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 givesOl.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 ofPatavinitasimplies that he spent a considerable part of his life in his native town, but he probably settled at Rome aboutB.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 oldestMSS., the summaries of the lost Books, and the grammarians, wasAb 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 asmeos annales(xliii. 13, 2). Separate parts may have had special titles: thus Books cix-cxvi. were known asCivilis belli libriviii. (Codex Nazarenus of the Periochae).

The number of Books now extant is thirty-five, viz., i.-x., which carry the history down toB.C.293, and xxi.-xlv., covering the periodB.C.218-167. Of these xli. and xliii. are incomplete. But we possess summaries (PeriochaeorArgumenta) of Books i.-cxlii., except cxxxvi. and cxxxvii., which show that the narrative was continued to the death of Drusus inB.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 (libriorvolumina) 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 bibliothecacapit.’

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 inB.C.29, and as Livy is silent as to the second closing after the Cantabrian war in 25, it follows that this passage was writtenB.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 beforeB.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 tillB.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, publishedB.C.7, was used by Livy for Books viii.-x. Book ix. must have been written beforeB.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 thanB.C.19, if it refers to Agrippa’s victory over the Cantabrians.

(d) Book lix. mentioned thelex de maritandis ordinibus, and consequently cannot have been earlier thanB.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 oldestMS.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. Thisa prioriview 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 diedA.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, 2sqq.

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 isnecessitas(ix. 4, 16), andfortunais 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 Romancivitasfrom 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, inA.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 wroteAnnales(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 ofFasti, 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 entitledDe verborum significatu(Gell. v. 17, 1), arranged alphabetically. It is lost, but we possess part of an abridgment (nine out of sixteen Books) made bySex. Pompeius Festusbefore the third centuryA.D.The abridgment of Festus was in turn epitomized byPaulus Diaconusin 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), wroteDe 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; andDe Agricultura, a treatise to which Virgil was indebted (Colum. i. 1, 13). The Hyginus who wroteFabulaeandDe Astrologiaprobably lived in the second centuryA.D.

Vitruvius Pollio (the cognomen appears only in the abridgment of his book) served under Caesar in AfricaB.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 treatiseDe Architectura, in ten Books, when he was no longer young (ii. praef. 4, ‘faciem deformavit aetas’), between the yearsB.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 inB.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 Graeciσχήματαdicunt duo explicare.’

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

‘Duosque Senecas unicumque Lucanumfacunda loquitur Corduba.’

The date of his birth is probably aboutB.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 afterA.D.37. On the other hand, he was dead before his son’s exile inA.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.’

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

1. TheControversiaewere 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 ofControversiaeonly 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 centuryA.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.

TheControversiaewere written when Seneca was an old man, and when his two elder sons were preparing for public life, probably aboutA.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., betweenA.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 ofSuasoriae, 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 theControversiae:Contr.ii. 4, 8, ‘Quae dixerit suo loco reddam, cum ad suasorias venero.’ One passage cannot have been written beforeA.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. Senecade 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.

C.[72]Velleius Paterculus was born at latestB.C.19, as he was quaestor-electA.D.6. He was descended from a distinguished family in Campania (Vell. ii. 16, 2; Liv. xxiii. 7sqq.). His father was apraefectus equitum(ii. 104, 3). After some military experience in Thrace and Macedonia, Velleius accompanied C. Caesar, the grandson of Augustus, on his mission to the East,A.D.1. His rank at this time wastribunus militum.

ii. 101, 2 (of the meeting of C. Caesar and the Parthian king), ‘Sub initia stipendiorum meorum tribuno militum mihi visere contigit: quem militiae gradum ante sub patre tuo, M. Vinici, et P. Silio auspicatus in Thracia Macedoniaque, mox Achaia Asiaque et omnibus ad Orientem visis provinciis et ore atque utroque maris Pontici latere, haud iniucunda tot rerum, locorum, gentium, urbium recordatione fruor.’

InA.D.4, aspraefectus equitum, he accompanied Tiberius to Germany: ii. 104, 3, ‘Hoc tempus me, functum ante tribunatu, castrorum Ti. Caesaris militem fecit; quippe protinus ab adoptione missus cum eo praefectus equitum in Germaniam, successor officii patris mei, caelestissimorum eius operum per annos continuos viii. praefectus aut legatus spectator et pro captu mediocritatis meae adiutor fui.’

InA.D.6, when quaestor-elect, he commanded reinforcements sent from Rome to Tiberius in Pannonia, and at the expiration of his term of office as quaestor in Rome, he returned to Tiberius as alegatus: ii. 111, 3, ‘Habuit in hoc quoque bello mediocritas nostra speciosi ministerii locum. Finita equestri militia designatus quaestor necdum senator aequatus senatoribus, etiam designatis tribunis plebei, partem exercitus ab urbe traditi ab Augusto perduxi ad filium eius. In quaestura deinde remissa sorte provinciae legatus eiusdem ad eumdem missus sum.’

InA.D.9 Velleius served in Dalmatia (ii. 115, 5), afterwards spending two years in Germany (ii. 104, 3 above). In the winter ofA.D.12-13 he took part in the triumph of Tiberius: ii. 121, 2, ‘Ex Pannoniis Delmatisque egit triumphum ... quem mihi fratrique meo inter praecipuos praecipuisque donis adornatos viros comitari contigit.’

Velleius was praetor-elect inA.D.14: ii. 124, 4, ‘Quo tempore mihi fratrique meo, candidatis Caesaris, proxime a nobilissimis ac sacerdotalibus viris destinari praetoribus contigit, consecutis ut neque post nos quemquam divus Augustus neque ante nos Caesar commendaret Tiberius.’

The publication of his history, sixteen years later, is the only circumstance recorded of Velleius after this date.

TheHistoria Romana, in two Books, was publishedA.D.30, in the consulship of M. Vinicius, to whom the book is addressed (i. 8, 1, and often). The beginning of Book i. is lost; the first eight chapters in our text are occupied with a rapid survey of the history of Greece since the Trojan war, the Phoenician settlements in the Mediterranean, and the chief events in the history of the world before the foundation of Rome. C. 8 breaks off at the rape of the Sabine women, and there is a great lacuna before we reach, in c. 9, the defeat of Perseus at Pydna inB.C.168. Ch. 9-13 carry the narrative down to the destruction of Carthage and Corinth. Book ii. commences at that point, and ends with the death of Livia,A.D.29 (ii. 130, 5, ‘cuius temporis aegritudinem auxit amissa mater’).

Velleius is constantly calling attention to the brevity and compression of his treatment, in such phrases as ‘omnia transcursu dicenda’ (ii. 55), ‘artatum opus’ (ii. 86), ‘recisum opus’ (ii. 89). Much that the plan of his book compels him to omit, he promises to publish later in a larger work,e.g.ii. 99, 3, ‘iusto servemus operi,’ ii. 114, 4, ‘iustis voluminibus ordine narrabimus.’ Even as it is, he occasionally pauses to describe a great character (ii. 41, Caesar), or to express his personal opinion (ii. 66, 3, denunciation of Antony for Cicero’s murder). Specially noticeable are the digressions on the Roman colonies (i. 14-15) and provinces (ii. 38-39), on the prominence of different types of genius at certain epochs (i. 16-18), and on literary history (ii. 9, the chief writers of the time of the Gracci; ii. 36, of the Ciceronian and Augustan ages; i. 5, praise of Homer; i. 7, of Hesiod). As is natural in so short a book, Velleius names very few authorities.

The motive of the history is evidently the glorification of the author’s old general, Tiberius, whose actual reign, however, he dismisses in eight chapters. Probably he felt the subject too risky, and devoted his strength to the earlier life of Tiberius, which occupies the greater part even of the chapters nominally devoted to the reign of Augustus (ii. 59-123). Tiberius is spoken of throughout in terms of unqualified praise, and no hint is given of the darker side of his character. Seianus also is extolled (ii. 127-8), as he was in high favour at the time when Velleius wrote.

Nothing is known of the life of Valerius Maximus beyond the fact that he visited Asia in company with Sex. Pompeius, the friend of Ovid and of Germanicus. Pompeius was consulA.D.14, and betweenA.D.27 and 30 became proconsul of Asia.

Val. Max. ii. 6, 8, ‘Consuetudinem ... illam etiam in insula Cea servari animadverti, quo tempore Asiam cum Sex. Pompeio petens Iulidem oppidum intravi.’

Valerius dwells on his obligations to Pompeius in his chapter on friendship (iv. 7,ext.2).

His sole work,Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, in nine books, is a collection of notable incidents and sayings, classified under appropriate headings, for the convenience of speakers seeking illustrations for their subject-matter. Cf. the preface, ‘Urbis Romae exterarumque gentium facta simul ac dicta memoratu digna, quae apud alios latius diffusa sunt quam ut breviter cognosci possint, ab illustribus electa auctoribus digerere constitui, ut documenta sumere volentibus longae inquisitionis labor absit.’

Theillustres auctoresfrom whom he draws most of his material are Livy, Cicero (each mentioned only once), Sallust, and Trogus; but thirteen Latin and twenty Greek authors are mentioned by name. He frequently misrepresents his authorities.

Each book is divided into chapters on separate topics (e.g.De Pudicitia), under each of which he gives (1) illustrations from Roman history, (2) those from the history of other nations. The latter of course are few in comparison.

Although Iulius Paris, the epitomizer of Valerius, speaks of ten books, only nine are extant, and it may be doubted whether there ever was a tenth. Book i. is mutilated.

There are only two passages which throw any light on the date of composition—viii. 11,ext.4, a denunciation of Seianus, obviously written after his fall inA.D.31; and vi. 1 praef., before the death of Livia,A.D.29. The work was published at latest inA.D.37, for it is dedicated to Tiberius, who is the object of the most servile flattery (e.g.ii. 9, 6); similar language is used of Iulius Caesar (iv. 5, 6), and Augustus (i. 7, 1), while Brutus and Cassius are denounced as parricides (i. 5, 7; i. 8, 8).

Two abridgments of Valerius Maximus are extant.

Of the life of Celsus nothing is known; but he was an older contemporary of Columella. Colum. iii. 17, 4, ‘Iulius Atticus et Cornelius Celsus, aetatis nostrae celeberrimi auctores, patrem atque filium Sasernam secuti.’

He wrote an encyclopaedic work on agriculture, medicine, war, rhetoric, and philosophy, but only the section on medicine is extant.

Quint. xi. 12, 24, ‘Cum etiam Cornelius Celsus, mediocri vir ingenio, non solum de his omnibus conscripserit artibus sed amplius rei militaris et rusticae et medicinae praecepta reliquerit.’

The first part consisted of five books on agriculture: cf. Colum. i. 1, 14, ‘Cornelius totum corpus disciplinae quinque libris complexus est.’ This section of the work was probably written in the reign of Tiberius, for it was known to Iulius Graecinus, whose execution took place under Caligula. Plin.N.H.xiv. 33, ‘Graecinus, qui alioqui Cornelium Celsum transcripsit.’

There are eight booksDe Re Medica. The only indication of their date is in iv. 7, where Celsus mentions a prescription as not found ‘in monumentis medicorum.’ As this prescription is given by Scribonius Largus, who wrote aboutA.D.47, Celsus must have written before that year.

The section on war was used by Vegetius (De Re Mil.i. 8).

Rhetoric was also treated in the encyclopaedia. Quintilian, who mentions him as one of the more careful writers on that subject (iii. 1, 21, ‘accuratius scripsit Celsus’), frequently combats his opinions and speaks of him rather contemptuously:e.g.ix. 1, 18, ‘Cornelius Celsus nimia profecto novitatis cupidine ductus. Nam quis ignorasse eruditum alioqui virum credat,’ etc. He may be the Celsus of Juv. 6, 245, who (according to the Scholiast) wrote a manual of rhetoric in seven books.

There were also six books on the history of philosophy. Augustinede haeres. prol., ‘Opiniones omnium philosophorum qui sectas varias condiderunt usque ad tempora sua vi. non parvis voluminibus quidam Celsus absolvit; nec redarguit aliquem, sed tantum quid sentirent aperuit. Cum ferme centum philosophos nominasset,’ etc.

Celsus also wrote separate treatises (1) on philosophy, Quint. x. 1, 24, ‘Scripsit non parum multa Cornelius Celsus, Sextios secutus, non sine cultu ac nitore’; (2) on strategy (Lydusde mag.i. 47).

The title of Phaedrus’ work, ‘Phaedri Augusti liberti fabularum Aesopiarum libri,’ probably means that he was a freedman of Augustus. Tiberius is called ‘Caesar Tiberius’ in ii. 6, 7; contrast the reference to Augustus, iii. 10, 39, ‘a divo Augusto.’ Phaedrus was born in Thrace, possibly in the district of Pieria; but the date is unknown; iii. prol. 17,

‘Ego, quem Pierio mater enixa est iugo,in quo tonanti sancta Mnemosyne Iovifecunda novies artium peperit chorum’;

ibid.54,

‘Ego, litteratae qui sum propior Graeciae,cur somno inerti deseram patriae decus?Threissa cum gens numeret auctores suos,Linoque Apollo sit parens, Musa Orpheo.’

Some wrongly take these allusions to mean that he belongs to the realm of poesy. That he came to Rome early is shown by the knowledge of Latin literature he acquired in his boyhood. Cf. iii. epil. 33, where he quotes Ennius,

‘Ego, quondam legi quam puer sententiam,“Palam mutire plebeio piaculum est,”dum sanitas constabit, pulchre meminero.’

After publishing two books of fables, Phaedrus was persecuted by Seianus, in some way unknown; iii. prol. 38,

‘Ego porro illius [Aesopi] semita feci viam,et cogitavi plura quam reliquerat,in calamitatem deligens quaedam meam.Quod si accusator alius Seiano foret,si testis alius, index alius denique,dignum faterer esse me tantis malis.’

This persecution may have arisen from references in his fables, such as i. 1 (Lupus et agnus), l. 14,

‘Haec propter illos scripta est homines fabula,qui fictis causis innocentes opprimunt’;

i. 6 (Ranae ad solem), which Nisard[73]thinks refers to the ambitious marriage which Seianus projected with Livia, daughter of Germanicus, ‘The sun dries up the ponds; what will happen if the sun marries and has children?’ l. 9,

‘Quidnam futurum est, si crearit liberos?’

Phaedrus survived the attacks made on him, and Book v. was written in his old age (see below).

Several personal points are clear from his writings:

(1) He had to meet the attacks of critics; ii. epil. 10,

‘Si livor obtrectare curam voluerit,non tamen eripiet laudis conscientiam.’

(2) His desire for fame and his self-consciousness; iii. prol. 60,

‘Ergo hinc abesto livor, ne frustra gemas,quoniam sollemnis mihi debetur gloria.’

(3) His contempt for money; iii. prol. 21,

‘Curamque habendi penitus corde eraserim’;

v. 4, 7,

‘Huius respectu fabulae deterrituspericulosum semper vitavi lucrum.’

Phaedrus wrote five Books of fables. Many have certainly been lost. Cf. his reference to tree-fables, none of which we have; i. prol. 6,

‘quod arbores loquantur, non tantum ferae.’

There are, besides the five Books, thirty fables usually printed as an appendix, and probably composed by Phaedrus. The fables are all in ‘impure’ iambic senarii, like those of Terence and Publius Syrus. Phaedrus followed Aesop, but, as he affirms, not slavishly; i. prol. 1,

‘Aesopus auctor quam materiam repperit,hanc ego polivi versibus senariis’;

iv. prol. 10,

‘fabulisquas Aesopias, non Aesopi, nomino.’

We have the Greek originals for about a third of the fables; but Phaedrus speaks of his additions to Aesop; ii. prol. 8,

‘Equidem omni cura morem servabo senis;sed si libuerit aliquid interponere,dictorum sensus ut delectet varietas,bonas in partes, lector, accipias velim.’

Stories from contemporary or recent history are given in ii. 6, 7; iii. 10; v. 7.

Books i. and ii. were published under Tiberius; Book iii. was published after Tiberius’ death (cf. iii. prol. 33), and is dedicated to Eutychus, who has been identified with a favourite slave of Caligula. Book iv. followed, addressed to Particulo (iv. prol. 10). Book v., addressed to Philetes, was written in the poet’s old age; v. 10, 7,

‘Cui senex contra Lacon:“Non te destituit animus, sed vires meae.Quod fuimus, lauda, si iam damnas, quod sumus.”Hoc cur, Philete, scripserim, pulchre vides.’

Martial is the only classical writer who refers to Phaedrus; iii. 20, 5,

‘An aemulatur improbi iocos Phaedri?’

L. Annaeus Seneca, the son of Annaeus Seneca, the rhetor, was born at Corduba in Spain. For information about his family see under ‘Seneca the elder,’pp. 226-7. He was probably born about the beginning of our era, as he seems to have remembered Asinius Pollio, who diedA.D.5, and had passed his boyhood inA.D.19, when the Jewish and Egyptian rites were expelled from Rome.

Sen.de tranquill. animi, 17, 7, ‘Qualem Pollionem Asinium meminimus, quem nulla res ultra decimam [horam] retinuit.’

Ep.108, 22, ‘In Tiberii Caesaris principatum iuventae tempus inciderat: alienigena tum sacra movebantur.’

At an early age Seneca was brought to Rome by his mother’s sister, who was probably the wife of Vitrasius Pollio, prefect of Egypt for sixteen years.

Ad Helv.19, 2, ‘Illius manibus in urbem perlatus sum.’

Seneca’s mother took a great interest in his education, which was conducted under Fabianus Papirius (cf.Ep.100, 9, etc.) and Sotion the Pythagorean, of Alexandria, pupils of Sextius (for Seneca’s study of whom seeEp.64).

Ad Helv.15, 1, ‘Vera vis materni doloris oritur ... “ubi studia, quibus libentius quam femina, familiarius quam mater intereram?”’

Ep.108, 17, ‘Dicebat [Sotion] quare ille animalibus abstinuisset, quare postea Sextius ... § 22. His ego instinctus abstinere animalibus coepi et anno peracto non tantum facilis erat mihi consuetudo, sed dulcis.’

The elder Seneca put an end to this abstinence, which was associated in the popular view with foreign superstitions (seeEp.108, 17-23). This must have happened aboutA.D.19. The influence of Sotion is seen in passages imitated from his bookde ira cohibendaby Seneca. Seneca also studied under Attalus, a Greek Stoic, possibly aboutA.D.20.

Ep.108, 13-15, ‘Ego certe cum Attalum audirem in vitia, in errores, in mala vitae perorantem, saepe misertus sum generis humani et illum sublimem altioremque humano fastigio credidi ... Inde mihi quaedam permansere, Lucili. Magno enim in omnia inceptu veneram. Deinde ad civitatis vitam reductus ex bene coeptis pauca servavi: inde ostreis boletisque in omnem vitam renuntiatum est.’

Seneca speaks of his change of studies and occupations inEp.49, 2, ‘Modo apud Sotionem philosophum puer sedi. Modo causas agere coepi. Modo desii velle agere, modo desii posse.’

InA.D.31 Seneca was probably still at Rome; cf.N.Q.i. 1, 3, ‘Vidimus [prodigium] eo tempore, quo de Seiano actum est.’ Lipsius’ inference[74]that Seneca made a voyage to Egypt about this time is probable, though Seneca himself gives no direct information about it. According to this theory his host was Vitrasius Pollio, prefect of Egypt. While in Egypt, Seneca was attacked by illness, and escaped death by his aunt’s care. Cf.ad Helv.19, 2, ‘Illius pio maternoque nutricio per longum tempus aeger convalui.’ Seneca accompanied Vitrasius when he resigned his office and returned with his wife to ItalyA.D.32 (Dio, lviii. 19, 6). They suffered shipwreck, and Vitrasius perished.

Ad Helv.19, 4, ‘Sed si prudentiam perfectissimae feminae novi, non patietur te nihil profuturo maerore consumi et exemplum tibi suum, cuius ego etiam spectator fui, narrabit. Carissimum virum amiserat, avunculum nostrum, cui virgo nupserat, in ipsa quidem navigatione: tulit tamen eodem tempore et luctum et metum evictisque tempestatibus corpus eius naufraga evexit.’

This theory is supported by the fact that Seneca wrote a work ‘de ritu (al., situ) et sacris Aegyptiorum’ (Serv.ad Aen.vi. 154).

Through his aunt’s influence Seneca obtained the quaestorship.

Ad Helv.19, 2, ‘Illa pro quaestura mea gratiam suam extendit, et quae ne sermonis quidem aut clarae salutationis sustinuit audaciam, pro me vicit indulgentia verecundiam.’

Seneca’s quaestorship must have been after the death of his aunt’s husband, inA.D.32, as the above passage shows, and before the death of Tiberius inA.D.37, as it was with Tiberius that his aunt’s influence lay, on account of her husband’s services. After his quaestorship Seneca appears to have married (cf.de ira, iii. 36, 3, etc.). His wife must have died beforeA.D.57, as in that year Seneca married Pompeia Paulina; cf. Dio, lxi. 10, 3,γάμον ἐπιφανέστατον ἔγημε. By his first wife he had three sons (ad Helv.2, 5).

While senator, Seneca incurred the jealousy of Caligula, and inA.D.39 narrowly escaped death.

Dio, lix. 19, 7,ὁ δὲ δὴ Σενέκας ... διεφθάρη παρ’ ὀλίγον, μήτ’ ἀδικήσας τι, μήτε δόξας, ὅτι δίκην τινὰ ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ παρόντος αὐτοῦ καλῶς εἴπε. For Seneca’s attacks on Caligula cf.ad Helv.10, 4;Apocol.15, etc.

Sueton.Cal.53, ‘Peroraturus “stricturum se lucubrationis suae telum” minabatur; lenius comtiusque scribendi genus adeo contemnens, ut Senecam, tum maxime placentem, “commissiones meras” componere, et “harenam esse sine calce” diceret.’

InA.D.41 Seneca was banished to Corsica, through the agency of Messalina, on the charge of adultery with Iulia Livilla, sister of Caligula, but really because he was suspected of belonging to the faction of Agrippina.

Tac.Ann.xiii. 42, ‘Nec Suillius questu aut exprobratione abstinebat ... et Senecam increpans infensum amicis Claudii, sub quo iustissimum exilium pertulisset ... Se quaestorem Germanici, illum domus eius adulterum fuisse.’

Seneca was tried before the Senate, and Claudius prevented his execution.

Ad Polyb.13, 2, ‘Deprecatus est pro me senatum, et vitam mihi non tantum dedit, sed etiam petiit.’

While in Corsica he devoted himself to literature and science. Cf.ad Helv.20, 1 (written in exile), ‘Animus omnis occupationis expers operibus suis vacat et modo se levioribus studiis oblectat, modo ad considerandam suam universique naturam veri avidus insurgit: terras primum situmque earum quaerit.’

TheConsolatio ad Polybium, written during this time, is full of flattery of Claudius.

Dio, lxi. 10, 2,τὴν Μεσσαλίναν καὶ τοὺς τοὺ Κλαυδίου ἐξελευθέρους ἐθώπευεν ὥστε καὶ βιβλίον σφίσιν ἐκ τῆς νήσου πέμψαι ἐπαίνους αὐτῶν ἔχον, ὃ μετὰ ταῦτα ὑπ’ αἰσχύνης ἀπήλειψε.

Seneca was recalled at the beginning ofA.D.49, became Nero’s tutor (although he wished to visit Athens), and obtained the praetorship through the influence of Agrippina, with whom his name was coupled by popular rumour.

Tac.Ann.xii. 8, ‘At Agrippina, ne malis tantum facinoribus notesceret, veniam exilii pro Annaeo Seneca, simul praeturam inpetrat, laetum in publicum rata ob claritudinem studiorum eius, utque Domitii pueritia tali magistro adulesceret et consiliis eiusdem ad spem dominationis uterentur, quia Seneca fidus in Agrippinam memoria beneficii et infensus Claudio dolore iniuriae credebatur.’

Schol. onIuv.5, 105, ‘Revocatus ... etsi magno desiderio Athenas intenderet ab Agrippina tamen in palatium adductus.’

Dio, lxi. 10, 1,οὐ γὰρ ἀπέχρῃσεν αὐτῷ τὴν Ἰουλίαν μοιχεῦσαι, οὐδὲ βελτίων ἐκ τῆς φυγῆς ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ Ἀγριππίνῃ ἐπλῃσίαζεν.

For Seneca’s tutorship cf. also Sueton.Nero, 52, ‘Liberales disciplinas omnes fere puer attigit. Sed a philosophia eum mater avertit, monens imperaturo contrariam esse: a cognitione veterum oratorum Seneca praeceptor, quo diutius in admiratione sui detineret.’

It is probable that Seneca was, like Nero, privy to the murder of Claudius inA.D.54. Cf. his sarcasms against Claudius in hisApocolocyntosis.

Sueton.Nero33 (of Nero), ‘Cuius [Claudi] necis etsi non auctor, at conscius fuit: neque dissimulanter, ut qui boletos, in quo cibi genere venenum is acceperat, quasi deorum cibum, posthac proverbio Graeco conlaudare sit solitus.’

Seneca wrote for Nero a speech which he delivered on the occasion of Claudius’ death.

Tac.Ann.xiii. 3, ‘Die funeris laudationem eius princeps exorsus est; dum antiquitatem generis, consulatus ac triumphos maiorum enumerabat, intentus ipse et ceteri; liberalium quoque artium commemoratio, et nihil regente eo triste rei publicae ab externis accidisse, pronis animis audita. Postquam ad providentiam sapientiamque flexit, nemo risui temperare, quamquam oratio a Seneca composita multum cultus praeferret, ut fuit illi viro ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus accommodatum.’

He acted as a check on Nero (Tac.Ann.xiii. 6; 11), and baffled Agrippina’s vengeance and ambition.

Tac.Ann.xiii. 2, ‘Ibaturque in caedes, nisi Afranius Burrus et Annaeus Seneca obviam issent. (Ch. 5) Quin et legatis Armeniorum causam gentis apud Neronem orantibus escendere suggestum imperatoris et praesidere simul parabat, nisi ceteris pavore defixis Seneca admonuisset, venienti matri occurreret.’

Seneca interfered to shelter Nero in his amour with Acte,A.D.55, and used the occasion to stir up feud between Agrippina and Nero (Tac.Ann.xiii. 13). Hence followed an attack by Agrippina on Seneca.

Tac.Ann.xiii. 14, ‘Audiretur hinc Germanici filia, inde debilis rursus Burrus et exsul Seneca, trunca scilicet manu et professoria lingua generis humani regimen expostulantes.’

It is unlikely that Seneca opposed the murder of Britannicus (Feb.A.D.55). Cf. Tac.Ann.xiii. 17, ‘Facinus cui plerique iam hominum ignoscebant, antiquas fratrum discordias et insociabile regnum aestimantes.’[75]

Seneca took part shortly afterwards in the trial in which Agrippina was found not guilty (Tac.Ann.xiii. 20-21). There are many references to Seneca’s great power and wealth at this time.[76]

Cf. Dio, lxi. 4, 1,αὐτοὶ(Seneca and Burrus)τὴν ἀρχὴν ἅπασαν παρέλαβον καὶ διῴκησαν ἐφ’ ὅσον ἠδυνήθησαν ἄριστα καὶ δικαιότατα.

Tac.Ann.xiv. 53 (Seneca addressing Nero inA.D.62), ‘Quartus decimus annus est, Caesar, ex quo spei tuae admotus sum, octavus, ut imperium obtines: medio temporis tantum honorum atque opum in me cumulasti, ut nihil felicitati meae desit nisi moderatio eius... At tu gratiam immensam, innumeram pecuniam circumdedisti, adeo ut plerumque intra me ipse volvam, “Egone, equestri et provinciali loco ortus, proceribus civitatis adnumeror? ... Talis hortos extruit, et per haec suburbana incedit, et tantis agrorum spatiis, tam lato faenore exuberat?”’

Tac.Ann.xiii. 42 (speech of Suillius,A.D.58), ‘Qua sapientia, quibus philosophorum praeceptis, intra quadriennium regiae amicitiae ter miliens sestertium paravisset?’ (Dio, lxi. 10, 2, gives his wealth as 75,000,000 denarii).

Seneca had many estates both in Italy (Ep.123, 1, etc.) and abroad, and lent money abroad, even in Britain. His attraction to finance is seen in the number of metaphors he draws from that subject.

Sen.vit. beat.17, 2, ‘Cur trans mare possides? cur plura quam nosti?’

Dio, lxii. 2, 1 (of the rising of the Britons under Boudicca),ὁ Σενέκας χιλίας σφίσι μυριάδας ἄκουσιν ἐπὶ χρησταῖς ἐλπίσι τόκων δανείσας, ἔπειτ’ ἀθρόας τε ἅμα αὐτὰς καὶ βιαίως εἰσέπρασσεν.

His attack on usury (de ben.vii. 10, 3) is a piece of theoretic philosophy.

InA.D.57 Seneca was consul suffectus (Ulpian,Dig.xxxvi. 1). InA.D.58 he brought about the downfall of the former delator, P. Suillius. Cf. Tac.Ann.xiii. 42, ‘Variis deinde casibus iactatus et multorum odia meritus reus, haud tamen sine invidia Senecae damnatur. Is fuit P. Suillius.’ Seneca is thought to have been implicated in Agrippina’s murder inA.D.59. He wrote to the Senate for Nero an account of her death.

Tac.Ann.xiv. 7 (Nero says after the fruitless attempt of Anicetus to kill Agrippina), ‘Quod contra subsidium sibi nisi quid Burrus et Seneca expedirent? Quos statim acciverat, incertum an aperiens, et ante ignaros. Igitur longum utriusque silentium, ne inriti dissuaderent; an eo descensum credebant, ut, nisi praeveniretur Agrippina, pereundum Neroni esset? Post Seneca, hactenus promptius, ut respiceret Burrum, ac sciscitaretur an militi imperanda caedes esset. (Ch. 11) Ergo non iam Nero, cuius immanitas omnium questus anteibat, sed Seneca adverso rumore erat, quod oratione tali confessionem scripsisset.’

The death of Burrus inA.D.62 weakened the power of Seneca, who resolved to retire. His request, however, was not granted by Nero (Tac.Ann.xiv. 55-6), but he reduced his establishment, and lived in semi-privacy.

Tac.Ann.xiv. 52, ‘Mors Burri infregit Senecae potentiam, quia nec bonis artibus idem virium erat altero velut duce amoto, et Nero ad deteriores inclinabat. Hi variis criminationibus Senecam adoriuntur ... Certe finitam Neronis pueritiam, et robur iuventae adesse. Exueret magistrum, satis amplis doctoribus instructus maioribus suis. (Ch. 56) Instituta prioris potentiae commutat, prohibet coetus salutantium, vitat comitantis, rarus per urbem, quasi valetudine infensa aut sapientiae studiis domi attineretur.’

Later inA.D.62, came an unsuccessful attempt to ruin Seneca. Tac.Ann.xiv. 65, ‘Romanus secretis criminationibus incusaverat Senecam ut Gai Pisonis socium; sed validius a Seneca eodem crimine perculsus est.’

InA.D.64, on the occasion of the burning of Rome by Nero, Seneca wished to retire. He is said to have offered money to repair the disasters of the fire.

Tac.Ann.xv. 45, ‘Ferebatur Seneca, quo invidiam sacrilegii a semet averteret, longinqui ruris secessum oravisse, et postquam non concedebatur, ficta valetudine, quasi aeger nervis, cubiculum non egressus.’

Dio, lxii. 25, 3,πᾶσαν αὐτῷ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν οἰκοδομουμένων προφάσει κεχαρισμένος.

The story given in Tac.Ann.xv. 45 of the attempt to poison Seneca probably arose from his abstemious habits.

‘Tradidere quidam venenum ei per libertum ipsius cui nomen Cleonicus paratum iussu Neronis, vitatumque a Seneca proditione liberti seu propria formidine, dum persimplici victu et agrestibus pomis, ac si sitis admoneret, profluente aqua vitam tolerat.’

InA.D.65 Seneca was implicated in the conspiracy of Piso, and was forced to commit suicide. His wife wished to die with him, but was prevented by Nero’s orders.

Tac.Ann.xv. 60, ‘Sequitur caedes Annaei Senecae, laetissima principi, non quia coniurationis manifestum compererat, sed ut ferro grassaretur, quando veneno non processerat ... (Ch. 63) Post quae eodem ictu brachia ferro exsolvunt. Seneca, quoniam senile corpus et parco victu tenuatum lenta effugia sanguini praebebat, crurum quoque et poplitum venas abrumpit. Saevisque cruciatibus defessus, ne dolore suo animum uxoris infringeret atque ipse visendo eius tormenta ad impatientiam delaberetur, suadet in aliud cubiculum abscedere. Et novissimo quoque momento suppeditante eloquentia advocatis scriptoribus pleraque tradidit ... (Ch. 64) At Nero nullo in Paulinam proprio odio, ac ne glisceret invidia crudelitatis, inhibere mortem. ... Seneca interim, durante tractu et lentitudine mortis, Statium Annaeum, diu sibi amicitiae fide et arte medicinae probatum, orat, provisum pridem venenum, quo damnati publico Atheniensium iudicio exstinguerentur, promeret; adlatumque hausit frustra, frigidus iam artus, et cluso corpore adversum vim veneni. Postremo stagnum calidae aquae introiit, respergens proximos servorum, addita voce, libare se liquorem illum Iovi liberatori. Exin balneo inlatus, et vapore eius exanimatus, sine ullo funeris sollemni crematur.’

There was a rumour that some of the conspirators intended to make Seneca emperor.

Tac.Ann.xv. 65, ‘Fama fuit Subrium Flavum cum centurionibus occulto consilio, neque tamen ignorante Seneca, destinavisse, ut post occisum opera Pisonis Neronem Piso quoque interficeretur, tradereturque imperium Senecae, quasi insontibus claritudine virtutum ad summum fastigium delecto.’

The following prose works are extant:

1.Dialogorum librixii.

(1)ad Lucilium: quare aliqua incommoda bonis viris accidant cum providentia sit; sive de providentia. This was probably a late work.

(2)ad Serenum: nec iniuriam nec contumeliam accipere sapientem; sive de constantia sapientis: written in the first years of Nero’s reign.

(3-5)ad Novatum de ira libriiii., probably written in the first year of Claudius’ reign.

(6)ad Marciam de consolatione: written to console Marcia, the daughter of Cremutius Cordus, for the death of her son Metilius. The work may have been written inA.D.41, as Caligula’s name is studiously avoided.

(7)ad Gallionem de vita beata. This book, addressed to Seneca’s brother Gallio (Novatus), was probably written shortly afterA.D.58, and justifies his having wealth though a philosopher.

(8)ad Serenum de otio. This work, like the next, was addressed to Annaeus Serenus, and was written probably aboutA.D.62. Only a part of it is extant. The book discusses whether a wise man should engage in state affairs.

(9)ad Serenum de tranquillitate animi, probably written soon after Seneca’s recall.

(10)ad Paulinum de brevitate vitae. For the date cf. 13, 8, ‘Sullam ultimum Romanorum protulisse pomoerium.’ Now, Claudius extended the pomoerium inA.D.50, so this must have been written inA.D.49, as the book was brought out after Seneca’s return from exile.

(11)ad Polybium de consolatione. This book was addressed inA.D.43 or 44 to Polybius, a favourite of Claudius, on the occasion of his brother’s death. The date is fixed by the reference to Claudius’ expedition to Britain in 12, 2-3. Cf. § 3, ‘Non desinam totiens tibi offerre Caesarem. Illo moderante terras et ostendente, quanto melius beneficiis imperium custodiatur quam armis, illo rebus humanis praeside non est periculum, ne quid perdidisse te sentias.’ For similar flattery of Claudius, cf. 7,4; 12,5.

(12)ad Helviam matrem de consolatione, written during his banishment.

2.ad Neronem Caesarem de clementia, in three Books, two of which are extant. The work was written inA.D.55-6, doubtless to show the public what sort of instruction Seneca had given Nero, and what sort of emperor they had to expect (cf. i, 1, 1). The date is settled by i. 9, 1, ‘[divus Augustus] cum hoc aetatis esset quod tu nunc es, duodevicesimum egressus annum,’ Nero having been born 15th December,A.D.37. The flattery contained in ii. 1, 1-2, and elsewhere, can be justified to some extent by Nero’s conduct at that time. Cf. Sueton.Nero, 10, ‘Neque liberalitatis, neque clementiae, ne comitatis quidem exhibendae ullam occasionem omisit.’

3.De Beneficiisin seven Books, addressed to Aebutius Liberalis of Lugdunum. It is probable that Books i.-iv. were published first, shortly after the death of Claudius (who is sneered at in i. 15, 6). Books v.-vii. are probably a later addition. Cf. v. 1, 1, ‘In prioribus libris videbar consummasse propositum ... Quidquid ultra moror, non servio materiae, sed indulgeo ... Verum quia ita vis, perseveremus peractis.’ The eulogy of Demetrius the Cynic in vii. 8-12, makes it probable that Book vii. at least was written in Seneca’s last years.

4.Apocolocyntosis, a political satire on Claudius, written shortly after his death inA.D.54. The explanation of the title is given by Dio, lx. 35, 2,Ἀγριππίνα καὶ ὁ Νέρων ... ἐς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνήγαγον ὃν ἐκ τοῦ συμποσίου φοράδην ἐξενηνόχεσαν. ὅθευπερ Λούκιος Ἰούνιος Γαλλίων ὁ τοῦ Σενέκα ἀδελφὸς ἀστειότατόν τι ἀπεφθέγξατο· συνέθηκε μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὁ Σενέκας σύγγραμμα, ἀποκολοκύντωσιν αὐτὸ ὥσπερ τινὰ ἀπαθανάτισιν ὀνομάσας, ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἐν βραχυτάτῳ πολλὰ εἰπὼν ἀπομνημονεύεται ... ἔφη τὸν Κλαύδιον ἀγκίστρῳ ἐς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνενεχθῆναι. The work does not bear this title in theMSS., and there is no hint of the witticism in the book itself; the St. GallMS., however, has ‘Divi ClaudiiΑΠΟΘΗΟΣΙΣAnnei Senecae per Saturam,’ which may be a corruption of the proper title. The title is derived fromκολοκύντη, ‘a gourd,’ which was used to denote a fool. Seneca (Apocol.6) takes the official view that Claudius died of a fever. The work may have been published at the Saturnalia, and written shortly before, as Narcissus is represented as having just arrived in Orcus. The personal animosity of Seneca against Caligula and Claudius is everywhere apparent.

5.Naturales Quaestionesin seven Books, addressed to Lucilius. Book ii. was written afterA.D.57, as in ii. 9, 2 an amphitheatre is mentioned which was built by Nero in that year. The work was finished before the end ofA.D.64, for in Book vii. there is no mention among other prodigies of the comet which appeared again at the end of that year.

6.Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. These were addressed to Lucilius Iunior, the author of ‘Aetna’ (seep. 277). There are extant one hundred and twenty four letters, in twenty Books, but some Books have been lost, as Gell. xii. 2, 3 quotes from Book xxii. Books i.-iii. were probably published by Seneca, the rest after his death, generally in chronological order.

The following poetical works are extant:

1.Epigrams.—Nine on his exile are given in the editions; probably only Nos. 1, 2, and 7 are genuine.

2.Tragedies.—Some of these may have been composed during Seneca’s exile in Corsica. Seead Helv.20 (quotedp. 243). The metrical treatment is strict, especially in the senarii. Anapaestic, glyconic, sapphic lines, etc., are used in the choral odes. There are only three actors, except in the spuriousOctavia. The plays are: (1)Hercules Furensand (2)TroadesorHecuba, founded on Euripides. (3)PhoenissaeorThebais. The two parts do not correspond. In ll. 1-362, Oedipus and Antigone are on their way to Cithaeron; from l. 363 to the end we find Iocasta and Antigone in Thebes while it is besieged by the Seven. (4)Medea, founded on Euripides. Ovid has also been imitated; so ll. 56sqq.from Ovid,Heroides, 12, 137. (5)PhaedraorHippolytus. (6)Oedipus, after Sophocles. (7)Agamemnon, after Aeschylus. (8)Thyestes. (9)Hercules Oetaeus, of which the second part, at least, is spurious. (10)Octavia, a praetexta, describing the death of Octavia, Nero’s wife (A.D.62). Seneca himself appears in it. It cannot be by Seneca, as Nero’s downfall (A.D.68) is mentioned in ll. 628-36.

The following works are lost or exist only in fragments:

i. Poems of a light nature (Pliny,Ep.v. 3). 2.De motu terrarum, afterwards incorporated inN.Q.vi. (seeN.Q.vi. 4, 2). 3.De lapidum natura. 4.De piscium natura. 5.De ritu et sacris Aegyptiorum(seep. 242). 6.De situ Indiae. 7.De forma mundi. 8.Exhortationes. 9.De officiis. 10.De immatura morte. 11.De superstitione dialogus. 12.De matrimonio. 13.De amicitia. 14.De vita patris, along with an edition of his works. 15. Speeches by himself or by Nero. 16.Epistulae(a)ad Novatum, probably written from Corsica, (b)ad Caesonium Maximum. 17. A book in praise of Messalina, afterwards withdrawn (seep. 243). 18.Moralis philosophiae libri(seeEp.106, 2). 19.De remediis fortuitorum, addressed to Gallio. A synopsis with additions is extant. 20.De paupertate. 21.De formula honestae vitae, probably founded on one of Seneca’s works. 22.Notae(see Sueton. pp. 135-6R.).

The following are spurious works:

1. ‘Epistulae Senecae, Neronis imperatoris magistri, ad Paulum Apostolum et Pauli Apostoli ad Senecam.’ These letters, fourteen in all, are accepted as genuine by Jerome,de vir. illustr.12. ‘Seneca ... quem non ponerem in catalogo sanctorum, nisi me epistulae illae provocarent, quae leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senecae ad Paulum.’

2. A work extant under the title ofSententiae Rufihas been wrongly thought to correspond to Seneca’s dying words mentioned in Tac.Ann.xv. 63.

3. The bookDe moribusorMonitacontains maxims by Christian writers.

Views and Character.—For Seneca’s training in Stoic doctrines seeEp.108, 13 (quotedp. 241). With these views he generally associates himself (cf.Ep.113, 1; 117, 1), but does not bind himself to one school.

Back to Index Next