Chapter III · THE AUGUSTAN AGE. (continued 2)

it would follow that the whole poem had been published before the death of Augustus, for the descriptions of ball-play and swimming occur in v. 165-171 and 420-431.

Astronomy is treated only in Book i.; the rest of the poem is devoted to astrology. This is in accordance with the author’s statement of his theme (i. 1-3), which he was the first Roman to treat in verse (i. 4, 113, ii. 57). As his object is to convey instruction rather than to give pleasure (iii. 36-39), he does not scruple to use Greek technical terms (ii. 693, 829, 897, iii. 40). The subject does not lend itself readily to verse (i. 20, iii. 31), and the poem is intolerably dry, except the introductions to each Book, which reveal considerable poetical power. The chief peculiarities of Manilius’ language are his strange use of prepositions and his fondness for alliteration; imitations of Virgil are found throughout.

Manilius is a fatalist (iv. 14 and 22): still fate does not abolish the moral quality of actions (iv. 108-118). The universe is directed by a ‘vis animae divina’ or ‘divinum numen’ (i. 250, 491).

LIVY.

There is no ancient biography of Livy, and very little light is thrown on his life by his own writings or by allusions in other authors.

Titus Livius was born at Patavium (the modern Padua) B.C. 59: Jerome yr. Abr. 1958, ‘T. Livius Patavinus scriptor historicus nascitur.’ (The Armenian version gives Ol. 180, 4 = B.C. 57.) Near Patavium there was a famous sulphur spring known as Aponus or Aponi fons, whence Martial calls the district Apona tellus (i. 61, 3, ‘Censetur Apona Livio suo tellus’). There is no reason to suppose from this that Livy’s birthplace was not Patavium itself, but a village Aponus, which is nowhere mentioned. Statius (Silv. iv. 7, 55) calls him ‘Timavi alumnus.’ For Livy’s acquaintance with Patavium cf. x. 2, 14 and 15.

From his tone we may infer that he came of a good family, and he must have possessed a fair income. The charge against his style of Patavinitas implies that he spent a considerable part of his life in his native town, but he probably settled at Rome about B.C. 30. That he took no part in public life is clear from his own words: i. praef. 5, ‘Hoc laboris praemium petam, ut me a conspectu malorum, quae nostra tot per annos vidit aetas, tantisper certe, dum prisca illa tota mente repeto, avertam, omnis expers curae, quae scribentis animum etsi non flectere a vero, sollicitum tamen efficere posset.’

He enjoyed the intimacy of Augustus, whom he himself mentions, iv. 20, 7, ‘hoc ego cum Augustum Caesarem ... se ipsum ... legisse audissem.’ Tac. Ann. iv. 34, ‘T. Livius, eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis, Cn. Pompeium tantis laudibus tulit, ut Pompeianum eum Augustus appellaret; neque id amicitiae eorum offecit.’ It was at Livy’s suggestion that the future emperor, Claudius, started to compose a history: Sueton. Claud. 41, ‘historiam in adulescentia, hortante T. Livio, Sulpicio vero Flavo etiam adiuvante, scribere adgressus est.’ On the other hand, Caligula would have liked to remove Livy’s writings and his bust from all the libraries, calling him ‘verbosum in historia neglegentemque’ (Sueton. Calig. 34).

Nothing more is known of his life, except that he visited Campania, xxxviii. 56, 3, ‘Nam et Literni monumentum monumentoque statua superimposita fuit, quam tempestate disiectam nuper vidimus ipsi.’

He died at his native town, A.D. 17: Jerome yr. Abr. 2033, ‘Livius historicus Patavii moritur.’

He had at least one son (Quint. x. 1, 39, ‘apud Livium in epistula ad filium scripta’), and one daughter (Sen. Contr. x. praef. 2, ‘L. Magius gener T. Livi’).

Livy wrote philosophical works, probably popular treatises like Cicero’s, some of them in the form of dialogues.

Sen. Ep. 100, 9, ‘Nomina adhuc T. Livium. Scripsit enim et dialogos, quos non magis philosophiae adnumerare possis quam historiae, et ex professo philosophiam continentis libros.’

A book on rhetoric was known to Quintilian and Seneca the elder, apparently in the form of a letter addressed to the author’s son (Quint. x. 1, 39, above).

Quint. ii. 5, 20, ‘quemadmodum Livius praecipit’ (on models of style); Sen. Contr. ix. 2, 26, ‘Livius de oratoribus ... aiebat’ (on obscurity of expression); Sen. Contr. ix. 1, 14, ‘T. Livius tam iniquus Sallustio fuit ut hanc ipsam sententiam ... obiceret Sallustio.’

These minor works have perished, and of his great history only a portion survives.

Its title, according to the oldest MSS., the summaries of the lost Books, and the grammarians, was Ab urbe condita libri; and this is corroborated by Livy’s own language: i. praef. 1, ‘si a primordio urbis res populi Romani perscripserim’; and by Pliny, N.H. praef. 16, ‘T. Livium ... in historiarum suarum, quas repetit ab origine urbis, quodam volumine.’ Livy refers to it loosely as meos annales (xliii. 13, 2). Separate parts may have had special titles: thus Books cix-cxvi. were known as Civilis belli libri viii. (Codex Nazarenus of the Periochae).

The number of Books now extant is thirty-five, viz., i.-x., which carry the history down to B.C. 293, and xxi.-xlv., covering the period B.C. 218-167. Of these xli. and xliii. are incomplete. But we possess summaries (Periochae or Argumenta) of Books i.-cxlii., except cxxxvi. and cxxxvii., which show that the narrative was continued to the death of Drusus in B.C. 9. There is no evidence that it actually went further; but as the death of Drusus is hardly an event of sufficient importance to form the conclusion of so great a work, it has been thought that Livy may have intended to finish with the death of Augustus—the point from which Tacitus starts. The total number of Books would then have been probably one hundred and fifty.

The division into Books (libri or volumina) is due to the author: vi. 1, 1, ‘quae ab condita urbe Romani gessere quinque libris exposui.’ The division into decades (i.e. sets of ten Books) is first mentioned towards the end of the fifth century; it is merely a conventional arrangement, the subject-matter falling naturally into sets of fifteen Books, which again sometimes embrace three sub-divisions each a half-decade, or two, a half-decade and a decade.

An epitome was known to Martial, xiv. 190,

‘Pellibus exiguis artatur Livius ingens, quem mea non totum bibliotheca capit.’

The evidence of the date of composition is as follows:

(a) i. 19, 3, ‘Bis deinde post Numae regnum [Ianus] clausus fuit, semel T. Manlio consule post Punicum primum perfectum bellum, iterum, quod nostrae aetati dei dederunt ut videremus, post bellum Actiacum ab imperatore Caesare Augusto pace terra marique parta.’ Now, as the first closing of the temple of Janus by Augustus was in B.C. 29, and as Livy is silent as to the second closing after the Cantabrian war in 25, it follows that this passage was written B.C. 29-25. The use of the title Augustus, conferred on Octavian in 27, puts the earliest possible date two years later. The history therefore was not begun before B.C. 27.

(b) ix. 36, 1, ‘Silva erat Ciminia magis tum invia atque horrenda quam nuper fuere Germanici saltus.’ In this Niebuhr found an allusion to the campaigns of Drusus, B.C. 12-9, and accordingly assumed that the first decade was not published till B.C. 9. But the passage may equally well refer to earlier campaigns, e.g. of Julius Caesar. Nor can it be shown that the history of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, published B.C. 7, was used by Livy for Books viii.-x. Book ix. must have been written before B.C. 20, or Livy would have mentioned the recovery of the standards from the Parthians in ix. 18, 9.

(c) xxviii. 12, 12, ‘Hispania prima Romanis inita provinciarum, quae quidem continentis sint, postrema omnium nostra demum aetate ductu auspicioque Augusti Caesaris perdomita.’ This was written not earlier than B.C. 19, if it refers to Agrippa’s victory over the Cantabrians.

(d) Book lix. mentioned the lex de maritandis ordinibus, and consequently cannot have been earlier than B.C. 18.

(e) The books in which Pompeius figured were composed in the lifetime of Augustus (Tac. Ann. iv. 34, above).

(f) Book cxxi., according to the oldest MS. of the Periochae, was published after the death of Augustus; so doubtless were the remaining Books (A.D. 14-17).

A work of such compass, and occupying so many years of the author’s life, would naturally be published in sections. This a priori view is corroborated by several considerations: (a) There are separate prefaces to various sections (vi. 1; xxi. 1; xxxi. 1); (b) Livy’s style was censured[70] by Asinius Pollio, who died A.D. 5; (c) Augustus was acquainted with Livy’s sympathetic treatment of Pompeius (see above); (d) Livy had great fame in his lifetime: Pliny, Ep. ii. 3, 8, ‘Numquamne legisti Gaditanum quemdam T. Livi nomine gloriaque commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse statimque ut viderat abisse?’

The historians from whom Livy derived his materials, and whom he himself mentions are: Fabius Pictor (i. 44, 2, etc.). Livy refers to him six times, but it may be questioned whether he used him at first-hand. More probably he took his opinions on the authority of later annalists like Macer, Antias, and Tubero. Cincius Alimentus (xxi. 38, 3): the Cincius quoted in vii. 3, 7, may be the same, or an antiquarian of the Ciceronian or Augustan age; Cato (xxxiv. 15, 9); Calpurnius Piso (xxv. 39, 15); Coelius Antipater (xxix. 25, 3); Claudius Quadrigarius (vi. 42, 5, etc.); Valerius Antias, quoted thirty-five times—far more frequently than any other authority; Licinius Macer; Aelius Tubero (iv. 23, 1); Clodius Licinus (xxix. 22, 10); Rutilius (xxxix. 52, 1); Polybius; Silenus (xxvi. 49, 3), a Greek, whose account of the Second Punic War was favourable to the Carthaginians.

A criticism of Livy’s use of these sources is impossible, except in the case of Polybius, all the others having perished. His tone in alluding to the Greek historian is remarkable for its coldness: xxx. 45, 5, ‘Polybius haudquaquam spernendus auctor’; cf. xxxiii. 10, 8. Although Polybius is not mentioned till Book xxx., he was undoubtedly used throughout the third decade, as well as in the fourth and fifth. Livy follows him very closely. Where Livy differs from Polybius he is probably following the account of Coelius Antipater, who is his leading authority for the Second Punic War.

Livy is not careful to reconcile his sources, and so frequently contradicts himself. His way of explaining a discrepancy between his authorities is by striking an average (xxvi. 49, 6, ‘si aliquis adsentiri necesse est, media simillima veris sunt’). His irresolution was noted by Quintilian, ii. 4, 19, ‘saepe quaeri solet de tempore, de loco, quo gesta res dicitur, nonnumquam de persona quoque, sicut Livius frequentissime dubitat.’ This of course has its good side: it saves him from dogmatizing on uncertain points, and he has a hearty appreciation of the confusion in his authorities: xxxvii. 34, 5, ‘is ubi et quando et quo casu captus sit, sicut pleraque alia, parum inter auctores constat.’ He recognizes the value of contemporary evidence: xxii. 7, 4, ‘Fabium aequalem temporibus huiusce belli potissimum auctorem habui’; xxi. 38, 3, ‘L. Cincius Alimentus, qui captum se ab Hannibale scribit, maxime auctor moveret.’ Criticism of his authorities is most conspicuous in the case of Valerius Antias, whom at first he followed in good faith; he condemns him again and again for exaggeration and credulity, e.g. xxxiii. 10, 8, ‘si Valerio qui credat, omnium rerum immodice numerum augenti’; xxxix. 43, 1, ‘Valerius Antias, ut qui nec orationem Catonis legisset et fabulae tantum sine auctore editae credidisset.’ He also recognizes the bias of Licinius Macer: vii. 9, 5, ‘quaesita ea propriae familiae laus leviorem auctorem Licinium facit.’ For the untrustworthiness of family records, cf. viii. 40, 4, ‘vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallenti mendacio trahunt.’

Livy often refers to authorities whom he does not name: ‘invenio apud quosdam,’ ‘satis constat’; and to tradition: ‘fama est,’ ‘dicitur,’ ‘fertur,’ ‘traditur.’ Tradition was the sole source for events prior to the sack of Rome by the Gauls, cf. vi. 12, 2 sqq.

There is no trace in Livy of any use of original documents.

He constantly resists the temptation to digress from his proper theme: e.g. xxxix. 48, 6, ‘cuius belli et causas et ordinem si expromere velim, immemor sim propositi, quo statui non ultra attingere externa, nisi qua Romanis cohaererent rebus.’

In spite of his love of truth (xxii. 7, 4, ‘nihil haustum ex vano velim, quo nimis inclinant ferme scribentium animi’: cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 34, ‘fidei praeclarus’), partiality blinds him to the faults of his own countrymen, and he fails to do justice to opponents like the Samnites and Carthaginians.

In dealing with the legendary period he admits that his narrative has no trustworthy foundation, and gives it merely for what it is worth: Praef. 6, ‘Quae ante conditam condendamve urbem poeticis magis decora fabulis quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare nec refellere in animo est. Datur haec venia antiquitati, ut miscendo humana divinis primordia urbium augustiora faciat.’

The numerous speeches exemplify Livy’s rhetorical tendency, representing what he thought the speaker would have said under the given circumstances: iii. 67, 1, ‘ibi in hanc sententiam locutum accipio.’

His power of describing character is noted by Seneca, Suas. vi. 21, ‘Quoties magni alicuius viri mors ab historicis narrata est, toties fere consummatio totius vitae et quasi funebris laudatio redditur. Hoc ... T. Livius benignius omnibus magnis viris praestitit.’

Religion and morality.—Livy believes in the influence of the gods on human affairs: ix. 1, 11, ‘cum rerum humanarum maximum momentum sit, quam propitiis rem, quam adversis agant dis.’ Superior to the gods is necessitas (ix. 4, 16), and fortuna is also powerful (ix. 17, 3; v. 37, 1). He condemns the irreligion of his own day (x. 40, 10, ‘iuvenis ante doctrinam deos spernentem natus’), cf. iii. 20, 5; viii. 11, 1. He retains the old belief in prodigies and portents, every war being introduced by a list of them, but recognizes that many reported instances were fictitious: xxi. 62, 1, ‘Multa ea hieme prodigia facta, aut, quod evenire solet motis semel in religionem animis, multa nuntiata et temere credita sunt.’

He condemns the vices of his own age, and lauds the old Romans: Praef. 12, ‘Nuper divitiae avaritiam et abundantes voluptates desiderium per luxum atque libidinem pereundi perdendique omnia invexere.’

Politics.—Livy is an aristocrat, with a poor opinion of the lower orders: e.g. xxiv. 25, 8, ‘Ea natura multitudinis est: aut servit humiliter aut superbe dominatur; libertatem, quae media est, nec cupere modice nec habere sciunt.’ His political attitude is influenced to a great extent by the earlier historians, who had mostly been on the aristocratic side. Yet he is not a defender of the aristocratic party through thick and thin; and though he admired the character of some leading republicans, there can be no question of his loyalty to the Empire. Cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 34, ‘Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas, quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insignes viros nominat.’

Livy’s view of Caesar is quoted by Seneca, N.Q. v. 18, 4, ‘in incerto esse utrum illum nasci magis rei publicae profuerit, an non nasci?’

Contemporaries of Livy.—1. Pompeius Trogus, whose history is known to us only through the abridgment made by M. Iunianus Iustinus, probably in the time of the Antonines. Trogus was of Gallic descent. His grandfather had received the Roman civitas from Pompey; his father was one of Caesar’s officers, and is possibly to be identified with the Cn. Pompeius of Caes. B.G. v. 36 (Iustin. xliii. 5, 11). His chief work, Historiae Philippicae, in forty-four Books, was concerned chiefly with the history of Macedonia and the Diadochi; but it embraced also the empires of the East and the history of Greece down to the time of Philip, as well as Parthia, Spain, Carthage, and the early history of Rome.

2. Fenestella, who died, according to Jerome, in A.D. 19 at the age of seventy. Nothing is known of his life, or of the poems which Jerome attributes to him; but he certainly wrote Annales (Nonius, p. 154). He is also quoted as an authority on miscellaneous antiquarian and constitutional points.

3. M. Verrius Flaccus, tutor to the grandsons of Augustus (Sueton. Gramm. 17), was the author of Fasti, fragments of which have been discovered near Praeneste, and which were used by Ovid for his poem of that name. Of Verrius’ grammatical works, the greatest was that entitled De verborum significatu (Gell. v. 17, 1), arranged alphabetically. It is lost, but we possess part of an abridgment (nine out of sixteen Books) made by Sex. Pompeius Festus before the third century A.D. The abridgment of Festus was in turn epitomized by Paulus Diaconus in the time of Charlemagne, and his work is extant in a complete form.

4. C. Iulius Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus and librarian of the Palatine library (Sueton. Gramm. 20), wrote De vita rebusque illustrium virorum (Gell. i. 14, 1); Exempla (Gell. x. 18, 7); De situ urbium Italicarum (Serv. ad Verg. Aen. iii. 553); De familiis Troianis (ibid. v. 389); theological works, e.g. De dis Penatibus (Macrob. Saturn. iii. 4, 13); commentaries on Virgil and Helvius Cinna; and De Agricultura, a treatise to which Virgil was indebted (Colum. i. 1, 13). The Hyginus who wrote Fabulae and De Astrologia probably lived in the second century A.D.

VITRUVIUS.

Vitruvius Pollio (the cognomen appears only in the abridgment of his book) served under Caesar in Africa B.C. 46; viii. 3, 25, ‘C. Iulius Masinissae filius ... cum patre Caesari militavit. Is hospitio meo est usus. Ita cottidiano convictu necesse fuerat de philologia disputare ...’

Under Augustus he was an officer of engineers, and was enabled to spend the rest of his life in comfort through the liberality of that prince and his sister Octavia: i. praef. 2, ‘Cum M. Aurelio et P. Minidio et Cn. Cornelio ad apparationem ballistarum et scorpionum reliquorumque tormentorum refectionem fui praesto et cum eis commoda accepi. Quae cum primo mihi tribuisti, recognitionem per sororis commendationem servasti. Cum ergo eo beneficio essem obligatus, ut ad exitum vitae non haberem inopiae timorem ...’

He wrote the treatise De Architectura, in ten Books, when he was no longer young (ii. praef. 4, ‘faciem deformavit aetas’), between the years B.C. 16 and 13. The temple of Quirinus, mentioned iii. 2, 7, was built in the former year; and he speaks of only one stone theatre in Rome (iii. 2, 2), whereas in B.C. 13 there were three.

The arrangement of the subject-matter is as follows: Book i., sciences on which architecture is based, chief divisions of the subject, choice of site, and method of laying out a town; ii., building materials; iii., temples—Ionic order; iv., Doric and Corinthian orders; v., public buildings, e.g., forum, theatre; vi., private houses—construction; vii., decoration; viii., water-supply; ix., methods of measuring time, e.g., sun-dials; x., engines and machines used in war and in the arts.

The work is dedicated to Augustus, who is addressed throughout, and is meant to be of practical use to him in his building operations.

The body of the work is severely technical; the introductions to the Books are in a more ambitious style. Vitruvius writes as a professional man, not as a scholar: i. 1, 17, ‘Non uti summus philosophus nec rhetor disertus nec grammaticus summis rationibus artis exercitatus, sed ut architectus his litteris imbutus haec nisus sum scribere.’ He freely confesses his obligations to Greek authors, whom he enumerates vii. praef. 10-14. Diagrams were appended to the text: i. 6, 12, ‘Quoniam haec a nobis sunt breviter exposita, ut facilius intellegantur visum est mihi in extremo volumine formas, sive uti Graeci σχήματα dicunt duo explicare.’

SENECA THE ELDER.

(1) LIFE.

Annaeus Seneca (for the praenomen Marcus, usually given, there is no authority: in the best MSS. it is Lucius, possibly through confusion with his son) was a native of Corduba: Mart. i. 62, 7,

‘Duosque Senecas unicumque Lucanum facunda loquitur Corduba.’

The date of his birth is probably about B.C. 55, for he was old enough to have heard Cicero if the civil wars had not prevented him leaving his native town: Contr. i. praef. 11, ‘Omnes magni in eloquentia nominis excepto Cicerone videor audisse: ne Ciceronem quidem aetas mihi eripuerat, sed bellorum civilium furor, qui tunc orbem totum pervagabatur, intra coloniam meam me continuit.’

He was of equestrian rank; cf. the speech of Seneca the younger, Tac. Ann. xiv. 53, ‘Egone, equestri et provinciali loco ortus, proceribus civitatis adnumeror?’

Most of his life appears to have been spent in Rome, where alone he could have acquired his vast knowledge of contemporary rhetoric. Together with his countryman Porcius Latro, he attended the lectures of the rhetorician Marullus: Contr. i. praef. 22, ‘Hoc Latro meus faciebat, ut sententias amaret. Cum condiscipuli essemus apud Marullum rhetorem ...’ Asinius Pollio he had heard at two different periods: Contr. iv. praef. 3, ‘audivi illum et viridem et postea iam senem.’

Seneca’s wife was Helvia, whose noble character is described by her son (ad Helv. 14, 3; 16, 3): by her he had three sons, M. Annaeus Novatus, L. Annaeus Seneca, and M. Annaeus Mela.

He survived Tiberius; for (1) he alludes to events which happened after his reign, (2) Sueton. Tib. 73, quotes from ‘Seneca’ an account of the death of Tiberius, and we know that the elder Seneca wrote history: that his son did likewise there is nothing to show. Hence he was alive after A.D. 37. On the other hand, he was dead before his son’s exile in A.D. 43, for Sen. ad Helv. 2, 5, after enumerating the calamities which had befallen his mother—among them his father’s death—concludes with the words ‘raptum me audisti: hoc adhuc defuerat tibi, lugere vivos.’

Seneca was a man of stern character: for his old-world views and dislike of innovation cf. his son’s words (ad Helv. 17, 3), ‘Patris mei antiquus rigor.... Virorum optimus, pater meus, maiorum consuetudini deditus.’ He disapproved of the higher education of women, ‘propter istas quae litteris non ad sapientiam utuntur, sed ad luxuriam instruuntur.’

(2) WORKS.

The only extant works of Seneca are Oratorum et Rhetorum Sententiae, Divisiones, Colores Controversiarum et Suasoriarum.

1. The Controversiae were written at the request of his three sons, but were intended for a wider circle of readers: i. praef. 10, ‘Quaecumque a celeberrimis viris facunde dicta teneo, ne ad quemquam privatim pertineant, populo dedicabo.’ Seneca here gives a criticism of the rhetoricians of his time, with specimens of the style of each: i. praef. 1, ‘Exigitis rem magis iucundam mihi quam facilem; iubetis enim quid de his declamatoribus sentiam qui in aetatem meam inciderunt indicare, et si qua memoriae meae nondum elapsa sunt ab illis dicta colligere, ut quamvis notitiae vestrae subducti sint, tamen non credatis tantum de illis, sed et iudicetis.’ The specimens are given from memory, and the arrangement is not systematic: i. praef. 4, ‘Illud necesse est impetrem, ne me quasi certum aliquem ordinem velitis sequi in contrahendis quae mihi occurrent.’ Seneca treats only of those rhetoricians whom his sons had not themselves heard: i. praef. 4, ‘Neque de his me interrogatis quos ipsi audistis, sed de his qui ad vos usque non pervenerunt.’ His hero is Cicero, since whose time oratory has steadily degenerated: i. praef. 11, ‘Illud ingenium quod solum populus Romanus par imperio suo habuit’; ibid. 7, ‘Omnia ingenia quae lucem studiis nostris attulerunt tunc nata sunt: in deterius deinde cottidie data res est.’

Of the ten Books of Controversiae only five have come down to us, viz., i., ii., vii., ix., and x. The deficiency is to some extent supplied by an abridgment (Excerpta) made in the fourth or fifth century A.D., which adds thirty-nine themes to the thirty-five contained in the surviving part of the original work. Each Book had a separate preface. Those to v., vi., and viii. are entirely wanting; for the prefaces to ii., iii., and iv. we are indebted to the abridgment.

The Controversiae were written when Seneca was an old man, and when his two elder sons were preparing for public life, probably about A.D. 20: x. praef. 1, ‘Sinite me ab istis iuvenilibus studiis ad senectutem meam reverti’; ii. praef. 4 (to Mela), ‘Fratribus tuis ambitiosa curae sunt foroque se et honoribus parant.’

As to the date of publication, it has been argued[71] that they appeared after the fall of Seianus and before the death of Mamercus Scaurus, i.e., between A.D. 31 and 34. Probably, however, the publication did not take place till after the death of Tiberius, A.D. 37; the protest against the burning of books (x. praef. 6-7) would have been as offensive to him as to Seianus.

2. There is only one book of Suasoriae, and the beginning of it is lost. It gives specimens of the treatment of seven themes, e.g., 3, ‘Deliberat Agamemnon an Iphigeniam immolet negante Calchante aliter navigari fas esse.’ It is certainly later than the Controversiae: Contr. ii. 4, 8, ‘Quae dixerit suo loco reddam, cum ad suasorias venero.’ One passage cannot have been written before A.D. 34: 2, 22, ‘Scaurum Mamercum, in quo Scaurorum familia exstincta est.’ It was not published in the lifetime of Tiberius, for Seneca calls the accuser of Scaurus ‘homo quam improbi animi tam infelicis ingenii’ (2, 22), and quotes Cremutius Cordus (6, 19) whose books had been burned in Tiberius’ time.

3. Seneca wrote also on Roman history from the commencement of the civil wars to his own time, but left the work of publication to his son.

L. Seneca de vita patris (Haase, vol. iii. p. 436), ‘Si quaecumque composuit pater meus et edi voluit iam in manus populi emisissem, ad claritatem nominis sui satis sibi ipsi prospexerat ... Quisquis legisset eius historias ab initio bellorum civilium, unde primum veritas retro abiit, paene usque ad mortis suae diem,’ etc.