You are on page 1of 36

Questions of Date, Genre, and Style in Velleius: Some Literary Answers Author(s): A. J.

Woodman Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Dec., 1975), pp. 272-306 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/638323 . Accessed: 21/09/2011 07:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

QUESTIONS OF DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS: SOME LITERARY ANSWERS
A.D.

Introduction. I. Dates and Genre. (I) The Dedication to M. Vinicius (cos. 30). (2) When did Velleius Write? (3) What Genre? II. Style. (1) 'Adulation and Mendacity'. (2) The Panegyric of Tiberius' Reign (Chapter 126). (3) The 'Panegyric' of Sejanus (Chapters 127-8). Conclusions. References: Abbreviations: Select Bibliography.*
INTRODUCTION

has THERE been no major critical edition of Velleius with commentary since that of Kritz in 1840.1 Kritz, who took into account Sauppe's long essay on Velleius of three years earlier, was preceded by Ruhnken, whose commentary appeared in 1779. During the century which followed Kritz's work several valuable editions without commentary were produced,2 the last of which, by Stegmann de Pritzwald (1933), almost coincided with the essay and bibliography devoted to Velleius in Schanz-Hosius (1935).3These two contributions of the thirties remain standard to the present day.4 Since that time forty years have elapsed, during which we have seen the publication of a book by Lana (1952), and important articles by Dihle in Pauly-Wissowa (I955), and by Sumner (1970). None of these, however, is a literary study; and a glance at the bibliographies for the last forty years, although it will register a number of articles on detailed points, will reveal no significant literary contribution to Velleian scholarship. It is thus not only the
* It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help and advice I have received from Professor G. B. A. Fletcher, Mr. J. J. Paterson, and Mr. R. J. Seager, none of whom necessarily agrees with my conclusions. An abbreviated version of this essay was delivered as part of a Departmental Lecture in the Department of Latin, University of Liverpool, in May 1974. For an explanation of my system of references and abbreviations see the end of this essay. IF. E. Rockwood produced a school edition with commentary on chapters 41 -I3 1 in 1893; F. Portalupi's commentary of 1967 amounts to little more than a translation.J. C. Silverberg wrote a dissertation entitled 'A Commentary to the Roman History of V.P. (Book II, 1-28)' (Harvard, 1967), which remains unpublished, as does the 'Historischantiquarischer Kommentar zur AugustusPartie des V.P.' (Vienna, 1968) of B. Massauer, who deals with chapters 90-123. Neither of these dissertations incorporates literary material. I am myself preparing a critical edition with commentary, of which the first volume will (I hope) appear in the not too distant future, and would be glad to receive any criticisms or suggestions relevant to the points discussed in this essay. 2 I am thinking particularly of those by Haase (1884 edn., including Mommsen's emendations), Halm (1876), Ellis (1898), and Shipley (Loeb, I924). There was also Bolaffi's edition (1930). 3 Schanz-Hosius, 580-7. 4 Stegmann's Teubner text remains standard largely because it is the only critical edition still in print (repr. 1965, 1968): Shipley's Loeb, which is also in print and the text of which is in most places superior to Stegmann's, would hardly claim to be a critical edition. The bibliography in SchanzHosius of course needs to be brought up to date: see the subsequent bibliographies by Dihle, 655-9, and by H.-D. Blume in the reprint of Stegmann. J. Hellegouarc'h is at present working on a Bud6 edition of V., and has also written a judicious bibliographical essay entitled 'ltat pr6sent des travaux sur l'Histoire romaine de V.P.' which is to appear in a volume of Aufstiegund Niedergangderr6m. Welt (ed. H. Temporini). I am most grateful to Professor Hellegouarc'h for sending me a copy of his essay in advance of publication.

DATE, GENRE, AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS

273

scholastic distinction of Ruhnken and Kritz but also the complete absence of any alternative which makes their commentaries still indispensable for any serious study of Velleius. Yet considerable progress has been made in our knowledge of Latin literature since 1840, and a literary appraisal of Velleius' work is now long overdue. The neglect of Velleius by literary scholarship has permitted several misapprehensionsabout his work to survive unchallenged, two of which I should like to take as my points of departure in the present essay: the general agreement on the dates of Velleius' composition, and the general description of his chapters 126-8 as 'panegyrics'.These questions are discussedin parts I and II respectively.'
I. DATES
AND GENRE

I. The Dedication to M. Vinicius (cos. A.D.30)

In the course of his work Velleius frequently addresses Marcus Vinicius and dates events from Vinicius' consulship in A.D. 30, which is the last event to which allusion is made.z Yet our knowledge of the relationship between the two men is restrictedto a single fact:3 it was under Vinicius' father, P. Vinicius, that Velleius began his military career (IoI. 3). For the rest we must simply guess at what might have passed between Velleius and the Vinicii, father and son (Publius was roughly fourteen years Velleius' senior, Marcus roughly fifteen years his junior).4 The elder Vinicius was an admirer of Ovid and, as Sumner noted, 'it is significant (as well as remarkable) that Ovid finds a place in Velleius' list of the greatest writers of the past generation'.s The younger Vinicius was 'mitis ingenio' (Tac. 6. 15. I), a man of 75avxla who kept himself to himself (Dio 6o. 27. 4): these are qualities which Velleius consistently praises throughout his work.6Though it may be fanciful to deduce friendships from such tenuous evidence, that is not to say that friendshipsdid not exist. In view of the proposal put forward in the next section (pp. 280-2), it is likely that Velleius kept in contact at least with M. Vinicius during the twenties A.D.
I The issues seem to me to be sufficiently important to justify the publication of this essay here and now; but in some places, particularly in part II, I have reserved for my commentary details which might inappropriately distract the reader of this essay. For illustration of V.'s neglect by literary scholars see my paper in Empireand Aftermath: Silver Latin II (ed. T. A. Dorey,

(264-5) deduces that his father had been serving in Germany under the elder M. Vinicius (cos. I9 B.C.), the younger Marcus' grandfather. That is a possible but not inevitable interpretation of the text. It is reasonable to assume that V. elaborated on his relationship with M. Viniciusjunior or his family in the lost preface (so, e.g., M. Broiek, 'De V.P. opusculo mutilato', Eos lii [1962], 1975), I with nn. 2 and 4. 125). 2 Addresses or apostrophes to Vinicius at 4 For the ages of the two Vinicii see R.E. ix A. I. I I9-20 and 116-17 respectively. I. 13. 5, 101. 3, 113. 1, 130. 4; Cf. also 96. 2, from Vinicius' consuls Sumner, 288. For Vinicius' admiration 103. I, 104. 2. Dating ship usually takes the form ante annos quam of Ovid cf. Sen. Contr. I0. 4. 25; for V.'s cf. inires followed by 36. 3. Previous scholars had naturally attu, M. Vinici, consulatum a numeral: see I. 8. I, I.8.4, I. 12. 6, 2. 7. tempted to see political significances behind 5, 49. I, 65. 2. For the relevance of these V.'s literary predilections, cf. F. della Corte, allusions in determining the dates of V.'s R.F.C. xv (I937), 154-9; Lana, 280 ff. 6 I hope to deal with this subject in a composition see the next section. 3 At 104. 3 V. describes himself as 'suc- future essay to appear elsewhere. cessor officii patris mei', from which Sumner
T

' The descriptionis not unreasonableprovided we are aware of what it means. Tac. 12). but at DP 55 more convinced. The text reads: 'Sentium Saturninum qui tum legatus patris eius in Germania fuerat'. There is. 165 . however. 5. also Syme. te consule. Stilicho's consulship in A. Dodwell. much as in the case of Lucretius' address to Memmius.g. Vinicius as V. Sentius may in fact have taken over in the previous year.'s text at o105. but SulpiciusSeverusbrought his Chronica its conclusionin that year. 75). Tony Woodman and David West. xi (1962).D. I conclude by explaining V. which it had taken Claudian and Sulpicius respectively to I So. I since it has misled not only Syme (see above) but also Ruhnken. 4 with Tiberius (104.274 A. xxi. as Syme hesitatingly suggests in Hist. 35-6. 1o4. that would leave little time for V. cxiv. . while in Hist. Cameron. Syme curiously describes the elder M. At RR 384.: Syme anyway contradicts himself since elsewhere in the same work he says that this Vinicius is treated coolly by V. and the tradition is continued through Martial and Statius to Claudian. scholarsfrequently refer to Marcus Vinicius as Velleius' 'patron'.D. of Augustus] in Germany'-the reason being that Latin idiom permits the use of the pluperf. of an age: thus Dio brings his long history to its conclusion in A. 1-4?'.e. Alexander Severus. But to return to the elder M. but also wrote a poem about it himself! 4 See G. Sestius by Horace in OdesI.D.D. 44-5. Syme himself is most uncertain: at DP 31 he is tentative. and Syme is probably correct at DP 55 when he sees no reason for Vinicius' replacement until Tiberius' return to public life. Vinicius' patronage of V. xiii (1964). A. Pollio is thus honoured by Virgil in Eclogue4. I-4. especially with (see Kiihner-Stegmann. 2 Excellent remarks on patronage in Williams. 30-45. These two honours. 3 On this whole tradition see esp. Even if we assume the longest period possible. 400 was doubly honoured: not only did Claudian write a poem about it. to acquaint himself with Vinicius who was at once replaced by Sentius Saturninus (105.D. inibit' (line i i). Groag (R. some truth in each interpretation. 3). 1974). 229 when he himself was consul (for the second time) in partnership with the emperor. 2 (268 n. addressing to Stilicho. 2'. Velleius for his part is able to dignify his work by constant referencesto an illustrious consul whose relative youth allows Velleius' narrative to assume at the same time an authoritative tone. If this is not a slip. fueram and habueram i..D. 672.4 A less unusual honour consistedin an author's representinga consul'sterm of office as the end. 2. Dodwell.'s patron. it is certainly incapable of proof. It must be said that Sumner rejects this last point and accuses Syme of 'malice' in his reading of the passage in question. I40. he is properly dubious. On Claudian note in particular A. (RR 431. 1521-2) and Lana (157 n. J. it was a mark of honour for a consul to be addressed during his term of office by an author. and means: 'who at that time was a legate of his father [i. 1-4'. ii A. and therefore as the climax. 4). 147 = DP 32. 4. e. himself went to Germany in A. x). Cicero of course not only asked his friend Lucceius to commemorate his consulship (Fam. 2. 'A. WOODMAN Despite the lack of evidence. then at DP 71 he suggests that the command did not begin till A. Claudian(1970). Williams in Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry (ed. 'A. whose panegyrical poems can take as their subject the actual consulships of Honorius and Stilicho. Syme (I933). cxiii. To a politician like Vinicius it would clearly be advantageous if he were regularly mentioned in a history which gave such strong support to Tiberius.3 Pollio is further honoured because Virgil represents his consulship as the beginning of an age: 'teque adeo decus hoc aevi. 685). but this suggestion is probably based on a common misunderstanding ofV. paradoxically. 148.'s text (see the end of this note). Besides..E. 'Vinicius' war in Germany c.z Patronage in the ancient world is not necessarilyto be seen in terms of financial or social dependence but often as a literary convention which brought mutual advantages to author and patron alike.D.D. but we do not know the exact dates of the elder Vinicius' command there. Kritz. and most other places in his writings. instead of the imperf. repeated DP 33). cf. A. We know that V.

The elder Seneca's Controversiae. 4 and 9. 3). 9) have seen no reason why V. fr. were described by Pliny as 'inter sermonem historiamque medios' (Ep.G. 4 Cf. 6 Sumner.242 ff. including historians. 2. Tiberius remains the unmistakable hero of V.3 Of these four. 106-12.s Whether or not Velleius' apostropheswere introduced by a formal letter of dedication. 30. They may well have exhibited the same informality as Velleius' history. a view found repeated by others also. 3- . I 16. 276 n. 30.. I have not seen J.g.'6 It is generally assumed that Velleius had stopped composing by the time Vinicius entered upon his consulship in January A.. Vinicius began his consulship on I January A. shows that the epistolary practice was current at the time when Velleius was writing.2A dedication would be unusual if seen against the great tradition of Sallust. are accorded to Vinicius by Velleius: he not only addresses Vinicius but concludes his history with the year of Vinicius' consulship. Quaest. Dihle. p. 8 init. Graefenhain. 'was writing in 29 or 30' (e. The terminus post quem for commencement of composition should be Vinicius' designation to the office in A. 5. p. 2 So. Sauppe. 2. and in fact its popularity increasedwith later writers. although they have not survived. This assumption seems undeniable. 24. since that was the moment at which Vinicius relinquished the consulship. and Tacitus. ad historiam dedicationis librorumpertinentes(i 91). GENRE. Livy. 7 Some scholars (e. also took this form.giving the work an informal tone which balances. Fannius wrote works which. Lutatius Catulus. 30 . The tradition within which Velleius is working is clear. For a refutation of Sumner's view see below. 284.D. The reason for this assumption has recently and conveniently been restated by Sumner. 5. I) wrote formal dedicatory letters.D.4but we naturally have no means of knowing whether Velleius' preface. H. and its openly encomiastic nature could bring nothing but advantage to Vinicius. R.g. e. Max.' From the frequency of Velleius' apostrophesit is reasonable to deduce that he dedicated his work to Vinicius. Tac. Der Brief in der r6m. When Velleius did Write? It is traditionally assumed that Velleius began composing his work in the summer of A.) and Sulla possibly (cf. who says that in Velleius' work 'Events are dated so many years from Marcus Vinicius' entry on the consulship. dates events from Vinicius' consulship see above.'s final chapters. none of whom dedicated their works. 273 n. dedicated his contemporary collection of exempla to Tiberius. be such as to jeopardize his political career. thus Syme. the authoritative tone mentioned above. Hirtius certainly (B. admittedly not a historical work. Sauppe. Cornelius Sulla. s See Janson. of course. Ruppert. 640. Velleius would surely have availed I The advantage would not. Failure to appreciate this point leads Kritz into difficulties (xxiii). Val. It is interesting to note that the later historian C. 3 Cf. which is lost. For the formulae with which V.DATE. though not in epistolary form. more than once states that V. Literatur(19o01). AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 275 render to Stilicho. But the arguments which I give in this paragraph tell against such a view. 29. Peter. and Hirtius. probably during the early summer. but does not counteract.D.g.D.7 In view of the encomiastic nature of the dedication to Vinicius discussed in the previous section. they yet constitute a stylistic feature in themselves.D. should not have continued writing until the end of June A. 368). De more libros deet dicandiapudscriptores Graecos Romanosobvio (1892). 29. But dedications are found in the lesser historians Coelius Antipater.. 33. presumably as a consequence.

287 n. The latter figure would require a notional publication date of A. 3 (Tiberius' adoption in A. 4 is not 27 years from A. (i) Dates given in V. 30. 7 Since most of Book I is lost we can only guess at the total number of words written by V. between summer of 29 and January of 30. (2) At 127-8 V. 13-15). finally. which is impossible. continued writing until the late summer of A. 279 n. These are that in the space of six months or less Velleius wrote down 48.' On the calculations which are usually put forward.900 words. Therefore he would naturally date events from that year. I. 31.'s text as 'abhinc annos xxvii' (103. His evidence falls into two categories.400 words. lxv sqq. it is assumed. 6 Full credit should be given to the four scholars whose perceptive comments are quoted below (p.D. WOODMAN himself of some final words of appreciation had he still been writing. This satisfactorily explains the numeral at 126. there is no evidence that Velleius continued writing beyond that year. as Sumner says. ii. but the incidental nature of their remarks. I). i) is striking election in the summer of A.D. Besides. Since these events are firmly dated to A. with the single exception of his formulaic allusions to Vinicius' consulship. Clearly no reference to a consul could follow that. Steffen is prepared to consider even four months (2). Schanz-Hosius.D. the last events to which his history makes reference are the disgrace of Agrippina and Nero and. assumed in advance that his work would be published in A. it would have taken Livy on average between eleven and thirteen months to write down a comparable amount of history.' His proof that he had stopped writing by the time Vinicius took up office. 5. 299.2 and since. Tac. 8 Thus point out that Cicero appears to have written the De Divinatione.000 words. p. 2. in two and a half months (see Pease's edn. precludes them from constituting a serious challenge. But since the vocabulary of chapters 127-8 strongly suggests that a totally different honour is being referred to (see below.200 words. 3I. 14 is 16 years from A. 275 n. 41. 30. which contains roughly 24. for example the R6mische Literaturgeschichte SchanzThe Hosius and Pauly's Realencyclopddie. could not have known about Sejanus' elevation before the silence about a period first heralded 1.s hypothesis has never seriously been challenged. I. 3 Sumner (284-8) follows Lana (299) and some others (see above. 585-6. 7) in believng that V. which I shall quote in full.323 years earlier (I. Sumner's theory must be rejected. i. cxiii-cxv. 30) but not that at Io3. I should . It is reasonable to assume that Book I would be comparable in length to Book 2. But I think it is also (1959).D. 51.D.6 Yet we should reflect upon its implications. only allows 'vix quinque menses' (xxiii).D. Vinicius' consulship will have been common knowledge from the time of his election in the summer ofA. 282 n.D. 581-2. p. 8.. p.. xxixxiii. the death of Livia (130. I). 2 Cf. 301-2). Kritz.ooo years of ancient history. pp.D. It is clear from the dedication to Vinicius that V. like another in the same sentence. is clearly corrupt: Aldus' 'xxvi' should be read.276 A. 30). Book I as it stands contains about 3. This hypothesis will be found in the major editions of Velleius by Ruhnken and Kritz. and in those standard works of reference which mention the date of of Velleius' history.8 I Such words of appreciation could hardly have occurred in the lacuna at the very end of the work since the text breaks off in the middle of a prayer for the emperor. dealing with over I. V. Dihle. J. 30.D.D. one of the most eloquent exponents of this hypothesis. cf. This is a stronger argument since.D. pp. refers to Sejanus' elevation to high office. if Sumner's interpretation is correct. Velleius composed his history in the five or six months which separated the election and the inauguration of Marcus Vinicius as consul. 3) and 'horum xvi annorum' (126. which Sumner interprets as the consulship of A. 4 I say 'five or six months' here because Kritz. 29.29. I (Tiberius' accession in A.a work of roughly 27. 3-4). s Thus Dodwell. 286 n.4 i. with all the collation and evaluation which that process demands. 640. Syme Schanz-Hosius. 39 n. 1-5. To be fair.e.3 Thus. So too Massauer. The numeral. p. But no reliance can be placed upon this evidence.

3 'non recipit enarranda hic scripturae modus'. cf.' The 'collected material' for a major work has become an essential part of the hypothesis: cf. I 'in hac tam praecipiti festinatione'. had to write quicklyas is clear both from the brevity of his work and from the stylistic faults into which he lapses. Sumner. It is of course true that Velleius can write ungainly sentences. I 14. nostris explicabitur'. 2 'nulla festinatio huius viri mentionem transgredi debet'. xviii (19Io). The second is that on several occasions he refers to the brevity or restricted form of his work: I. 96. 'De V. 89. From this fourfold evidence a reconstruction is made.. 99. in reverse order. 3 'hoc opus servet formam suam'. I 'admonet promissae brevitatis fides quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint'. 38. The third is that on still further occasions he refers to his intention of writing a major history: 48.P. 3 'cogit enim excedere propositi formam operis'. I 'cum haec particula operis velut formam propositi excesserit'. induces reservations and prompts us to see whether the above evidence admits of a different interpretation. auch die Nachlissigkeit in der Periodenbildung wird nur zum Teil ihre Rechtfertigung durch den veriinderten Geschmack der Zeit finden. 2 14. Cicero himself would possibly have agreed: 'Neque enim occupata opera neque impedito animo res tanta suscipi potest. S. als dass die Designation des M. unusual word-order. 55. (1894). 96. 585-6: 'Velleius 6fters sein beabsichtigtes gr6sseres Werk in Gegensatz zu dem Abriss stellt. 19-31 See E. I 'nedum huius tam recisi (operis)'. periodis'. 16. I 'ne in operis quidem iusti materia'. he also composes sentences with exemplary precision and balance. We may begin by considering. tum. 99. 5 'harum praeteritarumque rerum ordo cum iustis aliorum voluminibus promatur. I 'quis in hoc transcursu tam artati operis exprimere audeat?'. 66. 8-9). 89. 284 n. if it is allowed some weight. auf Grund seines gesammelten Materials einen flichtigen Abriss der r6mischen Geschichte zu geben.' Perhaps this is the truth. this news prompted him to signal his friendship for Vinicius by tossing off a dedicated volume using material which he had been collecting with a different intention. wird man sich die Entstehung des letzteren kaum anders denken k6nnen. . 16. F. 4 'illud etiam in hoc transcursu dicendum est'. . I 'haud absurdum videtur propositi operis regulae paucis percurrere'. 29. Schanz-Hosius. ut spero'... I 19. GENRE. 2 'operis modus paucis eum narrari iubet'.2 It is fair to regard the comparison with Livy as a more realistic reflection of a historian's work-rate. I 'neque mihi tam festinanti exprimere vacat'. 4 'vix in illo iusto opere abunde persequi poterimus'.P.F. Woodman. 103. uti spero. xvi-xvii. 41.DATE. 124. 564-6.A. I 'iustis voluminibus ut alii ita nos conabimur exponere'. Burmeister. Latomusxxv (1966). as he himself says. 4 'nedum hic'. Velleius had been collecting material for a major work when Vinicius' election was announced. is seemingly corroborated by four pieces of evidence which scholars have conventionally adduced from Velleius' own work. and regular repetitions of the same word in close proximity. 3 'alio loco explicabimus'. 86. The fourth is that Velleius' style exhibits several 'faults' such as poor sentence structure. io8. 103. i 'quamlibet festinantem'. that Velleius wrote twice as fast as Livy. Vinicius zum Konsul den Autor veranlasste.C. 52. A. Thefirst is that on a few occasions Velleius refers to the speed with which he is writing: I.I. I. 3 'iusto servemus operi'. 4 'iustis voluminibus ordine narrabimus. 143. Damit steht im Einklang die haufige Wiederholung derselben W6rter und Wortverbindungen. the four pieces of evidence just mentioned. But the comparison with Livy. De Fontibus V. I So Kritz xxi-xxiii. historia vero nec institui potest nisi praeparato otio nec exiguo tempore absolvi' (Leg. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 277 This remarkable conclusion. Kritz. de Stefani.J. even so he naturally.

' It is also true that Velleius repeats the same word or phrase in close proximity.ooo years! 6 would seem to rerum'. there is worden. accepted. Diggle on Eur. Herescu. Schanz-Hosius. 56. N. whereas large portion of his history now lost. they but his suggestion has not been generally do not do their case justice since (I) V. H. Kenney.. 820-2. Second. Florusstudien (1928). Dazu passt die flichtige und sumtoo much (fruitless) speculation about V.. xlvii 3 e. on it. As it is. Velleius' intention of writing a major history. 73 if. Schanz-Hosius and Sumner envisage Studia Curtiana (I935). where praeteritarum So. with more than at 48. Now this evidence would support the traditional hypothesis only if the intended work had been planned before the present work and were to have a scope identical to it. Unfortunately there is no evidence that the majorwork had been previouslyplanned. intended to write (1950). however. . Dihle. and even those scholars who assume previous planning are agreed that Velleius' major work would not at all have an identical scope. Cludius 2 A long list of examples in Kritz. esp. 232 if. In view of the evidence presented below given by E.s and this argument too can be dismissed. xlvi four further works. Teuffel (I7). Scholars history which begins at that point and for make this deduction since the first occasion which V. Livy.. tum. add D.2 so do many other authors. e.6Yet Milkau long ago suggested that perhaps the truth was the other way round and that Velleius' haste should be seen in terms of the restricted form of his work: brevity. in which case the prea sent argument is even less soundly based. Gries.. Adams. not simply present Vinicius 28. Milkau. and M. (48. is assumed to have collected proper on which V. only one. N. 36f..' In fact. Kritz. but such hyperbata belong to the novandistudiumillustrated so frequently by other contemporary writers. history (but dann in wenigen Monaten zusammengestellt see next note). ix (0959). Sauppe toyed with two (1951).S. mentions his major work is at material. xv-xvi. C. Besides.C. everything which precedes 48. 181-203. enormous amount of attention: to the refs. 5): that a similarly modest introduction was 'harum praeteritarumque rerum ordo cum 'stitched on' to Pollio's history of the civil iustis aliorum voluminibus promatur.278 A. S. (1959). M. Laughton. Shackleton Bailey. wars (Appiano [1956]. It is true that E. Sauppe (II).P. R. (edn. Curtius. 640: 'Die Schrift ware imply at least some pre-49 B.Peter (WK 366) doubted whether V. La poisie latine (I96O)..C. intitions of various kinds have attracted an tended seriously to write another work at all. Repe. 6-io. 207 ff. Tiberius? It is hardly possible to argue that Phaeth. See now J. Cicero. among them some of the giants of classicalliterature.).P. cf. Dihle. uti spero. von Albrecht. Hofmann-Szantyr. 641. cf. C. xlv [1892]. Gabba's hypothesis encould have mentioned his major work in the visages only 8o years' introduction. Florus. Towards Text.4They are thereforecontradicting themselves. 5 is an inferior summary 'stitched on' to the 'serious' 4 So Kritz. 282. E.. these last three scholars may n. s Why did V.g.C. Manitius (Rh. C. 9. tiana (1956). for only under these circumstanceswould Velleius have collected the appropriate material which scholars are required to assume for their argument. 5 he says 'harum praeteritarumque I. Meister rdm. Mus. 231 (index). 581-2. Proper. The third and fourth pieces of evidence may be consideredtogether. thinks it would conclude with the reign of Tiberius. e. and Lilliedahl. lxviilxx. K. I.Q. J. (I I).P. xx). cf. id.g. with a history ranging from the civil wars to Prosa (i97I). Lindgren.3There is no forcein this 'stylistic' argument. 1-35. (2) we should have to credit V. 287-8). Sumner that it would exclude the reign of Tiberius. Sumner.well have been right. Gabba suggested the outbreak of civil war in 49 B. thereforebrevity. nostris explicabitur.. but would take as its starting-pointthe civil wars. 57-61.xvii (1971).g.'s marische Erzihlung'. J. 467) think that V. WOODMAN equally true that his writing is full of unusual instances of word-order. cf. 248 (pp. future work to justify basing any argument I P. 9-10. I. Scholars have consistently seen the restricted form of Velleius' work in terms of the haste with which he was writing: speed.

3. 169 ff. 82). Cic. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 279 thereforespeed. 4.' Since it was beyond Milkau's terms of referenceto elaborate upon this thesis.-Rad. 9. order or content'.. Brink on Hor. which I have not seen. Stroux. 'talem dicendi velocitatem. Lausberg. 2. The distinction is appreciated by such modern scholars as C. and at another 'illa Sallustiana brevitas' (4-. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 2. 425Us. p.' He presented no evidence for this view.) and at another for his 'brevity' (rd aUVVTOLlov. Those scholarswho accept the traditional explanation of Velleius' speed and brevity have failed to realise that these same two features are well-attested qualities of many types of writing. 3. GENRE. 102).4 Yet Quintilian's definition of brevity. non ut omnino paucas res dicant et non plures quam necesse sit. 'istam vim dicendi rapidam' (3). Brink. celerius). nam in sententia Graeca tam brevi habes quae salvo sensu detrahas. and H. I7. However.). 13 'cum sit praecipua in Thucydide virtus brevitas. 40. we may do so here. quoted above. Io: 'festinatio illa totiens commemorata magis de operis tenuitate et brevitate quam de tempore urgente accipienda sit. cum dent operam ut res multas brevi dicant. Now it is obviously unlikely that Velleius would be claiming for himself a quality which his pleonastic and fulsome style manifestly fails to exhibit. Freitag. cum se breves putent esse. 3.DATE. I. The brevity of Sallust was thought to consist in his ability to say everything he required but in as few words as possible:3 'est vero pulcherrima (brevitas) cum plura paucis complectitur. 2. etc. tantum festinet' (8). 2.. P. Horace on Poetry(1963). says Quintilian (8. Lausberg's collection of usages of brevitas and related terms is most helpful (pp.. 3 This is made clear not only by Quintilian (quoted) but also by Sen. I I. gradus sistitur. I. 'quemadmodum per proclive currentium non.: Pleonasmusund Parenthese (1942). De Theophrasti dicendi(1912). Io.. hac eum Sallustius vicit. who refers to the brevitasof verba and the brevitasof res. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (1960). also Arist. i.P.') types of * For this cf. I. Imit. Quintilian at one place praises 'immortalem Sallusti velocitatem'(Io. Contr. and cf. longissimi sint. Interesting is Sen. The two terms are interchangeable in ancient literary criticism. 28) : 'multos imitatio brevitatisdecipit ut. 207Us. quale Sallusti est'. for example. O. Cicero carefully distinguishes this type of brevity from a second type which consistedin pruning down one's subject-matter(Inv..'s In his Ars Poetica Horace makes an identical distinction between the first (lines 335-7) and brevity. IoI). 6 Brink's excellent note on 148 points out . which deals with oratorical delivery rather than style. A. I Milkau. 'As a stylistic feature it (brevity) could be discussed under the heading of style.). second (148-50 'semper ad eventum festinat et in medias res.-Rad. Hor. with a reference to 'speed'. but Quint. . sic ista dicendi celeritas' (7). 2 Further examples of this are given below and in the following section. 41. but (as Summers in his commentary observes) Seneca 'does not keep the two things quite distinct': 'oratio illa apud Homerum concitata' (2). I. 173. I. For brevity coupled with speed cf. . was not the only definition current among ancient literary critics. 3. Rhet.9. Brevity is an extremely complicated subject and it is surprising that (to my knowledge) no full-scale treatment exists virtutibus apart from J. at ex Sallusti sententia nihil demi sine detrimento sensus potest'. Ep. 45). . Amm. Ep. I. Sat.P.. at one place praises Thucydides for his 'speed' (r Trdxos. De Or. including history. s Cicero's sentence describes the point most aptly.2and it is tempting to suggest that Velleius is claiming for himself the quality which these two critics see in Thucydides and Sallust. . 202. and it is clear that the same applied to Thucydides whom Quintilian regarded as Sallust'smodel (io. as a selective principle of subject-matter under the heading of unity. also makes a similar distinction himself between the two types (cf. 262. p. 9 (I412b). i. But caution is needed. I. 25-6.6 and it will be noticed that he describes the latter in terms of speed. Stilistische Beitrdge zu V.

Neverpassages. Avenarius. 24 logy. I.• Ka 7aTr-rov vayKata. 56) types. 75-8). as I have shown. I 1-17 he discusses the latter (using the terms brevitas was an indigenous quality of the commentarius then later in the letter (19-21) and -rcXOs).. brevity 'Caesar in Italiam evolavit.teristically eschewed brevity in his own comferunt enim)'. at 18 he confusingly says theless it is well known that Cicero charac'brevitate vel velocitate vel utraque (dif.H. (This matter is elaborated in the next section. I. e. J. 102 polkaTWV. Homeyer is wrong at ? 56 when she compares Quintilian's description of Sallust at Io. ) ! It is also interesting terminological differentiation too seriously: that when the third-century rhetorician all Pliny means is that he prefers to use a Aquila illustrates percursio(which is hardly separate term for each type. WOODMAN Lucian too. I. corroborate the hypothesisthat he composed his work in the space of six months or less.e. 62-3 and 127-30 respectively on Lucian's distinction. Att.You can actually omit a great deal. genre within which Caesar was working (see discusses the former. 20. there (velocitas) means the other type of brevity. sorts of brevity. Yet we should not take his mentarii(cf. 2. especially IToAAd. Kat Xo El /171 d ta TWV p oU "li7 7 AEKTWCV Et7l Kat 701 70 7TroptEoaat oaov d ro Xp?/i7 .and Velleius' references to precisely these two features of his work need not imply fast writing in the literal sense at all. 262) since brevitas and brevity of content: in Ep. 2. and second (ib. and his technical 43) j description of the latter is also 'speed'. Glottaxl [1962]. 2. All the other different from rdXOs)with the sentence evidence shows that both terms (i. Conscr.) Therefore the four pieces of evidence adduced by traditional scholarship for the dates of Velleius' composition need not. T. AEyotgs ' ('Speed is always useful. writing on the art of historiography. will concede the likelihood that privately the emperor would give a conditional promise of nomination to a suitable candidate long that 'This way of looking at poetry is Alexandrian and is perpetuated in the Homeric and Virgilian scholia': that is. rTOUovoV d7To material-which is where you should pursue this virtue. Between these two P. on closer inspection. This paradoxical situation is perpetuated in any age where brevity is popular: see below. critics of an Alexandrian affiliation had to reconcile the poetry of Homer and Virgil (which by definition had to display all virtues) with brevity (which was an Alexandrian virtue). but give adequate treatment to important matters. 20. Conscr. especially at Rome. as it happens. p. scorning those old annalists who 'unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem' (ib. and it is to this that we must now return. and the reference to Pliny. The only solid basis for assuming that he began composing in the summer of 29 is the dedication to M. p. rather than in wording or phraseology. Att. this reads just style as written by typical of ancient literary critical termino. Such looseness is of course Pompeium persequebatur'. Eden. Interestingly Cicero did not approve of brevitasin rebus (Lucian's riXOg) in historiography: he demanded 'exaedificatio in rebus et in verbis' (De Or. 6. 7rXos:I rdo EM raa Xp a iov.g. 7rrdEov bLKPa EL /1Ev Ta tapauE0ot SE Kal 7rapaAELrvTpay/iWV 7 LKavcGrs LyEyaAa"itWov when there is a lot of available AYW since. pass over the trivia and less essential topics. 63). 286 and n. is another author who distinguishes between brevity of style commentary on Hist.280 A. Corfinium and speed) can be used to describe both Domitio deiecto ceperat. Cicero is not inconsistent when he praises Caesar's works for their brevitas (Brut. 5. Vinicius.like the commentarius Cicero in. 53). Quint. Urbe potiebatur. ISee Halm). 2.') Thus 'speed' and 'brevity' are simply technical ways of describing the selection of material or the pruning down of subject-matter. Pliny. 3 (Aq. In her . Anyone with any conception of the workings of patronage and politics. He might very well be claiming for his work a quality which was recommended in the handbooks of historiography. That is. makes the same distinction between the first (Hist. however.

640. would get to be consul sooner rather than later. GENRE. 653-6. I43 = DP 27-8. xxxix (1953).2 'There was no doubt'. which is important for my argument. lxxiv [1953]. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 281 before the appropriate election. but it is not unreasonable to deduce that a period of several years was involved.. if not impossible. not even the dates of his quaestorshipand praetorship. 9 So Syme (1933).'4 Now it would of course be wrong to deduce from this episode that Tiberius. R. Z. and Seager (next n..6 It remains to be askedwhether Marcus Vinicius was a likely candidate to be singled out for the emperor's favour in this way. Steffen. 45 he was singularlyhonoured by being made consul and when he died in the following year. A. Birley'sstudy of senators in the emperors' service has shown that 'grading for posts in the vigintivirate. 19. Jos.9 triumphalia in for ordinarius a second time.A. his brother-in-law. 202. esp. 16. 194. 'it would have robbed Tiberius' patronage in this sphere of all its flexibility and so of much of its value.D. Tac. one could be reasonably sure that Vinicius. I.). For. during which Asinius Gallus proposed that magistrates should be elected five years in advance. a considerablehonour. 15. Unfortunately nothing is known of his early career. .DATE. remarks Tacitus. to remove his name once the list had been compiled.J. Syme. A number of scholars (e. but his elevation to a 'royal' marriage after Sejanus' downfall would seem to discredit this view: cf. If a man knew well in advance that his place was secure. 7 For the standard age see Syme. although it was Claudius who actually succeeded (cf. is confirmed by an analysis of the fasti for Tiberius' reign: see Seager. s This point. Dihle.) have imagined that Vinicius was a supporter of Sejanus. and it would be odious. he was recognized as a potential successor to the throne. but his later career was such that inferencesabout the earlier years can safely be drawn. Tac. the princess Julia Livilla.took into account their aptitude for service in key appointments in another tenor twenty years'time'. and put at risk the arcana What Tacitus means by this allusive remark is not immediately clear. 251).' The vital question is 'How long before?' Some idea of the period involved is afforded by Tacitus' account of a debate in the senate in A. 4 Seager. His consulship in A. 2 Tac. 8I deals only with the actual electoral process which took place each summer and is thus no evidence for a private arrangement of the kind here envisaged.B. 326-7. he was given a state funeral (Dio 6o. A. Phoenix xv [1961]. 27.s issued private promises precisely five years before the appropriateelection. imperii. he might grow not merely arrogant but dangerously independent. 126-8.D. 30 at the age of thirty-fivewas seven years earlier than the standard consular age during the empire:7 he had without doubt been a highly promising young man.8After the assassinationof Caligula.J. 124 ff.3Tiberius' instant rejection of the proposal seems to confirm this. 36. as Seager has said. 384. 3 So Shotter. The italics are mine. In 43 he is thought to have accompanied Claudius to Britain. 4). Indeed E. 6. 126.g. 6 P. and esp. 2.P. receiving the ornamenta . 8 Tac. Within three further years he had married Tiberius' granddaughter.'o I Tac. in view of his background. 74f. 10 Even regardless of specific hints or promises from Tiberius.' but it may indicate that Gallus wished to bring out into the open a practice which already flourished in secret. Sealey. It would indeed be surprisingif this conspicuouslysuccessfulpolitician had not been singled out at an early age for advancement and encouragement by Tiberius. Stewart. when candidates were still in theirteens. I. whose control over the elections was almost absolute. 102 ff. 'that this proposal struck too deeply.

cf. I and 2. I I. quae superfluum est explicare. He says that his work is 'in primis . Io). I. 14/15 as soon as he had left the army (see below. memorabile' (Cat. nec historiam producere per minutias ignobiles decet' (27. 'paucasuper provinciis narraturi') or else bring such material to a conclusion by pleading speed (as in the digression on rainbows. 23. Naturally therefore. Ig.Velleius began composing in the mid twenties and had stopped by January of A. That would have been enough to prompt V.. I The promise need not of course have mentioned a precise date. 2). especially in terminology. 5). 287 n. 'de Carthagine silere melius puto quam parum dicere. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus in his 31-book continuation of Tacitus writes: 'praeter haec alia multa narratuminusdigna conserta sunt proelia. and even those historians whose works have the widest scope and greatestlength claim that they are recountingonly the most importantmaterial. began writing in A. Livy. Sallust is another particularly good example (with the proviso mentioned in p. Tacitus) claim to be recounting only the most important material: see Avenarius. 31. I28-9. 3 I have chosen Ammianus because he happens to illustrate best the points which I wish to make. Changing or deleting references is quite different from adding them. WOODMAN Our conclusions are these.g. 5. me tempus quam res maturius deseret' (42. a quality appropriateto several genres including historiography.particularlyin view of the evidence collected in the following section. 2). I. What Genre? In the previous section it was suggested that Velleius' referencesto 'speed' and 'brevity' are allusions to the selectivity of his material. upon digressionswhich have strictly little relevance to his main theme. 8. 1-2). 30. 26.cetera solvam' (lug. 30. 17. I.1 allowing both Velleius and Vinicius himself ample opportunity to prepare for the honorific event? I believe the latter is the more realistic assumption. J. I. But Sumner has pointed out (284 n. 30.. who quotes his article in a different connection three pages earlier. 32. narratione redire unde digressa estfestinante'). I45) that the references at I.I I. He is followed in this by Portalupi (edn.D.D. 4. But what I say about him could be said with equal truth about any full-blooded historian writing in the rhetorical or 'Ciceronian' tradition. Thus. 7. quoniam alio tempus monet' (ib. 20.. .. p.2 3. The hypothesis that the completion of V. almost all of whom (e. quas dinumerare nunc est super- vacuum...3 These three quotations from Ammianus clearly show that he would claim rd 1tcKp to be following Lucian's prescriptionsfor rdXOs ElrrapaOoes (56 Ihv Ka. xvi). 2..282 A. cum neque operae pretium aliquod eorum habuere proventus. when Ammianus enters Egypt. and elsewhere he excuses discursive material with phraseology such as: 'res postulare videtur. .'s history luckily happened to coincide with the announcement of Vinicius' election in 29 is at first sight attractive (and apparently hinted at by Steffen. deleted the references to Vinicius altogether. Which is the more likely? That Velleius composed his history with great rapidity during the five or six months which separated the election and inauguration of Vinicius as consul? Or that Vinicius' praetorship (say) in the mid twenties was accompanied by a conditional promise of the consulship for A. 1-2): V. would then have gone through inserting references to Vinicius' consulship into his finished text. 5 are most unlikely to be late additions. if the worst happened. i). paucis exquam paucissumis abponere. 4). No writer wishes to appear longwinded. He could always have changed or. 22. 'si singilproperare latim aut pro magnitudine parem disserere. 283 n.D. to start writing. merely some general date in the future. he will excuse such discursive material by promising brevity (as in his digression on 'suppetunt aliae multae opiniones et variae. I. 2 Jodry (271) stated that in his opinion V. on this interpretation.

. 'Urbis Romae.H. (see p.. Oct. Since it is the very essence of such works that they should contain only the most important material. these compendious authors claim-albeit in similar language-to treat the wholeof their material with brevity... 3 See Janson. but this is probably due either to the monographical nature of the work (cf. 87 'ut festinet oratio'. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 283 &O and avayKaca.. 2. facta simul ac dicta memoratu digna. 3) or to the fact that he means the brevitasin verbisfor which he was pre-eminently famous (see above. 4. 12 'sed cum magna * multa breviter dicenda sint'. with far morejustice. I. They have pruned or selected their material so rigorously that they are able to claim brevity as a primaryfeature of their worksin a manner which Ammianus him8 'sed hic plura persequi cum magnitudo voluminis prohibet tum festinatio ut ea explicem quae exorsus sum'. N. Min. 282 n. brevibus Valerius Maximus in his selection of exempla (praef. I. (praef. I1. N. 4 'horum igitur xliv voluminum. These are by no means the only instances where festinatio is used thus. again like Ammianus. .. Fel.tunc enim laudanda est brevitas ctatores longi (ut putant) operis moras rumpens intempestivas. voluminum numero quis enim omnis aevi gesta modico comprehenderit. sola accepi quae aut ingenia prompta expeditaque ad honestae eruditionis cupidinem utiliumque artium contemplationem celeri facilique compendio ducerent')... quae apud alios latius diffusa sunt quam ut breviter cognosci possint.DATE. are found most of all in writers whose works are of their very nature compendious.3 I mean such writers as Vitruvius in his handbook of architecture (5 praef. uti angusto vacuitatis ea legentes breviter spatio percipere possent . 28. I I-12 init. breviter exponam:. on this last point since at Hist. 2 'ut memoriae tradantur. 'quorum ex abundanti copia nec parca nimis nec rursusavida manu quod magis desiderio satisfaciatquam satietati abundet hauriamus').. the claim already familiar from Ammianus 27. 11 quoted above. 4. nihil subtrahit cognitioni gestorum'... Nep. Cat.Q. we should note the complete difference of emphasis.? . summatimdisseram'. nihil obtreformidantes... I. I. pp. 6. Plin.' But we should note carefully that such brevitas restricted to discursivematerial. e.. pro virium captu limatiusabsolvemus. self specifically condemned (15. 3 praef. 5. being compelled to treat briefly only that material which was excessively discursive. nec breve veluti florum corpusculumfeci'). Sen. (3) paucis iudicavi scribendum. .2 cum. sensus legentium pervenire possint. 4 he appears to be claiming brevity for the whole of his work. Ammianus elsewheremakes it is quite plain that he disapproves of brevity in general (15. as seen in the first quotation from Ammianus above. 3) would seem to differ from Amm. ac 8' c'•ov that he can expresshis claim in terms either of speed or brevity.. Nor is it surprising that.. however. quaeque his omissis quae cognoscendivoluptate iucunda nec exemplo erant necessaria. Despite these points of contact. ab inlustribuselectaauctoribus digerere constitui. GENRE. tractemus'. AE'yo&s1Kav(S rd LEya' /_Z ov KalrrapaAETrrT'ov rroAA'). et 4 'festinemus opus nescio an insuperabile .. and Justin in his epitome of Pompeius Trogus dignissimaexcerpsi et. these authors should express the selectivity of their material in the conventional terms of brevity and speed.. which clearly are little more than conventional formulae.. Gellius in the 'omnes. 154. Now claims that one is dealing with only the most important material. quoted above)... 4 self-styled commentariiexcerpted from his notebooks (praef. 279 f. it is hardly surprising that their authors should echo.. 2 Sallust Z For similar formulae cf. Whereas Ammianus could and did include almost everything in his capacious work. I) : 'residua quae secuturus aperiet textus. I... solam copiam sectati.(5) quo facilius ad voluminibus iudicavi scribere'). praef.).g.

but he is an epitomator.P. In this he is quite unlike Ammianus. they are 'original'. I (quoted above. I). Gran. 12.. Like Festus.' Some of his references are particularly interesting. cuncta breviare'. who wrote a universal history down to Augustus' reign in two books. I.'. For a similar allusion see Brink on Hor.g. at I 17. qui . 242. Pallad. 2 Justin's work of course covers events from the origins of Rome...g. to Sallust's insertions into his narrative of 'contiones loca montes flumina et hoc genus alia'). res gestas signabo. II 'ne diutius verbis morer'. by J. 2. The DiscardedImage (1964). 19 quam 'quam brevissime'). 283). 59 Camozzi) 'morae et non urgentia' (in a ref. There is something to be said.. 2.g. 192. xliii [1965]. 21. where perseems to be an allusion to the technical currere percursiowhich is defined by Aquila as 'distantia plura inter se percurrens velocitate ipsa circumponit' (6.. Sen. 24 Halm: see above.D.4 Florus. brevioribus exprimunt. 39. ac morem secutus calculonum. 7. Lewis. is not an epitomator. that is. dictis non eloquar. See n. . though often described as such--e. [1967]. 280 n. J. I. Jal has rightly stressed that Florus' work is in no way an epitome (R.The suggestion that Velleius is a universal summarist like Orosius may be corroborated by a consideration of three further summarists in particular. 43. Licin.3 'non recipit enarranda hic scripturae modus'). 2 'operis moduspaucis eum narrari iubet') and the battle of Pharsalus (52. xxi sqq. said in his preface (3) :s 'in breviquasi tabella totam eius imaginemamplectar. accipe ergo quod breviter breviusconputetur. 5 p. E.g. Eadie in his edn. 3 'sed revertamur ad ordinem') his introduction is: 'haud absurdum videtur propositi operis regulae paucis percurrere. none of whom had treated the history of Rome from its earliest origins down to their own day: none of them. by which I mean an author who has digested one single work only: i.e. 7 'quapropter res ipsa exigit ex his libris vel brevissime pauca contingere'. p. p. S.. material as important as Pompey the Great (29. he is I not 'original'. I. for avoiding these terms and employing the more appropriate 'summary' (for which cf. Amm.L.. of Festus (1967). and they generally make use of their authors' personal experience: i. W. Usher. i 'persona moram exigit': morais a natural word to use in a context of a 'speedy' narrative. had written a universal history. in the discussion of provincialization at 38-9 (which is clearly marked as a digression. WOODMAN Velleius' references to brevity and speed seem no different from those in both Ammianus and the other writers.). in varying degrees. 39. cf. 15. 36a-b (p. and Geoffrey de Vinsauf in C.2 The precise combination of elements which is found in Velleius' work-a universal history written with a total emphasis on brevity-is only found in such authors as Orosius and Festus. I: 'praeterire plurima. There may be a less obvious allusion in V. Yet in his subject matter he is also quite unlike the compendious writers.' 4 Most of the works mentioned in this and the following paragraphs are usually known as breviaria or chronica (there seems little difference between the two terms): these differ fundamentally from epitomes inasmuch as they draw their material from more than one source. and like Velleius he repeats it throughout his work (e. A.' But since he uses such formulae to relegate not only discursive material but also. Historiansof Greece and Rome(1969). I. 17. Gell.284 A. Ep. however. I 'brevem cepit. who wrote a universal history from the creation of the world down to A. he clearly shares with the compendious writers their extreme concern for total brevity. ordinato brevitervoluminis textu explicarem'). 5 below. Io 'ut. I. I. though often described as such.E. Orosius. could hardly have enuntiated his historiographical principle better than at I. while chronicon a concern for chronology (cf. recently by S. fieri clementia tua prae3 Fest. I. 4 'paucis dumtaxat isdemque breviter delibatis'. I 'sed nos recidamus praefationis moram'. By the same token V. I8.3 Orosius had already explained this principle in his preface (I praef. but it may also be a quasi-technical term = 'digression': cf.. I) which is not always justified. p. See also next n.e. ) : for breviarium is conventionally reserved for late (usually implies fourth-century) works. 358 ff. e. . and in his edn. 417..

104-5.3 Yet brevity seems to have been equally popular at the time when Velleius himself was writing.. I 'operis modus'. One of the purposes of Klebs's article was to attempt to show that Sulpicius' phraseology is modelled directly fourth century cf. of the reader 'hurrying'. both of whom wrote SI. p.) This evidence strongly suggests that these authors represent a tradition and genre to which Velleius also belongs. p. festinantibus ad haec nova'. 4.. Cat. Sulpicius Severus. 48. 'memores professionis'. 3 'opus servet formam suam').4. concludes his work with these words (10.. not to mention V. duobus libellis concluderem. Momigliano. 286 n.'.' Another phrase in that same sentence.'. had promised in his lost preface to write only an imago of Roman history. I.. however. also R. The Conflict betweenPaganism and Christianityin the Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968). 6): 'nos memores professionis universam subiecimus. 289.necessarily disprove my point: it merely shows that Sulpicius realized the nature of such phraseologyin V. said in his preface (I. 16. 3 'scripturae modus'. cf.Similarly with 'carptim' at Chron. operis' with i. ita brevitatistudens . That would be hardly surprising. 18.D. That his work is never described as such is due to the restricting conventions of terminology mentioned in the preceding note.. I. I. Yet Florus' work. like Florus and most of the other compendious writers mentioned. I. Liv. 3): 'interim operi modumdabimus. logy (89.. This wouldnot. which echoesSall. came to write: see below. p. 4 'legentium plerisque. quae nunc non tam praetermittimus quam ad maiorem scribendi diligentiam reservamus.. multis id a me et studiose efflagitantibus.D.. 2 Further parallels in E. who wrote a universal summary down to A. 82 ff. whose Chronicain two books is a Christian universal history to A. in view of the frequency with which he refers to brevity elsewhere in his work. breviter constringere et cum distinctione temporum usque ad nostram memoriam carptim dicere aggressus sum. I 'operis modum' and 2. 6 'modum operis' with 29. nam reliqua stilo maiore dicenda sunt.g.. . cf. Philol. xlix (1890). Finally Eutropius. on that of V.. is essentially no different from that of Orosius. A. Sulpicius. I 'operis. 20. I. and call into question the whole problem of Velleius' own future work. . 27. And the body of his work contains phraseology which invites instant comparison with the Velleian formulae listed above. non peperci labori meo quin ea compendiosa quae permultis voluminibus perscripta continebantur. 2. Sulp. 6 'operi sua forma reddatur'. 287 f.. praef. 32. an error which leads Eadie to state (13) that we have no evidence of a breviarium between the end of the Republic and Eutropius. 52. pp. made a programmatic announcement of brevity in his lost preface. 66. 3 'formam operis'. formam'.'s text and thus was able to use it for a similar purpose in his own universalsummary.. cf. We have already noted his contemporaries Vitruvius and Valerius Maximus.2 It is interesting to recall that this is the second link we have observed between Velleius and Sulpicius Severus (see above. Syme.. 277 (e. Sulp. Indeed from another key sentence (55. with the exception of Florus. 'admonet promissae brevitatisfides quanto omnia transcursu dicenda sint') we may conclude that Velleius. 400. . 3 'forma. 274).indicates that Velleius.DATE. There did of course already exist a tradition of summary histories at Rome when V. 1-2): 'res a mundi exordio . qui divina lectione cognoscere properabant. 364. 2. I For this motif. or any other breviarium-writer. cf. 5 'breviatadigessimus'). 3 For the currencyof summariesin the Fourth Century (1963). AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 285 Velleius describes his own account of Augustus' reign with identical phraseoimaginemprincipatus eius .'s. 96. (See further below. these authors are comparatively late and belong to a period in which universal summaries were the rule.' Such promises of future works are a useful variation of the brevitasformula. Klebs. like Florus. It is true that. GENRE.

/ brevitatenimia quoniam quosdam offendimus'.. 7 'si non ingenium. We know that Ateius Philologus had provided Sallust with a 'breviarium rerum omnium Romanarum' (Suet. reaching its climax in the Middle Ages: see Curtius. that of Pompeius Trogus in forty-four. ib. 11 ff. one sort or another. xxiii sqq. I cannot see that W61fflin (335) has any evidence that Brutus' epitomes were published. . brevis tamen uterque est quia facit quod instituit': cf. titulum suum legat atque identidem interroget se quid coeperit scribere. Ep. 2 prol. xxii [1969]. p. Ep. a dewhich indicates scription of Nepos' Chronica that he was doing something as new in historiography as Catullus himself was in lyric (cf.c. Io0. to improve upon a tradition which by the end of Augustus' reign had clearly exhausted itself. apparently for his own private use (cf. tomized by the end of the first century. 71. Max. of Rome in the SilverAge (3rd edn. 24).. xxxviii. 3 epil.. Hist. Arruntius (cf. we see that they had required an ever increasing number of books for their task. Att.s I J. 4 Cf.948). ib. Martial tells us (I4. that of Valerius Antias in seventy-five. F.) 2 Plin. I I n. Dionysius had epitomized his own Ant. Io). 3. 'bonas in partes lector accipias velim. xxxxi sqq.. 5. Lit. We do know that Sallustian brevitas verbisbecame popular with the in historian L. complexus' (Brut. Gramm.' (Vitruvius is not. ? If we look back over the earlier tradition of universal historians. Wight Duff. as is Val. quoted above. sciatque si materiae immoratur non esse longum. Scholars have detected a rise in the popularity of brevitas. 6. 'The Early Historians'. I. of course. 4 epil. There was no point. that of Q. brevitasgratiam'. A. hardly a lover of brevity. Catull. Dorey. and finally that of Livy in one hundred and forty-two. whose references to brevity are even more obsessive than Velleius': e. Licinius Macer in sixteen.T.2 Besides.. 42 'primum ego officium scriptoris existimo. 5b). what alternative but brevity was left to a universal historian writing in the twenties A.D.286 A. another contemporary. but he is right to stress (342) that Suet. Nepos had been preceded by Cicero's friend Atticus. the universal history of C. 279 n. I2. The trend may well have continued through the first century. that of C. 3 On book totals see E.P. in LatinHistorians(ed. 1964). from about of the first century. 25-6. the last summarist had been Cornelius Nepos around 54 B. A.2 'breviter exponam'. for we find Pliny. about eighty years or more earlier. io is no evidence for the use of the term breviariumin Sallust's time. WOODMAN compendious works and referred explicitly to brevity. Rom. 14 'si celerius coepero'. being compelled to attribute brevity to Homer and Virgil in a manner which would have done credit to the exigent Alexandrianism of Horace. Mnem. Cic. certe brevitatemadproba'. but we do not know when. . 487 ff. 148 ff. J. 59-60 (!) 'haec exsecutus sum propterea pluribus.4 It was the moment for brevity. By contrast. quot Vergilius arma hic Aeneae Achillis ille describat. It is true that none of this evidence comes from historians. 6. 153-4): see HRR ii2. 6-8). / ita si rependet . Badian. who had 'omnem rerum memoriam breviter . 14) in one book apparently entitled Annalis (HRR ii2. Wight DuffI also pointed to Phaedrus. although it has been generally thought that the epitome is to be dated earlier-possibly (so W6lffiin) as early as V. Cairns. s The apparently recent popularity in epitomes is a useful parallel. 51.3 Cato's Origines came out in seven books.g.. Claudius Quadrigarius in twenty-three. indeed it was scarcely possible. as exactly coeval with V. 7. Sen. vides quot versibus Homerus. I 14 17). Gramm. 8 'brevitatinostrae praemium ut reddas peto'.. longissimum si aliquid accersit atque attrahit. The polymath Varro had also written a short work in three books called Annales (HRR ii2. himself (see 190) that Livy had been epi- . His scepticism does not contradict what is a clear trend. 3. 'This brevity was a kind of literary fashion. Hor. Aelius Tubero in at least fourteen. 1966). (20obooks) into possibly three books (RAC 5. but of course almost no first-century historian has survived. but this may have been little more than a private notebook not unlike the epitomes which Brutus made. 5-6 'aususes unusItalorum / omne aevum tribus explicare cartis'. comparable with that to which Phaedrus lays claim at the same period. I 'breviter proloquar'.

a contemporary of Statius. and the only possible evidence against this view-the dedication to M. Wilkes. Stat. in common with the other summarists mentioned earlier. I do not wish to imply that the production of large-scale works dried up in the first century A.' Velleius therefore belongs to the genre of the universal summary. H. I8. RAC 5. 1o 'qui treat the material in iusta volumina (48. lxv [1972]. I. Jer. 54-6). A valuable list and discussion of epitomes are provided by I.A. 'Julio-Claudian Historians'. 3 'alio loco explicabimus'): so too Tac. mais la compression du r6cit commandee par les lois du genre de l'abreg6. 4 'principatum divi Nervae et imperium Traiani. magnificent. I 14 4. (c) Others (alii) will 'scribant reliqua potiores. brought to his universal history. Fenestella's Annales (21 books) were epitomized (HRR ii2. 103. as do Florus and Sulpicius Severus. 16-39. Similarly Horace in his Odesdeclares that neither his limited ability nor his humble genre is able to describe will instead be treated in the epic poetry of Varius (line I). n'est pas la hate avec laquelle il ridige.procudere linguas ad maiores moneo stilos. but meanwhile he will continue with his agricultural themes (these were by definition in a less pretentious genre: 40-1). phraseology which implies that the present work is of only slight pretensions: so too Eutrop. pp. I).DATE. 87) but we do not know when. 944-50. etc. 15. press6 par le temps.. produced what seems to have been a short work based on Sallust and Livy (cf. p.3. each of which may be paralleled in later prose writers. 332 ff. Begbie. Yet V. C. 46-8: he means of course in the high style of epic poetry). 7. Thus Virgil in the Georgics announces that he will write of the achievements of Augustus (3. They constitute repeated assertionsof the total emphasis on brevity which he. Opelt. To his great credit Jodry had also come to this conclusion (274): 'La 'festinatio' qu'allkgue V. Vibius Maximus. I19. I. Firm. 9 2 sequuntur stilo maiore dicendi sunt'. Io. 280-2). praef. 16. 5. (a) Velleius himself will treat the relevant material in another work (96. p. Chron. uberiorem securioremquemateriam. aetate doctrinisque florentes.' But he unfortunately produced no argument whatsoever to substantiate his thesis. What follows is by way of an appendix to the foregoing section.Q. I. Such formulae have long been recognized as literary conventions which either panegyrize the present r6gime (Tacitus) or couple such panegyric with C. Viniciuscan be satisfactorilyexplained on other grounds (above. 8-9. great themes which . senectuti seposui'. 5. These promises take different forms. which is quite clearly not the case (see Syme 1959. son Histoire. in other writers no less than in Velleius. (b) Velleius himself will treat the material in a iustum opus (89. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 287 This accumulation of evidence leaves little doubt about the nature of Velleius' referencesto speed and brevity. has survived and they have not. H. 99. 4) or iusta volumina (48. are conventional methods of relegating or omitting material which is unwanted for one reason or another. namely promising that such material will be treated in a future work or future works (above. the achievements of Agrippa and Augustus (I. 177-203). 64 ff. 4. 31. 2 The reason is often panegyrical: the events to be described are so great. xvii [1967]. We have seen that references to speed and brevity. for discussion). also W6lfflin. 277). I 9. Is this an indication that he sensed the literary mood of the time better than they? He was certainly in tune with the mood of later antiquity. p. I): so too Amm. that they cannot be done justice in the present work: see further below. We have also seen that Velleius has another method. M.P. Silv.. W. 285). quos id (si libuerit) adgressuros. cf. 290 n. 5-12). 3 (cited above. GENRE.. 6. C. 3.D. 4 'reliquum tempus Gratiani et Theodosii latioris historiae stilo reservavi'.' Most of these formsmay also be paralleled in the Augustan poets. J.

to which identical phraseology is found in Plin.. In the last chapter of Pantagruel Rabelais 'promises another book after this one. This is a normal fifteenth-century convention for ending a book' (D. Thus the weight of the majority of the parallels indicates that Velleius' references to a future work are not to be taken seriously. 3. especially Tacitus. Rabelais [197I].3.4 a reference to the modesty of his present undertaking in a manner which by might well indicate that these are both simply conventional allusions to brevity (48. West has pointed out to me a very interesting parallel. Doblhofer. WOODMAN an assertion of the modesty of the author's genre (so Eutropius. iam pridem peracta sanciYet whereas Velleius and all the other writers use verbs which are tur. at I I9. 103.').288 A.3. 3. in a panegyrical allusion to a work of history which Pliny did actually write (praef. Virgil. Yet the reference at 48. which is clearly not panegyrical. Tac. But there are doubts as mentioned above. or even of the incapacity. diximus opereiusto. 'Adulationand Mendacity' One of the central problems of Velleius' history is his treatment of Tiberius in general and of Sejanus in particular. A. G. 99. on Tacitus see Syme. ubi sit ea. STYLE I. quaeres. presumably. 6. it is hardly the poem foreshadowed in Georgics 3. Wimmel. used his treatment of the disaster to bring out the military qualities of Tiberius. Kallimachos in Rom (1960). even adding a summary of what it will contain. which seems to contrast so sharply with the grim picture we derive from other sources. D. but not I14. J. Pliny had in fact already finished his history. 119. suggests that perhaps Velleius did intend to write another work (cf. patrem te fratremque. 3. The majority of Velleius' references employ the terms iusta voluminaor iustum opus. N. 2836 Prof.3 they may to this extent be considered conventional and not to be taken seriously. e. and Sumner has voiced what is probably the most considerable doubt of all: 'There is nothing casual or perfunctory about the way Velleius announces the project. I.4. He advertises it repeatedly and emphatically.6 II. Tac.4. 6 'nunc proposito operi sua forma reddatur'.. either in the future tense or imply future activity.'). 96. on the later authors see Peter. 99. 5 Velleius follows the reference to a future work liber. WK 414 and n. 119.4). 124 ff. 96. I). Horace). of the Historieswhen published. I. but there is evidence that V. leave the whole matter in medio. and is thus not decisive evidence for the seriousness of Velleius' promises.4.I For this reason no one really believes that any of these authors themselves intended actually to write such future works.3 'non tamen pigebit vel incondita ac rudi voce memoriam prioris servitutisac testimonium praesentium bonorum composuisse. Pliny uses the past tense. Odes I.H. 5. It should be noted that assertions of the modesty.'s We must. 20 'vos quidem omnes. Are I On the poets see W.g. 75-6. I. 4 prior servitusis an allusion to Domitian's reign. 219 ff. 2. Coleman. of one's present style or work imply no insult to the subject under discussion but rather the opposite: see. Janson. Agr. I14. so too at 89. 2 The Aeneid is an awkward case: although it undeniably glorifies Augustus.. I does not at first sight appear panegyrical (the context is the Varianaclades). at 48. 55)- . hic interim However. s Sumner... NisbetHubbard on Hor. 3 The ref. I think. 103..2 and the question must be asked: 'Does the same reasoning apply to Velleius?' Since the majority of Velleius' references are panegyrical (89. which occupied a part. despite the similarity of phraseology. Janson. temporum nostrorum historiam orsi a fine Aufidii.

A. does refer to V. 152. 'an uneasy amalgam of adulation and mendacity' (1959). s 'So darf man dem Tiberius-Bild des V. 'Mendacious as well as misleading' (1933). Tiberius(ed. has consistently and emphatically come down on the side of Teuffel.243. V. 367.P. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 289 we to agree with Norden that Velleius is 'a most important corrective to the Tacitean account' ?.g. 262. D. but without conviction.DATE. . "x P. 69. R. 9 Syme. is brief and lacking in enthusiasm on this matter. of those scholars I have read. 358.4 Dihle's article. 91. which contains 335 pages. Tac. in the words of Syme.S.6 What of historians of Tiberius' reign ? Marsh at the beginning of our period (1931) says that Velleius is 'valuable as showing the official view of various events'. Koestermann. N. Kornemann. unread. Balsdon has attempted sporadic counter-attacks. cf. Rome: theStoryof an J. which of its nature was required to cover a wide range of different aspects. Bengtson. (1959). (The quotation is from p. r3 e.8 It is as if these historians have taken seriously a pronouncement made more than once by Syme: 'The Roman historians subsequent to Livy have perished utterly. Paladini made some cogent points but they were rendered less effective by the generalized nature of her study. 200. i961). Colledge reviewing Balsdon's book: 'Why is Velleius Paterculus.'9 Syme himself.I The eloquence and authority of these verdicts are such that few scholars have ventured to disagree with them. For this reason they demand careful consideration. M. GENRE.. H. 2. 271. in a footnote on p. that chapter 126 Die rdm. is one such example. einen unveriichtlichen historischen Wert beimessen. sobald man nur beriicksichtigt. Or with Teuffel that he was a 'toady' of Tiberius and Sejanus ?z The issue has been generally avoided by those scholars who have devoted their attention to Velleius during the last forty years. passim. was fuir ein Mann es ist. der es zeichnet' (647). Tac. and certainly far less than one would expect from a historian with a sympathetic attitude towards Tiberius. and this part of my essay will focus upon two of the most serious criticisms which are commonly levelled against Velleius' treatment of Tiberius' reign.Literatur(6th edn.R. 17. 5 n.7 similarly when Bengtson brought out Kornemann's study of Tiberius towards the end of this period (I960). makes one further ref. whose pupil he was. if they have not informed. 'obsequious' (1956). I.'z But such attempts are always liable to be shot down by those'3 who have rejected the warning behind Balsdon's description of Velleius-'a historian whom it is now the fashion to dismiss rather than to give oneself the bother of reading'. Velleius is again conspicuous mainly by his absence.3 The perceptive dissertation by Steffen remains unpublished and largely. 266-9.) ~4 J. TST47. RR 393 n.S. 'fraudulent' (1939). 'voluble and unscrupulous' (1958). 2 Teuffel. (1956). Balsdon.'4 It is clear that Syme's opinions represent. less infrequently than Marsh. but never mentions him again in the whole of his book. 'incoherent' (1934). 121. (1934). the products of whose distinguished and influential career exactly span our period. 6 Sumner.s Only Sumner has published a 'serious and percipient reappraisal' of Velleius' attitude towards Tiberius and Sejanus. 3 Paladini. I suspect. 147 n. 12-13. 275. of all people."I and Seager concludes his recent study of Tiberius with a judicious evaluation of Velleius as a historian of the reign. 469-78. 'adulatory and dishonest' (1970) . U 4 Steffen's work is mentioned only by I960). '0 Respectively (1933). These are. 12 Seager. 3. given an outsize blurb?' (C. the majority verdict of scholars during the last forty years.R. 7 To be strictly accurate Marsh's book. Ivii (1967). xxiii [19731].) 8 E. Empire (1970).

The topos recurs in the Panegyrici Latini (e. but panegyrical apologies often hide behind apologies of a quite different nature (thus the Augustan poets by means of Callimachean apologies: see Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor.g. 759 n. WOODMAN is 'a general panegyric of the new reign' and that chapters 127-8 are a 'panegyric' of Sejanus. sed enarrare.290 A. licet dicendo aequare non possem.' 2.4 Cicero employs this formula on at least two occasions (Red..3 and one of the subtler methods of expressing this toposis to declare that a person's achievements are so many as to defy even enumeration. I to this toposon account of the word partibus. 3 'patris ac patrui tui merita. has a different idea in mind. sed percensere enumerando ?'. Marc. Odes I. I. industria civitati redditae. by stressing the cum-clause. It could perhaps be argued. Caesar. Casaubon ad loc.'s history. 131-2). 113. Besides. 9 ('proposita vitae eius velut summa. sepultaeque ac situ obsitae iustitia..' 'Restoration' is the key note. 241. cf.'s sentence. having unfortunately one of several subjects outside the scope of the present essay. Now exactly similar statements were used by Velleius to describe Augustus' achievements at I Tac. 83-5. Sen. Eos xx (1914-I5). C. W. 3 See. that he avoids the excessive language of some of the other examples. also above. quod tam divinum atque incredibile genus orationis quo quisquam possit vestra in nos universa promerita non dicam complecti orando. singula recenseamus. tanta copia.). 287 n. [in] partibus eloquatur ?' Yet three chapters later he contradicts himself by announcing that he will now give a detailed account of the reign (129. The next section of the chapter lists various good qualities which Tiberius has restored (126. quae tanta dicendi copia. But this is T. the notion 'everyone knows' lies behind such formulae of the praeteritio as 'quid loquar?' or 'quid memorem?' and these are also very common in panegyrical writing (for examples. 4 'nullius dicendi aut scribendi tanta vis. p. My analysis of these chapters will be stylistic. that V. Curtius.. S. quae non dicam exornare. 411 ff. See the excellent remarks of Leo.'s rhetorical question at 126. 2 imagine was plausibly placed here by already been suggested elsewhere in the sentence by Friebel in I837. nullum ingenium tam fecundum umquam fuerit quod possit publicam felicitatem digne exprimere. senatui maiestas. I) : 'sed proposita quasi universa principatus Ti. hence the title of part II of this essay. possem tamen vel censere numerando?') and in the epistolary panegyric found at H. I7 (3 'nulla vox tam fortis. had noticed that Suet. res tuas gestas possit'). e. nedum prosequi consentanea dicendi dignitate'). Caesaris <imagine). Hermath. nulla oratio tam felix. is more concerned to place Tiberius' achievements in a eulogistic light by means of a recognized panegyrical motif than to concern himself with strict logic. ThePanegyric Tiberius' of Reign (Chapter 126) Velleius opens his account of Tiberius' reign with a rhetorical question which implies that he is unable to set down the details of the reign (126. 4 I have assigned V. I 'quae tanta enim potest exsistere ubertas ingenii.g. partes singillatim neque per tempora sed per species exsequar') closely resembles V.'2 Why the contradiction? It was a convention of the panegyrical style to confess one's inability to deal properly with the subject under discussion . Max. Sinko. (5) haec enumerare difficile est. 2 and 368 respectively. Maguinness. xlviii [1933]. i) : 'horum xvi annorum opera quis cum inhaereant oculis animisque omnium. next n.. Velleius. It will be noticed. J. e. 8. aequitas.A. who explains the difference between the two authors-although he is only one of many scholars to note the importance which biography plays in V. iudiciis gravitas. 159 ff.g.. in other words.. Balb. however. 2. Aug.. 6 intro. accessit magistratibus auctoritas.. But it should not be thought that this is a full account or evaluation of V. .. 2): 'revocata in forum fides.'s style as a whole : see.

and Durry. 427. and enlightened provincial policy (4 'fortuita non civium tantummodo sed urbium damna principis munificentia vindicat: restitutae urbes Asiae. 17. 296 f. 25. C. Thus two apparent difficulties in chapter 126 have been satisfactorilyresolved by recourse to the conventions of panegyric. ambitio campo. vindicatae ab iniuriis magistratuum provinciae') cf. xix (1969). The panegyrical motif with which the chapter began.A. Plin. 376. out of many examples. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 291 the beginning of his reign (89. Syme. . rightly.. and which was discussedabove. senatui maiestas') cf. 2 'senatui. reddidistis pristinam dignitatem'. Nisbet. 60. zeitlichenPanegyrik (1968). invigilare publicis utilitatibus et insurgere. '.489--91. IVHonor.. 7. Pan. instantaneously apparent in total contrast to all that went before'. N. iudiciis auctoritas. it was also conventional to express this comparison by means This is a conventional method of emphasizing of the 'language of restoration'. It was conventional. GENRE. 182. 20off.' Some scholars have been puzzled by the similarity of the two passages-'Why Tiberius should have had to do the same things (as Augustus) is not explained'. 3. Doblhofer.. 513 ff. xxxii (1910). Yet the deification of one's predecessor was to become one of the conventional introductory motifs of panegyric: cf.. 66. imperium magistratuum ad pristinum redactum modum . rather than inviting considerationof a troubled past. 2-3 'tu curiam ingressus nunc singulos. men and cities.M. xxxiv (1912). K. Gairtner. OdesI is the use they make of comparisons with V. 29.. rhet. I.2which we know to have been unhappy. 77.H. 2.. . 53. I73-5 . G. 149 f. Sidon. Laud. . 2. discordia curia') cf. 367. lxvi (19I 1).. o105 ff. ingentia Pan. Klotz.. For the restoration of the senate's authority (2 'accessit . prisca illa et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata rediit cultus agris. 7 Another quasi-difficulty is the deifica- Rh. 194 f. R. Menand. nunc universos adhortatus es resumere libertatem.. Plin. 6). I 'pulsus ambitus campo' and 69-75. Pan. Thus for the motif of electoral procedure (126. 31-377.7 Such parallels between Velleius' chapter and panegyrical writings could in fact be multiplied almost endlessly. lxvii (1912).DATE. 50. Einige Uberlegungen zur kaiser. Mesk.] has to relate about the phenomenal virtues of the Tiberian regime. capessere quasi communis imperii curas.24 ff. nemini tamen ante te creditum est'.. sistere ruinas. Plin. A. Iv and review by (934). For Tiberius' devotion to Augustus cf... H. For the restoration of justice (2 'iudiciis gravitas') cf. 80.S. L.s to praise the present ruler by comparison with his predecessor. no more meriting credence than what [V. Pan. Max. Plin. 2 So Schiifer. 53.. s Plin. Tac. Mai.. Tac. 31. Aspects. 200. as Pliny and Menander rhetor tell us.8but it is necessaryhere to be rigorouslyselective. senatui maiestas. 375. . whichhad already at been mentioned at 124. indicates how we should read the rest of the chapter.. N. who at least is fair.6 the happy present. Plin. 569 ff. Balb. rhet.M. 4 'magnum hoc tuum non erga homines modo sed erga tecta ipsa meritum. 5. I ff. 37. 2 Velleius is implicitly criticizing the last years of Augustus' reign. 4.. Contrast Syme. I. Prisc. Plin. solitudinem pellere.. 269..4 Another explanation is required. Rh. One of the virtuesof Nisbet-Hubbard's commentaryon Hor. the restoration of ruined cities.39-40. 3. Anast. says Seager.3 Yet it is hardly likely that Velleius would wish to criticize the man upon whom Tiberius consistently and emphatically modelled himself. 8 Instructive for comparison are: J. restituta vis legibus.24... tion of Augustus 126. 90.x One explanation might be that at 126. Tac.J. For munificentiatowards x Seager. I 'nihil non parum grate sine comparatione laudatur' (cf. 3-4): 'revocata pax. Steffen.S.P. Born. omnes ante te eadem ista dixerunt.R. Claud. 6 See Fraenkel. 450 f. Cairns. W. Grant. Menand. H. M. A. 2 'summota e foro seditio. I I. 3. 3 Cf. 4 So..

376. Fam. Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. 2. WOODMAN opera codem quo exstructa sunt animo ab interitu vindicare'.R.: see further H. I. Brit. 5. 2. Ep. 3 Velleius says of Tiberius' foreign policy: 'diffusain orientisoccidentisque tractus et quidquid meridiano aut septentrione finitur pax augusta'. 45 f. Some of Velleius' adaptations of panegyrical motifs are extremely subtle. 8. 4 to Vell. 19. Laws 711. Smith on Tib. 184 'prostratasrecreasti funditus urbes'. 2. an idea of great antiquity. Otto. 2. I I. Maguinness. J. I. Fuchs. 3. Balb. exemplo maior est'). 9 Cf. 6. Pal. 144 if. It is true that many of the parallels quoted are later than Velleius. 8. Anast. Weinstock. 6 'nec tam imperio nobis opus est quam exemplo'. 203-4. I4 ff. Virg. Prisc. Aen. Paul.3. Fraenkel 451 n. 9. 1 (1960).. 2 (Migne 61. 61. N. 2 'nam cum omnes homines etiam non indigentes iuvare boni sit principis. Laud. 7. Lat. esp. Max. s Cf.. 4.269-74.9so he did the same for Velleius. Curt.. Xen. Isocr. Solon fr. Met. See below. Now it was conventional in panegyric to stress the ruler's powerby claiming that it stretched from east to west. Hermath. Fraenkel. 144. 2. I I e.zPan. 6. 21-2.. M. Menand. 4 For which cf. 3. Plato. 5. I8. Rep. 2 The contrast between exemplum and imperiumis found elsewhere (Tac.1.8 These parallels are sufficiently convincing for us to conclude that when Velleius wrote chapter 126 he deliberately exploited the motifs of panegyric. 4 he says of Tiberius: 'poena in malos sera sed aliqua'. Ep. 38.A. e. 4. Sen. Seager. 4 (quoted above). 6.g. 21 ff. Ov. just as Cicero provided the model for many of the ideas which are found in the later panegyrists. I. Mayor on Juv. 7 e. 834. Pan. 15. 12.' cf. 35. W. Mus. example. Cic. 8. J. We have already seen one example at 126. 45. the motifs of which he for used liberally in the Pro Marcello. Tac. 2. 17. 8. .I. Res Gest. 218. 59-60 (and Smith's n. Plin. Leg. 2. D. Cyr. Anth. Plin. 13. 69. For the emperor being an example to his citizens (5 'cumque sit imperio maximus. a recognized panegyrical technique. Thus at 126.). 5. Bacch. 15. 2-3. 5.3. 7. I.. e. xlvii (1932). Hor. Pan. 126. cf. I. Val. Petr. but in view of the similarity of context and the close resemblance of Plin. 9. 50. it would seem that Pliny here echoes V. 299-302. xlviii (i933). Lat. Now it was proverbial throughout Greek and Latin literature that divine vengeance works slowly but surely:3 Velleius is here describing Tiberius' penology in terms usually reservedfor a god. Democr. 31. 47. O118D). Nicocl. 7. S. 6 Cf. 15. 56. Ogilvie on Liv. 2. 12. 882-7.S. 79. 3 See Dodds on Eur. 7 init.s Similarly at 126.29. I. I.292 A. Cicero too was familiar with this tradition. Cairns.Mart. 2 'provinciis quae inexplebili avaritia tyrannorumlaceratasad spem salutisreducitis'. H. Claud. 435-8. 295 and n. Lat.g. Indeed. Ages.g. 34-5) but it blossomed under the empire. Stil. Pan. 375-6. S. Tib. IVHonor. Hor.H. Williams. Max. Clem. Areop. Odes4. Cicero voiced the attitude (Off.6 it was also conventional to claim that the ruler has brought widespreadpeace. 16. 31 f. 49 f-. p. but this does not mean that the conventions or motifs did not exist earlier. 9. Ioo.. 8948 The literary conceit has its roots in the attitude which persuaded Romans to see the pax augustain terms of the power which made that pax possible.. B39. Vit. 286 ff. 37 . G. 8. II. 168.g. 7. 1.4. 86). xii (1955). Odes 4. 5. Plin.7 Velleius has here combined the two ideas. I. I. describing the imperial peace in terms which are usually reserved for the imperial power. I. 12 (and Wilhelm 41). Inscr.4In this way he hints at the divinity of an emperor whose attitude towards such matters was one of well-attested contempt. 23. tum praecipue bene meritis et graviter adfectis subvenire sapientis est'. 42-61. 13.H.. II117-38. Odes I. rhet.. 3. Orelli on ib. Sprichwdrter. It is clear from the studies of Doblhofer and Nisbet-Hubbard on Horace that the poet was extremely familiar with a tradition of court poetry which is very similar to panegyric.

Leo 241 f. that we should distinguish what V. 100. 31. would have been most appropriatein all such speeches of gratitude long before A. for example. 3-5. in whose reign both greater and lesser magistracies were elected by the electoral assemblies carried out his predecessor's intentions (I.C. 14-23 given by Tac.' These gratiarum actionespresumably had much in common with panegyric proper.z Velleius has (as it were) written a panegyric proper. 3. 291). 6. we should not be surprised that he has expressed himself in a manner appropriate to panegyric.S.'s final pages as 'panegyrical' (e. as does Frei-Stolba. which during Augustus' reign occasionally became so serious (e. W. 124. I or praises Tiberius for being an example to his subjects at 126. each of the statements listed above (pp. Laistner. and will have employed similar motifs. 7.A. 4. had been intending (i. Dio 54. 388. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 293 is (p. Vell. 2) that the emperor was comand comitiatributarespectively). 477. Thus when Syme describes this chapter as 'a general panegyric of the new reign'.s and we know from Tacitus that Tiberius ad patres translata sunt: nam ad eam diem. says from the manner in which he says it: e. M.D. 3 Several scholars have naturally pleaded (9 II). s Cf. 85-7. As it happens. quaedam tamen studiis tribuum fieban t. We must not be annoyed that he issues a rhetorical question of the kind at 126.3 Once we are aware that convention has prescribedthe manner of Velleius' statements. . The 'authority of the senate'. 15.g. cf. 55. L.e. W. pelled to elect the magistrateshimself. and others.g. 145-6 and n. The distinction between general disparagement and accurate description is most important. 291-2) as being 'panegyrical' can be corroborated in other ancient authorities.D. Paladini. we are in a far better position to considerwhether the statements themselves are true or false.D.DATE. There is no reason to doubt V. by the comitiacenturiata to rationalize electoral procedure. we know that from at at least as early as A. he is not only correct. GL i. Besides. GreaterRomanHistorians (1947). I) : 'tum primum e campo comitia in 19 B. etsi potissima arbitrio principis.g. where Velleius' revocatafides a direct verbal reminiscence of revocandafides Marc. xxxiii Earlier scholars who had described V. but far more correct than he himself appears to believe. 5. 1-3.D. 2 'Zur Quellenanalyse des Plinianischen Panegyricus'. These are the rules of the game. however. and A. 290 above) : there is another at 126. Whereas he used the word 'panegyric' as a general term of disparagement. But our knowledge of panegyrical conventions has a further. 476.) were speaking no more specifically than Syme. p. which I paralleled from Pliny and the H.'s statement. Once we know that Velleius set out to write a miniature panegyric. advantage: it enables us to distinguish what is conventional in this chapter from what is actual. II . Peter. neque populus ademptum ius questus The evidence for this practice is assembled by Durry. Mesk was the first fully to realize. (above. As J. Elections at Rome were traditionally opportunities for ambitioand seditio (rioting). 4 So too Paladini. 34. more important.We know that Augustus. it should in fact be applied to this chapter as a precise term of literary criticism.8 a senatus consultum required that newly elected consuls should render thanks to the gods and to the emperor in a public speech. 2. 10. 23. GENRE.4 a particularly instructive parallel being the comparable survey of the years A.

Lacey.. 64.. I I.14. ficentiae summum'. 32. I7. 4-I15. .i.). 2. 46. Frei-Stolba.s Tacitus tells us that the senate naturally welcomed the change (i. 15. 2. 3 ff.. muni- 3 A similar metonymy at Liv. 46. a point which seems to have escaped the many historianswho have discussed these problems. I. 4. J. I85f. virtues which modern scholarship agrees in seeing in at least the first part of x So Canesi in his commentary loc. 3. however.294 A.' Tiberius' attitudes towards the judicial system.' By the figure metonymy Vela statement which clearly implies a change in the roles of bothelectoral assemblies.e. 124 nn. I. Koestermann on Tac. 2 'principem . 3. s e. and Tacitus tells us that Tiberius assistedin the relief by financial contributionsand tax remissions(2.3 the matter has been summed up by Syme himself:6 'The accession of Tiberius marked a restorationof the Republic more genuine in many respectsthan that proclaimed and enacted by his predecessor-if behaviour be valued higher than legal formula.e. 48.. 6.. 2 Cf. 183 ff.7POjKOVTE 172. Other sources echo what Velleius says (Tac. Dio 57. .. e.. to those of the comitia centuriata tributa (which met in (which met on the Campus) and of the comitia the Forum). Lana. 123 ff. the com. Lana. WOODMAN est. 323 and n. 171-2. 4 'et ne provinciae novis oneribus turbarentur atque vetera sine avaritia aut crudelitate magistratuum tolerarent. Seager. ijlhov centuriata and 7&r' com. 6. 17 an earthquake had destroyed several cities there. 20. 47 'magnificam in publicum largitionem'. 2 'ignotos etiam et ultro accitos munificentia iuverat'. 6 Tac.. 26.' But since it has been shown that this interpretation of Tacitus' sentence is untenable. (1955).' Tacitus in . other than the consulship] aiL-ovv-wv Kau Ta T aVEOkov -iOEAE. KaL dE irA?0o [i.4 Thus Velleius is here not only telling the truth. 2-3. ambitio campo.D. Tiberius' penology is to be seen in terms of his dementia moderatio. 47. 167.D.g.. 2. 30. 14 ff. The same is true of the restoration of the senate's authority. can be similarly corroborated.32. 3):8 Velleius' point that Tiberius aided individuals and cities alike (57. and Dio confirms 10. 4. cf. and Seager.. Velleius' example of the cities of Asia Kal rrTOAEOn 267rat. a senator himself ('summota. I39. 6. I 'addidit munificentiam Caesar. 3).D. 14: it merely describesthe change which took place in elections to the praetorship.D.7TE7TE. De Or. ad several places testifies to Tiberius' munificentia(I. -roAAa KatL 3 is accurate: we know that in A. 9. I). 7.I. 3.9 Tiberius' enlightened provincial policy is confirmed both by Tacitus (4. providebat') and by Suetonius (Tib. Shotter. cf.e. he is the only historianto recordfully and accurately what happened to electoral procedureas a whole in A. Dio 57. Goodyearon Tac. That we are right in seeing this implication is confirmed by Dio's account of electoral procedurein A. looks at first sight as if Tacitus is referringto the elections of both greater and lesser magistracies. 105..'. Tiberius' electoral reformshave caused a large amount of discussion. 4 Dio 58. mentioned by Velleius in the same sentence. I 'senatus largitionibus ac precibus sordidis exsolutus libens tenuit')-so does Velleius.g. we read: 'summota e foro seditio.E'TapK6oV. Rogers.2 the passage is no evidence at all for the election procedure of lessermagistratesin A. Tib. discordia curia'). 45. 2 'boni pastoris esse tondere pecus non deand glubere'). Cic. Lacey. I I. with references. tributa respectively] ol . . 7 IEAE'YE7ro -a70 PLOoV Kal' LE~ Tt70 EO TE T7oV doE•... 14. 2 ff. E9Ka7Tpp E•COV7ES 'aTESE&KVVV70. 8 Further confirmation in Rogers.for which cf. In our passage of Velleius. 3-4 r6 v S S4' T'9 WAAg pX~s a [i. 7 etc.' Now in view of Tacitus' double contrast between campo and tribusand it between potissima and quaedam. and leius is referring to the comitia tributa and the comitia centuriatarespectively. 7 9 See also RIC i. 15 ff. 427. Suet.

there are arguments in favour of L. who actually took part in the events which they relate. cum imperio obtineret. I). before Haase believed).g. heyet turnsout to havetoldthe truth' In chapter 126 Velleius !s has done no more than to combine factual accuracy with literary convention in a manner which is entirely characteristicof his work as a whole.4gives himself away when on another occasion he produces this statement: 'Though Velleius is an adulatory and dishonest writer. Lepidi'. RAI 47-51. Paladini. The real trouble. DP 68. In an article on the Pannonian Revolt. who is quite content himself to follow Velleius when 'there is hardly any other evidence'3 and who will chide others for not so following him. (1936). Now the only evidence which these scholars are able to quote in order to substantiate their assertions is Vell. Lit. It is thus beyond dispute that Velleius' statements of appreciation in this chapter are historically true. 25 = TST 47 (my italics). Lepidus. had stopped writing. 39-41). Suetonius in 26 when Tiberius retired to Capri (Tib. 23 (4. is pragmatic.. 12-13 (who quotes Syme's statements).. Wilkes complains that this 'produces a serious lack of balance' because V. A. arma procul habere'). 6). 32. consiliis et astu res externas moliri. xiii [1965].. A glance at Kritz's long note will show that the whole textual problem is far more complicated than these scholars have allowed. Handbook of Lat. however. 26 ff. on the Pannonian Revolt (the quotation from p. for moderatiosee Goodyear on Tac. xlv (0955). x. 2 'immota quippe aut modice lacessita pax. xlii (1973). i. 14 at all (as every ed. is always discounted out of hand by those who wish to condemn him (e. 5.'-which is pure nonsense.D. 6) is interesting for those concerned with the technique of some modern historians. 61 no. This is hardly surprisingsince it is well known that Tiberius' reign falls into two contrasting halves. being based on his own experiences as a soldier on the western front. did not start until the conviction and execution of Sejanus in 31.5. Grant. 2. (e.D. The context of Syme's statement (a discussion of M. always brought up by those who wish to defend V. V. . as Syme himself admits. 'The Last of the Aem. Beranger. et princeps proferendi imperi incuriosus erat'. 125. I 'destinata retinens. 477). cos. Fasti Hispanienses (1969).DATE. des ... 8. s J. in H. 'reflectsfacts'. Only if Lepidus' position in A.2Is Velleius to be arraigned for having truly described the first of these halves? Syme.2 i. 355. 369 n.C. 14 were to be confirmed by other evidence would we be able to contemplate inserting his name here. Tacitus places the dividing line in A. 382 n.. all with further refs.. an attitude also found. 32. Hayne.. 2 Tac.e. Modern students of ancient history are constantly lamenting the paucity of ancient historians who comply with Polybius' conditions for being 'pragmatic' historians.. A. GENRE.S. 14 Lepidus 'held Hispania Tarraconensis with three legions' (TST35). Hist.g..4.. I 12-14). Rose.D. 271.D. Alfoldy. I. Wilkes goes one better (Acta Ant. This fact.R. 6 'Velleius avait eu le m~rite d'inaugurer sur le mode des rh6teurs des thCmes d'actualit6 propres au r6gime alors r6cent. not least by Tacitus himself (2. G. i7: 'It will not do to excuse this unworthy attitude by the plea that Velleius wrote his work before (Tiberius') last. however.. But why not? 3 Camb. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 295 the reign.'s account of the Revolt. J. by which time V. As it is. and L. 9: the same statement occurs in P. 369 ff. Hung. in summa pace <et> quiete continuit. 420 n.I.g. 1-2 'laetioreTiberio quia pacem sapientia firmaveratquam si bellum per acies confecisset'. 500. and other arguments that the passage does not refer to A. but that is no reason for his suggestion to be universally accepted as if it were a fact.' and his non-expansionistattitude towards foreign policy is equally well documented. Aelius Lamia (Sauppe) . years'). J. It is perfectly true that Madvig suggested a supplement which contained Lepidus' name. 64. cum.] is at times of use. when the fuller and better historians fail us'.Anc. hence the daggers. 6. e. however.R. Rogers.Yet the paradosis of that passage reads as follows: 'tad Hispanias exercitumquet virtutibus celeberrimaque in Illyrico militia praediximus. a statement which he had already made in RR 438 and which he subsequently repeated also in Tac. Teuffel. gives no details of the eastern front! * Cf. 369 (1933). Syme there states that in A. 35 if.D. a dichotomy which. '[V. J. .6 I For dementia cf.

[1962]. and had used her influence to gain senatorial rank for M. 2.. Die Trauer-und Trostgedichte derr6m. 47 etc. 2 'nemo potentiam eius iniuria sensit'. 4. Otho I. Corn. 2. 9. 5. Cinna Magnus from the wrath of Augustus (Sen. Sen. The sentiment owes much to panegyrical formulae found in many authors (e. 31. I 'Tiberius ortum patratumque bellum senatu scripsit'). Eos [1898-91. I. Sen. Yet Livia had.2 Although this is not the place to put Velleius' work in a wider perspective. cf. saved C. Lat. (i) At 129. C. Kroll. potens numquam. 7.E. v. a lack of critical awareness: in his work 'the successes of others have no place . 15 f. per te eundem sit ornata'). 'Velleius enrichit le genre d'l16ments neufs que Pline s'est empress6 de faire siens'). Maec. I.296 A. 3 Such a perspective might take into account writers like Cicero (Leg. records the death of Livia. thereby replying to these charges in general. describing what is admittedly a characteristic of panegyrics.D. and Florus (I praef. I Att. 47. Anth.'s treatment of others. Sumner (265 ff. Just. e. i9. I I. R. Eleg. J. Morawski. 7 KatLTULPovAov V-pT'p7 v rpbgrV7a Kat E7TOLELTO.'s characteristic blending of rhetoric and fact.' 3. 3 'singularem principalium 3 KOLV'Ovbv 713yWV VLuaL•E. and that panegyric is quite distinct from history-as even Cicero was aware. . IO. 178-223. with further references. Dio 57. 3. Curt. I. 4.. an 'encomium' which the summarist was able 'to concoct. 'ante populus Romanus vicisse se quam bellare cognosceret nuntiosque periculi victoriae praecederet nuntius'. Ii. id. 3. and Velleius state that at some point early in this period (the date will be discussed below. I1). I I28-9. 4 he says of the defeat of Sacrovir and Florus. in 136).. Cons. 7. I8. Suppl. 5 V.. 19. Salvius Otho.. 9. Tiberius himself had in fact used a similar formula when announcing the defeat in the senate (cf. 5. who proceeds to remark: 'Pline n'a pas manqu6 de s'en inspirer'. 13. Io. 6. without discomfort'. Syme has described Velleius' treatment of Sejanus as a 'panegyric'.4. Ben. The 'Panegyric'of Sejanus (Chapters127-8) It is unnecessary to retell here the story of Sejanus' spectacular rise to power during the twenties A. Tac. Liv. 3. I shall provide two further examples of V.4 The following section of this essay will suggest that Syme has been deceived because he forgot a simple law of imperial historiographywhich he formulated himself:s 'It is the mark of political literature under the Empire. 368. i). s Tac. 405. J. 2.I The charge against Velleius of 'panegyrist' implies a naivete of judgement. are undistressed by V. 31.g. that it should not carry its meaning on its face. 7 Anm. 6 The most recent account is Seager. 'cuius potentiam nemo sensit nisi aut levatione periculi aut accessione dignitatis'. as Ruhnken saw. 2. Cons. Flor. I. D. .g. 3 'facili Tiberio atque ita began referringto Sejanus as his adiutor non laborum modo in sermonibussed apud patres et populum ut socium prono celebraret'.6With the exception of one item upon which our ancient authorities agree. Yet. . Korzeniewski. WOODMAN It could of course be argued that Velleius had no business to write history like this. save when they illustrate or enhance those of Tiberius'. I 'set crebro querens (Drusus) incolumi filio adiutorem imperii alium vocari'. Livy (cf. 5 'ut ea (patria) . I. 301-2) Tiberius (Tac.Lit. 4 Tac. ut spero. I4 ff. DP 33. 57 I.3 we may consider the most notorious instance of Velleius' supposedly uncritical and biased tratment of contemporary figures-his treatment of Sejanus..Pol. 61 f. 2. Dio. 7hV SpOV parte qua prodes ostenderis'. 14. 29. 5. 63. Lat.) and Seager (268-9). 4Vell. praef. This is a toposof the consolatio(e.. 2 Syme. themes romains et impdriaux (Durry. Die Zeit des CurtiusRufus [1959]. Dio 55. grandfather of the emperor (Suet. v io. I27. Pan. Liv. Esteve-Forriol. I 'nec in isto potentiam tuam nisi in ea (2) At 130. 3 'non nihil. I.). 44. Clem. 6. 32. pp.. 5. Yet two recent historians. 3 'Crispe... vii. 7TV ~o 58. ad admirationem principis populi conlaturus'). I3. Wilhelm. 4.). 6.. 29. nisi cum prodesse volebas'. Tacitus.g.

AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 297 onerumadiutoremin omnia habuit atque habet'). 40.ovao/C4E.. 2.. Whatever the actual structure of political factions within the senate during this period. I 'in huius virtutumaestimatione. ea mente acturam ut cum equite Romano senescat. Seiane.D. Ferrill.6 Sejanus had written to the emperor requesting the hand of the princess Julia Livilla in marriage (Tac. esse tam excelsum quod non virtutes istae (i. 3. as has been suggested. 186-7. 21.'s 'adiutorem in omnia'.'Whether this was ever an official appointment.. 'populus. xx (1971). Tac.. 2. I. 8.. pot. polluisse nobilitatem familiae videbatur suspectumque iam nimiae spei Seianum ultra extulisse. YpdovWZav2E 7rhAcT a3irov .. distinguished. In that year Sejanus' daughter was betrothed to Claudius' son Drusus. 128. 718-31. Dio's prrp7rav-a is very close d rqpdo-E-v to V. 4 A subject much discussed..s Such opposition will have been intensified by Sejanus' equestrian status. A.'. 39. GENRE. 3 'ut sociumlaborumnon modo in sermonibus sed apudpatreset populumcelebraret' is very close to Vell. 20. 25). his equestrian status and great power (ib. after Tiberius had written to the senate with accusations against Agrippina and Nero. circumsistit curiam festisque in Caesarem ominibus falsas litteras et principe invito exitium domui eius intendi clamitat. 2-3). quae C. and was not confined to the senatorial order but extended to the people also. . . 3 and a further vOV passage of Dio (58. He was an upstart. datoque tempore vel in senatuvel in contionenon reticebo'is very close to Vell. 2. Hist. 22). 8. was himself a senator and would have heard such references on innumerable occasions. senatumque populum Romanumeo and Tac. 3 V. 4..' Similarly in 29.D.e. et Liviam. It is also important to realize that such opposition had started at least as early as A. felt cheated and insecure (Tac. and used the same formula. Rogers. 2 Thus Abraham. 139. 4. From the remarkably similar phraseology used by each historian it is reasonable to conclude that Sejanus was known as Tiberius' adiutor. 4. cf. were made in front of both the senate and the people.DATE. there would be at least a similar number committed to opposing him. s Senatorial opposition is rightly given great stress by Steffen. I). mox Druso nupta fuerit. . 6 On the sources of the correspondence see Koestermann on Tac. of Sejanus) tuusque in me animus mereantur.3 The effect of this honorific nomenclature upon the senate may easily be imagined. Steffen. . 40. the excellent analysis of A.D.2 is perhaps doubtful. 4 7~ 7E povJa . but Tac..4 we may safely assume that for as many influential senators who followed Sejanus' lead. and Tacitus comments (3-. a novus homo. 4 'ad iuvandavero oneraprinet cipis. Caesari.. si te mansurum in eodem ordine putas. 4. The political atmosphere of the mid-twenties is perhaps best illustrated by an interchange of letters between Sejanus and Tiberius (the correspondence is attributed by Tacitus to A. ferebantur etiam sub nominibus consularium fictae in Seianum sententiae' (ib. 4. isolating exactly the two causes of discontent against Sejanus. 4-5): 'falleris enim.. Tiberius replied. 4. Even Drusus. 7. Sejanus' unique position and his equestrian status were two sides of the same coin: these were the two issues which combined to alienate loyalist support at Rome. ego ut sinam. There are further correspondences. 15. 4.u (It48Ev (vTEp E -TPOOEEIt) leave us in no doubt that Tiberius' references 6Oleo to Sejanus were frequent. 39). It is not difficult to imagine opposition of this kind existing throughout the twenties. 4. and aristocratic senators. who had been catapulted to a position of almost unprecedented authority over the heads of many experienced. Koestermann on Tac. 4): 'adversis animis acceptum.. iudicia civitatiscum iudiciisprincipiscertant'. 29. 7 'nihil perduxit ut.2. I88. trib.3. I28.. 5. Tiberius' own son and hitherto the most illustrious person in the state (cos.

I. Vell. i. 14. cf. Grenade. . 194. Tac. the names of two famous novi hominesfrom recent history (Agrippa and Statilius Taurus). usi sunt.2 Velleius begins at once with a general statement (127.. I) : 'raro eminentes viri non magnisadiutoribus. which lists his qualities.for 3. 127-8. 4. 2. 4 e.g.3 or else with an apologetic formula. qui patrem maioresque nostros in summis imperiis videre? vis tu quidem istum intra locum sistere. The remainder of this sentence confirms the fact (127. that the preceding section has been a calculated introduction to it. i86 f.6 Yet there are links between the two chapters. stresses Sejanus' labor. Velleius repeats the opening statement in slightly different form (127.' The new section is taken up with a character sketch of Sejanus which clearly owes much to 'die offizi6se Propaganda's and which comes to an abrupt end at the close of the chapter. 2): 'etenim magna negotia magnis adiutoribusegent.72. singularem principalium onerum adiutorem in omnia habuit atque habet. 39. For example. we come to realize that the character sketch of Sejanus. Caesar Seianum Aelium. 6 So Rockwood. and was seen to be. and that of Sumner. Also. 'sub his exemplis'. which is similar in some respects. 39.. 3-4. 2 where which cf. Steffen. . and rightly stressed by Marsh. excessisse iam pridem equestre fastigium longeque antisse patris mei amicitias non occulti ferunt'. I 'eodem tractu temporum'. the personal responsibility of Tiberius. 2: see esp. 127. Tiberius goes on to say that opposition towards Sejanus means criticism of himself: 'perque invidiam tui me quoque incusant. Tac. 36. In fact the break seems so abrupt that scholars have thought the following chapter to be a digression. i. J.' For it is essential to remember that Sejanus' elevation was. for his indifference to success cf. Velleius commences either with some temporal or logical connective linking it with the preceding narrative. I89 f. 6.g. It is clear from the phraseology with which the next section begins. 2. 4. 3) : 'sub his exemplis Ti. 466 ff. but by introducing. has been a preparation for this discussion. qui te invito perrumpunt omnibusque de rebus consulunt.'. 9. Moreover. 40. are defended on the grounds of public expediency and political necessity (see the accumulation of such words as usu. . 4. are by far the best guides to chapters 127-8. as here. utilitatem). This is no careless repetition. 66. 4. was written before I had been able to see Steffen's dissertation. ad loc.298 A. the opening statement being completely divorced from anything in chapter 126. made clear by the repetition of the phrase magnis adiutoribus. with apparent casualness. 5. 2 'in quas provincias .. 3. Since 128 begins by discussing the role of moral worth in political life. 3- s Koestermann on Tac. after which. 90. I. and others. sed illi magistratus et primores.4 Only here is no such introduction used.' The circular movement of the argument.. and the first sentence of 128. also his vigilantia. the last sentence of I27. 4. 8. The statement itself is illustrated by four examples from past history.. 2. 16. 3 e. The section has undeniably dealt with political adiutores.' With this background in mind we may now turn to Velleius' chapters on Sejanus.' On other occasions when he expands his rapid narrative to deal with a single large topic. Sejanus could not have risen to such heights or maintained his supremacy without the emperor's continual blessing. V. it establishes I This aspect is well brought out in Tac. His work. WOODMAN credisne passuros qui fratrem eius. 127.. Velleius is already preparing us for what will be the main debating-point in chapter 128. 39. both contain the word aestimatio.indicates that we have come to the who end of a section. having proved his point. 2 I should say that my analysis.

DATE. just as 127. 52. 38). where proposita imagine to the panegyric of Tiberius' reign in 126. 13. Plin. Tac. fr.. I2. The circular movement of the argument again indicates that we have come to the end of the section.' 2 e. Cic. Hor. 452-3. Indeed. I.Vom Werden Wesen Prinzipats und des (1937). The language instantly recalls the propaganda of novi homines during the late Republic. 257-60. 2. Chapter 129 begins: 'sed proposita quasi universa principatus Ti. I.g. Val. 127. 2. 3): 'in cuiuscumque animo virtusinesset. that the preceding section has been begins.4Chapters The sense is: 'Sejanus always reckoned himself below the aestimatio others (I27. Velleius repeats the opening statement in slightly different form (128. having proved his point. There is a vast literature about this. 3 For tutela cf. 94. here the emphasis has been on moral worth in political It is clear from the phraseology with which the fourth and final section imitatio'. I.43-4. Tit. 4. Gelzer. Suet. Clem. The ring composition helps to unify the discussion and at the same time to make it detachable from the following narrative. RAI 89-90. where usu to clearly refers back to the argument of the first chapter and optimum the composition. 204. Thus. so does the present section with its slogans like tutelaand securitas. assisted by the repetition of two key words. of BUT there was no doubt about the aestimatioothers made of his true worth (128. 3-4 followed 127. Grant. second. Odes life (see the words virtutum. he had already prepared for at I27. 128. The statement itself is illustrated by seven examples from past history. cf. Roman Nobility. 1172Meineke). 1o. 'ex virtute nobilitas coepit'. 1-2. if we look at the opening sentence of the next chapter.I. Io2. I7 Ep. 4 (!). ei plurimum esse tribuendum'. 1-2. 127-8 are a later addition to the main . M. Sen. 2. 3P 'nobilitas nihil aliud sit quam cognita virtus'. 3. 3-4. I-2 introduced 127. The new chapter begins with a general statement (128. we remember. as often. cf. 3-4 owed much to official propaganda. 85. I. In I27 the stresswas upon public expediency. Iug. we see exactly how detached the discussion of Sejanus is. 5. 8. New Men in theRoman 107 ff. Sall. Sest. 'haec naturalis exempli Similarly. A. II ext. Kaisertums (1952). I). just as 127.virtus). Epist. I): 'quod optimum sit. in exactly the same way as 127. Strabo 17. id in tutelam securitatissuae libenter advocet'. Sicherheit als politischesProblemdes rim. of 4 Steffen (I93) notes the inconsistency 129. concluding (194-5) that chapters 4.3 The present section also performs an additional function by drawing together. 1-3 follows 127. von Premerstein. For securitas cf. Instinsky. 266 ff. on 'the ideology of novitas'. I. 4). 3-4 no less relentlessly than 127. Max. esse nobilissimum'. which is where the main narrative resumes. most recently T. I05-3. Senate(1971). P. singula rerefers not to the discussionof Sejanus but censeamus'. B6ranger. in 128 upon morality and politics: Velleius now concludes by saying 'ut quod usuoptimum intelligit. 6 'ex virtute nobilitas sit'. 51. 15 ff.. I. Liv. 1-2.. 34. 136. 1-3 were miniature examples of circular 446 ff. The section has manifestly exhibited an identical method of argument to that in the first section.' That is. Cic. but whereas there the accent was on public expediency and political necessity. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 299 a close logical connection between two chapterswhich have often been thought quite separate. 9. Rep. 15 'fortissumum quemque generosissumum' (where generosus nobilis. I. at the end of the whole discussion. Ep. 6.optimum.Vell. 85. 2. I. H. IO. GENRE. Hirt.2 and no reader would doubt that Velleius is about to discuss novihomines-a topic which. so now we realize that the entire discussion has come round in a circular movement. an introduction to it. Wiseman. I I7 ff. three chapters previously. From Imperiumto Auctoritas (1946). Aug. Caesaris (imagine). 25 (p. after which. the strands of the two main arguments which have been advanced. Grenade. I-2 and 128. 14.

the Nazi wal criminal. 2-3). Cato.3 Clearly those scholars are mistaken who have described these chapters as a 'panegyric' or 'eulogy' or 'encomium' of Sejanus. 7. xxv [1914]. 3. 6. attributing to both Laelius and Agrippa many of the standard virtues to be expected from those who devote their lives to the welfare of the state. Velleius is. in A. I-3 of humble birth who have risen to success) is one of the most familiar (men commonplaces of rhetorical writings. has recorded that he 'had a curious habit of changing from the semi-formal German he usually speaks. Max. 127. 8 October 1971). 1-2 and 128. I: Val. den man in manchen Kreisen gegen Sejan erhob. arguwhich has contemporary ing to defend one side of a controversia-but a controversia relevance. particularly for Sejanus himself (Dio 58. 4. 2. 6. and also to chapters I29-3I1. and heavily indebted to officialese. 44. has ingeniously suggested that V. Aspects54). 301 n. as it were. above. Sure enough. 6. is exceedingly subtle.77 'compagibus corporis'. Bonner. 2 For which cf. as Syme himself has shown. esp. There are other oddities. 257-66. 262-5.2 Indeed the very theme of 128.' If the language is different.S. 4). 3 ff. 4. An interviewer of Stangl. Sen. 1o. Flacc. 'novum'. Sen. cf. This is not the place to illustrate the many Ciceronianisms in 129-31. 46. 3 e. inserted for the reasons given below. Litchfield. 28 the senate voted for the erection of an ara amicitiae. 51 ff.5. The only Ciceronian echoes in these chapters are I27. 3 'compage corporis'. Grant. already analysed. 301 n. 41. chose Carvilius as one of his exemplabecause the man had built a shrine to 'the most patently plebeian of the Roman deities' Fors Fortuna (Liv.to be flanked by statues of Tiberius and Sejanus (Tac.'s reference true of the exempla at 127. to the popular vernacular of his childhood whenever he had to deal with questions he found difficult to answer' (Daily TelegraphMagazine. 7. . The same is of 4. 301 and nn. I). In fact Velleius' method at both I27. zu entwerten. 7. II. F.30.. cf. p. has isolated these two areas of complaint in 127 and 128 respectively.g. 14). See refs. 'ignotae originis'. political slogans. 1-2). 297f. Val. cf. then back to subtle restatements of the original propositions-is directly comparable to the method seen in many of the elder Seneca's Controversiae. 5 Syme (1956). 18. 4-4. I.300 A.) : the minister's uniquely prestigious position and his equestrian status.g. to illustrations from past history (exempla). H. The careful structure and close argumentation are nothing like narrative history. Senec. Oltramare. Les Originesde Ben. I. 4 'exempli imitatio'. An abrupt change of style may be an indication of discomfort or stress.. I. but his interpretation of chapters I27-8 (for which see below. 33) with more subtle instances such as Carvilius and others (see below. and propaganda. some of which. ist das eigentliche Anliegen des Velleius'). 4 His prestigious position is discussed below. 1-3: 'hominem novum'. H. 128. 74. 7.P. S.s narrative. 24 'imitationem exempli'.4 It is to this end that he has deployed his careful argumentation and illustrative material. Sat. The preceding analysis leaves us in little doubt that Velpolitical leius has addressed himself to precisely the two areas of complaint which were aimed at Sejanus during the twenties and which were singled out in the passage of Tacitus quoted above (pp. 3. the language here is utterly prosaic (esp. J. the idea of humble status is insisted on throughout 128. 'equestri loco natum'. I-2) prevents him from realizing that V. W. The astuteness of V. Hor. Laelius and Scipio Africanus with that of Agrippa and Augustus in much the same way as V. Steffen gets it right in general terms (187: 'Diesen Vorwurf. V.D. Max. 4. so is the method. WOODMAN 127-8 are isolated from the surrounding narrative in a way which is unique in Velleius' work. 266. compares the amnicitia C. Contr.C. la diatriberomaine(1926). cf. A. p. a goddess who had especial significance in Tiberius' reign (Tac. RomanDeclamation(i949). p. 2. In stark contrast to chapter 126. where elegant reminiscences of Cicero are found in profusion.'s practice in this section seems to be to mingle conventional exemplaof the 'humble birth topos' (e. I-3--where he moves with dexterity from initial sententiae.

. to whom the Roman people 'nihil negaverunt'. 23.D. Sejanus' actual position and equestrian status: p. but he of course sees this as foreshadowing Sejanus' appointment as Tiberius' successor. s Denied by Steffen. 20. Tac.5 In view of the close internal connection of the whole discussion. 4. I Steffen. 1-3 were consuls. ad iuvanda vero onera principis Seianum propulit.' But Sumner has rightly shown that such an interpretation of the votumis impossible. esp.3) links the same title with Sejanus' nomination for the consulship which took place in A.D. Dio (57states that Tiberius began calling Sejanus his adiutoras early as I9. 1-4. 3 'principalium onerum adiutorem'. 296). He then mentions Cicero. id in tutelam securitatis suae libenter advocet'). Now since we know from the independent evidence of Tacitus and Dio that Tiberius regularly referred to Sejanus as his adiutor (see above. then the section concludes 'plurimum esse tribuendum'. 4 'ad iuvanda onera principis'). likely. 368. censorships. the year in which Sejanus was granted praetorian rank. none of which makes any reference to the consulship. 191 ff. 78. I thus deny the latter part of Sumner's observation. These three statements. though treated from the two different angles mentioned above (viz. 466 ff. 157): 'It could be held that Velleius manages to hint at more than the consulship for Sejanus.g. Regrettably the evidence will not take us much beyond this point. 30. 402 f. 2 Sumner.D. 29/30 and anticipate the nomination of Sejanus as Tiberius' successor.DATE. 4 ('haec naturalis exempli imitatio ad experiendum Seianum Caesarem. Dio later (58. belong to A. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 301 When would such a defence have been appropriate? Steffen has argued that these chapters. are particularly apt descriptions of the unusual power wielded by Sejanus throughout the twenties A. 6. But there is still Tacitus. Tac.. 3 'neque senatorio ambitu abstinebat clientes suos honoribus aut provinciis ornandi'. Confusingly. (cf. 4. I68 f. 128. p.2 Sumner himself proposed a different moment. alludes to the office of Pont. analysed above. Levy.' Well. GENRE. 291 ff. Steffen (191) also sees chapter 128 as defending 'unusual' power.4 But is he right ? I find it hard to believe that at 128. but readily accept the former part..D. does he? V. Max.. then Pollio. it is reasonable to assume that it is this honour which Velleius is defending. shows that Steffen's interpretation of 127-8 is also un3 Sumner. the late summer of A. 4 'ut quisque Seiano intimus. and since adiutor is the term upon which Velleius insists throughout chapter 127 (the word occurs three times). QuomodoTiberiusse gesserit (1901). however.D. This date is more to Agrippa has long been recognized: e. refuting not Steffen (whom he had been unable to see) but Syme. 8. 286. 30. 31I'. 4 Velleius is defending a different moment in Sejanus' career from the one defended at 127. Grenade. which he was to come from Capri to assume at Rome on I January A. The language too is the same in both places (I27.3 Sumner supports his theory by observing that each of the precedents mentioned in I28. 4 His actual observation is (286 n. of whom he says 'ut paene adsentatione sua quibus vellet principatus conciliaret'. consulships. triumphs. if it is accepted. L.. ita ad Caesaris amicitiam validus'). to whom a similar notion had occurred independently. it must surely be the same honour which is referred to at each place. 2. 300). My analysis in the next paragraph. Tac. 19 I. who associates Sejanus' appellation as adiutorwith the year A. Referring to 128.7) firmly A. senatumque et populum Romanum eo perduxit ut quod usu optimum intelligit. and the six a specific consulships of Marius-hardly reference to the consulship. he has argued that 'in the context the latter part of the statement undoubtedly refers to the promotion of the Praetorian Prefect to the consulship. taken in conjunction with the votumin chapter 131. but it will not be denied that he alludes to the consulship specifically.D.D. Syme.

e. that V.D. Doppelprinzipat Reichsteilungim Imperium Romanum (1930). 2 (p. and it is likely (though not provable.. 24.. Such evidence hardly adds up to enthusiasm for the emperor'sminister. he is usually claimed to be.D. 2-3) and Seneca (Marc. 13 f. was actually antagonistic towards Sejanus: see below. 4.302 A. like Syme (Tac. 7 There may have been a similar oppor0-2. with far more probability. but I do believe that tance of the two men must date from this they would have been appropriate at any period. V. but there is no mention of Sejanus. 19. I. 1-2) and Dio (57. on the basis of 127-8.2 It was perhaps during the earlier months of that same year. that Velleius I Strabo 6. method. M. whose reliance on assistantswas almost obsessive. was on the staff of Gaius und Caesar in the East at the turn of the century. and position is completely awkward and incongruous. 6 Steffen (194 f. 4. 640. 396 Meineke) trovpyoiVTe 9> Warpl. yet he makes no reference either to Sejanus' sterling work or his subsequent honour. perished in the aftermath of Sejanus' delights to include (cf. 7. Now these are both occasions on which it would have been more than natural for Velleius to introduce the name of Sejanus into his narrative. who was writing about A. as a result of which the senate voted that his statue should be erected on the site. Documentsillustrating the Reign of Augustusand Tiberius (ed. But the execution. Notable exceptions to this view reason for this 'omission' may simply be that are Abraham. We know from Strabo. Sumner both argue. Steffen and Sejanus was not in fact there at the time. Tiberius sent out Drusus and Sejanus to deal with the revolt. 368).D. 2 For the date cf. yet each time he declines the opportunity. when Drusus was at his most powerful and thus most likely to object to a rival (cf. we know from Tacitus (3. i).t. Dihle. We know from these tunity for V.g. 265) that the acquainwere written in A. believe that is the kind of personal detail he usually V.) also makes this point. we are indeed told of Drusus' mission (125. 4. 197 on Tac. Yet Tiberius was suddenly deprived of Drusus' assistance when he died on 14 September 23. WOODMAN convincing than it may seem at first sight. a view which is completely without foundation. 2.D. 3. It would seem. Tac. 4). i). since he was granted co-regent and heir. 3). Kornemann. 72. structure.6 Again.4 Most scholarshave deduced from chapters 127-8 that Velleius was himself an ardent supporter of Sejanus. 3 We may accept the evidence put for. 18. at o 52. any point during his elaborate account of s The view is particularly common among Gaius' oriental activities.s Illyricum revolted in A. 23. iox. ward by E. 22 it was Sejanus who played a major part in controlling the blaze. by Syme 1956. that Tiberius' own sons Drusus and Germanicus were at that time 'assistingtheir father' in the government. The fire was clearly a famous incident. Drusus presumably continued with this role.7 Instead we are given the present discussion which in its style. 35 ff. began to refer to Sejanus as his adiutor. makes no mention of it at moment in the twenties from then on. 6) that when the army in when Pompey's theatre caught fire in A. thereby becoming Tiberius' official We know from Tacitus (I. Sejanus was there too. Velleius' account of the revolt is given in chapter I25. Now if he were the enthusiasticsupporterof Sejanus which. 1955). cf. I) . 2.' Although Germanicus died in 19. J. 56. and it is naturally mentioned by Velleius in his detailed survey of Tiberius' reign (I30.g. 22. It is usually assumed 4 I am not saying that chapters 127-8 (e. 2) that he places upon it. he would surely have referredto Sejanus' presence in Illyricum. 14. As it is. yet V. that Tiberius. . Ehrenberg and A. 4) that tribuniciapotestas in 22 (Tac. Jones.chapters that V. in my opinion rightly. even though this those who. 3. without accepting the interpretation Sumner 292 n. H.

The work thus belongs to a genre which had not been represented since Varro. some of it (I believe) dubious.'s work. they marked a watershed in Latin historiography. the summary historians of a later age-Florus. This may well have been in the mid twenties A.. This was a period in So too Steffen. from the lips of Tiberius himself. Atticus. but added 'paene excusationem Tiberii suscepisse videatur' (xvii sq.. He was followed by Sumner. An unprepossessed reading of Vell. Velleius made literary capital out of this situation by composing a universal history in summary form. 4). who called the passage a 'long eulogy'.'s work will reveal that he was devoted to Tiberius. both in genre and technique. preferring instead the term 'Charakteristik'.. CONCLUSIONS When the final books of Livy's universalhistorywere published. 298). p. and when he is mentioned.. it is in officialese (see above). .). so it was too to his own readers.. Kritz mistakenly described these chapters as 'Seiani laudes. and as the recipient of honours either from Tiberius (127.DATE. but more likely the product of several years' careful consideration. GENRE. p. Although the evidence indicates that Velleius had stopped writing by the beginning of A.D.. 195. and Sulpicius Severus. 3) or from Tiberius acting with the senate and people (128. pays to Sejanus merely 'eine konventionelle Reverenz'.z Syme's opinion that these chapters are 'an encomium of Sejanusconcocted without discomfort' could hardly be further from the truth. 2 This is. Velleius' terms of reference required that he deal with Tiberius' reign from his accession to the beginning of Vinicius' consulship. who avoids inconsistency in his argument by assuming that V. after all. Sumner comes to this conclusion on evidence which is different from both mine and Steffen's. There are further indications.30.D. . and Cornelius Nepos. probably after the death of Augustus in A. is not so much concerned to praise Sejanus as to justify Tiberius' treatment of him. Velleius. the moment at which he began to compose is uncertain. Sejanus is mentioned remarkably infrequently (only twice) in a discussion which has generally been regarded as his panegyric. we may assume that he commenced his project not later than the time when Vinicius was first informed of the impending honour.D. Eutropius. and it is Tiberius who as hero occupies the final pages of V. it exhibits the mannerisms which we see in contemporary exponents of brevity. not Sejanus' (292-6). whose loyalty to Tiberius is unquestioned. It is a fitting tribute to the illustrious consular friend whom Velleius addresses with such an appropriate blend of informality and dignity. He rightly avoids using words like 'eulogy' or 'panegyric' throughout his careful discussion. But since he dedicated his work to M. Vinicius on the latter's assumption of the consulship in A. vilissimae et abiectae'. The idea that the historian was enthusiastic about Sejanus' prospective ascendancy is based on an insufficiently attentive reading of his words. is here defending not Sejanus but the emperor's treatment of him. 14. Yet if the bulk of Livy's work was a deterrent to those in Tiberius' reign who aspired to be universal historians.D. by whose favour Sejanus operated (above. but also said: 'Vell. above all it foreshadows. a natural conclusion since Tiberius was held to be responsible for Sejanus' promotion (above. AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 303 belonged with those senators who were antagonized by Sejanus (see above. 30. 297-8). who were becoming accustomed to the practical charms of brevity which other writers in other genres had started to proclaim with some frequency..' We must remember that it was not only Sejanus who incurred senatorial criticism but also the emperor himself. The work is thus not the parergon of a few months' hasty activity. pp. 298).

= DP 33 n.H. In chapters 127-8 Velleius defends the emperor's treatment of Sejanus by addressing himself to precisely the two areas of complaint which were current during the twenties. 23. his non-senatorialorigins and unique authority. without whose continual support he could not operate. quae Oceani circumnavigaverat sinus. of the passage as a single sentence describing a single operation. x.D. understanding V. As nominal commander-in-chief of the expedition (Plin. et eodem. to claim for Tiberius the honour of being the first to penetrate to the Elbe. their artificial and defensive structure. Romanus cum signis perductus exercitus. Hist. have accused him of deliberate falsification since we know that Drusus and L. not to say fair. scholars have persuaded themselves that Velleius has falsified Tiberius and responded with sympathy to the monster Sejanus. to work from the assumption that V. Velleius' reaction to Sejanus was altogether different. 2.') Augustus was equally delighted. writes: 'denique--quod numquam antea spe conceptum. M. WOODMAN which the achievements of the emperor himself. 167 'auspiciis divi Aug. but since (as Syme himself has remarked. were counterbalanced by the rise to prominence of his minister Sejanus. Camb. well attested in other sources. Those who still backed Tiberius were faced with a dilemma: how to maintain their stance without showing favour to Sejanus. It is clear from the words which that V. to repeat lies which his contemporaries would have dismissed out of hand. and A. 218-19). Yet the position of these chapters. 159. to the rest of the chapter.D. rather than expostulate about the style prescribedby that genre. is telling the truth. . 340) he did not have 'the instincts of a soldier'. qui Semnonum Hermundurorumque fines praeterfluit. <cum) plurimarum gentium victoria. J. temporum quoque observantia. Velleius reacted to the situation first by enhancing the emperor's achievements: he set them in a frameworkwhich contemporarieswould recognise as panegyric. N. It does not occur to them how ludicrous it would have been for V.) refers not simply to (quodnumquam but exercitus to the clause which ends perductus the following clause as well.e. nedum opere temptatum erat-ad quadringentesimum miliarium a Rheno usque ad flumen Albim. We should agree with Norden that Velleius gives 'a most important corrective to the Tacitean account'. Indeed. Yet the much criticized parenthesis antea.' Now Syme (1933. thought link the two clauses. I respectively. (i) At Io6. classis. 23) and C. i. 2 V. rather than as a distortion of the truth which may not. V.304 A. It is more realistic.'s admiration is directed not at Tiberius' reaching the Elbe but at the joint military and naval operation which turned out so successfully. combined to produce criticismamong senatorialranksboth of himselfand of the emperor. is falsifying evidence because they are predisposed to believe in his 'adulation and mendacity'. from about These twin features A. ab inaudito atque incognito ante mari flumine Albi subvecta. Tiberius habitually referred to him as his adiutor. It is primarily for these reasons that they proceed to indict the rest of his work as a whole. cum abundantissima rerum omnium copia exercitui Caesarique se iunxit. Velleius' active distaste for from certain Sejanus may be deduced from the pointed absence of the adiutor other portions of the narrative. of Sejanus' career. Chapter 126 is to be seen in terms of a literary genre which may be illustrated by supporting evidence. This man had risen from an equestrianbackground to a position of such influence that. 147 n.C. Domitius Ahenobarbus had reached the Elbe in 9 B. Anc. These conclusions are of considerable importance. his delight is restricted to the more spectacular .' A careful reading of these I I here give two final examples of the way in which scholars assume that V. mira felicitate et cura ducis. their prosaic and propagandist style-all these elements produce an awkwardness and incongruity which testify to their author's discomfort. Wells (German Policy of Augustus [1972]. et eodem. By categorizing chapters 126-8 indistinguishably and superficially as 'panegyrics'..

the professional soldier. Pat. A. Shotter. but it can also mean 'the final state of a person' (O. to which reference is being made. M. Horace.Leo.'. F. Rogers. Details are given below of those modern authors whom I cite by name only. G. M. 1-18 of Book 2 of Velleius are always given in full. Essai sur les originesdu principat. 'C.v. V. M. (The alleged lie in ab inaudito mariwas explained long atqueincognito ago by Ruhnken. (1953). in sentences very similar to V. iiberdie rdm. other refs.-Hosius.P. Jodry. (1970). Schifer. these are distinguished in the text either by a date or by an abbreviation as indicated below. Yet they forget that the Latin word exitus is no less ambiguous than the English word 'fate': it can of course mean 'death'. 'Studi su V. in Cairns.Q. Janson. to Book I and to chaps. T. J. European Literature theLatinMiddle Ages.A. B6ranger. which takes due account of the styles in which they are written. 'Nominatio and the elections under Tiberius'. Schanz. Zeit im Lichteder Tradition des V.P. geschichtliche Romanorum ii (1967). (1963). R. WOODMAN BIBLIOGRAPHY Refs. (1938). o dellapropaganda. Tiberius.g. where an author is responsible for several works. Abraham. I6. 7 V. RomanAnniversary Issues (. Lukians du sur Schriftzur Geschichtsschreibung. Vell. F. H.. thus missing the significance of the year of Postumus' exile. Acmevi. 139) and Syme (Tac. E. (1956). 5.D.. W.S. Dihle. C. lxxviii [I947]. (1931). shows up these superficialjudgements to be based not on reasonbut on prejudice. C. P. u. The Reign of Tiberius.P. 6. and since this took place in A. genere dicendiquaest. of implying that Postumus 'died some time before the end of Augustus' reign'. Recherches l'aspectidlologique principat. (1972). 'M. Historicorum Reliquiae2 (.'s. AI. (1953). 4) -as.. R. RE viii. Die Regierung Tiberiusin derDarstellung V. Editors of Velleius are referred to by name only. F. I I. (1698).D. crescentibus in dies vitiis dignum furore suo habuit exitum' of Agrippa Postumus. on the other hand. writes: 'hoc fere tempore. (I943).-rdm.E. 4 'habuit itaque quemdebuit exitum'. Hist. Now W. (1964). xxix. Avenarius. i (I use the pagination of the offprint made 'ffir Freunde').D.P. H. E. (1912). Milkau. Annales (1966). Grant.'s account to A.) (2) At 112. Vell.P. Sumner. J. Generic Composition Greek& RomanPoetry. Aspectsof thePrincipate Tiberius(= Aspects). (1837).D. Schweiz. Sen. 4). Steffen. (I96I). Die Augustuspanegyrik Horaz informalhistorischer Velleiani(I use the pagination of the reprint in Ruhnken). AND STYLE IN VELLEIUS 305 chapters. V. 7.selectae. Pat. (I953). I it is surely the man's exile. 'Elections under Tiberius'. Since Postumus' 'final state' was exile. De V. Frei-Stolba. Studiesin the Reignof Tiberius. Marsh. 15.RAI). (1952). 5. T.'. 'L'utilisation des documents militaires chez V.L. V. s. C.'. Rdmische ii. e.'s account of Tiberius. Paladini. Fam. to Book 2 omit the book number.P. (1950). 2 'tibi velim ei sint exitus quos mereriset quos fore confido'. (1955). sees the joint operation as a whole. Res Gest. N. Verr. It is to be hoped that they will collapse once their foundation has been removed.A.HRR2 ii).Kaiserzeit(= GL). H. to Tacitus are to the Annals unless otherwise stated.Kaiserzeit. Latin Prose Prefaces. 7. of id. xvi. and is impressed as much by the technical expertise of his immediate commander (temporum as quoque observantia) by his success (mirafelicitate et curaducis). s. W. Curtius. Cic. (1888).Mus. Id. Doblhofer. R. Durry.. D. Wahrheit und Kunst (= WK). Grenade. Refs. Lana.DATE. E. Biographie. A. Peter. Lacey. (1966). (1950). 367 and n. Ira 3. Untersuchungen den Wahlenin derrom. dignus exituseiusmodi vita atque factis vestro iudicio consequatur'. F. 26. we can appreciate that not only V. xii.. H. F. Dodwell. K.2.) Seager (268) has recently described these two items as 'perhaps (the) only two major instances of dishonesty' in V. Now even these must go. Sauppe. (1972). When we consider what such an operation must have involved in A.'. M. Fraenkel. & des Sicht.'s account but also his admiration are fully justified. Id. 189 'Verrem. die Parteienin Rom unter Tiberius. Pline: Pan6zu gyriquede Trajan.. R. (I951). (1967). R. not his death.v. (I935). the precise year which V. Die Litt. I. Die gr. is discussing at 12. (1885). S. q. G. (Syme may perhaps be excused a little because he mistakenly attributes V. often followed by a page number: details of their editions may be found in Schanz-Hosius or Dihle. B. (1912). x: . des des (1954). Tiberiusu. C. GENRE. V. L. Post. University of Newcastle upon Tyne REFERENCES: ABBREVIATIONS: SELECT A. however. P. J. 'The Truth naval part of the campaign (cf. (I901). 9) accuse V.'. (1897). Literaturgeschichte Seager.L. Allen ('The Death of Ag. (I959).

S. (1928). advisedly). (1956).S. Williams. (1958). of Rom. 'Livy and Augustus'. Vinicius (cos. Id.P. G. Wilhelm.306 A. Syme. Wblfflin.: Prolegomena'.c. Traditionand Originalityin RomanPoetry.Q. WOODMAN about V.L. Hermeslxxxiv. xii. Curtiusu. Id.C. R. (1900). 'M. lxiv. Teuffel. (1968).5 ii (I use this edn. Id. (1939). H. 'Lentulus and the Origin ofMoesia'. C. Ten Studiesin Tacitus (= TST). J.)'. (1902). Tacitus (= Tac.S. Revolution xxvii. lxxiv.P.R. J. (1970). (i934). (I959). Id. A. Roman (= RR). F.Lit. H. L. Hist. DanubianPapers(= DP).-Schwabe. W. derjiingere Seneca. Id.). Id. . S. 'Epitome'. 'Seianus on the Aventine'.P. 19 B. Id.L. E. (1933). xxiv.C. (1971).