Livy's Exemplary History

LIVY’S EXEMPLARY HISTORY

JANE D. CHAPLIN

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LIVY'S EXEMPLARY HISTORY

LIVY'S EXEMPLARY HISTORY

JANE D. CHAPLIN

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris SaÄo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # Jane D. Chaplin 2000 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquiror British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

ISBN 01 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset in Imprint by Joshua Associates Ltd., Oxford Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Guildford & King's Lynn

For my mother

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based on my 1993 Princeton doctoral dissertation, and my ®rst thanks go to my supervisor Jim Luce and my readers Janet Martin and Tony Woodman for their contributions to that project. In particular, the ultimate credit for this book belongs to Jim Luce for the suggestion that rethinking Preface 10 in light of the exempla in Livy's narrative might prove pro®table. The book took on its current form in the 1996±7 academic year, during which my research bene®ted materially from Middlebury College's generous leave programme and the Faculty Professional Development Fund as well as from the hospitality of the Department of Greek and Latin at University College London. To the librarians and sta€ of the Joint Library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies I give my warmest and deepest thanks, for the questions they answered, the incomplete references they turned into books and articles, the space in which I worked, and above all their unfailing kindness and interest. It is a pleasure to thank publicly the people whose e€orts have made this book possible. Among many encouraging and supportive colleagues at Middlebury College, it was Eve Adler and Peggy Nelson who taught me how to combine research constructively with undergraduate teaching. Angelos Chaniotis, Andrew Feldherr, and Stephen Oakley shared their work in pre-publication form. Anne Alwis, Will Broadhead, Maria Broggiato, Kathryn Edmunds, Bella Sandwell, and Toma Tasovac retrieved and relayed information for me while the manuscript was in preparation. Michael Crawford read an early version of Chapter 6, and the Introduction received the thoughtful attention of Rolando Ferri, John Marincola, Robert Parker, Barbara Rodgers, Robert Rodgers, and most particularly Chris Pelling, whose comments substantially improved it. I thank Rolando Ferri and Robert Parker especially for

viii

Acknowledgements

allowing me to try to convert them into Livians. It is only ®tting that the manuscript was submitted at the very end to the laser-keen eye of Adele Scafuro, who also bears the burden of having introduced me to Livy ®fteen years ago. No statement of gratitude can ever be commensurate with the labour of this book's most dedicated critics and friends: Christina Kraus, David Levene, and Tony Woodman. In particular, David's shrewd comments on the dissertation enabled me to reconceptualize the entire undertaking and guided the course of the revisions. Tony's degree of care as a reader eclipsed my own on more than one occasion; he has also been a constant source of guidance and moral support, and I thank him for having followed this project from the start. To Chris I can say only that I will always be mindful of the gap between what you have done for me and my ability to express what I owe you. At the end of such a catalogue it may seem ludicrous to introduce the topos of authorial responsibility, and this book would not be what it is without the acute and generousspirited contributions of these friends and colleagues; at the same time, if I can claim anything as my own, it is the errors of fact and judgement that undoubtedly remain, and so I do. J.D.C. Middlebury, Vermont June 1999

CONTENTS

Abbreviations and Editions Used

xi

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla 1. Caudium as Event and Exemplum 2. Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum 3. Reading the Past 4. Past and Present 5. Precedents and Change 6. Livy, Augustus, and Exempla Conclusion: Continuity and Change

1 32 50 73 106 137 168 197

Appendix: Models for Imitation and Avoidance Works Cited General Index Index Locorum

203 215 231 000

ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITIONS USED

There is no complete modern edition of Livy. Passages quoted generally follow the text of the Oxford Classical Text editions for Books 1±10 and that of the most recent Teubner editions for Books 21±45. In preparing the Appendix I frequently relied on the extensive index in Volume 14 of the Loeb. Other authors are quoted and cited from standard editions; the fragments of Sallust's Histories are numbered according to the Oxford Classical Text. Abbreviations of modern works other than those in L'AnneÂe Philologique are listed below. ANRW

CAH X2

CHCL

CIL

HRR ILS

H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der roÈmischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972± ). A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. Lintott (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. X. The Augustan Empire 43 B.C.±A.D. 69, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). E. J. Kenney, and W. V. Clausen (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. ii (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. i. 1, 2nd edn., ed. W. Henzen, C. Huelsen, and T. Mommsen; vol. xiii.1.1, ed. O. Hirschfeld (Berlin: George Reimer, 1893 and 1899). H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, vol. i, 2nd edn. and vol. ii (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906±14). H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, vols. i±iii (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892).

xii MRR

OLD PLLS

RE L'urbs

TLL W±M

Abbreviations and Editions T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (vols. i±ii, New York: American Philological Association; vol. iii, Athens, Ga: Scholars Press, 1951±86). P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968±82). Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar, continued as Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar (Liverpool and Leeds: Francis Cairns (Publications) ). A. Pauly et al. Real-EncyclopaÈdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1893± ). L'urbs: espace urbain et histoire (Ier sieÁcle avant J.-C.±IIIe sieÁcle apreÁs J.-C.). Actes du colloque international organise par le Centre national de la  cole francËaise de Rome, recherche scienti®que et l'E  cole FrancËaise de Rome 98 Collection de l'E  cole francËaise de Rome). (Rome: L'E Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: Teubner 1900± ). W. Weissenborn and H. J. MuÈller, Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri (Berlin: Weidmann, 1880± 1924; repr. 1967).

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla LIVY AND EXEMPLA Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri; inde tibi tuaeque rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu quod uites. For in the study of history it is especially improving and bene®cial to contemplate examples of every kind of behaviour, which are set out on a clear monument. From it you can extract for yourself and your commonwealth both what is worthy of imitation and what you should avoid because it is rotten from start to ®nish. (Praef. 10)

In the Preface Livy invites his audience to seek exempla in his narrative of Roman history. In accepting the o€er, modern readers have tended to look to Livy's treatment of well-known ®gures, especially those from the early days of the city. Lucretia, the victim of Sex. Tarquinius' lust, is a regular choice,1 and justi®ably so, for she herself recognizes her exemplary potential with her dying words: `nec ulla deinde impudica Lucretiae exemplo uiuet'.2 With this speech she seems to o€er exactly the kind of lesson indicated in Preface 10. Curiously enough, however, in the extant books and fragments of Livy, Lucretia is never cited as an exemplum, and no one ever takes her as a model of conduct. In this sense she disappoints the expectation raised by the Preface that it is possible to learn from history.3 She can be understood only as a lesson for 1 See e.g. Haberman (1981), Philippides (1983), Calhoon (1997), and Feldherr (1998) 196. 2 `Nor from now on shall any unchaste woman live with Lucretia as her model' (1. 58. 10). 3 It is true that Lucretia does not vanish altogether. She is commemorated, though not named, at Brutus' funeral when he is credited with avenging her suicide (2. 7. 4). Further, Livy refers to her in his introduction to the parallel story of Verginia (3. 44. 1), and her story underlies all subsequent tales of inappropriate lust mingled with political tyranny: on Livy's use of the Lucretia narrative as a paradigm, see Kraus (1991). Her typological function makes her lack of impact as an exemplum all the more striking, but see the

2

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

Livy's readers, and indeed modern scholars have generally treated Livy's exempla as moral truths for an Augustan audience.4 Yet focusing solely on characters or events that are identi®able as exempla within their immediate context (such as Lucretia) does not do full justice to Livy's statement about the value of history because this approach encourages a concentration on the ®rst part of his claimÐ that history is a storehouse of bene®cial lessonsÐto the detriment of the secondÐthat people can tailor their actions according to what they have learned from the past. This second aspect deserves more attention since Livy's History can pro®tably be read as an extended enactment of his programmatic statement. His narrative constantly depicts people scrutinizing and using historical knowledge. When we look beyond Livy's initial presentation of characters and episodes to the ways in which he shows people choosing to imitate or avoid what they ®nd in history, a much wider range of material immediately becomes available for exemplary analysis.5 In some cases, his historical characters use the language of the Preface and identify something as an exemplum or a documentum; these passages allow us to formulate a preliminary idea of what Livy means in Preface 10.6 But equally germane are all the occasions where people base their behaviour on what they know of history. The text o€ers opening of Ch. 6 for the purpose of self-consciously exemplary ®gures in Livy's narrative. 4 There are numerous studies along these lines. Recent examples include Vasaly (1987) on the Appii Claudii and Jaeger (1993) on Manlius Capitolinus as well as Feldherr (1998) passim. See in general Ogilvie (1970) 18±19 on Livy's moral emplotment of history. Santoro L'hoir (1990), Feichtinger (1992), and Feldherr (1998) have recently emphasized the importance of Livy's contemporary audience. von Haehling (1989) is a study of contemporary references in the ®rst decade. 5 See the Appendix for the items that are cited as exempla in the History. 6 This is the thrust of Crosby (1980), who classi®es each usage of exemplum and documentum in the extant text before going on to speculate about possible exempla in the lost books. For a briefer survey of these words and their meanings in Livy, see Halle (1958) 1±9. Based on Packard (1968), the word exemplum appears 115 times, the word documentum 34 times. Ogilvie raises the total of the former to 116 by printing the conjecture pessimo exemplo publico in Canuleius' speech (4. 4. 5); see Ogilvie (1970) 536.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

3

hundreds of places where Livy's Romans recollect, debate, and manipulate the past. Any speci®c citation of an event or an individual that is intended to serve as a guide to conduct is an exemplum and hence an opportunity to learn from the past. Such an understanding of exempla permits a more comprehensive grasp of Livy's use of them.7 Viewed in this broader way, Livy's exempla turn out to embrace practical matters as well as moral concepts. For instance, military strategy and constitutional procedures are just as likely to turn up in exemplary contexts as are the traditional heroes of early Rome. In fact, as we shall see, exempla vary widely in subject matter. Far from predominating, the legendary ®gures take their place beside unnamed and obscure individuals, as well as battle tactics, constitutional precedents, and religious a€airs. Once we understand an exemplum as anything from the past that serves as a guide to conduct within the text, then it is also necessary to consider more closely who in Livy's text determines what counts as an exemplum. There are in e€ect three di€erent kinds of `voices' articulating exempla. The historian himself very occasionally intrudes to point out a lesson in the ®rst person. More common, however, is the use of historical personages. Roughly a third of exempla occur in passages where Livy attributes to one of his characters the recollection and imitation or avoidance of history. Here it is helpful to borrow from narratology the concept of focalization.8 The focalizer of an exemplum is the person who recognizes it and bases his behaviour on it. But the third and by far the most frequent context for an exemplum is within a speech, either direct or indirect, where the speaker extracts meaning from history and attempts to persuade others of his interpretation. This multiplicity of potential voices is important because the person who identi®es an exemplum may not necessarily grasp its import: he may miss 7 Fundamental to this approach is the recognition that the monumentum of Preface 10 refers not just to Livy's own written history (the Ab Vrbe Condita), but to history in general; on this interpretation see Ogilvie (1970) 28 and Moles (1993) 153. 8 For introductory discussions of the term, see Genette (1980) esp. 185±98 and Bal (1997) 142±61, 170±4.

4

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

the point; he may mislead himself and others. Not everyone in Livy's text has equal success in learning from the past, nor is everyone equally skilful at persuading others of his interpretation. Furthermore, people may interpret the same exemplum in di€erent ways. And so, in considering the signi®cance of exempla, we must take into account their point of origin within the text. Closely related to the question of who articulates exempla is the question of their intended audience. Livy's exempla have multiple audiences, but the most important distinction is between people within the text and those outside it.9 Internal audiences are usually simply the people represented as listening to a speaker and hearing his exempla. Occasionally the same group of people will hear di€erent interpretations of an exemplum (as when the Senate listens to a debate in which both sides employ the same examples), but for the most part any given audience can respond to only a single version. Quite di€erent is the e€ect on the external audience, which can appreciate both repeated citations of the same exemplum throughout Livy's History and the cumulative e€ect of his exploration of exemplary knowledge. At any point Livy may intend his various internal and external audiences to respond to the same exemplum in di€erent ways. The role of the audience is thus also central to the meaning of exempla. By taking into account the various ways audiences respond to exempla, we can see exemplary knowledge in operation. It is in this respect that a reconsideration of Livy's use of exempla has implications for the way we read his History. Livy's programmatic statement is, after all, a call to action. Once we radically expand our view of his exempla to include the activity of learning from the past as demonstrated within his narrative, our understanding of Livy changes signi®cantly as well. He ceases to be a writer whose literary artistry partially compensates for what has been regarded as his second-rate ability as a historian, and becomes instead a perceptive observer of the sweep of Rome's republican past, 9 See pp. 50±3 for a more extensive discussion of the various possible audiences for Livy's text.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

5

especially as that past relates to the problems his own generation faced. In fact, when we approach his exempla diachronically, as they surface, ¯ourish, and pass away over the course of the narrative, Livy emerges as acutely sensitive to the concerns of triumviral and Augustan Rome, and his historiography becomes appreciably more subtle, complex, and dynamic. In this way exempla provide a way of coming to terms with Livy's whole historiographical project. This book illustrates how our view of Livy as a historian and a moralist changes once we approach his exempla from within the matrix of the entire History rather than as isolated episodes.10 THE LESSONS OF HISTORY The subject of exempla in an ancient historian immediately involves two genres: rhetoric and historiography.11 Knowledge of the past is assumed to be advantageous from the beginnings of ancient literatureÐNestor in the Iliad is an obvious example12Ðand in the classical period orators and politicians regularly invoked history.13 The earliest major systematic treatments of historical examples to survive are found in Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 8 (1429a21±1430a14) and Aristotle's Rhetoric (A 2 1356a34±1356b11). There are also discussions from the Roman period, notably in Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, and Quintilian.14 Starting from these sources, modern scholars have analysed the uses of 10 See the conclusion of Ch. 5 for the limitations of the traditional method of interpreting Livy through close readings of such episodes. 11 For the relationship between the two genres, particularly as it concerns Livy, see Oakley (1997) 7±12. 12 For a brief survey of the idea of paradigmatic learning in early Greek literature, see Rutherford (1994) 67±8; Bischo€ (1932) 1±5 discusses the bene®ts of age and experience in the Homeric poems. 13 On historical examples in the Attic orators, see Perlman (1961). Hornblower (1996) 83±4 discusses the relationship between rhetorical theory and Thucydides' speeches. Angelos Chaniotis has made some important points about historical examples in Greek diplomacy; the context was a lecture delivered at New York University in April of 1993 entitled `History as Argument: The Greek Interstate Relations'. The material will be included in a forthcoming book; I am grateful to him for sharing a preliminary version with me. 14 All three texts o€er speci®c de®nitions of exemplum as a rhetorical term embedded in longer discussions (Rhet. ad Her. 4. 62, Cic. Inv. rhet. 1. 49, and Quint. Inst. 5. 11. 1±2).

6

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

paradei3 gmata and exempla in ancient literature. Among general investigations, the work of Alewell and Price has addressed the subject most comprehensively, but Gazich has recently reassessed it in order to highlight what he sees as Quintilian's contribution. Moreover, Demoen has extended Price's survey in order to provide a theoretical framework for the analysis of exempla in late antique and Byzantine as well as classical authors.15 Of Roman authors in particular, Cicero has understandably received the most attention, but there are studies of historical examples in several other writers as well.16 In short, the rhetorical aspects of exempla are now well-trodden terrain, and while I will refer to some of this work in the course of my argument, what follows is a foray into less explored territory. To understand exempla in Livy we should also consider previous historiographical practice, particularly as it intersects with other cultural in¯uences: exempla and more general ideas about learning from the past ®gure prominently in both his literary predecessors and in the Roman world view. Explicit appreciation for the bene®ts of historical knowledge is as old as historiography itself, and claims about history's salutary aspects became a topos of the historical 15 See Alewell (1913) 5±35, B. J. Price (1975), Gazich (1990) 62±83, and Demoen (1997). 16 There is a general discussion of Cicero's use of exempla in Rambaud (1953) 25±54, but the most important is H. SchoÈnberger (1911); see also H. SchoÈnberger (1914), Blincoe (1941), D'Arms (1972), and David (1980b). Treatments of other authors include Gazich (1995) on Propertius; Maslakov (1984), Bloomer (1992), and Skidmore (1996) on Valerius Maximus; Van Buskirk (1938) and Mayer (1991) on Seneca; Henderson (1997) on Juvenal; and Nordh (1954) on Martial. The fundamental study of exempla in Latin literature is Litch®eld (1914); see also Lumpe (1966). While Livy's speeches, particularly in relation to rhetorical theory, have long been a subject of study (e.g. Ullmann [1927] and [1929] and Lambert [1946] ), it is Luce (1993) who points to the importance of exempla within the speeches. The most essential, though sometimes implicit, distinction in modern studies is between historical and mythological exempla, a distinction which goes back to Aristotle (Rhet. B 20 1394a) and which can be problematic inasmuch as ancient and modern understandings of the categories of myth and history are not always coterminous. This distinction, however, does not pose any particular diculty in understanding Livy's exempla almost all of which fall within the realm of history as conceived both currently and in antiquity. For studies of mythological exempla in classical literature, see e.g. Canter (1933), Willcock (1964), and Goldhill (1994).

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

7

preface.17 Livy's programmatic statement is thus nothing unusual, but derives from a long tradition starting with Herodotus. There is something cautious and indirect, perhaps pessimistic, about Herodotus' view of the utility of history. His general position must be extrapolated from his prefatory remarks,18 and the narrative is far from o€ering any kind of straightforward demonstration of mortals' capacity to pro®t from experience. The Histories can, however, be read as a warning to Athens on the inexorable consequences of empire and expansionism.19 If, as this interpretation suggests and Herodotus' own remarks about the growth and decline of cities imply, history is not so much about recurrence as it is about cycles, then an understanding of the past allows one to anticipate the future, but not to alter its ultimate course. Herodotus does not make much use of historical examples as straightforward illustrations of individual points in an oratorical argument. The most clear-cut case is the debate between the Tegeans and the Athenians before Plataea, with each side adducing historical examples to justify its right to hold one of the wing positions.20 Somewhat more complex are those speeches comprised entirely of a narrative designed to teach a lesson. Speakers such as Sosicles, in his denunciation of tyranny, or Leotychides, reminding the Athenians of the unfortunate Glaucon, have much in common with that most Herodotean ®gure, the wise adviser.21 Through this character type Herodotus explores whether or not and how previous experience, or knowledge of it, can bring any advantage. Studies of the wise adviser point in a negative direction: knowledge of the past is no certain guide to future success, whether because of the blindness of the adviser's pupil or that of the adviser 17 Fornara (1983) 104±20 traces, somewhat idiosyncratically, how historiography became purposefully moral and where exempla ®t into the process; on Hellenistic modi®cations of 5th-c. practices, see Sacks (1990) 22±35. Herkommer (1968) 128±36 is the standard account of the topos of history's usefulness in historical prefaces; see further Marincola (1997) 43 n. 28. 18 1. 5 in particular. 19 Fornara (1971), esp. chs. 4 and 5. See also Moles (1996) on Herodotus' method of delivering this warning. 20 Hdt. 9. 26. 1±28. 1. 21 For Sosicles, see Hdt. 5. 92a±h, and for Leotychides, Hdt. 6. 86a±d.

8

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

himself.22 Herodotus' position on history's bene®t is thus far from straightforward. He asserts nothing directly, constructs his narrative only implicitly as a template for contemporary Athenians, and shows warners and rulers alike misapplying or rejecting the lessons of the past. At the same time, he undoubtedly perceives history as valuable: such a view must in some way underlie his entire project; and the wish to preserve knowledge of the past is set out prominently at the very beginning.23 Thucydides ventures into this territory more boldly, openly proclaiming his history's utility, and thereby inviting investigations into just what its usefulness might be. Where Herodotus sees cycles, Thucydides sees repetition, and this is the basis of his assertion that knowledge of the past is advantageous: o7soi de4 boylh3sontai tv9n te genome3 nvn to4 safe4 w skopei9 n kai4 tv9n mello3ntvn pote4 ay¤uiw kata4 to4 a1nurv3pinon toioy3tvn kai4 paraplhsi3 vn e5 sesuai, v1fe3 lima kri3 nein ay1ta4 a1rkoy3ntvw e7 jei.24 Further, his speakers regularly employ exemplary argumentation: Diodotus and Cleon make interesting claims about the potential precedents that the Athenians' treatment of the Mytileneans may set; the Spartans try to convince the Athenians of the uncertainty of good fortune, based on the reversals at Pylos and Sphacteria; Hermocrates is especially skilful at using the Athenians' own experiences and history to defeat them.25 This aspect of Thucydides' work has been closely examined by Hunter in her e€orts to test the preface's assumptions about historical recurrence 22 On wise advisers and tragic warners in Herodotus generally, see Bischo€ (1932) and Lattimore (1939); Bischo€ focuses on the refusal of rulers to accept their counsellors' advice, while Stahl (1975) and Pelling (1991) look at di€erent aspects of the adviser's failure to interpret the past correctly. For wise advisers and tragic warners in Livy, see pp. 37±9, 78±82, 100±1, and 105. 23 The concern for preservation and commemoration is apparent in the famous opening of the Histories: ¹Hrodo3toy ¹Alikarnhsse3 ow i2 stori3 hw a1po3dejiw h7de, v2w mh3te ta4 geno3mena e1 j a1nurv3pvn tQ9 xro3nQ e1 ji3 thla ge3 nhtai, mh3te e5 rga mega3la te kai4 uvmasta3, ta4 me4 n ¾Ellhsi, ta4 de4 barba3roisi a1podexue3 nta, a1klea9 ge3 nhtai, ta3 te a5lla kai4 di' h8n ai1 ti3 hn e1 pole3 mhsan a1llh3loisi. 24 For those who will want to consider the truth about past events and ones which will happen again, much the same in character and shape, in accordance with human nature, it will be useful to judge them accurately (Thuc. 1. 22. 4). 25 Mytilene debate = 3. 37. 1±48. 2, esp. 44. 3; Pylos-Sphacteria = 4. 17. 1± 18. 5; Hermocrates = 6. 76. 1±80. 5. See in general Hunter (1973), esp. 76±82 on Pylos-Sphacteria and 163±71 on Hermocrates.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

9

against the actual narrative of events.26 As she shows, episodes within Thucydides' narrative can have paradigmatic implications, such as Phormio's success in the Corinthian Gulf, where his conduct in the narrative illustrates the quintessential Athenian traits to which the reader has already been introduced in speeches.27 From her examination of recurrence in Thucydides' narrative and what it means to pro®t from understanding how the past repeats itself, Hunter concludes that, to support his belief that history is meaningful, Thucydides was obliged to highlight patterns in it.28 Rutherford o€ers a somewhat more synoptic perspective. After summarizing the two lines of thought he sees in the scholarly discussion of historical utility in Thucydides (that is, those who focus on speci®c lessons and those who look rather at his broad perspective), Rutherford sketches four areas in which Thucydides' History is actually useful: the occasional piece of practical instruction about geographical or military matters, generalizations about human psychology, paradei3 gmata, and the possibility that political leaders may learn from his text. His discussion of paradei3 gmata is further subdivided into historical content, general deployment in speeches, and the detection of weak paradigmatic arguments.29 The combined results of the work of Hunter and Rutherford point up the multiple facets of Thucydides' view of history's usefulness.30 Just as Thucydides and Herodotus took an interest in the past and its utility far beyond the embedding of historical examples within speeches, so did those who succeeded and emulated them.31 As Dillery has shown, Xenophon followed 26 Hunter's book is very close to my work, both in its general aim of measuring a premise found in the preface against the narrative itself, and in terms of the speci®c territory she covers (namely the chapter on paradigmatic learning (pp. 85±94) and her observations on the privileged position of the reader (e.g. pp. 153, 167, and 170) ); for the latter subject see Ch. 2 and 3 27 28 Hunter (1973) 55±60. Ibid. 183. below. 29 Rutherford (1994) esp. 59±62. 30 For a somewhat di€erent view see Pelling (1991) on Archidamus' problematic function as a wise adviser. 31 On the relationship between Herodotus and Thucydides, see now Hornblower (1996) 122±37, esp. 129±34 for the argument that, within speeches, Thucydides' historical examples and references are drawn either from Herodotus or from his own narrative.

10

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

Herodotus in writing `paradigmatic history' where he sets up communities and individuals as models of good and bad behaviour.32 Both Xenophon and Ephorus have been credited with introducing yet another kind of exempli®cation to historiography: the historian's intrusion on his narrative to identify exemplary conduct.33 Which of the two fourthcentury historians is actually responsible for the innovation, however, makes no di€erence for our understanding of ancient historiography as known to and practised by Livy and for our purposes, Xenophon has the undoubted advantage of having survived directly in far greater quantity. The Hellenica in fact includes numerous passages where the historian interjects his own opinion. For the Phliasians, Xenophon devotes an extended digression to their courageous acts, complimenting their numerous good deeds, calling them noble and strong, and praising their reliability.34 He can also comment more brie¯y: the restraint of the Lacedaemonians, shown to the Mantinean leadership at the end of the siege, receives a succinct commendation: kai4 toy9to me4 n ei1 rh3suv me3 ga tekmh3rion peiuarxi3 aw.35 In addition, Xenophon gives explicit opinions of both good and bad leadership as he proceeds through his narrative.36 This kind of editorializing will emerge as a standard feature in Polybius and the Roman historians, and it might seem natural to proceed directly to the former as an heir to fourth-century innovations in this, and evidently an admirer and emulator of Thucydides in the writing of history generally.37 Polybius, however, chose Rome's rise 32

The phrase is Dillery's (1995); see pp. 123±76 in particular. Fornara (1983) 106±12 attributes the innovation to Xenophon, against the more traditional position that it belongs to Ephorus. For a refutation of Fornara, see Walbank (1985). Dillery (1995) 127±30 weighs and discusses the 34 rival claims. Xen. Hell. 7. 2. 1±3. 1. 35 Let this suce as a supreme proof of obedience to orders (Xen. Hell. 5. 2. 6). 36 For Xenophon's tendency to pass judgement on good and bad generalship, see e.g. 4. 3. 19 (Agesilaus), 5. 3. 7 (Teleutias), 6. 2. 27±32 and 6. 5. 51±2 (Iphicrates), and 7. 5. 8±9 (Epaminondas); Dillery (1995) 164±76 also discusses Mnasippus, Iphicrates, and Jason as paradigmatic leaders. Further, religious matters can receive direct commentary (5. 4. 1). 37 Polybius does not acknowledge Thucydides' in¯uence directly, but Walbank (1972) 40±3 o€ers a cogent account of it as well as of Polybius' silence on the subject. 33

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

11

to power as his subject, began writing his history only after he was brought to Rome, and was in¯uenced by its social and intellectual traditions. These merit some attention before we look at Polybius and the other historians of Rome, especially since they, rather than the classical Greek historians, were Livy's main sources and models and consequently may shed light on that historian's thinking about the utility of the past.

EXEMPLA AT ROME Although Roman historical writing owes a great deal to Greek practice, it re¯ects local in¯uences as well.38 Most important here is the singular emphasis within the Roman aristocratic world on the past as the source of all that was worthy of imitation and emulation, particularly in the guidance and training of the young. Two passages are often cited in this connection, the ®rst from Terence's Adelphoe and the second from Horace's ®rst book of Sermones: Demea: nil praetermitto; consuefacio; denique inspicere, tamquam in speculum, in uitas omnium iubeo atque ex aliis sumere sibi: `hoc facito.' Syros: recte sane. Demea: `hoc fugito.' Syros: callide. Demea: `hoc laudist.' Syros: istaec res est. Demea: `hoc uitio datur.' Syros: probissime.39 . . . insueuit pater optimus hoc me, ut fugerem exemplis uitiorum quaeque notando. cum me hortaretur parce, frugaliter atque 38 Much has been written on the origins of Roman historical writing: for Greek in¯uence, see Badian (1966) 2±7 and for native traditions, see Momigliano (1991) 80±108. 39 Demea: I overlook nothing in raising him; I even tell him to look at the lives of everybody else, as if in a mirror, and to model himself on them: `Act like that!' Syros: Good thinking. Demea: `Avoid that!' Syros: Excellent. Demea: `This is praiseworthy.' Syros: That's the stu€. Demea: `This one is given over to vice.' Syros: Most admirable. (Ter. Ad. 414±19).

12

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla uiuerem uti contentus eo quod mi ipse parasset, `nonne uides Albi ut male uiuat ®lius utque Baius inops? magnum documentum, ne patriam rem perdere quis uelit.' a turpi meretricis amore cum deterreret, `Scetani dissimilis sis.' ne sequerer moechas, concessa cum uenere uti possem, `deprensi non bella est fama Treboni,' aiebat. `Sapiens, uitatu quidque petitu sit melius, causas reddet tibi: mi satis est si traditum ab antiquis morem seruare tuamque, dum custodis eges, uitam famamque tueri incolumem possum: simul ac durauerit aetas membra animumque tuum, nabis sine cortice.' sic me formabat puerum dictis . . .40

The underlying cultural preconceptions of both writers resurface in one of Pliny's letters: Quae potestas referentibus, quod censentibus ius, quae uis magistratibus, quae ceteris libertas, ubi cedendum ubi resistendum, quod silentii tempus, quis dicendi modus, quae distinctio pugnantium sententiarum, quae exsecutio prioribus aliquid addentium, omnem denique senatorium morem (quod ®dissimum percipiendi genus) exemplis docebantur.41 40 The best of fathers trained me in this, namely that I might avoid evil ways by taking note of them. When he exhorted me to live simply, frugally, and content with that which he had provided for me, he would say, `Don't you see how wickedly Albus' son lives, and how poor Baius is? A powerful lesson in not wanting to dissipate one's inheritance.' And when he steered me away from a vulgar romantic attachment to a prostitute, `Please don't resemble Scetanus.' And to prevent me from pursuing married women when I might avail myself of free sex, he said, `The reputation of Trebonius, who was caught in the act, is no good thing. A philosopher might give you reasons as to what should be avoided and what should be sought after; for me it is enough if I can preserve a way of life handed down from the old days, and if I can keep your life and reputation safe as long as you need a guardian. Once time has toughened your mind and limbs, you will swim without a life vest.' With this kind of talk, he shaped me in my boyhood (Hor. Ser. 1. 4. 105±21). Compare Horace's own advice about learning how to write (Ars P. 317±18). 41 From exempla we learned the rights of those proposing legislation, the law for those giving their opinion, the magistrates' power to enforce, the degree of freedom permitted to everyone else; and we learned when to give way and when to persist, when to keep quiet and how long to speak, the di€erence between con¯icting opinions, the relevance of those adding something to earlier speakers; in short, from exempla we learned the whole senatorial method of operation, which is the most reliable kind of education (Plin. Ep. 8. 14. 6).

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

13

Though spanning three centuries and three genres of literature, these passages all express the same perspective on exempla and their place in the education of young Romans, who learn by having pointed out to them the actions of others as worthy of avoidance or imitation.42 The process in general appears lively and interactive.43 The passages also illustrate the generational aspect involved: in the two poets, the father instructs: the son absorbs; and in the Senate, neophytes learn by observing veterans. From Pliny it is clear that learning by example took place outside the family as well as inside; what he is describing here is the tirocinium fori, a custom whereby aristocratic youths attended a friend of the family on his daily business in the forum;44 the military equivalent was the contubernium, where an experienced general kept an eye on the professional development of a younger man.45 A more academic education also relied heavily on deep familiarity with history. As part of a traditional training in oratory, young men were expected to have a ®rm control of exempla in order to muster them e€ectively in speeches.46 Cicero's in¯uence on Livy's historiographical techniques has received if anything too much attention,47 and I do not at all wish to suggest that the historian was merely imitating his distinguished literary precursor. However, Livy was certainly well trained in rhetoric, and Cicero's speeches 42 Pliny's description in fact is located within an explanation of the fact that he was not trained in this fashion. The purpose of the letter is to receive clari®cation on a particular point, and he excuses his ignorance by saying that he was not adequately instructed in procedural matters because the Senate of his boyhood was a supine group of men. Nevertheless, his letter attests to the perception of what constitutes the ideal education. 43 For this style of child-raising and pedagogy, see Marrou (1956) 231±6; the latter work and Bonner (1977) are the standard accounts of Roman education. Also relevant here are Nicolai (1992) on historiography and Skidmore (1996) 13±27 on exempla in Roman education; Mayer (1991) 143± 7 discusses the centrality of exempla to Roman culture. 44 Recommended by Cicero, De Ociis (2. 46). 45 e.g. Agricola was under the surveillance of Suetonius Paulinus (Tac. Agr. 5. 1). Or we might think of the relationship Livy depicts between senior and junior ocers. (See pp. 108±19.) 46 See e.g. Cic. De or. 1. 18 and 256, Orat. 120, and Quint. Inst. 10. 1. 34 and 12. 4. 1±2. 47 In the words of McDonald (1957): `Cicero de®ned the programme, Livy carried it out' (p. 160).

14

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

provide an excellent source of comparison for ways in which speakers could manipulate exempla. Individual studies of exempla in the major genres of Cicero's oeuvre have reached congruent conclusions about the subtlety, ¯exibility, and variety with which he managed historical examples.48 From his speeches it is possible to gauge how deeply steeped in exempla were educated Romans of the late Republic. As has been argued, the e€ectiveness of Ciceronian exempla results from the deeply visual nature of Roman memory; exempla advance an argument because they put the past in front of the audience's eyes.49 They share this quality with many elements of Roman life. Aristocratic funerals, for instance, modelled exemplary conduct. Both the engaging nature of the procession, with actors dressed up and wearing the imagines of the dead man's ancestors, and the funeral oration evoked vivid pictures designed to inspire young men to surpass the deeds of their ancestors.50 The imagines themselves were purveyors of exempla. Located in the atria of aristocratic houses and labelled with the names and accomplishments of the ancestors they represented, they were physical reminders to the residents of the standards set by previous generations: the implicit message was an exhortation to emulation.51 As recent scholarship has emphasized, public counterparts of the imagines were available to everyone. To take one example, statues erected in civic spaces publicized the memory of great men and their deeds to a wide audience. Pliny the Elder speaks of the 48 See H. SchoÈnberger (1911) on the speeches and (1914) on the letters and Blincoe (1941) on selected philosophical works; D'Arms (1972) is particularly interested in the suppleness of Cicero's exempla. I have relied heavily on their conclusions. Given the breadth of Cicero's writings, his longevity as an author, and the complexity of his career, the topic is a rich one and probably worthy of further consideration. 49 See David (1980b) 73, who refers to the de®nition of an exemplum found in Rhetorica ad Herennium: exemplum . . . ante oculos ponit, cum exprimit omnia perspicue, ut res prope dicam manu temptari possit (4. 62); the point is taken up by Gazich (1990) 121±2, who also discusses the metaphor of sight in relation to similitudo and demonstratio (pp. 79±82). 50 Polybius is the main source for the Roman funeral (6. 53. 1±54. 5). 51 The locus classicus for this view is Sallust, Iug. 4. 5±6 (quoted below in n. 95). See Flower (1996) 220±1 on the in¯uence of the imagines on aristocratic youths and also Henderson (1997) passim.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

15

importance of having accomplishments recorded under statues where people could read them (as opposed to funerary inscriptions, which were less accessible to public view).52 This kind of commemoration might be at state expense, but individuals and families often made sure that their achievements were in the public eye, not just through statues, but also through triumphal spoils and actual buildings.53 In addition to the training of young aristocrats and monumental displays, literature was a constant source of exempla. Indeed, in the Pro Archia, Cicero credits literature with the preservation of all exempla.54 Suetonius reports that Augustus read primarily for the purpose of locating useful passages to send to people.55 And Frontinus o€ers his collection of Strategemata to give generals a source of helpful examples which may nurture their own abilities or console them when they see what diculties others have encountered.56 It is in fact dicult to imagine an area of 52

Plin. HN 34. 17. Pliny the Elder has an extended discussion of the history of privately and publicly erected statues (HN 34. 18±34), and con®rmation of the evocative power of public buildings can be found in Cicero (Fin. 5. 2). The topic of physical commemoration has an appropriately immense modern bibliography. To note just a few examples of particular relevance, Kellum (1981) 2±18 surveys various material forms of public commemoration of aristocratic accomplishments in the Republic; Harris (1985) 20±1 comments in general on the importance and prominence of physical monuments of military success; Rawson (1990) (= Rawson (1991) 582±98) discusses the display of triumphal spoils. Edwards (1996) 27±43 uses the hut of Romulus as an example of the relationship between Rome as a physical and a conceptual space and the way speci®c locations could remind Romans of their past. 54 Sed pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium uoces, plena exemplorum uetustas; quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi litterarum lumen accederet (Cic. Arch. 14). 55 In euoluendis utriusque linguae auctoribus nihil aeque sectabatur, quam praecepta et exempla publice uel privatim salubria, eaque ad uerbum excerpta aut ad domesticos aut ad exercituum prouinciarumque rectores aut ad urbis magistratus plerumque mittebat, prout quique monitione indigerent (Suet. Aug. 89. 2). 56 Ita enim consilii quoque et prouidentiae exemplis succincti duces erunt, unde illis excogitandi generandique similia facultas nutriatur; praeterea continget, ne de euentu trepidet inuentionis suae, qui probatis eam experimentis comparabit (Front. Str. 1. 1). See Campbell (1987) for the argument that novice commanders studied manuals such as Frontinus'. Skidmore (1996) argues that Valerius Maximus intended his collection not as a rhetorical handbook but as a source of moral instruction. 53

16

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

Roman life that did not in some way incorporate respect for past practices.57

EXEMPLA AND HISTORIANS OF ROME Given this cultural background, the real surprise would be to ®nd a historian who did not proclaim the bene®cial aspects of his chosen pursuit. Even without the conventions established by Greek historians, a Roman practitioner of the genre would be culturally disposed to see the past as a source of wisdom. When the Romans began to imitate the Greeks in writing history, two complementary traditions were united: the well-established didacticism of historiography and the equally deep-rooted role of exempla at Rome. One result of the union is the characteristically moralizing aspect of Livy's strongest historiographical in¯uences: the Roman annalists, Polybius, and his immediate predecessor Sallust. In form, Livy's History followed the organizing principle of the annalists, who arranged their material by the annually elected magistrates who led Rome; form was thus closely aligned with content, which appears to have been overtly moralistic and to have incorporated exempla.58 Although the work of these early historians now exists only in extremely fragmentary condition, at least two have left traces of an interest in exempli®cation: L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and Claudius Quadrigarius. From the former survive accounts of two characters who also ®gure in exemplary episodes in Livy. Drawing on multiple annalistic sources (Fabius Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, and Piso), Dionysius of Halicarnassus recounts at length the story of Tarpeia. He favours the version of Piso, who appears to have interpreted her negotiations with the Sabines as an exemplary action since, according to Dionysius, the desire to do a good deed 57 For a brief overview of what he calls `stimuli to imitation', see Skidmore (1996) 16±21. 58 For an excellent discussion of this tradition and Livy's place in it, see Oakley (1997) 21±108, esp. 72±99. Leeman (1963) 67±88 discusses the evolution of the tradition from a stylistic perspective. In comparing Livy with the scanty remains of the annalists, it is worth keeping in mind the cautionary remarks of Brunt (1980) on the unrepresentative nature of such texts.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

17

(kaloy9 pra3gmatow e1 piuymi3 a) was her motivation.59 Piso also reports that she was honoured with a monument and annual libationsÐsucient credentials, no doubt, to make her into an exemplum. Dionysius endorses Piso's version on the grounds that, if Tarpeia had betrayed the citadel, her bones would have been dug up and cast out; and in Dionysius' view, the purpose of such shameful treatment would have been to deter others from imitating treachery.60 His argument here is counter-factual and in fact, recent work has shown that Dionysius had an interest in history as a source for exempla, but, unlike Livy, he includes only those that are worthy of imitation.61 By contrast, Livy is willing to suggest darker reasons for Tarpeia's fate and concludes his narrative with two possible interpretations: accepti obrutam armis necauere, seu ut ui capta potius arx uideretur seu prodendi exempli causa ne quid usquam ®dum proditori esset.62 Thus, if he was familiar with Piso's account, he chose not to follow the simple lionizing of Tarpeia. A capacity to see multiple meanings in exempla will turn out to be characteristic of Livy.63 The other place where Livy and Piso can be compared directly is in the story of Cn. Flavius, the freedman's son who became a curule aedile. Gellius quotes Piso's treatment apparently verbatim: Quod res uidebatur memoratu digna, quam fecisse Cn. Flauium, Anni ®lium, aedilem curulem, L. Piso in tertio annali scripsit, eaque res perquam pure et uenuste narrata a Pisone, locum istum totum huc ex Pisonis annali transposuimus: Cn., inquit, Flauius, 59

Dion. Hal. 2. 38. 3. Dion. Hal. 2. 40. 3. 61 See Fox (1993) and Luce (1995). Since part of Dionysius' agenda is to show that the Romans are really Greeks, any episode is likely to be given Greek ancestry, sometimes imposed in a ponderous fashion. For example, Dionysius refers to to4 para3deigma of the Greeks in a discussion of the origins of the Roman dictatorship (5. 74. 4). This, however, is not a case of learning from history so much as an etiology for an element of the Roman constitution. On the place of Greek precedents in Dionysius' interpretation of Roman history, see Fox (1993) 35. 62 Once they were allowed in, they crushed and killed her with their weapons, either to make it appear that the citadel had been taken by force or for the sake of creating a warning against future reliance on traitors (1. 11. 7). 63 See the introductory discussion in Ch. 1. 60

18

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

patre libertino natus, scriptum faciebat isque in eo tempore aedili curuli apparebat, quo tempore aediles subrogantur, eumque pro tribu aedilem curulem renuntiauerunt. aedilem, qui comitia habebat, negat accipere, neque sibi placere, qui scriptum faceret, eum aedilem ®eri. Cn. Flauius, Anni ®lius, dicitur tabulas posuisse, scriptu sese abdicasse, isque aedilis curulis factus est. Idem Cn. Flauius, Anni ®lius, dicitur ad collegam uenisse uisere aegrotum. Eo in conclaue postquam introiuit, adulescentes ibi complures nobiles sedebant. Hi contemnentes eum assurgere ei nemo uoluit. Cn. Flauius, Anni ®lius, aedilis id arrisit, sellam curulem iussit sibi a€eri, eam in limine apposuit, ne quis illorum exire posset, utique hi omnes inuiti uiderent sese in sella curuli sedentem.64

The story was clearly traditional. Livy refers to multiple annalistic versions and names Licinius Macer speci®cally (9. 46. 1±3). In his commentary on the fragments of Piso, Forsythe suggests that Livy's version follows Piso, but notes that substantial additional information is found in the later historian.65 One such addition appears to be the phrase with which Livy begins the anecdote about the nobiles and Flavius' curule chair: haud memorabilem rem per se, nisi documentum sit aduersus superbiam nobilium plebeiae libertatis, referam.66 The use of the ®rst person is interesting because in general Livy voices exempla through his historical characters; the authorial intervention here strengthens 64 Because the story recorded by Lucius Piso in the third book of his Annales seemed worthy of commemoration, namely what Gnaeus Flavius, a curule aedile and the son of Annius, did, I have here transcribed the entire passage from Piso since he relates it so simply and charmingly: he says that Gnaeus Flavius, the son of a freedman, was a scribe, and he was assisting a curule aedile when the aediles were being elected, and he was chosen to be curule aedile by the tribal assembly. But the aedile who was holding the elections refused to accept him and said that it was not agreeable to him that a scribe should become an aedile. Gnaeus Flavius, the son of Annius, is said to have set down his tablets, to have given up his scribal position, and to have been made curule aedile. This same Gnaeus Flavius, the son of Annius, is said to have gone to see a sick colleague. When he entered his chamber, several aristocratic youths were sitting around. Mocking him, they said no one would yield his place. Gnaeus Flavius, the son of Annius, the aedile, laughed at this, ordered his curule chair brought to him, and set it up on the threshold so that none of them could leave and they were all forced to see him sitting in his curule chair (HRR fr. 27 = Gell. 7. 9. 1±6). 65 Forsythe (1994) 339±40. 66 I will report an event not noteworthy in itself, except as an example of plebeian freedom in the face of the arrogance of the nobiles (9. 46. 8).

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

19

the probability that Livy has chosen to see a documentum where Piso did not.67 Unlike Piso, however, who was probably not a major in¯uence on Livy's historiographical techniques, Claudius Quadrigarius is repeatedly cited as a source by Livy and appears to have interwoven his narrative with historical examples.68 An intriguing fragment of Claudius suggests that he used exempla as a means of connecting up di€erent historical events: Claudius in VIIII annali: qui prior bellum, quod cum his gestum erat, meminissent.69 Claudius' account of the attempt to betray Pyrrhus is also extant. Unfortunately, Livy's version of this episode is in the now lost Book 13, but it appears as a standard example of treachery later on in his narrative.70 Gellius includes from Claudius the consuls' letter to Pyrrhus, and it uses the word exemplum in a way that overlaps conceptually with Livy's exempli®cation: `Consules Romani salutem dicunt Pyrro regi. Nos pro tuis iniuriis continuis animo tenus commoti inimiciter tecum bellare studemus. Sed communis exempli et ®dei ergo uisum ut te saluum uelimus, ut esset quem armis uincere possimus.'71 The consuls articulate the same self-conscious awareness of the signi®cance of setting precedents that underlies Lucretia's brief speech and that we will see paralleled in Livy's triumph debates.72 These two passages preserved from Claudius Quadrigarius thus suggest an interest in exempla similar to Livy's, and we might posit some in¯uence from him. But because of the moralizing tendency common to ancient historical writing and the piecemeal nature of the evidence, it would be dicult to argue that exempla provided Claudius 67 Forsythe (1994) 342 also sees the remark as a Livian contribution to the story. 68 For a conspectus of sources named by Livy, see Steele (1904) 31. 69 According to Claudius, in the ninth book of his Annales, those who recalled the earlier war that they had fought with them . . . (HRR fr. 74). 70 The attempted betrayal of Pyrrhus is cited twice: 24. 45. 3 and 42. 47. 6. See the opening of Ch. 4 for a discussion of the latter passage. 71 The Roman consuls o€er salutations to King Pyrrhus. Considering your continual wrongs towards us, we are eager from the bottom of our hearts to wage violent war with you. But for the sake of the general example and of goodwill, it seemed right to us to desire your good health, so that we might defeat you in a fair ®ght (HRR fr. 41 = Gell. 3. 8. 8). 72 See pp. 139±56.

20

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

with a central organizing principle comparable to that found in Livy. The relationship between Livy and Claudius would be all the more interesting if we could follow Peter in attributing to the latter both the annalistic version of Valerius Corvus' ®ght with a Gaul and T. Manlius' single combat.73 If Claudius' accounts of both duels survived, we could show conclusively that Livy added an exemplary interpretation to the story. In the annalistic version, Valerius insists on consulting his senior ocer, but there is no mention of Manlius' single combat. Livy, however, includes a deliberate reference back to Manlius' duel to indicate that Valerius knows from Manlius the importance of receiving consular permission before ®ghting outside the ranks: (sc. M. Valerius) qui haud indigniorem eo decore se quam T. Manlium ratus, prius sciscitatus consulis uoluntatem, in medium armatus processit (7. 26. 2 cf. 7. 10. 1±4). Marouzeau seems to be right, however, in questioning Peter's attribution of the annalistic fragment to Claudius, so it cannot contribute to the case for the latter's in¯uence on Livy.74 Regardless of the author, however, this version of Valerius' duel certainly pre-dates Livy and yet does not refer to the earlier combat, so the connection established in Livy is at the very least indicative of his interest in exempli®cation. Generally speaking, the form in which the annalistic fragments appear makes it dicult to determine any overarching interpretive strategies the earlier historians might have used. For the most part, we have only snippets, divorced from their context. For example, in the course of discussing bronze, Pliny mentions that, according to Piso, bronze furniture for the dining room was ®rst introduced to Rome in Manlius Vulso's triumph after the Asian campaign.75 This is a perfect example of how a fragment has shed its interpretive setting. We know that Livy made the advent of such luxuries a moral turning-point in his 73 These are currently numbered as HRR Claudius frr. 12 and 10b respectively. 74 Marouzeau (1921) 164±5. On these duels and their relationship to one another, see Oakley (1985) 394. 75 HRR Piso fr. 34 = Plin. HN 34. 14.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

21

narrative; we cannot establish de®nitively what Piso did with it.76 It is certainly possible, however, to see in the early Roman historians a desire to demonstrate the utility of the past, for even their exiguous remains contain two explicit statements that history should be more than a bare record of events and magistrates. Though Cato the Elder's Origines are not annalistic history, the work was known to Livy and forms part of the background to his writing.77 A fragment of Cato suggests that he regarded commentary, in addition to factual reporting, as part of the historian's task: non lubet scribere, quod in tabula apud ponti®cem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit.78 Exactly how he thought the historian should go beyond the registering of magistrates and celestial events is not clear from this single sentence.79 We can, however, glean some idea from his account of a tribune's heroism, preserved at greater length by Aulus Gellius; the story indicates what kind of elaboration Cato considered appropriate. The tribune, Q. Caedicius, led a suicide mission that saved the rest of the army. Gellius begins by paraphrasing Cato and then switches to direct quotation (sed quod illi tribuno, duci militum quadringentorum, diuinitus in eo proelio usu uenit, non iam nostris, sed ipsius Catonis uerbis subiecimus). After recounting Caedicius' deed, Cato compares him to Leonidas at Thermopylae: Leonides Laco quidem simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius uirtutes omnis Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclitissimae decorauere monumentis: signis, statuis, elogiis, historiis, aliisque rebus gratissimum id 76 Forsythe (1994) 385±6, 395 links this fragment with number 48 in his arrangement (= HRR fr. 38) and argues from the parallel with Livy that Piso did have a moralistic interpretation of Vulso's campaign and its impact. For Livy's treatment of Vulso, see pp. 101±5 and 152±3. 77 There is an explicit reference to the Origines at 34. 5. 7; on Livy's familiarity with the Origines and his use of Cato as a source, see Briscoe (1981) 63±5. 78 It is not pleasing to write down what is on the tablet of the pontifex maximus, namely how often grain was expensive, how often mist or something else obscured the light of the moon or the sun (HRR fr. 77 = Gell. 2. 28. 6). 79 See Astin (1978) 221±2 for the argument that Cato intended the Origines to be useful.

22

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

eius factum habuere; at tribuno militum parua laus pro factis relicta, qui idem fecerat atque rem seruauerat. Gellius concludes that Cato's personal testimony was his way of celebrating the courage of the tribune: hanc Q. Caedici tribuni uirtutem M. Cato tali suo testimonio decorauit.80 On Gellius' interpretation then, Cato saw his written history as glorifying Caedicius in the same way that the Greek tributes honoured Leonidas, and this kind of authorial appraisal may be the kind of expansion Cato had in mind when he disparaged the plain record of events. Among Livy's predecessors, the fullest surviving methodological statement is that of Sempronius Asellio, as quoted by Gellius: Verum inter eos, inquit (sc. Sempronius Asellio), qui annales relinquere uoluissent, et eos qui res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc interfuit: Annales libri tantum modo quod factum quoque anno gestum sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci e1 fhmeri3 da uocant. Nobis non modo satis esse uideo, quod factum esset, id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent, demonstrare. Paulo post idem Asellio in eodem libro: Nam neque alacriores, inquit, ad rem p(ublicam) defendundam, neque segniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commouere quosquam possunt. Scribere autem, bellum initum quo consule et quo confectum sit, et quis triumphans introierit ex eo bello quaeque in bello gesta sint, iterare, id fabulas (non praedicare aut interea quid senatus decreuerit aut quae lex rogatioue lata sit neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint [iterare] ) id fabulas pueris est narrare, non historias scribere.81 80 Leonidas the Spartan indeed did something similar at Thermopylae; for his bravery all Greece celebrated his reputation and the unusual merit of his glorious fame with monuments: with standards, statues, inscriptions, narratives, and in every other way they regarded that deed of his with the utmost gratitude; but very little praise was preserved for the deeds of the military tribune, who had done exactly the same thing and saved the state (HRR fr. 83 = Gell. 3. 7. 18±20). 81 He (Sempronius Asellio) said that in truth the chief di€erence between those who wished to leave behind `annales' and those who tried to write out the `res gestae' of the Romans was the following. `Annales' are books that showed only these matters, namely what was done in which year, that is to say in the manner of those who keep a diary, what the Greeks call an `ephemeris'. To my mind it does not seem sucient to set out just what happened, but also to show what thinking and planning lay behind the deeds. A little further on

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

23

With Sempronius, it is not possible to match theory and content as it was with Cato, but this passage shows that the former also viewed analysis and explication as essential to historiography; the plain recital of events did not suce, and in general, Livy's predecessors appear to share a tendency to direct their audience's attention to the signi®cance of historical events.82 It is at this point that we should consider Polybius' place in the tradition of useful history and his incorporation of exempla as a bene®t of studying the past. Although as noted above Polybius belongs in many ways to the Thucydidean tradition, other in¯uences are at work as well. It is no accident, for example, that Polybius is our source for Roman aristocratic funerals; too familiar for a native to comment on, they attracted the foreigner's scrutiny.83 As Fornara has argued, the authority of the past among upperclass Romans must have made a powerful impression on Polybius and manifests itself in his approach to writing history.84 Furthermore, the period of his stay in Rome is right in the middle of the development of Roman republican historiography, so we might expect a certain amount of cross-fertilization.85 Finally, Polybius was Livy's main source for eastern a€airs and so possibly an in¯uence on his historical thinking as well. in the same book Asellio says: For books of `annales' cannot in any way make men more eager to protect the commonwealth nor less energetic in doing it mischief. But to write repeatedly under which consul a war began and under which it ended and who had a triumphal entrance because of it and what happened in the war, but not to go through what the Senate decreed in the meantime or what law or proposal was passed nor what thinking was behind these actionsÐto do that is to tell stories to boys, not to write history (HRR frr. 1±2 = Gell. 5. 18. 8±9). 82 Even with the historians whose methodological statements are missing, the presentation of subject matter can reveal an interest in editorializing. For example, L. Coelius Antipater blamed Flaminius in no uncertain terms for neglecting religious procedures and thereby in¯icting massive damage on Rome with the defeat at Trasimene: C. Flaminium Coelius religione neglecta cecidisse apud Trasumenum scribit cum magno rei publicae uulnere (HRR fr. 19 = Cic. Nat. D. 2. 8). 83 See p. 14. 84 Fornara (1983) 114. 85 See e.g. Badian (1966) 17±18 for the suggestion that Polybius and Sempronius Asellio knew one another from the Numantine campaign and that Asellio took his ideas about historiographical methodology from Polybius.

24

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

As far as his belief in the utility of history is concerned, perhaps no historian asserts his views with greater frequency or con®dence, and this aspect of his work has been extensively investigated.86 Perhaps because of his heavy touch, it is hard to detect the subtle and complex patterning in his work that scholars have discovered in the ®fth-century historians. His directness is also the most noticeable feature of his use of exempla. Closer to Xenophon than to Herodotus or Thucydides in this as well, Polybius explicitly labels his historical examples, and their meanings, for his audience. So, for example, he spells out exactly what can be learned from the exceptionally good and bad traits of Philip of Macedon, and the shift from the dominance of the former to that of the latter.87 While there is no direct parallel for this passage in Livy, his death notices are generally more nuanced, acknowledging both positive and negative aspects of the deceased.88 We can compare Polybius and Livy directly through their treatments of M. Atilius Regulus, the Roman commander whose initially successful invasion of Africa in the ®rst Punic war ended catastrophically. For the Greek historian, Regulus is unequivocally an example of the ®ckleness of fortune.89 In the surviving books, fragments, and summaries, however, Livy never pronounces de®nitively on Regulus, apparently recognizing from the beginning his exemplary complexity, and later introducing paired speakers who deliver polarized interpretations: Regulus is both an example of the dangers of an overseas invasion and an example of the success that such a mission can bring.90 So although Polybius certainly belongs within the tradition of 86 Sacks (1981) 122±44 discusses the various bene®ts of history found in Polybius; Eckstein (1995) has recently attempted to resurrect Polybius as a moral rather than a `Machiavellian' historian. 87 Polyb. 7. 11. 1±12. 88 See Pomeroy (1988) for a discussion of obituaries in Livy, with helpful comparisons to other historians; and see Jaeger (1997) 132±76 on the last days and death of Scipio Africanus. 89 Polyb. 1. 35. 1±10. 90 The summary for Book 18, in which Regulus' career appeared, recognizes its ambiguity; the speakers in question are Fabius Cunctator and Scipio Africanus in their debate over the invasion of Africa at the end of the second Punic war; see pp. 93±7.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

25

moralizing historians and undoubtedly provided Livy with a great deal of historical detail, he is unlikely to have inspired the Roman historian's decision to claim exempla as the great bene®t of studying history. Further, as we shall see, Polybius does not deploy historical examples in speeches with any unusual adroitness, particularly when compared to Livy. It is in Hannibal's speech before Zama that Livy comes closest to simply reproducing Polybius: both authors have the Carthaginian general make a pointed comparison between his previous position of strength at the walls of Rome and his current plight, where he is pinned before Carthage.91 Livy's Hannibal, however, poignantly mentions the loss of his two brothers, a touch absent from Polybius' version, and the similarity in content between Polybius and Livy here is the exception, not the rule.92 The Roman historian may have followed Polybius closely in at least the fourth and ®fth decades, but the borrowing of content did not extend to the treatment of exempla; there he worked independently, not delivering them in propria persona so often as inserting them in speeches or focalizing them through his historical characters. And, as we shall see, in those places where he takes his basic material from Polybius, whenever he follows the content of a Polybian pronouncement, he generally adapts the exempla to suit an Augustan audience.93 Much more important is Livy's immediate predecessor Sallust, not only a strong moralist but also an author whom Livy sets out to rival.94 Sallust's belief that the past o€ers models of conduct can be inferred from the preface to the Jugurtha where he identi®es history as a useful activity for the mind and relates that Fabius, Scipio, and other famous men were supposed to have been inspired by the imagines of 91

30. 30. 2±30 = Polyb. 15. 6. 4±7. 9. For a comparison of the two speeches, with an emphasis on the magni®cence of Livy's conception and his personal involvement, see Burck (1967) 440±52. TraÈnkle (1977) 241 ascribes the similarity between these two versions to Polybius' close adherence to a mutual source rather than to Livy's direct use of Polybius, but Miller (1975) 52 is probably right in assuming that Livy worked straight from Polybius. 93 See pp. 74±7 and 80±2. 94 On the covert responses to Sallust in Livy's Preface, see Ogilvie (1970) 23±9, Woodman (1988) 128±34, and Moles (1993) 161±2. 92

26

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

their ancestors; the recollection of their forebears' accomplishments drove them to seek equal renown.95 Sallust is clearly thinking of the past as a source of examples, and yet they do not play a prominent part in what remains of his historical narratives. However, despite the infrequency of exempla in the monographs96 and only sporadic appearances in the speeches and letters surviving from the Histories,97 Sallust manipulates historical examples with sophistication when he chooses to incorporate them. The orations of Cato and Caesar have the greatest concentration of historical examples and exhibit the di€erent ways Sallust can make his characters think about the past.98 In this regard, Caesar's speech is especially remarkable.99 He cites an unusual range of exempla: the treatment of the Rhodians in the third Macedonian war, the Thirty at Athens, Sulla, Samnite military technology, Etruscan magisterial paraphernalia, and Greek punishments.100 So if 95 Ceterum ex aliis negotiis quae ingenio exercentur in primis magno usui est memoria rerum gestarum . . . Nam saepe ego audiui Q. Maxumum, P. Scipionem, haliosj praeterea ciuitatis nostrae praeclaros uiros solitos ita dicere, quom maiorum imagines intuerentur, uehementussime sibi animum ad uirtutem adcendi. Scilicet non ceram illam neque ®guram tantam uim in sese habere, sed memoria rerum gestarum eam ¯ammam egregiis uiris in pectore crescere neque prius sedari quam uirtus eorum famam atque gloriam adaequauerit (Iug. 4. 1, 5±6). 96 In the Catiline, C. Manlius mentions the secessio plebis (33. 3), and Cato o€ers Manlius Torquatus as a precedent: if he can order his son to be executed for ®ghting against orders, the senators should have the strength of mind to execute their fellow citizens (52. 30±3). In the Jugurtha, Memmius refers to the secessio plebis in one speech (31. 17) and to Jugurtha's personal history in another (33. 4); Jugurtha tries to inspire his troops by reminding them of earlier victories (49. 2), and cites the Carthaginians, Perseus, and himself as cautionary examples for Bocchus (81. 1). 97 Lepidus makes historical allusions (1. 55. 3±5). Licinius Macer's speech, an attempt to rouse the plebs, refers to the secessio plebis and reviews some recent history (3. 48. 1 and 8±9). Mithridates' letter to Arsaces is the richest in exempla, including Roman expansion and Mithridates' own experiences (4. 69. 5±15); he even identi®es himself as an exemplum for Arsaces (4. 69. 4). On the status of letters in the historians, see n. 6 in Ch. 3. 98 On the debate in general, see Earl (1961) 95±102; SklenaÂrÏ (1998) discusses the relationship between language and moralizing in the debate. 99 It would be interesting to know whether this speech re¯ects Caesar's own practice as much as Sallust's historiographical aims. Caesar used exempla in his own writing (e.g. B Gall. 1. 33. 4 and 1. 40. 5); as the notorious remark about Sulla attributed to him shows (Suet. Jul. 77. 1), there was current a view of him as a student of history. But see now Morgan (1997) 35±9 for a more nuanced interpretation of this passage. 100 Cat. 51. 4±6, 28±34, and 37±42.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

27

we were to look only at the two speakers' knowledge of past events, Caesar would appear the superior: he has multiple exempla whereas Cato cites only Manlius Torquatus' execution of his own son for disobeying a direct order against single combat.101 Beyond the abundance of Caesar's examples, there is an appreciable adroitness to the selection. Since his speech is in direct competition with that of Cato, there appears to be some latent mockery in Caesar's choice of the Rhodians as an exemplum. Cato's famous ancestor spoke on their behalf at the time, so the reference to this episode may be an ironic adumbration of Caesar's own antagonist.102 This kind of careful pairing of speeches and the exempla within them is a technique Livy will exploit heavily.103 The thinking that underlies Caesar's other exempla shows equal complexity about what exempla can be used to mean. With the words omnia mala exempla ex rebus bonis orta sunt,104 he points to the gap that can develop between well-intended actions and their subsequent mutations and adduces the Thirty at Athens and Sulla's proscriptions; the point is presumably that authoritarian government may be ®rst a solution and then a pernicious justi®cation for tyranny. This idea is of course appropriate to his argument against the execution of the conspirators, which might be expedient and yet could have summary justice as its logical extension. At the same time, Caesar's claim indicates awareness of the dangers involved in setting precedents, and this kind of self-consciousness about exempla also features in Livy, as we have already seen with Lucretia. Moreover, Caesar's point here is closely related to another idea which is also much more fully developed in Livy's text. Caesar invokes the introduction of elements of Samnite, Etruscan, and Greek civilization to argue that Romans excel at adaptation: maiores nostri, patres conscripti, neque consili neque 101 Cat. 52. 30±1. On Livy's treatment of this episode and its exemplary reverberations, see pp. 108±19. 102 See Syme (1964) 112±13 and McGushin (1977) 242. 103 On directly paired speeches and debates over knowledge and interpretation of the past in Livy, see pp. 92±105; Chs. 1 and 2 deal with the way Romans and foreigners draw di€erent conclusions from the same exempla. 104 `All evil precedents originated from good intentions' (Cat. 51. 27).

28

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

audaciae umquam eguere; neque illis superbia obstabat quominus aliena instituta, si modo proba erant, imitarentur.105 As an analysis of exempla used as precedents in Livy will show, the later historian too was very much interested in the mutability of exempla and in the way that Romans can use them speci®cally as precedents for change.106 In short, though this speech crafted for Caesar is the only surviving section of Sallust where there is any concentrated use of exempla, the oration re¯ects sensitivity to their possible applications. What is also intriguing about Sallust is that his work exists in sucient quantity to reveal how he uses an individual's relationship to the past as a technique of characterization. Adherbal symbolizes the old order in North Africa and so, appropriately, Sallust represents him as referring constantly to the very good relations between Numidia and Rome fostered by Masinissa and the Senate alike; as Masinissa's heir, he wishes the tradition to continue.107 Marius, on the other hand, is a nouus homo who criticizes excessive respect for past achievements, arguing that his deeds count for as much as noble ancestry, and pro€ering his scars in place of any imagines.108 Sallust's technique is thus identical in the cases of both men, but to entirely di€erent ends: Adherbal seeks perpetuation of the past whereas Marius rejects it. Sallust's own view of history's importance seems to embrace both positions: study of it ennobles the mind,109 but the events he chose to write up as monographs are noteworthy for their novelty, their di€erence from the past.110 In this he di€ers markedly from Livy, who starts out by questioning his ability to add anything new (even as he concedes that it is the historian's task to do so)111 and, as 105 `My good colleagues, our forefathers were never lacking in intelligence or boldness; but neither did a false sense of pride prevent them from imitating foreign practices, if these proved worthy in some way' (Cat. 51. 37). 106 The suppleness of Livy's exempla emerges from the introductory discussion in Ch. 1 and is a consistent element of my interpretation; on exempla as precedents, see esp. Ch. 5. 107 Iug. 14. 8, 10, 18, and 24. 10. 108 Iug. 85. 23±4 and 29±30. On Sallust's skilful depiction of Marius as a new man, see Kraus's observations in Kraus and Woodman (1997) 25±6. 109 Iug. 4. 1 and Cat. 3. 2. 110 Iug. 5. 1 and Cat. 4. 3±4. 111 Facturusne operae pretium sim si a primordio urbis res populi Romani

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

29

we shall see, was interested in establishing continuity between past and present. CONCLUSIONS We have come a long way from Herodotus and Thucydides. The wisdom of elders, historiography's didacticism, exempla as a living part of Roman culture, the melding of Greek and Roman uses of the past, the development of an autonomous historiographical tradition at Rome with its heavy moralistic componentÐall these lie behind Livy's claim in Preface 10. So a complex background provides the intellectual infrastructure for that claim; but, as far as we can tell from what survives of Livy's predecessors, his deployment of exempla represents something of a departure, either not coinciding in content with his sources or further developing ideas about exemplary learning that are not fully exploited in previous historians. So although he was working in a moralizing tradition,112 and although historians of Rome before him had used historical examples, at the same time Livy ®nds exempla where others do not, adapts those in his sources, and generally goes beyond his predecessors in the depth and complexity of his interest. Seen against the background of other historians, Livy's use of exempla appears distinctive: the view of history as a guide to conduct may be common to perscripserim nec satis scio nec, si sciam, dicere ausim, quippe qui cum ueterem tum uolgatam esse rem uideam, dum noui semper scriptores aut in rebus certius aliquid allaturos se aut scribendi arte rudem uetustatem superaturos credunt (Praef. 1±2). See the discussion by Moles (1993) 143±5. 112 The tradition continues past Livy to subsequent historians of Rome; Crosby (1980) 131±7 has collected passages containing the words exemplum, documentum, and exemplar in later Latin historians. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive treatment of exempla in Tacitus. Although he undoubtedly regarded history as o€ering models of conduct (e.g. Hist. 1. 3. 1, cf. the noble ®gures noted at Hist. 1. 43. 1 and 2. 13. 2), he is more inclined to label exempla as he goes along than to show people actively imitating or avoiding past actions (e.g. Ann. 15. 57. 2 and 15. 63. 2). Luce (1991) is thus probably right to interpret Ann. 4. 33. 1±4 as an indication that Tacitus's interest in the commemorative power of history should be emphasized over his recognition of its didactic value (cf. Ann. 6. 7. 5). Fornara (1983) 118±19 reaches a similar conclusion. The whole subject of how Tacitus plays o€ the Republic and its historians is complex: see e.g. Ginsburg (1993) and Woodman and Martin (1996) 368, 459±61. For particular points of comparison between Livy and Tacitus, see pp. 124±5 on the age of exempla and n. 59 of Ch. 5 on their expiration.

30

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

all, but Livy goes to uncommon lengths in his exploration and exploitation of it.113 The purpose of this book is to investigate just how Livy illustrates the usefulness of exempla. The ®rst chapter is something of a case-study, which demonstrates what happens when we look at exempla as they are subsequently cited instead of exclusively in their original setting; the episode used is the disaster at the Caudine Forks. Analysis of its functions as a historical example raises central questions about the ¯exibility of exempla, the contributions of speakers and audiences to their meaning, and their susceptibility to change over time. Chapter 2 focuses on speakers and audiences, as their roles emerge from a consideration of the Roman defeat at Cannae as an exemplum. From this discussion it will become apparent that audiences do not always accept the guidelines provided by exempla, and the third chapter centres on places where Livy's Romans opt not to model their behaviour on the lessons of history. The most complex cases are debates between Romans in which contemporary concerns outweigh the authority of history. These debates point up a diculty in the apparent meaning of Preface 10: if Livy's goal is to show the value of the past, why does he depict people rejecting it? Chapter 4 explores this tension, particularly in terms of con¯icts between older and younger men and between ancient and recent exempla. This discussion leads to the conclusion that Livy recognizes the competing claims of past and present: while the distant past has great authority, it cannot always provide the best answers for genuinely new situations, and sometimes antiquity must yield to the demands of novel circumstances. The tension between past and present is crystallized in exempla considered as precedents. These are the focus of Chapter 5. The late third- and early second-century debates over the right to triumph illustrate the rigidity of exempla in 113 The closest parallel is probably Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheke, which also emphasizes history's usefulness, particularly moral utility. See Rawson (1985) 224 and the extended discussion in Sacks (1990) 22±35 who places Diodorus in the tradition of utility in historiography. There is, however, no indication that Livy was familiar with or in¯uenced by Diodorus.

Introduction: Livy's Use of Exempla

31

constitutional matters; at the same time, other arguments about precedent question their authority. A comparison of these competing views reveals both Livy's belief that evolving circumstances call for thoughtful adaptation of the lessons of history and his sensitivity to the ways in which historical change occurs. Exempla, then, emerge as complex vehicles of Livy's view of history. Less obvious is the reason why he, more than other historians, should emphasize their centrality to the study of the past. The ®nal chapter shows that, although exempla naturally form part of the historiographical tradition in which Livy wrote, his contemporaries rather than other historians provide the closest parallel for his interest in them. This is especially true of Augustus, who employed historical examples extensively in his reconstruction of the Roman world and made particular use of exempli®cation in the elogia in his forum. The conclusion argues that exempla have special value for a generation whose past had collapsed and whose future was uncertain.

1 Caudium as Event and Exemplum CAUDIUM THE NARRATIVE At ®rst sight, the narrative of Caudium is attractive fodder for those seeking a conventional reading of exempla in Livy. It is a self-contained, carefully constructed, moralizing treatment of a famous event in Roman history. From the opening sentence of Book 9 (Sequitur hunc annum nobilis clade Romana Caudina pax T. Veturio Calvino Sp. Postumio consulibus1) to the praise of L. Papirius Cursor and his generation with which the episode ends (Haud dubie illa aetate, qua nulla uirtutum feracior fuit, nemo unus erat uir quo magis innixa res Romana staret2), Caudium is a near textbook case of an exemplary episode.3 The narrative takes its impetus from the Roman rejection of the Samnites' capitulation at the end of Book 8. Full of righteous indignation, the Samnites' general C. Herennius Pontius convinces them that the gods are on their side and will lead them to victory. Deceiving the Romans into thinking that his forces are concentrated at Luceria, and taking advantage of the Romans' thoughtless decision to proceed there by the more direct, but less safe, route, Pontius manages to trap two consular armies in an area known as the Caudine Forks.4 The Romans see no answer 1 The following year, in the consulship of T. Veturius Calvinus and Sp. Postumius, occurred the Caudine peace, notorious for the Roman defeat (9. 1. 1). Unless noted otherwise, all references in the chapter are to Livy Book 9. 2 Without a doubt, in that era, which produced more admirable qualities than any other, there was no single man on whom the Roman state depended more (9. 16. 19). This claim leads Livy into the Alexander digression, which seals o€ the Caudium narrative from the rest of Book 9. See Burck (1966) 325 and Lipovsky (1981) 140±51. 3 For a close reading of the episode as part of Livy's account of Roman expansion, see Lipovsky (1981) 140±51. 4 On the gap between the actual terrain and Livy's imaginative description of it, see Horsfall (1982b) 45±52.

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

33

but total surrender, and after they have undergone the ritual humiliation of surrendering their weapons and marching beneath a yoke, straggle back to Rome by way of Capua. The Capuans, taking pity on them, re-equip the Romans, who remain silent and miserable nonetheless. The young men who escort them to the edge of Campanian territory take their silence for demoralization and report to the Capuans that the Romans are trailing home as if they had surrendered their souls as well as their weapons. A much older man, A. Calavius, corrects their interpretation: Roman silence now will soon mean su€ering for the Samnites. Back at Rome, Sp. Postumius, one of the consuls, addresses the Senate and says that the peace was a sponsio that constrains not the populus Romanus but the individual leaders who made the agreement with the Samnites; accordingly, the surrender of the Roman sponsores will terminate the peace. After some debate, the Romans decide to follow Postumius' interpretation of the agreement and impose it upon the Samnites. Patriotic fervour produces a new army which returns to confront them. Pontius ®nds absurd both the legalistic handing over of the sponsores and Postumius' subsequent kicking of the Roman fetial to provide a just cause for renewing hostilities; but in a burst of impatience, he dismisses these ludibria religionum (11. 12) and lets the Romans resume the war. This is a major turning-point in the fortunes of the Romans: their armies go on to the victories at Luceria and Satricum with which Livy concludes the episode. He depicts the battles as revenge for the humiliation of Caudium. Outside Luceria the consul Publilius cannot make the troops quiet down to listen to his words of encouragement. Clamouring for battle, they rush into the ®ght desirous only of erasing their shame. As Livy puts it: suus cuique animus memor ignominiae adhortator aderat.5 And at Satricum the disgrace at Caudium weighs so heavily on the soldiers that they engage in indiscriminate slaughter: et pro se quisque non haec Furculas nec Caudium nec saltus inuios esse, ubi errorem fraus superbe uicisset, sed Romanam uirtutem, quam nec uallum 5 Each man's spirit, in recollection of the disgrace, was his own goad to action (9. 13. 2).

34

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

nec fossae arcerent, memorantes caedunt pariter resistentes fusosque, inermes atque armatos, seruos liberos, puberes impubes, homines iumentaque.6 After the battle, the other consul, L. Papirius, orders the Samnites to march beneath the yoke, and, as a way of indicating the complete reversal of fortune, Livy reports the tradition that Pontius himself had to participate in the ®nal act of humiliating retribution: haud ferme alia mutatione subita rerum clarior uictoria populi Romani est, si quidem etiam, quod quibusdam in annalibus inuenio, Pontius Herenni ®lius, Samnitium imperator, ut expiaret consulum ignominiam, sub iugum cum ceteris est missus.7 As this formal piece of closure indicates, Livy crafted the episode carefully. The account has a particular emphasis on religion.8 Above all, the episode explores the relationship between mortal and divine control of human a€airs. At ®rst Romans and Samnites alike lack any consilium of their own.9 When the Romans ®nd themselves trapped by the Samnites, they are physically and mentally paralysed. The inactive consuls and the despairing talk of the men help to emphasize the Romans' passivity throughout the section (2. 11±3. 4); at one point the Romans even compare themselves to beasts driven into a trap (5. 7). The Samnites are also at a loss and consult the general's father, who is characterized as longe prudentissimus (1. 2) and grauis annis (3. 5). The elder Herennius alone of all mortals does indeed know what to do, but the Samnites cannot understand the advice, which appears to come uelut ex ancipiti oraculo (3. 8). So the only human being capable of productive action is associated with divine knowledge that is incomprehensible to other mortals. 6 And they all recalled on their own that here there was no Forks, no Caudium, no pathless ravines where deceit had arrogantly defeated a mistake, but rather Roman courage, which neither ditch nor rampant could withstand; and they slaughtered equally those who blocked their way and those who ¯ed, the armed and the unarmed, slave and free, young and old, man and beast (9. 14. 10). 7 Practically no other victory of the Roman people is more notable for a sudden reversal of fortune, if indeed, as I ®nd in certain annales, Pontius the son of Herennius, the Samnite general, was sent beneath the yoke with the rest to expiate the consuls' disgrace (9. 15. 8). 8 Levene (1993) 226±7. 9 e.g. the Romans at 9. 2. 15 and the Samnites at 9. 3. 4.

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

35

Further, Livy's characters constantly refer to the gods as the arbiters of behaviour at Caudium. Pontius' opening speech makes the point clearly: the Samnites have done everything possible to placate the gods and, since they are ®ghting a necessary (and therefore just) war, the gods will lead them (1. 3±11). The Romans also appeal to the gods. Postumius asks that they not pass on to the next consuls the humiliation he shared with T. Veturius (8. 8±10). Postumius sums up the strong contrast between divine control and human passivity at Caudium when he enjoins the senators not to ask why he made the sponsio: `nihil ad Caudium, patres conscripti, humanis consiliis gestum est; di immortales et uestris et hostium imperatoribus mentem ademerent' (9. 10). Gods, not men, determined the course of events at Caudium. Divine intervention is thus one explanation for what happened there.10 But the episode's moralistic colour is not limited to the gods' involvement. Livy's human agents also invite a consideration of the moral issues to be found in history. For example, the narrative illustrates and tests various aspects of ®des.11 A sense of obligation to their ®deles allies in Luceria causes the Romans to embark on the fateful march (2. 5). This type of ®des is echoed in the Capuans' generous behaviour towards the spiritless Romans after the defeat (6. 4) and the sympathy for their condition (7. 1). Fides is linked to religio (and hence indirectly to the importance of maintaining good relations with the gods) by Postumius (9. 4). There is also a kind of ®des between enemies: Pontius says that if the Romans wish to undo the bargain and return to the trap to ®ght their way out, the Samnites will not cast aspersions on their ®des (11. 5); and when the Romans refuse to take this option, Pontius accuses them of a betrayal of 10 Since one of Livy's themes is the acquisition of empire (per quos uiros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit, Praef. 9), military setbacks of any kind pose a problem for him: the larger the disaster, the more explaining Livy has to do. As Bruckmann (1936) shows, Livy tends to shift responsibility away from the ®ghting skills of the soldiers (e.g. pp. 29, 44, 100±2, and 124±5). Instead he attributes Roman defeats to external factors such as the weather, enemy per®dy, bad leadership, or, as here, divine intervention. 11 On ®des in Livy, see Moore (1989) 35±50.

36

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

®des (11. 12). When the latter ®nishes berating the Romans and lets them go, Livy distinguishes between the personal ®des of the sponsores (which he considers discharged) and the communal ®des involved in the relationship between the Roman and Samnite peoples (which has not been satis®ed).12 In short, Livy treats ®des as a complex moral concept with di€erent manifestations, to which he makes no attempt to assign relative values. In this way, he leaves open the dicult questions of responsibility and blame. Furthermore, the direct speeches which are spread throughout the narrative o€er multiple ways of evaluating the course of events.13 Pontius' opening speech explains why the Samnites went back to war: they were angry that the Romans scorned their conciliatory e€orts (1. 3±11). L. Lentulus' speech justi®es the Roman decision to surrender when they are trapped in the Forks (4. 7±16). The speeches of Postumius rationalize Roman conduct and the decision to renege on the peace terms (8. 2±10 and 9. 1±19). And Pontius' second speech is a tirade against the Romans' ridiculous means of backing out of the agreement (11. 1± 13).14 Given the vehemence with which Pontius reproaches the Romans, the sudden decision to accept the dissolution of the peace is strange, but it points up Livy's refusal to gloss over the moral challenge Caudium presents. In fact, he never resolves the questionable nature of the Romans' behaviour. So, for example, on the one hand, Postumius calls the peace a sponsio (that is, a verbal legal agreement between two consenting parties, 8. 4), and Livy explicitly takes issue with those of his sources who considered the Roman agreement a foedus (that is, a morally binding treaty between the Roman people and the Samnites, supervised by the gods, 5. 1±4).15 On the other hand, people 12 As Liebeschuetz (1967) 46 shows, the description of the Romans returning home forsitan et publica, sua certe liberata ®de (9. 11. 13), does not indicate their moral vindication. 13 See Miller (1975) 50±4 and Luce (1993) 82 on the explanatory power of speeches in Livy. 14 On the second speech of Pontius and that of Lentulus, see further below pp. 39±41. 15 As Crawford (1973) 3 points out, Postumius' rationalization is an anachronistic mis-statement. However, the point is that Livy wants Postumius to have a technical justi®cation.

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

37

within the episode twice raise substantive charges against the terms of the sponsio, and neither time does Livy or one of his characters provide an adequate refutation.16 On one level, Livy's careful construction of the episode, the exploration of the gods' role in the a€airs of men, and the morally nuanced nature of the narrative o€er nothing surprising: Livy's literary artistry is familiar.17 On another level, however, the narrative, especially in its willingness to entertain moral complexity, reveals the diculty of determining the meaning of Caudium. Livy does not impose a univocal interpretation on it, as will become even clearer if we consider the place of exemplary knowledge within the episode. LEARNING FROM THE PAST AT CAUDIUM Livy often associates the use of exempla with `voices of experience', men who have lived long enough to o€er advice based on personal knowledge. Two such `wise advisers' turn up at Caudium.18 After the Samnites trap the Romans, they are as much confused by their good fortune as the Romans are dismayed by their predicament. When the Samnites turn to the father of their commander for advice, he tells them to let the Romans go. The Samnites reject the idea and demand di€erent counsel. Herennius' second suggestion is to kill all the Romans. Ba‚ed by these con¯icting pieces of advice, the Samnites have Herennius Pontius brought to the camp. There he explains that the ®rst proposal would bring the Samnites the gratitude and alliance of the Romans while the second would postpone 16 First a couple of Roman tribunes and then Pontius argue that, if the Romans want to dissolve the sponsio, they should agree to resume the position they were in when they made the pact. The tribunes: temptata paulisper intercessio est ab L. Liuio et Q. Maelio tribunis plebis, qui neque exsolui religione populum aiebant deditione sua, nisi omnia Samnitibus qualia apud Caudium fuissent restituerentur (9. 8. 13±14); and Pontius: `Populum Romanum appello; quem si sponsionis ad Furculas Caudinas factae paenitet, restituat legiones intra saltum quo saeptae fuerunt' (9. 11. 3). 17 See Walsh (1961) 173±90 and Oakley (1997) 111±51 for general discussions. 18 On wise advisers and tragic warners in ancient historiography, see the discussion of Herodotus in the Introduction (pp. 7±8); on these character types in Livy, see pp. 78±82, 100±1, and 105.

38

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

serious warfare for the many years it would take the Romans to produce another army. The Samnites refuse both options, send the old man home, and make the treaty with all its disastrous consequences. In short, they fail to take advantage of the old man's wisdom and recognize its value only after the fact (12. 1±2). The exchange between the Samnites and Herennius Pontius is important from an exemplary perspective because it shows that the Samnites do not know how to bene®t from knowledge of the past, as represented by the old man, who has learned from experience that the Romans will never give up (3. 12). The failure to follow his advice will turn out to be characteristic of foreigners: in Livy, Romans are always superior students of exempla. As a wise adviser, Herennius Pontius has a counterpart in A. Calavius, the Capuan who reinterprets the report of the young men who escorted the defeated Romans from Campanian territory. He too is older and more skilled at the interpretation of historical events. Just as with Herennius, Livy's parenthetical characterization indicates how the reader is supposed to respond to Calavius' insights. Calavius is clarus genere factisque, tum etiam aetate uerendus.19 The character of Calavius draws attention to the diculty of interpreting an exemplum because his view of the Romans' behaviour competes with that of the youths; he says that the memory of the pact will prove more distressing to the Samnites than to the Romans: Caudinaeque pacis aliquanto Samnitibus quam Romanis tristiorem memoriam fore (7. 4). Calavius' perplexed Capuan auditors cannot perceive the accuracy of the insight, but Livy's readers can because they know that Samnite supremacy is short-lived. And indeed when the Samnites ultimately recognize the value of Herennius' advice, Caudium receives a new meaning: adeoque nullodum certamine inclinatis uiribus post Caudinam pacem animi mutauerant, ut clariorem inter Romanos deditio Postumium quam Pontium incruenta uictoria inter Samnites faceret, et geri posse bellum Romani pro uictoria certe haberent, Samnites simul rebellasse et uicisse crederent Romanum.20 As 19 Famous because of his ancestry and his deeds, and at that time respected for his age as well (9. 7. 2). 20 And so, without a battle, the balance of power shifted after the Caudine

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

39

is suggested by these two statements, one from Calavius and one communicated through the narrative, the meaning of an event is temporally reactive: immediately after the Roman surrender the Capuan youths can understand the response only as utter humiliation; once the Romans regain a position of diplomatic and military strength, Caudium ceases to be viewed as a Samnite triumph. All exempla in Livy are subject to such shifts in meaning, and furthermore all potentially have di€erent meanings for audiences within the text (such as the Capuans here) and for Livy's readers, who know the eventual outcome of the history he traces. The instability of exempla is even more pointed in the speeches of Lentulus and Pontius since they use the same exemplum respectively to justify and to criticize the Romans' behaviour. The exemplum they share is the Gauls' siege of the Capitoline.21 In Lentulus' version, his father alone did not sanction the senators' decision to redeem the city from the Gauls with gold; he argued instead that the Romans could attempt to break out and end the siege. But Lentulus argues that the Romans at the Caudine Forks could not survive such an operation. And whereas during the Capitoline siege Camillus could bring another army from Veii to save Rome, all Roman forces are now concentrated at Caudium. For them to die would only jeopardize the defenceless civilian population at Rome. Surrendering is of course shameful, but in this case it is the patriotic course of action. Lentulus concludes stirringly, `Ite, consules, redimite armis ciuitatem, quam auro maiores uestri redemerunt.'22 In the narrative of Book 5, no mention is made of a Lentulus, nor did the Romans ever pay any money since, just as the gold was being weighed, Camillus arrived with a peace and opinions changed, such that Postumius had more renown among the Romans for his self-surrender than did Pontius among the Samnites for his bloodless victory, and the Romans had every con®dence that waging war was equivalent to victory while the Samnites believed that the Romans had simultaneously renewed and won the war (9. 12. 3±4). 21 The narrative also contains an explicit comparison between Caudium and the legendary defeat of the Romans by the Gauls in 390 (9. 6. 13). Livy's immediate association of the Caudine Forks with the Capitoline siege will recur in exemplary references to the events. 22 `Go, consuls, buy back with your weapons the city which your ancestors bought back with gold' (9. 4. 16).

40

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

rescue force. Livy's aim here, however, is not to reproduce his own narrative, but to explain why the Romans decided to accede to the Samnite demands.23 In Pontius' corresponding speech, the description of the Capitoline siege resembles more closely Livy's version in Book 5. Pontius says, `Auro ciuitatem a Gallis redemistis; inter accipiendum aurum caesi sunt.'24 This accusatory statement stresses Roman treachery; the slaughter of the Gauls interrupts the ful®lment of the bargain. Pontius' emphasis supports his general statement that the Romans never stand by a pact. He also adduces Lars Porsenna and his Roman hostages. While in Livy's narrative Cloelia takes the initiative and brings the others along as she escapes (2. 13. 6±11), in Pontius' version the Romans simply steal them back. Since his main point is Roman treachery, he wants to implicate the makers of the bargain rather than the hostages. Thus he has used the same exemplum as Lentulus but, by recasting it and adding other exempla, he has made it disgraceful rather than constructive.25 The speeches in Livy's rendition of Caudium (as elsewhere in the text) are often an interpretive mechanism.26 In this case, the speeches of Lentulus and Pontius o€er two 23 For this speech, particularly its treatment of the Capitoline siege and its justifying nature, see Luce (1993) 81±3. As he puts it, `Yet, on the broadest view, the more important audience is the reader, and Livy the more important speaker: that is, we as readers must be made to appreciate why, for example, the Romans succumbed to the humiliation of passing under the yoke. This is not to argue that Livy could not have composed an equally impressive speech as to why they should not have succumbed, but only that the course of the story requires us to sympathize with the Romans in their terrible dilemma and to appreciate what reasons might have convinced them to do as they did' (p. 82). Luce's phrase `we as readers' requires some quali®cation; on the various audiences of Livy's text, see pp. 50±3 and Chs. 2 and 3. 24 `You bought your city back from the Gauls with gold and cut them down as they were receiving it' (9. 11. 6). 25 As Walsh (1961) 84±5 points out, Livy tends to criticize the Romans through the mouths of foreigners; for plebeian criticism of patricians, see the discussion of Canuleius' speech in Ch. 5 (pp. 159±60). 26 Hence we should not assume that contradictory statements about an event result from Livy's inability to reconcile his sources. Walsh (1961) 146 questions Livy's accuracy because in Book 5 the Romans did not give money to the Gauls, but in subsequent versions they did. Walsh cites 10. 16. 6 and 22. 59. 7 without acknowledging that these are speeches where the speakers have their own agendas, quite distinct from historical truth or even consistency.

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

41

very di€erent ways of judging the Romans' conduct at Caudium. The exemplum of the Capitoline siege contributes to both, and so a comparison of the speeches reveals some of the ways in which Livy's exempla work. They may validate a course of action, cast it as admirable or shameful, or round it out with more information. The meaning depends in large part upon the speaker, who can choose both how to present the past and which exempla to group together in order to highlight one aspect or another of it. Thus in the narrative of Caudium Lentulus and Pontius act in e€ect as historians.27 In giving selective versions of the Romans' past, they illustrate how much the student of history determines signi®cance within it. Far from being simply the standard historical exempla of the rhetorical handbooks, Livy's exempla are his way of showing the complexity of interpreting the past. If we turn now to subsequent citations of Caudium, we will ®nd that a close analysis of the di€erent uses to which Livy puts the episode shows the ¯exibility of exempla, their dependence on context for interpretation, and their ability to change in meaning and importance over time. CAUDIUM THE EXEMPLUM Caudium is a useful illustration of many of Livy's exemplary techniques because it is cited repeatedly in the extant books: it occurs seven times in all. The ®rst three references appear closely together (9. 36. 1±14; 38. 4±8, and 38. 15± 39. 1): the ®rst two of these are paired responses of the Romans and the Samnites to a Roman expedition through the Ciminian Forest. The consul Fabius Rullianus holds a command in Etruria. When Fabius reaches the Ciminian Forest, Livy stops to describe its impenetrability: not even merchants travel through it. As for the Romans, the memory of the Caudine Forks holds them back: eam intrare haud fere quisquam praeter ducem ipsum audebat; aliis omnibus cladis Caudinae nondum memoria aboleuerat.28 The consul's 27 See Kraus (1994) 146±7, 170, 214 on the way that Manlius Capitolinus' role as a historian in Book 6 promotes Livy's interest in challenging authority in the historical record. Jaeger (1997) 104±24 analyses how T. Manlius Torquatus and L. Marcius function as historians within the narrative. 28 Practically no one except the leader himself dared to enter it; for all the rest, the memory of the disaster at Caudium had not yet been erased (9. 36. 1).

42

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

brother volunteers to explore the forest and makes his way safely through it. When the Romans as a whole attempt the crossing, the consul remains behind with the cavalry for a day to ensure that the Etruscans cannot trap the infantry in the forest. The successful crossing of the forest leads to a Roman victory. Thus the Romans, remembering the Caudine Forks, recognize their two great mistakesÐnot scouting in advance and not protecting the rearguardÐand correct them. There is no speaker here to point out the lesson; instead Livy focalizes it through the episode's participants. The second reference also reveals the importance of learning from the past. When the Samnites hear about the Romans in the Ciminian Forest, at ®rst they react with as much glee as the Romans did with terror: profectio Q. Fabi trans Ciminiam siluam quantum Romae terrorem fecerat, tam laetam famam in Samnium ad hostes tulerat interclusum Romanum exercitum obsideri; cladisque imaginem Furculas Caudinas memorabant.29 As with the Romans, the exemplum is focalized rather than delivered in a speech: the memory of Caudium accounts for the Samnite course of action. Envious that the Etruscans are bene®ting from Roman stupidity, the Samnites decide to take advantage of what they believe to be the enemy's weakened condition by renewing the war against them. Thus here too the use of an exemplum in narrative provides the motivation for behaviour. Unfortunately for the Samnites, they do not realize that the Romans learned from the mistake at the Caudine Forks and will not be trapped again. So here, equipped with the same experience, the Romans modify their behaviour while the Samnites assume the Romans will repeat the mistake. They have not taken into account the Roman ability to interpret the lessons of history. There is a third, brief reference to Caudium in this section of Livy's narrative (38. 15±39. 1). Back in Rome, the people panic in reaction to the perilous situation, with 29

Q. Fabius' crossing of the Ciminian Forest had produced at Rome a fear equalled their Samnite enemies' rejoicing at the news that the Roman army was trapped and besieged; and the Samnites recollected the Caudine Forks as the model of a defeat (9. 38. 4).

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

43

Fabius in the forest and with the other consul, C. Marcius, on campaign against the Samnites. Papirius Cursor is appointed dictator, and he names C. Junius Bubulcus his magister equitum. But at the assembly held to vote the law about their imperium, the ®rst curia is the Faucian. Since the Faucian was also the ®rst to vote at elections both before the Gallic sack and in the previous year before the humiliation at Caudium, the Romans consider it a bad omen, and delay the vote for a day.30 So, where the Romans in the forest draw a practical conclusion from the past, their civilian counterparts derive a religious lesson from the same incident, and the action is again focalized from a contemporary perspective. There is now a large chronological gap before Caudium is once again cited as an exemplum.31 In 217, Hannibal has recently invaded Italy and defeated the Romans in a minor engagement at the Trebia and a major battle at Lake Trasimene. The Romans respond by electing Q. Fabius Maximus to the dictatorship. It is during this campaigning season that he supposedly earns the nickname `Cunctator', by playing a waiting game and keeping Hannibal away from Rome. Fabius' magister equitum, M. Minucius Rufus, is restless under Fabius' delaying tactics and tries to rouse the troops against the dictator's strategy. The speech Livy crafts for him verbalizes the general discontent with Fabius' caution (22. 14. 4±14). Minucius begins by comparing Fabius to Camillus, the Roman general who rescued the Romans when the Gauls nearly eradicated the city in 390. The comparison is sarcastic: instead of saving Rome, this so-called new Camillus is abandoning the city to the Carthaginians. Camillus did not sit up on the Janiculum and look out at the enemy; he went down and defeated the Gauls in broad daylight, both in the city itself and near Gabii. Then Minucius invokes Caudium. After the Samnites sent the Romans beneath the yoke, Papirius Cursor did not stop until he had transferred that yoke from Roman to 30

Tony Woodman has suggested to me that the similarity between the name of the tribe (Faucia) and a word for the scene of the disaster (fauces, cf. 35. 11. 3) is the source of the perceived bad omen. 31 This may be in part because of the loss of Books 11±20.

44

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

Samnite necks. Finally, Minucius brings in C. Lutatius, consul at the end of the ®rst Punic war, who achieved victory by nothing other than pure speed. Minucius' presentation of Caudium is unusual. Caudium and the Gallic sack are much more likely to be cited as behaviour to avoid than as involving anything worthy of imitation. Minucius pulls a neat rhetorical trick by focusing on the successful outcome of these disgraces, rather than on the Romans' humiliation. With the Gallic disaster, he directs attention to Camillus instead of to the Gauls' initial success on the battle®eld or the Romans' subsequent shameful decision to bribe the Gauls to go away. Similarly, his emphasis falls on the Romans' revenge for Caudium and not on their culpability. Here, by focusing on Papirius Cursor's victory at Luceria, Minucius stresses the positive outcome of the Romans' initial disgrace. Unfortunately it is impossible to compare Minucius' interpretation with Livy's narrative since Book 19 is lost. However, because the Romans had their share of failure in that con¯ict too, he once again seems to be o€ering a positive interpretation of the Romans' far from spotless past. Moreover he cites these three exempla in this way because they are all instances where, instead of giving up, the Romans go out and ®ght an enemy who had previously defeated them. When Caudium is cited as an exemplum on its own in the cases we looked at in Book 9, the Romans see it as a straightforward example of behaviour to avoid, for both practical, military reasons and religious ones. Here, however, by grouping Caudium with two other exempla, Minucius modulates its meaning, incorporating it in an exhortation to go out and ®ght. The next occurrence of the Caudine Forks as an exemplum is notable for combining narrative and speech (23. 41. 13±42. 13). In 215 the Samnites turn to Hannibal because the Roman praetor Claudius Marcellus is ravaging their land. Livy introduces the embassy with the explanation that Marcellus' incursions remind the Samnites of former clashes with the Romans: eadem aestate Marcellus ab Nola, quam praesidio obtinebat, crebras excursiones in agrum Hirpinum et Samnites Caudinos fecit adeoque omnia

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

45

ferro atque igni uastauit ut antiquarum cladium Samnio memoriam renouaret.32 In their speech, the ambassadors to Hannibal o€er the same explanation that the introductory narrative focalized through them. They, who routinely contended with consuls, consular armies, and dictators, now cannot protect themselves against one praetor because their young men are o€ ®ghting for Hannibal. The speaker uses praeteritio to emphasize how the Samnites successfully fought against the Romans for years: `non ego secundis rebus nostris gloriabor, duos consules ac duos consulares exercitus ab nobis sub iugum missos, et si qua alia aut laeta aut gloriosa nobis euenerunt.'33 So here appears a new interpretation of Caudium: the Samnites fasten on the aspect of it that was a triumphant and inspirational moment in their history. Livy's focalized introduction and the Samnite ambassadors o€er the very same motivation for the reaction to Marcellus, but the introduction refers to the general state of hostilities without specifying who su€ered the antiquae clades, while the ambassadors make it clear that these were Roman defeats and Samnite victories. In 212 the exemplum of the Caudine Forks serves yet another purpose. The context is a letter from Marcellus in which he reports to the Senate an appeal from the survivors of Cannae (25. 5. 10±6. 23). These men were banished to Sicily for the duration of the war, but they wish to rejoin the troops stationed in Italy. In a speech to Marcellus they cite three cases in the past where soldiers who disgraced themselves were allowed to resume normal military duty: the men who were captured and released by Pyrrhus had a chance to exonerate themselves by ®ghting against him again (25. 6. 3); the Romans who ran away from the Gauls at the Allia returned to regain Rome from them (25. 6. 10± 11); and the Roman legions at the Caudine Forks were rearmed and dispatched to send the Samnites themselves 32 The same summer Marcellus made frequent raids from Nola, where he had his headquarters, against the territory of the Hirpini and the Caudine Samnites, and by laying waste to everything with ®re and sword he woke in Samnium the memory of ancient defeats (23. 41. 13±14). 33 `I will not revel in our successes, two consuls and two consular armies sent beneath the yoke by our men, not to mention any other great or glorious thing that befell us' (23. 42. 7).

46

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

beneath the yoke, despite the fact that these troops had surrendered without a ®ght (25. 6. 10±12). With the addition of Pyrrhus and a new aspect of the Gallic sack, the Caudine Forks is here not about Roman treachery or revenge or Samnite glory, but about the opportunity for soldiers to redeem their cowardly actions. Livy narrated the episode of Pyrrhus and the Roman prisoners-of-war in the now lost Book 13. This is its ®rst appearance as an exemplum in the extant books, but clearly it ®ts the point that the Cannae survivors are trying to make. Similarly, another side of the Gallic sack appears here for the ®rst time. Instead of the interrupted pact or the rescue of the city, the Cannae survivors focus on the disastrous defeat at the Allia because they want to emphasize that armies that run away live to ®ght another day. They point out that their behaviour is in fact less shameful than that illustrated by the exempla they cite: all they did was to survive the battle, while at the Allia practically the entire army was lost, and at the Caudine Forks the army gave up without even trying to ®ght. It is a nice footnote to the appeal that ultimately these soldiers not only ®ght again but cross to Africa with Scipio and contribute to Hannibal's defeat at Zama. Thus they end up imitating the exempla they cite in their own defence. The ®nal reference to the Caudine Forks superbly illustrates how exempla operate in narrative. The year is 193, and the consul Q. Minucius Thermus is leading troops through a ravine in Liguria (35. 11. 1±13). They run into Ligurians at one end, and, ordered to go back, they ®nd the Ligurians blocking that exit as well. Immediately everyone thinks of the Caudine Forks: et ab tergo fauces saltus occupatae a parte hostium erant, Caudinaeque cladis memoria non animis modo sed prope oculis obuersabatur.34 But the leader of the Numidian allies o€ers to try to break through the Ligurians, and he succeeds. What is odd is that the Numidian allies rather than the Romans are the focalizers. It is unlikely that allies would recall details of the Romans' history, but the similarity between the two episodes makes Caudium a natural 34 The entrance to the ravine had been blocked in the rear by part of the enemy, and the memory of the disaster at Caudium not only surfaced in their minds but practically ¯ashed before their eyes (35. 11. 3).

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

47

exemplum. And, since the Numidians took the decisive action, Livy attributes to them the appropriate line of thought.35 Thus Caudium here o€ers a practical military lesson: it is better to face the enemy than to make a shameful treaty and then back out of it. CONCLUSIONS Seven times people within Livy's text look to Caudium as a guide to conduct. On none of these occasions is the word exemplum (or documentum) used, and yet at each point the episode is clearly serving as one. Caudium thus illustrates the importance of expanding the idea of what constitutes an exemplum in Livy. At the same time, the episode highlights aspects of exempla that invite further exploration. First, exempla are extremely ¯exible.36 Caudium is, in turn, a practical lesson for the Romans, a false indication of Roman vulnerability for the Samnites, a negative religious omen, an exhortation to ®ght and not appear cowardly, an evocation of Samnite glory, an argument that soldiers who act in a craven fashion should be given a second chance, and an illustration of what not to do when trapped in a ravine. This is a wide range of meanings to give a single episode. The various possible interpretations of an exemplum are determined by the circumstances in which it is cited: the person who invokes it, any other exempla that accompany it, the aspects of it that are emphasized, its location in a speech or in narrative, and the people who are the recipients or 35 Compare the amusing version in Frontinus (Str. 1. 5. 16). He also identi®es Caudium as the exemplum but gives full credit to Minucius for sending the Numidians on the attack. The language is close enough to suggest that Livy is Frontinus' source, and the story is not reported elsewhere. Frontinus, however, is more interested in military expediency than exempli®cation. In his version, Minucius considers the Numidians expendable because of the unsightliness of these troops and their horses: Q. Minucius consul in Liguria, demisso in angustias exercitu, cum iam omnibus obuersaretur Caudinae cladis exemplum, Numidas auxiliares, tam propter ipsorum quam propter equorum deformitatem despiciendos, iussit adequitare faucibus quae tenebantur. The Numidians' contribution is to clown around until they increase the Ligurians' contempt for them. Once the Ligurians are suciently distracted, the Numidians break through and set ®re to nearby ®elds so that the Ligurians have to look after their property. 36 Perlman (1961) makes the same point when showing how the Attic orators manipulated historical examples.

48

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

audience of it. In very large part, the person who invokes the exemplum determines its meaning: Minucius, the Samnites of the second Punic war, and the Cannae survivors all o€er di€erent interpretations of Caudium. One way they do this is by coupling it with other exempla: the Gallic sack, the Allia, Pyrrhus' invasion. Another method is to shift perspective or the point of emphasis: waging an o€ensive rather than a defensive war, the triumph of sending the Romans beneath the yoke, the marshalling of an army to resume the ®ght. More often than not, exempla occur in speeches, where someone is verbalizing his thoughts, but exempla can also occur in narrative, and here the focalizer serves as an interpreter of the past. But neither a speaker nor a focalizer alone can entirely determine the meaning of exempla. The audience also has a part to play. For example, the Romans involved in Caudium learn a variety of lessons from their experiences, ranging from the utility of scouting ahead to the importance of regaining one's honour. The Samnites, on the other hand, mistakenly think that the Romans will repeat their heedlessness. Then Livy's reading audience in turn draws its own conclusions from the way that the Romans and the Samnites respond to Caudium: the lesson for this audience is that Romans are superior students of history. So a single exemplum may simultaneously have di€erent meanings for di€erent audiences. Caudium is a convenient test case precisely because the frequency of citation makes it possible to illustrate the ¯exibility of exempla in Livy without leaping from event to event or from person to person. This very convenience, however, is also misleading. Repeated citation of any one event or person is rare in the extant books of Livy. Caudium is at the high end of the scale. Roughly half the people and events cited as exempla in Livy appear only once, and of the characters commonly thought of as typical exempla, many, such as Coriolanus or Appius Claudius the decemvir, appear only a few times;37 others, such as Lucretia, 37 Coriolanus: 2. 54. 6, 7. 40. 12, 28. 29. 1, and 34. 5. 9; Appius Claudius: 3. 56. 13, 3. 61. 1±6, 6. 20. 3, and 9. 34. 1±2.

Caudium as Event and Exemplum

49

Mucius Scaevola, and Horatius, never feature as exempla after their initial appearance in the narrative.38 On the contrary, instead of relying on what we might consider the exemplary ®gures of their early history, Livy's Romans tend to refer to events within recent memory. Even Caudium, with its seven citations, has a limited life span. The distribution of its citations is typical of the general pattern: three belong to the immediate aftermath; three occur slightly over one hundred years later in the second Punic war, and the third is in 193. Then it disappears. Exempla rarely appear outside the historical period in which the event takes place; instead, Livy's Romans constantly generate and discard exempla because they are more interested in people and events within their own memory. Thus the citations of Cannae illustrate the susceptibility of exempla to change over time.39 Exempla come and go because they take their meanings from the context in which they appear. Their relevance is thus likely to decrease as time passes, but subsequent circumstances can rejuvenate them: the disaster at Caudium recalls the defeat at the Allia and will become relevant again after the humiliation of Cannae. In the next chapter I will focus on this second notorious Roman military disaster as a way of further re®ning the contributions of speakers, focalizers, and audiences in the shaping of exemplary meaning. 38 Lucretia: 1. 57. 6±59. 8; Horatius: 2. 10. 1±13; Mucius Scaevola: 2. 12. 1± 13. 1. 39 This is also apparent from the Appendix; when an exemplum is cited on multiple occasions, they tend to cluster chronologically.

2 Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum INTRODUCTION: SPEAKER AND AUDIENCE Livy has three voices for articulating exempla within the History. The least frequent of these is that of the historian in his role as narrator:1 explicit moralizing, editorializing, or the introduction of an exemplary episode can call out this voice.2 Much more often, however, Livy introduces exempla through either the speeches or the thoughts of historical characters. As we saw with Caudium, it is relatively straightforward to identify the speaker or focalizer, even if the person is not actually named.3 In some cases he may take a prominent part in the events of his age; in others he may be obscure. Either way, there is nothing conceptually dicult about his role as a conduit for exempla. De®ning Livy's audience is more complicated. No one has systematically addressed what we might call `the audience question' in classical historiography. Even when the debate 1

Livy as narrator pronounces exempla in the following passages: 1. 28. 11, 2. 43. 6±11, 3. 33. 9±10, 3. 44. 2, 4. 13. 1±4, 4. 16. 1±4, 5. 29. 1±7, 7. 5. 1±9, 8. 7. 22, 9. 17. 6, 9. 46. 8, 21. 57. 13±14, 25. 33. 6, 28. 21. 7±10, 29. 9. 8±12, 30. 45. 5± 7, 42. 1. 6±12, and 45. 40. 6±9. 2 For example, overt moralizing includes the punishment of Mettius Fufetius (1. 28. 11) and the evils of cupiditas imperii (28. 21. 7±10); editorializing occurs with the description of Verginia's father as a uir exempli recti domi militiaeque (3. 44. 2) and the information that Scipio set a precedent when he gained a cognomen from the people he conquered (30. 45. 7); and authorial introductions to exemplary episodes include the politically subversive behaviour of Sp. Maelius (4. 13. 1±4) and Cn. Flavius' curule aedileship (9. 46. 8); on the latter two passages, see pp. 82±4 and 17±19 respectively. 3 Please note that I occasionally use the word `speaker' to refer to speakers and focalizers (as in the title of the chapter) because it is cumbersome to repeat the two terms and there are roughly twice as many speakers as focalizers. It should be clear from the context when `speaker' indicates the deliverer of a speech and when it also includes focalizers.

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

51

about the existence and nature of `tragic history' was generating a great deal of scholarly interest, there was little discussion of the impact on the audience, either internal or external.4 Recent studies of the ancient historians, however, have tended to emphasize the audience's role much more.5 Discussions of Livy's audience distinguish between the people within the text and the readers outside it in order to show how the reaction of the former conditions that of the latter. Signi®cant here are the contributions of Solodow and Feldherr. As Solodow points out, one of Livy's narrative techniques is to depict an internal audience responding to a person or an event in the very way Livy wants his contemporary audience to do.6 In an extended discussion of spectacles in Livy's History, Feldherr further re®nes this approach, suggesting that we can understand how the historian's contemporaries reacted to the text as an object of contemplation by observing the impact of the events he records on the spectators: sometimes these events are familiar (such as triumphs and profectiones) and thus bring the past closer to the present; sometimes they are not, and the response of the spectators a€ects that of the external audience.7 The importance for exempla of distinguishing between the internal and external audience has already emerged from the discussion of Caudium. By `internal audience' we must understand not simply the people listening to a speech, such as the Romans at Caudium who are persuaded by Lentulus to surrender, but also the kind of internal audiences Solodow and Feldherr discuss: namely, people who witness an event and, in an exemplary context, regulate their 4 The scholarly discussion of tragic history is summarized well in Walbank (1972) 34±8. 5 A good example is Davidson (1991) who points out all the di€erent audiences within Polybius' text and the various conclusions they draw from what they observe. Levene (1997) suggests that in his narrative of Vitellius' fall, Tacitus uses the `internal audience' to elicit reactions from his readers. Wheeldon (1989) considers more generally the ways in which the Roman historians endow their narratives with authority for their audiences. 6 Solodow (1979) 257±9. 7 Feldherr (1998). An example of the ®rst is the profectio of P. Licinius Crassus (pp. 9±12); an example of the latter is the execution of Mettius Fufetius as a lesson in the punishment commensurate with treachery (pp. 155± 63).

52

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

behaviour accordingly. For example, the Samnites believe that the Romans can be trapped in the Ciminian Forest because they were lured into the Samnites' trap at Caudium. And the important aspect of the external audience is not who actually heard or read Livy's History,8 but rather what e€ect their position outside the text has on their understanding of exempla.9 As Livy's iterative use of the second person singular (te, tibi, tuaeque) in Preface 10 indicates, he expects the reader to take something away from the exempla in the History.10 For while I would agree both with Solodow's and Feldherr's methodological distinction between internal and external audiences and with their conclusions about the responses generated by spectators within the text, the roles of the di€erent audiences are not always coextensive when it comes to exempla.11 As is visible from Caudium, 8 Certainly one audience of whom Livy was conscious was his contemporaries (to whom he refers in the Preface); and there is no reason to believe that he did not give public readings of his work just as other historians did, although in his case the evidence is late and anecdotal (Suidas s.v. Kornoy9tow). For historians and public readings, see Wiseman (1981) 383±7. For a general discussion of the Augustan reading public, see Kenney (1982). Schultze (1986) discusses Dionysius of Halicarnassus' audiences (on which see n. 13 below), which presumably would have overlapped with Livy's, at least among Romans. Momigliano (1978) lays out a framework for reconstructing the audiences of ancient historians, and Marincola (1997) 19±33 o€ers an overview of these audiences based primarily on the evidence that can be extracted from remarks in the historians' work. 9 Connor (1984) 13 makes a similar point about the impact of Thucydides' text on its readers. 10 In this way he approaches the heavy-handed moralizing found in Valerius Maximus' collection of exempla. See Bloomer (1992) 204, 252±3 on apostrophe in Valerius and Skidmore (1996) 53±82 on Valerius' prescriptive approach to his material. On Livy's shift to direct appeal in the second person, see Moles (1993) 152. 11 The di€erent responses of internal and external audiences in Livy lack a sustained scholarly discussion although the subject has not gone entirely unnoticed. One example is Pagnon (1982) who considers the speech of Cn. Manlius Vulso in 189 (38. 17. 1±20). To encourage his men, on campaign in Asia Minor, Manlius reminds them that they will be ®ghting not true Gauls, but Gallograeci, debased Gauls, corrupted by living among Greeks. The Romans' greatest danger is that they themselves may be corrupted in turn. Pagnon (pp. 121±2) points out that this conclusion to Manlius' speech appears to be directed more at Livy's contemporaries than at Manlius' troops. This speech also attracted the attention of Ullmann (1927) 157±8, who suggests that, because the Rhodians argued the opposite side of the caseÐthat environment does not pollute characterÐin the same year (37. 54. 18±22),

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

53

the internal and the external audiences can learn di€erent lessons from the same exemplum. The external audience has a privileged position from which to evaluate the presentation of the past,12 for it can witness each citation of an exemplum and learn from the cumulative e€ect, whereas the internal audience varies.13 On occasion the latter may hear the same exemplum more than once, and the exemplum may even have a di€erent meaning the second time around. More often than not, however, the internal audience di€ers from citation to citation of the exemplum; consequently it can absorb only the immediate meaning. Livy's readers, on the other hand, can compare various treatments and achieve a broader perspective on such matters as the relative abilities of Romans and foreigners to learn from the past.14 This lesson, among others, is particularly illuminated by the ways in which the Roman defeat at Cannae appears as an exemplum. Cannae is an unusually helpful demonstration of how speakers and audiences determine the meaning of an exemplum since it highlights the contrast between Roman and Carthaginian deployment of the past. Focusing on a single exemplum entails once again a temporary suspension of considering the susceptibility of exempla to change over Livy must be contradicting himself or blindly following two di€erent sources. As Luce (1977) 279±84 shows, however, the speeches are meant to be read together as an exploration for Livy's contemporaries of the issue of contact with foreign peoples and places. 12 Hunter (1973) makes the same point in conjunction with paradigmatic learning in Thucydides; note esp. her observations on Phormio (p. 153) and Hermocrates (pp. 163±5 and 170). 13 Dionysius of Halicarnassus introduces yet another layer of complexity since he was writing for both Romans and Greeks. On his di€erent objectives for each, see Schultze (1986) 133±41. 14 As readers of Livy's text, we are closer to his contemporary audience than to the audiences depicted within the History. There is a tendency in recent discussions to allow a slide from Augustan to modern readers (e.g. Luce [1993] 82 and Feldherr [1998] 111 and 143). I hope to avoid that slide because modern readers are neither `the actual audience' (i.e. the living people who constituted Livy's audience at the time) nor `the authorial audience' (i.e. the author's ideal, imaginary audience). (These terms come from Rabinowitz [1977] 126.) In any case, in terms of understanding exempla as Livy's mechanism for learning from the past, the essential di€erence is between the immediate audience, which is asked to consider only one presentation of an exemplum, and the external audience, which can contemplate all of them.

54

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

time.15 We can, however, still observe this property of exempla indirectly in Cannae itself, since it loses potency over the course of the war and is cited with decreasing frequency. It does not appear in the extant books after Livy's narrative of the war ends in Book 30. In the third decade, however, Cannae is obviously central to the narrative and, as will become clear, to Livy's ideas about exemplarity. Like Caudium, Cannae is a major setback for the Romans and poses a problem for the historian interested in depicting Roman superiority, particularly military superiority. Many of Livy's strategies for exorcising a defeat that we saw with Caudium resurface with Cannae,16 and part of what he accomplishes by using it as an exemplum is a reshaping of its impact.17 As an exemplum, Cannae not only reveals facets of the Roman character, such as resilience and a naturally superior ability to learn from the past, but also charts the changing fortunes of Romans and Carthaginians alike. CANNAE: BOOK 22 We can start by reviewing Livy's narrative of the battle. Book 22 has three major episodes: Trasimene (1. 1±10. 10), the dictatorship of Fabius Cunctator (11. 1±33. 11), and the battle of Cannae (34. 1±61. 15). The ®nal segment begins with the election of the consuls, of whom C. Terentius Varro is the popular favourite (34. 2) and L. Aemilius Paullus the reluctant candidate of the patricians (35. 3). Livy's emphasis on the di€erences and resulting tension between the two men sets the stage for the consuls' fatal joint campaign.18 Fabius Cunctator, here taking the part of the wise adviser, warns Paullus that Varro will prove a more 15 This aspect of exempla will receive fuller treatment in Chs. 4 and 5; see also pp. 182±4 and 195±6. 16 On Cannae as a defeat narrative, see Bruckmann (1936) 70±103. 17 Davidson (1991) 13±14 discusses Polybius' presentation of the battle of perception waged over the opening con¯icts of the second Punic war. As he points out, `As each battle is fought it enters the catalogue of exempla, and attempts are made by both sides to wield it symbolically or, on the other hand, to dismiss its signi®cance' (p. 13). 18 Livy's exploitation of the exemplary possibilities is apparent from a comparison with the less pointed treatment in Polybius (3. 106. 1±117. 12 and 6. 58. 1±13).

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

55

dicult enemy than Hannibal (39. 4±5). The con¯ict between the consuls originates with Varro's temerity and Paullus' more measured style of warfare. Varro, in his numerous contiones, claims he will demolish Hannibal the day he sees him (38. 7). Paullus, in his single public meeting, expresses surprise that his colleague, nunc togatus in urbe (38. 9), can predict the day on which he will defeat the invaders when he does not know even where they are; Paullus hopes that if the Romans proceed cautiously (aÁ la Fabius) everything will turn out well (38. 11). The tension continues throughout the campaign. When Fortuna o€ers Varro's temerity an opportunity (41. 1), he leaps at the chance and nearly falls into one of Hannibal's traps. Only Paullus' insistence on foresight and precautions saves the Romans (42. 4); he delays to check the auspices and, when the chickens do not co-operate, he has Varro informed. The latter remembers Flaminius' disasters with the auspices as well as Claudius' naval defeat in the ®rst Punic war, and restrains himself (42. 9).19 At Cannae itself, it is Varro who leads the troops into battle, with an unwilling Paullus trailing behind (45. 5). The battle is a catastrophe for the Romans: Paullus himself dies together with 45,500 infantry, 2,700 cavalry, the two quaestors, and twenty-nine military tribunes, including Cn. Servilius Geminus, the consul of the previous year, and M. Minucius, the magister equitum.20 A short obituary notice marks the end of the tragedy. Livy compares Cannae to the defeat at the Allia and notes that Cannae was worse for the army since barely ®fty men escaped with the one surviving consul (50. 1±3). After the battle, the focus of the narrative shifts to the reactions of the various parties involved. First, of the Romans who survived the battle because they were posted in the two camps, those in the main camp send a message to those in the smaller camp and tell them to cross over while elation and exhaustion are distracting the enemy. Most of the Romans in the smaller camp cravenly 19 Flaminius is the exemplum for Varro throughout this section: see 22. 39. 6 and 44. 5. 20 On the casualty ®gures, see W±M ad 22. 49. 15.

56

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

propose that those in the larger camp should rather come to them. Only a small band, under the courageous leadership of Sempronius Tuditanus, makes the crossing. Joined up with the larger camp, these men reach Canusium safely (50. 4±12). Hannibal, in the midst of celebrations, does not seize the opportunity to march on Rome; hence the comment of his cavalry commander Maharbal that Hannibal knows how to win, but not how to use a victory. Livy endorses the remark by repeating the general belief that by delaying for a day, Hannibal ensured the safety of Rome and its empire.21 The anecdote is perhaps too choice and too famous for Livy to omit, but Maharbal's assessment will also prove interesting in light of Hannibal's failure to make successful use of Cannae as an exemplum.22 For the time being the Carthaginian forces go out to plunder, and Hannibal surrounds the smaller camp, which surrenders without a ®ght. He also takes some prisoners from the larger camp who were too physically or psychologically weak to follow those who ¯ed to Canusium (51. 5±52. 6). The latter group includes the young P. Cornelius Scipio, who patriotically suppresses an incipient conspiracy to abandon Italy (53. 1±13), before he is joined by Varro, who had escaped to Venusia. Meanwhile, the response at Rome is one of shock. Taking charge at the Senate meeting, Fabius Cunctator orders scouts to be sent out for news of survivors, delegates the patres to control grief, and posts guards to monitor entrance into and exit from the city (55. 1±8). Various military measures are taken to rearrange existing forces while attempts are made to placate the gods (56. 1±57. 6). The newly elected dictator and the master of horse draft youths under military age, conscript Latins and allies, and, in an unprecedented move, arm slaves at public expense (57. 9±12). Book 22 ends with a full-scale debate on 21 Tum Maharbal: `Non omnia nimirum eidem di dedere: uincere scis, Hannibal, uictoria uti nescis.' Mora eius diei satis creditur saluti fuisse urbi atque imperio (22. 51. 4). 22 Maharbal's comment was familiar well before Livy: Cato HRR frr. 86 and 87, Coelius HRR fr. 25; and, perhaps partially through Livy, it continued to be repeated: Val. Max. 9. 5 ext. 3, Florus 1. 22. 19, Plut. Fab. 17. 1, and Zon. 9. 1.

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

57

whether Hannibal's prisoners should be redeemed or not (58. 1.±61. 15). Livy emphasizes that Cannae was a nearly terminal disaster for the Romans.23 The loss of two consular armies coupled with the earlier destruction of a third under Flaminius at Trasimene cost Rome a combined total of 60,000 soldiers within a year. Even without the problem of expelling Hannibal from Italy, the practical rami®cations for self-defence were colossal. Livy carefully registers the decision to enlist adolescent males and to use slaves in the army for the ®rst time.24 He also notes three times in this section the expense of using the slaves: the slave-soldiers were preferred even though they cost more than redeeming the prisoners (57. 11 and 59. 12); and the Romans were concerned that by redeeming the prisoners, they would be lining Hannibal's pockets (61. 1±2). Livy's interest in how the Romans overcame the defeat spiritually as well as logistically leads him to explore at length the responses to the dilemma posed by Hannibal's prisonersof-war: should they be redeemed and put to use, or should they be abandoned to their fate?25 The story of the embassy was familiar in antiquity, but Livy alone reports extended speeches for both sides.26 The representative of the prisoners speaks ®rst (59. 1±19). The opening point is important: he knows that the Romans have a long tradition of not showing mercy to people who manage to fall into enemy hands.27 But 23

Nulla profecto alia gens tanta mole cladis non obruta esset (22. 54. 10). Livy keeps a careful eye on these slaves; they appear twice in exemplary contexts: 24. 14. 1±5 and 26. 2. 7±16. In the ®rst case, their commander Ti. Sempronius Gracchus writes to the Senate to inquire about the possibility of manumitting them; the request is granted. In the second, C. Sempronius Blaesus o€ers Gracchus' management of his slave troops as a model for Cn. Fulvius: Gracchus turned slaves into men while Fulvius turned men into slaves. 25 On the Romans' recovery from Cannae through control of public and private space as well as the commemoration of the battle, see Jaeger (1997) 99± 107. 26 Acilius HRR fr. 3 (= Cic. O€. 3. 113±15), Polyb. 6. 58. 1±13, Nep. HRR Exempla frg. 2 (= Gell. 6. 18. 11), App. Hann. 28, Gell. 6. 18. 1±10, and Zon. 9. 2. Appian comes closest to Livy; he refers to a discussion in the Senate over precedents. 27 `Nemo nostrum ignorat nulli umquam ciuitati uiliores fuisse captiuos quam nostrae' (22. 59. 1). 24

58

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

this is a special case. According to him, the survivors fought till night before retreating to the camp, which they defended until the following morning, despite their exhaustion; at that point, cut o€ from their water-supply, seeing no hope of breaking through enemy lines, and thinking it no great sin if some remnant of the army should survive when ®fty thousand soldiers had already died, they surrendered. He does not mention Sempronius or the attempt to escape by night. He points out that their ancestors used gold to buy o€ the Gauls and that their fathers redeemed Pyrrhus' prisoners-of-war. There is no suggestion, however, that the captives took these exempla as models of behaviour at the time; rather, they are presented as after-the-fact justi®cations. Additional mitigating considerations are the comparison with the other survivors, who escaped slaughter or imprisonment by ¯eeing the battle site, and the fact that the cost of redeeming the prisoners is no higher than the cost of purchasing slaves to ®ght in their place. The speaker concludes with a plea for pity: think of the enemy to whom they are abandoning the prisoners (not Pyrrhus, who treated prisoners as guests; but rather a cruel and greedy barbarian); judge from the reactions of those waiting in the entrance to the curia how great the su€ering of the prisoners is; the greatest punishment is not the actual imprisonment, but the shame of being considered unworthy of redemption (59. 13±19). The description of the relatives waiting in the vestibule introduces the question of the internal audience's response. Livy describes the uproar generated by the crowd: Ubi is ®nem fecit, extemplo ab ea turba quae in comitio erat clamor ¯ebilis est sublatus, manusque ad curiam tendebant orantes, ut sibi liberos, fratres, cognatos redderent.28 In contrast to this uniform misery, the Senate's response is more varied, and Livy reports the range of solutions debated: the prisoners could be bought back at public expense; no public money should be spent, but they might be redeemed privately; 28

When he came to an end, piteous wailing immediately arose from the crowd in the comitium, and they stretched their hands towards the Senate house, begging that their children, brothers, and relatives be returned to them (22. 60. 1).

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

59

public money could be lent to those who lacked personal resources (60. 3±4). In the midst of the indecision, Livy inserts the opinion, delivered at some length, of T. Manlius Torquatus (60. 6±27). Just in case the name is not enough to conjure up visions of old-fashioned Roman virtue, Livy mentions his seueritas right away (60. 5). Manlius is particularly quali®ed to speak on a matter of military discipline because his family instantiates the trait.29 In his attempt to persuade the Romans that they should not redeem the captives, Manlius uses exempla in two di€erent ways. First, he assumes that precedents govern behaviour. In an implicit response to the opening remark of the captives' spokesman, Manlius says that the Romans have an established method of dealing with those who are captured in battle, and of course they should follow it.30 The same assumption underlies his attitude towards those who gave themselves up to Hannibal: they had the opportunity to avoid surrender, and they should have taken it. Fifty thousand dead bodies lay around them to teach them about uirtus. If they could not learn that lesson, they can learn no lesson and are not worth saving.31 The comment shows that Manlius conceives of the survivors as an audience: they witnessed the courage of their comrades, but could not interpret the obvious exemplum in front of them. Manlius' auditors, on the other hand, have the bene®t of his exegesis. Second, Manlius gives an extended treatment of the episode mentioned above, where the military tribune P. Sempronius Tuditanus leads a group of men from the smaller camp to the larger. This exemplum of behaviour to imitate provides nearly all the material for Manlius' speech. In fact, the treatment of Tuditanus' escape is longer and 29 At 4. 29. 5±6 Livy prefers to believe that the dictator A. Postumius did not kill his son for ®ghting without orders because the catch phrase is imperia Manliana, not imperia Postumiana. Livy later includes the story which substantiates his belief (8. 7. 21±8. 1). 30 `Si tantummodo postulassent legati pro iis, qui in hostium potestate sunt ut redimerentur, sine ullius insectatione eorum breui sententiam peregissem; quid enim aliud quam admonendi essetis, ut morem traditum a patribus necessario ad rem militarem exemplo seruaretis?' (22. 60. 6±7). 31 `Quinquaginta milia ciuium sociorumque circa uos eo ipso die caesa iacent. Si tot exempla uirtutis non mouent, nihil umquam mouebit' (22. 60. 14).

60

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

more elaborate than Livy's narrative version. For instance, the narrative ®rst describes the circumstances as nuntium . . . mittunt dum proelio, deinde ex laetitia epulis fatigatos quies nocturna hostes premeret ut ad se transirent.32 Manlius' speech picks up the main points but elaborates them: `sed cum fessis pugnando hostibus, tum uictoria laetis et ipsis plerisque regressis in castra sua, noctem ad erumpendum liberam habuissent et septem hmiliaj armatorum hominum erumpere etiam hperj confertos hostes possent . . .' 33 Thus the Carthaginians are not just happy and tired from ®ghting, they also have returned to camp, and crossing over is not just a possibility, but they have the strength of numbers for the trek. Manlius also represents Sempronius as having urged his companions nearly all night to come with him (`nocte prope tota' 60. 10), whereas in the narrative he delivers a short hortatory address, draws his sword and, with his followers packed into a wedge, leaves (haec ubi dicta dedit, stringit gladium cuneoque facto per medios uadit hostes, 50. 10). In Manlius' version, it is not so simple, for not only do most of the Romans refuse to join him, but they actually try to prevent him from going. Here Manlius repeats himself in a dramatic fashion: `non modo enim sequi recusarunt bene monentem sed obsistere ac retinere conati sunt, ni strictis gladiis uiri fortissimi inertes summouissent. Prius, inquam, P. Sempronio per ciuium agmen quam per hostium fuit erumpendum.'34 As with the speech of the captives' representative, Livy concludes by describing the audience's reaction. The Senate takes into consideration both the traditional practice of showing no mercy towards prisoners-of-war and the desire 32 They sent a messenger to tell them that they might join them while the quiet of the night lay heavy upon the enemy, who were exhausted from the battle as well as happiness and feasting (22. 50. 4). 33 `But when the night was free for their escape, since the enemy, exhausted from ®ghting and rejoicing in the victory, had retired to their camp, and seven thousand men could force a way through them, even if they were densely packed . . .'(22. 60. 9). 34 `For not only did they refuse to follow him when he was making a sensible suggestion, but they also tried to obstruct and impede him, successfully too, had not the bravest men drawn their swords and moved the lazy ones aside. Sempronius, I tell you, had to break through a phalanx of his fellow citizens before the phalanx of the enemy' (22. 60. 17±18).

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

61

neither to exhaust the treasury nor to enrich Hannibal.35 By describing as triste the decision not to redeem the captives (61. 3) and by dramatizing the departure of the representatives from the city, Livy invites the reading audience to share the Romans' distress. The behaviour of those who survived the battle, however, is also important. Book 22 contains three di€erent interpretations of it. Livy concludes the battle narrative by saying that those who made it safely to Canusium did so because of chance or their own nature, rather than on account of anyone's plan or order (50. 12). The representative of the captives insinuates that the prisoners were more honourable than the survivors because the survivors are in e€ect deserters (59. 10). According to Manlius, those who followed Sempronius are heroes (60. 13). The variations from narrative to speech and from speech to speech are important for the e€ect on the di€erent audiences. The external audience participates in the historical moment through the reactions of the internal audience. And through the latter's con¯icted response to the competing oratorical versions, the external audience comes to understand the agonizing decision the Romans face. But while the internal audience has two versions to compare, the external audience has the third, narrative version as well. As the external audience sets Livy's narrative against the two speeches, Manlius' version emerges as the more important interpretation of events.36 In the narrative, Sempronius' resourcefulness is just one element among various noble acts (such as Paullus' refusal to ¯ee and Scipio's suppression of the conspiracy); he does not become an exemplum until Livy gives Manlius a speech and has him elaborate the signi®cance of Sempronius' 35 Postquam Manlius dixit, quamquam patrum quoque plerosque captiui cognatione attingebant, praeter exemplum ciuitatis minime in captiuos iam inde antiquitus indulgentis, pecuniae quoque summa homines mouit, quia nec aerarium exhaurire, magna iam summa erogata in seruos ad militiam emendos armandosque, nec Hannibalem, maxime huiusce rei, ut fama erat, egentem locupletari uolebant (22. 61. 1±2). 36 Jaeger (1997) 105 notes, `Manlius' argument prevails, and the Senate's refusal to ransom the prisoners conveys clearly the message that the city cannot a€ord to recognize citizens who threaten the usefulness of the past.'

62

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

bravery. By turning Sempronius into an exemplum, Livy can show the side of Roman character that allows the Romans to recuperate after Cannae. Manlius' addition of detail contributes to an explanation of how the Romans survive the disaster.37 From the multiple presentations of the captives' behaviour as well as from Livy's validation of Sempronius as an example of bravery the external audience learns why the Romans rejected the captives' appeal and how they overcame the initial blows of Hannibal's catastrophically successful invasion. THE ROMANS AND CANNAE Livy's handling of Cannae in Book 22 gives some sense of the way speakers and audiences can contribute to exempli®cation in his historical narrative. I now want to focus in particular on the parts played by speaker and audience in the shaping of Cannae as an exemplum. It should be said that although it is always possible to identify the speaker or focalizer, the response of the audience is not always made explicit. Where the text o€ers no direct evidence, we can still sometimes extrapolate the audience's reaction; in other places it simply remains uncertain. Despite these occasional gaps, if we consider how speakers manipulate Cannae and how audiences respond to it, the battle, in its ten appearances as an exemplum, will emerge as a measuring stick for Roman and Carthaginian progress through the course of the war.38 First, then, the Roman response. Shortly after the battle, the Romans have more bad news: L. Postumius, the consul designate, is fatally ambushed in Gallic territory. According 37 As if to underscore the point about Roman character as ®rmly as possible, Livy tells several stories about these legati from Cannae. One prisoner, having sworn with all the others to return to Hannibal's camp, makes a quick trip back to the camp soon after the delegates set out, in order to release himself from his vow. When the Romans discover his shabby behaviour, they return him to Hannibal (61. 3±4). In another version the legati evade the letter but not the spirit of their vows; electing to remain in Rome, they eventually commit suicide or stay at home because of shame. 38 Cannae as an exemplum: 23. 18. 7, 23. 25. 3, 23. 43. 4, 23. 45. 8, 24. 8. 20, 25. 10. 8, 25. 22. 1±3, 26. 12. 14, 26. 41. 11, and 27. 12. 11. It would be possible to add L. Marcius' reference (25. 38. 10), but that seems more a passing characterization than an exhortation to action.

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

63

to Livy, the Gauls partially chopped through the trunks of trees and then, when Postumius leads two legions through the forest, the Gauls surround him and start pushing over the trees. The ensuing domino-e€ect crushes many men, and the Gauls kill almost all the rest. Then they make Postumius' head into a gilded ceremonial drinking vessel (23. 24. 6±13). At Rome the disaster prompts spontaneous public mourning, and the senators respond by ordering the aediles to have the shops opened and the people suppress their grief. The other consul designate, Ti. Sempronius, exhorts the Senate that those who did not succumb to the ruin of Cannae should not be devastated by lesser disasters.39 The text o€ers no explicit evidence for the Senate's response to the invocation of Cannae as an example of Roman resilience; but, since the senators take Sempronius' advice to focus on the war with Hannibal, which is going well, and defer revenge for Postumius' humiliation, we can assume that the speech in general is meant to be seen as having a positive e€ect on his audience. At the elections for 214, Fabius Cunctator derives an entirely di€erent meaning from Cannae (24. 7. 10±9. 5). The ®rst tribe has just selected as consuls T. Otacilius and M. Aemilius Regillus. Fabius interrupts the voting because he opposes the choice of Otacilius. He bases his argument on the importance of experience and knowledge gained from the past. The Romans should choose someone whom they can trust to lead them against Hannibal at that very minute, not someone who would need a year to learn how to do the job properly (24. 8. 7). They already have experience with Otacilius' lacklustre skills as a commander; he has given them no proof that he should be trusted with greater responsibilities.40 Fabius concludes that Trasimene and Cannae are grim examples to remember, but useful lessons for avoiding similar disasters in the future.41 For Fabius, 39 Tum Ti. Sempronius senatum habuit consolatusque patres est et adhortatus, ne, qui Cannensi ruinae non succubuissent, ad minores calamitates animos summitterent (23. 25. 2±3). 40 `In minore te experti, T. Otacili, re sumus; haud sane, cur ad maiora tibi ®damus, documenti quicquam dedisti' (24. 8. 13). 41 `Lacus Trasumennus et Cannae tristia ad recordationem exempla, sed ad praecauendahsj similes hcladesj utilia documento sunt' (24. 8. 20).

64

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

Cannae o€ers a military lesson about the need for an experienced commander who can stand up to Hannibal.42 Again, Livy does not spell out the response of the crowd, but Otacilius is the only one to voice opposition, and the voting begins again. Cannae o€ers yet another practical lesson when disaster strikes Cn. Fulvius Flaccus in Apulia in 212 (25. 21. 1±10). When the news of the defeat reaches Rome, envoys are immediately sent to the consuls. They are instructed to gather up the remnants of Fulvius' army and to take care lest the survivors, through fear or despair, surrender to Hannibal as did the survivors of Cannae.43 Since Rome can a€ord neither to lose troops nor to ransom them and enrich Hannibal, the recovery of these men is crucial. There is no explicit audience here, and hence no explicit response. Nor does Livy identify the people (presumably the Senate) who send out the messengers, but he focalizes the practical lesson of Cannae through them instead of using a speaker. The last Roman to invoke Cannae is the young P. Cornelius Scipio. Newly arrived in Spain, he addresses the troops he has inherited from his dead father and uncle (26. 41. 2±25). Scipio uses exempla in two ways: to illustrate the resilient virtue of the Roman people, and to defend his prediction that the Carthaginians will lose because they are now experiencing the same circumstances which previously spelled disaster for the Romans. Cannae appears in the ®rst section of the speech; coupled with the losses at the Trebia and Lake Trasimene, it is a memorial of slaughtered Roman armies and consuls.44 Scipio lists all three battles, building to the climax of Cannae, because he wants to emphasize how desperate Rome's position was. He immediately adds the loss of Italy, a large part of Sicily, and Sardinia; then he 42 Terentius Varro was a nouus homo, but Flaminius had earned his credentials as consul in 223. The quality of temeritas, rather than the level of experience, links the two men in Livy's narrative. 43 Legatos ad consules mittunt C. Laetorium M. Metilium, qui nuntiarent, ut reliquias duorum exercitum cum cura colligerent darentque operam, ne per metum ac desperationem hosti se dederent, id quod post Cannensem accidisset cladem, et ut desertores de exercitu uolonum conquirerent (25. 22. 2±3). 44 `Trebia Trasumennus Cannae quid aliud sunt quam monumenta occisorum exercituum consulumque Romanorum?' (26. 41. 11).

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

65

skips to the greatest terror of all, Hannibal at the gates, as if all those events had occurred in quick succession, when in fact they were spread out over eight campaign seasons. The description ends with the claim that in all these disasters the courage of the Roman people did not waver and was responsible for resurrecting their fortunes.45 Cannae here not only di€ers from Fabius' reminder of the practical lessons of Cannae and from the Senate's equally pragmatic desire not to lose Fulvius' troops to Hannibal, but it also goes beyond Sempronius' invocation of Roman resilience. Scipio lists Rome's greatest disasters in order to celebrate her triumph over them. As the next section of the speech shows, the Romans have put Cannae behind them. The soldiers' enthusiastic response reinforces the attitude: Livy begins the sentence after Scipio's speech with hac oratione accensis militum animis (26. 42. 1). Although it is not possible to separate the impact of a single exemplum from the e€ect of the speech as a whole, clearly the external audience is supposed to recognize its ecacy. The soldiers accept Scipio's interpretation of Cannae, and it is not surprising that no Roman ever bothers to use it as an exemplum again. The Romans have transcended the defeat, in large part because they have learned its lessons. HANNIBAL AND CANNAE Initially, Hannibal appears to be a skilful manipulator of exempla. At the beginning of the war he manufactures them consciously and to good e€ect. So, for example, in order to motivate the troops before the Ticinus, he stages a contest between two prisoners: they are to ®ght to the death, and the victor will go free (21. 42. 1±4). As Hannibal intends, the competition ®lls the soldiers with martial spirit, and he tells the men that they have won already if they have the same eagerness for battle that they showed at the example of someone else's fate.46 Similarly, when a guide leads Hannibal to the wrong destination, Hannibal has him beaten and 45

`In hac ruina rerum stetit una integra atque immobilis uirtus populi Romani; haec omnia strata humi erexit ac sustulit' (26. 41. 12). 46 `Si, quem animum in alienae sortis exemplo paulo ante habuistis, eundem mox in aestimanda fortuna uestra habueritis, uicimus, milites' (21. 43. 2).

66

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

cruci®ed as a deterrent to others.47 Despite this early aptitude for exempla, over the course of the war Hannibal's e€orts to use Cannae are less and less successful in two crucial areas: relations with the allies on the Italian peninsula and relations with his own soldiers. Cannae serves as an exemplum three times for each; in both cases, however, it loses persuasiveness as time passes. As Livy makes clear, Hannibal courts allies from early on because the success of his invasion depends on them.48 At ®rst, as Fabius Cunctator points out in his speech to Paullus before Cannae, the allies stand by Rome (22. 39. 11±12). After Cannae, however, they begin to defect to Hannibal; Book 23 opens dramatically with the summoning of Hannibal to Compsa, which the Hirpini want to turn over to him (23. 1. 1). When the Hirpini and Caudine Samnites ®nd themselves under attack from the Roman praetor Marcellus, they send ambassadors to Hannibal, who uses Cannae to rally their spirits (23. 43. 1±6).49 He promises them that just as Trasimene was greater than Trebia, and Cannae surpassed Trasimene, so will his next victory obscure the memory of Cannae.50 Although the e€ect of Hannibal's exempla cannot be isolated from his gifts to the ambassadors or his assurances that by ®ghting in adjacent territory he will draw the 47 Cum is Casilini eo die mansurum eum dixisset, tum demum cognitus est error, et Casinum longe inde alia regione esse; uirgisque caeso duce et ad reliquorum terrorem in crucem sublato . . . (22. 13. 8±9). 48 Before the Ticinus, he o€ers land and citizenship to the allies he has with him (21. 45. 4±6); he is anxious to win the support of the Gauls (21. 48. 1±2); he tries to appease people before he resorts to taking them by force (e.g. Clastidium, 21. 48. 8±10). Indicative of the attention Livy pays to shifting alliances in Italy is the weight he puts on Capua; he both elaborates its decision to go over to Hannibal with the anecdotes of Pacuvius Calavius' son (who plots to assassinate Hannibal, 23. 8. 1±9. 13) and Decius Magius (who tries to prevent Capua's desertion, 23. 7. 4±12 and 10. 1±13), and he repeatedly emphasizes that both the Romans and Hannibal knew that the Romans' recovery of Capua was symbolically connected to a general return to Rome (26. 1. 3±4, 26. 5. 1±3, 26. 24. 1±8, 26. 38. 1±5, and 26. 41. 15). Many other passages point to the importance of the allies to Hannibal; see for example 23. 30. 1±9, 24. 13. 1±7, and 24. 47. 3±6. 49 See pp. 44±5. 50 Quod ad bellum Romanum attineret, si Trasumenni quam Trebiae, si Cannarum quam Trasumenni pugna nobilior esset, Cannarum se quoque memoriam obscuram maiore et clariore uictoria facturum (23. 43. 4).

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

67

Roman forces to him, the ambassadors go away apparently satis®ed.51 Similarly, when Hannibal takes Tarentum, he reassures the inhabitants that he treats well those who cooperate with him, and he reminds them that he released those of their fellow citizens who were taken at Trasimene and Cannae (25. 10. 1±10).52 Livy does not comment directly on the Tarentines' reaction to Hannibal's speech. In general they comply with the instructions not to harbour Romans and to mark their doors to show that they are Carthaginian sympathizers; but on the other hand, it is not clear what choice they have in the face of Hannibal's army. Finally, Bostar and Hanno, in charge of the Carthaginian garrison at Capua, write to Hannibal in 211 and tell him to come north (26. 12. 10±14). They admonish him that he is losing Capua and that he should imitate his own behaviour at Cannae and Trasimene where he sought out the Romans and defeated them. He did not cross the Alps to ®ght at Rhegium and Tarentum.53 Symbolically, this time the exemplum of Cannae fails utterly. The Romans intercept the letter, so Hannibal never has the opportunity to recognize the apposite advice of his lieutenants. The interception of the letter leads directly to the surrender of Capua, which Livy represents as a turning-point in the war.54 Thus the exemplum of Cannae has progressed from a stirring reminder for the allies, to a practical promise of safety, to a desperate and unheard cry for help. In addition to ®nding and maintaining allies, Hannibal has to keep up the spirits of his own men. Livy ®rst highlights the problem with Hannibal's speech to his men before they cross the Alps (21. 30. 1±31. 1). Just before Zama, he has Hannibal remind the soldiers of their achievements in Italy 51

Cum hoc responso muneribusque amplis legatos dimisit (23. 43. 5). There is no reason to mention Trebia since no Tarentines fought there. 53 Si redeat Capuam bellumque omne eo uertat, et se et Campanos paratos eruptioni fore. Non cum Reginis neque Tarentinis bellum gesturos transisse Alpes; ubi Romanae legiones sint, ibi et Carthaginiensium exercitus debere esse. Sic ad Cannas, sic ad Trasumennum rem bene gestam, coeundo conferundoque cum hoste castra, fortunam temptando (26. 12. 13±14). 54 He positions it strategically at the beginning of the sixth pentad. See Burck (1950) 11±26, Stadter (1972) 290, and n. 48 above. 52

68

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

over sixteen years (30. 32. 6). Most noteworthy in this regard, however, is the comment Livy interjects in the ®rst person, as a tribute to Hannibal's leadership: ac nescio an mirabilior aduersis quam secundis rebus fuerit, quippe qui cum in hostium terra per annos tredecim, tam procul ab domo, uaria fortuna bellum gereret, exercitu non suo ciuili sed mixto ex conluuione omnium gentium, quibus non lex, non mos, non lingua communis, alius habitus, alia uestis, alia arma, alii ritus, alia sacra, alii prope di essent, ita quodam uno uinculo copulauerit eos ut nulla nec inter ipsos nec aduersus ducem seditio exstiterit, cum et pecunia saepe in stipendium et commeatus in hostium agro deessent, quorum inopia priore Punico bello multa infanda inter duces militesque commissa fuerant.55

The long stretch of anaphora describing the army's internal di€erences expresses Livy's admiration for the unity Hannibal managed to forge. For Livy the unreliability of allies is the rule. The fact that a non-Roman could command loyalty only increases his wonder.56 One way Hannibal keeps his men motivated is to remind them of their successes. In the speech before the Alps, he recalls their victories in Spain, the crossing of the Pyrenees, and the crossing of the Rhone (21. 30. 2±7). Cannae becomes a central theme in the third decade. He ®rst invokes it together with Trebia and Trasimene when he is besieging Casilinum. Here it is appropriate to add Saguntum, as a success in siege warfare, as opposed to battles in open territory.57 Hannibal's words are stirring, 55 And I do not know whether he was more admirable under adverse or favourable circumstances, considering that he waged war for thirteen years in enemy territory, very far from home, and with mixed results; further, his army was made up not of fellow citizens, but of a haphazard combination from various races, who had no common law, tradition, or language, but rather each had its own individual customs, clothing, weaponry, ceremonies, and (almost) gods. But he yoked them together by one particular bond so that there was no conspiring among them or against their leader, even though in enemy territory money for pay and supplies were often lacking, and an insuciency of these things had caused many unspeakable acts among leaders and soldiers in the previous Punic war (28. 12. 2±5). 56 21. 52. 3±9 and 25. 33. 1±9 especially, but also Fabius Cunctator at 28. 42. 7±9. 57 Postero die omnium animi ad oppugnandum accenduntur, utique postquam corona aurea muralis proposita est, atque ipse dux castelli plano loco positi segnem

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

69

and the men set to work, but eventually he has to abandon the siege. Hannibal cites Cannae again at the ®rst battle of Nola in 215. He and Marcellus are engaged in a war of words as well as actual battles. Marcellus tells his men that a winter spent among the luxuries of Capua has softened Hannibal's men; what Cannae was to the Romans, a winter in Capua was to the Carthaginians. So the Romans will be facing the same commander, but a di€erent army (23. 45. 1±5). No sooner has Marcellus roused the troops than Hannibal produces his own motivational speech.58 He mentions Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae. Then Livy puts Hannibal's words into direct speech: where is the soldier who decapitated Flaminius, and where is the soldier who killed Paullus at Cannae? But the words have no power with the soldiers, who turn their backs and run. Marcellus' speech proves the more e€ective as his men gain con®dence from the ®ght.59 Interestingly, only the ®nal invocation of Cannae coincides with a Carthaginian victory. In 209, when Marcellus is hounding Hannibal in Apulia, Hannibal tells his soldiers to remember Trasimene and Cannae and to put a stop to the annoying persistence with which Marcellus is pursuing them.60 Livy describes the response of the soldiers; they are roused by Hannibal's speech and also frustrated with Marcellus' indefatigability.61 It is not possible to disentangle the e€ect of the exempla from the irritation of Marcellus' daily harassment, but the Carthaginians in fact win that day. Although on this occasion Hannibal is successful, of course in the long run he fails to win the war. What is apparent to the external audience, which can put all three pre-battle oppugnationem Sagunti expugnatoribus exprobrabat, Cannarum Trasumennique et Trebiae singulos admonens uniuersosque (23. 18. 7). 58 Cum haec exprobrando hosti Marcellus suorum militum animos erigeret, Hannibal multo grauioribus probris increpabat (23. 45. 5). 59 Nec bene nec male dicta profuerunt ad con®rmandos animos (sc. Poenorum). Cum omni parte pellerentur, Romanisque crescerent animi non duce solum adhortante, sed Nolanis etiam per clamorem fauoris indicem accendentibus ardorem pugnae, terga Poeni dederunt atque in castra conpulsi sunt (23. 46. 1±2). 60 Multis uerbis adhortatus milites ut memores Trasumenni Cannarumque contunderent ferociam hostis (27. 12. 11). 61 His inritati adhortationibus, simulque taedio ferociae hostium cottidie instantium lacessentiumque, acriter proelium ineunt (27. 12. 13).

70

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

speeches together, is that in the seven years of warfare after Cannae Hannibal adds no new models of behaviour to imitate. Where the Romans extract multiple lessons from Cannae only to discard it, Hannibal's initial victories become stale, and his inability to produce any more recent exempla for his men signals to the external audience his overall failure. CONCLUSIONS As an event and as an exemplum, Cannae o€ers numerous speakers, audiences, and meanings. The speakers include the spokesman of the captives and Manlius, four Romans (Ti. Sempronius, Fabius Cunctator, the Senate, and Scipio), and three Carthaginians (Hannibal on ®ve occasions and Bostar and Hanno once). The audiences are the people present at the battle (Romans and Carthaginians, especially Hannibal), the Roman people (once outside the curia for the debate in Book 22, once at the elections for 214), the Senate (during the debate in Book 22 and for the eradication of Fulvius' army in 212), the Roman army in Spain, Hannibal's allies in Italy (Hirpini, Caudine Samnites, and Tarentines), and Hannibal's troops (on three occasions between 215 and 209). For the Romans within the text, Cannae is an exemplum of resilience, of the need for on-going leadership, of the necessity of reassembling troops after a loss, and of a disaster they have put behind them. For Hannibal's allies Cannae is evidence of the Carthaginian ability to beat the Romans and to treat defeated soldiers charitably. For Hannibal and his troops, it is a great but ever more distant victory. While the audience of any one of these ten citations of Cannae might recognize the value of the individual lesson the exemplum o€ers at that particular moment, only the external audience can appreciate the lesson to which the exemplum contributes in all its manifestations across the third decade of Livy's History. The Carthaginians use Cannae as an exemplum six times to the Romans' four, but they do so with far less variety. Conviction drains from Hannibal's exhortations as year after year he tries to stir allies and army alike with the increasingly remote victories

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

71

which put him at his peak in 216. In this way Hannibal and the Carthaginians show an inability to change which contrasts strongly with the Romans' capacity to learn from the past. Each time one of them invokes Cannae, he does so for a di€erent reason and to o€er a di€erent lesson to his audience. Livy chooses to express the basic military lesson of the warÐthat Rome must put aside annuity, in practice if not in principle, and extend the commands of skilled leaders to combat HannibalÐas a lesson of Cannae. Played out across the entire decade is the same contrast seen in nuce with the Romans and the Samnites after the Caudine Forks: Romans recognize what the past has to teach and learn from it; foreigners cannot and do not. Only when Hannibal and Scipio ®nally come face to face at Zama, does Hannibal look back over his successes and failures and warn Scipio about the workings of Fortuna.62 The great variety of Cannae's speakers, audiences, and meanings forces the conclusion that the traditional approach to exempla in Livy does not allow for the process of learning from the past that he depicts within the text for the bene®t of the audience outside the text. The learning arises directly from the capacity of exempla to have di€erent meanings for di€erent people. Consequently, although Livy may give a particular shape to characters and events in the narrative, as exempla, they will not have ®xed meanings. Instead, the historian may employ focalizers and speakers to bring out other aspects and o€er new interpretations. Thus just as Lentulus and Pontius can use the Capitoline siege in equal and opposite ways, Manlius can expand on Sempronius' heroism and the implications of Cannae can shift depending on who invokes it. As we saw with Lentulus and Pontius, con¯icting interpretations of an event evidence Livy's willingness to see and present many di€erent ways of extracting meaning from the past. Exempla are a rhetorical device, and their malleability springs in part from the fact that as such, they have to ®t 62

Hannibal's words `quod ego fui ad Trasumennum, ad Cannas, id tu hodie es' (30. 30. 12) have a latent irony for the reading audience since, despite a second consulship and service in Asia Minor, Scipio's military career peaked at Zama, just as Hannibal's had at Cannae.

72

Speaker, Audience, and Exemplum

multiple arguments or even both sides of a single argument. Livy's use of exempla con®rms the rhetorical skill for which he was praised.63 But it is also central to his view of history. The ability to manipulate an audience's perception of the past may come from oratory, but Livy converts it into a tool of historical interpretation. Thus the persuasive representations of Cannae, Caudium, and historical exempla generally help Livy to control how his contemporaries outside the text can learn from the lessons o€ered to the audiences inside it. 63 Ancient praise for Livy's rhetorical ability: Sen. De Ira 1. 20. 6; Quint. Inst. 10. 1. 101; Tac. Ann. 4. 34. 3; and Suet. Dom. 10. 3. Not surprisingly, the Roman treaty at the Caudine Forks, the redemption of the Cannae captives, and the second Punic war are not just the stu€ of history, but also standard topics in rhetorical training. See e.g. Rhet. ad Her. 3. 2, 3. 8; Cic. Inv. rhet. 2. 91±92, 2. 171; and Quint. Inst. 3. 8. 3, 3. 8. 17.

3 Reading the Past INTRODUCTION On 18 July 380 bce, the Praenestines drew up their forces at the river Allia and prepared to attack the Romans. The latter were caught in the midst of recruiting an army to face the emergency, but managed not only to break up the assault but also to drive the enemy back to its city; the Romans then took over the eight towns under Praenestine control, accepted the surrender of the Praenestines, and set up a victory monument (6. 28. 5±29. 10). That is a military account of the events, but Livy in fact presents the con¯ict as a battle over knowledge of the past. The Praenestines choose the time and place of battle because they know that the anniversary of the Roman defeat by the Gauls at the Allia in 390 is a cursed day for the Romans, a dies ater; and they assume that ®ghting in the place itself on the anniversary of the defeat will demoralize the Romans. The Praenestines imagine that the Romans will see the faces of the Gauls and hear their voices.1 The Romans, on the other hand, are thinking of di€erent exempla. They know that they are ®ghting not Gauls, but Latins, whom they defeated at Lake Regillus over one hundred years earlier. They think that whom they ®ght matters more than where they ®ght. And furthermore, they are certain that even if they had to ®ght Gauls, they would win because they ultimately managed to defeat them too.2 1 Inde agrum late populantes, fatalem se urbi Romanae locum cepisse inter se iactabant: similem pauorem inde ac fugam fore ac bello Gallico fuerit; etenim si diem contactum religione insignemque nomine eius loci timeant Romani, quanto magis Alliensi die Alliam ipsam, monumentum tantae cladis, reformidaturos? Species profecto iis ibi truces Gallorum sonumque uocis in oculis atque auribus fore (6. 28. 5±6). 2 Romani contra: ubicumque esset Latinus hostis, satis scire eum esse quem ad Regillum lacum deuictum centum annorum pace obnoxia tenuerint: locum

74

Reading the Past

The Romans' easy victory over the Praenestines indicates which side adduced the correct exempla and derived the operative meaning from the Gallic con¯ict, but the military outcome was virtually certain before the ®ghting began because of Livy's use of exempli®cation. The Romans know more history: they have two occasions in mind to the Praenestines' one, and they can read further back into the past. Even more pointed is Livy's depiction of the thought processes of his historical characters. He concludes his description of the Praenestines by belittling their strategy: has inanium rerum inanes ipsas uoluentes cogitationes fortuna loci delegauerant spes suas.3 The Roman dictator, T. Quinctius, however, can read the Praenestines' minds and intuit which exemplum they are using. Looking at them, he turns to his junior ocer and comments: `uidesne tu' inquit, `A. Semproni, loci fortuna illos fretos ad Alliam constitisse?'4 The repetition of the phrase fortuna loci shows the reading audience that Quinctius has correctly divined the enemy's plan, and the monumentum rerum gestarum (6. 29. 9) he sets up not only displaces the monumentum tantae cladis (6. 28. 6) with which the Praenestines expected to defeat the Romans, but also symbolizes the Romans' superior deployment of history.5 By `reading' it correctly, they gain the privilege of creating the record of what happened. The competition between Antiochus and the Scipios in 190 shows many of the same characteristics (37. 25. 4±14). Here the Romans are at war with Antiochus, and as the war moves to Asia Minor, the two sides are anxious to secure the support of Prusias, king of Bithynia. Both Antiochus and the Scipios (Lucius is consul, Africanus his legate) send ambasinsignem memoria cladis inritaturum se potius ad delendam memoriam dedecoris quam ut timorem faciat, ne qua terra sit nefasta uictoriae suae; quin ipsi sibi Galli si o€erantur illo loco, se ita pugnaturos ut Romae pugnauerint in repetenda patria ut postero die ad Gabios, tunc cum e€ecerint ne quis hostis qui moenia Romana intrassset nuntium secundae aduersaeque fortunae domum perferret (6. 28. 7±9). 3 Spinning these foolish thoughts about inconsequential factors, they placed their hopes in the fortune of the location (6. 28. 7). 4 `Don't you see, Aulus Sempronius, that, relying on the fortune of the location, they have stationed themselves at the Allia?' (6. 29. 1). 5 See Kraus (1994) 250 on the di€erent ways in which the Praenestines and the Romans are expecting to repeat the past.

Reading the Past

75

sadors with letters to Prusias.6 Antiochus claims that the Romans are bent on destroying monarchies, giving as exempla Philip of Macedon and Nabis, the tyrant of Sparta. Further, he points to the contagious nature of the process: once he himself is eliminated, Prusias will be the next target since Eumenes has already gone over to the Romans. Accordingly, instead of succumbing, Prusias should join Antiochus. Livy indicates that Prusias was swayed by Antiochus' arguments, but that the letters from the Scipios, especially that of Africanus, dispelled any suspicions of Roman hostility towards kings.7 Africanus describes at length how the Romans have treated allied kings most favourably indeed: his speci®c examples are his own history with the chieftains of Spain, whom he found as reguli and left as reges, and with Masinissa, whom he restored not only to his ancestral kingdom, but also to that of Syphax, from which Masinissa had been expelled (37. 25. 9). Turning to Antiochus' exempla, Scipio points out that, even though Flamininus defeated Philip and Nabis, he allowed them to retain their kingdoms. Philip is now on increasingly good terms with the Romans, and Nabis would have remained in a similar position of honour if his own insanity and the trickery of the Aetolians had not done him in (37. 25. 11±12). The decisive factor for Prusias is the arrival of a legate from Rome, who convinces him both of the greater likelihood of a Roman victory and of the expectation of future bene®cial relations with the Romans; but, as with the Praenestines, Livy represents the episode as a competition over the interpretation of history. And once again he makes clear which side uses the past more persuasively. In addition to his ability to cite more exempla than Antiochus, Africanus 6 The status of letters in historical texts (their historicity, relationship to actual documents, resemblance to speeches) has not been thoroughly investigated. For some discussion, see Horsfall (1987) and Brock (1995) 223 n. 40. For the purposes of the analysis here, it is sucient to note that Livy's use of exempla in reported letters is entirely consistent with their deployment elsewhere in his text. 7 His motum Prusiam litterae Scipionis consulis, sed magis fratris eius Africani, ab suspicione tali auerterunt (37. 25. 8).

76

Reading the Past

shows the same kind of insight Quinctius does in surmising what kind of exemplary argument Antiochus constructed. But where Antiochus simply says that the Romans defeated Philip and Nabis (Philippum Nabim expugnatos, 37. 25. 6), Africanus gives a detailed exposition. Ironically, Antiochus is right: ultimately the Romans will take over Macedon and Asia Minor.8 But his accurate projection of the Romans' history into the future avails neither him nor Prusias, and persuasive use of the past remains a Roman trait. Of course, as with the Praenestines, it makes sense that the Romans know their own history better than foreigners do and so are able to cite more exempla; but the more important point in Livy's version is that they know when and how to utilize which exempla.9 The episode has particular interest because we have Livy's source for it in Book 21 of Polybius. Livy modi®es Polybius in signi®cant ways. Polybius' Antiochus does not cite any exempla, and his Scipio dwells on the Spanish kingsÐhe actually names them where Livy does notÐand on Pleuratus. But the Spanish kings constitute a weak exemplum because they later rebelled against the Romans and were defeated by them in battle. Further, Livy has Scipio name Masinissa in place of Pleuratus.10 The substitution indicates that Livy is thinking of his contemporary audience as much as of Prusias. Although in the early second century Pleuratus was an equally relevant exemplum, Masinissa's ®delity over a lifetime makes him a more powerful exemplum for an Augustan audience looking back on the second century.11 Thus it is clear that Livy has transformed 8 Like Herennius Pontius the elder, Antiochus here is a warner ®gure. See pp. 78±82 below on foreigners as warners. 9 Another instance is Africanus' treatment of Masinissa. Livy could have had Antiochus cite Syphax as an example of a ruler expelled from his kingdom by the Romans, but instead he has Africanus use Syphax to bolster his case for the Romans' generosity towards Masinissa. 10 Compare the speech of Eumenes in 172 (Livy 37. 53. 1±28 = Polyb. 21. 18. 1±21. 11). In Polybius' version, Eumenes cites Pleuratus with Masinissa as exempla of how Romans treat foreign kings (21. 21. 2±4); Livy's version again omits Pleuratus. 11 The multiple references to Masinissa in Valerius Maximus (1. 1. ext. 2, 2. 10. 4, 5. 1. 7, 5. 2. ext. 4, 7. 2. 6, 8. 13. ext. 1, and 9. 13. ext. 2) show that he had become a canonical exemplum while Pleuratus had been discarded.

Reading the Past

77

the Polybian situation into a battle of exemplary knowledge, which the Romans win.12 These episodes crystallize what has already become apparent: the meaning of an exemplum shifts from speaker to speaker and from audience to audience. In addition, Romans are superior students of the past. The point is especially clear when foreigners and Romans o€er rival interpretations of history and the results vindicate the Romans. As we have further seen, in almost every case Livy's Romans can extract the operative lesson from the past, adjust their behaviour, and go on to success, whether they are competing with foreigners or not. So far it appears that the Romans inside the text teach the Romans outside the text simply and directly the truth of Livy's claim about the value of history: the lessons are there to be read and then imitated or avoided. In fact, however, foreigners sometimes interpret the past correctly (e.g. the elder Herennius Pontius at Caudium), and Romans sometimes fail to take advantage of historical knowledge (e.g. the warning of Fabius Cunctator to Aemilius Paullus before Cannae). The question is why. If Livy has a programmatic commitment to the bene®ts of historical knowledge, why show breakdowns in the process? Why are foreigners sometimes right about history and Romans sometimes wrong? And ®nally, what happens when Romans debate with one another about the meaning of history? In this latter case, only one side can `win', in the sense of successfully using exempla to persuade the internal audience to his course of action, so what is wrong with his opponent's knowledge of the past? The focus of this chapter is on those places where exemplary knowledge fails in one sense or another, and it will emerge that these failures are intentional on Livy's part: their purpose is not simply to point up the rewards of successful imitation of admirable conduct, but rather to 12 Other cases where the Romans' superior knowledge of the past leads to success: Samnites and Romans on the meaning of Caudium (9. 36. 1 and 38. 4± 5), brief speeches of Marcellus and Hannibal before Nola (23. 45. 1±10), and Vermina (31. 11. 13±17). On the ®rst two, see pp. 41±2 and 69; Vermina attempts friendship with the Romans on the model of Masinissa, but is told he has not understood the exemplum properly.

78

Reading the Past

instruct the external audience. Failure of exemplary knowledge takes di€erent forms and has di€erent e€ects: we will consider in turn foreigners who read the past correctly, Romans who misread it, Romans who cite it but with no apparent impact on the internal audience, and ®nally, debates between Romans. In the ®rst three cases, knowledge gleaned from history is rejected, overlooked, or ignored; in the last, both sides make use of exempla but only one can win the argument. THE FAILURE OF THE PAST? Two types of characters can be associated with the failure of exemplary knowledge: the warner and the villain. Foreigners who read the past correctly are all warners: they see the truth, but their immediate audience fails to heed them. In the second case, Romans who will turn out to be negative exempla themselves cannot recognize that they are misusing exempla. Both kinds of characters have instructive purposes, directed at the reading audience, beyond their relevance for the internal audience. We have already seen an example of the foreign warner in the old Samnite man, Herennius Pontius.13 The most striking representative of the type, however, is the Carthaginian Hanno. Politically hostile to Hannibal and deeply opposed to his aggressive behaviour towards Rome, Hanno cannot make his countrymen see Hannibal's folly. He twice points to the ®rst Punic war as a source of exempla of behaviour to avoid. When the Roman ambassadors come to Carthage seeking reparations for Saguntum, Hanno alone calls on the Carthaginians to avoid war. He begins his speech with a vision which Livy will make come to pass: `Saguntum uestri circumsedent exercitus, unde arcentur foedere; mox Carthaginem circumsedebunt Romanae legiones ducibus iisdem diis per quos priore bello rupta foedera sunt ulti'.14 This declaration identi®es Hanno as a truth-teller to Livy's audience, which 13

See pp. 37±9. `At the moment, your armies are encamped around Saguntum, although according to the treaty it is o€-limits. Soon Roman legions will be encamped around Carthage, led by the very same gods under whose aegis they avenged the treaty broken in the last war' (21. 10. 5). 14

Reading the Past

79

of course knows the outcome of the war. When he urges the Carthaginians to recollect the defeats at the Aegates Islands and at Mount Eryx, as well as the twenty-four years of su€ering in the previous war, the reading audience, unlike those listening to Hanno, knows he is correct to do so.15 Livy, however, has made clear at the outset that Hanno had silence in which to plead his cause only because of his auctoritas and not because of any approval in his audience (21. 10. 2). So pervasive is the resistance to his speech that no one feels the need to o€er counter-arguments.16 Similarly, when challenged to give his opinion on Hannibal's request for more troops and supplies after Cannae, Hanno points out that in the previous war, the period of the Carthaginians' greatest dominance came just before the consulship of C. Lutatius and A. Postumius, who defeated them. He thinks they should settle for peace now, from a position of strength, rather than risk that history repeat itself (23. 13. 3±5). Once again, his words fall on unreceptive ears.17 In short, in both cases Livy depicts the Carthaginians as rejecting advice that could have prevented their ultimate defeat. Hanno has a parallel in Decius Magius, who possesses the same quality of auctoritas. Unfortunately, none of the Campanians is clear-headed enough to recognize it (23. 7. 4). When the Capuans contemplate going over to Hannibal after Cannae, Decius exhorts them not to admit a Carthaginian garrison and cites exempla from Pyrrhus' domination of Tarentum (23. 7. 5±6). Livy adds suspense to Decius' warnings by interrupting Decius' story with that of the younger Pacuvius Calavius, who plots to assassinate Hannibal. In the end, however, Decius' knowledge of the past is not persuasive. Even his arrest in the forum does not rouse the Capuans to the accuracy of his warning, although Hannibal, recognizing his dangerous capacities, ships him o€ to Carthage (23. 10. 5±10).18 Again, the reading audience 15 `Aegatis insulas Erycemque ante oculos proponite, quae terra marique per quattuor et uiginti annos passi sitis' (21. 10. 7). 16 Cum Hanno perorasset, nemini omnium certare oratione cum eo necesse fuit 17 Haud multos mouit Hannonis oratio (23. 13. 6). (21. 11. 1). 18 A storm o€ Cyrene allows him to escape to Alexandria where he decides to spend the rest of the war (23. 10. 11±13).

80

Reading the Past

knows what the internal audience does not: the warner is right, and siding with Hannibal will result in the destruction of Capua. Yet a third foreign warner ®gure appears in the character of Philip of Macedon, who, perceiving the rivalry between his two sons, o€ers them numerous exempla, of both brotherly strife to avoid and brotherly harmony to imitate: Quotiens ego audientibus uobis, detestatus exempla discordiarum fraternarum, horrendos euentus earum rettuli, quibus se stirpemque suam domos regna funditus euertissent? Meliora quoque exempla parte altera posui: sociabilem consortionem inter binos Lacedaemoniorum reges, salutarem per multa saecula ipsis patriaeque; eandem ciuitatem, postquam mos sibi cuique rapiendi tyrannidem exortus sit, euersam. Iam hos Eumenem Attalumque fratres, a quam exiguis rebus, prope ut puderet regii nominis, mihi Antiocho, cuilibet regum huius aetatis, nulla re magis quam fraterna unanimitate regnum aequasse. Ne Romanis quidem exemplis abstinui, quae aut uisa aut audita habebam, T. et L. Quinctiorum, qui bellum mecum gesserunt, P. et L. Scipionum, qui Antiochum deuicerunt, patris patruique eorum, quorum perpetuam uitae concordiam mors quoque miscuit. Neque uos illorum scelus similisque sceleri euentus deterrere a uecordi discordia potuit, neque horum bona mens bona fortuna ad sanitatem ¯ectere.19

This speech has particular interest for Livy's use of exempli®cation because his source, Polybius, is available,20 and once again Livy has almost certainly added exempla speci®c19 How many times did I curse examples of fraternal discord and set forth in your hearing their repellent fates, with which they utterly destroyed themselves and their family, their household and kingdoms? I also set out better lessons on the other side: the intimate partnership between the two Lacedaemonian kings, bene®cial for many ages to them and their fatherland; that same city overturned, once the practice arose of each one snatching at the tyranny for himself. Moreover the brothers Eumenes and Attalus, from beginnings so tiny that it is almost shameful to use the name of king, now have, by virtue of nothing other than fraternal harmony, a kingdom equal to mine, to Antiochus', to that of any king at all nowadays. I did not refrain even from Roman examples, which I had either seen or heard: T. and L. Quinctius, who fought against me; P. and L. Scipio, who conquered Antiochus; their father and uncle, whose constant harmony in life even death combined. The wickedness of those evil men and their equally evil downfalls was not able to deter you from destructive discord, nor could the good spirits and good fortune of these noble ones turn you to sanity (40. 8. 11±16). 20 Polyb. 23. 11. 1±8.

Reading the Past

81

ally for the bene®t of his contemporaries.21 Where Polybius' Philip names the Spartan kings and Eumenes and Attalus, Livy's Philip adduces in addition T. Flamininus and his brother, Scipio Africanus and his brother, and their father and uncle. The self-conscious way in which Philip introduces these Roman examples (`ne Romanis quidem exemplis abstinui, quae aut uisa aut audita habebam', 40. 8. 15) suggests that Livy felt he needed to justify the Macedonian's awareness of the apposite foreign material, which has the obvious advantage for Livy of resonating with his Roman audience. Whatever their national origin, however, Philip's exempla do not persuade his audience of two, and the brothers' rivalry leads to Demetrius' death, Philip's miserable old age, and Perseus' downfall at the hands of the Romans. Philip's inability to persuade his sons prepares the way for Perseus' failures to learn from the past when he himself becomes king. Through the speeches of other historical ®gures, Livy depicts Perseus as characteristically incapable of bene®ting from his father's experience. Onesimus, an adviser of Philip who defects to Rome when Perseus starts interfering in Greece, informs the Senate that Perseus does not learn from exempla, for he ignored Onesimus' advice that he follow his father's practice of reading the treaty with Rome twice a day (44. 16. 5). Further, when Perseus is defeated by L. Aemilius Paullus at Pydna, he is asked why he chose to provoke the Romans when he had experience of them in both peace and war (45. 8. 4). Perseus has no answer for this question, and Paullus points to him as an object-lesson in the ®ckleness of Fortuna.22 Polybius is the source for this passage too, but there is no indication that he interpreted Perseus as an example of the non-Roman's inability to learn from the past.23 He seems rather to be 21 For the possibility that Philip actually used Roman exempla here, see Walbank (1957±79) iii. 235 (although he himself believes that they are a Livian addition). 22 `Exemplum insigne cernitis' inquit `mutationis rerum humanarum. Vobis hoc praecipue dico, iuuenes. Ideo in secundis rebus nihil in quemquam superbe ac uiolenter consulere decet, nec praesenti credere fortunae, cum quid uesper ferat incertum sit' (45. 8. 6). 23 Polyb. 29. 20. 1±4.

82

Reading the Past

casting Paullus as a philhellene familiar with the philosophic thought of his day.24 Against the Polybian background, Livy's interest in exempli®cation appears all the more clearly. At this point, after the fact, both the young men listening to Paullus and the reading audience perceive the acuity of his words; but Livy's readers, armed with the knowledge of Macedon's fate, can see all along that Philip, like Hanno in the second Punic war, functions as a tragic warner. This, rather than the persuasion of Demetrius and Perseus, is the reason for Livy's inclusion of the speech. As we have seen, from Herodotus on,25 warner ®gures are a standard type in ancient historiography, one which Livy's audience would recognize and expect to fail.26 So, by allowing some foreigners to use exempla without being persuasive, Livy reinforces the idea that only Romans can bene®t from knowledge of the past. Thus the failure of an internal, non-Roman audience to do so is simply another kind of lesson for the external audience. The comparative material from Polybius is especially helpful here since it points up Livy's emphasis on the exemplary incompetence of foreigners. And yet even Romans can occasionally misread the past. The purpose of the exceptions is that the reading audience recognize that inability to read the past is characteristic of villainy. Sp. Maelius, for example, is set up as an objectlesson when he wins so much popularity and in¯uence undertaking the grain supply on his own initiative that the Senate has to appoint a dictator to counteract his aspirations towards regnum (4. 13. 1±16. 4). The episode's ®rst sentence alerts the reading audience that a lesson is beginning: tum 24 See Walbank (1957±79) iii. 392±3 on Polybius' presentation of the extremes of Tyche. 25 See Bischo€ (1932), Lattimore (1939), and pp. 7±8. 26 Romans also can be tragic warners, as in the case of Fabius Cunctator before Cannae. Other examples include Scipio's attempt to restrain Sempronius before the Trebia (21. 53. 1±7), the e€orts of Flaminius' unnamed advisers to deter him before Trasimene (22. 3. 7±14), and, as we shall see, the mysterious voice that tries to prepare the Romans for the Gallic invasion (5. 32. 6±7). Roman tragic warners, however, do not belong in an exemplary context so much as with Livy's techniques for minimizing Roman defeats; on the latter see Bruckmann (1936) (cf. n. 10 in Chapter 1).

Reading the Past

83

Sp. Maelius ex equestri ordine, ut illis temporibus praediues, rem utilem pessimo exemplo, peiore consilio est adgressus.27 The particular precedent Maelius sets, of private in¯uence gained through grain distribution, has a distinctly postGracchan character to it.28 The story teaches the evils of that precedent. L. Minucius, the ocial in charge of the grain supply, learns of Maelius' activities, and in particular that he is hoarding weapons. Minucius reports to the Senate. The consuls appoint L. Quinctius Cincinnatus dictator, and when Maelius evades arrest, C. Servilius Ahala, the magister equitum, kills him. Cincinnatus then spells out the lesson Maelius should have learned, namely that Rome does not tolerate kings; he cites as exempla the Tarquins, Collatinus, Sp. Cassius, and the decemvirs (4. 15. 3±4). Further, Maelius' house must be destroyed to provide others with a monumentum illustrating how evil aspirations are put down (4. 16. 1). In contrast to situations involving a warner ®gure, the reading audience does not see Maelius a€orded the opportunity to avoid the exempla Cincinnatus cites. Instead, the latter's speech informs both the internal and the external audience that Maelius should have known better. And where the internal audience sees the punishment and hears Cincinnatus' speech, Livy's readers have the additional reinforcement of the signal contained in the opening words. Fifty years later, Maelius himself becomes an aptly cited but incorrectly interpreted exemplum for Manlius Capitolinus. Manlius initially ®gures as a hero by saving the Roman garrison on the Capitol from the surprise attack of the Gauls. But his popularity subsequently breeds in him hunger for power.29 A reference to past events alerts the reader that knowledge of history will ®gure in the episode. When a crowd of Manlius' supporters compares him to Sp. Cassius and Sp. Maelius (6. 17. 2), the external audience can recognize the irony of the references: Cassius and Maelius 27 Then Sp. Maelius, equestrian in rank and wealthy by the standards of the time, started something useful, but the worst kind of precedent and very ill-advised (4. 13. 1). Compare Livy's language here with the opening words of Cato's lex Oppia speech, discussed below: `atque ego uix statuere apud animum meum possum utrum peior ipsa res an peiore exemplo agatur' (34. 2. 4). 28 See Ogilvie (1970) 550±7, esp. p. 551. 29 On Manlius' di€erent roles and eventual fate, see Jaeger (1993).

84

Reading the Past

may have been popular heroes, but they both ended badly.30 Worse, Manlius himself then misinterprets the past: he gains false con®dence when he escapes Maelius' fate (punishment at the hands of a specially appointed dictator), and thus convinces himself to continue on the course that leads to his execution (6. 18. 3±16). Livy's presentation of Manlius' career signals exactly what kind of dangerous hero he is. The repeatedly misunderstood exemplum of Maelius noti®es the reading audience that it is dealing with yet another villain. So, even though the internal audience is caught up in the events as they happen, the reading audience, well aware of Manlius' eventual execution, is able not only to interpret the references to Maelius correctly but also to recognize the signi®cance of Manlius' inability to do so. A third instance of this use of exemplary knowledge is particularly instructive. In 205 when Scipio is in Sicily, preparing to invade Africa, he has an opportunity to regain Locri on the Italian mainland. He then leaves a garrison there under the legate Pleminius, but the garrison abuses its position of power. As with Maelius and Manlius, there is an early hint that a lesson is coming: Nec alia modo templa uiolata sed Proserpinae etiam intacti omni aeuo thesauri, praeterquam quod a Pyrrho, qui cum magno piaculo sacrilegii sui manubias rettulit, spoliati dicebantur.31 The Locrians then go to Rome to plead for senatorial protection against Pleminius' atrocities. They point out that the Roman soldiers had known that Pyrrhus had been punished for robbing the temple: his ships were wrecked in a storm, the temple treasures washed back up on the shore near Locri, and Pyrrhus' good fortune deserted him with the result that he was driven out of Italy and died an ignominious death in Argos (29. 18. 1±7). Thus, just as Manlius did, the Roman soldiers had the opportunity to learn from the past. They 30 In Livy's account, Sp. Cassius was the ®rst person to attempt agrarian reform. He was suspected of trying to build his own power-base and was prosecuted and executed as soon as his consulship ended (2. 41. 1±12). 31 Not only were other temples stripped of valuables, but even the treasuries of Proserpina, which had always been left inviolate (except by Pyrrhus, who returned his ill-gotten gains and paid a heavy price for his sacrilege), were said to have been despoiled (29. 8. 9±10).

Reading the Past

85

have failed to do so, however, and petty squabbling consumes the garrison. In Livy's version, the Locrians are concerned for the Roman state as a whole; unless the Romans ®nd a way to expiate their crime, they will be punished as Pyrrhus was (29. 18. 10±15). Unlike Maelius, who was summarily executed, or Manlius, who had a second chance but did not take advantage of it, the Romans at Locri make amends and do not su€er from divine wrath. The story gains another layer when Proserpina's temple is robbed yet a third time (31. 12. 1±13. 1). On this occasion, the Romans recognize immediately how to handle the sacrilege and express amazement that the temple robbers ignored the clear warning they had before them.32 The repetition of the same crime at the same shrine a€ords Livy an excellent opportunity to show that wrongdoers characteristically cannot read the past.33 These cases are the converse of those involving a warner ®gure. Instead of pointing out ahead of time the lesson that will not be learned, Livy has his historical characters acknowledge it after the fact. The reading audience, however, knows from the initial hint to pay attention to what is about to happen and consequently has its own opportunity to learn.34 ANCILLARY EXEMPLA In the cases we have looked at so far, knowledge of the past pro®ts not the people within the text, but rather those 32 Indigne passus senatus non cessari ab sacrilegiis, et ne Pleminium quidem, tam clarum recensque noxae simul ac poenae exemplum, homines deterrere (31. 12. 2). 33 It seems that Livy saw numerous exemplary possibilities in this interesting and well-constructed episode: he describes Pleminius as committing foeda exempla (29. 9. 12). The episode as a whole belongs in the context of the power struggle between Fabius Cunctator and Scipio Africanus discussed below (pp. 93±7, 122±3, and 128±31). For an analysis of the way Livy constructs the story as a springboard for Scipio's invasion of Africa, see Burck (1969). 34 Yet another case of this kind ®gures in the siege of Syracuse. Marcellus justi®es the sack of the city because the Syracusans had models of proper behaviour: namely the Syracusans who defected to the Roman side, as well as Moericus, who handed over the garrison to the Romans (25. 31. 1±7). Again Livy does not show the Syracusans rejecting models of correct conduct; the external audience only learns after the fact that they had but did not use their opportunities to pro®t from exempla.

86

Reading the Past

outside it who can appreciate the foreigner's and the aberrant Roman's characteristic inadequacy with exempla. In many other cases, however, Livy gives a speaker an elegant oration full of germane exempla only to represent the speech as having no impact on the subsequent course of events. What is the purpose of such speeches? Why do their audiences apparently fail to respond to them? There are two general responses to these questions. One is simply that Livy has other reasons for including the speeches. Second, from the perspective of exempla, the answer depends on which audience is under consideration. Such speeches need not evoke the correct response from their immediate audiences to contribute to the education of an external one. Camillus' famous oration at the end of Book 5 belongs in this category (5. 51. 1±54. 7). Aiming to persuade the Romans not to abandon their city, which they have just won back from the Gauls, Camillus argues against moving to Veii. His speech, which revolves around the sanctity of Rome and its location, uses exempla to support many points. The advice from the gods (delivered through a haruspex captured at Veii), which led to the draining of the Alban Lake, and a second spurned warning (this time from an inexplicable voice heard on the uia Noua) exemplify the divine element in Roman a€airs (5. 51. 4±7). While C. Fabius Dorsuo's sacri®ce on the Quirinal shows that every stone of Rome is sacred (5. 52. 1±7), the Romans themselves, defeated, captured, and redeemed, are a documentum for the whole world (5. 51. 8). Rome is full of sacred places with attendant ceremonies and rituals that cannot be relocated (5. 52. 8±15). Romulus' hut symbolizes the life their ancestors led; further, if those ancestors could build the city from nothing, they themselves can rebuild it with the Capitoline and temples still intact (5. 53. 8±9). Camillus mocks the precedent they may be setting for themselves if they move to Veii: if that city burns down will they then move to Fidenae or Gabii (5. 54. 1)? His speech ends with a review of Rome's remarkable growth and the conclusion that it is a place where omens occur (5. 54. 3±7). Camillus, who has only just returned from exile, is of course the perfect person to deliver a speech about the

Reading the Past

87

sacredness of Rome's location and the attachment the Romans should feel for it. His speech is persuasive to the extent that the Romans do not vote to move to Veii, yet they remain undecided until the chance remark of a centurion, overheard during a meeting of the Senate, strikes them as an omen that they should remain at Rome: Mouisse eos Camillus cum alia oratione, tum ea quae ad religiones pertinebat maxime dicitur; sed rem dubiam decreuit uox opportune emissa, quod cum senatus post paulo de his rebus in curia Hostilia haberetur cohortesque ex praesidiis reuertentes forte agmine forum transirent, centurio in comitio exclamauit: `Signifer, statue signum; hic manebimus optime.' Qua uoce audita, et senatus accipere se omen ex curia egressus conclamauit et plebs circumfusa adprobauit.35

If Livy makes the centurion's command the decisive factor, what is the point of Camillus' lengthy and exempla-®lled speech? First, Book 5 is concerned above all with religion.36 Divine intervention controls turning points of the narrative: the draining of the Alban Lake leads to the defeat at Veii; the Romans' insensitivity to the warning voice on the uia Noua causes the rout at the Allia and the Gauls' sack of the city. So it is appropriate that a verbal omen tips the balance in favour of Camillus' argument.37 The Romans inside the text have gone from ignoring divine signs to recognizing a voice as signifying the will of the gods. Meanwhile, the combination of speech and omen has an even stronger in¯uence on the reading audience. Perceptible to the external audience are linguistic clues that link the three omens. The verb emitto regularly signi®es both the draining of the water (5. 15. 4, 16. 9, 19. 1, and 51. 6) and the sounding 35 Camillus is said to have moved them with all of his oration, and particularly with the part that touched on religion; but while the matter was still in doubt, a speech uttered by chance decided it, for a little later when the Senate was having a meeting about this business in the curia Hostilia, and cohorts returning from their outposts happened to cross the forum in battle formation, the centurion cried out in the comitium, `Standard-bearer, set up the standard; this is the best place for us to stay.' As soon as they heard this speech, the senators ran out of their meeting place and cried out that they accepted the omen, and the plebs surrounded them in approval (5. 55. 1±2). 36 See Levene (1993) 175±203, esp. 175 with n. 1. 37 Ibid. 201±2.

88

Reading the Past

of the voices (5. 51. 7 and 55. 1). Camillus refers to the rejected voice as spreta (5. 51. 7) just as it was described in the narrative (5. 32. 7). Further, Livy highlights other utterances in this section of his narrative: the predictions of the haruspex in the fabula (5. 21. 8), Juno's assent to be moved to Rome (5. 22. 6), and the notorious uox of Brennus, `Vae uictis' (5. 48. 9). The external audience can appreciate the unusual multiplicity of signi®cant uoces, and thus comes to Camillus' speech with a di€erent perspective from that of the Romans within the text. On the one hand, while the speech may not fully persuade the internal audience, it articulates for the reading audience the sanctity of Rome. On the other hand, the internal audience's response to the ®nal omen shows the reading audience that the religious lessons of Book 5 have been successfully absorbed. Thus the initially ¯at response to Camillus' exemplary speech ultimately contributes to a demonstration of successful learning from experience.38 In fact, exempla often have no obvious impact on situations, which are instead resolved by other factors. The dispute between the plebeians and the patricians over the Licinio-Sextian legislation dominates the second part of Book 6.39 In the course of the legislation's drawn-out birth pangs, both sides air their views in speeches with exempla. To support their proposal that one of the consulships be reserved for a plebeian, L. Sextius and C. Licinius review 38 There are other instances where the course of events follows the line sketched out by exempla, but where the exempla themselves do not suce to persuade. In Book 3 P. Valerius' apt invocation of Romulus could have roused the Romans to fend o€ the invading slaves, but Livy lets the Tusculans intercede (3. 17. 1±18. 11). In Book 31, ®rst the Macedonians and then the Romans address the Aetolian League. Although the Romans' version of their relations with foreign powers is more persuasive than that of the Macedonians (haec dicta ab Romano cum essent, inclinatis omnium animis ad Romanos, 31. 32. 1), Damocritus, the Aetolian leader, intervenes, the debate is suspended, and the Aetolians only go over to the Roman side when the Dardani, Illyrians, and Romans band together against Philip (31. 40. 7±41. 1). Although the debate ends in a stalemate, Livy claims that the Romans were more persuasive, and in this respect their pointed rebuttal of the Macedonians' use of exempla from Roman history is yet another instance of the Romans' superior control of the past. 39 See Oakley (1997) 645±61 for a discussion of the historical problems involved.

Reading the Past

89

constitutional victories previously won by the plebeians: the military tribunate, the ®rst plebeian military tribune, and the quaestorship (6. 37. 5±9). Livy suggests that their arguments are persuasive: huius generis orationes ubi accipi uidere . . . 40 The tribunes decide, however, to postpone the vote until the mostly plebeian army comes home, and the delay allows the Senate to name a dictator, who blocks the voting. On the patrician side, Livy gives a speech to Ap. Claudius Crassus (6. 40. 1±41. 12); he is an appropriate opponent, considering his family's history of opposition to the plebs.41 Livy's introduction indicates that Ap. Claudius spoke with little expectation of success.42 He uses a few exempla: he speculates about what would happen if Porsenna occupied the Janiculum again and Camillus were not allowed to become consul because there was already a patrician consul (6. 40. 17), and he compares Sextius and Licinius to Tatius and Romulus (6. 41. 10). The speech is successful only to the extent that the vote is postponed.43 As Livy and his reading audience know, the Romans will eventually vote to have a plebeian consul; yet the historian does not present the outcome as dependent on either speech. Both are moderately successful: Licinius and Sextius gain supporters; Appius delays the inevitable. Both also include exempla, and yet in neither case can either the internal or the external audience be seen to learn from the exempla, which are in fact ancillary to Livy's larger goal of re-enacting for the reading audience the con¯ict of the orders.44 Thus the 40

When speeches of this nature seemed to be well-received . . . (6. 37. 12). In general on the Appii Claudii, see Wiseman (1979) 57±139, followed up in Wiseman (1986). Kraus (1991) 320±1 and (1994) 307 discusses Appius' symbolic position, and Walsh (1961) 89±90 and Vasaly (1987) treat Livy's characterization of the gens more generally. For examples of Claudian opposition to the plebs, see e.g. 2. 29. 9, 2. 56. 5, 4. 36. 5, and 5. 2. 13. 42 Ap. Claudius Crassus, nepos decemuiri, dicitur odio magis iraque quam spe ad dissuadendum processisse et locutus in hanc fere sententiam esse (6. 40. 2). 43 Oratio Appi ad id modo ualuit ut tempus rogationum iubendarum proferretur (6. 42. 1). 44 Subject matter pairs the Licinio-Sextian speech and Appius' speech even though they are not delivered on the same occasion. See Lipovsky (1981) 40±2 on the thematic and religious issues involved; he shows that Livy uses the speeches to highlight particular aspects of the plebeian-patrician con¯ict. 41

90

Reading the Past

supporters of plebeian rights and a member of a gens long opposed to them articulate for Livy the positions of both sides.45 The speech of the Cannae legions, delivered to Marcellus and repeated in epistolary form in the Senate, similarly appears to have no impact (25. 5. 10±7. 4). The survivors, who were banished from Italy for the duration of the war, appeal for the opportunity to redeem themselves by being allowed to return and ®ght against Hannibal directly. Their appeal makes good use of exempla (Pyrrhus at 25. 6. 3, the Allia and the Caudine Forks at 25. 6. 10±12), but does not persuade the senators, who respond that they perceive no reason to entrust the state to deserters. If Marcellus thinks otherwise, he may act as he sees ®t provided that none of the soldiers is excused from duty, given a reward for military service, or sent back to Italy as long as the Carthaginians remain there.46 After ®ghting for years in Sicily, these troops ultimately join Scipio's invasion of Africa and face Hannibal at Zama.47 Their speech in Book 25 highlights the similarity between them and the exempla they cite and thus prepares the way for the happy ending. So, though their appeal does not achieve the desired end immediately, the external audience can appreciate the thematic appropriateness of its exempla. Livy's account of the trials of the Scipios is a notoriously convoluted section of his narrative (38. 50. 4±60. 10).48 He 45 Oakley (1997) 646, and see Feldherr (1998) 42 n. 130 on the validity of arguments in both speeches in a debate. 46 Consultusque de iis litteris ita decreuit senatus, militibus, qui ad Cannas commilitiones suos pugnantis deseruissent, senatum nihil uidere cur res publica committenda esset. Si M. Claudio proconsuli aliter uideretur, faceret quod e re publica ®deque sua duceret, dum ne quis eorum munere uacaret neu dono militari uirtutis ergo donaretur neu in Italiam reportaretur, donec hostis in terra Italia esset (25. 7. 2±4). 47 Livy regularly includes the Cannae legions in the distribution of troops: (210) 26. 28. 11; (209) 27. 7. 11±13; (208) 27. 22. 9; (206) 28. 10. 13; (204) 29. 13. 6. Scipio selects them to go to Africa because of their experience in di€erent types of ®ghting, especially in siege-warfare. They, for their part, see him as the one way to end their disgrace: praecipue qui superabant ex Cannensi exercitu milites illo non alio duce credebant nauata rei publicae opera ®nire se militiam ignominiosam posse (29. 24. 11). 48 For a straightforward discussion of the problems involved, see Luce (1977) 92±4. Adam (1982) pp. lvii±lxxiii shows how dicult it is to reconstruct the actual course of events. In an intriguing reading of the trial

Reading the Past

91

knows and reports, in a somewhat jumbled fashion, various and con¯icting stories about the destruction of the political careers of Scipio Africanus and his brother Lucius. Despite their downfall, however, woven throughout the section are constant reminders of their contributions to Rome's growth.49 These culminate in the speech of P. Scipio Nasica when Lucius has been accused of peculation (38. 58. 3±59. 11). Nasica attempts to restore Lucius' reputation by reminding his audience of the greatness of the Cornelian gens, and particularly of the Scipios' accomplishments. He describes the deeds of Cn. and P. Scipio, who fought in Spain at the beginning of the second Punic war and provided a model of Roman moderateness and loyalty. He praises Scipio Africanus only to show how he deferred to his brother when he served as Lucius' legate in the campaign against Antiochus. Nasica dwells on the role of Hannibal in this campaign, as if to show that, just as his brother did, so too did Lucius defeat Rome's greatest enemy. Nasica also details the thoroughness of Lucius' victory over Antiochus and concludes that his incarceration would give the city of Rome more cause to blush than it would the Cornelii. Nasica's speech is in e€ect a personal history of Lucius. The episodes he cites are not meant to serve as models for direct imitation, but rather as indicators of the kind of man Lucius is and consequently the sort of treatment he merits. The speech has no impact on its auditors: Livy passes immediately to the response of the praetor in charge of the investigation. Only the intervention of one of the tribunes, Ti. Sempronius, prevents the total humiliation of Lucius. The point of Nasica's review, however, is not to in¯uence the decision of the Senate, but to colour the way Livy's external audience views the Scipios. By including this speech, as well as the other references to Scipionic accomplishments, Livy makes sure that the reading audience narrative and Scipio Africanus' career in general, Jaeger (1997) 132±76 argues that Livy has deliberately constructed a jumbled narrative to demonstrate the problems the historian faces in creating a seamless account of events; Africanus' last days are a particularly appropriate subject for illustrating this challenge because his character de®es any simple form of commemoration. 49 38. 50. 6±7, 51. 7±14, 53. 1±11, 55. 2, and 57. 3±4.

92

Reading the Past

appreciates the contributions of the men. Whatever their end, they played a great part in Rome's history. The various episodes we have just surveyed demonstrate that, although speeches with exempla may not convince the internal, listening audience, they can in¯uence the way the external, reading audience perceives events. If we compare them to exempla used by warners and by wrongdoers, it becomes clear that Livy does not restrict the Romans inside the text to a simple formula of identifying and then imitating or avoiding good and bad conduct respectively. Rather, the external audience can learn the value of exempla even when they are misapplied or fall on apparently deaf ears. DEBATES BETWEEN ROMANS The various ways exempla can instruct even when they do not persuade become especially relevant when we consider direct confrontations between Romans over the meaning of history. Up to this point we have looked mostly at places where Romans and foreigners o€er opposing interpretations of the past, whether directly or indirectly. These cases pose no particular problem since the Romans ultimately triumph. Debates between Romans are more complex. As the speeches over the Licinio-Sextian legislation show, however, Livy's aim may be as much to present to his readers both sides of a historical issue as to depict one speech as more persuasive than the other, even if only one can win the argument in the end. There are three debates in Livy where the speakers address the same audience on the same occasion and both sides use exempla: Fabius Maximus Cunctator and Scipio Africanus (28. 40. 1±45. 9), M. Porcius Cato and L. Valerius Tappo (34. 1. 7±8. 3), and L. Furius Purpurio and L. Aemilius Paullus against Cn. Manlius Vulso (38. 44. 9±50. 3).50 A close analysis of these three pairs of speeches reveals that their internal and external audiences 50 These are the only paired speeches given by Romans before the same internal audience and drawing on the past for exempla. Somewhat related is the debate between Fabius Rullianus and Decius Mus about sortition (10. 24. 1±18). This debate, however, is abbreviated, and Decius' speech is concerned with setting a precedent which would be followed in the future, not with knowledge gained from the past. See further Ch. 5 on the question of setting and following precedents.

Reading the Past

93

can draw very di€erent conclusions about the historical situations in which they occur. The consuls for 205 are Scipio Africanus and P. Licinius Crassus. Livy reports the senatorial debate over whether Africa should be allotted as one of the provinces for the year. If it is, it will automatically devolve on Scipio because Crassus, as pontifex maximus, would not leave Italy. Scipio has made clear his determination to go to the people if the Senate does not accede to his wishes and make Africa his province (28. 40. 1±2). According to Livy, none of the other senators dares to speak against Scipio's known desires until Fabius Cunctator, an early hero of the war, rises to address the Senate. Fabius begins by establishing his right to express his opinion. For him, no blame attaches to a man who o€ers his counsel when asked for it in the proper place; the fault lies with the consul, pretending to bring forward a matter which he considers already settled (28. 40. 5). He discounts both his natural caution and suspicions of rivalry with Scipio, pointing to his own shared dictatorship with Minucius as proof that he is willing to let actions speak louder than words in the matter of gloria (28. 40. 6±14). The tractatio of Fabius' speech has ®ve sections, four of which contain exempla. Urging Scipio to be content with the gloria he has earned, Fabius o€ers C. Lutatius at the end of the ®rst Punic war as an example for Scipio to imitate (28. 41. 1±6). Fabius then discusses at somewhat greater length how to conduct the war. Having one consul abroad is bad; witness what happened when Fulvius was besieging Capua and Hannibal marched on Rome (28. 41. 12±13). Furthermore ®ghting abroad is dangerous in general: look at your own father and uncle, Fabius tells Scipio, as well as at the Athenians and M. Atilius Regulus (28. 41. 14±42. 1). The mention of Regulus provides a transition to the next topic, a review of Scipio's campaign in Spain (28. 42. 1±7). This, while historical in nature, provides examples not for imitation or avoidance, but for comparison. Stressing the relatively favourable conditions Scipio met with in Spain, Fabius goes on to compare them to what he will encounter in Africa (28. 42. 7±11). Here he emphasizes the unreliability

94

Reading the Past

of foreign allies: the Celtiberians betrayed Scipio's father and uncle; Indibilis and Mandonius did the same to Scipio. Does Scipio think he can rely on Numidians, despite the fact that he has already experienced a mutiny by his very own soldiers (28. 42. 7±9)? Fabius' ®nal point is about the disadvantages of an o€ensive war. Italy will be left vulnerable. Scipio himself let Hasdrubal slip out of Spain and cross into Italy (28. 42. 14±15). Taking the war to Africa will mean dividing the consuls, and the teamwork of Claudius and Livius at the Metaurus shows how great a di€erence it makes to have the consuls ®ghting together (28. 42. 17). And last, the example of Scipio's own father shows that the only way to ®ght Hannibal is to face him head-on (28. 42. 20). Scipio's response is briefer. He starts by returning to Fabius' opening argument about gloria. In his opinion, Fabius did not dispel all doubts about rivalry. In particular, Fabius considered it adequate to refer to the age di€erence between them whereas Scipio knows that one pursues glory not just in the present but also for the future. Scipio believes one competes with predecessors as well as contemporaries, and he hopes that the way will be clear for younger men to compete with him (28. 43. 2±8). It is signi®cant that where Fabius supported his opening points with evidence from the past, Scipio visualizes the argument from the perspective of future generations looking back on his own time.51 In the main body of the speech, Scipio tries to counter Fabius' historical examples. The tractatio has four sections, and only the ®rst, dealing with Scipio's campaign in Spain, does not draw on exempla (28. 43. 9±16). Here Scipio is at pains to magnify his accomplishments just as Fabius tried to minimize them. He makes a telling comparison: why does Fabius show so much solicitude now when nobody cared when Scipio alone volunteered to go to Spain? Is the current situation in Africa more dangerous than the previous one in 51 Neraudau (1979) 359±61 comments extensively on the di€erences in age between the two men. He argues that youth is an important factor in Livy's treatment of Scipio Africanus' career. See Rodgers (1986) on Livy's Thucydidean model for the debate and especially the parallels between Nicias and Fabius as older men and Alcibiades and Scipio as younger men. On the age of speakers and their exempla, see pp. 121±31.

Reading the Past

95

Spain (28. 43. 10±12)? Scipio then o€ers three exempla to demonstrate the advantages of invading Africa: M. Atilius Regulus, Xanthippus, and Agathocles all fought successfully there (28. 43. 17±21). But unfortunately for Scipio, these men make an uneasy trio. Regulus' initial invasion was a success, but Xanthippus is the Spartan mercenary who eventually defeated him.52 When Scipio comes to the advantages of an o€ensive over a defensive war (28. 44. 1± 7), he has one supreme example, Hannibal's successful invasion of Italy (28. 44. 2). Finally, turning to the best way to conduct the war (28. 44. 8±15), Scipio cleverly uses Fabius himself as an exemplum against the argument that one man cannot hold Italy alone: since Fabius did so before when Hannibal was at his peak, Licinius ought to be able to manage him in his current weakened condition. The backhanded compliment skilfully parries Fabius' fears about separating the consuls. Scipio also notes that in the earlier Punic war, the Romans invaded Africa when only Sicily was at stake, and now the ®ght is for Italy (28. 44. 13). In sum, Livy represents this crucial debate over strategy as a competition between two men's knowledge and interpretation of history. They are arguing about how to apply previous experience to their current situation. Both speeches incorporate exempla extensively and successfully, and both make valid points. Fabius may hold a slight advantage since he cites more exempla and draws more deeply on the past, while Scipio adduces Regulus, who is unstable and dangerous for his argument. But Livy draws attention to the response of one sector of the internal audience in order to shape the readers' reaction to the speeches. The Senate in general and the older members in particular receive Fabius' words with great approval: cum oratione ad tempus parata Fabius tum auctoritate et inueteratae prudentiae fama magnam partem senatus et seniores maxime hcumj mouisset, pluresque consilium senis quam animum adulescentis ferocem laudarent, 52 The summary for Book 18 suggests that Livy anticipates the doubleedged nature of Regulus as an exemplum: quaerente deinde fortuna, ut magnum utriusque casus exemplum in Regulo proderetur, arcessito a Carthaginiensibus Xanthippo, Lacedaemoniorum duce, victus proelio et captus est. On the various interpretations, ancient and modern, of Regulus' personal history, see Mix (1970).

96

Reading the Past

Scipio ita locutus fertur.53 And even after Scipio's speech, the Senate is still opposed to him: minus aequis animis auditus est Scipio quia uolgatum erat, si apud senatum non obtinuisset ut prouincia Africa sibi decerneretur, ad populum extemplo laturum.54 By focusing on the positive reaction to Fabius, Livy makes it appear as if he has won the debate. Further, Livy relates the subsequent events so as to obscure Scipio's eventual victory. When queried about his intentions, Scipio gives the de®antly ambiguous reply that he will act in the best interests of the state: Scipio respondisset se quod e re publica esset facturum . . . (28. 45. 3). The senior consular Q. Fulvius enlists the tribunes to intercede on his behalf and disrupt the voting.55 They announce that Scipio should abide by the Senate's decision about the provinces; if he refuses to do so, they will intervene on behalf of anyone who declines to vote. Scipio takes a day to confer with his colleague and then yields to the Senate. The Senate allots him Sicily and gives him permission to cross over to Africa if he judges it to be in the best interests of the state: permissumque ut in Africam, si id e re publica esse censeret, traiceret (28. 45. 8). Only the repetition of Scipio's language in the senatorial decision shows that he has won. But the external audience has known all along that he will go to Africa and defeat Hannibal. So what is the purpose of staging an exemplary contest between Fabius and Scipio and concentrating the audience's attention on the reactions of Fabius' adherents? Relevant here are the speeches with exempla that have no decisive impact on the internal audience. As with the Licinio-Sextian legislation, for example, the decision to invade Africa marks a signi®cant historical moment, one where di€erent attitudes confront 53 After Fabius had persuaded a majority of the Senate, and the older men in particular, not only with his speech, which was suited to the occasion, but also by his personal authority and his reputation for age-old wisdom, and when more men were praising the counsel of the old man than the passionate enthusiasm of the youth, Scipio is said to have spoken in the following manner (28. 43. 1). 54 Scipio was heard out by a less open-minded audience since it was generally known that if he failed to obtain from the Senate the decision that Africa be allotted as his province, he would immediately take the matter to the people (28. 45. 1). 55 For this procedure, see W±M ad 28. 45. 5±6 and Haywood (1933) 54±5.

Reading the Past

97

each other. Scipio is a pivotal ®gure in Rome's history. As we have seen, at the end of his career Livy emphasizes his greatness, but at the same time he draws attention to the similarity between Scipio and the dynasts of the ®rst century.56 The debate in the Senate is not just over the Romans' strategy to end the war. It also enacts for the reading audience a moment of change, which Livy dramatizes by giving lengthy, sophisticated speeches to the two men best suited to represent the past and the future. In the debate, Fabius uses more exempla more skilfully precisely because he is associated with the past; Scipio, on the other hand, represents the direction Rome is taking. When we turn to the debate over the abrogation of the lex Oppia, patterns begin to emerge. The law, passed in 215, limited women's access to luxury goods (gold and purple) and forbade them to ride in carriages in urban areas. In 195 two tribunes, M. Fundanius and L. Valerius Tappo, proposed to repeal the law; two of their colleagues, M. and P. Junii Bruti, swore to veto the proposal. The ensuing uproar leads to a public meeting at which the consul M. Porcius Cato and the tribune Valerius voice opposed opinions (34. 1. 1±8. 3). Cato speaks ®rst. From the start of the oration Livy emphasizes his speaker's familiarity with history by having him mention the Lemnian women (34. 2. 3). This is one of the few references to Greek history in Livy, but it is appropriate to the subject matter of the debate and to the characterization of Cato.57 Cato's concern for precedent is also almost immediately established: `atque ego uix statuere apud animum meum possum utrum peior ipsa res an peiore exemplo agatur',58 and he 56 Signi®cant points of similarity include the following: the danger to libertas if one man is above the law (38. 50. 8±9); the allegation that Scipio behaved as if he were a dictator and could make decisions for the Senate and Roman people (51. 1±4); his greater aptitude for war than for peace (53. 9); tearing up the account books in the Senate and demanding the keys to the treasury (55. 10±13); and the use of tribunician power to override constitutional procedure (56. 10). 57 Cf. Plut. Cat. Mai. 8. 14, 9. 3, and 13. 1 for evidence of Cato as a student of Greek literature and history. His own writing attests to his familiarity with the ®rst battle at Thermopylae (HRR fr. 83). 58 `And I can scarcely make up my mind which is worse: the problem itself or the precedent involved' (34. 2. 4).

98

Reading the Past

refers to Roman history early on by comparing the women's behaviour to a secessio plebis (34. 2. 7), although without specifying which one he has in mind. The body of Cato's speech mingles his distress and anxiety about women appearing in public (34. 2. 8±3. 9) with concern about luxuria (34. 4. 1±18).59 Cato relates both to the proposed abrogation and the following of exempla. First, he contrasts contemporary female behaviour with that of women in the past and with that which will be promoted in the future if the lex Oppia is repealed (34. 2. 11±3. 2). Then he queries why the women are rushing about in public, when previously they left their houses only for such worthy causes as redeeming the captives after Cannae or welcoming the Idaean Mother (34. 3. 6±9). Turning to luxuria, one of the two pestes which overturn all great empires, he deplores the importation of treasures from Greece and Asia. This is a strikingly anachronistic point for Cato to make, especially given Livy's emphasis on his credentials as a historian. In 195 the Romans had yet to wage war in Asia, and Livy himself explicitly places the introduction of foreign luxury to Rome from Asia in 187 (39. 6. 7). Greece is also problematic as a source of luxury since up to this point in Livy's narrative Greek goods have entered Rome only by way of Syracuse (26. 21. 7±8). Cato's impossible chronology, however, will be matched in Valerius' reply, and both cases will emerge as having special meaning for the external audience. To contrast contemporary life with the good old days, Cato points to Cineas' failed attempt to bribe the Romans on Pyrrhus' behalf.60 No Romans, not even the women, were tempted by his gifts, but not because they were constrained by the lex Oppia. Just as there can be no cure before there is a disease, says Cato, so legislation follows the desires it is supposed to curb (34. 4. 8). His examples here are the lex Licinia, probably renewed in the early second century, and 59 On the construction of self-adornment as a typically female activity in this debate, see Wyke (1994) 138±41. These speeches have attracted feminist analyses in general. See also Culham (1982) and (1986). 60 Per. 13 mentions that Cineas came to Rome to negotiate a meeting for Pyrrhus with the Romans. The bribery incident appears in Val. Max. 4. 3. 14, Plut. Pyrr. 18. 4±5, and Zon. 8. 4. See Briscoe (1981) 52 on the date.

Reading the Past

99

the lex Cincia, probably to be dated to 204 (34. 4. 9±10).61 They provide parallels for the need for the lex Oppia: so pervasive is lust for luxury goods now, that if Cineas came today, he would ®nd women standing about in the streets ready to accept his gifts (34. 4. 11). After dwelling on the divisive aspects of allowing women unnecessary adornments, Cato concludes with a melodramatic comparison of luxuria to a beast loosed from its chains. In his reply, Valerius addresses three main topics: the behaviour of the women (34. 5. 4±13), di€erent kinds of laws (34. 6. 1±18), and luxuria (34. 7. 1±10). Only the ®rst section has proper exempla; he lists the major occasions when women interfered in public life to the greater bene®t of Rome: the Sabine women; the women who convinced Coriolanus not to march on Rome; the contributions of gold for redeeming Rome from the Gauls; donations made in the second Punic war; and the arrival of the Idaean Mother (34. 5. 8±10). This last point neatly caps Cato's reference to that divinity, particularly because Valerius explicitly identi®es Cato's Origines as his source for these exempla.62 The citation must be another deliberate anachronism on Livy's part since in the ®rst century it was common knowledge that Cato wrote his history towards the end of his life.63 Next Valerius reviews much of Roman legal history (regal law, creation of the Twelve Tables, and the circumstances under which the lex Oppia was passed), but cites no speci®c exempla either in the section on laws or in his discussion of women and luxuria. Only in his conclusion does Valerius warn that the sole danger is that the women may imitate the disa€ected plebeians and seize the Sacred Mount or the Aventine if the law is not abrogated (34. 7. 14). With this point he overturns Cato's reference to the secessio plebis at the beginning of his speech (34. 2. 7). Once again, Livy depicts a heated debate over knowledge 61 The lex Licinia limited ownership of ager publicus to 500 iugera. The lex Cincia dealt with payment to lawyers. See Briscoe (1981) 52±3 on the laws and their respective dates. 62 The passage begins `Tuas aduersus te Origines reuoluam' (34. 5. 7). 63 See Briscoe (1981) 56 for the evidence.

100

Reading the Past

gleaned from history only to de¯ect attention from the argument itself. Instead of indicating which of the two men delivers the more persuasive speech, he lets an external factor decide the outcome. The next day the women band together into a battle column and besiege the home of the tribunes who intended to veto the abrogation. They accede, and the lex Oppia is set aside by a unanimous vote.64 Thus the e€ect of the speeches on the internal audience is indeterminate, but the external audience is in a di€erent position. Cato's concerns, as he looks to the past to make predictions about the future, resemble the warnings of Hanno and Decius Magius. Livy's contemporary audience knows that luxuria will indeed come from the East and transform Rome in the next hundred years. While by itself the abrogation of the lex Oppia will not weaken Rome, the debate allows Livy to let Cato o€er true predictions about the future. In his speech, Cato uses the Sallustian language and themes of Livy's Preface.65 For example, Livy claims that Rome withstood the in¯ux of luxuria and auaritia longer than any other city: nec in quam ciuitatem tam serae auaritia luxuriaque immigrauerint (Praef. 11). Cato too couples auaritia and luxuria and connects them directly to the importation of foreign luxury goods into Rome.66 Further, both Livy and Cato express respect for parsimonia and paupertas. Livy states that in no other place had so much respect for frugality and poverty endured so long as at Rome: nec ubi tantus ac tam diu paupertati ac parsimoniae honos fuerit (Praef. 11); and Cato calls embarrassment over frugality or poverty the worst kind of all: `pessimus quidem 64 Haec cum contra legem proque lege dicta essent, aliquanto maior frequentia mulierum postero die sese in publicum e€udit, unoque agmine omnes Brutorum ianuas obsederunt, qui collegarum rogationi intercedebant, nec ante abstiterunt quam remissa intercessio ab tribunis est (34. 8. 1±2). 65 This was a stylistically appropriate choice for Livy to make since Sallust apparently studied and imitated Cato's vocabulary (Suet. Aug. 86. 3). 66 `Saepe me querentem de feminarum, saepe de uirorum, nec de priuatorum modo sed etiam magistratuum sumptibus audistis, diuersisque duobus uitiis, auaritia et luxuria, ciuitatem laborare, quae pestes omnia magna imperia euerterunt. Haec ego, quo melior laetiorque in dies fortuna rei publicae est, quo magis imperium crescitÐet iam in Graeciam Asiamque transcendimus omnibus libidinum inlecebris repletas, et regias etiam attrectamus gazasÐ, eo plus horreo, ne illae magis res ceperint quam nos illas' (34. 4. 1±3).

Reading the Past

101

pudor est uel parsimoniae uel paupertatis' (34. 4. 13).67 These verbal echoes demonstrate the closeness of this speech to the concerns expressed in the Preface.68 Like Fabius, Cato is the voice of the past; he uses more and older exempla than Valerius. Further, his reference to treasures brought in from Asia and Valerius' reference to the Origines are rare instances of anachronism in Livy, and it is hard to believe that they are not deliberate. Valerius' slip reinforces the depiction of Cato as someone with an informed view of the pastÐa historian, in factÐwhile Cato's reminds the readers that what he is predicting will come true. These anachronisms, which are quite literally impossible for the listening audience, must be directed at the reading audience. The latter can connect Cato's speech with Livy's assessment of Rome in the Preface and recognize him as a warner ®gure, doomed to be ignored by his contemporaries. The third pair of speeches deals with Cn. Manlius Vulso's request for a triumph when he returns from Asia Minor in 187 (38. 44. 9±50. 3). According to Livy, he meets with resistance from the commission of ten who had been sent to settle a€airs in the newly conquered territory. L. Furius Purpurio and L. Aemilius Paullus lead the opposition. In their speech, they deal with two main points: did Manlius have the right to conduct the war in the ®rst place (38. 45. 4± 9), and did he conduct it properly (38. 45. 10±46. 5)? The speaker lists models of wars that had been properly voted upon: `Antiochi Philippi Hannibalis et Poenorum recentissa bella esse; de omnibus his consultum senatum, populum iussisse, per legatos ante res repetitas, postremo qui bellum indicerent missos' (38. 45. 5±6). Manlius did not consult the Senate; the 67 There is a further parallel in the use of the disease metaphor. Where Livy says that Rome has reached the point where it can endure neither its weaknesses nor their cure (donec ad haec tempora quibus nec uitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus peruentum est, Praef. 9), Cato says that it is necessary to determine the disease before one can ®nd the cure (ante morbos necesse est cognitos esse quam remedia eorum, 34. 4. 8). On disease as a metaphor in descriptions of the body politic, see Woodman (1988) 133. 68 See also Luce (1977) 251±3 on Livy's conscious decision to treat the debate because it a€orded him a chance to dwell on the growth of foreign luxury.

102

Reading the Past

Roman people did not order the war; and no legates were sent to demand reparations or declare war. The second topicÐthat a properly conducted war deserves a proper triumphÐhas its own set of exempla: L. Scipio, M'. Acilius, T. Quinctius, and Scipio Africanus are all models for this point (38. 46. 9±11). The speech concludes that those who conduct war under senatorial authority may seek a triumph once the war is successfully completed. Manlius acknowledges the two-pronged attack of his opponents by duly addressing both whether he had the right to ®ght (38. 47. 8±48. 12) and how he conducted the war (38. 48. 13±49. 12). He can, however, marshal exempla to counter only the second charge. He points out that M'. Acilius fought uphill against Antiochus at Thermopylae as did Flamininus at the Aous (38. 49. 2±3). This time we have some indication of the persuasiveness of the speeches, for at the conclusion of Manlius', Livy says that the accusations would have outweighed the defence if the dispute had not gone on until very late; and the Senate certainly leaves under the impression that the triumph will be denied.69 As it happens, however, Manlius prevails when he returns the next day, but not because of his speech. Rather, Livy gives a revealingly over-determined explanation for his success: Manlius brings his friends and relations as advocates; the senatorial elders can ®nd no precedent for denying a triumph to a victorious commander who carries out his duty and brings his army home; an apparently general sense of shame overcomes the feeling of resentment; and a majority votes for the triumph.70 So Manlius gets his way, despite the fact that, as with Fabius, the Senate was initially inclined to side with his opponents. From the perspective of exempla, they undoubtedly appear on ®rmer ground. Like Fabius and 69 Plus crimina eo die quam defensio ualuisset, ni altercationem in serum perduxissent. Dimittitur senatus in ea opinione ut negaturus triumphum fuisse uideretur (38. 50. 1). 70 Postero die et cognati amicique Cn. Manli summis opibus adnisi sunt, et auctoritas seniorum ualuit, negantium exemplum proditum memoriae esse ut imperator, qui deuictis perduellibus, confecta prouincia exercitum reportasset, sine curru et laurea priuatus inhonoratusque urbem inire. Hic pudor malignitatem uicit, triumphumque frequentes decreuerunt (38. 50. 2±3).

Reading the Past

103

Cato, they demonstrate a superior knowledge of the past by using older exempla and more of them. Furthermore, they show how Manlius failed to learn from the past even when he had suitable procedural precedents in front of him. In this way, Manlius resembles Sp. Maelius, Manlius Capitolinus, and the pillagers of Proserpina's temple. The reading audience knows that Manlius must remember the wars with Hannibal, Philip, and Antiochus and so must know the procedure for declaring war, but Livy never shows him considering his course of action. Instead, the debate reveals the increased opportunities for Roman generals to act on their own initiative, again a phenomenon that has greater resonance for an Augustan audience than for the immediate audience of the speeches.71 CONCLUSIONS To summarize then, the places where people inside the text fail to bene®t from the past are not as problematic as they might at ®rst appear. Even if the internal audience does not pro®t from these exempla, the external audience can learn from its failure to do so. The instruction may operate via foreigners or warners or wrongdoers or even the overriding signi®cance of external factors, but the fact that the audience outside the text has more information than the internal audience means that it can draw separate conclusions. The paired speeches are particularly interesting for what they collectively suggest about exempla in Livy. All three debates relate to the theme of moral decline that Livy traces in his History. In the Preface, Livy clearly associates exempla with Rome's greatness, the decline of which he attributes to foreign in¯uence. He claims that Rome exceeds all cities in exempla and that in no city did auaritia 71 The most obvious examples are Scipio Africanus and Flamininus, who anticipate the 1st-c. dynasts in many respects; for the two men's relationships with the Senate, see Eckstein (1987) 233±317. Harris (1985) 9±36 discusses the importance of individual military achievement for Roman nobles of the middle Republic. Several studies have, however, emphasized the long-term bene®ts to the aristocracy of maintaining a united front; see e.g. Astin (1988) on the census as a form of upper-class self-policing and Rosenstein (1990) on the importance of protecting generals who su€ered defeats.

104

Reading the Past

and luxuriaÐCato's twin evilsÐarrive so late.72 The connection seems to be that auaritia and luxuria displaced Rome's wealth of exempla. The idea of moral decline is explicit in Cato's speech; as we have seen, his language echoes that of the Preface. The parallel is particularly close on this point since Cato describes the way that Greek art has literally displaced native ante®xes in the Romans' estimation.73 For the association between moral decline and Scipio and Manlius respectively, we have to look at the consequences of their actions. When Scipio goes to Sicily en route to Africa, he exposes himself to attacks on his reputation, ®rst in the ®asco of Pleminius' garrison at Locri, then when he is accused of behaviour unbecoming to a Roman general. Scipio's great fault appears to be his susceptibility to the Hellenistic tastes he acquired in Syracuse: wearing Greek clothing, strolling around the gymnasium, giving his time to books and exercise.74 This is not Roman behaviour; in no way military, it is debilitating to the army.75 Livy has already identi®ed Syracuse as a source of corruption, and just as in the Preface, foreign in¯uence is driving out good old-fashioned Roman ways.76 72 Ceterum aut me amor negotii suscepti fallit, aut nulla unquam res publica nec maior nec sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit, nec in quam ciuitatem tam serae auaritia luxuriaque immigrauerint, nec ubi tantus ac tam diu paupertati ac parsimoniae honos fuerit (Praef. 11). Livy also explicitly couples novelty with anything foreign as corrupting in¯uences on traditional, native religious practices (8. 11. 1). Luce (1977) has explored Livy's view that the sources of Roman decline come from foreign in¯uence. He traces the process in chapter 7 (p. 273 esp.). 73 `Iam nimis multos audio Corinthi et Athenarum ornamenta laudantes mirantesque, et ante®xa ®ctilia deorum Romanorum ridentes' (34. 4. 4). 74 Livy describes the accusations as partly true and partly similar to the truth, but does not specify which is which (29. 20. 1). The philhellenism appears to be genuine: see generally Scullard (1970) 206±9 and 237±8; Van Sickle (1987) 41±2 discusses the Hellenistic in¯uence on the design of Scipio's tomb. 75 Praeter Plemini facinus Locrensiumque cladem ipsius etiam imperatoris non Romanus sed ne militaris quidem cultus iactabatur: cum pallio crepidisque inambulare in gymnasio, libellis eum palaestraeque operam dare; aeque segniter molliter cohortem totam Syracusarum amoenitate frui. Carthaginem atque Hannibalem excidisse de memoria; exercitum omnem licentia corruptum, qualis Sucrone in Hispania fuerit, qualis nunc Locris, sociis magis quam hosti metuendum (29. 19. 11±13). 76 On the evil in¯uence of Syracuse, see above on Cato's speech (p. 98).

Reading the Past

105

Finally, Manlius Vulso is the person most responsible for importing luxury goods to Rome. When Livy describes his triumph, he claims that Manlius' army brought the origin of foreign luxury to Rome: luxuriae enim peregrinae origo ab exercitu Asiatico inuecta in urbem est.77 After itemizing some of the imports (textiles, furniture, and cookery), Livy reiterates his view: uix tamen illa quae tum conspiciebantur semina erant futurae luxuriae.78 Thus while the audience listening to any of these debates must of course reach the historical decision actually made at the time, the reading audience can place the speakers and their exempla in the wider contexts of the rest of Livy's History and their own awareness of what will happen. In the case of the three debates, Scipio's sojourn in Sicily, the repeal of the lex Oppia, and Manlius' campaign all ®t into the growing importance of luxuria and auaritia. Linked in format as the only three set debates which Livy stages as contests of exemplary knowledge between Romans, these speeches are also thematically connected by the underlying idea of moral decline. Finally, as we have already seen, there are parallels among the speakers, particularly those on the losing side. Fabius, Cato, Paullus, and Furius Purpurio all appear as defenders of tradition; their victorious opponents are associated with change and the future. This contrast sets up a complication in our understanding of how exempla work in Livy. Why should the voices of experience su€er defeat? Are they all, like Cato, warner ®gures, proclaiming in vain the moral and political breakdown that the reading audience knows is to come? Are their opponents modi®ed versions of Roman villains, who misapply exemplary knowledge? Or might it be the case that Livy recognizes the place of change in history and that he does not regard the past, even as distilled into exempla, as the sole determinant in making decisions for the future? 77 The army of the Asian campaign brought back with it the source of foreign decadence (39. 6. 7). 78 But the objects seen at that time were scarcely the seeds of future decadence (39. 6. 9).

4 Past and Present INTRODUCTION In 171 Q. Marcius and A. Atilius reported to the Senate that they had negotiated a truce with Perseus and that, best of all, they had done so by tricking him into believing that there might be a settlement and a lasting peace (42. 47. 1). Livy o€ers the following description of the Senate's reaction: Haec ut summa ratione acta magna pars senatus adprobabat; ueteres et moris antiqui memores negabant se in ea legatione Romanas agnoscere artes. Non per insidias et nocturna proelia, nec simulatam fugam improuisosque ad incautum hostem reditus, nec ut astu magis quam uera uirtute gloriarentur, bella maiores gessisse; indicere prius quam gerere solitos bella, ²denuntiare etiam interdum² locum ®nire in quo dimicaturi essent. Eadem ®de indicatum Pyrrho regi medicum uitae eius insidiantem; eadem Faliscis uinctum traditum proditorem liberorum. haec Romana esse, non uersutiarum Punicarum neque calliditatis Graecae, apud quos fallere hostem quam ui superare gloriosius fuerit. Interdum in praesens tempus plus pro®ci dolo quam uirtute; sed eius demum animum in perpetuum uinci cui confessio expressa sit se neque arte neque casu, sed conlatis comminus uiribus iusto ac pio esse bello superatum. Haec seniores, quibus noua ac nimis callida minus placebat sapientia; uicit tamen ea pars senatus cui potior utilis quam honesti cura erat.1 1 A majority of the Senate approved of these steps as having been taken with the best possible reasoning; the old men, who were mindful of traditional practice, said that they did not recognize Roman ways in this embassy. Their ancestors had not conducted war through trickery and night-battles, nor by false retreats and sudden renewals of battle against an unsuspecting enemy, nor had they gloried in deceit more than in true courage; they were accustomed to declare war before waging it, even to announce and sometimes establish the place in which they intended to ®ght. With the same sense of honour had his doctor been denounced to King Pyrrhus when he was plotting against his life; and with the same sense of honour had the betrayer of their children been bound and turned over to the Faliscans. This was Roman behaviour, not the ways of Carthaginian trickery or Greek cunning, among

Past and Present

107

This passage encapsulates the issues in the lengthy debates we have just looked at. Marcius and Atilius' course of action splits the Senate along generational lines, and the older men (described ®rst as ueteres et moris antiqui memores, then as seniores) cite perfectly reasonable and suitable exempla, but to no avail, while their more junior colleagues embrace expediency over honour. Once again a confrontation between people of di€erent ages allows Livy to comment on a change that he observes taking place. His vocabulary implies a certain sympathy with the older men, such as might be expected from a historian who expresses con®dence in the value of history as a source of remedies for contemporary problems. He appears to resemble the old men in having his vision ®xed ®rmly on the past. And yet even as he evinces sympathy for the seniores, he does so in a context where he has chosen to highlight change, speci®cally a contrast between traditional Roman ways and new, foreign behaviour. With this contrast, the passage recalls the tension in Livy's use of exempla that we saw dramatized in debates between Romans. In those debates new strategies and procedures challenge and replace old ones. So while the programmatic statement in Preface 10 sets up the expectation that the past can provide answers, the History shows people engaged with present concerns and rejecting the past to their advantage. This apparent gap between Preface and narrative seems to undermine the authority of exempla: exactly what sort of answers does Livy think they provide? In this chapter I propose to lay out in some detail the which peoples it was more glorious to fool an enemy than to overcome him by force. Now and thenÐfor a momentÐdeceit might achieve more than courage; but a man's spirit is conquered only when he confesses that he has been defeated not by craftiness or misfortune, but in a just and holy war fought by men ranged face to face. This was the opinion of the older men, to whom the new and excessively clever wisdom was less pleasing; but that part of the Senate for whom expediency was a greater concern than honour prevailed (42. 47. 4±9). Livy tells the story of the faithless Faliscan schoolmaster and the Romans' noble refusal to accept the betrayal of the children at 5. 27. 1±15 (where Camillus says he will rely on `Romanis artibus, uirtute opere armis' to capture Veii, 5. 27. 8). The attempt of Pyrrhus' doctor to betray him to the Romans was treated in Book 13. These are standard exempla of treachery, coupled also at 24. 45. 3.

108

Past and Present

competing claims of the authority of the past and the relevance of the present and near-past. While Livy establishes older men as voices of authority who consistently deploy their age, experience, and knowledge of history with skill and e€ect, at the same time Livy's Romans often show a preference for exempla within their own memory. The result of these two di€erent attitudes towards the past is a tension between remote antiquity and the recent past, apparently exposing an internal contradiction in Livy's presentation of exempla. To resolve this apparent contradiction it is necessary to re-evaluate Livy's prefatory remarks and to balance them against his over-all treatment of Roman history. FATHER KNOWS BEST As we have seen, Livy consistently portrays older men as voices of experience: Herennius Pontius the elder, A. Calavius the Capuan, Fabius Cunctator before Cannae and in his speech against Scipio's Africa command, Cato, the opponents of Manlius Vulso's triumph, and the seniores hostile to the new diplomacy share an inclination to use the past as their guide to conduct. Frequently when they come into contact with younger men, they attempt to employ their experience as a source of advice, but rarely with any success. The gap between the older men who rely on history and the younger men who disregard it underlies one of Livy's paradigmatic narratives, which he periodically revisits and revises.2 A comparison of three versions of the interaction between senior and junior ocers reveals how youth and age, innocence and experience interrelate in an exemplary context.3 The formative episode of Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus' life takes place in Book 8. It is a companion piece to the story of T. Manlius, itself a paradigm for magisterial seueritas,4 which reached its climax when the young Manlius was 2 For this kind of repetition-with-variation in Livy, see Kraus (1991) on Fabia Minor and the Lucretia story. 3 For bibliography on the topos of con¯icts between older and younger men, see Kraus (1994) 223. 4 See Lipovsky (1981) 112±30 on the episodes and the e€ect of their juxtaposition.

Past and Present

109

executed for engaging in single combat (8. 6. 9±8. 2). Even though he was victorious, he had disobeyed the direct orders of the consul, who happens to be his father. Consequently, in the words of both his father and the narrative, his only reward is to become an exemplum for future generations. The older Manlius tells him, `triste exemplum sed in posterum salubre iuuentuti erimus', and the narrative echoes this judgement: Manlianaque imperia non in praesentia modo horrenda sed exempli etiam tristis in posterum essent.5 The story shows a self-conscious awareness of how exempla work: even before it becomes the past, the present forges models for the future.6 Manlius' fate lurks behind the story of Fabius Rullianus, the ®rst act of which takes place when he serves as magister equitum of L. Papirius Cursor, who has been appointed dictator in the face of a Samnite-led military threat (8. 29. 8±35. 12). When Papirius has to return to Rome to conduct the auspices again, he instructs Fabius not to ®ght in his absence. Fabius, encountering little organization and resistance among the Samnites, ®ghts and wins, causing maximum joy among both his soldiers and the citizenry of Rome, with the noteworthy exception of Papirius. Invoking the summary action of Manlius, Papirius storms back to the camp, publicly castigates Fabius, and prepares to have him beaten. Fabius disappears into a crowd of soldiers and in the ensuing tumult slips home where he casts himself on his father's mercy. The older Fabius, himself a veteran of battles both political and military, appeals to his fellow senators. Everyone is thus lined up with Fabius Rullianus when the dictator returns to demand restitution. Facing such uniform opposition, Papirius decides to forgive Fabius. Livy concludes with the observation that Fabius' near-escape seemed to contribute as much as had the punishment of the younger Manlius to the improvement 5 Manlius: `We shall be a grim example, but one bene®cial for young men in the future' (8. 7. 17); and the narrative: and `Manlian commands' were not only dreadful at the time but also a grim example in the future (8. 7. 22). 6 For the impact of this scene, communicated to the external audience via the internal audience, see Feldherr (1998) 108±11. On the awareness of Livy's historical personages of their own exemplary potential, see the opening of Ch. 6.

110

Past and Present

of Roman military power.7 Like Manlius, Fabius is an instant exemplum for others. When Papirius pardons him, he enjoins Fabius to let the day be a lesson to him of the legitimate exercise of power.8 Another junior ocer, however, is the ®rst to take this advice.9 For the remainder of the campaign season, Papirius' deputy, eyes ®xed ®rmly on Fabius' experience, will not deploy his forces for any reason while Papirius is away, even to the point of sacri®cing his soldiers' lives.10 As Lipovsky points out in his discussion of this story, Livy is not interested in consistent characterization: Papirius is ®rst a domineering bully, then an endearing and e€ective leader, and then a tyrant again; Fabius disgraces himself and yet is a sympathetic ®gure.11 What does remain unchanging is the emphasis on the protagonists' ages with their attendant attributes. Fabius is a ferox adulescens (8. 30. 4), whose supporters think that a verbal reproof suces as a punishment for his adulescentia (8. 32. 15), which in turn is ultimately the source of Papirius' mercy (8. 35. 2).12 Papirius himself is a peritus dux (8. 36. 5), who 7 Cum se nihil morari magistrum equitum pronuntiasset, degressum eum templo laetus senatus, laetior populus, circumfusi ac gratulantes hinc magistro equitum, hinc dictatori, prosecuti sunt, ®rmatumque imperium militare haud minus periculo Q. Fabi quam supplicio miserabili adulescentis Manli uidebatur (8. 35. 8±9). 8 `Mecum, ut uoles, reuerteris in gratiam; populo Romano, cui uitam debes, nihil maius praestiteris quam si hic tibi dies satis documenti dederit ut bello ac pace pati legitima imperia possis' (8. 35. 7). 9 Livy postpones showing the impact of this particular lesson on Fabius until later in his career; see further below on 10. 3. 3±8. 10 Forte ita eo anno euenit ut, quotienscumque dictator ab exercitu recessisset, hostes in Samnio mouerentur. Ceterum in oculis exemplum erat Q. Fabius M. Valerio legato, qui castris praeerat, ne quam uim hostium magis quam trucem dictatoris iram timeret. Itaque frumentatores cum circumuenti ex insidiis caesi loco iniquo essent, creditum uolgo est subueniri eis ab legato potuisse, ni tristia edicta exhorruisset (8. 35. 10±11). 11 Lipovsky (1981) 115±30. 12 Eyben (1993) 9 cites Cicero in the De Senectute on ferocitas as the de®ning characteristic of iuuenes (Sen. 33); in the same treatise Cicero assigns temeritas to youth and prudentia to old age (temeritas est uidelicet ¯orentis aetatis, prudentia senescentis, 20). On the latter passage see Powell (1988). Livy uses ferox, ferociter, and ferocia, but not ferocitas; see Penella (1990) on the ambivalent connotations of ferox as a modi®er. On ferocitas in Livy, see Moore (1989) 21 n. 37, where he points out that it is characteristic of T. Sempronius Longus before Ticinus, C. Flaminius before Trasimene, and C. Terentius Varro before Cannae. Moore describes ferocitas as `a temporary emotional state' (p. 2 n. 2 and p. 21 n. 37).

Past and Present

111

approves of Manlius' punishment (8. 30. 13), calls upon Brutus' execution of his sons as a precedent (8. 34. 3),13 and believes in traditional disciplina militaris (8. 34. 3±11). Even more senior than Papirius, however, is Fabius Rullianus' father, identi®ed as a senex, whose age lends him authority (8. 33. 3 and 11). Backed by the auctoritas and maiestas of the Senate (8. 33. 7 and 23), he strings together exempla to support his case: Tullus Hostilius (8. 33. 8), Cincinnatus and L. Minucius (8. 33. 14), L. Furius Medullinus and Camillus (8. 33. 15).14 In the end, Papirius accepts the abject appeals of Fabius, his father, and the Roman people as a concession to and recognition of his imperium. So tradition is upheld at every level of the story. Fabius' military success may bene®t Rome, but it results from youthful insubordination. He needs the status of his father and the Senate to protect him, and he is not absolved until there is extensive public acknowledgement of Papirius' authority. Livy was picking and choosing among his sources when he assembled Fabius Rullianus' career. Having described Fabius' victory in Papirius' absence, Livy then concedes that in some accounts Fabius fought and won twice, in others only once, and in still others not at all (8. 30. 7). In the speech of M. Fabius he appears to have accepted the fullest version.15 His plot required of course at least one battle as a motivation for Papirius' wrath. In addition to providing a pointed foil for Manlius' harshness, the story is 13 L. Junius Brutus, the tyrannicide and one of the ®rst two consuls, had his sons executed for conspiring with the Tarquins to overthrow the infant republic and re-establish the monarchy (2. 3. 1±5. 10). 14 All are appropriate in di€erent ways. Tullus Hostilius intervened to protect Horatius, the hero of the Horatii±Curiatii duel, who subsequently killed his sister for mourning the death of her ®anceÂ, one of the Curiatii. Livy presents the plea of Horatius' father as crucial in the decision not to execute the young man (1. 26. 1±14). Cincinnatus was called from his ®eld to assume an emergency dictatorship and rescue the consul Minucius from a piece of poor generalship. After having done so, he rebuked Minucius and told him to serve as a legate until he acquired the intellectual capacities of a general. Minucius promptly resigned his consulship, returned to the ranks, and came to regard Cincinnatus as his patronus (3. 26. 3±29. 3, esp. 29. 2±3). L. Furius was restlessly rebellious against Camillus' cautious warfare, precipitated a battle, and had to be rescued by Camillus; the latter forgave him and thereby redeemed him for future commands (6. 22. 5±25. 6). 15 `. . . deosque ab se duobus proeliis haud frustra aduocatos' (8. 33. 21).

112

Past and Present

a platform for Livy's belief that Fabius Rullianus learned the lesson Papirius set for him, as yet another discussion of his sources reveals. For the year 302, Livy ®nds M. Aemilius Paullus and Fabius Rullianus both listed as the magister equitum of the dictator M. Valerius. The historian cannot accept that at his age and with all his magistracies, Fabius would have held a subordinate role. He reasons alternatively that a mistake arose from the cognomen Maximus, which Valerius and Fabius share.16 What clinches this resolution of the con¯ict for Livy is the way that history repeats itself, albeit with disastrous consequences. The dictator must return to Rome to repeat the auspices, and the magister equitum, ambushed while out foraging, panics and is driven back to camp. Livy cannot reconcile this behaviour with the fact that Rullianus earned his cognomen of Maximus speci®cally for his military skill, nor with the formative impact of Fabius' brush with Papirius' harshness: qui terror non eo tantum a Fabio abhorret quod, si qua alia arte cognomen suum aequauit, tum maxime bellicis laudibus, sed etiam quod memor Papirianae saeuitiae nunquam ut dictatoris iniussu dimicaret adduci potuisset (10. 3. 7±8). So, in Livy's view, Fabius did learn his lesson from Papirius. Furthermore, by the end of the ®rst decade Fabius has aged to the point where he himself is a voice of authority. Throughout Book 10 Livy characterizes Fabius Rullianus as an old man, who reluctantly undertakes public responsibilities only under dire circumstances: an aedileship because of a food-shortage in 298 (10. 11. 9); the consulship for 297 because of the alarming coalition of Gauls, Samnites, and Etruscans (10. 13. 2±13); and the consulship for 295 for the ®nal confrontation with this alliance, now reinforced by the Umbrians (10. 22. 1±9). Requesting P. Decius Mus as his colleague in these consulships, Fabius emphasizes upon entering the second of these terms that in his old age he needs Decius for support (id senectuti suae adminiculum fore, 10. 22. 2), that he has learned 16

Itaque propter eos tumultus dictus M. Valerius Maximus dictator magistrum equitum sibi legit M. Aemilium Paulum.ÐId magis credo quam Q. Fabium ea aetate atque eis honoribus Valerio subiectum; ceterum ex Maximi cognomine ortum errorem haud abnuerim (10. 3. 3±4).

Past and Present

113

from experience that harmony between leaders is crucial to the public safety (censura duobusque consulatibus simul gestis expertum se nihil concordi collegio ®rmius ad rem publicam tuendam esse, 10. 22. 3), and that at his age, when he cannot adjust to a new colleague, familiarity will best facilitate his planning (nouo imperii socio uix iam adsuescere senilem animum posse; cum moribus notis facilius se communicaturum consilia, 10. 22. 3). Livy, then, intends his readers to visualize Fabius as an old man, perhaps reduced in physical strength and energy, but seasoned by years of experience. Now it is Decius' turn to be the younger man. Livy accentuates the age di€erence in order to illustrate the qualities of impetuousness and maturity associated with the di€erent stages of life.17 The men's styles of warfare at Sentinum re¯ect their relative ages. Decius rushes into battle and ends up having to sacri®ce himself to save his troops (10. 28. 6±29. 2). In doing so, he shows knowledge of family tradition, for he is following his father's precedent; but, where divine guidance prompted the elder Decius, the deuotio of the younger results from his hastiness (10. 28. 6±11, cf. 8. 9. 4±14).18 Fabius, on the other hand, knows that the Gauls cannot sustain the ferocity of their initial attack; the best strategy for the Romans is to conserve their strength and to assault the Gauls as they begin to falter (10. 28. 2±5 and 29. 8±13). Thus the behaviour of the men agrees with their characterization: the younger man is impetuous; the older man knows that he ought to wait. Nevertheless, Decius' rash heroism and Fabius' measured strategy receive joint recognition for the victory (10. 30. 9). Taken together, the stories about the development of 17 Decius held his ®rst consulship only ten years after Fabius, and the men were colleagues in the consulship twice (308 and 297) and in the censorship (304), so they were probably closer in age than Livy's presentation here would suggest. Compare Lipovsky (1981) 92±4 on Livy's willingness to sacri®ce verisimilitude for dramatic e€ect in his treatment of Camillus (6. 22. 7±24. 6). The Romans recognized distinct stages in life (see e.g. Eyben [1973] 229) but, as Neraudau (1979) 126±33 shows, the terminology involved is ¯uid. 18 O. SchoÈnberger (1960), comparing Decius' deuotio to those of his father (8. 6. 9±16 and 8. 9. 1±10. 7) and M. Curtius (7. 6. 1±6), o€ers a depiction of Decius as a new, less satisfactory kind of hero (p. 230) that accords with Livy's manipulation of the ages of Fabius and Decius.

114

Past and Present

Fabius Rullianus' character illustrate how exemplary thinking takes a personal form, as he progresses from ferox adulescens to senior statesman. Furthermore, his career enacts only one possible scenario for the process of maturation, the acquisition of the ability to respect and use experience. Livy anticipates Fabius Rullianus' story in his narratives of Cincinnatus and L. Minucius, and of Camillus and L. Furius, to which the historian draws the external audience's attention when he has Rullianus' father invoke them in the course of his plea to Papirius.19 Fabius Rullianus' career is also of course an annalistic rehearsal of the more famous and better documented story of Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator and his magister equitum M. Minucius Rufus (22. 8. 5±18. 10 and 23. 1±30. 10).20 As did Papirius before him, Fabius Cunctator must return to Rome for religious reasons; he vainly warns Minucius to avoid a confrontation with Hannibal. Minucius, however, following in the footsteps of Fabius Rullianus, ®ghts anyway and initially meets with success. When Minucius' popularity soars at Rome, C. Terentius Varro capitalizes on resentment of Fabius' strategy and sponsors a bill to make Minucius' imperium equal to that of the dictator.21 Grimly refusing to abandon his cautious mode of warfare, Fabius manages to reserve enough manpower to rescue Minucius when he falls into one of Hannibal's traps, and Minucius gratefully revises his opinion of Fabius. The story does not follow its prototype in all respects. For example, Minucius is characterized as ferox (22. 12. 12), but there is no particular emphasis here on his youth,22 which is instead assigned to his political counterpart, Varro (the son of a butcher, and thus doubly damned, 22. 25. 19). And initially Minucius has a more explicit relationship with 19

See p. 111 with n. 14 above. The oldest continuous narrative is that of Polybius (3. 87. 6±94. 10 and 100. 1±105. 11). For a discussion of his sources for the second Punic war, see Walbank (1957±1979) i. 28±9. 21 Unus inuentus est suasor legis C. Terentius Varro, qui priore anno praetor fuerat, loco non humili solum sed etiam sordido ortus. Patrem lanium fuisse ferunt, ipsum institorem mercis, ®lioque hoc ipso in seruilia eius artis ministeria usum. Is iuuenis . . . (22. 25. 18±26. 1). 22 Minucius was one of the consuls of 221 and so presumably of mature years in 217. 20

Past and Present

115

exempla than Fabius, for it is the magister equitum, not the dictator, who invokes them. Impatient with Fabius' delaying tactics, Minucius attempts to turn the army against him. Citing Camillus and the Gauls, Papirius and the Samnites, and Lutatius and the Carthaginians of the ®rst Punic war, Minucius argues that swift retaliation is the Roman way (22. 14. 9±13).23 The speech is entirely persuasive (22. 14. 15), but Minucius at this point resembles his villainous predecessors, Romans such as Manlius Capitolinus who arrogantly mis-apply the past. In the narrative of Book 5, Livy vehemently insisted that Camillus would not act without senatorial sanction (5. 46. 11), and in Book 9 the war against the Samnites is not resumed immediately, but only after Papirius starts his consulship (9. 12. 9). The loss of Livy's narrative of the ®rst Punic war means that his treatment of Lutatius cannot be reconstructed, but there is no evidence to suggest that he was a rogue commander.24 Minucius' exempla thus do not justify his proposed course of action. But while the Romans have lost sight of the wisdom that originally made them appoint Fabius dictator and are swayed by Minucius, Hannibal remains fully aware that in Fabius his opponents ®nally have a master of the military art; he particularly fears Fabius' prudentia.25 For this reason he waits for Fabius' departure before luring Minucius into the trap (22. 23. 1±3). And the story as a whole rearms the importance of age and authority. After Fabius rescues Minucius, the latter hails him as pater and directs his soldiers to address him as their patronus. Desiring to point up the resumption of a proper relationship between age and authority, Livy reiterates these appellations in direct and indirect speech (22. 29. 10±30. 2).26 There are of course di€erences between this episode and its predecessor in the second pentad; most 23

See pp. 43±4. See Polybius' description of Lutatius' campaign (1. 59. 8±12). Ceterum tacita cura animum incessit, quod cum duce haudquaquam Flamini Sempronique simili futura sibi res esset ac tum demum edocti malis Romani parem Hannibali quaesissent. Et prudentiam quidem dictatoris extemplo timuit (22. 12. 5±6). 26 Note the absence of any such language in Polybius (3. 105. 8±10). 24 25

116

Past and Present

notably here the magister equitum rather than the dictator has a change of heart; and the gap in ages is transmuted into a metaphorical father±son relationship. But the plot and its outcome are recognizable and consistent in their message about the authority of older men. The traces of the plot are also detectable in Livy's account of L. Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Perseus at Pydna. Depicting him as an experienced general, Livy places great emphasis on his traditional approach to warfare. He singles out his disciplina militaris as illustrated by his installation of a strict order of command (44. 33. 5±7) and his insistence that soldiers on guard duty abandon the recent practice of bringing their shields along, since these are a prop to those inclined to nod o€ and the light re¯ected from the shields might signal the Romans' location to the enemy (44. 33. 7± 9). When he explains his policies and procedures to the soldiers, the veterans confess that for the ®rst time they understand correct military procedure (44. 34. 6). Their admission is a tribute to Paullus' military expertise and helps to associate him with knowledge gained from experience. As a consul rather than a dictator, Paullus has no magister equitum to play Minucius to his Fabius Cunctator, or Fabius Rullianus to his Papirius Cursor. However, he has an impatient youth to deal with just the same. Merely alluding to the possibility for generational con¯ict rather than actually developing it, Livy makes P. Scipio Nasica the only one to complain out loud when Paullus does not attack Perseus immediately. Livy represents their interaction thus: Consul nihil o€ensus libera admonitione tam clari adulescentis `et ego' inquit, `animum istum habui, Nasica, quem tu nunc habes, et quem ego nunc habeo, tu habebis. Multis belli casibus didici quando pugnandum, quando abstinendum pugna sit. Non operae est stanti nunc in acie docere quibus de causis hodie quiesse melius sit. Rationes alias reposcito; nunc auctoritate ueteris imperatoris contentus eris.' Conticuit adulescens: haud dubie uidere aliqua impedimenta pugnae consulem, quae sibi non apparerent.27 27 Not in the least o€ended by the outspoken criticism of such a well-born young man, the consul replied, `I too had that spirit which you have now,

Past and Present

117

The conversation models the proper relationship of age and authority. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Nasica's spirit; unlike Papirius, Paullus has the wisdom to treat him respectfully and indicates that his decision is based on extensive experience; Nasica in turn recognizes that Paullus is better informed and abandons his questioning. This conversation has a reprise the following day when Paullus gives a public speech to explain his motivation for postponing combat (44. 38. 1±39. 9). Once again identi®ed as a young man of good family (egregius adulescens, 44. 38. 1), Nasica receives praise for his conduct: he alone spoke up, and yet he was willing to yield without explanation to the consul's superior judgement. Livy's reading audience is then enlightened alongside the soldiers. In refusing to engage immediately, Paullus was considering such factors as the greater strength of the opposing forces, the importance of rest for his soldiers, and the need for a secure camp; this last receives the sanction of ancestral custom.28 The successful outcome of the battle vindicates Paullus' strategic thinking. After the victory, Paullus has yet another opportunity to instruct young Romans. When Perseus is brought as a captive to the Roman camp, Paullus makes him an objectlesson for his men. Pointing out that Perseus had experienced both war and peace with the Romans, Paullus asks why he chose to wage war against them. Despite Livy's presentation, it is unlikely that Perseus was responsible for the hostilities.29 Patriotism may have made Livy want to depict Perseus as the aggressor, but it is also e€ective for exemplary reasons that Perseus has failed to learn from his Nasica, and you will have the one that I have now. From the outcome of many wars I have learned when it is time to ®ght and when it is necessary to hold back. There is no pro®t in explaining to you now, standing in battle order, why it is better to rest today. Seek answers at another time; for now you will be content with the authority of a veteran commander.' The young man kept quiet: no doubt the consul perceived some barriers to combat which were not apparent to him (44. 36. 12±14). 28 Maiores uestri castra munita portum ad omnes casus exercitus ducebant esse, unde ad pugnam exirent, quo iactati tempestate pugnae receptum haberent (44. 39. 2). 29 See Harris (1985) 227±33.

118

Past and Present

father's experience. As we have seen, Livy sets Perseus up as a typical foreigner who cannot learn from the past. Even though his father's adviser Onesimus reminded him of Philip's practice of reading his treaty with the Romans twice a day, Perseus persists in provoking war with them.30 With the implication that Perseus is old enough to know better, Paullus says he would be less puzzled if Perseus were a iuuenis (45. 8. 1±5). Then turning and addressing the assembled Roman iuuenes, Paullus designates and interprets Perseus as an exemplum of the uncertainty of the human condition.31 A series of oppositions highlights the contrast between Paullus and Perseus. Paullus speaks while Perseus remains mute. Paullus knows about Fortuna; Perseus does not. Perseus, who is not a iuuenis, cannot learn from his mistakes; the young soldiers can. And of course the switch from Greek to Latin (haec Graeco sermone Perseo; Latine deinde suis, 45. 8. 6) gives a patriotic cast to the contrast: Romans can pro®t from knowledge of the past; graecophones cannot. Paullus himself is the consummate ®gure of exemplary knowledge. Not only does he use his military experience to make certain that the army is properly trained, and not only does he instruct the young men to learn from experience themselves, but his words to Perseus will turn out to be selfreferential. While he is now at the peak of his own good fortune, he will shortly be subjected to a public debate over his right to triumph.32 Even worse, both his sons will die after his return to Rome. Livy links Paullus with Perseus as a documentum humanorum casuum in the narrative (45. 40. 6) and has the Roman compare the misfortunes of the two men in his ®nal contio. They are both looked on as `nobilia maxime sortis mortalium exempla'; Perseus and his children 30

See 44. 16. 5 and pp. 81±2. Haec Graeco sermone Perseo; Latine deinde suis `exemplum insigne cernitis' inquit `mutationes rerum humanarum. Vobis hoc praecipue dico, iuuenes. Ideo in secundis rebus nihil in quemquam superbe ac uiolenter consulere decet, nec praesenti credere fortunae, cum quid uesper ferat incertum sit. Is demum uir erit cuius animum neque prospera ¯atu suo e€erent nec aduersa infringent' (45. 8. 6±7). 32 See pp. 121±31 below for the exemplary aspects of the speech made in defence of Paullus' right to triumph. 31

Past and Present

119

are led as prisoners in Paullus' triumph, but the Macedonian's children are alive while Paullus has attended the funeral of one son and knows that the other will die at any moment.33 The lesson Paullus draws from Perseus applies equally well to him, but of course in Livy's patriotic account Paullus maintains composure in the face of his loss: Livy describes his speech as digna Romano principe (45. 40. 9). It would be possible to multiply these cases of interactions between older and younger men, but the outlines of Livy's thinking have been amply displayed. Older men have learned from experience; they know how to use the past and are more closely associated with exemplary knowledge. Younger men are more impatient and yield to authority only under ideal circumstances. Moreover, there is nothing unique to Livy in this kind of thinking. The Romans generally preferred to reserve positions of power for older men,34 and Cicero succinctly summarizes the parallel between the authority of older men and that of exempla: habet autem ut in aetatibus auctoritatem senectus sic in exemplis antiquitas, quae quidem apud me ipsum ualet plurimum.35 33 `Et cum ego et Perseus nunc nobilia maxime sortis mortalium exempla spectemur, ille, qui ante se captiuos hcaptiuusj ipse duci liberos uidit, incolumes tamen eos habet, ego, qui de illo triumphaui, ab alterius funere ®lii currum . . . ex Capitolio prope iam exspirantem inueni' (45. 41. 10±11). The text is corrupt, but the general sense clear. 34 See e.g. Evans and Kleijweget (1992), esp. 189. Furthermore, as Bettini (1991) 191±2 shows, there is a general cultural prejudice in favour of age, as evidenced in the emphasis on mos maiorum and `the social and cultural preeminence of those who can boast of remote origins'. As he also points out, Latin has words for six generations of ancestry (pater, auus, proauus, abauus, atavus, and tritavus); after that `one entered the generic category of ancestors' (pp. 179±80). This evidence can be taken either as showing that the past blurred for the Romans after six generations, or that it was highly articulated for them; after all, English forms generational terms similarly, but has only three distinct ones (father, grandfather, great grandfather; after the latter it can only reiterate the adjective.) 35 For just among the di€erent stages of life old age has authority, so with exempla does antiquity, which with me personally at least has the most in¯uence (Orat. 169). Quintilian also asserts that authority is an intrinsic component of age (12. 4. 1±2). For discussions of the relationship between exempla and auctoritas, see B. J. Price (1975) 196±8 on Quintilian, and also Gaillard (1978).

120

Past and Present

AGE AND AUTHORITY It might seem reasonable to conclude from these interactions between ocers and their subordinates that seniority in years, whether of speaker or exemplum, has a distinct and decisive advantage over anything young or new. Yet we know from the debates that Livy chose to expand and ®ll with exempla that knowledge of the past sometimes gives way to demands of the present and that to remember and use more history is not necessarily to persuade an audience. The second conclusion is not entirely compatible with the ®rst and points to an apparent gap between Preface 10 and the History as a whole. Why o€er a programmatic statement about the usefulness of history as a source of guidance for the present and then depict people making selective use of the past? Two answers we have already seen. The failure of exemplary knowledge associated with warners, foreigners, and villains can be instructive for Livy's readers; the sight of others not pro®ting from history vivi®es the value of interpreting the past correctly. Second, authoritative users of exempla such as Fabius Cunctator, Cato, and Manlius' opponents, who are in no way depicted as fools or wrongdoers, but who still lose their cases, may teach Livy's readers about moments of historical change, when Livy sees the Romans consciously choosing to set the demands of new circumstances before the authority of the past. The challenge such moments present to that authority necessitates an expanded reading of Preface 10. When Livy says that in history you see examples of every kind of behaviour inscribed on a clear monument (omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri), he cannot be thinking of the past simply as a storehouse of ®xed lessons. Although his Romans repeatedly look to the past as a guide to conduct, they do not regard it as monolithic or, so to speak, monumental, but rather as changeable and of varying relevance to their lives. As their perspective on it alters, so does its meaning modulate. The value of studying history, in other words, lies not only in speci®c lessons (the exempla and documenta), but also in the very activity of looking to the

Past and Present

121

past (expressed in the verb intueri and in the verbal aspects of in cognitione rerum).36 To demonstrate this interpretation of Livy's programme, I will look at what initially appears to be a rhetorical turnof-phrase in several of Livy's speeches and then at the ideas about the past put forward in them. Two of these speeches we have considered already. In 205, Fabius Cunctator and Scipio Africanus hold a debate about Scipio's plan to invade Africa, with Fabius opposing (28. 40. 1±42. 22) and Scipio advocating the strategy (28. 43. 1±44. 18).37 These speeches can be supplemented by two others. In 310, the tribune P. Sempronius Sophos attacks Ap. Claudius Caecus for extending his censorship while his colleague C. Plautius resigned after the statutory eighteen months. Caecus' unconstitutional behaviour provides an opportunity to rehearse the tyrannical actions of his gens (9. 33. 3±34. 26). The ®nal speech belongs to Livy's narrative of L. Aemilius Paullus. Though he conducts the campaign against Perseus with great success, upon his return to Rome in 167 his right to triumph meets with popular opposition and is formally opposed by Ser. Sulpicius Galba. The refutation is delivered by M. Servilius Geminus (45. 37. 1±39. 20). This group of speeches o€ers two convenient ways of showing that Livy does not consider the past a monument of ®xed lessons. First, each speaker recognizes that examples from recent history can have more relevance than those from the remote past; this recognition indicates that for Livy the lessons of history are ¯uid and change over time as each generation of Romans seeks to ®nd answers in its own immediate past. Second, speakers value the past and its relationship to the present in such di€erent ways that their speeches end up revealing the complexity with which Livy thinks about these topics. All four speakers explicitly state that recent exempla have just as much or more ecacy than ancient ones.38 Citing ®rst 36 For Livy's conception of the study of history as a visual activity, see Feldherr (1998), esp. 1±50. 37 See pp. 93±7. 38 NB: as Kornhardt (1936) 69 and 73 notes in her discussion of exempla in constitutional law, there is a signi®cant di€erence between exempla that are

122

Past and Present

C. Furius and M. Geganius, the ®rst censors to resign under the lex Aemilia (passed in 434 during their censorship) and then C. Maenius, who voluntarily left his dictatorship just eight years previously, Sempronius emphasizes the di€erence in time-frame with a rhetorical question: `quid ego antiqua repetam? Nuper intra decem annos C. Maenius dictator, quia, cum quaestiones seuerius quam quibusdam potentibus tutum erat exerceret, contagio eius quod quaerebat ipse criminis obiectata ab inimicis est, ut priuatus obuiam iret crimini, dictatura se abdicavit.'39 The other three speakers execute similar manoeuvres. Fabius, predicting a disastrous outcome for Scipio's proposed assault on Africa, switches from the Athenians' Sicilian expedition to M. Atilius Regulus' invasion of Africa in the ®rst Punic war. The phrase `externa et nimis antiqua repeto' (28. 42. 1) signals the shift. Echoing both the example and the transition, Scipio refutes this point with rhetorical questions: `Sed quid ultro metum inferre hosti et ab se remoto periculo alium in discrimen adducere quale sit, ueteribus externisque exemplis admonere opus est? Maius praesentiusue ullum exemplum esse quam Hannibal potest?' 40 Finally, Servilius says that, while some people may not be able to recall old tales of calamitous rivalries between generals, everyone remembers what happened between noua and those that are recentia; the former have negative associations while the latter merely demarcate a distinction between exempla which belong to the present and the uetera and antiqua exempla of the past. Since the English adjective `new' lacks the negative force of Latin nouus, I use `new' and `recent' more or less interchangeably in this discussion, but Livy restricts his speakers to examples that are recentia. 39 `Why do I recall ancient history? Recently, within the past ten years, the dictator C. Maenius resigned from his position in order to be prosecuted as a private citizen, because, when he conducted his investigations more rigorously than was safe for certain powerful men, he was accused by his enemies of being tainted with that crime which he was investigating' (9. 34. 14). 40 `But why is it necessary to warn by means of old and foreign examples how di€erent it is to instil fear in an enemy from a distance and to endanger the other by removing the risk to yourself? Can there be any greater or more apposite example of this than Hannibal?' (28. 44. 1±2). It may seem contradictory to cite Hannibal speci®cally in contrast to foreign exempla, but in practice he transcends the distinction between domestic and foreign. In Valerius Maximus, for example, he appears twenty times in domestic exempla and sixteen times in foreign ones.

Past and Present

123

Fabius Cunctator and Minucius in the most recent Punic war (45. 37. 12).41 The question of the most ecacious age for exempla arises in other genres and other historians. Among Roman sources, Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, and Seneca shed some light on the subject. The textbook position is clear. Rhetorica ad Herennium unequivocally advocates recent exempla on the grounds that they have greater in¯uence over the audience.42 But practice does not always dovetail with theory. Cicero's numerous speeches include some excellent illustrations of how the topos can be used,43 and the chronological range of his corpus provides sucient evidence for tracing evolution in this particular area. SchoÈnberger has shown that as a young man Cicero tended to cite exempla more often and to draw mostly on past events; in later years he used fewer exempla but relied more on those from the recent past, especially events that occurred during his own public career.44 While as SchoÈnberger suggested, the shift is due in part to Cicero's own development, a statement made late in life suggests the di€erent virtues Cicero saw in old and new exempla: uterque uero ad augendum habeat exemplorum aut recentium quo notiora sint aut ueterum quo plus auctoritatis habeant copiam.45 This passage encapsulates the competing claims of the near and distant past. Recent history is persuasive because of its familiarity while ancient history has an air of authority. Seneca, on the other hand, expresses a distinct preference for fresh exempla: instruenda est enim uita exemplis inlustribus, nec semper 41

The passage is quoted and discussed below (pp. 130±1). Aut si suadebimus quippiam cuius rei gestae aut praesentem aut auditam memoriam poterimus habereÐqua in re facile id quod uelimus exemplo allato persuadere possumus (Rhet. ad Her. 3. 4). 43 For example, early in the ®rst speech against Catiline Cicero employs a sly bit of praeteritio that resembles the transitions made in the Livian speeches: `Nam illa nimis antiqua praetereo, quod C. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium nouis rebus studentem, manu sua occidit' (Cat. 1. 3), cf. Verr. 3. 209± 11. 44 H. SchoÈnberger (1911) 43±9, who dates the watershed in Cicero's use of exempla to 57. 45 Both speakers (i.e. the proponent and his opponent) should have a generous supply of exempla for purposes of ampli®cation, either recent ones, for purposes of greater familiarity, or old ones for their greater authority (Cic. Part. or. 96). 42

124

Past and Present

confugiamus ad uetera.46 The most important point here is that he still sees a distinction between the familiar and the novel, but his rejection of traditional exempla probably re¯ects a more widespread change in the way that they were viewed. This change appears to be detectable among historical texts as well. Going back to Herodotus and Thucydides and forward to Ammianus Marcellinus, we can ®nd speeches where recent examples are considered to carry more weight.47 But whereas in the Greek historians the more recent events referred to are in living memory, Ammianus' Julian speaks rather more loosely. When Julian addresses his troops during the Parthian campaign, he says: `sed ut a uetustate discedam, haec quae tradidit recens memoria replicabo'.48 Despite Julian's claim to be drawing from recens memoria, the generals he proceeds to name are Trajan, L. Verus, Septimius Severus, and Gordianus, whose campaigns against the Parthians date to 114±16, 162±4, 194±8, and 242 ce respectively. In other words, his `recent' exempla are all over one hundred years before his own invasion (363 ce).49 The evidence from Tacitus, who occupies an intermediate position chronologically, suggests that we are dealing with an increasing tendency for practice to diverge from theory. In the Dialogus, Tacitus has Aper express a pref46 For life should be equipped with notable examples, nor should we constantly resort to the old ones (Ep. 83. 13). (Cf. Ep. 24. 9±11). 47 Both Herodotus and Thucydides provide illuminating examples. According to Herodotus, when the Tegeans and the Athenians disputed the right to occupy a wing position at Plataea, both sides cited old and new deeds (kai4 kaina4 kai4 palaia4 parafe3 rontew e5 rga, 9. 26. 1); but then the historian has the Athenians make a clever transition from the past examples to their recent success at Marathon with the argument that good men can degenerate and weak men can improve (9. 27. 4). This statement of course echoes Herodotus' theme about the growth and decline of cities (1. 5. 4). In Thucydides, the Athenians at Sparta also echo an authorial prejudice, rejecting ta4 palaia3 which their audience has heard of, in favour of what it knows by o5ciw (1. 73. 2). 48 `But so that I may leave behind antiquity, I will set out events which recent memory has transmitted' (Amm. Marc. 23. 5. 17). I owe this reference to Noel Lenski. 49 These emperors are cited in contrast to republican generals who successfully invaded the east: Lucullus (70s bce), Pompey (60s bce), and P. Ventidius, the lieutenant of Antony (39±38 bce). The earlier part of the speech is also ®lled with other republican exempla: the Curtii, the Mucii, the Decii, as well as the destruction of Carthage, Numantia, Fidenae, and Veii.

Past and Present

125

erence for recent exempla: `libentius enim nouis et recentibus quam remotis et oblitteratis exemplis utor'.50 The speeches in the extant portions of Tacitus' historical writings, however, do not manifest uniform respect for Aper's precepts. Although Germanicus appears to recognize that recent events have a particular potency,51 recent exempla do not in general dominate: Antonius and Cerialis, for example, use both old and new ones.52 It is perhaps better not to put too much weight on Aper's words since in the Dialogus he functions as a devil's advocate.53 But one possibility is that his comment re¯ects a distinction that was recognized but not necessarily applied with any rigour. Complex issues are involved here, and there are more factors (genres, authors, time periods) than can be controlled for in such brief compass or perhaps reduced to any simple formula at all. What even a brief consideration of other texts shows, however, is that the idea of citing recent exempla manifests itself in a variety of ways. So any author's individual application of it is signi®cant for understanding his views on the subject. The age of exempla is important for Livy, as we will further see in the ®nal two chapters. As far as the speeches under discussion are concerned, the actual examples meet the stated expectation that events within living memory have more impact than distant ones. With the exception of Sempronius' speech, where the opportunity to review the various tyrannical o€ences of Appius' ancestors cannot be passed up, the speakers emphasize the freshness of their historical exempla. The adjective recens and the adverb nuper frequently signal that the speaker has an especially convincing example. Fabius says that the recent case of Claudius and Livius (at the Metaurus in 207) demonstrates the importance of leaders sticking together.54 And if Scipio goes to Africa, the Romans may face the same danger they experienced recently (nuper) when 50 `I would rather use new and recent examples than distant and worn-out ones' (8. 1). 51 Tac. Ann. 1. 48. 1. 52 Tac. Hist. 3. 24. 2 and 5. 16. 2. 53 Brink (1993) 338±40. 54 `Ne Claudius quidem et Liuius consules tam recenti exemplo quantum id intersit documento sunt?' (28. 42. 17).

126

Past and Present

Scipio let Hasdrubal slip into Italy (28. 42. 14). Scipio answers him with a counter-factual claim: given that he went to Spain just after his father and uncle were killed there, would he not go to Africa even if Regulus had been captured there recently and not forty years earlier?55 Servilius is particularly fond of indicating the freshness of his examples: just as their ancestors once mistreated Camillus, so did the Romans recently (nuper) mistreat Scipio Africanus in the matter of a triumph (45. 38. 7); recently (nuper again) the Romans celebrated triumphs over Philip and Antiochus while they were still ruling, so is it not appropriate to have one over Perseus, who was actually captured? (45. 39. 1); and many people remember what a stir Syphax caused when he was captured alive (45. 39. 7). Since Servilius' exempla have the greatest chronological range (from Camillus over two hundred years earlier to Antiochus a generation previously), his emphasis on the importance of recent ones is especially noteworthy. Both the stated preference for recent exempla and the actual selection of them illustrate Livy's recognition that audiences like to hear about events within living memory. Accordingly, as time passes in Livy's narrative, speakers introduce new exempla. This point is an important preliminary step in recognizing the complexity with which Livy regards history's authority. The fact that he depicts each generation of Romans preferring to draw its own lessons from the past is somewhat at odds with the authoritative role given to older men in their interactions with junior ocers. The latter will of course gain experience and become voices of experience themselves, as indeed is the case with Fabius Rullianus. If we now examine the ideas about the past put forward in the speeches under consideration, it will become clear that as a group the speakers o€er a complex range of thinking about the past and its relation to the present beyond their mutual recognition of the ecacy of recent exempla. Sempronius' speech in Book 9 views the past in two quite 55 `Si hoc bello non priore, si nuper et non annis ante quadraginta ista ita clades accepta foret, qui ego minus in Africam Regulo capto quam Scipionibus occisis in Hispaniam traicerem?' (28. 43. 18).

Past and Present

127

distinct ways. First, as was noted above, Sempronius uses mostly exempla outside the direct memory of his audience. All the stories of Appian atrocities are at least two generations old: the decemvirate, marriage legislation, and the secessions belong to the ®fth century; the opening of the consulship to the plebs, debt legislation, and the agrarian laws to the beginning of the fourth; L. Papirius Cursor, adduced towards the end of the speech, held the censorship in the 390s. Further, Sempronius' privileging of the past is shown by his expectation that the family traits of the Appii Claudii will determine the present Appius' behaviour. Sempronius opens his speech by pointing out to the plebeians that they are dealing with an o€spring of the family which has a long history of oppressing them; this family is more hostile to plebeian liberty than the Tarquins.56 And he tells Appius that he does not expect him to deviate from his family character.57 Indeed Livy's introduction to the speech takes the same view of what one can expect from an Appius Claudius: after many years of peace between the two orders, Livy says, a con¯ict arose from the very family which seemed destined to oppose the plebs and the tribunes.58 In addition, however, in order to combat the prescriptive weight of Appius' family history, Sempronius invokes the cumulative record of his predecessors in the censorship: for one hundred years they all resigned on schedule (9. 34. 10), and even L. Papirius Cursor, who inducted a new colleague rather than resign upon the death of the original one (thereby, it is implied, causing the Gallic sack)Ðeven Papirius resigned at the end of eighteen months (9. 34. 20±21). The exempla cited and the general line of argument imply that one should respect the past as far back as it goes. However, in this debate Appius Claudius and Sempronius both refer to a legal principle that contradicts that kind of 56 `Hoc est nomen multo quam Tarquiniorum infestius uestrae libertati' (9. 34. 5). 57 `Ne degeneraueris a familia imperiosissima' (9. 34. 15). 58 Permulti anni iam erant cum inter patricios magistratus tribunosque nulla certamina fuerant, cum ex ea familia, ²quae uelut fatales cum tribunis ac plebe erat,² certamen oritur (9. 33. 3). Despite the problematic state of the text, Livy must have been making some point along these lines.

128

Past and Present

thinking: namely that new laws supersede old ones.59 While Appius says `quodque (sc. populus) postremum iussisset id ius ratumque esset', Sempronius argues that a law remains in e€ect until a new one invalidates it, and in support he cites the Twelve Tables: `ubi duae contrariae leges sunt, semper antiquae obrogat noua'.60 Livy is the only direct source for this particular provision, and comparative evidence from other ®rst-century texts suggests that it belongs to that period and not to that of the Twelve Tables.61 Thus, Livy uses the debate as a vehicle to explore contemporary questions about the weight of the past. While the principle in question pertains speci®cally to jurisprudence, it re¯ects the belief that the recent past has more authority than does remote antiquity. So Sempronius' speech ends up acknowledging the competing claims of the near and distant past without giving priority to either one. With Fabius, the great conservative statesman of the second Punic war, we might expect an unequivocal endorsement of the distant past's greater authority. He himself draws attention to his cautious nature and strategy when he begins to address the Senate. And his speech, packed with historical exempla, indeed indicates that previous events are the key to guiding present conduct; as he says, what has happened before can happen again.62 He tells Scipio that if it is necessary to choose between defeating Hannibal and destroying Carthage, the ®rst is greater and more noteworthy because it will be the cause of the second.63 This position undoubtedly complements the fact that Fabius' defensive policy precedes Scipio's o€ensive strategy, but it also bespeaks a world view where chronological priority is an asset. It is also consistent with Fabius' logic about his own 59

See pp. 160±1 below on Valerius' lex Oppia speech. Appius: `And what the people has decreed most recently is deemed the law' (9. 33. 9); Sempronius: `Where two laws are in con¯ict, the new one supplants the old' (9. 34. 7). 61 See also 7. 17. 1 and Crawford (1996) ii. 721 (with references to the Rhet. ad Her. 1. 20 and 2. 15; Cic. Inv. rhet. 1. 17, 2. 116, and 2. 144±7; and Cic. Balb. 33). 62 `Quae acciderunt accidere possunt' (28. 41. 13). 63 `Si utrumque tuo ductu auspicioque ®eri potest, Hannibale hic uicto illic Carthaginem expugna; si alterautra uictoria nouis consulibus relinquenda est, prior cum maior clariorque, tum causa etiam insequentis fuerit' (28. 41. 10). 60

Past and Present

129

gloria, an area where he again appears to take an entirely rigid view of the past. As Scipio notes, Fabius depicts himself as an old man, well past the time of competition with Scipio, who is younger than Fabius' son. Fabius says that he must live and die with the reputation he has acquired and that Hannibal would not now be vulnerable to defeat had not Fabius contained him at the outset.64 The second part of this passage also contains the implied polemic that Fabius deserves more credit for making Hannibal vulnerable than anybody else ever could for his ultimate defeat; that is, that the earlier action is greater because it enables the subsequent. But the ®rst part of the passage makes a more explicit claim. Fabius sees his gloria as absolute; it is the same in his lifetime as it will be after his death. This idea, that the passage of time does not change one's reputation, looks very similar to the traditional reading of the monumentum in the Preface. Here, if anywhere, we have a view of the past as ®xed. But Scipio refutes this understanding of the past even as he refutes the speci®c arguments in Fabius' speech. He refuses to acknowledge that there is no rivalry between Fabius and himself. Instead, he argues that each man competes with the outstanding men of every age.65 So Scipio does not view the past as cut and dried, but rather in constant engagement with the present and the future. The same idea is implicit in the way he uses exempla. Fabius charged that Scipio's success in Spain predicts nothing about the campaign in Africa because the Spanish campaign was much less dicult than the African one will be. Scipio counters that it is easy after the factÐafter four Carthaginian armies have been defeated and put to ¯ight, after so many cities have been captured or subdued by fear, after all of Spain has been conquered, and so forthÐto trivialize his accomplishments; equally, once he has succeeded in Africa, it will be easy to belittle that victory (28. 43. 14±16). 64 `Cum ea gloria quae parta est uiuendum atque moriendum est; uincere ego prohibui Hannibalem ut a uobis quorum uigent nunc uires etiam uinci posset' (28. 40. 13±14). 65 `Maximo cuique id accidere animo certum habeo, ut se non cum praesentibus modo sed cum omnis aeui claris uiris comparent' (28. 43. 6).

130

Past and Present

Further, when Scipio responds to Fabius' interpretation of Regulus' invasion as an example of behaviour to avoid, he points out that Regulus was extremely successful at ®rst and indeed was never defeated by the Carthaginians themselves. In other words, Scipio recognizes that the lessons one learns from the past have a great deal to do with how one views it. Fabius' gloria is thus not absolute, but relative to that of his predecessors and successors; a campaign may fade in importance as others overshadow it, and even a speci®c event such as Regulus' African campaign changes its meaning depending both on where one sets its chronological limits and on what elements one considers integral to it.66 This idea is of course familiar from the malleability evidenced by Caudium and Cannae as exempla. Finally, Servilius' defence of Paullus' right to triumph ostensibly rests on the stereotypically Roman idea that the old ways are the best ways. He depicts Paullus' opponent Galba as a hasty young man who resents the measured wisdom of his general. In attacking Paullus, Galba is trying to put aside his apprenticeship, but, says Servilius, his method is entirely mistaken. He should be patient and wait until Paullus has left oce; alternatively, he can wait until he has entered a magistracy of his own (45. 37. 3±4). Contrasted with Galba's youthful impatience is Paullus' long record of service. Only his old-fashioned discipline (antiqua disciplina) kept the army from harm (45. 37. 2). The concluding section of the speech deals with the religious importance of holding the triumph: your ancestors (maiores uestri), charges Servilius, began and ended everything with the gods (45. 39. 10). In other words, Servilius bases his argument for Paullus' triumph on the importance of maintaining tradition. Balanced against this general line of argument, however, must be the fact that even Servilius recognizes the importance of supporting his case with exempla familiar to his listeners. They may not remember stories passed down by their parents about the old days; but they do remember great ®gures such as Fabius and Minucius from the second Punic 66 As we saw in Ch. 3 (pp. 94±5), because of his unusual instability, Regulus is a problematic exemplum, both for Scipio in his speech and for Livy generally. See Mix (1970) on the diculty posed by Regulus.

Past and Present

131

war only a generation earlier: `ita apud populum Romanum nihil ualuissent, qui ut uetera atque audita a parentibus suis non repetat, quae ambitione imperatorum clades acceptae sint, quae seueritate imperii uictoriae partae, proximo certe Punico bello quid inter M. Minucium magistrum equitum et Q. Fabium Maximum dictatorem interfuerit meminit' (45. 37. 12). So, even where Livy has a speaker appeal to conservative ideas about the past and its authority for guiding conduct, he also has the speaker acknowledge that the recent past means more to his audience than ancient precedents.67 To summarize then, we have four speeches from three distinct stages in Livy's narrative (Sempronius' in the second pentad, Fabius and Scipio's debate at the end of the third decade, and Servilius' in the middle of the ®fth). The speakers individually acknowledge their respective audiences' preference for exempla within their own memory, and they collectively represent a spectrum of views about the past. Fabius gives it the most weight. He is closely followed by Sempronius who, however, introduces the legal argument that new laws supersede old ones. Servilius shows great respect towards tradition, but uses the widest range of exempla. And Scipio fervently promotes the idea that since times change, the guidance of the past cannot be the decisive factor in determining policy. In each case it is possible to argue that the speaker's view of the past is shaped by his role in the narrative: the Appii Claudii o€er the ideal target for Sempronius; Fabius must defend his own strategy just as Scipio must advocate his; Servilius' speech must be in keeping with the characterization of Paullus as an exemplar of disciplina militaris. Taken together, however, the speeches demonstrate Livy's willingness to entertain and have articulated in his History di€erent views of the merits of antiquity versus the realities of changing circumstances. This willingness gives us quite a di€erent view of Livy than the one generated by the stories of junior and senior ocers. To reconcile these two sides of the historian, we must return to his programmatic statement in Preface 10. 67 The same preference appears in the Attic orators of the fourth century. See Pearson (1941) esp. 220 and 228.

132

Past and Present

CONCLUSIONS By way of conclusion, we can ®rst look at Livy's treatment of the consular elections for 192, where he focuses on the attractions of novelty: In exitu iam annus erat, et ambitio magis quam unquam alias exarserat consularibus comitiis. Multi et potentes petebant patricii plebeiique: P. Cornelius Cn. ®lius Scipio, qui ex Hispania prouincia nuper decesserat magnis rebus gestis, et L. Quinctius Flamininus, qui classi Graecia praefuerat, et Cn. Manlius Vulso, hi patricii; plebeii autem C. Laelius, Cn. Domitius, C. Livius Salinator, M'. Acilius. Sed omnium oculi in Quinctium Corneliumque coniecti; nam et in unum locum petebant ambo patricii, et rei militaris gloria recens utrumque commendabat. Ceterum ante omnia certamen accendebant fratres candidatorum, duo clarissimi aetatis suae imperatores. Maior gloria Scipionis et quo maior eo proprior inuidiam, Quincti recentior ut qui eo anno triumphasset. Accedebat quod alter decimum iam prope annum adsiduus in oculis hominum fuerat, quae res minus uerendos magnos homines ipsa satietate facit: consul iterum post deuictum Hannibalem censorque fuerat; in Quinctio noua et recentia omnia ad gratiam erant; nihil nec petierat a populo post triumphum nec adeptus erat. Pro fratre germano non patrueli se petere aiebat, pro legato et participe administrandi belli: se terra fratrem mari rem gessisse. His obtinuit ut praeferretur candidato quem Africanus frater ducebat, quem Cornelia gens Cornelio consule comitia habente, quem tantum praeiudicium senatus, uirum e ciuitate optimum iudicatum qui matrem Idaeam Pessinunte uenientem in urbem acciperet.68 68 It was now the end of the year, and the campaigning was ®ercer than ever before in the elections for the consulship. Many powerful men were after it, both patrician and plebeian. The patrician candidates were P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of Gnaeus, who had recently returned from his command in Spain where he had met with great success, and L. Quinctius Flamininus, who had commanded the ¯eet in Greece, and Cn. Manlius Vulso. As for the plebeians, they were C. Laelius, Cn. Domitius, C. Livius Salinator, and M'. Acilius. The eyes of all, however, were on Quinctius and Cornelius; for both patricians were contending for a single spot, and each was recommended by the fresh glory of his military activity. But above all the competition was heightened by the candidates' brothers, the two most outstanding generals of their age. Scipio's reputation was greater, and the more susceptible to envy for that very reason; Quinctius' was more recent since he had triumphed in that very year. Additionally, Scipio had been constantly in the public eye for nearly ten years, a fact which makes great men command less awe, by virtue of familiarity with them; after defeating Hannibal he had been consul for a

Past and Present

133

In this passage Livy lists multiple factors (the candidates' quali®cations, the intervention of relatives, envy, the in¯uence of family connections at the election) involved in the rivalry between two of the patrician candidates, yet he repeatedly stresses the signi®cance of the passage of time. The freshness of the accomplishments is of utmost importance to the voters. Because they are familiar with both men and their brothers, relevance is a lesser concern, and sheer novelty becomes the decisive factor. Livy himself shows surprise at their preference for Quinctius: he lists Africanus' candidate ®rst, describes Africanus' gloria as maior, and ends by emphasizing the factors in Publius' favour: not just the presence of a fellow gentilician running the elections, but the man's intrinsic worth. And yet he fully acknowledges that what really matters here is the novelty of T. Quinctius' deeds and popularity. Scipio Africanus may be more important, but his achievements are old and familiar, not new and striking. We are left with a consistent tension between the past as something enduring and valuable (the apparent permanence of the monumentum of Preface 10, seasoned generals as successful campaigners, the authority of exempla from antiquity) and as something mutable and replaceable (internal audiences rejecting history, new ways replacing old, exempla within living memory having greater relevance). The ®rst interpretation is the one traditionally ascribed to Livy.69 And it is not unfounded: he elaborates on the reactions of the older members of the Senate; through Sempronius' second time and also censor; in Quinctius' case, the novelty and freshness of everything worked to his advantage; he had neither sought nor obtained anything from the people since his triumph. He said that he campaigned for his full brother, not a cousin, and for his legate and aide in waging war; he had been in charge of land operations, and his brother naval a€airs. In this way he brought it about that his candidate was preferred to the one whom Africanus promoted as a brother, a member of the Cornelian family when another Cornelian was conducting the elections, and a man who received such premature approval from the Senate that he was judged the best man in the city to receive the Idaean mother on her arrival in Rome from Pessinus (35. 10. 1±9). 69 e.g. Ogilvie (1970) 24±5: `It is the preface of a small man, detached from a€airs, who writes less to preach political or moral lessons than to enshrine in literature persons and events that have given him a thrill of excitement as he studied them.'

134

Past and Present

speech he endorses the view that the family characteristics of the Appii Claudii are unchanging; his treatment of Fabius Cunctator is deferential; he himself considers Scipio Africanus' gloria more signi®cant than Flamininus'. And yet, in stating this last opinion, he implicitly endorses the view that Scipio himself puts forth in his debate with Fabius Cunctator: each man is in competition with his successors as well as his contemporaries. Just as Scipio's reputation has evidently displaced Fabius', so now in turn is Flamininus' overtaking Scipio's. In short, Livy recognizes that the relative weight of the past changes as time moves forward, and we must reject the ideas that he writes only to commemorate the outstanding positive and negative traits of famous Romans and that he regards the past as a series of ®xed lessons. So it is necessary to return to the Preface. In di€erentiating himself from his readers, he sets up exactly the tension we have been considering: Et legentium plerisque haud dubito quin primae origines proximaque originibus minus praebitura uoluptatis sint, festinantibus ad haec noua quibus iam pridem praeualentis populi uires se ipsae con®ciunt: ego contra hoc quoque laboris praemium petam, ut me a conspectu malorum quae nostra tot per annos uidit aetas, tantisper certe dum prisca illa tota mente repeto, auertam, omnis expers curae quae scribentis animum, etsi non ¯ectere a uero, sollicitum tamen ecere posset.70

Livy characterizes his audience as preferring the present. They rush towards their own times, showing more interest in what is closer to their experience, as do the imagined audiences of the speeches of Sempronius, Fabius Cunctator and Scipio Africanus, and Servilius, the senators who endorse the truce with Perseus, and the voters who choose Flamininus' brother. Yet in this passage the historian also 70 And I have no doubt that for most of my readers our very early origins and what happened immediately after will o€er less pleasure as they race towards these modern times in which the might of a people powerful for a long time is consuming itself: I, on the contrary, seek this also as a reward for my labour, that I can avert my eyes from the sight of the evils that our age has had in view for so many years at the same time as I devote my attention to those early origins, and remain free from every care that can plague the writer's mind, even if it cannot divert it from the truth (Praef. 4±5).

Past and Present

135

characterizes himself as preferring remote antiquity as a source of solace in the face of contemporary woes.71 Paradoxically, when we consider the History as a whole, it seems to accord with the sensibility Livy attributes to his readers rather than that which he claims for himself.72 He chooses to condense the early period and to expand as he draws closer to his own time.73 Because we have only summaries and fragments after Book 45, it is easy to forget that Livy pays far more attention to his own recent history than he does to the foundations of Rome or even the Punic wars. Livy may seem to dissociate himself from his readers in the Preface when he describes them as racing on to the present and himself as turning to the past to avoid contemporary troubles, but his presentation of Roman history tacitly acknowledges that the recent past has greater implications for the present than the remote origins of the city do. In other words, the distribution of exempla in the text, the variety of ideas about the past articulated in speeches, and Livy's own weighting of Roman history show that the value of studying history lies not only in the lessons one may ®nd in it, but more particularly in the process of learning to engage with the past and to take from it what applies most usefully to one's own situation. Throughout Livy's narrative the past o€ers a guide to 71 Livy's persona in the Preface is a complex construct, not to be taken at face value. See most recently Miles (1995) 52±4. 72 On the elaborate relationship Livy weaves between himself and his readers in the Preface, see Moles (1993). 73 See Badian (1966) 11 for the di€erent ways Roman historians distributed their coverage of the past. As Moles (1993) 161 has pointed out, the recent trend was for more strictly contemporary history. Both Moles (p. 157) and Henderson (1989) 77 have seen Livy as imposing on his readers a more expansive treatment of early Rome than he depicts them as desiring. However, even though Livy incorporates `ancient' history, his narrative is heavily weighted towards the more recent past, as Henderson himself showed (p. 77). (This point is absent from the considerably revised essay that appears under the same title in Henderson [1998] 301±19.) Toher (1990) argues that the writing of contemporary history went into remission after Actium because the disappearance of traditional political structures entailed a concomitant loss of the expected topics and aims of historiography; he suggests (pp. 151±3) that this change in¯uenced Livy as well, especially in the later books. Carter (1991) ascribes the change to the strained political climate. Either explanation is compatible with the possibility that Livy anticipates the diculty of writing traditional annalistic history under Augustus.

136

Past and Present

conduct; whatever period is studied, people are learning from history. The most important idea in Preface 10 is not the image of history as a repository of lessons, but rather the conception of it as something to be gazed at, pondered, and acted upon. Livy describes history as an activity: cognitio rerum has verbal force,74 and the in®nitive intueri, like the Thucydidean skopei9 n it glosses, contains within it the idea of contemplation as the basis for action, the imitere, capias, and uites of the ®nal clause.75 Read as a whole then, Preface 10 unites the two aspects of Livy we have seen in this chapter: the past has lessons, but the student takes an active part in determining their relevance to his circumstances. 74 See TLL s. v. (esp. II B) for the basic meaning of cognitio as the acquisition of knowledge rather than knowledge itself. 75 On this meaning of intueri, see OLD s. v. 6; for its relationship to skopei9 n (Thuc. 1. 21. 2 and 22. 4), see Moles (1993) 154 and Kraus (1994) 171.

5 Precedents and Change INTRODUCTION: EXEMPLA AS PRECEDENTS C. Decimius Flavus, the urban praetor of 184, died in oce. Among those who put themselves forward as his substitute was a certain Q. Fulvius Flaccus, who happened to be curule aedile at the time.1 His candidature split the tribunes: some thought there was no justi®cation for one man simultaneously to hold two magistracies, especially curule ones; and others judged that Flaccus should be exempt from the law so that the people could choose whomever they liked as their new praetor. At ®rst the consul was inclined to reject Flaccus' candidacy, and so he consulted the Senate in order to have its backing. At the meeting, he told the senators no law or precedent permitted a curule aedile to seek a praetorship: conuocatis patribus referre se ad eos dixit quod nec iure ullo nec exemplo tolerabili liberae ciuitati aedilis curulis designatus praeturam peteret (39. 39. 6). The Senate advised the consul to appeal directly to Flaccus, who gave an evasive reply and continued to compete for votes. As the election began, it looked as if he would win. The consul reconferred with the Senate and publicly asked Flaccus to give up his bid for the second oce. The candidate refused; the tribunes started to argue both among themselves and with the consul; the consul met with the Senate one more time; and the Senate abruptly terminated the election on the grounds that there were sucient praetors for the year (39. 39. 1±15). The episode has much in common with some of the situations considered in Chapter 3. The consul o€ers the past as a guide to conduct. His argument appears reasonable, 1 Livy refers to him as the curule aedile designate, but see Astin (1962) 253 with n. 8.

138

Precedents and Change

inasmuch as the Senate accepts it. Ultimately, however, the problem is resolved not by reference to previously established standards, but by pre-emptive action. In one respect, however, this episode may appear somewhat di€erent. Up to this point, the word exemplum has generally referred to what we might call a `specimen of conduct', or a model of behaviour, whether admirable or despicable.2 Here it is better translated `precedent'. Conventionally, when scholars speak of exempla in classical authors, they mean historical or moral examples, presumably in accordance with de®nitions found in rhetorical treatises, which focus on the role of exempla in persuasive speech.3 And yet in Latin literature generally, the word exemplum covers a wide range of meanings,4 and as Price points out, neither Cicero nor Quintilian consistently distinguishes between legal precedents and historical examples.5 Signi®cantly for our discussion, in her systematic investigation of the meanings of exemplum, Kornhardt begins the section on its place in Roman constitutional law with three passages from Livy,6 and subsequently points out that when the categories of Greek rhetorical theory were arti®cially applied to Roman legal exempla, constitutional and sacral ones were quickly classi®ed with historical examples while those from Roman civil law were treated separately.7 Certainly Livy regularly uses the word exem2

See OLD, s.v. exemplum, 1b for the phrase `specimen of conduct'. See nn. 15 and 16 in the Introduction. See the conspectus in TLL and OLD s.v. exemplum. Kornhardt, the author of the TLL article, o€ers an extended treatment in her 1936 dissertation. Because of its breadth of connotations, the word is extremely dicult to de®ne, and studies of exempla, whether as presented in rhetorical treatises or as employed by individual authors (cf. works cited in n. 16 of the Introduction), generally attempt to grapple with the semantic questions involved and to formulate some kind of working de®nition. 5 B. J. Price (1975) 112±13, 118, and 148±9. Ramage (1987) 90±1 discusses a similar overlap between legal and moral connotations in a crucial sentence of the Res Gestae: legibus novis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi (RG 8. 5). I will return to this passage in the ®nal chapter (pp. 173 and 195±6). 6 31. 20. 1±6, 27. 6. 3±8, and 27. 8. 8±10. 7 Kornhardt (1936) 65±6 and 83. Angelos Chaniotis (see n. 13 of the Introduction) has observed how moral and legal historical arguments were intertwined in Greek diplomacy. 3 4

Precedents and Change

139

plum to refer to legal and constitutional matters:8 for example, Sp. Maelius appears to be setting a bad precedent in undertaking the grain supply on his own initiative;9 and Cato himself is concerned about the precedent involved in repealing the lex Oppia.10 It is then worth considering this use of exempla, especially in light of the complex relationship between past and present that became apparent in the preceding chapter. Unlike historical and moral exempla, which have emerged as supple and susceptible to interpretation, exempla in the form of precedents appear rather in¯exible. An episode from the early Republic o€ers a good example. According to Livy, in 446 the people of Ardea and Aricia ask the Romans to adjudicate a land dispute for them. A plebeian by the name of P. Scaptius tries to convince his fellow citizens that the land actually belongs to them. Some of the senators plead with the plebeians not to coopt the property because to do so would create a bad precedent: orare ne pessimum facinus peiore exemplo admitterent iudices in suam rem litem uertendo (3. 72. 2). Nevertheless the plebeians appropriate the land. And yet, when the Ardeans return and ask for it back, the response from the senators is that they have no precedent to reverse a decision of the people: ab senatu responsum est iudicium populi rescindi ab senatu non posse, praeterquam quod nullo nec exemplo nec iure ®eret (4. 7. 5). So, even though the patricians supposedly opposed the acquisition of the land in the ®rst place, respect for precedent governs their reply to the Ardeans. It is paradoxical, but the concern for creating precedent that they initially showed makes sense in light of their subsequent insistence on following it. The responses to the two Ardean embassies suggest that once 8 e.g. 2. 30. 1, 3. 35. 8, 3. 72. 2, 4. 7. 5, 4. 16. 4, 5. 29. 7, 6. 38. 10, 7. 16. 8, 10. 15. 11, 10. 24. 17, 24. 9. 10, 26. 2. 2, 27. 6. 4, 6, 8, 27. 8. 9, 29. 37. 15, 31. 20. 3, 31. 20. 6, 31. 48. 3, 34. 33. 8, 36. 39. 10, 37. 1. 9, 38. 50. 3, 38. 56. 10, 39. 5. 2, 39. 28. 2, 39. 29. 5, and 42. 1. 12. I will discuss several of these passages in this chapter. 9 Tum Sp. Maelius ex equestri ordine, ut illis temporibus praediues, rem utilem pessimo exemplo, peiore consilio est adgressus (4. 13. 1); see pp. 82±4. 10 `Atque ego uix statuere apud animum meum possum utrum peior ipsa res an peiore exemplo agatur' (34. 2. 4). See pp. 97±8.

140

Precedents and Change

the Romans have a precedent, they accept its authority as absolute.11 Concern for precedent thus tends to privilege conservative, pre-approved behaviour. Particularly in constitutional matters, Livy's Romans appear obsessed with maintaining tradition. Apparently there is no room here for the willingness to discard, reinterpret, or even debate the lessons of the past such as we have previously seen. However, an examination of precedents, as the kind of exempla that seem most resistant to change, and of the attitude that underlies their use reveals that concern for precedent turns out to include some complexity and variety. In the next part of the chapter I shall look at debates over the right to triumph in order to trace the history of precedents in this particular area. Then I shall turn to places where precedents are questioned and challenged. As with other kinds of exempla, it becomes clear that the value of precedents is not a mechanical reproduction of the past, but a thoughtful adaptation of it for contemporary use. TRIUMPHS Livy regularly records triumphs from Romulus on (although he does not mention all those known from other literary sources and the Fasti Triumphales).12 For the ®rst ®ve and a half centuries, the only controversy to arise concerns the question of who authorizes the triumph.13 11 It should be noted, however, that in cases where a person or event is treated as a possible exemplum for the future, the potentiality is not often realized; exempla anticipated in this way are generally less e€ective in persuasive speech than references to recognized events of the past. So, for example, when Ap. Claudius the decemvir is arrested, he makes the desperate plea that he will be an example for the future as to whether the new laws support tyranny or freedom (3. 56. 13). Not surprisingly, his bid for tribunician intervention fails. Note also P. Decius Mus' argument about the exemplary importance of relying on sortition for the selection of provincial commands (10. 24. 17) and the Achaeans' attempt to persuade Flamininus to annihilate Nabis to prevent future assaults on libertas (34. 33. 5±9). Neither of these sway the intended audience. 12 Ogilvie (1970) 272 ad 2. 16. 1 identi®es the triumph of P. Postumius and M. Valerius in 505 as the ®rst republican triumph Livy includes. Although he notes that the Fasti Triumphales indicate a triumph for P. Valerius Publicola in 509, he overlooks Livy's reference to it: nam postquam inluxit nec quisquam hostium in conspectu erat, P. Valerius consul spolia legit triumphansque inde Romam rediit (2. 7. 3). 13 This question has interested modern scholarship as well. See Mommsen

Precedents and Change

141

Livy ®rst indicates debate over this point in 449 when the Senate refuses a triumph to the consuls and a tribune threatens to intervene. The senators object on multiple grounds: the consuls wished to triumph over the patres, not over their enemies; not recognition for courage, but gratia (political favour) of the tribune was being sought in exchange for a personal service; the evaluation and discussion of this honour had always been the jurisdiction of the Senate; not even the kings had impinged on the Senate's sovereign power.14 Several features of this story will recur: ®rst the intervention or threatened intervention of a tribune; second, accusations of gratia; third, an appeal to the past as a standard for conduct; and fourth, a general resistance to innovation. Despite this last point, the people approve the triumph. Livy carefully notes that this was the ®rst triumph to take place by popular vote, without the authority of the Senate (3. 63. 11).15 Indeed, Livy always gives attention to innovation in triumphal procedure: for example, the ®rst triumph after the magistracy expired (8. 26. 7); the ®rst time the aediles decorate the forum (9. 40. 16); the ®rst naval triumph (Per. 17); the ®rst taking of a cognomen from the conquered people (30. 45. 6±7); the ®rst triumph without a military victory (40. 38. 9).16 In general, however, the ®rst ®fty-four (1908) 134 and Ehlers (1939) 499. The most comprehensive recent treatment of the triumph is Versnel (1970). 14 . . . de patribus, non de hostibus consules triumphare uelle gratiamque pro priuato merito in tribunum, non pro uirtute honorem peti. Nunquam ante de triumpho per populum actum; semper aestimationem arbitriumque eius honoris penes senatum fuisse; ne reges quidem maiestatem summi ordinis imminuisse (3. 63. 9). 15 Other instances of this kind of triumph are C. Marcius Rutulus (7. 17. 9), L. Postumius Megellus (10. 37. 6±12), and C. Flaminius (21. 63. 2). Livy does not elaborate on the circumstances of Marcius' triumph. Postumius' case contains hints of political rivalry and tribunician intervention as does that of Flaminius. Postumius gives a speech in which he defends his willingness to subvert senatorial authority with the exempla of Valerius and Horatius, the consuls of 449, and Marcius. If Livy recorded the debate over Flaminius' triumph, he would have done so in Book 20; for the evidence, see MRR I. 232. 16 Other innovations will be considered in the course of examining the debates. See Steele (1904) 37 on Livy's registering of additions to the Romans' political organization. Note that according to Seneca (De uit. brev. 13. 5) it was M'. Valerius Maximus Messalla (cos. 263) who ®rst had a cognomen derived from a victory.

142

Precedents and Change

triumphs described in the extant books take place with very little comment. Livy's interest in recording additions to the triumphs takes on greater signi®cance in light of the arguments over adapting the ceremony that occur from the middle of the second Punic war to Paullus' triumph after Pydna.17 In this period, the number of triumphal celebrations rose sharply: in the twenty-two years preceding the second Punic war, there were ®fteen triumphs; in the thirty years after, there were thirty-six. In addition, the triumph on the Alban Mount was revived and celebrated three times,18 and the ovation was revived and celebrated eight times.19 Then, in the 170s, this ¯urry of celebratory activity came to an end: the overall number of triumphs tapered o€; the ®nal triumph on the Alban Mount took place in 172; and there were no ovations for at least forty years after 174.20 There are various explanations for the upsurge and decline of triumphs, including the intensive overseas expansion in the period; further, the evidence for factional politics and aristocratic competition suggests that the triumph had become a battleground for both.21 But, 17 For other treatments of the triumphs in this period, see e.g. Phillips (1974), Richardson (1975), and Develin (1978). 18 The triumph on the Alban Mount consisted of riding up the Mons Albanus and o€ering sacri®ce at the temple of Jupiter there. Because the celebration took place outside the pomerium, the magistrate did not require the support either of the Senate, which normally showed its approval by asking a tribune to have the comitia tributa extend the magistrate's imperium within the pomerium, or that of the Roman people, who, assembled as the comitia tributa, would do the actual voting. See Versnel (1970) 190±3 for the pomerium and imperium; see Richardson (1975) 59 for the roles of Senate and people. However, because the Alban Mount triumph was outside the city, there would be fewer spectators. Furthermore, without the Senate's ®nancial support, the magistrate had to pay all expenses himself (Richardson, p. 60). The ®rst attested triumph on the Alban Mount was in 231, but speculation as to the genuine antiquity of the rite goes back to Niebuhr. See AlfoÈldi (1965) 391±2, and the comments of Bonfante Warren (1970) 50 n. 6 on his interpretation. 19 Dionysius of Halicarnassus outlines the di€erences between the ovation and the triumph (5. 47. 3); see also Rohde (1942) 1890±1 and 1898±1900. Essentially, the ovation was a much smaller ceremony in which the general entered the city on foot or horseback. 20 On these statistics, see Richardson (1975) 50±7. 21 Richardson (1975) passim attributes the change to the higher number of military commands available. Develin (1978) attempts to refute Richardson's

Precedents and Change

143

however we choose to explain this phenomenal stage in the triumph's history, it is noteworthy that Livy represents the issues and arguments as being based on precedent. A comparison of the arguments in the major debates reveals the principles that his Romans use in applying precedents.22 The ®rst debate is that over the triumph of M. Claudius Marcellus (26. 21. 1±10). In 211 Marcellus returns from Sicily where he has successfully completed the siege of Syracuse and brought other towns into submission. He presents himself before the Senate with an account of his accomplishments and, having deplored the absence of his army, asks for a triumph. The Senate refuses this request but, after extensive discussion, decides to award Marcellus an ovation instead. Livy notes the detailed nature of this discussion, making evident the Senate's perplexity: cum multis uerbis actum esset utrum minus conueniret, cuius nomine absentis ob res prospere ductu eius gestas supplicatio decreta foret et dis immortalibus habitus honos, ei praesenti negare triumphum, an quem tradere exercitum successori thesis that this was a period of unusual activity, but he agrees with Richardson on many small points and reaches the same general conclusion about adaptation to changing circumstances. For a detailed, if somewhat outdated, study of the politics of the period, see Scullard (1951). 22 I have chosen to focus on the eleven debates that turn on precedents and result in some kind of triumphal celebration. The only debate with a positive outcome that does not rely on the interpretation of precedents is that over L. Scipio's triumph (37. 58. 6±59. 1). In many cases the Senate decrees a triumph with apparent enthusiasm (Livy's preferred phrase is magno consensu): M. Claudius Marcellus (33. 37. 9); M'. Acilius Glabrio (37. 46. 2); L. Aemilius Regillus (37. 58. 3); and C. Calpurnius Piso and L. Quinctius Crispinus (39. 42. 2). The triumph of T. Quinctius Flamininus is voted ab lubentibus (34. 52. 3). In other cases Livy does not mention any opposition or acrimony: Q. Minucius Thermus (34. 10. 6); M. Porcius Cato (34. 46. 2); L. Aemilius Paullus (40. 34. 7); C. Claudius Pulcher (41. 13. 6); Cn. Octavius and L. Anicius (45. 35. 4±5). In a few other cases the text is missing or corrupt: Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (his ®rst) and L. Postumius Albinus (41. 7. 1±3) and the second triumph of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (41. 28. 9). Only with Q. Fulvius Flaccus' triumphs does Livy hint at intrigue without expanding the narrative. The fact that he was elected consul for 179 while he was waiting outside the pomerium to be granted a triumph for his activities as praetor in 182 suggests that he had powerful friends (40. 43. 4±7); and Livy describes the vote over his second triumph as based more on gratia than on the signi®cance of his accomplishments (40. 59. 1).

144

Precedents and Change

iussissentÐquod nisi manente in prouincia bello non decernereturÐeum quasi debellato triumphare cum exercitus testis meriti atque immeriti triumphi abesset, medium uisum ut ouans urbem iniret.23

Livy's extensive use of subordination here mirrors the complexity of the Senate's thinking and the apparently genuine uncertainty. That Marcellus deserves recognition is clear: the supplicatio and the honos testify to that, as does the eventual unanimity of Senate and tribunes (26. 21. 5). The problem, however, is how he can triumph when he has left the army behind and when the army is a crucial part of the triumph.24 This set of circumstances has never arisen before. Faced with a novel situation, the Senate resolves on the ovation, which has not been celebrated for 150 years;25 that is, without precedents to provide guidance, the Senate prefers to revive an old practice rather than to create a new one. As Develin points out, this is a compromise, one that will prove useful over the next few decades.26 Apparently on his own initiative, Marcellus also celebrates a triumph on the Alban Mount, which Livy refers to only in passing.27 A similar problem arises in 207 when M. Livius Salinator and C. Claudius Nero return to Rome after their great success at the Metaurus (28. 9. 7±20). The Senate votes them both a triumph. The two consuls agree between 23 There was an extended discussion as to which was less ®tting: to deny a triumph to someone in person in whose name they had decreed a supplication and paid tribute to the gods for his successful accomplishments in his absence; or to grant him a triumph, as if the con¯ict were over, when in fact they had directed him to hand his army over to his successorÐan action that they would not have taken unless the con¯ict in the province were on-going. They decided on the ovation as a middle course (26. 21. 3±4). 24 A triumph without a parade of soldiers would have been visually ridiculous, as Livy's description of Furius Purpurio's triumph will show (31. 49. 3). If, as Bonfante Warren (1970) 53±4 and 66 argues, the triumph began as a purifying ritual for the army, then the absence of the troops makes the celebration psychologically meaningless as well. 25 The last man to hold one was M. Fabius Ambustus in 360 (Livy 7. 11. 9). There is some possibility that M'. Curius Dentatus received an ovation in 290 or 289; see Richardson (1975) 54 with n. 33. 26 Develin (1978) 432. 27 Richardson (1975) 55 points out that the revival of the triumph on the Alban Mount evidences antiquarian interests as does Marcellus' presentation of the spolia opima in 222. Marcellus may then have been behind the revival of the ovation too.

Precedents and Change

145

themselves that they should triumph together because they fought together, but that because they fought in Salinator's province under his auspices and because Nero's army was left in the ®eld, Livius will ride in the triumphal chariot and lead the army while Nero will process on horseback, unaccompanied by soldiers. Livy presents this as an ad hoc solution.28 The consuls ®nd themselves in an unprecedented situation and devise the essentially conservative plan of adapting the triumph as they know it to that situation. By contrast, when the past does provide guidelines, Senate and generals alike tend to follow them. For instance, Scipio Africanus returns from Spain and asks for a triumph without any expectation of receiving one: ob has res gestas magis temptata est triumphi spes quam petita pertinaciter, quia neminem ad eam diem triumphasse qui sine magistratu res gessisset constabat (28. 38. 4). Constabat here implies unanimity. The triumph is denied almost before it is asked for, and the suppression of any names enhances the impersonal quality of the decision. The assumption is that if a rule exists, it will be followed. Here, since there is no precedent for a priuatus with imperium to triumph, of course this particular priuatus will not do so.29 After the second Punic war the right to triumph becomes particularly controversial. The discussions in the Senate are often overtly political; but signi®cantly, arguments, whether for or against, are construed in terms of precedents. First, in 200, L. Cornelius Lentulus asks for a triumph upon his return from Spain (31. 20. 1±7). When Scipio left in 206, Lentulus remained in his place, apparently as another priuatus with imperium (28. 38. 1). He was elected curule aedile while he was away (29. 11. 12), and his command was extended (29. 13. 7 and 30. 2. 6±7). The Senate concurs that his actions merit a triumph, but they have no precedent for 28 On the basis of this episode, Mommsen (1887) 125 concluded that if colleagues of equal rank ®ght on the same day, the one holding the auspices and having imperium (i.e. the consul in whose province the ®ghting occurs) receives the triumph. Livy's account gives little basis for the absoluteness of this procedure. 29 See Richardson (1975) 52 for a discussion and refutation of the evidence from Polybius and Appian that Scipio did celebrate a triumph for his command in Spain.

146

Precedents and Change

someone who was neither dictator nor consul nor praetor to triumph: res triumpho dignas esse censebat senatus, sed exemplum a maioribus non accepisse ut qui neque dictator neque consul neque praetor res gessisset triumpharet (31. 20. 3). Here we see the same rule that prevented Scipio's triumph, but this time the discussion continues until Lentulus is awarded an ovation, an honour whose revival again provides a means of coping with a new situation.30 It is true that at this stage in the debate, a tribune of the plebs, Ti. Sempronius Longus, intervenes to point out that there is no more a precedent for an ovation under these circumstances than there is for a triumph: nihilo magis id more maiorum aut ullo exemplo futurum diceret (31. 20. 5). He yields, however, to the consensus of opinion, and the debate as a whole shows that precedents provide the terms on which decisions are made. Both the Senate and Longus operate on the expectation that precedents guide conduct. And even here, where the Senate is willing to compromise, it falls back on an old ceremony that has recently been revived. Livy does not explain why Lentulus succeeds where Scipio failed. We might speculate about the personal politics involved, or the answer may be that Lentulus became a magistrate during his tenure of command while Scipio remained a priuatus. In any case, as the less prestigious of the two ceremonies, the ovation may have been a more acceptable solution in a situation where the Senate wanted to recognize the candidate but felt that a triumph was not in keeping with the precedents. The next debate arises from an extremely complicated sequence of events. L. Furius Purpurio is praetor for Gaul in 200. An unexpected uprising of several tribes, led by Hamilcar, a Carthaginian general who survived the Metaurus, causes Purpurio to send to the Senate for reinforcements so that he can answer Cremona's plea for help (31. 10. 1±7). The Senate decides that the consul for Italy, C. Aurelius Cotta, should order his troops to assemble in Ariminum instead of Etruria as originally arranged. From Ariminum Cotta can lead them against the Gauls or, if he 30

Briscoe (1973) 110 attributes the debate to political manoeuvring.

Precedents and Change

147

has too many responsibilities to leave Rome, he can instruct the praetor to take over the consular army and send his own to Etruria.31 When Cotta's forces arrive at Ariminum without him, Purpurio sends his to Etruria and leads those of Cotta to Cremona. His decisive victory over the Gauls prompts three days of public thanksgiving at Rome (31. 21. 1±22. 1). When Cotta ®nally arrives in Gaul, he is furious with Purpurio for ®ghting in his absence and sends him to Etruria. The latter, ®nding nothing to do there and intent on receiving a triumph, proceeds directly to Rome so that he can make his bid in Cotta's absence (31. 47. 4±7). Livy says that Purpurio prevailed with a large part of the Senate through the magnitudo of his deeds and through gratia (31. 48. 1). The older members, however, were opposed both because he was operating with another's army and because he left the province with the desire of snatching an opportunity for a triumph; this he had done without a precedent: maiores natu negabant triumphum et quod alieno exercitu rem gessisset, et quod prouinciam reliquisset cupiditate rapiendi per occasionem triumphi; id uero eum nullo exemplo fecisse (31. 48. 2). This account presents diculties. The antecedent of the id is uncertain. It may refer to both grounds for objection, and certainly there is no previous case of one commander ®ghting with another's army.32 Prouinciam presumably refers to Etruria, but, strictly speaking, Gaul was Purpurio's province. He left it on Cotta's orders, and he fought with Cotta's army because of a senatorial decree. The Senate is thus facing a genuinely messy situation. In the debate, both Purpurio's opponents and his adherents show a concern for precedent. His opponents, the maiores 31 His litteris recitatis decreuerunt ut C. Aurelius consul exercitum, cui in Etruriam ad conueniendum diem edixerat, Arimini eadem die adesse iuberet et aut ipse, si per commodum rei publicae posset, ad opprimendum Gallicum tumultum pro®cisceretur, aut Q. Minucio praetori scriberet ut cum ad eum legiones ex Etruria uenissent, missis in uicem earum quinque milibus sociorum quae interim Etruriae praesidio essent, pro®cisceretur ipse ad coloniam liberandam obsidione (31. 11. 1±3). There is some textual uncertainty surrounding the name of the praetor, but the context makes it clear that Purpurio must be meant. 32 W±M ad loc.

148

Precedents and Change

natu, want to deny the triumph on the grounds that the situation is unprecedented. The consulares further think he should have waited for the consul and that now the Senate should wait to hear from both men together. Purpurio and his supporters point to all the traditional requirements he can meet: the magnitude of his achievements, his magistracy, and his holding of the auspices.33 Those siding with Purpurio then go on to argue that either the Senate was at fault for allowing the situation to arise in the ®rst place or it was Cotta's error not to have gone to Ariminum immediately (31. 48. 8±10). The complex scenario has no constitutionally clear-cut resolution. In the end, the gratia of the praetor on the spot outweighs the maiestas of the absent consul, and Purpurio celebrates his triumph. He has to do so, however, without any prisoners, booty, or accompanying army and, as Livy concludes, everything but the victory belongs to the consul (31. 49. 3). When Cotta returns to Rome, he objects to the triumph, though not for the anticipated reason that the Senate had not waited for him before deciding. Cotta complains that they had only the testimony of Purpurio for his accomplishments. He claims that their ancestors had established that the other ocers and the soldiers should be present so that the Roman people could see witnesses of the deeds of the man who was being honoured: maiores ideo instituisse ut legati tribuni centuriones milites denique triumpho adessent, ut testes rerum gestarum eius cui tantus honos haberetur populus Romanus uideret (31. 49. 10).34 Cotta's objection that Purpurio was leading someone else's army recalls the diculty over Marcellus' triumph: neither commander had an army to lead in his triumph. Cotta forti®es his objection by ascribing it to the maiores. No evidence suggests that this point was discussed before Marcellus' case, but the reference to the maiores re¯ects a desire to make the practice 33 Magna pars senatus nihil praeter res gestas et an in magistratu suisque auspiciis gessisset censebant spectare senatum debere (31. 48. 6). 34 Madvig (1877) 472±3 conjectured testes here; see also Briscoe (1973) 162± 3. Madvig's suggestion has the bene®t of two close parallels: the Marcellus passage (26. 21. 4) and another in Cn. Manlius' speech in defence of his triumph (38. 49. 11).

Precedents and Change

149

appear well-established.35 The more novel something is, the more it requires precedents.36 In short, all three parties concernedÐPurpurio's opponents, Purpurio's supporters, and CottaÐmake arguments based on precedent. We can expect this behaviour of the maiores natu; as the speakers on the losing side of the debates, the seniores who resent the new diplomacy, and the veteran commanders bear witness, Livy characterizes older men as conservative.37 Initially Purpurio and his friends use the same tactics and try to show how he meets the standard criteria for a triumph. Cotta's reference to the maiores indicates his recognition of the weight of the past. All three parties thus draw on and manipulate the idea that precedents legitimate an activity. The next triumph Livy records takes place in 197 (33. 22. 1±23. 9). The consuls, C. Cornelius Cethegus and Q. Minucius Rufus, return from their respective commands. Two tribunes refuse their joint request for a triumph on the grounds that the consuls are not equally deserving. Although the consuls support each other, eventually they have to yield. Cethegus then receives a triumph by unanimous consent. Despite the fact that the tribunes have already questioned the signi®cance of Minucius' accomplishments and mentioned the number of soldiers and military tribunes he lost, he is prepared to press ahead with his request until he sees that the entire Senate is against him. Minucius determines to triumph instead on the Alban Mount, by the example of many famous men: Q. Minucius temptata tantum relatione, cum aduersum omnem senatum uideret, in monte Albano se triumphaturum et iure imperii consularis et multorum clarorum uirorum exemplo dixit (33. 23. 3).38 The phrase multorum clarorum uirorum exemplo 35 Richardson (1975) 61. Bettini (1991) 170 discusses Ulpian's de®nition of maiores as ancestors beyond the fourth generation (Dig. 2. 4. 4. 2). We need not take Cotta (or Livy) literally here, but as we saw in the last chapter, age is an asset in many aspects of Roman culture. 36 Compare Spiegel (1975) on the medieval world's dependence on the past as a source of legitimation. 37 But see pp. 152±3 below on Manlius' opponents. 38 As both W±M and Briscoe (1973) 292±3 note on this passage, the phrase iure imperii consularis argues that senatorial permission was not necessary for a

150

Precedents and Change

is, however, an exaggeration. Only two men had held triumphs on the Alban Mount, Marcellus in 211, as we saw, and C. Papirius Maso in 231.39 Minucius is trying to give himself precedents to validate his course of action. The two subsequent references to the Alban triumph also make a claim for its respectability. When in 172 C. Cicereius asks for and is denied a triumph, he holds one on the Alban Mount instead and emphasizes that his right to do so without public authorization has a long history: postulatoque frustra triumpho, in monte Albano quod iam in morem uenerat ut sine publica auctoritate ®eret (42. 21. 7). Despite his insistence, this kind of triumph had been celebrated only three times previously. Similarly, when M. Servilius is defending Aemilius Paullus' right to triumph, he says, multi etiam, qui ab senatu non impetrarunt triumphum, in monte Albano triumpharunt (45. 38. 4). Here the use of multi is meant to lend distinction to the Alban Mount triumph by making it sound well established. And yet to triumph without the Senate's or the people's backing was not nearly as glorious; Livy refers to Minucius' triumph as inhonoratior (33. 23. 8). Precisely because the Alban Mount triumph was a less honourable option, those who resort to it must assert its pedigree in order to make it sound as impressive as possible. By contrast, when a precedent exists, it o€ers guidelines for conduct. When M. Helvius returns from his praetorship in Spain and asks for a triumph, his request is refused (34. 10. 1±6). Livy says causa triumphi negandi senatui fuit quod alieno auspicio et in aliena prouincia pugnasset (34. 10. 5). We have seen both these points discussed before with Nero and Salinator (28. 9. 10) and with Purpurio (31. 48. 1±9). It is not clear under whose auspices and in whose province Helvius was ®ghting. War broke out in his province, but Livy provides no details of Helvius' activities (33. 21. 6±9). triumph. L. Postumius Megellus is also prepared to triumph on his own authority (10. 37. 8). 39 Livy treated the events of 231 in the now lost Book 20, but all the extant sources for Papirius' triumph concur that he was the ®rst to hold one on the Alban Mount: the epigraphic evidence is available in Degrassi (1947) pp. 78± 9; the literary sources are Pliny NH 15. 126 (= Piso, HRR frg. 31) and Val. Max. 3. 6. 5.

Precedents and Change

151

He may have taken over in Hither Spain when his colleague there died in battle (33. 25. 9). The only military success Livy mentions is the defeat of the Celtiberians just before the request for the triumph. In this case Helvius was travelling out of his province with an escort, which he subsequently sent back to Ap. Claudius in Farther Spain (34. 10. 1±3). In either case, the circumstances do not matter so much as the application of the rules. As with Scipio Africanus' tentative bid for a triumph in 206, the expectation here is that the existence of a precedent necessitates its observance. Thus a comparison of Minucius and Helvius reveals two ways precedents function. While a precedent should be followed if one exists, there is at the same time a strong incentive to invent or reinforce precedents in order to justify an activity. The arguments over P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica's triumph in 191 fall mostly into the second category (36. 39. 3±40. 11). During his consulship he defeats the Boii so thoroughly that they simply surrender (36. 38. 5±7). Nasica dismisses his army and tells the men to reassemble in Rome for the triumph. Once again a tribune of the plebs poses an obstacle. P. Sempronius Blaesus thinks that the triumph should be deferred because war with the Boii is always linked to war with the Ligurians. Nasica should have taken and should still take his army to help Q. Minucius the praetor in Liguria. Then he can have his triumph, as a proconsul, just as many have before him: deuictis Liguribus paucos post menses proconsulem P. Cornelium, multorum exemplo qui in magistratu non triumphauerunt, triumphaturum esse (36. 39. 10). While triumphing as a promagistrate had become an increasingly common practice,40 the link between the Boii and the Ligurii is rather tenuous.41 But, however valid or feeble the precedents Blaesus cites, the point is that he sees them as essential to his argument. Discernible in Nasica's reply (36. 40. 1±9) are traces of the 40 The ®rst certain promagisterial triumph is that of Q. Publilius Philo in 326, and the practice is rare until the middle of the third century when the increased duration and more distant locations of campaigns and wars appear to have contributed to the increased frequency of these delayed victory celebrations. For the epigraphic evidence, see Degrassi (1947) pp. 70±9. 41 Briscoe (1981) 279.

152

Precedents and Change

other way of using precedents. The consul's points illustrate that he acted in accordance with previous practice: it would have been wrong to enter Minucius' province without senatorial authority;42 and his success merits a triumph because he has killed more Gauls than any previous commander (36. 40. 1±4). Yet Livy has constructed Nasica's argument not to demonstrate the ful®lment of constitutional requirements, usually expressed as precedents, but rather to highlight the signi®cance of his victory. Although rules were eventually devised to calibrate the importance of the general's accomplishments in addition to his satisfactory observance of procedure,43 in this period the Senate's decision never turns on the claims made by commanders about the magnitude of their achievements.44 The debate over Cn. Manlius Vulso's triumph (38. 44. 9± 50. 3) is familiar from Chapter 3. Upon his return from Asia Minor, he seeks a triumph which L. Aemilius Paullus and L. Furius Purpurio oppose on the grounds that neither the Senate nor the Roman people had authorized his Gallic campaign and that he waged it imprudently. The fact that Manlius' opponents are Paullus and Purpurio indicates that this kind of dispute about precedent is not speci®c to any particular ®gures. When his triumph was debated thirteen years earlier, Purpurio advocated expanding the rules to ®t his circumstances.45 Here, however, he and Paullus argue on strict procedural grounds. Similarly when Ser. Galba questions Paullus' right to triumph twenty years later, Servilius puts Paullus on the untraditional side by asserting his right to a triumph on the Alban Mount (45. 38. 4). Manlius also points up the conventions involved in these when Livy has him mock the tradition that tribunes always block triumphs. Manlius says he owes the tribunes gratia for not doing so in 42

W±M ad 36. 40. 1. Valerius Maximus says that ®ve thousand enemy soldiers must have died in a single battle (2. 8. 1). This requirement cannot have obtained in Nasica's time since, as Versnel (1970) 167 points out, P. Cornelius Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus triumphed in 180 without having killed anyone (40. 38. 9). Similarly the requirement that the enemy cannot be an ignoble one, such as slaves or pirates (Gell. 5. 6. 21), presumably arose only in the late Republic (Versnel [1970] 165). 44 See the assertions of Manlius Vulso in the next debate. 45 See the discussion above (pp. 147±8). 43

Precedents and Change

153

his case; but imagine his surprise to ®nd as his opponents the very men whom he would have called on to defend his right if the tribunes had opposed him (38. 47. 1±4). In the debate itself, both sides draw on precedent. Paullus and Purpurio dwell on the examples of the Scipios, Acilius, and Flamininus, all of whom followed proper procedure and received triumphs, as can the present consuls, who have obeyed the Senate (38. 46. 9±15). Manlius, on the other hand, presents a precedent in Q. Fabius Labeo, who did not even see the enemy (38. 47. 5).46 Manlius fought ten thousand in a pitched battle, captured or killed more than forty thousand, and left all the territory within the Taurus Mountains more peaceful than Italy (38. 47. 6). Does he not deserve a triumph? The Senate decides the debate on grounds of precedent as well. They have no precedent for not awarding a triumph to a commander who has defeated the enemy, completed his responsibility and brought the army home, and so Manlius obtains his: et auctoritas seniorum ualuit, negantium exemplum proditum memoriae esse ut imperator, qui deuictis perduellibus, confecta prouincia exercitum reportasset, sine curru et laurea priuatus inhonoratusque urbem iniret (38. 50. 2±3). Of course the political factor is evident on both sides of the debate, but the speakers and their arbiters share the same means of constructing arguments. Not surprisingly, Livy attributes the victorious position to the senioresÐolder people always being on the conservative sideÐbut the phrasing is rather negative.47 It implies that the absence of a precedent can itself constitute a precedent. This kind of thinking, in a world which purports to live by precedent, presents a formidable obstacle to change. Manlius wins his triumph because no one in his circumstances has not triumphed. The next debate contributes a point about precedents which we have seen before, though not in the context of triumphs.48 M. Fulvius Nobilior asks for a triumph after he 46

For the original episode, see 37. 60. 6. In fact, as we saw, Manlius' triumph poses a problem in Livy's view of the Romans' history since his army introduced corruption into Rome (39. 6. 7). Following precedent may, then, not always be the best course of action. 48 See pp. 139±40 above on Scaptius and the land of Ardea. 47

154

Precedents and Change

has successfully completed his command in Aetolia and Cephallania (39. 4. 1±5. 6). M. Aburius, a tribune of the plebs, says that he will intercede if a vote is taken before the consul, M. Aemilius Lepidus, returns. He admits he is acting on Lepidus' orders, and says Fulvius will lose only time since the Senate can vote the triumph with the consul present (39. 4. 3±4). Fulvius replies that there is no reason to keep an army waiting for a consul who is deliberately delaying in order to impede a triumph. In any case, the rivalry between him and Lepidus is well known and fair play should not be expected on Lepidus' part (39. 4. 5±8).49 Although everyone castigates Aburius, the criticisms of his colleague, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, have the most e€ect. Gracchus declares that engaging in private rivalries while in oce sets a bad example: ne suas quidem simultates pro magistratu exercere boni exempli esse (39. 5. 2). It is base for a tribune of the plebs to be an advocate for other people's quarrels and demeaning to the power of his college and its sacred laws (39. 5. 2). So once again concern for precedent controls the argument, but this time it is for future precedent. Given the respect accorded to precedent, that concern makes sense even if the language is used merely to mask political manoeuvrings on both sides. By the time L. Manlius Acidinus Fulvianus seeks a triumph in 185 for his activities as praetor in Spain, the Senate ®nally has prefabricated answers for problematic questions.50 Fulvianus' achievements merit a triumph, but he has not brought his army back or, alternatively, given over a completely paci®ed province to his successor: triumphum rerum gestarum magnitudo impetrabilem faciebat; exemplum obstabat, quod ita comparatum more maiorum erat ne quis qui exercitum non deportasset triumpharet, nisi perdomitam 49 For their rivalry and Lepidus' anticipation of Fulvius' petition, see 38. 43. 1±44. 6. 50 L. Aemilius Paullus' triumph in 167 presents something of a special case (45. 35. 4±39. 20). The debate there takes place not in the Senate but in public meetings, and the end of the oration in his defence and the resolution of the debate are missing from the lacunose text. Nevertheless, M. Servilius' speech shows some of the thinking expressed in the other debates: i.e. the reference to triumphing on the Alban Mount noted above. We have also already looked at the debate in terms of age and authority in Ch. 4 (pp. 121±31).

Precedents and Change

155

pacatamque prouinciam tradidisset successori . So he receives an ovation instead: medius tamen honos Manlio habitus, ut ouans urbem iniret (39. 29. 4±5). Several familiar features surface. First, the phrase more maiorum is inaccurate since the precedent was set not even a full generation earlier: Marcellus' ovation in 211 was the ®rst case where the return of the army was a consideration. As with Cotta's complaint about Purpurio and the Alban Mount triumph, the idea is to make the precedent appear well established. Second, the impersonal quality of exemplum obstabat recalls the unanimity with which the triumphs were denied to Scipio in 206 and to M. Helvius in 195. While for Marcellus there was no pre-existing solution, now that there is one, it can be implemented. Gone, however, is the political rivalry. The existence of a precedent leads to consensus. In summary, an examination of these eleven debates over triumphs has shown a general desire, in a constitutional situation, to express arguments in terms of precedents.51 Concern for precedent takes two complementary forms: lack of a precedent presents diculties, as with Marcellus, Nero and Salinator, Scipio Africanus, and Purpurio; and if a precedent exists, the assumption is that it will be followed, as with Lentulus, Helvius, Nasica, Vulso, and Fulvianus. A person can legitimate an activity by proving that a precedent exists (Minucius and the triumph on the Alban Mount), but it is necessary to be careful about the precedents that are being set, as Ti. Gracchus argues. Sometimes the precedent is essentially negative: Scipio and Helvius cannot triumph because no one in their circumstances has; Vulso can triumph because no one in his circumstances has not. This system looks remarkably seamless. Only in cases such as those of Marcellus and Purpurio, where genuinely new circumstances arise, would precedent not govern behaviour. And even there Livy's Romans evidence a preference for adaptation of existing procedures. Exempla considered as precedents, therefore, 51

Other signi®cant issues discussed in terms of precedent are sortition (discussed on pp. 157±9 below) and the legality of presiding over one's own election (discussed on pp. 163±4 below; cf. 3. 35. 3±10, 10. 15. 7±12, 24. 7. 10± 9. 4, and 24. 9. 7±11).

156

Precedents and Change

might appear to lead to the conclusion that the past has a ®rm grip on the present. EXPIRATION OF EXEMPLA The debates about triumphs represent well the degree to which precedent apparently governs behaviour in Livy's history. Two con¯icts over precedents, however, illuminate a completely di€erent perspective. First is the case of C. Valerius Flaccus, a person whose history Livy pauses to relate because, as he says, it is an instance where a young man's reputation changes from bad to good (27. 8. 4±10). The pontifex maximus, P. Licinius Crassus, compels Flaccus to become ¯amen dialis, supposedly because his pro¯igate youth has made Flaccus repugnant to his family. Transformed by his solemn duties, Flaccus comes to surpass his peers and even wins the approval of the patres.52 With new-found con®dence, he decides to exercise an old privilege of the ¯amen and take his place in the Senate. When the praetor tries to eject him, Flaccus calls on the tribunes and claims that this is an ancient right, given to the ¯amen along with the toga praetexta and the curule chair. The praetor replies that he thinks the right should be based not on worn-out precedents from the record books, but on the most recent practice, and that no ¯amen dialis has exercised it in the memory of either their fathers or their grandfathers: praetor non exoletis uetustate annalium exemplis stare ius sed recentissimae cuiusque consuetudinis usu uolebat: nec patrum nec auorum memoria Dialem quemquam id ius usurpasse (27. 8. 9).53 The tribunes take Flaccus' part and judge that individual priests, not the priesthood, su€ered a loss for letting the matter lapse. And so Flaccus takes his place in the Senate. But Livy concludes that the new ¯amen had his way more because of his reformed lifestyle than because of a priestly law. 52 Is (Flaccus), ut animum eius cura sacrorum et caerimoniarum cepit, ita repente exuit antiquos mores ut nemo tota iuuentute haberetur prior nec probatior primoribus patrum suis pariter alienisque esset (27. 8. 6). 53 The identity of these annales is not certain. Verbrugghe (1989) 196 n. 11 follows Frier (1979) 99±100 and 119 in arguing that Livy here assumes that Flaccus has consulted priestly chronicles, elsewhere referred to as annales publici, maximi, or ponti®cum.

Precedents and Change

157

The anecdote raises many questions. The pontifex maximus and the praetor in question happen to be cousins, so this may be an instance of one family's e€orts to combat the political in¯uence of another. Flaccus appears to be attempting to circumvent the restrictions of his priesthood and to achieve a political career in addition to it.54 Most striking, after all the respect we have seen for precedents, is the praetor's attitude that precedents can, so to speak, expire from disuse. He is arguing that usus is a component of an exemplum's authority.55 Although his view may have a political motive and conveys contempt for Flaccus as well as for the precedent, and although the side backed by precedents prevails, Livy does not credit the precedent with swaying senatorial opinion (as it certainly does in the debates about victory celebrations). We see here a completely di€erent position on precedents. Nor is this the only time it appears. In signi®cantly similar language, another exemplum runs the risk of being discarded because of disuse. In 190, C. Laelius and L. Cornelius Scipio both seek Greece as their province (37. 1. 7±10). The Senate directs the consuls to follow the standard operating procedure: they can either leave the distribution of the provinces to sortition or else arrange the matter between themselves (1. 7). Laelius then proposes that instead they let the Senate decide. Lucius Scipio takes a day to think over the suggestion and consults his brother, the famous Africanus. Following Africanus' advice, Lucius agrees to hand the decision over to the Senate. This course of action arouses expectations of an argument in the Senate, but Africanus' declaration that he will accompany his brother if the Senate allots Greece to Lucius renders the question moot. Everyone wants to see 54 See Hayne (1978) 223±4 for discussion and bibliography. More recently, Vanggaard (1988) esp. 59±67 has argued that the priesthoods were not a signi®cant bar to a political career. Flaccus reached both the aedileship (31. 50. 6±9) and the praetorship (39. 45. 2±4). He spent the latter magistracy in Rome as the peregrine praetor, presumably because in this period the ¯amen dialis could not leave Rome for any signi®cant length of time (Vanggaard [1988] 64±7). See also Vanggaard's discussion of this particular episode (pp. 82±3). 55 For a parallel view of the relationship between statutory law and desuetude, see Dig. 1. 3. 32. 1.

158

Precedents and Change

the outcome of a rematch between Hannibal, now Antiochus' ally, and Africanus, acting as his brother's subordinate: will Hannibal be more helpful to Antiochus, or Africanus and the Roman legions to Lucius? As in Flaccus' case, the question of the precedent's validity thus does not play the decisive role. The description of the decision to let the Senate select the provinces is interesting. The subordinate clause is the relevant part of the sentence: cum res aut noua aut uetustate exemplorum memoriae iam exoletae relata exspectatione certaminis senatum erexisset . . . (37. 1. 9). The sense of the phrase remains clearer than the somewhat contorted syntax: the practice is either new or based on precedents so old it might just as well be new.56 The description resembles that which the praetor used for Flaccus' precedents. The cluster of uetustas, exemplum, and exoletus indicates the same thinking: precedents can expire through disuse. Here, however, we have not the indignant words of an ocial, perhaps meant to contribute to his characterization, but a narrative voice that while neutral in appearance, is actually carefully crafted. The episode is in fact focalized through these early secondcentury Romans. Although they may not recall the precedents, Livy knows that on occasion the Senate has not only determined the provinces, as was customary, but also assigned them to speci®c consuls (instead of having the consuls undergo sortition or come to an agreement between themselves).57 The last occasion, however, was over one hundred years previous to this debate, so the precedents might well have passed from memory, but not from the 56 For Livy's use of the genitive of description memoriae iam exoletae as a parallel to the adjective noua, see Caterall (1938) 304. The agglomeration of genitives makes the clause a bit dense, but we might translate it as follows: `When the situation (either new, or, because of the antiquity of the precedents, of now dim memory) once brought up for discussion, had roused the Senate with the expectation of a confrontation'. 57 The previous occasions are at 6. 22. 6, 6. 30. 3, 7. 23. 2, and 10. 24. 18. It is possible that Livy has simply overlooked them, but since he notes special circumstances each time, and even reports a debate between Fabius and Decius for the last, it is unlikely that he would have forgotten a procedure that he previously viewed as worthy of comment and elaboration. Moreover, he once again draws attention to the procedure when Scipio Nasica refers back to this episode (38. 58. 8).

Precedents and Change

159

historian's. Livy thus presents the episode entirely from the perspective of its participants. Flaccus' personal history and the debate between Scipio and Laelius show that the authority of precedents is not absolute. Both passages contain the idea that precedents can pass out of date and that usus is a component of an exemplum's authority. Livy articulates two related ideas in the speeches of Canuleius (4. 3. 1±5. 6) and Valerius (34. 5. 1±7. 15). Canuleius, tribune for 445, is agitating for reforms: intermarriage between patricians and plebeians, and the opening of the consulship to plebeians. In an address to his fellow citizens, Canuleius attempts to justify his two causes and enlists many apposite exempla. Numa Pompilius, L. Tarquinius, Ser. Tullius, and T. Tatius all illustrate the point that foreigners had access to the kingship (4. 3. 10±12); should Romans be ashamed to have plebeian consuls when their ancestors did not blush to have foreign kings? (4. 3. 13); further, foreignersÐNuma, L. Tarquinius, Ser. TulliusÐ have turned out better than some representatives of the patriciansÐspeci®cally the decemvirs (4. 3. 17).58 The most interesting part of the speech, however, is the argument he makes for innovation: `nullane res noua institui debet?'59 He proceeds to catalogue constitutional innovations: Numa created the priesthoods and the augurs; Ser. Tullius introduced property classes and the census; the consuls replaced the kings; the Senate instituted the dictatorship; tribunes of the plebs, aediles, and quaestors all had to be created; even the decemvirs were installed and removed (4. 4. 2±3).60 Who, 58 Canuleius consistently makes a logical slide from foreigners to plebeians; they both belong to the `non-patrician' category. On the association of the two in Livy, see Kraus (1994) 96, 110, 249, 261, and 264. 59 `Should nothing new ever be established?' (4. 4. 1). While Canuleius' main point is that there is always room for new institutions, he also implies that innovations can in turn become canonical. Tacitus picks up this point in his version of Claudius' speech urging the admission of Gauls to the Senate: `Omnia, patres conscripti, quae nunc uetustissima creduntur, noua fuere: plebei magistratus post patricios, Latini post plebeios, ceterarum Italiae gentium post Latinos. Inueterascet hoc quoque, et quod hodie exemplis tuemur, inter exempla erit' (Ann. 11. 24. 7). The idea that the past o€ers numerous precedents for constitutional innovation is present both here and in the original speech (CIL 13. 1668), but Tacitus concludes with the decidedly Livian twist that new circumstances themselves generate new precedents. 60 Reviews of constitutional history punctuate the ®rst decade: T. Quinctius

160

Precedents and Change

Canuleius concludes, would doubt that in a city founded for eternity, growing in immensity, that new powers, priesthoods, and laws of men and nations must be established? (4. 4. 4).61 The remarkable aspect of Canuleius' speech is his use of precedents. His arguments are based on the idea that change can be a precedent for change: exempla can validate innovation just as they can validate the decision to grant or deny a triumph. Canuleius' speech thus indicates yet another way in which precedents do not require simple imitation. The speech invites its audience, and consequently Livy's readers, to look beyond single examplesÐwhich Canuleius proves himself able to command as well as any speaker in LivyÐ and to apply the principles behind them, in this case, the idea that Rome's greatness depends to some extent on change. This principle recurs in Valerius' speech on the abrogation of the lex Oppia. Distinguishing between two kinds of laws, those which are meant to last forever and those which meet the demands of particular circumstances, he says: ego enim quemadmodum ex iis legibus quae non in tempus aliquod sed perpetuae utilitatis causa in aeternum latae sunt nullam abrogari debere fateor, nisi quam aut usus coarguit aut status aliquis rei publicae inutilem fecit, sic quas tempora aliqua desiderarunt leges, mortales, ut ita dicam, et temporibus ipsis mutabiles esse uideo.62 Capitolinus (3. 67. 7±11); Canuleius here; C. Licinius and L. Sextius (6. 37. 1± 12); and P. Decius Mus (10. 7. 1±8. 12). 61 Compare 1. 8. 4±7 on the relationship between institutional innovations and the physical growth of the city. 62 `For just as I acknowledge that none of those laws should be abrogated which were passed to be useful forever rather than for a particular circumstanceÐunless either practice (usus) calls for it or some condition of the state renders a law uselessÐso do I consider those laws which particular circumstances have made desirable, mortal, so to speak, and changeable with circumstances themselves' (34. 6. 4±5). Compare Tacitus' treatment of this theme. In a debate modelled on that over the repeal of the lex Oppia, he has Valerius Messalinus echo the earlier Valerius' argument: placuisse quondam Oppias leges, sic temporibus rei publicae postulantibus; remissum aliquid postea et mitigatum, quia expedierit (Ann. 3. 34. 4). On the relationship between the two debates, see Ginsburg (1993) 88±96 and Woodman and Martin (1996) 283± 309 passim.

Precedents and Change

161

His speci®c examples are laws passed in time of peace which war renders obsolete, and conversely those passed in wartime which peace invalidates. His concern here is to show that the lex Oppia belongs to the latter category: the end of the war should obviate the need for such legislation. Beyond the immediate context, however, Valerius' argument has wider implications. First, his view of laws has something in common with the issue of leges contrariae raised by Sempronius and Appius Claudius in that all three men recognize that by their very nature laws are subject to change.63 For Sempronius and Appius, of course, the principle is that if two contradictory laws have somehow come to exist simultaneously, the existence of the more recent one in itself abrogates the older one. Valerius focuses rather on the subject of laws that are consciously passed and eliminated. However, he too views them as potentially ephemeral, capable of coming and going with time. Although he acknowledges and thereby upholds the idea that some laws may be designed to last in aeternum, Valerius asserts that these too are not immutable: changing times call for di€erent laws. Thus although he is speaking about a speci®c lex, his logic is based on the same thinking seen in Canuleius' argument, and his speech o€ers a theoretical underpinning to the idea that codes of behaviour can pass out of date. Valerius, like Canuleius, can envision innovation because some laws apply only to the situation in which they arise. Underlying both men's speeches is the principle that even constitutional matters are subject to change over time. These four passagesÐFlaccus, Scipio and Laelius, Canuleius, and ValeriusÐreveal several new aspects of precedents. They lapse with time, and only their exercise sustains them. In addition to maintaining the status quo, they can support a course of change and innovation. And they can, in the shape of laws, belong to a particular time and situation. Thus the view of precedents which these passages create departs signi®cantly from that presented by the debates on triumphs. There, respect for precedent translated into 63

9. 33. 9 and 34. 7; see pp. 127±8.

162

Precedents and Change

constant appeals to the past, based on the general principle that the existence of a precedent calls for its imitation, and that the lack of a precedent undermines the validity of an action. But spread throughout Livy's text is a consistent counterpoint to those ideas. The second view allows more easily for change because it argues that precedents die out, that laws can lose their usefulness, and that new institutions have value. Furthermore, even the triumph debates are ultimately compatible with these ideas. They occur in response to an unprecedented number of requests for victory celebrations and, as such, illustrate precisely what Valerius is talking about. Although in several places precedents provide an unequivocal guide to conduct, in others they do not. These cases, of Marcellus, Nero and Salinator, and Purpurio in particular, demonstrate how Livy thinks people can learn from the past. They have the options (triumph, no triumph, ovation, the Alban Mount triumph) and the requirements (magistracy, army, imperium, auspices) in front of them. They tend to follow precedents in making their decisions, but they can innovate; thus the ovation, for example, becomes a means of honouring a commander who cannot triumph. New historical circumstances call for new regulations. In the thirty years after the second Punic war, the Senate evolves a set of responses to these new circumstances, and the number of requests consequently subsides.64

EXEMPLA AS PRECEDENTS AND EXEMPLA AS SPECIMENS OF CONDUCT Precedents undeniably di€er from exempla as conventionally understood. The historical and moral exempla in Livy have turned out to be elastic to an extreme degree, drawing their meaning almost entirely from their context, as for example Caudium, in all its di€erent appearances, or Regulus' invasion of Africa, as Fabius and Scipio variously represent 64

Richardson (1975) 62±3. As noted above, Develin (1978) argues against the historical framework into which Richardson sets these debates, but he too concludes by pointing out how well they illustrate slow adaptation over time by the Senate (pp. 437±8).

Precedents and Change

163

it. Precedents, on the other hand, are more concrete: a general either does or does not bring his army back to Rome to lead in a triumph; a law either does or does not exist. And yet there is also signi®cant conceptual and material overlap between exempla as precedents and exempla as specimens of conduct. Consider the debate over the elections for 209 (27. 5. 19±6. 12). Because he is campaigning in Sicily, the consul, M. Claudius Marcellus, appoints Q. Fulvius Flaccus dictator for the purpose of running the elections. When it looks as if Fabius Cunctator and Fulvius himself will be chosen as the next consuls, two tribunes interrupt the voting to point out that extending a magistracy is not the behaviour of a good citizen and that it is an even more repugnant precedent for a man to preside over his own election: neque magistratum continuari satis ciuile esse aiebant et multo foedioris exempli eum ipsum creari qui comitia haberet (27. 6. 4). Fulvius responds that he is supported by the authority of the Senate, a plebiscite, and precedents: dictator causam comitiorum auctoritate senatus, plebis scito, exemplis tutabatur (27. 6. 6). Then he names both an old precedent (L. Postumius Megellus, who as interrex in 291 presided over the elections at which he and C. Junius Bubulcus were named consul), and a recent one (Fabius Cunctator, who in 215 presided over his election for the following year): exemplaque in eam rem se habere, uetus L. Postumi Megelli qui interrex iis comitiis quae ipse habuisset consul cum C. Iunio Bubulco creatus esset, recens Q. Fabi qui sibi continuari consulatum nisi id bono publico ®eret profecto nunquam sisset (27. 6. 8).65 The word exemplum appears three times in this exchange, which centres on the question of constitutional precedents and for which Fulvius can adduce speci®c individuals and situations. That is, Fulvius' precedents are indistinguishable in function from the historical and moral exempla of other speakers; they illustrate and defend his argument. Furthermore, precedents resemble historical and moral 65 The election of Postumius Megellus and Junius Bubulcus would have been recounted in Book 11, but is not referred to in the corresponding summary. Fabius Cunctator presided over his own election at 24. 9. 7±11.

164

Precedents and Change

exempla a great deal in the extent to which they are subject to manipulation. By invoking the maiores or referring to previous occasions as numerous (multi), a speaker can enhance the legitimacy of his precedents. This is equally true of exempla as specimens of conduct, where the speaker shapes the meaning by emphasizing various aspects, choosing di€erent places to begin and end the story, and coupling one exemplum with others. Questions of audience too enter into Livy's treatment of precedents. Just as only the external audience can appreciate the long-range applications and implications of Cannae as an exemplum, so too is it uniquely situated to view the triumph debates as a whole and see the Romans wrestle to match precedent and circumstance. Or, in the case of sortition, the external audience's memory and knowledge di€er from the perceptions of contemporaries. Finally and most crucially, precedents and specimens of conduct are equally vulnerable to the eroding force of time. This is especially evident in one ®nal example. At the beginning of the second Punic war, according to Livy, the Gauls in northern Italy wait to see which way the con¯ict will go. While the Romans are content to leave the Gauls out of the war, Hannibal attacks them. They turn to the Romans for help, but the elder Scipio is reluctant to have them as allies. He does not trust them, both because of previous acts of treachery and, even if these had lost their potency, because of the recent attack on Placentia and Cremona: suspectaque ei (Scipio) gens erat cum ob in®da multa facinora tum, ut illa uetustate obsoleuissent, ob recentem Boiorum per®diam (21. 52. 7).66 Here Livy chooses to use Scipio as his focalizer, but the point is the same: uetustas has a corrosive e€ect (conveyed here by obsoleuissent), but the recens per®dia performs a corrective function. As with the competing claims of ancient and fresh exempla, the more immediate is the more powerful. In short, exempla considered as specimens of conduct behave the way exempla as precedents do. As time passes, they require reinforcement if they are to maintain ecacy.67 66

Livy reported the attack on Placentia and Cremona earlier in Book 21 (21. 25. 1±3). See Walsh (1973) 149, 166±70, and 221. 67 David (1980b) 85±6, discussing historical examples in Cicero's legal speeches, likens old exempla to dead metaphors.

Precedents and Change

165

And in fact we have encountered this idea in several di€erent contexts already. From the discussion of Caudium as an exemplum, it became clear that, even with its unusually high frequency, it illustrates the tendency of exempla to weaken with time. The lessons of Caudium are most compelling in the minds of people contemporary with the debacle, and only equally painful experiences, such as Cannae, revive its impact. Cannae, too, shows how the force of exempla can dissipate; one aspect of the dramatic contrast between Roman and Carthaginian manipulation of the past is that Romans learn from it and move on while Hannibal clings to Cannae ever more desperately. When it comes to susceptibility to change over time, exempla as precedents and exempla as specimens of conduct overlap most strikingly in the context of their authority. The policy debates between Romans which are won by those inclined to set aside tradition, the con¯icts between older and younger men, and the discussions in Livy and other authors centre on this question. All ultimately reveal that the tension between the authority of antiquity and the relevance of near-past and present concerns tends to resolve itself in favour of the latter. The yielding of antiquity is exactly parallel to the challenges to precedent posed by the episodes we have just looked at. And there can be no ®ner or more extended illustration of what Livy advocates in Preface 10 than the triumph debates themselves; here, if anywhere, he shows the Romans attempting to use the past to deal with their current dilemmas. Thus even if the content of exempla as precedents is more ®xed, they are equally fruitful material for those who study the past in the hope that it will provide solutions for a continually developing and changing present. CONCLUSIONS This book started by proposing an approach to Livy's exempla di€erent from that traditionally employed: namely, that they should be viewed from the perspective of how they are invoked, rather than how they are originally constructed. This new approach has signi®cant consequences for our understanding of exempla in Livy. They are revealed to be not merely univocal lessons for his

166

Precedents and Change

contemporaries, but also complex avenues where the past intersects with the present and the present with the future. As such, they become staging-grounds for Livy's view of historical evolution. As his Romans generate, invoke, debate, and ultimately accept or reject exempla, they are, rather realistically, adapting to changing circumstances, and showing themselves as participants in the long process that is Roman republican history as Livy conceives it. There is perhaps nothing surprising about such a conclusion. After all, change is the subject matter of history. What is slightly unusual about this idea, however, is its association with Livy, who for many years has been regarded as a writer with predominantly literary sensibilities incapable of appreciating historical change.68 This conventional understanding of Livy is compatible with a particular critical approach, namely the analysis of EinzelerzaÈhlungen,69 in which category can be included traditional studies of exempla in Livy. Isolating the initial narrative of an exemplum privileges a `literary' reading of Livy and short-changes his capacities as a historian because it e€ectively pre-empts any possibility of observing change over time. No matter how highly polished, each exemplum can only be its own, self-contained literary gem. As soon as exempla are considered from a broader perspective, however, they immediately expose a di€erent side to Livy's historiography, speci®cally one incorporating his understanding of historical development. Regarded in this light, exempla belong to another, more recent trend in Livian scholarship.70 Stepping back from his detailed analysis of how Livy distributed his material in the last ®fteen extant books, Luce discussed Livy's view of moral development in the Roman national character and concluded that Livy was deeply sensitive to historical change.71 This interpretation has been followed most closely 68 Walsh (1961) and Ogilvie (1970) 17±22 and (1982) have been the primary exponents of this view of Livy in English. 69 Pioneered by Witte (1910). 70 Kajanto (1958) credits Livy with little originality of interpretation, but argues that he does have an overarching vision of Roman history. Maslakov (1982) also anticipates in a very general way the argument that Livy liked the sweep of history and writing on a broad scale. 71 Luce (1977) esp. 230±97.

Precedents and Change

167

and pro®tably by Miles, who expanded its implications to show the historian's recognition of the developmental aspect of Roman political and constitutional matters.72 Work on the structure of Livy's History reveals his interest in dividing the past into di€erent periods, another indication of his awareness of change over time.73 Certainly if we consider the citations of exempla rather than the way the story ®rst appears in the narrative, we arrive at the same conclusion: Livy's interest in exempla includes the possibility of adapting them to changing circumstances, and his view of history acknowledges and embraces change. Despite the monumentum of Preface 10, exempla are not, as it were, set in stone. Rather their meaning modulates as they surface, resurface, and ultimately fade away altogether. How Livy's Romans remember and use individual exempla serves as an index to the course of their development as a people. The citations of exempla show adaptation and ¯ux, the operative forces of history.74 To look at exempla as they come and go over the course of Livy's History thus leads to an understanding of that History as a chronicle of change. 72 As Miles (1988) 193 (with a few slight changes in Miles [1995] 119) puts it, `Livy presents an approach to Roman history that explicitly acknowledges the value of change and that denies to the maiores and their institutions a universal and timeless value. In his history the value of institutions is most often judged by the needs of the occasion, not by the more sweeping standard of the mos maiorum. Thus, the absence of appeals to the auctoritas maiorum in Livy's own narrative, made more apparent by association of such appeals with partisan interests, compliments his emphasis on variety, complexity, and change in Roman history, and it leaves a wide range for political innovation.' The observation occurs in connection with Canuleius' speech, but Valerius' would provide an equally good context. 73 See for example Burck (1964) on the ®rst pentad and Luce (1977) on the fourth and ®fth decades. Stadter (1972) considers the structure of the whole work, and Scafuro (1987) looks at the links between the two halves of the fourth decade. 74 The tendency for exempla to change from generation to generation is also apparent from the Appendix. We have already seen one manifestation of the phenomenon with Cannae, but note also people such as Numa Pompilius and Philip or Antiochus.

6 Livy, Augustus, and Exempla EXEMPLARY ECHOES: LUCRETIA, HANNIBAL, AND THE REITERATION OF PREFACE 10 As we saw at the outset, the general tendency to treat Lucretia as precisely the kind of historical lesson Livy has in mind in Preface 10 overlooks the fact no one ever pro®ts from Lucretia's experience. In fact, within a generation she vanishes from everyone's memory but the narrator's.1 But, as we have also seen, Livy's use of exempla is far more nuanced than the construction of straightforward illustrative episodes, and, while Lucretia may not teach anyone within the text the price of female chastity, she does o€er Livy's external audience a helpful reminder of what history is all about. For with her ®nal words, Lucretia behaves as if she has read the Preface, forecasting (albeit mistakenly) her own value as an example for others. Nor is she alone in doing so; throughout Livy's narrative, his characters recognize the power of exempla, whether they are invoking, forging, or anticipating them. Hannibal is a particularly clear illustration. As we have also seen, although he cannot rely forever on the motivational force of Cannae, he knows how to wage exemplary warfare, not simply calling on the past for inspiration, but also consciously generating models for imitation (the duel of the Gallic prisoners) and avoidance (the cruci®xion of the unfortunate guide).2 Furthermore, Hannibal can spot an exemplum in the making, as it were. In 211, torn between prosecuting the siege of Tarentum and the urgency of holding Capua, he is forced to concede the greater symbolic signi®cance of Capua, as a documentum of the consequences of defecting from Rome.3 1

2 See pp. 1±2. See pp. 65±6. Cum in hoc statu ad Capuam res essent, Hannibalem in diuersum Tarentinae arcis potiundae Capuaeque retinendae trahebant curae. Vicit tamen respectus 3

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

169

That is, although not yet an example, it has the potential to become one that will damage his relations with the other allies who turned to him after Cannae. Accordingly, he rejoins his forces at Capua. Lucretia and Hannibal have many analogues in Livy's narrative.4 The fact that they themselves are not especially successful is less important than the e€ect of their words and actions as repeated reminders of Livy's exemplary programme. In the Introduction we saw that Livy's claim about the didactic virtues of historical study belongs to a long and complex tradition, and in the previous ®ve chapters I have shown various ways in which Livy's views about exempla play themselves out in his interpretation of the Romans' history. Thus while it is possible to classify the assertion in Preface 10 as a variation on a historiographical topos, the depth and intricacy with which exempla function in the narrative indicate that Livy is doing more than following the rules of this particular genre. Exempla evidently hold a special importance for him, the explanation for which lies not in literary tradition, but in historical circumstance. If we look for an equally intense interest in exempla, it emerges not from his fellow historians, but rather from his contemporaries, and, of these, Augustus most nearly approaches Livy in his exploitation of exempla as a mechanism for imbuing the past with meaning.

EXEMPLA IN THE AUGUSTAN AGE Livy's contemporaries manifestly shared his interest in exempli®cation. Their fascination resulted in collections such as Cornelius Nepos' Exempla and De Viris Illustribus, Varro's Imagines, Hyginus' De Vita Rebusque Illustrium Virorum and Exempla, Horace's Odes 1. 12 and 4. 15, Virgil's `Parade of Heroes' in Aeneid 6, and the statues in Augustus' forum.5 Presumably also somewhere in this Capuae, in quam omnium sociorum hostiumque conuersos uidebat animos, documento futurae qualemcumque euentum defectio ab Romanis habuisset (26. 5. 1±2). 4 On self-conscious awareness of exempla among Livy's historical characters, see now Oakley (1997) 116. 5 These are only the closest parallels. According to Nepos, Atticus made a pictorial collection of republican heroes and summarized their accomplishments in brief poems appended to each image (Nep. Att. 18. 5±6). Propertius'

170

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

period belong Pomponius Rufus and his Collecta, which are known only from Valerius Maximus and so must predate him.6 The practice of making compilations of various sorts (such as famous sayings, anecdotes about important men, or multiple examples on a single theme) is Hellenistic in origin, but collections of historical exempla appear to be a Roman and more particularly a triumviral literary innovation,7 for which Nepos has received the credit.8 In any case, it seems clear that exempla were of particular interest to those people who experienced the upheaval of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey and the subsequent disruption of the triumviral years.9 Unfortunately, the prose works exist almost entirely as mere titles.10 The survival of the poetic works, however, has o€ered extensive material for analysis: the subject of Roman history in the Augustan poets is seemingly inexhaustible and frequently features in interpretations of the poems and passages in question. Leaving aside for the moment speci®c connections and the attendant issues of in¯uence, we are still left with the picture of an age fascinated by exempla. It was, furthermore, a period in which their use in literature underwent fundamental changes. While Cicero recycles and reinterprets his exempla to ®t the context, the early imperial authors regard each exemplum's meaning as ®xed.11 This is especially clear poetry is also full of exempla, although mythological ones predominate. Gazich (1995) 50 notes that in his use of exempla Propertius should be seen as a man of his time. Manilius' Astronomica 1. 777±804 might be added to the list of Augustan compilations of exempla. 6 Val. Max. 4. 4. pr. See Alewell (1913) 42±5 for hidden diculties involved in dating Pomponius. 7 See Skidmore (1996) 35±50 on Hellenistic and Roman precursors to Valerius Maximus. 8 Horsfall (1982a) 291, reiterated in Horsfall (1989) xvii with n. 17. 9 Note the distinctions made by Galinsky (1996) 226±9 on the various `Augustan' generations. 10 Geiger (1985) 72±3 rightly criticizes the mis-assignment of Nepos' fragments in HRR. Out of the twenty-six passages assigned to the Exempla, most seem rather to come from a geographical work. On earlier objections to Peter's classi®cation and for a proposed alternative arrangement, see Alewell (1913) 50±3. 11 For Cicero, see esp. H. SchoÈnberger (1911) 19 and Rambaud (1953) 46± 50; on the later authors, see e.g. Nordh (1954) 229 on Martial, and Mayer (1991) 154±5 on Seneca's e€orts to make well-worn exempla appear fresh and

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

171

in Valerius Maximus; as Skidmore has recently pointed out, he treats his exempla as having de®nitive meanings.12 Not only are they grouped by strict categories, but Valerius labels them unambiguously.13 The same is true for later collections, such as those of Frontinus and Polyaenus, but these are of course well past Livy's period. The di€erence between the republican and imperial writers can hardly be coincidental, and probably results from the fossilization that accompanied compilations of exempla. The question of what happened to exempla in the early imperial period was taken up by Litch®eld in his still fundamental discussion of what he calls `national exempla uirtutis'. Addressing the question why republican exempla far outnumber post-Augustan ones, he o€ers a variety of explanations, such as the enshrinement of the Republic as a golden age, the complications introduced by the potential divinization of emperors, and the eventual displacement of national by Christian exempla.14 He puts the most weight, however, on what he calls `the closing of . . . an exemplary canon'.15 Certainly the relatively close conjunction of Nepos, Varro, Hyginus, and Valerius Maximus and the standardization of material encouraged by such handbooks of exempla support the hypothesis: along with the selection of exempla themselves probably came a determination of their meaning. Approaching the same phenomenon from a di€erent perspective, and apparently unacquainted with Litch®eld's theories, Kornhardt focuses more on the impact of Greek philosophy and rhetoric. While in the Roman tradition exempla were closely connected with individual families, they were generalized and ¯attened when slotted into Greek-in¯uenced rhetorical training. Kornhardt does not date the change, but reaches a conclusion similar to Litch®eld's: the advent of rhetorical schools and handbooks of enticing. On the issue of familiarity in particular and other points of usage in imperial literature (excluding historiography), see Alewell (1913) 87±99. 12 Skidmore (1996) 68±73. 13 Skidmore's argument may require some modi®cation: as Rebecca Langlands has pointed out to me, since Valerius cites the same exempla under more than one heading, their meaning can change according to their classi®cation. 14 15 Litch®eld (1914) 59 and 61. Ibid. 24.

172

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

exempla resulted in ossi®ed meanings for individual ®gures and episodes.16 Thus while the republican writers evidence ¯exibility in their use of exempla, that same suppleness vanished in the altered intellectual climate of the early Principate.17 The shift that these two scholars attempt to explain must then have occurred somewhere between the middle of the ®rst century bce and the third decade of the ®rst century ce, and that intermediate period, the period of triumviral and Augustan Rome, is thus unique in the history of the exemplum. It is also the period in which Livy and his contemporaries fastened on exempla as worthy of attention and compilation. The coincidence of such compilations raises numerous points for comparison and contrast, as well as questions of in¯uence. These hold special interest since the dominant personality of that age had his own complex and varied uses for exempla. Potential parallels between the poets' choice of exempla and those featured in Augustus' forum have attracted considerable scholarly attention.18 Less discussed are how and why Augustus 16 Kornhardt (1936) 21±3. She pays much more attention to Greek in¯uence in general than Litch®eld does, suggesting e.g. that the classi®cations interna and externa result from the combining of the independent Greek and Roman exemplary traditions (p. 21) and that the equation of exemplum with para3deigma expanded the connotations of the former (p. 63). 17 This change would also account for the shift in desirability from familiarity to novelty noted previously (n. 11 above). Once there was an established canon of exempla, a speaker would be more successful in gaining the audience's attention if he could make the familiar seem new and interesting. 18 On Horace, Augustus, and exempla, see Drew (1925); his argument that Horace wrote Odes 1. 12 as a hostile response to the forum of Augustus must be rejected on chronological grounds. The suggestion of Putnam (1986) 304 and 327±39 that Odes 4. 15 alludes to Augustus' forum is also problematic; the fourth book of Odes was published in 13 bce, but the forum was not ocially opened until the temple of Mars Ultor was dedicated eleven years later. It is true that the forum was used before the dedication of the temple (Suet. Aug. 29. 1), but the sculptural programme was still open-ended enough to accommodate a statue of Drusus after his death in 9 bce. See further below. On Virgil, Augustus, and exempla, see Frank (1938), Rowell (1941), Degrassi (1945), and Horsfall (1980). A great deal has been written about the `Parade of Heroes' in Aeneid 6. Most relevant to the discussion here is Feeney (1986), who traces a complexity and ambiguity in Virgil's presentation of Rome's past akin to Livy's nuanced use of exempla. Feeney interprets Virgil's parade as a riddle in which the poet con¯ates the individual and the gens. We cannot always be certain which member of a family Aeneas is supposed to be seeing, and so we are compelled to think of the negative side of Rome's history as well

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

173

made the collection he did, and these questions merit closer examination, particularly in connection with Livy's use of exempla. THE EMPEROR AND HIS EXEMPLA Like his contemporaries, Augustus was accustomed both to extract and to promulgate exempla. Suetonius reports that he made a practice of reading literature in search of useful examples to copy out and send to people: in euoluendis utriusque linguae auctoribus nihil aeque sectabatur, quam praecepta et exempla publice uel privatim salubria, eaque ad uerbum excerpta aut ad domesticos aut ad exercituum prouinciarumque rectores aut ad urbis magistratus plerumque mittebat, prout quique monitione indigerent.19 And in the Res Gestae Augustus issues the general claim that he revived many obsolete customs and handed down exempla to future generations: legibus novis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi.20 In these activities of assembling and preserving exempla, Augustus resembles the other compilers of his age. Unlike them, however, he preferred three-dimensional contexts for their presentation. An anecdote in Suetonius' biography nicely illustrates Augustus' awareness of the power of visual exempla and the emperor's assumption that his audience can recognize his meaning. In 9 ce the equites demonstrated at a public spectacle to protest the lex Papia Poppaea. According to Suetonius, Augustus created a tableau of family happiness by gathering around himself Germanicus and Germanicus' children.21 Then he indicated by his facial expression and a as the moments of glory. West (1993), reading the passage as panegyric, attempts to refute Feeney's analysis (290±2 esp.), but given the complexity of the Aeneid in general, it seems dicult not to take into account the darker aspects of Virgil's choice of exempla. 19 Suet. Aug. 89. 2. 20 By sponsoring and passing new laws I brought back many ancestral customs even as they were falling into neglect in our age, and I myself in many areas passed down to our descendants examples for imitation (RG 8. 5). 21 See Rose (1997) 11±21 on physical representations of various combinations of Julio-Claudians during Augustus' lifetime.

174

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

gesture of his hand that the equites should not hesitate to follow Germanicus' youthful example.22 Though the evidence is anecdotal, there seems every reason to believe that Augustus could expect the crowd to understand him. Recent scholarship has focused on the importance of visual messages,23 and we have one explicit statement that one contemporary, at any rate, could `read' exemplary meanings in Augustus' building programme: Vitruvius saw Augustus' public and private buildings as a way of preserving the glories of Rome's past for the future.24 The most outstanding evidence for Augustus' interest in exempla, however, is his forum.25 At Philippi in 42 bce, Augustus vowed a temple to Mars Ultor. Finally dedicated forty years later,26 the temple dominated the north-eastern 22 Sic quoque abolitionem eius publico spectaculo pertinaciter postulante equite, accitos Germanici liberos receptosque partim ad se partim in patris gremium ostentauit, manu uoltuque signi®cans ne grauarentur imitari iuuenis exemplum (Suet. Aug. 34. 2). Yavetz (1984) 19±20 comments brie¯y on this episode and Augustus' interest in exempla generally. 23 The most signi®cant contribution is Zanker (1988); but see also Gregory (1994) on the crucial question of popular responses to visual messages. 24 Animaduerti multa te aedi®cauisse et nunc aedi®care, reliquo quoque tempore et publicorum et priuatorum aedi®ciorum, pro amplitudine rerum gestarum ut posteris memoriae traderentur, curam habiturum (Vitruv. Praef. 1. 3). 25 The most comprehensive modern discussion is Zanker (1968); see also the treatments in Kellum (1981) 107±37 and Anderson (1984) 65±100; Bauer (1987) o€ers a new architectural analysis. The complex formed by the temple of Mars Ultor and the forum of Augustus has been a rich source for scholars seeking connections between Augustus' building projects and his overall interests and aims. So, for example, Bonnefond (1987) discusses how the complex displaced the Capitol as a focus of civic activity and identity, while Sauron (1994) 525±36 sets it in the context of Greek art and ancient astrological thought. 26 Suetonius (Aug. 29. 2) and Ovid (Fasti 5. 569±78) record the vowing of the temple in 42; Dio (55. 10 and 60. 5. 3) and Velleius (2. 100. 2) the dedication in 2 bce. There is no direct evidence to explain the forty-year gap. See Shipley (1931) on building in Rome during this period and Anderson (1984) 65±7 on the backlog of Caesarian building projects that occupied Augustus through the 30s. Bonnefond (1987) 271 suggests the delay arose in part from Augustus' wish not to revive memories of Julius Caesar and the civil war until the more negative associations of that period were somewhat dissipated; but see Weinstock (1971) 128±32 and Woodman and Martin (1996) 190 for the argument that the temple was dedicated to Mars Ultor not for Augustus' personal revenge over his adopted father's assassins, but rather for the more recent vengeance against the Parthians. The day of the dedication (but not the year) is a matter of some scholarly dispute; see Simpson (1977).

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

175

end of Augustus' forum. In its centre stood a bronze quadriga whose inscription announced the conferring of the title `Pater Patriae' on Augustus by the Senate.27 On each side of the forum was a portico, culminating in an exedra at the temple end of the forum.28 The exedrae and probably the porticoes were furnished with niches. These in turn held statues of two groups of people: the summi uiri and Augustus' ancestors, including the Alban kings.29 From the ®nd spots, it appears that the Julii were grouped around Aeneas in the north-western exedra and that the summi uiri were grouped around Romulus in the south-eastern exedra.30 Each statue had a titulus (consisting of name and cursus honorum) and an elogium (a longer description of the honorand's deeds and accomplishments).31 The forum was designed as a gallery of heroes and included room for statues of future triumphatores.32 Because of the condition in which the forum has survived, it is not possible to determine how many niches there were or how many free-standing statues.33 Apart from Aeneas and Romulus, approximately thirty of the people honoured are known, two more from literary evidence and the rest from surviving elogia and tituli.34 The epigraphic evidence is substantially supplemented by 27

RG 35. 1. Kellum (1981) 110±14 considers the choice of these semicircular spaces signi®cant, connecting them with other monumental sculpture complexes and concluding that `the very form of the major portrait sculpture display area itself was one that would have been readily associated with ancestry, time and heroes' (p. 114). 29 Though found only in a late source (SHA Alex. Sev. 28. 6), the phrase summi uiri is the one most frequently used to describe these statues; Suetonius describes the men depicted as those qui imperium populi Romani ex minimo maximum reddidissent (Aug. 31. 5). 30 See Degrassi (1937) 1±8 for the lay-out of the forum and the arrangement of the statues; Zanker (1968) discusses the decoration of the forum, including its sculptural programme. 31 These were published by Degrassi in 1937 in Inscriptiones Italiae XIII. 3. Further references to individuals will be identi®ed by his numbering (D 1, etc.). 32 Dio 55. 10. 3. 33 Degrassi (1937) 2 estimated an upper limit of 108 niches; more recently Kellum (1981) 144 n. 32 proposed the lower total of sixty-six. 34 Ovid appears to refer to the central positions of Aeneas and Romulus (Fasti 5. 563±6). M. Valerius Corvus (Gell. 9. 11. 10) and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Plin. HN 22. 13) are the other two named in literary sources. Those known from epigraphic evidence have more question-marks attached 28

176

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

copies of the forum's sculptural programme at Arretium, Lavinium, and Pompeii as well as by material from the Forum Romanum. There is no doubt that Augustus intended these statues to provide models of good leadership. According to Suetonius, Augustus announced publicly that he had designed the forum so that the Romans might judge Augustus himself and future leaders according to the standard set by these men: professus edicto commentum id se, ut ad illorum huitamj uelut ad exemplar et ipse, dum uiueret, et insequentium aetatium principes exigerentur a ciuibus.35 When discussing the elogium of Scipio Aemilianus, Pliny the Elder gives Augustus credit for its composition.36 Whether or not Augustus himself wrote each inscription, this passage suggests that he was closely involved in choosing the contents, and this conclusion is consistent with the interest in exempli®cation attested by the anecdotes in Suetonius and by the emperor's claim in the Res Gestae. It is also consistent with his interest in the power of monuments and visual symbolism.37 Moreover, the selfpromoting impact of the forum's sculptural programme points to Augustus' intimate involvement in its construction. By including even obscure members of his own gens, he implicitly raises them to the level of the summi uiri. Neither of the Julii known from the forum is particularly distinto them. The following list is based on Degrassi (1937) 8. In the Alban king category are Aeneas Silvius, Alba Silvius, Silvius (or a son of Silvius?), Proca Silvius; there are two Julii, C. Julius Caesar Strabo and C. Julius Caesar (the dictator's father); and two Claudians, a M. Claudius Marcellus and Nero Claudius Drusus; and eighteen republican leaders: L. Aemilius Paullus, L. Albinius, Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, Ap. Claudius Caecus, C. Cornelius Cethegus, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, C. Duillius, Q. Fabius Maximus, C. Fabricius Luscinus, M. Furius Camillus, L. Licinius Lucullus, C. Marius, L. Papirius Cursor, A. Postumius Regillensis, L. Scipio Asiaticus, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, C. (?) Sentius Saturninus, and M'. Valerius Maximus. 35 Suet. Aug. 31. 5. 36 Aemilianum quoque Scipionem Varro auctor est donatum obsidionali in Africa Manilio consule, III cohortibus seruatis totidemque ad seruandas eas eductis, quod et statuae eius in foro suo diuus Augustus inscripsit (Plin. HN 22. 13). 37 See e.g. Wiseman (1984), Wallace-Hadrill (1986) and (1989), and Zanker (1988). In particular Evans (1992) 87±108 investigates Augustus' development of the iconography of Romulus.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

177

guished.38 Nevertheless, as Zanker points out, in Augustus' plastic version of history, the Julii play a dominant role.39 Further, the forum creates the impression of a familial relationship between Augustus and the men represented among the statues. On the one hand, by including Aeneas and the Alban kings, the legendary ancestors of the Julian gens, Augustus could assert kinship with all the Romans; according to Dio, Antony had already done this for Julius Caesar in his oration at Caesar's funeral.40 Or, if we think of the grouping the other way around, the summi uiri are being subsumed under the Julians and in e€ect incorporated into Augustus' adopted gens. The parallel between the forum and an atrium full of imagines has also been noted. As Rowell observes, the forum, in addition to being a public tribute to Roman achievements, was also a private monument to Augustus and his family.41 In very simple visual terms, the physical representation of exemplary heroes implies a close relationship between Augustus and Rome's success: the rows of great men grouped around his honori®c quadriga portray Augustus as the culmination of the Romans' history.42 Augustus achieved the same e€ect with his funeral.43 The persistent tendency of his intended successors to pre-decease 38 The highest oce C. Julius Caesar Strabo reached is the curule aedileship in 90; the dictator's father was praetor in 100. See Degrassi (1937) D 6 and D 7 and Rowell (1940) 141. 39 Zanker (1988) 211. 40 Dio 44. 37. 3; see Rowell (1940) 141. 41 As Rowell (1940) puts it, the forum could be seen as `a counterpart, on an imposing scale, of the emperor's private atrium where the imagines and tituli of his ancestors and dead relatives would normally have been kept according to Republican tradition' (p. 141). See also Evans (1992) 113±14 on the con¯ation of public and private. 42 See Zanker (1968) 12 and 25±6 on the signi®cance of the central position of the quadriga in the forum and the title Pater Patriae. Frisch (1980) 93±5 refers to the passage in Suetonius about the forum's occupants as a standard of comparison and argues that both in the forum and with the Res Gestae Augustus is presenting himself as having surpassed the accomplishments of these exempla. 43 The parallel between Augustus' representation of the past in his forum and at his funeral has not escaped scholarly notice. See Rowell (1940), Luce (1990) 125±7, and Evans (1992) 113±14. See S. Price (1987) 62 on the relationship between the funerals of Augustus' intended heirs and the rites for his own death.

178

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

him at least provided Augustus with opportunities to experiment with traditional Roman rites for the dead.44 Although conventionally a funeral procession consisted of people wearing or carrying representations only of the deceased's ancestors, when Drusus died in 9 bce, imagines from both the Julii and the Claudii were used.45 Drusus was Augustus' stepson by the marriage to Livia, but he was never adopted into the Julian gens and so, strictly speaking, the Julian imagines should not have accompanied his funeral. Augustus seems to have been behind this innovation.46 He is certainly known to have left instructions for his own funeral, which was an expanded version of Drusus'.47 The parade at Augustus' funeral included not only members of his own family but also distinguished Romans from Romulus on down.48 As in the forum, Augustus thus merged family with the great ®gures of Rome's past. A further innovation in his funeral was the reversal of the normal order of the parade: instead of following the procession of the mourners and mask-wearers, Augustus' corpse led the way. The novel position draws attention to him as the supreme ®gure of Roman history,49 and the funeral reiterates the message of the forum: the glory of Rome's past achieves its apogee in Augustus. THE ELOGIA: WINNERS AND LOSERS, TRIUMPHS AND THE ORNAMENTA TRIUMPHALIA It is not hard to see that Augustus recognized the potential usefulness of historical exempla, particularly when they were presented visually. The contents of the tituli and elogia, however, provide material, albeit of a fragmentary nature, 44 Consider Augustus' special honours for Marcellus (Dio 53. 30. 4±6), Agrippa (Dio 54. 28. 3±5), and Drusus (Tac. Ann. 3. 5. 1±2); there is no evidence about the funerals of Gaius and Lucius. Their deaths are recorded at Dio 55. 10a. 9. Flower (1996) discusses the increasingly elaborate funerals of the late Republic (pp. 122±6) as well as Augustus' own expansion of the ritual (pp. 237±46). 45 Tac. Ann. 3. 5. 1. 46 Rowell (1940) 138. 47 Suet. Aug. 101. 4; Dio 56. 33. 1. 48 Dio 56. 34. 1±3. 49 Bettini (1991) 301±2 n. 16 and Flower (1996) 245.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

179

for an interpretation of Augustus' exemplary thinking based on words rather than images.50 Although the inscriptions have been analysed in the course of attempts to establish their sources and the in¯uences on them, they are rarely treated as texts susceptible of interpretation on their own.51 They are thus an invaluable but largely untapped source for understanding the aims behind the exemplary ®gures in Augustus' forum. On the face of it, the surviving elogia and tituli are reasonable representatives of their genre.52 In general, they o€er an almost unmitigated diet of magistracies, priesthoods, campaigns, and buildings. This is all clearly suitable as evidence of the worthiness of the men depicted, and on the surface there is nothing exceptional about the men or the accomplishments Augustus chooses to commemorate. And yet the decisions both about which individuals to include and about which details of their lives to record can hardly have been random, and there has been some scholarly speculation about his underlying motives. Anderson, for example, contends that the men depicted in the forum re¯ected those aspects of himself that Augustus, already taking centre-stage as `Pater Patriae' in his quadriga, wanted to emphasize.53 Kellum goes further. Seeing signi®cance particularly in the contents of the elogia, she argues that there is an unusual emphasis on domestic peace and religious matters.54 By drawing parallels between Augustus and the men who were recognized in these areas, she suggests that the men and their inscriptions 50 It should be emphasized here that any interpretation of these inscriptions must have a signi®cant component of speculation. The evidence is too fragmentary to permit de®nitive conclusions. 51 A number of authors and sources have been proposed as in¯uences on Augustus. In addition to Horace and Virgil (above, n. 18), recent suggestions include Varro (Horsfall (1980) ), Atticus (Anderson [1984] 86±7), Hyginus (Zanker [1988] 212), and the eighty-volume Augustan compilation of the Annales Maximi (Luce [1990] 134±6). Sage (1979) argues that the elogia were not a direct source for the anonymous and insecurely dated De Viris Illustribus. 52 Compare e.g. the epitaphs of the Scipios in ILS 1. 1±10. 53 Anderson (1984) 83±5. 54 For the expectation that such inscriptions would focus on military accomplishments, see Kellum (1981) 116 with further bibliography (n. 37 on p. 145).

180

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

provided precedents for the emperor and modelled a new kind of heroism.55 To my mind, the occasional departures from the opaqueness of conventional elements of elogia o€er insights into Augustus' thinking beyond a desire to focus attention on himself. Two kinds of deviations are especially interesting: sometimes praise of the honorand necessitates an un¯attering reference to someone else; and sometimes the elogia include honours that are not obviously worth striving for and that met with a hostile reception when they were originally awarded. These oddities suggest a particular pro®le for Augustus' exempla. It is not uncommon for people other than the honorand to appear in the elogia. For example, since they record victories, they routinely name Roman enemies, but the very reason for the inclusion of these people makes it clear that they are not candidates for emulation.56 There are, however, six cases of Romans exhibiting problematic behaviour. Two of them are familiar from our discussion of Livy.57 Most of the extant portion of Papirius Cursor's elogium is devoted to the story of his confrontation with Fabius Rullianus. The text runs as follows: Bello Samnitium cum auspicii repetendi caussa Romam redisset atque interim Q. Fabius Amb[ust(i) f.] Maximus mag[ister] equitum iniuss[u eiu]s proelio c[on¯ixisset - - -].58 The parallel incident between M. Minucius and Fabius Cunctator shows up in the elogium of the latter: Dictator magistro equitum Minucio, quoius populus imperium cum dictatoris imperio aequauerat, et exercitui pro¯igato subuenit et eo nomine ab exercitu Minuciano pater appellatus est.59 55

Kellum (1981) 116±24. In this category I would include Tarquinius Superbus, who probably appears in the elogium of A. Postumius Regillensis (D 10), the dictator who defeated Tarquinius' sons and the Latins at Lake Regillus. (The elogium is fragmentary and the reconstruction uncertain.) Even if Tarquinius is considered a Roman, however, there is no confusion about his status here: he is an enemy of the Roman people and therefore no model of leadership. 57 See pp. 109±16. 58 During the war with the Samnites, when he had to return to Rome to consult the auspices and his magister equitum, Q. Fabius Maximus, the son of Ambustus, fought a battle against his orders . . . (D 62). 59 During his dictatorship, the people made the authority of his magister 56

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

181

The other wrongdoers come from the period of Roman history that was narrated in the lost portions of Livy's text. The elogium of Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidianus appears to refer to his confrontation with L. Equitius. The latter claimed to be a son of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus and thus the brother of the reforming Gracchi. He was exposed by Metellus during the latter's censorship in 102. This is the episode recorded in the elogium.60 Equitius is closely linked in the sources with two revolutionaries, L. Appuleius Saturninus and C. Servilius Glaucia, who turn up obliquely on the elogium of Marius. Saturninus backed Equitius' claim in 102, and supposedly Equitius tried to join him as a tribune for 100. In 100, after successfully passing land legislation against senatorial opposition, Saturninus supported Glaucia's unconstitutional attempt to hold the consulship directly after his praetorship. Resistance led to violence, which in turn led to the senatus consultum ultimum. Despite having been in league with Saturninus, Marius commanded the troops that besieged him and Glaucia and their supporters (including Equitius) and then stoned them to death after the insurgents had seized the Capitol.61 The suppression of the revolt turns up in Marius' elogium: Rem publ(icam) turbatam seditionibus tr(ibuni) pl(ebis) et praetor(is), qui armati Capitolium occupauerunt, (sextum) co(n)s(ul) uindicauit.62 Finally, M. Aurelius Cotta is referred to indirectly equitum equal to the authority of the dictator; and he rescued the army when it had been put to ¯ight in battle, and for this reason he was hailed as `father' by Minucius' army (D 80). Note that, in Livy, Minucius calls Fabius pater and the army hails him as its patronus (22. 30. 2) whereas in the elogium it is only the army that addresses him as pater. As David Levene has suggested to me, in Augustus' version Minucius appears more villainous since the emphasis on the army makes it unclear whether he himself is repentant. The informal conferring of the name pater on Fabius recalls the Senate's ocial designation of Augustus as `Pater Patriae'. As Kellum (1981) 128 points out, this elogium is thus linked to the honorary quadriga in the middle of the forum (cf. Anderson [1984] 83±5 on other parallels between Augustus and the summi uiri). 60 Degrassi (1937) D 16; see also Val. Max. 3. 8. 6 and 9. 7. 1. 61 The basic narrative is App. BC 1. 28±33. See also MRR I for the sources for the years 103±100. 62 During his sixth consulship, he freed the republic when it was overturned by the attempted coup of a tribune of the plebs and a praetor, who armed themselves and seized the Capitol (D 83).

182

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

on the elogium of L. Licinius Lucullus. Terri®ed of Mithridates, Cotta took refuge in Chalcedon in 73, and Lucullus had to come to his rescue. This is the event reported in the elogium: Conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridat[e], cum se is Calchadona contulisset, opsidione liberauit.63 Comparison of the elogia in question shows that they give the names of three of the wrongdoers (Fabius Rullianus, Minucius, and Equitius) but identify the others only by status (Saturninus is referred to as a tribune of the plebs, Glaucia as a praetor, and Cotta simply as a colleague). In his comprehensive publication of the inscriptions, Degrassi linked the omission of the names of Glaucia and Saturninus in Marius' elogium and of Cotta in Lucullus' elogium and suggested that the men were not named because they did not deserve recognition from the state. On the other hand, he also noted that Equitius appears to be identi®ed by name.64 Furthermore, Fabius and Minucius hardly exhibit admirable behaviour. Between the latter two there is a certain similarity, perhaps as a result of what we might call exemplary assimilation: both showed insubordination; and both risked Roman lives and su€ered defeats after initial successes. But they cannot easily be grouped with Equitius, Glaucia, Saturninus, and Cotta, who further resist any kind of assimilation among themselves. Equitius was an impostor. Glaucia and Saturninus were extreme revolutionaries who embarked on a coup, took possession of the Capitol, and were brutally murdered. Cotta, on the other hand, was besieged by a formidable foreign opponent and had to be rescued by his colleague. However, the episodes where the wrongdoers are named all result in the assertion of proper authority: Fabius yields to Papirius; Minucius' army hails Fabius Cunctator as pater; Metellus successfully exposes Equitius' fraud. Properly suppressed insubordination is much less dangerous as an exemplum than the violent conspiracy of Saturninus and Glaucia and much less dishonourable than the defeat of 63

When he went to Chalcedon, he rescued his colleague who had been defeated and besieged by Mithridates (D 84). On the episode, see Plut. Luc. 8. 1±8 and App. Mith. 71. 64 Degrassi (1937) 22, 65, and 67.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

183

Cotta. Second, Saturninus seems to have su€ered damnatio memoriae: his house, property, and legislation were obliterated.65 If his name had appeared in public anywhere, it would have been erased as well. Given that Augustus could not include it on the inscription, any use of Glaucia's name was e€ectively ruled out as well. Nor would there have been any positive reason for reviving the memory of either man. It is equally true, though for reasons of honour rather than political controversy, that actually naming Cotta had no appeal; his disgrace was important only as a tribute to Lucullus. Finally, there is an important time di€erence between Fabius and Minucius on the one hand, and Glaucia, Saturninus, and Cotta on the other.66 Fabius and Minucius belong safely to ancient history; the other three are much closer to Augustus. Even the slight body of evidence yielded by the elogia thus a€ords a view of Augustus' use of exempla. It is a question not of trying to erase all traces of dangerous precedents, but rather of deciding which aspects to emphasize. Augustus took an inclusive view of history: the irony of placing both Marius and Sulla in the forum has been noticed, as has the presence of Pompey among the imagines at Augustus' funeral.67 But some people (Roman enemies, Tarquinius Superbus, L. Equitius, Fabius Rullianus, Minucius) make an appearance in the inscriptions only to highlight the achievements of admirable leaders, and truly explosive precedents are handled indirectly. Where the details of fourth- and third-century history have no immediate implications for Augustan Romans, the disasters of Saturninus' conspiracy and Cotta's defeat are closer to their situation.68 65 See MRR I. 576 for the sources and Gregory (1994) 90 for the consequences of displaying Saturninus' imago. 66 Equitius appears to be named in the elogium of Metellus (D 16), but there can be no question about which man's conduct is admirable, and he is not referred to in any way in Marius' elogium (D 83). 67 On Marius and Sulla, Hofter (1988) 195 argues that the forum was designed to heal the wounds of the civil wars. For Pompey, see Dio 56. 34. 2. For Augustus' ability to value people once they posed no threat to him, we might compare his treatment of Cicero: Octavian acquiesced in his proscription (e.g. Vell. Pat. 2. 66. 1±2, Plut. Cic. 46. 1±4, and App. BC 4. 19); Augustus later praised his patriotism (Plut. Cic. 49. 3). 68 Note the cogent observation of Carter (1991) 202 on the di€erence (for

184

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

The selection of details on the elogia guides their readers to the aspects of the past that Augustus wants to emphasize. His careful treatment of recent events in the Res Gestae o€ers suggestive parallels since there also he prefers oblique descriptions when referring to controversial individuals: Brutus and Cassius are described as qui parentem meum trucidauerunt; and Sextus Pompey is merely one praedo among many.69 This discussion of names omitted and included gives some idea of how Augustus might be manipulating the past and writing his own exemplary history into the elogia. It is possible, however, to be more ambitious in interpreting these texts, particularly if they are placed alongside another signi®cant change taking place under Augustus. Certain anomalies in the elogia make sense in the context of the metamorphosis that the triumph and the ornamenta triumphalia (that is, the tokens of triumphal status) underwent during Augustus' tenure of power. In particular, the elogia emphasize honours ancillary to the triumph at the same time that the emperor himself was encouraging the substitution of the ornamenta triumphalia for an actual victory parade. Three pieces of evidence stand out. The elogium for M'. Valerius Maximus records that he and his descendants were awarded a special place for his sella curulis at the Aedes Murciae: Sellae curulis locus ipsi posterisque ad Murciae spectandi caussa datus est.70 C. Duillius is unique in being awarded not just an honori®c statue, but also torch-bearers and ¯ute-players to accompany him on his way home from dinners: [H]uic per[mis]sum est u[t ab e]pulis domum [cum tibici]ne e[t f ]unali rediret [et s]tatua c[u]m [columna] pr[ope contemporaries of Augustus) between distant and therefore safely contained history on the one hand, and the less stable nature of recent history and contemporary events on the other. 69 RG 2 and 25. 1. For discussion see Ramage (1987) 26±7 with bibliography. I am indebted to my colleague Randall Ganiban for drawing my attention to this point. 70 `A place for his ivory chair at the Aedes Murciae was granted to him and his descendants for watching public spectacles' (D 78); on the location of the shrine of Murcia at the Circus Maximus by the Aventine, see Platner and Ashby (1929) 348, and on the seating arrangements generally see Steinby (1993) 273.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

185

a]ream Vulc[ani p]os[i]t[a].71 Finally, the elogium of Marius breaks o€ with an intriguing reference to his attire: Veste triumphali, calceis patriciis [- - -].72 The last reference is odd enough on its own, but all three become stranger if we consider the corresponding notices in literary sources. Livy points out that the privilege accorded to Valerius was unprecedented.73 It is clearly an honour, but it scarcely ®ts with the standard of leadership that the summi uiri were expected to provide.74 The problem becomes more acute with the other two honorands. C. Duillius' torchbearer, ¯ute-player, and statue appear not to have pleased his contemporaries: a passage in Cicero strongly suggests that they met with disapproval: Gaium Duilium, Marci ®lium, qui Poenos classe primus deuicerat, redeuntem a cena senem saepe uidebam puer; delectabatur cereo funali et tibicine, quae sibi nullo exemplo priuatus sumpseratÐtantum licentiae dabat gloria.75 Florus adopts an even more scathing tone: Duillius imperator non contentus unius diei triumpho per uitam omnem, ubi a cena rediret, praelucere funalia et praecinere sibi tibias iussit, quasi cotidie triumpharet.76 Although the reference to Marius' dress is frustratingly incomplete, the deduction that it relates to the time when Marius entered the 71 He was permitted to have a ¯ute-player and a torch-bearer with him when he returned home from dinner-parties; and his statue was set up with a column near the area of Vulcan (D 13). On the location of the latter, see Platner and Ashby (1929) 583±4 and Steinby (1993) 120. 72 In triumphal dress and with patrician footwear (D 83). 73 Dictator (i.e. Valerius) triumphans urbem inuehitur. Super solitos honores locus in circo ipsi posterisque ad spectaculum datus; sella in eo loco curulis posita (2. 31. 3). 74 Such a use of the curule chair may have been unprecedented in the 5th c., but note that Augustus had one brought to the Ludi Romani in 23 to honour the recently deceased Marcellus (Dio 55. 30. 6). 75 As a lad I often saw Gaius Duillius, the son of Marcus and himself an old man, on his way home from dinner-parties. He had been the ®rst to defeat the Carthaginians in a naval battle. He used to delight in having a torch-bearer and a ¯ute-player with him; these he had appropriated, despite the lack of precedent and his status as a private individual. So much wilfulness did his reputation confer on him (Cic. Sen. 44). 76 The general Duillius was not satis®ed with a one-day triumph, but throughout his entire life, whenever he was returning from dinner, ordered torches to light his way and ¯ute-players to ®ll his path with song, as if he were triumphing every day (Flor. 1. 18. 10). The account in Valerius Maximus (3. 6. 4) is rather more neutral as are the notice in Livy (Per. 17) and the reference in Silius Italicus (6. 665±9).

186

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

Senate in triumphal costume seems convincing.77 The Livian summary notes only that his action was unprecedented, but the narrative in Plutarch's biography gives a full description of the Senate's displeasure and Marius' return home to change.78 From the literary sources it is clear that his behaviour was at least unusual and probably patently o€ensive.79 Given their controversial nature, it seems strange that these episodes are deliberately evoked in a gallery designed to provide a standard of leadership. Rather, they seem calculated to remind the viewer of unprecedented honours, self-indulgence, and insulting behaviour. But it is unlikely that Augustus would want to recall this kind of aristocratic competition or to draw attention to such matters for the forum's audience. In fact, if we look at what these details have in common, a far more subtle and constructive purpose reveals itself. Valerius' chair, Duillius' ¯utes, torches, and statue, and Marius' costume are all visible tokens of a particular honour: the celebration of a triumph. As the elogia note, each man achieved this honour: Valerius was awarded one for victories over the Samnites and the Medul77

Degrassi (1937) 66 follows Mommsen's suggestion here; see CIL I p. 196. According to Livy, Marius' conduct was unprecedented: Marius triumphali ueste in senatum uenit, quod nemo ante eum fecerat (Per. 67). Plutarch says that the senators were o€ended and that Marius went home to remove his triumphalia regalia before returning: meta4 de4 th4n pomph4n o2 Ma3riow sy3gklhton h5uroisen e1 n Kapetvli3 Q, kai4 parh9lue me4 n ei5 te lauv4n ay2to4n ei5 te tW9 ty3xW xrv3menow a1groiko3teron e1 n tW9 uriambikW9 kataskeyW9, taxy4 de4 th4n boylh4n a1xuesuei9 san ai1 suo3menow, e1 jane3 sth kai4 metalabv4n th4n peripo3rfyron ay¤uiw h¤luen (Mar. 12. 5). 79 It is interesting to compare Pompey's experience in this regard. In 61 he was given the right of wearing a gold crown and triumphal costume at the circus and the toga praetexta and a crown (what kind is textually uncertain) at the theatre. He exercised his privilege only once, and not very successfully, presumably because his behaviour was unpopular (Vell. Pat. 2. 40. 4 and Dio 37. 21. 4). The ®rst person to be given the right of wearing full triumphal costume at the circus was L. Aemilius Paullus. Unfortunately the evidence is late and does not reveal whether he exercised the right or what response he encountered (De uir. ill. 56. 5). Caesar was allowed to wear triumphal dress at games and sacri®ces (App. BC 2. 106 and Dio 43. 43. 1), but it would be dicult to separate the e€ect of his attire from the other aspects of his conduct that senators considered o€ensive (e.g. Suet. Jul. 76. 1±3). On Caesar and triumphal costume, see Weinstock (1971) 270±86 and Rawson (1975) (= Rawson [1991] 169±88). The story about Pompey suggests that as recently as a generation before Augustus, excessive parading of triumphal status met with resistance. 78

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

187

lini; Duillius was the ®rst to receive a triumph for a naval victory; and Marius held triumphs for his victories over Jugurtha, the Cimbri, and the Teutones. The literary evidence coincides with the epigraphic. According to the passage from Livy, Valerius' sella curulis was part of the reward for his victories.80 Further, Florus' attitude towards Duillius' attendants may be condemnatory, but the connection between them and his triumph is clear. In Marius' case, Plutarch's narrative also implies that his dress was viewed as an attempt to prolong his triumph.81 So a common thread runs through these episodes: namely, the highlighting of honours ancillary to the triumph. Perhaps this was the actual aim behind publicizing them. In this connection it is helpful to review the evolution of the triumph under Augustus. Suetonius claims that the princeps was generous in awarding such victory celebrations, allowing over thirty,82 but approximately two-thirds of these took place in or before 27 bce; only three can de®nitely be dated between 26 bce and 19 bce, when L. Cornelius Balbus was the last triumphator who was not related to an emperor;83 and after him, only two followed, both celebrated by Tiberius, in 7 bce and 12 ce respectively. In other words, after the initial high frequency of triumphs, there is a sharp decline leading to a mere trickle. Somewhere in this same period, the ornamenta triumphalia became an increasingly common form of honour; as Suetonius notes in the same passage, Augustus was even more open-handed with this style of recognition.84 Consisting of the accessories (that is, patrician dress and footwear, a victory crown, an ivory sta€, and the sella curulis) given to triumphatores,85 the ornamenta had served in the Republic not only as lasting physical reminders of the triumph and the deeds that had earned it, but also as a form of symbolic honour for 80

Livy 2. 31. 3. Quoted in n. 78 above. 82 Suet. Aug. 38. 1. 83 His is the last name on the last tablet (Degrassi [1947] pp. 86±7). 84 Suet. Aug. 38. 1; see Carter (1982) 151 on Suetonius' presentation and Degrassi (1947) 86±7 for the epigraphic evidence. 85 On the individual components of the ornamenta triumphalia, see Peine (1885) 6 and Boyce (1942) 131±3. 81

188

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

individuals other than victorious generals, such as foreign leaders.86 According to Dio, with the construction of Augustus' forum came an addition to the ornamenta: statues of those who earned them were to be placed alongside the statues of the republican heroes.87 Under the emperors, the newly augmented ornamenta could be awarded to those who had been granted but did not celebrate a triumph, those who participated in an imperial triumph, and those who fought under an emperor who declined to triumph.88 In short, the items that in the Republic had been only outward indications of high achievement in the Empire became honours in their own right. The crucial ®gure in this transition is Augustus. While there is no reason to doubt Suetonius' total ®gures, his account obscures the chronological distribution of triumphs and omits the addition of the statue. The juxtaposition of the decline in actual triumphs with the enhancement of their attendant symbols suggests that under Augustus the ornamenta were actively promoted at the expense of the triumph. Exactly how and when the ornamenta triumphalia became a substitute for an actual triumph is not entirely clear. The triumph was traditionally an opportunity for publicity and in¯uence.89 As we saw with the triumph debates in Livy, the honour was vigorously contested, and so it seems unlikely that Roman generals would surrender it voluntarily. At the same time, Augustus would have good reasons for wanting to abolish the ceremony.90 In addition to being a source of political prestige, the triumph could potentially render a general more important than the emperor. This nearly happened in 29 when Licinius Crassus killed the enemy general in battle and had to be denied the right of depositing the spolia opima. Augustus averted the imminent political disaster of having to celebrate Crassus' unusual military feat by declaring that Crassus had not ful®lled the conditions for dedicating the spolia opima because he was not ®ghting under 86

See Boyce (1942) 130 and Rawson (1975) 155±6 (= Rawson [1991] 181±3). Dio 55. 10. 3. See Boyce (1942) 131±2 with references. 89 The fundamental discussion of Roman republican aristocratic competition is Wiseman (1985). 90 See the discussion in Eck (1984) 138 with references. 87 88

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

189

his own auspices.91 On the surface at least, this technicality also explains the marked decrease in triumphs from 27 on; as part of the constitutional settlement of that year, the Senate entrusted to Augustus the provinces that required a military presence and thus were likely to furnish the raw material for distinction in combat. He could not conduct every campaign personally of course, but his generals fought under his auspices. Since only those ®ghting under their own auspices were eligible for a triumph, very few men met the quali®cation. In this way the re-distribution of authority is partially responsible for the decline of the triumph.92 Dio, however, o€ers a di€erent explanation, claiming that Agrippa sensed Augustus' will in this matter and singlehandedly ended the practice of triumphing when he declined to do so in 19 and 14; his behaviour was then copied by everyone else.93 Dio certainly pinpoints the critical time-span in which the shift from ceremony to symbols took place: in 19, Balbus was the last non-imperial general to celebrate a triumph; and Tiberius is the ®rst person known to have had the ornamenta triumphalia bestowed on him, probably in 12 bce upon returning from the successful Pannonian campaign.94 91 Crassus was proconsul of Macedonia; in a battle against the Bastarnae he killed their chieftain Deldo (Dio 51. 24. 4). On the episode, see Reinhold (1988) 160±4 and Ogilvie (1970) 563±7. Rich (1996) argues that Crassus never went so far as asking the Senate's permission to dedicate the spoils because he perceived that Augustus would not want him to do so. Rich's suggestion that Augustus' `discovery' of Cornelius Cossus' linen tunic resulted from his antiquarian interests rather than political aims strikes me as unconvincing but, whether one accepts this argument or not, the central issue still stands: as Rich himself points out (p. 106), Crassus' military success represented a challenge to Augustus' supremacy. In this context, it is appealing to accept the contention of Kellum (1981) 121±3 that Augustus used his sculptural gallery to group himself with the three previous recipients of the spolia opima: Romulus, whose presence is attested, Cornelius Cossus, whose inclusion can only be conjectured, and M. Claudius Marcellus, for whom she ®nds fragmentary sculptural evidence. Badian (1982) 19±27 is right to de-couple the Crassus episode from the settlement of 27. Augustus' behaviour on both occasions belongs to a broader scheme for reorganizing the distribution of power at Rome. 92 On the restriction of triumphs, see Hickson (1991) 127±8. 93 Dio 54. 11. 6 and 54. 24. 7±8; see Peine (1885) 3±4; Galinsky (1996) 385 accepts Dio's explanation. 94 Suet. Tib. 9. 2. See Peine (1885) 15±16 on the date; he sees Augustus behind the substitution of ornamenta for triumph. Taylor (1936) 168±70

190

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

In an essay on the origins of the ornamenta, Boyce argued that they were not specially designed to honour Tiberius on that occasion, but were `the slow development of a policy'.95 She shows that Augustus himself avoided triumphs, but exploited triumphal symbols, such as the dress and crowns of victory.96 For example, while he rejected the triumph voted to him when in 20 the Parthians returned the standards lost by Crassus at Carrhae three decades earlier (53 bce), he nonetheless received and advertised on his coinage all the symbols of a triumphator. As was noted above, Augustus was certainly aware of the impact of visual representation of abstract ideas. Pertinent to the ornamenta perhaps are earlier experiments with dress as a mark of honour: at his triple triumph in 29, those senators who had participated in his victories wore the toga praetexta;97 and Suetonius reports that he allowed the men whom he expelled from the Senate to retain the costume of the senatorial order, presumably the tunic with the latus clauus.98 If this interest in the external indications of status is considered together with the evolution of the triumph and the ornamenta triumphalia, the transition from ceremony to symbols appears to have arisen from multiple factors: new constitutional arrangements, the high-pro®le decisions of Agrippa to decline triumphs, and, not least, Augustus' own conduct in promoting the practice of being honoured with the ornamenta rather than a triumph.99 It is in the light of this transition from triumph to the would push the date back to 20. See Woodman and Martin (1996) 356 on Tiberius' triumphs and ovations. 95 Boyce (1942) 135. 96 Hickson (1991) does not refer to Boyce's article but also argues that Augustus rejected the triumph in favour of its accessories: `imperatorial acclamations, the assumption of the praenomen Imperator, the o€ering of laurel, supplications of thanksgiving, a forum, arches, the triumphal fasti, coins. Paradoxically, at the same time that Augustus thus monopolized and exploited the image of a triumphing general, he refused to triumph' (p. 137). She believes that Augustus used the triumph itself as a way of publicly identifying his successor. 97 Dio 51. 20. 2. 98 Suet. Aug. 35. 2. 99 Boyce (1942) 136±41. On the coinage in particular, see also Bonnefond (1987) 273±4. For an interesting discussion of Augustus' public (and private) entries into Rome, including his triumphs, see Lacey (1996) 17±56.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

191

symbols of a triumph that we should reconsider the elogia. The details that appear odd and unparalleled on their own in fact belong to a particular class, namely, the visible tokens of triumphal status: a curule chair, a statue, a ¯ute-player, a torch-bearer, the toga picta, patrician shoes.100 Strange as they may seem in the context of the magistracies, campaigns, and buildings otherwise recorded on the elogia, and unusual or controversial as they may have been when they were ®rst awarded, these tokens are important precedents for the means by which Augustus chose to eliminate the triumph as a source of either aristocratic competition or political capital for potential rivals. Just as much as the oces held and the wars won, the signs of triumphal status noted on the elogia were meant to be seen as elements of conduct that was both admirable and worthy of imitation. Furthermore, the forum itself played an integral role in promoting the ornamenta as status symbols, for it was the location of the statues added under Augustus. A novel element of the ornamenta under the ®rst emperor, these statues proved extremely hardy; by the time of Marcus Aurelius, a statue was sometimes granted even without the original honours.101 In Augustus' lifetime, however, the statue and the concomitant rewards proved a satisfactory substitute for the victory celebration. As Eck has shown, the senatorial class gradually changed its modes of representation under Augustus.102 Far from being a palliative, the statues in the forum became a desirable form of recognition. And it is in the context of the ornamenta's transformation, from being regarded as outward signs of achievement to being considered a reward in themselves, that we should interpret the unusual details of the elogia. In the forum, Augustus uses these texts to draw attention to the outward indications of triumphal status at the same time that he was o€ering these outward indications as a substitute for an actual triumph. 100 There is no indication that Duillius' attendants were awarded to other triumphators, but they ®t the category of triumphal accessories. Weinstock (1971) 78 holds that it is unlikely Duillius had an ocial right to these attendants; if he was aware of their dubious status, Augustus' decision to include them on the elogium is all the more polemical. 101 See the brief overview in Talbert (1984) 362±3. 102 Eck (1984) 138±43.

192

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

Augustus' exploitation of the past as a source of legitimation and authority has long been familiar from investigations of his constitutional position and use of republican precedents.103 The texts of the elogia seem to run along the same lines: they are yet one more conduit to the past. And yet it is a particular kind of past, one where a traditional source of aristocratic competition and gloria has been transmuted into honori®c symbols. Above all, this is a past that is remarkably convenient for a leader interested in establishing and maintaining his own auctoritas.104 The initially puzzling details in the elogia thus ®t neatly into the larger picture of the shift from a self-destructively competitive oligarchy to monarchic rule. CONCLUSION: HISTORY AND POLITICS Syme sparked a lengthy dispute when he characterized Livy as Augustus' partisan.105 After a series of articles in which scholars asserted and re®ned their views on the subject, reasonable middle ground was cleared between the polarized positions of Livy's total subservience and total independence.106 Nowadays it is more common to assume some complexity in the relationship between the two men. Perhaps Livy crafted a posture of uncertainty that allowed him room to write history beyond the reach of Augustus' authority; certainly the two men were almost exact contemporaries and no doubt capable of a mutual but independent participation in a post-civil-war Zeitgeist.107 It is in this latter territory that a comparison of Augustus' and Livy's use of exempla belongs. When the inscriptions from the forum of Augustus were published as a group in 1937, there was a spate of articles investigating connections to various other texts, the Aeneid 103 See Eder (1990) for an extended discussion of Augustus' traditionalism; there are additional examples in Pelling (1996) 48±63. 104 See Galinsky (1996) 10±20 for the importance of this concept in Augustus' reorganization of Roman life. 105 Syme (1939) 463±5. 106 The debate is summarized in Badian (1993) 9. 107 The ®rst view belongs to Miles (1995) 47±54; Levene (1993) 243±8 and Kraus (1994) 6±9 have recently developed the second, which is also that of Luce (1977) 296±7. White (1993) 142±5 takes the middle road in discussing the Cornelius Cossus episode.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

193

in particular.108 Not for ®fty years, however, did anyone associate Augustus' exemplary aims with Livy's programmatic statement about exempla. In 1990 Luce scrutinized the elogia in an attempt to establish whether or not Livy's History in¯uenced Augustus' selections for the forum. Luce argued that both men saw history as having exemplary value but that, if Livy had any impact on Augustus, it was negative: the elogia may have been Augustus' way of rewriting Livy's narrative on various points.109 Luce's argument is based on a one-to-one comparison of the treatment of the summi uiri in the elogia with their counterparts in Livy. Judged this way, Augustus' interpretation of individual exemplary ®gures may not overlap much with that of the historian. However, if we consider the larger patterns in the elogia, various parallels between Augustus' and Livy's use of exempla emerge. I have been analysing Livy's exempla with a view to their malleability, the participation of the speaker and the audience, and their capacity for change over time. These considerations require some obvious modi®cations if they are to be compared with Augustus' exempla, for di€erent constraints operate on inscriptions. Super®cially, it would appear that Augustus' exempla cannot be ¯exible in the same way as Livy's since they are quite literally set in stone; Augustus cannot repeatedly invoke the same exemplum from multiple perspectives. Or can he? It would be interesting to know whether Fabius Rullianus had his own elogium and, if so, whether and how it represented his clash with Papirius Cursor. Given the current state of the fragments, however, it is impossible to show that Augustus interpreted the same episode in more than one way. His exempla have a certain suppleness of their own, however, in that he was free to choose not only which men but also which events of their lives to record. Unlike Livy, who committed himself to displaying examples for both imitation and avoidance, Augustus' goal was to provide a standard of leadership. Not surprisingly, the elogia stress the praiseworthy accomplishments of the summi uiri. So where 108 109

Frank (1938), Rowell (1940) and (1941), and Degrassi (1945). Luce (1990) 136±8.

194

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

Livy's Appius Claudius Caecus is a representative member of his gens, a domineering bully who will not relinquish the censorship in a timely fashion, Augustus' Caecus excels in every area: the army, diplomacy, and public works.110 And as is clear from the cases where titles rather than personal names appear, Augustus was capable of suppressing unpleasant or impolitic information. In his forum, Augustus was the speaker. Unlike Livy, who was quite willing to criticize Romans,111 and who could deploy exempla through the speeches and thoughts of his historical characters, Augustus monopolized the interpretation of the past in his forum and thus imposed a univocal view of its meaning. The emphasis on triumphal honours is illustrative: he o€ers examples of unusual kinds of recognition in order to make a radical change appear to have respectable republican precedents. At this point the emperor's interest in exempla for a speci®c political goal may appear at odds with the historian's more open-ended exploration of the di€erent ways people learn and bene®t from the past. However, even here the same characteristic of exempla is operating. As we have seen, before the imperial period the content of an exemplum was essentially neutral; the politician and the writer of history simply manipulate that neutrality in di€erent ways. With both Livy and Augustus, it is impossible to gauge precisely the e€ect of their exempla on contemporaries. Augustus lacks the internal audience of Livy's texts, but he seems to have envisioned a particular response to the examples he was providing in his legislation and his forum (as witnessed by his claim in the Res Gestae and by Suetonius' testimony about his decree regarding the statues). Although the actual reactions may or may not have 110 For the Appii Claudii in Livy see pp. 89±90 and 126±7. The Arretine copy of Caecus' elogium survives complete: Appius Claudius C. f. Caecus censor, co(n)s(ul) bis, dict(ator), interrex (ter), pr(aetor) (bis), aed(ilis) cur(ulis) (bis), q(uaestor), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) (ter). Complura oppida de Samnitibus cepit, Sabinorum et Tuscorum exercitum fudit. Pacem ®eri cum [P[yrrho rege prohibuit. In censura uiam Appiam strauit et aquam in urbem adduxit. Aedem Bellonae fecit (D 79). 111 See Ch. 1 n. 25 and Ch. 5 n. 58. Also relevant is Leeman (1963) 196 on Livy's restricted use of the pronoun nostri.

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

195

coincided with his expectations,112 the evidence suggests that the forum's impact was considerable. Kellum characterizes the forum as `speci®cally designed for legibility' and adduces the formulaic quality of the elogia and their frequent use of numbers (which would not have required literacy), the reliance on `visual clues' to identify the men (such as the crow associated with M. Valerius Corvinus), and the pre-existence of publicly placed statues for most of them.113 In other words, even for the illiterate, the general import of the sculptural gallery must have been clear and the individual heroes recognizable.114 Further, there was a clear response from wealthier citizens, who could read the words as well as the images of the forum. The sculptural programme was copied at Arretium, Lavinium, and Pompeii, and the senatorial class abandoned the practice of erecting public monuments with triumphal spoils and found other means of self-promotion.115 It can only be an appealing footnote to the question of responses to the exemplary works of both the emperor and the historian that one family is known to have admired Augustus' forum and Livy's History to an extreme degree: Pliny the Elder considered the forum one of the most beautiful structures in the world, and his nephew called for another volume of Livy as Vesuvius erupted in the distance.116 There is one quite speci®c point where Augustus and Livy articulate nearly identical views about exempla, and that is in their susceptibility to change over time. In his statement in the Res Gestae about precedents, Augustus claims to have revived exempla that had fallen into disuse and to have handed down models for future generations: legibus nouis me auctore latis multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi.117 As we have already seen, exolesco appears 112 See Yavetz (1984) esp. 8±20 on the question of the intended audience of 113 Kellum (1981) 135. the Res Gestae. 114 See Kellum (1981) 125 and 150 (n. 66) on the use of particular statues as landmarks for legal business, one of the practical purposes for which the forum was created. 115 See n. 102 above (= Eck 1984). 116 Pliny the Elder = HN 36. 102; Pliny the Younger = Ep. 6. 20. 2±5. 117 RG 8. 5.

196

Livy, Augustus, and Exempla

in conjunction with exempla in Livy too.118 Augustus thus clearly recognizes and explicitly states an understanding of the properties of exempla similar to that which appears in Livy. For Augustus also, exempla are not ®xed and immutable, but subject to change over time. This same point emerges from the way he handles early history and the recent past: Fabius and Minucius do not pose the threat that Saturninus and Glaucia do because the passage of time has weakened the potency of the former. It would be foolish to press a comparison between Augustus and Livy to the point of constructing arti®cial similarities. They worked in di€erent media, with di€erent aims in mind, and under the limitations and opportunities of their respective media. But both men were composing res gestae, and for both the same issues of voice and reception arise. Above all, the politician and the historian both recognized similar qualities in exempla that make them attractive containers for packaging the past. Inserted back into the context of their age, their interest in exempla o€ers no surprises. At the very least Livy's and Augustus' exempla ¯ourish alongside their contemporaries' fascination with these protean bearers of meaning. 118

The case of Valerius Flaccus: praetor non exoletis uetustate annalium exemplis stare ius sed recentissimae cuiusque consuetudinis usu uolebat: nec patrum nec auorum memoria Dialem quemquam id ius usurpasse (27. 8. 9). And the dispute between Scipio Asiaticus and Laelius: cum res aut noua aut uetustate exemplorum memoriae iam exoletae relata exspectatione certaminis senatum erexisset, P. Scipio Africanus dixit si L. Scipioni fratri suo prouinciam Graeciam decreuissent, se legatum iturum (37. 1. 9). See pp. 156±9.

Conclusion: Continuity and Change In discussing Livy's use of exempla I have focused on some of their central characteristics: malleability, dependence on speaker and audience, susceptibility to change over time. They emerge as almost inordinately pliant, capable of meaning nearly anything to nearly anyone. But exempla have one essential element. By their very nature, they involve two time-frames: either the past is recollected and applied to the present, or the present is envisioned as a source of models for the future. If we look for a moment at ways in which others have evoked and deployed historical examples, this additional feature will become clear. As the discussion of didacticism in ancient historians showed, Livy was not the ®rst to see history as a locus for moral lessons. Nor was he the last. Writing but a generation later, Valerius Maximus expresses in his preface the idea that one can cull useful examples for the present from the past: urbis Romae exterarumque gentium facta simul ac dicta memoratu digna, quae apud alios latius di€usa sunt quam ut breuiter cognosci possint, ab inlustribus electa auctoribus digerere constitui, ut documenta sumere uolentibus longae inquisitionis labor absit. nec mihi cuncta conplectendi cupido incessit: quis enim omnis aeui gesta modico uoluminum numero conprehenderit, aut quis compos mentis domesticae peregrinaeque historiae seriem felici superiorum stilo conditam uel adtentiore cura uel praestantiore facundia traditurum se sperauerit?1

While Valerius wishes to establish a bene®cial relationship between past and present, it is also possible to posit such a 1 From the actions and sayings of Romans and foreigners that are worthy of recollection but too widely scattered in di€erent places to be readily accessible, I have undertaken to select the choice ones from well-known sources to eliminate the labour of lengthy research for people seeking object-lessons (documenta). I have no desire for comprehensiveness; for who can limit the deeds of every period to the narrow con®nes of books, or what sane person could hope to hand down a record of domestic and foreign history that has been established by the well-turned phrases of his predecessors with more conscientious care or with more stylish eloquence? (Val. Max. Proem).

198

Conclusion: Continuity and Change

connection between present and future. A striking illustration of the latter occurs in Joseph Goebbels' `Appendix' to Hitler's testament. Choosing to ignore Hitler's wish that he survive the FuÈhrer and serve as Chancellor, Goebbels cast his own suicide as an example for imitation: I think that I am thereby rendering the best service to the future of the German people, for in the hard times to come examples are more important than men. Men will always be found to point the way to freedom for the nation. Reconstruction of our national Germanic existence, however, would not be possible were it not modeled on clear examples comprehensible to everyone.2

Instead of identifying examples in his people's history, Goebbels envisions himself as a model for subsequent generations of Germans. If we then compare Goebbels and Valerius, their ideas illustrate that exempla always involve a relationship between two time-frames. This temporal doubleness is independent of the absolute and relative moments in time involved. The past can be applied to the present, or the present to the future. Further, as time passes, these frames of temporal reference shift as well. What is the present for Goebbels will be the past for the people for whom he forecasts his own utility. So by what we might call the transitive property of exempla, the past can also be brought to bear on the future. This is in fact the way that most people think of and use exempla: they scan the past in hopes of ®nding reliable information about the future. The underlying assumption is that a correct understanding of the past permits an enlightened course of action that will produce the most desirable result in the future or, in Santayana's famous formulation: `Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'3 His observation implies both that history does and will repeat itself and that by recollecting the past we can break the cycle of repetition. This statement thus draws on the same kind of thinking found in Livy's claim about the distillation of history into exempla, Goebbels' interpretation of his own death, and Valerius' 2 3

Translated by Barry in Trevor-Roper (1978) 332. Santayana (1905) 284.

Conclusion: Continuity and Change

199

self-proclaimed agenda. Furthermore, this view of history is based on the premise of recurrence: the past can only be useful if it can be relied on to repeat itself. This latter idea is common in Western thought,4 and it is closely linked to exempla since historical examples are very often the encapsulated form in which the past is preserved. And yet despite the assumptions that these men share about recurrence over time and the complex temporal relationships embedded within exempla, Livy, Valerius, and Goebbels have di€erent expectations of the precise way in which their examples will be useful. Western literature has drawn on exempla in di€erent ways at di€erent times, and even the implications of their inherent temporal doubleness vary over time.5 For medieval chroniclers, the innate connection of past and present in exempla allowed historical precedents to legitimate present conduct.6 The past reinforced the present. Renaissance humanists, on the other hand, came to recognize the alterity of the models from ancient history that they wanted to employ and were forced to confront the diculty involved in using antiquity as a guide to conduct.7 The ineluctable di€erence of the past made it an unstable source of authority. Even a scholar who has recently tried to show that John of Salisbury is an exception to the rule of thumb that `the Middle Ages used ``history as exemplum'' or testimony, whereas the Renaissance seriously considered ``exemplum as history'' or real historical experience' ends up concluding that, unlike his Renaissance counterparts, this unusual medieval humanist did not recognize the 4 See Trompf (1979) on the idea of learning from the past in Western thought. He focuses on recurrence in Polybius, Luke, and Machiavelli, but the introductory and concluding sections contain remarks of more general relevance. 5 What follows is a highly selective list of individual studies: Spiegel (1975), David (1980a) 9±14, Von Moos (1984), Lyons (1989), Hampton (1990), Scanlon (1994), and Gelley (1995); see Von Moos for further bibliography (nn. 12±15). 6 See Spiegel (1975) 320±1 who argues that medieval chroniclers assimilated the interpretation of exempla to typological exegesis of the Bible in order to make the past, as enshrined in examples, into a basis for understanding the present. 7 This is the basic thesis of Hampton (1990).

200

Conclusion: Continuity and Change

fundamental di€erence of historical condition between himself and his subject matter.8 Chronological circumstances thus in¯uence the deployment of exempla, and Livy's are no exception: they belong to general, traditional thinking about recurrence and the utility of historical knowledge, but at the same time they are the product of a particular moment in time that explains their particular value to Livy and his contemporaries. The civil wars left the Roman world profoundly disoriented. Early triumviral literature re¯ects a sense of dislocation and pessimism to an unprecedented degree,9 and even the less overtly dark works of the 30s mirror the contemporary political disorder.10 Livy's Preface has been seen as an extreme instance of the pessimism of the civil war period,11 and he articulates in it an awareness of total breakdown: Ad illa mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum, quae uita, qui mores fuerint, per quos uiros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit; labante deinde paulatim disciplina uelut dissidentes primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, tum ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec tempora quibus nec uitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus peruentum est.12

The combined metaphors of a collapsed structure and a disease with intolerable cures convey Livy's sense of living 8

Von Moos (1984) 211. See e.g. Nisbet (1984) on Horace's Epodes and Levene (1992) 69±70 on Sallust's monographs. Jal (1963) 231±6 comments in general on the mood of the early triumvirate. 10 See e.g. Du Quesnay (1981) 30±6 on the fundamental diculties of interpreting Virgil's ®rst Eclogue, and Du Quesnay (1984) on Horace's e€orts to advertise the best qualities of Octavian and his friends. Dionisotti (1988) discusses the in¯uence of contemporary concerns on Nepos' Lives. 11 See most recently Luce (1995) 236; on the pre-Actian date of the Preface, see also Woodman (1988) 132±4. The issues and arguments involved are reviewed by Moles (1993) 150±2. 12 As for me, I ask that each person pay close attention for himself to the following, namely what was the way of life and the traditions, through which men and by what abilities, both civic and military, the empire was created and increased; next, let him mentally trace those traditions as ®rst they slipped, together with the gradual decline of their proper inculcation, then collapsed more and more, and then began to tumble headlong, until we have to come our current straits, where we can endure neither our ruination nor its cure (Praef. 9). 9

Conclusion: Continuity and Change

201

in a historical cul-de-sac. The past is an apparently irreversible decline because it leads to a moment where no one can bear to grasp what might produce a better future.13 And yet Livy turns from this moment of utter bleakness to declare that studying the past is healthful (salubre) and bene®cial (frugiferum). So there is a way out, and it lies through exempla. Precisely because exempla assume a continuity between two time-frames, they o€ered Livy and his contemporaries a sense of foundation in their past as well as possible bridges to the future. We can see this most concretely with Augustus, since he used exempla in a very directed manner. The precedents that he found, enhanced, and promulgated for his reforms gave the comforting and stabilizing illusion of tradition at the same time as they created a new political organization.14 Livy's exempla, on the other hand, lack the stability of ®xed content. Caudium and Cannae can be invoked in numerous contexts on numerous occasions; speakers can misread the past or debate it in such a way that each audience has to make up its own mind what the operative lesson is; the past can be rejected in favour of present concerns; and even constitutional precedents can be generated and discarded over time. Concurrently, however, Livy's exempla o€er in form an inherent link to the past since merely to cite an exemplum is to assert a relationship between the time of the speaker and that of the exemplum. For a generation undergoing severe dislocation, and particularly for a historian choosing to chronicle the entire past of that generation (rather than attempting contemporary history alone15), exempla had great advantages. A deeply familiar element of Roman culture, exempla provide Livy with the thread to stitch together the past, attach it to his own age, and then present Roman history as one continuous whole.16 While the ¯uidity of exempla allows him to show 13 On Livy's recognition that the Romans' history had in some sense ended, see Fornara (1983) 73. 14 See in general Eder (1990). 15 See Toher (1990) 150±4 and Carter (1991) 102 on the separate challenge involved in writing contemporary history in this period. 16 See Pelling (1995) 218±20 on the e€ectiveness of moralizing that draws on existing cultural assumptions.

202

Conclusion: Continuity and Change

how the study of history necessitates re¯ection and a constant examination of the way the past can have meaning for the present, the innate assumption of exempla that the past can be usefully applied to the present and the present to the future permits Livy to emphasize continuity in response to the volatile circumstances of civil war. His historiographical project exploits both the absence of intrinsic content and the presence of the twofold chronological dimension in exempla to unify seven hundred and ®fty years of history into an on-going process; both features of exempla contribute to Livy's attempt to paper over the gap between past and present that was becoming increasingly apparent as he wrote.17 Like Livy, Augustus saw and used the two basic temporal relationships that exempla contain: past and present, present and future. The politician drew on republican precedents to solidify his constitutional innovations and built his gallery of heroes to provide models for the future. Livy employed exempla as a means of unifying a monumental history, but he also viewed them as a foundation for a Rome salvaged from its recent past. The reason why exempla were attractive to triumviral and Augustan Rome is that they were not only a sophisticated vehicle for creating political stability and for ordering a complicated history, but also a reassuring reminder that all was not lost and that the interpretation of that complex past could lead to a more secure future. 17 For some remarks on Livy's emphasis on continuity between past and present, see Feldherr (1998) 222±3. And compare Valerius Maximus, who faced an unusual challenge in compiling historical exempla for an age that was manifestly di€erent from its past; it was not immediately obvious how republican examples could have meaning under a completely new political system or how the emperors could be seen as a natural extension of republican government. Instead of drawing attention to the chasm that divides him and his readers from their republican past, Valerius simply elides the transitional stage by various strategies, such as depoliticizing the controversial ®gures of the late Republic and using scarcely any examples from the post-Actian years. See Bloomer (1992) 11, 183±4, 204±7, and 223±4 in particular.

Appendix: Models for Imitation and Avoidance This is a list of people, events, and procedures referred to as models for imitation or avoidance in the surviving books of Livy. Making such a catalogue involves almost as much interpretation as compilation, and not everyone would obtain the same results. My basic principle has been that the past as a guide to conduct should be at least implicit in each passage; the list therefore does not include places where reference to a historical event is primarily descriptive or comparative. For the most part I excluded anything vague or not immediately recognizable, and in some cases, for ease of reference, an event may be listed under the person associated with it (so, for example, when Hannibal cruci®es the guide who misdirects him, the event appears under `Hannibal' rather than `Cruci®xion' or `Hannibal's guide'). Accordingly, it should not be assumed that every citation under a word refers directly to it. Where possible, Romans are identi®ed by conventional dates for ®rst consulship or highest magistracy in order to distinguish among various members of the same gens and to give some chronological reference points. The list itself is divided into two sections, of which the ®rst is much the longer and consists of speci®c references. The few cases where models from the past are explicitly invoked but not de®ned are appended in a second group where a brief description precedes the reference; also in this section are other occurrences of the words documentum and exemplum. Throughout the Appendix the letters (d) and (e) indicate passages that contain the words documentum and exemplum respectively. For passages discussed in the main text, see the Index Locorum.

204

Appendix

1. speci®c references: events, people, and procedures Achaeans M'. Acilius (cos. 191) Aegates Mam. Aemilius Mamercus (cons. trib. 438) L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 219) L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 182) Aequi Aetolians Africa Agathocles Agrigentum Albans and Alba Longa Alban Lake Alexander the Great and Philip II Allia Alps Antiochus III the Great

Aous Ardea Argos Aristo Arpi Athenians and Athens M. Atilius Regulus (cos. 267) M. Atilius Regulus (cos. 227) Atrax Attalus I Soter

32. 21. 29 (e) 38. 43. 9; 38. 46. 10; 38. 49. 2 21. 10. 7; 21. 41. 6; 21. 49. 13; 30. 32. 9 4. 24. 7; 4. 32. 3; 9. 33. 6 23. 45. 8; 26. 2. 13; 28. 28. 12 45. 40. 6 (d); 45. 41. 10 (e) 6. 7. 4; 9. 45. 18 (e) 38. 8. 7; 38. 43. 9; 45. 22. 7 28. 42. 1 (d); 30. 32. 7 28. 43. 21 26. 41. 15 8. 5. 9; 26. 13. 16; 40. 46. 12 5. 51. 6; 5. 52. 9 42. 52. 14 6. 28. 6; 7. 13. 5; 22. 59. 8; 25. 6. 10; 38. 17. 6 21. 30. 5±8; 21. 43. 15 37. 54. 13 and 25; 38. 8. 7; 38. 17. 13; 38. 43. 9; 38. 45. 5; 38. 46. 10; 38. 49. 2; 40. 27. 11; 42. 44. 4; 42. 45. 5; 42. 50. 6; 44. 1. 12; 44. 24. 3; 45. 22. 7; 45. 39. 1 33. 4. 1; 36. 17. 3; 38. 49. 3 3. 72. 2 (e); 4. 7. 5 (e) 34. 22. 13 (e) 34. 61. 12 (e) 26. 41. 15 45. 22. 6; 45. 38. 6 28. 42. 1 (d) (e); 28. 43. 17 (e); 30. 30. 23 (e) 22. 39. 17 33. 4. 1 37. 53. 11

Appendix Attalus II Philadelphus

40. 8. 14 (e)

M. Calpurnius Flamma (tr. mil. 258) Campanians

22. 60. 11

Cannae

Capitoline siege Capua Carthage and Carthaginians Sp. Carvilius Maximus (cos. 293) Cassii Sp. Cassius (cos. 502) Caudine Forks Celtiberians Censorship Cephallanians Cineas Appii Claudii Claudius Asellus Ap. Claudius Caecus (cos. 307) Ap. Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus (Xvir) C. Claudius Inregillensis Sabinus (cos. 460) M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 222)

205

7. 38. 5±6 (e); 8. 4. 9; 28. 28. 6; 38. 43. 9 23. 18. 7; 23. 25. 3; 23. 43. 4; 23. 45. 6; 24. 8. 20 (d) (e); 25. 10. 8; 25. 22. 3; 26. 12. 14; 26. 41. 11; 27. 12. 11 6. 40. 17; 9. 4. 7±16; 9. 11. 6; 9. 38. 15; 9. 41. 11; 10. 16. 6; 22. 3. 10; 22. 14. 9±11; 34. 5. 9 26. 1. 3±4; 26. 5. 2 (d); 26. 24. 2±3; 26. 41. 15; 28. 41. 13; 31. 29. 10±11; 31. 31. 5, 10, and 15 21. 34. 2 (e); 28. 28. 9; 31. 31. 15; 33. 12. 7 (d); 34. 13. 7±8; 37. 54. 26; 38. 45. 5; 38. 46. 10; 42. 50. 6; 45. 22. 6; 45. 38. 11 24. 9. 8 4. 15. 5 4. 15. 4; 6. 17. 2 9. 36. 1; 9. 38. 4 and 15; 22. 14. 12; 23. 41. 14; 23. 42. 7; 25. 6. 10; 35. 11. 3 25. 33. 6 (d) (e); 28. 42. 8 4. 24. 8 (e); 29. 37. 15 (e) 38. 43. 9 34. 4. 6 4. 3. 14; 4. 15. 5; 9. 33. 3; 9. 34. 1±5; 10. 8. 6 24. 8. 3 10. 22. 7 3. 56. 13 (d); 3. 61. 2 and 4; 6. 20. 3; 9. 34. 1±2 4. 48. 6; 10. 8. 6 28. 28. 12; 38. 43. 8

206 C. Claudius Nero (cos. 207) C. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 177) P. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 249) Cloelia Constitutional history A. Cornelius Cossus (cos. 428) P. Cornelius Cossus (cons. trib. 408) P. Cornelius Scipio (cos. 218) P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205) L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190) Cn. Cornelius Scipio Calvus (cos. 222) Cremera M'. Curius Dentatus (cos. 290) Cyrus the Great

Appendix 28. 42. 17 (d) (e) 41. 18. 1 22. 42. 9 9. 11. 3. 67. 10. 7. 4. 32.

6 6±11; 4. 4. 1±3; 6. 37. 5±11; 9±8. 12 4

4. 57. 6 (e) 25. 38. 5±10; 26. 2. 13; 28. 28. 12; 28. 41. 14 (d); 28. 42. 8 and 20; 38. 58. 4±6; 40. 8. 15 (e) 30. 45. 6±7 (e); 38. 46. 10; 40. 8. 15 (e); 45. 38. 4, 7, and 11 38. 43. 9; 38. 46. 10; 40. 8. 15 (e) 25. 38. 5±10; 26. 2. 13; 28. 28. 12; 28. 41. 14 (d); 28. 42. 8; 38. 58. 4±6; 40. 8. 15 (e) 9. 38. 16 45. 38. 11 9. 17. 6 (e)

Dasius Altinius Debt relief/land laws Decemuiri P. Decius Mus (cos. 340) P. Decius Mus (cos. 312) Drepana Driving in a nail

24. 45. 5 (d) 2. 30. 1 (e) 4. 15. 4; 25. 4. 3 8. 10. 4; 10. 28. 13±15; 22. 60. 11 10. 29. 5; 24. 9. 8 22. 42. 9 7. 3. 1±9; 8. 18. 12

Elections and voting Epirotes Eumenes II

3. 35. 8 (e); 6. 38. 10 (e); 7. 16. 7±8 (e bis); 10. 15. 11 (e); 24. 9. 10 (e); 27. 6. 4±8 (e ter) 45. 38. 11 40. 8. 14 (e)

Fabii C. Fabius Dorsuo

2. 46. 4 (e) 5. 52. 3

Appendix Q. Fabius Labeo (cos. 183) Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator (cos. 233) Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (cos. 322) Falerii Faliscan schoolmaster Fidenae Flamen Dialis C. Flaminius (cos. 223) Cn. Flavius (cur. aed. 304) Fregellae Cn. Fulvius Centumalus Maximus (cos. 211) Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 237) M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189) M. Furius Camillus (cons. trib. 401) L. Furius Medullinus (cons. trib. 381) Gauls Cn. Genucius (tr. pl. 473) L. Genucius (cos. 365) Greece Hamilcar Hannibal

207

38. 47. 5 22. 18. 8±9; 22. 24. 10; 22. 39. 9; 22. 44. 5±7 (e); 27. 6. 8 (e); 28. 44. 10±11; 44. 22. 10; 45. 37. 12 8. 35. 10 (e); 10. 15. 11 (e); 24. 9. 8 6. 7. 4; 5. 27. 13 (e) 5. 27. 13 (e); 24. 45. 3 (d); 42. 47. 6 4. 32. 2 5. 52. 13; 27. 8. 9 (e) 21. 63. 1±5; 22. 18. 9; 22. 39. 6; 22. 42. 9; 22. 44. 5; 23. 45. 8; 26. 2. 13; 28. 28. 12 9. 46. 8 (d) 9. 31. 13 28. 28. 12 27. 6. 4 (e); 28. 41. 13; 38. 43. 9 38. 43. 9 6. 7. 4; 6. 40. 17; 8. 33. 15±16; 9. 4. 14; 22. 3. 10; 22. 14. 9; 25. 4. 2; 27. 34. 14; 45. 38. 7 6. 25. 3 (d); 8. 33. 15±16 6. 7. 4; 6. 28. 9; 21. 30. 11; 21. 43. 13; 21. 52. 7; 22. 59. 8; 26. 41. 10; 38. 43. 9 2. 55. 1 (e) 7. 6. 11 (d) 45. 22. 6 21. 5. 2 21. 43. 2 (e); 22. 13. 9; 26. 38. 1±5 (e); 26. 41. 12; 28. 44. 1±2 (e); 30. 30. 16 (d); 31. 7. 7; 33. 12. 7 (d); 38. 45. 5; 38. 46. 10; 40. 27. 11; 42. 50. 10; 45. 22. 6

208

Appendix

Hasdrubal Heraclea Turnus Herdonius Hernici Hiero II (of Syracuse) Hieronymus (of Syracuse) Horatii M. Horatius (cos. 449) Tullus Hostilius

21. 5. 2 22. 59. 8 1. 52. 4 (d) 9. 45. 7±8 24. 6. 8; 24. 28. 6; 25. 24. 13 24. 28. 6 3. 39. 3 10. 37. 10 8. 5. 9; 8. 33. 8

Ilergetes Indibilis

28. 27. 5 28. 27. 5; 28. 42. 8

Jove C. Julius (Xvir) T. and Ti. Junius Brutus (sons of L. Junius Brutus) Juno

3. 39. 4 3. 33. 9 (e) 2. 5. 9 (e); 4. 15. 3; 8. 34. 3

Lacetani Lake Regillus Latins Lemnian women Leontini lex Cincia lex Licinia P. Licinius Calvus (cons. trib. 400) C. Licinius Stolo (cos. 364) Ligurians Linen Legion M. Livius Salinator (cos. 219) Luceria Lucretia C. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 242)

28. 27. 5 6. 28. 7; 8. 5. 10; 8. 7. 6 40. 46. 12 34. 2. 3 24. 32. 1 34. 4. 9 34. 4. 8 6. 37. 8

22. 14. 12 1. 58. 10 (e) 22. 14. 13; 23. 13. 3±4; 28. 41. 3; 45. 38. 4

Macedonians and Macedon

33. 8. 4±5; 38. 17. 11; 38. 59. 7; 39. 28. 2 (e)

5. 52. 10

10. 8. 8 40. 27. 13; 42. 8. 6 (e) 10. 38. 11 (d) 28. 42. 17 (d) (e)

Appendix Sp. Maecilius (tr. pl. 416) Sp. Maelius C. Maenius (cos. 338) Magistracies Magna Mater Maiores and patres Mamertines Mandonius M. Manlius Capitolinus (cos. 392) T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (cos. 347) T. Manlius Torquatus (son of preceding) Cn. Manlius Vulso (cos. 189) Ancus Marcius Cn. Marcius Coriolanus C. Marcius Rutulus (cos. 357) L. Marcius Septimus Masinissa Massilians T. Menenius Lanatus (cos. 452) Messina M. Metilius (tr. pl. 416) Mettius Fufetius L. Minucius Augurinus (cos. su€. 458) M. Minucius Rufus (cos. 221) Moericus Mount Eryx Nabis

209

4. 48. 12 (e) 4. 13. 1 (e); 4. 15. 4; 4. 16. 1; 6. 17. 2; 6. 18. 4 9. 34. 14 6. 37. 8; 7. 6. 11 (d); 10. 8. 8; 27. 8. 9 (e); 32. 7. 10 (d); 39. 5. 2 (e); 39. 39. 6 (e) 34. 3. 8; 34. 5. 10 8. 13. 16 (e); 22. 60. 7 (e); 24. 8. 17 (e) 28. 28. 6; 31. 7. 3 28. 27. 5; 28. 42. 8 6. 17. 6; 38. 17. 9 (See also 6. 11. 4, 14. 4, 15. 11, 16. 2) 4. 29. 6 (e); 7. 5. 2 (e); 7. 26. 2; 8. 7. 17 (e); 8. 30. 13; 8. 35. 9; 23. 22. 7; 24. 8. 4; 38. 17. 8 8. 7. 17 (e); 8. 7. 22 (e); 8. 30. 13; 8. 35. 9 38. 43. 9 1. 35. 5 2. 54. 6; 7. 40. 12; 28. 29. 1; 34. 5. 9 10. 8. 8; 10. 37. 10 26. 2. 2 (e); 28. 28. 13; 28. 42. 5 28. 16. 11±12 (d); 31. 11. 14; 37. 25. 9 (e); 37. 53. 20±22 37. 54. 21; 38. 17. 12 2. 54. 2 and 6 28. 28. 6; 31. 29. 6±7; 45. 22. 6 4. 48. 12 (e) 1. 28. 6 (d) and 11 (e) 8. 33. 14 45. 37. 12 25. 31. 6 (e) 21. 10. 7; 21. 41. 6 34. 27. 8±10; 34. 33. 8 (e); 37. 25. 6 and 11 (e); 38. 59. 7

210

Appendix

New Carthage

27. 18. 8; 28. 28. 9;

T. Otacilius Crassus (pr. 217)

24. 8. 13 (d)

L. Papirius Cursor (cons. trib. 387) L. Papirius Cursor (cos. 326) L. Papirius Cursor (cos. 293) Perseus

9. 34. 21

Persians Philip V of Macedon

Plebeians Q. Pleminius Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70) Numa Pompilius Lars Porsenna A. Postumius Albinus (cos. 242) L. Postumius Albinus (cos. 234) L. Postumius Megellus (cos. 305) M. Postumius (of Pyrgi) Potitii Ptolemy VI Philometor Q. Publilius Philo (cos. 339) Pyrenees Pyrrhus

8. 35. 6 (d); 10. 3. 8; 10. 39. 13; 22. 14. 12 24. 9. 8 45. 8. 6 (e); 45. 19. 16; 45. 22. 8; 45. 40. 6 (d); 45. 41. 10 (e) 36. 16. 7 31. 24. 11±12; 33. 12. 8; 36. 16. 7; 37. 25. 6 and 11 (e); 37. 54. 13 and 26; 38. 8. 7; 38. 43. 9; 38. 45. 5; 38. 46. 10; 38. 49. 3; 38. 59. 7; 40. 27. 11; 42. 44. 4; 42. 45. 5; 44. 1. 12; 44. 16. 5; 44. 24. 3; 45. 8. 4; 45. 22. 6; 45. 39. 1 2. 43. 10 (e); 2. 44. 11; 2. 45. 1 (e); 3. 21. 6 (e) 31. 12. 2 (e) 9. 17. 6 (e) 1. 21. 2 (e); 1. 35. 3; 4. 3. 10 and 17; 4. 4. 2 6. 40. 17; 9. 11. 6; 10. 16. 7; 26. 41. 10 23. 13. 3±4 26. 2. 13; 28. 28. 12 10. 37. 9 (e); 27. 6. 8 (e) 25. 4. 7 (e) 9. 34. 18±19 45. 44. 13 (d) 10. 8. 8 21. 30. 5 22. 59. 8, 14, and 18; 23. 7. 5 (e);

Appendix

Pyrrhus' betrayer

24. 31. 37. 24.

211

6. 8; 25. 6. 3; 29. 18. 3±9; 3. 6; 31. 7. 10; 34. 4. 6; 54. 26 45. 3 (d); 42. 47. 6

L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (cos. su€. 460) T. Quinctius Crispinus (cos. 208) L. Quinctius Flamininus (cos. 192) T. Quinctius Flamininus (cos. 198)

6. 18. 4; 8. 33. 14

Rhegium Rhegium legion Rhodians Rhone Roman army

31. 29. 10; 31. 31. 5±7 28. 28. 1±6; 31. 31. 5±7 45. 22. 11±14 21. 30. 5 4. 32. 3; 6. 7. 4; 7. 14. 1 (e); 22. 60. 14 (e); 23. 45. 1; 25. 38. 9 (d); 26. 48. 11 (e); 28. 19. 8 (d); 28. 26. 1±2 (e); 28. 42. 9; 40. 40. 6 34. 2. 5 (e); 34. 5. 9 5. 51. 8 (d); 22. 61. 1 (e) 1. 18. 6; 3. 17. 6; 3. 39. 4; 4. 15. 7; 5. 53. 8; 6. 41. 10; 40. 46. 10

Roman women Romans Romulus Sabine women Sabines Saguntum Samnites Sardinia Satricani Secessions of the plebs Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (cos. 215) Ti. Sempronius Longus (cos. 218)

28. 28. 12 40. 8. 15 (e) 32. 7. 10 (d); 38. 43. 9; 38. 46. 10; 38. 49. 3; 38. 59. 7; 40. 8. 15 (e)

34. 5. 8 40. 46. 12 21. 19. 10 (d); 21. 30. 3 and 9; 23. 18. 7; 28. 39. 17 (d); 31. 7. 3 and 6; 34. 11. 8 8. 4. 9; 26. 41. 10 21. 40. 5; 21. 43. 6; 26. 41. 12 and 15 26. 33. 10 3. 52. 1±4; 3. 61. 5; 3. 67. 11; 7. 40. 11; 9. 34. 3±4; 34. 2. 7; 34. 7. 14; 45. 23. 9 26. 2. 10; 28. 28. 12 22. 18. 9; 22. 44. 5

212 P. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 204) Senate M'. Sergius Fidenas (cons. trib. 404) C. Servilius Ahala (cons. trib. 408) Cn. Servilius Geminus (cos. 217) Sp. Servilius Structus (cos. 476) L. Sextius Laternus (cos. 366) Sicilian expedition Sicily Sidicinii Socii Sora Sortition Spain and Spanish tribes Spanish kings Spartan kings Spartans Ser. Sulpicius Galba (cos. 144) Syphax Syracusans and Syracuse

Tarentines and Tarentum Tarpeia Tarquinii (or reges) L. Tarquinius Collatinus T. Tatius Temple of Aius Locutius C. Terentius Varro (cos. 216)

Appendix 22. 60. 8±18 3. 21. 6 (e); 37. 54. 27 (e) 5. 13. 10 4. 57. 6 (e) 22. 39. 17 2. 54. 2 10. 8. 8 25. 24. 12; 28. 41. 17; 28. 43. 20 21. 40. 5; 21. 43. 6; 26. 41. 12 and 15; 28. 44. 13; 31. 29. 7 8. 4. 9 22. 39. 12 (d); 22. 60. 14 (e); 26. 41. 12 9. 31. 13 10. 24. 17 (e); 37. 1. 9 (e) 21. 30. 3; 21. 43. 13; 30. 32. 7 37. 25. 9 (e) 40. 8. 12±13 (e) 36. 17. 7 and 11; 38. 17. 12; 38. 59. 7 45. 37. 3 (d) 38. 46. 10; 45. 39. 7 25. 24. 11±15; 25. 31. 6 (e); 26. 24. 2±3; 26. 41. 15; 31. 29. 6 and 8; 31. 31. 6 and 8; 38. 43. 9 21. 10. 8; 23. 7. 5 (e); 31. 29. 10; 37. 54. 26; 38. 17. 12 1. 11. 7 (e) 1. 46. 3 (e); 2. 9. 2; 3. 17. 8; 3. 39. 3; 4. 15. 3 1. 49. 2 (e); 4. 3. 11 and 17; 4. 15. 3; 8. 5. 9 1. 35. 3; 4. 3. 12; 6. 41. 10; 40. 46. 10 5. 52. 11 26. 3. 2

Appendix Thermopylae Tolostobogii Trasimene Trebia Tribunes and tribunicia potestas Triumphs and ovations

Troy Servius Tullius Valerii M. Valerius Maximus Corvus (cos. 348) L. Valerius Potitus (cos. 449) P. Valerius Publicola (cos. su€. 509) Veii Verginia L. Verginius (tr. pl. 449) L. Verginius Tricostus Esquilinus (cons. trib. 402) Vestals Vindicius (slave who informs on Tarquin plot) Volones (slave volunteers in second Punic war) Volsci Xanthippus

213

36. 16. 7 and 11; 38. 49. 2 38. 27. 1 23. 18. 7; 23. 43. 4; 23. 45. 6; 24. 8. 20 (d) (e); 25. 10. 8; 26. 12. 14; 26. 41. 11; 27. 12. 11 23. 18. 7; 23. 43. 4; 23. 45. 6; 26. 41. 11 2. 44. 2 (e); 4. 16. 3±4 (e); 4. 48. 6; 5. 29. 7 (e); 38. 56. 10 (e) 10. 37. 6±12 (e); 31. 20. 3 (e) and 5 (e); 31. 48. 2 (e); 33. 23. 3 (e); 36. 39. 10 (e); 38. 50. 3 (e); 39. 29. 5 (e) 5. 4. 11 4. 3. 12 and 17; 4. 4. 2 3. 18. 6; 3. 39. 3; 3. 61. 2; 7. 32. 13±16 7. 26. 7; 7. 32. 12 (e); 24. 8. 5; 38. 17. 8 10. 37. 10 3. 17. 8 4. 3. 3. 5.

32. 50. 44. 13.

2; 5. 4. 13±14; 6. 7. 4 8 (d); 3. 61. 4 2 (e) 10

5. 52. 13±14 2. 5. 9±10 (e) 24. 14. 4 (e); 26. 2. 10 6. 7. 4 28. 43. 19

214

Appendix

2. general references and other instances of the words documentum and exemplum Abuse in¯icted by Roman magistrates Abuse in¯icted on conquered places

42. 1. 12 (e); 42. 8. 5 (e) 21. 57. 14 (e); 25. 31. 9 (e); 29. 9. 12 (e); 29. 27. 4 (e); 38. 43. 1±5 (e)

Cupiditas imperii

28. 21. 9 (d)

Dedication of a temple Diplomacy/warfare by example

40. 52. 4±7 (e) 24. 35. 2; 32. 15. 1±3; 36. 9. 13 (e); 36. 10. 3 (e); 42. 37. 7

Procedure for ransoming prisoners Procedure for declaration of war Procedure for trials

22. 23. 6

Uni®ed command

4. 31. 2 (d)

Victims of Roman imperialism

32. 21. 29 (e)

45. 21. 4 (e) 31. 12. 3 (e)

Works Cited

Adam, R. (1982), Tite-Live. Histoire Romaine, vol. 28, Bude (Paris: Belles Lettres). È ber das rhetorische para3deigma. Theorie, Alewell, K. (1913), U Beispielsammlungen, Verwendung in der roÈmischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Diss. Leipzig). AlfoÈldi, A. (1965), Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Anderson, J. C., Jr. (1984), The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora, Coll. Latomus 182 (Brussels: Latomus). Astin, A. E. (1962), ` ``Professio'' in the Abortive Election of 184 B.C.', Historia 11: 252±5. ÐÐ (1978), Cato the Censor (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1988), `Regimen Morum', JRS 78: 14±34. Badian, E. (1966), `The Early Historians', in T.A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul), 1±38. ÐÐ (1982), ` ``Crisis Theories'' and the Beginning of the Principate', in G. Wirth (ed.), Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der roÈmischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 18±41. ÐÐ (1993), `Livy and Augustus', in Schuller (1993), 9±38. Bal, M. (1997), Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 2nd edn. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Bauer, H. (1987), `Nuove ricerche sul Foro di Augusto', in L'urbs (1987), 763±70. Bettini, M. (1991), Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul, trans. J. Van Sickle (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Bischo€, H. (1932), Der Warner bei Herodot (Diss. Marburg). Blincoe, M. N. (1941), `The Use of the Exemplum in Cicero's Philosophical Works' (Diss. St. Louis). Bloomer, W. M. (1992), Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press). Bonfante Warren, L. (1970), `Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: the Changing Face of the Triumph', JRS 60: 49±66. Bonnefond, M. (1987), `Transferts de fonctions et mutation

216

Works Cited

ideÂologique: le Capitole et le Forum d'Auguste', in L'urbs (1987), 251±78. Bonner, S. F. (1977), Education in Ancient Rome: From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny (London: Methuen). Boyce, A. A. (1942), `The Origin of Ornamenta Triumphalia', CPh 37: 130±41. Brink, C. O. (1993), `History in the ``Dialogus de oratoribus'' and Tacitus the Historian', Hermes 121: 335±49. Briscoe, J. (1973), A Commentary on Livy Books XXXI± XXXIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1981), A Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV±XXXVII (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Brock, R. (1995), `Versions, ``Inversions'' and Evasions: Classical Historiography and the ``Published'' Speech', PLLS 8: 209±24. Bruckmann, H. (1936), Die roÈmischen Niederlagen im Geschichtswerk des T. Livius (Diss. MuÈnster). Brunt, P. A. (1980), `On Historical Fragments and Epitomes', CQ 30: 477±94. Burck, E. (1950), EinfuÈhrung in die dritte Dekade des Livius (Heidelberg: F. H. Kerle). ÐÐ (1964), Die ErzaÈhlungskunst des T. Livius, repr. with a new introduction (Berlin and Zurich: Weidmann). ÐÐ (1966), `Zum Rombild des Livius. Interpretationen zur zweiten Pentade', in E. LefeÁvre (ed.), Vom Menschenbild in der roÈmischen Literatur. AusgewaÈhlte Schriften (Heidelberg: Carl Winter), 321±53. (Originally published in AU 3 (1957): 34±75.) ÐÐ (1967), `Einzelinterpretation von Reden', in E. Burck (ed.), Wege zu Livius, Wege der Forschung 132 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 460±3. ÐÐ (1969), `Pleminius und Scipio bei Livius (Livius 29,6±9 und 29,16,4±22,12)', in P. Steinmetz (ed.), Politeia und Res Publica. BeitraÈge zum VerstaÈndnis von Politik, Recht und Staat in der Antike (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner), 301±14. Calhoon, C. G. (1997), `Lucretia, Savior, and Scapegoat: The Dynamics of Sacri®ce in Livy 1. 57±59', Helios 24: 151±69. Campbell, B. (1987), `Teach Yourself How To Be a General', JRS 77: 13±29. Cameron, A. (1989) (ed.), History as Text. The Writing of Ancient History (London: Duckworth). Canter, H. V. (1933), `The Mythological Paradigm in Greek and Latin Poetry', AJPh 54: 201±24.

Works Cited

217

Carter, J. M. (1982), Suetonius. Divus Augustus (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press). ÐÐ (1991), Review of Raa¯aub and Toher (1990), JRS 81: 201±2. Catterall, J. L. (1938), `Variety and Inconcinnity of Language in the First Decade of Livy', TAPhA 69: 292±318. Connor, W. R. (1984), Thucydides (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Crawford, M. H. (1973), `Foedus and Sponsio', PBSR 41: 1±7. ÐÐ (1996) (ed.), Roman Statutes, vols. i±ii, BICS Supplement 64 (London: Institute of Classical Studies). Crosby, T. P. (1980), ` ``Exemplum'' and ``Documentum'' in Livy' (Diss. London). Culham, P. (1982), `The lex Oppia', Latomus 41: 786±93. ÐÐ (1986), `Again, What Meaning Lies in Colour!', ZPE 64: 235±45. D'Arms, J. H. (1972), `Pro Murena 16 and Cicero's Use of Historical Exempla', Phoenix 26: 82±4. David, J. M. (1980a), `PreÂsentation', in J. M. David (ed.), `RheÂtorique et Histoire. L'exemplum et le modeÁle de comportement dans le discours antique et meÂdieÂval', MEFR (Moyen aÃge) 92. 1: 9±14. ÐÐ (1980b), `Maiorum exempla sequi: l'exemplum historique dans les discours judiciaires de CiceÂron', in J.M. David (ed.), `RheÂtorique et Histoire. L'exemplum et le modeÁle de comportement dans le discours antique et meÂdieÂval', MEFR (Moyen aÃge) 92. 1: 67±86. Davidson, J. (1991), `The Gaze in Polybius' Histories', JRS 81: 10±24. Degrassi, A. (1937), Inscriptiones Italiae XIII. 3. Elogia (Rome: Libreria dello stato). ÐÐ (1945), `Virgilio e il Foro di Augusto', Epigraphica 7: 88±103. ÐÐ (1947), Inscriptiones Italiae XIII. 1. Fasti Triumphales et Capitolini (Rome: Istituto Poligra®co dello stato. Libreria dello stato). Demoen, K. (1997), `A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms: The Rhetorical Exemplum in Ancient and Imperial Greek Theory', Rhetorica 15: 125±58. Develin, R. (1978), `Tradition and the Development of Triumphal Regulations in Rome', Klio 60: 429±38. Dillery, J. (1995), Xenophon and the History of his Times (London: Routledge). Dionisotti, A. C. (1988), `Nepos and the Generals', JRS 78: 35± 49.

218

Works Cited

Drew, D. L. (1925), `Horace, Odes 1. 12 and the Forum Augustum', CQ 19: 159±64. Du Quesnay, I. M. Le M. (1981), `Vergil's First Eclogue', PLLS 3: 29±182. ÐÐ (1984), `Horace and Maecenas: The Propaganda Value of Sermones I', in Woodman and West (1984), 19±58. Earl, D. C. (1961), The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Eck, W. (1984), `Senatorial Self-Representation: Developments in the Augustan Period', in Millar and Segal (1984), 129±67. Eckstein, A. M. (1987), Senate and General: Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264±194 B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press). ÐÐ (1995), Moral Vision in The Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press). Eder, W. (1990), `Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link between Republic and Empire', in Raa¯aub and Toher (1990), 71±122. Edwards, C. (1996), Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Ehlers, W. (1939), `Triumphus', RE 2 7. 1: 493±511. Evans, J. D. (1992), The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Evans, R. J., and Kleijwegt, M. (1992), `Did the Romans Like Young Men? A Study of the lex Villia annalis: Causes and E€ects', ZPE 92: 181±95. Eyben, E. (1973), `Roman Notes on the Course of Life', AncSoc 4: 213±38. ÐÐ (1993), Restless Youth in Ancient Rome, trans. Patrick Daly (London: Routledge). Feeney, D. C. (1986), `History and Revelation in Vergil's Underworld', PCPhS 32: 1±24. Feichtinger, B. (1992), `Ad maiorem gloriam Romae: Ideologie und Fiktion in der Historiographie des Livius', Latomus 51: 3± 33. Feldherr, A. M. (1998), Spectacle and Society in Livy's History (Berkeley: University of California Press). Flower, H. I. (1996), Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Fornara, C. W. (1971), Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Works Cited

219

ÐÐ (1983), The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press). Forsythe, G. (1994), The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition (Lanham, Md.: University of America Press). Fox, M. (1993), `History and Rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus', JRS 83: 31±47. Frank, T. (1938), `Augustus, Vergil, and the Augustan Elogia', AJPh 59: 91±4. Frier, B. W. (1979), Libri Annales Ponti®cum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 27 (Rome: American Academy in Rome). Frisch, P. (1980), `Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums', ZPE 39: 91±8. Gaillard, M. (1978), ` ``Auctoritas exempli'': pratique rheÂtorique et ideÂologie au 1er sieÁcle avant J.-C', REL 56: 30±4. Galinsky, K. (1996), Augustan Culture. An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Gazich, R. (1990), `Teoria e pratica dell' ``exemplum'' in Quintiliano', in P. V. Cova, R. Gazich, G. E. Manzoni, and G. Melzani (eds.), Aspetti della ``paideia'' di Quintiliano (Milan: Vita e pensiero), 61±141. ÐÐ (1995), ``Exemplum'' ed esemplaritaÁ in Properzio (Milan: UniversitaÁ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore). Geiger, J. (1985), `Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography', Historia Einzelschriften 47 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). Gelley, A. (1995) (ed.), Unruly Examples. On the Rhetoric of Exemplarity (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press). Genette, G. (1980), Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, trans. J. E. Lewin (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Ginsburg, J. (1993), `In maiores certamina: Past and Present in the Annals', in T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman (eds.), Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 86±103. Goldhill, S. (1994), `The Failure of Exemplarity', in I. F. J. de Jong and J. P. Sullivan (eds.), Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature (Leiden: E. J. Brill), 51±73. Gregory, A. P. (1994), ` ``Powerful Images'': Responses to Portraits and the Political Use of Images in Rome', JRA 7: 80±99. Haberman, L. (1981), `Nefas ab libidine ortum: Sexual Morality and Politics in the Early Books of Livy', CB 57: 8±11.

220

Works Cited

Halle, L. (1958), `A Study of Moralization in Livy' (Diss. Bryn Mawr). Hampton, T. (1990), Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Harris, W. V. (1985), War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327±70 B.C., revised edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Hayne, L. (1978), `The Valerii FlacciÐA Family in Decline', AncSoc 9: 223±33. Haywood, R. M. (1933), `Studies on Scipio Africanus', The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 51 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Henderson, J. (1989), `Livy and the Invention of History', in Cameron (1989), 66±85. ÐÐ (1997), Figuring Out Roman Nobility: Juvenal's Eighth Satire (Exeter: Exeter University Press). ÐÐ (1998), Fighting for Rome: Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Herkommer, E. (1968), Die Topoi in den ProoÈmien der roÈmischen Geschichtswerke (Diss. TuÈbingen). Hickson, F. V. (1991), `Augustus Triumphator: Manipulation of the Triumphal Theme in the Political Program of Augustus', Latomus 50: 124±38. Hofter, M. (1988), `Die Statuen der summi viri vom Augustusforum', in M. Hofter (ed.), Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (Mainz: von Zabern), 194±9. Hornblower, S. (1996), A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. ii (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Horsfall, N. (1980), `Virgil, Varro's Imagines and the Forum of Augustus', AncSoc (Macquarie) 10: 20±3. ÐÐ (1982a), `Cornelius Nepos', in CHCL: 290±2. ÐÐ (1982b), `The Caudine Forks: Topography and Illusion', PBRS 50: 45±52. ÐÐ (1987), `The ``Letter of Cornelia'': Yet More Problems', Athen. 65: 231±4. ÐÐ (1989), Cornelius Nepos: A Selection, including the Lives of Cato and Atticus (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Hunter, V. J. (1973), Thucydides: The Artful Reporter (Toronto: Hakkert). Jaeger, M. K. (1993), `Custodia Fidelis Memoriae: Livy's Story of M. Manlius Capitolinus', Latomus 52: 350±63. ÐÐ (1997), Livy's Written Rome (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

Works Cited

221

 tude litteÂraire et morale. Jal, P. (1963), La guerre civile aÁ Rome. E (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Kajanto, I. (1958), `Notes on Livy's Conception of History', Arctos 2: 55±63. Kellum, B. A. (1981), `Sculptural Programs and Propaganda in Augustan Rome: The Temple of Apollo on the Palatine and the Forum of Augustus' (Diss. Harvard). Kenney, E. J. (1982), `Books and Readers in the Roman World', in CHCL: 3±30. Kornhardt, H. (1936), Exemplum: Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Studie (Diss. GoÈttingen). Kraus, C. S. (1991), `Initium turbandi omnia a femina ortum est: Fabia Minor and the Election of 367 B.C.', Phoenix 45: 314±25. ÐÐ (1994), Livy. Ab Vrbe Condita Book VI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ÐÐ and Woodman, A. J. (1997), Latin Historians, Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 27 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lacey, W. K. (1996), Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System, ARCA 35 (Leeds: F. Cairns (Publications) ). Lambert, A. (1946), Die indirekte Reden als kuÈnstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius (Diss. Zurich). Lattimore, R. (1939), `The Wise Adviser in Herodotus', CPh 34: 24±35. Leeman, A. D. (1963), Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers, vols. i±ii (Amsterdam: Hakkert). Levene, D. S. (1992), `Sallust's Jugurtha: an ``Historical Fragment'' ', JRS 82: 53±70. ÐÐ (1993), Religion in Livy (Leiden: E. J. Brill). ÐÐ (1997), `Pity, Fear, and the Historical Audience: Tacitus on the Fall of Vitellius', in S. Braund and C. Gill (eds.), The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 128±49. Liebeschuetz, W. (1967), `The Religious Position of Livy's History', JRS 57: 45±55. Lipovsky, J. (1981), A Historiographical Study of Livy, Books VI± X (New York: Arno Press). Litch®eld, H. W. (1914), `National Exempla Virtutis in Roman Literature', HSCPh 25: 1±71. Luce, T. J. (1977), Livy: The Composition of his History (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

222

Works Cited

Luce, T. J. (1990), `Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum', in Raa¯aub and Toher (1990), 123±38. ÐÐ (1991), `Tacitus on ``History's Highest Function'': praecipuum munus annalium (Ann. 3. 65)', ANRW II. 33. 4: 2904±27. ÐÐ (1993), `Structure in Livy's Speeches', in Schuller (1993), 71±87. ÐÐ (1995), `Livy and Dionysius', PLLS 8: 225±39. Lumpe, A. (1966), `Exemplum', Reallexikon fuÈr Antike und Christentum VI: 1229±57. Lyons, J. D. (1989), Exemplum: The Rhetoric of Example in Early Modern France and Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press). McDonald, A. H. (1957), `The Style of Livy', JRS 47: 155±72. McGushin, P. (1977), C. Sallustius Crispus. Bellum Catilinae, a Commentary (Leiden: E. J. Brill). Madvig, J. N. (1877), Emendationes Livianae, 2nd edn. (Copenhagen: Libraria Gyldendaliana). Marincola, J. (1997), Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Marouzeau, J. (1921), `Pour mieux comprendre les textes latins (essai sur la distinction des styles)', RPh 45: 149±93. Marrou, H. I. (1956), A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. G. Lamb, repr. 1982 (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press). Maslakov, G. (1982), `Themes of Tradition and Innovation in Livy's History', AncSoc (Macquarie) 12: 15±22. ÐÐ (1984), `Valerius Maximus and Roman Historiography: A Study of the exempla Tradition', ANRW II. 32. 1: 437±96. Mayer, R. G. (1991), `Roman Historical Exempla in Seneca', in O. Reverdin and B. Grange, (eds.), SeÂneÁque et la prose latine, Fondation Hardt Entretiens 36 (Geneva: Fondation Hardt), 141±69. Miles, G. B. (1988), `Maiores, Conditores, and Livy's Perspective on the Past', TAPhA 118: 185±208. ÐÐ (1995), Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Millar, F. and Segal, E. (1984) (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Miller, N. P. (1975), `Dramatic Speech in the Roman Historians', G&R 22: 45±57. Mix, E. R. (1970), Marcus Atilius Regulus: Exemplum Historicum (The Hague: Mouton). Moles, J. L. (1993), `Livy's Preface', PCPhS 39: 141±68.

Works Cited

223

ÐÐ (1996), `Herodotus Warns the Athenians', PLLS 9: 259±84. Momigliano, A. (1978), `The Historians of the Classical World and their Audiences: Some Suggestions', ASNP 8: 59±75. ÐÐ (1991), The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Berkeley: University of California Press). Mommsen, T. (1887), RoÈmisches Staatsrecht, vol. i, 3rd edn. (Leipzig: S. Hirzel). ÐÐ (1908), The History of Rome, vol. i, rev. edn., trans. W. P. Dickson (New York: Macmillan). Moore, T. J. (1989), Artistry and Ideology: Livy's Vocabulary of Virtue (Frankfurt: AthenaÈum). Morgan, L. (1997), ` ``Levi quidem de re . . .'': Julius Caesar as Tyrant and Pedant', JRS 87: 23±40. Moxon, I. S., Smart, J. D., and Woodman, A. J. (1986) (eds.), Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Neraudau, J.-P. (1979), La jeunesse dans la litteÂrature et les institutions de la Rome reÂpublicaine (Paris: Belles Lettres). Nicolai, R. (1992), La storiogra®a nell'educazione antica, Biblioteca di Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici 10 (Pisa: Giardini). Nisbet, R. G. M. (1984), `Horace's Epodes and history', in Woodman and West (1984), 1±18. Nordh, A. (1954), `Historical exempla in Martial', Eranos 52: 224±38. Oakley, S. P. (1985), `Single Combat in the Roman Republic', CQ 35: 392±410. ÐÐ (1997), A Commentary on Livy, Books VI±X, vol. i. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Ogilvie, R. M. (1970), A Commentary on Livy, Books 1±5, repr. with addenda (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1982), `Livy', in CHCL: 458±66. Packard, D. W. (1968), A Concordance to Livy, vols. i±iv (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press). Pagnon, B. (1982), `Le reÂcit de l'expeÂdition de Cn. Manlius Vulso contre les Gallo-Grecs et de ses prolongements dans le livre 38 de Tite-Live', LEC 50: 115±28. Pearson, L. (1941), `Historical Allusions in the Attic Orators', CPh 36: 209±29. Peine, S. (1885), De ornamentis triumphalibus (Diss. Berlin). Pelling, C. (1991), `Thucydides' Archidamus and Herodotus' Artabanus', in M. A. Flower and M. Toher (eds.), Georgica:

224

Works Cited

Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell, BICS Supplement 58 (London: Institute of Classical Studies), 120±42. ÐÐ (1995), `The Moralism of Plutarch's Lives', in D. Innes, H. Hine, and C. Pelling, (eds.), Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 205±20. ÐÐ (1996), `The Triumviral Period', in CAH X2: 1±69. Penella, R. J. (1990), `Vires/Robur/Opes and Ferocia in Livy's Account of Romulus and Tullus Hostilius', CQ 40: 207±13. Perlman, S. J. (1961), `The Historical Example, Its Use and Importance as Political Propaganda in the Attic Orators', in A. Fuks and I. Halpern (eds.), Studies in History, Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press), 150±66. Philippides, S. N. (1983), `Narrative Strategies and Ideology in Livy's ``Rape of Lucretia'' ', Helios 10: 113±19. Phillips, J. E. (1974), `Form and Language in Livy's Triumph Notices', CPh 69: 265±73. Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T. (1929), A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pomeroy, A. J. (1988), `Livy's Death Notices', G&R 35: 172±83. Powell, J. G. F. (1988), Cicero. Cato Maior de Senectute, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 28 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Price, B. J. (1975), `Paradeigma and Exemplum in Ancient Rhetorical Theory' (Diss. Berkeley). Price, S. (1987), `From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors', in D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 56±105. Putnam, M. C. J. (1986), Arti®ces of Eternity: Horace's Fourth Book of Odes (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Raa¯aub, K. A. and Toher, M. (1990) (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate (Berkeley: University of California Press). Rabinowitz, P. J. (1977), `Truth in Fiction: A Reexamination of Audiences', Critical Inquiry 4: 121±41. Ramage, E. S. (1987), The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' ``Res Gestae'', Historia Einzelschriften 54 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). Rambaud, M. (1953), CiceÂron et l'histoire romaine (Paris: Belles Lettres). Rawson, E. (1975), `Caesar's Heritage: Hellenistic Kings and

Works Cited

225

their Roman Equals', JRS 65: 148±59 (= Rawson (1991) 169± 88). ÐÐ (1985), Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth). ÐÐ (1990), `The Antiquarian Tradition: Spoils and Representations of Foreign Armour', in W. Eder (ed.), Staat und Staatlichkeit in der fruÈhen roÈmischen Republik (Akten eines Symposium (12±15 Juli 1988) Freie UniversitaÈt Berlin (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner), 158±73 (= Rawson (1991) 582±98). ÐÐ (1991), Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers, ed. F. Millar (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Reinhold, M. (1988), From Republic to Principate: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 49±52 (36± 29 B.C.), APA Monograph Series 34 (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press). Rich, J. W. (1996), `Augustus and the spolia opima', Chiron 26: 85±127. Richardson, J. S. (1975), `The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century BC', JRS 65: 50±63. Rodgers, B. (1986), `Great Expeditions: Livy on Thucydides', TAPhA 116: 335±52. Rohde, G. (1942), `Ovatio', RE 18. 2: 1890±903. Rose, C. B. (1997), Dynastic Commemorative and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge Studies in Classical Art and Iconography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rosenstein, N. (1990), Imperatores Victi: Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press). Rowell, H. T. (1940), `The Forum and the Funeral Imagines of Augustus', MAAR 17: 131±43. ÐÐ (1941), `Vergil and the Forum of Augustus', AJPh 62: 261± 76. Rutherford, R. B. (1994), `Learning from History: Categories and Case-Histories', in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 53±68. Sacks, K. S. (1981), Polybius on the Writing of History, University of California Publications in Classical Studies 24 (Berkeley: University of California Press). ÐÐ (1990), Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

226

Works Cited

Sage, M. M. (1979), `The Elogia of the Augustan Forum and the de viris illustribus', Historia 28: 192±210. Santayana, G. (1905), The Life of Reason or the Phases of Human Progress, vol. i (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons). Santoro L'hoir, F. (1990), `Heroic Epithets and Recurrent Themes in Ab Urbe Condita', TAPhA 120: 221±41. Sauron, G. (1994), Quis Deum? L'expression plastique des ideÂo coles logies politiques et religieuses aÁ Rome, BibliotheÁque des E  FrancËaises d'AtheÁnes et de Rome 285 (Rome: L'Ecole francËaise de Rome). Scafuro, A. C. (1987), `Pattern, Theme and Historicity in Livy Books 35 and 36', CA 6: 249±85. Scanlon, L. (1994), Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). SchoÈnberger, H. (1911), Beispiele aus der Geschichte, ein rhetorisches Kunstmittel in Ciceros Reden (Diss. Augsburg). È ber die Quellen und die Verwendung der geschichtliÐÐ (1914), U chen Beispiele in Ciceros Briefen (Ingolstadt: A. Gaughofer). SchoÈnberger, O. (1960), `Motivierung und QuellenbenuÈtzung in der Deciusepisode des Livius (10,24±30)', Hermes 88: 217±30. Schuller, W. (1993) (ed.), Livius. Aspekte seines Werkes, Xenia, Konstanzer Althistorische VortraÈge und Forschungen 31 (Konstanz: UniversitaÈtsverlag Konstanz). Schultze, C. (1986), `Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his audience', in Moxon, Smart, and Woodman (1986), 121±41. Scullard, H. H. (1951), Roman Politics, 220±150 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1970), Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Shipley, F. W. (1931), `Chronology of the Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Augustus', MAAR 9: 7±60. Simpson, C. J. (1977), `The Date of Dedication of the Temple of Mars Ultor', JRS 67: 91±4. Skidmore, C. (1996), Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter: Exeter University Press). SklenaÂrÏ, R. (1998), `La ReÂpublique des Signes: Caesar, Cato, and the Language of Sallustian Morality', TAPhA 128: 205±20. Solodow, J. B. (1979), `Livy and the Story of Horatius, 1. 24±26', TAPhA 109: 251±68.

Works Cited

227

Spiegel, G. M. (1975), `Political Utility in Medieval Historiography: A Sketch', History and Theory 14: 314±25. Stadter, P. A. (1972), `The Structure of Livy's History', Historia 21: 287±307. Stahl, H.-P. (1975), `Learning through su€ering? Croesus' Conversations in the History of Herodotus', YCS 24: 1±36. Steele, R. B. (1904), `The Historical Attitude of Livy', AJPh 25: 15±44. Steinby, E. M. (1993) (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. i, 2nd edn. (Rome: Edizioni Quasar). Syme, R. (1939), The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1964), Sallust (Berkeley: University of California Press; and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Talbert, R. J. A. (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Taylor, L. R. (1936), `M. Titius and the Syrian Command', JRS 26: 161±73. Toher, M. (1990), `Augustus and the Evolution of Roman Historiography', in Raa¯aub and Toher (1990), 139±54. TraÈnkle, H. (1977), Livius und Polybios (Basel and Stuttgart: Schwabe). Trevor-Roper, H. (1978) (ed.), Final Entries, 1945: The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels, ed., introduced, and annotated by H. TrevorRoper and trans. by Richard Barry (New York: Putnam). Trompf, G. W. (1979), The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought: From Antiquity to the Reformation (Berkeley: University of California Press). Ullmann, R. (1927), La technique des discours dans Salluste, Tite Live et Tacite. La matieÁre et la composition (Oslo: J. Dybwad).  tude sur le style des discours de Tite Live (Oslo: ÐÐ (1929), E J. Dybwad). Vanggaard, J. H. (1988), The Flamen: A Study in the History and Sociology of Roman Religion (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press). Van Buskirk, E. G. (1938), `Seneca's Use of the Historical Exemplum' (Diss. Cornell). Van Sickle, J. (1987), `The Elogia of the Cornelii Scipiones and the Origin of Epigram at Rome', AJPh 108: 41±55. Vasaly, A. (1987), `Personality and Power: Livy's Depiction of the Appii Claudii in the First Pentad', TAPhA 117: 203±26. Verbrugghe, G. P. (1989), `On the Meaning of Annales, on the Meaning of Annalist', Philologus 133: 192±230.

228

Works Cited

Versnel, H. S. (1970), Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill). von Haehling, R. (1989), ZeitbezuÈge des T. Livius in der Ersten Dekade seines Geschichtswerks: Nec Vitia Nostra nec Remedia Pati Possumus, Historia Einzelschriften 61 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). Von Moos, P. (1984), `The Use of Exempla in the Policraticus of John of Salisbury', in M. Wilks (ed.), The World of John of Salisbury (Oxford: B. Blackwell), 207±61. Walbank, F. W. (1957±79), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vols. i±iii (Oxford: Clarendon Press). ÐÐ (1972), Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press). ÐÐ (1985), Review of Fornara (1983), JHS 105: 211. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1986), `Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus', JRS 76: 66±87. ÐÐ (1989), `Rome's Cultural Revolution' (Review article of Zanker: original German publication (1987) and English translation (1988) ), JRS 79: 157±64. Walsh, P. G. (1961), Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ÐÐ (1973), T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Liber XXI (Foxton: University Tutorial Press). Weinstock, S. (1971), Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon Press). West, D. (1993), `The Pageant of the Heroes as Panegyric (Virgil, Aen. 6. 760±886)', in H. D. Jocelyn (ed.), Tria Lustra, Liverpool Classical Papers 3 (Liverpool), 283±96. Wheeldon, M. J. (1989), ` ``True Stories'': The Reception of Historiography in Antiquity', in Cameron (1989), 36±63. White, P. (1993), Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press). Willcock, M. M. (1964), `Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad', CQ 14: 141±54. Wiseman, T. P. (1979), Clio's Cosmetics. Three Studies in GrecoRoman Literature (Leicester: Leicester University Press). ÐÐ (1981), `Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography', History 66: 375±93 (= Wiseman (1987) 244±62). ÐÐ (1984), `Cybele, Virgil and Augustus', in Woodman and West (1984), 117±28. ÐÐ (1985), Competition and Co-operation', in T. P. Wiseman (ed.), Roman Political Life. 90 B.C.±A.D. 69, Exeter Studies in History 7 (Exeter: Exeter University Press), 3±19.

Works Cited

229

ÐÐ (1986), `Monuments and the Roman annalists', in Moxon, Smart, and Woodman (1986), 87±100. ÐÐ (1987), Roman Studies, Literary and Historical (Liverpool: F. Cairns (Publications) ). È ber die Form der Darstellung in Livius' Witte, K. (1910), `U Geschichtswerk', RhM 65: 270±305, 359±419. Woodman, A. J. (1988), Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies (London: Croom Helm). ÐÐ and Martin, R. H. (1996), The Annals of Tacitus Book 3, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 32 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ÐÐ and West, D. (1984) (eds.), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus, repr. 1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Wyke, M. (1994), `Woman in the Mirror: The Rhetoric of Adornment in the Roman World', in L. Archer, S. Fischler, and M. Wyke (eds.), Women in Ancient Societies: `An Illusion of the Night' (London: Macmillan Press), 134±51. Yavetz, Z. (1984), `The Res Gestae and Augustus' Public Image', in Millar and Segal (1984), 1±36. Zanker, P. (1968), Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogram (TuÈbingen: Ernst Wasmuth). ÐÐ (1988), The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, trans. A. Shapiro (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

General Index

For the most part Romans are indexed under their nomen, (e.g. M. Furius Camillus instead of Camillus), except for authors (e.g. Cicero), emperors (e.g. Claudius), and major ®gures of the late Republic (e. g. Antony), who generally appear under the most familar version of their name. Places and groups of people are included only when they ®gure in an exemplary context in the text. M'. Acilius Glabrio (cos. 191) 102, 143 n. 22, 153 Adherbal 28 Aegates Islands 79 L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 219) 54±5, 61, 66, 69, 77 L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 182) 81±2, 92, 101±3, 105, 116±19, 121, 130±1, 142, 143 n. 22, 150, 152±3, 154 n. 50, 186 n. 79 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34 Aeneas 172 n. 18, 175, 177 Agathocles 95 Marcus Agrippa 178 n. 44, 189±90 Alban kings 175±7 Allia 45±6, 48±9, 55, 73±4, 87, 90 see also Capitoline siege; Gallic sack; Gauls allies: Hannibal and Roman 66±8, 70, 168±9 unreliability of 93±4, 164 Alps 67 Ammianus Marcellinus 124 Antiochus III the Great 74±6, 80, 91, 101±3, 126, 158, 167 n. 74 Antony 124 n. 49, 177 Aous 102 L. Appuleius Saturninus (tr. pl. 103) 181±3, 196 Ardea 139, 153 n. 48 Athenians and Athens 93, 122, 124 n. 49 see also Herodotus; Sicilian expedition; Thucydides M. Atilius Regulus (cos. 267) 24, 93, 95, 122, 126, 130, 162 Attalus II Philadelphus 80±1 Atticus 169 n. 5, 179 n. 51

audience 1±2, 25, 38±9, 48±72, 76±93, 96±7, 101, 103, 126, 131, 160, 164±6, 168, 173±4, 186, 193±7, 200±2 (and passim) Augustan age 5, 135 n. 73, 166, 169±74, 183±4, 186±92, 196, 200±2 as audience of exempla 2, 25, 53 n. 14, 72, 76, 81, 103, 165±6, 173±4, 183±4, 186, 194±6, 200±2 Augustus 169, 172±96, 200±2 forum of 169, 172, 174±96 summi uiri represented in 175±6 n. 34 his funeral 177±8 Livy and 192±6 precedents and 180, 183, 191±2, 194±5, 201±2 Res Gestae 138 n. 5, 173, 176, 177 n. 42, 184, 194±6 C. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 200) 146±9, 155 M. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 74) 181±3 auaritia 100, 103±5 Aventine 99 see also secessions of the plebs Bostar (Carthaginian commander at Capua) 67, 70 Brutus: see L. Junius Brutus Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (cos. 109) in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 181±2, 183 n. 66 A. Calavius 33, 38±9, 108 Camillus: see M. Furius Camillus

232

General Index

Cannae: battle of 49, 53±72, 77, 82 n. 26, 108, 130, 164±5, 167 n. 74, 168±9, 201 survivors of 45±6, 48, 58, 61, 72 n. 63, 90 C. Canuleius (tr. pl. 445) 2 n. 6, 40 n. 25, 159±61, 167 n. 72 Capitoline siege 39±41, 71, 83 see also Allia; Gallic sack; Gauls Capua and Capuans 33, 38±9, 66 n. 48, 67, 69, 79±80, 93, 168±9 Carthage and Carthaginians 25, 26 n. 96, 43, 53±72, 78±9, 101, 106, 124 n. 49, 128±30, 165 Sp. Cassius (cos. 502) 83±4 Catiline 123 n. 43 Cato: see Porcius Caudine Forks/Caudium 32±52, 54, 71±72, 77, 90, 130, 162, 165, 201 Celtiberians 94 censorship 127 Cicero 5±6, 13±15, 119, 123, 138, 170, 183 n. 67 Cincinnatus: see L. Quinctius Cincinnatus L. Cincius Alimentus 16 Cineas 98±9 Claudius 159 n. 59 Appii Claudii 2 n. 4, 89 n. 41, 121, 125, 127, 131, 134, 194 Ap. Claudius Caecus (cos. 307) 121±2, 127±8, 161, 194 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 194 Ap. Claudius Crassus (cons. trib. 403) 89±90 Ap. Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus (Xvir) 48, 140 n. 11 M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 222) 44±5, 66, 69, 77 n. 12, 85 n. 34, 90, 143±4, 148, 150, 155, 162 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 189 n. 91 M. Claudius Marcellus (Augustus' nephew) 178 n. 44, 185 n. 74 C. Claudius Nero (cos. 207) 94, 125, 144±5, 150, 155, 162 C. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 249) 55 Q. Claudius Quadrigarius 16, 19±20 Cloelia 40

L. Coelius Antipater 23 n. 82 Collatinus: see L. Tarquinius Collatinus constitutional history 89, 159±60, 163, 166±7 Coriolanus: see Cn. Marcius Coriolanus Cornelii Scipiones, 90±2 (= trials of the Scipios) L. Cornelius Balbus 187, 189 C. Cornelius Cethegus (cos. 197) 149 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34 A. Cornelius Cossus (cos. 428) 189 n. 91, 192 n. 107 L. Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 199) 145±6, 155 P. Cornelius Scipio (cos. 218) 80±1, 82 n. 26, 91, 93±4, 126, 164 P. Cornelius Scipio (son of Gnaeus Calvus) 132±3 P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (cos. 147) in the forum of Augustus 175 n. 34, 176 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205) 24 nn. 88 and 90, 25, 50 n. 2, 56, 61, 64±5, 70±1, 74±6, 80±1, 84, 85 n. 33, 90±7, 102±5, 108, 121±2,125±6, 128±134, 145±6, 151, 153, 155, 157±9, 162 L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190) 74±5, 80±1, 90±1, 102, 143 n. 22, 153, 157±9, 161, 196 n. 18 Cn. Cornelius Scipio Calvus (cos. 222) 80±1, 91, 93±4, 126 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (cos. 191) 91±2, 151±2, 155, 158 n. 57 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (cos. 162) 116±17 L. Cornelius Sulla Felix: see Sulla Curtii 124 n. 49 De Viris Illustribus 179 n. 51 decemuiri 83, 127, 159 Decii 124 n. 49 P. Decius Mus (cos. 340) 113 P. Decius Mus (cos. 312) 92 n. 50, 112±13, 140 n. 11, 158 n. 57, 159±60 n. 60 Diodorus Siculus 30 n. 113

General Index Dionysius of Halicarnassus 16±17, 52 n. 8, 53 n. 13 Drepana: see P. Claudius Pulcher Drusus (Nero Claudius Drusus) in the forum of Augustus 172 n. 18, 176 n. 34, 178 C. Duillius (cos. 260) in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 184±7, 191 n. 100

233

elogia 31, 175±96 Ephorus 10 L. Equitius 181±3 Etruscans 26±7 Eumenes II 75, 76 n. 10, 80±1 exempla: age and 74, 95, 97, 101, 103, 108±136 Attic orators and 5 n. 13, 47 n. 36, 131 n. 67 change over time 28, 48±9, 161±2, 164±7, 193±7 ¯exibility of 39, 47±9, 71±2, 139, 171±2, 193±7 foreigners and 27 n. 103, 38, 53, 71±82, 86, 92, 103, 118, 120, 165 future and 7, 31, 92 n. 50, 100, 105, 109, 140 n. 11, 168±9, 198±202 Greek philosophy and 171 in Greek life and literature 5 nn. 12±13, 138 n. 7 in medieval thought 149 n. 36, 199±200 mythological 6 n. 16 as precedents 3, 8, 19, 27±8, 50 n. 2, 59, 83, 86, 92 n. 50, 97, 102±3, 111, 113, 131, 137±67, 199 in Renaissance thought 199±200 Romans as superior students of 38, 42, 53±4, 74±77, 88 n. 38, 92, 165 self-consciousness in 1±2, 19, 26 n. 97, 27, 109, 168±9 in speeches 25, 48, 85±105 see also audience; focalization; rhetoric and rhetorical theory; speakers

C. Fabius Dorsuo 86 Q. Fabius Labeo (cos. 183) 153 Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator (cos. 233) 24 n. 90, 25, 43, 54±6, 63, 65±6, 68 n. 56, 70, 77, 82 n. 26, 85 n. 33, 92±7, 101±2, 105, 108, 114±16, 120±3, 125, 128±31, 134, 162±3 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 180, 182 Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (cos. 322) 41, 92 n. 50, 108±16, 158 n. 57 in the forum of Augustus 180±3, 193, 196 Q. Fabius Pictor 16 Faliscan schoolmaster 106±7 n. 1 ®des 35±6 ferocitas 110 n. 12 Fidenae 86, 124 n. 49 Flamininus: see Quinctius C. Flaminius (cos. 223) 23 n. 82, 55, 57, 64 n. 42, 69, 82 n. 26, 110 n. 12, 141 n. 15 Cn. Flavius (cur. aed. 304) 17±18, 50 n. 2 focalization 3±4, 25, 42±3, 45±6, 48±72, 158±9, 164 see also speakers forum of Augustus: see Augustus Frontinus 15, 47 n. 35, 171 Cn. Fulvius Flaccus (pr. 212) 57 n. 24, 64±5, 70 Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 237) 93, 163 Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 179) 137, 143 n. 22 M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189) 153±4 M. Furius Camillus (cons. trib. 401) 39, 43±4, 86±9, 107 n. 1, 111, 113 n. 17, 114±15, 126 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34 L. Furius Medullinus (cons. trib. 381) 111, 114 L. Furius Purpurio (cos. 196) 92, 101±3, 105, 120, 144 n. 24, 146±50, 152±3, 155, 162 funerals, Roman 14, 23, 178

Fabia 108 n. 2 M. Fabius Ambustus (cos. 360) 109, 111, 144 n. 25

Gabii 86 Galba: see Ser. Sulpicius Galba

234

General Index

Gallic sack 43±4, 46, 48, 82 n. 26, 87, 127 see also Allia; Capitoline siege; Gauls Gauls 39±40, 43±5, 52 n. 11, 58, 63, 66 n. 48, 73, 83, 86, 99, 112±13, 115, 159 n. 59, 164 see also Allia; Capitoline siege; Gallic sack Glaucia: see C. Servilius Glaucia gloria 93±4, 128±30, 132±4, 192 Goebbels, Joseph 198±9 Gordianus 124 gratia 141, 143 n. 22, 147±8, 152 Greeks (as exempla) 26±7, 52 n. 11 see also Athenians and Athens; Sicilian expedition; Spartan kings Hannibal 25, 43±5, 55±72, 77 n. 12, 78±9, 90±1, 93±6, 101, 103, 114±15, 122, 128±9, 158, 164±5, 168±9 Hannibal's guide 65±6, 168 Hanno (Hannibal's political opponent) 78±9, 82, 100 Hanno (Carthaginian commander at Capua) 67 and 70 Hasdrubal 94, 126 M. Helvius (pr. 197) 150±1, 155 Herodotus 7±10, 24, 29, 82, 124 C. Herennius Pontius 34, 37±8, 76 n. 8, 77±8, 108 historiography: Greek 6±11, 124 Roman 10, 16±23, 29, 51 n. 5, 135 n. 73 Hitler, Adolf 198 Horace 11±13, 169, 172 n. 18, 179 n. 51, 200 nn. 9±10 Horatius Cocles 49 M. Horatius (cos. 449) 141 n. 15 Tullus Hostilius 111 Hyginus 169, 171, 179 n. 51 Idaean Mother: see Magna Mater Iliad 5 imagines 14, 25, 28, 177±8, 183 Indibilis 94 Jugurtha 26 n. 96 Julian 124

Julii 175±8 C. Julius Caesar (the dictator's father) in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 177 n. 38 Julius Caesar 26±8, 170, 174 n. 26, 177, 186 n. 79 C. Julius Caesar Strabo (cur. aed. 90) in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 177 n. 38 L. Junius Brutus (cos. 509) 1 n. 3, 111 Juvenal 6 n. 16 C. Laelius (cos. 190) 157±9, 161, 196 n. 118 Lake Regillus 73, 180 n. 56 Latins 73, 180 n. 56 Lemnian women 97 Leonidas 21±2 lex Cincia 99 lex Licinia 98 lex Oppia 83 n. 27, 97±101, 104±5, 128 n. 59, 139, 160±1 Licinio-Sextian legislation 88±90, 92, 96 M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 30) 188 L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) 124 n. 49 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 182±3 C. Licinius Macer 18, 26 n. 97 C. Licinius Stolo (cos. 364) 88±90, 159±60 n. 60 M. Livius Salinator (cos. 219) 94, 125, 144±5, 150, 155, 162 Livy: Augustus and 192±6 EinzelerzaÈhlungen in 166 Greek history in 94 n. 51, 97 Preface 1±2, 25 n. 94, 108, 129, 133±6, 200±2 Preface 10: 1±2, 3 n. 7, 25 n. 94, 52, 77, 107, 120±1, 131, 133±6, 165, 167, 197±201 Polybius and: see Polybius as pronouncer of exempla 3, 50 and rhetoric 71±2 speeches in: see audience; focalization; speakers see also moralizing Locrians and Locri 84±5, 104 Lucius Verus 124

General Index Lucretia 1±2, 19, 27, 48±9, 108 n. 2, 168±9 Lucullus: see L. Licinius Lucullus C. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 242) 44, 79, 93, 115 luxuria 98±100, 104±5 Sp. Maelius 50 n. 2, 82±5, 103, 123 n. 43, 139 Decius Magius 66 n. 48, 79±80, 100 Magna Mater 98±9 Mandonius 94 Manilius 170 n. 5 L. Manlius Acidinus Fulvianus (cos. 179) 154±5 M. Manlius Capitolinus (cos. 392) 2 n. 4, 41 n. 27, 83±5, 103, 115 T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (cos. 347) 20, 26 n. 96, 27, 108±11 T. Manlius Torquatus (son of preceding) 27, 108±11 T. Manlius Torquatus (cos. 235) 41 n. 27, 59±62, 70±1, 108 Cn. Manlius Vulso (cos. 189) 20±1, 52±3 n. 11, 92, 101±5, 108, 120, 132±3, 152±3, 155 Cn. Marcius Coriolanus 48, 99 C. Marcius Rutulus (cos. 357) 141 n. 15 L. Marcius Septimus 41 n. 27 Marius 28 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 181±3, 185±7 Martial 6 n. 16, 170 n. 11 Masinissa 28, 75±6, 77 n. 12 Metaurus 94, 125, 144 Mettius Fufetius 50 n. 2, 51 n. 7 L. Minucius Augurinus (cos. su€. 458) 111, 114 M. Minucius Rufus (cos. 221) 43±4, 48, 93, 114±16, 123, 130±1, 180±3, 196 Q. Minucius Rufus (cos. 197) 149±51, 155 Q. Minucius Thermus (cos. 193) 46±7, 143 n. 22, 151 Mithridates 26 n. 97 in the forum of Augustus 182 Moericus 85 n. 34

235

moralizing: in historiography 6±7, 19±21, 24±5, 26 n. 98, 29, 30 n. 113, 197 in Livy 2, 3, 5, 20±1, 29, 32, 35±7, 50, 52, 103±5, 138±9, 162±7, 197 Mount Eryx 79 Mucii 124 n. 49 C. Mucius Scaevola 49 Nabis 75±6, 140 n. 11 Nepos (Cornelius Nepos) 169±71, 200 n. 10 Nestor 5 Numantia 124 n. 49 Numidians 46±7, 94 Onesimus 81, 118 ornamenta triumphalia 184±92 T. Otacilius Crassus (pr. 217) 63±4 ovation(s) 142, 144, 146, 155, 162 see also triumph(s) L. Papirius Cursor (cons. trib. 387) 127 L. Papirius Cursor (cos. 326): at Caudium 32, 34, 43±4, 115 and Fabius Rullianus 109±12, 114±117 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 180, 182, 193 patricians 40 n. 25, 54, 88±90, 139, 159 Paullus: see Aemilius Perseus 26 n. 96, 80±2, 106, 116±19, 126, 134 Philip V of Macedon 24, 75±6, 80±2, 88 n. 38, 101, 103, 118, 126, 167 n. 74 Piso (L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi) 16±21 plebeians 40 n. 25, 88±90, 99, 127, 139, 159 Q. Pleminius 84, 85 n. 33, 104 Pleuratus 76 Pliny the Elder 195 Pliny the Younger 12±13, 195 Polyaenus 171 Polybius 10±11, 16, 23±5, 51 n. 5, 54 nn. 17±18, 76±7, 80±2, 115 nn. 24 and 26, 199 n. 4 Pompey 124 n. 49, 170, 183, 186 n. 79 Sextus Pompey 184

236

General Index

Numa Pompilius 159, 167 n. 74 Pomponius Rufus 170 M. Porcius Cato (the Elder) 27, 83 n. 27, 92, 97±101, 103±5, 108, 120, 139, 143 n. 22 the Origines 21±3, 99, 101 M. Porcius Cato (the Younger) 26±7 Lars Porsenna 40, 89 L. Postumius Megellus (cos. 305) 141 n. 15, 149±50 n. 38, 163 Praenestines 73±6 precedent(s): see entries under Augustus and exempla Propertius 6 n. 16, 169±70 n. 5 Prusias 74±6 Q. Publilius Philo (cos. 339) 151 n. 40 Punic wars (in exempla): ®rst 55, 68, 78±9, 95 ®rst and second 135 second 54±72 (Cannae), 99, 130±1 see also volones Pydna 81, 116±19 Pyrenees 68 Pyrrhus 19, 45±6, 48, 58, 79, 84±5, 90, 98, 106±7 Pyrrhus' betrayer 19, 106±7 n. 1 L. Quinctius Cincinnatus (cos. su€. 460) 83, 111, 114 L. Quinctius Flamininus (cos. 192) 80±1, 132±4 T. Quinctius Flamininus (cos. 198) 75, 80±1, 102, 103 n. 71, 132±4, 140 n. 11, 143 n. 22, 153 Quintilian 5±6, 119 n. 35, 138 Regulus: see M. Atilius Regulus religion 34±7, 55, 86±8, 104 n. 72, 130 Rhegium 67 rhetoric and rhetorical theory 5±6, 13±14, 41, 71±2, 123±4, 138, 171±2 Rhetorica ad Herennium 5, 14 n. 49, 123 Rhodians 26±7, 52 n. 11 Rhone 68 Roman women 98±100 Romans: debates between 78, 92±105, 107, 120, 165

failure to understand the past 82±5, 103, 115 superior students of the past 38, 42, 53±4, 74±77, 88 n. 38, 165 Romulus 88 n. 38, 175, 176 n. 37, 178 his hut 15 n. 53, 86 and T. Tatius 89, 189 n. 91 Sabine women 99 Sabines 16 Sacred Mount 99 see also secessions of the plebs Saguntum 68, 78 Sallust 14 n. 51, 16, 25±8, 100, 200 n. 9 Samnites 26±7, 32±49, 52, 66, 70±1, 77 n. 12, 115, 180 Santayana, George 198 Sardinia 64 Saturninus: see L. Appuleius Saturninus P. Scaptius 139, 153 n. 48 secessions of the plebs 26 nn. 96±7, 98±9, 127 Sempronius Asellio 22±3 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (cos. 215) 57 n. 24, 63, 65, 70 see also volones Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (cos. 177) 91, 143 n. 22, 154±5 Ti. Sempronius Longus (cos. 218) 82 n. 26, 110 n. 12 Ti. Sempronius Longus (cos. 194) 146 P. Sempronius Sophos (cos. 304) 121±2, 125±8, 131, 133±4, 161 P. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 204) 56, 58±62, 71 Seneca 6 n. 16, 123±4, 170±1 n. 11 Septimius Severus 124 C. Servilius Ahala 83, 123 n. 43 M. Servilius Geminus (cos. 202) 121±2, 126, 130±1, 134, 150, 152, 154 n. 50 C. Servilius Glaucia (pr. 100) 181±3, 196 L. Sextius Laternus (cos. 366) 88±90, 159±60 n. 60, Sicilian expedition 122 see also Athenians and Athens Sicily 64, 95 socii: see allies

General Index Spain 68, 95 Spanish kings 75±6 Spartan kings 80±1 speakers 3±4, 7±8, 13±14, 24, 26±8, 41, 47±77, 89±90, 92±105, 131, 159±61, 164, 193±6, 197, 201 (and passim) see also focalization spolia opima 144 n. 27, 188±9 struggle of the orders 88±90, 159±60 see also secessions of the plebs Sulla 26±7 in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 183 Ser. Sulpicius Galba (cos. 144) 121, 130, 152 summi uiri 175±7, 181 n. 59, 185, 193 Syphax 75, 76 n. 9, 126 Syracuse 85 n. 34 Tacitus 29 n. 112, 51 n. 5, 159 n. 59, 160 n. 62 Dialogus 124±5 Tarentines and Tarentum 67, 70, 79 Tarpeia 16±17 Tarquinii (or reges) 83, 111 n. 13, 127, 180 n. 56 Sex. Tarquinius 1 L. Tarquinius Collatinus 83 L. Tarquinius Priscus 159 L. Tarquinius Superbus 180 n. 56, 183 T. Tatius 89, 159 temeritas 64 n. 42, 110 n. 12 Terence 11±13 C. Terentius Varro (cos. 216) 54±6, 64 n. 42, 110 n. 12, 114 Thermopylae 21, 102 Thirty tyrants 26±7 Thucydides 8±10, 23±4, 29, 52 n. 9, 53 n. 12, 94 n. 51, 124, 136 n. 75 Tiberius 187, 189±90 tituli: see elogia Trajan 124 Trasimene 23 n. 82, 43, 54, 57, 63±4, 66±9, 82 n. 26, 110 n. 12 Trebia 43, 64, 66±9, 82 n. 26 trials of the Scipios 90±2 triumph(s) 51, 126, 140±56, 161

237

on the Alban Mount 142, 144, 149±50, 152, 155, 162 Augustus and 184±92 debates about 19, 101±3, 118, 121, 140±56, 161, 164±5, 188 see also ovation(s) triumviral period 5, 169±73, 174 n. 26, 200±2 Servius Tullius 159 usus 157, 159±60 Valerius Maximus 6 n. 16, 15 n. 56, 53 n. 10, 76 n. 11, 122 n. 40, 170±2, 197±9, 202 n. 17 M'. Valerius Maximus (dict. 494) in the forum of Augustus 176 n. 34, 184±7 M. Valerius Maximus Corv(in)us (cos. 348) 20, 175 n. 34, 195 M. Valerius Messalina (cos. 3) 160 n. 62 C. Valerius Flaccus (pr. 183) 156±9, 161, 196 n. 18 L. Valerius Potitus (cos. 449) 141 n. 15 L. Valerius Tappo (tr. pl. 195) 92, 97±101, 128 n. 59, 159±62, 167 n. 72 Varro 169±171, 179 n. 51 Veii 86±7, 124 n. 49 P. Ventidius Bassus (cos. su€. 43) 124 n. 49 Verginia 1 n. 3, 50 n. 2 L. Verginius (tr. pl. 449) 50 n. 2 villains 78, 82±86, 92, 103, 105, 115, 120 Virgil 169, 172±3 n. 18, 179 n. 51, 192±3, 200 n. 10 Vitruvius 174 voice, scorned 82 n. 26, 86±8 volones (slave volunteers in second Punic war) 56±7 warners (and wise advisers) 7±8, 9 n. 30, 37±8, 54, 76 n. 8, 78±83, 85, 92, 101, 103, 105, 120 wrongdoers: see villains Xanthippus 95 Xenophon 9±10, 24

Index Locorum

Praef. Praef. Praef. Praef.

1±2 4±5 9 10

Praef. 11 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

8. 4±7 11. 7 26. 1±14 28. 11 57. 6±59. 8 58. 10

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

7. 3 7. 4 10. 1±13 12. 1±13. 1 13. 6±11 29. 9 30. 1 31. 3 41. 1±12 43. 6±11 54. 6 56. 5

3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.

17. 26. 33. 35. 35. 44. 44. 56. 61. 63. 67. 72.

1±18. 11 3±29. 3 9±10 3±10 8 1 2 13 1±6 9±11 7±11 2

4. 3. 1±5. 6 4. 4. 1

a. livy 4. 4. 5 4. 7. 5 4. 13. 1 4. 13. 1±4 4. 13. 1±16. 4 4. 16. 1±4 4. 16. 4 4. 29. 5±6 160 n. 61 4. 36. 5 17 111 n. 14 5. 2. 13 50 nn. 1±2, 51 n. 7 5. 15. 4 49 n. 38 5. 16. 9 1, 168 5. 19. 1 5. 27. 1±15 140 n. 12 5. 29. 1±7 1 n. 3 5. 29. 7 49 n. 38 5. 32. 6±7 49 n. 38 5. 46. 11 40 5. 51. 1±54. 7 89 n. 41 5. 55. 1±2

28±9 134±5 35 n. 10, 101 n. 67, 200±1 1±2, 3 n. 7, 25 n. 94, 52, 77, 107, 120±1, 131, 133±6, 165, 167, 197±201 100, 103±4

139 n. 8 185, 187 n. 80 84 n. 30 50 n. 1 48 n. 37 89 n. 41

88 n. 38 111 n. 14 50 n. 1 155 n. 51 139 n. 8 1 n. 3 50 nn. 1±2 48 n. 37, 140 n. 11 48 n. 37 141 159±60 n. 60 139 159±61 159

6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6.

17. 18. 20. 22. 22. 22. 28. 28. 29. 30. 37. 37. 38. 40. 42.

2 3±16 3 5±25. 6 7±24. 5±29. 5±9 1 3 1±12 5±12 10 1±41. 1

7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7.

5. 1±9 6. 1±6 10. 1±4 11. 9 16. 8 17. 1

6 6 10

12

2 n. 6 139 139 50 nn. 1±2 82±3 50 n. 1 139 n. 8 59 n. 29 89 n. 41 89 n. 41 87 87 87 107 n. 1 50 n. 1 139 n. 8 82 n. 26 115 86±8 87 83 84 48 n. 37 111 n. 14 158 n. 57 113 n. 17 73±4 73±4 74 158 n. 57 159±60 n. 60 88±9 139 n. 8 89 89 n. 43 50 n. 1 113 n. 18 20 144 n. 25 139 n. 8 128 n. 61

240

Index Locorum

7. 7. 7. 7.

17. 23. 26. 40.

9 2 2 12

8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.

6. 9±16 7. 17 7. 21±8. 1 7. 22 9. 1±10. 7 9. 4±14 11. 1 26. 7 29. 8±35. 12 33. 21 35. 7±11 36. 5

113 n. 18 109 59 n. 29 50 n. 1, 109 113 n. 18 113 104 n. 72 141 109±12 111 110 110

9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9.

1. 1 1. 1±16. 19 4. 16 8. 13±14 9. 10 11. 3 11. 6 11. 13 12. 3±4 12. 9 13. 2 14. 10 15. 8 16. 19 17. 6 33. 3 33. 3±34. 26 33. 9 34. 1±2 34. 5 34. 7 34. 14 34. 15 36. 1 36. 1±14 38. 15±39. 1 38. 4±5 38. 4±8 40. 16 46. 1±3 46. 8

32 32±49 39 37 n. 16 35 37 n. 16 40 36 38±9 115 33 33±4 34 32 50 n. 1 127 121±2, 125±8, 131 128, 161 48 n. 37 127 128, 161 122 127 41, 77 n. 12 41±2 41±3 77 n. 12 41±2 141 18 18, 50 nn. 1±2

10. 3. 3±8 10. 7. 1±8. 12 10. 11. 9

141 n. 15 158 n. 57 20 48 n. 37

110 n. 9, 112 159±60 n. 60 112

10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10.

13. 15. 15. 16. 22. 24. 24. 24. 28. 30. 37.

2±13 112 7±12 155 n. 51 11 139 n. 8 6 40 n. 26 1±9 112±13 1±18 92 n. 50 17 139 n. 8, 140 n. 11 18 92 n. 50, 158 n. 57 2±29. 13 113 9 113 6. 12 141 n. 15, 149±50 n. 38

21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21. 21.

10. 10. 11. 25. 30. 30. 42. 43. 45. 48. 48. 52. 52. 53. 57. 63.

2 5±7 1 1±3 1±31. 1 2±7 1±4 2 4±6 1±2 8±10 3±9 7 1±7 13±14 2

22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22. 22.

3. 7±14 8. 5±18. 10 12. 5±6 13. 8±9 14. 4±14 14. 9±15 23. 1±30. 10 25. 18±26. 1 29. 10±30. 2 30. 2 34. 1±61. 15 39. 6 39. 11±12 44. 5 49. 15 50. 4 50. 10 51. 4 54. 10 58. 1±61. 15 59. 1 59. 7 60. 1 60. 6±7

79 78±9 79 164 n. 66 67 68 65 65 66 n. 48 66 n. 48 66 n. 48 68 n. 56 164 82 n. 26 50 n. 1 141 n. 15 82 n. 26 114±16 115 65±6 43±4 115 114±16 114 115 181 n. 59 54±72 55 n. 19 66 55 n. 19 55 n. 20 60 60 56 n. 21 57 56±62 57 40 n. 26 58 59

Index Locorum 22. 22. 22. 22.

60. 60. 60. 61.

9 14 17±18 1±2

23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23. 23.

1. 1 7. 4±6 7. 4±12 8. 1±9. 13 10. 1±13 13. 3±6 18. 7 24. 6±13 25. 2±3 30. 1±9 41. 13±42. 13 42. 7 43. 1±6 43. 4 43. 5 45. 1±5 45. 1±10 45. 8 46. 1±2

24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 24. 24.

7. 10±9. 5 8. 13 8. 20 9. 7±11 9. 10 13. 1±7 14. 1±5 45. 3 47. 3±6

25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25.

5. 10±6. 23 5. 10±7. 4 7. 2±4 10. 1±10 10. 8 21. 1±10 22. 1±3 31. 1±7 33. 1±9 33. 6 38. 10

26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26.

1. 3±4 2. 2 2. 7±16 5. 1±3 12. 10±14 12. 14

60 59 60 61 66 79 66 n. 48 66 n. 48 66 n. 48, 79 79 62 n. 38, 68±9 63 62 n. 38, 63 66 n. 48 44±5 45 66 62 n. 38, 66 67 69 77 n. 12 62 n. 38 69 63±4, 155 n. 51 63 62 n. 38, 63 155 n. 51, 163 n. 65 139 n. 8 66 n. 48 57 n. 24 19 n. 70, 107 n. 1 66 n. 48 45±6 90 90 67 62 n. 38 64 62 n. 38, 64 85 n. 34 68 n. 56 50 n. 1 62 n. 38 66 n. 48 139 n. 8 57 n. 24 66 n. 48, 168±9 67 62 n. 38

241

26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26. 26.

21. 21. 21. 24. 28. 38. 41. 41. 41. 42.

1±10 3±4 7±8 1±8 11 1±5 2±25 11 15 1

143±4 143±4, 148 n. 34 98 66 n. 48 90 n. 47 66 n. 48 64±5 62 n. 38, 64 66 n. 48 65

27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 27. 27.

5. 19±6. 12 6. 3±8 6. 3±10 7. 11±13 8. 4±10 8. 8±10 8. 9 12. 11 12. 13 22. 9

163 138 n. 6, 139 n. 8 163 90 n. 47 156±7 138 n. 6, 139 n. 8 156, 195±6 62 n. 38, 69 69 90 n. 47

28. 9. 7±20 144±5 28. 9. 10 150 28. 10. 13 90 n. 47 28. 12. 2±5 68 28. 21. 7±10 50 nn. 1±2 28. 29. 1 48 n. 37 28. 38. 1 145 28. 38. 4 145 28. 40. 1±42. 22 121±2, 125, 128±9, 131 28. 40. 1±45. 9 92±97 28. 40. 13±14 129 28. 41. 10 128 28. 41. 13 128 28. 42. 1 122 28. 42. 7±9 68 n. 56 28. 42. 17 125 28. 43. 1 95±6 28. 43. 1±44. 18 121±2, 125, 129±131 28. 43. 6 129 28. 43. 18 126 28. 44. 1±2 122 28. 45. 1 96 28. 45. 3 96 28. 45. 8 96 29. 29. 29. 29. 29. 29. 29.

8. 9±10 9. 8±12 9. 12 11. 12 13. 6 13. 7 18. 1±15

84 50 n. 1 85 n. 33 145 90 n. 47 145 84±5

242

Index Locorum

29. 29. 29. 29.

19. 20. 24. 37.

11±13 1 11 15

104 104 90 n. 47 139 n. 8

30. 30. 30. 30. 30.

2. 6±7 30. 2±30 30. 12 32. 6 45. 5±7

31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31. 31.

10. 11. 11. 12. 20. 20. 20. 21. 32. 40. 47. 48. 48. 48. 48. 48. 49. 49. 50.

1±7 146±7 1±3 146±7 13±17 77 n. 12 1±13. 1 85 1±7 138 n. 6, 139 n. 8, 145±6 3 145±6 5 146 1±22. 1 147 1 88 n. 38 7±41. 1 88 n. 38 4±7 147 1±2 147±8 1±9 150 3 139 n. 8 6 148 6±10 148 3 144 n. 24, 148 10 148 6±9 157 n. 54

33. 33. 33. 33. 33. 33.

21. 22. 23. 23. 25. 37.

6±9 1±23. 9 3 8 9 9

34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34. 34.

1. 7±8. 3 2. 4 4. 1±3 4. 4 4. 8 4. 13 5. 1±7. 15 5. 7 5. 9 6. 4±5 8. 1±2 10. 1±6 10. 6 33. 5±9 33. 8 46. 2

145 25 71 n. 62 67±8 50 nn. 1±2, 141

150 149±50 149±50 150 151 143 n. 22 92, 97±101 83 n. 27, 97, 139 100 104 101 n. 67 100±1 159±62 21 n. 77, 99 48 n. 37 160±1 100 150±1 143 n. 22 140 n. 11 139 n. 8 143 n. 22

34. 52. 3 35. 10. 1±9 35. 11. 1±13 35. 11. 3 36. 38. 5±7 36. 39. 3±40. 11 36. 39. 10 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37. 37.

1. 7±10 1. 9 25. 4±14 46. 2 53. 1±28 54. 18±22 58. 3 58. 6±59. 1 60. 6

38. 38. 38. 38. 38. 38. 38. 38.

17. 43. 44. 49. 50. 50. 56. 58.

39. 39. 39. 39. 39. 39. 39. 39. 39.

4. 1±5. 6 5. 2 6. 7 6. 9 28. 2 29. 5 39. 1±15 42. 2 45. 2±4

40. 40. 40. 40. 40.

8. 11±16 34. 7 38. 9 43. 4±7 59. 1

1±20 1±44. 6 9±50. 3 11 1±3 4±60. 10 10 8

41. 7. 1±3 41. 13. 6 41. 28. 9 42. 42. 42. 42.

1. 6±12 1. 12 21. 7 47. 1

143 n. 22 132±4 46±7 43 n. 30, 46 151 151±2 139 n. 8, 151 157±8 139 n. 8, 195±6 74±5 143 n. 22 76 n. 10 52 n. 11 143 n. 22 143 n. 22 153 n. 46 52 n. 11 154 n. 49 92, 101±3, 152±3 148 n. 34 102, 139 n. 8, 153 90±2 139 n. 8 158 n. 57 153±4 139 n. 8, 154 98, 105, 153 n. 47 105 139 n. 8 139 n. 8, 155 137 143 n. 22 157 n. 54 143 141, 152 143 143

80±1 n. 22 n. 43 n. 22 n. 22

143 n. 22 143 n. 22 143 n. 22 50 n. 1 139 n. 8 150 106

Index Locorum 42. 47. 4±9 42. 47. 6 44. 44. 44. 44. 44.

16. 33. 34. 36. 38.

106±7 19 n. 70

5 5±9 6 12±14 1±39. 9

81, 118 116 116 116±17 117

45. 8. 1±7 45. 8. 4±6 45. 35. 4±5

118 81±2 143 n. 22

45. 45. 45. 45. 45. 45.

35. 37. 37. 38. 40. 41.

Per. Per. Per. Per.

4±39. 20 1±39. 20 12 4 6±9 10±11

13 17 18 67

243 154 n. 50 121±3, 130±1 122±3, 130±1 150, 152 50 n. 1, 118±19 118±19 98 n. 60 141, 185 n. 76 24 n. 90, 95 n. 52 186

b. passages discussed from other authors and texts Acilius (HRR): fr. 3

57 n. 26

Ammianus Marcellinus: 23. 5. 17 Appian: Hann. 28

124 57 n. 26

Aristotle: 5 Rhet. A 2 1356 a34±1356 b11 6 n. 16 B 20 1394a Augustus: Res Gestae 2 8. 5 25. 1 35. 1 Cato (HRR): fr. 77 fr. 83 Cicero: Arch. 14 Cat. 1. 3 Inu. rhet. 1. 49 2. 91±92 2. 171 O€. 2. 46 De or. 1. 18 1. 256 Orat. 120 169 Part. or. 96 Sen. 44 Verr. 3. 209±11

184 138 n. 5, 173, 195±6 184 175 n. 27 21 21±2, 97 n. 57 15 123 5 72 72 13 13 13 13 119 123

n. 54 n. 43 n. 14 n. 63 n. 63 n. 44 n. 46 n. 46 n. 46 n. 35 n. 45 185 123 n. 43

Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (HRR): fr. 10b fr. 12 fr. 41 fr. 74

20 20 19 19

L. Coelius Antipater (HRR): fr. 19 23 n. 82 Digest: 1. 3. 32. 1 2. 4. 4. 2 Dio: 54. 11. 6 54. 24. 7±8

157 n. 55 149 n. 35 189 189

Dionysius of Halicarnassus: 2. 38. 3 16±17 2. 40. 3 17 5. 47. 3 142 n. 19 5. 74. 4 17 n. 61 Florus: 1. 18. 10

185

Frontinus: Str. 1. 1 1. 5. 16

15 47 n. 35

Aulus Gellius: 6. 18. 1±10

57 n. 26

Herodotus: Preface 1. 5 1. 5. 4 5. 92a-h 6. 86a-d 9. 26. 1±28. 1

8 7 124 n. 47 7 7 7

244 9. 26. 1 9. 27. 4

Index Locorum 124 n. 47 124 n. 47

Horace: Ars P. 317±18 Odes 1. 12 4. 15 Ser. 1. 4. 105±21

12 n. 40 172 n. 18 172 n. 18 11±13

Julius Caesar: B Gall. 1. 33. 4 1. 40. 5

26 n. 99 26 n. 99

Manilius: Astronomica 1. 777±804

170 n. 5

Nepos: Exempla (HRR) frg. 2

57 n. 26

Piso (HRR): fr. 27 fr. 34 fr. 38

17±19 20±1 21 n. 76

Pliny the Elder: 36. 102 Pliny the Younger: Ep. 6. 20. 2±5 8. 14. 6 Plutarch: Mar. 12. 5 Pyrr. 18. 4±5

195 195 12±13 186±7 98 n. 60

Polybius: 1. 35. 1±10 24 1. 59. 8±12 115 n. 24 3. 87. 6±94. 10 114 n. 20 3. 100. 1±105. 11 114 n. 20 3. 105. 8±10 115 n. 26 3. 106. 1±117. 12 54 n. 18 6. 53. 1±54. 5 14 n. 50 6. 58. 1±13 54 n. 18, 57 n. 26 7. 11. 1±12 24 15. 6. 4±7. 9 25 21. 18. 1±21. 11 76 n. 10 23. 11. 1±8 80±1 29. 20. 1±4 81±2 Quintilian:

Inst. 3. 8. 3 3. 8. 17 5. 11. 1±2 10. 1. 34 12. 4. 1±2

72 72 5 13 13 n. 46, 119

n. n. n. n. n.

63 63 14 46 35

Rhetorica ad Herennium: 3. 2 72 n. 63 3. 4 123 3. 8 72 n. 63 4. 62 5 n. 14, 14 n. 49 Sallust: Cat. 3. 2 4. 3±4 33. 3 51. 4±6 51. 27 51. 28±34 51. 37±42 52. 30±3 Hist. 1. 55. 3±5 3. 48. 1 3. 48. 8±9 4. 69. 4±15 Iug. 4. 1 4. 5±6 5. 1 14. 8 14. 10 14. 18 24. 10 31. 17 33. 4 49. 2 81. 1 85. 23±4 85. 29±30

28 28 26 n. 96 26 27 26 26±8 26 n. 96, 27 26 n. 97 26 n. 97 26 n. 97 26 n. 97 25±6, 28 14 n. 51, 25±6 28 28 28 28 28 26 n. 96 26 n. 96 26 n. 96 26 n. 96 28 28

Scriptores Historiae Augustae: Alex. Sev. 28. 6 175 n. 29 Sempronius Asellio (HRR): frr. 1±2

22±3

Seneca: De uit. breu. 13. 5 Ep. 24. 9±11 83. 13

141 n. 16 124 n. 46 124 n. 46

Silius Italicus: 6. 665±9

185 n. 76

Index Locorum Suetonius: Aug. 38. 1 89. 2 Jul. 77. 1 Tacitus: Ann. 1. 48. 1 3. 34. 4 4. 33. 1±4 6. 7. 5 11. 24. 7 15. 57. 2 15. 63. 2 Dial. 8. 1 Hist. 1. 3. 1 1. 43. 1 2. 13. 2 3. 24. 2 5. 16. 2 Terence: Ad. 414±19 Thucydides: 1. 21. 2 1. 22. 4 1. 73. 2 3. 37. 1±48. 2

187±8 15 n. 55, 173 26 n. 99 125 160 n. 62 29 n. 112 29 n. 112 159 n. 59 29 n. 112 29 n. 112 125 29 n. 112 29 n. 112 29 n. 112 125 125 11±13 136 8, 136 124 n. 47 8

4. 17. 1±18. 5 6. 76. 1±80. 5 Valerius Maximus: Proem 3. 6. 4 4. 3. 14 Virgil: Aeneid 6. 753±886 Vitruvius: Praef. 1. 3

245 8 8 197±9 185 n. 76 98 n. 60 172±3 n. 18 174

Xenophon: Hell. 4. 3. 19 5. 2. 6 5. 3. 7 5. 4. 1 6. 2. 27±32 6. 5. 51±2 7. 2. 1±3. 1 7. 5. 8±9

10 n. 36 10 10 n. 36 10 n. 36 10 n. 36 10 10 10 n. 36

Zonaras: 8. 4 9. 2

98 n. 60 57 n. 26

c. inscriptions Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 13. 1668 159 n. 59 Inscriptiones Italiae 13. 3 (= Degrassi (1937) ) 6 177 n. 38 7 177 n. 38 10 180 n. 56 13 184±6 16 181±3

62 78 79 80 83 84

180±3 184±6 194 180±3 181±3, 185±6 182±3

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae 1. 1±10 179 n. 52