Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:25:52.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Epitome Of Livy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Cynthia M. Begbie
Cynthia M. Begbie
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A REFERENCE by the poet Martial to an abridged version of the history of Livy has given rise to the view that this epitome provided the main source for the transmission of Livy for those later writers of history whose requirements demanded an outline history of Rome. Such a view was first set out by Mommsen in 1861; he concluded that a large number of authors drew much of their material not from Livy directly but from a lost Epitome which departed at some points from the original in its composition. Other scholars followed his general thesis; indeed they have built upon it to such an extent that the list they compile of writers of Roman history who drew upon the ‘lost Epitome’ is a formidable one. These authors range from the period of Tiberius to the end of antiquity. They include such divergent writers as Valerius Maximus, Florus, Eutropius, the Auctor de viris illustribus, and Orosius, as well as the two known abbreviations made of Livy: the Periochae of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus and the ‘fourth-century’ Periochae.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , December 1967, pp. 332 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1967

Access options

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

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

page 332 note 2 Pellibus exiguis artatur Livius ingens/ quem mea non totum bibliotheca capit (14. 190).

page 332 note 3 Mommsen, Th.: ‘Die Chronik des Cas siodorus Senator’, Abhandlungen der säcks. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, viii (1861, 551 ff.Google Scholar

page 332 note 4 Sanders, H. A., Die Quellencontamination im 21. und 22. Buche des Livius, Berlin, 1898Google Scholar; Sanders, H. A., ‘The Lost Epitome of Livy in Roman Historical Sources and Institutions’, University of Michigan Studies, i (1904), 149 ff.Google Scholar; Kornemann, E., ‘Die neue Livius Epitome’, Klio, Beih. 2 (1904), 68ff.Google Scholar Their work was supported by the linguistic researches of Ed. Wölfflin, , Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, xi (1900), 1 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Schanz-C, M.. Hosius, Geschichte röm. Literatur ii (1935), 305ff.Google Scholar

page 332 note 5 Cf. Syme, R., ‘Livy and Augustus’, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. lxiv (1959), 29.Google Scholar

page 332 note 6 Klotz, A., ‘Zur Literatur der Exempla und zur Epitoma Livii’, Hermes xliv (1909), 198ff.Google Scholar; ‘Die Epitoma des Livius’, Hermes xlviii (1913), 542ff.Google Scholar, and ‘Zu den Periochae des Livius’, Philologus xci (1936), 67ff.Google Scholar; cf. Galdi, M., ‘Gli Epitomatori liviani’, Rivista di Studi e di Vita Romano, 1933, 13–46.Google Scholar

page 332 note 7 These articles were principally: Reinhold, G., Das Geschichtswerk des Livius als Quelle späterer Historiker, Berlin, 1898Google Scholar; cf. Sanders, , loc. cit. 149 if.Google Scholar; Ed. Wölfilin, , ‘Latinitüt der verlorenen Epitoma Livius’, Archiv f. lat. Lex. xi (1900)Google Scholar; cf. Sanders, , loc. cit. 154ff.Google Scholar; Drescher, F., Beiträge zur Livius-epitome, Erlangen (1900)Google Scholar; cf. Sanders, , loc. cit. 157ff.Google Scholar

page 333 note 1 Expressed in another context by Cook, A. B., ‘Unconscious Iteration’, Class. Rev. xvi (1902), 146ff.: cited by Sanders, art. cit. 552, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 333 note 2 Cf. art. cit.: ‘Das Verhältnis des Papyrus zum Livius-Original sowie den vor handenen Livius-Epitomatoren and Livius Benützern’.

page 333 note 3 Cf. Reinhold, G., loc. cit.; reviewed by Sanders, art. cit. 149 ff.Google Scholar, and Kornemann, , art. cit. 71 ff.Google Scholar

page 333 note 4 Cf. also Moore, C. H., ‘The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in relation to Ob sequens and Cassiodorus’, Am. J. Phil. xxv (1904), 241 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 334 note 1 Cf. Sanders, , art. cit. 246–56.Google Scholar

page 334 note 2 e.g. Per. 2, 8, 22.

page 334 note 3 e.g. Per. 8, 9, 10, etc., and Per. 5.

page 334 note 4 For ‘grouping’ of the material, cf. Per. 2, 3, 8, 9, 22, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44.

page 334 note 5 e.g. Per. 30, 34, 37, 40.

page 334 note 6 Cf. also Per. 3–4,7–5, 22, 26–27, 31–32,35, 39, 41–42.Google Scholar

page 334 note 7 e.g. Per. 1b, Hostia/Ostia, Aesquiliis/ Esquiliis; 3, Quintius/Quinctius; 9, Furcas Caudinas/Furculas Caudinas; 31, Aboedeni/Abydeni.

page 334 note 8 e.g. Per. 2, Opillia/Oppia; 22, Ather bale/Maharbale; 28, Massyliorum/Masae suliorum; 29, Indebilis/Indibilis; 33, praetor/procos.; 43, procos./cos.; for numerals, e.g. 3, 30, 22–23, 25, 27, 38, 42.

page 334 note 9 e.g. Per. to, Murena for M. Valerius, an easy manuscript corruption not repeated elsewhere; 21, Mago for Hanno, not repeated elsewhere; 26, portam Capenam for Collinam (26. 10. 3 and Val. Max. 3. 7. 10).

page 335 note 1 Art. cit. 189–90.

page 335 note 2 Cf. Per. 18; Flor. 1. 18.24; Eutrop. 2. 25.

page 335 note 3 Val. Max. 1. 1. 14; Auct. vir ill. 40. 4; Schol. Cic. in Pis. 43, Aug. Civ. Dei 1. 15; Oros. 4. 10. 1; App. Sic. 2. 1.

page 335 note 4 Sanders, , art. cit. 193.Google Scholar

page 335 note 5 Art. cit. 187–8.

page 335 note 6 Per. 116; Auct. vir. ill. 78. 10; Cassiodor. 710; Hieron, . a. 1973 (occiditur); Chronograph. a. 354, p. 145, 14 Mommsen; Serv. ad Aen. 1. 286.Google Scholar

page 335 note 7 Obseq. 67; Eutrop. 6. 25; Oros. 6. 17. 1.

page 335 note 8 Flor. 2. 13. 95; Serv. ad Ecl. 5. 20.

page 335 note 9 Art. cit. 188.

page 335 note 10 Cf. also Sanders, , art. cit. 186–7, for a third example: Per. 70; Cassiod. 658; Obseq. 49; Hieron. a. 1922; Fest. 13; Eutrop. 6. 11; App. B.C. I. 111.Google Scholar

page 337 note 1 Hermes xlviii (1913), 551.Google Scholar

page 337 note 2 Symm. Ep. 9. 13: Munus totius Liviani operis quod spopondi etiam nunc diligentia emendationis moratur; Ep. 4. 18: Revolve Patavini scriptoria extrema, quibus res Caesaris explicantur, aut si impar est desiderio tuo Livius, sume ephemeridem C. Caesaris decerptam bibliotheculae meae. Sid. Ep. 9. 14. 7: Nam si omittantur quae de titulis dictatoris invicta scripta Patavinis sunt voluminibus, quis opera Suetonii, quis Iuven tii Martialis historiam quisve ad extremam Balbi ephemeridem fando adaequaverit ?

page 337 note 3 In A.L.L. xi (1900), 1 ff.Google Scholar

page 337 note 4 Cf. Rossbach, , T. Livi Periochae (Bibl. Teub.), 1909, p. xi: ‘lam uero Livii periochas saeculo quarto p. Chr. ex prolixiore quadam epitoma de qua … excerptas esse C. Zangemeisterus probauit’.Google Scholar

page 337 note 5 Cf. Kornemann, loc. cit.

page 338 note 1 There are two instances where ‘error’ appears in two authors in the Livian group but not in the Periocha. (a) Florus (2. 6. 12–14) shows confusion in the names of the consuls for 90 B.C. and Eutropius (5. 3. 2) a mistake related to that of Florus; then both authors are inaccurate in reference to the consuls’ defeat in the Tolenus valley; cf. Per. 73. The passages in Florus and Eutropius, however, are not sufficiently clear to be used as ‘distinctive’ evidence to prove a second branch of the tradition. (b) Eutropius (6. 19. 2) and Orosius (6. 15. 1) perhaps confuse the Marcelli, consuls for 51 and 50 B.C. (M. Claudius Marcellus and C. Claudius Marcellus); cf. Per. 108. The material is too brief and the confusion too easy to be taken as ‘transmitted error’.

page 338 note 2 This is no doubt reflected in the almost exclusively ‘military’ events recorded in Periochae 90–142, which stretch from the death of Sulla to 9 B.C.

page 338 note 3 See above, P. 334, n.4; cf. Per. 11-14, 16, 62, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 82, 84-85, 87, 90, 94, 100-101, 104, 108, 112, 117, 120, 127-8, 132, 134.