The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a Reconsideration 95

ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI

XXXVIII

ANALECTA ROMANA

INSTITUTI DANICI

XXXVIII

2013

Published with the support of a grant from: Det Frie Forskningsråd / Kultur og Kommunikation

Scientific Board

Ove Hornby (Bestyrelsesformand, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Maria Fabricius Hansen (Ny Carlsbergfondet) Peter Fibiger Bang (Københavns Universitet) Thomas Harder (Forfatter/writer/scrittore) Michael Herslund (Copenhagen Business School) Hanne Jansen (Københavns Universitet) Hannemarie Ragn Jensen (Københavns Universitet) Kurt Villads Jensen (Syddansk Universitet) Mogens Nykjær (Aarhus Universitet) Vinnie Nørskov (Aarhus Universitet) Birger Riis-Jørgensen (Det Danske Ambassade i Rom) Niels Rosing-Schow (Det Kgl. Danske Musikkonservatorium) Poul Schülein (Arkitema, København) Lene Schøsler (Københavns Universitet)

Editorial Board Marianne Pade (Chair of Editorial Board, Det Danske Institut i Rom) Patrick Kragelund (Danmarks Kunstbibliotek) Carsten Hjort Lange (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Gitte Lønstrup Dal Santo (Det Danske Institut i Rom) Gert Sørensen (Københavns Universitet) Maria Adelaide Zocchi (Det Danske Institut i Rom)

Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. — Vol. I (1960) — . Copenhagen: Munksgaard. From 1985: Rome, «L’ERMA» di Bretschneider. From 2007 (online): Accademia di Danimarca

ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI encourages scholarly contributions within the Academy’s research fields. All contributions will be peer reviewed. Manuscripts to be considered for publication should be sent to: [email protected] Authors are requested to consult the journal’s guidelines at www.acdan.it Contents

Luca Bianchedi: Aspetti culturali e sanitari dell’Ars medica nell’Italia medioevale 7

Cecilie Brøns: Manners make the man. Challenging a persistent stereotype in the study of Italian 53 Iron Age graves

Trine Arlund Hass: Galathea, Amaryllis, and Fictive Chronology in Petrarch’s Bucolicum 79 Carmen

Richard Westall: The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 95

The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a Reconsideration

by Richard Westall

Abstract. Notwithstanding the sophisticated approaches of recent decades, the belief still remains that the Emphylia of Appian of Alexandria and much of Plutarch’s biographies of figures of the late Republic rest in large part upon direct knowledge and extensive use of the Historiae of C. Asinius Pollio. Various considerations, however, indicate that Appian (and Plutarch) made only limited and indirect use of Pollio’s account of the civil wars of the 40s BC. For instance, Appian provides a report of the legendary ruler Arganthonius of Tartessus that is at odds with what Pollio is known to have written. Most significant is the coincidence of the citation of a single passage of Pollio by Appian, Plutarch, and Suetonius, which demonstrates reliance upon an intermediate source. Limited focalisation through Pollio in Appian’s narrative supports this interpretation, as does consideration of the manner in which Appian and Plutarch cite their sources. In the end, it would appear that material traditionally attributed to Pollio is in all likelihood better re-assigned to Livy. Such re-assignement is tentative, for it is also possible to discern the use of Seneca the Elder, which suggests a much more complicated vision of Appian’s work as a historian.

Rex Stout, Champagne for One, (New York 1958), ch. 5: “In a world that operates largely at random, coincidences are to be expected, but any one of them must always be mistrusted.”

ἐγὼ δ᾿ οὔτ᾿ ἂν Ἀμαλθίης βουλοίμην κέρας οὔτ᾿ ἔτεα πεντήκοντά τε κἀκατὸν Ταρτησσοῦ βασιλεῦσαι (Anacr. fr. 361 Page).

Introduction composed by Plutarch of Chaeronea – but Covering a period of a little more than a Appian remains indispensable because of century within the Emphylia, Appian of the fact that his is the most detailed of those Alexandria provides an extensive and detailed universal narratives to survive for the period account of the civil wars that brought the of the 40s and 30s BC. For instance, the Republic to an end and gave birth to the work of Livy has unfortunately been lost, Principate. There are other accounts that and that of Cassius Dio routinely privileges do offer greater detail for a far more limited rhetoric over a narrative dedicated to events timespan or are perhaps to be deemed more and individual actions. Despite manifold and trustworthy – amongst these the Bellum Civile serious defects, Appian’s account provides of C. Iulius Caesar and the biographies much important material that would otherwise

96 Richard Westall not be known.1 In short, had Appian’s as Appian’s principal source for the whole historical work not survived, it would be far of the period extending from 60 to 42 BC. more difficult, if not in fact impossible, to From the mid-nineteenth through the provide a coherent narrative and to engage in middle of the twentieth century, those who detailed, comparative analysis of the political identified Pollio as Appian’s principal source and military history of the Roman civil wars operated upon the explicit assumption that of the 40s and 30s BC. Appian had done little more than to translate At present there obtains the erroneous and, perhaps, abbreviate, his Latin model.5 thesis that Appian’s primary source of Some, most notably E. Gabba and and E. information was none other than the Kornemann, sought to extend Appian’s Caesarian general and novus homo C. Asinius reliance upon Pollio as far back in time as the Pollio (cos. 40 BC). There are two reasons latter half of the second century BC as well as for this vision. For one thing, since Appian forwards throughout the whole of the 30s BC.6 was writing at a remove of some two The attempt to attribute to Pollio influence as centuries from the events that he narrates, it far back as the period of the Gracchi through is imperative that modern historians identify the Social War was based upon a fleeting his sources if they are to justify their extensive suggestion made by E. Meyer, investing reliance upon a secondary source. Unlike Pollio with the composition of an archaeologia Herodotus or Thucydides, whose work is far more substantial than anything furnished focussed upon events that had transpired by Thucydides.7 Yet others, for example O. within living memory or were still in progress, Seeck, suggested that Appian’s reliance upon Appian does not deal with contemporary Pollio endures only as far as 35 BC, to the history in the surviving portion of his work, battle of Naulochus and the destruction of and his own statements demonstrate that he Sextus Pompeius that mark the close of the did not rely primarily upon oral sources. As a Emphylia.8 In short, whatever their differences result, the testimony of Appian is qualitatively in detail, all of these critics tended to view different and far less compelling unless his Appian of Alexandria as a cipher to be equated sources can be identified, especially in view with C. Asinius Pollio. Not surprisingly, such of the possibility for error or invention. views were complemented by attempts to Secondly, since Pollio is known to have been reconstruct in relative detail the contents of critical of the leader of the civil war faction Pollio’s lost Historiae.9 In short, as in the case to which he adhered, any evidence for the of the lost works of Eusebius of Caesarea ultimate derivation of Appian’s account from that are known only through Armenian or that of the contemporary Pollio offers the Syriac versions, it seemed as though the Greek mirage that Appian can be trusted because he of Appian might allow modern scholars to essentially followed an account that was no perceive the Latin original, with the possibility slavish, partisan version of the revolutionary of a retroversion that would restore one of the events that it described.2 lost treasures of the ancient world.10 This thesis of Appian’s dependence Admittedly, there has been a more nuanced upon Pollio informs virtually the whole of approached to the question of Appian’s scholarship that has been produced since sources in recent decades. This is the result the question of Appian’s sources first began of abandonment of the idea that an author to be posed in critical fashion in the mid- followed only one source at a given moment nineteenth century.3 On occasion, there has and an embracing of the idea that artistic re- been the dissenting voice.4 But, by and large, fashioning of material did occur in the course debate has focussed upon the degree to which of writing. Hence, at least in theory, Appian Appian made use of Pollio, with there being is no longer viewed as a mere cipher whose unanimous agreement that Pollio did serve work is a calque of the Historiae of Asinius

The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 97

Pollio. This change is already in evidence in Magnus at Pelusium (49-48 BC). This thesis the treatment of Appian in the seminal paper rests in the end upon two items. First, there is that C.B.R. Pelling dedicated to Plutarch’s use recognition of the fact that Appian’s citation of sources in the composition of the later of Pollio as a source is a coincidence that is so Roman biographies.11 Subsequently, this suspect as to undermine the interpretation of change is well exemplified by contributions that passage that has obtained for the past 150 such as those by I. Hahn, A.M. Gowing, and years. In view of statistical probability and D. Magnino, wherein the issue of sources the habits of ancient citation, it is altogether and literary technique has received sharper implausible that Plutarch, Suetonius, and focus.12 Appian’s artistry and distinctive Appian should have cited from the same contribution has been highlighted through passage of Pollio and name the source of their things such as analysis of the speeches in the citation. Theirs is manifestly a borrowed piece Emphylia.13 Moreover, the evidence – both of learning deriving from an unacknowledged implicit and explicit – for the use of a variety intermediate source. Secondly, there is of sources has received greater attention. On recognition of the implications of analysis the other hand, despite these advances, there of the focalisation that occurs when Pollio still remains a disappointing divide between is mentioned within the Emphylia of Appian. theory and practice. Notwithstanding the After the death of Pompeius, Appian either findings and claims of recent scholarship, fails to mention Pollio or else attributes to him there persists in practice a general tendency a role as historical actor that is far less than the to identify Pollio as Appian’s principal source surviving fragments of the Historiae of Pollio for the Emphylia. Therefore, even if Book 1 illustrate.16 Comparison of Appian’s narrative is now kept apart from Books 2-5 in terms with those of other sources mentioning the of source-analysis, the approach of Gabba role played by Pollio provides corroboration and earlier Quellenforschunger still holds the day. for this thesis of the extremely limited and While J.M. Carter may be correct in affirming indirect use of Pollio by Appian. that today no one would subscribe to the idea that “Appian simply follows for long stretches The Tradition regarding Arganthonius of Tartessus the version of Pollio or any other authority” There is a realm where legend fades into (Carter 1996, xxxii), the figure of Pollio recurs history, a twilight moment when it is difficult to without fail and dominates in those discussions distinguish between myth and the irrepeatable dedicated to the issue of sources.14 It may be past. The dawn of history for the Iberian suspected that the persistence of this idea is peninsula breaks at some point between the due to the value invested in the figure of Pollio late seventh and the mid-sixth century BC. It as a critical, reliable historian of the period.15 is represented by the figure of Arganthonius, In any event, scholars are not altogether the semi-legendary ruler of Tartessus.17 rationale beings, and it must be admitted that Tantamount to El Dorado for the Phoenicians the ghost of Pollio and that author’s Historiae and Greeks as of the Archaic period onwards, has proved incredibly resistant. Tartessus lay somewhere on or near the coast In what follows, it will be argued that of the southwestern Iberian peninsula. As Appian had only indirect knowledge of the empires came into being in the western half Historiae of Pollio and that he made extremely of the Mediterranean, first Carthaginian and limited use of that work. To be precise, a then Roman hegemony was established with a detailed review of the evidence indicates that view to exploiting the region’s gold and silver Appian drew upon information ultimately mines.18 Hence, the especial significance deriving from the Historiae of Pollio only for attributed to Arganthonius, the archetypal the period extending from Caesar’s crossing wealthy, generous, hospitable barbarian ruler of the Rubicon to the death of Pompeius Immortalised in poetry by Anacreon and 98 Richard Westall commemorated by Herodotus within the Herodotus (120 years) nor that claimed by narrative of Greek colonisation, Arganthonius Anacreon (150 years, with the caveat of Strabo was believed remarkable for his wealth and that this is a bit of poetic exaggeration). the extreme old age that he reached, both Characteristically, Pollio provides readers with signs of mortal felicity.19 This aged ruler of a new, independent version. a fabled land of wealth eventually became a Naturally, the modern reader would like standard example of the long-lived, cited as a to know what was the precise context within matter of course by Cicero and Lucan in their which Pollio related the story of Arganthonius. treatises dedicated to the subject of old age.20 The report of Valerius Maximus that the story Therefore, it is not altogether surprising to was narrated within Book 3 of the Historiae find Valerius Maximus citing the Historiae of is tantalising. According to the standard C. Asinius Pollio for information about this reconstruction, on which Pollio began his fabled ruler (Val. Max. 8.13 ext. 4): annalistic work with the pact of the dynasts in 60 BC, the context ought to have been ca. Arganthonius autem Gaditanus tam diu 57 BC.22 However, there is no known reason regnavit quam diu etiam ad satietatem for mention in that year, whereas the events vixisse abunde foret: octoginta enim of the late 60s (Caesar as proconsul), mid-49 annis patriam suam rexit, cum ad (Caesar’s campaign against Varro), or the later imperium quadraginta annos natus 40s (various episodes of civil war) would well accessisset. Cuius rei certi sunt provide a proper context.23 Something seems auctores. Asinius etiam Pollio, non amiss, and it is worth revisiting the evidence minima pars Romani stili, in tertio and premises that lie behind the commonly historiarum suarum libro centum illum accepted reconstruction of the Historiae of et triginta annos explesse commemorat, Pollio. et ipse nervosae vivacitatis haud parvum Striking, as well, is the fact that the story of exemplum. Arganthonius appears in Appian’s historical work, but neither where it might have been Arganthonius of Gades, on the other expected nor in the version that would have hand, ruled for so long as would have seemed a foregone conclusion. As evinced more than amply sufficed for a lifespan. by his interest in the story of Diomedes He ruled over his native land for eighty and Lavinium or that regarding Epidamnus, years, since he came to power at the Appian was alert to reports of legend and age of forty. This is attested by reliable myth within his sources.24 Hence, given authorities. In fact, Asinius Pollio, one the consensus that he utilised Pollio as his of the foremost exponents of Roman principal source25, it is odd that he fails to literature, records in the third book of mention Arganthonius within the Emphylia, his Historiae that he (i.e. Arganthonius) indeed omitting altogether the campaign reached the age of one hundred and undertaken by Caesar against Varro in mid-49 thirty years, and he himself (i.e. Pollio) BC. Mentioning Arganthonius at the outset offers no insignificant instance of of the Iberike (App. Iber. 2.6-7), he returned to vigorous longevity. the theme later in that work, giving a version that was distinctly at variance with that of Whether or not the modernisation effected Pollio (App. Iber. 63.267): through identification of Tartessus with Gades is correct is a moot point better left Ῥωμαίων δὲ μόλις ἐκ μυρίων to local historians.21 Rather, of interest, ἑξακισχίλιοι διέδρασαν ἐς is the fact that Pollio attests to a lifespan Καρπησσόν, ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ πόλιν, (130 years) that is neither that reported by ἣν ἐγὼ νομίζω πρὸς Ἑλλήνων

The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 99

πάλαι Ταρτησσὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι καὶ Three different authors – Plutarch, Suetonius, Ἀργανθώνιον αὐτῆς βασιλεῦσαι, and Appian – furnish overlapping citations ὃν ἐς πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη that derive ultimately from one and the same ἀφικέσθαι φασί. discrete portion of the Historiae of Pollio (Peter F2a-b). That is a most extraordinary Barely 6,000 out of 10,000 Romans coincidence. Unlike Herodotus or Vergil, escaped to Carpessus, a city on the sea, Pollio was not a widely read author, and only which I think was of old called Tartessus six fragments survive with certainty from the by the Greeks and which Arganthonius whole of the Historiae.28 Reportedly coming ruled. This latter is said to have lived to a total of 17 books, the Historiae of Pollio for 150 years. could easily have filledca . 850 OCT pages had the work survived intact.29 At 12.5 OCT lines Adhering to the tradition represented by in its fullest form, the passage in question is Anacreon and Strabo, at least as regards a minuscule portion of the historiographical the length of Arganthonius’ life, Appian production of Pollio: perhaps as little as identifies Tartessus with the latter-day town 0.059%. Given the loss of the work, these of Carpessus, which was quite distinct from statistics are necessarily approximations.30 Gades.26 Whatever the immediate source for Nonetheless, based upon comparison with the the Iberike, it is of no little interest that Appian works of Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus and taking fails to return to the theme and to rectify into account the standard length of a “book” or asseverate in response to Pollio within in Graeco-Roman antiquity, they are accurate the Emphylia.27 Slight though the evidence enough to give an idea of the enormity of the is, it would once again seem to indicate coincidence involved.31 That three authors that something is radically wrong with the should have independently chosen to cite one reconstruction commonly tendered. and the same passage from the Historiae of In what follows, an attempt will be made to Pollio as a result of their reading that work is a re-think the relationship of Appian to Pollio, phenomenon that hardly seems coincidental. on the basis of a review of the evidence There are three possible scenarios that for citation habits as well as the presence or may explain this situation. First and most non-presence of Pollio within the narrative commonly assumed, the three authors cite of Appian’s Emphylia. This will of necessity Pollio independently of one another, each also require re-consideration of both the having consulted the Historiae directly.32 relationship of Appian to Plutarch and their Second, it might be assumed that Appian and common source, on the one hand, and, on Suetonius derive their information from a the other, the nature and chronological span reading of Plutarch, or that at least one of of Pollio’s Historiae. Focus upon specific them is derivative.33 Third and last, it might problems should reveal an altogether be assumed that all three authors derive their unimagined vista. knowledge of Pollio from an intermediary source.34 Other possible scenarios do Plutarch, Suetonius, and Appian on Pharsalus theoretically exist, as is indicated by Coincidences are, by their very nature, combinatorial analysis, but considerations of suspect. It is incumbent upon the historian to language, date, and reading habits render these inquire whether there exists a nexus of cause three the only ones worthy of examination. and effect that links phenomena, and this is The most complete citation from Pollio is all the more so the case when a coincidence furnished by Plutarch at the conclusion to his manifests itself. In the present instance, the account of the battle of Pharsalus. Although coincidence is striking, deserving more critical deviations from the Latin original will become attention than it has received in the past. evident upon comparison with the citation

100 Richard Westall furnished by Suetonius, this version given by In and of itself, Plutarch’s use of Pollio for Plutarch ought to be discussed first as it gives two related, but distinct points might be taken the most comprehensive vision of matters. as internal evidence sufficient to demonstrate In describing the aftermath of the battle of Plutarch’s direct knowledge of the source Pharsalus, Plutarch cites Pollio for a quotation that he is citing.35 However, there is nothing in oratio recta of what Caesar said upon in Plutarch’s language that in fact indicates beholding the carnage within Pompeius’ camp, in unequivocal fashion a direct knowledge and then goes on to cite Pollio in oratio obliqua of Pollio, and parallels of extended citation for the Pompeian casualty figures. Not without indeed point to the opposite conclusion. art, this extended citation of Pollio comes at For the moment, let judgement be deferred. the climax of the narrative, adding pathos to Subsequently, in writing the Life of Pompeius, the battle’s description (Plut. Caes. 46.1-3): Plutarch more than once had occasion to re- use the material that had been assembled Ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ ὡς ἐν τῷ χάρακι for the Life of Caesar.36 Episodes such as τοῦ Πομπηίου γενόμενος τούς the battle of Pharsalus were common to the τε κειμένους νεκροὺς ἤδη τῶν trajectories of these two heroes, and it was πολεμίων εἶδε καὶ τοὺς ἔτι rather a matter of re-casting material so as to κτεινομένους, εἶπεν ἄρα στενάξας· render it appropriate to the current context. Τοῦτο ἐβουλήθησαν, εἰς τοῦτό In disposing of the camp of Pompeius at με ἀνάγκης ὑπηγάγοντο, ἵνα Pharsalus, Plutarch appends an abbreviated Γάιος Καῖσαρ ὁ μεγίστους account of casualties to the narrative of πολέμους κατορθώσας, εἰ Pompeius’ disgraceful abandonment of camp προηκάμην τὰ στρατεύματα, and followers (Plut. Pomp. 72.4): κἂν κατεδικάσθην. Ταῦτα φησι Πολλίων Ἀσίννιος τὰ ῥήματα ... καὶ φόνος ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ Ῥωμαιστὶ μὲν ἀναφθέγξασθαι πολὺς ἐγένετο σκηνοφυλάκων τὸν Καίσαρα παρὰ τὸν τότε καὶ θεραπόντων · στρατιώτας δὲ καιρόν, Ἑλληνιστὶ δ᾿ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μόνους ἑξακισχιλίους πεσεῖν φησιν γεγράφθαι. τῶν δὲ ἀποθανόντων Ἀσίννιος Πολλίων, μεμαχημένος τοὺς πλείστους οἰκέτας γενέσθαι ἐκείνην τὴν μάχην μετὰ Καίσαρος. περὶ τὴν κατάληψιν τοῦ χάρακος ἀναιρεθέντας, στρατιώτας δὲ μὴ ... and there was much slaughter of πλείους ἑξακισχιλίων πεσεῖν. tent-guards and attendants, whereas only 6,000 soldiers fell according to As he entered Pompeius’ camp, Caesar Asinius Pollio, who fought in that battle saw the enemy fallen, whether already alongside Caesar. dead or in the process of being killed, and in lamentation he said, “This was Detailed comparison of this snippet with that their doing: despite my impressive from the Life of Caesar suggests more than campaigns, I, Gaius Caesar, would one item of interest. Naturally, in terms of have been condemned in court had I literary artistry, there is the decided change dismissed my army. Pollio says that he of emphasis: no longer does Plutarch bother said this in Greek at the time, but that to furnish overall casualty figures that would he subsequently wrote it in Latin. (He glorify the achievement of Caesar. Rather, he also says that) the vast majority of the gives only one statistic, and that statistic suffices dead were servants who were killed in to contrast the moral inferiority of Pompeius the assault upon the camp, whereas no and his fellow-Romans with the virtue and more than 6,000 soldiers lost their lives. courage displayed by their domestics, who fell

The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 101 fighting in defense of the camp.37 In addition, Although it is quite likely that Suetonius did there is significant variation in vocabulary, in possess some knowledge of the biographies spite of the fact that Plutarch is re-using old that Plutarch wrote, derivation of this material. For instance, the word for “camp” material from the Life of Caesar for the Life or castra is variously rendered as τοῦ χάρακος of the Divus Iulius is not only improbable, or ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ, “domestics” or but in fact impossible. Comparison of οἰκέτας are more ornately rendered as “tent- Caesar’s battlefield utterance as reported by guards and attendants” or σκηνοφυλάκων Plutarch and Suetonius reveals fundamental καὶ θεραπόντων, and the elegant litotes “no differences that demonstrate these authors’ more than” or μὴ πλείους becomes “only” independent use of a common source. or μόνους when reporting that fewer than For instance, the epexegetic εἰς τοῦτό με “6,000 soldiers fell”. Lastly, there appears ἀνάγκης ὑπηγάγοντο, ἵνα of the Greek an additional phrase that serves to define the has no parallel in the Latin, and is in fact role of Pollio. Authorial comment upon the otiose and alien to Caesarian style. Similarly, focalisor’s identity and linguistic variation the ablative absolute tantis rebus gestis has the air together strongly suggest that Plutarch was of authentic Caesarian discourse39, whereas drawing upon material that had been left in the participial phrase ὁ μεγίστους πολέμους the original language, in this case Latin, and κατορθώσας that stands in apposition to that the source was other than Pollio himself. Caesar is clearly a modification due to the Next in time comes the testimony of grammatical necessities of refined Greek. Suetonius, writing early in the reign of Likewise, there is a substantial difference in Hadrian. As a rule interested in statistics only the language of the protasis of the unreal when they relate to expense or the immediate conditional as reported by these two authors, government of the city of Rome, Suetonius for “is” and “unless” are hardly one and the altogether avoids consideration of the number same thing and dismissing an army if hardly of fallen at Pharsalus.38 However, he does cite the same as seeking aid from that army. In Pollio in order to furnish a direct quote from short, Suetonius’ version reads as an accurate Caesar that has the aim of illustrating the citation of the Latin original – albeit not dictator’s character (Suet. Iul. 30.4): necessarily taken straight from the Historiae of Pollio – and for that reason must be deemed a Quod probabilius facit Asinius Pollio, witness independent of Plutarch. Pharsalica acie caesos profligatosque Last in order comes Appian, writing the adversarios prospicientem haec eum Emphylia perhaps a decade or so after the ad verbum dixisse referens: “Hoc celebration of the nine hundredth birthday of voluerunt; tantis rebus gestis Gaius the city of Rome.40 The citation of Pollio by Caesar condemnatus essem, nisi ab Appian is the most brief of all four instances, exercitu auxilium petissem”. as Pollio is cited in order to make a negative point against those writers who exaggerated This is made the more likely by the fact the scale of the slaughter upon the battlefield that Asinius Pollio reports verbatim of Pharsalus (App. B Civ. 2.82.346): that, as he looked at the battlefield of Pharsalus upon those of his enemies ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἄλλης στρατιᾶς οἱ who had fallen or fled, he said, “This μὲν ἐπαίροντές φασι δισμυρίους was their doing. Despite my great ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίοις, Ἀσίνιος δὲ achievements, I, Gaius Caesar, would Πολλίων, ὑπὸ Καίσαρι τῆς μάχης have been condemned had I not sought ἐκείνης στρατηγῶν, ἑξακισχιλίους assistance from my army.” ἀναγράφει νεκροὺς εὑρεθῆναι τῶν Πομπηίου. 102 Richard Westall

crossing of the Rubicon to the battle at as regards the rest of [Pompeius’] army, Pharsalus, they illustrate Pollio as both some exaggerate and say that there a protagonist of consequence and an were 25,000 casualties, whereas Asinius eyewitness to history. From their material Pollio, one of Caesar’s officers in the content and expressive form, it is legitimate battle, reports that there were found to to infer that Appian drew upon Pollio as a be 6,000 Pompeian dead. source, albeit in all likelihood only indirectly. Particularly striking is the combined use Two items are of especial note as regards of direct speech and the first-person singular this citation. First and foremost, there is the in the account of Pollio’s mission to Sicily, in fact that Appian is citing Pollio for a positive advance of the main expeditionary force led reason, as a witness to the limited scale of the by C. Curio, so as to prepare the terrain for the slaughter of civil war.41 Those who cite this Caesarian occupation of the island. Appian’s text as the basis for the theory that Appian use of direct speech is qualitatively different essentially based the Emphylia upon the and stands in marked contrast with that of Historiae of Pollio have failed to remark this “classicizing” historians, such as Cassius positive nature of the citation, which runs Dio, who follow a Thucydidean model.44 As counter to the standard practice of Classical a result, the first-person singular applied to historiography.42 Livy, for example, was at one of the characters within the historical pains to distance himself from Polybius, narrative is relatively infrequent within the whose work he had used extensively for the scope of the Emphylia. Relating the episode Second Punic War, and did so by making only through an external narrator whose voice one reference to Polybius and then merely in shifts to become that of the protagonist, order to find fault with him.43 Theft amongst Appian writes of this incident (App. B Civ. historians is invariably and paradoxically 2.40.162): accompanied by the claim that the author plagiarised is in the wrong. Secondly, and Ἀσίνιός τε Πολλίων ἐς Σικελίαν equally significant, there is the fact that πεμφθείς, ἧς ἡγεῖτο Κάτων, Appian uses a phrase that is extremely close πυνθαμένωι τῶι Κάτωνι, πότερα to that employed by Plutarch to describe τῆς βουλῆς ἢ τοῦ δήμου δόγμα Pollio’s role at Pharsalus: ὑπὸ Καίσαρι τῆς φέρων ἐς ἀλλοτρίαν ἀρχὴν μάχης ἐκείνης στρατηγῶν as opposed ἐμβάλλοι, ὧδε ἀπεκρίνατο · “ ὁ to Plutarch’s μεμαχημένος ἐκείνην τὴν τῆς Ἰταλίας κρατῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτα με μάχην μετὰ Καίσαρος. Unless one were to ἔπεπψε.” countenance the thesis of Appian’s directly depending upon Plutarch, which is rendered Asinius Pollio was sent to Sicily, which unlikely by the fundamental differences was under the command of Cato. between the Life of Pompeius and the Emphylia, Upon being asked whether he came this identity of phrasing must be taken as a equipped with a resolution of the sign of use of a common source written in Senate or (Roman) people to trespass Latin, but that was not the Historiae of Pollio. upon another’s province, he responded, “The master of Italy has sent me for Focalisation through Pollio this task.” There are a handful of passages (App. B Civ. 2.40.162, 45.185f., 46.187, 82.346) in In and of itself, this passage provides no which Pollio figures prominently. Situated direct evidence for Appian’s use of Pollio. within that portion of the narrative dealing Neither does Appian say that he found this with the period extending from Caesar’s information in Pollio’s work nor does he The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 103 simply state that Pollio wrote what is reported Doubtless, there was much to explain in here.45 Were it not known that Pollio had the aftermath. Making good his fortuitous composed a narrative of this period, no one escape, Pollio returned to the camp near Utica would ever have identified him as Appian’s and sought to embark as many soldiers as source. However, Pollio did write about this possible prior to the arrival of the Numidian period, and one of the characteristics of his army (App. B Civ. 2.46.187): work was an emphasis upon his protagonism within the events described.46 Consequently, ἐν δὲ τῶι περὶ τὴν Ἰτύκην both the mere fact that the incident is στρατοπέδωι τοῦ κακοῦ φανεροῦ reported and the very quality of this report’s γενομένου, Φλάμμας μὲν ὁ focalisation lead to the conclusion that this ναύαρχος αὐτίκα ἔφευγεν αὐτῶι material must ultimately derive from Pollio’s στόλωι, πρίν τινα τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Historiae.47 γῆς ἀναλαβεῖν, Ἀσίνιος δ᾿ ἐς No less telling is the protagonism of Pollio τοὺς παρορμοῦντας ἐμπόρους revealed within Appian’s narrative of the ἀκατίωι διαπλεύσας ἐδεῖτο αὐτῶν disastrous end of the African expedition led ἐπιπλεῦσαί τε καὶ τὸν στρατὸν by Curio later that same year, in mid-49. In ἀναλαβεῖν. this version of events, it is Pollio who played the leading role in saving some of those Once the disaster was known in the involved in the expedition, subsequent to the camp near Utica, the admiral Flamma unexpected and overwhelming attack by the immediately fled with his fleet, without Numidian king’s general Saburra. Although embarking any of those on shore. a part of the advancing column led by Curio, Asinius, on the other hand, used a skiff Pollio somehow managed to avoid the to go the rounds of the merchantmen encirclement and destruction that befell his lying at anchor and asked them to commander (App. B Civ. 2.45.185-186): approach the shore and embark the army. Ἀσίνιος μὲν δὴ Πολλίων ἀρχομένου τοῦ κακοῦ διέφυγεν There is no word whatsoever here of the ἐπὶ τὸ ἐν Ἰτύκηι στρατόπεδον σὺν Caesarian legatus C. Caninius Rebilus (cos. ὀλίγοις, μη τις ἐξ Οὐάρου γένοιτο suff. 45) or the quaestor Marcius Rufus, who πρὸς τὴν δόξαν τῆς ἐνταῦθα were also present within the camp at Utica.48 κακοπραγίας ἐπίθεσις· Κουρίων In fact, it is worth noting that the latter is δὲ φιλοκινδύνως μαχόμενος σὺν unambiguously attested by Caesar as having ἅπασι τοῖς παροῦσιν ἔπεσεν, ὡς ordered the captains of the merchantmen ἐπὶ τῶι Πολλίωνι μηδένα ἄλλον situated offshore to make arrangements ἐπανελθεῖν ἐς Ἰτύκην. for taking aboard the defeated Caesarians and transporting them back to Sicily.49 The When the disaster commenced, Asinius focalisation and manifestly apologetic nature Pollio fled with a few men to the camp of the account preserved by Appian are such in Utica, lest Varus venture an attack on that it can only derive ultimately from the account of the report of this reverse. Historiae of Pollio. Curio, for his part, fell fighting with no Lastly, as already seen, there is the dissenting heed for danger and in the company of opinion expressed by Pollio regarding the all those who were present with number of Pompeian casualties suffered at him. As a result, no one aside from the battle of Pharsalus on 9 August 48 BC. Pollio returned to Utica. Flatly contradicting the estimate provided by Caesar, as well as those of others engaged 104 Richard Westall in flattery in its most distasteful form, Pollio however, there is the suggestive fact that the gave a relatively conservative estimate (App. B criticism of casualty figures for the battle of Civ. 2.82.346): Pharsalus occurs within a passage cited almost verbatim by Plutarch and Suetonius as well as ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἄλλης στρατιᾶς οἱ Appian.54 While all three authors might have μὲν ἐπαίροντές φασι δισμυρίους independently been attracted by that particular ἐπὶ πεντακισχιλίοις, Ἀσίνιος δὲ feature of the text of Pollio, it is surely more Πολλίων, ὑπὸ Καίσαρι τῆς μάχης likely that they have latched upon the same ἐκείνης στρατηγῶν, ἑξακισχιλίους excerpt reported by a subsequent author. ἀναγράφει νεκροὺς εὑρεθῆναι τῶν Since Plutarch and Suetonius are both known Πομπηίου. to have utilised Livy55 and Livy is recorded as having employed Pollio when writing of the as regards the rest of [Pompeius’] army, death of Pompeius at Pelusium56, it is most some exaggerate and say that there economical to identify Livy as the intermediary were 25,000 casualties, whereas Asinius between Pollio and those authors who cite Pollio, one of Caesar’s officers in the him for the Pompeian casualties upon the battle, reports that there were found to battlefield of Pharsalus. On the other hand, be 6,000 Pompeian dead. the fact that Livy is himself cited (elsewhere) suggests that all three authors may be situated At less than 1/3 the figure provided by at yet a further remove, drawing upon a source panegyrists and less than 1/2 of the 15,000 such as Seneca the Elder. The phenomenon claimed by Caesar himself50, Pollio provides a has analogies in items such as the catenae minimalist vision, in all likelihood with a view of Byzantine commentaries upon Sacred to contemporary readers and for the sake of Scripture. Whatever the number or identity distancing himself from the bloodshed of civil of intermediaries, however, it is clear that war.51 Such a rhetorical strategy, of course, in Appian did not consult Pollio’s Historiae in no way calls into question his partisan stance order to obtain that contemporary’s testimony as a Caesarianus and the pride that he evinces regarding Pharsalus. elsewhere in his having been a follower of Caesar and a liberator of the Republic.52 In The Disappearance of Pollio this instance, as nowhere else, Appian gives After Pharsalus, desolation. Claims of Appian’s incontrovertible proof of having information reliance upon Pollio are in flat contradiction that ultimately derives from Pollio’s Historiae. of the evidence afforded by Appian’s own The ultimate derivation of material text. Neither does Pollio enjoy a significant from Pollio’s Historiae, however, does not role on those occasions when that might have mean immediate consultation of that work. reasonably been expected and he does happen Indeed, a number of considerations militate to be mentioned, nor is he mentioned at those against Appian having such a straightforward moments when both his authorial persona and knowledge of his predecessor’s work. For his political role guarantee that he figured large one thing, had Pollio’s work been available in the Historiae composed by Pollio himself. to the Alexandrian historian, then, as will be In both cases, comparison with other sources demonstrated in what follows, why did he use for the same period is salutary: insignificance it only for the period 49-48 BC? For another, or silence in Appian as opposed to the passing Appian uses none of the usual verbs (e.g. φησι, notice provided by others. Which is not to συγγράφει) that he might have employed to suggest that Appian’s narrative is devoid of indicate that the accounts of Pollio’s activities interest. On the contrary, it is a rich mine in Sicily and north Africa derive from the of information for those interested in the Historiae of Pollio himself.53 Most forcefully, period. However, the treatment accorded The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 105 to Pollio demonstrates that the sources of is incredible, if it be believed that Pollio’s this information are in manifest need of re- Historiae constituted Appian’s source.57 Pollio consideration. is in no way differentiated from his two On those eighteen occasions in which colleagues also operating beyond the Alps, Pollio is named subsequent to the battle of except for the remark that each commanded Pharsalus, his is invariably a minor role, even a different number of legions. There is no when filling the highest office of the Republic attempt to represent the situation from the (App. B Civ. 3.46.190, 74.304, 81.330 and 332, vantage-point of Pollio, unlike what has been 97.399; 4.12.46, 27.114, 84.352; 5.20.80, 31.121 seen in the case of the taking of Sicily from and 123, 32.128, 33.130-131, 35.141; 5.50.208 Cato the Younger or the aftermath of the and 212, 61.257, 64.272). This situation may disastrous African expedition of Curio in 49 very well reflect historical reality, but can BC, nor are readers are even informed as to hardly be a faithful reflection of the text of which province Pollio was then governing. Pollio’s Historiae and is distinctly at variance Paradoxically, now a key-player, Pollio is with the importance attributed to Pollio virtually elided from the historical record58, from the passage of the Rubicon through and Appian fails to record actions far more the engagement at Pharsalus. As such, it significant than those to which he previously constitutes important evidence disproving gave ample attention. In short, in Appian’s the widespread claim that Appian drew upon narrative the supporting-role played by Pollio Pollio extensively for his later treatment of is extremely low-key, and at odds with the events of the 40s and 30s BC. significance that he held for Antonius’ fate at A concrete example or two should suffice the time. to demonstrate the case. Similarly, in the strategic movements that In the aftermath of the defeat of M. led to L. Antonius’ ill-fated decision to winter Antonius at Mutina, the renegade proconsul within the safety of Perusia, Pollio emerges was pursued northwards in the hope of as a minor character whose contribution was entrapping him before he managed to escape all but negligible. Not endowed with his own across the Alps and into Transalpine Gaul. thoughts or plans, he might perhaps be best As is evident from the disposition of forces described as a pawn in operations resulting in remarked by Appian, Antonius had good a reversal of fortunes (App. B Civ. 5.31.121 cause to cross the mountains as quickly as and 123): possible. Likely assistance lay upon the other side of the barrier (App. B Civ. 3.46.190): καὶ εἵποντο τῶι Σαλουιδιηνῶι Ἀσίνιός τε καὶ Οὐεντίδιος, Λέπιδός τε ἔχων ἐν Ἰβηρίαι Ἀντωνίου στρατηγοὶ καὶ τέσσαρα τέλη καὶ Ἀσίνιος Πολλίων οἵδε, κωλύοντες αὐτὸν ἐς τὸ δύο καὶ Πλάγκος ἐν τῆι ἑτέραι πρόσθεν ἰέναι. Ἀγρίππας δέ, Κελτικῆι τρία ἐδόκουν αἱρήσεσθαι φίλτατος Καίσαρι, δείσας ἐπὶ τὰ Ἀντωνίου. τῶι Σαλουιδιηνῶι μὴ κυκλωθείη, Σούτριον κατέλαβε . . . καὶ It seemed that Lepidus with four legions τάδε μέν, ὡς προσεδόκησεν ὁ in Spain, Asinius Pollio with two, and Ἀγρίππας, ἐγίγνετο ἅπαντα· ὁ Plancus with three in Transalpine Gaul, δὲ Λεύκιος ἀποτυχὼν ὧν ἐπενόει, would opt for Antonius. πρὸς Ἀσίνιον καὶ Οὐεντίδιον ἤιει, ἐνοχλούντων αὐτὸν ἑκατέρωθεν Regardless of the historical truth of this Σαλουιδιηνοῦ τε καὶ Ἀγρίππου statement, its focalisation is altogether wrong καὶ φυλασσόντων, ὅτε μάλιστα and the lack of any specific information περιλάβοιεν ἐν τοῖς στενοῖς. 106 Richard Westall

42 BC, at a moment when Pollio was still Asinius and Ventidius, who were only consul-designate.60 Unless the error be also generals of Antonius, pursued attributed to textual corruption, which seems Salvidienus and prevented his advance. unlikely, it is hard to fathom how Appian Caesar’s very good friend Agrippa, could have made such a mistake had he been, however, feared lest Salvidienus be as past students of Quellenforschung would have encircled and occupied Sutrium . . . it, making extensive use of Pollio’s Historiae. All of these things came to pass, just Aside from Appian’s telling attribution as Agrippa had foreseen. Then, having to Pollio of a minor role and a mistake, failed to accomplish what he intended, however, there is also resounding silence Lucius made his way towards Asinius where some mention ought to have been and Ventidius while Salvidienus and expected, if Appian had made use of Pollio Agrippa attacked his flanks and watched as claimed. From other sources, it is possible for the best moment for trapping him to reconstruct with a fair degree of accuracy in the passes. Pollio’s cursus honorum.61 There are various moments in the 40s BC where any historian In this extended passage, there are three depending upon Pollio for information would figures who offer focalisation for the narrative have been likely to make statements reflecting and Pollio is not among this group. Even this fact. Although each instance might more intriguingly, in the case of Agrippa, individually be explained away as merely an readers are informed that “everything example of Appian’s abbreviation of his happened as Agrippa expected”. How might source, the consistent omission of reference Appian be expected to have knowledge of to Pollio has a cumulative weight that points Agrippa’s expectations? In view of the fact to use of a source not drawing upon that that Agrippa himself wrote an account of his author. role in the civil wars of the 40s and 30s BC, For instance, Pollio was amongst those it would seem that focalisation here reveals who accompanied M. Antonius back to Appian as drawing upon information that Italy in the autumn of 48 BC, so as to take ultimately derives from Agrippa’s memoirs.59 up the reins of government in the wake of While Pollio’s minor role may not be victory at Pharsalus. In the sequel, while C. deemed by all to be sufficient demonstration Caesar found himself in difficulties in Egypt, that Appian was utilising another source, Antonius as the magister equitum entered into perhaps persuasion will attend notice of the violent conflict with P. Dolabella, who as mistaken reference to Pollio as consul within tribune of the plebs sought to secure passage of the context of the proscriptions launched a law abolishing debts. Together with another in November 43 BC. Pollio’s father-in-law tribune of the plebs, L. Trebellius Fides, Pollio L. Quinctius figured fourth on the list of supported Antonius in opposing this populist the proscribed, for the mundane reason measure, despite the street-fighting and that Pollio was a consul-designate and the bloodshed at Rome that ensued.62 Although triumvirs sought to instil terror in everyone Plutarch’s account of these events has clearly by making it clear that no one was beyond been contaminated by Cicero’s attacks upon their reach (App. B Civ. 4.12.46). In relating Antonius in the Philippicae, it is equally clear the death of Quinctius, who chose suicide at that it also draws upon Pollio’s own account of sea to being pursued as a criminal, Appian this tumultuous period within the Historiae.63 describes him as being the father-in-law of Appian does refer to the riots that troubled Pollio, “who was consul at the time” (App. B Rome at this time, clearly situating them in Civ. 4.27.114). From context it is clear that Antonius’ tenure as Master of the Horse, but Quinctius’ death occurred at some point in makes no mention whatsoever of Pollio’s part The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 107 in these events.64 According to the standard ἰσχυρῶς ἀγωνιζομένους ἔπειτ᾿ ἐκ vision of Appian’s sources, Appian’s silence is συντυχίας τοιᾶσδε ἐξέπληξε καὶ inexplicable. ἐνίκησεν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος μὲν To cite but one last example, there is Appian’s τὴν χλαμύδα τὴν στρατηγικὴν silence regarding Pollio’s accomplishments ἀπέρριψεν ὥστε ῥᾶιον τῆι φυγῆι during his time as governor of Hispania Ulterior λαθεῖν, ἕτερος δέ τις ὁμώνυμός τε in 44-43 BC. While Appian does mention αὐτῶι καὶ ἐπιφανὴς ἱππεὺς ἔπεσε, Pollio twice during this period, his references καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐκεῖτο ἡ δὲ ἑαλώκει, τὸ are so oblique as to leave readers ignorant as μὲν ἀκούσαντες οἱ στρατιῶται τὸ to the province that he governed. Hence, it δὲ ἰδόντες ἠπατήθησαν ὡς καὶ τοῦ will not occasion surprise, if it is remarked that στρατηγοῦ σφων ἀπολωλότος Appian provides a very brief and exceptionally καὶ ἐνέδοσαν. καὶ οὕτως ὁ Σέξτος opaque account of Pollio’s armed conflict νικήσας πάντα ὀλίγου τὰ ταύτηι with Pompey the Great’s surviving son, Sextus κατέσχε. Pompeius (App. B Civ. 4.84.352): There he took control of soldiers and καὶ ὁ Γάιος ἔπεμψε τῶι Καρρίναι cities, especially after Caesar had died. διάδοχον Ἀσίνιον Πολλίωνα Some came over voluntarily and others πολεμεῖν Πομπηίωι. ὅν τινα were compelled – for their governor πόλεμον αὐτῶν ὁμοίως Gaius Asinius Pollio was weak. Then διαφερόντων, ὅ τε Γάιος Καῖσαρ he set out for Spanish Carthage, but ἀνηιρέθη καὶ ἡ βουλὴ κατεκάλει returned with a large force in response Πομπήιον. to Pollio’s having made an attack and caused some destruction during his Gaius (i.e. Caesar) sent Asinius Pollio absence. Encountering him in battle, to replace Carrinas in the war against (Sextus) routed him and then, thanks Pompeius. While they were fighting and to the following accident, shocked and the outcome was uncertain, Gaius was defeated the rest despite the fact that killed and the Senate recalled Pompeius. they were offering a stout resistance. Whereas Pollio had discarded his By contrast, from the relatively succinct, but general’s cloak so that he might more not jejune account that is provided by Cassius easily avoid being remarked in his Dio, it emerges that Sextus Pompeius enjoyed flight, there fell in battle someone the better of this conflict, putting Pollio to who had the same name as him and route (Dio 45.10.3-6): was a distinguished eques. Hearing the name of the fallen man and seeing the κἀνταῦθα καὶ στρατιώτας καὶ garment that had been captured, the πόλεις, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐπειδὴ ὁ soldiers were misled into thinking that Καῖσαρ ἀπέθανε, τὰς μὲν ἑκούσας their general was dead and surrendered. τὰς δὲ καὶ βίαι προσλαβών – ὁ In this way, Sextus achieved victory and γὰρ ἄρχων αὐτῶν Γάϊος Ἀσίνιος occupied nearly the whole of that area. Πωλίων οὐδὲν ἰσχυρὸν εἶχεν – ὥρμησε μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν Καρχηδόνα τὴν Pollio can hardly have shrouded his setback in Ἰβηρικήν, ἐπιθεμένου δὲ ἐν τούτωι decent silence, for all of his contemporaries τοῦ Πωλίωνος τῆι ἀπουσίαι αὐτοῦ were well aware of the various fortunes καὶ κακώσαντός τινα ἐπανῆλθε enjoyed by Sextus Pompeius in the late 40s χειρὶ πολλῆι, καὶ συμβαλὼν αὐτόν and early 30s BC. Unable to indulge in τε ἐτρέψατο, καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς omission, he had rather to rewrite events as 108 Richard Westall he might have wished them to occur. Traces the slanders contained within the Anti-Cato of this version provided by the Historiae are of Caesar, Plutarch avails himself of the to be found within the epitome composed by testimony of Munatius (Plut. Cat. min. 37.1-3): Velleius Paterculus during the principate of Tiberius (Vell. 2.73.2): Ὁ μέντοι Μουνάτιος οὐκ ἀπιστίᾳ τοῦ Κάτωνος, λλ᾿ ἐκείνου μὲν revocatum ex Hispania ubi adversus ὀλιγωρίᾳ πρὸς αὑτόν, αὑτοῦ δέ eum clarissimum bellum Pollio Asinius τινι ζηλοτυπίᾳ πρὸς τὸν Κανίδιον praetorius gesserat. ἱστορεῖ γενέσθαι τὴν ὀργήν. καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς σύγγραμμα περὶ τοῦ (Sextus Pompeius was) recalled (by Κάτωνος ἐξέδωκεν, ὧι μάλιστα the Senate) from Spain, where Pollio Θρασέας ἐπηκολούθησε. λέγει δὲ Asinius had fought an exceedingly ὕστερος μὲν εἰς Κύπρον ἀφικέσθαι brilliant campaign against him while καὶ λαβεῖν παρημελημένην ξενίαν, serving as praetorian governor. ἐλθὼν δὲ ἐπὶ θύρας ἀπωσθῆναι, σκευωρουμένου τι τοῦ Κάτωνος Needless to say, had Pollio’s campaign been οἴκοι σὺν τῷ Κανιδίῳ, μεμψάμενος truly brilliant, Sextus Pompeius would not δὲ μετρίως οὐ μετρίας τυχεῖν have been in a position for the Senate to recall ἀποκρίσεως, ὅτι κινδυνεύει τὸ him in an attempt at making amends for past λίαν φιλεῖν, ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος, injustices.65 This version of Pollio’s military αἴτιον τοῦ μισεῖν γίνεσθαι actions while governor in Hispania Ulterior πολλάκις. Ἐπεὶ καὶ σύ, φάναι, τῷ is antithetical to and irreconcilable with that μάλιστα φιλεῖν ἧττον οἰόμενος ἢ offered by Dio.66 Incredible in terms of προσήκει τιμᾶσθαι χαλεπαίνεις. history, such panegyric is most convincingly Κανιδίῳ δὲ καὶ δι᾿ ἐμπειρίαν χρῶμαι attributed to Pollio himself. Surely Pollio gave καὶ διὰ πίστιν ἑτέρων μᾶλλον, relief to this within the Historiae, as this was as ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν ἀφιγμένῳ, καθαρῷ noteworthy as his being present at the crossing δὲ φαινομένῳ. Ταῦτα μέντοι of the Rubicon or upon the field of Pharsalus. μόνον αὐτῷ μόνῳ διαλεχθέντα Yet again, Appian’s silence is inexplicable, if τὸν Κάτωνα πρὸς τὸν Κανίδιον it be accepted that Appian relied upon Pollio ἐξενεγκεῖν. αἰσθόμενος οὖν αὐτὸς for his account of these years. οὔτε ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἔτι φοιτᾶν οὔτε σύμβουλος ὑπακούειν καλούμενος... Methods of Citation The procedure adopted in the composition of By contrast, Munatius reports that his the Life of Cato the Younger reveals most clearly anger was caused not by Cato’s distrust, how Plutarch might utilise a later, better but rather due to the fact that Cato known source in order to create tralatician treated him in shabby fashion and citations. In this particular instance, the he himself was jealous of Canidius. ultimate source for much of the information In fact, he published a pamphlet reported by Plutarch was Cato’s long-standing about Cato, and this has been closely friend and companion Munatius Rufus, followed by Thrasea. Moreover, he whereas Plutarch’s immediate source was (i.e. Munatius) says that he arrived in the Stoic philosopher and Roman senator Cyprus later than the rest and found Thrasea Paetus.67 The situation is manifest that no arrangement had been made for from a passage where Plutarch refers to both his accommodation. Rather, he arrived of these sources, indicating their relationship at the entrance to Cato’s residence only to one another. In order to refute one of to be turned back because Cato was The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 109

engaged in something or other with this citation of Munatius Rufus and that of Canidius. Indeed, (he says), although Pollio within Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, sufficient he remonstrated in moderate fashion, to warrant the conclusion that there as well he met with an immoderate response, the citation derives from an intermediate to the effect that, as Theophrastus says, source. In describing the aftermath of the excessive love frequently runs the risk battle of Pharsalus, Plutarch cites Pollio for of being the cause of hatred. (He says) what Caesar said upon beholding the carnage that Cato said, “On account of your on the battlefield and then continues to cite great love for me, you are annoyed Pollio in oratio obliqua for the casualty figures. because you think that you are being The extended citation comes at the climax shown less consideration than ought to of the narrative, adding pathos to the battle’s be the case. But I rely upon Canidius description (Plut. Caes. 46.1-3): because I know him and because I trust him more than the others: he came Ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ ὡς ἐν τῷ χάρακι to me in the very beginning, and he is τοῦ Πομπηίου γενόμενος τούς without fault.” However, (he says), Cato τε κειμένους νεκροὺς ἤδη τῶν reported to Canidius these things that πολεμίων εἶδε καὶ τοὺς ἔτι he had said to Munatius when they were κτεινομένους, εἶπεν ἄρα στενάξας. alone together. (He says that) when he Τοῦτο ἐβουλήθησαν, εἰς τοῦτό learned of this, he refused to dine with με ἀνάγκης ὑπηγάγοντο, ἵνα Cato nor to be present at discussions Γάιος Καῖσαρ ὁ μεγίστους despite being invited to do so ... πολέμους κατορθώσας, εἰ προηκάμην τὰ στρατεύματα, The passage continues at length, but this first κἂν κατεδικάσθην. Ταῦτα φησι half is sufficient to show both Plutarch’s use Πολλίων Ἀσίννιος τὰ ῥήματα of Munatius at second-hand and the process Ῥωμαιστὶ μὲν ἀναφθέγξασθαι whereby an initial citation is extended, by the τὸν Καίσαρα παρὰ τὸν τότε exploration of a particular theme, so as to take καιρόν, Ἑλληνιστὶ δ᾿ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ up a whole paragraph. As regards Plutarch’s γεγράφθαι. τῶν δὲ ἀποθανόντων immediate source, Thrasea Paetus was a τοὺς πλείστους οἰκέτας γενέσθαι well-known, slightly older contemporary of περὶ τὴν κατάληψιν τοῦ χάρακος Plutarch, and his biography of Cato was an ἀναιρεθέντας, στρατιώτας δὲ μὴ essential part of the cause for his destruction.68 πλείους ἑξακισχιλίων πεσεῖν. He had been a Stoic philosopher and Roman senator who fell victim to the tyranny of As he entered Pompeius’ camp, Caesar Nero’s later years (Tac. Ann. 16.21-34). saw the enemy fallen, whether already Moreover, a mutual acquaintance linked him dead or in the process of being killed, with Plutarch: T. Avidius Quietus (cos. suff. and in lamentation he said, “This was 93).69 What is of interest here, however, is their doing: despite my impressive the fact that Plutarch quotes from Paetus at campaigns, I, Gaius Caesar, would length in order to present yet another source, have been condemned in court had I the pamphlet written by Munatius Rufus. dismissed my army. Pollio says that he In view of this state of affairs, it is best to said this in Greek at the time, but that query the immediacy of any and all citations he subsequently wrote it in Latin. (He that occur within Plutarch’s biographies, also says that) the vast majority of the especially when the source in question is dead were servants who were killed in unlikely to have had any general currency. the assault upon the camp, whereas no There is a striking resemblance between more than 6,000 soldiers lost their lives. 110 Richard Westall

chronological limits of Pollio’s Historiae, the In and of itself, the use of Pollio for two basic thesis endured: Pollio served as the related, but distinct points might be taken principal source for Plutarch and Appian as internal evidence pointing to Plutarch’s when they came to write of the last years of direct knowledge of the source that he the Republic.77 is citing.70 However, there is nothing in There is an initial problem with the thesis Plutarch’s language that in fact indicates a that Plutarch and Appian relied primarily direct knowledge of Pollio, and the suggestive upon Pollio for the period 60-42/30 BC. parallel afforded by Plutarch’s use of Paradoxically, this problem was recognised Munatius Rufus points directly at the opposite only to be hastily dismissed in what is now conclusion. deemed the classic treatment of the question of Plutarch’s sources for the late Republic; since that time it has been overlooked by Material in Common all. The problem resides in a most curious Whence the material that Appian and Plutarch omission regarding the years 60-59 BC: have in common? This fundamental problem neither the formulation of the pact between has vexed the ingenuity of Quellenforschunger Pompeius, Caesar, and Crassus nor the since the mid-nineteenth century and consulate of Caesar and Bibulus are reported aroused visions of the recovery of the lost by Plutarch and Appian in terms that would Historiae of C. Asinius Pollio.71 The search admit of a common source. As has been has been inspired by the prevailing idea that recognised within a footnote, “[I]t is odd that the Historiae of Pollio offered “the more the contact [of Plutarch] with Appian only responsible version” (Pelling 1979, 86), an begins with the year 58” (Pelling 1979, 85 n. “austere” account (Pelling 1979, 87), what 76).78 That, of course, flatly contradicts the is by far the most “powerful analysis” of the assertion made within the text: “This new fall of the Republic (Pelling 1986, 163-165).72 material [from Pollio, or better the Pollio- To cite another, classic judgement, “Pollio, source] appears to begin with the years 60-59” the partisan of Caesar and of Antonius, was (Pelling 1979, 84-85).79 That original sin, it a pessimistic Republican and an honest man” might be thought, calls the whole edifice into (Syme 1939: 5).73 It was inevitable that caution question. be thrown to the wind and that what began as Compounding this problem is the insecure qualified reference to a Pollio-source that had foundation of the commonly held belief that been used by both Plutarch and Appian should Pollio began the Historiae with a straightforward insensibly turn into the confident assertion narration as of 60 BC. The reconstruction is a that Pollio was their source.74 Thucydidean in pedantic piece of scholasticism, worthy of the style (durus et siccus) according to the exacting least imaginative of ancient commentators. It judgement of Tacitus (Tac. Dial. 21.7), with is based upon a single phrase (motum ex Metello Seneca the Elder affording confirmation in consule civicum), that with which Horace opens the form of the hostile necrology for Cicero his poem felicitating Pollio upon the writing (Sen. Suas. 6.24), Pollio seemed to modern of the Historiae (Hor. Carm. 2.1.1). True, investigators to give promise of being equally the judgement does recur within the work Thucydidean in terms of accuracy and of Plutarch with striking consistency (Plut. reliability.75 Therefore, if he could be identified Caes. 13.4-6; Pomp. 47.4; Cat. min. 30.9, 52.1).80 as the common source employed by Plutarch However, insufficient attention has been paid and Appian, all the better. The only question to context and to conflicting evidence. at that point was whether he had dealt with The judgement may be Pollio’s, but it was the period 60-42 BC or 60-30 BC.76 Despite Cato the Younger who gave it expression wavering opinions upon that subject, viz. the – or focalisation, if we must be au courant

The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 111

– and it would have been quite easy for a has been an eternal stumbling-block for subsequent author to take this judgement the advocates of a vision of the Historiae as over from Pollio in analogous fashion.81 Livy, covering the period 60-42/30 BC. Whereas a Cremutius Cordus, or Seneca the Elder are reference to Gades would have made eminent merely the more attractive of candidates. sense within the context of Caesar’s time as Masters of emulation, talented authors steal the governor of Hispania Ulterior in the late from others upon a regular basis. Pollio had 60s BC, there is no known reason for making no monopoly upon the truth. This situation a reference within a narrative ca. 57 BC. By is rendered all the more problematic by the contrast, had the Historiae commenced in 49 report that people recognised the validity BC, then, with the supposition that Pollio of Cato’s prophetic judgement in the wake used a level of detail comparable to that of of Caesar’s having crossed the Rubicon and Tacitus within the Historiae, the context would thereby irrevocably launched the civil war of be none other than Caesar’s lightning-swift 49-48 BC (Plut. Cat. min. 52.1). That suggests campaign against M. Varro and the surrender that its original historiographical appearance of Gades to the victorious proconsul. may have been not in an account of late 60 Naturally, if the Historiae of Pollio began BC, but rather in a description of the chaotic in 50/49 BC, then any alleged common events of January 49 BC. borrowings by Plutarch and Appian prior to The claim that the Roman civil wars of that date must draw upon another source, in all the 40s and 30s had their origin in 60 BC likelihood Livy. But that is to anticipate matters. in no way necessitates the thesis that Pollio Proceeding in order, instead, we find ourselves wrote a straightforward annalistic treatment confronted with the problem of citations. that began with that year and covered each Purloined learning and the improbability of and every year down to the terminus of his coincidence together render it difficult to work.82 Indeed, the commonly accepted credit Plutarch and Appian with reliance upon vision of annalistic treatment from 60 BC Pollio as their immediate, common source. onwards is hardly Thucydidean in approach. Rather, it might have been thought that Pollio Shades of Livy furnished a tightly focussed thematic excursus The identity of this intermediary is not far or chronological review of recent history in to seek, or so it would seem. Within the Book 1 of the Historiae, on the order of the Life of Caesar, the chapter that immediately Pentecontaetia furnished by his celebrated Attic follows that dedicated to the aftermath of predecessor and model (Thuc. 1.89-118). battle and casualty figures is given over to Cato’s judgement, in response to the report relating sundry omens that were associated that Caesar had crossed the Rubicon and with Caesar’s victory (Plut. Caes. 47.1-6). The occupied Ariminum, would have provided list is of heterogeneous origin, ultimately, as an opportune point of departure for a brief Caesar himself did record inter alia the omen review of the events that had brought the witnessed at Tralles (Plut. Caes. 47.1-2; cf. Roman state to this pass. Caes. B Civ. 3.105.6) but said nothing of what At this juncture, it is salutary to recall that had occurred at Patavium (Plut. Caes. 47.3-6). there does exist evidence that would support The episode at Patavium involved a certain the idea of an extended treatment of 50-49 C. Cornelius, who is described by Plutarch BC in the first three or four books of the as “a fellow-citizen and an acquaintance of Historiae of Pollio. Clear and unequivocal the historian Livy” (Plut. Caes. 47.3). After is the testimony of Valerius Maximus, who relating the omen witnessed by this augur, reports that Pollio wrote of the legendary Plutarch closes the episode by naming Livy king Arganthonius of Gades in Book 3 of the once more, asserting that “Livy affirms that Historiae (Val. Max. 8.13 ext.4). This report these things occurred thus” (Plut. Caes. 47.6). 112 Richard Westall

This emphasis upon the figure of Livy points be a comprehensible source for these items, to Livy’s being the overall source of Plutarch’s whereas Pollio by training and experience information in this particular paragraph, seems most unlikely and would in fact emerge and this conclusion is corroborated by other quite poorly should these things be attributed accounts of the omens of Pharsalus, such as to him.86 that furnished by Valerius Maximus.83 In view Indeed, the evidence that Plutarch made of this proximity of citations within the work use of Livy is fairly abundant and explicit of Plutarch, again resembling what occurs as regards the composition of those lives in the case of Munatius Rufus and Thrasea dealing with the late Republic. There is the Paetus, it is worth inquiring whether it was citation of Livy for an omen presaging the not Livy who was in fact the intermediary assassination of Caesar (Plut. Caes. 63.9-10; between Pollio and later writers. cf. Suet. Iul. 81.3; Dio 44.17.1). Of those Within the immediate context of the younger contemporaries who wrote histories citation of Pollio for the “truth” regarding dealing with Caesar but had not themselves casualty figures, there is the description of been protagonists in the events described the battle itself that also points to extensive (thus excluding Pollio and Oppius as well as reliance upon none other than Livy. Two Cicero and Caesar), Livy was used by Plutarch items in particular seem to betray the hand of in preference to Tanusius Geminus and Livy. For one thing, there is the erroneous Strabo, if explicit citations within the Life of report of the disposition of the Pompeian Caesar are any guide (cf. Plut. Luc. 28.1, 31.8). generals: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. To cite but another example of Plutarch’s 54), Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (cos. apparent reliance upon Livy in composing 52), and Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 56, the Life of Caesar, there is the oft-repeated 52), on the left, centre, and right respectively and implausible claim that Caesar began his (Plut. Caes. 44.4; Pomp. 69.1).84 That flatly invasion of Italy with a mere legion in January contradicts Caesar’s report that Pompeius 49 BC (Plut. Caes. 32.1; Pomp. 60.2; App. B and Scipio were in command of the left and Civ. 2.34.136; Oros. 6.15.3). That is patently centre. With the substitution of L. Cornelius false.87 On the other hand, it is precisely the Lentulus Crus (cos. 49) for Pompeius Magnus sort of thing that might have been expected on the right wing, which may well derive from of Livy. Pollio was in fact present at the a shared source with Plutarch, Appian gives crossing of the Rubicon (Plut. Caes. 32.7) and a similarly erroneous battle-line that runs as a member of Caesar’s general-staff would counter to the testimony of Caesar (App. B have known that matters were in fact quite Civ. 2.76.316).85 The error is precisely what different, just as emerges from close analysis might be expected of someone not known for of Caesar’s own account of troop movements precision in military matters, viz. Livy rather in the first months of 49 88 BC. Again, as than the veteran commander Pollio. In like regards the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, fashion, to focus upon the second item that the melodramatic nature of the mise-en-scène seemingly points to Livy, there is the romantic seems decidedly more appropriate to Livy story told regarding the Italian cavalry that than to Pollio despite the latter’s being the was routed by the infantry’s aiming spears at fountainhead of the core of those accounts their faces (Plut. Caes. 45.1-4; Pomp. 71.6-10; of the crossing of the Rubicon.89 Searching App. B Civ. 2.78.327). Rubbish that perhaps analysis of content, in short, tends to confirm retrieved in part the reputation of those the primacy of Livy amongst those secondary who had fought ingloriously for Pompeius, sources that are cited by name in the lives this story is unfathomable in a sobre author associated with the late Republic. such as Pollio, but quite in order with the Perhaps most striking of all, however, is a melodrama preferred by Livy. Livy would converse proof furnished by the non-use of The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 113

Livy by Plutarch and Appian in their accounts detailed narrative at a crucial moment resulted of the murder of Cicero. Livy is favourable in the adoption of different solutions by to Cicero, whereas Pollio was unremittingly Appian and Plutarch. hostile. Naturally, since Pollio is universally To expound and recapitulate, analysis assumed to the primary source for Plutarch of the coincidence of citation of Pollio by and Appian in the mid-40s, the undeniable Plutarch and Appian reveals that the shared fact that Appian and Plutarch failed to use source commonly identified as Pollio must him has caused no little puzzlement and be re-identified as none other than Livy. aporia.90 The hostility of Pollio to Cicero is Although the contours of usage must be re- patent in the necrology reported by Seneca examined afresh, there can be no doubt as to the Elder (Sen. Suas. 6.24), and that is perhaps the existence of shared material that is best enough to explain their decision not to follow explained by mutual dependence upon a Pollio. However, the fact that Appian also common source rather than Appian’s simply omits to mention the death of C. Verres by excerpting choice bits from Plutarch. To proscription is telling, in view of the fact that identify this source as Pollio, however, is to the story as transmitted by Pollio would have make a fundamental error. As has emerged been most congenial to Appian’s own view of from the above, Pollio was in fact only an the Proscriptions. Had Pollio been a source indirect and little influential source for these with which Appian was aquainted, and a fortiori two writers of the Second Sophistic. By if Pollio was in fact Appian’s principal source, contrast, Livy is an author whom Plutarch the omission of the story of Verres would be not only cites as an historical authority (to be inexplicable. As things stand, it merely affords distinguished from a protagonist in the events additional confirmation that Pollio was not a concerned) on more than one occasion and source known to Appian, or to Plutarch, as a in more than one life, but can be shown to result of direction consultation.91 The failure have used at first hand. Once Livy has been to follow Livy, by contrast, has no such negative identified as Plutarch’s source, it is simple implications. For one thing, it would appear enough to perceive Appian, too, making use that there is an underlying structural affinity of Livy.94 The citation that gave rise to this between the accounts of Livy, Plutarch, and investigation is merely one of a handful of Appian, which may be due to knowledge of instances where Livy seems to have been Livy or to intermediate source(s).92 Yet, there willing to act charitably and acknowledge the are discernible differences of detail, which are historiographical contribution made by his striking and of no little significance. Therefore, predecessor. The conclusion to this exercise Plutarch and Livy clearly do not rely only, nor in Quellenforschung is in some ways a surprise, even primarily, upon Livy for their account of and undoubtedly embodies a supreme irony. Cicero’s death. Indeed, comparison of the That Pollio should have been saddled – accounts reveals that Livy is remarkably vague. in glowing terms, no less – with the work The explanation for this odd fact probably lies of a contemporary whom he apparently in the account’s occurring within Book 120, despised is in some fashion ironical.95 which was the last of the books that Livy published during the lifetime of Augustus.93 The vagueness and rather anodyne nature of * * * Livy’s account, presumably due to a desire not to offend imperial sensiblities, together suffice to explain why Appian and Plutarch Attentive analysis of the text of Appian of turned elsewhere – to visibly different sources Alexandria’s Emphylia reveals that the central – in order to make good the omission in their pillar of modern scholarship regarding that shared source. Livy’s failure to provide a text’s historical worth cannot bear the weight 114 Richard Westall that has been placed upon it. Frequently historiographical vision that was the product taken for a self-evident truth in scholarship of a provincial dedicated to the idea of Rome dedicated to the question as of the midle of and the imperial monarchy; the discussion the nineteenth century, the idea of Appian’s concerning the shape of the Historiae and having made extensive use of Pollio’s lost the disposition of material can commence Historiae for the composition of the Emphylia afresh. Conversely, the unique and original is shown for the mirage that it is. While there contribution made to Roman historiography is material in Appian’s narrative for the years by Appian emerges with greater precision. 49-48 BC that indubitably derives from Pollio Appian emerges as an author with a vision in the ultimate analysis, probably by way of of his own and capable of shaping his work Livy, the narrative for 47 BC and subsequent as he saw fit, albeit sharing certain features years is equally clearly the product of reliance with authors as disparate as Strabo of upon sources other than Pollio. Appian’s Amaseia and Flavius Josephus.96 Last, but treatment of Pollio in those years ranges not least, the question of Appian’s sources from disattention to complete silence, which is posed afresh, inviting new approaches and attitudes are fundamentally irreconcilable with caution not to confuse the identification of the thesis that Appian relied heavily, perhaps this author’s sources with an explanation of exclusively, upon Pollio. Hence, the thesis historiographical accomplishment. must be jettisoned and recognition taken of the fact that Appian relied upon Pollio only in a minimal part, and even then indirectly. Disjoining these two authors is not a disaster. Rather, it liberates each to be appreciated upon his own merits as an artist Richard Westall seeking to portray the convoluted course Pontificia Università Gregoriana of events that led from the Republic to the The Catholic University of America Principate. Pollio is freed of the shackles of a [email protected] The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 115

BIBLIOGRAphy

André, J. Eck, W. 1949 La vie et l’oeuvre d’Asinius Pollion, Paris. 1982 “Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/9”, Chiron 12, Badian, E. 281-362. 1958 “Appian and Asinius Pollio”, Classical Review 8, 159-162. Fabia, P. 1893 Les sources de Tacite dans les Historiae et les Annales, Badian, E. Paris. 1966 “The early historians”. In: Dorey, T.A. (ed.), Latin historians, London, 1-38. Gabba, E. 1956 Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili, Florence. Bal, M. 1985 Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative Gabba, E. (tr. C. van Boheemen), Toronto. 1970 Appiani bellorum civilium liber quintus: introduzione, testo critico e commento con traduzione e indici, Blanck, H. Florence. 1992 Das Buch in der Antike, Munich. Gabba, E. Brodersen, K. 1971 “Appiano traduttore in B. C., V 191”. In: Studi di 2014 “Appianos and his treasured Eutychia”. In: Welch, storiografia antica in memoria di L. Ferrero, Turin, K. (ed.), Appian’s Rhomaika. Empire and Civil 185-189. War, Swansea, 297-303. Geiger, J. Brunt, P.A. 1979 “Munatius Rufus and Thrasea Paetus on Cato the 1971 Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.-A.D. 14, Oxford. Younger”, Athenaeum 57, 48-72.

Bucher, G. Geiger, J. 1995 “Appian BC 2.24 and the Trial de ambitu of M. 2002 “Felicitas Temporum and Plutarch’s Choice of Aemilius Scaurus”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Heroes”. In: Stadter, P. & van der Stockt, Geschichte 44, 396-421. L. (eds.), Sage and Emperor. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan Burgess, R.W. (98-117 A.D.), Leuven, 93-102. 1999 Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography, with the assistance of W. Witakowski, (Historia Geiger, J. Einzelschriften 135), Stuttgart. 2011 “The Augustan Age”. In: Marasco, G. (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity. Canfora, L. A Brill Companion, Leiden, 233-266. 1999 Giulio Cesare. Il dittatore democratico, Bari. Gelzer, M. Carcopino, J. 1958 “Review of Gabba (1956)”, Gnomon 30, 216-218. 1928 Autour des Gracques, Paris. Gelzer, M. Carter, J.M. 1971 “Die drei Briefe des C. Asinius Pollio”, Chiron 2, 1991 Julius Caesar: The Civil War, Books 1-2, Warminster. 297-312.

Carter, J.M. Goukowsky, P. 1996 Appian: The Civil Wars, London. 1997 Appien, Histoire romaine: Tome II, Livre VI, L’Ibérique, Paris. Cuff, P.J. 1967 “Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of Appian, Gowing, A.M. BC 1”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 16, 1990 “Appian and Cassius’ speech before Philippi (Bella 177-188. Civilia 4.90-100)”, Phoenix 44, 158-181. 116 Richard Westall Gowing, A.M. Meyer, E. 1992 The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio, 1919 Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus, Ann Arbor. Stuttgart.

Griffin, M.T. Moles, J.L. 1984 Nero. The End of a Dynasty, New Haven. 1983 “Virgil, Pompey and the Histories of Asinius Pollio”, Classical World 76, 287-288. Hinard, F. 1985 Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine, (Collection de Momigliano, A. l’Ecole française de Rome 83), Rome. 1963 “Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century AD”. In: Momigiliano, A. (ed.), Holmes, T. Rice The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the 1928-1931 The Architect of the Roman Empire, Oxford. Fourth Century, Oxford, 79-99.

Homeyer, H. Morgan, J.D. 1964 Die antike Berichte über den Tod Ciceros und ihre 1983 “Palaepharsalus – The Battle and the Town”, Quellen, (Deutsche Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft American Journal of Archeology 87, 23-54. 18), Baden-Baden. Morgan, L. Jones, C.P. 2000 “The Autopsy of C. Asinius Pollio”, Journal of 1971 Plutarch and Rome, Oxford. Roman Studies 90, 51-69.

Karst, J. (ed.) Münzer, F. 1911 Eusebius: Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt 1899 “Caninius Nr. 9”. In: Pauly, A., Wissowa, G., & mit textkritischem Commentar (Die Griechischen Kroll, W. (eds.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte Altertumswissenschaft 3/1, 1478-1479. 5), Leipzig. Münzer, F. Kornemann, E. 1930 “Marcius Nr. 94”. In: Pauly, A., Wissowa, G., & 1896 “Die historische Schriftstellerei des C. Asinius Kroll, W. (eds.), Realencyclopädie der Classischen Pollio. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenforschung Altertumswissenschaft 14/2, 1586. über Appian und Plutarch”, Jahrbücher für classiche Philologie, Suppl. 22, 557-692. Nissen, H. 1863 Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und Leeman, A.D. fünften Dekade des Livius, Berlin. 1963 Orationis Ratio. The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers, Ottmer, H.-M. Amsterdam. 1979 Die Rubikon-Legende. Untersuchungen zu Caesars und Pompeius’ Strategie vor und nach Ausbruch des McDonald, A.H. Bürgerkrieges, Boppard am Rhein. 1958 “Review of Gabba (1956)”, Journal of Roman Studies 48, 186-187. Pelling, C.B.R. 1979 “Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman Magnino, D. Lives”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 99, 74-96. (= 1984 Appiani bellorum civilium liber tertius: testo critico, Pelling, C.B.R. 1995a “Plutarch’s Method of introduzione, traduzione e commento, Florence. Work in the Roman Lives”. In: Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, Oxford, 265- Magnino, D. 312, and 312-318 (postscript) = Pelling, C.B.R. 1993 “Le ‘Guerre Civili’ di Appiano”, Aufstieg und 2002b “Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.34.1, 523-554. Roman Lives”. In: C.B.R. Pelling, Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies, London, 1-44). Magnino, D. 1998 Appiani bellorum civilium liber quartus: introduzione, Pelling, C.B.R. testo, traduzione e commento, Como. 1986 “Plutarch and Roman politics”. In: Moxon, I.S. et al. (eds.), Past Perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, Conference in Leeds, The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 117

6-8 April 1983, Cambridge, 159-187. (= Pelling, Roddaz, J.-M. C.B.R. 1995b “Plutarch and Roman politics”. 1984 Marcus Agrippa, (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises In: Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, d’Athènes et de Rome 253), Rome. Oxford, 319-356 = (Pelling, C.B.R. 2002c “Plutarch and Roman politics”. In: C.B.R. Scardigli, B. Pelling, Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies, 1995 “Introduction”. In: Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on London, 207-236). Plutarch’s Lives, Oxford, 1-46.

Pelling, C.B.R. Seeck, O. 1988 Plutarch: Life of Antony, Cambridge. 1902 “Horaz an Pollio”, Wiener Studien 24, 499-510.

Pelling, C.B.R. Stevenson, T. 1995a “Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman Lives”. 2014 “Appian on the Pharsalus Campaign: Civil Wars In: Scardigli, B. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, 2.48-91”. In: Welch, K. (ed.), Appian’s Rhomaika. Oxford, 265-312 and 312-318 (postscript). Empire and Civil War, Swansea, 51-105.

Pelling, C.B.R. Syme, R. 1995b “Plutarch and Roman politics”. In: Scardigli, B. 1939 The Roman Revolution, Oxford. (ed.), Essays on Plutarch’s Lives, Oxford, 319-356. Syme, R. Pelling, C.B.R. 1955 “Missing Senators”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte 2002a Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies, London. Geschichte 4, 52-71. (= Syme 1979).

Pelling, C.B.R. Syme, R. 2002b “Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman 1979 “Missing Senators”. In: E. Badian (ed.), Roman Lives”. In: C.B.R. Pelling, Plutarch and History. Papers, vol. 1, Oxford, 271-291. Eighteen Studies, London, 1-44. Syme, R. Pelling, C.B.R. 1986 The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford. 2002c “Plutarch and Roman politics”. In: C.B.R. Pelling, Plutarch and History. Eighteen Studies, Tränkle, H. London, 207-236. 1977 Livius und Polybios, Basel.

Pelling, C.B.R. Welch, K. (ed.) 2009 “Was there an ancient genre of ‘autobiography’? 2014a Appian’s Rhomaika. Empire and Civil War, Swansea. Or, did Augustus know what he was doing?”. In: Smith, C. & and Powell, A. (eds.), The Lost Welch, K. (ed.) Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman 2014b “Punishing Caesar’s Assassins: Programme and Autobiography, Swansea, 41-64. Narrative in Civil Wars 2.118-4.138”. In: Welch, K. (ed.), Appian’s Rhomaika. Empire and Civil Pelling, C.B.R. War, Swansea, 149-170. 2011 Plutarch: Caesar, Oxford. Wijnne, I.A. Petermann, H. (tr.) 1855 De fide et auctoritate Appiani in bellis Romanorum 1875 Eusebii Chronicorum libri duo 1: Eusebi Chronicorum civilibus enarrandis, exploratis fontibus quibus usus esse liber prior (ed. A. Schoene), Berlin. videtur, Groningen.

Rice Holmes, T. Westall, R. 1923 The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire, 2014 “The Sources for the Civil Wars of Appian Oxford. of Alexandria”. In: Welch, K. (ed.) Appian’s Rhomaika. Empire and Civil War, Swansea. Rich, J. 2014 “Appian, Polybius and the Romans’ war with Westall, R. & Brenk, F. Antiochus the Great”. In: Welch, K. (ed.), 2011 “The Second and Third Century”. In: Marasco, Appian’s Rhomaika. Empire and Civil War, G. (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Swansea, 51-105. Antiquity, Leiden, 363-416. 118 Richard Westall

Wiseman, T.P. Zecchini, G. 1971 New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14, 1982 “Asinio Pollione: dall’attività politica alla Oxford. riflessione storiografica”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.30.2, 1265-1296. Woodman, A.J. 1983 Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan Zecchini, G. Narrative (2.41-93), Cambridge. 2002 “Plutarch as Political Theorist”. In: Stadter, P. & van der Stoct, L. (eds.), Sage and Emperor. Wright, A. Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the 2001 “The Death of Cicero. Forming a Tradition: The Time of Trajan (98-117 A.D.), Leuven, 191-200. Contamination of History”, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 50, 436-452.

NOTES

The author would like to thank the various colleagues and friends who have generously contributed to the improve- ment of this paper: Prof. Susan M. Treggiari, Prof. Frederick Brenk, Prof. Scott Richardson, Prof. Anton Powell, Prof. Kai Brodersen, Prof. Kathryn Welch, Prof. Christopher Smith, Prof. John Rich, Dr. Carsten H. Lange, and the anonymous readers of Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Their encouragement and comments upon both this piece and two related works have been of immense assistance.

1 For an incisive review of just a few of the problems manifesting themselves within Appian’s Emphylia, see Bucher 1995, 396-421. It is to be remarked that such problems are inexplicable if Appian made extensive use of Pollio and Pollio’s Historiae began with the year 60 BC. 2 Magnino 1993, 548-549, provides a balanced review of the various positions and the criticisms advanced as far as the end of the twentieth century. For a similar review of the historiographical work of Pollio and its possible contribution to that of Appian, see Zecchini 1982, 1285. It is intriguing to remark that the two positions are not entirely complementary. 3 Wijnne 1855, 30-31, 60. 4 Most notably those of Badian 1958, 159-162; Gelzer 1958, 216-218; McDonald 1958, 186-187. Cf. Gowing 1992, 3. With the exception of Cuff 1967, 177-188, the failure for articles to follow upon book reviews is remarkable, and unfortunate. 5 Exemplary is Gabba 1971, as regards the dialogue between L. Antonius and Caesar the Younger. 6 For the initial date, see Gabba 1956, 83-8, 246-247 in particular; cf. Kornemann 1896, 661-662. For the proposed date of closure, see Kornemann 1896, 662-664; Gabba 1956, 242-243. 7 Meyer 1919, 609 n. 4 (Pollio), 610 (Juba). Indeed, it is worth remarking that this archaeologia would have been even more substantial than that to be found within the universal history of Polybius. 8 Seeck 1902, 508. 9 Kornemann 1896; André 1949. 10 It is worth remembering that it was in this same period that, on the basis of the Armenian and Syriac versions, there was an attempt to recreate in Latin and German translations the lost Greek original of the Chronographia of Eusebius of Caesarea: Karst 1911; Petermann 1875. For brief but incisive discussion of these translations and the problems involved, see Burgess 1999, 23-27. For an extreme example of reflection upon the Latin behind the text of Appian’s Emphylia, see Carcopino 1928, 202-204; Piganiol 1935, 616; contra Gabba 1956, 113. 11 Pelling 1979 (= Pelling 1995a = Pelling 2002b). 12 Foremost among these contributions are: Hahn 1982; Gowing 1992; Magnino 1993. 13 Also extremely important in this regard is the meticulous investigation furnished by Gowing 1990. Further, important work is forthcoming in Welch 2013b. 14 e.g. Carsana 2007, 22-23, adducing no less than thirteen reasons for favouring Pollio. 15 cf. Pelling 2011, 45, “The bulk of the narrative of Caesar from chapter 13 onward, probably three-quarters of the whole, seems to come from Pollio.” This analysis is informed by the vision of Pollio as “more accurate” (Pelling 2002b, 14), even if tempered by a healthy willingness to perceive Pollio’s penchant for drama. 16 HRR2 2.67-70; FRH no. 56. As regards the opportunity to consult prior to publication the latter edition (which is the work of the late and esteemed Andrew Drummond), I should like to thank Director of the British School at Rome, Professor Christopher Smith, for his generous assistance. 17 cf. App. Iber. 2.6-7. 18 cf. 1 Macc. 8.3-4. The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 119

19 See respectively: Strab. 3.2.14, citing Anacr. fr. 361 Page; Hdt. 1.163.2. As regards the appearance of Argantho- nius within the narrative of Herodotus, it may not be irrelevant that Herodotus within this same book furnishes a dialogue between Solon and Croesus on the nature of happiness. 20 Cic. Senect. 69; Lucian. Macrob. 10. 21 cf. Goukowsky 1997, 102-103 n. 18. 22 For the standard reconstruction of the Historiae of Pollio, see Nisbet and Hubbard 1978, 8. As regards the putative context of ca. 57 BC, on this reckoning, see Zecchini 1982, 1286. 23 cf. Peter, HRR 2.68 ad loc. 24 For Diomedes and Lavinium, see App. B Civ. 2.20.74; Carsana 2007, 98; Pasqualini 1998, 663-679. For Epidamnus, see App. B Civ. 2.39.152-155; Carsana 2007, 140. Lastly, as regards the sojourn of Odysseus at Artemisium, see App. B Civ. 5.116.484; Gabba 1970, 197-198. 25 Magnino 1993, 548-549, summarising the status quo. 26 For detailed discussion of the evidence, see Goukowsky 1997, 103 n. 19. 27 As regards the sources of the Iberike, see the brief, but sensible remarks of Richardson 2000, 4-5; cf. Rich 2014, 95 (suggesting possible reliance upon Posidonius). 28 Or seven, according to Drummond in FRH, if one divides Peter F2a-b in two. 29 Suida Α 4148 (= 1.381 Adler) s.v. Ἀσίννιος Πωλίων. 30 Those who cavil at the use of these statistics should remember that the same method of reasoning was used, by general consensus, to good effect by K. Hopkins. The historian of necessity works with a model, and it is better to set forth the nature of this model rather than to remain fixed upon vague positions that hardly lend themselves to clarity of argument. 31 For the standard length of a book (i.e. papyrus-roll), see Blanck 1992, 58. 32 e.g. Pelling 1979, 84 n. 69 (= Pelling 1995a, 286 n. 69 = Pelling 2002b, 35 n. 69). 33 cf. Pelling 2011, 44 (with additional bibliography at 44 n. 104). 34 cf. Pelling 1979, 85 (= Pelling 1995a, 287 = Pelling 2002b, 13 ~ Pelling 2011, 45), whence the use of the more care- ful designation “Pollio-source”. 35 Pelling 2011, 44; cf. Pelling 1979, 84 (= Pelling 1995a, 287 = Pelling 2002b, 12), on “systematic contact”. 36 cf. Pelling 1979, 84-85 (= Pelling 1995a, 288 = Pelling 2002b, 12-13). 37 cf. Caes. B Civ. 3.95.3-4. 38 e.g. Suet. Iul. 25.1; 41.2; 50.2. An exception, relating to warfare, is furnished by the report of the missiles shot and the holes made within the shield of the centurion Cassius Scaeva during an engagement near Dyrrachium: Suet. Iul. 68. 39 cf. Caes. B Civ. 1.85.10. 40 For context and an introduction to the subject, see Brodersen 2014. 41 The author should like to thank Prof. Kathryn Welch for her generous comment offering insight as to why Pollio would be at pains to make this affirmation. 42 The use of this citation as evidence for Appian’s use of Pollio goes back Wijnne and beyond. 43 cf. Liv. 30.45. 44 Those passages involving direct speech are as follows: App. B Civ. 1.58, 61, 65, 94, 101; 2.11, 25, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 40, 43, 47, 50-51, 53, 55, 57, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73-74, 82, 85, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 124, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133-134, 136, 137-141, 144-146, 149, 152; 3.13, 15-17, 18-20, 26, 28, 32, 33-38, 43, 44, 48, 52- 53, 54-60, 62, 63, 65, 72, 73, 87; 4.8-11, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32-33, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 48, 50, 67-68, 69-70, 90-100, 113, 114, 117-118, 119-120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 134; 5.4-5, 28, 36, 39, 42-44, 45, 47, 54, 60, 61, 62, 73, 134-135, 141. Cf. the use of inscriptions at 1.97; 2.86; 4.41; 5.130. 45 cf. Plut. Cat. Min. 53.3, for another, more extended but less dramatic version of this same episode. See 2.82.346, for use of ἀναγράφει vel sim. 46 Morgan 2000, 51-69. 47 cf. André 1949, 58-59. Although note is taken of the narration of this and other episodes involving Pollio himself, the principles adopted by H. Peter are too strict to allow for the inclusion of this material: HRR2 2. lxxxviiii-lxxxx, lxxxxvii (“fragmentorum denique numerus, ut coniecturas omittamus, admodum exiguus est”). 48 For these two figures, see Münzer 1899, 1478-1479; Münzer 1930, 1586. In the aftermath, Marcius disappears from the historical record, probably one of the many casualties of the period. By contrast, although nothing is known of what Rebilus did in the interim, he, like Pollio, appears playing an important role in the north African campaign of 47-46 BC. Caesar felt that their experience of the terrain justified relying upon them once more. 49 Caes. B Civ. 2.43.1-2. That should have sufficed to quell speculation about Caesar’s dependence upon Pollio. Un- fortunately, even those who normally display sound judgement in their commentaries succumb to the fascination exerted by the lost Historiae of Pollio: Carter 1991, 228. Carter, of course, knew that the Historiae came later. 50 These figures hold good unless there is a problem of textual transmission concerning Caes. B Civ. 3.99.4. While the figure unanimously reported by the direct tradition for Caesar is corroborated by one branch of the indirect tradition, Oros. 6.15.27, it is possible that Appian is here reporting a variant reading otherwise not preserved. Cf. Caes. B Civ. 3.2.2, which reads XV milia but should perhaps be emended to XXV milia on the basis of Caes. B Civ. 3.6.2, or thus plausibly Glandorp. For the question of the numerical strength of those forces that accompanied Caesar in his invasion of the Balkans early in 48 BC, see also Brunt 1971, 475, focussing upon number of legions only. Cf. Holmes 1923, 3.433-434, observing rightly that Caesar’s legions should have reckoned 2750 men on aver- age after Pharsalus. 51 The author should like to thank Prof. Kathryn Welch for her kind suggestion of this point. 52 Gelzer 1971, 297-312. 120 Richard Westall

53 cf. App. Hisp. 88.382 (Ῥουτίλιον Ῥοῦφον, συγγραφέα τῶνδε τῶν ἔργων), where he cites the autobiography of Rutilius Lupus. For the nature of that document and Appian’s use of it, see Badian 1966, 23-5; Goukowsky 1997, xli-xlii. 54 Plut. Caes. 46.1-3; Suet. Iul. 30, cf. 56. 55 e.g. Plut. Caes. 47.3-6, indeed reporting an omen that occurred at Patavium regarding the outcome of the battle of Pharsalus. 56 Moles 1983, 287-288. 57 There is doubt as to whether number of legions ascribed to Pollio is correct. For the proposal that they were in effect three in number, see Brunt 1971, 479, 491. Writing to Cicero in June 43, Pollio declared that he had three legions under his command: tris legiones firmas habeo (Cic. Fam. 10.32.4). For the other dispositions, likewise perhaps not reported accurately, see Magnino 1984, 160-161. 58 It may not be inopportune to recall that Caesar himself omits to mention Pollio in his own narrative dedicated to this campaign: Caes. B Civ. 2.23-44. For that elementary reason, the attractive proposal that Pollio was responsible for Caesar’s account (Carter 1991, 228) must be rejected. 59 cf. Roddaz 1984, 568-571, albeit accepting Gabba’s attribution to Pollio of this material in Appian. For the fragments of Agrippa’s autobiography, see HRR2 2.64-65. Naturally, there is no trace of this in the discussion of source(s) in Gabba 1970, xxxvii-xlii, where the attribution to Pollio is defended with remarkable single-mindedness. 60 For the identity of this individual, see the remarks of Magnino 1998, 165, 178; Syme 1955, 68 (= Syme 1979, 287- 288); Wiseman 1971, 255 no. 351. Rather than identical with the homonymous praetor of 68 BC, perhaps he was that individual’s son. As for the date of his death, there exists an alternative explanation, viz. that he took refuge with Sextus Pompeius and died during a sea-storm in 40 BC: Hinard 1985, 511. Even if such a reconstruction would help to explain Pollio’s interest in securing peace with Pompeius in 40, that seems unlikely, for Appian’s narrative implies that the father-in-law did not survive for long. 61 Wiseman 1971, 215 no. 50. 62 Plut. Ant. 8.4-10.2; cf. Dio 42.29-33. Although most likely, the question of whether Pollio was himself a tribune of the plebs is subject to some doubt, for he is not explicitly attested as such. 63 cf. Pelling 1988, 136, “doubtless described these events in his work”. 64 App. B Civ. 2.92.386. 65 For the chronology of the recall, see Magnino 1998, 229. It may be observed that economic and geopolitical considerations must have been taken into account by the Senate, for Sextus Pompeius’ occupation of south central Spain gave him effective control over the region’s mines as well as an excellent base for launching a possible attack upon Italy. The importance of these mines earlier in the 40s will be discussed in greater detail in the second chapter of my forthcoming book on Caesar’s Bellum Civile. 66 pace Woodman 1983, 177; André 1949, 17-18. Any attempt to reconcile the versions of Velleius and Dio seems destined to failure. It is hard to believe that Velleius Paterculus has improved upon an ambiguous phrase such as aequo Marte in the account provided by Pollio himself. It is likewise impossible to believe that Pollio’s account ultimately lies behind what is reported by Dio, for clarissimum is clearly at odds with the resounding defeat and abject flight described by that historian. 67 Geiger 1979, 48-72; cf. Pelling 1979, 85 (= Pelling 1995a, 289-290 = Pelling 2002b, 13); Scardigli 1995, 23; Geiger 2002, 98; Geiger 2011, 234; see also Zecchini 2002, 194. 68 cf. Tac. Ann. 16.22.1-2; Griffin 1984, 171-177;PIR 2 C 1187. 69 Jones 1971, 51-53; Geiger 1979; Zecchini 2002, 199 n.28; see also Eck 1982, 319. 70 e.g. Pelling 1979, 84 (= Pelling 1995a, 287 = Pelling 2002b, 12), on “systematic contact”. 71 e.g. Kornemann 1896, 557-692. 72 Alternatively, these three citations can respectively be found at: Pelling 1995a, 292, 293 (~ Pelling 2002b, 14, 15); Pelling 1995b, 325-326 (= Pelling 2002c, 210). 73 cf. Gowing 1992, 43, for the antithesis of Augustan version vs. Pollio version. 74 For examples of qualified statements, see Pelling 1979, 84-85 (= Pelling 1995a, 287-288 = Pelling 2002b, 12-13); Pelling 1988, 27 n. 90. For less inhibited judgements, see Pelling 2009, 41ff.; Pelling 2011, 45. 75 cf. Leeman 1963, 188-189. 76 Opting for the period 60-42 BC, e.g. Syme 1986, 356; Syme 1939, 5. Opting instead for the years 60-30 BC, e.g. Zecchini 1982, 1296; Pelling 1979, 84 n. 73 (= Pelling 1995a, 286-287 n. 73 = Pelling 2002b, 35-36 n. 73); cf. Gabba 1956, 242-243. 77 e.g. Gowing 1992, 40. Despite the posturing and a recognition of the need for pliability, it seems clear that those specialising in the study of Appian continue to operate more or less upon the same epistemological basis as their nineteenth-century predecessors. 78 Alternatively Pelling 1995a, 288 n. 76 (= Pelling 2002b, 36 n. 76). 79 Alternatively Pelling 1995a, 287-288 (= Pelling 2002b, 12). 80 cf. Pelling 1979, 76 n. 18 (= Pelling 1995a, 270 n. 18 = Pelling 2002b, 31 n. 18), where an incomplete list is furnished. The passage omitted by Pelling is perhaps the most telling, and certainly suggests a very different reconstruction of the narrative context within which Cato’s judgement was reported. 81 Syme 1986, 442, “[a]nnexing a verdict of Cato”. 82 In fact, pace Pelling 2002b, 36 n. 76, the use of the preposition ex rather than ab seems significant, or at least such seems the conclusion to be drawn from the phrase ab urbe condita of Livian usage or the well-known ab excessu divi Augusti for the annals of Tacitus. 83 For Livy as Plutarch’s immediate source of information in this instance, see Peter 1865, 123. Corroboration of this thesis, as indicated, is to be had from the list given by Val. Max. 1.6.12. The Relationship of Appian to Pollio: a reconsideration 121

84 cf. Morgan 1983, 54, with Table III. 85 Morgan 1983, 54, for this analysis; Carsana 2007, 220-221, furnishing a list that is full but hardly as effective or easily understood as the above-cited Table III in Morgan 1983. 86 In view of Pollio’s penchant for the dramatic (Pelling 2011, 47: “[W]e should reconstruct an author who was less austere and more concerned with vivid effect than some of his modern idealizations would suggest”), he cannot altogether be ruled out as a possible source. However, given that he posed as a severe critique of others’ descrip- tions of the battle of Pharsalus, there is very little likelihood that he indulged in such fancy as this. 87 pace Canfora 1999: 156, title of Ch. XVIII. 88 Ottmer 1979. 89 Pelling 1988, 314, for Antony and Cleopatra. 90 e.g. Gowing 1992, 157. 91 Westall 2014, 107-110; cf. Wright 2001; Homeyer 1964. 92 Holmes 1928, 216-217. 93 For the notice regarding publication of the later books, see Liv. Per. 121. 94 cf. situation for the Spanish campaign against Sertorius. 95 Quintil. 1.5.56; 8.1.3; cf. Syme 1939, 486, “Pollio knew what history was. It was not like Livy.” Arriving at a similar conclusion regarding Appian’s use of Livy, but on the basis of different considerations that complement those ad- duced here, there is now also the work of Stevenson 2014. 96 For a modest attempt to evoke in further detail the similarities uniting Josephus and Appian, see the brief discussion offered in Westall and Brenk 2011. 122 Richard Westall

δὲ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν

μάχης οἱ

τῆς

ατιᾶς ἑξακισχιλίους Ἀσίνιος εὑρεθῆναι , δισμυρίους

στρ

Καίσαρι ,

φασι νεκροὺς ἄλλης ὑπὸ

, 2.82.346

στρατηγῶν

τῆς BC

δὲ

App. ἐκ ἐκείνης ἀναγράφει Πομπηίου ἐπαίροντές πεντακισχιλίοις Πολλίων

ab Hoc Gaius nisi

eum ad ,

inius , Pollio : “ As essem

referens caesos caesos profligatosque

- spicientem haec tantis tantis rebus gestis dixisse ; . 30.4 condemnatus

Iul Suet. Quod probabilius facit Pharsalica acie voluerunt Caesar exercitu petissem”. auxilium adversarios adversarios pro verbum verbum

δὲ

. καὶ

φησιν

Καίσαρος μεμαχημένος

πεσεῖν στρατοπέδῳ

, στρατιώτας μετὰ τῷ

σκηνοφυλάκων

ἐν ·

μάχην

Πολλίων . 72.4

ἑξακισχιλίους φόνος ἐγένετο τὴν

ν Pomp καὶ Plut. Plut. ... πολὺς θεραπόντων μόνους Ἀσίννιος ἐκείνη

, , , , , . . υς δὲ τε τὰ ὑπ᾿ μὲν τοῦ

εἶπεν παρὰ

APPENDIX - TAB. 1: COMPARISON OF TESTIMONIA FOR PETER F2A-B. 1: COMPARISON APPENDIX - TAB. δ᾿ ,

πλείο

τῶν πολεμίων μεγίστους πλείστους τούς

κατάληψιν προηκάμην

χάρακι

Ἀσίννιος

εἰ ὑπηγάγοντο ἀναιρεθέντας ὁ ἐβουλήθησαν

κατεδικάσθην

μὴ

τῶν

τὴν

Καίσαρα τῷ

Ἑλληνιστὶ κἂν

ἐν τοὺς

κτεινομένους ἤδη

, περὶ

, 3

τὸν δὲ

- Τοῦτο Ῥωμαϊστὶ

ὡς

ἔτι Πολλίων ἀνάγκης Καῖσαρ

γενόμενος πεσεῖν

. 46.1 καιρόν με κατορθώσας

νεκροὺς

χάρακος

γεγράφθαι τοὺς φησι γενέσθαι

ου

Caes

Καῖσαρ

Γάιος

τότε στενάξας· καὶ

στρατεύματα

τοῦτό

δὲ

Plut. Plut. ἵνα Ὁ Πομπηί ἄρα εἰς πολέμους Ταῦτα τοῦ στρατιώτας ἑξακισχιλίων οἰκέτας εἶδε τὰ αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντων κειμένους ῥήματα ἀναφθέγξασθαι τὸν