Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Walsh - Livy's Preface and The Distortion of History PDF
Walsh - Livy's Preface and The Distortion of History PDF
Walsh - Livy's Preface and The Distortion of History PDF
Author(s): P. G. Walsh
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1955), pp. 369-383
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/292271
Accessed: 31-08-2015 19:33 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American
Journal of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
369
3
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370
P. G. WALSH.
vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros quibusque artibus domi
militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit.6 As Ferrero says,
mores and artes are not merely close to each other, but are bound
together, forming a synthesis between the sphere of morals and
that of political activity which reveals Livy's relationship with
Stoic beliefs. The artes, when bonae, are the principles of religious, political, and private activity-pietas and fides; concordia, disciplina, clementia, prudentia; virtus, pudicitia, dignitas, frugalitas, and the rest. In Livy the great Romans embody
these artes, and the villains are symbols of their opposites: each
class is set forth as a stimulus and a warning.7
The danger of such a preoccupation with the moral interpretation of history in such definite terms is that it may lead to a
biased account, especially as Livy is convinced, at the commencement of his task, that nulla umquam respublica nec maior nec
sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit,8 and that he will seek
consolation and a refuge in a happier past.9 This patriotic bias,
so openly manifested before his evaluation of the evidence has
properly commenced, finds its outlet precisely in the emphasis
on those principles of conduct, the bonae artes, which allegedly
motivated the great men of Roman history. Hence moral and
patriotic considerations are united for didactic purposes, with the
aim not so much of inducing an immediate moral revival (Livy's
pessimistic attitude towards this is quite explicit),10 but of
demonstrating to posterity that national greatness cannot be
achieved without the possession, especially by the leading men
of the state, of the attributes which promote a healthy morality
and sagacity in the execution of external or domestic policies.
9.
6Praef.,
7 It has
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
371
I
This bias of Livy can most convincingly be demonstrated by a
careful examination of his sources, where extant, in comparison
with his own version of events.1l A feature which comes repeatedly to our notice is Livy's insistence on dignitas and
gravitas, not only in Romans but also in non-Romans of high
rank. This insistence is taken to such lengths that nowhere in
the Ab Urbe Condita is a distinguished Roman depicted as
laughing aloud. This suppression of all jocular elements has
tended to mislead us in general about the over-sobriety and high
seriousness of the Roman character, and in particular about the
prevailing atmosphere of individual conferences. An interesting
example of this is Livy's treatment of the conference at Nicaea
in 197 B. C.12
Philip had asked Flamininus for a parley, but refused to
leave his ship, so that Flamininus and his Greek and Asian allies
had to address him from the shore. Of these, Alexander the
Aetolian spoke last. In reply, Philip began to criticise Alexander's speech, but was interrupted by Phaeneas, another Aetolian. Philip made a humorous rejoinder about Phaeneas'
defective vision.
Pol., XVIII, 4, 3: iEt 8e TaTa XaE yovTO ToV paltXews, o
TroLSo/!jijuaowv Trl 7rXElov, VwEKpovETOV itlTrXalTTWJe`Lvos
4atvEaa,
adoaKwv avTov
7rov,
T
7roteLv
XqrpEEv' 8elv yap 0 ,iaxo?ixevov VLKaV
TOtS KpELTTOctTO TrpoaraTrTO/LEOV. 06 8E
, KaltrEp ev KaKOLS
LATL7ro
Wv, O/A1o OVK a7TE)XETOTOV KaO' aLVTOvLwcLuaTo3s, aAX' '7'aTpa(et
" ToVro IfJv " frjao'v "c tatav'ea, Tvq(T
Kat
87iov."r 7r7 yap
O
EV 7rETEVKS 7Tp8O TaO laXXevdoELV
EOLK7KTO Kal rrpOS TOVTO TaO /tEpo
avOpoc7rovc.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
P. G. WALSH.
372
Livy's view clearly is that kings should not descend to witticisms, and that laughter at any time is bad enough, but especially at conferences of this kind.l3 Hence no Roman must be
portrayed as acting with similar abandon, as we see from Livy's
later treatment. In Polybius, Philip continues his reply to the
demand of the Aetolians that he should evacuate Greece. Most
of Aetolia, he says, is not Greece: can he remain there? Flamininus laughs. But in Livy's account, Philip makes the point
seriously, and the laughter is not mentioned.14 A similar censorship is exercised a little later, when Philip answers the Rhodians
and Dionysodorus, the legate of Attalus, who had demanded the
restoration of the temple of Aphrodite and the Nicephorium,
which Philip had destroyed. Philip jokingly offered to send
plants and gardeners, and Flamininus again laughs. But Livy
depicts Philip as rebuking Attalus' legate for raising such a
trifling matter, and the laughter is again omitted.15 Finally, at
the end of the day's discussions, Flamininus, pleased by Philip's
wit, made a joke himself.
7, 5: 6 8e TT7ro OVKadyose LEV7KOVe TOV iiAXl7rrrov
/,3 ovAo iEvoo 8&TOCSaXXAAo[/iL] SOKELV,'vrE7rep
1
Ec7r(}v OV'
ovr(s
TOV
G"EIK co")D
aKwcolpe
rl (flP Atryre,
AXtrrrrov
ra
rovs
El
rovs
vvv
fivXov
KpaTt'TaC0ot(avfIpovXEvtoLvos
yap
6 Se MaKe8sov VTro/LeaCt8'aa
aovaras a7rwtAcaas 7rara.a'.
crapSdvtov
Pol., XVIII,
XXeva0ovTo
a7r-EeTu7rrCT?E.
1 It is interesting to observe the two techniques of narration of
this witticism. Polybius is careful to explain the circumstances of
Phaeneas' defective sight ( 1Xarrw#e'vos TroS iO/ULaotiverl 7rXecov) before
recounting the dialogue. Livy first cites the remark, and then explains
it, thus ruining the joke. He is more .interested in the incisiveness of
the dialogue, and prunes Polybius' account of all remarks which precede
Philip's retort. For this dialogue-technique, see K. Witte, Rhein. Mus.,
LXV (1910), pp. 283-4, and P. G. Walsh, Rhein. Mus., XCVII (1954),
pp. 107-10.
14 Pol., XVIII, 6, 1 (tro 8e Tirov yeXaoavros
and Livy, XXXII,
.. .)
34, 4, where Philip is angry, not jocular (indignari inde coepit . . .).
a e Ka
Kal
16 Pol. XVIII, 6, 4: "... v. .
rovpoibs 7replw TrObs(ppovrtovvraS
&
Oepayreras rTo Tr6Oov Kat 7rjs avS,aTews ToV eKKO7revrrwpe'ypco." 7r&sitp
7TOVTIrov YeXdaavros eirrc
xX\evaoaLu. ...
Livy, XXXII, 34, 10: quid
restitui ea postulantibus respondeam, nisi quo uno modo silvae lucique
caesi restitui possint, curam impensamque sationis me praestaturum,
quoniam haec inter se reges postulare et respondere placet? Holleaux
(op. cit., p. 134, n. 2) notes these suppressions of Flamininus' laughter.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
373
This incident, both the remark and the ensuing smile, is omitted
completely by Livy. It is clear that throughout his description
of this conference, Livy has systematically suppressed all traces
of the joking between Flamininus and Philip, and thereby has
given a very different and distorted picture of the relationship
between them and of the atmosphere of the whole conference.
His motive is clear. Kings and responsible Romans should not
lay aside their gravitas. So far as Philip is concerned, it detracts from the dignity of kingship.16 Still less will Livy tolerate
any unseemly behaviour in his idealised characterisation of
Flamininus, one of the symbols of the seriousness and incorruptibility of the Roman people. (Important, too, is the fact that
Flamininus' apparent jocularity towards Philip entails an unfriendly attitude towards his own allies, at whose expense the
jokes were made.)
17
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374
P. G. WALSH.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
375
V, 32, 6-7.
2 Esp. V, 35, 6; 36, 8-11.
22
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
P. G. WALSH.
376
ua'ywoyov
OTroTep
Kat
aywaotv avrov,
Ocavrattav
E'4
KL f otlO,
Ka 7rpoUooKtlav SLa To
TO o
paotscLaKoXovra
aova
oE Trot'Cora
Tr Sa ftatXEtaS oWoa.34
Livy omits mention of Amynander's pliability, and says merely that he was sent ut speciem legationi
adiceret.35
Worst of all is Livy's account of the assassination of the proMacedonian Boeotarch Brachyllas at Thebes in 197 B. C. by the
philo-Roman party, led by Zeuxippus and Pisistratus. Polybius 36 tells us that the conspirators consulted Flamininus before
7rp'o Ttrov),
whilst refusing to be a participant, said that he would not con28XXI, 10,9: vicerunt ergo di hominesque, et, id de quo verbis
ambigebatur uter populus foedus rupisset, eventus belli velut aequus
iudex unde ius stabat ei victoriam dedit.
29XXXIII, 32-3.
o0XXXIV, 50: has velut parentis voces cum audirent, manare omnibus
gaudio lacrimae....
1 XXXVI,
35,4: ego tamen sorte quadam nutriendae Graeciae
datus.....
S2 For an unfavourable view of Polybius' characterisation
ninus, see Wood, T.A.P.A., LXX (1939), pp. 93 ff.
s3 Supra,
81 XVIII,
pp. 372-3.
10, 7.
86 XXXII,
8 XVIII,
of Flami-
36.
43, 7 ff.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
377
strain them, and urged them to talk it over with the Aetolian
Alexamenus
o qi KOlvwveZv Tfs 7rpade?os 7avT7rs, TOVS
(avro1 ,ev OVK
c 8XO
ov eh Aahv avrovs ?KeXeve
Se /PovXAoAevovs
7TpaTTeLvov KO(JXVtE KaO
7rept 7ovrwv 'AXEVtacEva rT rTv- AirTOwovarpaTryY .. . ). It was quite
obvious that Alexamenus would be in favour of such an antiMacedonian intrigue, and that Flamininus, under cover of a
specious neutrality, was approving the assassination. Livy omits
the incident completely, and the subsequent anti-Roman demonstrations in Thebes and in Boeotia generally are explained as
the outcome of a suspicion, not of an objective fact: efferavit ea
caedes Thebanos Boeotosque omnes ad execrabile odium Romanorum, credentes non sine consilio imperatoris Romani Zeuxippum,
principem gentis, id facinus conscisse.37
This major example of Livy's suppression of unpalatable fact
tempts us to suspect his integrity elsewhere. His account of
the siege of Saguntum contains no direct comment on Rome's
failure to show fides to her ally by the despatch of immediate
aid.38 Indeed, if we examine Polybius' account,39 Livy seems
to have minimised in one important respect the Roman responsibility. Polybius writes that the Saguntines sent frequent messages to Rome when the siege was imminent (III, 15, 1: ot 8[
T7reUTOV . . .).
ZaKavOaLol ouvvexo
Livy's version in XXI, 6, 2
a
Romam
Saguntinis
(legati
missi) tones down the sense of
crisis so vividly reproduced by Polybius, and thereby seeks to
lessen Rome's guilt.
III
Livy's emphasis on pudicitia, the quality in women which he
places on a par with virtus in men,40 is demonstrated in the
37
XXXIII, 29, 1.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
P. G. WALSH.
378
...
KaT7
rjXVVY.
8' OwoS V7rTT7rS F AkapyvptTTYrOr
orTparToLTLKo
as,
Kalt
Kat
XpvortovcrvXvov8to/oAooy7-
7-vvatKd,
av7rrv raroXvrpwcrWv....
yEv
mo animum temptavit;
quem
cum abhorrentem a voluntario
fortuna
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
379
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
P. G. WALSH.
380
eglcracOat
TITOV TavTa
avrois
8tELOEtpov,
3E TOV
aroseSet)taKoTrov.
KpitvwV TLrwv
aK!irv
T6OV 7rpo-ryOVfLeV(V TrVES E7rtLrEcOvre
8tavoov/Levov
V71rep8eto0v
7rpoEcf)?epov
TrL Xelpag,
p[l)avre
'7rAa.
49 An additional
example from the Hannibalic War may be cited.
In Polybius (III, 102, 2) Minucius orders his forces to take no prisoners
when attacking the Carthaginian foragers. Livy has chosen to ignore
this (XXII, 24,8).
60 H. R.
F., 10b = Gell., IX, 13.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
381
II, 5, 5 ff.
VIII, 30 ff.
53V, 26, 8.
64 III, 29,3, where Livy praises Minucius' gracious acceptance of
the rebuke of Cincinnatus: sed adeo turn imperio meliori animus mansuete obediens erat. Also IV, 37, 5; 42, 7; VII, 10, 2 ff. (where Manlius
offers to fight the Gaul extra ordinem only if his commander allows
it-a
stipulation not recorded by Claudius Quadrigarius [H. R. F.,
1Ob = Gell., IX, 13]), XXI, 7,3; XXII, 13,11; etc.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
P. G. WALSB.
382
by reading Polybius' description of an incident after Cynoscephalae. After their victory, many Romans hastened to loot the
enemy camp, but found that their allies the Aetolians had got
there first. Their remarks to Flamininus do not indicate that
degree of severitas imperii which we might otherwise have
assumed.
XVIII,
27, 4:
Kat
aOVTe3
7rapaKeX(WpqKE.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
383
65 M. L. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians (Univ. of California, 1947) rightly defends Livy from his over-captious critics, but
seems to carry his defence too far in this respect: see p. 95.
66
XXVI, 22, 14.
67 Cicero, De Orat., II, 62.
This content downloaded from 157.92.4.75 on Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:33:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions