Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:35:26.067Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

R. M. Ogilvie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

C. Licinius Macer is little known outside the citations by Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Cicero classifies him among the Roman historians but says nothing about the scope or contents of his work. From the fragments we can see that it dealt with the whole field of Roman history from the earliest times, evidently in the conventional manner used by Annalists and with considerable detail. Livy cites him seven times but not beyond the first Decade since he appears to prefer other Annalists for later history. These citations, however, are of great value because they reveal what sources Licinius himself quoted, e.g. 4, 7, 12, ‘Licinius Macer auctor est et in foedere Ardeatino et in linteis libris ad Monetae inventa’; 23,1 ‘… et Tubero et Macer libros linteos auctores profitentur … Licinio libros haud dubie sequi linteos placet’; 20, 8 ‘libri quos linteos in aede repositos Monetae Macer Licinius citat identidem auctores’. Thus we are taken behind our surviving authorities to the question of their information in the Roman historical tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 1-2 , November 1958 , pp. 40 - 46
Copyright
Copyright ©R. M. Ogilvie 1958. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Peter, Hist. Roman.Reliq. (= HRR) CCCL ff.; 298 ff. I should like to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. A. H. McDonald for his help and advice in the preparation of this paper.

2 De Legibus I, 7.

3 Priscian 13, p. 8, quotes a fragment dealing with Pyrrhus which he attributes to Book 2 of Licinius. The numeral is perhaps corrupt. Livy reached Pyrrhus in 13 books, Cn. Gellius in 9 and Valerius Antias in over 3; see G. Thouret, Fleckeisens Jahrb. f. Kl. Philol., Supp. Band, 1880, 136 ff.

4 AR 2, 62.

5 Sat. 1, 13, 21.

6 See the review of recent work by McDonald in Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship (1954), 396 ff. with bibliography.

7 As held e.g. by J. Bayet, Récherches philosophiques (1931–2), 262–97.

8 As held e.g. by Klotz, A., Livius u. s. Vorgänger (Neue Wege z. Antike, Heft, 11, 1941Google Scholar).

9 Witte, K., Rh. Mus. LXV, 1910, 270 ff.Google Scholar, 359 ff.; E. Burck, Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius (1934).

10 H. G. Plathner, Die Schlachtschilderungen b. Livius (1934), has made a clear analysis of the extent to which L. reproduces his Annalist sources in battlescenes; but he does not make out a convincing case for Quellenkontamination in L.

11 Instances collected by F. Hellmann, Livius interpretationen (1939), 8 ff.

12 cf. U. Kahrstedt, Die Annalistik von L., B. 31–45 (1913).

13 As used e.g. by W. Soltau, Livius' Geschichtswerk (1897).

14 Conway's note on 2, 9, 1.

15 F. Lübbert, De Fontibus libri 4 Observationes (1872).

16 cf. Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 236 ff.; E. Täubler, Untersuch. z. Gesch. des Dezemvirats (1921), 80 ff.

17 Münzer, P-W, XV, col. 1951.

18 Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen II, 199 ff.Google Scholar; W. Soltau, Klass. Woch., 1908, 586 ff.; E. Pais, Ancient Legends (1906), 204, who shows that the account in Livy is Sullan and later than the version known to Cincius and Piso, but he has no grounds for attributing the variant in 16, 3 to Licinius Macer.

19 JRS XLVII, 1957, 11Google Scholar.

20 cf. Delaruelle, , Rev. Phil. XXXVII, 1913, 145–61Google Scholar. Nothing is to be inferred from the repetition in 22, 6, 3–4 (Brakman, C., Mnemosyne LVI, 1928, 63Google Scholar).

21 e.g. 32, 12 ‘cruentos legatorum infanda caede’. cf. 33, 5.

22 So Last, CAH VII, 507. cf. Diod., 12, 80 who dates the occasion of the spolia to 426 but regards Cossus as consular tribune.

23 So Soltau, W., Hermes XXIX, 1894, 611 ff.Google Scholar The most useful discussions may be found in Beloch, Röm. Gesch., 298 ff.; O. Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr., 398 ff.; Hirst, G., AJP LVII, 1926, 347 ff.Google Scholar; Bishop, , Latomus VII, 1948, 187 ffGoogle Scholar.

24 Bayet, T.-Live (ed. Budé), tome I, Introd. XVII–XVII I; reviewed by Momigliano, , JRS XXXV, 1945, 144 fGoogle Scholar.

25 Die Doubletten in der Ersten Decade (1904).

26 cf. the case of Veii (5, 21, 2; 38, 5).

27 e.g. the prosecution of Ahala (16, 5; 21, 4), the growth of the censorship (8, 2–7; 24, 5–9), ‘principes plebis’ (7, 9; 25, 9). Seemüller is wrong in thinking 22, 7 to be a doublet of 8, 2 ff.: primum refers to ibi.

28 Burck, o.c. (n. 9 above), 101 ff.

29 The character of these notices may be due to abbreviation by Livy for dramatic reasons; see Burck, o.c, 27 ff., 121 ff.

30 Note 35, 10 and 6, 9,; 35, 11 and 6, 8; 36, 2 and 11 4 ff. (ager publicus); 36, 3 and 1, 6 (tribunician veto in the Senate).

31 Weiss.-Müller, ad loc.; Bayet, tome IV, 114, n. 1.

32 e.g. the abrupt mention of war with Veii (49, 2) and of the defection of Antium (56, 5).

33 Perhaps only a double motive.

34 The study by G. Niccolini in Studi Liviani (1934) adds little.

35 Adopted e.g. by Weiss.-Müller.

36 Tome IV, 114, n. 3.

37 Livius' Geschichtswerk, 1897, 149 ff.

38 G. Thouret, l.c.

39 Gries, K., Cl. Phil. XLVI, 1951, 36 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 On the difficulties of 14, 3 (priore anno), see Weiss.-Müller, ad loc.

41 JRS XLIII, 1953, 34Google Scholar. The case is not weakened by ‘praerogativae’ (sic MSS) in 18, 1 or by the fact that ‘tribus’ is sometimes used of centuries (Polybius, 6, 14, 7; Cic. De Leg Agr. 2, 4Google Scholar; Livy, 29, 37, 13; see Staveley, , AJP LXXIV, 1953, 1 ff.Google Scholar).

42 CQ XXXVI, 1942, 111 ffGoogle Scholar.

43 On 24, 4 and 29, 3 (‘colonia in Volscos’), see Salmon, E. T., CQ XXXI, 1937, 111Google Scholar.

44 G. Thouret, o.c, 147 ff.

45 e.g. 28, 4 and 3, 71, 5; 25, 2 and 4, 2, 14; 19, 8 and 4, 37, 7 (Momigliano, , Athenaeum XII, 1934, 45 ff.Google Scholar); 28, 9 and 3, 68, 13.

46 On the Caedicii, see Basanoff, V., Latomus IX, 1950, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Burck, o.c., 122.

48 Mommsen, , Röm. Forschungen II, 51, n. 16Google Scholar.

49 Müllenhof, , Deutsche Alt. II, 250 ff.Google Scholar; Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr., 1–18; Soltau, , Hermes XXIX, 1894, 611 ff.Google Scholar; Momigliano, Athenaeum l.c.; Klotz, Livius u.s. Vorgänger 203; Bayet, o.c., tome V, App. 158 ff. The Greek origin of this section is clear not only from its general stylistic character but from linguistic details such as the use of the adj. ‘cognominis’ (34, 9), which is not ‘poetic-archaic’ but a geographer's translation of the common ἐπώνυμоς (cf. e.g. Scymn., 456; and later geographical uses in Latin are found in Pliny, NH 6, 12Google Scholar; It. Alex., 36).

50 Historia V, 1956, 24 ffGoogle Scholar.

51 On the identity of this source, see M. Zimmerer, Der Annalist Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (1937), with full bibliography; cf. Momigliano, , CQ XXXVI, 1942, 111 ffGoogle Scholar.

52 But note 4, 59, 2 ‘Valerius Antium petit’.

53 o.c., 30 f.; cf. Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. 117 ff.; Nilsson, , JRS XIX, 1929, 5Google Scholar.

64 So also Mommsen, Röm. Chron. 95; Peter, HRR CCCLX; Klotz, , Rh. Mus. LXXXVII, 1938, 47Google Scholar; LXXXVIII, 1939, 33.

65 Röm. Forschungen 1, 265.

56 ‘Quaesita ea propriae familiae laus leviorem auctorem Licinium facit’.

57 Henderson, M. I., JRS XLVII, 1957, 85Google Scholar.

58 o.c., CCCLXI.

59 See the review of Broughton, Magistrates of the R. Republic (1951), by McDonald, in JRS XLIII, 1953, 142Google Scholar; also R. Stiehl, Die Datierung d. Kap. Fasten (1957), 21.

60 De fontibus historiarum T. Livii 1823–8, 61; cf. Klotz, , Rh. Mus. LXXXVIII, 1939, 29, n. 3Google Scholar.

61 A Licinian passage; cf. 37, 8.

62 Val. Max. 2, 9, 1; Plut., Cam. 2, 3Google Scholar.

63 As e.g. ‘P. Sempronio Sopho et’ is omitted by the manuscripts PFUO at 10, 9, 14.

64 Taylor, L. R., Cl. Phil. XLI, 1946, 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; XLV, 1950, 84 ff.; XLVI, 1951, 73 ff.; Degrassi, Fasti Capitolini (Corpus Parav. 1954), Praef., 8 ff.; Stiehl, o.c.

65 cf. 4, 47, 7 ‘C. Servilio Structo … iterum’: in Chron. 354 he is given as ‘Structo III’; 4, 44, 1 ‘L. Quinctius Cincinnatus tertium ’: in the Fasti, ‘ ]Cincinnatus II’.

66 CR, XLIII, 1929, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

67 For the form of the name, see Broughton, o.c.

68 Münzer, P-W, XVI, cols. 1558, 1565.

69 cf. Housman, , Manilius I, LVIGoogle Scholar. A near parallel is 4, 17, 2: Spuantium Ver. Sp. Antium cett. Mommsen emended rightly to Sp. Nautium from Pliny, , NH, 34. 6, 23Google Scholar.

70 Praenomina and orthographical matters require different treatment.

71 et Q. must be the right reading rather than atque as conjectured by Soltau, , Hermes XXIX, 1894, 631Google Scholar and accepted e.g. by Klotz, Livius u.s. Vorgänger, 209; A. Piganiol, Scritti in onore di B. Nogara, 1937, 378 n. 3; Bayet in his edition; Gelzer, , Gnomon XVIII, 1942, 229Google Scholar. See Fügner, Lexicon Livianum 180, 10, for the non-occurrence of atque before t- in Livy. A praenomen is, moreover, required by the strict balance of the sentence.

72 McDonald, , CR LXI, 1947, 106Google Scholar.

73 Momigliano, , JRS, XXXV, 1945, 144Google Scholar.

74 Rh. Mus. LXXXVI, 1937, 217Google Scholar.

75 Bishop, , Latomus VII, 1948, 187 ffGoogle Scholar.