COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION
o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.
How to cite this thesis
Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/
M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved
from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date).
3 )O
I Ii I IH
3S
RU D Tfl
i\J
L r\
CHARACTERIZATION IN THE THIRD
DECADE OF LIVY' S HISTORY
FREDERICK CHARLES BARNICOAT
SHORT DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
LAT I N
AT THE
RANDSE AFRIKAANSE UNIVERSITEIT
STUDY
LEADER
:
PROF
NOVEMBER 1990
D
A
PAUW
1
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
PAGE
I TRODUCTION
2
LIVY'S PREDOMINANTLY NEGATIVE PORTRAYAL OF THE CHARACTER
OF TIBERIUS SEMPRONIUS LONGUS BY A VARIETY OF INDIRECT
METHODS
Introduction
Character Portrayal
Table 1
6
THE HIGHLY NEGATIVE PORTRAYAL OF GAIUS FLAMINIUS
Introduction
Character Portrayal
Table 2
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF MARCUS CLAUDIUS MARCELLUS
Introduction
Character Portrayal
Table 3
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF QUINTUS FABIUS VERRUCOSUS CUNCTATOR
Introduction
Character Portrayal
Table 4
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
7
14
16
17
23
26
27
39
42
43
57
59
2
INTRODUCTION
I found the doctoral thesis of Pauw,
Marcellinus", an interesting study.
"Karaktertekening by Ammianus
In particular
I was fascinated
by the table given in the appendix, in which the number of times
both the positive and the negative characteristics in Ammianus 1 s
portrayal of four emperors, who reigned for a reasonable time, and
four of the more important minor characters are indicated in the
various devices of character portrayal open to the author.
I wondered
if such a wide variety and frequency of these direct and indirect
methods of character depiction could be identified in the work of
an historian like Livy,
who is the first historiographer of the
old annalistic tradition, whose work is extant in significant quantity
(Lintott, p. 234).
"Ab Wt.be c.oncllta",
In composing his vast panoramic history
Livy, influenced perhaps by the ancient tradition
of the Roman priestly records and the records of the actions taken
by the Roman Senate, which were naturally kept in year by year fashion,
abandoned the episodic form of presentation, and reverted to the
older annalistic scheme (Copley, p. 278).
Would it be feasible
to seek in an historiographer such as Livy the sophisticated methods
of character portrayal, which have been identified and evaluated
in later writers of history, like Tacitus and Ammianus, who wrote
people-centred historiography, markedly influenced by biography?
On the other hand the ancients were convinced that any literature,
to be worthwhile, had to instruct, delight and interest the reader.
History also had to meet these requirements as well as having a
didactic purpose by being properly embellished in matter and style,
with the historian inserting anecdotes and speeches to help delineate
the famous characters and bring action to life (Copley, p. 280).
Livy was never the man to disappoint his reader, and never lapsed
into the bare exposition of events.
3
The Romans valued the concrete precedent or the personal example
of virtue, as a guide to living, rather than abstract philosophical
speculations, and the biographer or psychological historian was
expected to set forth such examples (Dorey, p. 51).
As Grant
says (page 225) of Livy: "A psychological historian before everything
else, he was already noted in ancient times for his unique capacity
for revealing people's innermost feelings and attitudes and adapting
his treatment to different themes and persons.
One after another,
his episodes are transfigured and heightened by his interest in
human motives - emotional rather than intellectual".
His didactic
or moral aims, stressed by most commentators on his work, cause
him to treat history as a series of episodes embodying moral values.
He consistently puts virtues such as
PudAcLt,a, ct-to cpJta
Lde.-o, mode ato, p-Leta..s,
etc. or vi ce s such as temeLtao, vto cia,
£-Jbdo etc. on display for the enjoyment and edification of Roman
readers, and sometimes even designs a whole section around one
of the moral themes (Luce, p. 231).
In general Livy's mastery lies ir the art of his presentation,
and the most impressive features of his art are "his noble language,
his power of graphic description, his dramatic contrivances, his
management of orations and his attention to character" (Duff,
p. 475).
It was, therefore, felt that it might be possible
to turn the search-light on a few examples of Livy's character
portrayal to see whether or not it shows the same diversity of
method as has been proved to exist in the characterizations of
Ammianus, for example, and whether reasons for this diversity can
be identified.
In a dissertation of this length it is necessary to limit the scope,
and I therefore intend to keep within the parameter of the third
decade of Livy's "Ab wtbe coidLta".
This will preclude the choice
4
of either of the two main characters of this period, viz, the 2nd
Punic War, Hannibal and Scipio Africanus, as subjects for a complete
study of their characterization, because their deaths occurred
well after the turn of the 3rd Century B.C. and are recorded in
the fourth decade of the "Ab wtbe. covicLLta".
Two characters that
are negatively characterized by Livy will be chosen, and two that
are positively characterized.
Their character portrayal will
be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the structure set
up by Pauw, both as to the extent that Livy states their
borta
and their vi.iLia by direct methods, viz, the character sketch,
the necrology and the sporadic direct statement, and as to the
extent Livy allows their good and bad character traits to emerge
from the course of his narrative by the indirect methods
of
characterization viz, the speeches or words of characters, their
actions and reactions, rumours and remarks by their contemporaries,
contrast and association with other characters, which for convenience
I have combined in my Tables, revealed thoughts and feelings of
characters, innuendo and suppression of facts, generalization and
hyperbole and finally character-revealing incidents. (See Pauw,
p. 177).
The question to be asked in the course of these analyses
is whether Livy makes use of the same range of methods of character
portrayal as Ammianus, and what differences exist, if any, between
Livy's methods of character portrayal of negatively and positively
presented characters, and his methods of character presentation
and those of an author like Ammianus.
Any calculation of the number of instances of the different methods
of character portrayal used to delineate particular characters
in a literary work will inevitably be subjective to a certain extent.
For example an action may appear rash to one reader, yet not so
to another.
Then, too, there is the problem of methods overlapping.
5
A character may be associated with the characteristics of some wellknown historical figure in the words of a contemporary.
Is this
to be counted as an example of character revelation through
association, or through remarks of contemporaries? Each incident
of character revelation is to be counted only once, and the above
example could be included in either group. Therefore the figures
that I give in my Tables at the conclusion of the analysis of each
character may differ in detail from those that would have been
calculated by another investigator and may, at best, be regarded
as indicating valid general trends.
Similar comments on the
subjectivity of this type of exercise are made by Pauw (p. 176).
I have used the Latin text of the Loeb Classical Library throughout,
and where quotations have been made in English they have been taken
from the translations by B.O. Foster (Books XXI & XXII) and by
F.G. Moore (Books XXIII to XXX).
LIVY'
S
PREDOMINANTLY
PORTRAYAL
TIBERIUS
BY
A
OF
THE
CHARACTER
SEMPRONIUS
VARIETY
NEGATIVE
OF
OF
LONGUS
INDIRECT
METHODS
I NTRODUC TI ON
Tiberius Sempronius Longus was the colleague of Publius Cornelius
Scipio the Elder in the consulship of 218 B.C.
To them fell the
lot of opposing the Carthaginians in the opening stages of the
2nd Punic War.
The first encounter in Italy was between Hannibal
and Sciplo on the banks of the River Ticinus.
The Romans lost
and their wounded consul was only saved, according to a highly
poetical account in Livy (21.46.7 & 8), by the timely intervention
of his youthful son, who was destined to end the war and gain the
honorary title, "A'tAica'two".
The Roman force had to retreat
across the Po and take refuge under the walls of Placentia. Hannibal
followed hot on their heels.
A large body of Gallic auxiliaries
subsequently broke out of the Roman camp, killing the sentries,
and went over to Hannibal. Scipio fell back further behind the
River Trebia and there he was joined by Sempronius, who had been
summoned from Sicily to help meet the crisis.
His colleague being disabled, Sempronius virtually had sole command.
He was eager to gain a quick victory before the expiry of his term
of office.
Encouraged by some inconsiderable successes he
had in cavalry skirmishes, in spite of warnings by Scipio, he risked
a general engagement, although he had, against all military prudence,
to cross a river and throw his troops into battle wet, cold and
without a morning meal.
The Romans might still have stood their
ground had not Hannibal judiciously planted a strong force of
7
cavalry in ambush, which took the Romans in the rear.
It is not
altogether surprising that the strongly patriotic Livy took a
negative view of Sempronius, the more so in view of his partiality
for the Scipio geii.-o, which more than probably caused him to make
use of "only the boastful exaggerations of their family annals"
(Collins, P. 138) in his account of their deeds, which he had in
any case to take from earlier writers.
The greatness of a character
stands out more impressively if juxtaposed to the weaknesses of
another.
It is possible that Livy's portrayal of Sempronius in
a negative light was deliberately done to create a foil for the
elder Scipio, in much the same way as he juxtaposes the speeches
of Fabius (28.40.3 - 28.42.22) and Scipio Africanus (28.43.2 28.44.18) so that his great hero of the second decade, the
du,
4 ataZi s
may eclipse even the undoubtedly great stature of his last
Roman rival prior to setting out on his campaign of final victory
(Botha, P. 74-79).
Sempronius is as good an example as any with
which to begin to illustrate the considerable variety of indirect
methods Livy has employed to create a character at once true to
life in having both good and bad points and suited to his dramatic
presentation in a particular episode.
CHARAC TER PORTRAYALS
The incidents in Sempronius' life recounted by Livy, which can
reveal character, are almost exclusively positive.
He would seem
a man of high standing, competence and enthusiasm as an elected
consul for 218 B.C. receiving the Saguntine ambassadors (21.6.3.);
when despatched to Sicily with instructions to proceed to Africa
if the other consul managed to keep the Carthaginians out of Italy
(21.17.5 - 6); when welcomed to Syracuse by Rome's old ally, King
Hiero, with a grand reception party at sea (21.50.7 - 8); when
years after his defeat he was named as the Master of the Horse
(22.57.9);
or when in 215 B.C.
he successfully fought Hanno
near Grumentum and slew 2,000 men, and captured 280 along with
41 military standards, thus forcing Hanno out of Lucania into
Bruttium (23.37.10 - 11).
He appears, however, lacking in military
strategy when his troops are caught "icawt2i' while scattered in
pursuit of the Numidians in the battle of the Trebia (21.55.3).
The final incident in connection with him recorded by Livy with
total indifference or neutrality comes in 27.6.16 where his son
of the same name was appointed as dece.niv1& for the performance
of rites in his place after his death in 210 B.C.
The reactions and actions of Sempronius in the course of the
narrative reflect good and bad traits in roughly equal proportion.
Initially he is a brave and energetic commander when he reacts
to King Hiero's warning that Lilybaeum is threatened by the
Carthaginians by sailing there "uiiL cui tctaildum vL-own" (21.50.11),
or to the call for help from Scipio in N. Italy by "exvLc.Ltwn
xternpo in iavao JiipoLum A&ôiuiwm mcvi supvLc rnL-W' (21.51.6).
Promptness seems to mark whatever he does, and he is careful in
delegating his duties and settling the affairs in Sicily before
setting out himself.
He shows commendable energy when he gains
the surrender of Hamilcar, Gisgo's son, together with 2,000 soldiers
on the island of Melita (Malta) (21.51.1 - 2), crosses to the Isles
of Vulcan where the Carthaginian fleet is incorrectly rumoured
to be hiding (21.51.3) and when he sends cavalry to defend the
Gallic lands beyond the Trebia (21.52.9 - 11).
He shows tact
when he excepts those of noble birth from being sold in slavery
along with the rest of the Carthaginian prisoners of war at Lilybaeum
(21.51.2), and conscientiousness after the disaster at the Trebia
I!]
when he goes to Rome at great risk to preside over the election
of the new consuls and returned immediately to his army (21.15.6).
However, a negative side of his character begins to appear through
other actions.
He is "to
when he refuses to postpone
vwco't"
the attack at the Trebia (21.52.2), stubborn when he orders the
troops to prepare for immediate battle,
CokleA1o'
"wqwiuwii dYiefttc.
(21.53.7), lacking all military prudence when he sends
out his horses and men "tapt-im"
and without food or protective
clothing against the cold weather (21.54.8) or at a later stage
when fighting Hannibal near Placentia "Plequ2iqiam 4atigato mJJ&'
(21.59.2 - 9), and foolhardy when he goes to Rome "audaca magLo
quwn cortoJJo" (21.57.3).
Two speeches are put in the mouth of Sempronius, including a few
lines of direct speech for particularly dramatic presentation:
lo-t'zAi cJjtca mocia Ccvtthag-Lo
"Quattwri Ligeme-ocaviE" iiquLt "patAm
be1wtc -±oLi, 6i v-Ldant w-o, pkogiQili 5uam, duos couuEoAe,5que
cvtcLtwo, in mexLLa ItaLa paveviLo -iitia caoa, Poertum quod inteA
Ape-o Appenninumque agti Lt -oua dconLo
Spoken by
the bedside of the sick Sciplo, these words show Sempronius as
provocative and rude. (21.53.2 - 5).
When Sempronius communicates
similar sentiments to the common troops from the praetorium he
is undermining authority and displaying unpleasant cunning in his
selfish quest for personal power (21.53.6).
Sempronius's thoughts and feelings which Livy reveals with the
sort of 'Allwissenschaft' more generally associated with Tacitus,
contribute to his negative image.
For example when he gained
some inconsiderable cavalry success in casual contact with the
enemy prior to the battle of the Trebia, he was beside himself
with joy because he had been successful with that division of
10
the army in which his colleague had failed (21.53.1).
This shows
him up to be both egotistical and short-sighted in view of his impending
defeat.
Another of his revealed thoughts is that he must precipitate
the battle because,
if his term of office expired before it took
place, he would lose the opportunity of gaining the entire glory
for himself for a solo effort in the absence of his colleague, who
was laid up (21.53.6).
and slyness.
This thought underlines his selfishness
A reader, however, would be unlikely to take him
to task for being
"rnweLL --inu
aixLw cwtLot' (21.51.6) when news
of the Carthaginian raid on the Italian lands around Vibo and of
Scipio's call for help from N. Italy reach him simultaneously, so
this thought reflects positively on his character.
In the remarks of his contemporaries Sempronius comes off badly.
Hannibal knew by hearsay at first that Sempronius was 'pe'tcLtwn
ac
VLQ)"
and that his recent success in a minor cavalry skirmish
had made him "
'tocio'
(21.53.8) and later told his men that they
had an "ho-otin cacwn ad has beLU a,'zteo" (21.54.3).
Fabius, on
having to leave his army for Rome, begged his over-eager Master
of the Horse, Minucius, to imitate his military strategy rather
than that of Sempronius (22.18.8) and Paulus cast in Varro's teeth
the
temvtLtatern" of Sempronius (22.44.5).
Yet the recommendation
of some senators to send him to Africa immediately to wage war,
when Saguntum was attacked, is a positive reflection on the confidence
in which he was held in high places (21.6.6).
Livy strengthens his negative portrait of Sempronius by the association
of him on three occasions with another rash general, Flaminius, who
was responsible for the disaster at Lake Trasimene (22.12.5), (22.18.8)
and (22.44.5).
11
I also find eight instances of where Livy has used contrast with
better generals (in his view at least) to put Sempronius in a poorer
light.
In 21.17.5 -9 the division of the forces between Sempronius
and Scipio is detailed before they set out for their respective
sectors of military operations.
Livy stresses that "Co'LfrieLo
mnwo cop.vtum datum" and "iaviwn niaxme Co'uieL10 iume)Lu,5 demitwtw"
Presumably this is to set an excuse well in advance for any failure
Scipio might experience, and possibly to imply that, comparatively,
Sempronius should have done better.
The stature of the one consul
(Scipio) is heightened over that of the other (Sempronius) when
Livy says that Scipio was a man of mark ("pnaeotattem") in the
eyes of Hannibal
(21.39.8).
"quod advQJiwo
dux potLimwn tectu,5 e,s.6et"
In 21.52.7 - 8 the caution of Scipio in regarding
the Gauls with suspicion is contrasted with Sempronius's belief
that aiding those in need first would forge allies.
Hannibal
is anxious to precipitate the battle "dum meLio'tem ex ducbwo
(i.e. Scipio)
nwtLem voptu.o acvLet"
(21.53.9).
Not only does
Sempronius contrast unfavourably with Scipio, but he now contrasts
even worse with Hannibal.
In 21.54 Hannibal with clever strategy
lays an ambush and plans how to lure the Romans across the Trebia.
He orders his officers to ensure that their men have a good breakfast and then to await his signal.
Sempronius, who is "(vtox.",
"-Lam ar,te coisLo" and "avk'dm ee'ttanuiLo",
stratagems hook, line and sinker.
falls for Hannibal's
Another contrast is made between
Hannibal's troops, who in 21.55.1 have made fires before their
tents, been served with olive oil to supple their joints and breakfasted at leisure, and Sempronius's, who in 21.55.8
"corL'ta LeLuiia
eoaque copoa RomartL et 'tcia ea -tokpbavit",
balancing of opposites.
with neat
After the battle Sempronius withdraws
his troops to relative safety in Placentia, though this has to
12
be presumed as he is not mentioned by name until he goes to Rome to
preside over the election of the new consuls.
The ever thoughtful
Scipio, however, after the Carthaginians had settled down, led his
army "tacLto agm-ia&' to Placentia, but went on to Cremona so that
the town might not be overburdened with two armies.
Thus Scipio
stands out as a general of calm assurance and considerate forethought
to the disadvantage of his impetuous colleague (21.56.8).
Much
later in the narrative Livy is going to contrast Sempronius yet again
unfavourably with the level-headed general, Fabius Maximus, when he
says that Hannibal was troubled by the thought that he now had to deal
with a general by no means like Sempronius (22.12.5).
Finally Livy's determination to play Sempronius down seems most
evident in his suppression of facts and a possible use of innuendo.
In 21.51.3 we read that "poo-tqaam ab ea pcvt-t
-ta-tam Sc'am
t'taec-Lt".
(i.e. Africa)
atLo
a-g. (Sempronius), ad -iwa VuP.cakti
B.B. Foster, who translated Books XXI and XXII in the
Loeb Classical Library series, says in a footnote to this passage on
Livy's vague allusion to Sempronius's concern with Africa that "Livy
has omitted to mention the fact, recorded by Coelius (one of Livy's
most important sources), that Sempronius even sent a swift galley to
spy out a good landing-place for a Roman army on the coast of Africa."
Chapters 49 to 51 of Book XXI give an important sketch of the affairs
in Sicily (the sector of the war allotted to Sempronius) immediately
prior to the crisis caused by Hannibal's arrival in N. Italy, and the
sources Livy used for it cannot be identified. See B.O. Foster,
(p. 152, note).
The condensed style differs markedly from Livy's
known sources and its impartiality in giving credit to the allies, like
Hiero, could indicate some Sicilian historian or Eumachus of Naples,
as conjectured by De Sanctis. This passage touches on significant
success for Rome and her Sicilian allies against the hostile actions
13
of the Carthaginians, in which the consul in charge of that sector
probably played a far more impressive part than would appear from
Livy's grudging statement, in the most general of terms, 'meantime
engagements had been fought by land and sea off Sicily and the
islands near the Italian coast, not only by Sempronius the consul,
but even before his coming thither' (21.49.1).
It would appear
that Livy makes light of the military actions of Sempronius in
Sicily, prior to making him the scapegoat for the Roman disaster
at the Trebia.
Livy's characterization of Sempronius is indisputably negative,
and the question must now arise as to whether there is a reason for
this.
One possibility is that there were rival family groups
among the nobility, which formed factions jostling each other for
domination of the senate, the main ones being the arch-conservative
Fabii, the more liberal and progressive Aemilian-Scipionic group
and the Claudii, characterized by Livy as a "7wmLLa 6upeAbi.6.sima
ae ctudeJi&o4ima
in
pPbem Romaiwn"
(Scullard, p. 31-38). Livy
seems to have favoured the Scipios ultimately even over Quintus
Fabius Maximus, and the Sempronil were supporters of the Claudii
(Scullard, p. 43), so in the quarrel between Scipio and Sempronius
at the Trebia Livy was likely to set the latter off negatively to
the advantage of the member of the family who are the real heroes
of the third decade of the "AJ unJe covidLa".
Secondly, an
interesting feature of the fictional characterization in Livy is
that in certain instances he will associate a particular family or
genz with a specific trait, either positive or negative.
In the
first decade a C. Sempronius is defeated by the Volsci because he
fights without caution and deliberation, and this anticipates the
rashness of a descendant stamped in the same mould, viz, the
14
headstrong Tiberius Sempronius Longus throwing all caution to the
wind as he leads the Romans to disaster in the battle of the Trebia
Thirdly the moralistic motive of Livy's historio-
Walsh, p. 90).
graphy makes him treat the importance of p&ucLeiiLia and 'tatLo in
The lack of these
great military leadership as a definite theme.
qualities in a commander so often leads to disaster and Livy was
and
bound to castigate the antithetical qualities of teme.-'tLtwo
(Walsh, p. 71-72).
£vtocLta-o in Sempronius
Appended is a table giving the number of times Livy has made use
of the various methods of character delineation in his portrayal
of TIBERIUS SEMPRONIUS LONGUS, CONSUL of 218 B.C. (according to
my analysis).
TABLE 1
INDIRECT
DIRECT
DRAMATIC
PRESENTATION
a)
0
.5-
C
0
"-
S.-
(
0
a)
4)
U
0
0
U)
(1)
4C
(a
o
a)4-)
-
0
0
C
S.-
.
E
a)
50
U)
4-S.-
-c
c
OW
4-)
0 .
.(O 0 (
4J
5.S-S.5.-a)
0
0
w
L)
LL (I)
& 0
=0
o
U,
a)
-C
0
a)
a)
0
Sn
C
0
4-)
0
C
0
E
0
o
Ø
(1)
a)C
(J,
POSITIVE
-
-
-
-
NEGATIVE
-
-
-
4
NEUTRAL
-
-
-
4
5
5
10
S.-
a)
M
0
.,U)
U)
Cn
C
.-
(
4.-)
U)
c
4..)
C
0
5-)
CL
>,
U
4)
CC
Ca)
C
U)
•.-
E
a)
a)
C
-
-
4-
0
C
0
C
4-'
'
-
(
N
(/)
4-)
5/)
cw
z
04-)
CO
E
I—
0(/)
.4.-)
Co
W ro
.
a)
C
>-
a)
5.-v
C
S.-(
a)
4-'
5-
U)
(OS-
(
E
C
C4—. 0
C
a)
CW
2
1
-
1
-
-
5
14
-
5
11
4
2
-
1
= 32
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
6 11
5
2
-
7
2
1
1=
47
15
This analysis would indicate that Livy's portrayal of Sempronius is
mainly negative. Though most of the incidents recorded of his life
and about fifty percent of his actions show that he has a positive
side, Livy has emphasized his negative qualities largely through
speeches he has put in his mouth, his private thoughts and motives
he has revealed, and the opinions of his contemporaries.
Speeches
and thoughts, whether attributed to the character himself or to his
contemporaries, are entirely fictitious in ancient historiography
and cannot readily be challenged or verified.
Livy probably felt
more comfortable in creating his negative image of Sempronius by
these means, as he could in a sense hide behind the expressed
sentiments of others and avoid responsibility for negative condemnation.
Furthermore Livy has glossed over certain of his achieve-
ments, and in particular he has contrasted him with successful
generals and associated him with unsuccessful ones in the course
of the narrative in order to leave no doubt in the mind of the
reader that the assessment of Sempronius should be negative. Noteworthy also is the fact that Livy has created the negative
impression of Sempronius without any formal character sketch or
any direct comment on his behaviour, nor did he accord him an
obituary notice, merely mentioning in passing that in that year
(210 B.C.) several Roman priests had died and successors had been
appointed.
Sempronius's son was appointed dcmvL't for the
performance of rites in the place of his father (27.6.16). However,
the wide spread of indirect methods Livy has used to give a negative
impression of Sempronius is striking.
The analysis of Table 1
obviously supports the words of Michael Grant (page 226): "It is
rare for Livy's own personal judgements to be intruded.
he prefers the indirect methods of tragic drama."
In general,
16
THE HIGHLY NEGATIVE PORTRAYAL
OF GAIUS FLAMINIUS
INTRODUCT ION
A thorough resumé of the brilliant career of Gaius Flaminius and the
politcal background thereof is given by Scullard (page 44).
At the
elections for 217 B.C. members of the Aemilian-Scipionic faction,
whose support by Livy has already been mentioned, had used its
influence to gain the consulship for Cn.
Servilius Geminus,
but the second consulship was the People's choice, viz. C. Flaminius.
He had for years been championing their cause. As a
pbJ
of 232 B.C. he had, despite violent senatorial opposition, carried
through a plebeian Assembly, by by-passing the Senate, an agrarian law,
ordaining that the
Agvi GciLLcwo Pic.iwo, which had recently been
conquered, should be distributed among the plebeians (Smith, p. 241).
As governor of Sicily for 227 B.C. he was long remembered with
gratitude by the provincials.
As consul for 223 B.C. he had advanced
boldly against the Insubrian Gauls, in total disregard of an
instruction from the Senate to return to Rome on the ground that a
fault had been found in the form of his election.
Despite this
successful challenge to the religious control of the nobility he
gained a considerable military reputation through his defeat of the
Insubres, and he was voted a triumph by the People in the face of the
Senate's refusal.
As Censor for 220 B.C. he executed two great
public works, which bore his name, the Circus Flaminius and the Via
Flaminia, the new road running towards his land settlements in the
north.
Subsequently he was the only senator to support the Lex
Claudia, which limited the maritime trade of senators.
His
remarkable career had effectively demonstrated the theoretical
sovereignty of the Roman pople, entrenched as recently as 287 B.C.
in the Hortensian law. His election now to a second consulship
17
reflected popular discontent with senatorial conduct of the war with
Hannibal.
It is, therefore, particularly interesting to analyse how
Livy, who normally follows a tradition hostile to the plebelans
(Jackson, p. 30) and favours the nobility in general and the Sciplo
family in particular, portrays the final act of the life of Flaminius.
CHARACTER PORTRAI
The Livian portrait of Flaminius is, compared to those of many of
the other major characters, short but sustained, and somewhat unusually includes a direct character sketch (22.3.4 - 5):
cotu
(eJta) e'tcx. cth cotta-tu pnio'te e-t vwvi modo tecum aut paL'twn
n1a-4ie-5tatL5 6ed ne do'wm gwideiri sa-tLo mtuciio. . ."
say that
It goes on to
Foktuna (the personification) had bestowed on him, through
his success in political and, military enterprises an "-iLtam
rnvtLtaem"
and that it was sufficiently clear that he would do
everything 'viocLtvt" and
men.
"p'tCLepLCpeJLQJ' without consulting gods or
Furthermore there is a good example of isolated direct
characterization where Livy says,
ho6te ip6eqwLeitvtuo 'tat"
"FeamitLwo, qwi ie qwLeto qwidern
(22.3.7) negatively characterizing him
as hyperactive.
Livy puts three highly dramatic speeches in the mouth of Flaminius
in quick succession, the first two in direct speech for heightened
effect. All give a highly negative impression of Flaminius's
character.
The first is uttered to the council of war unanimously
recommending that he wait for the arrival of his colleague,
Servilius, so that the Carthaginians may be confronted with a united
force.
"Ay truly!
Let us sit under the walls of Arretium ...
let Hannibal slip through our fingers . . . and burning everything,
march clear to Rome; and let us not move.., until the Fathers, as
once they summoned Camillus from Veil, shall summon Gaius Flaminius
from ArretiumY' (22.3.10).
This clever speech with its reference to
the great figure of history, Camillus, shows heavy irony and shortsightedness.
Next comes the quick-tempered and rude speech to the
messenger reporting that, though the command to advance had been
given, the standard-bearer was unable to pull the standard up from
the ground: "Do you bring me a dispatch too from the senate, forbidding me to fight?
Go, tell them to dig the standard out, if their
hands are too numb with fear to pull it up!"
(22.3.13).
His final
speech, to attempt rallying his troops trapped near Lake Trasimene
is given in onaLio obqua,
but the words are carefully balanced and
rhetorical devices such as assonance, alliteration, anaphora and
chiasmus are used, e.g.
v
cic vL't-twt
"flec eitim 16ide votLo aut -&nponwtoie deum,
vadeidum
lw
oe:
pvt rndth
acLeo
ni u_6 4etme pc
e'vto v-am
e." (22.5.2).
Note the words that in particular give away Flaminius's character
such as 'vi" and "evto".
In these speeches Livy clearly wishes to
stress that here is a man of excessive violence and impulsiveness.
Flaminius is also characterized by his words - negatively to show
that he cannot take Opposition when he is described as
c'tpao" when his military strategy is challenged in a council of
war (22.3.11), and positively for his courage when his army is
trapped at Lake Trasimene and he
"adho't-taJjvi.. ai
ai jAigaaAe
ube)" (22.5.1).
Likewise in action Flaminius is negative: he reaches Lake Trasimene
at sunset with his army, and early next morning without waiting for
clear daylight he passes through the defile.
crafty when "p''aw
cYwn ui p'ccY
He shows himself to be
cicin LbLL1(21.63.5) to avoid his
political enemies, and hot tempered when he " 6eex cooLc
where his policies had been opposed
(22.3.9).
19
Negative reactions are also given.
At 21.63.12 a senatorial
commission was sent to recall him to Rome to correct certain religious
obligations at the start of his consulship.
His reaction was to
totally ignore it, in the same way as he had ignored the letter sent to
him to put the religious matters right in his previous consulship.
Then when the council of war stated that he should wait for his
colleague to arrive and formulate a common policy to confront
Hannibal, his reaction was to become 'L'ta,tw" and do the very
opposite, viz, give the signal to march and fight (22.3.8 - 9). These
reactions make him out as obstinate and irritable.
With the remarks and rumours among Flaminius's contemporaries Livy
has a field day in leaving a negative impression.
He was "-ivtvLw"
(hated) among the senators because he had supported a law interfering
with the size of trading vessels the senatorial nobility could own
(21.63.3).
The senators said that he was waging war "wvi cwn 5enatu
rnccto, od eLthm cwn cLLo
nimo'ia.Lbwo" (21.63.6). The senators also
claimed that he had no sense of the
maeotwo of his high office and
had set out on his consulship like a U xa (camp retainer/subtler a derogatory term) and 'oi.
that was 'c.1am, wttim,
viigibwo, £_Ldc'tbwo" in a manner
iaud aILtvt quani
Y1 ciu-oa' (21.63.9-10).
At least four negative qualities are highlighted here viz, he is.
negligent, disobedient, contemptuous and crafty.
Subsequently the
senate claimed that there was only one consul and that Flaminius had
no "iujwii
mp'tiwn" (22.1.5).
At 22.3.6 even Hannibal, being aware
of his characteristic vLtia, planned to provoke him so that he might
incline more towards them.
The higher officers in the army dis-
approved of his plan of attack, even though the common soldiers
rejoiced in his "Jwca", blissfully unaware that their joy was
groundless (22.3.14).
Finally there is the remark of Fabius Maximus
20
that Flaminius had erred more through the neglect of the ceremonies
and the auspices than through recklessness and ignorance (22.9.7),
i.e he views the impiety of Flaminius as the most serious failing of
the three.
The only positive opinion held of Flaminius is that of
the plebeians. He was so popular among them that they gained for him
a second consulship (21.63.4).
The comparisons and contrasts with Flaminius also leave an overwhelmingly negative impression.
For example, he is associated
with disaster, bloodshed, dismay and confusion when, during the
ceremonies of his assumption of the consulship, the calf he was
sacrificing escaped spattering blood on many of the bystanders
(21.63.13 - 14).
He receives his army from Sempronius and is thereby
associated with that leader and his disaster at the Trebia (21.63.15).
He is again associated with Semproriius when Fabius Maximus urges his
Master of the Horse to put more trust in "coktoiJjo" than 'onttiiae"
and imitate his own strategy rather than that of Flaminius and
Sempronius (22.18.8) and again by Aemilius Paulus who casts in Varro's
teeth the
"Semp'tou.i et Famivui terne'tLtaem" (22.44.5).
Also Livy
contrasts to the behaviour of Flaminius the correct procedure of his
colleague, Gnaeus Servilius, as he enters upon his consulship in
Rome (22.1.4) and likewise in contrast to Flaminius's slinking away
to Arretium, Servilius remains in Rome engaged in
(22.2.1).
"dLo pacaidi'
Similarly Hannibal, when he has to face the great Fabius,
worries that he has to deal with a general "hcwctquaquam FanuirLi..
Smpkouiqa2. 6-im-t"(22.12.5).
However, much later in the third
decade, where Livy has finished the Lake Trasimene episode, his view
of Flaminius seems somewhat changed, perhaps simply because he is not
now dealing with the theme of over-hasty action in a general leading
inevitably to tragedy.
He accords him association with valued leaders
21
of the Hannibalic war on at least two occasions.
There is a trial
of a certain Gnaeus Fulvius for fleeing from a battle started by his
own recklessness, and the
t'iibtniw
pe±Ls, who is the accuser, is
made to contrast Fulvius with great commanders, who had fallen where
they stood and preferred to die rather than desert their entrapped
armies, men like Gaius Flaminius, Lucius Paulus, Lucius Postumius and
Gnaeus and Publius Scipio (26.2.13).
Then also,
in his long and
moving speech to the mutinous soldiers of the outbreak of mutiny at
Sucro, Scipio Africanus holds up the mirror of the massive Roman
dedication and achievement to date in the war with Hannibal, "tot tarn
-
~
Lae cl a,t i,5Apea tonLbuo
-
unc
bLo aburnptL"
and giving by name
Flaminius, Paulus, Postumius, Albinus, Marcus Marcellus,
...
my
Scipios (28.28.12). So in these two instances we see Flaminius
associated with the very best.
The incidents of his life, mentioned by Livy, leave a positive,
neutral or negative impression. He has the status to be elected
consul for 217 B.C. (21.15.6), in the confusion of the battle of Lake
Trasimene he remained "ijnpavidwo" as he ordered his troops to stand
and fight wherever they could (22.5.1), and the battle raged most
fiercely around the consul, who was attended by the bravest of the
soldiers as he stoutly lent a hand himself (22.6.1
-
4).
His
reputation was such that after the battle Hannibal organized a
search for his body for burial, though he could not find it (22.7.5).
In 216 B.C. the dictator, Marcus Junius Pera, armed 6 000 men with
the Gallic spoils, which had been carried in the triumph of Gaius
Flaminius gained after his military victory in the Po valley in 223
B.C. (23.14.4), and the list of the senate was updated for the first
time since the last thorough revision during the censorship of L.
Aemilius and C. Flaminius (23.22.3) this last incident being counted
as neutral
22
On the other hand, five incidents give a very negative impression.
He is shown as quarrelsome by his recollection of
cwii
pcWibw'
(21.63.2).
"vewn cewn-thwri
When elected consul he did not wait for
the proper inauguration in Rome, but slipped away secretly to his
province, pretending he had a journey to take (21.63.5).
portrays a character both headstrong and cunning.
This
Two men, Terentius
and Antistius, had to be commissioned to go to him in an attempt,
which was unsuccessful, to recall him to Rome to assume his consulship properly (21.63.12).
Then when Servilius enters upon his
consulship with proper formalities the
ted iteg'taa -ivivicUa"
(22.1.5) is a good example of character revealing emotion turned
against Flaminius.
Finally, what incident could be better calculated
to portray an impetuous and ill-fated consul, lacking any sense of
"maieota&' -
in fact to make a laughing-stock of him - than when
he vaulted onto his horse, causing the animal to stumble and throw
the unfortunate consul over its head (22.3.11)?
Not many thoughts of Flaminius are conjured up by Livy, but he thinks
carefully about his past controversies with the Senate (21.63.1 - 2),
and his motive for assuming his consulship abroad at Ariminum was to
avoid any enemies he had falsifying the auspices to detain him in
the City (21.63.5) which shows a suspicious mind and troubled background.
Then the fact that he thought of Hannibal's freedom of
movement in Italy as
self-centred.
'uum
dedecu,o" (22.3.7) indicates that he was
23
TABLE 2
DIRECT
INDIRECT
DRAMATIC
PRESENTATION
-0
(1)
•
U)
(1)
C
4-'0
L)
ci)4.
CU
.- N
Ci)
ci)
C
0
.,(0
4)
o
rd
•U
0.
0
E
C
Uci)
U)
—0 0 4-'
U
(tO 0 (t(t
C
C-CE4-'
C-U U O(t
O
ci) 0. C
U (/i
C/) U
ci)
U
(1)
ci)
0.
C/I
(n
(I)
4)
C
0
U
0
Ui
•
C
0
C.)
4-'
-
0.
.-
0'
C
•-
Ui
C
E
0
C
0
Ci)
Vi
4-CO
0
C/i
C
0
4)
C.)
(Ci
U
U)
t
ci)
0
(ii
0
C
eo
4-)
(1)
CC
C(t
4-)
C
E0
ci) C 0
(0 L.)
4)
ci)
4-
C
rz
fu
N
U)
4)
U)
C ci)
0'>
.,0+-'
C0
-
OU)
4-)
C C.) (0
W(t C4())
C
C
C 4- (V
-. 0 (D
a)
C
>ci)
C- 0
C
S(
.-
ci)
4-)
U)
U
(tC-C-(t
(CiE
C ci)
POSITIVE
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
2
-
-
-
5
=
NEGATIVE
6
-
1
4
3
2
12
7
3
-
-
6
= 44
NEUTRAL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
=
6
-
1
5
3
2
13
9
3
-
-
12
1
The Table above gives my analysis of the number of times Livy has made
use of the various methods of character portrayal to create his very
negative impression of GAIUS FLAMINIUS.
Livy's portrait of Flaminius
is considerably more negative than that of Sempronius - 81% as
opposed to 68% for Sempronius.
The insertion of a character sketch
outlining only the v-LIcL of Flaminius (22.3.7) would indicate that
Livy intended it to be this way.
The fact that Livy did not accord
him any sort of obituary notice after his death in battle - Livys
mere silence on the matter - reinforces the fact that his portrait
is intended to be negative. Livy makes further use of a considerable
variety of indirect methods to support his character sketch, such as
recording Flaminius's speeches, actions and reactions.
In particular
9
=54
24
he finds the giving of the opinions of Flaminius's contemporaries
a useful weapon and, as in the case of Sempronius, the use of
association and contrast is a neat and facile way of creating a
negative impression and was much used.
It appears that prior to the disaster at Lake Trasimene Flaminius
had a fairly distinguished career, and a word or two seems necessary
on the reasons for Livys adverse picture of him in Books XXI and
XXII of the "Ab ube coidLta".
As Scullard explains (page 53),
the tradition of Roman historiography was essentially aristocratic,
originating in Polybius's sources. This senatorial and antipopular interpretation of history was elaborated further by writers
who saw precedents for the Gracchan revolution against the senatorial
monopoly of government. In this connection the career of Flaminius
is of especial significance because, in a sense, he could be interpreted as the prototype of the two Gracchi, embodying the faults
of both, viz, the agrarian reforms of Tiberius and the disregard
of religious form in Gaius.
We must remember that Livy himself
lived through a period of civil war and saw the dangers of popular
revolution, and was a witness of Augustus's attempts to restore
dignity, if not authority, to the Senate.
It is, therefore, not
surprising that in his history Livy regarded the Senate as the
hero of the Hannibalic War and in glorifying it, like many of
his predecessors in historiography, he accorded less than justice
to the representatives of the People. Livy's main criticisms of
Flaminius was that he would seek counsel from
(22.3.5).
"ytc
doo
frlC
P.4ieJJao towards the gods and Ide_o towards men are
basic concepts in Livy's philosophy of history (Walsh, p.67) and
he is tempted to see the disaster at Lake Trasimene in terms of
the 'tragic school' of historiography as a tragedy caused by and
inevitably following on a dread sin.
In this temptation Livy
25
has turned a blind eye to at least a part of the truth, especially
as regards his second complaint about Flaminius's not co-operating
with "horn-o".
As Scullard says (page 45)
if Flaminius and
Servilius were not co-operating, why had the latter despatched
cavalry to Fiaminius, and was on his way to his aid in the account
of Polybius?
And why, if his alleged motive for attacking the
Carthaginians was the shame of letting Hannibal advance unopposed
towards Rome, did he not attack him earlier when Hannibal
deliberately exposed his flank on his way to Cortona?
It is now time to turn to two characters whom Livy portrayed
positively, and who would be more suitable for a close inspection
than the two great Roman commanders of the war, who eventually
in 214 B.C. came to be elected joint consuls, Quintus Fabius
and Marcus Marcellus, "the Shield and the Sword of Rome" (Collins,
p. 130).
041
THE
CHARACTERIZATION
MARCUS
CLAUDIUS
OF
MARCELLUS
INTRODUCT ION
The fame of Marcellus as a military commander was secure even before
the outbreak of the Hannibalic War.
During his first consulship
in 222 B.C. he had conquered the Cisalpine Gauls and captured their
capital Mediolanum (Milan).
He had personally distinguished himself
by slaying the enemy's king in battle with his own hands and afterwards dedicating his spoils as
Feretrius.
opoia opima in the Temple of Jupiter
This was the third and last instance in Roman history
in which such an offering was made (Smith, p. 351).
In the 2nd Punic
War Marcellus made, perhaps, the greatest contribution by any commander
to the successful rallying of the Romans after the battle of Cannae.
However, as Carawan has explained, there are two sides, two traditions,
to the career of Marcellus.
On the one hand he is the careful
tactician, the great avenger of Cannae and conqueror of Syracuse,
the last really great Roman commander to die in battle during the
war.
On re other hand he is the exponent of the savage barbarity
of Roman arms in Sicily, perpetrator of the massacres at Henna and
Leontini, plunderer of Syracuse.
An anti-Marcellan tradition is
evident among some of Livy's sources.
Polybius and Coelius, for
example, condemn Marcellus for his reckless tactics, which ultimately
lead to the death of himself and his fellow consul, Crispinus, and
a serious Roman setback in 208 B.C. (Carawan,
p. 133).
To suit his historical aims Livy has, without always respecting the
truth, reconcfled the idealized Marcellus of the later annalistic
tradition with the more critical treatment in Polybius and Coelius
in order to present a characterization that points a moral.
Livy's
Marcellus is absent from the disasters at Trasimene and Cannae and
27
is allied with Fabius in the policy of restraint, whereas the opposing
tradition links Niarcellus's tactics with the blunders of Flaniinius and
Varro.
In Book XXIII Livy changes his chief source from Coelius Anti-
pater to Valerius Antias mainly because he wants to give greater detail
to the Italian campaign where Marcellus plays such an important role
and present Marcellus's early successes in a brighter light (Carawan,
p. 133 following the work of Alfred Klotz).
In Livy's presentation
it is only growing opposition to the conservative strategy that drives
him to recklessness, which leads to his death as an inevitable denouement, providing a unity to the Marcellus episode typical of drama.
CH ARAC TIER PORTRAYAL
Livy's portrayal of the character of Marcellus is spread through Books
XXIII to XXVII, and is achieved mainly through the indirect methods
of characterization.
Livy makes effective use, as usual, of speeches
in the mouth of Marcellus to bring his character to life, and he shows
a subtle bias in favour of Marcellus as when in recording the speeches
in the Senate on the occasion of the accusation of Marcellus by the
Sicilians of his cruel sack of Leontini and the slaughter of allies
he allots a far longer speech to Marcellus in his defence than to the
Scililians' indictments (26 .30 & 31).
Notably Marcellus's speech
is in the more arresting medium of oiwtLo kcta, whereas his accusers'
is unobtrusively in oiato obtqua (Walsh, p. 102).
Having listened
to the case, the Senate's decision was in favour of ratifying Marcelluss
acts in Sicily (26.32.6).
In other speeches Marcellus's successful
use of tact comes across in his words, again given in oaLio ncta,
to win over Bantius (23.15.14), in which he promises him every
advancement if he comes over to his side, and his tenacity is underlined when he says to Fabius during the difficult siege of Casilinum,
that they should not give up in view of the fact that the attack had
already been commenced and the reputation at stake would have great
NN
influence in both directions (24.19.7).
Marcellus had his way and
Casilinum was captured through his perseverance, Marcellus's dementia
is stressed in his instruction in the council prior to the sack of
Syracuse ordering that the soldiers upon entering the city should
injure no free person (25.25.7).
His first speech as consul for 210
B.C. (26.26.5 - 9) saying that he would not refuse to allow his Sicilian
detractors to speak against him in the Senate but wanted, in accordance
with their wishes, to postpone the case until his colleague in the
consulship could also be present, builds up his reputation for fairness
and restraint.
His selfless devotion to his public trust and sense
of accountability is much to the fore when he agrees in the Senate to
exchange with his colleague the province of Sicily just allotted to him
should the case against his earlier administration not be proved groundless (26.29.6 - 8).
He appears a strong disciplinarian when he
del i vers a "coiLLovem ae'iam aque acjtbam" to his troops, who fled
from Hannibal with the loss of 2,700 men (27.13.1 - 8), yet great
tactfulness and inspiring leadership is also apparent when, subsequent
to his bitter address, these same men present themselves armed for battle
and he praises them warmly and declares he will lead out into the front
line the men with whom the flight began and the cohorts which had lost
their standards, so that news of today's victory might reach Rome
sooner than that of yesterday's flight (27.13.11 - 12).
Even his final
remark, which I have counted as negative because it reflects on his
rashness, is given by Livy in oncLLic 'tcta in a manner that is moving
and sympathetic:
"Why not go ourselves with a few horsemen (to a
nearby wooded hill actually already ambushed by Hannibal) to reconnoitre?
Seeing before our eyes will give us a surer judgement."
(27.26.10).
The tragedy seen by Livy in the situation and in Marcellus's rashness,
born of over eagerness, is very apparent.
Livy has also attributed
two letters to Marcellus. The first shows his positive outlook and
001
confidence.
He is not alarmed even by so serious a defeat as that
at Herdonea, and he wrote a letter to the Senate in Rome about the
loss of the general , Gnaeus Fulvius, and his army, saying that he
(Marcellus) was still the same man, who after Cannae had frustrated
Hannibal and he was now on the march to cut short his joy and exultation at the recent Roman reverse (27.2.1 - 2).
The second letter,
written when a consular election was at hand, requests the Senate
to send for the other consul to conduct the election because it
was against the public interest at that stage for him to be
"Je5t2ig-ciw11 abcecLi ab HartbaY.e" (27.4.1 - 3).
This letter shows
the seriousness with which he took his military duties and eagerness
for overcoming Hannibal. The very last words of Marcellus that
Livy reports are that their camps (his own and Hannibal's) could
never be close enough together (27.27.1).
Though these words show
a Marcellus now goaded into rashness, and I count them as negative, they also
show tragic irony just before the death of Marcellus at the hands
of his great adversary, Hannibal.
Marcellus's actions outnumber all other indirect methods of his
character portrayal .
It seems more appropriate to group them accord-
ing to characteristics than simply recount them in chronological
order.
By far the most numerous group are those that emphasize
his pnudeiJjLa, that show the wise military strategist. Marcellus
held Nola as murh by gaining the goodwill of the leading citizens
as by trusting in the strength of his garrison.
A young nobleman,
Bantius, who had been given gifts and nursed back to health by Hannibal
after Cannae,seemed on the point of revolting, but Marcellus gave
him a horse and other gifts and through kindness made him a staunch
ally of the Romans (23.15.7 - 15).
When Hannibal approached Nola,
Marcellus withdrew from his camp near Nola into the city, to ensure
I,J
the continued loyalty of the Nolans, who might otherwise have gone
over to Hannibal (23.16.2
-
3).
In the second fight at Nola the
Roman soldiers were eager to assault Hannibal's camp, but Marcellus
led them back into Nola amid the rejoicing and congratulations of
the Nolans, who previously had been more inclined to favour the
Carthaginians (23.46.3).
Marcellus forestalled Hannibal when he
was invited to take over Nola by some of its plebeian citizens because
omya i mpig,,Le
"a co ~ t ou-te
acta
wit" (24.13.11) and Hannibal abandoned
his attempt to gain control of Nola.
In Sicily, fearing attack
on his small forces, Marcellus 'nax&iw iiit e at u.5
omio awou-o
aompo-2o ibat
(24.35.10).
aqua
agnuirze
ad
His shrewdness is apparent
at the siege of Syracuse when he orders his centurions and soldiers
in charge to eat early and rest well before the assault on the walls
of Syracuse during the festival of Diana when the defenders would
probably have drunk too much wine (25.23.14
25.24.7).
-
When
the pestilence broke out Marcellus considerately took his men into
the shelter and shade of the city (Syracuse) and this helped the
situation (25.26.15).
The clever strategist is seen when he prevents
Bomilcar from landing at Syracuse by going to meet him at Pachynum
and diverting him to Tarentum in Italy (25.27.9
-
12). When chasing
Hannibal in his retreat from Numistro, Marcellus is careful to
leave a small garrison to protect the wounded (27.2.10).
Some of his recorded actions show the triumphant commander, whose
o'ttiJudo
is rewarded with success, such as when he fights Hannibal
with speed and strategy, killing 2,800 Carthaginians for 500 Romans
and forcing him to retire from Nola (23.16.12
-
16), or when he
demands a triumph for his victory over Syracuse, which is refused
through political opposition (Scullard, p. 64), but celebrates an
ovation instead and a private triumph on the Alban Mount (26.21.1-13),
keeps at Hannibal's heels, pitching camp near camp and forcing him
31
into the conflict he was trying to avoid (27.12.9 - 10) or "m&Lam
acAienl hotcz,tCk te,5 tL6 q4ue p ,,L auen,3 7ijunaboJ' (27.14.4).
By other actions Livy shows the qualities akin to tempetantia in
him, e.g. he takes Leontini but not one Leontinian is injured after
the capture of the city - despite rumours to the contrary (24.30.1-7)
and in the siege of Syracuse he tries to negotiate for the surrender
of the city through deserters, though unsuccessfully (25.24.15 25.25.2), sounds the recall to prevent the royal treasures from
being plundered (25.30.12) and grieves at the death of Archimedes
and provides for his funeral (25.31.10), which also attributes to
twiiaiJja,o.
him the quality of
A number of the actions of Marcellus, which Livy records, are indicative
of brutality or harshness, e.g. following his investigations on
those who had been in secret contact with Hannibal , he had over
70 persons beheaded and their property confiscated (23.17.1 - 2),
or during Hannibal's third attempt to capture Nola he ordered C.
Claudius Nero to go out of Nola by the farthest gate and attack
Hannibal in the rear while he advanced from the front, and when
Nero failed to accomplish this he "ado gtaviteA
pLtw wt pe
est cth coowa
wiii stetiz,oe dcvte-t quo rninu,5 acepta ad Cauia-o
iteddveJwt ioo-ti cade_o"
(24.17.2 - 8).
In Sicily Marcellus set
out with a third of the army to recover cities that had defected
to the Carthaginians
Helorus and Herbesus surrendered, and Megara
was stormed, plundered and destroyed to inspire terror in all the
Sicilians, especially the Syracusans (24.35.1 - 2).
Without approving
the act he allowed his soldiers to plunder Henna, thinking it would
deter other Sicilians from rising against the Roman garrisons stationed
in their towns (24.39.7).
"peit p'todLt-Lovtem"
Later in Samnium in Italy he took Salapia
(by persuading Blattius and Dacius to betray the
Carthaginian garrison) and Marmoreae and Meles "vi" (27.1.1 - 3).
Ruthlessness and a measure of brutality was expected of Roman generals
and I do not think they were given by Livy derogatorily, so in my
analysis I have counted them as neutral.
However, I think there can be little doubt that Livy does intend
at least two of Marcellus's actions to reflect negatively on his
character.
At 25.40.1 - 3 he says that although it is true that
Marcellus settled matters in Sicily with conscientiousness and honesty
and that he added not only to his own fame but also to the meta
of the Roman people, the carrying away of the adornments of the
city, statues and paintings, although acquired by the right of war,
led to a general licence to despoil all kinds of buildings, sacred
and profane, which ultimately turned against Roman gods, and first
of all against the very temple that was adorned by Marcellus (25.40.1-3).
As Carawan says (page 137) for Livy the plunder of Syracuse set a
dangerous precedent in the moral decline of the Roman national character
and subsequently Livy continually recalled the spoils of Syracuse on
both sides of the debate.
comes just before his death:
The other negative action of Marcellus
"coowPc. .6
ambo iigeiLo vLoceo p't.xpc
cocLie. in acLc.m exite haud dub-La 5pe.. dbcVaL po&&' (27.25.14).
Marcellus has changed. He is now motivated by
tocLa.
His former
pitudaviLLa and -tempeitarzLLa seem to have disappeared. The deaths
of the two consuls are almost a retribution.
The reactions of Marcellus also leave a positive image. When the
senators of Nola sent emissaries to Marcellus saying that there
is a danger of the common people going over to Hannibal in a coup
d'etat and the only way they are preventing this is by pretending
to go along with them but to be delaying because of negotiations
on terms of agreement with Hannibal, Marcellus praised them warmly,
33
instructed them to keep up the pretence and keep their approach to
him secret, while he set out promptly towards them (23.14.10-13).
Marcellus likewise shows his penchant for conscientious and prompt
action when he gets a message from Fabius requesting help with the
siege of Casilinum: leaving a garrison at Nola, he at once sets out
and commences the siege with Fabius (24.19.3 - 6).
initial approach is conciliatory.
In Sicily his
His response to the sending of
ambassadors by the Syracusans was to send his own ambassadors to
Syracuse to treat in person with the magistrates for a renewal of
the treaty with Rome (24.27.6).
Thus he was certainly not over hasty
in embarking upon the famous siege.
Marcellus's sense of
wotia
prompts him to react to the appeal made to him in his winter-quarters
in Sicily by representatives of the survivors of Cannae, banished
to Sicily, by writing to the Senate in Rome requesting that their
case by reviewed, and he was as a result given permission to employ
them in his military operations in Sicily if he saw fit (25.7.1 - 4).
Marcellus's respect for protocol and correct procedure and his deference
to authority are also evident in his reaction here.
Finally,
Marcellus's magnanimity and clemency are shown in his reaction to
the Sicilians who had spoken against his conduct in their province
in the Roman Senate. Even after what they had said he spoke to them
"cYmejtejt" and dismissed them (26.32.8), having at an earlier stage
exchanged provinces (26.29.6 - 9) with his colleague so that he would
not return to Sicily as a commander.
Without doubt Livy also uses the indirect method of rumour and remarks
of contemporaries to support his positive image of Marcellus.
examples follow.
It was ordered by the people that Marcellus should
have full military authority as proconsul
uxtuo Romaionuyn
Some
"quod pot Ccmioem cadem
ipvtatonwn ii I-taia p'toope
em ge L-oet"
(23.30 .19).
34
People particularly desired that Marcus Marcellus be elected consul
f o r 214 B.C. " o b
paQJuka neo geta" (23.31.7). When Hannibal
and Hanno went to Nola they found from enquiries that everything was
very different from what had been earlier reported by legates. Marcellus
had done everything in such a way that nothing could be said to have
been left to fortune, and all precautions were being taken (23.43.6 - 8).
In the course of his long speech the representative of the survivors
of Cannae banished to Sicily says in okaLo ncta : " It seems that
I am looking at both consuls and the entire Senate when I look at you,
Marcus Marcellus. If we had had you as consul at Cannae the lot of
the state, and of ourselves as well, would be a better one." (25.6.5).
The opinion of the Senate in the case against Marcellus's conduct
in Sicily was clearly in Marcellus's favour.
Although his political
enemy, T. Manlius Torquatus, expressed sentiments in the Senate to
arouse hatred against Marcellus, the Senate adopted a milder decree:
"aca M. Ma,,LceZU cLuae Ls geAen.6 bQYJu.m vcoue eg.Let &ctta iabcida"
(26.32.6).
Even after Marcellus had upbraided his troops for fleeing from Hannibal
with a '
cmLioiem acLo saevam atque aeitbam" (27.13.1) they took his
criticism as just and "confessed that they had been upbraided with
good reason (iw'ta) and deservedly nvtLto) , and that on that day in
the Roman line no one had been a man except the general alone, whom
they must satisfy either by dying or by a glorious victory." (27.13.10).
In fact these words by modern taste would seem somewhat obsequious
and almost silly, and Livy would seem to be laying it on a bit thick,
but Livy's intention to have a favourable picture of Marcellus is
not in any doubt.
Hannibal's remark about Marcellus is very apt
for the portrait Livy is painting:
"Of a truth we have to deal with
an enemy who can bear neither good fortune nor bad. If he has won,
35
he furiously presses the defeated; if on the other hand he has been
defeated, he renews the conflict with the men who beat him.' (27.14.1).
Yet Livy cannot forget Marcellus's two unforgivable lapses: the plunder
of Syracuse and the lapse into rashness before his final battle. When
Marcellus receives Sicily and the fleet for a second term by lot, he
makes the Sicilians in Rome go round in mourning, saying they would
prefer "an eruption of Aetna or a tidal wave" to another period of
government under Marcellus (26.29.1 - 8). And after Marcellus's death
he makes the Senate and people say that the immortal gods, taking
pity upon the Roman people, had spared the innocent armies and punished
the rashness of the consuls by the loss of their own lives (27.33.11).
Use of association and contrast can also be traced in Livy's portrayal
of Marcellus. He is associated with Hannibal as the victor of Cannae
by the ambassadors of the Hirpini and the Samnites following
Marcellus's ravaging of their territories (23.42.5) and with a victorious
Hannibal after winning the battle at Nola (26.29.10). He is associated,
together with Fabius, with the great generals of the past. Livy says
that when Fabius and Marcellus were elected joint consuls for 214 B.C.
old men recalled that "thus Maximus Rullus had been declared consul
with Publius Decius for the Gallic war, thus later on, Papirius and
Carvilius against the Samnites and Bruttians and the people of Lucania
and of Tarentum." (24.9.8).
These historic consuiships were held in
295 and 272 B.C. respectively, and it should be noted how subtle
Livy's analogies are, the latter for the theatre of the war, for Fabius
was destined in the Hannibalic War to take Tarentum, and in the former,
by positioning Fabius and Marcellus against Rullus and Decius, he has
lined up Marcellus with the famous Publius Decius Mus,who in his last
consulship in 295 B.C. while fighting the Gauls at Sentinum, imitated
the example of his famous father and, when his troops began to waver,
MR
devoted himself and the enemy to destruction, and fell as a sacrifice
for his nation (Smith, p. 197). What a subtle way of saying that a
similar tragic death is in store for Marcellus!
The more one reads
Livy, the more one becomes aware of his use of endless subtle and clever
touches. Also in 26.22.12 Marcellus is associated with Quintus Fabius
in the advice of the older men of the Volturia tribe on the choice of a
consul for 210 B.C., urging consideration of those two men 'pett iwn
(imtcniim'.
Finally, an association with all the generals - so many
and so distinguished, who have perished in a single war - Flaminius,
Paulus, Gracchus, Albinus, Marcus Marcellus, Crispinus, Fulvius,
my Scipios, is placed in the mouth of Scipio Africanus (28.28.12).
As has been noted already, however, there is a limited negative aspect
to the character of Livy's Marcellus, and to show it Livy has claimed
that Fabius showed more magnanimity in refraining from plunder than
did Marcellus after the capture of Tarentuni (27.16.8).
He also contrasted in 24.19 the more clement treatment of Fabius with
Marcellus's savagery in his merciless attitude towards the Campanian
garrison of Casilinum (Walsh, p. 101).
We may now turn to the character-revealing incidents, which embroider
still further the favourable picture of Marcellus.
consul for 214 B.C.
He was elected
cct-nu", but when it thundered the augurs
declared that two plebeian consuls did not meet the approval of the gods,
and Marcellus magnanimously withdrew (23.31.13 - 14).
Similar
magnanimity and selfless devotion to the public trust is shown by his
agreement to consult his colleague on the exchange of provinces after
the complaints raised by the Sicilians (26.29.6 - 8).
His piao
and religious devotion is shown when he pays a vow to Vulcan as he
burns the enemy spoils in the second battle at Nola (23.46.5) and
when problems with the Temple to Honour and Valour, which he had
C-,'
vowed at Clastidium in the Gallic war during his first consulship of 222
B.C. and other religious scruples delayed his setting out to his army at
Venusia (27.25.7
-
10).
That he did have a good measure of sensitivity
and awareness of ii uma ~ tito,6 is indicated by the famous scene in which he
wept upon entering the devastated city of Syracuse (25.24.11).
That
his responsibility and accountability could not be called into question
is shown in the incident where he was attacked by a political enemy, the
military tribune, C. Publicius Bibulus, for being defeated and keeping
his troops in billets in mid-summer, though Hannibal was wandering
around Italy.
Bibulus's speech in the Flaminian Circus was so completely
refuted by Marcellus's statement of his achievements that the bill to
abrogate his command was rejected and on the following day all the
centuries with great unanimity elected him consul for the fifth time
(27.20.-1
-
27.21.4).
A majority of the incidents Livy recounts of the
life of Marcellus show him as the inspiring and successful military
commander.
In the fighting for Nola the Romans
courage rose through
the encouragement of their leader (Marcellus) and some of the Nolans
themselves (23.46.2).
e
The siege of Syracuse came to an end, aided by
L't-twt (drive and courage) dttct" as well as treachery within
(25.23.1).
Marcellus's command was prolonged so that as proconsul in
Sicily he might finish the war with the army he had (26.1.6
-
8). He
was chosen as consul for 210 B.C. " wgetcm twn SicLa domLta"
"resplendent in the light of the conquest of Sicily" (26.22.13).
-
His
military reputation was such that when as consul-elect he was sent to
quell the revolt in Etruria, he shifted the whole war from Apulia to
Etruria, and, restrained by fear, the Etruscans now kept quiet (27.21.7).
Likewise when Scipio Africanus was planning his expedition to Carthage,
he chose for his legions men with the longest experience, especially
those who had served under Marcellus, believing them to have been
schooled by the best training and in particular to be most skilled in
besieging cities (29.1.12 - 13).
The great general could be thought-
ful and caring about his men, for after a decisive victory over
Hannibal, in which 8,000 of the enemy were killed to 1,700 Romans,
Marcellus was eager to pursue Hannibal, but "the number of the
wounded prevented him" (27.14.13 - 15). Some of the incidents I have
counted as neutral, e.g. when Livy merely states that Marcellus was
elected the praetor for Sicily in 216 B.C. (22.35.6) or that Marcellus
was the man chosen by the Senate to be sent from his command of the
fleet at Ostia to take over the army from the consul (22.57.1).
Similar incidents that do not reflect one way or the other on his
character, except perhaps to attribute a certain degree of standing
and reputation to him are to be found at 24.9.3 and 24.21.1.
The thoughts, feelings and motives Livy attributes to Marcellus all
reflect positive qualities.
aLto d-t"
It is only when he thinks "pacatLo
(22.57.7) that he sends the 1,500 soldiers under him
at Ostia to Rome, which reflects his sense of pieta-o towards the
gods.
His grieving over the death of Archimedes (25.31.10) proves
his !iwnaiLtaó.
His deep patriotism and awareness of his own
abilities are apparent in his reflections of his conquest of
Syracuse : above everything else - the fleets sunk,the mighty
armies destroyed, the distinguished generals killed, etc. - he
reflects on "ua
vLtó ei 4ontwiaue 6ua dede'ta.t bteicL
.ivt
popwn Rornaiwn ivto-cigiL" (25.24.13). His supreme self-confidence
is indicated when, near the end of his life he sets out from winterquarters as soon as pasture was abundant to encounter Hannibal near
Canusium, being spurred on by the consul's letter and because
"Lta
dtvw
guam -oe ee."
it amLmwii iiera,6iem duceun Romawn twn pwtcjii Ha12iba-P
(27.12.7).
There are occasions too, as I assess it, when Livy uses the technique
39
of generalization to indirectly reflect the positive attributes of
Marcellus. Without being specific he says that from Nola Marcellus
made frequent raids into the country of the Hirpini and Samnites and
laid waste the whole region with fire and sword so completely that he
revived the Samnites'
memory of their old disasters (23.41.13 - 14).
Then there is an interesting aside by Livy in which he generalizes on
"For my part, if there should be a
the good qualities of Marcellus.
city-state of sages, such as philosophers imagine rather than actually
know, I am inclined to think that neither could leading men possibly be
of more solid worth (aoJie) and more self-controlled as regards the
mpvt-LL)" (26.22.14). Livy
a
lust for power
is referring to Marcus Marcellus and Marcus Valerius Laevinus on their
election in absentia to the consulship for 210 B.C.
Below is given a table of the number of times Livy has made use of the
various methods of character delineation in his portrayal of MARCUS
CLAUDIUS MARCELLUS (according to my analysis).
TABLE 3
DIRECT
INDIRECT
DRAMATIC
PRESENTATION
0
a)
.,-
ro
4-'
S...
o
U)
a)
ro
(0
S.-
-
0
U
U)
E
0
Ci
C
U
C
>i
5-
U
0(0
U)
Q- .0
Ci
C
(00
E4-'
S-a)
o
U
(0
S.00)
4-)
0 U
(0(0
5-5-
0
U)
0
a)
(1)
CL
U)
5/)
C
0
.,-.
4-)
U
U)
U) U
Cl)
<C
=
U)
C
0
0
0E
Ct)
0
-
-
(V
C
4-
(0
4)
0
0
CU)
0
C
0
a)C
C
4)
(0
(0
C
N
S.-(0
(U
5-
4-' (1)
U
(US.-
E
a)
.'
(/)
4-)
(U
0U)
U)
a)
0 -4-'
4U
SS(0
54)
Ci>
C U
a)(U
(0
E0
C
04-)
C
U) C
0
C 0
C 40
a)
=
(/)
4-'
.(U—
4-S.
'1)
a)
(I)
4C
0
-
(0
U
•
0
CL
>,
C
-
a)
-ê-'O
4-)
0
C
(V
(
(U
-
C.-)
I—
E
4-
—
.
—
a)
C
a)
CD
a)
S-0
a)
S-CO
(U
-C
a)
S.-
POSITIVE
-
-
-
16
18
7
7
5
5
-
3
14
NEGATIVE
-
1
-
2
2
-
2
2-
-
-
-
NEUTRAL
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
-
1
-
18
26
71
9
75
-
3181=94
1
= 75
= 10
40
This analysis would indicate that Livy's portrait of Marcellus is
overwhelmingly positive.
There were, however, faults in his dis-
tinguished career to which Livy took strong exception, viz, the
brutal attitude, unusual to him, which he displayed in the plunder
of Syracuse, and the rashness, again unusual to him, which overwhelmed him (perhaps through political criticism) in his final and
fatal encounter with Hannibal.
This analysis shows graphically
a perfect example of Walsh's claim that, though the indirect
methods of characterization are the chief ones used, Livy does
employ occasional direct methods, such as the insertion of brief
comments on their careers after the deaths of more important
persons - comments which are not undiscriminating eulogy as found
in typical
audaLLoie-,
but which merely give the facts of main
importance of a man's career, and which occasionally include words
of criticism (Walsh, p. 85).
Livy accords such an obituary notice
to Marcellus: "Marcellus's death was pitiable both for other
reasons (note Livy merely acceding to his good qualities almost by
innuendo!) and also because it was neither consistent with his age for he was now more than 60 years old - nor with his foresight
as a veteran commander, that with such imprudence he had carried
himself and his colleague and almost the entire state over the
brink." (27.27.11).
In this comment Livy emphasises a single
negative characteristic, viz, rashness, which shows how strongly
he felt about it.
Yet the character that has emerged through a
wide spectrum of indirect methods of character portrayal is strongly
positive, virtually a hero. Marcellus might truly be termed a
"man of action", and appropriately it is through the recounting
of his actions more than through any other method that Livy indirectly has created his highly positive image - an image more
favourable than he deserved according to some commentators.
41
If Polybius be followed, Livy (or the annalists he followed) imagined
victories Marcellus never won and exaggerated trifling skirmishes to
make it appear that his prowess turned the tide for the Romans after
Cannae.
His commonplace merits were exalted to make him seem a
worthy antagonist for Hannibal, while his cruelties at Syracuse and
greedy plundering thereafter in Sicily were glossed over (Capes, p.97).
42
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF QUINTUS
FABIUS MAXIMUS VERRUCOSUS
CUNCTATOR
TN'IFRODUC'IrION
Quintus Fabius stemmed from one of the most ancient and distinguished
patrician families.
of
p'tiicp-o
For three generations they held the position
ia-two for three consecutive periods (Scullard, p. 31).
His own career was marked by five consuiships, two dictatorships and
high positions in the state religion such as
potti4cx.
Plutarch's
portrait has been summarized by Scullard (p. 61) as follows: He was
nicknamed Verrucosus from a wart on his upper lip, and as a child
was also called
temper.
OvJcuYa (the little lamb) on account of his mild
He was slow in speech and deliberation, which gave the
impression of stupidity, which belied his prudence and constancy in
action.
He exploited the resources of the two priestly colleges,
of which he was a member, to the full in his own political interests.
Being the head of one of Rome's oldest patrician families owning vast
estates, he was naturally conservative. He admired tradition and
old-fashioned discipline.
It seems that he opposed the new fashion
for admiring everything Greek i.e. he was anti-Hellenist, in marked
contrast to Scipio, and criticized the latter on this account.
If
he was slow to move with the times, he certainly knew enough to control
the hidden machinery behind the acquisition of political power.
It
was well for Rome that he gained control of the government, because
his steadying influence in the days after Cannae was undeniably
valuable, however low a view might be taken of his military ability.
He watched Hannibal from his entrenchments, and at least kept the
battlefield without great losses for the Romans. Though this was no
great triumph, it gave the Romans the time they needed to drill their
levied recruits and exhaust the resources of Hannibal.
It will be
43
seen that Livys portrait of this somewhat controversial hero of the
Hannibalic War is strongly positive, and that Livy was lavish in his
praise of this aristocratic champion, who stood conspicuous amid the
general mediocrity of talent.
CHARACTER POR'IFRAYAJ.
Livy accords Fabius, on his death in 203 B.C., a much more extensive
obituary notice than is usual, even for prominent characters.
it
amounts virtually to a taudatio, in which Fabius is directly
characterized, mainly in a positive light. The points made are that
he died at a very advanced age, having possibly been an augur for
62 years (30.26.7); that he surpassed the number of magistracies
held by his father (30.26.8); he faced, in Hannibal, an enemy so
formidable as to place his achievement on a par with his grandfather's greater number of victories (30.26.8); he really did deserve
the famous quotation from the poet, Ennius, ichto cLLvlcaldo 'tcin
keouLo" (30.26.9).
Livy does, however, admit the one fault,
that he was cawtiok tayrnayt qawn p'tornptLon" (30.26.9)
i.e.
"too
cautious rather than too inclined to action", and that it might be
questioned whether he was "Cwataton" by nature.
The picture of Fabius, that emerges by indirect methods of character
portrayal throughout all the books of the third decade, accords with
that of the direct picture of the taudatio,
but with an even greater
proportion of stress on his positive attributes.
His actions,
recounted by Livy, are calculated to stress, from the very beginning,
a deep religious conviction.
His first action as dictator was to
convene the Senate to address Flaminius's neglect of the ceremonies
and auspices, and to order the Sibylline Books to be consulted
(22.9.7 - 11).
Other actions showing his interest in religion are
44
his getting the Senate to decree him a dLiumvL'L, so that he could
dedicate the Temple of Venus of Eryx, which he vowed during his
consulship (23.30.13 - 14), and his slowness to lead his army across
the R. Volturnus as he was involved in taking new auspices and
expiating the portents being reported (23.36.9 - 10).
Then many of his actions show "p&ucLeiLa" e.g. the removal of persons
in unfortified towns to places of safety and the burning of their
farms so that Hannibal might get no supplies i.e. his famous scorched
earth policy destined to save the day for Rome (22.11.3 - 5); his
breaking camp and establishing himself in the naturally strong
position above Allifae (22.18.5);
his establishing a military
presence above Suessula and sending M. Marcellus with his forces
to serve as a garrison in Nola, thus preventing the common people
of Nola from murdering their Senate and going over to Hannibal
(23.39.8); his strengthening the supplies and fortifications of
Suessula and leaving in it a strong enough garrison to hold the
place for the winter, before moving into Campanian territory to
ravage the enemy very effectively (23.46.9 - 11) but only until
it was time for sowing and not returning until the grain in the
fields was tall enough to furnish fodder (23.48.1);
his timely
sending for his colleague, Marcellus, for the successful joint siege
of Casilinum, because '
ihL eo'iwn FabJwn eLUt" as to the planned
Carthaginian attack on his camp (24.19.1 - 10); his regaining of
Arpi 'i
cade wWiwo p/LaevLquam tttiwo vetvtL, p'tocLLtoio"
through
taking advantage of a storm to cover the noise of forcing the gate,
cleverly talking the Arpinians around and allowing Hannibal's garrison
in the town to leave unmolested (24.46.1 - 24.47.11);
his shrewd
capture of Tarentum by taking advantage of the fact that the commander
of the Punic garrison in the town was in love with the sister of a
man in his army and was open to treachery (25.15.9 - 27.16.7); the
45
reconciliation of the enmity between the consuls-elect in 208 B.C.,
C. Claudius Nero and M.
Livius."pnAilc2ipio .acto a Q. Fabo Maximc"
(27.35.5 - 12);
Fabius's carefulness is emphasized in the guerilla warfare he
practised around Arpi: the roads were reconnoitred
"6umma awn cwa"
(22.12.2), he got a small cavalry contingent to make "uo mLLt
twa cinn.a"
in all manoeuvres (22.12.9), the little skirmishes
were undertaken "ct
-twto . . .I iLtmoque. necep-tu"
in his military operations of 217 B.C.
riuiiwo quam
in
ho-o.
e-two
(vLat)"
(22.12.10),and
"Fabwo pcviLtvi
in
:suo,5 haud
(22.15.1).
His maintenance of a strict and harsh discipline is shown when he
exempts not even praetors' farms from being burnt and the slaves
sold if their grain crops had not been brought into fortified cities
by the Kalends of June (23.32.14 - 15), and when he sends 370
deserters, caught in Samnium, to Rome to be scourged and hurled
to their deaths from the Tarpeian Rock (24.20.6).
His dogged determination in his guerilla tactics emerges when he
leads his troops along the ridges between the enemy's army and the
City, "c
ab
ti-o aa aciqn cUeiio"
as he follows Hannibal
feigning an attack on Rome via Samnium and the Paeligni country
(22.18.6), and when he takes town after town by force such as
Combulteria, Trebula and Austicula, which had gone over to Hannibal
(23.39.6).
His
teinpe'taiLia is
indicated by his defence of the Tarentines,
whom he himself had captured, and recommendation of comparatively
mild punishment for them in the debate in the Senate (27.25.1 -2)
and similarly by his support of not dealing with Marcus Livius,
the commandant of the citadel of Tarentum responsible for the loss
of that city to the Carthaginians, too harshly (27.25.3 - 5).
46
Other of Fabius's recorded actions do not highlight any particular
characteristics, but are merely the deeds of a capable leader, and
these I have counted as neutral e.g. he fortified the garrison at
Puteoli at the end of 215 B.C. (24.7.10) and launched 100 new ships
and held the election for the choosing of censors (24.11.6) and
stormed Manduria, capturing 3,000 men and much booty (27.15.4).
Similarly a number of reactions by Fabius in the "Ab uAbe cciidLta"
indicate positive traits in him.
His perseverance in the application
of his policy of avoiding a major pitched battle with Hannibal while
wearing him down slowly with guerilla tactics, in the face of
provocation and criticism, is highlighted when he reacts to Hannibal's
burning of the farms of the exceptionally fertile Falernian district
and the colony of Sinuessa, by still remaining aloof (22.14.1 - 3);
when in response to his own men urging him to take action against
the Carthaginians he "obotiiatwo timeii t ei io ,,Le ecdem ccoLLotwn
aaL teLiqtiwii
ttaxU" (22.15.1); and when his reaction to
the placing of Minucius on an equal footing with himself in the
dictatorship, widely seen as an insult, was to accept the injustice
of the infuriated people with the same unruffled spirit ("g&av-2at
aiL&ni cadm") as he had borne all the other slanders uttered against
him (22.26.5 - 6).
Likewise his caution is highlighted by his reactions in the famous
Hannibalic trick of the "fiery oxen" when, having heard the din,
he still let the Carthaginians get across the ridge of Callicula,
as he feared there might be an ambush and in any case disliked fighting at night (22.18.1), and when his reaction to a letter,
sent
ostensibly from some leading man in Nietapontum offering to betray
the Punic garrison in the town, but really from Hannibal trying
to trick Fabius into coming into the town, was to take the auspices
47
of the sacred fowls and, the omens being unfavourable, to have the
messenger tortured, thereby avoiding the trap (27.16.12 - 16).
Another quality of Fabius to be revealed by his reaction is his
-tempvtaiLth.
When Dasius Altinus of Arpi, having deserted to Hannibal
after Cannae, promised to betray the town for a reward, the council
wanted him scourged and put to death, but Fabius's reaction was
to recommend the milder measure of keeping him under arrest for
the duration of the war, because he felt that it was understandable
that individuals could make wrong decisions in the heat of war and,
if his treatment was not too harsh, it would not discourage others
from changing their minds and coming over to Rome (24.45.1 - 10).
This last reaction also shows real wisdom, as does his reaction
to Minucius's proposal, after his elevation to virtual co-dictator,
that they share the command on alternate days.
Fabius refuses
this, but suggests that the army be divided on an equal basis a far wiser measure that Minucius could not refuse, and saved the
day when Minucius was on the point of being wiped out (22.27.5 - 11).
His bota
-idu
stands out in his reaction to Hannibal's burning of
all the farms around his property, but sparing that in an attempt
to discredit him in the eyes of his political opponents.
He sold
the farm and used the money to pay the government's debt to Hannibal
for Roman prisoners he had released (22.23.6 - 8).
That Fabius,
"the Delayer", was capable of prompt and swift action is evident
when he responds to Hannibal's attack on Puteoli by returning to
his army "tec cLia i i e c ioct
iite>'unLo-oo
tite't&'
(24.12.5) to arrange
for reinforcements.
Yet again in the case of Fabius Livy has made use of the remarks
of contemporaries and rumours to a considerable extent to elucidate
M.
his favourable qualities.
Thus Hannibal was worried that the Romans
now had a general to match him (in pkLLcL.tLa)
(22.12.6), and later
he came to realize that the Romans had chosen a military leader
who acted as 'taLio (reason) and not 6 oqtuija (blind chance) dictated
(22.23.2).
Near the end of the year of Fabius's dictatorship and
after Fabius has successfully wrested his colleague, Minucius, from
destruction by Hannibal, Livy makes the latter pay tribute to Fabius's
prowess as a military commander by saying "that at last that cloud
which had long been hovering about the mountain-tops had broken
in a storm of rain" (22.30.10).
Fabiuss political enemy, Minucius,
after being rescued by him, does a complete about-face and now hails
him as
"pakiteiii",
rnaeoa,"
a term that befitted his
(22.29.10 - 11).
"beieLcw'n"
and
Into the mouth of the dying Paulus
Livy has placed a great tribute to Fabius's military strategy: "in
private say to Quintus Fabius that Lucius Aemilius has lived to
this hour and now dies remembering his precepts." (22.49.10). When
he is elected consul for the 4th time on his own recommendation
the people praise his "magi Utudiiiem airni" because he counted any
suspicion that he was power-hungry and resultant unpopularity as
less important than the advantage of the state (24.9.11). When
he was elected consul for the 5th time in 509 B.C. the senators
deemed it a time for the state to have its affairs in the hands
of generals "'atcJtco t
pvttoo beue. pvtLto"
(27.6.10).
In
a dispute as to who should be chosen as p'uccpo 5ei iatu.6 in 209
B.C. Livy makes the censor, Sempronius Tuditanus, say that
uo
tjt-c
actwwm
ctbvwmqua
' t
oe. Ld
Q. Fab'um Maxirnwn, quem wn
p'tiacpem Romafriae cvta-tLo e,5,se ve Hat-bae i udice va-twtwo
(27.11.11).
s-,e-t."
Finally Livy says that although Fabius took Tarentum
by ruse rather than courage he nevertheless gained
"geoLa" among
49
the people of Rome (27.20.9).
In one instance at least Livy, with the "Allwissenschaft' more
typical of Tacitus,
reveals the personal thoughts of Fabius. When
Hannibal moved towards Rome in an attempt to draw the two Roman
commanders away from Capua, P. Cornelius Asina proposed in the
Senate that all Roman generals be recalled to defend the city.
Fabius's patriotism is revealed by his thought that it was shameful
to withdraw from Capua and be led about Italy at the beck of
Hannibal in response to his threats, and his p LdeLta through his
realization that Hannibal was merely on the move to raise the siege
of Capua (26.8.2 - 9).
Livy also resorted to comparisons and contrasts with Fabius, mainly
in the latter's favour.
Fabius and Marcellus, upon their joint
election to the consulship for 214 B.C. are compared to great pairs
of consuls in history elected to face special crises, viz. Maximus
Rullus (note Livy's play on the name, Maximus) and Publius Decius
for the Gallic war and, later on, Papirius and Carvilius against
the Samnites and Bruttians and the people of Lucania and of
Tarentum (note the parallel of the venues in which the consuls of
old and Fabius and Marcellus were destined to fight) (24.9.7 - 8).
Fabius is compared with Hannibal by that man himself in his remark,
"E.t Romati iwii Hci baeii iabtt" (27.16.10) on hearing that Fabius
had taken Tarentum as he had done years before.
Similarly Fabius's
clever military strategy is contrasted with that of Flaminius and
Sempronius (22.12.5), his prudence set against Nlinucius's rashness
(22.27-29), his leniency against Marcellus's harshness (27.16.7 - 8),
his clemency against Marcellus's savagery at Casilinum (24.19) and,
on the negative side, his attitude of doubt against Scipios belief in
himself and the Roman people (28.40-44).
50
In Livy's characterization of Fabius there is also an example of
omiss'on of facts, as it is alleged by Plutarch that
, being
jealous of Scipio, urged his colleague, Crassus, to go to Carthage
himself, if necessary, and that he made every endeavour to prevent
Scipio from raising money for the expedition, but Livy turned a
blind eye towards these derogatory allegations and attributed Fabius's
bitter opposition to the expedition to attack Carthage to his innate
caution (Walsh, p. 106), thus absolving him of the negative trait
of jealousy.
The device of generalization can also be traced in Livy's portrait.
Towards the end of the year of his successful military operations
as dictator his leadership is described in general and hyperbolic
terms e.g. "p'io - quLoqu
(in Rome) MaxAimwn JEaudibu,5 ad cae)um
eJuL&' (22.30.7) or "pcviL gPo&ia apud Haibaeii ho,5tesque Poeuo-o
e'tat: ac tun dcinw'n
awn R omavtLo atc ue
i
I aLa b ewn eo a'
(22.30.8).
Furthermore the incidents in Fabius's life, as recounted by Livy,
proffer only favourable traits. His widespread and long-standing
popularity is evidenced when the people elect him dictator (22.8.6),
and this is a dictatorship for the second time (22.9.7); and likewise
when he was elected consul for the third time (23.31.14) and when
chosen as "pniiiaapo aua-two"
for the second time in 204 B.C. (29.37.1).
The respect in which he was held is made obvious when the new consuls,
Atilius and Servilius, take over after Fabius's dictatorship and
carry on the war for the rest of the autumn with the greatest harmony
"Fabi.. a.-t.1bw" (22.32.1).
His involvement with religion is apparent
by his election as a p tt.4ax. (23.21.7). His wise caution is
highlighted by the incident of the young officer, Mancinus, who
listened to the rash speeches of Minucius, "forget the instructions
51
of the dictator' and was slain by Carthalo along with 400 cavalry
(22.15.5 - 10): and likewise by the affording of a breathing space
to the Romans after their defeat at Cannae through the "ooexo
cictaLio Fab" (22.23.1).
sense of nata
Two famous incidents establish his
in office. During his dictatorship, after organizing
his scorched earth policy he went out on the Fiaminian Way to meet
the consul, Servilius. When the latter appeared in the distance,
he dispatched an orderly bidding the consul to appear before the
dictator without lictors.
The consul obeyed and thus "their meeting
vividly impressed the greatness of the dictatorship on citizens
and allies, who had now, with the lapse of years, almost forgotten
that supreme authority." (22.11.5 - 6). Then when his son was consul
in 213 B.C. he happened to arrive at the camp at Suessula in a subordinate position as his son's lieutenant.
The old man rode past
11 of the lictors lined up in front of his son, all of whom kept
quiet in respect for the former dictator.
Nct until the consul
had ordered the last lictor to take notice and the latter shouted
out the order to dismount, did the father leap to the ground with
the famous remasrk: "ExpvLL
te.
-±-oe."
voCw, 1çL-L,
aLin' c-i'to cort-ouPc.m
(24.44.10).
Into the mouth of Fabius Livy has put some of the most cleverly
constructed speeches of the third decade of his history, several
of them in
oka-t-Lo
kecJa to heighten their dramatic effect, but for
the purposes of this study it will only be necessary to focus on
their character-revealing elements. Fabiuss arch-conservatism
is revealed by a speech made in the Senate successfully countering
the proposal of Spurius Carvilius that, in order to overcome the
paucity of citizens from whom senators could be recruited and to
link the Latins more closely to the Roman people, Roman citizenship
52
be bestowed on two senators from every Latin state and from these
men the numbers of the Roman Senate should be brought up to full
strength (23.22.4
-
9). His pwdtta is revealed at the same time
in that he sees that if such a controversial political move were
made at that particular time the unsettling result could prove disastrous.
His common sense and wise leadership stand out in the
speech he made after Cannae advising that light armed horsemen be
sent out to gather news of any survivors and their whereabouts and
of Hannibal and his plans, while the senators should concentrate
on getting the women to return to their homes, posting sentries at
the gates and encouraging the people to have confidence in their
city walls (22.55.4
-
8).
His impartiality or scorn of nepotism
(Scullard, p. 54) stands out in the long speech in oiaLio icta in
which he opposes the election of Otacilius and Regillus as consuls
for 214 B.C. on the ground that they were not sufficiently competent
to lead during a time of such a crisis, though the former was related
to him by marriage (24.8).
As a result of this speech he and
Marcellus were elected to replace Otacilius and Regillus, and it
was made in the face of criticism that he was furthering his own
political ends, therefore also evincing considerable moral courage.
Fabius, in four of his speeches, is characterized as a man who puts
his trust in human counsels alone, and is always wary of the dangers
of dependence on fortune or blind chance.
The first is just an
explanation to Minucius that the summer tediously spent baffling
Hannibal while warding off defeat had really brought tangible benefit
to the Romans, and entreating him 'ut p1w
couidat e t -oe
. . .
,rnLttu)L" (22.18.8
-
10).
quam oittuua
The second is the reported
gist of several speeches made to the Senate by Fabius defending his
military actions in response to the proposal of the t,~ ibuiiu,6
pbL,
Marcus Metilius, that the matei e quitwn, Minucius, be elevated
53
to an equal footing with the dictator.
Having attributed the reverses
of the past two years to the rashness and ignorance of the Roman
generals, he said that people should know that with a good commander
"(icuid mat
ciztuxtam momeiLi
mette.m aLioiemqi. onwiL'
(22.25.12 - 16). The third is the short speech, given in
&cta,
okatLo
to his troops when the panic-stricken cries of Minuciuss
army, about to be overwhelmed by Hannibal, are heard (22.29.1 - 2).
'Lta e,5t,
The key sentence is:
o'tiia tem etitatem.
"
non cvt.-iwo
quam t-imwi dpteicLiJ
Note the juxtapositioning of the word
and teinvwtin emphatically at the end.
1ço'LttncL
This short speech simul-
taneously reveals another side of Fabius's character, viz, his
magnanimity and clemency because he specifically refrains from any
direct criticism of Minucius and goes straight to his aid. The
fourth is the very long speech of advice to L. Aemilius Paulus as
he sets out from Rome just before the battle of Cannae. It warns
him of the difficulties of working with the impetuous Varro, the
other consul, and sets out at length why his delaying tactics will
work. As Walsh says (p. 231), this superbly eloquent and prophetic
speech is highly artificial in its context and was quite obviously
written by Livy in denigration of Varro and to clarify and support
Fabiuss military tactics.
It is also designed to give a prophetic
glimpse of the disaster of Cannae. The main advice to Aemilius Paulus
is to avoid any rash action and to urge "ut aetem t taLio duca-t,
O?l
7cnJjuyta'
(22.39.1 - 22). The whole question of the importance
of reliance on
&a-to or mein as opposed to 11ottuiia (blind chance)
is one of the major moral lessons held up in the third decade of
Livy's 'Ab wtbQ. ccidLta."
Fabius's repeated advice to others that
reliance must not be put in 4ottuaa is intended by Livy to show him
in a particularly favourable light, because that very point is
presented as the major failing of Hannibal. Lazarus has explained
54
how Livy uses
.cntuia as the primary agent in the development of
the rhetorical structure of the balanced pairs of speeches of Scipio
the Elder and Hannibal before the battle of the R. licinus, near
the beginning of the third decade, and of Hannibal and Scipio
Africanus before Zama near the end. The speeches are given in chiastic
structure. Thus Scipio the Elder speaks first, with
otLula, un-
personified, appearing twice in the speech, as opposed to Hannibal,
who is very confident of FoAtuna'6 support and mentions her six times;
whereas before Zama Hannibal speaks first, claiming that
Fc'ntnia,
whom he mentions eleven times, has deserted him, while Sciplo Africanus,
who is really Livy's ideal Roman, speaks last with a single reference
to 4oittuiia in scorn (Lazarus,
p. 128-131).
Fabius's caution is highlighted particularly in his advice to the
consul , Marcus Livius, setting out for war in 207 B.C. "ne, p't-Lwquam
genu,5 fto6tium
co ioo,e-t, temete maiwn conetcet'
(27.40.8), and
in his long and well-constructed speech in the Senate expressing
the opinion that Scipio should not be allowed to transport his army
to Africa in an attempt to finish the war.
In this speech (28.40.3 -
28.42.22) he exonerates himself of any envy of the rising and ambitious
young general, stresses the dangers of invasions of foreign soil
through historical examples, warns that Syphax and the Numidians
cannot be trusted in their promises of help, sets out the advantages
of fighting Hannibal in Italy and urges Scipio to follow the example
of his father, who returned from Spain to protect his homeland. Fabius
emerges as an elder statesman with attc.to'tLta-o and p'wdeittia and the
wisdom of the veteran wins more support especially among the older
members of the Senate than the confident spirit of the young Scipio,
the Senate only being prepared to assign the province of Sicily to
Scipio with rather grudging permission that he could cross to Africa
55
if it seemed to the advantage of the state (28.45.8).
However,
Livy did juxtapose with this speech of Fabius the long reply of Scipio,
also in o'iatJo kecta.
It is an even finer speech,and answers the
points raised by Fabius very effectively.
There is no doubt that
Livy is on the side of the ambitious and confident young Sciplo,
and that, as Botha has pointed out (p. 75-79), a supplementary aim
of the antithetical dialogue of these two speeches is to juxtapose
the two greatest Roman generals of the Hannibalic War, and, appropriately, just before the final campaign allow the man elected by
destiny to win the war - the country's 4ataLs
du
- the young
Scipio, all auspicious and confident energy, to eclipse his last
Roman rival of stature, the old Fabius, all doubtful and negative
caution. But at the moment of Fabius's speech, Livy seems to me
to be still presenting a favourable image of the old and experienced
stateman, and creating a rival truly worthy of Sciplo, his ideal
Roman. Fabius is cawtw, the quality that saved Rome in the early
stages of the war, but he is on the point of becoming caitLLo't (too
cautious) for the needs of the times. Scipio, a still greater hero
than he, is soon to eclipse him.
The final speech of Fabius is given in o'tao obojia (29.19.3 -
9).
By now the rift between Fabius and Scipio has widened into open
hostility.
Fabius publicly charges Scipio in the Senate of corrupting
his soldiers' discipline through indulgence and of having lost more
soldiers in Spain through mutiny than by war. This last is a gross
exaggeration, for which the word "prope" (29.19.4) is half apologetic,
as Livy says that not more than thirty-five leaders of the mutiny
were identified (28.26.2). This charge arose out of the complaints
to the Senate by the Locrian ambassadors that after the conquest
of Locri by Scipio and his
cawo,
Pleminius, they had been grossly
56
mishandled.
Although this speech does show up some of Fabius's
old praiseworthy traits such as
c emei 7,tia and pieta,5, emerging from
his insistence that expiation must be made in accordance with the
dictates of the college of pontiffs for the removal and profanation
of the sacred treasures of Locri by Roman soldiers (29.19.8), his
proposal that Pleminius be brought bound to Rome and, if proved guilty,
put to death and that Scipio's command be annulled, is specifically
stated by Livy to be
criticism of Sciplo.
"aeque t'wcem" (29.19.5) as his speech of negative
That Fabius was unjustified is subsequently
proved by the fact that the milder motion of Q. Metellus, calling
for a commission to investigate the conduct of Scipio, was the
one carried, and this commission concluded that the only possible
fault to be found with Scipio was that he had placed too much trust
in his lieutenant (29.21.10 - 11).
Furthermore the commission praised
the fleet, army and general so highly that the Senate voted that
the crossing to Africa under Scipio should take place as soon as
he had chosen for himself what forces he wanted from the armies
then in Sicily (29.22.11 - 12). Thus Fabius emerges as unfair and
ruthless out of his last speech, while Scipios reput tion is enormously
enhanced.
Appended is a Table giving my count of the number of times Livy has
delineated positive and negative characteristics in the various methods
of character portrayal of QUINITUS FABIUS MAXIMUS VERRUCOSUS, DICTATOR
017 D C'
57
TABLE 4
DIRECT
INDIRECT
DRAMATIC
PRESENTATION
0
Cn
a)
0
5-
(Ti
5-
0C
4-0
a)
o
U
,— .0
(00
5-a)
POSITIVE
-
0
4j
.
(0
>-,
L.
Dl
0
OW
.,- 4)
D L)
(0(0
0
5U
a)
5-5.0(0
0-
UI
a)
()
U
0
a)
4)
a)
0.
0
0
s/I
(I)
M
C
(I)
5/)
4-
C
(0
04-'
E
0
5/)
4)
(0
4-'
U
(0
a)
C
(0
0
C
'0
5-.S...
(0
E
a) C
5
4)
C
0
5-)
Cl)
C
Dl>
a)
c..04-'
C 0
F— E
(j
4)
T5C
Ca)
>1
C
,-•-
(00
G)C
C
0
Cl)
C
U
U
0
(/)
5/).,(Ti—
4-5-
5/)
C
C
0
>-
"-
a)
4-)
(0
S-
05/)
4C U
•,.-
a)
W(0
5a)
C
C
(05.5-sO
(TiE
C
C 4'- 0
5/)
4U
(Ti
a)
a)
C
m
(I) U
(I)
4
-
16
22
10
9
7
2
1
2
10
1
-
2
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
=
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
=3
-
5
-
18
25
10
9
8
2
1
210
=90
C/I
-
NEGATIVE
NEUTRAL
E
a)
C
0
(0
C
0
U
5-
C
(0
•-
o
5-
4)
(0
.
c=
(0
(
83
This analysis clearly shows how overwhelmingly positive Livy's portrait
of Fabius Maximus is. If my count of the mention of positive traits
set against negative traits be compared with that for Marcellus it
will be seen that Livy's portrait of Fabius is ostensibly more positive
than that of Marcellus - 92% positive as opposed to 80% positive
in the case of Marcellus. The obituary notice accorded to Fabius
is longer and more closely approaching a real taudatio than I could
trace for any other character in the third decade of the "Ab wtbe
cotdAi-ta" .
It sets the seal on an overwhelmingly positive character-
ization, merely giving the hint of a single failing viz, that Fabius
was too cautious to move with the times. The picture that emerges
in the long course of the narrative through a full spectrum of the
means of indirect characterization is fully in accord with the
leaving an even more positive impression.
It would appear that
audaLJo,
4
*1
Livy's portrait of Marcellus is more positive than in some other
authors, e.g. Polybius, and the question must arise as to the reason
for this, because Fabius's cautious policies clashed with those of
Livy's greatest hero of the Hannibalic War, Scipio Africanus, near
the end of the third decade. This clash in fact gives rise to the
only negative traits in Fabius that Livy was prepared to acknowledge.
The answer is that Livy saw Fabius as the real hero of the early
stages of the War, who through his policy of c tctatio saved the
day for Rome and was the first to stem the tide of Carthaginian
victories. A master of defensive strategy, he was not an appropriate
leader for the offensive strategy required to finish the War. For
this task Scipio Africanus was the ideal figure. Yet Livy wanted
a worthwhile foil for Scipio, someone truly great for him to eclipse
in the closing stages of the drama.
Fabius is this noble figure
and out of his largely noble opposition to Scipio Livy is able to
make Sciplo emerge in an even more brilliant light than if Fabius
had been a less admirable figure.
59
CONCLUS ION
All the various devices of character portrayal enumerated by Pauw
in his study of character portrayal in the work of Ammianus Marcellinus
may be identified in the third decade of Livy's "Ab WLbe cctdLta".
The most striking contrast between the two authors is the far lower
incidence of the direct methods of character portrayal in Livy. For
example in my analysis of four characters I found only 13 incidences
of characterization by direct methods as opposed to 272 by indirect
methods, i.e. a mere 4,8% as opposed to a 32,3% portrayal by direct
methods in Ammianus (Pauw, p. 177).
It has often been said that
Livy preferred the 'objective' approach to the characterization
of individuals, and that in following this approach he pursued a
tradition going back to Xenophon and Thucydides, which was influenced
by the techniques of characterization employed in Greek drama, e.g.
Walsh, p. 83. These figures support the view that it was rare for
Livy to risk intruding his own personal judgements, as is the
universal trend in historiography and journalism, not to mention
ordinary discussions between people, right up to the present day.
Livy quite clearly preferred to be implicit in his revelation of
character rather than explicit in statements about the qualities
of individuals, whether positive or negative, thus avoiding up to
a point the responsibility of decisions about character.
It appears that the indirect methods of characterization of innuendo
and suppression of facts, and of generalization and hyperbole, of
which Ammianus makes extensive use in negative characterization (see
Pauw, p. 177) are little used by Livy, although a few examples are
to be found. These are the more sophisticated methods of indirect
character portrayal, and my conclusion is that Livy does not make
use of them to anywhere near the same extent as the later writers
IN
of Roman history, like Tacitus and Ammianus, whose historiography
was more people-centred and influenced by biography.
That having been said, however, Livy remains an extremely fertile
ground for the study of indirect means of character delineation.
Because of the moral function he allotted to history, the characterization of individuals occupies a central position in his work and
is carefully interwoven with his description of events. His characters
do, however, tend to conform to definite types and lack depth and
individuality, because of his emphasis on specific moral attributes
(Walsh, p. 88). Thus the two negative figures analysed in this dissertation, Sempronius and Flaminius, are very much cast in the same
mould, viz, as the headstrong and rash commander, whose impatience
leads his army to disaster.
Yet another parallel in the 3rd decade
of the 'Ab wLb corwLLt& 7 is Varro, who plays an identical role and
is made the scapegoat for the disaster of Cannae.
The moralistic
motive of Livy's historiography makes him treat the importance of
p'uideittia and kwtio in great military leadership as a definite theme,
and he is predominantly interested in castigating the antithetical
qualities of teme i-tcts and 4eAocLta,5, and therefore creates almost
stock characters, who all meet with disaster, in order to hammer
home his lesson.
The dramatic nature of Livy's historiography causes him to create
negative and positive characters as a foil for one another, and to
bring them into a situation of conflict with each other so as to
produce a drama. Examples of this are the Sempronius-Scipio Maior
drama before the Battle of the Ticinus, the Flaminius-Servilius drama
before Trasimene, and the Varro-Aemilius Paulus drama at Cannae.
As Grant says (p. 225) Livy is "a psychological historian before
everything else . . .and one after another, his episodes are transfigured
61
and heightened by his interest in human motives".
His characters
tend, however, to be villain or hero of a stock type and even his
heroes lack depth, their less desirable features being glossed over,
as was noted with both Marcellus and Fabius.
None the less, in the course of the creation of his characters Livy
brings into play a wider variety of subtle, indirect methods of
character delineation than are generally accredited to him.
The
variety of his methods is obvious from a perusal of the 4 Tables,
giving the analysis of his various methods of character delineation
for the 4 characters brought under the spotlight in this dissertation.
Of the various methods actions attributed to characters seem to hold
a fairly dominant position in creating the portrait of positive
characters in particular. Furthermore, as one would expect from
Livy with his background in rhetoric, the ancient contrivance of
the speech is cleverly exploited to give real insight into the mainsprings and motives of human character (Grant,
p. 226), and the
speeches, often elaborate and unnatural in the context, and rather
obviously inserted to show off the author's rhetorical skills,
indirectly reveal character traits of the individuals into whose
mouths they were placed. Again this is particularly the case with
those characters who are positively portrayed.
I do not think that any meaningful conclusion can be drawn as to the
difference of methods Livy uses to depict positive and negative
characters, nor do I think there is a conscious effort on Livy's
part to supplement the portrait given in a necrology or character
sketch with impressions that emerge by indirect means in the course
of the narrative, because direct characterization is so limited in
the work of Livy.
WA
The main conclusion must be that Livy uses a wide variety of methods
to reveal the traits of all his main characters, and that he does so
in an effective manner, which heightens the interest of his
historiography, and forms part of the tactea ubetta
(milky rich-
ness) of his literary style, attriuted to him by the ancient critic,
Quintilian.
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOTHA, A.O. (1980). Livy XXVI.41.3-25 and XXVIII.43.2-44.18
Acta Classica. Vol XXIII.
CAPES, W.W. (1879). �-
Macmillan. London.
CARAWAN, E.M. (1984). The tragic history of Marcellus and Livy's
charlcterization. The Classical Journal. Vol 80. No. 1.
COLLINS, W.L. (1897). Livy. Blackwood. London.
COPLEY, F.O. (1969). Latin literature. from the beginnings to the
close of the Second Century A.O. University of Michigan Press.
DOREY, T.A. (1967). Latin biography.
Routledge & Kegan Paul. London.
DUFF, J.W. (1909). A Literary history of Rome from the origins to
the close of the Golden Age. 3rd ed. Ernest Ben Ltd. London.
FOSTER, 8.0. (1929). Livy in fourteen volumes with an English translation. Vol V. Books XXI-XXII. The Loeb Classical Library. Heinemann.
London.
GRANT, M. (1970). The ancient historians. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. London.
JACKSON, J. (1924). Hannibal's invasion of Italy, being Livy, Books XX!
& XXII, partly in the original and partly in translation.
Clarendon Press. Oxford.
LAISTNER, M.L.W. (1947). The greater Roman Historians. Berkeley.
LAZARUS, F.M. (1978). Fortuna and rhetorical structure in Livy.
The Classical Journal. Vol 74. No. 1.
LINTOTT, A. (1988). Roman Historians in The Oxford History of
the Classical World: The Roman World. Boardman, J., Griffin, J.,
Murray 0. (editors). Oxford University Press.
LUCE, T.J. (1977). Livy: the composition of his History.
University Press.
Princeton
MOORE, F.G. (1940). Livy in fourteen volumes with an English translation.
Vol VI. Books XXIII-XXV. The Loeb Classical Library. Heinemann. London.
MOORE, F.G. (1943). Livy in fourteen volumes with an English translation.
Vol. VII. Books XXVI-XXVII. The Loeb Classical Libary. Heinemann. London.
MOORE, F.G. (1949). Livy in fourteen volumes with an English translation.
Vol VIII. Books XXVIII-XXX. The Loeb Classical Library. Heinemann. London.
PAUW, D.A. (1972). Karaktertekening by Ammianus Marcellinus. Drukkerij
de Kempenaer. Oegstgeest.
SCULLARD, H.H. (1951). Roman politics 220 150 B.C. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
SMITH, W. (1852). Smaller Classical Dictionary. New edition revised and
partly re-written by Marindin, G. E., 30th Impression (1910).
WALSH, P.G. (1967). � his historical aims and methods. Cambridge
University Press.
94' 32 LIVI EAP1
30 Os
B5
464SO
Al
-ii- 2 3