The Summaries and the Livian Tradition

Over three-quarters of Livy's work (XI-XX, XLVI-CXLII) has been lost, chiefly because few
individuals sought to acquire and read the whole history; an 'essential Livy' existed as
early as a.d. ioo.1 The surviving Periochae, conventionally dated to the fourth century and
covering the entire work except CXXXVI-VII, have been indifferently edited by O. Rossbach,
and the Oxyrhynchus epitome (embracing summaries of XXXVII-XL and XLVIII-LV) has a
commentary by E. Kornemann.2 The nature of the Periochae and their provenance have
been examined by C. M. Begbie, who astringently demolishes assumed theories and
demonstrates our ignorance of this twilight world.3 P. L. Schmidt has extended the scope of
the discussion to consider the connection between Livy's text, the two epitomes, and the
writers of the Livian tradition, with a full account of earlier theories. 4 The relationship of Livy
with these writers of the Livian tradition (Floras, Granius Licinianus, Aurelius
Victor,Eutropius, Festus, Orosius, Cassiodorus, Julius Obsequens) still awaits
comprehensive treatment, but individual studies have clarified the situation. In addition to
Schmidt's book just mentioned, we have Eadie's critical edition of Festus, and Jal's excellent
Introduction to his Bude" text of Floras.5 Millar's scepticism about the possibility
of establishing definitive connections between Cassius Dio and his sources (in the face of the
common belief that Livy is a main source) should also be noted.6
1 Mart. xiv. 190.
2 Rossbach 's text, which appears in the Teubner Livy Volume 4 (19 10) and is
reproduced in Vol. XIV of the Loeb edition, is acutely criticized in
the Ph.D. dissertation of R. A. Reid, 'TheManuscript Tradition of the Periochae of Livy'
(Cambridge, 1969, unpublished). For the Oxyrhynchus epitome see E. Kornemann, Die
neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus (Leipzig, 1904).
1 C. M. Begbie, 'The Epitome of Livy', CQ N.s. xvii (1967), 332 ff.
4 P. L. Schmidt, JuliusObsequens und das Problem der Livius-Epitome (Mainz, 1968).
5 J. W. Eadie, The Breviarium of Festus (London, 1967), 70 ff. ; P. Jal in his edition of
Florus (Paris, 1967). Another useful contribution is W. K. Sherwin's 'Livy and the De viris
illustrious', Philol. cxiii (1969), 298 ff.
6 Fergus Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), 34 ff., in reaction against such
assumptions as those of E. Schwartz in RE.

Dass in den erhaltenen Bchern von XXXVI an Livius in grossen Massen steckt, ist eine weit
verbreitete und sehr wahrscheinlich richtige Meinung. Der Beweis ist nicht ganz leicht zu
erbringen, um so weniger, als die Quellenforscher lieber im Leeren gewhlt haben, statt die
viel ntzlichere Arbeit zu leisten, auf der allein eine grndliche Untersuchung ber die
Verzweigung der Tradition aufgebaut werden kann, die Reconstruction nhmlich des Livius
und die Vergleichung dieser Reconstruction mit der sicher als nichtlivianisch erkannten
Tradition.

,

1 RE III 2 (1899), 1699 ff. (= IDEM, Griech. Geschichtsschr., 416ff.); MEYER [n. 2], 610- 12,
cf. 314, n. 3. 4 Col. 1714.

Thal7, wenn ich ihn recht verstehe, und Mette8 sehen das Werk des Livius bis zu seinem
Schlu als Quelle Dios an9. (2) Schwartz kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die dionische
Darstellung in viel hherem Masse unter dem Einfluss der livianischen steht, als

Dios wichtigste Quelle fr die frhe rmische Geschichte war nach SCHWARTZ die
annalistische vulgata sowie auch Dionysios, whrend Livius fr die Bcher 36 bis
einschlielich 54 die Hauptquelle gewesen sei. Dieser habe vor allem die

The Use of Sources

Quellenforschung makes up the vast majority of the literature on Dio,1 but has hardly led
to satisfactory results. It is difficult to see what, if anything, is proved by the retailing of the
same fact by two ancient historians. It certainly does not prove that the later read the earlier
one ; nor does the fact that a later historian gives a different version of an event prove that he
had not read his predecessor. Dio claims to have read nearly all works on Roman history
and later refers to 'the many books which I have read'.2 Passing references to Livy,3
Sallust,4 and Arrian5 (none of them quoted as sources of information) show that, as one
would expect, these writers were familiar figures to him. He could hardly have made such
sweeping claims to wide reading if Livy at least were not included; again there are a couple
of not quite certain references to Plutarch as a source.6 But the only writers who are
unmistakably quoted by name as the source of particular facts are Augustus in his
autobiography (and here the quoted figure is wrong)7 and Hadrian on the deaths of

Vespasian and Antinous.8 Hopeless uncertainties prevail in the field of source-criticism.

Even where a historian quotes a writer by name it is not certain that he had read him, for the
name could have come from an intermediate source. No two historians covering the
same period could fail to record some of the same facts, but what a historian
1 There is no modern bibliography of work directly concerned with Dio. For the older
literature see the 'Jahresberichte' by H. Haupt in Philologus 39-41 (1880-2), 43-44 (1884-5),
Boissevain, vol. i, ci-iii, and Schwartz, 1685. The fullest recent survey is in Fifty Tears of
Classical Scholarship, ed. M. Platnauer (Oxford, 1954), 175-6 and notes.
2 53. 9. 6.
3 67. 12. 4. 4 40. 63.
4 tov rffv iaropim ypdi/iavra. 43. 9. 23 on Sallust's governorship in Africa, his
prosecution for res repetundae and the added shame in toiaura ovyypd.fi- liara avyypdifias
Kal 7roAAa Kal mKpa irepl rwv eKKapirovficv<ov rivds clirdiv ovk efiifirjoaro rip epyip tous
Adyous. The reference is to Sallust's denunciation of rapacity in his historical works, not
to pamphlets allegedly by him. See R. Syme, 'Pseudo-Sallust', MH 15 (1958) 46, on pp.
49-50. Both passages show total ignorance of the chronology of Sallust's writings, for
the first comes under 50 and the second under 46 B.C.
5 69. 15. 1. See p. 70. Note also references to Q.Dellius : 49. 39. 2,&c. ; Asinius Pollio 57.
2. 5 (not explicit) ; Cremutius Cordus : 57. 24. 2, 4 (see p. 85) ; Cluvius Rufus: 63. 14. 3-4,
and Josephus: 66. 1. 4.
6 Fr. 40. 5. See Boissevain, ad loc. (1. 116). Fr. 107. 1,referring to Plutarch's comparison of
Pompey and Agesilaus.
7 44. 35. 3. See p. 85.
8 66. 17. 1 (perhaps referring to a remark by Hadrian) and 69. 1 1. 2 (see p. 61).
actually wrote will have been dictated largely by the character of his own work. No
attempt will be made to discuss Dio's sources as such, though the question inevitably
arises at various points. What can be done more usefully is to discuss some
points about Dio's explicit attitude to his sources and instances of his use of them.
something utterly improbable, the only thing was to disclaim all power ofinterpretation5 or
to resort to the test of common sense.

This he does for instance in giving the reason why Octavian's fleet failed to pursue that of
Pompey after the battle of Lilybaeum in 36 B.C. as he thought and as
was probable (d>s /^ev tyuol So/eei /ecu to ei'/cos ovfifidXXeT<u) it was because they
could not catch themand feared shipwreck; others supposed that Agrippa felt he had
done enough, since he was fighting for Octavian, not for himself. 6 As a supplement to what
appeared in the narrative sources an historian could use what he had seen himself or what
he had heard from others. 7 Dio knew the value of recording his personal experience as
a means of adding weight to his

e.g. Fr. 35. 7-8; compare 38. 13. 5. 6 49. 4. 1. 7 See Avenarius, op. cit. 71 f. 8 49. 36. 4. See
Appendix III. accounts of