i MONUMENTA AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL METHOD IN LIVY’S AB URBE CONDITA by TYLER ANDREW DENTON B.A., University of Tennessee, 2012 M.A., University of Kentucky, 2014 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics 2019 ii This thesis entitled: Monumenta and Historiographical Method in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita written by Tyler Andrew Denton has been approved for the Department of Classics Jackie Elliott, Associate Professor Carole Newlands, Professor Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above-mentioned discipline. iii Denton, Tyler Andrew (Ph.D, Classics) Monumenta and Historiographical Method in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita Thesis Directed by Associate Professor Jackie Elliott This project examines the Latin term monumentum, particularly as it appears in Titus Livy’s history of Rome but also in other Latin authors as points with which Livy’s depiction of monumenta can be compared. In his Preface, Livy refers to his own work as a monumentum (praef. 10) in so far as it has the capacity to present models (exempla) from the past to the readers of the history. Other instances of monumentum, however, in the Ab Urbe Condita become problematic in the course of the narrative, especially in their use as source material for history-writing: physical structures can be destroyed, appropriated, or confused; and written works as monumenta (a valence that the term often has in Latin) can suffer from manipulation and bias for individualistic and familial aggrandizement. Monumenta—both in the conception of the term and in their general depictions in Latin literature—are ideally thought to be strong points of contact with the past and particularly valuable evidence for uncovering that past. But Livy’s depiction does not attribute to them a privileged status in preserving and conveying information about the past. Monumenta in practice provide no clearer or more secure material than traditionally less trustworthy sources, such as oral tradition. In his depiction of monumenta and his connection of the term with statements programmatic for the history, Livy creates an historiographical workshop by which his readers can better understand the nature of history- writing in the Roman world as well as the larger society that it reflects. I argue, thereby, that Livy reveals his perspective on traditional power politics in the Roman world. Though he clearly admires aspects of Rome and its past, Livy criticizes the factionalism and self-serving competition that poses such a significant threat to the state. iv To R.E.M. and Sophie, for love, patience, encouragement, and humor throughout the process. v CONTENT CHAPTERS I. Introduction……………………………………………………………1 Historical monumenta…………………………………………………5 Memory Studies……………………………………………………….7 Reading Livy through Livy……………………………………………9 To the detriment of all…………………………………………………10 Scipio's end and his monumental afterlife…………………………….13 Summary of the chapters ahead……………………………………….16 II. Monumenta in Context…………………………………………………19 Ancient definitions of the term monumentum………………………….21 Types of monumenta……………………………………………………41 Funerary monumenta and the principle of visibility……………………45 Time, monumenta, and the role of posterity……………………………55 The eternality of monumenta and their guarantee of reputation…………63 The temples of Jupiter Optimus Maximus………………………………70 Livy and the eternity of monumenta…………………………………….76 Conclusion………………………………………………………………78 III. Monumenta and the Written Word………………………………………80 Lasting impressions: monumenta and disembodiment………………….82 Monumental writing…………………………………………………….88 A literary monumentum: an example from Cato’s Origines……………100 Poetic monumenta……………………………………………………….103 Conclusion………………………………………………………………115 IV. A New Monumentum……………………………………………………119 A visitor in Rome……………………………………………………….122 Monumenta in the context of Livy’s preface……………………………128 Inlustre monumentum and Livy’s preface………………………………132 Rome at centerstage…………………………………………………….138 Monumentum sine nomine………………………………………………144 Author and reader……………………………………………………….148 Monumenta and corruptibility……………………………………………150 “Neither to affirm nor refute”……………………………………………155 Livy and Tacitus on the conflagrations of Rome…………………………159 Fabulae in the Ab Urbe Condita…………………………………………163 vi Fabula in context………………………………………………………167 Fama, fabula, and multiplicity…………………………………………179 The Lacūs Curtii……………………………………………………….182 Conclusion………………………………………………………………187 V. Monumenta in Practice…………………………………………………190 Reconstructing the present through the past……………………………192 The city as monumentum……………………………………………….194 A city of the imagination: Camillus’ survey of Rome…………………199 Camillus as a counter to self-aggrandizement………………………….202 Public vs. private monumenta………………………………………….204 Tituli and falsi tituli…………………………………………………….210 Papirius Cursor and Fabius Rullianus: an aristocratic feud……………217 Livy and other writers………………………………………………….226 Conclusion………………………………………………………………230 VI. Conclusion………………………………………………………………233 Livy “Pompeianus”………………………………………………………234 BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Reference Works…………………………………………………………240 II. Further Editions Used……………………………………………………241 III. Works Cited………………………………………………………………242 1 I. Introduction In this study, I examine from an historiographical stance the conception, use, and referents of the term monumentum in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita.1 In this process, I focus on two different but complementary aspects: first, Livy’s use of the term monumentum within the text as a lens through which his historiographical method can be understood; second, Livy’s commentary on Roman culture as it is represented in various instantiations of the term monumentum, both in their internal impact on the narrative and in their reflection of the external society in which the Ab Urbe Condita is written and to which it is presented. The term appears a significant number of times in the extant portions of Livy,2 but not so many that it can be dismissed as a natural accumulation of language or as mere happenstance. Further, monumentum often appears in key passages—such as prefatory or closural sections—or is connected with those key passages through verbal parallels or thematic commonality. It makes a certain amount of sense that a work focused on representing the past to an audience in the present would seek tangible or, at least, perceivable points of contact with that past. The further back in time the story goes, the greater the need may seem to be for these points 1 In order to emphasize the importance of monumentum as a term and concept with particular cultural implications— as well as to preserve the complex dimensions of the term—I use the Latin term throughout. All translations are my own. 2 Monumentum in some form appears at least 45 times. The passages are: praef. 6, 10; 1.12.6, 13.5, 36.5, 45.4, 48.7, 55.1; 2.33.9, 40.12; 4.7.10, 10.6, 16.1, 24.3; 5.30.2, 52.1; 6.1.2, 20.12, 28.6, 29.9; 7.3.7, 21.6; 8.11.16, 40.5; 9.18.7; 10.2.15, 15.5; 23.20.3; 25.39.17; 26.24.14, 41.12; 29.37.7; 30.28.5; 31.29.11, 30.7; 37.6.6; 38.53.8, 56.3-5 (four times), 57.8; 39.37.16, 40.7; 45.27.11, 43.4 (see also per. 38, 41, 140, and F 42 = Sen. de Tranq. 9). According to some manuscripts, the term also appears at 1.47.6 and 21.4.2. No editor has suggested monumento for the textual momento at 2.7.10. But the context fits for the term monumentum (the passage pertains to a proposed house on the Velia; see also Ch. 3 for the connection between monumentum and fama), and momentum and monumentum are commonly confused in scribal transmission (see Ch. 1). A similar argument may apply to 1.33.7 (munimentum). Though digital word searches have largely superseded concordances, Packard remains useful in its linear collection and presentation. 2 of contact, and the term certainly is more prevalent in the earlier portions of the history (in so far as is represented in the surviving text, anyways).3 But it is notable that all of those earliest monumenta have vanished with time, been replaced, or undergone dramatic change to the point that they no longer clearly fulfil the original, memorial function for which they were made. In his Preface, Livy apparently laments the reliance of the earliest portions of his history on poetic and mythical accounts (poeticis … fabulis) rather than on history’s secure monumenta (incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis, 6; discussed further in Ch. 3). Why, then, does the first book contain more uses of the term monumentum than any other?4 And, as a corollary, why do fabulae continue to play such a large role in narrating Rome’s past beyond those earliest periods? Livy’s monumenta often become problematic in the course of his narrative, in that they do not actually meet the function for which they exist; their point of commemoration is cast into doubt or contradicted; or their status as privileged preservers of the past is challenged in cross- reference with other portions of the text. I argue that Livy’s depiction of monumenta as inconsistent and indeterminate is a conscious and loaded one: the historian represents disconnect and fluctuation between general conceptions of monumenta—as they are characterized by other writers—and the ones depicted in the narrative. In so doing, he creates a dialogic space in which reader and author can negotiate and better understand the nature of Roman history as well as the larger culture itself, a collective past and identity that has traditionally been represented through commemorative artefacts. 3 See Bonfante 1998. Bonfante points out that written documents become more prevalent than material monumenta in the later books (486 n. 27). 4 The phrase res gestae in Livy is also not an uncomplicated one. See, esp., Ch. 4 on 8.40.4-5 and the distinction of fama rerum gestarum and memoria rerum gestarum. 3 The topic is by no means untrodden ground, and the primary evidence, by nature of the specific focus on a term, has been discussed previously;5 my contribution is rather one of nuance than novelty.