Livy: The Composition of His History (Princeton Legacy Library, 5563) 9780691610474, 0691610479

Citation preview

LIVY The Composition of His History

LIVY The Composition of His History

by

PRINCETON

T.

J. LucE

UNIVERSITY

Princeton, New Jersey

PRESS

Copy right

(f, H/77

In.Princcn,n

L'ni, cr,in

Pre"

Published l>I' Princcrnn l'nin:r,in Pre,,, PrmrcH>l1, :-.:cw Jcr~e., In the L'mted Kingdom Pru1ecton L'n1\·cr,in· Pre,,. Guildford, All Righr, Rc,cn·cd L1br;1n- of Co11grc" Cardlogmg in Puhli..:ation Data \I 111he found on the la,r primed page of rh1, book

Pul>licanon of th1, hook ha, been .i.1dcd hv ,l grant fron1 the Paul ,\lcllon fund of Pnn~cton l'nncr,iry Pre,, Thi~ book ha, l>ccn Llllpo,cd 111 Lmorvpc Jan,on

Pnmcd in the L'nircd State, of Alllcric·a ll\ Prmccton Un1,·cr,it~ Pre", Princcwn, ~c,, Jcf',C}

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

Dedicated to ,Harvin Aiandelbaum

Contents

Preface

1x

Abbreviations

x1

Introduction

xv

Chapter I: The Structure of tbe History Books 1-45 Books 46-142 Structure within Pentads

3 3 9 2

Chapter II: Books 31-35 The General Design Book 33 Book 34 Book Ji. 33-50, Book 32, and Book 35 Book JI. 1-32 Conclusions

Chapter Ill: Books 36-40

5

33 33 39 46 47 53 74

75

The General Design Book 36 Book 37 Book 38. r. r-50. 3 The Trials of the Scipios: 38. 50. 4-60. 10 Book 39 Book 40 Conclusions

Chapter IV: Books 41-45

75 76 84 90 92 ro4 109 r r2 114

The General Design of 41-45 The Outbreak of the War with Perseus Books 46-50 Conclusions VII

n5 3 r 35 r 37 12

CONTENTS

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

1 39

185 188

193 205 22. 1

227

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

2 30

2 34

250 276 294

Bibliography

299

Index of Passages

3 11

General Index

31 8

Vlll

Preface

I WISH to thank Princeton University for its generous leave policy, which has enabled me over the past few years to complete this book, and for a grant of money to defray the expense of the final typescript. In addition, I have benefitted from the comments and criticisms of Professors B. C. Fenik, E. Gabba, E. S. Gruen, and R. E. A. Palmer, who read parts of the present study, and of James P. Lipovsky, who read all of it. I particularly wish to thank Professor Konrad Gries, one of the readers selected by Princeton University Press, for his detailed suggestions for improvement. Naturally none of the above is responsible for errors that may remain or for the views expressed. The histories of Livy and Polybius are cited frequently in this study. In the interest of simplicity and clarity book numbers of these authors are given in arabic numerals, italicized; italics are not used for numbers of chapters or subsections: e.g. Livy 38. 38. r 8; Pol. 16. I. When referring to Polybius' extant text, I have abbreviated the author's name as Pol.; when referring to passages in Livy based on Polybius, the initial P alone is used. The initial R denotes passages in Livy based on Roman sources. -T. /. Luce Princeton, June 1976

IX

Abbreviations

Periodicals are abbreviated according to the system used in L'Annee Philologique. Short abbreviations for works frequently cited are listed below. Bayer, Livre l Briscoe, Comm.

J.

Bayer, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine. Livre l1 (Paris 1961 ). J. Briscoe, A Co11Tlnentaryon Livy. (Oxford Books XXXI-XXXlll 1 97 3).

Burck, Einfiihrung

E. Burck, Einfiihrung in die dritte Dekade des Livius (Heidelberg

I 950). Burck, Erziihlungskunst E. Burck, Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin 1934; repr. with a new introduction, Berlin/Zurich 1964).

CAH CSEL FGH

Hellmann, Hoch,

L-l

Darstellung

The Cambridge Ancient History. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. P. Guenther. F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden 192 3- ). F. Hellmann, Livius-lnterpretationen (Berlin 1939). H. Hoch, Die Darstellung der politischen Sendzmg Roms bei Livius (Frankfurt

Holleaux,

Etudes

195 r ).

M. Holieaux, Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, vol. 5 (Paris Xl

1957).

ABBREVIATIONS

HRR

Jal, Livres XLI-XLII

Kahrstedt, Annalistik

Klotz, Livius

MRR

Nissen, KU

Ogilvie, Comm. ORF2 Pedech, Methode Petzold, Eroffnung

RE Walbank, Comm.

H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae 2 , vol. 1 (Leipzig 1914); vol. 2 (Leipzig 1916). P. Jal, Tite-Lh·e, Histoire romaine. Livres XLI-XLll, vol. 31 (Paris 1971). V. Kahrstedt, Die Annalistik von Livius. B. XXXI-XLV (Berlin 1913). A. Klotz, Livius und seine V organger. Neue Wege zur Antike (Leipzig/Berlin 1940-1941; repr. Amsterdam 1 964). T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 1 (New York 1951); vol. z (New York 19sz); Supplement (New York 1960). H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ilber die Quellen der vierten und filnften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863). R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965). Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta 2 , ed. H. Malcovati (Pavia 1955). P. Pedech, La Methode historique de Polybe (Paris 1964). K.-E. Petzold, Die Eroffnung des zweiten romisch-makedonischen Krieges (Berlin 1940; repr. Darmstadt n.d.). Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Poly bius, vol. r ( Oxford 1957); vol. 2 (Oxford 1967). Xll

ABBREVIATIONS

Walsh, Livy

P. G. Walsh, Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods ( Cambridge

\Veissenborn

W. Weissenborn and H. J. Muller, T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri (Berlin 1860--64; 2d ed. 1880). G. Wille, Der Auf bau des Livianischen Geschichtswerks (Amsterdam 1973 ). K. Witte, "Ober die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Geschichtswerk," RhM 65 (1910) 270--305, 359-419; repr. separately (Darm-

1961 ).

W.ille, Aufbau

Witte, Darstellung

stadt 1969).

Zimmerer, CQ

M. Zimmerer, Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Quadrigarius (Munich 1 93 7).

Xlll

Introduction

IN THE nineteenth and early part of the present century Livy was the subject of much scholarly attention, particularly in Germany. Study of the historian's sources dominated the field, although valuable work was also done on topics such as his latinity and style. But after a time the spate of Quellenforschung began to abate, partly because the material was nearing exhaustion, partly because the Quellenforscher began to bicker among themselves, and partly because some began to have misgivings about the validity of some of their methods and results. But by and large, as the era of Source Criticism drew to its close, most viewed the results as a solid and convincing achievement. P. G. Walsh, in an excellent and judicious book published in I 96 r, gave voice to the communal opinion: "After more than a hundred years of systematic research ( chiefly by German scholars), the boundaries between reasonable certainty and ingenious speculation are now closely defined." 1 The waning of Quellenforschung caused Livian studies to languish somewhat for a time; recently, however, interest has revived, particularly in Great Britain. The achievements of P. G. Walsh, A. H. McDonald, R. M. Ogilvie, and J. Briscoe stand out, and major studies by other scholars are announced or forthcoming. The renruissance we are now experiencing has mostly turned away from Quellenforschung ( although it has built on its results or is strongly influenced by them) and is no longer dominated by one or two topics of interest. Diversity is clearly in evidence; we are witnessing new advances in establishing the text, full 1 Walsh, Livy 114. M. L. W. Laismer, The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley 1947), is the major dissenter.

xv

INTRODUCTION

commentaries, and in studying Livy's literary techniques. 2 Most of the new scholarship has tended in one of two directions. The first is chiefly concerned with consolidation and integration; vValsh'; book mentioned above and Ogilvie's Conmzentary on Books 1-5 are excellent examples. The other is concerned with coming to a better understanding of particulars, whether they be analyses of individual parts of the history, investigations into special literary techniques and narrative devices, or thematic studies that focus on questions such as Livy's allegiance to the Augustan regime. 3 In much of this scholarship, however, Livy himself has been largely lost sight of; the question of his own contribution has been either ignored or considered of secondary importance. This was especially true when the tide of Quellenforschung was flowing strong, for on all sides it pointed to Livy's total dependence on his sources in matters of fact, for the ordering and development of material, for many of the ideas and interpretations expressed and for most of those implied, and to some extent even in vocabulary and style. On this last point, however, almost all were willing to credit him with being a fine stylist in 2 A. H. McDonald issued a new Oxford text of Books 31-35 in 1965; it is to be hoped that Books 36-45 will be forthcoming; T. A. Dorey has produced a new Teubner text of Books 21-22 (1971). R. M. Ogilvie has contributed much to the text of Books 1-5, and a new Oxford text is the result ( r973). New commentaries are by R. M. Ogilvie on Books 1-5 (cited as Ogilvie, Corrnn.), and J. Briscoe on Books 31-,; (cited as Briscoe, Co111nz.). On literary studies, in addition to \Valsh's book, see his article in RhM 97 ( 1954) 97-114, and A. H. McDonald, "The Style of Livy" JRS47 (1957) 155-172. Walsh

has recently written a general assessment of Livy in the light of recent scholarship: Livy, Greece and Rome. New Surveys in tbe Classics, No. 8 (Oxford 1974). 3 For examples of individual episodes, see Walsh, Livy 249-253; T. J. Luce, T APhA wz ( 1971) 265-302; for special narrative devices, J.-P. Chausserie-Lapree, L'Expression narrative cbez les historiens Jatins (Paris 1969); for Livy's loyalties, R. Syme, HSPh 64 (1959) 2787; H. J. Mette, Gymnasium 68 ( 1961) 269-285; H. Petersen, T APhA 92 (1961) 440-452; Walsh, PACA 4 (1961) 26-37. XVI

INTRODUCTION

his own right and to believe that the rhetoric of the speeches, the prominence given to episodes illustrative of old-time virtues, and scenes of high drama and vivid presentment were also chiefly the historian's own doing. These views are not much changed today. Livy is a stylist, not an interpreter-a writer concerned with producing a dignified, stimulating history of his people that would rival those of the great historians of Greece: "He writes ... to enshrine in literature persons and events that have given him a thrill of excitement as he studied them." 4 Scholars believe that Livy also saw himself in this light, and when he declares in the Preface that new writers invariably believe they can either bring new and more reliable facts to light or surpass their predecessors in the eloquence of their presentation, it was the second goal he chose for himself, not the first. 5 The historian's personal contribution to his history has been judged almost entirely in terms of individual scenes and episodes. According to this view, when he came upon passages in his sources that Jent themselves to fine writing and exciting reading, he proceeded to reshape and color the material according to his own interests and predilections; for the more pedestrian material in the intervals he hastily and rather mechanically reproduced what he found in the sources before him. 6 Kurt Witte, in a pioneering work showing how Livy adapted Polybius according to single episodes Ogilvie, Comm. 24-25. s Praef. i: Novi semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem vetustatem superaturos credunt. That Livy was inspired by Cicero's complaint of the lack of a great national history and the need to rival the Greeks in this department of literature (De or. i. 55. 62-64; De leg. 1. 5-6) is altogether probable. That Livy was not the man Cicero was seeking may be true, although I doubt that Cicero would have found Tacitus more congenial: cf. E. Rawson, JRS 62 (1972) 44-45. 6 This is Walsh's appraisal of Livy's use of Polybius in the later books (Livy 144): "A clear and somewhat damning picture emerges of a mind rapidly and mechanically transposing the Greek, and coming to full consciousness only when grappling with the more congenial problems of literary presentation." 4

.. xvn

INTRODUCTION

(Einzelerzahlungen), sums up as follows: "The question may briefly be raised at this point as to whether particular groups of such episodes ( and thereby larger sections of Livy's history) are arranged to form integrated units. The answer is no. Just as Livy began the composition of his work without having prepared himself much in advance and in particular failed to give at the start an outline of the contents, so he passed hurriedly from event to event, from scene to scene without taking the trouble to combine the separate accomplishments of the Roman people into larger, integrated units. " 7 With one notable exception,8 this fairly sums up scholarly opinion. Professor Syme has perhaps best expressed the communis opinio: "Admirable as Livy is in the eloquence of a speech, in descriptive colouring, and in narrative movement, he shows no comparable skill when events have to be grouped and interrelated-and no instinct for historical structure. For disposition as for material he is content on the whole to follow his sources." 9 This book is in part concerned with testing the truth of these assertions. It will examine to what extent Livy tried to organize and structure his history according to larger units: the book, the pentad, and groups of pentads. Two additional problems are necessarily involved. The first concerns how Livy went about t~ actual process of composition: in particular, what his different methods of adapta1 "Uber die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Geschichtswerk,'' RhM 65 (19to) 418-419, reprinted separately (Darmstadt 1969) 9697: "Hier sei nur noch die eine Frage kurz erortert, ob bestimmte Gruppen solcher Einzelerzahlungen und damir grossere Abschnitte des livianischen Geschichtswerkes unter sich geschlossene Einheiten bilden. Die Antwort lautet: nein. Wie Livius ohne langere Vorbereitungen an die Ausfiihrung seines \Verks ging und vor allem es unterliess, im voraus eine Gesamtdisposition zu entwerfen, so eilte er rasch von Ereignis zu Ereignis, von Szene zu Szene, ohne sich die Zusammenfassung der einzelnen T aten des romischen V olkes zu grosseren Einheiten angelegen sein zu !assen." s E. Burck, Erzahlungskunst, concerns the design and structure of Books 1-5. 9 R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 1, 148 (cf. 139).

xvm

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTROD"CCTlON

-the product partly of his own imagining, ignorance_, and wishful thinking ( e.g. Praef. 4-12, 26. zz ). There 1s no evidence that he was ever a senator or involved in public life; hence his treatment of the workings and traditions of government betrays ignorance and naivete. Moreover, we even find him taking over the ideas of his sources as if they were his own-sometimes to the point of parroting judgments to which he supposedly does not subscribe, or on one occasion transferring the ideas of his source on the importance of an event to the words and thoughts of the crowd that witnessed it.11 And as for having ideas about change and development in Roman history, few have found reason to suppose that Livy had any. Some in fact have denied that he was conscious of historical change at all. R. G. Collingwood in his The Idea of History asserts that all the ancient historians were tainted with the sin of "substantialism," by which he means the failure to account for how things come into being, develop, and pass away; rather, the ancients were concerned chiefly with unchanging verities that lie outside history and that history cannot explain: the gods, human nature, the concept of Eternal Rome, and so forth. Collingwood believes that for Livy "Rome is a substance, changeless and eternal. From the beginning of the narrative Rome is ready-made and complete. To the end of the narrative she has undergone no spiritual change. " 12 An example of the former is given by Nissen (KU 249) in reference to the passage at 42. 30. 2-7 (based on Polybius): of the three groups of Greek leaders during the war with Perseus, some favored the king, some the Romans, and some wished to maintain a balance of power between Rome and Perseus; Polybius clearly counted himself among this third group. Li,')' calls this the pars ... optima et prudentissima, rather than the faction favoring the Roman cause. Yet it is unreasonable to expect him to extoll the pro-Roman faction, most of whose members were only interested in using Rome as a power base for their own selfish ends ( 30. 2-3). The second example is at 33.33.5-8 (Pol. 18.46.13-15): the proclamation of the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games. 12 R. G. Collingwood, Tf.,e Idea of History (Oxford 1946) 44. 11

XX

INTRODUCTION

This pronouncement is admittedly extreme, and one wonders about Collingwood's reading of Livy's Preface; nevertheless, no one has ventured to dispute the underlying premise that Livy was largely oblivious to historical development. Particular scenes and episodes, then, have excited admiration, but not the history as a whole, although the 142 books may impress by virtue of their sheer number. And little respect has been accorded to Livy's critical abilities. Indeed, the general feeling is that he was a romantic novelist who wandered into history by default. There are, of course, reasons for this. Two examples come to mind. The first concerns the opening of Book 21 and the outbreak of the war with Hannibal. At 6. 3 Livy dates the fall of Saguntum to the consulship of P. Cornelius Scipio and Ti. Sempronius Longus: 2 18 B.c. By chapter r 5 ( 3-6) he realizes that something is not right; it seems, he tells us, that he may have started the narrative in the wrong year. He speculates for a few lines about what might have gone wrong: maybe all the events took a shorter span of time than he said they did, or maybe the siege of Saguntum occurred in the previous year and only its fall took place in 2 18. He then abruptly abandons the puzzle, leaving the narrative as he wrote it ( and begins the next section with sub idem fere tempus . .. : 16. r) .13 The second example concerns the notorious Trials of the Scipios in Book 38 (50. 4-60. 10 ). For five chapters Livy reproduces the version of the historian Valerius Antias ( 50. 5). At a point roughly two-thirds of the way through the story he interrupts to inform us that there is absolutely no agreement among the authorities he has consulted, including Antias, on even the most basic facts he has just told and that he has no idea whom or what to believe ( 56. 1). After discussing some of the knottier problems for two chapters, he returns to Antias' account in order to finish off the story (58. 1-60. 10). 14 It is passages such as these that have produced the crush1s For a discussion, see pp. 141-142. 14 For an analysis, see pp. 92-104, 142-143. XXl

J::--TRODl:CTIO~

ing verdict of incompetence in his chosen field. The cause of such imperfections, it is universally felt, is due not to his failure to adapt satisfactorily the single source before him, bur to his alternating over long stretches among two or more sources that disagreed with each other on essential points of fact and interpretation. The chief evidence for this view comes from Books 3 1-4 5, where we possess an original source (Polybius) and where line-by-line comparison shows that Livy has by and large done a faithful, competent job of transmission; but when he tries to alternate between Polybius and Roman sources, he can be shown to be guilty of gross errors and contradictions. This fact, of course, means not only that Livy is a faithful mirror of single sources, but also-since he did not possess the critical acumen to solve the problems inherent in combining themthat he is a faithful mirror of the differences among the sources, and thus also of the points where the switch was made from one to another. Hence the picture of Livy functioning as a kind of "Transparent Overlay." Livy the Wanderer is its companion. That is, he had not read ahead very far in the sources before he began his adaptation, but wandered from one to another, uncertain as to exactly what was coming up next or where the narrative would lead. This seems to be the case in both the examples cited above, for they appear to show that only after he had completed most of his adaptation did he become aware that part or all of what he had written must be wrong. And so transparent ( or lazy) was he that he forbore to correct the errors that he had already committed to paper. After prolonged exposure to passages of this sort and to the strictures on them bv. the Source Critics ' most readers of Livy come to believe that the man himself contributed little to his history, and of that little there is next to nothing that a serious student of history can admire or respect. Livy thus shrinks to a shade or cipher. So pervasive and seductive is this attitude that on occasion the historian dwindles to

xxu

INTRODUCTION

less t?an nothing, if such is possible. Even so good a critic as _N1s~en can commit such absurdities; for example, he wntes 1n reference to chapter 49 of Book 42, where Livy describes the ceremonial departure from Rome of the fir;t consul chosen to wage war against Perseus of Macedon: "The simplicity and graphic quality of the description betray Polybian authorship. In any case a foreigner must be the author, for that a Roman could have written this would be inconceivable: 'semper quidem ea res cum magna dignitate ac maiestate geritur.' " 15 An example of the same attitude on a larger scale is offered by Margarete Zimmerer in her monograph on the historian Claudius Quadrigarius. It is her judgment that Livy selected Claudius, Valerius Antias, and Polybius as his three chief (if not sole) sources for Books 31-45 because they contrasted nicely among themselves in types of material, narrative techniques, and styles. Livy endeavored to mirror faithfully their differences in all of these areas because by moving back and forth among them he could bring liveliness and variety to his narrative. 16 The author views this as a new and somewhat heretical approach-one that dares to take account of Livy's personal contribution and artistic aims; in fact, she chides some of her predecessors for treating Livy like an automaton and for attributing changes of source to considerations of content alone.11 Now there may be an embryo of insight and truth in this notion; but in the form in which Zimmerer puts it, it seems 15 KU 254: "Die Einfachheit und Anschaulichkeit der Schilderung verrat den Polybios. Sie gehort jedenfalls einem Fremden an; denn wie ein romischer Geschichtschreiber sie so hatte abfassen ki:innen, ware unbegrei:flich [semper quidem ea res cum magna dignitate ac maiestate geritur eqs.]." 1G Zimmerer, CQ 41: "Darum glaube ich, .w to mean "throw down" (rather than "lower") in Polybius' phrase ( 18. 24. 9): Toi~ µ,h ct,a.>..a.-y"(fra.is eo611TJ 1rap«"f'YE'Aµ,a.Ka.-ra./'lt1.XoD1n Tas 11a.pl11as'11ra."(m,. The technical military usage is rare; it does not find its way into the Liddell and Scott entry, for example. See P. G. Walsh, G&R 5 (1958) 84-85. E. Pianezzola's contention that Livy knew the real meaning of the word, but deliberately changed it in order to lessen Polybius' praise for the temporary success of Philip's right wing is not convincing: Traduzione e ideologia, Livio interprete di Polibio (Bologna 1969) 85-88. 14 See Walsh, Livy 161-162. Perhaps Polybius' phrase Ta µ,;;11'1x6µ,eva. -rwv Ktvo1111ev6vTw11 evd1ro11ra.11e,-rwv 1ro">.,µ,iwv"?Vat 18. 25. 3 suggested the role of the media acies to Livy.

40

BOOKS

31-35

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

41

LlvY

menr ( despite what he must have regarded as inadequacies at a few points on the part of the Greek historian): non incertum auctorem cum omnium Romanarum rerum tum praecipue in Graecia gestarum ( 10. 10). His subsequent omissions include Polybius' digression on the nature of the phalanx ( 18. 28-32) and his appraisal of Philip's behavior in the face of misfortune ( 33. 3-7 ). He reduces sharply Polybius' comment on the attribution of venality to Flamininus by the venal Aetolians ( 1 8. 34. 6-8 Livy 33. r 1. 7), and omits entirely Polybius' digression on venality in general among the Romans, a digression in which the Romans come off very well indeed-an interesting omission ( 35) .15 Instead, he concentrates on reproducing those parts of Polybius that concern the peace negotiations. Toward the end, however, his desire to reach a quick conclusion causes him to leave out Flamininus' statement concerning the legitimacy of the Aetolian claims to Larisa Cremaste, Pharsalus, Phthiotic Thebes, and Echinus (Pol. 18. 38. 4-5 ), apparently because he wished to proceed at once to the sharp exchange of words between Flamininus and Phaneas the Aetolian. Hence his statement disceptatio inter imperatorem Romanum et Aetolos orta est de Thebis ( r 3. 7) is wrong, for what Flamininus disputed was not the claim to Thebes, but to the other three towns. 16 In sum, then, Livy has compressed seven chapters of Polybius ( 33-39) into three of his own ( 11-13): 90 lines as opposed to 2 3 r lines in the T eubner texts of the respective authors. Livy continued to adapt Polybius from 14- 1 through

=

15 For a discussion of the state of the Polybian text and Livy's abridgment, see Holleaux, Etudes 5, 86-103 = RPh 57 (1931) 193zo8. In an effort to bolster his case he goes too far in describing the adaptation as one "ou des naivetes, des gaucheries, des repetitions et des contradictions, des obscurites trah1ssent l'embarras du tres infidele 'adapteur' qu'a ete en !'occasion Tite Live" (p. 102). See Briscoe, Comm. 266-267. 16 I do not think that the passage is evidence for Livy's weakness in comprehending Greek; cf. Walsh, G&R 5 ( 1958) 86 and Briscoe, Conm1. 33. 13. 7 n.

42

BOOKS

31-3s

5, but because the pertinent parts of Polybius are missing,11 we cannot in most cases be sure to what extent Livy abridged and omitted. The victory of the Achaeans over Philip's forces at Corinth ( 14-15) and the siege of Leucas ( 17) seem fully and carefully done; the ensuing account of the Rhodian capture of the Peraea ( 1 8) is quite detailed, although written in a rather mechanical manner. The postscript on Philip's victory over the Dardani is brief ( 19. 1-5 ). Res Syriae for 197, also based on Polybius, were the next topic. At this point, however, Livy decided to interrupt his narrative in order to underscore the importance of a new theme: the coming war with Antioch us ( 19. 6-7). At the same time he points to the dangerous situation that was developing in Spain: this in preparation for Cato's campaigns in the next book. He then turns back to Polybius. In a little less than two pages he sketches the following events: Antiochus' moves in eastern Asia Minor, the warning by Rhodes not to do anything that would help Philip during the war with the Romans or to hinder the Roman liberation of Greece, Antiochus' conciliatory reply, the news of the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Rhodes's help and advice to cities allied with Egypt and threatened by Antiochus. At this point Livy breaks off ( zo. 13); Non operae est persequi ut quaeque acta in his locis sint, cum ad ea quae propria Romani belli sunt vix sufficiam. Critics have taken this to be a makeshift device adopted by a weary writer who could summon neither energy nor interest to continue, 18 or who 2 1.

At 33.21. 1-5 Livy reproduces Polybius' eulogy of King Attalus but rearranges some of the material. 1s For example Nissen, KU 81. In this section Polybius recounted among other things Anriochus' occupation of Ephesus and other Greek cities. That Livy's decision to omit such matters pertaining to the Asian Greeks was deliberately taken is dear from passages later in the book. The sequel to the conference at Lysimachea ( 3940 Pol. 18. 49-51 ), in which legates from Smyrna and Lampsacus have their say (Pol. 18. 52), was left out, although Livy's continuation at 41. 1 ff. is clearly based on Polybius. F. W. Walbank is mistaken, I think, to explain this omission by saying, "Livy wearies of the de17

( 18. 41),

=

43

LIVY

absent-mindedly continued adapting material beyond the point where he should have stopped. 19 These strictures miss the point. Livy regularly omits great amounts of Polybian material, but feels no obligation to inform his readers of the fact. Moreover, he is capable of giving a genuine epitome, rather than a line-by-line adaptation, if he feels it necessary or appropriate. Nor is his statement here very remarkable. Similar sentiments and similar expressions of self-doubt occur elsewhere in the Ah Urbe Condita. 20 He did not view them as gauche or disfiguring. What is noteworthy about the res Asiae for 197 is not that he broke off the narrative at the point he did, but that he included any of it at all. His motive is clear: the coming war with Antiochus was to be the principal device for organizing and grouping his material in the rest of the pentad. 21 It was necessary to back up his tail": Comm. 2, 28. It was more probably planned in advance. Note that earlier, in the speeches given at the conference, Livy carefully excluded Polybius' reference to these cities ( 18. 50. 7: speech of the Romans; 18.51.7: speech of Antiochus). 19 I do not think Briscoe is right in seeing it "as a sign of L's desperation of living to complete his work" (Comm. 288). 2 °For example Praef. 1-2; 31. 1. 1-5; 35. 40. 1; 41. 25. 8. The introduction to his account of the death of Philopoemen at 39. 48. 6 is noteworthy: if he should describe the causes and course of the Messenian War, he says, immemor sim propositi quo statui non ultra attingere externa, nisi qua Romanis cohaererent rebus. Nothing daunted, he gives the death of Philopoernen in full. F. W. Walbank, JHS 58 (1938) 61 n. 28, observes: "The fact was ... Livy liked the story and was not going to leave it out." Cf. H. Trankle, Gymnasium 79 ( 1972) 23. One might compare the characteristic complaint in Tacitus concerning the inglorious and petty nature of his material: Ann. 4. 32, 6. 38. 1, 16. 16. 21 Note that he reserves mention of the fear of an impending war with Antiochus for the last point in his adaptation of Polybius 18. 39 ( = 33. 13. 15). The king is mentioned frequently throughout 34.2-3, 35.6); toward the rest of the book (27.6, 31.6, 31.10-u, the end res Asiae for 197 (separated from res Graeciae) bring him

44

BOOKS

31-35

statement at 19. 6-7 concerning its importance by sketching, even if only in part, something of the king's threatening moves, which were beginning to reach out toward the Aegean. The "confession'' at 20. 1 3 was intended as an apology not so much for failing to continue with his account of res Asiae as for having included any of them at all. At the same time, it was also necessary to move his narrative forward rather quickly if he were to reach Polybius' res Graeciaefor the following year by mid-book. It took some managing to do so. First, as noted, the bulk of Polybius' res Asiae had to be omitted. Next, he had to finish his account of the year 197 and get 196 underway; this meant a return to his Roman source(s). He confined the events at the end of 197 and at the start of 196 to six chapters (21. 6-25. 3 for 197, 25. 4-27. 5 for 196). They are "packed": reverses in Spain, a debate on whether the consuls should be given a triumph, elections, a report of the victory in the East, appointment of the ten commissioners, colonists sent to Cosa, games, ratification of the peace with Philip, further reverses in Spain, division of military forces for 196, assignment of provinces, prodigies, and an ovatio. The normal annalistic format required that the activities of the consuls of the year be recounted next; at the least they should be ensconced in their respective provinciae before other matters are taken up. This is not the case here. The proclamation of a proconsul takes precedence; the deeds of the consuls are reserved for later exposition ( 36. 4 ff.). This is the last in the series of omissions, abridgments, and reorderings that enabled Livy to place the peace with Philip in the center of the central book of the pentad. Moreover, the material at mid-book required that he revert to the sort of full and careful adaptation that he had used in the section again into full prominence at the Conference at Lysimachea (39-40 = Pol. , 8. 49-5,) ; at the end of the book he is the subject of an alarming report by the ten commissioners at Rome (44. 5-45. 5) and is also reported to have provided a refuge for Hannibal (45. 6-49. 7).

45

LIVY

on Cynoscephalae. Comparison with the extant text of Polybius ( 18. 44-48 answers to Livy 33. 30-35) shows the accuracy and completeness of his account of the various settlements made in Greece and the peace terms with Philip. Livy lavishes the most attention, of course, on the scene at the games, adding his own introduction ( 32. 1-2) and conclusion ( 33. r-3), and transferring Polybius' comments on the importance of the event to the thoughts and words of the crowd. 22 BooK 34 Book 33 betrays no sign that Livy was hard pressed for material; it has a strong beginning, middle, and end, and is generally written with liveliness and care. So with Book 34, which divides rather sharply into three parts. In the first ( 1-2 r ) , Cato is at center stage, first with a speech against the abrogation of the Lex Oppia and then in a detailed account of his campaigns in Spain. The second part ( z 2-4 r ) features a full account of the War with Nabis, based on Polybius. The last part is more heterogeneous. Livy's goal was to reach Polybius' report of res ltaliae and res Africae for 193, which concerned the coming war with Antiochus ( this included an account of the special hearing at Rome that the ten commissioners granted the ambassadors of the king [57. 4-59. 8]) ,23 and then the following sequence: Hannibal's advice to Antiochus on the conduct of the coming war ( 60), the adventures of Hannibal's spy Aristo in Carthage ( 61), and a postscript on the territorial dispute between Carthage and Masinissa (62). In order to reach this point, however, Livy had to move his narrative along 22 On Livy's adaptation, see ,Nitte, Darste/lung 281-283, 362-363; Walsh, Livy 184, 205; Trankle, Gymnasium 79 (1972) 27-31. 23 The sequence of speeches is carefully done: Menippus in oratio obliqua (57.6-11), Flamininus in recta (58. 1-3), Hegesianax in obliqua ( 5-7), Flamininus in recta ( 8---13), ending with a brief exchange in recta between P. Sulpicius and Menippus ( 59. 1-3).

46

BOOKS

3'-35

quickly between 4 1. 1 o ( end of the war with Nabis) and 57. 4 (start of the hearing in Rome for Antiochus' ambassadors). What was to occupy these sixteen chapters, in fact, were the end of r95, the whole of the year r94, and the beginning of r93. In short, Livy had ·an abundance of material for this book as well as for the preceding one. The same is true for the first part of Book 3 1 ( discussed below). BooK 31. 33-50, BooK 32,

AND

BooK 35

The case is quite different for the remaining parts of the pentad. In the last part of JI and throughout much of 32 and 35 there are signs that there was a dearth of adequate, or at least interesting, material. The chief reason was Livy's decision to devote a full five books to the period from late 201 to the end of 1 92: slightly over nine years. Not until another thirty-five books had been put on paper would he again devote a pentad to such a short period of time (Books 7 1-7 5 and the period of the Social War). It is true that the third decade covered but eighteen years, but there the material was abundant and the years packed with important episodes. The same cannot be said of 200-192. It would be a knowledgeable student of Roman history who could, without recourse to a reference work or two, recall the events of 199, 194, 193, and 192, and even after learning the facts, he might find it difficult to justify their filling the equivalent of nearly two books. The size of the pentad is also an indication of the paucity of material: it is the shortest of the seven that are extant. It covers 2 37 Teubner pages as compared with 2 70 for the next smallest (Books 6-10). It contains, in fact, the first, third, fifth, and sixth shortest books (32, 33, 3 5, and 31 respectively); Book 34 alone is of average length (ranking eighteenth out of 35 ). 24 It was noted before that the end of Book 31 coincided with what Livy represents as the end of the consular year 24

See p. 29 and the charts of P. A. Stadter, Historia z r ( 197z)

3o4-3o7.

47

LIVY

No particular episode seemed worthy of or suitable for special treatment at the conclusion. The reason was doubtless the nature of the material; during the campaigning season of his proconsulate Sulpicius Galba fought a series of indecisive engagements with Philip that resulted in a standoff. Livy found none of them particularly exciting or significant. 25 There is, in consequence, some lackluster adaptation. For example, military maneuvers and topographical details that in other contexts he tended to abridge or omit are here strung out in a flat, unadorned manner. e.g. 33. 4-11 and 39. 4-7; the narrative of the year's naval activities at 45-46 is the clearest example. He even includes some types of Polybian material that elsewhere he tends to omit: e.g. the discussion on the merits of the strategies adopted by Sulpicius and Philip at Ottolobus ( 38) and the postscript on the recruiting of Aetolian mercenaries for Egyptian service (43. 4-7 ). He also includes some purely Greek material that was not (for his purposes) of great importance and that involved no Romans: e.g. the plundering expedition of the Aetolians in Thessaly and its defeat by Philip (40. 7-42. 9). Next came the start of Book J2 and the vear 199; the material for it was thin scuff indeed. The con~ul Villius did nothing against Philip: nihil memorabile a Villio actum integrumque helium insequentem consulem T. Quinctium accepisse tradunt (32. 6. 8). The censorship of Scipio Africanus and Aelius Paetus was marked by such harmony and goodwill that no senator lost his seat (sine ullius nota: 7. 3). And when in consequence of a reverse suffered in Gaul the consul hurried north to right matters, neque ipse consul memorabile quicquam gessit ( 7. 8). In fact, for the whole of this book-despite its being the shortest of the extant thirtyfive-information was not plentiful. Livy appears to have included almost everything he found. First, the Polybian material. Minor geographical and topographical detaiis are everywhere present (e.g. 13-15: Thessaly; 18: Phocis); phrases such as aliaque castella iuxta ignobilia ( 14. 3, cf. 200.

2s His account of the capture of the pass at Eordaea (31. 39) is the best developed.

48

BOOKS

31-35

r 8. 9) describe the nature of much of the subject matter. Abortive efforts, such as the sieges of Atrax ( 17. 4-17) and of Corinth ( 2 3. 4-r 3), are fully described, as are such purely Greek events as Philip's unsuccessful attempt on Thaumaci (4). The Roman sources were no better. In 198, as in 199, nothing was achieved in Gaul. Livy records the melancholy fact twice. 26 And he regularly drew on at least two Roman sources in this book in order to eke out his material. For res Galliaeof 197 ( 29. 5-3 r. 6) he used a second source to supplement the bare description of the battle fought against the lnsubres. 27 It is also likely that 32. 26 derives from a source different both from that of 9. 5 and 2. 3-4. 28 Moreover, the praetor urbanus is given as L. Cornelius Lentulus

N eque memorabilis rei quicquam gessit (9. 5); nihil sane memorabile ab Sex. Aelio consule gestum ( 26. 1). T. A. Suits, Philologus 118 ( 1974) 257-265, believes the repetition deliberate. 2 1 Non tulerunt lnsubres primum concursum. Quidam ... auctores sunt ... (30. 11). See Klotz, Livius 83-84, for the correct interpretation (contra, Nissen, KU 59). Klotz believes the main source was Antias, the variant Quadrigarius; Zimmerer, CQ z8-29, the reverse. 28 26. 1-3 (res Galliae) is a doublet of 9. 5. The later version is more detailed and precise, nor do the names recorded in each take precisely the same form; from 9. 5 we learn that Aelius intended to wage a military campaign, from 26. 3 that he spent his time returning to their respective homes the colonists from Cremona and Placencia who had been scattered during the recent war. Suits (Philologus n8 (1974) 257-265) suggests that the repetition was one of a number of framing devices in the book. Moreover, at 26. 4-14 Livy describes an insurrection threatened by the slaves of the Carthaginian hostages who were housed at Setia; at z. 3-4, however, he records that in the previous year these hostages had been permitted to shift their residence from Norba, which was unsuited to their life-style, to Signia and Ferentinum. Klotz, Livius 83 (cf. Hermes 50 [1915] 485-486, esp. 485 n. 2) sees no discrepancy: the hostages were naturally lodged in a number of different places; the burden of lodging all of them would not have fallen on one or two alone (cf. Nepos, Hann. 7. 2). Klotz is undoubtedly right-historically; but this is not the representation of Livy or his source (s): qui non reddebantur obsides ( 2, 4), obsideI Carthaginiensiurn Setiae custodiebantur ( 26. 5). Kahrstedt's analysis of the problem is at the same time overly subtle and mechanical: Annalistik 58-65. 26

49

Ll\'Y

at 26. 8, earlier at 7. 1 3 and 8. 5 as L. Cornelius Merula. These discrepancies, taken individually, would not argue strongly for source changes. Taken together, they do. Livy also resorted to using his Roman sources to supplement his Polybian material-not merely for variant statistics on am;unrs of booty or for battle· casualties, but for entire incidents-an unu;ual step. In particular, he used the res Graeciae of Valerius Antias for 199 to fill out the meager report of Polybius. Moreover, he makes it clear why Polybius had not included some, if not all, of this material: Valerius had made it up. 29 On the other hand, although it is true that Livy drew on a wide variety of sources in his search for material, T. A. Suits has recently shown with what apparent care this sometimes ordinary, sometimes humdrum material was arranged (especially 7. S-28. 9). 30 Three subjects, ordered chiastically, form the larger frame: Flamininus' election and his continuation of command ( 7. 8-12; 28. 3-9), embassies from Attalus (8. 9-16; 1.7.r ), and Aelius' activities in Gaul ( 9. 5; 26. 1-3). The bulk of the material for 198 is devoted to res Graeciae, in which the chief contrast is between the siege of Atrax and the siege of Elatea; within each a digression on simultaneous naval activities is inserted ( 1 6. 1 -1 7. 3; 19. 1 -5 and 2 3. 4-1 3). Within the latter and at about the cent er of the book comes the conference of the Achaean League ( 19. 5-1.3. 3), the highlight of which is the lengthy speech of Aristaenus-again in the center of its section ( 2 1). Book 35, except for the ending based on Poly bi us ( 42-5 1 ) , shows that for most of the years 193 and 192 Livy was again faced with insufficient or petty material. He resorts to many of the same remedies as before: lengthy sections adapted 29 32. 6. 5-7 records the variant of Antias. The report of the atrox seditio that Villius on arriving in Macedoniam found among Galba's soldiers ( 3) is probably from the same or a different Roman source: Briscoe's argument ( Comm. r7z) for a Polybian prm-enance is not convincing to me. :io Pbilologus 118 ( 1974) 257-265.

50

BOOKS

31-35

from Poly bi us containing mostly Greek material ( e.g. the Achaean war against Nabis: 25-30), 31 and supplementing res Graeciae of Polybius with information from Roman sources -in this instance Claudius Quadrigarius on the meeting between Scipio and Hannibal ( 14. 5-12 ), and the use of two Roman sources for other episodes. 32 A new technique appears for the first time: that of dividing up material (most of it quite ordinary) and placing the various parts at successive stages throughout the year. This gives the impression that much more was going on than in fact was. For example, res Hispaniae for 193 are divided into three parts ( 1, 2. 2-9, 7. 6-8); the problem of holding the levy into two (34. 56, 35. 2. 3-9); the events in north Italy concerning the consuls' activities there into six: ( 1) 34. 56 (a tumultus is declared before the consuls depart), ( 2) 35. 3-5 ( Minucius' activities in Liguria, Merula's in Gaul), (3) 35. 6. 8-10 (a private report on Merula's poor conduct by a legate to friends in Rome), (4) 8 (Merula arrives in Rome to hold elections; a dispute in the Senate over the worth of his performance), ( 5) 1 1 ( activities in Liguria extrema eius anni), (6) 21.7-11 (activities of Minucius in Liguria before the arrival of the new consuls of 192). The elections for 193 and 192 are similarly treated. In 193 there is a lengthy, obviously padded, wrangle as to which consul should hold them ( 6. 1-7. 5); a bit later the consul chosen arrives in Rome for this purpose (8. 1 ), but the subject is inexplicably dropped; at 10. 1 ff. we read in exitu iam annus erat and that the elections were at last held among a large number of rival candidates. For the year 192 Livy reports that the magisa1 This is not to deny that the war had implications for Rome: 35. 25, 30. 12-13. 22 As opposed to using a second source simply for odd bits of material to supplement a single main source (for example, Valerius Antias is the variant at 35. z. 8-9). The events at the end of 193 in Liguria ( 1 r) are clearly from a different source from that used in 3. The section 40. z-4, concerning consular activities in Gaul for 19z, is a doublet of the same events reported at z. 3-4: each derives from a different source.

51

LIVY

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

52

BOOKS

31-35

192 (25-39). After fifteen chapters we find this transition back to events in Rome (40. 1): Abstulere me velut de spatio Graeciae res immixtae Romanis, non quia ipsas operae pretium esset perscribere sed quia causae cum Antiocho fuerunt belli. Consulibus desig;natis-inde namque deverteram-L. Quinctius et Cn. Domitius consules in provincias prof ecti sunt, Quinctius in Ligures, Domitius adversus Boios ... (40. 1-2). Livy then narrates for a second time the same events that he had described earlier at 22. 3-4, although here it clearly comes from a different source, since in the previous version the consuls had already completed their assignments in north Italy, while here they have not yet left Rome. Moreover, Livy breaks off his narrative at 24. 7-8 at the moment of sortition ( dum novi magistratus sortirentur provincias . . . ) . It is not until 41. 2 that the sortition is resumed, and now iam fere in exitu annus erat (4r. 1 ), whereas at 24. 1 ad rem pertinere visum est consules primo quoque tempore creari. All of this illustrates "grosse Eilfertigkeit" on Livy's part. 33 The truth is that the events of 193-191 did not warrant nearly a book and a half for exposition and that in consequence his interest in the meager and humdrum material often flagged. For the nine-year period as a whole, three, or at most four, books would seem to have been enough.

BooK 31. 1-32 Book 31, and especially chapters 1-32, exhibit some peculiar features of design and composition. An analysis of the Livian narrative and of the extant extracts from Polybius reveals much about how Livy could on occasion manipulate and rearrange his material. First, these chapters are carefully written and well organized. Subject matter and structure are complex: the events of 200 in the East are given in two stages ( 14-18, 22. 433

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

176.

53 Brought to you by | UCL - University College London

LIVY

47. 3), those in Gaul in three (10. 1-1r. 3, 21. 1-22. 3, 47.4-

7 ). Transitions are marked by resumptive phrases or appropriate tags (10. 1, 14. 4-5, 18. 9, 21. 1, 22. 4). The section concerning the war vote and the dispatch of Sulpicius Galba to the East is particularly intricate. Religious matters appear in four places ( 5. 3-4, 8. 3-4, 9. 6-10, I 2. 1-13. I), embassies in two (9. 1-5, 11. 4-12), with interruptions for an account of the Gallic tumultus ( 10. r-r r. 3) and for the problem of satisfying the state creditors from the Hannibalic \Var ( 13. 2-9). Again the transitions are carefully marked ( 9. 1, 9. 5, 10. 1, 13. 1, 14. 1). The dominant role of the Senate gives special coherence; except for the Gallic tumultus the scene throughout remains fixed in Rome and the focus is on that body's deliberations and decisions. 34 The Polybian sections are also well done. An example is the siege of Abydus. Not only are the style and diction striking and imaginative, as A. H. McDonald has pointed out, but a tripartite structure ( which Livy favored for sieges) has been fashioned out of the mass of Polybian material: 35 the first attack ( r 7), Aemilius' ultimatum to Philip ( 18. 1-4), the final assault and On the role of the Senate, see Klotz, Livius 24-28. It may be that some or all of res Galliae of 200 are from a second Roman source, bur I see no way of making a probable case for it: cf. Zimmerer, CQ 26-28. A few items suggest that the Roman notices for the end of 201 may derive from a different source than for zoo: ( r) 31. 49. 5 concerning land allotments to Scipio Africanus' veterans might be a doublet of 4. 1-3-but see Briscoe, Comm. 161; (2) res Galliae of 201 at 2. 5-11 do not fit well '-Vith those of 200 at 10. 1-11. 3, since, whereas the consul of 201 had failed to check the Boii or avenge the death of his praefectus sociorum, in 200 we find the Senate disbanding most of his army ( 10. 5) and taken by surprise by a Gallic tumultus ( ro. 1). These facts are suggestive, but no more; the transition at 10. 1 could well be Livy's imaginative addition; see Kahrstedt, Annalistik 58-59; A. H . .i\lcDonald, JRS 53 (1963) 189, in a review of B. Ferro, Le Ongini de/la II guerra macedonica. Nissen, KU 131, may be correct that the Roman notices for the book are from a single source. 35 JRS 47 ( 1957) 169. On the structure, see \Vine, Darstellung 2.93-296, 362-363. 34

54

BOOKS

31-35

capture ( 18. 5-9). 36 His account of events in the East prior to the opening of the regular spring campaign is also carefully done (22. 4-32. 5). The arrival of Claudius Cento at Athens (22. 4-8) and at Chalchis (23) is balanced by Philip's arrival at Chalchis (24. 1-3) and then at Athens (24. 4-18). The contrast between the faithful ally protected and the faithful ally left to the mercy of the enemy ( 2 2. 5-7 and 24. 5) is pointed and explicit. The sequence is completed by an account of Philip's failure to enlist Achaean support ( 2 5) and his return to the attack on Athens and Attic territory (26).37 After a brief account of the exploits of L. Apustius ( 2 7) and a review of the allies and plans of both sides ( 28) Livy omits the reasons Polybius gives for Philip's siege (,6. z9. the account of the location and the topography of Abydus (z9. 3-14), Polybius' introductory remarks on the general nature and fame of the siege (30. 1-3), and his comparison of the Abydeni with the Phocians and Acarnanians (32. 1----0); he compresses all of Polybius' 16. 33 into six lines (31. 17. 10-n). The comparison with Saguntum is added at the start and at the end (17.5, 18.9), with rabies as the leitmotif (17.5, 17. rn, 18.6). By tripartite structure I mean that the course of a siege is interrupted before the denouement by a digression or special episode-chiefly of course to heighten suspense and delay the ending. Compare the siege of Leucas at 33. 17. 3-15 (based on Polybius), which is interrupted after the siege is underway by an excursus on the topography of the site (17. 5-8). It is difficult to believe that in Polybius it appeared at this point rather than at the start. Livy dispensed with Polybius' description of the topography of Abydus; the meeting of Philip with Aemilius was sufficient for the "interruption." The siege of Saguntum (21. 7. 1-15. z), the most famous and well developed in Livy's history (and perhaps archetypal as well), is broken into three phases, punctuated by the speeches of Hanno ( 10. 1-11. 2) and of Alorcus (12.3-13.9). See P. G. Walsh, RhM 97 (1954) 97100; idem, Livy 1()6. 37 Philip's failure in every attempt at strategem, surprise, and cleverness is emphasized throughout: he could not prevent the sack of Chalcis ( z4. 3), he failed to take Athens by surprise or assault (24.4-18), he could not win over the Achaeans (25.8); even when attacking Athens in concert with his general Philocles, to say nothing of Eleusis (26. 3-12), he fails; the leitmotif of ira and furor reinforces the theme (24. 11, IZ, 18; 26. 11, 13). 36

r-z),

55

LIVY

the high point at mid-book is reached with the conference of the Aetolian League. At the same time there are some odd structural features. Chief among them is the transition to res Graeciae at 14- 15, based on a Roman source; the phrases secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus, longis nnvibus, and in Macedoniam traiecit strongly suggest the identification. 38 The source described the Athenian plea for help in lifting Philip's siege and the dispatch of C. Claudius Cento to Athens cum viginti longis navibus et mille militum. It was this piece of information in a Roman source that was the signal to Livy to switch over to Polybius' more detailed account of these same events. The narrative at 14. 4 ff. is therefore based on the Greek historian. 39 Livy begins by assuring us that Philip was not personally engaged in the siege of Athens, but rather in that of Abydus, and that although he had not fared well in two previous naval engage38 Briscoe (Comm. 10 n. 4, 172) believes that in Macedoniam is not necessarily a sign of Roman origin; Livy could be expressing Polybian material in a Roman manner. This is possible but unlikely: no passage shows this to ha\"e been the case, while most that have the phrase in Macedonianz betray additional signs of coming from a Roman source. Compare 31. 14. 2 (R: Sulpicius ... in Macedoniam in provinciam traiecit) with 31. 22.4 (P: consul alter cum ... referring to the same venisset, circa Apolloniam hibernabat)-both event; or 32. 3.1 (R: P. Villius in Macedoniam cum venisset) with 32. 6. 1 (P: consul ... cum Corcyrae bibernasset)-both also referring to the same situation. Other passages deriving from Polybius such as 3.2. 9. 6, 42. 49. 9-10 and 44. 1. 3-4 also have exact place names. Contrast these with 44. 22. 17 (R: et consul et praetor Cn. Octavius in Macedoniam prof ecti sum/ and the report based on Polybius of the same event ( 30. 1): consul Aemilius in Macedoniam, Octavius Oreum ad classem-Paullus' destination being the Roman camp at the Elpeus River, which was inside Macedonian territory. 39 Briscoe (Comm. 94) is right, I think, in maintaining that 14. 4-5 (possibly 14. 3 as well) is a general summary of the situation in the East based on Polybius (i.e. it was not copied or derived from one specific passage in the Greek historian) and that Livy may have tailored some of the information to make it fit with the preceding Roman version.

56

BOOKS

3l-J5

ments against Rhodes and Attal us, ferocia insita as well as his recent agreement with Antiochus to carve up the kingdom of the new boy-king of Egypt gave him high hopes for the future. There follows a flashback ( 14. 6-r 8. 9) giving some of the earlier events of the year in the East (based on Polybius) and bringing the reader up to the point of departure-Philip's siege of Abydus and the consul's arrival in Greece (r8. 8-9): Philippus imposito Abydi praesidio in regnum rediit . ... Nuntii occurrerunt consulem iam in Epiro esse et Apolloniam terrestres copias, navales Corcyram in hiberna deduxisse. At this point one looks for a continuation of events in the East; there was much to tell about the activities of Claudius Cento, Philip, and the consul ( 22. 4 through 27. 1 or p. 5) prior to the earliest days of the following spring (33. 2: principio veris, cf. 28. 3). Livy instead inserts here three and a half chapters based on a Roman source ( 19. 1-22. 3): a report on the success of the legation sent ito Africa ( continued from 11. 1 2 ), a dispute over the triumph of the Spanish governor, and the successes of the praetor L. Furius in Gaul ( continued from 11. 3, to be concluded at 4 7. 6-7). This done, he resumes his account of Eastern events at the point where he had left it at 14. 1-4 and again at 18. 9. The transition is clearly marked: Consul alter cum autumno ferme exacto in provinciam venisset, circa Apolloniam hibernabat. Ah classe, quae Corcyrae subducta erat, C. Claudius triremesque Romanae, sicut ante dictum est, Athenas missae . .. (22. 4-5). Thus we can see that Livy's Roman source recorded Eastern events during the consulate of P. Sulpicius Galba at a fairly early point in its narrative (i.e. answering to 14. 1-5). It is doubtful that it recorded events that had occurred earlier in Greece during zoo, since the dispatch of Claudius Cento to Athens is given as the first order of business.40 The 40 Some or all of the following events as recorded by Polybius may have been part of the Roman historian's subsequent account: Claudius' activities at Athens and his surprise assault on Chakis (JI. 22. 4-23. 12), Philip's arrival at Chalcis and assault on Athens

57

LI\'Y

arrangement of material in this Roman source was therefore simpler than that in Livy. After the vote to war and the accompanying ceremonies, the source followed Sulpicius to the East and recounted events there during his consular ( and perhaps his proconsular) year; the source concluded the year zoo with activities in Gaul ( of the praetor Furius, followed by those of the consul Aurelius) and in Rome; that is, the materials in 19. 1-2 2. 3 and 4 7. 4-49. 12 were given together in a continuous narrative. This simple arrangement (Roman material-the East-Roman material) is commonly found elsewhere in Livy ( e.g. in the years 199, 198, 197, 1 94). It is also clear that Livy is responsible for the division of the Polybian material into two parts and for the division of the Roman material that remained after 1 4. 3 also into two parts. His reason seems clear. Sulpicius did not arrive in his provincia until the end of autumn, and he went immediately into winter quarters. And because Livy had read ahead both in his Roman source(s) and in Polybius, he knew that he ought to include a flashback to at least some of the events in Greece that occurred before the consul's arrival, and that certain other events which took place elsewhere and which the Roman source placed after the arrival of Sulpicius in Greece must logically have occurred before it: e.g. the victories of the praetor Furius in Gaul. Here, then, is one reason why Livy did not at once continue with Eastern events after the flashback based on Polybius at 14. 4-18. 9. He wanted to narrate the year's events in an order closer to the one in which thev must have occurred: i.e. to make better chronological s~nse. It was Polybius' dating of the consul's arrival to the end of autumn that prompted him to make these changes ( 1 8. 9, 2 2. 4). (24). his failure to secure Achaean support (25), and his further attacks in concert with Philocles on Attic territory ( 26). Klotz, on the other hand ( Livi us 3, but cf. 2 7), believes that the source ga,·e few additional details or episodes· nihil memorabile gessit. He may be right.

58

BOOKS

3l-J5

There was another reason. In the long section from 2 2. 4 to 47. 3 Livy gives a continuous account not only of res Graeciaeof the winter of 200, but also of those of the spring and summer of 199. Since all of this material was to be grouped together, he had to reserve it to as late a point as possible in the account of the year 200. Some believe that he was oblivious of the time-lapse and hence unaware that he had included events of 199 in his account of 200.41 But this belief is questionable in light of the careful recording of the passing of the seasons in sections dependent on Polybius: the end of autumn at 22. 4; winter quarters at 18. 9, 22. 4, and 28. 3; the beginning of spring at 33. 2; summer activities at 44. 1 and 47. 3; the approach of the autumn equinox at 47. 1. Polybius used no word for autumn; it will not do to picture a barely conscious Livy mechanically reproducing from Polybius phrases such as those at 22. 4 and 47. I. 42 On the other hand, at 4 7. 4, when moving from events in Greece of 199 to those in Gaul of 200, he makes no acknowledgment of the transition. But when one tries to imagine what he could say by way of explanation, his reluctance to mention the problem is understandable. Only a lengthy, involved paragraph could do justice to the difficulities he found in merging his Roman source ( s) and their consular dating with Polybius and his reckoning by Olympiads. Rarely, and only for major cruces, such as at 21. 15. 3-6 and 38. 56-57, was Livy willing to disfigure his narrative with such interruptions. There are several probable reasons for the inclusion of events in the East of 199 with the account of the year 200. The first concerns the start of the Roman consular year, which Livy knew took place in this period on March r 5th (5. 2, cf. 32. r. r ). But it is doubtful whether he or his Roman source also knew that the Roman calendar was approximately a month and a half behind at this time 43 and 4-l See

Klotz, Livius 4. Cf. Briscoe, Cornrn. 2-3, , 15. See Pedech, Methode 461-464; Walbank, Comm. ,, 257; 2, 529· ,s The solar eclipse of March 14, 190 (Julian) is dated by Livy 42

59

LIVY

that the entrance of the consuls of 200 into office on March r 5th in fact took place in late January, reckoning by the Julian calendar.H Hence Livy would naturally suppose that the winter events described at 2 2. 4 to 2 7. r ( or 32. 5) would fall within the consular year 200. The difficulty was knowing at just what point in Polybius' continuous narrative the Roman consular year of 199 began: a pretty problem (today as then). 45 Polybius' terminology did not help, since he seldom differentiated magistracy from promagistracy. Thus Livy styles Sulpicius consul throughout (33. 4, 37. r, 38. rn, 39. 1, 40. 6, 47. 3); only later and in a passage based on a Roman source is he acknowledged as proconsul (32. 1. 12 ). Livy wisely refrained from making what would have been the arbitrary decision of assigning the start of the consular year 199 to a point of his choosing within the Polybian narrative. He gives chronology its due by noting the passing of the seasons; for the rest, the presence and command of Sulpicius gave unity and coherence to the whole of 22. 447.3. Another consideration may have entered. Cynoscephalae was to begin the central book of the pentad and the peace with Philip was to stand in the middle of that book. If Livy had broken the Polybian narrative at, say, 27. r or 32. 5, he would have had to recount the start of 199, if not the whole of that year, in Book 31. This would have left even less material for 32, which, as it stands, is the shortest of the extant books. (37. 4. 4) to July 11 (Roman): a gap of 117 days: see E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (London 1968) 46. This was caused by a failure to intercalate during the 190s, as P. Marchetti (AC 42 [1973 l 473--~96) and P. S. Derow (Phoenix 30 [1976] 265-281) show, basing their argument largely on the dating for the year 203 provided by Polybrns at 14. 1-w and by Ovid, Fasti 6. 763-770. 44 Derow, Phoenix 30 (1976) 265-281, fixes /\far. 15, 201 (Roman) at Feb. 3, 201 (Julian) and Mar. 15, 200 (Roman) at Jan. 24, 200 (Julian). 45 He might profitably have employed the device he used later in describing Cn. Manlius' activities in Asia (38. 37. 1): Hieme ea, qua haec Romae gesta sunt, ad Cn. Manlium consulem primum, dein pro consule, /Jibernantem in Asia, legationes ... conveniebant.

60

BOOKS

Jl-Jf

Livy's Roman source placed the vote for war and Sulpicius' departure for Greece at an early point in its narrative of the year zoo. In fact, the entire burden of this account is that the events from the Senate's vote in favor of war to the consul's arrival in Macedoniam formed a unitary sequence that was pushed on urgently and rapidly by Senate and magistrates. It began toward the end of 201, when complaints of several allies, especially Athens, prompted the dispatch of an investigative force. Its report was alarming: Philip was making vast preparations for war by land and sea. The report opportunely arrived in time to be read at the meeting of the Senate on the first day of the new consular year; the first order of business of that body was a decree in favor of war ( 5. z). Events follow one after the other with no indication of undue delay: sortitio, rogatio, rejection by the comitia, speech of the consul urging acceptance, vote for war, consultation of the f etial priests, assignment of military forces, and vows (5-9). Further events (Gallic tumultus, embassy to Africa, and religious matters, including prodigies) are represented as almost simultaneous with those described before, since 1 4. r picks up at the point where 9. 10 leaves off: Tum P. Sulpicius secundum vota in Capi-

tolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus ab urbe Brundisium venit et ... altero die quam a Brundisio solvit in Macedoniam traiecit. I bi ei praesto fuere Atheniensium legati orantes ut se obsidione eximeret. Missus extemplo Athenas est C. Claudius Cento cum viginti longis navibus et mille militum. In short, the Roman account depicted a series of events that follow quickly upon one another; there is no hint here of long intervals; in fact, they are rather precluded. Note that the Roman source had yet to describe events of the summer of zoo in Gaul, Africa, and Rome ( 19-2 2). Of course recruitment of legions, discharge of veterans, and enlistment of volunteers required time for completion before actual embarkation (31. 8. 5-6, 9. 5, 14. 1-2); but there is no suggestion of a significant delay. Polybius, on the other hand, reported that the consul arrived at the end of autumn and at once went into winter quarters ( 1 8. 9, 2 2. 4). It was

61

LIVY

this fact, as we have seen, that prompted Livy to shift about his material in order better to reconcile the Roman and the Polybian versions. Two other chronological problems should be mentioned here. First, the much discussed and puzzling embassy of C. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus, and P. Sempronius Tuditanus was, according to a Roman source, sent out late in 201 to visit King Ptolemy ( 3 1. 2. 3-4). But according to Polybius by April-May of 200 it had only reached Athens, evidently having taken over two months to visit Phoenice, Athamania, Naupactus, and Aegiurn en route (Pol. 16. 2527, esp. 27. 4). 46 While at Athens it delivered an ultimatum to Nicanor, Philip's general, who was ravaging Attic territory. From Athens it took another four months for the embassy to reach Rhodes, since it was from there around the month of September that Aemilius sailed to Abydus to deliver the Roman ultimatum to Philip in person (Pol. 16. 29-35, Livy 31. 17-18 [P]). 47 Second, the ravaging of Attica by Philip and his generals. According to the Roman source ( 3 1. 1. 1 o), it had begun by late 201 and was again going on early in 200 ( 5. 6) as well as after the formal war vote ( 9. 3); on the other hand, according to Polybius ( 16. 25-26) it was not until the spring of 200 that at the urging of Attalus Athens was prevailed upon to vote for war. The invasion of Nicanor followed (Pol. 16. 27-28) and then that of Philocles (Livy 31. 16. r-2 [P]), 48 and was still in progress when the Athenians appealed to Sulpicius on his See Walbank, Comm. z, 538. This is Walbank's reconstruction, Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge 1940; repr. with a new Foreword 1967) 315 and n. 5. It may be, however, that from Athens the embassy went straight on to ";sit Prolemy and Anriochus, as Polybius says (16. 27. 5), and that Rhodes was a stopover on their return trip. Such a journey could be completed between the ultimatum to Nicanor and the siege of Abydus. 48 That Nicanor "\.Vasa subordinate of Philocles and that the two invasions are doublets is possible but not likely: see Walbank, Comm. 2, 536-537; Briscoe, Comm. 44, 100. 46

47

62

BOOKS

3!-35

arrival in Greece later that autumn ( Livy JI. 14. 3 [R],

2 2.

5

[P]).

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

63

LIVY

disposed of, events in Rome and Italy, and then the actions of the other consul in Gaul, are related. It is only from Polybius (Livy 32. 6. r [P]) that we hear that Villius, like

Sulpicius, arrived in the East so late in the year that he went at once into winter quarters. Next, the year 198. Polybius reported that Quinctius Flamininus, unlike his two predecessors, arrived in Greece early in his year of office (32. 9. 6 [P]): that is, in early to mid-spring. Not only was the Roman version unaware of this fact, but it appears actually to imply the reverse: that is, that Flamininus arrived rather later in his year than his two predecessors had in theirs. At the start of the year 1 97 we read in Livy this review from his Roman source of the previous three years of warfare: "Sulpicius had spent the greater part of his year of office in seeking an opportunity to engage the king and his army; Villius had been recalled while actually engaging the enemy but before he could reach a decision; Quinctius had been detained in Rome for the greater part of his year of office, attending to his religious duties." 49 The evidence is clear. Nor only did Livy's Roman source not know in what part of a consular year these Eastern events occurred, but when faced with havii.ngto set them in some context, the source made three wrong guesses out of three. I believe that this ignorance may account for the fabrication that Valerius Antias concocted for the year 199. According to Polybius (32. 6. 1-4 [P] ), the consul Villius had arrived in Greece so late in 199 that he went at once into winter quarters; in early spring of 1 98 he moved his troops into the Aous valley where Philip had deployed his forces; but before he could engage the king, Flamininus arrived and took over the command. Livy remarks that all the Greek and Roman writers that he had consulted, with the exception of Antias, reported that Villius did nothing 49 32. 28. 5---0: quaerendo re gem et exercitum ems Sulpicium maiorem partem anni absumpsisse; Villium congrediemem cum hoste infecta re revocatum; Quinctium rebus divinis Romae maiorem partem anni retentum.

64

BOOKS

3!-35

worthy of note durmg his tenure of command. 50 Valerius, on the other hand, described in detail a great battle in which Villius defeated Philip and took the king's camp by storm. Now Valerius' mendacity is well known. 51 But it is less clear why he tended to fabricate as he appears to have done. In this instance we can see a possible reason. He believed that Villius arrived in Greece fairly early in his year of office. But then came a hiatus: no activities were reported. Villius and Philip apparently sat facing each other in the Aous valley month after month doing nothing. Horror vacui temporis affected the sensibilities of Anitias (after all, they must have done something). This thought stimulated his creative impulse, and he met the challenge fully. He not only dreamed up a great battle and described with gusto the storming of the king's camp, but, in characteristic fashion, appended the following statistics: 12,000 enemy died and 2,200 were captured, along with 1 3z standards and 230 horses. 52 This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the vexed problem of the outbreak of the Second Macedonian War. It is enough to point out that the chronology of events that Livy's Roman source gave is demonstrably in error on some major points, since no one would quarrel with the premise so 32.6. 8: Ceteri Graeci Latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego Jegi annales, nibil memorabile a Villio actum integrumque helium insequentem consulem T. Quinctium accepisse tradunt. The tradition upon which Pausanias (7. 7, 8-9, 10. 36. 6) drew for his account of Villius (whom he calls Orilius) is unknown; he credits him with destroying Hestiaea in Euboea and Anticyra in Phocis. The former (= Oreus) was taken by L. Apustius in 199 (31. 46. 6-16), the latter by Flamininus in 198 (32. 18. 4-6). His account, then, is wholly garbled. 51 Nullus mentiendi modus est, Livy exclaims on one occasion:

z6. 49. 3· 52 The reason why Antias alone and ( presumably) no other historian felt the need to invent things for Vmius to do cannot be known. Doubtless the greater scale and richer detail of his history (with the exception of that of Cn. Gellius) may have made Antias especially aware of the "hiatus" in this instance.

65

LIVY

that the Polybian dating must form the basis of any reconstruction. The differences among scholarly interpretations reduce essentially to how much trust one is willing to put in the information of Livy's Roman sources. Some, such as Nissen, Petzold, vValbank, McDonald, and Broughton, take a dim view of most of it; others, such as Balsdon, Bickermann, and Briscoe-while admitting there are shortcomings here and there-are willing to accept much more. 53 The allegiance of the present writer is to the first group; as we have it in Livy, the Roman account is incomplete and gravely defective. First, it separates sharply the events in the East from those in Rome: for example, there is nothing in it concerning the recent death of Ptolemy IV Philopator, the accession of his young son Ptolemy V Epiphanes, or the alleged pact between Philip and Antiochus to divide up between themselves Ptolemaic possessions outside Egypt. 54 Most scholars believe that all this was suppressed for various patriotic or blinkered reasons; they work on the assumption that the Roman historians in fact knew of the tradition we find in Polybius. But did they? More consideration should be given to the possibility that their omissions occurred not by calculation and design but out of ignorance: i.e. that they may not have known about the late dating of the Polybian tradition and that their own early dating was based more on a desire to begin a year artistically with its most important event rather than because they had sure informa53 Nissen, KU 119 ff.; Petzold, Eroffnung passim; \Valbank, Philip V 306--317; idem, Co1,m1. z, 497-515, 533-544; A. H. McDonald and F. W. \Valbank, JRS 27 (1937) 180-207; MRR 1, 322, n. 3 and 4; J. P. V. D. Balsdon, ]RS 44 ( 1954) 30-42; E. J. Bickermann, RPh 61 (1935) 59--81, 161-176; idem, CPh 40 (1945) 137-148; Briscoe, Comm. 36--47, 49--139. C. P. T. Naude, Pro Munere Grates, Studies Presented to H. L. Gonin (Pretoria 1971) u7-141, believes that the Roman account may be due not so much to later fabrication as to contemporary propaganda; his views are not convincing, particularly his identification of Livy's sour