Livy, books II. and III online

. (page 1 of 25)
Online LibraryLivyLivy, books II. and III → online text (page 1 of 25)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook




S d 2

fc si

J u. O ^

^? 0. J *

>- J -OQ

I S s

r 03 ' ' _L

M-i 3 ^ . D

O w S o

H J -

H 1 | | d

CO m 2



h> "

C ^










or THE





All rights reserved.


First Edition 1882.
Reprinted i886j 1894, 1897


THIS edition is intended mainly for the higher
classes in schools. The text is Madvig's (Madvig
and Ussing, 1873).

In the notes all that I have attempted is to
explain what appeared to require explanation, to
point out facts of Latin style in general, and Livian
style in particular, and here and there to translate.
In such translations as I have given, my aim has
been to excite in the minds of school-boys some
dissatisfaction with that comfortable jargon of con-
struing English, in the use of which they are still
so liberally encouraged by some editors of classical
authors. I have purposely avoided loading the
notes with etymologies, having found, as a matter
of experience, that such scattered etymologies are
of little practical use in teaching that elementary
portion of philology which is all that can be at-
tempted in schools.

H. M. S.

S. L.




TEXT . , .

NOTES ..,> 175




THE second and third books of Livy's history con-
tain his account of the doings of the Roman people in
the period between the expulsion of the Kings and the
overthrow of the Decemvirate. This account is simply
his version of the narratives of the older annalists, prin-
cipally those of the Sullan epoch, Valerius Antias and
Licinius Macer 1 . It seems impossible to prove that
these narratives, when they dealt with events before
390 B.C., contained anything more than what must be
called traditional history, or that they were based, to
anything more than a limited extent, on contemporary
documents. Such evidence may have been accessible to
the annalists in regard to a few, but a very few facts.
As detailed histories, therefore, the work of these annal-
ists, and consequently that of Livy, must be regarded as
untrustworthy. On the other hand, it is difficult to

1 For a concise but full account of the sources of the early
Roman history, see Prof. Seeley's Livy, Bk. i. Introduction,
pp. 1120.

viii IN TROD UG T10N. I.

believe that the traditional account did not contain a
substratum of historical truth. In endeavouring
to extract this substratum, all that historians can do
is to regard as probably true, firstly, those state-
ments which apparently may have been based on
extant documents (e.g. the treaty with the Latins
alluded to by Cicero as existing in his time
pro Balbo, c. 23) ; secondly, those statements of hu-
manly possible events in which the historians agree,
and which, being not self-contradictory, are rendered
more or less probable by what we know of the con-
temporary history of other nations, by the subsequent
development of the Roman nation itself, by the insti-
tutions and customs of later times, and by the facts of
language. In the brief abstract that follows I have
given what Dr Mommsen regards as the most pro-
bable account of the main historical events of the

At the time of the expulsion of the kings, the
Etruscans were about at the height of their power.
They possessed the islands of Aethalia, Corsica, and
Sardinia, while, in alliance with the Carthaginians,
they held supremacy in the Tuscan and Adriatic seas.
In Italy they not only held their extensive territory
north of the Tiber, but possessed also a large portion
of Campania, while the Yolscian towns on the sea-
coast were subject to them. Latium thus divided them
by land from their Italian dependencies. Accordingly,
taking advantage of the weakness that naturally
followed the violent overthrow of the monarchy,
Lars (or Larth) Porsinna (or Porsena) of Clusiuin
invaded Latium. The city was surrendered, the


people forbidden the use of iron 2 , except for agri-
cultural purposes, and it seemed as if Rome were
about to sink permanently into the condition of a
dependency of Etruria. Prom this it was saved by
the Italian Greeks. Porsinna, owing to the in-
tervention of the Greeks of Cumse, suffered a repulse
under the walls of Ariel a, which seems to have been
the turning-point in the war. How the war ended or
how long the Romans remained in their abject con-
dition it is impossible to say, but it is clear that the
Etruscans were not able to establish themselves per-
manently on the left hand of the Tiber. Some twenty
years after this the Romans appear engaged in a ten
years' war with Yeii, in the course of which the Pabian
clan perished. This was terminated by a truce for
forty years (Livy n. 54), by which apparently Rome
regained in relation to the Etruscans the same po-
sition she had held under the kings. By this time the
Etruscan power had begun to decline. The Gauls
were threatening them in the North; and at sea the
Sicilian Greeks, who began their victorious career by
the defeat of the Carthaginians on the same day on
which the battle of Salamis was fought, were robbing
them of their supremacy in the Tuscan waters, as later
on the Tarentines supplanted them in the Adriatic.
Under pressure of all these adverse forces the power
of Etruria rapidly declined, and its ultimate subjection
to Rome became merely a question of time 3 . The
annalists represented the invasion of Porsinna as un-
dertaken for the purpose of restoring the Tarquins.

2 Tac. Hist. in. 72 ; Pliny, N. H. xxxiv. 139.

3 Mommsen, Vol. i. pp. 150, 329340.


That the latter and their friends should have made
attempts to procure their restoration is in the highest
degree probable, and the account of Livy (n. cc. 3 7,
19 20) describing such attempts, and indicating a
division of feeling on the subject among the Latin
towns, as well as in Rome itself, may contain a his-
torical fact 4 . But the statement that Porsinna's in-
vasion was undertaken with this object refutes itself.
For, notwithstanding his complete success, he retired,
according to the narrative, without effecting the very
object for which he set out from home. Livy himself
could hardly have believed that the charming exploits
of Scsevola and Claelia accounted satisfactorily for such
a change of purpose 5 .

As soon as Rome recovered from the Etruscan
defeat, she became engaged in wars with the neigh-
bouring peoples. Yolscians and Auruncans, u^Equians,
Sabines, all appear at war with her, the names of her
foes varying according as the annalists drew from the
records of one Roman family or another. Whether
these fought as clients or allies of the Etruscans, or on
their own account as rival claimants for the supremacy
which the removal of Etruscan pressure had thrown
open to competition, it is impossible to say. But
tradition and inherent probability would incline us to
believe that the struggle must have been a fierce one,
and that Rome must often have been near destruc-
tion. It must be remembered that in speaking of
Rome in connexion with these wars, we mean Rome
as the head of the Latin cities, which shared with her

4 Mommsen, Vol. i. p. 349. 5 IMd. Vol. i. p. 256 n.


the burden of her wars. The league, which was per-
haps shaken by the events that accompanied the
revolution, was renewed by Sp. Cassius in B.C. 493,
and strengthened subsequently by the admission of the

But Rome was in even greater danger from fight-
ings within than from fightings without her walls.

The revolution had been the joint work of patricians
and plebeians under pressure of a tyranny that affected
both. But the results to the two portions of the com-
munity were very different. The patricians and their
representative body, the senate, became the governing
body in the state. The plebeians soon discovered that
they had only exchanged one master for many. As
long as the danger of a renewal of the late tyranny re-
mained, it served no doubt to hold together the burgess
body and the 'fragments' for the time being in an
artificial and unnatural alliance. But as that danger
passed away the two antagonistic bodies soon fell
asunder and settled into their natural positions. On
the one side were the fully-privileged burgesses, con-
taining within them a few plebeian families detached
from their own order by senatorian privileges (Livy,
II. 1. 10), on the other, the unprivileged or semi-
privileged mass. The former furnished from their
numbers the magistrates who governed the whole
community. The latter formed numerically the largest
portion of the governed body. They had the privilege
no doubt of voting for the magistrates. But even
supposing that they could succeed, in spite of pa-
trician influence in the comitia and actual patrician
checks on the elections, in securing the patrician


magistrate whom they desired, the advantage was
neutralised, if not nullified, by the limitations on the
power of the chief magistrates, which necessarily fol-
lowed on the revolution. Nominally successors to the
royal authority, the consuls soon became practically the
officials of the senate, to whom they were responsible
at the expiration of their year of office. The essential
feature even of the Valerian laws the Magna Charta,
as they have been called, of Rome is the depression of
the consular authority, and when it is remembered that
the senate by traditional custom possessed the right of
preparing and authorising beforehand all business for
the comitia, while the patrician portion of it possessed
the privilege of confirming or rejecting all the decisions
of the people, it will be clear that the supreme ex-
ecutive body in the state was the practically patrician
senate, and the consuls little more than chairmen of
that body. Here then in the political division of the
community into two antagonistic bodies, in the con-
centration of all authority, legislative, executive,
judicial and religious, in patrician hands, and the con-
sequent patrician bias in legislation, government, and
the administration of justice (and that at a time
when no code of written law as yet existed), lay a
grave danger to the young republic. But this danger
was intensified by the social division of the people into
rich and poor, and the stupid indifference shown by
the governing class to the material welfare of the mass.
Under the kings it seems probable, as Mommsen con-
jectures, that plebeians as well as patricians were
allowed to use the public pastures ; but under the re-
public the principle was established that only full


burgesses were entitled to enjoy the domain land (ager
publicus). Further than this, the rent formerly paid
for the cattle grazing on the public pastures was
gradually allowed to fall into abeyance, while the
assignations of land to poorer burgesses and plebeians
were practically discontinued. Instead of this, the
custom of occupation in heritable tenancy of large
portions of the ager publicus was introduced. The
poorer members of the community and, speaking
generally, the plebeians thus suffered loss in two ways.
They were not only deprived of a source of livelihood,
but they had to bear a heavier burden of taxation, in
consequence of the cessation of income to the state
from the pastures. Under the pressure of these diffi-
culties, combined with the necessity of military service,
they fell into the power of the capitalists, from whom
they were obliged to borrow, and under the severe
Roman law of debt became in most cases slaves or at
least serfs of their creditors. In other words, the
farmer and yeoman classes of Rome were beginning to
be transformed into a class of villeins.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that the only
chance of salvation for the state lay in the plebeians
discovering in time their real power, and extorting
political recognition from the patricians. That power
lay in the simple fact that the patricians could not do
without them. They formed numerically far the larger
portion of the community, and they furnished the bulk
of the Roman armies. The accounts of the annalists,
who dovetail together wars and agitations, are no doubt
imaginative in the extreme, but they are so far true to
history that they record the consciousness of the people,
S. L. b


that it was the wars of Rome which taught the plebeians
their own value and importance. When once this was
learnt and the commons had made up their minds to
act on the knowledge, the exclusive position of the
patricians was sapped, and the equalization of the orders
became only a matter of time. How the first step was
taken it is impossible to say for certain. It must have
been by some action on the part of the plebs which ex-
pressed their determination either to be recognised
and protected in the community to which they nomi-
nally belonged, or to leave it. A secession would have
been a very simple way of making that declaration,
and, but for the variations in the accounts of the
traditional secession, it might be regarded as historical.
But whatever form the declaration of revolt took, the
immediate results are clear and unmistakeable. The
plebeians returned to Eome with the right to elect
annually from their own number officials of their own,
whose recognised right and duty it was to cancel the
command of any patrician magistrate by which any
plebeian considered himself to be aggrieved 6 . The
details of the tribunician power, so far as they can be
determined or conjectured, have been dealt with in the

6 " The power of the tribunes therefore primarily involved
the right of putting a stop at their pleasure to acts of ad-
ministration and to the execution of the law, of enabling a
person bound to military service to withhold himself from the
levy with impunity, of preventing or cancelling the arrest of
the condemned debtor, or his imprisonment during investiga-
tion, and other powers of the same sort.... The tribunes how-
ever could not prohibit the judge from pronouncing his
sentence, the senate from adopting its decree, or the centuries
from giving their votes." Mommsen, i. 281.


notes on various passages in the second book. It will
be sufficient to say here, that these officers, subordinate
to whom were the plebeian sediles or record-keepers,
were not magistrates in the proper Roman sense, but
recognised leaders or captains of the plebs, with the
rights mentioned above. The plebs however having
now learnt its power, it was not likely that their
captains should continue to hold the comparatively
humble position originally accorded to them. It is
pretty clear that the tribunes rapidly acquired or
assumed an appellate criminal jurisdiction 7 and a right
of initiating legislation 8 . The latter was recognised '
and confirmed when by the lex Valeria Horatia (iii.
55) Plebiscita were made binding on all the people.

But the tribunate was not a satisfactory solution
of the political difficulty, and it was less satisfactory,
the more the power of the tribunes increased. The
parallel authority led to perpetual collision, and re-
duced the city of Rome to what may be described as
a condition of intermittent civil war. The history of
the people in times of peace during the period between
the institution of the tribunate and the appointment
of the decemvirs, is a history of street riots, mur-
ders, and violations of magisterial dignity, of banish-
ments and emigrations. The capitol was seized, and
Rome threatened by a band of political refugees and
slaves ; the tribune Genucius was murdered because
he was powerful enough to threaten the consuls ; and
Sp. Cassius was put to death, because his agrarian
law, based on broad principles of equity and good

7 For the causes which led to this, see Mommsen, i. 282.

8 See note on Livy, n. 56.


statesmanship, offended the selfishness of all classes in
the state. It became evident, even to the more sober-
minded of the plebeians, that either the struggle be-
tween consuls and tribunes must cease, or the republic
perish. If the patricians could not do without the
plebeians, the plebeians could not dispense with the
patricians, and if the growing power of the tribunate
drove all but poorer plebeians out of Rome, these
might find that they had been tribuned out of their
political existence. Could not some means be devised
whereby this perpetual conflict between the arbitrary
jurisdiction of the patrician magistrates and the per-
sonal interference of the tribunes could be obviated ?
If the magistrates were bound and restricted in the
exercise of their functions by a code of laws embodying
in it the rights of the commons, then the necessity for
the tribunician interference would be materially dimi-
nished. Even if the tribunes became unnecessary al-
together, and the patricians demanded as the price of
their consent to a code that the tribunate should be
abolished, even that the wiser plebeians felt would be
preferable to the present anarchy. So when the pro-
posal of Tarentilius Harsa was made, to appoint five
men to draw up such a code, the struggle protracted
for ten years between the extreme patricians, who
thought they could reduce the tribunate without sub-
mitting to a code, and the extreme plebeians, who
thought that they could reduce the consular powers
without surrendering the tribunate, ended in a com-
promise, by which ten men were elected to draw up a
code of laws. These decemvirs until their work was
completed were to act as supreme magistrates, super-


seding the consuls. Meanwhile the tribunate and the
right of appeal were suspended. The history of the
Decemvirate is well known. The moral of it is simple.
The patrician decemvirs took pains to shew what
the commons might expect from patrician magistrates
restricted by a code of laws, and the leaders of the
commons were not slow to take advantage of the
lesson. The attempted union of the orders was dis-
persed. The decemvirs were driven from power, the
old form of government restored, and the tribunate
re-established with increased dignity and power, and
under more binding sanctions than before 9 .

9 For details of altered position of tribunate see Mommsen,
i. 294.



LIVY had to form a historical style of his own
a style which could live through 150 books, and
make the traditional history of their country so at-
tractive to the Romans of his day as to induce them to
read it attentively and admire, if they did not imitate,
the virtues of their ancestors. There was no existing
model of Roman historic style which could have suited
his purpose. The older Latin annalists were rude
and archaic. Tubero, the contemporary of Sallust,
affected the same style. The style of Sallust himself,
incisive and terse, sometimes even to obscurity, ad-
mirably adapted to biography, or biographical history,
was of very limited use to an historian contemplating
such a work as Livy's. Csesar's despatch style, elabor-
ately nude and artificially frank, skilful as it was,
and skilfully as he used it for his own political pur-
poses, was obviously of but little use as a model to
a general historian. From Cicero, and the other
orators, Livy could derive but little assistance, even in
the purely oratorical parts of his work. There must


be a dramatic element in historical speeches which is
entirely wanting in the advocate's speech. Livy then
had to mould the Roman prose speech to his purposes.
He found in that speech dignity, purity, perspicuity,
and force. What it wanted for his purposes, wa,s
greater elasticity and greater variety. To supply this
deficiency he not only availed himself of the unde-
veloped resources existing, so to speak, within pure
Roman prose, but he took advantage of a tendency
perceptible in his predecessors, notably in Sallust, and
gaining ground in the every-day language of the time
in which he lived the tendency to Grsecise. The
meaning of the term Grsecism as applied to a Roman
writer should be clearly understood. It is not to be
supposed that Livy, or the poets of the Augustan age,
dragged into the Latin language Greek forms of ex-
pression, or Greek terms entirely alien to it, in the
way in which the LXX. translators dragged Hebrew
and other idioms into their Greek. What the former
did was to seize on those idioms of the Latin language
that assimilated to Greek, and produce or extend them
in the same direction, but that, with so much care and
skill, with such artful concealment, so to speak, of the
joints in the process, that the full Grsecism appears as
the natural development of the rudimentary Latin
idiom. When Horace, for example, writes, Omne
cum Proteus pecus egit altos visere monies, we feel
that it is a Graecisrn, but we feel also that the con-
structign is very nearly related to that of cogo with
the infinitive. When, again, Livy vises folio with a
participle, to express the same as XavOavu with a par-
ticiple in Greek, we see that he is Grsecising, but we


wonder that the Roman language did not develop the
idiom, without the assistance of Greek. In addition to
his Grsecism, and more or less in connexion with it,
Livy introduced a poetical element into his style, that
is, a freedom of structure and usage, before his time
considered to be allowable only in poets. The in-
fluence of Virgil on Livy's diction in general is dis-
tinctly traceable.

By these two means, then, in the main Livy
produced these two characteristics which are the dis-
tinguishing features of his style as compared with
Roman prose writers before him. In what follows
I have attempted to describe these characteristics a
little more in detail. For this purpose it is convenient
to consider them under the three heads, of structure,
syntax, and vocabulary; including under the first, pe-
culiarities of arrangement, whether the alternation of
different rhetorical styles, or the arrangement of sen-
tences in a period, or words in a sentence ; under the
second, peculiarities of grammar and construction, the
use of parts of speech in relation to and connexion
with other parts of speech ; under the third, peculiar
uses of single parts of speech ! .

I. Under the head of structure, we notice :
(1) The sudden 2 transition in the narrative parts
of the work from direct to oblique narration, in other
words, the practice of relieving the monotony of a nar-
rative by making the people of whom the author is

1 For wnat follows, I am indebted almost entirely to
Kuhnast, Die hauptpunkte der Livianischen syntax.

2 That is, without any introducing word.


writing tell their own story. This use is limited to
those cases where the thoughts, feelings, passions,
etc. of the people enter into the narrative, e. g. n. ii. 3.

(2) The sudden transition in speeches from
oratio oUiqua to oratio recta, and vice versa, I. 13. 2 ;
n. 7. 9.

(3) Alternation of the periodic, and detached or
open styles, and variety in the lengths of periods.
Livy uses both the periodic and open styles in vivid
description (comp. n. 6. 6 10, with 12. 7 14); the
former is of course more natural where a single or
single man's action is being described, the latter, where
the action is varied or the actors more numerous.
He also uses both long and short periods in quiet nar-
rative, the former where the action is more compli-
cated, especially by the addition of various motives.
Livy's longest period (XLIII. 18. 1 5) describes the
motives of Perseus in planning a campaign. A common
form of period in Livy is where a subordinate sentence
precedes the principal, itself being preceded by a parti-
cipial construction, xxm. 17. 1. But he exhibits great
versatility in his periods, both as regards the arrange-
ment of the subordinate clauses, and the variety of
the constructions used (e. g. in. 57. 2 4).

Characteristic of his periods is a skilful complica-
tion of participles in various constructions (cf. in. 3. 6),

Online LibraryLivyLivy, books II. and III → online text (page 1 of 25)