SOURCE: Maslakov, G. “Valerius Maximus and Roman Historiography: A Study of the Exempla Tradition.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (II) 32, no. 1 (1984): 437-96.

[In the following excerpt, Maslakov asserts that a complete understanding of Valerius's Memorable Doings and Sayings requires an analysis within the context of the exempla tradition, claiming that such a reading allows the reader to properly recognize Valerius's historical sensibility as well as his use and manipulation of historical material in the collection.]

VALERIUS MAXIMUS' EXEMPLA. SOME PROBLEMS OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Valerius Maximus put together his Facta et Dicta at a crucial stage in the development of the Roman state. He dedicated this morally charged collection to Tiberius (te igitur huic coepto, penes quem hominum deorumque consensus maris ac terrae regimen esse voluit, certissima salus patriae, Caesar, invoco, cuius caelesti providentia virtutes, de quibus dicturus sum, benignissime foventur, vitia severissime vindicantur), whose constitutional position and personal influence were of central importance in that transformation.¹ These two factors alone suggest that the compilation could be regarded as an historical document of some interest, though they are not in themselves decisive in determining whether it is worth studying in any great detail.

Velleius Paterculus, for long neglected by serious historical scholarship, has by now received a thorough reappraisal “as a Roman senator and historian, and a not insignificant representative of the age of transition through which he lived.”² G. V. Sumner in his reassessment has convincingly urged that “there is more in Velleius than meets the eye” and A. J. Woodman's exploration of Velleius' genre and purpose has by implication opened up for scrutiny the whole field of minor Roman historiography.³ As yet, there has been no equivalent systematic and sympathetic discussion of Valerius Maximus in his own right and in the context of the exempla tradition which he represents. An explanation for this is to be sought in the fact that his collection appears to offer little to students of Roman historiography. The feeling is that the lack of knowledge of Valerius' personal background and the diffuse, derivative and rhetorically laboured nature of the work combine to make any sustained enquiry unlikely to yield significant results.

It will be argued in this study that such a view, though substantially correct in respect of Valerius' limitations, tends to miss what is historically valuable about the collection, what makes it a document that does add to our understanding of the range of Roman responses to the age of transition.⁴ In order to assess the Facta et Dicta as an historical document it is crucial to examine the nature of the individual exempla in the collection and the overall perspective that Valerius attempts to impose on them.⁵

Most exempla in Valerius are best examined in relation to the literary tradition from which they derive (see below). However, there are a number of exempla that require a different approach, one that takes as its basis the political tradition that Valerius seeks to interpret and transmit to his audience. This requires taking a broader view of the exempla tradition and looking at the context in which rhetorical exempla developed.⁶

Consciousness of tradition in Rome was not exclusively a matter of assimilating and developing a purely literary inheritance. Leaving aside the force of convention in determining the modes of personal and public conduct, it is important to consider the influence of the visible symbols of social and political continuity—buildings, statues, paintings. All these, together with the ceremonials and rituals observed, could have helped to shape particular images and stereotypes amongst rhetoricians and their pupils.⁷

In an exemplum like VII.1.1 we are able to study how the material highlighted relates to the more immediate ones, those that surveyed and encapsulated achievements of a nobilis for practical family purposes—the tituli imaginum, epitaphs and funeral orations:⁸

Videamus ergo quot gradibus beneficiorum Q. Metellum a primo originis die ad ultimum usque fati tempus numquam cessante indulgentia ad summum beatae vitae cumulum perduxerit. Nasci eum in urbe terrarum principe voluit, parentes ei nobilissimos dedit, adiecit animi rarissimas dotes et corporis vires, ut sufficere laboribus posset, uxorem pudicitia et fecunditate conspicuam conciliavit, consulatus decus, imperatoriam potestatem, speciosissimi triumphi praetextum largita est, fecit ut eodem tempore tres filios consulares, unum etiam censorium et triumphalem, quartum praetorium videret, utque tres filias nuptum daret earumque subolem sinu suo exciperet. tot partus, tot incunabula, tot viriles togae, tam multae nuptiales faces, honorum, imperiorum, omnis denique gratulationis summa abundantia, cum interim nullum funus, nullus gemitus, nulla causa tristitiae. caelum contemplare, vix tamen ibi talem statum reperies, quoniam quidem luctus et dolores deorum quoque pectoribus a maximis vatibus adsignari videmus.

The basic data must be common to this and what was to be found in the archives of the Metelli. It is likely that a similar catalogue would have been included in any antiquarian history of the family. What is not certain is the attitude that the family and the prosopographers might have taken to the final stages of Metellus' censorship.

In VII. 1.1. the degree of abstraction from the original events is considerable: the background is reduced to a minimal allusion, and, as a result, Metellus' career is given in an historical vacuum.⁹ As far as this exemplum is concerned, Quintus Metellus (not specifically identified by Valerius as Macedonicus) was granted complete happiness—no hint of trouble, disappointment, disturbs the dominant mood:

hunc vitae actum eius consentaneus finis excepit; namque Metellum ultimae senectutis spatio defunctum lenique genere mortis inter oscula conplexusque carissimorum pignorum extinctum filii et generi humeris suis per urbem latum rogo inposuerunt.

Pliny (NH VII. 142 and 143), probably responding to the uncritical view of rhetorical exempla, added to the image the confrontation with Atinius Labeo and arrived at the conclusion that nulla est profecto solida felicitas quam contumelia ulla vitae rupit, nedum tanta (146). The incident that Pliny recalls was a prominent feature of Livy's account (Per. LIX—and most probably in other annalists as well), but it appears to have had no bearing on the image of Macedonicus employed in philosophical discourse (Tusc. I. 35). Velleius (I. 11), though he places Macedonicus in an historical context, merely notes in passing acris innocentisque pro re publica cum inimicis contentiones.¹⁰

This indicates that between Metellus' career and its stylised representation, as an artificial unit of exemplary existence, a process of refinement had been at work, independent of the historical tradition proper. It may have been encouraged by the family, anxious to project Macedonicus' career as entirely without blemish, though no certainty is possible on this point. It is equally plausible that the family preserved his problems as a cautionary exemplum against complacency in public life.

Judging by Cicero, De Finibus V. 82, philosophers appropriated Metellus for their own ends, though there was genuine historical material for those interested in his attitudes and career.¹¹ Valerius himself preserves a number of exempla that throw light on these—e. g. II. 7.10 (severitas in Spain); IV. 1.12 (his attitude to Aemilianus); VII. 5.4 (his electoral defeat); IX. 3.7 (his actions in Spain before Q. Pompeius' arrival).

For a rhetorical collector of exempla various aspects of Metellus' career offered convenient illustrations that could be presented in isolation from one another. Thus in the Facta et Dicta the negative image of IX. 3.7 co-exists with the praise and admiration of IV. 1.12. Rhetoric tended to abstract and fragment a particular career. As a result, only a deliberate effort of enquiry (like that underby Pliny with reference to the commonly accepted felicitas of the two Metelli in book VII) could bring a particular exemplum in line with the historical tradition. Without this the vicissitudes of rhetorical manipulation and the process of transmission would take it further and further away from any historical reality that may have happened to occasion it. In this respect the rhetoricians were undoing the antiquarian prosopographical achievements that integrated information on noble careers and set up coherent family histories.¹²

They produced in consequence curious exempla in which several historical personalities were amalgamated into one:

P. autem Scipio Nasica togatae potentiae clarissimum lumen, qui consul Iugurthae bellum indixit, qui matrem Idaeam e Phrygiis sedibus ad nostras aras focosque migrantem sanctissimis manibus excepit, qui multas et pestiferas seditiones auctoritatis suae robore oppressit, quo principe senatus per aliquot annos gloriatus est, cum aedilitatem curulem adulescens peteret manumque cuiusdam rustico opere duratam more candidatorum tenacius adprehendisset, ioci gratia interrogavit eum num manibus solitus esset ambulare.

(VII. 5.2)¹³

Of course Valerius himself could have been entirely responsible for the kind of malignant historical growth that he presents here. Yet this bizarre configuration of different Scipiones prompts one to try to seek an explanation of a different kind. VII. 5.2 reveals clearly the extent to which it is unhelpful to always assume a single author as Valerius' source in a particular instance, for exempla such as this one cannot be exclusively conceived of in terms of their dependence on a given literary model. In VII. 5.2 one should not rule out the possibility that the amalgamation of different Nasicae represents an outcome of a rhetorical process in which details of family history tended gradually to become the property of popular imagination, destined to be manipulated by it at random and disseminated widely without much concern for keeping generations and identities distinct and properly identifiable. In V. 1.7 there is a confusion of the identities of Africanus and Aemilianus which may derive from a process of this kind.¹⁴ Similar confusion occurs in II. 4.3.¹⁵

Some of Valerius' exempla (and thus we may assume rhetorical exempla generally) may be said to be characterized by a greater remoteness or abstraction from the historical events recalled than those exempla that were inspired by direct contact with the primary documents (both private and public).

Many of Valerius' exempla, in spite of their undeniable seriousness, single-mindedness and assurance in tackling traditional political and moral themes, lack that crucial immediacy of contact with definite family concerns and political goals that would have been characteristic of exempla used by the nobility in speeches or funeral orations. They are best seen as a phenomenon of a special kind—as the product of a widespread general interest in the ideals and actions of the nobility. Being cut off from the controlling influence of family considerations, these exempla mirror not so much the ideals of the nobiles themselves (though they do that to a certain extent), as public attitudes to those ideals and the level of understanding in the community as a whole of the goals and accomplishments of those individuals.

These exempla developed in the environment of rhetorical education: nurtured by rhetoricians—absorbed, abridged or elaborated by their students. For many, history through rhetorical exempla may have been an important form of basic education—convenient and simple. Nevertheless, it promoted a careless and fragmented image of the past. Only in the hands of learned antiquarians could such exempla become a genuine vehicle for conveying the continuity of the res publica, as well as a source of information on matters like chronology, geography and genealogy. Of this tradition only suggestive fragments remain. However, the rhetorical side of the exempla tradition is fully represented by the Facta et Dicta of Valerius Maximus. Crucial problems of interpretation, both in respect of sources used and ideas transmitted, are posed by the diffuse character of the work. As far as the ideas are concerned, two specific ones come to mind which may be conveniently dealt with by reference to two passages in the collection—II. 1.10 and VIII. 13. praef.

In II. 1.10 Valerius, possibly using Ciceronian material rather than drawing directly on Cato's ‘Origines’, singles out the banquet songs as being particularly effective in providing strong impetus to individual effort: the desire to imitate egregia superiorum opera is seen as constituting an essential outcome of an educational process that helped to sustain the orderly progression through history of imperii nostri lumina, logically culminating in the apotheosis of the Caesares:

Maiores natu in conviviis ad tibias egregia superiorum opera carmine conprehensa †pangebant, quo ad ea imitanda iuventutem alacriorem redderent. Quid hoc splendidius, quid etiam utilius certamine? Pubertas canis suum decus reddebat, defuncta [viri] cursu aetas ingredientes actuosam vitam fervoris nutrimentis prosequebatur. Quas Athenas, quam scholam, quae alienigena studia huic domesticae disciplinae praetulerim? Inde oriebantur Camilli, Scipiones, Fabricii, Marcelli, Fabii, ac ne singula imperii nostri lumina simul percurrendo sim longior, inde, inquam, caeli clarissima pars, divi fulserunt Caesares.¹⁶

This exemplum represents in miniature the situation that confronts one when attempting to understand the perspective and the political significance of the collection as a whole. At other points in it Valerius can be shown to demonstrate a similar propensity to emphasise the distinctiveness of the Caesares—e. g. the description in IV. 3.3 of Augustus and Tiberius as rei publicae divini oculi and the conception of Tiberius as optimus princeps in II. praef. But this emphasis is given in a general context of exempla that, for the most part, celebrate traditional virtues of a nobilis, amongst which one finds moderatio—IV. 1. ‘De moderatione’.¹⁷

As a result, an impression is given that the Caesares should not be understood as unique contemporary phenomena, but as truly outstanding individuals that can only be properly appraised when closely related to their predecessors—the imperii lumina of antiquity. Nevertheless, unlike these lumina, the Caesares are divinities, and any positive attempt to relate Iulius Caesar or Augustus to the Scipiones or the Fabii would merely intensify tension between two different interpretations of the Roman political tradition.¹⁸

As in this exemplum (with its culmination in caeli clarissima pars), when Valerius elsewhere in the collection seeks to place the Caesares in a broad historical setting, the effect is one of not only suggesting the degree to which they are indeed in harmony with the political aspirations and standards of past leaders, but also of the degree to which claims made on their behalf are innovative, of the degree to which such images do not quite fit the tradition of individual initiative (res gestae and virtus) balanced by collective, senatorial authority and, in particular, by the continuity of that authority (as seen, for instance, in II. 7.15).

An historian therefore has to ask—does the collection work to undermine rather than confirm the notion of the continuity of the Roman political tradition? In II. 1.10 and in the collection as a whole, confirmation may be the manifest intent, but how convincing is the outcome? After all, what we find in II. 1.10 is a plurality of names prominent in the past set to harmonize with an acknowledgement of exceptional (superhuman) prominence in the present (with possible extension into the future) of only one family. A fusion of two political realities that could be judged incompatible.¹⁹

But even if the traditional nature of the ascendancy of the Caesares is interpreted as being successfully and unambiguously affirmed in II. 1.10 (any ambiguity of effect being rejected as not properly arising out of the exemplum itself), elsewhere in the Facta et Dicta this affirmation is offset by a recognition of a contrary principle:

Fabius vero Maximus, cum a se quinquies et a patre, avo, proavo maioribusque suis saepe numero consulatum gestum animadverteret, comitiis, quibus filius eius summo consensu consul creabatur, quam potuit constanter cum populo egit ut aliquando vacationem huius honoris Fabiae genti daret, non quod virtutibus filii diffideret, erat enim inluster, sed ne maximum imperium in una familia continuaretur. Quid hac moderatione efficacius aut valentius, quae etiam patrios adfectus, qui potentissimi habentur, superavit?

(IV. 1.5)²⁰

Other exempla show how some nobiles depart from the standards upheld by their fathers (see especially the sequence Qui a parentibus claris degeneraverunt, III. 5.1-4):

Quid enim sibi voluit princeps suorum temporum Metellus Pius tunc, cum in Hispania adventus suos ab hospitibus aris et ture excipi patiebatur? Cum Attalicis aulaeis contectos parietes laeto animo intuebatur? Cum inmanibus epulis apparatissimos interponi ludos sinebat? Cum palmata veste convivia celebrabat demissasque lacunaribus aureas coronas velut caelesti capite recipiebat? Et ubi ista? Non in Graecia neque in Asia, quarum luxuria severitas ipsa corrumpi poterat, sed in horrida et bellicosa provincia, cum praesertim acerrimus hostis Sertorius Romanorum exercituum oculos Lusitanis telis praestringeret: adeo illi patris sui Numidica castra exciderant. Patet igitur quam celeri transitu luxuria affluxerit: nam cuius adulescentia priscos mores vidit, senectus novos orsa est.

(IX. 1.5. ‘De luxuria et libidine’)

The next exemplum in the same chapter (IX. 1.6) illustrates that restraint and profligacy could even co-exist at the same time and in the same family:

Consimilis mutatio in domo Curionum extitit, si quidem forum nostrum et patris gravissimum supercilium et filii sescenties sestertium aeris alieni aspexit, contractum famosa iniuria nobilium iuvenum. Itaque eodem tempore et in isdem penatibus diversa saecula habitarunt, frugalissimum alterum, alterum nequissimum.²¹

Reflection on these three exempla, firstly, might lead the reader to question the propriety of any one family serving as a perpetual resevoir of principes for the state and might cause him to be sceptical about the ability of that family to sustain the effort over several generations as the exclusive guardians of the state; and, secondly, might work to inspire the belief that deviation from proper standards of private and public behaviour may not be a peculiar characteristic of certain historical epochs. However, none of the notions that are implied in these three exempla is picked up and consistently developed. One gets a very strong impression that they come from a variety of contexts with different perspectives and aims, with the compiler failing to impose an historical pattern on this material.

So it is not surprising to find in the collection an exemplum that locates an increase in moral decline at a particular point in time:

Urbi autem nostrae secundi Punici belli finis et Philippus Macedoniae rex devictus licentioris vitae fiduciam dedit.

(IX. 1.3)²²

But cutting across this assertion is the preface to II. 9. ‘De censoria nota’—here decline is not seen as a teleological process: certain challenges to the stability of the state and to the condition of peace arise from time to time, only to be adequately dealt with by outstanding censors. The censorship is presented as a perpetual guarantee of the prosperity of an expanding and aggressive state, the very foundation of its success:

Castrensis disciplinae tenacissimum vinculum et militaris rationis diligens observatio admonet me ut ad censuram pacis magistram custodemque transgrediar; nam ut opes populi Romani in tantum amplitudinis imperatorum virtutibus excesserunt, ita probitas et continentia, censorio supercilio examinata, est opus effectu par bellicis laudibus; quid enim prodest foris esse strenuum, si domi male vivitur? Expugnentur licet urbes, corripiantur gentes, regnis manus iniciantur, nisi foro et curiae officium ac verecundia sua constiterit, partarum rerum caelo cumulus aequatus sedem stabilem non habebit. Ad rem igitur pertinet nosse atque adeo recordari acta censoriae potestatis.

Explicitly this preface suggests no apprehension about the future, but its implication is that if for some reason censorial activity were not to be undertaken with customary rigour, all of Rome's military endeavours would be in vain. Behind this one may detect both confidence and anxiety. Confidence because corruption and degeneration are apparently not part of a developing, inevitably accelerating (as in the antiquarians) process—the precise origins of which could be located in the past; anxiety because they are apparently potential occurrences at any time if proper vigilance is not constantly maintained.

However, it would be incorrect to say, on the strength of this preface, that Valerius did not hold the view (or reflect the view) that decline in standards in Rome increased with the passing of time. In fact, the gallery of notable censors which this preface introduces includes the exemplary severitas of Fabricius Luscinus, an incident that prompts Valerius to indicate a gap between the standards of Luscinus' generation and those current in his own days:²³

Quid de Fabrici Luscini censura loquar? Narravit omnis aetas et deinceps narrabit ab eo Cornelium Rufinum duobus consulatibus et dictatura speciosissime functum, quod X pondo vasa argentea conparasset, perinde ac malo exemplo luxuriosum in ordine senatorio retentum non esse. Ipsae medius fidius mihi litterae saeculi nostri obstupescere videntur, cum ad tantam severitatem referendam ministerium adcommodare coguntur, ac vereri ne non nostrae urbis acta commemorare existimentur; vix enim credibile est intra idem pomerium X pondo argenti et invidiosum fuisse censum et inopiam haberi contemptissimam.

(II. 9.4)

If Valerius is taking over this exemplum from an earlier moralist (Nepos?) who made a similar point (just as Pliny may be presumed to be doing in his coverage of the spreading use of silver at XXXIII. 153), he is doing so because the point it makes has a degree of relevance still. But if that is so, then such sentiments cut across the notions in other exempla that do not suggest an increasing trend of luxury and extravagance.²⁴

An additional ambiguous effect is produced when the preface to VIII. 13. ‘De senectute’ is set in the context of other exempla in the collection:

Senectus quoque ad ultimum sui finem provecta in hoc eodem opere inter exempla industriae in aliquot claris viris conspecta est. Separatum tamen et proprium titulum habeat, ne, cui deorum inmortalium praecipua indulgentia adfuit, nostra honorata mentio defuisse existimetur, et simul spei diuturnioris vitae quasi adminicula quaedam dentur, quibus insistens alacriorem se respectu vetustae felicitatis facere possit, tranquillitatemque saeculi nostri, qua nulla umquam beatior fuit, subinde fiducia confirmet, salutaris principis incolumitatem ad longissimos humanae condicionis terminos prorogando.

Here Valerius clearly states that his own age is serene and happier than those that came before it; he indicates that the epoch in which he lives is one in which men should be inspired to hope for happiness in their old age. Valerius urges his readers to accept that the special characteristic of the present saeculum is tranquillitas and it would be unwise to dismiss this designation as mere flattery.²⁵ The collection contains numerous references to past disasters—internal and external dangers to the state, scattered exempla render the Roman past as a violent one. In that sense, what Valerius claims in VIII. 13. praef. for his own age is set against an historical backdrop confirming the instability and disorder of other periods—this is flattery that is firmly grounded in historical perception.²⁶

The current of disorder and violence that runs through the Facta et Dicta has a direct bearing on this preface—it works to strengthen the assertion that the present age by contrast is unusually happy, free of the negative aspects that disturbed the tranquillitas of other times. But on the other hand, it contributes an element of unease, suggesting the preciousness and fragility of the present state of repose. Both effects inspire support for the existing scheme of things and, above all, loyalty to the princeps and hope for his preservation, for if the past is any guide to the future, this peaceful condition may be easily undermined and violence brought out from beneath the surface of civilized life. This is support born of anxiety.

Therefore, just as there is a degree of tension in the collection between exempla alluding to the moderatio of ancient nobiles, which reveal the inadequacy of dynasticism, and those that affirm the uniqueness and dominance of the Caesares, so there is tension between an exemplum like VIII. 13. praef. (with its evocation of unrivalled tranquillitas and secure felicitas) and those parts of the work that bring out the unreality of such an assertion—either by insisting on the continuing validity of the notion that there is a steady decline in Roman mores or by recalling the memory of past perils, instability, murder and cruelty and thus hinting at the potential vulnerability of any political arrangement, including the present one. No matter how confidently an image is projected of a princeps firmly in control (te igitur huic coepto, penes quem hominum deorumque consensus maris ac terrae regimen esse voluit, certissima salus patriae, Caesar, invoco, cuius caelesti providentia virtutes, de quibus dicturus sum, benignissime foventur, vitia severissime vindicantur … I. praef.) and responsible for the moral climate in which virtutes are encouraged to grow and vices are punished, images from the past (of Marius and Sulla, as well as those of external enemies of Rome and their former successes) are a forceful reminder of possible challenges to it.

Valerius' conception of Tiberius' significance requires him to maintain that he is writing at a time in which a secure and healthy res publica is a reality, yet he takes over a great deal of traditional exempla material that was moulded from a contrary perspective. Earlier moralists looked to exempla of past discipline and endurance as inspiration in their troubled times. If the past revealed an endless sequence of internal and external threats and continual struggle, this had a particular relevance to them. It showed a pattern of obstacles and ordeal in which virtus—almost a collective force contributed by a line of heroes—always came in time to save the state.²⁷

Valerius subscribes to the idea that the Caesares brought about moral regeneration, but much of what he collects is in tension with this proposition. Notice, for instance, the comments that he makes on his patron in IV. 7. ext. 2.

Furthermore, the notion of the uniqueness of beatitudo and tranquillitas saeculi nostri is explicitly undermined by the oblique revelations made in IX. 11. ext. 4:

Sed quid ego ista consector aut quid his immoror, cum unius parricidii cogitatione cuncta scelera superata cernam? Omni igitur impetu mentis, omnibus indignationis viribus ad id lacerandum pio magis quam valido adfectu rapior: quis enim amicitiae fide extincta genus humanum cruentis in tenebris sepelire conatum profundo debitae execrationis satis efficacibus verbis adegerit? Tu videlicet efferatae barbariae immanitate truculentior habenas Romani imperii, quas princeps parensque noster salutari dextera continet, capere potuisti? Aut te conpote furoris mundus in suo statu mansisset? Urbem a Gallis captam et trecentorum inclytae gentis virorum strage foedatum amnem Cremeram et Alliensem diem et oppressos in Hispania Scipiones et Trasimennum lacum et Cannas bellorumque civilium domestico sanguine manantis † furoris amentibus propositis furoris tui repraesentare et vincere voluisti.²⁸

The mere fact that the name of this hideous villain is not mentioned points to Valerius' anxiety to obliterate his identity, but the threat itself is greatly magnified—the exemplum is long, elaborate and quite extravagant in its denunciations. Note particularly the reference to past disasters—e. g. the Gallic sack and Cannae.

In as much as the threat is maximized in this way here, the exemplum reflects back on other material in the collection, particularly on VIII. 13. praef.—we learn now that the present age is not actually free from the negative features of the past, though we are reassured that its security is still guaranteed by the fact that, in co-operation with the gods, in primis auctor ac tutela nostrae incolumitatis ne excellentissima merita sua totius orbis ruinae conlaberentur divino consilio providit.²⁹

The exemplum concludes on an ambiguous note:

Itaque stat pax, valent leges, sincerus privati ac publici officii tenor servatur. Qui autem haec violatis amicitiae foederibus temptavit subvertere, omni cum stirpe sua populi Romani viribus obtritus etiam apud inferos, si tamen illuc receptus est, quae meretur supplicia pendit.

The note of assurance is tempered by a renewed concern for the punishment of the villain. One is left with the impression that although stat pax, valent leges, sincerus privati ac publici officii tenor servatur, the bonds of amicitia (having been violated) are no longer safe. Thus the exemplum works to project unease and apprehension, confirming one's suspicions inspired by the concentration of the collection on past violence and times of trial. For a work ostensibly written in an age of peace, prosperity and political stability, ensured by the divine consilium of the princeps, such concentration has a different relevance than for a work arising from disorder and turbulence. In Valerius it works to undermine his explicit commitment to the idea that the period from which he writes has been profoundly altered for the better by the influence of its ruler. After all, there is the implicit recognition in the collection that such influence is not enough to encourage virtue and discourage vice, for there is a need that can be fulfilled by a collection of historical precepts—note the sentiments of the preface.

It emerges from the above discussion that Valerius' collection of exempla presents specific problems of interpretation, problems that concern Valerius' handling of his material, his attempts to integrate a mass of inherited material (written from different perspectives) into a fresh structure. A structure conceived by a rhetorician with an interest in history and a passion for making notes from different authors is extremely difficult to come to grips with. First of all, there is the problem of the exemplum itself, quite apart from any sequence that it might appear in.

An exemplum is an independent rhetorical entity; even when it forms a part of an integrated thematic sequence, it tends always to retain a substantial degree of self-sufficiency—at any moment one could detach it from the surrounding material without any effect on the sequence itself or on its own intelligibility.³⁰

Secondly, a rhetorician collecting exempla on a vast variety of themes and from an extensive range of sources is able to interpolate ideologically contradictory material with greater facility than an historian committed to an orderly, consecutive account of events. A rhetorically based accumulation of a large number of exempla, no matter how well organized within individual thematic lines, is likely to produce an overall effect of considerable tensions, of conflicting political principles and moral positions asserted at different points and left unresolved, of contradictions insufficiently understood, of insights scattered about and not followed through.

Even if Valerius had been a more gifted literary craftsman, the nature of the work he undertook would have placed enormous difficulties in his way and he would have needed an acute historical sensibility to carry him over the obstacles. Unlike Atticus or Nepos, he does not appear to have been a student of Roman antiquity, for whom making moral judgements on material and social changes was a by-product of more extensive research and enquiry. He was curious about the past and sought in it confirmation for his view of public and private morality, yet his involvement with it was more a matter of transcribing and stylistically manipulating historical and antiquarian texts than of anything else. Given these limitations, it is not surprising that the Facta et Dicta has appeared, to most of its recent readers, as random and trivial, lacking compelling design, continuity and coherence. Yet it would be a mistake to judge the exempla tradition by this collection. Prior to Valerius, men with historical intelligence and ability moralized about the past and one presumes that their work had more coherent and integrated structures. Valerius did not profit from their example, partly because he probably felt no need to. But it is precisely on account of this that his Facta et Dicta has a peculiar value for a student of the exempla tradition.

His mass of exempla holds for us something that historiography proper and antiquarian research eliminated through artistry, design and control over the source material—the kind of tenuous, uncertain grasp of past events and their inter-relationships which may be quite natural in an ordinary witness of an age of transition. In a vague way, Valerius still believes that the Roman state and society have not changed, that the institutions and practices of former times are still relevant. But he is also committed to the princeps and to the new political reality that that implies. In addition, he has to assimilate material that shows the Roman past as violent and turbulent, as well as one in which traditional virtus was recognized and rewarded. Not a secure basis for a belief in the present reality and future continuance of tranquillitas and felicitas through the political leadership of the Caesares.

It is worthwhile to take Valerius seriously as one contemporary of the principate of Tiberius and to see in his collection an indication of underlying bewilderment, of deep uncertainty about the nature of historical perspective required by the emerging political situation. Unlike Atticus, Valerius does not appear to have had extensive and intimate contacts with the nobility; he lacked passion for family history that could be satisfied by dipping into family archives; he cared little for chronology and precision. As a result, one notes the absence in the product of his great industry of that firm and clear overview of the Roman state tradition that we see embodied in the imagines of the Forum of Augustus and which, presumably, characterized Atticus' ‘Imagines’ and Nepos' ‘Exempla’. Valerius’ Facta et Dicta reflect not only a rhetorical approach, but interests of a different generation.

The work of Atticus and Valerius Messalla into family histories of noble families may be said to demonstrate self-consciousness and curiosity of a governing class under stress of political and social change. It is no mere coincidence that this intensification of prosopographical enquiry occurs at a time when the composition of the senate is being gradually changed by the infusion of new families from municipal Italy. Valerius speaks from a different generation and to a different generation. A generation that inherits the ideology of the nobiles and is unsure about how to put it effectively to the service of the Caesares.

Nothing emphasises this uncertainty better than the fact that the overall impression of a shapeless pastiche in the Facta et Dicta emerges in spite of Valerius' frequent attempts to control his material.³¹ The steady stream of moral reflection and interpretation, given in individual exempla and particularly in introductions to chapters, provides only a surface framework. Taking this out of context, it may be possible to present Valerius as a man assured of being able to interpret the past for his generation and indicate its relevance to current concerns. But this surface element of confidence is only one part of the total mosaic formed by exempla in this collection; to the extent that it is not systematically integrated or rigorously applied, it merely works to intensify the above-mentioned uncertainty and bewilderment.

Part of Valerius' problem is scale. He turns his attention to so many themes and precepts that outside specific sequences ordering and cross-reference is extremely difficult. It may be that previous collections of exempla were less extensive in their overall coverage, though in the treatment of particular topics they may have been more thorough. Another part of his problem is method. He probably took notes as he read and later classified them with the aid of other collections; in all this there was little incentive for surveying the enterprise as a whole. It was probably an outgrowth of years of reading, note-taking and stylistic imitation of authorities.

It has been asserted above that Valerius, unlike Atticus, does not appear to have had extensive and intimate contacts with the nobility. This point needs some discussion as it is likely that he did have some contact with at least one noble family. In spite of the objections raised in Carter's essay, it is still tempting to retain the traditional identification of Valerius' patron with Sextus Pompeius, the consul of 14 A.D. (PIR P 450; RE XXI, 2, 1952, s.v. Pompeius n. 62, col. 2265-7 [R. Hanslik]). Referring to II.6.8, Carter writes:

In this passage about Sextus Pompeius Valerius does not tell us about any consulship or Asiatic proconsulship. In fact he tells us nothing about his Sextus Pompeius apart from conventional tributes to his superlative character, kindness and eloquence.³²

Considering the eminence of the consul of 14 a.d., Carter finds this puzzling and questions the identification: Valerius' Pompeius need not be the consul of the year of Augustus' death. Carter is being needlessly cautious. From II. 6.8 it is clear that this Pompeius is a man of exceptional eminence, at least in Valerius' eyes. This impression is greatly strengthened by IV.7. ext. 2, an exemplum ostensibly devoted to Alexander and Hephaistion, which Valerius uses to pay a significant tribute to his patron.

True, in this passage, unobtrusively tucked away amid foreign exempla, he is extremely vague on the nature of Pompeius' problems, so it is difficult to determine what the particular misfortune had been.³³ Maybe Valerius is being deliberately cautious. Whatever befell Pompeius, his client clearly considered it a very grave matter and consequently may have come to regard his own position as exposed and uncertain, given the protection he had received in the past—per quam tutior adversus casus steti. Complete silence would have been a sign of ingratitude, but there was still a duty to pay some respect to Sextus Pompeius' fame and generosity. To be more specific about his accomplishments and service may have been inadvisable.

Valerius' imprecision on the matter is maddening when we try to give him a date and put him in a specific social context, but in its own way it is sufficiently illuminating to be of value in interpreting his perspective in the collection. If, as seems probable, he benefited in some way from patronage of a prominent Republican family, his historical sensibility was not fired by a passion for prosopography or chronology. In Valerius' case a connection with the old nobility was of no help in disciplining his rhetoric and clarifying the nature of current political changes and their implications for Roman society and institutions. It may be that the nobiles that he knew were just as unclear as he was about the meaning of recent events and their relationship to the past.

Notes

1. On Valerius' preface and the influences on it, see T. Janson, Latin Prose Prefaces, Stockholm 1964, pp. 100-106. On Salus, see B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician, London 1976, p. 34 and p. 251 note 17; S. Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford 1971, p. 172. Velleius II. 103.5 (tum refulsit certa spes liberorum parentibus, viris matrimoniorum, dominis patrimonii, omnibus hominibus salutis, quietis, pacis, tranquillitatis, adeo ut nec plus sperari potuerit nec spei responderi felicius) illuminates a range of contemporary expectations that provide an essential background for Valerius; see A. J. Woodman's comments on II. 103.5 in: Velleius Paterculus: the Tiberian Narrative 2.94-131, Cambridge 1977. For Valerius' use of regimen, see E. Lundberg, De elocutione Valerii Maximi, Uppsala 1906, p. 5. Lundberg is particularly useful in noting differences between Valerius' usage and that of earlier writers. For comparisons of the language of Velleius and Valerius, see J. Ungewitter, De Vellei Paterculi et Valerii Maximi genere dicendi, München 1904. Fuller understanding of Valerius' expression is a precondition for a more perceptive approach to his collection. In the light of this the appearance of O. S. Sobrino, Lexicon de Valerio Maximo, Vol. I (A-D), Madrid 1977, is especially welcome. Valerius' recourse to the notion of consensus in the preface is best appreciated in the light of its political associations in the late Republic; see J. Hellegouarc'h, Le Vocabulaire Latin des Relations et des Partis Politiques sous la République, Paris 1963, pp. 122-125. Valerius is operating with a new conception of politics. On Valerius (II praef.) seeing Tiberius as optimus princeps, note R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reign of Tiberius, Baltimore 1943, pp. 87-88; similarly Velleius in II. 126.5, with Woodman's commentary.

   For coverage of some of the difficulties of dating the collection, see C. J. Carter, Valerius Maximus, in: Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, ed. T. A. Dorey, London 1975, pp. 30-34. A comprehensive survey of the relevant evidence is provided by R. Faranda in the introduction to his Latin-Italian edition: Detti e Fatti Memorabili di Valerio Massimo, Torino 1971. The best overviews of Valerius are by G. Comes, Valerio Massimo, Roma 1950 and R. Helm, RE [Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche] VIII A, 1, 1955, cols. 90-116.

   For a fuller picture of Valerius' place in modern historiography, see Appendix ([Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (II) 32, no. 1 (1984)], pp. 484 ff.).

2. G. V. Sumner, The Truth about Velleius Paterculus: Prolegomena, HSCP [Harvard Studies in Classical Philology] 74, 1970, pp. 257-297. For a comparison between the methods of Valerius and Velleius, see I. Lana, Velleio Patercolo o della Propaganda, Torino 1952, pp. 236-237; pp. 252-254. J. Hellegouarc'h, L'impérialisme romain d'après l'oeuvre de Velleius Paterculus, in: L'idéologie de l'impérialisme romain. Colloque organisé les 18 et 19 octobre 1972 par la Section de Latin de la Faculté des Lettres (Publ. Univ. de Dijon 46), Paris 1974, pp. 69-90.

3. Velleius' qualities as a writer and his place in Roman historiography have been illuminated by A. J. Woodman, Questions of Date, Genre, and Style in Velleius: some Literary Answers, CQ [Classical Quarterly] n. s. 25, 1975, pp. 272-306; Id., Sallustian Influence on Velleius Paterculus, in: Hommages à M. Renard, Brussels 1969, I, pp. 785-799; Id., Velleius Paterculus, in: Empire and Aftermath (above, n. 1), pp. 1-25.

4. B. Levick, op. cit., p. 84 describes Velleius and Valerius as “men acutely sensitive to the mind of the Princeps.” It is therefore not surprising that she makes use of Valerius' conception of imperial virtues,—see p. 91 and notes 22, 29, and 34 on pp. 252-253. See also Ead., Mercy and Moderation on the Coinage of Tiberius, in: The Ancient Historian and his Materials: Essays in honour of C. E. Stevens, London 1975, pp. 123-137.

5. Our earliest Roman definitions of the exemplum from the point of view of rhetorical theory are to be found in the ‘Rhetorica ad Herennium’ (IV. 44.62) and Cicero's ‘De Inventione’ (I. 49). A comprehensive study of exempla in Latin literature was made by H. Kornhardt, Exemplum: eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Studie, Diss. Göttingen 1936, see especially pp. 13-26 on exempla virtutis. The moral character of exempla and the range of moral qualities encompassed by them was illuminated in comprehensive study by H. W. Litchfield, National exempla virtutis in Roman literature, HSCP 25, 1914, pp. 1-71, which still stands out by virtue of its methodological rigour and the understanding of the distinctive concepts involved. For a thorough list of commonly cited exemplars, see now A. Lumpe, Exemplum, RAC [Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum] VI, 1966, cols. 1229-1257, especially 1248-1251. On Cicero's use of exempla in philosophical works, Sr. M. N. Blincoe, The Use of the Exemplum in Cicero's Philosophical Works, unpublished dissertation, St. Louis 1941. A. E. Douglas argues forcefully (CQ n. s. 6, 1956, pp. 133-137 and 10, 1960, pp. 65-78) for a revision of the conventional dating of the ‘Ad Herennium’, but see now the more cautious discussion in G. Calboli's edition and commentary, Bologna 1969, pp. 12-17 (latest likely date 70 b.c.). Calboli offers a good analysis of the historical exempla used in the treatise, particularly IV. 55. Caplan's translation and commentary in the Loeb series (1954) gives an extensive coverage of rhetorical and historical features of the ‘Ad Herennium’, see pp. xxiii-xxiv on the political attitudes of the author. It is difficult to make of him an uncritical admirer of popularis actions (I. 12.21 and II. 12.17), but his criticism of Nasica's fury (IV. 55) must also be taken into account.

   In both the ‘Ad Herennium’ and the ‘De Inventione’ the nature of the exemplum is explained in conjunction with related rhetorical figures, but, unlike Cicero, the author of the ‘Rhetorica’ gives a more extensive list of such figures (similitudo, imago, effictio, notatio) and illustrates them by employing striking visual imagery (e.g. IV.49.36—in this case we have a lesson in brevity, clarity and, above all, in selection of suitable adjectives designed to stir the memory of the iudices). In Ad Her. IV. 49.62, apart from the injunction that the auctor must be named, there is no suggestion that he must be a person of high standing, in order to enhance the auctoritas of the precedent. The author of the manual is less concerned with the standing of the potential exemplars than he is with the different functions that the exemplum may perform (ibid.). The ideal exemplum would strive for realism. Clarity and vividness of detail are to be its essential features (notice also the definition and illustration of demonstratio—demonstratio est cum ita verbis res exprimitur ut geri negotium et res ante oculos esse videatur—ibid. 68). Dignitas is of course one of the qualities that an exemplum may be used to create or enhance. However, the author does not connect such an illustration with a tradition of the maiores and the auctoritas of the distinctly noble exemplars. A lack of concern that should be contrasted with Cicero's emphasis on these points.

   Exempla for Cicero were always closely linked with the concept of the Roman state tradition. Nobiles, like the younger Cato in Pro Mur. 66, could boast of domestica exempla, but Cicero urged that they could not exercise a monopoly on these, see Kornhardt, op. cit., p. 15 and H. Roloff, Maiores bei Cicero, Diss. Göttingen 1938, passim, but particularly ‘Teil II: Maiores und Vergangenheit’. See also following note.

6. When Cicero gives his catalogues of exemplars he does so when the tradition invoked serves immediate political ends. His abstractions arise from an intimate knowledge of Roman politics and history, from a sense of personal identity with the status and achievement of the leaders recalled. He also assumes in his audience a ready familiarity with the monumental counterparts of these rhetorical stereotypes. Antonius in De Oratore II. 334-336 makes the link between dignitas and maiorum exempla explicit. Here the primary concern is with the status and moral significance of the exemplars; at other points Cicero is mindful of the visual aspects of this tradition (see the description of Piso's deceptive appearance in Pro Sestio 19, which relies on instinctive recognition by the audience of the true imagines antiquitatis), though his tendency is to operate by means of allusions, side-stepping detailed description (as in De Off. I. 61). As De Off. I. 61 shows, the statues of the great men are never far from Cicero's mind. In fact, they are an essential foundation for one's understanding of those set passages in which he displays the continuity of the Roman state tradition and adds legitimacy to particular arguments that he advances. Such passages share a number of common features. Firstly, they are invariably set pieces in which the dignitas and auctoritas are either explicitly underlined (Verr. II. 3.209) or implicitly understood (Pro Sest. 143). Secondly, they provide catalogues of representative figures without supplying any historical detail (as in the ‘Pro Sestio’ passage above where rem publicam stabiliverunt covers a number of distinctive exploits). Thirdly, they are accompanied by references to the fact that the selection offered is a brief one and that countless others (innumerabiles alii) could be named (see Pro Sest. 143; De Off. I. 61; Tusc. I. 110; De Orat. I. 211—et innumerabiles alios cum ex nostra civitate tum ex ceteris, a catalogue of reipublicae rectores and consilii publici auctores). This last feature indicates that although the catalogues offered were conventional there was no set canonical list of exemplars. On the political contexts in which exempla develop, see below part II (pp. 461 ff.).

7. The fact that we have to turn to the literary record to determine the impact of the material setting need not prevent us from appreciating that for many Romans literature was not a necessary ingredient. The elder Pliny provides us with very good evidence of the way in which educated Romans responded to the variety and density of historical and mythical statuary and paintings that surrounded them in their daily existence, and in addition gives us an insight into the antiquarian scholarship in such matters. Pliny's criticism of contemporary social conventions in the use of rings at Rome (NH [Natural History] XXXIII. 26-28) proceeds from initial observations on ancient practices as revealed in surviving statuary. He personally inspected the statues of the kings and constructed his argument according to the visible testimony. (This seems a typical antiquarian observation; see Cicero on the statue of L. Scipio in Pro Rab. Perd. 10.27; cf. Valerius III. 6.2.) Although Pliny is not always consistent in his method of presentation (which in many respects reflects the sources at his disposal), it emerges from some of his references that he appreciated that statues were an important historical source for ancient traditions of recognizing achievement. In so far as that achievement ranges from the heroic (e. g. C. Maenius and C. Duillius) to the apparently trivial, from his perspective (L. Minucius praefectus annonae), Pliny is puzzled (XXXIV. 20-21), but proceeds to catalogue faithfully other statues and the exploits that occasioned them (ibid. 22-25). He picks up L. Piso's attempt to regulate matters in respect of statues round the Forum (ibid. 30); comments on the melting down of the statue of Spurius Cassius; cites Cato's protests against the setting up in the provinces of statues to women. The whole of Pliny's treatment is animated by genuine curiosity about ancient customs and innovative developments in the various spheres (e. g. equestrian statues, statues to foreigners and to women). Pliny preserves the record of the historical paintings commemorating M. Valerius Maximus Messalla's victory over the Carthaginians and L. Scipio's Asiatic victory (XXXV. 22). Pliny is perhaps echoing an Augustan predecessor (Verrius?) interested in providing an historical background for the princeps'; indulgence in pictorial displays (ibid. 27). He records in the same context that the auctoritas of foreign pictures goes back to the innovation of L. Mummius (ibid. 24) and refers to the role of Julius Caesar in advancing the status of paintings (ibid. 26). Pliny (and his sources) on the paintings of Messalla, L. Scipio and Mancinus at XXXV. 22-23 seems to be fully alive to the political implications of these gestures. This emerges particularly sharply in the latter two cases, where the offensio to Africanus and Aemilianus respectively is reported. Pliny is here, as elsewhere, in very close and sympathetic contact with an antiquarian tradition interested not only in the history of art objects in Rome, but also in the political uses made of art by the nobiles and the impact of these on their personal relations and on public morals and expectations generally. The historical work of antiquarians remains largely outside the scope of modern students of Roman historiography, though an important step towards a proper assessment of it was made in 1972 by E. Rawson, Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian, JRS [Journal of Roman Studies] 62, 1972, pp. 33-45. For Pliny's sources in general, see F. Münzer, Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius, Berlin 1897; for his use of Verrius in particular, see M. Rabenhorst, Der ältere Plinius als Epitomator des Verrius Flaccus, Berlin 1907. For influence in late antiquity, see my ‘The Roman antiquarian tradition in late antiquity’, in: History and Historians in Late Antiquity, Sydney 1983.

8. These presumably were the sources that the late Republican antiquarians used in their chronographic and prosopographical researches, conducting lines of enquiry remote from the simplifications of orators and the rhetorical profession. For orators of the Ciceronian period the notion of the mos maiorum may have been a convenient rhetorical abstraction, but antiquarians of the late Republic and early Empire (viz. Varro, Atticus, Nepos, Verrius Flaccus) gave substance and detail to the evolution of the distinctive Roman community, exploring in their work the legal, social, cultural and religious institutions of antiquity. The moral perspective of the antiquarian tradition may be followed through in two aspects:

   i) interest in the establishment of customs and in the introduction of the use of particular materials and objects (e. g. who first used the plough, established cities and introduced writing);

   ii) related concern for the excesses of civilization, demonstrated through moral reflection on the extension of the use in Rome of such materials as marble, gold, silver, in the context of charting the growth of excess in public and private building—pyramids, labyrinths, elaborate theatres.

   This focus on the material history of Rome is much more than a simple domestication of the Hellenistic tradition of cataloguing invention, explicitly acknowledged by Pliny amongst his sources in the ‘Natural History’. The history recovered by the Roman antiquarians was extensive, systematic and concrete, judging by the many fragments preserved by Pliny. Antiquarians did not write historical exempla in the manner of rhetoricians, yet, as Nepos' fragments show (especially fr. 28, 34 and 35 in Malcovati), they are in effect moral exempla. They point to negative innovation and to the subsequent spread of the practice or fashion concerned. Only seldom does Valerius intersect with the conventions and the phraseology of antiquarian observation (e. g. IX. 1.1 C. Sergius Orata pensilia balinea primus facere instituit …), but he does arouse our curiosity in the moral dimension of the antiquarian tradition. For a proper assessment of the exempla tradition as a whole it may be fruitful to depart from exclusive concentration on rhetorical exempla and take in exempla material from other sources.

9. For a comprehensive analysis of the formulaic nature of the exempla tradition, see now M. Sage, The Elogia of the Augustan Forum and the de viris illustribus, Historia 28, 1979, pp. 192-210.

10. On Velleius' image of Macedonicus, see I. Lana, op. cit., pp. 73-74. Note that Velleius inherits at I. 11.5 (hic idem primus omnium Romae aedem ex marmore in iis ipsis monumentis molitus huius vel magnificentiae vel luxuriae princeps fuit) a fragment of a critical view of Macedonicus.

11. Macedonicus' speech de prole augenda proved of use to Augustus (Per. LIX; Suet. Aug. 89); other speeches were also extant (Brutus 82).

12. For Atticus' prosopographical studies, see Nepos, Atticus 18. In general, H. J. Bāumerich, Über die Bedeutung der Genealogie in der römischen Literatur, Diss. Köln 1964 (I am indebted for this reference to Dr. N. Horsfall).

13. A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford 1967, p. 101 note 7: “Valerius confuses several Nasicae, but Cic. Pro Plan. 51 leaves little doubt that the anecdote pertains to Serapio.” On Valerius' historical errors in general, see Helm, RE VIII A, 1, 1955, cols. 101-102. Note in particular the cases of VI. 6.4, VI. 2.9 (an error that an antiquarian source was unlikely to make; see also Ad Att. II. 19.2 and Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Cambridge 1965, I, pp. 62-63), III. 2.20 and VI. 6. ext. 1.

14. See Helm, RE VIII A, 1, 1955, col. 101.

15. Some other notable instances of mistaken identification: VI. 1.9 (cf. Livy VIII. 28); VIII. 3. ext. 8 (see Helm, op. cit., col. 101); V. 4.3 (see Franda, op. cit., p. 414). The error in II. 4.3 (see Franda, p. 152) was unlikely to have been made in an antiquarian review of the matter, viz. the regulations of the aediles Atilius Seranus and L. Scribonius concerning special seating for senators at the Megalesia (see Broughton, MRR [Magistrates of the Roman Republic], I, p. 343). Valerius fails to note the role of the censors in the affair, for which see Valerius Antias fr. 37 in Peter. On Valerius' use of some antiquarian sources in this chapter, see B. Krieger, Quibus Fontibus Valerius Maximus usus sit, Berlin 1888, pp. 48-50; p. 61. For a recent review of the question of the sources in II. 4.3, see M. Fleck, Untersuchungen zu den Exempla des Valerius Maximus, Diss. Marburg 1974, pp. 106-117 (discussed in detail in part II of this essay.).

16. The problem of Valerius' sources is discussed separately in this article. However, at this stage it is necessary to point out that the three Ciceronian passages (Tusc. I. 3; IV. 3; Brutus 75) given by Bliss (see part II of this essay.) as parallels to V.M. II. 1.10 (showing a degree of imitation, with twelve diction variants noticed) appear to be altered and supplemented by Valerius. Brutus 75 is a very brief allusion to Cato's reference to the practice of singing at banquets; it is very unlikely that Valerius (or his source) had to turn to Cicero's ‘Brutus’ to obtain it. Tusc. I. 3, in addition to mentioning Cato's description of the custom, also records his negative attitude to the use of poetry in publicising noble deeds:

    honorem tamen huic generi non fuisse declarat oratio Catonis, in qua obiecit ut probrum M. Nobiliori, quod is in provinciam poetas duxisset. Duxerat autem consul ille in Aetoliam, ut scimus, Ennium.

    Valerius does not allude to this. In Tusc. IV. 3 the main point is the coverage of Pythagorean influence on Rome, with the allusion to Cato's ‘Origines’ being used as evidence for it. It is clear that, if Valerius had the Tusc. I. 3 and IV. 3 before him in composing II. 1.10, he had effectively removed these features. The ancient practice is presented as good and honourable, not only without its (possible) Pythagorean suggestions, but as something uniquely Roman and closely related to a notion of a line of nobiles—Scipiones, Fabricii, Marcelli, Fabii. For a similar list, see IV. 4.11.

17. B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician, chapter VI, particularly p. 91. See I. Lana, op. cit., pp. 252-254, for a discussion of Valerius' exempla featuring Caesar's murderers.

18. For Valerius Caesar was a god, not merely an exceptional man as for Velleius; see the excellent detailed discussion in R. E. Wolverton, Speculum Caesaris, in: Laudatores temporis acti. Studies in Memory of W. E. Caldwell, Chapel Hill 1964, pp. 83-85. In this respect Valerius' prayer to Caesar in I. 6.13 is indicative of his general attitude; see Weinstock, op. cit., pp. 390-391.

19. In VI. 9.2 Valerius sees Africanus as a great man whose birth was brought about through divine concern to exhibit virtus to humanity in a more effective way.

20. Could this story have been preserved in the Fabian gens? Could it have been in Atticus' history of the family? It is possible that it is entirely Valerius' invention, just like Duronius' speech (see Badian, CQ 19, 1969, pp. 198-200). Whatever its origins, its presence in the collection and in the sequence on moderatio in particular, works to undermine the principle of one dominant family in the commonwealth.

21. Curio's funeral arrangements for his father, particularly his ingenious technological innovation of two revolving theatres (NH XXXVI. 116-120) which allowed for different simultaneous performances and a subsequent rearrangement that formed an amphitheatre for gladiatorial combat, evoked fierce indignation from Pliny:

    super omnia erit populi sedere ausi furor tam infida instabilique sede. en hic est ille terrarum victor et totius domitor orbis, qui gentes, regna diribet, iura exteris mittit, deorum quaedam immortalium generi humano portio, in machina pendens et ad periculum suum plaudens. quae vilitas animarum ista aut quae querela de Cannis. quantum mali potuit accidere.

    (118-119)

    The extent of Pliny's coverage of Curio's inventio (with its historically illuminating comparison between Curio and Scaurus, whose extravagant theatre, with its profusion of marble columns, was described ibid. 113-115) suggests that he is following a hostile account by an earlier outraged observer. Traces only of this negative tradition remain in Valerius' exemplum.

22. See Pliny, NH XXXIII. 147-150—combination of material factors leading to moral decline. V.M. VII. 2.3 demonstrates that Q. Caecilius Metellus was believed to have been apprehensive about the effect on Rome of Hannibal's defeat—illa victoria bonine plus an mali rei publicae adtulisset … See also D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust, Cambridge 1961, pp. 47-48.

23. For Luscinus' censorship as a significant moral exemplum in antiquarian chronographic works, see Gell. XVII. 21.39 (probably from Nepos). II. 9.4 is one of the few exempla in which Valerius approaches the characteristic formulation of antiquarian exempla material. See next note.

24. Here a contrast with Pliny is instructive. In Pliny's case much of the traditional exempla material is added to genuine contemporary observations and criticism. Notice his transition from the house of Lepidus to the extravagance of Gaius and Nero in XXXVI. 109-112:

    M. Lepido Q. Catulo cos., ut constat inter diligentissimos auctores, domus pulchrior non fuit Romae quam Lepidi ipsius, at, Hercules, intra annos XXXV eadem centensimum locum non optinuit … sed omnes eas duae domus vicerunt, bis vidimus urbem totam cingi domibus principum Gai et Neronis, huius quidem, ne quid deesset, aurea. nimirum sic habitaverant illi qui hoc imperium fecere tantum … quorum agri quoque minorem modum optinuere quam sellaria istorum.

    (The criticism is further elaborated by a reference back to Publicola.) There are instances when the excesses of the late Republic (e. g. Scaurus' and Curio's) move Pliny to compliment his own generation: operae pretium est scire quid invenerit, et gaudere moribus nostris ac verso modo nos vocare maiores (ibid. 117). However, such sentiments are to some extent ironic, given the ambitions and displays of principes like Gaius and Nero. But Pliny recognizes that much of his historical material reflects critically on the mores of the first century b.c.—e. g. (introducing the use of marble) ingens ista reputantem subit etiam antiquitatis rubor (ibid. 4).

25. Velleius II. 103—for another contemporary evocation of tranquillitas in association with quies and pax.

26. Some exempla: I. 1.10 and 11; I. 6.11 and 12; II. 7.15; III. 1.2 (M. Cato and Sulla); III. 2.7; III. 2.17 and 18; III. 8.5; V. 1.10; V. 3.2 (b); VI. 3.1 (c) and (d); VI. 3.2; VI. 4.1; VI. 8.3; VII. 2.6; VII. 3.2; VII. 3.9; VII. 4.3; VII. 6.1; VII. 6.4 and 5; VIII. 6.2; VIII. 9.1 and 2; IX. 2.1 and 2; IX. 5.3 and 4; IX.7.1-4; IX. 11.4 and 5. The sequence VI. 8. ‘De fide servorum’ brings vividly into focus material from the time of Marius and of the triumviral proscriptions. Slaves faithful to the last provide a thread of moral continuity, the association of nobilitas and furor in VI. 8.4 (alia nobilitas alius furor) is instructive since it serves as a prelude to Valerius' invocation of Caesar and the contrast between his death and that of Cassius.

27. On the sources of “therapy by ordeal”, see N. Horsfall, Virgil, history and the Roman tradition, Prudentia 8, 1976, pp. 73-89.

28. Helm, RE VIII A, 1, 1955, cols. 90-91; M. Schanz—C. Hosius, Geschichte der Römischen Literatur II (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft VIII, 2), Munich ⁴1935, pp. 588-589.

29. On IX. 11. ext. 4 see R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reign of Tiberius, Baltimore 1943, p. 27; J. Béranger, Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique du principat (Schweizer. Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 6), Basel 1953, pp. 210; 258.

30. Any exemplum in Valerius may be so treated, though a qualification must be made in respect of those items reported by Pliny that show a chronological sequence of innovation—e. g. in the use of gold—NH XXXIII. 1-95. For Pliny and his source (or sources) it is a matter of importance to carefully relate each advance in the use of gold to another:

    Laquearia, quae nunc et in privatis domibus auro teguntur, post Carthaginem eversam primo in Capitolio inaurata sunt censura L. Mummii. Inde transiere in camaras quoque et parietes, qui iam et ipsi tamquam vasa inaurantur, cum varie sua aetas de Catulo existimaverit, quod tegulas aereas Capitoli inaurasset.

    (57)

    But of course someone less interested in a comprehensive survey of the use and abuse of the gifts of nature could easily detach several exempla from such sequences and feature them on their own. Something of the original would be preserved, though the instances would no longer illustrate an integrated cumulative process.

31. What appears as Valerius' impulse to impose design on individual sequences may be something that he is taking over from previous collectors of exempla. If that is so then it is in itself instructive. Taking-over of previously established sequences and arrangements may be taken as evidence that he was concerned with effective presentation of the lessons of history. The following is merely offered as a sketch to indicate how some sequences in the ‘Facta et Dicta’ illustrate the presence of a sense of purpose and design that is quite impressive on that scale. A similar analysis could be used, for instance, with reference to Book I as a whole (particularly I. 1 ‘De religione’ and I. 6 ‘De prodigiis’), II. 7-10, VIII. 7-15 and IX. 1-11.

    V. 1 ‘De humanitate et clementia’ moves from humanitas and clementia displayed by the Senate (V. 1.1(a) - 1(f)) collectively to that of individual senators (V. 1.2—ab universis patribus conscriptis ad singulos veniam). The sequence ends by presenting an image of Pompey's humanitas towards Tigranes (V. 1.9) and dwelling on Pompey's fate; Caesar's mansuetudo is introduced (V. 1.10) and Mark Antony is presented in a favourable light (V. 1.11).

    These three concluding exempla bring the reader sharply to the contemplation of recent history. Unlike their predecessors (M. Marcellus in V. 1.4; Q. Metellus in V. 1.5; Scipio Aemilianus in V. 1.6 and 7), Caesar and Antony display their moral qualities in Civil war; they also (unlike Pompey) confront corpses, not living adversaries on whom they may confer their compassion. No sharper contrast exists to emphasise the changed situation than the difference between Pompey's attitude to Tigranes and his own sad fate.

    It is not accidental that the first external exemplum deals with Alexander and the last with Hannibal, with correct burial rites being afforded (by Rome's enemies) to Aemilius Paulus, Tiberius Gracchus and Marcellus. Hannibal is praised for a display of a Roman virtue. There is a thematic connection/contrast between this and V. 1.10 and 11—the burials of Pompey and Brutus:

    Quam praeclarum tributae humanitatis specimen Cn. Pompeius, quam miserabile desideratae idem evasit exemplum.

    In addition, the whole chapter indicates a circular pattern: whereas the sequence commenced with a collective display of dementia and humanitas towards the Carthaginians (V. 1.1(a)), it concludes with a reciprocal response by a Carthaginian leader. It is almost as if the whole contrast between former Roman practice and present horrors of civil conflict, with allusion to respect of enemies, has been inspired by the exemplum of Pompey's death—a glorious conqueror, felled by treachery and ingratitude:

    Nam qui Tigranis tempora insigni regio texerat, eius caput tribus coronis triumphalibus spoliatum in suo modo terrarum orbe nusquam sepulturae locum habuit, sed abscisum a corpore inops rogi nefarium Aegyptiae perfidiae munus portatum est etiam ipse victori miserabile … (Caesar seeing P's head shows compassion.)

32. C. J. Carter, op. cit., p. 31; Helm, RE VIII A, 1, 1955, col. 90.

33. Carter, op. cit., p. 52 note 16: “iactura. Valerius’ rhetoric is so woolly that it is impossible to decide which of the three chief metaphorical meanings (bankruptcy, disfavour, death) is intended.” The passage strongly suggests Pompeius’ absence, from whatever cause.