1 Dessau Reference Dessau1903. This interpretation of remedia is now questioned, as is the existence of the law itself (attested only in Prop. 2.7). See Badian Reference Badian1985. Syme Reference Syme1959: 42 suggests remedia might refer to “acceptance of centralised government”; Woodman Reference Woodman1988: 132–4, to one-man rule; similarly, von Haehling Reference von Haehling1989: 19, 213–15. Moles Reference Moles2009: 67–71 believes it refers both to one-man rule and Livy’s history.

2 See Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 60 (ad 1.7.9); Taylor Reference Taylor1918.

3 Cass. Dio 50.4.1; with Ceauşescu Reference Ceauşescu1976: 86–90.

4 For bibliography on the equation of Camillus with Augustus, see Miles Reference Miles1995: 89 n. 36; Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008: 27 n. 1. Some scholars (e.g., Petersen Reference Petersen1961; Marino Reference Marino1980; Sailor Reference Sailor2006) interpret certain Livian allusions as critical of Augustus. For the more influential contributions to the extensive bibliography on Livy’s attitude to Augustus, see Burton Reference Burton2000: 430 n. 4.

5 Syme Reference Syme1959: 48, despite asserting that Livy’s history “was written in joyful acceptance of the new order” (75).

6 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965; Walsh Reference Walsh1961.

7 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 742–3, although noting a substantial number of Livian allusions to Augustus. Cf. similar comments by Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 378–9.

8 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 24–5.

9 Walsh Reference Walsh1974: 11; cf. Reference Walsh1961: 14–19. Similarly Wiedemann Reference Wiedemann2000: 523–4. See also, however, Walsh Reference Walsh1982: 1066 on Livy’s attention to “coherent patterns of character.”

10 For recent trends in Livian scholarship, see, e.g., Miles Reference Miles1995: 1–7; Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 7–11; Chaplin and Kraus Reference Chaplin and Kraus2009: 2–5; Feldherr Reference Feldherr2009: 6–8. Recent authors creatively engaged with the political aspects of Livy’s history include Hammer Reference Hammer2008: 78–131; Connolly Reference Connolly2009; Kapust Reference Kapust2011: 81–110.

11 Burck Reference Burck1964 (2nd edn.). Burck Reference Burck1957, however, denied that Livy was concerned with political-philosophical problems.

12 Luce Reference Luce1977. The quote is from Walsh Reference Walsh1978: 171.

13 Miles Reference Miles1995: 75–136. Cf. discussion of the refoundation theme in the narratives of the sack of Veii and Rome in Kraus Reference Kraus1994b. For the large bibliography on the connection of Livy’s Camillus with Augustus, see Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008, who argues persuasively against the tendency to equate the two figures. For Camillus, see discussion at the beginning of Chapter 5.

14 For the often-discussed issue of chronology, see review of scholarship in Burton Reference Burton2000: 429–38, with 430 n. 4; and, more recently, Scheidel Reference Scheidel2009.

15 Bayet Reference Bayet1940: xvi–xxii.

16 Luce Reference Luce1965; also Woodman Reference Woodman1988: 128–40. For the Cossus episode, see discussion and bibliography in Sailor Reference Sailor2006.

17 Luce Reference Luce1965: 238. Cf. Syme Reference Syme1959 for Livy as the “last of the Republican writers” (53), taken up by Burton Reference Burton2000 with further arguments for an early dating; Levene Reference Levene1993: 241–8 on the roots of both Livian history and Augustan ideology in the late Republic; Feeney Reference Feeney2007c: 65 on “facile periodization”; Moles Reference Moles2009: 67 on the effect of historical context on interpretation; and Wiseman Reference Wiseman and Wiseman2006 on the history of scholarly rejection of ideology in analyzing the politics and historiography of the Republic.

18 Note also that the first pentad is approximately 12,000 words longer than any other extant pentad, which suggests a longer gestation period. See Packard Reference Packard1968: I v, note.

19 Livy’s popularity may be inferred from the disappearance of earlier compendious Latin histories of Rome, the paucity of such histories written after the AUC appeared, and references to Livy’s work in later writers (e.g., Suet. Dom. 10; Mart. 14.190; Quint. IO 10.1.101; Plin. Min. Ep. 6.20). For recent bibliography on Livy’s life, see Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 1–5.

20 Jerome, Ab Abr.: ad annum 1958; Syme Reference Syme1959: 40–2; Luce Reference Luce1965: 231–2, n. 61. For support for the traditional dates, see Badian Reference Badian1993: 10–11.

21 Livy’s connection to Padua is reflected in his pairing of Aeneas with Antenor, Padua’s founder, at the start of the history proper (1.1.1–3). See Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 36–7.

22 As has been pointed out, however, Livy’s text does not require us to assume that Augustus’ correction was conveyed in person (or even specifically to Livy). See Sailor Reference Sailor2006: 338–9 n. 25.

23 Tac. Ann. 4.34.4 reports that Livy’s amicitia with Augustus was unimpaired by the positive portrayal of Pompey in the books dealing with the civil war of the early 40s, although the princeps jokingly called him “a Pompeian”; Suet. Claud. 41.1, that Livy encouraged the future emperor Claudius to write history; Plin. Ep. 2.3.8, that Livy’s fame led a man to travel from Cadiz to Rome simply to set eyes on him. On declamation, see Sen. Controv. 9.1.14; 9.2.26; 10 praef. 2; FRHist II: 848–9 (#54: “Cornutos” T1); with Bonner Reference Bonner1949: 40, 133, 156–7; Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 3–4.

24 See discussion of Badian Reference Badian1993; Warrior Reference Warrior2006: 421–4. On Augustus’ disregard of Livy’s history in the elogia of his Forum, see Luce Reference Luce, Raaflaub and Toher1990, who summarizes evidence for and against a close relationship between the two men (128–9). For discussion of conflicting claims by Livy and Augustus to historical auctoritas in the Cornelius Cossus passage, with further bibliography, see Sailor Reference Sailor2006.

25 For a historical and social background to the region, see Chilver Reference Chilver1975; for an excellent account of the triumviral period – to which this survey is indebted – see Osgood Reference Osgood2006.

26 Recruits for the eight legions Caesar added to the four he had been assigned at the beginning of his campaigns in Gaul were drawn largely from Cisalpina. Men from the region were represented on both the Pompeian and Caesarian side. The 15th Legion, transferred from Caesar to Pompey shortly before the beginning of the civil war, fought both for Caesar in Gaul and for Pompey at Pharsalus.

27 See Chilver Reference Chilver1975: 7–8, 112–13. Pompeius Strabo of Picenum (cos. 89 BCE) oversaw granting of Latin rights to towns north of the Po after the Social War and organization of the Cispadane as a province. Strabo’s influence in the region was key to the ability of his son, Pompeius Magnus, to raise a private army of clients during the Sullan civil war. Julius Caesar’s attempts to enfranchise the Transpadanes came to fruition during his dictatorship of 49 (Cass. Dio 41.36.3). On the region’s widespread support of Caesar in the civil war, see Gasparotto Reference Gasparotto1952: 29–31.

28 Phil. XII.10. Cf. Cic. Fam. 12.5.2 (SB Fam 365). For the Twelfth Philippic, see J. Hall Reference Hall, Stevenson and Wilson2008. Gasparotto (Reference Gasparotto1952: 30–1) argues – not entirely convincingly – that the Patavians’ opposition to Antony demonstrated their continuing loyalty to Julius Caesar.

29 See SB Fam 409.1, who dates the letter to early June of 43. Pollio had received a report not only of the deaths of the consuls, but also that Octavian had fallen and that the forces loyal to the senate had suffered terrible losses (4).

30 On the proscriptions, see Osgood Reference Osgood2006: 62–107. Cf. Serv. ad Ecl. 6.64 (on Cornelius Gallus): qui elegos scripsit, qui a triumviris praepositus fuit ad exigendas pecunias ab his municipiis, quorum agri in transpadana regione non dividebantur.

31 Strab. 3.5.3.

32 On primary sources (esp. the historians Appian and Cassius Dio, and the poets Propertius, Vergil, and Horace) for the land seizures, see Gabba Reference Gabba1971; Osgood Reference Osgood2006: 108–51. On Vergil’s Mantua: Verg. Ecl. 9.28; Serv. praef. 2.25–3.14; ad Ecl. 9.28; Serv. Dan. ad Ecl. 9.28; Donat. Vit. Verg. 19.

33 See Gabba Reference Gabba1971 on various ancient accounts of the aftermath of the surrender, when L. Antonius’ Italian supporters were probably executed. Suet. Aug. 15.1 reports that Octavian, although pardoning Antonius and his army, responded to pleas for mercy with the repeated phrase, “they must die” (moriendum esse). References to the event are found in Prop. 1.22, published ca. 28. (The poet, who came from the area, would have been a child at the time.)

34 For an account of food supply in the city during this period, see Garnsey Reference Garnsey1988: 202.

35 On S. Pompeius Magnus, see RE 42 [Pompeius 33] 1952: 2213–50; OCD 1180–1.

36 According to Strabo 5.1.7, however, the city seems to have flourished under the principate.

37 Livy as Pompeianus: Tac. Ann. 4.34. On Patavium, see Plin. Ep. 1.14.6; Mart. 11.16; Macrob. Sat. 1.11.22; Cic. Phil. XII.10.

38 See Quint. Inst. 1.5.56; 8.1.3; with Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 1 n. 2.

1 Marincola Reference Marincola and Kraus1999: 299. This valuable rethinking of tradition and originality in Roman historiography emphasizes the lack of any generic straightjacket that might have precluded extensive innovation. See Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 91–141 for theorization of historiography in antiquity; Marincola Reference Marincola1997 for survey of how ancient historians presented themselves and their historical aims and methods in their texts.

2 I Claudius, ch. 9. The dichotomy (as represented by Pollio and Livy) is memorably articulated in Syme Reference Syme1939: 485–6; Reference Syme1959: 57–8. For a discussion of and recent challenge to this view, see Levene Reference Levene2007, esp. 275–6. On Pollio’s historiographical autopsy as part of his political self-representation, see Morgan Reference Morgan2000.

3 See, e.g., Semon., Archaeology of the Samians; Pl. Hp. Mai. 285d; Diod. Sic. 1.4.6; 2.46.6; Strab. 11.14.12; Joseph. AJ 1.3.6 (on the “Phoenician Archaeology” of Hieronymus Aegyptius); Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.4.1; 1.61.5 (on the “Athenian Archaeology” of Phanodemus).

4 See Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 37–9. Schultze Reference Schultze2000: 14–15, 17–19 suggests that Dionysius’ treatment of the time from the earliest settlement to just before Rome’s foundation might profitably be read as a “mini-archaeology” within the larger work. Cf. Walbank Reference Walbank1957: 663–5; Marincola Reference Marincola and Kraus1999: 293.

5 Cic. Att. 4.18.2 (SB Att 92.2): amisimus, mi Pomponi, omnem non modo sucum ac sanguinem sed etiam colorem et speciem pristinam civitatis. nulla est res publica quae delectet, in qua acquiescam.

6 For a brief summary of the political background of Rep., see Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 1–3. For trends in interpretation of late Republican history, see Jehne Reference Jehne2006. For recent overviews of the period, see von Ungern-Sternberg Reference von Ungern-Sternberg2004: 98–109; Tatum Reference Tatum2006; I. Harrison Reference Harrison2008; Flower Reference Flower2010 (focusing on periodization).

7 For introduction to Cicero’s philosophical work of the 50s, see E.M. Atkins Reference Atkins2000: 487–501; on Cicero’s theoretical innovations in defining the state, see Schofield Reference Schofield1995. Of particular interest for the passages to be discussed are Ferrary Reference Ferrary1984; Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995; Powell and North Reference Powell and North2001 (esp. contributions of Schmidt, Powell, and Cornell); Fox Reference Fox2007: 80–110. On the introduction, see esp. Blössner Reference Blössner2001; Fox Reference Fox2007: 105–10.

8 For the opposition between Greece and Rome in this regard, see more recently Zetzel Reference Zetzel, Braund and Gill2003; Baraz Reference Baraz2012: 13–43 (on the anxiety felt by Roman writers of theoretical works).

9 See discussion of textual problem in Powell Reference Powell2001: 28. (The palimpsest has exposita ... rei publicae, leaving the participle exposita with no noun on which it depends if rei publicae is left in the genitive.) For the use of exempla, cf. 2.52, 2.55, and 2.66: quod autem exemplo nostrae civitatis usus sum, non ad definiendum optimum statum valuit (nam id fieri potuit sine exemplo), sed ut <in> civitate maxima reapse cerneretur quale esset id quod ratio oratioque describeret. (“Moreover, as for the fact that I have used our state as a model, its efficacy was not in defining the best constitution – for this could have been done without a model – but in order that it might be made clear, through adducing the greatest state that actually exists, the sort of thing that abstract thought and speech attempt to describe.”) Powell Reference Powell2001 argues against the Roman state as ideal, but is persuasively contradicted by Asmis Reference Asmis2005 (although Powell accurately shows that the mixed constitution did not make Rome ideal in an absolute sense nor immune to political crises).

10 Cf. Cicero’s description of the work in late 54 as about “the best constitution and the best citizen” (Q Fr. 3.5.1: de optimo statu civitatis et de optimo cive). On the question of the pragmatic aspect of Rep. vis-à-vis contemporary politics, see bibliography in Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 27 nn. 56, 57, 58, whose own position, with which I agree, is that the “practical element” in Rep. involved the renewal of Roman mores and instituta within the individual souls of the Roman elite, and through them, of the wider society. (Cf. Zetzel Reference Zetzel2001: 95–7.)

11 Note that despite this organic metaphor, Scipio’s picture of growth posits a certain sophistication on the part of the early Romans, even during the reign of Romulus. See Cornell Reference Cornell2001: 50–5.

12 2.45.1–3: id enim est caput civilis prudentiae, in qua omnis haec nostra versatur oratio, videre itinera flexusque rerum publicarum, ut cum sciatis quo quaeque res inclinet, retinere aut ante possitis occurrere.

13 Cicero’s ambiguous use of the terms aequabilitas and aequitas has engendered much scholarly commentary. As Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 143 points out, in passages after Rep. 1.43 and 1.53 (1.69; 2.42; 2.43; 2.57; 2.62) aequabilitas does not refer, as it does here, to political equality but “clearly refer[s] to the proportional equality of the mixed constitution.” See discussion in, e.g., Fantham Reference Fantham1973; and, recently, J.W. Atkins Reference Atkins2013: 108–15.

14 2.56: in populo libero pauca per populum, pleraque senatus auctoritate et instituto ac more gererentur.

15 2.63: libidinose omni imperio et acerbe et avare populo praefuerunt.

16 Of the extensive scholarship on the relationship of Cicero to Polybius, see, e.g., Taeger Reference Taeger1922: 84–5, 143 (Cicero strongly dependent on Polybius); Pöschl Reference Pöschl1936: 47–95 (emphasizing Cicero’s innovations); Walbank Reference Walbank1957: 663–4; Trompf Reference Trompf1979: 4–59; Ferrary Reference Ferrary1984; Lintott Reference Lintott, Barnes and Griffin1997; Powell Reference Powell2001; Cornell Reference Cornell2001: 47 (asserting that Cicero “did not need to be guided by Polybius’ ideas, which tended to be derivative and superficial.”)

17 For discussion of and recent bibliography on the mixed constitution in Greek thought, see Hahm Reference Hahm2009.

18 See Polyb. 6.11a2 (date of founding); 6.11a5 (Numa); 6.11a6 (founding of Ostia); 6.11a7 (Lucius Tarquinius).

19 von Fritz Reference von Fritz1954: 366. See Brink and Walbank Reference Brink and Walbank1954 for the unity of Book 6. On von Fritz’s emendation (i.e., replacement of the figure of 30 years by 32 years), see De Sanctis Reference De Sanctis1953: 2.41 n. 1, supported by Walbank Reference Walbank1957: 674 ad Polyb. 6.11.1.

20 von Fritz Reference von Fritz1954: 467–9 n. 5, enlarging on Meyer Reference Meyer1882: 622–3, states that Polybius “distinguishes two high points in the development of the Roman constitution: (1) the time of the Twelve Tables and of the Valerio-Horatian Laws, when ... the Roman constitution for the first time became a mixed constitution in the full sense of the word; and (2) the time of the Hannibalic War, when as the result of a long process of further adjustment in details ... this mixed constitution had reached the point of its greatest perfection.”

21 On “leaders and masses” in Polybius, see Walbank Reference Walbank2002: 212–30.

22 See earlier discussion of Rep. in this chapter. On Polybius’ (didactic) purpose, see Polyb. 1.1–2. The issue is closely connected to that of audience. While Polybius primarily addresses the political elite (1.1.2), the potential audience also includes: those who desire a “corrective of conduct” through “knowledge of the past” (1.1.1); those attracted by the account of Rome’s astonishingly swift rise to world domination, marked by “unexpectedness” (paradoxon); and those students eager to acquire the crucial knowledge of “by what means and under what system of polity the Romans in less than fifty-three years succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole government” (1.1.5). See Walbank Reference Walbank1957: 6–16, 39–40 (ad 1.1.1–6), 45–6 (ad 1.4.6–8); Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 112–16; Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995: 16–27, 196–7, 238, 281–4. Τrans. from Loeb rev. edn., Paton et al. Reference Paton, Walbank and Habicht2011 ad loc.

23 Brink and Walbank Reference Brink and Walbank1954: 113–15 call the date of the decemvirate historically unimportant except insofar as it illustrates the political-theoretical ideas of Polybius. For the possibility that the Valerio-Horatian laws also marked the end of the first book of Cato’s Origines, see Chassignet Reference Chassignet1986: xi n. 5; Cornell Reference Cornell2001: 46 (with relevant bibliography in n. 23). For the date as marking the end of stasis in Rome, see Diod. Sic. 12.25.3; with Gelzer Reference Gelzer, Strasburger and Meier1964: 196.

24 Eckstein Reference Eckstein1997: 175, following up Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995 (esp. 28–117, 140–50), traces the crucial role of moral education and values, especially among the elite, in the acquisition and maintenance of Roman political power. Cf. Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 112–16. For moral didacticism in the Hellenistic historians, see Pownall Reference Pownall2003.

25 Schmidt Reference Schmidt2001 reads 2.64 as a hint of the original plan of the dialogue and assumes (as do most scholars) that instituta, mores, and disciplina were assigned to Book 4 in the final form of the work, while the subject of leges was transferred from Rep. to Leg. On the overall structure of Rep., see esp. Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 16–17; Ferrary Reference Ferrary1995: 48–51. For hypotheses about the contents of Book 4, see, e.g., Zetzel Reference Zetzel2001 (with bibliography at 87 n. 16).

26 Rep. 5.1. See Zetzel Reference Zetzel2001: 91–7 on the moral instituta discussed in Book 4 as connecting Greek ethical (i.e., Stoic) theory to Roman social practice.

27 Cf. Rep. 3.41, in which the res publica is said to be capable of immortality only “if ancestral institutions and customs are maintained” (si patriis viveretur institutis et moribus). Thus Ferrary Reference Ferrary1995: 50 describes the books treating this material (3 and 4) as “the heart” of Rep. as they contain “the ethical and human foundations of the optimus status and the optimus civis.” Cf. J.W. Atkins Reference Atkins2013: 105–8. On the problem of the origin of this social morality, see Zetzel Reference Zetzel2001: 92–3, who derives from the fragments Cicero’s (Stoic) belief in the creation of moral instituta by men whose “superior wisdom comes from the contemplation of eternal values” (92).

28 On general aspects of the archaeology, see, e.g., McGushin Reference McGushin1977: 66–8, who notes that the excursus cannot be accepted as “true history,” since it includes both omission and distortion. On the different views of the past in Sallust’s Cat. and Hist., see n. 17 in Chapter 6.

29 10.1. Cf. Iug. 41.2–5. Much has been written on the elimination of Carthage, and with it the metus hostilis, as the key moment in Rome’s decline. A good introduction to the topic is found in Earl Reference Earl1961: 13–16, 41–52.

30 Levene Reference Levene2000: 174–80 discusses the relationship between Sallust’s preface and his archaeology, arguing for strong Catonian influence.

31 Cf. Eckstein Reference Eckstein1997: 191–8, however, for Polybius’ Catonian analysis of degeneration in the Roman aristocracy due to changes in mores brought about by growth in Roman wealth and power after the Hannibalic War. While Cicero in Rep. avoids mapping constitutional development onto a narrative arc of rise and decline, the political crisis faced by the discussants in 129 BCE and by Cicero’s audience in the 50s BCE assumes a political and moral deterioration from a more stable past.

32 See Vasaly Reference Vasaly2009: 251–5 for Catiline as a monstrum incorporating both heroic and evil qualities. On the complex portrayal of Catiline (and Sallust’s moral stance in general), see, e.g., Batstone Reference Batstone1988; Wilkins Reference Wilkins1994; Kraus and Woodman Reference Kraus and Woodman1997: 10–50; Levene Reference Levene2000.

33 On Polybius’ standards, see 12.25 (criticizing Timaeus). Among the many discussions of this passage, see, e.g., Walbank Reference Walbank1972: 43–58, 66–74.

34 Trans. from C.F. Smith’s Loeb edn. of Thucydides (1928). On the pejorative use of μυθῶδες here, see Said Reference Said2007: 77–8.

35 The scholarship on Thucydides’ methodological chapters (2.21–22) is vast. Useful recent discussions of the issues, with reference to current bibliography, are Bakker Reference Bakker2006, esp. 116–23; and Kallet Reference Kallet2006.

36 Marincola Reference Marincola1997: 96–7.

37 Scanlon Reference Scanlon2002. According to Scanlon, no matter what the historical data, Thucydides requires that it be carefully and rationally analyzed, thus yielding not just an accurate understanding of individual events but general paradigms relevant to future events.

38 Connor Reference Connor1984: 26.

39 See Connor Reference Connor1984: 29 on the archaeology as epideixis.

40 Finley Reference Finley1965: 11.

41 Finley Reference Finley1965: 289. Contra Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 106–7. See Moles Reference Moles, Gill and Wiseman1993: 98–121 on the tension in all historiography between the specific truth of present-day events (tending toward the particular) and universal truths, applicable for all time (encouraging the transformation of the particular through repetition into patterns). Thus, the contents of the archaeology are “true” in “suggest[ing] ideas that will become important in the main narrative: the ceaseless struggle for dominance, competition between sea and land powers, the contrast between Athenian and Spartan ways of life, the rule of the stronger over the weaker, and so on” (102).

42 For reliqui as referring to Aristotle and the Peripatetics, see Lieberg Reference Lieberg1994; and Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 179 ad loc, who assumes that Cicero had not read the Pol. and was also unaware of Aristotle’s study of specific constitutions.

43 On this frequently discussed passage, see Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 178–9 (similarly Lieberg Reference Lieberg1994); Powell Reference Powell2001: 21.

44 Cf. explicit acknowledgment that Rome’s constitution was arrived at by trial and error in Polyb. 6.9.13; 6.10.12–14.

45 Quoted from Cornell Reference Cornell2001: 44, who calls Cicero’s account “a theoretical discussion with a historical framework” (56). Similarly, e.g., Fox Reference Fox2007: 100–1, who describes it as “not really history, but a narrative forced upon the traditional story in order to make it work as a verification for the theory. ... The purpose of this Roman history, therefore, cannot be to persuade Cicero’s readers that it is literally true”; Connolly Reference Connolly2009: 183–4: “Inserting a historical narrative into a Platonic dialogue allows Cicero to temper the perceived inflexibility of Greek political theory even as he transforms Latin historiography by imposing a Greek theoretical model on past events” (184); Asmis Reference Asmis2005: 398, who notes that Scipio’s account is “deliberately marked by Cicero as an idealization.”

46 Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 179 (ad 2.22.2).

47 Zetzel Reference Zetzel2001: 96.

48 In Rep. 2.2 Scipio speaks approvingly of Cato’s praise of Rome’s laws and institutions as developing over the centuries through the genius of many men, unlike those of the Greeks, which were owed to the wisdom of a single individual.

49 As Fox Reference Fox2007: 62 comments, Cicero is here “exposing the fictional quality of his dialogue structure to an extent that goes beyond any of Plato’s ironic moments. This is an emblematic passage for Cicero’s entire philosophical output.”

50 Moles Reference Moles, Gill and Wiseman1993: 107–10.

51 Despite the pessimism of Livy’s preface, its hopes for effecting change ultimately appear stronger than those of Cicero, in which the unreal aspects of his picture of the past are made apparent to the reader. See the excellent introduction and development of this idea in Fox Reference Fox2007: esp. 91–104, 144–8.

1 For the extensive bibliography on the preface, see Moles Reference Moles2009: 50–1 n. 2, 86–7.

2 Although it is a rhetorical commonplace for an orator to begin a speech by doubting his ability to rise to the great challenges before him, this is not true of historiography. See Moles Reference Moles2009: 51–2. Many commentators mistakenly assume that Livy is implying that he too will make advances in accuracy and/or style. See, e.g., Syme Reference Syme1959: 53–4; Luce Reference Luce1977: 184; Marincola Reference Marincola1997: 140.

3 See, e.g., Hdt. 1.1; Thuc. 1.1; Polyb. 1.1; Sall. Iug. 5.1–3; Cat. III.1–2; with Moles’ Reference Moles, Gill and Wiseman1993: 88–98. This focus (i.e., preserving the memory of events) is also implied by the tendency to begin where a predecessor left off. See Marincola Reference Marincola1997: 267–70 for chart indicating where ancient historians began and ended their histories.

4 For the identities of Livy’s predecessors, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 25–6.

5 Cf. Miles Reference Miles1995: 74: “History in this version remains useful ... because it perpetuates and interprets the collective memory on which the identity and character of the Roman people depend.”

6 Kraus Reference Kraus1997: 52 also notes the political implications of consuluisse, while Moles Reference Moles2009: 56–7 speaks of Livy’s motivation as “public spirited.”

7 Cic. Verr. II.3.7; Sest. 138; Phil. XIII.8.

8 Livy’s preface has regularly been read for its Sallustian and anti-Sallustian elements. See, e.g., Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 23–4; Paschalis Reference Paschalis1980; Woodman Reference Woodman1988: 130–1, 136; Levene Reference Levene2007: 283–6.

9 Thus, Italian giovare. On Livy’s supposed escapism, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 24. Moles Reference Moles2009: 52–3 speaks of the “sheer joy” Livy will derive from his task, despite the immensity of labor involved, and that “Livy’s historical project ... unites the normally opposed utile ... and dulce (iuvabit).” (59). On the usefulness of a history that does not necessarily respond to the tastes of readers, cf. Thuc. 1.22.4; Polyb. 9.2.6.

10 Cicero similarly represents his philosophical writing as both an escape from the ills of the present and as a way (even if ultimately unsuccessful) of attempting to address those ills. See comments of Fox Reference Fox2007: esp. 30–7.

11 Cf. Mur. 30: sit denique in civitate ea prima res propter quam ipsa est civitas omnium princeps (“Let that element, then, be preeminent in the state on account of which the state itself is preeminent over all.”).

12 The phrase is widely agreed to refer to the civil wars. Cf. AUC 30.44.9: nulla magna civitas diu quiescere potest; si foris hostem non habet, domi invenit, ut praevalida corpora ab externis causis tuta videntur, suis ipsa viribus onerantur (“No great state is able to be at peace for a long time. If it has no external enemies, it finds enemies at home, with the result that extremely powerful entities seem safe from external threats [but] are burdened by their own strength”).

13 See Luce Reference Luce1977: 250–75 for Livy’s conception of Rome’s slow decline over time and its context in late Republican thought. Luce builds on Earl Reference Earl1961: 44–9 and his identification of two major approaches to the question of Roman decline, one focusing on metus Punicus, the other on the importation of corrupting foreign influences. For bibliography, see Moles Reference Moles2009: 59 n. 23. On the shifting focus on time in the preface, see also Kraus Reference Kraus1997: 53–6; Moles Reference Moles2009: esp. 62–7; Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997: esp. 1–29 (on the overlapping concepts of space, time, and memory).

14 Hdt. 1.5.3 states that he will not say if the stories of the Persians or the Phoenicians about the origin of the Trojan War are true or false; elsewhere he notes that it is his intention simply to report what his sources tell him (2.123.1; 4.195.2; 7.153.2). His practice, however, in relation to alternate versions of stories is varied and complex, including in many cases careful assessment of sources. See esp. Lateiner Reference Lateiner1989: 76–90. Similarly, Livy’s statement here frequently does not match the various ways he treats less credible events.

15 8: sed haec et his similia, utcumque animadversa aut existimata erunt haud in magno equidem ponam discrimine. This contrasts with the careful claims to authority through meticulous research of Greek and Latin literary sources in Livy’s contemporary, Dionysius, who also deals with the earliest stories. See Schultze Reference Schultze2000.

16 On belief and skepticism in re religious events, see Levene Reference Levene1993: 16–37, who concludes that the many instances where Livy combines belief and skepticism forces the reader to “take over part of the work of the historian” (30) by making an independent judgment. Cf. Lateiner Reference Lateiner1989: 76–90 on Herodotus and “the reader’s autonomy.”

17 For instance, Livy will not affirm whether the son of Aeneas who founded Alba Longa was the son of Creusa or Lavinia since “who could declare for certain so ancient a fact” (1.3.2).

18 5.21.9: sed in rebus tam antiquis si quae similia veris sint pro veris accipiantur, satis habeam; haec ... neque adfirmare neque refellere est operae pretium.

19 Kraus Reference Kraus1994b: 283–4. Similarly, Luce Reference Luce1971: 301. For Livian statements concerning the difficulty or impossibility of ascertaining the truth of the early traditions (even in Book 8), see Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 40–51.

20 6.1.1–3: quae ab condita urbe Roma ad captam eandem Romani ... gessere ... quinque libris exposui ... clariora deinceps certioraque ab secunda origine velut ab stirpibus laetius feraciusque renatae urbis gesta domi militiaeque exponentur. (“The deeds that the Romans accomplished from the founding of the city of Rome up until its capture ... I have set forth in five books. ... In what follows, events at home and in the field that are clearer and more certain shall be set forth, starting from the second beginning of the city, which was reborn – so to speak – from the roots, more abundant and more fruitful.”) On the significant vocabulary of the passage, see Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 83–8. Cf. Vasaly Reference Vasaly, Levene and Nelis2002 and Reference Vasaly and Mineo2014 for structure of the pentad; and discussion to follow in the Conclusion for the artificiality of some of Livy’s claims for the special character of the first pentad.

21 Fornara Reference Fornara1983: 1–12, for instance, traces a clear development in the distinction between the mythic and “historical age” from Hecataeus to Ephorus, assuming that by Ephorus’ time, an “established tradition” made the return of the Heracleidae the boundary between myth and history. Contra Wiseman Reference Wiseman2007, who: (a) denies the existence of strict generic taboos in historiography (including miracle stories and divine interventions); and (b) believes no period constituted a “different sort of past” for the ancients. Especially pertinent to this study is Feeney Reference Feeney2007c: 86: “The fact that [the] interface between myth and history was a live issue enabled [the ancients] to do creative work at the various extremities where myth and history could be said to meet, or to diverge.” (For the generic aspect of the rhetoric of inclusion or exclusion of “mythic” material, see Feeney Reference Feeney, Bierl, Lämmle and Wesselmann2007b.)

22 Hdt. 1.5.3 (agnosticism concerning the age of myth); 3.122.2 (separation of the period of myth from that of the “human generation”); 7.20.2–21.1 (events “we know of” vs. “what is said” of the Trojan War). On these passages, see valuable remarks of Feeney Reference Feeney2007c: 72–6 – with accompanying bibliography – on Herodotus’ “new kind of discourse about the past” (76), in which “he grapples with demarcating his material from the material of myth” (75). Lateiner Reference Lateiner1989: esp. 91–110 is correct, however, in denying that Herodotus includes a “comprehensive statement of method” (56), since – as Lateiner argues – his methods were varied, complex, and often included research meant to give or withdraw credence from various accounts concerning the early period. Denying any clear demarcation between myth and history in Herodotus, see also T. Harrison Reference Harrison2000: 207.

23 On Callisthenes, Theopompus, and Ephorus as omitting mythological subjects, see Diod. Sic. 4.1.3. For Ephorus’ comment, see FGrH 70 F 9.

24 On Thucydides’ methodology see earlier discussion in Chapter 1 (“Truth and Fiction in the Historiographical Archaeology”). Polybius (9.1.4; 9.2.1) mentions genealogy, colonizations, foundations, and kinships as different from – and not to be included in – the account of the deeds of “nations, cities, and dynasts,” his own subject.

25 See discussion of Marincola Reference Marincola1997: 119–21.

26 Trans. from E. Cary’s Loeb edn. of Dionysius (1937). Dionysius here was surely referring to Greek writers such as Ephorus, Callisthenes, Theopompus (Diod. 4.1.1–4), and Polybius who had, for the most part, passed over this material, since he would have been well aware of the “crowd” of Latin writers who had attempted AUC history. See esp. Schultze Reference Schultze2000.

27 For Quadrigarius as Plutarch’s “Klodius,” author of an Elenchos Chronon, in Num. 1.1–2, see Frier Reference Frier1979: 121–6, who believes Quadrigarius attacked the reliability of histories based on the pontifical annals falsely thought to have survived the Gallic sack of 390 BCE.

28 Marincola Reference Marincola1997: 99–106 identifies “some consistent approaches” to non-contemporary history, e.g., inquiry into oral tradition, interpretation of monuments, and esp. consultation of previous writers. The chronological researches of Livy’s contemporaries Pomponius Atticus and Varro suggest that the definition of prehistorical and historical periods, along with the implications of that definition for the writing of history, was still a matter for argument and conjecture in the late Republic/early Empire. On the liber annalis of T. Pomponius Atticus, see Rawson Reference Rawson1985: 103. Varro (HRR 2: Gen. pop. Rom. Fr. 3 = Censorinus DN 21.1–5) distinguished the period of “the obscure” (adelon: from the beginning to the cataclysm – i.e., flood – associated with king Ogygus), the “mythic” (mythicon: from Ogygus to the first Olympiad), and the “historic” (after the first Olympiad in 776 BCE).

29 Rawson Reference Rawson1972: 35, alluding to Atticus, Varro, Cicero (Rep.), and Nepos, says that, after a lull in treatment of the remote past, “the breakdown of republican order in the fifties gave the impulse for a second [flowering of antiquarianism].” See also Levene Reference Levene and Harrison2005: 37–9 on the often-overlooked importance of Varro’s researches and writing.

30 See Gabba Reference Gabba1991: 78–9 on Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.8.2. Cf. Schultze Reference Schultze2000: 10 for Dionysius’ inclusion of genealogy and foundations, which Polybius had excluded.

31 10: 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 vites.

32 A large bibliography exists on exemplarity in ancient historiography in general and on Livy’s use of it in particular. A helpful introduction is found in Chaplin Reference Chaplin2000: 1–31, who defines an exemplum as “anything from the past that serves as a guide to conduct within the text” (3). More recently, see esp. Miles Reference Miles1995: 76–9; Kraus Reference Kraus1997: 51–6; Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997: 15–29; Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 1–50; Roller Reference Roller2004; Kraus Reference Kraus, Edmondson, Mason and Rives2005; Levene Reference Levene2006; Stem Reference Stem2007.

33 Cf. the succinct statement of Philips Reference Philips1982: 1002: “Livy’s view on the role of myth in history (praef. 6), which should be understood as referring to the whole first pentad, implies that he finds it unnecessary to pass judgment on the truth of the fabulae because true or not, they serve his essentially symbolic and didactic purposes.” For instance, Livy casts doubt on the literal truth of his account of Horatius at the bridge, even while presenting the incident as an important documentum exempli that won more “fame” (2.5.11: fama) than “belief” (2.5.11: fidei). Roller Reference Roller2004 chooses Horatius as an outstanding instance of exemplarity in Roman culture.

34 See E. Cary’s 1937 Loeb introduction to the AUC (xix) comparing several major narratives in the two historians, noting in particular the length of the Coriolanus story in Dionysius. See Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 112 for expansion rather than compression as more characteristic of the second pentad.

35 For discussion of literary and historical approaches, see, e.g., Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 8–9; Chaplin and Kraus Reference Chaplin and Kraus2009: 2–5; Batstone Reference Batstone2009; with the (polemical) contribution to the same volume by Lendon Reference Lendon2009. Works from the so-called literary school are, among others, Burck Reference Burck1964; Luce Reference Luce1977; Lipovsky Reference Lipovsky1981; Woodman Reference Woodman1988; Moore Reference Moore1989; Miles Reference Miles1995; Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997; Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998; Kraus Reference Kraus1994b; and most of the contributions to Chaplin and Kraus Reference Chaplin and Kraus2009.

36 Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 8. (Note Forsythe’s exclusion of T.J. Luce from this criticism.)

37 Luce Reference Luce1971: 301.

38 Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 48. Cf. Luce Reference Luce1971: 295: “To begin with, however, we should not expect a priori that Livy (or any other of the late annalists, for that matter) effected very many fundamental changes” (297).

39 In most cases scholars wishing to understand Livy’s choices in handling his sources in the early books must rely to a great extent, like Burck, on the material found in Livy’s contemporary Dionysius of Halicarnassus or on the first/second century biographer Plutarch, who drew on a variety of pre-Livian sources for the Lives. For an overview of Livy’s sources and the annalistic tradition, see Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 13–110; with Oakley Reference Oakley2009. Another instance, in addition to AUC 7.9–10, where we have an opportunity to compare Livy’s narrative and source material is Gell. NA 9.11, the duel in 349 BCE between Valerius Corvus and (another) huge and arrogant Gallic warrior. See Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: IV 558–60. For the source of the story as Valerius Antias, see Holford-Strevens 2005: 251.

40 For other comparisons of the two accounts, see Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: II 113–48. On Quadrigarius as Livy’s main source, see Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: II 114–15.

41 7.10.3. Cf. Cato Agr. 141: macte hisce suovitaurilibus lactentibus inmolandis esto.

42 On the “spectacular” aspects of Livy’s work, see Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998.

43 It is assumed that the story of Manlius’ extreme severity in executing his son colored the description of both earlier and later Manlii. See Önnerfors Reference Ogilvie1974: 14–23; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: II 86–7; Feeney Reference Feeney, Kraus, Marincola and Pelling2010.

44 Perhaps the tradition was reinforced (or created?) by the image that once hung as a shop sign before the tabernae novae in the Forum, “an ugly [Gaul] with puffed out cheeks and his tongue sticking out,” painted on a “Cimbrian shield of Marius” – i.e., brought back after Marius’ victory over the Cimbri in 101. (Cic. De or. 2.266; cf. Quint. Inst. 6.3.38; Plin. HN 35.25). Perl Reference Perl1982 shows that the picture must actually have been a Gorgon’s head, but was popularly thought to represent a Gaul sticking out his tongue.

1 The new preface to Book 2, the difference in subject and style between the two books, and Livy’s need to make a name for himself are the main pieces of evidence for publication of Book 1 before that of the pentad as a whole. See Bornecque Reference Bornecque1933: 17; Bayet Reference Bayet1940: xix; Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 6.

2 For primary and secondary sources on early Roman myth/history, an excellent starting point is Cornell Reference Cornell1995; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2004.

3 For ideas on the actual history of patricians and plebeians, see, e.g., Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 242–71 (and esp. 242–5, on development of a scholarly consensus that the dualistic concept of Roman society in the earliest period was a later retrojection imposed on a far more complex situation in the past); Forsythe Reference Forsythe2005: 157–70, reviewing the history of the question and with further bibliography at 157 n. 7; Raaflaub Reference Raaflaub2005c: xi–xiii, with essays by Richard, Mitchell, and Momigliano representing widely differing viewpoints.

4 On the image of Romulus as tyrant or proto-tyrant whose murder was justified by his despotism, see, e.g. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.56; Plut. Rom. 26–27; Comparison of Theseus and Romulus 6.2; with Classen Reference Classen1962: 178–92; Miles Reference Miles1995: 153–4; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1995: 127; Stem Reference Stem2007. It is probable that Livy incorporates elements derived from the response to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

5 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 83–4 states that a key aspect of the portrayal of Romulus turned on whether the Celeres were depicted as the forerunners of the Equites or as the armed guard of one exercising tyrannical power.

6 The range of opinions is illustrated by the difference between Miles Reference Miles1995: “If the narrative is unclear whether we should regard Romulus ... as king or tyrant, it is in part because the narrative is informed by a more basic confusion about the nature and value of civilization itself” (164); and Stem Reference Stem2007, who argues persuasively that “the reader is ... invited to resolve the moral difficulties in Romulus’s favor” (440).

7 For the various versions of Remus’ death, see Wiseman Reference Wiseman1995: 9–13.

8 See Wiseman Reference Wiseman1995: 89–102 for a review of scholarship discussing the sources of and motivations for the strikingly negative aspects of the foundation story. On Livy’s conservativism in regards to the received tradition, see earlier discussion in Chapter 2 (“Livy’s Methods”); Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999; and Cornell Reference Cornell1975: 11. For various explanations of the origin of the tradition of Remus’ death, see Bremmer Reference Bremmer1987: 37–8 (which the author ultimately terms “an enigma”). On the murder of Remus as a symbol of civil war, see, e.g., Hor. Epod. 7.

9 Contra Miles Reference Miles1995: 35, although citing a variety of passages where volgata fama refers to accounts that are “false, misleading, or outright fantastic” (35 n. 26). For Livy’s methods of discriminating among accounts, see Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 52–64, who shows that the “majority view” – even of historiographical sources, much less of popular accounts – is rarely used to resolve discrepancies.

10 On Remus’ death, see nn. 7 and 8 of this chapter.

11 Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 50–1. See remarks on authorial authority in Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: ad 6.9.3; and Davies Reference Davies2004: 51–62 on religious material, showing that the use of oratio obliqua is more complex than often acknowledged.

12 Livy does not use this ambiguity to invite the reader to enter into the problem of resolving the issue, since he provides neither the material nor the method to do so. For various uses of analytical ambiguity, see, e.g., Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 13–15; Chaplin Reference Chaplin2000: 137–67; Miles Reference Miles1995: 8–74; Stevenson Reference Stevenson2011. Solodow Reference Solodow1979, however (who believes that the moral of Livy’s stories is “most often clear,” albeit with notable exceptions), is a helpful corrective to overemphasis on presumed ambiguity.

13 Foedum is striking, as it connects the event with the most explicitly didactic statement of the preface (10: inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu quod vites). Livy does not make clear, however, whether regni cupido is to be applied primarily to Romulus or to his followers.

14 For primary sources, see Wiseman Reference Wiseman2004: 333–4. Relatively recent work on the subject includes Stehle Reference Stehle1989: 149–51 (on symbolic ideology in the story); Noonan Reference Noonan1990; Joplin Reference Joplin1990: 56–8; Liou-Gille Reference Liou-Gille1991; Brown Reference Brown1995; Miles Reference Miles1995: 180–219; Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997: 30–56; Claassen Reference Claassen1998: 83–5; Vandiver Reference Vandiver, Titcherner and Moorton1999 (with further bibliography, 219 n. 2); Beard Reference Beard, Setälä and Savunen1999; Kowalewski Reference Kowalewski2002: 17–33; Stem Reference Stem2007: 451–9.

15 Again, a wide range of scholarly interpretations is well illustrated by the difference between Miles Reference Miles1995: 179–219, who sees Livy’s narrative as sharpening ideological contradictions concerning Roman marriage, and Stem Reference Stem2007, for whom the positive accomplishments of Romulus’ plan and its execution are summarized (458–9).

16 On the captured city topos, with its emphasis on the suffering of women and children, see, e.g., Hom. Il. 9.590–594; Hdt. 3.150–160; Sall. Cat. 51.9; Quint. Inst. 8.3.67–70; Plut. Sull. 14.2–5 (Sulla’s capture of Athens); Dio Chrys. 32.89; with Paul Reference Paul1982. Cf. Livy’s description of Alba Longa (1.29).

17 Despite the obvious feebleness or cynicism of Romulus’ arguments and, particularly, of the young Romans’ assurances that they had acted out of “desire and love” (1.9.16: cupiditate atque amore), we cannot ignore the fact that it is the author himself who characterizes the latter as “especially effective on a woman’s nature.” Immediately after the account of Romulus’ embassy and the men’s appeal, Livy writes that the women’s minds were softened (1.10.1: mitigati), and he presents the anger of their parents as contrasted with the women’s own feelings (1.10.1: at raptarum parentes).

18 Violated hospitality appears unique to Livy’s version of events. See Bolchazy Reference Bolchazy1977: 58; Stem Reference Stem2007: 454 n. 51. On the gods’ vengeance, which operates indirectly, see Davies Reference Davies2004: 102–3. (Examples may be found in the events that follow Sextus Tarquinius’ rape of Lucretia while a guest in her house or the Fabian ambassadors’ outrage against the ius gentium (5.36.6), for which, see Luce Reference Luce1971; Miles Reference Miles1995: 75–88.)

19 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 84–5 assumes skepticism about Romulus’ divinity must derive from a pre-Caesarian source, probably Valerias Antias. See Classen Reference Classen1962 for an exhaustive review, with bibliography, of the oldest sources on the life of Romulus. On various theories of the origin of the two legends of Romulus’ death, see Bremmer Reference Bremmer1987: 45–7. For a lucid reading with reference to the large bibliography, see Stem Reference Stem2007: 450–68.

20 Note, however, that this passage also supports the reasonableness of belief in Romulus’ divine origin, which had earlier been presented in such a way as to exclude the possibility of its literal truth (1.4.2). Cf. the establishment of the rites of the Ara Maxima, which supports a version of Romulus’ immortalitas (1.7.15): haec tum sacra Romulus una ex omnibus peregrina suscepit, iam tum immortalitatis virtute partae, ad quam eum sua fata ducebant fautor. (“Then Romulus established these foreign rituals alone of all such rites, even then being a promoter of immortality won by virtus, to which his own destiny was leading him.”)

21 Unlike in the story of Rhea Silvia, where Livy presents the reader with two (rationalizing) alternatives (1.4.2), the story of Romulus’ deification is agnostic on the deification itself but undermines belief in Proculus’ story. For Livy’s skepticism in the early books concerning direct intervention in human affairs by the gods, see esp. Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 87–98. As Levene Reference Levene1993: 16–33 makes clear, Livy is not consistent in his attitude to the supernatural. For this complex issue, see also Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 46–81 (connected with Livy’s putative Stoicism); Liebeschuetz Reference Liebeschuetz1967; Levene Reference Levene1993; Linderski Reference Linderski1993; Beard, North, and Price Reference Beard, North and Price1998: passim; Davies Reference Davies2004: 1–142; Feeney Reference Feeney and Rüpke2007a.

22 In Cicero, Proculus is a tool of the senators, while in Livy he acts as an individual member of the patriciate.

23 Rep. 2.21: Videtisne igitur unius viri consilio non solum ortum novum populum, neque ut in cunabulis vagientem relictum, sed adultum iam et paene puberem?

24 The noble lie refers to Plato, Resp. 414b. On the concept of the pia fraus, a well-established historiographical theme at an early date, see Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 51 n. 25.

25 Livy also uses forms of the word ferox for Tullus Hostilius and for Horatius, who wins his duel with the Curiatii on behalf of Tullus and the Romans but kills his sister. In the case both of the populus and Horatius, the term refers to the heroic ferocity necessary for success in war and to a vice bordering on savagery – and thus one that demands suppression and control in a civilized society. See Solodow Reference Solodow1979: 299–300; Oakley Reference Oakley, Kraus, Marincola and Pelling2010: 137 with n. 73 (for further bibliography).

26 The portrayal of both kings is complex, with their forms of imperium responding to the character of each. (Cf. Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 64–72 for imperium as expressed through the manipulation of popular religion by Numa and Scipio Africanus and its relationship to Livy’s own historiographical project.) See Polyb. 6.56.6–15 for the author’s praise for such practices. On certain kings as popularis, see discussion in n. 33 of this chapter.

27 For the arrival of ambitio in Rome in Livy (versus Sallust), see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 23–4; Korpanty Reference Korpanty1983; Moles Reference Moles2009: 76–7. See esp. Penella: Reference Penella2004 for the ambitio of Tarquinius Priscus and the kings who follow him.

28 This, in pointed contrast to the depiction of the violent rivalry between factions supporting Romulus and Remus in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.85.1–87.4.

29 The actual source of the gentes minores and maiores supposedly created by Tarquinius remains a matter of conjecture. See Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 147–9; OCD 1091–2: “patricians.”

30 For the mythic associations of the story of the eagle sign granted to Tarquinius and read by Tanaquil (a type of the “goddess-companion” of the hero, legitimizing his ascension to power), see Borghini Reference Borghini1984: 72–100.

31 On the complex literary, archaeological, artistic, and numismatic evidence for Servius Tullius, see, e.g., Thomsen Reference Thomsen1980; Pallottino Reference Pallottino1993: 250–8, esp. 252 (for Servius’ connection with various divinities); Vernole Reference Vernole2002; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2004: 45–8, 315; Poucet Reference Poucet2000: 192–212 (with review of ancient sources and further bibliography at 193 n. 4).

32 Some scholars have connected this action (and Tanaquil herself) with the goddess Fortuna, who, according to one tradition, had a love affair with Servius by entering his palace through a window. See Plut. Quaest. Rom. 36 (Mor. 273b–c); Ov. Fast. 6.573–580; with Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 146–7 (and 428 n. 81). On the archaeology of the palace and topography of the area, see Wiseman Reference Wiseman2008: 271–92 assessing Carandini’s (difficult to sustain) reconstructions.

33 Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 148 argues that various traditions making Ancus Marcius, Servius, and both Tarquins patrons of the plebs “[preserve] a genuine memory of the archaic age when it presents the last kings of Rome in the guise of [populist] Greek tyrants.” (Cf. Glinister Reference Glinister and Lewis2006: 20–1 on the confusion of the traditional sources on this point.) The popularitas suggested in Livy’s accounts of Tarquinius Priscus and Servius is undercut by: (1) his presentation of Priscus’ rhetorical appeal to the people as unprecedented but not demagogic, since its contents were true; (2) his depiction of Servius as first ruling with the consent of the senate alone (1.41.6) and later instituting reforms on behalf of the state as a whole (1.45.1); (3) his suggestion that both Priscus and Servius were divinely fated to rule for the benefit of the Roman people; (4) his demonstration that Superbus’ accusations of Servius’ hostility to the elite were unjustified (1.47.12). The popularis tradition concerning Ancus Marcius (e.g., Verg. Aen. 6.815–816), nowhere suggested in Livy, is probably derived from the activities of the Marcii Reges. (See Feeney Reference Feeney and Hardie1999: 230.) On Ancus Marcius, see discussion to follow in this chapter (“The Political Lessons of Book 1”).

34 See similar conclusion, although reached by different arguments, of Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 212–17. One might also note that the evil of Tarquinius Superbus’ overthrow of Servius is heightened by a narrative that pictures the latter as a wise and legitimate ruler.

35 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.2.1 states this “mythic” version was derived from local records and found in many Roman histories. See also Plin. HN 36.204; Plut. De fort. Rom. 10 (Mor. 323b–d); Arn. Adv. Nat. 5.18; Ov. Fast. 6.627–36. Cf. the story of the Praenestine hero Caeculus, also born from a hearth (discussed by Horsfall Reference Horsfall1987).

36 The power of fate/fortune, along with Servius’ extraordinary natural gifts, is likewise emphasized in Dion. Hal.’s account (Ant. Rom. 4.2.1–4.1).

37 Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 131. Cic. Rep. 2.37 assumes Servius’ slavery in childhood; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.1.3 relates Servius’ name to the fact that his mother Ocrisia gave birth to him while still enslaved.

38 On the workings of fortuna/fatum, see Kajanto Reference Kajanto1957; Walsh Reference Walsh1958; Liebeschuetz Reference Liebeschuetz1967; Levene Reference Levene1993: 30–3; Davies Reference Davies2004: 105–15; Stem Reference Stem2007: 441. Scholars point to the positive and complementary workings of destiny, on the one hand, and virtus and consilium, on the other; in these episodes, however, fatum works along with ambitio to determine the course of events, especially in the cases of Tarquinius Priscus, Servius, and Tarquinius Superbus. On the consensus achieved by Servius, Livy stresses the positive results of Servius’ domestic reforms as completed “for the requirements of [the state] in war and peace” (1.45.1), and compares him with Numa for founding such institutions (1.42.4).

39 Livy follows the “majority of sources” (1.46.4) who make him Priscus’ son. See Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.6–7 for the chronological problems in this genealogy.

40 Within this structure, Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 196 identifies “five main acts” in his comparison of Livy’s version and that of Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.28–85. For primary sources, see Wiseman Reference Wiseman2004: 330; for historical issues raised by the legend of the expulsion of the Tarquinii, see Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 215–26.

41 Superbus’ speech to the people justifying his claims (1.47.10–12) mentions: Servius’ supposedly servile origins; his ascension to the kingship without an interregnum, vote of the people, or assent of the senate; his promotion of the lowest classes and land distributions to them; his shifting of all the burdens of the state onto the elite; and his institution of the census, which made the rich an object of envy and a source of donations to the needy. The rhetoric of the speech thus draws on the tradition of Servius as popularis, which Livy undercuts. (See earlier discussion in n. 33 of this chapter.) At the same time it mirrors, albeit with notable differences, Tarquinius Priscus’ campaign for power (cf. 1.47.7: circumire et prensare; 1.35.2: petisse).

42 1.47.7: minorum maxime gentium patres; cf. 1.35.6.

43 For Tullia, see, e.g., Bellandi Reference Bellandi1976: 148–59; Haberman Reference Haberman1980; Calhoun Reference Calhoun1997; Glinister Reference Glinister, Cornell and Lomas1997; Briquel Reference Briquel1998; Feldherr Reference Feldherr and Deroux1997; Seita Reference Seita2000: 491–9; Stevenson Reference Stevenson2011: 184–5.

44 See esp. Borghini Reference Borghini1984: 101–9; Seita Reference Seita2000: 493–5 (with comparison to Dion. Hal.). Glinister Reference Glinister, Cornell and Lomas1997: 119–21 notes that both women were at their most influential in succession crises, perhaps reflecting a historical reality. On Tanaquil’s speech, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 161–2; on Tullia’s, 189–90.

45 For the idea of Tullia as “la duplication criminelle de Tanaquil,” identified respectively with an evil and a beneficent aspect of divine Fortune, see Champeaux Reference Champeaux1982: 1.326; cf. Borghini Reference Borghini1984: 101–9.

46 The parallel is recognized by Ogilve Reference Ogilvie1965: 191 (ad 1.47.10–11), who notes that the same material appears in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. in the senatorial debate between Superbus and Servius.

47 For the rhetorical and historiographical stereotype of the tyrant, see Dunkle Reference Dunkle1967 and Reference Davies1971; O’Daly Reference O’Daly1991: 75–82; Frazel Reference Frazel and Verrem2009: 173–81 (on the tyrant topos in rhetorical progymnasmata). The introduction and essays in S. Lewis Reference Lewis2006 provide a useful starting point for ancient and modern conceptions of ancient tyranny. See esp. the contributions of Glinister, Smith, and Gildenhard. Livy follows Aristotle (Pol. 1279b = 3.5.4) in portraying tyranny as an autocracy that exists in the interest of the monarch alone rather than for the advantage of all, although Aristotle’s “fullest” tyranny arises from the support of the people against the elite – untrue of Tarquinius Superbus, the archetypal tyrant of Roman tradition (Pol. 1310b = 5.8.2–3; cf. 1295a = 4.8.3).

48 Livy calls the story “an example of tragic crime” (1.46.3). For possible fabulae praetextae on the subject, see summary of scholarly theories in Seita Reference Seita2000: 485–90, as well as his discussion of the dramatic coloring given the story and its effect on the reader. In addition to a late second century/early first century BCE Brutus by Accius, treatments by Ennius and earlier historiographers are thought to have influenced Livy. Wiseman Reference Wiseman1998: esp. 25–34 assumes Livy’s knowledge of a tragedy on Servius Tullius depicting Fortuna in both the prologue and at the end of the play.

49 Among the many studies of Lucretia, see Philippides Reference Philippides1975; Small Reference Small1976 (variant versions on Etruscan urns); Haberman Reference Haberman1980: 8–11; Donaldson Reference Donaldson1982; Joplin Reference Joplin1990; Klindienst Reference Klindienst1990; Joshel Reference Joshel1992; Moore Reference Moore1993: 39–41 (with 39 n. 4 for further bibliography); Fantham Reference Fantham and Foley1994: 225–6; Calhoon Reference Calhoun1997; Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 194–204; Chaplin Reference Chaplin2000: 168–96; Matthes Reference Matthes2000: 23–50.

50 For the symbolism of Lucretia and Verginia, see, e.g., Vasaly Reference Vasaly1987: 220–1; Joplin Reference Joplin1990: 63–8; Matthes Reference Matthes2000: 23–50; and discussion to follow in Chapter 4 (“Appius Claudius and the Decemvirate: How Freedom Is Lost”).

51 In Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.72.1–75.4, the question of choosing a new form of government is formally debated, with Brutus presenting the republic as a form of annual, shared monarchy. La Penna Reference La Penna1979: 64–5 speculates as to whether the scene might have been in ancient sources (see Accius fr. 41 in Warmington Reference Warmington1936: 564–5: qui recte consulat, consul siet) or was modeled on the famous Persian debate on the best form of government in Hdt. 3.80–82.

52 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 187 identifies ut as purposive. For purposive ut with comparative adverb/adjective, see, e.g., Liv. 42.6.3; Cic. Inv. 2.158; Ov. Tr. 5.2.78; Sen. Con. 2.1.30. Cf. 1.46.5: forte ita inciderat ne duo violenta ingenia matrimonio iungerentur fortuna, credo, populi Romani, quo diuturnius Servi regnum esset constituique civitatis mores possent (“By chance it happened that the two violent natures [sc. the evil Tullia and the evil Tarquinius] were not joined in marriage due to the fortuna of the Roman people, so that – I suppose – Servius’ reign might be of longer duration and the mores of the state could be established”), which also seems to fall into the category of “final clauses of destiny.” (See Nisbet Reference Nisbet1923.)

53 Livy also states that Servius’ marriage arrangements for his daughters were not sufficient to counteract the fati necessitas that led to Tarquinius’ rise (1.42.2), although they did allow the “mores of the state to be established” through Servius’ extended reign (1.46.5). On the workings of divine fate/fortune in the fall of Servius/rise of Tarquinius, see Seita Reference Seita2000: 490–1, 490 n. 34, who argues that Livy’s treatment, unlike that of Dionysius, summons to the reader’s mind the “tragic necessity” of drama. On precedents in drama, see n. 48 of this chapter; on fortuna/fatum, see n. 38 of this chapter.

54 Cf. Aris. Pol. 1296b10–17 = 4.9.13–10.1, although Aristotle’s “best form” of constitution depends on the strength of various competing interest groups rather than on the maturity of its citizenry. On the character of the people as modeled on that of their ruler, see Livy 1.21.2, where the mores of the people conform to the “single exemplum” of the king. Cf. Cic. Rep. 5.1 on the moral influence of outstanding men on the governed, discussed earlier in Chapter 1 (“Cicero’s Republic and the Archaeology of Early Rome”); and Rep. 2.69 on the model provided by the rector rei publicae.

55 1.48.9. Cf. Accius, Brutus, fr. 40 (Warmington Reference Warmington1936: 564–5): Tullius qui libertatem civibus stabiliverat. For Livy, the long duration of Servius’ rule, owed to Rome’s beneficent fortune, was essential to the establishment of Roman mores (1.46.5).

56 Livy’s handling of the regal period contrasts with those “philosophically minded” historians who, according to Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 184–6, would have inserted negative qualities in the accounts of Servius Tullius (and, presumably, some of the earlier kings) in order to make the period illustrate a progressive, Polybian-style transition from monarchy to kingship to tyranny.

57 For Livy’s distribution of innovations over the course of the regal period, see Luce Reference Luce1977: 230–97, who mentions (237), e.g., the assignment of magisterial symbols to Romulus, the manipulation of religion to Numa, fetial rites for concluding treaties to Tullus Hostilius, and rites for declaring war to Ancus Marcius, none of which can be found in extant sources.

58 For proto-tyrannical elements in the account of Servius, see discussion of Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 185, who attributes these to an ancient tradition later “rehabilitated” by Sullan-era propagandists. Hints of an extraordinarily wide range of political slants associated with Servius’ institutions – tyrannical, aristocratic, popular – can be detected in the sources and were thus available to Livy. On the tradition of Servius as the “good king” and “founder of libertas” (Cic. Sest. 123; cf. Livy 1.60.3), see Pallottino Reference Pallottino1993: 253.

59 Penella Reference Penella2004: 632 notes Livy’s exclusion of the Ancus story, as well as Dion. Hal.’s inclusion of a reference to Tullus Hostilius’ distribution of land to gain the support of the plebeians (Ant. Rom. 3.1.4–5), an example followed by Tarquinius Priscus (Ant. Rom. 3.67.1).

60 Other striking omissions include: the epiphany of Castor and Pollux at the battle of Lake Regillus (2.19–20); the building of a temple to Concordia by Camillus (6.42.9–14); the release and towing of the ship bearing the Magna Mater by Quinta Claudia (29.14.10–12). Unlike in these other omissions, no veiled allusion to the elided account exists here. See Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 332.

1 Q Nat. 5.18.4: Ingens naturae beneficium, si illud in iniuriam suam non vertat hominum furor! Nunc, quod de C. Mario[r] vulgo dictatum est et a Tito Livio positum in incerto esse utrum illum magis nasci an non nasci reipubicae profuerit, dici etiam de ventis potest. Vottero Reference Vottero1989: 177 reads C. Mario[r] (found in a twelfth C ms.); with arguments of Hine Reference Hine1978; Jal Reference Jal1979: 253–6; Parroni Reference Parroni2002: 570–1, supported by Livy Per. 80; Vell. Pat. 2.11.1 and 2.23.1, all describing Marius. Other mss. have the odd, and probably incorrect, de caesare maior<e> (i.e., “the elder Caesar”).

2 See, e.g., Sest. 25 (Piso and Gabinius as turbidines); 46 (the tempestates of seditiones and discordiae); 73 (the fluctus and tempestas of sedition); 99 (the multitudo who arouse fluctus in the state); Mur. 4 (Cicero as a ship’s pilot who has braved the tempestates and praedones of conspiracy; 35 (electorate as sea strait with motus, agitationes, and commutationes fluctuum); 36 (electorate compared to tempestates); with May Reference May1980. For Vergil’s famous simile comparing Neptune’s calming of a storm to the calming of a crowd by a wise statesman, see Aen. 1.148–156.

3 Clu. 138. In some passages, however, Cicero includes the masses among the souls on board who depend on the wisdom and experience of the helmsman to save the ship from the storm (as in, e.g., Dom. 137: demerso populo Romano). Cf. Polyb. 11.29.9–11; 21.31.9–15; with remarks of Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995: 130.

4 Caritas is a key term in Livy. See Bonjour Reference Bonjour1975; Miles Reference Miles1995: 90–1, 204–5; Edwards Reference Edwards1996: 18; Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 91–108.

5 For various approaches to the structure of Book 1, see, e.g., Burck Reference Burck1964: 136–75; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 30–1; Konstan Reference Konstan1986; Levene Reference Levene1993: 126–47 (on religion as structuring element).

6 On this quality, see Kraus Reference Kraus1997: 55, with 75 n. 19. Pace Moles Reference Moles2009: 73–4, who argues for the use of inlustri as a claim to truth (in imitation of Thucydides). See also excellent discussion of Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997: 15–29 on the implications of the history as monumentum.

7 This does not mean that Livy’s text is simplistic or without depth. See esp. Solodow Reference Solodow1979, who notes that, although the moral of Livy’s narratives are generally clear, “there are occasions when ... the historian also deals with the inescapable complexities of man’s life, in which deeds do not always lend themselves to such neat classification” (298–9). On ambiguity in Livy, see n. 12 in Chapter 3.

8 Rich Reference Rich2011: 8–12 shows that the assumption of a strict regularity within the annalistic frame (e.g., by McDonald Reference McDonald1957: 156) needs to be revised for the early books.

9 On such stereotyping, see Catin Reference Catin1944: 30–42, 93–106 (on repetition more generally); Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 88–90; Ducos: Reference Ducos1987; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 98–9. Richardson Reference Richardson2012, esp. 30–55 and 163–4, sees familial stereotyping as a distinguishing trait of the culture itself. See discussion in Chapter 5 (“Tradition and Originality”).

10 P. Valerius Publicola, cos. suf. 509 BC (MRR 2): AUC 1.58.6; 1.59.2; 2.2.11; 2.6.6; 2.7.3–9.1; 2.11.4; 2.11.7; 2.15.1; 2.16.7. M’. Valerius, dict. 494 BC (MRR 14): AUC 2.30.4–31.11. L. Valerius Potitus, cos. 449 BC (MRR 47): AUC 3.39.2; 3.41.1–4; 3.49.3–5; 3.51.12; 3.52.5–55.15; 3.57.9; 3.60.1–61.10. The Valerii are the stereotypical noble opponents of Claudian persecution of the plebs. For the gens Valeria, see, e.g., Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 88–9; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 14, 224, 232, 241, 250–1; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 113–17; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 99; Warrior Reference Warrior2006: 418–20 (summarized, with stemma); and discussion to follow in Chapter 6 (“The Elite popularis Hero” in “Upper-class Champions of the People”).

11 P. Servilius, cos. 495 BC, MRR 13 (AUC 2.21.5; 2.23.10; 2.24.3–27.13). Cf. Q. Servilius Priscus (AUC 4.45.8–47.7) and C. Servilius Ahala (AUC 5.8.1; 5.9.5–8). For the Servilii, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 568–9, 603–4, 646.

12 A great deal has been written of the Claudian gens, the way it was portrayed by Livy, Tacitus, and others, and the sources of positive and negative images of the gens. See, e.g., Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 89–90, 90 n. 1; Alföldi Reference Alföldi1963: 159–64; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 273–4, 376–7; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 55–139; Vasaly Reference Vasaly1987 (the substance of which is repeated in this chapter); Humm Reference Humm, Briquel and Thuillier2001; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: III 357–69, 665–9 (App. 8, with review of scholarship); Warrior Reference Warrior2006: 406–11; Richardson Reference Richardson2012: 26–33.

13 Livy is not the originator of the negative Claudian stereotype (summarized in Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: III 358–60). Those seeing it as an early part of the historiographical tradition include Alföldi Reference Alföldi1963: 163 (ascribing it to Fabius Pictor); Cornell Reference Cornell1982 and Reference Cornell1995: 275, 452–3 n. 11; Richardson Reference Richardson2012: 76, suggesting the story was very old, perhaps even preliterary. Pace Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 104–39, attributing it to Valerius Antias. The evidence, however, is not definitive (Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: III 665).

14 For Ap. Claudius Inregillensis (originally “Attus/Attius Clausus”), see: AUC 2.16.4–6; 2.21.5–30.7; 2.44.1–6; 4.48.4–7; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 273–4; MRR 12 (quaes. 496 BC), 13 (cos. 495 BC); Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 57–76.

15 Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 1.4 (vetere atque insita Claudiae familiae superbia).

16 On authorial interjections, see Rutland Reference Rutland1979: 416–17.

17 In Livy, T. Larcius, who in this narrative proposes that the senate bow to the people’s demands, was the first of two previous dictators (2.18.4–11; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 281–2; MRR 11 [cos. 498 BC], 12 [dict. 498 BC]).

18 2.29.12: Pulset tum mihi lictorem qui sciet ius de tergo vitaque sua penes unum illum esse cuius maiestatem violarit. For discussion of whether the dictatorship was, in fact, “extraconstitutional,” see Lowrie Reference Lowrie, Breed, Damon and Rossi2010, with further bibliography. Appius’ threats suggest that opponents should fear the same fate as Sp. Maelius at the hands of Servilius Ahala; both here and in the Maelius episode, then, Livy assumes no right of appeal from the decisions of the dictator. On positive and negative associations of uniqueness in Livy, see Dutoit Reference Dutoit1956.

19 For Livy’s later development of this theme, see Lipovsky Reference Lipovsky1981: 29–86, who discusses the growth of patrician moderatio (and plebeian modestia) in the second pentad.

20 Burck Reference Burck1964: 51 divides Book 2 into three parts: the death of Tarquin (1–21); the conflict between patricians and plebeians leading to the inauguration of a new order (22–33.5); and the story of Coriolanus (33.6–40). The episode in which Appius plays a key role thus introduces the central narrative of the book. Note Livy’s later connection of the Claudian gens with the first secession of the plebs (9.34.3).

21 duas ex una civitate discordia fecerat. See also: 2.44.9: duas civitates ex una factas; 4.4.10: duasque ex una civitate faciatis. Cf. Plato Resp. 8.551d (the oligarchic state as divided into two states, rich and poor); Resp. 5.462b (the greatest evil to a state as that which rends it apart and makes many states out of one); Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.36.1; 6.88.1; Cic. Rep. 1.31: in una re publica duo senatus et duo paene iam populi sint.

22 See AUC 2.56.5–2.61.9. Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 376–7, 383, 386; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 77–9; and Broughton (MRR 45–7), following the Fasti Capitolini, believe that the “respectable consul” of 471 (MRR 30) was actually the same man as Appius the decemvir. See also Warrior Reference Warrior2006: 408.

23 Cf. 9.33.3: certamina ... ex ea familia, quae velut fatales cum tribunis ac plebe erat; 9.34.1–7; 9.34.15: familia imperiosissima et superbissima.

24 Elements of the Claudian narratives fit within larger narrative patterns employed by Livy. The pattern here, in which resolution of an internal domestic crisis is deferred by foreign attack, recurs throughout the first decade. For recent scholarship on the structure of Livy’s year accounts and further analysis, see Rich Reference Rich2011.

25 References to Appius II in Dionysius are found at widely separated points in Books 5 through 9, whenever a spokesman for the oligarchic faction is needed. A major difference between the two is Livy’s dramatic description of Appius II’s campaign against the Volscians; Dionysius’ account (Ant. Rom. 9.50.1–7) is brief and objective. For a detailed comparison, see Burck Reference Burck1964: 61–8 (Ap. Inregillensis); 86–8 (Ap. II); 28–45 (Ap. Decemvir); and Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 67–76 (Ap. Inregillensis), 77–84 (Ap. II, Ap. Decemvir).

26 2.58.6: haec ira indignatioque ferocem animum ad vexandum saevo imperio exercitum stimulabat.

27 From a legal standpoint, however, these powers are undoubtedly within the domain of the commander in the field.

28 For Ciceronian development of the idea of magnitudo animi, implicit in Livy’s description of Appius, see Schofield Reference Schofield2009, esp. 209.

29 For discussion of historical problems connected with the decemvirate, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 451–89; Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 272–6. For Ap. Claudius decemvir (MRR 45 [cos. 451 BC] 45–7 [dict. 451 BC]), see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 460–2, 503–6; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 80–4. Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: III 357–61; 665–9 sees various contradictory elements coexisting in the portrait (e.g., populist vs. reactionary; wise conservative vs. arrogant patrician).

30 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 452–3.

31 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 453 theorizes that the ten and the two tables might have been written on two separate inscriptions. For arguments against the historical existence of a second board, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 452–3, 461–2; contra, with further bibliography, Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 272–5.

32 Appius and his consular colleague (given either as T. Genucius or T. Minucius) headed the decemviral board, and their names were probably inscribed at the head of the original tables as well as in the Fasti. (See Taubler Reference Taubler1921: 77–106; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 452.)

33 Moreover, the great building projects completed under Ap. Claudius Caecus, his published writings, and his proposals for popular legislation might have contributed to the imaginative reconstruction of the career of his forebear as a supporter of popular causes. (See Humm Reference Humm, Briquel and Thuillier2001.) Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: III 361–72, like Mommsen, believes that the portrait of Caecus as a populist was probably “earlier and more reliable” (366).

34 The dating of the two traditions remains problematical. See nn. 12 and 13 earlier in this chapter.

35 Cf. Mommsen Reference Mommsen1888: 620–1 (Appendix), who asserted that Livy unconsciously and inexplicably shifted between presenting Appius as a fierce advocate of the patriciate and as a supporter of the plebs – a misreading of a coherent, well-constructed text.

36 This kind of change is adumbrated in the earlier narratives: Ap. Inregillensis was said to have grown “savage” (2.29.9: efferatus) through the hatred of the people and the praises of the nobles; Ap. Claudius II was likewise made more cruel by his defeat at the hands of the tribunes (2.58.6), becoming most tyrannical when endowed with the greatest power.

37 The figure of Laetorius, the fiery tribune who opposed Appius II, has no single parallel here, but elements in his characterization reappear in this episode in the figures of Icilius and Verginius. On plebeian defenders of popular rights, see discussion to follow in Chapter 6 (“Plebeian Champions of the People”).

38 Livy writes that the frequentior fama reported that the plebeians retired to the Mons Sacer rather than the Aventine in the first secession (2.32.2–3). The historicity of the second secession, as of practically every aspect of the so-called Conflict of the Orders, continues to be the subject of scholarly debate. See n. 44 in Chapter 6.

39 For comparison of Lucretia and Verginia, see, e.g., Pais 1905: 185–203; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 477; Joplin Reference Joplin1990: 52–3, 62–3; Kraus Reference Kraus1991: 314–15; Joshel Reference Joshel1992; Moore Reference Moore1993: 39–42; Claassen Reference Claassen1998: 92.

40 3.44.1: sequitur aliud in urbe nefas, ab libidine ortum, haud minus foedo eventu quam quod per stuprum caedemque Lucretiae urbe regnoque Tarquinios expulerat, ut non finis solum idem decemviris qui regibus sed causa etiam eadem imperii amittendi esset. Note the diction, echoed from the preface, on the exemplary nature of the event (foedo eventu).

41 See esp. Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 465–6; Dunkle Reference Dunkle1967 and Reference Davies1971, who gives the four characteristic vices of the tyrant as vis, superbia, libido, and crudelitas (Reference Dunkle1967: 159); Frazel Reference Frazel and Verrem2009: 173–81; and n. 47 in Chapter 3.

42 Dunkle Reference Davies1971: 19 writes: “In reference to the despot libido can mean either lust for unchecked sexual fulfillment and political power or political caprice, i.e., government by the whim of one man.” See also Haberman Reference Haberman1980.

43 See 3.35.6; 3.36.2; 3.39.4; 3.44.4; 3.56.7; saevitia: 3.33.7; 3.45.8–9; crudelitas: 3.37.8; 3.44.4; 3.56.3; 3.56.7; libido: 3.44.1; 3.44.2; 3.44.6; 3.48.1; 3.50.7; 3.50.9; 3.51.7; 3.51.12; 3.57.3; 3.61.4; vis: 3.36.8; 3.44.4; 3.44.7; 3.44.8; 3.44.9; 3.45.9; 3.47.4; 3.49.3; 3.49.6; violentia: 3.39.4; 3.41.8; 3.50.9; atrox: 3.45.6; 3.47.6; saevus: 3.33.7; amens: 3.43.4; amentiae: 3.47.4; pecudum ferarumque ritu promisce in concubitus ruere: 3.47.7. See Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 80–1. Cf. 1.59.8: vi ac libidine Sexti Tarquinii; 1.59.9: superbia ipsius regis.

44 3.57.2–3.

45 For libido, see n. 42 in this chapter.

46 See earlier discussion in Chapter 3 (“From Monarchy to Tyranny”).

47 Moore Reference Moore1993 notes Livy’s habit of tying political upheaval to the suffering of a female figure, part of his “penchant for viewing history in moral terms” (46).

48 For Livy’s similar treatment of Veturia, mother of Coriolanus, see Bonjour Reference Bonjour1975. On Verginia’s silence and her symbolic role as instantiation of male honor, see esp. Joshel Reference Joshel1992: 180–1 (although less persuasive in her equation of the silence of Verginia to that of Lucretia).

49 An earlier tradition had Verginia as a patrician. (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.24.2: εὐγενοῦς παρθένου). Unlike Dionysius, Livy focuses on the virtual enslavement of the plebeians under the decemvirs. (See 3.36.7: totus [terror] vertere in plebem coepit; 3.57.4: carcerem ... quod domicilium plebis Romanae vocare sit solitus).

50 terror/metus plebis: 3.36.3; 3.36.5; 3.36.6; 3.36.7.

51 Res Gestae 1: rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi; BMC Rom. Emp. 1.112, for the famous silver tetradrachma minted at Ephesus in 28 BCE of Octavian as LIBERTATIS P R VINDEX; with discussion of Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1950: 103–6; Syme Reference Syme1939: 155, 306, 469; Walser Reference Walser1955. Cf. Cic. Inv. 2.66.

52 For the speech of Ap. Claudius Crassus (MRR 81), see Vasaly Reference Vasaly1987: 222–5. For Crassus in the first pentad, see AUC 4.48.4–10; 5.1.2; 5.2.1–7.13; 5.20.4–6. Crassus’ character and actions are stereotypical in the second pentad, where Livy undercuts the claim in Crassus’ speech opposing the Sexto-Licinian Laws that members of the Claudian gens acted only out of concern for the state as a whole, by stating at the outset that Crassus spoke out of hatred and anger (6.40.2: odio ... iraque).

53 Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1950: 1–3.

54 Note, however, the subsequent change from a passive to active conception of plebeian libertas: see discussion to follow in Chapter 6 (“Redefining Plebeian libertas”).

55 See Vasaly Reference Vasaly and Mineo2014, from which this analysis is drawn.

56 See Stadter Reference Stadter1972: 112–14 for further analysis.

57 The middle of the pentad falls at the beginning of 3.35, in which Livy describes canvassing for the second decemvirate. See expanded treatment of structure in Vasaly Reference Vasaly, Levene and Nelis2002 and Reference Vasaly and Mineo2014. Current approaches to the structure of the AUC are summarized in Stadter Reference Stadter1972 (with addendum, 2009). For the pentad, see esp. Burck Reference Burck1964; Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 9–13; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 122–5; Rich Reference Rich2011. For Book 5, see Luce Reference Luce1971; Kraus Reference Kraus1994b; Miles Reference Miles1995: 75–109. For Camillus, see discussion to follow at the beginning of Chapter 5.

58 For word count, see Packard Reference Packard1968: v.

59 See praef. 9; 2.1.1: quae libertas ut laetior esset (“freedom was rendered all the more fruitful”), with earlier discussion at the beginning of Chapter 3. Cf. 6.1.3: ab secunda origine velut ab stirpibus laetius feraciusque renatae urbis (“from a second beginning, the city was renewed from the roots, so to speak, more fruitfully and more productively”).

60 Cf. remarks of Kraus Reference Kraus1997: 58 for Livy’s text as a physical monument requiring a “map.”

61 As noted in Vasaly Reference Vasaly and Mineo2014, I am not suggesting that Vergil imitated Livy, but rather that both responded to experimentation with book structure characteristic of the preceding period.

1 For the structure of Book 5, see Burck Reference Burck1964: 109; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 626; Luce Reference Luce1971.

2 For primary sources on Camillus, see Wiseman Reference Wiseman2004: 328–9. For a general discussion of the historicity of the Camillus tradition (on which no consensus exists), see Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 376–9. Still useful as an entrée to the subject are Mommsen Reference Mommsen1878 and Münzer Reference Münzer1910. For recent bibliography, see Bruun Reference Bruun and Bruun2000; and Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008. Burck Reference Burck1964: 116–36; Luce Reference Luce1971; and Miles Reference Miles1995: esp. 75–109 (and passim) are fundamental discussions, especially of literary aspects of the narrative, although I would disagree with Miles analysis of the role of luxuria in Book 5 and Livy’s supposed focus on Augustus (concerning which, see esp. Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008).

3 On virtus, see, e.g., 5.26.8: “[The soldiers who were angry about the disposition of booty after a battle], overcome by the strictness of his command, both hated and admired that very worthiness” (eandem virtutem et oderant et mirabantur). Here virtus is both a moral and military quality, memorably illustrated by the tale of the siege and surrender of Falerii that follows (5.27), in which Camillus wins victory through his embodiment of fides Romana.

4 On Camillus as a “speaking name,” the meaning of which (a youth employed in certain religious offices) defines his character in the tradition, see Bruun Reference Bruun and Bruun2000: 65–6; but note doubts of Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008: 36 n. 50.

5 On the religious element in Book 5, see the excellent discussion of Levene Reference Levene1993: 175–203, who starts from the premise that “Livy has gone further than any other writer in recasting the story so as to place particular emphasis on religion, and moreover so as to bind the religious theme as closely as possible into the structure of his work” (175).

6 Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 317; Reference Cornell1989: 306.

7 On the allusion to Achilles, see Plut. Cam. 13.1; App. Ital. 8.2. For Camillus’ prayer as he departs into exile that his fellow citizens would feel desiderium sui, cf. Cic. Red. pop. 1 (mei ... desiderium), with comments of Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008: 47.

8 Camillus’ use of white horses has naturally been linked to Julius Caesar’s triumph of 46 (see discussion in Weinstock Reference Weinstock1971: 68–75), but many see the tradition as early (e.g., Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 679–80; Tränkle Reference Tränkle1998: 158–60; Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008: 35) rather than invented after Caesar’s triumph, making it less likely that Livy would have excluded it.

9 5.32.8: propter praedam Veientanam. In Livy (unlike other versions) the tithe of booty to Apollo, announced publicly to all before the sack (5.21.2), responds to the advice of the Delphic oracle in 5.16.11, further emphasizing Camillus’ innocence. See Levene Reference Levene1993: 183 n. 18 and 189–91. On the triumph as a reason for the trial, see Diod. Sic. 14.117.6; Dio Cass. 52.13.3; De vir ill. 23.4.

10 On Camillus’ connection with fortuna/fatum, see passages from Book 5 cited at Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 377 (19.1; 19.8; 26.10; 43.6; 43.8; 49.1; 49.5); with Hellegouarc’h Reference Hellegouarc’h1970: 119–20.

11 Feldherr Reference Feldherr1998: 78–81 writes of Camillus’ assumption here of the role of historian, but Camillus’ interpretation here goes beyond Livy’s own historiographical method, for Camillus acts rather as haruspex (to put it in religious terms) or exegete (in literary terms), communicating the meaning of exemplary events with such authority as to make him appear as mouthpiece of the author. Cf. Krebs Reference Krebs, Grethlein and Krebs2012, in which Manlius acts as “quasi-historian” at his trial (6.20), likewise interpreting past exempla, but in a manner obviously at odds with Livy’s own presentation, thus undermining not only his (Manlius’) actions in the present but in the past.

12 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 742.

13 For the theme of refoundation, see Miles Reference Miles1995: 75–136; Kraus Reference Kraus1994b.

14 A more human Camillus appears in Book 6, especially in the story of the Volscian war of 381, where Livy paints an extraordinarily sympathetic portrait of the aged warrior. For Book 6, see, e.g., Momigliano Reference Momigliano1942 (historical sources); Hellegouarc’h Reference Hellegouarc’h1970: 123–5; Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: esp. 223–44; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 376–9 and 579–82 (on the Volscian campaign). The powerful sense of conclusion and cyclical completeness he imparts to the end of Book 5, however, suggests that Livy wishes the reader to separate the later career of Camillus from the didactic structure and meaning of his characterization of the hero in the first pentad.

15 The core of this analysis derives from Vasaly Reference Vasaly1999. Seven members of the Quinctian gens appear in these early books, but only Cincinnatus, his son Caeso Quinctius, and Cincinnatus’ brother or cousin, Capitolinus, play key roles in the narrative. T. Quinctius Cincinnatus Poenus departs markedly from stereotype by being associated with discordia (4.26.6; 4.32.2), while the dictator Mamercus Aemilius plays a typically Quinctian role.

16 See Rich Reference Rich2011: 8–12 on compression of year accounts to allow for the expanded treatment of key episodes.

17 See n. 22 in Chapter 4 (on the consul of 471 and Appius the decemvir as the same man). On the ideal leader (rector rei publicae) as the opposite of the tyrant, cf. Cic. Rep. 2.51.

18 Cf. similar statement when a panic seizes the army in Capitolinus’ campaign of 468: sedato tumultu quem terror subitus exciverat (2.64.9).

19 The last two chapters of Book 3 (71–72) concern the unjust judgment rendered by the Roman plebs when appealed to by Ardea and Aricia, thus setting the stage for military action by the Ardeans and Aricians in Book 4.

20 On a “speaking name” as summarizing the character of an individual, see n. 4 in this chapter.

21 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 416–18 points to two sources for the tale of Caeso Quinctius: 1) as a retrojected paradigm for the granting of bail (vadimonium) in criminal cases; and 2) as an aetiology for the poverty of Cincinnatus.

22 As Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 586 observes, ferox/ferocia in Livy can be a necessary and/or a deplorable quality, often describing a man who is “brave but may often be foolhardy.” See Penella Reference Penella1990 on the (ambiguous) use of the term with Tullus Hostilius and Horatius, and on the range of meanings from “‘boldness’ or ‘spiritedness’ to ‘savagery’ or ‘arrogance’” (211).

23 2.33.5–9 (Coriolanus’ deeds); 3.12.1–4 (praise of Caeso’s military achievements).

24 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. (7.26–64) describes Coriolanus’ trial, followed by his banishment. For the repeated type of the Roman noble who, when his dignity is threatened, seeks revenge against the state (e.g., Sulla, Cinna, Marius, Catiline, Caesar), see Cornell Reference Cornell2003: 77–8. The scholarship on Coriolanus is extensive. On female characters in the story, see Bonjour Reference Bonjour1975; on historicity, see review of scholarship in Cornell Reference Cornell2003: 84–91. Livy’s elision of key aspects of the story (especially his mother’s widowhood and fatherless upbringing) makes it easier to see Coriolanus as similar to the stereotypes mentioned.

25 Note that in Livy Coriolanus is pictured as a young man in his prime. (When he is at Corioli he is described as adulescens [2.33.5].) Also, a key part of the stories of both figures is their identity as sons (of Veturia and Cincinnatus, respectively). In Plutarch, Coriolanus is paired with Alcibiades, the “lion’s cub,” similarly imagined as a young man prodigiously gifted in both war and peace, but ultimately dangerous to the state.

26 On the noble adulescentes who appear at various points in the narrative to support (usually with violence) the cause of the patres (or decemvirs), see Lintott Reference Lintott1999: 58–60. Although Livy does not designate Coriolanus as a patrician, his harassment of the plebeians as a class, his speech (2.34.8–12) – which is deeply imbued with the language of class warfare – and the senators’ espousal of his cause as their own (2.35.5) lead the reader to assume this, despite the fact that the Marcii of the later Republic were a plebeian gens.

27 E.g., Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 123, 147. Other versions of the story also emphasize parallels between Caeso and Coriolanus: Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10.9.6 (report of Caeso leading the Aequians and Volscians against Rome); [Aur. Vict.] De vir. ill. 17. Cf. Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 416–18. Note that Cic. Dom. 86 speaks of Caeso’s unjust exile and glorious return, pairing him with Servilius Ahala, Furius Camillus, and, implicitly, himself.

28 For the “boys will be boys” defense, see esp. Cicero’s Pro Caelio.

29 For historical background and further bibliography, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 416–18, 428–9, 436, who notes that, like the deeds of Coriolanus, Cincinnatus’ dictatorship “cannot have been firmly embedded in the documentary tradition” (436); Liou-Gille Reference Liou-Gille2007. Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 436 anticipates certain conclusions reached here by noting Livy’s attempt – through the paired figures of Appius and Cincinnatus, placed “deliberately” at the center of the pentad – to represent “the Roman ideal and its reverse.” Note also his observation (441 ad 3.26.7) that Livy’s use of the unique formula operae pretium est audire, recalling the beginning of the preface, “usher[s] on to the stage the one man who exemplifies the highest Roman qualities of character.”

30 Piganiol Reference Piganiol, Bloch and Chastagnol1973: 205 comments, “A ce moment le personnage de Quinctius se dédouble.”

31 On the paupertas of Cincinnatus and his Magister Equitum, see 3.26.7–8 and 3.27.1. For honorable poverty as part of the idealized past, see praef. 11: nulla unquam res publica ... ubi tantus ac tam diu paupertati ac parsimoniae honos fuerit.

32 Note esp. Capitolinus’ “salutary lie” (2.64.6: salubri mendacio) that inspires his men and prevents an enemy attack.

33 On the anachronism of Capitolinus’ supposed “proconsulship” of 464, see Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 399–400 ad 3.4.10, who remarks that “the whole adventure of Furius’ rescue by T. Quinctius [Capitolinus] is strongly reminiscent of Cincinnatus’ rescue of Minucius, suggesting the reduplication of a legendary Quinctius.” (Similarly, Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: II 659.) Forsythe Reference Forsythe1994: 237–8; Reference Forsythe2005: 206–7 believes the fifth-century military careers of both Quinctii represent a back-formation of the deeds of the historical T. Quinctius Cincinnatus, dictator of 380.

34 Cicero (Sen. 56), in contrast, connects this story to Cincinnatus’ second dictatorship in 439.

35 Sed adeo tum imperio meliori animus mansuete oboediens erat, ut beneficii magis quam ignominiae hic exercitus memor et coronam auream dictatori, libram pondo, decreverit, et proficiscentem eum patronum salutaverit.

36 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom 12.4.2–5 recounts the version, attributed to Cincius Alimentus and Calpurnius Piso, that does not mention Cincinnatus’ dictatorship and has Servilius murder Maelius at the behest of the senate without a trial. See FRHist. 2.114–15 (Fr. 4); with commentary and bibliography at 3.51–3. Cincinnatus’ speech contains echoes of Scipio Aemilianus’ response to the question of whether Ti. Gracchus had been justly killed (Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 555–6), as well as of Cicero’s arguments for not according the Catilinarian conspirators the rights of citizens. For some relatively recent work on the development of the story of Maelius’ sedition, see, e.g., Forsythe Reference Forsythe1994: 301–10; Wiseman Reference Wiseman1998: 99–101, 105; Lintott Reference Lintott1999: 56–8; Chassignet Reference Chassignet, Coudry and Späth2001; Forsythe Reference Forsythe2005: 239–41; Smith Reference Smith2006a: 52–4; Pina Polo Reference Pina Polo2006; Lowrie Reference Lowrie, Breed, Damon and Rossi2010; Kaplow Reference Kaplow2012.

37 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 516–20; Luce Reference Luce1993: 71–87. Ogilvie (517) states that a similar speech “was evidently” in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., which is unfortunately defective here. 3.67.1 (in hanc sententiam locutum accipio) hints at a source, as does mention of two events in the speech not covered in the preceding text (Ullmann Reference Ullmann1927: 57).

38 Luce Reference Luce1993: 80, who provides a corrective to Ullmann’s (and to some extent Ogilvie’s) overly schematic analysis of this and other Livian speeches by noting the creative application of rhetorical topoi, divides the tractatio into three parts: I (3.67.4–11): present relevance of past behavior of plebeians and patricians; II (3.68.1–6): past achievements of tribunes and noble leaders vis-à-vis public and private welfare; III (3.68.7–8): the need for the Roman people to defend themselves in the present crisis.

39 3.67.1.

40 hoc vos scire, hoc posteris memoriae traditum iri Aequos et Volscos, vix Hernicis modo pares, T. Quinctio quartum consule ad moenia urbis Romae impune armatos venisse.

41 Cf. the remark by Rome’s Etruscan enemies, who – spurred on to war by Roman discordia intestina – reason that only civil strife could destroy Rome: “This was the only poison [unum venenum], this the ruin [labem] that was discovered for prosperous states, so that their great power might be transient [imperia ... mortalia]. For a long time this evil had been held in check, partly by the wisdom [consiliis] of the senate, partly by the forbearance [patientia] of the plebs” (2.44.8–9).

42 Cf. 2.24.1; 2.44.9; 4.4.10. Note Livy’s ambiguous comment in 2.34.12 on the desirability of eliminating the tribuneship.

43 3.68.10–11.

44 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 520 ad 3.68.10.

45 Amic. 95. For flatterers of the people among the elite, see also Cic. Off. 2.63: haec est gravium hominum atque magnorum, illa quasi assentatorum populi multitudinis levitatem voluptate quasi titillantium; and remarks of Roller Reference Roller2001: 110 n. 82.

46 3.69.4. The metaphor in asperiorem domando, referring to the breaking of an untamed animal, seems to ventriloquize the voices of the cruel patricians whom the senators are criticizing. Cf. Livy’s later, pessimistic assessment of the prudence of the masses, describing the crowd at Syracuse: “This is the nature of a crowd: either it is docilely enslaved or arrogantly tyrannical [aut servit humiliter aut superbe dominator]; liberty, which is the mean, it neither knows how to bring about moderately nor to preserve; and indulgent abettors of its fury are hardly lacking – those who incite to blood and murder those minds that are greedy and unrestrained in taking vengeance” (24.25.8–9).

47 castigare: 3.19.4 (Cincinnatus to senate); coercere: 3.19.4 (Cincinnatus to plebs); increpare: 2.65.4 (Capitolinus to Roman troops); 3.3.5 (Capitolinus to Roman people); 3.29.2 (Cincinnatus to defeated army). For scene in which crowd is calmed, see: 2.56.15–16 (Capitolinus); 3.3.5 (Capitolinus); 3.13.4 (Capitolinus); 4.15.1 (Cincinnatus). Both Quinctii, however, tend to locate the greater danger to the state in the license of the people and their leaders, launching their harshest rebukes against the popular tribunes.

48 3.68.9: His ego gratiora dictu alia esse scio; sed me vera pro gratis loqui, etsi meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit. Vellem equidem vobis placere, Quirites; sed multo malo vos salvos esse, qualicumque erga me animo futuri estis.

49 Richardson Reference Richardson2012 argues that the search for the origin of a Claudian, Quinctian, or any other “type” in a particular historian is a futile one, since Roman culture itself was distinctive in believing that members of elite families would (ideally) imitate their forebears, especially preeminent and founding figures within the gens. A useful illustration of the attitude is P. Licinius Calvus’ request in Livy that voters elect his son in his stead, whom he calls an effigies and imago of himself (5.18.5). Cf. Walter Reference Walter2004.

50 See Hammer Reference Hammer2008: 78–131, esp. 82–3 for the idea of “felt meanings.”

51 Pace Wiseman Reference Wiseman1979: 104–39. See nn. 12 and 13 in Chapter 4; with Forsythe Reference Forsythe1994: 237–8.

52 Piganiol Reference Piganiol, Bloch and Chastagnol1973 assumes that the early Quinctian legends reflect a kernel of historical truth: namely, that the Quinctii were actually Latin (probably Tusculan) military leaders of the fifth century who led allied troops against common Volscian and Aequian enemies. Gage Reference Gage1974, while supporting the historicity of the Roman Quinctii of this period, sees in them the leaders of a quasi-independent infantry of “peasant soldiers,” opposed in status to the equites and dedicated to the protection of the “allied” route between Rome and Tusculum. All that can be asserted with certainty is that Roman historiographical tradition connected the fifth-century Quinctii with campaigns against the Aequians and Volscians centering on Mount Algidus.

53 For the phrase, see Badian Reference Badian1966: 11.

54 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 436–7; 441 ad 3.26.6 comments both on the fluidity of the date assigned to Cincinnatus’ dictatorship and on Livy’s attempt through them to represent “the Roman ideal and its reverse.”

55 For other versions of the story, see n. 36 in this chapter.

56 Forsythe Reference Forsythe1994: 64, 69, 303–7 believes Cincius Alimentus first “anchored [the Maelius tale] in time based on a documented grain shortage” (69).

57 See Nicolet Reference Nicolet1960 on Cicero’s vocabulary. Despite the verbal echo of concordia ordinum, important differences exist between the use of the phrase in Cicero and Livy, although both see elite leadership as a fundamental aspect of political stability. From the extensive bibliography discussing Ciceronian use of the idea, see recently Temelini Reference Temelini2002. On the complex associations of Roman Concordia, see esp. Levick Reference Levick, Carson and Kraay1978, who describes the cult as “a slogan for those in power” (220); and Farrell Reference Farrell, Farrell and Nelis2013 (on Ovid’s manipulation in the Fasti of Camillus and concordia). Cf. Gaertner Reference Gaertner2008: 42–8 for Livy’s Ciceronian “refashioning” of Camillus, parens patriae, as well as Capitolinus; with Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 741–50 for Ciceronian allusions in Camillus’ speech. For discussion of the difference in rhetorical appeal between Cicero’s ideal orator and Livy’s Quinctii, see discussion to follow in the Conclusion (“The Threat of Tyranny”).

58 4.10.8.

59 Rep. 2.69. Trans. Powell and Rudd Reference Powell, Rudd and Rudd1998.

60 Cf. AUC 4.10.9: “[Capitolinus] maintained his position against the tribunes by his authority [auctoritate] more than by contention [certamine].”

1 1.4.

2 See esp. 3.19.5: tribunes as loquaces, seditiosos, semina discordiarum ... pessimis artibus, regia licentia vivere (Cincinnatus in 460); 3.68.10–11 (Capitolinus in 446, implicitly referring to the tribunes).

3 On Livy’s annalistic structure, see Rich Reference Rich2011; on alternation of internal and external events, see also Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 295.

4 In addition to populus and plebs, Livy uses turba, multitudo, and volgus for the people. None is unambiguously pejorative (like ὄχλος in Polybius, cited by Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995: 130), although turba and multitudo are often used with the meaning “mob.” (See negative use of multitudo in Cicero, and Cicero’s influence on Livy, cited by Seager Reference Seager1972: 328; and Reference Seager1977: 380.) On the “bewildering variety” of terms used to refer to political categories among the early Roman people, see Cornell Reference Cornell and Gabba1983: 104–5, with 105 n. 8 (for earlier bibliography).

5 See remarks of Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995: 129–40.

6 3.53.7.

7 On the universal admiration for Menenius Agrippa, see 2.32.8; 2.33.10 (pariter patribus ac plebi carus); 2.52.7. The representation of Valerius and Horatius is more complex, since their espousal of the plebeian cause creates ill will toward them among the patres. There is little doubt, however, that they play heroic roles both in the field and at home. See 3.53.2: liberatores haud dubie; and discussion to follow in this chapter (“The Elite popularis Hero” in “Upper-class Champions of the People”).

8 Aesop 197. On the story’s (disputed) origins and introduction into Latin historiography, see, e.g., Nestle Reference Nestle1927; Momigliano Reference Momigliano1942: 117–18; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 312–13; Harvey Reference Harvey2007: 4–10; Smith Reference Smith, Berry and Erskine2010b: 267–8 (arguing for a long earlier tradition affecting key speeches in Livy). An elaborate form of the story, with an account of its symbolism, is given in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.86.

9 On Livy’s use of earlier material in speeches, see his comment on Appius’ judgment on Verginia that, since he (Livy) had been unable to discover a “probable” (3.47.5: veri similem) account of Appius’ words, he would reproduce the judgment itself without preamble.

10 Cf. 2.7.5: ut sunt mutabiles volgi animi. On Livy’s portrayal of crowd psychology, a key aspect of his innovatory style, see, e.g., Catin Reference Catin1944: 153–66; Walsh Reference Walsh1961: 168–72, 184–8, 206–8; Burck Reference Burck1964: 229–33. Metaphorical comparisons to weather and storms (tempestas, procella): 2.1.5, 2.55.9, 2.56.15, 3.11.7, 3.38.7, 4.44.9. Metaphors of “kindling” of emotions and “burning” (flagrare, accendere, exardere): 2.23.1, 2.23.3, 2.27.12, 2.42.1, 3.51.8, 3.62.1, 4.6.3, 4.25.14, 4.58.11. Cf. the masses in Polybius as “a calm ocean, unless stirred by the winds”; Scipio’s observation in Cicero’s Rep. that it is as easy to subdue the people when they acquire power through the overthrow of a just king as to subdue the sea or a fire (Rep. 1.65); and Laelius’ comparison of the people to a beast (Rep. 3.45).

11 See, e.g.: 2.7.4 (grief at death of Brutus, esp. women); 2.18.8 (fear at appointment of first dictator); 2.19.4 (fury at Tarquins among Latin enemies); 2.23 (turmoil over laws of nexum); 2.29.4 (anger at attempt to enforce levy); 2.35.1 (anger at Coriolanus’ proposal); 2.55.2 (anger after death of Genucius); 3.3.1–4 (panic at Aequian invasion); 3.15.7 (panic at seizure of Capitoline by Herdonius); 3.26.5 (fear in Rome at siege of Minucius’ camp); 3.36.7 (fear of decemvirs); 3.38.4 (fear at Sabine attack); 3.48.8 (reaction to death of Verginia, esp. grief of women); 3.49 (anger and hope after death of Verginia); 3.54.6–7 (joy after resignation of decemvirs); 3.72.6 (greed roused by Scaptius’ speech); 4.6.3 (anger against Curtius); 4.15.1 (turmoil after death of Maelius); 4.31–34 (response to defeat in battle at Veii, attack at Fidenae, includes grief [4.31.4], terror [4.31.9], rage at enemy [4.32.12]); 4.40 (grief and panic at rumor of military defeat, joy when rumor proved false); 4.50.1–5 (anger at Postumius); 4.60 (joy and gratitude for military pay); 5.7.4 (sadness at destruction of siege works at Veii); 5.7.6 (patriotic fervor and generosity), 5.7.11 (joy); 5.18.9–11 (terror after military defeat, esp. women); 5.23.3 (joy at fall of Veii, esp. women); 5.29.10 (growing anger against Camillus); 5.39.4–7 (grief and panic at news of defeat at Allia); 5.45.6 (self-pity, then anger at Gallic plundering). On female emotions, see esp. Catin Reference Catin1944: 158; Bonjour Reference Bonjour1975; Joshel Reference Joshel1992.

12 Although the first part of Livy’s narrative concerning the unrest over nexum focuses on the pitiable condition of the debtors, 2.23.9–14 highlights the danger to the patres of the increasingly violent crowd. Cf. 2.29.1–4.

13 See 3.54.8: modestia of secessionists. For the concept of “justified revolution” see Cic. De or. 2.19, where Antonius speaks of his defense of Norbanus (95 BCE), in which he had expatiated on iustae seditiones. Cicero used the same line of reasoning in 65 defending the tribune Cornelius. (See Asc. Corn. 76C [R.G. Lewis Reference Lewis2006: 154–5].) Similarly, Rep. 59.2: “two tribunes of the people were created through seditio, in order to diminish the power [potentia] and authority of the senate.” As Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 217 notes, potentia is pejorative. For Cicero’s attitude toward the tribunate, see Girardet Reference Girardet, Lippold and Himmelmann1977; Perelli Reference Perelli1979; Thommen Reference Temelini1988. For Livy on tribunes, see discussion to follow in this chapter (“Plebeian Champions of the People”).

14 Examples of laudable actions by the people: 3.18 (support of P. Valerius against Herdonius); 3.20.5 (observation of validity of oath); 4.6.11–12 (election of patrician military tribunes); 4.17.7 (maintenance of domestic peace out of concern for welfare of state); 4.60.7–9 (voluntary contributions and enlistment); 5.7 (patriotic response and voluntary service after destruction of siegeworks at Veii); 5.25.8–9 and 5.50.7 (contributions of gold by matronae); 5.30.7 (defeat of proposal to move to Veii). On 4.6.11–12 see discussion to follow in this chapter (“Redefining Plebeian libertas”).

15 See esp. Luce Reference Luce1971. For the people’s desire for material gain before the battle at the Allia, see Miles Reference Miles1995: 79–88. Concern for material gain in Books 2–5 in the form of patrician desire to retain ager publicus and plebeian desire for land distribution might appear to contradict Livy’s statement in the preface that avaritia only arrived late to Rome; however, controversy over agricultural grants is cast largely in terms of a struggle for power between the orders rather than for material gain, and Livy frequently notes the economic distress of the plebeians (showing that their support for such measures cannot be equated with a desire for luxuria).

16 See, e.g., McClelland Reference McClelland1989: 35: “Livy’s account of Roman history up to the sack of the city by the [Gauls] is a frank account of class warfare between the plebs and the patricians. The patricians embody the stoical virtues of constancy and self-restraint while the plebs always threaten to turn into a mob if their desires are thwarted.” On exemplary moments, see n. 14 in this chapter. Cf. Eckstein Reference Eckstein1995: 129–40 on Polybius’ view of the danger of the masses, spurred on by demagogues and moved by anger and greed.

17 Nevertheless, at 2.21.5–6 Livy disabuses the reader of any illusion that the distant past was an extended golden age of civic concord by embracing the tradition, found also in Sall. Hist., that dated the onset of class conflict to the death in exile of Tarquinius Superbus, when the patricians began to abuse the plebeians (495 BCE). On Sallust, see McGushin Reference McGushin1977: 87–8; and Reference McGushin1992: 78–9. The idea of a decline in morals over time, present in Polybius, was ubiquitous in Latin historiography. See, e.g., Earl Reference Earl1961: 41–59; and Reference Earl1967: 17–19; Luce Reference Luce1977: 270–5; Wood Reference Wood1995: 176–9; Miles Reference Miles1995: 76–88.

18 See 2.41; cf. 6.11.8: materia semper tribunis plebi seditionum. Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 433–4 interprets notices of agrarian legislation in Livy and Dionysius as “a plausible model of early Roman society,” although the annalists “are likely to have elaborated and invented much of their detailed material.” (See also Oakley’s arguments [I 654–9] for the historicity of the agrarian law of 367.) Anticipating Oakley, see Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 268–71. From at least the time of the Gracchi through Cicero a conservative strategy for countering land distribution bills involved accusations of attempted dominatio.

19 These episodes might have had a very different tone if one of Livy’s tribunes had been made to speak as had Ti. Gracchus when he declared that “the wild beasts that roam over Italy have every one of them a cave or lair to lurk in; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy the common air and light ... but nothing else ... they have not a single clod of earth that is their own” (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9.4–5; trans. B. Perrin, Loeb Classical Library [1923]). See survey of proposals in Ridley Reference Ridley and Eder1990: 111–12. Note that Livy sometimes shows that opposition to such proposals by the elite was due to financial self-interest, since they were in control of ager publicus: 2.41.2; 2.48.2; 4.48.2–3. Livy’s most pointed comment in this vein comes in 413, concerning the recently conquered land of the Bolani (4.51.5–6).

20 See 5.24.4–25.13; 5.30; 5.50–55.

21 See n. 14 in this chapter.

22 Forms of fremere are used several times, signifying an inarticulate, deep sound, such as a rumble, roar, or growl (as of an excited animal): 1.17.7; 2.23.2; 3.38.10; 3.45.4; 3.56.7. It is used as well for the complaints of soldiers under arms, who likewise have no political voice (3.62.2; 4.18.3; 4.50.2; 4.58.9). See comments in Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 189 ad 6.16.5.

23 Note that the consul Tarquinius Collatinus is the subject of “talk” (2.2.4: sermo) among the citizenry of the dangerous propensity of all the Tarquins for monarchy, leaving the plebs upset and suspicious until the other consul, Brutus, induces Collatinus to depart for Lavinium. P. Valerius in 509 becomes the object of similar suspicions when a rumor (2.7.6: fama) arises, after he begins to build his house on the Velia.

24 See n. 17 in this chapter.

25 Cf. Sicinius’ larger role in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.70.2; 6.72.1; and Plut. Cor. 7.1 (as tr. pl.).

26 Cf. 5.39.6, when the plebeians are once again sine duce aut consensu as they flee the city from the advancing Gauls.

27 3.69.4. L. Papirius Mugillanus, for instance, in 421 takes on a “Quinctian persona” as interrex by “upbraiding [castigando] now the patres, now the tribunes of the people” (4.43.9), ultimately proposing a compromise to which both sides agree; likewise the dictator Mamercus Aemilius rescues the state from military threat (4.31.9), delivers a stern lecture reproving his audience for their fear of an enemy many times defeated (4.32.2: increpuit), locates the source of Roman military disaster in discord – in this case, among their elite commanders (4.32.2) – and abdicates imperium on the sixteenth day after it had been granted (4.34.5).

28 See Cic. Rep. 2.49 (Cassius, Maelius, Manlius) and 2.62–63 (although the identity of the tyrannical decemvir responsible for Verginia’s death is not given); Cat. I.3–4 (Ti. Gracchus, Maelius, C. Gracchus, Fulvius Flaccus); Dom. 101–102 (Maelius, Cassius, M. Vaccus, Manlius, Fulvius Flaccus); Mil. 72 (Maelius, Ti. Gracchus); Phil. II.87, 114 (Tarquinius Superbus, Cassius, Maelius, Manlius); Sen. 56 (Maelius); Amic. 36 (Cassius, Maelius, Ti. Gracchus); with analysis of Seager Reference Seager1977. Cassius is one of a canonical list of upper-class demagogues executed for attempting to overthrow the republic and set themselves up as tyrants, no doubt familiar in the rhetoric of second-century apologists for the suppression of the Gracchi, first-century opponents of the Catilinarian conspirators, and others. For early and later sources, as well as further bibliography on Cassius, Maelius, and Manlius, see Smith Reference Smith2006a. See also the recent discussion by Kaplow Reference Kaplow2012 of the three as “proto-populares” – seminal figures in what was conceived of in the late Republic as a continuous narrative of popularitas.

29 Cassius held the consulship but the gens was plebeian. Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 255 remarks about such fifth-century consuls of uncertain status: “Whether we should call such people plebeians is questionable; but it is virtually certain that they were not patricians.” Note that Livy’s Cincinnatus pairs the Cassii with the Claudii for having been encouraged “by their own honors and those of their ancestors and by the splendor of their families” to aim at tyranny (4.15.5).

30 This, despite the fact that the senate opposes the land distribution law partly out of self-interest (2.41.2) and that the other consul is likewise said to be attempting to pander to the masses for their support (2.41.7). See Smith Reference Smith2006a: 49–52 for Dionysius’ transmission of the story as a political comment on the suppression of popular leaders such as the Gracchi.

31 Manlius continually refers to his famous exploit in his struggle for power and, ultimately, for survival in Book 6. (See 6.11; 14–17; 20; with Jaeger Reference Jaeger1997: 57–93; and Krebs Reference Krebs, Grethlein and Krebs2012, describing how Manlius’ crime and punishment in Book 6 effectively rewrites the events of Book 5.)

32 If we take patres as meaning “patrician,” then Manlius was indeed the first, since Sp. Cassius was probably not a patrician. (See n. 29 in this chapter.) If we take the word to refer to those who had held the highest office, then Cassius preceded Manlius.

33 Coriolanus, of course, was not a popular demagogue but an enemy of the plebs. Compare Livy’s summary treatment of Cassius with the extended and complex narrative of Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. (8.63–79), which includes psychological analysis of his ambitio (8.69.3); his demagogic strategy (8.69.3); his employment of a bodyguard (8.71.3); and his frequent harangues both to senate and people.

34 On Maelius, see n. 36 in Chapter 5.

35 Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 555–6; Seager Reference Seager1977: 383.

36 Seager Reference Seager1977: 390.

37 Livy does suggest that arrogance and ambition are present in all four. For the stereotype of the tyrant, see Dunkle Reference Dunkle1967 and Reference Davies1971.

38 See, e.g., 2.31.9 (M.’ Valerius); 2.48.2 (K. Fabius); 3.1.2–3 (T. Aemilius and Q. Fabius); 4.59.10 (Num. Fabius). The generosity of the senate as a body toward the plebeians is approved by Livy and creates memorable scenes of concordia. See esp. 4.59.11–60.2 (pay for soldiers). Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. (12.1.1–4.6) makes a much stronger case against Maelius than does Livy.

39 See earlier discussion (and n. 36) in Chapter 5 (“L. Quinctius Cincinnatus”). On the version of the story told by Livy and the concept of the homo sacer, see Lowrie Reference Lowrie, Breed, Damon and Rossi2010. Cf. Cato’s argument against the Catilinarian conspirators in Sall. Cat. 52.

40 On the gens Valeria, see n. 10 in Chapter 4.

41 This pairing is used throughout the episode of the decemvirate: 3.45.8 (duas arces libertatis tuendae); 3.48.9; 3.53.4 (auxilia plebis); 3.53.6 (libertati ... praesidia); 3.55.6. The three separate laws recorded treating provocatio (509, 449, 300) has led some, but not all, historians to credit the historicity only of the last. The extensive bibliography on the subject includes Staveley Reference Staveley1954–55; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 252; Lintott Reference Lintott1972; Cornell Reference Cornell1995: 276–7; Cloud Reference Cloud1998; Forsythe Reference Forsythe2005: 230–1; Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: IV 120–34 ad 10.9.3–6, with further bibliography (134).

42 Cic. Rep. 2.53 attributes the cognomen esp. to Valerius’ law concerning provocatio. See comments of Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 208–10.

43 In Horatius’ speech to the senate he refers to the role of the Horatii and Valerii in the overthrow of the Tarquins (3.39.3), although Horatius is absent in Livy’s account of the event.

44 All aspects of the so-called Conflict of the Orders remain subject to lively debate. (See, e.g., discussion and bibliography in Raaflaub Reference Raaflaub2005a.) For Livy’s presentation, see esp. Ridley Reference Ridley and Eder1990. Cf. Kapust Reference Kapust2004, who sees only a defensive phase of plebeian rights before the Licinian-Sextian laws. Although Livy might well be collapsing the time involved, in the pentad he suggests periods in which goals were defensive (relief from abuse) and then offensive (power sharing). See Raaflaub Reference Raaflaub2005b: 189–205, who postulates a defensive phase (ca. 509–430) and one in which the emergence of a plebeian elite brought increased aspirations for political leadership and intermarriage (ca. 430–390), culminating in political integration and redress of grievances (ca. 390–287).

45 Seemingly duplicated by the Lex Publilia (339) and the Lex Hortensia (287), making its historicity in 449 a matter of scholarly controversy.

46 See comments of Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 210–11.

47 The first occurs when the soldier Flavoleius promises he will return from battle victorious (2.45.14). The second by Volero is soon followed by the narrative of C. Laetorius (tr. pl. 471), who in oratio recta declares his difficulty in speaking (2.56.9). On appropriation of direct speech by patricians, see Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 280 ad 6.35.8. On Volero’s speech, see Smith Reference Smith, Berry and Erskine2010b: 272–3.

48 For survey of instances, see Ridley Reference Ridley and Eder1990: 121–2, 126. As Ridley notes, the tribunes’ other tactic was bringing the patricians to trial, to which Livy is less clearly opposed.

49 In Livy (10.8.9) the patricians are accused of claiming the exclusive possession of gentes. Whether a plebeian clan such as the Icilii constituted a gens continues to be debated. See, e.g., Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: IV 112–16; Smith Reference Smith2006b: 299–335; Smith Reference Smith2010a: 160–3, who challenge those discounting Livy’s statement, noting that Livy himself only uses the term to refer to patricians.

50 Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1950: 1–3. Cf. observation of Connolly Reference Connolly2007: 35 that “republican culture depended no less crucially on its memory of antagonism: the plebeian struggle from noble domination, memorialized in legends of cyclical fraternal strife.”

51 On the use of direct and indirect speech as a means of “metahistorical comment” (Levene Reference Levene2006: 73) in and on the text, see Kraus Reference Kraus1994a: 280 ad 6.35.8; Chaplin Reference Chaplin, Bakewell and Singer2003; Smith Reference Smith, Berry and Erskine2010b. On indirect speech in Latin historians more generally, see Lambert Reference Lambert1946; Utard Reference Utard2004 and Reference Utard2006.

52 Pace Panciera Reference Panciera and Konrad2004: 93–4.

53 Only Horatius and Valerius support the proposal, and even the more moderate senators give speeches against it (11.53.3).

54 Panciera Reference Panciera and Konrad2004 argues that the combination of the two proposals, while perhaps not historical, makes sense of the plebeians’ eventual entry into the consulship, which depended on patrician connections. See Ullmann Reference Ullmann1927: 58–60 for analysis of the structure of Canuleius’ speech as depending on topics of dignum, iustum, legitimum (adopted in his analysis by, e.g., Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 534–9).

55 For such language in Cicero, see, e.g., Vasaly Reference Vasaly2009: 130–2; Verr. II.3.7; II.5.181.

56 See n. 21 in Chapter 4. Cf. interesting discussion in Milnor Reference Milnor2007: 16–23 on the metaphorical “landscape of divisiveness” (18) created by the law as a precursor to Augustus’ social legislation.

57 Assumed by, e.g., Burck Reference Burck1964: 90 n. 1; Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 528; Forsythe Reference Forsythe2005: 227; contra Panciera Reference Panciera and Konrad2004: 98–9.

58 See Ogilvie Reference Ogilvie1965: 528, who assumes that Livy switched from Valerius Antias at the end of Book 3 to Licinius Macer at the beginning of Book 4.

59 For various meanings of aequa libertas, see Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1950: 9–15.

60 Drawing especially on Sallust’s antithetical use of the terms dignitas and libertas (Iug. 41.5), a number of commentators (but fewer translators) assume the phrase refers to the struggle between (plebeian) libertas and (patrician) dignitas (e.g., Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1950: 16; Earl Reference Earl1961: 54) rather than the plebeian struggle for both. No form of the word dignus or dignitas, however, is used in the speech opposing the measures (4.2), while the issue of what the plebeians are “worthy of” (dignus) is one of Canuleius’ themes. Cf. 3.67.6 (patrician imperium vs. plebeian libertas); 3.69.4 (dignitas patrum equated with maiestas patrum, although neither is contrasted with libertas).

61 Zetzel Reference Zetzel1995: 127–8 notes that Cicero’s formulation here does not assume that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, only that the government exists to serve the people.

1 Cic. Fam. 9.2.5 (SB Fam. 177): modo nobis stet illud ... non deesse si quis adhibere volet, non modo ut architectos verum etiam ut fabros, ad aedificandam rem publicam, et potius libenter accurrere; si nemo uteretur opera, tamen et scribere et legere πολιτείας et, si minus in curia atque in foro, at in litteris et libris ... navare rem publicam et de moribus et legibus quaerere.

2 Wiedemann Reference Wiedemann2000: 528. Cf. Connolly Reference Connolly2007: 11–12 “... patterns [of post-republican oratorical practice] derived the virtue and legitimacy of the res publica not in the performances of many citizens over time but in the body of the ruler, a new, singular body politic.”

3 De or.: 56–55 BCE; Rep.: 54–51 BCE; Leg. 52–?; Off.: 44 BCE.

4 For the phrase, see Luce Reference Luce1971: 301.

5 Fox Reference Fox2007: 109. On Livy’s compression of the tradition in the first pentad, see n. 34 in Chapter 2.

6 Pace Lipovsky Reference Lipovsky1981, who identified in the second pentad many of the same structural strategies as in the first pentad. Scholarly disagreement, particularly on whether there is a break between Books 10 and 11 (see, e.g., doubts of Oakley Reference Oakley1997–Reference Oakley2005: I 112–14), is itself evidence that the architecture of the second pentad is not obvious. See Vasaly Reference Vasaly and Mineo2014.

7 See Forsythe Reference Forsythe1999: 40–51.

8 See, e.g., Görler Reference Görler and Powell1995; Zarecki Reference Zarecki2014. For an excellent introduction to the now extensively discussed subject of Cicero’s political thought, see Wood Reference Wood1988.

9 Kapust Reference Kapust2011: 24.

10 Gildenhard Reference Gildenhard2007: 2.

11 See Rep. 1.68 on the instability of the simple forms of government.

12 3.82.

13 Cf. 1.64: in hac elatione et magnitudine animi facillime pertinacia et nimia cupiditas principatus innascitur. (“in this elevation and greatness of spirit, obstinancy and excessive desire for rule very easily arises.”)

14 Long Reference Long1995.

15 At the same time, according to Long Reference Long1995: 228, Cicero wishes to show that “glory, when justly pursued, is something that benefits the community no less than the individual recipient.”

16 Circumspectare tum patriciorum voltus plebeii et inde libertatis captare auram, unde servitutem timendo in eum statum rem publicam adduxerant.

17 Fantham Reference Fantham2006: 313.

18 De or. 1.68–9.

19 Most strikingly illustrated by the conviction of the Stoic P. Rutilius Rufus for extortion, who eschewed any appeal to his judges for pity (1.230).

20 The moral issue is well summarized in Wisse Reference Wisse and May2002: 391–3 (with whom I agree). Similarly, Classen Reference Classen and Classen1993; Zarecki Reference Zarecki2014. In Leg. 1.62, in contrast, the ideal statesman (here, seemingly identical with the enlightened rector rei publicae of Rep.), becomes a vir bonus through his pursuit of philosophical wisdom, which leads him to serve the “society of humankind” through all forms of (necessarily virtuous) oratory.

21 De or. 1.38. Cf. 1.58–73. (In Cael. 45, however, Cicero does attempt to equate eloquence and virtue.)

22 E.g., De or. 1.32: populi motus, iudicum religiones, senatus gravitatem unius oratione converti.

23 Scipio’s formulation of the people’s role is placed in its most positive light by Asmis Reference Asmis2005: 403: “Importantly, Scipio does not endorse freedom simply as a means of avoiding civil strife; he appears to assign positive value to the ‘judgment and will’ of the multitude, just as he assigns positive value to the contributions of the people in the development of the constitution.”

24 See n. 13 in Chapter 6 for Cicero on the tribunate.

25 The emendation in I. Bake’s edition (Leyden 1842), praeclaris institutis for praeclarissimis, is generally accepted, including by Dyck Reference Dyck2004. Cf. Cicero’s proposal to allow the popular vote but eliminate the secret ballot, thus granting freedom “in such a way that the elite will be influential and employ that influence” (3.38: auctoritate et valeant et utantur boni).

26 Illustrated most memorably by the Roman defeat by the Gauls at the Allia, preceded by the conviction and exile of the innocent Camillus (5.32) and the disregard of the ius gentium by the Fabian ambassadors to Clusium (5.37.8).

27 3.65.11: Adeo moderatio tuendae libertatis, dum aequari velle simulando ita se quisque extollit ut deprimat alium, in difficili est, cavendoque ne metuant, homines metuendos ultro se efficiunt, et iniuriam ab nobis repulsam, tamquam aut facere aut pati necesse sit, iniungimus aliis.

28 The phrase is also used at: 3.72.2, of the people’s unjust decision to acquire Ardean land; 4.13.1, of Sp. Maelius’ distribution of grain; 4.48.13, of a tribunician proposal for land distribution.

29 See, e.g., authorial interjections at 2.21.6 and 3.65.7.

30 Gabba Reference Gabba1981: 50.

31 See, e.g., Mansfield and Tarcov Reference Mansfield and Tarcov1996: xxxviii; Fischer Reference Fischer and Rahe2006: xxxvii.

32 Connolly Reference Connolly2010 makes similar observations about the role of discord in Cicero and Machiavelli.

33 On fear as essential to Machiavelli’s republic, see, e.g., Wood Reference Wood1995; Rahe Reference Rahe2008: 45–55. On Machiavelli’s concept of the value of popular upheavals in general, see Mansfield Reference Mansfield1979: 41–53.