The Last Republican Historian: A New Date for the Composition of Livy's First Pentad Author(s): Paul J.

Burton Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 49, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 2000), pp. 429-446 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436595 Accessed: 04/01/2010 05:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 at http://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 printed page 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

THE LAST REPUBLICANHISTORIAN: A NEW DATE FOR THE COMPOSITIONOF LIVY'S FIRST PENTAD*
Introduction This article addresses a rathertechnical matterin the field of Livian studies, but nonetheless one that is crucial for a proper understanding of the ideological thrust of early books of the Ab Urbe Condita. Its main premise is that, in order to understandproperly Livy's political outlook and motivations for writing his history, it is necessary to determine first, as accurately as possible, when he took up his stylus. Thus, as this paper will argue, if he did not begin writing between 27 and 25 B.C. - that is, shortly after Augustus Caesar established the pax Romana and consolidated his power - but rather earlier, Livy cannot properly be called an "Augustan historian" stricto sensu, as many textbooks currently have it.1 The problem is less a chimera than it seems at first - indeed, it has been the source of controversy for the better partof this century, and a solution continues to elude scholars.2 Yet the need to find a solution has been recognized as imperative, and has become particularly acute since 1965, when T.J. Luce published an important article casting doubt on the chronology of the internalLivian evidence by which scholars traditionally date the beginning of Livy's career as an historian.3 The first part of this article is devoted to revisiting and reinforcing Luce's argu*

1 2 3

I would like to thankmy advisorProfessorA.M. Ecksteinfor his usual patientreadingof numerousdrafts, and his constant and provocativequestioning which made this paper much better than it would have been otherwise. I would also like to thank the other members of the committee for my M.A. thesis (whence this article had its origins) ProfessorsK.G. Holum and G.P. Majeska- for salutaryadvice and criticism. For their input and advice on earlierdrafts,thanksalso go to ProfessorsR. Morstein-Marx, K.H. Raaflaub,the membersof the George Washington UniverstiySeminaron Ancient Mediterranean Culture,ShannonDuffy and Vera and George Kovtun. The views expressed here, or course, are entirely my own and any errors that remain are due to my own negligence or instransigence. E.g. most recently, G.B. Miles, Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome (Ithaca, 1995), 92-93 with n.49. Again, most recently,Miles, Livy(as in n. 1), 93 n.49: "As to when Livy actually began and first completedhis first pentad,thereremainsconsiderabledispute." T.J. Luce, "TheDating of Livy's FirstDecade,"TAPA96 (1965), 209-40. Historia,BandXLIX/4 (2000) ? FranzSteinerVerlagWiesbadenGmbH,Sitz Stuttgart

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 drawn out and combined with an overlooked piece of internal evidence to yield a plausible new starting date. The final section ties this evidence in with a fresh interpretationof some furtherinternal evidence from the second half of the first decade to suggest a new schedule of composition, publication, and republication 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 25 B.C.4 is based on two importantpassages from the first pentad: Bis deinde post Numae regnum [Ianus] clausus fuit, semel T. Manlio consule post Punicum primum perfectum bellum, iterum, quod nostrae aetati di dederunt ut videremus, post bellum Actiacum ab imperatore Caesare Augusto pace terra marique parta (1.19.3). "Twice since Numa's reign has the temple of Janus been closed: once in the consulship of T. Manlius, after the conclusion of the First Punic War; the second time, which the gods permitted our own generation to witness, was after the War of Actium, when the emperor Caesar Augustus had brought about peace on land and sea." Omnes ante me auctores secutus, A Cornelium Cossum tribunum militum secunda 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 spoliis inscriptus 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 (Preface writtenafter 27 B.C.); P.G. Walsh,"Livy's Prefaceand the Distortionof History,"AJPh 76 (1955), 369-70, "Livy and Augustus,"PACA4 (1961), 29 and 36 n.39, and Livy:His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1963), 8 and n.2; M.L.W. Laistner, The GreaterRomanHistorians(BerkeleyandLos Angeles, 1963), 77; H. Petersen,"Livyand Augustus,"TAPA92 (1961), 451 n.61; H.J. Mette, "Liviusund Augustus,"Gymnasium 68 (1961), 275; A.D. Leeman,OrationisRatio: TheStylistic Theoriesand Practice of the RomanHistoriansand Philosophers,vol. I (Amsterdam,1963), 194 (Prefacewrittenca. 25 B.C.); T. Janson,Latin Prose Prefaces: Studiesin LiteraryConventions(Stockholm, Helveticum24 (1967), Museum 1964), 73; E. Mensching,"Livius,Cossus undAugustus," 22; J. Korpanty,"Sallust, Livius und Ambitio,"Philologus 127 (1983), 68 (Preface written in 27 B.C. or shortly thereafter);E. Gabba,"The Historiansand Augustus,"in Caesar Augustus:Seven Aspects, edited by F. Millar and E. Segal (Oxford, 1984), 79 (Prefacewrittenbetween 27 and 25 B.C.).

The Last RepublicanHistorian

431

Augustum Caesarem, templorum omnium conditorem aut restitutorem, ingressum aedem Feretri Jovis, quam vetustate dilapsam refecit, se ipsum in thorace linteo scriptum legisse audissem, prope sacrilegium ratus sum Cosso spoliorum suorum Caesarem, ipsius templi auctorem, subtrahere testem. Quis ea in re sit error, quod tam veteres annales quodque magistratuum libri, quos linteos in aede repositos Monetae Macer Licinius citat identidem 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 transferri posset, quod imbelle trienniumferme pestilentia inopiaquefrugum circa A. Cornelium consulemfuit, adeo ut quidam annales velutfunesti nihil praeter nomina consulum suggerant. Tertius ab consulatu Cossi annus tribunum eum militum consulari potestate habet, eodem anno magistrum equitum; quo in imperio alteram insignem edidit pugnam equestrem. Ea libera coniectura est, sed, ut ego arbitror, vana; aversari enim omnes opiniones licet, cum auctor pugnae recentibus spoliis in sacra sede positis, Jovem prope ipsum, cui vota erant, Romulumque intuens, haud spernendos falsi tituli testes, se A. Cornelium Cossum consulem scripserit (4.20.5-11). "Following all previous historians, I have stated that A. Cornelius Cossus was a military tribune when he brought the second spolia opima to the temple of JupiterFeretrius. But besides that only those are properly held to be spolia opima which one commander has taken from anothercommander, and that we know no "commander"but him under whose auspices the war is waged, the very words inscribed upon the spoils disprove their account and mine, and show that it was as consul that Cossus captured them. Since I have heard it said that Augustus Caesar, the founder or renewer of all the temples, had entered the shrine of JupiterFeretrius, which he rebuilt when it had 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 witness to his spoils as Caesar, the builder of that very temple. Where the error in this matter lies, insofar as such ancient annals and the books of the magistrates, which, written on linen and stored in the temple of Moneta, Licinius Macer continually cites as his authorities, only have A. Cornelius Cossus as consul, along with T. Quinctius Poenus, seven years later, is a matter of opinion available to all. And this too can be added, that such a famous battle cannot be transferredto that year, since in the three year period around the time 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, as though obituary notices, reveal nothing except the names of the consuls. The third year after the consulship of Cossus has him listed as military tribune with consular power, and in the same year, master of the horse; in this capacity he fought another famous cavalry battle. This is open conjec-

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 their sacred resting place, and testifying before Jove himself, to whom they had been vowed, and Romulus - hardly witnesses of a false inscription to be taken lightly - wrote that he was A. Cornelius Cossus, consul." From the use of the name Augustus in both passages, scholars have deduced that Books 1-4, or, more generally, the first pentad, cannot antedate 13 January 27 B.C., when Octavian received that title from the Senate.5 Further, because Augustus' 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 returnedfrom Spain, it follows that the first pentad must have been composed roughly between 27 and 25 B.C.6 Since the publication of T.J. Luce's groundbreaking study of these two passages in 1965,7 however, the traditional dating has become perilously insecure - if not entirely discredited. Luce, building on an accretion of observations around W. Soltau's suggestion of 1894 that the passages at 1.19.3 and 4.20.511 were, in fact, later insertions,8 convincingly argued that both the reference to the closing of the temple of Janus (1.19.3), and the dispute over Cossus' rank when 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 reproducing in full. As Dessau suggested as early as 1906,9 the dispute over Cossus' rank should 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 Vorrededes Livius," in Festschriftzu OttoHirschfeld(Berlin, 1903), 465, believed thatthe secondclosing was intentionallyomittedby Livy for reasonsof tact:Augustus'two closings in the space of 4 years, comparedto the two previous closings over the course of 724 years, will have deprivedthe ceremonyof its dignity, and on this basis did not bearmentioningby Livy. Thus, Dessau believes that25 B.C. is not a valid terminus ante quem for the composition of the first pentad.His argument,however, is oversubtle,and presupposesa rathershort to memoryon the partof Livy's audience.It has attracted, my knowledge,no supporters. 7 See above, n. 3. Hermes29 in Einschaltungen Livius' Geschichtswerk," 8 W. Soltau, "Einigenachtragliche
(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,"HSCP64 (1959), 43; Petersen, "Livy and Augustus"(as in n. 4), 440. 9 H. Dessau, "LiviusundAugustus,"Hermes41 (1906), 144-49; followed by R. Syme, The RomanRevolution(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,"AugustusTriumphator: of Themein the PoliticalProgram Augustus,"Latomus50 of Manipulation the Triumphal (1992), 124-38; Miles, Livy(as in n. 1), 40-41; disputedby Walsh,"Livyand Augustus" (as in n. 4), 29 and 36 n.39.

The Last RepublicanHistorian

433

contemporary relevance. In 29 B.C., M. Licinius Crassus (the grandson of the triumvir) slew the Bastarnian chieftain Deldo while serving as a proconsular legate of Octavian in Macedonia, and in the following year, claimed the right to lay the spolia opima. Octavian refused his claim on the ground that Crassus was not an imperator in supreme command (i.e., waging war under his own auspices) when he killed his opponent.10But Octavian's excuse was blatant fiction, as the precedent of A. Cornelius Cossus made clear: the latter, some (perhaps Crassus himself) probably argued, was only a military tribune when he laid the spolia opima in 437 B.C. Objection on this ground was evidently silenced by Octavian's claim that, during his restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, he "discovered" Cossus' corselet, on which was clearly inscribed the rank of consul. The anachronistic use of the title "consul," and the unlikelihood that linen could have survived or remained decipherable for over 400 years in a recently dilapidated temple, clearly indicate that Octavian's "evidence" was manufactured. This convenient fiction allowed Octavian to discredit Crassus' 1 claim, and thus to prevent glory from accruing to anyone but himself. 1 Because the identical argumentfrom rankis reproducedby Livy (4.20.6: see above), and because Octavian (now Augustus) took the trouble to communicate the message to him - if only indirectly (4.20.7: audissem)12 - it is clear that this passage grew out of the Crassus controversy. That it was inserted after Book 4 had been written up is proven by a glaring inconsistency that occurs only a few chapters later, where Livy repeats his assertion that Cossus was a military tribune when he won the spolia ([A. Cornelius] t r i b u n u s m i I i t u m ... spolia opima Iovis Feretrii templo intulerit: 4.32.4), even though he has just deferred to Augustus' position (4.20.1 1). Because inconsistencies of this sort are unparalleled in Livy's history,'3 the earlier passage must be a later, hasty insertion, awkwardly placed in the middle of his narrative'4with no attempt to reconcile it to the rest of the text.
10 Dio 51.24.4: cai x6v ye PaitXa la d&v am&6v Ae)4ova axto6; 6 Kpcaioo; dxlbKtcVe ai)xoi3 x Adt d Kic 6kirta dvEOiKev, eticep aiAOKipatWp CnpatiiTO X4perpicp

axciXa

11 12 13

14

by eyeyovet ("Crassus, his own hand,also slew theirking Deldo; and he would have also dedicatedhis spoils to JupiterFeretrius which are knownas the spolia opima - if only he had been a generalin supremecommand"). are The arguments Dessau's "Liviusund Augustus"(as in n. 9), 149. E. Badian, "Livy and Augustus,"Xenia 31 (1993), 16, suggests that Livy read of the discovery of Cossus' corselet in the senatorialdigest, or heardit at a contio. Luce "TheDatingof Livy's FirstDecade"(as in n. 3), 213-14, rightlypoints out thatthis is not one of Livy's usual kinds of errors (mistranslation,confusion in reconciling sources, geographicalerrors,etc.), and is especially incongruousafter the careful and deliberateargumentation 4.20.5-11. of As Luce "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" (as in n. 3), 216, notes, Livy only ever recordsdiscrepanciesin thefasti at the beginningof each year (cf. 2.18.4-7, 54.3; 4.23.13), and not in the middleof his narrative, such as occurs at 4.20.5-11.

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 not presuppose an insertion theory; rather,it was intentionally left in, and designed to discredit the validity of Augustus' testimony.15 On the surface, this seems a plausible argument, and better still, appeals to our sense of justice, which cannot but be outraged by Augustus' cynical manipulation of historical evidence to serve his own political ends. But herein lies the problem: with this interpretation,we may be projecting unduly our own feelings of pique onto our author. In fact, a closer look reveals that Walsh's is an unnecessarily difficult reading of the evidence, and one that brings problems of its own. Of course it is more reassuring and more generous to Livy to relieve him of the charge of inconsistency;16 but such a generous assessment carries with it an equally serious charge - that such a conscientious scholar as Livy would use his text as a vehicle to indulge in polemics of a curiously petty and underhand nature. Mensching believes he finds traces of just such viciousness and disingenuousness at 4.20.7, where Livy states, prope sacrilegium ratus sum Cosso ... Caesarem ... subtrahere testem.17But can this be an ironic veiled accusation that Augustus is a "temple-robber"?18 Livy himself states quite clearly at 4.20.11 why he thinks suppression of this evidence would be sacrilege: it would be an offense against Romulus and Jupiter to assign Cossus a rank other than the one he himself swore before those gods that he held.19 The solution of Miles is even more convoluted: he believes the inconsistency was left in as part of a rhetorical strategy to show the reader how arbitraryand futile historical interpretationis, given the uncertainty of the evidence. Thus Livy criticizes Augustus only insofar as the latter has quite arbitrarily imposed a definitive solution on evidence that cannot sustain such precision. Ultimately Miles' treatmentof the different ways of explaining the inconsistency between 4.20.5-11 and 4.32.4 results in a non-solution - and another dead end: "each of these readings is available to informed and thoughtful readers, as the variety of interpretationsof this passage by modern scholars amply confirms."20
15 Walsh,"LivyandAugustus"(as in n. 4), 30; followed by Mensching,"Livius,Cossus und Augustus"(as in n. 4), 18; J. Briscoe, "TheFirst Decade,"in Livy,edited by T.A. Dorey (London, 1971), 11; 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 depriveCossus 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 vota erant, Romulumque intuens, haud spernendosfalsi tituli testes, se A. Cornelium Cossum

consulemscripserit ("Thisis open conjecture,but, so I believe, useless; for it is meet to turnaside all opinions when the man who foughtthe battle,afterlaying the recently-won spoils in theirsacredrestingplace, and testifying beforeJove himself, to whom they had been vowed, and Romulus- hardlywitnesses of a false inscriptionto be taken lightly wrote that he was A. CorneliusCossus, consul"). 20 Miles, Livy(as in n. 1), 46.

The Last RepublicanHistorian

435

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 matterhow ungenerous to Livy this may seem. In fact, in the larger context it is not all that ungenerous after all. A single inconsistency of this sort in the entire extant text of the Ab Urbe Condita does not make Livy a bad historian in general - a commonsense proposition often lost sight of by the proponents of the lectiones difficiliores. On the natural, most obvious reading, it is easy to see how this accident happened: the insertion was preparedin haste and Livy, engrossed in a later section of his massive project, did not have the time to re-check the entire subsequent 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 more difficult to prove that it too is an insertion. Nevertheless, scholars have drawn attention to the fact that its removal greatly improves the logical progression of thought from 1.19.2 to 1.19.4.22 At 1.19.2, Livy narratesNuma's construction of the temple of Janus, and explains that its opening and closure is an index of war and peace resepectively; he then abruptly looks ahead to the closings of Manlius and Augustus at 1.19.3 (our passage), only to returnto the narrativeof Numa's initial closure and the pacification of Rome's enemies at 1.19.4. Yet Livy's mention of the temple of Janus being closed in peacetime at the very end of 1.19.2 would be most logically followed by Numa's actual pacification of Rome's enemies and closing of the temple at the very beginning of 1. 19.4. Livy has inserted the sentence 1.19.3 in between two sentences which were clearly intended to follow each other in the original version. The slip in logic is extremely awkward and, so far as I know, unparalleled in Livy. Thus the two passages that contain references to Augustus' reign in Livy's fist pentad - 1.19.3 and 4.20.5-1 1 - are probably late insertions, performed by Livy between 27 and 25 B.C., and have no bearing on the issue of when Livy first started writing. Livy must have begun composition of his Ab Urbe Condita much earlier. For his part, Luce concludes that Livy probably began writing around the time of the Battle of Actium (2 September 31 B.C.), or perhaps before, and had published the first version of the first pentad by 27 B.C., after which point (but before 25 B.C.) he made hasty corrections/insertions and published 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 how

often cross-referencesin modernscholarlyworksof muchsmallerscope (and despite the aid of electronic word-processing) tend to lose their accuracyin transitionfrom draftto to manuscript publicationstages. 22 The suggestionis made, butnot arguedfor by Bayet, Tite-LiveHistoireRomaine(as in n. 8), xvii. For fullerexplication,see Luce, "TheDatingof Livy's FirstDecade"(as in n. 3), 218 and 232, and Badian,"Livyand Augustus"(as in n. 12), 18. 23 Luce, "TheDating of Livy's FirstDecade"(as in n. 3), 238.

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 Urbe Condita, published between 27 and 25 B.C. complete with the insertions,24new criteria for dating the first edition have been sought. Bayet himself suggested that the first edition should perhaps be dated to ca. 31-29 B.C. since, in the passage on Romulus' construction of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (1.10.6), Augustus' restoration is not mentioned.25Further,in the next sentence (1.10.7) on Romulus' laying of the spolia opima, there is no mention of Crassus being refused the honor. Thus 29 B.C. - the year Crassus made his claim after slaying Deldo - 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 silentio.26 Syme himself has advocated a starting date of 29 B.C., since the debate over Crassus' claim to the spolia opima probably did not occur until the proconsul's return from Macedonia in late 28 B.C., which thus makes a good terminus post quem for the insertion of 4.20.5-11.27 Syme's argument, however, 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 (including Syme's), and assuming that Livy wrote Book 1 before Book 4, still requires a starting 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 the name "Augustus"- not the entire passage at 1. 19.3 - is a later insertion.28Thus it is suggested that nothing hinders the use of 29 B.C. as a terminus post quem for Livy embarking on his composition.29 But, as argued earlier (above, 435),
24 Bayet, Tite-LiveHistoire Romaine(as in n. 8), xviii-xix. Note thatthus far we have only been discussing insertions. Bayet was the first to argue seriously that the "insertion" theoryrequiresthe corollaryof a second edition. 25 Ibid., xvii-xviii; recall that it is mentionedat 4.20.7 - a passage writtenafter 13 January 27 B.C. (as 26 Syme, "Livy and Augustus"(as in n. 8), 47; Ogilvie, Commentary 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 and45; Badian,"LivyandAugustus"(as in n. 12), 15. The objectionof Petersen,"Livyand Augustus"(as in n. 4), 451 n.61, thatSyme dating of 27-25 B.C. later in the same article (on pp. 49-50) is revertsto the traditional Syme merely says that a final edition of Books 1-5 was based on a misunderstanding: p u b I i s h e d between those dates, not thatLivy began compositionat thattime. 28 Ogilvie, Commentary (as in n. 21), 2 and 94, with addendumfrom the 1970 reprinton 777. (as 29 Ogilvie, Commentary in n. 21), 510, also objects thatthe harshclimate of civil war in the 30s B.C. precludedliteraryactivity in Rome. The examples of Horace, Sallust, and CorneliusNepos areenoughto silence this objection.Besides, Livy himself tells us in the Preface that writing history is an antidote to Rome's currentills (Pr. 5). The dating and content of the Preface will be dealt with in greaterdetail in my forthcomingarticle, "Livy's Prefaceand its HistoricalContext."

The Last Republican Historian

437

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 signs of 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 further suggested that 4.20.5-1 1 was inserted after Augustus' absence in the second half of 24 B.C., shortly before which time Livy's first edition had already been published. He solves the resultant difficulty posed by 1.19.3 (which does not mention Augustus' second closing of the temple of Janus in 25 B.C.) by arguing that Book 1 was published by itself in 27 B.C., and was never republished along with the rest of the pentad.30 As will be argued below, this is an unlikely scenario. Yet, even if Mensching's point about Book 1 is conceded, the finalized 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 returnof the Parthianstandards,and his plea for the perpetuationof civil peace in his famous "Alexander digression" (9.18-19), provide an excellent terminus ante quem for the publication of the entire first decade by 23 B.C. In that year the Parthian king began negotiations for the returnof the standardsin exchange for his son, who had fallen into the hands of the Romans via the treachery of Tiridates, a pretenderto the Parthianthrone.3' In the extremely partisancontext of 9.18-19, Livy would have been anxious to lord the Parthian king's weak bargaining position (and cowardly offer to return the standards without a fight) over the levissimi ex Graecis (9.18.6), who believed that the Parthians were better fighters than the Romans. Instead, he resorts to rather desperate rhetoric to prove them wrong (9.19.15-17), implying that civil war has prevented the Romans from avenging Crassus and Antony.32This evidence shows the impossibility of Mensching's timetable: Livy simply could not have written four further books (Books 6-9) between the republication of the first pentad in 24 B.C. and before the negotiations for the returnof 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 completed the first edition of the first pentad by 27 B.C. has proved resilient.33 Refinements have been proffered, but with mixed success. Woodman believes that

30 31 32 33

Mensching,"Livius,Cossus und Augustus"(as in n. 4), 22. Dio 53.33.1-2; Justin42.5. Luce, "TheDating of Livy's FirstDecade"(as in n. 3), 227-30. Luce has reiteratedhis position in his Livy: The Compositionof his History (Princeton, 1977), 5 n.5, and "Livy, Augustus,and the ForumAugustum," BetweenRepublicand in Empire:Interpretations Augustusand His Principate,edited by K.A. Raaflauband M. of 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.

438

PAUL 1. BURTON

Livy definitely began writing before Actium,34while Badian has suggested that Book 1 was published no later than 30 B.C., and that the entire first pentad was composed between 30 and late 28 B.C. J. Moles, on his own admission, can offer no definitive solution, but suspects that Book 1 predates 27 B.C., but does not necessarily predate Actium; thus for him 29-28 B.C. seems about right for a starting-point.35 With few exceptions,36 therefore, scholars have reached a vague consensus (rightly, in my opinion) that the canonical dating of 27-25 B.C. for Livy beginning his history is too late and should be dropped in favor of an earlier date. But how much earlier? Unfortunately, no secure date has been proposed 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 from Livy's first book that may uncover a more precise startingdate for the composition of his history. In the midst of his account of the construction of the Cloaca Maxima and the addition of seats to the Circus Maximus by Tarquinius Superbus, Livy states quibus duobus operibus [sc. cloaca maxima et fori circi maximi] vix nova haec magnificentia quicquam adaequare potuit (1.56.2).37 Although the attributionof these two projects to the Tarquinii was already wellentrenched when Livy began writing his history of the kings,38 Livy's critical outburst is most unusual in a passage otherwise given over to rather dry annalistic notices.39 Its contemporary relevance may be secured by the following 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 is weakenedby his failure to accountfor the insertionat 4.20.5-11, and certainlygains no strengthfrom his vague suspicionthat 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,Zeitbezuge
des T. Livius in der ersten Dekade seines Geschichtswerkes: nec vitia nostra nec remedia

pati possumus(Stuttgart,1989), 19 and n.47; andGabba,"TheHistoriansand Augustus" (as in n. 4), 79, have evidently remainedunconvincedby Luce's arguments. 37 "Ournew, modernmagnificencecan hardlyprovidea matchfor 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 continuationof earlier activity underPriscus:Livy 1.35.8; Dion. Hal. 3.68.1); Dion. Hal. 3.67.5, 4.44.1; Strabo5.3.8 (=235 C); Dio 49.43; De Vir Ill. 8.3 for the Cloaca Maxima,also assigned to the reign of Superbus,although Pliny NH 36.106 assigns its constructionto the reign of TarquiniusPriscus. Ogilvie, (as Commentary in n. 21), 214, is surely wrongto invoke Pliny NH 36.104 in supportof assignedto the reign of Superbus: his assertionthatthe CloacaMaximawas unanimously nothing is said about who built the Cloaca Maxima at 36.104, whereas 36.106 clearly assigns the work to the reign of Priscus.Livy 1.38.6 indicatesthatdrainageof the forum area was ongoing since Priscus' time. 39 1.56-57 treatsinternalaffairsafterthe accountof the fall of Gabii at 1.55.

The Last RepublicanHistorian

439

eteTco6 ucrmppw [i.e., 33 B.C.] ayopav6o; 6 'Aypinia; e1cbv yFtVEo0, icat lavta gv tnda; 68ou';, I8ev sic tico8ogtparara'z cowcz Uaat;
toV5 X?runovo6ou; ?EicdOipp, xaat tooib 8TIoiou ka,Xcv, ntealcreucaze, 6ico8p6gB a0aXXog&vou Eq tov Tipwptv & avr&v lbcXeiiuae. iciv xCx t?oi; iv9ptnLou; np' tO TOv 61LIaUXwv ov 'roU;X?e iX?tiva; 6ptegoe 6pQ0v cKa woct68i,6 toupyifjata icarean-raro,oncos&t' au't6v ai nrepio5ot t&a 'rd.vnept5po`wv adva5etiMvi(ovtat (49.43.1-2).

The next year Agrippa agreed to be made aedile, and without taking anything from the public treasury repaired all the public buildings and all the streets, cleaned out the sewers, and sailed through them underground into the Tiber. And seeing that in the Circus men made mistakes about the number of laps completed, he set up the dolphins and egg-shaped objects, so that by their aid the numberof times the course had been circled might be clearly shown to all. Could these be nova haec magnificentia to which Livy refers? Ogilvie points out that, in terms of grammar, Livy's words must refer not to the general splendor of Rome in his own day, but specifically to the condition of the Cloaca Maxima and the seats in the Circus Maximus.40If Dio means by toi; vnovoWou; the Cloaca Maxima, the coincidence of the same two monuments in the two passages certainly will be striking; but because Dio's statement is vague on this point, we need further proof. The statement of Pliny the Elder, that cloacas ... navigata[s] M. Agrippae in aedilitate [sc. 33 B.C.] post consulatum (NH 36. 104),4l secures the identification of the cloacas specifically with the Cloaca Maxima since he shortly afterwardsremarksthat whenever the Tiber floods, the river's backwash enters the cloacae and begins making its way upstream (NH 36.105). The Cloaca Maxima, of course, drained directly into the Tiber.42 But there is still a problem: both Pliny and Dio mention Agrippa's navigation, and Dio his cleaning of the sewer, while Livy refers to construction. Some concrete physical alterations to the Cloaca Maxima are required for a precise parallel between Livy and Dio. What exactly was Agrippa attempting to accomplish? Strabo provides more explicit evidence for the nature of Agrippa's work in the sewers: Jov[i.e., the sewers] rXeiaM ?'tg?Xctav 'oir'oaaro M.'Aypiina; (5.3.8 [=235 C]).43 This evidence suggests restoration and/or expansion of the sewer's capacity. The archaeological record tends to support this interpreta40 Ogilvie, Commentary in n. 21), 214. (as 41 "The sewers [were] sailed [i.e., inspected] in the aedileship of M. Agrippa, after his consulship." 42 Cf. S.B. Platnerand T. Ashby, A TopographicalDictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929), 126; L. Richardson A New Topographical Jr., Dictionaryof AncientRome(Baltimore, 1992), 91. 43 "M. Agrippalavished the most care on the sewers."

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. Archaeologists have detected two distinct phases of construction dating from the middle to late Republic, and have associated the second phase with Agrippa's reconstruction. It is also possible that Agrippa rebuilt the section of the drain that skirts the basilica Aemilia on the west side, thence turningto the south-west and running to the Velabrum.44The large blocks of Gabine stone which comprise the walls of the sewer's lower course can also be attributed to the time of Agrippa's reconstruction since this expensive stone was used in Rome only from the time of Julius Caesar until the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.45 Taken together this evidence, despite its limitations, strongly supports Strabo's testimony that Agrippa did a considerable amount of work on the Cloaca Maxima. Thus minor modifications to the Circus occur in both Livy's account of the reign of Tarquinius Superbus and in Agrippa's aedileship of 33 B.C., as does major work on the Cloaca Maxima (the original construction in Livy, and significant reconstruction in Agrippa's aedileship). Livy's striking aside, that the modern wonders of these monuments cannot hold a candle to the original constructions, strongly suggests that this passage was being written when Agrippa was inspecting and repairing the Cloaca Maxima, and affixing eggs and dolphins to the racecourse in the Circus in 33 B.C. The remark indicates that some well-publicized work had been done recently on these monuments and betrays a healthy skepticism about the value of that work when compared to the original constructions. Because there is no literary and/or archaeological evidence for comparable, simultaneous work on the two monuments during Livy's lifetime, it is my belief that he must be referring to the activities of Agrippa's aedileship, and that such a remarkablecoincidence implies that Livy began writing in about 33 B.C. Unfortunately, nova haec does not permit such precision. Agrippa's modifications could still be considered novel in 32, or even as late as 27 B.C., our terminus ante quem for the first edition. Yet unless Agrippa's work and its publicity were fresh in Livy's mind when he wrote the passage at 1.56.2, there would be no reason to make the comment without furtherelaboration. Now, as we have seen, Livy was not above introducing awkward anachronisms into his narrativeof events of remote antiquity (cf. 1.19.3); but his cynical outbursthere is completely bereft of context. In contrast with the passage at 1.19.3, there is no mention of who was responsible for nova haec magnificentia, the nature of the changes, or even why the contemporary occurrence bears mentioning. Like the modern scholar who has access to comparative texts, a contemporary reader, pouring over Livy's words, might have caught the reference a few years
Dictionary(as in n. 42), 127. 44 Platnerand Ashby, Topographical Dictionary(as in n. 42), 91. 45 Richardson,New Topographical

The Last RepublicanHistorian

441

after Livy wrote the passage. But the furtherahead we push its composition, the more jarring its effect becomes. Moreover, we must keep in mind that most people were exposed to Livy's work through public recitation.46This is especially true of the first book, when Livy was testing the waters of literary opinion in Rome on his new venture.47The risk that his audience might miss the subtle relevance of his comment amidst a dense, fast-moving narrative of the regal period becomes correspondingly greater the furtherahead we push its composition. Moreover, restoration, reconstruction, and fresh building were ongoing in Rome throughout this period, and a new set of aediles performed duties similar to those of Agrippa in 33 B.C. every year. As Dio makes clear, it was not the scale or magnificence of Agrippa's work that made it noteworthy; rather,it was the fact that he performed his duties without recourse to the public treasury. Again, both Dio and Pliny find it most remarkable that Agrippa agreed to descend the cursus honorum and hold an aedileship in 33 B.C., despite his consular standing. The passage of time will have blunted the relevance of Livy's comment, even if it did not completely obscure its meaning. Perhaps the best reason for pressing an early dating for the passage is the fact that Livy's comment 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 downright confusing after Octavian later repairedthe 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 strongly inclining towards the earlier date. A glance back at an early suggestion of Bayet concerning the temple of JupiterFeretrius may help secure a starting date of 33 B.C. As noted earlier (above, 436 and n. 25), Bayet has suggested that Livy's silence on Augustus' restoration of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius in his
46 See the cogent prefatoryremarksof Cameronand the essay by M.J. Wheeldon, "'True Stories:'The Receptionof Historiography Antiquity,"in Historyas Text:The Writing in of AncientHistory,edited by A. Cameron(ChapelHill, 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 Octavianreturned Rome in 29 B.C. AlthoughAugustushimself only claims credit for to restoringthe Pulvinarad CircumMaximum, box on the Palatineside wherethe imperial a family and visiting dignitariessat alongside the regalia and exuviae (symbols) of the gods, Cassiodorusindicatesthatthe scale of Augustus'reconstruction muchgreaterwas indeed consonantwith the extent of the fire damage. Perhapsalso to be viewed in this context is the obelisk Augustusimportedfrom Heliopolis and set up on the spina of the Circus,now in Piazzadel Popolo (Pliny NH 36.71; Amm. Marc. 17.4.12; see Platnerand
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary [as in n. 42], 115, and Richardson, New Topographical

Dictionary [as in n. 421, 85, for evidence and discussion). In any event, I cannot agree with Ogilvie, Commentary in n. 21), 215, thatnova haec magnificentiaat Livy 1.56.2 (as refersto Augustus'restoration ratherthanAgrippa'ssince, for the passageto makesense, Livy must be referringto simultaneouswork on both the Cloaca Maximaand the Circus Maximus- as indeed Ogilvie himself insists (214).

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 the temple to 31 B.C. must be pure speculation, since evidence that would lead him to such a date is entirely lacking. And another date immediately suggests itself. In his Vita Attici, Cornelius Nepos informs us that, accidit, cum aedis lovis Feretrii in Capitolio, ab Romulo constituta, vetustate atque incuria detecta prolaberetur, ut Attici admonitu Caesar eam reficiendam curaret (20.3).49 When did this exchange take place? The terminus ante quem is 31 March 32 B.C. - the date of Atticus' death (Nepos VitaAtt. 22.3). A terminuspost quem is not 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 apparently 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 or more years (37-29 or 28 B.C.): after all, Livy calls him the author or restorerof a I1 t h e t e m p 1 e s (omnium templorum conditor aut restitutor: 4.20.7), possibly as early as 27 B.C. So he must have had other projects. This suggests that Atticus' request to Octavian should be assigned to a period closer to the former's death, perhaps in 33 or early 32 B.C., and that the work was ongoing when the corselet of Cossus was "discovered" in 29 B.C. That the restoration may have taken as many as three or four years need occasion no surprise, since Nepos states that the temple was in a sorry state (detecta prolaberetur; cf. Livy 4.20.7: dilapsam). Moreover, in the Res Gestae, Augustus himself uses the word feci ("I built"), not refeci ("I rebuilt"), to describe his work on the temple.5' Thus, it is not inconceivable that Octavian began restoration, at Atticus' 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 not mention Octavian's major rebuilding of the temple of JupiterFeretrius because it had not been started when he began writing in 33 B.C.52 Admittedly the evidence surrounding the reconstruction of the temple of Jupiter Feretrius should not be pressed since it is based on Livy's silence at 1.10.6, 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 by Romulus,was falling into ruinand was roofless throughold age and neglect, on Atticus' advice, Caesartook care to have it restored." of 50 See above, 433 and Livy 4.20.7. The uncertainty the date is due to the fact that it is unknownwhen Crassusmadehis requestto lay the spolia opima- in Macedoniaby letter in 29 B.C., or after his returnto Rome in late 28 B.C. he 51 RG 19.2. Livy's testimonyis contradictory: says Augustusrefecitthe temple,but in the same sentence, calls the emperorthe 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 wantto disfigurethe annalsof early Rome ... by the continualobtrusionof modernnames and modern incidents."After all, Livy did not hesitate to mention the closing of the temple of Janusin 29 B.C. at 1.19.3, and nova haec magnificentiaat 1.56.2.

The Last RepublicanHistorian

443

obscure anecdote in Nepos (Vita Att. 20.3). Nevertheless, for the present purposes, it suffices that the scenario I have outlined here at least coheres with my contextualization of Livy 1.56.2. For more substantial support for my view, we must turn to the more practical issues of production and publication of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita.

Livy's Rate of Production and Schedule of Publication Thus far the concern has been only with internal evidence that is useful for dating purposes. The next logical step is to tie this material together within a reasonable timetable of composition and publication. Scholars generally agree that because a new Preface appearsat the beginning of Book 2 (2.1.1-6), Livy's first Book containing the history of the kings was probably originally published as a discrete unit.53This second Preface does not merely introduce the novus status of the Republic, but, like its predecessor, offers Livy an opportunity for personal reflection. After a brief programmatic statement of his new theme (libertas: 2.1.1), and a summary judgment on the predecessors of Tarquinius Superbus (2.1.2), Livy asserts in propria persona that if Brutus had chosen to assassinate any of the previous kings, the resultantchaos would have destroyed the still politically unsophisticated ancient population of Rome (2.1.3-6). These programmatic remarks and personal reflections mark a clean break with what Livy had previously written, and a fresh start for what was to come. A third formal Preface at 6.1.1-3 clearly marks the division between the first and second pentads.54 The dates of the composition and publication of the individual units are uncertain because the internal evidence is so meager. In the absence of a more secure method of gauging Livy's rate of composition, scholars have simply divided 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 death in A.D. 17) - in order to determine a likely rate of production. On this reckoning, about two and a half to three books per year seems right.55But one should avoid positing a uniform rate of production. Luce has stressed that the
53 Bayet, Tite-LiveHistoire Romaine(as in n. 8), xix; Petersen,"Livyand Augustus"(as in n. 4), 441; Walsh,Livy(as in n. 4), 6; Luce, "TheDatingof Livy's FirstDecade"(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, "TheFirstDecade"(as in n. 15), 1. Briscoe notes that the words ab secunda origine (6.1.3) are a clear indicationof a new pentad.I think Livy's declarationquinquelibris [res] exposui (6.1.1) is an even strongerindicator. 55 Syme, "LivyandAugustus" in n. 8), 39 and79 n.51; Luce, "TheDatingof Livy's First (as Decade"(as in n. 3), 230, andLivy (as in n. 33), 139; Haehling,Zeitbezugedes T. Livius (as in n. 12), 20; Badian,"Livy and Augustus"(as in n. 3), 18.

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 began developing a personal style.56 It might also be noted that the earlier books tend to be longer;57they are also more carefully structuredand written. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the first book was first published by itself in order to test the reaction of the Roman literary establishment to the latest project of one of its newest members (cf. above and n. 47). Livy will have lavished much time and effort on his first major literary effort, perhaps soliciting the opinions of his audience and incorporatingchanges 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 satisfactory 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 repairson the Cloaca Maxima, navigation of the sewers, and cosmetic improvements on the Circus Maximus, and perhaps before Octavian started work on the temple of Jupiter Feretrius), and took Livy into the following year. After an initial publication and/or recitations, and some fine-tuning, Livy decided that his project was worthwhile, and proceeded to write the ratherlengthy Books 2 and 3. 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 all likelihood, Livy was gathering momentum as he was becoming more comfortable with the mechanics of his craft. Thus, Books 4 and 5 were probably finished by the end of 30 B.C. At some point after the trial publication of Book 1, Livy wrote his elaborate Preface to the whole work.58 Internal evidence from the second pentad reinforces this scheme. At 7.40.2 Livy states nondum [i.e., 342 B.C.] erant tamfortes ad sanguinem civilem nec praeter externa noverant bella, ultimaque rabies secessio ab suis habebatur.59 The sentiment is bitter, unexpected, and redolent of recent troubles. On the dating scheme just proposed, and assuming Livy's rate of production was by now about two to two and a half books a year, this passage will have been written sometime in 29 B.C. Now it is clear that Livy himself, as early as 27-25 B.C., believed that the civil wars ended with Augustus' closing of the temple of Janus in 29 B.C. (ab imperatore Caesare Augusto pace terra marique parta:
56 Luce, "TheDating of Livy's FirstDecade"(as in n. 3), 230, and Livy (as in n. 33), 139. of 57 See P.A. Stadter,"The Structure Livy's History,"Historia 21 (1972), 304-305, for a tabulationof the text length (in pages of Teubnertext) for each book. A passing glance indicates that the first pentadis about 20% longer thaneach of the otherextantpentads. Book 3 itself is the longest of the extant books, weighing in at an impressive 76 1/2 Teubnerpages. 58 On this last point, see my "Livy's Prefaceand its HistoricalContext,"forthcoming. 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 of madness."

The Last RepublicanHistorian

445

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 the point "when an end was imposed on the civil wars, in the twenty-second year."60His remarkat 7.40.2 would not be out of place in this context, when the bitter memories of civil war were still fresh, and the final peace still precarious.61

The second piece of internal evidence from the second pentad that is useful for dating purposes - the references to the Parthians in the "Alexander digression" in Book 9 - demands, at the very least, a date before the negotiations between Rome and Parthia for the return of the standards of Crassus and Antony in 23 B.C. (see above, 437). However, Livy's tacit admission that the civil wars are recently over tends to push the date further back towards 30/29 B.C., the year Livy believed the civil wars had ended.62 The scheme outlined here can easily accomodate these requirements.Assuming that Livy completed Book 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 pentad was then corrected (between 27 and 25), as testified to by the insertions at 1.19.3 and 4.20.5-1 1, perhaps in time to be republished in conjunction with the just completed second pentad. The final edition of Books 1-10 will have appeared 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,

alterumex Actiaca victoria, tertiumde Cleopatra,imposito fine civilibus bellis altero et vicesimo anno. This latterdate, incidentally,indicatesthat Livy believed the civil wars began in 50 B.C., when the Senate's first measuresagainstCaesarwere passed. 61 Cf. Woodman,Rhetoricin Classical Historiography in n. 26), 134. (as 62 Civilia bella sileant ... Mille acies graviores quamMacedonum atque Alexandriavertit avertetque,modo sit perpetuushuius qua vivimuspacis amor et civilis cura concordiae ("Let the civil wars be silent ... A thousandbattle arraysmore fierce than those of the Macedoniansand Alexanderhave the Romansbeatenoff, and shall continue to do so, if only this presentlove of peace andcarefordomesticconcordpersist:" 9.19.15-17). Luce, "The Dating of Livy's First Decade" (as in n. 3), 230-31, notes that "Livy's fervent prayerat the end of the [Alexander]excursus... suggests that the civil wars were recent and that Augustus' rule was still quite new ... The later the passage is dated, the more peculiarthe passionatevehemence becomes: unflatteringto the governmentand to the emperor,impolitic for the writer." 63 Badian,"Livy and Augustus"(as in n. 12), 19, dates the "Alexander digression"to "26/ 5," based on a likely rateof productionfrom his preferred startingdate of 30 B.C. Using a more flexible rate of production(which allows more composition time for the early books), andemployinga likely startingdateof 33/32 B.C., as I have done here, permitsus to push the date of this passage backa year.

446

PAUL J. BURTON

Conclusion In this study of the dating of Livy's first pentad, I have argued that despite certain advances in scholarly thinking on the matter, the problem of when Livy began composing his Ab Urbe Condita has resisted a satisfactory solution. The foregoing analysis has built on earlier insights in an attemptto establish, for the first time, a consistent and definitive assessment of all the relevant internal evidence provided by Livy's text. Combining previous theories about insertions into and republication of Livy's text with a hitherto neglected piece of internal evidence - 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 surroundingthe historian's motivations, beliefs, allegiances, and prejudices must be rethought since his project 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 flush of peace and the Augustan reconstruction. Livy took up his pen when the world of the Republic - the only one he had ever known - was tottering on the edge of destruction, not when it was being "restored."This realization compels us to read 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 hope this article is a first step on that road, and I encourage Livian scholars to reexamine Livy's Ab Urbe Condita in light of the fact that Livy was not an Augustan historian, but indeed "the last Republican historian."64 University of Maryland at College Park Paul J. Burton

64 The phraseis Syme's, "Livyand Augustus"(as in n. 8), 53.