I would like to consider two examples that illustrate some of the obser- vations made above – about the exempla Valerius selects for inclusion, the way he masks time, and his emphasis on positive over negative
exempla. They show as well how in his evasion of certain details Valerius perverts memory. What I mean by this is simply that compari- son with other sources reveals that he has imposed on the exemplum a meaning rather different from that it may have already possessed. Both examples are taken from a section in Book6, which has as its title Libere dicta et facta or, loosely rendered, ‘‘outspokenness.’’ The key word of course islibere. Given the equation of libertaswith the Republic (discussed in Chapter 1) and Valerius’ pointed qualifications of the concept in his preface, this section holds particular interest. As Valerius explains, he approves of libertas, but only in moderation; extremes are to be avoided.
73
As one example he tells a short story involving Pompey the Great: Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus consul, cum in contione de Magni Pompei nimia potentia quereretur, adsensusque ei clara voce universus popu- lus esset, ‘‘acclamate’’ inquit, ‘‘acclamate, Quirites, dum licet: iam enim vobis inpune facere non licebit.’’ pulsata tunc est eximii civis potentia hinc invidiosa querella, hinc lamentatione miserabili. When complaints were being registered in an assembly about the excessive power of Pompey the Great, and everyone was loudly proclaiming their agreement, the consul Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus remarked, ‘‘Protest while you can, Quirites, for soon you will not be able to do so with impunity.’’ At that moment, the power of a distinguished citizen was beaten down by an odious complaint on the one hand and a dire lament on the other. ( 6.2.6)
Marcellinus’ remark, in Valerius’ view, is an example of ‘‘free speech,’’ whose consequence was the diminution of the power of an eximius civis, an ‘‘outstanding citizen.’’ What these two sentences lack entirely, of course, is any context, in itself a memory-destroying move; 74 we have no idea, really, of what the people are complaining about, nor is it exactly
73
Bloomer (1992),54 – 6. 74 Fentress and Wickham (1992),73 – 4.
clear whether we should regard Marcellinus’ remark with approval or not. What matters is that we note the power of Marcellinus’ words to have a dramatic result. Now, Pompey the Great was a tremendously problematic figure, given his undeniable reputation as a great general and his association with the defenders of the Republic. But in his several references to Pompey, Valerius manages to deprive him of any real explicit political significance, and thereby safely navigates some tricky waters: to be able to include Pompey (whose memory could scarcely be erased) and yet render him politically innocuous was an accomplish- ment.75 This passage is a good example of how he achieves that.
It happens that we do know the context for this story: the year was 56 BC, and Crassus and Pompey had just decided to take sides against Caesar. Pompey had tried to orchestrate his election to a consulship, but was thwarted in the attempt by Marcellinus. Cassius Dio relates the story as an example of one of many ways in which Pompey double-dealt with Caesar (39.28.5). Valerius, by contrast, has stripped it of at least that
meaning, and returned to us instead an exemplum which, deprived of an historical framework, can serve only as a lesson in the power of words spoken with excessive libertas to bring someone down.76
One final example. An anecdote about Cato the Younger immediately precedes the story about Pompey and Marcellinus. Valerius knows that his readers will be looking for a Cato anecdote, especially in a section dealing with libertas. Like Pompey, this arch enemy of Caesar who took his own life in46BCto evade capture, is simply unavoidable; no character from the late Republic was more controversial or more closely identified with the demise of the Republic, libertas, and opposition to monarchy. Indeed, the anecdote acknowledges that identification at the outset:
libertas sine Catone? non magis quam Cato sine libertate: nam cum in senatorem nocentem et infamem reum iudex sedisset, tabellaeque Cn. Pompei laudationem eius continentes prolatae essent, procul dubio efficaces futurae pro noxio, summovit eas e quaestione legem reci- tando, qua cautum erat ne senatoribus tali auxilio uti liceret. huic
75
On Valerius’ handling of Pompey, Bloomer (1992),207 – 26. 76
As Bloomer (1992),56, puts it in discussing Valerius’ views of libertas and asso- ciated exempla, ‘‘Valerius’ anecdotes quite obviously commemorate correct beha- vior and become problematic when the inherited paradigms jar with contemporary codes.’’
facto persona admirationem adimit: nam quae in alio audacia vider- etur, in Catone fiducia cognoscitur.
Can there be freedom without Cato? No more than there can be Cato without freedom. For when he was serving as judge in the case of a notoriously corrupt senator and some documents conveying Pompey’s support for the man were brought forward (which would without doubt have been very useful for the cad), Cato had them removed from the court, invoking the law which admonished that senators could not make use of such aids. No surprise, given the character of Cato: for what might seem to be audacity in another person, in Cato is regarded as self-assurance. ( 6.2.5) Valerius views this display of libertas as a mark of Cato’s influence, which in this instance protected him. Here, too, we lack context. But we know from Plutarch (Cato 48,Pomp.55) and Dio ( 40.52.2,55.2) that this episode occurred in the year 52 BC, when Pompey was consul; and both Plutarch and Dio tell the story as an illustration of Cato’s efforts to undermine the excessive power of Pompey at a time when it seemed as though Pompey and Caesar might reconcile. In Valerius, however, Cato’s libertas is seen not as allied with an effort to safeguard the Republic, but merely as a form of free expression. Thus while he expresses considerable admiration for Cato – indeed, he reveres him as the model Roman citizen ( 2.10.8; cf. 3.2.14) – at no point does he allude to Cato’s opposition to Caesar.
77
Such seemingly small tweakings of memory – good examples of the ‘‘plasticity’’ of Roman stories remarked by Farrell (see above with n.65) – reflect an effort to maintain that connection with the Republican past while at the same time softening some of its potentially risky meanings. The Facta et dicta memorabilia marks a transition to a period when, whatever Tiberius might claim or even wish, the simple fact of the emper- or’s power was having a profound effect on the way authors such as Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus presented the Republic.
77
One finds, for instance, quite a different emphasis on Cato in (e.g.) Cic. Off .1.112. For general discussion of Cato in Valerius Maximus, see Bloomer ( 1992),187 – 91; Freyburger (1998), 113 – 14. Cf. Valerius’ treatment of Cicero which, as Bloomer (1992),194, discusses, serves to ‘‘forget’’ the ‘‘historical optimate. . .in lieu of a more serviceable abstraction’’; cf. Pierini (2003),31 – 3.
While both might seek to preserve memories of the Republic, the mem- ories they serve up require some manipulation. This is merely the fore- shadowing of a development we shall observe in subsequent chapters: as the time and distance between the Republic and the Principate grew, it would become increasingly difficult not to acknowledge that politically, morally, and culturally Rome was turning into a very different place.
If they share similar views about the worth of Tiberius and the degree to which the Republic continues under his watchful eye, a distinction between Velleius and Valerius lies precisely in the character of Tiberius in their work. Tiberius is not only present in Velleius’History, he constitutes its climax, its point. Rather than attempting to distance the emperor from the Republic, Velleius conjoins the two, effacing any perceived separation between them. Whereas Tiberius comes at the end of Velleius’ History, he stands at the very beginning of Valerius’ Facta et dicta memorabilia, lending both authority and approval to the project
. . .
and then essentially disappearing from it (a move Tiberius might have appreciated, given his reluctance to rule). Yet the gap Valerius seemingly creates by limiting the selection of exempla to the pre-Augustan period is rendered largely invisible through the absence of dates and context. Distinctions of genre alone cannot explain this difference; Velleius could easily have terminated his history with the death of Augustus, Valerius could easily have adduced later exempla. It is the precisely the authority of RepublicanexemplaValerius wishes to exploit in order to renew their moral relevance for Tiberian Rome – even if it is true that the Principate no longer offers precisely the same scope to engage in the sort of activities that Republican aristocrats enjoyed;78and for Velleius, it is important to have his account of the Republic include, indeed end with Tiberius. Despite their differing uses of Tiberius, in both authors the principles of exclusion and inclusion are very much at work, fashioning a memory of the Republic for an era that has neither fully dissociated from nor fully replicated it.