McClain, 'Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Book VI', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9508
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9508-mcclain-livy
@@@@95.9.13, Kraus, ed., Livy 6
Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.), Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Book
VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Pp. x,
356. $64.95. ISBN 0-521-41002-9 (hb). $22.95. ISBN 0-521-42238-8
(pb).
Reviewed by T. Davina McClain
-- Loyola University (New Orleans)
mcclain@beta.loyno.edu
In the tradition of the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics,
Christina Shuttleworth Kraus offers a detailed commentary on Book
VI of Livy's AUC, updating H. M. Stephenson's 1892
Cambridge commentary. The 30-page Introduction combines a review
of the standard topics (the evidence for Livy's life, his
relationship with Augustus, the characteristics of his prose, the
basics of the manuscript tradition for Book VI and its pentad)
with a fresh approach that values Livy for his ability to draw
the reader into the historiographical process. Pp. 33-82 contain
the text of Book VI. Kraus has included a sparse apparatus
criticus only on those passages in which she has emended the
reading of the Oxford Classical Text. The Commentary itself runs
some 250 pages and is followed by an extensive bibliography which
will be of use to everyone working on any part of Livy's
history.[[1]] A General Index of names and topics and an Index
of Latin words close out the volume. Kraus' work is part of a
growing movement in Livian scholarship which looks closely at
parts of Livy's AUC other than Books I and XXI-XXII.[[2]]
Kraus' Introduction is recommended reading for anyone about to
explore the intricacies of Livian prose and historiography.
Three of the four sections ("Livy: Life and Works," "Livian
Historiography," "Language and Style") are devoted to a general
introduction to Livy as a man, as a historian, and as a writer.
The fourth section is specific to Book VI. Kraus divides her
discussion between the text of the Introduction and the
footnotes, making it vital and valuable to read both carefully.
In "Livy: Life and Works" Kraus brings together the external
information about Livy--the inscriptions at Padua and the
mentions of him in the works of Seneca, Quintilian, and
Suetonius--with the glimpses of himself that Livy offers in the
praefatio and throughout the historical narrative. What
emerges is a shadowy figure who has left little trace of himself
either in the physical record or in his historical narrative.
Kraus addresses the standard topics of Livian scholarship--
patavinitas, the relationship between Livy and Augustus,
the composition and publication dates of the early pentads, and
the debate surrounding the composition and publication of Books
CXXI-CXLII--by summarizing previous arguments and offering her
own view, when it differs. For example, with regard to the link
between Livy and Augustus, Kraus counters the view that Livy was
an pro-Augustan propagandist with the suggestion that Livy may
have been sympathetic to the Augustan program of re-forming Rome
because he too was "creating a written Rome" from its historical
past "to save the real Rome by providing it with precedents to
imitate and avoid" (p. 8). Kraus does not try to answer every
question, recognizing that sometimes we just do not know. The
belief that Livy expected his reader to learn from his history
and to participate in a sort of inventio to make
connections between the past and the present, between past
actions and consequences and similar contemporaneous situations
guides Kraus' approach throughout the Introduction and the
Commentary.
Kraus offers a clear statement of the historian's task. "As a
historian, L. is engaged in putting past events into an
interpretive framework that not only explains but also
legitimates them, and that legitimates the authority of the state
under whose rule they have happened" (p. 6). In "Livian
Historiography" Kraus explores the tools Livy uses to achieve
this goal. She characterizes Livy's narrative as one which moves
between res internae and res externae within the
larger structure of the year, marked by the elections of
magistrates. More important than the elucidation of these
elements, however, is Kraus' clear description of historiography.
"Ancient historiography aimed at the vivid re-presentation of
events .... Stories with pictures and conversation are
intrinsically more lifelike and interesting--and thus more
effective--than stories without, and a classic Livian episode is
no exception..." (p. 12). Kraus points out, however, that the
attention Livy calls to the year divisions through the placement
of annalistic material at the beginnings and ends of years serves
to disrupt the narrative illusion and to draw the reader into the
historigraphical process. By recounting lists and documentation,
by posing questions and expressing doubts, Livy forces the reader
to participate in constructing the past by deciding for herself
what is appropriate and accurate. "Reading history is as active
a process as writing it--or even making it" (p. 14).
In addition to her discussion of the annalistic form and
mimetic narratives, Kraus gives examples of the topoi
which appear in Book VI: namely battle descriptions,
exhortations, the restive crowd, the proud patrician, and the
jealous wife (although I think that Kraus' application of the
last term to Fabia is misleading). These elements, she suggests,
produce a certain familiarity between the reader and the text.
Yet, at the same time they signal that the world of the
historical narrative is paradigmatic and coded, and therefore,
unreal. Kraus finds topoi especially intriguing because
the historian has the option of following the standard paradigms,
or challenging them--Livy does both. On the whole, Kraus
compares Livy's narrative to a funeral procession in that many
generations, many periods of the past come together as family
members don the ancestral masks. The deeds of these individuals
who created Rome are Livy's narrative.
In "Language and Style" Kraus explores the ancient statements
about Livian lactea ubertas and offers an analysis of his
variation of style, use of words, and sentence structure. With
regard to lactea ubertas Kraus accepts Hays' argument[[3]]
that this phrase refers to the "nourishing qualities" of reading
Livy as part of Quintilian's educational curriculum, maintaining
her emphasis on the didactic function of Livy's narrative. Kraus
argues that Livy's narrative is not like a smoothly flowing
river, rather that Livy used a variety of styles "to force his
reader both to think about the potential differences between the
surface and the 'real' world ... and to work at understanding the
kind of men [no women?] and mores that built Rome--and
were destroying it" (p. 18). Although I agree that Livy used
varied styles, I think that variation has more to do with
attempting to move the reader through the harmony of style and
subject. Kraus offers a number of examples of the care with
which Livy chose his words, constructed sentences, employed
rhetorical devices, and repeated patterns to establish and
announce "his authority as an interpretative guide through his
Urbs" (p. 24).
Before turning to the text and commentary, Kraus also offers
an introduction specific to Book VI. Kraus points out that Livy
presents Book VI as the beginning of a more "historically
verifiable" narrative of events. For Kraus, Livy's statement
about greater access to information combined with the rebuilding
of Rome after its destruction by the Gauls constitutes a wholly
new beginning. After pointing out the parallels between Book VI
and Books I and II, Kraus seems to separate Book VI from its
predecessors: "In all senses, then, we are starting over again"
(p. 26). This statement somewhat contradicts her earlier correct
assertions about the interweaving in Livy's historical narrative
of different times, patterns, and topoi and about the duty
of the reader to participate in drawing so many threads together
in order to learn from the past. To understand the Manlius or
Camillus of Book VI, the reader must know the Manlius and
Camillus of Book V. Kraus' references throughout the commentary
to episodes and events in the earlier books testify to the need
for the reader to remember the past as Livy has represented it.
Rome did, perhaps, enter a new phase in 390 B.C., but Book VI is
better described as a chapter in the plebeian struggle for access
to political offices and for freedom from debt-slavery.
In the Commentary itself Kraus brings together stylistic,
historiographical, and grammatical analyses. She frequently
points out rhetorical devices which give evidence to Livy's
stylistic artistry. I would have liked to see a list of these
terms and their definitions somewhere in the Introduction. Kraus
opens her commentary on narrative units with a general discussion
of the section. The more detailed examination follows. Within
Kraus' detailed and valuable commentary are some passages which
deserve special note for the insight to which they testify: the
discussion of the single figure as a transition between books (p.
88), the analysis of dictatoremque dici at 2.5 (p. 97),
the discussion of Sutrium at 3-4.3 (p. 101), the argument against
reading Camillus or anyone else as Augustus (p. 108), the effect
of authorial comment at 9.3 (p. 139), the analysis of the entire
Manlius episode (p. 146ff), and the discussion of the tribunes C.
Licinius and L. Sextius (p. 278). Kraus' work on these sections
add much to the reader's understanding of Livy's representation
of the past.
There are only a few areas which merit a critical comment or
which call for further investigation:
Kraus' discussion of religion as social control (p. 93) lacks
any reference to Numa's (I.19.4) institution of religious ritual
as a means of controlling the people in times of peace.[[4]]
In her comment on Livy's reference to the month
Sextilis at 1.1, Kraus states that month had in 8 B.C.
been renamed Augustus and that Livy here "uses the old name to
avoid anachronism" (p. 93). According to the dates offered in
the Introduction (p. 5), Books VI-X were published by 23 B.C.,
some fifteen years before the name of the month was changed.
Livy's use of Sextilis has nothing to do with avoiding
anachronism--it is the proper name of the month at the time of
composition. (Kraus' note (p. 94) that the month of
Quintiles had already been changed to Julius is,
however, correct.)
Forte first appears at 2.10 but does not receive
attention until 9.10 and there only briefly. There is also no
reference at 2.10 or 8.5 to the information at 9.10, although the
comment on 3.4 does point the reader to 9.10. Livy's use of
forte deserves further comment.
Kraus argues (p. 240) that the word order of puerorum et
mulierum at 6.25.9 suggests that the pueri here are
slaves rather than children. Even though the word order is
unusual (it does compare to 39.49.8 pueri quoque cum
feminis), the scene--Tusculum's attempt to appear as
unwarlike as possible--requires the presence of children. Their
complete absence would have been cause for suspicion. By
changing his usual word order, Livy calls attention to their
presence and effectively conveys the scene of vulnerability
willingly created by the Tusculans.
Finally, I was disappointed to see that Kraus' comments on
Fabia 34.5-11 maintain the standard negative attitude toward the
depiction of a woman who is concerned about public honor and the
reputation of herself and her household. There is nothing in the
text that associates Fabia directly with ambitio or
invidia. Livy very carefully presents her as struggling
with her desire to have what her sister has and her knowledge
that publishing this desire would be contrary to her duty as a
sister and wife. Contrary to Kraus' assessment that Fabia knew
she was "behaving like a bad wife" (p. 275), Fabia attempts to
hide her feelings and in fact does the most appropriate thing in
the situation. That she hesitates even to speak to her father--
when he meets her "by chance"--is a better testimony to Fabia's
character. In this episode Livy shows that the way family
members, here sisters, treat each other has changed. Fabia Minor
does not respond to her own desire for prestige in the same way
that Tullia Maior did in Book I (I.46.1-48.9). Unlike Tullia,
Fabia does not murder her sister or husband or father to get what
she wants. Instead, Livy presents her as speaking to her father
in terms that a man of importance and power respects.
These criticism are, however, minor when compared with the
great need that Kraus' commentary fills in the context of Livian
scholarship. Kraus uses her insight and appreciation for all
that Livy accomplishes as a historian and as an artist to teach
the reader how to read. Her vast knowledge of Livian scholarship
and the text of the AUC make it easier for the reader to
grasp the intricacies of Livian historiography, to see how
intertwined the past, present, and future are. I, for one, look
forward to more of Christina Kraus' work on Livy.
NOTES
[[1]] The only typographical errors noted occur within the
Commentary. On pg. 134 fugient should be in boldface. On
pg. 168 Cerceiensium should be Circeiensium.
[[2]] Walsh's work on Books XXXVI-XL, the recent Bryn Mawr
Commentary on Book XXXIX by Gary Forsythe, and Stephen Oakley's
forthcoming commentary on Books VI-X are welcome additions.
[[3]] CJ 82 (1987): 107-16.
[[4]] See also D. S. Levene, Religion in Livy (Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1993), p. 136.