No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
A recurrent feature of earlier research into Livy’s work has been the assumption, based on the highly rhetorical exordium to the fourth decade1 and also on the difficulty of demonstrating clear principles of structural division, that there is no over-all plan to lend coherence to his interpretation of the history of the Republic. The present climate of Latin literary studies demands fresh scrutiny of this assumption; recent studies of other genres of Augustan literature have underlined the almost obsessive attention paid to artistic structure. Moreover, Livy’s extant books reveal how much care he devoted to the patterning of events by decades and pentads. There is no dispute that I-V form a unit; VI-XV are devoted to the period fom the Gallic crisis to the outbreak of the Punic Wars; XVI-XX cover the First Punic War and its aftermath, XXI-XXX the Second Punic War (with demonstrably careful internal structuring), XXXI-XXXV the Second Macedonian War, XXXVI-XL the wars with Antiochus and Aetolia, and XLI-XLV the Third Macedonian War. P. Jal has recently edited the first books of the fifth decade, and he concludes that the decade as a whole forms one unit, its scope being the years 178-148 B.C. and its theme the death-throes of an independent Macedonia.
page no 8 note 1 xxxi. 1. 5: ‘iam provideo animo, velut qui proximis litori vadis inducti mare pedibus ingrediuntur, quidquid progredior in vastiorem me altitudinem ac velut profundum invehi, et crescere paene opus quod prima quaeque perficiendo minui videbatur.’
page no 8 note 2 See Ogilvie’s Commentary (p. 6 n. 3), 30; and Burck, E., Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin, 1934 Google Scholar; new impression with fresh Introduction, 1964).
page no 8 note 3 With a subdivision at the end of X at L. Papirius Cursor’s significant victory over the Samnites in 293; see Stadter, P. A., ‘The Structure of Livy’s History’, Historia xxi (1972), 294 Google Scholar.
page no 8 note 4 See E. Burck in Livy (p. 3 n. 5), 22 f.
page no 8 note 5 See now F. W. Walbank in Livy (p. 3 n. 5), 48 f.
page no 8 note 6 Budé edn. of XLI-XLII (Paris, 1971), vii ff.
page no 8 note 7 Syme’s comment is typical: ‘If Livy began his work with decades in mind, they cracked and broke under pressure of the matter.’
page no 8 note 8 See above, p. 8 n. 3.
page no 9 note 1 ‘labente deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentes primo mores . . . deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, turn ire coeperint praecipites.’
page no 9 note 2 See above, p. 6 n. 3.
page no 10 note 1 Whereas Polybius and Calpurnius Piso saw perceptible moral decline in the 1605 and 1505, for Sallust the period between 201 and 150 is marked by optimis moribus and maxima concordia (fr. 11M). See in general the fine study of Earl, D. C., The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge, 1961)Google Scholar. But Livy does not single out the last fifty years as the high point of Republican manners as Sallust does.
page no 10 note 2 The fall of Carthage as the watershed in Livy’s history is reflected in Florus i. 34, iii. 12; Orosius v. 1.
page no 10 note 3 Periochae 58-60 with their anti-Gracchan presentation thus signal Livy’s divergence from the Sallustian thesis that both sides were guilty, but that the nobility having the greater power bore the greater responsibility.
page no 10 note 4 As the first stage was anticipated by Poseidonius, whose history began at 146 B.c., so the final stage was adapted from Sisenna, who began his work at 91 B.c.
page no 10 note 5 See p. 7 n. 1, and my review in Gnomon xxxix (1967), 783-6.
page no 10 note 6 Note especially Dessau, H., ‘Die Vorrede des Livius’, Festschr. O. Hirschfeld (Berlin, 1903), 461 ff.Google Scholar; Amundsen, L., ‘Notes to the Preface of Livy’, SO xxv (1947), 31 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Funaioli, G., ‘Il proemio alle storie di T. Livio’, St. Lett. Ant. ii. 2 (1947), 47 ff.Google Scholar; Ferrero, L., ‘Attualità e tradizione nella Praefatio liviana’, RFIC xxvii (1949), 1 ff.Google Scholar; Walsh, , ‘Livy’s Preface and the Distortion of History’, AJP 1xxvi (1955), 369 ff.Google Scholar See also Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm, 1964)Google Scholar; Ogilvie, Commentary, 23 ff., with additional bibliography
page no 11 note 1 See Badian, E.’s chapter ‘The Early Historians’ in Latin Historians (p. 3 n. 5)Google Scholar. Klein, R., Königtum und Königszeit bei Cicero (diss. Erlangen, 1962)Google Scholar, demonstrates how historical evidence was still being manipulated in the final decades of the Republic.
page no 11 note 2 Cic. De Or. ii. 36 ff., 51 ff. See Rambaud, M., Cicéron et l’histoire romaine (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar; Rawson, E., ‘Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian’, JRS 1xii (1972), 33 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 11 note 3 Praef. 10.
page no 11 note 4 Seneca, Ep. 100. 9. See Engelbrecht, A., WS xxvi (1904), 62 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 12 note 1 See the excellent chapter of Douglas, A. E. in Dorey, ed., Cicero (London, 1964)Google Scholar, and at greater length the brave book of Hunt, H. A. K., The Humanism of Cicero (Melbourne, 1954)Google Scholar.
page no 12 note 2 Ogilvie, R. M.’s little book, The Romans and their Gods (London, 1969)Google Scholar, is an ad mirable introduction, with further bibliography.
page no 12 note 3 ‘The Religious Position of Livy’s History’, JRS 1vii (1967), 45 ff.
page no 12 note 4 For Livy as a rationalizing sceptic in the mould of the Academic Cotta of Cicero’s ND see Bayet, J., Budé Livy 1, xxxix Google Scholar; as a Stoic rationalizer like Balbus, Walsh, , ‘Livy and Stoicism’, AJP 1xxix (1958), 355 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 12 note 5 See in general Kajanto, I., God and Fate in Livy (Turku, 1957)Google Scholar.
page no 13 note 1 See vi. 18. 9, v. II. 16.
page no 13 note 2 See x1iii. 13. 1.
page no 13 note 3 On the prodigies in Livy see Delgado, J. J., ‘Postura de Livio frente al prodigio’, Helmantica xiv (1963), 383 ff.Google Scholar, and ‘Clasificación de los prodigios titolivianos’, Helmantica xii (1961), 441 ff.; Bloch, R., Les prodiges dans l’antiquité classique (Paris, 1963)Google Scholar; Krauss, F. B., An Interpretation of the Omens, Portents and Prodigies recorded by Livy, Tacitus and Suetonius (diss. Philadelphia, 1930)Google Scholar. On the artistic presentation of prodigies in Livy see de Saint-Denis, E., ‘?Les énumerations des prodiges dans l’œuvre de Tite- Live’, RP xvi (1942), 126 ffGoogle Scholar. On the history of Prodigy-literature see P. L. Schmidt’s study (below, p. 22 n. 4).
page no 13 note 4 For the documentary evidence available see Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 220- 150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), 251 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 13 note 5 On Cossus’ spolia opima see iv. 20. 5, with the useful discussions of Syme (p. 6 n. 1), Mensching (p. 6 n. 3), and Ogilvie (p. 6 n. 3). For the libri lintei see iv. 23. 2 and Ogilvie, , ‘Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei ’, JRS x1viii (1958), 40 ff.Google Scholar, a more sceptical view of the value of the libri lintei than mine. For the Lacinium column see Polybius iii. 33. 18 and 56. 4; Livy xxi. 38. 2 f. For the s.c. de Bacchanalibus see Livy xxxix. 8 ff. and CIL i. 196; van Son, D. W. L., Livius’ Behandeling von Bacchanalia (Amsterdam, 1960 Google Scholar, with English summary).
page no 14 note 1 See RE xiii. 841 ff., and above all Livius und seine Vorgänger (Leipzig/Berlin, 1940-1), with full bibliography of Klotz’s more specialized studies.
page no 14 note 2 These citations are collected by Steele, R. B., ‘The Historical Attitude of Livy’, AJP xxv (1904), 15 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 14 note 3 Nissen, H., Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin, 1868)Google Scholar. The thesis is criticized by Laistner, M. L. W., The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley, 1947), 83 Google Scholar, but the evidence for it is overwhelming.
page no 14 note 4 See Mommsen, Th., Hermes v (1871), 270 Google Scholar; Soltau, W., Livius’ Geschichtswerk, seine Composition und seine Quellen (Leipzig, 1897)Google Scholar. There is no substance in the suggestion of poetic sources for the early books, as claimed by Ghio, M., RFIC xxix (1951), 1 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Bardon, H., REA xliv (1942), 52 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page no 14 note 5 Ogilvie, Commentary, 5 ff.; Badian (p. 11 n. I), 18 ff. For greater detail on Claudius see Zimmerer, M., Der Annalist Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (diss. Munich, 1937)Google Scholar; on Valerius Antias see Volkmann’s article in RE.
page no 14 note 6 Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 1 (Leipzig, 1870)Google Scholar.
page no 15 note 1 De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani, III 2 (Turin, 1917)Google Scholar. See also Hellmann, F., Livius-lnterpretationen (Berlin, 1939)Google Scholar; Wiehemeyer, W., Proben historiker Kritik aus Livius XXI-XLV (diss. Münster, 1938)Google Scholar.
page no 15 note 2 Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I-II (Oxford, 1957-67)Google Scholar, and Polybius (Berkeley, 1973): Pédech, P., La méthode historique de Polybe (Paris, 1964)Google Scholar; Petzold, K.E., Studien zur Methode des Polybios und zu ihrer historischen Ausvertlung (Munich, 1969)Google Scholar.
page no 15 note 3 Badian (p. 11 n. 1), 15 ff.; Wölfflin, E., Antiochus von Syrakus und Coelius Anti pater (Winterthur, 1872), 22 ff.Google Scholar
page no 15 note 4 H. Nissen, see p. 14 n. 3; Kahrstedt, U., Die Annalistik von Livius (Berlin, 1913)Google Scholar.
page no 15 note 5 xxx. 45. 5.
page no 16 note 1 Klotz, A., ‘Zu den Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius’, Hermes 1 (1915), 481 ff.Google Scholar
page no 16 note 2 xxxiv. 8 f., 11 ff. Livy calls Cato ‘haud sane detractator laudum suarum’. Most scholars support H. Peter’s thesis (HRR C1 ff.) that Livy consults Cato directly, most recently Tränkle, H., ‘Catos Origines im Geschichtswerk des Livius’, Festschr. K. Büchner (Wiesbaden, 1970), 274 ff.Google Scholar Paschowski, I., Die Kunst der Reden in der 4. und 5, Dekade des Livius (diss. Kiel, 1966), 107 ff.Google Scholar, examines the speech at xxxiv. 2 ff. to show stylistic parallels with Cato’s fragments.
page no 16 note 3 Poseidonius does not seem to have been used for the Gracchan period (Meyer, E., Kleine Schriften, I [Halle, 1910], 421)Google Scholar. The citations of Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius by Orosius (v. 16, v. 20) suggest that Livy was still following these annalists for the late second and early first century.
page no 16 note 4 So Badian, E., JRS 1 (1962), 48 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 16 note 5 For Livy’s use of Pollio compare the two accounts of Cicero’s death, which have survived in Seneca’s Suasoriae. On the paucity of documentation for history on the period 42 B.C. onwards see Syme (p. 5 n. 1), 64 ff.
page no 17 note 1 Praef. 6.
page no 17 note 2 Bloch, R., Tite-Live et les premiers siècles de Rome (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar; cf. his earlier book, The Origins of Rome (London, 1960), and his article in REL xxxvii (1959), 118 ff.
page no 17 note 3 ‘An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome’, JRS 1iii (1963), 95 ff.
page no 17 note 4 Add to Ogilvie’s bibliographies Werner, A., Der Beginn der römischen Republik (Munich, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tränkle, H., ‘Der Anfang des römisches Freistaaats in der Darstellung des Livius’, Hermes xciii (1965), 311 ff.Google Scholar; Palmer, R. E. A., The Archaic Community of the Romans (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar; Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor, 1965)Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., The Rise of Rome (London, 1972)Google Scholar; and the papers in Les origines de la république romaine (Fondation Hardt vol. xiii, 1967).
page no 18 note 1 Burek, E., ‘Zum Rombild des Livius-Interpretationen zur zweiten Pentade’, in Vom Menschenbild in der romischen Literatur (Heidelberg, 1966), 321 ff.Google Scholar
page no 18 note 2 Salmon, E. T., Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge, 1967) Google Scholar; Klotz, A., ‘Livius’ Darstellung des zweiter Samniterkrieges’, Mnem. 3rd series vi (1938), 87 ff.Google Scholar
page no 18 note 3 See especially the papers by Pareti, , Funaioli, , Niccolini, , and others in Studi Liviani (Rome, 1934)Google Scholar. On the early books see Burck, , ‘Die Frühgeschichte Roms bei Livius im Lichte der Denkmaler’, Gymn. 1xxv (1968), 74 ff.Google Scholar On Camillus see Burek in Wege zu Livius, 310 ff.; Momigliano in CQ xxxvi (1942), in ff. On Manlius Capitolinus (Livy vi. 11-20) see Burck, Gymn. 1xxiii (1966), 94 ff.; on the Second Samnite War see Schwarte, K-H., Historia xx (1971), 368 ffGoogle Scholar. Earlier studies are listed in K. Gries (p. 3 n. 1), 69 ff.
page no 18 note 4 In Livy (p. 3 n. 5), ch. 1.
page no 18 note 5 See Bayet’s Appendix I to the Budé edition of VII.
page no 18 note 6 See Briscoe (p. 18 n. 4), 8 ff.; Scullard, , A History of the Roman World 753-146 B.C. (London, 1951), 92 ff. and Appendix 6Google Scholar.
page no 18 note 7 Most recently in Livy (p. 3 n. 5), ch. 2, and at greater length in Einführung in die dritte Dekade des Livius (Heidelberg, 1950). Hoffmann, W.’s Livius und der zweite punische Krieg (Berlin, 1942)Google Scholar, deserves greater attention than it has received. See also my forthcoming ‘Livy and the Aims of historia; An Analysis of the third Decade’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ed. H. Temporini), vol. II.
page no 19 note 1 The reliability of this evidence is defended most recently by Toynbee, A. J., Hannibal’s Legacy (London, 1965), II. 36 ff.Google Scholar; Rawson, E., ‘Prodigy Lists and the use of the Annales Maximi ’, CQ N.s. xxi (1971), 138 ff.Google Scholar, illustrates from inconsistencies and curiosities in the prodigy-lists the inherent improbability that this material comes from the annales maximi, and so reinforces the scepticism of Gelzer, M., Hermes 1xx (1935), 269 ffGoogle Scholar. = Kl. Schr. III (Wiesbaden, 1964), 220 ff., about the accuracy of the military information. One has always to admit the possibility of fictitious additions, but the divergences from Polybius are not numerous.
page no 19 note 2 See my essay in Latin Historians (p. 3 n. 5), 128 = Wege zu Livius, 249 ff.
page no 19 note 3 For such issues as these the most useful systematic work of reference is Walbank’s Commentary on Polybius (p. 15 n. 2).
page no 19 note 4 See the useful articles of Sumner, G. V. in PACA ix (1966), 5 ff.Google Scholar, and HSCP lxxii (1968), 205 ff., and my edition of XXI (Cambridge, 1973).
page no 20 note 1 See Burck in Livy (p. 3 n. 5), 31 ff. On Scipio Africanus in Livy see Scullard, H. H., Scipio Africanus Soldier and Politician (London, 1970), 25 ff.Google Scholar; on Hannibal see Vogt, J., Das Hannibal-Portrait im Geschichtswerk des T. Livius unde seine Ursprünge (diss. Freiburg, 1953)Google Scholar. For articles on specialized topics in this decade see Gries (p. 3 n. 1), 69 ff.
page no 20 note 2 The excellent chapter of Walbank, ‘The Fourth and Fifth Decades’, in Livy (p. 3 n. 5) should above all be consulted. Briscoe, J.’s Commentary on XXXI-XXXIII (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar will help to stimulate interest in this neglected area. Two dissertations by pupils of E. Burck are devoted to Livy’s presentation and thought in these decades: Brüggmann, H., Komposition und Entwicklungstendenzen der Bücher 31-35 des Titus Livius (Kiel, 1954)Google Scholar, and Kern, F., Aufbau und Gedankengang der Bücher 36-45 (Kiel, 1960)Google Scholar. P. Jal’s Budé edition of XLI-XLII (p. 8 n. 6) contains an excellent Introduction and more copious annotation than has been customary in the series. The recent Italian edition of XLI-XLV and the fragments by G. Pascucci (Turin, 1970) has a substantial Introduction. For specialized articles see Gries (p. 3 n. 1), 73 ff.
page no 20 note 3 Having begun my own Livy researches with such a Polybius-Livy comparison at the prompting of Professor F. W. Walbank, I am convinced of its value as a means of disciplined investigation of Livy’s aims and techniques.
page no 21 note 1 Praef. II.
page no 21 note 2 Walbank (p. 20 n. 2), 54 f.; Pianezzola, E., Traduzione e Ideologia; Livio Interprete di Polibio (Bologna, 1969), ch. 3Google Scholar. Walsh, Cf., AJP 1xxvi (1955), 369 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 21 note 3 See Walsh, GR N.S. V (1958), 83 ff.; Walbank (p. 20 n. 2), 54 f.; for a spirited defence of Livy see de Foucault, J. A., ‘Tite-Live traducteur de Polybe’, REL x1vi (1968), 208 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 21 note 4 Pianezzola (p. 21 n.2), ch. 2; the blind leading the blind, Walbank (p. 20 n. 2), 56.
page no 21 note 5 On these annalistic sections see H. Nissen (p. 14 n. 3) and U. Kahrstedt (p. 15 n. 4). As one glaring example, the problems of Carthaginian-Numidian relations in Africa, see Walsh, , ‘Masinissa’, JRS 1v (1965), 149 ffGoogle Scholar. Petzold, K. E., Die Eröffnung des zweiten römisch-makedonischen Krieges; Untersuchung zur spätannalistischen Topik bei Livius (Berlin, 1940)Google Scholar, considers the annalistic section at the start of the fourth decade.
page no 21 note 6 See, for example, Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., Kleine Schriften, III 272 Google Scholar.
page no 22 note 1 Mart. xiv. 190.
page no 22 note 2 Rossbach’s text, which appears in the Teubner Livy Volume 4 (1910) and is reproduced in Vol. XIV of the Loeb edition, is acutely criticized in the Ph.D. disserta tion of Reid, R. A., ‘The Manuscript Tradition of the Periochae of Livy’ (Cambridge, 1969, unpublished)Google Scholar. For the Oxyrhynchus epitome see Kornemann, E., Die neue Livius- Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus (Leipzig, 1904)Google Scholar.
page no 22 note 3 Begbie, C. M., ‘The Epitome of Livy’, CQ N.S. xvii (1967), 332 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page no 22 note 4 Schmidt, P. L., lulius Obsequens und das Problem der Livius-Epitome (Mainz, 1968)Google Scholar.
page no 22 note 5 Eadie, J. W., The Breviarium of Festus (London, 1967), 70 ff.Google Scholar; Jal, P. in his edition of Florus (Paris, 1967)Google Scholar. Another useful contribution is Sherwin, W. K.’s ‘Livy and the De viris illustribus ’, Philol. cxiii (1969), 298 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 22 note 6 Fergus, Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), 34 ff.Google Scholar, in reaction against such assumptions as those of E. Schwartz in RE.