I Thought I Was Picking Up S P Oakley's Commentary On Livy Books VI-X

I thought that was what I had ordered via inter-library loan. However, what I picked up from the local branch of the public library was Volume I of that commentary,



published in 1997, containing an introduction to all 5 books, VI-X, and Oakley's commentary on book VI. I had assumed that Oakley's commentary on all 5 books, VI-X, would be contained in one, medium sized, volume. The Preface to volume I begins with Oakley saying that volume II, covering books VII-VIII, was already in the press (it appeared in 1999), and that volume III would cover books IX-X. Actually, volume III, published in 2007, covered book IX, and there was a volume IV, published in 2009, for book X.

The volume before us, volume I, is not medium-sized, it is large, over 800 pages. Over 300 of those pages contain the introduction to all 5 books, VI-X, and less than 350 contain the actual commentary to book VI, which is proceeded by 50 pages of historical introduction to book VI (distinct from those 300 pages of general introduction to books VI-X) and followed by appendices, a bibliography and indices.

I know that my habit of posting about books which I have just gotten and haven't read yet must be maddening to some of my readers, who expect a review of an entire book which I have already read. In my defense I will just say that there are critics who are paid, quite handsomely paid in some cases, to deliver reviews of books which they have read, and who publish things which pretend to be such reviews, but they haven't actually read the books yet, and, quite unlike me, probably never will.

You want me to provide evidence for this bold and slanderous statement? This book,



an heroic act of public service, is an excellent place to start collecting that evidence. (And yes, I've read it cover to cover.)

I'm sure that the dry tone of this post so far has not adequately conveyed it, but I am excited to have before me this vol I of Oakley's commentary. I'm especially looking forward to an exhaustive discussion of the manuscripts of books VI-X, which covers well over half of those 300 pages of general introduction. (I quote from p 153: "There are at least 195 mss of L's first decade.") (Livy's "first decade" is books 1-10, i to X, of the 142 books of his history of Rome.) (Of those 195, "twenty-four predate the thirteenth century." ibid.) To those who share my inclinations, I know I don't have to explain this excitement. To those who don't, I don't know how to explain it. Maybe some lay readers of my blog have gradually come to share my interest in manuscripts of ancient Latin texts, if they've read many or all of my numerous posts on the subject. Maybe not. (The bibliography cites 8 items by Billanovich and 11 by Reeve! Yay!)

It's amazing to me how recent it was that such commentaries held no interest for me, even though I was very interested in Livy. It was simple ignorance: I had no idea, really, what such commentaries are.

Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 2.45

Consules quoque Romani nihil praeterea aliud quam suas vires, sua arma horrebant; memoria pessimi proximo bello exempli terrebat ne rem committerent eo ubi duae simul acies timendae essent. Itaque castris se tenebant, tam ancipiti periculo aversi: diem tempusque forsitan ipsum leniturum iras sanitatemque animis allaturum. Veiens hostis Etruscique eo magis praepropere agere; lacessere ad pugnam primo obequitando castris provocandoque, postremo ut nihil movebant, qua consules ipsos, qua exercitum increpando: simulationem intestinae discordiae remedium timoris inventum, et consules magis non confidere quam non credere suis militibus; novum seditionis genus, silentium otiumque inter armatos. Ad haec in novitatem generis originisque qua falsa, qua vera iacere. Haec cum sub ipso vallo portisque streperent, haud aegre consules pati; at imperitae multitudini nunc indignatio, nunc pudor pectora versare et ab intestinis avertere malis; nolle inultos hostes, nolle successum non patribus, non consulibus; externa et domestica odia certare in animis. Tandem superant externa; adeo superbe insolenterque hostis eludebat. Frequentes in praetorium conveniunt; poscunt pugnam, postulant ut signum detur. Consules velut deliberabundi capita conferunt, diu conloquuntur. Pugnare cupiebant, sed retro revocanda et abdenda cupiditas erat, ut adversando remorandoque incitato semel militi adderent impetum. Redditur responsum immaturam rem agi; nondum tempus pugnae esse; castris se tenerent. Edicunt inde ut abstineant pugna; si quis iniussu pugnaverit, ut in hostem animadversuros. Ita dimissis, quo minus consules velle credunt, crescit ardor pugnandi. Accendunt insuper hostes ferocius multo, ut statuisse non pugnare consules cognitum est: quippe impune se insultaturos; non credi militi arma; rem ad ultimum seditionis erupturam, finemque venisse Romano imperio. His freti occursant portis, ingerunt probra; aegre abstinent quin castra oppugnent. Enimvero non ultra contumeliam pati Romanus posse; totis castris undique ad consules curritur; non iam sensim, ut ante, per centurionum principes postulant, sed passim omnes clamoribus agunt. Matura res erat; tergiversantur tamen. Fabius deinde ad crescentem tumultum iam metu seditionis collega concedente, cum silentium classico fecisset: "Ego istos, Cn. Manli, posse vincere scio: velle ne scirem, ipsi fecerunt. Itaque certum est non dare signum nisi victores se redituros ex hac pugna iurant. Consulem Romanum miles semel in acie fefellit: deos nunquam fallet." Centurio erat M. Flavoleius, inter primores pugnae flagitator. "Victor" inquit, "M. Fabi, revertar ex acie"; si fallat, Iovem patrem Gradivumque Martem aliosque iratos invocat deos. Idem deinceps omnis exercitus in se quisque iurat. Iuratis datur signum; arma capiunt; eunt in pugnam irarum speique pleni. Nunc iubent Etruscos probra iacere, nunc armati sibi quisque lingua promptum hostem offerri. Omnium illo die, qua plebis, qua patrum, eximia virtus fuit; Fabium nomen maxime enituit; multis civilibus certaminibus infensos plebis animos illa pugna sibi reconciliare statuunt.

Ancient Manuscripts Of Livy

The Wikipedia articles on Livy and on ab urbe condita (the Latin title of Livy's history) are both, just -- horrible messes. It would be better if they had neither article in any form. They very well illustrate what can go wrong on Wiki, or any reference work where no-one is in charge.

It's possible -- although not bloody likely in my opinion -- that both articles could be completely transformed and in exemplary shape by the time I finished writing this paragraph. And then a half hour later than that they could be worse than ever. Because no-one is in charge.

Just now I googled ancient manuscripts of livy and the search yielded hundreds of thousands of results and no useful ones on the first page. So I googled "ancient manuscripts of livy," which yielded 4 results, 2 from the same book which was written so long ago that the s's look like f's, and was not primarily about Livy and which didn't look particularly interesting. One of the other results was from another pseudo-authority, another one of these Internet sites which claims to have answers but where no one is in charge. I think it may have been About.com.

I remember distinctly reading in the Google result for that page: "There are, I believe, no ancient manuscripts of Livy[...]"

And that's why I'm here. I have no idea how someone who felt justified in answering a question on the topic in a public place could have gotten the idea that there are no ancient manuscripts of Livy.

First of all, let's define the term "ancient." When it comes to manuscripts of Latin literature, anything copied out before AD 500 is considered ancient. 5th century or earlier. And "manuscript" refers to a copy of a text of any length, from a few words to a huge volume of small print.

I am aware of 7 manuscripts of Livy from the 5th century or earlier. I believe that is more than for any other Latin author except Cicero and Vergil -- but I could be wrong. If you need to know for sure, ask an expert -- and that ain't me, and it sure as Hell ain't Wiki or Ask.com. 7 is definitely more ancient manuscripts than there are of Jerome's Vulgate -- and many less than we have either of the Greek New Testament or the Hebrew Old Testament.

These 7 ancient manuscripts of Livy are:

Pap Ox xi 1379, a 4th-century papyrus discovered at Oxyrhynchus containing several dozen words from book 1 of ab urbe condita.

The manuscript called V for short when discussing manuscripts of the first 10 books of Livy: Bibliothecae capitularis Veronensis xl (38), 5th century, containing parts of books 3 and 4.

A 5th-century fragment (for which at the moment I cannot find a standard abbreviation or library catalogue listing) containing about 40 words from book 11, on parchment, not papyrus, found in 1986, in Naqlun, near Fayum, Egypt. The text reads: [------ .e(m) [----- ing]ens [ei era]nt ha[u]t pro[cul G]abiis [u]rbe. cu[m] [Ga]uios nouos exer[cit]us indictus [e]sset ibique centuriati milites essent, cum duob(us)milib(us) pe[ {.} ]ditum profect[u]s in agru(m) suom cons[ul?] and g[-------] ar[------] se[d] reaps[a nega]tam eo [[e]]dicto f[acturum] quoa[d inuissu suo in pr[ovi(n)-] cia maneat, et [si] pergat dicto non parar[e], \[s]e/ [i]n praese(n)tem habiturum imper[i]um. Fabius, [acc]eptus mandatis-----] That is all that we currently have of text of books 11-20.

P, also called Codex Puteanus, or Bibliothecae Nationalis Parisiensis, Lat 5730, 5th century, containing books 21-30 with a few passages missing.

F, also called Fragmenta Placentina, or Bibl Pub Bamb, Class 35a, 5th century, containing parts of books 33-36 and 39.

V, or Codex Vindobonensis, or Bibl Nat Lat 15, 5th century, containing books 41-45 except for a few missing passages. This is currently our only source for books 41-15.

A 5th-century fragment containing about 1000 words from book 91. Currently our only known manuscript of Livy past book 45. I can't find a standard abbreviation or library catalogue info for this fragment. The only place I know where you can read this passage is in Weissenborn's edition of books 41-45 published by Teubner a long time ago. My copy is updated by Mueller and published in 1930. The later Teubner edition of books 41-45 by Briscoe does not contain any fragments of other books.

Some further information: "Codex Vindobonensis" just means "volume from Vienna." Many manuscripts are called Codex Vindobonensis, the one on the list above is meant only when the conversation is about Livy's manuscripts. Same with "Codex Puteanus," which means "volume from Dupuy." Claude Dupuy was a 16th-century Parisian lawyer who assembled a great collection of books, most or all of which are now in the Bibliothèque Nationale, each one called Codex Puteanus, a phrase which distinguishes this Livy manuscript from other Livy manuscripts but is no help in distinguishing the books which once were Claude Dupuy's from one another.