HISTOS Edited by Christopher Krebs and John Moles Supplements
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HISTOS Edited by Christopher Krebs and John Moles Supplements Supervisory Editor: John Marincola . Antony Erich Raubitschek, Autobiography of Antony Erich Raubitschek Edited with Introduction and Notes by Donald Lateiner (&'() &. A. J. Woodman, Lost Histories: Selected Fragments of Roman Historical Writers (&',) LOST HISTORIES SELECTED FRAGMENTS OF ROMAN HISTORICAL WRITERS A. J. WOODMAN Basil L. Gildersleeve Professor of Classics University of Virginia & ' , NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE Published by H I S T O S School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE 7RU, United Kingdom ISSN (Online): &'(8-,:8; (Print): &'(8-,:,, Posted at the Histos website April &', COPYRIGHT © &', A. J. WOODMAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................ vii Abbreviations, Bibliography, References .............................. ix I. Introduction ................................................................. II. Latin or Greek? Fabius Pictor ...................................... % III. Greek and Latin. Postumius Albinus ............................ && IV. Demonstratio and Dedications. Asellio and Antipater ................................................................ &) V. Arrangement and Artistry. Sisenna and Quadrigarius, Cicero and Nepos .................................. VI. The Death of Cicero .................................................... 01 VII. Livy ............................................................................... 2. Appendix ............................................................................... 34 Indexes .................................................................................. 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lost Histories is based on a paper—shorter and rather different—that was originally delivered at Cambridge, Newcastle, Penn State and Stanford; I am very grateful for these invitations to speak and for the comments I received on each occasion and especially to S. M. Wheeler. For reading and commenting on earlier drafts I am also most grateful to J. N. Adams, S. Bartera, T. J. Cornell, J. D. Dillery, C. S. Kraus, J. L. Moles, T. P. Wiseman and especially E. A. Meyer. I owe an immense debt of gratitude to Tim Cornell for his great generosity in providing me with a pre-publication typescript of The Fragments of the Roman Historians , which both provided the stimulus for my discussion and greatly facilitated its writing; the Appendix at the end of the discussion consists largely of some of the various notes and suggestions which I submitted to his editorial team by way of acknowledgement. Finally I thank the Editors of Histos for accepting this discussion for publication, and their anonymous reader for numerous helpful comments. Charlottesville AJW January ABBREVIATIONS, BIBLIOGRAPHY, REFERENCES I. Abbreviations FRHist T. J. Cornell, ed. The Fragments of the Roman Historians . Vols. I–III (Oxford ). FRM P. Scholz and U. Walter, Fragmente Römischer Memoiren (Heidelberg ). K–S R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Vol. Satzlehre. Parts and . +th edn. (Repr. Hanover ./). L–H–S M. Leumann, J. B. Hofmann, and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik. Vol. Syntax und Stilistik. Revised edn. (Munich ./). MRR T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vols. I–II (New York .:–;) OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary . PH A. J. Woodman, From Poetry to History: Selected Papers (Oxford ). RICH A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London, Sydney and Portland .<<). TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae . II. Bibliography (The following works are referred to by author’s surname only.) Adams, J. N., Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge ). Battistoni, F. ‘The Ancient Pinakes from Tauromenion: Some New Readings’, ZPE :/ (;) ;.–<. Chaplin, J. D. and C. S. Kraus, edd., Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Livy (Oxford .). Courtney, E., Archaic Latin Prose (Atlanta ...). Feddern, S., Die Suasorien des älteren Seneca: Einleitung, Text und Kommentar (Berlin/Boston ). x Abbreviations, Bibliography, References Herkommer, E., Die Topoi in den Proömien der römischen Geschichtswerke (Diss. Tübingen .;<). Jal, P., Tite-Live: Histoire romaine. Tome (Budé; Paris ./.). Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces (Stockholm .;+). Lamacchia, R., ‘Il giudizio di Tito Livio su Cicerone’, Studi Urbinati +. (./:) +–:. Lausberg, H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (Leiden ..<). Lebek, W. D., Verba Prisca (Göttingen ./). Marincola, J., Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge ../). Nauta, R. R., Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Leiden ). Oakley, S. P., A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X. Vols. I–IV (Oxford ../–:). Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 7–8 (Oxford .;:). Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae . Vols. I and II (Leipzig .+, .;; repr. Stuttgart ..). Powell, J. G. F., ‘Cicero’s Translations from Greek’, in id., ed., Cicero the Philosopher (Oxford ..:) /–. Rawson, E., Roman Culture and Society (Oxford ..). Sussman, L. A., The Elder Seneca (Leiden ./<). Tosi, R., Dizionario delle sentenze greche e latine (Milan ). Tränkle, H., ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, WS (.;<) –:. III. References References to historiographical fragments will be to FRHist wherever possible (sometimes further identified by the addition of ‘C’), otherwise to Peter or to the most convenient edition (thus Jal for Livy, whose fragments are not included in FRHist ). As a general rule I have kept doxography to a minimum, since FRHist contains extensive bibliographies on each of the historians treated there. I. Introduction If we stand on a hill and survey the panorama with which we are confronted, we shall be able to see with relative clarity certain prominent features such as a village below or a mountain opposite; but various features will be more difficult to make out; habitation in some cases may be indicated by a curl of smoke or the course of a road, but the dwellings themselves hidden by a fold in the land; some locations may be known to us by name but entirely invisible, while others will appear as mere dots. It is much the same with Roman historical writing. We have a reasonably clear view of the major authors of whom complete volumes are extant: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus. But the majority of works are known only from surviving fragments or as mere names; most of the fragments are paraphrases and it is impossible to know what the historians actually wrote; and, while a few fragments are direct quotations of some length, many are no more than isolated sentences, phrases, or single words. As a general rule direct quotations from these historians have been preserved in three main sources: Aulus Gellius, the second-century AD critic and litterateur; 1 Nonius Marcellus, the 1 Gellius is the subject of much recent interest: see e.g. L. Holford- Strevens, Aulus Gellius: an Antonine Scholar and his Achievement . (Oxford .112), L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi, edd., The Worlds of Aulus Gellius (Oxford .115), E. Gunderson, Nox philologiae : Aulus Gellius and the Fantasy of the Roman Library (Madison .117), W. H. Keulen, Gellius the Satirist: Roman Cultural Authority in Attic Nights (Leiden .117), C. Heusch, Die Macht der Memoria: Die ‘Noctes Atticae’ des Aulus Gellius im Licht der Erinnerungskultur des &. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Berlin and New York .1;;). A. J. Woodman fourth-century dictionary writer; 2 and other late grammarians. 3 It is often remarked that our view of the fragmentary historians has been distorted by their being preserved by authors whose interests were almost exclusively literary or linguistic; 4 yet it is also salutary to remember that those interests were in no way exceptional. It is absolutely clear from the writings of such major figures as Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus that it was natural to respond to historical texts, including those of the earlier Roman historians, as literary productions. 5 Modern scholars have adopted three distinct approaches to these fragments. Where a fragment is sufficiently explicit or of sufficient length (a sentence or two, perhaps), they have been concerned above all to associate it with some known historical event. Second, and in keeping with the manner of the fragments’ transmission, they have used the vocabulary of the earlier fragments as evidence for the development of the language of Latin prose during the middle and late republic. 6 Finally scholars have subjected to literary and stylistic analysis those few fragments whose preservation has been relatively 2 See A. Chahoud, ‘Antiquity and Authority in Nonius Marcellus’, in J. H. D. Scourfield, ed. Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity: Inheritance, Authority and Change (Swansea .11E) F7–7F. 3 There is a full discussion of the citing authorities at FRHist I.2H–;2E. 4 P. A. Brunt, ‘On Historical Fragments and Epitomes’, CQ 21 (;7H1) 5EE–75. Note also T. J. Cornell, ‘Deconstructing the Samnite Wars: an Essay in Historiography’, in H. Jones, ed., Samnium: Settlement and Cultural Change (Providence .115) ;;F–;H. There seems little of real relevance in G. W. Most, ed., Collecting Fragments/Fragmente sammeln (Göttingen ;77E). 5 This is the argument I put forward in RICH and Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (ed. T. O. Sloane, Oxford .11;) 22E–5E. 6 The most notable of these are Lebek and J. Briscoe, ‘The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians’, in T. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge and J. N. Adams, edd., Aspects of the