Velleius Paterculus: Making History 1905125453, 9781905125456

Citation preview

I

:)w an

% te sical :ss

if lies

VELLEIUS PATERCULUS

Edited by

Eleanor Cowan

V E LL E IU S PATERCULU S M A KIN G H ISTO RY

V e l l e iu s Pa ter c u lu s: M a k in g H is t o r y

Editor

Eleanor Cowan Contributors Edward Bispham, W. Martin Bloomer, Eleanor Cowan, Maria Elefante, Tom Hillard, Barbara Levick, John Alexander Lobur, John Marincola, Victoria Pagan, Christopher Pelling, Luke Pitcher, John Rich, Ulrich Schmitzer, Robin Seager, Catherine Steel, Kathryn Welch, T. P. Wiseman

The Classical Press of Wales

First published in 2011 by The Classical Press o f Wales 15 Rosehill Terrace, Swansea SA1 6JN Tel: +44 (0)1792 458397 www.classicalpressofwales.co.uk Distributor Oxbow Books, 10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford 0 X 1 2F.W Tel: +44 (0)1865 241249 Fax: +44 (0)1865 794449 Distributor in the United States o f America The David Brown Book Co. PO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779 Tel: + 1 (860) 945-9329 Fax: +1 (860) 945-9468 © 2011 The authors All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission o f the publisher. ISBN 978-1-905125 45-6 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Typeset, printed and bound in the U K by Gom er Press, Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales

The C.lassical Press of Wales, an independent venture, wasfounded in 1991, initially to support the work of classicists and ancient historians m Wales and their collaboratorsfromfurther afield. More recently it has published work initiated by scholars internationally. While retaining a specialloyalty to Wales and the Celtic countries, the Press welcomes scholarly contributionsfrom allparts of the world. The symbol of the Press is the Red Kite. This bird, once widespread in Britain, was reduced by 1905 to some five individuals confined to a small area known as ‘The Desert o f Wales’ - the upper Tvwi valley. Geneticists report that the stock was saved from terminal inbreeding by the arrival of one stray female bird from Germany. After much careful protection, the Red Kite now thrives - in Wales and beyond.

CONTENTS Page Note on contributors

vii

Introduction

ix

Rleanor Cowan

PA RTI. V ELLEIU S 1 Velleius Paterculus as Senator: a dream with footnotes

1

Barbara Levick 2 Time for Italy in Velleius Paterculus

IV

P.dward Bispham 3 A page in the history o f Campania

59

Maria Hlefante

PA R TII. H ISTORIOGRAPH Y AND IN TER TEX TU ALITY 4 Velleius’ history: genre and purpose

73

John Rich 5 Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian

93

W. Martin Bloomer 6 Explanations in Velleius

121

John Marin cola 7 Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus, Histories 4.81.2: accomplishing allusion

141

Victoria I: mm a Pagan 8 Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar

Christopher Pelling v

157

Contents PART III. ROMAN THEMHS, ROMAN VALUES 9 Roman values in Velleius

177

Ulrich SchmiRpr 10 Resuscitating a text: Velleius’ history as cultural evidence

203

John Alexander Ijobur 11 Velleius 2.124.2 and the reluctant princeps: the evolution o f Roman perceptions o f leadership

219

Tom Hillard 12 The stones o f blood: family, monumentality, and memory in Velleius’ second century

253

Luke Pitcher 13 Heroism and despair in Velleius’ republican narrative

265

Catherine Steel

PART IV. V E LLE IU S AND... 14 Velleius and the games 71 P. Wiseman

279

15 Paene omnium vitiorum expers, nisi...: Velleius on Pompey

287

Robin Seager 16 Velleius and Livia: making a portrait

309

Kathryn Welch 17 Velleius and the princeps Romani nominis

335

Eleanor Cowan Consolidated bibliography

347

Index

369

Index o f passages cited

376

vi

N O T E ON CO N TRIBU TO R S Edward B ispham is Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at Brasenose College, Oxford and Lecturer in Ancient History' at St Anne’s College, Oxford. W. Martin Bloomer is Associate Professor in the Department o f Classics at the University' o f Notre Dame.

E leanor C owan is Lecturer, Department o f Classics and Ancient History, University o f Sydney. M aria Elefante is Ricercatore, Dipartimento di Filologia Classica dell’Università Federico II di Napoli. T om H illard is Associate Professor, Department o f Ancient History, Macquarie University. B arbara Leviok is Emeritus Fellow and Tutor in Literae Humaniores, St Hilda’s College, Oxford. J ohn A lexander Lobur is Assistant Professor o f Classics, University o f Mississippi. J ohn M arinoola is Leon Golden Professor o f Classics, Florida State University. V ictoria Emma P agan is Professor o f Classics, University o f Florida. C hristopher P fixing is Regius Professor o f Greek, Christ Church, Oxford. Li ke P itcher is Fellow and Tutor in Classics, Somerville College, Oxford. J ohn R ich is Emeritus Professor, Department o f Classics, University o f Nottingham. U lrich S chmitzer is Professor, Institut für Klassische Philologie Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.

vu

Note on contributors R( )BIN S f.AGER is I lonorary Senior Research Fellow, School o f Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University o f Liverpool.

CATHERINE Steel is Professor of Classics, University of Glasgow. K athryn W elch is Senior Lecturer, Department o f Classics and Ancient History, University o f Sydney. T. P. W iseman is Emeritus Professor, Department o f Classics and Ancient History', University1o f Exeter.

viii

IN T R O D U C T IO N

Eleanor Cowan At a time when democracy is being aggressively championed, the modern reader o f Velleius Paterculus will almost inevitably come to his work with an opinion about autocracy. Moreover, even a reader unfamiliar with the narrative o f the fall o f the Republic will be familiar, in a general way, with the idea that modern democratic and totalitarian states possess the infrastructure to produce propaganda campaigns, spin and cover-ups. Cynicism pervades our response to political statements and the media in general as a consequence. One approach to Velleius’ work might therefore be informed by an eagerness to expose mendacity, propaganda and deceit: to look for an official line on the rise o f Augustus and Tiberius and to demonstrate Velleius’ complicity in propagating or developing these ideas. But this collection o f papers is an attempt to do something different. Helpful modern approaches to ancient authors writing during the Principate have always done much more than expose ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ responses to an emperor as an end in themsel ves. The value o f challenging, redefining, nuancing or even abandoning terms like ‘propaganda’ has long been recognised and, simultaneously, most scholars would agree that even ‘propaganda’ has enormous value as evidence for contemporary thought and contemporary responses to changing social and poLidcal conditions. This volume is, thus, inspired by a sense o f adventure: a desire to see what else we might do with Velleius’ text. The contributions in the volume are o f four overlapping but nonetheless distinct types: first, those which explore Velleius’ personal background and achievements; second, those which explore Velleius’ place in the tradition o f Roman historical writing and ask what he tells us about, or contributes to, the writing o f history in the ancient world; third, those which examine particular ideas, values or concepts as they are used in Velleius, and fourth those papers which, by concentrating on aspects o f Velleius’ treatment o f a particular institution or person, add to our understanding o f how that institution or person could be presented during Tiberius’ principate. All o f the contributions share an interest in exploring how Velleius viewed his own project, its themes and key ideas.

tx

hleanor Cowan Velleius Paterculus: soldier and statesman Velleius tells us in some detail about himself and his family. He explains, for instance, that his family are Italian (not Roman) and that his great­ grandfather, Minatius Magius o f Aeclanum, grandson o f Decius Magius, was leader o f the Campanians during the Social War (Veil. 2.16.1—3). This great-grandfather captured Herculaneum, fought alongside Sulla in the siege o f Pompeii, and took possession o f Compsa. Velleius tells us that these deeds were recorded by other historians including an extended account by Hortensius in his Annals. It was this great-grandfather who secured citizenship for his family, under a special grant, and it was his sons who continued the family’s integration into the cultural and political hierarchies o f the capital by holding office as praetors at Rome. Velleius documents the fortunes o f his family during the years o f civil war. His grandfather was made a member o f the jury7panel by Pompey and served as praefectusfabrum under Pompey, M. Brutus and Tiberius Nero (the emperor Tiberius’ anti-Caesarian father) (2.76.1). His father was a prefect o f cavalry (2.104.3) and his brother, Magius Celer Velleius, was a military' legate who was highly commended by both Augustus and Tiberius (2.115.1). Velleius himself served as military tribune with Gaius Caesar (Augustus’ grandson) in the East (2.101.2) and served with Tiberius as praefectus equitum and legate in Germania, Pannonia and Dalmatia (2.104.3). Velleius and his brother participated in Tiberius’ triumph over the Pannonians and Dalmatians in AD 13 (2.121.3). His political career began in AD 6 when he was elected quaestor, but it was not until AD 14 that Velleius and his brother were designated as praetors by Augustus. They took up office in AD 15. Velleius is, therefore, in many ways typical o f the new nobility at Rome. His ideas are valuable because, unlike the better-known narratives o f the fall o f the Republic and the rise o f the Principate (Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, Appian, Plutarch), they are contemporary.

Big issues and incidental details Velleius’ short work is the earliest surviving attempt on the part o f a postAugustan historian to survey the history o f the respublica from its origins. In a period from which no other contemporary1historical narrative survives in more than meagre fragments, therefore, Velleius’ work is uniquely important. It is a critical counter to the later accounts o f Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, not simply because it offers a different view o f Tiberius, but because Velleius saw continuity7where later authors saw only radical change which destroyed the Republic and put monarchy in its place. Velleius, who lived through this period and examined it, did not question

x

Introduction the continued existence and relevance o f the respublica, but neither did he question the supremacy o f the Caesars. In many ways, Velleius’ work defies classification into a particular genre. The surviving sections o f his work show that he was interested in a wide range o f topics including universal history7, Roman history, poetry7, festivals, viticulture, the establishment o f colonies and the characteristics o f the good general. The expansion o f Rome and her success in wars o f conquest under a series o f leading men ( principes ) is a dominant theme in the surviving portions o f both books. These principes pervade the narrative, culminating in Tiberius: the optimusprinceps. In addition, Velleius observed political changes at Rome. He notes, for instance, that it was the murder o f the Gracchi, not their political programmes, which changed the way political life was conducted. Likewise, he observes that Caesar had absolute power (2.68.4) and that Octavian and Antony were fighting for the safety7or ruin o f the world (2.85.1). Velleius’ treatment o f individuals and events is peppered with the language and ideas of both the Republic and the emerging Principate. The reader would do well to observe closely his use o f terms like optimates or res publica·, quies and tranquillitas. The alert reader will also find references to, and intertexts with Cicero, Sallust, Livy7, and the Res Gestae. The Senatus Consultum de Cn Pisone Patre and Valerius Maximus’ collection o f memorable deeds and sayings provide further insights into the language and ideas o f the intellectual, cultural and political world Velleius inhabited. Although it is the ‘Augustan’ and ‘Tiberian’ sections o f the narrative which are best-known and most widely used, it is important to remember that Velleius’ work, even as it survives, is more extensive. It seems to have begun in the very distant past - the earliest surviving sections deal with the return o f warriors from Troy. Velleius’ work is, therefore, rich in incidental details which offer invaluable insights into the way in which men o f his background, education and training viewed not only the events and personalities o f the recent past, but also Rome’s place in a wider culture and universal history7. Some o f these details also demonstrate the ways in which individuals from the past could be written about under Augustus and Tiberius. At 2.66.2—5, for example, Velleius gives a eulogy o f Cicero; elsewhere he praises both Cato (2.35.2) and Pompey (2.48.1; 2.49.1—3; 2.52.3—4; 2.53.2). His depiction o f Caesar is especially interesting as an example o f how Caesar and his achievements could be represented seventy-odd years after his assassination. Finally, the careful reader o f Velleius’ narrative will be struck not only by Velleius’ evident desire to celebrate the achievements o f Augustus and Tiberius, but also by his consciousness o f the precariousness o f those

xi

Lileanor Cowan achievements. Velleius’ remarks on the death o f Augustus (men feared the ruin o f the world); on the revolts o f AD 15 (the soldiers wanted a new leader, a new status, a new res publica) and his closing prayer for the safety o f Tiberius and the provision o f successors reveal his anxiety about the future o f the new dispensation. It is sometimes easy to forget that the Principate was not inevitable, nor did it arrive fully-formed in terms o f either its political structures or its ideological or iconographical messages. Velleius’ work is an insight into a system which was still evolving and part o f this evolution involved the ability to retell, rewrite and re-examine Rome’s history.

Where to now? This volume arose out o f a conference held in April, 2008 at the University o f Leicester. I am enormously grateful to Leicester’s School o f Archaeology and Ancient History, the Roman Society’, the Classical Association and the British Academy for their substantial and very welcome financial contributions to the conference. Without these, it would have been impossible to have invited so many speakers from around the world (Australia, Chile, Germany, Italy, the United States o f America) or to have assisted the post-graduate participants. Thanks must go also to all those who wrote in support o f these applications: Rhiannon Ash, Katherine Clarke, and especially to Tony Woodman whose support and encourage­ ment have been unstinting. My colleagues in the School o f Archaeology and Ancient History at the University o f Leicester were tremendously helpful both in encouraging me to initiate the conference and in assisting with all aspects o f the preparation and administration. 1 am particularly grateful to Sharon North for all that she did administering the finances for the conference. More recently, the School o f Philosophical and Historical Inquiry at the University o f Sydney has generously helped to fund the translation o f Ulrich Schmitzer’s paper in this volume. It has been a privilege to work with all those who attended the conference. Inevitably, one cannot reproduce the discussions and questions which provided so much o f the excitement o f a conference o f this kind, but it is a pleasure to acknowledge the stimulating contributions made by Catalina Balmaceda, Bob Cowan, Marius Gehardt, Trevor Mahy, Lllen O ’Gorman, Antonio Pistellato and Andy Stiles. It is also a pleasure to be able to thank Anton Powell and the Classical Press o f Wales for their support o f this project. T o the generosity and scholarly acumen o f J. M. Trappes-Lomax are owed the indices of, and many improvements to, this volume. There is always more that can still be done. One o f the aims o f the conference, and subsequent volume, has been to build on the interest in

xii

Introduction Velleius’ work which Lana, Sumner, Syme, Woodman, Hellegouarc’h, Elefante, Schmitzer and Gowing have stimulated and t:o continue to draw attention to the possibilities for further research. It seems to me that further work might profitably be undertaken on Velleius’ depiction o f his own times and, in particular, his depiction o f leading individuals in Tiberian Rome; on the ancient and modern reception o f Velleius’ text and ideas and on Velleius’ use o f the language o f the Late Republic (in particular the vocabulary associated with political life). It has been the hope o f all o f the contributors to the volume that Velleius’ work will continue to interest readers committed to making good use o f contemporary sources for this crucial period in the history and historiography o f the Principate. The volume is respectfully dedicated to Tony Woodman and Sister Alexis Horsley in gratitude for their encouragement of, and dedication to, all those who learn from them.

xiii

PART I VELLEIUS

1

V E L L E IU S PATERCULU S AS SEN A TO R : A DREAM WITH FO O T N O T E S Barbara Levick Seated one day in the Bodleian Library, l found an unpublished MS before me. I have translated it, and should like to share its contents with you. My brother Lucius has asked me, as the senior o f the senatorial family o f the Velleii, to undertake this memoir o f our father the historian. We o f course are ex-consuls, having held the office (admittedly as suffects) in the sixth and seventh years o f Nero Caesar, and so we have reached the senatorial heights and ennobled our family. Our father and our uncle Magius Velleianus were not so fortunate, even though they showed the same unswerving loyalty to Tiberius Caesar as we have to Nero Caesar, and through times just as troubled by treachery.1 That being so, we thought it right to redress the balance for a man who was not only useful to the Republic domi militiaeque, in civil and military life, but penned a work that has been virulently attacked since his death; such is the way o f critics o f historians as well as those o f emperors. His difficulties and the complex loyalties that claimed him all need to be appreciated. For instance, it is not generally understood that he undertook the work at the request o f M. Vinicius for him to use as an impeccably slanted source for the speech o f thanks that he had to deliver on taking up the consulship o f a difficult year, so that Velleius had only six months in which to complete it, and that his enthusiasm for the work carried it far beyond its original limited scope.2 Just as that consulship was the culmination o f Vinicius’ career, so my father’s history presented the

1

Barbara I jevick foundation o f the Principate and especially the reign o f Tiberius as the culmination o f Roman, even o f world history.’ What better than beginning with the words o f Claudius o f blessed memory: ‘O f course it was a novelty when my great-uncle Augustus and my uncle Tiberius brought in the entire flower o f the colonies and municipalities wherever they were to be found’.4 Our father and uncle were typical o f many senators o f the Augustan age: new men o f Italian origin. But there were degrees o f novelty. The yardsticks included length o f time a family had had Roman citizenship; freedom from any taint o f slavery in the ancestry; wealth and standing in the home community; the standing o f that community itself; and personal merit, especially in the field. Velleius and his brother had a high claim on all counts, and he stresses it in his work. O f course he does not boast o f the other qualification, wealth; it was very well for an emperor to mention that the new men had to be locupletes as well as boni, well-off as well as sound. As domi nobilis, a man distinguished in his home ground, Velleius begins with Decius Magius, o f Capua but loyal to Rome in the Hannibalic War. These maternal ancestors were the more distinguished side, and his full treatment o f them might serve as modest paradigms:’ Minatius Magius o f Aeclanum receiving Roman citizenship as his reward for loyalty during the Social War and his two sons actually elected to the praetorship before Sulla’s victory. With this we pass permanently to a new phase: loyalty' to individuals. On his father’s side Velleius boasts a juryman selected by Pompey in his third consulship and a C. Velleius who was aide de camp to M. Brutus, passing with the same rank to Ti. Nero. When he killed himself in a supreme act o f military loyalty after defeat in the Perusine war he created a bond with the Nerones. This man’s son Capito had meanwhile gained credit in quite a different quarter: with Octavian’s friend Agrippa by supporting him in the prosecution o f another tyrannicide, Cassius. But while Velleius’ uncle Capito brought senatorial rank close, his father remained an eques, a ‘knight’, and was still serving as praefectus equitum, commander o f a troop o f cavalry, when Velleius took over from him. Velleius the historian naturally notes L. Mummius {cos. 146) as the first novus homo (man new to the senatorial career) to get a military cognomen, the surname Achaicus. But C. Marius was the paradigm. Nearer our father’s own time were M. Agrippa and P. Ventidius Cumanus. These careers illustrate the circumstances that favoured advancement: the crises o f war, foreign or civil. So Velleius was justified in carefully bringing his own more modest but exemplary service into the contemporary historical events he recounts. And although he twice writes o f his mediocritas (modest position),

2

I 'elleius Paterculus as senator: a dream with footnotes that is not the language o f a ‘client’, as his detractors claim, simply that o f a subordinate officer in a great campaign.6 Not that our father was a mere soldier: his own work and his proclaimed interest in verse show his education in rhetoric and literature, and he was interested in philosophy.’ Whatever their merits, though, and however distinguished their families, the origins o f such men have always been denigrated by senatorial rivals and in writers that attend to them; some new men defiantly made a merit o f newness, as Sallust makes Marius do.8 Our father’s account o f his family history is not only a demonstration o f virtue, military merit, as a factor in advancement and o f the closeness o f the senatorial and equestrian orders, but an unashamed exposé o f conflicting loyalties. Fortunately, his own birth ten years after the fall o f Antony9 made him a child o f the developed Augustan Principate; the long periods o f military service that took him away from Italy carried no burden o f civil guilt. At 17 he began service in the junior equestrian militar)' post as tribunus militum angusticlavius (junior commander o f legionary troops who does not aspire to enter the Senate and so wears a tunic with only a narrow purple stripe) in Macedonia and Thrace under P. Silius and P. Vinicius.1" Velleius kept up this connexion and three decades later was to dedicate his history to Vinicius’ even more distinguished son. But Augustus’ grandson C. Caesar visited the region and he joined Gaius in the east.11 Perhaps Gaius wanted to win the loyalty o f a boy with such strong Tiberian connexions! This career left my father hardly time to hold one o f the minor magistracies that youths take when they intend a senatorial career, as a member o f the Vigintivirate, or any local administrative offices, the duovirate or quattuorvirate.12 ( )n the contrary, after five years he advanced to a cavalry prefecture, taking over from his father on his retirement. From the time o f Tiberius’ return to command Velleius served under him in Germany and the Balkans, so re-forging his grandfather’s connexion. So my father’s first civil post, qualifying him for membership o f the Senate, was the quaestorship. He was to hold it at most a year or two older than the most privileged young men - and alongside Germanicus Caesar himself.18 When Velleius was elected, on the basis o f his long military record and with the support o f his commander-in-chief Tiberius and his distinguished friend and former commander P. Vinicius, his first feelings would have been o f pride at winning a reward that his father might also have earned, if he had aspired to it. Politics were hazardous and acrimonious since C. Caesar died, so it already required some courage to enter the Senate, even with the support o f the clearly designated heir o f Augustus. But that move alone would enable our father to take higher commands

3

Barbara Levick than that o f a squadron o f auxiliary cavalry or o f a small military district. He would be qualified to command a legion; he was elected in the exact year that Tiberius launched a new and definitive onslaught on Germany, a pincer movement that he led northwards from Bohemia and which C. Sentius Saturninus conducted eastwards over the Rhine. It was to have secured final control o f the area between Rhine and Elbe and the provincialization o f Germany. The Balkan revolt made that invasion abortive but Velleius was needed all the more. Before he could enter office on 5 December, he was sent to convey reinforcements to Tiberius, embatded in the Pannonian Revolt. Only after that did he return to Rome to serve his term. Most men hold legateships only after the praetorship, but exceptions were made, as they still are by our present Princeps.14 Other men did not have Velleius’ experience. With that rank he was returned to Tiberius in the Balkans, and continued under his command for two more years (even enjoying the use o f his private bathing facilities).1s Then he passed to that o f M. Lepidus, a man who is still universally esteemed.16 After the Varian disaster he transferred to the Rhine with Tiberius, and reached Rome again only for his Illyrian triumph o f October 23 three years later. With the praetorship I come paradoxically to the first shadow in our father’s career. When Pompey the Great was elected to the consulship at the age o f 35 he asked for a handbook on senatorial procedure.1' Pompey was about to undertake the most onerous post that the civil career had to offer. It is often implausibly said as an excuse for Tiberius’ ineptitude with the Senate that his time on service abroad deprived him o f experience in the House. In fact, Tiberius was at the centre o f Roman politics from his adolescence, holding a prestigious quaestorship and a praetorship and consulship five years before the normal age.18 But when Velleius undertook his praetorship he really was a tiro in senatorial business. His immediate social circle on service abroad consisted in the first place o f a kinsman, his brother Magius Velleianus, and o f fellow-officers o f equestrian rank, equally country worthies. Their talk o f the Senate and o f senators would have been that o f outsiders and in any case conversation will inevitably have centred on imperial politics. Velleius’ absence from Rome, especially during the five years after Tiberius’ return to power, must be regarded in one sense as an advantage. He had no chance to become embroiled, even on the loyalist side and however humbly, in the feuding o f those years, which saw the exile o f Agrippa Postumus, first to Sorrento, then to Elba, and the fall o f Julia the Younger and her senatorial friends. Eventually he was able to write o f Ovid as a consummate poet, even though his work had been taken o ff the shelves o f public libraries.111

4

Velleius Paterculus as senator: a dream with footnotes The firm commendation o f the men I have mentioned, most o f all that o f Tiberius Caesar, and the military service he had so honourably performed might have made it unnecessary for our father to hold either or both o f the tedious posts, tribunate or aedileship, normally occupied by new men between the quaestorship and the praetorship (only the seriously ill-favoured have to hold both - we all remember the ill fortune o f the great C. Marius),20 although there was just time for one o f them, before he was elected to the praetorship in the very year that Augustus died. But that would have meant that he was being treated just like a patrician, and it would have caused great offence and was perhaps too much to risk at a crucial time o f Tiberius’ career.21 O f course the offence would have been much weaker than it was when Sejanus passed straight from equestrian status to the consulship.22 Both Velleius and Magius were candidates supported by Augustus and Tiberius. That support carried them successfully through a poll in which there were two remarkable features.23 The first was that these were the first praetorian elections to be held in the Senate, according to the scheme drawn up in his political testament by Augustus, what our father described as ‘ordinatio comitiorum manu sua scripta ’, electoral regulations drawn up by his own hand. This meant that the men chosen for office in the House, the destinati, as they were called,24 were elected unopposed in the People’s assembly, the Comitia Centuriata. And Velleius and his brother came near the head o f the poll. The recommendation o f Augustus and Tiberius was potent indeed. In fact, being commended by the emperor came to mean that a man was sure o f election without any need to canvas.25 So pliable even then was our Senate becoming! Secondly, however, this election was notably contentious, and when our father writes that one o f Tiberius’ achievements was removing discordia from the House, one wonders if he was thinking o f that painful experience; but Tiberius had many other chances to remove discord - in which he failed. There had been strong pressure on the praetorship recently: it was required for advancement to the consulship. Two years before the election o f Velleius and Magius twelve men were allowed to hold the office, not the mere eight that Augustus had established as the regular number at the beginning o f his Principate; it was soon exceeded again.26 Now, senators who hoped themselves to qualify or to get friends or relations into high office, pressed the new and they hoped therefore malleable Princeps Tiberius to allow a larger number still. Tiberius had to end the controversy by taking an oath on his decision. I am afraid that the election o f Velleius and his brother will have caused resentment among rivals, perhaps men o f family, whose candidature failed. When he says in his History that they

5

Barbara I^vick came second to men o f the highest nobility (‘nobilissimis’) and the holders o f priesdv offices he is already able to use the superlative that implies the subtle degrees o f nobility that have come to prevail under the Empire; even descent in the female line has begun to count. So these men had it all.27 It was one o f the things that met with approval in the Principate o f Tiberius that he handed out offices having regard first to men o f the highest family, then to men o f military distinction, and finally to those whose skills were civil, lawyers, that is, or orators.28 But in the intense competition for the praetorship at the end o f Augustus’ reign our father and uncle were imperial cuckoos in the praetorian nest, perhaps not the only military men released from fighting in Germany. And that may have made Velleius’ term o f office less comfortable than it might have been. However, the competition with other successful candidates is unlikely to have left any strong bad feelings: the separate postings at that level were allocated by the lot and not according to the position o f the candidate at the poll.29 Some will remember another successful candidate when Velleius was elected: Q. Pompeius Macer o f Mytilene, descended from Pompev’s friend Theophanes, who gets a favourable mention from Velleius. Macer was the first Greek-speaker known to have reached that position. He is likely to have caused even more resentment amongst Italian failed aspirants, and it is no surprise to realize that he must have come in behind Velleius and his brother. Pompeius drew a short straw with his post, his provincia. His uncertainty o f touch is revealed in the episode in which he asked Tiberius whether he should convene his maiestas court when the first cases o f the reign involving affronts to the Princeps and his family were being brought before the Senate - and received a curt and famous answer: the law was there to be observed. Macer did not long survive the fall o f SejanusT1 My father also describes his senior colleagues as holders o f priesthoods (‘sacerdotales'). These men will have been pontifices or augurs, septemviri epulonum, or quindecimviri sacris faciundis , members o f the four most distinguished priestly colleges that Rome possessed. It has to be admitted that Velleius and my uncle did not hold priesthoods. There was no reason why they should not have received one o f the less prestigious offices, even the revived position o f fetialis, but the social contacts that went with these offices would have been useless to them as long as they were away from Rome. Even with these humbler positions there were not enough priesthoods to go round the entire Senate, perhaps one in eight.M It was only reasonable if they went without, at least until after the praetorship. Readers o f this memoir will want to know who Velleius’ and Magius’ friends in the Senate were, besides old comrades promoted like him after

6

Velleius Paterculus as senator: a dream with footnotes military service.’2 But first I should like to deal with the accusation that my father’s opinions o f politicians o f an earlier age were dictated by his relations with their descendants, notably Munatia Plancina and her father or grandfather L. Munatius Plancus, whom Velleius so memorably stigmatized as a chronic traitor.53 Plancina was not disgraced until two years after Sejanus fell, and there was no lack o f hostile material on Plancus in work o f C. Asinius Pollio published after his death.54Yet my father was only human: given that material, the temptation to use it was particularly strong at a time when Plancina, though not damned, had been thoroughly discredited ten years previously at the trial o f the elder Cn. Piso. There were enemies waiting to catch her out.5s Obviously M. Vinicius and Velleius will have been on dining terms. The ties went back many years, and Marcus was now taking the family to its heights. But even though he was destined to be betrothed to Tiberius’ granddaughter Julia Li villa, the conjecture that the appeal in the last pages o f the History is intended to direct attention to him and his claims to membership o f the imperial house, even to the Principate, rather than those o f Sejanus, is wide o f the mark. That would have been perilous for author and honorand alike.56 Rather Velleius is avoiding taking any direction but what Tiberius, to whom he was unflinchingly loyal, ordained. Another family associated with Velleius’ earliest career, that o f the Silii (still ill-fated in the reign o f our late Emperor Claudius!), had suffered a loss six years previously with the suicide o f the former governor o f Gaul, C. Silius, and Velleius refers to this in a pained way, for the disloyalty o f Silius’ scheme.3" His was no longer a mansion to frequent. But another P. Silius was consul a few years before Velleius wrote. In any case, C. Silius fell because o f his links with the elder Agrippina and her sons. He and his friends would not have welcomed so whole-heartedly loyal a senator as Velleius. It is noteworthy how lukewarm Velleius’ estimate o f Germanicus’ achievement is, compared with his appreciation o f those o f Drusus Caesar. Velleius is likely to have known Germanicus personally, when they shared their quaestorships, perhaps at Rome for the election, perhaps later when both were organizing reinforcements for the Illyrian revolt. Velleius has nothing to say about it. As soon as Germanicus was gone political groups re-formed. Velleius naturally belonged with those rallied unquestioningly behind Drusus Caesar, and when those hopes died with Drusus his followers looked to Sejanus as the man who was defending the interests o f Drusus’ children against Agrippina and her pushy sons, who finally triumphed in the person o f Caligula. After Sejanus’ death it was de rigueur to deny any relations with him.58 O f course Velleius and Sejanus knew each other from early youth,

7

Barbara Levick when they were in the retinue o f Gaius Caesar. I see no evidence in his history for the allegation that Velleius blamed Sejanus for having a part in making Gaius the dispirited creature that he became before he died. It would be hard to imagine that he could have put any such hint, however guarded, into a work written so near Sejanus’ supreme moment.39The two young soldiers made the same transition to Tiberius, with Sejanus’ father preceding him in command o f the Praetorian Guard. One o f our kinsmen governed Egypt under Augustus,40 but there is no comparison between a mere praetorian senator and the commander o f the Praetorian Guard. Sejanus was immeasurably more successful, apparendy without the hard grafting in the army that Velleius had endured, as Velleius may be hinting when he refers to his consular relations.41 Invitations from Sejanus will have been acts o f condescension. He does not speak o f it, but that is only one more reason to see our father as rather an isolated figure in the decade before his history was completed, isolated precisely because o f his loyalty' to an emperor who was not only unpopular but fifty-six years old even when he came to power, with a father who died young.42 Tiberius might have seemed unlikely to survive for long after his accession. He may be seen as a man o f the past during his principate: eyes were on his two sons. In twelve years even they were dead, he was a recluse, and all political activity was focused on the struggle for the succession. Posts would go to active participants. The Princeps was no longer visible except to the chosen few, to whom Velleius did not belong. He would have given anything to be able to write (among the Princeps’ other virtues) o f the comitas o f an Emperor with whom he was on intimate terms. The undeserved shadow that I have mentioned descended on my father during and after his year o f office. There were many praetorian posts open to him and our uncle, and they contributed to the attractions o f the magistracy. Command o f a legion or governing a province as legate or proconsul were the possibilities. For a year after the praetorship there was still strenuous activity in Germany, where experience would have made Velleius particularly useful. But the irony was that when his commander Tiberius became Emperor, never to leave Italy again, the direction o f operations in the north was left in the hands o f young Germanicus Caesar, who had his own staff and political supporters with him: men such as the P. Vitellius who appears as prosecutor in the case o f Cn. Piso the Elder. Velleius belonged to the earlier, Augustan-Tiberian, phase o f operations in Germany, and in that region he too looks like a man o f the past. He ended his service in Germany with Tiberius’ triumph, as his account o f events there ends with the mutinies two years later. Velleius may have been in two

Velleius Paterculus as senator: a dream with footnotes minds about Germanicus’ activities, which continued those o f his father and were in conflict with Tiberius’ final policy. It was a fine specimen o f Tiberius’ generosity that he received Germanicus as the ‘conqueror o f Germania’. However, Velleius’ silence has puzzled earlier writers and they have guessed that a legionary legateship or province in a less high-profile area, lasting one to three years, punctuated the routine duties at Rome until he wrote his history.45 They have even (instead o f asking us!) examined the text o f the history where Velleius describes single events o f Tiberius’ sixteen-year reign to find those that look as if they were witnessed by Velleius. These include the trial o f Libo Drusus in the year after Velleius’ praetorship, the triumph o f Germanicus and his departure for the east in that and the following year, the fire on the Caelian, and the ‘dolours’ o f the last three years before he finished writing. That leaves a decade unaccounted for, and enquirers have made a lot o f what Velleius strangely singles out as the first item to mention among Tiberius’ detailed achievements. It is the suppression o f a revolt in Thrace and the capture o f the troublesome dependant monarch Rhescuporis. Velleius celebrates the special merits o f L. Pomponius Flaccus, consul three years after Tiberius became sole ruler, and a contemporary o f my father. The idea is that Velleius was Flaccus’ praetorian legate. Going further, they have taken my father for the P. Vellaeus who put an end to the disturbances in Thrace.44 Surely, though, if he had played so distinguished a part in a successful operation that so clearly demonstrated Tiberius’ acumen he would hardly have remained silent about it. There may be other reasons for putting the achievements o f Flaccus first. One is formal. Velleius’ presentation o f Tiberius’ individual actions exhibits individual qualities, foresight in the case o f the Thracian revolt, dignity in the next item, the trial o f Libo Drusus. Next come the wisdom o f the counsel offered to Germanicus and the generosity o f the gifts presented to the People. The next pair are Germanicus and Drusus, who benefit from honour and advice respectively, and finally the rebellious Gauls and Africans (in reverse chronological order), who are dealt with by means o f speed and virtus in the first case and signs from the gods and advice in the second. A second reason for the position o f Thracian affairs is L. Pomponius Flaccus himself. He was a friend o f Tiberius, in fact, a boon companion.45 He was also close to my father, who provides details about Gaius Gracchus that evidently derive from the Pomponii: he mentions a knight who followed Gaius and killed himself in the catastrophe (an enthralling theme for the grandson o f Ti. N ero’s follower): M. Pomponius looks like an

9

Barbara Levick ancestor o f the able and brilliant Pomponii o f the early Principate, who had MSS o f the Gracchi in their possession.45 Readers o f my father’s work cannot have failed to notice his ambiguity towards Gaius Gracchus, who, if only he had contained himself, might have become princeps civitatis, a leader in the state. Another detail confirms the link with the Pomponii: Velleius’ interest in the vintage bottled in the consulship o f L. Opimius who slaughtered the Gracchans, which he says the age proves must be exhausted. Ten years later Pomponius Secundus the dramatist offered Caligula some o f it. Velleius had been misinformed about the state o f Secundus’ cellar, or Pomponius was gulling Caligula.4’ Velleius’ enthusiasm for Ovid gave him another shared cultural interest with this family: Ovid sent Flaccus and his brother Graecinus letters from exile.48 There is no need to suppose that Velleius was slavishly following the tastes o f Tiberius Caesar, and his ignoring Horace may have more to do with a generation gap than the implausible reasons offered forTiberian dislike, the panegyric on Lollius and the inadequacy o f his recognition o f Tiberius’ success in the Alps. One wonders what Tiberius had against Plautus, who is also neglected by Velleius.4 2.94.3. ’2 2.96.2. See 109. 4 for Maroboduus as presenting a similar threat to Italy; 110.3f., 114.4: the threat to Italy from the Pannonian revolt; 2.120.1: the threat to Italy after the clades Vanana. ’ ’ 2.104.3. ’4 Velleius refers to not one but two inscriptions as testimony to Sulla’s piety towards Diana Tifatina (on this sanctuary just north o f Capua see Pobjoy 1997): as ‘an inscription affixed on the door-jamb o f the temple testifies even today as well as a bronze tablet within the temple’. Other references to epigraphic testimony: the equestrian statue o f young Caesar: 2.61.3; the honorary inscription recording the deeds o f Vinicius’ grandfather: 2.104.2. See also Pitcher 2009, 49, and in this volume. ’ 8 P’ulvia and Plancus are allowed to depart Italy unharmed after the end o f the Perusine War: 2.76.2. ' Brundisium is the only Italian town (other than Rome) mentioned as often as Capua, and this is in part because it is the point o f departure for, or return from, the Hast. ” 2.28.2: we are meant doubtless to contrast this last office with the revival o f the office one year after Sulla’s return to Italy, cf. the rhetorical reversals o f the normal role o f the dictator in the rest o f this passage. For such temporal uses o f Italy, cf. 29.1, ‘J u st before the arrival in Italy o f L. Sulla’. ’8 As much as 80% o f the first book may be lost: Kramer 2005,151, with reference to earlier discussions. 'l>Sumner 1970, 283, Woodman 1975, 282-8, Starr 1981, 166, cf. Kramer 2005, 153, 159. 80 ‘Learned’ controversies: 1.3.2 (the name Thessaly); 1.5.3 (Homer’s floruit·, note Strabo’s interest in Homer’s authority; see further Elefante ad loc.); 1. 6. 4 (Dido or Elissa?); 1.7.2 (the date o f the foundations o f Capua and Nola - see below; 1.8.5: Romulus put in power by Latinus, following other writers). Cf. the language o f learned digression: 1.11.3, ‘hie est Metellus’, ‘this is the Metellus’, cf. 2.7.5, ‘hie est Opimius’, ‘this is the Opimius’, see Elefante 1997, 181. 81 Cf. Kramer 2005, 15.3f., 160, perhaps overplaying the directness o f the link to Roman history. 82 The name was restored by Lipsius, cf. Jusnn, 20. 2. 1. 8' See Elefante ad loc. for further literary parallels to this story.

50

Timefo r Italy in Velleius Paterculus 84 Lykophron, Alex. 1245-9 has Etruria settled by the sons o f Telephos, Tarchon and Tursenos. 8i,Torelli 1999; Dench 2005, 194, cf. 120 n. 89, noting the importance in laterepublican and early imperial Italian thought o f myths o f origin and pre-Roman histones. 86 Elefante ad loc. assesses the various traditions on the foundation o f Cumae, and Velleius’ conformity to one o f them. 8’ Elefante, ad loc.·, note esp. Statius 3.5.78-80, on the foundation o f Parthenope (= Neapolis); and cf. Arrian 3. 3. 6 on the ravens which according to Aristoboulos led Alexander to Siwah. 88 Fabius Pictor F4P. 89 Pol., 9.1. 1,11Cic., Balb. 55, almost invariably from Neapolis or Vella. But note the epigraphically attested Favoma, with a name which will hardly be Italiote {IL L R P b 1). 91 Admittedly there is a minor textual doubt here: magno P, Elefante: non magno edd. 92 On hodie as often connoting autopsy: Elefante 1997, 182. 9’ See Elefante 1997, ad loc. on the various traditions surrounding the foundation o f Neapolis. 94 Fides, 1.9.5: rather than use force to flush Perseus out from the sanctuary o f Samothrace whither he had fled, Cn. Octavius persuades the lung to entrust himself to the fides o f the Romans; the next sentence simply reads ‘ita Paulus maximum nobilissimumque regem in triumpho duxit’, ‘thus Paulus led a very great and most famous king m triumph’, but at 11.1 we learn that Perseus died at Alba Fucens ‘under house arrest’ (163 BC) - presumably this item is postponed from chapter 9 so as not to deflect from its focus on Aemilius Paulus; 2.6.6: the remarkable fides o f the eques Pomponius who, Horatius-like, held the bridge for the fleeing C. Gracchus. Velleius approves o f his action, and apparently too that o f Gracchus’ slave Euporos; on the other side he mentions the ‘amazing cruelty’ o f the ‘victors’ in disposing o f Gam s’ body, and o f Opimius says ‘id unum nefarie...proditum’ (‘this one thing was monstrously done’, 2. 6. 5), but offers no straightforward praise; at 2.7.2 he describes the murder by Opimius o f Flaccus’ son as an ‘unmatched crime’, and at 2.7.3 speaks o f this ‘savagery’ as outweighing a generally good character. At 2. 23. 4 Velleius notes, in the context o f Sulla’s capture o f Athens, that the city’s previous, all-encompassing and unwaveringyit/w to Rome led to the Romans’ giving the name o f Atticafides (‘Attic loyalty’) to an act o f ‘unblemished loyalty’. 95 2.16.2: neque ego verecundia domestici sanguinis gloriae quidquam, dum verum refero, subtraham: quippe multum Minatu Magii, atavi mei, Aeculanensis, tribuendum est memoriae, qui nepos Decii Magii, Campanorum principis, celeberrimi et fidelissimi viri, tantam hoc bello Romanis fidem praestitit, ut cum legione, quam ipse in Hirpinis conscripserat,... ‘N or ought I, through excess o f modesty, to deprive my own kin o f glory, especially when that which I record is the truth: for much credit is due to the memory o f my great-grandfather, Minatius Magius, a man o f Aeclanum, grandson o f Decius Magius, leader o f the Campanians, a man o f proven loyalty and distinction. Such fidelity did Minatius display towards the Romans in this war that, with a legion which he him self enrolled among the H irpinf, ... Cf. Elefante, ad loc., noting also Velleius’ interest in the ‘Oscanization’ o f Cumae (on which see e.g. Frederiksen 1984, 134—57); we can go further: this is not merely erudition directed at the diversity o f

51

Hdward Bispham Italian cultural traditions in the early Principate, but another manifestation o f Velleius’ interest in his ‘Oscan’ heritage. 96 That the sentence requires unpacking (unless we are convinced that Velleius never packed his thought up properly but left it strewn across the floor...) is confirmed by the need that commentators have found to elucidate it: Elefante 1997 ad loc. notes the different interpretations o f Krause (loyalty kept the cities in their excellent locations) and Lemaire (their pleasant locations are as worthy o f note as their loyalty to Rome). I think the possible meanings I have tried to tease out here are different from, and more complex than, either o f these two positions, although closer to Krause’s. me and breaks o ff in the middle o f that notice (1.8.4—6); however, what survives does not suggest that that topic was treated in more detail than the preceding matters. In one respect the accident o f survival may have exaggerated the nonRoman appearance o f this portion o f the work, since, despite what some scholars have supposed, Velleius can hardly have failed to mention Aeneas.24 However, he has passed over the Alban kings who, in the conventional account established since D iodes and Fabius Pictor, had bridged the centuries between Aeneas and Romulus, and, even more surprisingly, he makes no mention o f Remus or o f the legends o f the twins’ birth and rearing. Thus in this first surviving passage from his work, Velleius’ theme was not Roman history but the history o f the world, with a particular focus on Greek affairs. Several recent writers have allowed this passage to shape their overall conception o f the work. Thus Sumner concludes that ‘what Velleius set out to write was a kind o f miniature universal history'’, and a number o f subsequent scholars have adopted this conception.25 However, to pin this genre label to the work is no less misleading than to call it a ‘Roman history’, since, as we have seen, by the point at which the great lacuna ends, in 168 BC, it has turned from a universal to a Roman history. It is thus erroneous to pigeon-hole the work, as most scholars have done, either as a Roman or a universal historv. The work must, as several recent writers have acknowledged, be recognized for what it is: a hybrid history, which begins as a universal history and somehow, during the lost portion o f the first part, is transformed into a Roman history.26 We should not be surprised that the work cannot be neatly assigned to a single genre, since,

77

John Rich as Marincola (1999) has recently reminded us, ancient historical genres were in fact a good deal more fluid than has customarily been supposed. However, the hybrid character o f Velleius’ work remains puzzling, since such a transformadon is hard to parallel.2" Since so much o f the first part has been lost, it is unclear how, and how effectively, Velleius managed the transition between genres. A number o f questions about the largely-lost first part are, nonetheless, worth considering, although the discussion will be necessarily speculative: these include Velleius’ starting point, the way the transition to Roman history was managed, and the overall conception o f the work. It has often been supposed that Velleius began his history with the fall o f Troy, and so that the missing portion at the start o f the work comprised just the preface and a small narrative passage.28 Such a starting point can certainly be paralleled: the Aeneas legend made the fall o f Troy a natural starting point for Roman histories, and Eratosthenes and Apollodorus had begun their chronological works from this point.29 However, Velleius’ dating o f the return o f the Heraclids to 120 years after Hercules’ apotheosis clearly implies that he had treated Hercules, to whom he also refers at several other points.30 Several recent writers have argued that Velleius began with Hercules.31 However, no other history is known to have taken this starting point, and, in view o f Hercules’ place within Greek genealogies, it would hardly be a natural point to begin. Various other pointers in 1.1—8 suggest that earlier Greek figures had been treated in the lost initial narrative. In view o f the two allusions to Pelops (1.2.1, 8.2), he must have appeared in the narrative. With his interest in culture and city foundation, Velleius can hardly have failed to mention Cadmus, for his importation o f writing and foundation o f Thebes. Velleius also shows particular interest in Athenian history, mentioning the last king Codrus, the ensuing life archons, and the subsequent change first to decennial, and then to annual archons.32 He must surely therefore have narrated earlier Athenian history, from the first king Cecrops. Velleius may perhaps have begun his Greek narrative with Cecrops, although earlier starting points were possible. However, the starting point for the whole work was surely Ninus’ foundation o f the Assyrian empire.33 At 1.6.1-2 Velleius reports the transfer o f the ‘Asian empire’ from the Assyrians to the Medes, and incorporates a reference to Ninus and Semiramis. This shows that he included the, by his time well-established, doctrine o f the succession o f empires. It is much more likely that he began his work with the establishment o f the Assyrian empire than that he should have mentioned it for the first time at its fall.34 By Velleius’ day, this had become the conventional starting point for histories which were universal

78

Velleius' history: genre and purpose in time as well as space: Nicolaus o f Damascus and Pompeius Trogus began their universal histories with the foundation o f the Assyrian empire, and Castor o f Rhodes began his chronological work at this point; Diodorus exceptionally began with Egypt, but then passed to Assyria.3'’ The references to Cimon and the post-Socratic philosophers indicate that Velleius continued to treat Greek political and cultural history down to the fourth century. He must have given Alexander some prominence, both for the intrinsic interest o f the topic and for the theme o f succession o f empires.36 A little may have been said o f the Successors, at least to introduce Pyrrhus. The Pyrrhic War was (after the foundations) the first notable point at which eastern and western history came together, and it was probably then that Velleius’ focus became exclusively concentrated on Rome. The remainder o f the lost portion will have dealt mainly with the first two Punic wars and with the wars against Philip, Antiochus and Perseus: it will thus have continued to deal not only with Rome, but with Carthage and Macedon, but, as in the surviving passage on the end ot the war with Perseus, the treatment will have been Rome-centred.3 In the first surviving section (1.1—8) Velleius’ treatment is very brief, though punctuated with short digressions. He may well have maintained this level o f treatment for the rest o f his world history coverage. The treatment is substantially fuller for the final narrative from the first part (1.9-13), and he perhaps switched to this greater density when his narrative became exclusively Roman. His treatment was to become much more ample as he approached his own time. The overall length o f the first part, and so the extent o f what has been lost, is beyond conjecture. It must have been long enough to make, with the following excursuses, a papyrus roll when the post-Velleian two-book division was created. In view o f the wide variations in ancient book length, it cannot be assumed that the two books were o f comparable length.38 Such indications as we have about the level o f treatment suggest that the first book was substantially shorter than the second. Velleius’ overall conception is clear enough: the first part o f his work traced the Romans’ rise to world empire, culminating in the removal o f the external threat o f Carthage; the second part dealt with their decline from that point into vices and so into civil war, and their final redemption by Augustus and Tiberius. The Sallustian conception o f the fall o f Carthage as the turning point was, o f course, conventional in historical writing by Velleius’ time, but the happy ending under Augustus and Tiberius may have been a novel feature. Velleius innovated also by making historiography reflect history: Rome’s rise was set in the context o f world history, but, as Roman power came to its culmination, his history became Roman.

79

John Rich These themes may have been given some explicit expression in the preface, but in the surviving final section o f the first part and the ensuing excursuses they are touched on merely by allusion.39 We are told the duration o f Carthage and Corinth from foundation to destruction, and the long struggle between Carthage and Rome is briefly resumed.40 The mention o f the portico o f Metellus Macedonicus provides the opportunity for a back reference to Alexander.41 It also alludes to the theme o f luxury, more fully developed in the contrast between Scipio’s culture and Mummius’ indifference to such matters, with the telling apostrophe to Vinicius inviting him to agree that Mummius’ stance would have been more fitting for the public honour.42The first excursus, on the chronology o f Roman colonization and citizenship grants (1.14—15), illustrates an aspect o f Rome’s rise to power, but room is also found here for allusion to other Velleian themes: synchronisms are made with the foundation o f Alexandria and the accession o f Pyrrhus, and the digression on the destruction o f the theater illustrates the Roman seueritas which was soon to be undermined.43 The second excursus (1.16—18), on the tendency for the leading practitioners in particular artistic genres to appear within short time periods, enables Velleius to resume the cultural achievements o f Greece, and particularly Athens, which will have figured so prominently in his first part, and to point ahead to Roman cultural dominance, to be reflected in the exclusive concern with Romans in the cultural excursuses in his second part.44

Models, culture and chronology Histories o f the Roman people, occupying multiple volumes and organized, after the regal period, annalistically by the consular year, formed a very well established genre by Velleius’ day.43 His projected multiplevolume work will have been o f this kind. His surviving work is notably different: as designed by him, it comprised a single, summary volume; it passed from world to Roman history7; and, although it had a good deal to say on chronological matters, the material was not presented in year-byyear format. Another difference may have been Velleius’ interest in cultural matters: such themes play little part in Livy’s history7, and the same may have been true o f Livy’s immediate predecessors.46 Velleius’ work may have had rather more kinship with some early Roman historical writings: Cato, one o f the only two authors whom Velleius cites, showed great interest in city origins in his Origines, and much, and perhaps all, o f that work may have eschewed annalistic organization; Cassius Hemina discussed the date o f Homer and Hesiod.4’ Rome’s conquest o f the world stimulated Greek writers to compose multi-volume world histories. Some o f these were universal in space, but

80

Velleius' history: genre and purpose covered limited periods: thus Polybius’ history covered the period 264—146 BC, with Rome’s rise to world dominance as its central theme, and continuations o f his work were written by both Posidonius and Strabo. Diodorus in the mid first century proudly claimed that his 40-book history was the first to be universal in time as well as space, and his example was followed under Augustus by Nicolaus o f Damascus, in no less than 144 books, and by the Latin writer Pompeius Trogus in his 44-book Philippic Histories,48 These works varied in format: thus Diodorus began with a regional organization, but then moved to an annalistic structure as his work progressed, while Trogus’ organization remained regional throughout, and he mostly avoided Roman affairs except as they intersected with those o f other powers. There were certainly similarities between Velleius’ single volume and some o f these lengthy works, for example on cultural matters (to which Diodoms at least devotes a good deal o f attention), but how far any o f them may have directly influenced him is uncertain.49 Velleius will, however, have engaged with at least some o f the chronographic works produced about the middle o f the first century BC. Building on the work o f Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, Castor o f Rhodes produced a six-book Chronicon Flpitome which continued down to 61 BC. Shortly afterwards, two writers produced the first such studies in Latin, namely Cornelius Nepos and Cicero’s friend, T. Pomponius Atticus.50 N epos’ three-book Chronica was universal in scope: Catullus described its achievement as ‘to unroll the whole o f history in three volumes’.51 The work began before the fall o f Troy, since it dealt with Saturn; it included Greek affairs and authors were featured as well as statesmen (Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus and the birth o f Alexander were all mentioned).52 For Greek chronology N epos’ principal source was probably Apollodorus, and his main achievement may have been to bring Roman history into relation with Apollodorus’ data. Atticus’ one-book Annalis, published in 47 and dedicated to Cicero, was primarily Roman in scope: his biographer Nepos says that in it Atticus ‘arranged the magistrates in order, ...and there is no...notable achievement o f the Roman people which is not recorded under its proper date’, and Cicero that he ‘brought together in a single book the history o f seven hundred years, carefully preserving and noting the chronology and omitting nothing o f importance’.53 However, he also took some account o f non-Roman affairs: in the same passage Cicero implies that Atticus’ work could be consulted about ‘powerful peoples and famous kings’, and elsewhere he indicates that it mentioned Themistocles.54 Velleius may not have known Castor’s work, but he will surely have been familiar with N epos’s and perhaps also Atticus’s. As has often been suggested, Nepos may have been his main source for chronographic data.

81

John Rich Velleius devotes a good deal o f space to chronological information, and deploys a range o f techniques in conveying it. He provides absolute datings for a significant number o f events, and provides frequent indications o f relative dating, either by stating the intervals between events (close or remote) or by looser temporal indications o f synchronicity or succession. Occasionally, he engages in polemic on chronological matters.55 In these respects his work may have had a good deal in common with those o f Nepos and Atticus.56 However, there was a crucial difference between their works and Velleius’s. What we are told about the treatises o f Nepos and Atticus clearly indicates that they aimed to date events as precisely as possible: these were evidently bald accounts whose sole purpose was to convey chronological information. Before the republican period, they may well have been content with a relatively loose dating for many events, synchronising them for example just with a king’s reign, but for the Republic they surely sought to date all the Roman (and probably also the non-Roman) events they mentioned to a consular year.57Velleius’ practice was quite different. His chronological information is lavish, but very far from comprehensive; many events receive only an imprecise dating indication, and, when it suits him, he inserts events out o f chronological position, often without alerting the reader. A notable feature o f Velleius’ chronological practice, and one to which insufficient attention has been paid, is his use o f the consulship o f his dedicatee M. Vinicius in AD 30 as in effect a dating era. For six especially significant events he specifies the number o f years by which they preceded Vinicius’ consulship.58 Besides these explicit references to Vinicius’ consulship, Velleius also uses it as a reference point to date 22 other events, stating the number o f years separating them from the present time (ante or, more often, abhinc).v> In the later part o f his work, these datings from Vinicius’ consulship (whether the consulship is referred to explicitly or just by ante or abhinc) are combined with consular dates in all but five cases, but in the fragmentary section dealing with early times (1.1.1-8.6), the Vinician dates are the only indicator for the events for which they are given, except for the foundation o f Rome, which is also dated by Olympiad and from the fall o f Troy.60 Only a small number o f events are dated by consuls without accompanying Vinician datings.61 Three events o f exceptional significance are dated not only by consular and Vinician datings, but also from the foundation o f Rome, namely the outbreak o f the civil war between Caesar and Pompev, Augustus’ first consulship and his adoption o f Tiberius. The use o f the present time as a point o f dating reference is certainly not unknown among ancient writers: thus Herodotus gives figures for the time distance ‘to me’ o f the birth o f Dionysus, Heracles and Pan on the

82

Velleius’ history: genre and purpose Greek (as opposed to Egyptian) account, and Thucydides states the time elapsed to the end o f the Peloponnesian War from respectively the arrival o f Ameinocles the shipbuilder at Samos, the first sea battle, and the establishment o f the current Spartan constitution.62 However, no writer is known to have used the technique in anything like as systematic a way as Velleius. Roman writers normally, o f course, used just the consular year for dating, adding datings from the foundation o f the city just for a few events deemed especially significant.63 Velleius, as we have seen, uses consular dating in the usual way, but he couples it with Vinician dating, and also uses that system for pre-republican events, so creating a unitary scheme running throughout the work. How are we to account for his adoption o f this remarkable innovation, which, as far as we know, no subsequent writer was to emulate? Systematic use o f present-time referencing is found on two Greek chronicle inscriptions, the Parian Marble and an inscription from Rome which Jacoby has dubbed the Chronikon RomanumV The Parian Marble is a chronological record o f Greek history, which nonetheless has (despite its location on Paros) a strong Athenian focus. The record starts with Cecrops, and each event is dated both by the Athenian king or archon and by the number o f years from the time o f composition, 264/3 BC. Besides political events, much attention is also devoted to artistic figures and to cultural innovations. As has recently been suggested, it may have been set up in the Archilocheion, a shrine to Archilochus, and so the intended audience may have been an elite group associated with the cult rather than the citizens o f Paros collectively. Only a tantalizingly small fragment survives o f the Chronikon Romanum , written in very small script. This presents on one side an extremely patchy selection o f mainly Greek political and cultural developments from Solon to the Gallic Sack o f Rome, and on the other side year-by-year notices o f events in Italy and the East from 88 to 81 BC. The chronicle was thus much fuller on recent events. All the entries are dated solely by their events’ distance from AD 15/16, evidently the date o f composition. Thus systematic dating o f events back from present time was established as a technique in chronographic practice before Velleius, although it is known to us only in epigraphic contexts. How it reached Velleius we can only conjecture. He may have been the first writer to take it up in chronographic literature. However, we are poorly informed about the format o f many such works, and so he could have had literary precursors in this regard. One possibility which is perhaps worth considering is that, as a compliment to his dedicatee, Atticus may in his annalis have added to some events their distance from Cicero’s consulship in 63: if the work had

83

John Rich included such a tribute, it might helpTtrexplain how Cicero could ciaim that it had brought him ‘salvation’ (salus) when he was ‘down’ (,iacentem), although it would not strictly have involved counting back from present time, since Atticus’ work was not published until sixteen years after Cicero’s consulate.65 If this conjecture were correct, Atticus’ work would have provided a direct model for Velleius’ complimentary use o f Vinicius’ consulship for chronological purposes. However, Atticus, in what was evidendy intended to have been a sober work o f reference, can hardly have made such extensive use o f Cicero’s consulship as Velleius does o f Vinicius’. As Feeney (2007) has reminded us, the ancients did not conceptualize the past by using a daring era as we do, and markers like the foundation o f the city did not normally function in that way. Thus for the initial audiences at which the Parian Marble, the Chronikon Romanum and Velleius’ history were directed, calculations o f past events’ distance from present time may have been an illuminating way to enhance understanding. However, as years went by and the terminal point itself receded into the past, such calculations will have been o f diminishing value. This will hardly have mattered for the Parian Marble or the Chronikon Romanum , which were presumably set up for purposes o f commemorative display rather than with a view to regular consultation by those seeking information about the past. However, this fact may have implications for the question o f Velleius’ purpose in writing his history.

Date and purpose The use which Velleius makes o f Vinicius’ consulship shows that his work was composed for that occasion. However, before we consider what this means for his purpose in writing, we must first establish its implications for his date o f composition. M. Vinicius took up the consulship on 1 January AD 30 and retained the office until the end o f June.66 He will have been designated to the post at some point in AD 29. It was for long a scholarly commonplace that Velleius must have begun to compose the work after Vinicius’ designation and so will have written it in a few months.67 This consensus has been challenged by Woodman who argues that the composition o f Velleius’ work must have begun earlier and taken substantially longer.68Woodman’s commentary magnificently demonstrates the subtlety and complexity o f Velleius’ writing, which had all too often been dismissed as hasty and slapdash, and, as already noted, he has refuted the view that Velleius’ talk o f festinatio referred to speed o f composition.69 However, I cannot accept his conclusion about the time o f writing.

84

Velleius’ history: genre and purpose Woodman supposes that emperors gave a conditional assurance o f nomination to the consulship to suitable candidates long before their formal designation in the Senate, that Tiberius gave such an informal promise o f the ordinary consulship for AD 30 to Vinicius in the mid twenties, and that as a result Velleius set about composing his work over the ensuing period with a view to its completion and presentation at the time o f Vinicius’ consulship. This scenario is hard to credit. The little we are told about consular appointments under Tiberius presents notorious problems, but does at least indicate that candidates could take nothing for granted.’0 This must have been all the more true in the years up to AD 31 when, ifTacitus is to be believed, access to the consulate was only through Sejanus.’ 1Vinicius’ prospects were good, but he surely remained uncertain about the actual timing o f his consulship until his designation. Even if he had received an assurance o f the kind Woodman postulates, it seems unlikely that he would have communicated it to Velleius, or that, if he did, the latter would have felt sufficiently confident about the outcome to commit himself to a historical enterprise on the assumption that the promise would be made good. An alternative way o f evading the conclusion that Velleius’ work was written in a few months has been suggested by Starr.’2 He proposes a scenario in which its composition was well under way when Vinicius’ designation was announced, Velleius then decided to present it to Vinicius on his assumption o f the consulship, and accordingly inserted the allusions to the consulship into his existing text. However, as we have seen, the references to the consulship, both explicit and in the form o f ante or abhinc datings, are numerous and integral to Velleius’ chronographic workings, and so this solution cannot be viable. Starr’s discussion takes no account o f the ante/abhinc datings, and strangely supposes that in the postulated first draft Velleius’ reference to the foundation o f the Olympic Games (1.8.1) gave no indication o f date. It it were felt that Velleius must have spent several years on composing his summary volume, we would be obliged to conclude that he set out to write it with a view to presentation to Vinicius when he should hold the consulship although uncertain when that event would take place, that he included numerous chronological indications based on a guess about when Vinicius would hold the consulship, and that, if his guess turned out to be mistaken, he corrected the dates after Vinicius’ designation. 5 This would have been a very cumbersome procedure, and it seems unlikely that in those circumstances Velleius would have made such extensive use o f Vinicius’ consulship as a dating device. It is much more plausible to return to the traditional assumption that Velleius did not begin

85

John Rich composition until after Vinicius’ designation and so wrote his work in a matter o f months. There is in fact no difficulty in supposing that Velleius wrote the work in so short a time. Many ancient writers performed feats o f rapid composition, for example Cicero with his treatises and such prolific authors as Varro, Livy’ and the Elder Pliny. Velleius probably did not need to undertake much preparatory research. For chronological matters he probably relied mainly on the works o f Nepos and, perhaps, Atticus, possibly supplemented by a more specialist source for the excursus on citizenship and colonization (1.14—15). For his remaining information on remoter periods Velleius, evidently a man o f considerable culture, was probably able to draw mainly on what he remembered from his reading, with some supplementary consultation o f histories. For such research as was required, he will o f course have been able to turn for assistance to literate freedmen or slaves. For recent events he will have drawn mainly on his own personal recollections and on oral information, which he had perhaps already begun to collect for his projected larger history.74 Further precision about the time o f writing is elusive. Such little information as is available about the timing o f the consular elections in this period suggests that they did not occur at any fixed time in the year, and we thus cannot say at what point in AD 29 Vinicius’ designation will have been announced, and so when exacdy Velleius will have been able to start writing.75 While it is attractive to suppose that Velleius wrote the work with a view to presenting it to Vinicius on his assumption o f office on 1January in AD 30 and that he completed it on time, the possibility cannot be excluded that its composition continued into the six months o f Vinicius’ tenure. However, Sumner’s view that it was not completed until after Vinicius had stepped down at the end o f June seems unlikely.76 Sumner may be right that Velleius’ claim at the end o f his eulogy o f Sejanus that the Senate and people has summoned him to protect its security alludes to his election at some point in AD 30 to the consulship for the following year. 7 Starr has argued that the objective o f Velleius’ brief history was ‘practical, everyday usefulness’ and its target readership was those ‘who might for various reasons want a brief review o f history —men with little or no formal education or whose education had become rusty, and schoolboys’.78 Such a view in effect treats Velleius’ work as comparable to the summary histories produced in late antiquity by the likes o f Eutropius and Festus.79 However, a glance at these simple, straightforward works shows how different they are from Velleius’ subtle and allusive production. The weakness o f Starr’s interpretation has been well exposed by Schultze, and I cannot improve on her formulation:

86

Velleius' history: genre and purpose To suggest that Velleius offers ‘history in a nutshell’ - the basic information, presented in a handbook and intended to spare the young or less welleducated the effort of extensive historical reading - is to underrate the pointed refinement of his writing. Velleius’ history does not so much inform as allow inferences to be drawn. Its deliberate allusiveness implies shared knowledge; its unevenness of coverage draws attention to its own omissions; while the leaps in time and space create significant juxtapositions.®1 Rather than a schoolbook or ‘bluffer’s guide’, Velleius’ history was a pièce d'occasion, whose purpose is to be divined from that context and from its intended first audience. As Lobur has reminded us, he will have delivered at least part o f it at a recitatio, no doubt with Vinicius present, perhaps on the day o f his entry into office.81 Velleius will have hoped to dazzle and delight his recital audience and first readers with the tour de force o f brevity by which he had compressed history' from the beginning o f mythical time to the present moment within a single volume, and with his subde allusions, sharp judgements, delicately turned compliments and loyal sentiments. He would have hoped for admiration in particular for the innovative confounding of genre expectations by which he made the whole o f world history lead up first to the empire o f Rome and then to the consul o f the day and his imperial master, and also for the (in such a context) no less novel device by which he marked out the staging-points o f his narrative by reckoning back from Vinicius’ consulship. With his single-volume summary history Velleius sought to win literary acclaim and to enhance his standing with Vinicius and others in the circle o f power. He may have hoped too that it would help to win him some advancement, an office, say, or a priesthood. However, his ambitions for lasting fame will have rested not on this work, but on the projected multi­ volume history, in which, after the radical innovations o f his first work, he would have conformed to the traditional expectations for the recounting o f the deeds o f the Roman people, just as Sallust had done when he turned from his monographs to his Histories. Such hopes were not to be realized. However, perhaps chiefly because o f its very brevity, Velleius’ summary history continued to find readers, and in time their needs were more conveniently met by its being reconfigured as two volumes. In this form, albeit precariously and with tantalizing incompleteness, this work, which its author may have thought ephemeral, has survived, unlike so many ancient histories designed as possessions for ever.

Acknowledgements I am very grateful to the conference audience for their observations on the original version o f this paper, and especially to the editors for their further

87

John Rich comments and forbearance with an exceptionally dilatory contributor. My greatest debt is to Andrew Drummond, who died on 24 June 2010 after a protracted illness, bravely borne. The topic o f this paper was one o f the many aspects o f Roman history and historiography on which he had thought long and deeply. I have benefited gready from his penetrating notes on the topic, which he generously placed at my disposal, and also from his comments on my first draft. I dedicate the paper as a small tribute to the memory o f an outstanding scholar and a dear colleague and friend. N o te s 1 1.16.1,2.38.1,48.6. 2 On Velleius’ preface see Woodman 1975,285; Starr 1981, 162-3; Schmitzer 2000, 37-42. ’ Promise o f brevity: 2.55.1 (admonet promissae breuitatis fides)·, 89.6 {nos memores professionis). Transcursu·. 2.55.1, 86.1,99.4; Woodman 1983, 230. 4 1.16.1, 2.41.1, 108.2, 124.1; Woodman 1975, 278—80. On Velleius 'festinatio see also Lobur 2007, and Bloomer and Lobur in this volume. s 2.29.2, 46.1,48.5-6, 52.3, 55.1, 86.1, 89.1, 89.6, 96.3, 99.3-4, 103.4,114.4, 119.1, 124.1. 6 2.41.1 (introducing Caesar), 108.2 (introducing Maroboduus), 117.1 (Varus’ character and the cause o f his disaster). ' 1.16.1. Excursuses justified as assisting the readers’ understanding: 1.14.1; 2.38.1. 8 2.66.3. 9 For this neglected point see Birt 1882, 320-1; Sumner 1970,280 n. 130. As Sumner notes, the two-book division had already been established by the fifth century, when Pnscian cited the fragment relating to Cimon as from the first book (1.8.6 = Pnscian, Inst. 6.63 = H. Keil, Crammatici L atin i2.248.4). The original single roll may have been written on both sides, as Birt suggests. 10 2.29.2, 46.1, 89.1, 103.4; cf. 2.48.5, 52.3, 89.6,119.1. 11 2.48.5, 96.3, 99.3, 103.4,114.4,119.1. 12 Sumner 1970, 283. Woodman, however, argues that the sincerity o f Velleius’ aspiration must remain uncertain (Woodman 1975, 287-8; 1977, 108-9). 151.7.2: dum in externis moror, incidi in rem domesticam. 14 Thus Cic. O ff. 2.26 (externa libentius in tali re quam domestica recordor)·, Val. Max. 1.praef. {domesticaeperegnnaeque historiae). 18 For Velleius’ Campanian background see 2.16.2—3 (his ancestors Decius Magius and Minatius Magius), 76.1 (his grandfather vir nulli secundus in Campania)·, Sumner 1970, 257—64; Rawson 1977^ 345—6 (= 1991, 232-3); Bispham and FUefante in this volume. 16 References to Vinicius’ grandfather or father: 2.96.2,101.3,103.1,104.2. Telling points: 1.13.5 (Mummius’ salutary lack o f culture), 2.113.1 (Tiberius assumes command in the Pannonian Revolt), 2.130.4 (Tiberius’ recent vexations). For datings from Vinicius’ consulship see below, n. 58. r Vmicii from Campania: Tac. Ann. 6.15.1; Wiseman 2010, 82. Velleii serving under Vinicii: Veil. 2.101.3, 104.2-3; Sumner 1970, 264—5. Woodman (1977, 137) wrongly doubts the inference from 2.104.2-3.

88

Velleius' history: genre and purpose 18 On dedications in Roman historical works see Woodman 1975, 274—5; Manncola 1997, 54—6. Hindus: BG 8praef. Coelius: F I Peter (~ Cic. Oral. 229), from the preface to the whole work. Quadrigarius: F79 Peter (= Geli. 1.7.9), from the preface to Book 18. 19 On this work see below at n. 50. Dedication to Cicero: Cic. Brut. 13. 2" On the complex circumstances relating to the text see Woodman 1977, 3-27; Elefante 1997, 1-9. 21 Cimon: 1.8.6; above, n. 9 {nee minus clarus ea tempestate fuit M iltiadisfilius dimori). Philosophers: 1.16.4. 22 The title: Woodman 1977, 95. Rhenanus’ preface is quoted by Schmitzler 2000, 11 {describit res Romanas castissimo stilo per epitomen ab urbe condita ad suam usque aetaterri). 25 So Schmitzer 2000, 29; Gowing 2005, 34—5, 2007, 411 ff. 24 Aeneas not mentioned: e.g. Schmitzer 2000, 43-45. The omission to mention Aeneas in connection with Dido at 1.6.4 does not indicate that Aeneas was passed over altogether. I f the transmitted reading Latini is correct at 1.8.4 (so e.g. Elefante 1997, 173—4; Schmitzer 2000, 70; Schultze 2010, 123, 128), Velleius made Latinus Rom ulus’ grandfather, but how he can have reconciled this with his date for the foundation o f Rome 437 years after the fall o f Troy is wholly obscure. Lipsius’ emendation l.atinis is possible, or the word may be a gloss. 21 Sumner 1970, 282; Woodman 1975, 282-7, 303, 1977, 95; Elefante 1997, 23-6; Lobur 2007,225-7. Elsewhere, however, Woodman appears to hedge his bets, speaking ot the work as a ‘summary universal history o f Rom e’ (Woodman 1977, 42, 109). 26 For such conclusions see especially Starr 1981, 162—6 (wrongly supposing that the transition from universal to Roman history comes at the end o f the first book); Martncola 1999, 317-8; Kramer 2005. r The closest parallel is perhaps the seven-book historv o f Orosius, composed in the early fifth century as a Christian interpretation o f history, which comprises a universal history down to Alexander and his Successors (Books 1—3) and thereafter an almost exclusively Roman history (Book 4—7). However, the character o f his work is to some extent dependent on his limited sources, principally (in this period) Justin for non-Roman affairs and Livy for Roman. On Orosius see now Fear 2010. 28 So e.g. Sumner 1970, 281; Starr 1981, 163; Elefante 1997, 23. 29 Roman histories: e.g. Livy 1.1.1 {Troia capta). Eratosthenes: L C lrll 241 FT. Apollodorus: h 'G rll 244 T2, 6. “'Return o f the Heraclids: 1.2.1. Aletes ‘sixth from Hercules’: 1.3.3. Caranus ‘eleventh from Hercules’: 1.6.5. Hercules at Pelops’ funeral games: 1.8.2. 51 Schmitzer 2000, 46-56; Schultze 2010, 119-20; Wiseman 2010. ,2 1.2.1—2, 8.3. 55 So Kramer 2005; Bispham, this volume. ,4 Velleius’ characterization o f Ninus and Semiramis as qui Babylona condiderant (1.6.2) does not show that this was the first time he had mentioned their foundation o f Babylon: such phrases are characteristic o f his resumptive technique (compare, e.g., 2.4.2 P. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus, qui Garthagmem deleuerat). (If the text is correct, Velleius has confused Nineveh, reputedly founded by Ninus, and Babylon, ascribed to his successor Semiramis.) h Castor: PG rH 250 FT, dating Ninus’ accession to a date corresponding to 2123/2 BC, and synchronizing it with the accession o f Aegialeus, first king o f Sicyon, whose kings he regarded as the oldest Greek dynasty. (Castor’s dating for Cecrops’

89

John Rich accession corresponds to 1556/5: F4). Nicolaus: F G rH 90 T13, F I. Diodorus: 2.1ff. Trogus: Justin 1.1, Prol. 1. Orosius claims that almost all Greek and Latin writers who recorded ‘the deeds o f kings and peoples’ had begun with Ninus (1.1.1). Forward and back references to Alexander and his achievements occur at 1.6.5, 11.4, 14.3, 2.41.1. r For a similar view o f the transition see Sumner 1970, 282. Kramer 2005, 153—9, unconvincingly argues that Velleius’ treatment o f non-Roman affairs in the lost portion was limited to biographical and cultural notices and topics relating to the succession o f empires. 18 So righdy now Pitcher 2010,121-2. For data on variable ancient book lengths see Birt 1882, 310—4. The erroneous assumption that Velleius’ two books must have been o f comparable length invalidates the estimates o f Sumner 1970,281; Woodman 1975, 276 n. 7; Kramer 2005, 151-2. 19 On this section see also Pitcher, this volume. 40 1.12.5-13.1. 41 1.11.3-4. 42 1.13.3-5. 48 1.14.3, 6, 15.3. 44 2.9, 36. 45 On annalistic format in the Roman historical tradition see Rich 1997. 46 Livy’s excursus on the origins o f Roman drama (7.2) is a rare exception. r Velleius’ citation o f Cato: 1.7.3-4. Cassius Hemina on Homer and Hesiod: Gell. 17.21.3 = F8 Peter. On such aspects o f earlier Roman historical writing and their similarities with universal history see now Cornell 2010. 48 Recent discussions o f universal history writing under the late Republic and early Empire include Clarke 1999; Alonso-Nunez 2002; Yarrow 2006a; Marincola 2007b; Feeney 2007, 65—6; Liddel and Fear (eds) 2010. D iodorus’ claim to be the first fully universal history': 1.3. 44 On cultural themes in Diodorus see Sacks 1990, 55—82; Clarke 1999,258-9,2008, 134 ff. I>" On these writers see the recent remarks o f Feeney 2007, 20-3. Castor: above, n. 35; Christesen 2007, 311—22; Clarke 2008, 73-5. For the chronological works o f N epos and Atticus see at present Peter 1906, xx-xxix, 1-liii, 6—8, 25—6; Drummond (forthcoming) will give a full and up-to-date presentation. On N epos’ C.hronica see also Wiseman 1979, 157-66; Horsfall 1989, 31-2, 117-8. Little is known o f Varro’s 3-book Annales, perhaps a summary Roman history rather than a chronographic work; Varro dealt with early universal chronology down to the foundation o f Rome in his De Gente Populi Romani (for these works see Peter 1906, xxxiii—ix, 10—24). 51 Catull. 1.6: omne aeuum tnbus explicare chartis. 82 F I -2, 4, 6 Peter. 88 N ep o s,/!# . 1 8 .1 -2 :.. .magistratus ordinauit. ... neque res illustris estpopuli Romani quae non in eo suo tempore sit notata. Cic. Orat. 120: conseruatis notatisque temponbus, nihil cum illustre praetermitteret, annorum septingentorum memoriam uno libro colhgamt. Cicero adds here that Atticus also managed to incorporate in his volume data on Roman families (to which he also devoted separate works). If Velleius knew Atticus’ work, this feature would have attracted his interest, since he frequently dilates on noble families (e.g. 2.10.2, 11.3, 72.3).

90

I eliehis ’ history: genre and purpose ,'4 Cic. Orat. 120 (impenosorumpopulorum et regum illustrium), Brut. 28. 551.5.3, 7.2-4; 2.4.7, 53.4. Cf. Feeney 2007, 22. Thus Nepos dated Archilochus to the reign o f Tullus Hostilius (F4), but the birth o f Alexander both by the consuls and from the foundation o f Rome (F6, if Solinus correctly reports him). Consular dates in Atticus’ Annalis·. F5, 7, 8. N epos may not have given entries for every year, but Atticus must have done so for the Republic, in view o f N ep o s’ magistratus ordmaurt. Peter’s citation o f Nepos F5 (= Cell. 17.21.24) may appear to suggest that he did not give a precise date for the execution o f Manlius Capitolinus, but Gellius goes on to state that Aristotle was born in the same year, and he doubtless drew this information from Nepos. w Notable events explicitly dated from Vimcius’ consulship: 1.8.1 (establishment o f the Olympic Gam es), 1.8.4 (foundation o f Rome), 1.12.6—13.1 (destruction o f Carthage and Corinth), 2.7.5 (the ( Ipimian vintage), 2.49.1 (outbreak o f war between Caesar and Pompey), 2.65.2 (Augustus’ first consulship). w 1.5.3 (Homer’s birth and floruit), 6.1 (Asian empire passing to Medes), 7.2 (foundation o f Capua and Nola), 8.2 (funeral games for Pelops), 14.3-15.5 (five dates for colonial foundations or citizenship grants); 2.2.2 (tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus), 4.5 (death o f Scipio Aemilianus), 10.1 (censorship o f Cassius Longinus and Caepio), 12.1 (capture ofjugurtha), 15.1 (outbreak o f Social War), 27.1 (battle o f the Colline Gate), 29.1 (Pompey raises an army for Sulla), 36.1 (birth o f Augustus), 38.2 (Africa made a province), 38.4 and 90.2 (first Roman army in Spain), 93.1 (death o f Marcellus), 100.2 (dedication o f temple ofM ars L'ltorand fall ofjulia), 103.3 (adoption ofTiberius by Augustus). The transmitted numerals present many textual problems, but there is no reason to doubt that Velleius’ intention throughout was to reckon back from Vinicius’ consulate. 611The later events given Vmician without consular dates are: the foundation o f Auximum (1.15.3), the censorship o f Cassius Longinus and Caepio, the capture o f Jugurtha, Pompey’s lew1, and the death o f Marcellus. 61 Consular dates alone: death o f Cato the Elder (1.13.1), various colonial foundations and citizenship grants (1.14.4-15.5), death o f Pompey (2.53.2), Tiberius’ return from Rhodes (2.103.1), death o f Augustus (2.12.3.2). 62 Licit. 2.145.4; Thuc. 1.13.3-4, 18.1. MCf. Feeney 2007, 140-1, 171, 190 ff. M For the Parian Marble see especially Jacoby 1904a, 1904b, F G r ll 239; Clarke 2008, 212-3, 227—8, 325-35, 341-3. The Chromkon Romanum-. FG rH 252 = 1C, 14.1297; Clarke 2008, 70 n. 64. Jacoby 1904b, 84—8 downplays the significance o f present-time referencing in these inscriptions. ^ Cic. Brut. 13. M’Degrassi 1952, 10. '■ K.g. Schanz-Hosius 19.35, 581-2; Dihle 1955, 640-1; Sumner 1970, 284—8. 6S Woodman 1975,275-82. w Above, n. 4. "" Tac. Ann. 1.81; Dio 58.20. ’’ Tac. Ann. 4.68.2. Starr 1981, 170-1; cf. F.lefante 1997, 27-8. A similar hypothesis had already been proposed by Steffen 1954, which I have not been able to consult.

91

John Rich '' Cf. Woodman 1975, 282 n. 1. "4 For surveys o f modern discussions on Velleius’ sources see Hellegouarch’h 1984, 412-7; Elefante 1997, 29-32. Talbert 1984,202—4. Sumner’s conclusion (1970,284—5) that Vinicius’ designation occurred ‘probably during the early summer’ is over-confident. '6 Sumner 1970, 285-8, disputed by Woodman 1975, 275—6, who insists that Velleius must have stopped composing by the time Vinicius entered his consulship. ” 2.128.4; Sumner 1970, 286-7; contra, Woodman 1975, 301-2, 1977, 262. ’ 8 Starr 1981, 172-4. ’il For comparison o f these works to Velleius see also Woodman 1975, 284—6. 811Schultze 2010, 116. 81 Lobur 2007, 218-23, and in this volume; cf. Levick, this volume.

92

5

TRA N SIT AD M IRA TIO : M E MO R I A , IN V ID IA , AND T H E HISTORIAN W. Martin Bloomer Modem study o f Velleius quickened under three great impulses. Italo Lana recognized the importance o f a teleological history and particular kinds o f narrative form for imperial propaganda. His 1952 study was subtitled simply della propaganda and dedicated to his fellow prisoners in the Lager. Ronald Syme’s antipathy is perhaps famous. His article most directly on the author, ‘Mendacity in Velleius’, reveals in tide alone just how unsuitable a historian Velleius was for the prosopographer (and political historian and critic o f imperial propaganda). The third strong impulse comes from the work o f A. J. Woodman, rightly celebrated by the authors in this volume.1 It is as a (small) tribute to the first and last, although with an eye to the severitas Symeana, that the present paper is offered. Since Italo Lana the peculiar qualities o f Velleius’ narrative form have received a more critical and appreciative estimation. Against the customary complaint, such as Eduard Norden’s, that Velleius was a rhetorical historian, Lana stressed die distinctive features o f Velleius’ historiography. In particular, his study underscored that all o f history is a preparation for the principate o f Tiberius; that this propagandist^ understanding has strong affinities with the contemporary imperial propaganda o f coins; that Velleius’ approach relies strongly on a biographical impulse; and that Velleius’ universal historv participates in that broad ancient historiographical tendency to see historia as the magistra vitae. The ethical is thus a predominant strain o f interpretation, one which falls into happy accord with the ideological celebration o f the Caesars generally and Tiberius in particular. The work o f Woodman, so important for the progress o f Velleian studies, has confirmed the importance and usefulness o f these fundamental observations about narrative form, even if, as Chris Pelling advances in this volume, the importance o f periodization should be reconsidered. I argue that Velleius’ historiography reflects the concern o f the first imperial generation to square their past, political and literary, with a new, to them sustaining and necessary, political realitv o f the developing imperial

93

W. Martin Bloomer system. The imperial historian could not thus simply laud the republican past. Velleius finds in the course o f history a fault that the Caesars have cured: the envious and destructive rivalry o f the great republican figures. The Caesars alone are not the remedy for invidia. Rather, his readers must come to admire and marvel at the Caesars and their imperial rule. The historian uses chiefly two historiographical methods in order to achieve these goals. The interrelated literary principles o f brevity and jestinatio allow him to set the singular, salutary achievement o f the Caesars against the calamitous course o f history. Further, the mask o f deference to the grandeur o f the subject matter allows him to salute the past while shearing it o f its due narrative. By rapidly listing the names o f republican heroes and their brave deaths, Velleius can abstract from them general Roman qualities which will be innocuous (and helpful) to the empire.2 Only one topic, the Caesars and their enemies, consistently interrupts the quickly-paced historical narrative. The reader, like the narrative (and unlike Pompey etal .), should therefore not envy such men, but admire them. Such a historical memoria will help sustain the peace emanating from the Caesars, and avoid the destructive tendencies o f republican invidia. Velleius’ historiography is fundamentally ambitious, although his purposes are masked in good measure by a rhetoric o f deference and politeness, which gestures toward the greatness o f his literary models and o f the Roman past and despairs o f a worthy treatment for both these and for the accomplishment o f the Caesars. O f course, he offers the last. His developed dubitatio and recusatio are expressed in part by the small size o f his two books and by a consequent haste which he is wont to parade before the reader. Both bow before, and help enshrine, that rapprochement o f greatness, classical literature and Julio-Claudian empire. Content and the need to be brief are related and important for Velleius’ sense o f historiography. A universal history in two volumes demands selectivity. Indeed, this narrative form highlights selectivity, that is, it makes into an overt historiographical principle the criteria o f inclusion. The short world history reminds the reader that it is short for a reason, that its content is o f the greatest importance, its material is what is preeminently, essentially memorable and hence narratable. Yet Velleius’ vaunted brevity has not been celebrated as a contribution to Roman historiography. He has been mined for points o f detail missing in Livy or indicted for a viewpoint contrary to the passionate stance o f Tacitus. So he seems to have been valued as not-Livy and not-Tacitus. Perhaps such an interpretive approach has taken too seriously Velleius’ own protestations o f modesty. Certainly, it follows from a great reverence for the skepticism o f Tacitus. However, the new man o f a distinguished

94

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian Italic family, seasoned officer and administrator, eyewitness and even participant in the chief events o f Augustus’ and Tiberius’ reigns, is along with Valerius Maximus not simply the chief account o f what happened in Rome from Actium to Teutoburg and on to the fall o f Sejanus, but the unique evidence for what men o f the Tiberian age thought o f their history, their times, and the problematic and vitally important connections o f these two. The subject is o f special interest for the student o f Roman historiography precisely because the ancient author presents himself as daunted by the amount o f history and secs the historian’s own role not as improving on the style or researches o f the grand republican and Augustan authors but as ensuring that the figures and values o f the Republic do not perish from memory. Why bother? Livy was amply available and, predictably, would be epitomized. Two factors seem especially important. Velleius, like Valerius Maximus in his proem, considers that he is doing useful work. In what way then is the daunting classic not useful, and the new work serviceable? Or is the assertion o f utility simply a trope o f the postclassical writer, distressed by the anxiety o f influence? Second, the present seems to have an important history. The emperors matter, perhaps in ways that Livy had not foreseen or perhaps they simply demand comment, appreciation, and comparison with the grand Roman past. For modern historians who find a historiography dedicated to conservation o f a past both naive and patently politically motivated, Velleius’ views o f his role as a historian are easily dismissed. To assess Velleius’ historiography on its own terms, rather than as not-Livy and not-Tacitus, requires us to consider that the purposes o f a swift and teleological narrative might be defined in terms neither Livian not Tacitean, i.e., one might imagine that his brevity was not simply to avoid Livy’s length, his imperialism not simply a corrective to Asinius Pollio’s republicanism - and that o f the authors o f the various Catos and o f the republican sections o f Livy, nor a challenge to Tacitus. With this I abandon (direct) apologetics for my author and turn to consider the compact world history as a narrative solution, with strong ideological impulses and consequences, for readers o f the Tiberian age.

Brevity: squaring the past with the present The brief universal history sets at odds content and form. As a world history leading to the great accomplishments o f the present day, with the inevitable suggestion that the past, howsoever grand, culminates in the present —or at least that the present is somehow worthy or in need o f that past, the narrative o f the world implies that its content is o f the greatest seriousness. All the history that is fit to be condensed is all the history that

95

W. Martin Bloomer has teleological significance. It is not incidental but purposeful, and that purpose is insistently kept before the present reader. But to essay this in two papyrus rolls suggests otherwise, or forces the narrative to apologize for its briefness and to signal how it will compensate for short shrift. The Hellenistic poets had celebrated brevity as a virtue o f poetry and an aesthetic desideratum. Sallust had shown the way for a brief history in his focused monographs. Yet whereas these authoritative literary forces might be cited by a Roman author, the achievement o f the Latin classical authors offered a weighty' counterpoint. More generally, speed is antithetical both to the historian and to the propagandist: the former prizes careful research and appropriately full narrative, the latter indulges in dilation, enumeration o f virtues, expansion and variation o f the topos o f praise. Velleius can adopt a swift narrative by making specific narrative decisions, which, it is true, will jar with the historiographical tradition stemming from Thucydides and manifest in Polybius and Livy. Against these rather disparate historians, in Velleius’ text history scarcely has process; instead, it has swift movement. In some historiography, such speed could be used to exemplify the operation o f fortune, and while Velleius will on occasion invoke the wheel o f fortune, tycbe orfortuna is not given any substantial, explanatory force. Rome’s fortune and the Caesars do not allow for a random, circular, or sudden causality.3Velleius structures the narrative o f empires and peoples as a series o f set points, almost discrete scenes where great men appear and shortly die, and as a teleological series. Where Polybius had joined Rome’s history to the Hellenic past and Hellenistic kingdoms, Velleius, even if he did not begin precisely ab Troia capta, certainly sets the achievement o f Rome as the finale o f the great empires o f the Last. And his is a history o f empire - despite all the names o f great republican individuals and their exemplary mores, his interest is in the growth to empire and the maintenance o f that empire. In his account o f Rome, quite unlike Livy’s, the city extended to Italy is more central than the founding o f the city. Again despite the swirl o f individual names, this history emerges as a drama o f republican and especially Sallustian abstractions, where luxuria and severitas and invidia and gloria are driving forces. The literary impulse to these abstract terms comes not simply from Sallust, but arises from the self-aggrandizing and polemical terms in which Caesar and Cicero, among others, cast the final civil struggles o f the Republic. Tiberian abstractions have equal footing and, without the canny eye o f a Tacitus or the exegesis o f a modern scholar attuned to the language o f propaganda, might pass as perfectly republican: pietas, providentia, munificentia, moderatio, and dementia.4 Despite the ongoing validity o f these traditional terms (on Velleius’ understanding), history is

96

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian not a recurrent drama o f the same abstractions, since history has movement, toward Tiberius. Velleius could be presented as a great restoration historian. Peace, faith, morals, and good government have been returned to Rome. To express this new-old state, the historian favors verbal compounds in re-, just as had Augustus in his Res Gestae. Often these are paired with the res o f the Republic: the respublica restituta\ in Velleius 2.89:

revocata pax...restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas, imperium magistratum adpristinum redactum modum... prisca ilia et antiqua reipublicaeforma revocata. Redit cultus agris and 2.126: Revocata in forum fides, ...iustitia, aequitas, industria civitati redditae.... Restitutae urbes Asiae.F Yet historiography has forward movement in that it recounts afestinatio ad Tiberium. Various empires have given way to the Roman name, and in the Republic various men have prefigured in part the virtues o f the Caesars. Festinatio is both a historiographical principle and an ideological imperative to remember these names.6 Velleius portrays the growth o f the Roman empire as the extension o f Rome’s name throughout space, e.g., 1. 14.1 which refers to the auctum Romanum nomen. Great men leave their names for posterity, although the assassins try to take Caesar’s name and Pompey seems to lose his head and his name. That ‘name’ is a historiographical principle is evident from such formulae as quo nomine mirari convenit (1. 3 .2), where Velleius refers to a heading, a subdivision o f history worthy o f the reader’s notice. The ideological resonance can be deduced from such references as Ovid, Met. 1.200—01: cum manus inpia saevit/sanguine Caesareo Romanum exstinguere nomen (‘when the impious band raged to snuff the Roman name with the blood o f Caesar’). Ovid has recast the impius furor that beset the Aeneid (in book 1.293— 4 Jupiter prophesies that Furor impius intus/saeva sedens will be constrained; fu ror returns with Turnus and Aeneas in book 12) as the name-snuffing faction that killed Caesar and almost Rome. Ovid is taking his lead from another passage in Virgil. At Georgies 1.503—4 the poet writes iam pridem nobis caeli te regia, Caesar, invidet (‘for a long time now the royal court o f heaven has been envying us on your account, Caesar’).’ Velleius operates as the antidote to this furor. One stylistic reinforcement o f this forward movement which gathers and ranks names and so reconstitutes Rome is that Velleius measures time from the present consulship o f Vinicius, with the implication, arguably, that history needs this present name and witness. This reminder o f viewpoint never allows the narrative to become swept up in some distant period. A story from the past is not allowed enough time to consume the reader, and the reader is reminded that there is a present which takes the measure o f the past and to which the past tends. In this rush the most important sort o f story seems to be that o f the man who dies for his country. Repeatedly,

97

W. Martin Bloomer Velleius is concerned to tell his reader how a man left a name in the memoria rerum Romanarum,8 These three focalizations o f the present —the present as restored history, the present as the end o f narrative, and the present as the recorder or censor o f the past - can exert conflicting pressures on Velleius’ history and its interpretation. The author’s attempt to make the present significant —to see his generation as legitimate heirs o f the Republic - aims to unify and contain these impulses, but the present remains a problematic category for the Roman historian. The republican past is authoritative in several senses: the mos maiorum represents a higher moral and religious plane, venerable social and political and family institutions, and the force that brought Rome to greatness, as Ennius wrote: monbus antiquis res stat Romana virisque, where Rome seems to stand now from its past and where too there is the suggestion that Rome remains, restat, that the present is a return (echoed in Augustus’ propagandistic respublica restitute!). Yet the republican past includes the history o f civil discord and imperial failure. One ideological historiographical solution would be to suggest that the present is a return to pre-Hannibalic Rome. The difficult past could thus be restricted to one period. Historiography and society could be rescued from that Sallustian diagnosis which finds contemporaries luxurious, vicious, or at best, in the archrepublicans Cicero and Cato, exemplars o f egregious but partisan virtues. Velleius’ presentist history offers a different solution. N o preHannibalic utopia lures him. He sees the past as inherently partial. Indeed, the Republic was throughout its history marked and marred by the rivalrous ambitions o f individuals. Men have left their names which the historian must record as he moves, swiftly, toward the greatest names, the Caesars, the emperors Augustus and Tiberius. These two ultimate names are in fact the cure for the invidia that ailed the Republic.9 In Velleius’ writing and understanding o f history, a multiple exemplarity allows his narrative to race along, and to adumbrate the Caesars to come. Certainly, Rome offers many exempla. This is part o f her wealth o f history, part o f the way that the past is so abundantly authoritative. But Marius, Pompey, Brutus, Cato, Antony, and Cicero, and not just the distant supermen Romulus or Scipio Africanus, are also exempla·. names to be remembered and praised - but not to be imitated in every way. Multiple exemplarity delivers the republican past from a fixed, republican politics, just as moralization - remembering the statesmen for their character or for a particular abstraction, e.g., bravery, outspokenness - makes such characters understandable and safe for those living under the empire o f Augustus and Tiberius. With a multiple exemplarity the historian guides the reader in evaluating, picking, and choosing what to remember and to

98

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian emulate.10 Perhaps it is important to emphasize that this is far from a postmodern historiography: history is decidedly not fragmented or difficult to reconstruct or understand. A historiography, however, that wends its way through name after name suggests that the republican characters are partial, single facets o f the complete Roman. This too contributes to a certain presentism in Velleius, for a name is important not as the emblem o f an age or a critical intervention in the process o f history but as a witness to Rome’s glory. Velleius contributes to a practice o f memory, in which each generation can reperform the deaths and violence o f the past through an act o f collective memory. This making o f culture requires that partisans be made to cohabit.11 Men leave a name by dying well. Seneca expresses the thought with the sententia mors non estgloriosa, sedfortiter morigloriosum est(Ep. 82.10: ‘It is not death that is glorious but dying bravely’). Th t gloria that drove the historical Caesar, that individualist, aristocratic, and militaristic striving for distinction, is ‘remembered’ as on a par with Cato’s committing suicide at Utica. Men dying for opposed causes devolves to the repeated pattern o f men dying well. The story o f dying well needs only the sparest indication o f historical context and rival agents. The suppression o f difference and o f political antagonism suits the loyal citizen o f the emperor. It is also the reflex o f the moralist, and o f the survivor. The representation o f the republican past as a series o f grand deaths does need the perspective o f the present observer. Customarily, modern historians stress the design and systematicity o f propaganda. Mass movement and grandiose architecture are a typical focus. The dissemination o f Roman imperial propaganda has o f course also been tracked in provincial or lower class reception o f imperial forms, including coinage. Velleius’ universal history offers a different perspective —not one o f passive reception and acquiescence but o f identification and participation. The propagandistic uses o f the death o f great men and women, o f ancestors in particular, are manifold. The reputation o f a man after death can become a force in history, but Velleius is interested in the memory o f such men in his own day. Thus events are dated from the present. Time measurements and perspective in the narrative o f the past are made more imprecise, however, by the use o f formulae o f transition such as ‘at the same time’. The habit o f dating events by reference to the consular year or by notice o f the distance from the date o f the city’s founding allows the Roman historian a certain flexibility, and a difference in focus.12 The relative precision o f dating from the city’s founding sets an event as a spot in time upon the long history o f Rome. There may be also a consequence, useful for a linear and an atavistic historiography, from the reminder o f the fixed originating

99

W. Martin Bloomer moment. All devolves, and perhaps the majority declines from the founding o f the city. But in Velleius much happens sub eodem tempore (‘at the same time’). As a formula o f transition, synchronicitv is frankly frustrating: it seems the most neutral signal o f reportage. Certainly, it avoids or neglects post hoc ergo propter hoc\ and while it might intimate that causation is unimportant, it seems to suggest that a different overarching structure, decidedly not temporal sequence and a chain o f events, shapes historical narrative. Jean Pierre Chausserie-Lapree classified eodem tempore as an extension o f interim or dum haec in ItaliagerunturF That is correct, especially for Livy who moves between home and abroad as Roman history is always a conflict in two theaters. In the first decade o f his history the expression is not used because the focus is on the archaic city. The narrative will become more complex, as things happen at Rome, in Spain, in the Last at the same time. The empire is then perhaps a triple scene with the director cutting from one to the next with some o f the same cast appearing in multiple venues. This sort o f narrative simply is not necessary for Velleius. His ‘at the same time’ does not present different theaters affecting each other and contributing to one history but swaths o f names that need to be clustered or made to queue. Clustering rather than sequencing events (more exactly, the entrances of named individuals into time and the text) reduces the importance o f context or particular motivation and increases the importance o f the narrator. Velleius often provided his readers with directions, notices that the material needs to be included even though it does not square with his narrative criteria. These could be signs o f narrative incompetence - let me now make another point which has been bothering me and which I do not know how to fit into my outlined narrative order. Or they could be a reflex o f a narrator concerned to connect his material to the present and troubled by the demands to praise a Caesar within the confines ot a republican historiographical tradition. With a less firm, less transparent indication of transition and narrative relevance, the reader is invoked almost as a witness o f the narrator’s and the narrative’s difficulties.

Festinatio as an ideological and historiographical principle Velleius ushers in his reader to see him at work most overtly with a different historiographical formula. The reader oversees a hastening author, who pauses from his rapid course to narrate something especially worthy. The rapid and the worthy constitute a recurrent aesthetic vocabulary.14 Festinatio impels brevitas. These terms dramatize the process o f the historian writing history. The historian is hurrying along, apparently eluding delays. Velleius uses festinare o f his activity as a writer at 1.16.1, 2.41.1, and 2.124.

100

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian In the first passage Velleius draws attention to the strict generic or stylistic limitations on his writing and justifies the excursus on the flourishing o f literature by referring to his own wonder (puzzlement and admiration) and to the sheer number o f geniuses: Cum haec particula operis velut form am propositi excesserit, quamquam intellego mihi in hac tam praecipiti festinatione quae m e, rotae pronive gurgitis ac verticis m odo, nusquam patitur consistere, paene m agis necessaria praetereunda quam supervacua am plectenda, nequeo tamen tem perare mihi quin rem saepe agitatam anim o m eo neque ad liquidum ratione perductam signem stilo. Q uis enim abunde mirari potest, quod em inentissima cuiusque professionis ingenia in eandem form am et in idem artati tem poris congruere spatium et, quem adm odum clausa capso alioque saepto diversi generis animalia, nihilom inus separata alienis, in unum quaeque corpus congregantur, ita cuiusque clari operis capacia ingenia in similitudinem et tem porum et profectuum semet ipsa ab aliis separaverunt. Although this subsection o f the work has exceeded the design, as it were, o f the undertaking, even though I understand that, in this great headlong rush which like a wheel or fast-m oving whirlpool or eddy never permits me to take a stand in any one place, I m ust almost rather pass over essentials than em brace incidentals, nevertheless I cannot restrain m yself from marking with my pen a matter which has often distressed my contemplation and failed to be resolved by reasoned deliberation. F or who can feel the proper wonder at the exact coincidence in design and in the narrow confine o f time o f the m ost outstanding men o f genius in each profession and, just as animals o f different species are shut up in a pen or another enclosure, nonetheless distinct from the species not their own, they each separate into a single group, thus m en o f genius adept at each distinguished pursuit separate themselves from others into a likeness o f time and o f progress.

The second has Velleius speeding along when Julius Caesar’s hand falls upon him: Secutus deinde est consulatus C. C aesaris qui scribenti m anum iniicit et quamlibet festinantem in se morari cogit. ...celeritate bellandi... Then followed the consulship o f C. Caesar who sets his hand upon me as I write and com pels me, no m atter what my haste, to tarry upon him. ...by the speed o f the fighting...

In the third use o f festinare as a historiographical comment or notice, grand questions again seem to slow the writer: Quid tunc homines timuerint, quae senatus trepidatio, quae populi confusio, quis Urbis m etus, in quam arto salutis exitiique fuerimus confinio, neque mihi tam festinanti exprimere vacat neque cui vacat potest.

101

W. Martin Bloomer What then men feared, what was the terror o f the Senate, what the turmoil o f the citizenry, what the fear o f the city, in what a narrow strait between safety and destruction we were, neither is there time to express for me in my great haste nor for one who had the time would it be possible.

Here, just as the Romans were caught in a narrow confine between destruction and deliverance, Velleius seems to want to escape the narrow confines o f his universal history, and o f his ordinary prose style.16 All three passages associate the haste o f his narrative with the physical act o f writing. Note signem stilo in the first, scribenti manum in the second, and exprimere in the third. In this conceit the reader is allowed a view o f the writer at work. Such narratological interventions in a text have various purposes and effects. The use o f the first person, the pause in the narrative, and the questioning where to go contribute a sense o f immediacy, as if we were not reading but overhearing or overseeing. Thus when the poet says Musa mihi causas memora , at one level we are overhearing these words. We participate in an oral poetics and suspend for a moment the reality’ that we are reading a sophisticated Hellenistic written work. But the author is also signaling the difficulty o f his composition, its underlying principles, and the concerns that animate the composition. Velleius certainly indicates the difficulty o f his task. He has no otium, that leisure which characterizes the poet, (1Velleio non vacat) and hence is writing a serious work. Serious subjects crowd this author who must pick his way. Yet an author so brief and businesslike, so commentarius-like, indulges in the simile o f the swirling whirlpool which is somewhat poetic, even Virgilian. Perhaps Velleius gets carried away: rota is not quite a mixed metaphor, but the series is a bit jumbled. Rota is a physical wheel whirling like xh.e purges that threatened to swallow up Aeneas in Virgil’s Aeneid, but it is also the wheel o f fortune. In fact with these notices Velleius is not being brief. They all have a negative, apologetic quality. The author steps into his text to explain that he is now going to deviate from his strict confines. The notices o f festinatio introduce digressions, or at least signal the exceptional, even fulsome quality o f what they are about to relate. In the first Velleius gives his famous literary history’ or reflection o f the clustering o f genius at specific eras and places.16The second presents the narrative as coming to the year o f the consulship o f Julius Caesar. It is as if a researcher were moving through the priesdy records o f Rome and found under this year a list o f events far longer than the preceding or following. The annalistic writing o f history had its origin in the recording o f prodigies and wars in the priests’ records where in some years three wars broke out, the temple o f Jupiter was struck by lightning, and a cow gave birth to a doubleheaded calf; some years nothing so significant happened, nothing o f 102

Transit admiratio: memoria, inviciia, and the historian the combined political, military, and religious sort that the Romans thought worthy o f public notice and action, worthy o f memoria.r Velleius’ sweep through history follows the annalists, distantly, in his recording o f names and offices; more proximately, he follows Livy who notices with his own narratorial comment when something especially worthy has occurred — and on some occasions notes the opposite, e.g., ‘The consuls for the year were Servius Sulpicius and Manlius Tullius; nothing worthy o f record happened’ (2.19.1). The year o f Caesar is precisely the opposite o f that in which I ivy writes nihil memoria dignum actumd8The literary aesthetic o f speed and brevity can be saluted and abandoned to bring in a mini-biography o f Julius Caesar. The third notice o f digression is in form a praeteritio·. Velleius cannot adequately tell o f the response to the death o f Augustus. This is followed by sermocinatio —quotation o f the people’s words on the death of Augustus. Then comes what is a dubitatio - the Senate and Tiberius hesitate, debate, and struggle over who is to be emperor. Velleius uses all the panoply o f his rhetoric as he tells us he has no time. As a whole, the notices o f festinatio are a technique o f indirection, like praeteritio , dubitatio, litotes, or especially the poets’ recusatio, where the author communicates reluctance and deference as he sets about a great theme.19 Tiberius’ recusatio reprises Augustus’ own official statements o f reluctance to rule, well published in the Res Gestae}" The notices o f what is exceptional purport to excuse a lapse or digression but in fact make explicit important categories o f selection and treatment in Velleius’ historiography. Velleius communicates his understanding o f the methods o f his history in several other references to the design and structure o f his work. He notifies his reader that he is departing from the forma o f his work, or its propositum (which Cicero uses in the sense o f theme and which is perhaps a caique for the Greek technical term for a set theme for composition, hypothesis). At times also, he alludes to what he would like to narrate but can only sketch at the present moment. These are the references to the fuller treatment he hopes to give in what he terms ‘just’ volumes. The difference between the present treatment and the deserved treatment is thus again underscored as a narrative obligation. But the pressures on the historian are several and o f different orders. These need to be presented to the reader, almost as reminders o f narrative duty. A distinct set o f acknowledgements arc signaled by the use o f ‘ought’. With these the sense o f festinatio is communicated by use o f the gerundive o f the passive periphrastic, where something simply must be told. In addition, Velleius refers to his own work as a transcursus, which he uses as a virtual synonym

W. Martin Bloomer So at 2.55 Caesar is o ff to Africa, but Velleius will not give the campaign the full treatment it deserves. His compact, almost the contractual nature o f his work, moves him on: Admonet promissae brevitatis fides, quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint (‘Fidelity to my promised brevity reminds that all must be told with the most rapid sweep’). At 2.86 Caesar again seems a subject that tempts him to digress. Caesar’s expansive clemency strains the narrow narrative frame. Q uid ille dies terrarum orbi praestiterit, ex quo in quern statum

perveneritfortuna publica, quis in hoc transcursu tam artati opens exprimere audeat? ...Non praetereatur Asinii Pollionis jactum et dictum memorabile... (‘Who in this sweep o f such a straitened work could dare express what prospect that day offered the world or from and to what state the fate o f the Republic had come?... But let a memorable deed and saying o f Asinius Pollio not be passed over in silence...’). Velleius in high rhetorical mode uses indirect questions, in part to heighten the unnarratable quality o f his subject.21 Caesar’s kindness and its implications for the state o f Rome (or, with typical chauvinism, for the world) are so grand that no single noun, no straightforward expression (salus) might do. A rhetorical question then follows these indirect indications o f subject, and this question again draws attention to the narrowness and speed o f the narrative. Finally, not only Caesar but the occasional other grand republican, here Asinius Pollio, is admitted entry, in a sort o f reverse praeteritio - ‘let this not be passed over in silence’ is the equivalent o f ‘this must be narrated’; and neither is in substance different from the customary praeteritio ‘let us skip this’ that is then followed by revelation o f just what we are supposedly to ignore. Such notices have the common formal quality o f indirection, and further suggest the non-transparency, the unpredictability o f narrative. The narrated may be crucial for the argument, a compelling or damning piece o f evidence, but the narrator represents it as something exceptional, foreign to his normal, modest narrative mode. The narrative employing such figures o f indirection works (or presents itself as working) in fits and spurts, where the memorable keeps tugging at the author’s sleeve. Velleius does not always give in to the temptation to digress. At times the praeteritio can in fact serve the cause o f brevity. On several occasions (e.g., 1.16.1; 2.48; 2.96), he refers to the forma o f his work to keep himself from straying. Ethnography tempts the old campaigner at 2.96: G en tes Pannom orum D elm atarum que nationes situm que regionum ac fluminum numerumque et m odum virium excelsissimasque et multiplices eo bello victorias tanti im peratoris alio loco explicabim us: hoc op u s servet form am suam.

The clans of the Pannonians and the tribes of the Dalmatians and the topography and rivers and the distribution of forces and the most numerous

104

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian outstanding victories in the war o f so great a com m ander, we shall treat in full in another place: let this work keep to its form.

It is not simply that ethnography stands outside the genre o f his history.22 Tiberius’ victories seem to demand fuller treatment. The Caesars again threaten the narrow confine o f his prose. Despite such reminders and imperatives to his literary work, brevity on some themes is impossible. Indignation at the enemies o f the Caesars tempts him to dilate. He begins indignant rhetorical exclamation complete with apostrophe and anaphora, only to interrupt the flow o f his outrage with notice that he is being carried away: Nihil tam en egisti, M. Antoni - cogit enim excedere propositi form am operis erum pens anim o ac pectore indignatio —nihil, mquam, ... (2.66)21 N ot a single thing did you accom plish, nonetheless, Marc A ntony - for outrage breaking out o f my heart and breast com pels me to trespass over the limit o f my undertaking - not a single thing, I s a y ,...

The sense o f moderation violated, which in this passage tits style and subject, Velleius’ literary restraint and Octavian’s honor, is reinforced by the use in other passages of yet another synonym for his restrained, careful work, modus. In a sustained recusatio o f the horrors o f Pharsalus (2.52), he says that his mode o f writing does not allow the subjects that deserve to be related. Aciem Pharsalicam et ilium cruentissimum Romano nomini diem tantumque utriusque exercitus profusum sanguinis et conlisa inter se duo rei publicae capita effossum que alterum Rom ani imperii lumen et tot talesque Pom peianarum partium caesos viros non recipit enarranda hie scripturae m odus. Illud notandum est: ut prim um C. C aesar inclinatam vidit Pom peianorum a c ie m ,... T he battle line o f Pharsalus and that day bloodiest o f all for the Rom an name and the great spilling o f blood o f each army and the two heads o f the Republic dashed against each other and one o f the eyes o f the R om an empire gouged out and so many and so great men o f the Pom peian side cut down, this m ode o f writing does not allow to be narrated. But this must be noted: when first C. Caesar saw the line o f the Pom peians turning, ...

Here too Velleius presents the tension between tine dema nds o f his subject, that which history should narrate, and the form o f his treatment, the limit of his writing, and again he does so in no spare, prosaic praeteritio or recusatio. The superlative o f the most bloody day is supported by an enumeratio o f wounds, with the metonymies o f blood, head, and eye leading up to what they represent, dead men. The profusion o f blood, the collided heads for Pompey and Caesar, Pompey as the one extinguished light o f the Republic,

105

W. Martin Blootner and all the unnamed but many and important dead men create high rhetorical lament or indignation again, overdone in the mode that would please Lucan (e.g., the superlative o f bloody is first used in Latin here - or by Velleius’ contemporary Asconius, later by Quintilian). Lucan would describe Pompey’s headless body (1.685—6) in lines that recalled a famous passage in the Aeneid. At 2.257-8 Priam’s headless body is imagined on the sand: Iacet ingens litore truncus, Avulsumque umeris caput et sine nomine corpus.

Servius says that Virgil was thinking o f Pompey, and Velleius’ reference to the Roman name and the dashed-together heads may recall Virgil.24 The conceit about the Roman name is particularly controlled. As the fighters have died unnamed and Pompey’s party has lost its namegiver, the Roman name seems to have suffered. Loss and suppression o f names are a historical disaster for this historian, and the only named party is also the only human actor (not victim) in the passage: ‘as soon as Julius Caesar saw...’ Amid the heaps o f dead and the ambitious if perhaps overblown style, Caesar alone must be mentioned. He emerges in action; he sees the development and acts immediately. The reader might as well be in the pages o f the Commentarii. By contrast Pompey was the lumen effosum , the light torn out. lu m en is a metonymy for oculus which is a synecdoche for the man or his life, and like the purges and vertex o f 1.16, the figure is poetic, even Virgilian. At Aen. 3.663 the Cyclops, or as the poet says sympathetically, the pastor Polyphemus, comes to the shore where luminis effossifluidum lavit inde cruorem. Velleius created the high dudgeon which he declines to follow and which in fact here he has the brisk military man o f the commentaries on the Gallic and the civil wars follow and punctuate. Pompey verges on a monstrous or at best pathetic figure o f epic fiction. Caesar and his clemency are the true superlative.

The gesture of deference It is a fiction, a gesture o f politeness and o f praise and an admission o f his particular historiographical challenge, to single out the Caesars as the category that puts most pressure on his chosen slight form. The text’s references to its propositum , regula, ordo (e.g., 1.16.1; 2.48; 2.68) do keep the ordinary matter o f history distinct from the exceptional. An allied technique, at times used in combination with a reference to the constraint o f his work, is Velleius’ use o f the gerundive to explain what simply must be told (e.g., 1.16.1,2.52,2.55). At times the ordinary seems quite ordinary', almost subliterary. At 2.38 Velleius includes a list o f cities and peoples,

106

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian which would seem to be raw source material, the notes o f the historian, not the stylized treatment that defines ancient historiography: H aud absurdum videtur p ro p o sid operis regulae paucis percurrere quae cuiusque ductu gens ac natio redacta in form ulam provinciae stipendiaria facta sit, ut quae partibus notavimus, facilius simul universa conspici possint. It seem s not out o f tune with the m easure o f the undertaken work to run through cursorily the events and the leadership by which clan and tribe, forced into the condition o f a province, becam e tribute-paying, so that what we have remarked on piecemeal can be m ore easily viewed as a whole.

The litotes ‘it is not absurd’ suggests that the material lies at the extreme o f what can be narrated, the humble counterpoint to the digressions into the grand. In fact, the list exhibits the recurrent interest o f Velleius’ history both in recording and ranking names and in emphasizing the history' o f the empire not the city. The chronological list o f names o f province and commander is succeeded by the notice o f the return to the customary mode o f narrative (2.39 Sed revertamur ad ordinem). Velleius’ formula o f transition, anticipating an imagined objection to the list o f names, makes apologies not for a disproportionate length o f treatment but for the violation o f temporal sequence. The list is a synthetic treatment o f the geographical additions to empire, which requires that Velleius depart from his annalistic march through history. Sequence, like brevity', does not in fact constrain the author: there are topics o f such importance that generic limits must be relaxed. Thus at 2.59 Octavius is introduced, and Velleius is necessarily pulled backwards: De cuius oripine, etiam sipraeveniet, pauca dicenda sunt (‘A few things must be told o f his origin even if they will come before their proper place’). In ring composition a name may suggest a story, which the historian narrates and ends with a notice that he is returning to the main narrative. In Velleius, the abundance o f such deviations and the quality o f the names that distract the author suggest that the main narrative may not be so central. The notices o f deviations imply both that the narrated is o f special importance and that the narrative form is inadequate to the task. The self­ notice whether by a text, author, or speaker o f an inadequacy o f expression is often a figure o f politeness, deference, and indirection. Perhaps the most unusual technique in Velleius’ narrative indirection is a peculiar kind of praeteritio in which he tells us that he will give or hopes to give fuller treatment in a longer work, the volumes he refers to several times as ‘just’, i.e., full.21’ Whether or not Velleius planned or executed a larger work is immaterial, at least to the rhetorical effect o f such notices in his universal history. It seems a convenient fiction, a way to introduce a grand subject.

107

W. Martin Bloomer The introduction o f Pompey at 2.29 makes particularly clear that no actual work was planned, rather Pompey simply deserves such treatment: cuius

viri magnitudo multorum voluminum instar exigit, sed opens moduspaucis eum narrari iubet (‘the magnitude o f this man demands the equivalent o f many volumes, but the measure o f my work bids that he be described cursorily’). Pompeius Magnus does not seem to fit the liber parvus. O f course, Velleius’ pages give full treatment and the proper name not to Pompey but to the Caesars. Perhaps at 2.46 Velleius was referring to Caesar’s own seven and the added eighth book o f the Gallic Wars·. Cum deinde inmanis res vix multis voluminibus explicandas C. Caesar in Gallia gereret... (‘When C. Caesar was at that time accomplishing extraordinary feats in Gaul scarcely narratable in many volumes ...’). He certainly was not referring to a projected study but rather signaling the grandness o f the topic and the difficulty o f writing on a topic that had received famous, full treatment. (Velleius also avoids dating the year by the consulship o f Pompey. Instead, he puts Caesar first and then relates that Pompey had bought his way into the consulship.) A particularly dense period o f history (2.48.3) can be related by allusion to past and future full treatments and by a listing o f names. The difficulty here is similar to that which confronted Velleius in giving his condensed account o f men o f literary genius, and his solution is to contrast the multi-volumed potential o f his topic with his strict aesthetic and then record with praise a series o f names: H arum praeteritarum que rerum ordo cum iustis aliorum volum inibus prom atur, turn, uti spero, nostris explicabitur. N unc proposito operi sua form a reddatur, si prius gratulatus ero Q. C atulo, duobus Lucullis Metelloque et H ortensio, qui, cum sine invidia in re publica floruissent em inuissentque sine periculo, quieta aut certe non praecipitata fatali ante initium bellorum civilium m orte functi sunt. A lt h o u g h th e n a r r a U v e o f t h e s e a f f a i r s a n d t h o s e p a s s e d o v e r in s ile n c e is

expressed in the full volum es o f other authors, so, I hope, will it be expounded in our own. F o r now let its proper rule be given to this undertaken work if I will have first saluted Q. Catulus, the two I.uculli and Metellus and H ortensius w ho after p rosperin g in the Republic without arousing ill will and reaching prom inence without arousing peril m et a death, quiet or at least not before the fated time, before the beginning o f the civil wars. (2.48.5-6)

Julius Caesar’s actions and the emotional response to a Caesar again lie outside the terms o f the work. Caesar’s triumphant return (2.89) occasions Velleius’ indirect questions, those announcements o f topics too great to be described, and the explicit notice that they could not be narrated in a large work or in the present small one:

108

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian Caesar autem reversus in Italiam atque urbem quo occursu, quo favore hominum omnium generum, aetatium, ordinum exceptus sit, quae magnificentia triumphorum eius, quae fuerit munerum, ne in operis quidem iusti materia, nedum huius tam recisi digne exprimi potest. The throng and enthusiasm of the reception of Caesar upon his return to Italy from men of every race, age, and status, the magnificence of his triumphs, the magnificence of his games could not even be worthily expressed in the contents of a full, much less in this so straitened work. The return o f a Caesar to the city, as to the narrative, seems to demand such special remarks. The departure occasions similar rhetorical mode. At 2.99 Velleius considers a work on the grief felt when Tiberius recedes to Rhodes: Quis fuerit eo tempore civitatis habitus, qui singulorum animi, quae digrediendum a tanto viro omnium lacrimae, quam paene ei patria manum iniecerit, iusto servemus operi: illud etiam in hoc transcursu dicendum est. Let us reserve for a full work the disposition at that time of the citizenry, the emotions of individual men, the tears of all those parting from so great a man, how the fatherland almost laid her hand upon him: even that must be said in our present sweep. Whereas Caesar had laid his hand on the hastening hand o f the author (2.41.1), the fatherland almost places a staying hand on the departing Tiberius. The ‘just’ work is, like the hand o f the patria , hypothetical, a rhetorical foil to the calamitous course o f history. Tiberius seems here to be blended with Virgil’s Marcellus, Augustus’ favorite whom the invidious gods took away.26 Virgil had put into Aeneas’ mouth as he watches the withdrawal o f a great Roman, grand emotional questions and exclamations that seem to be Velleius’ model: ‘Quis, pater, ille, virum qui sic comitatur euntem? Filius, anne aliquis magna de stirpe nepotum? Quis strepitus circa comitum! Quantum instar in ipso!’ ‘Father, who is that man with his vast entourage? A son perhaps from the mighty stock of my descendants? What an acclamation from the crowd of his attendants! What a figure he makes!’ (AeneidW . 863-5) Tiberius’- return and adoption need a separate work, perhaps even something as grand as the Aeneid., but Velleius like the wondering Aeneas can only observe from afar the universal emotion (2.103.4): Laetitiam illius diei concursumque civitatis et vota paene inserentium caelo manus spemque conceptam perpetuae securitatis aeternitatisque Romani

109

W. Martin Bloomer imperii vix in illo iusto opere abunde persequi poterimus, nedum hie implere tem ptem us, contenti id unum dixisse quam ille om nibus faustus fuerit. T he rejoicing o f that day, the thronging o f the citizenry, and the prayers [of thanksgiving] o f those who alm ost touched heaven with their hands, and the hope conceived o f a lim itless freedom from worry and o f the eternity o f the Rom an empire, scarcely shall we completely describe in that full work much less attempt to flesh out here, happy as we are to have stated one thing alone: how propitious that day was for all men.

The hyperbole o f this scene o f acclamation has the people stretching and almost touching their hands to heaven. Their hyperbolic hope is inexpressible - which corresponds to Velleius’ rhetoric o f his own failure o f expression. Velleius’ references to his ‘just’ work advertise not simply a longer version o f the end o f the Republic and the ascendancy o f the Caesars but a work on the joy and grief o f the people at the turns o f fortune o f the three Caesars. This suggests not a specific yet-to-be-written monograph but a rhetorical mode summoned to highlight the unique importance o f this triumvirate and their popular support. Tiberius repeatedly merits this rhetorical praise. The prospect o f narrating his campaign produces an oath and the assurance that the deeds are voluminous: Pro dii boni, quanti voluminis opera insequenti aestate sub duce Tiberio Caesare gessimus! (2.106: ‘By the good gods, in the following summer under Tiberius Caesar’s leadership we accomplished deeds worthy o f a grand volume.’) Indeed, Tiberius’ actions, even those which Velleius directly introduces as not eminent, are o f course eminent and worthy o f narration. Here Velleius narrates how the kindly emperor shared his bathing apparatus with his officers - the sort o f detail customarily excluded from classical history as it requires verba sordida, the lexicon o f common or bodily functions. Velleius will apologize for its inclusion but also give it an exclamatory ‘O ’ with the supine dictu - a touch o f rhetorical emotion like his pro dii boni but which is also a bit Virgilian, like the epic poet’s notices mirabile dictu that something extraordinary, even mythic is about to be narrated: O rem dictu non eminentem, sed solida veraque virtute atque utilitate maximam , experientia suavissimam, humanitate singularem! (2.114: ‘O a matter not prominent for narration but very great for its solid and sincere virtue and utility, very' sweet in its experience, and unique for its human feeling’). The Pannonian surrender to Tiberius also has its importance advertised by promise o f future, full treatment: iustis voluminibus ordine narrabimus, ut spero... (‘in accord with my hope, we shall narrate that in proper order in full volumes’). Certainly, Velleius is developing a way to speak o f the emperors, a method to commemorate them consonant with their singular and, one

110

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian should note, non-traditional status, but it is not the Caesars alone who demand such narrative comment. The superlatively bad get similar notice. Here is Teutoberg forest (and Crassus), with the characteristic deferral o f the potential long treatment, superlative statement o f importance, and the present summary imperative (deflenda) o f his form: Ordinem atrocissimae calamitatis, qua nulla post Crassi in Parthis damnum in externis gentibus gravior Rom anis fuit, iustis voluminibus ut alii, ita nos conabim ur exponere: nunc sum m a deflenda est. Ju st as others have in full volum es, so we shall try to propound the narrative o f the m ost horrible disaster, the worst for the Rom ans am ong foreign tribes since the loss o f C rassus at the hands o f the Parthians: for now a summary' account must receive its lament. (2.119)

At 2.117 Quinctilius Varus and the disaster o f Teutoberg had exerted a delaying influence: Sedet causa etpersona moram exigit (‘But both the cause and the person compel a delay’). The content o f the passages marked as worthy o f full volumes is more various than the string o f episodes o f the Caesars presented above. Some o f the most colorful material o f Velleius’ history comes in these digressions. Immediately after his statement that the German campaign deserved but will not get a full treatment, Velleius presents a striking scene. The German canoeist who crosses the river to see Tiberius is denoted as an insertion into the great narrative: Non tempero mihi quin tantae rerum magnitudini hoc, qualecumque est, inseram (2.107: ‘I cannot restrain myself from inserting into such magnificent history the following event, slight as it is’). Colorful as he is, his inclusion in history could be justified as an example o f ethnography, description o f the barbarian enemy, indeed a thauma, the sort o f exotic wonder that Herodotus had inserted into the historiographical tradition. In fact, the German is saluting Tiberius, caught up in wonder at the great man. He is a positive answer to all those questions in Velleius that ask just how great was the people’s response to the advent o f a Caesar. Immediately following this passage, a second o f Caesar’s enemies, Maroboduus the leader o f the Marcomanni, makes the narrative pause: Nullafestinatio huius viri mentionem transgredi dehet (2.108: ‘No haste o f narrative ought to pass over mention o f this man’). Velleius in these passages is narrating the great challenges to Augustus and especially Tiberius in their military campaigns, and he is relating people and places he had known. Autopsy may play a part in the inclusion o f these episodes.

Replacing invidia with admiratio The digressions, especially by being marked as digressions o f special merit, contribute to a sense that the historian’s and the reader’s course is a

111

W. Martin Bloomer festinatio, which extraordinary men and especially the three Caesars delay. The Caesars are something o f a narrative magnet, drawing author and reader back to them despite the official course. There is a more explicit connection o f festinatio and the Caesars. Although Suetonius recalls that Augustus liked to say festina lente and sat celeriterfieri quidquidfiat satis bene (Aug. 25.4: ‘make haste slowly’ and ‘the speed o f execution is sufficient if that which is done is done well’), festinatio, bold military movement and right swiftness o f action, repeatedly and preeminently characterizes the Caesars. The only characters in Velleius who hasten are the three Caesars, and their historian. In particular, Velleius characterizes Tiberius as festinans so as to ally him with Julius Caesar just as when applied to historical writing festinatio allies Velleius to the Clommentarii?'’J ulius Caesar hastens from Italy to Spain, except that Marseilles delays him in failed negotiations: b'estinationem itineris eius aliquamdiu morata Massilia est (2.50.3: ‘Marseilles delayed the haste o f his journey a little while’). Octavius on hearing o f Caesar’s death imitates his swift motion: illefestinanspervenire in urbem (2.59: ‘he hastening to arrive in the city’). Indeed, Velleius’ narrative suggests the young man’s transformation into his adopted father: Velleius calls him by his father’s name, contrasts his swift action to that o f his environment and enemy —the city sluggish under the grip o f Antony’s domination, indignation, grief, and with no force to resist —and has him accomplish the greatest things: T orp ebat op p ressa dom inatione Antonii civitas. Indignatio et dolor om nibus, vis ad resistendum nulli aderat, cum C. Caesar undevicesim um annum ingressus, m ira ausus ac sum m a consecutus. T h e citizenry op p ressed by the dom ination o f A ntony grew sluggish. Indignation and grief befell all, no one had the will to resist, when C. Caesar entering upon his nineteenth year dared astonishing feats and accom plished the greatest o f them. (2.61)

Octavian returns to his father and the city and enters history as a sudden force (vis). No doubt, the reader is to think o f Julius Caesar’s resolute and swift tactics. Romans o f the republican era tended to assimilate a family member with an ancestor. Mores and not simply property were passed down, just as a portrait bust might reflect the features o f an ancestor. The family o f the Caesars seems to have swiftness as an inheritance. At season’s end Tiberius hurries back to Rome eadem qua priore anno festinatione urbem petens (2.107: ‘seeking the city with the same haste as in the year before’), and at 2.123 Augustus on his death bed festinanter revocavit filium (‘he hurriedly recalled his son’). The connection o f the family trait and the historiographical principle to Julius Caesar’s military tactics is suggested at

112

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian 2.41.1 where festinatio is used o f Velleius’ narrative and he then continues to remark on the celeritas bellandi ‘military swiftness’ o f Julius Caesar. Caesar was not the only Roman general to possess this virtue. Indeed, Pompey may have had the better claim, for Cicero attributes it to Pompey at Pro lege Manilla (De imperio Gnaei Pompei) 34—35 and lists celeritas in conficiendo as one o f the essential virtues o f a Roman commander [ibid. 29). Indeed, speed runs as leitmotif through Cicero’s praise o f Pompey. He even asks unde illam tantam celeritatem et tam incredibilem cursum inventum putatis? (40, ‘Where else do you think there has ever been such great swiftness and such unbelievable movement?’) Displacing Pompey in favor o f Caesar is a typical mode o f the Caesarian propagandist. Velleius will use his own rhetorical exclamations to signal the singularity o f the Caesars. Further, the application o f the term festinare to Julius Caesar and his family may not simply be Velleius’ association but reflect ideological language o f Octavian. The evidence for this is indirect but pointed. Suetonius in his Life o f Augustus remarks that Marc Antony castigated Octavian for his accelerated marriage to Livia (69.1: M. Antonius superfestinatas IJviae nuptias obiecit). Marc Antony appears to have twisted a Caesarian catchword against Octavian. For Octavian was no Julius Caesar, especially in the field. But his defects as a soldier and commander are forgotten in the confusion o f his self with his adoptive father.28 Velleius did not share Antony’s sarcastic interest. For our author, the process o f festinatio intimates narrative direction, progress, and justification as it embraces the characteristic force o f his favored subjects. The assimilation o f the author to his Caesars suggests that the literary work is not an artifact o f politics but a witness and participant in history. Thus Virgil had imagined himself as victor at the outset o f the third book o f the Georgies —which poetic preeminence depends on his singing o f the victories o f Octavian and Octavian’s defeat o f invidia (the invidia infelix o f Georgies 3.37).29 Velleius’ haste, literary and real, is also the process or course o f history itself. It has long been recognized that Velleius offers something o f a gallery o f history, where the names o f great Romans rise to view like the statues o f Augustus’ forum.3" His swift course runs through the names o f Roman history, and the reader is allowed to see the writer in his dash through texts and periods excerpting the important. What threatens to stop this progress is at one level the Caesars whose monopoly on power, glory, and status might derail the historian or even the prospect o f history, that genre o f writing tied to the Republic. The Caesars threaten to become an unending discourse, the subject that words can only fail to express. But at a microlevel as it were, the force that threatens to stop history, both the recording o f names and the celebration o f the achievements o f the Caesars, is invidia.

113

W. Martin Bloomer Velleius gives a theoretical account o f the operation o f invidia and its positive correlate, here called admiratio. Other passages oppose invidia to memoria, but his excursus on literary history, which is an account o f how genius comes into the world and passes away, itself a brief digression, contrasts the short stay o f genius amid the processes o f wonder, envy, and imitation: Aht aemulatio ingenia, et nunc invidia, nunc admiratio imitationem accendit, naturaque quod sum m o studio petitum est, ascendit in summum difficilisque in perfecto m ora est, naturaliterque quod procedere non potest, recedit. ... Transit admiratio... Rivalry nourishes genius, and now envy, now wonder kindles imitation, and by a natural process that which is pursued with the greatest zeal reaches the summit and in perfection any abiding is difficult, and naturally what cannot progress devolves ... O ur admiration p asses on... (1.17-18)

In the course o f time the reader’s gaze follows the emulation, envy and ill will, and the admiring approval that produce genius, especially men o f genius. His later diction associates but does not make explicit the relation o f what could be called the transitus admirationis here described and the transcursus opens sui et historiae. The rapid move o f the gaze o f his own work, the wondrous deeds done by the Caesars, the action o f invidia in the course o f history, and the clustering o f genius that perhaps the three Caesars represent are concordant with the account o f the rise and fall o f literary genius. In turn, this passage is a lesson in historiographical method and explanation. The course o f wonder travels through all those things so worthy o f recording that Velleius can notice them in his swift march. Velleius is suggesting directly that the flourishing o f literary greatness has a natural movement. If this were more than a historical commonplace, if this were applied systematically to Roman history, then the goal o f his history, the achievement and restoration o f Augustus and especially Tiberius, would likewise be but a short pause. He will suggest no such thing. Rather, emulation and imitation, wonder and envy are the signal terms o f his historiography. History has provided a multiple exemplarity which apparently has nourished the Caesars.31 Further, Velleius seems to place them, especially the latter two, outside o f the customary functioning o f history. They are to be the objects o f wonder, not envy'. Envy in Velleius’ work marks the Republic, disfigures some o f the greatest republican heroes, and threatens the Caesars repeatedly. In describing the triumphal year o f Octavius and Anicius, invidia is said to be the companion o f fortune (1.9). Pompey seems the most invidious man

114

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian o f Velleius’ pages: his fault is that he could brook no equal (2.39); he thinks the invidia for his actions will fall on Caesar (2.44). He is also the object o f envy: Lucullus and Metellus Creticus envy his triumph (2.40). Julius Caesar’s colleague, Bibulus by staying at home failed in his effort to arouse ill will against Caesar (2.44: Quo facto dum äußere vult invidiam collegae, auxit potentiani). However, Marc Antony blundered when he tried the opposite. Proffering Caesar a crown in the forum, he managed only invidia (2.56 Cui magnam invidiam conciliarat M. Antonins). In turn, following the Ides o f March, Brutus and Cassius wished to increase the invidia against Antony (2.62). I n v i d i a the hallmark not simply o f Caesar’s enemies: Pompey, Bibulus, Marc Antony (anticipated as an enemy o f Octavian), Brutus and Cassius or o f fortuna more generally but o f the Republic. The jousting for power and status, the coming into preeminence that distinguishes the Roman magistrate as well as the literary geniuses o f the excursus, depend on a rivalry with prior men, one’s exempla, and with one’s contemporaries. This is imagined as a zero sum game with little to no sharing o f power or status. One comes to the top before teetering off, thanks perhaps to a natural process but more likely, from what Velleius narrates, to the invidia that singular display o f genius elicits. That villain Iuncus, the good-for-nothing magistrate o f Bithynia who does not recognize Caesar’s genius or answer a young man’s needs (he wants forces to destroy the pirates who had held him hostage), is worse than idle, but his inertia and invidia do not detain the ever swift Caesar: quippe sequebatur invidia inertiam - incredibili celeritate revectus ad mare priusquam de ea re ulli proconsulis redderentur epistulae, om nes quos ceperat suffixit cruci. Seeing as ill will attended his sloth - [Caesar] returned with incredible speed to the sea before any correspondence on this topic from the proconsul could arrive and crucified all w hom he had captured. (2.42)

Velleius did not invent the characterization o f the Republic as invidious. Passing into exile, Virgil’s shepherd Meliboeus looks at the good fortune o f Tityrus, favored by Octavian, and says, Non equidem invideo, miror magis (Eclogue 1.11). The poem celebrates not simply a change in fortune for Rome but an end to civil discord. The banishment o f envy, even from the heart o f the banished, is crucial for this transformation. Thus at Georgies 3.37 Octavian’s military and Virgil’s poetic triumph have routed invidia. T o understand one’s society as invidious is a nostalgic and moralizing reflex. The Republic is remembered as a society where many aimed at preeminence and where this rivalry, although it may have led to the clustering o f genius, produced a partial, volatile, and violent community.

115

W. Martin Bloomer The individual seems engaged in a destructive rivalry with the past as well as the present. Wonder, on the other hand, attends the Caesars and the imperial system. When the elder Seneca introduced his work on declamation to his sons (likely published in the decade after Velleius’ history), he praised the past for its great speakers and for its retentive memory. N o plagiarism went undetected, but the audience was malign in their accusations o f borrowings: Tam diligentes tunc auditores erant, ne dicam

tam maligni, ut una syllaba surripi non posset; at nunc cuilibet orationes in Verrem tuto dicetpro suis (Suas. 2.19: ‘At that time audiences were so scrupulous, I avoid the term ill-willed, that not a single syllable could be lifted; but nowadays one can safely pass o ff as one’s own [Cicero’s] Verrines to anybody you like’).32 In Latin terms, invidia and memoria marked the old audience, whereas his sons’ generation, while not as memorious or eloquent, might lack invidia if it attended to Seneca’s praise and good judgment o f the past. A different kind o f aemulatio would then distinguish the imperial literary and political society’. Wonder at the past and at the emperor is associated with, and by implication causes or strengthens, a restrained rivalry among the present generation.--------Seneca in complaining o f his audience’s short memory’ and debilitated eloquence and Velleius in hastening his way through the men o f the past foreground the inability o f the present to speak and write and act in the full, accomplished mode o f the classical. The classical past is too much, and the Silver writer uses various tropes to signal that his work is belated, a paler version o f the grand republican work. But the Silver audience no doubt recognizes the trope o f politeness for what it is, an act o f deference to the literary7and historical tradition and also the technique which makes writing possible. Deference provides an opening. The reluctant emperor Tiberius, whose propagandistic self-presentadon as one not worthy o f the task, not Augustus’ equal, is ably discussed by Tom Hillard in this volume, has in Velleius his reluctant historian. Yet the tropes o f deference and hesitation are not debilitating. Velleius has developed a cure for the invidia that ruined the Republic. Against a potential, destructive oblivion, the historian acts to punctuate his festinatio by recalling names. As peace and fides have been recalled (revocata) and more broadly the respublica restituta, so there is recordatio o f names, cities, provinces, generals’ cognomina, and literati, among whom especially important, and difficult, are some republican names. There is so much wondrous, or to use Livy’s term reused by Valerius and Velleius especially, so much dignum memoria, what to record? Speed encourages the list, as does the influence o f the inscriptions o f res gestae , public and private. With evaluative brevity, like the memorable concision and force o f monumental writing on stone, the historian acts as

116

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian the heir erecting (and maintaining) the funerary monument. The historian’s act o f memoria resists the invidia which is the ill will o f contemporaries who might not erect a monument to the name o f the deceased, the ill will o f posterity that tends to forget, and the peculiar vice o f the Republic (Pompey is primus interpares here). Invidia also is the enemy o f the Caesars or the force inimical to them and the smooth workings o f the new empire. The historian may act like Julius Caesar in his swift and sure charge through history, but the encounter with a Caesar demands a treatment whose length and praise might well elicit invidia. If the reader realizes the clustering of genius in the Caesars, then admiration will trump invidia. Indeed, the emperors, and Tiberius especially, are the cure for invidia. They stand outside o f emulation and envious desire. They make possible a peaceful society and a judicious history by being the term by which all achievement and evaluation is governed.

N o tes 1 Lana 1952. Svme 1978, 45-63. Woodman 1969; 1975, 272-306; 1977; 1983. I wish to thank members o f the conference o f ‘Velleius Paterculus, Making History’ and, in particular, Anton Powell for helpful suggestions. 2 On the deaths o f individuals in Velleius, see Steel in this volume. ’ On hortuna in Velleius see Schmitzer 2000, 190—225. 4 See the review o f the earlier bibliography in Garzetti 1974, 571-2. ’ Millar 1973, 63—64, discusses the contemporary evidence for the use and meaning o f the term respuhlica mtttuta, with special notice to Velleius 2.89. Velleius’ allusion to the opening sentence o f the Res gestae at 2.61 is discussed in Kober 2000, 190-97. 6 On Velleius’ habits o f naming, including such epithets as pnncipes Romani nominis for the very grand, see Cowan in this volume. ’ See Raster 2002, 275-95. 8 Velleius’ interest in composing a republican martyrdom perhaps helped irk Tacitus to his presentation o f history as an imperial victimology. The two historians are allied in their desire to limit the violence that the act o f memory seems to impel. Neither wishes to replicate the violence o f the Republic nor the violence that memory o f it might replicate. 4 The importance o f invidia is considerable in Velleius, who pauses to offer general reflections on its power in history, society, and individual psychology, e.g., 2.30.3, 2.31.4. See Lana 1952, 165 n. 5. Virgil again may have prompted Velleius: cf. Georgies 3.39 f t . Roman upper-class reflection on invidia can also be seen in Cicero’s character Cotta who imagines that men could worship invidia {De natura deorum 3.39—51). See the excellent analysis o f invidia in Raster 2005, 84-103. Plutarch wrote a (lost) treatise De invidia et od/o. Basil’s and John Chrysostom’s works De invidia survive (on these see Dickie 2005, 9-34). Thus Velleius regrets the death o f Pompey as the loss o f the lumen o f the Republic, and he and Julius Caesar were the capita o f the Republic (2.55); but Ttbenus is, while Augustus lives, the second lumen et caput (2.99). The disposition to see the

117

W. Martin Bloomer present or the exemplary Roman as the combination o f several classical models owes a great debt to Roman literary practice, especially Virgil whose Aeneas or Turnus can assume, e.g., positive traits o f the greatest enemies, Achilles and Hector (see Anderson 1957, 17-30). On Tiberius’ several virtues, see note 3 above. For the emperor as the preeminent exemplum, see Velleius 2.126: cumque sitimperio maximus, exemplo maiorest. Generally on the presentation o f Tiberius, see Kuntze 1985. 11 See Gowing 2005 for the various imperial cultural practices o f memory. An interest in how individuals die is so common in Roman culture that it seems unremarkable in a historian. Heinze 1928, 194, noticed the importance in the Aenetd o f the manner and process o f a character’s death. Tacitus does tell o f how Thrasea Paetus and how Petronius died, but these, the symbolic and the disdainfully anti· symbolic, have particular point for the understanding o f the misworkings o f imperial Rome. Velleius at times brings in to die characters o f no importance, for the narrative or for political or military history. The ethical dimensions and the historian’s duty to remember them seem more important. On the particular theme o f suicides in Velleius, see Schmitzer 2000, 130-49. 12 The synchronic and the retrospective formulas o f dating (via such formulas as sub eodem tempore and abhinc) are only one aspect o f Velleius’ chronology. See in this volume Wiseman and Rich. 11 Chausserie-Lapree 1969, 30—39. See also Oakley 1997, vol. 1 ,123. 14 Lobur 2007, 211-230, has discussed with fresh insight the language o ffestmatio and brevitas. ,I> History in Velleius often occurs in confines, narrow spaces. So the glories o f Greek art and literature flourished artissimis temporum claustris (1.17.4). 16 Schwmdt 2000, 139—52, discusses this episode in the context o f Velleius’ three other treatments o f Literary history. He cites R. J. Starr’s distinction that Velleius does not have digressions but ‘pauses’ in the narrative ( Velleius Paterculus: A Literary Introduction, Ann Arbor [1980], 71). See also Schmitzer 2000, 72-4, 100. r B. WT. F’rier, IJb ri annales pontificorum maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, Rome (1979); R. M. Ogilvie review JR S 71 (1981), 199—201; E. Rawson, ‘The first Latin Annalists’, in Roman Culture and Society, Oxford (1991), 245—71; and J. W. Rich, ‘Structuring Roman history: the consular year and the Roman historical tradition’, Histos 1 (1997). is Velleius, for instance, while hardly an enthusiast o f Gaius Caesar, records his meeting with the Parthian king, an event he witnessed but which he justifies in his narrative as a spectaculum...perquam clarum et memorabile (2.101). |l) See Woodman’s discussion o f this recusatio imperii·. 1977, 222-24. 2,1 See Hillard in this volume. 21 For the unnarratable quality o f the Caesars, especially Augustus and Tiberius, cf. 2.99 incredibili atque inenarrabih pietate. Perhaps words cannot suffice for the catchwords o f the emperors in particular, which were published in several media (e.g., coins, portrait busts). Velleius has the soldiers receiving Tiberius on his return to command in Germany use rhetorical questions, after describing the unprecedented show o f affection (salutationis nova quaedam exultatio) and before the narrator’s formula that popular reaction to Caesar can scarcely be put into words: ‘ Videmus te, imperator? Salvum reapmusT... neque verbis exprimi etfortasse vix mererifidem potest (2.104.4). On J ulius Caesar as a breaker o f boundaries and the literary consequences o f this characterization,

118

Transit admiratio: memoria, invidia, and the historian see Pelling 2006, 255—80. Livia too seems beyond belief: Quis fortunae mutationes, quis dubios rerum humanarum casus satis mirari queat i Quis non diversa presentibus contrariaque expectatis aut speret aut timeat? Livia... (2.75.2-3). 22 Velleius 'praeteritio conforms to the Standard elements o f ethnography (e.g., the tribes, rivers, and the situs)·, for the Roman reception o f the tradition, see Thom as 1982,2-3. 24 The indignant anaphora o f nihil directed against Antony may recall Cicero’s opening attack on Catiline, the well-known Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timorpopuli, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt? (Cat. 1.1) 24 On this famous intertext, see the discussion ot Niarducci 1979, 317—25 and 1linds 1998, 8-9. 24 2.48.5; 2.96.3; 2.99.3; 2.114.4; 2.119.1. 26 My thanks to Anton Powell, who suggested the connection o f the young Marcellus to this passage. Virgil does not directly call the gods invidious, but the point is implicit in Aeneid 6.860-1: Nimium vobis Romana propago visa potens, Superi, propria haec si dona fuissent. The phrase nimium visa expresses without quite naming the gods’ invidia. -’’ Julius Caesar is characterized as festinans in two places in the additions to his histones: Bellum Alexandrinum 71.1 and Bellum Hispaniense 2.1. 28 On Octavian’s military limitations and the deformation o f history worked by his propaganda and by Virgil, see Powell 2008, 106-7. 2'' Georgies 3.9 ff. On such assimilation in Virgil, see Powell 2> >08, 270-76. 1,1 On the forum, see especially /an k er 1968 and 1988, 201-205. 11 The culture o f exemplantv seems to be understood as culminating in Tiberius who takes the best from his ancestors and avoids the disasters or vices o f the Republic (see Pelling m this volume). In Velleius, Julius Caesar for all his swiftness o f tactic and action (festinatio) and great virtue (dementia) fails to anticipate that complete imperator Tiberius. Velleius’ contemporary Valerius Maximus likewise stresses Tiberius’ multiple exemplarity: he combines the best o f his two republican ancestors without sharing their rancor and enmity (Valerius’ panegyric imagines that Tiberius’ ancestors, the feuding censors of 204 lit Claudius Nero and Livius Salinator, would have foresworn their enmity had they known o f their descendant: 2.9.6). 12 On the charges o f plagiarism in Seneca the elder and the new esthetic o f aemulatio, see Bloomer 1997, 142-53.

119

6 E X P L A N A T I O N S IN V E LL E IU S* John M arincola Explanations - seeking out the ‘why’ and analysing the causes o f actions are as old as historiography itself, and no doubt as old as narrative itself, since we rarely tell a story without giving some indication o f why the actors in our story did what they did. That the historian’s duty is not simply to narrate but also to explain is a truism often repeated by the ancient historians themselves. ‘If we remove from history’, says Polybius, ‘the discussion o f why, how, and wherefore each thing was done, and whether the result was what wc should have reasonably expected, what is left is a clever essay (άγώνισμα) but not a lesson (μάθημα), and while pleasing for the moment is o f no possible benefit for the future.’1The thought is echoed by Sempronius Asellio in his criticism o f the scanty style o f the early Roman historians: ‘To us it does not seem to be enough to make known what has been done, but one should also note with what purpose and for what reason things were done.’2 It seems worthwhile, therefore, to examine in the case o f Velleius no less than o f other historians how he explains matters to his audience as he narrates events. Velleius is, after all, part of the long tradition o f Greco-Roman historiography, and his predecessors, both Greek and Latin, had developed many ways o f ‘explaining’ actions.3 For the most part, these explanations were fixed firmly in the human world, and although for many historians the gods played a role in history, they did so indirectly, through the agency o f men.4 Velleius clearlv took his responsibility seriously: although his history' covers a very large period o f time in small compass and thus could not employ explanations on the scale that someone writing a larger history might,’ nevertheless in his short text there are over a hundred places where he provides a brief or full explanation for the actions o f a character or people. Moreover, an examination o f how Velleius explains things to his readers reveals a great deal about his view o f history and tells us as well something about the age in which he lived.

121

John Marincola I

Let us begin6 with the use o f variant versions, the well-known procedure o f all ancient historians whereby for certain actions and events they provide two or more explanations. The ancient historian usually offers variant versions with little comment, and in the overwhelming majority o f cases does not express a preference; if he chooses one version over another, he does so based on a predictable handful o f reasons. Variant versions are used generally to indicate that the writer is familiar with the tradition (lest he be faulted for ignorance o f some historical problem), not so that he might ‘solve’ the historical problem." In this regard, Velleius is in the mainstream o f ancient historiography. He has only a handful o f variant versions, and only once does he give more than two possibilities, i.e., the case o f Numantia where a city that could never muster more than 10,000 soldiers was able to hold out against the Romans for so long ‘whether it was owing to her native valour, or to the inexperience o f our leaders, or to the indulgence o f fortune’.8 As often when ancient writers set out divergent explanations, Velleius contrasts the uncertainty o f a particular issue with the certainty o f some other fact, in this case, that the Numantines compelled many generals including Q. Pompeius to make shameful treaties and surrenders (haec urhs...ad turpissima deduxitfoedera , 2.1.4). Similarly with the death o f Scipio Aemilianus, the uncertain manner o f his death - was it natural or due to treachery? - is o f less importance to Velleius than pointing out that Aemilianus’ life was o f a brilliance (Julgor) that could be matched only by his grandfather.9 Elsewhere, Velleius expresses uncertainty about the motives o f C. Gracchus, giving here a more sinister second possibility, in a way that Tacitus later would perfect: did Gracchus wish to avenge his brother or pave the way for regal power?1" As it happens, the characterisation o f the Gracchi (to which we shall return) makes it fairly certain which version Velleius would have the reader believe. And o f course, as Velleius must have realised, these explanations are not mutually exclusive.11 In some sense, however, the use o f variant versions was a confession by the historian that in a particular case he had no explanation that he considered reliable. Leaving aside variant versions, how does Velleius explain things? One very common means is to employ abstract concepts and general beliefs. These were forms o f proof in rhetoric from early on,12 and they had been a feature o f ancient historiography since the time o f Thucydides, whose speakers often argue from general beliefs based on fear, security, justice, necessity, or ‘human nature’. Such arguments are impressive because they seem to be impersonal and o f universal applicability, while simultaneously

122

Explanations in Velleius appealing to commonly held beliefs.n Now although Velleius does not use human nature itself as an explanatory device,14 he does appeal to what seem to him (and, no doubt, to his audience) to be accepted beliefs about the way human beings behave amongst themselves. An early and pronounced type o f explanation used by Velleius relies on the prevalence o f envy or jealousy against the great. This was not new or unique to Velleius, but he does seem to have thought it accounted tor a great deal in human behaviour, at least amongst the elite: speaking o f Aemilius Paullus’ triumph over Perses, Velleius notes that while no one begrudged a triumph to the lesser commanders Cn. Octavius and L. Anicius, some tried to create obstacles for Paullus: ‘how constant a companion o f eminent fortune is jealousy and how she attaches herself to the highest men’,14 he notes, echoing this just a little later in the case o f Pompey when he mentions the opposition to him by Lucullus and Metellus Creticus, and notes there too that ‘eminence never lacks jealousy’ (numquam tamen eminentia invidia carent, 2.40.5).16 Elsewhere, Velleius will employ general truths to explain behaviour that seems at first sight unusual or paradoxical. Why was it that certain people opposed the granting to Pompey o f extraordinary powers against the pirates when only a few years before almost these same powers were granted to the praetor M. Antonius? The answer is found in the character o f Pompey (2.31.4): sed interdum persona ut exem plo nocet, ita invidiam auget aut levat. ...raro enim invidetur eorum honoribus quorum vis non timetur; contra in iis homines extraordinaria reform idant qui ea suo arbitrio aut deposituri aut retenturi videntur et m odum in voluntate habent. But som etim es the personality o f the recipient, just as it can be harmful by setting a precedent, increases or diminishes jealousy. ...For only rarely are honours begrudged to those w hose power is not feared. By contrast, men shrink from conferring extraordinary powers upon those who seem likely to retain them or lay them aside only as they them selves choose, and whose inclinations are their only check.

The general truths that Velleius employs are often topoi known from other imperial (or even earlier) literature. When Pompey, after his defeat by Caesar, is trying to decide where to flee; he chooses Egypt as his destination, remembering the good services he did to its king, Ptolemy, a decision that elicits a triad o f rhetorical questions from Velleius:1’ sed quis in adversis beneficiorum servat m em on am ? aut quis ullam calamitosts deberi putat gratiam? aut quando fortuna114 non mutat fidem?

123

John Marincola But who in adversity rem em bers past services? W ho thinks any gratitude ow ed to those who have m et disaster? When d oes fortune not change reliability? (2.53.2)

Elsewhere, in trying to explain why Pompey should begrudge Caesar the honours that he did when Pompey himself had enjoyed so many, Velleius muses that we always make ourselves an exception to any rule:19 ...adeo familiare est hom inibus om nia sibi ignoscere, nihil aliis remittere, et invidiam rerum non ad causam sed ad voluntatem personasque derigere. ...so com m on a failing it is for mankind to forgive on eself everything, but to make no concessions to others, and to direct one’s jealousy over events not towards the cause but tow ards m otives and persons. (2.30.3)

Trying to explain how it could be that Quintilius Varus refused to believe Segestes, a German who reported the plans afoot against the Romans, Velleius can take refuge only in the belief that quippe ita se res habet ut plerumque cuius fortunam mutaturus < e s t > deus, consilia corrum pat, efficiatque (quod miserrimum est) ut quod accidit, ei etiam merito accidisse videatur, et casus in culpam transeat. Indeed it is the case that often the god perverts the judgem ent o f the one whose fortune he is about to change, and brings it to pass —and this is the saddest thing o f all - that what happens to this man seem s to have happened deservedly, and chance passes over into fault. (2.118.4)211

And how can one explain the conspiracy o f Rufus Egnatius against Augustus? By noting that there are some people who prefer that their own destruction be attended by the ruin o f all.21 Many precedents for each o f these types o f commonplace can be found in earlier (and later) literature, but we ought to be aware that this did not, for the ancients at least, impair their explanatory ability and it may well have enhanced it. 1 shall come back to this in my conclusion, but for now suffice it to say that in contrast to a modern historian, who would be at pains to point out the specific set o f circumstances that brought about this defeat or that misfortune, the ancient historian often has recourse to general truths, o f which the particular instance can now be adduced as additional evidence o f their validity. Velleius in a number o f cases seems to employ the same notion o f retributive justice familiar from a historian such as Herodotus.22 This suggests that Velleius has a belief (though that is perhaps too strong a word) that wrong conduct is punished, and such a notion can serve partly as an explanation for some actions. A few examples here will suffice: Rupilius and Popilius, the consuls who had prosecuted the friends o f

124

Explanations in Velleius Tiberius Gracchus with the utmost bitterness, deservedly (merito, 2.7.4) met with disapproval at their trials; Valerius Flaccus promulgated a disgraceful law about the cancellation o f debts, and received a just punishment {merita...poena, 2.23.2) for that action; when Cato is sent to Cyprus by Clodius, he is also told to dethrone Ptolemy, who well deserved ('meritum, 2.45.4) this because o f his terrible faults o f character; D. Brutus was slain, reaping just rewards (merito , 2.64.1) for his perfidy toward Caesar; and Agrippa Postumus, increasing in vice, met the end which his madness deserved (dignumfurore suo...exitum , 2.112.7). In two other cases, however, Velleius suggests that retributive justice can be positive: at the very outset o f the work Velleius notes that Orestes’ slaying o f his mother was approved by the gods, as ‘was made clear by the length o f his life and the felicity of his reign’.23 This suggests a direct kind o f quid pro quo, as does Velleius’ statement that the ‘remarkable and unbroken loyalty to the Romans’ of both Cumae and Naples ‘makes them well worthy o f their repute and of their charming situation.’24 As Maria Elefante shows elsewhere in this volume, the cities are thought o f almost as people, praised for their fides towards others. And indeed this latter passage may not really be an explanatory motif so much as a clever way o f praising two cities dear to Velleius’ heart; in any case, this suggestion o f direct reward for good action is not much in evidence elsewhere in Velleius. By far the most common form o f explanation employed by Velleius it is found in more than sixty places —has to do with the character or personal choice o f the historical actor or actors. These kinds o f explanations were, o f course, part and parcel o f ancient historiography from its inception, and they would thus have been extremely familiar to Velleius’ readers, who may have expected them —indeed, many o f Velleius’ historical figures and their actions would have been familiar to anyone at Rome who had a passing interest in history. So it is not surprising that some o f these are somewhat predictable: we are told that Sardanapalus lost his empire because he was enervated by luxurious living, that Sparta flourished so long as she followed the constitution o f Lycurgus, and, in what must have been the single most unexceptionable explanation in all of Velleius, that Rome abandoned virtue for corruption once she was freed from her fear o f Carthage.23 At times Velleius’ personal explanations seem extremely one­ dimensional: he explains C. Gracchus’ behaviour by saying that he had the same fu ror as his brother, Tiberius (2.6.1); or he notes that the Samnite chief, Pontius Telesinus, fought with Sulla at the Colline gate because he hated to the core the very name o f Rome (2.27.1). We cannot, however, always dismiss such personal explanations. Velleius’ observation that the

125

John Marincola triumvirs resented Cicero because he would not be a member o f their land commission (2.45.2) might be dismissed as overly personal, except that Cicero himself in his letters expresses a similar view.26 So too with Velleius’ explanation o f the formation o f the first triumvirate: hoc consilium sequendi Pom peius causam habuerat ut tandem acta in transmarinis provinciis, quibus...m ulti obtrectabant, per Caesarem confirmarentur consulem , Caesar autem, quod animadvertebat se cedendo Pom pei gloriae aucturum suam et invidia com m unis potentiae in illum relegata confirm aturum vires suas, C rassus, ut quem principatum solus adsequi non poterat, auctoritate Pom pei, viribus teneret Caesaris. Pom pey’s m otive...had been to secure through C aesar as consul the long delayed ratification o f his acts in the provinces across the seas, to which... many still raised objections; Caesar agreed to it because he realised that in making this concession to the prestige o f Pom pey he would increase his own, and that by throwing on Pom pey the jealousy [sc. o f others] over their joint control he would add to his own power; while Crassus hoped that with Pom pey’s prestige and C aesar’s pow er he might achieve a pre-eminence in the state which he was not able to reach single-handedly. (2.44.2)

Now we may disagree with this or that point in Velleius’ explanation or indeed with all o f the points, but the approach itself is by no means absurd, given the competitive nature o f the Roman oligarchy (note Velleius’ employment o f invidia again here) and the fact that the three men formed an alliance that sought to advance their individual goals.27 Velleius might have taken account o f the wider world o f Roman politics - the Equestrians, perhaps, or differences amongst the optimates - for a more nuanced explanation, but even that would not necessarily have invalidated what he has written here. Elsewhere, however, it is clear that Velleius’ personal explanations raise more questions than they answer. In trying to account for why the plebeian tribune P. Sulpicius passed a plebiscite transferring command in the Mithridatic war from Sulla to Pompey, Velleius offers the following: P. Sulpicius tribunus pi., disertus, acer, opibus gratia amicitiis vigore ingenii atque animi celeberrim us, cum antea rectissim a voluntate apud populum maximam quaesisset dignitatem, quasi pigeret eum virtutum suarum et bene consulta ei male cederent, subito pravus se praeceps C. Mario p ost L X X annum omnia imperia et om nes provincias concupiscenti addixit... P. Sulpicius, tribune o f the people, eloquent, energetic, m ost fam ous for his wealth, his influence, his friendships, and the vigour o f his native ability and courage, although he had previously won great influence with the people by honourable means, now, as if regretting his virtues, and as if his honourable course o f conduct had brought him only evil, suddenly becam e corrupt,

126

hxplanations in Velleius and attached him self perversely to M arius, who, though he had passed his seventieth year, still coveted every com m and and every province... (2.18.5-6)

Here Velleius cannot explain Sulpicius’ behaviour in any way other than as an almost inexplicable turn o f events, and the use o f quasi shows the perplexity o f the author himself. Elefante has pointed out3S that the approach here is very similar to how Velleius earlier portrayed Livius Drusus: deinde interiectis paucis annis tribunatum iniit M. Livius D ru su s, vir nobilissim us eloquentissim us sanctissim us, m eliore in om nia ingenio anim oque quam fortuna usus, qui cum senatui priscum restituere cuperet decus et iudicia ab equitibus ad eum transferre ordinem...in iis ipsis quae pro senatu m oliebatur senatum habuit adversarium, non intellegentem, si qua de plebis com m odis ab eo agerentur, veluti inescandae inliciendaeque multitudinis causa fieri, ut m inoribus perceptis maiora permitteret. ...Tum conversus D rusi animus, quando bene incepta male cedebant, ad dandam civitatem Italiae. After an interval o f a few years, M. Livius D rusus entered the tribunate, a man o f noble birth, o f eloquent tongue and o f upright life, but in all his acts, his fortune was not in keeping with his talents or his good intentions. It was his aim to restore to the Senate its ancient prestige, and again to transfer the law courts to that order from the equites. ...But in these very measures which Livius undertook on behalf o f the Senate, he had as opponent the Senate itself, which failed to see that the proposals he also urged in the interest o f the plebs were m ade as a bait and a sop to the populace, that they might, by receiving lesser concessions, perm it the passage o f m ore important m easures. ...Then when what had started as good ideas turned out badly, D rusus’ mind was turned towards granting the citizenship to the Italians. (2.13.1-2,14.1)

Though it is not clear that Drusus is being criticised here for pursuing the issue o f Italian citizenship, we see that a change in political policy (if indeed it was a change in Drusus’ policy rather than another side o f the samepolicy) is explained purely as the reaction by an individual to the thwarting o f his designs.29 In no passage, however, is the ‘personal’ motivation so pronounced as in Velleius’ account o f the programmes o f reform o f Ti. and C. Gracchus. He begins by narrating the treaty negotiated by Mancinus Hostilius with the Numantines, which the Senate then rejected. He continues: immanem deditio Mancini civitatis movit dissensionem, quippe Ti. Gracchus, Ti. G racchi clarissimi atque em inentissim i viri filius, P. Africani ex filia nepos, quo quaestore et auctore id foedus ictum erat, nunc graviter ferens aliquid a se pactum infirmari, nunc similis vel iudicii vel poenae metuens discrim en, tribunus pl. creatus, vir alioqui vita m nocentissim us, ingenio

127

John Marincola florentissimus, proposito sanctissimus, tantis denique adornatus virtutibus quantas perfecta et natura et industria mortalis condicio recipit, ...descivit a bonis, pollicitusque toti Italiae civitatem, simul etiam promulgatis agrariis legibus, omnibus statum concupiscentibus, summa imis miscuit et in praeruptum atque anceps periculum adduxit rem publicam. The surrender of Mancinus aroused in the state an enormous quarrel. Tiberius Gracchus, the son of Tiberius Gracchus, an illustrious and eminent citizen, and the grandson, on his mother’s side, of Scipio Africanus, had been quaestor in the army of Mancinus and had negotiated the treaty. Indignant that his negotiations should be disavowed, and fearing the danger of a like trial or like punishment [i.e. similar to what Mancinus had suffered], he had himself elected tribune of the people. He was a man of otherwise blameless life, of brilliant intellect, of upright intentions, and, in a word, endowed with the highest virtues of which a man is capable when favoured by nature and training. ...[H]e split with the party of the nobles, promised the citizenship to all Italy, and at the same time, by proposing agrarian laws, he turned the state topsy-turvy, although everyone desired stability,’11and brought it into a position of critical and extreme danger. (2.2.1-3) Now this, o f course, is not by itself necessarily a poor explanation o f Tiberius’ actions,31 so much as it is one-sided. Velleius pays no attention to whether or not such reforms were actually needed. His introduction o f Gaius a few chapters later brings more o f the same: decem deinde interpositis annis, qui Ti. Gracchum, idem Gaium fratrem eius occupavit furor, tam virtutibus eius omnibus quam huic errori similem, ingenio etiam eloquentiaque longe praestantiorem. qui cum summa quiete animi civitatis princeps esse posset, vel vindicandae fraternae mortis gratia vel praemuniendae regalis potentiae eiusdem exempli tribunatum ingressus... After an interval of ten years, the same madness which had possessed Tiberius Gracchus now seized upon his brother Gaius, who resembled him as much in his virtues as in this error, but far exceeded him in ability and eloquence. He might have been the first man in the state had he held his spirit in repose; but whether it was to avenge his brother’s death or to pave the way for kingly power, he followed the precedent which Tiberius had set and entered upon the career of a tribune... (2.6.1-2) Again, all o f the motivation here is personal, and all o f it takes place in a historical vacuum. And in his summation o f their lives, Velleius has elided any sense o f the peculiar or particular historical circumstances that influenced the motives and actions o f these men: hunc Ti. Gracchi liberi, P. Scipionis Africani nepotes, viva adhuc matre Cornelia, Africani filia, viri optimis ingeniis male usi, vitae mortisque habuere exitum; qui si civilem dignitatis concupissent modum, quicquid tumultuando adipisci gestierunt, quietis obtulisset res publica.

128

Explanations in Velleius Such were the lives and deaths of the sons of Tiberius Gracchus, and the grandsons of Publius Scipio Afncanus, and their mother, Cornelia, the daughter of Africanus, still lived to witness their end. They made bad use of their excellent talents: if they had desired such honours as citizens might lawfully receive, the state would have conferred upon them through peaceful means all that they sought by armed uprising. (2.7.1) Velleius charts their careers purely by the personal standard o f talents wasted and honours not won: in Velleius’ reading, the one goal o f the Gracchi must have been to win glory and honour for themselves, and the great shame is that they lacked the restraint to win this by more acceptable means: their political reforms are o f no interest, nor is there any sense that Gaius, to take but one possibility, actually had a coherent view o f the need for reform o f the state. Velleius grieves for their fate but solely as talented men who squandered their talents. This is an important point to which we shall return. Let me mention one other aspect o f personal explanation, and that is the appeal to the emotions, especially where these are perceived as irrational. Velleius will often explain something as resulting from either the pre-existing emotional state o f the participants or the manipulation by someone in power o f the emotional states o f others. So, for example, Q. Metellus Macedonicus on campaign in Spain forced his soldiers to march back up a steep escarpment, even though they had just been driven from it: the soldiers were greatly frightened but persisted until successful, and Velleius attributes their success to ‘the effect o f shame mingled with fear, and ot a hope born o f despair’ (mixtus timoripudor spesque desperatione quaesita, 2.5.3). At Munda, Velleius says that Caesar’s extraordinary actions motivated his men to such an extent that ‘the battle line was restored more from shame than from bravery, and more strongly by the commander than the soldiers’.52 In a rather extraordinary story, Velleius relates that Marius, arrested at Minturnae and about to be executed, was saved first by the inability o f the public executioner to do the deed —he happened to have been a German taken prisoner by Marius in the Cimbric War - and then by the pity o f the people themselves who saw the great change o f fortune in one who had just before been leader o f the state.55 Hlsewhere, Velleius explains the cruel treatment o f Perusia in the civil wars as due more to the anger o f the soldiers than the desires o f their commander, though this is a clear attempt at whitewashing a shameful event in the early career o f Octavian.54 The conspirators against Augustus are motivated by their hatred o f the prosperous state o f affairs.55 There is, o f course, much more o f this, but these few examples will give a general sense o f how Velleius proceeds with ‘personal’ explanations.

129

John Marincola II I turn now to a type o f explanation that I will call ‘pragmatic’ and define for present purposes as based on political and/or military realities or strategies which are conceived o f largely in non-personal or non-ethical terms. Such explanations should not be surprising, since Velleius, as a soldier and politician, can be assumed to have encountered circumstances that could not be reduced simply to the personalities or characters o f the various historical actors. In an early observation, Velleius says that he sides with those who believe that Romulus, when he founded the city, had as his allies the troops o f his grandfather Latinus, ‘since otherwise he could scarcely have established his new city with an unwarlike band o f shepherds, the Veientines and other Etruscans, as well as the Sabines, being in such close proximity·’.36 Not a particularly brilliant explanation, but one that shows a certain understanding o f security’ and necessity. Later, Velleius observes that the Romans sent out no colonies during the Second Punic War because they were lacking in manpower (1.15.1). Elsewhere, the Italians who sought citizenship in the Social War (whose cause is described as iustissima) are described as follows: ...petebant enim earn civitatem cuius imperium armis tuebantur: per omnes annos atque omnia bella duplici numero se militum equitumque fungi neque in eius civitatis ius recipi quae per eos in id ipsum pervenisset fastigium ex quo homines eiusdem et gentis et sanguinis ut externos alienosque fastidire posset. ...for they were seeking citizenship in the state whose empire they were defending by their arms; every year and in every war they were furnishing a double number of men, both of cavalry and infantry, and yet were not admitted to the rights of citizens in the state which, through their efforts, had reached so high a position that it could look down upon men of the same race and blood as foreigners and aliens. (2.15.2)3' Here Velleius shows a larger understanding o f political issues than he displays elsewhere. Just a page or so later, in the same vein, Velleius recognises that Rome’s success in the war was a direct result o f her accommodation o f the Italians’ desires: paulatim deinde recipiendo in civitatem qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius vires refectae sunt, Pompeio Sullaque et Mario fluentem procumbentemque rem publicam Romanam restituentibus. Then little by little the strength of the Romans was repaired by admitting to citizenship those who had not taken up arms or who had not been slow to

130

Hxplanations in V'’elleius lay them down, and Pompey, Sulla and Marius restored the tottering Roman state. (2.16.4)

There are two interesting, if tendentious, uses o f pragmatic explanations based on historical exempler, the first is found within Velleius’ criticism o f C. Gracchus’ proposal to despatch colonies overseas: in legibus G racchi inter perniciosissim a numeraverim quod extra Italiam colonias posuit, id m aiores, cum viderent tanto potentiorem Tyro Carthaginem, Massiliam Phocaea, Syracusas Corintho, Cyzicum ac Byzantium Mileto, genitali solo, diligenter vitaverant... In the legislation o f G racchus I should num ber am ong his m ost pernicious laws the planting o f colonies outside o f Italy. This policy the Rom ans o f earlier times had carefully avoided, for they saw how much m ore powerful Carthage had been than Tyre, Massilia than Phocaea, Syracuse than Corinth, Cyzicus and Byzantium than Miletus - all these colonies, in short, than their m other cities... (2.7.7)

Here a pragmatic argument is made from the lessons of history, and it is one that Velleius returns to in a famous passage, where he speaks o f Tiberius’ need for a helper in his labours: raro eminentes viri non magnis adiutoribus ad gubernandam fortunam suam usi sunt, ut duo Scipiones duobus I.aeliis, quos per om nia aequaverunt sibi, ut divus A ugustus M. Agrippa et proxim e ab eo Statilio Tauro...etenim m agna negotia m agnis adiutoribus egent, ...interestque rei publicae quod usu necessarium est dignitate eminere utilitatemque auctoritate muniri, sub his exem plis Ti. Caesar Seianum Aelium...singularem principalium onerum adiutorem in om nia habuit atque habet...neque novus hic m os senatus populique Romani est putandi quod optimum sit esse nobilissimum, nam et illi antiqui < q u i> ...T i. Coruncanium , hom inem novum ...ad principale extulere fastigium, et < q u i> ... Sp. Carvilium et m ox M. Catonem , novum item Tusculo urbis inquilinum, Mummiumque...et qui C. Marium ignotae originis ... sine dubitatione Rom ani nominis habuere principem, et qui M. Tullio tantum tribuere, ...quique nihil Asinio Pollioni negaverunt, ...profecto hoc senserunt, in cuiuscum que anim o virtus inesset, ei plurim um esse tribuendum. Rarely have men o f eminence failed to employ great men to aid them in directing their fortune, as the two Scipios employed the two Laelii, whom m all things they treated as equal to them selves, or as the deified Augustus em ployed M. A grippa, and after him Statilius Taurus. ...For great tasks require great helpers, ...and it is im portant to the state that those who are necessary to her service should be given prom inence in rank, and that thenusefulness should be fortified by prestige. With these exam ples before him, Ti. C aesar has had and still has as his incom parable associate in all the burdens o f the principate Sejanus Aelius. ...N or is it a new fashion on the

131

John Marincola part of the Senate and the Roman people to regard as most noble that which is best. For those men of old who raised... Tiberius Coruncianus, a new man, to the first position in the state, ...and those who elevated Spurius Carvilius, ...and soon afterwards M. Cato, though a new man and likewise not a native of the city but from Tusculum, and Mummius...and those who regarded C. Marius, though of obscure origin, as unquestionably the first man of the Roman name...and those who gave so much to M. Tullius...and who denied nothing to Asinius Pollio...assuredly felt that the highest honours should be paid to the man of merit. (2.127.1-128.4, greatly abbreviated) Whatever we may think o f the opinions expressed in these passages (and I hold with those who see this passage as a guarded praise o f Sejanus and more a defence o f Tiberius than a panegyric for Sejanus),38 this type o f argument using historical exempla has a long history both in oratory' and historiography, not least because it was a form o f explanation and exhortation actually used in the real world by both Greeks and Romans.39 It is perhaps not by chance that ‘pragmatic’ explanations appear in some concentration in the last and contemporary portions o f Velleius’ history', i.e., for those events o f which he was best informed and in some o f which he took part. Note, for example, the introduction o f Maroboduus: nulla festinatio huius viri mentionem transgredi debet. Maroboduus, genere nobilis, corpore praevalens, animo ferox, natione magis quam ratione barbarus, non tumultuarium neque fortuitum neque mobilem et ex voluntate parentium constantem inter suos occupavit principatum sed certum imperium vimque regiam complexus animo statuit avocata procul a Romanis gente sua eo progredi ubi, cum propter potentiora arma refugisset, sua faceret potentissima. occupatis igitur quos praediximus locis finitimos omnes aut bello domuit aut condicionibus turis sui fecit, corpus suum custodientium imperium, perpetuis exercitiis paene ad Romanae disciplinae formam redactum, brevi in eminens et nostro quoque imperio timendum perduxit fastigium, gerebatque se ita adversus Romanos, ut neque bello nos clacesseret et, si> lacesseretur, superesse sibi vim ac voluntatem resistendi . legati quos mittebat ad Caesares interdum ut supplicem commendabant, interdum ut pro pari loquebantur, gentibus hominibusque a nobis desciscentibus erat apud eum perfugium, tumque ex male dissimulato agebat aemulum. No brevity should lead us to pass over mention of this man. Maroboduus, a man of noble family, strong in body and courageous in mind, a barbarian by birth more than by intelligence, achieved among his countrymen no mere chiePs position gained as the result of internal disorders or chance or liable to change and dependent upon the caprice of his subjects, but, conceiving in his mind the idea of a definite empire and royal powers, he resolved to remove his own race far away from the Romans and to migrate to a place where, inasmuch as he had fled before the strength of more powerful arms,

132

hxplanations in Velleius he might make his own all-powerful. Accordingly, after occupying the region we have mentioned, he proceeded to reduce all the neighbouring races by war, or to bring them under his sovereignty by treaty. The body of guards protecting his kingdom, which by constant drill had been brought almost to the Roman standard of discipline, soon placed him in a position of power that was dreaded even by our empire. His policy towards Rome was to avoid provoking us by war, but if he were provoked, to show that he had in reserve the power and the will to resist. The envoys whom he sent to the Caesars sometimes commended him to them as a suppliant, and sometimes spoke as though they represented an equal. Races and individuals who revolted from us found in him a refuge, and he played the part of a rival openly, being bad at concealing it. (2.108.2—109.2) What is noteworthy about this description in light o f the earlier ones is that although the personal element is not lacking, it is by no means the exclusive or even the most important way in which Velleius explains Maroboduus’ situation. The strategy Maroboduus pursues is clever and pragmatic, and explanations are given in accordance with soberly considered political and military aims. Similar is Tiberius’ decision, when Pannonia revolts, to postpone his campaign in Germany: ‘it did not seem a safe course to Tiberius to keep his army buried in the interior o f the country and thus leave Italy unprotected from an enemy so near at hand’.40 Simple, straightforward military calculation, the same sort o f explanation given by Velleius when Tiberius sees the five legions o f his own united with an additional five from Caecina and Silvanus, and decides that the forces are too large: ...omnes eo ipso laeti erant maximamque fiduciam victoriae in numero reponebant, at imperator, optimus eorum quae agebat iudex et utilia speciosis praeferens, quodque semper eum facientem vidi in omnibus bellis, quae probanda essent, non quae utique probarentur sequens, paucis diebus exercitum qui venerat ad refovendas ex itinere eius vires moratus, cum eum maioxem-quam ut temperari posset neque habilem gubernaculo cerneret, dimittere statuit; prosecutusque longo et perquam laborioso itinere, cuius difficultas narrari vix potest, ut neque universos quisquam auderet adgredi et partem digrediendum, suorum quisque metu finium, universi temptare non possent, remisit eo unde venerant. ...all were finding satisfaction in this fact [that so large a force had been gathered together in one place] and reposed their greatest hope of victory in their numbers. But the general, who was the best judge of the course he pursued, preferring utility to show, and, as I have always seen him doing in all his wars, following the course that deserved approval rather than that which was currently approved, after keeping the army which had newly arrived for only a few days in order to allow it to recover from the march, decided to send it away, since he saw that it was too large to be managed and

133

John Marincola w as not receptive to effective control. He sent it back whence it cam e, escorting it with his own army a long and exceedingly laborious march, whose difficulty can hardly be described. His purpose in this was, on the one hand, that no one might dare to attack his united forces, and, on the other hand, to prevent the united forces o f the enemy from falling upon the departing division, each nation fearing for its own territory. (2.113.1-3)

Once again, we see here amongst the observations o f character a pragmatic explanation o f Tiberius’ actions, and here his actions are contrasted with what might have appeared to some to be a safe situation,41 such that the reader can conclude that not only the general but also his historian shared an expertise in and understanding o f the situation. A final passage, Velleius’ description o f the Dalmatian tribes o f the Perustae and the Daesiadates, is perhaps the best for seeing the juxtaposition o f several explanatory motifs, including pragmatic ones: ilia aestas m axim i belli consum m avit effectum ; quippe Perustae ac D aesidiates Delm atae, situ locorum ac montium, ingeniorum ferocia, mira etiam pugnandi scientia et praecipue angustiis saltuum paene inexpugnabiles, non iam ductu sed manibus atque armis ipsius Caesaris turn dem um pacati sunt, cum paene funditus eversi forent. This cam paign brought the m om entous war to a successful conclusion; for the Perustae and the D aesiadates, D alm atian tribes, w ho were alm ost unconquerable on account o f the position o f their strongholds in the m ountains, their warlike tem per, their am azing knowledge o f fighting, and, above all, the narrow passes in which they lived, were then at last pacified, now under not only the leadership but also the strength and arms o f Caesar himself, when they were alm ost entirely exterminated. (2.115.4)

Velleius gives here four aspects o f these two tribes that made conquering them particularly difficult, but only one o f them can be considered to concern their ‘character’, and that is, as we would expect, quite characteristic o f barbarians, i.e., their warlike nature {ferocia ingeniorum). Yet the other three are all parts o f a pragmatic explanation: first, they have an advantage in the natural protection offered them by living in the mountains; second, they have an amazing knowledge o f fighting (mira pugnandi scientia), which suggests both that they have worked out a rationale for how they fight and that they put this into practice by consistent application; and finally, and most importantly, by the fact that even within their general natural protection afforded by the mountains, they have an additional advantage by inhabiting narrow passes. Now some o f these are, as is well known, the standard topoi that one finds for praising a commander (which is, after all, what Velleius is doing here),42 but that does not change the fact —and this is all I want to point out for the moment —that Velleius here does not, as

134

hxplanations in I 'elleius so often, give only one reason for a particular action, but rather is able to come up with a series o f non-personalised ‘pragmatic’ explanations for the difficulties faced by the Romans in their war against these tribes. He does not go into such matters in detail, it is true, but that is only what we would expect, given the parameters o f his abbreviated history.

Ill We have seen therefore that Velleius uses a variety o f explanatory' strategies in his history: appeals to abstract concepts, eternal or gnomic truths, the hand ot fortune, professional jealousy, even madness, as well as more pragmatic considerations. Scholars have been fairly harsh on Velleius, finding his emphasis on personal details antithetical to the political, military and social explanations usually demanded from the historian, yet his explanatory motifs are well within the standards o f Greco-Roman historiography, and o f Roman historiography in particular,43 and are perhaps most notable for the fact that they are utterly conventional. If Velleius failed to give explanations acceptable to modern scholars, then he joins the vast company o f nearly every other ancient historian. Do his explanations, such as they are, reveal anything like a coherent world view? I think they do, provided we do not press the notion too far. Looking at the kind o f explanations that Velleius offers in his history, we have noticed an emphasis on character and very often an ahistorical approach to events (best, but not exclusively, seen in his account o f the Gracchi); yet this too is characteristic o f much o f Greco-Roman historiography, as Peter Wiseman pointed out long ago in his remarks on the ancients’ ‘unhistorical’ thinking.44 The ancients liked to believe that there was a seamlessness between past and present, something that joined them with their ancestors (their belief in national character assisted in this), and Velleius’ rapid overview o f all history1and especially Roman history is especially effective at bringing about this sense o f continuity. In addition, there is no sense in Velleius that there was any real break between Republic and Empire;4’ Tiberius is portrayed as the culmination o f all the great generals o f the Republic.46 The nearly universal focus on personal motivations as explanations for events contributes to this telescoping o f history'. We have seen with the few examples o f ‘pragmatic’ explanation that Velleius could, when he wanted to, consider non-personal factors as important in history, and he must in any case have recognised this from his own public life. We tend to forget that Velleius, as a man with a political and military' career, must have

135

John Marincola had to make decisions based not solely on his evaluation o f the ‘character’ o f his allies or opponents, but also on factors that were wholly pragmatic. I suspect as well that Velleius did not see himself as contributing much new in the non-contemporary portions o f his history (and so was content to go along with accepted explanations), whereas in writing the contemporary portions o f his history, he felt that he did have something new to say here and could speak as an eyewitness and expert. However that may be, his work, taken as a whole, relentlessly foregrounds personal motivation,4’ and I think this is not only because this was a common approach in ancient historiography, but also because Velleius wished to portray - and no doubt really believed in - a world o f personal achievement and betterment: he clearly takes pride in the achievements o f his ancestors and himself, and his case, like that o f Sejanus, was characteristic o f an entire class o f new men in the early Empire.48 That he saw the world largely in these terms o f individual achievement can even be found in perhaps his most famous passage, the meditation on why certain types o f literature flourish so intensely at particular times:49 alit aemulatio ingenia, et nunc invidia, nunc admiratio imitationem accendit, m atureque quod sum m o studio petitum est ascendit in sum m um , difficilisque in perfecto m ora est, naturaliterque quod procedere non potest recedit. et ut prim o ad consequendos quos priores ducim us accendimur, ita ubi aut praeteriri aut aequari eos p o sse desperavim us, studium cum spe senescit, et quod adsequi non p otest sequi desinit et velut occupatam relinquens m ateriam quaerit novam , praeteritoque eo in quo eminere non possum us aliquid in quo niteamus conquirimus, sequiturque ut frequens ac m obilis transitus m axim um perfect! operis im pedim entum sit. Em ulation nourishes genius, and it is now envy, now adm iration, which kindles imitation, and that which is cultivated at the appropriate time with the highest effort advances to perfection; but it is difficult to conunue at the point o f perfection, and naturally that which cannot advance m ust

recede. And as in the beginning we are fired with the ambition to overtake those whom we regard as leaders, so when we have despaired of being able either to surpass or even to equal them, our zeal together with our hope grows feeble; it ceases to follow what it cannot overtake, and abandoning the subject as though it were ‘occupied’, it seeks a new one. Passing over that in which we cannot be pre-eminent, we seek some new object of our effort, and it follows that the greatest obstacle in the way of perfection in any work is our fickle and frequent movement to something else. (1.17.6-7) Velleius says that he has often thought about the problem and come across many explanations for the phenomenon, but this one seemed to him particularly likely. And no surprise: as with the Gracchi, it all comes down to rivalry and individual effort, the desire to emulate, and the love o f

136

Explanations in Velleius honours. Whatever we may think o f this, we ought not to dismiss it too quickly, for it gives us insight into an important part o f the elite world under Augustus and Tiberius. And Velleius’ obsession with personality and his interest in self-made men in the Empire would be taken up later by Tacitus, especially in his Agricola, where, unlike in the later Histories and Annals, the approach towards his subject is largely positive and indeed laudator)'. Tacitus in the Agricola is at pains to present his father-inlaw as a self-made man, and he praises individual effort in general, while at the same time recognising the need for ‘moderation’ within the imperial system.so It is a picture that Velleius would have understood all too well.

N o tes * I thank the participants at the Velleius conference for very helpful criticism o f the oral version o f this paper, and Eleanor Cowan and Anton Powell for flagging a number o f problematic parts o f an earlier written version. I alone am responsible for the inevitable places where I failed to follow the wise counsel o f my colleagues. Velleius’ text is cited from Watt 1998, checked against Woodman 1977 and 1983, where relevant; translations are modified (sometimes substantially) from Shipley 1924. Citations without name refer to passages in Velleius. 1 Pol. 3.31.13, with clear echoes ofT h uc. 1.22.4. 2 Semp. Asellio, frr. 1-2 Peter —frr. 1—2 Chassignet = Gell. 5.18.8—9: nobis non modo satis esse video, quodfactum esset, idpronuntiare, sed etiam quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent demonstrate. ’ On causation in the ancient historians there is a good general treatment in Fornara 1983, 76-90; cf. Reinhold 1985, who, although focusing on human nature, has a good deal on causation in general; most scholarly studies, not surprisingly, focus on individual authors. 4 It should not be necessary to point out, o f course, that, despite some overlap, there is a considerable divide between ancient and modern understandings o f causation; see Finley 1985; Morley 2004; Hedrick 2006. There is a valuable collection o f essays on explanation in the February 2008 issue o f History and Theory. 4 Velleius himself says that he intends a larger-scale history: see, e.g., 2.48.5,2.89.1, 2.95.3, 2.114.1, to cite but a few; it cannot be determined whether these are sincere promises or mere literary techniques: see Sumner 1970, 282-4; Woodman 1975, 287-88. 6 1 do not discuss here the role o f fortuna in Velleius, for reasons o f space and because Schmitzer 2000,190-225 provides an extensive and authoritative discussion; he shows that Velleius’ notion o ffortuna combines different aspects, including both the Hellenistic notion o f its capriciousness and the Roman notion o f its essential benevolence. See also Lana 1952, 221-30; and for τύχη / fortuna more generally in classical historiography, see the discussion o f Fornara 1983, 76—88. ’ For the remarks here see Manncola 1997, 280—286. 8 2.1.4: velferocia ingenii vet mscitia nostrorum ducum vel T'ortunae mdulgentia.

137

John Marincola 9 2.4.6: seu fatalem, ut plures, seu conflatam insidiis, ut aliqui prodidere memoriae, mortem obiit, vitam certe dignissimam egit, quae nullius ad id temporis praeterquam avito fulgore vinceretur. 10 2.6.2: ...v el vindicandae fraternae mortis gratia vel praemuniendae regalis potentiae. On Tacitus’ variant versions see Ryberg 1942; Whitehead 1979; Develin 1983. 11 For other variant versions see 2.102.1 (death o f M. Lollius) and 2.120.3 (L. Asprenus and the property o f the dead), although the latter is in a rather different form from the usual variant versions. 12 For their use in rhetoric see Lausberg 1998, §§327, 367. n For Thucydides’ speeches see Scardino 2007, 675—87; for human nature see Reinhold 1985. On the importance o f enthymemes and their role in persuasion, the classic exposition is Arist. Rhet. 1.2.8-22; 2.22. Cf. esp. 1.1.11 (1355a 10-18: Kennedy, trs.): ‘for it [sc. the enthymeme] belongs to the same capacity both to see the true and what resembles the true, and at the same time humans have a natural disposition for the true and to a large extent hit on the truth; thus an ability to aim at commonly held opinions [endoxa] is a characteristic o f one who also has a similar ability in regard to the truth.’ Cf. Quint. 5.10.12, where in explaining the bases for conclusions with a high sense o f certainty he ranks sense perception first, demde ea, m quae communi opinione consensum est: deos esse, praestandam pietatem parentibus. 14 There is a hint o f it at 2.30.3 (quoted below, p. 124) in the words familiare est hominibus. " 1.9.6: quam sit adsidua eminentis fortunae comes invidia altissimisque adhaereat etiam hoc colligi potest, quod cum Anicii Octauiique triumphum nemo interpellaret, fuere qui Pauli impedire adniterentur. Cf. Elefante 1997, 177 (‘La sentenza e quasi proverbiale’) who compares Liv. 45.35.5, and notes the vividness o f Velleius’ metaphor. 16 See also 2.42.3, where Iunius Iuncus, the governor o f Bithynia and Asia, refused to help Julius Caesar against the pirates because he was jealous [quippe sequebatur invidia inertiani). r For this topos [cum fortuna statque caditque fides) see Woodman 1983, 99—100; Elefante 1997, 339. 18 Schmitzer 2000, 212 would read Fortuna (wrongly, I think). 19 Fllefante 1997, 277 cites similar sentiments in Sallust and Seneca. 20 W oodman’s text and punctuation. The thought is at least as old as Theognis (402-6) and Sophocles [Ant. 622—4).

21 2.91.3-4; Woodman 1983, 273 notes that the commonplace is ‘especially in evidence in the literature of the late Republic’. 22 On tisis in Herodotus see Gould 1989, 63—85. 2' 1.1.3: factum eius a diis comprobatum spatio vitae etfelicitate imperii apparuit. 24 1.4.2: utnusque urbis exrnia semper in Romanosfidesfacit eas nobilitate atque amoenitate sua dignissimas. 25 1.6.2 (Sardanapalus); 1.6.3 (Sparta and Lycurgus); 2.1.2 (Carthage). For luxury in Velleius see de Vivo 1984; see more generally Lintott 1972; for the fall o f Carthage in particular, and Velleius’ relationship here with Sallust, see Woodman 1969, 787; Schmitzer 2000, 82 with n. 62. 26 Cic. Att. 2.19.4, et alibi·, see Elefante 1997, 321. 2 See Hellegouarc’h 1984,420, with references to earlier discussions, for a defence o f Velleius in these matters.

138

Explanations in Velleius 28 cf. Elefante 1997, 239. 29 Elefante 1997, 239: ‘questo motivo appare poco credibile.’ On Drusus in Velleius see Lana 1952, 229-41, who posits that D rusus’ difficult relations with the Senate are meant to prefigure those o f Tiberius. The phrase omnibus station concupiscentibus is problematic; Watt believes statum is corrupt; I have followed the interpretation o f Elefante 1997, 209, who sees it as meaning ‘stabilita politica’; on Velleius’ treatment of the Gracchi, see Lana 1952, 242-51, who emphasises the importance to Velleius o f quies\ see also the comprehensive discussion o f Schmitzer 2000, 110-129. MSee, e.g., Badian 1972, 692 who notes that dolor was seen as a motivating, even heroic, factor in ancient life. 12 2.55.4: verecundia w ags quam virtute acies restituta, et a dure quam a militefortius \potius-. Watt]. 11 2.19.4; for other versions see Elelante 1979, 251, though none is very close to Velleius’. 14 2.74.4: in Perusinos wags ira militum quam voluntate samtum ducis\ on Velleius’ silences here, see Elefante 1997, 387. Cf. his similar treatment o f the murder o f Cicero, where Octavian is ‘compelled’ to proscribe Cicero, and the blame is clearly laid on Mark Antony: 2.66.1-5, with Lana 1952, 229-30; Gowing 2005, 47-8. ” 2.91.2: qm huncfelicissimum statum odissent. Elefante 1997, 435 points out that the language o f this passage reflects terminology and mentalities from the late Republic. 1,1 1.8.5: cum aliterfirman urbem novam tarn ncinis 1 'eientibus aliisque Fitruscis ac Sabims ami imbelli etpastorali manu vix potuent. 4 Elefante does not comment on the causes here; c f Diod. 37.1.2 (which is mostly about luxury); Llv. per. 71.2-3. Velleius’ explanation is commonly found in modem treatments o f the Social War: see, e.g., Brunt 1965; Sherwin-White 1973, 134-49; cf. the different approach o f Mountsen 1998, csp. 129-71. ,R Sumner 1970, 288-97; Woodman 1975, 302-3, cf. 1977, 247-8; Elefante 1997, 526-7; Schmitzer 2000, 280-86. 19 Marincola 2007b, 131; many Greek and Roman historians who, like Velleius, had public careers will have often found it necessary to deliver such speeches m real life. 4" 2.110.3: neque tutum visum abdito in mtenora exercitu vacuum tarn memo hosti rehnquere Italiam. 41 The contrast is almost certainly with Augustus who had sent the legions there: see Woodman 1977, 172; Elefante 1997, 485-6. 42 See Elefante 1997, 490. 4i Woodman 1977, 28-56 is fundamental on the personal element in Velleius and Roman historiography in general; see Eornara 1983, 84—88 on the development o f the specifically Roman concern with political morality. 44 Wiseman 1979, 42; cf. Marincola 2009, 16-22, on which the remarks that followare based. 4’ On this continuity, see Kuntze 1985, 155—68; Schmitzer 2000, 291-2 (who also points out that the statues in Augustus’ Forum Romanum were likewise emblematic ot an unbroken tradition and may have influenced Velleius); Gowing 2005, 34—48, 106, 122, 157 (who notes that such a view disappears in the generations after Velleius). Velleius’ contemporary, Valerius Maximus, saw things similarly: Bloomer 1992, 3.

139

John Marin cola 46 Gowing 2007, esp. 412-7. 47 The question o f genre is addressed elsewhere in this volume (see especially the chapters by Pelling and Rich), but I want to point out that Velleius’ history is not a continuous narrative so much as a selective movement from early (non-Roman) history to his own day, concentrating mainly on individuals who move the narrative along (on the organisation o f Velleius’ history see Starr 1980). Even as he approaches his own times, where he could certainly have written a more traditional ‘narrative’, Velleius keeps to individuals, using the events to bring out the qualities o f the men whose story he is telling. 48 Lana 1952, 68—160 shows Velleius’ predilection for ‘new men’ throughout his history; on new men in the early Empire see Lana 1952, 30—56; Gabba 1984, 80—82. 49 On this passage see Schob 1908, 11—43; Della Corte 1937; Schmit2 er 2000, 81— 85; Bloomer, this volume, 114. 80 Tac. Agr. 42.4; note esp. obsequiumque ac modestiam, si industria ac vigor adsint.

140

7

V E L L E IU S 2.30.6 AND TACITUS, H ISTO R IES 4.81.2: ACCOM PLISH ING ALLUSION Victoria Emma Pagan

Toward the end o f his brief paragraph on the revolt o f Spartacus, Velleius says: Huius patrati gloria penes M. Crassum fu it (‘the glory for accomplishing this fell to Marcus Crassus’, 2.30.6). In narrating Vespasian’s miracles at Alexandria, Tacitus records the arguments o f doctors who conclude: denique patrati remedii gloriam penes Caesarem (‘finally the glory for accomplishing a remedy would fall to Caesar’, Hist. 4.81.2). Both Fletcher and FJefante have noted the lexical similarity, but the implications o f the correspondence have not been discussed.1 A close reading o f these two passages leads to some broader conclusions about the relationship between Velleius and Tacitus that force a reconsideration o f the rules o f the game - the principles by which we judge allusion, the ‘teasing play,’ in Latin historiography.2 Let us begin with Velleius’ précis o f the revolt o f Spartacus: Dum Sertorianum bellum in Hispania geritur, LXIV fugitivi e ludo gladiatorio Capua profugientes duce Spartaco, raptis ex ea urbe gladiis, primo Vesuvium montem petiere, mox crescente in dies multitudine gravibus variisque casibus adfecere Italiam. Quorum numerus in tantum adulevit ut, qua ultimo dimicavere acie fX L a CCCf hominum se Romano exercitui opposuerint. Huius patrati gloria penes M. Crassum fuit, mox frei publicae omniumf principem. While the war against Sertorius was being waged in Spain, sixty four runaways escaped the gladiatorial school in Capua under the leadership of Spartacus and took swords from that town; first they sought Mount Vesuvius, soon, with their number growing by the day, they afflicted Italy with many serious disasters. Their number grew to such an extent that in the last battle they fought, [260,000 ?] men opposed the Roman army. The glory for accomplishing this fell to Marcus Crassus, soon the first man of the Republic by the agreement of all.5 (2.30.5—6) Though the war on Spartacus is rather well documented, the sources tend to be less interested in the causes and origins o f the revolt. Instead, they are unanimously more interested in narrating the field commands and

141

IVictoria Emma Pagan maneuvers o f the Roman generals, their mistakes, the eventual success o f Crassus, and the subsequent political wrangling with Pompey over credit for the victory.4 A work that is both universal and brief can devote only three sentences to the revolt; as Lobur shows, however, brevitas is not a fault, nor does it betray a self-consciousness, whether sincere or insincere.5 Rather, brevitas is the modus operandi for the changing practice o f élite selffashioning that took time as its token o f value. The first and longest sentence puts the revolt in its historical context. Velleius pinpoints the origin, e ludo gladiatorio Capua, and Spartacus {duce Spartaco) is specified. In rapid succession, the sentence sets forth the means (;raptis...gladiis), initial location {primo Vesuvium montem ), and results o f the revolt {adfecere Italiam). The second sentence conveys the magnitude o f the revolt.6 The third and shortest sentence summarizes the political ramifications o f the defeat o f Spartacus and implies that the revolt may have posed a serious threat, but the more lasting repercussion was felt in the political arena. The later tradition about the revolt o f Spartacus conforms with Velleius’ exposition. Relying on Plutarch, Gruen explains that although Crassus was given command by the Senate and waged most o f the war against Spartacus, Pompey ‘claimed responsibility for crushing the slave revolt by rounding up Spartacus’ stragglers, thereby robbing the infuriated Crassus o f well earned credit.’’ According to Appian, Crassus was motivated as much by the desire to keep Pompey from achieving any credit (ϊνα μή tò κλέος του πολέμου γένοιτο Πομπηίου) as by the need to crush the slave rebellion {Civil Wars 1.120.1). Such mounting jealousy contributes to the climactic finale o f Appian’s first book o f the Civil Wars, which closes with the dramatic and memorable moment o f reconciliation, when Crassus yielded first, descended from his chair, and offered his hand to Pompey

1 121) .

( .

In contrast to these later Greek sources, Cicero provides some

contemporary evidence. In

the year

70,

he prosecuted Verres

in

the

immediate wake o f the victory over Spartacus. Although the colossal speeches o f the acta secunda were never delivered, Frazel argues convincingly that they were largely composed before the legal proceedings ended so abruptly.8 In the last o f the Verrine orations, Cicero refutes the possible argument o f the defense, that Verres saved Sicily from the threat o f Spartacus. He counters, num tibi illius victoriaegloriam cum M. Crasso aut Cn. Pompeio communicatamputasl (‘Surely you do not regard Crassus or Pompey as dividing with you the glory for that victory?’, Ver. 2.5.5). According to a fragment o f Sallust, C. Verres litora Italia propinqua firm avit (‘Verres strengthened fortifications on the shores o f Sicily closest to Italy’, Hist.

142

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus, Histories 4.81.2: accomplishing allusion 4.32 Maurenbrecher), but Cicero’s primary aim is to discredit Verres and not to recite his military tactics. For our purposes, Cicero registers a contemporary attitude. Verres could not compete with either Crassus or Pompey; the disjunctive suggests that popular opinion was still in the making. Since it was impossible to know which o f the consuls o f 70 would eventually win out, Cicero declines to praise the one at the risk o f offending the other. Therefore, when Velleius gives only one object o f the preposition penes and lays credit for the victor}' at the feet o f Crassus alone, he registers only one side o f the story. Let us turn to Tacitus. The bulk o f Histones 4 relates the Batavian revolt. Vespasian is absent from Rome and from much o f the narrative, unul he finally appears briefly at the end o f the book. As he progresses toward Rome, he must wait at Alexandria for favorable sailing conditions. There, two invalids approach him, the one blind and the other lame, begging Vespasian to heal their afflictions. At first he ignores them, but persuaded by their persistence, he decides to seek a professional opinion. Could such afflictions be healed by human agency? The doctors reply: m edici varie disserere: huic non exesam vim luminis et redituram, si pellerentur obstantia; illi elapsos in pravum artus, si salubris vis adhibeatur, posse integrari; id fortasse cordi deis et divino ministerio principem electum; denique patrati remedii gloriam penes Caesarem, inriti ludibrium penes m iseros fore.9 T he doctors proffered varied discussion: for the one man, the faculty o f sight was not wholly destroyed and would return if obstacles were removed; for the other man, lim bs sunk into deformity could be restored if healing force were applied. Perhaps it was the will o f the gods, and the princeps would be chosen to be divine agency; as a final argument, they said that the glory for accom plishing a remedy would fall to Caesar, ridicule for failure upon the sufferers. (4.81.2)

After the doctors’ indirect speech, the paragraph concludes with Vespasian’s performance o f the miracles. ‘The hand was instandv restored to its use, and the light o f day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now,’ assures Tacitus, ‘when nothing is to be gained by falsehood’ (4.81.3). Vespasian’s miracles are attested by Suetonius, who provides the same details as Tacitus about the invalids, their condidon, and their recovery.111 Dio covers the story in just one sentence.11 But neither speaks o f the glory o f accomplishing a remedy as befalling Vespasian. Thus, while the miracles are a bona fide part o f the tradition, Tacitus narrates them in a particular way. The repetition o f the three words patrati, gloria , and penes is substantial enough to warrant detailed investigation. Given the radical difference in the

143

1Victoria hm m a Pagan subject o f the paragraphs, the one summarizing the rebellion o f Spartacus and the other reporting the miracles o f Vespasian, the repetition cannot be attributed to a mere accidental confluence o f diction. These passages do not deal with a shared or related subject matter that would necessitate these three words in such close proximity. N or do the passages partake o f a generic topos or commonplace. Therefore, the verbal echo must be stylistic and ornamental. Objections are obvious. In the first place, Tacitus’ phrase patrati remedii gloriam penes Caesarem is so isolated as to be negligible. Moreover, readers have been preconditioned by entrenched scholarship that vigorously denies Velleius any potential for literary influence.12 In addition, even if Tacitus imitated Velleius, it is impossible to know whether he employed the words deliberately or accidentally. It would be safest to say that Tacitus was not necessarily aware that he was echoing Velleius. Perhaps after reading Velleius 2.30.5-6, Tacitus merely internalized the vocabulary and brought it forward at this point in the Histories because it suited the tone o f the story o f miracles in Flgypt.15 Yet, more is to be gained by pursuing the verbal similarity than by ignoring it. First, the echo enriches Tacitus’ narrative with irony and sarcasm and invites comparison o f the turbulent foundation o f the Flavian dynasty' to the unrest caused by the slave revolt o f Spartacus. Second, it may resolve the textual crux at the end o f Velleius 2.30.6. Third, it is yet another indication o f Tacitus’ abiding interest in the fortune o f the Licinian gens. Finally, it proves not only a robust Nachleben for our Tiberian historian, but also the dynamic nature o f allusion in Latin historiography, for in all likelihood the verbal repetition derives from a common source. In what follows, I pursue these four angles in order. As evidence of Tacitus’ sarcasm and ferocious humor, Syme cites the miracles o f Vespasian and calls the doctors’ diagnosis ‘professional language pompously stylized’.14 Chilver and Townend likewise remark on the irony

that gilds the passage.15 The absurdity and incredulity evinced by the passage derive in part from the stylized language; the doctors’ logic is silly because it sounds silly. Tacitus rejects Velleian ideology in the very same terms that ideology is expressed; he turns Velleius’ diction on its head. So for instance, implicit in the repetition o f the word gloria is a comment on what constitutes gloria. To win a war over a hapless band o f gladiators and slaves, regardless o f how formidable, is nevertheless ignoble. The rebellion that began in 73 BC and was not quelled until 71 should never have been allowed to reach such proportions, and if Crassus won gloria for his victory, it was in part because those sent before him failed to take the slaves seriously and because the Senate had failed to take swift

144

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus, Histories 4.81.2: accomplishing allusion and decisive action. Tacitus’ use o f the term gloria can thus ring all the more hollow. The preposition penes also raises an eyebrow. It occurs twice in extant Velleius, once with a proper name (2.30.6,penes M. Crassum) and once with a pronoun (2.63.1, penes eum). In the much larger corpus o f extant Tacitus, the preposition is more prevalent, as one would expect, but the average is the same.16 Penes occurs twenty-one times in the Histories, eleven times with a proper name and ten times with a generic noun or pronoun;1’ fourteen times in the Annals, seven with a proper name and seven with a generic noun or pronoun.18Whether by accident or by design, like Velleius, Tacitus completes penes with a proper name as often as not. In extant Sallust,/)?«« is never completed with a proper name. Followed by a pronoun or substantive adjective,/)?«?! is used seven times in the Bellum JugurthinumP' four times in the Histories,m and never in the Bellum Catilinae. Thus,/)?«?! + proper name is the sort o f phrase Sallust does not appear to use. Velleius, on the other hand, used it at least once. Therefore, it would appear that Velleius’ phrase penes M. Crassum may be un-Sallustian or possibly even anti-Sallustian. Compared to Sallust, it is certainly innovative. The balanced use o f penes + proper name in Tacitus suggests that Velleius’ innovation took hold. Even if we do not credit Velleius with originality worth imitating, Tacitean usage demonstrates a change in taste, fashion, and acceptability’. The third word that both Velleius and Tacitus have in common is the participle patrati. According to Trànkle, the verb is found in Plautus and Cato, thereafter almost exclusively confined to historiography.21 In the context o f conspiracy and seditio , the phrase facinus patrare is frequent.22 The phrase bellum patrare is also common.23 Velleius, perhaps drawing on Sallust, uses bellum patrare in his précis o f the war against Jugurtha (Veil. 2.11.2 \Jug. 21.2). Velleius’ phrase huius patrati gloria thus makes sense, since he is describing the glory for accomplishing a military victory. Huius, as Elefante notes, can easily be construed as huius belliA The Tacitean patrati remedii, on the other hand, is a bold catachresis.23 The participle patratus is not uncommon in Tacitus.26 In the Annals, it occurs in the context o f foreign affairs; for instance, in the motive o f Rhescuporis (2.66.1), in the obituary o f Arminius (2.88.1), and in Corbulo’s campaign against Artaxata (13.41.4, quo patrata victoria). In the Histories , patratus appears in a domestic context (although civil war no doubt blurs the distinction between foreign and domestic). Leading statesmen try to persuade Flavius Sabinus, prefect o f the city, to make a bid for power. In secret council, they offer various reasons, concluding:

145

Victoria Emma Pagan gratiam patrati belli penes eum, qui urbem occupasset: id Sabino convenire, ut imperium fratri reservaret, id V espasiano, ut ceteri post Sabinum haberentur. Thanks for accom plishing the war would befall him who had occupied the city. It was fitting for Sabinus to keep com m and for his brother, for V espasian that the rest be considered beneath Sabinus. (3.64.2)

This passage is strikingly similar to 4.81.2. Both passages occur at the end o f the paragraphs, both record advice in oratio obliqua, both argue that poliucal expediency derives from credit for accomplishing a deed, and both conclude with balanced alternatives. N o doubt the self-imitation amplifies the foolishness o f Vespasian’s miracles at Alexandria and the doctors’ vapid discourse. In the Annals, Tacitus also uses the participle patratus in his narrative o f the false Agrippa Postumus. A slave by the name o f Clemens decided to take matters into his own hands and rescue his master Agrippa Postumus, exiled on the island o f Planasia; however, he arrived too late: patrata caede ad maiora et magis praecipitia conversus (‘with the murder accomplished, he turned to greater and more headlong schemes’, 2.39.2). Clemens thereupon assumed the identity7o f his former master. Compare what Velleius says in his brief notice o f the banishment o f Agrippa Postumus. Velleius first mentions that Augustus adopted Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius on the same day. Next, he describes the degeneration o f Postumus’ character; he fell into reckless ways: in praecipitia conversus (2.112.7). Both Fletcher and Woodman have noted the verbal similarity7( praecipitia conversui) F The tone o f the two passages, however, could not be more disparate. Velleius maligns and impugns the character o f the true Agrippa Postumus who got what he deserved [dignum...exitum, 2.112.7). For Tacitus, on the other hand, the true Agrippa Postumus occupies first place in his victimology7 o f the Tiberian Annals. Tacitus applies the turn o f phrase praecipitia conversus to his narrative o f thefalse Agrippa Postumus, whose deeds were necessitated by patrata caede, by the accomplishment o f murder. In this context, the etyrmology o f the participle patrata , related to pater ,28 mocks paternity. Augustus adopted Agrippa Postumus on the same day he adopted the man who would machinate his murder. Both the Tiberian and Neronian principates begin with ‘a death in the first a c t prima novo principatu mors (‘the first death o f the new principate’, Ann. 13.1.1) echoes primum facinus noviprincipatus (‘the first crime o f the new principate’, Ann. 1.6.1). Tacitus imitates himself with arresting simplicity; however, when it comes to narrating impostors, the imitation is far more complex. Tacitus’ account o f the false Agrippa Postumus in th e Annals distorts Velleius’ description o f the true Agrippa Postumus. His account o f

146

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus, Histories 4.81.2: accomplishing allusion the false Nero in the Histories, on the other hand, recombines and reworks Sallust to great effect, as Ducroux has noted. In the Bellum Catilinae, Sallust attributes Catiline’s success to the m ob’s eagerness for revolution and hatred o f their own conditions (novarum rerum studio, ...odio suarum rerum, 37.1, 3). In the Histories, Tacitus attributes the false Nero’s success to the same causes: desire for revolution and hatred o f their current circumstances (rerum novarum cupidine et odio praesentium, Hist. 2.8.2).30 The chiasmus o f ablative singular and genitive plural makes the verbal repetition all the more audible. Therefore, the allusion to Velleius in Annals 2.39.2 (the false Agrippa) together with the allusion to Sallust in Histories 2.8.2 (the false Nero) suggests a deliberate artfulness on the part o f Tacitus. As if impersonating Velleius or Sallust, Tacitus uses their words to adorn his portraits o f the impostors. Twice in the Annals Tacitus mentions Spartacus by name. In the first instance, Tiberius bridles at the insulting behavior o f the African Tacfarinas, who is compared to Spartacus: ne Spartaco quidem post tot consularium exercituum clades inultam Italiam urenti, quamquam Sertorii atque Mithridatis ingentibus bellis labaret res publica, datum, ut pacto in fidem acciperetur. Not even to Spartacus —at the time when he was scorching an Italy still unavenged after so many disasters to consular armies, and although the state was tottering under great wars with Sertorius and Mithridates - had it been granted that he be received into trust under a pact.31 (3.73.2) Tacitus calls upon the legendary Spartacus as an exemplum, to illustrate how far the standards for dealing with brigands had degenerated. In the second instance, an outbreak o f gladiators at Praeneste occasioned rumors: per idem tempus gladiatores apud oppidum Praeneste temptata eruptione praesidio militis, qui custos adest, coerciti sunt, iam Spartacum et vetera mala rumoribus ferente populo, ut est novarum rerum cupiens pavidusque. About the same time gladiators at the town of Praeneste, attempting a breakout, were restrained by the garrison of soldiery which was there as a guard, although rumors of Spartacus and old calamities were already being circulated by the people, desiring and panicking at revolution as they do.52 (15.46.1) The name Spartacus is equated with vetera mala, generic troubles o f old. These passages across the Annals attest to the lasting hold that Spartacus had on Tacitus’ literary imagination and the way this particular slave revolt wrote itself into the Roman mindset. Therefore, it is possible that in picking up the words patrati, gloria, and penes from Velleius’ revolt o f Spartacus, Tacitus is also activating the

147

Victoria Emma Pagan memory o f massive slave rebellions that beleaguered Rome between the mid 130s and the late 70s BC.33 According to Diodorus’ account o f the First Sicilian slave revolt o f 135—132, the discontented slaves found a ringleader in a Syrian slave named Elunus, a magician and wonderworking charlatan who claimed the ability to communicate with the gods and divine the future. He was told in a dream that he was to become king, and indeed the rebels declared him such (34/35.2.4—16). Compare what Diodorus says o f Eunus, where the similarity to Histories 4.81.2 is hauntingly familiar: πολλών ό' ύπ’ αύτοΰ σχεδιαζόμενων άπό τύχης ένια πρός άλήθειαν έξέβαινε· και των μέν μή γινομένων ύπ’ ούδενός έλεγχομένων, τών δέ συντελουμένων έπισημασίας τυγχανόντων, προκοπήν έλάμβανεν ή περί αυτόν δόξα. Of his many improvisations some by chance turned out to be true, and since those which failed to do so were left unchallenged, while those that were fulfilled attracted attention, his reputation advanced apace.34 (34/35.2.6) Eunus would be a most unflattering character to evoke when speaking o f Vespasian, and yet as Ash points out, despite reassurances, Tacitus’ Vespasian is more problematic than initial impressions suggest, for it would appear that his power was legitimated by a series o f divine portents and supernatural forces o f the E a st/5Thus, behind the miracles at Alexandria lurks the revolt o f Spartacus with all o f its overtones and subtle indmations o f civil unrest, social upheaval, political rivalry, xenophobia, and religious revolution/6 Spartacus exemplifies the failure o f the charismatic leader in the face o f senatorial dominance. In the allusion to Velleius, Tacitus can indirectly mobilize these themes and implicitly compare the foundation o f the Flavian dynasty to slave revolt. As Spartacus led the last in a series o f three great slave rebellions, so Vespasian emerged after the long year. Where factual comparison ends, however, metaphor begins: the crucified Spartacus as a symbol o f the body politic adumbrates the futility o f the principate/’ Before turning to the matter o f textual emendation, it will be useful to summarize our observations about the diction. Gloria occurs in both passages. In Velleius it exaggerates the victory over slaves — with characteristic flattery; in Tacitus it exaggerates the successful performance o f the supernatural - with characteristic irony. Penes occurs in both passages. Velleius offers but one object o f this preposition, although as both contemporary and later evidence shows, credit for success would have accrued to Crassus or Pompey. Tacitus on the other hand spells out two alternative objects o f the preposition: the successful Vespasian or the disappointed fools. And finally the objective genitive participle patrati occurs in both passages. Tacitus uses the participle in a variety' o f contexts,

148

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus, Histories 4.81.2: accomplishing allusion including his account o f the false Agrippa Postumus, in which he echoes Velleius’ notice o f the true Agrippa Postumus. It will not have escaped the reader’s notice that Tacitus embeds his echo o f Velleius in oratio ohliqua. In formal terms, the sentiment expressed belongs to the doctors who equivocate in order to sidestep the unanswerable question o f whether the blind and lame can be cured; however, attention to the position o f the phrase in Tacitus is instructive. Patrati remedii gloriam penes Caesarem , set o ff by the adverb denique, is registered last in the indirect discourse. Similarly, Velleius brings his paragraph to a close with the words, huius patrati gloria penes M. Crassumfuit. Thus both passages conclude with notions o f glory accruing to an individual, but these are not technically the last words. Velleius embellishes Crassus with an appositional complement: mox fr e i publicae omnium\ principem .58 After imitating the phrase patrati gloria penes , Tacitus abandons the apposition, and for good reason. Whereas Crassus was soon to be the first man o f the Republic, Vespasian was a princeps o f an altogether different order. Likewise, the res publica o f Crassus’ time was by no means the same entity when Vespasian came to power. Unfortunately, however, at this point the manuscripts o f Velleius fail, resulting in a textual crux. Although the emendation o f Ellis, mox reipublicae omnium consensu principem has been widely rejected,39 it is attractive because it rings like a political slogan. Omnium consensu is an epigram conspicuous for its verbal neatness, emphasized all the more by its concentrated recurrence in Histories 1. According to Damon, consensus appears twelve times in Histones 1, but only eight times in the remaining Histotier and only fourteen times in the whole o f the AnnalsH Tacitus uses the phrase omnium consensu at the end o f the obituary o f Galba: et omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset (‘and by common consent he was capable o f empire —if only he had never ruled’, 1.49.4).41 In this sentence, omnium consensu falls victim to what Johnson calls, ‘the cynical Tacitean pluperfect subjunctives that describe what might have been only to emphasize the horror o f what is actual.’42 How much more cynical Tacitus would be, if, with the words omnium consensu, he were mimicking a slogan found in Velleius. For when it comes to common consent, the foundation o f the Flavian dynasty rested on anything but omnium consensu. Clearly, verbatim imitation is odious; instead, literary appropriation is dynamic and creative. Therefore, Tacitus takes a different tack altogether and completes the doctors’ speech instead with a loaded ironic alternative: inriti ludibrium penes miseros foreV Anyone foolish enough to believe in miracles deserves to be mocked. We would have expected Velleius to

149

Victoria lim m a Pagan provide an alternative; instead, Velleius excludes Pompey and focuses all attention on Crassus. So let us scrutinize more closely, as Velleius would have us, the forebears o f the Licinian family. Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus, consul in 131 BC, is mentioned by Velleius as an excellent orator (1.17.3) and a celebrated jurist (2.4.1). Lucius Licinius Crassus, consul in 95, stands ‘above all’ orators o f his day (ante omnes, 2.9.1; cf. 2.36.2). Lucius Licinius Lucullus, consul in 74, on the other hand, was a rival to Pompey, the ‘Roman Xerxes’ (2.33.4, Xerxen togatuni) who though he flourished in public life, managed to die o f natural causes (2.48.6). Velleius openly acknowledges his preoccupation with Licinians; after describing the fate o f Aulus Licinius Nerva Silianus (consul in 7 ad), he concludes: ‘If anyone shall say that I have gone out o f my way to mention these men, his criticism will meet no denial’ (2.116.5). Now for the descendants o f Marcus Licinius Crassus, the rival o f Pompey, the conqueror o f Spartacus, and the consul o f 70 (Figure 1):

M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 70

bc) —T ertulla

\

M. Piso Frugi

M. Crassus —Metella

i

M. Crassus (cos. 30

BC)

A-D-O-P-T-LO-N

M. Crassus Frugi (cos. 14

BC)

—Ignota

v M. Crassus Frugi (cos. 27

ad)

= Scribonia

T Cn. Pompeius Magnus M. Crassus Frugi (cos. 64) Crassus Scribonianus

Piso Licinianus, adopted by Galba Fig. 1 T he descendants o f C rassus (adapted from Syme 1986, Appendix X V II).

150

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus,

H is to r ie s

4.81.2: accomplishing allusion

The grandson o f Pompey’s rival, the consul o f 30 BC, is said to have adopted Marcus Licinius Crassus Piso Frugi, the consul o f 14 BC. His son (M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, cos. 27 AD) married Scribonia, whose grand­ mother was the granddaughter o f Pompey the Great. Thus, they represented the union o f two o f the most powerful names o f the late Republic. They had four sons who were descended on the father’s side from Crassus, and on the mother’s side from Pompey. The eldest, Cn. Pompeius Magnus perished under Claudius;44 the second, M. Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos. 64) was the enemy o f the delator Aquillius Regulus, who secured his death.45 O f the third son, Crassus Scribonianus, only his name is known {Hist. 1.47.2). But the fourth, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, was adopted by Galba on January 10, 69. G alba’s adoption o f Piso occupies Histories 1.12—20, paragraphs fuller, more accurate, and more richly elaborated than those in the parallel sources, according to Damon.46 In order to authorize his adoption o f Piso, Galba invokes the consent o f gods and men: nunc me deorum hominumque consensu ad imperium vocatum {Hist. 1.15.1). Piso Licinianus met a grisly end at the hands o f the henchmen o f Otho; his funeral rites were performed by his wife Verania {Hist. 1.46, 47) and his remains probably deposited in the Licinian tomb together with those o f his brother and father.4’ Thus, it would seem that like Velleius, Tacitus too focuses a fair amount o f attention on the Licinii, a very old aristocratic family, but by very different means and to very different ends.48 Syme conjectures a reason, predictably metahistorical. A nephew o f Galba’s Piso was charged with treason under Nerva, banished by Trajan, and executed when Hadrian came to power.49 Tacitus may have imported this contemporary adoption, banishment, and execution into his historical rendition o f Agrippa Postumus at the outset o f the Annals', such contemporary events could also explain the dominance o f the ancestor Piso Licinianus, as he is called at the outset o f the Histories (1.14.1). Although often politically expedient, adoption complicates otherwise straightforward notions o f paternity. Should Tacitus share with Velleius an interest in the fortunes o f the Licinii, then adoption complicates, both metahistorically and metapoetically, any straightforward anxiety o f influence. Velleius’ praise o f Crassus is explicit. Tacitus’ opinion o f his descendants by adoption is anything but straightforward. I have exerted a great deal o f effort to reach admittedly tendentious conclusions; more prudent is a retreat to higher ground. The verbal echo o f Velleius in Tacitus raises one more possibility. Elsewhere Tacitus and Velleius are seen to echo a source independently; for example, in their commentary on Annals 4, Martin and Woodman note that Tacitus

151

Victoria Emma Pagan ‘sometimes shares phraseology with Velleius in contexts which suggest that each has echoed Tiberius’ speeches independently.’50 Tacitus was no doubt an avid reader o f Sallust, and so was Velleius, according to the latefourth-century chronicler Sulpicius Severus.51 Therefore, perhaps Sallust had a sentence or two in his now shredded account o f the revolt o f Spartacus about the credit for victory falling to Crassus, a sentence or two that may have used the words patrati, gloria, and penes. If so, then either Tacitus and Velleius draw on Sallust independently, or Tacitus alludes to Sallust, or Velleius —or both simultaneously. Woodman oudines the ways that Sallust influences Velleius in diction, structure and style. Broader ideas are also confluent; conventional politics and a theory o f historiography are registered in similar ways. Chance phrases from Sallust reappear in Velleius. Velleius is also seen to combine, condense, or expand Sallustian phrases. Woodman uses Sallustian influence to recover Velleius: ‘Awareness o f such imitation might in some miscellaneous instances help clarify the text or support a conjecture.’52 In the case o f 2.30.6, however, clarification would operate in the other direction. Awareness o f such imitation would suggest the content o f lost Sallust: something about Crassus accomplishing the victory over Spartacus, something about the political ramifications o f that victory. Armed with the suggestion o f Sallust, we may lunge once more at the daggered mox \rei publicae omnium\ principem o f Velleius 2.30.6. Omnium consensus is perhaps difficult to attribute to Crassus. According to Lobur: In traditional Rom an aristocratic culture, consensus w as the primary standard against which the elites m easured them selves in their administration o f war and peace. The political leader who outperform ed others in m anaging the state was considered, by the consent o f all, a princepsE

Lobur goes on to argue that consensus is the primary ideological basis o f principate; it creates and maintains political arrangements, it is not appended to them. He demonstrates the importance o f consensus in the founding o f the Augustan principate and the metahistorical influence o f the Augustan concept consensus o n livy’s narratives o f early republican leaders. Yet, Sallust’s narrative o f the revolt o f Spartacus was not a distant history but an account that involved his contemporary fellow Romans. In Sallust’s time, Crassus was a formidable politician whose fate was still in the making. And if the Licinian gens still captivated the Trajanic Tacitus, then so much the more would the Tiberian Velleius have lingered on Crassus.54 Ultimately, in order to accomplish an allusion, the historian must provide meaningful clues to identify it. The more learned the reader, the more capable he is o f detecting the allusion. O f course, the more skilled the

152

Velleius 2.30.6 and Tacitus,

H is to r ie s

4.81.2: accomplishing allusion

historian, the less fanfare needed to accomplish the allusion. So Velleius would have signaled the overt allusion to Sallust by virtue o f the related content matter: the revolt o f Spartacus. On the other hand, because Tacitus engages less with content and more with diction, the clues are more obscure, the allusion indirect. As a result, Tacitus runs the risk o f failing to activate the desired response in the reader. Yet he would have had several good reasons to allude to Velleius’ paragraph on the revolt o f Spartacus in his narrative o f Vespasian’s miracles at Alexandria. The allusion allows Tacitus to gild his passage with sarcasm, to inject irony about the nature o f consensus, to compare the civil wars o f 69 to a slave revolt, to explore the fortunes o f the Licinian gens, and to allude to Sallust. Yet for some, the nagging question still remains: Did Tacitus mean to invoke Velleius at all? For such skeptics, one last fact may convince. An electronic search o f the Latin PHI CD-ROM using Musaios software reveals that Velleius 2.30.6 and Histories 4.81.2 are the only occurrences o f the words patrati and gloria within ten words o f each other in extant Latin. For Tacitus to allude to Velleius is for the more accomplished historian to call upon the less. We are more comfortable, or familiar at least, with a model o f allusivity based on elevadon, not degeneration, on encomium, not criticism; however, such a model is static and detracts from the possibility that someone like Tacitus may actually want to allude to someone like Velleius. If so, then the traditional view suggests one scenario: Sallust influenced both Velleius and Tacitus, but the former was not always able to deploy Sallustian style with the force and dignity o f the latter. Perhaps Tacitus could not resist the opportunity to mock Velleian ineptitude. On the other hand, it is also possible that the verbal echo declares the (hitherto) unheard of: Perhaps Tacitus is not always masterful. Perhaps Velleius is not always inept. Somewhere between tradition and iconoclasm, the glory for accomplishing the allusion would fall upon both historians, ridicule for failure upon neither.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Eleanor Cowan, Andy Nichols, Anton Powell, and Andrew Wolpert for their helpful comments and suggestions, and to Michael Jean for his editorial assistance. An earlier version o f this paper was delivered at Florida State University in March 2007; I thank John Marincola for his hospitality, and the Department o f Classics and the College o f Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University o f Florida for generous travel funding to Leicester.

153

1Victoria Emma Pagan N o te s 1 Fletcher 1945, 50; 1964, 93; Elefante 1997, 278. 2 Hinds 1998, 23: ‘One o f the reasons for the durability and continuing usefulness o f “ allusion” as a description o f this kind o f gesture is precisely the teasing play which it defines between revelation and concealment.’ ’ The text o f Velleius is Elefante 1997. Unattributed translations throughout are my own. 4 See for example Plutarch Crassus 11, Pompey 21.1-4, Comparison ofNicias and Crassus 3.2; Appian Civil Wars 1.120; Livy Per. 97. 4 Lobur 2007. 6 Shipley 1955 ad loc. reads nonaginta miha, ninety' thousand men; it is difficult to reconcile manuscript readings, X L a CCC, with the figures supplied by other sources. See F.lefante 1997,278. The number has no bearing on the comparison o f the passage with Tacitus. I Gruen 1974,41. See Crassus 10—11; Pompey 21.1-4; Comparison of Nicias and Crassus 3.2. 8 Frazel 2004. '' The text o f the Histories is Koestermann 1957. 10 Vesp. 7.2-3: eplebe quidam lumimbus orbatus, item alius debih crure sedentempro tribunah panter adierunt orantes opem valitudini demonstratam a Serapide per quietem: restituturum oculos, si inspuisset; confirmaturum crus, si dignaretur calce contingere. cum fix fides esset ullo modo rem successuram ideoque ne experin quidem auderet, extreme hortantibus amicis palam pro contione utrumque temptavit; nec eventus defuit. II Dio 65.8.1: καί Ούεσπασιανός δέ αυτός τυφλόν τέ τινα καί έτερον σύκ άρτίχειρα, προσελθόντας οί έξ όψεως όνειράτων, του μεν τήν χεΐρα πατήσας του δέ τοιν όφθαλμοΐν προσπτύσας, υγιείς άπέφηνε. 12 Gudeman 1900, lv n. 1: Τ intentionally omit Velleius Paterculus, though his information was derived at first hand, he having served in the German campaigns under Tiberius. His fulsome eulogies o f Tiberius were doubtless utterly repugnant to the author o f the Annals, nor is there the faintest trace o f indebtedness to him either in the Germania or in Tacitus’ later writings.’ Inter alia, Svme 1958a, 367 (‘voluble and unscrupulous’), 570 (‘obsequious’), 570-1 (‘some so vague as to be almost devoid o f meaning, others false and refuted by the facts’). 1’ For the increasing hold that Egypt has over the Flavian literary imagination, see Manolaraki 2008, who explores the figure o f the Nile in Pliny’s Panegyncus. 14 Syme 1958a, 206. 18 Chilver and Townend, 1985, 83—4. 16 At Ag. 15.4, Cer. 6.2, 11.1, 31.3, penes occurs with a generic noun or pronoun; I will set aside the biography and ethnography and focus instead on the Hist, and Ann. r Proper name: 1.76.2, 2.31.2, 2.39.1 bis, 3.50.2, 3.75.1, 4.2.1, 4.39.2, 4.55.4, 4.81.2 (our passage), 5.8.2; generic noun or pronoun: 1.30.1 bis, 1.57.1,2.6.2 bis, 2.47.2,3.64.2, 3.5.1, 4.74.3, 4.81.2 (our passage). 18 Proper name: 1.31.2, 4.1.1, 6.43.3, 6.44.4, 13.56.1, 15.1.3, 15.14.2; generic noun or pronoun: 1.44.3, 2.45.4, 2.52.5, 11.28.1, 15.14.2, 15.54.4, 15.63.2. 19 S a ll.> £ 14.1, 17.7, 26.2, 31.9, 31.16, 31.20, 41.7. 20 Sail. Hist. 1.55.7, 13, 23, 24 (Maurenbrecher). These four uses are confined to the contio o f Lepidus, and so the concentration o f the preposition may be anomalous,

154

Velleius 230.6 and Tacitus,

H is to r ie s

4.81.2: accomplishing allusion

though one need not go so far as to reckon the speech spurious; rather, as McGushin remarks, ‘What we have here is a Sallustian formulation o f a speech actually delivered by Lepidus early in his consulship’ (1992, 113). 21 Trankle 1968, 126. According to lirnout and Meillet 1959, 488, patrare is rare in Cicero and not found in Caesar. 22 Sail. Cat. 18.8; Livy 23.8.11,35.35.15; Veil. 2.58.1; Tac. Ann. 1.45.2. 22 Livy 28.41.8; Tac. Hist. 3.64.2, discussed below. 24 Elefante 1997, 278. 25 As Robin Seager points out to me, however, the use o f patrati remedii is made comfortable by the overtly military expression sipellerentur obstantia (‘if obstacles were removed’). 26 According to Syme 1958a, 731, ‘One o f the changes in Tacitus’ style from the Histonae to the Annales is the increasing frequency o f certain “ Sallustian” words. For example, ...“ patro” .’ 2’ Fletcher 1971, 147; Woodman 1977, 171. 28 F.rnout and Meillet 1959, 488, patrare est sans doute le denominatif d e pater 291 allude to Woodman 1995. Ducroux 1978, 301. 11 The text is Borzsak 1992; the translation is Woodman 2004, 119. ,2 The text is Wellesley 1986; the translation is Woodman 2004, 326. ” For the first and second Sicilian slave wars, see Toynbee 1965, II, 321-31 ;Jahne 1986, 67-90; Bradley 1989,46—82; Urbainczyk 2008,10—14,16-21; for sources, Shaw 2001,79-129. 54 Text and translation are Walton 1967. On the peculiarities o f Diodorus as a source, see Urbainczyk 2008, 81-90. n Ash 1999, 129; see also Haynes 2003,118. As Lattimore 1934, 443 demonstrates, Vespasian is the subject o f more portents than any other o f Suetonius’ emperors, except for Augustus; however, the miracles at Alexandria are unique: ‘They might even be construed as an effort to work up something resembling a Vespasian myth...Vespasian in his position could use a legendary halo. He had seen three emperors made and unmade in rapid succession’ (446). '6 Green 1961. r (On the state o f the body politic, see Haynes 2003,130: ‘These ailments, blindness and a withered hand, metaphorically represent the state o f the Empire when Vespasian inherits it. ...We surely cannot ignore that Vespasian performs his miracle by spitting in the one sufferer’s face and stepping on the other.’ ,8 omntum P: omm A. Shackleton Bailey 1984, 448 tentatively suggests mox op omnium prtncipem. w Shackleton Bailey 1984, Elefante 1997, Watt 1998. 4,1 Damon 2003, 137-8. 41 On the theme capax impem see Syme 1970, 30-49; Pagan 2005, 419-20. 42Johnson 1976, 170 n. 93. 4i On alternative explanations in Tacitus, see Lucas 1974, 105; VCTaitehead 1979; Develin 1983, 85. On the general tendency to ‘trust the last’, Rabmowitz 1987, 154—8. Ryberg 1942 establishes the importance o f innuendo (a result o f the loaded alternative) in the treatment o f Tiberius; for a review o f the scholarship on Tacitean innuendo, see Sinclair 1991.

155

V ictoria E m m a P agan 44 Suet. Claud. 29; Levick 1990, 58. « S e e Rutledge 2001, 192-8. « Dam on 2003, 126.

47 F or the

contents o f the Lictnian tom b and the scholarship, see W isem an 2007.

44 Cf. O ’Gorman 2006 for a discussion o f the depiction in the Annals and Histories o f the Pisones, ‘who can be read across the regimes as an alternative empire’ (292). 44 Syme 1960, 19; 1986, 282 n. 86. 411 Martin and Woodman 1989, 118. 41 Flefante 1997, 1.

« Woodman 1969, 798. 44 Lobur 2008, 13. 44 Christopher Pelling points out to me that after the last word o f 2.30.6.prmcipem, there may be a larger lacuna, in which Velleius may have contrasted Crassus and Pompey, for as Eleanor Cowan shows (in this volume), Velleius uses the phrase princeps Romani nominis as metonomy for Pompey.

156

8

V E L L E I U S AND BIOGRAPHY: T H E CASE OF JU LIU S CAESAR Christopher Pelting

Biography and history ‘ The Caesarian and Augustan N a r ra tiv e‘The Tiherian Narrative’: the titles Woodman chose for his commentaries tell a tale. They suggest a thesis — potentially quite a strong thesis —about the way Velleius organises his material, something about ‘biostructuring’:1it is appropriate that Woodman should have included a long section clarifying the relationship o f ‘History, Biography, and Panegyric’ in the introduction to the first o f those two volumes to be published.2 Much o f this chapter may seem a belated reply to that introduction, but I should immediately make clear that Woodman’s line on Velleius’ relation to biography is an elaborate, nuanced, and atypical one; others stress the biographical character o f Velleius’ work in stronger terms. Thus Starr speaks o f ‘Velleius’ passion for biography’;1F.lefante o f ‘the prevailing biographical character’;4 Schmitzer o f ‘the organising principle o f biographical structure’, becoming stronger with Caesar’s introduction at 2.41.5 If this way o f looking at Velleius is justified, it might suggest some further thoughts. In another paper I have explored the way that Caesar, as one o f history’s great boundary-breakers, became a sort o f generic boundary-breaker too when it came to the writing o f history or biography: the history o f Caesar is in perpetual danger o f toppling over into becoming biography, as he comes to exercise such control over events; equally, writing Caesar’s biography is in danger o f becoming a full Roman history, for exactly the same reason.6 In that paper I was concerned with the way this ‘generic tension’ worked itself out in Cassius Dio, Appian, and Plutarch; 1 very briefly indicated that there might be something similar tosay about Velleius." Is there? If there is, that might suggest a further thesis again. Velleius treats the transition from Republic to Principate: he will show the way in which

157

C hristopher Pel-ling

Augustus and Tiberius imposed the rule o f a single person on Rome, and in his view exercised it well. So, if history is already so ‘biographical’ for Velleius under the Republic, does that suggest that the roots o f one-man rule go further back in Rome, back at least to the late Republic and perhaps even earlier? Might Velleius too be intimating something along the lines o f the opening o f Tacitus’ Annals, suggesting that one-man rule, or something like it, goes back to very distant times indeed? Urbem Rom am a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit. dictaturae ad tem pus sum ebantur; neque decemviralis potestas ultra biennium, neque tribunorum militum consulare ius diu valuit. non Cinnae, non Sullae longa dom inatio; et Pompei Crassique potentia cito in Caesarem, Leptdi atque Antonii arma in Augustum cessere, qui cuncta discordiis civilibus fessa nomine pnncipis sub imperium accepit. The city o f Rom e was initially in the possession o f kings: L. Brutus instituted freedom and the consulship. D ictatorships were assum ed for particular periods o f time. T he pow er o f the decemvirate lasted no m ore than two years, and the consular military tribunate was also short-lived. Neither Cinna nor Sulla exercised their dom ination for long; and the pow er o f Pompey and Crassus passed swiftly to Caesar, then the arms o f Lepidus and Antony gave way before A ugustus, who under the name o f princeps took everything into his power when civil conflict had reduced it all to exhaustion. (Tacitus, Annals 1.1.1)

Notice how the style and syntax o f that Tacitean sentence reinforce the wav that what are initially transient phases - decemvirate, the short and temporary dominations o f Cinna and Sulla - become by the end o f the Republic a fluent movement whereby power passed from Pompey and Crassus to Caesar and then to Augustus, who thus stands at the culmination o f a long, linear process, especially continuous in the last lew decades.8 And such a reading has indeed been tried on Velleius: Woodman quotes Peter and Timpe as suggesting just that,9 and Christ has recently stressed in similar terms ‘the unity and continuity o f Rome’s development, which finds its conclusion in the principate o f Tiberius’; Velleius ‘stresses...not the deep caesura in the Roman constitution and in the structures and divisions o f power, but the continuity’.10 That, however, is not the reading that Woodman himself wants.11 His emphasis falls on the way that ‘History, biography, and panegyric’ are not so very different or distant from one another. Velleius’ great individuals do indeed ‘dominate the subsequent narrative’ from the moment they are introduced, and this goes back earlier than the ‘Caesarian narrative’ and continues later: Pompey dominates from 2.29.2-5 onwards, then Caesar from 41-3, Octavian from 59, Tiberius from 94.12 But Woodman stresses

158

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar the importance o f individuals, and individual narrative domination, for all Ladn historiography, at least after that initial phase when Cato the elder suppressed the names o f the generals in the interest o f projecting the achievements o f the Roman people as a whole. Thus he emphasises the full-dress introduction o f Catiline at the beginning o f Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae, and the similar character-portraits scattered within Bellum Iugurthinum\ Livy too uses ‘dominant personalities’ to structure the treatment o f particular decades.1’ And o f course, as the principate came along, it was inevitable that narratives should reflect the way that the single man o f power called so much o f the tune: thus with Otho, for instance, in Tacitus’ HistoriesA So ‘V[elleius]’s work, given its place in the literary tradition and the period with which it deals, is no more biographical than might have been expected.’13 There is much that is thought-provoking there. Let us consider that ‘literary tradition’ first.

One-man history at Rome In Latin historiography, individuals do clearly matter immensely. When Cicero demands that the historian ‘sets out all the causes’, he goes on to define these as vel casus vel sapientiae vel temeritatis ~ chance, or wisdom, or rashness, typically the wisdom or rashness o f specific individuals (de Or. 2.63). That goes with historiography’s inspirational aspect too: if we are to be told what to be like or what to avoid, particular characters will provide the crystallised examples that we need. But the phrase ‘the Caesarian narrative’ suggests a good deal more than that: it suggests not just powerful individuals, but a single individual, dominating the choice o f material and the narrative articulation as well as the events themselves —the sort o f ‘biostructuring’,16 in fact, that we do get when the ‘Tiberian narrative’ gets underway. It we look at the rest o f the literary tradition, even once the principate has begun there remain substantial qualifications o f the degree to which individuals dominate. Syme, in the article which my own title is echoing, pointed to the ‘mass o f heterogeneous public business’ that Tacitus uses in Annals 3 ‘to fill up the interval o f three years between the trial o f Cn. Piso and the death o f D rusus’. ‘The reasons for Tacitus’ procedure can be divined. Not merely the need for relief and variety7but the constant effort to prevent the annals o f imperial Rome from degenerating into a sequence o f biographies’.1 Woodman quotes the famous passage at Ann. 4.33 to illustrate how history had changed with the principate, now that things can only survive ‘si unus imperitet’, so unlike the old world o f the Republic when history could convey an understanding o f people, Senate, and

159

Christopher Pelting aristocracy;18 but, as O ’Gorman and Moles have stressed,19 that passage does not go on as we might expect, to say that the modern equivalent is ‘to scrutinise the nature o f the emperor’. Instead the argument moves on to highlight the dangers that threaten because the descendants and moral successors o f the men who earned punishment or ignominy under Tiberius still survive. So it is not just penetrating the nature o f the dominating individual that is the historian’s task; it is the whole system, the whole parade o f abetters and corrupters and timeservers and partners in power, who interact with Tiberius and who crowd the scene. It is true that Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae has that powerful characterising introduction o f Catiline: yet, if one thinks about how easily that monograph could have reduced everything to a glorious exploit o f Cicero or a villainous exploit o f Catiline, the more striking point may be the range that it does cover and the avoidance o f one-man-history. The relevant background is not the earlier biography o f either protagonist, but the earlier history o f Rome; the individuals that dominate towards the end are different ones, Caesar and Cato - not at all the ‘single character’ or ‘single person’ that Cicero himself expected to be the theme o f such a monograph (so his letter to Lucceius suggests, ad bam. 5.12 [22], 2, 5). In Sallust one could think o f it as a feint or a false start: a reader may begin by thinking that this is a story about just a single very bad villain, and may have the impression that it features a very good consul who individually saves the state - but as you go on you realise that there is a lot more to it than that, bad though the one and good though the other may have been. And in Bellum Iugurthinum Sallust certainly makes his individuals matter, and doubtless there is an implied comparison between the two aristocrats Metellus and Sulla and the two popular orators Memmius and Marius. But the digression that marks o ff the final panel is that on Lepcis (79): that almost coincides with the end o f Metellus’ campaigning - almost but not quite, and Metellus’ farewell comes a few chapters later (82). Whatever their importance in explaining why things happened the way they did, Sallust is shying away from making the individuals his dominant structural principles. Finally, Livy. It is true that the Periochae o f the books on the fifties suggest that a lot o f space was given to Caesar’s campaigns (though there is also a lot on urban politics too); but this is also a case where we see a point that Luce and Ogilvie have both stressed, that the big pentad and decade divisions tend not to coincide with the deaths o f the principals: Caesar’s death is held over to Book 116 rather than 115, and does not seem to have been the climax even o f Book 116.2(l So here, as with the Bellum Iugurthinum, we seem to have a refusal to make the lives and deaths o f the great individuals the decisive structural principle. In Livy, one telling exception

160

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar may be Book 120, which may have been the point where the History initially stopped.21 If so, this would hardly have been for reasons o f Augustan delicacy, as it means that the proscriptions would have been in emphatic terminal position: far better, if he wanted to be delicate, to end with the Ides, or if he really had to go on, with Philippi. But it does mean that the death o f Cicero would have been in a prominent position, with that eloquent epitaphion that survives in the elder Seneca {Suas. 6.22: fr. 60 J.). The death o f that voice o f tradition and freedom is made emblemadc o f the end o f the Republic, so yes, the individual can be made to be crucial: but that particular individual, o f all o f them, cannot have been made the organising principle for the mainstream history that precedes. So even with Livy, concerned with the great individuals and individual virtue as he is, those individuals do not carry the structural, organising importance that phrases like a ‘Caesarian’ —or ‘Ciceronian’ - ‘narrative’ would seem to imply.

Velleius and ‘generic takeover’: two possibilities So, if that is what we are looking for, we do not find it regularly in preVelleian historiography. But we do find it in Velleius, at least in the Tiberian narrative: and in that case the way may still be open to argue that Velleius is expressively different from that tradition, especially if not merely Tiberius but already Caesar himself is felt to be grabbing the narrative by the scruff o f the neck and turning it into his story. That certainly looks to be the way we are going at 2.41.1, with that famously gripping introduction: Secutus deinde est consulatus C. Caesaris, qui scribenti m anum iniicit et quamlibet festinantem in se m orari cogit...22 Then cam e the consulship o f C. Caesar, who grabs the writer and forces him to linger, eager though he may be to press on...

We should notice too the preceding summaries o f earlier Roman cultural stars in 36 and earlier Roman contacts with other peoples at 38-9. These may well be clearing the ground for a vigorous new start, when these catalogues will give way to the single Roman who outdoes them all: Caesar’s brilliant reversal o f past Gallic failures (39.1) suggests as much. Pompey too o f course figures prominently, but his successes (38.6,40.1—4) can be seen more as a culmination o f prior lines o f achievement, Caesar’s more as a reversal; and Pompey’s outdoing all but one o f his predecessors in contributions to the treasury (40.3) is, the reader already knows, shortly to be outdone in its turn by Caesar (39.1). So Caesar is already special; and that unusually elaborate three-chapter introduction underlines that. In terms o f source-material, there certainly

161

(Christopher Pelling seems to be some contact here with the ‘biographical’ tradition, and the material we find in the early chapters o f Suetonius’ Divus lulius and Plutarch’s Caesar, the display o f courage under Sulla in refusing to divorce his wife, his near-thing escape from the thugs who were looking to hunt him down, the pirate adventure on which Velleius lingers (more on that later), the prosecution o f Dolabella, the brushes with Q. Catulus, the restoration o f the images o f Marius.23 But it is not so much the provenance, it is the similarity o f ‘biographical’ texture that matters here, and does make it look as if history is about to become a tale about Caesar. It is indeed tempting to fit Velleius into the picture that I was painting at the beginning o f this paper, with a hint o f generic takeover adding an extra nuance to the movement towards one-man rule. For we can be reasonably sure that ‘biography’ already existed as a genre, or at least as much o f a genre as prose literature ever lends itself to: otherwise Nepos would not have been able to make his own generic programmatic statements as economically and as snappily as he did.24 Generic takeover - or at least the risk o f generic takeover: we might here recall what John Marincola has argued about Apncola, suggesting that the ‘historical’ flavour o f a good part o f the narrative can there be seen as an exploration o f how much room there can be for a biography o f a private individual under the principate. The answer may be yes - but only just, and the ‘only just’ is as important as the ‘yes’.23 So here our first option might be to see Velleius as suggesting that history has already become one-manhistory under Caesar; the more nuanced second option might be to say that it is heading that way, but it has not got there yet - that it is still the history o f a more complex republican interplay, but ‘only just’. In a moment we will try both o f those options in turn.

Focalisation Narratology may be a useful way to start. If there is anything in either o f these generic approaches, we might expect it to be reflected in the focalisation: just as in Thucydides Nicias’ ineffectual leadership is marked by a lack o f consistent Nicias-focalisation in that phase o f the Sicilian expedition, contrasting with the strong focalisation we find earlier and later when other generals are guiding events.26 In a ‘Caesarian narrative’ we might expect Caesar’s control o f events to be similarly strongly marked. Yet is it? In fact there is a good deal less Caesar-focalisation in this narrative than that strong introductory panel 41-3 might have led us to expect, and where we do find Caesar-focalisation it can be interestingly problematic.2' Note 50.1—2:

162

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar At Caesar D om itio iegiom busque Corfini quae una cum eo fuerant, potitus, duce aliisque, qui voluerant abire ad Pom peium , sine dilatione dim issis, persecutus Bm ndusium ita ut appareret malle integris rebus et condiciorubus finire bellum quam opprim ere fugientes, cum tran sgressos reperisset consules, in urbem revertit redditaque ratione consiliorum suorum in senafu et in contione ac m iserrim ae necessitudinis. cum alienis arm is ad arm a com pulsus esset, H ispanias petere decrevit. O nce Caesar had gained control o f D om itius and the legions which had been with him at Corfinium , he immediately released the leader and the others who had wanted to go over to Pom pey, and he gave pursuit to Brundisium in such a way as to convey that he preferred to complete the war when all w as still intact and by negotiation rather than to catch those who were fleeing; when he discovered the consuls had crossed, he returned to Rom e and gave an explanation, both in the Senate and before the people, o f his thinking and o f the terrible com pulsion whereby other people’s arms had driven him to arm s himself; then he decided to depart for Spain.

Two points about that. First, ita ut appareret·. is that a final clause or a consecutive clause?28 The ita (rather than ideo) might in itself suggest a consecutive clause, ‘with the result that’; but that is not decisive, as ita can itself be used in final clauses ( OLD 16a). There certainly seems to be an air o f conscious planning in the context: in his note on condicionibus Woodman talks o f ‘the impression which Caesar wanted to create and which is presumably intended to redound to his credit’, though he tells me (in correspondence for which I am most grateful) that he took it then, and still takes it, as a consecutive clause. Perhaps we could describe it as ‘consecutive but deliberative’.29 But it is the uncertainty o f the construction that is telling: even when Caesar’s intentions seem to be central, we cannot be syntactically clear whether we are being told anything about them. Secondly, how exactly is that miserrimae necessitudinis focalised? Is that simply Caesar’s presentation in his speech, or is Velleius adding his own authority to it? The earlier narrative has left pointers in both directions, with indications both o f Caesar’s clear-sighted unscrupulousness and o f the moderate line that he had been taking in his negotiations. Thus the introduction at 41—3 left no doubt about Caesar’s determination and his boldness, and the possibility that he had unscrupulously bought Curio is aired though left unclear at 48.4;3Uthen 49 had made clear that Pompey’s cause had looked the better (melior), or at least the more attractive (speciosa). Yet Caesar’s genuine efforts to preserve peace had also been stressed,31 and the qualified phrasing o f 48.4, ‘on the side o f Pompey —that is, so it was thought at the time {ut tunc habebatur), on the side o f the state...’, might also be read as expressing a reservation about the moral superiority o f Pompey’s cause.32

163

Christopher Felling Doubtless there are other features too o f Velleius’ style that may be playing a part here, his tendency for instance to favour impersonal or supra personal subjects - ‘fortune’, ‘the power o f fate’, ‘the leader’s cause’ ('fortuna, fatorum vis, ducis causa) —or to construct his sentences with passive verbs, or to vary his syntax so that it is rare to have the same grammatical subject in two consecutive sentences.” Consider for instance 2.47 on the Gallic wars. Per haec insequentiaque et quae praediximus tem pora amplius C C C C milia hostium a C. Caesare caesa sunt, plura capta; pugnatum saepe derecta acie, saepe in agminibus, saepe eruptionibus; bis penetrata Britannia; < e > novem denique aestatibus vix ulla non iustissim us trium phus em eritus, circa Alesiam vero tantae res gestae, quantas audere vix hominis, perficere paene nullius nisi dei fuerit, quinto ferme anno Caesar m orabatur in Galliis cum m edium iam ex invidia p o < te > n tia e ta < m > m ale cohaerentis inter Cn. Pom peium et C. Caesarem concordiae pignus Iulia, uxor Magni, decessit; atque om nia inter destinatos tanto discrimini duces dirimente fortuna, filius quoque parvus Pompei, Iulia natus, intra breve spatium obiit. (2.47.1-2). During these times, the ones that followed, and the ones we have already related, m ore than 400,000 enemy were killed by Caesar, and m ore thousands than this were captured. Many pitched batdes were fought, many on the march, many by counter-attacks; Britain was twice penetrated; there was barely a single one o f nine sum m ers in which he did not richly deserve a trium ph; around A lesia there w as so m uch achieved that it was barely within a m ortal’s pow er even to think o f it, and o f none but a god to achieve it. It was about the fifth year when Caesar was remaining in G aul when Julia died - Julia who was Pom pey’s wife, and the guarantee o f harmony between Pom pey and Caesar amid the envy generated by their precarious partnership o f pow er. And, with fortune dism antling everything between the generals fated for such a decisive conflict, Pom pey’s small son by Julia also died a little later.

Caesar’s energy1and clear-sightedness are clearly articulated there, yet the only verb o f which Caesar himself is the subject is, paradoxically, morabatur - the ‘delay’ which is so uncharacteristic o f the generalship and o f the man. One does not have to have a grammatical subject to have narratological focalisauon, but it certainly helps, and only in the sentence on Alesia is there any real suggestion o f what Caesar was ‘thinking o f. There is a further point o f focalisation too, concerning that ‘envy generated by their precarious partnership o f power’ (invidia pontiae ta male cohaerentis). Whose envy? Seager’s paper in this volume discusses whether this is invidia felt by Caesar for Pompey or by Pompey for Caesar,34 and he is surely right that it may be both. It may also be more general: the passage that this picks up33 has Caesar plotting to ensure that the invidia communis potentiae (‘the unpopularity' for the shared power’) should adhere to Pompey rather than

164

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar himself (44.2, below, p. 169), and in that passage it clearly refers to the popular resentment such power is likely to generate; the same is true o f a later passage which echoes the same language, when Antony’s antics at the Lupercalia generate ‘great unpopularity’ (magna invidia) against Caesar (56.4).36 At 47.2 too it may be the general unpopularity o f the great men that puts their relationship under particular pressure: Woodman translates ‘o f the agreement which was already holding together so badly on account o f political jealousy’, which is appropriately ambiguous. So here too Velleius syntactically manages to sidle towards making Caesar’s mentality explicit without quite doing so. Doubtless Velleius’ slippery technique with secondary focalisation also goes with his taste for primary focalisation, with a strong commentary injected by the narrator’s own, often disapproving texturing o f his narrative: the narrative is often more concerned to convey what to think of, say, Sulla or Caesar, rather than what Sulla or Caesar was thinking. (Not that the primary focalisation is without its own slipperiness.)37 But that taste for impersonal subjects does tells a story too, for the narrative can be presented as driven not so much by Caesar’s personality as by those forces o f fate and fortune; and that taste for passives also suggests that the Roman individuals, Caesar included, are people to whom things happen, just as much as they are the doers. And that too is a severe qualification o f talk o f ‘Caesarian narrative’.

Caesarian material: what is there, and what is not Focalisation is only a part o f it. There is also the amount o f material which is not Caesarian that figures prominently in Velleius’ narrative, and which is presented in detail - and detail is particularly telling in a history which makes such a point o f being summary. There is ch. 45, on Clodius’ moves against Cicero and Cato: that links Cicero and Cato again, just as they were linked in chs. 34—5 on the Catiline conspiracy. They were introduced with a blare o f trumpets then, and were treated with enthusiasm: ch. 35 may well be based on Brutus’s Cato, not a work that played Cato’s merits down.38To that extent, it is misleading to dwell only on the strong entry o f Caesar at 41—3: we have a whole cast o f characters who have been emphatically introduced, and whose stories need to be tied together.39The most prominent is o f course Pompey (himself introduced with a similar fanfare at 29), and one o f the biggest set-pieces is that on his death (53); Velleius allows himself room to add a polemic note on the mistakes o f others in fixing his year o f birth (53.4). One has only to reflect on how unthinkable that chapter would be in Suetonius or in Plutarch’s Caesar to realise how unbiographical this material remains. (Indeed, if we need a

165

Christopher Pelting reason for the undeniably striking fact that Cato’s death-scene is not included,40 it is probably to be found in not stealing Pompey’s deaththunder rather than anything to do with Caesar.) Pompey’s name continues to be active even after his death (54.2) in a way that almost prefigures the initial scenes o f Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. And so much Caesarian material is not there at all. There is the barest mention o f the Rubicon (49.4); there is nothing, yet, on Cleopatra; a mere dismissive parenthesis on Pharnaces when one would have thought that vetu, vidi, vici would have fitted rather nicely, just as it does in both Suetonius (37.2) and Plutarch [Claes. 50.3); nothing on Caesar’s words on the battlefield o f Pharsalus, ‘they would have it so’, again prominent in both Suetonius (30.4) and Plutarch [Caes. 46.1-2); nothing on Caesar’s activity as statesman; no final summary o f achievement on his death.41 Notice, in particular, the case o f Curio. The charge that Caesar had bought Curio with a massive bribe was well-known: Velleius mentions it himself, non-committally (48.4). Other authors have various ways o f interpreting Curio’s actions on Caesar’s behalf: some (e.g. Plutarch) represent Curio as simply Caesar’s spokesman, arguing the case that Caesar had set him up to argue; others (e.g. Appian) depict him as more o f an independent agent, but in a way that again reflects Caesar’s wishes Appian’s Caesar is pre-eminently someone who sets others up so that they get his own way.42 But in Velleius the narrative is shaped in such a way that Curio foils Caesar’s wishes rather than forwarding them (48.5), for it was he who ‘broke up and shattered’ the peace-proposals that Caesar had made ‘in the most fair-minded o f spirits’ and that Pompey was ready to accept (48.5).43 That portrayal fits Velleius’ picture o f a succession o f mischiefmakers, Catiline, Clodius, Curio,44 then later Caelius too —Caelius, ‘a man in eloquence and spirit most similar to Curio’ (68.1), and that phrase itself reflects Curio’s importance in the preceding narrative. The picture also fits Velleius’ view o f a Republic that is increasingly at the mercy o f disruptive fortune. But it is not a narrative where Caesar is calling the tune, much less so in fact than the narrative o f those final weeks before war in Dio, Appian, or Plutarch. So if this is supposed to be ‘Caesarian narrative’, it is missing trick after trick after trick. Perhaps, then, we should move to our more nuanced alternative explanation, and wonder if that might be exactly the point, that 41-3 might be a feint, teasing a reader to expect more o f a one-man story than Velleius goes on to deliver. That would be something similar to the reading o f Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae that I suggested earlier. Might the point be that those introductory chapters are pointing towards the one-man shape o f Roman history that is looming, but then the narrative itself

166

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar intimates that we are not there yet, that Caesar cannot yet call the tune in the way that he himself would have wished —a tension, in other words, between structural pointers and narrative reality? It would be a reverse o f the brilliant reading Judith Ginsburg gave o f Tacitus’ Annals, which stressed the tension between republican structural pointers, the yearly pattern o f consular dates, and an increasingly imperial reality, with the one man dominating everything;4S in this case it would instead be an imperial structural pointer at odds with a narrative reality that just —only just — remained republican. This would also be close to my own reading o f Cassius Dio’s treatment o f Caesar himself: the principate is coming; Caesar is heading in that direction; but the time has not yet arrived; and that is why D io’s Caesar fails.46 This would certainly be another powerful and dynamic way o f seeing Velleius’ narrative. The trouble is that this one too does not work —or at least does not work fully. Some aspects o f it might: something like this might be suggested by Velleius’ use o f the word princeps, for instance, as gradually the Republic’s plurality o f principes is limited to one, just as it will be with Augustus and Tiberius (57.1, 68. 1);47but still the point at the end is that Caesar did not enjoy the ‘peaceful repose o f a princeps ’ he had deserved (principalis quies 2.56.3) - yet, as Woodman observes in his note on that passage, what should typify the true princeps is his ‘works\principalia opera, not his respite. We are heading to a true principate, but the note is still off-key. Or consider that emphasis on fortuna. There are hints of, not just Rome’s fortuna , but Caesar’s own: Caesar following his fortune, which is carrying him on to glory and success - but also to clash with other forms o f fortune and other people’s fortune, Pompey’s and then the tyrannicides’.48 It is only with Augustus and Tiberius that the leading individual’s fortuna comes to dominate everything more decisively, and to come close to becoming identical with the fortune o f Rome as a whole. Possibly, too, there is a further religious dimension, though in a very muted way. Caesar’s achievement at Alesia was such ‘that it was barely within a mortal’s power even to think o f it, and o f none but a god to achieve it (47.1, above p. 164); but for a genuinely ‘heavenly spirit’ (caelestis animus/d) we have to wait for Octavian (60.2,123.2), and Tiberius too and Livia then have something o f the celestial about them (94.2, 104.3, 130.5).49 Yet there are too many other things that do not fit at all. In particular, there were so many opportunities to make the narrative point towards that one-man rule that is coming, even if it is not coming yet. That is already true in those introductory7 three chapters, rich though they are in Caesar material (41—3). That introduction is placed at the time o f Caesar’s first consulship, and the ‘biographical’ material takes the form o f a retrospect

167

Christopher Pelling o f his earlier life. Here, then, it is fair to stress the material from that earlier life that Velleius does not use, given that he is, for once, giving himself space. A further glance at Plutarch and Suetonius, whose material is in many ways so similar,so again shows the material that Velleius is not giving us. There was the time when, in an Alpine village, Caesar commented seriously to his friends that he would prefer to be first man here rather than second in Rome; there was the sight o f a statue o f Alexander in Cadiz, at one end o f the civilised world when Alexander had conquered his way to the other, and Caesar’s tears at the thought that he had himself achieved so little; there was - probably, though Plutarch displaces it to later —his dream o f intercourse with his mother, presaging his domination o f the world.'’1 All o f those could have focused our thoughts on the one-man power that is to come, and which Caesar would achieve - but only transiently; such material is duly emphasised in that account o f Dio which, I suggested, does lend itself to the reading that I am airing here, autocracy coming, autocracy being what Caesar wants, but autocracy not coming yetP2 But Velleius gives us none o f that, though he surely knew at least some o f the material. What he does give us in that Caesar introduction is the elaborate pirate a d v e n tu re .T h at does look ahead, but in a different way. O f course it presages Caesar’s decisiveness and speed and eerie force o f personality, but it does more than that, especially in ch. 42. Note especially the beginning o f that chapter, where the syntax is a little uncertain but it must mean something like ‘an example o f how, by an initiative o f his own, he frustrated the efforts o f the Roman magistrate who was then governing Asia’. Then the end o f the chapter returns to this hapless magistrate Iunius Iuncus (notice that he is named: again, detail tells, and there is more on this person here than in either Plutarch or Appian), and his refusal to do what Caesar says because Iuncus is out for his own profit: so Caesar ignores him, takes everything into his own hands, and crucifies the pirates. We can easily see where that is heading: it is to the clashes o f authority in the late fifties and the preliminaries to the war, where once again Caesar will find himself at odds with the constitutional authorities, who were refusing his demands for reasons - not impeccable reasons —o f their own. So this is preparation, indeed, but preparation for crisis and showdown, not for oneman power: for the Rubicon, not for the Augustan and Tiberian settlement. One last example. There are interesting plays between auctoritas and potentia in the analysis o f how the big three are all trying to manipulate one another at the time when the first triumvirate is established (and it is worth noting that all three o f them are given equal space there):’4

168

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar H oc igitur consule inter eum et Cn. Pom peium et M. C rassum inita potentiae societas, quae urbi orbique terrarum nec minus diverso cuique tem pore ipsis exitiabilis fuit. H oc consilium sequendi Pom peius causam habuerat, ut tandem acta in transmarinis provinciis, quibus, ut praediximus, multi obtrectabant, per Caesarem confirmarentur consulem , Caesar autem, quod anim advertebat se cedendo Pom pei gloriae aucturum suam et invidia com m unis potentiae in illum relegata confirmaturum vires suas, C rassus, ut quem principatum solus adsequi non poterat, auctoritate Pom pei, viribus teneret Caesaris, ...Bibulus, collega Caesaris, cum actiones eius magis vellet impedire quam posset, m aiore parte anni dom i se tenuit. Q uo facto dum augere vult invidiam collegae, auxit potentiam . (2.44.1-2, 5) U nder C aesar’s consulship a partnership o f pow er was entered upon between him and Pompey and Crassus, one that was disastrous for the city, the world, and also to the individuals, each in his own time, Pom pey’s reason for follow ing this plan was to use C aesar as consul finally to obtain the confirmation o f his acta in the provinces across the sea, when many (as I have m entioned) were o p p o sed ; C aesar’s was that he realised that if he yielded glory to Pompey he would augment his own, and by deflecting the unpopularity for the shared power back on to Pompey he would confirm his own strength: C rassus was concerned to use the authority o f Pom pey and the strength o f Caesar to gain the primacy that he could not get on his own. ... Bibulus, C aesar’s colleague, who w as m ore eager than able to hinder Caesar’s activity', spent the greater part o f the year confined at home. In this he wanted to augment his colleague’s unpopularity. In fact he augmented his pow er.

This is a ‘partnership o f power’, potentiae societas·. Caesar is hoping to ‘augment’ (aucturum) his own glory by seeming to yield to Pompey’s, and deflect the ‘unpopularity’ (invidia , another key-word) for their shared ‘power’, potentia , on to him alone; Crassus wants to exploit in his own interest the ‘authority’, auctoritas, o f Pompey and the strength o f Caesar; Bibulus’ attempts to augment Caesar’s ‘unpopularity’ in fact only augment his ‘power’. Those key-words naturally make the modern ear prick up, and one might suspect that these are heading towards the blend o f auctoritas and potentia that the principate will bring, and will put an end to all this wrangling. That playing on augeo and auctoritas would not seem to leave Augustus far away. But once we get there, the word auctoritas is barely used o f either Augustus or Tiberius at all, and where it comes it concerns the military authority that wins over Lepidus to Octavian (80.1) and that Tiberius also displays on campaign (111.4); earlier it had been used in a flash-forward to Tiberius’ international authority in acquiring Cappadocia (39.3). Domestically, there is a fair amount on the Senate’s auctoritas:S5 but the domestic point under Augustus and Tiberius is how the one restores auctoritas to the law-courts (89.3) and the other to the magistracies (126.1);

169

Christopher Pelting and there remains an auctoritas that other individuals, Lepidus and Sejanus, can still exercise (125.5, 127.2). So this does not seem to be preparing for the auctoritas o f the princeps himself at all. What about the ‘power? Certainly Velleius makes no bones about the potentia that the emperors (93.1), or even I.ivia (130.5), are going to exercise —but the word is used very little and very unemphatically in the Tiberian narrative, and it is hard to think that this is where the narrative is really shaping. Once again the preparation seems to be less for the resolution than for the crisis, this time for the further ‘partnership in power’ between Antony and Octavian [potentiae societas again, 65.2). So this clash between auctoritas and potentia is relevant in the politics o f the fifties and forties, and can be seen as taking further those themes we have already noticed with Iunius Iuncus; but it is not working very hard to shape the narrative towards the one-man power that is going, eventually, to come.

Why? All this may seem disappointing. We have looked at various interesting things that might have been true o f Velleius’ narrative - but are they? Is he being heavily biographical (Starr, Elefante, Schmitzer), but perhaps just in line with historiographic expectations o f a structurally dominating individual (Woodman)? No. Is he shaping the narrative towards one-man rule (Peter, Timpe, Christ), or intimating, like the first sentence o f the Annals, that the roots o f autocracy go way back into the Republic? No, or not very’ much. Is he doing interesting things with genre (like Marincola’s Agricola), perhaps suggesting that one-man rule is coming but not yet (like Pelling’s Dio)? No, he is not doing that either. In fact, is it a ‘Caesarian narrative’ at all? No, not really - so paradoxically this is coming round to agree with Woodman that this is not out o f line with literary expectations, though I would go on to disagree with him over the texture o f the Tiberian narrative, which is I think more ‘biographical’ than that literary tradition would have led us to expect. Here is the one surviving author who deals with the transition between Republic and Principate, and yet he seems to be missing all sorts o f tricks. How very differently, one feels, Tacitus would have done it. Perhaps he would. But let us not feel that Tacitus’ way was the only way; and let us not think that Velleius is simply being stupid. There are sound interpretative reasons why Velleius should have been reluctant to see the sort o f linearity’ that we have been seeking throughout. For him, after all, so much o f the final summary o f the achievement o f both Augustus and Tiberius is one o f restoration.

170

V elleius a n d biography: the ease o f Julius Caesar Finita vicesim o anno bella civilia, sepulta externa, revocata pax, sopitus ubique arm orum furor; restituta vis legibus, iudiciis auctoritas, senatui m aiestas; im perium m agistratuum ad pristinum redactum m od u m : tantum m odo octo praetoribus adlecti duo; prisca ilia et antiqua rei publicae form a revocata. rediit cultus agris, sacris honos, securitas hom inibus, certa cuique rerum suarum possessio... In the twentieth year civil war was brought to an end, external war was buried, peace was recalled, the frenzy o f arms was everywhere lulled; the laws regained their strength, the courts their authority, the Senate its dignity; the power o f the m agistrates was brought back to its level o f old with the one exception o f an additional two praetors to join the eight. The traditional and ancient shape o f the state was recalled. Agriculture returned to the countryside, respect to cult, security to hum ankind, with each reliably enjoying their own possessions... (2.89.3—4) Revocata in forum ficles; sum m ota e foro seditio, ambitio cam po, discordia curia, sepultaeque ac situ obsitae iustitia, aequitas, industria civitati redditae; accessit m agistratibus auctoritas, senatui m aiestas, iudiciis gravitas... Restitutae urbes Asiae, vindicatae ab iniuriis magistratuum provinciae... Credit was recalled to the forum ; subversion was driven from the forum, self-seeking from the election-ground, quarrelsom eness from the senatehouse, and justice, equity, and hard work - qualities that had been buried and overgrown with disuse - were given back to the state; the magistrates gained in respect, the Senate in dignity, the courts in weightiness... Cities were restored to Asia, the provinces were protected from the maladministration o f magistrates... (2.126.2, 4)

It is not a culmination, it is a reversal, o f the way Roman history was heading^6 O f course some aspects o f that reversal are presaged by Caesar, in particular with his paraded clemency;^ it is indeed clemency that is stressed when Velleius presents Caesar’s treatment o f the tribunes Marullus and Caesetius, in a retrospective chapter (68) which allows him to juxtapose the dictator’s moderation with the irresponsible disruptiveness o f Caelius, Milo, and the tribunes themselves. Still, here as elsewhere Velleius’ emphasis made it natural for the fifties and forties to mark what was going wrong, what needed reversing, more than what was heading for the glorious final solution. There is another point too. An emphasis on linearity can so easily go with a diminishing o f an achievement, even a debunking: to historicise is to disarm. Augustus would do that, wouldn’t he? It had been coming for a long time. And Tiberius is just another step in that same process. The great men simply did what they were always going to do, for this was the trajectory o f history: so what, we might ask, was so great about that?

171

C.Christopher Pelting So, unsurprisingly, linearity was not Velleius’ way: his great men, Augustus and Tiberius, need to remain great. Once again I am finding common ground here with Woodman:88why not assume that Velleius had good reasons for feeling positively about Tiberius, and did not want to diminish or debunk? Was it really so silly and naive to believe in something o f a reversal under Augustus? O f course, one could press that argument further, and say not merely that a positive view o f Tiberius was possible in the late twenties but also that it was compulsory': Tacitus himself suggests as much, if we return to his own picture o f that decade and the story o f Cremutius Cordus {Ann. 4.34—5). By Tacitus’ time, there was always that possibility o f introducing negative aspects when writing about past emperors: that, after all, would help to highlight the glories o f the present. But Velleius could not do that with Augustus as the predecessor o f Tiberius. Would —could —Tacitus have written any differently if he had been writing around 30 BC? Or indeed A Tacitus so very different anyway, in those subservient remarks about the glories o f the present age at the beginning o f Agricola and Histories? He too would say that, wouldn’t he? But such talk is once again to disarm through historicising, this time by historicising author rather than emperor. And there is no call for that: no call to diminish Tacitus; but no call, either, to diminish Velleius.

Acknowledgements My thanks to the editors and to Tony Woodman, Christina Kraus and Jonathan Powell for helpful discussion.

N o te s 1 That unpleasing word, though, is my own: Felling 1997a, discussing Dio. 2 Woodman 1977,28-56. ’ Starr 1980, 292. 4 Elefante 1997, 32: ‘il prevalente carattere biografico’. 5 Schmitzer 2000, 157: ‘das Ordnungsprinzip der biographischen Struktur’, which he thinks becom es stronger at 2.41. For similar remarks cf. Hellegouarc’h 1984, 420-1. But Lana 1952, 213—4 was already sceptical. Cf. Christ 2001,180: ‘It is evident that it [the treatment o f Tiberius] has strong biographical elements, but still it is not a biography in the style o f Suetonius and Plutarch.’ 6 Pelling 2006. ’ Pelling 2006, 255. 8 Cf. Witte 1963, 13-14. l) Woodman 1977, 41 and n.2, quoting Peter 1897, i. 385 and Timpe 1962, 21-3, though Tim pe (like Christ 2003, 73) stresses that Caesar is only one dominating personality among many in his own lifetime. So also Marincola 1999, 317 —8, who finds the expansion o f scale from Caesar’s through Augustus’ to Tiberius’ exploits

172

IVelleius and biography: the case ojJulius Caesar (10, 18, and 22 pages) expressive: ‘Tiberius’ deeds are presented not as a break with the past, but rather as its culmination...’ But Marincola is stressing military achievements in particular. Gowing has now argued (2005, 34-41 and 2007) that the moral dimension o f Velleius’ republican characters, especially Scipio Aemihanus, Pompey, and Cato, prefigures and acts as a foil for the virtues o f Tiberius: that view is convincing, but I am here concerned with more exclusively political and constitutional continuities (hard though it is in Roman ideology to draw a firm distinction between morals and politics). 10 Christ 2003, 79, 77. 11 Woodman 1977, 41 n.2 suggests that the language o f 2.86.1 seems to counter the idea o f linearity between Republic and Empire: ‘Quid llle dies [the battle o f Actium] terrarum orbi praestitent, ex quo in quern statum pervenerit fortuna publica, quis in hoc transcursu tarn artati opens exprimere audeat?’ (‘What that day brought the world, what position the fortune o f the commonwealth reached as a result o f it, who would presume to express in so swift-moving and confined a work?’) Yet it may be that this change o f status is one from miserable self-destruction to triumphant success, rather than anything to do with constitutional change or the degree o f personal domination. Still, W oodman’s own (later: 1983, 229-30) note on 86.1 may well be right in resisting too clear-cut a delimiting o f meaning. 12 Woodman 1977,41: cf. Christ 2003,63, stressing ‘the dominance o f personalities’: ‘the miniatures o f the leading politicians determine the flow o f events’. - All references to Velleius are to Book 2 unless otherwise stated. 15 Woodman 1977, 33—4, in Livy’s case quoting Walsh 1974, 9 and Stadter 1972, 303. 14 Woodman 1977, 44—5. 15 Woodman 1977, 54. Woodman is followed by Elefante 1997, 33-4. 16 Above, n. 1. r Syme 1974, 489-90 = 1984, 945. 18 Woodman 1977, 45. 19 O ’Gorm an 2000, 99, and Moles 1998, esp. section 4.4.1, both stressing the ‘swerve’ in the progression o f Tacitus’ argument. Moles regards this drift o f argument as an eloquent deflection, suggesting that the autocratic pressures that threatened Cremutius Cordus have not disappeared: ‘it would be positively dangerous for the historian explicitly to exhort his readers to understand the inner character o f the monarch’. That is unnecessary, I think, given that the concentration here on the rest o f the imperial cast accurately reflects the texture o f the narrative material itself. 20 Ogilvie 1984, 119, quoting Luce 1977, 20-22: other examples are Perseus and Aemilius Paullus in Book 46, Sertonus in Book 96, and Crassus in Book 106. Ogilvie notes that ‘a similar bridging operation’ can work at the beginning o f pentads: ‘Sertorius appears in Book 90 to whet one’s interest and anticipation just as the career o f Mancinus is divided between Books 55 and 56 and the career o f C. Gracchus between Books 60 and 61. In the same way Camillus bridges Books 5 and 6.’ 21 The evidence is the note in the Perioche to Book 121, ‘which is said to have been published after the death o f Augustus’ - ‘published’, one notices (editus), not necessarily ‘written’. This is much discussed: cf. e.g. Stadter 1975,299-300; Woodman 1988, 136, 155; Henderson 1989, who sensibly strikes several cautious notes.

173

Christopher Pelting 12 This and all other passages o f Velleius are quoted from W oodman’s texts (1977 and 1983). 23 The elaborate source-analysis o f Strasburger 1938, 72—89 is still the best discussion: not all the detailed discrimination o f different strands is plausible, but the overall contact with Plutarch and Suetonius emerges clearly. 24 Especially Nepos Pel. 1.1, ‘Pelopidas o f Thebes, a man more familiar to historical experts than to ordinary people: I am uncertain how to describe his merits, because I fear that if I begin to set out his achievements 1 may seem not to be telling his life but to be writing history (ne non vttam eius enarrare, sedhistoriam wdearscribere)’\praef. 1, on ‘this type o f writing’ {hocgenus scripturae). 25 Marmcola 1999, 318-20. Contrast Woodman’s comments on Agnco/a, 1977,43—4. 2(1The analysis o f Rood 1998, ch. 8, is here masterful. r The next section expands some remarks in Pelling 2009, where I compare Velleius’ focalisation technique with some features o f the narrative o f Plutarch, Appian, and Dio. 28 In what follows I have been greatly helped by discussion with Tony Woodman, Christina Kraus, and Jonathan Powell. 2t) The phrase was suggested to me by Christina Kraus, who points out that ‘one can have ambiguity (amphihole) with grammar as one can with vocabulary’ (O liD s.v. amphibole 2). 5,1 See p. 166. 51 See p. 166 and n. 43. 52 Cf. n. 37 below. 55 On fortuna see Schmitzer 2000, 190-25, esp. 206-9 on ‘Fortuna Caesaris’, and also his paper in this volume. 34 See pp. 294, 300. 35 Schmitzer 200(1, 177. 36 Schmitzer 2000, 182. On invidia, see also Bloomer in this volume. r Thus Velleius almost but not quite indicates a view that Pompey’s causa was the better one: but at 49.1 notice ‘the one general’s cause seemed the better’, and the reservation will be more strongly felt because o f the striking ‘on the side o f Pompey - that is, so it was thought at the time (ut tunc habebatur), on the side o f the state...’ that has just preceded (48.4, above p. 163); the notion that a ‘traditional and weighty man’ would follow Pompey (49.3) then again almost but not quite conveys a clear authorial signal. But Klefante ad loc. even makes this a comment which ‘casts a negative light’ on Cato, who has just been mentioned: he may be in tune with tradition (virantiquus etgravis) but appears as ‘incapable o f taking a larger view o f affairs and going beyond the straitjacket o f his principles’; Gowing 2007, 417 similarly makes it a comment on Cato’s lack o f prudentia. Schmitzer 2000, 176—80 contrastingly finds Velleius’ enthusiasm for Caesar more ‘distanced’ than for Pompey, especially in chs. 48-9; in his view (184—9) Velleius makes ‘Cicero the genuine hero o f this period’. 38 In the account o f the debate on 5 December, 2.35.3—4 has Cato speaking ‘almost among the last’ {paene enter ultimos) ‘when the rest were urging’ (cum alii suaderent) imprisonment in the towns o f Italy: his fervour brings the whole Senate over to vote for the death-penalty. That leaves the strong impression that Cato was the first to speak for execution, precisely the point Cicero found so irritating in Brutus’ Cato (Att. 12.21 [260].!). Velleius adds that Cato ‘magnified the consul’s virtue in his speech:

174

Velleius and biography: the case o f Julius Caesar Att. 12.1 (260). 1 again confirms (‘Cato praised all this to the skies and asked for it to be officially recorded that the vote was called on his motion’, tr. Shackleton Bailey). w Cf. Woodman 1977, 41 (above, p. 158); Christ 2003, 73. 411 F.lefante 1997, 343 notes that ‘the silence appears strange’, but she thinks it attributable to ‘a desire to diminish the figure o f Cato’: it is true that Velleius has his reservations about Cato, but that interpretation seems extreme. Cf. n. 37. 41 The final rwo points were made in different discussions at the Leicester conference by Robin Seager and John Lobur respectively; the second is also made by Schmitzer 2000, 184. 42 More on this in Pelling 2009, 519-22. 4’ Thus Woodman on 48.1 notes Velleius’ suppression o f the fact that it was Curio who proposed the simultaneous abandonment o f both armies: that would not suit Velleius’ representation o f this as a proposal that attracted the support o f ‘the most fair-minded’ (iustissmus quisque). 44 Woodman on 48.3 observes that Curio as ‘a man o f high birth, eloquence, and audacity'’ (virnobilis, eloquens, audax) is ‘[t]hus a second Clodius (cf. 45.1 nobilis, disertus, audax...)’. 4‘’ Ginsburg 1981. 46 Pelling 2006, 257-62. 4’ Timpe 1962, 21-3; cf. Gowing 2005,40 and 2007,412; Kuntze 1985,155-68. But Kuntze 165 is misleading to say that Antony too is presented as a singular pnnceps·. at both 66.4 and 72.2 the point is what a pnncipate o f Antony would have been like. 48 See esp. Schmitzer 2000, 190-225. Caesar following ‘his fortune’, sua fortuna·. 2.51.2, 55.1 bis, 55.3 bis·, Schmitzer 206-9. Cf. also 41.2, where he dons a garb ‘most unlike his fortune’ to slip out o f the city. His supporters too have their distinctive fortuna, though the way this has advanced men like D. Brutus and Trebomus eventually turns against Caesar himself, 56.3. But Pompey’s fortuna is felt too: 53.2, 53.3, 56.3, cf. 40.2, 40.4 (Schmitzer 211-5); and fortune destroys every bond between the future adversaries, 47.2. Later the play o f fortune is also felt with Brutus and Cassius (69.6, 71.2; Schmitzer 215). Octavian’s fortuna is felt from 74.4 onwards: fortune does not confine itself to Octavian (82.2), but takes an especial interest in him (85.2, 86.1,87.2). The same goes for Tiberius (75.2,103.1, 116.3,121.1), but still fortuna does not confine itself to the imperial house but extends to the fortunes o f Rome in general: 116.3, 118.4, 119.4, 121.3 (all on the Varus disaster). 49 There is also, though, some respect for Tiberius’ own position on such matters, which may help to explain why the theme is so undeveloped: see Woodman 1975, 292, ‘an emperor whose attitude towards such matters was one o f well-attested contempt’. s" Above, pp. 161-2 and n. 23. 1,1 Alpine village: Plut. Caes. 11.3—4. Alexander statue in Cadiz: Plut. 11.5—6, Suet, Div. Iul. 7.1: Plutarch for his own - perhaps metatextual, Pelling 2002, 257 - reasons changes it to ‘reading a narrative’. Dream o f intercourse with mother: Suet. 7.2, Plut. 32.9; Dio 41.24.2 also places this in the sixties, making it likely that it is Plutarch who has displaced it: Pelling 1997b, 200-1, and 2002, 109-10 n.8 52 Alexander: Dio 37.52.2. Dream: 41.24.2. Other passages emphasising Caesar’s ambition for and drive towards one-man power: Dio 36.43, 37.22.1,37.37.3, 37.44.2-3, 37.56.1: cf. Rich 1989, 93.

175

Christopher Felling The pirate story is well discussed by Schmitzer 2000,164—76. S4 Contrast Dio 37.54—6, much more focused on Caesar: true, the motive-analysis there is more elaborate on all three sides, but the analyses o f Pompey and Crassus make them act more in response to Caesar’s upward trajectory. M 2.15.4, 20.3, 49.2, 68.1; cf. 2.7.6, 32.1 on the senatorial champions Opimius and Carulus; 20.5 on the authority that the Cinnan faction need. Cf. Schmitzer’s paper in this volume, p. 189. 56 On the reconcilability o f the two passages, see W oodman 1975, 290—1. Woodman on 2.55.2 and 100.4 notes the way that this clemency o f Caesar (50.4, 52.4—6, 55.2, 56.1, 57.1, 68.4—5) prefigures that o f Augustus (86.2, 87.2, and 100.4). But, as John Lobur observed at the conference, by the time o f Tiberius dementia can no longer be exercised m tempering bloodshed during civil strife; it is rather exercised m conducting campaigns in a way that is careful and considerate enough to avoid unnecessary losses in the Roman army under one’s command. MWoodman 1977, 53.

176

PART III ROMAN THEMES, ROMAN VALUES

9 ROMAN VAL UES IN V E L L E I U S Ulrich Schmit^er Uxori carissimae necnonfiliis filiaeque In Germany, more than in other European countries, the study o f Latin literature and culture was for long in the shadow o f Greek. This was the case since the 18thcentury, since Winckelmann, Humboldt and Schleiermacher. Only in the first half o f the 20th century did the difficult work begin o f giving Latin studies their proper status. In this process an important role was played by research into Roman value terms. That research, however, was carried out against a background o f intense conservatism, not to say reactionary attitudes —on which more below. Even without the influence o f such ideology, we should expect that our contemporary historical methods, when applied to the topic o f Roman values, will uncover a deeply conservative strand o f Latin historiography.1 On this topic, an author as assertive as Velleius Paterculus provides ideal material. As a starting-point, I choose a passage particularly rich in loaded terminology: reuocata in forum fides; sum m ota e foro seditio, am bitio cam po, discordia curia, sepultaeque et situ obsitae iustitia aequitas industria civitati redditae; accessit magistratibus auctoritas, senatui maiestas, iudiciis grauitas; com pressa theatralis seditio; recte faciendi om nibus aut incussa uoluntas aut im posita necessitas; honorantur recta, prava puniuntur; suspicit potentem humilis non timet, antecedit non contem nit hum iliorem potens, quando annona m oderatior? quando pax laetior? diffusa in orientis occidentisque tractus et quicquid meridiano aut septentrione finitur pax augusta < h o m in e s> per om nes terrarum orbis angulos a latrociniorum m etu seruat im m unes. fortuita non ciuium tantum m odo sed urbium dam na principis munificentia

177

Ulrich Schmitger uindicat: restitutae urbes Asiae, uindicatae ab iniurus magistratuum provinciae; honor dignis paratissim us, poena in m alos sera sed aliqua...2 Credit has been restored in the forum , strife has been banished from the forum , canvassing for office from the C am pus Martius, discord from the senate-house; justice, equity, and industry, long buried in oblivion, have been restored to the state; the m agistrates have regained their authority, the Senate its majesty', the courts their dignity; rioting in the theater has been suppressed; all citizens have either been im pressed with the wish to do right, or have been forced to do so by necessity. Right is now honoured, evil is punished; the hum ble man respects the great but does not fear him, the great has precedence over the lowly but does not despise him. When was the price o f gram more reasonable, or when were the blessings o f peace greater? The p a x augusta, which has spread to the regions o f the east and o f the west and to the bounds o f the north and o f the south, preserves every corner o f the world safe from the fear o f brigandage. The munificence o f the em peror claims for its province the losses inflicted by fortune not merely on private citizens, but on whole cities. T h e cities o f A sia have been restored, the provinces have been freed from the oppression o f their magistrates. H onour ever awaits the worthy; for the wicked punishm ent is slow but sure... (Veil.

2.126.2-4)3 Thus, almost at the very end o f his work,4 Velleius Paterculus'’ praises the blessings that Tiberius’ reign has afforded the Imperium Romanum and the whole world.6 He does so not by listing the emperor’s actual res gestae, but by distilling them down to an abstract catalogue o f virtues and values. This is paradigmatic o f the approach Velleius takes towards the ruler o f the day7—and in all likelihood with good reason. For contemporary' history' always remains open, in its judgement, to revision based on ongoing political developments beyond the day o f its capture in writing.8 Velleius had - we may presume —to undergo that painful experience when, after having completed his work, Sejanus whom he had (albeit cautiously) praised was ousted and harsh judgements passed on his dependents. In his final major digression on literary criticism, Velleius explicitly describes a reserve which is comparable p er analogiam (Veil. 2.36.3): nam uiuorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura difficilis est. Velleius shifts his appreciation o f Tiberius’ rule away from the domain o f individual measures to the more abstract one o f ideologemes, positive notions o f value and their negative opposites. The crucial words are these: fides, iustitia, aequitas, industria, auctoritas, maiestas, grauitas, recta (resp. recte facere),pax {augusta), munificentia and honor. Their negative opposites are: ambitio, discordia, seditio, latronicia as well as in general (punished) malt and mala. A catalogue that has been inserted in such a prominent position deserves a more detailed investigation, if only because

178

Roman values in Velleius it contains a whole range o f terms that are o f importance to Roman political thought and practice beyond Velleius and Tiberius. First, however, a few fundamental introductory statements are in order about the current state o f research into value terminology. Investigation o f Roman value terms has been pre-eminendy the domain o f German­ speaking Latin literary scholarship and ancient history since the early 20th century.9 There are a number o f contributing factors: for one thing, the start o f the publication o f the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae at the beginning o f the 20th century, under the aegis o f the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Bavarian Academy o f Sciences) in Munich, offered an almost ideal basis for such research —in particular the fact that even before the completion o f each volume the complete documentation for all Latin words included in it was available, so that the study o f vocabulary based on secure foundations became possible for the very first time.10This was combined with an inclination within German-speaking classical research to focus on people and personal relationships rather than institutions, turning away from Theodor Mommsen’s constitutional-legal approach.11 Yet research, even when its object is the ancient world, does not take place in a social or political vacuum. This movement towards a terminological history and debate around semantic groups took place in the period after the first World War, when the bitterness in Germany about its recent defeat led to a conservative-reactionary rejection o f modernity among many, including and especially at the universities, which showed itself for example in the espousing o f traditional values and virtues and which also made its mark on the study o f Roman values.12 Moreover, it was o f concern also on methodological grounds that, for instance, Richard Heinze attempted to capture those traits that defined the whole essence o f Romertum (Romanness) in his research about auctoritas13 and fides,u since this assumed a timeless continuity, not in any way subject to the historical process, indeed almost an anthropological constant. In a trivialised form this understanding o f history was used to derive guidance for how to act in the present, in the sense o f ‘to learn from the Romans means to learn to win’, in the end with truly catastrophic consequences through nationalsocialist educational and historical politics. Even after the Second World War there were still conservative classicists like Hans Oppermann1^ or Hans Drexler,16who continued this tradition with only minor changes (not least thanks to the support o f the Wissenschaftiiche Buchgesellschaft as a publisher).17 One might be forgiven for thinking that the pursuit o f the terminology o f Roman values was hopelessly obsolete and belonged to a historical(-scholarly) era long since superseded.

179

Ulrich Schmit^er We are not going to concern ourselves here with abstract timeless values and value terms nor with the issue o f whether or not ‘Romanness’, the nature o f Roman society etc., can thereby be captured once and forever, but rather with the question o f how Velleius Paterculus deals with value­ laden, politically-potent words, how he employs them, in what context and in relation to whom, be it in their positive or negative forms. For there can be no doubt that Roman politics employed such key words to play on the emotions from republican times onwards. We think o f Cicero’s conservative concordia ordinum-mxAm or the coinage o f those who had murdered Caesar with its inscription l(e)ibertas}&Closer to Velleius’ time, since the civil wars and the start o f the Principate coins with their maxims gain increased significance, as also did exceptional honours such as the Clupeus uirtutis awarded to Augustus,19 o f which the emperor himself proudly wrote in his Res Gestae {Mon. Anc. 34). Senatus populusque Rom anus Im pjeratori] Caesari D ivi f[ilio] A ugusto co[n]s[uli] V III dedit clupeum uirtutis, clem entiae, iustitiae, pietatis erga deos patriam. (CII. 9.5811)

The way in which coins served as means to transmit certain values can also be observed in Tiberius’ times, when Velleius was active as a writer; for example, in the case o f a dupondius from 21/22 AD on which Livia is highlighted by means o f the caption lustitia (RIC Tiberius 46) or o f another dupondius around the same time on which Livia appears again, now with the legend Pietas (RIC Tiberius 72).20 Therefore we shall have to explore how the slogans employed by Velleius fit into this kind o f context. Scholarly research is beginning cautiously to re-engage with the terminology o f Roman values. This is where interdisciplinary approaches based on modern methodological expertise come into play (especially those approaches applying archaeological and numismatic insights). Examples are Gabriele Thome’s research,21 or pre-eminently those studies produced as part o f the fitting Dresdener Sonderforschungsbereich (Special area o f research) 537 ‘Institutionalitat und Geschichtlichkeit’ (‘Institutionalism and historicity’), which are able both to provide solid foundations and to open up new avenues.22 Stefan Rebenich has outlined the overall goal o f further research as follows: ‘We have to pose clearly defined socio-, political-, culturaland thought-historical questions in relation to the central notions o f the “ socio-political conceptual universe” . Investigations must not stop at etymology and lexicometry. Rather we have to represent the process by which a word turned into a term and through which its meanings came to change.’2’

180

Roman values in Velleius Taking all this into account, the passage from Velleius quoted at the beginning lends itself to a kind o f pilot study. We want to trace the actual use o f value terms by induction,24 in order to discover what they serve to achieve within their context. Our goal must ultimately be to analyse the political atmosphere in Rome in greater detail by means o f the statements made by the participants themselves and thus to gain an insight into the (political) state o f affairs o f each era. What follows should therefore be understood as a prelude to such a history o f the political terminology o f the early Empire.25 The passage from the praise o f Tiberius quoted above offers an ideal basis for such a seminal analysis o f values,26 since for Velleius Roman history' culminates in the currentprinceps , so that it is to be expected that terms employed in relation to him should be o f supreme significance. We shall study the key phrases that appear together in the passage quoted in more detail, in the order in which they are employed, so as to investigate also the internal organisation o f Velleius’ approach and the way in which his concept o f loyalty is realised.2"

1. fides Fides is one o f the terms that has been most intensely debated by scholars for almost a century7, particularly since both the veritable classics o f Frankel (adding to a Thesaurus entry) and Heinxe.28 Velleius employs fides in three ways.29 In particular at the beginning o f his work it refers to the relation o f other states, and especially Rome’s allies, to Rome itself.311Thus he writes concerning the two Greek colonies o f Cumae and Naples: utriusque urbis eximia sem per in R om anos fides facit eas nobilitate atque amoenitate sua dignissim as; sed illis diligentior ritus patrii m ansit custodia, Cum anos O sca mutauit uicinia. The remarkable and unbroken loyalty to the Rom ans o f both these cities m akes them well worthy o f their repute and o f their charm ing situation. T he N eapolitan s, how ever, continued the careful observance o f their ancestral custom s; the C um aeans, on the other hand, were changed in character by the proximity o f their O scan neighbours. (Veil. 1.4.2)

This use in connection with foreign affairs is especially clear to see in the case o f Rome’s relations with Rhodes, in the context o f the third Macedonian war, in that it is doubled paronomastically:31 quin Rhodii quoque, fidelissimi antea Rom anis, turn dubia fide speculati fortunam , proniores regis partibus fuisse uisi sunt. even the Rhodians, who in the past had been m ost loyal to the Rom ans, were now wavering in their fidelity, and, w atching his su ccess, seem ed inclined to join the king’s side. (Veil. 1.9.2)

181

Ulrich Schmitper This is one o f two passages in which fides acquires a negative, or at least ambiguous, connotation by means o f an attribute. Linguistically, Velleius takes inspiration from Livy, who appears to have coined this combinadon in 1.54.6 (huic nuntio, quia, credo, dubiae fidei uidebatur, nihil uoce responsum est), in the well-known story o f Tarquinius and the Gabinians (and repeated in 2.21.3 before the battle at Lake Regillus). Later, the combination is also known to Ovid (h pist. 19.200) and Valerius Maximus (7.3.7). Accordingly, the majority o f relevant examples are to be found in passages dealing with early Roman history (understood in a wider sense), so that Velleius may also have taken thematic inspiration from this. From a historical perspective, the situation is by no means clear cut, as the ultra-conservative Cato Maior had taken the side o f the Rhodians after the war against Perseus o f Macedon, when the Roman Senate wished to punish them for having attempted to mediate. At this particular juncture in foreign relations Velleius immediately employs fides once as a noun, then the adjective derived from it in the superlative. He does, however, convey his preference by means o f the qualification he makes. This parallel linguistic use acquires an even stronger negative connotation through the context, in that a specific kind o f fides is ascribed to Plancus, an intimate of, amongst others, Antony:12 Plancus deinde dubia (id est sua) fide, diu quarum esset partium se cum luctatus ac sibi difficile consentiens, et nunc adiutor D. Bruti designati consulis, collegae sui, senatuique se litteris uenditans, mox eiusdem proditor, Asinius autem Pollio firmus proposito et Iulianis partibus fidus, Pompeianis aduersus... Plancus, with his usual loose idea of loyalty, after a long debate with himself as to which party to follow, and much difficulty in sticking to his resolutions when formed, now pretended to co-operate with his colleague, Decimus Brutus, the consul designate, thus seeking to ingratiate himself with the Senate in his dispatches, and again betrayed him. But Asinius Pollio, steadfast in his resolution, remained loyal to the Julian party and continued to be an adversary of the Pompeians... (Veil. 2.63.3) Veil. 2.18.1 shows a similar paronomastic usage as in Veil. 1.9.1, in the context o f a report relating to king Mithridates o f Pontus, as Velleius again comments on the Rhodians: quo tempore neque fortitudine aduersus Mithridatem neque fide in Romanos quisquam Rhodiis par fuit (horum fidem Mytilenaeorum perfidia inluminauit, qui M\ Aquilium aliosque Mithridati uinctos tradiderunt, quibus libertas in unius Theophanis gratiam postea a Pompeio restituta est), cum terribilis Italiae quoque uideretur imminere, sorte obuenit Sullae Asia prouincia.

182

Roman values in Velleius In this crisis none equalled the Rhodians either in courageous opposition to Mithridates or in loyalty to the Romans. Their fidelity gained lustre from the perfidy of the people of Mytilene, who handed Manius Aquilius and other Romans over to Mithridates in chains. The Mytilenaeans subsequently had their liberty restored by Pompey solely in consideration of his friendship for Theophanes. When Mithridates was now regarded as a formidable menace to Italy herself, the province of Asia fell to the lot of Sulla, as proconsul. (Veil. 2.18.1) Other passages confirm Velleius’ inclination to repeat certain terms that were o f importance to him and so to create a certain emphasis by linguistic means. Thus it appears to have been important to him, in the case o f the Rhodians, to include a discussion about the relation between loyalty and disloyalty in the briefest form possible, and also to have recourse to the general perception o f the Rhodians in the Roman conception o f history.” Such doubling-up need, however, not always signify a qualification. When Velleius writes o f his own ancestors, he not only employs noun and adjective in the superlative, but also adds further value-laden terms in uerecundia, gloria and the additional superlative celeberrimi·. neque ego uerecundia domestici sanguinis gloriae quicquam, dum uerum refero, subtraham: quippe multum Minati Magii, ataui mei, Aeculensis, tribuendum est memoriae, qui nepos Decii Magii, Campanorum principis, celeberrimi et fidelissimi uiri, tantam hoc bello Romanis fidem praestitit ut cum legione quam ipse in Hirpinis conscripserat Herculaneum simul cum T. Didio caperet, Pompeios cum L. Sulla oppugnaret Compsamque occuparet;... ...nor shall I, through excess of modesty, deprive my own kin of glory, when that which I record is the truth; for much credit is due to the memory of my great-grandfather Minatius Magius of Aeculanum, grandson of Decius Magius, leader of the Campanians, of distinction and proven loyalty. Such fidelity did Minatius display towards the Romans in this war that, with a legion which he himself had enrolled among the Hirpini, he took Herculaneum in conjunction with Titus Didius, was associated with I .ucius Sulla in the siege of Pompeii, and occupied Compsa;... (Veil. 2.16.2) Velleius makes these pronouncements in his own cause since he emphasises the role o f his ancestor in the Social War,” this time no longer by opposing fides qualified by an adjective with fidelissimus , but by a concurrence: in difficult external-political and military circumstances, Minatius Magius retains a notable loyalty towards the Romans. The topic o f personal loyalty thus introduced by Velleius in particular in a military context leads almost directly to Tiberius, with whom the author’s undoubted loyalty lies. And as Rome’s supreme general, he could expect

183

Ulrich Schmitzer and demand such loyalty o f his soldiers. Velleius projects this back exeuentu to the time before he took on the Principate. Among his soldiers, Tiberius is the most important recipient of fides, for instance in two passages from Tiberius’ German expeditions that follow on each other closely and benefit, moreover, from Velleius’ own experience as a member o f the campaign. In one, Tiberius is greeted by his soldiers after extended absenceT at uero militum conspectu eius elicitae gaudio lacrimae alacritasque et salutationis noua quaedam exultatio et contingendi manum cupiditas non continentium protinus quin adicerent ‘uidemus te, imperator? saluum recepimus?’, ac deinde ‘ego tecum, imperator, in Armenia, ego in Raetia fui, ego a te in Vindelicis, ego in Pannonia, ego in Germania donatus sum’, neque uerbis exprimi et fortasse uix mereri fidem potest. Indeed, words cannot express the feelings of the soldiers at their meeting, and perhaps my account will scarcely be believed - the tears which sprang to their eyes in their joy at the sight of him, their eagerness, their strange transports in saluting him, their longing to touch his hand, and their inability to restrain such cries as ‘Is it really you that we see, commander?’; ‘Have we received you safely back among us?’; ‘I served with you, general, in Armenia!’; ‘And I in Raetia!’; ‘I received my decoration from you in Vindelicia!’; ‘And I mine in Pannonia!’; ‘And I in Germany!’ (Veil. 2.104.4) In the other, an elderly German rows across the river in order to see the renowned general at close quarters:56 tum adpulso lintre et diu tacitus contemplatus Caesarem ‘nostra quidem’ inquit ‘furit iuuentus, quae, cum uestrum numen absentium colat, praesentium potius arma metuit quam sequitur fidem.’ Then he beached his canoe, and, after gazing upon Caesar for a long time in silence, exclaimed: ‘Our young men are insane, for though they worship you as divine when absent, when you are present they fear your armies instead of trusting to your protection.’ (Veil. 2.107.2) This is a unique passage in Velleius, in that such a reverent remark is attributed to an enemy o f the Roman Umpire and the Roman Emperor it is full o f respect also in the sense that religious and worldly-political categories blend into each other. It appears unthinkable that Velleius could claim this for any Roman other than Tiberius. The renown o f the ruler o f the day transcends the boundaries o f the imperium Romanum. Unsurprisingly, such fides is also attributed to Sejanus, Tiberius’ most important supporter, a personal loyalty that in this case is o f especial importance:r sub his exemplis Ti. Caesar Seianum Aelium, principe equestris ordinis patre natum, materno uero genere clarissimas ueteresque et insignes honoribus

184

Roman values in Velleius complexum familias, habentem consulares fratres consobrinos auunculum, ipsum uero laboris ac fidei capacissimum, sufficiente etiam uigori animi compage corporis, singularem principalium onerum adiutorem in omnia habuit atque habet, uirum priscae seueritatis, laetissimae hilaritatis, actu otiosis simillimum, nihil sibi uindicantem eoque adsequentem omnia, semperque infra aliorum aestimationes se metientem, uultu uitaque tranquillum, animo exsomnem. With these examples before him, Tiberius Caesar has had and still has as his incomparable associate in all the burdens of the Principate Sejanus Aelius, son of a father who was among the foremost in the equestrian order, but connected, on his mother’s side, with old and illustrious families and families distinguished by public honours, while he had brothers, cousins, and an uncle who had reached the consulship. He himself combined with loyalty to his master great capacity for labour, and possessed a well-knit body to match the energy of his mind; stern but yet gay, cheerful but yet strict in an old-fashioned way; busy, yet always seeming to be at leisure. He is one who claims no honours for himself and so acquires all honours, whose estimate of himself is always below the estimate of others, calm in expression and in his life, though his mind is sleeplessly alert. (2.127.3-4) Even more so than in the case o f Minatius Magius, Velleius turns his description o f Sejanus’ virtues into a canon o f values o f his own: the superlatives, the repeated emphasis on reinvigorated traditional behaviour patterns and attitudes, but above all his focus on the active component, expressing more than just approval in fact precisely co-operation. And yet words meaning ‘effort’ such as labor and onus have formed part o f the ideology7o f the Principate at least since Augustus.’8 Horace was direct: Cum tot sustineas et tanta negoua solus, res Italas armis tuteris, moribus ornes, legibus emendes, in publica commoda peccem, si longo sermone morer tua tempora, Caesar. (Epist. 2.1.1 ff.) Vergil’s portrayal in the Aeneid o f Augustus’ typological paradigm Aeneas, has a similar focus, albeit expressed differently, e.g. when he lets him shoulder the shield showing the future history o f Rome in Book 8 and thus depicts him as a hero o f labor. From this perspective, the canon o f values that is applied to Sejanus appears to be derived from Tiberius rather than being o f independent origin, as indeed an adiutor imperii merits. Only in the mixture o f seueritas and hilaritas does the depiction o f Sejanus differ markedly from that o f Tiberius. Perhaps this is a discreet indication o f what Velleius would have wished from Tiberius himself. Indeed it is perhaps not particularly surprising that, as an ex-soldier, Velleius sets such store by fides. For him it is a universal virtue that plays an important role both in domestic and foreign affairs o f state, and also in

185

Ulrich Schmit^er personal relationships. It coincides with a nostalgic feeling about the history o f Rome that was growing in particular during the period o f restoration after the end o f the civil wars, with the official ideology o f res publica restituta. The F'ides-cult was traced back to Numa Pompilius, the temple on the Capitol originates from the mid-republican period and served as the location for Senate meetings, e.g. in times o f political crisis. How important the notion o f Fides was especially in the early days o f the Principate, is illustrated for instance by Horace’s Carmen Saeculare, which also features the terms Pax and Flonos that will be discussed shortly:19 iam Fides et Pax et Honos Pudorque priscus et neglecta redire Virtus audet adparetque beata pleno Copia cornu. (Cam. Saec. 57-60) We can now understand why it is fides in pardcular that takes precedence in the sequence o f those values that are again accorded their customary position in Tiberius’ times. It matches Velleius’ view o f the ideal develop­ ment o f society as one bound together by loyalty to a particularly high degree.

2. Iustitia4'1 The contrast with other terms also proves that fid es held a particular significance for Velleius. For instances o f iustitia the underlying adjective iustus is far less frequent. In most cases it is also not truly legal issues that are o f concern but rather a wider sense o f justice respecting the question o f appropriateness. This element o f appropriateness is most obvious in passages such as the following: Harum praeteritarumque rerum ordo cum iustis aliorum uoluminibus promatur, turn, uti spero, nostris explicabitur. As to the order of these events, and of those which have been mentioned before, the reader is referred to the special works of other historians, and I myself hope some day to give them in full. (Veil. 2.48.5)41 Thus iustus becomes a synonyrm o f what is aptum or decorum, apart from the fact that it goes hand in hand with an even more potent bonding power.42 Iustus may also more generally refer to personal probity, as when Velleius justifies himself for mentioning certain individuals not at the heart o f historic events: horum uirorum mentioni si quis quaesisse me dicet locum, fatentem arguet; neque enim iustus sine mendacio candor apud bonos crimini est.

186

Roman values in Velleius If anyone shall say that I have gone out of my way to mention these men, his criticism will meet no denial. In the sight of honest men fair-minded candour without misrepresentation is no crime. (Veil. 2.116.5) Moreover it accords with Velleius’ literary strategy' to prepare for events that are only treated expressis verbis later by means o f the associative use o f semantic word groups. In this case it is his discussion o f the clades Variana in the Teutoburg Forest in AD 9. The pair o f opposites falsehood and justice, one applied to the Germans the other to the Romans, plays a special role. In fundamental contrast to the view o f the Germans as conveyed by Caesar and Tacitus, in Velleius the enemies o f Rome appear not as naive, ardess strongmen but as the countertype o f institutionalised Roman justice, whose representative in this instance, however, does not act appropriately, therefore does not embody the criteria o f what is aptum / decorum / iustum and thus sows the seeds o f a military disaster that cannot be resolved by civil means. Yet this statement also prepares for the more detailed explanation o f the ruse by which the Germans lulled Varus into a sense o f safety' while already secretly planning their revolt: at illi, quod msi expertus uix credat, in summa feritate uersutissimi natumque mendacio genus, simulantes fictas litium series et nunc prouocantes alter alterum in iurgia, nunc agentes gratias quod ea Romana iustitia ftniret feritasque sua nouitate incognitae disciplinae mitesceret et solita armis decerni iure terminarentur, in summam socordiam perduxere Quintilium, usque eo ut se praetorem urbanum in foro ius dtcere, non in mediis Germaniae finibus exercitui praeesse crederet. But the Germans, who with their great ferocity' combine great craft, to an extent scarcely credible to one who has had no experience of them, and are a race to lying born, by trumping up a series of fictitious lawsuits, now provoking one another to disputes, and now expressing their gratitude that Roman justice was settling these disputes, that their own barbarous nature was being tamed by this new and hitherto unknown method, and that quarrels which were usually setded by arms were now being ended by law, brought Quintilius to such a complete degree of negligence, that he came to look upon himself as a city praetor administering justice in the forum, and not a general in command of an army in the heart of Germany. (Veil. 2.118.1) Such a passage also helps to illustrate very well why Velleius is not a suitable informant for the debate concerning the actual location o f the clades Variana, a debate vigorously pursued in recent times especially in Germany and in which, based on current archaeological evidence, the village o f Kalkriese, near Osnabrück, appears to be best placed.45 For Velleius structures his report not as a companion piece to the detailed archaeological hunt for

187

Ulrich Schmitper physical evidence, but as a literary7monumentum o f treason, failure and - in contrast - the affirmation o f virtns. Varus’ mistake is { inter alia) to believe Germany to be a province already for the most part properly subdued and therefore to transfer Roman institutions, in particular the legal system, to it. Velleius employs an extended sequence o f synonyms and antonyms here, such as iustitia, disciplina, ius, ius dicere as well as mendacium, lis, provocari, iurgium,feritas, creating a dense group o f words that underlines his statement on a linguistic level. It has incidentally to be added, however, that Velleius treats Varus with particular unfairness. For one, Varus cannot have been quite as incompetent as portrayed here, since Augustus had previously entrusted him with governing Palestine, notorious for unrest, and then sent him to where a new military confrontation was looming. Either Augustus himself had underestimated how serious the situation in Germany in fact was and sent a governor who was not sufficiently competent (so that the mistake in the end reflects on him), or Arminius’ revolt and the defeat in the Teutoburg Forest had indeed not been foreseeable since the Germans proceeded with exceptional skill. But Velleius joins the chorus o f those in Rome who (from republican times onwards) would pull to pieces imperatores victim In Velleius’ case, in addition to this general attitude, it affords him the opportunity to give particular prominence to Tiberius, as he had perhaps even been one o f Varus’ rivals, but certainly had been leading a military mission in Dalmatia and Pannonia at the same time as the eludes Variana took place. Tiberius, like Varus, had to deal with a revolt o f peoples seemingly already defeated yet he was able to bring his mission to a successful end. Thus Velleius gains an opportunity to highlight his hero once more. And yet this last passage already leads back to our key source text, the praise o f Tiberius, for Varus too had presumed an orderly system of justice which he had believed himself able to implement in Germany. In Tiberius’ case, however, it is not a seeming but an actual ordered justice system, one able to re-lay the foundations o f the state as a whole, in the shape o f a functioning legal system. In Velleius such contrasts also operate across greater distances. Moreover, it fits that - I believe - the single piece o f numismatic evidence for Iustitia as a political catch-phrase happens to fall precisely into Tiberius’ times as he ordered the minting o f a dupondius in AD 21/22 on which a legend describes his mother Livia as an embodiment o f Iustitia (see above). Across the whole o f Velleius’ work, however, as has been mentioned, the word group iustitia/iustus does not appear particularly frequently. And even in the praise o f Tiberius it requires, so to speak, supporting synonyms, in order to bring out the significance o f this value

188

Roman values in Velleius term, i.e. that o f aequitas, a term that tends even more generally towards notions o f fairness and equity, as well as o f the completely general industria, where it is indeed difficult to understand what in reality it refers to.

3. auctoritas, maiestas, gravitas As with iustitia, aequitas and industria, the following combination in our initial text assigns three truly central terms to three institutions and is likewise in the form o f a tricolon: magistratibus auctoritas, senatui maiestas, iudiciisgrauitas. This terminology is, however, on closer inspection, by no means applied just stereotypically or mechanically, but contains a pointed twist in relation to the history o f the Principate. Velleius employs auctoritas with non­ political meaning fairly frequently, as in 1.7.1, where Hesiod is characterised as auctoritate proximus to Homer and thus as deservedly an influential poet o f ancient times.49 In a political context auctoritas appears in connection with the return o f Q. Metellus who had been unjustly exiled and whose son was able to engender universal support for him: pietate sua, a u ctorita te senatus, consensupopuli Romani. Indeed the combination auctoritas senatusAb is the more frequent variant in Velleius, as for example also in 2.20.3 and 2.49.2. It is only at the point when Caesar, the first great individual o f Roman history, appears, that auctoritas also refers to individual magistrates, indeed preferably to consuls and then again to Caesar. In this Velleius follows a development which had been prompted in particular by the emergence o f the Principate and had found its most memorable, now virtually classic, turn o f phrase at the end o f the Res GestaeV Post id tem pus auctoritate om nibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri, qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt.

{Mon. Anc. 34) Whether consciously or not, Velleius thus also accurately portrays contemporary political reality in Rome, for within the framework o f the Principate little now remained o f the former decision-making power o f the Roman Senate that had for the most part been uncontested —and not only in relation to foreign affairs. For someone who, like Velleius, was born later, the auctoritas senatus indeed remained only a historical rather than a contemporary fact. The combination o f maiestas4K and senatus on the other hand is also significant. It occurs only once previously in Velleius, at 2.89.3-4, precisely as the author speaks - in almost hymnic fashion - o f the end o f the civil wars brought about by Augustus’ victory:49 finita uicesim o anno bella ciuilia, sepulta externa; reuocata pax, sopitus ubique arm orum furor; restituta uis legibus, iudicus auctoritas, senatui

189

Ulrich Schmitvgr maiestas;

im perium m agistratuum ad pristinum redactum m odum ; tantum m odo octo praetoribus adiecti duo. prisca ilia et antiqua rei publicae form a reuocata. rediit cultus agris, sacris honos, securitas hom inibus, certa cuique rerum suarum p ossessio. leges em endatae utiliter, latae salubriter; senatus sine asperitate nec sine seueritate lectus. principes uiri triumphisque et amplissimis honoribus functi hortatu principis ad ornandam urbem inlecti sunt.

The civil wars were ended after twenty years, foreign wars suppressed, peace restored, the frenzy o f arm s everywhere lulled to rest; validity was restored to the laws, authority to the courts, and dignity to the Senate; the pow er o f the m agistrates was reduced to its form er limits, with the sole exception that two new praetors were added to the existing eight. The old traditional form o f the Republic was restored. Agriculture returned to the fields, respect to religion, to m ankind freedom from anxiety, and to each citizen his property rights were now assured; old laws were usefully emended, and new laws passed for the general good; the revision o f the Senate, while not too drastic, was not lacking in severity. T he chief men o f the state who had won trium phs and had held high office were at the invitation o f A ugustus induced to adorn the city.

Before proceeding with analysing its terminology7, we must briefly note the remarkable correspondence o f this passage with our initial text concerning Tiberius. In this passage Velleius describes with some precision how Augustus himself would have wanted to have his constitutional restorations perceived; the way in which the restoration o f traditional arrangements is emphasised twice as well as the frequent prefix re- underlines his train o f thought. Unless we suppose that Velleius had completely forgotten towards the end o f his work what he had written some 30 chapters previously, the logic implicit in the text suggests that Augustus had not succeeded in retaining this ideal state o f the respublica permanently after it had been recovered. Rather, Tiberius again had to address chaotic circumstances, as before the initial restoration o f the res publica .5n Velleius may refer to the (to us) somewhat obscure circumstances o f Augustus’ last years when domestic tensions (such as famine riots, supply shortages due to earthquakes, but also the problems o f his succession) coincided with problems on the northern and north-western frontiers o f the Umpire to create a volatile atmosphere. Then there was the unhappy role played by the Senate during the transition from Augustus to Tiberius which is portrayed so masterfully by Tacitus. This is not explicitly mentioned by Velleius, for easily understandable reasons, but such memories continued to reverberate below the surface. At any rate it is important for Velleius that in such an atmosphere o f restoration the Senate is again accorded maiestas. Traditionally, maiestas is a

190

Roman values in Velleius quality that (for example in Cicero, but also in the earlier days o f the Republic) was attributed more to the populus Romamis and had to be preserved by Roman institutions on its behalf. For the entire populus Romanus as such is o f course unable to take action. Isolated instances o f a maiestas senatus o f course already occur in Cicero and Livy, but they are clearly an exception. That Velleius juxtaposes the Senate with maiestas in two such prominent passages could be seen as complementary to the development just mentioned in relation to auctoritas. The Senate has lost its real opportunities to act, it is primarily just a venerable institution, which while it enjoys high regard, with almost religious overtones, is no longer active in practical politics - this at least is how Velleius sees it, and in this he is not completely wrong. Finally we come to the third term in this triad, grauitas. Leaving aside clearly non-political usages, as especially those involving the cognate adjective grauis (as in grauiterferre), in its regular relevant usage it signifies a conservative virtue o f dignity and steadfastness, as in the comparison o f Caesar and Pompey in the mirror o f their estimation by others^1 uir antiquus et grauis Pom pei partes laudaret m agis, prudens sequeretur Caesaris et ilia gloriosa, haec terribiliora duceret. T he stern Rom an o f the old-fashioned type would praise the cause o f Pompey, the politic would follow the lead o f Caesar, recognizing that while there was on the one side greater prestige, the other was the m ore formidable. (Vell. 2.49.3)

This sentence, incidentally, illustrates the problem that Velleius faced in view o f his conservative attitude regarding Caesar’s usurpation o f the state and thus the very concept o f the resulting Principate. Not without reason does Seneca rhetor state ( Contr: 10.3.5) that the best protection against civil war is —to forget: optima ciuilis belli dejensio obliuio est. Yet as a writer o f contemporary history Velleius does not have this option, so that he has to find another solution. Grauitas is a trait also characteristic o f Tiberius, as is apparent from the (albeit somewhat polemical) report by Suetonius: Multa praeterea specie grauitatis ac m orum corrigendorum , sed et magis naturae optem perans, ita saeue et atrociter facdtauit, ut nonnulli uersiculis quoque et praesentia exprobrarent et futura denuntiarent mala... H e kept doing so many other cruel and savage deeds under the guise o f strictness and im provem ent o f the public m orals, but in reality rather to gratify his natural instincts, that som e resorted to verses to express their detestation o f the present ills and a warning against those to come... {Tib. 59).

191

Ulrich Schmit^er Yet Tiberius’ dissimulatio (later to be memorably castigated by Tacitus) is naturally not a subject for Velleius; for him Tiberius is a person o f unrivalled grauitas. Reviewing together the three value terms auctoritas, maiestas and grauitas, it becomes apparent that all three derive from the predominant ideology o f the Principate and thus could also be attributed to the ruler o f the day —and in their entirety it should be noted, while the structures to which Tiberius has restored their former prestige only partially partake in them. This too is an implicit statement about the superficial and barely subsisting republican character o f the Roman state after Actium.

4. paxS2 In contrast to modern, at least to idealising, notions, the Roman concept o f peace, pax, is conceptualized asymmetrically from the start. Taking its cue from its etymology - pangere, to reach an agreement —it refers to a legal state o f affairs that leads to the cessation o f conflict by means o f a contractual agreement. This carries forward the existing balance o f power, in particular a position o f superiority established in military conflicts. Plautus’ Persa, where the victory7is mentioned first, then the resulting peace, exemplifies this (753): H ostibus uictis, ciuibus saluis, re placida,

pacibus perfectis....

The civil wars did nothing to change this fundamentally outward-looking notion, although they did lead to an increasingly urgent need for a domestic peace, in particular since for Rome a helium ciuile in any case represented a perverse oxymoron. Augustus channelled the primarily internal need for peace in Rome with predictable skill: he spoke o f an external peace and yet meant an internal one, when he reinvented an allegedly ancient Roman ritual, the closure o f the temple o f Ianus, as a sign o f universal peace. This finds even stronger expression in the mythical-vegetadve pictorial universe

of the Ara Pads which hints at peace extending to the whole of nature (cf. Sauron 2000). Velleius also speaks o f the closure o f the temple o f Ianus: Immane bellicae ciuitatis argumentum quod semel sub regibus, iterum hoc Ianus gem inus clausus dedit.

T. Manlio consule, tertio A ugusto principe certae pacis argumentum

It is a strong p ro o f o f the warlike character o f our state that only three times did the closing o f the tem ple o f the double-faced Jan u s give p r o o f o f unbroken peace: once under the kings, a second time in the consulship o f the Titus Manlius ]ust mentioned, and a third time in the reign o f Augustus. (Veil. 2.38.3)

192

Roman values in Velleius With these turns o f phrase, Velleius positions himself almost exactly in the middle o f the spectrum marked out by Augustus, in that he draws a line from a historical and surely marginal event forward to the pre-history o f his own times, and closely associates peace with a bellicose temperament. Augustus too had phrased it this way in his Res Gestae, wridng cum per totum imperiumpopuli Romani terra marique essetparta uictoriispax {Mon. Anc. 13). In the passage about the end o f the civil wars already quoted above, Velleius summarizes this integrative notion o f pax , which had been elevated to an ideology o f the Principate by Augustus, with extreme brevity: Finita uicesimo anno bella ciuilia, sepulta externa; reuocata pax... (Veil. 2.89.3).

Yet the pax o f which Velleius writes is not so much a pax Augusta , but rather to a greater extent a pax Tiberiana. A fundamental structural argument, deduced from how the work is organised, speaks for such an interpretation: A ccipe nunc, M. Vinici, tantum in bello ducem quantum in pace uides principem. Listen now, Marcus Vinicius, to the p ro o f that Caesar was no less great in war as a general than you now see him in peace as an emperor. (Veil. 2.113.1)

Velleius’ work is in the main structured biographically, especially in the second book. In each case a dominating character appears, e.g. Caesar, Augustus or indeed Cicero. Historical events during their lifetimes are then, so to speak, fitted into the broader pattern o f their (political) biography. Taking this internal organisation o f the Historia Romana into account, all o f the final section starting with 2.113 must already be the Tiberius section - thus, for example, the fighting in Germany, Dalmatia and Pannonia which also took place under Augustus’ rule, yet for Velleius belonged wholly to the period o f Tiberius’ political dominance. When he promises to tell o f Tiberius’ deeds militiae domique, Velleius employs a standard pattern o f ancient biography: the addressee, M. Vinicius, has first-hand experience o f the current activities o f peace {uides), while Velleius offers to act himself as guarantor o f Tiberius’ military glory before his Principate. Overall this early military success is the necessary preparation for the peace that now reigns, the same as the victories in the civil wars up to Actium were, for Augustus, an indispensable pre-condition for the pax Augusta. It is not by chance that the coinages with pax- motifs, which Augustus had issued, fall in the period immediately after Actium. Tiberius had no need for numismatic activities o f this kind; doing so might even have drawn attention to the (Senatorial) accusation spread by Tacitus:

193

Ulrich Schmit^er nobis in arto et inglorius labor; immota quippe aut modice lacessita pax, maestae urbis res, et princeps proferendi imperi incuriosus erat. [Ann. 4.32.2) It is significant that Tiberius appears only as initiator o f a military mission to create peace. In complementary fashion, Velleius also omits to mention specific wars and peace treaties under Tiberius’ reign. An equal peace would have been wholly alien to how the Romans saw themselves in terms o f international law. And thus there is no internal contradiction when Velleius places Tiberius’ actions as a whole under the leitm otiv o f pax, as can be deduced from the ring-compositional usage. For not only does the initial passage above accord pax a central position, but so also does the end, the prayer for the princeps·. Iuppitcr Capitoline, et auctor ac stator Romani nominis Gradiue Mars, perpetuorumque custos Vesta ignium, et quicquid numinum hanc Romani imperii molem in amplissimum terrarum orbis fastigium extulit, uos publica uoce obtestor atque precor: custodite seruate protegite hunc statum, hanc pacem, , eique functo longissima statione mortali destinate successores quam serissimos, sed eos quorum ceruices tam fortiter sustinendo terrarum orbis imperio sufficiant quam huius suffecisse sensimus, consiliaque omnium ciuium aut pia... O Jupiter Capitolinus, and Mars Gradivus, author and stay of the Roman name, Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire, and all other divinities who have exalted this great Umpire of Rome to the highest point yet reached on earth! On you I call, and to you I pray in the name of this people: guard, preserve, protect the present state of things, the peace which we enjoy, and when he has filled his post of duty - and may it be the longest granted to mortals - grant him successors until the latest time, but successors whose shoulders may be as capable of sustaining bravely the Empire of the world as we have found his to be: foster the pious plans of all good citizens... (Veil. 2.131.1). The god o f war, Mars, is one o f the most important divine guarantors for the endurance o f the pax Tiberiana. This holds no contradictions for Velleius who had once been an officer in the army; the majority o f his contemporaries certainly felt similarly. At a lesser level the eradication o f seditiones in the theaters is likewise an act o f establishing peace, at least a measure in order to keep Rome and the cities o f the Empire calm. What Velleius is aiming at with his phrase compressa theatralis seditio, becomes apparent from Suetonius: Populares tumultus et ortos grauissime coercuit et ne orerentur sedulo cauit. Caede in theatro per discordiam admissa capita factionum et histriones, propter quos dissidebatur, relegauit, nec ut reuocaret umquam ullis populi precibus potuit euinci.

194

Roman values in Velleius He took great pains to prevent outbreaks of the populace and punished such as occurred with the utmost severity. When a quarrel in the theater ended in bloodshed, he banished the leaders of the factions, as well as the actors who were the cause of the dissension; and no entreaties of the people could ever induce him to recall them. ( Tib. 37.2) This way o f peace-making, which removed the popular heroes o f the Roman theater from the eyes o f their public, is likely to have caused much less delight amongst the Roman population than the military deeds o f peace.

5. muniflcentia53 The next value term no longer leads to the heart o f Velleius’ understanding o f the Principate, but characterizes an important secondary aspect. In principle, munificence, the distribution o f gifts, is an intrinsic feature o f the Roman system o f patronage with the two-way relationship between patronus and cliens, which relied on material as well as immaterial gifts. With the emergence o f the Principate, Augustus (and his successors) were, so to speak, the super-patroni above the existing clientelae (this was made easier since - as recent research has clearly shown - these clientelae were by no means set in stone but part o f a dynamic, changeable system: Holkeskamp 2004, 85-105). With this, the princeps had also taken on most o f the responsibility for the material well-being o f urbs and orbis, as Augustus indeed clearly emphasises in the Res Gestae. In emphasizing care for the well-being o f the public, Velleius can see himself in harmony with traditional Roman virtues. Cicero had stated bluntly in his speech Pro Murena (76): odit populus Romanus priuatam luxuriam, publicam munificentiam diligit. In accordance with the conception o f his work, however, Velleius only seldom has the opportunity to discuss such public subsidies. Moreover he is slighdy weary o f the encouragement o f luxury,34 as we may see in an inconspicuous passage o f his work, where he writes about the founder o f the Porticus Metelli, later the Porticus Octavia: Hie idem primus omnium Romae aedem ex marmore in iis ipsis monumentis molitus uel magnificentiae uel luxuriae princeps fuit. This same Metellus was the first of all to build at Rome a temple of marble, which he erected in the midst of these very monuments, thereby becoming the pioneer in this form of munificence, or shall we call it luxurv? (Veil. 1.11.5) With his Sallustian view o f history, Velleius finds it difficult to approve o f such developments unreservedly. But he is also unable to escape the

195

IJlrich Schmit^er standard panegyric patterns completely, so that he comes to mention the subject seldom yet emphatically. Most significant is the sentence just before the conclusion o f his work, where Tiberius’ achievements are praised in the context o f a difficult personal lot and where Velleius employs both munificentia and its synonym liberalitas (beneficium likewise sometimes occurs in Velleius, more so referring to the immaterial): Quanta suo suorumque nomine extruxit opera! quam pia munificentia superque humanam euecta fidem templum patri molitur! quam magnifico animi temperamento Cn. quoque Pompei munera absumpta igni restituit, qui, quod umquam claritudine eminuit, id ueluti cognatum censet tuendum! qua liberalitate cum alias tum proxime incenso monte Caelio omnis ordinis hominum iacturae patrimonio succurrit suo! What public buildings did he construct in his own name or that of his family! With what pious munificence, exceeding human belief, does he now rear the temple to his father! With what a magnificent control of personal feeling did he also restore the works of Gnaeus Pompey destroyed by fire! For a feeling of kinship leads him to protect every famous monument. With what generosity at the lime of the recent fire on the Caelian Hill, as well as on other occasions, did he use his private fortune to make good the losses of people of all ranks in life! (Veil. 2.130.1-2) Here too the frame o f reference is obvious: Velleius picks up the thinking that had guided Augustus in his self-representation in the Res Gestae when he related how many building works he had initiated employing his own means but under someone else’s name. Since, overall, Tiberius’ impact on the city’s fabric was clearly less spectacular than that o f his predecessor (apart from the temple for Divus Augustus no major developments are, to my knowledge, recorded), Velleius has to recur to his general, somewhat vague phrase in order not to let Tiberius suffer by comparison with Augustus. For however much the inner circles o f the ruling elite appreciated his frugality, the policies that Tiberius preferred (according to

Suetonius) could please Rome’s wider public little: I .udorum ac munerum impensas corripuit mercedibus scaenicorum recisis paribusque gladiatorum ad certum numerum redactis. Corinthiorum uasorum pretia in immensum exarsisse tresque mullos triginta milibus nummum uenisse grauiter conquestus, adhibendum supellectili modum censuit annonamque macelli senatus arbitratu quotannis temperandam, dato aedilibus negotio popinas ganeasque usque eo inhibendi, ut ne opera quidem pistoria proponi venalia sinerent. Ft ut parsimoniam publicam exemplo quoque iuuaret, sollemnibus ipse cenis pridiana saepe ac semesa obsonia apposuit dimidiatumque aprum, affirmans omnia eadem habere, quae totum.

196

Roman values in Velleius He reduced the cost of the games and shows by cutting down the pay of the actors and limiting the pairs of gladiators to a fixed number. Complaining bitterly that the prices of Corinthian bronzes had risen to an immense figure and that three mullets had been sold for thirty thousand sesterces, he proposed that a limit be set to household furniture and that the prices of food in the market should be regulated each year at the discretion of the Senate; while the aediles were instructed to put such restrictions on cookshops and eating-houses as not to allow even pastry to be exposed for sale. Furthermore, to encourage general frugality by his personal example, he often served at formal dinners meats left over from the day before and partly consumed, or the half of a boar, declaring that it had all the qualities of a whole one. (Suet. Tib. 34)

6. honor This term differs from those discussed so far in that it does not refer to a specific characteristic o f the princeps, in which other significant individuals shared, but represents a reward, mainly symbolic, that is awarded from the top down, and thereby also reveals a hierarchical structure. This is especially clear at 2.129, where a veritable nest o f terms can be found in the context o f the portrayal o f Tiberius’ achievements; quibus praeceptis instructum Germanicum suum imbutumque rudimentis militiae secum actae domitorem recepit Germaniae! quibus iuuentam eius exaggerauit honoribus, respondente cultu triumphi rerum quas gesserat magnitudini! quotiens populum congiariis honorauit senatorumque censum, cum id senatu auctore facere potuit, quam libenter expleuit, ut neque luxuriam inuitaret neque honestam paupertatem pateretur dignitate destitui! quanto cum honore Germanicum suum in transmarinas misit prouinciasL.quam ilium ut honorate sic secure conunet! How well had Germanicus been trained under his instructions, having so thoroughly learned the rudiments of military science under him that he was later to welcome him home as conqueror of Germany! What honours did he heap upon him, young though he was, making the magnificence of his triumph to correspond to the greatness of his deeds! How often did he honour the people with largesses, and how gladly, whenever he could do so with the Senate’s sanction, did he raise to the required rating the fortunes of senators, but in such a way as not to encourage extravagant living, nor yet to allow senators to lose their rank because of honest poverty! With what honours did he send his beloved Germanicus to the provinces across the seas!... With what honour does he treat him while at the same time he holds him securely! Here, Velleius has to deal with the incredibly tense relationship between Tiberius and his adoptive son Germanicus.5'’ The latter was much more popular in Rome than the sombre Tiberius, indeed after Augustus’ death

197

Ulrich Schmit^er there had been those calling for Germanicus to be declared princeps immediately. While Germanicus had immediately rejected this proposal, his unauthorized journey to Egypt a few years later, which violated the rule forbidding senators to enter this province without authorisation and where he allowed himself to receive honours derived from the ancient Egyptian cult o f the ruler, was clear provocation. His ultimately unexplained death in AD 19, the role subsequently played by his widow Agrippina in the 20s, and Sejanus’ cruel proceeding against her under the pretence o f imminent high treason, compelled Velleius to write with the utmost caution. His literary counter-strategy is obvious: he emphasizes how respectfully Tiberius treated Germanicus, so that implicidy Germanicus is branded as ungrateful since he nonetheless did not act with unquestioning loyalty. This impression o f the significance o f the term honoris confirmed when we look at Velleius’ report about events when Tiberius came to rule. At that time it was inevitably feared that the whole world might sink into chaos, and yet Tiberius hesitated for some time to enter upon the succession: una tam en ueluti luctatio ciuitatis fuit, pugnantis cum C aesare senatus populique Romani ut stationi paternae succederet, illius ut potius aequalem ciuem quam eminentem liceret agere principem, tandem magis ratione quam honore uictus est, cum quicquid tuendum non suscepisset periturum uideret; solique huic contigit paene diutius recusare principatum quam ut occuparent eum alii arm is pugnauerant. Post redditum caelo patrem et corpus eius hum anis honoribus, numen diuinis honoratum, prim um principalium eius operum fuit ordinatio com itiorum , quam m anu sua scriptam diuus Augustus reliquerat. There was, however, in one respect what might be called a struggle in the state: the Senate and the Rom an people wrestled with Caesar to induce him to succeed to the position o f his father, while he on his side strove for perm ission to play the part o f a citizen on a parity with the rest rather than that o f an em peror over all. At last he was prevailed upon rather by reason than by the honour, since he saw that whatever he did not undertake to protect was likely to perish. He is the only man to w hose lot it has fallen to refuse the Principate for a longer time, alm ost, than others had fought with w eapons to secure it. A fter heaven had claim ed his father, and human honours had been paid to his body as divine honours were paid to his soul, the first o f his tasks as em peror was the regulation o f the com itia, instructions for which A ugustus had left in his own handwriting. (Veil.

2.124.2-3) The question o f the recusatio imperii and dissimulatio, which - as already mentioned - is treated pre-eminently by Tacitus, but also by Suetonius, need not concern us here. For our purposes, what is important is the reciprocal usage o f honor·. Tiberius is reluctant to be honoured by the

198

Roman values in Velleius Senate, even when he is meant to receive the highest position in the state, yet after having taken on the rule he is able to endow his dead predecessor and adoptive father with honores\ this likewise is an act which is simult­ aneously entirely natural and also bears the hallmarks o f a hierarchical organisation. It is clear that the eulogy which Velleius gives to the rule o f Tiberius at the end o f his work in 2.126 is by no means just a colourful miscellany o f catch­ words but purposefully harks back to the store o f Roman value terms and notions, and has a clearly conservative quality. This combination also reveals how Velleius measures the Roman state and its citizens in their actions by Tiberius’ standard, in that he assigns or denies them a particular share not only in power but also in ideological concepts. In this way, the value discourse in Velleius fits the general conception o f his historical work. He is concerned not just with an informative and easily tractable universal history. Rather, the whole history o f the world and especially that o f Rome from its foundation is governed by a teleological premise: it takes its definition from the person o f the ruler o f the day. I am inclined not to impute opportunism to the author but to grant him sincerity based on biographical and also socio-historical reasons. (On this see Schmitzer 2000, passim .) Seldom has there been - at least in antiquity —a work more loyal than that o f Velleius Paterculus. Perhaps we can see here the last vestiges o f a conservative discourse o f the early Empire in which the traditional values o f the respublica libera are transplanted into the new framework o f the Principate and thus were meant to undergo a quite innovative synthesis that was also new. The catalyst for this specific combination is Tiberius’ similarly conservative nature, which very much irked Tacitus, but which in Velleius’ eyes represented the incarnation o f his social ideal. This is quite new, in that it leads beyond the forms o f historiography that were known to Rome up to that point. And it is innovative in another way - compare the analog}' closest in time, Ovid’s Metamorphoses. There the author also arrives at his own period within the framework o f a universal historical overview (the difference that one is poetry the other prose is not significant in this context). There likewise the concrete actions o f the ruler’s predecessor are mentioned, and there too the reign o f the current ruler is extolled only in general panegyric fashion, without an assessment o f individual actions. This parallel is reinforced further by the fact that in Ovid as in Velleius a prayer for the ruler —respectively, Augustus and Tiberius —stands at the end, something which, in surviving literature, recurs only much later, as in Pliny’s Panegyricus to the emperor Trajan. It appears that we are

199

Ulrich Schmitzer uncovering a widespread rhetorical method o f the early Empire, which aligns the writing o f contemporary history much more closely with poetry o f contemporary7 slant than with a ruler’s own account o f himself, the

Res Gestae. Through this combination o f thematic and formal innovation, dispensing for understandable reasons with the detailed recounting o f concrete historical facts, Velleius finds his way to the conclusion o f his catalogue o f values. The current princeps is allowed to become an exemplary character o f exemplary behaviour: nam facere recte ciues sues princeps optimus faciendo docet, cumque sit impeno maximus, exemplo maior est. for the best of emperors teaches his citizens to do right by doing it himself, and though he is greatest among us in authority, he is still greater in the example which he sets. (2.126.3)

Acknowledgement The editor wishes to express her thanks to Kathrin Liiddecke for her meticulous translation o f the author’s German. Notes 1The present chapter deals mainly with traditional German approaches to Latin studies, and accordingly restricts itself to secondary literature in German. Among work in other languages, one fundamental study is Syme (1939), 149—161,276—330. 2 The text quoted is that o f Watt (1998). ’ English translations are taken from Shipley (1924). 4 Woodman (1977), 236-244. 5 What follows is o f course based on Schmitzer (2000) (here: 300f.). However, I have attempted to take the opportunity to investigate further aspects not covered previously. Secondary sources already listed there are usually not referenced again, (in the character o f Velleius’ work see now also Lobur (2007) and Gowing (2007). 6 Cf. overall Christ (2001), ” Cf. on this Schmitzer (2000) passim. s A fundamental study is Christ (2003). 9 See also, however, the important compilation by Hellegouarc’h (1963) who has done much in particular for Velleius. 19 Hiltbrunner 1981—1992 which otherwise would be a most useful tool has unfortunately only reached the lemma cura. 11 See on this Rebenich (2005) and Schmidt (1995). 12 E.g. Peter Lebrecht Schmidt, ‘Philology’, Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia o f the Ancient World, English edition by Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider, Leiden, Brill, 2002-, ” Heinze (1925). 14 Heinze (1929); against Frankel (1916).

200

Roman values in Velleius 15 Cf. esp. the widely-used compilation by Oppermann (1967); m addition Malitz (1998). 16 Drexler (1944), Drexler (1988), Wegeler (1996), 244-253. ' ’ Cf. Malitz (1998) 541. 18 Crawford (1974) no. 505/4; c f as a key work Classen (1986). 19 Galinsky (1996) 80-90 (in the context o f the chapter ‘Ideas, Ideals, Values’); Kienast (2009) 95-98. 20 C f RIC Tiberius 47 (Salus) and RIC Tiberius 45 (Pax). 21 Thorne (2000). 22 http://www.tu-dresden.de/sulifkp/W erte/W ertbegriffO.htm (14/5/2010). 2’ Rebenich (2005) 45f: ‘An die zentralen Konzepte der ‘politisch-sozialen Begriffswelt’ müssen klar definierte sozial·, politik-, kultur- und mentalitätsgeschichtliche Fragestellungen herangetragen werden. Die Untersuchungen dürfen sich nicht in Wortgeschichte und Lexikometne erschöpfen. Vielmehr ist der Prozeß darzustellen, durch den ein Wort zu einem Begriff wurde und durch den seine Bedeutungen sich veränderten.’ 24 Thus a contribution by Bianca-Jeanette Schroder on pietas is to be published soon (in the journal Gymnasium), which will provide a wholly new basis for our knowledge o f this term’s semantic history and structure by means o f an unprejudiced examination o f all the available Latin linguistic evidence. 25 Cf. on this also Schmitzer (2000) 190-255 on Fortuna in Velleius. 26 Other value terms outside o f 2.126 taken from the Dresden project (see note 22), which this article does not deal with are aequitas, ambitio, amicitia, amor, auctoritas, avaritia, bellum, bellum iustum, beneficium, beneuolentia, dementia, comitas, concordia, consuentia, crudelitas, cura, decorum, dignitas, diligentia, disaplina, elegantia, exemplum,felicitas,fides, gloria, gratia, grauitas, honos, hospitium, humanitas, imperium, inuidia, tus, mstitia, labor, liberalitas, libertas, luxuria, magnitudo animi, matestas, moderatio, modestia, mos (maiorum), negotium, nobilitas, officium, ordo, otium, patria, pax, pietas, potentia, potestas, pnnceps, prudentia, pudicitia pudor, retigio, res publica, sapientia, societas, spes, superbia, temperantia, urbanitas, uerecundia, uentas, mrtus. They can easily be found using the Velleius-Thesaurus: F.lefante 1992. r Lobur (2008) sets slightly different accents, esp. 94-127 on the meaning o f notions o f unity and harmony in Velleius. 28 Frankel (1916), Heinze (1929). 29 Cf. most recently also Clark (2007) (regarding Velleius only concerning 2.3.1, but with brief remarks about the deity Rides in general); see for a start Freyburger (1986). ,n Cf. Thome (2000) II. 64-66; Thes. VI. 1, s.v. fides, 665.26-665.72. 11 See F.lefante (1997) 175f. ,2 Cf. Elefante (1997) 36; Woodman (1983) 136; the treatment in Thes. Ling. Lat. VI, 1, sv. fides offers little illumination: II ea q u a lita s h om in um u el rerum, q ua its confidere licet: A de h om in ib u s (raro tantum et translate de rebus): i. q,fid e lita s, constantia, honestas sim. (E. Frankel) —O n the question o f an original neutral meaning o f fides or one that developed over time see Heinze (1929) esp. 147-149. " Cf. on this Wiemer (2002) passim. 54 This passage also reveals how Roman values, especially fides, are ‘bound to actions’; cf. Haltenhoff (2005) 86: fides ist /zt/ty-Handeln’ [fides is acting with fides’]. Schmitzer (2000) 298. 56 Woodman ( 1997) 148 points out that sequitur fidem is a primarily legal phrase

201

Ulrich Schmitzer which Velleius here transposes to a wholly different context; Thes. ling. iMt. VI, 1, s.v.fides, 664, 75—665, 1. r Woodman (1997) 251-255. 38 Cf. Binder (1971) 62-65. 39 Schmitzer (2000) 300. 40 Cf. Kuntze (1985) 110-117. 41 Schmitzer (2000) 293. 42 Thes. Ling. Lat. VII. 2, s.v. iustus, 720.33-721.65. 43 Schmitzer (2007) 399-417; Gruber (2008). 44 Rosenstein (1990); Will (1983). 43 Schmitzer (2000) 80. 49 Graeber (2001) 215 and passim. 4’ Cf. Kienast (2009) 84f. 48 Sietz (1974). 49 Woodman (1983) 252-254. 311 Schmitzer (2000) 301. 31 Woodman (1983) 85. 32 Schmitzer (2004); Thorne (2000) II, 85-116; Kuntze (1985) 187-199. 33 Kuntze (1985) 117-120. 34 Schmitzer (2000) 107f. 33 Schmitzer (2000) 271-279.

202

10 R ESU SC IT A T IN G A T E X T : VELLEIUS’ HISTORY AS CULTURAL EVIDENCE John Alexander Lobur Evaluations and re-evaluations o f Velleius’ text have gone on for some time. The questions posed have generally sought to qualify it in various ways: where does it fit in the history o f Latin Literature? Is this author’s prose worthy o f serious consideration? What exactly is it? What was the method o f composition? How are we to assess the author’s insistence that he must always hurry on with his abbreviated account o f world history? Velleius has also been used as a historical source, and the question then turns to his reliability —What are his sources? Is he original? Is he worthy o f the name historian, or does he deliberately distort the truth and does he only write panegyrics at best? Something else to consider, too: Velleius simply does not rank very high in the canon o f classical texts. Fate seems to mock us when Velleius survives yet we must filter our Pollio through Appian, for even so we know he was definitely no Pollio. But perhaps the value o f Velleius’ text lies in the fact that there could be only one Livy, one Virgil, one Ovid or one Tacitus. It is less hard to imagine that there were probably more Velleius-es, or at least those who were doing the kind o f thing Velleius did. Dionysius o f Halicarnassus tells us that the early imperial period ushered in all kinds o f political, philosophical and historical literary activity on the part o f erudite elites, and Velleius very much fits into this trend.1 This is akin to a point Ulrich Schmitzer made in his book on Velleius, when he assessed that author’s apparent mediocrity, which can tell us things about Roman culture, and more specifically political culture, that other texts simply can’t.2 At the time Velleius was writing, it had become vogue to give oral performances o f literary works in semi-public environments (recitationes). These venues assisted the transition to empire by providing a substitute for the display o f one’s oratorical (as well as cultural) prowess through high-stakes, and now all but extinct, political oratory that took place in the Republic.3Thus the author would have performed this work, at least in part

203

John Alexander Lobur (it is essential to remember this, even if what we have in front o f us would probably have been revised) in a significant social event - in honor o f his patron Marcus Vinicius attaining the consulship (an event he refers to frequendy) - in front o f some o f the most important people in the empire.4 On such formal occasions as these, the social, political and cultural threads o f the Roman experience were closely intertwined. In an earlier work, I endeavored to introduce the study o f Velleius to this wider and more constructive perspective, by reassessing and re-contextualizing the significance o f the frequent mention the author makes o f the haste (or festinatio) and concision (or brevitas) with which he claims to have to write.s In this paper, I would like to explore further several issues regarding the assessment, not o f what Velleius or his work is or isn’t, or o f assessing what qualities - and I closely define quality here as the inseparable conjunction o f attribute and value - it does or doesn’t have, but rather o f how this text can illuminate our understanding o f Roman culture. 1 don’t want to analyze Velleius’ text for the sake o f analysis, but rather engage it more closely as a document demonstrating something along the lines o f what the late Sir Ronald Syme considered ‘the language and attitudes now in normal usage towards ruler and government.’6 I would like, however, respectfully to disagree with Syme on one point, in his use o f the word ‘towards’, as if Velleius’ emperor and government (the latter o f which, after all, he was actually a part of) confronted and compelled him. The political change from Republic to Principate partly occasioned and partly accompanied a shift in cultural practices that was essential, because the Principate, cast as nothing more than the restoration o f the Republic, had no explicit ideology.’ Consequently, the structuring o f the official language o f political legitimacy took place in terms o f concepts and values embedded in tradition and historical stories. T o be Roman always meant much more than just speaking Latin, just as being an American or a British person means more than just being able to speak Hnglish with a certain accent (though that has importance too). But in the period prior to when Velleius wrote, the elements o f Romanity came into sharp focus, and had become more assimilable than ever before. T o participate in the system, one had to master the ideas, norms, and values embedded in historical narratives, and more specifically, to understand what it meant to take these elements out o f their historical context to relate them to other stories at other times, and most importantly to one’s daily experience, in order to make it intelligible and give it significance. What made this new language - constructed, as it was, out o f the mos maiorum —useful, applicable and accessible was the activity o f specialists.8

204

Resuscitating a text: Velleius’ history as cultural evidence During the late Republic, triumvirate and through the early Principate, these experts, promoted and endorsed by those in power, were at work standardizing practically every aspect o f Roman society and culture: the calendar, law, literature, history, etc. This ordering was carried out by the work o f extraordinary individuals: Cicero, Varro, Atticus, Vergil, Livy and the like. Velleius, by ancient standards, as by ours, was not an extraordinary individual o f the kind just mentioned (though we should remember that his political and military’ career dwarfs our own and that we probably will not incite so much discussion about ourselves 2,000 years after our death). Despite this, he managed to produce something that actually survives and that he recited in the most important cultural forum in Rome —the most important because the imperial court and those nearest to it engaged it so closely. This very fact illuminates an important characteristic o f Velleius’ work that has not always been appreciated. It could not possibly have been cribbed from someone else —the environment in which it was produced and performed would not have tolerated this. In fact, in that environment, demonstrating originality was the premium cultural asset - that this was the case can be adequately seen in the record left to us by Velleius’ contemporary Seneca the Elder, who speaks o f the charged competition to produce sententiae (the expression o f significant moments or points in a poignantly worded period) in declamation that would then be bandied about Rome. People strove for the original to the point o f the absurd, and they sometimes plagiarized the sententiae o f great orators in the hopes that their audience wouldn’t notice.9 One would have difficulty doing this among the superbly educated super-elite, and Velleius would have rued the derision incurred by producing something obviously derivative on such a formal occasion as his recitation. Two Vinicii (of the same family as the patron whose consulship Velleius honors with his performance) show up in the Controversiae with honorable mention as excellent speakers, and one o f them, the father o f Velleius’ patron, is said to have been ‘a man o f extremely acute talent, who could neither say stupid things nor stand them.’10 So Velleius created something original —he would not have dared to recite had he not been fairly confident o f this. The questions now are, how did he do this, and what does it mean? One thing jumps out immediately as a topic o f investigation: compared to other historians, it is no exaggeration to say that Velleius is extremely opinionated: so one approach might be to attend to the judgments he makes and how he makes them. First, however, the point needs to be made that Velleius and his work are thoroughly products o f the imperial period, and this is not merely to be derived from obvious things like his background and career, and the

205

John Alexander l j)bur content, theme and slant o f what he wrote. What I mean is, the conditions to allow the type o f activity’ Velleius engages in, especially from his own political position and career, did not exist prior to the early Principate. T o speak perhaps more controversially, nothing o f the kind could have been produced earlier by such a person - that is to say, someone who had a mediocre career and intellect relative to the most highly regarded authors and statesmen o f the time. In other words, he was not a professional historian like Livy, nor a great statesman like Pollio. In addition, nothing o f the kind would have been delivered by such a person in a comparable venue, that is to say the tensest cultural forum in the empire. So, what conditions prompted Velleius to perform and publish his work in the way he did? Three conditions had to obtain. First, since he really doesn’t provide facts different from those already known and written about, except for when he speaks from autopsy or about recent events, his originality has to lie within his interaction with the canonical —the body o f knowledge produced by the experts I mentioned earlier. Second, there needs to be a system in which the ideology that binds together society and government is closely embedded in cultural, and primarily literary-cultural practices. Third, in that system, the power o f that culture-embedded ideology derives from competition to display ownership over the values and norms it contains, and that competition is primarily histrionic in nature. As the Romans themselves sometimes described it, life was a stage;11 and when I say histrionic, I mean that, to a degree, in the sense o f a personality disorder.12 The elite Roman male desperately sought validation through attention and approval, many even to the point o f committing suicide to get it or enhance it. He felt he existed to the point he was noticed. His goal was to get others to appreciate what he did and said, and hopefully to get others to want to imitate him. T o say nothing about the problems o f the Republic (think o f Catiline, Pompey, Caesar), this collective disorder had to be harnessed and managed very carefully by the emperor: histrionics could explain the motivation behind flatterers, informants and outspoken critics like Cassius Severus, Titus Labienus and Helvidius Priscus. (One might add that it could also explain Christian martyrdom). Moreover, if one looks at the function and honors o f the freedmen Augustales (along with their funerary monuments) one might argue that the imperial period broadened and (just as importantly) regulated access to high-profile elite display vertically and horizontally.n Thus, though a very important aspect o f the emperor’s job was answering his mail, it was just as important that he guaranteed that due appreciation was given to the deserving. This applied on a collective scale as well - the Roman garrisons at Lambaesis, for example, proudly display Hadrian’s appreciation o f how well they

206

Resuscitating a text: Velleius' history as cultural evidence drilled and performed even mundane tasks like building a wall.14This must have been very important for morale. It was also necessary, however, to restrain those who sought attention inappropriately. Tiberius, uncomfortable in the public spotlight, sought shelter in the Senate, but grew utterly tired o f the histrionics, the flattery, the readiness to inform, the need for ambiguity, the inability to take anything at face value, and the lack o f substance in his interactions, and made the crucial mistake o f hoping that all he really had to do was read his mail. In Cassius D io’s famous speech o f Maecenas, this advisor counsels Octavian to govern by example, inasmuch as he ‘will live as it were in the theater o f the whole world, and it will not be possible for you to be overlooked if you make even the slightest mistake.’1S Hverybody remembers the famous last words o f Augustus in Suetonius, asking for applause if he played his part well. We know, too, that unlike Julius Caesar and Tiberius, he scrupulously attended the theater and paid attention (Caesar would answer his mail). This was so important because at these events, it was assumed that the Roman people, assembled and arrayed hierarchically, and thus representative o f the civic totality, expressed their unabashed opinion o f the princeps and how he was doing his job.16This was an essential element o f the new consensus-based system. O f course part o f that job included how well he represented core Roman values, and that, in turn, was informed by a deep, profound and ever-present consciousness o f the Roman past. Like few other cultures, Roman history very much lived in the present —consciousness o f that history and everything embedded in it was the collective soul o f Rome. During both Republic and empire, Romans constandy re-engaged their past, and had numerous mechanisms to use this to (re)generate their ideology. Ennius wrote ‘Rome stands by means o f its ancient customs and men.’17Thus, it is natural for Velleius himself constantly to remind Vinicius o f how many years lapsed between significant events and his consulship. The legitimacy o f the imperial system only made sense against the backdrop o f the recendy formulated and standardized vision o f what the Republic really was. The fact that this vision was becoming manifest precisely when the Republic was being phased out, ironically, allowed the installation o f the Principate to appear as the bonaJide restoration o f what was being replaced.18 The fact that the intoxicating fragrance o f antiquity wafted through the new system effaced the understanding that tribunes really could no longer challenge anyone as they could in bygone days. So Augustus and members o f the imperial domus were expected to perform according to ancient standards (remember the inscription in the middle o f the forum Augusti) and garner in public the consensus universorum

207

John Alexander Lohur that they were in fact living up to them.19 But where did that leave the other members o f Roman society? We speak o f the free-willed participation o f Romans in their governmental system. What did this consist of? It cannot simply be gladly receiving the grain dole, gladly acclaiming the emperor, gladly joining the army, gladly accepting a praetorship, and the like. The Principate occasioned a major reassessment o f the appreciation o f the twin pillars o f elite male Roman identity: military valor and oratory. The apex o f military recognition was the triumph. This was phased out for citizens outside the imperial domus, but, significantly, recognition that a triumph was earned remained in the form o f omamenta triumphalia and statuae triumphales. The omamenta , in fact, find their origin in significant refusals on the part o f Augustus and Agrippa themselves to celebrate triumphs.211 The death o f effective forensic oratory, moreover, needed a replacement as well, and cultural practices shifted autonomously to accommodate this in the form o f declamatio and recitatio. These activides were deeply and intimately permeated by the imperial domus and those most closely associated with it, providing a crucial intersection o f culture and power with regard to the generation and perpetuation o f imperial ideology.21 I would now like to emphasize one very important aspect o f that, illuminated by an anecdote from Suetonius. In the course o f describing the emperor’s liberal education and activities in the humanities, including recitation, we read: ‘He nurtured the talent o f his own age in every way. He listened to those giving recitations with kindness and patience; not just to poems and histories but also to speeches and dialogues.’22 The appreciation that Augustus showed must have meant a lot to those who received it, and Suetonius says he engaged in these activities right up until the end o f his life. O f course Tiberius made the mistake o f leaving the city, but the forum o f appreciation did not need his presence to operate. Velleius eventually got

g oo d s to the m ost im portant people around. Perhaps it wasn’t his first or only time. Moreover, the setting o f his chance to display his cultural

Velleius’ performance would have been structured along the same lines as presentations at the theater (with the audience structured hierarchically), the primary’ forum for the expression o f political and cultural consensus,23 It is the hallmark o f the imperial period that someone like Velleius even had a chance to perform, to command the center o f the stage - and this is precisely what free-willed participation in the imperial system is all about. Velleius’ work is crucial evidence for why this system worked so well. Velleius maximized his cultural display through the combination o f writing a universal history’ along with constantly drawing attention to the compositional mechanisms o f festinatio and brevitasA He demonstrates his

208

Resuscitating a text: Velleius’ history as cultural evidence mastery over the entirety o f the Roman cultural universe, which included all o f Greco-Roman literature and history, and he does it in a way that anxiously and loyally highlights Augustan values.25 To use a modern metaphor, it is as if he has a tape with everything worth knowing on it, and he’s trying to show you what’s on it in a limited amount o f time, so he keeps fast-forwarding and stopping it at critical junctures for emphasis, then complains about how he can’t do the topic justice because he doesn’t have enough time — implying thereby that he could do it justice. On occasion, though rarely, he corrects what he considers to be errors (such as when he tells the audience that those who think Homer was born blind were blind themselves).26 Near the end o f the tape, he writes himself into the story, and adds more original content - his take on present affairs, significant moments he witnessed, etc. The thing is, the tape itself only exists in Velleius’ mind, and so he constantly reminds his audience that he would need proper volumes to write about what he knows, and by this he means a full-length universal history. The jury is still out as to whether or not he was preparing something.27 Velleius’ compositional strategy is but a vessel for his underlying message, which is the soul o f his work. As I suggested earlier, the elite male Roman personality was essentially histrionic. People who judge the drawn out, artificial and complicated prose o f Velleius’ sententiae (which can be full o f artifice) fail to appreciate what it is geared towards (and the same goes for his contemporary Valerius Maximus).28 At his, performance, Velleius tried to demonstrate that he really gets being Roman , but at the same time, thefestinatio , brevitas, and the nature o f his sententiae —all things that are either hard for us to fathom or at times objects o f scorn —are more than just antics: they are his attempt to demonstrate that he is universally Roman in a unique and special way, and has something to add to the picture. Velleius also had the opportunity' to enhance his significance by writing his family and himself into his own history.29 Here, the story is one o f loyalty, prowess and recognition. His ancestor Decius Magius stayed loyal to Rome during the Social War (Velleius gladly adds that Hortensius mentioned it in his annals); Velleius’ grandfather committed suicide out o f loyalty to the emperor’s father; his paternal uncle acted as Agrippa’s subscriptor in the prosecution o f Cassius, while his own father served as praefectus equitum under Vinicius’ father* All this relates with-pride the willing participation and, more importantly, the contribution Velleius’ family has made to Roman history.50 It was very important to the functioning o f the imperial system that people like Velleius had access to the premier cultural forum in the empire where this type o f thing could be expressed and recognized. Thus, it is all the more significant when Velleius writes himself

209

John Alexander Lohur into his history. He proudly recounts that during the Pannonian revolt he was made quaestor designate and placed on par with senators and tribunes elect, though not even a senator himself (here he is drawing allusions to the early careers o f Pomp'ey and Octavian). He is then entrusted by Augustus himself to deliver part o f the army to Tiberius. He reports, too, the public praise bestowed by Tiberius and Augustus on his brother for his service in Dalmatia on the occasion o f Tiberius’ triumph, in which both participated. Again, the author here claims that he received recognition from the most important people in the government.31 One should be getting the idea now that we are glimpsing in Velleius’ performance and its context the nerves and sinews o f Roman participation in the imperial system.32 Near the end o f his career, in his book The Augustan Aristocracy, Sir Ronald Syme emphasized how the emperor was very much a sort o f stage manager making sure that all the right people had a part to play. Walter Hder also stresses Augustus’ ‘effort to create inward unity one might almost say uniformity —and [his] wish to create a Roman selfconfidence and self-assertiveness, [and how he strove] to have as many citizens as possible participate in the life o f the state, [and that] Augustus was everywhere visible, but nowhere did he impose himself.’33 While this is fundamentally and profoundly correct, patting attention to Velleius shows what we can add to it. Yes, Velleius’ performance engages inward unity7and to a certain extent uniformity7, but at the same time, shows how the elite individual envisioned himself participating in and replicating Roman uniformity uniquely, in a way that confirmed his identity as an individual. The emperor Augustus set the precedent for appreciating this by listening with patience and kindness. It doesn’t matter that Velleius wrote 15 years after his death or during Tiberius’ absence, because the strength o f the Augustan system was precisely that the mechanisms he left in place survived him. He created a forum o f appreciation, and the circle o f elites could keep it going. It is important, too, to realize that totalitarian regimes and dictatorships are firmly grounded in fear. Though Velleius was writing during uncertain times, after Sejanus had orchestrated the purging o f his rivals, and though he certainly understood that it was not safe to say whatever he wished, the dominant emotion that pervades his work is pride, not fear. As Lucius Calpurnius Piso’s threatened retirement in year 16 o f Tacitus’ Annals demonstrates, the emperor could not force participation.34 Moving from the topic o f the significance o f the performance and its setting, Velleius also provides us with something else - perspective. Unlike other, canonical texts, that create the cultural universe and all its elements which are then taught in school and absorbed, Velleius’ provides a unique

210

Resuscitating a text: Velleius’ history as cultural evidence perspective on how elites understood., assimilated and reproduced their system in its totality - socially, culturally and politically. An explicit ideology, an argument for the empire, didn’t exist, and if it did, it could not be official, for the Republic had been restored. That does not mean that there was not an implicit ideology that was just: as powerful. Velleius uniquely illuminates that ideology and how cogent it was. Let us now turn to what he says about things - perhaps more than any other extant ancient historian, he constantly tells his reader why what he describes is important. What I would like to do here is to approach general themes and leitmotifs that keep recurring throughout the text. Being comprehensive would be tedious, so 1 shall focus only on a few o f the most important. It will become apparent, first, that Velleius maps out the set o f Roman values by embedding them in historical incidents, even outside the Roman context, and second, that he implicitly justifies the imperial present through the pre-imperial past, a present that, in fact, becomes its restoration. One can learn much about why Romans believed in the system by observing what Velleius likes, dislikes and why. Finally, I would like to discuss the very peculiar concentration o f suicides in the work - the first o f which occurs early on and stands out as deserving the first significant extant sententia - to suggest that the ostentatious total self-nullification it embodies, a self-nullification that can appear repeatedly in less drastic ways, lies at the core o f imperial ideology, structuring the entire hierarchy o f Roman society at the same time as it naturalizes it. This emerges quite clearly when one sees how it implicitly structures the work o f Velleius’ contemporary, Valerius Maximus. A thorough exploration o f opinions made by Velleius shows that the standards o f consensus he utilizes are the same ones that came into sharp focus at the end o f the Republic. These standards were seared onto a Roman consciousness that experienced their disruption during the traumatic dysfunction and destruction o f the old system. This trauma and its causes were then memorialized and remembered from generation to generation as the implicit foundation for the legitimacy o f the new system, which grounded itself on law, order and the restoration o f ancient values. It is not as if many o f these values did not exist in ancient times. It is simply the case that the trauma caused them to be emphasized, and that emphasis exerts a presentistic effect on what Velleius chooses to stress. This has a strange effect with regard to the notions o f moderatio and otium — appreciating them both to the fullest extent depoliticizes his narrative (much like the program o f the summi viri in the forum August:) because it presents things very much in the light o f both popularis and optimate perspectives: it is optimate in its respect for order, but

211

John Alexander Lobur popularis in deploring conservatives for their disregard for citizen life in maintaining it.35 His account o f early history and the Republic, then, carries strong judgments about values treasured and promoted under the Principate. It is well known that important leitmotifs in the ideology o f the Principate included the promotion o f civil order (quies or otium), the opposition o f extravagance (or luxuria) and a display o f modesty and moderation (or moderatio) on the part o f the imperial domus. It is not surprising, for example, to see Velleius appreciating Hesiod as ‘most desirous o f peace and quiet’ [otii quietisque cupidissimus). For the sake o f brevity, however, let us concentrate for a moment on luxuria, and its opposite, austerity'. An early example o f Velleius’ appreciation o f this occurs early on in his work when he describes the first translatio imperii (transfer o f empire from one civilization to the next): The empire o f Asia moved from the Assyrians... to the Medes... Indeed Arbaces deprived their king Sardanapalus, enervated by luxurious living, and too prosperous for his own good, o f his kingdom and his life... At that time, the Lacedaemonian Lycurgus, the most eminent man o f Greece, was the author o f the most severe and just laws, and o f discipline most suited to real men. As long as the Spartans practiced it, they prospered exceedingly.’ 36 It is as if Velleius is combing history for just the right moment to say things like this, and as if the narrative proper is really just the backdrop in which he can embed them. Again, the stress would be on finding moments that others may have overlooked, or appreciating their importance in a different way, through an original sententia. The beginnings o f Spartan austerity' were certainly no secret, but finding synchronicity with the demise o f Sardanapalus was perhaps Velleius’ own contribution...wouldn’t people know if he had cribbed it? Could it not be original to perceive the significance o f the synchronicity' in precisely the dichotomy that joins the two events: Assyrian overindulgence vs. Spartan discipline? Velleius has luxuria play a significant role in the fall o f the Republic, whereas he has austerity return with the dawn o f the Principate. Though the scope o f my paper prohibits further explication, suffice it to say that his judgments in this regard demonstrate the import o f these concepts as ideological mechanisms. The point to be made with the episode above is simply that Velleius actively seeks opportunities to point out unique instances for appreciating these values that others, perhaps, have overlooked. To Velleius, the Principate was the perfected blossom o f the Roman bud, in the same way as Augustus presented himself as the synecdoche o f all the summi viri both in his forum and at his funeral. It is interesting, for example, to observe Pompey with all o f his extraordinary commands,

212

Resuscitating a text: Velleius' history as cultural evidence presented in Velleius, perhaps inadvertently, as a prototype for the position o f emperor, with one important improvement - Tiberius perfects the moderatio Pompey tends to lack.3" Moderatio first (from what we can tell) becomes an issue during the beginning o f the Roman revolution when the Gracchi cross the boundaries o f the civilis modus in stirring up trouble. Though we do not have enough o f Velleius’ text from the early Republic to make a definitive judgment here, this seems like a rather ‘new’ virtue that can materialize only in the conditions o f the late Republic. Moving on, another important aspect o f imperial ‘propaganda’ was that the Principate ended civil war and spared citizen life. Thus, one observes Velleius deploring the loss o f citizen life first in his account o f the social war, which ‘carried o ff more than 300,000 o f the youth o f Italy.’ This is also the only time he criticizes Roman policy (with great bitterness), for winning the war by relying on Italian arms and conceding that which they had refused in the first place. A little later, the author recounts the terrible clash between Cinna and Gn. Pompey, a notorious timeserver, saying: ‘words are scarcely able to describe how destructive the outcome o f this conflict, joined and ended beneath the very walls and hearth o f the city o f Rome, was to the combatants and spectators. Afterwards...Cn. Pompey died. The pleasure at his ruin was almost counterbalanced by the loss o f citizens dead from sickness and disease... Cinna and Marius, with batdes that were hardly without bloodshed to both sides, occupied the city.’38 He continues with more laments about civil bloodshed, experienced by all ranks, at the hands o f Marius and Sulla, though once he hits the later civil wars between the Caesareans and the republicans, he tones it down a bit in order to highlight Caesarean acts o f dementia. Later on, Marc Antony provides a perfect foil to lament the loss o f citizen life in the Parthian debacle. Velleius harps on his reckless leadership, repeating in two consecutive sentences that he lost one quarter o f his men. This, o f course, all stands in sharp contrast to the otium ushered in by the Principate, and in the case o f Antony’s carelessness, the generalship o f Tiberus, who prioritizes the lives and well being o f his men.39 The point is simply this: Velleius did not experience the days o f civil carnage (he was born around 20 BCE), but the social memory' o f these events was created, transmitted and inculcated into his consciousness to the extent that they implicitly justified the new system. Imperial symbols such as the corona civica, offered to the emperor ob cives servatos (‘because he saved citizen lives’), still made sense over 50 years after the end o f the civil wars only against this backdrop, one that Velleius himself replicates (and thus perpetuates from one generation into the next). This backdrop also explains how attempts by elites to assert themselves in

213

John Alexander Lobur an inappropriately republican manner (again, unchecked histrionics) could be viewed by society as a whole as treasonous - Velleius includes as examples such subversives as Marcus Lepidus, Egnatius Rufus, and even Caelius and Milo, whose rabble-rousing is narrated, chronologically, well after it really occurred, that is to say in a more suitable context, the excesses o f the second proscriptions.4" Let us leave this theme, the Principate’s commitment to stability and the preservation o f citizen life and all it implies, and explore another theme that appears somewhat incongruous - appreciation for courage unto death regardless o f political stripe, even by those who opposed the future regime. The coexistence o f these elements (which actually come together in a very important passage) was one o f the great strengths o f imperial ideology, because it allowed the Roman subject a sense o f integrity. Let us not forget that many had once fought Augustus as republicans or Antonians, or were descended from those who had. In the early part o f his work, while recounting the early history o f Greece, Velleius makes the second o f his many moral sententiae, but the first one o f any substance. Upon describing the voluntary' death o f Codrus, the King o f Athens, who died to secure victory against the Lacedaemonians by disguising himself as a shepherd then entering the camp o f the enemy, he writes: ‘Codrus attained eternal glory through his death, and the Athenians gained victory. Who would not admire the man who sought death by the very means whereby the cowardly are accustomed to seek life?’ This seemingly mundane statement is much more important than it looks, and it is certainly no accident that there is a greater concentration o f suicides per page in Velleius than in any other ancient text —30 instances as opposed to, say, 29 in all o f Livy’s extant work. Schmitzer has studied this phenomenon very carefully in his book, and came to the conclusion that for Velleius, suicide stood as proof o f a virvere Romanus: a truly Roman man.41 A brave death was the benchmark o f Roman courage. Turning to suicide meant that even Antony and Cleopatra had a chance to redeem themselves. After the battle o f Actium, Velleius writes: ‘Antonius not unpromptly killed himself, to the extent that he redeemed himself from many charges o f sloth,’ and Cleopatra ‘gave up the ghost free o f womanly fear.’42 This principle o f ennoblement applies nearly universally - even to the likes o f Gaius Gracchus, Brutus and Cassius. It is startling to observe that Velleius does not make anything like as much ado about the death o f Caesar as he does about the death o f Cicero, and, very surprisingly, even the death o f the Liberators. On the whole, it is curious that Velleius could show this type o f appreciation for republican anti-Caesareans when a few years earlier

214

Resuscitating a text: Velleius' history as cultural evidence Cremutius Cordus was prosecuted by the minions o f Sejanus for calling Cassius the ‘last o f the Romans.’ His works were burnt, yet Velleius has the temerity to say that Brutus’ suicide was rash, and that he preserved his virtue up to the end, and that, because o f his moral qualities, he was more comparable to Octavian than Cassius was.43 Could Vinicius have been shielding him from possible repercussions at the hands o f informers? He did marry7a daughter o f Germanicus in 33, and his step-brother Caligula was soon to be on Capri, doubdess much to the chagrin o f Sejanus, to be undone before long by a letter from the untouchable Antonia Minor. Did Velleius dare imply that the young Octavian would have spared the conspirators? Perhaps so, because he (quite falsely) attributes the sparing o f Messalla Corvinus to him, and laments that others committed suicide ne temptata quidem hostis misericordia (‘with the mercy o f the enemy [i.e. Octavian] not even tested’), doubtless an echo o f RC 3.1, where the princeps likewise falsely claims to have spared the lives o f all who asked for it.44 The twin strands o f the princeps’ appreciation (and allowing the appreciation) o f unconditional bravery, as well as his concern for citizen life come together in Velleius’ account o f the batde o f Actium. After Antony deserts: ‘The resolve o f his solders to fight most valiantly, even with their leader removed, lasted for a long time, and even with no hope o f victory, they fought to the death. Caesar, desiring to soothe with words those whom he could have killed with the sword, pointing out that Antonius had fled, kept asking for whom and with whom they were fighting. But they, when they had fought for a long time on behalf o f an absent leader, lowered their weapons with difficulty and conceded the victory7, and Caesar promised life and pardon faster than they could be persuaded to beg for it.’43 This passage, written some sixty two years after the batde, shows just how important it still was to respect the dignity o f those who were on the losing side and how most Antonians fought long and hard against the future emperor, and were spared having to beg for their lives —the children o f Germanicus, too, were all descended from Antony. These commemorations could not be suppressed and had to be appreciated. That Velleius writes about them so fervently shows that they were not merely tolerated but encouraged. There is a tendency to forget this fact when associations are made between the Principate and modern totalitarian regimes. Respect for suicide, or the extreme o f self renunciation out o f principle, is a strand that runs throughout Velleius’ work in strange ways. It ennobles enemies, it allows even women to taste nobility, for example when Servilia, the wife o f the triumvir Lepidus’ son imitates Calpurnia, the wife o f a

215

John Alexander Lohur proscribed Sullan mentioned earlier, by swallowing coals.46 This woman is praised for her loyalty to a husband who died for plotting against Octavian. Likewise, Juventius Laterensis or Velleius’ grandfather, a virnulli secundus, are noteworthy simply for killing themselves, in the first place, out o f love for the Republic, and in the second, out o f loyalty' to Tiberius’ proscribed father.47 I would like to end this paper by briefly suggesting that what this all means is closely related to the activity' o f Velleius’ contemporary, Valerius Maximus.48Just as the former’s work is very' much a unique product o f the time, so is the latter’s. Just as both confront a unified cultural universe in which everything had already been written, so both attempt to create unique products by utilizing time in different ways to showcase their abilities to appreciate significant and discrete moments in the totality o f Greco-Roman history, and to present the universe o f Roman values in an easily accessible, and assimilable form. Velleius does it by fast-forwarding the tape and stopping periodically along the way. Valerius, on the other hand, replaces diachronicitv with synchronicity, taking exempla o f the same values from different periods and placing them all in one place. I just suggest that there too, the principle o f self-effacement informs a hierarchy that appears natural because it periodically includes the ennoblement o f slaves, women, barbarians, freedmen, etc., but that the forms o f self­ nullification appropriate for these elements tend to be more severe and almost always include death. Those higher on the social scale, on the other hand, have a larger range o f less lethal behaviors by which they can become exempla. I can only end here by suggesting that both Valerius and Velleius have mixed the same value-generating mechanism with different uses o f time to create two very different, yet oddly similar products. Measuring everything by an objective standard o f courageous, or limiting, selfeffacement that was always commemorated made being Roman attractive. Others wanted to enter this tradition o f ennoblement stretching back to the dawn o f the Republic. The strength o f the Roman empire lay not so much in the theoretical complexity o f its ideology, but rather in the vividness and attractiveness o f its ideals, encapsulated in discrete and iconic mental images.

N o te s 1 See D. H. Orat. Vet. 3, and Lobur 2007, 217-26. 2 Schmitzer 2000, 29-36. 1 See Lobur 2008, 128—69. 4 See Lobur 2007, 22.3—4. Even if the work was not delivered orally in toto, it is still crucial to see it, even as a literary endeavor, as essentially performative, with the constant references to festinatio and brevitas as indicative o f a performative anxiety, or, more accurately, strategy.

216

Resuscitating a text: Velleius' history as cultural evidence 3 See Lobur 2007. 6 See Syme 1978. ’ See esp. Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 2005 and Lobur 2008, 1-11. 8 See, again,Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 2005. 9 Sen. Con. l./>r.l0-ll. See also Cestius at C.ontr. 9.6.12. Cf. Petr. Sat. 1.3—2.3, 3.3, 4.4. See too Sussman 1977, 314—5, and Bonner 1949, 49-50, 72, 76, and 71-83 on general decline in declamation. 111 Sen. Con. 7.5.11-12. See also Contr. 1.4.11, 1.2.3, 2.19-20, 7.6.11. Cf. Sen. Bp. 40.9. 11 L.g. D.C. 52.34.2. See also the famous last words o f Augustus: Suet. Aug. 99.1. Cf. D.C. 56.30.4. The theatrical mentality carried over from the Hellenisdc period (see Pollitt 1986, 4—6), and, by the late republican period, became the Roman political forum par excellence. See Flaig 1995, 118 ff. The theater was also widely used as a metaphor for political and forensic activities. See Cic. Anne. 26/97, Brutus 2.6, and Plutarch Pomp. 68.2. See also Millar 1998, 47, 57, 120. 12 See Bernstein 2001, 87-125 for an easily accessible account o f this disorder. 13 See Zanker 1988, 13, 276, and Ostrow 1990. 14 I I S 2487, 9133-35. 13 D.C. 52.34.2 (my trans.). 16 In general, see Suet. Aug. 45, Tac. Ann. 1.54, Aur. Viet. Bpit. 1.25, D.C. 53.1.6, Yavetz 1988,22, 100. 17 Ennius 5. 1 (Skutsch): Monbus antiquis res stat Romana vinsque. On the connection with the past during the Republic, see Hdlkeskamp 1996. See too Volkmann 1975. 18 Tac. Ann. 1.3. 19 Suet. Aug. 31.5. Cf. tfG'4.19, 20. 211See Boyce 1942. 21 Lobur 2007. 22 Suet. Aug. 89.3. 21 Dupont 1997. 24 Lobur 2007. 25 See Millar 1993, 1-6. 26 1.3.5. r See Lobur 2007 nn. 11, 12, 13, 23. 28 A good example o f the complexity o f artifice can be found at Woodman 1966. 29 See also Gabba 1984, 80-1, who suggests that Velleius writes history ‘to provide a cultural context for his own person.’ 311 For the ancestry o f Velleius, see esp. Sumner 1970, 257-265. 51 See, in general, 2.111.3, 115.1, 121.3. 32 Galinsky 1996. 33 Eder 1990, 118-19. 54Ann. 2.34, 4.21. 33 See Lobur 2008 116-17, 182. 36 Veil. 1.6.1-3 (my trans.). r Lobur 2008 117-18. Cf. Cogitore 2009, 64. 38 2.21.3-6 (my trans.). 39 82.1-2, cf. 107.3, 115.5, 120.3. 4" 2.88.1,2.91.4, 2.68.1-3.

217

John Alexander Lobur 41 42 43 44 4S 46 4? 48

Schmitzer 2000, 130- -49. Vell. 2.87.1-2. 72.1-2 (my trans.). See Woodman 1983 n tia e t a < m > male cohaerentis inter Cn. Pom peium et C. Caesarem concordiae pignus, Iulia, uxor Magni, decessit; atque om nia inter destinatos tanto discrimini duces dm m ente Fortuna filius quoque parvus Pom pei, Iulia natus, intra breve spatium obiit. About the fifth year C aesar was in Gaul, Julia, the wife o f M agnus, died. She was the guarantee o f concord between Pom peius and Caesar which was already holding together so badly through jealousy o f each other’s power; and as though Fortuna was determined to break all bonds between the two com m anders destined for such great conflicts, Pom peius’ small son born o f Julia died a short time later. (Veil. 2.47.2)

In contrast to Livia, whose life story signifies a positive reversal o f Fortune leading to Concordia, Velleius ascribes Julia’s death to a determination by Fortuna to shut Concordia out. The theme o f Julia as a lost guarantee o f concord is also found in Lucan (BC 1.111), suggesting that these authors employed the same well-known trope. Failed concordia suits the mood o f those about to describe the outbreak o f civil war. It was even more common to stress the success o f women in achieving the settlement o f disputes. When Livy relates the episode o f the intervention o f the captured Sabine women in the ensuing war between

319

Kathryn Welch their fathers and husbands, he configures them as the special agents o f Concordia.3’ In opening his second book (the very beginning o f the Roman Republic), he designates wives and children as vital elements in a free civitas because they, along with devotion to a specific place (caritas soli), eliminate the need for a king. They are the pignora (guarantees) o f peace (2.1.4—5). The way in which Velleius and Lucan conceptualise Julia ( Caesarisfilia ) strongly suggests that Livy had previously depicted her as a might-have-been Sabine.38 We can obse rve another example o f the same idea: Plutarch and Dio present Octavia as actively trying to maintain harmony between her brother and husband. She achieved temporary success at Tarentum but was unable to prevent the two men from fighting each other in the late 30s.39 Her ultimate failure took nothing away from the rhetorical force o f the theme as it was made to show (and the message was o f immense value to her brother) that Antonius had placed himself beyond a salvation so graciously presented. Velleius’ Livia is not only the embodiment o f changed Fortune. Through her ability to bind the past to the present and former opponents to the current leader o f Roman politics, she is an agent o f civic harmony. Interestingly, she was the second wife the younger Caesar found among the ranks o f his opponents. He had married Scribonia in order to forge a pathway to negotiations with Sextus Pompeius. Finding Scribonia (or, perhaps, Pompeius) too assertive, he found a more gracious candidate whose male connections were also more compliant.40 Syme and Flory recognise the many men connected to Livia who would potentially be brought into the ambit o f her new husband through their marriage.41 They do not consider the fact that Livia was also in a position to spread the message to women that they could follow her lead and would be honoured for doing so. On her marriage to Caesar she would have become a leader and then princeps o f the Matres. Octavia, as the wife o f Antonius and the sister o f Caesar, was already prominent and had undoubtedly done her best to convince the matrons o f the excellence o f her brother. Moreover, at some point (almost certainly early), she had been rhetorically connected to the discourse o f Woman as State Peacemaker.42 Livia, however, had been among those forced into flight with her child; her proscribed father had perished in a noble cause. Important as Octavia was to the mix, she had never been the young Caesar’s opponent. Far from it. Livia, on the other hand, as a former enemy now raised to the highest place to which a woman could aspire, was a living testament to the value o f accepting the hand o f friendship. In an evocative poetic moment, Horace (Odes 3.14) provides a fleeting glimpse o f the Matres at a public event.43 The poem, which has far more

320

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait to do with the settlement o f civil war and the unity o f Italy than the homecoming o f Caesar Augustus from Spain, describes the two women at the head o f the column as they process to greet the victorious Caesar Augustus returning from Spain.44 It is a slender indication but an important one. In such a highly gendered society, convention will have determined that both women spent a great deal o f time with these women. Their networking could even be combined with creating the odd display garment (Suet. Aug. 73). We should not devalue this activity by suggesting that it entailed dealing ‘only’ with women. Persuading mothers that they were held in honour by the regime and binding them in friendship to the Imperial house meant the extension o f the message into every household that counted. The building activity o f Livia and Octavia reflects their relationship to other women and concord is at its heart.45 Octavia’s complex in the lower Campus Martius was an early intervention which gave prominence to famous Roman women o f the past (Hemelrijk 2005,312-4). As well as the dedications we have noted, Livia built a shrine to Concordia within her portions on the Esquiline and opened it in 7.46 Ovid ( Fasti 6.637) tells us that she furnished it for her dear husband {earn praestitit ipsa viro). In my own view, Ovid’s use o f praesto indicates that Livia’s ‘gift’ was ‘to the advantage o f ’ Augustus, implying that she meant the building to play a parallel role in promoting the ‘Augustan’ moral message, not that she actually handed it over to him.47 Ovid’s reference to the cams w’r has been taken to mean that the shrine celebrated only that concord associated with harmonious marriage and not the Concordia o f political slogans.48 One wonders how such a powerful (and omni-present) association could be kept separate in a post-civil-war society. Harmonious marriage, as we have seen, had already become connected to the reconstruction o f the state because o f its potential to be a binding force. The shrine’s dies natalis was 11 June, the date o f the Matralia, a festival which affirmed a woman’s place as mistress o f the house but also which expected her duties to extend to the care o f her sisters’ children as well as her own (Takacs 2008, 49-50). Ovid (Fasti 6.473—648) also celebrates the cult o f Fortuna traditionally instituted by Servius. He places women, good and bad, at the centre o f the cult by recalling Servius’ murder by his wicked daughter Tullia on the one hand {Fasti 5.585—620) and Tanaquil’s decisive action which brought about Servius’ conception on the other {Fasti 6.624—36). The matrons are requested to respect Servius’ draped statue and to intone the solemn rituals, suggesting that this ceremony also belonged to them. The calendar o f the day finishes with the commemoration o f Livia’s Concordia shrine.49 Concordia is thus part o f a suite o f activities all involving women.

321

Kathryn Welch Earlier in the book, Ovid allows Concordia to settle a dispute among the goddesses as to the origins o f the month’s name {Fasti 6.89—100). The month o f June, she says, took its title from neither Juno nor Juventis but from iungo, the verb to bind, an idea which recalls the fusion o f two peoples, Roman and Sabine, which the women’s intervention had made possible.50 By juxtaposing Fasti 6.93—94, with 6.6.636-48, Ovid connects Livia’s shrine to Concordia on the Esquiline with the Roman woman’s role as the guarantor o f a stable civitas (provided, o f course, that they are bonae matronae and abhor the example o f the evil Tullia). Such a view does not at all preclude the shrine becoming a haven for women who sought divine assistance for a fractured household or an unhappy marriage. It makes sense that a woman’s role as the guardian o f Concordia within her household eventually supplanted the rhetorical configuration o f woman as healer o f the community once the memory o f a traumatic civil war became more distant. Ovid’s June Concordia has another function. Adorned with Apollo’s laurels, she prevents anger from overwhelming pietas. ...et in litem studio certaminis issent atque ira pietas dissimulata foret: venit Apollinea longas Concordia lauro nexa com as, placidi numen opusque ducis. ...and in the heat o f rivalry the goddesses might have engaged in a dispute, wherein pietas might have been obscured by anger. But C oncord arrived, at once the spirit and the task o f a tranquil general, her long tresses twined with A pollo’s laurel. {Fasti 6.91-2)

The passage connects several Augustan themes. Concordia, a female warrior for peace crowned by Apolline laurel, grants space to pietas by a peaceful compromise Pietas was one o f the most contested virtues o f the civil war (Powell 2008, 31—85). If this passage is meant to govern the dedication o f livia’s shrine, as I believe it must, it suggests a deeply political motive behind the choice o f goddess and the involvement o f the Matres.51 The porticus enhanced Livia’s own prestige within the context o f Tiberius’ triumph in 7 which coincided with its completion.52 Eler mode o f celebration was to hold a dinner party for the women o f Rome so that they too could observe and take pride in the public honour which now openly accrued to the mother o f a Triumphator (Dio 55.8.2). Velleius himself reflects the strategy o f ‘associated glory'’ for Livia which, incidentally, also kept alive (and even celebrated anew) her history as former opponent, now friend and ally. In introducing Tiberius’ quaestorship in 15, when maternal influence should have been a distant memory, Velleius designates the

322

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait young man as the son o f Livia, herself the daughter o f Drusus Claudianus and former wife o f Ti. Claudius Nero.53 Soon after, he calls again upon Livia to add lustre to her younger son Drusus. Though others sniffed scandal in the fact, Velleius celebrates, once again, the transferrai o f Livia, while pregnant with her first husband’s child, to the house o f the younger Caesar. Fratre ipsius D ru so Claudio quem intra Caesaris penates enixa erat Livia: His own brother D rusus Claudius to w hom Livia gave birth in the house o f Caesar... (2.95.1)

There is a triumphalism and pride embedded not only in reference to Livia but in the equally ubiquitous presence o f the Claudian and Livian heritage o f these two young men.54The description o f Tiberius’ quaestorship begins an essay which continues down to his adoption into the house o f the Caesars at 2.103. Within this section, the military achievements and qualifications o f Livia’s son to be the next princeps are contrasted with the less than glorious resumé o f Gaius Caesar and the disgrace o f a very different mother (2.100—1). Velleius trenchantly exonerates Tiberius and, by extension, his mother and co-tnmendatnx, from the charge o f fomenting family discord, in the first place between the descendants o f Scribonia and in the second among the children o f Agrippina. He is aware o f the rival claims o f Scribonia’s descendants but refuses to admit them; the fault (and lack o f talent) was all on their side.55 Livia and her sons, he reminds us, aspired to concord, not discord. On the other hand, Julia and her friends turned their backs on the princeps ’ mercy and the peace o f the present age. Fortuna preserves Roman concord, on this occasion by removing the unsuitable Gaius from the path o f the eminently qualified Tiberius (2.103). There is, o f course, no suggestion from Velleius that Livia might have assisted this useful and ubiquitous goddess. The essay finishes with the salutar)' effect created by Tiberius’ adoption on the general moral and material environment o f the City and the Flmpire. Livia’s influence did not stop with women in Rome. The correspon­ dence between herporticus and that o f F.umachia’s building in Pompeii has been noted by scholarship.56 Less famously, Mineia o f Paestum endowed her city with an upgraded basilica and a Temple to Mens Bona (‘G ood Counsel’).57 This cult links Mineia to the heroine o f the so-called Laudatio Turiae?%the legendary Valeria Publicola o f Dionysius and the Livia o f the pages o f Dio and Suetonius (Treggiari 2005, 142). The network o f female relationships extended also beyond the shores o f Italy. Josephus (A J 17.7) reveals connections between Livia and Octavia with the royal women o f the Levant, especially Judaea (Barrett 2002, 195-9). Kearsley (2005) has

323

Kathryn Welch demonstrated the effectiveness o f female networks in Asia Minor. The threads, when we start to join them up, demonstrate a consistent pattern: the Augustan project, in great part by encouraging the rhetoric o f woman as agent o f civic health, used women to bring other women into the fold and keep them there. In opening his history o f the Julio-Claudian dynasty1, Tacitus asked who was around at the time o f Caesar Augustus’ death who still remembered the free res publica {Ann. 1.3). There were, perhaps, very few men able to do so. However we can name at least two women. The first is Junia Tertulla who lived on for over sixty years after the battle o f Philippi in seemingly peaceful co-existence with the new order. Tacitus’ description o f her funeral suggests that she and those who observed her state funeral had long memories (Tac. Ann. 3.76). The second is Livia herself. She had her own reasons for remembering the date o f the last encounter at Philippi: it was the anniversary o f the death o f her father.’9The good opinion o f such women was surely o f great value in reconstructing a traumatised society. In our quest for examples o f intervention, successful or otherwise, o f women into the ‘male’ sphere, we have perhaps undervalued the importance to the novus status o f the world o f women in its own right.

Salus Augusta·. Livia and the wider world The adoption o f Tiberius in AD 4 placed a new focus on Livia which had already been noted by scholars in the past and was recendy confirmed by the discovery o f the senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone PatreP' By this stage, Livia’s probity (at least publicly) was unquestioned, her wealth enormous, her generosity famous.61 The speech Dio gives her in Book 55 owes a great deal to Seneca’s de CAementia but it also reflects contemporary public representations o f Livia which were popular in her lifetime.62 The Livia o f the later period is the Livia we know best. Velleius himself, the anonymous consolatio ad IAviam and the newly discovered senatus consultum refer to her moderation and probity in dispensing favours and refusal to use her acknowledged power to harm.6’ The elder Pliny {N il 14.1) informs us that the colonnade o f Livia’s porticus was shaded by a single grapevine, still alive and still able to produce up to twelve amphorae o f wine a year in his day. Livia was in full control o f the symbolic language o f the day, o f which plants were a rich and visible part.64 The grapevine almost certainly meant something beyond pleasant shade and a supply o f wine. A link between the grapevine and Concordia, the central message o f the building, is distinctly possible but a third ‘I ivian’ concept, salus might also be in play. Salus combines health, longevity and the stability only possible in a peaceful ordered state. Once again, the symbol

324

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait can be extended to Livia herself who reputedly ascribed her continued good health and advanced years to the custom o f imbibing a moderate but constant supply o f red wine.6S In his last reference to her, Velleius recognises the status Livia enjoyed at the end o f her life. She has become Julia Augusta, the Romanaprinceps who was prefigured in his introduction. In listing the woes o f the emperor at the time o f the work’s completion, he makes the death o f Livia the supreme disaster in a list o f calamities which had afflicted Tiberius in recent years. Cuius temporis aegritudinem auxit am issa mater eminentissima et per omnia deis quam hom inibus similior femina, cuius potentiam nem o sensit nisi aut levatione periculi aut accessione dignitatis. His sorrow at this time was crowned by the loss o f his outstanding m other, a w om an who in all things resem bled the god s m ore than mankind, whose pow er no one felt except in relief from danger or in p rom od on o f rank.

(2.130.5) For the second time, Velleius describes Livia as eminentissima. However, this time the distinction is not restricted to her respective place in the hierarchy o f women.66 By the time o f her death, Livia had become a truly public figure whose reach extended throughout the empire, even though she continued to assist her female friends when they needed her.67 In his obituary, Velleius recognises Livia’s promotion which, in his view, could only mean that she had a broader opportunity to achieve goocLoutcomes. Livia hacLa particular role to play as ambassador for the Augustan message, in the first place to those women who, like her, had been on the wrong side, and in the second as a leader o f all who chose to participate in the Augustan project. Velleius preserves some o f the earliest evidence we have for how the heroism o f Roman women, overwhelmingly associated with the opponents o f the Triumvirs, was appropriated by Livia’s second husband. Correspondingly, our author’s famous slur on Fulvia reflects the reverse image in quite a specific way. Instead o f playing the role o f a Veturia, a Valeria or a Sabine, Fulvia donned a sword and took an active part in war on behalf o f her husband and to the cost o f the broader community. Only Caesar Augustus himself openly suggested that Fulvia was a bad wife (Martial 11.20; Welch 1995, 185). However, her capacity for warfare turned her into a non-woman. Real (Roman) women (the rhetoric proposed) promoted peace and concord. They stuck together for the ultimate good o f the community. And, once they had seen the light, they were welcome in the brave new world o f Augustan Rome whether they had been friend or foe in the past.

325

Kathryn Welch Velleius’ enthusiastic portrait o f Livia, once we place it in its context, offers an invaluable indication o f something which helps to explain the eventual success o f the Augustan era. Through her association with three powerful civic goddesses, Fortuna, Concordia and Salus, who had all been missing in action throughout the years o f civil war, Livia represented resolution to past conflicts and hope for a better future. In particular, this rhetoric carried a message to the matrons o f Augustan Rome that if they followed her lead they would be welcome and honoured in the novus status. The future welfare o f the state was, at least in part, made dependent on their eunoia and logos as it had been in the past. Velleius’ panegyric draws upon this wider discourse and alerts us to an important method by which the principes, husband and wife, extended their influence throughout the whole o f Roman society and the empire beyond.

Acknowledgements On the occasion o f the paper’s original presentation, the comments o f Ellen O ’Gorman, C. B. R. Pelling and T. P. Wiseman, among many others, assisted me greatly in rethinking some aspects o f the original argument and provided great encouragement. Since then, many friends and allies have contributed in no small way to its development, including (in alphabetical order!) James Buckman, Bronwyn Hopwood, Julia Kindt, Maxine Lewis, Liam McGowan, Kit Morrell, Victoria Pagan, Roger Pitcher, Paul Roche, Clemence Schultze, Andrew Stiles and Fiona Tweedie. I thank them all and note that all remaining errors, infelicities and misconceptions are my own. I would also like to acknowledge the financial assistance o f the University o f Sydney and the University o f Leicester which enabled me to take part in the conference from which this book emerged. Finally, Eleanor Cowan’s patience was severely tried by the length o f time it took me to finalise the paper but she remained gracious and helpful throughout the process.

All dates are

BC unless noted. Texts are taken from the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Katina (Latin) and the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (Greek) except

for that o f Velleius where I have followed Woodman. Translations are from Loeb editions (adapted where necessary) or my own, with some assistance from Woodman’s notes.

326

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait Notes 1 At 2.76.2 Velleius indicates that the young Caesar permitted Fulvia to leave. She was escorted by the ‘unmanly’ L. Munatius Plancus, thus investing her departure with none o f the courage he acknowledges in the case o f Livia: W oodman 1983, 186; Elefante 1996,151; Wright 2002,181. 2 W oodman (1983, 182) calls his commentary on this section ‘Campanian Connections’. 5 Valerius Maximus (6.9) offers a very different set o f examples o f mutatio fortunae. He is interested only in the clari vtn. Not so Velleius. 4 E.g. Severy 2003, 43; Barrett 2002, 28. 5 Lobur 2008, 75; 96; Welch 2009, 198. The point is rarely noted, possibly because Appian does not include Livia’s story in his extensive treatment o f the Perusine War. Milnor refers to Velleius’ comments on women without referring to his treatment o f Livia (2005, 194—197). Livia is completely absent from her otherwise excellent discussion o f women and Tnumviral literature. 6 Veil. 2.67.1; Val. Max. 6.7.2-3; D io 47.3-17; 48.15; Elefante 1996, 137; Treggiari 2005, 139; Milnor 2005, 194-196; O sgood 2006a, 62-82. For the edict, App. BC 4.8-11; O sgood 2006a, 64. ’ As Osgood comments in the context o f his discussion o f Hortensia’s intervention, ‘It was untraditional for a woman to protest in public; now only a woman could get away with it’ (2006a, 87). 8 ‘App. BC 4.39—40; Tuna’ and her jewellery: LT 2.1—60. The shared experience: Hemelrijk 2006,189-90; Treggiari 2005,139-140; O sgood 2006a, 62-82. One should note that on the other side Fulvia was also involved in high finance and it is usually thought that she assisted her husband Antonius with her considerable wealth (Nep. Att. 9.2—5; Babcock 1965, 7-13). l) App. B C 1.63: ot δέ των έξελαθέντων στασι,ώται, δσοι των πλουσίων, καί γύναια πολλά πολυχρήματα, τού δέους των οπλών άναπνεύσαντες ήρεθίζοντο υπέρ καθόδου τώνόε των άνδρών καί ούδέν σπουδής ή δαπάνης ές τούτο άπέλειπον. έπιβουλεύοντες καί τοΐς των υπάτων σώμασιν ώς ούκ ένόν τώνόε περιόντων έκείνοις κατελθείν. (‘The supporters o f the banished faction, especially the rich, and many wealthy women, who now found a respite from the terror o f arms, bestirred themselves for the return o f the exiles. They spared neither pains nor expense to this end, even conspiring against the persons o f the consuls, since they thought they could not secure the recall o f their friends while the consuls survived’). One should also note the flight o f Metella, wife o f L. Cornelius Sulla, and her twins as a parallel to the women o f the Triumviral period (Plut. Suit. 22). 111 In the Sullan/M arian civil war Sulla’s daughter Cornelia had made a fortune because o f her access to confiscated property (Plut. Mar. 34.2) and was not above withholding his inheritance from her son Q. Pompeius Rufus (Val. Max. 4.2.7). Servilia, M. Brutus’ mother, allegedly acquired confiscated property through her friendship with Caesar {Att. 14.21(375].3; Suet. Iul. 50.2). 11 App. BC A .34; Purcell 1986, 81; Powell 2008, 55-75. Gowmg makes the point that Lepidus could be made to look very bad indeed because o f his treatment o f ‘Turia’ (1992, 283-296). 12 Quint. Inst. 1.1.6; Purcell 1986, 81-2; Hopwood 2004,23-26; O sgood 2006a, 85.

327

Kathryn Welch ” For the place o f female wealth and immorality within the ‘rhetoric o f empire’ and utilitas, see Hopwood 2004, 129-156, esp. 141-156. 14 Purcell 1986, 82-4; Gorrie 2004,71. Gagé (1963,100-153), Purcell (1986, 87) and Hemelnjk (1999, 12-16) use the term ordo matronarum. The term is used once in Larin literature: in relating the intervention o f Hortensia, Valerius Maximus says (8.3.3): Hortensia verof). Hortensifilia, cum ordo matronarum gravi tributo a triumviris esset oneratus nec quisquam virorum patrocinium eis accommodare auderet, causam feminarum apud triumnros et constanter etféliciter egit: repraesentata enim patns facundia impétrant ut maior pars imperatae pecuniae his remitteretur. (‘Hortensia, the worthy daughter o f Quintus Hortensius, when the women had been burdened with a heavy tax by the triumvirs and none o f the men dared to argue their case for them, took up the cause o f the women in a steadfast and successful manner. For, matching the eloquence o f her father, she argued with such success that the greater part o f the required money was remitted to them’.) 15 Cicero’s charge that lus enemy’s sister Clodia treated his wife Terentia very badly (Cad. 50; Treggiari 2007, 65—6) suggests, perhaps, the wider requirement for women to assist each other no matter what quarrels existed between their husbands. The social expectation embedded in the anecdote is revealing even if Cicero has enhanced Terentia’s pain for forensic purposes. Earlier, Cicero had contrasted Terentia’s kindness as a universal patron to the torment she now suffered (Fam. 14.2[7].2), reminding us that she had had her year o f glory in 63 and that her own prestige will have suffered as a result o f his exile. 16 The alternative o f finding a male patron to speak for them (as Valerius Tappo did in the Oppian debate) was also a possibility1but Valerius Maximus states that not a man could be found who dared to challenge the Triumviral edict ( Val. Max. 8.3.3). ’’ This was the project o f G agé (1963) whose work intrigued, infuriated and frustrated reviewers, sometimes all at the same time. Gagé argued for a real but forgotten ordo lying behind the stories o f Livy and Dionysius. My own view is that these stories project a Late Republican/Augustan reality onto a legendary7world rather than reflect a vanished matriarchy or a cultural memory o f something which had disappeared. On the mat rons and Juno Regina see Hanninen 1999, 39-52. On the cultic activities o f the Matres, see Schultz (2006 passim and especially 35-37 for her identification o f the political aspects o f the cult o f Juno Regina) and, less usefully, Takâcs 2008. 18 Purcell 1986, 86. In Book 2, Livy depicts the Matres mourning L. Brutus as they would their fathers as ultorpudiatiae violatae (2.7.4); they then mourn Valerius Publicola ‘ut Brutum’ (2.16.7). In Book 3, they beseech the gods in all the temples to end the pestilence which gripped the city (3.7.8). In Book 5, we find another supplication in the temples (5.18.11-12) and several other references to matronly intervention and its rewards; they donate gold towards the offering to Apollo at Delphi (5.25.8 -9) and are present in great masses at the opening o f the Temple to Juno Regina (5.31.J; 5.52.10). They contribute to the ‘ransom’ o f Rome from the Gauls. For this action, which saved the sacred treasury from dishonour, they were awarded the right to a funeral oration (5.50.7). For their contribution to the Delphic offering, they are honoured with the right to drive to festivals and games in four-wheeled carriages ( pilenti) and in two wheeled carriages (carpenti) on feast days and ordinary day's, a right the Lex Oppia sought to limit (34.1.2). Livy 5.25.9; Schultz 2006, 33-37.

328

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait 213The m ost silent female victim in Livy is the very young Verginia whose story is told in Book 3. However, Livy depicts the Matres first as her protectors and then as loudly protesting in very ‘female’ terms at her violent execution (3.47.1; 3.47.8). Speaking ‘heroines’ in Livy’s first books include Hersilia (1.11.2), the Sabines (1.13.3), Tanaquil (1.39.3; 1.41.3-5), Lucretia (1.58.7-11) and Veturia (2.40.5-9). Ovid develops Hersilia even further: he turns her into another Valeria by allowing her to explain how women can win the war (Murgatroyd 2005, 144—147). 21 Plutarch is the only author to name the mother as Volumnia and the wife as Vergilia (Plut. Cor. 33.5). All others uniformly call the mother and wife Veturia and Volumnia respectively: Liv. 2.40; Val. Max. 5.2.1; 5.4.1; Florus 1.38.12; L Ampelius 27.1; de viris illustribus 19.4; App. ltd . 5.7.3; Dion.Hal. RA 8.39.4; 40.1; Dio 5.18.7 ; Zonaras 2.132.24. On the story’s history in scholarship and an emphasis on its political aspects, see Schultz 2006, 37-44. 22 RA 8.39—40.1. Wiseman (1998, 87—88) proposed that Valeria was created by Valerius Annas so that yet another member o f the gens Valeria could be inserted into his history. If so, then she was a recent historical invention and a perfect vehicle for a contemporary Roman (if not Antias himself) to extend her rhetorical position in line with the m ood o f the times. 23 Lucan suggests the same idea at 2.28—42. Purcell (1986, 84) cites other literary examples including the Matres o f Latium. 24 Dionysius recalls the sentiment at 8.62.3 as he (finally) closes the story o f f lorioktmis with a lapidary epitaph. 1 thank Clemence Schultze for pointing this out (and for many other insights into Dionysius’ narrative techniques). 23 RA 8.55-56, Livy 2.40.12; Plut. Cor. 37-38; Purcell 1986, 88; Barrett 2002, 205; Schultz 2006, 37-45; Takacs 2008, 13-14; 22-23. The mother o f Conolanus suffers another violation o f her name when Takacs calls her ‘Venturia’ twice on the one page and in the Index (2008, 23; 193). She is Veturia in other passages (2008, 13—4; 194). 26 App. B C 5.69, 72. In a forthcoming paper I will argue that there is a high probability that Varro promoted Mucia as a latter-day Veturia possibly in the context o f his Pius aut de Pace. In this respect I follow Katz (1985) who has offered cogent arguments for suggesting that Sextus Pompeius was the honorand o f Varro’s logistoricus. 2” Ti. Nero and Li via returned under the terms o f the Treaty o f Misenum in 39 (Veil. 2.77). Velleius names N ero first among the virt clanssimi who took advantage o f the general amnesty (2.77.3). 28 The language is reminiscent o f that other wife-swapping incident, the marriage o f M. Porcius Cato’s wife to Q. Hortensius (Plut. Cat.Min. 25-26). In both cases, there is the suggestion that a wife and children in common would strengthen an alliance between two men, though this is made much more explicit in Plutarch’s Cato Minor. I thank Kit Morrell and Clemence Schultze for their observations on the similarities and differences o f the two cases. 29 For less dignified accounts o f the marriage between the young Caesar and Livia, see Tac. ^4»». 1.10; Suet. Aug. 62.2; 69.1; Dio 48.34.3. Dio implies that the embarrassment continued for decades (54.16.5—6). For a useful extended study o f the gossip, see Flory 1988; 1989, 353. 311Suetonius specifically records hostility between Pompeius and Ti. N ero (Suet. Tib. 4.3) although he later speaks o f the kindness o f Pompeius’ sister in presenting toys and clothes to the baby Tiberius. ( Tib. 6.3). ( )ne wonders whether N ero’s unhappiness

329

Kathryn Welch was part o f the defence he and Livia made against charges that they had turned their backs on their preserver. ■** PMny N H 15.136—137; D io 48.52.3—4; Flory 1989, especially 352-353; Bartman 1999, 84; Kellum 1996, 222; Barrett 2002, 28-30. None o f these scholars notes Velleius’ oblique reference to the omen though Barrett draws attention to its significance in the fight with Pompeius (2002, 39). Livy’s depiction o f Tanaquil (Livy 1.34.9), written in the light o f the omen, is quite positive; she is a force for good for the state, even though a foreigner and a queen. The similarity' between Tanaquil and Livia has been noted, though usually in connection with the narratives o f the death o f Caesar Augustus and the accession o f Tiberius (Barrett 2002, 385). ,2 Laurel from this grove was exclusively used for all the triumphal wreaths worn by Caesar Augustus himself and members o f the dynasty. The last tree allegedly (and rather neady) died in the lifetime o f Nero (Pliny X H 15.137). 55 Dion.Hal. RA 8.55.4. On the evidence for Livia’s involvement in the restoration o f the temple see Purcell 1986, 88-90, Barrett 2002, 205 and Gorrie 2004, 68-72. The evidence for Livia’s intervention in the cult o f Fortuna Muliebris relies on assuming that an inscription discovered in the 19th century came from the spot where the Temple o f Fortuna Muliebris was said to have been (Fgidi 2004, 273). 54 C1F VI.883:1avia Ί ) rusifuxsor Caesaris Augusti - Impp CSaesj Sevens etAnto ntnus Augg et Geta nobilissimus Caesar' et Ju lia Aug Mater Augyg - restituerunt (‘Livia daughter o f Drusus wife o f Caesar Augustus... The Imperatores Caesar Severus and Antoninus Augusti and Geta, m ost noble Caesar, and Julia Augusta mother o f the Augusti... restored...’). See also C IL 6882a. Boatwright (1991, 518) calls the filiation ‘boastful’. The charge perhaps says something about modern anxieties, especially given the prevalence o f that filiation in Velleius. Note the injunction in the consolatio ad Liviatn from a later (and less fortunate) moment o f Livia’s life (C.onsolatio 349-50): enposuit te alte Fortuna locumque tuen/iussit honoratum: Itivia, petfer onus (‘See how Fortune has raised you high, and commanded you to occupy a place of great honour; so, Livia, bear up that load!’: translation by Purcell, 1986, 78). In his opening address, the poet says, ‘ Visa dmfelix’ (‘ For so long blessed’). '6 W oodman’s emendation (1983, 75). r Brown 1995; Mustakallio 1999, 53-64, with Hemelrijk’s review BM CR 2000.03.11. Ovid’s Sabines are even more the active agents o f concord and their children are useful and active pignora (Fasti 3.205-234; Murgatroyd 2005, 37-39). i8 We sadly do not have Velleius’ account o f the Sabine women because our text breaks o ff just as he introduces them (Veil. 1.8.6). v> Plut. Ant. 31.2; 35.204; 53; 54; 56; 57. Peking (1988,201-202) notes the particular emphasis on Octavia and tentatively suggests that the development is Plutarch’s own creation. Yet he otherwise notes that the Life reeks with the propaganda o f the dav (e.g. 1988, 252-253). We should note that whenever he mentions her, Plutarch observes Octavia’s agency. Even at the point o f her marriage to Antonius, he describes the people’s trust in her qualities, not just the fact o f the union, which allow them to hope for peace and concord (τοΰτον δπαντες είσηγοΰντο τόν γάμον, έλπίζοντες την Όκταουίαν, έπ'ι κάλλει τοσούτψ σεμνότητα κα'ι νουν εχουσαν, εις ταύτόν τω Αντωνίψ παραγενομένην κα'ι στερχθεΐσαν ώς εΐκός τοιαΰτην γυναίκα, πάντων πραγμάτων αΰτοίς σωτηρίαν εσεσθαι κα'ι σύγκρασιν). The use o f σύγκρασις is particularly evocative, denoting a perfect balance and even astrological harmony which links this description

330

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait to Vergil’s fourth Eclogue which is also thought to commemorate the hope o f this marriage. Octavia is afterwards depicted as bringing o ff the reconciliation at Tarentum, and even later defying her brother to remain in Antonius’ house {Ant. 53). Moreover, she is twice depicted as persuading Agrippa to act in the public interest rather than her own or that o f her daughter {Ant. 35.2; 87). She organises marriages for all the children under her care, including Cleopatra’s, and her daughter Antonia enjoys an equally distinguished reputation {Ant. 87). If Plutarch has created the image it is a remarkably consistent one across the Life. Felling notes (rightly) that Dio says very little about Octavia but, even in this brief and undeveloped assessm ent, Dio notes her ‘instrumentality’ at 48.54.3. I would like to acknowledge Christopher Pelling’s searching comment in the discussion following this paper’s oral presentation which inspired me to think more carefully about Octavia’s role in the Concordia rhetoric. 411 For Scribonia’s ‘shrewishness’ see Suet. Aug. 62.2; Flory 1989, 353; Powell 2009, 181. 41 Syme 1939, 229; 340; 344-5; Flory 1988, 344-349. 42 Octavia’s interventions: Dio 47.7.4; App. B C 4.32; Welch 2009, 197. Appian remarks particularly on the graciousness o f Octavia and Julia to act on the women’s behalf in contrast to Fulvia’s churlishness {B C 4.32). One cannot help wondering whether the way in which Octavia’s story was told was meant to counter-balance the accounts o f ‘good ’ women who, as I have argued, were otherwise connected to Tnumviral opponents. Certainly the words Plutarch assigns to her at Tarentum {Ant. 35) bear a similarity1 to those Dionysius’ Veturia utters to her son {RA 8.53.3). I am indebted again to Christopher Pellmg for calling the connection to my attention. 41 Horace’s decision to prioritise Livia’s name should make us extremely wary o f asserting that Octavia came first in consequence in this period (e.g. Barrett 2002, 28). It is true that (Octavia was older and had been a consular wife since 50 but Livia as the wife o f the pnnceps must have taken precedence once Antonius had been eliminated. We do not know how much time Livia spent m Spain with Caesar Augustus during his proconsular campaigns. There are indications that she was there for part o f the time but, as Barrett (2002, .34—5) points out, this does not obviate the message o f Horace’s poem. 44 Treggiari opens her study with this image (2005,130). Marks (2008, 84) displays the knots scholars tie themselves into when trying to suggest that m participating in the adventus women were stepping outside ‘their proper sphere’. Welcoming home a returning army was possibly one o f the regular duties o f the women, and in any case a public appearance o f this body was not a deviation from propriety, as Livy’s examples serve to show (above, n. 24). See also Ovid Fasti 4.295—6 and consolatio 11. 33-36. As Purcell (1986, 82) argues, the virtue o f the Roman matronae had a truly public face. 45 The jury still appears to be out on whether Livia and Octavia were mere windowdressing for their most important building projects (Boatwnght 1991, 519—520; Milnor 2005, 56—64; Treggiari 2005, 142). The evidence for a nominal role rests mostly on Suetonius {Aug. 29.4) and D io, who in fact offers conflicting opinions (49.43.8; 54.23.6; 55.2.4; 55.8.1). He must ignore the evidence o f Caes ar Augustus himself (the porticus o f the women are not claimed at RC, 19-20). Ovid {A A 1.67-74; Fasti 6.6.37—48) and Strabo (5.3.8.236) are two more contemporaries who implv that the women were active agents in the building process. The confusion o f two porticus

331

Kathryn Welch (Octavia and Octaviae) has not helped the issue (Richardson 1976). Flory’s study (1984) is excellent in many aspects but I cannot agree with her on this vital point. Excluding the ladies from the honour o f paying for their buildings does not make sense. How could it be that Vipsania Polla in Rome and Eumachia in Pompeii obviously enjoyed the honour attached to paying for their own buildings while the leading ladies o f Rome were to be satisfied with something less? Flory later attempted to refute Purcell’s very different image o f Livia by rejecting the evidence o f the consolatio (Flory 1996, 296) but the discovery o f the inscription SCde Pisonepatre tends to confirm the picture which emerges from both the consolatio and Velleius. Purcell’s case is thus reinforced. On the similarity o f Livia’s image in all three texts, see Jenkins 2009. 46 Ovid Fasti 6.637-48; Flory (1984, 311-312) accepts Livia’s dedication o f this shrine although she argues against anything more than a nominal role for Livia in building the actual porticus. Lobur (2008, 902) notes the re-emergence o f Concordia, Salus, Pietas and P ax in official iconography between 11 and 7. The period also witnesses a new focus on Livia. The coincidence is almost certainly not accidental as these positive ‘Augustan’ concepts had long been associated with Livia. 4’ The lines which follow draw attention to Caesar Augustus as a censor who leads by example. The example offered is not the building o f the shrine (Livia’s task) but the destruction o fV ed iu s PoIIio’s house {Fasti 6.641—648; Richardson 1V78). Vedtus Pollio’s house was bequeathed in 15, the porticus not dedicated until 7, eight years later. At Fasti 6.637—48, Ovid telescopes the three events (demolition, building, shrine) but at no point does he say that Caesar Augustus built the porticus and at A rs Am. 1.72 unequivocally calls Livia the building’s auctor. Pace Littlewood (2006, 188) who suggests that Ovid says that Augustus paid for the building work as well as the demolition, which he does not. Her commentary shows the strong emphasis on female cults and I.ivia herself which Book 6 o f Fasti offers. 48 Flory 1984, 316-317. Severy (2003, 132) takes Flory’s proposal as fact. Milnor (2005, 57) takes a mid-way position: ‘Livia as imperial spouse might dedicate a shrine to Concordia and rely on a neat ambiguity between “ concord” as a virtue o f matrimony and as an attribute o f good government’. Littlewood (2006, 186) also assumes harmonious marriage as the principal concern. However, Hardie (2007, 568-570) offers a much richer interpretation, especially by linking it to Ju n o’s capacity for discord and the correspondence between Ovid’s description o f the Temple o f Augustan Concord and Livia’s shrine. m I thank Roger Pitcher for alerting me to this vital context. For an extended discussion, see Littlewood 2006, 145-190. '’"T akacs (2008, 48) suggests that the compromise etymology could include both Juna and Juventis, ensuring that everyone was happy. For the importance o f the Sabines in several works o f Ovid see Murgatroyd 2005, 255—258. Their own festival, the Matronalia celebrated in March, was yet another occasion to commemorate legendary female participation in the appropriated concordia project. MThe dedicatory inscription on Eum achia’s building in Pompeii also connects concordia Augusta and pietas (C IL 10.810—811). See also Barrett 2002,189; Dixon 2007, 107. Littlewood (2006, 32-34) takes Concordia to be Augustus in disguise. However, as Powell (2008) shows, ‘Augustus’ as Triumvir had allowed anger to overcome pietas. Livia could be made to represent the exact opposite and her associations with

332

Velleius and Livia: making a portrait Concordia were well-established (Littlewood 2006, 30; Bartman 1999, 86-96). She also has an association with laurel through the omen o f the white chicken. The thought-provoking discussion o f Hardie (2007) came too late to my attendon for me to consider its full implications for my arguments here but they are numerous, not least in his exploration o f the harmonious sisterhood of the Muses (2007, 566-7) and their role in the restoration o f concordia. 82 Livia’s connections with the triumph o f Tiberius and the intended triumph o f Drusus are clear. Kellum (1990), Simpson (1991) andjenkins (2009) offer arguments for her close involvement with Tiberius’ Temple o f Concordia Augusta in the Forum. If theporticus-was Caesar Augustus’ building which was simply named after Livia, one also needs to ask why the honour o f dedicating it was granted to Livia and Tiberius (Dio 55.8.1). 55 Veil. 2.94 1: Hoc tractu temporum Ti. Claudius Nero, quo trimo, utpraediximus, Livia Drusi Claudianifilia, despondente ei Nerone, cm ante nupta fuerat Caesari nupserat, ...quaestor undevicesimum annum agens (‘At this period Tiberius Claudius Nero, whose mother, as I have said, Livia, the daughter o f Drusus Claudianus, had married Caesar with the consent o f her husband Nero, to whom she had been married before, when [their son] was three years o f age...becoming quaestor in his nineteenth year’). See also Woodman 1977, 96-97. On artistic representations o f Livia and her sons, Bartman 1999,81-84. 94 The consolatio reflects a similar interest in the Claudian and Livian ancestry o f Tiberius and Drusus and, o f course, the motherhood o f Livia (consolatio 11. 1—4; 145-46; 329-34; 447-54; Chambers 2006,159—63). I thank Eleanor Cowan (Chambers) for providing a text o f her unpublished thesis dealing with this topic. w Veil. 2.100; 2.129; Levick 1975. 96 Richardson 1978; Flory 1984, 311 (who corrects Richardson on several points); Zanker 1998, 97-8. 5’ Torelli 1996, 154—158. Torelli also examines the sanctuary o f Venus where a grandmother and granddaughter, both named Valeria Sabina, built kitchens for feasting in this predominantly female sanctuary (1996, 160-175). See also Purcell’s citation o f examples from Lanuvium, Pisa, Naples and Surrentum as well as Rome (1986, 84—85). On the political and military background to the temple o f Bona Mens at Rome see Littlewood 2006, 77-79. On the connection o f Concordia, Spes and Mens, see Hardie 2007, 558. 48 R.column, 11.4-10. 59 Milnor 2005, 182; Treggian 2005, 140: ‘Women are the great survivors: Livia (58 BC-AD 29) bridges the late Republic and her son’s pnncipate. Junia Tertta, the niece o f Cato, sister o f Brutus and widow o f Cassius, lived until AD 22, 63 vears after her husband and brother died at Philippi’. 611Treggiari 2005, 146; Cooley 1998; Lobur 2008, 174. 61 For a recent study o f Livia’s public image (as opposed to anything people said about her privately) see Jenkins 2009. 62 On the artificiality o f the speech and even the possible lack o f historicity o f the conspiracy o f Cinna Magnus see Swan 2004,146-151; Lobur 2008, 135; Braund 2009, 258-279; 424—431. On Livia’s reputation as an intercessor, see Purcell 1986, 87-9; Dixon 2007,111 -2; Jenkins 2009,14—18. For a discussion o f her acts o f patronage see Barrett 2002, 188-207.

333

Kathryn Welch 65 Veil. 2.130.3; consolatw 47-48; SCPP 11. 115-19. 64 Kellum 1994,218. Castriota (1995) and Kellum (1990,1994) have independently shown that Augustan Concordia was Increasingly symbolised as a judicious mix o f previously discordant elements in a new harmonious relationship. See also Sauron (2000) for a discussion o f plants and their symbolism on the Ara Pacis. hS A 7 7 14.92. Livia’s portrait is used to depict Salus in the coinage o f Tiberius from AD 22-23 (RIC, 1.29.95; 30.95). She was also possibly associated with Pax (R I(, 1.26.95). On Salus as more than health, see Krostenko 2005, 287. 66 Shipley’s translation assumes no change from 2.75.2 by taking eminentissimaruxxh femina instead o f mater although the phrase is separated by the strong conjunction et. Velleius’ use o f similiordeis quam hormnibus suggests that Livia’s eminence has surpassed not only the boundaries o f gender but even humanity. On the care Velleius applied to his terminology (and especially to names and epithets), see Cowan in this volume. tr The SC PP (11. 109—120) records the official nature o f the pardon Livia obtained for Plancina. On Livia as Romana prtnceps Purcell 1986, Boatwright 1991, 518-520; Treggiari 2005, 146; Jenkins 2009.

334

17

V ELL EIU S AND T H E P R IN C E PS RO M ANI N O M IN IS Eleanor Cowan

There are two places in his surviving narrative at which Velleius describes an individual as the princeps o f the Roman name: the princeps Romani nominis. The first time the description is deployed it functions as a kind o f metonymy for Cn. Pompeius: m issi itaque ab rege, qui venientem Cn. Pom peium (is iam a Mytilenis Corneliam uxorem receptam in navem fugae com item habere coeperat) consilio T heodoti et Achillae exciperent hortarenturque, ut ex oneraria in eam navem, quae obviam processerat, transcenderet; quod cum fecisset, princeps Romani nominis imperio arbitrioque Aegyptii mancipii, C. Caesare et P. Servilio consulibus, iugulatus est. Hic post tres consulatus et totidem triumphos dom itum que terrarum orbem sanctissimi atque praestantissimi viri in id evecti, super quod ascendi non potest, duodesexagesim um annum agentis pridie natalem ipsius vitae fuit exitus, in tantum in illo viro a se discordante fortuna, ut cui m odo ad victoriam terra defuerat, deesset ad sepulturam. Envoys were sent by the king at the instance o f T heodotus and Achillas to receive Pom pey at his arrival - he was now accom panied in his flight by his wife Cornelia, who had been taken on board at Mytilene - and to urge him to change from the merchant ship to the vessel which had com e out to meet him. Having accepted the invitation, the first o f the citizens o f R om e was stabbed to death by the order and dictation o f an Egyptian vassal, the year o f his death being the consulship o f G aius Caesar and Publius Servilius. So died in his fifty-eighth year, on the very eve o f his birthday, that upright and illustrious man, after holding three consulships, celebrating three triumphs, conquering the whole world, and attaining to a pinnacle o f fam e beyond which it is im possible to rise. Such was the inconsistency o f fortune in his case, that he who but a short time before had found no m ore lands to conquer now found none for his burial.1 (2.53.2-3)

The second time the phrase occurs, it is a description attributed (by others) to C. Marius:

335

Eleanor Cowan N am et illi qui ante bellum Punicum abhinc annos trecentos Ti. Coruncanium, hom inem novum , cum aliis om nibus hon oribus tum pontificatu etiam m axim o ad principale extulere fastigium , et qui equestri loco natum Sp. Carvilium et m ox M. Catonem , novum etiam T usculo urbis inquilinum, M um m ium que Achaicum in consulatus, censuras et triumphos provexere, et qui C. M arium ignotae originis usque ad sextum consulatum sine dubitatione Rom ani nominis habuere principem, et qui M. Tullio tantum tribuere, ut paene adsentatione sua quibus vellet principatus conciliaret, quique nihil Asinio Pollioni negaverunt, quod nobilissim is sum m o cum sudore consequendum foret, profecto hoc senserunt, in cuiuscumque animo virtus inesset, ei plurimum esse tribuendum. F or the Rom ans who, three centuries ago, in the days before the Punic war, raised Tiberius Coruncanius, a “ new m an,” to the first position in the state, not only bestow ing on him all the other honours but the office o f pontifex m axim us as well; and those who elevated to consulships, censorships, and trium phs Spurius Carvilius, though born o f equestrian rank, and soon afterwards M arcus Cato, though a new m an and not a native o f the city but from T usculum , and M um m ius, who trium phed over Achaia; and those who regarded Gaius Marius, though o f obscure origin, as unquestionably the first m an o f the R om an nam e until his sixth consulship; and those who yielded such honours to M arcus Tullius that on his recom m endation he could secure positions o f importance alm ost for anyone he chose; and those who refused no honour to Asinius Pollio, honours which could only be earned, even by the noblest, by sw eat and toil - all these assuredly felt that the highest honours should be paid to the man o f merit. (2.128.1-3)

Whilst the component parts o f the description ( princeps and Romanum nomen) are familiar, their use in conjunction in this way is unique in extant literature.2 Where it has been referred to at all, the description has been viewed as a variation on the use o f princeps + genitive which, it has been argued, lies at the heart o f the semantic development o f the word princeps. That is, it has been suggested that there is a transition from being princeps o f something to being simply Princeps. This is how these two references appear in Wickert’s RE entry (s.v. princeps civitatis) and in Drexler’s examination o f the word princeps (‘Principes - Princeps’ Maia, 1958). The expression also appears in Claudia Kuntze’s discussion o f Velleius' use o f the word princeps where it is catalogued alongside princeps civitatis, princeps senatus, princeps rei publicae and princeps equestris ordinis in order to demonstrate that Velleius both integrated Augustus and Tiberius into a tradition o f principes but also distinguished each as ‘the princeps (without a genitive).3 This distinction does not, however, actually hold true for Velleius’ text. Kuntze herself observes that both Antonius (2.66.4 and 2.72.2) and Caesar (6.68.5) are termed princeps (without a genitive). A reference to Marius (2.19.4) might also be added. Her suggestion that these men are somehow

336

Velleius and the p r in c e p s

R o m a n i n o m in is

being singled out as specific forerunners o f the Princeps is not entirely satisfactory, but neither is it the focus o f this chapter. Suffice it to observe that this is how our two references to the princeps o f the ‘Roman name’ have been viewed in general surveys o f the term ‘princeps’, and in specific examinations o f Velleius’ text. In this chapter, it is the association o f an individual figure with the ‘Roman name’ which will be my focus. Four individuals are so designated in Velleius’ narrative: Pompey and Marius as we have seen, and Caesar Augustus (at 2.60.1) and Mars Gradivus (in the closing prayer 2.131.1-2). Two questions will be addressed in what follows: What use does Velleius make o f the ‘Roman name’ in relation to individual figures? Is it possible to explain his selection o f these four particular figures? There are two contexts which I think have some relevance for this investigation. First, the (relative) importance o f names and naming in Velleius’ text and, second, the use o f Romanum nomen in late republican and early Imperial literature (including, o f course, in Velleius). I begin by thinking about names. The abbreviation o f Velleius’ narrative (an abbreviation which is the consequence o f both authorial choice and the vicissitudes o f manuscript survival) together with the historiographical tradition within which he was working, combine to thrust names to the fore. The surviving sections o f Book 1 open with a barrage o f names and the rapidly (however we interpret this)4 unfolding narrative is firmly within the traditions o f late republican historiography - at least to the extent that it manifests an interest in the lives and achievements o f {named) individuals.s So, at one level, the very nature o f Velleius’ work means that names are constantly foregrounded. But, it isn’t just the fact that he is writing in a particular way and within a particular tradition which makes names important in the text. Velleius also gives attention to names and naming. Alongside the list o f great individuals who provide the focus o f the work, names also occur in the form o f aetiologies. Thus Velleius provides aetiologies for the Medontidae from Medon (1.2.2) and the Thessalians from Thessalus (1.3.2). He explains the origin o f the name patrician (from patres) (1.8.6) and states in relation to military colonies that (1.14.1) their names reveal their origins and founders. Names also occur in Velleius as antiquarian details. Thus at 1.13.1, he describes the creation o f new cognomina for L. Mummius and Scipio (Achaicus and Africanus): ‘before Mummius no new man earned for himself a cognomen won by military glory’). Names also appear as political labels (‘Pompeians’; ‘Caesarians’; ‘J ulians’ —where a party is named after its leader). We also find Velleius playing with names: thus (2.1.4) he plays with ‘Pompeius Magnus’ when he calls Quintus Pompeius, the consul o f 141 BO ‘a man o f great name’

337

Eleanor Cowan {virmagninominis). Similarly, at 2.4.3, Publius Scipio Africanus’ conquests are represented as ‘immortalizingdiis own name’ -(his-eonquests both -put his name ‘in the records o f history’ and literally gave him his name). I have already noted the metonymy princeps Romani nominis for Pompey. There is at least one further occasion when we are presented with a metonymy, this time at one remove: at 2.33.4, Velleius notes that Pompey used to call Lucullus, ‘Xerxes in a toga’. This display o f knowledge and learning, o f snippets o f erudite information, demonstrated Velleius’ (perhaps aspirational) participation in the literary and intellectual culture o f his day.6 Names are, by their nature, convenient sites for such display. Two further aspects o f naming in Velleius’ work are, however, worth noting. Velleius’ observation o f the progressive changes in imperial nomenclature is meticulous. Although there are occasional asides in which he refers to ‘Augustus’ out o f sequence (as it were), the narrative proper carefully marks the progression from C. Octavius to the young C. Caesar to Caesar to \princeps\ to Caesar Augustus to the divine Augustus7 and from Tiberius Claudius Nero to Tiberius Caesar (who is never, in keeping with his own wishes, referred to in the text as ‘Augustus’).8 The care with which Velleius marks these transitions is noteworthy, especially as his is one o f the earliest surviving attempts to document this transition (the confusing ‘Caesars’ o f Manilius are a point o f contrast). The second point which provides context for my discussion o f Velleius’ references to the princeps o f the Roman name is this: in common with his literary peers and predecessors, Velleius saw names as inherently powerful.9 Thus, drawing upon the conventions o f panegyric, after his death Velleius observes that Pompey’s name lives everywhere {nusquam erat Pompeius corpore, adhuc ubique vivebat nomine) and Tiberius’ name overawes the Parthian king

{rex quoque Parthorum tanti nominis fama territus liberos suos ad Caesarem misit obsides).n' The name ‘Caesar’ is also powerful: N eque illi spectaculo, quo fructus sum , simile condicio mortalis recipere videtur mihi, cum per celeberrim am Italiae partem tractum que om nem Galliae provinciarum veterem im peratorem et ante meritis ac virtutibus quam nom ine Caesarem revisentes sibi quisque quam illi gratularentur plenius. I do not think that m ortal man will be permitted to behold again a sight like that which I enjoyed, when, throughout the m ost populous parts o f Italy and the full extent o f the provinces o f G aul, the people as they beheld once m ore their old com m ander, who by virtue o f his services had long been a C aesar before he was such in nam e, congratulated them selves in even heartier terms than they congratulated him. (2.104.3)

338

Velleius and the p r in c e p s

R o m a n i n o m in is

Likewise, Velleius comments that ‘even after Rome had conquered the world she could not hope for security as long as the name o f Carthage remained as o f a city still standing’.11 The Roman name was also (of course), conventionally, very powerful. It was invoked most frequently (in surviving texts) in the contexts o f Roman expansion and Rome’s dealings with her empire. Rome’s enemies hated and sought to destroy the ‘Roman name’ whilst her defenders protected, glorified, and were inspired by the ‘Roman name’.12 Most importantly, the ‘Roman name’ was symbolically powerful —an evocative shorthand for a collective Roman identity:11 Ceterum m agis eo profectum est quod m ature ventum erat ut quosdam spectantes iam arma Ltruriae populos metus Romani nominis comprimeret, quam quod ductu consulis quicquam ibi satis scite aut fortunate gestum sit. But m ore was achieved by A pp iu s’ speedy arrival, whereby fear o f the Rom an nam e checked certain peoples o f Etruria w ho were already contem plating taking up arms, than by his leadership, which was marked by no special skill or good fortune. (Liv. 10.18.5) (Tr. Radice, 1982) si infamia nulla esset et de gloria tantum ageretur, qui tandem triumphus non com m unem nominis Romani gloriam habet? But even if there were no such disgrace, and if only glory were in question, can there, I ask you, be such a thing as a triumph which does not show forth the glory o f the Rom an name, a glory belonging to us all? (Liv. 45.38.10) (Tr. Bettenson, 1976)

In these instances Livy explicitly states that it is fear o f the Roman name, rather than the actions o f the consul which quells the Etruscans and that the glory o f the Roman name is, again explicitly, the glory o f us all. The very collectivity o f this identity is continuously emphasized, perhaps most famously in the ‘Alexander digression’ o f Livy 9.17-19 where Morello has persuasively argued that the text moves from the named individual (Papirius) to a synchronic ‘pageant o f Roman heroes’ and back to an elogium for ‘a collective singular miles1. She notes: ‘no other names are needed, the collective “ Roman name” transcends all other Roman names and outweighs that o f Alexander...’.14 This use o f Romanum nomen is almost exclusively concerned with Rome’s dealings with non-Romans (usually in wars o f expansion). One possible exception to this is Cicero’s claim in the Pro Murena that Catiline plans to obliterate the name o f Rome {Mur. 80).1=1But 1would suggest that this, too, may be read as an allusion to wars with Rome’s enemies, since Cicero is explicitly seeking to alienate Catiline by constructing him as another Hannibal and, in the passage I have cited, questions his citizenship.

339

Eleanor Cowan By the time that Velleius was writing, these conventions were changing. Three passages from Ovid closely associate the ‘Roman name’ with Caesar Augustus.16 Thus at Tristia 2.155, Ovid desires the gods, if they love the Roman name, to give Augustus long life and at 2.219—21, he calls Augustus the princeps imperii and engages in a recusatio wherein he notes that the Roman name burdens Augustus so that he has no time for Ovid’s poetry. At the beginning o f the Metamorphoses (1.199), he notes that the ‘impious’ band sought to extinguish the ‘Roman name’ with the blood o f Caesar (Augustus). This close association o f an individual with the Roman name could also be extended to others. Seneca, for instance, refers to Cicero as the titulus Romani nominis·. ...brevi ante princeps senatus Rom anique nominis titulus... ...a short while before [Cicero] had been princeps senatus, glory o f the Rom an name... [Suas. 6.19).

This individuali'^ation o f the most powerful o f all collective expressions o f Roman identity marks a profound shift in the use o f the expression and I think it has some bearing on how we read Velleius’ text, to which I shall now return. In Velleius’ narrative there are eight references to the ‘Roman name’. The first three may be quickly noted. Thus, Carthage is hated ‘by the Roman name’ (1.12.5) and the founding o f colonies and the extension o f citizenship represents the growth o f the Roman name (1.14.1).1” Conversely, the Samnite chief Pontius Telesinus ‘hates the Roman name’.18 The third reference describes the batde o f Pharsalus (2.52.3): ‘that day o f carnage so fatal to the Roman name, when so much blood was shed on either side, the clash o f arms between the two heads o f the state, the extinction o f one o f the two luminaries o f the Roman world, and slaughtering o f so many noble men on Pompey’s side’.19 The ‘pairing’ o f Caesar and Pompeius (duo reipuhlicae capita; alterum Romani imperii lumen) and the framing reference to the restrictions he has placed on his narrative which prevent Velleius from giving a full description o f the battle have been dealt with by others.2" I note, however, two things. First, that a reference to the ‘Roman name’ in the context o f civil war is unusual. Not only was the ‘Roman name’ conventionally deployed to differentiate ‘us’ from ‘them’ (Romans from non-Romans) in military contexts, but it was also (as John Marincola has observed) conventional not to designate the conflicting sides in civil war in terms o f the kinds o f collectives used in imperialistic batde narratives (‘our men’, ‘our soldiers’).21 The exception to this general rule was (again as Marincola has noted), Caesar’s commentary on this civil war wherein he bluntly and provocatively termed his own

340

Velleius and the p r in c e p s

R o m a n i n o m in is

soldiers ‘our men’. Velleius’ construction o f the battle o f Pharsalus as a day most bloody for the Roman name extends the implications and associations o f this idea by taking a concept used to describe Roman identity in opposition to her enemies and using it to write about the events o f a shared past. His description takes up the connotations o f collectivity which were inherent in the term as we have already seen - using the objectivity o f retrospection to present this civil conflict as damaging all Romans (i.e. all that the Roman name represents). The second point to note is that the passage immediately precedes, and must, I think, influence our reading of, the metonymy with which we began and to which I now return. Velleius’ epitaph for Pompeius begins with a set-piece description o f his murder: ‘having accepted the invitation [to change from one ship to another], the princeps Romani nominis was stabbed to death by the order and dictation o f an Egyptian vassal’. Commentators have seen in this description a pair o f pointed antitheses between Egypt and Rome, and between Pompey the Princeps and his murderer who is represented as his cliens i.e. social inferior.22 Pompey was, o f course, referred to as princeps during his lifetime, but Velleius’ description here invites further associations. Butrica has read the metonymy princeps Romani nominis as a reference to Pompey’s triumphs: ‘...the thrice triumphant Roman general who could with slight exaggeration be said to have triumphed over the whole world, “princeps Romani nominis"i’2’ Certainly, the phrase reminds the reader o f Pompey’s achievements as a general and these are explicitly celebrated in the epitaph proper: he celebrated three triumphs and mastered the world and he found no more lands to conquer. However, Velleius’ use o f ‘the Roman name’ in the context o f civil war (both here and in the description o f the battle at Pharsalus), suggests that it was not just the connotations o f imperial conquest that he was drawing upon. Indeed, the fact that this is a civil war context seems to me to be specifically signalled by the reference to Caesar’s consulship: the year o f Pompey’s death is ‘the year in which Gaius Caesar and Publius Servilius were consuls’.24 So Pompey is princeps Romani nominis in a context which is not exclusively imperialistic and, indeed, in which there are pointed reminders o f civil conflict. Velleius’ set-piece o f the fall o f Pompey, which is bracketed by references to the role o f fortune in his demise (which have been explored by Ulrich Schmitzer)26 employs ‘in abundance’ (as Woodman has commented) the topoi o f rhetoricians.26 Pompey’s murder and the vicissitudes o f fortune were favourite topics amongst Roman (and Greek) writers and provided Velleius with the opportunity to contribute his own

341

Tileanor Cowan version - stretching his historian’s wings and putting on display his skills and accomplishments. His description o f Pompeius as the princeps Romani nominis set up clever antitheses (R om e/Egypt; princeps/cliens)·, displayed erudition (the knowledge o f the fact that Pompey was called princeps during his lifetime), and, as far as we can tell, may even have satisfied the demand for novelty and ingenuity in heaping accolades upon great men. It also, as Kuntze has shown, located Pompeius within Velleius’ catalogue o f

principes.r But there is something even more interesting going on with ‘the Roman name’ here. Like the passages from Ovid discussed earlier, Velleius has taken what has been called ‘the most powerful symbol o f their [i.e. Roman collective] identity’28 and identified it closely with a single individual. In doing so, he deliberately stresses the inherent connotations o f collectivity (shared past, shared identity, shared ‘Romanness’) whilst simultaneously elevating one man. It may, o f course, be objected that this is how all accolades which involve princeps + genitive work (e.g. princeps civitatis) and certainly, there are comparable instances o f princeps + a wordin-the-genitive (e.g. omnium saeculorum etgentium, Cic. Fam. 3.11.3 [55 W. p. 2023,37: Pompeius];principem orbis terrae virum, Cic. Dom. 110 [Pompeius p. 2023, 26W[). Velleius’ other references to the ‘Roman name’ need, therefore, to be taken into account. At 2.60.1, Velleius describes Aria’s and Philippus’ concern about Octavian taking up the name o f Caesar: N on placebat Atiae matri Philippoque vitrico adiri nom en invidiosae fortunae Caesaris, sed adserebant salutaria rei publicae terrarumque orbis fata conditorem conservatorem que Rom ani nominis. His m other Aria and Philippus his stepfather disliked the thought o f his assum ing the nam e o f Caesar, w hose fortune had aroused such jealousy, but the fates that preside over the welfare o f the com monwealth and o f the world took into their own keeping [the second] founder and preserver o f the Rom an name.

In the end the decision is represented as the consequence o f fate: the fates who preside over the wellbeing o f the res publica and the whole world (terrarumque orbis) took into their own keeping the founder and conserver o f the Roman name. As was the case with Pompey, the princeps Romani nominis, there are nice instances o f word-play here also: not only might the name ‘Augustus’ be associated with ‘founding’ (Suet. Aug. 7.2 with Woodman ad loc.) but the founder and conserver o f Rome, Romulus a name Octavian bad reputedly thought o f adopting (Dio 53.16.7 with Woodman ad loc.) - also bears, literally, ‘the Roman name’. There may

342

1Velleius and the p r in c e p s R o m a n i n o m in is

even be an allusion to ‘'princeps’ here since Wickert (followed by Kuntze) has argued that Augustus’ use o f the singular princeps in the Res Gestae implied not only superiority', but also, ‘priority’ (as auctor).29 Velleius offers a variauon on the close association o f Augustus with the ‘Roman name’ that we noted already taking place in Ovid. In doing so, he was demonstrating both an awareness o f this earlier association (not necessarily Ovid’s, but perhaps used more generally) and a characteristic sensitivity towards the way in which Augustus might be thought about or named (recall his attention to imperial nomenclature discussed earlier in this chapter). Note, however, that, once again, our expectation that ‘the Roman name’ will be used in a context o f imperialism is challenged not only by the context o f the passage (Octavian’s preparations to avenge the murder o f Caesar), but also by the claim that the ‘founder and conserver o f the Roman name’ secures the well-being o f the res publica as well as the (more conventional) ‘whole world’. By contrast, the two final references to the ‘Roman name’ are much more straightforwardly military and imperialistic. Thus, Velleius comments, there are those who regard C. Marius as princeps Romani nominis only up until his sixth consulship. Likewise, Mars Gradivus is (following Woodman) the auctor 2iS\A stator o f the ‘Roman name’ where both epithets carry specific militaristic connotations and where the prayer itself looks (anxiously) forward to the appointment o f successors who will sustain world-empire: V oto finiendum volum en est. Iuppiter Capitoline, et auctor ac stator Rom ani nominis G radive Mars perpetuorum que custos V esta ignium et quidquid numinum hanc Romani imperii m olem in am plissim um terrarum orbis fastigium extulit, vos publica voce obtestor atque precor custodite, servate, protegite hunc statum , hanc pacem , hunc principem, eique functo longissim a statione mortali destinate successores quam serissim os, sed eos, quorum cervices tam fortiter sustinendo terrarum orbis imperio sufficiant quam huius suffecisse se n sim u s,... L et m e end my volum e with a prayer. O Ju p ite r C apitolinus, and Mars G radivus, author and stay o f the R om an nam e, V esta, guardian o f the eternal fire, and all other divinities who have exalted this great empire o f R om e to the highest point yet reached on earth! On you I call, and to you I pray in the name o f this people: guard, preserve, protect the present state o f things, the peace which we enjoy, the present em peror, and when he has filled his p ost o f duty —and may it be the longest granted to m ortals - grant him successors until the latest time, but successors w hose shoulders may be as capable o f sustaining bravely the empire o f the world as we have found his to b e : ... (2.131.1-2)

There are, again, nice instances o f word-play in both passages. Thus Marius who has ‘obscure origin’ (ignotae originis) acquires an association with Roman

343

Hleanor Cowan name (both well-known and firmly associated with a place); he also rises from obscurity to be a princeps. Woodman has demonstrated the clever play on names in relation to Mars: ‘Mars was the father o f Romulus who, in turn, was the eponymous founder o f Rome and the Romans. Hence Mars was actually auctor Romani nominis twice over: he could be said to have started the Roman race...; and he was father o f the hero who gave Rome its name’.30 What, finally, are we to make o f all o f this? The metonymy princeps Romani nominis has been catalogued (by Wickert and Drexler) as a variation on the possible combinations o f princeps + genitive. The use o f the genitive in this context, others have argued, differentiates these psoto-principes from the Princeps. Velleius’ presentation o f Roman history as the history o f principes which culminated in Tiberius, the optimus princeps - the ultimate exemplar o f all that a princeps should be - in many ways exemplifies this semantic trajectory (although, as I noted, his use o f princeps is not quite so straightforward).31 But much may be gained from examining the expression in its own right, and in relation to other references to the ‘Roman name’ which occur in the narrative. What use does Velleius make o f the ‘Roman name’ and why does he associate it so closely with these four individuals? On the face o f it, the answer to these questions may seem straight­ forward. Velleius’ narrative celebrates the acquisition and expansion o f empire (a theme which has led one scholar to refer to his history as ‘Triumphal’).32 Indeed, as de Monte has argued, ‘Velleius communicated his enthusiasm for empire by celebrating its heroes’. This suggests that Velleius was not only interested in identifying a succession o f principes (who include, it should be remembered, men who were not generals such as Virgil, ‘the princeps o f poets’) but was also keen to identify by means o f an association with the ‘Roman name’ men whose services to the Roman empire warranted particular attention. Reference to the ‘ Roman name’

occur in such a narrative. All four ‘Roman name’ were military hefOCS,

would, naturally and conventionally,

figures closely associated with the responsible for the foundation and expansion o f the Roman empire. But there are, 1 think, problems with this view. Velleius’ history is full o f the heroes o f empire, amongst whom not the least are Caesar and Tiberius neither o f whom is associated with the Roman name. In addition, we have noted that Velleius’ references to the ‘Roman name’ occasionally occur in the context o f civil war, not wars o f expansion. I have suggested that, by importing into civil war a term used in wars against non-Romans, Velleius presents the experience o f civil conflict as part o f the shared past and emphasizes the connotations o f coherence and collective identity7inherent in the ‘Roman name’. Another explanation seems to be called for.

344

Velleius and the princeps Romani nominis I began by observing the way in which names and naming could function as occasions for displaying the historian’s craft. I also suggested that Ovid’s identification o f Augustus with the ‘Roman name’ represented a change in the conventional use o f the idea as exemplified by Cicero and Livy. To have other individuals also identified with the Roman name is very unusual in surviving material. The ways in which Velleius plays with ‘the Roman name’ in relation to Pompey and Marius as principes, Octavian as conditor and conservator and Mars as audor and stator demonstrate precisely this kind o f display. Each one o f these metonymies is itself unusual: princeps Romani nominis is unparalleled; the combination o f conditor and conservator is not attested again until Pliny’s Panegyric 1.1; and the combination o f audor and stator for Mars is so unusual that some commentators have sought to emend the text. We might therefore conjecture that it was this opportunity for a clever play on names which led Velleius to associate the expression Romani nominis with these four figures. N o tes 1All translations are from Shipley’s Loeb (1924) adapted by the author as indicated. 2Wickert in his R l:L vol. 22, entry (s.v. princeps civitatis) with Drexler 1958. ’ Kuntze 1985,162—4. Ais ‘principes civitatis’ warden bei Velleius C. Gracchus und M. Antonius (Vater des Triumvirn), ais ‘princeps Romani nominis’ Pompeius und C. Marius gennant. Ais ‘princeps senates’ erschemt Q. Catulus als ‘princeps omnium’ M. Crassus und der Vater des Seian als ‘princeps equestris ordinis’. Other instances may be added to her list (e.g. Velleius calls Virgil the princeps carminum, 2.36.3). 4 On Velleius’ assertions o f haste, see Woodman 1975 and 1977; Sumner 1970; and Lobur 2007. IIWoodman 1977, 30—45, See also Peking and Steel in this volume. r’ Lobur, 2007. ' C. Octavius (2.59.1); young C. Caesar (2.60.5; 2.61.1; 2.61.2); Caesar (2.62.1-6); \pnnceps 2.81.2]; Caesar — Augustus (2.89.1-2); Caesar Augustus (2.90.4; 2.110.6; 2.123.1); Augustus (2.91.1); Caesar (2.91.2-3; 2.92.2; 2.93.1-2); Augustus (2.99.1; 2.102.1; 2.111.2-3); divus Augustus (2.124.3). RTiberius: Tiberius Claudius Nero (2.94.1); Nero (2.96.1); Tiberius Nero (2.99.1; 2.101.1; 2.103.1); Nero (2.100.1; 2.104.1); Tiberius Caesar (2 104.3; 2.106.1; 2.109.5; 2.127.3; 2.129.1 ); Caesar (2.105.1 -3 ; 2.106.3; 2.107.2; 2.110.1 ; 2.112.3; 2.113.1 ; 2.114.1 ; 2.115.1 ff; 2.122.1 ; 2.124.2; 2.126.1 ); Tiberius (2.111.2; 2.112.7; 2.115.2; 2.122.1 ). 9 1 am very grateful to T om Hillard for his observations per litteras on the power o f the Roman name and especially for directing me to further material on the ‘secret’ power associated with it: Macr. Sat. 3.9.4 with Plut. RO 61 = Moralia 278F—279A. III Pompey: 2.54.2; Tiberius 2.94.4. 11 1.12.7; Neque se Roma iam terrarum orbe superato securam speravitfore, si nomen usquam stantis maneret Carthaginis... 12 Imperialism (friends and enemies): Nec dm licuit quietis consilia erigendae ex tamgraui casu reipublicae secum agitare. Hinc 1 ’olsci, veteres hostes, ad exstinguendum nomen Romanum arma

345

Eleanor Cowan ceperant... Liv. 6.2.2. Cf. Cic. Flac. 60; Verr. 2.5.150 (andpassim)·, Sali. Cat. 52.24; Jug. 5.4, 58.3; 80.1; Liv. 1.40.3; 2.48.8; 33.31.9 (etpassim)·, N epos, H annibali·, Val. Max. 1.5.1; 5.1.ex.6. ” Cf. Liv. 9.18.6-7; Hör. C. 3.5.10. 14Morello 2002. 18 Non lex improba, nonperniciosa largitio, non auditum aliquando aliquod malum reipublicae quaentur. Inita sunt in hac civitate consilia, mdices, urbis delendae, civium trucidandorum, nominis Romani exstinguendi. Atque haec cives, cives, inquam, si eos hoc nomine appellarifas est, de patna sua et cogitant et cogitaverunt. Cic. Mur. 80. 16 Ov. Tr. 2.155-6: Per superos igitur, qui dant tibi longa dabuntque | tempora, Romanum si modo nomen amant. Ov. Tr. 2.219-24: Scilicet imperii princeps statione relicta \ imparibus legeres carminafacta modis? \ Non ea te moles Romani nominis urget, | mque tuis umens tam leue fertur onus, \ lusibus ut possis advertere numen ineptis, | excutiasque oculis otia nostra tuis. ( )v. Met. 1.199-205: Confremuere omnes studiisque ardentibus ausum talia deposcunt: sic, cum manus inpia saevit \ sanguine Caesareo Romanum exstinguere nomen, | attonitum tanto subitae terrore ruinae \ humanum genus est totusque perhorruit orbis; \ nec tibi grata minus pietas, Auguste, tuorum est quamfuit illa lori. 1’ Veli. 1.12.4—5: Bellum Carthagini iam ante biennium a prioribus consulibus inlatum maiore vi intulit...eamque urbem magis invidia imperii quam ullius eius temporis noxiae invisam Romano nominifunditus sustulitfecitque suae virtutis monumentum, quodfuerat avi eius clementiae. Veli. 1.14.1: Huic reiper idem tempus civitatem propagatam auctumque Romanum nomen communione iuris haud intempestive subtexturi videmur. 18Veli. 2.27.1: A t Pontius Telesinus, dux Samnitium, vir domi bellique fortissimuspenitusque Romano nomini infestissimus... 1,1 Veli. 2.52.3: Aciem Pharsalicam et illum cruentissimum Romano nomini diem tantumque utriusque exercitusprofusum sanguinis et coniisa inter se duo reipublicae capita effossumque alterum Romani impeni lumen et tot talesque Pompeianarum partium caesos viros non recipit enarranda hic scripturae modus. 20W oodman ad loc., Klefante ad loc. and above n. 4. 21 Marincola 1997, appendix. 22Woodman ad loc.; Rlefante ad loc. See also Butrica 1993. 21 Butrica 1993, 344. 24 Bob Cowan observes that there are similar overtones here as may be found in the opening o f Tac. Ann. 4 28Schmitzer 2000. 26Woodman 1989 ad loc. r Kuntze 1985, above n. 3. 28 R. G. M. Nisbet and N. Rudd A Commentary on Horaee, Odes J, 2007 (Oxford), 86 commenting on Horaee C. 3.5.10. 29 Kuntze (1985) 164: ‘Wie L. Wickert betont, charakterisiert ihn dies nicht nur als den Ersten im Sinne der Superiorität, sondern auch im Sinne der Priorität als den auctor alles Rechten und Guten, als Urheber aller Kräfte, die das erneuerte Gemeinwesen belebten.’ w Woodman ad loc. ” On Tiberius as optimus princeps, see Gowmg 2007. 82 De Monte 1999.

346

C O N SO L ID A T E D BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdy, R. and Hurling, N. 2005 ‘Two important new Roman coins’, Numismatic Chronicle 165, 175—6. Alonso-Nunez, J. M. 2002 The Idea of Universal History in Greece: From Herodotus to the age of Augustus, Amsterdam. Anderson, W. S. 1957 ‘Virgil’s second Iliad’, TAPhA 88, 17-30. Andreae, A. 1994 Praetorium Speluncae: Tiberius und Ovid in Sperlonga, Mainz and Stuttgart. Ash, R. 1999 Ordering Anarchy: Armies and leaders in Tacitus' Histones, Ann Arbor. Astin, A. 1967 Scipio Aemilianus, ( )xford. Babcock, C. L. 1965 ‘The early career o f Fulvia’, A JPh 86, 1-32. Bablitz, L. 2007 Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom, London and New York. Badian, H. 1958 Foreign Chentelae, Oxford. 1972 ‘Tiberius Gracchus and the beginning o f the Roman revolution’, A N R W 1.1,668-731. Barrett, A. A. 2002 Uivia: First Lady of Rome, New Haven. Bartman, E. 1999 Portraits of Uivia, Cambridge. Beard, M. 2007 The Roman Triumph, Cambridge (Mass.) and 1.ondon. Beloch, J. 1989 Campania (trans. C. Ferone and G. Pugliese Carratellt), Naples. Beness, J. L. and Hillard, T. W. 2001 ‘The theatricality o f the deaths o f C. Gracchus and his friends’, CQ 51, 135-40. Béranger, J. 1948 ‘Le refus du pouvoir’, Mus. Helv. 5, 178-196. 1953 Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique duprincipat, Basel. 1972 ‘Les jugements de Cicéron sur les Gracques’, A N R W \ A, 732-63. Bernstein, A. J. 2001 F.motional Vampires: Dealing with people who drain you dry, New York. Binder, G. 1971 Aeneas undAugustus: Interpretationen yum 8. Buch derAeneis, Meisenheim am Gian.

347

Consolidated bibliography Birley, A. R. 2007 ‘Sejanus: his fall’, in N. Sekunda (ed.) Corolla Cosmo Rodewald, Gdansk. Birt, T. 1882 Dos antike Buchwesen in setnem Verhdltms %ur Eitteratur; Berlin. Bishop, J. H. 1988 The Cost of Power: Studies in the Aeneid of Virgil, Annidale. Bispham, E. H. 2006 ‘ Colonìam deducere·, how Roman was Roman colonization during the Republic?’, m G . J. Bradley and J.-P. Wilson (eds) Greek and Roman Colonisation: Origins, ideologies and interactions, Swansea, 73-160. 2007a Prom Asculum to Actium: The municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus, Oxford. 2007b ‘Pliny the Elder’s Italy’, in E. H. Bispham, G. Rowe and E. Matthews (eds) Vita Vigilia Est: Essays m Honour of Barbara Ixvick, London, 41 -67. [Forthcoming] The Roman Republic 264H-4 bc, London. Bloomer, W. M. 1992 Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric ofthe New Nobility, Chapel Hill and London. 1997 Latinily and laterary Society at Rome, Philadelphia. 2002 Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility, Chapel Hill. Boatwright, M. 1991 ‘Imperial women o f the early second century A .C.\A JP h 112, 513-40. Bolkestein, H., 1979 Wohltdtigkeu‘ undArmenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, New York. Bonner, S. F. 1949 Roman Declamation in the I Me Republic and Early Empire, Liverpool. Borzsàk, S. (ed.) 1992 Cornelius Tacitus Annales / - VI, Leipzig. Bosworth, A. B. 1972 ‘Asinius Pollio and Augustus’, I Ustoria 21,441-73. 1999 ‘Augustus, the “ Res Gestae” and Hellenistic theories o f apotheosis’, JR S 89, 1-18. Boyce, A. A. 1942 ‘The origin o f Ornamenta Tnumphalid, CPh 37.2, 130—41. Bradley, K. R. 1989 Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B (—70 B (, London. Braund, S. 2009 Seneca, De ( dementia: Text, translation and commentary, Oxford. Brennan, T. C. 2000 The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (2 vols.), New York. Brown, R. ID. 1995 ‘Livy’s Sabine women and the ideal o f Concordia’, TAPhA 125, 291-319. Brunt, P. A. 1965 ‘Italian aims at the urne o f the Social War’,/&.V55, 90-109. 1975 ‘The administration o f Roman Egypt’, JR S 65, 124—47 [= 1990 Roman Imperial Themes, Oxford, 215—54], 1987 Italian Manpower, 225 B (-4 V 14 (revised edition), Oxford.

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Butrica.J. L. 1993 ‘Propertius 3.11.33-38 and the death o f Pompey’, C f) 43, 342-6. Cameron, A. (ed.) 1989 History as Text: The writing of ancient history, London. Cassola, F. 1991 ‘La conquista Romana. La regione fino al V see. d.C ’, in Stona e civiltà della Campania·. L ’evo antico, Naples, 103-150. Castren, P. 1975 Ordopopulusque Pompeianus, Rome. Castnota, D. 1995 The A ra Pans Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Ixiter Greek and Early Imperial Art, Princeton. Cébeillac-Gervasom, M. (ed.) 1996 1res élites municipales de l'Italie péninsulaire des Gracques à Néron, Rome. Cerchiai, L. 1995 1 Campani, Milan. Chambers (Cowan), R. 2006 Res Publica, Augustus to Tìbenus, Unpublished dissertation, Rxeter. Chaussene-Laprée,J. P. 1969 L'expression narrative che\ les histonens latins, histoire d'un style, Paris. Chilver, G. H. F. and Townend, G. B. 1985 A Histoncal Commentary on Tacitus’ Histones I V and V( Oxford. Christ, K. 2001 ‘Velleius und Tiberius’, Historia 50, 180-92. 2003 ‘Geschichtsbild und Zeitgeschichte bei Velleius Paterculus’ in T. Hantos (ed.) Laurea intemationalis: Festschnft fü r Jochen Bleiken %um 75. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 61-81. Chnstesen, P. 2007 Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge. Ciaceri, R. 1924 Stona della Magna Grecia, Naples. Clark, A. J. 2007 ‘Nasica et [ides , C f) 57, 125-31. Clarke, K. 1999 ‘Universal perspectives in historiography’, in C. S. Kraus (ed.) The Limits of Histonography: Genre and narrative in ancient historical texts, Leiden, Boston and Cologne. 2008 Making Timefor the Past: Ixrcal history and thepolis, Oxford. Classen, C. J. 1986 ‘Virtutes Romanorum nach dem Zeugnis der Münzen republikanischer Zeit’, MDA1(R) 93, 257-79. Clausen, W. 1964 ‘An interpretation o f the Aeneìd', HSCPh 68, 139-47. Cogitore, I. 2009 ‘Les portraits chez Velleius Paterculus’, Ixitomus 68, 51-72.

349

Consolidated bibliography Cooley, A. 1998 ‘The moralizing message o f the Senatus Consultant de Pitone Patre\ G & R 45, 199-212. Corbelli, A. 2004 Nature hmbodied: Gesture in ancient Rome, Princeton and Oxford. Cornell, T .J. 1989 ‘The conquest o f Italy’, in F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Fredenksen, R. M. Ogilvie and A. Drum mond (eds) C.ambndge Ancient History1 V II (part 2), Cambridge, 351-419. 2010 ‘Universal history and the early Roman historians’, in P. Liddel and A. Fear eds, 102-115. Courtney, FI. 2001 A Companion to Petromus, Oxford. Cowan, E. see ‘Chambers, E .’ Crawford, M. H. 1974 Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge. Cunliffe, R .J. 1963 A lexicon of the Homeric Dialect (2nd edition), Norman. D ’Isanto, G. 1993 Capua Romana: Ricerche diprosopografia e storia sociale, Rome. D ’A rm s,J. H. 1981 Commerce and Social Standingin Ancient Rome, Cambridge (Mass). Damon, C. (ed.) 2003 Tacitus Histories Book 1, Cambridge. D e Caro, S. 1998 ‘ L ’attività archeologica della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Napoli e Caserta nel 1998’, in A tti del convegno di Taranto, Taranto, 635—61. De Franciscis, A. 1956 ‘Templum Dianae Tifatinae’, m Archivio storico di Terra di Lavoro I, Caserta, 301-358. de Monte, J. 1999 ‘Velleius Paterculus and “ Triumphal history” ’, A H B 13.4, 121—35. De Vivo, A. 1984 ‘Luxuria e mos matorum\ indirizzi programmatici della storiografia velleiana’, Vichiana 13, 249—64. Degrassi, A. 1952 Ifasti consolari dell'impero romano, Rome. Della Corte, F. 1937 ‘I giudizi letterari di Velleio Patercolo’, RJFK. 15, 154—9. Dench, E. 2005 Romulus' Asylum: Roman identitiesfrom the age ofAlexander to the age of Hadrian, Oxford. Develin, R. 1983 ‘Tacitus and the techniques o f insidious suggestion’, Antichthon 17, 64—95. Dickie, M. VC'. 2005 ‘The fathers o f the church and the evil eye’, in H. MacGuire (ed.) Byzantine Magic, Washington, 9-34.

350

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Dihle, A. 1955 ‘C. Velleius Paterculus’, R E 8A, 637-59. Dixon, S. 2007 Reading Roman Women, Bristol. Dobbins, J. J. 1994 ‘ Problems o f chronology, decoration and urban design in the forum at Pompeii’, A ]A 98, 629-94. Downey, G. 1975 ‘Tiberiana’, A N R W 2.2, 97-102. Drexler, H. 1944 Dignitas: Rektoratsrede vom 18. November 1943, Gottingen. 1958 ‘Principes - princeps’, Mata 10, 243-80. 1988 Politische Grundbegnffe der Romer., Darmstadt. Drummond, A. [Forthcoming] ‘T. Pomponius Atticus’, ‘Cornelius N epos’ in T. J. Cornell et al. (eds) The l :ragments of the Roman Historians, Oxford. Ducroux, S. 1978 ‘Histoire d’un portrait, portraits d’histonens: Tacite lecteur de Salluste’, M EFR A 90, 293-315. Dupont, F. 1997 ‘Recitatio and the reorganization o f the space o f public discourse’, in T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (eds) The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, 44-59. DuQuesnay, 1. M. Le M. 1981 ‘Virgil's first Eclogue', Papers of the First Iaverpool Latin Seminar [= ARC A Classical & Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 7], 29-182. Dyck, A. R. 1996 A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis, Ann Arbor. Eck, W., Gonzalez, J., et al. 1996 D as Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre, Gottingen. Eder, W. 1990 ‘Augustus and the power o f tradition: the Augustan Princtpate as binding link between Republic and Empire,’ in K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (eds), 77-122. Edmondson, J. (ed.) 2009 Augustus, Edinburgh. Egidi, R. 2004 ‘Fortuna Muliebris Aedes Tem plum ’, in A. l.a Regina (ed.) lexicon topographicum Urbis Romae Suburbium, Rome, 272-3. Elefante, M. 1992 Concordantia in Vellemm Paterculum, Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York. 1996 ‘Donne fedelissime, eccezionalt (Velleio Paterculo e la lex lulia de adultenis et de pudicitia)' in G. Germano (ed.) Classicita, medioevo e umanesimo: studi m onore di Salvatore Monti, Naples, 131-151. 1997 Velleius Paterculus, adM . Vmicium consulem libri duo, I lildesheim, Zurich, and New York. 1999 Velleio Patercolo. I due libri al consule Marco Vimao, Naples.

35 1

Consolidated bibliography 2004

‘In vino Opimiano... Veritas (VeUeio Paterculo 2,7, 5)’, in G. Indelli, G. Leone and F. Longo Auricchio (eds) Mathesis e mnetne: Studi in memona di Marcello Gigante, Naples., vol. II 123-132. F.rnout, A. and Meillet, A. (eds) 1959 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots (4th edition), Paris. Fear, A. T. 2010 Orosius, Seven Books opHistory against the Pagans, Liverpool. Feeney, D. C. 1986 ‘ “ Stat magm nominis umbra” . Lucan on the greatness o f Pompeius Magnus’, C fJ 36, 239-43. 1994 ‘ Beginning Sallust’s Catiline’, in V. J . Gray (ed.) Nile, Iltssosand Tiber, Essays in honour of Walter Kirkpatrick Lacey, Auckland, 139-46. 2007 Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient time and the beginnings of history, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Finley, M. I. 1967 The World of Odysseus, Harmondsworth. 1985 Ancient History: Evidence and models, London and New York. Flaig, K. 1995 ‘Entscheidung und Konsens. Zu den Feldern der politischen Kommunik­ ation zwischen Aristokratie und Plebs’, in M. Jehne (ed.) Demokratie m Rom?: die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der römischen Republik, Stuttgart, 77-127. Fletcher, G. B. A. 1945 ‘Some certain or possible examples o f literary reminiscence in T acitus’, CR 59, 45-50. 1964 Annotations on Tacitus, Brussels. 1971 ‘On the Annals o f Tacitus’, Latomus 30, 146-50. Flory, M. B. 1984 ‘Sic exempla parantur·. Livia’s shrine to Concordia and the Porticus Liviae’, Plistoria 33, 309-330. 1988 ‘Abducta Neroni uxor: the historiographical tradition on the marriage o f Octavian and Livia’, TAPhA 118, 343—59. 1989 ‘Octavian arid the omen o f the Gallina Alba’, C J 84, 343-56. 1996 ‘Dynastic ideology: the D om us Augusta and imperial women: a lost statuary group in the Circus Flaminius’, TAPhA 126, 287-306. Flower, H. I. 1995 ‘Fabulae Praetextae in context’, 6-245.1, 170—190. 1996 Ancestor M asks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford. Fornara, C. W. 1983 The Nature of History m Ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Forsythe, G. 1994 The Historian L Calpumius Piso Trugt and the Roman Annalistic Tradition, I -anham. Frankel, E. 1916 ‘Zur Geschichte des Wortes rides’, RhM ~l\, 187-199. Frazel, T. D. 2004 ‘The composition and circulation o f Cicero’s In Verrem’, CQ 54, 128—42.

352

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Fredenksen, M. W. 1984 Campania (ed. N. Purcell), London. Freyburger, G. 1986 tides: htude sémantique et religieuse depuis les originesjusqu'à l'époque augustéenne, Paris. Frier, B. W. 1979 Libri annalespontificorum maxmorum: The origins opthe annalistic tradition, Rome. Frisch, P. 1980 ‘Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums,’ Z P K 39, 93-98. Gabba, E. 1984 ‘The historians and Augustus’, in F. Millar and E. Segal (eds) Caesar, Augustus: Seven aspects, Oxford, 61-88. Gagé, J. 1963 Matronalia, Brussels. Galinsky, K. 1996 Augustan Culture: A n interpretive introduction, Princeton. 2005 (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Age oj Augustus, Cambridge. Gailivan, P. 1974 ‘Some comments on the Fasti for the reign o f N ero’, CQ 24, 291-311. Garzetti, A. 1974 From Tiberius to the Automnes (trans. J. R. Foster), London. Giebel, M. 2004 Velleius Paterculus: Histona Romana/Römische Geschichte. Lateinisch/Deutsch, Stuttgart. Ginsburg, J . 1981 Tradition and Theme in the Annals oj Tacitus, New Y ork. Goar, R. J. 1976 ‘Horace, Velleius Paterculus, and Tiberius Caesar’, Latomus 54, 43-54. Gorne, C. 2004 ‘Julia Dom na’s building patronage: imperial family roles and the Severan revival o f moral legislation’, Histona 53, 61-72. Gould, J. 1989 Herodotus, London and New York. Gowing, A. M. 1992 ‘Lepidus, the proscriptions and the Laudatio T unae’, Historia 41, 283-96. 2005 Empire and Memory: The representation oj the Roman Republic m Imperial culture, Cambridge. 2007 ‘The imperial Republic o f Velleius Paterculus’ in J. Marincola (ed.) A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, vol. II, 411—418. Graeber, A. 2001 Auctontas patrum: Formen und Wege der Senatsherrschaft zwischen Politik und Tradition, Heidelberg. Green, P. 1961 ‘The First Sicilian Slave War’, Past and Present 20, 10—29. Gruber, J. 2008 ‘Tacitus und der C)rt der Varus-Schlacht. Vom Zeugniswert der literarischen Quellen’, Gymnasium 115, 453—67.

353

Consolidated bibliography Gruen, H. 1974 The lasst Cieneration of the Roman Republic, Berkeley. 1992 Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Ithaca. Guadagno, G. 2000 ‘Stratificazione di fatti e di culture nella vicenda di S. Angelo in Formis’, in G. Luciano (ed.) Misten epresene, Naples. Gudeman, A. 1900 Tacitus De vita et monbusJulii Agricolae et De Germania, Boston. Halfmann, H. 1979 Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis %um hnde des 2.Jh. n. Chr., Gottingen. Hall, J. B. 1996 Review o f Andreae (1994) in CR 46, 389-90. Haltenhoff, A. 2005 ‘Römische Werte in neuer Sicht? Konzeptionell Perspektiven innerhalb und außerhalb der Fachgrenzen’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil and F. H. Mutschler (eds) Römische Werte als Gegenstand der Altertumswissenschaft, Leipzig, 81-105. 1lardie, P. 1986 Virgil's Aeneid: Cosm os and Imperium, Oxford. Harrison, J. H. (ed.) 2008 T . A . Judge. The Tirsi Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays, Tubingen. Harrison, S. J. 1990a (ed.) Oxford Readings in Virgil's Aeneid[ Oxford and New York. 1990b ‘Some views o f the Aeneid in the Twentieth Century'’, in Harrison (1990a). Haynes, H. 2003 The History of Make-Believe: Tacitus on Imperial Rome, Berkeley. Hedrick, C. 2006 Ancient History: Monuments and documents, Malden and London. Heimann, H. D., Knippschild, S. and Minguez, V. (eds) 2004 Ceremoniales, Ritosy Representación del Poder, Castellò de la Plana. Heinze, R. 1925 ‘Auctoritas’, Hermes 60, 348—66 [= Vom Geiste des Rbmertums (ed. E. Burck, 3rd edition) Darmstadt 1960, 43-58], 1928 Vergils epische Technik, Stuttgart. 1929 ‘Fides’, Hermes 64,140—166 [— Vom Geiste des Romertums (ed. E. Burck, 3rd edition) Darmstadt 1960, 59—81]. Hellegouarc’h, J. 1963 Te vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, Pans. 1972 Te vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (2nd edition), Paris. 1982 Velleius Paterculus. Histoire romaine, two vols., Pans. 1984 ‘Etat présent des travaux sur l’“ Histoire Romaine” de Velleius Paterculus’, A N R W l.y i.X , 404-36. Hellegouarc’h, J. and Jodry, C. 1980 ‘Les Res Gestae d’Auguste et VI Ustoria Romana de Velleius Paterculus’, laztomus 39, 80.3-16.

354

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Hemelri)k, E. 1999 Matrona Docta: Educated women m the Roman élitefrom Cornelia toJu lia Domna, London. 2005 ‘Octavian and the introduction o f public statues for women in Rom e’, Athenaeum 93, 309-17. 2006 ‘Masculinity and femininity in the Laudatio Turiae’, CQ 54, 185-97. Henderson, J. 1989 ‘Livy and the invention o f history’, m A. Cameron (ed.), 64—85. 2002 Pliny's Statue: The Letters, self-portraiture & classical art, Exeter. Herbert-Brown, G. 1994 Ovid and the Fasti, Oxford. Heurgon, J. 1942 Capouepréromaine, Pans. Hillard, T. W. 2005 ‘Respuhlica in theory and practice’, in K. Welch and T. Hillard (eds), 1-48. 2008 ‘Augustus and the evolution o f Roman concepts o f leadership’, Ancient History. Resources for Teachers 38.2 [2011, forthcoming], Hiltbrunner, O. 1981-1992 Bibliographie zur lateinischen Wortforschung (4 volumes), Berne. Hinds, Stephen 1998 Allusion and Intertext·. Dynamics of appropriation m Roman poetry, Cambridge. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 1996 ‘Exempla und mos maiorum·. Überlegungen zum kollektiven Gedächtnis der Nobilitat’, in H.-J. Gehrke and A. Möller (eds) Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt: Soziale Kommunikation, ’Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewusstsein, Tübingen, 301-338. 2004 Rekonstruktionen einer Republik. Die politischen Kultur des antiken Rom und die Forschung der letztenJahrzehnte, Munich. Hopwood, B. L. 2001 ‘ Livy and the repeal o f the lex Oppia’, Stele 5, 121-39. 2004 I hres Esto: Property, dignity, and the inheritance rights of Roman women 215 R cAD 14, PhD dtss., University o f Sydney. 2009 ‘Livia and the lex Voconia’, in K. Lom as anc! E. Herring (eds) Gender Identities m Italy in the First Millennium B( , Oxford, 146-7. Horsfall, N. 1989 Cornelius Nepos: A selection, including the laves of Cato and Atticus, Oxford. Huriet, F. 1997 Ix s collègues du pnnce sous Auguste et Tibère, Rome. Hüttner, U. 2004 Recusatio Imperii: Ein politisches Ritual zwischen Ethik und Taktik, Hildesheim. Indelli, G., et al. (eds) 2004 Mathesis e mneme: Studi in memoria di Marcello Gigante, Naples. Isager, J. 1991 Pliny on A rt and Society: The F.lder Pliny’s chapters on the history of art, London. Isayev, E. [Forthcoming] ‘Italian perspectives in the period o f the Gtacchan land reforms and

355

Consolidated bibliography the Social War’, in Is.. Lom as and K. Herring (eds) Creating Identities and lithniaties in the Roman World, Portsmouth (R.I.). Jacoby, F. 1904a D as Marmor Parium, Berlin. 1904b ‘ Über das Marmor Parium’, RhM 59, 63-107. Jähne, A. 1986 Spartacus: Kampf der Sklaven, Berlin. Jenkins, T. A. 2009 ‘Livia thephnceps·. gender and ideology in the consolatio ad Liviam', Helios 1, 1-25. Johnson, W. R. 1976 Darkness Visible: A study of Vergil's Aeneid, Berkeley. Jones, A. H. M. 1970 Augustus, London. Judge, K. A. 1961 ‘The Roman theory o f historical degeneration’, Hermes 58, 5—8 [=Harrison (2008) 52-8], 1964 ‘Roman literary memorials’, Proceedings of the 9"’ Congress of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association, 28-30 [—Harrison (2008) 69-71], 1974 “ ‘Res Publica Restituta” . A modern illusion?’, in J. A. S. Evans (ed.) Polls and Imperium: Studies in Honour of L . T. Salmon, Toronto, 279-311. 1977 ‘Caesar’s son and heir. In what sense was there a succession to Augustus?’, Occasional Paper, Macquarie University [=1 larrison (2008) 90-110], 1978 ‘ 1Vem. Vidi. Vici, and the inscription o f Cornelius Gallus’, Akten des V I Internationalen Kongresses fü r Griechische und Lateinische lipigraphik. München 1972 Vestigia 17, 571-3. 1980 ‘The eulogistic inscriptions o f the Augustan forum: Augustus on Roman history’, Papers of the Macquarie Continuing Education Conference for Ancient History Teachers, 1-26 [=Harrison (2008) 165—81]. 1991 ‘ “The Augustan Republic” : Tiberius and Claudius on Roman History’, Papers of the Macquane Ancient History Association Conference on Republicanism, Macquarie University, 87-95 [^Harrison (2008) 127-39], Raster, Robert 2002 'Invidia and the end o f Georgies 1’, Phoenix 56, 275-95. 2005 Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome, Oxford. Katz, B. 1985 ‘Varro, Sallust and the Pius aut de pace’, Carmstadt. Kierdorf, W. 1980 Laudatio Funebris: Interpretationen und Untersuchungen pur Ftntwicklung der römischen I Achenrede, Meisenheim am Glan. Kober, M. 2000 Die politischen Anfänge Octavians in der Darstellung des Vellerns und dessen Verhältnis pur historiographischen tradition, Wurzburg. Koestermann, E. (ed.) 1957 Cornelius Tacitus Histonae, Leipzig. Kramer, E. A. 2005 ‘ Book One o f Velleius’ History·, scope, levels o f treatment and non-Roman elements’, Historia 54, 144—61. Krostenko, B. 2005 ‘Style and ideology in Cicero’s Pro Marcello in K. Welch and T. W. Hillard (eds), 279-312. Kuntze, C. 1985 Zur Darstellung des Kaisers Tiberius und seiner Zeit bei Velleius Paterculus, Frankfurt am Main. Lana, I. 1952 Velleio Patercolo o della propaganda, Turin. Lattimore, R. 1934 ‘Portents and prophecies in connection with the Emperor Vespasian’, C J 29,441-9. Lausberg, H. 1998 Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A foundation for literary study (trans. T. Bliss, et al.), Leiden and Boston. Lepore, E. 1989 Ongmi e strutture della Campania antica, Bologna. Levick, B. 1967 ‘Imperial control o f the elections under the early Principate: commendatio, sujfragatio, and nominatio\ Historia 16, 207-30. 1975 ‘Julians and Claudians’, G & R 22, 29-38. 1976 Tiberius the Politician, London [ - revised 2nd edition, London and New York, 1999], 1990 Claudius, New Haven. 2003 ‘Augustan imperialism and the year 19 BC\ in A. F. Basson and W. J. Dominik (eds) Literature, Art, History: Studies on classical antiquity and tradition m honour of W. J . Henderson, Frankfurt, 306-15. 2007 Ju lia Domna: Syrian empress, London. Liddel, P. and Fear, A. (eds) 2010 Histonae Mundi: Studies m Universal hhstory, London. Lintott, A. W. 1972 ‘Imperial expansion and moral decline in the Roman Republic’, Historia 21,626-38. Littlewood, R. J. 2006 A Commentary on Ovid: Fasti Book VI, Oxford.

357

Consolidated bibliography Lobur,J. A. 2007 ‘Testmatio (haste), Brevitas (concision), and the generation o f imperiai ideology in Velleius Paterculus’, TAPhA 137, 211-30. 2008 Consensus, Concordia, and the Formation of Roman Imperial Ideology, London and New York. Lucas, J. 1974 Ees obsessions de Tante, Leiden. Luce, T. J. 1997 IJvy: The composition of his history, Princeton. Malitz, J. 1998 ‘Romertum im “ Dritten Reich” : Hans Opperm ann’, in P. Kneissl and V. Losemann (eds) lmpenum Romanum. Studien %u Ckschichte und Reception. Festschriftfu r Karl Christ ^um 75. Geburtstag Stuttgart, 519—543. Manolaraki, E. 2008 ‘Political and rhetorical seascapes in Pliny’s Panegyncus', CPh 103, 374-94. Maranón, G. 1956 Tiberius the Resentful Caesar; New York. Marco Simón, F. and Pina Polo, F. 2000 ‘Concordia y hbertas corno polos de referenda religiosa en la lucha politica de la republica tardia’, Gerìon 18, 261-92. Manncola, J. 1997 Authority and 7 radition in Ancient Historiography, Cambridge. 1999 ‘Genre, convention, and innovation in Greco-Roman historiography’, in C. S. Kraus (ed.) The lim its of Historiography, Leiden, Boston and Cologne, 281-324. 2007a ‘Speeches in classical historiography’, in id. (ed.) A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden and Oxford, voi. I, 118-32. 2007b ‘ LTmversal history from Flphorus to D iodorus’, in id. (ed.) A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden and Oxford. 2009 ‘Historiography’, in A. lirskine (ed.) A Companion to Ancient History, Malden, and Oxford. Marks, R. 2008 ‘Augustus and I: Horace and ‘Horatian’ identity in Odes 3.14’, A JPh 129, 77-100. Martelli, A. 2002 ‘Per una nuota lettura dell’iscrizione Vetter 61 nel contesto del santuario di Apollo a Pompei’, Eutopia: Rivista di studi sull'Europa antica II 2, 71-81. Martin, R. H. and Woodman, A. J. (eds) 1989 Tacitus Annals Book IV , Cambridge. Martindale, C. (ed.) 1997 The Cambridge Companion to Virgil\ Cambridge. McDonnell, M. 2006 Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic, Cambridge. McGonagle, D. J. 1970 Rhetoric and Biography in Velleius Paterculus, Ohio State University Doctoral Diss., Ann Arbor.

358

Velleius Paterculus: Making history McGushin, P. 1992 Sallust: The Histones, Oxford. Michel, A. 1960 ‘Le jugement de Cicéron sur les Gracques’, R E L 28, 35—6. Millar, F. 1967 ‘Emperors at work’, JR S 57, 9-19. 1973 ‘Triumvirate and Principate’,//£Y63, 50-67 [= Millar (2002) 241-270]. 1993 ‘Ovid and the Domus Augusta·. Rome seen from T om oi’, / Ä f 83, 1-17. 1998 The Crowd in Rome in the Ixite Republic, Ann Arbor. 2002 Rome, the Greek World, and the h ast (vol. 1, ‘The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution’), Chapel Hill and London. Miller, K. 1916 Itineraria Romana, Stuttgart. Mtlnor, K. 2005 Gender, Domesticity and the Age ofAugustus, Oxford. Moles, J. 1998 ‘Cry Freedom: Tacitus Annals 4.32-35’, Histos 2: http://w w w .dur.ac.uk/ Classics/histos/1998/m oles.htm l. 2002 ‘Reconstructing Plancus (Horace. G. 1. 7)’, J R S 92, 86-109. Morello, R. 2002 ‘Livy’s Alexander digression (9.17-19): counterfactuals and apologetics,’ JR S 92, 62-85. Morgan, M. G. 1973 ‘Villa Publica and Magna Mater’, Klio 55, 215—45. Morlcy, N. 2004 Theories, Models, and Concepts in Ancient History, London and New York. Mouritsen, H. _____ 1998 Italian Gntfuatton: A study m arment & modem historiography, London. Münzer, F. 1933 ‘L. Mummius (7a) \ in R E X V I.l, coll. 1195-1206. Murgatroyd, P. 2005 Mythical and legendary Narratives in Ovid's Fasti, Leiden. Murray, R. J. 1966 ‘Cicero and the Gracchi’, TAPhA 97, 291-8. Mutschler, F.-H. 2003 ‘Virtus 2002. Zur Rolle der “ römischen Werte” in der Altertumswissen­ schaft’, Gymnasium 110, 363—85. Narducci, Fl. 1979 ‘ 11 tronco di Pompeio,’ Maia 25, 317-25. North, J. A. 1992 ‘ Deconstructing stone theaters’, in Apodosis: Essays presented to D r W. W. Gruickshank to mark his Eightieth Birthday, London, 75—83. O ’Gorman, E. 2000 Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus, Cambridge. 2006 ‘Alternative empires: Tacitus’s virtual history o f the Pisonian Principate’, Arethusa 39, 281-301.

359

Oakley, S. P. 1997 A Commentary on l.ivy, Books VI—X , Oxford. Ogden, D. 2007 In Search of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice: The traditional tales of Lucian's Lover o f Lies, Swansea. Ogilvie, R. M. 1981 Review o f Frier (1979), JR S ~ l\, 199-201. 1984 ‘Tin Livi Lib. XCT, PC P S 210, 116-25. Oppermann, H. (ed.) 1967 Römische Wertbegriffe, Darmstadt. O sgood, J. 2006a Caesar’s Legacy: Civil war and the emergence of the Roman Umpire, Cambridge. 2006b ‘F.loquence under the triumvirs’, AJPh 127, 525—51. Ostrow, S. K. 1990 ‘The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme,’ in K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (eds), 564-379. Pagan, V. K. 2005 ‘The Pannoman Revolt in the Annals o f Tacitus’, Studies in Iaztin Literature and Roman History 12, 414—22. Pais, E. 1930 / basti di Roma. I Fasti Trionfali del Popolo Romano, Turin. Panoussi, V. 2007 ‘Threat and hope: women’s rituals and civil war in Roman epic’, in M. Parca and A .Tzanetou (eds), 114-136. Parca, M. and Tzanetou, A. (eds) 2007 Finding Persephone: Women's rituals in the ancient Mediterranean, Bloomington. Pelling, C. B. R. 1988 Plutarch: Life ofAntony, Cambridge. 1997a ‘ Biographical history? Cassius D io on the early principate’, in M. J. Edwards and S. Swain (eds) Portraiture in Ancient Literature, Oxford, 117-44. 1997b ‘Tragical dreamer: some dreams in the Roman historians’, C&RAA, 197-213. 1997c ‘East is east and west is west - O r are they? National stereotypes in H erodotus’, Histos 1. Electronic publication: http://w w w .dur.ac.uk/ Classics/histos/1997/pelling.htm l. 2002 Plutarch and History: F.ighteen studies, London and Swansea. 2006 ‘Breaking the bounds: writing about Julius Caesar’, in B. M cGing and J. Mossman (eds) The Limits ofAncient Biography, Swansea, 255—80. 2009 ‘Seeing through Caesar’s eyes: focalisation and interpretation’, in A. Rengakos and J. Grethlein (eds), Narratology and Interpretation, Berlin and New York, 507-26. Peter, H. 1897 Die geschichtliche Litteratur über die römische Kaisergeit, Leipzig. 1906 Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, Leipzig. Pina Polo, F. 2004 ‘La Celebraciön de la Muerte com o Simbolo de Poder en la Rom a republicana’, in H .■ D. Heimann et al. (eds), Ceremoniales, Ritosy Representation del Poder, Castellön de la Plana, 143-179.

360

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Pistellato, A. 200V ‘Seiano, Servio Tullio e la Fortuna. N ote a C II. VI 10213’, in G. C. Marrone and A. Pistellato (eds) Studi in Ricordi di Pulviomario Broilo, Padua, 487-512. Pitcher, L. 2009 Writing Ancient History: An introduction to Classical historiography, London. Pobjoy, M. P. 1997 ‘A new reading o f the mosaic inscription m the temple o f Diana Tifatina’, PBSR 65, 59-88. 2000 ‘The first ltalia\ in E. Herring and K. Lom as (eds) The Emergence of State Identities m Italy in the First Millennium B( , London, 187-211. Pollitt, J. J. 1986 A rt m the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge. Poschl, V. 1962 The A rt of Vergil. Image and Symbol in the Aeneid (trans. G. Seligson), Ann Arbor. Powell, A. 1992a ‘The Aeneid and the embarrassments o f Augustus’, in id. (ed.) 141-73. 1992b (ed.) Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age ofAugustus, London. 2002 ‘ “ An island amid the flame” : the strategy and imagery o f Sextus Pompeius, 43—36 BC’, tn id. and K. Welch (eds), 103—134. 2008 Virgil the Partisan·. A study m the re-integration of Classics, Swansea. Powell, A. and Welch, K. (eds) 2002 Sextus Pompeius, London and Swansea. Price, B. B. (ed.) 1997 Ancient Economic Thought, London and New York. Pugliese Carratelli, G. 1977 ‘ I Campi Flegrei nell’archeologia e nella storia’, A tti Convegm Lincei 3, 173-80. Purcell, N. 1986 ‘Livia and the womanhood o f Rom e’, P C P S32, 78—105. 1995 ‘On the sacking o f Carthage and Corinth’, in D. Innes, H. Hine, and C. B. R. Pelling (eds) Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical essays for Donald Russell on his seventy-fifth birthday, Oxford, 133=^48. Raaflaub, K. A. and Toher, M. (eds) 1990 Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and H is Pnncrpate, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Rabinowitz, P. 1987 Before Reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation, Ithaca. Rawson, E. D. 1975 ‘Caesar’s heritage: Hellenistic kings and their Roman equals’, JR S 65, 148-59 [~ Rawson 1991a, 169-188], 1977 ‘More on the Clientelae o f the Patrician Claudii’, Historia 26, 340-57 [= Rawson (1991a) 227-44], 1991a Roman Culture and Society, Oxford. 1991b ‘The first Latin Annalists,’ in ead. (1991a) 245-71.

361

Consolidated bibliography Rebenich, S. 2005 ‘Römische Wertbegriffe: Wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen aus althistorischer Sicht’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil and F.-H. Mutschler (eds) Römische Werte als Gegenstand der Altertumswissenschaft, Leipzig, 23—46. [= http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeum dok/volltexte/2007/ 66/(17/5/2010)] Reinhold, M. ----1985 ‘Human nature as cause in ancient historiography’, in J. W. Eadie and J. Ober (eds) The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Rssays in honor of Chester G. Starr, Lanham, 21-40; reprinted in (2002) Studies in Classical History and Society (ed. W. W. Briggs), New York and Oxford, 45-53. Rich, J. W. 1989 ‘D io on Augustus’, in A. Cameron (ed.) 86-110. 1990 Cassius Dio, the Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53—55.9), Warminster. 1997 ‘Structuring Roman history: the consular year and the Roman historical tradition’, online at h ttp ://w w w .durh am .ac.uk/C lassics/h istos/1999/ richl.html; revised and abridged version in J.D . Chaplin and C.S. Kraus (eds) Oxford Readings m Classical Studies: IJvy, Oxford. 1998 ‘Augus tus’ Parthian honours, the temple o f Mars Ultor and the arch in the Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66, 71—128. 1999 ‘Drusus and the Spolia Opima\ C Q d 9.2, 544-55. 2010 ‘Lies, deception and economy with the truth: Augustus and the establishment o f the Principate’, in A. Turner et al. (eds), 167-94. Rich, J. W. and Williams, J. H. C. 1999 ‘ Leges et Iura PR Restituit: a new aureus o f Octavian and the setdement o f 28-27 bc ’, Numismatic Chronicle 159, 169-21.3. Richardson, J. S. 1980 ‘The ownership o f Roman land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians’, /Ä T 70, 1-11. 2000 Appian: Wars of the Romans in Iberia, with an introduction, translation and commentary, Warminster. Richardson, L. 1976 ‘The evolution o f the Porticus Octaviae’, A ]A 80, 57-64. 1978 ‘Concordia and Concordia Augusta: Rome and Pompeii’, ParoladelPassato 3, 260-71. Ridley, R. 1983 F a lsi triumphi, plures consulatud, Ixitomus 42, 372—82. Rix, H. (ed.) 2002 Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte 5, Heidelberg. Roller, M. 2001 Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats andhmperors inJulio-Claudian Rome, Princeton and Oxford. Rood, T. 1998 Thucydides: Narrative and explanation, Oxford.

362

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Rosenstem, N. 1990 Imperatores victi: Military defeat and aristocratic competition in the middle and the late Republic, Berkeley. Rubincam, C. 1991 ‘The terminology o f power in the early Roman empire’, CA H 26, 155—71. Rüpke, J. 1990 Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart. Rutledge, S. H. 2001 Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and informants from Tiberius to Domitian, London. Ryberg, 1. S. 1942 ‘Tacitus’ art o f tnnuendo’, TAPhA 73, 383—404. Sacks, K. S. 1990 Diodorus and the First Century, Princeton. Sauron, G. 2000 I.'histoire vegetalisee: omement etpolitique ä Rome, Paris. Scardino, C. 2007 Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und Thukydides, Berlin and New York. Schanz, M. and Hostus, C. 1935 Geschichte der römischen lateratur bis zum Gesetzgebung des KaisersJustmians. 2: Die römische Iateraturin der Zeit der Monarchie bis aufHadrian (4* edition), Munich. Scheid, J. 2007 Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Hauts Faits du Divin Auguste, Parts. Schmidt, H. H. 1958 ‘Der Pannomsche Aufstand des Jahres 14 n.Chr. und der Regierungsantritt des Tiberius’, Historia 7, 378—83. Schmidt, P. L. 1995 ‘Die deutsche Latinistik vom Beginn bis in die 20er Jahre des 20. J ahrhunderts’, in H. Flashar (ed.) Altertumswissenschaft m den 20erfahren. Neue Fragen und Impulse, Stuttgart, 115—182. _ 2005 . ‘.Zwischen Werttheorie, Begnffsgeschichte und Romertum. Zur Politisierung eines wissenschaftlichen Paradigmas’, in A. Haltenhoff, A. Heil, F.-H. Mutschler (eds) Römische Werte als Gegenstand derAltertumswissenschaft, Leipzig, 3-22. Schmitzer, U. 2000 Vellerns Paterculus und das Interesse an der Geschuhte im Zeitalter des Tiberius, Heidelberg. 2004 Friede aufP.rden? IMtimstische Untersuchungen zurpax Augusta m interdisziplinärer Perspektive, Berlin. 2007 ‘Tatsachenbericht oder literarische Fiktion? Vtlleius Paterculus über die clades Variana’, in G. A. Lehmann and R. Wiegels (eds) Römische Prasen^und Herrschaft im Germanien der augusteischen Zeit. Der Fundplatz von Kalknese im Kontext neuerer Forschungen und Ausgrabungsbefunde. Beitrage zp der Tagung des Fachs Alte Geschichte der Universität Osnabrück und der Kommission „Imperium und Barbaricum“ der GöttingerAkademie der Wissenschaften in Osnabrück vom 10. bis 12. Juni 2004, Göttingen, 399—417.

363

Consolidated bibliography Schob, F. A. 1908 “Velleius Paterculus und seine literar-historische Abschnitte’, diss. Tübingen. Schultz, C. K. 2006 Women's Religious Activity in the Roman Republic, Chapel Hill. 2007 ‘Sanctissima femma·. social categorization and women’s religious experience in the Roman Republic’, in M. Parca and A. Tzanetbu (eds), 92-113. Schultze, C. 2000 ‘Authority·, onginality and competence in the Roman Archaeology o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus’, Histos 4 (not paginated): http://w w w .dur.ac.uk/ Classics/histos/2000. 2010 ‘ Universal and particular in Velleius Paterculus: Carthage versus Rome’, in P. Liddel and A. Fear (eds). Schwabe, L. 1900 Teuffel's History of Roman Literature (trans. G . C. W. Warr), London. Schwindt, J. P. 2000 ‘Literaturgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte: Velleius Paterculus,’ Prolegomena yu einer 'Phänomenologie' der römischen Literaturgeschichtsschreibung, Gottingen, 139-52. Seager, R. 1972 Tiberius, London [= 2nd edition, Oxford, 2005], 2002 Pompey the Great (2nd edition), Oxford. Seitz, W. 1974 Maiestas. Bedeutungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Wortes in der Republik und Kaiseryeit (bis ca. 200 n. Chr.), diss. Innsbruck. Setala, P. (et al.) 1999 Female Networks and the Public Sphere in Roman Society, Rome. 2002 Women, Wealth and Power in the Roman Empire, Rome. Severy, B. 2003 Augustus and the Family at the Dawn ofthe Roman Empire, London. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1984 ‘Notes on Velleius’, CQ 34, 445—51. Shaw, B. D. (ed.) 2001 Spartacus and the Slave Wars: A briefhistory with documents, Boston. Sherwin-White, A. N. 1973 The Roman Citizenship (2nd edition), ( )xford. Shipley, F. W. 1924 Velleius Paterculus: Compendium ofRoman history, Cambridge (Mass.) and London. Shotter, D. C. A. 1967 ‘Tacitus Annals 1.13’, CPh 62, .37-9. Simon, H. 1962 Roms Kriege in Spanien, 154-153 v. Chr, Frankfurt am Main. Simpson, C .J. 1991 ‘Livia and the constitution o f the aedes Concordiae·. the evidence o f Ovid’s Fasti 1.637f f ’, Historia 40, 449—55. Sinclair, P. 1991 ‘Rhetorical generalizations in Annales 1-6: a review o f the problem o f Tacitus’ integrity’, A N R W2.33.4, 2795-831.

364

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Stadter, P. A. 1972 ‘The structure o f Livy’s history’, Historia 21, 287-307. Starr, R. J. 1980 ‘Velleius’ literary techniques in the organization o f his history’, TAPhA 110, 287-301. 1981 ‘The scope and genre o f Velleius’ History’, CO 31, 162—4. Steffen, H .J. 1954 Die Regierung des Tiberius in der Darstellung des Velleius Paterculus, Kiel. Steinby, E. M. (ed.) 1996 lexicon 'Topographicum Urbis Romae, Rome. Strasburger, H. 1938 Caesars Hintritt in die Geschichte, Munich. Sumi, G. S. 2005 Ceremony and Power Performingpolitics in Rome between Republic and hmpire, Ann Arbor. Sumner, G. V. 1967 ‘Germanicus and Drusus Caesar’, Ixitomus 26, 413—35. 1970 ‘The truth about Velleius Paterculus: prolegomena’, H SC P 74, 257-97. 1979 Review o f Woodman (1977) in CPh 74, 64—8. Sussman, L. A. 1977 ‘Arellius Fuscus and the unit}· o f the elder Seneca’s Suasonae,' RhM 120, 303-23. Swan, P. M. 2004 The Augustan Succession: An historicalcommentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 55-56, Oxford. Syme, R. 1939 The Roman Revolution, Oxford. 1955 ‘Marcus Lepidus, capax im perii',]RS 45, 22-33 |=Sym e (1970) 30—49], 1956a ‘Seianus on the Aventine’, Hermes 84, 257-266 [= Syme (1979) 305—14], 1956b ‘Missing persons’, Histona 5, 204—12 [=Syme (1979) 315-24]. 1958a Tacitus, Oxford. 1958b ‘Imperator Caesari, H isto n al, 172-88. 1960 ‘ Piso Frugi and Crassus Frugi’, JR S 50, 12—20. 1970 Ten Studies m Tacitus, Oxford. 1974 ‘History or biography: the case o f Tiberius Caesar’, Histona 23, 481-96 [=Syme (1984) 937-52]. 1978 ‘ Mendacity in Velleius’, A JP 99, 45-63 [=Syme (1984) 1090-1104], 1979 Roman Papers I (eds E. Badian and A. R. Birley), Oxford. 1984 Roman Papers III (ed. A.R. Birley), Oxford. 1986 The Augustan Aristocracy, ( )xford. Takacs, S. T. 2008 Vestal Virgins, Sibyls and Matrons, Austin. Talbert, R. J. A. 1984 The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton. Tarrant, R. J. 1997 ‘Poetry' and power: Virgil’s poetry in contemporary context’, in C. Martindale (ed.) 169-87.

365

Consolidated bibliography Thomas, R. ----1982 Iumds and Peoples in Roman Poetry: The ethnographical tradition, Cambridge. Thome, G. 2000 Wertvorstellungen der Römer (2 volumes), Bamberg. Timpe, D. 1962 Untersuchungen gur Kontinuität desfrühen Pnngipats, Wiesbaden. Torelli, M. 1996 ‘ Donne, domi nobiles ed evergeti a Paestum tra la fine della Repubbltca e l’inizio dell’Impero’, in M. Cebeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), 153-75. 1999 Tota Italia: bssays in the culturalformation of Roman Italy, Oxford. Toynbee, A. J. 1965 Hannibal's legacy: The Hannibalic War’s effects on Roman life, Volume II, London. Trankle, H. 1968 ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, WS 81,103-52. Treggiari, S. 2005 ‘Women in the time o f Augustus’ in K. Galinsky (ed.), 130—50. 2007 Terentia, Tullia andPublilia, Oxford and New York. Turner, A., Chong-Gossard, J. H. K. O. and Vervaet, F. (eds) 2010 Private and Public Lies. The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World (Impact o f Empire 11), Leiden. Urbainczyk, T. 2008 Slave Revolts in Antiquity, Berkeley. Van H oof, A. J. L. 1990 From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self killing in ClassicalAntiquity, London and New York. Vittinghoff, F. 1951 Römische Kolonisation und Burgerrechtspohtik unter Caesar und Augustus, Mainz. Vivenza, G. 1997 ‘The classical roots o f benevolence in economic thought’, in B. B. Price (ed.), 191-210. Volkmann, H. 1975 'Mos Maiorum als Grundzug des Augusteischen Prinzipats,’ in Hndoxos Duleia: kleine Schriften gur alten Geschichte, Berlin, 173-90. Vollmer, F. 1891 ‘Laudationurn funebnum Romanorum historia et reliquiarum editio’, Jahrbücherfür dassische Philologie Suppl.-Bd. 18, Leipzig. Von Fritz, K. 1957 ‘Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the problem o f the Principate’, CPh 52, 73-97. Walbank, F. W. 1979 A Historical Commentary on Polybius (vol. 3), Oxford. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1997 ‘Mutatio Morum: The idea o f a cultural revolution’, in T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (eds) The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, 3-22.

366

Velleius Paterculus: Making history 2005

'Mutatas Formas: the Augustan transformation o f Roman knowledge’, in K. Galinsky (ed.), 55-84. Walsh, P. G. 1974 Lily. Greece & Rome Slew Surveys in the Classics 8, Oxford. Walton, F. R. 1967 Diodorus ofSicily The Library of History Books X X X IIl-X L , Cambridge (Mass). Watt, W. S. (ed.) 1998 Vellei Paterculi Historiarum adM . Vinicium consulem libri duo, Leipzig. Wegeier, C. 1996 ‘...wir sagen ab der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik’, Altertumswissen­ schaft und Nationalsozialismus. Das Göttinger Institut für Altertumskunde 1921-1962, Vienna. Welch, K. 1995 ‘Antony, Fulvia and the ghost o f Clodius in 47 b c ’, G & R 42, 182-201. 2009 ‘Alternative memoirs: tales from ‘the other side’ o f the civil war’, in C. Smith and A. Powell (eds) The 1lost Memoirs ofAugustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, Swansea, 195-223. [forthcoming] Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompems and the transformation ofthe Roman Republic, Swansea. [forthcoming] “Why Pietas? How and why to advertise the avoidance o f despotism in 29 BCE’. Welch, K. and Hillard, T. W. (eds) 2005 Roman Crossings. Theory and Practice in the Roman Republic, Swansea. W'ellesley, K. 1967 ‘The dies impeni o f Tiberius’, JR S 57, 23—30. 1986 (ed.) Cornelius Tacitus. Annales A7-ATT, Leipzig. Whitehead, D. 1979 ‘Tacitus and the loaded alternative’, l/itomus 38, 474—95. Wiedemann, T. F.. J. 1996 ‘Tiberius to N ero’, CVUP X, 198-282. W'iemer, H.-U. 2002 Krieg / landel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen yur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos, Berlin. Will, W. 1983 ‘Imperatores victi. Zum Bild besiegter römischer Konsuln bei Livius’, Histona 32, 173-82. Wiseman, T. P. 1971 New Men in the Roman Senate 7)9 B(-AD 14, Oxford. 1979 Clio's Cosmetics: Three studies in CPeco-Roman literature, Leicester and Totowa

(NJ). 1987 1988 1992 1998 2002

Roman Studies, Liverpool. ‘Killing Caligula’, Pegasus, 2-9 [= Wiseman (1992), 1-13], Talking to Virgil. A Miscellany, Kxeter. ‘Valerius Antias and the Palimpsest o f History’ in Roman Drama and Roman History, Exeter, 75—89. ‘ Roman history and the ideological vacuum’, in id. (ed.) Classics m Progress: Hssays on ancient Greece and Rome, ( Oxford, 285-310.

367

Consolidated bibliography 2007 ‘Names remembered, names suppressed’, JR A 20, 421-8. 2009 Remembering the Roman People, Oxford. Witte, B. 1963 Tacitus und Augustus, Munster. Woodman, A. J. 1969 ‘Sallustian influence on Velleius Paterculus’, m j. Bibauw (ed.) Hommagesd M. Renard., Brussels, vol. I 785-99. 1975 ‘Questions o f date, genre and style in Velleius: some literary answers’, CQ 25, 272-306. 1977 Velleius Paterculus. The Tiberian Narrative (2.94-131), Cambridge. 1983 Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41-93), Cambridge. 1988 Rhetoric in Classical Historiography, London and Sydney. 1995 ‘A death in the first act: Tacitus, Annals 1.6’, Papers of the Neds International Latin Seminar 8, 257-73. 1997 ‘The First Century AD’, in C. S. Kraus & id. (eds), Latin Historians, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 27, Oxford, 82-7. 2004 Tacitus: The Annals, Indianapolis. 2007 Sallust: Catiline’s War, theJugurthine War, Histories, Harmondsworth. Wright, A. 2002 ‘Velleius Paterculus and L. Munatius Plancus’, CPh 97,178-84. Yarrow, L. 2006a Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule, Oxford. 2006b ‘Lucius Mummius and the spoils o f Corinth’, Scripta Classica Israelica 25, 57-70. Yavetz, Z. 1988 Plebs and Princeps, New Brunswick. Zanker, P. 1968 P'orum Augustum; das Bildprogramm, Tubingen. 1988 The Power of Images in the Age ofAugustus (trans. Alan Shapiro), Ann Arbor. 1998 Pompeii: Public and private life, Harvard.

368

INDEX

Accius 284 Acerram 37 Achaia 336 Achillas 335 Actium 214, 219 Aeclanum 2, 24, 59-60 Aeneas 69, 77, 185, 224-6 Afranius 284 Africa 104, 289, 302 Agrippa M. 2, 43, 131, 208-9, 227 Agrippa Postumus 4, 125,146, 149 Agrippa Postumus (impostor) 146-7, 149 Agrippina the elder 198, 323 Agnus 66 Alba Fucens 35 Alba Longa 26 Alcmaeon, last archon for life 33 Alesia 164, 167 Alexander the Great 30-1, 79-80,168, 257, 259 in Livy 339 .Alexandria 80, 143, 153 Altinum 25 Amemocles 83 Amplus T., law of 226, 283, 292, 299 Anchises 69 Anicius 114, 123 Antiochus the Great 39 Antonia Minor 215 Apollodorus 78, 81 Appian 142, 157,166, 168, 312, 315, 317 Appius Claudius Caecus 339 Appius, son of Caecus 38 Apulia 24 Aquae Sextiae 39 Aquilius M. 182 Ara Pacis 192 Arbaces 30, 212 Archilochus 77, 83 Armenia 184, 303 Arminius 145 Artaxata 145 Ascanius 66 Asconius 106 Asculum 24, 287 Asinius Pollio 24, 43, 95, 104, 131, 182, 336 Assyria/Assyrians 29-30, 77-9, 212 Athens/Athemans 26, 29, 61, 78, 226 Atia, mother of Augustus 342

Atticus 75, 81-4, 86, 205 A ugustales 206

Augustus x, 36, 61-3, 79, 95, 98, 107, 113—4, 129, 131, 167, 169-72, 192-5, 207-8, 219-26,228,235-6,282,295, 308-9, see also under Velleius birth 41 building projects 261 Caesar, name taken by 302-3, 342 clupeus virtutis 180,224—5 coinage 193 nomenclature 338 princeps Romam nominis 337, 345 Res Gestae 97, 103, 343 Scribonia, marriage to 320 statue of 259 Auximum 39, 280 Baiae 64 Batavian Revolt 143 Bathyllus 282 Beatus Rhenanus 76-7 Beneventum 25 Bibulus M. 115, 169, 293 Bithynia 115 Bononia 38 Bovillae 24 Britannia 164 Brundisium 24, 38, 66, 163 Brutus Callaicus D 220 Brutus D. 125 Brutus L. 158 Brutus M x,2, 98,115, 165, 214-5 Buxentum 39 Bv/antium 131 Cadmus 78 Caecilius, comedian 284 Caecina 133 Caelian Hili 9, 196 Caelius M. 24,166, 171,214 Caepio Q. cos. 106 B( 282 Caepiones 280 Caesar Gaius, grandson of Augustus 3, 7, 9-10, 22-3, 39, 42, 285, 323 Caesar, Julius 23, 36, 74, 97, 99-101, 104, 106, 108—9, 123—4, 126, 129, ch. 8 passim , 180, 274-5, 283, 289,292-7, 319-320, 340-4, see also under Velleius

369

Index Caesetius 171 Calabria 24 Calatia 24 Cales 279 Caligula see Gaius Calpurnia 215 Campania 24-5, 27, ch 3 passim , 183, 293, 310 Campi Raudn 24 Capetus 66 Capri 64 Capua 2, 19, 23-5, 28-33, 40, 59-60, 63-70, 74-5, 77, 142 Capys 66, 68—9 Caranus 30-2, 34 Carbo 22 Carthage 29-31, 34, 43, 74, 77, 79-80,125, 131,221,258, 267, 339-4-0 Carvilius Sp. 43, 131, 336 Casilinum 24, 67, 80 Cassius Dio 143, 157, 166-8, 207, 253, 310-1, 324 Cassius Hemina 80 Cassius Longinus C , censor 154 bc; 154, 280-2 Cassius Longinus C., conspirator 115, 209, 214-5,280 Cassius Severus 206 C'astor of Rhodes 79, 81 Castrum 38, 280 Catiline 147, 159-60, 166, 291, 339 Cato the Censor 32, 43, 69,159,182, 336 Ongines 29, 31, 64-5, 80 Cato of Utica xi, 98-9,125,131,165,274, 295, 301 Catulus Q. 108, 162, 290, 300 Caudium 24 Cecrops 78, 83 Ceres/Cerealia 26, 61 Chalkis/Chalkidians 26, 61, 63, 66, 83 Chromkon Romanum 8 3— 4 Cicero x, 24, 41, 74, 81, 83-4, 98, 103, 126, 142, 161, 165, 180, 195, 205, 214, 220, 222,228-9,253,274,288,293, 301, 339-40 and historiography 159- 60 novus homo 43, 131, 336 Pompey, attitude to 113, 288 rapid composition of 86 Cimon son of Miltiades ^6, 79 (dnna, Cornelius L. 158, 213, 273 Cavil War 41,294—'7, 303, 340; see also Caesar, Pompey Claudia Q. 284 Claudius Quadrigarius 37, 75 (demens, slave of Agrippa Postumus 146 Cleopatra 166, 214 Clodius 61, 125, 165-6, 293 Clusium 24

Codrus 25, 78,214, 226 Coelius Antipater 75 Colline Gate, battle of 20, 41, 125, 283 Compsa 24, 60,183 Concordia 319-24 (.ornolatio a d Liviam 324 Corbulo 145 Corfinium 24, 45, 163 Corinth/Corinthian 29, 35, 43, 74, 76, 80, 131, 25.3-7, 267-8, 284 Coriolanus 315—6, 319 Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi 128, 233 Cornelia, wife of Pompey 335 Coruncanius, Ti. 131, 336 Crassus, Licinius M. 23, 126, 141-3, 149-52, 158, 169, 221,293-4 Cremona 38, 280 Cremutius Cordus 172, 215 Cumae 26—8, 61-4, 125, 181 Curio C. 166, 275, 294-5 Cyclops 106 Cyprus 125 Cyrene 60 Cyzicus 13 Daesidiates 134 Dalmatia x, 3-4, 7, 104, 134, 188, 193, 210, 220, 228 Decius Magius x, 2, 59-60,183, 209 Deems Mus 38 delatores 10 Delphi 314—5 Demetrius of Phaleron 29 Dertona 40 Diana Tifatina 66-9 DidiusT 60, 183 Dido see Elissa Diodes 77 Diodorus Siculus 25, 79, 81, 148 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 66, 203, 314—5 Dionysus 82 Dolabella 162 D o m itiu s 163

Drusus, Claudianus L. 309, 323 Drusus, Claudius Nero 7, 13,159, 227-8, 323 Dyrrachium 296, 302 Egnatius Rufus 214 Egypt 123, 297 Elissa 30 Ennius 98, 20'7 Epeus 25 Eratosthenes 33, 78, 81 Eretria 26 Etruscans 34—5, 64—5 ,in , 130, 339 Eumachia 323 Eunus148

370

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Eusebius 62 Eutropius 86 Eabius Pictor 77 Fabius Q. 38 Fabrateria 39 Falerii Novi 28 Faventia 24 Festus 8 Fidentia 24 fides 181-6 Firmum 38, 280 Flavius Sabinus 145 Flora 280, 282 Floralia 38 Formiae 280 Fortuna/Fortune 68,167, 302-3, 309-11, 317-20 Fortuna Muliebris 317-8 Fregellae 39, 271 Fulvia, wife of Antony 310—1, 314, 325 Fulvius Flaccus 69, 271 Fulvius Nobilior 39 Fundi 280 Gabimans 182 Gabinius 290, 298 Gades 25, 77 Gaius, Ivmperor 10, 215 Galba, Fmperor 151, 153, 285 Gallic Revolt 228 Gallic War 106, 108, 161, 164 Gaul/Gauls 37, 39, 293, 298, 319, 338 Germanicus Caesar 7-9, 197-8, 215 Germans, character of 187 Germany x, 3-4, 6, 8, 24, 133, 184, 188, 193, 227-8, 285 Germany, classical scholarship in 178—9 Gracchus C 9-11, 22-3, 39, 41, 122, 125, 12'7- 9 , 131,214, 224, 231 -4, 270-1 Gracchus T. 11, 21-2, 40, 122, 124-5, 127-9, 227, 231-3, 269-7 l Granicus 257, 259 Hadrian 206-7 Hannibal 19, 25, 38, 60, 63, 69, 339 Hecataeus 66 Helvidius Priscus 206 Heracles 82 Herculaneum 24, 60, 183 Herodotus 82, 124 Hesiod 31-2, 64-6, 74, 77, 80, 189, 212 Hippokles 26, 61 Hirpini 19, 25, 60, 183 Hirtius 75 Homer 30-1, 64, 77, 80, 189, 208, 223, 284 honor 197-8

Horace 185, 320 Hortensia 312-5, 317 Hortensius Q. 32, 60, 108 Hostilius Mancinus 269 Ischia 64 Iullus Antonius 261 lunius luncus 115, 168, 170 Iuventius Laterensis 216 Janus, temple of 192 Josephus 323 Juba 297 Judaea 323 Jugurtha 145, 272 Julia, daughter of Augustus 283, 323 Julia, granddaughter of Augustus 4 Julia, mother of Marc Antony 311, 314 Julia, wife of Pompey 164, 275, 294, 299-300, 319-20 Julia Augusta, i.e Livia 325 Julia Domna 319 Julius Florus 228 Julius Sacrovir 228 J unia Tertulla 324 J uno Regina 284 Jupiter Capitolinus 194, 237, 343 Kalknese, probable site of clades V anana 187 Kapys; see Capys Labienus T. 206 Laeli 43, 131 Lambaesis 206 Latinus, son of Odysseus 66 Latmus, grandfather of Romulus 130 Laudatio lu n ae 312, 323 Laurentine marshes 24 Lepcis 169 Lepidus, Aemilius M triumvir 158, 169-70 Lepidus, Aemilius M. cos. 6 AD 220-1 Lepidus M. cos 78 B( 76, 214-5, 220-1 Libo Drusus 9 Licinii 144, 150-2 Lipsius ^6 Livia 59, 61, 113, 167, 170, 188, ch. 16passim omen at her betrothal 318 porticus etc. of 321-4 Livius Drusus M. 127, 2"72 Livy 25, 60, 62, 80, 94-6, 100-3, 160-1,182, 205, 253, 281-2, 284, 339 rapid composition of 86 women, attitude to 314—5, 319-20 Lucan 106, 319-20 Luculli 108 Lucullus, Licinius L 115, 123, 150, 226, 290-2, 298-301,338

371

Index Lupercalia 165 Lycurgus 50, 34, 212 I.ydia 25, 77 Lysippus 220, 257 Macedon/Macedomans 29-30, 37, 79, 259 Maecenas 207 Magius Celer Velleius x, 19 Magius Surus M. 60 Magius Velleianus 1,4—5 Magnesia 26 Mancinus Hostilius 127 Manilius C. 290, 298 Manilius M. 338 Manlius T 192 Manlius Tullius 103 Manlius Vulso 39 Mare Antony 24, 73-4, 98,105, 113,115, 123, 158,165, 170,213,290,298, 303, 316, 336 Marcellus, Claudius M. 109, 283 Marica 24 Marius C. 2, 5, 98, 126, 129-31, 160,162, 213, 271-3,287, 312, 335—6, 343-5 Maroboduus 111,1 32-3 Mars/Mars Gradivus 34, 194, 237, 261, 337, 343-5 »Marsi 24 Marullus 171 Massilia 112, 131 Matralia 321 Medes 29, 77-8, 212 Medon/Medontidae 337 Megasthenes 26, 61 Memmius 160 Messalla, censor 154 Bt. 281 Messalla Corvinus 215 Metapontum 25 Metelli 220, 222, 260, 268 Metellus Creticus 108, 115, 123, 226, 291-2, 299-301 Metellus L. cos. 250 bc 222 Metellus Macedonicus 80, 129, 195, 220, 230, 254,257-61 Metellus Numidicus 160, 189 Milo 24, 61, 171,214,293-4 Minataus Magius x, 2,19, 28, 32, 59-60,183, 185 Mineia 323 Minturnae 24, 129, 280 Misenum 24—5 Peace o f 310 Mithridates, King of Pontus 182-3, 273, 289, 291,298 Molossia 37 Mucia, mother of Sextus Pompeius 31"' Mummius L. 2, 35, 43, 80,131,220, 230, 253-8, 267-9, 336-7

Munatia Plancina 7 Munatius Plancus 7 Munda, battle of 129 Murbach codex ”74, 76 Mutina 24 Mytilene 182-3, 335 Narbo 40 Naulochus, battle o f 317 Neapolis (Naples) 24-8, 61-4,125,181, 283, 310 Nepos, Cornelius 29, 81-2, 86,162 Nerva, Emperor 151 Nicolaus of Damascus "I9, 81 Ninus "'S Nola 24, 30-2, 64, 74-5, 77 Norbanus C. 67 Numa Pompilius 186 Numantia 122,127,221, 272 Numitor 35 Octavia, sister of Augustus 312, 314, 317, 320-1 Octavius Cn. 123, 258 Octavius, colleague of T Gracchus 231 Octavius/Octavian see Augustus Olympiads/Olympic Games 30, 33—4, 77, 82, 85,283 Opimius L./Opimian wine 10, 39, 42, 232-3, 268, 2?0-l Orestes 25 Oscans 61,63,181 Ostia 24-5 Otho, Emperor 151 Ovid 97, 199, 284, 321-2, 340, 342, 345 Pacuvius 284 Paestum 323 Palinurus, promontory of 318 Pan 82 Panaetius 268 Pannoma x, 24, 45, 104,110, 133, 184, 188, 193,210,228 Parian Marble 83—4 Parilia 34 Parthenope 63 Parthia 338 patratus use o f by Velleius and Tacitus 145—6 Paullus, Aemilius L. 123, 221,260, 266-7, 281, 298 p a x 192-5 Peloponnesian War 83 Pelops 78 penes, use of by Velleius and Tacitus 145 Perseus, Kang of Macedon 35, 76, 123, 182 Perusia 24-5, 129, 303 Perustae 134

372

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Pharnaces 166, 291, 298 Pharsalus 105, 166, 296-7, 301, 340-1 Philippi 160, 303, 324 Philippus, stepfather of Augutus 342 Philopoemen 256 Phocaea 131 Picentes/Picenum 23-5, 28, 38, 274, 288 Piraeus 227 Piso, Calpurnius L. 8,12, 210 Piso Cn. 159 Piso Frugi Licinianus 151 Pithecusae 62 Placentia 38, 280 Plancus 182 Pliny the Elder 86, 324 Pliny the Younger 199 Plutarch 157,165—6,168, 222, 320 Polybius 81, 96,121,222, 253,256, 268 Pompeii 24, 60, 183, 323 Pompeius Cn. 213, 274 Pompeius Macer Q 6 Pompeius Magnus x, 4, 9, 23, 61, 74, 76, 97-8, 106,108, 113-7,123-4,126, 130,142, 158, 161,163-4, 169, 191,196,212-3, 220-2, 226-7, 274-5, 283, ch. 15 passim ., 319-20, 340-2, 345; see under Velleius Pompeius Q., cos. 141 B(. 122, 220, 337 Pompeius Rufus Q. 287 Pompeius, Sextus 24, 228-9, 283, 303, 310, 317-8 Pompeius Strabo 287-9, 297, 301 Pompeius Trogus 25, 29, 79, 81 Pompomus Bononiensis L. 234, 284 Pomponius Flaccus L. 9-10, 234 Pompomus M., friend of C. Gracchus 234 Pompomus Secundus Q. 10, 12 Pontius Telesinus 20, 41, 125, 283, 340 Popilius Laenas P 124-5 Posidonius 81 Postumius Sp. 37 Praeneste 24, 147 Priam 106 Procyda 62 Ptolemy VI 60 Ptolemy XIII 123, 125 Publilius Philo 37 Puteoli 39 Pylades 282 Pyrrhus, King of F^pirus 37-8, 79—80, 280 Quintilian 106 Raeti 184, 228 Remus 66, 11 Rhascupolis/Rhescupons 9,145, 234 Rhodes 109, 181-3, 235-6 Rome

in 255, 258 chronology of 80-4 colomes of 35-40, 46-7, 80, 268, 279-80 dating by 30 foundation of 34—5, 42, 66, 76, 82 Gauls, sacked by 37, 40, 83, 280 historical exempla provided by 98 luxuna in 266—8 name of ch. 17 passim women’s role in 311-9 Romulus 34—5, 66, 98,130, 342, 344 Roscius 283 Rubicon 166, 168, 296 Rufus lignatius 124 Rupilius P 124-5 avan tia

Sabine women 34, 319, 322 Sabines 38, 130 Sacriportus 24 Salernum 39 Sallust 79, 87, 96, 98, 145, 147, 152, 159-60, 166, 229,255 Salus 324—6 Samnites 21, 283 Samos 83 Sardanapalus 212 Scipio Aemilianus 22, 41, 122, 131, 221-3, 230, 254, 266-8 Scipio Africanus 98, 127-8, 131, 233, 266, 33^-8 Scipio Nasica 220, 232-3, 258, 268-70 Scipio Nasica Corculum 281-2 Scribonia 151, 320, 323 Segestes 124 Sejanus 5, 7-8, 12-3, 43-4, 59, 77, 85-6, 131-2, 136, 170,178, 184-5,198, 210,215, 227-8, 276 Sempronius Asellio 121 Sempromus Sophus 38 Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre 324 Seneca the lilder 62, 116,161,205 Seneca the Younger 99 Sertonan War 76, 141 Servilia 215 Servius grammaticus 66 Servius, King of Rome 321 Servius Sulpicius 103 Sicily 24, 142, 148, 289, 309-10, 318 Silius Italicus 68-9 Silius P. 3 Silvanus 133 Sinuessa 280 Social War 20, 23, 27, 45, 60, 130, 209, 213, 272, 287, 297 Solon 83 Spain 112, 141, 268-9, 289, 294, 299 Sparta 30, 212

373

Index Spartacus 23,141-2,144, 14^-8, 152-3, 221 Spoletium 38, 280 Statilius Taurus 43, 131 Strabo 62, 81,253 Suetonius 113, 143,162, 165-6, 168, 191, 194, 196, 198, 208, 309-12 Sulla L. 183 Sulla P 20, 24-5, 28, 40, 60, 66-8, 76, 125-6, 130, 158, 160-2, 182-3, 213, 227, 272-4, 283, 287-9, 299, 301 Sulpicius P. 126-7, 2~73 Sulpicius Severus 152 Sutrium 280 Syme R. 17, 93, 144, 151,159, 204, 210, 228 Syracuse 131 Syria 291, 294 Tacfarinas 147 Tacitus 94—6, 122, 137, ch. 7 passim , 142, 158-60,16T 194,198-9, 235, 324 A gricola 137 Tanaquil 321 Tarquinius Superbus 182 Terence 284 Tergeste 25 Teutoberg Forest 111, 187-8 Themistocles 81 Theodotus 335 Theophanes 6 Thessalus 337 Thessaly 284, 296, 337 Thucydides 28, 62, 83, 96, 122, 162 Thurii 25 Tiberius, Emperor 3—4, 8, 62, 79, 82, 85, 98, 131-4,169, 188, 198, 228-9, 280-1, 321-2; see also under Velleius adoption of 324 admiration expressed for by soldiers and others 184 coinage, use o f for propaganda 180,188

infancy of 61-2, 309-11 nomenclature 338 Tiberius Claudius Nero x, 2, 9,19, 24, 61, 309, 318, 323 Tifata 24, 67 Tigranes 291,298-9, 302 Trajan 151, 199 Troy 19, 76, 78 Tullia, daughter of Servius 315, 321 Tusculum 25, 131, 336 Tyre 131 Tyrrhenians 66 Tyrrhenus 26, 77 Utica 25, 77

Valerius Flaccus L cos 88 Valerius Maximus 29, 95, 116, 209, 211, 216, 254, 281 Vanus Geminus Q. 18, 220 Varro, Terentius M. 86, 205, 317 Varus, Qumctilius 17, 111, 124, 187-8 Vatinius 293 Veii/Veientines 34—5,130, 284 Velia 318 Velleius C. (grandfather) x, 61, 216, 310 Velleius C. (father) x, 7 5, 209 Velleius C (descendant) 69 Velleius Capito (uncle) 2, 19 Velleius Paterculus and admiratio 111-4 and auctontas, grantas, maiestas 189—92 Augustus, attitude towards xi-xn, 11, 98, 103, 112, 158, 167-72,189-90, 196,215, 228-9, 275, 296-336 biographical approach of 93, ch. 8 passim, 193-4 brevity of 94—100 Caesars, attitude towards 93-4, 105-14 career of x, ch. 1 passim, 18-19, 110, 210, 282 character as explanation in 128- 30 chronological framework of 29—42, 46-7, 80-4, 279-80 and cities, foundation of 24—37; ch. 3 passim, 77, 279-82 and colonies, foundation of 35—40 cultural significance of ch. 10 passim date of writing 84—7 and development of literature 136 and divine justice 124—5 empires, succession of 29, 77, 79, 212 exempla, use of 131-2 explanatory’ strategies of ch. 6 passim falsehoods in 17, 93 family of x, ch 1passim, 18-19, 59-61, 70, ^4—5, 183 festmatio of 73,100-6,203-4, 208 festinatio of Caesars 112-3 and fides 181-6 games, attitudes towards ch. 14 passim gerundive, use of 103—4, 106 history, original format of 74 historical standpoint of lx-xm historiography of 25—6, ch. 4—5 passim and honor 197-9 indirect question, use of 108-9 and industrial/labor 226-7 and invidia^'b-A, 113-5, 123, 126, 136, 164-5, 291, 300-2 Italy, attitude towards ch. 2 passim, 75, 96 and mstitia 186-9

Valeria Publicola 315, 323

374

Velleius Paterculus: Making history Julius Caesar, attitude towards 101-4, 108, ch 8 passim , 189-91, 214,292-7, 336 leadership, conception of ch, 11 passim Livia, depiction of 161, ch, 16 passim models of 80—4 and mumficentia 19S-7 and names 337-9 narrative technique 297-8 originality of 205 party political designations 337 and p a x 192-5 Pompey, attitude towards xi, 106, 117, ch. 15passim , 335-8, 341-2 populares, attitude towards 11 praetentio in 103— 4 pragmauc explanations in 130-5 and pnnceps Romani nominu ch. 17 passim and Principate 212 purpose of 84-7 and recusatio 105 and Republic ch. 1.3passim restoration, theme of 170-2 and Roman values 96-7, ch 9 passim Rome, attitude towards 79-80, 96-8 Senate, attitude towards 189-91 suicide, attitude towards 214 Tacitus, compared with ch. 7 passim

Tacitus, imitated by 153 Tiberius, attitude towards xu, 11, 59, 69, 93-8, 103, 109-10, 158, 167-72, 178, 190-1,194-5, 198-9,21.3,223-4,227, 234-8, 27 5-6, 284, 301, 336, 338, .344 and visual arts 253-8 and women ch. 16 passim Venetia 24—5 Ventidius P. 2, 18, 22-3 Venus 68 Verama, wife of Piso Frugi 151 Verres C. 142-3 Vespasian, miracles of 14.3—4,148-9 Vesta 194,237, 343 Vesuvius 24, 141-2 Veturia, mother of Coriolanus 315—6 Vindelici 184, 228 Vimcius M. 1, 7, 19, 33_5, 42, 59, 75, 80, 82-7, 193, 204, 230, 254-5,268,275, 279 Vimcius P 3, 59, 209 Virgil 97, 106, 109, 113, 115,185, 205, 225, 344 Viriathus 269 Vitellius P. 8 Volturnus 66 women, see under Rome and under Velleius

375

I N D E X OF PASSAGES CI TED Woodman A.) 73, 84-5, 93, 151-2, 158-9, 163.165. 167. 170 , 172. 223-4, 228, 342 C. Antipater £r. 52 Peter 71nl8

Juvenal 3.2 7lnl2 Livy

'1.54.6 182 5 21.3—4 286n22 5.25.8 315 6.2.22 345nl2 7.2.13 281-2 10.18.5 3.39 40.42 71nl 1 45.38.10 .339 Per. 48 282

Appian 5 6 ’ 1.63 327n9 Augustus Mon. A n i.

5-6 225 34 180; 189

Q. Caecilius Metellus 1 Mud. Fun. ft. 2 Male 222

Nepos

Catullus 1.16 90n51

A tt. 8.1-2 90n53 Pel. 1.1 174n24

Cicero C at. 1.1 119n23 deO r. 2 63 159 U g . M an. 29, 40 M ur. 76 195

Ovid 4.326 286n23 6.91-2 322 Met. 1.199-205 346nl6 1.200-1 9” Tr. 2.155-6 346nl6 2.219-24 346nl6 F ast.

113

80 346nl5 Off. 2.26 88nl4 O ral 120 90n53 P h il 2.85 242n46 S a t. 138 241 n26 Verr. 2.5.5 142 Com. Ijtviae

349-50 330n35

Plautus Persa

753 192

Quint. 5.10.12 138nl3 Sallust

48.15.3-4 311 65.8.1 154nl 1 Diodorus 34/35.2.6 148

H ist.

Seneca

Dion. Hal. H A . 8.40.4-5 316 Ennius 5.1

4.32 Maurenbrecher 42

Semp. Asellio ftr. 1-2 Peter 137n2 Suas.

2 19 116 6 19 340

Seneca (Skutsch) 217n17

hp.

82.10 99

Herodotus 1.30.4 264n4"'

Sil. It. 1 3.115-37 68

Horace

Statius

(.arm . Saec. 57-60 186 h p ist 2.1.1-4 185

Inscriptions C IL l 2.1.5 240n20 12 1.10 240n20 6.883 330n34 10.3924 69 10.8071.5 Mn21 U S 932 18

Silv.

4 3.65 7lnl2

Suetonius > /.8 1 71nl8 A ug. 25.4 112 45.1 286n24 69.1 113 Tib 6.1 310 24.1 249nl 30 34 196

376

Velleius Paterculus: Making history 37.2 194 59 191 67.3-4 236-7 Vesp. 7.2-3 154nl0

1 12.7 267; 345nll 1 13.3-5 230; 253; 267-8 1 14.1 262nl0; 285nl; 346nl7 1 14.8 38, 285n4 1.14-15 279-80 1.15.1 38 1.15.3 280 1.16.1 70n3; 100; 262nll l . l 7 4 263n25 1 17.6-7 136 1.17-18 114 1.17.7 57nl82 2.1.1 231; 266 2.1.1- 2 258 2.1 3 268-9 2.1.4 122, 138n8 2.21 276nl0 2.2.1- 3 127-8 2.2.2 246n94, 276nl4 22.2-3 276nl 1 2 2 3 231 2.3 1 232;276nl2 2.3.2 21, 276nl3 2 3 3 276nl7 2.3.3-4 233 2.4.2 89n 34 2.4.3 221 2.4.4 22 2.4.6 138n9 2.5.3 129 2.6.1 270 2.6 1-2 128 2.6.2 138nl 0,234 2.6.4 271 2.7 1 128-9; 233 2.7.3 276nl8 2 7.6 271 2 7."’ 131 2.101 247nlll

Tacitus 42.4 14On50 158 1.4 235 1.13 239n6 1.6.1 146 1.54.2 286n24 2.39.2 146 3J3.2 147 3.76 56nl69 4.32.2 193—4 13.1.1 146 15.46.1 147 H ist. 1 15.1 151 1.49.4 149 3.64 2 146 4.81.2 143

A n n .U A

Val. Max. 1. praef. 88nl4 2 . praef. 285n7 2.4.1- 2 281 8.3.3 328nl4 Veil. Pat. 1.1 1 25 1.1.3 138n23 1.1.4 26 1.2.1 226 1.3.2 284 1.4.1 26 1.4.1- 2 61 1 4.2 26; 27; 138n24, 181 1 6.1 29 1.6.2 89n34 1.6.3 52nl09 1 6 4 30 1 6 5-7.4 31 1 7.2 64, 88nl3 1.8.2- 3 33 1.8.4 34 1.8.5 139n36 1.8.5-6 34 1 9.2 181 1.9 3 245n83 1.9.6 138nl5, 226 1.10.4- 5 226 1.10.5 54nl 33 1.11.3 220 1.11.5 195,220, 230; 264n45 1 11.6 260 1.12.1 257 1.12.2 267 1.12.3 266 1.12.4- 5 346nl7 1.12 5 54n36;267

2 . 11.1 272

2 13.1 276n21 2.13.1- 2 127 2 13.3 272 2.14.1 127 2.15.2 130 2.16.2 51n95; 183 2.16.2- 3 60 2.164 130 2 17.1 27.3 2.18.1 182 2.18.5 273 2 18.5-6 126 2.20.3 26 3n32 2.22 1 277n25 2.24.5 277n26 2 25.3 277n27 2.25 4 6” 2 2"' 1 346nl8 2.2".2 72n26 2.2".6 283

377

Index o f passages cited 2.29.2 108 2.29.2-5 224; 288 2.29 4 277n29 2.303 124; 2731.30 2.30.5- 6 141 2 31.4 123 2.32.1 290 2 .33.3 291; 298 2.34 3 273i32 2.36.3 178 2.38.1 107 2 38.3 192 2.40.1 227 2.40 2-3 292-300 2.40.4 220, 226 2.41.1 101; 161,2?7n34 2.42.3 115 2.44.1 292 2 44.1-2 169 2 44 2 126 2.44.5 115,169 2.45 3 293 2.46.1 108 2.47.1- 2 164 2.432 294, 319 2.47.4 26.3n32 2.48.5 41; 186 2.48.5- 6 108 2.49 2-3 295 2.49.3 191 2.49.4 296 250.1- 2 16.3 2.50.3 112 2.52.2 277n33 2.52.3 105,220; 346nl9 2.53.2 123 2.53.2- 3 297,335 2.55.1 88n3; 104 2.55.4 139n32 2.56.4 115 2.59.1 107 2.59.5 112 2.60.1 342 2.61 1 112 2.63.3 182 2.66 3 105 2332-3 310 2^4 4 139n34 2.75.2- 3 119n21; 309 239.1 229 239.2- 3 318 2.85.2 303 2.86 1 104, l 73nll 2 88.3 248nll7 2.89.1 109 2 89.1-2 228 2.89.3 97; 19.3,219 2 89.3-4 17 1; 189-90 2.89.4-5 224

2.89.6 88n3 2.91.2 139n35 2.94.1 ,333n53 2.94.2 235 2.95 1 32.3 2.96.2 104 2.99.2 118n21 2 99.3 109 2 100 2 261 2.100.4 264n50 2.101.2 118nl8 2.103 4 109-10 2.104.3 286n25; 338 2.104 4 118n21; 184 2.106.1 110 2 1031 111 2.1032 184 2.103.3 112 2.108.2 111 2.108.2- 109.2 132 2.110.3 139n40 2.1123 146 2113.1 193 2.113.1-3 13.3 2.114 1 110 2.115.4 134 2.116.5 186 2.117.2 47n3 2.118.1 187 2 118.4 124 2.119.1 111 2.122.1- 2 227 2 123.1 112 2.123 3-4 184-5 2 124.1 101 2.124 2 223 2124.2- 3 198 2.126.2 227 2.126.2- 4 97; 171; 177-8 2.126.3 200 2.126.4 118 2.1231-128.4 131 2 1233-4 184-5 2.128.1- 3 3.36 2.129.2- 3 197 2.130 1-2 196 2.130.5 325 2.131 237 2.131.1 194 2.131.1-2 343 Vergil Aen. 1.29.3-4 97 2 257-8 106 3.663 106 6.664 251nl38 6.860-1 119 6.863-4 109 E d 1.11 115 Geo 1.503-4 97

378

Series:

ROMAN CULTURE IN AN AGE O F C IV IL WAR Hans-Peter Stahl (ed.) VERGIL’S AENEID : A UGUSTAN EPIC A N D PO LITICAL C O N T E X T Kathryn Welch and Anton Powell (eds.) JU LIU S CAESAR AS A RTFU L REPO RTER Anton Powell and Kathryn Welch (eds.) SEX TU S POM PEIUS Monica Gale (ed.) LATIN EPIC AND D ID A CTIC POETRY Kathryn Welch and T.W.Hillard (eds.) ROMAN C R O SSIN G S: TH EO RY AND PRACTICE IN T H E ROMAN REI’ URI K Joan Booth (ed.) C IC ERO ON T H E ATTACK Anton Powell VIRGIL T H E PARTISAN Christopher Smith and Anton Powell (eds.) T H E LO ST M EM OIRS O F A U G U STU S AND T H E D EV ELO PM EN T < >1 IK >MAN AUTOBIOGRAPH Y Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino (eds.) PRAISE AND BLAME IN ROMAN REPUBLICAN Ri l l . FORK :

Forthcoming: Kathryn Welch M AGNUS PIUS: SEX TU S POM PEIUS A N D T H E TRANSI ( >KMAI U >N i »I I III Hi »MAN REPUBLIC

Distributor: Oxbow Books,

10 I iythe Bridge Street, Oxford 0X1 2EW ..r v a/.i—

t

,1 ... I l k !

A