Search Results

It is often assumed that late antique historians tended to rely on a single source and copied it faithfully. That assumption is demonstrably wrong in the case of Orosius. The chapter demonstrates in particular that Orosius used the exempla collection of Valerius Maximus, a work specifically aimed at orators, and contaminated it with other sources. In addition, Orosius used the technique of amplification to develop entries from the Epitome de Caesaribus and the consularia constantinopolitana into a fully fledged narrative, especially towards the end of the Historiae. This suggests he did not have access to a continuous narrative of his own times. Orosius also used numerous contemporary works as sources, including Christian authors which he shared with Augustine, but also pagan ones, such as Symmachus.

This chapter examines references to the civil wars of the last century of the Republic—in particular the conflicts between Caesar and Pompey and later among the triumvirs—in the two major extant historical sources from the Tiberian period, the History of Velleius Paterculus and the Memorable Deeds and Sayings of Valerius Maximus, arguing that these authors use the civil war legacy to define their emperor's imperial virtue and that both works complement Tiberius' own investment in concordia.

This chapter presents a biographical sketch of Valerius Maximus. Evidence suggests that Valerius, a native of Rome, descended from a family whose members were not only of senatorial rank but also had held some of the highest offices of the state. However, aristocratic status did not ensure political success, which led to Valerius' need for the patronage of Sextus Pompeius, whom he accompanied to Asia and who has been identified with the consul of ad 14, subsequently proconsul of Asia.

This chapter focuses on 1st-century CE Roman historical narrative, with a view to understanding to what extent Josephus may have been influenced by such writing. It is argued that works such as Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Words and Deeds, Tacitus’ Annales, and Frontinus’ Strategemata all displayed a similar tendency towards the use of exemplarity (exempla) as a principal technique of understanding the past. The increasing emphasis on ‘great figures’ by 1st-century Roman historians, a phenomenon catalyzed by and pulled towards the figure of the Emperor, was a literary tactic which underlined individuals as unique actors in history. It also, however, portrayed individuals’ actions and behaviours as relatively fixed paradigms, to be imitated or eschewed by posterity. This chapter maintains that this technique of exemplarity is to be seen as inextricably linked with the increasing influence of biography on Roman historical writing, sometimes, as in the case of Tertullian’s and Jerome’s references to Tacitus’ work, actually becoming conflated with it.

This chapter examines the representation of oratory in chapter 8.9 Quanta Vis Sit Eloquentiae: ‘How Great is the Force of Eloquence’, of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et Dicta Memorabilia. While Valerius’ text is frequently used as a source of fragments of Republican oratory, this chapter argues that readers need to be acutely aware of the way that these extracts are framed in the structure of the wider chapter, as Valerius is certainly an author with his own, distinctive ideas. This is evidenced by the fact that traditional exemplary models of oratory such as Cicero and Demosthenes are ignored in 8.9. Valerius instead creates a dark vision of Republican oratory that links eloquence inextricably to the loss of freedom and the development of tyranny and despair under Julius Caesar and his heirs.

The imitation of examples from literature was part of the moral education of the Roman aristocrat even before the advent of Greek influence. This chapter discusses The Education of an Orator, written by Quintilian in the late first century ad, which shows how these influences were reflected in the practice of formal Roman education. It highlights the importance of Quintilian's work for the study of Valerius Maximus. Quintilian lays down guidelines for the moral education of a Roman orator or statesman, and Valerius's Memorable Words and Deeds identifies in every respect with his requirements.

This chapter discusses how the form of Valerius' Memorable Words and Deeds was aimed at providing the audience with moral guidance in as convenient a manner as possible. Materials were arranged into thematically titled chapters to ensure accessibility. The theme of brevity also recurs throughout the work as part of the author's technique of limiting his material to the most effective examples in order to put across his message briefly and effectively without boring the reader.

This chapter examines the moral purpose of Valerius' Memorable Words and Deeds. Most of his chapters are devoted to virtues, others to their practical exercise and to matters of moral ambiguity, but there are also those devoted to vices. The discussion covers instances where moral exhortation rather than moral guidance is needed; less clear-cut issues on which a reader might well require moral guidance; and chapters devoted to the subject of consolation.

This chapter focuses on those texts, written before SiliusItalicus’ Punica, which feature Hannibal. These texts include the (extremely) fragmentary works of Hannibal's own historians Silenus and Sosylus, as well as the works of Cicero, Cornelius Nepos, Horace, Valerius Maximus and Seneca. Special attention is paid to Polybius’ Histories, which – although written in Greek – are aimed in part at a Roman audience and contain a detailed account of the Carthaginian's life. By examining the portrayal of Hannibal in these texts, it is argued that a picture of the ‘Roman Hannibal’ emerges which shows how the Carthaginian became celebrated in Rome as much for his military acumen as for his supposed cruelty.

When Livy in his preface referred to ‘traditions more appropriate to the stories of poets than to the uncorrupted records of history’, his criterion was evidently divine intervention in human affairs. But other authors took a quite different view about it, as can be seen from Varro, Quintus Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch, all of whom were prepared to accept miracle stories and divine epiphanies in Roman history. It was a question not of genre (poetry v. prose) but of piety (belief v. scepticism), and Livy was a sceptic. The majority view was probably belief that the gods involved themselves in human life, as documented by the pontifices in their chronicle (annales), by prophets and poets, and by historians too. The 80-volume edition of the pontifical chronicle, no doubt prompted by Augustus as pontifex maximus, attests the continuing need to understand the true relationship between gods and men.

This chapter examines the extent to which Hellenistic compilations were known at Rome and whether these literary forms were imitated in Latin. It considers the Memorable Words and Deeds of Valerius Maximus and the Stratagems of Frontinus, which combine features of the Hellenistic collections into a thematically arranged handbook of historical material apparently unknown in the Hellenistic era.

This chapter examines Valerius' selection of examples. It considers his sensitivity for what his audience would find credible, generally choosing historical examples that would be the most convincing and inspiring for his audience. It also discusses how fable represents a kind of anecdote which does not appear in the Memorable Words and Deeds, but is relevant both to Valerius' criteria of belief and to the kind of audience for which he was writing.

This chapter speculates on the intended audience of Valerius' Memorable Words and Deeds and how he expected the work to be communicated to that audience. It suggests that Memorable Words and Deeds was intended for private study by members of a social elite. The popularity of morally instructive works at dinner-parties, particularly historical works, and the evidence of Plutarch and Suetonius — who state that the narration of historical anecdotes was an important part of the entertainment — indicates that such gatherings are a probable context in which to envisage the communication of the Memorable Words and Deeds to its audience.

Later medieval England shared a culture of moral philosophical learning and literature which drew from a wide array of classical and late antique authorities, chief among them being Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Vegetius, Martin of Braga, and the Disticha Catonis, as well as from biblical wisdom literature and several Arabic texts that posed as ancient works. For the most part, however, these works were not consulted directly but rather via medieval intermediaries, especially the compilations of the thirteenth-century Franciscan John of Wales, Jacobus of Cessolis’ De ludo scaccorum, John of Wales’s Policraticus, and Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum. If clerks were wont to consult the Latin originals of these works, lay readers and writers, including Langland, Gower, Chaucer, Hoccleve, and Lydgate, were more likely to avail themselves of vernacular translations of them as well as translations and adaptations of several of their ancient sources.

This chapter examines Valerius' decision to use historical examples as the vehicle of his moral message in Memorable Words and Deeds. He selected his examples according to the criteria of authority, plausibility, and entertainment.

This chapter concentrates on the epistemology of the religion of Rome, arguing that this basis by its very nature conditions the manner in which Roman religion can be studied, and considers further problems of theory and practice. It begins by reflecting on the translation of religio. ‘Religion’ is but one possible rendering, and Valerius Maximus's lists suggest that it might here be rendered more accurately by ‘the sum total of current cult practice’. It is not that ‘religion’ does not capture the force of religio in one of its uses, but that this usage is not primary, and its field proves harder to map onto ‘religion’ than one might expect. Consider the description of the religio of the Roman people offered by Gaius Aurelius Cotta, the Academic pontifex, in the opening pages of Marcus Tullius Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods.

The book concentrates on one specific aspect of the field of inquiry, namely the epistemological basis of Roman religion. This basis by its very nature conditions the manner in which Roman religion can be studied. The book begins by reflecting on the translation of religio. “Religion” is but one possible rendering for religio, and in Valerius Maximus' lists, it is suggested that it might here be rendered more accurately by “the sum total of current cult practice.” It is not that “religion” does not capture the force of religio in one of its uses, but rather, this usage is not primary and its field proves harder to map onto “religion” than one might expect.

Could suicide be not just a right, but a fundamental right, rooted in dignity? A linguistic triple threat complicates this question: problems about “rights,” problems about “dignity,” and problems about what counts as suicide. For example, Thich Nhat Hanh’s insistence that the self-immolations of Buddhist monks and nuns in Vietnam are not suicides provides one sort of challenge; Valerius Maximus’s account of the self-elected death of a 90-year-old woman of Cea in good health and ample wealth, another. Linguistic variation also complicates the question of rights: English’s principal term for suicide, “suicide,” has strongly negative connotations; of German’s four major terms, one has comparatively positive connotations, giving German speakers greater linguistic flexibility than English speakers have. Because background intuitions, practices, and linguistic resources are so variable, establishing that there is a right to suicide and if so, whether it is a fundamental one, is a challenging task.