Fines and structure in AUC

In this section, I briefly provide an assessment of AUC, in order to understand its construction and internal subdivisions. This process is useful for matching these subdivisions within the AUC with the observed incidence of the word finis throughout the whole text. [FIG 9]Despite the fact that roughly 107 of 142 Books

(75%) of AUC have been lost,240 the surviving 35 Books still provide enough material to facilitate a reasonable study.

Livy has been accused of failing to impose a large-scale vision upon his history, contrasting with Polybius’ interpretation of historical developments.241 This view argues, in its extreme form, that Livy’s conception of history is a series of unconnected, isolated scenes, which stress unchanging values.242 Attempts to perceive large-scale unity in AUC have been based on the simple recurrence of a single historical topic or on elaborate structural symmetry.243 Although no reader would notice any unifying structure within AUC, Lipovsky has shown that every chapter represents a monadic element by itself.244 The chapters seem to be arranged in a ‘crescendo’ of narration, which usually leads to a final event of immense magnitude in Roman history. Lipovsky argues that Book 1 asserts the greatness of Rome and anticipates the themes of the other books.245 Ogilvie has extended this conception (Burck’s view), assigning to every chapter a single skill within them: libertas – Book 2; modestia – Book 3; moderatio – Book 4; pietas – Book 5.246 It is reasonably clear that Livy composed his work episode by episode without planning ahead and was controlled by his sources.247 However, Luce’s work shows also that Livy chose particular events for detailed treatment at the start, arguing that such careful ‘architecture’ can only be achieved by planning substantially in advance.248 As Walsh had already reported, AUC is divided by decades and pentads.249 Luce, following the results from the book edited by Dorey, proposed a series of major subdivisions.250 He argued that AUC could be given 240

AUC originally comprised 142 ‘books’ (libri) which in modern terminology would be considered ‘chapters’. Thirty-five of these – Books 1-10 with the Preface and Books 21-45 – still exist in reasonably complete form. Damage to a manuscript of the 5th century resulted in large gaps (lacunae) in Books 41 and 43-45.

241

Burck 1934, for the view which he refuted; see Witte 1910:418-9.

242

Lipovsky 1979:1. The reference is to Syme (1963:148) and Walsh (1961:ix); the former speaks of “no instinct for historical structure” and the latter of “his inability to impose upon the historical material an organised design, a sense of control, and an acutely personal vision such as Polybius and Tacitus manifest”. 243 Lipovsky 1979: pref. 244 Lipovsky 1979. 245 Ogilvie 1965:30-1; 233; 390; 526-7, 626. Cf. Lipovsky 1979:2. 246 Ogilvie 1965. 247 Luce 1977:xv-xxv. 248 Lipovsky 1979:3. 249 Walsh 1974:8. 250 Luce 1977:7.

uniformity and unity through subdivision by topic. [FIG 10]Books 1-15: Early Rome, with Books 1-5 forming a unit from the Founding to the Gallic Sack (and with yet further subdivisions, composed of Book 1: the Regal Period (Kings’ Age), and Books 2-5: the Early Republic).251 Books 6-15: The Conquest of Italy, devoted to the period from the Gallic crisis to the outbreak of the Punic wars.252 Books 16-30: The Punic Wars, with Books 16-20 covering the First Punic War and its aftermath,253 and Books 21-30 covering the Second Punic War with a meticulous internal structure.254 Books 31-45: Wars in the East, with Books 31-35 covering the Second Macedonian War,255 Books 36-40 covering the Wars in Greece and with Antiochus,256 and Books 41-45 covering the Third Macedonian War.257 The internal subdivision of any single book, or section, is composed on the basis of a single source.258 However, it is important to underline that the lack of Books 45 onwards impedes the complete vision of the bordering practices in Livy. This part will be integrated into the research by way of a reconstructive process in the last chapter of this work. This architectural plan has been highlighted in Livy’s emphasis of major scenes responding to a symmetrical architecture so common in Augustan authors.259 Such precise Livian subdivision, when married with the raw data, has allowed for a visual approach to the magnitude of the terminology on crucial events in Rome’s Republican history. [FIG 11]The superimposition of quantitative raw data on finis to the structural subdivision of AUC has shown a massive usage of the term in those moments which were crucial to Rome’s expansion. The diagram is also useful for detecting key passages, which will be examined in subsequent chapters. The communicative function of the text and Livy’s linguistic competence has constituted the basis for several studies, mainly in the last thirty years since the narrative value of Livy’s work has been re-evaluated.260 From the way AUC has

251

Ogilvie 1965:30; Burck 1934; Briscoe 1966:2.

252

Stadter 1972:294; it was already noted that there is no clear break of subject between Book 10 and 11, see Briscoe 1966:1.

253

Burck in Dorey 1966:22-3.

254

Burck 1966:30 ff.

255

Walbank 1966:48-9; Jal 1971:vii-ix.

256 Walbank 1966:59-63. 257 Stadter 1972:294. 258 Walsh 1974:24; Luce 1977:139-184. 259 Lipovsky 1979:10. 260 Viljamaa 1983:8.

been structured, the reader can hardly recognise different text-types or verbal features. It is therefore a scholar’s task to render this recognition possible: in the study of a text, it is not just the linguistic aspects but also the structure and, in the last thirty years, it has been argued that even the approach to the study of the narrative must be re-evaluated.261 McDonald had already warned scholars: “One of the urgent needs in Latin studies is a re-examination of Livy’s narrative style and detail, with reference to particular kinds of context. Especially, studies which deal with his language are needed, because it seems that in the nearer past relatively few studies have been devoted to the examination of his language”.262 In my research, I took up this invitation in relation to this single term. Although this research is centred on the term finis, it is also important to consider those words that originate from the main term. There is a wide range of words containing the root

fin-is and they are quantitatively and qualitatively important. [FIG 12]From the main

word finis, we have a broad range of derivative terms:263 a) simply derivate words (finire, v. (60); finitus, adj. (27); finitimus/finitumos*, adj. + desinence –iti(/u)mos (88)); b) simply derivate words + preposition (adfinis, n. (7); confinis, n. (3)); c) preposition + simply derivate words (infinitus, adj. (1); praefinitus, adj. (1)); d) preposition + other derivate words (confinius, n. (2); adfinitas, n. (1)).264 The

quantity provides the worth, which Livy assigns to the derivate word, while the quality is represented by the grade of linkage with the main term. The reason for this further underlining is to show how the Livian terminology is not casual, and also how the incidence of the derivative words in the chapters relates to the events within them. 261 Viljamaa 1983:9. 262 McDonald 1957:172, n.52; cf. Viljamaa 1983:11. 263

The order is as follows: word types or typology of word (derived term, sort of word: v. = verb; n. = noun; adj. = adjective [number of cases]).

264

For some of the derivate words linked to finis (adfinitias, confinis, confinium) compare: Cacciari 2007:280.

1.3 Livy’s style and narrative: landscape, environment and