woodman - date in velleius (cq 25)

8/2/2019 Woodman - Date in Velleius (CQ 25)

1/36

Questions of Date, Genre, and Style in Velleius: Some Literary Answers

Author(s): A. J. WoodmanSource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1975), pp. 272-306Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/638323 .

Accessed: 21/09/2011 07:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/638323?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/638323?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=classicalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/36

QUESTIONS OF DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE INVELLEIUS: SOME LITERARY ANSWERS

Introduction. I. Dates and Genre. (I) The Dedication to M. Vinicius (cos.A.D. 30). (2) When did Velleius Write? (3) What Genre? II. Style. (1)'Adulation and Mendacity'. (2) The Panegyric of Tiberius' Reign (Chapter126). (3) The 'Panegyric'of Sejanus (Chapters 127-8). Conclusions. Refer-ences: Abbreviations:Select Bibliography.*

INTRODUCTIONTHEREhas been no major critical edition of Velleius with commentarysincethat of Kritz in 1840.1Kritz, who took into account Sauppe's long essay onVelleius of three years earlier,was preceded by Ruhnken, whose commentaryappeared in 1779. During the century which followed Kritz's work severalvaluable editions without commentary were produced,2the last of which, byStegmann de Pritzwald (1933), almost coincided with the essay and biblio-graphy devoted to Velleius in Schanz-Hosius (1935).3These two contributionsof the thirtiesremain standard to the presentday.4Since that time forty years have elapsed, during which we have seen thepublication of a book by Lana (1952), and important articles by Dihle inPauly-Wissowa (I955), and by Sumner (1970). None of these, however, is aliterary study; and a glance at the bibliographiesfor the last forty years, al-though it will registera number of articles on detailed points, will reveal nosignificantliterarycontributionto Velleian scholarship.It is thus not only the

* It is a pleasure to acknowledge the helpand advice I have received from ProfessorG. B. A. Fletcher, Mr. J. J. Paterson, andMr. R. J. Seager, none of whom necessarilyagrees with my conclusions. An abbreviatedversion of this essay was delivered as partof a Departmental Lecture in the Depart-ment of Latin, University of Liverpool, inMay 1974. For an explanation of my systemof references and abbreviations see the endof this essay.IF. E. Rockwood produced a schooledition with commentary on chapters 41 -I3 1in 1893; F. Portalupi's commentary of 1967amounts to little more than a translation.J. C.Silverberg wrote a dissertation entitled 'ACommentary to the Roman History of V.P.(Book II, 1-28)' (Harvard, 1967), whichremains unpublished, as does the 'Historisch-antiquarischer Kommentar zur Augustus-Partie des V.P.' (Vienna, 1968) of B. Mas-sauer, who deals with chapters 90-123.Neither of these dissertations incorporatesliterary material. I am myself preparing acritical edition with commentary, of whichthe first volume will (I hope) appear in thenot too distant future, and would be glad toreceive any criticisms or suggestions relevant

to the points discussed in this essay.2 I am thinking particularly of those byHaase (1884 edn., including Mommsen'semendations), Halm (1876), Ellis (1898),and Shipley (Loeb, I924). There was alsoBolaffi's edition (1930).3 Schanz-Hosius, 580-7.4 Stegmann's Teubner text remains stan-dard largely because it is the only criticaledition still in print (repr. 1965, 1968):Shipley's Loeb, which is also in print and thetext of which is in most places superior toStegmann's, would hardly claim to be a criti-cal edition. The bibliography in Schanz-Hosius of course needs to be brought up todate: see the subsequent bibliographies byDihle, 655-9, and by H.-D. Blume in thereprint of Stegmann. J. Hellegouarc'h is atpresent working on a Bud6 edition of V.,

and has also written a judicious biblio-graphical essay entitled 'ltat pr6sent destravaux sur l'Histoire romaine de V.P.'which is to appear in a volume of AufstiegundNiedergangderr6m. Welt (ed. H. Temporini).I am most grateful to Professor Helle-gouarc'h for sending me a copy of his essayin advance of publication.


3/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 273scholasticdistinctionof Ruhnken and Kritz but also the complete absence ofany alternative which makes their commentaries still indispensablefor anyserious study of Velleius. Yet considerable progress has been made in ourknowledge of Latin literature since 1840, and a literary appraisalof Velleius'work is now long overdue.The neglect of Velleius by literary scholarshiphas permitted several mis-apprehensionsabout his work to surviveunchallenged, two of which I shouldlike to take as my points of departurein the present essay: the general agree-ment on the dates of Velleius' composition,and the general descriptionof hischapters 126-8 as 'panegyrics'.These questionsare discussed n parts I and IIrespectively.'

I. DATES AND GENREI. The Dedicationto M. Vinicius(cos. A.D.30)

In the course of his work Velleius frequentlyaddressesMarcus Vinicius anddates events from Vinicius' consulshipin A.D.30, which is the last event towhich allusion is made.z Yet our knowledge of the relationshipbetween thetwo men is restricted o a singlefact:3it was underVinicius'father,P. Vinicius,that Velleius began his military career (IoI. 3). For the rest we must simplyguess at what might have passedbetween Velleius and the Vinicii, fatherandson (Publius was roughly fourteen years Velleius' senior, Marcus roughlyfifteen years his junior).4 The elder Vinicius was an admirer of Ovid and, asSumner noted, 'it is significant(as well as remarkable)that Ovid finds a placein Velleius' list of the greatest writers of the past generation'.s The youngerVinicius was 'mitis ingenio' (Tac. 6. 15. I), a man of75avxla who kept himselfto himself (Dio 6o. 27. 4): these are qualities which Velleius consistentlypraisesthroughouthis work.6Though it may be fanciful to deduce friendshipsfrom such tenuous evidence, that is not to say that friendshipsdid not exist.In view of the proposal put forward in the next section (pp. 280-2), it islikely that Velleius kept in contact at least with M. Viniciusduringthe twen-ties A.D.I The issues seem to me to be sufficientlyimportant to justify the publication of thisessay here and now; but in some places,particularly in part II, I have reserved formy commentary details which might in-appropriately distract the reader of thisessay. For illustration of V.'s neglect byliterary scholars see my paper in EmpireandAftermath:Silver Latin II (ed. T. A. Dorey,

1975), I with nn. 2 and 4.2 Addresses or apostrophes to Vinicius atI. 13. 5, 101. 3, 113. 1, 130. 4; Cf. also 96. 2,103. I, 104. 2. Dating from Vinicius' consul-ship usually takes the form ante annosquamtu, M. Vinici, consulatumnires followed bya numeral: see I. 8. I, I.8.4, I. 12. 6, 2. 7.5, 49. I, 65. 2. For the relevance of theseallusions in determining the dates of V.'scomposition see the next section.3 At 104. 3 V. describes himself as 'suc-cessor officii patris mei', from which Sumner

(264-5) deduces that his father had beenserving in Germany under the elder M.Vinicius (cos. I9 B.C.), the younger Marcus'grandfather. That is a possible but not in-evitable interpretation of the text. It isreasonable to assume that V. elaborated onhis relationship with M. Viniciusjunior or hisfamily in the lost preface (so, e.g., M. Broiek,'De V.P. opusculo mutilato', Eos lii [1962],125).4 For the ages of the two Vinicii see R.E.ix A. I. II9-20 and 116-17 respectively.s Sumner, 288. For Vinicius' admirationof Ovid cf. Sen. Contr.I0. 4. 25; for V.'s cf.36. 3. Previous scholars had naturally at-tempted to see political significances behindV.'s literary predilections, cf. F. della Corte,R.F.C. xv (I937), 154-9; Lana, 280 ff.6 I hope to deal with this subject in afuture essay to appear elsewhere.

T


4/36

274 A. J. WOODMANDespite the lack of evidence, scholarsfrequentlyreferto Marcus Vinicius asVelleius' 'patron'.'The description s not unreasonableprovidedwe are awareof what it means.zPatronagein the ancient world is not necessarilyto be seen

in terms of financial or social dependence but often as a literary conventionwhich broughtmutual advantages to author and patron alike. Velleius for hispart is able to dignify his work by constant referencesto an illustriousconsulwhose relativeyouth allows Velleius' narrativeto assumeat the same time anauthoritative tone, much as in the case of Lucretius' address to Memmius.To a politician like Vinicius it would clearly be advantageous if he wereregularlymentioned in a historywhich gave such strongsupportto Tiberius.Besides, it was a mark of honour for a consul to be addressedduring histerm of office by an author. Pollio is thus honoured by Virgil in Eclogue4,Sestiusby Horace in Odes . 4, and the traditionis continuedthroughMartialand Statius to Claudian, whose panegyrical poems can take as their subjectthe actual consulshipsof Honorius and Stilicho.3 Pollio is further honouredbecause Virgil representshis consulship as the beginning of an age: 'tequeadeo decus hoc aevi, te consule, inibit' (line i i).4 A less unusual honour con-sistedin an author'srepresentinga consul'stermofofficeas the end, and there-fore as the climax, of an age: thus Dio bringshis long historyto its conclusionin A.D. 229 when he himself was consul (for the second time) in partnershipwith the emperor, Alexander Severus. Stilicho's consulship in A.D.400 wasdoubly honoured: not only did Claudian write a poem about it, addressingStilicho,but SulpiciusSeverusbroughthis Chronicao its conclusion n thatyear.These two honours,which it had taken Claudian and Sulpiciusrespectivelyto

I So, e.g., Dodwell, cxiii; Kritz, xxi;Syme (I933), 147 = DP 32, and most otherplaces in his writings. At RR 384, however,Syme curiously describes the elderM. Vini-cius as V.'s patron. If this is not a slip, it iscertainly incapable of proof. We know thatV. himself went to Germany in A.D. 4 withTiberius (104. 3), but we do not know theexact dates of the elder Vinicius' commandthere. Syme himself is most uncertain: atDP 31 he is tentative, 'A.D. 1-4?', but atDP 55 more convinced, 'A.D. 1-4'; thenat DP 71 he suggests that the command didnot begin till A.D. 2, while in Hist. xi (1962),148, he is properly dubious, 'Vinicius' warin Germany c. A.D. 2'. Even if we assume thelongest period possible, A.D. I-4, that wouldleave little time for V. to acquaint himselfwith Vinicius who was at once replaced bySentius Saturninus (105. x). Sentius may infact have taken over in the previous year, asSyme hesitatingly suggests in Hist. xiii (1964),165; but this suggestion is probably based ona common misunderstanding ofV.'s text (seethe end of this note), and Syme is probablycorrect at DP 55 when he sees no reason forVinicius' replacement until Tiberius' returnto public life. But to return to the elderM. Vinicius' patronage of V.: Syme anywaycontradicts himself since elsewhere in thesame work he says that this Vinicius is treated

coolly by V. (RR 431, repeated DP 33). Itmust be said that Sumner rejects this lastpoint and accuses Syme of 'malice' in hisreading of the passage in question, 1o4. 2(268 n. 75). There is, paradoxically, sometruth in each interpretation. I conclude byexplaining V.'s text at o105. I since it hasmisled not only Syme (see above) but alsoRuhnken, Groag (R.E. ii A. 2, 1521-2) andLana (157 n. 685). The text reads: 'Sen-tium Saturninum qui tum legatus patriseius in Germania fuerat', and means: 'whoat that time was a legate of his father [i.e.of Augustus] in Germany'-the reason beingthat Latin idiom permits the use of thepluperf. instead of the imperf., especially withfueramand habueramsee Kiihner-Stegmann,i. I40. 4).2 Excellent remarks on patronage in Will-iams, 44-5.3 On this whole tradition see esp. Dod-well, cxiv; cf. also Syme, Tac. 672. OnClaudian note in particular A. Cameron,Claudian 1970), 30-45. Cicero of course notonly asked his friend Lucceius to com-memorate his consulship (Fam. 5. 12), butalso wrote a poem about it himself!4 See G. Williams in Qualityand Pleasurein Latin Poetry (ed. Tony Woodman andDavid West, 1974), 35-6.


5/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 275render to Stilicho, are accorded to Vinicius by Velleius: he not only addressesVinicius but concludes his historywith the year of Vinicius' consulship.Thetradition within which Velleius is working is clear,and its openly encomiasticnature could bring nothing but advantage to Vinicius.'From the frequencyof Velleius' apostrophes t is reasonableto deduce that hededicated his work to Vinicius.2A dedicationwould be unusual if seen againstthe great tradition of Sallust,Livy, and Tacitus, none of whom dedicated theirworks. But dedications are found in the lesser historians Coelius Antipater,Lutatius Catulus, Cornelius Sulla, and Hirtius.3 Of these four, Hirtius cer-tainly (B.G. 8 init.) and Sulla possibly (cf. fr. I) wrote formal dedicatoryletters;4but we naturallyhave no means of knowingwhetherVelleius'preface,which is lost, also took this form. The elder Seneca's Controversiae,dmittedlynot a historical work, shows that the epistolary practice was current at thetime when Velleius was writing; and in fact its popularityincreased with laterwriters, including historians.sWhether or not Velleius' apostropheswere introduced by a formal letter ofdedication, they yet constitutea stylisticfeaturein themselves,giving the workan informal tone which balances, but does not counteract, the authoritativetone mentioned above. It is interesting to note that the later historian C.Fannius wrote workswhich, although they have not survived,were describedby Pliny as 'inter sermonem historiamquemedios' (Ep. 5. 5. 3). They maywell have exhibited the same informalityas Velleius' history.

2. Whendid VelleiusWrite?It is traditionally assumed that Velleius began composing his work in thesummer of A.D. 29. The reason for this assumption has recently and con-veniently been restated by Sumner, who says that in Velleius' work 'Eventsare dated so many years from Marcus Vinicius' entry on the consulship.Vinicius began his consulship on I January A.D. 30 ... The terminus ost quemfor commencement of composition should be Vinicius' designation to theoffice in A.D. 29, probably during the early summer.'6

It is generally assumed that Velleius had stopped composing by the timeVinicius entered upon his consulship in January A.D. 30. This assumptionseems undeniable.7 In view of the encomiastic nature of the dedication toVinicius discussedin the previoussection, Velleius would surelyhave availedI The advantage would not, of course, besuch as to jeopardize his political career.Tiberius remains the unmistakable hero of

V.'s final chapters. Failure to appreciate thispoint leads Kritz into difficulties (xxiii).2 So, e.g., Sauppe, 4 and 9; Dihle, 640.3 Cf. H. Peter, Der Brief in der r6m.Literatur 19o01), 242 ff.4 Cf. R. Graefenhain, De more libros de-dicandiapudscriptoresGraecos t Romanosobvio

(1892), 33, 24.s See Janson, 106-12, I16. I have not seenJ. Ruppert, Quaest. ad historiamdedicationislibrorumpertinentes i 91). Val. Max. dedi-cated his contemporary collection of exemplato Tiberius, though not in epistolary form.

6 Sumner, 284. For the formulae withwhich V. dates events from Vinicius' consul-ship see above, p. 273 n. 2.7 Some scholars (e.g. Sauppe, 9) haveseen no reason why V. should not have con-tinued writing until the end of June A.D.30,since that was the moment at which Viniciusrelinquished the consulship; thus Syme, pre-sumably as a consequence, more than oncestates that V. 'was writing in 29 or 30'(e.g. Tac. 368), a view found repeated byothers also. But the arguments which I givein this paragraph tell against such a view. Fora refutation of Sumner's view see below,p. 276 n. 3-


6/36

276 A. J. WOODMANhimself of some final words of appreciation had he still been writing.' Hissilence about a period first heralded 1,323 years earlier (I. 8. i) is strikingproof that he had stopped writing by the time Vinicius took up office. Be-sides,with the single exception of his formulaic allusions to Vinicius' consul-ship, the last events to which his history makes referenceare the disgrace ofAgrippina and Nero and, finally, the death of Livia (130. 3-4). Since theseeventsare firmlydated to A.D.29,2and since, as Sumnersays,Vinicius' consul-ship will have been common knowledge from the time of his election in thesummerofA.D.29, there is no evidence that Velleius continuedwriting beyondthat year.3Thus, it is assumed,Velleius composed his historyin the five or six monthswhich separatedthe election and the inaugurationof Marcus Vinicius as con-sul,4i.e. between summerof 29 and January of 30.This hypothesiswill be found in the majoreditions of Velleius by Ruhnkenand Kritz, and in those standard worksof referencewhich mention the dateof Velleius' history, for example the R6mischeLiteraturgeschichtef Schanz-Hosius and Pauly's Realencyclopddie.she hypothesishas never seriouslybeenchallenged.6Yet we should reflectupon its implications.These are that in thespace of six months or less Velleius wrote down 48,400 words, dealing withover I,ooo yearsof ancient history,with all the collationand evaluationwhichthat processdemands.' On the calculationswhich are usually put forward, itwould have taken Livy on average between eleven and thirteen months towrite down a comparable amount of history.8

I Such words of appreciation could hardlyhave occurred in the lacuna at the very endof the work since the text breaks off in themiddle of a prayer for the emperor. Clearlyno reference to a consul could follow that.2 Cf. Tac. 5. 1-5.3 Sumner (284-8) follows Lana (299) andsome others (see above, p. 275 n. 7) in believ-ng that V. continued writing until the latesummer of A.D. 30. His evidence falls intotwo categories. (i) Dates given in V.'s textas 'abhinc annos xxvii' (103. 3) and 'horumxvi annorum' (126. I). But no reliance canbe placed upon this evidence. It is clear fromthe dedication to Vinicius that V. assumedin advance that his work would be publishedin A.D. 30. Therefore he would naturallydate events from that year. This satisfactorilyexplains the numeral at 126. I (Tiberius'accession in A.D. 14 is 16 years from A.D.30)but not that at Io3. 3 (Tiberius' adoption inA.D. 4 is not27 years from A.D.30). The latterfigure would require a notional publicationdate of A.D. 3I, which is impossible. Thenumeral, like another in the same sentence,is clearly corrupt: Aldus' 'xxvi' should beread. (2) At 127-8 V. refers to Sejanus'elevation to high office, which Sumner inter-prets as the consulship of A.D. 31. This isa stronger argument since, if Sumner's inter-pretation is correct, V. could not haveknown about Sejanus' elevation before the

election in the summer of A.D. 30. But sincethe vocabulary of chapters 127-8 stronglysuggests that a totally different honour isbeing referred to (see below, pp. 301-2),Sumner's theory must be rejected.4 I say 'five or six months' here becauseKritz, one of the most eloquent exponents ofthis hypothesis, only allows 'vix quinquemenses' (xxiii). Steffen is prepared to con-sider even four months (2).s Thus Dodwell, cxiii-cxv; Kritz, xxi-xxiii, lxv sqq.; Schanz-Hosius, 581-2,585-6; Dihle, 640. So too Massauer, i.6 Full credit should be given to the fourscholars whose perceptive comments are

quoted below (p. 279 n. I, p. 282 n. 2,p. 286 n. I, p. 287 n. I); but the incidentalnature of their remarks, which I shall quotein full, precludes them from constituting aserious challenge.7 Since most of Book I is lost we can onlyguess at the total number of words writtenby V. It is reasonable to assume that Book Iwould be comparable in length to Book 2,which contains roughly 24,200 words. Book Ias it stands contains about 3,900 words.8 Thus Schanz-Hosius, ii. 299; cf. Syme(1959), 39 n. 51, 41. To be fair, I shouldpoint out that Cicero appears to havewritten the De Divinatione,a work of roughly27,000 words, in two and a half months (seePease's edn., pp. 13-15). But I think it is also


7/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 277This remarkable conclusion, that Velleius wrote twice as fast as Livy, is

seemingly corroborated by four pieces of evidence which scholars have con-ventionally adduced from Velleius' own work. Thefirst is that on a few occasionsVelleius refers to the speed with which he is writing: I. 16. I 'in hac tam prae-cipiti festinatione', 41. i 'quamlibet festinantem', io8. 2 'nulla festinatio huiusviri mentionem transgredi debet', 124. I 'neque mihi tam festinanti exprimerevacat'. The secondis that on several occasions he refers to the brevity or re-stricted form of his work: I. 16. I 'cum haec particula operis velut formam pro-positi excesserit', 66. 3 'cogit enim excedere propositi formam operis', 96. 3'hoc opus servet formam suam', 29. 2 'operis modus paucis eum narrari iubet',52. 3 'non recipit enarranda hic scripturae modus', 55. I 'admonet promissaebrevitatis fides quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint', 86. I 'quis in hoc trans-cursu tam artati operis exprimere audeat?', 99. 4 'illud etiam in hoc trans-cursu dicendum est', cf. 38. I 'haud absurdum videtur propositi operis regulaepaucis percurrere', 89. I 'nedum huius tam recisi (operis)', 103. 4 'nedum hic'.The third is that on still further occasions he refers to his intention of writinga major history: 48. 5 'harum praeteritarumque rerum ordo cum iustisaliorum voluminibus promatur, tum, uti spero, nostris explicabitur', 89. I 'nein operis quidem iusti materia', 96. 3 'alio loco explicabimus', 99. 3 'iustoservemus operi', 103. 4 'vix in illo iusto opere abunde persequi poterimus',I 14. 4 'iustis voluminibus ordine narrabimus, ut spero', I19. I 'iustis volumini-bus ut alii ita nos conabimur exponere'. The fourth is that Velleius' style ex-hibits several 'faults' such as poor sentence structure, unusual word-order, andregular repetitions of the same word in close proximity.From this fourfold evidence a reconstruction is made. Velleius had beencollecting material for a major work when Vinicius' election was announced;this news prompted him to signal his friendship for Vinicius by tossing offa dedicated volume using material which he had been collecting with a dif-ferent intention; even so he naturally, as he himself says, had to write quickly-as is clear both from the brevity of his work and from the stylistic faults intowhich he lapses.'

Perhaps this is the truth. But the comparison with Livy, if it is allowed someweight, induces reservations and prompts us to see whether the above evidenceadmits of a different interpretation.We may begin by considering, in reverse order, the four pieces of evidencejust mentioned. It is of course true that Velleius can write ungainly sentences;he also composes sentences with exemplary precision and balance.2 It isfair to regard the comparison with Livy asa more realistic reflection of a historian'swork-rate. Cicero himself would possiblyhave agreed: 'Neque enim occupata operaneque impedito animo res tanta suscipipotest.... historia vero nec institui potestnisi praeparato otio nec exiguo temporeabsolvi' (Leg. I. 8-9).I So Kritz xxi-xxiii; Schanz-Hosius,585-6: 'Velleius 6fters sein beabsichtigtesgr6sseres Werk in Gegensatz zu dem Abrissstellt, wird man sich die Entstehung desletzteren kaum anders denken k6nnen, alsdass die Designation des M. Vinicius zumKonsul den Autor veranlasste, auf Grund

seines gesammelten Materials einen flich-tigen Abriss der r6mischen Geschichte zugeben. Damit steht im Einklang die haufigeWiederholung derselben W6rter und Wort-verbindungen; auch die Nachlissigkeit inder Periodenbildung wird nur zum Teil ihreRechtfertigung durch den veriindertenGeschmack der Zeit finden.' The 'collectedmaterial' for a major work has become anessential part of the hypothesis: cf. Kritz,xvi-xvii; F. Burmeister, De Fontibus V.P.(1894), 14; Sumner, 284 n. 143.

2 See E. A. de Stefani, 'De V.P. periodis',S.I.F.C. xviii (19Io), 19-31 ;A.J. Woodman,Latomusxxv (1966), 564-6.


8/36

278 A. J. WOODMANequally true that his writing is full of unusual instances of word-order;but such hyperbata belong to the novandi tudium llustrated so frequentlyby other contemporary writers.' It is also true that Velleius repeats thesame word or phrase in close proximity;2 so do many other authors, amongthem some of the giantsof classicalliterature.3There is no force n this 'stylistic'argument.Second, Velleius' intention of writing a major history. Now this evidencewould supportthe traditional hypothesis only if the intended work had beenplanned before the presentwork and were to have a scope identical to it; foronly under these circumstanceswould Velleius have collected the appropriatematerial which scholars are required to assume for their argument. Unfor-tunatelythereisno evidence that the majorwork had been previouslyplanned;and even those scholarswho assume previous planning are agreed that Vel-leius' majorwork would not at all have an identical scope, but would take asits starting-pointthe civil wars.4They are thereforecontradictingthemselves,sand this argument too can be dismissed.The third and fourthpiecesof evidencemay be consideredtogether.Scholarshave consistently seen the restricted form of Velleius' work in terms of thehastewithwhich he waswriting: speed, thereforebrevity.6Yet Milkaulong agosuggestedthat perhaps the truth was the other way round and that Velleius'haste should be seen in terms of the restricted form of his work: brevity,

I Milkau, 9-10. See now J. N. Adams,P.C.P.S.xvii (1971),6-io.2 A long list of examples in Kritz, lxvii-lxx.3 e.g. Cicero, cf. E. Laughton, C.P. xlv(1950), 73 if.; Livy, cf. K. Gries, C.P. xlvi(1951), 36f.; Curtius, cf. H. Lindgren,Studia Curtiana(I935), 1-35; Florus, cf. S.Lilliedahl, Florusstudien1928), 57-61. Repe-titions of various kinds have attracted anenormous amount of attention: to the refs.

given by E. J. Kenney, C.Q. ix (0959), 248n. I, add D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Proper-tiana (1956), 9; id., Towards Text... (1959),28; N. I. Herescu, La poisie latine (I96O),181-203; M. von Albrecht, Meister rdm.Prosa (i97I), 231 (index); Diggle on Eur.Phaeth. 56; Hofmann-Szantyr, 820-2.4 So Kritz, xv-xvi; Schanz-Hosius,581-2; Dihle, 641; Sumner, 282. Scholarsmake this deduction since the first occasionon which V. mentions his major work is atthe outbreak of civil war in 49 B.C. (48. 5):'harum praeteritarumque rerum ordo cumiustis aliorum voluminibus promatur, tum,uti spero, nostris explicabitur.' In fact, theydo not do their case justice since (I) V.couldhave mentioned his major work in thelarge portion of his history now lost, (2)at 48. 5 he says 'harum praeteritarumquererum', where praeteritarumwould seem toimply at least some pre-49 B.C.history (butsee next note). As it is, however, there istoo much (fruitless) speculation about V.'sfuture work to justify basing any argument

on it. Kritz, e.g., thinks it would concludewith the reign of Tiberius, Sumner that itwould exclude the reign of Tiberius. Cludius(edn. xx), and M. Manitius (Rh. Mus. xlvii[1892], 467) think that V. intended to writefour further works; Sauppe toyed with two(I I); Schanz-Hosius and Sumner envisageonly one; Sauppe (II), Teuffel (I7), andPeter (WK 366) doubted whether V. in-tended seriously to write another work at all.In view of the evidence presented below(pp. 287-8), these last three scholars maywell have been right, in which case the pre-sent argument is even less soundly based.s Why did V. not simply present Viniciuswith a history ranging from the civil wars toTiberius? It is hardly possible to argue thateverything which precedes 48. 5 is an in-ferior summary 'stitched on' to the 'serious'history which begins at that point and forwhich V. is assumed to have collected propermaterial. It is true that E. Gabba suggestedthat a similarly modest introduction was'stitched on' to Pollio's history of the civilwars (Appiano [1956], 207 ff., esp. 232 if.),but his suggestion has not been generallyaccepted. Besides, Gabba's hypothesis en-visages only 8o years' introduction, whereaswe should have to credit V. with more thanI,ooo years!6 So, e.g., Dihle, 640: 'Die Schrift waredann in wenigen Monaten zusammengestelltworden. Dazu passt die flichtige und sum-marische Erzihlung'.


9/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 279thereforespeed.' Since it was beyond Milkau's termsof referenceto elaborateupon this thesis,we may do so here.Those scholarswho accept the traditionalexplanationof Velleius'speedandbrevity have failed to realise that these same two features are well-attestedqualities of many types of writing, including history. Dionysius of Halicar-nassus,for example, at one place praisesThucydides for his 'speed' (r Trdxos,Ep. Amm. 2. 2, p. 425Us.-Rad.) and at another for his 'brevity' (rd aUVVTOLlov,Imit. 3. I, p. 207Us.-Rad.). Quintilian at one place praises 'immortalemSallusti velocitatem'(Io. I. 102), and at another 'illa Sallustiana brevitas'(4-. 2.45). The two terms are interchangeablein ancient literarycriticism,2and it istempting to suggestthat Velleius is claimingforhimselfthe qualitywhich thesetwo critics see in Thucydidesand Sallust.But caution is needed. The brevityofSallust was thought to consistin his ability to say everythinghe requiredbutin as few words as possible:3 'est vero pulcherrima (brevitas) cum plurapaucis complectitur, quale Sallusti est', says Quintilian (8. 3. 82); and it isclear that the same applied to Thucydides whom Quintilian regarded asSallust'smodel (io. I. IoI). Now it is obviously unlikelythat Velleiuswould beclaimingforhimselfa qualitywhich hispleonasticand fulsomestylemanifestlyfails to exhibit.4Yet Quintilian's definition of brevity, quoted above, was not the only de-finition current among ancient literary critics. Cicero carefully distinguishesthis type of brevityfrom a second type which consistedin pruningdown one'ssubject-matter(Inv.I. 28) : 'multosimitatio brevitatisdecipit ut, cum se brevesputent esse, longissimisint, cum dent operam ut res multas brevi dicant, nonut omnino paucas res dicant et non plures quam necessesit.'s In his Ars PoeticaHorace makes an identical distinction between the first (lines 335-7) andsecond (148-50 'semper ad eventum festinat et in medias res. . .') types ofbrevity,6and it will be noticed that he describesthe latter in terms of speed.

I Milkau, Io: 'festinatio illa totiens com-memorata magis de operis tenuitate etbrevitate quam de tempore urgente acci-pienda sit.' He presented no evidence for thisview.2 Further examples of this are given belowand in the following section. For brevitycoupled with speed cf. also Arist. Rhet. 3. I I.9 (I412b), Cic. De Or. I. I7, 3. 202, Hor. Sat.I. Io. 9. Interesting is Sen. Ep. 40, whichdeals with oratorical delivery rather thanstyle, but (as Summers in his commentaryobserves) Seneca 'does not keep the twothings quite distinct': 'oratio illa apudHomerum concitata' (2), 'istam vim dicendirapidam' (3), 'quemadmodum per proclivecurrentium non... gradus sistitur.. . sicista dicendi celeritas' (7), 'talem dicendivelocitatem.. . tantum festinet' (8), etc.

3 This is made clear not only by Quintilian(quoted) but also by Sen. Contr. . I. 13 'cumsit praecipua in Thucydide virtus brevitas,hac eum Sallustius vicit; nam in sententiaGraeca tam brevi habes quae salvo sensudetrahas... at ex Sallusti sententia nihildemi sine detrimento sensus potest'.

* For this cf. P. Freitag, StilistischeBeitrdge zu V.P.: Pleonasmusund Parenthese(1942).s Cicero's sentence describes the pointmost aptly, but Quint. also makes a similardistinction himself between the two types(cf. 4. 2. 41, with a reference to 'speed',celerius). The distinction is appreciated bysuch modern scholars as C. O. Brink, Horaceon Poetry 1963), i. 262, 'As a stylistic featureit (brevity) could be discussed under theheading of style; as a selective principle ofsubject-matter under the heading of unity,order or content', and H. Lausberg, Hand-buch der literarischenRhetorik(1960), i. 173,who refers to the brevitasof verba and thebrevitasof res. Brevity is an extremely com-plicated subject and it is surprising that (tomy knowledge) no full-scale treatment existsapart fromJ. Stroux, De Theophrastiirtutibusdicendi(1912), which I have not seen. How-ever, Lausberg's collection of usages ofbrevitasand related terms is most helpful(pp. 169 ff.), and cf. Brink on Hor. A.P.25-6.6 Brink's excellent note on 148 points out


10/36

280 A. J. WOODMANLucian too, writing on the art of historiography,makes the same distinctionbetween the first (Hist.Conscr.3) and second (ib. 56) types, and his technicaldescription of the latter is also 'speed', 7rXos:Irdo o EM raa Xpa iov, Kat"li7

El /171 d pa TWV AEKTWCV Et7l Kat 701 70 7TroptEoaat Xp /i7 rTOUovoV d7TooU 7polkaTWV,

oaov d ro - rvTpay/iWVAYW , ELtapauE0ot /1Ev Ta

bLKPa Ka7aTr-rov vayKata, AEyotgs ' LKavcGrs7 LyEyaAa" tWov SE Kal 7rapaAEL-7rrdEovToAAd. 'Speed is always useful, especially when there is a lot of availablematerial-which iswhereyou shouldpursuethisvirtue,ratherthan in wordingor phraseology.That is, pass over the trivia and less essentialtopics, but giveadequate treatmentto importantmatters.You can actuallyomit a greatdeal.')Thus 'speed'and 'brevity'are simply technicalways of describingthe selec-tion of materialor the pruningdown of subject-matter,and Velleius'referencesto precisely these two features of his work need not imply fast writing in theliteral sense at all. He might very well be claiming for his work a qualitywhich was recommended in the handbooksof historiography.(This matter iselaborated in the next section.)Therefore the four pieces of evidence adduced by traditional scholarshipforthe dates of Velleius' compositionneed not, on closer inspection,corroboratethe hypothesisthat he composedhisworkin the spaceof sixmonthsor less.Theonly solid basis for assumingthat he began composingin the summer of 29 isthe dedication to M. Vinicius, and it is to this that we must now return.Anyone with any conception of the workings of patronage and politics,especially at Rome, will concede the likelihood that privately the emperorwould give a conditional promise of nomination to a suitable candidate longthat 'This way of looking at poetry is Alex-andrian and is perpetuated in the Homericand Virgilian scholia': that is, critics ofan Alexandrian affiliation had to reconcilethe poetry of Homer and Virgil (which bydefinition had to display all virtues) withbrevity (which was an Alexandrian virtue).This paradoxical situation is perpetuatedin any age where brevity is popular: seebelow, p. 286 and n. 2, and the reference toPliny. Pliny, as it happens, is another authorwho distinguishes between brevity of styleand brevity of content: in Ep. I. 20. I 1-17 hediscusses the latter (using the terms brevitasand -rcXOs),hen later in the letter (19-21)discusses the former. Between these twopassages, however, at 18 he confusingly says'brevitate vel velocitate vel utraque (dif-ferunt enim)'. Yet we should not take histerminological differentiation too seriously:all Pliny means is that he prefers to use aseparate term for each type. All the otherevidence shows that bothterms (i.e. brevityand speed) can be used to describe bothsorts of brevity. Such looseness is of coursetypical of ancient literary critical termino-logy.ISee Avenarius, 62-3 and 127-30 re-spectively on Lucian's distinction. In her

commentary on Hist. Conscr.H. Homeyer iswrong at ? 56 when she compares Quin-tilian's description of Sallust at Io. I. 102(velocitas) ince, as I have shown, Quint. theremeans the other type of brevity. Interest-ingly Cicero did not approve of brevitas nrebus(Lucian's riXOg) in historiography: hedemanded 'exaedificatio in rebus et inverbis' (De Or. 2. 63), scorning those oldannalists who 'unam dicendi laudem putantesse brevitatem' (ib. 2. 53). Cicero is notinconsistent when he praises Caesar's worksfor their brevitas (Brut. 262) since brevitaswas an indigenous quality of the commentariusgenre within which Caesar was working (seeP. T. Eden, Glottaxl [1962], 75-8). Never-theless it is well known that Cicero charac-teristically eschewed brevity in his own com-mentarii cf. Att. 2. I. ) ! It is also interestingthat when the third-century rhetoricianAquila illustrates percursio(which is hardlydifferent from rdXOs)with the sentence'Caesar in Italiam evolavit, CorfiniumDomitio deiecto ceperat, Urbe potiebatur,Pompeium persequebatur', this reads justlike the commentariustyle as written byCicero in, e.g., Att. 5. 20. 3 (Aq. 6, p. 24Halm).


11/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 281before the appropriate election.' The vital question is 'How long before?'Some idea of the period involved is affordedby Tacitus' account of a debatein the senatein A.D. 16, duringwhich Asinius Gallusproposedthat magistratesshould be elected five years in advance.2 'There was no doubt', remarksTacitus, 'that this proposal struck too deeply, and put at risk the arcanaimperii.'What Tacitus means by this allusive remarkis not immediatelyclear;but it may indicate that Gallus wished to bring out into the open a practicewhich already flourishedin secret.3Tiberius' instant rejectionof the proposalseems to confirm this. For, as Seagerhas said, 'it would have robbed Tiberius'patronagein thissphereof all its flexibilityand so of much of its value. If a manknew well in advance that his place was secure, he might grow not merelyarrogant but dangerously independent, and it would be odious, if not im-possible, to remove his name once the list had been compiled.'4Now it would of coursebe wrong to deduce from this episodethat Tiberius,whose control over the elections was almost absolute,sissuedprivate promisespreciselyfive years before the appropriateelection; but it is not unreasonableto deduce that a period of severalyearswas involved. Indeed E. Birley'sstudyof senatorsin the emperors'service has shown that 'grading for posts in thevigintivirate, when candidates were still in their eens, ook into account theiraptitude for servicein key appointmentsin another tenortwentyears'time'.6It remains to be asked whetherMarcus Vinicius was a likelycandidate to besingled out for the emperor's favour in this way. Unfortunately nothing isknown of his early career,not even the dates of his quaestorshipand praetor-ship, but his later careerwas such that inferences about the earlieryears cansafely be drawn. His consulshipin A.D.30 at the age of thirty-fivewas sevenyears earlier than the standard consular age during the empire:7 he hadwithout doubt been a highly promising young man. Within three furtheryears he had married Tiberius' granddaughter, the princess Julia Livilla,a considerablehonour.8After the assassinationof Caligula, his brother-in-law,he was recognized as a potential successor to the throne, although it wasClaudiuswho actually succeeded (cf.Jos. A.J. 19. 251). In 43 he is thought tohave accompanied Claudius to Britain,receiving the ornamentariumphalia9in

45 he was singularlyhonouredby beingmade consulrdinariusora secondtime;and when he died in the following year, he was given a state funeral (Dio6o. 27. 4). It would indeed be surprising f this conspicuouslysuccessfulpoli-tician had not been singled out at an early age for advancement and en-couragementby Tiberius.'oI Tac. I. 8I deals only with the actualelectoral process which took place eachsummer and is thus no evidence for a privatearrangement of the kind here envisaged.2 Tac. 2. 36.3 So Shotter, 326-7, and Seager (next n.).4 Seager, 126.s This point, which is important for myargument, is confirmed by an analysis of thefasti for Tiberius' reign: see Seager, 124 ff.,esp. 126-8.6 P.B.A. xxxix (1953), 202. The italicsare mine.

7 For the standard age see Syme, Tac.653-6.

8 Tac. 6. 15. I. A number of scholars(e.g. Z. Stewart, A.J.P. lxxiv [1953], 74f.;Syme, Tac. 384; R. Sealey, Phoenix xv[1961], 102 ff.) have imagined that Viniciuswas a supporter of Sejanus; but his elevationto a 'royal' marriage after Sejanus' downfallwould seem to discredit this view: cf. Dihle,640, and esp. Steffen, 194.9 So Syme (1933), I43 = DP 27-8.10 Even regardless of specific hints orpromises from Tiberius, one could be reason-ably sure that Vinicius, in view of his back-ground, would get to be consul sooner ratherthan later.


12/36

282 A. J. WOODMANOur conclusionsare these. Which is the more likely? That Velleius composedhis historywith great rapidity during the five or six months which separatedthe election and inaugurationof Vinicius as consul? Or that Vinicius' praetor-ship (say) in the mid twenties was accompanied by a conditional promise ofthe consulship forA.D. 30,1 allowingboth Velleius and Vinicius himselfampleopportunityto preparefor the honorificevent? I believe the latter is the morerealisticassumption,particularly n view of the evidence collectedin the follow-ing section.Thus, on this interpretation,Velleius began composing in the mid twentiesand had stopped by January of A.D. 30.2

3. What Genre?In the previoussection it was suggestedthat Velleius' referencesto 'speed'and'brevity'are allusionsto the selectivityof his material, a quality appropriatetoseveral genres including historiography. No writer wishes to appear long-winded, and even those historianswhose works have the widest scope andgreatestlengthclaim that they arerecountingonly themostimportantmaterial.Thus Ammianus Marcellinus in his 31-book continuation of Tacitus writes:'praeter haec alia multa narratuminusdignaconserta sunt proelia... quaesuperfluumest explicare, cum neque operae pretium aliquod eorum habuereproventus, nec historiam producere per minutias ignobiles decet' (27. 2.I I,cf. 23. I. I, 26. I. I, 31. 5. Io). Naturally therefore, when Ammianus entersupon digressionswhich have strictlylittle relevance to his main theme, he willexcuse such discursivematerial by promisingbrevity (as in his digressiononEgypt, 22. 32. I, 'paucasuper provinciis narraturi') or else bring such materialto a conclusion by pleading speed (as in the digression on rainbows, 20. I I. 30,'suppetuntaliae multae opinioneset variae, quas dinumerarenunc est super-vacuum, narratione redire unde digressa estfestinante').3These three quotations from Ammianus clearly show that he would claimto be followingLucian'sprescriptions orrdXOs56 ElrrapaOoesIhv rd1tcKpKa,

I The promise need not of course havementioned a precise date, merely somegeneral date in the future. That would havebeen enough to prompt V. to start writing.He could always have changed or, if theworst happened, deleted the references toVinicius altogether. Changing or deletingreferences is quite different from addingthem. The hypothesis that the completionof V.'s history luckily happened to coincidewith the announcement of Vinicius' electionin 29 is at first sight attractive (and ap-parently hinted at by Steffen, 1-2): V.would then have gone through inserting re-ferences to Vinicius' consulship into hisfinished text. But Sumner has pointed out(284 n. I45) that the references at I. 8. I and2. 7. 5 are most unlikely to be late addi-tions.2 Jodry (271) stated that in his opinion V.began writing in A.D. 14/15 as soon as hehad left the army (see below, p. 287 n. i).He is followed in this by Portalupi (edn. xvi),

who quotes his article in a different connec-tion three pages earlier.3 I have chosen Ammianus because hehappens to illustrate best the points which Iwish to make, especially in terminology. Butwhat I say about him could be said withequal truth about any full-blooded historianwriting in the rhetorical or 'Ciceronian' tra-dition, almost all ofwhom (e.g. Livy, Tacitus)claim to be recounting only the most im-portant material: see Avenarius, I28-9.Sallust is another particularly good example(with the proviso mentioned in p. 283n. 2). He says that his work is 'in primis ...memorabile'Cat. 4. 4), and elsewhere he ex-cuses discursive material with phraseologysuch as: 'res postulare videtur... paucisex-ponere.. .cetera quam paucissumis ab-solvam' (lug. 17. 1-2), 'de Carthagine sileremelius puto quamparum dicere, quoniam alioproperareempus monet' (ib. Ig. 2), 'si singil-latim aut pro magnitudine parem disserere,tempus quam res maturiusme deseret' (42. 5).


13/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 283c'ovavayKaca, AE'yo&s8' 1Kav(S rd LEya' c/_Z ovO KalrrapaAETrrT'ovroAA'),andthat he can expresshis claim in termseither of speedor brevity,which clearlyare little more than conventionalformulae.'But we should note carefully that

such brevitass restrictedto discursivematerial; Ammianus elsewheremakes itquite plain that he disapproves of brevity in general (15. I. I) : 'residua quaesecuturus aperiet textus, pro virium captu limatiusabsolvemus, nihil obtre-ctatores longi(ut putant) operisormidantes.tunc enim laudanda est brevitascum, moras rumpens intempestivas,nihil subtrahit cognitioni gestorum'.2Now claims that one is dealing with only the most important material, asseen in the first quotation from Ammianus above, are found most of all inwriters whose works are of their very nature compendious.3I mean suchwriters as Vitruvius in his handbook of architecture (5 praef.2 'ut memoriaetradantur, breviterexponam:... (3) paucisiudicavi scribendum, uti angustospatio vacuitatis ea legentes breviterercipere possent ... .(5) quo facilius adsensus legentium pervenire possint, brevibusoluminibus iudicavi scribere');Valerius Maximus in his selection of exemplapraef.'Urbis Romae... factasimul ac dicta memoratuigna,quae apud alios latius diffusa sunt quam utbreviterognosci possint, ab inlustribus electaauctoribusdigerereconstitui....quis enim omnis aevi gesta modico oluminumumerocomprehenderit...? ...summatimdisseram', 4. I. 12 'sed cum magna * multa breviter icenda sint', 6. 4init. 'quorumex abundanti copia nec parca nimis nec rursusavida manu quodmagis desiderio satisfaciatquam satietati abundet hauriamus') Gelliusin theself-styled commentarii xcerpted from his notebooks (praef. I I-12 'omnes...solam copiam sectati...; solaaccepi quae aut ingenia prompta expeditaquead honestae eruditioniscupidinem utiliumque artium contemplationemcelerifacilique compendioucerent'); and Justin in his epitome of Pompeius Trogus(praef. 4 'horum igitur xliv voluminum... quaequedignissima xcerpsi et,omissis isquaenec cognoscendivoluptateiucundanec exemploerantnecessaria,breve eluti florumcorpusculumfeci'). Since it is the very essenceof such worksthat they should contain only the most important material, it is hardly sur-prisingthat their authors should echo, with farmorejustice, the claim alreadyfamiliar from Ammianus 27. 2. 11 quoted above. Nor is it surprisingthat,again like Ammianus, these authors should express the selectivity of theirmaterial in the conventional terms of brevity and speed.Despite these points of contact, however, we should note the complete dif-ference of emphasis.Whereas Ammianus could and did include almost every-thing in his capaciouswork,being compelled to treatbriefly only that materialwhich was excessivelydiscursive,these compendiousauthors claim-albeit insimilar language-to treat the wholeof their material with brevity. They havepruned or selected their material so rigorouslythat they are able to claimbrevity as a primaryfeatureof their worksin a mannerwhich Ammianushim-self specifically condemned (15. I. I, quoted above).

ZFor similar formulae cf., e.g., Nep. praef.8 'sed hic plura persequi cum magnitudovoluminis prohibet tum festinatio ut ea ex-plicem quae exorsus sum', Sen. N.Q. 3 praef.4 'festinemust opus nescio an insuperabile ...tractemus', Plin. N.H. 28. 87 'ut festinetoratio', Min. Fel. Oct. I1. 5. These are byno means the only instances where festinatiois used thus.

2 Sallust (see p. 282 n. 3) would seemto differ from Amm. on this last point sinceat Hist. I. 4 he appears to be claiming brevityfor the whole of his work; but this is probablydue either to the monographical nature of thework (cf. Cat. 4. 3) or to the fact that hemeans the brevitas n verbis or which he waspre-eminently famous (see above, pp. 279 f.).3 See Janson, 154.


14/36

284 A. J. WOODMANVelleius' references to brevity and speed seem no different from those in bothAmmianus and the other writers.' But since he uses such formulae to relegatenot only discursive material but also, in varying degrees, material as important

as Pompey the Great (29. 2 'operismoduspaucis eum narrari iubet') and thebattle of Pharsalus (52- 3 'non recipit enarranda hicscripturaemodus'),he clearlyshares with the compendious writers their extreme concern for total brevity.In this he is quite unlike Ammianus. Yet in his subject matter he is also quiteunlike the compendious writers, none of whom had treated the history of Romefrom its earliest origins down to their own day: none of them, that is, hadwritten a universal history.2The precise combination of elements which is found in Velleius' work-auniversal history written with a total emphasis on brevity-is only found insuch authors as Orosius and Festus. Orosius, who wrote a universal historyfrom the creation of the world down to A.D. 417, could hardly have enuntiatedhis historiographical principle better than at I. 12. I: 'praeterire plurima,cunctabreviare'.Like Festus,3 Orosius had already explained this principle inhis preface (I praef. Io 'ut... ordinato brevitervoluminis textu explicarem');and like Velleius he repeats it throughout his work (e.g. I. I. 4 'paucisdum-taxat isdemque breviterdelibatis', I. I. 7 'quapropter res ipsa exigit ex his librisquam brevissimeel pauca contingere', 2. 2. II 'ne diutius verbis morer', 7. 43. 19'quam brevissime').The suggestion that Velleius is a universal summarist likeOrosius may be corroborated by a consideration of three further summaristsin particular.4Florus, who wrote a universal history down to Augustus' reign in two books,said in his preface (3) :s 'in breviquasi tabella totameius imaginemamplectar.'

I Some of his references are particularlyinteresting. E.g. in the discussion of pro-vincialization at 38-9 (which is clearlymarked as a digression, cf. 39. 3 'sed re-vertamur ad ordinem') his introduction is:'haud absurdum videtur propositi operisregulae paucis percurrere.. .', where per-currereeems to be an allusion to the technicalpercursiowhich is defined by Aquila as 'dis-tantia plura inter se percurrens velocitatepsacircumponit' (6, p. 24 Halm: see above,p. 280 n. I). For a similar allusion see Brinkon Hor. A.P. I8. There may be a lessobvious allusion in V. at I 17. i 'personamoram exigit': mora s a natural word to usein a context of a 'speedy' narrative, but itmay also be a quasi-technical term ='digression': cf. Amm. 15. I. I (quotedabove, p. 283), Gran. Licin. 36a-b (p. 59Camozzi) 'morae et non urgentia' (in a ref.to Sallust's insertions into his narrative of'contiones loca montes flumina et hoc genusalia'), Pallad. I. I. I 'sed nos recidamuspraefationis moram', and Geoffrey deVinsauf in C. S. Lewis, The Discarded mage(1964), 192.2 Justin's work of course covers eventsfrom the origins of Rome, but he is an epi-tomator, by which I mean an author whohas digested one single work only: i.e. he is

not 'original'. By the same token V. is not anepitomator, though often described as such,e.g. recently by S. Usher, Historiansof Greeceand Rome(1969), 242. See n. 5 below.3 Fest. I 'brevemieri clementia tua prae-cepit.... ac morem secutus calculonum, qui... brevioribusxprimunt, res gestas signabo,non eloquar. accipe ergo quod breviter ictisbrevius onputetur.'4 Most of the works mentioned in this andthe following paragraphs are usually knownas breviariaor chronica (there seems littledifference between the two terms): thesediffer fundamentally from epitomes inas-much as they draw their material from morethan one source, and they generally makeuse of their authors' personal experience: i.e.they are 'original'. There is something to besaid, however, for avoiding these terms andemploying the more appropriate 'summary'(for which cf. Sen. Ep. 39. ) : for breviariumis conventionally reserved for late (usuallyfourth-century) works, while chroniconmpliesa concern for chronology (cf. Gell. 17. 21. I)which is not always justified. See also next n.5 p. Jal has rightly stressed that Florus'work is in no way an epitome (R.E.L. xliii[1965], 358 ff., and in his edn. [1967], xxisqq.), though often described as such--e.g.by J. W. Eadie in his edn. of Festus (1967),


15/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 285Velleius describes his own account of Augustus' reign with identical phraseo-logy (89. 6): 'nos memores professionis universamimaginemprincipatus eius ...subiecimus.' Another phrase in that same sentence, 'memores professionis',in-dicates that Velleius, like Florus, had promised in his lost preface to write onlyan imagoof Roman history. Indeed from another key sentence (55. 'admonetpromissaebrevitatis ides quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint') we may con-clude that Velleius, like Florus and most of the other compendious writersmentioned, made a programmatic announcement of brevity in his lost preface.That would be hardly surprising, in view of the frequency with which herefers to brevity elsewhere in his work.

Sulpicius Severus, whose Chronican two books is a Christian universal his-tory to A.D. 400, said in his preface (I. 1-2): 'res a mundi exordio . .. breviterconstringere et cum distinctione temporum usque ad nostram memoriam car-ptim dicere aggressus sum, multis id a me et studiose efflagitantibus, qui divinacompendiosaectione cognoscere properabant,' .. non peperci labori meo quin eaquae permultis voluminibus perscripta continebantur, duobus libellis con-cluderem, ita brevitati tudens .. .', cf. I. 5 'breviatadigessimus'). And the bodyof his work contains phraseology which invites instant comparison with theVelleian formulae listed above, p. 277 (e.g. Sulp. I. 20. I 'operis modum' and2. 32. 6 'modum operis' with 29. I 'operis modus', cf. 52. 3 'scripturae modus';Sulp. 2. 27. 3 'forma... operis' with i. 16. I 'operis... formam', 66. 3 'for-mam operis', cf. 48. 6 'operi sua forma reddatur', 96. 3 'opus servet formamsuam').2 It is interesting to recall that this is the second link we have observedbetween Velleius and Sulpicius Severus (see above, p. 274).Finally Eutropius, who wrote a universal summary down to A.D. 364, con-cludes his work with these words (10. 18. 3): 'interim operimodumdabimus.nam reliqua stilo maiore dicenda sunt. quae nunc non tam praetermittimusquam ad maiorem scribendi diligentiam reservamus.' Such promises of futureworks are a useful variation of the brevitas ormula, and call into question thewhole problem of Velleius' own future work. (See further below, pp. 287 f.)This evidence strongly suggests that these authors represent a tradition andgenre to which Velleius also belongs. It is true that, with the exception ofFlorus, these authors are comparatively late and belong to a period in whichuniversal summaries were the rule.3 Yet brevity seems to have been equallypopular at the time when Velleius himself was writing. We have already notedhis contemporaries Vitruvius and Valerius Maximus, both of whom wroteSI, an error which leads Eadie to state (13)that we have no evidence of a breviariume-tween the end of the Republic and Eutropius.Yet Florus' work, not to mention V.'s, isessentially no different from that of Orosius,Sulpicius, or any other breviarium-writer.That his work is never described as such isdue to the restricting conventions of termino-logy mentioned in the preceding note.I For this motif, of the reader 'hurrying',cf. Liv. praef. 4 'legentium plerisque...festinantibus ad haec nova'.

2 Further parallels in E. Klebs, Philol.xlix (1890), 289. One of the purposes ofKlebs's article was to attempt to show thatSulpicius' phraseology is modelled directly

on thatof V. Thiswouldnot, however,neces-sarily disprovemy point: it merely showsthat Sulpiciusrealized the nature of suchphraseologyn V.'s text and thus was ableto use it for a similarpurposein his ownuniversal ummary.Similarlywith 'carptim'at Chron.. I. I, which echoesSall.Cat.4. 2.3 For the currencyof summaries n thefourth century cf. A. Momigliano, The Con-flict betweenPaganism and Christianity n theFourthCentury1963), 82 ff.; also R. Syme,Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968),104-5. There did of course already exista tradition of summary histories at Romewhen V. came to write: see below, p. 286n. 4.


16/36

286 A. J. WOODMANcompendious works and referred explicitly to brevity. Wight DuffI also pointedto Phaedrus, another contemporary, whose references to brevity are evenmore obsessive than Velleius': e.g. 2 prol. 11 ff. 'bonas in partes lector accipiasvelim, / ita si rependet ... brevitasgratiam', 3. 7. I 'breviterproloquar', 3. Io0.2'breviterexponam', ib. 59-60 (!) 'haec exsecutus sum propterea pluribus; / bre-vitatenimia quoniam quosdam offendimus', 3 epil. 8 'brevitatinostrae praemiumut reddas peto', ib. 14 'si celeriuscoepero', 4 epil. 7 'si non ingenium, certebrevitatemadproba'. The trend may well have continued through the firstcentury, for we find Pliny, hardly a lover of brevity, being compelled toattribute brevity to Homer and Virgil in a manner which would have donecredit to the exigent Alexandrianism of Horace.2Besides, what alternative but brevity was left to a universal historian writingin the twenties A.D. ? If we look back over the earlier tradition of universalhistorians, we see that they had required an ever increasing number of booksfor their task.3 Cato's Originescame out in seven books, the universal historyof C. Aelius Tubero in at least fourteen, that of C. Licinius Macer in sixteen,that of Q. Claudius Quadrigarius in twenty-three, that of Valerius Antias inseventy-five, that of Pompeius Trogus in forty-four, and finally that of Livyin one hundred and forty-two. There was no point, indeed it was scarcelypossible, to improve upon a tradition which by the end of Augustus' reign hadclearly exhausted itself. By contrast, the last summarist had been CorneliusNepos around 54 B.c., about eighty years or more earlier.4 It was the momentfor brevity.s

I J. Wight Duff, Lit. Hist. of Romein theSilverAge (3rd edn., 1964), 71, 'This brevitywas a kind of literary fashion, comparablewith that to which Phaedrus lays claim at thesame period.' (Vitruvius is not, of course, asexactly coeval with V. as is Val. Max.)2 Plin. Ep. 5. 6. 42 'primum ego officiumscriptoris existimo, titulum suum legat at-que identidem interroget se quid coeperitscribere, sciatque si materiae immoratur nonesse longum, longissimum si aliquid accersitatque attrahit. vides quot versibus Homerus,quot Vergilius arma hic Aeneae Achillis illedescribat; brevis tamen uterque est quiafacit quod instituit': cf. Hor. A.P. 148 ff.,quoted above, p. 279 n. 6. It is true thatnone of this evidence comes from historians,but of course almost no first-century his-torian has survived. We do know that Sallus-tian brevitasn verbisbecame popular with thehistorian L. Arruntius (cf. Sen. Ep. I 14 17).Scholars have detected a rise in the popularityof brevitas, f one sort or another, from aboutthe first century, reaching its climax in theMiddle Ages: see Curtius, 487 ff.3 On book totals see E. Badian, 'TheEarly Historians', in LatinHistorians ed.T. A.Dorey, 1966), I I n. 51. His scepticism doesnot contradict what is a clear trend.4 Cf. Catull. I. 5-6 'aususes unus talorum /omne aevum tribus explicare cartis', a de-scription of Nepos' Chronicawhich indicates

that he was doing something as new in his-toriography as Catullus himself was in lyric(cf. F. Cairns, Mnem. xxii [1969], 153-4):see HRR ii2. xxxxi sqq., 25-6. Nepos hadbeen preceded by Cicero's friend Atticus,who had 'omnem rerum memoriam breviter. . . complexus' (Brut. 14) in one book ap-parently entitled Annalis(HRR ii2. xxiii sqq.,6-8). The polymath Varro had also writtena short work in three books called Annales(HRR ii2. xxxviii, 24), but we do not knowwhen. We know that Ateius Philologus hadprovided Sallust with a 'breviarium rerumomnium Romanarum' (Suet. Gramm. Io),but this may have been little more than aprivate notebook not unlike the epitomeswhich Brutus made, apparently for his ownprivate use (cf. Cic. Att. I2. 5b). I cannot seethat W61fflin (335) has any evidence thatBrutus' epitomes were published; but he isright to stress (342) that Suet. Gramm.iois no evidence for the use of the term brevia-rium n Sallust's time.

s The apparently recent popularity inepitomes is a useful parallel. Dionysius hadepitomized his own Ant.Rom.(20obooks) intopossibly three books (RAC 5- 948); Martialtells us (I4. 190) that Livy had been epi-tomized by the end of the first century,although it has been generally thought thatthe epitome is to be dated earlier-possibly(so W6lffiin) as early as V. himself (see


17/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 287This accumulation of evidence leaves little doubt about the nature of Velleius'referencesto speed and brevity. They constituterepeatedassertionsof the totalemphasis on brevity which he, in common with the other summaristsmen-tioned earlier, brought to his universalhistory.' Velleius thereforebelongs tothe genre of the universalsummary, as do Florus and Sulpicius Severus,andthe only possibleevidence against this view-the dedication to M. Vinicius-can be satisfactorilyexplained on other grounds (above, pp. 280-2).What follows is by way of an appendix to the foregoingsection.We have seenthat references to speed and brevity, in other writersno less than in Velleius,are conventional methods of relegating or omitting material which is un-wanted for one reasonor another. We have also seen that Velleius has anothermethod, namely promisingthat such material will be treated in a future workor future works (above, p. 277). These promisestake differentforms,each ofwhich may be paralleled in later prose writers. (a) Velleius himselfwill treatthe relevant material in another work (96. 3 'alio loco explicabimus'): so tooTac. H. I. I. 4 'principatum divi Nervae et imperium Traiani, uberioremsecurioremquemateriam, senectutiseposui'. (b) Velleius himselfwill treat thematerial in a iustumopus (89. I, 99- 3, 103. 4) or iusta volumina(48. 5, I 14 4,I 9. I), phraseology which implies that the present work is of only slightpretensions: so too Eutrop. Io. I8. 3 (cited above, p. 285), H.A. Firm. 15. 1o 'quisequuntur stilo maiore dicendi sunt', Jer. Chron. praef.4 'reliquum tempusGratiani et Theodosii latioris historiae stilo reservavi'. (c) Others (alii) willtreat the material in iusta volumina (48. 5, I19. I): so too Amm. 31. 16. 9'scribant reliqua potiores, aetate doctrinisqueflorentes. quos id (si libuerit)adgressuros,procuderelinguas ad maioresmoneo stilos.'Mostof theseformsmayalso be paralleledin the Augustanpoets.Thus Virgilin the Georgicsnnouncesthat he will write of the achievements of Augustus(3. 8-9, 16-39, 46-8: he means of course in the high style of epic poetry), butmeanwhile he will continuewith his agriculturalthemes (these were by defi-nition in a less pretentious genre: 40-1). Similarly Horace in his Odesde-clares that neither his limited ability nor his humble genre is able to describethe achievements of Agrippa and Augustus (I. 6. 5-12), great themes whichwill instead be treated in the epic poetry of Varius (line I).Such formulae have long been recognized as literary conventions whicheither panegyrize the presentr6gime(Tacitus) or couple such panegyricwithC. M. Begbie, C.Q. xvii [1967], 332 ff. fordiscussion); Vibius Maximus, a contem-porary of Statius, produced what seems tohave been a short work based on Sallust andLivy (cf. Stat. Silv. 4. 7. 54-6); Fenestella'sAnnales (21 books) were epitomized (HRRii2. 87) but we do not know when. A valuablelist and discussion of epitomes are providedby I. Opelt, RAC 5. 944-50; cf. also W6lff-lin. I do not wish to imply that the produc-tion of large-scale works dried up in the firstcentury A.D., which is quite clearly not thecase (see Syme 1959, 64 ff., J. Wilkes,'Julio-Claudian Historians', C. W. lxv [1972],177-203). Yet V. has survived and they havenot. Is this an indication that he sensed the

literary mood of the time better than they?He was certainly in tune with the mood oflater antiquity.To his great credit Jodry had also cometo this conclusion (274): 'La 'festinatio'qu'allkgue V.P. n'est pas la hate aveclaquelle il ridige, press6 par le temps, sonHistoire, mais la compression du r6cit com-mandee par les lois du genre de l'abreg6.'But he unfortunately produced no argumentwhatsoever to substantiate his thesis.

2 The reason is often panegyrical: theevents to be described are so great, magni-ficent, etc., that they cannot be done jus-tice in the present work: see further below,p. 290 n. 3.


18/36

288 A. J. WOODMANan assertion of the modesty of the author's genre (so Eutropius, Virgil, Horace).IFor this reason no one really believes that any of these authors themselvesintended actually to write such future works,2 and the question must be asked:'Does the same reasoning apply to Velleius?'Since the majority of Velleius' references are panegyrical (89. I, 96. 3, 99- 3,103- 4, I14- 4, 119. I),3 they may to this extent be considered conventionaland not to be taken seriously. Yet the reference at 48. 5, which is clearly notpanegyrical, suggests that perhaps Velleius did intend to write another work(cf. Tac. Agr. 3- 3 'non tamen pigebit vel incondita ac rudi voce memoriamprioris servitutisac testimonium praesentium bonorum composuisse. hic interimliber...').4 However, at 48. 5 Velleius follows the reference to a future workby a reference to the modesty of his present undertaking in a manner whichmight well indicate that these are both simply conventional allusions to brevity(48. 6 'nunc proposito operi sua forma reddatur', so too at 89. I, 96. 3, 99- 3,103- 4, 119. I, but not I14- 4).The majority of Velleius' references employ the terms iustavoluminaor iustumopus, to which identical phraseology is found in Plin. N.H. in a panegyricalallusion to a work of history which Pliny did actually write (praef. 20 'vosquidem omnes, patrem te fratremque, diximus opereusto,temporum nostrorumhistoriam orsi a fine Aufidii. ubi sit ea, quaeres. iam pridem peracta sanci-tur...'). Yet whereas Velleius and all the other writers use verbs which areeither in the future tense or imply future activity, Pliny uses the past tense.Pliny had in fact already finished his history, and is thus not decisive evidencefor the seriousness of Velleius' promises, despite the similarity of phraseology.Thus the weight of the majority of the parallels indicates that Velleius'references to a future work are not to be taken seriously. But there are doubtsas mentioned above, and Sumner has voiced what is probably the most con-siderable doubt of all: 'There is nothing casual or perfunctory about the wayVelleius announces the project. He advertises it repeatedly and emphatically.'sWe must, I think, leave the whole matter in medio.6

II. STYLEI. 'Adulationand Mendacity'

One of the central problems of Velleius' history is his treatment of Tiberiusin general and of Sejanus in particular, which seems to contrast so sharplywith the grim picture we derive from other sources, especially Tacitus. AreI On the poets see W. Wimmel, Kalli-machos in Rom (1960), Doblhofer, Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Odes I. 6, Janson, 75-6;on Tacitus see Syme, Tac. 219 ff.; on thelater authors see Peter, WK 414 and n. 2.It should be noted that assertions of the

modesty, or even of the incapacity, of one'spresent style or work imply no insult to thesubject under discussion but rather the op-posite: see, e.g., Janson, 124 ff.2 The Aeneid is an awkward case: al-

though it undeniably glorifies Augustus, it ishardly the poem foreshadowed in Georgics .3 The ref. at I I9. I does not at first sightappear panegyrical (the context is the

Variana lades) but there is evidence that V.used his treatment of the disaster to bringout the military qualities of Tiberius.4 priorservituss an allusion to Domitian'sreign, which occupied a part, presumably,of the Histories when published.s Sumner, 283-6 Prof. D. A. West has pointed out to mea very interesting parallel. In the last chapterof PantagruelRabelais 'promises another bookafter this one, even adding a summary ofwhat it will contain. This is a normal

fifteenth-century convention for ending abook' (D. G. Coleman, Rabelais[197I], 55)-


19/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 289we to agree with Norden that Velleius is 'a most important corrective to theTacitean account' ?. Or with Teuffel that he was a 'toady' of Tiberius andSejanus ?z

The issue has been generally avoided by those scholars who have devotedtheir attention to Velleius during the last forty years. Paladini made somecogent points but they were rendered less effective by the generalized natureof her study.3 The perceptive dissertation by Steffen remains unpublished andlargely, I suspect, unread.4 Dihle's article, which of its nature was required tocover a wide range of different aspects, is brief and lacking in enthusiasm onthis matter.s Only Sumner has published a 'serious and percipient reappraisal'of Velleius' attitude towards Tiberius and Sejanus.6What of historians of Tiberius' reign ? Marsh at the beginning of our period(1931) says that Velleius is 'valuable as showing the official view of variousevents', but never mentions him again in the whole of his book;7 similarlywhen Bengtson brought out Kornemann's study of Tiberius towards the endof this period (I960), Velleius is again conspicuous mainly by his absence.8It is as if these historians have taken seriously a pronouncement made morethan once by Syme: 'The Roman historians subsequent to Livy have perishedutterly.'9 Syme himself, the products of whose distinguished and influentialcareer exactly span our period, has consistently and emphatically come downon the side of Teuffel. 'Mendacious as well as misleading' (1933), 'incoherent'(1934), 'fraudulent' (1939), 'obsequious' (1956), 'voluble and unscrupulous'(1958), 'an uneasy amalgam of adulation and mendacity' (1959), 'adulatoryand dishonest' (1970) .I The eloquence and authority of these verdicts are suchthat few scholars have ventured to disagree with them. Balsdon has attemptedsporadic counter-attacks,"I and Seager concludes his recent study of Tiberiuswith a judicious evaluation of Velleius as a historian of the reign.'z But suchattempts are always liable to be shot down by those'3 who have rejected thewarning behind Balsdon's description of Velleius-'a historian whom it is nowthe fashion to dismiss rather than to give oneself the bother of reading'.'4It is clear that Syme's opinions represent, if they have not informed, themajority verdict of scholars during the last forty years. For this reason theydemand careful consideration, and this part of my essay will focus upon twoof the most serious criticisms which are commonly levelled against Velleius'treatment of Tiberius' reign. These are, in the words of Syme, that chapter 126

Die rdm.Literatur 6th edn., i961), 91.2 Teuffel, 17.3 Paladini, 469-78.4 Steffen's work is mentioned only byKoestermann, whose pupil he was, of thosescholars I have read.s 'So darf man dem Tiberius-Bild desV.P. einen unveriichtlichen historischenWert beimessen, sobald man nur beriick-sichtigt, was fuir ein Mann es ist, der eszeichnet' (647).6 Sumner, passim.7 To be strictly accurate Marsh's book,which contains 335 pages, makes one furtherref. in a footnote on p. 152. (The quotationis from p. 5 n. 2.)8 E. Kornemann, Tiberius ed. H. Bengtson,

I960), does refer to V. less infrequently thanMarsh, but without conviction, and cer-tainly far less than one would expect froma historian with a sympathetic attitude to-wards Tiberius.9 Syme, Tac. 358, cf. 200, 271.'0 Respectively (1933), 147 n. 3; (1934),121; RR 393 n. I; (1956), 262; Tac. 367;

(1959), 69; TST47."x . P. V. D. Balsdon, Rome: theStoryof anEmpire (1970), 12-13, is one such example.12 Seager, 266-9.r3 e.g. M. A. R. Colledge reviewing Bals-don's book: 'Why is Velleius Paterculus, ofall people, given an outsize blurb?' (C.R.N.S. xxiii [19731],243.)~4J.R.S. Ivii (1967), 275.

U


20/36

290 A. J. WOODMANis 'a general panegyric of the new reign' and that chapters 127-8 are a 'pane-gyric' of Sejanus.'

2. ThePanegyricf Tiberius'Reign(Chapter26)Velleius opens his account of Tiberius' reign with a rhetorical question whichimplies that he is unable to set down the details of the reign (126. i) : 'horumxvi annorum opera quis cum inhaereant oculis animisque omnium, [in] parti-bus eloquatur ?' Yet three chapters later he contradicts himself by announcingthat he will now give a detailed account of the reign (129. I) : 'sed propositaquasi universa principatus Ti. Caesaris


21/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 291the beginning of his reign (89. 3-4): 'revocata pax... restituta vis legibus,iudiciis auctoritas, senatui maiestas, imperium magistratuum ad pristinumredactum modum .... prisca illa et antiqua rei publicae forma revocatarediit cultus agris...' Some scholarshave been puzzled by the similarityofthe two passages-'Why Tiberius should have had to do the same things (asAugustus) is not explained', says Seager.xOne explanation might be that at126. 2 Velleius is implicitlycriticizingthe lastyears of Augustus'reign,2whichwe know to have been unhappy.3Yet it is hardly likely that Velleius wouldwish to criticize the man upon whom Tiberius consistentlyand emphaticallymodelled himself.4Another explanation is required. The panegyrical motifwith which the chapter began, and which was discussedabove, indicates howwe should read the rest of the chapter. It was conventional, as Pliny andMenander rhetor tell us,s to praise the present ruler by comparisonwith hispredecessor; it was also conventional to express this comparison by meansof the 'languageof restoration'.6This is a conventional method of emphasizingthe happy present,rather than inviting considerationof a troubled past.Thus two apparent difficultiesin chapter 126 have been satisfactorilyre-solved by recourse to the conventions of panegyric.7Such parallels betweenVelleius' chapter and panegyricalwritingscould in fact be multiplied almostendlessly,8but it is necessaryhere to be rigorouslyselective.Thus forthe motifof electoral procedure (126. 2 'summota e foro seditio, ambitio campo, dis-cordia curia') cf. Plin. Pan. 29. I 'pulsusambitus campo' and 69-75. For therestorationof the senate'sauthority (2 'accessit ... senatuimaiestas')cf. Plin.66. 2-3 'tu curiam ingressus nunc singulos, nunc universos adhortatus esresumere libertatem, capessere quasi communis imperii curas, invigilarepublicis utilitatibus et insurgere.omnes ante te eadem ista dixerunt, neminitamen ante te creditum est', H.A. Max. Balb. 17. 2 'senatui... reddidistispristinam dignitatem'. For the restoration of justice (2 'iudiciis gravitas') cf.Menand. rhet. 375- 24 ff., Plin. 60. 2, 80. I ff., Claud. IVHonor.489--91,Sidon.Pan. Mai. 296 f., Prisc. Laud. Anast. 182, 194 f., 200. For munificentiaowardsmen and cities, the restoration of ruined cities, and enlightened provincialpolicy (4 'fortuita non civium tantummodo sed urbium damna principismunificentia vindicat: restitutae urbes Asiae, vindicatae ab iniuriismagistra-tuum provinciae') cf. Plin. 25. 5, 50. 4 'magnum hoc tuum non erga hominesmodo sed erga tecta ipsa meritum, sistereruinas, solitudinempellere, ingentia

xSeager, 269, who at least is fair. Con-trast Syme, Tac. 367, '. . . no more meritingcredence than what [V.] has to relate aboutthe phenomenal virtues of the Tiberianregime, instantaneously apparent in totalcontrast to all that went before'.2 So Schiifer,24.3 Cf. Plin. N.H. 7. 149 f. ; Syme, Tac. 427.4 So, rightly, Steffen, 90. For Tiberius'devotion to Augustus cf., out of manyexamples, Tac. I. 77. 3, 4. 37. 3; Grant,Aspects,39-40.s Plin. Pan. 53. I 'nihil non parum gratesine comparatione laudatur' (cf. 53. 6),Menand. rhet. 376. 31-377. 2.6 See Fraenkel, 450 f.7 Another quasi-difficulty is the deifica-

tion ofAugustus t 126. I, whichhadalreadybeen mentioned at 124. 3. Yet the deificationof one's predecessor was to become one of theconventional introductory motifs of pane-gyric: cf. Plin, Pan. I I, and Durry, 31.8 Instructive for comparison are: J.Mesk, W.S. xxxii (1910), xxxiv (1912),Rh.M.lxvii (1912), 569ff.; A. Klotz,Rh.M.lxvi (19I 1), 513 ff.; L. K. Born, A.J.P. Iv(934), 20off.; Doblhofer, and review byR. G. M. Nisbet, C.R. N.S. xix (1969), I73-5 ;H. Gairtner, Einige Uberlegungenur kaiser-zeitlichenPanegyrik.. (1968); Cairns, o105 f.Oneofthe virtuesofNisbet-Hubbard'som-mentaryon Hor. OdesI is the usetheymakeof comparisonswith V.


22/36

292 A. J. WOODMANopera codem quo exstructasunt animo ab interituvindicare',Pan.Lat.5. 2. 2'nam cum omnes homines etiam non indigentesiuvare boni sit principis, tumpraecipue bene meritis et graviteradfectissubveniresapientisest', Prisc. Laud.Anast. 184 'prostratasrecreasti funditus urbes', H.A. Max. Balb. 17. 2 'pro-vinciisquae inexplebiliavaritiatyrannorum aceratasad spemsalutisreducitis',Menand. rhet. 375-6. For the emperor being an example to his citizens (5'cumque sit imperiomaximus,exemplomaior est'), an idea of greatantiquity,'cf. Plin. 45. 6 'nec tam imperionobis opus est quam exemplo',zPan. Lat.2. 14-4, 4- 29- 3, Claud. IVHonor.269-74, 299-302, Stil. I. 168, Paul. Petr. Vit.Mart.2 (Migne 61. O118D).Some of Velleius' adaptations of panegyrical motifs are extremely subtle.Thus at 126. 4 he saysof Tiberius: 'poena in malos sera sed aliqua'. Now it wasproverbial throughoutGreek and Latin literature that divine engeance worksslowly but surely:3 Velleius is here describing Tiberius' penology in termsusuallyreservedfor a god, a recognizedpanegyrical technique.4In thisway hehints at the divinity of an emperorwhose attitude towards such matters wasone of well-attested contempt.s Similarly at 126. 3 Velleius says of Tiberius'foreign policy: 'diffusain orientisoccidentisque tractus et quidquidmeridianoaut septentrionefinitur pax augusta'. Now it was conventional in panegyricto stress the ruler'spowerby claiming that it stretched from east to west;6it was also conventional to claim that the ruler has brought widespreadpeace.7Velleius has here combined the two ideas, describingthe imperial peace interms which are usually reserved for the imperial power.8These parallels are sufficiently convincing for us to conclude that when Vel-leius wrote chapter 126 he deliberatelyexploited the motifs of panegyric. It istrue that many of the parallels quoted are later than Velleius, but this doesnot mean that the conventions or motifsdid not exist earlier. It is clear fromthe studies of Doblhofer and Nisbet-Hubbard on Horace that the poet wasextremely familiar with a tradition of court poetry which is very similar topanegyric. Cicero too was familiar with this tradition, the motifs of which heused liberallyin the ProMarcello,orexample. Indeed,just as Ciceroprovidedthe model for many of the ideas which are found in the later panegyrists,9 ohe did the same for Velleius. We have already seen one example at 126. I

I e.g. Solon fr. 5, Democr. B39, 79, Plato,Laws 711, Xen. Cyr. 6. 13, 8. I. 12, 21 ff.,8. 5, Ages. 7. 2, Isocr. Areop. 21-2, Nicocl. 37 ;Cic.Leg.3. 31, Rep. . 47, 2. 69,Fam.1.9. 12,Res Gest. , Ov. Met.15. 834, Plin.Ep. 3. I8.2-3, Sen. Clem. I. I. 6, 1. 9. I, Ep. I I. 8.2 The contrast between exemplumandimperium s found elsewhere (Tac. G. 7. I,Plin. N.H. 35. 86), but in view of thesimilarity of context and the close resem-blance of Plin. Pan. 50. 4 to Vell. 126. 4(quoted above), it would seem that Plinyhere echoes V. See below, p. 295 and n. 6.3 See Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 882-7,Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Odes I. 15. 19,Orelli on ib. 3. 2. 31 f., Ogilvie on Liv.

3. 56. 7, Smith on Tib. I. 9- 4, Mayor onJuv. 13. Ioo; Otto, Sprichwdrter, I .4 For which cf. Cairns, 218.

s Cf., e.g., Seager, 144 if.6 Cf., e.g., Tib. 2. 5. 59-60 (and Smith'sn.), Hor. Odes4. 15. I4 ff., Anth.Pal. 16. 61,Curt. 7. 8. 12 (and Wilhelm 41), Pan. Lat.2. 23. I; esp. Fraenkel 451 n. 4.7 e.g. Hor. Odes 4. 5, Tac. D. 38, Inscr.Brit. Mus. 894-8 The literary conceit has its roots in theattitude which persuaded Romans to seethe pax augusta n terms of the power whichmade that pax possible. Cicero voiced theattitude (Off. I. 34-5) but it blossomed underthe empire, cf. Virg. Aen. I. 286 ff., Val.Max. 2. 7 init.: see further H. Fuchs, M.H.xii (1955), 203-4; Fraenkel, 376; S. Wein-stock, J.R.S. 1 (1960), 45 f., 49 f-; Williams,435-8.9 Cf. W. S. Maguinness, Hermath.xlvii(1932), 42-61; xlviii (i933), II117-38.


23/36

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 293(p. 290 above) : there is another at 126. 2, where Velleius' revocatafidess a directverbal reminiscence of revocandafidest Marc.23. Besides,we know that fromat least as early as A.D.8 a senatus onsultumequiredthat newly elected consulsshould render thanks to the gods and to the emperor in a public speech.'These gratiarum ctionespresumably had much in common with panegyricproper, and will have employed similar motifs. The 'authorityof the senate',for example, which I paralleled from Pliny and the H.A. (above, p. 291),would have been most appropriate n all such speechesof gratitudelong beforeA.D. 100.

Thus when Syme describes this chapter as 'a general panegyric of the newreign', he is not only correct,but far more correct than he himselfappears tobelieve. Whereas he used the word 'panegyric'as a general term of disparage-ment, however, it should in fact be applied to this chapter as a preciseterm ofliterary criticism.As J. Mesk was the firstfully to realize,zVelleius has (as itwere) written a panegyric proper.The distinctionbetween general disparagementand accurate descriptionismost important. Once we know that Velleius set out to write a miniaturepanegyric, we should not be surprisedthat he has expressed himself in amanner appropriate to panegyric. We must not be annoyed that he issuesa rhetorical question of the kind at 126. I or praises Tiberius for being anexample to his subjectsat 126. 5. These are the rules of the game. But ourknowledge of panegyrical conventions has a further,more important,advan-tage: it enables us to distinguishwhat is conventional in this chapter fromwhat is actual.3Once we are aware that convention has prescribed he mannerof Velleius' statements,we are in a far better position to considerwhether thestatements themselves are true or false.As it happens, each of the statements listed above (pp. 291-2) as being 'pane-gyrical' can be corroboratedin other ancient authorities,4 a particularly in-structive parallel being the comparable survey of the years A.D. 14-23 givenby Tac. 4. 6.

Elections at Rome were traditionally opportunities for ambitioand seditio(rioting), which during Augustus' reign occasionally became so serious (e.g.in 19 B.C. and A.D. 7, cf. Dio 54. 10. 1-3, 55. 34. 2) that the emperor was com-pelled to elect the magistrateshimself.We know that Augustus,in whosereignboth greater and lessermagistracieswere elected by the electoral assemblies(i.e. by the comitiacenturiata nd comitia tributarespectively), had been intendingto rationalize electoral procedure;s and we know from Tacitus that Tiberiuscarried out his predecessor's intentions (I. 15. I) : 'tum primum e campo comitiaad patres translata sunt: nam ad eam diem, etsi potissimaarbitrioprincipis,quaedam tamen studiis tribuum fieban t.neque populus ademptum ius questusThe evidence for this practice is assem-bled by Durry, 3-5.

2 'Zur Quellenanalyse des PlinianischenPanegyricus', W.S. xxxiii (9 II), 85-7.Earlier scholars who had described V.'sfinal pages as 'panegyrical' (e.g. Peter, GLi. 388, Leo 241 f.) were speaking no morespecifically than Syme.3 Several scholars have naturally pleaded

that we should distinguish what V. saysfrom the manner in which he says it: e.g.M. L. W. Laistner, GreaterRomanHistorians(1947), II ; Paladini, 477.4 So too Paladini, 476, and others.s Cf. Vell. 124. 3. There is no reason todoubt V.'s statement, as does Frei-Stolba,145-6 and n. 31.


24/36

294 A. J. WOODMANest.' Now in view of Tacitus' double contrast between campo nd tribusandbetweenpotissima nd quaedam,t looks at firstsight as if Tacitus is referring othe elections of both greater and lessermagistracies, .e. to those of the comitiacenturiatawhich met on the Campus) and of the comitia ributawhich met inthe Forum).' But since it has been shown that this interpretationof Tacitus'sentence is untenable,2the passageis no evidence at all for the election proce-dure of lessermagistrates n A.D. 14: it merelydescribesthe change which tookplace in elections to the praetorship.In our passageof Velleius, however, weread: 'summota e foro seditio, ambitio campo.' By the figure metonymy Vel-leius is referring to the comitia tributaand the comitia centuriatarespectively,3a statement which clearly implies a change in the roles of bothelectoral as-semblies. That we are right in seeing this implication is confirmed by Dio'saccount of electoralprocedure n A.D.32.4 Thus Velleius is here not only tellingthe truth; he is the only historian to recordfullyand accuratelywhat happenedto electoralprocedureasa whole in A.D.14,a pointwhich seemsto haveescapedthe many historianswho have discussedthese problems.sTacitus tells us thatthe senate naturally welcomed the change (i. 15. I 'senatuslargitionibusacprecibus sordidis exsolutuslibens tenuit')-so does Velleius, a senator himself('summota.. . discordia curia').The same is true of the restorationof the senate'sauthority. Other sourcesecho what Velleius says (Tac. 4. 6. 3, Suet. Tib. 30, Dio 57. 7. 2 ff., I I. 3), andthe matter has been summed up by Syme himself:6 'The accession of Tiberiusmarked a restorationof the Republic moregenuine in many respectsthan thatproclaimed and enacted by his predecessor-if behaviour be valued higherthan legal formula.' Tiberius'attitudestowardsthejudicial system,mentionedby Velleius in the same sentence, can be similarly corroborated.'Tacitus inseveral places testifies to Tiberius' munificentia(I. 46. 2 'principem . . muni-ficentiae summum', 2. 26. I 'addidit munificentiam Caesar...', 4. 64. 2'ignotosetiam et ultro accitosmunificentiaiuverat',6. 45. I), and Dio confirmsVelleius' point that Tiberius aided individuals and cities alike (57. 10. 3):8-roAAa3 KatLrTOAEOn al267rat- E'TapK6oV.Velleius' example of the cities of Asiais accurate: we know that in A.D. 17 an earthquake had destroyed severalcities there, and Tacitus tells us that Tiberius assisted n the reliefby financialcontributionsand tax remissions(2. 47 'magnificamin publicum largitionem',48. I, cf. Dio 57. I7. 7 etc.).9 Tiberius' enlightened provincial policy is con-firmed both by Tacitus (4. 6. 4 'et ne provinciae novis oneribus turbarenturatque vetera sine avaritia aut crudelitate magistratuum tole

woodman - date in velleius (cq 25)

Documents