annalistic framework, not only each stirring speech or each outstanding individual. The yearly pattern - which is the Republican constitution in its continuing operation - is meant by Livy to be seen as subsuming the vicissitudes of men and events to itself. A decision to write annalistic history is more than a matter o f style or tradition; it is the choice of an interpretation of history as well.73
Phillips highlights one of the key tensions in our reading of historiography: any
organisation of data is necessarily interpretative.74 Miles’ recent conclusions are also based on an interpretation of Livy whereby ‘historical facts’ are integrated into a strategy that owes more to identity than facticity: he encourages us to see Livy not as a misplaced modem empiricist but as an elite practitioner of politics, in its broadest sense - Livy the historian is, in some senses, another in a series of founders and refounders of Rome’s history 75
In his narrative Roman identity derives less from a substratum of ‘facts’ or events than from the collective memory of the Roman people.
Inasmuch as Roman memory is itself not the result o f uncritical accumulation but rather reflects an ongoing process o f deliberate elaboration and revision, it is a dynamic creation. Livy locates himself and his narrative within the tradition o f elaboration and revision from which Roman memory and identity emerge. Thus his role as historian is analogous to that of the founders and other heroes whom his narrative celebrates.
The ‘elaboration and revision’ is a fundamental part of Livy’s narrative, but we might single out one specific aspect which will have particular relevance for us, namely the historiographical use of exempla: consider the prologue to the Ab Vrbe Condita:
73 Phillips (1974) 273. Cf. the formulation of Hickson (1993) in connection with prayer formulae: “Together they reminded Livy’s contemporary audience that the Roman state, with its political and religious machinery, had been and continued to be a stable and enduring entity” (145).
74 See above, pp. 21-22).
My concern is that each reader should pay keen attention to these things: what kind of life, what kind of character the Romans had, through what kind of men and by what means power was both acquired and expanded at home and abroad; then, as discipline tottered a little, let him follow that character in his mind as it began to fall apart, so to speak, then as it collapsed more and more, then began to rush headlong, until we have come to these times in which we can endure neither our faults nor their remedies. This in fact is an especially healthy and fruitful element of the study o f history, that you contemplate object- lessons of every type of model set up in a perspicuous monument:
thence for yourself and your state (tibi tuaeque rei publicae) you can
choose what to imitate, thence what to avoid, if it is loathsome in its beginning, loathsome in its outcome.
Kraus comments, “tibi tuaeque rei publicae is a striking phrase, which suggests that Livy is thinking about his potential reader not simply as an individual, but as a citizen. By looking carefully at the monument (i.e. by reading Livy’s history attentively), by understanding its representations (distinguishing good and bad), and then by implementing that understanding, you make history work. In turn, if you get it right, this imitation and avoidance will provide a cure for the current evils of your state.”76
The link between individual and res publica is a subtle one in Livy’s account. In many ways, the unfolding of Roman history is the story of individuals, whether glorious, average or ignominious. But the res publica amounts to more than any individual in Livy; that, above all else, is its central characteristic. The succession of years - all variations on a theme with their magistracies, triumphs, disasters, prodigies and other perennials - becomes impersonal, rising above individual issues and personalities, to the point of being an almost timeless and eternal process. Yet it is this mighty entity that has ‘tottered’ and must be restored with the use of history. Livy’s epideictic and remedial programme influences the level at which he must explicitly design and represent his
76 Translation by, and quotes from, Kraus (1997) 53-54. See further Kraus (1994c) 13-15. On the prologue generally, Moles (1993).
Republic; he suggests that his readers need reminding of better ways and better times. He will bring to the forefront exempla, both good and bad, to be followed or avoided77 and he proceeds on the basis that his readers will expect this.
(iii) Religion and E x e m p l a
This exemplificatory agenda has been accepted as part of Livy’s presentation of Romans as generals and statesmen. Yet it has not been applied to religious conduct as thoroughly as it has been seen in political and military behaviour: this has meant that a great deal of religious comment has been misunderstood. The deliberate and exemplificatory level of explicitness influences both Livy’s choice of religious phenomena and his mode of presenting them. Obviously the availability of material is relevant in a broad sense but this cannot be considered to be overly important: it seems almost certain that the Bacchist affair of 186 is subject to detailed expansion,78 whatever Livy’s sources were, while other opportunities for elaboration (for instance in the prodigy lists)79 are not exploited: in fact the vast majority of religious entries are brief to the point of obfuscation. Livy, in evoking and recreating Rome in its beginnings, heyday and decline, is not intending to be exhaustive: he selects from, or builds on, the available material according to his overall objectives of ‘creating’ Rome (and with it, Roman religion in its various aspects). Many comments that have been understood as general principles of fact or theoretical analysis are, on closer analysis, more usefully taken to advise the reader on religious practices. Thus Livy’s religious material is governed by his overall agenda; it is intended not so much to ‘establish the facts’, but to reaffirm what he presents as traditional religious practice through his portrayal of behaviour and its consequences.
77 For exemplarity in Livy’s work see Chaplin (1993); Miles 249f, Kraus (1997) 53-56. 78 North (1979).
79 For the historical sources o f the prodigy lists see North (1986) 255, commenting on MacBain and Rawson (1971).
This assertion is the Ariadne’s thread through the diverse material of the following chapters. The argument will begin with an analysis of instances where a critical Livy has been understood to be concerned with issues of fact (section 2 - Facticity of phenomena). This section demonstrates that when the historian makes critical comments he is attempting not to express scepticism, but to discriminate between accurate and mistaken categorisations. Thus, in respect of prodigies, the question is not whether prodigies, specific ‘supernatural events’, indicate the gods’ will; nor do these comments usually seek to establish whether the particular phenomenon actually occurred. What Livy is concerned with is the question of whether a particular event, if it happened, should be accepted as a prodigy or not. Section 3 - Interpretation - builds on this foundation to highlight the process of deliberation that we find in Livy’s own voice and those of his agents. Once the question of whether an event was to be linked to the gods or not has been decided, there is a further process of deciding which divinely- orchestrated events are relevant to the res publica. Section 4 - Choice - continues this discussion at a different angle: having made the decision that they should attend to a particular situation, the Romans then considered which particular response of a number of options should be adopted. Once again criticism is not ontological (does this, or indeed anything, concern the gods if they exist?) but discriminatory (given the existence of the gods and their anger at this moment, how should this be propitiated?) The following chapter, section 5 - Explanation - assumes that the critical comments examined so far are to be understood to be discriminatory and exemplary: in other words, we now have a sense of what religious procedures should be used in Rome. The discussion moves on to analyse this Livian model of religion: what emerges is that the explanative strategies can be understood to be explanatory and practical, residing fu lly within an interpretative structure that assumed without question that the gods existed. What is meant when the gods are said to have intervened is discussed in section 6 - The Agency of the Gods - and this allows for an assessment of the categories of Fors Fortuna and
Fatum. The final section (7) - Interpretation and Power - discusses aspects of the mastery of religious knowledge by individuals, with Livy, as ever, recommending and
35