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
Critics nowadays are reluctant to separate historian and writer in any schematic way, but such an approach is justified in the case of Roman rhetorical historiography One fundamental cause of the lack of rigour amongst many Roman historians in ascertaining the truth is the first-century notion that ‘history’ is a description of the manner of writing rather than of scrupulousness of research. L. Ferrero reminds us that when Cicero describes history as ‘opus . . . unum hoc oratorium maxime’ he is claiming for the orator a general competence in eloquence, written no less than spoken, which is his professional qualification: ‘physica ista ipsa et mathematica et quae paulo ante ceterarum artium propria posuisti, scientiae sunt eorum qui illa profitentur; illustrari autem oratione si quis istas ipsas artes velit, ad oratoris ei confugiendum est facultatem.’ The orator has been trained to give public expression to all kinds of’knowledge, including historical analysis. Livy may not have practised at the bar, but he is an orator in this theoretical sense, trained in the science of words.
page no 23 note 1 In his useful collection of papers on Roman historiography, Rerum scriptor; saggi sulla storiografia romana (Trieste, 1962), 21 ff.
page no 23 note 2 De Leg. i. 2. 5, 14. 61.
page no 23 note 3 McDonald, A. H., ‘The Style of Livy’, JRS x1vii (1957), 155 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 23 note 4 On which see Crake, J. E. A., ‘The Annals of the Pontifex Maximus’, CP xxxv (1940), 375 ff.Google Scholar; and E. Rawson (p. 19 n. 1).
page no 23 note 5 Important for this aspect is the work of Kroll, W., Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart, 1924), 331 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 24 note 1 See Cic. De Or. ii. 63, and above, p. 11 n. 2.
page no 24 note 2 One may observe such elaboration at many points in the fourth decade where Polybius is the source; see my Livy, 186 ff. Or again, study his version of Hannibal’s dream at xxi. 22 against the source Coelius Antipater, which happens to have survived (in Cic. Div. i. 49).
page no 24 note 3 Burck, E., Die Erzählungskunst (p. 8 n. 2)Google Scholar; Witte, K., ‘Über die Form der Darstellung in Livius’ Geschichtswerk’, RhM 1xv (1910), 270 ff., 359 ff.Google Scholar
page no 24 note 4 xxi. 7-15; xxxi. 17-18; ii. 23-33.
page no 25 note 1 Walsh, Livy, 180 f.; Walbank (p. 20 n. 2), 59 f.
page no 25 note 2 On the military contexts see Bruckmann, H., Die römischen Niederlagen im Geschichtswerk des T. Livius (diss. Münster, 1936)Google Scholar. In general see Walsh, Livy, ch. 8, and RhM xcvii (1954), 97 ff.
page no 25 note 3 Walbank, F. W., ‘History and Tragedy’, Historia ix (1960), 216 ff.Google Scholar, with bibliography of earlier contributions to the controversy.
page no 25 note 4 Earlier in Die Erzählungskunst (p. 8 n. 2); more recently in ‘Wahl und Anordnung des Stoffes: Führung der Handlung’ in Wege zu Livius (p. 3 n. 6), 331 ff.
page no 26 note 1 Chausserie-Laprée, J-P., L’expression narrative chez les historiens latins (Paris, 1969)Google Scholar; Klaus, Lindemann, Beobachtungen zur livianischen Periodenkunst (Marburg, 1964)Google Scholar.
page no 26 note 2 McDonald (p. 23 n. 3), 165; Walsh, Livy, 250 ff., and Latin Historians (p. 3 n. 5), 130 f. We should perhaps drop the description ‘periodic’ for this varied texture; see Wilkinson, L. P.’s protest in Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge, 1963), 186 Google Scholar.
page no 26 note 3 Lindemann (p. 26 n. 1), 148 ff. has a useful section on ‘Livius und Caesar’. The wider ramifications of Caesar’s influence have not been systematically studied, but cf. Klotz, A., ‘Caesar und Livius’, RhM xcvi (1953), 62 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 27 note 1 Pol. xii. 25a. 5; Pompeius Trogus ap. lustin. xxxviii. 3. 11: ‘in Livio et in Sallustio reprehendit quod contiones directas pro sua ratione operi suo inserendo historiae modum excesserint.’ On Trogus’ relation to Livy see Steele, R. B., AJP xxxviii (1917), 19 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 27 note 2 Or. 66. The great twelfth-century British historian William of Malmesbury is a good example of a medieval writer who composes speeches to adorn his history.
page no 27 note 3 I document such criticism in my Livy, 220 n. 2.
page no 27 note 4 Praef. 9.
page no 27 note 5 For the genus deliberativum see above all Quint, iii. 4. 15; and Ullmann, R., La technique des discours dans Salluste, Tite-Live et Tacite (Oslo, 1927)Google Scholar; Étude sur le style des discours de Tite-Live (Oslo, 1929).
page no 27 note 6 See my Livy, 219 ff., building on the foundation of Ulimann’s work.
page no 28 note 1 Paschkowski, I., Die Kunst der Reden in der 4. und 5. Dekade des Livius (diss. Kiel, 1966)Google Scholar.
page no 28 note 2 Treptow, R., Die Kunst der Reden in der I. und 3. Dekade des livianischen Geschichts werks (Kiel, 1964)Google Scholar; Burck, E., Wege zu Livius (p. 3 n. 6), 430 ff.Google Scholar; for Hoffmann’s book see p. 18 n. 7.
page no 28 note 3 Kohl, O., ‘Uber Zweck und Bedeutung der livianischen Reden’, Jahresbericht über die Realschule und das Gymnasium zu Barmen (Barmen, 1872)Google Scholar; Bornecque (p. 7 n. 6), ch. 14.
page no 28 note 4 Lambert, A., Die indirekte Rede als künstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius (diss. Zürich, 1946)Google Scholar.
page no 29 note 1 Canter, H. V., ‘Rhetorical Elements in Livy’s Direct Speeches’, AJP xxxviii (1917), 125 ffGoogle Scholar.; xxxix (1918), 44 ff.; Ullmann, see p. 27 n. 5.
page no 29 note 2 ‘Les clausules métriques dans les discours de Salluste, Tite-Live, Tacite’, SO iii (1925), 65 ff. The double spondee is easily the commonest form, followed by spondee/ peon and double choree, then by dactyl/trochee, cretic/trochee, and double cretic.
page no 29 note 3 E. Wölfflin, ‘Livianische Kritik und livianischer Sprachgebrauch’ (Prog. Winter- thur, 1864), 29 fr.; Stacey, S. G., ‘Die Entwickelung des livianischen Stiles’, ALL x (1896), 17 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 29 note 4 Palmer, L. R., The Latin Language (London, 1954), 137 ff.Google Scholar; Löfstedt, E., Syntactica II (Lund, 1942), 294 ff.Google Scholar; Burck, E., Die Erzählungskunst (p. 8 n. 2), XXiv Google Scholar.
page no 29 note 5 Gries, K., Constancy in Livy’s Latinity (New York, 1947)Google Scholar.
page no 29 note 6 ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, WS N.F. ii (1968), 103 ff.
page no 30 note 1 Tränkle might have added that some usages are most easily explicable as borrowings from Coelius; so satias is found three times only, all in the third decade where Livy follows Coelius.
page no 30 note 2 Contr. ix. i. 14: ‘T. Livius tarn iniquus Sallustio fuit ut hanc ipsam sententiam et tamquam translatam et tamquam corruptam dum transfertur obiceret Sallustio . . .’
page no 30 note 3 See Quint, x. 1. 39.
page no 30 note 4 Sail. BJ xx. 2, ‘metuens magis quam metuendus’; Livy ii. 12. 8, ‘metuendus magis quam metuens’.
page no 30 note 5 Sall. Cat. 14-16; Livy xxi. 4.
page no 30 note 6 Kühnast, L., Die Hauptpunkte des livianischen Syntax (Berlin, 1872)Google Scholar.
page no 30 note 7 Riemann, O., Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite-Live (Paris, 1885)Google Scholar.
page no 30 note 8 Steele, R. B., Case-usage in Livy: Genitive, Accusative, Ablative (Leipzig, 1910, 1912, 1913)Google Scholar.
page no 30 note 9 Mikkola, E., Die Konzessivität bei Livius (Helsinki, 1957)Google Scholar.
page no 31 note 1 Handford, S. A., The Latin Subjunctive (London, 1947)Google Scholar.
page no 31 note 2 See p. 26 n. 1, 419 ff.
page no 31 note 3 Quint, i. 5. 56, viii. 1. 3
page no 31 note 4 Whatmough, J., ‘Quemadmodum Pollio reprehendit in Livio Patavinitatem’, HSCP x1iv (1933). 95 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 31 note 5 See Latte, K., ‘Livy’s Patavinitas ’, CP xxxv (1940), 56 ffGoogle Scholar.
page no 31 note 6 R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, 485; cf. McDonald (p. 23 n. 3), 72, and Mazza (p. 7 n. 1), 72 f.