burton, p - livy, last republican historian

8/2/2019 Burton, P - Livy, Last Republican Historian

1/19

The Last Republican Historian: A New Date for the Composition of Livy's First PentadAuthor(s): Paul J. BurtonSource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 49, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 2000), pp. 429-446Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436595Accessed: 04/01/2010 05:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436595?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4436595?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/19

THE LAST REPUBLICAN HISTORIAN:A NEW DATE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF LIVY'S

FIRST PENTAD*

Introduction

This article addresses a rather echnical matter n the field of Livian studies, but

nonetheless one that is crucial for a proper understanding of the ideologicalthrust of early books of the Ab Urbe Condita. Its main premise is that, in orderto understand properly Livy's political outlook and motivations for writing hishistory, it is necessary to determine first, as accurately as possible, when hetook up his stylus. Thus, as this paper will argue, if he did not begin writingbetween 27 and 25 B.C. - that is, shortly after Augustus Caesar established thepax Romana and consolidated his power - but rather earlier, Livy cannotproperly be called an "Augustan historian" stricto sensu, as many textbookscurrently have it.1

The problem is less a chimera than it seems at first - indeed, it has been thesource of controversy for the better part of this century, and a solution continuesto elude scholars.2

Yet the need to find a solution has been recognized as imperative, and hasbecome particularly acute since 1965, when T.J. Luce published an importantarticle casting doubt on the chronology of the internal Livian evidence by whichscholars traditionally date the beginning of Livy's career as an historian.3 Thefirst part of this article is devoted to revisiting and reinforcing Luce's argu-

*I would like to thank my advisor Professor A.M. Eckstein or his usual patient reading ofnumerous drafts, and his constant and provocative questioning which made this papermuch better than it would have been otherwise. I would also like to thank the othermembers of the committee for my M.A. thesis (whence this article had its origins) -Professors K.G. Holum and G.P. Majeska for salutary advice and criticism. For theirinput and advice on earlier drafts, thanks also go to Professors R. Morstein-Marx, K.H.Raaflaub, he members of the George Washington Universtiy Seminar on Ancient Medi-terranean Culture, Shannon Duffy and Vera and George Kovtun. The views expressedhere, or course, are entirely my own and any errors that remain are due to my ownnegligence or instransigence.

1 E.g. most recently, G.B. Miles, Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome (Ithaca, 1995), 92-93

with n.49.2 Again, most recently, Miles, Livy (as in n. 1), 93 n.49: "As to when Livy actually began

and first completed his first pentad, here remains considerable dispute."3 T.J. Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade," TAPA 96 (1965), 209-40.

Historia, Band XLIX/4 (2000)? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart


3/19

430 PAUL J. BURTON

ments (and those of his followers), as well as answering some of the charges of

his critics. In the next section, the implications of Luce's findings will be drawnout and combined with an overlooked piece of internal evidence to yield aplausible new starting date. The final section ties this evidence in with a freshinterpretation of some further nternal evidence from the second half of the firstdecade to suggest a new schedule of composition, publication, and republica-tion of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita.

Insertions and the Dating of the First Pentad

The traditional view that Livy began composing his history between 27 and 25B.C.4 is based on two important passages from the first pentad:

Bis deinde post Numae regnum [Ianus] clausus fuit, semel T. Manlioconsule post Punicum primum perfectum bellum, iterum, quod nostraeaetati di dederunt ut videremus, post bellum Actiacum ab imperatore Cae-sare Augusto pace terra marique parta (1.19.3).

"Twice since Numa's reign has the temple of Janus been closed: once in theconsulship of T. Manlius, after the conclusion of the First Punic War; thesecond time, which the gods permitted our own generation to witness, wasafter the War of Actium, when the emperor Caesar Augustus had broughtabout peace on land and sea."

Omnes ante me auctores secutus, A Cornelium Cossum tribunum militumsecunda spolia opima Iovis Feretrii templo intulisse exposui; ceterum,praeterquam quod ea rite opima spolia habentur quae dux duci detraxit,nec ducem novimus nisi cuius auspicio bellum geritur, titulus ipse spoliisinscriptus illos meque arguit consulem ea Cossum cepisse. Hoc ego cum

4 The bibliography is immense: L.R. Taylor, "Livy and the Name Augustus," CR 32(1918), 159; L. Amundsen, "Notes to the Preface of Livy," SO 25 (1947), 34 (Prefacewritten after 27 B.C.); P.G. Walsh, "Livy's Preface and the Distortion of History," AJPh76 (1955), 369-70, "Livy and Augustus," PACA 4 (1961), 29 and 36 n.39, and Livy: HisHistorical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1963), 8 and n.2; M.L.W. Laistner, TheGreater Roman Historians Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), 77; H. Petersen, "Livy andAugustus," TAPA 92 (1961), 451 n.61; H.J. Mette, "Livius und Augustus," Gymnasium68 (1961), 275; A.D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of theRoman Historians and Philosophers, vol. I (Amsterdam, 1963), 194 (Preface written ca.

25 B.C.); T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies n Literary Conventions Stockholm,1964), 73; E. Mensching, "Livius, Cossus und Augustus," Museum Helveticum 4 (1967),22; J. Korpanty, "Sallust, Livius und Ambitio," Philologus 127 (1983), 68 (Prefacewritten in 27 B.C. or shortly thereafter); E. Gabba, "The Historians and Augustus," nCaesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, edited by F. Millar and E. Segal (Oxford, 1984), 79(Preface written between 27 and 25 B.C.).


4/19

The Last Republican Historian 431

Augustum Caesarem, templorum omnium conditorem aut restitutorem, in-

gressum aedem Feretri Jovis, quam vetustate dilapsam refecit, se ipsum inthorace linteo scriptum legisse audissem, prope sacrilegium ratus sumCosso spoliorum suorum Caesarem, ipsius templi auctorem, subtraheretestem. Quis ea in re sit error, quod tam veteres annales quodque magis-tratuum libri, quos linteos in aede repositos Monetae Macer Licinius citatidentidem auctores, septimo post demum anno cum T. Quinctio Poeno A.Cornelium Cossum consulem habeant, existimatio communis omnibus est.Nam etiam illud accedit, ne tam clara pugna in eum annum transferriposset, quod imbelle trienniumferme pestilentia inopiaquefrugum circa A.

Cornelium consulemfuit, adeo ut quidam annales velutfunesti nihil praeternomina consulum suggerant. Tertius ab consulatu Cossi annus tribunumeum militum consulari potestate habet, eodem anno magistrum equitum;quo in imperio alteram insignem edidit pugnam equestrem. Ea liberaconiectura est, sed, ut ego arbitror, vana; aversari enim omnes opinioneslicet, cum auctor pugnae recentibus spoliis in sacra sede positis, Jovemprope ipsum, cui vota erant, Romulumque intuens, haud spernendos falsitituli testes, se A. Cornelium Cossum consulem scripserit (4.20.5-11).

"Following all previous historians, I have stated that A. Cornelius Cossuswas a military tribune when he brought the second spolia opima to thetemple of Jupiter Feretrius. But besides that only those are properly held tobe spolia opima which one commander has taken from another commander,and that we know no "commander" but him under whose auspices the war iswaged, the very words inscribed upon the spoils disprove their account andmine, and show that it was as consul that Cossus captured them. Since Ihave heard it said that Augustus Caesar, the founder or renewer of all thetemples, had entered the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius, which he rebuilt when ithad crumbled with age, and had himself read the inscription on the linen

corselet, I have thought it almost sacrilege to rob Cossus of such a witnessto his spoils as Caesar, the builder of that very temple. Where the error inthis matter lies, insofar as such ancient annals and the books of the magis-trates, which, written on linen and stored in the temple of Moneta, LiciniusMacer continually cites as his authorities, only have A. Cornelius Cossus asconsul, along with T. Quinctius Poenus, seven years later, is a matter ofopinion available to all. And this too can be added, that such a famous battlecannot be transferred o that year, since in the three year period around thetime when A. Cornelius was supposed to have been consul there was almost

no war due to pestilence and famine, to such a degree that certain annals, asthough obituary notices, reveal nothing except the names of the consuls.The third year after the consulship of Cossus has him listed as militarytribune with consular power, and in the same year, master of the horse; inthis capacity he fought another famous cavalry battle. This is open conjec-


5/19

432 PAUL J. BURTON

ture, but, so I believe, useless; for it is meet to turn aside all opinions when

the man who fought the battle, after laying the recently-won spoils in theirsacred resting place, and testifying before Jove himself, to whom they hadbeen vowed, and Romulus - hardly witnesses of a false inscription to betaken lightly - wrote that he was A. Cornelius Cossus, consul."

From the use of the name Augustus in both passages, scholars have deducedthat Books 1-4, or, more generally, the first pentad, cannot antedate 13 January27 B.C., when Octavian received that title from the Senate.5 Further, becauseAugustus' first closing of the temple of Janus in 29 B.C. is mentioned at 1.19.3,but not the second, which took place in 25 B.C. after the princeps returned fromSpain, it follows that the first pentad must have been composed roughly be-tween 27 and 25 B.C.6

Since the publication of T.J. Luce's groundbreaking study of these twopassages in 1965,7 however, the traditional dating has become perilously inse-cure - if not entirely discredited. Luce, building on an accretion of observationsaround W. Soltau's suggestion of 1894 that the passages at 1.19.3 and 4.20.5-11 were, in fact, later insertions,8 convincingly argued that both the reference tothe closing of the temple of Janus (1.19.3), and the dispute over Cossus' rankwhen he deposited the spolia opima (4.20.5-1 1) were indeed later insertions

from a second edition of Livy's first pentad. His arguments are worth reproduc-ing in full.

As Dessau suggested as early as 1906,9 the dispute over Cossus' rankshould be viewed against the background of another controversy of more

5 Aug. RG 34.2; Suet. Div. Aug. 7.2; Dio 53.16.6-8.6 Aug. RG 13; Suet. Div. Aug. 22; Dio 51.20.4 (the closing of 29 B.C.); Aug. RG 13; Suet.

Div. Aug. 22; Dio 53.26.5 (the closing of 25 B.C.). H. Dessau, "Die Vorrede des Livius,"in Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfeld Berlin, 1903), 465, believed that he second closing wasintentionally omitted by Livy for reasons of tact: Augustus' wo closings in the space of 4years, compared to the two previous closings over the course of 724 years, will havedeprived the ceremony of its dignity, and on this basis did not bear mentioning by Livy.Thus, Dessau believes that 25 B.C. is not a valid terminus ante quem for the compositionof the first pentad. His argument, however, is oversubtle, and presupposes a rather hortmemory on the part of Livy's audience. It has attracted, o my knowledge, no supporters.

7 See above, n. 3.8 W. Soltau, "Einige nachtragliche Einschaltungen n Livius' Geschichtswerk," Hermes 29

(1894), 611-12, followed by J. Bayet, ed., Tite-Live Histoire Romaine, Tome I, Livre I

(Paris, 1961), xvii-xviii; R. Syme, "Livy and Augustus," HSCP 64 (1959), 43; Petersen,"Livy and Augustus" as in n. 4), 440.

9 H. Dessau, "Livius und Augustus," Hermes 41 (1906), 144-49; followed by R. Syme, TheRoman Revolution Oxford, 1939), 404-405, and "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 44;Petersen, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 4), 440; F.V. Hickson, "Augustus Triumphator:Manipulation f the Triumphal Theme n the Political Program f Augustus," Latomus 50(1992), 124-38; Miles, Livy (as in n. 1), 40-41; disputed by Walsh, "Livy and Augustus"(as in n. 4), 29 and 36 n.39.


6/19


contemporary relevance. In 29 B.C., M. Licinius Crassus (the grandson of the

triumvir) slew the Bastarnian chieftain Deldo while serving as a proconsularlegate of Octavian in Macedonia, and in the following year, claimed the right tolay the spolia opima. Octavian refused his claim on the ground that Crassus wasnot an imperator in supreme command (i.e., waging war under his own auspic-es) when he killed his opponent.10 But Octavian's excuse was blatant fiction, asthe precedent of A. Cornelius Cossus made clear: the latter, some (perhapsCrassus himself) probably argued, was only a military tribune when he laid thespolia opima in 437 B.C. Objection on this ground was evidently silenced byOctavian's claim that, during his restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius,he "discovered" Cossus' corselet, on which was clearly inscribed the rank ofconsul. The anachronistic use of the title "consul," and the unlikelihood thatlinen could have survived or remained decipherable for over 400 years in arecently dilapidated temple, clearly indicate that Octavian's "evidence" wasmanufactured. This convenient fiction allowed Octavian to discredit Crassus'claim, and thus to prevent glory from accruing to anyone but himself. 1 Becausethe identical argument from rank is reproduced by Livy (4.20.6: see above), andbecause Octavian (now Augustus) took the trouble to communicate the messageto him - if only indirectly (4.20.7: audissem)12 - it is clear that this passagegrew out of the Crassus controversy. That it was inserted after Book 4 had beenwritten up is proven by a glaring inconsistency that occurs only a few chapterslater, where Livy repeats his assertion that Cossus was a military tribune whenhe won the spolia ([A. Cornelius] t r i b u n u s m i I i t u m ... spolia opimaIovis Feretrii templo intulerit: 4.32.4), even though he has just deferred toAugustus' position (4.20.1 1). Because inconsistencies of this sort are unparal-leled in Livy's history,'3 the earlier passage must be a later, hasty insertion,awkwardly placed in the middle of his narrative'4 with no attempt to reconcile itto the rest of the text.

10 Dio 51.24.4: cai x6v ye PaitXa am&6v Ae)4ova axto6; 6 Kpcaioo; dxlbKtcVe d&v aaxciXa ai)xoi3 x 4perpicp Adt d Kic 6kirta dvEOiKev, eticep aiAOKipatWp CnpatiiTOeyeyovet ("Crassus, by his own hand, also slew their king Deldo; and he would have alsodedicated his spoils to Jupiter Feretrius which are known as the spolia opima - if onlyhe had been a general n supreme command").

11 The arguments re Dessau's "Livius und Augustus" as in n. 9), 149.12 E. Badian, "Livy and Augustus," Xenia 31 (1993), 16, suggests that Livy read of the

discovery of Cossus' corselet in the senatorial digest, or heard t at a contio.13 Luce "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n. 3), 213-14, rightly points out that this

is not one of Livy's usual kinds of errors (mistranslation, confusion in reconcilingsources, geographical errors, etc.), and is especially incongruous after the careful anddeliberate argumentation f 4.20.5-11.

14 As Luce "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" (as in n. 3), 216, notes, Livy only everrecords discrepancies n thefasti at the beginning of each year (cf. 2.18.4-7, 54.3; 4.23.1-3), and not in the middle of his narrative, uch as occurs at 4.20.5-11.


7/19

434 PAUL J. BURTON

Respondents to this hypothesis have not been lacking. As early as 1961,Walsh suggested that the inconsistency between 4.20.5-11 and 4.32.4 need notpresuppose an insertion theory; rather, t was intentionally left in, and designedto discredit the validity of Augustus' testimony.15 On the surface, this seems aplausible argument, and better still, appeals to our sense of justice, whichcannot but be outraged by Augustus' cynical manipulation of historical evi-dence to serve his own political ends. But herein lies the problem: with thisinterpretation, we may be projecting unduly our own feelings of pique onto ourauthor. In fact, a closer look reveals that Walsh's is an unnecessarily difficultreading of the evidence, and one that brings problems of its own. Of course it ismore reassuring and more generous to Livy to relieve him of the charge ofinconsistency;16 but such a generous assessment carries with it an equallyserious charge - that such a conscientious scholar as Livy would use his text asa vehicle to indulge in polemics of a curiously petty and underhand nature.Mensching believes he finds traces of just such viciousness and disingenuous-ness at 4.20.7, where Livy states, prope sacrilegium ratus sum Cosso ... Cae-sarem ... subtrahere testem.17 But can this be an ironic veiled accusation thatAugustus is a "temple-robber"?18 Livy himself states quite clearly at 4.20.11why he thinks suppression of this evidence would be sacrilege: it would be anoffense against Romulus and Jupiter to assign Cossus a rank other than the onehe himself swore before those gods that he held. 19 The solution of Miles is evenmore convoluted: he believes the inconsistency was left in as part of a rhetoricalstrategy to show the reader how arbitrary and futile historical interpretation s,given the uncertainty of the evidence. Thus Livy criticizes Augustus onlyinsofar as the latter has quite arbitrarily imposed a definitive solution onevidence that cannot sustain such precision. Ultimately Miles' treatment of thedifferent ways of explaining the inconsistency between 4.20.5-11 and 4.32.4results in a non-solution - and another dead end: "each of these readings isavailable to informed and thoughtful readers, as the variety of interpretations of

this passage by modern scholars amply confirms."20

15 Walsh, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 4), 30; followed by Mensching, "Livius, Cossus undAugustus" as in n. 4), 18; J. Briscoe, "The First Decade," n Livy, edited by T.A. Dorey(London, 1971), 1 1; Miles, Livy (as in n. 1), 40-47.

16 As Miles, Livy (as in n. 1), 45-46.17 "I think it would be sacrilege to deprive Cossus of a witness in Caesar..."18 Mensching, "Livius, Cossus und Augustus" as in n. 4), 14.19 Ea libera coniectura est, sed, ut ego arbitror, vana; aversari enim omnes opiniones licet,

cum auctor pugnae recentibus spoliis in sacra sede positis, lovem prope ipsum, cui votaerant, Romulumque intuens, haud spernendosfalsi tituli testes, se A. Cornelium Cossumconsulem scripserit ("This s open conjecture, but, so I believe, useless; for it is meet toturn aside all opinions when the man who fought the battle, after aying the recently-wonspoils in their sacred resting place, and testifying before Jove himself, to whom they hadbeen vowed, and Romulus hardly witnesses of a false inscription o be taken lightly -wrote that he was A. Cornelius Cossus, consul").

20 Miles, Livy (as in n. 1), 46.


8/19


Better to jettison such over-subtle and difficult readings of 4.20.5-11 and

4.32.4 in favor of acknowledging a simple inconsistency, no matter how ungen-erous to Livy this may seem. In fact, in the larger context it is not all thatungenerous after all. A single inconsistency of this sort in the entire extant textof the Ab Urbe Condita does not make Livy a bad historian in general - acommonsense proposition often lost sight of by the proponents of the lectionesdifficiliores. On the natural, most obvious reading, it is easy to see how thisaccident happened: the insertion was prepared n haste and Livy, engrossed in alater section of his massive project, did not have the time to re-check the entiresubsequent text for other references to Cossus and his rank in 437 B.C.21

Because the passage at 1.19.3 entails no such inconsistency, it is moredifficult to prove that it too is an insertion. Nevertheless, scholars have drawnattention to the fact that its removal greatly improves the logical progression ofthought from 1.19.2 to 1.19.4.22 At 1.19.2, Livy narrates Numa's constructionof the temple of Janus, and explains that its opening and closure is an index ofwar and peace resepectively; he then abruptly looks ahead to the closings ofManlius and Augustus at 1.19.3 (our passage), only to return to the narrative ofNuma's initial closure and the pacification of Rome's enemies at 1.19.4. YetLivy's mention of the temple of Janus being closed in peacetime at the very endof 1.19.2 would be most logically followed by Numa's actual pacification ofRome's enemies and closing of the temple at the very beginning of 1. 19.4. Livyhas inserted the sentence 1.19.3 in between two sentences which were clearlyintended to follow each other in the original version. The slip in logic isextremely awkward and, so far as I know, unparalleled in Livy.

Thus the two passages that contain references to Augustus' reign in Livy'sfist pentad - 1. 19.3 and 4.20.5-1 1 - are probably late insertions, performed byLivy between 27 and 25 B.C., and have no bearing on the issue of when Livyfirst started writing. Livy must have begun composition of his Ab Urbe Conditamuch earlier. For his part, Luce concludes that Livy probably began writingaround the time of the Battle of Actium (2 September 31 B.C.), or perhapsbefore, and had published the first version of the first pentad by 27 B.C., afterwhich point (but before 25 B.C.) he made hasty corrections/insertions andpublished a second edition.23

Thus far we have seen that the successive studies of Soltau, Bayet, Syme,Petersen, and Luce have seriously damaged the integrity of the traditional

21 Cf. R.M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965), 563-64. Recall howoften cross-references n modern cholarly works of much smaller scope (and despite theaid of electronic word-processing) end to lose their accuracy n transition rom draft tomanuscript o publication tages.

22 The suggestion s made, but not argued or by Bayet, Tite-Live Histoire Romaine as in n.8), xvii. For fuller explication, see Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n. 3),218 and 232, and Badian, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 12), 18.

23 Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n. 3), 238.


9/19

436 PAUL J. BURTON

criteria for dating the start of Livy's project. Ever since 1940, when Bayet first

promulgated a theory of a "second edition" of the first pentad of the Ab UrbeCondita, published between 27 and 25 B.C. complete with the insertions,24 newcriteria for dating the first edition have been sought. Bayet himself suggestedthat the first edition should perhaps be dated to ca. 31-29 B.C. since, in thepassage on Romulus' construction of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (1.10.6),Augustus' restoration is not mentioned.25 Further, n the next sentence (1.10.7)on Romulus' laying of the spolia opima, there is no mention of Crassus beingrefused the honor. Thus 29 B.C. - the year Crassus made his claim after slayingDeldo - is a good terminus ante quem for Livy taking up his pen. But Syme and

Ogilvie (among others) have roundly dismissed Bayet's argumenta ex silen-tio.26 Syme himself has advocated a starting date of 29 B.C., since the debateover Crassus' claim to the spolia opima probably did not occur until theproconsul's return from Macedonia in late 28 B.C., which thus makes a goodterminus post quem for the insertion of 4.20.5-11.27 Syme's argument, how-ever, is weakened by the fact that it ignores the first insertion at 1.19.3, which,because it refers to "Caesar Augustus," on anyone's reckoning (includingSyme's), and assuming that Livy wrote Book 1 before Book 4, still requires astarting date of 27 B.C., or shortly thereafter. Ogilvie essentially echoes Syme's

view, and obviates the flaw in Syme's argument by suggesting that only thename "Augustus" - not the entire passage at 1.19.3 - is a later insertion.28 Thusit is suggested that nothing hinders the use of 29 B.C. as a terminus post quemfor Livy embarking on his composition.29 But, as argued earlier (above, 435),

24 Bayet, Tite-Live Histoire Romaine as in n. 8), xviii-xix. Note that thus far we have onlybeen discussing insertions. Bayet was the first to argue seriously that the "insertion"theory requires he corollary of a second edition.

25 Ibid., xvii-xviii; recall that it is mentioned at 4.20.7 - a passage written after 13 January27 B.C.

26 Syme, "Livy and Augustus" (as in n. 8), 47; Ogilvie, Commentary as in n. 21), 73;Walsh, "Livy and Augustus" (as in n. 4), 29, and Livy (as in n. 4), 6; A.J. Woodman,Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London, 1988), 155 n.90.

27 Syme, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 41 and 45; Badian, "Livy and Augustus" as in n.12), 15. The objection of Petersen, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 4), 451 n.61, that Symereverts to the traditional dating of 27-25 B.C. later in the same article (on pp. 49-50) isbased on a misunderstanding: yme merely says that a final edition of Books 1-5 wasp u b I i s h e d between those dates, not that Livy began composition at that time.

28 Ogilvie, Commentary (as in n. 21), 2 and 94, with addendum rom the 1970 reprint on777.

29 Ogilvie, Commentary as in n. 21), 510, also objects that the harsh climate of civil war inthe 30s B.C. precluded iterary activity in Rome. The examples of Horace, Sallust, andCornelius Nepos are enough to silence this objection. Besides, Livy himself tells us in thePreface that writing history is an antidote to Rome's current lls (Pr. 5). The dating andcontent of the Preface will be dealt with in greater detail in my forthcoming article,"Livy's Preface and its Historical Context."


10/19


1.19.2-4 is logically problematic as it presently stands, and thus the entire

passage in question (1.19.3)-

not just the name "Augustus"-

shows signsof

being an insertion.In 1967, however, E. Mensching rejected all claims that 1.19.3 was a later

insertion, and reposited the traditional starting date of 27 B.C. He furthersuggested that 4.20.5-1 1 was inserted after Augustus' absence in the secondhalf of 24 B.C., shortly before which time Livy's first edition had already beenpublished. He solves the resultant difficulty posed by 1.19.3 (which does notmention Augustus' second closing of the temple of Janus in 25 B.C.) by arguingthat Book 1 was published by itself in 27 B.C., and was never republished alongwith the rest of the pentad.30 As will be argued below, this is an unlikelyscenario. Yet, even if Mensching's point about Book 1 is conceded, the final-ized edition of the first pentad cannot have appeared as late as 24 or 23 B.C.,since, as Luce has shown, Livy's silence on the negotiations for the return of theParthian standards, and his plea for the perpetuation of civil peace in his famous"Alexander digression" (9.18-19), provide an excellent terminus ante quem forthe publication of the entire first decade by 23 B.C. In that year the Parthianking began negotiations for the return of the standards in exchange for his son,who had fallen into the hands of the Romans via the treachery of Tiridates, apretender to the Parthian hrone.3' In the extremely partisan context of 9.18-19,Livy would have been anxious to lord the Parthian king's weak bargainingposition (and cowardly offer to return the standards without a fight) over thelevissimi ex Graecis (9.18.6), who believed that the Parthians were betterfighters than the Romans. Instead, he resorts to rather desperate rhetoric toprove them wrong (9.19.15-17), implying that civil war has prevented theRomans from avenging Crassus and Antony.32 This evidence shows the impos-sibility of Mensching's timetable: Livy simply could not have written fourfurther books (Books 6-9) between the republication of the first pentad in 24B.C. and before the negotiations for the return of the Parthian standards in 23

B.C.Mensching has not won the day for the old traditional dating scheme, and

Luce's thesis that Livy started writing perhaps before Actium and completedthe first edition of the first pentad by 27 B.C. has proved resilient.33 Refine-ments have been proffered, but with mixed success. Woodman believes that

30 Mensching, "Livius, Cossus und Augustus" as in n. 4), 22.31 Dio 53.33.1-2; Justin 42.5.32 Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n. 3), 227-30.33 Luce has reiterated his position in his Livy: The Composition of his History (Princeton,

1977), 5 n.5, and "Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum," n Between Republic andEmpire: Interpretations f Augustus and His Principate, edited by K.A. Raaflaub and M.Toher (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990), 124; he is most recently followed by Miles,Livy (as in n. 1), 92-93 n.49 and 95.


11/19

438 PAUL 1. BURTON

Livy definitely began writing before Actium,34 while Badian has suggested that

Book 1 was published no later than 30 B.C., and that the entire first pentad wascomposed between 30 and late 28 B.C. J. Moles, on his own admission, canoffer no definitive solution, but suspects that Book 1 predates 27 B.C., but doesnot necessarily predate Actium; thus for him 29-28 B.C. seems about right for astarting-point.35 With few exceptions,36 therefore, scholars have reached avague consensus (rightly, in my opinion) that the canonical dating of 27-25B.C. for Livy beginning his history is too late and should be dropped in favor ofan earlier date. But how much earlier? Unfortunately, no secure date has beenproposed in its place.

Towards a New Starting Date: Livy 1.56.2

At this point, I should like to introduce a neglected piece of evidence fromLivy's first book that may uncover a more precise starting date for the composi-tion of his history. In the midst of his account of the construction of the CloacaMaxima and the addition of seats to the Circus Maximus by Tarquinius Super-bus, Livy states quibus duobus operibus [sc. cloaca maxima et fori circimaximi] vix nova haec magnificentia quicquam adaequare potuit (1.56.2).37

Although the attribution of these two projects to the Tarquinii was already well-entrenched when Livy began writing his history of the kings,38 Livy's criticaloutburst is most unusual in a passage otherwise given over to rather dryannalistic notices.39 Its contemporary relevance may be secured by the follow-ing notice in Dio:

34 Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (as in n. 26), 132.

35 J. Moles, "Livy's Preface," PCPhS 39 (1993), 151 and 166 n. 56; his argument isweakened by his failure to account for the insertion at 4.20.5-11, and certainly gains nostrength rom his vague suspicion that a few passages in Books 3 and 5 "look post-27."

36 Mensching, "Livius, Cossus und Augustus" as in n. 4), 22; R. von Haehling, Zeitbezugedes T. Livius in der ersten Dekade seines Geschichtswerkes: nec vitia nostra nec remedia

pati possumus (Stuttgart, 1989), 19 and n.47; and Gabba, "The Historians and Augustus"(as in n. 4), 79, have evidently remained unconvinced by Luce's arguments.

37 "Our new, modern magnificence can hardly provide a match for these two works."38 Cf. Dion. Hal. 4.44.1; De Vir. Ill. 8.3 for the fori, assigned to the reign of Tarquinius

Superbus this work was actually a continuation of earlier activity under Priscus: Livy1.35.8; Dion. Hal. 3.68.1); Dion. Hal. 3.67.5, 4.44.1; Strabo 5.3.8 (=235 C); Dio 49.43;De Vir Ill. 8.3 for the Cloaca Maxima, also assigned to the reign of Superbus, althoughPliny NH 36.106 assigns its construction o the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. Ogilvie,

Commentary as in n. 21), 214, is surely wrongto invoke

PlinyNH 36.104 in support of

his assertion hat the Cloaca Maxima was unanimously ssigned to the reign of Superbus:nothing is said about who built the Cloaca Maxima at 36.104, whereas 36.106 clearlyassigns the work to the reign of Priscus. Livy 1.38.6 indicates hat drainage of the forumarea was ongoing since Priscus' time.

39 1.56-57 treats nternal affairs after the account of the fall of Gabii at 1.55.


12/19


Tco6 ucrmppw te- [i.e., 33 B.C.] ayopav6o; 6 'Aypinia; e1cbv yFtVEo0,

icat lavta gv tico8ogtparara'zcowcz

nda;aat; 68ou';, I8ev sictooib TIoiou ka,Xcv, ntealcreucaze, oV5 X? runovo6ou; ?EicdOipp, xaatEq tov Tipwptv & avr&v lbcXeiiuae. iciv xCxico8p6gB a0aXXog&vout?oi; iv9ptnLou; np' tO TOv 61LIaUXwv ptegoeov pQ0v roU; X?e iX?tiva;cKa &a woct68i,6 toupyifjata icarean-raro, oncos&t' au't6v ai nrepio5ot'rd.v nept5po`wv adva5etiMvi(ovtat (49.43.1-2).

The next year Agrippa agreed to be made aedile, and without takinganything from the public treasury repaired all the public buildings and allthe streets, cleaned out the sewers, and sailed through them underground

into the Tiber. And seeing that in the Circus men made mistakes about thenumber of laps completed, he set up the dolphins and egg-shaped objects,so that by their aid the number of times the course had been circled might beclearly shown to all.

Could these be nova haec magnificentia to which Livy refers? Ogilvie pointsout that, in terms of grammar, Livy's words must refer not to the generalsplendor of Rome in his own day, but specifically to the condition of the CloacaMaxima and the seats in the Circus Maximus.40 f Dio means by toi; vnovoWou;the Cloaca Maxima, the coincidence of the same two monuments in the twopassages certainly will be striking; but because Dio's statement is vague on thispoint, we need further proof. The statement of Pliny the Elder, that cloacas ...navigata[s] M. Agrippae in aedilitate [sc. 33 B.C.] post consulatum (NH36. 104),4l secures the identification of the cloacas specifically with the CloacaMaxima since he shortly afterwards remarks hat whenever the Tiber floods, theriver's backwash enters the cloacae and begins making its way upstream (NH36.105). The Cloaca Maxima, of course, drained directly into the Tiber.42

But there is still a problem: both Pliny and Dio mention Agrippa's naviga-tion, and Dio his cleaning of the sewer, while Livy refers to construction. Some

concrete physical alterations to the Cloaca Maxima are required for a preciseparallel between Livy and Dio. What exactly was Agrippa attempting to accom-plish? Strabo provides more explicit evidence for the nature of Agrippa's workin the sewers: Jov i.e., the sewers] rXeiaM ?'tg?Xctav 'oir'oaaro M.'Aypii-na; (5.3.8 [=235 C]).43 This evidence suggests restoration and/or expansion ofthe sewer's capacity. The archaeological record tends to support this interpreta-

40 Ogilvie, Commentary as in n. 21), 214.41 "The sewers [were] sailed [i.e., inspected] in the aedileship of M. Agrippa, after his

consulship."42 Cf. S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford,

1929), 126; L. Richardson r., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Balti-more, 1992), 91.

43 "M. Agrippa avished the most care on the sewers."


13/19

440 PAUL J. BURTON

tion. Much of the existing stone used in the drain's construction and part of the

course of the sewer itself are datable to the time of Agrippa's project. Archaeol-ogists have detected two distinct phases of construction dating from the middleto late Republic, and have associated the second phase with Agrippa's recon-struction. It is also possible that Agrippa rebuilt the section of the drain thatskirts the basilica Aemilia on the west side, thence turning to the south-west andrunning to the Velabrum.44 The large blocks of Gabine stone which comprisethe walls of the sewer's lower course can also be attributed to the time ofAgrippa's reconstruction since this expensive stone was used in Rome onlyfrom the time of Julius Caesar until the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.45

Taken together this evidence, despite its limitations, strongly supports Strabo'stestimony that Agrippa did a considerable amount of work on the CloacaMaxima.

Thus minor modifications to the Circus occur in both Livy's account of thereign of Tarquinius Superbus and in Agrippa's aedileship of 33 B.C., as doesmajor work on the Cloaca Maxima (the original construction in Livy, andsignificant reconstruction in Agrippa's aedileship). Livy's striking aside, thatthe modern wonders of these monuments cannot hold a candle to the originalconstructions, strongly suggests that this passage was being written whenAgrippa was inspecting and repairing the Cloaca Maxima, and affixing eggsand dolphins to the racecourse in the Circus in 33 B.C. The remark indicatesthat some well-publicized work had been done recently on these monuments -and betrays a healthy skepticism about the value of that work when compared tothe original constructions. Because there is no literary and/or archaeologicalevidence for comparable, simultaneous work on the two monuments duringLivy's lifetime, it is my belief that he must be referring to the activities ofAgrippa's aedileship, and that such a remarkable coincidence implies that Livybegan writing in about 33 B.C.

Unfortunately, nova haec does not permit such precision. Agrippa's modi-fications could still be considered novel in 32, or even as late as 27 B.C., ourterminus ante quem for the first edition. Yet unless Agrippa's work and itspublicity were fresh in Livy's mind when he wrote the passage at 1.56.2, therewould be no reason to make the comment without further elaboration. Now, aswe have seen, Livy was not above introducing awkward anachronisms into hisnarrative of events of remote antiquity (cf. 1.19.3); but his cynical outburst hereis completely bereft of context. In contrast with the passage at 1.19.3, there isno mention of who was responsible for nova haec magnificentia, the nature ofthe changes, or even why the contemporary occurrence bears mentioning. Likethe modern scholar who has access to comparative texts, a contemporaryreader, pouring over Livy's words, might have caught the reference a few years

44 Platner and Ashby, Topographical Dictionary (as in n. 42), 127.45 Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary as in n. 42), 91.


14/19


after Livy wrote the passage. But the further ahead we push its composition, the

more jarring its effect becomes. Moreover, we must keep in mind that mostpeople were exposed to Livy's work through public recitation.46 This is espe-cially true of the first book, when Livy was testing the waters of literary opinionin Rome on his new venture.47 The risk that his audience might miss the subtlerelevance of his comment amidst a dense, fast-moving narrative of the regalperiod becomes correspondingly greater the further ahead we push its composi-tion. Moreover, restoration, reconstruction, and fresh building were ongoing inRome throughout this period, and a new set of aediles performed duties similarto those of Agrippa in 33 B.C. every year. As Dio makes clear, it was not thescale or magnificence of Agrippa's work that made it noteworthy; rather, t wasthe fact that he performed his duties without recourse to the public treasury.Again, both Dio and Pliny find it most remarkable that Agrippa agreed todescend the cursus honorum and hold an aedileship in 33 B.C., despite hisconsular standing. The passage of time will have blunted the relevance ofLivy's comment, even if it did not completely obscure its meaning. Perhaps thebest reason for pressing an early dating for the passage is the fact that Livy'scomment will have seemed especially incongruous after the summer of 31 B.C.,when fire consumed a large part of the Circus (Dio 50.10.3), and downrightconfusing after Octavian later repaired the damage.48

What is left, then, is a range of possible dates for Livy starting his project -between 33 B.C. and summer 31 B.C. - with the weight of probability stronglyinclining towards the earlier date. A glance back at an early suggestion of Bayetconcerning the temple of Jupiter Feretrius may help secure a starting date of 33B.C. As noted earlier (above, 436 and n. 25), Bayet has suggested that Livy'ssilence on Augustus' restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in his

46 See the cogent prefatory remarks of Cameron and the essay by M.J. Wheeldon, "'TrueStories:' The Reception of Historiography n Antiquity," n History as Text: The Writing

of Ancient History, edited by A. Cameron Chapel Hill, 1990), 34-63, esp. 35, 56-59.47 Syme, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 56.48 RG. 19.1; Cassiod. Var. 3.51.4 for the restoration, which must have taken place after

Octavian returned o Rome in 29 B.C. Although Augustus himself only claims credit forrestoring he Pulvinar ad Circum Maximum, box on the Palatine ide where the imperialfamily and visiting dignitaries sat alongside the regalia and exuviae (symbols) of thegods, Cassiodorus ndicates hat he scale of Augustus' reconstruction was much greaterindeed consonant with the extent of the fire damage. Perhaps also to be viewed in thiscontext is the obelisk Augustus mported rom Heliopolis and set up on the spina of theCircus, now in Piazza del Popolo (Pliny NH 36.71; Amm. Marc. 17.4.12; see Platner andAshby, Topographical Dictionary [as in n. 42], 115, and Richardson, New TopographicalDictionary [as in n. 421, 85, for evidence and discussion). In any event, I cannot agreewith Ogilvie, Commentary as in n. 21), 215, that nova haec magnificentia at Livy 1.56.2refers to Augustus' restoration ather han Agrippa's since, for the passage to make sense,Livy must be referring o simultaneous work on both the Cloaca Maxima and the CircusMaximus as indeed Ogilvie himself insists (214).


15/19

442 PAUL J. BURTON

account of the original construction (1.10.6) may indicate that the passage was

written before the restoration. But Bayet's dating of Augustus' work on thetemple to 31 B.C. must be pure speculation, since evidence that would lead himto such a date is entirely lacking. And another date immediately suggests itself.In his Vita Attici, Cornelius Nepos informs us that, accidit, cum aedis lovisFeretrii in Capitolio, ab Romulo constituta, vetustate atque incuria detectaprolaberetur, ut Attici admonitu Caesar eam reficiendam curaret (20.3).49When did this exchange take place? The terminus ante quem is 31 March 32B.C. - the date of Atticus' death (Nepos Vita Att. 22.3). A terminus post quem isnot easy to discover, but 37 B.C. (the year of the betrothal of Atticus' daughter

to Agrippa: Nepos Vita Att. 12.1-2) is serviceable. Now Octavian was appar-ently working on the temple in 29 or 28 B.C. when he "discovered" Cossus'corselet.50 It is doubtful that he was working on this one temple for eight ormore years (37-29 or 28 B.C.): after all, Livy calls him the author or restorer ofa I1 t h e t e m p 1e s (omnium templorum conditor aut restitutor: 4.20.7),possibly as early as 27 B.C. So he must have had other projects. This suggeststhat Atticus' request to Octavian should be assigned to a period closer to theformer's death, perhaps in 33 or early 32 B.C., and that the work was ongoingwhen the corselet of Cossus was "discovered" in 29 B.C. That the restoration

may have taken as many as three or four years need occasionno

surprise,since

Nepos states that the temple was in a sorry state (detecta prolaberetur; cf. Livy4.20.7: dilapsam). Moreover, in the Res Gestae, Augustus himself uses theword feci ("I built"), not refeci ("I rebuilt"), to describe his work on thetemple.5' Thus, it is not inconceivable that Octavian began restoration, atAtticus' request, in late 33 or early 32 B.C., and continued until 29 or 28 B.C.,when he "discovered" Cossus' corselet. Under this scenario, Livy did notmention Octavian's major rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius becauseit had not been started when he began writing in 33 B.C.52

Admittedly the evidence surrounding the reconstruction of the temple ofJupiter Feretrius should not be pressed since it is based on Livy's silence at1.10.6, and what can only be an inferential reconstruction derived from an

49 "It happened that when the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol, founded byRomulus, was falling into ruin and was roofless through old age and neglect, on Atticus'advice, Caesar ook care to have it restored."

50 See above, 433 and Livy 4.20.7. The uncertainty f the date is due to the fact that it isunknown when Crassus made his request o lay the spolia opima in Macedonia by letterin 29 B.C., or after his return o Rome in late 28 B.C.

51 RG 19.2. Livy's testimony s contradictory: e says Augustus refecit the temple, but in thesame sentence, calls the emperor he auctor of the temple (4.20.7).52 And not, as Syme, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 46, suggests, because "Livy did not

want to disfigure the annals of early Rome ... by the continual obtrusion of modern namesand modern incidents." After all, Livy did not hesitate to mention the closing of thetemple of Janus n 29 B.C. at 1.19.3, and nova haec magnificentia at 1.56.2.


16/19


obscure anecdote in Nepos (Vita Att. 20.3). Nevertheless, for the present pur-poses, it suffices that the scenario I have outlined here at least coheres with mycontextualization of Livy 1.56.2. For more substantial support for my view, wemust turn to the more practical issues of production and publication of Livy'sAb Urbe Condita.

Livy's Rate of Production and Schedule of Publication

Thus far the concern has been only with internal evidence that is useful fordating purposes. The next logical step is to tie this material together within areasonable timetable of composition and publication. Scholars generally agreethat because a new Preface appears at the beginning of Book 2 (2.1.1-6), Livy'sfirst Book containing the history of the kings was probably originally publishedas a discrete unit.53 This second Preface does not merely introduce the novusstatus of the Republic, but, like its predecessor, offers Livy an opportunity forpersonal reflection. After a brief programmatic statement of his new theme(libertas: 2.1.1), and a summary judgment on the predecessors of TarquiniusSuperbus (2.1.2), Livy asserts in propria persona that if Brutus had chosen toassassinate any of the previous kings, the resultant chaos would have destroyedthe still politically unsophisticated ancient population of Rome (2.1.3-6). Theseprogrammatic remarks and personal reflections mark a clean break with whatLivy had previously written, and a fresh start for what was to come. A thirdformal Preface at 6.1.1-3 clearly marks the division between the first andsecond pentads.54

The dates of the composition and publication of the individual units areuncertain because the internal evidence is so meager. In the absence of a moresecure method of gauging Livy's rate of composition, scholars have simplydivided his total output of 142 books by the span of his professional life -

estimated at about 45-50 years (from ca. late 30s/early 20s B.C. until his deathin A.D. 17) - in order to determine a likely rate of production. On thisreckoning, about two and a half to three books per year seems right.55 But oneshould avoid positing a uniform rate of production. Luce has stressed that the

53 Bayet, Tite-Live Histoire Romaine as in n. 8), xix; Petersen, "Livy and Augustus" as inn. 4), 441; Walsh, Livy (as in n. 4), 6; Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n.3), 210 n.2; Badian, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 12), 18.

54 Syme, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 30; Mette, "Livius und Augustus" as in n. 4),275; Luce, Livy (as in n. 33), 3; Briscoe, "The First Decade" as in n. 15), 1. Briscoe notes

that the words ab secunda origine (6.1.3) are a clear indication of a new pentad. I thinkLivy's declaration quinque ibris [res] exposui (6.1.1) is an even stronger ndicator.

55 Syme, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 39 and 79 n.51; Luce, "The Dating of Livy's FirstDecade" (as in n. 3), 230, and Livy (as in n. 33), 139; Haehling, Zeitbezuge des T. Livius(as in n. 12), 20; Badian, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 3), 18.


17/19

444 PAUL J. BURTON

earlier books will have taken longer to write as the novice historian slowly

acquainted himself with his material and the rudiments of his genre, and begandeveloping a personal style.56 It might also be noted that the earlier books tendto be longer;57 hey are also more carefully structured and written. Furthermore,it is not unreasonable to suppose that the first book was first published by itselfin order to test the reaction of the Roman literary establishment to the latestproject of one of its newest members (cf. above and n. 47). Livy will havelavished much time and effort on his first major literary effort, perhaps solicit-ing the opinions of his audience and incorporating changes along the way.

By balancing the internal evidence for a starting date of 33 or early 32 B.C.

against the probable publication schedule and rate of production, a quite satis-factory scheme for the composition of Livy's early books can be conjectured.Book 1 was probably begun sometime in 33 B.C. (after Agrippa's repairs on theCloaca Maxima, navigation of the sewers, and cosmetic improvements on theCircus Maximus, and perhaps before Octavian started work on the temple ofJupiter Feretrius), and took Livy into the following year. After an initialpublication and/or recitations, and some fine-tuning, Livy decided that hisproject was worthwhile, and proceeded to write the rather engthy Books 2 and3. This probably will have taken him to the end of 31 B.C. The following two

books will not have taken as long to compose, since they are shorter, and, in alllikelihood, Livy was gathering momentum as he was becoming more comforta-ble with the mechanics of his craft. Thus, Books 4 and 5 were probably finishedby the end of 30 B.C. At some point after the trial publication of Book 1, Livywrote his elaborate Preface to the whole work.58

Internal evidence from the second pentad reinforces this scheme. At 7.40.2Livy states nondum [i.e., 342 B.C.] erant tam fortes ad sanguinem civilem necpraeter externa noverant bella, ultimaque rabies secessio ab suis habebatur.59The sentiment is bitter, unexpected, and redolent of recent troubles. On thedating scheme just proposed, and assuming Livy's rate of production was bynow about two to two and a half books a year, this passage will have beenwritten sometime in 29 B.C. Now it is clear that Livy himself, as early as 27-25B.C., believed that the civil wars ended with Augustus' closing of the temple ofJanus in 29 B.C. (ab imperatore Caesare Augusto pace terra marique parta:

56 Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" as in n. 3), 230, and Livy (as in n. 33), 139.57 See P.A. Stadter, "The Structure f Livy's History," Historia 21 (1972), 304-305, for a

tabulation of the text length (in pages of Teubner ext) for each book. A passing glanceindicates that the first pentad s about 20% longer than each of the other extant pentads.

Book 3 itself is the longest of the extant books, weighing in at an impressive 761/2

Teubner pages.58 On this last point, see my "Livy's Preface and its Historical Context," orthcoming.59 "Men were not yet so inured to civil bloodshed, nor did they know anything beyond

external wars, and secession from their own people was considered the worst form ofmadness."


18/19


1.19.3). A further notice at Per. 133 suggests that Livy believed Augustus'capture of Alexandria in 30 and his triple triumph of 29 B.C. also signified thepoint "when an end was imposed on the civil wars, in the twenty-secondyear."60 His remark at 7.40.2 would not be out of place in this context, when thebitter memories of civil war were still fresh, and the final peace still precar-ious.61

The second piece of internal evidence from the second pentad that is usefulfor dating purposes - the references to the Parthians in the "Alexander digres-sion" in Book 9 - demands, at the very least, a date before the negotiationsbetween Rome and Parthia for the return of the standards of Crassus andAntony in 23 B.C. (see above, 437). However, Livy's tacit admission that thecivil wars are recently over tends to push the date further back towards 30/29B.C., the year Livy believed the civil wars had ended.62 The scheme outlinedhere can easily accomodate these requirements. Assuming that Livy completedBook 7 by late 29 or early 28, Books 8-10 may have been completed by ca. 27/26 B.C., long before the Parthian disgrace was atoned for.63 The first pentadwas then corrected (between 27 and 25), as testified to by the insertions at1.19.3 and 4.20.5-1 1, perhaps in time to be republished in conjunction with thejust completed second pentad. The final edition of Books 1-10 will haveappeared before 25 B.C.

60 Caesar Alexandria in potestatem redacta, Cleopatra, ne in arbitrium victoris veniret,voluntaria morte defuncta, in urbem reversus tres triumphos egit, unum ex Illyrico,alterum ex Actiaca victoria, tertium de Cleopatra, mposito ine civilibus bellis altero etvicesimo anno. This latter date, incidentally, ndicates that Livy believed the civil warsbegan in 50 B.C., when the Senate's first measures against Caesar were passed.

61 Cf. Woodman, Rhetoric n Classical Historiography as in n. 26), 134.62 Civilia bella sileant ... Mille acies graviores quam Macedonum tque Alexandri avertitavertetque, modo sit perpetuus huius qua vivimus pacis amor et civilis cura concordiae("Let the civil wars be silent ... A thousand battle arrays more fierce than those of theMacedonians and Alexander have the Romans beaten off, and shall continue to do so, ifonly this present ove of peace and care for domestic concord persist:" .19.15-17). Luce,"The Dating of Livy's First Decade" (as in n. 3), 230-31, notes that "Livy's ferventprayer at the end of the [Alexander] excursus .. suggests that the civil wars were recentand that Augustus' rule was still quite new ... The later the passage is dated, the morepeculiar the passionate vehemence becomes: unflattering o the government and to theemperor, mpolitic for the writer."

63 Badian, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 12), 19, dates the "Alexander digression" o "26/5," based on a likely rate of production rom his preferred tarting date of 30 B.C. Usinga more flexible rate of production which allows more composition time for the earlybooks), and employing a likely starting date of 33/32 B.C., as I have done here, permits usto push the date of this passage back a year.


19/19

446 PAUL J. BURTON

Conclusion

In this study of the dating of Livy's first pentad, I have argued that despitecertain advances in scholarly thinking on the matter, the problem of when Livybegan composing his Ab Urbe Condita has resisted a satisfactory solution. Theforegoing analysis has built on earlier insights in an attempt to establish, for thefirst time, a consistent and definitive assessment of all the relevant internalevidence provided by Livy's text. Combining previous theories about insertionsinto and republication of Livy's text with a hitherto neglected piece of internalevidence - the passage at Livy 1.56.2 - I hope to have shown that Livy began

composing his monumental history of Rome in 33 or early 32 B.C.If my hypothesis is correct, much of the debate surrounding the historian's

motivations, beliefs, allegiances, and prejudices must be rethought since hisproject was conceived and begun when the Roman Republic was in its final,violent death throes, and not, as has been traditionally assumed, in the first flushof peace and the Augustan reconstruction. Livy took up his pen when the worldof the Republic - the only one he had ever known - was tottering on the edge ofdestruction, not when it was being "restored." This realization compels us toread the early portions of Livy's text with special care and with new eyes, and

invites us to study his ideology from an entirely different perspective. I hopethis article is a first step on that road, and I encourage Livian scholars to re-examine Livy's Ab Urbe Condita in light of the fact that Livy was not anAugustan historian, but indeed "the last Republican historian."64

University of Maryland at College Park Paul J. Burton

64 The phrase s Syme's, "Livy and Augustus" as in n. 8), 53.

burton, p - livy, last republican historian

Documents