Main Text


1. mussantes is a choice synonym for murmurantes (see Paul. Fest. 131). musso is attested [*] at xxviii. 40. 2, xxxiii. 31. 1, Plaut. Aul. 131, Merc. 49, Enn. ann. 168, 327, 435, scaen. 421 (text doubtful), Lucr. vi. 1179, Sall. hist. i. 77. 3, iii. 48. 8, Virg. georg. iv. 188, Aen. xi. 345, 454, xii. 657, 718, Phaedr. app. 8. 17, Petron. 132. 5, Stat. Theb. iii. 92, x. 582, xi. 455, Sil. xiii. 261, Plin. epist. iii. 11. 2, and vii. 1. 5. It thus seems, though final proof is wanting, to have been poetical. The frequentative mussito was used nine times by Plautus, but it swiftly became obsolete and is found elsewhere in pre-Antonine Latin only at Ter. Ad. 207 and Liv. i. 50. 3. In general see TLL viii. 1707. 20–1708. 35, 1708. 40–1709. 46.

paeniteret: see vi. 37. 9 n.

2. mercedem [consulatum]: consulatum is extremely difficult. priuata … foediorem cannot easily go with it, and consulem is very pg 229awkward after it. Doering's deletion is thus inevitable; the intrusion may be explained as having arisen from the incorporation of a gloss on mercedem. See also Koehler (1860) 61–2; contra Pettersson (1930) 132–3.

cupiditate: see 9. 4 n.

ut se ipse consulem dictator crearet: for the stigma attached to a magistrate presiding over his own election, cf. iii. 35. 8 'ars haec erat, ne semet ipse creare posset, quod praeter tribunos plebi—et id ipsum pessimo exemplo—nemo unquam fecisset' (with which compare ix. 34. 1), x. 15. 11 'se suam rationem comitiis, cum contra leges futurum sit, pessimo exemplo non habiturum', xxiv. 9. 1, 9. 9–11 'praesenti Fabio atque ipsi comitia habenti consulatus continuatus. tempus ac necessitas belli ac discrimen summae rerum faciebant ne quis aut exemplum exquireret aut suspectum cupiditatis imperii consulem haberet; quin laudatus potius magnitudinem animi quod, cum summo imperatore esse opus rei publicae sciret seque eum haud dubie esse, minoris inuidiam suam, si qua ea re oreretur, quam utilitatem rei publicae fecisset', xxvii. 6. 3–12, per. 83, Plut. Mar. 14. 12–14, Flor. ii. 13(iv. 2). 21, and uir. ill. 69. 3. Since continuation in magistracy was regarded as only doubtfully compatible with the principles of republican government, considerable unease was felt when someone sanctioned his own breach of the rules. Nevertheless, we know of five other instances of a magistrate presiding over his own election in the period before 100 bc: L. Papirius Cursor, cos. 293 and praetor in 292 (x. 47. 5), L. Postumius Megellus, interrex and consul in 291 (xxvii. 6. 8), Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, cos. suff. 215 and cos. 214 (xxiv. 7. 11–9. 11, xxvii. 6. 8), Q. Fulvius Flaccus, dictator in 210 and consul in 209 (xxvii. 6. 2–12), and C. Marius, cos. 103 and 102 (Plut. Mar. 14. 12–14).1 We should note, however, that, with the sole exception of our passage, all these examples occur in either the Samnite Wars or the Hannibalic War or the period when the Cimbri and Teutones threatened, during which times of crisis the ten-year rule on iteration was suspended; and it is also noteworthy that in only two instances does a man declare himself elected to the same magistracy. Only with the breakdown of mos and ius in the first century bc did the practice become more common. See further Mommsen (1887–8) i. 500–1.

pg 230349 bc

25. 3–26. 15. Fighting against the Gauls and Greeks, the defection of the Latins, and the duel of Valerius Corvus

L. describes the military affairs of this year in a long episode, at whose centre is the single combat between M. Valerius Corvus and the Gallic champion. The long passage (25. 3–9) in which he sets the scene for the fighting emphasizes the gravity of the situation facing Rome: a Greek fleet menaces the coast of Italy; the Gauls are at large on land; the Latins have defected; and a huge army (always indicative of a major struggle) has to be raised. The death of the consul (§ 10) adds to the tristia of the year, but L. lifts the gloom at §§ 10–11, by noting that the name of Camillus, the surviving consul, was a happy omen for the outcome of the war and that the patres saw no need to appoint a dictator. The campaign begins at § 12, and, having mentioned the conscription of ten legions, L. carefully notes how they were disposed between the city, the praetor, and the consul: Camillus goes to fight the Gauls; the praetor L. Pinarius is sent to fight the Greeks. Camillus decides to defeat the Gauls in a war of attrition, and the armies stood facing each other in the ager Pomptinus, when the duel of Valerius Corvus (26. 1–6) led to a full-scale battle (§§ 7–9), whose divinely inspired outcome confirmed the omen faustum of 25. 11. The account of the aftermath of the battle is well integrated: L. has not forgotten Pinarius and the Greeks, and Camillus, ordered by the senate to attend to that campaign, joins forces with the praetor (§ 10); the length of this inconclusive campaign neatly explains the need to appoint a dictator to hold the elections; the dictator happens to be T. Manlius Torquatus, and when he oversees the election of Valerius Corvus, aemulus decoris sui, there is a pleasing thematic link with the first single combat of the book—just as that had come at the beginning of this particular series of campaigns against the Gauls, so the parallel exploit of Corvus ushers in the close of the war. Corvus, however, is elected absens: L. has not forgotten that he must still have been serving with Camillus against the Greeks.

The story of how M. Valerius was helped by a raven to kill a Gaul in single combat was one of the most famous of all Roman legends and is often mentioned in the literary sources (see e.g. Val. Max. iii. 2. 6, viii. 15. 5, Quint. ii. 4. 18, Eutrop. ii. 6. 3, uir. ill. 29. 1–2, Amm. xxiv. 4. 5, and Oros. iii. 6. 5), but L.'s version should be compared with four passages in particular:

pg 231(i) Zon. vii. 25. 7–8. Zonaras, whose version was taken from Dio, differs from L. in stressing the skill of Valerius and the size of the Gaul (a motif which L. had deployed in his account of the duel of Manlius Torquatus) and in making L. Camillus dictator (as he was in 345). Yet this is likely to be a slip, and otherwise the two accounts are close, especially in the reporting of the intentions of Camillus, the duel itself, and its aftermath. Thus we should probably surmise either that L. and Dio drew on a very similar source, or that Dio used L.1

(ii) D.H. xv. 1. 1–4 and (iii) Gell. ix. 11. 1–10. These accounts may be discussed together: though they differ in several respects, each describes the single combat with a greater wealth of reconstructed detail than is present in L. Thus D.H., like L., mentions the corona aurea, but makes the single combat last much longer (note in particular the detailed description of how Valerius killed the Gaul); and Gellius includes such motifs as the panic in the Roman army (10. 1 n.) and the decorated clothing of the Gaul (10. 7 n.).2 It is thus unlikely that either account derives ultimately from L.'s principal source.3

(iv) App. Celt. fr. 10: ὁ δὲ Κελτὸς ἀγανακτῶν καὶ λιφαιμῶν ἐδίωκε τὸν Οὐαλέριον, συγκαταπεσεῖν ἐπειγόμενος‎· ὑπὸ δὲ τοὺς πόδας ἀναχωροῦντος ἀεὶ τοῦ Οὐαλερίου κατέπεσε πρηνὴς ὁ Κελτός‎. καὶ δεύτερον τοῦτο μονομάχιον ἐπὶ Κελτοῖς ἐμεγαλαύχουν οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι‎. Here we have a radically different version, which is quite incompatible with any other source, and possibly with the whole story of the raven. It is hard, however, to know whether it derives from a genuinely different tradition or just reflects confusion on the part of Appian or his source.

Since L. had just told the powerful story of the single combat of Manlius Torquatus (see 9. 6–10. 14 nn.), there was a danger that this episode might seem repetitious. But though he expressly invites comparison with the earlier story (§ 2 'qui haud indigniorem eo pg 232decore se quam T. Manlium ratus'),1 he tells this tale from a very different perspective, not giving the details of the fighting much prominence (as the parallel versions show) but rather concentrating on the divine intervention (this difference is made explicit at § 3 'minus insigne certamen humanum numine interposito deorum factum', where minus again looks back to the story of Manlius). And to evoke this he used augural language (§ 4 'augurium … accepit'; 'laetus'; 'si diuus, si diua esset'; 'praepetem'; § 5 'dictu mirabile'; 'ales'; § 7 'praesentibus', and nn. ad locc.). By contrast, the τόποι‎ of single combat are dispatched briefly: there is little on the size of the Gaul, on Valerius asking the consul's permission to fight, on the Gaul's challenge, nothing on the panic in the Roman army, and a minimal role for the spectators; and, if L. and Dio did in fact use the same source, we may see very clearly how L. has omitted material. For further discussion of his literary technique in this episode, see McDonald (1957) 158–9, Fries (1985) 140–53, Feldherr (1991) 219–25, Hickson (1993) 21–2, and Levene (1993) 216–17.

It might be argued that the tale was invented by some annalist to give Homeric colour to his narrative; but given the evidence for a tradition of single combat at Rome, especially against Celts (9. 6–10. 14 n.), there seems to be no compelling reason to doubt the basic fact of a duel.2 Despite the anecdotal character of the tale (which perhaps suggests that it was not recorded in archival sources), the dating to 349 seems reasonably secure:3 Valerius would have had no subsequent opportunities to fight Gauls, and would have been too young in 358. The intervention of the raven, however, does seem rather implausible. For Gallic helmets regularly had animals or birds on top (D.S. v. 30. 2, Sil. v. 132–5, and Bloch [1970]), and the capture of one of these after a single combat might easily have led to Valerius being given his cognomen. The story of the raven will then be a facile secondary tradition of a kind not uncommon in the works of the annalists (see vol. i, p. 36).4 See also Köves-Zulauf (1985).

3. annus … insignis: see 1. 1 n.

quia hiemis uim pati nequiuerant: as W–M note, L. seems here to contradict v. 48. 3 'gens umorique ac frigori adsueta', at pg 233which point he was no doubt thinking of the Celts living north of the Alps.

4. oraque litoris Antiatis: in this coupling litoris refers to the shore, ora to its margin. The qualifying adjective regularly agrees with litoris, cf. Prop. i. 20. 9 'siue Gigantei (cod. Regius: Gigantea cett.) spatiabere litoris ora', Virg. georg. ii. 44, Aen. iii. 396, [Cul.] 313, Val. Flacc. iv. 613, Stat. silu. iii. 1. 100, 3. 162, Sil. xi. 20–1; also Tac. ann. ii. 78. 2 (with Goodyear's note). See further Shackleton Bailey (1956) 57.

Laurensque tractus: see viii. 11. 15 n.

Tiberis ostia: ostium is regularly used of the mouth of a river (cf. e.g. x. 21. 8 'ostium Liris fluuii', Cic. imp. Pomp. 33 'ostium Tiberinum', and see OLD s.u. 2b); this explains the name of Ostia, situated at the mouth of the Tiber.

dubii … uictos se an uictores putarent: cf. e.g. ix. 23. 4 'incertos uicti uictoresne essent'.

5. hos: it is easier to supply terrores from terror below rather than motus from motibus in § 3 (thus rightly Walker [1822] 70 and W–M; contra Drakenborch).

lucum Ferentinae: the lucus Ferentinae or caput aquae Ferentinae was the central meeting place of the Latin league; see Fest. 276 (from Cincius) 'Albanos rerum potitos usque ad Tullum regem: Alba deinde diruta usque ad P. Decium Murem consulem (i.e. 340) populos Latinos ad caput Ferentinae, quod est sub monte Albano, consulere solitos, et imperium communi consilio administrare' and, in narrative sources, Liv. i. 50. 1, 51. 9, 52. 5, ii. 38. 1, D.H. iii. 34. 3, 51. 3, iv. 45. 3, v. 61. 1, and, perhaps, Plut. Rom. 24. 2. Our sources do not allow us to identify the exact position of the grove and spring: some have held that they are to be found near Tusculum (e.g. Beloch [1926] 182–6, arguing for somewhere close to Marino), others near Aricia (e.g. Hülsen, RE vi. 2207–8, Gordon [1934] 17, Alföldi [1965] 34–6, and Ogilvie on i. 50. 1); Ampolo (1981) argues from i. 51. 9 that the aqua Ferentina is to be equated with the lacus Turni (see Plin. nat. xix. 141 and Col. x. 138), and that medieval documents place this near Aricia at Castel Savelli. This last view is by no means certain, but seems more probable than any other.

absisterent imperare: absisto is found with the infinitive first in this passage; cf. also xxxii. 35. 7, xxxvi. 35. 4, Virg. Aen. vi. 399, and the later passages listed at TLL i. 172. 12–20. For L.'s innovative use of the infinitive, see K–S i. 673–4.

The Roman right to demand allied troops at will is a regular pg 234annalistic view of the foedus Cassianum; cf. i. 52. 5–6, ii. 53. 1, iii. 22. 4, iv. 26. 12, and see Alföldi (1965) 108–9.

7. duo simul bella: for the attributive use of adverbs in L., see vi. 15. 7 n.

†extendere†: Foster translates 'The senate … bade the consuls exert the full extent of their authority in levying troops', which is perhaps preferable to 'exert all the strength of the (Roman) state'. With neither translation, however, is extendere very happy, and none of the passages cited with ours at TLL v. 2. 1977. 19–38 or OLD s.u. 3 and 7 seems parallel. Madvig (1860: 150 = 1877: 178) proposed intendere (cf. also Wesenberg [1870/1] 29), but apart from the only vaguely analogous Sil. i. 334 and Tac. ann. iv. 2. 1, this too is hard to parallel. Seyffert (1861: 72) suggested tendere, Giers (1862: 6) ostendere, Nipperdey (1868–71: v. 6 = 1877: 175) contendere, and M. Müller, ap. H. J. Müller (1898) 12, expedire (comparing xxvii. 10. 11 'cetera expedientibus quae ad bellum opus erant consulibus', xxxvi. 16. 10, and Tac. ann. xiii. 7. 1); this last proposal gives good sense, but it is far from certain. I have wondered if L. might not have written exercere, but it seems most prudent to obelize.

ciuili … socialis: for the contrast W–M well compare xxviii. 44. 5 'nos, etiam deserti ab sociis, uiribus nostris milite Romano stetimus: Carthaginiensi nihil ciuilis roboris est' and xlii. 35. 6 'exercitum ciuilem socialemque'; note also xxviii. 12. 3 and xxix. 3. 12–13.

[coetus]: coetus 'gathering' or 'throng' is out of place here, and the text is corrupt. It is most likely that it originated as an unfortunate gloss designed to supply an object for desereret (which is used absolutely); but it may have replaced some other word, and Gronovius suggested foedus (see also Harant [1880] 52, and cf. Sil. v. 317 'ictum ne desere foedus'), and Watt (1991: 215) cunctus.

8–9. That Rome put 42,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry into the field in 349 is quite incredible, despite L.'s reassertion of this claim at ix. 19. 2 (n.); neither here nor at vi. 22. 8 (n.) does his account of the levy go back to authentic testimony.

8. non urbana tantum sed etiam agresti iuuentute: a very strange comment, since throughout the Republic legions were recruited primarily in the countryside, and recruitment in the city was very rare; see Brunt (1962) = (1988) 240–75 and (1974) 161. Presumably L. wrote with a mental image derived from his own day, in which the city was very much more the focus of Roman life.

M. Müller, ap. H. J. Müller (1898), tentatively proposed either pg 235iuuentutecontracta› or ‹contractaiuuentute. The supplement is attractive: it gives more point to undique and eliminates the somewhat abnormal ablatives dependent upon scriptae (ex and the ablative would have been more usual); but the paradosis is not certainly wrong.

dicuntur: L. does not entirely vouch for what he records (vi. 33.5 n.); but at ix. 19. 2, where he alludes to this episode, there are no doubts.

quaternum milium et ducenorum peditum: see viii. 8. 3–14 n.

equitumque trecenorum: see viii. 8. 14 n.

9. nunc: for L. contrasting the present unfavourably with the past, see vi. 12. 5 (n.), also a passage dealing with recruitment; his criticism of the luxury of his own day recalls praef. 12.

uis ingruat: for the coupling, cf. e.g. v. 37. 1, xxv. 26. 15, Curt. v. 1. 27 'si externa uis ingruat', Sen. Herc. Fur. 637, Quint. iii. 8. 22, xi. 3. 56, Tac. hist. iii. 71. 3, ann. xiv. 61. 2, and xv. 13. 2. For L.'s phrasing here cf., in addition to Curtius, Tac. hist. iii. 46. 2 'ne externa moles utrimque ingrueret'. For ingruo, see vi. 3. 1 n.

contractae in unum: cf. xxvi. 42. 2 and see vi. 3. 6 n.

adeo laboramus in quae sola creuimus, diuitias luxuriamque: I have accepted this suggestion of Watt (1991: 215) for N's adeo in quae laboramus sola creuimus, diuitias luxuriamque. quae has conventionally been interpreted as ea quibus (thus e.g. Walch [1815] 90), and Foster translates: 'so strictly has our growth been limited to the only things for which we strive,—wealth and luxury'. But Shackleton Bailey (1986a: 321–2) rightly argued that the paradosis ought in that case to have presented us with quibus rather than quae (though he himself proposed inea propterquae). Alternatively, as Dr Pelling suggests to me, one might try to explain the paradosis as adeo creuimus in ea sola in quae laboramus (for laborare with in and the accusative, see TLL vii. 2. 802. 49–53); but it is very hard to extract in ea sola in quae from in quae … sola. Emendation is thus required, and Watt's conjecture involves postulating an easy ellipse of iis and taking diuitias and luxuriam as accusatives in apposition to quae. He translates: 'so seriously are we afflicted by wealth and luxury, which are the sole results of the growth of our power'. For dislocations of word-order in N, see vol. i, p. 165; for cresco with in and the accusative of result, cf. xxi. 7. 3 'in tantas breui creuerant opes'; for the general sentiment, cf. xxxiv. 4. 2 'diuersisque duobus uitiis, auaritia et luxuria, ciuitatem laborare'.

L. quite often introduces a sententious remark with adeo; cf. e.g.

pg 236v. 37. 1 'adeo occaecat animos fortuna, ubi uim suam ingruentem refringi non uolt', xxvii. 23. 2 'adeo minimis etiam rebus praua religio inserit deos', and xxix. 17. 14.

10. cetera tristia eius anni: see vi. 32. 5 n.

moritur: the entry in F.C. for this year reads ]biit dict (ator). That these letters were placed beside the dictator Torquatus is clear, but whether one should supply a]biit with Degrassi or o]biit with earlier editors (and assume that the comment was placed beside the wrong magistrate) is less certain.

11. rediera[n]tque res: the deletion, which restores Livian idiom, is due to Fc and some recentiores; see Häggström (1874) 65 and (for the corruption) Frigell (1875) 36. The phrase alludes to a standard expression concerning the auspices, res ad interregnum rediit (vi. 1. 5 n.), and thus L. uses religious language to point out that both the auspices and military command of the state were entrusted to Camillus (cf. vi. 6. 3 [n.]).

unico consuli: the primary significance of this expression is that Camillus was sole consul, but the notion that Camillus was in some way a special or unique person—perhaps because of his father, who was also described as unicus—is not far absent (see vi. 6. 17 n.). It was highly unusual for a consul whose colleague had died not to elect a suffect, and, as W–M noted, this is not the only electoral irregularity in Camillus' career (see 24. 11 n.).

omen … cognominis: a notion that was pleasing to L., but one that was unlikely to have swayed the minds of any fourth-century Romans who doubted the competence of Camillus.

Gallicum tumultum: see 9. 6 n.

adrogari: the expression is unique and probably a non-technical Livian innovation (see TLL ii. 652. 47–50): subrogare (twenty-one times in L.) is regular of the election of magistrates, but since a dictator was not elected L. has carefully avoided it here.

12. L. Pinario: see 3. 4 n.

memor paternae uirtutis: for the desire of Romans to live up to the achievements of their forebears, see 10. 3 n.

extra sortem: see vi. 30. 3 n.

13. agrum Pomptinum: see vi. 5. 2 n.

rapto uiuere: 'to live from plunder'; cf. e.g. xxvii. 12. 5 'rapto uiuere hominum adsuetorum', xxviii. 24. 6, xxx. 13. 7, Virg. Aen. vii. 749, ix. 613, Ov. trist. v. 10. 16, Vell. ii. 32. 6, Quint. iii. 7. 24, and Mart. vii. 47. 11.


1 I have ignored possible examples connected with the Decemvirate, the re-election of tribunes of the plebs in successive years, and the view of Licinius Macer, reported by L. at iv. 23. 1, that the consuls of 435 were re-elected for 434.

1 For this possibility, see vol. i, pp. 19–20.

2 Peter (1906–14: i. 210–12) and others have held that Gellius was quoting Quadrigarius (Peter's fr. 12); but rather the narrative seems to be Gellius' own, though based closely on an annalist (see e.g. Schibel [1971] 91–119). Moreover, if Gellius reflects the style of an annalist it would not seem to be that of Quadrigarius (see Marouzeau [1921] 163–5 and Lebek [1970] 263–4).

3 Terzaghi (1934: 157–64) argued that in earlier versions of the story the bird was not made to peck the Gaul and that the references to this in Gellius are that author's interpolation into an annalistic account. Since there are no inconsistencies whatsoever to be explained away, this is all special pleading. Still more incredible is his attempt to link Rutilius Rufus with the formation of the story.

1 For this technique compare iii. 44. 1, where the reader is invited to compare the tale of Verginia with that of Lucretia.

2 The argument of Holford-Strevens (1984: 147–8), that the tales of Valerius and Manlius killing a Gaul are variations on a single tale (or myth), thus seems less likely.

3 Though 350 is also possible; for Zonaras' date see above, p. 231.

4 For discussion of the opposing view that the story reflects an Italic myth and is related to Virg. Aen. xii. 865–8, see CQ n.s. xxxv (1985) 394.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out