally (cf. H-­S 244). He illustrates it first with a passage of Cicero (Catil. 1.15 pridie Kalendas Ianuarias), then with the example from Livy Book 17. One immediate question is whether this represents a single quotation from Book 17 or two separate quotations joined together by Priscian. If the former, the context can only be some quality which linked those days, in a similar fashion to the way in which the days after the Kalends, Nones, and Ides were held to be ill-­ omened (cf. Livy 6.1.12 postridie Kalendas quoque ac Nonas eadem religio esset). However, there is no obvious quality that does link such days, and the more plaus­ible option, therefore, is that Priscian has taken two sep­ar­ate phrases from the book. It is possible that they appeared in close succession, which is why his attention was drawn to them. Livy uses calendar dates infrequently, and primarily in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  155 prodigy lists or other religious contexts (cf. Levene (2010), 48–9). On the not unreasonable hypothesis that Book 17, covering the years 260–256 bc, contained prodigy lists for most or all of those years, one of those may have contained the phrases here. F9 This fragment is the last in Valerius’ collection of anecdotes on miracula, which is itself the last heading in his opening book (which treats of various matters connected with religion). As usual, he first lists examples from Roman history, then from foreign history. Since this episode relates to a Roman army, albeit one fighting overseas, it would have been expected to be included under the former heading, but instead he includes it at the very end of the ‘foreign’ section, effectively making it an afterthought to the entire book. It is the only place where Valerius cites Livy by name, although it is manifest that he was one of his major sources throughout his work. Its place in Book 18 is guaranteed by the Periochae, which lists this as the first item in that book. The events occurred during Regulus’ invasion of Africa in 256–255; for further details see Per. 17.6n., 18.1–2nn. The earliest surviving version of the story is Tubero (FRHist 38 F 11 = fr. 8P (ap. Gell. 7.3)), from whom it is possible that Livy drew it: according to Gellius, Tubero recorded its location on the river Bagrada, the vast size of the snake (he similarly mentions sending the 120-­foot skin to Rome), and its vulnerability to catapults. All three features are also mentioned in Zonar. 8.13.2 and Pliny, Nat. 8.37: Pliny may have taken it from yet another source, since he does not list Tubero, Livy, or Valerius among his sources for Book 8. Oros. 4.8.10–15 has broadly the same account, but at far greater length with extensive (and highly fanciful) zoological detail about why spears did not injure the beast but stones did: there is no reason to regard this as drawn from Livy, rather than being the product of Orosius’ invention (contra Wardle (1998), 288). The fullest version is Sil. 6.118–293, who naturally elab­or­ates the fight with epic language and motifs, but even he does not differ on the basic narrative points. It is also mentioned more briefly in Sen., Epist. 82.24, Flor. 1.18.20, Arnob., Nat. 7.46.4, Vib. Seq., De Flum. s.v. Bagrada. That the story as it stands in the ancient sources is unhistorical hardly needs demonstration, but it need not be entirely dismissed. The location at the Bagrada is not intrinsically suspicious (contra Wardle (1998), 288): while it is true that Polybius, the best source for Regulus’ campaign, does not directly place him there, he does show Regulus capturing Tunis and using it as a base (1.30.15), and Tunis is less than a day’s march from the Bagrada. Nor is it im­pos­sible that he encountered and killed an unexpectedly large serpent during his campaign, albeit not one 120 feet (= 35.5 m). The largest snake found in Africa is the African python, which may sometimes have reached 9 m or more in length (Murphy and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

156 Commentary Henderson (1997), 50–6); though the species is not now found north of the Sahara, it is possible that its range was more extensive in antiquity (Stothers (2004), 236–7), and lengths of snakes are notoriously liable to be exaggerated in the telling.22 Snake skins easily stretch to make the animal appear 40 per cent or more longer than it actually was (Murphy and Henderson (1997), 24–6), and, once the specimen is no longer available for autopsy, the possibility for ex­ag­ger­ ation increases. According to Pliny, the skin and jaws of the snake were kept in Rome only until the Numantine War in the late second century bc; hence neither Tubero nor any later writer could have seen them at first hand. Polybius could perhaps have done—­but if he did, he did not regard it as sufficiently remarkable to be worth recording, since he has nothing of the serpent at all. Naturally, even if there was a real serpent at the root of the story, the circumstantial details of the fight and the threat it posed to the army are pure invention; and the more interesting question is how it came to play so large a role in the narratives of Regulus in later writers, for stories of fights with monsters are not a standard part of the Roman historical tradition (cf. Ogden (2013), 66–7).23 It may derive from a sense that Regulus was the first Roman to campaign in a place that was not merely overseas, like Sicily and Sardinia, but perceived as alien and barbaric: the fight with the serpent assimilates him to the epic deeds of mythological travellers into the unknown like Odysseus and Hercules (Horvais (2018), 164–7: note that Silius’ version of Regulus’ story repeatedly alludes to the various myths of Hercules fighting monsters: see Bassett (1955)).24 facunde: Livy’s ‘eloquence’ was one of the qualities most remarked on by ancient readers: see FF 36n. 74, TT 5, 6b, 7, 10b, 18, 26, 31, 45. Bagradam flumen: The modern Medjerda (BarrAtl Map 32 E3). That the snake is  associated with a river is typical of ancient dragon myths: see Ogden (2013), 165–73. anguem: The MSS omit a noun; the Latin is comprehensible even without it (serpentem would have to be assumed from the previous sentence), and Briscoe in the Teubner retains the transmitted text. However, even if comprehensible, it is awkward, since the case has changed, and it is probably better to accept the addition of anguem found in the late MSS. The only question is where to place it: I have followed Luterbacher in inserting it before tantae, but others have it before magnitudinis or fuisse. 22  Str. 17.3.5 (citing the otherwise unknown Iphicrates) refers to snakes of improbably large size as endemic to North Africa, suggesting at the very least the kind of association of this region with such animals which may lie behind the invention here. 23  Ogden (2013), 217 fancifully suggests that the association of Regulus with the snake was because his cognomen could be seen as a translation of the Greek basiliskos—­a diminutive of basileus, but also a kind of serpent. 24  Indeed, Lucan 4.587–660 associates the Bagrada with Hercules’ killing of Antaeus, though other sources place the fight far further west (Str. 17.3.8, citing Tanusius Geminus FRHist 44 F 1 = F1P, Mela 3.106, Plin., Nat. 5.2, Plu., Sert. 9.3–4), and it may be that locating it here is Lucan’s own innovation, in allusion to the Regulus story.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  157 Atili Reguli: M. Atilius Regulus, cos. 256 (MRR I 209, RE 51). He had previously been consul in 267, fighting successfully against the Sallentini and capturing Brundisium (15.6n.); he was chosen as consul suffectus in this year after the ori­ gin­al consul, Q. Caedicius, died in office. For his further career see Per. 17.6n., 18.1–2nn., 18.5n. For the biographical traditions concerning Regulus, and the legends that grew up around him, see Blättler (1945), Mix (1970); also cf. Leach (2014) for aspects of the later reception of his story. caudae voluminibus: The extension of the meaning of volumen from its standard meaning of ‘papyrus roll’ to something coiling or twisting is highly poetic. In surviving literature it is first employed by Virgil, especially, as here, of snakes (Aen. 2.208, 5.85, 11.753; also Georg. 3.192, Aen. 5.408: see Horsfall (2008), 193), and this is the first example in prose. Conceivably Valerius derived the wording from Livy himself; certainly if Virgil were imitating (for example) Ennius, Livy could well have done the same; but it is also possible that Valerius took the language directly from Virgil. ballistarum tormentis: tormenta is a generic word for missile-­casting torsion-­ based engines (OLD s.v. tormentum 2), and the genitive ballistarum defines the particular kind of engine being used here (cf. Woodcock 53). A ballista in the Republican and early imperial period was a powerful stone-­throwing device: it had originally been developed in the Greek world in the fourth century, from where it spread across the Mediterranean (Marsden (1969), 1–2, 16–24, 83–5). However, while it is not improbable in principle that the Romans during the First Punic War employed ballistae, this is the only direct reference to their doing so, and it must be regarded as historically problematic, given the fabulous nature of the entire story.25 pestifero adflatu: Dragons and other monsters often have poisonous breath in Greco-­Roman legend, and indeed this particular monster does in Oros. 4.8.11 and Sil. 6.240, the latter in very similar language to Valerius here (afflatus peste = ‘with the poison of its breath’): see Ogden (2013), 226–7. However, the adflatus in Valerius is not the breath, since the creature is dead, but rather the stench of the corpse (cf. e.g. Ov., Met. 7.551, with OLD s.v. afflatus 3b): that monstrous dragons polluted even after their death is a widespread literary trope (see the examples at Ogden (2013), 229–30). The phrases in Valerius and Silius are both highly unusual; this makes it plaus­ ible that some version of them appeared in Livy, but if so, either Valerius or (more probably) Silius has transferred it to a different part of the narrative. summovisse: The subject is anguem.

25  Marsden (1969), 84 is prepared to grant it some credence: ‘We certainly need not disbelieve . . .  that a large python was killed by Roman artillery in North Africa in 256 bc, just because the reptile in question has enjoyed posthumous literary elongation.’ But were the python of a natural length, it is highly improbable that artillery would have been considered an effective mode of killing it.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

158 Commentary adicit: The MSS read dicit, but that appears lame and unnecessary, given that the entire account up to this point has already been in oratio obliqua, so Livy’s ‘speaking’ is assumed. Foertsch’s adicit is far preferable. F 10 Charisius is discussing whether the adjective inberbus/inberbis belongs to the 1st/2nd or 3rd declension. He suggests that the former is the normal usage, giving examples from Cicero and Varro (cf. TLL VII.1 424.63–70), but then offers an example from Livy where it is 3rd declension. inberbus/inberbis is not used by Livy elsewhere in his surviving work. It is impossible to guess the context, except that, since F 9 describes an episode that must have taken place near the beginning of the book, F 10 is far more likely to come after it than before it. inberbis: Literally ‘beardless’, it is often used in a transferred sense to mean ‘youthful’ (TLL VII.1 425.3–7). singulariter: The MSS of Charisius read vulgariter, but Keil restored singulariter on the basis of Bede, who draws on the passage in his own work on Latin orthography. F 11 Censorinus is discussing the history of the Secular Games, and in particular the controversy in his historical sources over the years in which they had been celebrated; he cites Livy as his authority for the date of what he refers to as the third games. tertii ludi fuerunt: The Secular Games (Latin: ludi saeculares) were a celebratory event supposedly performed at the end of a saeculum, a period variously calculated as 100 or 110 years (cf. F 66n.). In the imperial period, certain em­perors, beginning with Augustus in 17 bc, preferred the calculation for the saeculum that would ensure that the games fell within their reign, so in practice it was celebrated rather more often than one might have expected. In the Republic, without those motivations, fewer per­ form­ances are attested. Censorinus refers to this as the third, but it is questionable whether either of the celebrations attributed by his sources to the early Republic is historical. Apart from the generally problematic nature of our sources for that period, it appears that the antiquarians of the late Republic and early Empire saw the celebration in 249 as the occasion on which the practice was introduced at Rome: thus Verrius Flaccus (ap. ps-­Acro, Carm. Saec. 8), apparently following Varro (fr. 70 (Funaioli), ap. Cens. 14.8), explicitly associated the introduction of the games with a prodigy that required expiation in this year. Livy certainly included neither of the earlier celebrations in his history. It is nevertheless possible that he represented the ones here as the third set, even

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  159 though he had not mentioned the earlier two (compare his treatment of the Roman treaties with Carthage, where he refers to the ‘third’ treaty (9.43.26), despite only having mentioned one previously). However, Per. 49.5 (see ad loc.) seems to indicate that Livy saw the celebration in 249 as the first, as Varro and Verrius Flaccus apparently did. Hence it is more likely that Censorinus took the claim that this was the ‘third’ from Antias alone. Little can be asserted with any confidence about the manner in which the Secular Games were performed in 249. The imperial performances of the games are relatively well documented, but it is far from clear that they were especially close to the model of the Republican performances. Verrius Flaccus (cited above) refers to sacrifices to Dis and Proserpina in a ceremony that lasted three days and nights; the fact that the work of Varro cited by Censorinus (above) is De Scaenicis Originibus makes it probable that they involved theatrical per­form­ ances. A fanciful aetiological tale in Val. Max. 2.4.5 (cf. Zos. 2.1–3) adds that it took place at a location in the Campus Martius known as Tarentum; hence they are also referred to as ludi Tarentini (cf. Per. 49.5n.). Some scholars have used this name to argue that the games were actually an import from the Greek city of Tarentum in southern Italy, which had come under Roman sway in 272 (cf. Per. 15.1n.), and that the association with a site of the same name in the vicinity of Rome was an invention in order to conceal the non-­native origins of the rite: it is noted that Dis and Proserpina were popular gods in Magna Graecia, but not previously attested at Rome, and that the Secular Games in their imperial manifestations have a strongly Greek cast (so e.g. Orlin (2010), 67–71). Against the theory that they originated in Tarentum, however, is that the Romans were not usually reticent about acknowledging religious imports, and they themselves gave the Secular Games an entirely different—­and highly plausible—­foreign origin, since the saeculum appears to be an Etruscan concept (cf. e.g. Cens. 14.5–6; cf. F 18n.), and that the prayer used in the celebration in ad 204 (AE 1932, 70) refers to the Latins’ obedience to Rome, implying that the wording originated prior to the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 bc (see esp. Taylor (1934)). Hence other scholars—­especially those who argue that the celebration in 249 was not the first—­have argued that this is fundamentally an Etruscan import, and that the Greek elements represent a secondary development (e.g. Hall (1986)). There is no clear answer to this problem; the evidence that the ceremony was not introduced until 249 bc seems relatively strong, if any credence at all is to be given to the antiquarian tradition, and it is hard to deny its strongly Greek elem­ ents, of a form which makes sense for a cult introduced at that time (although Greek influences more broadly can be seen in Roman religion even at far earlier times, especially with rites associated with the decemviri); but it is also hard to overlook the fundamentally Etruscan concept that appears to lie behind it, or the implications of the wording of the prayer. It is most probable that the creation and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

160 Commentary introduction of the ceremony involved a complex process of cultural blending, with elements coming together from different sources—­for example, it is possible, as various scholars have suggested, that previously existing ludi Tarentini were reinvented and reinterpreted as ludi saeculares (so e.g. Bernstein (1998), 135–42, Forsythe (2012), 60–4)—but it is now impossible to reconstruct the process by which that happened. Bernstein (1998), 141 proposes that the introduction (or, on his view, re­inven­ tion) of the ludi saeculares after a prodigy in 249 was in reaction to the defeat of Claudius Pulcher at Drepana that year (F 12n.). Certainly it is highly plausible that Livy himself made that connection, given his tendency to establish cor­rel­ ations between prodigies and expiations with Roman successes and failures (cf. Levene (1993)). However, even if that was the historical order of events, it is more likely that Livy placed the prodigy and the introduction of the rite at the beginning of the year, and hence before the battle, rather than after it. While Livy does sometimes introduce prodigies at the end of the year, he far more often does so at the beginning, anticipating the defeat rather than responding to it. There is an extensive bibliography on the Secular Games: important studies include Wuilleumier (1932) and (1938), Taylor (1934), Pighi (1965), Weiss (1973), Brind’A mour (1978), Hall (1986), Bernstein (1998), 129–42, Forsythe (2012), 49–76. Antiate Livioque auctoribus: It is possible that Livy cited Antias, and that Censorinus took the information about Antias’ dating from Livy. However, Censorinus has earlier shown what appears to be independent knowledge of Antias (17.8 = FRHist 25 F 22 = fr. 18P), and it is plausibly claimed that he is also Censorinus’ authority for the dates of the first two celebrations, where the text is lacunose (Rich in FRHist 3.341), and which Livy omits. It is therefore more probable that Censorinus derived this from his researches into Antias than from his reading of Livy. P. Claudio Pulchro L. Iunio Pullo consulibus: 249 bc. anno quingentesimo quinto, at ad XVvirorum commentarios: These words are omitted in the MS of Censorinus; the supplement was originally proposed by Jahn. The second phrase (at ad XVvirorum commentarios) is necessary, since the transmitted text offers two incompatible consular dates; that the alternative date comes from the commentarii of the quindecimviri is almost certain, since that is the source that Censorinus uses throughout to contrast with his historiographical sources. That Censorinus gave the ab urbe condita (AUC) date for the year is highly probable, not only because it offers an easy explanation for the lacuna (the scribe’s eye skipped from one anno to the next), but because Censorinus throughout the chapter provides AUC dates for the various performances of the games. For the same reason, it is vastly more likely that Censorinus offered this information himself than that he derived it from Livy. Not only does Livy use AUC dates relatively

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  161 rarely, and generally at moments of major significance in the development of Rome (Pinsent (1988), 4–6), he almost invariably counts not from the Varronian foundation date of 754/3, as Censorinus regularly does, but rather from three years later, 751/0 (Briscoe (1973), 50), and Per. 49.5 shows that the same pattern held with the Secular Games: he there dates the games of 249 to the 502nd year. Per. 49 does at least show that Livy used AUC dates with the Secular Games (see ad loc.), and he may have done so in Book 19 as well; but Censorinus is likely to have derived the information from his own calculations, not from Livy. P. Cornelio Lentulo C. Licinio Varo consulibus: 236 bc. F 12 Servius is here commenting on Virgil’s description of the birds guiding Aeneas to the golden bough as ‘feeding’ (pascentes), a word which he interprets—­or perhaps overinterprets (cf. Horsfall (2013), 196)—as related to the augural use of feeding chickens, which he then goes on to illustrate with a reference to the story of P. Claudius Pulcher in 249 bc, during the First Punic War. Although Livy told the story (see Per. 19.2n.), it seems highly unlikely that either Servius or Servius’ source consulted him directly, since it is seriously garbled in a way that Livy’s narrative cannot have been; it is more probable that Servius came to it at third hand. There are numerous other sources for this event—­Livy himself alludes to it again at 22.42.9, and it is also mentioned in Cic., Nat. Deor. 2.7, Div. 1.29, 2.20, 2.71, Val. Max. 1.4.3 (summaries by Paris and Nepotianus), Suet., Tib. 2.2, Flor. 1.18.29, Eutr. 2.26.1, Min. Fel. 7.4, 26.1, Schol. Bob. p. 90.2–3 (Stangl)). It is clear from them, as also from the Periochae, that the outcome of the dispute over the auguries was that Claudius was defeated at the battle of Drepana. Only in Servius is it suggested that he was victorious, but that his fleet suffered a wreck on its return. The source of Servius’ error is manifest: it arises from a conflation of Claudius’ story with that told of his consular colleague L. Junius Pullus. According to Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.7, Div. 1.29, 2.20, 2.71; cf. Paris’ summary of Val. Max. 1.4.4, Min. Fel. 7.4, 26.2), Junius also ignored auspices in the same year and consequently lost his fleet in a storm (the wreck, though not the auspices, is recounted in Plb. 1.54, D.S. 24.1.8–9, Eutr. 2.26.2, Oros. 4.10.3). All four of Cicero’s references to Junius pair him with Claudius, as do Paris and Minucius Felix; it is probable that Servius’ source (or, more likely, his source’s source) did the same. That Servius fails to give the name of the consul is also revealing in this context: indeed, it is probable that part of the reason for the confusion is that the names of the protagonists of the two stories had dropped out of his source. Moreover, even as a conflation of the two stories, Servius’ account is very confused. No other source suggests that either Claudius or Junius died with their fleet: Claudius returned to Rome to be prosecuted (cf. Per. 12.2n.), while, according to the (probably unhistorical: see Per. 19.4n.) account in Cicero (Nat. Deor. 2.7, Div. 2.71) and Paris, Junius committed suicide in order to avoid a similar

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

162 Commentary prosecution (according to Zonar. 8.15.14 he was captured by the Carthaginians). What is more, Junius’ military success, in which he successfully occupied Mount Eryx in Sicily, took place after the loss of his fleet, not before it (Plb. 1.55.6–10, D.S. 24.1.10–11). Given the level of error in Servius, one should be cautious about seeking to deduce anything about Livy’s original narrative from it (see also below). One may, however, tentatively hypothesize that Livy included both the sacrilege of Claudius and that of Junius in his narrative, and that the original source that lay behind Servius cited him in reference to both. The story is sometimes suggested to be a late invention; most notably, Wiseman (1979), 57–139 (see esp. 90–1) has an extended and powerful argument that the entire tradition of arrogant and irreligious Claudians, of which this is a part, was invented wholesale in the late 50s or early 40s. Wiseman’s key evidence is that none of it was ever used by Cicero in his decade-­long attacks on his enemy Clodius, although Clodius’ own alleged sacrilege was central to his case against him: Cicero never mentioned anything of this aspect of the Claudian family tradition until his latest works, starting in 46. Against this, however, is that the trial of Claudius, which is already found in Polybius (see Per. 19.2n.), is most naturally explained by some such accusation of sacrilege (cf. Thiel (1954), 274, Linderski (1986), 2176–7), since Roman generals were not usually prosecuted for being defeated, even when the failure was egregious (cf. Rosenstein (1990), esp. 78–85)—and it is not in fact clear that Claudius’ handling of the battle was especially faulty, despite the disastrous outcome (De Sanctis III.1 170–1 [173]). The most likely way of reconciling these considerations is to suggest that Claudius’ sacrilege was genuine—­or at least was a charge made at the time (we cannot presume his guilt). However, it was not until c.50 that it was linked with other stories detailing the (alleged) outrageous behaviour by other members of his family, and perhaps also rewritten into a form that emphasized the egregiousness of Claudius’ religious violation. The story may still have been unknown to Cicero before 46—given the vagaries of Roman book-­distribution, we cannot assume that even a learned man would have access to every story present in the historians—­or it may have merely appeared less salient to him in the absence of a pattern linking it to typical Claudian behaviour. After all, Cicero never brought up Claudius’ trial against his descendant, even though it too would have provided useful rhetorical ammunition, and even though it was mentioned in Polybius, whose work Cicero knew by 55 at the latest (Fam. 5.12.2; cf. Rep. 4.1 (Powell)). a tribuno plebis arceretur ne iret . . . eos praecipitavit in Tiberim: There are conflicting traditions on this subject. According to Servius, the auspices which Claudius violated were those he took before leaving Rome to take up his command, since Servius specifically refers to the tribune as his opponent, and also says that the chickens were thrown into the Tiber. As before, the confusions in Servius’ narrative should make us wary to rely on it as a report of Livy, but in this

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  163 case it is supported by Per. 19.2, where profectus implies a similar scenario, even though it does not explicitly locate the story in Rome, and it is probable that this was the way the story stood in Livy also. This is also the most natural in­ter­pret­ ation of Cicero’s contra auspicia navigaverunt (Div. 2.71: ‘they sailed contrary to the auspices’: contra Pease (1920–3), 136, followed by Wardle (2006), 179). Flor. 1.18.29, on the other hand, has the battle take place in the spot where Claudius drowned the chickens, implying that the omen was received immediately prior to the battle. It is more likely that the Livian (and Ciceronian) version is the original one (contra Lazenby (1996), 134), which was transformed by later writers into a story with greater drama and immediacy. No other source indicates that the sequence began when a tribune, prior to the auspices being received, sought to prevent Claudius’ departure. Since consuls habitually commanded in the field at this time, there is no clear ex­plan­ation as to why a tribune would wish to keep a consul in Rome. It is possible that this detail, like others, was garbled by Servius and did not appear in Livy; it is also possible that the detail was in Livy, but is nevertheless not true—­it was invented on the basis of the stereotype of the patrician Claudii (cf. above), which included constant antagonism towards the populace and its rep­re­sen­ta­tives. However, one can at least make sense of it in terms of other reports of Claudius’ political relationships. Not only was he prosecuted by the tribunes after his defeat (Per. 19.2n.), a trial which is easier to explain if there was a measure of prior hostility towards him, but also a lengthy fragment of Diodorus (24.3) suggests that on his arrival at his command he was scathingly critical of those who had held it before him. It may be that the unnamed tribune was seeking to extend the command of a pol­it­ ical ally by preventing Claudius from taking it over. But while this reconstruction is not implausible in itself, its flimsy basis must be acknowledged. pullos iussit adferri. qui cum missas non ederent fruges: For the use of chickens to provide auspices prior to (and on) campaigns, see Mommsen, StR3 I 83–5, Valeton (1890), 211–15. They were kept in cages (and deliberately starved, according to the cynical comment by Cic., Div. 2.73); they were then released in front of food, and it was considered a good omen if, while they ate, some food fell from their mouths. In Claudius’ case, the problem was apparently that they refused to eat at all (Cic., Nat. Deor. 2.7), or even to leave the cage (Paris, summarizing Val. Max. 1.4.3): Servius’ account looks more like Cicero’s than Paris’; it is, accordingly, slightly more probable that this was Livy’s version also, although the overall unreliability of Servius’ report means that one should place little weight on details like this. ‘vel bibant’: Cicero, Nat. Deor. 2.7 has the fullest and wittiest version of this comment: Claudius says ‘that they should drink, since they were unwilling to eat’ (ut biberent, quoniam esse nollent); Servius’ account relies on the same point of humour. It is possible (as before, with all caution about Servius’ unreliability) that his language reflects, or at least is a distillation of, Livy’s original: the vivid

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

164 Commentary sarcasm in direct speech can be paralleled in a similar context at 22.3.13, and vel introducing a command (cf. OLD s.v. vel 1a) has an archaic flavour that is more likely to derive from Livy himself than from Servius or Servius’ source (cf. Livy’s use of the same idiom at 30.18.4). revertens: The MSS of Servius read revertens ad Africam tendens. One or other phrase must be a gloss. Thilo deleted the second, and I have tentatively followed him: while neither accurately reflects the historical situation (cf. above), arguably the first is less misleading, since neither Claudius nor Junius, nor any other Roman commander in this phase of the First Punic War, made any attempt to cross to Africa. But Servius is so unreliable here that it can hardly be stated that he could not have made such an error. in mari cum omnibus quos ducebat exstinctus est: Here too there is a duplication in Servius, but only found in one branch of the MS tradition: M adds before in mari the phrase cum omni periit exercitu, presumably a gloss. F 13 This fragment appears in a thirteenth-­century MS, a compilation of canon law from earlier sources. It was discovered by Paul Krüger, and published by him in 1870 with additional notes by Mommsen (Krüger and Mommsen (1870)). Krüger suggested, surely correctly, that it was not taken verbatim from Livy, but derived either from a lost epitome, or from the original author’s compression of Livy’s text. The relatively simple factual statement, reducing a story to its bare essentials in just two simple sentences, is entirely unlike Livy’s manner: even when he is referring back to an earlier event, as could be the case here (cf. below), he does not do so like this. The story recorded here is not found elsewhere, and presents two interlocking historical problems. The first relates to the assumed political situation. The ascription to Livy Book 20 implies that the events took place between 241 and 218, but that seems surprisingly late for a story about class conflict of this sort.26 In prin­ ciple there is no reason why a particular patrician who sought to marry a relative should create popular anger against the patricians as a class, to the point that the senators had to flee en masse to the Capitol. That it did so here shows that the plebeians interpreted (probably wrongly: see below) the breaking of the engagement to Rutilius as a social slight—­but that makes a dating to the late third century implausible, since patrician–­plebeian marriages were by then commonplace, and it seems unlikely that anyone could have believed that the patricians saw a social stigma attaching to them. Moreover, that the objection to patricians led the 26  Contra Ungern-­Sternberg (2005), who seeks to relate the fragment here to other reported episodes of class conflict in the late third century; but none of his examples meet the basic objection that, while it is certain that class conflict did not cease in this period, the form this particular instance took appears odd and anachronistic.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  165 senators to flee makes little sense at this period, when senators were at least as likely to be plebeian as patrician; it seems to belong to an earlier time, when the Senate was—­or at least in the historical tradition was assumed to be—­fundamentally a patrician body. Second, the story relates to a conflict over a marriage between relatives closer than the seventh degree—­in other words, closer than second cousins once removed (see below)—marriages which had, apparently, traditionally been banned (cf. Tac., Ann. 12.6.3).27 But Livy 42.34.3 suggests that in 171, at most three generations later, a marriage of a man to his first cousin was under certain circumstances not only permitted but considered praiseworthy; cf. Plu., Quaest. Rom. 265D–E, which refers to a plebiscite (of unspecified date) permitting first-­cousin marriages, also Tit. Corp. Ulp. 5.6. While it is not impossible that all of these are true—­that public attitudes underwent a dramatic shift in that period, such that a marriage of second cousins raised popular hackles, but a first-cousin marriage not long afterwards was so acceptable that the law was changed to permit it—­it adds to the sense that the dating of the story in this fragment is highly problematic. Various expedients have been adopted. Schminck (1982) wished to reject the entire fragment as a mediaeval forgery, speaking inter alia of the lack of Livian parallels for some of the language (cf. below); but see the systematic arguments in support of authenticity offered by Bettini (1988), 87–8, who noted that the language is less problematic than Schmink implied, especially since these are prob­ ably not Livy’s own words in any case; he also observed that the situation reflects Roman interests far more than mediaeval ones, as well as the general improbability of so Livian a forgery being composed at this time and ascribed to the lost Book 20; cf. also Hanard (1986), 60–1. Briscoe (2012), 262–3 notes that Livy 42.34.3 is part of a speech composed by Livy, and argues that it does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of the 170s bc. But as he himself points out, a decade earl­ ier we have a historically secure reference to a marriage between second cousins, namely that of one of the daughters of Scipio Africanus (Livy 38.57.2), and it is in any case implausible to suggest that the taboo on cousin marriage was still un­broken in 170 bc. A better proposal is that of Develin (1986), who suggests that Livy introduced the story in Book 20 in a retrospective discussion (perhaps in a speech) of past changes in marriage law. Develin proposes two possible contexts: first, the introduction of divorce at Rome, which in one version (D.H., AR 2.25.7, Gell. 17.21.44; contra Val. Max. 2.1.4, Plu., Comp. Thes. Rom. 6.3) occurred in 231, or, second, the permissive change in the law recounted by Plutarch. If Develin is right, the events could have occurred earlier, perhaps even in the period covered by Livy’s first decade: as he observes, there are other events which Livy omits in their chrono­logic­al position, but refers to retrospectively. 27  For cousin marriage as part of an incest taboo at Rome, especially as related to the question of marriage within a gens, see Franciosi (1999), 135–55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

166 Commentary However, it is at least as likely that the book number is corrupted in our text—­ that it should read not xxo (sc. vicesimo) but xio (sc. undecimo), an easy scribal error whether the number was originally spelled out or abbreviated—­and that the controversial marriage and senatorial flight, if it happened at all (it cannot be ruled out that it is fictional),28 was mentioned in Book 11, thus in the late 290s or 280s, where it would be much less problematic historically. This would, from an historical point of view, lead to a similar conclusion to Develin’s, but, if we are choosing how best to explain how an early story might be recorded in a later context, textual corruption is more common and hence more probable than that a legal commentator cited a story from Livy that appeared only in a speech. But while I am attracted to that solution, it is still after all possible that this did occur (or was thought to have occurred) in the period 241–218, or else that (as Develin suggests) Livy recorded it in Book 20 even though it occurred earlier; hence I have maintained the fragment in its traditional position rather than transposing it on the basis of an emendation. One further question arising from this episode is the presumed motives of the participants, both for Cloelius wishing to marry his relative, and for the popular revulsion against it. Rutilius’ complaint that his fiancée had been ‘torn away’ from him (praeripi) suggests that the objection was not solely the incestuous character of the marriage, or indeed the apparent social slight to Rutilius, but also the disruption of the match that the parties themselves preferred: this was, in other words, treated as parallel to the famous outrages on women perpetrated in the stories of Lucretia and Verginia. This does not mean that Rutilius’ fiancée did not ‘consent’ to the new match: it is controversial whether her consent was legally required at this period,29 but, even if it was, that consent could be given under extreme familial pressure.30 It is also relevant that her father (unless he was no longer alive) is not mentioned as objecting, since legally he would certainly have had to consent to the new marriage, and presumably preferred it to the earl­ier betrothal (which would also have required his consent): this is one significant difference from Lucretia and Verginia, where not only the women themselves but their fathers stand in opposition to their mistreatment. As for the family’s motives in supporting the marriage to Cloelius, it is, despite the way the plebeians responded, more probably to be seen as financial than social (after all, if the objection were purely to Rutilius’ class, an unrelated patrician husband could have been found who would not have violated any incest taboo). In the imperial period cousin marriages, though permitted, were rare at 28  Cf. Treggiari (1991), 112, who doubts that there was ever a genuine taboo against cousin marriage at Rome, and hence questions the historicity of not only this fragment, but also the anecdote in Plutarch. 29  Watson (1967), 41–5 argues that it was not, but see contra Treggiari (1982), 37–40. 30  ‘Whether the consent of the bride and even of the bridegroom was legally required may be academic if the pressure exerted by the family or by society was strong’ (Treggiari (1991), 83; cf. 170–80).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  167 Rome, not least because the economic motives for such marriages were weak: since married women retained their place in their father’s family and their property was their own, not passing to their husband, the property would be ‘kept in the family’ whether they married inside it or outside it (see esp. Shaw and Saller (1984)). But the economic calculations would have been very different in earlier periods, when marriage by manus seems to have been the norm, under which the wife’s property passed to the husband. This is, incidentally, an additional, if more minor, reason for questioning whether this story can really date to the end of the third century, a time when marriages without manus had already become more common (cf. Treggiari (1991), 34–6). Cloelius: The MS reads Celius, but was corrected by Krüger, supported by Mommsen: as they note, the gens Caelia was neither patrician nor attested so early, whereas the gens Cloelia was both. intra septimum cognationis gradum: In order to determine degrees of relationship, the Romans counted back from each person to their most recent common ancestor; the total number of steps involved on the two sides provided the degree of relationship. Thus first cousins were related in the fourth degree (both two steps from their grandparent), second cousins in the sixth degree, and so on. The seventh degree would be second cousins once removed; intra indicates that marriages between them would be permitted, but any closer relations were not allowed to marry. It is, accordingly, possible on a strict reading of the wording that Cloelius and his bride were related not in the sixth degree, but the fifth or even the fourth; but if the violation of the taboo went to that point, it seems likely that Livy—­or rather the person summarizing Livy for this fragment—­would have said so. F 14 Servius is commenting here on Virgil’s tertiaque arma patri suspendet capta Quirino (Aen. 6.859), describing the dedication of the spolia opima (see below) by Marcus Claudius Marcellus. Servius is attempting to explain a puzzling detail—­ that Virgil describes the dedication being made to Quirinus, whereas the vast majority of the Roman tradition associates it with the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol. He offers two different versions, but the one he ex­pli­cit­ly prefers involves a law of Numa, decreeing that only the first dedication should be to Jupiter Feretrius: the third was to be to Quirinus, as Virgil said. In support of this version, Servius says that Livy mentioned Numa’s law. Since Livy does not do so on either of the previous occasions he spoke of the spolia opima (1.10.5–7, 4.20.3–7), it seems reasonably obvious that he must have done so in the context of Marcellus’ winning them, the third and last time they were awarded, which he described in Book 20 (cf. Per. 20.9n.). Similar information appears in Plu., Marc. 8.5 (very possibly deriving it from Livy), who adds that, along similar lines, the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

168 Commentary winner of the first spolia opima would receive 300 asses, the second 200, and the third 100, and also in a fragmentary passage of Festus (202L, 204L), which adds the different sacrifices associated with each dedication. The question, however, is what the ‘first spolia’, ‘second spolia’, and ‘third spolia’ mean here. In Servius it is clearly referring to the three historical occasions on which they were dedicated; but Festus and Plutarch are often taken to be referring, not to three occasions of spolia opima, but to three kinds, depending on the circumstances under which they were won: the first kind (spolia opima proper) could be won only by a holder of imperium, the second by a subordinate commander, the third by a regular soldier (so esp. Hertzberg (1846)).31 This in­ter­pret­ ation is held to be supported by the claim in Flor. 1.33.11 that Scipio Aemilianus won the spolia opima in Spain by killing the enemy commander: other sources (cf. below) show that this feat was performed before he was in command. In which case Marcellus, like Cossus and (al­leged­ly) Romulus, simply won the first kind, and his dedication of them to Jupiter Feretrius was correct under the law. On this view, Servius has simply misunderstood the nature of the ‘law of Numa’ in question, whether or not his misunderstanding was shared by Livy. However, nothing in either Festus (at least in the surviving fragments of his text)32 or Plutarch unambiguously points to the idea that this ‘law’ is concerned with categories of spolia opima rather than occasions: their texts are com­pat­ible with that interpretation, but with Servius’ also; and in support of Servius, it seems clear that this is the version on which Virgil was drawing, when he has Marcellus dedicate the spolia to Quirinus33—and it is unlikely that Virgil would have crudely misinterpreted the rule, even if Servius might have done. Moreover, if ‘Numa’s law’ offered an ‘alternative’ form of spolia opima available for non-­commanders, it is puzzling that Livy does not bring it up when he debates whether Cossus won 31 Hertzberg’s interpretation, though widely accepted, has at various times been challenged. Another reconstruction (Picard (1957), 131–4) relates the ‘law of Numa’ to the route of the archaic triumph, with dedications of different sets of spoils to the three gods along the route. Norden (1927), 340–1 proposed that it referred not to three kinds of spolia opima, but to the first three soldiers to capture ordinary spolia from an enemy in the course of each battle, and that it was mistakenly conflated with the entirely separate institution of the spolia opima. Both of these, however, run up against the same basic problem as Hertzberg’s—­that they are incompatible with the account of the law given by Virgil and Servius; Norden’s is in addition logistically improbable (how, in the confusion of a battle, could the first three takers of spoils be identified (Versnel (1970), 308–9)?). Liou-­Gille (1998), 39–55 accepts that ‘first’, ‘second’, and ‘third’ spolia refer to the three canonical winners, but argues that the ‘law of Numa’ was describing not the dedication of the spolia opima to other gods than Jupiter Feretrius, but accompanying sacrifices to those other gods. This is a reasonable reading of Festus, as she shows, but not of Virgil, Plutarch, or Servius. 32  Festus, prior to a lengthy lacuna, quotes Varro on the possibility of non-­commanders winning spolia opima; then after the lacuna makes the division of three spolia. These are regularly connected (e.g. by Hertzberg (1846)), so that the three spolia are won by different grades of soldier; but nothing in the surviving text requires that. 33  So e.g. Butler (1919), who, however, regards this as a simple mistake by Virgil or his source. Austin (1977), 266–7 seeks to save Virgil’s reputation by interpreting his phrase arma . . . suspendet Quirino as meaning ‘will hang up the weapons [sc. in Jupiter’s temple] . . . in honour of Quirinus [sc. Romulus]’. But this is highly unnatural Latin.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  169 the spolia while in command (4.20.5–11)—for, even if the distinction between commanders and non-­commanders did not in reality exist in Cossus’ day, the later historical tradition would not have known that, given the attribution of the rule to Numa. Nor is it recorded by Dio in the case of Crassus, nor is it mentioned in the story of Livius Drusus, who sup­posed­ly killed an enemy commander (Suet., Tib. 3.2), nor in the case of M.  Valerius Corvus, whose opponent is described as a dux by Livy 7.26.7 and Val. Max. 3.2.6. Even if some of these claims are erroneous, it is still revealing that the authors who record them do not speak of spolia opima or mention a dedication.34 The one exception is the attribution of spolia opima to Scipio Aemilianus by Florus (above), but none of the other sources for this well-­ known episode (e.g. Per. 48.14—see ad loc.—Vell. 1.12.4, Val. Max. 3.2.6, Plu., Praec. Reip. Ger. 805A, App., Hisp. 53, Ampel. 22, Vir. Ill. 58.2, Oros. 4.21.2) speaks of the spolia opima, and it is far more likely that Florus is (as often) merely in error (perhaps because he did not realize that Scipio was not commander at the time, and so he simply assumed that he made the dedication that a commander would). It is true that the rule as described in Servius seems an improbable one, since it would apparently preclude there ever being more than three dedicators: it must, accordingly, be a ‘rule’ that was developed retrospectively within the antiquarian tradition once the canon of exactly three dedicators had been established. Its use by Livy and Virgil illustrates the fluidity of Roman anti­quar­ian­ism: the minority view was able to be referred to even in the face of contra­dictory information ­supplied by the Emperor himself, when Augustus restored the temple of Jupiter Feretrius and (allegedly) found Cossus’ dedication there (Livy 4.20.5–11; cf. Nep., Att. 20.3, August., R.Gest. 19.5),35 something generally accepted to be part of his justification for denying the spolia opima to M.  Licinius Crassus (see below).36 Against this, Harrison (1989) argues that Augustan writers—­and, by implication, Augustus himself—­were keen to promote an ‘authorized’ version of the dedication of spolia opima; but that point should not be overstated. Livy did not rewrite his main narrative in Book 4 in order to make it accord with Augustus’ account, and in general his handling of Augustus’ information about Cossus hints at—­without explicitly drawing attention to—­various problems in it (see esp. Sailor (2006)). Moreover, the ‘alternative’ version of spolia opima, on the argument above, in one

34  Livy 23.46.14 has Vibellius Taurea proposing single combat to a Roman eques with the words daretque spolia opima victus, aut victor caperet (‘and the defeated will give spolia opima, or the victor will take them’); but this is manifestly not speaking of spolia opima in the sense of spoils that might be dedicated according to the formal ritual (not least because this is a Campanian talking about winning them by killing a Roman), but literally of ‘rich spoils’ (see W-­M ad loc., also Hertzberg (1846), 334–5). 35  So, rightly, Rich (1996), 125–6; cf. Woodman (1989), 136–7 = (2012), 154–6, suggesting that Virgil detached Jupiter Feretrius from the spolia opima precisely in order to sidestep the political controversy. 36  Famously demonstrated by Dessau (1906); cf. Syme (1959), 43–6 = (1979b), 417–21. Rich (1996) argues against this that Crassus never sought to dedicate spolia opima, and that his victory is unconnected with the information about Cossus relayed from Augustus to Livy, but see contra Flower (2000), 51–3 = Richardson and Santangelo (2014), 307–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

170 Commentary respect supported Augustus’ position even more strongly (even though it was not the argument he appears to have used himself ). It was premised on there never being able to be more than three dedicators,37 in which case Crassus’ claim was invalid from the start, regardless of any messy legal complications about who exactly was in command. opima spolia: Literally ‘rich spoils’: these were dedicated by a Roman commander who had killed his enemy counterpart in single combat. The tradition supposedly went back to Romulus; then A.  Cornelius Cossus allegedly performed the feat, and Marcellus was the third and last to do so: for the historical circumstances of his achievement see Per. 20.9n.38 Later on only abortive versions are known (apart from the questionable case of Scipio Aemilianus in Spain mentioned by Florus: see above): M. Licinius Crassus (apparently) sought to be allowed to perform the dedication in 29, only for his request to be denied by Augustus on the grounds that he himself, and not Crassus, had imperium (Dio 51.24.4; cf. above); while a few years earlier Caesar had been given the privilege to dedicate spolia opima as if he had slain an enemy general (Dio 44.4.3)39—as far as is known, he never acted on this privilege. Iovi Feretrio: The temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol was supposedly the oldest temple in Rome, founded by Romulus at the time of the first dedication of the spolia opima; there was apparently no cult image in the temple, but only a stone, perhaps a meteorite (Paul., Fest. 81L). There were various der­iv­ations of the name given in antiquity, some (including Livy 1.10.6; also Prop. 4.10.47, Paul., Fest. 81L) deriving it from ferre (because Romulus ‘brought’ the captured weapons to be dedicated, or because the god ‘brought’ peace), ­others (Prop. 4.10.46, Plu., Rom. 16.6, Marc. 8.4) from ferire (because Romulus ‘struck’ his enemy, or because Jupiter ‘strikes’ with a thunderbolt), others (Plu., Marc. 8.4) from the Greek pheretron (because the spoils were brought on a ‘carriage’). See Wissowa (1912), 117–19, Ogilvie (1965), 70–2. Cossus: A.  Cornelius Cossus (RE 112); consul in 428, consular tribune in 426. His one major claim to fame was his winning of the spolia opima by killing the Etruscan king Lar Tolumnius, although it was disputed in the tradition when exactly he performed this feat (cf. Per. 4.6n.).

37  Cf. Harrison (1989), 411–13 on the stress on ‘three dedicators’ in Virgil and Propertius as an endorsement of Augustus’ account of the spolia. 38  Flower (2000) argues that the entire ‘tradition’ of the spolia opima was invented by Marcellus in 222 and retrospectively ascribed to Romulus and Cossus; then it was revived, first by Caesar and then by Augustus, partly because of descendants of Marcellus marrying into their family. However, her case is not strong: she has little direct evidence for such an invention. Historical difficulties in the (alleged) earlier dedications by Romulus and Cossus do not entail that Marcellus invented the concept. For other objections to her thesis cf. McDonnell (2005), 150–1. 39  In a peremptory aside, Syme (1959), 44 = (1979b), 419 dismissed this as anachronistic, but it is not clear what non-­circular grounds he can have had for doing so: for a defence of its historicity see Harrison (1989), 408–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  171 Quirino: A Roman god whose primary shrine was on the eponymous Quirinal hill, and he appears to have been linked to the Roman citizen body (the Quirites). By the late Republic he was identified with Romulus, but that identification appears to have been a relatively late development, perhaps not prior to the early first century bc (so e.g. Wissowa (1912), 155–6, Classen (1962); contra Weinstock (1971), 176–7). On the broader ideological significance of Quirinus in Roman society see Porte (1981); also (more controversially) Dumézil (1970), esp. 246–72. Marcellus: See Per. 20.9n. F 15 For the context cf. F 11n.; Censorinus here discusses the date of the fourth (by his calculation) set of Secular Games, and gives three different opinions: one from Livy and Antias and Varro, according to which it was in 149, then that of the earl­ ier historians Piso, Gellius, and Cassius Hemina, who dated it to 146, and then, as before, the commentarii of the quindecimvirs, who dated it to 126. Since, as Censorinus himself observes, the date of 146 was supported by the contemporary witness Cassius Hemina, as well as other historians writing close to the time, it is highly likely to be the correct one.40 Redating it to 149 presumably arose from the assumption that this set of games was exactly one hundred years after the previous one, something Livy later in his work (F 66: see ad loc.) states explicitly was the custom (similarly, the quindecimvirs’ alternative date was pre­ sum­ably designed to justify Augustus’ celebration in 17, in the 110th year after 126). It is very revealing for Livy’s (and indeed Antias’ and Varro’s) method that they preferred this artificial date over that offered by the contemporary sources; Livy is likely to have taken his information from Antias, but he cites Piso, Gellius, and Hemina at other times, and could easily have done so here. Autopsy certainly had some weight in ancient historical methodology, but was considerably less decisive than a modern historian would assume was natural. quartorum ludorum: See F 11n. L.  Marcio Censorino M’. Manilio consulibus: sc. 149 bc: M’. was restored by Drakenborch for the MSS M. sescentesimo quinto: This date cannot derive from Livy, but must be Censorinus’ own: Per. 49.5 shows that Livy thought of this year as the 602nd, because he was, as usual, working from a foundation date of 751/0, not 754/3 (see further ad loc.; also F 11n.). 40  Contra Leuze (1907), 549–59 (cf. also Baudou (1995), 31–6), who, in an elaborate argument, seeks to show that the games were after all celebrated in 149, and that the discrepancy between the sources that Censorinus identifies was based on a misreading. But his argument depends on a long series of dubious assumptions (e.g. that the 100-­year cycle was already being strictly enforced at that time; that Valerius Antias was unlikely to have falsified the date; that Censorinus had not consulted the sources in question and inserted the consular date himself, misunderstanding that the earlier ­historians were using a different AUC dating system).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

172 Commentary vivebat: Sigonius proposed vivebant, on the basis that Piso was no less a con­tem­ por­ary source than Hemina was (he was tribune in 149: see MRR 1.459), and Gellius was probably one as well (see Briscoe in FRHist 1.253–4). However, Censorinus highlights Hemina with the words sed et, and that is most natural if he alone is being singled out by the clause that follows: hence the MSS reading is to be preferred. Cn. Cornelio Lentulo Lucio Mummio Achaico cons.: 146 bc. DCVIII . . . DCXXVIII: The numbers are corrupted in the MSS; Vinetus restored them, on the reasonable assumption that Censorinus is not likely to have had crude errors or inconsistencies in his chronological calculations. M. Aemilio Lepido L. Aurelio Oreste cons.: 126 bc: Lepidus’ praenomen is omitted by the MSS, but Censorinus usually provides them, and it is rightly restored. F 16 Priscian is exploring instances where Greek and Latin employ parallel i­ dioms related to ‘internal’ accusatives; he is here offering a parallel to the Greek phrase παραιτεῖσθαι συγγνώμην (‘beg for pardon’: he quotes in illustration Xen., Mem. 2.2.14); the Latin, taken from Livy, is morbum excusasse, ‘offered illness as an excuse’. The mention in the Livian sentence of Q. Pompeius and the Numantines allows us to identify the historical context precisely. According to an anecdote told in Val. Max. 3.7.5 (cf. also Dio fr. 82), in the year 136 the consul L. Furius Philus, about to leave for Spain to take command at Numantia, was criticized by the ex-­consuls Q.  Pompeius and Q.  Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus; his unexpected response was to insist on their accompanying him as his legates. The main issue that Furius had to deal with in Numantia was to surrender to the Numantines the consul of the previous year, C. Hostilius Mancinus, who had, when trapped, negotiated a peace treaty with them, which the Senate had refused to ratify (see Per. 55.5, 56.3nn.). The fragment adds a further detail to the story: Pompeius’ reason for not wishing to go was not simply his hostility to Philus (or indeed Metellus), but that he thought that his presence at the surrender would anger the Numantines, presumably because of his notorious behaviour when he himself had held the command at Numantia during his consulship five years earlier: he had privately persuaded the Numantines to come to terms,41 but then he denied that he had made any agreement at all, and ultimately the Senate repudiated the terms (App., Hisp. 79; cf. Per. 54.1 with commentary ad loc.; also e.g. Cic., Rep. 3.28, Fin. 2.54, 41  According to App., Hisp. 79, the terms included the payment of 30 talents of silver. Appian does not make it clear who was intended to receive this: presumably the Numantines thought of it as an indemnity to Rome (cf. Per. 38.8n.), but the fact that Pompeius was subsequently prosecuted for repetundae (Val. Max. 8.5.1; cf Cic., Font. 23) suggests that it was seen by other Romans as a personal bribe—­unsurprisingly, given that Pompeius, despite receiving the money, went on to deny the existence of any agreement at all (a point apparently overlooked by Gruen (1968), 36–7, who regards the prosecution as activated by pure political vindictiveness).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  173 Off. 3.109, Vell. 2.1.4, Eutr. 4.17.1, Oros. 5.4.21; cf. Simon (1962), 108–16, Astin (1967), 148–50). It appears from Cic., Off. 3.109 (cf. also Vell. 2.1.5) that there was a proposal to surrender Pompeius on similar grounds to Mancinus, but he, unlike Mancinus, refused to comply, and the proposal was defeated (see esp. Rosenstein (1986), 248–50). This would have added to the sense that Pompeius’ presence at Mancinus’ surrender would be especially galling to the Numantines. An extra point that emerges from Livy (although he does not endorse this in his own voice) is that Pompeius pleaded illness, though clearly unsuccessfully, since both Valerius and Dio show that he did indeed join Furius’ staff in Spain. LVI: The book number is corrupted in most of the MSS; but 56 is found in one MS, and fits with the evidence of the Periochae, which records the surrender of Mancinus in that book (Per. 56.3). In theory, since the Periochae records the Senate’s repudiation of Mancinus’ treaty in Book 55 (Per. 55.5), it is possible that Philus’ departure for Numantia occurred in that book: there is no reason to assume that his consular year began in Book 56. But, given that 55 has no MS support at all, it is far more probable that this fragment belongs to Book 56. Q. Pompeius: RE 12. He was the first member of the family to achieve high honours. Nothing is known of his career prior to his consulship in 141, when he  served in Spain with mixed success (Per. 54.1n.; cf. also above). Later he is recorded as an opponent of Tiberius Gracchus during the controversy over the legacy of Attalus of Pergamum (cf. Per. 58.3n.), and subsequently was censor in 131 (Per. 59.5n.). morbum excusasse: For excusare as ‘the mot juste for declining to perform a public service’, see Oakley (1997), 583; as Oakley notes, ill-­health was among the most common of such excuses. For the idiom of the accusative indicating the excuse offered, see TLL V.2 1305.75–1306.10. Numantinorum: Numantia (BarrAtl Map 25 C4) was a leading city of the Celtiberi (Per. 41.2n.), occupying a defensible hilltop site. The Numantines were best known for the decade-­ long war they fought against Roman control (143–133); for the events of that war see Per. 54.1, 55.4–5, 56.3, 56.7, 57.1–4, 59.1, with commentary ad locc. The war ended with the destruction of the city by Scipio Aemilianus; a Roman city was built on the site at a much later date. Numantia and the surrounding Roman camps were the subject of extensive excavations in the early twentieth century: see esp. Schulten (1914–31), but note also Jiménez et al. (2018), persuasively suggesting some significant respects in which Schulten’s conclusions should be corrected or qualified. For the history of the town (which primarily means the history of the war with Rome) see Schulten (1933). F 17 Plutarch is describing the prelude to the major conflict between Sulla and Marius during the former’s consulate in 88. He refers to Sulla’s role in the Social War, but

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

174 Commentary brushes over it lightly, interweaving it with anecdotes illustrative of his character; he culminates with a discussion of his fourth marriage, which he contracted at the start of his consulship. All previous editions have assigned this fragment to Book 77, on the grounds that the Periochae recounts the events of Sulla’s consulship in that book; but the reason­ ing is poor. Per. 75 concludes with Sulla returning to Rome to seek the consulship in late 89. Per. 76 has no domestic events at all, but appears to cover events of both 89 and 88, since it includes the fall of Asculum (Per. 76.5), which the Fasti Capitolini indicate occurred in 89, but Cn. Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89) is described as proconsul (Per. 76.3), which implies that the campaigns described in that book extended into 88. The first events of Per. 77 are the laws passed by the tribune Sulpicius with Marius’ support against Sulla’s opposition. The implication of Plu., Sull. 7–8 is that this took place not at the beginning of 88, but well into the year, since Sulla, after taking up his consulship, first left Rome to continue his campaign in the Social War (Plu., Sull. 7.2), but then had time to return once more to confront Sulpicius (Plu., Sull. 8.3–4). The obvious conclusion is that Book 76 covered the last months of 89 and the first of 88, and the lack of any report of domestic events in Book 76 is an artefact of the Periochist’s well-­documented selectivity.42 In that case, it is highly probable that the beginning of Sulla’s consulship and his associated marriage occurred not in Book 77, but Book 76. There is, admittedly, one complication about this reasoning. While Per. 76 mentions both the fall of Asculum in 89 and the proconsulship of Strabo in 88, it does not do so in chronological order—­Strabo is described as being proconsul prior to the notice of the fall of Asculum. It is, accordingly, possible that the Periochist was mistaken in his description of him as proconsul in Book 76 and that he only became proconsul with the new year in Book 77 (cf. Per. 77.6). But, while the Periochae sometimes includes anachronisms, they are not completely arbitrary. The most revealing parallel is with another case of someone prematurely described as proconsul, namely P. Licinius Crassus at Per. 43.2 (see ad loc.). The reason for the anachronism is that the book’s narrative began in his consulship and extended into his proconsulship, but the Periochist treated him as proconsul for all the events of his campaign. The same is likely to be true here—­far more likely than that the Periochae applied a title to him in Book 76 that he would not receive until Book 77. Thus the parallel with Book 43 supports the case that Book 76 extended into the first months of 88, and hence that this fragment belongs in that book. (It may also be that the Periochae, as often, recorded the capture of Asculum out of Livy’s chrono­logic­al sequence; see further 76.5n.)

42 Rich (2011), 13 argues that in Books 71–90 ‘it would have been wholly inappropriate, and indeed impossible, to retain the old regular pattern for the annual narratives’; but it would have been neither inappropriate nor impossible in Books 75–77: indeed, the chronological indications of the Periochae are best explained if Livy retained an annalistic framework in these books.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  175 A more troubling question is how far what Plutarch says here accurately reflects Livy’s slant. Plutarch cites Livy a number of times; but on three of those occasions (Cam. 6.2 = C 30, Marc. 11.4 = C 53, Marc. 30.1–4 = C 61; see ad locc.), he significantly misrepresents him. In the second case there is strong evidence that this is the result of his dependence on an early epitome (see Introduction; also Per. 23.10n., 39.5n.), and it is possible that the same is true here and that, while Livy certainly discussed Sulla’s marriage and the responses to it, Plutarch’s specific characterization of the thoughts of the ‘leading citizens’ derives from a later version that is only loosely related to the original, not from Livy himself. The suggestion that Sulla was criticized for this marriage is not found elsewhere (unless one counts the oblique comment in Sall., Jug. 95.3, that Sulla behaved badly de uxore, which may—­but does not have to, given various other problems Plutarch reports with respect to Sulla’s marriages—­refer to this episode), and its historical basis is uncertain. If such criticisms were indeed made, the grounds are unlikely to have been his social status, since he came from an ancient if decayed patrician family, and by this point had both military and political successes to recommend him, but more probably his personal reputation, as well as the rapidity with which he took a new wife after divorcing the one before (which Plutarch comments on shortly afterwards: Sull. 6.11).

Κοΐντου Πομπηΐου: Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE 39), Sulla’s consular colleague in 88; he had previously been urban praetor in 91 and (probably) tribune in 99 (MRR 2.2–3). He was murdered during his consulship when his troops mutinied, apparently at the instigation of his consular predecessor Cn. Pompeius Strabo (see Per. 77.6n.). πεντήκοντα ἔτη γεγονώς: Other sources make it clear that Sulla was born in 138, and became consul at the age of forty-nine (Vell. 2.17.3; cf. Val. Max. 9.3.8, App., BC 1.105); Plutarch (or his source) has rounded the number. γαμεῖ δὲ γάμον ἐνδοξότατον: According to Plutarch, Sulla 6.11, this was Sulla’s fourth marriage, his first three being to otherwise unknown women: ‘Ilia’ (an unlikely name, since there was no such gens: it may be a scribal error for ‘Julia’), Aelia, and Cloelia, the last of whom he divorced for barrenness a few days before marrying Metella. Καικιλίαν: Caecilia Metella (RE 134). She had previously been married to M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115), and had three children by him. She had a further three children by Sulla, whom she accompanied on his campaigns in Greece, but she died in 81, during his dictatorship. Μετέλλου . . . τοῦ ἀρχιερέως: L.  Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (RE 91); he was consul in 119, and also pontifex maximus; his campaigns over the Dalmatians during his consulship won him his cognomen (cf. Per. 62.3n.). As Plutarch indicates, a primary motive for the marriage was certainly the immense influence and prestige of the Metelli at this time (cf. Fündling (2010), 62–3).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

176 Commentary

ὁ Τίτος: This is the only place where Plutarch (or any other historian) refers to Livy by his praenomen alone (cf. Per. 34.8n.); that Livy is meant is, however, overwhelmingly probable, since there is no other plausible Titus whom Plutarch might have used as a source on Sulla. F 18 This (supposed: see below) fragment is transmitted in two slightly different forms, one in the Suda, and the other in a fragment of John of Antioch, from which the Suda presumably derived it (it also survives in the Excerpta Planudea in a form all but identical to that in John). It depicts in some detail a prodigy during Sulla’s consulship in 88, which was held to represent the beginning of a new cycle of ages, something which was supposedly fulfilled by the cycle of civil wars which began in that year. Both in John and in the Suda the story is attributed to ‘Livy and Diodorus’. However, the primary source for the material here is very obviously Plu., Sull. 7.3–4, which is extremely close to it in both sentiment and wording: other parts of John’s account of Sulla appear to derive from Plutarch (Walton (1965), 237–8). Yet Plutarch does not cite any source (although he has cited Livy for a different matter not long before: see F 17), while John and the Suda do not mention Plutarch at this point, though they cite him shortly afterwards. The question, therefore, is how the names ‘Livy and Diodorus’ entered the trad­ition. John ­cannot have known Livy’s work (he otherwise mentions him only in a tralatician citation from Plutarch: see F 27n.); hence either this is pure fabrication on his part (so Walton (1965), 242–3), or some other author prior to him must have linked Livy and Diodorus to the omen mentioned in Plutarch. But even if it was the latter, there is no easy way to determine who that writer was, or (more im­port­ ant­ly for our purposes) whether he found anything in Livy comparable to the detailed discussion in Plutarch of the significance of the omen. It is not im­pos­ sible that he did—­indeed, it is possible that Plutarch based his entire discussion on Livy—­but the overall theme of the passage is more easily related to Plutarch’s interests elsewhere in his work (cf. e.g. Duff (1999), 187–9) than to anything in the surviving parts of Livy. It is perhaps revealing that Obsequens does not have anything of this omen: it is true that his selections from Livy are far from comprehensive, but he includes a number of other omens from this year (Obseq. 56) and indeed from this part of Livy’s work more generally, and one might have expected that he would have referred to this one, had it played anything like the part in Livy that it does in Plutarch. Overall, therefore, one would be rash to deduce anything about Livy’s treatment from this ‘fragment’, apart from the possibility (and even that is far from certain) that he mentioned the omen in question. Even if Livy did include it, it is not possible to determine the precise book. If, as in Plutarch, he linked it closely to Sulpicius’ legislation, it would naturally appear

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  177 in Book 77, which is where previous editors have placed it. But it is likely that Livy began the consular year in Book 76 (see F 17n.), and in the surviving books he places prodigies at the beginning of the consular year considerably more often than he puts them later, even when he is drawing connections between the prod­ igies and the events of the year. This would make it more likely that the prodigies appeared in Book 76 than 77; but, since even in the earlier books there are several exceptions to this rule, and since we cannot in any case be at all sure that his practice remained the same in the later ones, it is best to leave the question open. The appearance of this prodigy as a presage of the civil war at Rome is also mentioned by Lyd., Ost. 6, while Varro (ap. Serv. auct., Aen. 8.526) refers to such prodigies as a sign marking saecula. The entire episode is based on an eschatological scheme: the ‘ages’ of the fragment are versions of the Etruscan saecula (cf. F 11n.), although manifestly the calculations that brought the turning point in 88 are entirely different from those which were associated with the various celebrations of the Secular Games, and the idea that the total number of ages would be eight is directly contradicted by the sources associated with those games (Cens. 17.6, following Varro), which speak of ten ages in total. The particular version here was presumably generated not only by the crisis of the civil wars, but also by the final collapse of Italian independence in the Social War (cf. Feeney (2007), 145–8). There is an interesting parallel in the ‘Prophecy of Vegoia’, a short text transmitted with the agrimensores which purports to be Etruscan in origin, and which speaks of disasters arising at the end of the ‘eighth saeculum’ because of the theft of Etruscan land (text in Campbell (2000), 256–9); this too is plausibly associated with the Social War and the civil war that followed (e.g. by Heurgon (1959)),43 although the version transmitted appears linguistically to belong to a later period (Adams (2003), 179–82).

ἐξ ἀνεϕέλου τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ αἰθρίας πολλῆς ἦχον ἀκουσθῆναι σάλπιγγος: A rare prodigy, not paralleled in the surviving books of Livy; but a similar omen appears at Obseq. 14 (see ad loc.); cf. Plin., Nat. 2.148, Dio 66.23.1, Lyd., Ost. 6. It appears regularly in the imagined prodigies of Latin poetry, perhaps because of its graph­ ic­al­ly martial nature, perhaps because of the Homeric precedent (Il. 21.388): Virg., Aen. 8.524–6, Tib. 2.5.75, Ov., Met. 15.784–5, Lucan 1.578. For the emphasis on a clear sky (presumably demonstrating that the phenomenon was not storm-­ related) cf. e.g. Livy 31.12.5, 37.3.3, 41.21.12, Obseq. 24, 47; also Enn., Ann. 541 Sk. with Skutsch (1985), 689–90, offering further references. 43  Contra Turcan (1976), who rejects Heurgon’s reasoning and would refer it instead to the slave revolt at Volsinii (cf. Per. 16.6n.), but this depends on pressing minor differences between Plutarch and the ‘Prophecy’ to an unnecessary degree, given that neither text is likely to depend on a close understanding of Etruscan eschatology; it is also intrinsically less likely that a Etruscan prophecy associated with the third century bc would be transmitted in this manner as readily as one from the first century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

178 Commentary The salpinx was a straight brass instrument, used primarily for military signalling or to accompany heraldic proclamations; its Latin equivalent was the tuba. Although it is mentioned as early as Homer (Il. 18.219, 21.388), it was regarded by the Greeks as an Etruscan invention, which is presumably relevant to its appearance here. See esp. Petretto (1995).

τοὺς δὲ Τυρρηνῶν μάντεις: The haruspices, Etruscan soothsayers, whose art had a profound influence on the theory and practice of Roman divination; see e.g. Bouché-­Leclercq (1882), 1–115, Thulin (1906–9), MacBain (1982), 43–79. τοῦ γένους: γένος was the standard word since Hesiod (Op. 109–80) to signify a new race of men in a cosmic cycle of ages. ἐνιαυτοῦ μεγάλου περιόδῳ: The concept of a ‘Great Year’—in other words, a macrocosmic cycle spanning generations in a manner analogous to the annual cycle of the solar year—­was not specifically associated with the Etruscan saecula, but was widespread in Greco-­Roman antiquity (see e.g. Pl., Ti. 39D, Sen., Nat. 3.29.1 (citing Berossus), Cic., Rep. 6.24.2, Nat. Deor. 2.51–2, Plin., Nat. 2.40, 10.5, Cens. 18, Serv., Aen. 1.269), sometimes with the idea that the end of the cycle was marked by cosmic catastrophe (so esp. Sen., loc. cit., Cens. 18.11, SVF 2.625). θεοῖς ἧττον τῶν προτέρων μέλοντες: This is revealingly different from Plu., Sull. 7.4, who says θεοῖς ἧττον ἢ μᾶλλον τῶν προτέρων μέλοντες (‘less or more of a concern to the gods than their predecessors’). It may be relevant that Plutarch was writing at a time when the Roman state had found greater stability under the Empire, whereas John was writing long after the rise of Christianity and the fall of the western empire. F 19 The fragment comes from Augustine, who at this point of the City of God is seeking to demonstrate that the divine help that the Roman state claimed to have received was the work of malicious demons: the proof is that, prior to the brutal rule of Sulla, they gave him favourable omens, and did nothing to restrain him. The same story appears in Plu., Sull. 9.3, who may have derived it from Livy; he associates it with Sulla’s march on Rome after his expulsion from the city in 88: see Per. 77.1n. Pease (1920–3), 218–19 (followed by C. J. Smith in FRHist 3.295) suggests that the story told in Cic., Div. 1.72 (citing Sulla’s memoirs—­FRHist 22 F 17 (= fr. 9P)—as well as his own autopsy; also see Val. Max. 1.6.4) is another version of the same episode, but this seems highly improbable. Cicero’s story is set not before the march on Rome, but at the siege of Nola (which probably took place in the previous year: cf. Per. 75.7n.); the omen is different (a snake that emerges from the altar, rather than favourable entrails), and Postumius does not make the dramatic guarantee of success that he does in Livy and Plutarch. The only real connection is the characters involved; but Sulla appears to have had Postumius with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  179 him for several years (see below), and there is nothing unexpected about his receiving favourable omens from him on two separate occasions. For Sulla’s interest in divination more generally cf. Keaveney (1983), esp. 50–5; but cf. also Rawson (1978), 141–2 = (1991), 304–5, who regards the entire motif as Sulla’s self-­serving propaganda, and questions whether any of the portents and interpretations occurred at all. Sulla: L.  Cornelius Sulla Felix (RE 392), 138–78, cos. 88, 80. His career is well documented: successful military campaigns in Africa, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, and above all his brutal victory in the civil wars of the 80s, leading to an unprecedented dictatorship in 82–79, which he used to force through a large number of legal and political reforms. After giving up his dictatorship he went into effective retirement, but died the following year. There is a vast bibliography on Sulla. Useful general overviews of his career include Hinard (1985), Letzner (2000), Christ (2002), Keaveney (2005), Fündling (2010); for particular issues see Per. 66n., 70.4–5n., and commentary on Per. 75–89 passim. Marium: C. Marius (RE 14), 158/7–86. The leading Roman figure of his day until he was eclipsed by the rise of Sulla; starting from a relatively undistinguished background (no previous member of his family had achieved curule office) he rose to become consul an unprecedented seven times, including five consecutive years (107, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 86); much of this was based on his military prowess—­he achieved major victories in Africa against Jugurtha and in Gaul against the Cimbri and Teutones. His political career was highly contentious (cf. F 20n.): he was relentless in undermining his political op­pon­ents, which contributed to the start of the civil war against Sulla. He died with the civil conflict still unresolved, shortly after taking up his seventh consulship. Good surveys of Marius’ career include Carney (1970), Evans (1994), Santangelo (2016). laeta exta: Augustine may well be drawing on Livy’s wording here: Livy uses the same phrase at 27.26.14 and 31.5.7. It is rare elsewhere: though cf. Val. Max. 1.6.9 (drawing on Livy), Plin., Nat. 11.186, Curt. 7.7.29, Tac., Hist. 2.4.2, Suet., Jul. 77. For laetus = ‘propitious’ cf. TLL VII.2 888.63–889.14. immolanti: immolare strictly speaking means the sprinkling of mola (= salted meal) on the head of a victim prior to sacrifice (Paul, Fest. 97L); but it came to refer to the act of sacrifice itself, as here. Postumius haruspex: C. Postumius (RE 11, Rüpke, FS no. 2816): his praenomen is provided by Cicero in his account of the omen at Nola (see above). He appears to have accompanied Sulla as his preferred diviner: Aug., Civ. 2.24 indicates that he was still with him at the time of his return to Italy in 83 (cf. Plu., Sull. 27.4; also Obseq. 56bn.). For haruspices, cf. F 18n. supplicium subiturus: For subire = ‘undergo’ cf. OLD s.v. subeo 4. The phrase supplicium subire is classical (Bell. Alex. 70.6), but rare. It never appears in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

180 Commentary surviving books of Livy; but it is used several other times by Augustine (e.g. Civ. 15.1, Pat. 26.23, C.Cresc. 4.49.59, C.Pelag. 1.22), which makes it highly prob­able that the wording here is his rather than Livy’s. quae in animo . . . haberet: The notion that a haruspex could guarantee, not a specified outcome, but rather that the intentions of the person consulting him would be fulfilled, is associated above all with the famous story of Attus Navius (e.g. Livy 1.36.3–6). It appears to be connected with the prayer formula under which worshippers prayed for divine support in whatever they planned to do (Livy 31.5.4, 36.1.2, 42.28.7). F 20 Book 5 of Seneca’s Natural Questions is on the subject of winds. The book cul­min­ ates with an account of the providential nature of winds, the benefits they bring, not least in terms of allowing sailing and hence communication between distant countries; he now explains that this has a detrimental side (but that is the fault of humans, who use such communications for the sake of war and destruction). To illustrate the balanced picture of the advantages and disadvantages of the winds, he compares them to the character of Marius as described by Livy. The chief MSS of Seneca refer this passage not to Marius but to Julius Caesar, which is the form in which it was printed in older editions of both the Natural Questions and the fragments of Livy. It was first noted by Oltramare (1921), 30 that one MS from the late twelfth/early thirteenth century appears to refer it to Marius rather than Caesar. Oltramare offered three reasons for preferring that reading: that Caesar is never elsewhere called Caesar maior to distinguish him from Augustus; that Livy would not have risked offending Augustus with criticisms of Caesar; and that Caesar anyway did not deserve so equivocal an obit­ uary. The second and third arguments are extremely poor, and Oltramare appears anyway not to have been convinced by his own case, since he declined to print C.  Mario vulgo when he came to publish his edition of the Natural Questions, ­succumbing to the weight of MS authority (Oltramare (1929), 342).44 But he failed to observe the strongest reason for seeing Marius here (Hine (1978), 85, citing T.  Cadoux): that Periochae 80 reports Livy’s obituary of Marius in very similar language, albeit not in precisely the same terms (80.8: haud facile sit dictu, utrum bello melior an pace perniciosior fuerit: see ad loc.). Hence this fragment certainly comes from that book. An additional reason for connecting the passage with Marius rather than Caesar is that such equivocal reports of Marius’ legacy are commonplace (as indeed Seneca himself indicates with vulgo): e.g. Cic., Sest. 50, Tusc. 5.56, Sall., Jug. 63.6, 44  Which was in any case less strong than Oltamare thought: see the critique of Hine (1978), 84, noting the weakness of the MSS that report Caesare, and the alternative (if incoherent) readings found in other MSS.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  181 Vell. 2.11.1, 2.23.1 (Jal (1979), 253). This may be part of the reason why Livy himself included such hostile thoughts in his final judgement on him. However, as noted above, the precise terms in which the Periochae couches Livy’s judgement on Marius are a little different from what Seneca reports: the balance is whether his merits in war outweighed the harm he caused in peace, not whether it would have been better for the state had he not been born at all. It is possible that Livy included both versions, since the answer to the first dilemma would presumably suggest what answer should be given to the second. But if he only had one of them, the version in the Periochae is likely to be closer to Livy’s (Hine (1978), 85–6)—it goes on with a further sentence about Marius saving the state in war and then destroying it, and in its detail it shows every sign of being one of the places where the Periochae has summarized Livy in language close to his own—­while Seneca is reflecting what he saw as the general consensus of the literary tradition, rather than Livy’s account in particular. vulgo: Seneca presumably has in mind the image of Marius in literature, rather than his popularity with the people, which appears to have been extremely high, at least in the period after his death and in the last decades of the Republic (cf. Badian (1958), 244–5, Carney (1970), 71–2). dictatum est: A rare use of dicto meaning ‘say repeatedly’ (TLL V 1013.51–63). Goodyear (1981), 140–1 argues that all transmitted uses of the verb in this sense (Tac., Ann. 1.72.1, Gell. 4.1.2, 4.11.14, Hist. Aug. Gord. 20.2) should be rejected as corruptions, generally of the more normal dictito. It is true that one branch of the MS tradition of Seneca here reads dictum est, and Hine in the Teubner accepts that reading (see Hine (1982)). But it is considerably more likely that dictatum would be corrupted to dictum than vice versa, and, pace Goodyear, our know­ ledge of Latin is not sufficiently fine-­grained to support the claim that dicto could never be used in such a fashion. fuerit: The perfect subjunctive in the indirect question shows that dictatum est is being conceived as a ‘true’ perfect, with reference to a present state of affairs (Woodcock 102). F 21 As part of his account of the failure of the traditional gods to preserve Rome from disaster, Augustine provides an extended description of the (alleged: see below) destruction of Ilium by C. Flavius Fimbria, a supporter of Cinna and the now-­ dead Marius: the town had supported Sulla, and refused to renounce that support. Augustine argues that one could not even say that the gods abandoned the town, citing as proof Livy’s description of the survival of the statue of Athena when her temple was destroyed; hence the gods (demons, in Augustine’s view) were there, but did nothing to protect the inhabitants, even though they were arguably on the right side.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

182 Commentary This fragment manifestly belongs to Book 83: Per. 83.2 records Fimbria’s sack of Ilium; it is possible that other aspects of Augustine’s description of Fimbria in Ilium likewise derive from Livy, but the argument is too speculative to include that material here (cf. Per. 83.2n.). However, when it comes to the account of the survival of the statue, the overlap with Obseq. 56b (see ad loc.), who may be presumed to reflect Livy’s text very closely, indicates that Augustine is reporting Livy accurately. For the general historical background see Per. 82.4, 83.1–2, with commentary ad loc.; after a mutiny in which Fimbria’s commander, L.  Valerius Flaccus (cos. suff. 86), was killed, Fimbria took over his army, which he led on a campaign against Mithridates. As part of that campaign he captured Ilium, which had a friendly connection with Sulla. The fullest account is in App., Mith. 53; but there are also shorter versions in Str. 13.1.27, the Chronicon Romanum (FGrH 252 A 3 = IGRRP 175), Dio fr. 104.7, Vir. Ill. 70, Oros. 6.2.11, as well as some others which refer to Fimbria’s campaign without describing his behaviour at Ilium in particular (e.g. Memnon (FGrH 434 F 1.24), D.S. 38.8.2–4, Plu., Luc. 3.4–8). As for the specific detail about the survival of the image of Athena, it is described in App., Mith. 53 and Serv., Aen. 2.166, as well as Obseq. 56b, dependent on Livy (see below); Vir. Ill. 70.2–3, anomalously, has the entire temple miraculously survive the sack, but does not mention the statue specifically. Fimbria’s capture of Ilium is dated to 85 bc by the Chronicon Romanum (FGrH 252 A 3), and this date also fits various other indications of the chron­ology of the war (see esp. Sherwin-­White (1984), 140–1). Livy himself, however, appears to have narrated it in the consular year 86: Obseq. 56b reports it under that year, and in the same year as Sulla’s sack of Athens, which was certainly in 86 (Per. 81.1n.); it is also suggestive (if far from probative, given the Periochae’s habit of reordering Livy’s chronology) that Per. 83.4 reports Cinna’s and Carbo’s accession to the consulship of 85 subsequent to Fimbria’s campaign. This is not especially surprising: in the surviving books Livy regularly places events relating to overseas campaigns in the wrong consular year, no doubt in part because of the difficulty of marrying sources with different chronological schemes (cf. e.g. Levene (2010), 53–5). cum oppido: That Fimbria completely destroyed Ilium is explicit in both Per. 83.2 (urbem Ilium . . . expugnavit ac delevit) and in Augustine’s extended account, and is strongly implied by Obseq. 56b (Ilio a C. Fimbria incenso): hence we can assume it to have been represented that way in Livy; similarly Appian has a vivid account of the destruction, and Oros. 6.2.11 says of Fimbria that ‘he totally destroyed the city of Ilium itself, that ancient ancestor of Rome, with slaughter and fire’ (ipsam urbem Ilium, antiquam illam Romae parentem, funditus caede incendioque delevit); the destruction is also mentioned in Strabo, Dio, Vir. Ill., and implicitly in Lucan 9.964–9. It nevertheless is extremely unlikely to be true: in most of the city there is no archaeological evidence for large-­scale destruction

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  183 (Rose (2015), 144). Moreover, the remains of a Hellenistic temple which has been identified as that of Athena show no indications of destruction in the first century: some of the stones may possibly derive from an Augustan-­era rebuilding, but the surviving metopes appear to be from the original Hellenistic construction (Rose (1992), 45); and less than a decade after Fimbria an inscription recorded the regulations for a confederacy centring on that sanctuary (I.Ilion 10). Despite this, the story of a massive destruction already appears to have prevailed by the time of Livy. It is likely that it originated from Sulla’s propaganda, especially in his memoirs (so Erskine (2001), 242–5), but its popularity may well have been assisted by the fact that a Roman capture of Troy was so readily and attractively elaborated as a replay of the Greek sack during the Trojan War, with which Appian and Augustine explicitly compare it: the conflation of the two destructions also helps explain the otherwise implausible claim that the Palladium was taken to Rome at this time (cf. below). Minervae: As Augustine does not explain, but is explicit in both Appian and Servius, this was believed to be the image of Athena known as the Palladium. The complication (as they both note) is that there was a very widespread story that the Palladium had been taken from Troy at the time of the Trojan War, was brought to Italy by Aeneas, and ultimately ended up in the shrine of Vesta in the Forum (see Per. 19.11n.). It is not entirely clear how (if at all) Livy reconciled these in Book 83: it is true that in the surviving books he never explicitly states that the Palladium was in the Vestals’ possession from early times, but he twice uses language that appears to imply it (5.52.7, 26.27.14: cf. Ogilvie (1965), 745–6). According to Servius, it was only after Fimbria’s capture of the city that the Palladium came to Rome at all, but it seems improbable that, were so iconic an image taken to Rome at this time, we would hear nothing of it in other sources (and in any case Fimbria committed suicide shortly afterwards). Moreover, the indications in Obsequens (56b: see further ad loc.) are that Livy’s version was rather different: Obsequens says that the survival of the statue ‘was an omen of the hope of the restoration of the town’ (spemque restitutionis oppido portendit), which would presumably only be the case if the statue remained there (cf. Augustine’s insistence throughout his account of Fimbria’s sack of Ilium that the pagan gods did not leave the city). integrum stetisse: For statues remaining miraculously intact when their temples are destroyed, compare the instances at Val. Max. 1.8.11 (mentioned also at D.H., AR 4.40.7, Ov., Fast. 6.625–6, Tac., Ann. 4.64.3). perhibetur: This may suggest that Livy, too, narrated the survival of the statue as an indirect report rather than in his own voice (as indeed Appian and Servius also do): it is altogether characteristic of his writing not to describe such events using direct narration (cf. Levene (1993), 19–20). However, even if that is the case, it is unlikely that he employed the specific word perhibetur, a verb which he never uses in his surviving books, but which is extremely typical of Augustine.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

184 Commentary F 22 This fragment comes at the end of Frontinus’ account of the battle of Lauro, the first battle between Pompey and Sertorius. It is generally dated to 76 and placed after F 23;45 however, there are strong reasons to believe that Livy narrated the battle in 77, prior to the activities of Sertorius detailed in that fragment (see commentary ad loc.). It is clearly possible that Frontinus’ entire account of Lauro was taken from Livy, but it would be extremely rash to use that bare possibility as a positive reason for printing as a fragment of Livy anything except what Frontinus explicitly assigns to him. It is sometimes suggested that this sentence is an interpolation, since it is highly unusual for Frontinus to cite his source at all: indeed, he does so nowhere else except 2.5.34 = Livy F 26 (see ad loc.), a passage which occurs very shortly after this, and which is likewise proposed as an interpolation, and twice in Book 4 (4.1.16, 4.3.13), the whole of which is sometimes regarded as spurious (and the second passage is in any case different, in as much as Scaurus is being cited for an anecdote about his own troops). Against this, however, it can be observed that Frontinus’ entire account of Lauro is anom­al­ous—­it is by some degree the longest narrative in his work, which makes it less surprising that he might include his­ torio­graph­ic­al detail that he generally eschews elsewhere. But even if it were an interpolation, that would not be any reason for questioning the attribution to Livy; the interpolator may be presumed to be glossing the text on the basis of accurate information. Sertorium: Quintus Sertorius (RE 3), c.126–73 bc. He had supported Marius and Cinna against Sulla in the civil wars of the 80s; he became praetor, perhaps in 85 (though the exact date is disputed), and took command in Spain as pro-­praetor in 83/2. He was forced out of Spain, but returned in 80 and established a power-­base there, holding out against the Roman authorities for several years until he was assassinated by a conspiracy of his own officers. For surveys of his career cf. e.g. Schulten (1926), Spann (1987). Pompeium: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (RE 31), 106–48; cos. 70, 55, 52. One of the leading figures of the last generation of the Republic, with a remarkable career built on an exceptional series of military commands, many before he had held curule office, first as a supporter of Sulla, and then reasserting Roman authority against Lepidus and Sertorius. Both the fragments and the Periochae have much to say concerning his subsequent career, highlights of which included successful commands in the eastern Mediterranean, which massively extended Roman power, and his formation of the so-­called ‘First Triumvirate’ with Caesar and Crassus after his return to Rome; ultimately, however, his breach with Caesar led

45  An important exception is Madvig, who, however, offers no explicit justification for his decision to put this fragment first.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  185 to his defeat at Pharsalus and murder on his flight to Egypt. Good general surveys of his life and career include Gelzer (1949), Seager (2002). decem milia hominum de Pompeii exercitu amissa et omnia impedimenta: No other source gives figures for Pompey’s losses at Lauro: indeed, the only other substantial narrative, Plu., Sert. 18.3–6 (cf. Pomp. 18.3), manages to compress the battle in such a way as to imply that Pompey’s army never engaged in it at all, but merely watched as Sertorius captured the city (cf. Konrad (1994), 160–2). F 23 This is the longest fragment of Livy. It survives as a palimpsest: a single bifolium (cut down from what was originally a quaternion) from a late fourth-­century manuscript written in rustic capitals, which was reused in the eighth century for a manuscript of the Book of Judith.46 It was first published by P.  J.  Bruns and M. Giovanezzi in 1773; other important re-­examinations include that of Niebuhr in 1820, who applied chemical treatment in an attempt to improve its legibility, and Paul Krüger and Mommsen in 1868.47 The most recent editor, Ogilvie (1984), 119, reports it as being ‘so damaged as to be il­legible, even under ultra-­violet and infra-­red light’, which he attributes to nineteenth-­century chemical treatment (presumably that of Niebuhr). However, the Vatican Library’s newly digitized images (https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pal.lat.24, fos. 73r + 78v, 73v + 78r, 76r + 75v, 76v + 75r) are for the most part highly readable, allowing some corrections to earlier textual proposals. The fragment relates to Sertorius’ campaigns in Spain over the winter 77/6 bc, his relationships with his Spanish allies and antagonists, and his pre­par­ations to face Pompey, who had recently been sent to Spain to confront him and restore the provinces to the control of the Roman government. The events recounted in this fragment are not recorded in any other source, although they are covered by the brief summary statement at Per. 91.2 (Sertorius aliquot urbes expugnavit plurimasque civitates in potestatem suam redegit—‘Sertorius stormed several cities and brought under his control a large number of states’: see ad loc.): cf. also Sall., Hist. 2.35M,48 and the general discussion of Sertorius’ exploits in Spain at that time in 46  For a detailed description of the entire codex see Fohlen (1979): it includes, in addition to this fragment of Livy, palimpsest texts of Seneca’s De Amicitia and De Vita Patris, Lucan, Hyginus, Fronto’s Pro Carthaginiensibus, Gellius, Cicero’s Pro Fonteio and Pro Rabirio Postumo, and an unknown Greek medical text. 47  Krüger, then in Rome, transcribed the manuscript at Mommsen’s instigation (without using any  chemical enhancement, which—­to Mommsen’s evident disappointment—­the Vatican forbade), and Mommsen produced his text on the basis of Krüger’s readings, which he reported sep­ar­ately (Mommsen (1868), 207–15). In the apparatus, as far as possible, I separate Krüger’s reports from Mommsen’s textual proposals based on those reports. 48  So, rightly, Schulten (1926), 79. McGushin (1992), 202 refers this fragment of Sallust to the following winter (76/5), but, while that is possible, there is no obvious reason for it. Other things being equal, it would appear more natural to assume that the historical tradition recorded only one period of consolidation by Sertorius.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

186 Commentary Plutarch, Sert. 14–17, although Plutarch selects a different set of anecdotes to illustrate that part of his career. The fragment is our best evidence for the territory under Sertorius’ control at this time: see the detailed geographical summary of Konrad (1994), 150–1. However, while the broad outline of events set out above is not questioned, there is a significant problem about where precisely this fragment should be placed in the narrative of the war. On the generally accepted chronology (e.g. MRR 2.90–5), Pompey crossed into Spain in early 76; in which case Sertorius’ campaigns in this fragment were prior to his first encounter with him at Lauro. However, it has plausibly been argued that Pompey’s crossing and the fighting at Lauro were not in spring 76, but in autumn 77; in which case the fragment is to be placed after it (so Grispo (1952), 200–5, Frassinetti (1975), 381–93, and esp. Konrad (1995), 182–6). Certainly, whatever the reality of Pompey’s crossing, it is highly probable that Livy himself narrated both it and Lauro in autumn 77, and hence prior to the fragment. Not only is that the implication of Obseq. 58 (see ad loc.), but the fragment itself reads more naturally on the assumption that Pompey had already taken up a position in Spain, rather than still waiting north of the Pyrenees, while Sertorius’ belief that Pompey would not confront him in direct battle (F 23.8) only makes sense in the light of Lauro, where Pompey failed to commit the bulk of his army to the fight (Konrad (1995), 182–4). The fragment illustrates two major aspects of Sertorius’ policy and strategy that can be documented from other sources as well: first, his care to form close relationships with his Spanish allies, and second, his avoidance of high-­stakes major confrontations with the Roman forces, preferring to harass them and probe for weaknesses (cf. Richardson (1996), 97–102). Livy has taken these themes, which he presumably inherited from earlier material, and approaches them in individual ways. Ogilvie (1984), 122–4 is scathing about Livy’s writing here (he twice calls it ‘mundane’; also ‘mechanical and careless’, ‘bald and run-­of-­the-­mill narrative’, ‘tired writing’, ‘undistinguished’); this is somewhat overstated,49 but it is true that, as often with routine military and political events, Livy does not appear to be interested in imbuing them with emotional intensity and drama. But such passages often achieve powerful effects of a different sort by virtue of their context­­ ual­iza­tion in the wider drama of Livy’s history, as the characters’ plans and behaviour interact to complex effect, as plans lead to unexpected and sometimes inexplicable outcomes, and as the dilemmas of maintaining ethical actions in a world of brutal competition are repeatedly explored. The loss of the remainder of

49  Ogilvie’s primary criticism is that Livy throughout the passage writes in ‘clichés—­almost formulaic phrases’ (Ogilvie (1984), 120); but not all of his examples are persuasive. For example, he claims turris quae maximum propugnaculum fuerat (F 23.1) as such a Livian formula, but his only parallel is 28.6.2 turris quinque tabulatorum, egregium propugnaculum, which falls far short of proving the point, especially since that is the only other time in Livy that any turris is described as a propugnaculum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  187 Livy’s account of Sertorius makes it impossible to see precisely how those issues might have emerged in his case; but even from what survives some hints of it emerge, with the account of the difficult strategic balance Sertorius is trying to strike, as well as in a remarkable intertextual relationship with Livy’s account of Scipio Africanus, another Roman who sought to consolidate his position in Spain against the odds. 23.1: The fragment opens in the middle of Sertorius’ siege of Contrebia, illustrating the outcome of the stratagem by which he captured the town. Livy presents the victory via a vivid contrast, seen through the eyes of the defenders as an all but supernatural occurrence (miraculo): simultaneously one tower—­Sertorius’ siege engine—­appears before them, and another, their own, collapses in flames and ruins. 〈nocte〉: The inevitable reconstruction, given that nocte insequenti is a favourite Livian phrase (cf. Oakley (2005a), 306), and also given pervigilante and prima luce later in the sentence.

ipso pervigilante: pervigilare is used by Livy only here and at 24.38.2; until the mid-­first century ad it is almost exclusively poetic (but cf. Cic., S. Rosc. 9). For wakefulness as a key military virtue cf. e.g. Livy 21.4.6. excitata turris: For excito = ‘build up’ cf. OLD s.v. excito 8b. miraculo hostibus: The identical phrase is used at 23.47.8, albeit in a very different context. Livy not uncommonly refers to his characters viewing something ‘as a miracle’: see also e.g. 1.27.7, 2.10.5, 23.16.10, 25.8.7. dehiscere: Prior to Livy solely a poetic word: he uses it only here and at 29.2.7. tum [xii–xiii litt.] ịṇ[i–ii litt.]ṣọ[v litt.]ịạm igni coepit: The general sense is obvious (the Romans assist the collapse of the tower by firing it); but the precise reconstruction is difficult, because of the loss of one line and part of the start of the next in the MS. The conjectures of earlier editors are problematic, first because of an underestimate of the space available in the damaged second line,50 and second, because in the new images it is possible to see the remnants of two letters—­ probably IN—­close to the end of the first line. None of the prior conjectures is compatible with this. I have tentatively offered my own—­tum demum praebere infuso materiam igni coepit—­which has, if nothing else, the virtue of fitting the available space. The assumption would be that the lost narrative of Sertorius’ troops undermining the tower also referred to their having set fires in the mine: for the technique cf. Veg., Mil. 4.24. incendique simul et ruinae: Pairing incendium and ruina is commonplace: Livy does so, almost always in the same order, at 5.43.1, 5.53.1, 7.30.15, 26.16.11,

50  The space between the two partially visible letters at the start of the line and those following the lacuna is far too large to be filled with just three letters, as these reconstructions suppose.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

188 Commentary 31.10.3, 34.58.5, 38.43.5 (note also the chiasmus of dehiscere . . . igni ~ incendi . . . ruinae). The pairing also appears at Catull. 23.9; Cic., Sest. 121, Prov. 43, Att. 4.3.2, Off. 2.19; Bell. Alex. 24.2, Sen., Benef. 4.6.2. Contrebienses: There were either two or three Celtiberian towns named Contrebia. The existence of Contrebia Belaisca and Contrebia Leucada is certain; a third town, Contrebia Carbica, has been hypothesized on the basis of coins minted with that legend, but it may have been identical with Contrebia Belaisca (see Untermann (1975), 296–7). This fragment, however, mentions both of the securely attested towns. Livy identifies the second as Contrebia Leucada (F 23.13: see ad loc.); hence the one here is Contrebia Belaisca (BarrAtl Map 25 D4).51 The site is near the modern village of Botorrita; Livy had previously described its capture in 181 (40.33), but it is best known because of a remarkable inscription, the Tabula Contrebiensis (AE 1979, 377), dating from 87 (a decade prior to the events here), where the Roman praetor referred judgement on a land dispute involving three other Spanish communities to the Contrebian senate (see Fatás (1980), Richardson (1983); also Birks et al. (1984) for detailed legal analysis). Although the disputing parties and the judges were all Spanish, the inscription is in Latin, and presents the case in Roman legal terms. This suggests the extent to which the Romans were seen as a nat­ural source of authority, but also how Roman norms were being adopted locally—­or at least that it was thought desirable that they should be seen to have been adopted. This in turn gives additional context to the relatively mild terms imposed by Sertorius after the city’s capture (see F 23.2n.). While the reasons for Sertorius’ siege are not explicit in the surviving fragment, it may be presumed that the city had taken the opportunity of the war between Sertorius and the Roman government to attempt to seize independence for itself: the fact that the town accepted large numbers of deserters and runaway slaves (cf. F 23.2 below) makes it implausible that it was supporting Pompey. ab . . . multitudine conclamatum est: The same phrase at 3.50.16. 23.2 eadem virtus quae inritaverat oppugnantem victorem placabiliorem fecit: The MS reads quae inritantem oppugnaverat, which makes little sense. Weiske’s correction to inritaverat oppugnantem has generally been accepted: on that reading Livy presents Sertorius’ moderation as a response to the courage of the defenders; it was a common topos that recognition of an enemy’s courage could form a link that transcended hostility (cf. Per. 13.1n.). A much easier emendation is Madvig’s qua irritante, suggesting that it is Sertorius’ virtus which led him both

51  Contra Barrandon (2011), 350, who argues that this too is Contrebia Leucada. She bases this largely on the fact that Livy later in the passage (F 23.10) appears to place this Contrebia near to the Berones, which fits Leucada better than Belaisca. But there are other possible explanations for Livy’s geographical imprecision here (see ad loc.), and Barrandon’s reading suits neither the way that Livy introduces Contrebia Leucada as a new town nor the general impression left by his narrative in F 23.12–13 that in approaching it Sertorius was campaigning in territory he had not recently occupied.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  189 to attack and to be merciful, but the idea of one’s own virtus as a stimulus to violence has a paradoxical edge that is hard to parallel, and hence uncomfortable to introduce as an emendation. Either way, Livy sees Sertorius’ mercy primarily in moral terms. Modern his­ tor­ians tend to interpret it more cynically: Sertorius needed loyal Spanish allies, and was more likely to be able to obtain them were they assured of humane treatment (so e.g. Spann (1987), 89–90; cf. in general Gilliver (1996) for the ways in which pragmatic calculations often led Roman generals to prefer mercy to harshness). But the two are not necessarily incompatible: that the Romans admired courage in an enemy is manifest from numerous literary accounts, and while political policy is rarely formed solely by ethical ideals, one should not assume it is constructed entirely independently of them either (cf. Burton (2011), 6–24). Obtaining courageous allies by being seen to reward courage could have been viewed by Sertorius as both politic and right, especially when dealing with a nation which was already in some respects conducting itself in Roman terms (cf. F 23.1n.; also Per. 43.2n.). omnia ademit: The same phrase appears at Lucr. 3.898. transfugas: Presumably deserters from Sertorius’ Spanish troops, rather than Romans (contra García Morá (1991), 162, who claims that they could have been Roman captives). fugitivos, quorum maior multitudo erat, ipsis imperavit ut interficerent: That runaway slaves were to be treated more harshly than deserters is of little surprise. The Romans consistently subjected slaves to more severe punishments than free people, and for slaves to run away was perceived as a threat to the social order in a way that desertion was not (cf. Bradley (1989), 32–41). Sertorius’ interest in maintaining that order shows the extent to which he was presenting himself as the legitimate authority in Spain at this point. What is more interesting is that Contrebia housed so many runaway slaves in the first place. It suggests, first, that the century or more of Roman occupation of Spain had already led to Romans settling there in sufficient numbers52 to require substantial quantities of labour, and, second, that the conflicts of the previous three years had been so disruptive to settled Roman life that the slaves took the opportunity to escape. Although we have very limited information about economic life in Spain in the period, one crucial fact, recorded in a fragment of Polybius (34.9.8–11, cited in Str. 3.2.10), is that in the second century the silver mines near New Carthage had around 40,000 workers—­presumably almost all slaves. We also have a report (D.S. 5.36) of Italians migrating to Spain in large 52  Cf. Richardson (1996), 77–8, 82–3 for Roman citizen settlements in Spain in the later second century. The archaeological evidence shows a considerable growth both in Italian imports and Roman-­style buildings at this period; while neither of these entails the presence of substantial numbers of Italians, they are at least compatible with it.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

190 Commentary numbers to profit from mines, which explains something of the business structure: people would purchase war captives (ἀνδραπόδων) and then set them to work under the mines’ overseers, who presumably received a fee for their service.53 Since the slaves in question were certainly Spanish, and led a life of ap­pal­ ling hardship (D.S. 5.38.1), it is highly probable that, given the chance, they would flee to a Spanish city which had broken from Rome. All of this gives some context to the picture here. The distance of the New Carthage mines from Contrebia makes it unlikely that many of the runaways came specifically from there, but Livy’s narrative is a strong indication that the phenomenon of large-­scale slave labour was spread more widely in the Spanish provinces, and that in the chaos of war many of those slaves escaped. 23.3 L. Insteio: RE 2. He is probably the L. Insteius recorded as a member of the consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 89 (ILS 8888 = ILLRP 515: see Münzer (1916)). q̣ụị p̣ṛ: A line is once again missing from the MSS; but in the new images remnants of the first five letters are visible, apparently QUI PR. Hence qui praeesset oppido looks plausible, a reordering of Ogilvie’s conjecture qui oppido praeesset, proposed on the model of Livy 27.43.12 qui castris praeesset (for the word-­order cf. e.g. 44.44.4 qui praeerat urbi). Castra Aelia: BarrAtl Map 25 D4. The town is not otherwise mentioned, but it is plausibly identified with a site near the confluence of the Ebro and the Jalón (Garciá Morá (1991), 407–22). interdum: The MS reads interdiu, which is accepted by earlier editors. But interdiu is generally used by Livy only in contexts where either a specific contrast is being made to nighttime, or it combines with other aspects of the narrative in order to emphasize that the actions are open and public. There seems no obvious point to it here. Moreover, interdiu would appear to suggest that Livy is referring to a single daytime meeting—­presumably the meeting described in F 23.6–7, with the description of Sertorius’ war preparations in F 23.4–5 forming a flashback, setting out his activities prior to that meeting. But that does not sit well with the imperfect agebat, which, like manebat in the previous clause, appears to offer an ongoing description of Sertorius’ activities over the winter, not a single event. Accordingly, the text should be emended to interdum—­scribal confusion of interdum and interdiu is extremely common (TLL VII 2179.11–14). The point would then be that Sertorius held occasional meetings with his Spanish allies throughout the winter, with the meeting in F 23.6–7 as the last. 53  It is likely that these Italians leased the mining rights from the state; but there are various ­complexities about how this might have worked. See Richardson (1976), and Domergue (1990), esp. 235–40, 253–77, 321–30, offering more evidence and detailed discussion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  191 conventum sociarum civitatium: Livy used the same phrase at 34.22.6. 23.4 edixerat . . . facta erant: The pluperfects indicate that Sertorius had given the orders previously, and now arranged for the newly made weapons to replace his soldiers’ defective ones; Livy’s chronological sequence plausibly reflects the time required for such an extensive operation. quibus inspectis referre vetera arma milites iussit: This is highly unusual. Roman legions typically maintained workshops in their camps, so that broken or worn-­out equipment could be constantly replaced (Bishop and Coulston (2006), 234–40; cf. 27 for the evidence for recycling). That Sertorius’ army was faced with equipment failure on a large scale suggests that this system was not operating, which in turn was presumably an effect of the makeshift forces—­a mix of Roman, African, and Spanish—­with which Sertorius was attempting to fight in Spain, something on which Plutarch comments (Sert. 12.2, 16.1). It is revealing that even now, when Sertorius had already shifted from the guerrilla-­style tactics that he used for the first years of his campaign to a more organized and traditional army, he had not fully worked through the logistics. But it is also revealing how he compensated for it: in the medium term he established the workshops that he previously lacked (see F 23.5n.), but for the army’s immediate needs he had arranged systematically for his Spanish allies to manufacture the weapons, which shows something of his depth of support in the province, as well as his effectiveness at coordinating it. oppu[c. xxx litt.]: Nearly two lines are missing from the MS; but the general sense is clear enough: the soldiers’ weapons have been ruined in earlier fighting. Ogilvie conjectured oppugnationibus continuis inutilia; Niebuhr oppugnationibus et proeliis inutilia. iis: The MS appears to read per iis; which is meaningless. Niebuhr suggested viris, but Madvig’s proposal is better: per has been erroneously copied in an­tici­pa­tion of the following word. 23.5 fabros . . . quibus in officina publica inclusis . . . quid in singulos dies effici posset: Assuming Mommsen’s reconstruction is correct,54 Livy had used almost exactly the same phrase at 26.51.7: fabris . . . in publica officina inclusis, a striking description of Scipio Africanus’ preparations for war following his capture of New Carthage, which itself draws on Xenophon’s account of Agesilaus’ preparations to attack Persia (HG 3.4.16–18; cf. Ages. 1.25–7), via Plb. 10.20.6–7 (which quotes 54  There is a danger of circularity in this argument, since it may have been partly on the similarity with 26.51.7 that inclusis was reconstructed by Mommsen from an initial in and six highly damaged letters; it cannot be entirely ruled out that another word stood in the text. But the danger is very limit­ed. First, inclusis is a plausible reading even in the absence of the Book 26 parallel, since the surviving remnants of the word visible in the new images are certainly compatible with that reconstruction and with few others (Niebuhr’s instituta uteretur is clearly impossible, for example); and, second, the allusion would in any case be detectable (if less marked) even if some other word were read in its place.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

192 Commentary Xenophon directly): see Levene (2010), 92–4. The sense that Livy is alluding back to his own text is reinforced by the phrase in singulos dies, which he had used slightly later in the same passage to describe the craftsmen’s competitive activity (26.51.8), and also by the general structure of the narrative: immediately after reequipping his troops, Sertorius, like Scipio, convenes a meeting of his allies from across the entire province (F 23.6; cf. 26.51.10). Sertorius is being presented as—­ and perhaps we are to see him presenting himself as—­a new Scipio, who comes to Spain at a time when the odds were against him, and achieves an outstanding and transformative series of victories. We cannot, of course, tell how far in his narrative of Sertorius Livy extended this parallel. But the fact that he locks it into readers’ minds so firmly at this point is sufficient to allow possible connections between the two figures to be recognized at other times also, even when he may not have directly provided linguistic parallels (cf. Levene (2010), 99–126, (2015), 209–11). But at the same time, an informed Roman reader will be aware of the differences, and how far the careers of Scipio and Sertorius will soon diverge. 〈opus di〉ṿiṣ ị ṭ ̣: Here too (cf. n. 54 above) Mommsen’s reconstruction is supported by the new images: the remnants of two more letters than Krüger observed are visible directly after the lacuna, and they may plausibly be read as VI. ratione inita: For the ‘appended’ ablative absolute cf. Per. 29.6n.

omnia simul instrumenta belli parabantur: This does not parallel anything in Livy’s account of Scipio after New Carthage—­but it is extremely close to Livy’s ultimate source: Xenophon’s account of Agesilaus uses the phrase πάντες πολεμικὰ ὅπλα55 κατεσκεύαζον (HG 3.4.17 = Ages. 1.26: ‘all were preparing weapons of war’). It is true that—­unless a reader had an intimate knowledge of Xenophon—­that parallel would not be readily apparent: one would have to work one’s way back to Scipio in Book 26, thence to Xenophon via Polybius’ quotation of him (cf. Levene (2010), 94). But even if few could recognize the specifics, more may have come away with the vaguer sense that Livy’s Sertorius is heir to that tradition of great commanders. enixo . . . studio: For the phrase cf. 42.3.1, with Briscoe (2012), 159. 23.6 sine detrectatione praesti〈tissent〉: The text is badly damaged at this point, but the images appear to support Mommsen’s reading. sine detrectatione is a phrase Livy uses in a number of other places (7.28.4, 36.40.7, 44.37.4).

ipse res 〈in adiuvandis sociis〉: Earlier editors disputed whether the MS reads ipse or ipsi: the new images make it clear that it is the former, which is also preferably linguistically (cf. Ogilvie (1984), 123–4; for the phrasing cf. also 26.28.1 quas ibi res ipse egisset terra marique, exposuit). This rules out various proposed 55  Note that the Greek ὅπλα could be used generically to mean ‘tools’, as opposed to weapons in particular (LSJ s.v. ὅπλον A II). belli instrumenta is thus a highly literal translation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  193 reconstructions: of the ones that remain, Pelling’s in adiuvandis sociis looks the best; Niebuhr’s in defendendis sociis is also possible, but Livy uses a very similar phrase a few lines later (F 23.7), and it is more probable that he employed some var­iety here. 23.7 [i litt.]ṛạ[xiii–xiv litt.]: A line is missing here, and no previous editor has been able to improve on Niebuhr’s bono animo esse atque for the general sense of the reconstruction. However, the new images show that the second letter of the line is almost certainly R, while the third could be A, M, R, or (less probably) N. This rules out Niebuhr’s reconstruction; my tentative proposal is praeparatis animis, but there are clearly numerous other possibilities also.

〈conve〉ṛṭẹre: Here too fragments of the lost letters are visible in the new images; these rule out Ogilvie’s decedere or Niebuhr’s redire or Müller’s discedere (the fourth letter from the word’s end can only be E, F, I, P, or T, the fifth from the end is A, M, or R). Hence the most likely reading is convertere (proposed by A.  J.  Woodman per litteras); cf. Sall., Jug. 20.4 deinde cum omni multitudine in regnum suom convortit for a parallel; this can just fit in the available space. Along similar lines, Krüger, followed by Mommsen, proposed revertere, but the present infinitive active of revertor is not used elsewhere in classical Latin, and all forms of the present active are extremely rare (OLD s.v. reuertor cites only Pompon., Praetext. 81 (Ribbeck), which is quoted by Nonius precisely because of the anomalous form, and Lucr. 5.1153). principio veris: For Livy’s techniques of marking the passage of time by the seasons cf. Levene (2010), 52–63. M.  Perpernam: M.  Perperna Vento (RE 6). Like Sertorius, he had been an opponent of Sulla, most notably as praetor and governor of Sicily in 82. He joined the rebellion of Lepidus in 77; following Lepidus’ defeat and death he took his troops to join Sertorius in Spain. He ultimately led the conspiracy in which Sertorius was assassinated (cf. Per. 96.4n.), but was himself captured and executed by Pompey. Ilercaonum: A people occupying a coastal region of north-­east Spain south of the Ebro; their major city was Dertosa, later refounded as a Roman colony under the name Hibera Julia Ilervaconia. The MS reads Ilurcaonum, and it is spelled with a u also in the MSS of Caes., Civ. 1.60.2; but it is spelled with e later in this passage (F 23.11), and also in Livy 22.21.6; hence in the interest of consistency Bruns emended it to that spelling here, and on balance was probably right to do so.

quibus itineribus duceret: A telling detail. It demonstrates that Pompey was already based in Spain (cf. above)—were he not, Livy would hardly have Sertorius recommend routes for protecting allied cities and ambushing him. But it is also revealing with regard to Livy’s characterization of Sertorius: he emphasizes his affinity with Spain and his knowledge of Spanish geography (Sertorius had ori­ gin­al­ly served there in 97–93 as tribunus militum).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

194 Commentary 23.8 Herennium: C.  Herennius (RE 7). The MS reads Herennuleium; Münzer (1912), 663 proposed to correct this to Herennium,56 since a C.  Herennius is attested elsewhere as an officer of Sertorius (Sall., Hist. 2.98.6M, Plu., Pomp. 18.3), and the name Herennuleius is not otherwise found. As he noted, the error prob­ ably arose from a conflation of the name of Herennius with that of Hirtuleius later in the sentence. Münzer also proposed, reasonably, that this figure is identical with the tribune C. Herennius who is recorded as an op­pon­ent of Sulla in 80. alteram provinciam: Hispania Ulterior; Livy marks Sertorius’ control over the entire peninsula. L. Hirtuleium: RE 3. He may have been the Hirtuleius who served as quaestor in 86 or 85 (MRR 2.54); otherwise nothing is known about his career prior to his joining Sertorius along with his brother. He successfully led armies against the official Roman authorities (cf. Per. 90.5), but in 76 he was seriously defeated by Metellus and forced to flee; in a later battle he and his brother were killed (Per. 91.4n.: cf. also below). ante omnia ut ita socias civitates tueretur: Sertorius had pragmatic reasons to show his willingness to protect his Spanish allies, but when Livy emphasizes that as his strategic priority, it contributes to the broader sense of how tightly Sertorius is bound to the province and its people. ut ita . . . ne: ita (‘in the following way’) indicates that Sertorius’ general instruction to defend allies is to be carried out in the manner set out in the second indirect command. For the idiom cf. Cic., Fam. 2.19.1 verebar ne ita caderet . . . ne . . . decederem; cf. OLD s.v. ita 15a. ne ạc̣ ịẹ c̣ ụṃ Ṃ〈etello dimi〉caret, cui nec auctoritate nec viribus par esset: The first line is seriously damaged, but there can be little doubt that this is the correct reconstruction (for acie dimicare as a favourite Livian phrase cf. Oakley (1998), 153). Since within the year Hirtuleius was in fact defeated by Metellus, Sertorius’ instructions contain a measure of irony. It may be that Hirtuleius disobeyed Sertorius’ orders57—certainly Frontin., Strat. 2.1.2 suggests that Hirtuleius took the initiative in leading his troops out to battle against Metellus—­but, whether or not that was the way Livy presented it, he demonstrates Sertorius’ sharp and realistic assessment of the qualities of the re­spect­ive generals and their armies, for all that his insight—­as often with Livy’s commanders (cf. Levene (2010), 300–16)— ultimately proves useless. Livy is especially fond of variants on viribus par: see e.g. 1.25.11, 2.11.10, 3.5.8, 4.19.1, 8.38.8, 21.55.8, 22.47.4, 27.1.7, 27.16.1, 27.28.16, 30.34.1, 37.25.10. 56  Münzer was, however, not the first to consider this: the possible emendation was discussed at great length by Giovanezzi in his notes on the original publication, though he ultimately rejected it. 57  Schulten (1926), 104–5 suggests that Sertorius countermanded his original orders and authorized Hirtuleius to attack Metellus, but see contra Spann (1987), 105, arguing that it would have made no sense logistically.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  195

〈a〉ḍversus Pompeium: The MS is torn at the beginning of the line; Niebuhr made the necessary supplement. More puzzling is that Krüger, followed by subsequent editors, reported reading iam or tam at the line’s end. If it is indeed there, it is an obvious error (presumably arising from dittography with the last letters of Pompeium), and should be deleted. However, little of this is visible in the new images: the text at that point is very faded, but the final M of Pompeium is clear, and while there are a few marks beyond it that could be ink marks, they are hard to interpret as those (or any) letters; among the earliest editors, neither Bruns nor Giovanezzi nor Niebuhr reported anything of the sort. Indeed, were the word present, it then would extend the line well beyond its usual right-­hand margin (a margin that, admittedly, the scribe not infrequently transgresses elsewhere). My suspicion is that Krüger was simply misreading. neque in aciem descensurum eum credebat: descendere in aciem is a characteristic Livian phrase, rarely used by most other Latin historians: see Oakley (2005a), 159. 23.9 si traheretur bellum, hosti, cum mare ab tergo provinciasque omnes in potestate haberet, navibus undique commeatus venturos; ipsi autem, consumptis priore aestate quae praeparata fuissent, omnium rerum inopiam fore: Livy’s account of Sertorius’ analysis shows the extent of his problems: for if extending the war is likely to give the enemy an overwhelming logistical advantage, that would appear to be a reason for seeking a decisive confrontation earlier rather than later—­yet Sertorius has already ruled that out, on the grounds of Metellus’ superiority to Hirtuleius, and also Pompey’s presumed unwillingness to face Sertorius himself. His solution—­for himself and Perperna to play a waiting game, and leave open the possibility of attacking the enemy as and when the op­por­tun­ ity presents itself—­is perhaps the only reasonable one under the circumstances, but by presenting it in this fashion Livy underlines the weakness of Sertorius’ position, and the unlikelihood of success in the longer term. 23.10 Berones: A people occupying the Ebro valley west of Calagurris. They were regarded as Celtic in origin, but, as with other Spanish peoples of the region, it was ambiguous whether they were thought of as part of the Celtiberi or distinct from them (see further below). For a general account of what is known of them from written sources see Villacampa (1980); for a detailed description of the archaeology of the region see Marcos Pous (1979). Autricones: The Autricones or (as it is more commonly spelled) Autrigones occupied a region between the Ebro and the northern coast, somewhat to the north of the Berones. Celtiberiae urbes: Greek and Latin writers use the name Celtiberi for the ­peoples of the plateau of northern central Spain; they are the Spaniards most often described in Livy’s history as fighting against Rome. There is, however, little evidence that they formed any kind of political unity; the Celtiberi are divided

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

196 Commentary by ancient sources into a number of different ethnic groupings, and even those groupings appear not to be political units, but rather loose af­fi li­ations which temporarily unified in the face of external military threats (Curchin (2004), 29–39). An additional complication is that the name Celtiberi is sometimes used as a generic term for all the people of the region, but sometimes appears to specify just one of those ethnic groupings into which it was divided (Lorrio (1997), 37–41, Curchin (2004), 24–6); the loss of the earlier narrative makes it unclear in this case whether it is being used in a broad or a restricted sense. The name suggests a blending of Celts and Iberians, and the Celtiberi were understood that way by ancient sources (e.g. D.S. 5.33.1, Str. 3.4.5, Mart. 4.55.8–10, App., Hisp. 2), but that itself is a construct of ancient ethnography rather than strongly supported by archaeological or textual evidence; they were stereotyped as uncouth and barbaric, but that too needs to be seen as an ancient ethnographic construct rather than revealing (even in distorted form) a genuine feature of their society (Curchin (2004), 16–18).58 That their language was Celtic is, however, shown by the surviving epigraphy. The culture of the Celtiberi has been the subject of extensive archaeological investigation in recent decades: for a detailed survey see Lorrio (1997); also cf. Martin Valls and Esparza Arroyo (1992), Burillo Mozota (1998). exercitui Romano: Tellingly, Livy identifies Pompey’s army as the ‘Roman’ one. Despite his relatively sympathetic image of Sertorius, he shows him at the head of a group of foreign rebels in defiance of the true Roman authorities. ab ipsorum equitibus vexatos saepe milites suos, quocumque a castris per oppugnationem Contrebiae pabulandi aut frumentandi causa progressi essent: Since Contrebia Belaisca is well over 100 km from the territory of the Berones, and still further from that of the Autricones, it seems highly unlikely that Sertorius’ troops engaged in the siege could have been foraging on the land of either. It is possible that Livy has misunderstood his source’s geography—­for example, there may have been some confusion between Contrebia Belaisca and Contrebia Leucada, since the latter is close to the Berones, as is apparent from F 23.13. Alternatively, in the confusion of the war, detachments of the Berones and Autricones may have been campaigning well away from home, and taking the opportunity to harass Sertorius’ troops. But we should not rule out the possibility that Sertorius (or Livy or Livy’s source) invented or exaggerated (note saepe) the attacks in order to provide an add­ition­al justification for the attack on Pompey’s supporters. 23.10–11 frumentandi causa . . . unde velut: These lines are now largely un­read­ able in the MS, although they appear to have been more legible in the past: see the apparatus for details. 58 See in general Ruiz Zapatero (1996) for the ways in which the political presuppositions of archaeologists have led them to highlight the ‘Celtic’ or the ‘Iberian’ elements in Spain at different periods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  197 23.11 Arvacos: More usually spelled Arevacos, but Arvaci is attested epi­graph­ic­ al­ly in the early empire (cf. CIL III p. 1963) and should be retained here. They were usually regarded as one of the major peoples of the Celtiberi, although the scope of the name Celtiberi sometimes appears to have excluded them (cf. F 23.10n.); they controlled an area somewhat to the south of the Berones, which is why Sertorius envisages himself passing through their territory if he needed to take up a strategic position that was more central in the peninsula. They had been major opponents of Rome at the time of the rebellion of Viriathus and the Numantine War; it appears from F 23.13 that they were now supporting Sertorius against Pompey. See Burillo Mozota (1998), 186–93. Carpetaniam: The central region of the Iberian peninsula, approximately cor­res­ pond­ing to the area centring on modern Madrid. ex bello: ‘according to how the war went’: cf. TLL V.2 1109.45–1110.21. utrum prius hostem, utram provinciam: i.e. Pompey in Hispania Citerior, or Metellus in Hispania Ulterior; Livy fills out the details in the subsequent clause. 〈petat〉: The MS is torn; Niebuhr made the necessary restoration.

Contestania: A coastal region of south-­eastern Spain, south of the river Sucro (the modern Júcar); this is the first time it is mentioned in the Greco-­Roman historical tradition. It was of central strategic importance to Sertorius, since he established his main naval base at the Contestanian port of Dianium = Hemeroskopeion (Str. 3.4.6; cf. 3.4.10, also Cic., II Verr. 5.146). For a survey of the archaeology of the region see Grau Mira (2002). Lusitaniam: See Per. 41.2n. 23.12 per pacatos agros quietum exercitum . . . duxit: Cf. 43.4.4: quieto exercitu pacatum agrum . . . peragravit. Bursaonum: They are also mentioned in passing in Plin., Nat. 3.24, but are otherwise unknown; their city, presumably named Bursao, is plausibly identified with a site in the modern town of Borja, on the south side of the Ebro valley (BarrAtl Map 25 D4). Cascantinorum: Cascantum (BarrAtl Map 25 D3), modern Cascante, is likewise in the Ebro valley, around 25 km upstream from Bursao. This is the first reference to it in surviving literature; in the imperial period it was a municipium, as is shown by coins minted there. Graccuritanorum: See Per. 41.2n. While it is naturally possible that loyalties could shift over the period of a century, the fact that Gracchuris, unlike the other cities named here, was originally a Roman foundation, and that it ul­tim­ate­ly became a municipium, makes it a little more likely that its opposition to Sertorius stemmed from loyalty to the Roman government, rather than a desire for independence from Rome altogether, as appears to have been the case with Contrebia Belaisca (cf. F 23.1n.).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

198 Commentary evastatis: Characteristically Livian language: he employs evasto nineteen times in his surviving text, vastly more than any other surviving writer (it is otherwise used twice in Silius and once in the Historia Augusta, both arguably imitating Livy). proculcatisque segetibus: A striking and poetic phrase. proculco was previously used in prose only at Livy 10.36.5 (see Oakley (2005b), 368, who, however, overlooks this passage). Calagurrim Nasicam: Modern Calahorra (BarrAtl Map 25 D3), in the upper Ebro valley; it was a city of the Vascones (Str. 3.4.10; cf. F 23.14n.). Its support of Sertorius is mentioned in Per. 93.5, and also Val. Max. 7.7 ext. 3, Juv. 15.93–6, Flor. 2.10.9, Oros. 5.23.14, who recount its recapture after Sertorius’ death, when the inhabitants were apparently reduced to cannibalism (cf. Sall., Hist. 3.86–87M); cf. also Str. 3.4.10, App., BC 1.112. It later became a municipium and took the name Calagurris Julia; it was the birthplace of Quintilian (Suet., Gramm. fr. 7, Auson., Comm. Prof. 1.7). transgressusque amnem propinquum urbi: The Ebro at its closest is around 4 km from the city; but Calagurris lay on a tributary, the modern Cidacos, and that is certainly the river Livy is referring to here. Even apart from the fact that Livy specifically speaks of ‘a river near the city’, Sertorius’ subsequent campaign kept him south of the Ebro, and there is no reason to think that he would have encamped north of it (Schulten (1926), 95). 23.13 M. Marium quaestorem: RE 23. Subsequently he was sent by Sertorius as an envoy to Mithridates; he fought on Mithridates’ side, but was captured and executed by Lucullus in 72. Pelendones: The MS reads Cerindones, but no people of this name is known. It is, accordingly, preferable to follow Giovanezzi’s tentative proposal to emend the text: the Pelendones, as shown by Plin., Nat. 3.26 and 4.112, lived in the region between Sertorius’ encampment at Calagurris and the territory of the Arvaci. See also Burillo Mozota (1998), 193–9, Curchin (2004), 37–8.

Contrebiam, 〈qua〉e Leucada appellatur: For the different towns named Contrebia cf. F 23.1n. Contrebia Leucada (BarrAtl Map 25 D3) is generally identified with a Celtiberian, then Roman town near the modern village of Inestrillas. For the identification, as well as a detailed archaeological account of the extensive excavations, see Hernandez Vera (1982); it appears to have been destroyed around the time of the Sertorian war, and only rebuilt in the third century ad. praeter quam urbem opportunissimus ex Beronibus transitus erat, in quamcumque regionem ducere exercitum statuisset: Here too (cf. F 23.10–11) Sertorius exploits his familiarity with Spanish geography to make the best of his difficult strategic situation. C. Insteium: RE 1. Otherwise unknown: it is plausible (though hardly prov­able) that he was the brother of the L. Insteius of F 23.3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  199 Segoviam: BarrAtl Map 24 G4. According to Plin., Nat. 3.27 and Ptol., Geog. 2.6.55, it was a city of the Arvaci (cf. F 23.11n.). Schulten (1914–31), 1.134 claims that it belonged to the Vaccaei, largely on the basis of this passage, but Livy’s wording does not entail that the Vaccaei occupied Segovia (Burillo Mozota (1998), 315): it is just as likely that Insteius was to recruit from an Arvacan border town and then move on to Vaccaean territory. Frontin., Strat. 4.5.11 indicates that Segovia had supported the Romans against Viriathus in the 140s; this passage shows that it was now allied with Sertorius. It subsequently became a significant urban ­centre; its best-­known surviving monument is a spectacularly well-­preserved aqueduct. Vaccaeorum: A people of northern central Spain, inhabiting a region of the Duero valley to the west of the Celtiberi. As one might expect, given the fluidity with which people were identified as ‘Celtiberi’ (above), Greek and Roman ­writers were inconsistent when considering the relationships of the two groups, at times treating the Vaccaei as one of the constituent groups of the Celtiberi (e.g. App., Hisp. 51), at other times regarding them as separate (Curchin (2004), 24–5). Linguistic evidence makes it hard to determine how ‘Celtic’ they were: there are no indigenous inscriptions, and their names appear to include both Celtic and non-­Celtic elements (Curchin (2004), 38–9, 201). For the history and archaeology of the region see Wattenberg (1959). ad equitum conquisi〈tionem〉 ṃịṣịṭ: The bulk of the line is lost, but enough is visible to make the reconstruction uncontroversial. conquisitio is used a number of times by Livy to describe the levying of troops; it is far rarer in that sense in other writers, but cf. Cicero, Prov. 5, Curt. 4.6.30. 23.14 Vasconum: The Vascones (from whom the modern Basques derive their name) primarily inhabited an area between the Ebro and the western Pyrenees (Str. 3.3.7, Plin., Nat. 3.22, 4.110), but their territory extended south of the river also, since Calagurris lay within it (F 23.12n.), as did Cascantum and Gracchuris (Ptol., Geog. 2.6.66); this was presumably the part that Sertorius traversed on his way to attack the Berones, whose own territory was primarily south of the river. For the history and archaeology of the region, see Sayas (1994). quadrato agmine: In a square formation, implying battle readiness: see Oakley (1998), 292–3 for full discussion. Vareiam: Apparently the main city of the Berones (cf. also Str. 3.4.12). Plin., Nat. 3.21 indicates that it was close to the Ebro; the city is plausibly identified with a site near modern Logroño (BarrAtl Map 25 C3). For a brief account of the excavations conducted on the site see Espinosa (1990). ṇoc̣ ṭụ: The word is all but illegible even in the new images, apart from the second letter, which is certainly O. Most editors have read it as hostis, but the first letter is more plausibly read as N than H; moreover, the sudden shift of focalization, with Sertorius abruptly identified as hostis as if seen from the Berones’ point of view, is awkward. For both of those reasons, Niebuhr’s noctu is to be preferred; it gives

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

200 Commentary extra point to haud opinantibus iis—­Sertorius’ arrival was anticipated, despite occurring in the nighttime. F 24 In 65 bc Cicero defended C. Cornelius on a charge of maiestas relating to a series of controversial laws he had sought to pass as tribune in 67. In the course of his defence, he mentioned that C. Aurelius Cotta, the consul of 75, had referred his own laws to the Senate for repeal (Cicero’s intention was to show that the passing of a potentially bad law could not be considered an act of maiestas: see Crawford (1994), 111). Asconius, commenting on this speech, is puzzled as to what laws Cicero might be referring to: he lists three historians, Sallust, Livy, and Fenestella, none of whom mentions any law passed by Cotta except one that permitted tribunes to hold other offices, and that one was not repealed. One immediate question that arises is whether this is indeed a fragment of Livy, since it may not give us a picture of what was in his work, but only of what it omitted. Asconius says that Sallust, Livy, and Fenestella did not mention any other law of Cotta, but, in the text as usually printed, he does not directly affirm that all three of them had this one—­it is theoretically possible that one or two of them omitted it along with the rest. Since Sallust appears to have described the law, as is suggested by the reference back to it in the speech of Macer (Hist. 3.48.8M), it is possible that either or both of Livy and Fenestella did not. However, as Drummond observes (FRHist 3.583–4), the law was im­port­ant enough to make it unlikely that they overlooked it; moreover, the (not improbable) variant reading significant at the end of the passage would directly indicate that all three historians mentioned it. A second and more intricate problem is whether it is true that Sallust, Livy, and Fenestella mentioned no other law passed by Cotta. It is clear that Asconius cannot mean that he himself literally knew of no other law that Cotta passed, because Cicero discusses such a law in the very next passage that Asconius comments on from the speech (67C); hence his puzzlement must be related to the particular category of laws that are discussed here, namely laws referred to the Senate for repeal by Cotta himself (Griffin (1987), 189), which was not the case with the law that Cicero mentions subsequently (according to Cicero, that one was repealed by Cotta’s brother). Drummond (loc. cit.) accordingly concludes that Fenestella (and, by inference, Livy) may have described both that law and others which do not fall into the specific category being discussed by Cicero. This, however, misunderstands Asconius’ reasoning. While it is true that in this part of his argument he is searching only for possible laws that fit Cicero’s description, he couches his proof that they must be trivial in terms of his failure to find in Sallust, Livy, and Fenestella any laws passed by Cotta at all (apart from the one discussed here), and we must conclude that none at all were mentioned in those texts.59 59  The logic would, of course, suggest that Asconius regarded the other law mentioned by Cicero as a trivial one (Lewis (2006), 274), but there is no reason to question that this was his view (it concerned the conduct of private lawsuits, rather than matters of direct political importance).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  201 The law in question was passed during Cotta’s consulship in 75 (cf. below). Livy covered that year in Books 91, 92, and 93: however, the Periochae lists only military events in those books, not domestic; hence it is impossible to tell in which one Livy described Cotta’s law. Nor should we assume that anything at all of the particular slant that Asconius offers, notably the attitude of the nobility and the people to the law (see below), was drawn from Livy (or indeed from Sallust or Fenestella), although it naturally cannot be ruled out that he adopted a similar approach (cf. Rosenblitt (2011), 401).

in consulatu 〈tulit invita〉 nobilitate: The MS reading is the meaningless in contione nobilitate. That Asconius refers to the nobiles’ hostility to Cotta’s law is all but inevitable, given that he goes on to contrast it with the support of the people, and also given that Cicero later in the speech directly refers to the opposition that Cotta’s measure aroused (Corn. fr. 52 (Crawford)). Stangl proposed non consentiente tulit nobilitate; but Madvig’s reading is on balance preferable, since Sall., Hist. 3.48.8M shows that Cotta’s measure was indeed passed during his consulship, and Asconius is likely to have mentioned the point, since he is trying to identify as precisely as he can which laws of Cotta Cicero was referring to. It has been questioned (e.g. by Gruen (1974), 26–7, Marshall (1975), 144) whether the nobility were in fact opposed to this increase in tribunician rights in the manner Cicero and Asconius suggest. The debate partly turns on the in­ter­ pret­ation of Sallust’s obscure reference to Cotta at the time of this law as ex factione media (Hist. 3.48.8M), which has sometimes been taken to mean ‘from the middle faction’, but is far more likely to mean ‘from the heart of the faction [sc. of the nobility]’ (Perl (1965), 77–8). But even apart from that, Cotta’s career and connections do not in other respects suggest someone of radical anti-­noble sympathies, and it may have suited Cicero’s rhetorical aims at this point to present a picture of unbroken upper-­class hostility (so Marshall (1975), 144). However, while invention or distortion on Cicero’s part cannot be ruled out, nevertheless, given the paucity of evidence, and given that his audience may well have included some of those very nobiles, it is better to assume that a speech delivered no more than a decade after the events is representing those events more or less accurately, even if Cicero seized on them for his own rhet­ oric­al purposes. Cotta may well have passed this measure despite the hostility of his more regular supporters, perhaps, as Sallust suggests, under pressure from the populace and their leaders, especially L. Sicinius during his tribuneship in 76. We cannot determine Cotta’s precise aims in proposing this law (certainly we cannot assume that he was opposed to Sulla’s other restrictions on the powers of the tribunate), but at the very least he must have been seeking to preserve the tribunate as a viable office that could be used as a stepping-­stone in a political career, and it is highly plausible that this met with opposition from a large proportion of the traditional nobility who supported Sulla’s reforms. See Santangelo (2014), 8–9. 〈qui tribuni plebis〉: Manutius’ necessary supplement.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

202 Commentary

quod lex 〈a〉 dictatore L.  Sulla paucis 〈ante annis〉 lata prohibebat: Manutius once again made the necessary supplements to the transmitted text. App., BC 1.100 attributes Sulla’s law to his desire to ensure that men of distinction would not be interested in standing for the tribunate; cf. also Cicero’s comment later in Pro Cornelio (fr. 52 (Crawford)) that Cotta’s repeal did not increase the power of the tribunate, but only its dignitas. However, Sulla’s law formed a larger package of bills restricting the tribunate, and he can plaus­ibly be argued to have had broader aims: in particular to reform the institution in such a way that it worked more closely with the Senate, by ensuring that it did not become a vehicle for ambitious men to pass contentious laws in pursuit of their future electoral interests: see esp. Hantos (1988), 79–81. F 25 Servius auctus is discussing the lengthy simile in Virg., Aen. 9.710–16, where the death of the Trojan Bitias is compared to the collapse of a pier in the Bay of Naples, which is hyperbolically said to be felt as far afield as ‘Inarime, placed by the command of Jupiter on Typhoeus’ (Aen. 9.716: Inarime Iovis imperiis imposta Typhoeo). ‘Inarime’ in Virgil is, as Servius notes, another name for Ischia (called Aenaria or Pithecusae in antiquity), which in one of the many versions of the story (Str. 13.4.6) was the place Typhoeus was imprisoned (for the debate cf. West (1966), 250–1). Servius argues—­probably correctly—­that the name derived from a misreading of Homer’s account of Typhoeus being buried εἰν Ἀρίμοις—­but he adds that Livy claimed that Homer was here referring not to Ischia, but to Maeonia. Livy presumably brought up the subject in the context of the campaign against Mithridates in 74/3.60 Per. 94.1–2 relates two separate episodes from the war in that book: first, the campaigns of Lucullus, and, second, those of the Roman ally Deiotarus of Galatia. Our other sources for Lucullus’ campaign in the first part of his command refer only to activities on or near the Propontis, a long way north of Maeonia (e.g. Plu., Luc. 8–12, App., Mith. 72–6, Memnon, FGrH 434 F 1.27.8–28.8), but Deiotarus is described by App., Mith. 75 as fighting against Mithridates’ general Eumachus, who had attacked (among other places) Phrygia. Since Maeonia lies in the west of Phrygia, this is by far the more probable context for Livy’s Homeric digression (cf. below), although it naturally cannot be ruled out that he introduced it in the course of describing some other event that the Periochae does not refer to. Inarimen in Maeoniae partibus esse dicit: That Homer located Typhoeus’ burial place in Maeonia, in western Asia Minor, also appears to be Strabo’s preferred version, at least to judge by the fact that he attaches his account of the debate to 60  For the date see MRR 2.106–8, and also Per. 94.1n.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  203 that region; so too also e.g. Xanthos, FGrH 765 F 13 (ap. Str. 12.8.19, 13.4.11), Lyc., Alex. 1353–4 site it there. What is more doubtful is whether Livy, like Virgil (and also Ov., Met. 14.89, Plin., Nat. 3.82), explicitly referred to the place as ‘Inarime’. Servius clearly suggests that he did, but Servius’ citations of Livy are sometimes loose to the point of unreliability (cf. e.g. F 12n., CC 3, 6, 36nn.), and the sources which associate the Homeric passage with Asia Minor do not conflate the word in the way the Roman writers who associate it with Ischia do. It seems more likely that Livy, like Strabo and others, spoke only of the Arimoi (or Arima), and Servius (perhaps from misreading his source) adapted that in order to fit the citation more closely to Virgil. quinquaginta milia terrae igni exustae sunt: The connection of Maeonia with Typhoeus and hence with the Arimoi was made at least in part because of a region known as the Katakekaumene, whose black landscape was thought the result of the devastation created by the mythical battle (see Str. 12.8.18–19, 13.4.11). The Katakekaumene corresponds to the Kula volcanic field in modern Turkey, with distinctive basalt rock formations. Modern geologists calculate its extent as far less than Livy does here: around 40 km (= 27 Roman miles) long and 15 km (= 10 Roman miles) broad (Richardson-­Bunbury (1996), 276).61 But Str. 13.4.11 thought it larger even than Livy: 500 stades long and 400 broad (500 stades is closer to 60 Roman miles than 50, even given that ‘stades’ varied in length: see Bauslaugh (1979)). There is no reason to believe that the region was very precisely defined even in antiquity, let alone that it corresponded to the modern geological definition. We may hypothesize from Servius’ phrasing here that Livy referred to the name and/or the quality of the landscape when describing Eumachus’ or Deiotarus’ presence there, and this prompted a short digression identifying it with the Homeric passage; compare e.g. 38.13.6 for a topographical digression in Livy identifying a site as the place of a famous myth. hoc etiam Homerum significasse vult: In his surviving text Livy refers to Homer also at 37.19.7, in the context of the Seleucid campaign in the region of Thebe. The reference is not in the corresponding text of Polybius (21.10.12–14); Briscoe (1981), 320–1 (following Walbank (1979), 102) assumes that it nevertheless appeared in Polybius, but was omitted by his excerptor (‘It is unlikely that such details would have been added by L.’ ). But while it is clearly possible that Livy took this from the full text of Polybius, and while it would still show something important about his own text and his attitude to Homer even if he indeed took it 61  Burman sought to emend the text to read quinquaginta milia iugera, presumably on the basis that the region should be described in two dimensions rather than one. But it is not uncommon for Romans to describe an elongated region in one dimension alone, and it should be noted that Burman’s emendation corresponds to the geography rather less well than the transmitted text does, since 50,000 iugera is around 125 km2, less than a quarter of the geologically defined size of the region, and vastly smaller still than the area given by Strabo.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

204 Commentary from Polybius (note that he more commonly omits Polybius’ explicit Homeric references: cf. Levene (2010), 88–96), Briscoe’s assumption that Livy could not have introduced the allusion himself seems unnecessarily a priori; this fragment offers a potential parallel for his doing so (with the caveat that this, too, might have been reproduced from his source for Deiotarus’ campaign). F 26 This passage forms the conclusion of Frontinus’ summary of the battle fought by Crassus at Mount Cantenna against a breakaway detachment of Spartacus’ army led by Castus and Gannicus. Per. 97.1 confirms that the fragment belongs to that book. As with F 22 (see ad loc.) it would be a mistake to assume that the rest of Frontinus’ narrative derives from Livy; as also with F 22, the possibility that this is a gloss should not be taken to impugn the Livian origin of the material, which in this case is anyway supported by the congruence with the account in the Periochae. The battle can be dated to the winter of 72/1. Crassus took over from the consuls of 72 after their defeat, and, according to App., BC 1.121, his entire period of command in the war was six months; his final victory over Spartacus was in 71. triginta quinque milia armatorum: Oros. 5.24.6, in a passage linguistically close enough to Frontinus here to suggest that both authors were drawing on Livy’s wording, refers to 30,000 casualties among the slave army (XXX milia hominum cum ipsis ducibus occidit): presumably the discrepancy results from textual corruption, though it is impossible to say whether that occurred in the MS tradition of Frontinus or Orosius, or in the texts of Livy they were using. Very different is Plu., Crass. 11.3, who refers to 12,300 killed; Plutarch’s figures are sometimes assumed to be correct (e.g. Schiavone (2013), 137), presumably on the grounds that exaggeration of the casualties is more probable than diminution of them, and hence that the smaller figure should be preferred on principle. While this is not unreasonable, it should be noted that there are some indications of confusion in Plutarch, since in a different work (Pomp. 21.2) he seems to imply that the 12,300 casualties were not in the battle against Castus and Gannicus, but the final defeat of Spartacus. Hence, while Livy’s figure may certainly have been exaggerated, one should not elevate Plutarch’s as purportedly more reliable. quinque Romanas aquilas, signa sex et viginti, multa spolia inter quae quinque fasces cum securibus: The aquilae were the central symbol carried by each legion as a standard, consisting of the image of an eagle on a pole; signa is the generic word for all military symbols, including those used by smaller units (cf. Töpfer (2011)). The fasces, consisting of a bundle of sticks bound with axes, were the symbols of office carried by the lictors who attended Roman magistrates, including commanders with praetorian or consular authority (Mommsen, StR3 I 384–6).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  205 Hence the symbols recovered here were associated with five legions and five commanders that Spartacus had defeated. Unfortunately, our scanty sources for the war mean that it is uncertain which battles they were taken in: we are given the names of nine commanders who fought Spartacus in 73–72 prior to Crassus taking command, but we are not always told either their rank or the precise nature of the forces under their command; and only in one instance (Plu., Crass. 9.5, referring to the praetor P. Varinius) are we specifically told that fasces were taken.62 We should, however, be wary of assuming that the aquilae and the fasces were captured at the same time: for example, the first commander to be defeated by Spartacus, C.  Claudius Glaber, was praetor, and hence presumably was accompanied on campaign by lictors with their fasces, but he was not in command of a regular legion (App., BC 1.116). It is interesting that these major symbols of Spartacus’ earlier victories would be kept by a breakaway group rather than by Spartacus himself, especially since Flor. 2.8.7–8 implies that Spartacus used the captured fasces as a symbol of his own command. The language of the sources hints at a contentious division in the slave army, perhaps along ethnic lines: Crassus is said by Frontinus to have defeated ‘Gauls and Germans from the faction of Gannicus and Castus’ (Gallos Germanosque ex factione Casti et Cannici). We may hy­pothe­size that Gannicus and Castus simply seized the commander’s spoils. It is plausible to assume that the reason that Livy emphasized their recapture by Crassus was because of the historical irony which would have appeared especially keen in his day: Crassus himself was to lose the aquilae of his legions at his defeat and death in Parthia in 53, and Augustus made a particular point of his achievement in recovering them (cf. Per. 141.3n.). F 27 This fragment refers to Lucullus’ victory over the Armenian king Tigranes II at Tigranocerta in 69 bc; its placement in Book 98 is assured by Per. 98.5. Plutarch records Livy’s judgement on the surprising disparity between the Roman and enemy forces; Plutarch is in turn the source of the Suda, probably via John of Antioch (Roberto (2005), xcvii n. 164).

σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐδ’ εἰκοστόν, ἀλλ’ ἔλαττον ἐγένοντο μέρος οἱ νικῶντες τῶν ἡσσημένων: The imbalance in numbers in this battle was famous: see Memnon, FGrH 434 F 1.38.4 and App., Mith. 85, where Tigranes prior to the battle sar­cas­tic­ al­ly comments on the small Roman forces; also Sall., Hist. 4.69.15M (Mithridates in  his letter seeks to minimize the significance of Lucullus’ defeat of a vast force (multitudinem)), and Frontin., Strat. 2.1.14. However, historians differed 62  Flor. 2.8.7 more vaguely refers to capta de praetoribus insignia et fasces, perhaps implying that C. Claudius Glaber, the only other praetor he has mentioned, also lost his lictors; but Florus’ rhetorical exaggerations mean that he can hardly be relied on for such details.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

206 Commentary substantially on the precise level of the imbalance. Plutarch himself (Luc. 26.5–6, citing Lucullus’ official report to the Senate) claims that Tigranes had 150,000 heavy infantry, 55,000 cavalry, as well as 20,000 archers, whereas Lucullus himself was earlier said to have 12,000 infantry and fewer than 3,000 cavalry. This implies a less lop-­sided ratio than 20:1; but Livy may have been using different figures from Plutarch, such as those offered by App., Mith. 85, according to whom Tigranes had 250,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry. Combining Appian’s figure for Tigranes’ army with Plutarch’s for Lucullus’ gives exactly Livy’s ratio, although Appian’s own narrative in fact gives Lucullus fewer troops—­two legions plus 500 cavalry (Mith. 84). On the other hand, according to Memnon, FGrH 434 F 1.38.4, Tigranes’ force was a more modest 80,000, and Phlegon of Tralles, FGrH 257 F 12.10 puts it at 70,000; while Eutr. 6.9.1 puts Tigranes with 100,000 infantry and  archers (plus 7,500 clibanarii—­light armed troops), against Lucullus’ force of 18,000. It is impossible to tell which of these is correct. Plutarch’s citation of Lucullus’ letter might inspire confidence, were it not that Lucullus himself had an obvious interest in exaggerating the opposing forces. Memnon, from Heraclea, might have been drawing on local knowledge, but a local writer might conversely have had an incentive to minimize the Roman victory. For Livy’s interest in occasions where the Romans were victorious despite being outnumbered cf. Oakley (1997), 512. F 28 This fragment is recorded by Plutarch at the end of the battle that Lucullus fought in 68 bc against Tigranes and Mithridates at Artaxata, the capital of Armenia; like F 27, it comes from Book 98, since Per. 98.8 shows that Lucullus’ campaign was completed in that book.

τῇ προτέρᾳ μάχῃ . . . ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ: Jal (1979), 264–5 assumes that the two battles mentioned here are the first and the second part of the engagement at Artaxata described by Plu., Luc. 31: first the cavalry skirmish in which the Romans defeated the Mardians and Iberians, then when Lucullus led his troops against the Atropateni. However, this neither fits the course of the narrative in Plutarch, who does not treat those as discrete battles, nor the outcome of each component, since in the first Lucullus prevented the Roman cavalry from pursuing the Mardians and Iberians when Tigranes appeared at the head of his own cavalry, but in the second there is an extensive massacre. Accordingly, the ‘former battle’ must be the previous one described by Plutarch, namely the one at Tigranocerta in the previous year (F 27n.). F 29 Servius is discussing the description of Crete that Virgil puts into the mouth of Anchises, and notes that although Crete in later times was said to have reduced its hundred cities to just two, that is contradicted by Livy, who describes Metellus as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  207 storming more. Both the placement in Book 9963 and the accuracy of Servius’ account of Livy are apparently confirmed by Per. 99.1: Q. Metellus procos. Cnoson et Lyctum et Cydoniam et alias plurimas urbes expugnavit—­though we should not overlook the plausible possibility that Servius was actually drawing his information from the Periochae, and hence does not offer an independent view of Livy’s text. centum habuit civitates, unde hecatompolis dicta est: Virgil mentions the hundred cities of Crete in the line Servius is commenting on (Aen. 3.106: centum urbes habitant magnas), alluding to Hom., Il. 2.649, Κρήτην ἑκατόμπολιν (‘hundred-­citied Crete’), a phrase which Servius goes on to reference. post viginti et quattuor, inde, ut dicitur, duas: This unlikely account is not reflected in other sources. In a broad sense it reflects a general impression of the decline of Crete from its Bronze Age glories (cf. D.S. 33.10), but the numbers bear little relationship to history. The ‘twenty-­four cities’ may be related to the Cretan koinon of the Hellenistic period: the list of the members of the koinon in 183 bc (SIG 627) has thirty names (which do not include all of the cities on the island), but cities joined and left the koinon over the period of its existence (see Chaniotis (2015)), and it is possible that at some point it had exactly twenty-­four members, and that this was reflected in a text which Servius (or, more probably, Servius’ source) misunderstood as representing the entirety of Cretan cities. But nothing explains the ‘two’, which, as Servius himself points out, does not stand up against even a cursory examination of Cretan history. Gnoson: Cnossus (BarrAtl Map 60 D2) is most famous as the most powerful city of Crete under the Minoans in the Bronze Age, but it remained an im­port­ant power through the classical and Hellenistic periods, though it was partly eclipsed by Gortyn in Roman times. Hierapydnam: More commonly spelled Hierapytna (BarrAtl Map 60 E2), modern Ierapetra. It was the major city of eastern Crete in the Hellenistic period, but it is nevertheless puzzling that the legend cited by Servius made it one of the only two cities on the island, given the number of possible rivals, not least Gortyn, which was shortly to become the capital of the Roman province. Metello: Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (RE 87), cos. 69. He had been praetor in (probably) 74, but he is best known for his conquest of Crete, which began in his consulship when he received the command against the pirates based there, and which was completed in 67, though he ran into a jurisdictional dispute with

63  Metellus’ campaign actually began in Book 98, according to Per. 98.6; but Per. 98 refers only to his siege of Cydonia, which he does not capture until Book 99. If we could be reasonably sure that Servius had a complete text of these books of Livy in front of him, we might nevertheless refer the fragment to both books, on the grounds that Servius is using Metellus’ entire campaign to refute the claim of there being only two cities in Crete; but Servius may well be working from the Periochae (see below), and the Periochae only mentions the capture of cities in Book 99.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

208 Commentary Pompey when the latter received a wide-­ranging command in the eastern Mediterranean. He subsequently established the new province of Crete and Cyrene. F 30 Agroecius is explaining the difference between the verbs deluo (‘wash away’) and diluo (‘dissolve’ or ‘dilute’); as an example of the latter, he offers a phrase from Livy on the death of Mithridates, which Per. 102.2 confirms belongs in that book. Mithridatis: Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus (c.134–63 bc, ruled 120–63), king of Pontus. He fought against Rome repeatedly between 89 and his death. He initiated a large-­scale uprising and massacre of Romans in Asia Minor, extending his control into Greece, but the Romans under Sulla defeated him and forced him to retire back to Pontus; he made another attempt a decade later, but he was defeated by Lucullus and then Pompey; he ultimately committed suicide following a coup against him by his son. Studies of his career and reputation include Mayor (2009). quod cum diluisset: The reference is presumably to the poison with which Mithridates unsuccessfully tried to kill himself (according to the famous le­gend, he failed because he had over many years inured his body with small doses of poison from fear of assassination).64 diluo is a standard term for compounding drugs (TLL V.1 1188.51–1189.8); Livy uses it of preparing a poison at 40.4.13. The MSS have quod diluisset and quam diluisset; quod cum is a reasonable reconstruction that explains both readings, although it obviously cannot be ruled out that Livy simply wrote either quod or cum. Keil’s tentative suggestion (ad loc.) that diluisset here might have its secondary meaning of ‘dispelling a charge’ (TLL V.1 1189.29–64), and that the text should read Livius: de morte Mithridate cum diluisset (‘Livy: when he had refuted the charge about the death of Mithridates’), seems far less likely, not only because Mithridates’ attempted self-­ poisoning was so iconic a moment (cf. above), but because Agroecius shortly before has glossed diluit as temperat, suggesting that this is the meaning he is primarily associating with the verb. F 31 This scholium appears in the margin of a mid-­ninth-­century MS of Lucan (Bern 45), commenting on 2.592–3 dedita sacris / incerti Iudea dei (‘Judea dedicated to the rites of an uncertain god’). The scholiast explains that this is part of Pompey’s account of his earlier triumphs, and that Livy identified the temple of the Jews as being in Jerusalem. Previous editors have not treated this scholium as an independent fragment, because Usener, in his edition of the so-­called Commenta Bernensia (a running 64  So e.g. Mart. 5.76, App., Mith. 111, Flor. 1.40.26, Gell. 17.16, Dio 37.13.1–2, Just. 37.2.6, Vir. Ill. 76.7–8, Oros. 6.5.6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  209 commentary on Lucan in a late ninth-­century MS) regarded the scholia of Bern 45 merely as variant versions of the same material as appeared in the continuous commentary—­in this case the quotation from Livy in F 33, attached to the same lemma in Lucan; hence he confined it to the apparatus (Usener (1869), 85). However, Bern 45 contains much material derived from other sources, and should not be treated merely as ancillary to the Commenta (see Werner (1994), 355–9, (1998), 137–42). In this case, while the simple fact that both MSS cite Livy in the context of the same line might seem to indicate that they are drawing on the same original ­quotation, the content is quite different: Bern 45 is recording the general fact of the location of the Temple and Pompey’s capture of it, while the Commenta is discussing the god worshipped there; Bern 45 goes on to cite Josephus, who is not mentioned in the Commenta at all. While it is certainly possible that the scholium is deducing its information about Livy from the same brief quotation found in F 33, it is at least as probable that the earlier tradition of Lucan commentary cited Livy for Pompey’s capture of the Temple as well as quoting him for the specifics of Jewish theology. For the placement in Book 102 see Per. 102.3. templum Iudeorum destruxisse fertur Pompeius: Pompey did not in fact destroy the Temple, nor should it be deduced that Livy claimed that he did. It is more likely to derive from the scholiast’s garbled memory of the fact that the Jewish Temple was indeed destroyed by the Romans, albeit more than a century after Pompey, combined with the fact that the context in Lucan is a listing of Pompey’s victories. quod modo dicitur Pompeius triumphasse: Pompey’s triumph, in September 61, was for all of his Eastern conquests, including Judaea (Plin., Nat. 7.98, Plu., Pomp. 45.2, App., Mith. 117). F 32 Josephus relates this anecdote while narrating the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63, citing in support Strabo, Nicolaus, and Livy. It is, however, unlikely that Josephus is citing Livy at first ­hand: although he had been living in Rome for some time at the point when he wrote the Antiquities, he does not generally show any acquaintance with Latin literature, and the fact that he feels the need to identify Livy so precisely (unlike the way Plutarch refers to him) suggests that he does not expect any greater knowledge from his audience. It is most probable that this is a tralatician reference. The natural assumption would be that Josephus took it from Strabo, who appears to be the source for much of the rest of the information in the passage, and indeed for Antiquities 14 in general (Galimberti (2007), esp. 163–4; see also below). However, there is a chronological problem. On the usual dating, Strabo wrote the bulk of his Geography in the first part of Augustus’ reign, beginning perhaps as early as the late 20s bc, and on his own account (1.1.23) he had already completed his historical work at that point. In that case he cannot have cited Livy Book 102 in his history, since Livy could not plausibly have reached that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

210 Commentary point in his work much before the first decade ad. But a strong case has been made by Dueck (1999) and Pothecary (2002) that Strabo began writing the Geography around ad 17–18, in which case his historical work is likely to have been written in the later part of Augustus’ reign, and he could easily have cited Livy in it. Indeed, this very citation of Livy, in a context which is likely to derive from Strabo’s history, adds a small measure of support to Dueck and Pothecary’s case. If, on the other hand, the later dating of Strabo were rejected, the least bad alternative would be to hypothesize that Josephus took the reference to Livy from Nicolaus, who lived in Rome after the death of Herod in 4 bc (FGrH 90 F 136, 138), and so could conceivably have written this part of his history late enough to cite Livy in it. A further, still less likely alternative is that Josephus took it from a different Greek source altogether whom he did not name in the passage. It should not be assumed that any of the details in Josephus appeared in Livy, except for the bare fact that the Jews continued with their duties in the Temple during Pompey’s assault, though it is possible that his work contained some of the same chronological indications (cf. below). Livy’s interest in piety in times of extreme crisis is apparent elsewhere in his work, most obviously in Book 5 during the Gallic sack (esp. 5.39.8–41.10, 5.46.1–3: cf. Levene (1993), 195–9). There is, admittedly, no place where he shows foreigners behaving in such a way under Roman attack, but at various times he shows non-­Romans behaving piously in less extreme contexts (e.g. 21.45.8–9). Praise for Jewish piety and courage is found in other pagan writers, even those who were not altogether sympathetic to the Jews (cf. Feldman (1993), 220–2, 230–1)—but it is also very possible that Livy, while recounting the Jews’ willingness to die rather than transgress, treated it less sympathetically than Josephus himself does (for criticisms of the Jews’ unwillingness to violate religious law even in self-­defence cf. Agatharchides, FGrH 86 F 20a–b).

περὶ τρίτον μῆνα: The third month of the siege, not the third month of the year, as is explicit in the parallel account at Jos., BJ 1.149. Eutr. 6.14.2 and Oros. 6.6.3, in fairly similar language to one another, provide the same information: this makes it a reasonable possibility that they derived it, directly or indirectly, from Livy. Strabo or Nicolaus may also have derived the information from Livy, and Josephus may have taken it from one of them both here and in the War; but it is also pos­ sible that they or Josephus took the information from another source altogether. τῇ τῆς νηστείας ἡμέρᾳ: ‘The day of the fast’ implies that the Temple was captured on the Day of Atonement (cf. Schürer (1973–87), 1.239). However, that is impossible. The Day of Atonement falls in the autumn, by when Pompey must have long left Judaea, since he wintered in Amisus, towards the eastern end of the Black Sea (Magie (1950), 1229–30). The solution was seen long ago (Herzfeld (1855)): Pompey attacked Jerusalem on a Sabbath, as is explicit in Dio 37.16.2–4; but Josephus was following Strabo, whose very similar account in 16.2.40 shows that he, like various other writers (e.g. Augustus ap. Suet., Aug. 76.2, Petron. fr.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  211 50.6 Mueller, Mart. 4.4.7, Just. 36.2.14: cf. Feldman (1993), 161–4), mistakenly believed that the Sabbath was a fast-­day. Josephus, who was, of course, well aware of the distinction (cf. below), did not make an in­dependent calculation of the chronology, but misunderstood Strabo to be referring to the Day of Atonement.

οἱ δὲ πρὸς ταῖς θυσίαις οὐδὲν ἧττον ἱερουργοῦντες διετέλουν: Dio 37.16.2–3 claims that the reason the Jews did not resist was because it was the Sabbath, when they would not fight back, and indeed that this was the reason for Pompey’s choosing that day to assault the Temple. That Jews would not defend themselves on the Sabbath was claimed by other ancient writers (e.g. Frontin., Strat. 2.1.17, Plu., Sup. 169C), but was a mistake: the general understanding of Jewish law, both in Josephus’ time and later, clearly allowed fighting in self-­defence on the Sabbath, as Josephus states explicitly a little earlier in his narrative (AJ 14.63; cf. more ­generally Bar-­K ochva (2010), 291–6). The Jews’ behaviour here is, accordingly, explained by Josephus in terms of their unwillingness to break the ritual per­form­ ance of the Temple sacrifices. F 33 Livy’s comments on the Jewish view of God are recorded in two places: first, the Commenta Bernensia (see F 31n.), commenting on Lucan 2.593 (incerti Iudea dei), and second, John Lydus’ discussion of different views on the god worshipped by the Jews. The fact that Lydus explicitly goes on to cite Lucan’s ideas of the Jewish God in the context of Livy suggests that he was deriving his information about Livy, directly or indirectly, from the same late antique commentary on Lucan that was the ultimate source of the scholiastic material on this line (Norden (1913), 59–60). Livy, as quoted by the scholiast, gives three pieces of information about Jewish theology: that the Jews did not give a name to their God, that they did not have an image in the Temple, and that they did not believe God to have a corporeal form. All three of these are correct, at least with regard to the ideas and practices of the Jews in Livy’s day. The Jewish God was conceived as an incorporeal being and was not allowed to be represented by an image; and although he is given a cult name in biblical texts, by the later Hellenistic period the usual practice was neither to write out that name except in sacred contexts nor to express it orally (for discussion cf. Andrade (2015), esp. 203–10). Not expressing the name of God is, however, different from not knowing which god he is, which is what Lydus’ paraphrase of Livy would appear to indicate. It was not uncommon for pagans, writing in a culture in which it was commonplace to syncretize foreign gods with one’s own, to wonder with which god to identify the unnamed Jewish god (cf. e.g. Varro, Antiq. Rer. Div. fr. 16 (Cardauns), Plu., Quaest. Conv. 671C–672C, Tac., Hist. 5.5.5). That is indeed the overall context of Lydus’ citation of Livy, a discussion of different pagan views on this subject; it also appears to be the meaning of Lucan’s compressed phrase incerti . . . dei, to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

212 Commentary which the Livy citation is attached. It is possible that Livy, too, debated this question, and the Commenta merely cited the wrong sentence from him in order to explain Lucan’s phrase, but more probably the original commentary on Lucan that is the source of this material failed to distinguish naming a god from knowing the identity of a god, and so cited a passage of Livy related to the former ­question in the context of the latter question, leading Lydus to assume, not unreasonably, that Livy was after all stating the same point as Lucan, and to paraphrase him accordingly (cf. Norden (1913), 60–2). That the fragment comes from Book 102 is not certain, but highly probable. It is one of only two books in which we can be sure that Livy discussed the Jews (for the other, cf. Per. 128.2), and the most likely context for this note on the Jewish God is Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem, where he famously (and, from a Jewish perspective, sacrilegiously) entered the Holy of Holies, the central room in the Jewish Temple, and observed the absence of a cult image (Tac., Hist. 5.9.1; cf. Cic., Flacc. 67, Jos., BJ 1.152, AJ 14.71–2). Hierosolymis: Usener proposed that this word derives not from Livy, but from a Christian source whose wording was incorporated into the commentary (Usener (1869), 85). Usener’s evidence was that the reference to Jerusalem in the parallel scholium of the MS Bern 45 is clearly a parenthetic explanation rather than deriving from Livy; however, it is probably better to treat that scholium as independent of this passage (cf. F 31n.), in which case there is no reason to question the Livian provenance of the word here.

Νουμήνιος: Numenius of Apamea, a Platonist philosopher of the second century ad. His interest in and admiration for the Jews is apparent from the repeated cit­ ation of his work in later Christian writers (cf. Stern (1980), 206–16); there is no reason to believe that the material that Lydus attributes to him here is in any way derived from Livy. F 34 Jerome’s listing in his Chronicle for 63 bc cites both Sallust and Livy as the source for the Catilinarian conspiracy; Per. 102.4 confirms that the reference is to that book. Sallust was widely read in Jerome’s day; but it seems plausible that Jerome took his material here not from Sallust or Livy directly, but from the Periochae, which, like him, mentions Catiline, Cethegus, Lentulus, and Cicero in quick succession, but no others of the conspirators. Although Sallust does at various points mention Lentulus and Cethegus as the major con­spir­ators apart from Catiline himself (e.g. Catil. 32.2, 48.4, 57.1), there are sufficient other conspirators named in his text to make it unlikely that Jerome would have taken precisely those names from reading Sallust, and it seems even less likely that he would have searched the full text of Livy for the information. It is true that authors in the early im­per­ ial period often single out those particular names as key figures in the conspiracy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  213 (e.g. Vell. 2.34.4, Lucan 2.543, Plu., Cat. Mi. 22.2, Juv. 10.287, App., BC 2.2), which may account for the Periochae doing the same (see ad loc.), but they do not appear to have become canonical within the later Latin tradition as Catiline’s co-­conspirators: they are not treated that way by Florus, Eutropius, or Orosius. Most probable, therefore, is that Jerome took the names from the Periochae, as a convenient summary of Livy, attributed it to Livy himself, and then added Sallust from his general memory of that text. Cethego: C. Cornelius Cethegus (RE 89). Relatively little is known of his career beyond his participation in the conspiracy; the fact that Sallust identifies him as a senator (Cat. 17.3) indicates that he must have held some pol­it­ical office, but it is unknown which (App., BC 2.2 claims that he was praetor with Lentulus in 63, but that appears to be an error); from Cic., Sull. 70 we learn that he served in Spain during the Sertorian war. He, like Lentulus, was executed with the other conspirators. Lentulo: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura, cos. 71 (RE 240). The most distinguished of the Catilinarian conspirators; his known career began in 81, with a quaestorship during Sulla’s dictatorship. A praetorship in 74 was followed by a consulship in 71, but the following year he was expelled from the Senate by the censors. His praetorship in 63 restored him to the Senate, but in the same year he joined in the Catilinarian conspiracy and was executed on its discovery, after being forced to resign his office. F 35 The medical writer Serenus is discussing a disease he calls carbo, and cites Livy Book 103 on the traditional remedies employed for it. Jal (1979), 267 suggests that Livy may have described someone dying of the disease; but Plin., Nat. 26.5 refers to the disease carbunculus (cf. below) as native to Gallia Narbonensis, and, according to Per. 103.11, Livy included a geographical digression on Gaul in that book (see ad loc.). This is therefore by far the most probable context for the fragment (Dutoit (1948), 119), although, to judge by the surviving books, it is unexpected that Livy’s interests extended to the details of medical remedies (on medicine in Livy see Dutoit (1948)). carbo: No other writer refers to a disease called carbo; but one called by the diminutive carbunculus is described by Cels. 5.28.1 and Plin., Nat. 26.5–6 (for the tendency in Latin medical vocabulary to employ such diminutives see Langslow (2000), 323–36, esp. 334 for their use to describe growths or tumours). Since in non-­medical contexts carbo means ‘charcoal’ = Greek ἄνθραξ, this can be identified with the disease(s) called by that name in Greek medical writers (see esp. Gal., Tum. 6 (7.719 Kühn), Meth. Med. 14.10 (10.979–80 Kühn): the identification is explicit in Scrib. Larg. 25: carbunculos, quod anthracas dicunt); however, the description in the Latin writers varies in some significant ways from that in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

214 Commentary Greek (cf. below). It should not be assumed that Livy himself used the form carbo rather than the diminutive: that may well ori­gin­ate with Serenus, either for met­ ric­al reasons or in order to emphasize the etymological connection with the Greek. For the range of meanings of ἄνθραξ / carbunculus see Rippinger (1987), 212–18 (cf. Gourevitch (1982), 190). In Greek sources it is primarily a skin growth (cf. Skoda (1988), 207–9), but both Celsus and Pliny describe a carbunculus as a growth which was sometimes on the surface of the body, but more commonly originated inside and expanded from there; it was mainly red, but with black ­pustules on it. The precision of Livy’s account of its treatment, and its congruence with the main descriptions in Celsus and Pliny (cf. below), suggest that he was thinking of the specific variety described in those passages. inclusus . . . apertus: For the contrast cf. e.g. Laus Pis. 63, Sen., Nat. 2.9.4. tertia . . . Titi . . . et centesima Livi / charta docet: A unique instance of charta (= ‘book’) being used with a number to indicate a specific volume, but cf. Catull. 1.6–7 Italorum omne aevum tribus explicare cartis / doctis (of the three books of Cornelius Nepos’ Chronica); also Mart. 4.82.7–8. ferro talem candente dolorem / exactum: Cels. 5.28.1 likewise recommends cauterization as the primary mode of treatment for the disease. vix septem posse diebus / vitam produci: Plin. Nat. 26.6 gives the unfortunate sufferer just three days. F 36 Tacitus’ digression on Britain in Agr. 10–17 begins with a discussion of its location and shape: he cites Livy as one of the sources for the latter, but then corrects him with more up-­to-­date information. That Livy provided this information about Britain in Book 105 is highly probable: it is the only place where the Periochae mentions Britain, in the context of Caesar’s expeditions there in 55–54 bc. formam totius Britannae: A pointed phrase: Livy and Fabius Rusticus believed the whole of Britain to be a certain shape, but in fact only part of it is (C. S. Kraus ap. Woodman (2014), 132). Fabius Rusticus: RE 140, FRHist 87. Historian of the first century ad, whose work, probably written in the Flavian period, covered at least the reigns of Claudius and Nero. See B. M. Levick ap. FRHist. 1.568–72. eloquentissimi auctores: Livy’s eloquentia was his most widely praised quality (cf. F 9n.): Tacitus refers to it again (in the mouth of Cremutius Cordus) at Ann. 4.34.1 (= T 7), and he is described in those terms also by Quint., Inst. 8.1.2–3 (= T 10b), 10.1.101 (= T 28), Jer., Epist. 53.1 (= T 6b), and (implicitly) Hist.Aug. Aurelian 2.2 (= T 31); cf. also Hist.Aug. Prob. 2.6–7 (= T 32). In this case, however, the compliment is somewhat back­handed, since Tacitus began his digression by noting that earlier descriptions of Britain were marked more by eloquentia than

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  215 fides (Agr. 10.1), and he will go on to show that Livy’s account is actually erroneous (C. S. Kraus ap. Woodman (2014), 132). oblongo scutulo vel bipenni: This passage has generated controversy because of a treble difficulty. First, the MSS of Tacitus vary between oblongae scutulae and oblongae scupulae—­the latter makes no sense, but Ogilvie and Richmond suggested the easy emendation to scapulae. The second problem is that whatever is read here should obviously refer to something of the same shape as a bipennis, which appears to mean a double-­headed axe, and neither a scutula (either a dish, or something rhomboid-­shaped: cf. ps-­Cens. fr. 7.4) nor a scapula (shoulder-­ blade) look like a double-­headed axe. And the third problem is that Tacitus appears to be referring to a standard pre-­existing view of the shape of Britain, but the standard pre-­existing view of the shape of Britain in other writers (Caes., Gall. 5.13.1, Str. 4.5.1, Mela 3.50) was that it was triangular. The usual solution is to assume that by bipennis Tacitus (or Livy or Rusticus) did not mean a double-­headed axe, but a single-­headed one—­the term, which is usually poetic, could certainly be used as a generic word for ‘axe’, and most axes in the Roman world were single-­headed (Lacey (1954–5), 18–19). One would then need either (1) to show that a scutula could look like such an axe, or (2) to provide a good explanation of what an ‘elongated shoulder-­blade’ might look like. Ogilvie and Richmond (1967), 168–70 preferred (2), since a shoulder-­blade is certainly triangular, but they acknowledged that oblongae left a problem. Prior to them, Lacey (1954–5) had proposed scutulo, which likewise can mean ‘shoulder-­ blade’ (Cels. 8.1.15), but offered no real explanation for oblongus. Reed (1973), 767–71 went with (1), arguing that Rusticus and Tacitus were thinking of a quadrilateral axe with a short side—­in other words, they assumed that Livy was making a minor correction to the view of Britain as triangular, by suggesting that the triangle was cut off at the top. However, Reed also argued ((1973), 773) that they had misunderstood Livy, who was in fact intending to suggest that the whole of Britain was the shape of a double-­headed axe, but the meaning of bipennis had changed by the time of Rusticus and Tacitus, and so they took him to be saying something different, namely something that was the shape of a scutula. The problem with that argument, however, as Reed himself acknowledges in an appendix ((1973), 786), is that it appears likely that bipennis, at least in some contexts, retained the meaning ‘double-­headed axe’ even in the later empire (Till (1970), 677). A more persuasive solution is offered by C. S. Kraus (ap. Woodman (2014), 133–4), who observed that in the only pre-­Livian use of scutulum, in Cic., Nat. Deor. 1.82, the word refers not to a shoulder-­blade, but to the shield of Juno Sospita—­and that Juno Sospita is regularly depicted carrying a small shield in  the  shape of an hour-­glass.65 Hence this shape is easily comparable to a 65  e.g. on a late Republican coin (RRC 379/2); cf. also a well-­known statue in the Vatican Museum from the imperial period.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

216 Commentary double-­headed axe, and Lacey’s reading of scutulo must be correct, although, as Kraus notes, he ‘came up with the right text for the wrong reason’ (she could also have added that Reed came up with the right interpretation of Livy for the wrong reason). We can, accordingly, jettison the assumption that Tacitus took Livy and Fabius Rusticus to be offering the same shape for Britain found in Caesar et al. (which he nowhere states): Livy and Rusticus both described it as an hour-­glass shape—­and Tacitus (contra Reed) correctly understood them to be doing so. On this view, Livy offered a newly revised picture of the contours of British geography that Caesar had proposed, presumably on the basis of further ex­plor­ ation by traders or navigators that had taken place since Caesar’s day (cf. F. 37n.). Fabius Rusticus followed him, but Tacitus then further corrected it on the basis of Agricola’s own explorations during his governorship, noting that Britain does not have one point where it narrows and then widens, but two: one north of East Anglia on the east side and Wales on the west, which then widens at southern Scotland; and then a second when it narrows at the Clyde-­Forth estuaries and widens once more north of them. Tacitus assumed that Livy was simply unaware of the region north of the Clyde–­Forth estuaries, but it is also possible that Livy knew the full north–­south extent of Britain, but not the specifics of the narrowing coastline. adsimulavere: It is unclear from Tacitus whether (a) Livy and Fabius Rusticus both made both of these comparisons, or if (b) Livy made one and Rusticus the other, or if (c) one made both and the other only one of them. (b) is the neatest, but if (as is not improbable) Rusticus used Livy as one of his sources, it may be that he took over the language of his comparisons. This last leads to a further consideration: it should not be ruled out that Tacitus may not actually have consulted Livy at all, but that this is a tralatician reference from Rusticus, who was citing Livy. If so, without independent access to the text of Rusticus, it is impossible to be sure that Livy included either comparison: both may be Rusticus’ elaboration of Livy’s description. This proposal would not, of course, imply that Tacitus never read Livy, which would be nonsensical: he frequently alludes to his text in a way that indicates detailed knowledge of it. But it is possible that, if he found a description of Britain in Rusticus citing Livy as a source, he would not bother to make an independent consultation of Livy Book 105 on that occasion to confirm the accuracy of Rusticus’ citation. On balance this proposal may be considered less likely than that Tacitus did due diligence and consulted all of his sources directly in the course of his research on Britain, especially a source like Livy, whose work he manifestly admired; but it would be incautious to exclude it altogether. citra Caledoniam: Although ‘Caledonia’ could be used more broadly, to include the whole of modern Scotland, Tacitus defines it specifically as the area north of the Clyde–­Forth estuaries (esp. Agr. 25.1, 25.3, 27.1, and see Hind (1983)).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  217 F 37 Jordanes begins the Getica with a geographical survey of northern Europe; after describing the Ocean (surrounding the entire inhabited world), he moves to Britain, and begins by citing Livy on the previous inaccessibility of the island, before sketching out the increase in Roman knowledge beginning with Caesar’s expeditions. The crucial question with this fragment is how much Jordanes is ascribing to Livy, and how much is his own supplement. The minimum that can be asserted as Livian is the statement that originally no Roman had circumnavigated Britain. Since it is plausible that this fragment, like F 36, derives from Livy’s account of Caesar’s invasion in Book 105, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Livy made some sort of contrast between the previous state of knowledge and what was learned subsequently, but that does not mean that he made the contrast in the same terms as Jordanes does here or that he ascribed it to the same causes. Certainly the bare statement that Britain was opened by Caesar’s battles ‘undertaken solely for glory’ seems entirely un-­Livian in its bluntness. olim: This is not from Livy, but is Jordanes’ focalization: at the time when Livy wrote (olim) no one had circumnavigated Britain. According to Tac., Agr. 10.4, Britain was first circumnavigated in the time of Agricola, more than sixty years after Livy’s death. It is a serious misunderstanding to attribute the word to Livy, and hence to conclude that Tacitus is wrong and that an otherwise unattested Roman circumnavigation of Britain had taken place at the time when Livy wrote Book 105.66 magnitudinem: For this ‘extended’ use of an abstract noun cf. Woodman (2014), 205; it is preferable to the alternative reading magnitudine, leaving the object of circumvectus to be assumed from the previous sentence. F 38 Orosius, in his prefatory remarks to his final book, is claiming that God’s plan for the world is shown by the fact that he causes the crises of empires to occur in the 700th year of their existence. He gives the examples of Assyria and Carthage, which (on his chronology) each lasted around 700 years, and then argues that although Rome survived its 700th year, it went through a similar crisis when a major fire ravaged it in that year, and cites Livy as the source. Orosius also refers to this fire, in not dissimilar wording but without citing Livy, at 6.14.5, adding the information that the Vicus Iugarius was destroyed (see below); he mentions it again at 7.39.15 in the context of the sack of Rome by Alaric, commenting that the earlier fire was more destructive than the later one. In addition, a major fire of exactly this sort is referred to also by Obseq. 65 (see commentary ad loc.): he dates it to 50 bc, and refers to it as a portent of the civil war. 66  As does Reed (1973), 771–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

218 Commentary Dio 41.14.3 also refers to a major fire around that time which was seen as a portent of civil war, and which destroyed, among other things, the temple of Quirinus. Dio includes it as part of his narrative of 49 bc, but he makes it clear that some of the portents he is listing at this point occurred the year before.67 The association that Dio makes between his fire and the civil war makes it highly probable that his fire is the one mentioned by Obsequens and Orosius, and hence also by Livy. The dating to 50 appears to conflict with the dating of AUC 700, which would place the fire two or three years earlier, but this latter dating almost certainly derives from Orosius, who uses AUC dates constantly (and includes this same one at 6.14.5), rather than from Livy, who uses them rarely (cf. F 11n.), and Orosius’ AUC dates are so frequently in conflict both with one another and with the history known from other sources that we should have no hesitation about ignoring it here. For a likely source of Orosius’ chronological confusion here cf. below. Accordingly, Livy narrated the fire under 50 b c. The question is whether this places it in Book 108 or 109. The Periochae is on the face of things of little direct help, since the last events described in Per. 108 are from 51, the first events in Per. 109 from 50 (see nn. ad loc.); an event from the beginning of 50 could, accordingly, occur in either. However, the fact that Obsequens explicitly relates the fire to the beginning of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, and that Periochae 109 says that the book contains the causae and initia of that civil war, makes it highly probable that the two took place in the same book, namely 109.68 There is no reason to doubt that all the information in the passage (apart from the date) derives from Livy: he might well have referred to Augustus’ restoration at the point when he mentioned the fire. It is also highly likely that Livy treated the fire not only as unprecedented in its destructiveness, but also as a portent of civil war, something which is explicit in both Obsequens and Dio, and implicit in the way Orosius singles the fire out as a key disaster that was all but equivalent to the ruin of the entire city. We can compare the way that Lucan 1.521–695 (cf. 1.70–84), who is drawing at least in part on Livy (cf. F 40n.), sees the beginning of the Civil War as presaged by a series of portents that are collectively tantamount to the destruction of Rome. conditionis: = ‘existence’: an unparalleled use of the word, presumably Orosius’ rather than Livy’s. quattuordecim vicos: The vici were neighbourhoods of the city of Rome which, at least by the late Republic, were organized communities with administrative officers and functions. In the Flavian period there were 265 (Plin., Nat. 3.66), and

67  Dio 41.14.2 τούτῳ τε τῷ ἔτει καὶ ὀλίγον ἔμπροσθεν. 68  Contra Jal (1979), 269, following Madvig.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  219 at the time Livy was writing Book 109, which was almost certainly after Augustus’ restructuring of the city administration in 7 bc, it was probably a similar number (Lott (2004), 15). We have no direct evidence for the number in the late Republic, but it is probable that there were fewer, since part of Augustus’ reforms extended Rome’s formal administrative structure to neighbourhoods which were previously seen as outside the city (cf. e.g. Haselberger (2007), 228–37). It is impossible to tell whether Livy’s count of fourteen vici referred to those at the time of the fire or those at the time when he was writing. For the vici see Lott (2004), Tarpin (2008). Our sources give two indications of the part of the city affected by the fire, but apparently incompatible ones. Oros. 6.14.5 mentions the Vicus Iugarius, which ran from the Porta Carmentalis south-­west of the Capitol, around the south side of the Capitol into the Forum. Dio, on the other hand, refers to the destruction of the Temple of Quirinus. The precise location of the temple is controversial, but it is likely to have been just inside the Servian Wall on the northern slope of the Quirinal hill (see esp. Coarelli (2014), 83–112, locating it in the grounds of the modern Palazzo Barberini (contra Carandini, Atlas 1.457–8 with Tab. 181)). It does not appear possible that both of these could have been destroyed in the same fire. On the face of things Orosius’ information would appear more useful in determining the extent of the fire here: it might derive, like his later citation, from Livy, whereas it is only by inference that Dio’s fire is identified with this one. However, another consideration makes it seem highly unlikely that the region around the Vicus Iugarius suffered so extensive a destruction: the centrality of that neighbourhood, and the number of major public buildings in that part of Rome (none of which is attested as having been destroyed at this time), make it appear im­pos­ sible that those could be the vici which were devastated and remained unrestored until Augustus. It is far more likely that Orosius’ mention of the Vicus Iugarius is confused, and there is a simple explanation for his confusion (cf. Jal (1979), 270–1). In early 52 bc, at the funeral of Clodius, a mob of his supporters burned down the Curia Hostilia (Cic., Mil. 13, 33, 61, 90–1, Ascon., Mil. 33C, Pliny, Nat. 34.21, Dio 40.49.2; cf. Per. 107.2n.), which stood at one end of the Vicus Iugarius (P. Virgili in LTUR vol. 5, 169–70). This was, on one of the dating schemes Orosius appears to have used, 700 years after the foundation of Rome.69 The overwhelming likelihood is that Orosius has conflated the two fires:70 (1) the one at the death of Clodius that took place in the Forum, which affected the Vicus Iugarius, and 69  Shortly beforehand, at 6.13.1, Orosius referred to the consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 55 bc as the 697th year after the foundation: this would place the 700th year in 52. 70  As indeed is implied by his language at 6.14.5: quattuordecim vicos cum vico Iugario consumptos fuisse (‘fourteen vici along with the vicus Iugarius were devoured’). That phrasing might well arise from Orosius conflating a fire in which fourteen vici were destroyed with an earlier one where the vicus Iugarius was affected.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

220 Commentary which was associated with the 700th anniversary of Rome, and (2) the one which took place two years later, which Livy described as the greatest blaze Rome had ever suffered, and in which fourteen vici (along with the Temple of Quirinus) were destroyed. incertum unde consurgens flamma: One might logically expect incerta, but incertum is here being used ‘parenthetically’, a not uncommon construction: see TLL VII.1 879.6–22. nec umquam . . . maiore incendio vastata est: Given the likely size and number of vici (above), the destruction of fourteen of them impacted directly more than 5 per cent of the city and tens of thousands of people. Such a level of ruin and ­displacement of the city population is rarely remarked on by modern scholars: it remained largely invisible in the ancient, and hence the modern, sources. The fact that the fire occurred immediately prior to the civil wars, with the still greater destruction that they involved, may explain something of that invisibility. Another explanation is that the segment of the city affected (on my argument above), though substantial, was probably peripheral within the overall urban environment of Rome: the relative absence of known monuments from the Republican period in that neighbourhood, apart from the Temple of Quirinus itself, is very revealing (cf. Padilla Peralta (2020), 126–7 for the way in which the clustering of temples in certain parts of the city priv­il­eged those inhabitants). Both of these—­the civil wars, and the marginality of the area affected—­ presumably also explain another fact that scholars rarely remark: that, if Livy is to be believed (and there seems little reason to doubt him), this substantial area of the city remained significantly ruined for perhaps a period of nearly thirty-­five years (see below). This does not mean, of course, that no buildings were rebuilt prior to Augustus, nor that the vici in question remained uninhabited. Even apart from the Temple of Quirinus (below), which may reasonably be regarded as a special case, parallels from destroyed cities in the con­tem­por­ ary world suggest that individual land­ owners would where feasible have restored their property to some degree, and that in a city where living accommodation was at a premium poorer people would have erected makeshift dwellings among the ruins.71 post aliquot annos Caesar Augustus ad reparationem eorum quae tunc exusta erant magnam vim pecuniae ex aerario publico largitus sit: It appears from Dio 43.45.3 that some restoration of the Temple of Quirinus took place soon after the fire, since a statue to Caesar was set up in it in 45 bc; but it subsequently received a far grander restoration under Augustus in 16 bc (Dio 54.19.4, August., R.Gest.

71  For the ad hoc creation of makeshift living conditions after disasters when the authorities are unable or unwilling to provide systematic rebuilding, see e.g. Bell (2013), 131–4 (on Port-­au-­Prince following the massive earthquake in Haiti in January 2010).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  221 19.2). This is the most plausible context for Augustus’ restoration of the surrounding neighbourhoods as well. F 39 Orosius cites Livy on Caesar’s address to his troops after crossing the Rubicon. This fragment is certainly from Book 109, as Per. 109 confirms. It is plausible to assume that the words cum quibus . . . orbem terrarum adortus est are, if not a direct quotation, at any rate a very close paraphrase of Livy. It would be rash to assume that anything else in Orosius’ account is close to Livy, except the information that Caesar was addressing ‘five cohorts’ (see below), without which Livy’s statement would appear to have little point. Rubicone flumine transmeato: The Rubicon lay between Ravenna and Ariminum, and formed the boundary between Italy and Cisalpine Gaul; it is widely identified with the modern Pisciatello (BarrAtl Map 40 C4; cf. Aebischer (1944)). Caesar himself does not even refer to crossing it, but that must be for reasons of propaganda, since he had little interest in marking the point at which his invasion of Italy formally transgressed the limits of what was permitted to him (Stanton (2003), 71–2). Later writers like Orosius—­and very pos­sibly Livy—­made far more of it, and various more or less well-­founded anecdotes circulated concerning the crossing: see e.g. Vell. 2.49.4, Lucan 1.185–227, Plu., Caes. 32.5–9, Pomp. 60.2, Suet., Jul. 31.2–33; some of the ma­ter­ial may go back to Asinius Pollio, whom Plutarch mentions as an eye-­witness (Caes. 32.7: cf. Haller (1967), 141–2, Morgan (2000), 54–5). mox, ut Ariminum venit . . . edocuit: This contradicts Caes., Civ. 1.7, who claims to have made his major address to his troops at Ravenna, not at Ariminum. App., BC 2.33 follows Caesar, but Lucan 1.299–351, Suet., Jul. 33, Dio 41.4.1 all have the same sequence as Livy. Here, too, Livy is more likely to be correct: Caesar appears to have predated his speech so as to make it appear that it occurred before his attack on Italy, and that both of these were an immediate response to the Senate’s moves against him (Wensler (1989), suggesting that Livy’s source was Pollio). For Ariminum cf. Per. 15.4n. quinque cohortes, quae tunc solas habebat: Here too Livy and Orosius contra­ dict Caesar, who states that he came to Ariminum with an entire legion, the 13th (Civ. 1.7.8). In this particular instance Caesar may be assumed to be correct72—if anything he is underestimating rather than overestimating the number of troops

72  Contra Canfora (1999), 159–65, who argues that Caesar was attempting to conceal his plans even from his own troops, and hence that Livy and Suetonius are correct in representing him as reaching Ariminum with just a few cohorts; along similar lines, Bicknell and Nielsen (1998), 156–61 argue that Caesar initially only took five cohorts to Ariminum because of concerns about the loyalties of some of his troops. But both of these arguments take too little account of the fundamental logistics of the campaign: see the next note.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

222 Commentary available to him.73 Possibly the story of the ‘five cohorts’ arose because there were ten in a legion, and Caesar shortly afterwards sent Antony from Ariminum to Arretium with the other five (Civ. 1.11.4; cf. Jal (1979), 271). Its appearance in Livy shows that the tradition, though untrue, was an early one; it perhaps took hold because the drama of Caesar’s victory in the civil war is enhanced if the forces initially at his disposal were minimized. Suet., Jul. 31 likewise speaks of cohortes at the time of Caesar’s initial invasion, though he does not give an exact number. Plu., Caes. 32.1, Pomp. 60.1, and App., BC 2.34 follow Caesar. orbem terrarum adortus est: The idea that Caesar by launching the civil war was effectively attacking the world is found also in Plu., Caes. 33.1; cf. Flor. 2.13.3. F 40 Towards the end of Georgics Book 1, Virgil lists a series of prodigies that occurred at the time of the death of Caesar (Virg., Georg. 1.466–88). One of those is the eruption of Mount Etna (Virg., Georg. 1.471–3); commenting on that, Servius notes that Livy described the severity of the eruption at that time. Previous editions have placed this fragment, as Servius indicates it should be placed, directly before Caesar’s death, and hence in Book 116. However, there is a problem. No other source (apart from Virgil) mentions an eruption of Etna among the prodigies at the time of Caesar’s death—­indeed, it does not even appear in the poetic account of Ov., Met. 15.783–98; it is also not listed by Obseq. 67, who is drawing directly on Livy, among the omens of Caesar’s as­sas­sin­ation. This absence is a little worrying, given the interest other writers show in the subject.74 It is true that Obsequens is far from comprehensive in the prodigy listings he takes from Livy, and it is also true that other writers who listed such omens tended to favour the ones which related more immediately and directly to the assassination, such as Caesar’s wife’s dream (F 59n.). But it is also true that Servius’ citations of Livy are not always accurate (see esp. F 12n.; also F 25n., CC 3, 6, 36), and the possibility should be considered that he (or his source) has garbled something here as well. And in fact there is a further indication that he has done so. Both Lucan 1.545–7 and Petron. 122.135–6 mention the eruption of Etna, not directly before Caesar’s assassination, but at the time of Caesar’s invasion of Italy, and Lucan’s description contains one feature that strongly indicates that he is describing the same eruption as in Servius’ report of Livy, namely that the fire—­exceptionally75— reached the Italian mainland (cf. below). Admittedly, Lucan and Petronius are writing 73  See Ehrhardt (1995), 37–8, demonstrating that Caesar minimized the number of troops he had available at the start of his campaign in order to conceal the extent that he was preparing for war. 74  Apart from Virgil, Ovid, and Livy (and Obsequens), prodigies foreshadowing Caesar’s death are also mentioned by Cic., Div. 1.119 (cf. 2.36–7), Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 130.23–4, Vell. 2.57.2, Val. Max. 1.6.13, Plin., Nat. 11.176, Plu., Caes. 63, Suet., Jul. 81.1–3, App., BC 2.115, Flor. 2.13.94, Dio 44.17. See also F 59n. 75  No other eruption of Etna, ancient or modern, is reported as having this feature: see the tables in Tanguy et al. (2007), 58–62.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  223 poetry, and moreover poetry that is influenced by this very passage of the Georgics: it might be thought that they simply transferred Virgil’s omen to a new context (so e.g. Martindale (1976), 52). But Lucan also regularly draws on Livy, and the similarity noted above (not shared by Virgil) suggests that he may be doing so in the case of Etna,76 which makes it more probable that he is adapting part of Livy that ­covered the same period as he did. It should also be remarked that even Virgil’s account of the eruption, while linking it, like the other prodigies, to Caesar’s death in a general sense, is not very specific about the time it occurred: the phrase quotiens . . . vidimus (Georg. 1.471–2) suggests a generic rather than a singular event. If the argument above is accepted, then we should allow that Servius’ phrase ante mortem Caesaris is not a paraphrase or reference to anything in Livy, but a vague attempt to link Virgil’s account to an historical source, a source which in all likelihood Servius himself had not consulted at first hand. Livy’s account of the eruption of Etna, like Lucan’s and Petronius’, placed it at the start of the Civil War (cf. F 38n. for the significance of such prodigies in Livy’s narrative of the war). The absence from Obsequens is still a concern, but less of one, since it may come from a prodigy notice that Obsequens has passed over completely. The question still remains which book Livy reported it in; 109, the first book of the Civil War, is by far the most probable, although it should not necessarily be assumed that he reported it at exactly the same point of the war as Lucan did. fumi . . . globos: There is no parallel to this phrase in classical Latin; apart from this passage, it is first attested in the sixth century. Accordingly, some late MSS read fumum, but it would be rash to emend Servius on that basis. Regina civitas: The town of Regium (more usually called Rhegium by modern ­scholars), the modern Reggio Calabria, on the east side of the Strait of Messina (BarrAtl Map 46 C5). For the version of the name used here see AE 1923, 60. Cf. also Per. 12.5n. Rhegium lies more than 65 km from the crater of Etna as the crow flies. It is highly improbable that the heated material from an eruption could reach that distance across a sea, but it is commonplace for volcanic ash to do so in substantial quantities,77 and it is easy to see how that could be exaggerated into the report found in Livy and Lucan. afflaretur: ‘Blasted with flames’: see OLD s.v. afflo 5a. F 41 Lucan 3.181–2, as part of his catalogue of Pompey’s allies in the east, notes that the Athenians were able to supply only ‘few ships’ (3.182 exiguae . . . puppes). 76  Note also Radicke (2004), 193–5, arguing from a comparison between Lucan and Dio 41.14 that the broad shape of Lucan’s account of the prodigies on the eve of the war derives from Livy. 77  Two recent examples: https://www.progettoitalianews.net/news/reggio-­calabria-­invasa-­dalla-­ cenere-­delletna/ and https://www.ildenaro.it/etna-­in-­eruzione-­aeroporto-­reggio-­calabria-­chiuso-­per-­ la-­cenere/ (both consulted 23 July 2019).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

224 Commentary Explaining that line, the Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.) quotes Livy’s comment that two ships came from Athens. The Commenta attributes the quotation to ‘the first book of the Civil War’, which the Periochae identifies with Book 109 (see further the Introduction, xxx–xxxi); it presumably comes from some sort of survey of Pompey’s forces at the point when he left Italy and went east (cf. Per. 109.4n.). Athenienses de tanta maritima gloria vix duas naves effecere: Livy elsewhere marks the contrast between Athens at her height and her degenerate state at the time when she came into contact with Rome: see e.g. 31.14.6, 34.23.5, 45.28.11, and cf. more generally Levene (2017). For naves efficere (= ‘produce ships’) see Livy 23.33.10; also cf. 26.39.5. The only other writer to note Athenian assistance for Pompey is App., BC 2.70, but he does not quantify it. F 42 Lucan 3.59 refers briefly to Caesar ordering Curio to cross to Sicily; the Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.) expands the point by noting that he drove Cato from there. This is more likely to be a paraphrase of Livy than a direct quotation, not least because it is unlikely that Livy narrated the episode in a single sentence. The para­phrase may draw to some extent on Livy’s language, since Oros. 6.15.7, who may well be directly or indirectly dependent on Livy, uses very similar wording to the scholiast (Curio Catonem Sicilia expulit); but it is also possible that both the scholiast and Orosius took it from some epitome. It is unclear whether Livy narrated the episode in Book 109 or 110. The last event recorded in Per. 109 is Pompey’s abandoning of Italy, the first of Per. 110 is Caesar’s siege of Marseilles; and the other sources which give the sequence of events (Caes., Civ. 1.30.3–5, App., BC 2.40) record Cato’s abandoning of Sicily in between those two. Marcum Catonem: M. Porcius Cato Uticensis, also known as Cato the Younger (RE 16), 95–46 bc He is one of the best-­known figures of the late Republic, less because of his conventional achievements (he never became consul: the highest office he achieved was a praetorship in 54) than because of his principled stand against Caesar and his ultimate suicide when defeated in Africa, which led immediately to his posthumous celebration as a martyr to the Republic. For Cato’s life and career see e.g. Fehrle (1983), Drogula (2019); also Goar (1987) for the ‘Cato legend’ that grew up after his death. expulit provincia: Cato had been given Sicily as a province after Caesar’s invasion of Italy in early 49; according to Cic., Att. 10.16.3 he abandoned it on 23 April of the same year. The implicit subject of this sentence is Curio, as in Lucan; similarly in Caesar (Civ. 1.30.3–5; cf. Dio 41.41.1, Oros. 6.15.7) it is the imminent arrival of Curio

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  225 that led Cato to abandon Sicily, less because of his own lack of preparation than because he felt abandoned by Pompey. However, there is a very different version in Plu., Cat. Mi. 53.1–3 and App., BC 2.40, according to which the trigger for Cato’s leaving Sicily was not Curio, but Asinius Pollio, who was sent by Caesar and told Cato that Pompey had left Italy, whereupon Cato decided to join him rather than engage in war in Sicily to the detriment of the province. It is a rea­son­ able assumption that this second version goes back to Pollio’s own history. It is not difficult to reconcile the two accounts purely in terms of the his­tor­ic­al facts (cf. Haller (1967), 25–9, Fehrle (1983), 250–1). Plutarch (Cat. Mi. 53.3) refers in passing to another force coming to support Pollio, which can plaus­ibly be identified with Curio’s, and Appian indicates that Pollio was serving under Curio shortly afterwards in Africa (BC 2.45). We can infer that Curio sent Pollio ahead of the main army to negotiate with Cato, and subsequent to that meeting Cato decided to leave Sicily. Nevertheless, the emphasis, and the explanation for Cato’s flight, is very different in the two accounts: in the Caesarian version Cato is simply withdrawing in the face of superior forces, whereas in Plutarch and Appian he is altruistically seeking to avoid a conflict which he thought he could in prin­ ciple even have won. It is hard to decide which version is closer to the truth. The latter is clearly ­coloured by the legend of the noble Cato that grew up after his death, but Caesar’s avoidance of it may be no less coloured by his well-­known resistance to the growth of that legend (cf. F 58n.). Cicero’s immediate response to the news of Cato’s withdrawal possibly supports Pollio’s version—­he was surprised and disappointed that Cato left the field, given that (in his view) he could easily have held the province against Curio (Att. 10.16.3; cf. 10.12.2)—but this was obviously based on limited information and perhaps excessive optimism. On the face of things, Livy, by making the agent for Cato’s withdrawal Curio rather than Pollio, appears to be deliberately choosing to follow Caesar’s own account over Pollio’s, unlike with the initial invasion of Italy, where he rejects Caesar’s sequence of events in favour of (probably) Pollio’s (cf. F 39n.). expulit likewise makes more sense if Livy was following the Caesarian version, rather one where Cato quixotically left Sicily without being compelled to do so. But it can hardly be ruled out that Livy found some way of bringing Pollio into the story, or at least of maintaining Cato’s motives from the Pollio version even while attributing the primary responsibility to Curio (as indeed Dio later does). Certainly the relatively limited evidence we have for Livy’s attitude to Cato places him in the generally laudatory tradition that prevailed in the post-­Caesarian era (see F 58n., and cf. Goar (1987), 28–9). F 43 The fragment appears as part of the argumentum for the Pro Ligario in the Scholia Gronoviana, a series of notes on Cicero found in a tenth-­century manuscript. It

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

226 Commentary relates to events in Africa in 49 bc, where P. Attius Varus had seized the province on behalf of the Pompeians, and prevented L. Aelius Tubero, the designated governor, from landing there; Tubero went to join Pompey in Greece. Varus was later confronted by Curio, who was acting on behalf of Caesar, and Curio was defeated and killed. As with F 42 (see ad loc.), Caesar’s account of Tubero’s attempt to reach Africa (Civ. 1.31.2–3) sets it between the events recorded by Livy in Book 109 and those in Book 110, and it is impossible to know in which of the two Livy reported it. Previous editors have ascribed to Livy not only the sentence in which he described Tubero’s exclusion from Africa and flight to Pompey, but also the next one, in which Curio arrives, but nothing in the text indicates that. Even on a restricted definition of the fragment, however, it seems im­pos­sible that Livy could have narrated the events in anything like this form. The proof is the supposed account of Tubero going to Africa, and then joining Pompey, cum Pansa patre. According to both Caesar and Cicero (Lig. 23) Tubero, who, as the sequel shows, was a supporter of Pompey, was travelling with his own son. C. Vibius Pansa was a firm adherent of Caesar, who certainly did not go to join Pompey in Greece; the very limited evidence for the career of his father makes it highly improbable that he did either, or indeed that Livy could have represented him as doing so (cf. Gundel (1958), 1954, Jal (1979), 276). It is clear that the scholiast has garbled something, and it is easy to see the source of the error. He is inferring the events in part from Pro Ligario itself. Q. Ligarius (who had actually been the person who excluded Tubero on Varus’ behalf ) was being accused both by Tubero’s son and by Pansa, and Cicero refers to them in conjunction at the start of the speech (Lig. 1). Clearly the scholiast has conflated the prosecutors with Livy’s account (which was obviously not being consulted at first hand), and is assuming that the prosecutor Tubero was the designated governor, and that this Tubero sailed to Africa with Pansa’s father rather than his own (Jal (1979), 275). In short, all we can reasonably tell from this fragment is that Livy reported Tubero’s repulse from Africa: not a single other detail can be assumed to go back to him (cf. also below). Tubero: L. Aelius Tubero (RE 150). He was a close friend and associate of Cicero, and is known to have written a history. His son Q. Aelius Tubero, the prosecutor of Ligarius and later a distinguished jurist, also appears to have written a history; ancient citations unfortunately do not usually distinguish which Tubero is being cited. The tendency to confuse the two Tuberos goes beyond their written work, and is probably one reason for the scholiast’s garb­ling of the history here (cf. above). See S. P. Oakley in FRHist 1.361–4. oppressus est: The unqualified use of this word implies physical violence, which may well be another garbling by the scholiast: certainly no other source suggests that the Tuberos suffered any such thing when they were kept from Africa.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  227 quererentur: Stangl’s emendation of the MS quaereretur, corrected to quaererentur by a second hand. Given the confusion of the narrative, it is hardly possible to prove that the scholiast did not think that Tubero was ‘being sought after’ when he fled to Pompey, but quererentur is attractive precisely because the scholiast is partly constructing the account out of Cicero’s speech, as noted above, and Cicero repeatedly refers to the Tuberos ‘complaining’ about their treatment (Lig. 9, 23, 25). F 44 The fragment is quoted in the Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.), commenting on Lucan’s version of the speech of L. Afranius appealing for Caesar’s mercy after he and his troops surrendered in Spain (4.344–62): it is specifically attached to Afranius’ point that the victory was achieved without killing, and the commentator accordingly notes a moment in Livy’s version of the speech when Afranius made a similar point. The victory in Spain and Afranius’ surrender are confirmed by Per. 110.1 to belong to that book. Caesar provided a brief version of Afranius’ speech in Civ. 1.84.3–5, where Afranius makes none of the points attributed to him by Livy, but simply notes that their one fault was loyalty to Pompey, and that they were surrendering because they were in dire straits. Livy’s version may well have been his own composition. et duceremur imbelles milites: The MS reads et duces sumus in bello milites, which seems impossible. Various emendations have been proposed. Novák has Afranius make the same point as he does in Caes., Civ. 1.84.3 and Lucan 4.349–51—that the troops’ only fault was loyalty to Pompey—­but that reading detaches the first half of the sentence from the second. All other editors have related it to the final appeal Afranius makes in Lucan 4.356–62, namely that Caesar should excuse the surrendered troops from having to fight on his side. However, they have Afranius make an argument for that appeal, which is in fact not present in Lucan, namely that their defeat shows that they would not benefit Caesar in any case. The simplest emend­ation palaeograph­ ic­al­ly is Müller’s correction of milites to inutiles, but that is less obviously suited to the argument, since one would expect Afranius to be appealing on behalf of all his troops, not only the commanders. Better is Usener’s ulli usui in place of sumus—­ the rhetorical question seems very Livian—­but et duces (‘and will you think?’) is uncomfortably stilted, and I doubt that Livy would have laid himself open to the ambiguity with duces (‘generals’). Better still is Ogilvie’s inutiles . . . milites (he pertinently compares Livy 29.1.6 inutiles milites rei publicae esse); but the blunt indicative statement seems unacceptably bald. I have therefore tentatively offered my own proposal: the paradoxical imbelles milites is admittedly unparalleled, but so too is the paradoxical sine sanguine vincere, which completes the thought.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

228 Commentary F 45 Lucan 5.481–97 describes how Caesar, after crossing the Adriatic with part of his forces to confront Pompey, sends messages to Antony, who is holding back in Italy, ordering him to bring the remainder of his army over. Lucan’s Caesar insists (5.493–4) that his troops will come even though the crossing is hazardous. Commenting on this passage, the Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.) offers a parallel statement made by Caesar in Livy. Per. 110 ends with Caesar crossing the Adriatic; Per. 111.4 picks up his campaign at Dyrrachium, after Antony’s arrival. It is, accordingly, impossible to be sure which book Livy recorded the appeal to Antony in. Book 111 must be considered more probable, since that book certainly contained the insurrection and deaths of Caelius and Milo (Per. 111.1), which Caesar himself recorded prior to his account of his appeal to Antony (Civ. 3.20–2; cf. Civ. 3.25.3); but we are not entitled to assume that Livy adopted the same narrative sequence as Caesar did. Caesar’s appeal to Antony is also mentioned in Plu., Ant. 7.1, Dio 41.46.1. No other source apart from Lucan and (presumably) Livy gives a detailed version of what he said. F 46 Lucan’s account of the battle of Pharsalus refers to the first man to cast a weapon, Caesar’s soldier Gaius Crastinus. Both the Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.) and the scholia to Lucan collected in the so-­called Adnotationes super Lucanum cite Livy’s account of Crastinus, the Adnotationes offering what purports to be a direct ­quotation, the Commenta a paraphrase. Both W-­M and Jal list these as separate ­fragments, but the information in them closely overlaps (the only significant difference is that the Commenta offers more details about Crastinus’ precise status), and I have preferred to treat them as two versions of the same fragment. Per. 111.4 shows that Pharsalus, and hence this fragment, belongs in that book. The additional information in the Commenta, that Crastinus was an evocatus and had been a centurion primi pili in the previous year, is confirmed by Caes., Civ. 3.91.1. The puzzle is how, if the version in the Adnotationes is indeed a direct quotation, Livy incorporated this extra information, which would nat­ur­al­ly appear to belong in the same sentence. One possibility is that the quoted sentence in the Adnotationes is an introduction to Crastinus, which Livy will then elaborate later. However, the sentence in the Adnotationes contains oddities which make it look unlikely to represent Livy’s actual wording (see below), and it is more probable that it too, despite appearances, is paraphrasing rather than quoting him. Little more about Crastinus is known about him than the information that Livy provides here, versions of which are also not only in Caesar and Lucan, but also in Plu., Caes. 44.9–12, Pomp. 71.1–3, Flor. 2.13.36, App., BC 2.82.78 All of these 78  Note, however, the very different version of Dio 41.58, who not only does not mention Crastinus, but implicitly has no place for him: in his account, the troops on both sides were unwilling to begin the battle, and when they were simultaneously compelled to do so, engaged with uniform reluctance.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  229 (apart from Lucan) add the information (found first in Caes., Civ. 3.99.2–3) that he was killed in the battle. nuper pilo sumpto primo: primo pilo refers to the fact that Crastinus was the senior centurion of the legion: the centurion leading the first century. However, sumere primum pilum is an unparalleled phrase; it appears to imply literally taking up a weapon, which was not how the role of the senior centurion was usually conceptualized (though see Plin., Nat. 22.11 primum pilum . . . capessens). The centurion was called centurio primi pili (sc. ‘the centurion OF the primum pilum), as if they were the troops he led, not the weapon he held (or else the term was applied to him directly, so that he was called primus pilus or primipilus, as is usually the case in epigraphy). Similarly, the usual metaphor to describe his actions is ducere primum pilum, as at Livy 7.13.1, 42.34.11, or deducere primum pilum.79 This indeed the phrase used of Crastinus in the Commenta Bernensia, as it is also at Caes., Civ. 3.91.1. Moreover, the idea that Crastinus had only ‘recently’ reached that position, as if he were new to it at Pharsalus, looks like a misunderstanding. The evidence suggests that typically a centurion held the rank for only a year, though reappointment was possible (Dobson (1978), 2–3, 60). Caesar says that Crastinus had held that position in the previous year in the 10th legion, implying that he was no longer holding it at Pharsalus, and once again the Commenta Bernensia correctly reproduces that information. For a full study of the rank and its holders (chiefly in the imperial period), see Dobson (1978); for the complexities of the nomenclature, see esp. Wolff (2004). evocatum: In the imperial period the word was used to describe the troops who remained in the army beyond the term of their military service, some of whom were formed into distinct units. However, in the Republic it referred to people who enlisted in armies outside the regular military levy; in the time of Caesar these were often veteran soldiers who were recalled to arms by gen­erals when raising troops (Linderski (1984), esp. 77–8). The latter is usually taken to be the primary sense in this period; but note the cautious reservations of Cadiou (2010), arguing that although some evocati (like Crastinus) were veterans, there is no clear case for suggesting that the term itself had taken on this more restrictive meaning. F 47 This fragment is one of a set of portents that Plutarch relates which predicted Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus. The same story is found Obseq. 65a, and versions of it appear in Lucan 7.192–200, Gell. 15.18, Dio 41.61.4–5, and Sidon., Carm. 9.195–6. It is more or less certain that all of these ultimately depend on Livy, who introduced this local anecdote into the historical record: Plutarch emphasizes 79  Cf. Livy 42.32.7 primos pilos deduxerant, with an exceptional masculine plural form: see Briscoe (2012), 259.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

230 Commentary Livy’s authority three times in the passage, noting that Cornelius was a fellow Paduan and also a personal acquaintance of his. Dependence on Livy is of little surprise in the case of Obsequens, Lucan, and Dio; it is more remarkable for Gellius, who never mentions Livy, and who ostentatiously favours the works of pre-­Livian historians (Holford-­Strevens (2003), 247–55). It is possible that Gellius is drawing on Livy at second hand—­Holford-­Strevens (2003), 248 suggests he is using an anthology of prodigies—­but it should not be ruled out that Gellius might simply be concealing his one-­time use of an author he usually despised. Certainly it looks possible that Gellius preserves aspects of Livy that Plutarch and Obsequens do not. His version is far more extravagant and dramatic than Plutarch’s, with Cornelius not merely predicting the outcome of the battle, but using the birds to describe every turn of events within it. But this does not look simply like a post-­Livian improvement of the story, since Dio (who may perhaps go back to Livy himself: cf. Latte (1959), 142)80 offers a similar version, though with less detail about the vicissitudes that Cornelius supposedly narrated. Hence we can hypothesize that Livy himself did the same: Gellius’ vigorous detail does not, admittedly, seem very like Livy, but some of that could be his own (or his source’s) embellishment of an account that originally looked more like Dio. Livy probably narrated the event with his account of Pharsalus in Book 111 (cf. F 46n.), perhaps after the battle, where not only Plutarch but also Dio places it.81 There is no particular reason to think that Livy reported it as an eye-­witness—­on the usual dating of his life (T 1n.) he would have been eleven years old at the time—­but it is highly likely that he had personal information from Cornelius himself, and perhaps also other observers (whose presence Plutarch mentions more than once). In the surviving parts of the history it is extremely rare for Livy to give any indication of autopsy or personal knowledge (though note 21.47.5), but it is al­together plausible to assume that this changed as his history moved closer to his own day. Latte (1959), on the basis of inconsistencies between this narrative and augural practice, argues that the entire episode was invented by Livy himself; but, while that is possible, such scepticism is unnecessary—­the details are less problematic than Latte suggests (cf. below), and in any case could easily have entered the anecdote prior to its being told to Livy.

80  Contra Westall (2016), 53–7, who claims that the differences between Dio’s and Plutarch’s narratives tell against direct use of Livy, as also does Dio’s omission of the dream of Pompey found at Obseq. 65a, which is surprising given Dio’s general interest in such dreams. The second argument is rea­son­ able, though Dio may have had other reasons for omitting it, not least because Livy may well not have narrated the dream in the same part of his narrative as he narrated the Cornelius prodigy. The first is weaker, in as much as Westall does not consider the possibility that the differences are the result of Plutarch’s adaptation rather than Dio’s. 81 Caes., Civ. 3.105.2–5, reporting a different set of omens of his victory, likewise narrates them after the battle (though App., BC 2.68 and Flor. 2.13.45 place omens before the battle). Portents of Pharsalus are also described by Cic., Div. 1.68–9 (cf. 2.114), Val. Max. 1.6.12 (with Paris’ and Nepotianus’ epit­ omes), Plin., Nat. 17.244: the overlap between much of this and Obseq. 65a (cf. ad loc.) shows that these too appeared in Livy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  231

Παταβίῳ: Patavium, the modern Padua (BarrAtl Map 40 B2). The home town of Livy (TT 1, 9, 35, 43, 44, 45); it was originally founded by the Veneti, though a legend alluded to by Livy himself attributed the foundation to the Trojan Antenor (1.1.2–3). It was a prosperous town, which had become a municipium the year prior to Pharsalus, when Caesar extended Roman citizenship to the Transpadine region. For a survey of its history and archaeology see Gasparotto (1951), Tosi (1987); also Sartori (1981a). ἀνὴρ εὐδόκιμος ἐπὶ μαντικῇ . . . ἐτύγχανεν ἐπ’ οἰωνοῖς καθήμενος ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν: Latte (1959), 141 doubts the historicity of this: he argues that Cornelius is being characterized as an augur, since they were (he suggests) the only kind of priest that would habitually engage in watching birds, but an augur would not be expected to produce a detailed prophecy about the date or the outcome of a­ battle, since their role was only to advise whether or not the gods favoured a ­certain action (cf. Linderski (1986), 2236). But although the phrase ἐπ’ οἰωνοῖς καθήμενος might be taken to imply augury (cf. e.g. Plu., Rom. 22.1), it would be a mistake to press that point: contrary to what Latte claims, we do have significant evidence for bird-­interpretation by other kinds of diviners in Italy, notably the Etruscan haruspices (cf. F 18n.), whose div­in­atory practice also allowed more detailed prophecies of exactly the sort Cornelius offers here.82 Moreover, even if Cornelius was an augur, Padua had only recently received Roman citizenship, and the slender evidence that we have for non-­Roman augurs suggests that they did not follow the same rules and procedures as the Roman (cf. Cic., Div. 2.70).83 We should not, of course, necessarily imagine that Cornelius was a haruspex either; but in the light of our limited evidence, it is overly sceptical to assume that a story of divination at Padua, the details of which we cannot parallel elsewhere, is thereby suspect. ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν: 9 August, according to the Fasti Amiternini and the Fasti Antiates Min.: cf. Degrassi, Fast. Ann. 493. ἀνήλατο μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ βοῶν: It was common to distinguish ‘artificial’ div­in­ ation like augury, where the diviner interprets signs according to set rules, and ‘natural’ divination, where someone is inspired by a dream or frenzy (e.g. Pl., Phdr. 244D, Cic., Div. 1.11; cf. Pease (1920–3), 70–1). Here the two are ef­fect­ive­ly combined: the diviner is examining the signs using his art—­but his conclusion that Caesar is victorious appears in a sudden moment of inspiration. “νικᾷς ὦ Καῖσαρ”: The direct address to Caesar suggests that Cornelius—­and perhaps the bystanders—­was assumed to be among his supporters, and pleased by the victory (cf. Gasparotto (1951), 30). That would hardly be surprising in a region which Caesar had recently enfranchised and which had contributed

82  See the evidence assembled by Thulin (1906–9), 3.106–15. 83  For augurs outside Rome see Wissowa (1896), 2342–4; cf. CIL V 2854 for a local augur at Padua.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

232 Commentary s­ ignificant forces to his army (see App., BC 2.70; cf. Per. 110.4n.); but it is worth emphasizing in the light of the claim that Livy was in some sense a ‘Pompeian’ (T 7n.).

περιελὼν τὸν στέϕανον ἀπὸ τῆς κεϕαλῆς: Augurs at Rome performed div­in­ation not wearing wreaths, but with head covered (Linderski (1986), 2251); but wreaths were widely used in other forms of ceremony across the Mediterranean world (see esp. Fiebiger (1901)). There is, accordingly, no surprise to find a diviner of unspecified background wearing one (contra Latte (1959), 141). F 48 The Commenta Bernensia (F 31n.), commenting on Lucan’s account of a speech that Cicero supposedly gave to Pompey’s troops before the battle of Pharsalus (7.62–85), observes that it is fictional, since Cicero was not present at the battle. Per. 111.4, mentioning Cicero’s absence (cf. below), confirms that the fragment belongs in that book. The basic fact of Cicero’s absence is true (cf. Cic., Fam. 9.18.2): the problem is that the scholiast, in the name of Livy, appears to misrepresent where he actually was. He suggests that he was ‘sick in Sicily’ at the time, and that it was in Sicily that he received a letter from Caesar. But, according to Cicero himself, he was at Dyrrhachium at the time of the battle (Div. 1.68), and it appears that he did not receive any letter from Caesar until a year later, in August 47, when he was in Brundisium (Fam. 14.23). That Livy could have represented Cicero as being in Sicily seems highly unlikely: Per. 111.4 says that he was in Pompey’s camp during the battle, which is itself a misrepresentation (cf. ad loc.), but an understandable one (Cicero was with the Pompeian forces at Dyrrachium, even if not Pompey’s own camp at Pharsalus). Most probably the scholiast—­or the text on which the scholiast was drawing—­is misrepresenting Livy’s text. Usener tentatively proposed that the MS reading of insicilae grum might be a corruption, not of in Sicilia aegrum, but of Diracii aegrum, which was misunderstood by a scribe unacquainted with the location. That is pos­ sible, but it is also very possible that the corruption occurred somewhere further back in the tradition of Lucan commentary; hence it would be a mistake to in­corp­or­ate it into the text. More difficult to decide is whether Livy might have (unhistorically) represented Cicero receiving a letter from Caesar at Dyrrhachium, or whether the scholiast in summarizing his text has conflated his location at the time of the battle with the place where he actually received the later letter. On balance I am inclined to the former, simply because little else in the Commenta Bernensia’s numerous citations from Livy demonstrably misrepresents him; but I am well aware that this is a weak argument, given that none of the Commenta Bernensia’s citations derive from one of Livy’s surviving books, and that this error arises in the context of a fragment which does (on the transmitted text) misrepresent him in another crucial respect.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  233 aegrum fuisse: Cicero himself in his surviving writings never mentions being sick at the time of Pharsalus, but his illness is referred to by Plu., Cic. 39.1, and there is no reason to doubt that it was in Livy, and indeed that it was true. F 49 Near the beginning of Lucan Book 8, Pompey, escaping from Pharsalus, meets his wife Cornelia on Lesbos; she blames herself for his defeat, because she was cursed to bring destruction to her husbands. Commenting on this, the Commenta Bernensia notes that Lucan took the idea from Livy, and he quotes the sentence of Livy in question (cf. Plu., Pomp. 74.3 for a similar speech by Cornelia, perhaps itself partly derivative of Livy). Per. 112.1 records Pompey’s flight from the battlefield; hence the fragment belongs to that book. Corneliam: Cornelia (RE 417) was the daughter of Q.  Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (previously P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica before being adopted into the family of the Caecilii). Her first marriage had been to P. Licinius Crassus, the son of the triumvir, but he and his father were killed fighting the Parthians in 53. She married Pompey in the following year. vicit . . . felicitatem tuam mea fortuna: In many contexts felicitas and fortuna are virtual synonyms (cf. F 62n.), since the former always and the latter frequently—­ especially in Livy (Davies (2004), 118–24)—has overtones of provi­den­tial good luck: Livy’s elegant chiasmus emphasizes the apparent paradox. The justification, however, is that fortuna can represent a hostile force as well (albeit one which itself may have divine power behind it), whereas felicitas is the good luck trad­ ition­al­ly associated with successful Roman commanders (Wistrand (1987); for the sense of the word more broadly cf. Erkell (1952), 41–128, esp. 54–71 on its use by Livy). Cornelia’s bad fortune has in the long run counted for more than Pompey’s felicitas.84 For the idea that Pompey had special access to such felicitas see above all Cic., Manil. 28, 47–8.85 Magne . . . ut minueretur magnitudo tua: Lucan addresses Pompey as Magne ubiquitously; other authors do so only intermittently (e.g. Cic., Mil. 68, Ov., Fast. 1.603, Manil. 4.50, Val. Max. 5.3.5, Plin., Nat. 37.15), usually, as here, in contexts in which a pointed comment is being made about the nature of his ‘greatness’. quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domo recipiebas: The idea that a woman whose husbands suffered disaster was somehow responsible for bringing bad ­fortune on them is hard to parallel exactly at Rome,86 where there was social 84  Cf. Sen., Const. 6.6 vicit fortunam tua fortuna meam, which alludes to Livy while accentuating the paradox, but which also undercuts Livy’s point, because Seneca is arguing that such fortuna only affects inessentials, not the absolute virtue of a wise man, which is entirely within his own power. 85  See Wistrand (1987), 39–41, arguing that Cicero is seeking to present Pompey’s felicitas as a quality particular to him, not simply derived from his position as a Roman general. 86  Direct parallels are found in other cultures: for a famous example see the story of Tamar in Genesis 38 (though it should also be noted that the implication of that story is that Tamar was blamed wrongly for her husbands’ deaths).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

234 Commentary acceptance (and sometimes even celebration) of women remarrying (Humbert (1972), 76–137), something that could hardly have been the case if women were habitually blamed for a first husband’s death or other misfortune. Nevertheless, the Romans had a strong sense that some marriages might be ill-­fated—­a range of rituals surrounded the marriage ceremony to ensure its good fortune (cf. e.g. Humbert (1972), 11–19), but any of those might fail (or be deemed retro­spect­ ive­ly to have done so).87 In a culture where there was a sense that individuals had a good or bad fortune of their own, one can see how, in a particular instance, that might be extended to suggest that a wife brought bad fortune onto her husbands; but it is still a striking and unusual point, and perhaps can be attributed to Livy’s own exploration of Cornelia’s tragic position. F 50 Priscian, discussing the declension of words ending in -d, notes Livy’s hand­ling of the king he calls ‘Bogud’ in Book 112, which Livy treated as a 3rd declension: he gives three examples from that book of different case-­endings (see also FF 51–52nn.; cf. F 56). The fragment comes from Livy’s account of the campaigns of the Caesarian forces in Spain in late 48, as appears from the parallel narrative at Bell.Alex. 62–3, which provides the context. Q. Cassius Longinus, whom Caesar had left as governor in Hispania Ulterior, was widely disliked, and was faced by a series of revolts and mutinies, including one at Cordoba supported by his own quaestor M.  Marcellus. Marcellus was hemming Cassius in at Ulia; Cassius summoned help from Bogud in Mauretania and from M. Aemilius Lepidus, the governor of Hispania Citerior. Bogud joined Cassius, but Lepidus negotiated a truce—­only for the truce to be broken by an attack on Marcellus, which Lepidus just managed to prevent. It is that attack which the fragment describes. Per. 112 does not list any events in Spain, but the first part of the story, prior to Bogud’s arrival, seems to have been told by Livy in Book 111 (see Per. 111.3). Maurorum: Like many ancient ethnic names, ‘Mauri’ was not always consistently applied by ancient writers, especially in terms of their relationship to other north African peoples; but in Roman times it most commonly was used as the generic name for the inhabitants of Mauretania, approximately the equivalent of modern Morocco and western Algeria (cf. Gsell (1913–28), 5.88–95). The population seems to have had a substantial nomadic or semi-­nomadic element, although there were also more permanently settled towns. They had come under the sway of Carthage, but Mauretanian rulers at times joined Rome against Carthage, and subsequently against Jugurtha. It became a client kingdom of Rome under 87  Certain cults at Rome were reserved for univirae—­women who had never had a second husband: Humbert (1972), 42–8 argues that one reason was that only in those cases could their marriages could be thought to have been blessed by good fortune.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  235 Augustus, who placed several colonies there; finally in ad 40 it was incorporated into the Roman empire. Surveys of the history and archaeology of the region include Gsell (1913–28), esp. vols 5, 6, 8; Carcopino (1943); cf. also Rachet (1970), Sigman (1977). Bogud: Ruler in western Mauretania; he was recognized as king by Caesar in order to challenge Juba, the king of Numidia, who was supporting Pompey; he and his forces fought on Caesar’s side in Spain. After Caesar’s assassination he transferred his support to Antony, but he lost his kingdom to his rival Bocchus, who was supporting Octavian. Bogud remained on Antony’s side, but was killed by Agrippa at Methone shortly before the battle of Actium in 31. His name is variously recorded. Bell.Alex. (59.2, 62.3; cf. Bell.Afr. 23.1) calls him Bogus -udis; in Greek sources he is either Βόγος (Str. 8.4.3, 17.3.5) or Βογούας (Dio 41.42.7, 43.36.1, 43.38.2, 48.45.1, 50.11.3). However, Livy’s version, as recorded by  Priscian, may be the most authentic, since the name appears on his coins (in Latin script) as rex Bogut (CNNM 103–6). diversis partibus Cassius et Bogud adorti: In Bell.Alex. 63.5 Bogud makes the attack alone, though Cassius’ complicity is said to be suspected. In Livy, Cassius openly participates in it—­this suggests that Livy is slanting the narrative even more strongly against him; cf. F 52, where Livy introduces another negative judgement on Cassius (but see ad loc.). Cassius: Q. Cassius Longinus (RE 70). He was tribune in 49, and, with Antony, attempted to support Caesar in the Senate before fleeing Rome to join him. He accompanied Caesar to Spain in the same year, and was left there as governor of Hispania Ulterior, until he was succeeded by C. Trebonius early in 47 (see F 51n.), and was drowned while leaving the province. F 51 See F 50n. for the background. The likelihood is that the subject is Cassius. The subjunctive shows that it is a subordinate clause, and the perfect indicates that it is part of a sentence in primary sequence, very possibly from a speech. Hence the fragment is probably not describing something that took place during Cassius’ conflict with Marcellus (contra Jal (1979), 281), but is referring back to an earlier event, perhaps when the speaker mentioned a key moment in Cassius’ governorship which explained why his behaviour did (or did not) deserve support.88 firmandi regni Bogudis causa: This shows something that one might anyway have suspected: that Bogud’s appointment as king was not uncontroversial among his own people, not least because Caesar had made it deliberately in order to 88 For the phrasing compare e.g. Livy 26.13.5 iamne memoria excessit quo tempore . . . a populo Romano defecerimus?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

236 Commentary challenge the kingship of Juba (Dio 41.42.7: cf. F 50n.). firmare regnum is a phrase that Livy uses elsewhere (1.35.6, 24.4.2, 31.11.12). traicere conatus sit: Some MSS add velociter, but that word is never used by Livy or indeed any other prose writer before the younger Seneca: it is likely to be a gloss. F 52 For the background see F 50n. Bell.Alex. 64.1–2 explains that, after the truce brokered by Lepidus (and almost broken by Bogud), Cassius retired to winter quarters, and C.  Trebonius was sent to replace him as governor of Hispania Ulterior. Bell.Alex. makes Cassius’ resentment apparent (it is because of this that he tried to leave Spain before it was safe to sail, leading to his ship being sunk), and Livy goes further, suggesting that Cassius was even prepared to go to war to keep the province, and was only prevented by the soberer head of Bogud. This suggests a severe judgement on Cassius, one which he perhaps deserved; but it should not be overlooked that this sentence may well not represent Livy’s own view, but he may, as he often does, be filtering it through another character in his text. Trebonio: C.  Trebonius, RE 6. He was a friend of Cicero, but also attached to Caesar, with whom he served in Gaul and then in the civil war. He was praetor in 48, before being rapidly called to Spain to take over from Cassius. Subsequently he was consul suffectus in 45, but then joined the plot to assassinate Caesar, after which he went to Asia as governor, but was murdered there by Dolabella in early 43. trahere in societatem furoris potuisset: societas furoris is a rare and striking phrase (though note Macr., Sat. 5.17.3, describing Amata as a Bacchant in Aeneid 7); however, it is an abstracted form of the slightly more common socius furoris, used by Livy at 28.24.12 (cf. 28.25.12 furorem . . . consociarent); also Per. 61.3, 69.5 (see ad locc.), Cic., Phil. 11.2, Lucan 2.542, Sen., Phaedr. 96. For trahere in societatem cf. Livy 44.14.9; also Sen., Epist. 6.3. F 53 Lucan in Book 10 describes how Caesar, in Alexandria after Pompey’s murder, was holding the king (Ptolemy XIII) in the palace, while under attack by the Egyptian forces under Achillas. Ptolemy sent an envoy to the army, but Lucan describes how, in violation of the law, the envoy was killed. Commenting on this, the scholiast, citing Livy as the source, says that there were in fact two envoys, and only one of them was killed. Caes., Civ. 3.109.3–5 describes the same events; cf. also Dio 42.37.1–2. According to the scholiast, Livy said this in Book 4, but it is apparent that he means the fourth book of the civil war sequence, thus Book 112 (cf. F 41, F 55nn.;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  237 also the Introduction, xxx–xxxi); Per. 112 confirms that Caesar’s activities in Alexandria were contained in this book. Dioscorides et Serapio: Caesar, Civ. 3.109.4 gives the same names, noting that they had both been confidants of Ptolemy XII and had served as ambassadors in Rome, which presumably explains his own willingness to trust them. quorum alter occisus est: According to Caesar, Civ. 3.109.5, Achillas ordered both to be killed, but one managed to escape wounded. Caesar does not say which one; as the scholiast implies, Livy may well have been similarly reticent (or ignorant). F 54 Seneca is arguing that assembling a huge library is a waste of time, since no one can read so many books; hence he criticizes Livy for praising the library of Alexandria that was burned. Since this is a reference to the (supposed: see below) burning of the library by Caesar, it must have appeared in Book 112, where Caesar’s activities in Alexandria were described. Previous editors have placed this after F 55, but it clearly belongs before it, since other writers who describe the burning of the library as part of a narrative sequence place it before the murder of Achillas (Dio 42.38.2, Oros. 6.15.31–2; both may well be directly or indirectly dependent on Livy).89 There is no reference to the burning of the royal library in the narrative of the Alexandrian war by Caesar himself or Bell.Alex.; nor is it mentioned by Lucan (whose Alexandrian narrative is admittedly truncated). Livy, followed by Seneca, is the earliest certain reference to it; it is then described by Plutarch, Gell. 7.17.3, Dio, Amm. 22.16.13 (who, however, confuses it with the separate library in the Serapeion), and Orosius. The absence of it from the con­tem­por­ary narratives raises a question about its historicity: it is true that Caesar and Bell.Alex. might have wished to minimize the destruction that Caesar’s presence in Alexandria caused, but they could easily have referred to the fire while exculpating the commander and indeed the Romans, and it is surprising that neither does so. It is possible that only part of the library was destroyed, perhaps the storage areas (as one reading of Dio would suggest: but see below),90 or the entire episode may 89  A possible exception is Plu., Caes. 49.6, who does not mention Achillas’ murder at all, but places the burning of the library after the attempt to cut off water from Caesar’s troops, which in Bell.Alex. 5–9 is done by Ganymedes after Achillas’ death. However, Dio 42.38.4 attributes that stratagem to Achillas, not Ganymedes, and Plutarch may well have done the same. 90 So e.g. Casson (2001), 45–7. Canfora (1989), 69–70 goes further, arguing that the books destroyed were ‘quite unconnected with the royal library’, but were items produced for export. He bases this largely on Orosius’ phrase proximis forte aedibus condita (6.15.31: ‘stored by chance in the nearby buildings’), which he claims derives from Livy. But Orosius’ broader description as well as Seneca’s citation of Livy show that those authors believed that an entire library was destroyed, not just a random collection of trade books (despite Canfora’s ingenious but unconvincing attempt to explain them away: Canfora (1989), 95–7). forte relates to the entire situation, not just the storage, and simply indicates that the destruction was accidental.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

238 Commentary be a later invention.91 To set against that point, however, is that Livy, as reported by Seneca, who is writing when Caesar’s Alexandrian war was still within living memory, is clearly describing a large-­scale destruction, at least of a major portion of the collection of books. Moreover, when Dio refers to the burning of ‘storehouses . . . of very many outstanding books’ (ἀποθήκας . . . τῶν βίβλων πλείστων δὴ καὶ ἀρίστων) his language strongly implies that he is talking about the library itself.92 And there is also the blunt fact that, although other substantial libraries clearly remained in the city, which continued as a centre of scholarship, the royal library is never again referred to as currently in existence by any later writer, Greek or Latin (Fraser (1972), 334–5).93 Notably, not only does Strabo fail to refer to it in his account of contemporary Alexandria in Book 17, but in an earlier part of his history he implies that it was no longer extant, when he indicates that the size of the library where Eratosthenes had worked could only be known from the testimony of Hipparchus (2.1.5: see El-­Abbadi (1990), 153–4). The most likely conclusion is that the library, or at least a substantial portion of it, was indeed accidentally destroyed by Caesar,94 but that the scale of the destruction, and its implications, simply loomed less large, at least to writers and readers in Latin, in the immediacy of the civil war, and it was only in retrospect that its significance was appreciated. Seneca’s report of Livy does not give a reason for the fire. All those who do give a reason agree that it was an accident. Gellius (partly followed by Ammianus) says that the fire was started by auxiliaries while the city was being plundered, but Plutarch and Orosius have the blaze spreading from the ships when Caesar set fire to the royal fleet in the harbour (cf. Caes., Civ. 3.111.6). This version is most likely to go back to Livy and to be the closest to the truth; it is the one that is easiest to fit the overall narrative of the Alexandrian war as we can glean it from Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum, whereas Gellius’ appears to derive from a common trope about the typical destruction during the plundering of cities (cf. Paul (1982)).

91  So e.g. Delia (1992), 1461–2. 92  The library had storehouses for accessions (see Fraser (1972), 1.326), but Dio elsewhere uses the phrase ἀποθήκας τῶν βιβλίων (49.43.8, 53.1.3) to refer to actual libraries, not book storehouses, and the presumption must be that he means the same here (Hendrickson (2016), 460–1). 93 A possible exception is an early imperial inscription, AE 1924, 78, describing Ti. Claudius Balbillus as supra mu[s]eu[m] et a[b Alexandri]na bybliothece; since the Mouseion in Alexandria appears to have been associated with the royal library under the Ptolemies, that might be taken to indicate that Balbillus’ library was the royal one. But it is uncontroversial that the Mouseion survived Caesar, since Strabo gives a detailed description of it (17.1.8); and even if the library here was indeed attached to it (which is itself not certain: these are only two of an extensive series of posts listed for Balbillus, and the juxtaposition may be coincidental), the inscription need mean nothing more than that some sort of library for the Mouseion was subsequently reconstituted, which would itself not be unreasonable for an institution whose raison d’être was scholarship. 94  Note also Hatzimichali (2013), arguing that one can see evidence for serious damage to the libraries’ resources in the changed activities of Alexandrian scholars after Caesar’s time.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  239 quadraginta milia: Most of the MSS of Orosius speak not of 40,000 books, but 400,000; on that basis Pincianus (implicitly supported by Fraser (1972), 1.334 and 2.493)95 emended Seneca/Livy to read the same. However, it is more likely that either Orosius’ text is corrupt (a minority of his MSS read 40,000, though that may represent a scribal correction), or he has exaggerated—­or he is drawing directly or indirectly on a corrupted text of Livy. Even more extravagantly, Gellius and Ammianus speak of 700,000 volumes. For an elegant (and amusing) demonstration of the impossibility of Orosius’ figure (and still more Gellius’), see Bagnall (2002), 352–6. pulcherrimum regiae opulentiae monumentum alius laudaverit, sicut T. Livius, qui elegantiae regum curaeque egregium id opus ait fuisse: The library had been founded in the third century bc; its foundation is usually attributed to Ptolemy II Philadelphus, but planning may have begun under his father Ptolemy I Soter (Fraser (1972), 1.321–2, but note the scepticism of Bagnall (2002), 349–51). For its history, cf. Fraser (1972), 1.320–35. Seneca’s reference to a monumentum and opus implies, though it does not require, that not only the books but the building that housed them was destroyed. Seneca does not cite the phrase pulcherrimum regiae opulentiae monumentum explicitly from Livy, but it shows signs of his language; cf. especially 26.21.7 pacis diuturnae regiaeque opulentiae ornamenta; also Praef. 10 inlustri . . . monumento. Oros. 6.15.31, although the detailed vocabulary is different, clusters a set of related words (singulari profecto monumentum studii curaeque maiorum) in a manner which suggests that he too may be drawing on Livy. On the other hand, one should not be too swift to assume that the phrase which Seneca does cite from Livy is taken from him verbatim: notably, Livy never uses the noun elegantia in his surviving text (although he uses the related adjective and adverb a handful of times: 35.14.9, 35.31.14, 37.1.7, 44.9.5). F 55 Towards the end of Book 10, Lucan describes the ongoing civil war in Alexandria, mentioning how the king’s sister Arsinoe was brought to the camp of the Egyptian general Achillas and had him killed, thus (according to Lucan) effectively taking vengeance for Pompey’s murder. Commenting on this, the scholiast offers a brief summary of the events from Livy, attributing it to the fourth book of the Civil War—­in other words, Book 112 (cf. F 53n.). Other narratives of these events include Caes., Civ. 3.112.10–11, Bell.Alex. 4, Dio 42.39.1–40.1. By comparison, the scholiast’s report of Livy diminishes Arsinoe’s 95  Fraser’s grounds are presumably that he previously (Fraser (1972), 1.328–9) accepted the figure of 490,000 volumes in the library that is provided by John Tzetzes (Prol. Comm. p. 32 (Koster)). However, Tzetzes’ figure is almost certainly itself the product of exaggeration: it cannot be assumed to go back to a reliable ancient source.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

240 Commentary agency, emphasizing Ganymedes’ role in bringing her to Achillas’ camp, whereas Caesar and Bell.Alex. do not mention him in this context, but only bring him in when it comes to the killing of Achillas. Moreover, Bell.Alex 4.2 makes a point of describing Arsinoe’s overall control, even though she gave Ganymedes command of the army. This might represent only the biases of the scholiast’s summary, but it is noteworthy that Dio, too, makes Arsinoe into a much more passive figure than Caesar had, in fact going even further than the scholiast does, with Ganymedes the prime mover not only in bringing her to the camp, but also in persuading her to have Achillas killed; similarly he is described as taking over the army on his own initiative. This overlap between the scholiast and Dio may perhaps suggest that the former is indeed reflecting something of Livy’s slant, with the eunuch servant represented as the true power and the woman more passive, a picture which would both reflect Roman assumptions about women and also show something of the perversity of Eastern civilizations. However, Lucan 10.519–23, who may well himself partly depend on Livy, does represent Arsinoe as the active figure in taking charge of Achillas’ camp and killing him (Ganymedes is reduced to her instrument). Overall, while on balance it is not improbable that the tenor of the summary reflects Livy’s attitude, the level of uncertainty is high. As to which version is closest to the truth, it may partly depend on Arsinoe’s age: since she was younger than Cleopatra, who was born in 70/69, she was at most twenty-one at the time Caesar came to Egypt, and could well have been a lot younger. The younger she was, the less likely it is that she took the initiative herself. This is, in turn, reason for suggesting she was at the older end of the age range, since Caesar and his continuator, who were, for all their biases, writing close to the time, and, who (certainly in Caesar’s case) had personal know­ledge of the people in question, represented her as the person in control, which would have been less plausible if she had been (for example) a pre-­teen (though note that Bell.Alex. 23.2 refers to her as a puella). But even if that is accepted, it may be that Ganymede was the primary mover even at this point, as Bell.Alex. says directly he was later, with Arsinoe reduced to a nominal figurehead (Bell.Alex. 33.2; cf. 23.2): see Heinen (1966), 115–20. ARSINOE: Arsinoe IV, the youngest of the three daughters of Ptolemy XII, and older sister of Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. Caesar made her joint ruler of Cyprus with Ptolemy XIV not long after arriving in Alexandria, but she stayed in the city, taking control of the army until she was removed from power. She was brought to Rome for Caesar’s triumph in 46, but was freed and went to Ephesus, where she was murdered in 41 by Antony at the behest of her older sister Cleopatra. Ptolemei: Ptolemy XIII, 61–47 bc. He came to the throne jointly with his sister Cleopatra in 51 on the death of his father, but almost immediately fell out with her; in the ensuing civil war he was successful, until Caesar came to Egypt after

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  241 Pharsalus and sought to reconcile them. Ptolemy led an army against Caesar, but was defeated and was drowned when his ship sunk in his flight. Ganymedes: According to Bell.Alex. 4.1, he was Arsinoe’s nutricius, some form of tutor or guardian; it is perhaps unsurprising that a eunuch would be given this role in the Ptolemaic court. Neither Bell.Alex. nor Dio mentions his ultimate fate, but according to Flor. 2.13.60, he was killed while fleeing after Caesar’s victory. Achillae: Caesar describes him as praefectus regius (Civ. 3.104.2). He commanded the Egyptian army under Ptolemy XIII, and was the person who killed Pompey on his arrival in Egypt. hanc: Some MSS read hunc, but it is a clear error: Ganymedes appears to have died in Egypt (above), and Arsinoe appeared in Caesar’s triumph (Dio 43.19). in triumphum duxit: Caesar’s triumph, according to the Periochae, was described not in Book 112, but 115. It is possible that Livy made a proleptic reference to it in Book 112, and that this explains its mention by the scholiast, but it is more probable that the scholiast (or the commentary from which the scholium derives) conflated into the material from Book 112 the conclusion of the story from the later book. One MS reads in triumpho; this is the normal language in Livy, who never uses in triumphum; but in triumphum is found in various authors from the second century ad onwards, and there is little reason to doubt that it could have appeared that way in the commentary tradition, since they are summarizing rather than quoting Livy. F 56 This fragment survives in two places: Priscian, and an anonymous grammar which presumably drew its information from Priscian. In both the context is the same: the discussion of Latin nouns ending in -d. After giving the example of Bogud (F 50n.), they go on to offer a sentence from Livy about an African town. Priscian’s MSS unfortunately differ on the book from which the quota­tion is taken; Hertz (in GL) preferred 113, and was followed by W-­M and Jal, but the alternative reading of 114 remains possible (both books, according to the Periochae, recorded Caesar’s battles in Africa against Juba and Cato). In the absence of other information, it is impossible to say who the subject of the sentence is, or at what point in the war this took place. Pulpud: BarrAtl Map 32 G4, modern Souk el-­Abiod. It lies on the coast south-­ east of Carthage; it appears to have been first settled in Roman times, and became a colonia under Commodus in the late second century ad. Pulpud is the reading of the majority of the MSS of Priscian; however, one MS reads Pudpud, which is also the reading of the Ars Bernensis. In inscriptions it appears as Pupput or Puppit, which might support reading Pudpud here; but

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

242 Commentary Pulpud (or Pulpit) is found in geographical sources, and could well have appeared in Livy. F 57 This fragment appears, like FF 50–52 (cf. F 56), in a discussion by Priscian of nouns ending in -d—­but this time in a briefer discussion in an earlier book. Hearne, followed by Weissenborn, assumed that this was the same reference as in those other fragments, and accordingly should belong in Book 112, but there is no reason to doubt that Priscian in Book 5 cited a different book of Livy from the one he used for the longer series of examples he gave in Book 6. We have, admittedly, no direct record of Bogud’s presence in the events that Per. 114 reports for that book, but the bare word Bogudis does not require that Livy described him as being present: note Bell.Afr. 23.1, where the younger Cn. Pompeius launches an attack on regnum . . . Bogudis (‘the kingdom of Bogud’), although there is no suggestion that Bogud is on the spot when the attack happens. Bogud: See F 50n. F 58 Jerome begins the second volume of his commentary on Hosea by noting the criticisms that he had received for his biblical commentaries; he adds his appreciation for the support of his addressee, Pammachius, but his ambition, he says, is to be like the younger Cato as described by Livy, someone whose reputation was unaffected by praise and criticism alike. Livy presumably made this point as part of an obituary for Cato, whose death he recounted in Book 114, according to the Periochae; hence this fragment belongs to that book. Jerome’s language implies that Livy did not explicitly mention Cicero and Caesar as Cato’s supporters and critics: this is Jerome’s own explanation—­albeit probably a correct one96—of the people summis praediti . . . ingeniis to whom Livy referred. Cato was celebrated immediately on his death, and often in an epigrammatic form which, as here, emphasized that, because his reputation depended on nothing more or less than his own stalwart virtue, it was impervious to conventional criteria of success or failure. Livy’s approach in its essential content, though not in form, is foreshadowed by Sallust’s famous synkrisis of Cato and Caesar (Cat. 54), which culminates with the statement that Cato ‘preferred to be good than to seem so: thus, the less he sought glory, the more it followed him’ (Sall., Catil. 54.6: esse quam videri bonus malebat: ita, quo minus petebat gloriam, eo magis illum

96  Brutus also wrote a Cato, and it can hardly be said that Livy would not have included him under this heading; but the presentation of praise and criticism in so balanced an antithesis would inevitably evoke the duelling works of the two most highly regarded prose writers of the age (cf. e.g. Plu., Caes. 54.5–6, Tac., Ann. 4.34.4, Suet., Jul. 56.5, App., BC 2.99). As Pomeroy (1991), 166 observes, Livy’s praise of Cato also implies a mild criticism of Caesar and Cicero for attempting the impossible.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  243 sequebatur). Sallust and Livy’s approach is followed closely by Vell. 2.35.1–2; but most later writers turned the idea in a different direction, centring their assessment of Cato on the paradoxical suggestion that he was the true victor despite defeat, whether military (so e.g. Manil. 4.87, Sen., Epist. 71.8, ps-­Sen.,97 ap. Anth. 397, 399 (Riese) = 393, 395 (Shackleton Bailey)) or political (e.g Val. Max. 7.5.6, Sen., Helv. 13.5). All of these depend ultimately on the Stoic idea that ethical goodness is the only measure of value; this should not, of course, be taken to indicate that Livy himself was a Stoic (cf. Levene (1993), 30–2, contra Walsh (1958)), but rather that Cato’s own Stoic values, as exemplified above all in his death, meant that sympathetic accounts of him were naturally inflected in a Stoic direction, especially given the overlap with the broader ideals of Roman aristocratic culture. neque profuit . . . laudando, nec vituperando nocuit: Although Jerome presents this as a paraphrase rather than a quotation from Livy, the elegantly chiastic phrase is certainly in his manner, and may well go back to him. Both prodesse ~ nocere and laudare ~ vituperare are canonical antonyms, employed in hundreds of places in Latin literature: for the latter see Livy 27.44.1. significat autem M. Ciceronem et C. Caesarem, quorum alter laudes, alter vituperationes supradicti scripsit viri: Cicero’s Cato was written directly after Cato’s death, although Cicero delayed publishing it for several months out of concern for Caesar’s reaction; in the event Caesar answered it by publishing his own Anticato not long after. Neither work survives, but there are numerous quotations from and references to the latter in particular, which exerted a certain fascination among later writers, partly because of the identity of its author, but also in part because it represented the one substantial riposte to the ‘Cato myth’ which dom­ in­ated all later accounts of him. For Cicero’s Cato, especially in the light of Caesar’s response, see Kumaniecki (1970); for the influence of the debate on Cato’s later image, see Dyroff (1908). F 59 Plutarch recounts a long series of omens that preceded Caesar’s death, culminating in a dream his wife Calpurnia had on the night before his as­sas­sin­ation. He tells a version of the dream in which she was holding his dead body; but then he notes an alternative version, which he ascribes to Livy, in which Calpurnia dreamed that a pediment on the roof of Caesar’s house that had been voted to him as a mark of honour collapsed, leading her to weep over it (the same dream, along with other omens, is reported in Obseq. 67: see ad loc.). It manifestly belongs to Book 116, where Per. records Caesar’s assassination.

97  On the ps-­Seneca epigrams see Per. 39.6n.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

244 Commentary Plutarch’s main version of Calpurnia’s dream is also reported by Val. Max. 1.7.2 (also Nepotianus’ epitome) and App., BC 2.115, both with no obvious awareness of Livy’s.98 Livy’s version is found also in Suet., Jul. 81.3 and Dio 44.17.1, but significantly adapted. Both authors meld it with Plutarch’s main account, having Calpurnia see the collapse but also having her holding Caesar’s body; in addition, Dio has not only the pediment but the entire house collapsing, and also Calpurnia dreams of Caesar’s apotheosis. Pelling (2011), 472 sees some significance in Plutarch’s omission of the last of these: he argues that Plutarch, at least at this point in his narrative, may be deliberately suppressing the idea of Caesar’s apotheosis: more interestingly, he argues that the version of the dream in which the pediment collapses suggests that Caesar’s divine pretensions are being undermined (cf. below). It is plausible that Livy intended the same implications when he adopted this version of the story. Certainly when in his surviving narrative the question of apotheosis arises he approaches it with guarded (if not unequivocal) scepticism: his account of the death and subsequent deification of Romulus appears designed to recall Caesar’s assassination (1.15.6–16.8), and presents it as a serious possibility that the apotheosis was a fiction that the senators created in order to cover up their crime.99

ἦν γάρ τι τῇ Καίσαρος οἰκίᾳ προσκείμενον οἷον ἐπὶ κόσμῳ καὶ σεμνότητι τῆς βουλῆς ψηϕισαμένης ἀκρωτήριον: That Caesar was voted a pediment on his roof is mentioned in passing by Cic., Phil. 2.110 (cf. also Flor. 2.13.91), who refers to it not merely as an honour, as Plutarch implies, but specifically as a mark of deification. Only royal palaces (on the stage) and temples had such pediments: the primary association may have been meant to be the first in Caesar’s case (Weinstock (1971), 280–1), but it is clear from Cicero that it was interpreted in terms of divinity as well. The house in question was the domus publica on the south side of the Via Sacra, adjacent to the Atrium Vestae: Caesar occupied it by virtue of his post of pontifex maximus (Suet., Jul. 46; cf. Plin., Nat. 19.23). For the surviving remains see Carettoni (1978–80), 346–55. ὡς Λίβιος ἱστορεῖ: Strictly speaking this phrase need only be attached to the one directly before—­Plutarch in principle might be citing Livy only for the existence of the pediment, not for the dream—­but it is clear from Obsequens that Livy recounted the dream, and Plutarch’s language is com­pat­ible with that, even if it does not require it.

98 Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F 130.23 and Vell. 2.57.2 also mention an ominous dream ex­peri­enced by Calpurnia, but with no indication of its content. 99  That Livy’s text offers sceptical and less sceptical readings of Romulus’ apotheosis is obvious; there is much controversy over the extent to which he might be thought implicitly to endorse the former version. For different accounts see e.g. Burck (1964), 145–6, Liebeschuetz (1967), 46–7, Weeber (1984), Bremmer (1987), 45–7, Levene (1993), 132–4, Miles (1995), 153–4, Wiseman (2002), 333–4, Sailor (2006), 345–8, Stem (2007), 461–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  245

Καλπουρνία: RE 126. Daughter of C.  Calpurnius Piso Caesonianus (cos. 58); Caesar had married her (his third marriage) in 59. F 60 Priscian is illustrating the conjugation of cieo/cio: he cites Livy Book 118 for an example of its being treated as a 4th conjugation. It is unclear about whom the sentence is talking. Per. 118 refers to military activity by both Antony and Octavian, but, as Jal (1979), 286 rightly observes, a reference to a manus does not suggest the raising of a major force, and hence excludes the main Caesarian leaders (who were in any case not acting in concert during the period covered by this book). It can only be describing some sort of support offered by some less important figure, but it is impossible to say who that would be. concibat: As the quotation stands, the verb appears to lack an object. In principle it could be that manum is the object of concibat as well as of conparans (‘he mo­tiv­ated the force he was assembling for the avengers’), but such compression is very unlike Livy’s usual manner. Alternatively, it is possible that the verb is, exceptionally, being used intransitively, meaning something like ‘arousing passions’, but it is more probable that Priscian’s quotation has omitted the relevant accusative. FF 61–62 By far the most famous fragments of Livy are the pair quoted by the elder Seneca on the death of Cicero in late 43, after his proscription by the Second Triumvirate.100 The context is a suasoria on the theme of whether Cicero should have sought Antony’s pardon; after excerpting, in his usual manner, various declaimers who had addressed the theme, Seneca digresses in order to show how various historians ‘handled the memory of Cicero’ (Suas. 6.14 se . . . adversus memoriam Ciceronis gesserit). He notes that all of them apart from Pollio gave no countenance to the idea that Cicero could or would have pleaded for pardon; after discussing what he regards as Pollio’s libel on Cicero on this point, he then moves on to quote101 the accounts of Cicero’s death by four historians—­Livy, Aufidius Bassus, Cremutius Cordus, and Bruttedius Niger—­ followed by the

100  Important discussions of these fragments include Tränkle (1968), 142–9, Lamacchia (1975), Woodman (2015), 75–89, Lentano (2019); note also the commentary by Feddern (2013), 434–9, 449–55. 101  I use the word advisedly: I am assuming that Seneca is copying these passages verbatim from a written text. That may appear controversial, in as much as Seneca himself implies that he quotes declaimers from memory (Contr. 1 praef. 2–4). But it is far from clear either that this is true (see Sussman (1978), 75–83) or, even if it is, that Seneca meant it to be understood equally in the case of quotations taken from works in an entirely different genre, works which, unlike dec­lam­ations (at least on his account: see Contr. 1 praef. 11), were published and in general circulation (cf. Fairweather (1981), 37–49). More specifically, Woodman (2015), 78–9 effectively demonstrates how typical these extracts are of Livy’s style in his surviving works.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

246 Commentary e­ ulogies on Cicero by the first three of these, along with Pollio and the poet Cornelius Severus. The two passages from Livy are generally treated as two separate fragments, as I have done here. It is naturally possible that, although Seneca quotes them sep­ar­ ate­ly, the second passage followed immediately after the first, which is how they are presented by (e.g.) Schlesinger in the Loeb edition, and Woodman (2015), 75–89. However, it would be incautious to exclude the possibility that they were separated by some other material—­perhaps the death of Quintus Cicero (cf. below), or the subsequent treatment of Cicero’s corpse (cf. Dio 47.8.4), or information about his killers (cf. Dio 47.11.1; also below). Per. 120.3 shows that they come from Book 120, and there is a high probability that they appeared at or close to the end of the book, which itself appears to have been the last book that Livy published prior to Augustus’ death (see below, 307): certainly nothing in Per. 120 is dated after the death of Cicero, and the only matter listed after it is a ‘round­up’ passage about the exploits of Brutus in Greece (120.4), which, in the usual manner of the Periochae, may be assumed to refer to passages earlier in the book (Woodman (2015), 85–6). It is likely that Livy saw the death of Cicero as an iconic point in his history, and thus treated it as a key closural moment. This is not to say that he interpreted it in political terms as a watershed in the transition from the Republic to the Empire, as others did after him.102 He might possibly have done so, but nothing in the surviving fragments points in that direction, and other in­ter­pret­ations were available, not only because of Augustus’ assiduous insistence that he had restored rather than destroyed the old Republic,103 but also because Livy, even if he did not happen to have accepted Augustus’ claim, was writing before Augustus’ death, when the future of Augustus’ political settlement was still uncertain and it was far from obvious that the political world of the Republic had disappeared forever. But that makes it all the more interesting that he structured his history in such a way that Cicero’s death appeared at a major juncture: indeed, arguably his own decision to do so may have been a significant influence on the later ‘political’ reading of Cicero’s death. For Livy himself—­a writer whose own manner shows a strong Ciceronian influence—­the key issue may have been the sense that the Roman intellectual and literary world had diminished immeasurably with Cicero’s demise, although the intensely political nature of most of Cicero’s writing meant that the diminution cannot have been solely confined to literature. Livy’s account is, on its face, extremely sympathetic to Cicero, and the manner in which Seneca introduces both fragments is usually taken to mean that he 102  Notably Tacitus in the Dialogus: see Gowing (2005), 119–20; cf. also Migliario (2007), 124–5, 132–4 for adumbrations of this theme in the declaimers cited by Seneca. 103  Cf. Gowing (2005), 44–8, arguing that Velleius’ account of the death of Cicero (2.66.1–5) is slanted so as emphasize the continuity of the Republic with the Rome of his own day, rather than a disjuncture.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  247 interpreted Livy in that fashion.104 Seneca initially offers Livy as a counter to Pollio (and indeed it may be that Livy, as Seneca implies, deliberately wrote his account of Cicero’s death in order to respond to Pollio’s insinuations: see below), while he introduces Livy’s ‘obituary’ notice with the comment that ‘Livy kindly offered [such notices] to all great men’ (T 15: T. Livius benignus omnibus magnis viris praestitit), and concludes it by describing him as ‘the most clear-­hearted judge of all great geniuses’ (T 15: candidissimus omnium magnorum ingeniorum aestimator).105 But the context of the first of Seneca’s comments on the obituary notice shows that he does not mean that Livy’s judgements were kindly, but that he was generous in offering so many obituaries at all, and the second shows that Seneca did not see Livy (unlike Pollio) as perverting the image of Cicero through malice, not that he saw an absence of (fair and non-­malicious) criticism in what Livy wrote.106 And indeed, Livy’s final summary of Cicero’s life is far more barbed than is often appreciated. In particular, in cuius laudes exequendas Cicerone laudatore opus fuerit has many layers attached to it. As Woodman notes ((2015), 85), it has a self-­referential element—­Livy constantly alludes to Cicero’s works here (see also below). But it also slyly refers to Cicero’s well-­founded reputation for self-­praise (Pomeroy (1988), 181, Keeline (2018), 134); and in addition it has, in the context of Livy’s overall assessment of Cicero, a more sour element still. Livy’s account is structured around ethical contrasts, balancing a celebration of Cicero’s outstanding accomplishments, especially in his writings, with criticism for his failure to respond adequately to misfortune when it hit him, and concludes with the comment that his death was not actually undeserved, since he would have done the same to Antony if he had had the chance. This is sometimes (e.g. Pomeroy (1988), 181) taken as an example of Livy’s generosity of spirit—­Augustus’ enemy Antony is raised to the level of Cicero. But it is more properly to be seen as the opposite: the implication of what Livy says here is that Cicero was, at the last, no better than an Antony. That Cicero could have been a tyrant himself, proscribing his enemies Sulla-­like at the point of his victory, does not fit the primary image of him that prevailed in the post-­Livian period,107 yet Livy offers it as a truth, albeit a 104  Cf. esp. Lentano (2019), 30, though he then goes on to argue that in fact Seneca was wrong to evaluate Livy in that way. 105  As Chlup (2004), 30–1 observes, Seneca also favourably contrasts Livy’s obituary on Cicero with Cremutius Cordus’ laudatio of him, which he refers to immediately afterwards (Suas. 6.23), saying that it was not worthwhile to report it, since it was unworthy of Cicero. 106  So, rightly, Leeman (1963), 190–1 with 438 n. 135. It is worth noting that several of the other obituary notices in Livy’s work are far from uncritical of their subjects (cf. Pomeroy (1988), 178–82): notably those for Scipio Africanus (38.53.9–11) and Marius (F 20). This, too, makes it less probable that Seneca could have seen him as someone who invariably provided sympathetic treatments of his characters at their deaths. 107  Note, however, the conceit offered by the declaimer Varius Geminus (in Seneca, Suas. 6.13), referring to Cicero’s earlier ‘proscription’ of Antony when he had had him declared a public enemy; the same conceit is found in Plin., Nat. 7.117. Ramsey (2019) wants to emend the Pliny passage, but misses both this parallel from Seneca and the slightly different Suas. 7.8, both of which support the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

248 Commentary c­ ounterfactual one (cf. Lamacchia (1975), 426–7, Lentano (2019), 40, Ricchieri (2021)). And it is easy to see how he might have reached that conclusion: Cicero did, after all, have a track record when it came to the summary killing of Roman citizens,108 and Livy accordingly indicates that his own reading of the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy might have been closer to that of Cicero’s enemies than Cicero’s (cf. Ricchieri (2021), 35–7). To praise such a thing would—­did—­take a Cicero.109 Livy’s narrative of Cicero’s death is focused more positively, drawing attention to his heroism, as indeed one would expect, given how in the second passage he highlights the way Cicero faced his death as an exception to his general unmanliness in adversity. Cicero fled Rome before Antony even arrived there—­ a point which, as Seneca suggests, implicitly rejects Pollio’s in­sinu­ations about Cicero’s willingness to retract and approach him; in addition, the loyalty of his slaves in his extremity is something that, in Roman eyes, reflects well on their master as well as on them.110 His courage is shown by his unflinching behaviour when he is killed. At the same time, Cicero is shown vacillating: the roundabout route to the sea, the repeated attempts to set sail which are foiled not only by the weather but by his seasickness (cf. below). Only after that does he finally decide that he prefers death, and he does so with a typ­ic­al­ly self-­aggrandizing epigram (cf. below), representing himself as the repeated saviour of Rome. The conclusion of the passage is marked by an escalating series of bitter ironies: in his weariness of life he does not endorse his slaves’ willingness to resist, the soldiers who kill him seem only to have the vaguest idea of his significance (Woodman (2015), 82), and he is finally returned to the Rostra as a mute corpse. Livy’s version of Cicero’s last days differs substantially from the other extended account that survives, namely Plu., Cic. 47.1–49.2.111 The broad outline is the same: in both writers he goes from Tusculum to Caieta, where he is killed. But in idea that Pliny could have offered a similar conceit here; in a later updating of his argument (Ramsey (2021)) he refers to the second Seneca passage (though not the first), but oddly treats it as supporting his argument, in that a copyist of Pliny might have been influenced by the trope to adapt the passage. Since the trope is not attested outside the declaimers quoted by Seneca, it seems far more probable that Pliny himself would have been influenced by it than that some later scribe was. 108  To be fair to Cicero, he did argue that the Sullan proscriptions—­unlike his execution of the Catilinarians—­were unconstitutional (Straumann (2016), 134–9); but Livy no doubt assumed that Cicero would have come up with an appropriate justification for treating Antony as he had treated the Catilinarians if he had been in a position to do so. 109  That Cicero’s execution of the Catilinarians remained potentially contentious even after his death is shown by ps-­Sall., In Tull. 5–6 (almost certainly an early imperial declamatory com­pos­ition: see Syme (1964), 314–18), which revealingly refers to it as a proscriptio, and contrasts that ‘reality’ with Cicero’s own constant praise of himself for accomplishing it. More generally see Keeline (2018), 147–95, exploring the undercurrents of anti-­Ciceronian opinion that remained as a counterpoint to the general posthumous tendency to celebrate him. 110  Cf. Bradley (1984), esp. 35–45. There may be a contrast with Quintus Cicero, who, according to Plu., Cic. 47.4, was betrayed by his slaves, though this clearly depends whether Livy narrated Quintus’ death: see also below. 111 App., BC 4.19–20 follows Livy in as much as he has an abridged account of Cicero returning to Caieta because of sea­sickness, but the remainder of his narrative is closer to Plutarch.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  249 Plutarch Cicero hears of the proscriptions in Tusculum, where he is with Quintus, who has no place in Livy’s narrative (possibly Livy described his death later); the brothers start to go to Cicero’s villa at Astura and put to sea there to join Brutus, but en route Quintus decides to go home; Cicero proceeds to Astura, where he puts to sea and sails to Circeii; then he lands again and starts to return to Rome, only to go back to Astura and try again, then sailing to Caieta, where he stays in his villa, until his slaves decide to take him down to the coast, where he is killed. In Livy he goes—­albeit by an indirect route—­to his villa at Formiae, near Caieta; he then repeatedly puts to sea, but repeatedly fails to complete the journey and returns to land, and the implication of Livy’s account is that he is killed on his way back from the sea to his villa, rather than (as in Plutarch and Appian)112 going from his villa to the sea. In Plutarch, therefore, Cicero looks even more uncertain of purpose and passive than he does in Livy,113 whose own account, as noted above, is far from uniformly complimentary to Cicero; it is of a piece with this that, whereas Livy in the obituary regards Cicero’s steadfastness in death as his redeeming moment, Plutarch focuses on the vacillation that accompanied it, and sees it as a point of weakness to contrast unfavourably with Demosthenes’ suicide (Comp. Dem. Cic. 5.1). It is clearly impossible to say which version is closer to the truth: Livy is writing closer to the time, but there may have been con­tem­por­ary sources for the greater circumstantial detail in Plutarch. Livy also omits the supernatural accompaniment to Cicero’s death reported by Plu., Cic. 47.8–10, where some crows enter his villa while he is sleeping and attempt to wake him (also App., BC 4.19, Vir. Ill. 81.6); there is a slightly different version in Val. Max. 1.4.6 (in the epitomes of Paris and Nepotianus), where the crow not only grabs his toga, but knocks the gnomon from a sundial. The most likely explanation for the omission, in view of the argument above, is that Livy disliked the implication of the story, namely that the gods were somehow seeking to prevent Cicero’s death—­for he will shortly go on to argue that his death was not in fact undeserved. F 61 M.  Cicero: The use of the praenomen indicates that Livy had been treating another topic prior to this passage (Woodman (2015), 79): perhaps the announcement of the proscriptions, or the deaths of some of the other victims. sub adventum: ‘Not only is sub aduentum an almost exclusively Livian phrase (18x) before the time of Velleius, in whom it is also common (5x), but the 112  This appears also to have been the version of Bruttedius Niger, FRHist 72 F 1 (= fr. 1P): ‘Cicero, slipping out of the other side of the villa, was being carried in a litter across the fields’ (elapsus interim altera parte villae Cicero lectica per agros ferebatur). 113  Cf. Wright (2001), 448–9, suggesting that Plutarch may have elaborated Cicero’s pere­grin­ations to Formiae precisely in order to emphasize the vacillation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

250 Commentary sequence sub aduentum . . . primo . . . inde is paralleled only in Livy (36.21.1)’ (Woodman (2015), 78). cesserat . . . fugerat: As Woodman (2015), 79 notes, the pluperfects demonstrate that Livy was moving back in time as he switched to narrate the death of Cicero; but they also, crucially, must be the evidence that Seneca is pointing to when he suggests that Livy’s narrative contradicts Pollio’s. Cicero, unlike in Pollio, could not possibly have appealed to the triumvirs even if he had wanted to, because he had left Rome before they arrived there. Plu., Cic. 47.1 appears to place Cicero’s departure from Rome even earlier, because he implies that Cicero was already in Tusculum at the time the triumvirate was formed. pro certo habens: A phrase common in Livy (and also Cicero’s letters), but rare elsewhere prior to the younger Seneca (Woodman (2015), 79). non magis Antonio se eripi quam Caesari Cassium et Brutum posse: ‘Caesar’ is Octavian, Julius Caesar’s heir. Livy is presenting Antony’s hatred of Cicero as no less fundamental and deeply rooted than Octavian’s determination to take ven­ geance on his adopted father’s assassins, something which Augustus would later highlight at the start of his Res Gestae (August., R.Gest. 2). Octavian in Livy, as in all other accounts of Cicero’s death, is more or less completely exculpated from any role in it apart from passive acquiescence to Antony’s demand. While this is conceivably true, it can hardly be accepted uncritically, given the dominance of Augustus at the time when the stories about Cicero’s death were shaped: it is not improbable, if unprovable, that Octavian was more than happy to remove the potential threat to his power that Cicero posed.114 Livy’s language also hints at the impending deaths of Brutus and Cassius the following year, which naturally readers would be aware of, though in his text it will not occur for another four books (Feddern (2013), 435): Cicero’s fears foreshadow that, and at the same time link his own fate to theirs. Antonio: M. Antonius (RE 30), the triumvir, 82–30 bc. He had supported Caesar since the mid-­50s; he became quaestor in 52 and tribune in 50, at the outbreak of the civil war. He was magister equitum during Caesar’s dictatorship, then consul in 44. After Caesar’s death he was temporarily out­man­oeuvred, but returned to power in the Second Triumvirate with Octavian and Lepidus at the end of 43, and defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi in 42. He gradually fell out with Octavian, allying (and marrying) himself to the Egyptian queen Cleopatra; but after their defeat at Actium in 31 he fled to Egypt and committed suicide. Studies of his life and career include Bengtson (1977), Huzar (1978). Cassium: C.  Cassius Longinus (RE 59). He had served as pro-­quaestor with Crassus at the time of his defeat and death at the hands of the Parthians in 53. 114 See, most fully, Keeline (2018), 105–30; but the essential point was argued by Syme (1939), 190–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  251 Like Antony, he was tribune in 49, but unlike him he supported Pompey rather than Caesar, and served with him during the civil wars. He was pardoned by Caesar after Pompey’s defeat, and was praetor in 44; but he led the plot to assassinate Caesar. He was given the governorship of Cyrenaica, then Syria, with wider control over the east shared with Brutus. He and Brutus combined their forces at Philippi in 42, but were defeated by Antony, and Cassius committed suicide. Brutum: M. Junius Brutus (later Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus after being adopted by a relative of his mother Servilia). RE 53, c.85–42 bc. He had been quaestor in Cyprus in 53, having assisted Cato to annex the island a few years earlier. He supported Pompey in the civil war, and was, like Cassius, pardoned by Caesar after Pharsalus. He was praetor in 44, and joined Cassius and others in Caesar’s assassination, taking a leading role in the conspiracy. He was given the governorship of Crete, then Macedon, sharing control of the east with Cassius. He and Cassius were defeated by Antony at Philippi in 42, then committed suicide. Clarke (1981) is a study of his career and posthumous reputation. Tusculanum: sc. praedium: Cicero’s villa at Tusculum, the modern Tuscolo, on the Via Latina just over 20 km from Rome (BarrAtl Map 43 C2). It had been in the Latin League, but, according to tradition, had received Roman citizenship in the early fourth century bc. For a brief survey of the history and surviving monuments, see Borda (1958). It was an easy day’s journey from the city, and numerous wealthy Romans owned villas there. It was Cicero’s favourite country retreat, frequently mentioned in his letters, and also the setting for various of his philosophical dialogues. The villa was in his hands by 67 (Att. 1.10.1); it had previously been owned by Sulla (Plin., Nat. 22.12). There have been many attempts to identify it archaeologically, none conclusive (McCracken (1935); but cf. Borda (1958), 33–4). transversis itineribus: The same phrase is used at Livy 3.7.3; prior to that it was used twice in Sallust (Cat. 45.2, Jug. 49.1) (Woodman (2015), 79). Woodman suggests that it indicates that Cicero travelled on the Via Latina rather than the more direct Via Appia, but that seems improbable. According to Plu., Cic. 47.1, he was travelling in a litter, in which case journeying from Tusculum to Formiae inland on the Via Latina would either have added two extra days to his journey as he circled down the Liris valley and back along the coast, or else would have involved a difficult passage over the Monti Aurunci (which lie between Formiae and the Via Latina), itself adding considerable time to the journey—­and all without readily enabling him to avoid detection, since the Via Latina was a major route, if less trafficked than the Via Appia. It is an unlikely route for someone urgently seeking to escape Italy by sea. It is far more probable that Livy means that Cicero travelled on side roads, perhaps along the coast on the paths later incorporated into the Via Severiana; in addition, the phrase may well conceal a stop in his villa at Astura, as in Plutarch’s

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

252 Commentary rather different version. This too would have added time to his journey, since the route was longer and the roads poorer, but offered far more security and options for escape. Formianum: sc. praedium. Another of Cicero’s villas, at Formiae. Cicero had owned it at least since his praetorship in 66 (Att. 1.4.3). Salvatore Ciccone has plausibly identified the site, on the Via Appia about 2 km west of ancient Formiae, close to the monuments traditionally identified as the tombs of Cicero himself and his daughter Tullia (Ciccone (1982)). Formiae, modern Formia (BarrAtl Map 44 E3), was a city of the Volsci, which had come under Roman control as a civitas sine suffragio in the 330s. For its archaeological remains, along with those of neighbouring Caieta, see Ciccone et al. (1993–6), Cassieri (2014). ut . . . navem conscensurus: A strikingly unusual construction, apparently modelled on Greek (Woodman (2015), 79). Caieta: Modern Gaeta (BarrAtl Map 44 E3), around 7 km along the coast from Formiae. in altum provectum cum modo venti adversi rettulissent, modo ipse iactationem navis caeco volvente fluctu pati non posset: The plain meaning of this is straightforward: Cicero’s voyage was stymied partly by the winds (not unexpectedly in December), partly by his own sickness on the rolling sea (cf. Feddern (2013), 436 for caecus fluctus as a technical phrase for the swell of the sea). But it is worth noting the way moral and political themes are commonly addressed in Greek and Latin writers—­above all Cicero himself—­through the metaphor of sailing on a dangerous sea (Fantham (1972), 126–8; cf. Brock (2013), 71–85). Livy’s language echoes those discussions: the word iactatio in particular is often used, not least by Cicero, of the vacillations of fortune which the politician has to face (e.g. Cic., Clu. 95, Mur. 4, Prov. 38; cf. TLL VII.1 45.67–46.16).115 Cicero’s failure to complete his journey to Brutus symbolically matches his inability to respond effectively when fortune turned against him, a point which Livy will make explicitly in his final summary of Cicero’s life (cf. Lentano (2019), 36). taedium . . . et fugae et vitae cepit: taedium vitae first appears here in prose, and, presumably around the same time (though sometimes in the plural), in several Ovid passages (Met. 10.482, 10.625, Ib. 584, Pont. 1.9.31: see Woodman (2017), 195); it then became increasingly popular over the next century. taedium fugae is, however, unparalleled: Livy appears to be taking a phrase which is becoming familiar in contemporary writing, and elegantly varying it. For taedium cepit cf. Woodman (2015), 80–1.

115  For other examples of Livy’s phrases used in metaphorical contexts, see e.g. Lucr. 5.1434 (vitam provexit in altum), Cic., Tusc. 4.42 (in altum provehitur), Sen., Epist. 95.7 (sic secundo vento utere, sic adverso resiste), Atta, Com. 21 Ribbeck (pro populo fluctus caecos faciunt).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  253 superiorem villam: Woodman translates ‘the villa further up the coast’, which makes sense, in as much as Cicero’s villa is several kilometres along the coast from Caieta. But Livy’s phrasing more probably refers to the fact that the estate, as identified by Ciccone, consisted of more than one building: Cicero is carried to the one furthest inland, on higher ground on the north side of the Via Appia (Ciccone (1982), 534). ‘moriar’ inquit ‘in patria saepe servata’: There was a great interest among the Romans—­as there still is116—in someone’s ‘last words’, which were held to be of symbolic importance, summing up the person’s life and character (see Woodman (2014), 320–2). Livy does not suggest that these were literally Cicero’s final words, since in the next sentence he is said to give orders to his slaves, but he is highlighting those which serve that symbolic role. Thus he has Cicero here echoing his own claim at Dom. 76: bis a me patriam servatam esse; cf. Dom. 93, 99, 122, Phil. 2.60 for comparable statements (Woodman (2015), 81). Livy, however, increases the alleged number of salvations, which may reflect the fifteen years that had passed since Cicero delivered De Domo Sua, years in which, on his own account, Cicero had continued to save Rome, not least after Caesar’s death; but it may also reflect the sense that Cicero is someone who would exaggerate his services to the state (cf. Lentano (2019), 37). There is a contrast with the alternative version of Cicero’s last words reported by Aufidius Bassus FRHist 78 F 1 (= fr. 1P), where he heroically addresses the soldier who has come to kill him, rebuking him for his failure to be steadfast in striking the blow.117 The word patria is, however, more pointed and interesting in the words Livy ascribes to Cicero than in the phrase from Dom. that he is imitating. He im­pli­cit­ly identifies his patria with Italy, rather than the city of Rome or his home town of Arpinum118 or indeed the empire as a whole. It is possible that this is authentic, but it is at least as probable that it reflects Livy’s own emphatically (if ambivalently: see Levene (2010), 222–7) Italocentric image of Roman identity, at least as it emerges elsewhere in his work. satis constat: Another typically Livian phrase: apart from him, it only appears twice in Cicero prior to the first century ad (Woodman (2015), 78). fortiter fideliterque: Another characteristically Livian (and Ciceronian) phrase (Woodman (2015), 79). 116  On the enduring popularity of the theme in European culture see Guthke (1992). 117  Kaster (1998), 261 aptly refers to Bassus’ version as a ‘melodramatic script’, and an example of the ‘sentimentalization’ and ‘aestheticizing’ of Cicero’s death which prevailed in the declamatory trad­ ition in particular. One may compare Sir Thomas More’s final words to his executioner in 1535, as reported by his son-­in-­law William Roper: ‘Plucke up thy spirits, man, and be not afrayd to do thine Office: my necke is somwhat short, therefore take heed thou strikest not awry, for saving of thyne honesty’. Livy’s Cicero captures far more of the real man’s complexity, and might not have provided More—­or Roper—­with quite as apposite a model. 118 At Leg. 2.5 Cicero famously distinguished two senses of patria: one’s home town and the country of one’s citizenship.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

254 Commentary fors iniqua: Not found prior to this passage of Livy (and rarely after him); the related fortuna iniqua is, however, occasionally used in other Augustan writers (Ov., Pont. 4.6.39, Sen., Contr. 7.3.1 (Argentarius); cf. Vitr. 6 praef. 2: fortunae tempestas iniqua). Later MSS read sors, and Livy speaks elsewhere of sors iniquissima (38.23.4), but (contra Woodman (2015), 82) it is not improbable that Livy would represent Cicero as thinking in terms of chance, given the way in which his attempted sea-­voyage was blocked caeco volvente fluctu (for the proverbial ‘blindness’ of chance cf. e.g. Cic., Phil. 13.10, Lael. 54, Div. 2.15). prominenti ex lectica praebentique immotam cervicem caput praecisum est: Despite his very different account overall, Plu., Cic. 48.5 offers precisely the same detail. Woodman (2015), 82 rightly draws attention to the pointed elegance of the alliteration and assonance that Livy applies at the crucial moment of Cicero’s death.

nec ⟨id⟩ satis stolidae crudelitati militum fuit: Implicitly this was the soldiers’ own initiative (cf. Chlup (2004), 25), unlike in Plu., Cic. 48.6 and Ant. 20.2, where it was done on Antony’s orders. Several other sources for Cicero’s death describe his killer as a soldier called Popillius (Valerius Maximus gives his full name as C.  Popillius Laenas), whom supposedly Cicero had once defended. The earliest surviving account of this is in Bruttedius Niger (FRHist 72 F 1 = fr. 1P), but it is clear from Sen., Contr. 7.2 that it had been a declamation theme long before him (cf. also Val. Max. 5.3.4 (with Paris’ epitome), Sen., Tranq. 16.1, Plu., Cic. 48.1, App., BC 4.19–20, Dio 47.11.1–2). Seneca himself briefly discusses the question of its historicity (Contr. 7.2.8), noting its absence from most historians, and that even in the few who had it, Cicero had represented Popillius in a civil suit, not defended him on a charge of parricide as in the declamations.119 That slight difference between the dec­lam­ ations and Seneca’s historians might be taken to indicate that the relationship between Cicero and Popillius was historical, but that the declaimers introduced the parricide charge in order to make for a more pointed theme. But it is more probable that the story was invented as a theme for declamation,120 and that the first historians to include it softened the charge from parricide to a civil suit, since it would be hard otherwise to explain how a defence on so unusual and dramatic a charge was not otherwise recorded. Livy appears to have been one of the historians who did not report Popillius’ involvement. It is true that Per. 120.3 mentions Popillius (though not Cicero’s 119  In fact, outside Seneca’s declaimers, none of the surviving sources which report Cicero representing Popillius mentions the nature of the case at all, apart from Plu., Cic. 48.1 (which has it as parricide). 120  As argued persuasively by Roller (1997), 124–8; cf. Wright (2001), 437–47. See also Lentano (2016), 386–7 for the intriguing idea that Popillius may have been invented specifically as a substitute for—­but also perhaps a hidden allusion to—­the role of Octavian in the story: Cicero is killed by an ingrate who owed him everything. Cf. also Wilson (2008), 325–33 on the declaimers’ idea of Cicero as a kind of ‘father’ to their own art and to the Roman state as a whole.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  255 prior defence of him), but it is likely that this is one of those places where the Periochist has introduced a popular story from outside Livy into his narrative (see ad loc.), since Livy’s version seems to be premised on the ignorance of the soldiers about Cicero’s oratorical genius (cf. above), which clearly does not suit Popillius; nor does there seem to be any obvious reason for Livy to introduce the name of the killer at some other point before or after the passage, especially if he is not going to mention the story of Cicero’s defence. The other possibility is that Livy introduced the story about Popillius as a contradictory variant, which the Periochist, because of its popularity, elevated into the main narrative. But while the Periochist does occasionally treat variants in that fashion (see 8.1, 25.11, 39.5, 45.6, with notes ad locc.), he does so considerably less often than he introduces non-­Livian material, and in any case Seneca is unlikely to have made so pointed a reference to the absence of the Popillius story from most historians if it had appeared in Livy (cf. Wright (2001), 439–40). Among those who introduce the Popillius story, Bruttedius Niger uses it to reject the account of Cicero’s final acceptance of death found in Livy (and Aufidius Bassus), since at the sight of Popillius he sees a possibility of hope (laetiore vultu).121 Plu., Cic. 48.1–3 combines the versions: the person who actually strikes the blow is not Popillius (who is a tribune in this version) but a centurion named Herennius, and Popillius appears not even to be present when Cicero is killed. Plutarch is thus able to keep Popillius in the story while maintaining Livy’s account of Cicero’s unmoving behaviour in the face of his death. inter duas manus: Sources vary as to whether it was both of Cicero’s hands, as here, or only the right hand. The former version is in Corn. Sev. fr. 13.17 (Courtney), Bruttedius Niger, FRHist 72 F 1 (= fr. 1P), and Plu., Cic. 48.6, but the latter was more popular, perhaps because it made more directly the connection between the mutilation and Cicero’s writing: see Cremutius Cordus, FRHist 71 F 1 (= fr. 1P), Sen., Contr. 7.2.13, Val. Max. 5.3.4, Plu., Ant. 20.2, Juv. 10.120, App., BC 4.20, Dio 47.8.3. Here too Per. 120.3 follows the standard version of the story rather than Livy’s. in rostris positum, ubi ille consul, ubi saepe consularis, ubi eo ipso anno adversus Antonium . . . auditus fuerat: As Biggs (2019) well discusses, this is in one crucial respect a fiction: the Rostra on which Cicero’s head and hand(s) were displayed was not the same as the one from which he had spoken as consul. Caesar during his dictatorship had rebuilt and indeed moved the Rostra from its prior position; moreover, by the time Livy wrote Book 120 it had been rebuilt once more by Augustus. The symbolism of the Rostra’s continuity outweighs the

121  This too may derive ultimately from the declaimers: see Sen., Contr. 7.2.14 for imagined accounts of how Cicero might have reacted to Popillius’ arrival.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

256 Commentary ma­ter­ial fact of its alteration.122 In addition Livy here, drawing attention to the irony of the head of the speaker displayed on the Rostra, echoes Cicero’s own description of the display of the head of Marcus Antonius, the triumvir’s ­grand­father, after he was killed by Marius in 87 bc (Biggs (2019), 32–3).123

vix attollentes 〈prae〉 lacrimis oculos homines intueri trucidati membra Ciceronis poterant: The sentence, though easily comprehensible in outline, is textually difficult. The MSS read vix attollentes lacrimis oculos homines intueri trucidata membra civis poterant. Clearly a word governing lacrimis has dropped out: Gronovius’ prae is the easiest suggestion, though one can hardly exclude Håkanson’s madentes (cf. Håkanson (1989), 16). But (a) to describe limbs, rather than the people to whom those limbs belong, as trucidata, is problematic; and (b) civis is unacceptably bald and unnatural Latin: one would not naturally use the bare civis to mean ‘one’s fellow citizen’. Haase proposed the easy change of trucidata to trucidati, which solves the first problem but not the second. C. F. W. Müller suggested altering homines to humentes and civis to cives, which neatly removes the need for an additional word to govern lacrimis, but one might expect it to be stated explicitly to whom the membra belonged. Watt’s suggestion of eius is idiom­ at­ic, but falls flat as the climax of so dramatic a description. Accordingly, I have preferred Woodman’s reading of Ciceronis, which provides an attractive closural resonance. F 62 vixit tres et sexaginta annos: Cicero was born in 106; he died, according to Tac., Dial. 17.2 (citing Tiro) on 7 December 43 (almost exactly the same phrase is used by Aufidius Bassus in his own obituary on Cicero (FRHist 78 F 2 = fr. 2P)). The Roman interest in age at death is shown by numerous funerary inscriptions, which are, however, skewed disproportionately: ages are far more likely to be recorded either when parents commemorate their children who died in childhood or adolescence, or else when someone died surprisingly old (cf. Hopkins (1966)). It is of a piece with this that Livy introduces Cicero’s age in the context of whether his death should be considered premature. ne immatura quidem mors videri possit: As noted by Lamacchia (1975), 425–6, this undercuts the sense of pathos generated by Livy’s dramatic description of Cicero’s death; it also does so in a very Ciceronian way. Livy’s phrasing alludes to 122  This is typical of Livy’s elevation of symbolic topography in the city of Rome over the literal (cf. Levene (2019)); but in this particular case, as Biggs notes, he was followed by many others (e.g. Bruttedius Niger, FRHist 72 F 1, Cremutius Cordus, FRHist 71 F 1 (= fr. 1P), Quint., Decl. Min. 268.20, Flor. 2.16.5, App., BC 4.20)—the dramatic potential of the mutilated body of Cicero placed where his voice had once reigned was hard to resist. 123 Cic., De Orat. 3.10: iam M. Antoni in eis ipsis rostris, in quibus ille rem publicam constantissime consul defenderat quaeque censor imperatoriis manubiis ornarat, positum caput illud fuit, a quo erant multorum capita servata.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  257 Cicero’s own denial that his death as a senex could seem premature (Phil. 2.119: si abhinc annos prope viginti hoc ipso in templo negavi posse mortem immaturam esse consulari, quanto verius non negabo seni), which itself explicitly refers back to his own argument at Catil. 4.3 that in fact no death was premature for someone who had been consul (nam neque turpis mors forti viro potest accidere neque immatura consulari nec misera sapienti) (Ramsey (2003), 336). Livy makes the same essential point—­that Cicero’s accomplishments were such that death was not too early for him—­but his qualification si vis afuisset subtly alters the nature of the argument. Cicero is clearly contemplating—­and claiming to accept—­the possibility of violent death in both of the passages to which Livy refers. Livy, however, suggests that Cicero is wrong, that the nature of his death did, despite his age and past achievements, mean that it came too early—­and his account of Cicero’s last days also indicates that, when it came to it, Cicero felt that too, and his statements to the contrary were self-­dramatizing rather than a true willingness to contemplate death with a tranquil mind. Livy’s judgement thus is not al­together dissimilar from Pollio’s: ‘I would not judge him even to have had a pitiful end, were it not that he himself had thought death so pitiable’ (FRHist 56 F 7 = fr. 5P: ego ne miserandi quidem exitus eum fuisse iudicarem, nisi ipse tam miseram mortem putasset).124 ingenium et operibus et praemiis operum felix, ipse fortunae diu prosperae; sed in longo tenore felicitatis magnis interim ictus vulneribus: As Woodman (2015), 83 suggests, Livy moves between two different senses of felix/felicitas: the first is metaphorical, describing his ‘fertility’, the second is the commoner meaning of ‘good fortune’. fortunae . . . prosperae effectively connects the two—­felicitatis draws its sense from fortunae, even though the word itself picks up felix. The general argument recalls the judgement of Pollio:125 ‘Would that he had borne prosperity more moderately and adversity more bravely! For when either had happened to him, he thought that they could not change’ (FRHist 56 F 7 = fr. 5P: utinam moderatius secundas res et fortius adversas ferre potuisset! namque utraeque cum evenerant ei, mutari eas non posse rebatur). But in recalling it Livy also responds to it: whereas Pollio had criticized Cicero as wrong-­headed in times of prosperity as well as when facing disaster, Livy only criticizes the latter (Leeman (1963), 190). exilio: Cicero was compelled to leave Rome in March 58 as a result of attacks on him over the execution of the Catilinarian conspirators; he was recalled in August 57. 124  On the relationship between Livy and Pollio here see Richter (1968), 181–2, arguing that Livy structures his obituary around the same points of criticism that Pollio did, but at the same time softens them: cf. also below. 125 Itself, as Woodman (2015), 73–4 observes, an ironic response to Cic., Fam. 5.21.4: ut illa secunda moderate tulimus, sic hanc non solum adversam, sed funditus eversam fortunam fortiter ferre debemus. Cicero’s greatest weakness, for Pollio, was his failure to live up to his own manifesto.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

258 Commentary filiae exitu tam tristi atque acerbo: Cicero’s daughter Tullia died in February 45. The MSS read filiae morte, exitu tam tristi atque acerbo; I am assuming, with Madvig, that morte entered the text as a gloss on exitu, but it is also possible, as Woodman (2015), 83 argues, that the transmitted reading should be maintained, with exitu . . . acerbo being read as an appositional phrase (Feddern (2013), 452–3 reads it as referring to Cicero’s own death, but less plausibly, given what Livy says about Cicero’s death in the rest of the passage: see Håkanson (1989), 18). Woodman also notes the Ciceronian resonance of exitu . . . tristi atque acerbo (e.g. Brut. 128, Planc. 73). nihil ut viro dignum erat tulit praeter mortem: Woodman (2015), 84–5 argues that this is a harsher judgement than one would expect from Livy in the light of the way Seneca represents his practice of writing obituaries; accordingly, he proposes to emend praeter mortem to prae morte, softening the criticism of Cicero’s unmanliness by making it appear so only in comparison to his heroism at his death. But, as I argue above, Seneca’s description of Livy is not incompatible with his offering criticisms, and moreover, even on the transmitted text, it is not the harshest criticism that Livy had to offer of Cicero’s character and behaviour. Cicero’s anguished response to his exile, to the destruction of the political life of the Republic with Caesar’s dictatorship, and above all to his daughter’s death, are all apparent from his writings at the time, especially his letters, and, to many modern readers, show him at his most human and sympathetic. But at Rome, giving way so overtly to grief was often viewed less warmly, as indeed Cicero’s correspondence attests: his letters to Atticus during his exile and after his daughter’s death frequently refer to Atticus’ rebukes at his failure to act with appropriate courage and manliness in his distress.126 The difference between Cicero’s philosophical advice on how to face misfortune (notably in Tusculan Disputations 3)127 and how he himself actually responded to such misfortune was noted by Brutus in a famous letter (ad Brut. 1.17.4);128 Livy, who frequently praises the steadfastness of characters in situations of extreme disaster, is unlikely to have reacted any differently to Cicero’s behaviour. vere aestimanti: ‘An expression which is first found in Livy and of which he is fond (3.19.6, 6.11.4, 30.22.3, 34.27.1, 37.58.8)’ (Woodman (2015), 78). 126  See esp. Att. 3.10.2 me tam saepe et tam vehementer obiurgas et animo infirmo esse dicis; 3.15.1 me obiurgas et rogas ut sim firmior; also e.g. 3.11.2, 3.12.1, 3.13.2, 3.15.7, 12.38a.1, 12.40.2, 12.41.3. Brutus apparently had a similar response to Cicero’s grief at Tullia’s death: see ad Brut. 1.9.1: cum enim mollius tibi ferre viderer quam deceret virum (cf. Att. 13.6.3). 127  For a more sympathetic account of the mismatch between Cicero’s grief over Tullia and his arguments against giving way to grief in Tusculan Disputations see Erskine (1997), arguing that writing the Tusculans was a form of therapy for Cicero, teaching him how to overcome his own distress. 128  The authenticity of this letter is hotly disputed: see in favour e.g. Gotter (1996), 286–98, Moles (1997), 148–61; contra e.g. Shackleton Bailey (1980), 10–14, Harvey (1991), 22–9, Keeline (2018), 149–50. Even if not genuine, however, it certainly dates from no later than the early im­per­ial period, since it is cited by Plutarch (Brut. 22.4–6, Cic. 45.2, Comp. Dem. Cic. 4.4), and as such attests to views of Cicero that would have been current around the time Livy was writing.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  259 indigna: = ‘undeserved’. Frank (1913), 325–6 notes that this picks up viro dignum in the previous clause, which, however, means ‘worthy of a man’, not ‘deserved by a man’. Frank uses this as a reason to emend the text of that clause to nihil quod viro dignum esset tulit (‘he endured nothing which a man deserved’), so that dignum can mean the same in both cases; but the emend­ation is improbable in itself, and in any case unnecessary: Livy, as he did with felix–­felicitas at the start of the paragraph (see above), is artfully linking two different meanings of the word, showing two ways in which Cicero’s death might or might not be thought dignum. victore inimico: ‘Another Ciceronian expression (Sest. 48 and esp. Phil. 13.10)’ (Woodman (2015), 85). eiusdem fortunae compos victo fecisset: Mommsen’s emendation to the MSS eiusdem fortunae composito victo fecisset; victo facere is used by Livy at 37.54.14. magnus ac memorabilis: An unusual phrase. Livy had used the same pair of adjectives at 39.51.10 in the context of Flamininus’ ‘victory’ over Hannibal; it was also used in a very different context by Terence, Heaut. 314, and ironically by Virg., Aen. 4.94 (imitated by Ov., Met. 10.608), and it is found in a few other early imperial writers. This is the only place, however, where it is used to describe a person. in cuius laudes exequendas Cicerone laudatore opus fuerit: For the general idea—­that only Cicero himself could speak adequately about himself—­cf. Val. Max. 5.3.4 qui talem Ciceronis casum satis digne deplorare possit, alius Cicero non extat (‘There is not another Cicero who could lament in a worthy enough way such a fate of Cicero’). F 63 Horace, Satires 1.5 is an account of a journey Horace took with a number of companions from Rome to Brundisium. He describes how at Tarracina, by arrangement, they met Maecenas, L.  Cocceius Nerva, and Antony’s friend Fonteius Capito. At this point the ancient commentaries, citing Livy Book 127, explain the historical background: they were there to reconcile Octavian and Antony, who had quarrelled. A late antique commentary survives based on a third-­century commentary by Pomponius Porphyrio. There is a second strand of late antique commentary, surviving in two distinct versions, together known as pseudo-­Acro; only one of those versions, however, covers the Satires.129 The pseudo-­Acro commentary often draws on Porphyrio (Zetzel (2018), 155–6), and, in the case of the passage here, little in it can go back to any other source, except possibly the correction (but see below) of the relationship between the Nerva in Horace and the

129  See Zetzel (2018), 153–6 for a succinct account of the different versions of the ps-­Acro commentary, their relationship to each other and to Porphyrio. See also F 64n.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

260 Commentary Nerva who was emperor more than a century later. In the discussion that follows, I will confine my comments solely to Porphyrio’s version.130 Porphyrio attributes the fragment to Book 127. This has been questioned by Jal (1979), 289–91,131 on the basis that he believes Horace to be describing the negotiations for the pact of Tarentum in 37 bc, which comes in the period ­covered by Book 128. But Jal appears to be confused (cf. Chillet (2016), 245–6): as he himself points out ((1979), 290), Porphyrio believed that Horace was describing the pact of Brundisium in 40 bc, which was indeed in Book 127 (see Per. 127.2). More generally, Jal’s problem appears to be that he has misunderstood both the nature of Horace’s poem and Porphyrio’s comment on it. There were three recorded missions of reconciliation between Octavian and Antony between 40 and 37—the pact of Brundisium in 40, the pact of Tarentum in 37, and, between them, a mission of Maecenas to Athens to negotiate with Antony in 38. Horace’s account draws elements from all three of them, but is itself a fictional construct.132 Hence Porphyrio was faced with the same problem as modern scholars have been in trying to identify the occasion of Horace’s purported journey, and his own solution was to link it to the pact of Brundisium, and, accordingly, cites Livy’s account of that pact from Book 127—noting, however, one major difference between Livy and Horace,133 namely that Horace has not only Maecenas and Nerva, but also Fonteius Capito participating in the conference. (Livy presumably omitted Fonteius Capito for the very good reason that he was not present at Brundisium in 40 bc134—Horace perhaps inserted him because of his involvement in the later pact of Tarentum in 37.135) The fullest account of the pact at Brundisium is in App., BC 5.60–4; there are also briefer versions in Plu., Ant. 30.3–31.3 and Dio 48.28.3–30.3. Octavian’s troops and Antony’s were at that point in open warfare; the latter had brought his army to Italy by sea and was besieging Brundisium, and also, with the support of Sextus Pompeius, attacking a number of other places in southern Italy. Octavian 130  Previous editions have cited a third source: the scholia printed by the Renaissance scholar Jacobus Cruquius, who claimed to be drawing on an independent manuscript. But this is an error: in fact Cruquius had no source for his scholia apart from ps-­Acro, which he combined with ma­ter­ial taken from printed commentaries: see Zetzel (2018), 156. 131  Jal was apparently unaware that his claim had been anticipated by PIR1 1.427–8. 132  So Musurillo (1954–55), whose arguments are often ignored or their implications avoided, but who still remains persuasive on the essential point. 133 Another difference—­and the reason why most modern scholars have ruled out the pact of Brundisium as the setting of the satire—­is the presence of Horace himself, who, according to the chronological indications he gives in his other poems, cannot have been part of the circle of Maecenas in 40. But there is no reason to suppose that this problem would have been apparent to Porphyrio. 134  Contra Bleicken (1990), 36, who claims that Capito was present at Brundisium. However, his source is the scholia of Jacobus Cruquius; Cruquius cites Livy on this same passage and explicitly mentions Brundisium as the place where the armies united, implying the presence of Capito; but in fact he had no ancient source for this (see n. 130 above). 135  Münzer (1909). No source actually mentions Capito being with Antony at Tarentum, but Plu., Ant. 36.1 has Antony sending him on a mission to Cleopatra immediately afterwards, so his presence is at least plausible.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  261 sent his own forces to confront them, but the two parties ultimately came to terms, agreeing to partition the empire, Antony taking the east, Octavian the west. The pact was reinforced by the marriage of Antony to Octavian’s sister (both had recently been widowed). That Livy is describing the same pact is clear from the account of the two armies coming together, which suits the circumstances of neither the mission in 38 (where no armies were involved) nor the pact in 37 (where only Octavian had a land army: see Plu., Ant. 35.3); likewise Appian emphasizes the central role played by Cocceius Nerva in persuading Octavian to approach Antony and come to terms. Livy, however, offered some details which are not recorded elsewhere. The reconciliation of the soldiers is described by other historians (App., BC 5.64, cf. 5.59; Dio 48.30.1), but the symbolic sharing of the standards is unique to Livy. No other source mentions the presence of Agrippa at the conference; it is not especially surprising that he should be there, given that he was campaigning nearby under Octavian’s auspices (App., BC 5.57, Dio 48.28.1), but it is also pos­ sible that this reflects some garbling by the commentator (cf. below). More problematic is the claim that Nerva persuaded Octavian to send someone to Tarracina. This makes little sense in the context of the negotiations in 40, which took place entirely in south-­eastern Italy, where the armies and their commanders were based, and appears to arise from Porphyrio’s attempt to reconcile Livy’s narrative with the circumstances of the journey reported in Horace. L. Cocceius Nerva: RE 12. He was a friend of both Antony and Octavian, and, as such, acted as their intermediary through the early years of the Second Triumvirate. avus eius qui postea imperavit: For obvious reasons, this does not derive from Livy, but is Porphyrio’s own comment. Ps-­Acro reads proavus, which may reflect the original reading of Porphyrio, or may derive from another source, but in any case is wrong: the emperor Nerva was probably descended not from the figure here, but from his brother M.  Cocceius Nerva (cos. 36). He may have been his great-­grandson, as in ps-­Acro, but more probably (on chrono­logic­al grounds) was his great-­great-grandson (see PIR2 2.292). Tarracinam: Modern Terracina (BarrAtl Map 44 D3). It was (under the name of Anxur) originally a city of the Volsci; the Romans captured it in the late fifth century bc, and established a colony there around seventy-­five years later, eventually connecting it to Rome on the Via Appia. Maecenas: C. Maecenas Cilnius, c.70–8 (RE 6: for his full name see Woodman (2017), 138; also more broadly Chillet (2016), 28–35). He never held formal political office, remaining as an eques for his entire life, but he was one of Octavian’s/Augustus’ closest confidants, representing him diplomatically and, from 36 onwards, licensed to act on his behalf and in his name in Rome when Augustus was absent. He was famous both for his luxurious lifestyle and his

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

262 Commentary literary patronage, notably of Virgil and Horace. For his career see Le Doze (2014), Chillet (2016). Agrippa: M. Vipsanius Agrippa, 64/3–12; cos. 37, 28, 27 (RE 2). His friendship with Octavian went back to their youth, and he came with him to Rome after Caesar’s death; there he embarked on a political career, holding the praetorship in 40, and then becoming consul in 37, while at the same time building a reputation as a military commander, culminating in the victory over Antony at Actium. He was Augustus’ primary partner through the first part of his reign, marrying his daughter Julia; but he predeceased him by twenty-­five years, dying in 12. Major studies of his career include Reinhold (1965), Roddaz (1984). adgressi sunt: ‘Approached’ (TLL I 1315.44–53). The word is, however, surprising in this context, given its more common overtones of military assault; it is pos­ sible that Porphyrio—­or the person who abridged Porphyrio into the text that we currently read—­conflated an account of the military activity of Agrippa into the negotiations. If so, it is also possible that Agrippa did not, contrary to what Porphyrio implies, actually participate in the conference.136 signa: See F 26n. Fontei Capitonis: C. Fonteius Capito, cos. suff. 33 (RE 20). Little of his career is known, apart from his involvement in the conference described by Horace, and his subsequent mission to Cleopatra (cf. above). F 64 Horace, Epode 9 is a celebration of Octavian’s victory at Actium, comparing it to the victory some years earlier over Sextus Pompeius at Naulochus. He refers (Epod. 9.7–8) to Sextus Pompeius as Neptunius dux; the scholiasts offer different explanations for that epithet. One version (the so-­called Γ´ version) of the ps-­Acro scholia (see F 63n.) cites Livy as the source for some of the information; however, the reference to Livy does not appear in all MSS, and neither W-­M nor Jal included the fragment.137 Moreover, the MS readings in question were ignored 136  Roddaz (1984), 64 reaches the same conclusion for a different reason: he believes that the scholiast confused the pact of Brundisium with the pact of Tarentum in 37, where Agrippa certainly participated. His grounds are the absence of Agrippa from Appian, whose narrative (he claims) derives from Pollio, a participant at the conference (App., BC 5.64). But this depends on a series of assumptions: (1) that Appian did indeed depend on Pollio, (2) that he reported him re­li­ably, and (3) that Pollio had no other motives for playing down Agrippa’s role. To set against that is the unlikelihood that Porphyrio, having identified Livy’s account of the pact of Brundisium as the relevant portion with which to elucidate Horace, would then incorporate material from a different pact three years later. As noted in the main text, Porphyrio (in his current form) may still be misrepresenting Livy, or else Livy may have unhistorically enhanced Agrippa’s role; but the absence of Agrippa from Appian is not of itself a strong reason to doubt his presence. 137  The citation of Livy is repeated in a more tidy form in the scholia of an eleventh-­century MS (Cod. Vat. Lat. 3866), but this appears to be merely a mediaeval reworking of the material of the ps-­Acro scholia: see Massaro (1980), 405–6. It also appears in the scholia of Jacobus Cruquius, on which see n. 130 above.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  263 by Otto Keller in his 1902 Teubner edition of the ps-­Acro scholia—­they are not mentioned even in the apparatus. Keller’s reasoning was, presumably, that the paragraph that refers to Livy merely repeats in a briefer and more confused manner the information from the fuller account in the other paragraph; but a strong case for the authenticity of the citation was made by Matteo Massaro (Massaro (1980), esp. 409–10), noting the unlikelihood of an attribution to Livy originating in the mediaeval period, and hence arguing that it went back to a time when an authentic text of Livy was potentially available. Massaro further argued plausibly that the commentary of Porphyrio, which makes essentially the same points as ps-­Acro does, is closely dependent on Livy, even though in its current form it does not mention him by name. If this is accepted, it follows that Livy reported not only that Sextus Pompeius claimed to be the son of Neptune, but also that he wore an outfit in his manner and attributed his successes at sea to Neptune. The ps-­Acro scholiast presents those as alternatives, but in Porphyrio they are connected: ‘fired by his success in naval matters, he advanced to such a point of stupidity that he said that he was the son of Neptune, and wore dark blue clothing’ (ad eam stultitiam processisset inflammatus pro marinarum rerum felicitate ut Neptuni filium se diceret, et cyanea veste obduceretur); it is likely that Livy offered something similar. Livy probably included it after his account of Sextus’ initial successes against Octavian in Book 128, which is where Dio 48.48.5 and App., BC 5.100 place the description of his adopting the costume (cf. Massaro (1980), 420–1), although, according to Dio, Sextus was already claiming descent from Neptune some years earlier (Dio 48.19.2; cf. 48.31.5), so it cannot be completely excluded that Livy referred to it in an earlier book. Sextus’ Neptunian pretensions are also mentioned in Plin., Nat. 9.55 and Vir. Ill. 84.2, both of which refer to his claiming to be Neptune’s son (but do not mention the costume).138 However, the most striking demonstration of it is in his coinage: not only do some of his coins include representations of Neptune (see esp. RRC 511/2–4), but a coin minted by Sextus’ lieutenant Q. Nasidius depicts the image of Pompey with Neptunian iconography, and the legend NEPTUNI, implying ‘son of Neptune’ (RRC 483).139 It is plausibly to be seen as a response to Octavian’s own promotion of himself as divi filius following the deification of Caesar (La Rocca (1987–8)), but, more generally, it is part of a pattern of divine assimilation by leading figures in the later Republic, going hand in hand with the informal treatment by others of leaders as divine (cf. Pollini (1990), Beard, North, and Price (1998), 1.140–9). The scholiasts on Horace regard it with scepticism, and Livy may well 138  Cf. Flor. 2.18.3, where Sextus sacrifices extravagantly to Neptune ‘so that the ruler of the sea should allow him to reign in his sea’ (ut se maris rector in suo mari regnare pateretur); this sacrifice is also mentioned in App., BC 5.100, Dio 48.48.5, Vir. Ill. 84.2. 139  On the coinage see especially La Rocca (1987–8), arguing that Sextus was drawing on an association with Neptune that Pompey himself had promoted during his lifetime.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

264 Commentary have done the same; in his surviving work he treats the divine pretensions of Scipio Africanus coolly (Levene (1993), 18–19, 61, Davies (2004), 126–33). More generally, the increasing tendency both in cult and in literature to treat people in divine terms regularly went hand in hand with contempt at some of those who made such a claim. The difference sometimes, as here, presumably resided in the fact that the person who made the claim was a despised enemy, and one whose defeat was taken to show, albeit in retrospect, how grotesque his attempt to connect himself to Neptune was. But the tendency to criticism could often by governed by far more nuanced considerations, such as the context in which the claim was made, or the context in which it was received, or the precise form that it took (see also below). For discussion see e.g. Levene (1997), Gradel (2002), esp. 140–61. Sextus Pompeius: Sextus Pompeius Magnus (c.76–35), RE 33, the younger of Pompey’s two sons. He fought against Caesar in the civil war in both Africa and Spain; during the Second Triumvirate he established a base in Sicily. He briefly came to terms with the triumvirs, but then broke with them; after his defeat he was captured and killed in 35. Studies of his career include Hadas (1930), Powell and Welch (2002), Welch (2012). piraticam exercuit: Sextus certainly used his control of the seas in the western Mediterranean to blockade territory controlled by the triumvirs; in add­ition, he is recorded in our (admittedly partial) sources as attacking and plundering merchant shipping and raiding the coast of Italy. He and his supporters presumably regarded this as ‘legitimate warfare’ (Hadas (1930), 68–9), but it is equally understandable that to supporters of the triumvirs it appeared straightforward piracy, and it is invariably presented in this fashion in both contemporary and later sources. ibique victus atque fugatus est: At the battle of Naulochus, off the north-­eastern coast of Sicily, on 3 September 36 (the date is given by the Fasti Amiternini: cf. Degrassi, Fast. Ann. 506). in habitu Neptuni pugnabat: It must be questionable whether this is his­tor­ic­al; it appears to be part of a pattern of propaganda at this period (cf. Pollini (1990), 344–6): around the same time Octavian was accused by Antony of having taken part in a banquet where he acted the part of Apollo and other guests played other gods and goddesses (Suet., Aug. 70). One way of debunking an enemy’s claim to a divine relationship was to suggest that he engaged in it in an exaggerated form that crossed the usual bounds of propriety: thus ancient sources take Caligula’s dressing as and acting the part of gods as a demonstration of his extravagant madness (cf. Gradel (2002), 146–9). Dio describes the costume as ‘a dark blue140 garment’ (48.48.5: στολὴν κυανοειδῆ); Porphyrio similarly speaks of cyanea veste; Appian refers to it more

140  For this translation cf. Irwin (1974), 79–110, arguing that the word, originally denoting something dark, from the early fifth century gradually took on connotations of blueness, specifically with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  265 specifically as a χλαμύς, a military cloak (BC 5.100). The colour, identified as that of the sea, linked it distinctively to Neptune (cf. John Malalas, Chron. 7.4). F 65 This fragment, like FF 63–4, is recorded in the scholia on Horace; as with F 63, the Porphyrio commentary should be assumed to be primary, and the ps-­Acro commentary dependent on it (and the so-­ called Cruquius scholia are not included). Porphyrio is commenting on the last lines of Horace’s Cleopatra ode (1.37), where Horace explains her suicide by her ‘grudging’ (invidens) to be led in triumph; Porphyrio cites Livy, according to whom Cleopatra repeatedly expressed her determination not to be part of the triumph. Per. 133.2 confirms that it comes from that book. That Cleopatra’s motive in committing suicide was a desire to avoid being led in triumph became a standard feature of the tradition concerning her: see Plu., Ant. 85.4 (where, however, it is bound up with a broader desire not to be parted from Antony in death), Flor. 2.21.10, Dio 51.13.1–2, Oros. 6.19.18; cf. Suet., Aug. 17.4. Its historicity, like much else connected with Cleopatra’s death, can hardly be assured, given the extent to which in its earliest days her legend was shaped by Augustus’ political aims: indeed, the very fact of her suicide has sometimes been challenged as an invention of Augustan propaganda.141 Moreover, it is worth noting that the idea of committing suicide in order not to be part of a triumph is a trope of Roman literature, applied to various other defeated leaders: Cleopatra in Livy, as elsewhere, falls into a very Roman pattern.142 in captivitate indulgentius tractaretur: That Cleopatra was treated well after her capture is explicitly stated by Dio 51.13, and is implicit in Plutarch’s description of her access to her servants and various items of luxury (Ant. 85). This too might be thought an artefact of Augustan propaganda, but even if one believes the story of her suicide to be a fiction (cf. above), it is a fiction that could only have gained currency if Cleopatra had been left relatively free to act, something which a good number of witnesses would be in a position to know. identidem dicere solitam fuisse: For identidem used to emphasize the repetition already implicit in solitam, cf. Cic., S. Rosc. 84, Pomp. Trog., Anim. fr. 10 (Seel), Curt. 6.9.24; more generally cf. K-­S 2.575 on the common reinforcement of frequentative verbs by apparently pleonastic adverbs. If (as it may) the phrasing goes

reference to the sea; note, however, Griffith (2005), who suggests that the association with blueness is present even in earlier periods. 141  So e.g. Johnson (1967), esp. 393–7, Nisbet and Hubbard (1970), 409–10; contra e.g. Pelling (1988), 319–20, Whitehorne (1994), 194–6. 142  See esp. the perceptive analysis of Beard (2007), 114–17, describing it as ‘part of that ambivalent power struggle between victor and victim that lies embedded at the center of the triumph and its representations’ (117).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

266 Commentary back to Livy, it gives an obsessive quality of determination to Cleopatra’s character: cf. the next note.

οὐ θριαμβεύσομαι, id est non triumphabor ab alio: For triumphari = ‘to be triumphed over’ see OLD s.v. triumpho 3a; for its Greek equivalent see LSJ s.v. θριαμβεύω II.1. It is unexpected that Livy would employ the Greek word here, something he never does in his surviving work, and which is in general rare in Latin historiography;143 but there is little reason to doubt its authenticity—­it is unlikely that Porphyrio would have included the Greek if it were not in Livy. The very unexpectedness of the Greek may indeed have been the reason Livy included it: an arresting conclusion to Cleopatra’s life, while at the same time also emphasizing her alienness, itself a major theme of the Augustan reception.144 It is tempting— ­if unprovable—­also to think that Livy might have offered this as the final words he records from her: certainly its epigrammatic quality, with its defiant condensation of Cleopatra’s character into a single phrase, bears some resemblance to other such ‘last words’ (cf. F 61n.). Meyer proposed to delete id est non triumphabor ab alio as a gloss, but if Livy did indeed include the Greek, as argued above, he is likely to have offered a translation of this sort. F 66 In the course of his discursive commentary on Song of Songs 8:10 (‘I am a wall and my breasts are like a tower, then I became in his eyes like one who finds peace’), Apponius explains the reference to ‘peace’ as the peace brought by Jesus not just to souls but to the world, and offers a piece of historical information, citing Livy as its source: on the exact day of Jesus’ epiphany, Augustus, after returning from Britain, proclaimed to the Romans in the games that there was peace across the world. It is obvious that Apponius’ history, and hence his citation of Livy, is confused. Augustus certainly never invaded Britain: the absence of any mention of Britain from the Res Gestae (apart from the supplications offered by two British kings who apparently fled to Augustus for support: R.Gest. 32.1) is sufficient demonstration of that. The question, therefore, is what, if anything, lies behind Apponius’ report: whether there was in Livy any moment when Augustus might have proclaimed world peace in Rome after doing something that Apponius—­or Apponius’ source (since it is very unlikely that Apponius can have been citing this at first hand)—might have characterized as ‘returning from the island of Britain’. Proclaiming world peace is easier to pin down: if anything like this happened, it can only have been tied to the times when Augustus closed the gates of the 143  It is far more common in biography, notably Suetonius (cf. Townend (1960)); in a later period Ammianus also occasionally quotes Greek (his native language). 144  Cf. Adams (2003), 403–5 on ‘code-­switching and the evocation of the exotic’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  267 Temple of Janus, something that he himself celebrates as representing the moments when Rome had brought peace across the world (R. Gest. 13). The gates were certainly closed in 29 bc and 25 bc (Dio 51.20.4, 53.26.5); and prior to the second, according to Dio, Augustus contemplated an expedition to Britain, although it never in fact transpired, since he went to Spain instead (Dio 53.25.2): it was his victory in Spain that led to the closure. Nevertheless the idea of a British campaign was a significant feature of contemporary propaganda: there are several references in poetry of the mid-­20s to contemplated expeditions (Prop. 2.27.5, Hor., Od. 1.21.13–16, 1.35.29–30, 3.4.34, 3.5.2–4). The events of this time appear to have been recorded by Livy in Book 135 (see Per. 135), and one possibility is that a garbled version of his account led to Apponius’ report. But Augustus appears to refer to a third closure also, and this is more controversial. Dio refers to a vote to close the gates in 11 or 10 bc which was never put into effect because of a Dacian invasion and a Dalmatian uprising (54.36.2); it is, accordingly, possible that the third closure never took place at all. Augustus speaks of it being voted for by the Senate, not to its actually happening, and this may be pointed (so Ridley (2003), 114–15). On the other hand, Suet., Aug. 22, directly refers to three closures: possibly he merely misinterpreted the Res Gestae, which he certainly knew, but there are other pos­si­bil­ities. One widely canvassed date is 13 bc, the time of the decreeing of the Ara Pacis following Augustus’ successful campaign in Spain and Gaul (so e.g. Witte (1903) 35–9, Scott Ryberg (1949), 92–4, Weinstock (1960), 48, Reed (1973), 779–85); this is potentially supported by references to the closing of the gates in Horace (Od. 4.15.8–9 and Epist. 2.1.255), although both passages could refer to the earlier closings. However, Syme (1979a), 202 points to a significant problem, namely Agrippa’s imminent campaign in Illyricum—­it would be strange to close the gates at precisely the moment that a major new expedition of conquest was being planned. Moreover, the absence of any mention of the clos­ure in Dio, while not determinative, is at least a reason to doubt the hypothesis. Other people have preferred 8–7 bc (e.g. Syme (1979a), 202–4), but there is no positive evidence in favour of that date, and here too the lack of any mention in Dio is a potential difficulty. No source, moreover, associates either of these occasions with any dealings at all with Britain (despite the attempt by Reed (1973), 777–8, following Stevens (1951), 337–9, to infer such dealings in 13 bc from some Roman-­influenced British coinage). There is in fact one text which actually gives the date of a third closure, namely Oros. 6.22.1–5, who claims that it happened in 2 bc, at the time of the birth of Jesus, a claim which dovetails very neatly with our fragment here.145 Clearly Apponius and Orosius are relaying versions of the same (real or im­agined) event; in addition, the direct association in Apponius with a new war in Syria which arose immediately afterwards fits very well with Orosius’ date, since in 1 bc, according to Dio 55.11.18, there was a revolt in Armenia, and Augustus sent his grandson Gaius to Syria to deal with it. 145  Cf. Oros. 7.3.7 (= Tac., Hist. fr. 4), referring to a subsequent opening late in Augustus’ life.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

268 Commentary It should also be noted that there is a significant lacuna in Dio 55.10, ending late in 2 bc, in which (at least in principle) a third closing of Janus could have been described.146 However, one would still need to explain Apponius’ reference to Livy, since his history certainly did not reach 2 bc, and no source suggests a projected ex­ped­ ition to Britain around that time. One plausible explanation is that Livy mentioned the third closing of Janus at the same time as he described the second, and that in the process of transmitting this report to Apponius (who, as noted above, is unlikely to have read Livy himself ), the two closings became conflated, with the abortive expedition to Britain turned into an actual visit by Augustus.147 Accordingly, this fragment can tentatively be assigned to Book 135: Livy referred there to Augustus’ British plans prior to the closing of the gates of Janus in 25 bc, and at the same time mentioned the later closing. It is of course possible that Livy referred to another date for that later closing, or gave no date at all, and that Orosius’ and Apponius’ dating comes from elsewhere; but Orosius’ date of 2 bc should provisionally be accepted as historical, even if not necessarily deriving from Livy. F 67 As part of his account of the Secular Games, Censorinus discusses what the Romans considered to be the length of a saeculum, first putting forward evidence that it was of 100 years; in support of that opinion he offers (along with others) Livy’s account in Book 136 of Augustus’ performance of the Secular Games in 17 bc. eodem anno: An exceptionally common phrase in Livy, playing an im­port­ant part in his articulation of his narrative as he moves between different events in a year (cf. Levene (2010), 48–52); it often, though not always, is used when he 146 Orosius’ date was provisionally endorsed by Mommsen (1865), 32 (‘fortasse recte’); more recent scholars have rejected it, but on inconsistent grounds. Reed (1973), 781 refers to a major war in Parthia that would have precluded the closure, but does not explain what war: in fact no fighting with Parthia is known in that year. Cooley (2009), 160 refers to ‘evidence for military activity in the Rhine and Danube regions at this time’—but low-­level military activity was compatible with the closures of Janus at other times (cf. Syme (1979a), 190). In any case Syme (1979a), 204 implicitly rejects both accounts, referring to ‘six years of relative tranquillity throughout the Roman world’ ending in 1 bc; but Syme’s own reasons for rejecting Orosius are far from clear. He rightly observes that Orosius’ internal chronology surrounding this third closure is not consistent with reality, since he claims that the closure of the gates in 2 bc was followed by twelve years of peace, which is manifestly not true; but it is not obvious that the inconsistency is best resolved by rejecting the date of the closure rather than the other data. The only positive reason Syme gives for rejecting that date is the convenient coincidence with the birth of Jesus, as dated by Eusebius (Syme (1979a), 198)—but convenient coincidences can be historical, and it is noticeable that even on Syme’s own preferred reconstruction, the twelve years of peace still need to be amended to a shorter period (Syme (1979a), 204). It appears that, for many scholars, the need to disbelieve Orosius (often a poor source, but nevertheless our only one who actually dates this event) goes in advance of concrete reasons for doing so. 147 Mommsen (1954) notes that Servius (Georg. 3.25) not only refers to Augustus conquering Britain, but prefaces his description by saying that it is secundum historiam, a phrase that elsewhere (Georg. 2.533 = C 7) appears to conceal a reference to Livy; however, see contra Meyer (1961), 110–14, noting that other aspects of Servius’ account of Augustus’ ‘conquest’ can hardly be historical or go back to Livy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  269 moves to describe events in the city of Rome towards the end of a year, which may well have been the case here. ludos saeculares: Cf. F 11n. ingenti apparatu: Livy uses the same phrase in a different context at 26.47.5 and 31.23.7; it appears in a number of later historians, perhaps partly in imitation of him (so esp. Eutr. 9.3 ingenti ludorum apparatu; also 10.5, 10.16.1; likewise Just. 12.3.11, 25.1.4, Hist.Aug., Max.Balb. 11.1, Car. 8.1). It is never used outside his­tori­ og­raphy, except for Sen., Epist. 18.1. centesimo quoque anno: Augustus’ games were in fact based on the idea—­almost certainly a spurious tradition invented for the occasion148—that the correct length of a saeculum for the purpose of calculating the date of the games was 110 years (cf. Hor., Carm. Saec. 21–2, along with the Sibylline oracle quoted at Phleg., FGrH 257 F 37 (V.4) and Zos. 2.6.1), with the previous games (which probably occurred in 146 bc) conveniently redated to 126 (see F 15n.). It is interesting that Livy began his description with a clear statement of the tradition which Augustus was rejecting; presumably he must have later offered some account of Augustus’ justification for the redating, but his statement here is compatible with his earlier historical narrative (cf. F 11n., F 15n.), and suggests that he is setting up his own authority against that of the princeps (for another example of this cf. Sailor (2006)). is enim terminus saeculi: The primary MSS of Censorinus read his enim terminari saeculi; the general meaning is obvious (the hundredth year ended the saeculum), but it is not obvious how one should best emend the un­gram­mat­ical text in order to reach that meaning. Numerous more or less plausible expedients have been offered; I have followed the one used in the early printed editions, which seems at least as likely as any. F 68 Priscian is discussing linter, which is almost always feminine in Latin, although its Greek counterpart is masculine. To demonstrate this, he offers a quotation which he attributes to ‘Livius VI’—but nothing of this sort appears in Book 6 of Livy. Neither W-­M nor Jal prints this as a fragment of Livy, presumably agreeing with those who have suggested that it is a fragment of Livius Andronicus’ Odusea (so e.g. Morel (1927), 16). However, the most recent editor of Livius Andronicus rejects that, attributing the fragment to Livy (Blänsdorf (2011), 35), and there are four strong reasons for preferring this attribution. (1) Priscian quotes both Livy and Andronicus, but Livy considerably more often. (2) Priscian only once gives a book number for Andronicus (fr. 37 (Blänsdorf )), but he almost always does so for Livy. (3) There are at least ten examples of Priscian’s MSS giving the wrong 148  Such ‘invented traditions’ pervaded Augustus’ celebration of the games: see esp. Davis (2001).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

270 Commentary Livian book number (CC 27, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73). (4) If the fragment indeed comes from Livius’ Odusea (with one exception, the only work of Livius that Priscian cites), one might expect to find a parallel line in the Odyssey, but the only Homeric parallels cited by Morel are Od. 5.269 and 12.401, neither of which are at all close. Moreover, nothing in the language requires an archaic provenance: it is unexceptional for Livy, who in his surviving work both refers to lintres (21.26.8, 21.27.8) and uses the phrase in altum expellere to describe ships being forced out to sea (41.3.2). Accordingly, this is almost certainly a fragment of Livy himself, although the corruption of the book number makes it hard to tell where it might have appeared in his text. Priscian’s citations are almost all concentrated in Books 1–40 and 112–118 (but cf. the Introduction, xxiii–xxiv); the simplest emend­ation would suggest placing it in Book 16 (an episode involving boats would readily find a place in the narrative of the Roman expedition to Sicily), although that is hardly provable. F 69 Virgil in the Aeneid describes Aeneas seeing the Trojan War depicted on Dido’s temple, beginning with Iliacas ex ordine pugnas (Aen. 1.456: ‘the Trojan battles in order’); Servius auctus, commenting on this, discusses the difference between a pugna or a proelium and a bellum, illustrating the point with quota­tions from Sallust (Hist. 1.109M) and Livy. Previous editors have placed this in Books 12–14, in which Livy narrated the Pyrrhic War. But that takes too little account of what Livy actually says here. By far the most probable context for this fragment is a speech; ni suggests that Pyrrhus is offered here as an exception to some generalization earlier in the sentence, while the contrast between his success in battles and his lack of success in the war strongly indicates that the passage is to be placed after the Pyrrhic War has ended. Hence one could reasonably assign it to almost any of the lost books of Livy except Books 12–14. Chaplin (2000), esp. 120–31, 156–62 has shown that Livy’s speakers tend to employ recent exempla more often than they do those from the distant past, which makes it on balance more probable that the speech in question occurred in Books 15–20 than in Book 46 or later; but there are sufficient exceptions to that rule that one would be rash to try to narrow the book assignment to those earlier books, especially with so iconic a figure as Pyrrhus, who is referred to by a speaker as late as 45.38.11.149 Pyrrhus: See Per. 12.4n.

149 For the central role Pyrrhus played as a paradigmatic figure in Livy’s history see Roth (2010), 180–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  271 magisque in proelio, quam bello bonus: In the Alexander digression in Book 9, Livy described the Romans as ‘although defeated in no war, nevertheless were defeated in many battles’ (9.18.9: etsi nullo bello, multis tamen proeliis victus sit), itself an allusion to Lucil. 613–14M = 683–4K ut Romanus populus victus vi et superatus proeliis / saepe est multis, bello vero numquam, in quo sunt omnia (‘A s the Roman people has been defeated by force and often has been overcome in many battles, it has never been in a war, on which everything counts’). Pyrrhus, according to the speaker here, has exactly the opposite qualities. That judgement on Pyrrhus dovetails with the trope of the ‘Pyrrhic victory’—the idea that Pyrrhus’ battle victories damaged him as much as a defeat (on which see Per. 13.1n.). For the topos of the successful commander who failed to convert victory in a battle to victory in a war compare also Maharbal’s famous statement to Hannibal after Cannae: ‘You know how to conquer, Hannibal, you do not know how to use conquest’ (Livy 22.51.4: vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis). More generally on the battle/war contrast cf. Oakley (2005a), 234–5. F 70 In the Aeneid, Anna refers in passing to ‘the African land rich in triumphs’ (Aen. 4.37–8: Africa terra triumphis / dives). Servius auctus, commenting on this, is worried by the question of whether Africans had the custom of ‘triumphing’ in the Roman sense: in support of the idea that they did, he cites Pliny’s Natural History and Pompeius Trogus, both of whom, according to him, claimed that the Africans actually invented the custom, and that the Romans derived it from them; he then cites in further support (in the transmitted text) Livius Andronicus, who apparently said that the Carthaginians had often triumphed over Rome. Meltzer (1896), 515 dismissed the entire passage of Servius as garbled nonsense, on the basis that the Pliny reference appears to be false, and no known work of Livius Andronicus would appear to offer space for an account of Carthaginian triumphs. However, Servius’ mention of Trogus is given some in­dir­ ect support by Justin’s reference to Carthaginian triumphs (19.1.7: triumphi quattuor), and Paul Keyser has recently made a powerful case for an expanded late antique edition of Pliny’s Natural History containing passages which do not appear in our transmitted text, but which was regularly drawn on by Servius and other authors.150 And the simplest explanation for the third citation is that the word ‘Andronicus’ has entered the text in error as a gloss, either in our MSS of Servius auctus, or in the MSS of the sources which the compiler used, or was erroneously inserted by the compiler himself: the ori­gin­al reference was to Livy (so Klotz (1927), 830). Klotz proposed that it came from the initial discussion of Carthage in Book 16, which is cited several other times by Servius (FF 5–7), but the idea that the porticos contained Roman spoils belongs more naturally to a 150  Keyser (2020), esp. 110–11 and 185 on this passage.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

272 Commentary later time, after the Carthaginians could boast victories over Rome: perhaps from a description of the city during the Third Punic War in Books 49–51, or some later point in Livy’s history, where a speaker could have (for example) contrasted earlier Carthaginian successes over Rome with their subsequent destruction. saepius triumphasse suasque porticus Romanis spoliis adornasse: Despite Servius’ pedantic attempt to prove otherwise, Carthaginians almost certainly did not ‘triumph’ in the Roman manner;151 this, like Virgil’s own reference to African triumphs, is best understood as Livy interpreting foreign societies in Roman terms, in much the same way as he elsewhere speaks of the Carthaginian senatus sitting in the curia (e.g. 23.12.7) or holding a contio (30.37.7) or of the people gathering in the forum (33.48.10). F 71 Pliny introduces his geographical discussion in Book 3 with an account of the Strait of Gibraltar: he cites Livy in support of one view of its breadth. Klotz (1906), 6 argues that all of the geographical citations of ‘T. Livius’ in Pliny are not from the historian, but from his son, whose work (otherwise unknown) is ex­pli­ cit­ly mentioned by Pliny among his sources for Books 5 and 6 (cf. F 72n.). But ‘T. Livius’, not ‘T. Livius filius’, is listed as a source for Book 3 (see T 19), and in general it seems highly improbable that Pliny would cite the little-­known son using the appellation of his vastly more famous father without any qualification. Mellaria: Modern Valdevaqueros (BarrAtl Map 26 E5 = Map 28 C1); for the identification see Tovar (1974), 68. Turranio Gracile: Turranius Gracilis, RE 7. He is known only from a number of citations by Pliny, who appears to have used him regularly as a source. He is often identified with the C. Turranius (RE 5) who was Prefect of Egypt under Augustus: so e.g. PIR2 8.128–9, contra Stein (1948), 1442, who notes the absence of the cognomen from documents relating to the Prefect. minus VII passuum, ubi vero plurimum, X: At its narrowest, the Strait of Gibraltar is 14.3 km, which a little over 9.5 Roman miles. F 72 Pliny is discussing different views of the size of the Alps, including Livy’s. As with F 71, Klotz (1906), 6 argues that this should be ascribed to a work by Livy’s son, not the historian; one reason is that Livy never gives measurements in stadia in his surviving work. But Sallust (Hist. 1.100M) and Tacitus (Ann. 11.8.3) both use stadia in only a single place in their surviving work, and there is no reason to 151 Plb. 1.88.6 has a brief reference to a Carthaginian triumph (θρίαμβον) at the end of the Mercenary War, but this too is more likely to be the result of interpreting Carthage in Roman terms than a genuine record of such a ceremony.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  273 doubt that Livy might have done the same. For other reasons to question Klotz’s theory see F 71n. The actual dimensions of the Alps are approximately 1,200 km from south-­ west to north-­ east, and 250 km broad at their widest point. Coelius’ (and Timagenes’) estimate of the length (1,000 Roman miles = 1,480 km) is not an unreasonable one for the entire range, given the uncertainties of ancient measurements, although the error is greater if they were, as Pliny implies, measuring only the portion that crosses the north of Italy. As for the breadth, Nepos (100 Roman miles = 148 km) underestimates, while Livy (3,000 stadia = 375 Roman miles = 555 km) overestimates, but this too is unsurprising: as Pliny points out, their measurements may simply reflect different points in the mountain range, and in Livy’s case it may also be that his figure does not reflect the shortest route over the mountains from his starting point. Coelius probably gave his figure when describing Hannibal crossing the Alps (Briscoe in FRHist 3.265), though it is possible that it was at a later point, such as Hasdrubal’s crossing. If we did not possess Livy Books 21 and 27, one might hypothesize that he introduced it at the same place; since we know he did not, it is unclear when he might have discussed Alpine geography, though one plausible possibility would be at some point in Books 103–108, during Caesar’s conquest of Gaul. deciens centena milia: Sillig’s plausible emendation: into X̅.

× has been corrupted

a supero mari ad inferum: sc. from the Adriatic to the Tyrrhenian Sea: cf. Str. 5.1.3 for the Alps being measured from these points. F 73 Servius is commenting on the moment in the Aeneid when Priam welcomes the traitor Sinon: Virgil (Aen. 2.148–9) has him doing so in the words quisquis es . . . noster eris; Servius suggests, quoting these exact words from Livy, that this is a formula used by Roman commanders. Klotz (1927), 829 denied that this was a fragment at all: he took Servius to be referring to 21.45.6, where Hannibal offers Carthaginian citizenship to his allies, with the details spelled out in a phrase that has dropped out of Servius’ text. This, however, seems highly improbable: the situation in Book 21 is entirely different, since Hannibal is not addressing deserters, nor is it natural for Servius to quote Virgil’s phrase at the end of the sentence when it is not directly related to anything he has been discussing in Livy. However, even if we accept that Livy did indeed include these words, it does not necessarily mean that he is, as Servius would seem to imply, quoting some sort of standard phrase that Roman commanders used. There is no other evidence for this, and it seems improbable that military desertion from the enemy would be handled in so formulaic a fashion. A more likely possibility is that Livy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

274 Commentary is actually imitating Virgil, linking the Roman commander to Priam and the deserter to the treacherous Sinon. One possible hypothesis for the context might be people who surrendered to Caesar during the Civil War (Books 109–116), especially those who were later involved in his assassination, which would make the allusion to Sinon highly pointed. But this, while intriguing, has no evidence to support it. F 74 Towards the end of the first book of De Ira, Seneca argues that anger does not contribute to a person’s ‘greatness of mind’ (De Ira 1.20.1: magnitudinem animi). Accordingly, he rejects Livy’s idea that someone can have a character that is great but not good, since, as a Stoic, Seneca believes that no one can be great unless he possesses moral virtue, which is incompatible with anger. One might reasonably hypothesize, especially given the epigrammatic quality, that this comes from one of Livy’s obituaries (cf. T 15), but, even if so, it is hard to say of whom, since many people, especially in the late Republic, might have been thought by Livy to be ‘great but not good’: for example Marius, Sulla, or even Caesar. disertissimum virum: Seneca also implicitly characterizes Livy as disertus at Epist. 46.1 (= T 18); cf. also T 32. ingenii magni magis quam boni: magnus and bonus are often paired; it is far rarer to have them set in opposition in this fashion. There is, accordingly, an elem­ent of paradox in Livy’s characterization, which is obscured by Seneca’s highly literal critique. Cf. also 6.11.7, where Livy says of Manlius Capitolinus that ‘he preferred to have a great rather than a good reputation’ (famae . . . magnae malle quam bonae esse; cf. Kraus (1994), 154, Oakley (1997), 499), although there the paradox is tempered by the fact that fama focalizes the judgement of greatness through the perceptions of people viewing Manlius at the time, rather than Livy’s own. F 75 In the preface to his Natural History, Pliny contrasts himself with Livy, on the grounds that whereas he himself was selflessly working for the benefit of the reader, Livy, on his own account, was simply driven by a personal inability to give up on the task: Pliny paraphrases a statement to that effect from the opening sentence of one of the volumes of his history. The primary question is whether one can identify the volume in question. One widely canvassed possibility is that it is Book 121:152 there is strong reason to think that Livy saw himself as concluding a major portion of his work with

152  Proposed as long ago as Nissen (1872), 557–8; other examples include Stadter (1972), 299–300 (= Chaplin and Kraus (2009), 106), Luce (1977), 8, Woodman (1988), 136, (2015), 86–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  275 Book 120 (see Volume II, lxxxvi), and, accordingly, a preface justifying a new beginning would fit very naturally with the start of the following book, which appears to have been published later. But while that is true, and Book 121 remains one reasonable possibility, Livy could have opened almost any discrete section of the later portion of his work with a statement like this (compare 31.1.1–5 for similarly self-­conscious reflections on the task he has undertaken), and one cannot assign it to a particular book with even a moderate degree of confidence. auctorem celeberrimum: Pliny is fond of this phrase, repeating it (in the ­plural) also at Nat. 15.1, 28.52, 33.6 (cf. also 36.106 celeberrimis rerum conditoribus);153 cf. Tac., Hist. 3.51.1, which Heubner (1972), 128 suggests may be referring to Pliny himself. historiarum suarum, quas repetit ab origine urbis: As Woodman (2015), 87–8 discusses, this is an odd phrase: one would expect the city, or else its origin, to be the object of repetit. Woodman notes that a similar device, where the subject-­ matter of Livy’s history is conflated with the work he is writing, is used by Livy at Praef. 4, and he hypothesizes that Pliny may be reflecting Livy’s own language here (cf. F 54n. for another author who appears to be employing Livy’s language even outside the words that he directly attributes to him). That is clearly unprovable, but it is also noteworthy that Pliny’s wording paraphrases part of the opening sentence of Livy’s preface (Praef. 1 a primordio urbis res populi Romani perscripserim), which Livy may have referred back to (cf. also Per. 16.1n.). sibi satis gloriae quaesitum: Woodman (2015), 88–9 proposes that Livy is alluding here to Sall., Cat. 1.2 quo mihi rectius videtur ingeni quam virium opibus gloriam quaerere. Livy sees himself as having achieved the glory through his literary work that Sallust had aspired to; hence he could rea­son­ably have stopped—­were it not that his ‘restless spirit’ (see below) compelled him to continue. potuisse se desidere: Here too Livy may be referring back to his Preface. desidere is presumably from desideo (‘be inactive’) rather than desido (‘sink’), but not all uses of the verbs are equally clear. In Livy’s surviving work as transmitted he only once uses either verb (32.9.3, of the ground subsiding), but desidentes is widely accepted as an emendation at Praef. 9: labante deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentes [MS dissidentes] primo mores sequatur animo (‘Then, with discipline gradually tottering, let him first follow with his mind the degenerating [OR ‘slothful’] customs’). desidentes is generally thought to be from desido, part of the metaphor of collapse that Livy pursues through this section of the Preface, but it is also possible to read it as if it came from desideo. On that reading, Livy’s language in the fragment constitutes a pointed allusion to his initial account of Rome. Livy could have shared in the sloth of Rome in decline, but instead he chose to

153  Pliny is unusually devoted to celeber in other contexts too: he employs it, usually in the superlative, seventy-­five times in his surviving work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

276 Commentary continue his work. That reading complicates Pliny’s critique of Livy’s supposed self-­centredness: by the very act of writing, Livy makes himself part of the process of rescuing Rome from the disastrous state that it fell into during the final years of the Republic. animus inquies: Here too Livy may perhaps be imitating Sallust, who speaks of L.  Hostilius Dasianus as inquies animi (Hist. 4.55M: see Woodman (2015), 89), although the loss of all context of that fragment makes it hard to discern if the comparison contained any significance beyond the bare fact of the Sallustian language. Livy had earlier in his history used the related phrase inquieti animi of the Tarentine Phileas (25.7.11); cf. also e.g. Vell. 2.77.2, Sen., Tranq. 2.9, Tac., Ann. 16.14.1. animus . . . pasceretur opere: Woodman (2015), 89 suggests an allusion to Virg., Aen. 1.464 animum pictura pascit inani. But it is not unusual for Romans to speak of minds (or eyes) ‘feasting’ on something they contemplate: e.g. Cic. II Verr. 5.65, Phil. 11.8, and cf. TLL X.1 595.63–596.27, and, more importantly, if Pliny indeed reflects Livy’s language here, Livy has turned the metaphor in a more paradoxical direction. Livy is seeking to satisfy the hunger of his mind not by contemplating his existing work, but by producing new work; the activity of writing is metaphorically presented as a form of consumption. That bizarre image, of the author devouring his newly created work, gives the meta­phor an edge of futility, and, accordingly, another passage that may underlie Livy here is Lucr. 3.1003–10 (esp. 3.1003 animi ingratam naturam pascere semper), where the never-­ending desire to satisfy the mind with pleasures is compared to the Danaids in Hades attempting to fill up a leaking jar (cf. Feldherr (2009) for Livy’s use of Lucretian and Epicurean imagery elsewhere in his work). F 76 Servius tells the anecdote of Virgil reciting to Augustus and his sister the passage in the Aeneid about the death of her son Marcellus; he concludes with a note that Virgil was, as a reward, given aes grave. This was the name of the original bronze coinage of Rome (cf. Paul., Fest. 87L); Livy regularly uses the term to describe monetary payments in the early Republic (although this appears to be ana­chron­ is­tic unless he means by it bronze ingots: cf. Ogilvie (1965), 623). Clearly Virgil cannot have received payment in archaic coinage of that sort; hence Servius explains that he was given uncoined bronze, and, in support of that in­ter­pret­ ation, offers Livy’s phrase argentum grave. massis: ‘Bullion’: it appears to be a technical term, as is apparent from its appearance in the legal codes (Cod. Theod. 12.6.12, Cod. Just. 12.23.7.7: cf. TLL VIII 429.45–50); it is primarily attested in late antiquity, but massa is already found in that sense in Ov., Met. 11.112. argentum grave: The phrase is very rare, but parallels are found at e.g. Sen., Tranq. 1.7, Juv. 11.41. Given that rarity, it is unlikely that Livy used it in more than

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  277 one place in his work, although it is naturally impossible to guess where this particular instance occurred. F 77 Among his list of stylistic faults in Book 8, Quintilian mentions prolixity, citing a phrase from Livy as an example: the reason appears to be that unde venerant adds no information that was not already implied by retro. The same example is found in Charisius, who presumably took it from Quintilian, and Diomedes, who certainly took it from Charisius.154 The phrase is not sufficiently remarkable in content to enable us to locate it in the work, but pleonastic phrases of the form retro unde venerant are common in Livy (9.2.10, 24.20.3, 24.40.9, 27.42.16, 28.36.13, 31.45.16, 37.21.6, 38.16.6, 40.49.2, 40.58.8), and rare in other writers: Quintilian may well have seen it as a stereotypical feature of his writing. abierunt: So Quintilian: Charisius cites it as reversi sunt, and later gram­mar­ians sometimes adopt other forms. It is more likely that the version found in our MSS of Quintilian is the original one: reversi sunt looks like an adaptation to increase the sense of redundancy in the phrase. F 78 The anonymous late antique grammatical text De Dubiis Nominibus is a list of Latin words, largely concerned with setting out their genders; it cites Livy for the word vepres in the feminine. Other grammarians mention vepres as a word whose gender is ambiguous (cf. Non. 231M, Prisc. 5.42 (169 K)), but there is only one clear example of vepres in the feminine in surviving Latin, namely Lucr. 4.62 (although Nonius cites in add­ ition Pomponius Porco for the anomalous form vepra). Livy uses the word five times in his surviving work (21.54.1, 22.28.5, 25.21.3, 38.23.7, 38.46.8), but the gender cannot be determined in any of them. F 79 The anonymous Dialogus de scientia politica, discovered on a Vatican palimpsest and first published by Angelo Mai in 1827, probably dates from a little after 550, the last part of the reign of Justinian. It frequently cites Latin as well as Greek sources, notably Cicero, with whose work on political theory the author manifestly is acquainted. At this point the text is arguing that a ruler should either retire or take on an adviser/successor when he becomes old or decrepit, and cites

154  It also appears in Marius Plotius Sacerdos (454 K), Isid., Orig. 1.34.8, and (with regressi sunt substituted for Charisius’ reversi sunt) in Pompeius, Gramm. 294 K. None of these, however, at­tri­butes it to Livy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

278 Commentary in support of this a lost work of Seneca and this passage of Livy, both of which claim that the state takes on the characteristic of its ruler. This fragment has been overlooked in all previous editions, but there is little reason to doubt that it is genuine, although the author may be citing Livy at second hand rather than from direct knowledge of his text. The most probable context is a speech: for the general sentiment compare 6.23.7, where the consular tribune L. Furius objects to Camillus’ caution in command, arguing that he has been worn out through old age, and that the Romans should not allow the state to age with him (quid attinere cum mortali corpore uno civitatis, quam immortalem esse deceat, pati consenescere vires?). That the Roman state should be able to transcend the limitations of any particular political leader is an idea that Livy expresses elsewhere (notably in the mouth of Scipio at 28.28.11); but the quotation here, like 6.23.7, expresses the concern that it may not in fact be able to do so, that the state as a whole may be dragged down by its leader’s failings. This was obviously increasingly pertinent when Rome came under the control of a single ruler such as Sulla or Caesar or indeed Augustus, and one may hypothesize that Livy had a speaker introduce this sentiment in the context of one of those. One very at­tract­ive if unprovable possibility is that it derives from a speech at the time of the retirement of Sulla, the episode in the period covered by Livy which best fits the context in the Dialogus de scientia politica. F 80 Diomedes is discussing whether certain verbs should be in the active or the de­pon­ent (some Latin verbs can take either form); he begins with quirito/quiritor, offering, among other examples, one from Livy. The passage is extremely corrupt, and, apart from the very last part, where Fenestella is cited for the use of the deponent form quiritatur, it is impossible to unpack the different quotations. ‘Varro to Cicero’ suggests that a quotation was offered from the De Lingua Latina, part of which was dedicated to Cicero. As for Livy, he uses quirito only in the present participle in his surviving books, so in attico quirit must be a corruption of some point in one of the lost books in which he uses the verb in the active: very possibly in attico conceals the book number and quirit is corrupted from the verb. More than that can hardly be said. F 81 Servius is explaining why Virgil has a new proem at the beginning of Georgics Book 3. His first explanation is that Book 3 is effectively a different poem, since Virgil is (on Servius’ account) moving from farming to pastoral; then he offers an alternative explanation, that writers like to introduce new proems even within a single work: he gives examples from Livy and Cicero. On the text as transmitted, Servius appears to offer two examples of proems in Livy. The first is clearly the opening of Book 6, although it is not quoted verbatim. The problem is with the second, and in particular the phrase completis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  279 consulibus: whether it is identifying a particular moment in history where Livy offered a new proem, as with the previous example of the Gallic sack, or if it simply represents the opening words of the proem in question, as with the following example from Cicero—­and on either hypothesis, what exactly it should be taken to mean. Jal (1979), 305–6, following a suggestion made long ago by Jacob Bernays, ­proposed that it is the former: that it refers to the beginning of the Second Triumvirate, when the consuls had ceased to hold meaningful power—­Jal cites as parallels to this notion Lucan 7.440–1 and Dio 46.55.3. This would cor­res­pond to the opening of Book 121 in Livy, where it indeed seems plausible that he might have offered a new proem (cf. F 74n.). However, this ingenious suggestion runs up against two problems. The first is that neither Lucan nor Dio gives any indication that the ending of meaningful consular power would have been seen as a watershed in Roman history on a par with the Gallic sack, such that Servius could simply refer to it in passing and expect it to be recognized as a reference to a particular book of Livy: indeed, the Lucan passage mentions the end of consular power only indirectly and by contrast with an earlier time, and in any case appears to identify it with Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus, not the Second Triumvirate. The second problem is that it seems impossible that completis consulibus can under any circumstances mean ‘when the power of the consuls had ended’: Jal offers no parallel for anything close to that sense apart from a phrase Servius uses earlier in the same note (post completum georgicum), which is no real parallel at all. It might be thought better to adopt the alternative hypothesis, and assume that completis consulibus represents the opening words of a proem in Livy—­perhaps textually corrupt, or with the later part of the sentence providing an appropriate sense for completis. However, no emendation or supplement is immediately apparent that could make sense of the phrase. Accordingly, I have preferred to obelize the phrase as irremediably corrupt. It is not improbable that the opening words of some Livian proem is concealed beneath the corruption, but even if so, it is impossible to tell what phrase; and the possibility should also not be excluded that the corrupted phrase is merely an extension of incensa a Gallis urbe, and that Servius was not citing any other passage of Livy at all. F 82 A commentary on Donatus’ grammar attributed to ‘Sergius’, illustrating uses of the word tapeta (or tapete, ‘coverlet’), offers a quotation which it attributes to ‘Livius’. This could indeed in principle come from Livy; some have wanted to insert it into the description of the Samnite army at 9.40, where part of the text appears to have fallen out but is preserved by Nonius (see C 42n.); but see contra Northwood (1996), 311, showing that it has no place in that description. Accordingly, if it is from Livy, it is a fragment of a lost book. However, there are reasons to doubt whether it is from Livy at all. Prob., Inst. 129–30 K attributes the same quotation to either Lucilius or (in a variant reading)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

280 Commentary Virgil. It clearly is not Virgil, but there are good reasons for suspecting that it might be Lucilius: neither ‘Sergius’ nor Probus cites Livy elsewhere, but both of them cite Lucilius several times. It is true that in order to fit Lucilius’ hexameters, inaurata would have to be emended to aurata, but that does not seem a decisive consideration against the attribution. Moreover, even if, less probably, Livius is the correct reading, it cannot be excluded that it derives from Livius Andronicus, not Livy (so e.g. Morel (1927), 16, rejected by Blänsdorf (2011), 35). F 83 Early in Jonas of Bobbio’s seventh-­century biography of Saint Columban (the founder of the Bobbio monastery), he describes, using an extravagant military metaphor, the youthful saint’s success in protecting himself against assaults on his chastity from lustful women. Jonas explains the danger Columban was in with reference to a passage, apparently from Livy, about the impossibility of protecting oneself against libido. On the face of things, this is a quotation from one of Livy’s lost books, and was accepted as a fragment by (inter alios) W-­M.  However, Traube noted that one thirteenth-­century MS does not read Livius at all, but instead has nihil ait esse utilius vel tutius, nil tam sanctum, with no subject for ait: he argued that utilius (spelled utulius in the MS) conceals the phrase ut Tullius, and that Jonas is in fact loosely paraphrasing Cic., I Verr. 4: nihil esse tam sanctum quod non violari, nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit (Traube, in Fischer and Traube (1907), 110–12). While it is not impossible that Livy was imitating Cicero, and that Jonas still had access to parts of Livy now lost, it is more likely that the attribution to Livy is simply an error. F 84 Virgil in Aeneid 10 refers to an obscure story about a man who committed incest with his stepmother; Servius, commenting on this, says (in most of his manu­ scripts) that the story was told by Avienus, who ‘wrote the whole of Livy in iambics’. That is the text printed in Thilo’s edition of Servius; however, Murgia (1970) observed the ludicrousness of the idea that Avienus could have adapted the whole of Livy (or even a significant part of Livy) into verse while including recondite stories such as this. He demonstrated that the correct reading is not Livium, but Vergilium, which is indeed supported by a strand of the MS trad­ition, albeit prob­ ably as a conjecture rather than as the transmitted reading. F 85 The treatise De Dubiis Nominibus (cf. F 78n.) cites a phrase from Livy to illustrate the word bracae (= ‘breeches’) in the 1st declension. It is possible that it is a genuine cit­ ation, but the same phrase is found, albeit not with the words directly juxtaposed, in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  281 Ov., Trist. 5.7.49: et laxis arcent mala frigora bracis. Given that the treatise elsewhere attributes an Ovidian quotation to Livy (see F 86n.), and given also that only one of the two MSS has the attribution at all (the other does not mention a name), the probability on balance is that the attribution to Livy is erroneous. F 86 The treatise De Dubiis Nominibus (F 78n.) cites a phrase, supposedly from Livy, to show that cancer (= ‘tumour’) is a neuter noun. However, the cited phrase is manifestly not from Livy, but from Ov., Met. 2.825–6: utque malum late solet immedicabile cancer / serpere, with only the slight adaptation of late to latere to provide an infinitive to complete the grammar of solet. F 87 Nonius, illustrating gelu (‘ice’) as a neuter noun, quotes two lines from a tragedy on Ajax, which our MSS attribute to Titus Livius; but the first word is clearly a gloss, since the line must come from the work by Livius Andronicus. F 88 Nonius is illustrating the use of pullus to mean ‘not white’, attributing a quota­tion to Titus Livius (cf. F 87n.). In this case, unlike F 87, it is just conceivable that the quotation is from Livy, since all of the vocabulary is paralleled elsewhere in his work; but the accumulation of adjectives is unlike his manner, and Nonius never quotes Livy except in a very limited portion of Book 3 (cf. CC 34, 42, 48); ­more­over, the attribution to Andronicus is supported by the similarity to Hom., Od. 19.225–6 χλαῖναν πορϕυρέην οὔλην . . . / διπλῆν (‘A cloak, dark, woolly . . . doubled’). Here too, therefore, Titus is rightly deleted as a gloss. F 89 A manuscript of Lucan in Wroclaw (Breslau) contains a number of unique scholia. These were not included in Endt’s Teubner edition of the Lucan scholia (the so-­called Adnotationes super Lucanum: cf. F 46n.) but are found in C. F. Weber’s 1831 edition. Lucan had referred obliquely to Pompey’s tenure as praefectus annonae; the scholiast explains the point, illustrating it with a quota­tion. In the MS, the source of the quotation is given as Lv, which F.  W.  Otto expanded as Livius; the emendation is not unreasonable in itself, but C. E. C. Schneider had already proposed that Lv was an error for Bo (sc. Boethius: see Schneider (1823), 3)—and indeed Boethius used a phrase very close to that in the scholium, as an illustration of the decline of the prestige of traditional offices: si quis populi quondam curasset annonam, magnus habebatur, nunc ea praefectura quid abiectius? (Cons. 3 prosa 4: ‘Once upon a time if anyone had charge of the grain supply for the people, he was considered great; but now what is more degraded than that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

282 Commentary prefectship?’). It is unlikely that Boethius could simply be drawing on a sentence from Livy such as that cited in the scholium: quondam suits perfectly the context of Boethius’ argument, but makes little sense at the time of Livy. Accordingly, this fragment should be considered spurious. F 90 Quintilian, discussing the range of reading to be recommended to the aspiring orator in Book 10, notes the potential endlessness of the task, given how many writers in principle are mentioned by Cicero alone, and how even poorer writers can still offer something of value; but he sets against those con­sid­er­ations Livy’s own recommendation that one should focus above all on Demosthenes and Cicero; Quintilian also refers more briefly to the same passage of Livy in Book 2, when he is discussing the reading programme for boys at an earlier stage of their education, and in that context he is more directly approving. This fragment provides the one indication we have of the form that Livy’s writing on rhetoric took. There are parallels for Romans writing didactic works in the form of advice to their sons: Cato certainly did so, in what was probably a book of advice on a variety of topics (Astin (1978), 332–40). One of the fragments of Cato’s work (fr. 4 Jordan) is recorded by Priscian as coming from epistula ad filium, but since the others who cite this work refer to it in different ways, the ‘epistularity’ of the work may have consisted in little more than the second-­person address, and the same may be true of Livy’s epistula. Livy’s recommendation of Cicero is one of the earliest direct examples we have of the iconic status that Cicero posthumously achieved as a stylist, and the earliest example of the pairing of him with Demosthenes as the superlative orators of their respective traditions, a pairing which rapidly became standard (although the comparison is implicitly made by Cicero himself more than once, not least in his choice of the title Philippics for his series of speeches against Antony).155 Livy’s attraction to Cicero as a stylist emerges also from his obituary for him, where it is set against his cooler and more cynical attitude to his political career (see FF 61–2n.); more generally, it has been plausibly argued that Livy’s own style, while very different from Cicero’s, was constructed more broadly on the model that Cicero himself proposed for historiography (esp. in De Orat. 2.64),156 and which Cicero clearly felt that his own style exemplified (cf. Woodman (1988), 94–5). quisque erit Ciceroni simillimus: Quintilian ignores in Book 2 the parallel recommendation of Demosthenes that he mentions in Book 10, presumably because he is here focused more narrowly on Latin stylistics for younger students.157 The

155  For the development of the Demosthenes/Cicero pairing see Keeline (2018), 93–101. 156  On Livy’s exemplification of Cicero’s stylistic prescriptions cf. Leeman (1963), 190–2. 157  For the central role played by Cicero in Roman education in the early Empire and afterwards see La Bua (2019), 183–317.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  283 language (quisque . . . Ciceroni simillimus) is, however, very close to that in Book 10, which may indicate that both passages reflect Livy’s own wording. F 91 Seneca has been describing how the declaimer Arellius Fuscus adapted an epigram from the Greek declaimer Adaeus; he then recounts Fuscus’ justification for the adaptation, comparing an adaptation from the Greek by Sallust; but he then offers Livy’s own criticism of Sallust’s adaptation—­an unfair criticism, as Seneca implies. This entire passage of Seneca is important in our record of Roman literary criticism, as one of the few explicit discussions from the classical period of the nature of literary allusion and imitation, which plays such a large role in Latin literature, and one of even fewer to focus on historiography. There are, nevertheless, a number of unclear points. The first question is whether the entire passage, including Livy’s criticism and the response claiming the unfairness of that criticism, derive from Fuscus, or whether the comparison between Fuscus’ positive appraisal of Sallust and Livy’s negative appraisal is Seneca’s own. That Fuscus and Livy did not independently choose this particular line of Sallust to critique is obvious: there are many other places where Sallust draws on a Greek source at least as closely as he does here, and any of those could have been chosen; it is, accordingly, likely that Fuscus is responding to Livy or vice versa. Since Seneca presents Fuscus’ self-­defence as something that he happens to remember him saying, not as a published work, it is unlikely that Livy could have drawn on him: far more probable is that Livy presented his critique of Sallust in his published work on rhetoric,158 and that Fuscus then responded to his example by offering that passage of Sallust as an example of effective imitative transformation, not, as Livy would have it, a poor one. Accordingly, it is probable that Fuscus himself challenged Livy’s view, and Seneca quoting it implicitly endorses him over Livy. A second question regards the Greek passage supposedly being imitated by Sallust. Seneca attributes it to Thucydides, and implies that Fuscus did the same; however, the epigram in question is in fact from ps-­Demosthenes, In. Ep. Phil. 13.159 Since Seneca, on his own account, was working from memory (though cf. n. 101 above), we should not assume that Fuscus in fact made that error, let alone that Livy did: it is altogether possible that Seneca is the one who mistakenly

158  The same point tells against Tränkle’s suggestion that Livy might have made his point about Sallust orally, rather than in his published work on rhetoric (Tränkle (1968), 150). Seneca does not suggest that Fuscus and Livy said this in direct conversation with one another, and it seems vanishingly unlikely that they would at different times have critiqued the same passage of Sallust in Seneca’s presence. 159  A work which in Livy’s day was believed genuine: see D.H., Amm. 10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

284 Commentary transferred the attribution to Thucydides, on the basis of Sallust’s well-­known affinity with that author.160 An additional complication, however, is that Sallust’s epigram is in fact rather closer to a genuine Demosthenes epigram than it is to the ps-­Demosthenes imitation of that epigram which Seneca quotes, namely Olynth. 2.20: αἱ γὰρ εὐπραξίαι δειναὶ συγκρύψαι τὰ τοιαῦτα ὀνείδη (‘Success is clever at hiding such disgrace’). In this case we can be reasonably certain that Fuscus relayed the ps-­Demosthenes version, because his entire defence of Sallust’s imitation rests on the effective abridgement of the original. Possibly Livy did the same, but it should not be ruled out that Fuscus and Livy may have been working from different assumptions: Livy’s critique of Sallust was based on the idea that Sallust inertly and in­art­is­tic­ al­ly adapted the version in the Olynthiacs, but Fuscus believed Sallust to be making a rather cleverer adaptation of a different passage. This leads to the next question: what precisely was Livy criticizing Sallust for doing? On Seneca’s—­or Fuscus’—account, Livy had two objections: first, the fact of taking over the Greek sentence in the first place, and second, given that Sallust did take over the sentence, that he produced something worse than the original. The second is obviously subjective: Fuscus praises the economy of Sallust’s language, but economy is not the only possible axis of judgement, and presumably Livy found some other aspect of Sallust’s handling of the phrase less effective than Demosthenes’ (or ps-­Demosthenes’) original, perhaps word ­choice, or euphony, or rhythm: it is impossible to say which. The more surprising objection is the first, because not only, as noted above, is imitation of earlier writers commonplace in Latin literature, but Livy himself does it regularly. A plausible answer might be that Livy regards Sallust as having kept too closely and inertly to the original—­ this would be especially true if he, unlike Fuscus, recognized the Olynthiacs as Sallust’s real source. Even more pertinent is the point that Sallust has not in any meaningful way adapted Demosthenes to a new context, since the Demosthenic original was a gnomic statement that would in any case be ap­plic­ able to almost any circumstances. Livy might have regarded the mere reproduction in Latin of a gnomic gen­er­al­iza­tion as showing too little creativity.161 One other point that emerges from the passage is Fuscus’ (or Seneca’s) assumptions about Livy’s rivalry with Sallust. Already in Vell. 2.36.3, they are seen as a natural pairing, and in Quintilian they are placed in conjunction as the canonical Latin historians (2.5.19, 10.1.101); and while Livy never mentions Sallust in his 160  For Sallust and Thucydides being linked in antiquity see Vell. 2.36.2, Quint., Inst. 10.1.101; the most important modern discussion of Sallust’s imitations of Thucydides is Scanlon (1980). 161  Cf. especially Russell (1979), examining various cases where the ancients distinguished ‘good’ forms of borrowing from ‘bad’. He summarizes his conclusions into five principles, of which the ­second and the fourth are particularly relevant: ‘The spirit rather than the letter must be reproduced . . . The borrowing must be “made one’s own”, by individual treatment and assimilation to its new place and purpose’ (Russell (1979), 16). More broadly on the ways ancients saw the practice of copying and repurposing material to new contexts see Pucci (1998), 83–108.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  285 surviving historical writing, his intense engagement with his work is apparent from his preface onwards. Seneca takes it for granted that Livy would naturally seek to diminish his rival—­and indeed, that the recently dead Latin writer Sallust was seen by Livy as a potential rival, whereas the long-­dead Greek Thucydides was not. This assumption, whether or not well-­grounded in the particular case of Livy and Sallust, is revealing with regard to the ‘reading economy’ of the late Republic and early Empire. On Seneca’s account, in order to secure his own place in the Roman literary world, Livy had to displace—­or at least diminish—­Sallust, the historian whose work had most recently been established among con­tem­por­ ary readers. Thucydides, whose own place was assured by his long-­established canonicity, was not an equal threat. This may not in a certain sense appear especially surprising, but it is a useful correction to certain tacit assumptions about Latin writers of the first century bc. Modern critics often focus on the explicit or implicit rivalry of the Romans with their Greek predecessors as they created their own canon on the Greek model,162 but less often on the more crucial and immediate question of ensuring one’s own literary readership and survival by showing that oneself, and not another, is the right person to be hailed as the prime representative of a certain genre or type of writing. translatam: This could mean ‘translated’ (OLD s.v. transfero 6a), but could also more broadly refer to any instance of taking over language into a new context (OLD s.v. transfero 4a). While the context in Seneca is certainly the translation of Greek phrases into Latin, it would be a mistake to take the word in too narrow a sense, and conclude that Livy would not have similarly objected to Sallust’s importation of an unchanged Latin phrase into his text. corruptam: corrumpere is commonly used of spoiling a sententia in the course of adapting it: see TLL IV 1058.68–1059.8. F 92 The context in Seneca is a discussion of Vibius Rufus, a declaimer who liked to use archaisms and colloquial language. Livy’s comment is sometimes (e.g. by Tränkle (1968), 150) taken to mean that he disapproved of such language choices: Livy certainly used archaic vocabulary from time to time in his his­tor­ic­al work, but Tränkle argues that there is no incompatibility with the passage here, since Livy’s strictures applied only to oratory, not other genres. But, as explained below, Livy’s comment on archaism is not in fact condemnatory (cf. Lebek (1970), 204–5), so there is no need to try to explain it away in generic terms. verba antiqua et sordida: For ‘sordidus’ used of vulgar everyday language see OLD s.v. sordidus 4b: also Lebek (1970), 135; more generally on the concept see Woodman (1983), 55–6. It is not clear whether Livy is referring to a single group of words that were no longer used in literature but were maintained in everyday 162  Examples include Zetzel (1983).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

286 Commentary usage, or if all words that were either archaic or vulgar fell under this heading, and the connection between them was simply that writers of an older generation were less prone to exclude vulgar words from their vocabulary (cf. Lebek (1970), 202–3). obscuritatem severitatem putant: That verba antiqua are associated with obscuritas is obvious: a word that is no longer in current use is likely not to be understood by many. It is less obvious that verba sordida would be, unless they relate to a local argot that was not employed by the wider population. Accordingly, this part of Livy’s discussion should be presumed to refer more to writers who employ archaisms, but it may also relate to people who write obscurely in other respects, not only in their vocabulary; it may in particular involve compression, given that the sequel in Seneca (Contr. 9.2.26–7) contrasts such people with those who use an excess of unnecessary words to the point of speaking turgid nonsense. For severitas meaning ‘stylistic austerity’ cf. OLD s.v. severitas 4, also OLD s.v. severus 4. Miltiaden rhetorem: RE 6: he is unknown apart from this passage. Seneca’s language suggests that Livy may have heard this from him at first hand, which would make him a contemporary, perhaps (but not certainly) an older one.

ἐπὶ τὸ δεξιὸν μαίνονται: δεξιόν is Hertz’s highly plausible emendation, making the epigram allude to Pl., Phdr. 266A: εἰς τὰ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μανίας ἀγαγὼν ἡμᾶς (‘leading us to the right-­hand part of madness’). Plato is talking here about rhet­ oric, but not in the context of archaisms or obscurity, but rather about how the process of definition allowed Socrates to make a speech in praise of love by arguing that the kind of madness love involves is divinely inspired (‘right’, in Greek as in English, encompassing ‘correctness’ as well as direction). It is unclear out of context how far Miltiades’ (or Livy’s) argument was meant to capture the many complexities of Plato’s original, but the allusion at the very least surely indicates that he saw the stylistic choice to write obscurely or archaically less as a flaw than as something expressing an other-­worldly brilliance, of the sort that Plato’s lover also possesses (cf. F 93n.). Seneca, however, takes issue with this: he takes Miltiades (or Livy) to be saying simply that such stylistic choices are a flaw that abuts on a virtue, in response to which Seneca argues that in themselves such flaws may be less than those of a turgid speaker, but are also harder to ‘cure’. F 93 Quintilian is discussing obscuritas (‘obscurity’), which he regards as a stylistic flaw, but he acknowledges that there are rhetoricians who disagree, and see it as something desirable. In order to show that this is not simply a problem in his own day, he cites Livy, who had spoken of one such rhetorician. Quintilian does not say whether Livy himself approved of the praeceptor’s approach, but the parallel with F 92 suggests that he may have done, although the obscurity that Seneca is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Fragments  287 discussing there seems to arise from compression (see ad loc.), whereas here the context in Quintilian is of writers where the obscurity arises because they use complex expressions for simple things. in hoc malum . . . laboratur: For laboro in with the accusative see TLL V.2 801.4–7, 802.49–53; here, less commonly, in is used with the impersonal passive. obscurare: An exact calque on the Greek σκοτίζω (below): cf. TLL IX.2 165.29–52.

σκότισον: For σκοτίζω used of obscure writing, cf. D.H., Th. 33, though the object there is the mind of the listener, not (as Quintilian’s Latin parallel implies) the language being used. Here, as in FF 91–2, Livy seems to have quoted the Greek word, something he hardly ever does in his historiography (but see F 65n.). unde . . . intellexi: This may come from Livy, but it also may be Quintilian’s own elaboration of his account—­the laudatio in question is a commonplace, rather than something specific to the praeceptor that Livy is quoting.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations C1 The Codex Parisinus 7530 is a famous manuscript, written in the late eighth century, but compiling a great deal of older material, including a brief account of the genre of history taken from an unknown ancient handbook. For a detailed description of the codex see Holtz (1975), esp. 122 for this extract. C2 Our MSS of Livy read facturusne sim operae pretium, which presumably represents what Quintilian refers to as the ‘emended’ version of the text. It is unclear how Quintilian can have known Livy’s original version, but the confidence with which he makes the claim has inspired all modern editors to correct the text. For such hexametric openings in Latin historians cf. Woodman (2012), 378–84. C3 This is a mis-­citation of Livy, who does indeed pair Aeneas and Antenor, but does not attribute treachery to either of them, saying that they escaped Troy ‘both because of the rights conferred by a long-­standing friendship and because they had constantly been the proponents of peace and of returning Helen’ (1.1.1: et vetusti iure hospitii et quia pacis reddendaeque Helenae semper auctores fuerant). However, Servius’ argument for why it is specifically here that Virgil brings up Antenor, rather than any of the other escapees from Troy, requires that Aeneas and Antenor be placed in a special category as people accused of treachery. There were indeed historians who claimed that, notably Lutatius (FRHist 32 F 8), and it is likely that Servius or his source has conflated him with the more famous figure of Livy. C6 Some of Servius’ account here is compatible with Livy, but there are significant differences. Livy mentions only two battles, not three: in the first, Turnus attacks Aeneas and Latinus, and Latinus is killed. Turnus then makes an alliance with Mezentius, and fights the Trojans again; Aeneas is victorious, but disappears. Livy does not mention the death of Turnus or Mezentius, but it is implicit that Mezentius survives the battle, because at 1.3.4 Livy mentions his refusal to attack Ascanius’ kingdom after Aeneas’ death; however, the same fact implies that there was no third battle in which Ascanius killed Mezentius. The most likely ex­plan­ ation is that Servius (or his source) is taking the remaining material from Cato, conflating it into Livy as if there were no discrepancies between them. For a reconstruction of Cato’s version, see Cornell in FRHist 3.65–71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  289 This passage appears only in Servius himself; the compiled text known as Servius auctus adds the words in arce after Latinus’ death (see apparatus), but then compresses the remainder of the story dramatically, omitting the reference to Livy and Cato. C 10 The story that Remus’ mockery of Romulus’ new city walls was avenged not by Romulus himself but by the appropriately named ‘Celer’ was common, especially among those who wanted to play down the fratricidal element in Rome’s founding (cf. Krämer (1965), 358, 372–6). However, Livy himself has nothing of this: he offers two versions of the death of Remus, but in the second version, in which Remus is killed for his mockery, it is Romulus himself, not ‘Celer’, who strikes the blow. As with his false assumption that De Viris Illustribus is closely based on Livy (T 28n.), the compiler merely assumes that well-­known stories about early Rome must go back to Livy. C 12 According to the MSS, Livy’s wording at 1.7.8 is slightly different from what is reported by Pompeius: Evander . . . venerabilis vir miraculo litterarum, rei novae inter rudes artium homines. More significantly, Livy does not actually say that Evander invented the Latin alphabet (although it is possible that his words hint obliquely at that version of the story, which certainly predated him: see Briquel (1988), 254–5), still less that Carmentis did. The latter, however, became the more popular version (Briquel (1988), 256–8), which is presumably why it is credited to Livy, despite its not actually appearing in his text. C 13 Malalas’ retelling of this famous story conforms to Livy’s in outline, but not in all details: notably in Malalas, unlike in Livy, Romulus is prompted to the rape by an  oracle. Malalas mentions Livy elsewhere (C 23, TT 48–9), and clearly was acquainted with his name and the broad nature of his work, but is unlikely to have had direct knowledge of his text or indeed the texts of most other Latin authors that he cites (Jeffreys (1990), 169–72, 185). In addition, there is a textual problem: the seventh-­century Chronicon Paschale, which takes over large portions of Malalas verbatim and derives from a reliable textual tradition, reads ‘Apollonius’ (otherwise unknown) instead of Pliny, and ‘Silvius’ in place of Livy. Partly on that basis, the authenticity of the Pliny reference is doubted by Levick in FRHist 1.528–9; it is possible that the Livy reference should likewise be challenged. C 20 Livy discusses the ceremonies of the fetials twice in Book 1. The longest account is with the ceremony for the declaration of war established by Ancus Marcius

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

290 Commentary (1.32.5–14), but he has also previously described the way in which Tullus Hostilius used the fetials to make a treaty with Alba Longa (1.24.4–9). Servius’ account centres on the episode with Ancus, but ostensibly only references Livy in order to compare the earlier episode with Tullus. Nevertheless, much of the detail that Servius gives of Ancus’ ceremony can be paralleled in Livy, and may ­ul­tim­ate­ly depend on him. C 21 Priscian is (slightly) misquoting one of his passages: Livy 24.10.7 says not sanguine pluvit, but sanguine pluvisse. sanguine pluvit is found at 40.19.2. C 23 John Malalas’ account of the fall of Tarquin cites Livy at its conclusion, but bears very little resemblance to him. In the earlier part the entire order of events is changed; the rape of Lucretia appears to occur prior to the war with Ardea, and it is before rather than after Tarquin’s expulsion that Brutus’ son attempts to betray the planned revolt and is executed. This then is followed by a detailed account of the rewarding of Vindicius (mentioned only in passing by Livy) which provides the aetiology for an otherwise unknown festival called Consilia, and which itself contains numerous anachronisms, notably in the apparent existence of a system of provincial government in the first year of the Republic: the aetiology of the  festival appears to be the primary impetus for the story (see esp. Graf (2015), 192–9). Livy is cited as an authority, but Malalas does not directly say (although he clearly implies) that he narrated the story in this form. He is in any case unlikely to have had access to Livy’s text, or even to one of the Latin epitomizers (see C 13n.): this is at best second- or third-­hand, and it may be that the attribution to Livy rests on a misunderstanding, or that Livy’s name is introduced on the assumption that all accounts of the period must have derived from him. C 24 Livy describes Horatius’ response a little differently from the way Servius reports it: ‘At that news he was not distracted from his task in any way except to order that the corpse be brought to the funeral’ (2.8.8: nihil aliud ad eum nuntium a proposito aversus quam ut cadaver efferri iuberet). C 25 Livy gives the names of the first two tribunes as C. Licinius and L. Albinius, with Sicinius being one of those added subsequently. This should not be considered a mis-­citation by Asconius, however, since he does not explicitly attribute the names to any particular source (although he does tacitly suppress the fact of the variation).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  291 Livius . . . noster: See T 52n. C 30 Plutarch’s account of the miracle of Juno’s willing transfer to Rome after Veii misrepresents Livy: in Livy it is an anonymous soldier, not the commander Camillus, who invites the goddess to Rome. Various explanations for the ­discrepancy have been given: that Plutarch deliberately changed Livy in order to put Camillus at the centre of the story (so e.g. Schwartz (1903), 945); that the reference is a tralatician one from an intermediate source, such as Juba (Günther (1899)); that Plutarch is citing Livy from memory (e.g. Peter (1865), 18). Any of these is possible; but another possibility should be considered, namely that Plutarch, as he demonstrably does in at least one other place (cf. C 53n.), is ­ citing Livy not directly from his text, but from an epitome, which in ­summarizing the narrative may have conflated it so as to make Camillus the prime mover. C 31 For commentary see F 81n. C 33 Plutarch once again (cf. C 30n.) cites Livy in a slightly misleading fashion. In Livy, the reason for the ill-­omened nature of the day after the Ides is the failed sacrifice that took place on 16 July, not that the army was led out then. In isolation he might also be taken to be implying that Livy saw the battle itself as happening on the day after the Ides,163 but the sequel, where he goes on to reject the theory partly on the grounds that the battle was on a different day, shows that he cannot have made that error (although he appears to have done so in Cam. 19.8).164 C 36 Servius’ account reflects Livy’s in outline, but not in its details. First, Torquatus’ son is said by Servius to have fought during his father’s absence in Rome, an absence which makes little sense in terms of the Latin campaign in Livy. Servius (or his source) may have conflated Torquatus’ story with that of Minucius’ victory at Gereonium during the Second Punic War, when he fights during his 163  18 July, as is explicit in Livy and various other sources (cf. Fast. Ant. Mai., Fast. Amit., Fast. Ant. Min., Tac., Hist. 2.91.1, Serv., Aen. 7.717). Vir. Ill. 23.7 gives the date as 17 July, presumably a scribal error. 164  His mistake there may have come from reading sources such as Verrius Flaccus (fr. 3 ap. Gell. 5.17.2) or Cn. Gellius, FRHist 14 F 8/Cassius Hemina, FRHist 6 F 23 (both cited in Macr., Sat. 1.16.23), which make a direct connection between the sacrifice on 16 July and the battle, without explicitly stating that two days were thought to have elapsed between them. If something like this was indeed the source of Plutarch’s error, I sympathize: I, too, once misread the texts cited in Gellius and Macrobius as saying that the battle was on 16 July (Levene (1993), 205 n. 4).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

292 Commentary commander’s absence in Rome and despite instructions to the contrary (see Livy 22.24). Second, Torquatus in Livy does not ‘praise the fortune of the Roman ­people’; and third, in Livy the younger Torquatus is beheaded rather than being cudgelled to death (cf. Per. 2.15n. for the latter punishment)—Servius (or his source) has mistakenly assumed a standard military form of execution rather than the one which Livy actually describes. The last error is especially revealing, in as much as the execution is the part of the story which Servius attributes to Livy directly. Clearly he is not consulting Livy at first hand; but it is not clear that he is even using a version of the story which derives from Livy indirectly. As with other people who purport to be citing Livy, it may be that there was simply a vague assumption that any story from Republican history went back to him. fustuario supplicio: Servius only says fustuario, which is the classical usage. The compiler of Servius auctus added supplicio, a phrase found only in later Latin. See TLL VI.1 1660.42–67. C 37 Priscian assigns this quotation to Book 7 of Livy, rather than Book 8; in this case it is his own error, not a copyist’s, since he identifies it as the same book as C 36. C 38 Priscian’s quotation is slightly different from that found in our MSS of Livy. Livy’s text has moris after humanique, and the indicative abolevit165 rather than the subjunctive. With the former, Hertz emended Priscian to conform with Livy, but wrongly: Priscian might well have given a defective quotation, since the extra word was unnecessary for his point. The subjunctive, however, looks like an error by Priscian (or the MS he was using): Livy is lamenting the actual disappearance of the memory of the past, not expressing how he would respond if it were to disappear (cf. Woodcock 200, 203). C 42 Nonius quotes this passage from Livy Book 9: it does not appear in our MSS of that book, but it fits very naturally at 9.40.3, provided that we hypothesize the omission of a silver contingent to contrast with the gold-­ equipped troops described by Nonius here. A variety of reconstructions have been proposed in order to fit it in effectively: for the best account see Northwood (1996), supported with further analysis and discussion by Oakley (2005a), 508–11.

165  Livy’s MSS also offer the variant reading obsolevit, but Priscian’s reading strongly supports the verb abolesco here, since that (or rather the cognate aboleo, whose perfect form is identical) is the word whose usage he is illustrating with this quotation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  293 C 44 The number of infantry in Orosius diverges between the different MSS, but all are substantially different from those recorded by the MSS of Livy (which themselves vary significantly in the number they offer). However, Oakley (2005b), 330–2 argues that Orosius’ version is more likely to reflect Livy’s ori­gin­al text. More important is that Orosius’ account diverges from Livy’s on a key point. Livy is sceptical of these figures, which he thinks exaggerated, but notes that they included the Etruscans and Umbrians, who in Livy’s version of the battle did not participate (cf. also Per. 10.7n.). Orosius, like Livy, has only the Samnites and Gauls fighting at Sentinum, but claims that the figures here were for them alone, not the Etruscans and Umbrians. This may be the result of a careless misreading of Livy, or it may even be a deliberate correction of him in order to tidy up his account, since, unlike Livy, Orosius accepts the validity of the figures, but he has followed Livy in removing the Etruscans and Umbrians from the battle; given that, he may have concluded that the figures had to refer to the Samnites and Gauls alone. C 48 Nonius’ quotation of Livy is rather different from that preserved in Livy himself, which reads nos hic pecorum modo per aestivos saltus deviasque calles; it is, however, unclear how much of the discrepancy is the result of corruption in the MS tradition of Nonius, and how much the result of Nonius himself (or his source) either misreading or being in possession of a defective text. idem sic frequenter: This is true: Livy uses callis in the feminine also at 31.42.8, 36.15.9, 36.16.6, 38.2.10, 38.40.12; he never uses it in the masculine in his surviving work. C 50 Seneca’s citation of Livy is both accurate—­Livy does indeed twice use the word Volturnus of the wind that affected the Romans at Cannae—­and revealingly misleading. An uninformed reader might naturally assume that Livy presented the same account of Cannae as Seneca reports here, namely that the Romans were disadvantaged by the sun and the wind. There was indeed a version of Cannae in which that is true (Val. Max. 7.4 ext. 2, Flor. 1.22.16), but it is not Livy’s, who makes a point of noting that, while the wind was indeed a problem for the Romans, the sun was not (see Levene (2010), 285–6). Seneca cites Livy on a narrow point, but the context he supplies is a story which Livy actively rejected, and Seneca does not care to note the difference. C 51 The Acta Sancti Sebastiani Martyris is a fifth-­century text, traditionally ascribed to Ambrose but certainly not by him (the author may well be Arnobius the Younger:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

294 Commentary see Lanéry (2007)). At this point in the narrative the Christian Tranquillinus is debating with the pagan prefect Chromatius; Chromatius worries that the Christian ‘blasphemy’ has caused disaster to Rome, because ­people have ceased to worship the gods, but Tranquillinus responds that there were plenty of disasters even when ­people faithfully worshipped Jupiter, and he gives examples, including one from Livy. The author does not name the battle to which he is referring, but it is extremely probable that it is to be identified with Cannae. The entire argument is taken from Tert., Apol. 40.8, who (without citing Livy) gives the examples of Cannae and the Gallic sack, and with the latter uses similar phrasing to the Acta: ipsum Capitolium Senones occupaverunt. One potential problem is that, according to Livy, the casualties on the Roman side at Cannae were not 23,000, but 45,500 (plus 2,700 cavalry). The reason for the discrepancy might be an error in the MSS or the printed editions of the Acta, an immensely popular work with hundreds of surviving MSS, but which has never had a proper critical edition (the text here is from the nineteenth-­century Patrologia Latina, which is itself merely reprinted from the 1643 Bollandist edition). But there is a more plausible answer: according to Livy, half the casualties were allies, and half were Roman citizens, and hence the number of Romans who died at Cannae was indeed around 23,000. A further twist is that the phrase una die viginti tria milia Romani exercitus iuvenes cecidisse alludes to the Vulgate translation of I Corinthians 10:8 (quidam ex ipsis fornicati sunt et ceciderunt una die viginti tria milia). In that passage Paul is generally agreed to be referring to the plague in Numbers 25:1–9 (where, however, the transmitted texts uniformly read 24,000), but the author of the Acta appears to be associating it homiletically with Cannae, and that link would also explain why the author preferred to use the deduced number of 23,000 rather than the number 45,500 which Livy actually gave. It also follows from this argument that the author actually knew what Livy wrote: he was not merely introducing his name to link his example to a famous historian. decadas: This is the first direct evidence we have of readers of Livy speaking in terms of ‘decades’ (cf. also F 4, dating from the end of the fifth century), but the Acta uses the phrase in a manner that suggests an accepted way of referring to Livy. Although the articulation of at least the first forty-­five books into groups of five and ten is readily apparent from the narrative, it was only when his text was copied into codex form that this will have become a natural way of indicating particular sections of his work. See further the Introduction to Volume II. C 53 Of all the citations of Livy’s surviving work, this is the most revealing, not only with regard to Plutarch’s methods of citation, but more generally for the reception of Livy in later periods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  295 Plutarch is here commenting on Marcellus’ victory in the first battle at Nola, which Livy described in 23.16. Livy’s own comment on that battle clearly lies behind Plutarch here, since he does indeed, as Plutarch says, question whether the victory was as great as some previous historians reported. But Livy’s conclusion is not especially like Plutarch’s: he says nothing of the fame that accrued to Marcellus or the increased morale of the Romans, but instead comments that the battle was the greatest in the war, since it was such an achievement not to be defeated by Hannibal at that moment. But Plutarch’s comment is remarkably similar to the one made by the Periochae on the second battle of Nola: primusque tot cladibus fessis Romanis meliorem spem belli dedit (Per. 23.10: ‘he [sc. Marcellus] was the first to give greater hope to the Romans who were wearied by so many defeats’). That Plutarch and the Periochae are commenting on different battles is of little importance: there was a tendency in the historical tradition to conflate the two battles of Nola (see Per. 23.10n.), and it would be entirely like the Periochist to transfer a comment of this sort from the first battle to the second. The most probable conclusion is that both Plutarch and the Periochae are here d ­ ependent on a first-­century epitome of Livy: see further the Introduction, xxv–xxvi and Volume II, xiii, 486–7. This conclusion would have the additional advantage of explaining some of the other oddities in Plutarch’s citations of Livy: see CC 30, 60nn. C 54 Livy 23.49.5 actually reads Iliturgi oppidum ab Hasdrubale ac Magone et Hannibale Bomilcaris filio ob defectionem ad Romanos oppugnabatur (‘The town of Iliturgi was being attacked by Hasdrubal and Mago and Hannibal son of Bomilcar because of its defection to the Romans’). Priscian (whose interest is in the nominative Iliturgi) omits the words that are unnecessary for his point. C 55 Livy does not use the phrase in ordinem redigere, either in Book 25 or anywhere else. At 25.4.4 he says tribunos in ordinem coegisse; a few lines earlier (25.3.19) he has the consul Fulvius say of the tribunes vos in ordinem coactos esse, and this is his normal phrasing elsewhere: see e.g. 6.38.12 with Oakley (1997), 691. However, in ordinem redigere is more common in these contexts in other writers: see TLL IX.2 955.63–6; it is possible that Priscian, who is in any case paraphrasing Livy rather than quoting him directly, was using a corrupted text, or has unconsciously assimilated him to a more familiar phrase. C 60 Plutarch is basing his account here on Livy, but at the same time significantly extending what he says. Livy does refer to the grief and fear at Rome after the defeat of Fulvius, but he does not say that they were the consequence of reading

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

296 Commentary Marcellus’ letter (whose sending he, like Plutarch, described in the previous sentence), nor does Livy comment that the reason for their fear was that they believed that the danger had increased in proportion to Marcellus’ superiority as a general. It is possible that here, as before (cf. C 53n.), the discrepancy comes from Plutarch’s dependence on an epitome, but it is also possible that it comes from his own attempt to interpret Livy. It is true that Livy does not relate the emotions of the Romans to Marcellus’ letter, but the juxtaposition would make that a rea­son­ able, if not an inevitable, conclusion to draw. But that would then lead to an add­ ition­al question: why the Romans would feel fear after receiving Marcellus’ encouraging (and indeed boastful) letter assuring them that he was in hot pursuit of Hannibal; and Plutarch’s expansion gives one answer to that question. C 61 Plutarch’s citation of sources around the burial of Marcellus is highly confused. He cites two versions, both of which agree that Hannibal gave him an honourable cremation and sent the bones to the man’s son, but which differ on the aftermath. The first, which he attributes to Cornelius Nepos and Valerius Maximus, has the Numidians fighting over the bones, leading to them being scattered; the second, for which he cites Augustus and Livy, has the bones reaching Marcellus’ son and being buried. The problem is that neither Valerius Maximus (5.1 ext. 6) nor Livy mentions any attempt by Hannibal, whether successful or not, to return Marcellus’ bones to his son. They both refer to the funeral Hannibal supplied (as do also Cic., Cato 75, Sil. 15.381–96), but nothing of the aftermath. Both of Plutarch’s versions are known from other sources (Vir. Ill. 45.8 has the first, App., Hann. 50 the second), but not from Livy. The reference to Augustus is presumably to the funeral oration given over his nephew Marcellus, which Plutarch also cites at C 52 (cf. also Serv. auct., Aen. 1.712): hence it is just possible that Livy offered this version in the context of the death of the younger Marcellus, which he presumably narrated in Book 136 or 137. But that must be considered very improbable—­it is unlikely that Plutarch would have recourse to that book, given that elsewhere in this Life he is drawing on Livy’s narrative in the Third Decade; and there is in any case no comparable explanation for the false cit­ation of Valerius. A more plausible possibility is that it derives from the epitome of Livy that Plutarch demonstrably uses elsewhere (see C 53n.), with the epitomizer, as the surviving Periochae often do, adapting or supplementing Livy in the light of alternative versions of the story. But this too would not explain the miscitation of Valerius, and it may simply be that Plutarch or his researcher garbled his notes. C 62 Our MSS of Livy actually have the alternative (and commoner) form mentioned by Priscian: anno quingentesimo. The MSS of Priscian are unlikely to be at error

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  297 here: this is his only quotation in this part of the work, and he is (presumably) citing Livy precisely for the unusual form. It is possible that he was working from a defective MS of Livy, but it seems far more probable that the mediaeval MSS of Livy ‘normalized’ the word to the commoner form. Nevertheless, editors of Livy have generally declined to print Priscian’s version. C 63 The last two words quoted by Priscian, captivos Italicos, do not appear in our MSS of Livy. In this case it seems probable that they are an explanatory gloss, either in the MS of Livy that Priscian was using, or even perhaps added by Priscian himself to give the context more clearly. C 65 et is not found in our MSS of Livy, but it may have dropped out of the text (Briscoe (1981), 180). C 66 XXXVII: The MSS of Priscian read XXVI, which is manifestly an error. Hertz, however, declined to emend it, referring in his apparatus to Priscian’s quota­tion of Livy Book 38 later on (C 69), which almost all of the MSS of Priscian ascribe to Book 27. Hertz’s reasoning was presumably that the congruence of the two errors—­both deduct eleven from the actual book number—­was not coincidental, and points to Priscian using an edition of Livy where the books were numbered in this fashion, in much the same way as the Civil War books have an alternative numbering scheme in the Periochae and the Lucan scholia, showing that those books circulated independently (see the Introduction). However, there are three reasons to doubt this: (1) the unlikelihood of an otherwise unattested edition of Livy that began with Book 12 and extended to Book 38; (2) the fact that other citations by Priscian from the Fourth Decade show no sign of this alternative numbering; and (3) the frequency with which the MSS of Priscian misreport Livy’s book numbers. Accordingly, I have simply corrected the text. C 67 Both W-­M (hesitantly) and Jal treat this as a fragment from a lost book of Livy, despite the fact that Livy in Book 37 describes the army of Antiochus III using scythed chariots at Magnesia. Their reasoning (cf. Jal (1979), 293–5) is that they believe that maiores has to mean ‘our ancestors’, and hence that Servius is referring to some point when Livy described the Romans using scythed cha­riots themselves. However, maiores can sometimes mean little more than antiqui,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

298 Commentary referring to people of any nation who lived in the past, rather than specifically those of one’s own country (cf. e.g. Vitr. 7 pr. 1–2). Moreover, the Sallust passage cited by Servius is almost certainly talking about Mithridates (McGushin (1994), 74–5), who was not Roman, and Servius is citing them in the context of the chariot of the Trojan Troilus. Accordingly, it is more economical to ascribe this to a known passage of Livy than a hypothetical unknown one in which he referred to some otherwise unattested occasion when the Romans used scythed chariots. C 68 et: The MSS of Livy give ac. cum parentibus quaeque civitas suis: The MSS of Livy read cum parentibus quaeque civitas et conditoribus suis; it is more probable that this is Priscian’s omission than a scribe’s gloss on Livy (see Briscoe (1981), 382). C 69 XXXVIII: See C 65n. C 71 Most editors of Quintilian since the mid-­nineteenth century have rightly deleted this citation of Livy as a gloss. I have nevertheless included it here: there is a rea­ son­able probability that the scribe who added it did so in an­tiquity, since it appears in both of the strands of Quintilian’s textual tradition that reached the Carolingian period. C 72 stipularique: Livy reads adstipularique (‘agree with’), and this is almost certainly correct, despite the fact that Priscian quotes the passage precisely in order to illustrate the use of stipulari. As Briscoe (2008), 221 notes, stipulari makes little sense in the context: presumably Priscian derived his quotation from a corrupt text of Livy. C 73 Livy actually says Areus etiam et Alcibiades. C 74 Priscian’s quotation from Livy seriously misrepresents his text. The first phrase—­ quod Areum et Alcibiaden—­appears at 39.36.2; but a version of the second half of Priscian’s phrase—­reprehendere ne Lacedaemonii quidem possint—­comes much

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Citations  299 later in the same chapter (39.36.12), as part of Lycortas’ speech, and the object of it in Livy is not Areus and Alcibiades, but the war which the Achaeans undertook on behalf of Rome. The resulting phrase does not even appear to be grammatical (and my translation reflects that). Since Priscian is only trying to illustrate the formation of accusatives with Greek names, the second part of the quotation is completely irrelevant to him anyway. One can only assume that his—­or his source’s—­note-­taking has gone awry (cf. C 80n.: this chapter of Priscian shows an uncharacteristic carelessness). C 75 Plutarch’s account, with one minor exception (below), represents Livy closely. It is interesting, however, that (unlike the way the story is told in other writers) he distils from Livy much the same elements as the Periochae later would; this too may be the result of both using an early epitome (cf. C 53n.), though it is also worth observing that Plutarch’s other citation from Livy in the Flamininus (C 76) accurately relays Hannibal’s final words with a level of detail which suggests it depends on Livy’s full text. See also Per. 39.5n. for fuller discussion.

γυναικός: Livy 39.42.10 refers to the deserter bringing his children, not his wife; Plutarch may simply be elaborating on the story. C 77 Priscian omits a couple of words from Livy: odio in Romanos, cui Perseus indulgeret. C 78 The MSS of Livy have se, not sese; it is possible that Priscian preserves the correct reading here, but see Briscoe (2008), 423. C 79 Livy has Persea, not Perseum; as Briscoe (2008), 424 notes, the fact that the point of Priscian’s quotation is to illustrate the accusative makes it more likely that he has preserved the correct text, but to set against that, it is more likely that a Greek accusative form would be corrupted to a Latin one than vice versa. Possibly Priscian was himself working from a corrupted text. C 80 The phrase Priscian quotes does not appear in Livy Book 40. It appears to be a very loose paraphrase/vague memory of 40.22.12–13: in Maedicam regressus . . . ipse . . . Perseum filium cum modica manu circummisit, but transgressus cannot mean ‘sent across’, which is what it would have to mean to come even close to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

300 Commentary the general sense of Livy’s original. This is the second place in this chapter where Priscian, unusually, badly misrepresents his source ­material (cf. C 73n.). C 81 Priscian is paraphrasing from Livy, who writes Astraeum Paeoniae Demetrium mittit . . . Perseum Amphipolim. C 82 The transmitted word ­order in Livy is slightly different: misit ad Perseum. C 83 Priscian is abridging Livy’s sentence, omitting a number of descriptive phrases that are not relevant to his point (which is the formation of the word Caerites): Livy writes Lanuvini Caeritesque anguem in oppido suo iubatum, aureis maculis sparsum, apparuisse adfirmabant.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia T1 This apparently secure reference to 59 bc as the date of Livy’s birth has been challenged by some scholars, above all Syme (1959), 40–1 (= (1979b), 414–15), on the basis that Jerome synchronizes Livy’s birth with that of Messala Corvinus, who was almost certainly born earlier, probably in 64 bc (the consulship of Figulus and Caesar—59 was the consulship of Bibulus and Caesar). Syme’s argument would, however, imply that Jerome began with evidence that Livy and Corvinus were born in the same year, and then moved both of them from 64 to 59. It is considerably more likely that Jerome would have had independent evidence for the date of Livy’s birth and that of Corvinus but then mistakenly assigned Corvinus’ birth to Livy’s year. Indeed, Syme himself, without appearing to notice that he is doing so, offers evidence that the latter scenario is the more likely one: for he claims in the course of the same argument that the popularity of such synchronisms led to their being falsely created, as with Cornelius Gallus’ birth being assigned to the same year as Virgil’s.166 If (as Syme believes) the synchronism was false with Gallus and Virgil, and they were actually born in different years, the same may well be true of Livy and Corvinus (so, rightly, Badian (1993), 10–11). While it is true that Jerome relays some false dates for the late Republic, he relays many more accurate ones; and Syme’s argument is an extremely weak basis for rejecting his evidence. T2 Seneca is praising the style of the philosophical writer Papirius Fabianus, suggesting that only three Latin philosophical writers are superior to him: first Cicero, then Asinius Pollio, and finally Livy. This is the only evidence we have for Livy as a writer of philosophical works, works from which not a single fragment survives.167 The suggestion that the dialogues counted as history no less than philosophy presumably indicates that they were set in the past with historical characters, perhaps along similar lines to Cicero’s De Re Publica. One might indeed take Seneca’s comment to mean that the historical setting was explored more fully in Livy than it was in Cicero, since he does not make a similar point about Cicero’s work, but it is also plausible that 166  More generally on the Roman interest in synchronisms (not least because of their im­port­ance in establishing a chronological framework in a world without a universally accepted nu­mer­ic­al dating system) see Feeney (2007), 7–66. 167  Schindel (1983) argues that Seneca is not referring to actual philosophical works by Livy, but to philosophically inflected parts of his history: discursive digressions like the Alexander digression in Book 9, and paired debates such as the one over the lex Oppia in Book 34; but this requires a strained and improbable reading of Seneca’s language.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

302 Commentary Livy’s better-­known work as an historian led Seneca to characterize his philosophy in those terms. T3 (a) is a famous inscription, discovered in Padua in the fourteenth century, when it was mistakenly believed to belong to the tomb of Livy himself. In fact, although it dates from the right period, any connection to the historian is doubtful, though it is possible that the Livia Quarta who had owned Titus Livius Halys prior to his manumission was the daughter of the historian: that Livy had at least one daughter is securely attested in T 4. The same woman is mentioned in (b), an inscription found at Brusegana, a few kilometres from Padua. T4 L. Magius: RE 7: he is otherwise unknown. T5 If this anecdote contains any truth to it, it shows that Livy was not especially popular or famous in his lifetime, but became so subsequently. However, the implication of T 4 and T 6, both of which date closer to Livy’s time, is that Livy was admired and famous in his own day. Cichorius (1922), 262 argued that the anecdote refers only to a period early in Livy’s career, before he had published his first books. However, that in­ter­pret­ ation pays too little attention to the overall meaning: on Aelian’s account, it was the passage of time that brought the stellar qualities of Livy to the fore, not the mundane fact that he was not well known before he had published any work. Accordingly, little weight can be placed on the historicity of the story; probably some minor (and prob­ ably unrecoverable) detail about Livy’s recitations or his audience has been contorted into something far broader in order to provide a suitable point. The implication of the story is that already in Livy’s day (as was certainly the case later) public recitations were seen as an appropriate medium to reach a wider public, such that the level of attendance—­and the social or intellectual qualities of the attendees—­might be considered a proxy for the person’s fame and reputation.168 Sen., Contr. 4 pr. 2 famously says that Asinius Pollio was the first Roman to recite his own works advocatis hominibus (‘with people invited in’): the most probable interpretation of this is that he formally organized public recitations of his work for a broad audience (Dalzell (1955)). There is nothing implausible in the idea that Livy participated in the same practice,169 although, as noted above, other aspects of the anecdote are questionable. 168  See Roller (2018) for the use of recitation both for aristocratic community-­building (and competition), and as a way of constructing social hierarchies. 169  On recitations as a medium for the propagation of Roman historiography at this time see Pausch (2011), 38–42; cf. also Wiseman (2015), 129–30 for the idea that much of Livy’s work was designed for oral performance.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  303

Κορνοῦτος: The Suda goes on to identify him with L.  Annaeus Cornutus, the phil­oso­pher and grammarian of the Neronian period. However, that makes little sense chronologically, and Cichorius (1922), 261–9 referred the anecdote instead to an historian Cornutus whose work is quoted in the scholia on Lucan (FRHist 54): the precise identity of the historian is controversial, but Cichorius proposed C. Caecilius Cornutus, praetor in 57 bc (RE 43), endorsed by Levick in FRHist 1.426–7. εὐγλωττίᾳ: As elsewhere, Livy’s most admired quality (cf. FF 9n., 36n., 74; also e.g. TT 6b, 7, 10b, 26, 31). T6 This famous story is reported by Pliny, and repeated by Jerome, although the text of the latter is controversial: on another reading found in a number of MSS Jerome refers not only to the man from Cadiz, but other visitors from Spain and Gaul (see the apparatus). Even if the latter reading is accepted, however, it is probable that it is Jerome’s own (perhaps misremembered) elab­or­ation of Pliny, rather than the result of combining Pliny with a separate anecdote about still more people coming to see Livy from distant parts. lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantem: See T 27, to which Jerome is certainly referring; on Livy’s eloquence see FF 9n., 36n. T7 No reference to Livy has received more discussion than this; it not only appears to attest to a close relationship between Livy and Augustus, but it also gives a broad characterization of his handling of some of the leading figures of the last generation of the Republic. Moreover, it does so in a passage which is for other reasons as famous as any in Roman historiography, with Tacitus depicting another historian, Cremutius Cordus, speaking in defence of his own work.170 However, while it is tempting to regard this passage as some sort of key to understanding Livy’s attitudes, it is necessary to show a great deal of caution. First, Cordus’ characterization of Livy may not have been intended by Tacitus to be taken entirely at face value: he is clearly a partial speaker trying to marshal the best arguments he can in his own defence, and Tacitus could well have represented him as distorting the truth here, as he appears to have done in other respects also (cf. below).171 Secondly, even if we do take it at face value, Livy

170  Important discussions of the passage include Suerbaum (1970); Moles (1998), esp. 134–76; McHugh (2004); Sailor (2008), 250–313; Wisse (2013). 171  For (deliberately) problematic arguments assigned by Tacitus to Cordus cf. e.g. Moles (1998), 144–52, Woodman (2018), 199–200, contra Wisse (2013), 329.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

304 Commentary described the deeds of Pompey constantly in his narrative,172 and presumably, as with virtually every major Roman figure in his surviving work, combined high praise at times with tempered criticism; the comment attributed to Augustus is perfectly compatible with that. That Livy never referred to Caesar’s assassins as latrones and parricidas is a little more interesting, but again, such suspension of crude ethical judgement is commonplace in his work. It is true that his surviving work does not contain contemporary history, but it would be more surprising if Livy had abandoned his fondness for ethical complexity and balance and turned into a crude propagandist as he came closer to his own time than the converse. Thirdly, while the word amicitia attests to some personal connection between Livy and Augustus, the word does not necessarily imply that the relationship was in any way close, especially given the difference in power between them (Badian (1993), 12): amicus could be used simply as a matter of courtesy for people in a state of social dependence (cf. Saller (1982), 11–15, Brunt (1988), 360–1). fidei: Livy’s fides was not generally mentioned among his major virtues as an historian, and Tacitus elsewhere implicitly denies it (cf. F 36n.), as does Quintilian (T 27); cf. also T 16, T 26 (and possibly T 31, though that is addressed to his­tor­ ians in general rather than Livy in particular). This too, therefore, looks like an example of Cordus shading the truth in his speech (cf. n. 171 above). Pompeianum: According to Woodman (2018), 195 (cf. Woodman (1988), 156–7), ‘Augustus had suggested that Livy’s praise of Pompey meant sympathy for his supporters too’, which is not quite right: Augustus is implying (pre­sum­ably not altogether seriously, as Woodman rightly observes) that Livy was himself a (belated) supporter of Pompey, which would not necessarily indicate sympathy for other supporters of Pompey, whose behaviour was (in early ­imperial eyes) ethically compromised by their actions during the Civil War as much as by the fact of supporting Pompey in the first place. Nor should we assume that praise for Pompey during the reign of Augustus was an oppositional move (contra e.g. Petersen (1961)). While the boundaries of acceptable speech under Augustus (or any other emperor) were often fuzzy and negotiable in ways that were potentially dangerous for the speaker (cf. Feeney (1992)), Augustus was himself ready to appropriate the image of Pompey (see Grenade (1950), 56–61; cf. Syme (1939), 317), and that made it considerably less likely that praise by Livy would run into problems. Scipionem: Q.  Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, cos. 52 (RE 99). He was born P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, but was adopted into the family of the Caecilii; Pompey married his daughter (F 49n.). He held the consulship jointly with Pompey, and 172  To judge by the Periochae, Pompey first appeared in Book 85, but is not mentioned again until Book 89. He is then referred to in every book of the Periochae up to his death in Book 112, apart from 95, 98, and 108. It is a mistake to assume, as many do (e.g. Badian (1993), 25), that Tacitus is referring only and specifically to a eulogy that Livy wrote on Pompey’s death.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  305 then supported him in the Civil War. After Pharsalus, he held the Pompeian command in Africa, but was defeated by Caesar in 46 and committed suicide. Afranium: L. Afranius, cos. 60 (RE 6). At the start of the Civil War he commanded the Pompeians in Hispania Citerior, where he was defeated by Caesar (cf. F 44n.); he then fought for Pompey at Pharsalus, after which he fled to Africa, where he was captured by Caesar’s forces and executed in 46. hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum: See F 61n. T8 This too, like T 7, is often held to demonstrate Livy’s closeness to the im­per­ial household; but the anecdote does not entail any sort of close or long-­term relationship between Livy and the future emperor (Badian (1993), 12–13). It is because of his fame that Livy is singled out, giving Claudius a distinguished intellectual genealogy for his own historiographical efforts. T9 Asinius Pollio’s criticism of Livy’s ‘Paduanity’, referred to twice by Quintilian, is very famous; it is less obvious what exactly Pollio was talking about. The context of both references is narrowly linguistic, so we can set aside the theories (notably of Syme (1939), 485–6, reiterated in Syme (1959), 76 = (1979b), 453)173 that broaden it into a critique of Livy’s social or political attitudes, and also the theory that it is related to Livy’s expansive literary manner (so Flobert (1981), Adamik (2014)). The fact that Quintilian both times emphatically attributes the critique to Pollio alone suggests that even many native Latin speakers might have struggled to identify what minor solecisms in Livy’s language Pollio had identified; certainly solecisms are undetectable in his surviving text on our slender evidence for late Republican and early imperial Latin. More difficult still is that Quintilian leaves the nature of Pollio’s critique unclear. The context in the first passage is the use of provincial vocabulary; but the second, while apparently addressing the same point, then offers an anecdote about Theophrastus which appears to be premised on something different, namely his pedantic hypercorrectness in his Attic dialect, which gave him away as a non-­native (Theophrastus was from Lesbos). So when Quintilian then mentions Pollio’s critique, it is ambiguous whether it is meant as an exact parallel, that Livy as a provincial had a tendency to pedantry in his Latin, or whether it depends on the wider context of Quintilian’s argument, namely the use of Paduan vocabulary. On balance one might prefer the latter, in as much as a single point of criticism is more likely than two, but it can hardly be certain. Moreover, there is a third possibility also: Quintilian then goes on to conclude that his students should 173  Also e.g. Alexander (1950), Sartori (1981b), 143.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

306 Commentary ensure the Romanness of verba omnia et vox—­in other words, accent—­and it cannot be ruled out that Pollio’s critique was of Livy’s spoken rather than his written Latin.174 Given the discursiveness of Quintilian’s argument, and his parenthetical manner of introducing the point, no conclusion can be drawn with even moderate certainty as to which of these three possibilities is correct: indeed, it is possible that Quintilian himself did not know what exactly Pollio meant (Adams (2007), 147–53, contra Adamik (2014), 35). Pollio: C. Asinius Pollio, c.76 bc–ad 4, cos. 40 (RE 25). He had a distinguished military and political career as supporter of first Caesar then Antony, and during his consulship negotiated the pact of Brundisium between Antony and Octavian (cf. F 63n.). Not long afterwards he achieved a triumph against the Parthini, but then retired from war and politics alike, devoting himself to courtroom oratory and his writings, which included both tragedies and a major history: see FRHist 56. Important studies of his life and work include André (1949), Haller (1967), Zecchini (1982), Morgan (2000). It should be noted that Pollio appears to have had a difficult relationship with Padua: an anecdote in Macr., Sat. 1.11.22 refers to his harsh attempts to obtain resources from the city for Antony. Syme (1959), 54 (= (1979b), 430) hypothesized that this left Livy hostile to him; but from the other side Pollio is likely to have had a keen and perhaps not positive impression of Paduans in general, if not necessarily Livy in particular, and this may be relevant to his willingness to elevate minor local idiolects into a major critique (cf. Sartori (1981b), 143). (Even more relevant may be the fact that Pollio, to judge by the scanty remnants of and references to his work, had a tendency to be critical of all and any of his contemporaries on a variety of grounds.) T 10 historiae modum excesserint: Trogus’ critique of Livy and Sallust is generally taken to be on the grounds of their lack of veridicy: direct speech purports to represent the actual words of the speakers, but in almost all cases the speech is a more or less free composition by the historian (compare Polybius’ attacks on speeches composed by historians but purporting to be real: 2.56.10, 12.25b). Laird (1999), 136–8 argues that Trogus’ complaint may have in fact been that including lengthy formal speeches blurs the generic distinction between history and oratory (cf. D.S.  20.1.1–3, Cic., Brut. 286, on which see Woodman (1988), 115–16). However, Laird’s interpretation seems implausible: Justin clearly indicates that Trogus’ objection was to all formal oratio recta speeches in his­tori­og­ raphy, not to an excessive quantity of them.

174  So e.g. Whatmough (1933), André (1949), 91–3, Travis (1953), contra Flobert (1981), 199–200.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  307 T 11 Syme extended his argument for redating Livy’s birth (T 1n.) to argue that his death, too, should be redated by five years, to ad 12 instead of Jerome’s ad 17. However, this argument is even weaker than the one concerning his birth. Syme’s argument would require that Jerome’s source had information about the date of his birth, and also his age at death, but no independent date for the latter. But this makes little sense. Jerome is far more likely to have had an accurate date for Livy’s death, at a time when he was already a well-­known figure, than for his birth—­he would not have had to deduce the former from the latter: it is worth noting that Jerome does not actually give Livy’s age at death, though he does for various other figures, including Messalla. Even if Syme’s argument for redating Livy’s birth were accepted, there is no reason to link the date of death to it and redate that as well (Badian (1993), 10–11, 31). A further reason for rejecting Syme’s argument is the note attached to Per. 121, that it was ‘published’ (editus) after the death of Augustus. While, obviously, posthumous publication of this and the subsequent books cannot be ruled out, the information in the Periochae is likely to be derived from an explanatory preface to the text, and it is more likely that this is a note by Livy rather than a note by a posthumous editor of Livy (see ad loc.). If so, then Livy survived the death of Augustus long enough to issue the books he had withheld from publication up to that point. T 12 That this is Livy’s funerary inscription is not certain, but reasonably prob­able. Dessau ad ILS 2919 sets out the basic argument: the inscription is of the right date, and was found in Padua, where Jerome records Livy died (T 11). The father is not given a cognomen, something relatively unusual at this period, but fitting Livy’s recorded nomenclature, where no cognomen is ever mentioned. That Livy had at least one son is attested at F 90a (cf. also T 19). T 15 For fuller discussion of this passage cf. FF 61–2n. omnibus magnis viris praestitit: Something of an exaggeration. In his surviving work, it is true that Livy offers brief obituary notices for a few of his major characters, including Camillus (7.1.9–10), Fabius Maximus (30.26.7–9), and Scipio Africanus (38.53.9–11), but far more either go unnoticed altogether or at most merit a short indirect comment on the manner of their death without the provision of any sort of general summary of their life. It is possible that Seneca is reflecting an increase in such obituaries in the later books of the history (Pomeroy (1988), 174): certainly the surviving fragments attest to them for Marius (F 20) and the younger Cato (F 58) as well as Cicero (cf. also F 74n.), and the Periochae report the deaths of certain other figures in a manner that implies a summary obituary, notably Masinissa (Per. 50.5) and Sertorius (Per. 96.4).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

308 Commentary T 17 Doro: Otherwise unknown. Possibly he was invented by Seneca for the purpose of the argument: he is discussing different forms of ownership, arguing that the books are ‘Livy’s’ by virtue of his having written them, but at the same time ‘Dorus” by virtue of his being a bookseller. T 18 disertus: As often, ‘eloquence’ is the primary quality associated with Livy (cf. F 9n.), albeit here implicitly rather than directly attributed to him. levis mihi visus est, cum esset nec mei nec tui corporis: The syntax is difficult; but since the work Seneca was reading was part of Lucilius’ corpus, cum cannot express the actual state of affairs: it must be governed by visus est—­this is the way it appeared, not the way it was (cf. Edwards (2019), 175). Accordingly, levis must, as Edwards says, reflect a quality which Livy’s writing would be thought to possess: hence it is ‘smooth’, not ‘light’ or (in Muretus’ emendation to brevis) ‘short’. For levis used of a style that was felt to flow elegantly without harshness see TLL VII.2 1223.12–42. T 21 Statius is addressing this poem to Vibius Maximus, who had recently had a son; the boy should study his father’s historical work, which is said to cover the same ground as Sallust and Livy. Some scholars have deduced from this that Vibius Maximus wrote an epitome of Livy, perhaps the same epitome as Martial (on one view: see ad loc.) refers to in T 23 (so e.g. Bessone (1982), 1231). But this, as Coleman points out, is a mistake (Coleman (1982), also (1988), 208–9). The work of Vibius Maximus is specifically said by Statius to be a universal history: thus the reference to Sallust and Livy simply indicates that Vibius’ work reproduces aspects of theirs (Coleman suggests that it combined the brevity of Sallust with the clarity of Livy, an appropriate combination in a work aimed at the young). Timavi: The Timavus (BarrAtl Map 19 F4) does not in fact flow especially near to Padua; but Virg., Aen. 1.242–9 links them (because Antenor would have passed the Timavus on his way to founding Padua: see Coleman (1982), 27), and the pairing of the ‘foster-­son of the Timavus’ with Sallust guarantees that Livy is being referred to here, given the regularity with which the two writers were linked (cf. Introduction, xx). T 22 Aponi: A famous hot springs 10 km from Padua, the modern Abano Terme (BarrAtl Map 40 B2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  309 T 23 In one of the epigrams on Saturnalia gifts that comprise Book 14, Martial describes himself as offering some sort of compressed copy of Livy in the form of a parchment codex. There is, however, considerable controversy over what sort of compression is being talked about. For a long time it was accepted that it was an epitome; but the general view nowadays is that the compression simply consists of the book being written in a smaller format, much as the not dissimilar 14.186 (quam brevis immensum cepit membrana Maronem—‘How small the parchment that contained vast Virgil’) must refer to a miniature parchment copy of the whole of Virgil, not a summary or abridgement of Virgil (so e.g. Ascher (1968–9), Butrica (1983), Roberts and Skeat (1983), 25–7, Leary (1996), 255–6, Harnett (2017), 201; contra Sansone (1980–1)). First, it certainly needs to be acknowledged that artatur does not necessarily imply an abridgement: it can simply mean compressing the entire work into a more compact form, and Martial uses it in that way elsewhere (1.2.3, cited by Ascher (1968–9), 54). However, Sansone makes the essential point that the key line is not the first, but the second, for which there is no parallel in the epigram on Virgil. Martial says that his library cannot contain the whole of Livy, and contrasts that with the Livy that he is giving. That makes no sense if the Livy that he is giving is still the whole work, merely copied in a smaller format.175 Butrica, in response, suggests that bibliotheca may not mean ‘library’ but ‘bookcase’, as it does at Pliny, Epist. 2.17.8, but not only is that an implausible interpretation of mea bibliotheca, but it misses the point. Martial is not contrasting the size of his library (or bookcase) with his recipient’s, but is contrasting the smallness of the gift he is giving with the size of totus Livius: hence the gift he is giving cannot be totus Livius. Yet artatur ingens Livius does suggest that the vast work of Livy is in some sense being offered, albeit in a cut-­down form: a selection of excerpts such as that described in T 24 would not work (contra Jal (1984), xxxv–xxxix). An epitome is the one obvious interpretation that would fit both parts of the epigram. Butrica’s objection appears to be chiefly based on the idea that an epitome would not make a suitable gift—­he claims that one would not read an epitome for pleasure, only to orient oneself in the original text, nor would one describe it as Livius (Butrica (1983), 9–10). Both of these, however, are manifestly false (see the Introduction to Volume II): the Periochae of Livy is designed as a narrative to be read in its own right without a copy of Livy to hand, just as Justin is designed to be readable without the Trogus original. And it is demonstrable (see Volume II, xiii; also C 53n.) that at least one epitome of Livy existed in Martial’s day, and that

175  Contra Leary (1996), 255, who claims that non totum means ‘ “not in its normal complete form”, i.e. not in 142 papyrus rolls’: this seems highly unnatural Latin.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

310 Commentary Plutarch, citing it, refers to it as ‘Livy’; hence the objection of Schmidt (1993), 192–3 that Martial’s gift is fictional, and hence cannot be used as a demonstration of the existence of a Livy epitome, is beside the point. A Livy epitome certainly existed in Martial’s day, and the construction of Martial’s poem makes it likely that he would be interpreted as referring to such an epitome. Hence the modern sceptical consensus is unwarranted: there is no reason to doubt that Martial is here referring to an epitome of Livy in a parchment codex. T 26 candidissimum quemque et maxime expositum: Quadlbauer (1983), 351–3, comparing T 15 and Hor., Epist. 1.4.1, argues that candor is an ethical as well as a stylistic evaluation; Reinhardt and Winterbottom (2006), 136 add a similar point about expositus, citing Stat., Silv. 5.3.246. Livy is a transparent, open character, not someone who conceals his true self. However, Quintilian certainly saw Livy as possessing candor in a narrower stylistic sense as well: see T 28. hic historiae maior est auctor: In Book 10 Quintilian will offer a different perspective (T 28): it is likely that his downgrading of Livy by comparison with Sallust here is specifically related to the idea of historical authority, with the sense that Livy may not be as reliable (Reinhardt and Winterbottom (2006), 136: cf. T 7n.). T 27 lactea ubertas: On this difficult phrase see above all Hays (1986–7). ubertas is a common metaphor for an expansive style of writing that engages the listener. By calling Livy’s style lactea, however, Quintilian is not referring so much to any distinctive quality of the style itself so much as its effectiveness in nourishing young readers:176 Hays compares Quint., Inst. 2.4.5–6, where the meta­phor of ‘nourishing with milk’ is likewise used of teaching children to adopt a fuller style. Hays also observes that Quintilian begins the current discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of reading history with a comment on its nourishing role: ‘History also can nourish the orator with a certain rich (uberi) and pleasant juice’ (10.1.31: historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco potest). Cf. also T 26 for history as ‘nourishment’. fidem quaerit: Strictly speaking Quintilian does not deny that Livy possesses fides; he simply alerts the student that his literary style does not give a sufficient impression of fides to a listener. But this needs to be seen in the context of other complaints about Livy’s historical reliability among at least the first generations of his readers (see TT 7, 26nn.; also F 36n.). 176  Contra Quadlbauer (1983), 348–9, who argues that milk is proverbially white, and hence Quintilian is referring to the historicus nitor which he goes on to recommend can be used in digressions (10.1.33), and more generally to the candor and iucunditas which he attributes to Livy elsewhere (TT 26, 28). There is no parallel for lacteus being used of literary style in this fashion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  311 T 28 Quintilian here compares Livy to Herodotus: it is worth noting that he has previously characterized the latter in very similar language to that used here (Inst.10.1.73): densus et brevis et semper instans sibi Thucydides, dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus: ille concitatis, hic remissis adfectibus melior, ille contionibus, hic sermonibus, ille vi, hic voluptate. Thucydides is compact and abbreviated and always driving himself on, Herodotus is gentle and limpid and expansive: Thucydides is better at the vigorous emotions, Herodotus at the relaxed ones, Thucydides in speeches, Herodotus in conversations, Thucydides in power, Herodotus in pleasure.

For the pairing of Livy and Herodotus cf. TT 34, 41. clarissimique candoris: For Livy’s candor cf. TT 15, 26. T 29 This heading to the anonymous Origo Gentis Romanae, like C 10, comes not from the Origo itself, but rather from the compiler who bundled the Origo together with De Viris Illustribus and Aurelius Victor’s De Caesaribus in order to create a complete summary history of Rome. The date of the compiler is disputed, but Momigliano made a strong case for the 360s (Momigliano (1958), 57–61, contra Richard (1983), 16–19, who argues for c.580). The reference to Livy indicates that the compiler saw Livy as the primary source for De Viris Illustribus, although even a cursory comparison shows numerous occasions where that text varies substantially from Livy’s account. T 30 This description in the title of Liber de Caesaribus of Aurelius Victor asserts that it begins where Livy leaves off, namely the reign of Augustus. Like T 29, it is likely to derive from the compiler who linked Aurelius Victor to De Viris Illustribus (cf. Cameron (2004), 331–2), and hence is probably from the fourth century (T 29n.). For the same reason, it is irrelevant that Livy in fact narrated something like half of Augustus’ reign; it simply reasserts that Livy is thought of as an historian of the Republic, and is associated in the compiler’s mind with De Viris Illustribus, which covered that period. T 35 This extract comes from a letter of Symmachus to Protadius, dated 396. revolve: Symmachus is not necessarily assuming a text of Livy in scroll form (cf. the Introduction): revolvo was sometimes used at this period of reading a codex (so e.g. Aug., Quaest. Hept. 7.49.16: revolvat qui voluerit propheticos libros). It

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

312 Commentary does, however, usually, though not invariably (cf. Sen., Suas. 6.27), imply reading back over a text, which tells against Cameron’s argument that this accompanied a gift not only of a text of Caesar but also one of Livy (Cameron (2011), 523–4). Patavini scriptoris extrema quibus res Gai Caesaris explicantur: extrema is surprising: Livy’s account of Caesar’s Gallic conquests was in Books 103–108, barely three-­ quarters of the way through his total corpus. Symmachus, who, on his own account (T 36), possessed a complete text of Livy, might have been expected to know that. Possibly Symmachus’ text was less complete than he believed, but it is more probable that he is merely speaking loosely and from memory: there is no reason to think that he had actually read through the whole of Livy himself,177 nor should we assume that he was writing the letter from the same place as he kept his copy. T 36 Symmachus is writing this to Valerianus in 401. It is generally assumed that the edition being prepared here is the same as is attested in T 37, which is the ultimate basis for almost all of the surviving MSS of the First Decade. Some caution is needed: Symmachus speaks of a complete copy of Livy, and it would be rash to imagine that the aristocrats who engaged in painstaking work on the First Decade went on in the same vein for another 130 or so books. But the general conclusion is probably correct. Victorianus’ account of his emendatio in T 37 refers to the Symmachi in the plural, and hence must predate Symmachus’ own death in 402; and it is unlikely that Symmachus’ text was worked on by correctors twice in such a short span of time (Cameron (2011), 500–1). Hence the text owned by Symmachus and copied for Valerianus is the same one that underlies our own text of those early books. emendationis: For the meaning of the word see T 37n. T 37 All but one of the chief MSS for Livy’s First Decade contain these subscriptions to some or all of Books 1–9, attesting to work on it done by a small group of aristocrats associated with Symmachus in the early fifth century (cf. T 36n.). For a long time these subscriptions were the subject of over-­interpretation, with scholars imagining that a substantial critical edition of Livy was produced, and indeed that this was part of an effort to promote pagan culture against the encroachments of Christianity. However, the first of these was undermined by J. E. G. Zetzel, who carefully demonstrated that the emendatio that Victorianus, Nicomachus Dexter, and Nicomachus Flavianus claimed to have done consisted of no more than adding marginal corrections and notes to an existing text (presumably the text that was copied for Valerianus in T 36), rather than the production of a new one, although it does appear that,

177  Cameron (2011), 511–12 notes the lack of verbal echoes of Livy in Symmachus’ correspondence, to set against the many echoes of Sallust.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  313 unusually,178 some of their notes may have involved the introduction of variant readings from another manuscript (Zetzel (1980), esp. 42–9).179 As for the second claim, the entire model of understanding late antiquity which saw attachment to classical pagan literature as a sign of pagan sympathies was comprehensively exploded by Alan Cameron (Cameron (2011); see esp. 498–526 on the Symmachan copies of Livy). Cameron also showed the likely process by which the correction took place: the three named correctors, Victorianus, Nicomachus Dexter, and Nicomachus Flavianus, worked together (albeit not on all the books together), not (as had generally been assumed in the past) on three separate occasions (Cameron (2011), 501–23). As Cameron observed, since the copy was made to be sent to Valerianus (T 36), it would not have been in the possession of the Nicomachi for them to make subsequent corrections to, even if the implausible hypothesis were accepted that two aristocrats would bother to correct once more the same manuscript which had been meticulously corrected not so long before. The chief objection to Cameron’s interpretation is that Flavianus’ third City Prefectship, mentioned in the subscriptions, is usually dated to 408, after Symmachus’ death (cf. T 36n.), but Cameron also showed the weakness of the evidence supporting that dating; he proposed that Flavianus held an otherwise unattested prefectship in 388/9, and that his well-­attested prefectship in 399/400 was his third (Cameron (2011), 516–20). Victorianus: Tascius Victorianus (RE 7). Nothing else is known of him, apart from the fact (mentioned by Sidonius Apollinaris) that he worked also on a manu­script of Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Nicomachus Dexter: Appius Nicomachus Dexter (RE 7); son of the younger Flavianus (below). Nothing is known of his career, except that at some point he too held the City Prefectship. Nicomachus Flavianus: RE 15. Along with his father of the same name, among the most distinguished Romans of his time, holding multiple posts, including not only the City Prefectship on several occasions (above), but also the proconsulship of Asia in 382–3. He was Symmachus’ son-­in-­law, which is presumably one reason for his involvement with the emendatio of Symmachus’ Livy. apud Hennam: Modern Enna (BarrAtl Map 47 E3). It is often assumed that this is the famous villa at Piazza Armerina (so e.g. Ogilvie (1974), vii, Cameron (2011), 522), although the fact that this lies over 20 km from Henna should give one 178  On the meaning of emendatio see Zetzel (2018), 203–10, noting that it usually involved even less editorial intervention than is attested by these subscriptions to Livy: sometimes little more than proof-­ reading a copy against its exemplar. 179  Contra Cameron (2011), 503–5, but his reasoning is weak and speculative, and he takes too little account of the combination of unusual features in these Livy MSS: not only the subscriptions, but also the annotation of variants and other marginalia which, as Zetzel showed, must go back to late an­tiquity. It seems unlikely that the same manuscript whose emendatio was proudly advertised would independently receive a further set of exceptional annotations which had nothing to do with the ori­ gin­al correctors.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

314 Commentary pause: granted that it is by far the most substantial late antique villa currently known in that (or indeed any other) part of Sicily, and hence must have been owned by someone of Flavianus’ status, it is sufficiently far from Henna to make it questionable whether Flavianus would describe it as being apud Hennam—­it is approximately the same distance, for example, as Tusculum from Rome, with considerably more rugged terrain between.180 Whatever villa is in question could in theory have belonged to Flavianus, but on the argument above, that Flavianus and Dexter were simply assisting Victorianus in correcting a copy of the text owned by Symmachus, it is more likely that it belonged to Symmachus himself, and that his text of Livy was in his library there (Cameron (2011), 521–2): Symmachus refers to his ownership of a villa in Sicily in Ep. 6.66.2 and 9.52. The MS Laurentianus 63.19 for Book 8 (the only manuscript to preserve this colophon for that book) reads not apud Hennam, but apud term. Cameron (2011), 522 proposes that this is not a corruption, but an abbreviation for Thermae Selinuntiae; he argues, on the basis of a loose family connection that Symmachus had with the town, that he owned a villa there, and that this was where Flavianus did the corrections for that book. But this theory is not only based on a very tenuous chain of reason­ing, but it conflicts with Cameron’s own persuasive argument (above) that Victorianus, Flavianus, and Dexter corrected Symmachus’ copy in a single location, namely the villa where Symmachus kept it, presumably in Henna. T 44 Euganeis: The Euganei were a legendary tribe in the region of Padua, sup­posed­ly displaced by the arrival of Antenor (Livy 1.1.3; cf. Plin., Nat. 3.133 = Cato FRHist 5 F 59); Euganeus was, accordingly, often used in poetry as an epithet for that part of Italy. T 50 The earliest MSS of Florus title the work an epitome of Livy. This description can hardly go back to Florus himself, since it does not reflect the content of the work, and the use of de indicates that the title is post-­classical (Reeve (1988), 480), but since it appears in two separate strands of the manuscript tradition of the ninth/ tenth century, it may plausibly be assumed to go back to antiquity. T 53 A direct line is sometimes drawn between the testimonium here and T 9, Pollio’s critique of Livy’s ‘Paduanity’ (so e.g. Whatmough (1933), esp. 99–100). The 180  This is not, of course, to deny that Flavianus might have owned the villa at Piazza Armerina: the proponents of that theory rest their case on many more considerations than the Livy colophon (see e.g. Pace (1955), 41–3, Cagiano de Azevedo (1961), Steger (2017), 58–73). But even if he did, it is unlikely that he edited the Livy MS there.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  315 reason­ing is that Asconius refers to Livy as Livius noster at C 25; this implies that Asconius, like Livy, was from Padua. Quintilian reports that Livy and Asconius both used these anomalous spellings by preference, but that he himself did not, and was doubtful whether other authors did, even though they sometimes appeared in their manuscripts. Moreover, the spellings in question, and similar spellings in related words, are found in inscriptions from the region (note esp. CIL V 2960, an inscription from Padua in which sibi is spelled sibe). Hence, it is deduced, these were specifically associated with Padua, and were part of what Pollio was criticizing in Livy. However, every part of this chain of reasoning has been challenged by Adams (2007), 149–51. First, he denies that Asconius’ Livius noster means that he came from the same place as Livy: he notes that Cicero (Fin. 1.7) called Lucilius noster, despite not coming from the same town as him. However, the wider context in Cicero is very different from Asconius, and suggests that Adams is wrong. In that part of De Finibus Cicero is contrasting Greeks and Romans, both in terms of writers and audiences, which is why he refers to Lucilius as noster—­i.e. Roman. In Asconius, however, Livy is implicitly contrasted not with Greeks, but with Atticus and Tuditanus; this suggests that Asconius thought of Livy as a fellow-­countryman in the way that those others were not, and being from the same part of Italy is a highly plausible possibility. However, Adams’s other criticisms are better founded. He notes that, as reported by Quintilian, Asconius’ following of Livy’s preferences is not related to local dialect, but to the authority of a predecessor, both authors very likely deliberately adopting archaisms. He further observes that Quintilian does not treat this as a regionalism—­on the contrary, Quintilian implies that it was a widespread spelling in a large number of authors. And he notes that, while the spellings in question were indeed found in Paduan inscriptions, they were also found in the epigraphy of other regions and at other dates, and may either reflect archaizing by the inscriber, or may be a misspelling governed by changes in pronunciation. Accordingly, while we can accept Quintilian’s (or Asconius’) evidence that Livy preferred these spellings, there is no reason to connect it to his local dialect. T 54 Romanus proelio victor: Livy uses a phrase very like this at 31.36.3: Romanus et aperto proelio victor. Quintilian is, however, not so much offering this as a specific quotation from Livy, but rather making a generalization about his willingness to substitute singular for plural (on which see K-­S 1.67–8). T 55 Charisius, citing (as often) the third-­century grammarian C.  Julius Romanus, mentions Livy using the anomalous genitive plural anforum instead of anforarum. The transmitted text of Livy uses amphorarum at 21.63.3 (ne quis senator . . . maritimam navem quae plus quam trecentarum amphorarum esset

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

316 Commentary haberet), though the surviving MS archetype of that book is highly corrupt, and we can hardly be certain that this is the original reading. The fact that Romanus does not offer a book number for Livy may perhaps suggest that Livy used this spelling more than once in his work. It is also possible that the reference to Livy is itself taken from Pliny, although in that case it is unlikely that Pliny can have read amphorum at 21.63.3, since Pliny’s rule appears to be that one uses amphorum after milia but amphorarum in other contexts (Della Casa (1969), 259–60), and the genitive in Livy is dependent on navem, not milia. Plinius eodem libro VI: Pliny uses the genitive plural of amphora at Nat. 6.82, where the MSS are consistent in reading amphorum rather than amphorarum. One might naturally assume that this is the passage being referred to here; but the citations of Pliny by Romanus elsewhere come not from the Natural History, but from his work Dubius Sermo, and specifically from Book 6 (he cites no other book number). Accordingly, it is probable that this is being cited here as well, and the appearance of the word in this form at NH 6.82 is a coincidence, albeit a striking one. T 56 Charisius is discussing whether clipeus/m is masculine or neuter: he notes (correctly, to judge from the surviving text) that Livy generally prefers the latter: see W-­M ad Livy 1.43.2. T 57 For the common use of the so-­called ‘historical infinitive’ discussed by Charisius here see esp. Rosén (1995). T 58 Livy does not use the genitive or dative singular of neuter 4th-­declension nouns anywhere in his surviving writing. The possible exception is at 44.40.8 if we retain the MS reading genus, which is usually corrected to genibus: but in support of the emendation see Briscoe (2012), 596. T 59 utrumque Livius dicit: In his surviving text Livy mentions the town five times, always calling it Circeii (1.56.3, 2.39.2, 6.21.2, 27.9.7, 29.15.5); any references to it as Circeium must have been in the lost books. T 60 Livius tamen frequenter etiam sine coniunctione septemdecem et decemseptem: Priscian offers two usual options in Latin for numbers in the ‘teens’: contracted forms like quindecim, or ten + another number joined by et, analogous to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Testimonia  317 the Greek. According to him, Livy often adopted neither practice, instead joining ten and the other number without a conjunction. Livy’s surviving text bears out Priscian’s observation: while the ‘contracted’ version is overwhelmingly the most common form in his work, and the form with et is also found, in a significant minority of cases the uncontracted numbers without et are used: 24.49.1, 37.30.8, 37.46.3, 37.57.6, 45.43.5. T 61 Livy only uses the phrase in milites once in his surviving text (26.3.1), and there the soldiers are meant collectively—­the phrase is not here being used in the distributive sense that Priscian is discussing. However, Livy does have distributive meanings for related phrases such as in pedites (34.52.11, 35.9.8) and in equites (35.9.8, 39.7.2), and also the singular in militem (9.41.7, 9.43.21, 22.23.6), and it is not improbable that he used in milites distributively in various places in the lost books. T 62 Priscian, after noting that vindico and vindicta are used in a double sense, both of punishing and of freeing a person, remarks that the same is true of assertio, referring to ‘many places in Livy’. Livy does not in fact use the noun adsertio in his surviving text, but he does use the cognate words adsero (3.44.5, 3.45.2, 8.5.4, 34.18.2, 35.16.11), and adsertor (3.44.8, 3.45.3, 3.46.7, 3.47.8, 3.58.10), and, as Priscian says, he does so both of freeing someone (e.g. 3.45.2, 8.5.4) and of enslaving them (e.g. 3.44.5, 34.18.2, 35.16.11). It is possible that Livy used the noun adsertio in the lost books, but it is just as probable that Priscian, whose chief point is the double meaning of the concept, is using adsertio as a general placeholder to stand in for all the cognate terms. T 63 ut T. Livius: Livy only uses the word once in his surviving work (27.49.1), and there it is in the neuter. Possibly either our text is corrupt, or Livy used the word in the masculine once or more in his lost books; but it is noteworthy that, contrary to what De Dubiis Nominibus implies, the neuter is the normal form in surviving Latin, and the masculine is found only at Cels. 8.3.4. When we add the confusion shown in the other citations of Livy in this treatise (see FF 85–6nn.), the most probable conclusion is that something has been garbled here as well. T 64 Jerome, in the course of his commentary on Daniel 5:7, defends his use of the feminine torques in his translation of that verse in the Vulgate. He correctly observes that Livy consistently uses torques in the masculine: see 7.10.11, 24.42.8,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

318 Commentary 33.36.13, 36.40.12, 43.5.8, 44.14.2; as for Cicero, in his surviving works he only uses the word twice with an identifiable gender (Fin. 1.23, Off. 3.112), both times in the masculine, but Jerome refers to his practice in the poetic Marius: cf. OLD s.v. torques. T 65 Servius might be taken to mean that Livy actually offered the same ex­plan­ation as he does for the word caduceator: namely that the caduceum, the rod carried by Mercury, depicted two snakes with the rod between them, the snakes representing war, and Mercury was the god in charge of reconciling people through words. However, Livy does not suggest anything like this in his surviving text, and rather than postulating a lost fragment in which he discusses it, it is preferable to assume that Servius’ explanation has nothing to do with Livy, but he is simply noting the regular use of this word in Livy’s text, especially (but not only) in the context of the Greek world: see 26.17.5, 31.38.9, 31.39.1, 31.39.3, 32.32.5, 33.11.3, 34.30.3, 35.38.8, 37.18.12, 37.45.4, 44.46.1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Concordances of Fragments Levene W-­M   1   2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Jal

 3 14  4  5  6  7  9  8 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 58 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

2 13 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

30 31

Levene W-­M 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Jal

32 33 34 35 36 57 37 38 45 39 40 41–2 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 52 51 53 54 55 56 59 60 61 62

32 33 34 35 36 57 37 38 40 39 41 42–3 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 51 53 54 55 56 58 59 60 61

63 64 65

62 65 63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

320 Concordances Levene W-­M 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 W-­M  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Jal

1

1

69 70 71 66 68 73 75 83

69 70 71 66 68 72 74 81

77

75

Jal  1 64  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 21 23 24 25 26

Levene 69 C 67  3  5  6  7  8 10  9 11 12 13 14 4 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Levene W-­M 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

W-­M   27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41–­2 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Jal

76

84 85 86 87

82/1 83/2 84/3 85/4

Jal  Levene 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 32 31 33 32 35 33 36 34 37 35 38 36 39 37 41 38 42 39 44 41 45 42–­3 46 44 47 45 48 40 43 46 49 47 50 48 51 49 52 50 53 51 55 52 54 53 56

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Concordances  321 W-­M   54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Jal  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Jal  Levene 54 57 55 58 56 59 57 40 19 20 58 60 59 61 60 62 61 63 62 65 65 66 63 67 66 74 67 T7 68 75 69 71 70 72

W-­M Levene  1 69  3  3  4  5  5  6  6  7  7  8  8 10  9  9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 4 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 58 20 20 21 22 23

W-­M   71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Jal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42–­3

Jal  Levene 71 73 T 65 72 76 73 T 59 74 77 83 75 80 76 T 53 77 T 61 78 T 62 79 T 58 80 T 63 81 78 82/1 90 83/2 91 84/3 92 85/4 93

W-­M Levene 21 22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 32 31 33 32 35 33 36 34 37 35 38 36 39 37 41 38 42 39 44 45 43 40 45 41–­2 46

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

322 Concordances Jal 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

W-­M Levene 43 47 44 48 46 49 47 50 48 51 49 52 50 53 51 55 52 54 53 56 54 57 55 58 56 59 57 40 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 65 65 67 2 C 67

Jal 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82/1 83/2 84/3 85/4

W-­M Levene 64 66 66 74 67 T7 68 75 69 71 70 72 71 73 73 76 74 T 59 75 77 77 80 78 T 53 79 T 61 80 T 62 81 T 58 82 T 63 83 78 84 90 85 91 86 92 87 93

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography Adamik, T. (2014). ‘Remarks on Livy’s Patavinitas’, in R. Wright (ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif VIII. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 34–41. Adams, J. N. (2003). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2007). The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 bc–ad 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aebischer, P. (1944). ‘Considérations sur le cours du Rubicon’, MH 1: 258–69. Alexander, W. H. (1950). ‘Patavinitas’, CW 43: 245. Ambaglio, D. (1990). ‘I Deipnosofisti di Ateneo e la tradizione storica frammentaria’, Athenaeum 78: 51–64. Andrade, N. (2015). ‘The Jewish Tetragrammaton: Secrecy, Community, and Prestige among Greek-Writing Jews of the Early Roman Empire’, JSJ 46: 198–223. André, J. (1949). La vie et l’oeuvre d’A sinius Pollion. Paris: Klincksieck. Ascher, L. (1968–9). ‘An Epitome of Livy in Martial’s Day?’, CB 45: 53–4. Astin, A. E. (1967). Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1978). Cato the Censor. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Austin, R. G. (1977). P. Vergili Maronis: Aeneidos Liber Sextus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Badian, E. (1958). Foreign Clientelae (264–70 b.c.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1993). ‘Livy and Augustus’, in Schuller (1993), 9–38. Bagnall, R.  S. (2002). ‘A lexandria: Library of Dreams’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 146: 348–62. Bar-Kochva, B. (2010). The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period. Berkeley: University of California Press. Barrandon, N. (2011). De la pacification à l’intégration des Hispaniques (133–27 a.C). Bordeaux: Ausonius. Bassett, E. L. (1955). ‘Regulus and the Serpent in the Punica’, CPh 50: 1–20. Baudou, A. (1995). ‘Censorinus et le saeculum pisonien’, RPh 69: 15–36. Baurain, C. (1992). ‘La place des littératures grecque et punique dans les bibliothèques de Carthage’, L’Antiquitè Classique 61: 158–77. Bauslaugh, R. A. (1979). ‘The Text of Thucydides IV 8.6 and the South Channel at Pylos’, JHS 99: 1–6. Beard, M. (2007). The Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———, North, J., and Price, S. (1998). Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Becker, J.  A., Mogetta, M., and Terrenato, N. (2009). ‘A New Plan for an Ancient Italian City: Gabii Revealed’, AJA 113: 629–42. Bell, B. (2013). Fault Lines: Views Across Haiti’s Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bengtson, H. (1977). Marcus Antonius. Munich: C. H. Beck. Bernstein, F. (1998). Ludi Publici. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Bessone, L. (1977). La tradizione liviana. Bologna: Pàtron. ——— (1982). ‘La tradizione epitomatoria liviana in età imperiale’, ANRW II 30.2: 1230–63. Bettini, M. (1988). ‘Il divieto fino al “sesto grado” incluso nel matrimonio romano’, Athenaeum 66: 69–98.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

324 Bibliography Bicknell, P., and Nielsen, D. (1998). ‘Five Cohorts against the World’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IX. Brussels: Latomus, 138–66. Biggs, T. (2019). ‘Cicero, quid in alieno saeculo tibi? The “Republican” Rostra between Caesar and Augustus’, in M. P. Loar, S. C. Murray, and S. Rebeggiani (eds), The Cultural History of Augustan Rome: Texts, Monuments, Topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–44. Birks, P., Rodger, A., and Richardson, J. S. (1984). ‘Further Aspects of the Tabula Contrebiensis’, JRS 74: 45–73. Bishop, M. C., and Coulston, J. C. N. (2006). Roman Military Equipment. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Blänsdorf, J. (ed.) (2011). Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et Lyricorum. Berlin: De Gruyter. Blättler, P. P. (1945). Studien zur Regulusgeschichte. Diss. Freiburg in Schweiz. Bleicken, J. (1990). Zwischen Republik und Prinzipat: Zum Charakter des Zweiten Triumvirats. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Boissevain, U. P. (1895). Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann. Borda, M. (1958). Tuscolo. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Botto, M. (2004). ‘Per una riconsiderazione della cronologia degli inizi della colonizzazione fenicia nel Mediterraneo centro-occidentale’, Mediterranea 1: 579–628. Bouché-Leclercq, A. (1882). Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité. Vol. 4. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Bradley, K. R. (1984). Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. Brussels: Latomus. ——— (1989). Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 b.c.–70 b.c. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bravo, B., and Griffin, M. (1988). ‘Un frammento del libro XI di Tito Livio’, Athenaeum 66: 447–521. Bremmer, J. N. (1987). ‘Romulus, Remus, and the Foundation of Rome’, in J. N. Bremmer and N.  M.  Horsfall, Roman Myth and Mythography. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 25–48. Brind’Amour, P. (1978). ‘L’origine des jeux séculaires’, ANRW II 16.2: 1334–1417. Bringmann, K. (2001). ‘Der Ebrovertrag, Sagunt, und der Weg in den Zweiten Punischen Krieg’, Klio 83: 369–76. Briquel, D. (1988). ‘Les traditions sur l’origine de l’écriture en Italie’, RPh 62: 251–71. Briscoe, J. (1973). A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI–XXXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1981). A Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV–XXXVII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———, ed. (1986). Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri XLI–XLV. Stuttgart: Teubner. ——— (2008). A Commentary on Livy: Books 38–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press ——— (2012). A Commentary on Livy: Books 41–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brock, R. (2013). Greek Political Imagery from Homer to Aristotle. London: Bloomsbury. Brunt, P. A. (1980). ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, CQ 30: 477–94. ——— (1988). The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burck, E. (1964). Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius. 2nd edn. Berlin: Weidmann. Burillo Mozota, F. (1998). Los Celtíberos: Etnias y estados. Barcelona: Crítica. Burton, P.  J. (2011). Friendship and Empire: Roman Imperialism and Diplomacy in the Middle Republic (353–146 bc). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, H. E. (1919). ‘Virgil, Aeneid 8. 659’, CR 33: 61–3. Butrica, J. L. (1983). ‘Martial’s Little Livy (14.190)’, CB 59: 9–11. Cadiou, F. (2010). ‘Non milites sed pro milite: La question des evocati à l’époque républicaine’, in J.  J.  P.  Vicente (ed.), Militares y civiles en la antigua Roma. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 57–76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  325 Cagiano de Azevedo, M. (1961). ‘I proprietari della villa di Piazza Armerina’, in Scritti di storia dell’ arte in onore di Mario Salmi, vol. 1. Rome: De Luca, 15–27. Cameron, A. (2004). Greek Mythography in the Roman World. New York: Oxford University Press. ——— (2011). The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, B. (2000). The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Canfora, L. (1989). The Vanished Library. Tr. M. Ryle. London: Hutchinson Radius. ——— (1999). Giulio Cesare: Il dittatore democratico. Rome: Laterza. Carcopino, J. (1943). Le Maroc antique. Paris: Gallimard. Carettoni, G. (1978–80). ‘La domus virginum vestalium e la domus publica del periodo repubblicano’, RendPontAc 51–52: 325–55. Carney, T. F. (1970). A Biography of C. Marius. 2nd edn. Chicago: Argonaut. Cassieri, N. (2014). Formiae: una città all’inizio dell’impero. Formia: D’Arco. Casson, L. (2001). Libraries in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chaniotis, A. (2015). ‘Federalism on Crete: The Cretan Koinon and the koinon of the Oreioi’, in H.  Beck and P.  Funke (eds), Federalism in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 377–85. Chaplin, J. D. (2000). Livy’s Exemplary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———, and Kraus, C. S. (eds) (2009). Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Livy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chillet, C. (2016). De l’Étrurie à Rome: Mécène et la fondation de l’empire. Rome: École Française de Rome. Chlup, J.  T. (2004). ‘Vir magnus ac memorabilis fuit: Livy on the Death of Cicero’, in R.  B.  Egan and M.  Joyal (eds), Daimonopylai: Essays in Classics and the Classical Tradition Presented to Edmund G. Berry. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Centre for Hellenic Civilization, 21–32. Christ, K. (2002). Sulla: Eine römische Karriere. Munich: C. H. Beck. Ciccone, S. (1982). ‘Indicazioni sul “Formianum” di Cicerone presso l’Appia’, in R. Lefevre (ed.), Il Lazio nell’antichità romana. Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 527–38. ——— et al. (1993–6). Formianum. 4 vols. Minturno: Caramanica. Cichorius, C. (1922). Römischen Studien. Leipzig: Teubner. Clarke, M.  L. (1981). The Noblest Roman: Marcus Brutus and His Reputation. London: Thames & Hudson. Classen, C. J. (1962). ‘Romulus in der römischen Republik’, Philologus 106: 174–204. Coarelli, F. (2014). Collis: Il Quirinale e il Viminale nell’antichità. Rome: Quasar. Coleman, K. M. (1982). ‘Vibius Maximus and the Writing of History’, PACA 16: 25–7. ——— (1988). Statius: Silvae IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Conybeare, C. (1999). ‘Terrarum orbi documentum: Augustine, Camillus, and Learning from History’, in M. Vessey, K. Pollmann, and A. D. Fitzgerald (eds), History, Apocalypse and the Secular Imagination: New Essays on Augustine’s City of God’. Bowling Green, OH: Philosophy Documentation Center, 59–74. Cooley, A. E. (2009). Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crawford, J.  W. (1994). M.  Tullius Cicero: The Fragmentary Speeches. 2nd edn. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Curchin, L. A. (2004). The Romanization of Central Spain. London: Routledge. Daintree, D. (1990). ‘The Virgil Commentary of Aelius Donatus—Black Hole or “Éminence Grise”?’, G&R 37: 65–79. Dalzell, A. (1955). ‘C. Asinius Pollio and the Early History of Public Recitation at Rome’, Hermathena 86: 20–8. Davies, J. (2004). Rome’s Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on Their Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

326 Bibliography Davis, P.  J. (2001). ‘The Fabrication of Tradition: Horace, Augustus, and the Secular Games’, Ramus 30: 111–27. Delia, D. (1992). ‘From Romance to Rhetoric: The Alexandrian Library in Classical and Islamic Traditions’, AHR 97: 1449–67. Della Casa, A. (1969). Il Dubius Sermo di Plinio. Genoa: Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medioevale. Dessau, H. (1906). ‘Livius und Augustus’, Hermes 41: 142–51. Develin., R. (1986). ‘Livy: F 12 (M)’, Latomus 45: 115–18. Diggle, J., Hall, J. B., and Jocelyn, H. D. (eds) (1989). Studies in Latin Literature and Its Tradition in Honour of C. O. Brink. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Dobson, B. (1978). Die Primipilares. Cologne: Rheinland-Verlag. Dochhorn, J. (2001). ‘Die auf Menander von Ephesus zurückgehende Liste der Könige von Tyrus in C 1:116–126’, in J.  U.  Kalms (ed.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000. Münster: Lit, 77–102. Docter, R. F., Niemeyer, H. G., Nijboer, A. J., and van der Plicht, H. (2004). ‘Radiocarbon Dates of Animal Bones in the Earliest Levels of Carthage’, Mediterranea 1: 557–75. ———, Maraoui Telmini, B., van der Pflicht, J., Mansel, K., Chelbi, F., Nijboer, A. J., van Neer, W., and Garsallah, S. (2008). ‘New Radiocarbon Dates from Carthage: Bridging the Gap between History and Archaeology?’, in C. Sagona (ed.), Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician Chronology. Leuven: Peeters, 379–422. Domergue, C. (1990). Les mines de la péninsule ibérique dans l’antiquité romaine. Rome: École Française de Rome. Drogula, F. K. (2019). Cato the Younger: Life and Death at the End of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dueck, D. (1999). ‘The Date and Method of Composition of Strabo’s “Geography” ’, Hermes 127: 467–78. Duff, T. E. (1999). Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dumézil, G. (1970). Archaic Roman Religion. Tr. P. Krapp; 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dutoit, E. (1948). ‘Tite-Live s’est intéressé à la médecine?’, MH 5: 116–23. Duval, Y.-M. (1977). ‘De Lupercales de Constantinople aux Lupercales de Rome’, REL 55: 222–70. Dyroff, A. (1908). ‘Caesars Anticato und Ciceros Cato’, RhM 63: 587–604. Edwards, C. (2019). Seneca: Selected Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrhardt, C. T. H. R. (1995). ‘Crossing the Rubicon’, Antichthon 29: 30–41. El-Abbadi, M. (1990). The Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria. Paris: UNESCO/UNDP. Elliott, J. (2013). Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erkell, H. (1952). Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna: Lateinische Wortstudien. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Erskine, A. (1997). ‘Cicero and the Expression of Grief ’, in S. M. Braund and C. Gill (eds), The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36–47. ——— (2001). Troy between Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Espinosa, U. (1990). Vareia: Enclave romano en el valle del Ebro. Logroño: Gobierno de La Rioja. Evans, R.  J. (1994). Gaius Marius: A Political Biography. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  327 Fairweather, J. (1981). Seneca the Elder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fantham, E. (1972). Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Fatás, G. (1980). Contrebia Belaisca (Botorrita, Zaragoza) II: Tabula Contrebiensis. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Feddern, S. (2013). Die Suasorien des älteren Seneca. Berlin: De Gruyter. Feeney, D. C. (1992). ‘Si licet et fas est: Ovid’s Fasti and the Problem of Free Speech under the Principate’, in A. Powell (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1–25. ——— (2007). Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— (2016). Beyond Greek. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fehrle, R. (1983). Cato Uticensis. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Feldherr, A. (2009). ‘Delusions of Grandeur: Lucretian “Passages” in Livy’, in P.  Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310–29. Feldman, L.  H. (1993). Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fiebiger, H. O. (1901). ‘Corona’, RE IV: 1636–43. Fischer, H., and Traube, L. (1907). ‘Neue und alte Fragmente des Livius’, SBAW 50: 97–112. Fleck, M. (1993). Cicero als Historiker. Stuttgart: Teubner. Flobert, P. (1981). ‘La patavinitas de Tite-Live d’après les moeurs litteraires du temps’, REL 60: 193–206. Flower, H. (2000). ‘The Tradition of the Spolia Opima: M.  Claudius Marcellus and Augustus’, CA 19: 34–64. Reprinted with additional appendix in Richardson and Santangelo (2014), 285–320. Fohlen, J. (1979). ‘Recherches sur le manuscrit palimpseste Vatican, Pal. Lat. 24’, S&C 3: 195–222. Forsythe, G. (2005). A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— (2012). Time in Roman Religion: One Thousand Years of Religious History. London: Routledge. Franciosi, G. (1999). Clan gentilizio e strutture monogamiche. 6th edn. Naples: Jovene. Frank, T. (1913). ‘Marginalia’, AJPh 34: 322–8. Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frassinetti, P. (1975). ‘I fatti di Spagna nel libro II delle Historiae di Sallustio’, StudUrb(B) 49: 381–98. Fündling, J. (2010). Sulla. Darmstadt: WBG. Gabrielli, C. (2003). ‘Lucius Postumius Megellus at Gabii: A New Fragment of Livy’, CQ 53: 247–59. ——— (2012). ‘Moral Reflections and Sacred Constraints: About a lucus at Gabii’, ARG 13: 253–61. Galimberti, A. (2007). ‘Josephus and Strabo: The Reasons for a Choice’, in Z.  Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Brill: Leiden, 147–67. García Morá, F. (1991). Un episodio de la Hispania republicana: La guerra de Sertorio. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Gasparotto, C. (1951). Padova romana. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Gelzer, M. (1949). Pompeius. Munich: F. Bruckmann. Gigante, M. (1993). ‘Sul nuovo testo attribuito a Livio’, Athenaeum 81: 263.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

328 Bibliography Gilliver, C. M. (1996). ‘The Roman Army and Morality in War’, in A. B. Lloyd (ed.), Battle in Antiquity. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 219–38. Goar, R.  J. (1987). The Legend of Cato Uticensis from the First Century  b.c.  to the Fifth Century a.d. Brussels: Latomus. Goodyear, F. R. D. (1981). The Annals of Tacitus Books 1–6. Volume II: Annals 1.55–81 and Annals 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gotter, U. (1996). Der Diktator ist Tot! Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Gourevitch, D. (1982). ‘Les faux-amis dans les textes médicaux grecs et latins’, in G. Sabbah (ed.), Médecins et médecine dans l’antiquité. Saint-Étienne: Université de SaintÉtienne, 189–91. Gowing, A. M. (2005). Empire and Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gradel, I. (2002). Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Graf, F. (2015). Roman Festivals in the Greek East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grau Mira, I. (2002). La organización del territorio en el área central de la Contestania Ibérica. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante. Grenade, P. (1950). ‘Le mythe de Pompée et les Pompéiens sous les Césars’, REA 52: 28–63. Griffin, M. (1987). Review of B.  A.  Marshall, A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia, MO, 1985), CR 37: 187–90. Griffith, R. D. (2005). ‘Gods’ Blue Hair in Homer and in Eighteenth-Dynasty Egypt’, CQ 55: 329–34. Grispo, R. (1952). ‘Dalla Mellaria a Calagurra: Un contributo per l’interpretazione della guerra sertoriana’, NRS 36: 189–225. Grossmann, L. (2009). Roms Samnitenkriege. Düsseldorf: Wellem. Gruen, E. S. (1968). Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 b.c. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ——— (1974). The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gsell, S. (1913–28). Histoire ancienne de l’A frique du nord. 8 vols. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Guaítoli, M. (1981a). ‘Gabii’, PP 36: 152–73. ——— (1981b). ‘Gabii: Osservazioni sulle fasi di sviluppo dell’abitato’, in Ricognizione archeologica: nuove ricerche nel Lazio. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 23–57. Günther, K. (1899). Plutarchs Vita Camilli in ihren Beziehungen zu Livius und Aurelius Victor. Bernburg: A. Meyer. Gundel, H. (1958). ‘C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus’, RE VIII. A. 2: 1953–65. Guthke, K. S. (1992). Last Words: Variations on a Theme in Cultural History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hadas, M. (1930). Sextus Pompey. New York: Columbia University Press. Håkanson, L. (1989). ‘Zu den Historikerfragmenten in Seneca d.Ä., Suas. 6’, in Diggle et al. (1989), 14–19. Hall, J. R., III (1986). ‘The Saeculum Novum of Augustus and Its Etruscan Antecedents’, ANRW II 16.3: 2564–89. Haller, B. (1967). C. Asinius Pollio als Politiker und zeitkritischer Historiker. Diss. Münster. Hanard, G. (1986). ‘Inceste et société romaine républicaine: un essai d’interprétation ethno-juridique du fragment du livre XX de l’histoire romaine de Tite-Live’, RBPh 64: 32–61. Hantos, T. (1988). Res Publica Constituta. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Harnett, B. (2017), ‘The Diffusion of the Codex’, CA 36: 183–235. Harris, Z.  S. (1936). A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Harrison, S. J. (1989). ‘Augustus, the Poets, and the Spolia Opima’, CQ 39: 408–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  329 Harvey, P.  B. (1991). ‘Cicero epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et ad Brutum: Content and Comment’, Athenaeum 79: 17–29. Haselberger, L. (2007). Urbem Adornare: Die Stadt Rom und ihre Gestaltumwandlung unter Augustus/Rome’s Urban Metamorphosis under Augustus. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Hatzimichali, M. (2013). ‘A shes to Ashes? The Library of Alexandria after 48 bc’, in J.  König, K.  Oikonomopoulou, and G.  Woolf (eds), Ancient Libraries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–82. Hays, S. (1986–7). ‘Lactea ubertas: What’s Milky about Livy?’, CJ 82: 107–16. Heinen, H. (1966). Röm und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr. Dissertation: Tübingen. Hendrickson, T. (2016). ‘The Serapeum: Dreams of the Daughter Library’, CPh 111: 453–64. Hernandez Vera, J.  A. (1982). Las ruinas de Inestrillas: estudio arqueologico. Logroño: Diputación Provincial. Hertzberg, G. A. B. (1846). ‘De spoliis opimis quaestio’, Philologus 1: 331–9. Herzfeld, L. (1855). ‘Wann war die Eroberung Jerusalems durch Pompeius, und wann die durch Herodes?’, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 4: 109–15. Heubner, H. (1972). P.  Cornelius Tacitus: Die Historien. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Heurgon, J. (1959). ‘The Date of Vegoia’s Prophecy’, JRS 49: 41–5. Hinard, F. (1985). Sylla. Paris: Fayard. Hind, J. G. F. (1983). ‘Caledonia and Its Occupation under the Flavians’, PSAS 113: 373–8. Hine, H. M. (1978). ‘Livy’s Judgement on Marius (Seneca, Natural Questions 5.18.4; Livy, Periocha 80)’, LCM 3: 83–7. ——— (1982). ‘obiter dicta on dicto = dictito’, LCM 7: 29. Holford-Strevens, L. (2003). Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holleman, A. W. J. (1974). Pope Gelasius I and the Lupercalia. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Holtz, L. (1975). ‘Le Parisinus Latinus 7530, synthèse cassinienne des arts libéraux’, StudMed 16: 97–152. Honeyman, A. M. (1940). ‘The Phoenician Title ‫’מתרה עשתרני‬, RHR 121: 5–17. ——— (1947). ‘Varia Punica’, AJPh 68: 77–82. Hopkins, K. (1966). ‘On the Probable Age Structure of the Roman Population’, Population Studies 20: 245–64. Horsfall, N. M. (2008). Virgil, Aeneid 2: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. ——— (2013). Virgil, Aeneid 6: A Commentary. Berlin: De Gruyter. Horvais, C.-A. (2018). ‘L’expédition d’Atilius Regulus en Afrique (256–255 av. J.-C.). Une remise en contexte’, Kentron 34: 161–92. Hoyos, B. D. (2010). The Carthaginians. London: Routledge. Hudson, J.  M. (2019). ‘The Empire in the Epitome: Florus and the Conquest of Historiography’, Ramus 48: 54–81. Humbert, M. (1972). Le remariage à Rome: étude d’histoire juridique et sociale. Milan: A. Giuffrè. Huss, W. (1985). Geschichte der Karthager. Munich: C. H. Beck. Huzar, E.  G. (1978). Marcus Antonius: A Biography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Irwin, E. (1974). Colour Terms in Greek Poetry. Toronto: Hakkert. Jal, P. (1979). Tite-Live Histoire Romaine: Livre XLV. Fragments. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. ——— (1984). Abrégés des livres de l’histoire romaine de Tite-Live. Vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

330 Bibliography Jeffreys, E. (1990). ‘Malalas’ Sources’, in E. Jeffreys, B. Croke, and R. Scott (eds), Studies in John Malalas. Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 167–216. Jiménez, A., Bermejo, J., Licerasa, R., Moreno, F., and Tardio, K. (2018). ‘Archaeological Perspectives on the Siege of Numantia: The New Fieldwork Project at the Roman Camps at Renieblas (Spain, 2nd–1st c. bce)’, in M.  Fernándes-Götz and N.  Roymans (eds), Conflict Archaeology: Materialities of Collective Violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity. Oxford: Routledge, 115–26. Johnson, W.  R. (1967). ‘A Quean, A Great Queen? Cleopatra and the Politics of Misrepresentation’, Arion 6: 387–402. Kaster, R.  A. (1998). ‘Becoming “CICERO” ’, in P.  Knox and C.  Foss (eds), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart: Teubner, 248–63. Katzenstein, H.  J. (1973). The History of Tyre. Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research. Keaveney, A. (1983). ‘Sulla and the Gods’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III. Brussels: Latomus, 44–79. ——— (2005). Sulla: The Last Republican. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Keeline, T.  J. (2018). The Reception of Cicero in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerényi, K. (1949). Niobe. Zürich: Rhein-Verlag. Keyser, P.  T. (2020). Recovering a Late-Antique Edition of Pliny’s Natural History. New York: Peter Lang. Klotz, A. (1906). Quaestiones Plinianae geographicae. Berlin: Weidmann. ——— (1927). ‘T. Livius’, RE XIII: 816–52. Köves-Zulauf, T. (1990). Römische Geburtsriten. Munich: C. H. Beck. Konrad, C.  F. (1994). Plutarch’s Sertorius: A Historical Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ——— (1995). ‘A New Chronology of the Sertorian War’, Athenaeum 83: 157–87. Krämer, H. J. (1965). ‘Die Sage von Romulus und Remus in der lateinischen Literatur’, in H. Flashar and K. Gaiser (eds), Synusia: Festgabe für Wolfgang Schadewaldt. Pfullingen: Neske, 355–402. Krahmalkov, C. R. (1981). ‘The Foundation of Carthage, 814 b.c.: The Douïmès Pendant Inscription’, Journal of Semitic Studies 26: 177–91. Kraus, C.  S. (1994). Livy: Ab Urbe Condita Book VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krüger, P., and Mommsen, T. (1870). ‘Anecdoton Livianum’, Hermes 4: 371–6. Kumaniecki, K. (1970). ‘Ciceros “Cato” ’, in W. Wimmel (ed.), Forschungen zur römischen Literatur: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Karl Büchner. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 168–88. La Bua, G. (2019). Cicero and Roman Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. La Rocca, E. (1987–8). ‘Pompeius Magnus “novus Neptunus” ’, BCAC 92: 265–92. Lacey, W. K. (1954–5). ‘ “Oblongae scutulae vel bipenni”: Tacitus, “Agricola” 10, 3’, PCPhS 3: 16–20. Laird, A. (1999). Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lamacchia, R. (1975). ‘Il giudizio di Tito Livio su Cicerone’, StudUrb(B) 49: 421–35. Lancel, S. (1995). Carthage: A History. Tr. A. Nevill. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lanéry, C. (2007). ‘Arnobe le Jeune et la Passion de Sébastien (BHL 7543)’, REAug 53: 267–93. Langslow, D. R. (2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  331 Latte, K. (1959). ‘Eine Episode aus dem Bürgerkrieg und ihre Darstellung bei Livius’, MH 16: 140–2. Lazenby, J. L. (1996). The First Punic War: A Military History. London: UCL Press. Le Doze, P. (2014). Mécène: ombres et flamboyances. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Leach, E. W. (2014). ‘M. Atilius Regulus—Making Defeat into Victory: Diverse Values in an Ambivalent Story’, in J. Ker and C. Pieper (eds), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 243–65. Leary, T. J. (1996). Martial Book XIV: The Apophoreta. London: Duckworth. Lebek, W. (1970). Verba Prisca. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Leeman, A. D. (1963). Orationis Ratio. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Lefèvre, E., and Olshausen, E. (eds) (1983). Livius: Werk und Rezeption: Festschrift für Erich Burck zum 80. Geburtstag. Munich: C. H. Beck. Lenfant, D. (1999). ‘Peut-on se fier aux “fragments” d’historiens? L’exemple des citations d’Hérodote’, Ktèma 24: 103–21. ——— (2007). ‘Les “fragments” d’Hérodote dans les Deipnosophistes’, in D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens. Paris: De Boccard, 43–72. Lentano, M. (2016). ‘Parlare di Cicerone sotto il governo del suo assassino’, in R. Poignault and C. Schneider (eds), Fabrique de la déclamation antique (controverses et suasoires). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée—Jean Pouilloux, 375–91. ——— (2019). ‘Un cadavere non troppo eccellente: Tito Livio e la morte di Cicerone’, BStudLat 49: 29–43. Letzner, W. (2000). Lucius Cornelius Sulla: Versuch einer Biographie. Münster: LIT. Leuze, O. (1907). ‘Chronologisches zum Annalisten Piso’, Philologus 66: 531–61. Levene, D. S. (1993). Religion in Livy. Leiden: Brill. ——— (1997). ‘God and Man in the Classical Latin Panegyric’, PCPhS 43: 66–103. ——— (2010). Livy on the Hannibalic War. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2015). ‘A llusions and Intertextuality in Livy’s Third Decade’, in B.  Mineo (ed.), A Companion to Livy. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 205–16. ——— (2017). ‘Rome Redeems Athens? Livy, the Peloponnesian War, and the Conquest of Greece’, Ktèma 42: 75–86. ——— (2019). ‘Monumental Insignificance: The Rhetoric of Roman Topography from Livy’s Rome’, in M. P. Loar, S. C. Murray, and S. Rebeggiani (eds), The Cultural History of Augustan Rome: Texts, Monuments, Topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 10–26. ———, and Nelis, D. P. (eds) (2002). Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography. Leiden: Brill. Lewis, R.  G. (2006). Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches by Cicero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liberman, G. (1992). ‘À propos d’un fragment presumé de Tite-Live’, Athenaeum 80: 192–3. ——— (1994). ‘Un fragment présumé de Tite-Live, Livre XI’, in R.  Chevallier and R. Poignault (eds), Présence de Tite-Live. Tours: Centre de Recherches A. Piganiol, 21–5. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1967). ‘The Religious Position of Livy’s History’, JRS 57: 45–55. Linderski, J. (1984). ‘Rome, Aphrodisias, and the Res Gestae: The genera militiae and the Status of Octavian’, JRS 74: 74–80. ——— (1986). ‘The Augural Law’, ANRW II 16.3: 2146–312. Liou-Gille, B. (1998). Une lecture ‘religieuse’ de Tite-Live I. Paris: Klincksieck. Lippold, A. (1954). ‘Die Darstellung des ersten punischen Krieges in den “Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII” des Orosius’, RhM 97: 254–86. Loreto, L. (1993). Un epoca di buon senso. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Lorrio, A. J. (1997). Los Celtíberos. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

332 Bibliography Lott, J.  B. (2004). The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Luce, T.  J. (1977). Livy: The Composition of His History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. MacBain, B. (1982). Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome. Brussels: Latomus. McCracken, G. (1935). ‘Cicero’s Tusculan Villa’, CJ 30: 261–77. McDonnell, M. (2005). ‘Aristocratic Competition, Horses, and the Spolia Opima Once Again’, in J.-J. Aubert and Z. Várhelyi (eds), A Tall Order: Writing the Social History of the Ancient World. Munich: K. G. Saur, 145–60. McGushin, P. (1992). Sallust: The Histories. Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (1994). Sallust: The Histories. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McHugh, M. R. (2004). ‘Historiography and Freedom of Speech: The Case of Cremutius Cordus’, in I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen (eds), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 391–408. McLynn, N. (2008). ‘Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia’, JRS 98: 161–75. Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Maisonneuve, C. (2007). ‘Les “fragments” de Xénophon dans les Deipnosophistes’, in D. Lenfant (ed.), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens. Paris: De Boccard, 73–106. Malloch, S.  J.  V. (2014). ‘The Fragments of the Roman Historians: Conventions and Opportunities’, Histos Working Papers 2014.07 (https://histos.org/documents/ WP201407MallochTheFragmentsoftheRomanHistorians.pdf ). Marcos Pous, A. (1979). Trabajos arqueológicos en la Libia de los Berones. Logroño: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos. Marincola, J. (2014), ‘First Thoughts on the New Edition of the Fragments of the Roman Historians’, Histos Working Papers 2014.05 (https://histos.org/documents/ WP201405MarincolaFirstThoughtsonFRHist.pdf ). Marsden, E.  W. (1969). Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marshall, B. A. (1975). ‘Q. Cicero, Hortensius, and the Lex Aurelia’, RhM 118: 136–52. Martin Valls, R., and Esparza Arroyo, A. (1992). ‘Génesis y evolución de la Cultura Celtibérica’, in M.  Almagro Gorbea and G.  Ruiz Zapatero (eds), Paleoetnología de la Península Ibérica. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 259–79. Martindale, C.  A. (1976). ‘Paradox, Hyperbole and Literary Novelty in Lucan’s De Bello Civili’, BICS 23: 45–54. Massaro, M. (1980). ‘Il mantello azzurro di Sesto Pompeo e un frammento trascurato di Livio’, RFIC 108: 403–21. Mayor, A. (2009). The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome’s Deadliest Enemy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Meltzer, O. (1896). Geschichte der Karthager. Vol. 2. Berlin: Weidmann. Meyer, H. D. (1961). ‘Ein Liviusfragment bei Aponius?’, Historia 10: 110–16. Michels, A.  K. (1953). ‘The Topography and Interpretation of the Lupercalia’, TAPhA 84: 35–59. Migliaro, E. (2007). Retorica e storia: Una lettura delle Suasoriae di Seneca Padre. Bari: Edipuglia. Miles, G. (1995). Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mix, E. R. (1970). Marcus Atilius Regulus Exemplum Historicum. The Hague: Mouton. Moles, J. L. (1997). ‘Plutarch, Brutus and Brutus’ Greek and Latin Letters’, in J. Mossman (ed.), Plutarch and His Intellectual World. London: Duckworth, 141–68.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  333 ——— (1998). ‘Cry Freedom: Tacitus Annals 4.32–35’, Histos 2: 95–184. Momigliano, A. (1958). ‘Some Observations on the “Origo Gentis Romanae” ’, JRS 48: 56–73. Mommsen, T. (ed.) (1865). Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Berlin: Weidmann. ——— (1868). T.  Livii Ab Urbe Condita Lib. III–V quae supersunt in codice rescripto Veronensi. Berlin: F. Dümmler (Harrwitz & Gossmann). Mommsen, T. E. (1954). ‘Augustus and Britain: A Fragment from Livy?’, AJPh 75: 175–83. Morel, W. (ed.) (1927). Fragmenta Poetarum Latinarum. Leipzig: Teubner. Morgan, L. (2000). ‘The Autopsy of C. Asinius Pollio’, JRS 90: 51–69. Most, G. W. (1997). Collecting Fragments/Fragmente sammeln. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Münzer, F. (1909). ‘C. Fonteius Capito’, RE VI: 2847. ——— (1912). ‘C. Herennius’, RE VIII: 663–4. ——— (1916). ‘L. Insteius’, RE IX: 1562. Murgia, C. E. (1970). ‘Avienus’ Supposed Iambic Version of Livy’, CSCA 3: 185–97. Murphy, J. C., and Henderson, R. W. (1997). Tales of Giant Snakes: A Historical Natural History of Anacondas and Pythons. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Musurillo, H.  A. (1954–5). ‘Horace’s Journey to Brundisium: Fact or Fiction?’, CW 48: 159–62. Nisbet, R. G. M., and Hubbard, M. (1970). A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nissen, H. (1872). ‘Das Geschichtswerk des Titus Livius’, RhM 27: 539–61. Norden, E. (1913). Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. Leipzig: Teubner. ——— (1927). P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VI. 3rd edn. Leipzig: Teubner. North, J. A. (2008). ‘Caesar at the Lupercalia’, JRS 98: 144–60. ———, and McLynn, N. (2008). ‘Postscript to the Lupercalia: From Caesar to Andromachus’, JRS 98: 176–81. Northwood, S. J. (1996). ‘Restorations in Livy 9.40: A Reassessment’, CQ 46: 309–11. O’Hara, J.  J. (1996). True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Oakley, S. P. (1997). A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1998). A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (2005a). A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (2005b). A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ogden, D. (2013). Drakōn: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogilvie, R. M. (1965). A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1974). Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita, Tomus I. Libri I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1984). ‘Titi Livi Lib. XCI’, PCPhS 30: 116–25. ———, and Richmond, I. (1967). Cornelii Taciti: De Vita Agricolae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Olson, S.  D. (2018). ‘Athenaeus’ “Fragments” of Non-Fragmentary Prose Authors and Their Implications’, AJPh 139: 423–50. Oltramare, P. (1921). ‘Le Codex Genevensis des Questions Naturelles de Sénèque’, RPh 45: 5–44. ——— (1929). Sénèque: Questions Naturelles. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Orlin, E.  M. (2010). Foreign Cults in Rome: Creating a Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Otto, W. F. (1913). ‘Die Luperci und die Feier der Lupercalien’, Philologus 72: 161–95.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

334 Bibliography Pace, G. (1955). I mosaici di Piazza Armerina. Rome: Gherardo Casini. Padilla Peralta, D.-E. (2020). Divine Institutions: Religions and Community in the Middle Roman Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Palmer, R. E. A. (1990). ‘A New Fragment of Livy Throws Light on the Roman Postumii and Latin Gabii’, Athenaeum 78: 5–18. Paul, G.  M. (1982). ‘Urbs capta: Sketch of an Ancient Literary Motif ’, Phoenix 36: 144–55. Pausch, D. (2011). Livius und der Leser: Narrative Strukturen in ab urbe condita. Munich: C. H. Beck. Pease, A.  S. (1920–3). M.  Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Pelling, C. B. R. (1988). Plutarch: Life of Antony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2000). ‘Fun with Fragments: Athenaeus and the Historians’, in D.  Braund and J. Wilkins (eds), Athenaeus and His World. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 171–90. ——— (2011). Plutarch Caesar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2014). ‘FRHist and OUP’, Histos Working Papers 2014.4 (https://histos.org/documents/WP201404PellingFRHistandOUP.pdf ). Perl, G. (1965). ‘Die Rede Cottas in Sallusts Historien’, Philologus 109: 75–82. Peter, H. (1865). Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographieen der Römer. Halle: Waisenhaus. Petersen, H. (1961). ‘Livy and Augustus’, TAPhA 92: 440–52. Petretto, M. A. (1995). ‘Musica e guerra: note sulla Salpinx’, Sandalion 18: 35–53. Picard, G. C. (1957). Les trophées romains. Paris: De Boccard. Pichon, R. (1912). Les sources de Lucain. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Pighi, G. B. (1965). De Ludis Saecularibus. Amsterdam: P. Schippers. Pinsent, J. (1988). ‘Notes on Livy 6.(1.1)’, LCM 13.1: 2–6. Pitcher, L. (2014). ‘ “We Will Gather Up the Fragments That Remain”: First Thoughts on FRHist’, Histos Working Papers 2014.06 (https://histos.org/documents/WP201406Pitcher WeWillGatherUptheFragments.pdf ). Pötscher, W. (1984). ‘Die Lupercalia—ein Strukturanalyse’, GB 11: 221–49. Pollini, J. (1990). ‘Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and Early Principate’, in K.  A.  Raaflaub and M.  Toher (eds), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate. Berkeley: University of California Press, 334–57. Pomarès, G. (ed.) (1959). Gélase 1er: Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit messes du sacramentaire léonien. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Pomeroy, A. J. (1988). ‘Livy’s Death Notices’, G&R 35: 172–83. ——— (1991). The Appropriate Comment: Death Notices in the Ancient Historians. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Porte, D. (1981). ‘Romulus-Quirinus, prince et dieu, dieu des princes: Etude sur le personnage de Quirinus et sur son évolution, des origines à Auguste’, ANRW II 17.1: 301–42. Pothecary, S. (2002). ‘Strabo, the Tiberian Author: Past, Present, and Silence in Strabo’s Geography’, Mnemosyne 55: 387–438. Powell, A., and Welch, K. (eds) (2002). Sextus Pompeius. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Pucci, J. (1998). The Full-Knowing Reader. New Haven: Yale University Press. Quadlbauer, F. (1983). ‘Livi lactea ubertas—Bemerkungen zu einer quintilianischen Formel und ihrer Nachwirkung’, in Lefèvre and Olshausen (1983), 347–66. Quinn, J. C. (2018). In Search of the Phoenicians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rachet, M. (1970). Rome et les Berbères. Brussels: Latomus. Radicke, J. (2004). Lucans poetische Technik. Leiden: Brill. Ramsey, J. T. (2003). Cicero: Philippics I–II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  335 ——— (2019). ‘Did Cicero “Proscribe” Marcus Antonius?’, CQ 69: 793–800. ——— (2021). ‘Addendum to “Did Cicero ‘Proscribe’ Marcus Antonius?” ’, CQ 71: 452–4. Rand, E. K. (1916). ‘Is Donatus’s Commentary on Virgil Lost?’, CQ 10: 158–64. Rawson, E. (1978). ‘Caesar, Etruria, and the disciplina Etrusca’, JRS 68: 132–52 = Rawson (1991), 289–323. ——— (1991). Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reed, N. (1973). ‘Three Fragments of Livy Concerning Britain’, Latomus 32: 766–86. Reeve, M. D. (1988). ‘The Transmission of Florus’ Epitoma de Tito Livio and the Periochae’, CQ 38: 477–91. Reinhardt, T., and Winterbottom, M. (2006). Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria Book 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reinhold, M. (1965). Marcus Agrippa: A Biography. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Ricchieri, T. (2021). ‘Cicero proscriptor: Proscrizioni e counterfactual history a partire dal frammento de morte Ciceronis di Tito Livio (Seneca il Vecchio suas. 6.22)’, BStudLat 51: 22–38. Rich, J. W. (1996). ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron 26: 85–127. ——— (2011). ‘Structuring Roman History: The Consular Year and the Roman Historical Tradition’, Histos 5: 1–43. Richard, J.-C. (1983). Pseudo-Aurélius Victor: Les origines du peuple romain. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Richardson, J.  H., and Santangelo, F. (eds) (2014). Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: The Roman Historical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, J. S. (1976). ‘The Spanish Mines and the Development of Provincial Taxation in the Second Century b.c.’, JRS 66: 139–52. ——— (1983). ‘The Tabula Contrebiensis: Roman Law in Spain in the Early First Century b.c.’, JRS 73: 33–41. ——— (1986). Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218–82 b.c. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1996). The Romans in Spain. Oxford: Blackwell. Richardson-Bunbury, J.  M. (1996). ‘The Kula Volcanic Field, Western Turkey: The Development of a Holocene Alkali Basalt Province and the Adjacent Normal-Faulting Graben’, Geological Magazine 133: 275–83. Richter, W. (1968). ‘Das Cicerobild der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in G. Radke (ed.), Cicero: Ein Mensch seiner Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter, 161–97. Ridley, R. (2003). The Emperor’s Retrospect: Augustus’ Res Gestae in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary. Leuven: Peeters. Rippinger, L. (1987). ‘À propos de quelques noms de maladies chez Celse et Scribonius Largus’, in Études de linguistique générale et de linguistique latine. Paris: Société de l’Information Grammaticale, 207–18. Roberto, U. (2005). Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica. Berlin: De Gruyter. Roberts, C.  H., and Skeat, T.  C. (1983). The Birth of the Codex. London: Oxford University Press. Roddaz, J.-M. (1984). Marcus Agrippa. Rome: École Française de Rome. Roller, M. B. (1997). ‘Color-Blindness: Cicero’s Death, Declamation, and the Production of History’, CPh 92: 109–30. ——— (2018). ‘Amicable and Hostile Exchange in the Culture of Recitation’, in A. König and C. Whitton (eds), Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–207. Rose, C. B. (1992). ‘The 1991 Post-Bronze Age Excavations at Troia’, Studia Troica 2: 43–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

336 Bibliography Rose, C. B. (2015). ‘The Homeric Memory Culture of Roman Ilion’, in K. Galinsky and K. Lapatin (eds), Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 134–52. Rosén, H. (1995). ‘The Latin Infinitivus Historicus Revisited’, Mnemosyne 48: 536–64. Rosenblitt, J. A. (2011). ‘The “Devotio” of Sallust’s Cotta’, AJPh 132: 397–427. Rosenstein, N. (1986). ‘Imperatores Victi: The Case of C. Hostilius Mancinus’, CA 5: 230–52. ——— (1990). Imperatores Victi: Imperial Defeats and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Roth, R. (2010). ‘Pyrrhic Paradigms: Ennius, Livy, and Ammianus Marcellinus’, Hermes 138: 171–95. Ruiz Zapatero, G. (1996). ‘Celts and Iberians: Ideological Manipulations in Spanish Archaeology’, in P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, and C. Gamble (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities. London: Routledge, 179–95. Russell, D. A. (1979). ‘De Imitatione’, in D. West and T. Woodman (eds), Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16. Sailor, D. (2006). ‘Dirty Linen, Fabrication, and the Authorities of Livy and Augustus’, TAPhA 136: 329–88. ——— (2008). Writing and Empire in Tacitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saller, R.  P. (1982). Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sansone, D. (1980–1). ‘Totus Livius: Martial XIV 190’, CB 57: 86–7. Santangelo, F. (2014). ‘Roman Politics in the 70s b.c.: A Story of Realignments?’, JRS 104: 1–27. ——— (2016). Marius. London: Bloomsbury. Sartori, F. (ed.) (1981a). Padova Antica. Padua: LINT. ——— (1981b). ‘Padova nello stato Romano dal sec. III a.C. all’età dioclezianea’, in Sartori (1981a), 97–189. Sayas, J. J. (1994). Los vascos en la Antigüedad. Madrid: Cátedra. Scanlon, T. F. (1980). The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust. Heidelberg: Winter. Schepens, G. (2000). ‘Problem der Fragmentedition (Fragmente der griechischen Historiker)’, in C.  Reitz (ed.), Vom Text zum Buch. St Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1–29. Schiavone, A. (2013). Spartacus. Tr. J. Carden. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schindel, U. (1983). ‘Livius philosophus?’, in Lefèvre and Olshausen (1983), 411–19. Schmidt, P.  L. (1993). ‘Livius-Rezeption und kaiserzeitliche Historiographie’, in Schuller (1993), 189–201. Schminck, A. (1982). ‘Livius als Kanonist’, Rechthistorisches Journal 1: 151–64. Schneider, C. E. C. (1823). Variae trium ex octo Vratisl. Lucani codd. lectiones cum unius ex iisdem scholiorum delectu. Breslau: University of Breslau Press. Scholz, U. W. (1981). ‘Zur Erforschung der römischen Opfer’, in Le sacrifice dans l’antiquité. Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 289–328. Schürer, E. (1973–87). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.– a.d. 135). 4 vols. Revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Schuller, W. (ed.) (1993). Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Schulten, A. (1914–31). Numantia; Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1905–1912. 4 vols. Munich: Bruckmann. ——— (1926). Sertorius. Leipzig: Dieterich. ——— (1933). Geschichte von Numantia. Munich: Piloty & Loehle.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  337 Schwartz, E. (1903). ‘Dionysius von Halikarnassos: I.  Die römische Archäologie’, RE V. 1: 934–61. Scott Ryberg, I. (1949). ‘The Procession of the Ara Pacis’, MAAR 19: 79–101. Seager, R. (2002). Pompey the Great. 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Shackleton Bailey, D.  R. (1980). Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M.  Brutum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, B.  D. and Saller, R.  P. (1984). ‘Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society?’, Man 19: 432–44. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984). Roman Foreign Policy in the East. London: Duckworth. Sigman, M. C. (1977). ‘The Romans and the Indigenous Tribes of Mauretania Tingitana’, Historia 26: 415–39. Simon, H. (1962). Roms Kriege in Spanien: 154–133 v. Chr. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann. Skoda, F. (1988). Médecine ancienne et métaphore. Paris: Peeters/Selaf. Skutsch, O. (1985). The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Spann, P. O. (1987). Quintus Sertorius and the Legacy of Sulla. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. Stadter, P. A. (1972). ‘The Structure of Livy’s History’, Historia 21: 287–307 = Chaplin and Kraus (2009), 91–117. Stanton, G. R. (2003). ‘Why Did Caesar Cross the Rubicon?’, Historia 52: 67–94. Staveley, E. S. (1963). ‘The fasces and imperium maius’, Historia 12: 458–84. Steger, B. (2017). Piazza Armerina: La villa romaine du Casale en Sicile. Paris: Picard. Stein, A. (1948). ‘C. Turranius’, RE VIIA: 1441–2. Stem, R. (2007). ‘The Exemplary Lessons of Livy’s Romulus’, TAPhA 137: 435–71. Stern, M. (1980). Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume Two: From Tacitus to Simplicius. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Stevens, C. E. (1951). ‘Britain between the Invasions (b.c. 54—a.d. 43)’, in W. F. Grimes (ed.), Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond: Essays Presented to O. G. S. Crawford. London: H. W. Edwards, 332–44. Stok, F. (2012). ‘Commenting on Virgil, from Aelius Donatus to Servius’, Dead Sea Discoveries 19: 464–84. Stothers, R.  B. (2004). ‘Ancient Scientific Basis of the “Great Serpent” from Historical Evidence’, Isis 95: 220–38. Straumann, B. (2016). Crisis and Constitutionalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Suerbaum, W. (1970). ‘Der Historiker und die Freiheit des Wortes’, in G.  Radke (ed.), Politik und literarische Kunst im Werk des Tacitus. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 61–99. Sussman, L. A. (1978). The Elder Seneca. Leiden: Brill. Syme, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1959). ‘Livy and Augustus’, HSCPh 64: 27–87 = Syme (1979b), 400–54. ——— (1964). Sallust. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— (1979a). ‘Problems about Janus’, AJPh 100: 188–212 = Syme (1984), 1179–97. ——— (1979b). Roman Papers I (ed. E. Badian). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1984). Roman Papers III (ed. A. R. Birley). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tanguy, J.  C., Condomines, M., Le Goff, M., Chillemi, M., La Delfa, S., and Patanè, G. (2007). ‘Mount Etna Eruptions of the Last 2,750 Years: Revised Chronology and Location through Archeomagnetic and 226Ra–230Th dating’, Bulletin of Volcanology 70: 55–83. Tarpin, M. (2008). ‘Les vici de Rome, entre sociabilité de voisinage et organisation administrative’, in M. Royo, É. Hubert, and A. Bérenger (eds), ‘Rome des quartiers’: des vici aux rioni. Paris: De Boccard: 35–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

338 Bibliography Taylor, L. R. (1934). ‘New Light on the History of the Secular Games’, AJPh 55: 101–20. Terrenato, N. (2019). The Early Roman Expansion into Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thiel, J. H. (1954). A History of Roman Sea-Power before the Second Punic War. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Thulin, C.  O. (1906–9). Die Etruskische Disclipin. 3 vols. Göteborg: Wald Zachrissons Boktryckeri. Till, R. (1970). Review of Ogilvie and Richmond (1967), Gnomon 42: 674–80. Töpfer, K. (2011). Signa Militaria: Die Römischen Feldzeichen in der Republik und im Prinzipat. Mainz: Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Tosi, G. (1987). ‘Padova e la zona termale euganea’, in G. Cavalieri Manasse (ed.), Il Veneto nell’età romana II. Verona: Banca Popolare di Verona, 157–93. Tovar, A. (1974). Iberische Landeskunde. Zweiter Teil. Band 1: Baetica. Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner. Townend, G. B. (1960). ‘The Sources of the Greek in Suetonius’, Hermes 88: 98–120. Tränkle, H. (1968). ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, WS 2: 103–52. Travis, A. H. (1953). ‘Parallels to Patavinitas’, CPh 48: 174–5. Treggiari, S. (1982). ‘Consent to Roman Marriage: Some Aspects of Law and Reality’, EMC 16: 34–44. ——— (1991). Roman Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turcan, R. (1976). ‘Encore la prophétie de Vegoia’, in Mélanges offert à Jacques Heurgon: L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaine. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1009–19. Ulf, C. (1982). Das römische Lupercalienfest. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Ungern-Sternberg, J. von (2005). ‘The End of the Conflict of the Orders’, in K. A. Raaflaub (ed.), Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders. 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 312–32. Untermann, J. (1975). Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum. Vol. 1.1. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Usener, H. (1869). M. Annaei Lucani Commenta Bernensia. Leipzig: Teubner. Valeton, I. M. J. (1890). ‘De modis auspicandi Romanorum: II’, Mnemosyne 18: 208–63. Valli, B. (2007). ‘Lupercis nudis lustratur antiquum oppidum Palatinum: Alcune riflessioni sui Lupercalia’, Florentia 2: 101–54. Versnel, H. S. (1970). Triumphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill. Villacampa, M.  A. (1980). Los Berones según las fuentes escritas. Logroño: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos. Walbank, F.  W. (1957). A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1979). A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Walsh, P. G. (1958). ‘Livy and Stoicism’, AJPh 79: 355–75. Walton, F. R. (1965). ‘A Neglected Historical Text’, Historia 14: 236–51. Wardle, D. (1998). Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings. Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (2006). Cicero: On Divination. Book 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (2014). Suetonius: Life of Augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watson, A. (1967). The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wattenberg, F. (1959). La region Vaccea. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Bibliography  339 Weeber, K.-W. (1984). ‘Abi, nuntia Romanis . . . : Ein Dokument Augusteischer Geschichtsauf­ fassung in Livius I 16?’, RhM 127: 326–43. Weinstock, S. (1960). ‘Pax and the “Ara Pacis” ’, JRS 50: 44–58. ——— (1971). Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Weiss, P. (1973). ‘Die “Säkularspiele” der Republik—eine annalistische Fiktion?’, MDAI(R) 80: 205–17. Welch, K. (2012). Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales. Wensler, A. F. (1989). ‘Lucan und Livius zum Januar 49 v. Chr.’, Historia 38: 250–4. Werner, S. (1994). ‘On the History of the Commenta Bernensia and the Adnotationes super Lucanum’, HSCPh 96: 343–68. ——— (1998). The Transmission and Scholia to Lucan’s Bellum civile. Hamburg: LIT. West, M. L. (1966). Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Westall, R. (2016). ‘The Sources of Cassius Dio for the Roman Civil Wars of 49–30 bc’, in C.  H.  Lange and J.  M.  Madsen (eds), Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician. Leiden: Brill, 51–75. Whatmough, J. (1933). ‘Quemadmodum Pollio reprendit in Livio Patavinitatem?’, HSCPh 44: 95–130. Whitehorne, J. (1994). Cleopatras. London: Routledge. Whittaker, J. (1989). ‘The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation’, in J. N. Grant (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts. New York: AMS Press, 63–95. Wilson, M. (2008). ‘Your Writings or Your Life: Cicero’s Philippics and Declamation’, in T.  Stevenson and M.  Wilson (eds), Cicero’s Philippics: History, Rhetoric and Ideology. Auckland: Polygraphia, 305–34. Wiseman, T. P. (1979). Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Leicester: Leicester University Press. ——— (1995a). Remus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1995b). ‘The God of the Lupercal’, JRS 85: 1–22 = Wiseman (2008), 52–83. ——— (2002). ‘History, Poetry, and Annales’, in Levene and Nelis (2002), 331–62 = Wiseman (2008), 243–70. ——— (2008). Unwritten Rome. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. ——— (2015). The Roman Audience. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wisse, J. (2013). ‘Remembering Cremutius Cordus: Tacitus on History, Tyranny and Memory’, Histos 7: 299–361. Wissowa, G. (1896). ‘Augures’, RE II: 2313–44. ——— (1912). Religion und Kultus der Römer. 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck. Wistrand, E. (1987). Felicitas Imperatoria. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Witte, J. (1903). Der Kommentar des Aponius zum Hohenliede. Diss. Erlangen. Wolff, C. (2004). ‘Primus pilus ou primipilus?’, REMA 1: 5–22. Woodman, A.  J. (1983). Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1988). Rhetoric in Classical Historiography. London: Croom Helm. ——— (1989). ‘Virgil the Historian’, in Diggle et al. (1989), 132–45 = Woodman (2012), 147–61. ——— (2012). From Poetry to History: Selected Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2014). Tacitus: Agricola. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2015). Lost Historians: Selected Fragments of Roman Writers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Histos. ——— (2017). The Annals of Tacitus: Books 5 and 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

340 Bibliography Woodman, A. J. (2018). The Annals of Tacitus: Book 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, A. (2001). ‘The Death of Cicero: Forming a Tradition: The Contamination of History’, Historia 50: 436–52. Wuilleumier, P. (1932). ‘Tarente et le Tarentum’, REL 10: 127–46. ——— (1938). ‘Tarente et le Tarentum’, REL 16: 139–45. ——— (1939). Tarente: des origines à la conquête romaine. Paris: De Boccard. Zecchini, G. (1982). ‘A sinio Pollione: Dall’attività politica alla riflessione storiografica’, ANRW II 30.2: 1265–96. Zetzel, J. E. G. (1980). ‘The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the Meaning of Emendatio’, CPh 75: 38–59. ——— (1983). ‘Recreating the Canon: Augustan Poetry and the Alexandrian Past’, Critical Enquiry 10: 83–105. ——— (2018). Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 bce–800 ce. New York: Oxford University Press. Ziolkowski, A. (1998–9). ‘Ritual Cleaning-Up of the City: From the Lupercalia to the Argei’, AncSoc 29: 191–218.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Index of Sources for Fragments, Citations, Testimonia Ps-Acro In Horatium Carmina 1.37.30  F 65b In Horatium Epodi 9.7 (Γ´ rec.)  F 64 In Horatium Saturae 1.5.27–8  F 63b A c ta S e b as t i a n i M a rt y r i s 42  C 51 Aelian fr. 86 (Domingo-Forasté)  T 5 Agroecius Ars de Orthographia 115 K  F 30 Apponius 12.53  F 66 A r s A n o n y ma B e r n e n s i s 123K  F 56b A sconius In Cornelianas 66–67C  F 24 In Cornelianas 76–77C  C 25 Augustine De Civitate Dei 2.24  F 19 De Civitate Dei 3.7  F 21 Aurelius Victor De Caesaribus, titulus  T 30 Ausonius Commemoratio Professorum Burdigalensium 20.9  T 34 Bede De Orthographia 276 K  F 10 C a ssiodorus Chronica 564  T 46 Chronica 1370  T 47 Institutiones 1.17.1  T 40b C a ssius Dio 67.12.4  T 24b Censorinus 17.9  F 67 17.10  F 11 17.11  F 15 Charisius Artes Grammaticae 98.5–8 (Barwick)  T 56 Artes Grammaticae 122.9–14 (Barwick)  F 10 Artes Grammaticae 224.9–12 (Barwick)  T 57 Artes Grammaticae 357.12–16 (Barwick)  T 55 Artes Grammaticae 357.12–16 (Barwick)  F 77b C o d e x P a r i s i n u s 7530  C 1

Collectio Juris Canonici par. 417  F 13 C o mm e n ta B e r n e n s i a a d L u c a n u m 2.593  F 33a 3.59  F 42 3.182  F 41 4.354  F 44 5.494  F 45 7.62  F 48 7.470  F 46b 8.91  F 49 C o r p u s I n s c r i p t i o n u m L at i n a ru m V 2865  T 3a V 2883  T 3b V 2975  T 12 D i a l o gu s d e S c i e n t i a P o l i t i c a 5.161  F 79 Diomedes Ars Grammatica 374 K  C 11 Ars Grammatica 381 K  F 80 Ars Grammatica 449 K  F 77c D e D u b i i s N o m i n i bu s 572 K  F 85 575 K  F 86 591 K  T 63 592 K  F 78 E x c e r p ta P l a n u d e a 37  F 18a Florus titulus  T 50 Fr agmen tum Bobiense De Nomine et Pronomine p. 564 (Keil)  T 58 Fron tinus Strategemata 2.5.31  F 22 Strategemata 2.5.34  F 26 Gel a sius Papa Epistula adversus Andromachum 11–12  F 4 H i s t o r i a A u gu s ta Aurelian 2  T 31 Probus 2.3–7  T 32 Quattuor Tyranni 6.3–4  T 33 Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 2919  T 12 Isidore Origines 1.44.4  T 38b Origines 8.11.48  T 65b

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

342 Inde x of Sources for Fragments, Citations, Testimonia  Jerome Chronica ad 63 a.Chr.  F 34 Chronica ad 59 a.Chr.  T 1 Chronica ad 17 p.Chr.  T 11 Epistulae 22.35  T 40a Epistulae 53.1  T 6b Epistulae 58.5  T 41 In Danielem Prol.  T 39 In Danielem II, 5: 7c  T 64 In Osee II, 5: 6–7  F 58 John Mal al a s Chronica 7.6  C 13 Chronica 7.9  C 23 Chronica 8.28  T 48 Chronica 9.2  T 49 John of An tioch Fragmenta ex Historia Chronica fr. 145.2.63–73 (Roberto)  F 18a Jona s of Bobbio Vita Sancti Columbani 1.3  F 83 Jordanes Getae 2.10  F 37 Josephus Antiquitates Iudaicae 14.66–8  F 32 Justin 38.3.11  T 10 L actan tius Divinae Institutiones 1.20.1  C 43 Ly dus De Mensibus 4.53  F 33b Martial 1.61.5  T 22 14.190  T 23 Martianus C apell a 5.550  T 42 My thogr aphi Vatic ani 1.214  F 5 Nonius Marcellus 286L  C 42 288L  C 34 290L  C 48 306L  F 87 586L  F 88 O r i g o G e n t i s R o ma n a e Preface  T 29 Orosius 3.21.6  C 44 6.15.3  F 39 7.2.11  F 38 Plin y the Elder Naturalis Historia 1 Praef. 16  F 75 Naturalis Historia Book 1  T 19 Naturalis Historia 3.3–4  F 71 Naturalis Historia 3.132  F 72

Plin y the Younger Epistulae 2.3.8  T 6a Epistulae 6.20.5  T 20 Plu tarch Caesar 47.3–6  F 47 Caesar 63.9  F 59 Camillus 6.2  C 30 Cato Major 17.4  C 75b Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.5  C 52 De Fortuna Romanorum 326A  C 32 Flamininus 18.4  C 75a Flamininus 20.5  C 76 Lucullus 28.7  F 27a Lucullus 31.8  F 28 Marcellus 11.4  C 53 Marcellus 24.4  C 60 Marcellus 30.1–4  C 61 Quaestiones Romanae 269E  C 33 Sulla 6.10  F 17 Pompeius Commentum artis Donatae 98 K  C 12 Porph y rio in Horatium, Carmina 1.37.30–2  F 65a in Horatium, Saturae 1.5.27  F 63a Priscian De Figuris Numerorum 12 (409 K)  C 63 De Figuris Numerorum 13 (409 K)  C 64 De Figuris Numerorum 13–14 (409 K)  C 70 De Figuris Numerorum 22 (413 K)  C 62 De Figuris Numerorum 25 (414 K)  C 65 Institutiones Grammaticae 4.29 (134 K)  C 83 Institutiones Grammaticae 5.10 (146 K)  F 57 Institutiones Grammaticae 5.16 (151 K)  F 68 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.13 (205 K)  C 54 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.17 (208–9 K)  C 66 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.22 (213 K)  F 50 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.22 (213–14 K)  F 51 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.22 (214 K)  F 52 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.22 (214 K)  F 56a Institutiones Grammaticae 6.68 (253 K)  C 59 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.76 (260 K)  C 18 Institutiones Grammaticae 6.96 (281–2 K)  C 69 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 73 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 77 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 78 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 79 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 80 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 81 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299 K)  C 82 Institutiones Grammaticae 7.16 (299–300 K)  C 74 Institutiones Grammaticae 8.21 (388 K)  C 72 Institutiones Grammaticae 8.75 (430 K)  C 26

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Inde x of Sources for Fragments, Citations, Testimonia  343 Institutiones Grammaticae 9.34 (470 K)  C 46 Institutiones Grammaticae 9.36 (472 K)  C 49 Institutiones Grammaticae 9.40 (477 K)  F 60 Institutiones Grammaticae 9.54 (490 K)  C 38 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.3 (496 K)  C 29 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.11 (503 K)  C 21 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.18 (512 K)  C 58 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.19 (512 K)  C 57 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.43 (533 K)  C 47 Institutiones Grammaticae 10.43 (533 K)  C 56 Institutiones Grammaticae 14.38 (44 K)  F 8 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.9 (66 K)  C 35 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.9 (66 K)  C 37 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.9 (66 K)  C 39 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.9 (66 K)  C 41 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.11 (69 K)  F 3 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.15 (72 K)  C 27 Institutiones Grammaticae 15.16 (72 K)  C 40 Institutiones Grammaticae 17.165 (191 K)  C 68 Institutiones Grammaticae 18.172 (286 K)  T 60 Institutiones Grammaticae 18.182 (293 K)  C 55 Institutiones Grammaticae 18.231 (323 K)  T 61 Institutiones Grammaticae 18.264 (344 K)  F 16 Institutiones Grammaticae 18.292 (365 K)  T 62 Quin tilian Institutio Oratoria 1.5.44  C 15 Institutio Oratoria 1.5.56  T 9a Institutio Oratoria 1.7.24  T 53 Institutio Oratoria 2.4.18–19  T 25 Institutio Oratoria 2.5.18–19  T 26 Institutio Oratoria 2.5.20  F 90b Institutio Oratoria 8.1.2–3  T 9b Institutio Oratoria 8.2.18  F 93 Institutio Oratoria 8.3.53  F 77a Institutio Oratoria 8.6.20  T 54 Institutio Oratoria 8.6.9–10  C 71 Institutio Oratoria 9.2.37  C 14 Institutio Oratoria 9.4.74  C 2 Institutio Oratoria 10.1.32  T 27 Institutio Oratoria 10.1.39  F 90a Institutio Oratoria 10.1.101–2  T 28 Salvian Epistulae 4.20  C 16 S c h o l i a V r at i s l ava a d L u c a n u m 1.319  F 89

Scholia Gronoviana in Ciceronis o r at i o n e m p r o L i g a r i o p. 291 (Stangl)  F 43 Scholium ad Luc anum 7.471  F 46a 10.471  F 53 10.521  F 55 S c h o l i u m e x c o d . B e r n . 45 a d L u c a n u m 2.593  F 31 Senec a the Elder Controversiae 9.1.13–14  F 91 Controversiae 9.2.26  F 92 Controversiae 10 pr.2  T 4 Suasoriae 6.16–17  F 61 Suasoriae 6.21–2  F 62 Suasoriae 6.21–2  T 15 Senec a the Younger De Beneficiis 7.6.1  T 17 Epistulae 46.1  T 18 Epistulae 100.9  T 2 De Ira 1.20.6  F 74 Naturales Quaestiones 5.16.4  C 50 Naturales Quaestiones 5.18.4  F 20 De Tranquillitate Animi 9.5  F 54 Quin tus Serenus Liber Medicinalis 718–25  F 35 ‘Sergius’ Explanatio in Donatum 542 K  F 82 Servius (including Servius Auctus) In Aeneidem 1.5  C 4a In Aeneidem 1.7  C 8a In Aeneidem 1.242  C 3 In Aeneidem 1.343  F 5 In Aeneidem 1.366  F 6 In Aeneidem 1.373  T 38a In Aeneidem 1.456  F 69 In Aeneidem 1.476  C 67 In Aeneidem 1.738  F 7 In Aeneidem 2.148  F 73 In Aeneidem 3.106  F 29 In Aeneidem 4.37  F 70 In Aeneidem 4.242  T 65a In Aeneidem 5.560  C 17 In Aeneidem 6.8  C 24 In Aeneidem 6.198  F 12 In Aeneidem 6.760  C 8b In Aeneidem 6.813  C 19 In Aeneidem 6.824  C 36 In Aeneidem 6.859  F 14 In Aeneidem 6.861  F 76 In Aeneidem 7.10  T 59 In Aeneidem 7.158  C 4b In Aeneidem 8.72  C 9a In Aeneidem 8.330  C 9b

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

344 Inde x of Sources for Fragments, Citations, Testimonia In Aeneidem 9.715  F 25 In Aeneidem 9.742  C 6 In Aeneidem 10.13  C 45 In Aeneidem 10.14  C 20 In Aeneidem 10.145  C 28 In Aeneidem 10.388  F 84 In Aeneidem 11.316  C 5 In Eclogas 6.42  C 22 In Georgicas 1.472  F 40 In Georgicas 2.533  C 7 In Georgicas 3.1  F 81 In Georgicas 3.1  C 31 Sidonius Apollinaris Carmina 2.188–9  T 44 Carmina 23.145–6  T 45 Epistulae 9.14.7  T 43 Statius Silvae 4.7.53–6  T 21 Suetonius Caligula 34.2  T 16

Divus Claudius 41.1  T 8 Domitian 10.3  T 24a Suda Κ 342 (Adler)  T 52 Κ 2098 (Adler)  T 5 Λ 688 (Adler)  F 27b Σ 1337 (Adler)  F 18b Sy mmachus Epistulae 4.18.5  T 35 Epistulae 9.13  T 36 Sy ncellus p. 385 (Mosshammer)  T 51 Tacitus Agricola 10.3  F 36 Annals 4.34.3  T 7 Valerius Ma x imus 1.8 ext. 19  F 9 Velleius Paterculus 1.17.2  T 13 2.36.3  T 14

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

General Index Except in the case of Roman authors such as Sallust, Cicero, and Tacitus and emperors and other members of the imperial family, the index gives the full names of Roman citizens, as far as these are known. Roman officials are identified by the highest office held (all dates given as bc unless otherwise stated). Standard Roman abbreviations are used for the following personal names: Appius (abbreviated as Ap.), Aulus (A.), Decimus (D.), Gaius (C.), Gnaeus (Cn.), Lucius (L.), Manius (M’.), Marcus (M.), Publius (P.), Quintus (Q.), Spurius (Sp.), Tiberius (Ti.), Titus (T.). These names are ignored in alphabetization. ab urbe condita dates  160–1, 171, 218 Achillas  236–7, 239–41 Actium, battle of  235, 250, 262 Adriatic 273 L. Aelius Tubero  226–7 Q. Aelius Tubero  226 M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78)  184, 193 M. Aemilius Lepidus (triumvir)  234, 250 M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115)  175 Aeneas  183, 288 L. Afranius (cos. 60)  227 age at death, Roman interest in  256 Agesilaus 191–2 Agrippa see Vipsanius Alaric 217 L. Albinius (tr. pl. 493)  290 Alexandria 236–40 library of  237–9 allusion, and imitation  191–2, 203–4, 256–7, 283–6 Alps 272–3 Amisus 210 Ammianus Marcellinus, Greek in  266 ancient editing of Livy  312–14 ‘annalistic’ patterning  174 Ancus Marcius  289–90 L. Annaeus Cornutus  303 T. Annius Milo (tr.pl. 57)  228 Antenor  231, 288, 308, 314 Antiochus III  297 M. Antonius (cos. 99)  256 M. Antonius (triumvir)  222, 228, 235, 240, 245, 250–1, 256, 259, 306 and Cicero  247–8, 250 and Octavian  260–1 and Second Triumvirate  250 death of  265 Apollo 264

aquilae 204–5 Ara Pacis  267 archaism  142–4, 163–4, 285–6, 315 Arellius Fuscus  283–4 Ariminum 221–2 Armenia  205–6, 267 armies formations of  199 reliability of reported size  205–6 repair of equipment  191–2 Arnobius the younger  293–4 Arpinum 253 Arretium 222 Arsinoe IV  239–41 Artaxata, battle of  206 artillery 157 Arvaci 197–9 Ascanius 288 Asconius, and Livy  314–15 Asculum 174 C. Asinius Pollio (cos. 40)  221, 225, 262, 301–2, 306 and Cicero  245–8, 250, 257 and Livy  305–6, 314–15 Assyria 217 Astura  249, 251–2 Athena 182–3 Athenaeus xxii Athens, Athenians  182, 223–4, 260 Atilius Regulus, M. (cos. 267, 256)  155–7 Attalus III of Pergamum  173 Atticus see Pomponius P. Attius Varus  226 Attus Navius  180 Aufidius Bassus  245–6 augurs 231–2 Augustine, and Livy  xxx, 179–80, 182–3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

346 General Inde x Augustus (Octavian)  158, 169–70, 272, 276, 278 administrative reforms of  219–20 and Africa  234–5 and Antony  260–1, 306 and Britain  266–8 and Cicero  250, 254 and Livy  269, 303–4 and Parthia  205 and Second Triumvirate  250 and Secular Games  268–9 and the Republic  246 as avenger  250 building by  147–8, 169, 218, 220–1, 255 closes temple of Janus  266–8 death of  246, 307 gives funeral oration for nephew  296 in civil war  235, 245, 247 propaganda of  250, 267, 269 C. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 75)  200–2 M. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 74)  200 autopsy, in historiography  156, 171, 230 Autricones 195–6 Avienus 280 Bagrada 155–6 Berones  188, 195–7, 199 Bitias 154 Bobbio, monastery of  280 Bocchus 235 Bogud  234–6, 242 Britain  214–17, 266–8 Brundisium  157, 232, 259–60 pact of  260–2, 306 Bruttedius Niger  245–6, 249, 255 Bursaones 197 Cadiz 303 Caecilia Metella  175 C. Caecilius Cornutus (pr. 57)  303 Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (cos. 69)  206–8 L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (cos. 119)  175 Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 143)  172 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80)  194–5, 197 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (cos. 52)  233, 304–5 Q. Caedicius (cos. 256)  157 M. Caelius Rufus (pr. 48)  228 Caieta  248–9, 252 Calagurris  195, 198–9 Caledonia 216 Caligula (Gaius), emperor ad 37  264 Calpurnia 243–5 C. Calpurnius Piso Caesonianus (cos. 58)  245 Cannae, battle of  271, 293–4

canon, and literary rivalry  284–5 Carbo see Papirius carbo, carbunculus 213–14 Carmentis 289 Carpetania 197 Carthage, Carthaginians  150–4, 217, 234, 271–2 name of  153–4 origins of  151–3 Cascantum, Cascantini  197, 199 C. Cassius Longinus (pr. 44)  250–1 Q. Cassius Longinus (tr. pl. 49)  234–6 Castus 204–5 casualty figures, reliability of  204 Catilinarian conspiracy  212–13, 248, 257 see also L. Sergius Catilina Cato ‘the Censor’  xx Celer 289 Celtiberi  173, 195–9 Cethegus see Cornelius chickens, in auspices  161–4 Chronicon Paschale 289 chronological distortions in Livy  182 Cicero and Caesar  232 and Cato  242–3 and Clodius  162 and Demosthenes  282–3 and Livy  246–8, 257–8, 282–3 and the Catilinarian conspiracy  212 as defence advocate  200–2 as philosopher  301 death of  245–59, 307 exile of  257–8 vanity of  248, 256–7 with Pompey  232–3 Q. Cicero see Tullius Cimbri 179 Cinna see Cornelius Circeii  249, 316 citations definition xx patterns of  xxii–xxxi ‘Civil War’ edition of Livy  xxx–xxxi Claudii, stereotype of  162–3 Claudius, emperor  153, 305 Ti. Claudius Balbillus  238 Ap. Claudius Caecus (cos. 307, 296)  145 C. Claudius Glaber (pr. 73)  205 M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 222, 215, 214, 210, 208)  167–8, 170–1, 295–6 M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 196)  296 M. Claudius Marcellus (nephew of Augustus)  276, 296 M. Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus (cos. 22)  234–5 P. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 249)  xxv, 160–4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

 General Inde x  347 Cleopatra VII  240, 250, 260, 262 death of  265–6 P. Clodius Pulcher (tr.pl. 58)  162, 219 Cloelius 166–7 Cnossus 207 L. Cocceius Nerva  259–61 M. Cocceius Nerva (cos. 36)  261 coinage 276 colloquialism 285–6 Columban, Saint  280 Cominium 140 commanders, rights of  140–1 Contestania 197 Contrebia Belaisca  187–90, 196–7 Contrebia Carbica  188 Contrebia Leucada  188, 196 Cornelia, wife of Pompey  233–4 C. Cornelius (tr.pl. 67)  200 C. Cornelius (Paduan seer)  230–2 C. Cornelius Cethegus  212–13 L. Cornelius Cinna (cos. 87, 86, 85, 84)  182, 184 A. Cornelius Cossus (cos. 428)  168–9 P. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 44)  236 C. Cornelius Gallus  301 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (cos. 71)  212–13 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205, 194)  165, 187, 191–2, 247, 278, 307 and the divine  264 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (cos. 147, 134)  168–70, 173 Cornelius Severus  246 L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator  179, 184, 193–4, 213, 251, 274 consulship in 88  173–5 defeats Mithridates  208 legislation of  201–2 march on Rome  178–9 marriage of  175 propaganda of  183 proscriptions by  247–8 sacks Athens  182 Cornutus see Annaeus or Caecilius Corvinus see Valerius Cotta see Aurelius Crassus see Licinius C. Crastinus 228–9 Cremutius Cordus  214, 245–7, 303–4 Crete  206–8, 251 koinon of  207 Crete and Cyrene, province of  208 Curia Hostilia  219 Curio see Scribonius Cydonia 207 Cyprus  240, 251 Cyrenaica 251

Dacia, Dacians  267 Dalmatia, Dalmatians  175, 267 Day of Atonement  210 De Viris Illustribus, and Livy  xxi–xxii, 289 decades, of Livy  xxix, 294 Deiotarus 202–4 Demosthenes  249, 282–3 Dertosa 193 Dianium 197 Dido  150–4, 270 Diodorus Siculus  176 Dioscorides 237 Dis 159 divine assimilation  263–5 divorce 165 Donatus  xxi, xxv and Livy  150–1 Dorus 308 dragons see snakes Drepana, battle of  xxv, 160–4 Dyrrachium  228, 232 eloquence of Livy  156, 214–15, 303, 308 Enna 313–14 Ennius xxii–xxiii Ephesus 240 Epicureanism, and Livy  276 Eratosthenes 238 ethics, and politics  189 Etna, eruption of  222–3 Etruscans  159, 177–8, 293 Euganei 314 Eumachus 202–3 Eutropius, and Livy  xxi–xxii Evander  146, 289 evocati 229 excerpts from Livy  309 Q. Fabius Gurges (cos. 292, 276)   140–2, 144–5 Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (Cunctator) (cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209)  307 Fabius Rusticus  214–16 fasces 204–5 Februarius 147–9 felicitas  233, 257 fetials 289–90 Fimbria see Flavius ‘First Triumvirate’  184–5 Flamininus see Quinctius C. Flavius Fimbria  181–3 Florus, and Livy  xviii, xxi–xxii C. Fonteius Capito (cos. 33)  259–60 Formiae  249, 251–3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

348 General Inde x fortuna  233, 254 fragments, definition of  xviii–xx Frontinus, and Livy  184 Cn. Fulvius Centumalus (cos. 211)  295 Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 237, 224, 212, 209)  295 M. Furius Camillus (tr. mil. c.p. 401, 398, 386, 384, 381)  278, 291, 307 L. Furius Medullinus (tr.mil. c.p. 381, 370)  278 L. Furius Philus (cos. 136)  172–3 Gabii 143 Gaius (grandson of Augustus)  267 Gaius (emperor) see Caligula Gannicus 204–5 Ganymedes  237, 240–1 Gaul, Gauls  213, 267, 293 sack Rome  279, 294 Gelasius I  145–8 Gellius, and Livy  xx, 230 Gereonium, battle of  291–2 Gortyn 207 Gracchuris  197, 199 Gracchus see Sempronius ‘Great Year’  178 greatness, and virtue  274 Greek in Livy  266, 287 Haiti, earthquake in  220 Hannibal  259, 271, 273, 296, 298–9 haruspices  178–80, 231 Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal  273 Heraclea 206 Hercules 156 Herennius (centurion)  255 C. Herennius (tr.pl. 80)  194 Herod, the Great  210 Herodotus, and Livy  311 Hiempsal 153 Hierapytna 207 Hipparchus 238 L. Hirtuleius (qu. 86/85)  194–5 Homer, in Livy  202–4 M. Horatius Pulvillus (cos. 509, 507)  290 L. Hostilius Dasianus (tr.pl. 68)  276 C. Hostilius Mancinus (cos. 137)  172–3 Iberians 206 Ilercaones 193 Ilium 181–3 Illyricum 267 imitation see allusion Inarime 202–3 incest taboo  164–7 indirect speech  183 C. Insteius 198–9

L. Insteius 190 interpretatio Romana 272 invented traditions  269 Ischia 202 Italy, and Livy  253 Jacopus Cruquius  260, 262, 265 Janus, temple of  266–8 Jerome, and Livy  xxx, 212–13 Jerusalem 209–12 Jesus 266–8 Jews, Judaea  208–12 John Lydus, sources of  211–12 John Malalas  xxi, xxvi and Livy  289–90 John of Antioch, sources of  176, 205 Josephus, sources of  209–11 Juba  235, 241 Judaea see Jews Jugurtha  179, 234 Julia 262 Cn. Julius Agricola (cos. ad 77)  216–17 C. Julius Caesar (dictator)  170, 180–1, 184–5, 278 and Cato  242–3 apotheosis of  244, 263 as dictator  250, 255 as pontifex maximus 244 assassination of  222, 243–4, 251 clemency of  227, 251, 274 extends citizenship to Transpadines  231–2 in Alexandria  236–41 in Britain  214, 217 in Gaul  273, 312 in the Civil War  218, 221–2, 224–31, 234–6, 251, 264, 305–6 propaganda of  221 statue to  220 triumph of  240–1 L. Julius Pullus (cos. 249)  xxv, 161–4 C. Julius Romanus  315–16 L. Junius Brutus (cos. 509)  290 M. Junius Brutus (pr. 44)  242, 246, 249, 251–2, 258 death of  250 Juno 291 as Juno Sospita  215 Jupiter Feretrius  167–70 Katakekaumene 203 Lar Tolumnius  170 last words  253 Latinus 288–9 Lauro, battle of  184–6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

 General Inde x  349 laws, repeal of  200–2 leaders, influencing state  278 Lepidus see Aemilius M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 70, 55)  184, 204–5 death of  233, 250 M. Licinius Crassus (commander in 30)  169–70 P. Licinius Crassus (cos. 171)  174 P. Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir)  233 C. Licinius (tr.pl. 493)  290 L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74)  198, 202, 205–6 defeats Mithridates  208 Q. Ligarius 226 Livia Quarta  302 Livius Drusus  169 T. Livius (son of historian)  272 T. Livius Halys  302 Livy date of birth  301 date of death  307 date of publication  246, 307 ‘lost epitome’  309–10 Lucan, and Livy  223 Lucilius  279–80, 315 Lucretia  166, 290 Lucullus see Licinius Ludi Saeculares see Secular Games Lupercalia 145–50 Lusitania 197 Lycortas 299 Macedon 251 Macrobius, and Livy  xx C. Maecenas Cilnius  259–62 Maeonia 202–3 Magnesia, battle of  297 Maharbal 271 maiestas 200 M. Manlius Capitolinus (cos. 392)  274 T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (cos. 347, 344, 340) 291–2 T. Manlius Torquatus (son of consul of 340) 291–2 Marcellus, see Claudius Mardians 206 C. Marius (cos. 107, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 86)  173–4, 179–81, 184, 247, 256, 274, 307 M. Marius (qu. 76)  198 marriage attitudes to  233–4 consent to  166 law of  164–7 Marseilles 224 masculinity, virtues of  258 Masinissa 307 Mattan (Tyrian king)  152

Mauri, Mauretania  234–5 medicine in Livy  213–14 Mellaria 272 Messala see Valerius Metellus see Caecilius Mezentius 288 Milo see Annius Miltiades 286 M. Minucius (cos. 222)  291–2 Mithridates VI  182, 198, 202, 205–6, 298 death of  208 More, Sir Thomas  253 Mount Cantenna, battle of  204–5 Mouseion, in Alexandria  238 Q. Nasidius 263 Naulochus, battle of  264 Neptune 263–5 Nerva, emperor  259–61 Nerva see Cocceius New Carthage  189–92 Appius Nicomachus Dexter  312–14 Nicomachus Flavianus  312–14 Nola 178–9 battles of  295 Numa 167–8 Numantia, Numantines  172–3, 197 Numenius of Apamea  212 obscurity 286–7 Obsequens  xvii–xviii, 176 Octavia  261, 276 Octavian see Augustus oratio obliqua vs. oratio recta 306 Orosius and Livy  xxx, 204, 221, 224, 293 errors in  219–20 Padua  230, 302, 305–8, 314–15 see also patavinitas Palladium 183 Pan 148–9 Cn. Papirius Carbo (cos. 85, 84, 82)  182 Papirius Fabianus  301 Parthia, Parthians  205, 233, 250, 268 patavinitas  305–6, 314–15 patria 253 patricians 164–6 Pelendones 198 Periochae  xxiii, xxviii non-Livian material in  255 selectivity of  174 M. Perperna Vento (pr. 82)  193, 195 Pharnaces II of Pontus  208

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

350 General Inde x Pharsalus, battle of  185, 228–33, 240–1, 251, 279, 305 Philinos 153 Philippi, battle of  250–1 philosophy and Livy  301–2 Phoenicians 151–2 Phrygia 202 Piazza Armerina  313–14 piety 210 pirates, piracy  207–8, 264 plagues 145–8 plebeians 164–6 Plutarch, and Livy  xxv–xxvi, xxviii, 175–6, 229–30, 291, 294–6, 299 political attitudes of Livy  231–2, 303–4 Pollio see Asinius Polybius 156 and Livy  203–4 Pompeius (commentator)  xxi Q. Pompeius (cos. 141)  172–3 Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 55, 52)  207–8, 264 and the Sertorian War  184–6, 188, 193, 195–7 and the Civil War  218, 223–4, 226–8, 251 captures Jerusalem  208–12 death of  236, 239 defeated by Caesar  279 defeats Mithridates  208 Livy as supporter of  303–4 marriages of  233, 304–5 triumph of  209 Cn. Pompeius Magnus (son of triumvir)  242 Sex. Pompeius Magnus  260, 262–5 Q. Pompeius Rufus (cos. 88)  175 Cn. Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89)  174–5, 190 Pompeius Trogus, and Livy  306 T. Pomponius Atticus  258 Pontus 208 see also Mithridates VI C. Popillius Laenas  254–5 M. Porcius Cato (pr. 54)  224–5, 241, 251, 307 virtues of  242–3 Porphyrio, and Horace scholia  259–63, 265 C. Postumius (haruspex) 178–80 L. Postumius Megellus (cos. 305, 294, 291) 140–5 primum pilum 229 Priscian xx and Livy  xxiii–xxiv, xxvi–xxvii, 269–70, 290, 295–300 proconsuls, authority of  140–2 prodigies  158–60, 176–80, 218, 222–3, 229–32, 243–4, 249 see also plagues prolixity, of Livy  277 ‘Prophecy of Vegoia’  177

Propontis 202 Proserpina 159 ps.-Acro, and Horace scholia  259–63, 265 Ptolemy I Soter  239 Ptolemy II Philadelphus  239 Ptolemy XII  237, 240 Ptolemy XIII  236, 240–1 Ptolemy XIV  240 P. Publilius Philo (cos. 339, 327, 320, 315)  141 Pulpud 241–2 ‘Pyrrhic Victory’  271 Pyrrhic War  270–1 Pyrrhus  145, 270–1 T. Quinctius Flamininus (cos. 198)  259 Quintilian 198 Quirinal Hill  170 Quirinus  167–8, 171 temple of  218–21 Ravenna 221 reception of Livy  xx–xxxi recitations of history  302 regionalism 315 Regium (Rhegium)  223 Regulus see Atilius reliability of Livy  310 Remus, death of  289 repetundae 172 Republican history, and Livy  xxi–xxii, 289, 292, 311 rhetoric in Livy  282–7 Roman law, in the provinces  188 Rome, fires at  217–21 Romulus  170, 289 and Rape of Sabine Women  289 death of  244 Roper, William  253 Rostra 255–6 Rubicon, crossing of  221 Rutilius  164, 166 Sabbath, fighting on  210–11 sacrilege  142, 161–4 saeculum  158–60, 177–8, 268–9 sailing, as metaphor  252 Sallentini 157 Sallust xx–xxi and Livy  xx, 283–5, 308, 310 and Thucydides  283–5 salpinx 178 Samnites  140, 293 Scholia to Lucan, and Livy  xxvi–xxvii, 228–9 Scipio see Cornelius C. Scribonius Curio, C. (tr. pl. 50)  224–5 Second Punic War  291–2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

 General Inde x  351 Second Triumvirate  279 proscriptions by  249, 254–5 Secular Games  158–61, 171–2, 177, 268–9 Segovia 199 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (tr.pl. 133)  173 Sempronius Tuditanus  315 Seneca the Younger, and Livy  233, 274, 293 Sentinum, battle of  293 Serapeion, library of  237 Serapio 237 L. Sergius Catilina (pr. 68)  212–13 Q. Sertorius (pr. c.80)  184–200, 307 Servilia 251 Servius xxi and Livy  xxiv–xxv, 161–4, 203, 207, 222–3, 288–92 Sicily  224–5, 232, 264, 270 L. Sicinius (tr.pl. 76)  201 Sidonius Apollinaris  xxx–xxxi slaves, slavery  141, 189–90, 248 snakes 155–7 Social War  173–4, 177 Socrates 286 Spain, Spaniards  184–200, 227, 234–6, 264, 267 Roman settlement in  189–90 Spartacus 204–5 spolia opima 167–71 stereotyping 240 Stoicism  243, 274 Strabo, date of  209–10 Suetonius, Greek in  266 Sulla see Cornelius P. Sulpicius Rufus (tr.pl. 88)  174, 176–7 Symmachus, and Livy  xxi, xxix–xxx, 311–14 synchronisms, Roman interest in  301 Syria  251, 267 Tabula Contrebiensis 188 Tacitus, use of Livy  216 Tamar 233 Tarentum 159 pact of  260–2 Tarquinius Superbus  290 Tarracina  259, 261 Tascus Victorianus  312–14 Testimonia, definition  xx Teutones 179 Theophrastus 305 Thermae Selinuntae  314 Third Punic War  272 Tigranes II  205–6 Tigranocerta, battle of  205–6 Timavus 308 Torquatus see Manlius transmission of Livy  xxix–xxxi, 140

C. Trebonius (cos. 45)  235–6 tribunes, rights of  201–2 triumphs, at Carthage  271–2 Troilus 298 Trojan War  183 Tuditanus see Sempronius Tullia  252, 258 Q. Tullius Cicero (pr. 62)  246, 248–9 Tullus Hostilius  290 Tunis 155 Turnus 288 Turranius Gracilis  272 C. Turranius 272 Tusculum  248–51, 314 Typhoeus 202–3 Tyrrhenian Sea  273 Umbria, Umbrians  293 Vaccaei 199 Valerianus 312–13 Valerius Antias, and Livy  160 M. Valerius Corvus (cos. 348, 346, 343, 335, 300, 299)  169 L. Valerius Flaccus (cos. 86)  182 Valerius Maximus, and Livy  179 M. Valerius Messala Corvinus (cos. 31)  301, 307 Vareia 199 P. Varinius (pr. 73)  205 Varis Geminus  247 Vascones 198–9 Veii 291 Venusia 140 Verginia 166 Vesta, Vestals  183 Via Appia  251–3, 261 Via Latina  251 Via Severiana  251 Vibellius Taurea  169 Vibius Maximus  308 C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus (cos. 43)  226 Vibius Rufus  285 vici 218–20 Victorianus see Tascus Vicus Iugarius  217, 219–20 Vindicius 290 M. Vipsanius Agrippa (cos. 37, 28, 27)  235, 261–2, 267 Viriathus  197, 199 Volsci  252, 261 Volsinii 177 women, stereotypes of  240 Xenophon, and Livy  191–2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/08/23, SPi

Index of Latin and Greek adserere 317 adsertio 317

maiores 296–7 miraculum 187

bipennis 215

pascere 276 perhibere 183 pervigilare 187 privato 145 proculcare 198

candor 310 charta 214 corrumpere 285 dehiscere 187 desidere 275–6 dictare 181 diluere 208 evastare 198 excitare 187 excusare 173 expositus 310 iactatio 252 identidem 265–6 immolare 179 interdiu 190 lacteus 310 laetus 179

reapse 144 revolvere 311–12 scutulum 215–16 subire 179–80 torques 317–18 transferre 285 ubertas 310 velociter 236 vepres 277 volumen 157 ὅπλον 192