<%BANNER%>

Form, Intent, and the Fragmentary Roman Historians 240 to 63 B.C.E.

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022409/00001

Material Information

Title: Form, Intent, and the Fragmentary Roman Historians 240 to 63 B.C.E.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (199 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Becker, Gertrude
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: albinus, alimentus, antipater, asellio, cato, fannius, fragments, hemina, historiography, history, macer, pictor, piso, republic, roman, rutilius, scaurus, sisenna, sulla, tuditanus
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In de Oratore (2.51-52), Antonius described the origins of Roman history: the earliest histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the historians were annalists. Despite Antonius' comments, however, not all historians in the Roman Republic were annalists. On the contrary, from the end of the First Punic War (240 B.C.E.) to the time of Cicero's consulship (63 B.C.E.), Roman historians used a variety of forms to write their history. This study undertakes an examination of those forms and their authors, both to assess intent and motivations, and to consider cultural and political contexts. Unfortunately, none of these histories has survived in toto, and for most only a handful of fragments remains. Nonetheless, these fragments preserve intentional statements regarding form and demonstrate a wide range of forms such as annales, res gestae, contemporary history, monographs, and commentarii. Cato, for example, spoke dismissively of annales, with their inclusion of quotidian events from the tabula apud pontificem maximum, such as corn prices or eclipses. Asellio rejected the annalistic form; his history, res gestae, would more properly demonstrate how and why events happened. Sisenna, who wrote contemporary history, defended his methodology of choosing to relate in continuous narrative events outside the city of Rome. Though few other programmatic statements survive, implicit estimations of forms are apparent in the choices historians made. Pictor and Calpurnius Piso, for example, found the annales form appropriate for their histories; in that form they could attribute Rome's success to yearly progress overseen by annual magistrates. Antipater chose instead to focus on one particular period, the Second Punic War, in a monograph form. Later historians, such as Scaurus and Sulla, wrote commentarii, histories which justified and legitimized their public action. The words of Cato, Asellio, and Sisenna as well as the implicit evidence from others reveal thoughtful reflection about suitable historiographical forms for the functions they assigned to their history. The multitude of historiographical forms counterbalances the impression that historiography was uniform and poorly conceived. In the years 240-63, Roman historiography (form, at least) was carefully chosen, rhetorically charged, and engaged in with purpose.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gertrude Becker.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Pagan-Wolpert, Victoria E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022409:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022409/00001

Material Information

Title: Form, Intent, and the Fragmentary Roman Historians 240 to 63 B.C.E.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (199 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Becker, Gertrude
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: albinus, alimentus, antipater, asellio, cato, fannius, fragments, hemina, historiography, history, macer, pictor, piso, republic, roman, rutilius, scaurus, sisenna, sulla, tuditanus
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: In de Oratore (2.51-52), Antonius described the origins of Roman history: the earliest histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the historians were annalists. Despite Antonius' comments, however, not all historians in the Roman Republic were annalists. On the contrary, from the end of the First Punic War (240 B.C.E.) to the time of Cicero's consulship (63 B.C.E.), Roman historians used a variety of forms to write their history. This study undertakes an examination of those forms and their authors, both to assess intent and motivations, and to consider cultural and political contexts. Unfortunately, none of these histories has survived in toto, and for most only a handful of fragments remains. Nonetheless, these fragments preserve intentional statements regarding form and demonstrate a wide range of forms such as annales, res gestae, contemporary history, monographs, and commentarii. Cato, for example, spoke dismissively of annales, with their inclusion of quotidian events from the tabula apud pontificem maximum, such as corn prices or eclipses. Asellio rejected the annalistic form; his history, res gestae, would more properly demonstrate how and why events happened. Sisenna, who wrote contemporary history, defended his methodology of choosing to relate in continuous narrative events outside the city of Rome. Though few other programmatic statements survive, implicit estimations of forms are apparent in the choices historians made. Pictor and Calpurnius Piso, for example, found the annales form appropriate for their histories; in that form they could attribute Rome's success to yearly progress overseen by annual magistrates. Antipater chose instead to focus on one particular period, the Second Punic War, in a monograph form. Later historians, such as Scaurus and Sulla, wrote commentarii, histories which justified and legitimized their public action. The words of Cato, Asellio, and Sisenna as well as the implicit evidence from others reveal thoughtful reflection about suitable historiographical forms for the functions they assigned to their history. The multitude of historiographical forms counterbalances the impression that historiography was uniform and poorly conceived. In the years 240-63, Roman historiography (form, at least) was carefully chosen, rhetorically charged, and engaged in with purpose.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gertrude Becker.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Pagan-Wolpert, Victoria E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022409:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





FORM, INTENT, AND THE FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS
240 to 63 B.C.E.
















By

GERTRUDE HARRINGTON BECKER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008





































2008 Gertrude Harrington Becker
































To Andy









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many have helped me on my journey through the long Ph.D. process. Writing is often a

lonely and isolating task but I was lucky never to feel alone. For that I owe thanks to a multitude

of friends who cheered me, colleagues who read my work, my department (and Dean) at Virginia

Tech which allowed me time off to write, and parents who supported my every step. I also thank

the many women who showed me it was possible to complete schooling and a Ph.D. later in life,

in particular my mother, Trudy Harrington, and my mother-in-law, Judith Becker. Above all, I

thank my family: my children, Matt, Tim, and Trudy for their regular brilliance; and my

husband, Andy, who is my center, cornerstone, and rock, this year, the past 21 years, and more to

come.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

A B ST R A C T ....................... .................... .............................. 7

1 EARLY ROMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY: PAST AND PRESENT .......................................9

2 FOUNDERS AND FOLLOWERS: EARLY ROMAN ANNALISTS IN GREEK ..............37

A n n a les an d A n n alists............................... ................................................ ................. .. 3 7
F ab iu s P ictor ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ....................................................4 8
L u ciu s C inciu s A lim entu s............................................................................. ....................54
A ulu s P ostum iu s A lbinu s ............................................................................ .....................57
G aiu s A ciliu s ................................................................................62

3 ADAPTERS: THE LATIN ANNALISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY ..........................66

L u ciu s C assiu s H em in a ................................. ............................................ ................. .. 6 7
Lucius Calpurnius Piso ............ .......... ...... .. ............................ 75
Sempronius Tuditanus .................................. ... .. .......... ............... 84
Cnaeus G ellius ......... .......... .............................................. ......87

4 REVIVALISTS: ANNALISTS OF THE FIRST CENTURY............................. .................92

Q uintu s C laudiu s Q uadrigariu s.................................................................... .....................93
V aleriu s A ntias ...............................................................10 1
L ic in iu s M a c e r ................................................................................................................ 1 1 0

5 INNOVATORS IN ALTERNATIVE FORMS: CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, RES
GESTAE, MONOGRAPHS, COMMENTARII...............................................................118

C aiu s F an n iu s ................................................................................ 1 19
S em proniu s A sellio ............ .......................................................................... .......... .... 24
P orciu s C ato C en soriu s............................................... ............................... ..................... 12 7
Lucius Coelius A ntipater ................................................ ...... .............. .. 133
M arcu s A em iliu s Scaurus ................................................ .................. ...........................14 1
Publius Rutilius Rufus .......................... ..... ................... ............... 143
Q uintu s L utatiu s C atulu s ............................................................................ .................... 146
Lucius Cornelius Sulla............. ..... ...................... ............ 149
Lucius C ornelius Sisenna ........................ ...................... ... ............. ......... 153

6 CONCLUSION................ ..... ... .. ..... .... ....... ........ 160

APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS .........................173









Fabius Pictor ....... ................... ............................... 173
L uciu s C inciu s A lim entu s........................................................... .................................... 173
M arcus Porcius Cato Censorius ........................................................................ 74
A ulu s P ostum iu s A lbinu s ........................................................................... ....................174
G a iu s A c iliu s .................................................................................................................. 1 7 4
Lucius Cassius H em ina............................... .. .......... .. ............174
L uciu s C alpurniu s P iso F rugi ....................................................................... ..................175
Q Fabius M axim us Servilianus......................................... ........................................ 175
S em proniu s A sellio ............ .......................................................................... .......... .... 7 5
Sempronius Tuditanus ................................... .. .. ........ .. ............175
V en n o n iu s ...................... .. .............. .. ............................................................17 6
C aius Fannius ................................................. 176
L u ciu s C oeliu s A ntipater .............................................................................. ..................176
C n a eu s G elliu s ...................... .. ............. .. .......................................................17 7
M arcu s A em iliu s Scaurus ................................................ .................. ...........................177
Publius Rutilius Rufus ........... ........ ..... .. ........ .. ............ .. .......... .... 77
Q uintu s L utatiu s C atulu s ............................................................................ .................... 177
Lucius Cornelius Sulla..................................... ....... ............ 178
Q uintus Claudius Q uadrigarius................................................... .............................. 178
V aleriu s A ntias ...............................................................17 8
Lucius Cornelius Sisenna ........................ ...................... ... ............. ......... 179
Licinius M acer ......... ........ ......................................................179

BIBLIO GRAPH Y ......... ............... ........ ........................ .. ....... ........... .. 80

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......... ............................................................. .......................... 199


























6









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FORM, INTENT, AND THE FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS
240 to 63 B.C.E.

By

Gertrude Harrington Becker

August 2008

Chair: Victoria Pagan
Major: Classical Studies

In de Oratore (2.51-52), Antonius described the origins of Roman history-the earliest

histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the historians were

annalists. Despite Antonius' comments, however, not all historians in the Roman Republic were

annalists. On the contrary, from the end of the First Punic War (240 B.C.E.) to the time of

Cicero's consulship (63 B.C.E.), Roman historians used a variety of forms to write their history.

This study undertakes an examination of those forms and their authors, both to assess intent and

motivations, and to consider cultural and political contexts. Unfortunately, none of these

histories has survived in toto, and for most only a handful of fragments remains.

Nonetheless, these fragments preserve intentional statements regarding form and

demonstrate a wide range of forms such as annales, res gestae, contemporary history,

monographs, and commentarii. Cato, for example, spoke dismissively of annales, with their

inclusion of quotidian events from the tabula apudpontificem maximum, such as corn prices or

eclipses. Asellio rejected the annalistic form; his history, res gestae, would more properly

demonstrate how and why events happened. Sisenna, who wrote contemporary history,

defended his methodology of choosing to relate in continuous narrative events outside the city of

Rome. Though few other programmatic statements survive, implicit estimations of forms are









apparent in the choices historians made. Pictor and Calpurnius Piso, for example, found the

annales form appropriate for their histories; in that form they could attribute Rome's success to

yearly progress overseen by annual magistrates. Antipater chose instead to focus on one

particular period, the Second Punic War, in a monograph form. Later historians, such as Scaurus

and Sulla, wrote commentarii, histories which justified and legitimized their public action.

The words of Cato, Asellio, and Sisenna as well as the implicit evidence from others reveal

thoughtful reflection about suitable historiographical forms for the functions they assigned to

their history. The multitude of historiographical forms counterbalances the impression that

historiography was uniform and poorly conceived. In the years 240-63, Roman historiography-

form, at least-was carefully chosen, rhetorically charged, and engaged in with purpose.









CHAPTER 1
EARLY ROMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY: PAST AND PRESENT

Fabius Pictor's history of Rome, written late in the third century B.C.E., probably late

during the Second Punic War, marks a beginning point in the traditional outline of Roman

historiography.1 His generation found it suitable to write the first histories of Rome not in their

own language but in the language of the culturally prominent Greeks. And yet while Fabius and

his contemporaries wrote in Greek, the form they choose for Rome's history was familiar to the

Romans; focusing on the annual recording of magistrates and res internal and res externae,

these first Roman historians are called annalists for the form they chose.

In de Oratore (2.51-52), Cicero's interlocutor Antonius described the origins of Roman

history-the earliest histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the

early historians were annalists. Despite Antonius' comments, not all those writing history in the

Republic, however, were annalists. On the contrary, during the years from the end of the First

Punic War (240) to the time of Cicero's consulship (63), the Romans used a multiplicity of forms

in both prose and poetry to write their history.

These forms were not solely restricted to Latin annals, but included annals in Greek as well

as poetic forms such as epics (both the grand nation-shaping epics of Naevius and Ennius, and

lesser epics on specific campaigns such as the Bellum Histricum by Hostius), Roman tragedies

calledfabulae praetextae, commentarii, monographs, annales in verse, and short historical

poems. Even the so-called annalists were not all alike; some chose to begin their histories from

starting points other than ab urbe condita. Moreover, Romans used the term annales itself in






1 All dates in this dissertation are B.C.E., unless otherwise designated.









different ways, signifying both annual lists as well as histories, and even poetry.2 Indeed the first

Roman historical writing can be claimed by Naevius, who wrote a history of Rome in epic form,

the Bellum Punicum, and a historical tragedy, Clastidium. Though the Romans in theory often

viewed history as a well-defined genre, in practice they found and employed a variety of literary

means for preserving their history.

The purpose of this study is to undertake a comprehensive examination of the fragmentary

historians in the years 240 to 63 and their varied literary prose forms, to assess their intent and

motivations for the forms used, and to consider their relationship to Roman cultural and political

contexts. Unfortunately, none of these texts has survived in toto, and for most of the authors of

this period, only a handful of fragments remains. A study of the development of Roman

historiography, however, cannot rest wholly on complete texts. An examination of these

fragments is critical.

Though much has been written about the early Roman historians, there still does not exist a

monograph in English that considers all the fragmentary historians nor one that considers their

evaluations of historiographic form. My work is chiefly concerned with the development of

historiography seen in the decisions made by Roman authors in their choice of literary medium.

What compelled a historian in the Roman Republic to write his history in annalistic form? Why

did one write monographs, and another write commentarii? And, particularly, what were their

estimations of these forms? While much of this study will be empirical, theories regarding form

and function of history as perceived by the Romans will have a place. A focus on form does not

preclude or ignore other important and complementary aspects of history writing, such as style

and subject matter. Rather all three will be intertwined. This study does not undertake a


2 Verbrugghe 1989 examines the use and meaning of the term annales in Roman authors. A
lengthier discussion of the term follows in Chapter Two.









philological examination of the fragments or an account of the transmission of the texts. Nor

does it offer commentary on the fragments. Instead, my goal is to illuminate the historians and

their choices against a backdrop of Rome and in the context of developing historiography. In

exploring the Roman authors' choices in historical form (and conventions and traditions of each),

we may discover their motivations. These may include a competition for historical validity or

credibility in the Roman Republic, or a recognition of the adequacies and inadequacies of

particular forms for narrative discourse. For some authors, these forms may have a pragmatic

goal-to reflect political stance. Conversely, Roman writers may have selected a particular form

for its literary possibilities. Form might reveal motivation or, at least, a sense of the historian's

purpose in writing history.

The historians themselves, in various programmatic statements, recorded their own

concerns regarding form, and their comments regarding what and how they chose to write and

what they chose to reject are illuminating. Cato, for example, the first to write Roman history in

Latin prose, spoke dismissively of the annales; it did not please him to record those things

written down on the tabula apudpontificem maximum, such as expensive corn prices or eclipses

of the sun and moon.3 Sempronius Asellio likewise rejected the annalistic style and declared it

unsuitable for writing history. For Asellio, writing of battles and consuls and triumphs did not

constitute historiography, but only stories for children. Asellio, moreover, distinguished between



3 Cato Orig. IV, 1 Chassignet (= Gell. NA 2.28.6). All fragments in this dissertation derive from
the Chassignet editions, whether from her edition of Cato as here, or below from her three
volumes, L 'annalistique Romaine, vols. I (1996/2003), II (1999/2003), and III (2004), each of
which includes a concordance to Peter 1914. The numbering system in this dissertation is hers,
and total figures for numbers of fragments listed are Chassignet's. Consequently, in
corresponding footnotes, Chassignet's edition is listed first, followed by other editions in
chronological order with their tallies of fragments. Abbreviations throughout the dissertation
and appendix follow abbreviation conventions of OCD; abbreviations of journals in the
bibliography follow L 'annee philologique.









forms of historical writings. He recognized a difference between writing annales, an

unembellished list of events, and writing res gestae. His history would do more than list; it

would more properly demonstrate how and why events happened.4 Any intentional statement

regarding form made by the historian Lucius Cornelius Sisenna does not survive; in a one

fragment, however, Sisenna appears to defend his methodology of choosing to relate in

continuous fashion events happening outside the city of Rome. By writing a continuous

narrative Sisenna would not confuse his readers by vellicatim aut saltuatim scribendo.5 Aulus

Postumius Albinus, who wrote in Greek a century before Sisenna, similarly offered justification

for the decisions that shaped his writing. Postumius, infamously, prefaced his history with a plea

for leniency from his readers if he made mistakes in the Greek; homo Romanus natus in Latio,

Postumius reminded them, and thus the Greek language was somewhat foreign to him.6 In

addition to these historians, doubtless other writers of prose attempted to clarify their choice of

form and subject matter; when they did not or when those fragments do not survive, the process

of examining historical form becomes more complicated-but not impossible.

Limitations on the scope of this study have compelled the exclusion and inclusion of much

that would complement this work. Missing in this study are the above-mentioned histories in

poetic form-including epics, tragedies addressing Roman themes, praetextae, annales in verse,

short epics, and short historical poems. A later project might successfully study the poetic

historical forms that flourished during the Republic. Fragments ofpraetextae written by

Naevius, Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius exist. The Neronian Octavia, the only extant complete

praetexta, would provide a useful comparison as a later example. Such a project would be


4 Sempronius Asellio frag.1-2 (= Gell. NA 5.18.7 and 5.18.9).
5 L. Cornelius Sisenna frag. 129 (= Gell. NA 12.15.2).
6 A. Postumius Albinus frag. lb (= Gell. NA 11.8.3). Gellius quotes Postumius in Latin, though
the original would have been in Greek.









problematic, since extremely few fragments have survived. The most significant of the poetic

histories are the earliest ones: the epic poem of Naevius, the Bellum Punicum, published around

215, and Ennius' Annales, a history of Rome in dactylic hexameter, published post 169.

This dissertation begins with Fabius Pictor and his annales in Greek, written sometime late

in the Second Punic War, and ends with first century historians who reinvent the annales

tradition. This time period commences with the great political and social upheavals at the end of

the first war Rome undertook with Carthage (240) and concludes with the equally tumultuous

consulship of Cicero in 63. That year, in retrospect, was to usher in change as well-Julius

Caesar became pontifex maximus, and the future Augustus was born.

Excluded by the time frame are Sallust (86-35), Cornelius Nepos (c. 110-24), and Livy

(59-17 C.E.), as well as the poets of the Augustan age who engaged regularly and creatively with

Roman history; their story is told elsewhere.7 The antiquarian work of Varro (116-27) will be

useful throughout but only as evidence for the early historians; his surviving works are not

explicitly historical. Varro's great lost work in forty-one books, Antiquitates rerum humanarum

et divinarum, as well as his briefer lost history on the Roman people, de gente populi Romani,

would surely have contributed to my study of early Roman writers of history. His study of the

Latin language, de lingua Latina, will be useful in this study.

I limit my study to Roman authors, and this leaves out one of the greatest historians of

Rome, the Greek Polybius, who wrote at Rome under the patronage of Scipio Aemilianus.

Prominent in the Achaean Confederation opposed to Rome, Polybius (c. 200-c. 118) served as

hipparch of that confederation. But after the Roman victory over Perseus at Pydna in 168,

Polybius came to Rome as one of the thousand Achaeans deported and held across Italy without



7 Most recently, for example, in the wide-ranging collection of essays in Levene and Nelis 2002.









trial until the year 150. Polybius was one of the luckier hostages; he became friendly with Scipio

Aemilianus, the son of the victor at Pydna, L. Aemilius Paullus. Scipio arranged for Polybius to

serve out his time in Rome. Polybius later accompanied Scipio Aemilianus to Spain (150), and

to Carthage during its siege (146), possibly playing a role even in the settlement of Achaea after

the sack of Corinth. In Rome in the company of Scipio, Polybius wrote minor works that have

not survived, including a history of the Numantine War. Polybius may have been present at

Numantia in 133. His greatest work, a universal history meant to show Rome's rise to power

during the years 240 down to 146, survives only partially. Books 1-5 of forty original books

survive whole; only quotations and abridgments preserve bits of the remaining books. His

methodology was new, and ultimately influential on early Roman historians. A geographical

framework allowed him to tell the story of Rome's ascendance from west to east, and a

chronological framework of Olympiads firmly set Roman history into a more universal history.

As in the case of Varro above, Polybius will not be completely absent from this study. The form

and motivations that shaped his historical approach and methodology, influenced by the

Hellenistic historians, will in turn influence the writing of his contemporaries in Rome.8

My study considers the diverse historical writings by form, and within that framework, by

chronology. This introduction provides a survey of scholarship on the fragmentary historians,

our sources for them, and a historical and literary context for the historians. Chapters 2 through

5 treat practitioners and particular historical forms. Chapter 2 focuses on the annalistic form and

its earliest proponents, the so-called Greek annalists.9 Chapter 3 examines the annalists of the

second century, including Lucius Cassius Hemina, later admired by antiquarians, Lucius

Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cos. 133), the enemy of the Gracchi, Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129),


8 Cf. Walkbank 1957, and Astin 1967: 3-4, and 14-20.
9 The fragments of the annalists in Greek are found in Chassignet 1996/2003.









and the verbose Cnaeus Gellius.10 Chapter 4 looks to annalists of the first century including Q.

Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias and Licinius Macer, collectively known more for Livy's

use of them rather than their own merits." Chapter 5 takes on alternative forms of history such

as contemporary history, res gestae, monographs, and commentarii, pursued by Fannius,

Sempronius Asellio, Coelius Antipater, and Lucius Cornelius Sisenna, among others.12 Thus

Chapters 2-5 differ from one another in both form and perspective. Chapter 6, the conclusion,

provides a synthetic view of the historians, their forms, intent, and contexts. An appendix

provides a catalogue of authors of historical works produced in the years between the end of the

First Punic War (240) and the consulship of Cicero (63). The historians are arranged

chronologically. Each author is presented with bibliographic information: surviving fragments in

the major editions, significant testimonia in chronological order from primary sources that refer

chiefly to the author's historiographical work, entries from RE, references to magistracies in

MRR, secondary studies on the author as a historian, and lastly, a selective bibliography of

secondary sources which contain works that offer extended treatment of the author or are

considered canonical. The remainder of this introduction provides background material on the

extensive scholarship on these early historical writings.

The study of early Roman historical writings is not new. Various works treat the early

historians, for example, in terms of biography, extant works, and credibility (Beloch 1926,

Balsdon 1953, Badian 1966, Rawson 1976, Wiseman 1981, Wiseman 1983, Rawson 1985,


10 Chassignet 1999/2003 collects the fragments of the annalists Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi,
Lucius Cassius Hemina, Caius Sempronius Tuditanus, Vennonius, Cnaeus Gellius, and Q. Fabius
Maximus Servilianus. Venonnius and the equally shadowy Servilianus will receive only the
scantest attention in this work.
11 Fragments of each are in Chassignet 2004.
12 See Chassignet 1999/2003 for the fragments of Fannius, Lucius Coelius Antipater, and
Sempronius Asellio. Sisenna's fragments are in Chassignet 2004. The commentarii are also in
Chassignet 2004.









Cornell 1986a and b, Cornell 1995). Among these, the classic introduction to the early Roman

historians is Badian. He offers a chronological survey of the historians, and provides

biographical information and perfunctory comments on the literary and historical merits of their

surviving fragments. Because it is only a short chapter, some 26 pages, in a longer work on the

Roman historians, Badian's work serves as an accessible entry-point. Rawson, likewise, devotes

just one chapter to early historiography in her book on intellectual life in the Roman Republic.

In an eighteen-page chapter on Republican historiography and allied subjects, Rawson limits her

comments on the early historians to four pages. More recent surveys include Wiseman 2007 on

the historiography of Rome's prehistory, Beck 2007 on Rome's early tradition, and Levene 2007

on the historiography of the late Republic.13 On the whole, these representative pieces which

survey the historians are valuable for the straightforward information they supply in an

empirical, though often cursory, approach. Their strength lies in their clear accessible listing of

historians; brevity is their weakness.

Some early historians have been treated individually, however, including Lucius Cincius

Alimentus (Verbrugghe 1982), Cato (Astin 1978), Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (Forsythe 1994),

C. Licinius Macer (Frier 1975, Walt 1997) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (Rawson 1976, Santini

1995). The stand-alone article by Rawson, "The First Latin Annalists" (Rawson 1976) which

treats not all the Latin annalists, but rather deals chiefly with Lucius Cassius Hemina, is more

detailed than her comments on the historians en masse; it provides a more detailed analysis of

one author's work through a comparative study of his fragments to those of Lucius Calpurnius

Piso and Gn. Gellius. Verbrugghe's similarly careful study of L. Cincius Alimentus

(Verbrugghe 1982) is another representative article on an individual annalist. He proposes the


13 Other useful but older surveys of early Roman historiography include Beloch 1926, Frank
1927, and McDonald 1954 and 1975.









addition of five more fragments to the small corpus of Cincian fragments, and argues based on

this larger body of material that Cincius was not merely a rehash of Fabius Pictor. The paucity

of fragments still hinders clear conclusions, but Verbrugghe suggests that even these few can

demonstrate differences, and hence purpose, in these two early historians. Forsythe's

monograph on Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (Forsythe 1994) is one of a very few book-length

studies, to date, on any of the early historians, with the exception of Cato. Its length alone affords

to Forsythe opportunities to engage comprehensively with Calpurnius' history. After two

chapters on Piso's background and career, Forsythe turns to a detailed discussion of Piso's

fragments (approximately 45 survive). Forsythe's review of these fragments constitutes over

350 pages-though only a handful of Piso's fragments are of any significant length. Forsythe

puts Piso at the start of Roman annalistic tradition, and attributes to him a variety of

historiographical innovations that were pursued by his followers. Again empirically based, these

close readings of an author's surviving corpus by Rawson, Verbrugghe and Forsythe offer now

not just biographical facts and head counts of surviving fragments, but posit interpretations of an

author's stylistic or historical merits. These are a boon to my present work.

The scholarship on the credibility of the early historians is livelier and more

confrontational (Leeman 1963, Cornell 1986a, Wiseman 1979, 1981, and 1983, Woodman 1988,

Cornell 1995, Oakley 1997, and Forsythe 2005), because of a compelling debate on both the

purposes of the early historians and their use of source material. Wiseman and Cornell chiefly

engage in this dispute as the pole points, with Wiseman arguing that the historians imaginatively,

and in conjunction with their rhetorical training in inventio, greatly elaborated on their slim

sources. Wiseman does not see this as entirely negative; he reads the historians with a sanguine

view of their reliability. In this he is supported, for example, by Oakley 1997 and Woodman









1988. These turn to the rhetorical education that would have been the common denominator for

the earliest historians. That training allowed the addition of plausible, if not necessarily true,

materials to an argument. Leeman's grand work, Orationis Ratio (1963), points out the desire

not only to teach but also delectare and movere.14 Woodman 1998 makes a persuasive case for

the application of rhetorical models to narrative history by the historians.

Cornell, on the other hand, contends that the skeletal structure of early Roman history is

constant and similar in all the early historians, and that they were respectful of received history.

Thus the early historians must be treated as credible. Cornell is not naive, but prefers to accept

the skeletal material documented by these historians. This debate and line of argument between

Cornell and Wiseman is particularly clear in their discussions of the historical tradition and

Rome's foundation myths (Cornell 1986b, Cornell 1995, and Wiseman 1995). Wiseman, in

characteristic wide-ranging arguments, posits the myth of Remus, for example, as the creation of

political and ideological debate in the fourth century. Wiseman brings to his argument a range of

material, historical, archaeological, theoretical, and is often compelling. Wiseman himself

operates as he says the early historians did-when there is need or room for plausible

interpretation in the face of scanty evidence, a historian has a duty to see it. "All we have, to

understand the past, is evidence and argument-what survives, and what we make of what

survives."15 Wiseman further defends his methodology by asserting that every hypothesis is a

creative act. Breath-taking at times, Wiseman's works reflect a well-read historian engaging

with his material in as many ways as he can, rather than being stymied by the paucity of

evidence.



14 Leeman 1963: 87.
15 Wiseman 1994: xii; see also Wiseman 1994: 6, for Wiseman's quotation of Syme on
constructive fiction in writing modern ) history.









Three major editions of the fragments of the historians now exist.16 The earliest collection

of the fragments of the historians is Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (1914); this

edition, with commentary in Latin, is a revision of his 1870 Historicorum Romanorum

Fragmenta. A seminal work, Peter's collection in two volumes includes the remains of every

fragmentary Roman historian from the Republic through the Empire. For over one hundred

years, Peter's was the only collection of these fragments. It was based, however, on work done

primarily during the nineteenth century, and even though it was heavily revised in 1914, it is,

nonetheless, out of date since it misses much of the recent work done especially on the early

historians. As recently as 1999, Frier criticized Peter's edition as "the weakest of all scholarly

reference works still in standard use."17

More recently, two new editions have been produced which include updates on the

accumulated knowledge of the historians, new fragments, and commentary in languages other

than Latin. Beginning in 1996 Chassignet published three volumes of fragments from the period

of the Republic entitled L 'Annalistique Romaine: Tome I: les annales despontifes, I'annalistique

ancienne (1996/2003); Tome II: l'annalistique moyenne (1999/2003); and Tome III:

I'annalistique rdcente, I'autobiographie politique (2004). Chassignet's volumes are noteworthy

for the clarity of presentation, lucid and concise summaries of the life, work, and reception of

each historian, the fragments and French translations of these, and updated scholarship.

Moreover, Chassignet's introduction in Tome I offers a readable and restrained examination of

Roman historiographical forms as well as scholarship on them. The major difference in terms of



16 Each of the editions provides each historian's biography, as well as information on the
historical text (e.g., length, date, publication, fragments, and so on), as well as information on
reception of the historian's work by both the ancients and moderns. This structure (and content)
has been my model in my work.
17 Frier 1979/1999: 16.









fragments between Chassignet and Peter has to do with Chassignet's acceptance of fragments

deriving from Origo Gentis Romanae, which Peter had declared inauthentic.

In 2001 and 2004 Beck and Walter produced a two-volume collection of the fragments of

historians of the Republic in Die friher romischen Historiker I, von Fabius Pictor bis Cn.

Gellius, and Die fruher romischen Historiker II, von Coelius Antipater bis Pomponius Atticus.

Beck and Walter's edition includes commentary and translations of the fragments in German.

Unlike Peter or Chassignet, Beck and Walter's volumes, however, are not comprehensive; they,

in fact, do not include every historian. Missing, for example, are Vennonius and Fabius

Maximus Servilianus, as well as Q. Lutatius Catulus, M. Aemilius Scaurus, and Sulla.

This dissertation relies primarily on the Chassignet volumes of the fragments of the

historians.18 The Chassignet volumes offer the most complete collection of the Roman

historians, including historians who used different forms. These volumes surpass Peter (1914)

by providing more recent and updated scholarship on the historians. Peter remains useful,

especially for its lengthy biographies of each historian, but Chassignet includes newer fragments

and newer scholarship. Reviews of Chassignet have, on the whole, been positive. Beck, for

example, commented: "Peter has been replaced, and no further edition of the texts will be

needed."19 Until the edition of the fragments currently being worked on by the English team led

by Cornell is published, Chassignet's volumes will be the best access point to all the fragmentary

historians regardless of form.20




18 As mentioned earlier, Chassignet's editions include a concordance of fragments to Peter as
well as to relevant editions of individual historians such as, e.g., Licinius Macer and L. Cassius
Hemina.
19 Beck 2005: 3.
20 Led by Tim Cornell, a team of English scholars is working on publication of Fragmentary
Roman Historians. Other editors include E. Bispham, J. W. Rich, and C. J. Smith. There is no









This scholarship has created a foundation on which my own work can rely. They in turn

relied on the work of ancient scholars and authors who were interested in the fragmentary

historians-those Roman texts that preserve the words of the historians, and thus are our source

for the fragments of the historians of the Republic. The fragments of the early historians derive

chiefly from few sources. In many cases, all we know of a particular author comes from

testimony or commentary in an ancient source. At other times, a writer is quoted or cited in

some fashion, thus providing us with a greater probability of more direct connection to an

original text. Among the sources that most frequently describe our early historians are (in

chronological order) Cicero, Livy, Plutarch, and Aulus Gellius. Myriad other Roman authors,

from, e.g., Pliny the Elder to Macrobius, Priscian, and Nonius Marcellus, also quote, excerpt or

paraphrase early historians either less often or at less length. In addition to the grammarians,

notices also appear in commentaries such as Servius. How and why these principal sources

preserved our historians is a good place to start.

Cicero's remarks on Roman historiography are among the most important primary sources

on the development of history in Rome.21 Found in the main in de Oratore, and to a lesser

degree in his letters, in particular his letter to Lucceius (Fam. 5.12), these comments take as their

common complaint the dearth of master historians in Rome. None of Cicero's works was

intended as a treatise on historiography. In the form of a dialogue, set in the year 91, de Oratore,

which survives whole, confronted the topic of political and rhetorical training of an orator.

Cicero's chosen date of 91 for this dialogue allowed him to situate his interlocutors, Marcus

Antonius and L. Licinius Crassus, in the years prior to Rome's entry into civil war. Crassus


date set for its publication. It will be the first edition in English of the corpus of the fragmentary
historians of the Roman Republic.
21 On Cicero and historiography, see Leeman 1963, Rawson 1972: 33-45, Brunt 1980a,
Woodman 1988: 70-117, Brunt 1993: 181-210, and Feldherr 2003.









himself died in 91. The Social War and turmoil between Marius and Sulla would soon follow,

and Antonius was killed in 88 by Sulla. In the de Oratore, to which we will turn again in

Chapter 1, Crassus made a case for a broad and wide-ranging education for an orator, one not

confined merely to technique and skill; additionally, an orator's moral character (the doctrine of

the vir bonus) was of great importance. Antonius, in less than complete opposition, promoted a

training that was more closely tied to oratorical technique and experience. In Book 2,

historiography entered the dialogue when Antonius offered it as an example of a field, not having

any precepts or theories of its own, that should be treated with oratorical skills. In 2.51-64,

Antonius decried the state of history writing in Rome-no one in Rome, he claimed, applied

eloquence to anything other than his time in court or in the Forum (2.55). Cicero (through his

interlocutor) presents not only a history of Roman historiography but also his theories on the

proper writing of history.

These theories are found as well in a famous letter of Cicero, Fam. 5.12, composed in 55,

the same year as the de Oratore, but months earlier. In it, Cicero urged his friend Lucceius to

continue his history of Italy, which treated the Social War and the conflict between Marius and

Sulla, with a separate monograph on Cicero himself. That monograph, Cicero suggested, could

begin with the Catilinarian conspiracy and end with his return from exile. Underneath Cicero's

often discomfiting plea for Lucceius both to immortalize him for perpetuity and provide him

with authority and fame while he still lived, one can discern Cicero's astute comments about how

one could write history. For instance, Cicero observed a difference between events that were

appropriate for continued narrative, and those that might lend themselves more to attention given

over to uno in argument unaque in persona-himself of course (5.12.2). Such focus allowed

greater scope for greater elaboration (ornatiora). Cicero also called for history-and his own









experiences-to be recounted with artistry and style. Variatio of events mixed with pleasure

would entertain a reader (delectationem lectoris) far more than the monotony of annales (ordo

ipse annalium mediocriter nos retinet quasi enumerationefastorum). Cicero preferred for the

dramatic acts of his life to be separated out from a more (boring) form of history (5.12.2).

Most of Cicero's references to particular named historians, rather than historiography as a

whole, are very short, usually no more than a phrase or two. Cicero's remarks often speak little

to the content written by the historian and more on the exornatio (or lack thereof). His

descriptions of them are valuable, however, because he directs his comments to the literary style

of the historian, a facet he found still missing in Roman historiography even in the last century of

the Republic. Thus, Cicero preserves for us names of historians, brief comments on their (lack

of) style, and his own theories on how history was to be written. While Cicero's remarks are his

own, they provide some small glimpse into the reputation or received opinions of these writers

by one educated member of the politically and socially enfranchised class in the first century.

Indeed, this type of window into the late Republic has always been one of the great advantages to

Cicero's works in general; the perspective he does share has also at times served to mitigate

faults in Cicero. Here, for example, Cicero's disdainful comments on the historians cut off fuller

descriptions of them that might have directly benefited our study of them. We have some view

of these historians, and at the same time we are deprived further information.

Many early historians, especially Valerius Antias, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, and Licinius

Macer, appear as sources in Livy's great history of Rome, Ab urbe condita, written at the end of

the first century, and into the first C.E. Livy's work addressed the history of Rome from its

foundation to Livy's own time in one hundred and forty two books. Of these, only Books 1-10

and 21-45 survive complete. Fragments of others exist, and Periochae, written in the third or









fourth century C.E., provide summaries of the lost books, except for Books 136 and 137. Livy's

chronicle begins with Aeneas' flight to Italy, and the subsequent foundation of Rome by his

descendants, Romulus and Remus. Book 142 told of Drusus' death in Germany in 9. Livy

perhaps continued as far as the Teutoburg Forest Disaster in 9 C.E., perhaps intending a narrative

comprising 150 books, but his death prohibited the completion (12/17 C.E.).22 If the last books

on the Augustan years had survived, we might know better how much influence Augustus had on

Livy.23 The surviving books, Books 1-10, the first decade, recount Rome's history through the

last Samnite war in 289; and Books 21-45 treat from 218-167, the Second Punic War to the

defeat of Macedonia in 167 at Pydna.

For a history of such a great scale, Livy was obliged to use many literary sources, though

he rarely consulted available documentary materials. Both Livy's use and his distrust of his

literary sources, those historians of the generation before him, are widely known.24 On the

whole, Livy found his predecessors to be less than credible, especially Antias, and yet he often

included their versions of events.25 For example, despite Antias' tendency to exaggerate death

figures, Livy mentions them consistently, and he uses Antias' reports of invented battles too.26 It

was, perhaps, common enough practice for ancient historians to make use regularly of available

literary histories in addition to primary sources.2 On the other hand, Livy rejected the stories of

his sources enough, or at least registered doubt in them, to earn some grudging praise as a


22 On the publication of Livy, see Luce 1977.
23 For a basic summary of the problem, see Luce 1977 on the relationship between Augustus and
Livy as well as Syme 1959.
24 A study of Livy's sources begins with Walsh 1961, Luce 1977, and Oakley 1997.
25 See, for instance, Oakley's survey of Livy's notices to his sources in Books 6-10 in Oakley
1997: 13-15. Further, see Oakley 1997: 21-109 on the annalistic tradition. Oakley 1997: 89-92
is particularly harsh on Antias.
26 Casualty figures, e.g., Antias frag. 25 (= Liv. 26.49.1-2). A more complete list can be had in
Oakley 1997: 89-90. On fictional battles, see e.g., Antias frag. 31(= Liv. 30.29.7).
27 Oakley 1997: 13.









critic.28 His skepticism about his sources begins even in his recording of Rome's foundational

tales-both those of Romulus and Remus' mother (1.4.7-8) and Romulus' death (1.16). From

our standpoint of modern "objective" history writing, Livy's methodology is both meritorious

and suspect at the same time.

Livy's use of the early historians is widespread. For the first decade Livy appeared to

favor Antias (in spite of Antias' figures), Macer, and Claudius Quadrigarius (Books 6-10). He

based Books 21-45 in large part on these same sources, adding Polybius and Coelius Antipater to

them when his narrative reached the rise of Rome. Direct references to work of Cato and L.

Calpurnius Piso are few, and his use of them is ambiguous.29

Livy's choice of form is also significant. In writing an annalistic history of Rome, which

progressed year by year, and focused on magistrates, internal and external events, and other

events of importance such as portents, he reverted to a traditional historiographical form. In the

decades before Livy, Sallust had turned away from the annalistic form and had instead written

two monographs. Livy picked up the annales form again, and through his remarkable story-

telling skills, he rescued the annalistic form and made it respectable again. Ironically, in looking

for those often derided as mere annalistss" and minor writers, we find them preserved in a

historian who preferred their same form. And ironically, we find the annalists in the annales of

one who was an outsider of sorts-a non-senator from Padua.

In preserving the early historians, Livy also surpasses them, and thus our reaction to these

historians is necessarily shaped by Livy's evaluation of them. An emphasis on style and

elaboration of scene, event and personality earned him praise from Quintilian for his lactea



28 E.g., Oakley 1997: 89 speaks of Livy's "barely concealed contempt" for Antias' inflated
figures.
29 Oakley 1997: 13-16.









ubertas.30 His history is possibly the one Cicero had been waiting for- a history told by a good

storyteller and stylist.

In the first century C.E., Plutarch (ca. 50 -120), a Greek biographer and philosopher, came

to Rome from Chaeroneia. A prolific writer, Plutarch compiled a corpus of two hundred twenty-

seven works, as listed in the fourth century C.E. Catalogue of Lamprias. Over one hundred and

twenty survive.31 Among them are his many essays, the Moralia, on a variety of topics-these

fill sixteen Loeb volumes. His essays range from advice to political, rhetorical and antiquarian

tracts. Rarely in the Moralia does Plutarch cite an early Roman historian or poet. Rather, his

sources for the essays on Roman themes are the antiquarians, and in particular Varro, used often

in Quaestiones Romanae. Plutarch also makes use of Livy, Polybius and Dionysius, as well as

sources such as Aristides, who, for example, is cited extensively in the spurious Parallela

Minora. One exception to Plutarch's habit of not using the early historians is found in defortuna

Romanorum, which once cites the historian Antias (323 C).

Other Plutarchean works are not helpful either for examining the Roman historians.

Plutarch's Lives of the Caesars does not survive complete. Only his biographies of Galba and

Otho remain, and these, as well as the lost volumes on the emperors from Augustus to Vitellius,

fall outside the time frame of this study.

Valerius Antias, Cato, Claudius Quadrigarius, Fabius Pictor, Fannius, Postumius Albinus,

Sempronius Tuditanus all do appear in some fashion, however, in Plutarch.32 Plutarch is best

known for his series of biographies in Greek called Parallel Lives, nineteen matching pairs of

biographies of famous Greek and Roman political figures, and four treatments of single figures.



30 Quint. Instit.. 10.1.32.
31 Russell 1993: xxiii-xxix compiles the complete list of Plutarch's works, surviving and lost.
32 Helmbold and O'Neil 1959: 1-76; s.v. each author.









These lives treated many significant Romans of the Republic, beginning with Romulus, and

spanning Roman history until Julius Caesar. Plutarch's sources for these biographies were both

Greek and Latin, though questions remain about Plutarch's facility with Latin. Notices to his

sources suggest some familiarity with them on a sliding scale from first hand understanding and

reading of them to mere acquaintance.33 Plutarch himself remarks in his Life ofDei,,,irithene (I)

that he came to learn Latin very late in his life. In the Parallel Lives, however, Plutarch cited

over twenty different Greek and Roman authors, some more often than others, and the early

annalists appear often. Two fragments, for example, from uncertain books of Cato survive in

Plutarch's life of Cato Minor.34 Plutarch also refers to Cato's de Agricultura and letters as well.

On the other hand, some references to early annalists by Plutarch constitute only a passing

comment or small notice. Tuditanus, for one, is mentioned only once.35

Plutarch's credibility as a source for our writers of Roman history rests ultimately on our

trust in his quotations, and less on his reliability as a historian. Plutarch's approach to history

writing is laid out, famously, in the introduction to his Life ofAlexander the Great. Interested

more in the character of men than their achievements, Plutarch put forward the disclaimer that he

was writing biography, not history. Stories revealing character interested Plutarch more than

records of accomplishments on the battlefield.36 He wrote not political or military history, but

composed narratives about the virtues and exemplars of famous and worthy men. His




33 On Plutarch and his sources for the Parallel Lives as well as his relationship with Rome, see
first Jones 1971, as well as Stadter 1965, and on quotations in Plutarch, see especially Helmbold
and O'Neil 1959.
34 Cato frag. 129 Peter (= Plut. Cat. Min. 10/342a) and Cato frag. 130 Peter (= Plut. Cat. Min.
14/344b). Chassignet's edition of Cato includes only fragments from the Origines and does not
include fragments from unknown books.
35 Tuditanus frag. 6 (= Plut. Flam. 14.2-3).
36 Plut. Alex. 1.









relationship to both his subjects and to the city of Rome greatly colored his depictions of them.37

Though Plutarch used a wide range of sources, he was not always scrupulous in reflecting these.

When a source suggested a less than savory characteristic of an individual or portrayed Rome in

a less than flattering light (for example, in the Romulus), Plutarch passed over that evidence.

Plutarch's intentions to create memorable and chiefly honorable portraits of his figures allowed

him a certain amount of freedom in using and naming his sources (or even reading them for that

matter); he was not ultimately concerned with correct historical detail.38 Hence what we learn of

the early Roman historians and poets in Plutarch is never complete and always intentionally

filtered.

One of our best sources for the early Roman historians is the late miscellanist, Aulus

Gellius who lived in the second century C.E. during the age of the Antonines. He was a scholar,

linguist, and antiquarian, interested in etymologies, antiquities, and language. Like other literary

figures of his age such as Fronto, Gellius' passions indicated erudition and culture, and a

profound interest in archaic language and institutions. Though he might have been born in

Africa and spent most of his life in Rome, his travels in Greece and time spent in Athens resulted

in a collection of entertaining stories, anecdotes and more, entitled Noctes Atticae, published

around 180 C.E. in twenty books, and based on notes on readings undertaken during his time

there. Most of Noctes Atticae survives; missing are the preface, all of Book 8 and the end of

Book 20. His work demonstrated a wide range of interests, preeminent among them a delight in

grammar.

Because of his interest in archaic Latin, Aulus Gellius preserves many fragments of the

early historians. In fact, for example, nearly half of the preserved fragments of Q. Claudius


37 On Plutarch and Rome, see Jones 1971.
38 Jones 1971:85.









Quadrigarius come from Aulus Gellius. He also cited or referred to Sempronius Asellio,

Postumius Albinus, Cato, and Coelius Antipater. Next to Quadrigarius, Gellius cited most

frequently Sallust and Cato.39 Gellius' usefulness lies in his range of materials and the sources

he employed.

Yet Gellius was neither a historian nor particularly interested in Roman history or Roman

historiography. Though he preserved Asellio's trenchant comments on the difference between

res gestae and annales, on the whole Gellius preferred the study of language to history.40 Thus

deficiencies, at least for my study, abound. His inclusion of Asellio's programmatic intent, for

example, did not lead to a discussion of Roman historiography or of events in Roman history or

even of the merits of Asellio as an annalist. Rather, Gellius preserved Asellio because of

Gellius' interest in the particular words historic and annales. Gellius had little interest in the

content of Asellio's history itself. 41 Passages from other Roman historians cited there evince the

same interests of Gellius; throughout his work, these sources were used more for purposes of

language study and the odd grammatical usage than for their stories. Gellius' references, then,

do little for us in assessing the historical import or credibility of the early Roman annalists. They

are nonetheless of utmost importance in preserving some of their grammatical tendencies

through which we might tease out their stylistic qualities.

In addition to Gellius, the grammarians Priscian, Nonius, and Macrobius, contain

fragments of the early historians. The grammarians belong to a period of cultural rebirth and

renovation in the fourth century C.E., a revival of both the empire and literature.42 During this



39 The definitive work on Aulus Gellius remains Holford-Strevens 2003 (revised edition); on
Gellius and history, see Holford-Strevens 2003: 241-260.
40 Asellio frags. 1-2 (= Gell. NA 5.18.8-9).
41 Holford-Strevens 2003: 245.
42 On the grammarians and fourth century society, see Kaster 1997.









century before the sack of the city of Rome in 410 C.E., grammarians as well as other

commentators wrote extensively on Roman literature, most often focusing on style and form,

rather than content. Chief among these is Nonius Marcellus, born in the first part of the fourth

century C.E., perhaps in Africa, who wrote a twenty-book treatise on grammar and

antiquarianism. The first part of this work, De Compendiosa Doctrina, is a series of

explanations of grammatical rules supported by examples from Roman authors. In including

these citations, Nonius preserved many otherwise lost passages from early historians such as

Quadrigarius and Sisenna.43

Macrobius, of the late fourth and early fifth century C.E., continued the literary revival of

the fourth century. His range of works demonstrated an interest in grammar, history,

scholarship, and antiquarianism. Saturnalia, his seven-book work in dialogue form written long

after its dramatic date, recounts several days' worth of erudite and learned conversation and

dialogue by an influential group of Romans who came together during the Saturnalia in 384 C.E.

Among the discussion topics are religion, philosophy, and literature, including numerous

citations from the early historians.44 Priscian lived more than a century after Macrobius, writing

and working in Constantinople in the beginning of the sixth century C.E. His principal work,

Institutio de Arte Grammatica, became the authoritative textbook on grammar for the Middle

Ages, preserving in it many quotations from both prose and poetic authors.45

Each of these grammarians preserves fragments of the early historical historians, yet not

out of a keen interest in the history recounted. Rather, as in the case of Aulus Gellius, the

grammarians were more interested in grammatical idiosyncrasies, neologisms, and archaisms.



43 Kaster 1997: 417-418.
44 von Albrecht 1997: 1485-1491. On fragments in Macrobius, see Marinone 1975.
45 Kaster 1997: 346-348.









Thus their interests and concerns do not fully contextualize our historians. Nonetheless, they

afford some small glimpse into the style and subject matter of the early (and mostly lost) works

of the historians. The grammarians, in particular, demonstrate a paradox found in working with

the early historians-in searching for the earliest historians we find them in fact in some of the

latest Latin sources. A study of Latin literature ironically chases its own tail, looking for the

beginning in the end.

Roman historiography developed against the rich backdrop of the middle to late Roman

Republic, in particular from the end of the First Punic War (240) to the consulship of Cicero

(63). During these years, Rome experienced tremendous change on many fronts. For the Roman

historians, context and reaction to contemporary events shaped their choice of a medium for

history writing. Romans would accordingly not only write of the Roman past but shape how that

history was written as well. An overview of this period emphasizes change and innovation

across all manner of fields. Above all, Rome seemed to expend its energies on expansion and

creation of both power and empire.46 By the fourth and early third century, Rome engaged in a

long series of wars to consolidate first the Italian peninsula under her rule, and warfare remained

a common theme throughout the Republic.


46 Thorough examinations of the Roman Republic can be found in the second edition of
Cambridge Ancient History VII, 2: "The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C."; VII: "Rome and the
Mediterranean to 133 B.C.," and IX: "The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C." and
the bibliographies therein. See also Scullard 1980; Crawford 1993; Boatwright et al. 2004 and
Flower 2004. On the last century of the Republic, see Syme 1939; Seager 1969; Crawford and
Beard 1985/1999; Wiseman 1986; Brunt 1988; and Gruen 1995/reissue of 1974. On economy of
the Republic see Crawford 1985; on religion, see Beard, North and Price 1998; on literature and
culture and intellectual life, see Kenney 1982; Rawson 1985; Gruen 1992; and Fantham 1996.
On Rome's wars, imperial ambitions, army and provinces, see Richardson 1976; Lazenby 1978
and 1996; Harris 1979 and 1984; Gruen 1984 and 1992; Richardson 1986; and Goldsworthy
1996 and 2000. On Rome's slave system, see Bradley 1989; on Roman society, see Fantham et
al. 1994; Kleiner and Matheson 1996; and Treggiari 2002. On Republican politics, class
relations and social conflicts, and citizenship see Lacey and Wilson 1970; Brunt 1971; Sherwin-
White 1973; Shatzman 1975; and Nicolet 1980.









The later third, second, and first centuries followed this trend, but Rome engaged primarily

in warfare outside the Italian peninsula as it became a Mediterranean power. After the defeat of

Pyrrhus in 275 and a series of successful wars against a series of enemies across roughly one

hundred and thirty years, Rome eventually became the dominant state in the Mediterranean. War

was waged against the Carthaginians three times, in 264 -241, 218 -210, and 149 -146. In the

east, the Romans met the Illyrians on the battlefield in wars in 229 and 219, and the

Macedonians in three wars beginning in 215 and ending with victory at Pydna in 168. Rome

defeated the Syrians as well in this period (192-189), destroyed Corinth (146), was bequeathed

the kingdom of Pergamum (133), and finally took, in the west, Numantia in the same year to

consolidate most of Spain under her rule. Before the turn of the century, on the northern

frontier, Marius would defeat the Cimbri and the Teutones (113-101). To the south Rome

engaged in war with Jugurtha of Numidia (112-105) as well.

The first century witnessed campaigns versus Mithridates in the east (90-85, and again 74-

63), and against the Parthians (culminating in a disastrous defeat in 53). External warfare, now a

staple to the Romans, turned fratricidal in this last century of the Republic beginning with the

Gracchi, and only ending with Octavian's defeat of Antony at Actium (31). The latter part of

these wars falls outside the timeframe and scope of this study.

Rome's changes, however, were not confined to the military sphere. The same two

hundred years from the outset of the First Punic War in the third century to civil war in the first

century witnessed developments in many areas, which are as significant as any in the military or

political realm. Precipitated by warfare and consequences of these wars, changes in Roman

social and political life were the norm across these years. The movement of peoples, the

increasing inclusion and growing influence of non-Romans in Roman life, and political divisions









and tensions as Rome wrestled with the logistics of ruling an empire, contributed to a constantly

changing culture. A ruling elite, the nobiles, came to the forefront, the wealthy grew richer from

spoils of war, formerly small landholdings became concentrated in the hands of the few, the poor

remained disenchanted, notable individuals from Cato to Sulla made their mark, and a

Mediterranean economy was born.47 The city of Rome itself experienced significant physical

growth and change too; a host of private and public building projects, such as frequent dedication

of temples by victorious generals, reflected Rome's growing wealth.48

More importantly for this study, Rome's first literature was produced in this time period as

well.49 Despite a seeming occupation with war, Roman literature flourished, beginning with

Livius Andronicus' performance of a play and then a translation of the Odyssey in the 240's.

Among the problems to be worked out in the aftermath of creating a Mediterranean empire was

the relationship of Rome to Greece, not just in a political but literary sense as well. Greece, past

and present, stood as a literary model; Greek authors, especially those of the contemporary


47 The rise of the nobiles is laid out in Gelzer 1969. On Cato, see Astin 1978; on Sulla, Badian
1970. Other magistrates are detailed in Broughton 1952 and 1986.
48 On Republican architecture, see Ward-Perkins 1977.
49 General treatments of the literature of the Republican period appear in Kenney and Clausen
1982; Rawson 1985; Fantham 1996; Conte 1995; and von Albrecht 1997. Bibliographies there
consider both individual Roman authors as well as genre. Goldberg 2005 examines the problem
of Rome's literary development, focusing on readers and not just writers. See Habinek 1998 on
the politics of Latin literature. On Ennius, see Skutsch 1985; on Naevius see Barchiesi 1962. On
Roman comedy see Duckworth 1952; Wright 1974; and Konstans 1983. On Plautus, one might
begin with Handley 1968 and Slater 1985. Beare's 1964 work on the Roman stage discusses
both comedies and tragedies. For Terence see Norwood 1923; Forehand 1985; and Goldberg
1986. Pacuvius and Accius have not yet received a general treatment; therefore Beare 1964 is
useful. On Roman satire and Lucilius, consult Knoche (trans. Ramage) 1975; Coffey 1989; and
Boyle and Freudenberg 2002. On oratory during the Republic see Leeman 1963 and Kennedy
1972. For historical context behind the Scipionic circle, see Astin 1967 on Scipio Aemilianus,
and contra, Parker 1996. For literature beyond the temporal parameters of this work: Ross 1969
treats the neoteric poets, as does Wiseman 1974. Many studies of Catullus are worthwhile
including Wheeler 1934; Ross 1969; Quinn 1972; Wiseman 1969 and 1985. A study of
Lucretius' didactic poetry should begin with Kenney 1977, as well as West 1969; Clay 1983; and
Segal 1990.









Hellenistic world, were the teachers and masters in all literary genres, the Romans the students.

In the years after Rome's entry into the Mediterranean, debate over this relationship flourished.

Much has been made of the hostility and resentment between Cato and his alleged anti-Greek

stance and Scipio Aemilianus, his alleged infatuation of all things Greek, with his so-called

Scipionic circle. While the polarization between the two was not as significant as it has been

characterized, the debate over the role of Greek literary models was considerable, and it enriched

the literary environment of the middle Republic. Postumius Albinus' comments about his less

than perfect Greek used in his history belong to this time period and this debate.

Consequently, in the third century, Livius and his successors Naevius and Ennius

composed tragedy and comedy derived from Greek models, and yet both Naevius and Ennius

also wrote praetextae on Roman, and not Greek, historical themes. Naevius and Ennius

similarly addressed Rome's foundation story and history elsewhere: Naevius composed the

Bellum Punicum in Satumians, a native Roman meter, and Ennius followed with his Annales in

the more traditional epic hexameter borrowed from the Greeks. These two works, especially the

historical poem modeled on the annual lists kept by the pontifex maximus, were to become

authoritative and representative works of their genres, and influenced historiography as well. In

the third century, other writers participating in the development of Roman tragedy and comedy

from Greek models included Pacuvius, Caecilius Statius, and Plautus whose comedies are the

earliest full works to survive. In the same period, Roman oratory developed as seen in the

speeches of Appius Claudius Caecus.

The second century saw the introduction of other genres into Roman literature. The

significant writers of the second century include Terence, the writer of comedies, Accius, a

tragedian, as well as Lucilius, the inventor of the wholly Roman genre of satire (according to









Quintilian 10.1.93) and Cato, Rome's first historian in Latin. Roman historiography thus begins

in earnest with Cato's history, the Origines, in Latin. Prior Roman writers, such as Fabius

Pictor, had recorded Roman history in Greek in annalistic form, and Cato's rejection of both

Greek language and annalistic form purportedly demonstrated his rejection of Greek culture.

That rejection was not complete as is seen in Cato's use of Greek foundation stories as models;

indeed Ennius and Naevius earlier had relied on Greek models when writing their Roman stories.

The separation between Roman author and Greek model was never rigid. The relationship

between Rome and Greece, even on a literary level, underlay much during the middle to late

Republic.

In the first century, Roman authors continued to experiment with Greek genres, all the

while creating distinctly Roman literature. Lucretius would produce an elegant didactic epic

expounding Epicureanism, and Catullus and thepoetae novi would write exquisite nugae in a

variety of meters adapted from Greek. Cicero composed not only speeches devised and

delivered on the model of Demosthenes according to the rules of Greek rhetoric but also

philosophical dialogues on the model of Plato-even translations of lost Stoics and Epicureans-

on Greek philosophy, education, oratory. And at the end of the first century, the Augustan age

(outside the temporal limits of this work) witnessed the masterpieces of, for example, Horace in

his odes, modeled on the Greek odes of Alcaeus and Sappho, and Vergil in his national epic and

nod to Homer, the Aeneid.

From the late third to the first century, Rome created both an empire and a literary

tradition-through competition, conquest, imitation, adoption and adaptation. Roman historians

responded to these changes in a variety of ways as they crafted their works. How they composed

their histories had everything to do with context, and their understanding of both Rome's









position and its literary tradition. But the early historians were also influenced by their

education, and specifically by their perception of the functions, purposes, and forms of history.

To be sure, when the Romans first wrote their own histories, beginning with Fabius Pictor, they

were not writing without knowledge of earlier Greek historical models or earlier Roman attempts

to record their history.

Literary sources-as well as the historical and literary background-supply a preliminary

background, context for, and a lens through which I examine the forms used in historical

writings of the Republic. By the first century, Rome had created an empire as well as a literary

and historiographical tradition to record, memorialize, and represent itself. Rome's great

historians at the end of the Republic, Sallust, and Livy, serve as end points in the Republican

search for historical form. But there is danger in depicting earlier writers as mere forerunners,

and danger in teleological thinking that posits Sallust and Livy as what the earlier writers should

have been. The early annalists were, on the contrary, instrumental in shaping the form that Livy

would employ. Similarly, early writers of monographs and contemporary history influenced

Sallust's perception of, and his use of, those particular forms. If Livy was Rome's the best

annalist, the personification of Cicero's hope for a historian with style, the other annalists need

not be the worst. Rather, a contextual examination, comprehensive in scope, of the historians

and their forms, may well produce a surprising result-that Roman history was in good hands

prior to the first century.

In the years 240-63, the Romans historians intentionally utilized diverse forms. Who, how,

and for what end? These questions are the topics of the following chapters.









CHAPTER 2
FOUNDERS AND FOLLOWERS: EARLY ROMAN ANNALISTS IN GREEK

Of the many types of Roman historiography, the most common form was annales.

Between Fabius Pictor's first annalistic history of Rome, published as late as 202 and Livy's

142-book history composed late in the first century, a great number of historians employed the

annalistic form for their particular histories of Rome. This chapter begins with a look at the form

itself, followed by an examination of its earliest practitioners, the annalists in Greek, Fabius

Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, A. Postumius Albinus, and Gaius Acilius, and their estimation of

this form-a form that came to be synonymous with Roman history.

Annales and Annalists

The term annales is at the very center of Roman history and historiography. Early modems

called many of the histories from the Roman world annals.50 Moderns speak of the early

annalists, a term used often to mean almost any Roman writing history prior to Sallust and

Livy.51 The ancients themselves spoke of annales to mean not only prose chronicles of Rome's

history but also its historical tradition. Hence the term annales has come to refer to both the

works and the tradition of historiography itself in Rome.52

A number of problematic issues present themselves in a discussion of annales and their

creators. First of all, the related terms annalistic and annalist are used in ways that are not

Roman but the creation of moderns.53 Secondly, uses of the term annales by Romans themselves

are varied. Annales could indicate the Annales of Ennius-a work not in prose, it recounted in

verse Rome's early years. Numerous poets imitated Ennius' form, writing their own version of

annales in dactylic hexameter, often not well. Additionally, ancient authors did not limit the title

50 Verbrugghe 1989: 199-200; see his list of "moderns."
51 Verbrugghe 1989: 200.
52 Marincola 1999: 288.
53 Chassignet 1996/2003:VII.









annales to a certain prose form, but called the works of several Roman historians both historic

and annales.54 Moreover, works that now we call Annales, such as those of Tacitus, did not have

that name in antiquity. Lastly, the existence of the annales maximi complicates the topic as

well. What the annales maximi included or excluded, their form, their history, and even their

publication are still matters of much lively debate.56

Nevertheless, annales in antiquity most often referred to a historical work in prose, which

maintained some chronological format. Emphasizing the root word, Roman authors believed

that treatment of events in a year-by-year fashion was an essential characteristic of the form.

Beyond that characteristic, ancient treatment of annales differed widely. A number of citations

from Roman authors serve as examples of usages of the term.7 Paramount among them is

Cicero's use of the word in the de Oratore. Passages from Servius auctus, Isidore, Verrius

Flaccus, as well as Sempronius Asellio, offer further elucidations of the term. From these, a

general picture of essentials and differentia of annales might emerge.

The most full Ciceronian usage of the term annales is in the de Oratore, Cicero's dialogue

on the ideal training of an orator. In this dialogue, Antonius described early Roman history as

nihi aliud nisi annalium confectio. His denigrating tone towards Roman historiography aside,

his understanding of the term annales has become one of the most cited from antiquity. More

fully, history was a compilation of annales (de Oratore 2.51-52):




54 Verbrugghe 1989: 197. Verbrugghe also provides a comprehensive appendix (appendix IV)
of references to general histories by author.
55 Verbrugghe 1989:197.
56 Marincola 1999: 289. The starting point in scholarship on the annales maximi is Frier
1979/1999. See also Cichorius 1894: 2248- 2255, Rawson 1971, Drews 1988, and Flach 1992.
57 These citations are fully discussed below, and include Cic. De or. 2.51-54; Servius auct. ad
Aen. I. 373; Isid. Orig. 1.44.4; Verrius Flaccus as cited in Gell. NA 5.18.1; and Sempronius
Asellio in Gell. NA 5.18.6-9.









cuius rei memoriaeque publicae retinendae causa ab initio rerum
Romanarum usque ad P. Mucium pontificem maximum res omnis
singulorum annorum mandabat litteris pontifex maximus referebatque in
album et proponebat tabulam domi, potestas ut esset populo
cognoscendi, eique nunc annales maximi nominantur.

An unpacking of this passage is crucial for our understanding of the development of

Roman historiography. We learn that, for the sake of preserving public memory, the pontifex

maximus (chief priest) recorded all the events of a single year in writing, by putting them on a

white notice board for display. Moreover, we discover that since the beginning of Rome up until

the time of the pontifex maximus Publius Mucius (Scaevola, cos. 133), each pontifex maximus

had undertaken this task. The function of the work is clear: by consigning events to writing, and

not just memory, history would be preserved.58 Further, by displaying the white board, probably

in the Forum, the pontifex maximus ensured that the people of Rome would be able to access this

material. Simply put, annales were those events listed on the tabula dealbata (a term derived

from Servius auctus, below).

A number of points in this passage deserve our attention. Here and in the following lines,

Cicero, through the mouth of Antonius, treats both the development of Roman historiography as

well as the conventions of the annalistic form. In the beginning history writing for the Romans

was just a collection of annals, a kind of annual report of key events. Yet the Romans were not

the only ones who began their attempts at preserving history in writing this way. Antonius

explained that the Greeks themselves wrote similarly at one time: Graeci quoque ipsi sic initio

scriptitarunt (2.51). The iterative verb suggests that Antonius recognized the repeated action of




58 On the intersections of history and memory in Rome, and the importance Rome attached to
preserving its past, see Small and Tatum 1995, Farrell 1997, and Gowing 2005. The "culture of
memory" and historiography's place in it is attracting much recent attention. See, for example,
Timpe 1996, Walter 2004, Holkeskamp 2006, and Flower 2007.









habit or custom in Greek writing of history. Whether in Greece or in Rome, historiography

started with a simple task of compiling and preserving annual records.

Following this recording of annual events came a second phase of historiography in Rome,

during which authors wrote somewhat like those early collections of annals: hanc similitudinem

scribendi multi secuti sunt (2.53). According to Antonius, these authors left behind only

monument of times, people, places, and deeds sine ullis ornamentis (2.53). Cicero's intended

audience for this treatise on oratory would have understood sine ullis ornamentis to mean that

these writings were simple, plain narrative; lack of rhetorical embellishments ornamentt)

implied clarity, one of three goals in narration, a central virtue of an orator's speech. When

Antonius, however, suggested similarities between the early Roman historians Cato, Pictor, and

Piso, and early Greek ones, his comments muddy the waters. He appeared no longer to be

speaking solely of the annalistic form, but of history writing in general. The Greek historians

mentioned, Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Acusilas, were all early historians indeed, yet none of

the three can properly be called an annalist. Pherecydes was a mythographer and ethnographer,

while Hellanicus and Acusilas wrote genealogies. Moreover, Cato cannot be called an annalist

either.

While not speaking strictly of annales, Cicero's Antonius does offer interesting comments

about early Roman history writing. He faulted Cato, Pictor, and Piso for their want of distinctive

style or speech in their histories, but proposed that their inadequacies were not entirely their fault

because they did not know the ways by which speech might be adorned: qui neque tenent, quibus

rebus ornetur oratio (2.53). Lastly, Antonius distinguished between Antipater, who added a

maiorem sonum to history, and all the others who were merely narratores, and not exornatores

rerum (2.54). Though speaking of writing history, Antonius used terms and phrases appropriate









to oratory. This is due to context-Antonius' remarks were part of a lengthy discourse on

history writing as a proper field for orators to master, and de Oratore itself concerned oratorical

training.59

Cicero's treatment of annales suggests the annalistic form covers events year by year, is

written plainly and with brevity. It also implies that history writing should be better than what

passed for historical writing in Cicero's day. Cicero hoped that from a simple starting point of

the simple narration of a collection of events might come a true form of history to Rome, and

that Roman historiography might progress as successfully as Greek historiography had. Cicero's

treatment of annales, and indeed, of history writing in general, however, focused less on

historiographical form and content, and more on style.60

In de Oratore Cicero offered no substantive criteria for judging the content of annales, and

what might be considered normative for this form. Servius auctus' commentary on Aeneid 1.373

fills that gap with details of the kinds of events that traditionally were appropriate for annales.

Ita autem annales conficiebantur: tabulam dealbatam quotannis pontifex
maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nominibus et aliorum
magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueverat domi militaeque terra
marique gesta per singulos dies. (adAen. I. 373.)

Thepontifex maximus preserved those items worthy to remember consisting of

accomplishments at home and in the army, at land and at sea. Servius auctus conceived of the

annales, preserved on the tabula dealbata, as a running record of public events, both civil and

military, at home and abroad. Isidore (Orig. 1.44.4) followed suit: quaeque enim digna


59 Woodman 1988: 70-116 addresses the context of this particular passage in his Chapter 2 on
"Theory: Cicero." Woodman 1988: 82-83 claims that previous scholarship on this Ciceronian
passage emphasizes Cicero's comments on the laws of historiography and, in doing so,
overlooks that these are subordinate to Antonius' real concern, the exaedificatio. Brunt 1993
similarly examines the rhetorical context of Cicero's remarks. On orators named in Brutus, see
Sumner 1972.
60 Leeman 1963: 173 and Woodman 1988: 83-95, as well as Verbrugghe 1982: 210.









memorial domi militaeque, mari ac terrae per annos. Additional material of annales can be

surmised from Cato's rejection of annales, in which he registered his displeasure with the topics

that he claimed that the form traditionally preserved: the price of grain, grain shortages, eclipses

and other omens.61 Sempronius Asellio, discussed below, similarly found such lists wanting.62

Further elucidation on content derives from Servius auctus and Isidore, again, and Verrius

Flaccus, all of whom posited a contrast between historic and annales. In doing so, they

underscored the similarities and differences between the two forms. For Servius auctus, history

indicated events that people witnessed or could have witnessed. On the other hand, annales

comprised events and deeds that happened before the present time. Servius auctus claimed:

historic est eorum temporum quae vel vidimus vel videre potuimus, dicta
apo tou historein, id est videre; annales vero sunt eorum temporum, quae
aetas nostra non novit. (adAen. I. 373.)

Isidore's distinction (Orig. 1.44.1-5) between the two terms uses Servius auctus' words,

minus the Greek, as the conclusion to his comments on the three kinds of history. A diary

preserves what happens each day, annales compile res singulorum annorum, and history is

multorum annorum vel temporum est cuius diligentia annui commentarii in libris delati sunt.

Aulus Gellius similarly preserved this, on the difference between historic and annales:

"Historiam" ab "annalibus" quidam differre eo putant, quod, cum
utrumque sit rerum gestarum narratio, earum tamen proprie rerum sit
historica", quibus rebus gerendis interfuerit is, qui narret (NA 5.18.1).

History differed from annals in that, while both were narrations of events, history more

properly was a narration of those deeds and events in which the one who is telling the story

participated. Gellius continued, nothing that Verrius Flaccus related in his fourth book of de

significatu verborum that this was the opinion of many men. According to Gellius, Verrius


61 Cato Orig. IV.1.
62 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2.









Flaccus, though doubtful about this definition, agreed that it was a reasonable distinction, since

historic in Greek indicated rerum cognitionem praesentium or knowledge of current events.63 A

history would mean the direct participation in events by the author. One with less first hand

experience of the matters, presumably, would write annales of things past.

Gellius' own treatment of the term (NA 5.18.6) rejected this distinction, and recognized

instead shared content, the res gestae, of historic and annales, but noted a different form:

Ita historiess" quidem esse aiunt rerum gestarum vel expositionem vel
demonstrationem vel quo alio nominee id dicendum est, "annales" vero
esse, cum res gestae plurium annorum observato cuiusque anni ordine
deinceps componuntur.

History is the setting out or explanation of deeds but annales indicates events of many

years brought together with some observance to the order of each year. Gellius allowed for a

difference between historic and annales, based not on content but on form which emphasized the

chronological structure.

Perhaps the most interesting treatment of annales lies in a description by the historian

Sempronius Asellio, also preserved by Aulus Gellius. Two remarks in particular illuminate

Asellio's understanding of the conventions of the form. Firstly, Gellius records this testimony of

Asellio:

"Verum inter eos", inquit "qui annales relinquere voluissent, et eos, qui
res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc
interfuit. Annales libri tantummodo, quod factum quoque anno gestum
sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci
ephemerida vocant. Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset,
id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent,
demonstrate." (Gell. NA 5.18.8) 64





63 Verrius Flaccus in Gell. NA 5.18.2.
64 Sempronius Asellio frag. 1.









Asellio distinguished between writers of annales and those who wrote of res gestae, seeing

a difference in content as well as form. Books of annals told only of what was done and in what

year it happened; Asellio believed this was much like writing a diary. Asellio's own

methodology separated him from those historians he valued less. He would do more than just

say what happened, but would elucidate by what plan and by what reason things were done.

Undoubtedly influenced by Polybius, Asellio's approach to history writing was that history was

to be based on a deeper analysis of events.

Asellio explained further his historiographical choice. These remarks attend less to

content, style or form, and more to the purpose of history writing:

"Nam neque alacriores" inquit "ad rempublicam defendundam neque
segniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commovere
quicquam possunt. Scribere autem, bellum initum quo consule et quo
confectum sit et quis triumphans introierit, et eo libro, quae in bello gesta
sint, non praedicare autem interea quid senatus decreverit aut quae lex
rogatiove lata sit, neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint, iterare: id fabulas
pueris est narrare, non histories scribere." (Gell. NA 5.18.9) 65

Asellio declared annalistic writing to be useless in motivating readers to defend their

country or preventing them from doing wrong. Annals were not capable of moving readers

either for good or for ill. Asellio prescribed to history a function beyond the mere preserving of

stories; Asellio wanted his readers to use history, and not view it as entertainment. Further,

Asellio charged that to write about under whose consulship a war began and ended and who

entered the city triumphantly, and in this book to write of what things were done in what war, but

not to mention what the senate decreed and what law or proposal was introduced, nor to recount

with what plans things were done-this then was to write fabulas-stories-for children, and not

to write history.



65 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2.









In sum, treatments of annales by Cicero, Servius auctus, Isidore, Verrius Flaccus and

Sempronius Asellio reveal some common ground. In prose annales generally indicated a literary

work that, influenced by the annual lists kept by the pontifex maximus, described events in year-

by-year format or adhered to a strong chronological structure. Content of annales comprised

accomplishments and deeds, both internal and external, at home and abroad; subject matter

generally consisted of events along the lines of those recorded in the pontifical chronicles. The

focus of annalists, to the disappointment of Sempronius Asellio, for example, remained on the

"what" and less the "how." Most usages in these authors also understood annales as indicating

events of a remote past in which the author did not participate, historic indicating more recent

events, and ones which an author witnessed. Stylistically, annales differed from historic in that

their authors treated their subjects with few embellishments-or none at all, as Cicero

complained.

Not all annales in the Republic were written in prose. Annales in verse also influenced the

Roman use of the term. Ennius' Annales, a hexameter account in eighteen books of the history

of Rome, written up until just before his death in 169, drew on the pontifical chronicles (annales)

and contributed to the annalistic form as well. Ennius regularly inserted magistracies, triumphs,

campaign victories and defeats, doings of the Senate and more. Moreover, he structured his epic

on a chronological framework. In doing so, Ennius provided for his poem a structure which was

familiar to the Romans as well as facts which "lent his text an extra-textual authority, since they

suggest (ed) that his annales had been organized along the year-by-year model of the pontifical

chronicles."66 Ennius was not the first to write from material drawn from the pontifical




66 Beck 2005: 3. Gildenhard 2003 poses a different but compelling argument: that Ennius'
closest model in Rome's memorial culture was Fulvius Nobilior's temple to Hercules (which









chronicle, as he wrote after Fabius Pictor, but the reputation and impact of his epic provided

credibility for the annalistic structure.67

Modem uses and conceptions of the terms annales and annalists are equally complex. In

the nineteenth and twentieth century, the term annalist usually indicated a historian of little

merit.68 The term was applied to suggest a historian whose history added little to the study of

Rome. This attitude was so prevalent that entries in canonical reference works, e.g., The Oxford

Classical Dictionary (s.v. annals, annalists) speak of it. Further, annalist signified any and all of

the fragmentary historians writing before Livy regardless of the historiographical form

employed. Recently debate around a proper definition of the term has been fruitful. Firstly,

Verbrugghe has looked for a definition that rests on the ancient uses of the word, as I have.69

Secondly, Chassignet's three-volume edition of the fragmentary historians, each entitled with

some version of the term annales, has been rightly criticized for appearing to make uniform the

disparate forms the fragments utilized.70 Such critical reviews continue to emphasize the

necessity of seeing individuality, competing approaches, and unique aims in the early historians.

Indeed Marincola has called for a recognition of flexibility in historical genre.71 Borrowing from

contemporary genre studies, and consistent with literary development in the middle to late

Republic, an understanding of historiography's generic instability (pessimistically named) or



incorporated a calendar, temple dedications, lists of magistrates and more). This argument has
been happily taken up; see Goldberg 2006 and Sciarrino 2006.
67 On Ennius, see Skutsch 1985, in particular, the introduction on Ennius' sources of the
Annales. Skutsch believed Ennius modeled his Annales (including the title) on the annales
maximi, which we know certainly did not exist in a literary form (if ever) when Ennius was
writing.
68 See Cornell 1986a, esp. 55-57.
69 Verbrugghe 1989.
70 For example, see Beck 2005. Beck and Walter's own two-volume edition of the fragmentary
historians is called Diefrihen romischen Historiker, thus neatly avoiding the term.
71 Marincola 1999.









generic fluidity (more positively titled) affords a more open appraisal of the fragmentary

historians at work, and this has been a guiding framework for this study.72

Also complicating our understanding of the terms annales and annalist are the annales

maximi, the records of the pontifical chronicles traditionally said to have been published by the

pontifex maximus P. Mucius Scaevola in 80 books. This work has long been held as having

provided a skeleton of material for the early Roman historians which they then fleshed out.

Frier, and more recently Rupke, along with a number of others, have worked to minimize that

historiographical notion. Frier does so by noting that the annales maximi, derived from the stuff

of the tabulae, the whitened boards, were only one source among many which the historians

used. Frier 1979/1999 argued that Servius auctus (adAen. 1.373) does not state explicitly that

the 80 volumes were published by Scaevola, and indeed that most knowledge of the annales

maximi is derived from the Augustan writer Verrius Flaccus.73 He saw instead the material of

the white boards compiled at the end of each year in a liber annalis, which presumably was

available to those who wanted to consult documentary evidence, and Scaevola ended this

custom. The first use of the term annales maximi comes from Cicero de Oratore 2.52, who notes

only that deeds and events were posted on the white boards up until the time of Scaevola,

without crediting him with any publication. Frier called Scaevola's edition of the annales

maximi in 80 volumes a "phantom of modem scholarly speculation" and worried that the

chronicle has been cast too much and too often as the one main source of the annalistic tradition

and its form.74 Riipke, more recently, goes even further and hypothesizes that the publication of

the annales maximi was "a gargantuan fraud of literary history," that Scaevola merely wrote a


72 For recent surveys on contemporary genre studies, see Dowd et al. 2006, Frow 2006 (and the
older Beebee 1994).
73 Frier 1979/1999: 21-22.
74 Frier 1979/1999: 272.









competing history, publishing a work on Rome under the title annales maximi.75 At best a

"stylized version of the original contents of the chronicle, a published version of the annales

maximi appears not to have been utilized by the fragmentary historians.76

Annalist here signifies a historian who wrote of res internal and externae, of magistrates

and corn prices and prodigies and more; the annalist writes of material that might have been

recorded in the pontifical chronicles. Thus my construct annalistt" simply marks a historian who

proceeded year-by-year, and wrote ab urbe condita. Such use of the term annalist does not

indicate ignorance of the rich debate regarding the source material which might later have been

published as the annales maximi, which shaped ancient understanding of annales. The annalist

stands in sharp contrast to those who wrote res gestae, commentarii, and monographs.

Though there is no word in Latin for writers of annales, there are a number of Roman

authors whom the Romans themselves associated with annalistic writing. Today their work

survives only in fragments, but a sense of their historiographical aims can be gleaned from the

meager remains.77 Did the first historians of Rome write in annalistic fashion for a particular

reason? What was their purpose? Why did each choose to construct their history of Rome on an

annalistic framework?

Fabius Pictor

The first histories of Rome by Romans were written in annalistic form at the end of the

Second Punic War. Cicero de Oratore (2.52) named Cato, Fabius Pictor and Lucius Calpurnius

Piso Frugi as Rome's early historians. Fabius Pictor is indeed the earliest annalist, but Cato

avoided the form during the 160's, and Piso, an annalist, served as consul well after Pictor in

75 Ripke 1993; quotation is from Gildenhard 2003: 94.
76 Frier 1979/1999: 272.
77 On the early annalists in general and the formation of the annalistic tradition, see Badian
1966, Cornell 1986a and 1986b, Forsythe 2000: 1-11, Forsythe 2005: 59-77, Beck 2007, and
Wiseman 2007.









133. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) similarly names Pictor, and adds Alimentus

as one of the earliest writers sketching the history of Rome, and relates that Fabius Pictor and

Cincius Alimentus were both at work during the Second Punic War. Writing in Greek, these

Romans strove to serve a broad audience-both a Greek audience as well as an educated upper

class in Rome; in doing so, they desired to present themselves as versed in Greek culture and as

participants in a larger intellectual world. The Second Punic War was very likely the catalyst for

their writing.

Both Livy (2.40.10) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 7.71.1) describe Fabius

Pictor as Rome's earliest historian.78 Fabius' work, the first history of Rome written by a

Roman, was published around 210, and possibly as late as 202.79 An old patrician family, the

Fabii had received notice in Roman life as early as 304, when one Fabius painted a newly

dedicated temple to Salus on the Quirinal, hence earning the name Pictor, which was retained by

his descendants.80 Of Fabius' life we know a general outline. His date of birth is uncertain,

perhaps as early as 270 or as late as 240.81 As evidenced in his fragments, he battled against the

Ligurians in 233, and the Gauls in 225.82 He became a senator before the Second Punic War. He

also participated in the battle of Lake Trasimene.83 On the recommendation of his cousin, Fabius



78 Liv. 2.40.10 = frag. 21. Dion. Ant. Rom. 7.71.1 = frag. 20. Studies (and biographies): Miinzer
1909: 1836-1841; Gelzer 1933: 129-166; Timpe 1972: 928-969; Verbrugghe 1979: 2157-2173;
Frier 1970: 114-143; Frier 1979/1999: 227-254; von Albrecht 1997: 299-301; Beck and Walter
2001: 55-61; and Chassignet 1996/2003: LIV-LXXIII.
79 Chassignet 1996/2003: LVI summarizes the debate regarding the date of publication; one
school has Fabius publishing after the Second Punic War, another during the Second Punic War.
Chassignet herself believes it more probable that publication was during the war.
80 Chassignet 1996/2003: LIV.
81 Chassignet 1996/2003: LV. Frier 1970: 116 suggests a birthdate of 260; Frier 1979/1999: 231
and Verbrugghe 1979: 2163 both suggest around 270; and Beloch 1926: 95 prefers a date of 240.
82 Pictor's involvement with the Ligurians: Plin. HN 10.71 = frag. 29. On the Gauls, Eutr. 3.5 =
frag. 30.
83 Liv. 22. 7.1-4 = frag. 32.









traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle on behalf of the Roman Senate after the debacle at

Cannae in 216.84 Little is given by way of explanation for the choice of Fabius to visit the

oracle; perhaps an interest in Greece, his Greek language skills, his good standing in the Senate,

and his relationship to Fabius Verrucosus (Cunctator) were sufficient.85

Fabius wrote only one work, but the date of its publication is as unclear as his birth and

death dates.86 Cicero called it Graeci annales, a characterization that highlights its main

components: that Fabius wrote in Greek and that he wrote in an annalistic form.87 Today only

thirty-two fragments of that work survive.88 Fragments that survive in Latin attest to a

translation of Pictor, quite possibly carried out by one of his own relatives. The Latin translation

of Pictor can be dated very early.89

Pictor's decision to tell the story of Rome in Greek is often a primary focus of scholarship

on him. No history of Rome had yet been written by a Roman, although Greeks had already

done so at least tangentially, particularly Timaeus of Tauromenium who treated the history of

Greeks in the west down to the first Punic War.90 Pictor was thus on his own, charting a course

through waters that were not unknown, but Greek. Pictor's contemporary, Naevius, was writing


84 Chassignet 1996/2003: LV, from Plut. Fab. 18.3 and Liv. 22.57.4 and 23.11.1-6.
85 Badian 1966: 2 posits that Fabius' interest in Hellenic culture was the springboard, suggesting
that he must have been known" for it.
86 Frier 1979/1999 devotes chapter 11, "Fabii Pictores," to an attempt to date Pictor'sfloruit and
his history. He concludes that Pictor's annales were produced in the last decade of the third
century (p. 239).
87 Cic. Div. 1.43 = frag. 3.
88 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 16-54; Peter 1914: 5-39; Peter 1914: 112-116 (Latin
fragments); FGrH no. 809; Frier 1970: 152-225; Beck and Walter 2001: 62-136. Thirty-two are
collected in the 1996/2003 edition by Chassignet; similarly, Beck and Walter collect thirty-two
fragments, and Peter 1914 collects twenty-eight. Since Pictor wrote in Greek, Jacoby also
assembled his fragments as well in FGrH no. 809.
89 On the Latin translation of Fabius Pictor, see Minzer 1909: 1841-1843; Peter 1914: LXXV-
LXXXI; Gelzer: 1933:148; Frier 1970: 121-128; Frier 1979/1999: 246-253; Beck and Walter
2001: 60-61, and Chassignet 1996/2003: LVIII-LX.
90 On Timaeus, see Brown 1958 and Momigliano 1977.









a Latin historical poem of Rome while Pictor created his prose history. Latin naturally was the

language of oratory in Rome (Appius Claudius' speeches, for example), as well as funeral

speeches (e.g., Caecilius Metellus for his father).91 In both prose and poetry, Latin was in use.

But Pictor did not choose to write in Latin or to create a historical style in Latin; he would leave

that for others. Writing in Greek made sense because Greek was the language of the cultured

elite, and Greek would provide a more accessible medium to convey a history of Rome to the

world outside the city itself. In fact, the discovery of a second century inscription in Taormina

which includes Fabius Pictor in a list of Greek historians suggests that Pictor's book might have

enjoyed some widespread popularity.92 But, more importantly, Pictor's decision to write in

Greek allowed him access to the language and conventions of historiography.

Writing history was a Greek undertaking, and thus the ambitious endeavor that the Roman

Pictor undertook utilized their terms and their notions of how history was crafted. In the third

century, history writing was done in Greek even by non-Greeks. Manetho wrote Egypt's history

in Greek, Berossus wrote Babylonian history in Greek, and a Greek translation of the Bible was

created by the Jewish people. The Greeks in turn wrote histories of other civilizations in Greek;

for example, Menander of Ephesus wrote Phoenician history, or at least a history of Tyre, in

Greek. Indeed, local history in Greek was a central component of Greek historiography and in

some ways Pictor's history of Rome was just an offshoot of this.93 Though Pictor was writing a

history of his own society, his history in Greek was intended to relate Rome's growth and





91 von Albrecht 1997: 364; Momigliano 1990: 91.
92 Manganaro 1974. See also Dillery 2002: 1-23 on how the inscription grouping demonstrates
differences between Pictor and other non-Greek writers of local history in Greek (i.e., Manetho
and Berossus).
93 So Frier 1979/1999: 206.









development to the rest of the world.94 He would naturally and perhaps necessarily employ

Greek historical methodologies and principles.

When Pictor began writing his history, many Greek historiographical models were

available to him. Already the Greeks had crafted histories in many forms-foundation stories,

genealogies, "tragic history," universal history, even biography, and local histories (e.g.,

Atthidography). No tradition of yearly chronicles, however, was part of that historiography.95

Why did Pictor reject these options? The answer may lie in Pictor's Romanitas. Pictor's

choice of form appears relatively simple. As a Roman, Pictor would have been familiar with the

tradition of outlining significant events of each year. The pontifical annals, long in existence by

this point, offered not just material, but also a structure that would have been appropriate for

Rome's history, and acceptable, and uniquely native.

Unfortunately, no fragment containing any programmatic intent of Pictor survives, nor

does any fragment that manifests Pictor's decision to choose or reject an annalistic format.

Indeed, the annalistic form is not always readily apparent. Though described as annales by

Cicero (Div. 1.43), and referred to similarly by Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.6.2), the extant fragments

(none of which is a direct quotation from Pictor) suggest that Pictor's history was not quite like

the pontifical annals.96 Unlike the pontifical annals, Pictor's work did not treat each year or

period at similar length. For instance, Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) relates that Pictor (and

Alimentus later) treated Rome's foundation at great length, cursorily treated the following years,

and returned to a more detailed study in their handling of the Punic Wars. The surviving

fragments bear witness. Fragment 7c declares that Fabius' story about the twins, Romulus and


94 Badian 1966: 3; Gelzer 1934: 50 (= 1964: 98).
95 Jacoby 1949: 176-178.
96 Badian 1966: 3, footnote 12, agrees with Bomer's (1952) categorization of Pictor as an
annalist contra Gelzer 1934: 50.









Remus, comes in his first book, as one would suppose. Further, in fragment 23, Gellius (NA

5.4.1-5) preserves an etymology from the fourth book of the Fabii annales, which he called

bonae atque sincerae vetustatis libri.97 The derivation of the word in question is not of great

significance. More interesting is Gellius' remark that Fabius' words come from his libro quarto

in a narrative about an event which took place after the Gauls had captured Rome. This date

suggests that by the fourth volume of his history, Fabius Pictor had already reached the year 390.

Numerous fragments of Pictor discuss Aeneas or stories related to his arrival (e.g., frags. 1,

3, 6), the founding of the city fragss. 7a and b and c), tales from the regal period (e.g., Sabine

women in frag. 9, Tarpeia in frag. 10, Lucretia in frag. 17), as well as the kings (e.g., Tarquin in

frag. 12, Servius Tullius in frag. 13). More recent events, closer to Pictor's time, appear in

fragments 27 and 28 (on Hamilcar), 29 (battle with Ligurians, ca. 238), 30 (encroaching Gauls in

225), 31 (Hasdrubal's ambition), and 32 (Lake Trasimene, 217). Pictor appears to have not

written beyond his journey to Delphi in 216.98

Pictor's fragments provide some evidence about the scope, nature, and style of his history.

Indeed, though these fragments represent a small fraction of Pictor's history, a sense of his

historiographical aims can be discerned, and they contain elements which would become

characteristic of Roman annalistic style. Pictor began ab urbe condita, proceeded in a

chronological fashion, emphasized matters of local significance (customs, institutions, etiologies,



97 Though Gellius calls Fabius grammaticus, and hence some would not credit this fragment to
him, others have found it useful for its content. Peter classifies this fragment as part of the Latin
translation of Pictor fragg. 6 Latin Peter), but Jacoby and Frier both accept this fragment as
Pictor.
98 That Pictor himself wrote up the embassy is recorded by Appian Hann. 27.116. Frier 1970:
224 accepts this passage as a fragment, but, on the whole, this passage is not so regarded (e.g.,
Peter 1914, Beck and Walter 2001 and Chassignet 1996/2003 exclude it from their collections)
because it merely refers to Pictor writing it up and does not provide any information about
Pictor's narrative of it. On fragments vs. epitomes, see Brunt 1980b.









etymologies, topography), regularly provided names of standing consuls or generals, inserted

biographical material, lauded heroic action, displayed Roman patriotism, and privileged Rome.

Other fragments demonstrate Pictor's knowledge of Greek historiographical conventions.

Fragment 8, for example, reports the colonization of Rome in the first year of the eighth

Olympiad. Even here, however, Pictor was merely translating for his Greek audience a Roman

chronology.

Fabius Pictor's insistence on history as inquiry and his connecting of politics and morality

remained signal characteristics of later historians. Cincius Alimentus, Fabius' contemporary,

and Acilius and Postumius Albinus followed this lead; all three were senators who took up

history writing, and did so in Greek. Senatorial historiography thus forms the opening chapter of

Roman historical writing, a field which long remained a suitable occupation for the Roman

politician.

Lucius Cincius Alimentus

The biography of Pictor's contemporary, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, derives almost solely

from Livy. From a plebeian family, Cincius participated late in the Second Punic War in a

variety of capacities.99 He served as praetor in 210, and was given the task of protecting Sicily

with two legions.100 In 209, after the siege at Syracuse, Cincius was named propraetor for

Sicily.101 Although he was given further responsibilities in the next year, 208, including the




99 Minzer 1899: 2556. See also Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIII. Studies (and biographies):
Hertz 1842; Peter 1914: CI-CXVI; Bardon 1952: 30-31; Heurgon 1964; Badian 1966: 6; Frier
1970: 143-151; Frier 1979: 206-207; Verbrugghe 1982; Meister 1990: 148-149; von Albrecht
1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 137-138; Suerbaum 2002: 370-372; Chassignet 1996/2003:
LXXIII-LXXIX.
100 Liv. 26.23.1; 26.28.3; 26.28.11; 27.5.1; Broughton 1952 I: 279. All references to Broughton
1952 refer to page number, and not year.
101 Liv. 27.7.12; 27.8.16.









siege of Locri, the arrival of Hannibal hindered his task, and he returned to Rome.102 He was sent

immediately to Venusia under the consul T. Quinctius Crispinus.103 Livy reports that Cincius

was to assist in preparation of defensive measures, but before this he was captured by

Hannibal.104 This extraordinary event was to prove useful to Cincius in his history-from

Hannibal himself Cincius learned about the events of the war fragg. 10). 105 After Zama, Cincius

probably was freed.106

Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) also named Cincius as one of the earliest historians of Rome.

According to Dionysius, Cincius' history, much like Pictor's, related both ancient and more

recent events. Cincius dealt only cursorily with events further removed. Few fragments, only

thirteen, of Cincius' history survive.107

According to these few fragments, Cincius' history addressed the founding of Rome fragg.

6), the story of Romulus and Remus fragg. 5), Tarpeia fragg. 7) and the death ofMaelius fragg. 8),

all from Rome's early years. Later fragments record Cincius' participation in the Second Punic

War, in particular his capture and his subsequent opportunity to learn from Hannibal himself

about the Carthaginian crossing of the Rhone fragg. 10). Etymological stories (e.g., on Faunus,

frag. 2) round out the rest. The latest surviving material in Cincius' history refers to his capture


102 Liv. 27.25.14; 27.26.5; 27.28.13.
103 Liv. 27.29.3.
104 Liv. 31.38.3= frag. 10.
105 Liv. 21.38.3-5.
106 Liv. 30.37.3-6.
107 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 54-59; Peter 1914: 40-43 (7 frags.); FGrH no. 810; Beck
and Walter 2001: 137-147 (13 frags). Frier 1970: 226-237 also collects Cincius' fragments (7).
Verbrugghe 1982 argued successfully for the later addition of five fragments to Cincius' corpus;
Peter had not accepted two of these because he doubted the authenticity of their source, the now
widely accepted Origo Gentis Romanae. Three others were concerned with etymology, a field
which Peter concluded belonged more properly to a grammarian's work, and less a historian's.
Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXV- LXXVIII offers a precis of the concerns regarding Cincius'
fragments, including the possible identification of Cincius with another L. Cincius, who was a
contemporary of Varro.









by Hannibal; Cincius probably wrote his history some time after his release.108 Two brief

remarks, both preserved in Origo Gentis Romanae fragss. 3 and 4), tell us that Cincius' history

was at least two books long. Fragment 3 states that the prescription against moving the

household gods was written in the second book of Cincius. Fragment 4 relates that the story of

Tiberius Silvius was recorded in the first book of Lucius Cincius and the third book of Lutatius.

Both fragments are ultimately unhelpful in allowing us to gauge the length of the work.

Other testimonia do, however, provide information on Cincius' credibility. Livy 7.3.7

fragg. 9) calls Cincius diligens talium monumentorum auctor.109 Elsewhere, Livy (21.38.2-5 =

frag. 10) makes use of Cincius' firsthand information about the numbers of troops of Hannibal

that crossed into Italy. Livy suggests that Cincius would have convinced him maxime except for

the fact that he probably included the Gauls and Ligurians in his figures. Hence Cincius'

uniqueness as an eyewitness is useful to Livy but is tempered by skepticism of Cincius' incorrect

numbers. Nevertheless, Livy returns to Cincius again for numbers lost by Hannibal after he

crossed the Rhone, numbers which Livy reports that Cincius ex ipso autem audisse Hannibale.

Cincius' surviving fragments tell us little about his choice of form, or more properly, his

decision to use that form or his estimation of it. That he wrote as an annalist is discernable in his

association with Fabius Pictor fragss. 1, 5, 7), and his imitation of Pictor in topics. The subjects

of the fragments are indeed appropriate for what would become the norm for an annalistic

history-they recount foundation stories, include etymological passages which touch on

religious and local institutions, interject autobiographical material, and conclude with



108 Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXV.
109 That Cincius might demonstrate a special interest in monuments has led Frier 1970: 226 to
assign this fragment to Cincius the antiquarian and not the historian; Verbrugghe 1982: 320
attributes it to the historian. Peter's collection does not include it but Beck and Walter's edition
does.









contemporary events, as Pictor himself did. Ultimately, the paucity of fragments limits our

understanding of the scope and or nature of Cincius' history. Why he chose to write annales is

never clearly stated.

A gap of over forty years exists between the first annalists of the Hannibalic period and the

next practitioners of the form. In those intervening years, no Roman historian wrote of Rome's

ascension in the Mediterranean in any full-length narrative. When that rise was documented, it

was told not in an annalistic form, but in other forms, the historical letters of the Cornelii

Scipiones, praetextae of Ennius, Pacuvius and Accius, and the epic Annales of Ennius. The next

Roman annalists include figures such as Gaius Acilius, translator in 155 for the visiting Greek

philosophers in the Senate meeting over the Oropus controversy, and Aulus Postumius Albinus,

urban praetor in 155 who presided over the Senate meeting, and later consul in 151.110 When

Gaius Acilius and A. Postumius Albinus took up the annalistic format again in their histories,

still written in Greek, they were by no means rejecting the forms just listed. Those forms were

suitable for different purposes, but their own histories reflected the tradition set by Pictor and

Cincius and continued yearly in the pontifical annals. And while Latin was the choice of

language for epic and praetextae, the historical letters of the Cornelii Scipiones had been written

in Greek.111 And Polybius himself, the great Greek historian of the age, wrote in Greek. Writing

Roman history in Greek was still possible-though reaching the end of its time.

Aulus Postumius Albinus

Aulus Postumius Albinus112 came from a distinguished patrician family, including an

ancestor who had fought at Lake Regillus.113 Son of A. Postumius Luscus (cos. 180, censor



110 Broughton 1952 I: 454.
111 Frier 1970: 238-241.
112 Full name derives from Liv. 45.4.7; see also Fasti Cap., for the year 151.









174), the younger Postumius enjoyed a rigorous Greek education in his childhood, in part due to

his own father's similar interests.114 Polybius (39.1.3) disdainfully describes Postumius' zeal to

acquire both Greek culture and language. His patrician background and his father's own

political career allowed him a military and political career at Rome. Charged with the task of

persuading Perseus to capitulate to the Romans, he served as a young man under L. Aemilius

Paullus in Greece in 168.115 Although Postumius was unsuccessful in these efforts, Aemilius

Paullus later put him in charge of guarding Perseus and his son Philip at Amphipolis.116 A gap

of some thirteen years follows; no sources describe this time. Postumius appears again as

praetor urbanus in 155, and in that role, because the consuls were occupied outside of Rome, he

presided over the session in the Roman Senate which received the delegation of philosophers

from Athens concerning Oropus.117 The three philosophers, Carneades, Diogenes, and Critolaus,

were well treated by Postumius, due to his passion for all things Greek, and indeed the Senate

found on their behalf.118 During this same year, Postumius also advocated longer detention of

the Achaean hostages, thus perhaps demonstrating loyalty to the actions of his father who had led

the delegation after Pydna which had sent the hostages to Rome.119 Polybius, one of the

hostages, recounts that Postumius presided over the proceedings in such a way that he




113 Polyb. 39.1.2. Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CXXIV-CXXVI; Frier 1970: 253-262;
Beck and Walter 2001: 225-227, and Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIX-LXXXI. See also Munzer
1953: 903-908. Frier 1970 was most helpful for the following sketch of Postumius' life.
114 Broughton 1952 I: 387, and 404. For a stemma of Postumius' family, see Munzer 1953: 915,
and Frier 1970: 254.
115 Liv. 45.4.7.
116 Liv. 45.28.11.
117 Broughton 1952 I: 448. On the embassy from Athens, see Cic. Acad. 2.137, Gell. NA 6.14.8-
10, and Plut. Cat. Mai. 22-23. On the consuls, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica and M. Claudius
Marcellus, see Frier 1970: 248 and Broughton 1952 I: 448.
118 Frier 1970: 251-252.
119 Polyb. 33.3.3-8. On Postumius' father, cf. Frier 1970: 256-258 and Munzer 1953: 925-929.









manipulated the vote.120 Three options were placed before the Senate: release of the hostages,

opposition to this, or postponement of release until a later date. Postumius, Polybius argued,

offered only the choice of freeing the hostages or not, thus effectively creating a majority of

those opposed to liberation at the present time. Postumius' actions in this matter may well

explain Polybius' harsh words towards Postumius.121

Postumius later helped to arrange peace with Attalus II and Prusias in 154, and served as

consul in 151.122 In his consulate he and his consular colleague, L. Licinius Lucullus, were

thrown into jail by the tribunes because they had mistreated troops so severely.123 He later

retired to Thebes rather than participate in the battle at Phocis, and yet was the first to write to

the Senate describing the Roman victory.124 Polybius remarks that Postumius pretended to be ill

to avoid fighting at Phocis. Nevertheless, says Polybius, his missive to Rome supplied enough

detail so that Postumius appeared to have actually participated.

In 146 after the sack of Corinth, Postumius was part of the delegation of ten men, perhaps

even the head of the delegation, who were commissioned by L. Mummius to assure Roman

control of newly conquered Greece, and to put the new province in order.125 If he was chief of

this delegation, Postumius took up the position which his father had held some twenty years

earlier after Pydna. Postumius received statues created in his honor at Corinth, Olympia, and




120 Polyb. 33.3.3-8.
121 Frier 1970: 258 states that Polybius wrote that Postumius blocked the release of the Achaeans
for "perverse reasons."
122 Polyb. 33.13.4.10. Broughton 1952 I: 450 and 454.
123 Liv. Per. 48.16.
124 Polyb. 39.1.10-11.
125 Frier 1970: 259-259 notes that though Polybius describes the commission and their work, he
never names Postumius as part of it: e.g. 39.3.3 and 39.3.9. Cicero, in Att. 13.30.2, noted
Polybius' reticence. From Atticus Cicero later learned the names, including Postumius, whose
statue at Corinth Atticus himself saw, Att. 13.32.3.









Delphi.126 Though a philhellene, Postumius Albinus was demonstrably a loyal citizen of

Rome-no amount of respect for Greek culture changed his commitment to Roman policies that

placed Rome as the conqueror and Greece as the defeated.

Polybius recorded that Postumius tried to write both a poem and a pragmatic history in

Greek.127 Only four fragments of that history remain.128 Of these, fragments la) and lb) recount

that Postumius, in his preface to his history, asked his readers to forgive him for his inelegant

writing due to his inexperience with Greek.129 Fragment 2 (Servius auct. Aen. 9.707) concerns

the etymology of Baiae, which Servius auctus declares Postumius wrote in de adventu Aeneae.

This reference might refer to the poem that Postumius wrote. Fragment 3, on the battle between

Ascanius and Mezentius and Lausus, similarly derives from de adventu Aeneae, according to Ps.

Aurelius Victor (OGR 15.1-4). 130 The last fragment, fragment 4, relates a remark of Postumius

describing Brutus in his first book. Since both Cato and Polybius commented on Postumius'

preface, at least that piece was published by Cato's death in 149, and the rest by Polybius' death

in 118.131

These fragments do little to enlighten a reader about the nature, scope, or aims of

Postumius' history. Fragment 1 does offer some information about historiographical form-


126 Cic. Att. 13.32.3.
127 Polyb. 39.1.3.
128 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 59-61; Peter 1914: 53-54 (2 fragments); Peter 1914: 53 (1
Latin fragment); FGrH no. 812; Frier 1970: 273-279; Beck and Walter 2001: 228-231 (4
fragments).
129 Frag. la)= Polyb. 39.1.4. Frag. lb)= Gell. NA 11.8.2-3.
130 Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXII accepts both fragments as suitable material for an early book
in Postumius' prose history. Frier 1970: 264 argues that a poetic work on Aeneas by Postumius
would had to have been mentioned by the scholiasts to the Aeneid as a precedent, and hence Frier
saw these two fragments as part of a prose work by Postumius, but not belonging to the
pragmatic history mentioned by Polybius. Peter 1914 accepts Servius auctus but does not accept
the fragment preserved in Origo; Peter consistently does not accept any fragment of any historian
deriving from this source. Beck and Walter 2001 accept both.
131 Frier 1970: 263.









Polybius remarked that Postumius attempted to write a pragmatic, meaning serious, history.132

To Polybius, a pragmatic history signified one that privileged more contemporary events and

avoided types of history such as genealogies and foundation stories.133 This would intimate that

Postumius' history differed from those of his predecessors Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus.

The extant fragments, unfortunately, do not demonstrate this. Moreover, perhaps Polybius'

comment was not to be taken as truth but further degradation of Postumius.134 The two

fragments from de adventu Aeneae, if they are part of his history, and a third concerning Brutus

imply a history which was annalistic, began ab urbe condita, emphasized foundational stories,

and focused less on contemporary events. In this respect, Postumius wrote a history that

modeled itself on the histories of Pictor and Cincius. The terms employed to describe

Postumius' history are not helpful in determining either form or purpose. Whereas Polybius

called it a pragmatic history, Aulus Gellius described Postumius' works res Romanas, Servius

auctus and Ps. Aurelius Victor used the phrase de adventu Aeneae, and Macrobius spoke of

Postumius' annaliprimo.135

Although few fragments remain, Postumius is well known, chiefly for the chiding he

received from his contemporaries, Polybius and Cato, both historians. Postumius' own words for

his inadequacies are no longer extant, but Polybius, Gellius, and Cato all preserved his request

for pardon from his audience for his inelegant Greek. Such a plea allows us to assume an

audience for Postumius of upper class educated Romans and/or Greeks, for whom Pictor and



132 Polybius' choice of word enecheiresen means simply "to attempt" or "to take on," but in the
context of Polybius' dislike of Postumius might be construed as meaning that Postumius failed at
writing a serious history.
133 Polyb. 9.1-2.
134 Frier 1970: 262 states that Polybius' words on Postumius' form being pragmatic are "highly
ironic."
135 Respectively, in frag. la, frag. lb, frag. 2, frag. 3, and frag. 4.









Cincius Alimentus had written as well.136 Gellius, drawing from Cornelius Nepos, provided

Postumius' charming disclaimer: nam sum homo Romanus natus in Latio.137 Cato, in particular,

was displeased with Postumius' decision to write in Greek when no one had pressured him to do

so (although had the Amphyctionic Council demanded it Cato might have been more lenient).138

Cato's argument implied that, in the mid-second century, Postumius had a choice of language in

which to write his history. Historiography in Rome was changing-Cato himself was working

on the first Roman history in Latin.

Postumius' choice of historiographical form gets lost in the din raised over his inadequate

language skills. Polybius remarked that Postumius not only did not have mastery of the language

but he also did not have mastery of the treatment or arrangement (kata ton cheirismon

oikonomias), which may imply a lack of ability in Greek historiographical conventions.

Regardless, Postumius' history seems not to have greatly influenced later writers. Cicero says

Postumius wrote a historic in Greek (not annales), and called him litteratus and disertus,

presumably for his speeches which Cicero might have known.139 Dionysius of Halicarnassus

does not mention him, whether unknown or unremarkable, we cannot say.

Gaius Acilius

Lastly, Gaius Acilius, a contemporary of Postumius, wrote a history in Greek too, and he is

traditionally grouped with those Roman writers in Greek not just for language choice but also for

136 Polyb. 39.1.6 preserves Cato's opinion, part of which can be found as well in Plut. Cat. Mai.
12.6.
137 Gell. NA 11.8.5. = frag. lb. Gellius claims that this line was derived from Cornelius Nepos
on Postumius. The citation in Latin suggests that a Latin translation of Postumius' Greek history
may have been in circulation. See also Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXIII. Fragment 4 (on
Brutus) is similarly in Latin, and adds weight to the argument that a Latin version might have
existed. Peter 1914: CXXV argued against a Latin version, but Chassignet, Beck and Walter and
Frier 1970 all accept a Latin version in circulation.
138 Cato's rejoinder is preserved in Polyb. 39.1.6, who doubtless agreed with Cato. For more on
Cato's reaction to Postumius, see Gruen 1992: 257.
139 Cic. Brut. 81.









historiographical form. He is traditionally called an annalist. Of Gaius Acilius' life we know

little for certain, including his name which appears differently.140 Of his career, we know only

that he was a senator who served as interpreter for the Athenian philosophers during their

embassy to Rome and visit to the Senate in 155, the same meeting which Postumius presided

over as praetor.141

Eight fragments survive of Acilius' history.142 These include foundation stories fragss. 1

and 3), an etymological passage associated with Aeneas fragg. 2 on Cimmerium), and fragments

closer in time to Acilius' own period (e.g., frags. 5, 6 and 7 having to do with Hannibal or the

Hannibalic war). No fragments on Rome's history between the period of the kings and the Punic

Wars survive. The content of the latest fragment dates to 184. Thus these fragments comprise

the same kind of topics and scope as the earlier Greek annalists, including perhaps the

autobiographical tendencies of the earlier annalists. Fragments 7 and 8 display some slight

evidence of enmity between Acilius and the Scipios and Cato.143 Fragment 7 (= Liv. 35.14.5-12)

relates the dialogue between Scipio and Hannibal, one which does not portray Scipio in a

positive light. Fragment 8 (= Dion Ant. Rom. 3.67.5) appears to exaggerate purposely expenses

associated with a building project of Cato in 184. Another fragment attests to Acilius' interest in

Greek culture fragg. 1 on Rome as a Greek foundation); perhaps this can be read not just as



140 Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXVI cites, for example, "Acilius" in Cic. Off 3.115, yet
"Akillios" in Dion. Ant. Rom. 3.67.5 (= frag. 8). Acilius' cognomen is not mentioned anywhere.
Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CXXI-CXXIII; Bardon 1952: 70-71; Badian 1966: 6-7;
Frier 1970: 267-272; Frier 1979: 208-209 and 249-50; Meister 1990: 148-149; von Albrecht
1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 232-233; Suerbaum 2002: 375-376; Chassignet 1996/2003:
LXXXVI-LXXXVIII.
141 Gell. NA 6.14.9: Et in senatum quidem introducti interpreted usi sunt C. Acilio senator. Plut.
Cat. Mai. 22.5 describes Acilius with praise.
142 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 62-65; Peter 1914: 49-52 (6 fragments); FGrH no. 813;
Frier 1970: 280-295; Beck and Walter 2001: 234-241 (8 fragments).
143 Frier 1970: 270-271.









indicative of Acilius' erudition and membership in elite Roman society but also as indicative of

Acilius' knowledge of historiographic convention. These fragments manifest what had become

traditional material and form for annales.

Despite this, contradictory titles are given to his work. Fragment 3 (= Cic. Off. 3.115)

states that Acilius Graece scripsit historian. Acilius' work is called Annales Acilianos in

fragment 6 (= Liv. 25.39.11), and Graecos Acilianos libros in fragment 7 (= Liv. 35.14.5).

Historiographic form is not explicitly addressed by Acilius in the surviving fragments, and

unsurprisingly, whether history, annales or books, Acilius' history, due to a paucity of

fragments, adds little new to our understanding of the conventions of annales. Nor does Acilius

himself, in the extant fragments, divulge any purpose for his history, any estimation of the form

(or language) he used, or any indication of how his history differed from his contemporary

Postumius or those Greek annalists before him. It was significant enough to be translated by a

certain Claudius, possibly the historian Claudius Quadrigarius.144 Acilius' history was known to

many who preserved his fragments: Cicero, Dionysius, Plutarch, Strabo, and Livy (through the

Latin version). Nonetheless, he remains a shadowy figure.

Cato, as we saw, thought little of the Graeci annales. His famous insult of Aulus

Postumius Albinus' Greek skills may have hastened the end of Roman history writing in Greek.

Fabius Pictor and the other Greek annalists, however, had begun to shape both Roman history

and Roman historiography. These annalists had set in place essential characteristics of Roman

historiography-history was to be didactic, annalistic, cognizant of Greek historiography, written

by the senatorial class, and centered on the political. Roman history would proceed in an



144 Peter 1914: CXXII and von Albrecht 1997: 375 claim there is no evidence to support this
identification but others, especially Frier 1979/1999 do accept it. See Chapter 3 for Claudius
Quadrigarius.









annalistic form ab urbe condita, seek out foundation stories and aetia and hence look to provide

respectability for the noble classes and particular families.145 Writing history was, in the third

and middle of the second century, the responsibility of those who participated in Roman politics.

Through their histories, senators could record their experiences, pass down their stories to a

younger generation, and hence glorify the nation of Rome. The annalistic form provided a native

and workable structure for this formidable task.





































145 On the phenomenology of etiogology in early Roman historiography, see Poucet 1985.









CHAPTER 3
ADAPTERS: THE LATIN ANNALISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY

In the second century, historians elaborated on the themes of the earlier annalists, at times

using their form, and at other times rejecting it. The first history of Rome written in Latin,

Cato's Origines, incomplete at his death in 149, rejected the annalistic form and addressed the

history of Rome using a thematic scheme. He also recounted the origins of other Italian cities as

well as Rome. Annalistic history, however, continued to be the form of choice for authors in the

second century such as Lucius Cassius Hemina Lucius, Calpumius Piso Frugi, and Sempronius

Tuditanus.146 Cnaeus Gellius, too, chose to write annales, filling possibly thirty-three books that

differed from Cato's not only in form but also in size. Possibly filling in gaps in his sources,

Gellius accorded more space to the early years of Rome in his lengthy study. This approach to

history writing was mimicked by others, and the "expansion of the past, as Badian has called it,

became a regular, if not scrupulous, characteristic of some of the historians from the Roman

Republic.147 These historians are (and were) accused of filling out the past, creating one where

there was no source material on which a history might be based.148

Against the backdrop of annalistic history, the second century witnessed innovations in

Roman historiography. A focus on recent or contemporary history appears, for example, in the

history of G. Fannius (cos. 122), who displayed his antipathy to the Gracchi in his history.149

Coelius Antipater, writing around 120, took as his single subject a history of the Second Punic



146 On historians of the second century in general, see Balsdon 1953, Badian 1966: 7-18, and
Forsythe 2000.
147 Badian 1966: 11.
148 On the debate over the credibility of the historians, see Cornell 1995, who is accused of
trusting the annalists too much, and Wiseman 1979, who argued that the annalists practiced
invention. A brief precis of the debate and its repercussions on historiography scholarship can be
found in Kraus and Woodman 1997: 5-6.
149 Badian 1966: 14.









War and hence inaugurated the form of the historical monograph in Rome.150 The late second

century Sempronius Asellio wrote res gestae, more a history of his own time, and, disparaging

the annalistic form, he claimed that his history did more than list events and magistrates.151

Roman historiography was developing new practices: an interest in contemporary events, a

desire to explain rather than list, and an effort to connect history to present politics (e.g., the

Gracchan crisis), not just those of the past. This type of history (local, contemporary,

monographs) will be taken up in Chapter 4. Despite other options, however, the annalistic form

flourished in the second century.

Many historians produced annales in the second century.152 Of these, four, Cassius

Hemina, L. Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, and Cn. Gellius, demonstrate best the

enduring conventions and appeal of the form. This chapter looks to these historians, whose

works considerably influenced others, were deemed reputable or meaningful by the Romans

themselves, and whose works survive in great numbers or whose historiographical concerns we

can discern. Specifically, in these historians we will look for their use of the annalistic form, and

when possible, their perception of that form and its functions.

Lucius Cassius Hemina

In the mid second century, it was still possible to write Rome's history in Greek as Acilius

and Postumius proved, or tried to prove. Nevertheless, Cato was about to put an end to history

writing in Greek. His Origines, the first history of Rome in Latin, offered the possibility of


150 von Albrecht 1997: 381.
151 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2. As earlier, all fragments in this dissertation come from
Chassignet.
152 Two historians of the second century whose works are barely known are Vennonius, known
by name only, and Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (cos. 142). Vennonius' annalistic work
survives in only two fragments which tell us little of the work's scope; likewise Servilianus'
work is little known, surviving in only three fragments. Because we know so little about them,
they are passed over here but are included in the appendix.









writing history in Rome's native tongue. Alongside Cato at the head of history writing in Latin,

at least chronologically, stands L. Cassius Hemina.153 A near contemporary of Cato, Hemina

also produced a history of Rome. Little is known of his life. History writing, following Fabius'

model, was done by Roman men of the upper-class, typically by those who held political office

at some level. No such political career can be discovered, however, for Cassius Hemina, but the

cultural model for historians before and after presumes one. Additionally, both his name Cassius

and praenomen Lucius (as named by Priscian in fragment 28) suggest familial ties to the gens of

the Cassii Longini. This family served Rome faithfully, producing seven consuls and two

censors between the years 171 and 73.154

Hemina's work is called annales fourteen times by five different authors.155 Other authors,

however, describe Hemina's work as historiae; three authors in seven fragments use this

appellation, while the grammarian Nonius calls Hemina's history both annales and historiae.156

Hemina's work consisted of four, or possibly five, books. Consistent with the annalists before

him, Hemina's history began with the earliest stories of Rome and continued to his time. These

volumes begin with the pre-Romulean period in Book 1, followed by the period of the kings and

the early Republic in Book 2, the First Punic War in Book 3, and the Bellum Punicum posterior



153 Studies (and biographies): Martha 1902/3: 108-113; Peter 1914: CLXV-CLXXIII; Bardon
1952: 73-77; Rawson 1976: 690-702; Forsythe 1990; von Albrecht 1994: 304-305; Santini 1995:
11-70; Chassignet 1998; Beck and Walter 2001: 242-245; and Chassignet 1999/2003: IX-XVI.
154 Forsythe 1990: 326. On the political offices of the Cassii Longini, see Broughton 1952 I:
416, 439, 449, 507, 510, 550, II: 9, 109. Forsythe 1990: 326 sees a connection to this aristocratic
family. Beck and Walter 2001: 242 do not, however, rule out a plebeian-friendly tone in
Hemina's history. Frag. 28 = Prisc. Inst. 9, p. 482 H.
155 Chassignet 1999/2003: XI. Pliny the Elder fragg. 40), Aulus Gellius fragg. 12), Servius
auctus fragg. 25), Priscian fragg. 28, 32, 33, 34, 35) and Nonius fragg. 20, 24, 27, 31, 36, 39)
describe Hemina's work as annales.
156 Chassignet 1999/2003: XI. Macrobius, Diomedes, and Nonius title the work historiae in
fragments 9, 13, 14, 19, 23, 37, and 38. Nonius calls the work annales in frags. 20, 24, 27, 31,
and 39; he titles them historiae in frags. 9, 13, 19, 37, and 38.









in Book 4. The content of Book 4 is, however, problematic. Despite its title, at least three of

Hemina's fragments, fragments 40, 41, and 42, date to the years after the war with Hannibal.

These could belong to a fifth and separate book (although Hemina might have included material

after the Second Punic War in his last book); there is no reference to a fifth book.

The date of publication rests on the title given to Book 4, Bellum Punicum posterior, as

recorded in fragment 34 (= Prisc. Inst. 7, p. 374 H), which suggests that the third Punic War had

not yet begun at the time of his writing.157 The inference is that Hemina did most of his writing

prior to 149.158 Fragment 42 provides a end date of the fourth secular games of 146, carried out

while Cassius Hemina was alive; possibly Hemina was writing a fifth volume between 149 and

146.159

Chassignet collects 43 fragments of Cassius Hemina, and these bear witness to Hemina's

upholding of the conventions of annalistic history.160 These fragments consider foundation

stories associated with Rome (e.g., frags. 6 and 8 on Aeneas, frag. 14 on Romulus and Remus),


157 Priscian tells us that Cassius Hemina inscribed the fourth book of his annals with the title
Bellum Punicum posterior (sic).
158 This premise is accepted by Peter 1914: CLXV, Chassignet 1999/2003: XII-XIII, and Santini
1995. Rawson 1976: 70-1-702 and Forsythe 1990 add a different end point; Forsythe makes the
argument for a date for publication as late as 120, based on comparisons with allegedly similar
fragments ofL. Calpurnius Piso, whose work he wants to date to the post censorship years of
Piso. In particular, Forsythe 2000: 334 wants to date fragment 20 to the agrarian disputes around
the time of Tiberius Gracchus. Chassignet 1999/2003: 103 prefers an early date from the
Struggle of the Orders. Cornell 1995: 451 similarly is not convinced by Forsythe's 1990
argument to date the plebitas fragment to the time of Ti. Gracchus though Beck and Walter
2001: 262 find it not unreasonable. Forsythe 1990: 328 also notes that we have no evidence that
the phrase Bellum Punicum posterior was Hemina' s.
159 Frag. 42 = Censorinus DN 17.11.
160 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 2-16; Peter 1914: 98-111 (40 fragments); Beck and Walter
2001: 246-281 (43 fragments), and Santini 1995: 72-105 (43 fragments). The difference
between Peter and the more recent editions of fragments of Hemina is, firstly, the inclusion of a
fragment from Origo Gentis Romanae (Peter consistently doubted the authenticity of this work
in his collection of the historical fragments) and, secondly, the decision to separate out three
distinct mentions of lines of Cassius Hemina in Nonius p. 510 L; Peter had grouped this all as
one fragment.









etiologies (e.g., frag. 4 on the origin offana), etymologies, particularly of town names (e.g.,

frags. 3 and 4), and an interest in religious institutions fragss. 15 and 16). The history has a

strong chronological structure, naming key figures such as Aeneas and Romulus and Remus, as

above, as well as Numa and Tarquinius Superbus. Yet Hemina's work seems to differ from

those annales before him in that his surviving fragments show very little interest in political or

military concerns of Rome. No fragment treats any war, battle, alliance, federation or even

diplomatic overtures made by Rome, with the exception of fragment 24 which cites Marcius'

first arming of the proletariat in 280.161

Instead, more than half of the extant fragments concern Hemina's use of vocabulary or

grammatical constructions deemed uncommon or of interest to later grammarians. Twenty-three

of the fragments derive from the grammarians Solinus, Nonius and Priscian, who noted

Hemina's particular use of words such as ilico fragss. 9-11), censere fragg. 19), plebitas fragg.

20), proletari fragg. 24),fremere fragg. 25), demolire fragg. 26), denasci fragg. 27), cymbalissare

fragg. 30), litterosus fragg. 31), messui fragg. 32), nostratis fragg. 33), eabus fragg. 35), consedo

fragg. 36), utrasque fragg. 37), a feminine version of finis fragg. 38), and lacte fragg. 39). Priscian

also found of interest two grammatical usages by Hemina of the comparative fragg. 34 posterior),

and the deponent fragg. 43 adhortati). Thus twenty-five fragments, fifty-eight percent of

Hemina's preserved work, survive for their archaic vocabulary and not for their content.





161 Frag. 24 = Nonius p. 93L. The text of this fragment is corrupt; the manuscript codd. reads
praecox. Beck and Walter 2001: 267 usepraeco, whereas Chassignet 1999/2003: 10 prefers
praetor. Peter's text (1914: 105) usespraeco, and Santini 1995: 94 readspro consule. See
Santini's commentary on the manuscript variations (Santini 1995: 176). All are in agreement
over a possible date for the fragment; the Marcius named appears to be the consul of 281, Q.
Marcius Philippus. The arming of the proletariat would have been part of Rome's initiative
versus Pyrrhus in 280 (perhaps celebrated by Ennius in Annales vv. 183-185 V2).









Grammatical usages most commonly conserve just a few words out of context; as such,

vocabulary and a few grammatical constructions allow us to say little, with certainty, about

Hemina's style. A few longer fragments, however, provide material with which to assess his

style. Leeman noted approvingly the sophistication of fragment 14, the "complicated phrase-

pattern" of fragment 16, and the oratio obliqua with accusativus cum infinitivo in fragment 40.162

Although most fragments provide little concerning the content of Hemina's history, the

fragments preserving Hemina's use ofplebitas fragg. 20) andproletari fragg. 24) may indicate a

focus on the plebeian class in his history, as Beck and Walter have conjectured.163 Fragment

31's chance remark from Hemina's third book, "homo mere litterosus," has been interpreted to

mean a disdainful attitude towards those authors who were merely "bookish" and not politically

involved, as presumably historians ought to be.164 Certainly Priscian's preservation of the title of

Hemina's book four, Bellum Punicum posterior, in his discussion of uses of the comparative is

of vital importance. Yet, as is common in the grammarians, Priscian's interest lay only in the

word posterior, and not, unfortunately, in the content of Hemina's book four.

Despite the relatively little content that survives from Hemina's history in the

grammarians, we can pose a few comments about both content and his interests from other

fragments, and perhaps his intentions behind history writing. Yet, as is the case with the

annalists in Greek, there are no extant verbatim quotations which detail Hemina's ambitions for

his history, his motivations, nor his assessment of the annalistic form. Simply put, we have no



162 Leeman 1963: 72. Leeman uses Peter's collection of fragments, hence frags. 14, 16, and 40
in Chassignet 1999/2003 = frags. 11, 13, and 37 Peter. Martha 1903: 113 finds fault, however,
with Hemina's style but Bardon 1952: 76 sees instead progress in Latin in "l'organisation
savante" of frag. 13 Peter (= frag. 16 Chassignet).
163 Beck and Walter 2001: 242.
164 So argues Rawson 1976: 691, who thought this fragment might hint at "Polybian and other
historiographical controversies."









words from Hemina himself concerning his choice of form in which he wrote his history. What

we do have is Hemina's apparent independence.

Of particular interest in assessing Hemina is his disagreement with earlier historians in at

least two instances: the portent of the sow and thirty piglets appearing to Romulus and Remus in

Rome, and the nature of the Penates, which Hemina likens to gods from Samothrace. Hemina

thus demonstrates at least some independent thinking, maybe even conscious disagreement with

Rome's history available at the time, and thereby provides to us a motive for his own alternative

history of Rome.

Fragment 14, for example, on the origin of the shrine to the Lares Grundiles, of which no

traces remain, not only preserves one of the rare occurrences in Latin literature of this aspect of

the Lares,165 but might also act as a case study for Hemina's willingness to diverge from the

historical tradition. In this fragment preserved in Diomedes, the citizens of Rome witness the

equal dividing of power between Romulus and Remus. A monstrum then happened: a sow

feeding thirty pigs, and Romulus and Remus created a shrine to the Lares Grundiles. Hemina

thus assigned the foundation of the cult of Lares Grundiles to Romulus and Remus who (rather

than Aeneas) saw the sow and thirty piglets. According to both Fabius Pictor and Cato, it was

Aeneas and his men who witnessed the sow and thirty pigs; Cato said the site was Lavinium,

Fabius Pictor argued for Alba.166 Hemina's etiology may have served as the impetus here; in a

search for the origin of the shrine of the Lares Grundiles, he cites upon the famous portent of the





165 Frag. 14 = Diomedes, p. 379 L. The notice to Hemina is part of Diomedes' more full
discussion of the use of the word grundio. Grundiles appears elsewhere only in Nonius 114.31
and Arnobius 1.15. No physical evidence of a shrine to the Grundiles survives nor indeed does
such a shrine have an entry in either Richardson 1992 or Claridge 1998.
166 Fabius Pictor frag. 5a; Cato, frag. 14a. Cf. Rawson 1976: 697.









pigs.167 More significantly, in fragment 14, Hemina's approval of the joint rule of Romulus and

Remus might reflect a prefiguration of the consulship.168 For our purposes, this fragment

showcases Hemina's willingness to diverge from the other accounts of the same story.

Elsewhere, Hemina also differed from Cato on, for example, the size of land given by Latinus

fragg. 8).169

A number of other facets to Hemina's work survive in his fragments. Although Hemina

was once dismissed as dimidiatus Cato and relegated to a footnote, recently scholars have tried

to rehabilitate him.170 They rest their case on Hemina's apparent interests in, among other

subjects, religion (monuments, institutions, and rites), euhemerism, and Greek culture. These

fragments survive in a variety of sources for a variety of reasons; these preservers found Hemina

a reliable source himself.

Religious matters (institutions, monuments, shrines) are a topic of at least eight fragments

of Hemina. These fragments consider Numa's religious laws fragss. 15 and 16), the etiologies of

the shrines to Ara Maxima fragg. 5) and to Lares Grundiles fragg. 14), the etymology of the word

fana fragg. 4), the origin of the Penates fragg. 7), and the discovery of the Sybilline books fragg.

40).





167 Hence Rawson 1976: 697 describes Hemina's work here as part of his love of "rash
etymologies."
168 Chassignet 1998: 327, Rawson 1976: 698-699, and Santini 1995: 152.
169 Hemina fragg. 8 = Solin. 2.14) says five hundred iugera, Cato fragg. 8 = Serv. adAen.
11.316) says IIDCC.
170 Klinger 1965: 66 declared Hemina dimidiatus Cato. Of late, Rawson in 1976 examined
Hemina as well as L. Calpurnius Piso and Gn. Gellius, and called Hemina "the most interesting
of our trio" (1976: 690). Forsythe 1990, a long article, and Santini 1995, a monograph on the
fragments with commentary, have directed more careful attention to Hemina's fragments, though
Forsythe 1990:341 still relegates Hemina to a tier below, emphasizing Hemina's patterning of at
least his first book after the second and third books of Cato's Origines.









Hemina also displays a keen interest in etymologies and etiologies; these concern Roman

religion, as above, toponymy fragg. 2 on Aricia and frag. 3 on Crustumerium), and institutions or

customs fragg. 17 on Servius Tullius' creation of the nundinae, and frag. 21 on the first

intercalary). Most of the fragments which contain etiologies or etymologies relate to the early

years of Rome's history. Hemina's methodology in these fragments consists of presumably

posing the question regarding the origin and then providing an answer of either an individual or

an event.171 Hemina's curiosity regarding the origins of Rome fits with previous annalists'

similar attention to the same matters. Hemina's interest in etiologies and etymologies signals an

inclination towards antiquarianism which was also shared by previous annalists.

Hemina also demonstrated an interest in Greek culture. His fragments on the Penates (in

which he used Greek terms and not Roman versions of them), the origin of Aricia fragg. 2), and

Homer and Hesiod fragg. 12) suggest a willingness to include the Greeks in a Roman history.172

Further, from the Greeks (and Ennius as well), Hemina might have picked up an interest in

euhemerism. The belief that great men became gods was popular across the Mediterranean

world, especially in the former Hellenistic kingdoms. Fragments on Saturn fragg. 1), Faunus

fragg. 4), and fragment 8 from Solinus, which treats the identification of Aeneas as Pater Indiges,

suggest a deep interest in euhemerism.

Let me close with a few final comments about Hemina. Of interest is that he chose to

write in annalistic form while his contemporary Cato rejected that format; carrying on the

received traditions of annales, Hemina included etymologies and etiologies in his work, and


171 A fuller discussion of Hemina's techniques and functions in etiologies and etymologies can
be found in Chassignet 1998.
172 Other fragments such as those on Aeneas being allowed to pass through the Greeks
unharmed fragg. 6), and Diomedes giving the Palladium to Aeneas fragg. 8) also indicate
Hemina's willingness to incorporate Greek history into his Roman narrative, although, of course,
it would be difficult to avoid these subjects in a discussion of Aeneas.









displayed a chronological structure. Notable too is that Hemina displayed independence with

regards to content. His last book, if it was devoted to the second Punic War, might indicate a

movement towards monographs, as in Coelius Antipater's monograph on the Punic War.173

Unfortunately, only one of Hemina's surviving fragments derives from a historian,

fragment 22 from Appian, which suggests that perhaps Hemina's history was not well received

by his own peers. Pliny the Elder describes Hemina as vetustissimus fragg. 40) and

antiquissimus auctor fragg. 29) but does not refer directly to the work by Hemina. Livy, Cicero,

and Dionysius of Halicamassus either do not know him or do not use him openly.174 Plutarch

does not mention him either, which makes Appian not only the only historian to cite Cassius, but

also the only Greek writer to do so.15 The absence of a broader reception of Hemina's history

may mean simply that Hemina's work was not good or at least not as good as what followed

him, or perhaps not widely known. In the competition for historical validity, Hemina looks to

have lost.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso

The history by L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi enjoyed a better reception. Cited by historians as

well as collectors of knowledge, Piso structured his history of Rome on a clearly annalistic

frame. Few verbatim quotations survive, however, and there remains no statement by Piso of his



173 So Chassignet 1999/2003: XVI contends, though she notes that Santini 1995: 33-34, in
particular, sees less of an innovation in Hemina's book four focus and more of a proof that the
difference between annales and historic would not be marked until Coelius Antipater.
174 Forsythe 1990: 344 posits Hemina as the source for later historians. Rawson 1976: 690,
footnote 3, mentions Meyer's "isolated suggestion" that Hemina was the source behind Diodorus
Siculus, an argument which Chassignet 1999/2003: XV finds unconvincing. Forsythe 1990: 344
goes so far as to say that "much of the information contained in the history was incorporated"
into the works of Hemina's successors.
175 Appian is so late that there was very likely a middle man between the two who read Hemina,
and Appian drew his information from him. Unfortunately, we do not know whether Appian
read Hemina directly nor do we know what his source might have been.









intentions, historiographical aims, or purpose of his recording of Roman history in that form. No

preface survives.

L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Censorius lived and flourished around the same time as Cassius

Hemina and at the end of Cato's life. Though all three were writing Roman history

contemporaneously-more or less-, Cato's history covered Italy as well as Rome and rejected

the annalistic form, Cassius Hemina emphasized religious matters, and Calpurnius Piso picked

up and focused on other traditional content of annales, the political and the military affairs.

Calpurnius Piso came from a plebeian family that was to become heavily involved in Roman

politics; Cn. Piso and L. Piso Caesonius served as consuls, in 139 and 148. Calpurnius Piso

himself served as tribune of the plebs in 149, was author of the lex Calpurnia de pecuniis

repetundis in 149, consul in 133, censor in 120, and praetor at an unknown date.176 Calpurnius

Piso was thus a historian as well as an important politician, and an accomplished orator.177

Piso wrote one work, called the Annales in sixteen fragments; it is called Historiae in one

citation, Commentarii in another, and Epitomae once as well. In seven books, Piso recounted

Roman history from pre-history until his time, at least until 146, the last date attested in the

surviving fragments fragg. 42 = Censorinus DN 17.11). Piso related prehistory and the period of

the kings in the first book, the Republic down to 304 in the second and third books, and the

remaining books (four through seven) detailed Piso's own time. A possible eighth book might





176 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: 120-138; Latte 1968: 837-847; von Albrecht 1994:
378-379; Forsythe 1994; Beck and Walter 2001: 282-285; and Chassignet 1999/2003: XIX-
XXVIII. See Broughton 1952 I: 459 for Piso's tribuneship, 492 for consulship, and 523 for
censor. On Piso and the lex Calpurnia, see Cic. Brut. 27.106 and Off 2.21. Piso's creation of
the lex Calpurnia was one of the most significant acts of his career; this law was the first of the
so-called "recovery" laws. Richardson 1987 recounts its creation and its purpose.
177 Cic. Brut. 106.









have treated events after 146, in particular his consulship (133), and censorship (120), as argued

by Forsythe.178

Forty-eight fragments of Piso survive.179 These include citations by the historians

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, and Plutarch, the encyclopedists Varro and Pliny the Elder,

grammarians or similarly minded authors including Priscian, Gellius, Censorinus and Macrobius,

as well as Tertullian, Cicero, Arnobius, and Lydus. The majority of the fragments, seventeen,

derive from the encyclopedists, those collectors of knowledge, and from the historians, thirteen

fragments. Piso's history attracted more attention for its content than for its style. In contrast to

Cassius Hemina whose work was the source for many citations by grammarians on unique uses

of language and vocabulary, Piso seems not to have found much favor among the grammarians.

Only two fragments concern Piso's vocabulary choices fragg. 19 from Priscian regarding allicuit,

and frag. 20, also from Priscian, on ignosciturum). Moreover, as we saw earlier, only one

fragment of Cassius Hemina is cited by a historian, and only four by the encyclopedist Pliny the

Elder; Piso's work was more attended to by the mainstream of Latin authors.

Almost half of the extant fragments of Piso treat material from Rome's prehistory or the

period of kings, from Book 1 of Piso's history. Among those fragments are stories relating to

etymologies (e.g., frag. 1 on the origin of Italia, frags. 2 and 3 on Cimmerium), the creation of

Roman legends, institutions or places (e.g., frag. 7 on Tarpeia, frag. 8 on the Lacus Curtius, frag.

9 on games for Jupiter Feretrius, frag. 11 on the Janus Gate, frag. 18 on Tarquin's temple to

Jupiter on the Capitoline, and frag. 22 on the statue of Cloelia), and practices of early Roman


178 Forsythe 1994: 32-36 promotes a date of publication after 120, based on correlations between
Pisonian fragments and those of Cassius Hemina. Chassignet 1999/2003: XXV does not
commit, though she views as reasonable the supposition that Piso took up writing after he
finished his cursus honorum.
179 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 18-39; Peter 1914: 98-111 (40 fragments); Forsythe 1994:
426-497 (49 fragments); and Beck and Walter 2001: 286-329 (43 fragments).









kings (e.g., frag. 10 on Romulus' spare drinking and frags. 12 and 15 on Numa's calling down

lightning).

Piso's fragments reveal an annalistic framework; in fact, Forsythe claims Piso to be the

first historian to make extensive use of the then recently published annales maximi.so In

asserting this, Forsythe agrees to the traditional (since Mommsen) story of publication of the

annales maximi by P. Mucius Scaevola (Piso's consular colleague of 133) in eighty books.181

The published volumes were based on the whitened tablets which contained annual entries made

by the pontifex maximus including the names of the consuls and other magistrates, and religious

matters and events, including portents and prodigies, as well as domestic and military events,

such as triumphs.182 According to Forsythe, Piso appears to have made use of this collection of

material; his seven-volume history rests on a traditional chronological format, and contains

material that Forsythe believes was available to him only through the pontifical annales

maximi. 183 Of particular note is one fragment that cites both Piso and the annales maximi, and

thus brings to the forefront the question of Piso's relationship to this source. Fragment 28 (=

OGR 18.3) chronicles the death of Aremulus Silvius, an Alban king, who, according to the fourth

book of the annales maximi and the second book of Piso's epitomess," was struck by lightning,

caught up in a tornado, and tossed into the Alban lake. Such a prodigious moment, placed in

Piso's book two, which recounted the early Republic, could have come from pontifical records

which would have contained such prodigies. Other Pisonian fragments might have derived from

the detailed pontifical records, including Piso's version of Tullus Hostilius' death by lightning


180 Forsythe 2000:8 says that Piso was the first historian "to utilize fully the potential" of the
annales maximi.
181 On the annales maximi, their compilation, history, materials, see Frier 1979/1999, and refer
to the earlier discussion in Chapter 1.
182 Servius auct. adAen. 1.373.
183 Forsythe's discussion of Piso and the annales maximi can be found in Forsythe 1994: 53-73.









fragss. 12 and 15). To Forsythe, Piso "seems to be the first" to record this story of his death.184

Both stories, both concerning prodigies, might have had their source in the pontifical records.

Elsewhere the annalistic form, and material suitable to pontifical records, continue to

appear itself in Piso's later fragments, those dealing with the Republic. Several citations speak

of political posts by year (e.g., frag. 29 on consuls, frags. 30 and 31 on curule aediles, frag. 39 on

consuls in the 600th year, frag. 42 on consuls for the 608th year). Still other fragments relate

military matters, a common hallmark of annalistic history. These include fragments, for

example, on the creation of the first navy fragg. 32) and on victorious commanders with details,

some important, some not, of triumphs (e.g., frag. 34 on the myrtle crown ofPapirius Maso, cos.

231, frag. 37 on the triumph of Gn. Manlius Vulso in 186, and frag. 33 on the introduction of

elephants to the circus after the victory of Metellus over the Carthaginians at Panormus in 250).

Triumphal notices were a common feature of pontifical records, and Piso's work perhaps draws

directly on the published annales maximi.15 Moreover, Forsythe contends that Piso is the first

Roman historian whose extant work records specific data on triumphs.186 Such precise

information suggests that the recording of triumphs was important and integral to his history, and

more importantly, that Piso found this material from "documentary sources, such as the annales

maximi."187

Piso's fragments regarding the secession of the plebs fragg. 24) and the election of the

tribunes fragg. 25) are the "earliest surviving annalistic data on the early history of the plebeian

tribunate."188 Both are preserved in Livy. Fragment 24 (= Liv. 2.32.3) offers a variant for the



184 Forsythe 2000: 9.
185 Forsythe 1994: 370.
186 Forsythe 1994: 370-371.
187 Forsythe 1994: 370.
188 Forsythe 2000: 10.









site of the secession of the plebs, one site Livy did not credit. Unrest in Rome because of tension

between the classes and great indebtedness led to the first secession of the plebeians and the

institution of the plebeian tribune in 494. Fragment 25 (= Liv. 2.58.1), similarly refers to the

establishment and evolution of the tribunate; in it Piso details the expansion of the number of

tribunes from two to five. Written during the Gracchan age, a period during which the tribunate

was the focus of much controversy, these fragments provide important material for conjecturing

how contemporaries of the Gracchan revolution revisited the Roman past.

That Piso was cited by historians and encyclopedists points to his reputation as an

authority in Roman history. Indeed, Pliny the Elder named him twice a gravis auctor fragss. 12

and 41). He is cited by different authors as proof for the authenticity of a statement that stands

counter to a previous story. For example, Plutarch tells his reader that Numa did not die a quick

death but rather was consumed little by little due to old age and disease, "as Piso reports."189

Livy, on the other hand, expresses distrust in Piso several times. In fragment 18, Livy prefers the

numbers of talents put forward by Fabius Pictor for Tarquin's construction of the temple to

Jupiter on the Capitoline over Piso's figures.190 Additionally, Livy alerts his readers that his

story regarding the site of the secession of the plebs, Mons Sacer, was more general (frequentior)

than the story and site Piso posited.191 In fragments 29 and 31, Livy again, struggles with Piso.

In fragment 29, Livy attempts to report the consuls for the year 305, but found Piso unhelpful.

Livy's and Piso's names of consuls for the year do not match up, and Livy suggests that either

those names escaped from Piso's memory as he composed his Annales or perhaps he




189 Frag. 14 = Plut. Num. 21.7.
190 Frag. 18 = Liv. 1.55.7-9, in particular eo magis Fabio, praeterquam quodantiquior est,
crediderim... quam Pisoni.
191 Frag. 24= Liv. 2.32.3.









purposefully left them out, believing them not accurate.192 In fragment 31, Livy attempts to

reconcile information about the office of curule aedile held by Quintus Fabius, as recorded by the

historians Licinius Macer and Tubero, with the list of curule aediles for that same year preserved

in Piso. In this instance, Livy recognizes Piso's authority due to his status as one of the oldest of

the annalists (vetustior annalium auctor).193

Just as some ancient historians admired and some suspected Piso's content, his literary

style was both praised and condemned. Aulus Gellius, for example, declared that Piso told a

story of Romulus simplicissima suavitate et rei et orationis fragg. 10 = Gell. NA 11.14.1-2).

Elsewhere, Gellius similarly praised Piso's ability to tell a story pure et venuste.194 But, Cicero,

conversely, decried Piso's history as among those annales sane exiliter scriptos.195 He also

found in Piso, along with Cato and Pictor, ignorance of how to adorn their writing:

Hanc similitudinem scribendi multi secuti sunt, qui sine ullis omamentis
monument solum temporum, hominum, locorum gestarumque rerum
reliquerunt; itaque qualis apud Graecos Pherecydes, Hellanicus, Acusilas
fuit aliique permulti, talis noster Cato et Pictor et Piso, qui neque tenent,
quibus rebus ornetur oratio modo enim huc ista sunt importata et, dum
intellegatur quid dicant, unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem.
(Cic. De or. 2.53)

Cicero placed Piso with both Cato and Fabius Pictor at the head of Roman history writing,

and as such, valued Piso's contributions to recording that history. But Piso was merely a

narrator. In de Legibus, Cicero disparaged Piso's style, lumping him together with Fabius,

Fannius, and Vennonius, and calling them tam exile.196





192 Frag. 29 = Liv. 9.44.2-4.
193 Frag. 31= Liv. 10 9.12.
194 Frag. 30 = Gell. 7.9.1-6.
195 Cic. Brut. 106.
196 Cic. Leg. 1.6-7.









Yet neither Piso's content nor style is as interesting as Piso's choice of form, not because it

was new or unusual, but because it was timely. Although we have no statement by Piso

regarding his choice of historiographical form, we do have context, and that context may

illuminate his choice.

Piso was no armchair historian; like other historians before him, he was an active

politician, serving as praetor, tribune, consul and censor. And he did do during one of the most

engaging political and literary time periods in Roman history, from the 150's to 130's. During

these years lived and flourished such towering figures as Cato (at the end of his life), Scipio

Aemilianus, Lucius Mummius, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and Appius Claudius Pulcher.

Cassius Hemina, Polybius, Sempronius Tuditanus, and Fannius all wrote history during these

years. Polybius' work ends in 146, coincidentally the end of both Cassius Hemina's and Piso's

histories. During these years Rome utterly defeated Carthage, asserted herself over Macedon,

conquered both Greece and Spain, making provinces of them all, acquired Pergamum, and put

down slave revolts. In a period of roughly twenty years, Rome became a vast empire, and came

into intimate contact with the Hellenistic world.

In these same years, Piso was active in Roman politics, and was also probably writing

history. The last attested date in his fragments, 146, the date of the secular games and the fall of

Carthage and Corinth, comes shortly after his first key office. Tribune and author of a recovery

law in 149, Piso was involved in politics at the beginning of the last war between Rome and

Carthage and at work on his history during the opening up of the Hellenistic world to Rome.

Later, during one of the Republic's key years, 133, Piso became consul. That year saw the death

of Tiberius Gracchus, the bequeathing of the city of Pergamum to Rome by Attalus III, and

Roman victory at Numantia in Spain. Additionally, in 133 Piso himself put down the slave









rebellion led by Eunus in the Sicilian city of Enna. It was a rich time to be writing Rome's

history.

If Piso continued to write after 146, as Forsythe argues plausibly, there exists the

possibility that Piso and Scaevola, serving as consuls in the same year in 133, might have

discussed the pontifical chronicles recorded on the tabula dealbata and possible publication.

Cicero tells us that these tabulae had continued from early days up until the time of Scaevola. If

we follow the once traditional view that Scaevola published the annales maximi, we might easily

envision the two of them discussing these as a source for history. If we credit Riipke's argument

that Scaevola wrote his own history and called it the annales maximi, again, we might speculate

on the two discussing historiography or sources available. Perhaps, the two of them, both

historically minded (though often political rivals-Scaevola was once Tiberius Gracchus' ally

and advisor), might have conversed about Scaevola's project. Piso perhaps even countenanced

the need for publication of the pontifical chronicles. To Piso had fallen the obligation to record

those consuls and magistrates which the annales maximi would make accessible. Cassius

Hemina's work appears not to have been concerned with the details such lists would have

preserved, and Cato had previously determined not to write a history of Roman names.

Moreover, Piso's distrust of the Gracchi, perhaps seen in his distaste of Spurius Maelius fragg.

26), might have compelled him to write a history that memorialized those faithful magistrate

citizens of Rome, who served the Republic rather than jeopardized it. And if Scaevola merely

stopped the recording of events on the tabula dealbata (Cic. De or. 2.52) and did not publish the

annales maximi, Piso might have nonetheless found a way to access that material, the libri

annales as Frier called them, wherever they were stored. Annalistic history, supported by the

rich material in the pontifical records later, was surely the appropriate form for Piso. Novelty









does not appear to suit Piso's personality (nor a man named Frugi); a wariness about the Gracchi,

seen in Cicero, coupled with the moralizing tone of now famous fragment 41 in which he

provides a date for the beginning of moral depravity in Rome, suggest that Piso would not be the

sort of historian to employ an innovative approach to historiography but would rather find the

traditional and familiar form of the annalistic form to be proper for his work.197

Sempronius Tuditanus

Piso's contemporary and fellow politician, Sempronius Tuditanus, also used the annalistic

form for a history of Rome.198 A politician and orator like Piso, Tuditanus' cursus honorum

included the offices of quaestor in 145, aedile in 135 or 136, praetor in 132, and consul in 129.199

Son of one of Mummius' legates to Greece in 146, Tuditanus likewise traveled to Greece that

year as an officer. Other significant military actions included his victory in his consulate over

the Illyrian tribe, the Iapydes, with help from Decimus lunius Brutus; Tuditanus celebrated the

triumph on October 1, 129.200 A statue of Tuditanus in Aquilea also commemorated his

victory.201




197 Cic. Tusc. 3.48 and Font. 39. For Piso's date for the beginning of moral depravity see
fragment 41(= Plin. HN 17.244). Pliny's discussion concerns the growth of trees as portents, and
mentions a fig tree that sprang up in the censorship of M. Messala and C. Cassius, a quo tempore
pudicitiam subversam Piso gravis auctorprodidit. The year was 154. Piso's interest in
censorial sort of notices supports the argument that he composed his history after his term in the
office of censor.
198 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCI-CCIII; Munzer 1923: 1441-1443; Beck and
Walter 2001: 330; Chassignet 1999/2003: XXVIII-XXIII.
199 Cic. Att. 13.6.4 for quaestor and aedileship, Att. 13.30.2 and 13.32.3 for praefecture, and Rep.
1.14 for consulate. Broughton 1952 I: 470 (quaestor), 489-490 and footnote no. 4 for aedile, 498
for praetor, and 504 for consul. Cicero admired his elegantia as an orator, Brut. 95.
200 Liv. Per. 59.20 and App. Ill. 10.
201 On two fragments from Hostius' Bellum Histricum which preserved part of the
inscription on Tuditanus' statue: ILLRP 335 with commentary by Degrassi; and Morgan 1973.
Further on the statue base's inscription, as recorded by Pliny the Elder, see Plin. HN3.129 and
ILLRP 334; Bticheler 1908; and Birt 1920. On his triumph: Fast. Capit. C.I.L. I2, p. 48; 176.









Tuditanus wrote two historical works, according to the fragments that survive. One, called

Libri Magistratuum, looks to have been a list that might have employed documentary material,

and comprised at least thirteen books. Only two fragments survive of this work.202 It apparently

served as counter-argument to the Libri de potestatibus authored by the pro-Gracchan M. lunius

Gracchanus.203 The title of the second work, a history, by Tuditanus is unattested. Only seven

fragments of this work survive.204

Each of the seven fragments of the untitled history in Chassignet's edition derives from a

different source. None of them preserves actual words of Tuditanus but report topics that

Tuditanus recorded in his history, including prehistory fragg. 1 on Aborigines and frag. 2 on the

etymology of Caieta), the period of the kings fragg. 3 on the institution of the nundinae by

Romulus), the early Republic fragg. 4 on the creation of the tribunate), and the middle Republic

fragg. 5 on the death of Regulus and frag. 7 on the discovery of the Numaean books). Tuditanus'

history must have been lengthier than Piso's; fragment 7 remarks that the discovery of the


202 Peter 1914: 146-147 fragss. Sempron. Tudit. 7 and 8 Peter). Sempron. Tudit. Frag. 7 Peter
comes from Macrobius Sat. 1.13.21, and Sempron. Tudit. Frag. 8 Peter derives from M. Messalla
de auspiciis apud Gell. NA 13.15. 4. Chassignet 1999/2003 does not include them but preserves
only fragments from Tuditanus' unnamed second work; she believes the first work was merely a
list and not literary.
203 Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXI and Beck and Walter 2001: 330. On the hostility between
Tuditanus and Gracchanus, see Minzer 1923: 1442. These works on libri by Tuditanus and
Gracchanus have recently been posited as best demonstrating the beginning of an interest in
antiquarianism among Roman authors; see Sehlmeyer 2003.
204 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 40-43; Peter 1914: 143-147 (six fragments); Beck and
Walter 2001: 331-339 (eight fragments). To Peter's numbers, Chassignet adds a citation from
Ps. Aurelius Victor OGR, a source Peter regularly did not include. Beck and Walter add not only
the OGR citation, but also include Peter's fragment 8 from M. Valerius Messalla (cos. 53) which
Peter had assigned to the Libri Magistratuum. Beck and Walter do not contest assigning the
fragment to the Libri but include the fragment with the historical fragments because it might
offer information regarding the intellectual profile of the author. That fragment poses the
inability of a praetor to elect either a consul or praetor because a higher authority cannot be
elected by a lower authority, "as shown in the thirteen book of the commentary of Tuditanus."
Cichorius 1902: 588-595 argues that Tuditanus produced only one work, the LibriMagistratuum,
and that all fragments belong to this.









Numaean books (in 181) fell in the thirteenth book of Tuditanus' history, but in the first book of

Piso's.205

Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus cite Tuditanus, but the remainder

of the fragments come from grammarians or miscellanists (e.g., Gellius). Dionysius ranks

Tuditanus among the most learned (logiotatoi) of the historians; excepting Dionysius' remark,

we have no other judgment from the ancients on Tuditanus' merit.206

The fragments of Tuditanus preserve no preface or remarks regarding his intentions,

purpose, nor choice of form. This is no longer surprising; as with the earlier historians, any

comments about the choice of form is largely to be divined from the few remaining fragments.

In the case of Tuditanus, the fragments offer little, but a surprising twist might allow us some

room to speculate on Tuditanus and annalistic form. What we have seen is that the fragments

comprise topics that are traditional in other annalists. Tuditanus wrote an annalistic history-yet

when he looked for his own exploits to be recorded and immortalized, Tuditanus did not favor an

annalistic form, but instead looked to poetry.

At the request of Tuditanus, the poet Hostius composed an epic to immortalize Tuditanus'

victory over the Iapydes and his subsequent triumph in 129. Hostius' work, the Bellum

Histricum, survives only in approximately six lines.207 It appears to have been an historical epic,

written in hexameters, focusing on the military campaigns of the Istrian war of Tuditanus.208 It is



205 Frag. 7 = Plin. HN 13.84-88.
206 Frag. 1 = Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.11.1.
207 von Albrecht 1997: 380 and Cichorius 1908: 183 and 190. The fragments of Hostius are
collected in Courtney 1993.
208 The subject of Hostius' Bellum Histricum is not universally agreed upon, and this, of course,
affects the notion of Tuditanus commissioning it. The Istrian war of the epic might refer to the
battles of 178 or to those of 129, the battles which Tuditanus participated in. On the whole, most
scholars believe that the campaigns of 129 are a more suitable topic, since Ennius covered those
of 178, and Hostius probably would have avoided competition with Ennius. Cf. Courtney 1993:









telling that in the second century a Roman historian, author of a work in the Roman annalistic

form, might have preferred a poetic genre to provide immortality. Perhaps because Roman

historiography was still in its infancy, with only Cato, Piso, and Cassius Hemina writing Roman

history in Latin before him, Tuditanus thought epic might be more successful. Perhaps epic was

a more appropriate form to sing of battles. Whatever Tuditanus' reasons were, his choice allows

us to wonder if he was not fully confident in the value and authority of the historical form he

himself was using for his history of Rome.

Cnaeus Gellius

Last among the second century annalists of note is Cnaeus Gellius, whose fame here rests

more on the size of his history than its quality. Nonetheless, Gellius is useful in depicting new

characteristics of annalistic history at the waning years of the second century. His use of them

might imply a choice ofannales for its flexibility; the annalistic form offered him both

convention and innovation.

Cnaeus Gellius lived sometime after Piso, Cassius Hemina, and around the same time as

Coelius Antipater and Gaius Fannius, two non-annalistic historians. His dates are not certain;

Cicero places him between Fabius Pictor and Coelius Antipater, and closer to Coelius.209 A

further notation by Cicero, however, has Gellius after Coelius, but a reading of Gellius'

fragments suggests that he was probably a contemporary of Coelius and Fannius.210 Gellius


52, and Casali 2006: 593. Vinchesi 1984: 59 finds a "rapporto clientelare" between Hostius and
Tuditanus, and argues for a date of post 129.
209 Frag. 21= Cic. Div. 1.55: omnes hoc historic Fabii Gellii sedproxume Coelius. Wiseman
1979: 142 emends the text to read sedmaxume, and Chassignet 1999/2003: XLIX retains that
reading as it portrays Cn. Gellius as a contemporary of Fannius, as Cicero had in Leg. 1.6.
Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCIV-CCX; Bardon 1952:77-80; Badian 1966: 11-13;
Wiseman 1979: 20-23; Rawson 1976: 713-717; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Walt 1997: 85-87; Beck
and Walter 2001: 347-348; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLIX-LIV.
210 Cic. Leg. 1.6. In particular, frag. 6 (= Solin. 1.8-9) which implies knowledge of the Social
War, allows a date contemporaneous with Coelius Antipater and Fannius.









might have held the position of triumvir monetalis, but he was not the Cn. Gellius against whom

Cato delivered a speech.211

Gellius' history, supported by a strong chronological framework, might have reached

ninety-seven books.212 No date of publication is agreed upon. Various hypotheses see Gellius

writing between 140 and 130, or 130-90, or more generally after the publication of the annales

maximi.213 The last attested event in Gellius' history is the secular games of 146; in what book

this fell remains unknown.214

Despite the great size of Gellius' work, only thirty-five fragments survive.215 These derive

chiefly from Charisius (eleven fragments), Dionysius of Halicamassus (six fragments), and Pliny

the Elder (five fragments). Livy does not cite him. Gellius treated Roman history of each period

at great length, very probably augmenting a skeletal framework of magistrates with inventive

fiction. The period of the kings is covered at least in Books 2 and 3.216 The next datable

fragment, fragment 24, however, detailing the instituting of the dies atri (in 389), fell in Book




211 Crawford 1974 dates the triumvir (no. 232) to 138; Rawson 1976: 713 and Wiseman 1979:
20 believe this politician to be the historian. Munzer and Peter 1914: CCVI do not, calling the
triumvir, the adversary of Cato, and the historian all one and the same man. Cato's adversary is
to be found in Cato frag. 206 Malcovati. Rawson 1976: 713, Wiseman 1979: 20 and Chassignet
1999/2003: L find that the date for Cato's adversary is too early, but find it reasonable to believe
that the historian could possibly be his son (who was also the triumvir).
212 Frag. 30 = Charisius Gramm. I, p. 68B. That figure is contested by Mtinzer 1910: 998 and
Rawson 1976: 714. Peter 1914: CCVI and Bardon 1952: 79, however, see a consistency with the
length of Livy's history.
213 Chassignet 1999/2003: LI provides a summary of this debate. Frier 1979/1999: 210 prefers a
date of 140-130, Wiseman 1979: 142 opts for 130-90, Badian 1966: 12 sides with a date after the
publication of the annales maximi. Chassignet 1999/2003: LII would rather see a beginning to
the writing between 130 and 120, with continued writing, due to the great length of the work,
after the publication of Coelius Antipater' s Bellum Punicum.
214 Frag. 29 (= Censorinus DN 17.11).
215 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 71-83; Peter 1914: 148-157 (34 fragments); and Beck and
Walter 2001: 349-367 (35 fragments).
216 Frags. 11-19.









15.217 Cn. Gellius covered only just over two hundred years in twelve books. Fragment 24

(=Macrob. Sat 1.16.21-24) explicitly tells the reader that Gellius discussed the dies atri in his

Book 15, while Cassius Hemina wrote about it in the second book of his Histories. What

Hemina covered in two books, Cn. Gellius covered in fifteen. Moreover, Cn. Gellius had reached

only the year 216 by Book 33, leaving some sixty books more to cover the period from the

Second Punic War down to his day.218 Perhaps Cn. Gellius had at his disposal pontifical records,

though no longer being recorded on the whitened boards. Presented with this material in its

barest form, Cn. Gellius might have found it attractive to elaborate on the bare bones outline of

Roman history, and thus created a history where little hard evidence had survived.219

The fragments cover a range of material from pre-history to 146 on topics from earliest

legends until events of Cn. Gellius' own time. Unfortunately, many of Cn. Gellius' fragments

are extant only because Charisius was interested in the grammatical peculiarities found in

Gellius. Beyond the sheer length of Cn. Gellius, and his grammatical oddities, however, we

might mention several other defining characteristics. Firstly, the early books of Cn. Gellius

focused on legends not only of Rome but also of wider Italy, perhaps in conscious imitation of

Cato's early books on Italian cities and customs. Indeed Cn. Gellius has been viewed as an

(unsuccessful) imitator of Cato.220 Cn. Gellius appears knowledgeable about Italian history more



217 Frag. 24 =Macrob. Sat. 1.16.21-24.
218 Frag. 27 = Charisius Gramm. I, p. 69 B.
219 This predilection led Badian 1966: 11 to see in him and Piso "the expansion of the past."
Wiseman 1979: 22 deduces in Cn. Gellius a "horror vacui", and proposes that Gellius found it
"intolerable" that the annales maximi afforded only names and dates of consuls and little else.
Gellius, therefore, Wiseman sees, filled in the rest. Rawson 1976: 714 insists that neither Gellius
nor the other annalists made much use of the annales maximi. Her earlier work (Rawson 1971)
specifically takes on the topic of the use of these materials.
220 Chassignet 1999/2003: LIII. Contra: Rawson 1976: 715, who finds in Cn. Gellius none of
Cato's serious interest in the "geography, ethnography, agriculture, laws, customs and
characteristics" of the people of Italy.









broadly, though the fragments preserve no stories beyond Italy itself, particularly central Italy.

His fragments address the Sabines fragg. 6 in which Megales teaches the Sabines augury and

frag. 10 on the origin of the Sabines), the Etruscans fragg. 6 on Marsyas and Tarcho), and the

Marsi especially, whose stories are recounted three times in fragments 6, 7, 8. His interest in

these peoples suggests an Italian heritage for Cn. Gellius, which is possible, for the Gellii are not

seen in Rome until the second century.221

Additionally, an enthusiasm for precision marks Cn. Gellius; several fragments incorporate

specific dates, demonstrating a concern for chronology.222 Missing from Gellius is a pre-

occupation with monuments, in which he differs from almost all the earlier historians, including

Piso. Nor does Cn. Gellius possess the heavy-handed moralizing tone of Piso. Instead he seems

to be content to tell good stories, of inventors and discoverers, such as Sol, the son of Ocean

fragg. 4) who discovered medicine in minerals, and Toxius fragg. 3), who discovered building

with mud. As such these fragments echo an element of euhemerism found in the other early

annalists, especially Cassius Hemina.

Nonetheless, Cn. Gellius is worthy of note if only due to the vast size of his history,

elaborating apparently more and more as the history progressed towards his own day. In his

eagerness to fill out the framework of Roman history, his enthusiasm appears to have led to his

"expansion of the past," as Badian named it. Where he might not have found evidence, Cn.

Gellius, perhaps relying on rhetorical practices of plausibility, added his own materials.

Annalistic history no longer had to be a mere listing of events or names, but would be a

framework for narrative, even entertainment.




221 On Gellius' lineage, see Rawson 1976: 715.
222 E.g., frags. 11, 18, and 20.









In the second century Roman historians began to use a variety of forms, yet the annalistic

form remained a favorite. Annales in Greek were still composed, but historiography in Latin was

well underway, and was written first in the annalistic form in Latin by Lucius Cassius Hemina

and Lucius Calpumius Piso. Hemina's work treated religious matters at length, including

etymologies and etiologies; little is known about Hemina himself, but it is appears that he held

no magistracies, and thus is the exception for writers of annalistic history in the second century.

Calpurnius Piso, however, a politician with a long career, focused on the political and military,

res internal and res externae. Sempronius Tuditanus, likewise a politician, recorded Rome's

history in annales but when it came time to have his own deeds commemorated, he apparently

looked to poetry to do so. Lastly, Cnaeus Gellius composed a lengthy history, which provided a

depth, if not veracity, to Rome's past. Four historians, then, in the later second century each

adapted this form, writing in Latin rather than Greek, and utilized it for his own purposes. None

of these historians left a preface; in none of them is preserved any intentional statement

regarding historiographic aim. Yet something of their goals and their opinion of the form can be

derived from the material which remains extant, and the context in which they wrote. All found

the annalistic form a flexible medium which allowed them to emphasize various aspects of

Roman history.









CHAPTER 4
REVIVALISTS: ANNALISTS OF THE FIRST CENTURY

In the first half of the first century prior to 63, the annalistic form coexisted alongside other

historiographical forms. In addition to annales, there were commentarii, and one contemporary

history which was almost a monograph. These works continued to help set the stage for later

types of historiography; Sallust's monographs appear after Cicero's consulship, as do Cornelius

Nepos' universal history and Caesar's commentarii.

The use of annales in the first century, however, was not entirely expected. Between the

second century and the early first century annalists, almost a generation had passed without

anyone writing annals. The annalistic form had fallen out of favor in the competition with

histories that focused on a particular time or a particular methodology. Thus the writing of

Roman history in annalistic form in the first century amounted to a revival of the tradition.

These historians of the first century would renew the form, bringing a focus on documentation,

new sources, an interest in narrative and entertainment, as well as a non-senatorial perspective.

In the first century, the traditional annalistic form shaped the works of the three major

historians, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, and Licinius Macer, known more for

Livy's use of them rather than their own merits.223 Licinius Macer famously discovered the linen





223 On the first century historians, see, Badian 1966: 18-23, Ogilvie 1965: 7-17, Wiseman 1981:
375-393; Conte 1994: 122, and von Albrecht 1997: 384-389. Aelius Tubero wrote Historiae
sometime in the first century; both Lucius Aelius Tubero and Quintus Aelius Tubero have been
at times identified as the author, though current scholarship holds Quintus, the son of Lucius, as
the author of a history at least fourteen books long. It was published well after the consulship of
Cicero and thus after the end point of this dissertation's parameters (a terminus post quem of 46-
44 is indicated in Tubero frag. 4). As the youngest of four historians of the first century whom
Livy uses, Tubero presented a different kind of history. Unlike his first century predecessors,
Tubero wrote a historic rather than annales. On Tubero, see Badian 1966: 22-23, von Albrecht
1997: 388, and Chassignet 2004: LXXVI-LXXXI.









books, a previously unknown or unused source.224 Valerius Antias' history might have filled

some seventy-five books, thus demonstrating received characteristics of Roman history writing:

the annalistic form, the expansion of the past, and a focus on more recent events (possibly two-

thirds of his work dealt with more recent years). Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius' history won

praise from Fronto, or rather his style of writing did.225 Additionally, Quadrigarius' work is of

interest for its variation in annalistic form; rather than begin ab urbe condita, Quadrigarius chose

a different starting point-the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390.

Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius

Q. Claudius Quadrigarius is the first annalist of the first century.226 Velleius Paterculus

(2.9.6) describes him as aequalis Sisennae, but calls Rutilius Rufus and Valerius Antias aequales

of Sisenna as well. As noted by Badian, Rutilius Rufus served as praetor in 118 and Sisenna held

the same post some forty years later in 78, scarcely making the two of them aequales.227

Quadrigarius may be assumed to have flourished somewhere between the two. Not part of the

gens Claudia as his cognomen demonstrates, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius probably came from

Italian municipal aristocracy.228 He held no offices nor undertook a military career.



224 Badian 1966: 22, and Frier 1975: 79-97.
225 Fronto ap. Gell. NA 13.29.2.
226 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCLXXXV-CCCIV; Zimmerer 1937; Klotz 1942;
Walsh 1961: 110-137; Badian 1966: 18-21; Frier 1979/1999: 122-126; Timpe 1979; Bastian
1983; von Albrecht 1997: 385; von Albrecht 1989: 86-101; Beck and Walter 2004: 109-111;
Chassignet 2004: XXIII-XXXVIII.
227 Badian 1964: 429. Fronto's testimony (Fronto Ep. p. 134, van den Hout) is equally
unhelpful. He places Quadrigarius between Fabius Pictor and Valerius Antias in a list based on
style and not on chronology.
228 Chassignet 2004: XXV. Badian 1966: 18 adds that he might have come from northern Italy
because his fragments show a knowledge of that topography. For Badian, Q. Claudius
Quadrigarius is probably not the same Clodius mentioned by Cicero (Leg. 1.6-7). In Cicero's
chronological list of Roman historians, Clodius appears just before Macer. This Clodius is
described by Cicero as similar to the ancient historians in their languor and clumsiness. Badian
1966: 21 argues that though chronologically in the right place, Cicero's Clodius cannot be









Quadrigarius thus stands apart from the tradition of senatorial historiography, and at the same

time revived tradition by bringing back the annales.

Quadrigarius wrote one work of history, called annales almost everywhere.229 Ninety-

seven fragments survive, with forty-seven of them found in Aulus Gellius.230 Nonius preserves a

further twenty-four fragments. Another twelve fragments are extant in Livy, who used him

extensively along with Valerius Antias. Twenty-three books are attested.231 Book 1 treats the

siege of Rome by the Gauls fragss. 1-6), the war with Pyrrhus and the onset of the First Punic

War fragss. 40-42) fall in Book 3, the disaster at Cannae occurs in Book 5 fragg. 52), and the

consulate of Q. Fabius Maximus (213) is found in Book 6 fragss. 56-57). Chassignet finds

events from the years 197-169 very likely in Book 7 fragss. 62-63 and 68), the Achaean war, and

war versus the Lusitanian Viriathus in Book 8 fragss. 69 and 70), and the battle of Numantia in

133 in Book 9 fragg. 76). Book 13 recorded the end of the second century and the beginning of

the first fragg. 77), while Book 18 included the siege of Grumentum in the Social Wars fragg.

81). Book 19 covered the siege of Piraeus by Sulla fragss. 82a and 82b), the election of Marius

to his seventh consulate fragg. 83), and such events as battle at Sacriportum and taking of

Praeneste fragg. 85). What the remaining books contained is obscure, although a hypothesis

poses the death of Sulla as a possible endpoint of the history.232 Equally unclear is the date of

publication; a date post Sulla is all that is certain. The attention paid to Quadrigarius' own time



Quadrigarius; their literary styles are not the same. Contra Wiseman 1979: 117 (and note 29)
who declares "it is not easy to see who else Cicero could be referring to."
229 There are few exceptions; two are found in frag. 48 (= Prisc. Inst. 6, p. 232 H) and frag. 72 (=
Diom. 1, p. 383 K), both of which name his work historiae.
230 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 13-75; Peter 1914: 205-237 (96 fragments); Beck and Walter
2004: 112-167 (97 fragments).
231 Badian 1966:18 does not rule out the possibility of a twenty-fourth book in which he
proposes Quadrigarius continued to about 70.
232 E.g. Zimmerer 1937: 8. Chassignet 2004: XXVIII declares the suggestion unverifiable.









is more certain; he devotes only nine books to the years from 390 to 133, a span of about two

hundred and sixty years. The remaining twelve books cover a shorter period, the years 133 to

circa 80, at correspondingly greater length.

Two aspects of Quadrigarius' work are intriguing: form and style. Content is less so;

Quadrigarius devoted more space to his own time, and in doing so passed quickly over key

periods of Roman history, such as the Punic Wars, and important events such as the trial of the

Scipios.233 Moreover, the paucity of fragments, most of them peculiar words and word choices,

limit a clear look at Quadrigarius' content. Its form is annalistic to be sure, following standard

conventions of such, but he avoids the traditional starting point of the foundation of Rome;

Quadrigarius began his history with the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390. That much is fairly

clear; at least six fragments associated with his telling of that event are all placed by Gellius in

Q. Claudio primo Annali fragss. 1-6). Why Quadrigarius chose to begin with 390 is not as clear-

cut. If the author of these annals can be identified with the Clodius of Plutarch in Numa 1.1 who

commented on the untrustworthy nature of source material prior to the sack of Rome in 390,

perhaps we have the explanation for Quadrigarius' starting point. In Numa 1.1, a certain

Clodius, author of Elenchos Chronon, argued that all records of Roman history were lost when

the Gauls sacked the city. Furthermore, this Clodius contends, those ancient records which now

tell of that time prior to the sack are mere forgeries, made up to please particular persons by

inserting them among the noble families where they did not belong.234 Plutarch's Clodius was

not the only one to assert the loss of the pre-390 sources. Livy (6.1.1-2) later also maintained

that many of the sources pre-dating 390 (quae in commentariis pontificum aliisque publicis



233 Badian 1966: 19; he finds Quadrigarius' lack of attention to events like this indicative of a
history without purpose.
234 Plut. Num. 1.1-3.









privatisque erant) were lost in the burning of the city.235 If Plutarch's Clodius and Q. Claudius

Quadrigarius were the same man, Quadrigarius might have written a similar introduction to his

history.236 A proem to his history does not, however, survive. In one Quadrigarius perhaps

stated that he found his sources for the regal years and early Republic less than credible.237

Claudius Quadrigarius is indeed the only annalist who did not begin ab urbe condita.

If Quadrigarius can be associated with Clodius, such a stance towards questionable sources

would provide insight into his methodology of writing history-that he conducted research and

evaluated sources, rather than merely compiling information.238 Moreover, a rejection of

unconvincing source material would mark Quadrigarius' history as substantially different from

those annals before his. An annalistic form revised, and sources well considered, then provide

function and purpose for his history.

The backdrop for Quadrigarius' decision to reject the pre-390 material might have been a

debate in the first century about the authenticity of ancient records. Cicero (Brut. 62) and Livy

(8.40.4-5) both reflect the Plutarchean Clodius' concerns, less over the inaccuracy of early

records, but more over the possible contamination and tampering of early records by plebeians





235 Whether those sources included the pontifical chronicle is not known; Livy said only
pleraeque and gave no further specifics. Similarly the "ancient records" of Clodius are not
clearly identified, and in Plutarch's quotation they lack an antecedent. Yet Frier 1979/1999: 122-
123 notes that the pontifical chronicle (later famously published as the annales maximi) is in fact
called "the ancient records" in Dionysius (AR 7.1.6), thereby suggesting that the annales maximi
were being referenced here.
236 Frier 1979/1999: 122-123. Frier sees the two as "naturally associable," and hypothesizes that
the Elenchos Chronon was "a preliminary exposition" which explained the omission of the early
years.
237 So Frier 1979/1999: 123-125. Indeed Quadrigarius' ignoring of this material fits with
modern estimations of the importance of the annales maximi in the annalistic tradition. See
further Rawson 1971 and Drews 1988.
238 Among those most in favor of this argument is Frier 1975: 92-95.









with political hopes. Funeral eulogies, laudationes, were Cicero's prime suspect in the

falsification of records, and thus in Rome's history:

quamquam his laudationibus historic rerum nostrarum est facta
mendosior; multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt: falsi
triumph, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones,
cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur
genus. (Cic. Brut. 62)

Livy similarly expresses unease with laudationes: uitiatam memorial funebribus laudibus

reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiar ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque

fallente mendacio trahunt; inde certe et singulorum gesta et public monument rerum confusa.

The resulting (and purposeful) confusion is seen not only in histories of individuals but also,

Livy complains, in the accounts of public events.

Moreover, the debate over authenticity of historical records in the first century also

reflected tensions between patricians and plebeians, as well as optimates andpopulares.

Plutarch's Clodius certainly rebuked the plebeians, as does Cicero. Quadrigarius' omission of

the years before 390 and implied denunciation of the tainted sources may constitute support of

the patrician class as well.239 A refutation of plebeian aspirations would root the non-senatorial

Quadrigarius on the side of the optimates during the contentious years at the beginning of the

first century. Fragment 80 (= Gell. NA 1.7.9) supposes a dedicatee at the beginning of book

eighteen who belonged to the patrician class.240 Timpe draws attention to the term bonitas in

that fragment, which he describes as a virtue possessed by a patron (Patronstugend). Such a

reading posits Quadrigarius as a client to an unknown patrician, very possibly from the Claudii,





239 Frier 1975: 153 sees a patrician bent in Quadrigarius, as does Timpe 1979: 110.
240 Timpe 1979: 110. Timpe cites Hellegourac'h 1963: 484 for his work on Latin vocabulary
and party politics in the Republic.









and supports the hypothesis that Quadrigarius found early records untenable and even

uncongenial.241

With doubt cast on the authenticity of records, even the ancient ones including the

pontifical chronicles, first century annalists, including Quadrigarius, relied less on these sources,

and turned more to their more reliable older counterparts, the annalists before them, and their

veteres annales.242 Their traditions were deemed more reliable than questionable ancient

sources. In fact, the annales maximi are not once cited in the fragments of the annalists of the

first century (nor are they named in Livy).243 Therefore, first century annalists turned to different

documentary sources to support the annalistic tradition. One of those sources is the libri lintei of

Licinius Macer, to whom we will turn shortly.

Quadrigarius' fragments reveal research and use of a variety of sources. Quadrigarius used

some material from earlier annalists, among them Acilius, according to Livy 25.39.11, in which

a Claudius, probably Quadrigarius, is said to have translated the Greek books of Acilius into

Latin. Additionally, like the other annalists of his century, Claudius bolstered his narrative with

reference to documentation.244 His non-senatorial origin, however, might have made access to

such material more difficult than for his predecessors.245





241 For example, Walsh 1961: 120 wonders if Claudius was displeased with the anti-Claudian
character of the early tradition. More strongly, Wiseman 1979: 57-76 demonstrates the
existence of a pro-Claudian tradition; while Quadrigarius is not named as author, and is indeed
too early, Wiseman suspects, he surely would have participated in the shaping of that tradition.
242 Frier 1979/1999: 158-159. Liv. 10.9.12 calls Piso uetustior annalium auctor; see also Liv.
4.20.8. Chassignet 2004: XXXII cites Bredehorn 1968: 91-92, who also believed Quadrigarius
troubled about the veracity of his sources, and posed the acta of the Senate as a documentary
source.
243 Frier 1979/1999: 152.
244 Frier 1979/1999: 150.
245 Chassignet 2004: XXXIII.









In addition to Quadrigarius' tweaking of the annalistic form, his style also compels

attention. It regularly won him praise from the ancients. Gellius NA 9.13.4 commended his

narrative of Manlius Torquatus fragg. 10b), calling it purissime atque inlustrissime simplicique et

incompta orationis antiquae suavitate.246 In the same place Gellius remarked that the

philosopher Favorinus also found the passage on Manlius moving, and declared that his mind

was stirred by no less emotion than if he had been witnessing the event firsthand. Gellius (NA

14.1.4) additionally has a character in his work identify Quadrigarius as optumus et sincerissimus

scriptor for his excellent story of Sulla's failure to bum a wooden tower in Piraeus fragg. 82a).247

Gellius offered still another estimation concerning Quadrigarius' style in NA 13.29. In a

discussion of Quadrigarius' phrase cum multis mortalibus versus the phrase cum multis

hominibus, Gellius' friend admires Quadrigarius' version. Moreover, he calls Quadrigarius a

man iudicii elegantissimi whose language is modest atque puri ac prope. Gellius' use of

Quadrigarius is extensive; forty-seven of Quadrigarius' fragments derive from Gellius' delight in

them. Fronto deemed his writing lepide.248

Livy certainly used Quadrigarius and thereby conferred on him a certain fame. Twelve of

Quadrigarius' fragments are found in Livy.249 In the first decade of Livy, Quadrigarius is a chief

source for Livy, who cites him four times in the second pentad. Quadrigarius appears once by

name in the third decade fragg. 37 = Liv. 25.39.11-17), and in the fourth decade shows up seven

times fragss. 62-68). Quadrigarius is not cited explicitly in the fifth decade. These fragments

provide source material for Livy's narratives on military campaigns including the Hannibalic

War. Livy primarily cites Quadrigarius (calling him Claudius) for casualty figures (e.g., frags.


246 Frag. 10b = Gell. NA 9.13.4-19.
247 Frag. 82a = Gell. NA 15.1.6.
248 Fronto, Ep., p. 134, van den Hout.
249 Frags. 10a, 14, 18, 34, 57, and 62-68.









62-64), yet casts doubt on his numbers by including figures proposed by other annalists such as

Valerius Antias. In other fragments, too, Livy explicitly questions the historian's information.

In 6.42.4-5 fragg. 10a), for example, Livy is troubled by the fact that Quadrigarius placed the

hand-to-hand battle of T. Manlius against an unnamed Gaul in the year 367. Displaying distrust

in Quadrigarius, Livy announces his inclination to believe other accounts that date the event six

years later. That instance was not the only time Livy registered apprehension with this source. In

at least four of the twelve fragments in Livy, Livy himself openly discloses misgivings about

Quadrigarius' information.

When Livy relies on Quadrigarius, he does not always name his source.250 For example,

the story of Titus Manlius Torquatus, whose date from Quadrigarius Livy had rejected in 6.42,

does appear later in 7.10. There, Livy's source is not named, but a comparison between his story

and Quadrigarius' version as preserved in Gellius fragg. 10b) demonstrates that Livy drew

heavily from Quadrigarius for his account. Elsewhere, however, Quadrigarius appears to take a

back seat to Valerius Antias when Livy uses them both.251 Quadrigarius remained an important

but suspect source for Livy.

Estimations of Quadrigarius vary significantly among modern scholars as well. Modems

find his style more carefully considered than other annalists' style, but not always successful.

Badian, for example, spoke of Quadrigarius' "impudent ineptitude" in the matter of his

exaggerated casualty figures, and discovered nothing original in Quadrigarius nor any profound





250 On Livy's use of Quadrigarius in further detail, for which this manuscript cannot provide, see
Walsh 1961: 114-137. Refer also to Chassignet 2004: XXXIV-XXXV and footnote 173, for
further citations on Livy and Quadrigarius, including Klotz 1940: 24-78.
251 See Walsh 1961: 133-134 and further citations there. Klotz 1940: 42 in particular cites
Quadrigarius as secondary to Antias.


100









principled objective.252 Though Leeman found nothing commendable in Quadrigarius' style,

what Quadrigarius wrote was less successful than how he wrote.253 Some modern scholars fault

him for manipulating the facts, for being excessively patriotic, and for being uncritical. Others

are less harsh; Timpe, in particular, sees him as a product of his age. According to Timpe,

Claudius was less a historian and more a man of letters.254

Valerius Antias

The first century annalist Valerius Antias shares many similarities with Q. Claudius

Quadrigarius. Like Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias' background remains obscure. His cognomen

suggests an affiliation with or an origin in Antium, and through that a status as a municipalis. He

held no offices nor had a military career. There survives no real evidence of a connection with

the gens Valeria but, on the model of Quadrigarius, Antias could have had a client relationship

with some branch of that family, since his history elevated the Valerian family in many

instances.255

When Antias lived and published his history is likewise uncertain. He does not appear in

Cicero's list of Roman historians (Leg. 1.6-7, published in 52). Fronto's testimony, as in the

case of Quadrigarius, is of little help; Antias follows Quadrigarius, but since Fronto grouped

252 Badian 1966: 19. He also calls Quadrigarius' use of traditional literary devices "far from
naive or indiscriminate" though showing signs of"inadequate polish." Nor did Badian find in
Quadrigarius any social or factional bias. Henderson 1957: 83, however, sees Quadrigarius as a
supporter of the populares in her reading of frag. 56 (= Gell. NA 2.2.13) in which the imperium
of the consul is superior because it derives from the people imperiumm quodpopuli esset). Frier
1979/1999, Walsh 1961, and Timpe 1979 all find a patrician tone to Quadrigarius.
253 Leeman 1963: 80-81 found the art of inventio more developed in the later annalists than
elocutio, although Quadrigarius did not pass the "borders of comparative honesty."
Quadrigarius' style, according to Leeman, is joltyy and jerky and almost static."
254 Chassignet 2004: XXXVII, and Timpe 1979: 103-105.
255 Studies (and biographies): Munzer 1891: 54-71; Munzer 1897; Peter 1914: CCCV-
CCCXXXIII; Volkmann 1948: 2313- 2340; Walsh 1961: 115-151; Badian 1966: 21; Cloud
1977; Frier 1979/1999: 188-189 and 150-152; Timpe 1979; Wiseman 1979: 112-117; von
Albrecht 1997: 385-386; Wiseman 1998: 75-89; Chassignet 2001; Forsythe 2002; Beck and
Walter 2004: 168-171; and Chassignet 2004: LXIII-LXXV.









Roman historians more by style and less by chronology, such a marking adds little.256 Velleius

Paterculus (2.9.6) describes both Quadrigarius and Antias as contemporaries of Sisenna.

Fragment 65, the last datable fragment, provides a terminus post quem of 91.257

Traditionally scholars have preferred a publication date after Sulla's death.258 Newer

arguments for the publication of Antias, however posit a later date, a terminus post quem of 66,

and some range as late as 46. Through a close reading of Livy (4.23.1-3), in which Livy cites

Antias, Licinius Macer, and Q. Tubero, it seems likely that Antias was writing about the year

464, after Macer and before Tubero. Macer, whom we will consider later, committed suicide in

66 after being prosecuted for maladministration; his history was probably not finished at his

death (Livy, for example, uses Macer only in his first decade), and published shortly after.259

Tubero likely wrote towards the end of Caesar's life; an anachronistic reference to three bands of

Lupercal runners during Romulus and Remus' time suggests a date after the institution of the

third band in 45.260 Antias thus was working on his history between 66 and 46.261 That Cicero

does not mention him in his de Legibus (written in 52) suggests a late date for Antias'

publication, although Cicero's distaste for non-senatorial historians may also explain his





256 Fronto Ep., p. 134, van den Hout.
257 Frag. 65 = Plin. HN34.14. Pliny records Antias' notice of a sale by the heirs of the orator
Lucius Crassus (who died in 91; see Cic. De or. 3.1)
258 E.g., Peter 1914: CCLXXXV; Volkmann 1943: 2313; Walsh 1961: 115; Ogilvie 1965: 12;
Badian 1966: 35; Timpe 1979: 97; Oakley 1997: 89.
259 Forsythe 2002: 101.
260 Q. Aelius Tubero frag. 4 (= Dion. Ant. Rom. 80.1-3). See also Forsythe 2002: 101.
261 Forsythe 2002: 102 opts for a broader frame of 70 to 40, and Wiseman 1979: 121 goes as far
as 43, the date Octavian married Clodius' daughter. Clodius would have represented a
culmination for the vein of Claudian contempt Antias exhibited and the politically polar opposite
of the Valerii who were always constitutional. Chassignet 2001 and Cloud 1977 both agree with
a later date. Chassignet 2001: 63 proposes a publication date of 52-50. Cloud 1977: 225-227
proposes a very late date; he calls Antias a Caesarian author, and even has him writing in the 30s.









absence.262 And in the Brutus (written in 46) Cicero appears to have read Antias; Cicero's

inclusion ofM'. Valerius among the earliest orators probably derives from Antias. Sometime

between 52 and 46 Cicero read Antias. And while a late date for the publication puts Antias

beyond the parameters of this dissertation, the lingering uncertainty over the late publication

mandates the discussion of Antias here. Moreover, Antias remains regularly grouped with the

younger annalists who served as Livy's sources.263

Antias' history survives in sixty-seven fragments.264 These witness to a history that treated

Rome from its origin fragss. 1-14) down to the first century in at least seventy-five books fragg.

64).265 Its considerable size dwarfs all of the histories of the fragmentary historians, annalists or

otherwise, except for Cn. Gellius.266 In addition to the founding of the city and the period of the

kings, fragments treat the early years of the Republic fragss. 18-22), the Punic Wars fragss. 23-

31), and the second century fragss. 32-64). 267 Recent scholarship has assisted in clarifying

uncertainties regarding the arrangement of Antias' history. Fragment 58, for example, is the last

datable fragment that also includes an indication of the book in which it belonged.268 This

fragment, cited by Aulus Gellius 6.9.12 as falling in Book 22, appears to allude to the

quaestorship of Tiberius Gracchus in 136, suggesting that Antias covered the years from 136






262 Chassignet 2004: LXV, and in particular, Badian 1966: 20.
263 Timpe 1979: 97 groups him with the "jingeren Annalistik."
264 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 104-150; Peter 1914: 238-275 (66 fragments); Beck and Walter
2004: 172-240 (67 fragments).
265 Frag. 63 (= Gell. NA 6.9.17).
266 Chassignet 2004: LXIX points out that compared to Livy, this number of books does not
need to be treated as extraordinary.
267 Chassignet 2004: LXVIII lays out the scheme.
268 Of Antias' sixty-seven fragments, only these indicate book citations: frags. 7-8, 9b, 15-17,
and 58-63.









down to 91 in some fifty-three books.269 Such a degree of attention paid to contemporary times

is unprecedented. In view of this fact, Munzer presented a startling statistic-the ratio between

time spent on the ancient epoch versus modern times comes to 1/4 in Livy and 1/30 in Antias.270

Fragment 58, however, now is seen as referring not to 136 but rather to the peace treaty after

Caudine Forks in 321.271 Antias' Book 22 would then have reached the year 321 rather than the

year 136, meaning that the remaining fifty-three books covered a longer span of time and

devoted less time to the more contemporary period. This scenario seems more reasonable

because no other annalist devoted so many books to present time. Other fragments, once

difficult to place, have found homes now.272 Fragment 61 (= Gell. NA 6.9.9) is reported by

Gellius to have been excerpted from Book 45, and alludes to a trial ofperduellio and a day

arranged for an assembly by the praetor M. Marcius. Because the praenomen Marcus was rare in

the Marcii family, and the only known praetor with such a name was M. Marcius Ralla who

served in 204, fragment 61 allows us then to assume that Antias treated the year 204 in Book





269 Chassignet 2004: LXIX provides the date of 136 for Gracchus' office, but Broughton MRR I:
485 prefers a date of 137. Forsythe 2002: 105-106 disagrees with a date of 136/7 for frag. 58,
and affirms instead that the fragment alludes to peace after Caudine Forks in 321. Thus Forsythe
finds a more plausible disposition of material across the seventy-five books, with fifty-three
books treating over two hundred-twenty years. Another hypothesis, less successful, posed by
Munzer, suggested that Gellius' placement of frags. 61 and 63 in books XLV and LXXV, was
incorrect, and they correctly belong in books XV and XXV. Priscian's mention of a seventy-
fourth book, however, makes such an identification difficult. That two different sources, Gellius
and Priscian, both speak of books numbering in the seventies provides some certainty.
270 Munzer 1897: 479. Chassignet 2004: LXX notes that Munzer associates material in Antias'
books XLV and LXXV with Livy's books CXII and CLXXXVII, while Walt 1997: 304 matches
Antias' book LXXV with Livy's CXCVI. Nevertheless, the figures still demonstrate Antias'
greater emphasis on the contemporary period than Livy. Cato, however, as Chassignet 2004:
LXXI challenges, devoted four out of seven books to contemporary times.
271 Forsythe 2002: 104-105.
272 See primarily Forsythe 2002: 104-108 (on seven different fragments) and Wiseman 1998: 75-
89.


104









45.273 Fragment 62 (= Prisc. Inst. 9, p. 489 H) cites a seventy-fourth book, and is generally

interpreted as referring to a ritual purification ceremony dating to 120. Fragment 63, from Book

75, traditionally has been associated with Q. Marcius Rex's presiding over the Senate

immediately after his son's funeral in 118.274 Thus arranged, Antias' lengthy work treated

Roman history on a scale much like Cn. Gellius had done in the second century. More

interestingly, in their handling of the third and second centuries, Antias is much like Livy in his

own extensive annals.

There is little doubt that Antias wrote in the annalistic form. Only six fragments preserve a

title to his work; two use the title Annales, two Historia, and two Historiae.275 Five instances of

its title survive in Gellius who used all three variations without differentiation. One explanation

for the various titles accorded his history is that Antias treated the "l'epoque la plus ancienne" in

the form of annales and the more recent period in the form of historia.276 Yet Gellius used the

title annales when referring to Antias' Book 45, and historic when alluding to Antias' recounting

of Romulus.277 Antias' own title for his work does not survive. His work very likely received

the description historic as part of the distrust in annalistic sources in the late Republic which

Quadrigarius had perceived.278 Additionally, the infamy of certain works called annales, such as

the cacata chart, the annales of Volusius, and others, might have imparted a less than desirable

association with the title.279 In terms of form, as an annalist, Antias preserved annalistic



273 Munzer 1897: 470, and Forsythe 2002: 104.
274 Peter 1914: 274, and Forsythe 2002: 104.
275 Annales: frags. 17 (= Prisc. Inst. 7, p. 347 H) and 61 (= Gell. NA 6.9.9); Historia: frags. 3 (=
Gell. NA 7.7.6) and 22 (= Gell. NA. 3.8.1-4); Historiae: frags. 58 (= Gell. NA 6.9.12) and 63 (=
Gell. NA 6.9.17).
276 Chassignet 2004: LXXI.
277 Respectively referring to frag. 61 and frag. 3.
278 Frier 1979/1999: 218.
279 Catullus 36: annales Volusi, cacata chart; Frier 1979/1999: 218.









traditions such as beginning ab urbe condita, treating the early years of Rome, proceeding

chronologically from beginning to end, providing etymologies and etiologies (e.g., frags. 1-3),

names of magistrates (e.g., frag. 20) and details of res internal and externae.

Whereas Gellius was fond of Quadrigarius and preserved almost half of his fragments, he

is less sanguine about Antias. Gellius preserves only eight of Antias' fragments. Antias' style

did not charm Gellius or the other grammarians as previous annalists had. In fact, the

grammarians are silent on Antias. Antias rather was known to the ancients, and primarily to

Livy, for content and not style (hence Fronto's declaration of his style as invenuste).280 Plutarch,

Dionysus, and Pliny the Elder, for example, used his work.281 Livy, of course, constitutes our

major source for Antias, preserving thirty-three of Antias' fragments. With a history seventy-

five books long, Antias offered much (and recent) material to his successors.

Livy's use of Antias is well documented.282 Antias appears, mentioned by name and thus

both credited and culpable, in the first, third, fourth, and fifth decades of Livy, and even in the

Periochae.283 In the third decade, Livy follows Antias on the campaigning in Italy after Cannae,

alongside Coelius Antipater, and more extensively at the end of the decade (five times in Book

39). In the fourth and fifth decades, Livy used Antias for details on western affairs and Italian

affairs (e.g., frag. 35 on casualty figures for Marcellus' battle at Como). Livy's use of Antias was

not, however, without critical judgment. A paradigmatic example records Livy's concern with



280 Fronto Ep., p. 134, van den Hout. Leeman 1963: 81-82 agrees with Fronto's assessment. He
describes Antias' style as a kind of"chancery style, heavy, elaborate and artificial."
281 E.g., Plutarch: frags 5, 9a, and 13; Dionysius: frag. 4; Pliny the Elder: frags. 9b, 12, 16, 65,
and 67. These direct citations of Antias by name are only part of the use of Antias by these
historians. See further Chassignet 2004: LXXIV and Peter 1914: CCCXXVI.
282 See Klotz 1940: 278-280; Walsh 1961: 121-122, 127, 133-153; Wiseman 1979: 113-118, and
Oakley 1997: 89-90.
283 First decade: frags. 20 and 21; third decade: frags. 24-25, 27-31; fourth decade; frags. 32-37,
39-50; fifth decade: frags. 40, and 51-55; and Periochae: frag. 64.


106









the veracity of Antias' history. In fragment 25 (= Liv. 26.49.1-5), Livy is unable to discern

reliable figures for hostages (and more) after the sacking of New Carthage, and is forced to offer

estimates from two historians, Silenus and Antias. Livy's frustration with his historical sources

is evident in his proclamation in fragment 25, adeo nullus mentiendi modus est, directed more at

Antias than his Greek source. Further, Livy finds no agreement among his sources for amount of

money taken, and finally, perhaps exasperatedly, settles for suggesting that figures halfway

between two extremes are closest to the truth (si aliquis adsentiri necesse est, media simillima

ueri ,l/mi).284 Elsewhere, Livy accused Antias of lying fragg. 10), expressed uncertainty with his

source fragg. 20), and accused Antias of making things up impudenter fragg. 30).

In addition to skepticism leveled against Antias by Livy, Antias' possible writing of fifty-

three books encompassing a mere forty years, indeed the sheer volume of the history, has

produced suspicion that he filled out those years by inventing, stretching, and even falsifying

material. That suspicion is not unfounded when examining aspects of Antias' history such as

casualty figures, though trustworthy casualty figures are notoriously difficult to come by.285

Antias additionally employed the rhetorical method of inventio, including plausible, if not

verifiably true, material to elaborate on a story. The training of a historian in Rome, even a non-

senatorial one such as Antias, would have included a study of rhetoric, and thus the addition of

narrative for ornamentation would not have been viewed as unusual. And yet Cicero, that lover

of ornamentation and history with style, also declared that the one base rule of history writing







284 Liv. 26.49.6, which immediately follows upon frag. 25 but is not included in the fragment.
285 Not all have found Antias guilty of exaggeration. LaRoche 1977, 1984, and 1988 examines
Antias' figures in an unconvincing attempt to rehabilitate him.









was not to lie, to tell the truth.286 Apparently, Antias did not always do so. "Plausibly detailed

mendacity" served Antias.287

The most egregious examples of Antias' willingness to fabricate are found in the invention

of documents and facts (even undocumented consulships). In his tale of the burning of the books

of Numa, for example, Antias cited a Senate document that ordered the burning fragg. 16= Plin.

HN 13.87). Nowhere else is that document cited. Similarly in Livy's account of battles in 464

(3.4-5), a fictitious prorogation appears to have been derived from Antias as well.288

A result of Antias' creative scholarship was his favoring of the gens Valeria with whom he

might have had a client relationship. Thus, for example, he created a senatorial ancestor for

himself, L. Valerius Antias, who held a post during the Second Punic War. He invented at least

one consulship for the Valerius who was present when the Magna Mater statue was received in

Rome.289 He may even have been the author of the version of the same story in which not

Quinta Claudia, but Valeria, greeted the goddess on her arrival in Rome.290 Moreover, elements

of the Valerian tradition surface in key moments of early Roman history from the treaty between

Romulus and the Sabines to Coriolanus in 488.

Traced first by Munzer in 1891, Valerius Antias appears responsible for the highlighting of

the Valerian gens which is found in a variety of authors including Plutarch, Dionysius, and




286 Cic. De or. 2.62: Nam quis nescitprimam esse historiae legem, ne quidfalsi dicere audeat.
287 Badian 1966: 21.
288 Forsythe 2002: 110.
289 See Liv. 29.11.3; 29.11.8, 29.14.5; and 30.23.5. On fictitious consulships of Marcus Valerius
Laevinus and legates in the Valerian tradition, see Wiseman 1979: 57-61 and 114-15, as well as
his notes there. Broughton 1952 I: 277 notes one consulship for Laevinus in 210.
290 In the hostile Claudian tradition, pro-Valerian passages, actions and deeds often are present.
On the Valerian tradition, and its corollary, this hostile Claudian tradition, see sources in the next
note. For a tabular view of the ups and downs of the Claudian and Valerian families in the 60s
and 50s, when Wiseman sees Antias still writing, see Wiseman 1979: 132.









Livy.291 In Antias' privileging of the Valerii, he provided a function and purpose for his work,

which would have been published not too long after Claudius Quadrigarius, at most 30 years. If

Antias is indeed the author or keeper of the hostile Claudian tradition and pro-Valerian tradition,

his work can be viewed less as a literary exercise and more as a politically charged attempt at

magnifying the historical importance of one family and even historical validity. In the

publication of Antias' work, we find historiography competing-for credibility, validity and

ultimately for gain, personal and public.

Quadrigarius' and Antias' choice of form, the annales, thus makes perfect sense. The

annalistic form by convention kept Rome at the center, but could also track the efforts of

individuals and families on behalf of that city. Both historians demonstrate Rome's glory, and at

the same time showcase the enduring legacy and contributions made by specific families across a

long stretch of time. Yet this is not to say that either Quadrigarius or Antias wrote a history that

was a biography of a family; both men amply displayed a broader Roman patriotism throughout

their works. The annalistic form provided a means to write of Roman history, to provide a full

and ample narrative, and contextualize contributions within a larger scheme. If we can say that

Antias, in particular, wrote to praise a family, the annalistic form is appropriate and effective

because it allows a longitudinal study rather than the compact period a monograph would

necessitate. The portrait of an enduring family in an enduring Rome would sit well with a

Roman audience. The annalistic form added gravitas. Further the use of a traditional and

authoritative format itself provided credibility to two historians who came from a non-senatorial

background.


291 Mtinzer's 1891 dissertation de Gente Valeria (Berlin) was followed by his article in 1897,
and more recently reaffirmed by Wiseman 1979: 113-139 and especially Wiseman 1998: 75-89,
who examines twelve appearances of the Valerian family in early Republican history, and finds
the hand of Antias in each.


109









Licinius Macer

Licinius Macer, on the contrary, had no such need to assert credibility. From a

distinguished plebeian family, Licinius Macer was the first senator since the second century to

write a history of Rome ab urbe condita in the annalistic form. Father of the poet and orator

Calvus and descendant of the public-serving Licinii, Macer was triumvir monetalis in 84,

quaestor at an unknown date, tribune of the plebs in 73, praetor in 68, and provincial governor

the next year. In 66 he was prosecuted for extortion in his administration of his province (Cic.

Att. 1.4.2), and shortly after being found guilty (though defended by Licinius Crassus), he

committed suicide (Val. Max. 9.12.7).292

Little survives today of Macer's history. Only twenty-six fragments remain from a work

that numbered at least sixteen books.293 The extent of each book is unclear; allusions to the

history's arrangement yield few solid conclusions. Book 1 is cited four times for material having

to do with the foundation of Rome and the regal period, and Book 2, cited by Priscian fragg. 21),

alludes to Pyrrhus. Livy does not mention Macer after the year 299 fragg. 20).294 Fragment 23 in

Priscian mentions a sixteenth book but the content and date cannot be ascertained. Priscian's

citation of Book 2 for the fragment regarding Pyrrhus is difficult. Considering Macer's keen

interest in the regal years, it is unlikely that he covered Roman history from the regal years to

272 in just one book. Though Macer was an orator as well, Cicero faults him for his loquacitas,

and thus it is scarcely likely that Macer raced through early Republican history in just one book,


292 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCCL-CCCLXV; Munzer 1926: 419-435; Ogilvie
1958, Frier 1975; Frier 1979/1999: 153-158; Hodgkinson 1997; Walt 1997; Beck and Walter
2004: 314-317; and Chassignet 2004: L-LXIII. On his offices, see Broughton 1952 II: 110 and
138.
293 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 89-103; Peter 1914: 298-307 (25 fragments); Walt 1997: 196-211
(26 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 318-345 (26 fragments). Frag. 23 (= Prisc. Inst. 10, p.
525H) cites a sixteenth book.
294 Frag. 20 = Liv. 10.9.10-11.


110









though Cicero did not speak of the content or scope of the work.295 Yet, a cursory attention to

the early years could suggest an arrangement in which Macer devoted most of the remaining

books to his own period. If, however, Macer did treat the later years of the Republic, the fact

that Livy does not use Macer remains a problem particularly in the light of Livy's explicit

allusion to Macer's new documentary sources.296

Licinius Macer's history followed conventional patterns of the annales form. All

references to his history title it Annales with the exception of one in Macrobius, who uses the

term historia.297 Macer treated Rome's pre-history (as only annalists had done) and regal period,

listed triumphs and military events, and recorded regularly the magistrates of each year (e.g.,

frags. 14-18). An antiquarian interest is unmistakable in the Romulean fragments in which he

displayed an interest in early institutions (e.g., frag. 7 on the establishment of the dictatorship).298

Intentional statements regarding his choice of form do not survive: no proem, prelude or

dedication provides Macer's own reasons for using the annalistic form.

His sources, however, suggest not only a reason why he adopted the annales form, but

motivations behind his writing. A senator with presumably better access to documentation than

his contemporaries Quadrigarius and Antias, Licinius Macer discovered the so-called libri lintei,


295 Cic. Leg. 1.6-7. The paucity of historical fragments of Macer inhibits a sure estimation of his
style; the grammarians show little interest in him. Only seven out of twenty-six fragments are
found in the grammarians. Leeman 1963: 82-83 therefore does not judge Macer's prose style but
notes a probably connection to "popular Hellenism" in Rome. Cicero's term loquacitas is one
often applied disparagingly to Greeks. Note too that Macer's son Calvus was part of a group of
poets, including Catullus, who favored and followed Hellenistic models and examples. On
Licinius Macer as an orator, see Cic. Brut. 238. Fragments of Macer's speeches are collected in
Malcovati 1979: 357-358.
296 On the arrangement of Macer's books, see Walt 1997: 105-118 and Chassignet 2004: LV-
LVI (who notes that after book twenty Livy chiefly followed Polybius).
297 Citations of the title annales: frags. 8, 9, 22, 23. In frag. 26 (= Ioann. Malal. Chron. 7, p.
179-180 Dind [= p. 285-287 Migne]) Macer is called a chronographos. Macrobius alone uses
historic in frag. 2 (= Macrob. Sat. 1.10.17).
298 Walt 1997: 169-183 finds antiquarianism a central feature; frag. 7 = Dion. Ant. Rom. 5.74.4.









the linen books, in the Temple of Juno Moneta.299 As triumvir monetalis, Macer had access to

the temple where he found preserved on linen lists of senior magistrates. No one had seen them

or used them before. The surviving fragments of Macer do not tell us about the books; we do not

know how they came to the temple, how they were preserved, or why the information on them

sometimes diverged from other sources.300 Nowhere but Livy and once in Dionysius are the

linen books mentioned.301 Macer believed them authentic, and against the backdrop of debate

and concern over the veracity of other earlier sources such as the annales maximi and the

annalistic tradition itself (as evidenced by Quadrigarius), he used this new source to provide

credibility for his history. No sure evidence remains that Macer intended to refute Quadrigarius'

skepticism, yet his use of the linen books suggests that his history of Rome was to be more

trustworthy. In this case, form plus source can suggest purpose and function once again.

Livy cites Macer seven times in the first decade; three of these citations include a reference

to both the linen books and Macer.302 A fourth mention (Liv. 4.13.7) does not name Macer but

refers only to the linen books. According to Livy (4.20.8), the linen books were libri

magistratuum, and Macer's regularly cited source. Macer found them in the Temple of Juno

Moneta, which was dedicated in 344 (Liv. 7.28.6). Around 270, the temple became home to the

Roman mint, probably not out of any cult reasons but due merely to the location of the temple on




299 On the libri lintei, see Ogilvie 1958, Palmer 1970, Frier 1975, Frier 1979/1999: 153-158, and
Sailor 2006. Hodgkinson 1997: 23-34 traces the scholarship on them from Niebuhr in 1811
through Mommsen, Soltau, Munzer, Klotz, Ogilvie, Badian, Frier, Wiseman, and Oakley, noting
that early skepticism of the libri lintei has given way to cautious acceptance. Walt's monograph
on Macer was not available to Hodgkinson. Walt also accepts the libri.
300 Walt 1997: 83-84 (and Frier 1975: 88) recognizes the sacredness of the linen books; their
material, location, and Dionysius' description of them as holy books suppose a religious context.
Meadows and Williams 2001 see instead a connection with the censors.
301 Dion. Ant. Rom. 4.2. References in Livy are discussed in the following paragraph.
302 Frags. 14, 15, and 16.









the arx.303 The linen books contained a list of magistrates; surviving references to the linen

books record only magistrates within the period 444-428.304 Presumably the list carried on down

to Macer's time. Whether the linen books actually date to the fifth century or were a later copy

is unclear; difficulties include the question of the preservation of the linen material itself.305

Possibly the linen books were a copy placed in the temple after its dedication, and thus date to

344, or after its conversion to a mint.

Macer's motives for use of the linen books can be best understood from the few instances

the books are cited in Livy. The signal characteristic about the linen books is their independence

from and yet support of the annalistic tradition. In each case in Livy, the linen books are notable

in that they augment in some manner the annalistic tradition and pontifical records. For

example, in Livy 4.7.10-12 (= frag. 14), Macer provided the names of the consules suffecti of

444, elected to replace the previous consular tribunes who had been forced to abdicate; these

same consules suffecti in 444 also served to ratify a treaty made with Ardea. Yet these men do

not appear in any other annalist before Macer, nor does the treaty with Ardea. A closer study,

however, reveals that Macer sought to integrate his new material into the annalistic tradition and

the traditional lists and not to reject that tradition. When the names from his linen books did not

coincide with the names supplied by the fasti, Macer created a compromise position.306



303 Thomsen 1961: 291. For a recent survey on the temple itself, its topographic location, and its
connection to the mint and why the libri lintei were placed there, see Meadows and Williams
2001. Meadows and Williams posit that a complex of buildings in the northwest end of the
Forum and on the Capitoline, connected by the Tabularium which served as the censors' office,
brought together the creation, production and storage of coins and measures and weights, and
more than that, Rome's history in the form of the libri lintei. The censors' job overseeing the
mores of Rome, in addition to their regular assessment of wealth, they propose, might not
preclude the keeping of other documents such as the libri lintei.
304 Frier 1975: 88.
305 Frier 1975: 88 and Frier 1979/1999: 155.
306 The specifics of this argument can be found at Frier 1975: 88-90.









Elsewhere in Livy, the linen books and the veteres annales work in tandem and the one confirms

the other (e.g., frag. 16= Liv. 4.20.8). The libri lintei acted as an independent source confirming

and attesting to the accuracy of the pontifical chronicle and the annalistic tradition they

supported.307

This indeed turns out to be the motivation for Macer's history. In the Sullan years,

Macer's contemporary Quadrigarius had rejected the reliability of the annalistic tradition, and, as

we have noted, began his history with the sack of Rome in 390. Macer, conversely, started his

history ab urbe condita, and found a new documentary source to supplement and moreover

guarantee the accuracy and credibility of the very sources Quadrigarius had faulted. In the first

century, Rome would benefit from a history, written by a senator, which drew its material from a

new source that confirmed the veracity of the older material.308 In addition, Macer surely was

displeased that Quadrigarius (if we can make the connection between him and Plutarch's

Clodius) charged plebeian families with tampering of historical sources and inserting themselves

into Rome's great families. As a member of the plebeian Licinii, who had, in fact, held

magistracies in the years prior to 390 and thus not included in Quadrigarius' history, Licinius

Macer would have wanted to set the record straight, as it were, for his family and for the

plebeians.309 He did this by employing a new source for his history and, further, by singing the



307 Not all are sanguine about the authenticity of the libri lintei; see Chassignet 2004: LIX, note
295, for a list of those who doubt their authenticity and have concerns over their date. Tubero's
uncertainty in Livy 4.23.3 (Licinio libros haud dubie sequi linteos place: Tubero incertus veri
est) is concerned more with their reliability and less their authenticity; cf. Ogilvie 1958: 46.
308 Macer also drew on a literary source, the annals of Cn. Gellius, with whom he is associated
three times fragg. 10, 12-13) as preserved in Dionysius. Macer may have used Gellius because of
his lengthy description of early Rome. As noted in Chapter 2, Cn. Gellius covered a mere two
hundred some years in twelve books.
309 Frier 1975: 95. On pre-390 magistracies of the Licinii, see Broughton 1952 I: 15 (year 493,
two Licinii as tribunes of the plebs) and I: 24 (year 481, Sp. Licinius as tribune of the plebs).
Frier 1975: 95 even suggests that Macer ended his history in 287, and thus his work dramatically


114









praises of the Licinii. Livy (7.9.3) indeed criticizes him for doing just that: propriaefamiliae

laus leuiorem auctorem Licinium facit.310

Macer's championing of his family and the plebeians is more clearly displayed outside the

annals in his actions versus the Sullan restrictions on tribunicianpotestas and in his speeches,

one of which Sallust (Hist. 3.48) purports to preserve. Whether or not this speech, which has

Macer emphatically advocate plebeian rights, correctly characterizes Macer is unknown. The

speech's oratorical style appears to be consistent with Cicero's estimation of Macer-not an

inspiring presence but excellent at arranging and organizing a speech (Brut. 238). Sallust has

Macer begin his speech (Hist. 3.48 Maur.) with a notice that he did not have enough time to

elaborate on the past (great) history of the plebs. Macer continues with a vehement attack on the

aristocracy and calls Sulla's domination servitium.311 Additionally, fragments of two actual

speeches, one the Oratio pro Tuscis, and another against Rabirius, manifest sympathy with ideas

of the populares, and suggest that Sallust's portrayal of Macer as plebeian-championing and

populares-supporting, is not wholly untrue.312



differed from other histories in that it treated and emphasized plebeian accomplishments during
the Struggle of the Orders.
310 Peter 1914: CCCLXI, "(Licinii) animum spirat."
311 On Sallust and Macer, see Earl 1961: 107-108; Syme 1964: 200-201, 207, 209; Ogilvie 1965:
7-12, and Frier 1975: 95.
312 Chassignet 2004: LII-LIII. Peter 1914: 307 includes a fragment from the speech on behalf of
the Etruscans in his collected fragments of Licinius Macer fragg. 26 Peter = Prisc. Inst. 10, p. 532
H). Both Beck and Walter 2004 and Chassignet 2004 exclude this speech fragment from their
editions of the fragments of his annales. See instead Malcovati 1979: 357-358 for the speech
fragments. Henderson 1957: 85 sees in all the Sullan annalists, Macer included, the "polite
popularis orthodoxy of the seventies-an ideal supremacy of the People, with no detriment to
the authority of a benevolent State." Most scholarship on Licinius Macer has taken the position
that Macer's experience as a tribune of the plebs is consistent with the portrayal of Macer in
Sallust, and that the historian very likely shared those same beliefs. Hodgkinson 1997: 1-6
summarizes the scholarship. Walt 1997, while not rejecting the view of Macer as apopularis,
rightly confines her study of the historian to the fragments themselves. She argues, correctly,
that the fragments do not attest to a historian protecting the rights of plebeians but rather









The salutary combination of a new source and a cause to champion provided clear motives

for Macer's history. In a new history, written by a senator in the annalistic form, Macer could

tell the story of Rome (and his gens) from its beginnings with accuracy. The annalistic form,

rooted in Rome, traditional and proper, was the correct form for the senator Macer. Well

received by the historians Livy and Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.7.3) and used by others including

Macrobius and the author of Origo Gentis Romanae, Macer's history succeeded in its purpose.313

The annalists of the first century, Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, and Licinius

Macer, produced different annales, each with a specific motivation. Quadrigarius, the first

annalist in two generations to use the form, wrote a history of Rome which began in 390-the

date after which he believed he had reliable sources. Antias' history, much longer, treated those

early years, and throughout his history elevated the Valerian gens, with which he might have had

a client relationship. Licinius Macer, the only senator of the three, and probably writing between

Quadrigarius and Antias, bettered them by doing more-in covering more time, employing a

new source, and extolling his gens. He wrote a history that he believed was based on accurate

sources, the linen books, which upheld the annalistic tradition and the pontifical chronicles, and




demonstrate a historian who was interested in antiquarianism and the establishment of
institutions and rituals. That aspect of Macer is not, however, under attack here. Her position
that a politician's views need not necessarily be replicated in the history he writes is on track-
but perhaps more so for the modern historian. Certainly Roman historians, from Fabius Pictor
on (and especially Cato and certainly the authors of the commentarii) wrote at least with their
own experiences (if not their ideology) apparent in their historical works. Walt's point that the
fragments of Macer's history do not equivocally depict him as a raging defender of plebeian
rights is, however, substantially correct; that does not rule out, however, Macer's popularis
stance which his political activities had demonstrated. Hodgkinson 1997: 35-44 treats the
breadth of Macer's political activities and finds in them evidence of Macer's support of the
populares. Moreover, Hodgkinson 1997: 57-65 notes the political agitation of earlier members
of the Licinii gens, some of whom also served in the tribunate, and sees in them a long standing
commitment to support of the plebs.
313 In length and scope, Macer rendered at least Gellius "obsolete," so Wiseman 1979: 22.


116









further praised his family. Since those Licinii had held positions in early Rome, Macer chose to

begin ab urbe condita.

A cursory glance at the existence of three annalists working across about three decades in

the first century would assume that they duplicated each other. Yet these three annalists found

unique motivations for using the annalistic form. Whether they wrote out of praise of a family's

long time service to Rome or the use of a new source or rejection of others, the annales were the

preferred medium for each historian. In the first century, just before Livy produced his annals of

Rome, the annals which would render obsolete all others, historians had revivified the traditional

form.









CHAPTER 5
INNOVATORS: WRITERS OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, RES GESTAE,
MONOGRAPHS, COMMENTARII

In the second and first centuries, the Romans practiced other types of historiography

alongside annales. During the second century, while some wrote annals in Greek and some in

Latin, historians such as G. Fannius, Sempronius Asellio, Cato, and L. Coelius Antipater judged

the annalistic form as deficient, and took up different forms, contemporary histories, res gestae,

and monographs, as alternative means of both preserving and shaping history. In the first

century, the historians M. Aemilius Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Lutatius Catulus and Sulla

took up another new form, commentarii, and L. Cornelius Sisenna wrote contemporary history.

Against the backdrop of mid-to late-Republican Rome, these historians chose a variety of new

forms with which to write Rome's history.

As we have seen, the Romans viewed annals differently from other forms of history, in

content, form, and style. Among later sources, Isidore claimed that inter historian autem et

annales hoc interest, quod historic est eorum temporum quae vidimus, annales vero sunt eorum

annorum quos aetas nostra non novit (Isid. Etym. 1.44.4). Servius auctus and Verrius Flaccus,

also late, commented similarly.314 Aulus Gellius, too, distinguished between the two, annales

and historic, proposing that annals contained the history of a period not experienced by the

author, while historic, on the other hand, was about events in which the narrator participated.315

The ancients also perceived a difference in style. Annales recorded events in chronological

sequence, normally ab urbe condita, usually focusing more on the early years and beginnings, in

narrative fashion but without elaboration and connections. Historia meant contemporary history,

while res gestae, which briefly sketched the origins of Rome and focused on current events, fell


314 Servius auct. adAen. 1.373 and Verrius Flaccus in Gell. NA 5.18.2.
315 Gell. NA 5.18.1.









in between annales and historic. Monographs treated one topic. The forms differed from

annales in that they focused on a shorter period of time, emphasized the mechanisms of cause

and effect, and aimed for literary polish. The above-mentioned historians pursued these goals by

turning their backs on the annalistic format. Their perceptions of the advantages of these

different forms survive in some cases, particularly in the words of Asellio, Cato, and Sisenna.

Caius Fannius

A certain Caius Fannius wrote a history sometime around the last quarter of the second

century; his identity is unclear.316 In the Brutus, Cicero distinguishes between C. Fannius, son of

Caius, and C. Fannius, son of Marcus.317 The former, according to Cicero, was a tribune of the

plebs and consul (in 122); the latter was the son-in-law of Laelius and the author of the Annales.

Cicero appears to have misrepresented these men; current scholarship holds that C. Fannius, son

of Marcus, was all three: the son-in-law of Laelius, the consul of 122, and also the annalist.318

Fannius thus held a privileged position in Roman society. Connected to Laelius, consul in

140, and to the so-called Scipionic circle that included Polybius, he was encouraged to study

under Panaetius, the Stoic philosopher, by his father-in-law.319 Connected also to Tiberius


316 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CXCIII-CXCIX; Bardon 1952: Badian 1966: 14-15;
von Albrecht 1997: 379-380; Beck and Walter 2001: 340-341; Suerbaum 2002: 425-427; and
Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII-XL.
317 Cic. Brut. 99-100.
318 On the complexities of this identification, see Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII-XXV,
especially footnote 150, which concisely lays out the ancient texts and modern interpretations.
The confusion arises in Cicero's use of the patronymics; he calls the tribune of the plebs (who
later became consul) the son of Marcus in Att. 16.13a, yet in the Brutus, he calls him the son of
Caius. Elsewhere, the son of Marcus is Laelius' son-in-law (in Amic. 3 and Brut. 100, and in Att.
12.5b.3). The existence of a Caius Fannius who served as part of a senatorial commission to
Crete in 113 appears to have confused Cicero. The consul of 122 was indeed the son of Marcus,
as shown in an inscription found in 1851 (CIL I1560 = I2 658 = VI, 1, 306 =ILLRP 269). Cicero
corrected his mistake in adAtt. 12.5b.3, calling the son-in-law of Laelius the historian. As
Laelius' son-in-law, Fannius was accorded the post of speaker in two of Cicero's dialogues in the
de Amicitia and the Somnium Scipionis.
319 Cic. Brut. 101.









Gracchus with whom he participated in the assault on Carthage in 146, Fannius received backing

from Gracchan supporters during his campaign for the consulship in 122.320 Indeed Fannius was

elected primarily due to the backing of Caius Gracchus. In the year Fannius acted as consul

(with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus as co-consul), Caius Gracchus was tribune. In his program of

reform, Caius Gracchus proposed to offer citizenship to the Latins and Latin status to the Italian

allies. Ultimately this plan destroyed the collaboration between Fannius and Gracchus; Fannius

turned against him and delivered a stinging condemnation of his friend's plans in a speech called

de sociis et nominee Latino.32 Cicero called this speech sane et bonam et nobilem (Brut. 99), and

even labeled it the best of its time.322

Fannius' sole work, entitled, curiously, Annales, is of particular importance because its

scope was markedly different from those of the annalists before him. Nine fragments remain.323

Four fragments specifically title Fannius' work Annales.324 The few fragments with identified

content (three of them are preserved for their style) treat only events from Fannius' own time.325

To have been accorded the title Annales by the ancients, the work must have provided at least an

overview of the foundation of Rome, regal period, and early Republic in keeping with annalistic






320 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4.5. Fannius was also praetor, though the date is uncertain. It is usually
dated sometime between 133 and 127 (cf. Broughton 1952 I: 509, footnote 2.).
321 Fragments of this speech are collected in Malcovati 1979: 142-144.
322 Cic. Brut. 100: oratio autem vel optima esset illo quidem tempore orationum omnium.
323 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 44-47; Peter 1914: 139-141 collects 9 as well; Beck and
Walter 2001: 342-346 include eight fragments, excluding the fragment deriving from Cic. Att.
12.5.3 which refers to an epitome of Fannius made by Brutus.
324 Frags. 1, 2, 3, 5.
325 Fragments treating grammatical issues: frags. 2, 3, and 8. Badian 1966: 14 notes that all
datable events in Fannius' fragments date to his life; see also Minzer 1909: 1990. Chassignet
1999/2003: XXXVII holds that lack of evidence does not mean Fannius limited his work to the
Gracchan period.









tradition, though none of that now remains.326 The length of the history is not known. The only

indications of books in the fragments are two references to an eighth book, both of which

provide little sure information about content of that volume and the progress of Fannius' work to

that point.327 One of those references, fragment 3 on Fannius' use of alternate forms of

Drepanum, might suggest, however, that in Book 8 Fannius might have been examining the First

Punic War or at least the site of that naval disaster of 249 and later victorious siege of 241. Later

fragments referring to the Gracchan age show that his history continued to his present time.

Fannius' concern with contemporary events marks him as a non-traditional annalist and

more of a contemporary historian. Indeed Fannius recalls Cato, who several decades earlier had

dispensed with writing about the early period of Roman history, and moved on to topics of more

interest to him. For Fannius, contemporary history, and especially the Gracchi, with whom he

had a special relationship, was significant. Some figures are helpful: four out ofFannius' nine

fragments fragss. 4, 5, 6, and 7) describe events and/or people dating to the Gracchan age, three

other fragments are preserved only for diction, and the remaining two fragments speak of

Fannius' intentions and his reception.

Two of the four fragments relating to contemporary period fragss. 4 and 5) mention

Tiberius Gracchus by name. Fragment 4 (=Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4.5) preserves Fannius' description

of Tiberius Gracchus' courageous role in the sacking of Carthage, including Fannius' statement

that he himself was right behind Tiberius as he scaled the walls. Fannius praises his friend, and

at the same time, comes off well himself. Plutarch's preservation of the story is in keeping with

the Plutarchean practice of depicting his protagonists as larger than life, mostly through the use



326 Badian 1966: 14 does not doubt that Fannius' history began at the beginning, but suggests
that Fannius probably covered this period in a "few perfunctory sentences."
327 Frag. 2 = Charisius Gramm. I, p. 158B, and frag. 3 = Schol. Veron. Ad Verg. Aen. 3.707.









of stories and anecdotes such as this. Fragment 5 offers less regarding the specific content in

Fannius' work and affords more of a look at Fannius' style. In it (= Brut. 81), Cicero tells us that

Fannius preserved a speech of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, and many other speeches, including

one against Tiberius Gracchus.328 This fragment, unfortunately, contains no value judgment of

Fannius regarding Ti. Gracchus, though its content may reflect Fannius' strained relationship

with the Gracchi. Elsewhere Cicero (Brut. 101) offers some information allowing a cursory

evaluation of Fannius' work; he describes Fannius' history as not inelegantly written.

The fragments concerning Fannius' own period offer frustratingly little solid information

regarding his role in the turbulent years of the Gracchi. They do not substantiate an about-face

by Fannius; little in them supports either Fannius' late real-life rejection of the Gracchi, nor, on

the other hand, do the fragments prove he was a Gracchan partisan.329 Significantly, fragment 1

contains Fannius' remark that men grow wiser in their old age; if this fell in the preface of the

history, it might be a justification of Fannius' actions of turning away from Tiberius Gracchus,

and an indication of the aims and intentions of his history.

More importantly with regard to form, Cicero's statement in Brutus 81 suggests that

Fannius' history was innovative in more than just focusing on a single period; Fannius livened

his history by including speeches of his key figures. Such additions suggest that Fannius was

familiar with this convention of Greek historiography. It may also suggest that Fannius was



328 Frag. 5 (= Cic. Brut. 81): Q. Metellus, is cuius quattuor filii consularesfuerunt, in primis est
habitus eloquens, qui pro L. Cotta dixit accusante Africano; cuius et aliae sunt orations et contra
Ti. Gracchum exposita est in C. Fanni Annalibus.
329 The debate on the relationship between Fannius and the Gracchi is rich. Bardon 1952: 106-
107 particularly argues that Fannius was a supporter of the Gracchi, and that position is clear in
his history. See contra, Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIX, who finds in the remaining fragments
no clear indication of his position either way. On the fragments proving Fannius to be a partisan
of the Gracchi, start with Badian 1966: 14, who sees Fannius as writing the first account of the
victorious enemies of the Gracchi and thus beginning the tradition hostile to them.









influenced by his contemporary, the Greek historian Polybius, who was friendly with many of

the same elite men of Rome. Polybius' part in the so-called Scipionic circle would have brought

him into contact with Scipio Aemilianus' friend Laelius, and from there with Laelius' son-in-

law, Fannius.

During the second century, while Romans worked out their own ways to write history,

Polybius was surely one of the great influences. When Polybius lived and wrote in Rome, from

168 until his death in 120, he must have known the work of contemporary Roman annalists,

including Cassius Hemina, L. Calpumius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, and the writers of Greek

annals, A. Postumius Albinus and Gaius Acilius. With the exception of his acidic words on

Postumius' deficiencies in Greek, however, we have no estimation from Polybius regarding any

of the other Roman annalists of the period. His influence is hard to gauge, due chiefly to the

paucity of fragments of these historians. Yet in the case of Fannius, the non-traditional annalist,

Polybius' mark is clear. Fannius appears to be perhaps the first Roman annalist to include whole

speeches in his history, much as Polybius had.

Sallust speaks of Fannius' truthfulness, and Cicero records that Brutus made an epitome of

Fannius' history.330 Fannius did not completely transform the annalistic form; in the first

century, annalistic historians would return to the model of addressing the regal period more fully.

Fannius' influence on other forms of history is greater-while technically not the first

monograph in Roman history, but more a contemporary history, it set the stage for the alternative

forms, particularly the monograph form, taken up soon after by Coelius Antipater who will be

discussed below.





330 Sall. Hist. 1. 4 Maur. Cic. Att. 12.5b (= frag. 9) discusses the epitome made by Brutus.









Sempronius Asellio

Around the same time as Fannius, Sempronius Asellio similarly wrote a kind of history,

called res gestae, which fell somewhere between annalistic history and pure contemporary

history. Von Albrecht calls Asellio the founder of this genre.331 Sempronius Asellio's life is not

well known.332 His birth and death dates are unknown, although a birth date may be estimated

from the fact that he served at Numantia in 134/133 under Scipio Aemilianus as a military

tribune.333 He was perhaps born around 160. A possible connection with Scipio Aemilianus

suggests that he too might have been part of, or connected in some way, with the so-called

Scipionic circle.334 Its influence, particularly that of Polybius, can be seen in Asellio's preface in

which he laid out the differences in forms between annales and historic. Asellio's history is also

important both for the observations he made about history, and for his philosophy of history

which he espoused in that preface. Asellio's comments, in fact, are among the few prefatory

statements surviving in the fragmentary historians. With Asellio, finally, perceptions of form are

explicitly declared.

Only fifteen fragments of Asellio are extant of a work that comprised fourteen books.335

Aulus Gellius calls it res gestae, but also historia.336 Charisius, Nonius, Priscian, and Servius


331 von Albrecht 1997: 361.
332 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCXLII-CCXLV; Bardon 1952: 113-115; Badian
1966: 17-18; von Albrecht 1997: 380-381; Suerbaum 2002: 435-437; Chassignet 1999/2003:
LIV-LVII; Beck and Walter 2004: 84-86. On the gens, see Badian 1968.
333 Frag. 7 (= Gell. NA 2.13.1-4).
334 On Scipio Aemilianus, see Astin 1967.
335 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 84-89; Peter 1914: 179-184 (14 fragments); Beck and
Walter 2004: 87-99 (15 fragments). A variant in a manuscript of frag. 11 from Charisius (=
Gramm. II, p. 254B) uses the number XL for one of Asellio's books; all modern scholars
discredit that reading and suggest XI instead. Their argument posits that the last datable event in
Asellio (frag.11 regarding the death of Drusus in 91) occurs in Book XIV. If Asellio did write
XL books, then he would have to have covered the years after 91 in another twenty-six books.
See Bardon 1952: 114 and Chassignet 1999/2003: LVI.
336 Res gestae: in frags. 7, 11, and 12; historic in frag. 6.









auctus describe his work as historiae.337 No fragment or reference by the ancients calls Asellio's

work annales. Asellio himself seems to have called it res gestae.338 The last datable event in the

surviving fragments fragg. 12) refers to the death of Drusus in 91. Publication probably occurred

shortly after.

Of those fifteen fragments, very few need concern us. The majority recounts grammatical

usages which Gellius found of interest (e.g., frags. 4 and 5). One fragment details an etymology

on Norica castella fragg. 10). Of far more interest, however, are Asellio's perceptions of

historiographical form contained in two fragments preserved by Gellius in a section typical of

Noctes Atticae. It considers the meaning of the word historic, in particular versus annales, and

used Asellio's prefatory remarks to illustrate the term. We have already considered Asellio's

understanding of history. It is worthwhile looking at it again for another purpose: that of reading

it in the context of Asellio's other fragments. I quote again from fragment 1 of Asellio (= Gell.

NA 5.18.7-8):

"Verum inter eos", inquit "qui annales relinquere voluissent, et eos, qui
res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc
interfuit. Annales libri tantummodo, quod factum quoque anno gestum
sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci
ephemerida vocant. Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset,
id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent,
demonstrate."

Asellio defined annales as books that merely recount and record events which happen each

year, much like what the Greeks would call a diary. Such a historiographic aim was not sufficient

for Asellio, who believed it was not enough only to report what happened, but also to show for

what purpose and with what plan these things were done. Here Asellio recalls Polybius who had



337 Historia in Charisius: frag. 13; Nonius frags. 3 and 5; Priscian frag. 4, and Servius auctus in
frag. 15.
338 Frag. 1 (= Gell. NA 5.18.7-8).









urged the same approach in his own history of Rome. A history which provided interpretations

of the past as well as reason, purpose, cause and effect of that past was for Asellio satis. He

would do more than just list; in claiming his use of this methodology, Asellio sought to separate

himself from other historians.

Aulus Gellius preserved further comments of Asellio on the difference between historic

and annales in the same section fragg. 2 = Gell. NA 5.18.9), also quoted here again:

"Nam neque alacriores" inquit "ad rempublicam defendundam neque
segniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commovere
quicquam possunt. Scribere autem, bellum initum quo consule et quo
confectum sit et quis triumphans introierit, et eo libro, quae in bello gesta
sint, non praedicare autem interea quid senatus decreverit aut quae lex
rogatiove lata sit, neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint, iterare: id fabulas
pueris est narrare, non histories scribere."

Asellio now moved beyond the question of historiographic form and content to the

question of the purpose and function of writing history. In his eyes, annalistic writing was

useless in motivating or moving readers. History's purpose lay beyond the mere preserving of

stories; Asellio wanted his readers to use history, and not view it as entertainment. The goal of

docere, though not specifically claimed by Asellio, was a significant part of history's aims.

Finally, Asellio declared that to write about under whose consulship a war began and ended and

who entered the city having been awarded a triumph, and in this book to write of what things

were done in what war, but not to mention what the senate decreed and what law or proposal was

introduced, nor to recount with what plans things were done-this then was to writefabulas-

stories-for children, and not to write history. Asellio concerned himself with investigation, and









not entertainment. Asellio viewed history as a guide for moral life and action, not so much in

the manner of Polybius but instead of Isocrates.339

With the exception of Cato, Asellio is the first Roman historian whose observations on

form, content, and purpose of history writing survive. His perceptive remarks on the differences

between writing annals and writing history are now part of the discourse on historiographic form.

In context, however, Asellio's grand ambitions appear not to have made his history any better;

no ancient historian cites him, but Cicero includes him in a list with Cn. Gellius and Claudius

Quadrigarius.340 Grammarians on the whole have preserved Asellio for us. Nonetheless, Asellio

is significant in demonstrating that what, according to Asellio, passed as annalistic writing at his

time, roughly 120-90, consisted chiefly of recorded events with little elaboration or interpretation

of these, and at least he and Cato saw deficiencies in that sort of history. An acquaintance with

Polybius through Scipio Aemilianus might have been the inspiration for Asellio's ambitious aim

to reject and surpass writers of annales. Unfortunately, while Polybius' methodology appears to

have shaped Asellio's work, it appears that Asellio may have lacked Polybius' skill in writing

that history.

Porcius Cato Censorius

And what about Cato? Cato properly belongs to this chapter on alternative forms of history

writing, since he was the first Roman historian explicitly to find fault with the annalistic form.

In the fourth book of the Origines, Cato railed against annales, claiming they concentrated on

recording how often grain was expensive, and how often eclipses obscured the sun or moon.341


339 On Isocrates and history, see the fundamental work of Welles 1966. In his concern for
utility, Asellio also recalls Thucydides' belief (1.22) in the usefulness of his history for
statesmen.
340 Cic. Leg. 1.6.
341 Frag. IV, 1 (= Gell. NA 2. 28.6). As usual in this dissertation, all fragments derive from
Chassignet's volumes, this one from her edition of Cato, Chassignet 1986/2002.









Cato instead composed a history that related more than the foundation of Rome. Annalists had

focused their histories on Rome, neglecting the position of Rome in the wider world. Cato's

history was markedly different for his insistence on grounding Roman history in its imperium

(Italy) and including foreign history, even while he continued to exhibit the patriotism which is a

hallmark of Roman historians.

Cato's larger than life personality needs no recounting here. A politician, military man,

and orator, Cato championed Rome and cautioned her as well from the time of his first political

position as military tribune in Sicily in 214 until his death in 149. His most famous post as

censor in 184 has shaped much of his reputation, rightly so. He rebuked Rome and feared

Rome's excesses. His hostility to Hellenism is infamous, yet incorrect; Greek slaves educated

his children, he himself spoke Greek, and his literary works bear the hallmark of both Greek

models and a Greek education.342

Creator of Latin prose, first to write Roman history in Latin, Cato the Elder produced a

broadly ranging variety of works in all of which Livy found eloquence.343 These include his

collected speeches, perhaps over 150 of them; two unpublished works, one a history for his son's

education, the other a notebook of treatments for illnesses; writings to his adopted son Marcus

Porcius Cato Licinianus, including the adFilium which provided books on separate topics again

for his sons' education; three monographs, De agriculture, De re military, and one on civil law;








342 On Cato and his relationship to Greece, see Astin 1978: 157-181 (Chapter 8 on "Cato and the
Greeks"), especially the extensive bibliography devoted to this subject in footnote 1, p. 158.
Studies: Astin 1978.
343 Liv. 39.40.7.









Carmen de moribus; a collection of sayings; and the Origines, a history of Rome.344 Only the De

agriculture survives at length.

Cato was not the first to write the history of Rome, but those before him had done so in

Greek. Cato was also not the first to write in Latin, but those who wrote in Latin before him

were writing verse. Both Cato's literary accomplishments and the resulting influence on every

writer of prose after him are vast. A brief survey of his historical work is thus in order.345

The Origines consisted of seven books. 346 The first treated Aeneas and foundational

stories of Rome up through the period of the kings. Books 2 and 3 treated foundational stories of

other Italian cities; Book 4, with a new preface, dealt with the First Punic War, Book 5 covered

the Second Punic War, and Book 6 discussed Rome's history through Cato's time. A fragment

belonging in Book 2 was written after 168; the last datable fragment of the whole work relates an

event from 149, the year of Cato's death.347 Only about one hundred and thirty five fragments

survive, coming from all seven books.348 Questions of composition and structure abound.

Nonetheless, those fragments can tell us much about the form, content, and style of the Origines.

Cato's rejection of the annalistic form is well known. His displeasure with writing about

trivial matters such as corn prices and eclipses, which served as a preface for Book 4, was

probably prompted by the writings of Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, which he might have




344 Astin 1978: 182-188. See also the survey of Cato's works in von Albrecht 1997: 394-396.
In Brut. 65 Cicero claimed to know and have read over 150 speeches.
345 This dissertation focuses on the lesser-known historians of the Roman Republic, and thus
Cato, who enjoys an extensive bibliography, will receive a less than satisfying amount of
attention. The intent here is merely to provide some evidence of his influence on the other
fragmentary historians.
346 Badian 1966: 7. The reconstruction here of books and content is his.
347 Frag. VII, 1. The outline of the contents of each book derives from Nepos Cato 3.3.
348 Editions: Chassignet 1986/2002: 1-56 collects 135 fragments; Peter 1914: 55-97 has 125
fragments plus an additional eighteen uncertain fragments.









considered unsatisfactory.349 Cato also broke with the custom of glorifying Roman individuals

by purposely omitting the names of leaders (duces).350 Furthermore, Cato not only threw out the

content common to annales and omitted the names of leaders but also rejected the strictly

chronological format. Cornelius Nepos informs us of the manner in which Cato told his stories of

the deeds of the kings, the origins of the Italian cities, and the First and Second Punic Wars:

atque haec omnia capitulatim sunt dicta. Some have argued that capitulatim essentially means in

summary fashion, along the lines of kephalaiodos used by Polybius, while others have suggested

that Nepos means that Cato ordered his books by topic (geographically) rather than by year.351

In either case, Cato was not an annalist. Cato is, however, an excellent example of the

interaction between prose and poetry in Rome and indeed the development of literature in

general. Despising the material from the pontifical chronicles, later to be published as the

annales maximi, Cato nonetheless was influenced by a form of annales, the Annales of

Ennius.352 In the 150's, when Cato was creating new directions in Roman historiography, he

borrowed from both Greek historiographical prose conventions and Latin poetry. In fact, Cato








349 Cato's "preface" to Book 4 is often viewed as proof that the Origines was written in two
stages, with Books 1-3 as one part on foundations, and then Books 4-7 on the history of the
Republic. Astin 1978: 219 calls the two-stage hypothesis unsatisfactory, and merely an attempt
to explain the disjunctions between the first three books and the rest. We have no direct
evidence from Cato himself that he disliked Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus' work; we do,
of course, know his quibbles with writing annals in Greek and his words for A. Postumius
Albinus, whom he faulted for his poor Greek, but more for his shoddiness in general.
350 Nepos Cato 3.3 .... atque horum bellorum duces non nominavit, sed sine nominibus res
notavit.
351 E.g. Astin 1978: 212 argues for "in summary fashion," while Badian 1966: 8 argues for the
term to mean "by topic." Chassignet 1986/2002: XV-XVI summarizes the two polar positions.
352 On Cato's debt to Ennius, see Goldberg 2006: 444-446 and Sciarrino 2006:466-469.









may have begun his work with a hexameter echo.353 Goldberg recently remarked of Cato: "Like

Ennius, he made Greek forms and Greek conventions do Roman work."354

Unlike the Greek annalists before him, Cato wrote of the origins of Italy's many peoples.

This foundational material in Books 2 and 3 mirrored the foundational stories of Rome found in

the annalists and even in Cato, but there was surely no such treatment of Italian cities in other

Latin histories at this time. On the other hand, the genre of foundation stories was not unknown

to the Romans; not a Roman creation but a element of Greek historiography, the recounting of

ktiseis was important there, and almost a genre itself.355 The title of Cato's work demonstrates

this influence of Hellenistic historiography. In fact, this title provides evidence for the

supposition that the first three books were written as a unit, and the following books a later

addition.

More importantly, the inclusion of ktiseis in Cato established that Cato's history was

rooted in the context of both Greek and Roman historiography. Following the conventions of

both, Cato wrote of Rome's foundations as Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentius had already

done in Greek prose and Ennius and Naevius in Latin verse.356 Annalists would continue to

write foundation stories throughout the period of the Republic. Following conventions of Greek

historiography, Cato included speeches. What was innovative, however, in Cato was the

inclusion of his own speeches. In doing so Cato brought to the forefront one of the central

aspects of later history writing in the form of the commentarii, that is the memorializing-and

justifying-of self in political autobiographical history.



353 Cardinali 1987.
354 Goldberg 2006: 444.
355 So Astin 1978: 227-228 on the genre of ktiseis and its influence on Cato.
356 In fact, Fabius Pictor is very likely the source for Cato for the foundational stories. See Astin
1978: 224.









In many other ways, however, Cato's history of Rome in Latin did not change the ways

Romans would write history. No later historians included speeches of his own in their works

(perhaps because none served in politics at quite the same level). Nor did subsequent Roman

historians follow Cato's practice of not naming magistrates and key leaders. And no other

historian would include the early history of other Italian cities. Cato was exceptional.

But one cannot discount the tremendous influence of Cato on Roman historiography. In

addition to the political and autobiographical flavor which would become commonplace for

commentarii, Cato's treatment of Italian cities in the first three books and his handling of the

First Punic War in Book 4, for example, prepared the way for the monograph form of Coelius

Antipater. His perspective on history and the writing of history from a senatorial point of view

solidified one of the most important aspects of historiography in Rome-that history writing was

done by men with experience. Moreover, Nepos' biography speaks of Cato writing his history as

an old man (senex); Cato's fragment 2 provides a justification for writing in his leisure-that the

leisure of famous and great men ought to be no less subject to account than their activities. For

Cato, history writing filled that leisure time, and became an activity which was useful, and not

wasteful, because it provided Romans with a history which was didactic and moralistic. Cato's

emphasis on the moral value of history would accompany almost every history written by a

Roman after him, especially in the works of men such as Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Asellio,

and Livy and Sallust much later. The moral value he accorded to history was part and parcel of

the function Cato assigned to history. Cato believed that individualism was not Rome's strength,

and by his suppression of names of leaders, by his inclusion of plural foundations, Cato honored

Rome as the product of a community. Future historians would similarly both view Rome's

accomplishments as the efforts of many and promote a didactic goal to their works.









By founding Latin prose, Cato created a vocabulary and style for Latin historiography.

While his fragments are often short or paraphrases, nevertheless, the quality of his literary style

is apparent. Plain and unadorned, Cato's style is not without rhetorical flourishes and

experimentation in still developing Latin prose.357 Cato's most influential contribution to Roman

historiography, however, was writing Roman history in Latin.

Lucius Coelius Antipater

During the second century another historiographical innovation occurred-the creation of

the Roman historical monograph by L. Coelius Antipater. Older than Sisenna and a

contemporary of Fannius (cos. 122), Coelius was born between 180 and 170.358 About his

family little is known; although his Greek cognomen hints at freedman status, neither he nor his

father was one. Coelius appears not to have held any political posts, and thus broke the

historiographical tradition that had only clarissimi viri, men experienced in politics and military

matters, writing history.359 Chronologically, he is the first historian not to be a politician. In that

sense, Coelius was an innovator too, and model for many later professional historians who also

played no role in Roman politics. Historiography up to this point had belonged to the senatorial

elite. Coelius was, however, not completely disconnected from Roman politics. He was a





357 von Albrecht 1997: 397-399. Cicero, in Leg. 1.6-7, groups Cato with other historians whose
style he calls exilis. Elsewhere in De or. 2. 53 and Brut. 66, Cicero finds fault with Cato's style,
particularly its deficiencies in ornamentation. Sallust, on the other hand, appreciated Cato's
brevitas (Sall. Hist. 1. 4 Maur.) and called him disertissimus. For a careful look at representative
examples of Cato's style see Courtney 1999: 41-91.
358 Vell. 2.9.6: Vestutior Sisennafuit Coelius; Cic. Leg. 1.6: Fannii autem aetati coniunctus
CoeliusAntipater. Studies (and biographies): Gensel 1900: 185-194; Peter 1914: CCXI-
CCXXXVII; Bardon 1952: 102-103; Badian 1966: 15-17; Herrmann 1979; von Albrecht 1997:
381-383; Suerbaum 2002: 430-435; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLI-XLIX; and Beck and Walter
2004: 35-39.
359 Chassignet 1999/2003: XLII.









rhetorician and an orator; he was friendly with, and a teacher of, L. Crassus, one of the great

orators of the day and one of Cicero's heroes.360

He wrote one work-of great significance because it is the first work of history in Latin

which took on the treatment of one limited topic rather than all of Roman history ab urbe

condita. His treatment of one topic, the historical monograph, foreshadowed Sallust's use of the

form. Coelius' work treated the eighteen years of the Second Punic War in seven books. Only

sixty-eight fragments of this work are extant today.361 Coelius' history is called by three

different names: historic, annales, and Bellum Punicum.362 Nonius' use of the term annales is

understandable due to the chronological outline Coelius retained, yet fragments and testimony

reveal no evidence of any material or stories from the work which date outside of the Second

Punic War.

Coelius' monograph is limited to the eighteen-year period of the Hannibalic war, 218-201.

Its content, as revealed in surviving fragments, drew upon sources such as Fabius Pictor and

Silenus, the Greek historian who accompanied Hannibal and drew up the Carthaginian history of

the same war.363 Coelius knew Cato's work too.364 He consciously made use of the varied

sources available to him, including laudationes, at least in the story of the death of the consul M.

Claudius Marcellus in 208 in fragment 36 (= Liv. 27.27.11-4). Livy provides some information

about Coelius' research methodology. According to Livy, Coelius offered three different


360 Cic. De or. 2.54.
361 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 50-70; Peter 1914: 158-177 (67 fragments); Herrmann
1979: 17-44 (67 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 40-83 (67 fragments).
362 The work is described as historic in Aulus Gellius fragg. 27), Charisius fragss. 10, 12, 16, 24,
25), Festus fragg. 66), Priscian fragg. 22), Servius auctus fragss. 59 and 61), and Schol. Leidens.
fragg. 52). Nonius alone uses annales in frags. 8, 9, 23, 37, 45, 48, and 50-53. Cicero calls it
Bellum Punicum just once in frag. 2.
363 Pictor as a source for Coelius, frag. 57 (= Cic. Div. 1.55); Silenus as Coelius' source, frag. 11
(= Cic. Div. 1.49).
364 Frag. 27 (= Gell. NA.10. 24); cf Macrob. Sat. 1.4.26.









sequences for the death of Marcellus; one account was the traditional version, one from the

laudatio by Marcellus' son, and a third account which Coelius himself researched and

established. Thus, in Coelius we see explicit attention to research and sources, an uncommon

commitment in earlier historians. Coelius' careful attention to research is signal; previous

historians such as Fabius Pictor through Sempronius Asellio drew upon their own experiences in

the political or military affairs of Rome. Their own auctoritas gave weight to their works.365

Lacking that, Coelius endeavored to impose authority on his work through careful research. In

doing so, Coelius imitated Greek historians' more visible interest in research (the word historic

being based on the Greek word for inquiry), and brings to mind his contemporary, Polybius.

While many fragments (thirty-six out of sixty-eight) survive because of the by now

familiar interest of the grammarians in linguistic usages, extant fragments offer detail regarding

the war, including Hannibal's route across the Alps, the election of Q. Fabius Maximus dictator,

and Hannibal's march towards Rome.366 Other details include the dream of Hannibal (the

devastation of Italy), the battle at Lake Trasimene, and the battle of Cannae, all from Book 1 and

Maharbal's bon mot to Hannibal in Book 2.367 Fragments one through twenty-five (plus frag.

67) come from Book 1, and cover the death of Hamilcar Barca fragg. 3) and Hannibal's entrance

into Italy via the Alps down to Trasimene.368 Fragments from Book 2 fragss. 26-28, 31-32, 34-

35) address Rome's aims with regard to Carthage in 216-211.369 Other allusions to books place

the expedition of Scipio to Africa in Book 6, and in Book 7 the capture in 203 of Syphax, former



365 On auctoritas as a purposeful goal of writing history, see Fornara 1983: 47-90. See also
Marincola 1997: 141, especially pages 133-148 on "experience."
366 Hannibal's route is found in frag. 15 (= Liv. 21.38.5-6), Q. Fabius dictator in frag. 21 (= Liv.
22.31.8), and Hannibal's march in frag. 35 (= Liv. 26.11.8-11).
367 Respectively, frag. 11; frags. 20a and 20b; frag. 21; frag. 22; frag. 27.
368 Herrmann 1979: 46-47.
369 Herrmann 1979: 47.









ally of Rome.370 Coelius served as a significant source, along with Polybius, for Livy's books on

the Hannibalic war; ten of Coelius' fragments are found in Livy. Livy followed Coelius for

disasters at Lake Trasimene and Cannae, for the Spanish campaign, and in general for Hannibal's

operations.371 Brutus made an epitome of it.372 Hadrian thought more highly of him than of

Sallust.373 Plutarch, Pliny, and Fronto all used or knew his work.374 Valerius Maximus titled

him certus Romanae historiae auctor.375 Cicero cited Coelius extensively, particularly on

dreams, in de Divinatione.376

Though the monograph form itself was new to Rome, it was common in Greek,

particularly Hellenistic, historiography, and Coelius found there his model.377 In Rome, the

model existed, but only in poetry; Naevius' Bellum Punicum addressed the same time period as

Coelius but did so in verse form. Hellenistic historiography favored monographs which focused

on a central theme and could support a vivid narrative full of drama and tension.378 Silenus, for

example, wrote a counterpart to Coelius which centered on the character of Hannibal; others

wrote of Alexander the Great. Coelius in turn concentrated on Scipio Africanus but also


370 Frags. 46 and 47 on Scipio, and frag. 52 on Syphax' horse which threw him, leading to his
capture.
371 On Livy's use of Coelius, see Walsh 1961: 124-132, and Luce 1977: 178-179.
372 Cic. Att. 13.8.
373 SHAHadr. 16.6.
374 Plutarch follows Coelius in several cases, for example on the death of Flaminius due to
neglect of religion in Fab. 4 fragg. 20); Pliny does many times as well, e.g., frag. 13 (= Plin. HN
3.132), and Fronto too, e.g., Ep. ad Caes., p. 132 van den Hout. See also Herrmann 1979: 2-53,
von Albrecht 1997: 383 and Chassignet 1999/2003: XLVII. Herrmann 1979: 53 argues that
Silius Italicus, Appian, and Dio Cassius also follow Coelius at times in their own narratives.
375 Val. Max. 1.7.6 (echo of frag. 58 from Cic. Div. 1.56).
376 Frag. 11 (= Cic. Div. 1.49), frag. 20 (= Cic. Div. 1.77-78), frag. 41 (= Cic. Div. 1.48), frag. 57
(= Cic. Div. 1.55), and frag. 58 (= Cic. Div. 1.56).
377 On Hellenistic historiography and monographs, see Verdin 1990.
378 Timaeus' Histories would be one example, another is Cleitarchus' study of Alexander the
Great; often such histories have been called examples of "tragic historiography." These histories
were dramatic, even sensational narratives. On "tragic history," see Ullmann 1942, Walbank
1960, and Wiseman 1979: 3-8 and 27-40.









emphasized Hannibal and his forces.379 Coelius' attention to Hannibal and his careful use of

sources (even impartial in his use of Silenus) marks him as different from those historians

produced by Rome up to that point.

The first professional historian in Rome, Coelius was also the first to explicitly pay

attention to the literary style of his history.380 While Coelius might recall Polybius in the

emphasis he placed on his own research, the Roman was not only interested in events and their

cause or moral lessons to be absorbed, but also interested in the stylistic merits of his work, as

well a rhetorician in second century Rome might be and as many Hellenistic historians were.381

It was Coelius' historiographic style which made him remarkable, according to Cicero.382

Several times over, and often at length, in de Legibus, Brutus, Orator, and de Oratore, Cicero

spoke of Coelius, at times praising him faintly, at other times calling him the best historian Rome

had yet seen. In Orator 229-230, Cicero criticized Coelius for remarks in his preface in which

he promised not to transpose words hyperbatonn) for the sake of rhythm unless necessary.

Unfortunately, Cicero's remarks about the preface do not tell us whether Coelius continued on

and addressed his choice of form. Cicero explicitly finds fault with him for his naivete, his belief

in transparency, and his ignorance of the custom that neither speakers nor authors in his time

used the plea of necessity. Worse, says Cicero, was that if Coelius found it necessary to use

transposition, he nevertheless did not need to confess it. Furthermore, continues Cicero, Coelius

did indeed transpose words. He also justified himself to Lucius Aelius, the dedicatee of the


379 Walsh 1967: 131 believes Hannibal to be the "focal point" of Coelius' work.
380 Unfortunately, Coelius' own words are recorded only by the grammarians, and thus are
usually very brief excerpts without context; Cicero and Livy do not provide any direct quotations
from Coelius. Professional historian here means one whose chief occupation was writing
history; the other historians had written history as an avocation.
381 Leeman 1963: 74 describes Coelius' work as opus oratorium.
382 See the ensuing discussion of Cicero and Coelius below. On Coelius' style, particularly as
set against other historians, see Leeman 1963: 74-76.









work, in hopes of his indulgence, and failed to round off his sentences neatly. Cicero condemns

his style for faults from which other writers, such as the Asiatics, also suffered. Cicero does not

mince words.

Elsewhere, however, Coelius and his style come off better. In de Oratore 2.52, Cicero's

interlocutor Antonius marked Coelius as different and superior to men such as Cato, Pictor, and

Piso who wrote simple records of facts and events without ornamentation. Those writers

regarded brevity as their works' real merit. Against this context, Cicero set Coelius, vir optimus,

who added a maiorem sonum vocis to history writing. Coelius was the ornator rerum. Yet

Coelius here, too, had his failings-no diversity of reflections to set off his narrative, no

marshalling of words or smooth flow of style to polish off his work.383 Rather, Coelius was

homo neque doctus, and even neque maxime aptus addicendum. But, finishes Cicero's speaker

Catulus, at least he was better than those who came before him. Ironically, Coelius' student, L.

Crassus, was a principal interlocutor in de Oratore. In Brutus 102, Coelius is luculentus for his

times, and a man well educated in the law. Lastly, in de Legibus 1.6, Cicero commends Coelius

who inflavit vehementius, and demonstrated some strengths, although his works were agrestis

and horridas, and lacked polish and practice.384 Coelius, at least, made clear to those who came

after him that they should write with care. What Cicero was looking for in Roman

historiography was some nicer conflation of style and form, and Coelius was the first to show

concern for this aspect of history writing.







383 Leeman 1963: 74-75.
384 These judgments may well reproduce rivalry among Antonius, Catulus and Crassus, who
were political competitors in these years.









Coelius often, however, demonstrated a lack of restraint. His numbers are exaggerated, the

pictures he paints larger than life, the dreams and portents emotional.385 He elaborated to evoke

tension even where the facts may not have supported him. Livy says that most Greek and Latin

authors believed that Scipio's sea voyage to Africa was without troubles, except for Coelius

alone who depicted it as beset by both all sorts of terrors from the sea and sky and a storm that

drives Scipio away from Africa. Coelius also has Scipio's men, without orders of their leaders,

make for the shore unarmed haud secus quam naufragos.386 Livy's incredulity is clear.387 Yet,

Coelius' apology for his use of hyperbaton demonstrates a commitment to use of rhetorical

techniques, or at least principles. Additionally, these elements were not missing in Hellenistic

historiography, and Coelius borrowed from them. Coelius' Hellenistic models would have

provided the legitimacy to use an exuberant style; the Asiatic style which Cicero found fault with

was embraced by Hellenistic historians, thus allowing Coelius to add speeches and dreams and

exaggerations. Fronto's description of him, Ennium studios aemulatus, suggests that Coelius

paid attention to poetic practices too.388

Coelius secured a place in Roman historiography as the first to emphasize stylistic

concerns and the first to explicitly address those concerns in a historical work.389 Moreover,

Coelius inaugurated a historiographical form new to Rome, the monograph, which would

become one more option for Romans in which to record, create, write, and present their history.





385 Leeman 1963: 75. An example of this lack of restraint is found in, e.g., his description of
Italy when Scipio headed off to Italy in frag. 46 (= Liv. 29.25.1-4).
386 Frag. 47 (= Liv. 29.27.13-15).
387 Fornara 1983: 59 finds Coelius guilty of the charge that he wrote a work sacrificing "history
to art", and "even the art was rudimentary."
388 Fronto Ep., p. 56 van den Hout.
389 In, e.g., frags. 2 and 36.









Yet another different sort of history writing grew up at the end of the second century. Its

impetus was neither the desire to treat a single period of Roman history, as monographs did, nor

yet to discuss contemporary history, nor to examine Rome ab urbe condita as the annalists did;

rather, its motivation was the need to legitimize and justify public actions, usually political and

military ones. Commentarii are thus on the edges of history writing, perhaps closer to

autobiography and biography than traditional histories.390 Since the form offered an alternative

way of recording history in Rome, however, it deserves attention, and it also can offer a further

and deeper understanding of the context of the years from 133 to 80, a period of individual men

with great ambition and appetites for power.

Commentarii were private journals of sorts, even memoirs.391 In the form's origins,

commentarii were like notebooks, a place for jotting down the raw material that could later be

written up more formally.392 Commentarii provided sources for history, rather than finished

pieces, although that was often just pretence. Sometimes the form is likened to the Greek

hypomnemata, organized materials kept by generals during campaigns, Alexander the Great, for

example, as well as by rulers. The form offered a venue to explain actions, and in Roman hands,

to continue to influence the political landscape. It was a form of public history. Moreover, it

provided a means to create a permanent memory of an individual. Memorializing was not

unique to the autobiographical literary form in Rome. Busts and images of ancestors were

honored, statues of great men were erected in public places, sponsorship of public buildings

allowed an outlet for publicity as well, inscriptions publicly extolled accomplishments, and


390 Kraus 2005: 254 calls history, biography, and autobiography generaproxima. On memoirs
and autobiography, see Riggsby 2007.
391 On the commentarius form, see Bomer 1953; Gelzer 1963; and von Albrecht 1997: 412-413,
and more generally on memoirs and Roman perception of history, see Bates 1983.
392 Cic. Brut. 267. Cicero states that Caesar's aim in his commentarii was to furnish others with
material with which to write history.









portraiture became individualistic. But none of those well-kept traditions, even inscriptions,

offered written narrative-commentarii did.

In the years from the Gracchi to Sulla, prominent men used the commentarii form,

transforming it from notebook to literary work. These men perhaps included Caius Gracchus, as

well as the dictator Sulla, author of a substantial autobiography, and in between, M. Aemilius

Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, and Q. Lutatius Catulus. All held the consulship, yet all four of these

men faced difficulties in their careers.393 Little survives from their commentarii, in some cases

far less than the slim collections of the fragments of earlier historians. In this case, even more

necessarily, the thin information regarding their commentarii needs to be joined with their

context so that a clearer view of their perceptions of the merits and deficiencies of this historical

form might be coaxed out.

Caius Gracchus' work no longer survives. Plutarch, however, preserves notice of a

pamphlet written by Caius concerning motives for his brother Tiberius' reforms, and Cicero too

knew of its existence.394

Marcus Aemilius Scaurus

More remains of the commentarii written by Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, born around 162 in

an impoverished patrician family, who became the most influential politician of his years. Proud

and immensely powerful, Scaurus was instrumental in using the form to serve more than a

storage house for historical materials. Sufficiently egotistical to write memoirs of his own life,

he told the story of his political activities in his work. M. Aemilius Scaurus undertook the cursus




393 Riggsby 2007: 270.
394 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8 and Cic. Div. 1.18.36 and 2.19.62. Cicero knew also of Caius' orations,
and praised his grandeur, wisdom, and weightiness in his discourses (Cic. Brut. 125-126). The
fragments of C. Gracchus' speeches are collected in Hapke 1915.









honorum as a novus homo, and enjoyed great success.395 In fact he became the most powerful

senator of his time, and was princeps senatus for over twenty-five years. Cicero claimed that by

"his nod he almost ruled the world."396 He began his career in military service in Spain, was

quaestor in Sardinia in 125, curule aedile in 122, praetor in Africa in 119, consul in 115, author

of both a sumptuary law and one on freedmen in that year, victorious over the Ligurians,

Taurians and Camians in his consulship year as well, censor in 109, and curator annonae in 104.

Scaurus also served in 112 on the senatorial commission which dealt with struggle for power

between Jugurtha and his brother in North Africa, and he helped to broker a peace with Jugurtha

in 111.397

Today only seven fragments of that work remain.398 Extant fragments demonstrate that the

work was called de vita sua, and that it was three books long.399 Addressed to Lucius Fufidius,

the work was composed late in Scaurus' life and published probably right after his death.400

Preserved by grammarians, the skimpy fragments which survive speak mostly to particular

stylistic choices by Scaurus; little by way of content can be deduced. Nonetheless, two

fragments are of interest. They reveal a man who was self-made despite the difficult financial

straits of his early life fragg. 1), and a man who instilled and insisted upon discipline in his army





395 Frag. 1 refers to Scaurus' impoverished family; Chassignet 2004: LXXXVIII calls his
aristocratic family "ruinee."
396 Cic. Font. 24.
397 Studies (and biographies): Klebs 1893: 584-588; Badian 1966: 23; Bates 1986; Suerbaum
2002: 440-443; and Chassignet 2004: LXXXVIII-XC. Epigraphical notices: CIL2, p. 49
Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. XIII, I, p. 85; CIL2, p. 150= Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. XIII, 1, p. 274-275.
398 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 161-163, and Peter 1914: 185-186 (7 fragments). Beck and
Walter do not include the authors of commentarii in their volumes on the early historians, except
for P. Rutilius Rufus, who is included because he also wrote a history.
399 Cic. Brut. 112. Three fragments witness to the work's title: frags. 1, 3, and 4.
400 Suerbam 2002: 442; Chassignet 2004: XCI. Fufidius' identification is not known.









fragg. 7).401 Cicero's remark in Brutus 112 informs us more generally about the work. He calls

the volumes of Scaurus' work utiles, and in a comparison to the life and education of Cyrus

declares that Cyrus' life should not be preferred to Scauri laudibus. By Cicero's account,

Scaurus' de vita sua was a self-promoting explication, even an encomium, of his life's activities.

More telling is Cicero's comment that despite its usefulness, no one read Scaurus' work (quos

nemo legit), preferring to read Cyrus even though it was less appropriate for Roman customs and

ways. One supposes that, if published earlier, Scaurus' commentarii might have been

compelling reading during the lifetime of Scaurus, and it might have exerted an influence on

Rome's politicians. Once Scaurus was gone, however, his panegyric no longer carried great

weight.

Publius Rutilius Rufus

The same fate did not befall the commentarii of the same period, written by Publius

Rutilius Rufus, whose career overlapped (and threatened) that of Scaurus. Born around 154, he

was military tribune at Numantia in 133 under Scipio Aemilius, and legate under Q. Metellus in

109-107 during the war against Jugurtha. In between military actions, he undertook a career as

orator and lawyer in Rome, served as praetor in 118, and ran unsuccessfully in 115 for consul

against M. Aemilius Scaurus whom he accused of ambitus, and who in return prosecuted him.

He served finally as consul in 105, and undertook military reforms out of the urgency due to war

with the Cimbri and Teutones. In Asia in 94, he governed the province as legate of Scaevola,

alienated the Senate at home, and was prosecuted in 92 by a coalition of Marius and equites

under res repetundae when he returned.402 Found guilty, Rutilius left the city in exile and took


401 Frag. 1 =Val. Max. 4.4.11. Frag. 7 = Frontin. Str. 4.3.13.
402 Rutilius' trial took place sometime between 94 and 92. Cf Alexander 1990: 50 who
proposed 92, and contra Kallet-Marx 1990: 128-129, who argues for an earlier date between 94
and 92.









up residence in Smyrna. At home the optimates deemed his trial outrageous and Rutilius'

"Metellan" circle decried it. This trial eventually served as a catalyst for attempted reforms of

the quaestiones perpetuae.403

A student of the Stoic Panaetius, Rutilius wrote a history of Rome in Greek and a

commentarius in Latin.404 In exile, Rutilius occupied his leisure time in appropriate literary

pursuit, writing Roman history, just as Cato had filled his leisure time. He also recorded and

justified his own political activities, as M. Aemilius Scaurus had done late in his life too. His

autobiography might have been prompted, in fact, by Scaurus' writing of his own; such a

motivation explains Rutilius' choice of form, and might offer an explanation for why Rutilius

wrote two different kinds of history. Rutilius' History in Greek highlighted the depth of his

education and erudition. Rutilius moved in Roman literary society with Laelius, Panaetius,

Poseidonius and Lucilius, along with Q. Aelius Tubero and Caius Fannius.405 His History was

written in Greek for his Greek reading audience in Smyrna, his home during exile. A few

fragments, possibly eight, remain, and these suggest a history which recounted contemporary

events, which by this point had become a favorite form of history writing. Although Athenaeus

and Plutarch knew this work, little with certainty is known of its content.406 A current theory

holds that this Greek history could have been a translation or adaptation of his autobiography.407



403 Studies (and biographies): Minzer 1914: 1269-1280; Suerbaum 2002: 443-447; Peter 1914:
CCLIV-CCLVIII; Hendrickson 1933; Beck and Walter 2004: 100-102; Chassignet 2004: X-XVI
and XCIV-XCVI. On Rutilius' trial and its impact, see Kallet-Marx 1990. Cicero Brut. 115
declared that the trial of the innocent Rutilius shook the republic. Cicero's own friendship with
Rutilius colored his view. Badian 1957: 34-70.
404 Badian 1966: 23 echoes Cic. De or. 1.231 when he calls Rutilius the "Roman Socrates."
405 Chassignet 2004: XIII; Suerbaum 2002: 443.
406 Athen. 4.66, p. 168D; Plut. Pomp. 37.3 (= Rutilius Rufus Hist. frag. 5). Editions of Rutilius'
History: Chassignet 2004: 1-5; Peter 1914: 187-188 (4 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 103-
108 (7 fragments).
407 E.g., Badian 1966: 24.









Rutilius Rufus' de vita sua is similarly not well known, but was, nonetheless, influential.

Written in Latin, rather than Greek, and thereby aimed at an audience at home in Rome, it filled

at least five books.408 Nine fragments survive; as usual, the majority of these concern

grammatical choices of the author, and thus grammarians preserve most of the fragments, with

Charisius recording six of them.409 Disappointed by his exile, Rutilius used the commentarii

form to attack enemies: fragment 1 from Book 1 disparages Q. Pompeius (cos. 141), and

fragment 13 denounces Marius who had played a role in exiling him, along with L. Valerius

Flaccus. Rutilius' contribution to the commentarius form was its overtly apologetic tone.

According to all reports, Rutilius was a man of integrity, tristus et severus in his style of

speaking.410 His works, both the History and de vita sua, became sources for Cicero, Sallust, and

Plutarch, particularly their accounts of Marius, Pompey and Q. Metellus.411 While few

fragments survive, that he was read and used by authors such as Sallust, Plutarch, Cicero and

Livy underscores his significance in shaping the history of his own period.

Of particular import for this dissertation's interest in form are Tacitus' comments on

biography. In the preface to the Agricola, Tacitus described Rutilius' de vita sua and Scaurus as

representative of works produced in a time when it was permissible to write biography to record

examples of virtue. Tacitus remarked (Agric. 1.2-3) that many considered it a mark of the honest

confidence in integrity, and not merely culpable arrogance, for men of action to become their



408 Frags. 5 and 6 mention a fifth book; no other fragment mentions a later volume.
409 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 164-169; Peter 1914: 189-190 (9 fragments) .
410 Cicero Brut. 113. A fuller picture of Rutilius (and Scaurus) appears in Cicero's Brut. 113 in
his discussion of their oratorical abilities. Scaurus and Rutilius were by nature vehemens et acer,
with Rutilius representative of the Stoic style of oratory, and Scaurus representative of the old
school. Cicero met Rutilius in Smyrna in 78, and later recounted a conversation with him in Brut.
85; this discussion focuses on a story Rutilius repeated to Cicero demonstrating the oratorical
skills of Laelius and Galba in particular, whom Rutilius had known well.
411 Badian 1966: 24-25; Suerbaum 2002: 447; Chassignet 2004: XCVI.









own biographers. Tacitus mentioned that Rutilius and Scaurus were instances of such.

Moreover, both men, Tacitus claimed, were not censured for doing so, nor was the truth of their

narrative questioned.412 Embittered himself, Tacitus sought to justify his desire to transmit to

memory the virtues of Agricola in a period "cruel and hostile to virtue."413 Ironically, the

commentarius form as political autobiography was rarely free of self-justification. Rutilius' own

writing of two forms of history neatly highlights the disparity between the two. The

commentarius in his hands, and especially Sulla to come, served more as political apologia than

history.

Quintus Lutatius Catulus

Q. Lutatius Catulus, b. 150, and a near contemporary of Scaurus and Rutilius, similarly

utilized different historical forms, writing a Communis Historia and de consulatu suo et de rebus

gestis, as well as speeches and even poetry.414 Like Scaurus and Rutilius, Catulus was deeply

involved in Roman political and military matters. A member of a noble family, he was

connected by marriage to the best families; he married a sister of Caepio (cos. 106). He ran

unsuccessfully three times for consul, ultimately winning in 102 through the aid of Marius.415

He was defeated by the Cimbri on the Adige, but rebounded to defeat the Cimbri at the

momentous battle of Vercellae with the aid of both Marius and Sulla in 101. Catulus and Marius

412 Tac. Agric. 1.2-3: Sed apudpriores ut agere digna memoratu pronum magisque in aperto
erat, ita celeberrimus quisque ingenio adprodendam virtutis memorial sine gratia aut
ambition bonae tantum conscientiae pretio ducebantur. Ac plerique suam ipsi vitam narrare
fiduciam potius morum quam adrogantiam arbitrati sunt, nec idRutilio et Scauro citrafidem aut
obtrectationifuit: adeo virtutes isdem temporibus optime aestimantur, quibusfacillime
gignuntur. On the preface to the Agricola, see Sailor 2004: 139-177.
413 Tac. Agric. 1.4: saeva et infesta virtutibus tempora.
414 Studies (and biographies): Minzer 1927: 2072-2079, Peter 1914: CCLXII-CCLXIV;
Suerbaum 2002: 447-453; Bardon 1950: 145-164; Bardon 1952: 115- 124 and Chassignet 2004:
XVI-XIX. Questions abound about Catulus' writings, including the connections among them,
the identification of the author, and more. Chassignet 2004: XIX-XXII provides a bibliography
for recent scholarship on these issues which concern us less than the forms Catulus chose to use.
415 Broughton 1952 I: 567. Broughton believes that he also served as praetor, probably by 109.









were awarded a triumph for their success, but when Marius received more credit, Catulus

withdrew his friendship, and became one of his significant enemies. In 87 Catulus stood against

Marius and Cinna, and upon Marius' return and his prosecution of Catulus, Catulus committed

suicide. Catulus suffered from Marius' enmity just as Rutilius had earlier.416

Catulus was a learned man, more so than Scaurus and Rutilius, at least in the range of his

interests.417 Two epigrams are all that survive of his poetry; speeches survive as well, including a

funerary oration on his mother Popillia.418 That speech is remarkable in that it was the first

funeral speech delivered in Rome for a woman.419

Twelve fragments, two of them supplying a title, survive from Catulus' history which

encompassed at least four books and which considered the history of Rome from its origins,

including the settlement of Aeneas at Lavinium.420 The title, Communis Historia, could have

indicated a more general history, since fragments discuss more than the origins of Rome.421 His

history was appreciated by the antiquarians, including Varro and the author of the Origo Gentis,

who preserve many of the fragments.422 Catulus himself was interested in antiquarianism. His

fragments cover some of the same stories and material contained in the early annalists.






416 Marius, who had much to defend and justify, and time to do it in, did not apparently write a
commentarius.
417 Cic. Brut. 132 calls him eruditus.
418 Catulus' epigrams are collected in Courtney 1993: 75-78; his speeches in Malcovati 1979:
218.
419 Cic. De or. 2.44.
420 Editions ofQ. Lutatius Catulus' Comm. Hist.: Chassignet 2004: 6-12; Peter 1914: 192-194 (7
fragments). The settlement of Aeneas at Lavinium comes from frag. 5 of his history, and not
from his commentarius.
421 E.g., frag. 11 on the foundation of Naples. Peter 1914: CCLXVII sees it as a general history,
but Bardon 1952: 122 sees it as a work unifying the Italian world with the Greek world.
422 Ps. Aurelius Victor OGR preserves frags. 2, 4, and 5-7 of Catulus' Comm. Hist.









Catulus also wrote an autobiographical work in the form similar to the one used by both

Scaurus and Rutilius. Cicero called it liber de consulatu et de rebus gestis.423 Not only is the

content of this work little known, but the form itself as well. Only three fragments survive.424

Cicero's label suggests it was a combination of contemporary history and commentarius, and

thus perhaps unlike Scaurus' and Rutilius' political autobiography. Fronto, in fact, described the

work as Catuli litterae.425 Nevertheless, the work exhibited elements characteristic of political

autobiography, among these its apologetic tone, first person voice, and treatment of only

personal experiences.426 No Latin author preserves Catulus; the three fragments extant (not

direct quotations) are in Plutarch's Greek life of Marius. Cicero added in the Brutus that

Catulus' book (and his speeches) demonstrated incorrupta sermonis integritas, and that this

work was written in the clear, lucid style Xenophon was known for. Nonetheless, this smooth

style did not mean Catulus' work was widely read, at least in Cicero's time. Cicero's friend

Brutus admits in Brutus 133 that he did not know the book at all, never mind not having read it,

and Cicero claimed it was no better known than the three books of Scaurus (which Brutus also

did not know). Such a joining of the two, however, lends support to the claim that Catulus and

Scaurus shared a similar form. The works shared an apologetic note.

The surviving fragments of Catulus in Plutarch's life of Marius were concerned with

events from 102-101, specifically Catulus' victory at Vercellae in July 101 over the Cimbri.








423 Cicero Brut. 132. Literally the title implies a work about Catulus' year as consul in 102.
424 Editions of Catulus' liber de consulatu: Chassignet 2004: 170-171; Peter 1914: 191-192.
425 Fronto Ep., p. 124 van den Hout.
426 Suerbaum 2002: 450.









Catulus' disparaging description of Marius' actions-even accusing Marius of malice towards

him-became part of a tradition hostile to Marius.427 Catulus, in his account, performed better.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Lastly, the use of the commentarii as political apology flourished in the hands of Sulla.428

Sulla's remarkable career will not be rehearsed here.429 Though few fragments of his

commentarius remain today, it is apparent that Sulla used the form in the same manner as

Scaurus, Rutilius, and Catulus did-with an eye to explanation, justification, and legitimization.

As with Catulus' work, Sulla's memoirs are preserved chiefly by Plutarch in his life of the

dictator. Various authors call Sulla's work by different names, including hypomnemata, historic,

res gestae, and even praxeis.430 Twenty-three fragments are extant from a work that included at

least twenty-two books.431 Seventeen fragments come from Plutarch. The size of the work

indicates that Sulla must have begun writing it before his retirement from politics; indeed no

other commentarius competes with it for sheer length or size. Topics covered by Sulla included

his participation in the war against the Cimbri, his defeat in his first campaign for praetor, the

capture of Nola, the sedition of P. Sulpicius Rufus in 88, Sulla's actions against Greece and

Mithridates, Rome's civil war, and even a premonition concerning his own death.432 Where


427 Frag. 1 (= Plut. Mar. 25.6-8). Chassignet 2004: XCVII. A number of scholars believe that
Plutarch knew Catulus not directly but through Sulla's memoirs; these include Peter 1914:
CCLXVI and Bardon 1952: 120. Marasco 1984: 83-84 opts for Poseidonius as Plutarch's source
for Catulus.
428 The Commentarii of Julius Caesar fall outside the temporal span of this work.
429 Studies (and biographies) of Sulla, see Frohlich 1900: 1522-1566; Keveaney 1982; and
Seager 1994. For studies of Sulla's commentarius, see Peter 1914: CCLXX- CCLXXX;
Valgiglio 1975, Pascucci 1975, Lewis 1991, Scholz 2003 and Chassignet 2004: XCIX-CIV.
430 The term hypomnemata is used in frags. 11-14, 17-18, and 23 by Plutarch; Cicero uses
historic in frag. 9, Aulus Gellius prefers the title libri rerum gestarum in frags. 2 and 3, and
Plutarch uses praxeis in frag. 1.
431 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 172-184; Peter 1914: 195-204 (21 fragments). Frag. 23 tells us of
the length of the work.
432 Frags. 4-6; 7; 9-10; 12; 14-18; 20-21; and 23, respectively.









these fell in Sulla's commentarii is not always clear-Sulla wrote his work in Latin and a

freedman, L. Cornelius Epicadus, reworked it, in Greek.433 Two fragments indicate something of

the structure of the work. Fragment 17 (= Plut. Sull. 17.1- 4) records that Sulla wrote of victory

at Chaeroneia in 86 in his tenth book. This means that Sulla covered the last years of his life,

i.e., the civil war, proscriptions, and dictatorship, in twelve more books. Fragment 23 (= Plut.

Sull. 37.1-3) preserves Sulla's prophecy in Book 22 of his own death.

Intentions behind Sulla's use of the commentarii form are twofold and complementary.

First, Sulla's work was intended, at least at one point, as a storage place for facts, for raw

material to be incorporated later in a fuller history. According to Plutarch, Sulla's dedication of

his volumes to his friend, Lucullus, a man of great culture and later great wealth, was done so in

the hopes that he would put Sulla's autobiography in order and arrange it better.434 Lucullus,

however, never reworked the material into a proper history. Sulla's prefatory comments may

have been wishful thinking in the manner that Cicero hoped his friend Lucceius would write his

history, or more a realistic nod to the haste with which Sulla composed his work. He would have

written twenty-two volumes extraordinarily quickly, and such speed compelled him merely to

collect notes, records, and reminiscences. Any long narrative, deep explication or polished

speech would have been nearly impossible, though he granted some periods of his career more

coverage, particularly his last years.435 Such a lengthy work compiled in a short time implies a

work true to the original notion of commentarii-notes of sorts in which to gather material for a

fuller history.


433 Suet. Gram. 12.1-2. Debate flourishes about this; some say Sulla wrote his commentarius
originally in Greek, and his Greek freedman recast it, presumably also in Greek. Others, such as
Chassignet, however, believe that Sulla wrote it originally in Latin, based on Plutarch's
comments about the memoir. I find her argument more convincing. See Chassignet 2004: C-CI.
434 Frag.1 (= Plut. Luc. 1.4).
435 Lewis 1991: 511.









Yet, in the manner of his contemporaries, Sulla used the autobiographical form for more;

his own words demonstrate that he intended his autobiography to present and perpetuate his

perception of his actions, and within that, to manifest as overarching theme for his life hisfelix

character.436 His purpose, which was not unique to his autobiography but shared by each author

of commentarii in this period, was to shape the image of himself which would become part of

Rome's history. He would instruct others of his accomplishments and leave a legacy at the same

time. Thus his work carried a defensive tone just as Scaurus' work had and Rutilius' as well.

That much is clear in Plutarch, who included Sulla's defense of his actions during the war

against Mithridates (87-80). On the charge that Sulla might have been favoring certain enemies

over others, Plutarch declared that Sulla in his own memoirs argued that his favors were

perfectly innocent.437

Moreover, Sulla's representation of his actions and his career very likely imitated not only

the commentarii as produced by Scaurus (whose widow Sulla had married) and Rutilius but also

the deep-set Roman tradition of the laudatiofunebris. Such speeches rehearsed the deceased's

cursus honorum and res gestae, as well as lineage, ancestry, and attendant virtues.438 The

political autobiography in fact very likely grew out of this accepted Roman custom. That Sulla's

work included his cursus honorum can be deduced from the details known by Velleius

Paterculus who knew of six generations of Sulla's family, and from Aulus Gellius, who

preserved mention of an ancestor of Sulla, P. Cornelius, theflamen dialis of the third century, in




436 Scholz 2003 argues that Sulla's work was, in fact, a literary exercise characterizing Sulla
through his "strong affinity tofelicitas."
437 Frag. 18 (= Plut. Sull. 23.1-5).
438 On the laudatiofunebris, see Crawford 1941, Kierdorf 1980, Wiseman 1994: 1-36, and
Suerbaum 2002: 518-523. Pliny (HN 35.8), Cicero (Brut. 62), and Livy (8.11.4) all speak to the
untrustworthy character of the laudatio.









a verbatim quotation.439 The inclusion of material such as this in Sulla's work implies that some

coverage was accorded to his lineage and ancestry.440 And so the form of the political

autobiography was expanded to include not just justification of one's actions but also

presentation of one's presumably virtuous and noble ancestors.

The success of the political autobiography in the early first century needs be set in context.

Few Roman historians from this time period wrote in any other form. Sisenna was probably at

work writing a contemporary history. Annalistic historiography had earlier ceased; Antias and

Valerius had yet to publish. Scaurus, Rutilius, Catulus and Sulla representedfactiones which

dominated Rome after the Gracchan period. In a linear step, their version of history was a

further point along a line of history writing from Cato's inclusion of his own speeches, despite

his dislike of Hellenistic individualism, to Fannius' explicit notice of his aversion to the Gracchi

and then to Sulla's listing of his family's accomplishments. Each of these historian-politicians

inserted himself into his history, and paved the way for history which included autobiography.

Moreover, autobiography in political life was not unknown to the Romans. Recording of

achievements by means of speeches, orations, laudatory inscriptions, memoirs (such as the

hypomnemata of Alexander the Great and the apologia of Aratus of Sicyon), and the plastic arts

had been done by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hellenistic kings, and more recently,

even Hannibal himself.441 Romans similarly committed to posterity accounts of their

accomplishments and virtues by both literary and non-literary means. The laudatiofunebris

delivered at the funeral provided a biography of an exalted man; these funerary speeches were



439 Vell. 2.17.2, and frag. 2 (= Gell. NA 1.12.15-16).
440 Lewis 1991: 512-514, contra Sullan scholars who propose that Sulla passed quickly over his
parentage, education and formative years, writing little if any on those topics.
441 For a general overview of autobiography in the ancient world see Misch 1950. On
Hannibal's memorial to himself, see Liv. 28.46 and Polyb. 3.33.









likely preserved in family archives and provided source material for the family's history. Yet

while the laudatio praised an individual, it did so in the context of the family, the fundamental

unit of Roman society, and thus took place within a private context. Funerary inscriptions,

epitaphs in both prose and poetry, and honorary (and political) inscriptions, however, advanced

the concept of recording the deeds of an individual in public. The rhetoric of a laudatio and the

intimate context were absent from these inscriptions, but the intention-of presenting an account

of one's res gestae-was the same. The vowing of temples, the names on public buildings, as

well as triumphal processions, commemorated and immortalized the achievements of

distinguished families of Rome.442 Autobiography was not far removed in intent from these

means: all looked to achieve the same end: some form of immortality. Indeed historiography in

Rome itself was tied up with the urge to memorialize and meld, and promote, patrician families

and national history.

Lucius Cornelius Sisenna

The period which produced these commentarii of Scaurus, Rutilius, Catulus and Sulla was

one of great energy, frenetic politicking, and ambitious men. It was not, however, the home to

great history writing, with the exception of the work done by L. Cornelius Sisenna. Termed by

Rawson as "the most important historical work in Latin" written in the first half of the first

century, Sisenna's history treated both the Social War and the subsequent civil war up to the time

of Sulla's death.443






442 On Roman chronicling of res gestae by means of laudationes, buildings, processions, and art,
see Misch 1950: 208- 230.
443 Rawson 1991: 363. Badian 1962: 212 notes his recognition as the greatest historian of the
age; cf. Cicero, below, in comments from Brutus.









L. Cornelius Sisenna was descended remotely from an Etruscan family, and his family had

held citizenship for several generations.444 Born around 118, his political career consisted of

possible quaestorship in 89, praetorship (both urbanus etperegrinus) in 78, and possible pro-

praetorship in Sicily in 77.445 His oratorical career included the defense of Verres with

Hortensius in 70; additionally he had a brief military career as legate under Pompey in charge of

Macedon and Greece in the pirate campaign of 67, during which he died.446 He might have been

an Epicurean, poet, and translator.447

Sisenna's Historiae included Sulla's civil war, at least the years 91-82, and perhaps to

Sulla's death in 78.448 One hundred and forty-four fragments are extant, from a work of at least

twenty-three books.449 Fronto calls his style longinque.450 While fragments 1-3 of Sisenna relate



444 Studies (and biographies): Niese 1901: 1512-1513; Peter 1914: CCCXXXIV-CCCXLIX;
Badian 1962a; Badian 1962; Rawson 1991: 363-388; Beck and Walter 2004: 241-245;
Chassignet 2004: XXXVIII-XLIX.
445 On his offices, see Badian 1964: 430; on participation in Social War, see Plut. Luc. 1.7; on
praetorship, see CIL I2, 2, 589 = ILLRP 513, and Broughton 1952 II: 86 (who tentatively calls
Sisenna a patrician but with a question mark). Badian 1962: 212 calls him of "good praetorian
(and probably patrician) family." On the possible pro-praetorship, see Rawson 1991: 372.
Broughton 1952 II: 90 thinks Sisenna might have been governor of Sicily instead.
446 Rawson 1991: 367-368; Chassignet 2004: XL-XLI; and Broughton 1952 II: 148. For
Sisenna's speeches, see Malcovati 1979: 305-307. Cicero did not know his speeches directly,
suggesting that Sisenna did not publish them. On Sisenna in Macedon and Greece, see Dio 36.
1. Bardon 1952: 255 calls him a soldier (and thereby explains the number of battle scenes).
447 Sisenna may have had a literary career beyond historian. Some scholars propose that he
translated the Milesian stories of Aristides; see Chassignet 2004: XLII. Rawson 1991: 369-371
is dead set against an identification of Sisenna, the translator of the Milesian tales, with Sisenna
the historian. The passage from Ovid (Trist. 2.443-444) generally cited as proof is part of Ovid's
list of Latin authors, but these are mostly poets, not historians. Cic. Div. 1.99 notes influence on
Sisenna by an unnamed Epicurean. That would make Sisenna the only historian we know who
was an Epicurean.
448 Vell. 2.9.5 calls it opus belli civilis Sullanique. Frag. 134 provides a possible endpoint of 82.
The title Historiae is witnessed in many of Sisenna's fragments, such as frags. 6, 7 and 13-16.
449 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 50-88; Peter 1914: 276-297 (143 fragments); Barabino 1967: 67-
239 (144 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 247-313 (144 fragments). Frag. 134, dating to the
year 82, is the last fragment to record a book.
450 Fronto Ep., p. 132 van den Hout.









to the early years of Roman history (possibly from aprooemium), the other extant fragments

center on the social and civil wars.451 Book 1 fragss. 5 and 6) related troubles in 91 during the

tribunate of Drusus, Book 2 fragss. 8-9) further covered the year 91, Book 3 fragg. 10) addressed

the end of 91 and the beginning of 90, and Book 4 treated events of 90 and 89.452 Publication

probably occurred after the death of Sulla. Sisenna's history of the wars drew on Sulla's

commentarii as well as his own experiences in Italy.453 His sources are, however, not as clear as

his probable aim for his history. Sallust, who begrudgingly admired him, called him optume et

diligentissume omnium, and yet rebuked him for his partisan handling of Sulla's activities.454

Sisenna openly displayed political interests throughout his work. Trials, speeches, a favoring of

the optimates, are all part of his history; many political trials appear to be those under the Varian

law, approved in late 91 or early 90 at the beginning of the Social War, and used by the equites

for political gain.455





451 Nonius, perhaps mistakenly, once titles the work ab urbe condita, and this title has been
explained as perhaps pertaining to aprooemium which undertook a cursory look at the origins of
Rome. Others suggest the title belongs to an excursus either on the model of archeologia such as
Thucydides wrote or as an embedded section of the Historiae. Nonius' name of the work
survives in Sisenna's frag. 3 (= Nonius, p. 185, 11 L). On the debate, see Chassignet 2004:
XLIII. Rawson 1991: 388, among others, find the notion of aprooemium in the style of
Thucydides taken up by Sisenna to be untenable, and considers virtually impossible a connection
between Sisenna and Sulla's proem. Chassignet 2004: XLIII argues for aprooemium which
utilized early legends as an effort towards Sullan propaganda. No proem survives.
452 Frags. 5 and 6 make up Book 2; Book 3 appears in frag. 10. Chassignet 2004: XLVII argues
that Book 4 included the end of the year 90 and 89, yet others believe that it treated only 89 with
only references to 90; see her footnote 232.
453 Rawson 1991: 375 and Badian 1966: 25. Sisenna gains and loses authority depending on
where he was during these years, particularly the 80's. Badian 1964: 427 sees him in Rome.
454 Sall. lug. 95. 2: L. Sisenna, optume et diligentissume omnium, qui eas res (sc. Sullae res)
dixere persecutus, parum mihi libero ore locutus videtur.
455 Rawson 1991: 366. On the lex Varia, see Gruen 1965. On Sisenna's trials under the Varian
law see Calboli 1975: 160-218; Calboli echoes Barabino in finding references in the slim
fragments to trials of e.g., M. Aemilius Scaurus (e.g., frags. 13, 15, 22, and 51).









Perhaps a patrician himself, Sisenna's support for the optimates stands out in his work.

Two fragments support this. Fragment 134 might echo his admiration of Sulla: multipopuli,

plurimae contiones dictaturam omnibus animis et studies suffragaverunt.456 Elsewhere, Sisenna

speaks of his opinion that wicked and bold men have always worked against the honors and

fortunes huius ordinis, presumably the senatorial class.457 Fragments also point out other

interests, such as an interest in military matters; these show careful knowledge of topography,

siege engines and machines (e.g., frags. 19 and 44), and military and naval terms (e.g., frags. 78,

79, 80).458 Sisenna found his way into Sallust, and Livy; Varro and Tacitus knew him as well.459

Varro's work on the writing of history took Sisenna's name as the title, but too little of it

survives to demonstrate how and why he discussed Sisenna.460

Like Coelius Antipater, Sisenna was concerned with style. Indeed most of Sisenna's

fragments survive today in the grammarians who note Sisenna's inusitata verba.461 Nonius alone

preserves 123 out of 144 fragments. Sisenna created a writing style full of archaisms, military

terms, analogies, neologisms, adverbs ending in -im, and "rare and obsolete words"; 462 his

history entertained as well as informed. Sallust admired him, and chose to begin his history

where Sisenna left off. Though Cicero does not mention him in de Oratore (presumably in order



456 Frag. 134 = Nonius, p. 750, 8L. On the "tendenza filosillana" of Sisenna, see Calboli 1975:
156-160.
457 Frag. 96 = Nonius, p. 153, 1L. On Sisenna and the optimate (too simplistic a term) see
equally Rawson 1991: 366-367 and Badian 1966: 27.
458 On topography, see Rawson 1991: 372.
459 Rawson 1991: 364. Cf also Chassignet 2004: XLIX. Liv. Per. 62 uses him, Tacitus Hist.
3.51 cites him, and Sallust Hist. 1.4 Maur mentions Sisenna.
460 Gell. NA 16.9.5.
461 Badian 1966: 26, drawing on Cic. Brut. 259-260.
462 Leeman 1963: 85. Briscoe 2005: 71-72 provides a list of words appearing for the first or
only time in Sisenna and archaisms. Additionally, Briscoe notes Sisenna's fondness for adverbs
ending in -im and supplies a list of these too. Lebek 1970: 58 argues that Sisenna does not
archaize.









to preserve the authenticity of its dramatic date), in the de Legibus he declared Sisenna the best

of Roman historians to that time, although noting Sisenna's deficiencies (and indeed room for a

better historian-himself).463 Among Sisenna's faults, Cicero found a puerile view ( in historic

puerile quidam consectatur), as well as a desire to imitate Cleitarchus, the Hellenistic historian

and chief example of the style of so-called tragic history. Dismissive of Cleitarchus, Cicero also

found fault with Sisenna's limited reading of Greek historians. Elsewhere Cicero reiterated this

evaluation of Sisenna. In Brutus, Cicero addresses Sisenna's oratorical skills, calling him

doctus, devoted to his studies, bene Latine loquens, yet not industrious. On the other hand, in his

history writing, Cicero marked him first again of all historians. Once again, Cicero left room for

a better historian (and a better style) who would remedy how far current historiography was a

464
summo.

In turbulent and unsettling times, Sisenna chose to write in a dramatic style suiting his

topic in the manner of tragic history as fashioned by Cleitarchus, the historian of Alexander the

Great. His history would then have been full of dramatic moments, perhaps among them Sulla's

campaign in Campania fragss. 72 and 73) and Marius' flight from Rome fragg. 127).465 Other

dramatic episodes in the tradition of the Social War may also be traced back to Sisenna's

account.466 Sisenna appeared skeptical of dreams and portents; fragment 3 has Aeneas die next

to the Numicius river, not disappearing, and fragment 5 follows Cicero's assertion that Sisenna,

because of influence from an unnamed Epicurean, believed no credence should be given to

dreams. Yet Cicero also notes, in fragment 5, that Sisenna included portents of statues sweating




463 Cic. Leg. 1.7.
464 Cic. Brut. 228.
465 Rawson 1991: 379, and Barabino 1967: 138.
466 Rawson 1991: 378-380.









and blood flowing and shields eaten by mice at the beginning of the Marsic War.467 Stylistically,

these enrich his work, though tragic history was not the only branch of history to use portents

and dreams; earlier annalists as well as Coelius had done so as well and portents were part of the

pontifical chronicles. Sisenna's inclusion of these, as a historical topos or as a nod to Sulla's

belief in dreams, demonstrates Sisenna's awareness of historiography in Rome.

Sisenna's care for stylistic matters produced a history full of rich language and sounds,

archaism, neologisms, analogies, and alliteration, as well as technical terms.468 Sisenna similarly

demonstrated concern for historiographical form. Both implicitly and explicitly, Sisenna offered

an opinion about form. His work was entitled Historiae consistently, and following on the heels

of Sempronius Asellio's distinction drawn between annales and historic, the title suggests that

Sisenna carefully chose a historiographical form defined as interested in reasons and causes

rather than one which merely related events and deeds.469 Sisenna's starting point, too, manifests

an interest and awareness of new forms available to Roman historians. Like Coelius, he

undertook a history of a particular set of events, avoiding a history ab urbe condita. Sisenna

began with the death of Drusus in 91, which was the end point for Asellio's history.470

Continuations were not uncommon in Greek historiography; Sisenna's continuation of Asellio








467 Frag. 3 (on Aeneas) = Nonius, p. 185, 11 L. Frag. 5 (= Cic. Div. 1. 99) demonstrates
Sisenna's use of portents and dreams despite his skepticism of them which is recorded just prior
to the fragment: Quod quidem somnium Sisenna cum disputavisset mirifice ad verbum cum re
convenisse, tur insolenter, credo ab Epicureo aliquo inductus, disputat somniis credit non
oportere.
468 On Sisenna's use of analogy, see Rawson 1991: 384-386.
469 Sempronius Asellio frag. 1.
470 Sempronius Asellio frag. 12.









was, however, the first in Roman historiography.471 And in a compliment to Sisenna, Sallust

chose to begin his history where Sisenna had left off.472

Moreover, Sisenna structured his history not rigidly by chronology but rather by theme or

topic. Gellius preserved a verbatim quotation from Sisenna (from Book 1, according to Nonius):

nos una estate in Asia et Graecia gesta litteris idcirco continentia mandavimus, ne vellicatim

aut saltuatim scribendo lectorum animos impediremus.473 Not only did Sisenna group material

by theme but by geography as well (as Cato had done). This ordering of his material categorizes

Sisenna as more than an annalist; he was a writer of historic and one who claimed to pay

attention to style. In content, style, and form, Sisenna was a remarkable historian for the period.

Not quite as perfect as Cicero's imagined ideal, Sisenna was, nevertheless, an innovative

historian, shaping content through attention to both style and form.

Alternative forms of writing history flourished in the second century in Rome alongside

annales. Their use of alternative forms demonstrates many things: their awareness of Roman and

Greek historiography, an educated audience, an intellectual and social atmosphere in both second

and first century Rome, and a charged political climate. In these times they used specific

historiographical forms to shape perceptions of Rome-and themselves. Authors of these

histories declared their intentions, found the annalistic format lacking in some way, and turned to

different forms, forms more amenable for what they envisioned the purpose of their particular

history of Rome.



471 Rawson 1991: 373.
472 Sall. Hist. 1. 4 Maur. On Sallust's preface as a traditional historical exordium which paid
compliment to Sisenna by beginning where he ended, see McGushin 1992: 69-71.
473 Frag. 129 (= Gell. NA 12.15.2). Nonius prefaced this quotation in a section on the word
saltuatim with it source in Book 1, Nonius, p.. 247, 7L. That the writing of history included an
expectation of chronological order, as opposed to Sisenna's methodology, can be seen later, in,
e.g., Plin. Ep. 1.1: college non servato temporis ordine-neque enim historian componebam.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

During the Roman Republic, Roman historians employed a number of forms to write their

histories: annales, res gestae, contemporary history, monographs, and commentarii. Set in the

context of political and military growth and literary development, Roman historians recorded,

discovered, shaped and understood the rise of Rome by trying out a variety of historiographical

forms to best present Rome's story.

The Roman fragmentary historians used these different forms to provide structure to their

unique histories of Rome. These histories, produced in the period from 240 to 63, do not,

however, survive intact. From the annalist Fabius Pictor, writing at the end of the Second Punic

War, to the annalist Licinius Macer, writing just before Cicero's consulship, histories from the

Republican period are preserved only in fragments. In the case of some of these authors, a great

number of fragments remain which allow a careful examination of the author's work. For

example, one hundred and forty-four fragments are extant from L. Cornelius Sisenna's history of

at least twenty-three books. On the other hand, only four fragments survive of the history

penned by the Hellenophile and senator A. Postumius Albinus. Paucity of fragments and lack of

sure biographical information seriously impede an examination of these authors. Nevertheless,

fragmentary works such as these cannot be overlooked in favor of only the more substantial

histories of Rome which follow. These incomplete histories both created and shaped Roman

historiography and Roman history.

No real preface for any of these historians survives. Indeed, Tore Janson's work on Latin

prose prefaces makes no mention of the fragmentary historians of the Republic.474 Missing from

their histories-at least from their fragments-are the introductions crucial to understanding


474 Janson 1964.









Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. Whether the topoi, which regularly filled the prefaces of later Roman

and earlier Greek historians, found a place in a preface of one of the fragmentary historians is not

known.475 Perhaps Roman Republican historians, aware of their historiographical predecessors

and trained in rhetoric, prepared prefaces, stand-alone or integrated, for their works-but none

survives. Did they consider and address topoi such as laudatio historiae, reason for choice of

subject, and their own attitudes towards history?

Reasons for and authorial estimations of particular historiographical forms are, thus, not

easy to determine; few explicit motives and fewer intentional statements survive in their meager

fragments. Hence the difficulty of this study-an account of how Roman historians used these

forms, why they did so, and their own estimations of them. My work has been concerned with

form to the extent that we can infer something about the reason for the historian's choice and his

accompanying rejection of other ways of writing history. For an author's use of form reveals

motivation, demonstrates to some extent what goals he aimed for, what part that history played

in the Roman cultural context, and how the author viewed history.

Of the many historians examined in this work, only a mere handful of statements survive

which allow a glimpse at choices they made regarding historiographical form. Cato manifested a

displeasure with the traditional content of annales, which appear to be primarily events he

deemed trivial. Sempronius Asellio, at greater length, distinguished works that were annales

from those of res gestae, the latter being the work of a better historian, or so he intimated.

Further remarks by Asellio, who noted the lack of inspiration annales imparted to their readers,

are the only such surviving remarks regarding the purpose of history by a fragmentary historian.

Coelius Antipater's preface apologized for his use of hyperbaton, an explicit nod to the



475 On these topoi in prefaces of later Roman historians, see Janson 1964: 66-67.









significance of style, if not content and form, in a history. L. Cornelius Sisenna promised not to

confuse his readers by jumping around a narrative, presumably by working more thematically

and less chronologically. A. Postumius Albinus pleaded for leniency when he chose to write his

annals in Greek, a language he believed was conventional for annales but one in which he was

not at home. Sulla's preface registered a hope that his dedicatee would come in and fix up and

arrange his commentarius.

Others left less obvious indications about their choice of form. Estimations have to be dug

out from the remaining fragments and joined with contexts before we can say anything about a

particular historian and form. Sometimes we are reduced to speculation-speculation founded

on a close reading of the fragments and an understanding of context, literary, cultural, and

political. That is what I have tried to do.

In sum, the evidence from the works of Roman historians from the years 240-63, rejects

the picture of historiography in the Roman Republic as uniformly annalistic. It also questions

the perception that Roman historiography prior to the second half of the first century was poorly

conceived.

Towards the end of the Second Punic War, Roman history began to take form in Fabius

Pictor and Cincius Alimentus. Cicero (Div. 1.43) described Pictor's work as Graeci annales;

Dionysius concurred (Ant. Rom. 1.6.2). Near contemporaries, Pictor and Alimentus wrote in

Greek and described Rome's history ab urbe condita, including, as well, stories relating to

Rome's prehistory. Influenced by Greek historiographic models of local history, Roman

historiography thus began in the Greek language, shaped by Greek conventions, but structured

around a native format: the chronological material found in sources such as the annual records

posted by the priests. How much these authors used the lists later to be published as the annales









maximi has been debated; more clear is the evidence in their fragments that these early authors

chose to write Rome's history in a wide longitudinal, chronological sweep. The works of Pictor

and Cincius, both senators, included etymologies, etiologies, the establishment of institutions and

customs, names of magistrates, material such as family or personal accomplishments, and praise

of Rome. These components and their senatorial perspective would regularly appear in the

Roman historians who followed them.

From neither of these first Roman historians do we have any fragment announcing

programmatic intent or a thoughtful exposition regarding historiographical form, much less the

hoped for preface or proem. Indeed such introductions would be well received by us-without

them, however, we can nevertheless justly suppose that Pictor and Cincius Alimentus both saw

their histories as ultimately useful: they were the first Romans to write a history of Rome in

continuous prose and hence saw a need for a written account. Their histories' purpose was

utility-in presenting a Roman perspective, in preserving Rome's memory, in creating more

literary, narrative, readable treatments of historical records. Thus these two historians

established the practice for annalists to come.

Some forty years later two other senatorial Romans produced histories of Rome similar to

those of Pictor and Cincius Alimentius. A. Postumius Albinus and Gaius Acilius wrote in Greek,

covered Rome's pre-history and foundations, and treated Rome's history up to their time. In

their choice of language both these authors demonstrated a literary context in which Hellenistic

culture and literature continued to find an audience in the first half of second century Rome, as it

had in the earlier generation. Postumius' prefatory comment about his deficiencies in Greek,

however, suggest a literary culture in which Roman authors need not be versed in Greek to such









a degree, and this may be a harbinger of things to come, as Roman authors would look to create

their own models and forms in both prose and poetry.

While Hellenistic culture and literature would remain a potent influence in Rome for

generations to come, by mid-second century historiography in Rome had begun to change. The

driving force in that change was Cato, who wrote Rome's first history in Latin by 150. The

fragments of Cato's Origines preserve a programmatic statement not only about the content of

his work, but form too. When Cato scorned the mundane material (i.e., grain prices and eclipses)

that he found in the annales, he implied that in the first half of the second century, historians

largely focused on those events preserved in the pontifical chronicles.476 His explicitly

historiographic statement manifested a deep concern; for Cato both the form and the content of

annales were deficient. His work brought to Rome a new kind of history-one that offered

foundation stories beyond Rome's, displaced individuals in preference to community, and

promised a narrative not bound to strict chronology. For him, history had a purpose beyond

merely recording and memorializing the past. He would showcase Rome, her humble

magistrates, and her collective past, against a larger world.

As we have seen, Cato's history did not mean an end to history written ab urbe condita nor

to histories which continued to proceed chronologically, list magistracies, and so on. The second

century, in fact, was the context for a number of annalistic histories. These were produced by

senators such as L. Cassius Hemina, L. Calpumius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, and Cn. Gellius.

These men saw in the annalistic format a surprising flexibility for emphasizing or privileging

particular interests. Hemina and Tuditanus, for example, showed less interest in political or

military concerns and more interest in, respectively, religious affairs and antiquarianism. In their



476 Cato frag. IV, 1.









hands, annalistic form did not mean that they were restricted to equal rigid and sequential

examinations of a particular prescribed set of topics, though it might have needed a senator as

author (hence Hemina's comment in frag. 16, possibly deriding homo mere litterosus). Lucius

Calpurnius Piso (cos. 133) returned to political and military matters, and in his examination of

the secession of the plebs in 494 and the election of tribunes by the comitia tribute manifested an

important aspect and function of Roman historiography-the desire to read and represent present

politics in their predecessors, a means of understanding the present by reading the past, a

function regularly associated with history and the writing of history. He seems to have

emphasized the now common sentiment that we better understand the present if we can know the

past. Cn. Gellius, writing sometime later than these three, wrote in chronological fashion at great

length. He, perhaps most strongly, rejected the Catonian form of historiography. If Cato had

thought that Rome's history ought to have overlooked the mundane, incidental, and trivial,

Gellius' history indeed must have looked to find them a place.

From none of these four do we have a preface or programmatic statements; again, no

introduction with authorial intent survives, and no explicit comment about form is part of their

surviving corpus. But what each did with his history showcased a commitment to writing of

Rome ab urbe condita, including pre-history, foundational stories, etymologies, and etiologies.

Within that annalistic framework, each forged his own version of Rome's history. Significantly,

these Romans wrote in an annalistic format in the years after Cato's negative remarks on the

form and its common content, and in doing so demonstrated a certain engagement with the

historiographic process-whether that be contrariness, independence, or even merely imitation of

predecessors. These four persisted in the annalistic form even when the powerful voice of Cato

argued against it.









What these Romans may have seen in the annalistic form, beyond its structure, its

flexibility, and its nod to native traditions, was that a work of annales reviewed the past, allowed

a better understanding of the present, but at the same time looked forward. An annalistic

structure, by virtue of its insistence on a yearly chronicle, always presupposed another year to

come. In this sense, annalists may be seen as celebrating Rome's ability to succeed, prosper, and

endure-into the future. The rhetorical force of the annalistic form was about the future, as well

as the past. Its relentless structure compelled an author forward.

In that second century, others beyond Cato employed alternative historiographical forms.

This made historiography in the second century part of a rich literary culture in which historians

considered form (and content) as part of the purpose in their writing. Set against this backdrop,

history writing in this period looks to have been part of a lively discourse. How to write history

in the second century? Cato criticized the stuff of annals, several historians ignored his

criticisms, writing annales for their own purpose, and still others followed his lead to use new

forms, such as Sempronius Asellio, Fannius to a certain degree, Coelius Antipater, and even

Sisenna in the first century. Asellio's preface remains the most clear prescript on the writing of

history in the second century. His determination to write differently from his predecessors

supplies one lens through which to see historians deliberating about their craft.

Though Fannius' history is indeed called annales, his work appeared to focus on more

contemporary events. Consul in 122 and son-in-law of Laelius, his privileged position in Rome

underscores key elements of historiography in the second century-political experience and a

senatorial perspective-but Fannius, through his contact with the Scipionic circle, included a

new element: an interest in literature. Sempronius Asellio was similarly marked; his connection

with the so-called Scipionic circle likewise brought him into a group that would have encouraged









a more literary approach to history writing. Asellio's astute comments on the differences

between historiographical forms are our best evidence for debate and development in Roman

historiography in the second century. Soon after Asellio, Coelius Antipater also took up a form

which was decidedly not annalistic; he embraced a monograph form to tell the story of the

Hannibalic War. Importantly, Coelius left indications of a careful evaluation of sources. He also

broke free of another tradition associated with historiography in Rome. He was not a senator,

had no political experience that we know of, and thus may have been Rome's first professional

historian. Lacking that senatorial perspective might have freed him from the obligation to trace

Rome's history through great families and individuals. He could instead devote his literary skills

to a narrative of one significant event.

In the first century, other forms flourished too, such as the commentarii of M. Aemilius

Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Lutatius Catulus, and Sulla, and the contemporary history of

Sisenna. Here too the annalistic form endured, in the works of Q. Claudius Quadrigarius,

Valerius Antias, and Licinius Macer. In their commentarii Scaurus and Rufus paraded their

accomplishments, and justified their actions. Catulus similarly took up a defense of his life, and

Sulla's use of the autobiographical form afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate at length

his own res gestae. Sisenna wrote almost a monograph, focusing on the Social War, and

continuing Asellio. At the same time, Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius provided

histories of Rome that celebrated Rome's glory days and, while doing so, championed the

families of the Valerii and Claudii. History written ab urbe condita allowed great scope for

demonstrating enduring contributions by the noble families. In Macer, on the other hand, we see

a focus on sources in addition to content. In his search for an accurate account of Rome, he

found new more credible sources, he hoped, and trusted in them. Macer is outstanding for his









evaluation of sources, something not always visible in the other historians. As in the second

century, the historians of this time overlap closely; the authors of the commentarii wrote their

works and participated in Roman politics at the very same time during which Quadrigarius and

Antias wrote their annales and did not participate in politics. The death dates of Licinius Macer

and L. Cornelius Sisenna fall about a year apart, a few years prior to the consulship of Cicero.

The production of so many histories, some written very closely together, implies a

competition for authority-competition for the "truest" or best narrative. Whether explicitly

articulated or not, a work of history could repudiate, or intend to repudiate, the histories written

before them. Roman authors asserted autonomy and truth or a different perspective in the

production of each new history. What the fragmentary historians wrote about is not my primary

topic, but what they did write-narratives of humble origins, glory days, and accounts of great

men-in turn reflected and shaped values (usually of the privileged elite) and participated in

creating a national identity, which was, in turn, renegotiated in each new history.

As a genre and discipline, historiography in the Roman Republic was many things.

Historiography grew in emerging and even competing forms; it was undertaken by both

professional and amateur; both the ruling elite (e.g., Cato) and the lower born (e.g., Valerius

Antias) engaged with it; it was both a literary and nonliterary practice; it used forms which

would become canonical and those which would fade away; it was both structured and fluid; it

asserted autonomy and yet was beholden to custom. Censorship of sorts, or perhaps inhibition,

did raise its ugly head; witness Cato's dismissal of annals.

Historiography still belonged primarily to men of the senatorial class; through history

writing-often after a career was over-they could continue to pursue a claim to auctoritas. In

contrast to poetry, the problematic association of literature with the lowly born does not rise









here. Unlike poetry, those Romans who wrote these histories were native born, upper class. Nor

are there Roman historians whose work was the result of patronage; no Ennius is among the

fragmentary historians, though possibly Quadrigarius and Antias were attached to some noble

families (and Polybius-a Greek historian). No record traces any real patronage of historians,

either undertaken by private individuals or state sponsored. History writing was not always

literature-a literary salon of historians, formal or informal, either in the second or first century,

did not exist. Creating a text and creating literature did not always go hand in hand, as Cicero

made quite clear. No evidence of literary training survives for most of the historians, though

some, like Catulus and Cato, wrote more than history, and others, like Fannius and Asellio, were

friendly with the Scipionic circle. Most held the highest office possible in the Republic. Some

were orators too. History writing was not a profession for most; unlike the poets of the third and

second centuries, these historians did not make a living, nor usually need to, through their

writing.

In general, the fragmentary historians were not theoretical historians.477 They did not pose

a problem, trace its development, track the institutions and customs that supported it in order to

understand a general theme. More empirically minded, these historians collected material, even

data as it were, but did not venture beyond to examine larger, more generic issues. Polybius did,

of course, in his examination of how and why Rome rose. Asellio might have come close.

Coelius Antipater's focus on the Hannibalic War might have similarly posed a problem and

addressed it. So too Sisenna on the Social War. The others, however, do not appear to have

examined, for instance, larger matters such as the nature of the relationships between those in


477 On theory and ancient history, see Cameron 1990, Morley 1999, 2000, and 2004. Recent
examinations of the fruitful intersections of theory and ancient historiography can be found in
Bentley 1997 and Munslow 2000. More generally on history and theory see White 1984 and
1987.









power (e.g., Rome, patricians, families) versus those not (provinces, plebeians, slaves). They did

not, at least in the surviving fragments, look for connections and patterns or shape their narrative

around a particular theme. Nor did they leave us explicit accounts of their conceptions of

history, their models, or what they perceived the functions of history to be. Equally, they left no

patent look at their assumptions and methodologies. They were not regularly skilled (or

concerned) with using sources and rarely left any indication of evaluation of sources (with the

exception of Coelius Antipater, Claudius Quadrigarius, perhaps, and Licinius Macer); the

remaining fragments rarely speak of the historians' work with either credible or compromised

evidence. The stylistic qualities of their histories are not admired by our sources; one can hardly

claim them as practitioners of literature. They possessed a stronger interest in representation of

narrative than in interpretation of narrative. Asellio implicitly acknowledged the use of this

approach when he chided historians for merely telling stories to children rather than asking

questions. The historians did not often articulate an understanding about the construction of

historical knowledge. How they perceived their role in creating that knowledge is on the whole

not apparent.

Many of the historians were primarily memorializers. History was not conceived by them

as a force for change or a way to predict the future. Historiography was one means by which to

remember and record. In the Republican period there were many ways in which to immortalize,

whether in literature (prose and poetry), monument, or in the arts. The fragmentary historians

offered one traditional way, employing various forms within the genre for the writing of history.

As a repository of memory, annales could supplementfasti, monographs could celebrate

achievements of particular period, commentarii could laud individual men. If the fragmentary

historians did not explicitly speak of their conceptions of the purpose of history and the creation









of historical knowledge, their use of suitable historiographical forms represents their best

theoretical practice.

While this paints a rather unfavorable picture of the fragmentary historians, it is important

to counterbalance this with an acknowledgment of their contributions to Roman historiography.

Too often the view of Roman historiography prior to the second half of the first century and the

master works of Sallust, Caesar, Cornelius Nepos and Livy casts the early historians as uniform,

deficient, and lacking care for historiography itself. Moreover they are portrayed as liars,

entertainers, or just missing style. As evident from the previous paragraphs, these statements

indeed do have their basis. This is not an attempt to wholly rehabilitate them. Nevertheless the

fragmentary historians of the Republic as an entity ought to be recognized at least for their

occasionally explicit and more often implicit interest in form. Their (few) intentional statements

and the employment of disparate forms demonstrate both a concern about the form and a

knowledge of options. The words of Cato, Asellio, Sisenna, and Postumius Albinus on form,

and the methodologies of Coelius Antipater, Quadrigarius and Macer tell us of thoughtful

reflection. Tuditanus' commissioning of an epic poem to relate his glories, and his rejection of a

prose form, also-somehow-reflects thought about what history can do. They wrote history for

different purposes, some more selfish than others. Indeed some wrote history as senators

because that was an appropriate use of leisure time or a way to preserve auctoritas and a certain

social standing. Certainly others wrote history to entertain. They did not, however, unthinkingly

write only annals. Rather, collectively, these fragmentary historians tried out a variety of

historiographical forms and made conscious choices suitable for the functions they assigned to

their history of Rome, and to the functions they assigned to history per se. In doing so, these

historians shaped the forms which would later be taken up and used by more well-known and









widely read and more carefully transmitted Romans such as Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Cornelius

Nepos, and the later historians of the empire. Sisenna continued Asellio, Sallust's Histories

begin at Sisenna's conclusion, Sallust's monographs echo Coelius Antipater, Livy and Tacitus

produced more lasting versions of Roman annals, and Varro titled a work after Sisenna.478

The very multitude of historiographical forms and their practitioners across two hundred

years in the Roman Republic counterbalances the impression that historiography in Rome was

largely a desert. Roman historiography, in the years 240-63, may not have pleased Cicero, may

be found at fault by us in a variety of areas, but at least we can say that history writing-form, at

least, and by a few-was a process carefully considered, rhetorically charged, engaged in with

purpose, and broadly conceived. Historiography, we could say, was not entirely in bad hands.





























478 Logistorici or Sisenna vel historic. See Varr. Logist. P. 256 Riese (ap. Gell. NA 16.9.5).









APPENDIX
CATALOGUE OF FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS

This catalogue contains authors of historical works produced in the years between end of
the First Punic War (240) and the consulship of Cicero (63). They are arranged chronologically.
Each author is presented with bibliographic information in this order: first are the surviving
fragments in the major editions (by page number, and not fragment number). Significant
testimonia from primary sources that refer chiefly to the author's historiographical work (and
less to a political or military career) and which are not included in the fragments are listed next.
The testimonia are in chronological order. Entries from RE follow, along with references to
magistracies in MRR by page number (and not year). Lastly, secondary studies on the author as
a historian follow in chronological order, page numbers supplied when necessary. The selective
bibliography of secondary sources contains only those works that offer extended treatment of the
author or are considered canonical.

Fabius Pictor

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 5-39; Peter 1914: 112-116 (Latin fragments); FGrH no. 809; Frier
1970: 152-225; Beck and Walter 2001: 62-136; Chassignet 1996/2003: 16-54.
Testimonia: Polyb. 39.1-5; Cic. De or. 2.51; Leg. 1.6; Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.6.2; Liv. 22.57.5;
Plin. HN71; Plut. Fab. 18.3; Eutr. 3.5; Oros. 4.13.6.
RE: Munzer, RE VI, 2 (1909), 1836-1841, Fabius no. 126.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: LXIX-C; Gelzer 1933/1964; Gelzer 1934/1964; Bung 1950; Alfoldi
1965: 123-175; Badian 1966: 2-6; Frier 1970: 114-143; Timpe 1972: 938-969; Manganaro 1974:
389-409; Frier 1979: 227-254, 322-323; Verbrugghe 1981: 236-238; Meister 1990: 145-148;
Momigliano 1990: 80-108; Petzold 1993; Wiseman 1995; Carulli 1996; von Albrecht 1997: 299-
301; Beck and Walter 2001: 55-61; Suerbaum 2002: 359-370; Chassignet 1996/2003: LIV-
LXXIII.
Floruit: second half 3rd century.

Lucius Cincius Alimentus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 40-43; FGrH no. 810; Frier 1970: 226-237; Beck and Walter
2001: 139-147; Chassignet 1996/2003: 54-59.
Testimonia: Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.6.2; Liv. 26. 23.1; 26.28.3; 26.28.11; 27.5.1; 27.7.12;
27.8.16; 27.25.14; 27.26.5; 27.28.13; 27.29.1-6; 30.37.3-6.
RE: Minzer and Cichorius, RE III, 2 (1899), 2556-2557, Cincius no. 5.
MRR: none.
Studies: Hertz 1842; Peter 1914: CI-CXVI; Bardon 1952: 30-31; Heurgon 1964; Badian
1966: 6; Frier 1970: 143- 151; Frier 1979: 206-207; Verbrugghe 1982; Meister 1990: 148-9; von
Albrecht 1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 137-138; Suerbaum 2002: 370-372; Chassignet
1996/2003: LXXIII-LXXIX.
Floruit: end of 3rd century; praetor 210.









Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius


Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 55-97; Chassignet 1986/2002: 1-56.
Testimonia (major): Cic. Brut. 66; 89; 294; Cato 3, 38; De or. 2.51; Leg. 1.6; Tusc. 1.3;
Sail. Hist. 1.4 Maur; Nep. Cato 3.3; Liv. 34.15.9; 45.25.2; Plut. Cat. Mai.
RE: Gelzer and Helm, RE XXII, 1 (1953), 108-165, M. Porcius no. 9.
MRRI: 307, 327, 330, 339, 354, 374.
Studies: Peter 1914: CXXVII-CLXIV; Chassignet 1986/2002: VII-XXX; Suerbaum 2002:
380-418; Suerbaum 2004 (comprehensive bibliography, 1900-1999).
Floruit: 234-149.

Aulus Postumius Albinus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 53; Peter 1914: 53-54 (Latin fragments); FGrH no. 812; Frier
1970: 273-279; Beck and Walter 2001: 228-231; Chassignet 1996/2003: 59-61.
Testimonia: Polyb. 33.13.4; 34.1.10-11; Cic. Att. 13.32.3; Brut. 81; Liv. 45.4.7; 45.28.11;
Plut. Cat. Mai. 12.6.
RE: Munzer, RE XXII, 1 (1953), 90-908, Postumius no. 31.
MRR I: 448, 450, 454.
Studies: Peter 1914: CXXIV-CXXVI; Bardon 1952: 70-73; Badian 1966: 6-7; Frier 1970:
246- 267; Frier 1979: 207-208; Meister 1990: 149; von Albrecht 1997:303; Suerbaum 2002:
372-374; Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIX-LXXXV.
Floruit: mid 2nd century, praetor 155, cos. 151.

Gaius Acilius

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 49-52; FGrH no. 813; Frier 1970: 280-295; Beck and Walter
2001: 234-241; Chassignet 1996/2003: 62-65.
Testimonia: Liv. Per. 53; Plut. Cat. Mai. 22.5; Gell. NA 6.14.9.
RE: Kleb, REI, 1 (1893), 250-251, Acilius no. 4.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: CXXI-CXXIII; Bardon 1952: 70-71; Badian 1966: 6-7; Frier 1970:
267-272; Frier 1979: 208-209 and 249-50; Meister 1990: 148-149; von Albrecht 1997: 302;
Beck and Walter 2001: 232-233; Suerbaum 2002: 375-376; Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXVI-
LXXXVIII.
Floruit: mid 2nd century; served in Senate 155.

Lucius Cassius Hemina

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 98-111; Santini 1995: 72-105; Beck and Walter 2001: 246-281;
Chassignet 1999/2003: 2-16.
Testimonia: none.
RE: Cichorius, RE III, 2 (1899), 1723-1725, Cassius no. 47.
MRR: none.
Studies: Martha 1903: 108-113; Peter 1914: CLXV-CLXXIII; Bardon 1952: 73-77;
Rawson 1976: 690-702; Forsythe 1990; von Albrecht 1994: 304-305; Santini 1995: 11-70;


174









Chassignet 1998; Beck and Walter 2001: 242-245; Suerbaum 2002: 418-421; Chassignet
1999/2003: IX-XVI.
Floruit: mid 2nd century.

Lucius Calpurnius Piso

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 120-138; Forsythe 1994: 409-426; Beck and Walter 2001: 286-
329; Chassignet 1999/2003: 18-39.
Testimonia: Lucil. Sat. 20.3; Cic. Brut. 106; De or. 2.53; Leg. 1.6; Caecin. 17-18; Verr.
2.3.195; 2.4.56; Off 2.75; Tusc. 3.48; Font. 39; Liv. 9.44.1-4; Val. Max. 2.7.9; 4.3.10; 2.7.9;
Veil. 2.2.2; Tac. Ann. 15.20.3; Frontin. Str. 4.1.26; Oros. 5.9.6.
RE: Cichorius and Munzer, RE III, 1 (1897), 1392-5, Calpurnius no. 96.
MRR: I: 459, 483, 492, 523.
Studies: Peter 1914: CLXXXI-CXCII; Bardon 1952: 103-105; Forsythe 1984; Rawson
1991: 257-267; Baudou 1993; Forsythe 1994; v. Albrecht 1997: 905; Forsythe 2000: 8-10; Beck
and Walter 2001:282-285; Suerbaum 2002: 421-425; Chassignet 1999/2003: XIX-XXVIII.
Floruit: tribune 149, cos. 133, censor 120.

Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 117-118; Chassignet 1999/2003: 17.
Testimonia: Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.7. 3; Liv. Per. 53.3; 54.7; Val. Max. 2.7.11.
RE: Minzer, RE VI, 2 (1955), 1811-1814, Fabius no. 115.
MRR I: 474, 477, 480.
Studies: Peter 1914: CLXXVII-CLXXVIII; Pepe 1975:95-108; Chassignet 1999/2003:
XVI-XIX.
Floruit: mid to late 2nd century, cos. 142.

Sempronius Asellio

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 179-184; Chassignet 1999/2003: 84-89; Beck and Walter 2004:
87-99.
Testimonia: Cic. Leg. 1.6; Charis. GL. 1,195, 18f.K.
RE: Klotz, RE II, A, 2 (1923), 1362-1363, Sempronius no. 16.
MRR I: 491.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCXLII-CCXLV; Bardon 1952: 113-115; Badian 1966: 17-18;
Badian 1968: 1-6; von Albrecht 1997: 380-81; Suerbaum 2002: 435-437; Chassignet 1999/2003:
LIV-LVII; Beck and Walter 2004: 84-86.
Floruit: late 2nd to early 1st century, trib. mil. 133.

Sempronius Tuditanus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 143-147; Beck and Walter 2001: 331-339; Chassignet 1999/2003:
40-43.
Testimonia: Cic. Att. 13.33.3; 13.4.1; 13.30.2; 13.32.3; Cic. Brut. 95; Liv. Per. 59.20;
Pliny HN3.129; App. Ill. 10; M. Messala de auspiciis ap. Gell. NA 13.15.4; Macrob. Sat.
1.13.21.









RE: Munzer, RE II A, 2 (1923), 1441-1443, Sempronius no. 92.
MRR: I: 470, 489-490, 504.
Studies: Cichorius 1902: 588-595; Peter 1914: CCI-CCIII; Bardon 1952: 105-106; von
Albrecht 1997: 380; Forsythe 2000: 10-11; Beck and Walter 2001: 330; Chassignet 1999/2003:
XXVIII-XXXIII.
Floruit: late 2nd to early 1st century, cos. 129.

Vennonius

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 142; Chassignet 1999/2003: 48-49.
Testimonia: Cic. Leg. 1.6; Att. 12.3.1.
RE: Gundel, RE VIII, 1A (1955), 790, Vennonius no. 1.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: CC; Bardon 1952: 108; Badian 1966: 18; Suerbaum 2002: 430;
Chassignet 1999/2003: XL- XLI.
Floruit: late 2nd century, contemporary of Fannius and Antipater.

Caius Fannius

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 139-141; Beck and Walter 2001: 342-346; Chassignet 1999/2003:
44-47.
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 99-101; Att. 12.5b.3; 16.13a; Amic. 3; 7; Sall. Hist. 1.4 Maur.
RE: Minzer, RE VI, 2 (1909), 1987-1991, Fannius no. 7.
MRRI: 516.
Studies: Peter 1914: CXCIII-CXCIX; Bardon 1952: Badian 1966: 14-15; Cassola 1983:
86-96; von Albrecht 1997: 379-380; Beck and Walter 2001: 340-341; Suerbaum 2002: 425-427;
Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII-XL.
Floruit: cos. 122.

Lucius Coelius Antipater

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 158-177; Herrmann 1979: 17-44; Chassignet 1999/2003: 50-70;
Beck and Walter 2004: 40-83.
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 102; De or. 2.52-54; Att. 13.8; Leg. 1.6; Orat. 229-230; Val. Max.
1.7.6; Fronto p. 57 van den Hout; S.H.A. Hadr. 16.6.
RE: Gensel, RE IV, 1 (1900), 185-194, Coelius no. 7.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCXI-CCXXXVII; Bardon 1952: 102-103; Badian 1966: 15-17;
Herrmann 1979; von Albrecht 1997: 381-383; Suerbaum 2002: 430-435; Chassignet 1999/2003:
XLI-XLIX; and Beck and Walter 2004: 35-39.
Floruit: late 2nd century, contemporary of Fannius.


176









Cnaeus Gellius


Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 148-157; Beck and Walter 2001: 349-367; Chassignet 1999/2003:
71-83.
Testimonia: Cic. Leg. 1.6; Div. 1.55.
RE: Munzer, RE VII, 1 (1910), 998-1000, Gellius no. 4.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCIV-CCX; Bardon 1952: 77-80; Badian 1966: 11-13; Rawson 1976:
713-717; Wiseman 1979: 20-23; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Walt 1997: 85-87; Beck and Walter
2001: 347-348; Suerbaum 2002: 429-430; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLIX-LIV.
Floruit: contemporary of Fannius and Antipater.

Marcus Aemilius Scaurus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 185-186; Chassignet 2004: 161-163.
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 112; Sest. 101; Sail. lug. 25.4; Plut. Fort. Rom. 4.138c; Suet. Vir.
Ill. 11; 72.3;Val. Max. 3.2.18; 3.7.8; 5.8.4; 6.5.5; 8.5.2; Tac. Agr. 1.2-3; Frontin. Str. 4.1.13;
Quint. Inst. 5.12.10.
RE: Klebs RE I, 1 (1893), 584-588, Aemilus no. 140.
MRRI: 517, 519, 526, 531.
Studies: Pais 1901: 51-60; Peter 1914: CCXLVII-CCL; Bardon 1952: 109; Henderson
1958; Badian 1966: 23; G. Flammini 1977: 37-47; Bates 1983: 121-162; Bates 1986; von
Albrecht 1997: 383; Suerbam 2002: 441-442; Chassignet 2004: LXXXVIII-XC.
Floruit: cos. 115, d. 89.

Publius Rutilius Rufus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 187-188 (Hist.) and 189-190 (de vita sua); FGrH 815; Beck and
Walter 2004: 103-108 (Hist.); Chassignet 2004: 1-5 (Hist.) and 164-169 (de vita sua).
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 113; De or. 1.227-231; Tac. Agric. 1.2-3.
RE: Minzer RE I, A, 1 (1914), 1269-1280, Rutilius no. 34.
MRR I: 494, 527, 547, 549, 552, 555.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCLIV-CCLXI; Hendrickson 1933; Bardon 1952: 110-113; Badian
1966: 23-25; Bates 1983: 163-205; Kallet-Marx 1990; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Suerbaum 2002:
443-447; Beck and Walter 2004: 100-102; Chassignet 2004: X-XVI and XCIV-XCVI.
Floruit: b. 160, cos. 105, exile after 94.

Quintus Lutatius Catulus

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 191-192 (de consulate) and Peter 1914: 192-194 (Hist.); and
Chassignet 2004: 170-171 (de consulate) and Chassignet 2004: 6-12 (Hist.).
Testimonia: Cic. Arch. 6; Brut. 112; 132; De or. 2. 28, 2.44, 3.194; Tusc. 5.56; Fronto Ep.
p. 124, van den Hout; Plut. Mar. 25.6; Suet. Gramm. 3. 5B.
RE: Munzer, RE XIII, 2 (1927), 2072-2082, Lutatius no. 7.
MRR I: 567









Studies: Peter 1914: CCLXII-CCLXIV; Bardon 1950: 145-164; Bardon 1952: 115-124;
Bates 1983: 206-225; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Suerbaum 2002: 447-453; and Chassignet 2004:
XVI-XIX.
Floruit: cos. 102, d. 87.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 195-204 and Chassignet 2004: 172-184.
Testimonia: Sail. lug. 95.3; Suet. Gramm. 12.1-2.
RE: F. Frohlich, RE IV, 1 (1900), 1522-1566, L. Cornelius no. 392.
MRR II: 14; 39, 66, 74, 79.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCLXX-CCLXXX; Bardon 1952: 149-157; Badian 1966: 25; Bates
1983: 226-313; Lewis 1991; Brennan 1992; Suerbaum 2002: 453-456; Chassignet 2004: XCIX-
CIV.
Floruit: 138-79.

Q. Claudius Quadrigarius

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 205-237; Beck and Walter 2004: 112-167; Chassignet 2004: 13-
49.
Testimonia: Cic. Leg. 1.6-7; Plut. Num. 1.1 (Klodius); Gell. NA 9.13.4; Fronto ap.
Gell. 13.29.2; Fronto Ep. p. 134, van den Hout.
RE: Niese RE II, 2 (1898), 2859, Claudius no. 308.
MRR: none
Studies: Peter 1914: CCLXXXV-CCCIV; Zimmerer 1937; Klotz 1942; Walsh 1961: 110-
137; Badian 1966: 18-21; Frier 1979: 122-126; Timpe 1979; Bastian 1983; von Albrecht 1989:
86-101; von Albrecht 1997: 385; Beck and Walter 2004: 109-111; Chassignet 2004: XXIII-
XXXVIII.
Floruit: 1st quarter 1st century.

Valerius Antias

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 238-275; Beck and Walter 2004: 172-240; Chassignet 2004: 104-
150.
Testimonia: Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.7.3; Veil. 2.9.6; Fronto Ep. p. 134, van den Hout.
RE: Volkmann, RE VII A (1948), 2313- 2320, Valerius no. 98.
MRR: none.
Studies: Munzer 1891: 54-71; Munzer 1897; Peter 1914: CCCV-CCCXXXIII; Walsh
1961: 115-151; Badian 1966: 21; Cloud 1977; LaRoche 1977; Frier 1979: 188-189 and 150-152;
Timpe 1979: Wiseman 1979: 112-117; LaRoche 1984; LaRoche 1988; von Albrecht 1997: 385-
386; Wiseman 1998: 75-89; Chassignet 2001; Forsythe 2002; Beck and Walter 2004: 168-171;
and Chassignet 2004: LXIII-LXXV.
Floruit: 1st quarter 1st century.









Lucius Cornelius Sisenna


Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 276-297; Barabino 1967: 67-239; Beck and Walter 2004: 247-
313; Chassignet 2004: 50-88.
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 228; 259-260; Leg. 1.2.6, 1.7; Sail. lug. 95.2; Vell. 2.9.5; Tac. Dial.
23.2; Fronto Ep. 132 Van den Hout.
RE: Niese, RE IV (1901), 1512-1513, Cornelius no. 374.
MRR: none.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCCXXXIV-CCCXLIX; Bardon 1952: 251; Candiloro 1963;
Leeman 1963: 83-86; Badian 1966: 25-26; Barabino 1967; Rawson 1979/1991; Fornara 1983:
70-71; Sensal 1997; von Albrecht 1997: 311-312; Beck and Walter 2004: 241-245; Chassignet
2004: XXXVIII-XLIX.
Floruit: praetor 78, d. 67.

Licinius Macer

Fragmenta: Peter 1914: 298-307; Walt 1997: 196-211; Beck and Walter 2004: 318-345;
Chassignet 2004: 89-103.
Testimonia: Cic. Brut. 238; Leg. 1.6-7; Dion. Ant. Rom. 1.7.3; Sall. Hist. 3.48 Maur.
RE: F. Munzer, RE XIII, I (1926), 419-428, Licinius no. 112.
MRR II: 110, 138.
Studies: Peter 1914: CCCL-CCCLXV; Ogilvie 1958, Badian 1966: 22; Frier 1975; Frier
1979: 153-158; Hodgkinson 1997; von Albrecht 1997: 387-388; Walt 1997; Beck and Walter
2004: 314-317; and Chassignet 2004: L-LXIII.
Floruit: trib. 73, praetor 68, d. 66.


179









BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, M.C. 1990. Trials of the late Roman Republic, 149 B.C. to 50 B.C. Toronto.

Alfoldi, A. 1971. Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor.

Astin, A.E. 1967. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford.

1978. Cato the Censor. Oxford.

Astin, A.E., Walbank, F. W., Fredericksen, M.W., and Oglivie, R.M., eds. 1989. Rome and the
Mediterranean to 133 B.C. Vol. 8 of The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd edition.
Cambridge.

Badian, E. 1962. "Waiting for Sulla." JRS 52: 47-61. Reprinted in Studies in Greek and
Roman History. 1964. 206-234.

1964. "Where was Sisenna?" Athenaeum XLII: 422-431.

S1964. Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford.

S1966. "The Early Historians." In T.A. Dorey, ed., Latin Historians. London. 1-38.

1968. "The Sempronii Aselliones." PACA 11: 1-6.

Balsdon, J.P.V. D. 1953. "Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century
B.C." CQ 47: 158-64.

Barabino, G. 1967. "I frammenti delle Historiae di Lucio Cornelio Sisessna." In Studi Noniani.
Eds. G. Barabino and F. Bertini. Genoa. 67-251.

Bardon, H. 1950. "Q. Lutatius Catulus et son cercle litteraire." LEC 18: 145-164.

.1952. La Litterature latine inconnue. Tome I: L 'Epoque republicaine. Paris.

Barchiesi, M. 1962. Nevio epico: Storia interpretazione edizione critical dei Frammenti del
primo epos latino. Padua.

Bastian, S. 1983. Lexikon in Q. Claudium Quadrigarium. Hildesheim.

Bates, R. 1983. Memoirs and the Perception of History in the Roman Republic. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

1986. "Rex in Senatu. A Political Biography of M. Aemilius Scaurus." PAPhS 130:
251-288.


180









Beard, M. and Crawford, M. H. 1985. Rome in the Late Republic: Problems and Interpretations.
Ithaca, NY.

Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S. 1998. Religions ofRome. 2 Vols. Cambridge.

Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage. London.

Beck, H. 2005. Review of Martine Chassignet, L 'Annalistique Romaine. Tome III:
L 'Annalistique Recente. L 'Autobiographie Politique. BMCR 2005.05.01.

.2007. "The Early Roman Tradition." In J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and
Roman Historiography. Maiden, MA. 259-265.

Beck, H. and Walter, U. 2001. Die fruhen romischen Historiker I, von Fabius Pictor bis Cn.
Gellius. Darmstadt.

.2004. Die fruhen romischen Historiker II, von Coelius Antipater bis Pomponius Atticus.
Darmstadt.

Beebee, T. 1994. The Ideology of Genre. University Park, PA.

Beloch, K.J. 1926. Romische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege. Berlin.

Bentley, M., ed. 1997. Companion to Historiography. London.

Birt, T. 1920. "Eine Siegesinschrift und geographische Karte des Tuditanus." RhMLXXIII:
306-321.

Bispham, E. 2006. "Literary Sources." In N. Rothstein and R. Morstein-Marx, eds., A
Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA. 29-50.

Boatwright, M., Gargola, D. and Talbert, R. 2004. The Romans from Village to Empire. Oxford.

Boethius, A., and Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1970. Etruscan and Roman Architecture.
Hammondsworth.

Bomer, F. 1952. "Naevius und Fabius Pictor." SO 29: 34-53.

1953. "Der Commentarius. Zur Vorgesischte und literarischen Form der Schriften
Caesars." Hermes 81: 210-250.

1953/4. "Thematik und Krise der romischen Geschichtsschreibung in 2. Jh. V. Chr."
Historia 2: 189-209.

Boyle, A J, and Freudenberg, K. 2002. "Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to
Juvenal." TLS 5177: 32.










Bradley, K. 1989. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B.C.-70 B.C. Bloomington,
IN.

Braund, S. H. 1992. Roman Verse Satire. Oxford.

Bredehorn, U. 1968. Senatsakten in der Republikanische Annalistik. Unterschungen iiber den
/iwini hen Senat bei den annalistischen Vorgingen des Livius unter besonderer
Beriicksichtigung der romischen Ostpolitik zwischen 205 und 171 v. Chr. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Marburg.

Brennan, T.C. 1992. "Sulla's Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations." Chiron 22: 103-
158.

Briscoe, J. 2005. "The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians." In T.
Reinhardt, M. Lapidge, and J. Adams, eds., Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose.
Oxford. 53-72.

Broughton, T.R.S. and Patterson, M.L. 1951-2 (vol. I-II), 1986 (III). The Magistrates of the
Roman Republic. New York and Atlanta.

Brunt, P.A. 1971. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic. New York and London.

1980a. "Cicero and Historiography." In E. Manni, ed., Philas Charin: Miscellanea di
studio classic in onore di E. Manni. Rome. 309-340.

S1980b. "On Historical Fragments and Epitomes." CQ n.s. 30: 477-494.

S1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford.

S1993. Studies in Greek History and Thought. Oxford.

Biucheler, E. 1908. "Saturnier des Tuditanus cos. 625/129." RhMLXIII: 321-328.

Bugh, G., ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World. Cambridge.

Cameron, A., ed. 1990. History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. Chapel Hill.

Cardinali, L. 1987. "Le Origines di Catone iniziavano con un esametro?" SCO 37: 205-15.

Calboli, G. 1975. "Su Alcuni Frammenti di Comelio Sisenna." In S. Boldrini et. al., Atti del
convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti (Urbino 9-11 maggio 1974).
Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 151-221.

Casali, S. 2006. "The poet at war: Ennius on the field in Silius's Punica." Arethusa 39: 569-
593.










Cassola, F. 1983. "I Fanni in eta repubblicana." Vichiana n.s. XII: 86-96.

Chassignet, M. 1986/2002. Caton, Les Origines: texte etabli, traduit et comment. Paris.

1996/2003. L'annalistique Romaine, tome I: Les annales des pontifices et 'annalistique
ancienne. Paris.

1998. "Etiologie, etymologie, et eponymie chez Cassius Hemina." LEC LXVI: 321-
335.

1999/2003. L'annalistique Romaine, tome II: L 'annalistique moyenne. Paris.

2001. "Les Annales des Valerius Antias sont-elles une oeuvre d'epoque cesarienne?"
CEA 37: 55-63.

2004. L'annalistique Romaine, tome III: L 'annalistique recent, L autobiographiese
politique. Paris.

Cichorius, C. 1894. "Annales maximi. RE I, 2: 2248- 2255.

1899. "Cassius no. 47." RE III, 2: 1723-1725.

1902. Das Geschichtswerk des Sempronius Tuditanus." WS XXIV: 588-595.

Cichorius, C. and Munzer, F. 1897. "Calpurnius no. 96." RE III, 1: 1392-5.

Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca.

Cloud, J. D. 1977. "The Date of Valerius Antias." LCM2: 225-227.

Coffey, M. 1989. Roman Satire. London.

Conte, G. B. 1994. Latin Literature: A History. Baltimore. Translated by J.B. Solodow.

Cornell, T.J. 1986a. The Value of Literary Tradition concerning Archaic Rome." In K. A.
Raaflaub, ed., Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. Berkeley. 52-76.

1986b. "The Formation of the Historical Tradition of Early Rome." In I. S. Moxon, J.
D. Smart, A. J. Woodman, eds., Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman
Historical Writing. Cambridge. 67-86.

1995. The Beginnings ofRome. London and New York.

Courtney, E. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford.









S1999. Archaic Latin Prose. Atlanta.

Crawford, M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. London.

1978. The Roman Republic. Cambridge, MA.

S1983. Sources for Ancient History. Cambridge.

1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, Italy and the Mediterranean
Economy. London.

Crawford, O. 1941. "LaudatioFunebris." CJ37.1: 17-27.

Crook, J. A., Lintott, A., and Rawson, E., eds. 1994. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 9.
Cambridge.

Dillery, J. 2002. "Quintus Fabius Pictor and Greco-Roman Historiography at Rome." In J.
Miller, C. Damon, and K. S. Myers, eds., Vertis in Usum: Studies in Honor ofEdward
Courtney. Leipzig. 1-23.

Dorey, T.A., ed. 1966. Latin Historians. London.

Dowd, G., Stevenson, L., and Strong, J., eds. 2006. Genre Matters. Bristol.

Drews, R. 1988. "Pontifs, Prodigies, and the Disappearance of the AnnalesMaximi." CPh 83:
289-299.

Duckworth, G. E. 1952. The Nature ofRoman Comedy, a Study in Popular Entertainment.
Princeton.

Earl, D. C. 1961. The Political Thought ofSallust. Cambridge.

Edwards, C. 1996. Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City. Cambridge.

Eigler, U., Gotter, U., Luraghi, N., Walter, U., and Berneder, H., eds. 2003. Formen romischer
Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte.
Darmstadt.

Erasmo, M. 2004. Roman Tragedy. Austin.

Fantham, E., Foley, H., Kampen, N., Pomeroy, S., and Shapiro, H., eds. 1994. Women in the
Classical World. Oxford.

Fantham, E. 1996. Roman Literary Culture from Cicero to Apuleius. Baltimore.

Farrell, J. 1997. "The Phenomenology of Memory in Roman Culture." CJ92.4: 373-383.










Feldherr, A. 2003. "Cicero and the Invention of 'Literary' History." In U. Eigler et al., eds.,
Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis Livius: Gattungen,
Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 196-212.

Flach, D. 1992. Einfuhrung in die romische Geschichtsschreibung. Darmstadt.

Flammini, G. 1977. "Marco Emilio e i suoi Frammenti." AFLMX: 37-47.

Flower, H. I. 1995. "Fabulaepraetextae in Context: When were Plays on Contemporary
Subjects Performed in Republican Rome?" CQ 45: 170-190.

2003. "Memories of Marcellus. History and Memory in Roman Republican Culture."
In U. Eigler et al., eds., Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis
Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 39-52.

ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic. Cambridge.

Fornara, C.W. 1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley.

Forsythe, G. 1984. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Pennsylvania.

S1988. "The Political Background of the Lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C." AW 17: 109-119.

S1990. "Some Notes on the History of Cassius Hemina." Phoenix 44: 326-344.

S1994. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition.
Lanham, MD.

S1999. Livy and Early Rome: A Study in Historical Method and Judgment. Stuttgart.

S2000. "The Roman Historians of the Second Century B.C." In C. Bruun, ed., The
Roman Middle Republic: Politics, Religion, and Historiography c.400-133 B.C. Acta
Instituti Romani Finlandiae. Vol. 23. Rome. 1-11.

2002. "Dating and Arranging the Roman History of Valerius Antias." In V.B. Gorman
and E.W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes, Studies in Constitutions, Colonies and Military Power
in the Ancient World. Leiden. 99-112.

2005. A Critical History ofEarly Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War.
Berkeley.

Frank, T. 1927. "Roman Historiography before Caesar." AHR 32.2: 232-240.









Frier, B. W. 1970. Roman Historiography from the Annales Maximi to Cato Censorius. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Princeton University.

S1975. "Licinius Macer and the consules suffecti of 444 B.C." TAPA 79-97.

S1979/1999. Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic
Tradition. Rome. Reprint Ann Arbor.

Fr6hlich, F. 1900. "L. Cornelius no. 392 Sulla." RE IV, 1: 1522-1566.

Frow, J. 2006. Genre. London.

Gabba, E. 1981. "True History and False History in Classical Antiquity." JRS 71: 50-62.

S1983. "Literature." In M. Crawford, ed., Sources for Ancient History. Cambridge. 1-79.

S1991. Dionysius and the History ofArchaic Rome. Berkeley.

Gelzer, M. 1933. "Romische Politik bei Fabius Pictor, Hermes 68: 129-166 = Kleine Schriften
III. Wiesbaden. 51-92.

1934. "Der Anfang r6mischer Geschichtsschreibung." Hermes 69: 46-55 = Kleine
Schriften III: 93-103. Wiesbaden.

S1962-64. Kleine Schriften. Vols. I-III. Wiesbaden.

S1963. "Caesar als Historiker." In Gelzer, Kleine Schriften II. Wiesbaden. 307-335.

S1969. The Roman Nobility. Oxford. Translated by R. Seager.

Gensel, P. 1900. "Coelius no. 7." RE IV, 1:185-194.

Gentili, B. 1975. "Storiografia Greca e Storiografia Romana Arcaica." In S. Boldrini et al. eds.,
Atti del convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti (Urbino 9-11 maggio
1974). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 13-60.

Gildenhard, I. 2003. "The 'Annalist' Before the Annalists: Ennius and His Annales." In U.
Eigler et al., eds., Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis Livius.
Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 93-114.

Goldberg, S. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome. Oxford.

2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and its Reception.
Cambridge.

2006. "Ennius After the Banquet." Arethusa 39: 427-447.










Goldsworthy, A. 1996. The Roman Army at War, 100 B.C.-A.D. 200. Oxford.

2000. The Punic Wars. London.

Gowing, A. 2005. Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial
Culture. Cambridge.

Gruen, E. 1965. The Lex Varia." JRS 55.5: 59-73.

1974/1995. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley.

1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming ofRome. Berkeley.

1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca.

Gundel, H. 1955. "Vennonius no. 1." RE VIII, A: 790.

Gusdorf, G. 1980. "Conditions and Limits of Autobiography." In J. Olney, ed., Autobiography:
Essays Theoretical and Critical. Princeton. 28-48.

Habinek, T. N. 1998. The politics of Latin literature: i / iting. identity, and empire in ancient
Rome. Princeton.

Handley, E.W. 1968. Menander andPlautus: A Study in Comparison. London.

Hapke, N. 1915. C. Semproni Gracchi Oratoris Romani Fragmenta Collecta et Illustrata.
Munich.

Harris, W.V. 1979. War andImperialism in Republican Rome, 327-70 B.C. Oxford.

ed. 1984. The Imperialism of Mid-Republican Rome. Rome.

Harrison, S., ed. 2005. A Companion to Latin Literature. Maiden, Ma.

Helmbold, W.C. and O'Neil, E.N. 1959. Plutarch's Quotations. Baltimore.

Henderson, Jr., C. 1958. "The Career of the Younger M. Aemilius Scaurus." CJ53. 5: 194-206.

Henderson, J. 1998. Fightingfor Rome: Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War. Cambridge.

Henderson, M. I. 1957. "Potestas Regia." JRS 47.5: 82-87.

Hendrickson, G. 1933. "The Memoirs of Rutilius Rufus." CP 28.3: 153-175.

Herrmann, W. 1979. Die Historien des Coelius Antipater: Fragm. u. Kommentar. Meisenheim.










Heurgon, J. 1964. "L. Cincius et la loi du clavus annalis." Athenaeum XLII: 432-437.

Hertz, M. 1842. De Luciis Cinciis. Berlin.

Hodgkinson, M. 1997. C. Licinius Macer and the historiography of the early republic. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Exeter.

Holford-Strevens, L. 2003. Aulus Gellius, An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement. Oxford.

Holkeskamp, K. 2006. "History and Collective Memory in the Middle Republic." In N.
Rothestein and R. Morstein-Marx, eds., A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden,
MA. 478-495.

Hornblower, S., ed. 1994. Greek Historiography. Oxford.

Jacoby, F. 1949. Atthis: The Local Chronicles ofAncient A ihen. Oxford.

Jones, C. P. 1971. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford.

Kallet-Marx, R. 1990. "The Trial of Rutilius Rufus." Phoenix 44.2: 122-139.

Kaster, R. A. 1997. Guardians ofLanguage: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity.
Berkeley.

Keaveney A. 1982. Sulla: The Last Republican. London.

Kenney, E. J. 1977. Lucretius. Oxford.

Kenney, E.J., and Clausen W.V. eds. 1982. The Cambridge History of Classical Literature:
Volume Two: Latin Literature. Cambridge.

Kierdorf, W. 1980. Laudatio Funebris. Interpretationen u. Unters. zur Entwicklung d. rom.
Leichenrede. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain.

Klebs, E. 1893. "Acilius no. 4." RE I, 1: 250-251.

1893. "Aemilus no. 140." RE I, 1: 584-588.

Kleiner, D. and Matheson, S. 1996. I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome. New Haven, CT.

Klotz, A. 1940. Livius undseine Vorgtnger. Stuttgart.

1942. "Der Annalist Q. Claudius Quadrigarius." RhM 91: 268-285.

Knoche, U. 1975. Roman Satire. Bloomington, IN. Translated by E. Ramage.










Kraus, C.S. and Woodman, A.J. 1997. Latin Historians. Greece and Rome: New Surveys in the
Classics. Oxford.

Kraus, C.S., ed. 1999. The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical
Texts. Leiden.

2005. "Historiography and Biography." In S. Harrison, ed., A Companion to Latin
Literature. Maiden, MA. 241-256.

Lacey, W. and Wilson, B. 1970. Respublica: Roman Society andPolitics according to Cicero.
Oxford.

LaRoche, R. A. 1977. Valerius Antias and His Numerical Totals." Historia 26: 358-368.

1984. "Valerius Antias as Livy's Source for the Number of Military Standards Captured
in Battle in Books 1-X." C & M35: 93-104.

1988. Valerius Antias: Livy's Source for the Number of Military Standards Captured
in Battle in Books XX-XLV." Latomus 47: 758-771.

Latte, K. 1960. "Der Historiker L. Calpumius Piso Frugi." Sitzungsberichte der deutschen.
Akademie der Wissenschaften. zu Berlin. Klassefuer Sprache, Literatur undKunst 7: 3-
16.

.1960. Romische Religionsgeschichte. Munich.

Lazenby, J.F. 1978. Hannibal's War: A Military History of the Second Punic War. Warminster.

.1996. The First Punic War: A Military History. London.

Lebek, W. 1970. Verba Prisca. Gottingen.

Leeman, A.D. 1963. Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators,
Historians, and Philosophers. Amsterdam.

Leo, F. 1913. Geschichte der mi 1i Ilhen/ Literatur I: Die archaische Literatur. Berlin.

Levene, D. S., and Nelis, D.P. 2002. Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of
Ancient Historiography. Leiden.

Levene, D.S. 2007. "Roman Historiography in the Late Republic." In J. Marincola, ed., A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA. 275-289.

Lewis, R.G. 1974. "Catulus and the Cimbri, 102 B.C." Hermes 102: 90-109.


189









1991. "Sulla's Autobiography: Scope and Economy." Athenaeum 79: 509-519.

Luce, T. J. 1977. Livy: The Composition of His History. Princeton

Malcovati, E. 1979. Oratorum Romanorumfragmenta liberae reipublicae. Padua.

Manganaro, G. 1974. "Testi e monument. Una biblioteca storica nel Ginnasio di Tauromenion e
il P. Oxy. 1241." PP 29: 389-409.

Manuwald, G. 2001. Fabulae praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Romer.
Minich.

Marasco, G. 1984. "L'Apologia di Q. Lutazio Catulo e la tradizione sulla guerra cimbrica."
GFF VII: 75-84.

Marincola, J. 1997. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge.

1999. "Genre, Convention, and Innovation in Greco-Roman Historiography." In C.S.
Kraus, ed., The Limits ofHistoriography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical
Texts. Leiden. 281-323.

ed. 2007. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Maiden, MA.

Marinone, N. 1975. "Frammenti di Storiografi Latini in Macrobio." In S. Boldrini et al., eds.,
Atti del convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti' (Urbino 9-11 maggio
1974). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 493-
527.
Maurenbrecher, B. 1893. C. Sallustii Crispi Historiarum Reliquiae. 2 Vols. Stuttgart.

May, J. M. and Wisse, J. 2001. Cicero: On the Ideal Orator. Oxford.

McDonald, A. H. 1954. "The Roman Historians." In Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship. Ed.
M. Platnauer. Oxford. 384-412.

.1975. "Theme and Style in Roman Historiography." JRS 65: 1-10.

McGushin, P. 1992. Sallust. The Histories. Oxford.

Meadows, A., and Williams, J. 2001. Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in
Republican Rome." JRS 91: 27-49.

Mellor, R. 1999. The Roman Historians. London.

Misch, G. 1950. A History ofAutobiography in Antiquity. Westport, CT.

Momigliano, A. 1966. Studies in Historiography. London.










1977. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford.

1990. "Fabius Pictor and the Origins of National History." In Momigliano, A., The
Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley. 80-108.

ed. 1990. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography. Berkeley.

Morgan, M.G. 1973. "Pliny, NH III. 129: The Roman Use of Stades and the Elogium of C.
Sempronius Tuditanus." Philologus 117: 29-48.

Morley, N. 1999. WritingAncient History. Ithaca.

S2000. Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches. London.

S2004. Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History. London.

Moxon, I.S., Smart, J.D. and Woodman, A.J. 1986. Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and
Roman Historical Writing. Cambridge.

Munslow, A. 2000. The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies. London.

Minzer, F. 1891. De Gente Valeria. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Berlin.

S1897. "Zu den Fragmenten des Valerius Antias." Hermes 32: 469-474.

1899. "Cincus no. 5." RE III, 2: 2556-2557.

1909. "Q. Fabius Pictor no. 126." RE VI, 2: 1836-1841.

1909. "C. Fannius no. 7." RE VI, 2: 1987-1991.

1910. "Gellius no. 4." RE VII, 1: 998-1000.

1914. "Rutilius no. 34." RE II, 1, 1; 1269-1280.

S1923. "Sempronius no. 92." RE II A, 2: 1441-1443.

1926. "Licinius no. 112." RE XIII, 1: 419-428.

1927. "Lutatius no. 7." RE XIII, 2: 2072-2082.

1953. "Postumius no. 31." RE XXII, 1: 903-908.

1955. "Fabius no. 115." RE VI, 2: 1811-1814.









Nicolet, C. 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. Berkeley. Translated by P. S.
Falla.

Niese, B. 1898. "Claudius no. 308." RE II, 2: 28.

S1900. "Cornelius no. 374." RE IV: 1512-1513.

Oakley, S.P. 1997. A Commentary on Livy: Books VI-X. Vol. 1: Introduction and Book VI.
Oxford.

Ogilvie, R. M. 1958. "Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei." JRS 48: 40-46.

S1965. A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5. Oxford.

S1980. Roman Literature and Society. Sussex.

S1981. Review of B. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the
Annalistic Tradition. JRS 71: 199-201.

Olney, J., ed. 1980. Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical. Princeton.

Pais, E. 1901. "I Frammenti all' autobiografia di M. Emilia Scauro e la 'lex Varia de
maiestate'." Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Classe. di Scienze Morali,
Storiche, e Filologiche. Ser. 5, X: 51-60.

Pais, E. 1918. Dalle Guerre Puniche a Cesare Augusto. 2 Vols. Rome.

Palmer, R. 1970. The Archaic Community of the Romans. Cambridge.

Paratore, E. 1975. "La leggenda di Enea nei frammenti di Sisenna." In S. Boldrini et al.,eds., Atti
del convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti' (Urbino 9-11 maggio
1974). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 233-
296.

Parker, H. 1996. "Plautus vs. Terence: Audience and Popularity Re-Examined." AJP 117 (4):
585-617.

Pascucci, G. 1975. I 'Commentarii' di Silla." In S. Boldrini et al.,eds., Atti del convegno 'Gli
storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti' (Urbino 9-11 maggio 1974). Studi Urbinati
di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 283-296.

Pepe, L. 1975. "L'annalista Q. Fabio Massimo Serviliano." In S. Boldrini et al., eds., Atti del
convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti (Urbino 9-11 maggio 1974).
Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 95-108.

Peter, H. 1870. Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. Leipzig.










1914. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. 2 Volumes. Leipzig. Reprint Stuttgart.

Petzold, K.-E. 1999. Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtsschreibung: Kleine Schriften zur
griechischen und romischen Geschichte. Stuttgart.

Potter, D. 1999. Literary Texts and the Roman Historian. London.

Poucet, J. 1985. Les Origines de Rome. Tradition et histoire. Brussels.

Quinn, K. 1972. Catullus: An Interpretation. London.

Rawson, E. 1971. "Prodigy Lists and the Use of the AnnalesMaximi." CQ 65 n.s. 21: 158-169.

1972. "Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian." JRS 62: 33-45.

1976. "The First Latin Annalists." Latomus 35:4 689-717. Reprinted in E. Rawson,
Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers. 1991. London. 245-271.

1979. "L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century B.C." CQ 29: 327-346.
Reprinted in E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers. 1991. London.
363-388.

1985. IntellectualLife in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore.

1991. Roman Culture andSociety: Collected Papers. London.

Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J., eds. 2005. Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose.
Oxford.

Rhodes, P. J. 1990. "The Atthidographers." In H. Verdin et al., eds., Purposes ofHistory.
Leuven. 73-81.

Richardson, J. S. 1976. Roman Provincial Administration, 227 B.C. to A.D. 117. London.

1986. Hispaniae: Spain and the Development ofRoman Imperialism, 218-82 B.C.
Cambridge.

1987. "The Purpose of the Lex Calpurnia de Repetundis." JRS 77: 1-12.

Richardson, L., Jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome. Baltimore.

Riggsby, A. 2007. "Memoir and Autobiography in Republican Rome." In J. Marincola, ed., A
Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA. 266-274.

Ross, D. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus. Cambridge, MA.










Rothstein, N. and Morstein-Marx, R., eds. 2006. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Maiden,
MA.

Rupke, J. 1993. "Livius, Priestemamen und die annales maximi." Klio 75: 155-179.

.2006. "Ennius' Fasti in Fulvius' Temple: Greek Rationality and Roman Tradition."
Arethusa 39.3: 489-512.

Sailor, D. 2004. "Becoming Tacitus." CA 23.1: 139-177.

.2006. "Dirty Linen, Fabrication and the Authorities of Livy and Augustus." TAPA
136.2: 329-388.

Santini, Carlo. 1995. I Frammenti di L. Cassio Emina: Introduzione, Testo, Traduzione e
Comment. Pisa.

Scholz, P. 2003. "Sullas commentarii-eine literarischen Rechtfertigung. Zu Wesen und
Funktion der autobiographischen Schriften in der spaten Romischen Republik." In U.
Eigler et al., eds., Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis Livius.
Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 172-195.

Sciarrino, E. 2006. "The Introduction of Epic in Rome: Cultural Thefts and Social Contests."
Arethusa 39.3: 449-469.

Scullard, H.H. 1980. A History of the Roman World, 753-146 B.C. London.

Seager, R., ed. 1969. The Crisis of the Roman Republic: Studies in Political and Social History.
Cambridge.

Seager, R. 1994. "Sulla." In J.A. Crook, A. Lintott and E. Rawson, eds., The Cambridge
Ancient History. Vol. 9. Cambridge. 165-207.

Segal, C. 1990. Lucretius on Death and Anxiety: Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura.
Princeton.

Sehlmeyer, M. 2003. "Die Anfange der antiquarischen Literatur in Rom. Motivation und
Bezung zur Historiographie bis in die Zeit von Tuditanus und Gracchanus." In U. Eigler
et al., eds., Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfdngen bis Livius.
Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 157-171.

Shatzman, I. 1975. Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics. Brussels.

Sherwin-White, A.N. 1973. Roman Citizenship. Oxford.

Skutsch, O. 1968. Studia Enniana. London.


194










. 1985. Annales (ofEnnius). Oxford.


Slater, N. 1985. Plautus in Performance: The Theatre of the Mind. Princeton.

Small, P. and Tatum, J. 1995. "Memory and the Study of Classical Antiquity." Helios 22.2:
149-177.

Stadter, P. 1965. Plutarch's Historical Methods: An Analysis of the Mulierum Virtutes.
Cambridge, MA.

Stockton, D. 1979. The Gracchi. Oxford.

Strzelecki, W. 1963. "Naevius and the Roman Annalists." RFIC 91: 440-458.

.1964. Bellum Punicum. Teubner: Leipzig.

Suerbaum, W., ed. 2002. Handbuch der Lateinischen Literature der Antike: Erster Band. Die
Archaische Literature von den Anfdngen bis Sullas Tod. Munich.

.2004. Cato Censorius in der Forschung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Eine kommentierte
chronologische Bibliographie fir 1900-1999 nebst systematischen Hinweisen und einer
Darstellung des Schriftstellers M. Porcius Cato (234-149 v. Chr). Hildesheim.

Sumner, G.V. 1972. The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology. Toronto.

Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford.

S1959. "Livy and Augustus." HSCP 64: 27-87.

S1964. Sallust. Berkeley.

Thomsen, R. 1961. Early Roman Coinage III. Copenhagen.

Timpe, D. 1972. "Fabius Pictor und die Anfange der r6mischen Historiographie." ANRW 1. 2:
928-969.

S1979. "Erwagungen zur jungeren Annalistik." A&A 25: 97-119.

S1996. Memoria und Geschichtsschreibung bei den Romern." In H. J. Gehrke and A.
Miller, eds., Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung
und historisches Bewusstein. Tubingen. 277-299.

2003. "Erinnerung als Lebesmacht unde Geschichte als Literatur: Bilanz und Ausblick."
In U. Eigler et al. eds., Formen romischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfangen bis
Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Darmstadt. 287-316.










.2007. Antike Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zur Historiographie. Darmstadt.

Treggiari, S. 2002. Roman Social History. London and New York.

Ullmann, B. L. 1942. "History and Tragedy." TAPA 73: 25-53.

Valgiglio, E. 1975. "L'Autobiografia di Silla nelle biografie di Plutarco." In S. Boldrini et al.,
eds., Atti del convegno 'Gli storiographi latini tramandati in Frammenti (Urbino 9-11
maggio 1974). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1.
Urbino. 245-281.

van den Hout, M. 1988. M. Cornelius Fronto Epistulae. Leipzig.

Verbrugghe, G. P. 1979/80. "Three Notes on Fabius Pictor and his History." In E. Manni, ed.,
Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di E. Manni. Rome. 2157-2173.

1981. Fabius Pictor's 'Romulus and Remus'." Historia 30: 236-238.

1982. "L. Cincius Alimentus-His Place in Roman Historiography." Philologus 126:
316-323.

1989. "On the Meaning of Annales, on the Meaning of Annalist." Philologus 133: 192-
230.

Verdin, H. 1990. Purposes of history: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd
Centuries B.C. Louvain.

Vinchesi, M. 1984. "Il Bellum Histricum di Ostio, epos storico ennianeggiante." In V. Tandoi,
ed., Disiecti Membra Poetae, studio dipoesia latin inframmenti. Vol. 1. Foggia, Italy. 35-
59.

Vollmer, F. 1892. "Laudationum Funebrium Romanorum Historia et Reliquiarum Editio. JCP
Supplementband XVIII: 454-457.

von Albrecht, M. 1997. A History ofRoman Literature from Livius Andronicus to Boethius in ih
Special Regard to Its Influence on World Literature. Vol. 1, revised by the author and G.
Schmeling, translated with assistance of Frances and Kevin Newman. Vol. 2, revised by
G. Schmeling and the author, translated with the assistance of Ruth R. Caston and Francis
R. Schwartz. Leiden.

.1989. Masters ofRoman Prose. Leeds. Translated by N. Adkin.

Walbank, F. W. 1957-1959. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Oxford.

.1960. "History and Tragedy." Historia 9: 216-234.










.1972. Polybius. Berkeley.

Walbank, F.W., Astin, A.E., Fredericksen, M.W., Oglivie, R.M., and Drummond, A., eds. 1989.
The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 7, Part 2. Cambridge.

Walsh, P. G. 1961. Livy. His Historical Aims and Methods. Cambridge.

Walt, S. 1997. Der Historiker C. Licinius Macer: Einleitung, Fragmente Kommentar. Stuttgart
and Leipzig.

Walter, U. 2004. Memoria und respublica: Zur Geschichtskultur im Republikanischen Rom.
Frankfurt.

Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1977. Roman Architecture. New York.

Warmington, E.H. 1961. Remains of Old Latin. Vols. I-IV. Cambridge.

Warren. J. 1998. The Past and its Presenters. An Introduction to Issues in Historiography.
London.

Welles, C. B. 1966. "Isocrates' View of History." In Luitpold Wallach, The Classical Tradition:
Literary and Historical Studies in honor ofHarry Caplan. Ithaca. 3-25.

West, D. 1969. The Imagery and Poetry ofLucretius. Edinburgh.

Wheeler, A. L. 1934. Catullus and the Traditions ofAncient Poetry. Berkeley.

White, H. 1984. "The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory." History and
Theory 23.1: 1-33.

1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation.
Baltimore.

Wiseman, T.P. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester.

1974. Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leicester.

1979. Clio's Cosmetics. Leicester.

1981. "Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography." History 66: 375-393.

1983. "The Credibility of the Early Annalists." LCM 8: 20-22.

S1985. Catullus and His World. A Reappraisal. Cambridge.









1987. Roman Studies: Literary and Historical. Liverpool.

1993. "Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity." In C. Gill and T.P. Wiseman,
eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World. Austin, TX. 122-146.

S1994. Historiography and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture. Exeter.

S1995. Remus: A Roman Myth. Cambridge.

S1998. Roman Drama and Roman History. Exeter.

S2002a. "History, Poetry, and Annales." In D. S. Levene and D. P. Nelis, eds., Clio and
the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions ofAncient Historiography. Leiden. 331-
362.

2002b. Review of Gesine Manuwald, Fabuleprae praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen
Gattung der Romer. BMCR 2002.06.13.

2007. "The Prehistory of Roman Historiography." In J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to
Greek and Roman Historiography. Malden, MA. 67-75.

Woodman, A.J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography. London.

Wright, J. 1974. Dancing in Chains: The Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata. Rome.

Zimmerer, M. 1937. Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Quadrigarius. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Munich.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Trudy Harrington Becker was born in Fall River, Massachusetts. The oldest of seven

children, Trudy grew up in Boston where she graduated from Boston Latin School, the oldest

public high school in the United States. She earned a B.A. in classical studies and history from

the College of the Holy Cross in 1983. She received an M.A. in classics from the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1985 and an M.A. in history from Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University (Virginia Tech) in 1990.

After completing her M.A. in history, Trudy joined the faculty at Virginia Tech in 1991 as

an instructor in the humanities program, which would eventually become part of the Department

of Interdisciplinary Studies. She also became part of the classical studies program, teaching

introductory classes in Greek and Roman civilization and persuading many students to become

classical studies majors and minors. In addition, Trudy has taught many ancient history courses

for the History Department across the last decade. In 2008 Trudy was promoted to Senior

Instructor. Trudy's assignment at Virginia Tech has been primarily teaching, and she has

received many awards for her teaching excellence, including the university-wide Alumni Award

for Teaching Excellence in 2007. Trudy is an avid proponent of education abroad; currently she

co-directs the College of Liberal Arts and Human Science's Spring Semester Program in Riva

San Vitale, Switzerland, and she regularly leads short summer programs to Rome.

Trudy and her husband, Andy Becker, associate professor in classical studies at Virginia

Tech, have three children: Matt and Tim (18-year-old twins) and Trudy (age 14).


199





PAGE 1

1 FORM, INTENT, AND THE FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS 240 to 63 B.C.E. By GERTRUDE HARRINGTON BECKER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Gertrude Harrington Becker

PAGE 3

3 To Andy

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many have helped me on my journey through the long Ph.D. process. Writing is often a l onely and isolating task but I was lucky never to feel alone. For that I owe thanks to a multitude of friends who cheered me, colleagues who read my work, my department (and Dean) at Virginia Tech which allowed me time off to write, and parents who suppor ted my every step. I also thank the many women who showed me it was possible to complete schooling and a Ph.D. later in life, in particular my mother, Trudy Harrington, and my mother in law, Judith Becker. Above all, I thank my family: my children, Matt, Tim, and Trudy for their regular brilliance; and my husband, Andy, who is my center, cornerstone, and rock, this year, the past 21 years, and more to come.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 7 1 EARLY ROMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY: PAST AND PRESENT ................................ ......... 9 2 FOUNDERS AND FOLLOWERS: EARLY ROMAN ANNALISTS IN GREEK .............. 37 Annales and Annalists ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Fabius Pictor ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 48 Lucius Cincius Alimentus ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 54 Aulus Postumius Albinus ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 57 Gaius Acilius ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 62 3 ADAPTERS: THE LATIN ANNALIS TS OF THE SECOND CENTURY .......................... 66 Lucius Cassius Hemina ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 67 Lucius Calpurnius Piso ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Sempronius Tuditanus ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 84 Cnaeus Gellius ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 87 4 REVIVALISTS: ANNALISTS OF THE FIRST CENTURY ................................ ................ 92 Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius ................................ ................................ ............................... 93 Valerius Antias ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 101 Licinius Macer ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 110 5 INNOVATORS IN ALTERNATIVE FORMS: CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, RES GESTAE MONOGRAPHS, COMMENTARII ................................ ................................ ..... 118 Caius Fannius ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 119 Sempronius Ase llio ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 124 Porcius Cato Censorius ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 127 Lucius Coelius Antipater ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 133 Marcus Aemilius Scaurus ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 141 P ublius Rutilius Rufus ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 143 Quintus Lutatius Catulus ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 146 Lucius Cornelius Sulla ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 149 Lucius Cornelius Sisenna ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 153 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 160 APPENDIX: CATALOGUE OF FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS ......................... 173

PAGE 6

6 Fabius Pictor ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 173 Lucius Cincius Alimentus ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 173 Marcus Porc ius Cato Censorius ................................ ................................ ............................ 174 Aulus Postumius Albinus ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 174 Gaius Acilius ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 174 Lucius Cassius Hemina ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 174 Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi ................................ ................................ ............................... 175 Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus ................................ ................................ ............................ 175 Sempronius Asellio ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 175 Sempronius Tuditanus ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 175 Vennonius ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 176 Caius Fannius ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 176 Lucius Coelius Antipater ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 176 Cnaeus Gellius ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 177 Marcus Aemilius Scaurus ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 177 Publius Rutilius Rufus ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 177 Quintus Lutat ius Catulus ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 177 Lucius Cornelius Sulla ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 178 Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius ................................ ................................ ............................. 178 Valerius Antias ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 178 Lucius Cornelius Sisenna ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 179 Licinius Macer ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 180 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 199

PAGE 7

7 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillme nt of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FORM, INTENT, AND THE FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS 240 to 63 B.C.E. By Gertrude Harrington Becker August 2008 Chair: Victoria Pagn Major: Classical Studies In de Oratore (2.51 52), Antoni us described the origins of Roman history the earliest histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the historians were annalists. O n the contrary, from the end of the First Punic War (240 B.C.E.) to the time of This study undertakes an examination of those forms and their authors, both t o assess intent and motivations, and to consider cultural and political contexts. Unfortunately, none of these histories has survived in toto and for most only a handful of fragments remains. Nonetheless, these fragments preserve intentional statements regarding form and demonstrate a wide range of forms such as annales res gestae contemporary history, monographs, and commentarii Cato, for example, spoke dismissively of annales with their inclusion of quotidian events from the tabula apud pontifice m maximum such as corn prices or eclipses. Asellio rejected the annalistic form; his history, res gestae would more properly demonstrate how and why events happened. Sisenna, who wrote contemporary history, defended his methodology of choosing to relat e in continuous narrative events outside the city of Rome. Though few other programmatic statements survive, implicit estimations of forms are

PAGE 8

8 apparent in the choices historians made. Pictor and Calpurnius Piso, for example, found the annales form approp yearly progress overseen by annual magistrates. Antipater chose instead to focus on one particular period, the Second Punic War, in a monograph form. Later historians, such as Scaurus and Sulla, wrote commentarii histories which justified and legitimized their public action. The words of Cato, Asellio, and Sisenna as well as the implicit evidence from others reveal thoughtful reflection about suitable historiographical forms f or the functions they assigned to their history. The multitude of historiographical forms counterbalances the impression that historiography was uniform and poorly conceived. In the years 240 63, Roman historiography form, at least was carefully chosen, rhetorically charged, and engaged in with purpose.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 EARLY ROMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY: PAST AND PRESENT during the Second Punic War, marks a beginning point in th e traditional outline of Roman historiography. 1 His generation found it suitable to write the first histories of Rome not in their own language but in the language of the culturally prominent Greeks. And yet while Fabius and his contemporaries wrote in G Romans; focusing on the annual recording of magistrates and res internae and res externae these first Roman historians are called annalists for the form they chose. In de Oratore (2.51 52 history the earliest histories were compilations of annales recorded by the chief priest, and the n the Republic, however, were annalists. On the contrary, during the years from the end of the First in both prose and poetry to write their history. These f orms were not solely restricted to Latin annals, but included annals in Greek as well as poetic forms such as epics (both the grand nation shaping epics of Naevius and Ennius, and lesser epics on specific campaigns such as the Bellum Histricum by Hostius), Roman tragedies called fabulae praetextae commentarii monographs, annales in verse, and short historical poems. Even the so called annalists were not all alike; some chose to begin their histories from starting points other than ab urbe condita Moreo ver, Romans used the term annales itself in 1 All dates in this dissertation are B.C.E., unless otherwise designated.

PAGE 10

10 different ways, signifying both annual lists as well as histories, and even poetry. 2 Indeed the first Roman historical writing can be claimed by Naevius, who wrote a history of Rome in epic form, the Bellum Punic um and a historical tragedy, Clastidium Though the Romans in theory often viewed history as a well defined genre, in practice they found and employed a variety of literary means for preserving their history. The purpose of this study is to undertake a comprehensive examination of the fragmentary historians in the years 240 to 63 and their varied literary prose forms, to assess their intent and motivations for the forms used, and to consider their relationship to Roman cultural and political contexts. Unfortunately, none of these texts has survived in toto and for most of the authors of this period, only a handful of fragments remains. A study of the development of Roman historiography, however, cannot rest wholly on complete texts. An examination of these fragments is critical. Though much has been written about the early Roman historians, there still does not exist a monograph in English that considers all the fragmentary historians nor one that considers their evaluations of historiographic form. My work is chiefly concerned with the development of historiography seen in the decisions made by Roman authors in their choice of literary medium. What compelled a historian in the Roman Republic to write his history in annalistic form? Why did one writ e monographs, and another write commentarii ? And, particularly, what were their estimations of these forms? While much of this study will be empirical, theories regarding form and function of history as perceived by the Romans will have a place. A focus on form does not preclude or ignore other important and complementary aspects of history writing, such as style and subject matter. Rather all three will be intertwined. This study does not undertake a 2 Verbrugghe 1989 examines the use an d meaning of the term annales in Roman authors. A lengthier discussion of the term follows in Chapter Two.

PAGE 11

11 philological examination of the fragments or an acc ount of the transmission of the texts. Nor does it offer commentary on the fragments. Instead, my goal is to illuminate the historians and their choices against a backdrop of Rome and in the context of developing historiography. In exploring the Roman a we may discover their motivations. These may include a competition for historical validity or credibility in the Roman Republic, or a recognition of the adequacies and inadequaci es of particular forms for narrative discourse. For some authors, these forms may have a pragmatic goal to reflect political stance. Conversely, Roman writers may have selected a particular form for its literary possibilities. Form might reveal motivati purpose in writing history. The historians themselves, in various programmatic statements, recorded their own concerns regarding form, and their comments regarding what and how they chose to write and what they c hose to reject are illuminating. Cato, for example, the first to write Roman history in Latin prose, spoke dismissively of the annales ; it did not please him to record those things written down on the tabula apud pontificem maximum such as expensive corn prices or eclipses of the sun and moon. 3 Sempronius Asellio likewise rejected the annalistic style and declared it unsuitable for writing history. For Asellio, writing of battles and consuls and triumphs did not constitute historiography, but only stori es for children. Asellio, moreover, distinguished between 3 Cato Orig IV,1 Chassignet (= Gell. NA 2.28.6). All fragments in this dissertation derive from the Chassignet editions, whether from her edition of Cato as here, or below from her three volumes, vols. I (1996/2003), II (1999/2003), and III (2004), each of which includes a concordance to Peter 1914. The numbering system in this dissertation is hers, and total figures for nu chronological order with their tallies of fragments. Abbreviations throughout the dissertation and a ppendix follow abbreviation conventions of OCD ; abbreviations of journals in the bibliography follow

PAGE 12

12 forms of historical writings. He recognized a difference between writing annales an unembellished list of events, and writing res gestae His history would do more than list; it would more prope rly demonstrate how and why events happened. 4 Any intentional statement regarding form made by the historian Lucius Cornelius Sisenna does not survive; in a one fragment, however, Sisenna appears to defend his methodology of choosing to relate in continuo us fashion events happening outside the city of Rome. By writing a continuous narrative Sisenna would not confuse his readers by vellicatim aut saltuatim scribendo 5 Aulus Postumius Albinus, who wrote in Greek a century before Sisenna, similarly offered justification for the decisions that shaped his writing. Postumius, infamously, prefaced his history with a plea for leniency from his readers if he made mistakes in the Greek; homo Romanus natus in Latio Postumius reminded them, and thus the Greek langu age was somewhat foreign to him. 6 In addition to these historians, doubtless other writers of prose attempted to clarify their choice of form and subject matter; when they did not or when those fragments do not survive, the process of examining historical form becomes more complicated but not impossible. Limitations on the scope of this study have compelled the exclusion and inclusion of much that would complement this work. Missing in this study are the above mentioned histories in poetic form including epics, tragedies addressing Roman themes, praetextae annales in verse, short epics, and short historical poems. A later project might successfully study the poetic historical forms that flourished during the Republic. Fragments of praetextae written by N aevius, Ennius, Pacuvius, and Accius exist. The Neronian Octavia the only extant complete praetexta would provide a useful comparison as a later example. Such a project would be 4 Sempronius Asellio frag.1 2 (= Gell. NA 5.18.7 and 5.18.9). 5 L. Cornelius Sisenna frag. 129 (= Gell. NA 12.15.2). 6 A. Postumi us Albinus frag. 1b (= Gell. NA 11.8.3). Gellius quotes Postumius in Latin, though the original would have been in Greek.

PAGE 13

13 problematic, since extremely few fragments have survived. The most signif icant of the poetic histories are the earliest ones: the epic poem of Naevius, the Bellum Punicum published around Annales a history of Rome in dactylic hexameter, published post 169. This dissertation begins with Fabius Pictor and his annales in Greek, written sometime late in the Second Punic War, and ends with first century historians who reinvent the annales tradition. This time period commences with the great political and social upheavals at the end of the first war Rome undertook with Carthage (240) and concludes with the equally tumultuous consulship of Cicero in 63. That year, in retrospect, was to usher in change as well Julius Caesar became pontifex maximus and the future Augustus was born. Excluded by the time frame are S allust (86 35), Cornelius Nepos (c. 110 24), and Livy (59 17 C.E.), as well as the poets of the Augustan age who engaged regularly and creatively with Roman history; their story is told elsewhere. 7 The antiquarian work of Varro (116 27) will be useful thr oughout but only as evidence for the early historians; his surviving works are not one books, Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum as well as his briefer lost history on the Roman people, de ge nte populi Romani would surely have contributed to my study of early Roman writers of history. His study of the Latin language, de lingua Latina will be useful in this study. I limit my study to Roman authors, and this leaves out one of the greatest his torians of Rome, the Greek Polybius, who wrote at Rome under the patronage of Scipio Aemilianus. Prominent in the Achaean Confederation opposed to Rome, Polybius (c. 200 c.118) served as hipparch of that confederation. But after the Roman victory over Pe rseus at Pydna in 168, Polybius came to Rome as one of the thousand Achaeans deported and held across Italy without 7 Most recently, for example, in the wide ranging collection of essays in Levene and Nelis 2002.

PAGE 14

14 trial until the year 150. Polybius was one of the luckier hostages; he became friendly with Scipio Aemilianus, the son of the victor at Pyd na, L. Aemilius Paullus. Scipio arranged for Polybius to serve out his time in Rome. Polybius later accompanied Scipio Aemilianus to Spain (150), and to Carthage during its siege (146), possibly playing a role even in the settlement of Achaea after the s ack of Corinth. In Rome in the company of Scipio, Polybius wrote minor works that have not survived, including a history of the Numantine War. Polybius may have been present at rise to power during the years 240 down to 146, survives only partially. Books 1 5 of forty original books survive whole; only quotations and abridgments preserve bits of the remaining books. His methodology was new, and ultimately influential on early Roman historians. A geographical chronological framework of Olympiads firmly set Roman history into a more universal history. As in the case of Varro above, Polybius wi ll not be completely absent from this study. The form and motivations that shaped his historical approach and methodology, influenced by the Hellenistic historians, will in turn influence the writing of his contemporaries in Rome. 8 My study considers the diverse historical writings by form, and within that framework, by chronology. This introduction provides a survey of scholarship on the fragmentary historians, our sources for them, and a historical and literary context for the historians. Chapters 2 t hrough 5 treat practitioners and particular historical forms. Chapter 2 focuses on the annalistic form and its earliest proponents, the so called Greek annalists. 9 Chapter 3 examines the annalists of the second century, including Lucius Cassius Hemina, l ater admired by antiquarians, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cos. 133), the enemy of the Gracchi, Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129), 8 Cf. Walkbank 1957, and Astin 196 7: 3 4, and 14 20. 9 The fragments of the annalists in Greek are found in Chassignet 1996/2003.

PAGE 15

15 and the verbose Cnaeus Gellius. 10 Chapter 4 looks to annalists of the first century including Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, Valeri use of them rather than their own merits. 11 Chapter 5 takes on alternative forms of history such as contemporary history, res gestae monographs, and commentarii pursued by Fannius, Semproni us Asellio, Coelius Antipater, and Lucius Cornelius Sisenna, among others. 12 Thus Chapters 2 5 differ from one another in both form and perspective. Chapter 6, the conclusion, provides a synthetic view of the historians, their forms, intent, and contexts. An appendix provides a catalogue of authors of historical works produced in the years between the end of the First Punic War (240) and the consulship of Cicero (63). The historians are arranged chronologically. Each author is presented with bibliograph ic information: surviving fragments in the major editions, significant testimonia in chronological order from primary sources that refer RE references to magistracies in MRR, secondary studies o n the author as a historian, and lastly, a selective bibliography of secondary sources which contain works that offer extended treatment of the author or are considered canonical. The remainder of this introduction provides background material on the exte nsive scholarship on these early historical writings. The study of early Roman historical writings is not new. Various works treat the early historians, for example, in terms of biography, extant works, and credibility (Beloch 1926, Balsdon 1953, Badian 1 966, Rawson 1976, Wiseman 1981, Wiseman 1983, Rawson 1985, 10 Chassignet 1999/2003 collects the fragments of the annalists Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, Lucius Cassius Hemina, Caius Sempronius Tuditanus, Vennonius, Cna eus Gellius, and Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus. Venonnius and the equally shadowy Servilianus will receive only the scantest attention in this work. 11 Fragments of each are in Chassignet 2004. 12 See Chassignet 1999/2003 for the fragments of Fannius, Luc ius Coelius Antipater, and The commentarii are also in Chassignet 2004.

PAGE 16

16 Cornell 1986a and b, Cornell 1995). Among these, the classic introduction to the early Roman historians is Badian. He offers a chronological survey of the historians, and provides biographical in formation and perfunctory comments on the literary and historical merits of their surviving fragments. Because it is only a short chapter, some 26 pages, in a longer work on the point. Rawson, likewise, devotes just one chapter to early historiography in her book on intellectual life in the Roman Republic. In an eighteen page chapter on Republican historiography and allied subjects, Rawson limits her comments on the early historians to four pa ges. More recent surveys include Wiseman 2007 on on the historiography of the late Republic. 13 On the whole, these representative pieces which survey the histori ans are valuable for the straightforward information they supply in an empirical, though often cursory, approach. Their strength lies in their clear accessible listing of historians; brevity is their weakness. Some early historians have been treated indiv idually, however, including Lucius Cincius Alimentus (Verbrugghe 1982), Cato (Astin 1978), Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (Forsythe 1994), C. Licinius Macer (Frier 1975, Walt 1997) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (Rawson 1976, Santini 1995). The stand alone artic treats not all the Latin annalists, but rather deals chiefly with Lucius Cassius Hemina, is more detailed than her comments on the historians en masse ; it provides a more detailed analysis of on (Verbrugghe 1982) is another representative article on an individual annalist. H e proposes the 13 Other useful but older surveys of early Roman historiography include Beloch 1926, Frank 1927, and McDonald 1954 and 1975.

PAGE 17

17 addition of five more fragments to the small corpus of Cincian fragments, and argues based on this larger body of material that Cincius was not merely a rehash of Fabius Pictor. The paucity of fragments still hinders clear conclusions, but Verbrugghe suggests that even these few can monograph on Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (Forsythe 1994) is one of a very few book length studies, to date, on any of the ea rly historians, with the exception of Cato. Its length alone affords fragme 350 pages puts Piso at the start of Roman annalistic tradition, and attributes to him a variety of historiographical innovations that were pursued by his followers. Again empirically based, these not just biographical facts and head counts of surviv ing fragments, but posit interpretations of an The scholarship on the credibility of the early historians is livelier and more confrontational (Leeman 1963, Cornell 1986a, Wisem an 1979, 1981, and 1983, Woodman 1988, Cornell 1995, Oakley 1997, and Forsythe 2005), because of a compelling debate on both the purposes of the early historians and their use of source material. Wiseman and Cornell chiefly engage in this dispute as the p ole points, with Wiseman arguing that the historians imaginatively, and in conjunction with their rhetorical training in inventio greatly elaborated on their slim sources. Wiseman does not see this as entirely negative; he reads the historians with a san guine view of their reliability. In this he is supported, for example, by Oakley 1997 and Woodman

PAGE 18

18 1988. These turn to the rhetorical education that would have been the common denominator for the earliest historians. That training allowed the addition of plausible, if not necessarily true, Orationis Ratio (1963), points out the desire not only to teach but also delectare and movere 14 Woodman 1998 makes a persuasive case for the application of rhetorical mod els to narrative history by the historians. Cornell, on the other hand, contends that the skeletal structure of early Roman history is constant and similar in all the early historians, and that they were respectful of received history. Thus the early hist orians must be treated as credible. Cornell is not naive, but prefers to accept the skeletal material documented by these historians. This debate and line of argument between Cornell and Wiseman is particularly clear in their discussions of the historica l tradition and characteristic wide ranging arguments, posits the myth of Remus, for example, as the creation of political and ideological debate in the fourth century. Wiseman brings to his argument a range of material, historical, archaeological, theoretical, and is often compelling. Wiseman himself operates as he says the early historians did when there is need or room for plausible interpretation in the face of scant understand the past, is evidence and argument what survives, and what we make of what 15 Wiseman further defends his methodology by asserting that every hypothesis is a creative act. Breath read historian engaging with his material in as many ways as he can, rather than being stymied by the paucity of evidence. 14 Leeman 1963: 87. 15 constructive fiction in writing (modern) history.

PAGE 19

19 Three major editions of the fragments of the historians now exist. 16 The earl iest collection of the fragments of the historians is Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (1914); this edition, with commentary in Latin, is a revision of his 1870 Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta ludes the remains of every fragmentary Roman historian from the Republic through the Empire. For over one hundred primarily during the nineteenth century, and even though it was heavily revised in 1914, it is, nonetheless, out of date since it misses much of the recent work done especially on the early reference w 17 More recently, two new editions have been produced which include updates on the accumulated knowledge of the historians, new fragments, and commentary in languages other than Latin. Beginning in 1996 Chassignet published thre e volumes of fragments from the period of the Republic entitled : Tome I: ancienne (1996/2003); Tome II: (1999/2003); and Tome III: ie politique for the clarity of presentation, lucid and concise summaries of the life, work, and reception of each historian, the fragments and French translations of these, and updated scholarship. Moreover, C Tome I offers a readable and restrained examination of Roman historiographical forms as well as scholarship on them. The major difference in terms of 16 histo rical text (e.g., length, date, publication, fragments, and so on), as well as information on has been my model in my work. 17 Frier 1979/1999: 16.

PAGE 20

20 of fragments deriving from Origo Gentis Romanae which Peter had declared inauthentic. In 2001 and 2004 Beck and Walter produced a two volume collection of the fragments of historians of the Republic in Die frher rmischen Historiker I von Fabius Pict or bis Cn. Gellius and Die frher rmischen Historiker II, von Coelius Antipater bis Pomponius Atticus ever, are not comprehensive; they, in fact, do not include every historian. Missing, for example, are Vennonius and Fabius Maximus Servilianus, as well as Q. Lutatius Catulus, M. Aemilius Scaurus, and Sulla. This dissertation relies primarily on the Chass ignet volumes of the fragments of the historians. 18 The Chassignet volumes offer the most complete collection of the Roman historians, including historians who used different forms. These volumes surpass Peter (1914) by providing more recent and updated s cholarship on the historians. Peter remains useful, especially for its lengthy biographies of each historian, but Chassignet includes newer fragments and newer scholarship. Reviews of Chassignet have, on the whole, been positive. Beck, for example, comm 19 Until the edition of the fragments currently being worked on by the English team led the fragmentary historians regardless of form. 20 18 As ment well as to relevant editions of individual historians such as, e.g., Licinius Macer and L. Cassius Hemina. 19 Beck 2005: 3. 20 Led by Tim Cornell, a team of English scholar s is working on publication of Fragmentary Roman Historians. Other editors include E. Bispham, J. W. Rich, and C. J. Smith. There is no

PAGE 21

21 This scholarship has created a foundation on which my own work can rely. They in turn relied on the work of ancient scholars and authors who were interested in the fragmentary historians those Roman texts th at preserve the words of the historians, and thus are our source for the fragments of the historians of the Republic. The fragments of the early historians derive chiefly from few sources. In many cases, all we know of a particular author comes from test imony or commentary in an ancient source. At other times, a writer is quoted or cited in some fashion, thus providing us with a greater probability of more direct connection to an original text. Among the sources that most frequently describe our early h istorians are (in chronological order) Cicero, Livy, Plutarch, and Aulus Gellius. Myriad other Roman authors, from, e.g., Pliny the Elder to Macrobius, Priscian, and Nonius Marcellus, also quote, excerpt or paraphrase early historians either less often or at less length. In addition to the grammarians, notices also appear in commentaries such as Servius. How and why these principal sources preserved our historians is a good place to start. tant primary sources on the development of history in Rome. 21 Found in the main in de Oratore and to a lesser degree in his letters, in particular his letter to Lucceius ( Fam 5.12), these comments take as their common complaint the dearth of master histo intended as a treatise on historiography. In the form of a dialogue, set in the year 91, de Oratore which survives whole, confronted the topic of political and rhetorical training of an orator. date of 91 for this dialogue allowed him to situate his interlocutors, Marcus date set for its publication. It will be the first edition in English of the corpus of the fragmentary historians of the Roman Republic. 21 On Cicero and historiography, see Leeman 1963, Rawson 1972: 33 45, Brunt 1980a, Woodman 1988: 70 117, Brunt 1993: 181 210, and Feldherr 2003.

PAGE 22

22 himself died in 91. The Social War and turmoil between Marius and Sulla would soon follow, and Antonius was killed in 88 by Sulla. In the de Oratore to which we will turn again in Chapter 1, Crassus made a case for a broad and wide ranging education for an orator, one not s moral character (the doctrine of the vir bonus ) was of great importance. Antonius, in less than complete opposition, promoted a training that was more closely tied to oratorical technique and experience. In Book 2, historiography entered the dialogue w hen Antonius offered it as an example of a field, not having any precepts or theories of its own, that should be treated with oratorical skills. In 2.51 64, Antonius decried the state of history writing in Rome no one in Rome, he claimed, applied eloquenc e to anything other than his time in court or in the Forum (2.55). Cicero (through his interlocutor) presents not only a history of Roman historiography but also his theories on the proper writing of history. These theories are found as well in a famous letter of Cicero, Fam. 5.12, composed in 55, the same year as the de Oratore but months earlier. In it, Cicero urged his friend Lucceius to continue his history of Italy, which treated the Social War and the conflict between Marius and Sulla, with a sepa rate monograph on Cicero himself. That monograph, Cicero suggested, could often discomfiting plea for Lucceius both to immortalize him for perpetuity and provi de him one could write history. For instance, Cicero observed a difference between events that were appropriate for continued narrative, and those that might lend themselves more to attention given over to uno in argumento unaque in persona himself of course (5.12.2) Such focus allowed greater scope for greater elaboration ( ornatiora ). Cicero also called for history and his own

PAGE 23

23 experiences to be recounted wi th artistry and style. Variatio of events mixed with pleasure would entertain a reader ( delectationem lectoris ) far more than the monotony of annales ( ordo ipse annalium mediocriter nos retinet quasi enumeratione fastorum ). Cicero preferred for the drama tic acts of his life to be separated out from a more (boring) form of history (5.12.2). ks often speak little to the content written by the historian and more on the exornatio (or lack thereof). His descriptions of them are valuable, however, because he directs his comments to the literary style of the historian, a facet he found still missi ng in Roman historiography even in the last century of the Republic. Thus, Cicero preserves for us names of historians, brief comments on their (lack own, th ey provide some small glimpse into the reputation or received opinions of these writers by one educated member of the politically and socially enfranchised class in the first century. Indeed, this type of window into the late Republic has always been one of the great advantages to descriptions of them that might hav e directly benefited our study of them. We have some view of these historians, and at the same time we are deprived further information. Many early historians, especially Valerius Antias, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, and Licinius Macer, appear as sources in Ab urbe condita written at the end of 10 and 21 45 survive complete. Fragments of others exist, and Periochae written in the third or

PAGE 24

24 t foundation of Rome by his perhaps continued as far as the Teutoburg Forest Disaster in 9 C.E., perhaps intending a narrative comprising 150 books, but his death prohib ited the completion (12/17 C.E.). 22 If the last books on the Augustan years had survived, we might know better how much influence Augustus had on Livy. 23 The surviving books, Books 1 last Samnite war in 289; and Books 21 45 treat from 218 167, the Second Punic War to the defeat of Macedonia in 167 at Pydna. For a history of such a great scale, Livy was obliged to use many literary sources, though he rarely consulted available documentary materials. literary sources, those historians of the generation before him, are widely known. 24 On the whole, Livy found his predecessors to be less than credible, especially Antias, and yet he often included their versions of events. 25 26 It was, perhaps, common enough practice for ancient historians to make use regularly of ava ilable literary histories in addition to primary sources. 27 On the other hand, Livy rejected the stories of his sources enough, or at least registered doubt in them, to earn some grudging praise as a 22 On the publication of Livy, see Luce 1977. 23 For a basic summary of the problem, see Lu ce 1977 on the relationship between Augustus and Livy as well as Syme 1959. 24 25 10 in Oakley 1997 : 13 15. Further, see Oakley 1997: 21 109 on the annalistic tradition. Oakley 1997: 89 92 is particularly harsh on Antias. 26 Casualty figures, e.g., Antias frag. 25 (= Liv. 26.49.1 2). A more complete list can be had in Oakley 1997: 89 90. On fictiona l battles, see e.g., Antias frag. 31(= Liv. 30.29.7). 27 Oakley 1997: 13.

PAGE 25

25 critic. 28 His skepticism about his sources begins even tales and suspect at the same time. Livy 10). He based Books 21 45 in large part on these same sources, adding Polybius and C oelius Antipater to them when his narrative reached the rise of Rome. Direct references to work of Cato and L. Calpurnius Piso are few, and his use of them is ambiguous. 29 which progressed year by year, and focused on magistrates, internal and external events, and other events of importance such as portents, he reverted to a traditional historiographical form. In the decades before Livy, Sallust had turned away from the a nnalistic form and had instead written two monographs. Livy picked up the annales form again, and through his remarkable story telling skills, he rescued the annalistic form and made it respectable again. Ironically, in looking for those often derided as historian who preferred their same form. And ironically, we find the annalists in the annales of one who was an outsider of sorts a non senator from Padua. In preserving the early historians Livy also surpasses them, and thus our reaction to these elaboration of scene, event and personality earned him praise from Quintilian for his lactea 28 figures. 29 Oakley 1997: 13 16.

PAGE 26

26 ubertas 30 His history is possibly the one Cicero had been waiting for a history told by a good storyteller and stylist. In the first century C.E., Plutarch (ca. 50 120), a Greek biographer and philosopher, came to Rome from Chaeroneia. A prolific writer, Plutarch c ompiled a corpus of two hundred twenty seven works, as listed in the fourth century C.E. Catalogue of Lamprias. Over one hundred and twenty survive. 31 Among them are his many essays, the Moralia on a variety of topics these fill sixteen Loeb volumes. Hi s essays range from advice to political, rhetorical and antiquarian tracts. Rarely in the Moralia does Plutarch cite an early Roman historian or poet. Rather, his sources for the essays on Roman themes are the antiquarians, and in particular Varro, used often in Quaestiones Romanae Plutarch also makes use of Livy, Polybius and Dionysius, as well as sources such as Aristides, who, for example, is cited extensively in the spurious Parallela Minora historians is found in de fortuna Romanorum, which once cites the historian Antias (323 C). Other Plutarchean works are not helpful either for examining the Roman historians. Lives of the Caesars does not survive complete. Only his biograph ies of Galba and Otho remain, and these, as well as the lost volumes on the emperors from Augustus to Vitellius, fall outside the time frame of this study. Valerius Antias, Cato, Claudius Quadrigarius, Fabius Pictor, Fannius, Postumius Albinus, Sempronius Tuditanus all do appear in some fashion, however, in Plutarch. 32 Plutarch is best known for his series of biographies in Greek called Parallel Lives, nineteen matching pairs of biographies of famous Greek and Roman political figures, and four treatments of single figures. 30 Quint. Instit.. 10.1.32. 31 Russell 1993: xxiii xxix comp 32 76; s.v. each author.

PAGE 27

27 These lives treated many significant Romans of the Republic, beginning with Romulus, and Greek and Latin, though questions remain about Plutar sources suggest some familiarity with them on a sliding scale from first hand understanding and reading of them to mere acquaintance. 33 Plutarch himself remarks in his Life of Demosthenes (I) that he came to learn Latin very late in his life. In the Parallel Lives however, Plutarch cited over twenty different Greek and Roman authors, some more often than others, and the early annalists appear often. Two fragments, for example, from uncertain books of Cato survive in Cato Minor 34 de Agricultura and letters as well. On the other hand, some references to early annalists by Plutarch constitute only a passing comment or small notice. Tuditanus, for one, is mentioned o nly once. 35 writing is laid out, famously, in the introduction to his Life of Alexander the Great Interested more in the character of men than their achievements, Plutarch put forward the disclaimer that he was writing biography, not history. Stories revealing character interested Plutarch more than records of acco mplishments on the battlefield. 36 He wrote not political or military history, but composed narratives about the virtues and exemplars of famous and worthy men. His 33 On Plutarch and his sources for the Parallel Lives as well as his relationship with Rome, see first Jones 1971, as well as Stadter 1965, and on quotations in Plutarch, see especially Helmbold 34 Cato frag. 129 Peter (= Plut. Cat Min. 10/342a) and Cato frag. 130 Peter (= Plut. Cat Min Origines and d oes not include fragments from unknown books. 35 Tuditanus frag. 6 (= Plut. Flam 14.2 3). 36 Plut. Alex. 1.

PAGE 28

28 relationship to both his subjects and to the city of Rome greatly colored his depictions of them. 37 Though Plutarch used a wide range of sources, he was not always scrupulous in reflecting these. When a source suggested a less than savory characteristic of an individual or portrayed Rome in a less than flattering light (for example, in the Romu lus ), Plutarch passed over that evidence. him a certain amount of freedom in using and naming his sources (or even reading them for that matter); he was not u ltimately concerned with correct historical detail. 38 Hence what we learn of the early Roman historians and poets in Plutarch is never complete and always intentionally filtered. One of our best sources for the early Roman historians is the late miscellani st, Aulus Gellius who lived in the second century C.E. during the age of the Antonines. He was a scholar, linguist, and antiquarian, interested in etymologies, antiquities, and language. Like other literary sions indicated erudition and culture, and a profound interest in archaic language and institutions. Though he might have been born in Africa and spent most of his life in Rome, his travels in Greece and time spent in Athens resulted in a collection of en tertaining stories, anecdotes and more, entitled Noctes Atticae published around 180 C.E. in twenty books, and based on notes on readings undertaken during his time there. Most of Noctes Atticae survives; missing are the preface, all of Book 8 and the en d of Book 20. His work demonstrated a wide range of interests, preeminent among them a delight in grammar. Because of his interest in archaic Latin, Aulus Gellius preserves many fragments of the early historians. In fact, for example, nearly half of the preserved fragments of Q. Claudius 37 On Plutarch and Rome, see Jones 1971. 38 Jones 1971:85.

PAGE 29

29 Quadrigarius come from Aulus Gellius. He also cited or referred to Sempronius Asellio, Postumius Albinus, Cato, and Coelius Antipater. Next to Quadrigarius, Gellius cited most frequently Sallust and Cato. 39 fulness lies in his range of materials and the sources he employed. Yet Gellius was neither a historian nor particularly interested in Roman history or Roman res ge stae and annales on the whole Gellius preferred the study of language to history. 40 Thus example, did not lead to a discussion of Roman historiography or of events in Roman history or even of the merits of Asellio as an annalist. Rather, Gellius preserved Asellio because of historia and annales Gellius had little interest in the 41 Passages from other Roman historians cited there evince the same interests of Gellius; throughout his work, these sources were used more for purposes of do little for us in assessing the historical import or credibility of the early Roman annalists. They are nonetheless of utmost importance in preserving some of their grammatical tendencies through which we might tease out their stylistic qualities. In addit ion to Gellius, the grammarians Priscian, Nonius, and Macrobius, contain fragments of the early historians. The grammarians belong to a period of cultural rebirth and renovation in the fourth century C.E., a revival of both the empire and literature. 42 Du ring this 39 The definitive work on Aulus Gellius remains Holford Strevens 2003 (revised edition); on Gellius and history, see Holford Strevens 2003: 241 260. 40 Asellio frags. 1 2 (= Gell. NA 5.18.8 9). 41 Holford Strevens 2003: 245. 42 On the grammarians and fourth century society, see Kaster 1997.

PAGE 30

30 century before the sack of the city of Rome in 410 C.E., grammarians as well as other commentators wrote extensively on Roman literature, most often focusing on style and form, rather than content. Chief among these is Nonius Marcellus, born in t he first part of the fourth century C.E., perhaps in Africa, who wrote a twenty book treatise on grammar and antiquarianism. The first part of this work, De Compendiosa Doctrina is a series of explanations of grammatical rules supported by examples from Roman authors. In including these citations, Nonius preserved many otherwise lost passages from early historians such as Quadrigarius and Sisenna. 43 Macrobius, of the late fourth and early fifth century C.E., continued the literary revival of the fourth century. His range of works demonstrated an interest in grammar, history, scholarship, and antiquarianism. Saturnalia his seven book work in dialogue form written long tion and dialogue by an influential group of Romans who came together during the Saturnalia in 384 C.E. Among the discussion topics are religion, philosophy, and literature, including numerous citations from the early historians. 44 Priscian lived more tha n a century after Macrobius, writing and working in Constantinople in the beginning of the sixth century C.E. His principal work, Institutio de Arte Grammatica became the authoritative textbook on grammar for the Middle Ages, preserving in it many quotat ions from both prose and poetic authors. 45 Each of these grammarians preserves fragments of the early historical historians, yet not out of a keen interest in the history recounted. Rather, as in the case of Aulus Gellius, the grammarians were more interes ted in grammatical idiosyncrasies, neologisms, and archaisms. 43 Kaster 1997: 417 418. 44 von Albrecht 1997: 1485 1491. On fragments in Macrobius, see Marinone 1975. 45 Kaster 1997: 346 348.

PAGE 31

31 Thus their interests and concerns do not fully contextualize our historians. Nonetheless, they afford some small glimpse into the style and subject matter of the early (and mostly lost) works of the historians. The grammarians, in particular, demonstrate a paradox found in working with the early historians in searching for the earliest historians we find them in fact in some of the latest Latin sources. A study of Latin literature ironically chases its own tail, looking for the beginning in the end. Roman historiography developed against the rich backdrop of the middle to late Roman Republic, in particular from the end of the First Punic War (240) to the consulship of Cicero (63). During th ese years, Rome experienced tremendous change on many fronts. For the Roman historians, context and reaction to contemporary events shaped their choice of a medium for history writing. Romans would accordingly not only write of the Roman past but shape h ow that history was written as well. An overview of this period emphasizes change and innovation across all manner of fields. Above all, Rome seemed to expend its energies on expansion and creation of both power and empire. 46 By the fourth and early thir d century, Rome engaged in a long series of wars to consolidate first the Italian peninsula under her rule, and warfare remained a common theme throughout the Republic. 46 Thorough examinations of the Roman Republic can be found in the second edition of Cambridge Ancient History Mediter ranean to 133 B.C the bibliographies therein. See also Scullard 1980; Crawford 1993; Boatwright et al. 2004 and Flower 2004. On the last century of the Republic, see Syme 1939; Seager 1969; Crawford and Beard 1985/1999; Wiseman 1986; Brunt 1988; and Gruen 1995/reissue of 1974. On economy of the Republic see Crawford 1985; on religion, see Beard, North and Price 1998; on literature and culture and intellectual life, see Kenney 1982; Rawson 1 985; Gruen 1992; and Fantham 1996. and 1996; Harris 1979 and 1984; Gruen 1984 and 1992; Richardson 1986; and Goldsworthy Bradley 1989; on Roman society, see Fantham et al. 1994; Kleiner and Matheson 1996; and Treggiari 2002. On Republican politics, class relations and social conflicts, and citizenship see Lacey and Wilson 1970; Brunt 1971; Sherwin White 1973; Shatzman 1975; and Nicolet 1980.

PAGE 32

32 The later third, second, and first centuries followed this trend, but Rome engaged prim arily in warfare outside the Italian peninsula as it became a Mediterranean power. After the defeat of Pyrrhus in 275 and a series of successful wars against a series of enemies across roughly one hundred and thirty years, Rome eventually became the domin ant state in the Mediterranean. War was waged against the Carthaginians three times, in 264 241, 218 210, and 149 146. In the east, the Romans met the Illyrians on the battlefield in wars in 229 and 219, and the Macedonians in three wars beginning in 215 and ending with victory at Pydna in 168. Rome defeated the Syrians as well in this period (192 189), destroyed Corinth (146), was bequeathed the kingdom of Pergamum (133), and finally took, in the west, Numantia in the same year to consolidate most o f Spain under her rule. Before the turn of the century, on the northern frontier, Marius would defeat the Cimbri and the Teutones (113 101). To the south Rome engaged in war with Jugurtha of Numidia (112 105) as well. The first century witnessed campaig ns versus Mithridates in the east (90 85, and again 74 63), and against the Parthians (culminating in a disastrous defeat in 53). External warfare, now a staple to the Romans, turned fratricidal in this last century of the Republic beginning with the Grac these wars falls outside the timeframe and scope of this study. hundred years from th e outset of the First Punic War in the third century to civil war in the first century witnessed developments in many areas, which are as significant as any in the military or political realm. Precipitated by warfare and consequences of these wars, change s in Roman social and political life were the norm across these years. The movement of peoples, the increasing inclusion and growing influence of non Romans in Roman life, and political divisions

PAGE 33

33 and tensions as Rome wrestled with the logistics of ruling an empire, contributed to a constantly changing culture. A ruling elite, the nobiles came to the forefront, the wealthy grew richer from spoils of war, formerly small landholdings became concentrated in the hands of the few, the poor remained disenchante d, notable individuals from Cato to Sulla made their mark, and a Mediterranean economy was born. 47 The city of Rome itself experienced significant physical growth and change too; a host of private and public building projects, such as frequent dedication o 48 well. 49 Despite a seeming occupation with war, Roman literature flourished, beginning with Livi Odyssey Among the problems to be worked out in the aftermath of creating a Mediterranean empire was the relationship of Rome to Greece, not just in a political but literary s ense as well. Greece, past and present, stood as a literary model; Greek authors, especially those of the contemporary 47 The rise of the nobiles is laid out in Gelzer 1969. On Cato, see Astin 1978; on Sulla, Badian 1970. Other magistrates are detailed in Broughton 1952 and 1986. 48 On Republican architecture, see Ward Perkins 1977. 49 General treatmen ts of the literature of the Republican period appear in Kenney and Clausen 1982; Rawson 1985; Fantham 1996; Conte 1995; and von Albrecht 1997. Bibliographies there consider both individual Roman authors as well as genre. Goldberg 2005 examines the problem the politics of Latin literature. On Ennius, see Skutsch 1985; on Naevius see Barchiesi 1962. On Roman comedy see Duckworth 1952; Wright 1974; and Konstans 198 3. On Plautus, one might both comedies and tragedies. For Terence see Norwood 1923; Forehand 1985; and Goldberg 1986. Pacuvius and Accius have not yet received a ge neral treatment; therefore Beare 1964 is useful. On Roman satire and Lucilius, consult Knoche (trans. Ramage) 1975; Coffey 1989; and Boyle and Freudenberg 2002. On oratory during the Republic see Leeman 1963 and Kennedy 1972. For historical context behi nd the Scipionic circle, see Astin 1967 on Scipio Aemilianus, and contra Parker 1996. For literature beyond the temporal parameters of this work: Ross 1969 treats the neoteric poets, as does Wiseman 1974. Many studies of Catullus are worthwhile includin g Wheeler 1934; Ross 1969; Quinn 1972; Wiseman 1969 and 1985. A study of Segal 1990

PAGE 34

34 Hellenistic world, were the teachers and masters in all literary genres, the Romans the students. the Mediterranean, debate over this relationship flourished. Much has been made of the hostility and resentment between Cato and his alleged anti Greek stance and Scipio Aemilianus, his alleged infatuation of all things Greek, with his so called Scipionic circle. While the polarization between the two was not as significant as it has been characterized, the debate over the role of Greek literary models was considerable, and it enriched omments about his less than perfect Greek used in his history belong to this time period and this debate. Consequently, in the third century, Livius and his successors Naevius and Ennius composed tragedy and comedy derived from Greek models, and yet both N aevius and Ennius also wrote praetextae on Roman, and not Greek, historical themes. Naevius and Ennius Bellum Punicum in Saturnians, a native Roman meter, and Ennius f ollowed with his Annales in the more traditional epic hexameter borrowed from the Greeks. These two works, especially the historical poem modeled on the annual lists kept by the pontifex maximus were to become authoritative and representative works of th eir genres, and influenced historiography as well. In the third century, other writers participating in the development of Roman tragedy and comedy from Greek models included Pacuvius, Caecilius Statius, and Plautus whose comedies are the earliest full wo rks to survive. In the same period, Roman oratory developed as seen in the speeches of Appius Claudius Caecus. The second century saw the introduction of other genres into Roman literature. The significant writers of the second century include Terence, t he writer of comedies, Accius, a tragedian, as well as Lucilius, the inventor of the wholly Roman genre of satire (according to

PAGE 35

35 the Origines in Latin. Prior Roman writers, such as Fabius Greek language and annalistic form purportedly demonstrated his rejection of Greek culture. That rej indeed Ennius and Naevius earlier had relied on Greek models when writing their Roman stories. The separation between Roman author and Greek model was never rigid. Th e relationship between Rome and Greece, even on a literary level, underlay much during the middle to late Republic. In the first century, Roman authors continued to experiment with Greek genres, all the while creating distinctly Roman literature. Lucretiu s would produce an elegant didactic epic expounding Epicureanism, and Catullus and the poetae novi would write exquisite nugae in a variety of meters adapted from Greek. Cicero composed not only speeches devised and delivered on the model of Demosthenes a ccording to the rules of Greek rhetoric but also philosophical dialogues on the model of Plato even translations of lost Stoics and Epicureans on Greek philosophy, education, oratory. And at the end of the first century, the Augustan age (outside the temp oral limits of this work) witnessed the masterpieces of, for example, Horace in his odes, modeled on the Greek odes of Alcaeus and Sappho, and Vergil in his national epic and nod to Homer, the Aeneid From the late third to the first century, Rome create d both an empire and a literary tradition through competition, conquest, imitation, adoption and adaptation. Roman historians responded to these changes in a variety of ways as they crafted their works. How they composed their histories had everything to

PAGE 36

36 position and its literary tradition. But the early historians were also influenced by their education, and specifically by their perception of the functions, purposes, and forms of history. To be s ure, when the Romans first wrote their own histories, beginning with Fabius Pictor, they were not writing without knowledge of earlier Greek historical models or earlier Roman attempts to record their history. Literary sources as well as the historical a nd literary background supply a preliminary background, context for, and a lens through which I examine the forms used in historical writings of the Republic. By the first century, Rome had created an empire as well as a literary and historiographical trad historians at the end of the Republic, Sallust, and Livy, serve as end points in the Republican search for historical form. But there is danger in depicting earlier writers as mere forerunn ers, and danger in teleological thinking that posits Sallust and Livy as what the earlier writers should have been. The early annalists were, on the contrary, instrumental in shaping the form that Livy would employ. Similarly, early writers of monographs and contemporary history influenced not be the worst. Rather a contextual examination, comprehensive in scope, of the historians and their forms, may well produce a surprising result that Roman history was in good hands prior to the first century. In the years 240 63, the Romans historians intentionally utilized diverse forms. Who, how, and for what end? These questions are the topics of the following chapters.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 2 FOUNDERS AND FOLLOWERS: EARLY ROMAN ANNALISTS IN GREEK Of the many types of Roman historiography, the most common form was annales Betwe 142 book history composed late in the first century, a great number of historians employed the annalistic form for their particular histories of Rome. This chapter be gins with a look at the form itself, followed by an examination of its earliest practitioners, the annalists in Greek, Fabius Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, A. Postumius Albinus, and Gaius Acilius, and their estimation of this form a form that came to be sy nonymous with Roman history. Annales and Annalists The term annales is at the very center of Roman history and historiography. Early moderns called many of the histories from the Roman world annals. 50 Moderns speak of the early annalists, a term used oft en to mean almost any Roman writing history prior to Sallust and Livy. 51 The ancients themselves spoke of annales history but also its historical tradition Hence the term annales has come to refer to both the w orks and the tradition of historiography itself in Rome. 52 A number of problematic issues present themselves in a discussion of annales and their creators. First of all, the related terms annalistic and annalist are used in ways that are not Roman but the creation of moderns. 53 Secondly, uses of the term annales by Romans themselves are varied. Annales could indicate the Annales of Ennius a work not in prose, it recounted in version of annales in dactylic hexameter, often not well. Additionally, ancient authors did not limit the title 50 Verbrugghe 1989: 199 51 Verbrugghe 198 9: 200. 52 Marincola 1999: 288. 53 Chassignet 1996/2003:VII.

PAGE 38

38 annales to a certain prose form, but called the works of several Roman historians both historia and annales 54 Moreover, works that now we cal l Annales such as those of Tacitus, did not have that name in antiquity. 55 Lastly, the existence of the annales maximi complicates the topic as well. What the annales maximi included or excluded, their form, their history, and even their publication are still matters of much lively debate. 56 Nevertheless, annales in antiquity most often referred to a historical work in prose, which maintained some chronological format. Emphasizing the root word, Roman authors believed that treatment of events in a year by year fashion was an essential characteristic of the form. Beyond that characteristic, ancient treatment of annales differed widely. A number of citations from Roman authors serve as examples of usages of the term. 57 Paramount among them is of the word in the de Oratore Passages from Servius auctus, Isidore, Verrius Flaccus, as well as Sempronius Asellio, offer further elucidations of the term. From these, a general picture of essentials and differentia of annales might emerge. The most fu ll Ciceronian usage of the term annales is in the de Oratore on the ideal training of an orator. In this dialogue, Antonius described early Roman history as nihi aliud nisi annalium confectio His denigrating tone towards Roman histor iography aside, his understanding of the term annales has become one of the most cited from antiquity. More fully, history was a compilation of annales ( de Oratore 2.51 52): 54 Verbrugghe 1989: 197. Verbrugghe also provides a comprehensive appendix (appendix IV) of references to general histories by author. 55 Verbrugghe 1989:197. 56 Marincola 1999: 289. The start ing point in scholarship on the annales maximi is Frier 1979/1999. See also Cichorius 1894: 2248 2255, Rawson 1971, Drews 1988, and Flach 1992. 57 These citations are fully discussed below, and include Cic. De or. 2.51 54; Servius auct. ad Aen I. 373; I sid. Orig 1.44.4; Verrius Flaccus as cited in Gell. NA 5.18.1; and Sempronius Asellio in Gell. NA 5.18.6 9.

PAGE 39

39 cuius rei memoriaeque publicae retinendae causa ab initio rerum Romanarum usque ad P. Mucium pontificem maximum res omnis singulorum annorum mandabat litteris pontifex maximus referebatque in album et proponebat tabulam domi, potestas ut esset populo cognoscendi, eique nunc annales maximi nominantur. An unpacking of this passage is c rucial for our understanding of the development of Roman historiography. We learn that, for the sake of preserving public memory, the pontifex maximus (chief priest) recorded all the events of a single year in writing, by putting them on a white notice bo ard for display. Moreover, we discover that since the beginning of Rome up until the time of the pontifex maximus Publius Mucius (Scaevola, cos. 133), each pontifex maximus had undertaken this task. The function of the work is clear: by consigning events to writing, and not just memory, history would be preserved. 58 Further, by displaying the white board, probably in the Forum, the pontifex maximus ensured that the people of Rome would be able to access this material. Simply put, annales were those events listed on the tabula dealbata (a term derived from Servius auctus, below). A number of points in this passage deserve our attention. Here and in the following lines, Cicero, through the mouth of Antonius, treats both the development of Roman historiograph y as well as the conventions of the annalistic form. In the beginning history writing for the Romans was just a collection of annals, a kind of annual report of key events. Yet the Romans were not the only ones who began their attempts at preserving hist ory in writing this way. Antonius explained that the Greeks themselves wrote similarly at one time: Graeci quoque ipsi sic initio scriptitarunt (2.51). The iterative verb suggests that Antonius recognized the repeated action of 58 On the intersections of history and memory in Rome, and the importance Rome attached to preserving its past, see Small and Tatum 1995, Farrell 1 Timpe 1996, Walter 2004, Hlkeskamp 2006, and Flower 2007.

PAGE 40

40 habit or custom in Greek w riting of history. Whether in Greece or in Rome, historiography started with a simple task of compiling and preserving annual records. Following this recording of annual events came a second phase of historiography in Rome, during which authors wrote so mewhat like those early collections of annals : hanc similitudinem scribendi multi secuti sunt ( 2.53). According to Antonius, these authors left behind only monumenta of times, people, places, and deeds sine ullis ornamentis aud ience for this treatise on oratory would have understood sine ullis ornamentis to mean that these writings were simple, plain narrative; lack of rhetorical embellishments ( ornamenta ) implied clarity, one of three goals in narratio a central virtue of an o Antonius, however, suggested similarities between the early Roman historians Cato, Pictor, and Piso, and early Greek ones, his comments muddy the waters. He appeared no longer to be speaking solely of the annalistic form, but of hist ory writing in general. The Greek historians mentioned, Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Acusilas, were all early historians indeed, yet none of the three can properly be called an annalist. Pherecydes was a mythographer and ethnographer, while Hellanicus and Acusilas wrote genealogies. Moreover, Cato cannot be called an annalist either. While not speaking strictly of annales about early Roman history writing. He faulted Cato, Pictor, and Piso for their want of distinctive style or speech in their histories, but proposed that their inadequacies were not entirely their fault because they did not know the ways by which speech might be adorned: qui neque tenent, quibus rebus ornetur oratio (2.53) Lastly, Antoni us distinguished between Antipater, who added a maiorem sonum to history, and all the others who were merely narratores and not exornatores rerum ( 2.54). Though speaking of writing history, Antonius used terms and phrases appropriate

PAGE 41

41 to oratory. This is due to context history writing as a proper field for orators to master, and de Oratore itself concerned oratorical training. 59 annales suggests the annalistic form covers events year by year, is written plainly and with brevity. It also implies that history writing should be better than what Cicero hoped that from a simple starting point of the simple narration of a collection of ev ents might come a true form of history to Rome, and treatment of annales and indeed, of history writing in general, however, focused less on historiographical form and content, and more on style. 60 In de Oratore Cicero offered no substantive criteria for judging the content of annales and Aeneid 1.373 fills that gap with details of the kinds of events that traditionally were appropriate for annales Ita autem annales conficiebantur: tabulam dealbatam quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nominibus et aliorum magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueverat dom i militaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies. ( ad Aen I. 373.) The pontifex maximus preserved those items worthy to remember consisting of accomplishments at home and in the army, at land and at sea. Servius auctus conceived of the annales preser ved on the tabula dealbata as a running record of public events, both civil and military, at home and abroad. Isidore ( Orig 1.44.4) followed suit : quaeque enim digna 59 Woodman 1988: 70 116 addresses the context of this particu lar passage in his Chapter 2 on 83 claims that previous scholarship on this Ciceronian overlooks that these are subordinate to Antonius exaedificatio Brunt 1993 Brutus see Sumner 1972. 60 Leeman 1963: 173 and Woodman 1988: 83 95, as well as Verbrugghe 1982: 210.

PAGE 42

42 memoriae domi militaeque, mari ac terrae per annos. Additional material of annales ca n be annales in which he registered his displeasure with the topics that he claimed that the form traditionally preserved: the price of grain, grain shortages, eclipses and other omens. 61 Sempronius Asellio, discussed bel ow, similarly found such lists wanting. 62 Further elucidation on content derives from Servius auctus and Isidore, again, and Verrius Flaccus, all of whom posited a contrast between historia and annales In doing so, they underscored the similarities and di fferences between the two forms. For Servius auctus, history indicated events that people witnessed or could have witnessed. On the other hand, annales comprised events and deeds that happened before the present time. Servius auctus claimed: historia e st eorum temporum quae vel vidimus vel videre potuimus, dicta apo tou historein, id est videre; annales vero sunt eorum temporum, quae aetas nostra non novit. ( ad Aen I. 373.) Orig 1.44.1 5) between the two terms uses Servius auc minus the Greek, as the conclusion to his comments on the three kinds of history. A diary preserves what happens each day, annales compile res singulorum annorum and history is multorum annorum vel temporum est cuius diligentia annui commenta rii in libris delati sunt Aulus Gellius similarly preserved this, on the difference between historia and annales : "Historiam" ab "annalibus" quidam differre eo putant, quod, cum utrumque sit rerum gestarum narratio, earum tamen proprie rerum sit "historia ", quibus rebus gerendis interfuerit is, qui narret ( NA 5.18.1). History differed from annals in that, while both were narrations of events, history more properly was a narration of those deeds and events in which the one who is telling the story partic ipated. Gellius continued, nothing that Verrius Flaccus related in his fourth book of de significatu verborum that this was the opinion of many men. According to Gellius, Verrius 61 Cato Orig IV.1. 62 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2.

PAGE 43

43 Flaccus, though doubtful about this definition, agreed that it was a reason able distinction, since historia in Greek indicated rerum cognitionem praesentium or knowledge of current events. 63 A history would mean the direct participation in events by the author. One with less first hand experience of the matters, presumably, woul d write annales of things past. NA 5.18.6) rejected this distinction, and recognized instead shared content, the res gestae of historia and annales but noted a different form: Ita "historias" quidem esse aiunt rerum ge starum vel expositionem vel demonstrationem vel quo alio nomine id dicendum est, "annales" vero esse, cum res gestae plurium annorum observato cuiusque anni ordine deinceps componuntur. History is the setting out or explanation of deeds but annales indi cates events of many years brought together with some observance to the order of each year. Gellius allowed for a difference between historia and annales based not on content but on form which emphasized the chronological structure. Perhaps the most int eresting treatment of annales lies in a description by the historian Sempronius Asellio, also preserved by Aulus Gellius. Two remarks in particular illuminate Firstly, Gellius records this testimony of Asellio: "Verum inter eos", inquit "qui annales relinquere voluissent, et eos, qui res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc interfuit. Annales libri tantummodo, quod factum quoque anno gestum sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci ephemerida vocant. Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset, id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent, demonstrare." (Gell. NA 5.18.8) 64 63 Verrius Flaccus in Gell. NA 5.18.2. 64 Sempronius Asellio frag. 1.

PAGE 44

44 Asellio distinguished between writers of annale s and those who wrote of res gestae seeing a difference in content as well as form. Books of annals told only of what was done and in what methodology separated him fro m those historians he valued less. He would do more than just say what happened, but would elucidate by what plan and by what reason things were done. to be ba sed on a deeper analysis of events. Asellio explained further his historiographical choice. These remarks attend less to content, style or form, and more to the purpose of history writing: "Nam neque alacriores" inquit "ad rempublicam defendundam neque se gniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commovere quicquam possunt. Scribere autem, bellum initum quo consule et quo confectum sit et quis triumphans introierit, et eo libro, quae in bello gesta sint, non praedicare autem interea quid senatus decre verit aut quae lex rogatiove lata sit, neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint, iterare: id fabulas pueris est narrare, non historias scribere." (Gell. NA 5.18.9) 65 Asellio declared annalistic writing to be useless in motivating readers to defend their count ry or preventing them from doing wrong. Annals were not capable of moving readers either for good or for ill. Asellio prescribed to history a function beyond the mere preserving of stories; Asellio wanted his readers to use history, and not view it as en tertainment. Further, Asellio charged that to write about under whose consulship a war began and ended and who entered the city triumphantly, and in this book to write of what things were done in what war, but not to mention what the senate decreed and wh at law or proposal was introduced, nor to recount with what plans things were done this then was to write fabulas stories for children, and not to write history. 65 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2.

PAGE 45

45 In sum, treatments of annales by Cicero, Servius auctus, Isidore, Verrius Flaccus and Sempro nius Asellio reveal some common ground. In prose annales generally indicated a literary work that, influenced by the annual lists kept by the pontifex maximus described events in year by year format or adhered to a strong chronological structure. Conten t of annales comprised accomplishments and deeds, both internal and external, at home and abroad; subject matter generally consisted of events along the lines of those recorded in the pontifical chronicles. The focus of annalists, to the disappointment of Sempronius Asellio, for example, remained on the annales as indicating events of a remote past in which the author did not participate, historia indicating more recent events, and on es which an author witnessed. Stylistically, annales differed from historia in that their authors treated their subjects with few embellishments or none at all, as Cicero complained. Not all annales in the Republic were written in prose. Annales in ver se also influenced the Annales a hexameter account in eighteen books of the history of Rome, written up until just before his death in 169, drew on the pontifical chronicles ( annales ) and contributed to the annalistic form as well. Ennius regularly inserted magistracies, triumphs, campaign victories and defeats, doings of the Senate and more. Moreover, he structured his epic on a chronological framework. In doing so, Ennius provided for his poem a structure which was fami textual authority, since they suggest (ed) that his annales had been organized along the year by year model of the pontifical 66 Ennius was not the first to write from material d rawn from the pontifical 66

PAGE 46

46 chronicle, as he wrote after Fabius Pictor, but the reputation and impact of his epic provided credibility for the annalistic structure. 67 Modern uses and conceptions of the terms annales and annalists are equally complex. In the nineteenth and twentieth century, the term annalist usually indicated a historian of little merit. 68 The term was applied to suggest a historian whose history added little to the study of Rome. This attitude was so prevalent that entries in canonical refe rence works, e.g., The Oxford Classical Dictionary (s.v. annals, annalists) speak of it. Further, annalist signified any and all of the fragmentary historians writing before Livy regardless of the historiographical form employed. Recently debate around a proper definition of the term has been fruitful. Firstly, Verbrugghe has looked for a definition that rests on the ancient uses of the word, as I have. 69 volume edition of the fragmentary historians, each entitled with some v ersion of the term annales has been rightly criticized for appearing to make uniform the disparate forms the fragments utilized. 70 Such critical reviews continue to emphasize the necessity of seeing individuality, competing approaches, and unique aims in the early historians. Indeed Marincola has called for a recognition of flexibility in historical genre. 71 Borrowing from contemporary genre studies, and consistent with literary development in the middle to late Republic, an understanding of historiograph incorporated a calendar, temple dedications, lists of magistrates and more). This argument has been happily taken up; see Goldberg 2006 and Sciarrino 2006. 67 On Ennius, see Skutsch 1985, in particular Annales Skutsch believed Ennius modeled his Annales (including the title) on the annales maximi which we know certainly did not exist in a literary form (if ever) when Ennius was writing. 68 See Cornell 1986a esp. 55 57. 69 Verbrugghe 1989. 70 volume edition of the fragmentary historians is called Die frhen rmischen Historiker thus neatly avoiding the term. 71 Marincola 1999.

PAGE 47

47 generic fluidity (more positively titled) affords a more open appraisal of the fragmentary historians at work, and this has been a guiding framework for this study. 72 Also complicating our understanding of the terms annales and annalist are the annales maximi the records of the pontifical chronicles traditionally said to have been published by the pontifex maximus P. Mucius Scaevola in 80 books. This work has long been held as having provided a skeleton of material for the early Roman historians which they then fleshed out. Frier, and more recently Rpke, along with a number of others, have worked to minimize that historiographical notion. Frier does so by noting that the annales maximi derived from the stuff of the tabulae the whitened boards, were only one source among many which the historians used. Frier 1979/1999 argued that Servius auctus ( ad Aen 1.373) does not state explicitly that the 80 volumes were published by Scaevola, and indeed that most knowledge of the annales maximi is derived from the Augustan writer Verrius Flaccus. 73 He saw instead the material of the white boards compiled at the end of each year in a liber annalis which presumably was available to those who wanted to consult docum entary evidence, and Scaevola ended this custom. The first use of the term annales maximi comes from Cicero de Oratore 2.52, who notes only that deeds and events were posted on the white boards up until the time of Scaevola, without crediting him with any annales maximi chronicle has been cast too much and too often as the one main source of the annalistic tradition and its for m. 74 Rpke, more recently, goes even further and hypothesizes that the publication of the annales maximi 72 For recent surveys on contemporary genre studies, see Dowd et al. 2006, Frow 2006 (and the older Beebee 1994). 73 Frier 1979/1999: 21 22. 74 Frier 1979/1999: 272.

PAGE 48

48 competing history, publishing a work on Rome under the title annales maximi 75 At best a annales maximi appears not to have been utilized by the fragmentary historians. 76 Annalist here signifies a historian who wrote of res internae and extern ae of magistrates and corn prices and prodigies and more; the annalist writes of material that might have been proceeded year by year, and wrote ab urbe cond ita Such use of the term annalist does not indicate ignorance of the rich debate regarding the source material which might later have been published as the annales maximi which shaped ancient understanding of annales The annalist stands in sharp contr ast to those who wrote res gestae commentarii and monographs. Though there is no word in Latin for writers of annales there are a number of Roman authors whom the Romans themselves associated with annalistic writing. Today their work survives only in f ragments, but a sense of their historiographical aims can be gleaned from the meager remains. 77 Did the first historians of Rome write in annalistic fashion for a particular reason? What was their purpose? Why did each choose to construct their history o f Rome on an annalistic framework? Fabius Pictor The first histories of Rome by Romans were written in annalistic form at the end of the Second Punic War. Cicero de Oratore (2.52) named Cato, Fabius Pictor and Lucius Calpurnius y historians. Fabius Pictor is indeed the earliest annalist, but Cato 75 Rpke 1993; quotation is from Gildenhard 2003: 94. 76 Frier 1979/1999: 272. 77 On the early annalists in gener al and the formation of the annalistic tradition, see Badian 1966, Cornell 1986a and 1986b, Forsythe 2000: 1 11, Forsythe 2005: 59 77, Beck 2007, and Wiseman 2007.

PAGE 49

49 133. Dionysius of Halicarnassus ( Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) similarly names Pictor, and adds Alime ntus as one of the earliest writers sketching the history of Rome, and relates that Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus were both at work during the Second Punic War. Writing in Greek, these Romans strove to serve a broad audience both a Greek audience as well as an educated upper class in Rome; in doing so, they desired to present themselves as versed in Greek culture and as participants in a larger intellectual world. The Second Punic War was very likely the catalyst for their writing. Both Livy (2.40.1 0) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus ( Ant. Rom. 7.71.1) describe Fabius 78 Roman, was published around 210, and possibly as late as 202. 79 An old patrician family, the Fab ii had received notice in Roman life as early as 304, when one Fabius painted a newly dedicated temple to Salus on the Quirinal, hence earning the name Pictor, which was retained by his descendants. 80 birth is uncertain, perhaps as early as 270 or as late as 240. 81 As evidenced in his fragments, he battled against the Ligurians in 233, and the Gauls in 225. 82 He became a senator before the Second Punic War. He also participated in the battle of Lake T rasimene. 83 On the recommendation of his cousin, Fabius 78 Liv. 2.40.10 = frag. 21. Dion. Ant. Rom 7.71.1 = frag. 20. Studies (and biographies): Mnzer 1909: 1836 1841; Gelzer 1933: 129 166; Timpe 1972: 928 969; Verbrugghe 1979: 2157 2173; Frier 1970: 114 143; Frier 1979/1999: 227 254; von Albrecht 1997: 299 301; Beck and Walter 2001: 55 61; and Chassignet 1996/2003: LIV LXXIII. 79 Chassignet 1996/ 2003: LVI summarizes the debate regarding the date of publication; one school has Fabius publishing after the Second Punic War, another during the Second Punic War. Chassignet herself believes it more probable that publication was during the war. 80 Chass ignet 1996/2003: LIV. 81 Chassignet 1996/2003: LV. Frier 1970: 116 suggests a birthdate of 260; Frier 1979/1999: 231 and Verbrugghe 1979: 2163 both suggest around 270; and Beloch 1926: 95 prefers a date of 240. 82 Plin. HN 10.71 = frag. 29. On the Gauls, Eutr. 3.5 = frag. 30. 83 Liv. 22. 7.1 4 = frag. 32.

PAGE 50

50 traveled to Delphi to consult the oracle on behalf of the Roman Senate after the debacle at Cannae in 216. 84 Little is given by way of explanation for the choice of Fabius to visit the oracle; perhaps an interest in Greece, his Greek language skills, his good standing in the Senate, and his relationship to Fabius Verrucosus (Cunctator) were sufficient. 85 Fabius wrote only one work, but the date of its publication is as unclear as his birth and death dat es. 86 Cicero called it Graeci annales a characterization that highlights its main components: that Fabius wrote in Greek and that he wrote in an annalistic form. 87 Today only thirty two fragments of that work survive. 88 Fragments that survive in Latin att est to a translation of Pictor, quite possibly carried out by one of his own relatives. The Latin translation of Pictor can be dated very early. 89 on him. No hist ory of Rome had yet been written by a Roman, although Greeks had already done so at least tangentially, particularly Timaeus of Tauromenium who treated the history of Greeks in the west down to the first Punic War. 90 Pictor was thus on his own, charting a course 84 Chassignet 1996/2003: LV, from Plut. Fab 18.3 and Liv. 22.57.4 and 23.11.1 6. 85 gboard, suggesting 86 floruit and annales were produced in the last decade of the third ce ntury (p. 239). 87 Cic Div 1.43 = frag. 3. 88 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 16 54; Peter 1914: 5 39; Peter 1914: 112 116 (Latin fragments); FGrH no. 809; Frier 1970: 152 225; Beck and Walter 2001: 62 136. Thirty two are collected in the 1996/2003 editi on by Chassignet; similarly, Beck and Walter collect thirty two fragments, and Peter 1914 collects twenty eight. Since Pictor wrote in Greek, Jacoby also assembled his fragments as well in FGrH no. 809. 89 On the Latin translation of Fabius Pictor, see M nzer 1909: 1841 1843; Peter 1914: LXXV LXXXI; Gelzer: 1933:148; Frier 1970: 121 128; Frier 1979/1999: 246 253; Beck and Walter 2001: 60 61, and Chassignet 1996/2003: LVIII LX. 90 On Timaeus, see Brown 1958 and Momigliano 1977.

PAGE 51

51 a Latin historical poem of Rome while Pictor created his prose history. Latin naturally was the r example), as well as funeral speeches (e.g., Caecilius Metellus for his father). 91 In both prose and poetry, Latin was in use. But Pictor did not choose to write in Latin or to create a historical style in Latin; he would leave that for others. Writing in Greek made sense because Greek was the language of the cultured elite, and Greek would provide a more accessible medium to convey a history of Rome to the world outside the city itself. In fact, the discovery of a second century inscription in Taormin a enjoyed some widespread popularity. 92 Greek allowed him access to the language and conventions of histo riography. Writing history was a Greek undertaking, and thus the ambitious endeavor that the Roman Pictor undertook utilized their terms and their notions of how history was crafted. In the third century, history writing was done in Greek even by non Gree in Greek, Berossus wrote Babylonian history in Greek, and a Greek translation of the Bible was created by the Jewish people. The Greeks in turn wrote histories of other civilizations in Greek; for example, Menander of Ep hesus wrote Phoenician history, or at least a history of Tyre, in Greek. Indeed, local history in Greek was a central component of Greek historiography and in 93 Though Pictor was writing a h 91 von Albrecht 1997: 364; Mo migliano 1990: 91. 92 Manganaro 1974. See also Dillery 2002: 1 23 on how the inscription grouping demonstrates differences between Pictor and other non Greek writers of local history in Greek (i.e., Manetho and Berossus). 93 So Frier 1979/1999: 206.

PAGE 52

52 development to the rest of the world. 94 He would naturally and perhaps necessarily employ Greek historical methodologies and principles. When Pictor began writing his history, many Greek historiographical models were available to him. Already the Greeks had crafted histories in many forms foundation stories, Atthidography). N o tradition of yearly chronicles, however, was part of that historiography. 95 Romanitas choice of form appears relatively simple. As a Roman, Pictor would have been familiar wi th the tradition of outlining significant events of each year. The pontifical annals, long in existence by this point, offered not just material, but also a structure that would have been appropriate for Unfortunately, no fragment containing any programmatic intent of Pictor survives, nor Indeed, the annalistic form is not always readily apparent. Though desc ribed as annales by Cicero ( Div. 1.43), and referred to similarly by Dionysius ( Ant. Rom. 1.6.2), the extant fragments the pontifical annals. 96 Unlike the po period at similar length. For instance, Dionysius ( Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) relates that Pictor (and and r eturned to a more detailed study in their handling of the Punic Wars. The surviving 94 Ba dian 1966: 3; Gelzer 1934: 50 (= 1964: 98). 95 Jacoby 1949: 176 178. 96 annalist contra Gelzer 1934: 50.

PAGE 53

53 Remus, comes in his first book, as one would suppose. Further, in fragment 2 3, Gellius ( NA 5.4.1 5) preserves an etymology from the fourth book of the Fabii annales which he called bonae atque sincerae vetustatis libri 97 The derivation of the word in question is not of great libro quarto in a narrative about an event which took place after the Gauls had captured Rome. This date suggests that by the fourth volume of his history, Fabius Pictor had already reached the year 390. Numerous fragments of Pictor discuss Aeneas or stories related to his arrival (e.g., frags. 1, 3, 6), the founding of the city (frags. 7a and b and c), tales from the regal period (e.g., Sabine women in frag. 9, Tarpeia in frag. 10, Lucretia in frag. 17), as well as the kings (e.g., Tarquin in fragments 27 and 28 (on Hamilcar), 29 (battle with Ligurians, ca. 238), 30 (encroaching Gauls in e Trasimene, 217). Pictor appears to have not written beyond his journey to Delphi in 216. 98 s history, a sense of his historiographical aims can be discerned, and they contain elements which would become characteristic of Roman annalistic style. Pictor began ab urbe condita proceeded in a chronological fashion, emphasized matters of local signi ficance (customs, institutions, etiologies, 97 Though Gellius calls Fabius grammaticus and hence some would not credit this fragment to him, others have found it useful for its content. Peter classifies this fragment as part of the Latin translation of Pictor (frag. 6 Latin Peter), but Jacoby and Frier both accept this fragment as Pictor. 98 That Pictor himself wrote up the embassy is recorded by Appian Hann 27.116. Frier 1970: 224 accepts this passage as a fragment, but, on the whole, this passage is not so regarded (e.g., Peter 1914, Beck and Walter 2001 and Chassignet 1996/2003 exclude it from their collecti ons) because it merely refers to Pictor writing it up and does not provide any information about

PAGE 54

54 etymologies, topography), regularly provided names of standing consuls or generals, inserted biographical material, lauded heroic action, displayed Roman patriotism, and privileged Rome. Other fragments demonstr Fragment 8, for example, reports the colonization of Rome in the first year of the eighth Olympiad. Even here, however, Pictor was merely translating for his Greek audience a Roman chronology and Acilius and Postumius Albinus followed this lead; all three we re senators who took up history writing, and did so in Greek. Senatorial historiography thus forms the opening chapter of Roman historical writing, a field which long remained a suitable occupation for the Roman politician. Lucius Cincius Alimentus The from Livy. From a plebeian family, Cincius participated late in the Second Punic War in a variety of capacities. 99 He served as praetor in 210, and was given the task of p rotecting Sicily with two legions. 100 In 209, after the siege at Syracuse, Cincius was named propraetor for Sicily. 101 Although he was given further responsibilities in the next year, 208, including the 99 Mnzer 1899: 2556. See also Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIII. Studies (and biographie s): Hertz 1842; Peter 1914: CI CXVI; Bardon 1952: 30 31; Heurgon 1964; Badian 1966: 6; Frier 1970: 143 151; Frier 1979: 206 207; Verbrugghe 1982; Meister 1990: 148 149; von Albrecht 1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 137 138; Suerbaum 2002: 370 372; Chassign et 1996/2003: LXXIII LXXIX. 100 Liv. 26.23.1; 26.28.3; 26.28.11; 27.5.1; Broughton 1952 I: 279. All references to Broughton 1952 refer to page number, and not year. 101 Liv. 27.7.12; 27.8.16.

PAGE 55

55 siege of Locri, the arrival of Hannibal hindered his ta sk, and he returned to Rome. 102 He was sent immediately to Venusia under the consul T. Quinctius Crispinus. 103 Livy reports that Cincius was to assist in preparation of defensive measures, but before this he was captured by Hannibal. 104 This extraordinary even t was to prove useful to Cincius in his history from Hannibal himself Cincius learned about the events of the war (frag. 10). 105 After Zama, Cincius probably was freed. 106 Dionysius ( Ant. Rom. 1.6.2) also named Cincius as one of the earliest historians of Ro me. recent events. Cincius dealt only cursorily with events further removed. Few fragments, only 107 According to these few 6), the story of Romulus and Remus (frag. 5), Tarpeia (frag. 7) and the death of Maelius (frag. 8), Punic War, in particular his capture and his subsequent opportunity to learn from Hannibal himself about the Carthaginian crossing of the Rhone (frag. 10). Etymological stories (e.g., on Faunus, frag. 2) round out the rest. The latest surviving material 102 Liv. 27.25.14; 27.26.5; 27.28.13. 103 Liv. 27.29.3. 104 Liv. 31. 38.3 = frag. 10. 105 Liv. 21.38.3 5. 106 Liv. 30.37.3 6. 107 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 54 59; Peter 1914: 40 43 (7 frags.); FGrH no. 810; Beck and Walter 2001: 137 147 (13 frags). Frier 1970: 226 Verbrugghe 1 Peter had not accepted two of these because he doubted the authenticity of their source, the now widely accepted Origo Gentis Romanae Three others were concerned with et ymology, a field Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXV fragments, including the possible identification of Cinciu s with another L. Cincius, who was a contemporary of Varro.

PAGE 56

56 by Hannibal; Cincius probably wrote his history some time after his release. 108 Two brief remarks, both preserved in Origo Gentis Romanae was at least two books long. Fragment 3 states that the prescription against moving the household gods was written in the second book of Cincius. Fragment 4 relates that the story of Tiberius Silvius was recorded in the first book of Lucius Cincius and the third book of Lutatius. Both fragments are ultimately unhelpful in allowing us to gauge the length of the work. Other testimonia (frag. 9) calls Cincius diligens talium monumentorum auctor 109 Elsewhere, Livy (21.38.2 5 = that crossed into Italy. Livy suggests that Cincius would have convinced him maxime except for the fact that he probably included the Gauls and Ligu numbers. Nevertheless, Livy returns to Cincius again for numbers lost by Hannibal after he crossed the Rhone, numbers w hich Livy reports that Cincius ex ipso autem audisse Hannibale. decision to use that form or his estimation of it. That he wrote as an annalist is discernable in h is association with Fabius Pictor (frags. 1, 5, 7), and his imitation of Pictor in topics. The subjects of the fragments are indeed appropriate for what would become the norm for an annalistic history they recount foundation stories, include etymological passages which touch on religious and local institutions, interject autobiographical material, and conclude with 108 Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXV. 109 That Cincius might demonstrate a special interest in monuments has led Frier 1970: 226 to assign this fragment to Cincius the antiquarian and not the historian; Verbrugghe 1982: 320 does.

PAGE 57

57 contemporary events, as Pictor himself did. Ultimately, the paucity of fragments limits our understanding of the scope and or nature of Cinciu annales is never clearly stated. A gap of over forty years exists between the first annalists of the Hannibalic period and the ascension in the Mediterranean in any full length narrative. When that rise was documented, it was told not in an annalistic form, but in other forms, the historical letters of the Cornelii Scipiones, praetextae of Ennius, Pacuvius and Accius, and the ep ic Annales of Ennius. The next Roman annalists include figures such as Gaius Acilius, translator in 155 for the visiting Greek philosophers in the Senate meeting over the Oropus controversy, and Aulus Postumius Albinus, urban praetor in 155 who presided o ver the Senate meeting, and later consul in 151. 110 When Gaius Acilius and A. Postumius Albinus took up the annalistic format again in their histories, still written in Greek, they were by no means rejecting the forms just listed. Those forms were suitable for different purposes, but their own histories reflected the tradition set by Pictor and Cincius and continued yearly in the pontifical annals. And while Latin was the choice of language for epic and praetextae the historical letters of the Cornelii Sc ipiones had been written in Greek. 111 And Polybius himself, the great Greek historian of the age, wrote in Greek. Writing Roman history in Greek was still possible though reaching the end of its time. Aulus Postumius Albinus Aulus Postumius Albinus 112 came f rom a distinguished patrician family, including an ancestor who had fought at Lake Regillus. 113 Son of A. Postumius Luscus (cos. 180, censor 110 Broughton 1952 I: 454. 111 Frier 1970: 238 241. 112 Full name derives from Liv. 45.4.7; see also Fasti Cap ., for the year 151

PAGE 58

58 174), the younger Postumius enjoyed a rigorous Greek education in his childhood, in part due to ilar interests. 114 political career allowed him a military and political career at Rome. Charged with the ta sk of persuading Perseus to capitulate to the Romans, he served as a young man under L. Aemilius Paullus in Greece in 168. 115 Although Postumius was unsuccessful in these efforts, Aemilius Paullus later put him in charge of guarding Perseus and his son Phil ip at Amphipolis. 116 A gap of some thirteen years follows; no sources describe this time. Postumius appears again as praetor urbanus in 155, and in that role, because the consuls were occupied outside of Rome, he presided over the session in the Roman Sena te which received the delegation of philosophers from Athens concerning Oropus. 117 The three philosophers, Carneades, Diogenes, and Critolaus, were well treated by Postumius, due to his passion for all things Greek, and indeed the Senate found on their beha lf. 118 During this same year, Postumius also advocated longer detention of the Achaean hostages, thus perhaps demonstrating loyalty to the actions of his father who had led the delegation after Pydna which had sent the hostages to Rome. 119 Polybius, one of the hostages, recounts that Postumius presided over the proceedings in such a way that he 113 Polyb. 39.1.2. Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CXXIV CXXVI; Frier 1970: 253 262; Beck and Walter 2001: 225 227, and Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIX LXXXI. See also Mnzer 1953: 903 908. Frier 1970 was most helpful for the following sketch of Post 114 and Frier 1970: 254. 115 Liv. 45.4.7. 116 Liv. 45.28.11. 117 Broughton 1952 I: 448. On the embassy from Athens, see Cic. Acad 2.137, Gell. NA 6.14.8 10 and Plut. Cat. Mai. 22 23. On the consuls, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica and M. Claudius Marcellus, see Frier 1970: 248 and Broughton 1952 I: 448. 118 Frier 1970: 251 252. 119 Polyb. 33.3.3 258 and Mnzer 1953: 9 25 929.

PAGE 59

59 manipulated the vote. 120 Three options were placed before the Senate: release of the hostages, opposition to this, or postponement of release until a later date. Post umius, Polybius argued, offered only the choice of freeing the hostages or not, thus effectively creating a majority of mius. 121 Postumius later helped to arrange peace with Attalus II and Prusias in 154, and served as consul in 151. 122 In his consulate he and his consular colleague, L. Licinius Lucullus, were thrown into jail by the tribunes because they had mistreated troo ps so severely. 123 He later retired to Thebes rather than participate in the battle at Phocis, and yet was the first to write to the Senate describing the Roman victory. 124 Polybius remarks that Postumius pretended to be ill to avoid fighting at Phocis. Ne vertheless, says Polybius, his missive to Rome supplied enough detail so that Postumius appeared to have actually participated. In 146 after the sack of Corinth, Postumius was part of the delegation of ten men, perhaps even the head of the delegation, wh o were commissioned by L. Mummius to assure Roman control of newly conquered Greece, and to put the new province in order. 125 If he was chief of this delegation, Postumius took up the position which his father had held some twenty years earlier after Pydna. Postumius received statues created in his honor at Corinth, Olympia, and 120 Polyb. 33.3.3 8. 121 Frier 1970: 258 states that Polybius wrote that Postumius blocked the release of the Achaeans 122 Polyb. 33.13.4.10. Broughton 1952 I: 450 and 454. 123 Liv. Per 48.16. 124 Polyb. 39.1.10 11. 125 Frier 19 70: 259 259 notes that though Polybius describes the commission and their work, he never names Postumius as part of it: e.g. 39.3.3 and 39.3.9. Cicero, in Att 13.30.2, noted tumius, whose statue at Corinth Atticus himself saw, Att 13.32.3.

PAGE 60

60 Delphi. 126 Though a philhellene, Postumius Albinus was demonstrably a loyal citizen of Rome no amount of respect for Greek culture changed his commitment to Roman policies that place d Rome as the conqueror and Greece as the defeated. Polybius recorded that Postumius tried to write both a poem and a pragmatic history in Greek. 127 Only four fragments of that history remain. 128 Of these, fragments 1a) and 1b) recount that Postumius, in his preface to his history, asked his readers to forgive him for his inelegant writing due to his inexperience with Greek. 129 Fragment 2 (Servius auct. Aen 9.707) concerns the etymology of Baiae, which Servius auctus declares Postumius wrote in de adventu Aen eae This reference might refer to the poem that Postumius wrote. Fragment 3, on the battle between Ascanius and Mezentius and Lausus, similarly derives from de adventu Aeneae, according to Ps. Aurelius Victor ( OGR 15.1 4) 130 The last fragment, fragment 4, relates a remark of Postumius in 118. 131 These fragments do litt le to enlighten a reader about the nature, scope, or aims of 126 Cic. Att 13.32.3. 127 Polyb. 39.1.3. 128 Editions: Chassignet 1996/2003: 59 61; Peter 1914: 53 54 (2 fragments); Peter 1914: 53 (1 Latin fragment); FGrH no. 812; Frier 1970: 273 279; Be ck and Walter 2001: 228 231 (4 fragments). 129 Frag. 1a) = Polyb. 39.1.4. Frag. 1b) = Gell. NA 11.8.2 3. 130 Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXII accepts both fragments as suitable material for an early book a poetic work on Aeneas by Postumius would had to have been mentioned by the scholiasts to the Aeneid as a precedent, and hence Frier saw these two fragments as part of a prose work by Postumius, but not belonging to the pragmatic history mentioned by Pol ybius. Peter 1914 accepts Servius auctus but does not accept the fragment preserved in Origo ; Peter consistently does not accept any fragment of any historian deriving from this source. Beck and Walter 2001 accept both. 131 Frier 1970: 263.

PAGE 61

61 Polybius remarked that Postumius attempted to write a pragmatic, meaning serious, history. 132 To Polybius, a pragmatic history signified one that privileged more contemporary events and avoided types of history such as genealogies and foundation stories. 133 This would intimate that ius Alimentus. comment was not to be taken as truth but further degradation of Postumius. 134 The two fragments from de adventu Aeneae if they are part of his histor y, and a third concerning Brutus imply a history which was annalistic, began ab urbe condita emphasized foundational stories, and focused less on contemporary events. In this respect, Postumius wrote a history that modeled itself on the histories of Pict or and Cincius. The terms employed to describe res Romanas Servius auctus and Ps. Aureli us Victor used the phrase de adventu Aeneae and Macrobius spoke of annali primo 135 Although few fragments remain, Postumius is well known, chiefly for the chiding he received from his contemporaries, Polybius and Cato, both historians. Postumiu his inadequacies are no longer extant, but Polybius, Gellius, and Cato all preserved his request for pardon from his audience for his inelegant Greek. Such a plea allows us to assume an audience for Postumius of upper class educated Roman s and/or Greeks, for whom Pictor and 132 hoice of word enecheiresen writing a serious history. 133 Polyb. 9.1 2. 134 Frier 1970: 262 states that Pol 135 Respectively, in frag. 1a, frag. 1b, frag. 2, frag. 3, and frag. 4.

PAGE 62

62 Cincius Alimentus had written as well. 136 Gellius, drawing from Cornelius Nepos, provided nam sum homo Romanus natus in Latio 137 Cato, in particular, n to write in Greek when no one had pressured him to do so (although had the Amphyctionic Council demanded it Cato might have been more lenient). 138 second century, Postumius had a choice of language in which to writ e his history. Historiography in Rome was changing Cato himself was working on the first Roman history in Latin. language skills. Polybius remarked that Postumius not only did not have mastery of the language but he also did not have mastery of the treatment or arrangement ( kata ton cheirismon oikonomias ), which may imply a lack of ability in Greek historiographical conventions. s not to have greatly influenced later writers. Cicero says Postumius wrote a historia in Greek (not annales ), and called him litteratus and disertus presumably for his speeches which Cicero might have known. 139 Dionysius of Halicarnassus does not mention him, whether unknown or unremarkable, we cannot say. Gaius Acilius Lastly, Gaius Acilius, a contemporary of Postumius, wrote a history in Greek too, and he is traditionally grouped with those Roman writers in Greek not just for language choice but also f or 136 Cat. Mai 12.6. 137 Gell. NA 1 1.8.5. = frag. 1b. Gellius claims that this line was derived from Cornelius Nepos may have been in circulation. See also Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXIII. Fr agment 4 (on Brutus) is similarly in Latin, and adds weight to the argument that a Latin version might have existed. Peter 1914: CXXV argued against a Latin version, but Chassignet, Beck and Walter and Frier 1970 all accept a Latin version in circulation. 138 139 Cic. Brut. 81.

PAGE 63

63 little for certain, including his name which appears differently. 140 Of his career, we know only that he was a senator who served as interpreter for the Athe nian philosophers during their embassy to Rome and visit to the Senate in 155, the same meeting which Postumius presided over as praetor 141 142 These include foundation stories (frags. 1 and 3), an etymological pas sage associated with Aeneas (frag. 2 on Cimmerium), and fragments c Wars survive. The content of the latest fragment dates to 184. Thus these fragments comprise the same kind of topics and scope as the earlier Greek annalists, including perhaps the autobiographical tendencies of the earlier annalists. Fragments 7 and 8 display some slight evidence of enmity between Acilius and the Scipios and Cato. 143 Fragment 7 (= Liv. 35.14.5 12) relates the dialogue between Scipio and Hannibal, one which does not portray Scipio in a positive light. Fragment 8 (= Dion Ant. Rom. 3.67. 5) appears to exaggerate purposely expenses Greek culture (frag. 1 on Rome as a Greek foundation); perhaps this can be read not just as 140 Off. 3.115, yet Ant. Rom cognomen is not mentioned anywhere. Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CXXI CXXIII; Bardon 1952: 70 71; Badian 1966: 6 7; Frier 1970: 267 272; Frier 1979: 208 209 and 249 50; Meister 1990: 148 149 ; von Albrecht 1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 232 233; Suerbaum 2002: 375 376; Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXXVI LXXXVIII. 141 Gell. NA 6.14.9: Et in senatum quidem introducti interprete usi sunt C. Acilio senatore Plut. Cat. Mai 22.5 describes Acilius with praise. 142 Editions : Chassignet 1996/2003: 62 65; Peter 1914: 49 52 (6 fragments); FGrH no. 813; Frier 1970: 280 295; Beck and Walter 2001: 234 241 (8 fragments). 143 Frier 1970: 270 271.

PAGE 64

64 indicative of Acili traditional material and form for annales Despite this, contradictory titles are give n to his work. Fragment 3 (= Cic. Off 3.115) states that Acilius Graece scripsit historiam Annales Acilianos in fragment 6 (= Liv. 25.39.11), and Graecos Acilianos libros in fragment 7 (= Liv. 35.14.5). Historiographic form is not explicitly addressed by Acilius in the surviving fragments, and unsurprisingly, whether history, annales fragments, adds little new to our understanding of the conventions of annales Nor does Acilius hi mself, in the extant fragments, divulge any purpose for his history, any estimation of the form (or language) he used, or any indication of how his history differed from his contemporary Postumius or those Greek annalists before him. It was significant en ough to be translated by a certain Claudius, possibly the historian Claudius Quadrigarius. 144 many who preserved his fragments: Cicero, Dionysius, Plutarch, Strabo, and Livy (through the Latin version). Nonetheless, he remains a shadowy figure. Cato, as we saw, thought little of the Graeci annales His famous insult of Aulus Fabius Pictor and the other Greek annalists, however, had beg un to shape both Roman history and Roman historiography. These annalists had set in place essential characteristics of Roman historiography history was to be didactic, annalistic, cognizant of Greek historiography, written by the senatorial class, and cen tered on the political. Roman history would proceed in an 144 Peter 1914: CXXII and von Albrecht 1997: 375 claim there is no e vidence to support this identification but others, especially Frier 1979/1999 do accept it. See Chapter 3 for Claudius Quadrigarius.

PAGE 65

65 annalistic form ab urbe condita seek out foundation stories and aetia and hence look to provide respectability for the noble classes and particular families. 145 Writing history was, in the third an d middle of the second century, the responsibility of those who participated in Roman politics. Through their histories, senators could record their experiences, pass down their stories to a younger generation, and hence glorify the nation of Rome. The a nnalistic form provided a native and workable structure for this formidable task. 145 On the phenomenology of etiogology in early Roman historiography, see Poucet 1985.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 3 ADAPTERS: THE LATIN ANNALISTS OF THE SECOND CENTURY In the second century, historians elaborated on the themes of the earlier annalists, at times using their form and at other times rejecting it. The first history of Rome written in Latin, Origines incomplete at his death in 149, rejected the annalistic form and addressed the history of Rome using a thematic scheme. He also recounted the origins of other Italian cities as well as Rome. Annalistic history, however, continued to be the form of choice for authors in the second century such as Lucius Cassius Hemina Lucius, Calpurnius Piso Frugi, and Sempronius Tuditanus. 146 Cnaeus Gellius, too, chose to write annales filling possibly thirty three books that Gellius accorded more space to the early years of Rome in his lengthy study. This approach to history writ became a regular, if not scrupulous, characteristic of some of the historians from the Roman Republic. 147 These historians are (and were) accused of filling out the past, creating one where there was no source material on which a history might be based. 148 Against the backdrop of annalistic history, the second century witnessed innovations in Roman historiography. A focus on recent or contemporary history appears, for exam ple, in the history of G. Fannius (cos. 122), who displayed his antipathy to the Gracchi in his history. 149 Coelius Antipater, writing around 120, took as his single subject a history of the Second Punic 146 On historians of the second centu ry in general, see Balsdon 1953, Badian 1966: 7 18, and Forsythe 2000. 147 Badian 1966: 11. 148 On the debate over the credibility of the historians, see Cornell 1995, who is accused of trusting the annalists too much, and Wiseman 1979, who argued that the annalists practiced invention. A brief prcis of the debate and its repercussions on historiography scholarship can be found in Kraus and Woodman 1997: 5 6. 149 Badian 1966: 14.

PAGE 67

67 War and hence inaugurated the form of the historical monograph in Rome. 150 The late second century Sempronius Asellio wrote res gestae more a history of his own time, and, disparaging the annalistic form, he claimed that his history did more than list events and magistrates. 151 Roman historiography was develo ping new practices: an interest in contemporary events, a desire to explain rather than list, and an effort to connect history to present politics (e.g., the Gracchan crisis), not just those of the past. This type of history (local, contemporary, monograp hs) will be taken up in Chapter 4. Despite other options, however, the annalistic form flourished in the second century. Many historians produced annales in the second century. 152 Of these, four, Cassius Hemina, L. Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, a nd Cn. Gellius, demonstrate best the enduring conventions and appeal of the form. This chapter looks to these historians, whose works considerably influenced others, were deemed reputable or meaningful by the Romans themselves, and whose works survive in great numbers or whose historiographical concerns we can discern. Specifically, in these historians we will look for their use of the annalistic form, and when possible, their perception of that form and its functions. Lucius Cassius Hemina In the mid s and Postumius proved, or tried to prove. Nevertheless, Cato was about to put an end to history writing in Greek. His Origines the first history of Rome in Latin, offered th e possibility of 150 von Albrecht 1997: 381. 151 Sempronius Asellio frag. 2. As earlier, all fr agments in this dissertation come from Chassignet. 152 Two historians of the second century whose works are barely known are Vennonius, known survives in only two fragme work is little known, surviving in only three fragments. Because we know so little about them, they are passed over here but are included in the appendix.

PAGE 68

68 at least chronologically, stands L. Cassius Hemina. 153 A near contemporary of Cato, Hemina also produced a history of Rome. Little is known o model, was done by Roman men of the upper class, typically by those who held political office at some level. No such political career can be discovered, however, for Cassius Hemina, but the cultural model fo r historians before and after presumes one. Additionally, both his name Cassius and praenomen Lucius (as named by Priscian in fragment 28) suggest familial ties to the gens of the Cassii Longini. This family served Rome faithfully, producing seven consul s and two censors between the years 171 and 73. 154 annales fourteen times by five different authors. 155 Other authors, historiae ; three authors in seven fragments use this appellation, while the gra annales and historiae 156 ese volumes begin with the pre Romulean period in Book 1, followed by the period of the kings and the early Republic in Book 2, the First Punic War in Book 3, and the Bellum Punicum posterior 153 Studies (and biographies): Ma rtha 1902/3: 108 113; Peter 1914: CLXV CLXXIII; Bardon 1952: 73 77; Rawson 1976: 690 702; Forsythe 1990; von Albrecht 1994: 304 305; Santini 1995: 11 70; Chassignet 1998; Beck and Walter 2001: 242 245; and Chassignet 1999/2003: IX XVI. 154 Forsythe 1990: 32 6. On the political offices of the Cassii Longini, see Broughton 1952 I: 416, 439, 449, 507, 510, 550, II: 9, 109. Forsythe 1990: 326 sees a connection to this aristocratic family. Beck and Walter 2001: 242 do not, however, rule out a plebeian friendly tone in Inst 9, p. 482 H. 155 Chassignet 1999/2003: XI. Pliny the Elder (frag. 40), Aulus Gellius (frag. 12), Servius auctus (frag. 25), Priscian (frag. 28, 32, 33, 34, 35) and Nonius (frag. 20, 24, 27, 31, 36, 39) des annales 156 Chassignet 1999/2003: XI. Macrobius, Diomedes, and Nonius title the work historiae in fragments 9, 13, 14, 19, 23, 37, and 38. Nonius calls the work annales in frags. 20, 24, 27, 31, and 39; he titles them historiae in frags. 9, 13, 19, 37, and 38.

PAGE 69

69 in Book 4. The content of Book 4 is, however, problematic. Des pite its title, at least three of These could belong to a fifth and separate book (although Hemina might have included material after the Second Punic War in his last book); there is no reference to a fifth book. The date of publication rests on the title given to Book 4, Bellum Punicum posterior as recorded in fragment 34 (= Prisc. Inst 7, p. 374 H), which suggests that the third Punic War had not yet begun at t he time of his writing. 157 The inference is that Hemina did most of his writing prior to 149. 158 Fragment 42 provides a end date of the fourth secular games of 146, carried out while Cassius Hemina was alive; possibly Hemina was writing a fifth volume betwee n 149 and 146. 159 upholding of the conventions of annalistic history. 160 These fragments consider foundation stories associated with Rome (e.g., frags. 6 and 8 on Aeneas, frag. 14 on Romulus and Remus), 157 Priscian tells us that Cassius Hemina inscribed the fourth book of his annals with the title Bellum Punicum posterior ( sic ). 158 This premise is accepted by Peter 1914: CLXV, Chassignet 1999/2003: XII XIII, and Santini 1995. Rawson 1976: 70 1 702 and Forsythe 1990 add a different end point; Forsythe makes the argument for a date for publication as late as 120, based on comparisons with allegedly similar fragments of L. Calpurnius Piso, whose work he wants to date to the post censorship years of Piso. In particular, Forsythe 2000: 334 wants to date fragment 20 to the agrarian disputes around the time of Tiberius Gracchus. Chassignet 1999/2003: 103 prefers an early date from the Struggle of the Orders. Cornell 1995: 451 simila argument to date the plebitas fragment to the time of Ti. Gracchus though Beck and Walter 2001: 262 find it not unreasonable. Forsythe 1990: 328 also notes that we have no evidence that the phrase Bellum Punicum pos terior 159 Frag. 42 = Censorinus DN 17.11. 160 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 2 16; Peter 1914: 98 111 (40 fragments); Beck and Walter 2001: 246 281 (43 fragments), and Santini 1995: 72 105 (43 fragments). The difference between Peter and the more recent editions of fragments of Hemina is, firstly, the inclusion of a fragment from Origo Gentis Romanae (Peter consistently doubted the authenticity of this work in his collection of the historical fragments) and, secondly, the decision to separate out three distinct mentions of lines of Cassius Hemina in Nonius p. 510 L; Peter had grouped this all as one fragment.

PAGE 70

70 etiologies (e.g., frag. 4 on the origin of fana ), etymologies, particularly of town names (e.g., frags. 3 and 4), and an interest in religious institutions (frags. 15 and 16). The history has a strong chronological structu re, naming key figures such as Aeneas and Romulus and Remus, as those annales before him in that his surviving fragments show very little interest in political or milit ary concerns of Rome. No fragment treats any war, battle, alliance, federation or even first arming of the proletariat in 280. 161 Instead, more than half of the exta grammatical constructions deemed uncommon or of interest to later grammarians. Twenty three of the fragments derive from the grammarians Solinus, Nonius and Priscian, who noted words such as ilico (frags. 9 11), censere (frag. 19), plebitas (frag. 20), proletari (frag. 24), fremere (frag. 25), demolire (frag. 26), denasci (frag. 27), cymbalissare (frag. 30), litterosus (frag. 31), messui (frag. 32), nostratis (frag. 33), eabus ( frag. 35), consedo (frag. 36), utrasque (frag. 37), a feminine version of finis (frag. 38), and lacte (frag. 39). Priscian also found of interest two grammatical usages by Hemina of the comparative (frag. 34 posterior ), and the deponent (frag. 43 adhortat i ). Thus twenty five fragments, fifty eight percent of 161 Frag. 24 = Nonius p. 93L. The text of this fragment is corrupt; the manuscript codd. reads praecox. Beck and Walter 2001: 267 use p raeco whereas Chassignet 1999/2003: 10 prefers praetor praeco and Santini 1995: 94 reads pro consule See over a possible date f or the fragment; the Marcius named appears to be the consul of 281, Q. versus Pyrrhus in 280 (perhaps celebrated by Ennius in Annales vv. 183 185 V2).

PAGE 71

71 Grammatical usages most commonly conserve just a few words out of context; as such, vocabulary and a few gramma tical constructions allow us to say little, with certainty, about patter oratio obliqua with accusativus cum infinitivo in fragment 40. 162 plebitas (frag. 20) and proletari (frag. 24) may indicate a focus on the plebeian class in his history, as Beck and Walter have conjectured. 163 Fragment homo mere litterosus mean a disdainful attitude towards those authors who involved, as presumably historians ought to be. 164 Bellum Punicum posterior in his discussion of uses of the comparative is of vital importance word posterior, grammarians, we can pose a few comments about both content and his interests from other fragments, and perhaps his intentions behind history writing. Yet, as is the case with the his history, his motivations, nor his assessment of the annalistic form. Simply put, we have no 162 Leeman 196 in Chassignet 1999/2003 = frags. 11, 13, and 37 Peter. Martha 1903: 113 finds fault, however, anisation frag. 16 Chassignet). 163 Beck and Walter 2001: 242. 164

PAGE 72

72 words from Hemina himself concerning his choice of form in which he wrote his history. What Of particular intere st in assessing Hemina is his disagreement with earlier historians in at least two instances: the portent of the sow and thirty piglets appearing to Romulus and Remus in Rome, and the nature of the Penates, which Hemina likens to gods from Samothrace. Hem ina thus demonstrates at least some independent thinking, maybe even conscious disagreement with history of Rome. Fragment 14, for example, on the origin of the shrine to the Lares Grundiles, of which no traces remain, not only preserves one of the rare occurrences in Latin literature of this aspect of the Lares, 165 historical tradi tion. In this fragment preserved in Diomedes, the citizens of Rome witness the equal dividing of power between Romulus and Remus. A monstrum then happened: a sow feeding thirty pigs, and Romulus and Remus created a shrine to the Lares Grundiles. Hemina thus assigned the foundation of the cult of Lares Grundiles to Romulus and Remus who (rather than Aeneas) saw the sow and thirty piglets. According to both Fabius Pictor and Cato, it was Aeneas and his men who witnessed the sow and thirty pigs; Cato said the site was Lavinium, Fabius Pictor argued for Alba. 166 search for the origin of the shrine of the Lares Grundiles, he cites upon the famous portent of the 165 Frag. 14 = Diomedes, p. 379 L. The discussion of the use of the word grundio Grundiles appears elsewhere only in Nonius 114.31 and Arnobius 1.15. No physical evidence of a shrine to the Grundiles survives nor indeed does such a shrine have an entry in either Richardson 1992 or Claridge 1998. 166 Fabius Pictor frag. 5a; Cato, frag. 14a. Cf. Rawson 1976: 697.

PAGE 73

73 pigs. 167 More significantly, in fragment Remus might reflect a prefiguration of the consulship. 168 For our purposes, this fragment Elsewhere, Hemina also di ffered from Cato on, for example, the size of land given by Latinus (frag. 8). 169 was once dismissed as dimidiatus Cato and relegated to a footnote, recently scholars have t ried to rehabilitate him. 170 subjects, religion (monuments, institutions, and rites), euhemerism, and Greek culture. These fragments survive in a variety of sources for a variety of reasons ; these preservers found Hemina a reliable source himself. Religious matters (institutions, monuments, shrines) are a topic of at least eight fragments the shr ines to Ara Maxima (frag. 5) and to Lares Grundiles (frag. 14), the etymology of the word fana (frag. 4), the origin of the Penates (frag. 7), and the discovery of the Sybilline books (frag. 40). 167 168 Chassignet 1998: 327, Rawson 1976: 698 699, and Santini 1995: 152. 169 Hemina (frag. 8 = Solin. 2.14) says five hundred iugera Cato (frag. 8 = Serv. ad Aen. 11.316) says IIDCC. 170 Klinger 1965: 66 declared Hemina dimidiatus Cato Of late, Rawson in 1976 examined Hemina as well as L. Calpur Origines

PAGE 74

74 Hemina also displays a keen interest in etymologies and eti ologies; these concern Roman religion, as above, toponymy (frag. 2 on Aricia and frag. 3 on Crustumerium), and institutions or nundinae and frag. 21 on the first intercalary). Most of the fragments wh ich contain etiologies or etymologies relate to the early posing the question regarding the origin and then providing an answer of either an individual or an event. 171 inclination towards antiquarianism which was also shared by previous annalists Hemina also demonstrated an interest in Greek culture. His fragments on the Penates (in which he used Greek terms and not Roman versions of them), the origin of Aricia (frag. 2), and Homer and Hesiod (frag. 12) suggest a willingness to include the Greek s in a Roman history. 172 Further, from the Greeks (and Ennius as well), Hemina might have picked up an interest in euhemerism. The belief that great men became gods was popular across the Mediterranean world, especially in the former Hellenistic kingdoms. Fragments on Saturn (frag. 1), Faunus (frag. 4), and fragment 8 from Solinus, which treats the identification of Aeneas as Pater Indiges, suggest a deep interest in euhemerism. Let me close with a few final comments about Hemina. Of interest is that he c hose to write in annalistic form while his contemporary Cato rejected that format; carrying on the received traditions of annales Hemina included etymologies and etiologies in his work, and 171 ies can be found in Chassignet 1998. 172 Other fragments such as those on Aeneas being allowed to pass through the Greeks unharmed (frag. 6), and Diomedes giving the Palladium to Aeneas (frag. 8) also indicate ry into his Roman narrative, although, of course, it would be difficult to avoid these subjects in a discussion of Aeneas.

PAGE 75

75 displayed a chronological structure. Notable too is that Hemina displayed independence with regards to content. His last book, if it was devoted to the second Punic War, might indicate a 173 fragments derives from a historian, by his own peers. Pliny the Elder describes Hemina as vetustissimus (frag. 40) and antiquissimus auctor (frag. 29) but does no t refer directly to the work by Hemina. Livy, Cicero, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus either do not know him or do not use him openly. 174 Plutarch does not mention him either, which makes Appian not only the only historian to cite Cassius, but also the only Greek writer to do so. 175 him, or perhaps not widely known. In the competition for historical validity, Hemina looks to have lost. Lucius Calpurnius Piso The history by L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi enjoyed a better reception. Cited by historians as well as collectors of knowledge, Piso structured his history of Rome on a clearly annalistic frame. Few verbatim quotatio ns survive, however, and there remains no statement by Piso of his 173 So Chassignet 1999/2003: XVI contends, though she notes that Santini 1995: 33 34, in particular, sees less of an innovation in Hem difference between annales and historia would not be marked until Coelius Antipater. 174 Forsythe 1990: 344 posits Hemina as the source for later historians. Rawson 1976: 690, Siculus, an argument which Chassignet 1999/2003: XV finds unconvincing. Forsythe 1990: 344 into 175 Appian is so late that there was very likely a middle man between the two who read Hemina, and Appian drew his information from him. Unfortunately, we do not know whether Appian read Hemina directly nor do we know wha t his source might have been.

PAGE 76

76 intentions, historiographical aims, or purpose of his recording of Roman history in that form. No preface survives. L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Censorius lived and flourished around the sam e time as Cassius contemporaneously more or less the annalistic form, Cassius Hemina emphasized religious matters and Calpurnius Piso picked up and focused on other traditional content of annales the political and the military affairs. Calpurnius Piso came from a plebeian family that was to become heavily involved in Roman politics; Cn. Piso and L. Piso Caesonius s erved as consuls, in 139 and 148. Calpurnius Piso himself served as tribune of the plebs in 149, was author of the lex Calpurnia de pecuniis repetundis in 149, consul in 133, censor in 120, and praetor at an unknown date. 176 Calpurnius Piso was thus a his torian as well as an important politician, and an accomplished orator. 177 Piso wrote one work, called the Annales in sixteen fragments; it is called Historiae in one citation, Commentarii in another, and Epitomae once as well. In seven books, Piso recount ed Roman history from pre history until his time, at least until 146, the last date attested in the surviving fragments (frag. 42 = Censorinus DN 17.11). Piso related prehistory and the period of the kings in the first book, the Republic down to 304 in th e second and third books, and the 176 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: 120 138; Latte 1968: 837 847; von Albrecht 1994: 378 379; Forsythe 1994; Beck and Walter 2001: 282 285; and Chassignet 1999/2003: XIX XXVIII. See Broughton 1952 uneship, 492 for consulship, and 523 for censor. On Piso and the lex Calpurnia see Cic. Brut. 27.106 and Off. the lex Calpurnia was one of the most significant acts of his career; this law was the first of the so 177 Cic. Brut. 106.

PAGE 77

77 have treated events after 146, in particular his consulship (133), and censorship (120), as argued by Forsythe. 178 Forty eight frag ments of Piso survive. 179 These include citations by the historians Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Livy, and Plutarch, the encyclopedists Varro and Pliny the Elder, grammarians or similarly minded authors including Priscian, Gellius, Censorinus and Macrobius, as well as Tertullian, Cicero, Arnobius, and Lydus. The majority of the fragments, seventeen, derive from the encyclopedists, those collectors of knowledge, and from the historians, thirteen t than for its style. In contrast to Cassius Hemina whose work was the source for many citations by grammarians on unique uses of language and vocabulary, Piso seems not to have found much favor among the grammarians. cabulary choices (frag. 19 from Priscian regarding allicuit and frag. 20, also from Priscian, on ignosciturum ). Moreover, as we saw earlier, only one fragment of Cassius Hemina is cited by a historian, and only four by the encyclopedist Pliny the Elder; ety mologies (e.g., frag. 1 on the origin of Italia, frags. 2 and 3 on Cimmerium), the creation of Roman legends, institutions or places (e.g., frag. 7 on Tarpeia, frag. 8 on the Lacus Curtius, frag. 9 on games for Jupiter Feretrius, frag. 11 on the Janus Gate Jupiter on the Capitoline, and frag. 22 on the statue of Cloelia), and practices of early Roman 178 Forsythe 1994: 32 36 promotes a date of publication after 120, based on correlations between Pisonian fragments and those of Cassius Hemina. Chassignet 1999/2003: XXV d oes not commit, though she views as reasonable the supposition that Piso took up writing after he finished his cursus honorum 179 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 18 39; Peter 1914: 98 111 (40 fragments); Forsythe 1994: 426 497 (49 fragments); and Beck and W alter 2001: 286 329 (43 fragments).

PAGE 78

78 lightning). eal an annalistic framework; in fact, Forsythe claims Piso to be the first historian to make extensive use of the then recently published annales maximi 180 In asserting this, Forsythe agrees to the traditional (since Mommsen) story of publication of the an nales maximi 181 The published volumes were based on the whitened tablets which contained annual entries made by the pontifex maximus including the names of the consuls and other magis trates, and religious matters and events, including portents and prodigies, as well as domestic and military events, such as triumphs. 182 According to Forsythe, Piso appears to have made use of this collection of material; his seven volume history rests on a traditional chronological format, and contains material that Forsythe believes was available to him only through the pontifical annales maximi 183 Of particular note is one fragment that cites both Piso and the annales maximi, and thus brings to the foref OGR 18.3) chronicles the death of Aremulus Silvius, an Alban king, who, according to the fourth book of the annales maximi tning, caught up in a tornado, and tossed into the Alban lake. Such a prodigious moment, placed in which would have contained such prodigies. Other Pisonian frag ments might have derived from 180 annales maximi. 181 On the annales maximi their compilation, history, materials, see Frier 1979/1999, and refer to the e arlier discussion in Chapter 1. 182 Servius auct. ad Aen. 1.373. 183 annales maximi can be found in Forsythe 1994: 53 73.

PAGE 79

79 184 Both stories, both concernin g prodigies, might have had their source in the pontifical records. Elsewhere the annalistic form, and material suitable to pontifical records, continue to of political posts by year (e.g., frag. 29 on consuls, frags. 30 and 31 on curule aediles, frag. 39 on consuls in the 600 th year, frag. 42 on consuls for the 608 th year). Still other fragments relate military matters, a common hallmark of annalistic his tory. These include fragments, for example, on the creation of the first navy (frag. 32) and on victorious commanders with details, some important, some not, of triumphs (e.g., frag. 34 on the myrtle crown of Papirius Maso, cos. 231, frag. 37 on the trium ph of Gn. Manlius Vulso in 186, and frag. 33 on the introduction of elephants to the circus after the victory of Metellus over the Carthaginians at Panormus in 250). aws directly on the published annales maximi 185 Moreover, Forsythe contends that Piso is the first Roman historian whose extant work records specific data on triumphs. 186 Such precise information suggests that the recording of triumphs was important and int egral to his history, and annales maximi 187 t surviving annalistic data on the early history of the plebeian 188 Both are preserved in Livy. Fragment 24 (= Liv. 2.32.3) offers a variant for the 184 Forsythe 2000: 9. 185 Forsythe 1994: 370. 186 Forsythe 1994: 370 371. 187 Forsythe 1994: 370. 188 F orsythe 2000: 10.

PAGE 80

80 site of the secession of the plebs, one site Livy did not credit. Unrest in Rome because of te nsion between the classes and great indebtedness led to the first secession of the plebeians and the institution of the plebeian tribune in 494. Fragment 25 (= Liv. 2.58.1), similarly refers to the establishment and evolution of the tribunate; in it Piso details the expansion of the number of tribunes from two to five. Written during the Gracchan age, a period during which the tribunate was the focus of much controversy, these fragments provide important material for conjecturing how contemporaries of the Gracchan revolution revisited the Roman past. That Piso was cited by historians and encyclopedists points to his reputation as an authority in Roman history. Indeed, Pliny the Elder named him twice a gravis auctor (frags. 12 and 41). He is cited by dif ferent authors as proof for the authenticity of a statement that stands counter to a previous story. For example, Plutarch tells his reader that Numa did not die a quick 189 Livy, on the other hand, expresses distrust in Piso several times. In fragment 18, Livy prefers the 190 Add itionally, Livy alerts his readers that his story regarding the site of the secession of the plebs, Mons Sacer was more general ( frequentior ) than the story and site Piso posited. 191 In fragments 29 and 31, Livy again, struggles with Piso. In fragment 29, Livy attempts to report the consuls for the year 305, but found Piso unhelpful. Annales or perhaps he 189 Frag. 14 = Plut. Num. 21.7. 190 Frag. 18 = Liv. 1.55.7 9, in particular eo magis Fabio, praeterquam quod antiquior est, 191 Frag. 24 = Liv. 2.32.3.

PAGE 81

81 purposefully left them out, believing them not accurate. 192 In fragment 31, Livy attempts to reconcile information about the office of curule aedile held by Quintus Fabius, as recorded by the historians Licinius Macer and Tubero, with the list of curule ae diles for that same year preserved the annalists ( vetustior annalium auctor ). 193 his literary style was both praised and condemned. Aulus Gellius, for example, declared that Piso told a story of Romulus simplicissima suavitate et rei et orationis (frag. 10 = Gell. NA 11.14.1 2). o tell a story pure et venuste 194 But, Cicero, annales sane exiliter scriptos 195 He also found in Piso, along with Cato and Pictor, ignorance of how to adorn their writing: Hanc similitudinem scribendi mult i secuti sunt, qui sine ullis ornamentis monumenta solum temporum, hominum, locorum gestarumque rerum reliquerunt; itaque qualis apud Graecos Pherecydes, Hellanicus, Acusilas fuit aliique permulti, talis noster Cato et Pictor et Piso, qui neque tenent, qui bus rebus ornetur oratio modo enim huc ista sunt importata et, dum intellegatur quid dicant, unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem. (Cic. De or 2.53) Cicero placed Piso with both Cato and Fabius Pictor at the head of Roman history writing, and narrator In de Legibus Fannius, and Vennonius, and calling them tam exile 196 192 Frag. 29 = Liv. 9.44.2 4. 193 Frag. 31 = Liv. 10 9.12. 194 Frag. 30 = Gell. 7.9.1 6. 195 Cic. Brut. 106. 196 Cic. Leg. 1.6 7.

PAGE 82

82 was new or unusual, but because it was timely. Although we have no statement by Piso regarding his choice of historiographical form, we do have context, and that context may illuminat e his choice. Piso was no armchair historian; like other historians before him, he was an active politician, serving as praetor, tribune, consul and censor. And he did do during one of the most engaging political and literary time periods in Roman history these years lived and flourished such towering figures as Cato (at the end of his life), Scipio Aemilianus, Lucius Mummius, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and Appius Claudius Pulcher. Cassius Hemina, Polybius, Sempronius T uditanus, and Fannius all wrote history during these histories. During these years Rome utterly defeated Carthage, asserted herself over Macedon, conquered both Greece and Spain, making provinces of them all, acquired Pergamum, and put down slave revolts. In a period of roughly twenty years, Rome became a vast empire, and came into intimate contact with the Hellenistic world. In these same years, Piso was active in Roman politics, and was also probably writing history. The last attested date in his fragments, 146, the date of the secular games and the fall of Carthage and Corinth, comes shortly after his first key office. Tribune and author of a recovery law in 149, Piso was involved in politics at the beginning of the last war between Rome and Carthage and at work on his history during the opening up of the Hellenistic world to Rome. year saw the death of Tiberius Gracchus, the bequeathing of the city of Pergamum to Rome by Attalus III, and Roman victory at Numantia in Spain. Additionally, in 133 Piso himself put down the slave

PAGE 83

83 rebellion led by Eunus in the Sicilian city of Enna. It history. If Piso continued to write after 146, as Forsythe argues plausibly, there exists the possibility that Piso and Scaevola, serving as consuls in the same year in 133, might have discussed the pontifical chronicle s recorded on the tabula dealbata and possible publication Cicero tells us that these tabulae had continued from early days up until the time of Scaevola. If we follow the once traditional view that Scaevola published the annales maximi we might easily that Scaevola wrote his own history and called it the annales maximi again, we might speculate on the two discussing historiography or sources available. Pe rhaps, the two of them, both historically minded (though often political rivals the need for publication of the pontifica l chronicles. To Piso had fallen the obligation to record those consuls and magistrates which the annales maximi would make accessible. Cassius preserved, and Cato ha d previously determined not to write a history of Roman names. 26), might have compelled him to write a history that memorialized those faithful magistrate ci tizens of Rome, who served the Republic rather than jeopardized it. And if Scaevola merely stopped the recording of events on the tabula dealbata (Cic. De or 2.52) and did not publish the annales maximi Piso might have nonetheless found a way to access that material, the libri annales as Frier called them, wherever they were stored. Annalistic history, supported by the rich material in the pontifical records later, was surely the appropriate form for Piso. Novelty

PAGE 84

84 lity (nor a man named Frugi); a wariness about the Gracchi, seen in Cicero, coupled with the moralizing tone of now famous fragment 41 in which he provides a date for the beginning of moral depravity in Rome, suggest that Piso would not be the sort of hist orian to employ an innovative approach to historiography but would rather find the traditional and familiar form of the annalistic form to be proper for his work. 197 Sempronius Tuditanus used the annalistic form for a history of Rome. 198 cursus honorum included the offices of quaestor in 145, aedile in 135 or 136, praetor in 132, and consul in 129. 199 146, Tuditanus likewise traveled to Greece that year as an officer. Other significant military actions included his victory in his consulate over the Illyrian tribe, the Iapydes, with help from Decimus Iunius Brutus; Tuditanus celebrated the triumph on Oc tober 1, 129. 200 A statue of Tuditanus in Aquilea also commemorated his victory. 201 197 Cic. Tusc 3.48 and Font fragment 41(= Plin. HN mention s a fig tree that sprang up in the censorship of M. Messala and C. Cassius, a quo tempore pudicitiam subversam Piso gravis auctor prodidit censorial sort of notices supports the argument that he composed his history after his term in the office of censor. 198 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCI CCIII; Mnzer 1923: 1441 1443; Beck and Walter 2001: 330; Chassignet 1999/2003: XXVIII XXIII. 199 Cic. Att 13.6.4 for quaestor and aedileship, Att 13.30.2 and 13.32.3 fo r praefecture, and Rep. 1.14 for consulate. Broughton 1952 I: 470 (quaestor), 489 490 and footnote no. 4 for aedile, 498 for praetor, and 504 for consul. Cicero admired his elegantia as an orator, Brut. 95. 200 Liv. Per 59.20 and App. Ill 10. 201 On two f Bellum Histricum which preserved part of the ILLRP 335 with commentary by Degrassi; and Morgan 1973. HN 3.129 and ILLRP 334; Bcheler 1908; and Birt 1920. On his triumph: Fast. Capit C.I.L. I 2 p. 48; 176.

PAGE 85

85 Tuditanus wrote two historical works, according to the fragments that survive. One, called Libri Magistratuum looks to have been a list that might have employed documentary material, and comprised at least thirteen books. Only two fragments survive of this work. 202 It apparently served as counter argument to the Libri de potestatibus authored by the pro Gracchan M. Iunius Gracchanus. 203 The title of the second work, a history by Tuditanus is unattested. Only seven fragments of this work survive. 204 different source. None of them preserves actual words of Tuditanus but report topics that Tuditanus recorded in his history, including prehistory (frag. 1 on Aborigines and frag. 2 on the etymology of Caieta), the period of the kings (frag. 3 on the institution of the nundinae by Romulus), the early Republic (frag. 4 on the creation of the tri bunate), and the middle Republic 202 Peter 1914: 146 147 (frags. Sempron. Tudit. 7 and 8 Peter). Sempron. Tudit. Frag. 7 Peter comes from Macrobius Sat 1.13.21, and Sempron. Tudit. Frag. 8 Peter derives from M. Messalla de auspiciis apud Gell. NA 13.15. 4. Chassignet 1999/2003 does not include them but preserves list and not literary. 203 Chassignet 1999/ 2003: XXXI and Beck and Walter 2001: 330. On the hostility between Tuditanus and Gracchanus, see Mnzer 1923: 1442. These works on libri by Tuditanus and Gracchanus have recently been posited as best demonstrating the beginning of an interest in antiquari anism among Roman authors; see Sehlmeyer 2003. 204 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 40 43; Peter 1914: 143 147 (six fragments); Beck and Walter 2001: 331 339 (eight fragments). Ps. Aurelius Victor OGR a so urce Peter regularly did not include. Beck and Walter add not only the OGR Peter had assigned to the Libri Magistratuum Beck and Walter do not contest assigning the fragment to the Libri but include the fragment with the historical fragments because it might offer information regarding the intellectual profile of the author. That fragment poses the inability of a praetor to elect either a consul or praetor because a higher authority cannot be Cichorius 1902: 588 595 argues that Tuditanus produced only one work, the Libri Magistratuum and that all fragments belong to this.

PAGE 86

86 Numaean books (in 181) fell in the 205 Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus cite Tuditanus, but the remainder of the fragments come from grammarians or miscellanists (e.g., Gellius). Dionysius ranks T uditanus among the most learned ( logiotatoi 206 The fragments of Tuditanus preserve no preface or remarks regarding his intentions, purpose, nor choice of form. This is no longer surprising; as with the earlier historians, any comments about the choice of form is largely to be divined from the few remaining fragments. In the case of Tuditanus, the fragments offer little, but a surprising twist mi ght allow us some room to speculate on Tuditanus and annalistic form. What we have seen is that the fragments comprise topics that are traditional in other annalists. Tuditanus wrote an annalistic history yet when he looked for his own exploits to be rec orded and immortalized, Tuditanus did not favor an annalistic form, but instead looked to poetry. work, the Bellum Histricum, survives only in approximately six lines. 207 It appears to have been an historical epic, written in hexameters, focusing on the military campaigns of the Istrian war of Tuditanus. 208 It is 205 Frag. 7 = Plin. HN 13.84 88. 206 Frag. 1 = Dion. Ant. Rom 1.11.1. 207 von Albrecht 1997: 380 and Cichorius 1908: 183 and 190. The fragments of Hostius are collected in Courtney 1993. 208 Bellum Histricum is not universally agreed up on, and this, of course, affects the notion of Tuditanus commissioning it. The Istrian war of the epic might refer to the battles of 178 or to those of 129, the battles which Tuditanus participated in. On the whole, most scholars believe that the campaig ns of 129 are a more suitable topic, since Ennius covered those of 178, and Hostius probably would have avoided competition with Ennius. Cf. Courtney 1993:

PAGE 87

87 telling that in the second century a Rom an historian, author of a work in the Roman annalistic form, might have preferred a poetic genre to provide immortality. Perhaps because Roman historiography was still in its infancy, with only Cato, Piso, and Cassius Hemina writing Roman history in Latin before him, Tuditanus thought epic might be more successful. Perhaps epic was us to wonder if he was not fully confident in the value and authority of the hi storical form he himself was using for his history of Rome. Cnaeus Gellius Last among the second century annalists of note is Cnaeus Gellius, whose fame here rests more on the size of his history than its quality. Nonetheless, Gellius is useful in depicti ng new characteristics of annalistic history at the waning years of the second century. His use of them might imply a choice of annales for its flexibility; the annalistic form offered him both convention and innovation. Cnaeus Gellius lived sometime afte r Piso, Cassius Hemina, and around the same time as Coelius Antipater and Gaius Fannius, two non annalistic historians. His dates are not certain; Cicero places him between Fabius Pictor and Coelius Antipater, and closer to Coelius. 209 A further notation b fragments suggests that he was probably a contemporary of Coelius and Fannius. 210 Gellius Tud itanus, and argues for a date of post 129. 209 Frag. 21= Cic. Div. 1.55: omnes hoc historici Fabii Gellii sed proxume Coelius Wiseman 1979: 142 emends the text to read sed maxume and Chassignet 1999/2003: XLIX retains that reading as it portrays Cn. Gell ius as a contemporary of Fannius, as Cicero had in Leg. 1.6. Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCIV CCX; Bardon 1952:77 80; Badian 1966: 11 13; Wiseman 1979: 20 23; Rawson 1976: 713 717; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Walt 1997: 85 87; Beck and Walter 2001: 347 348; Chassignet 1999/ 2003: XLIX LIV. 210 Cic. Leg. 1.6 In particular, frag. 6 (= Solin. 1.8 9) which implies knowledge of the Social War, allows a date contemporaneous with Coelius Antipater and Fannius.

PAGE 88

88 might have held the position of triumvir monetalis but he was not the Cn. Gellius against whom Cato delivered a speech. 211 ninety seven books. 212 No date of publication is agreed upon. Various hypotheses see Gellius writing between 140 and 130, or 130 90, or more gene rally after the publication of the annales maximi 213 this fell remains unknown. 214 five fragments survive. 215 These deri ve chiefly from Charisius (eleven fragments), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (six fragments), and Pliny the Elder (five fragments). Livy does not cite him. Gellius treated Roman history of each period at great length, very probably augmenting a skeletal fram ework of magistrates with inventive fiction. The period of the kings is covered at least in Books 2 and 3. 216 The next datable fragment, fragment 24, however, detailing the instituting of the dies atri (in 389), fell in Book 211 Crawford 1974 dates the triumvir (no. 232) t o 138; Rawson 1976: 713 and Wiseman 1979: 20 believe this politician to be the historian. Mnzer and Peter 1914: CCVI do not, calling the triumvir to be found in Cato frag. 206 Malcovati. Rawson 1976: 713, Wiseman 1979: 20 and Chassignet that the historian could possibly be his son (who was also the triumvir ). 212 Frag. 30 = Charisius Gramm. I, p. 68B. That figure is contested by Mnzer 1910: 998 and Rawson 1976: 714. Peter 1914: CCVI and Bardon 1952: 79, however, see a consistency with the 213 Chassignet 1999/2003: LI provides a summary of thi s debate. Frier 1979/1999: 210 prefers a date of 140 130, Wiseman 1979: 142 opts for 130 90, Badian 1966: 12 sides with a date after the publication of the annales maximi Chassignet 1999/2003: LII would rather see a beginning to the writing between 130 a nd 120, with continued writing, due to the great length of the work, Bellum Punicum 214 Frag. 29 (= Censorinus DN 17.11). 215 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 71 83; Peter 1914: 148 157 (34 fragments); and Beck an d Walter 2001: 349 367 (35 fragments). 216 Frags. 11 19.

PAGE 89

89 15. 217 Cn. Gellius covered only just over two hundred years in twelve books. Fragment 24 (=Macrob. Sat 1.16.21 24) explicitly tells the reader that Gellius discussed the dies atri in his Book 15, while Cassius Hemina wrote about it in the second book of his Histories. What Hemina cover ed in two books, Cn. Gellius covered in fifteen. Moreover, Cn. Gellius had reached only the year 216 by Book 33, leaving some sixty books more to cover the period from the Second Punic War down to his day. 218 Perhaps Cn. Gellius had at his disposal pontific al records, though no longer being recorded on the whitened boards. Presented with this material in its barest form, Cn. Gellius might have found it attractive to elaborate on the bare bones outline of Roman history, and thus created a history where littl e hard evidence had survived. 219 The fragments cover a range of material from pre history to 146 on topics from earliest are extant only because Charisius was inter ested in the grammatical peculiarities found in Gellius. Beyond the sheer length of Cn. Gellius, and his grammatical oddities, however, we might mention several other defining characteristics. Firstly, the early books of Cn. Gellius focused on legends not only of Rome but also of wider Italy, perhaps in conscious imitation of (unsuccessful) imitator of Cato. 220 Cn. Gellius appears knowledgeable about Italian history more 217 Frag. 24 = Macrob. Sat 1.16.21 24. 218 Frag. 27 = Charisius Gramm. I, p. 69 B. 219 Wiseman 1979: 22 deduces i n Cn. Gellius a annales maximi afforded only names and dates of consuls and little else. Gellius, therefore, Wiseman sees, filled in the rest. Rawson 1976: 714 insists that neither Gellius nor the other annalists made much use of the annales maximi. Her earlier work (Rawson 1971) specifically takes on the topic of the use of these materials. 220 Chassignet 1999/2003: LIII. Contra : Rawson 1976: 715, who finds in Cn. Gellius none of C

PAGE 90

90 broadly, though the fragments preserve no stories beyond Italy itself, particularly central Italy. His fragments address the Sabines (frag. 6 in which Megales teaches the Sabines augury and frag. 10 on the origin of the Sabines), the Etruscans (frag 6 on Marsyas and Tarcho), and the Marsi especially, whose stories are recounted three times in fragments 6, 7, 8. His interest in these peoples suggests an Italian heritage for Cn. Gellius, which is possible, for the Gellii are not seen in Rome until th e second century. 221 Additionally, an enthusiasm for precision marks Cn. Gellius; several fragments incorporate specific dates, demonstrating a concern for chronology. 222 Missing from Gellius is a pre occupation with monuments, in which he differs from almo st all the earlier historians, including Piso. Nor does Cn. Gellius possess the heavy handed moralizing tone of Piso. Instead he seems to be content to tell good stories, of inventors and discoverers, such as Sol, the son of Ocean (frag. 4) who discovere d medicine in minerals, and Toxius (frag. 3), who discovered building with mud. As such these fragments echo an element of euhemerism found in the other early annalists, especially Cassius Hemina. Nonetheless, Cn. Gellius is worthy of note if only due to the vast size of his history, elaborating apparently more and more as the history progressed towards his own day. In his eagerness to fill out the framework of Roman history, his enthusiasm appears to have led to his ed it. Where he might not have found evidence, Cn. Gellius, perhaps relying on rhetorical practices of plausibility, added his own materials. Annalistic history no longer had to be a mere listing of events or names, but would be a framework for narrative even entertainment. 221 222 E.g., frags. 11, 18, and 20.

PAGE 91

91 In the second century Roman historians began to use a variety of forms, yet the annalistic form remained a favorite. Annales in Greek were still composed, but historiography in Latin was well underway, and was written first in the ann alistic form in Latin by Lucius Cassius Hemina etymologies and etiologies; little is known about Hemina himself, but it is appears that he held no magistracies, and t hus is the exception for writers of annalistic history in the second century. Calpurnius Piso, however, a politician with a long career, focused on the political and military, res internae and res externae Sempronius Tuditanus, likewise a politician, re history in annales but when it came time to have his own deeds commemorated, he apparently looked to poetry to do so. Lastly, Cnaeus Gellius composed a lengthy history, which provided a s, then, in the later second century each adapted this form, writing in Latin rather than Greek, and utilized it for his own purposes. None of these historians left a preface; in none of them is preserved any intentional statement regarding historiographi c aim. Yet something of their goals and their opinion of the form can be derived from the material which remains extant, and the context in which they wrote. All found the annalistic form a flexible medium which allowed them to emphasize various aspects of Roman history.

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 4 REVIVALISTS: ANNALISTS OF THE FIRST CENTURY In the first half of the first century prior to 63, the annalistic form coexisted alongside other historiographical forms. In addition to annales there were commentarii and one c ontemporary history which was almost a monograph. These works continued to help set the stage for later commentarii The use of annales in the first century, however, was not entirely expected. Between the second century and the early first century annalists, almost a generation had passed without anyone writing annals. The annalistic form had fallen out of favor in the co mpetition with histories that focused on a particular time or a particular methodology. Thus the writing of Roman history in annalistic form in the first century amounted to a revival of the tradition. These historians of the first century would renew th e form, bringing a focus on documentation, new sources, an interest in narrative and entertainment, as well as a non senatorial perspective. In the first century, the traditional annalistic form shaped the works of the three major historians, Q. Claudius Q uadrigarius, Valerius Antias, and Licinius Macer, known more for 223 Licinius Macer famously discovered the linen 223 On the first century historians, see, Badian 196 6: 18 23, Ogilvie 1965: 7 17, Wiseman 1981: 375 393; Conte 1994: 122, and von Albrecht 1997: 384 389. Aelius Tubero wrote Historiae sometime in the first century; both Lucius Aelius Tubero and Quintus Aelius Tubero have been at times identified as the aut hor, though current scholarship holds Quintus, the son of Lucius, as the author of a history at least fourteen books long. It was published well after the consulship of terminus post quem of 46 44 is indicated in Tubero frag. 4). As the youngest of four historians of the first century whom Livy uses, Tubero presented a different kind of history. Unlike his first century predecessors, Tubero wrote a historia rather than annales On Tubero, see Badian 1966: 22 23, von Albrecht 1997: 388, and Chassignet 2004: LXXVI LXXXI.

PAGE 93

93 books, a previously unknown or unused source. 224 some seventy five books, thus demonstrating received characteristics of Roman history writing: the annalistic form, the expansion of the past, and a focus on more recent events (possibly two thirds of his work dealt with more recent years). Quintus Claudius Q praise from Fronto, or rather his style of writing did. 225 interest for its variation in annalistic form; rather than begin ab urbe condita Quadrigarius chose a different starting point the sa ck of Rome by the Gauls in 390. Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius Q. Claudius Quadrigarius is the first annalist of the first century. 226 Velleius Paterculus (2.9.6) describes him as aequalis Sisennae but calls Rutilius Rufus and Valerius Antias aequales of Sisenna as well. As noted by Badian, Rutilius Rufus served as praetor in 118 and Sisenna held the same post some forty years later in 78, scarcely making the two of them aequales 227 Quadrigarius may be assumed to have flourished somewhere between the two. Not part of the gens Claudia as his cognomen demonstrates, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius probably came from Italian municipal aristocracy. 228 He held no offices nor undertook a military career. 224 Badian 1966: 22, and Frier 1975: 79 97. 225 Fronto ap Gell. NA 13.29.2. 226 Studies (and biographies): Peter 1914: CCLXXXV CCCIV; Zimmerer 1937; Klotz 1942; Walsh 19 61: 110 137; Badian 1966: 18 21; Frier 1979/1999: 122 126; Timpe 1979; Bastian 1983; von Albrecht 1997: 385; von Albrecht 1989: 86 101; Beck and Walter 2004: 109 111; Chassignet 2004: XXIII XXXVIII. 227 Ep p. 1 34, van den Hout) is equally unhelpful. He places Quadrigarius between Fabius Pictor and Valerius Antias in a list based on style and not on chronology. 228 Chassignet 2004: XXV. Badian 1966: 18 adds that he might have come from northern Italy because h is fragments show a knowledge of that topography. For Badian, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius is probably not the same Clodius mentioned by Cicero ( Leg. 1.6 chronological list of Roman historians, Clodius appears just before Macer. This Clodius is described by Cicero as similar to the ancient historians in their languor and clumsiness. Badian

PAGE 94

94 Quadrigarius thus stands apart from the tradition of senatorial hi storiography, and at the same time revived tradition by bringing back the annales Quadrigarius wrote one work of history, called annales almost everywhere. 229 Ninety seven fragments survive, with forty seven of them found in Aulus Gellius. 230 Nonius preserv es a further twenty four fragments. Another twelve fragments are extant in Livy, who used him extensively along with Valerius Antias. Twenty three books are attested. 231 Book 1 treats the siege of Rome by the Gauls (frags. 1 6), the war with Pyrrhus and t he onset of the First Punic War (frags. 40 42) fall in Book 3, the disaster at Cannae occurs in Book 5 (frag. 52), and the consulate of Q. Fabius Maximus (213) is found in Book 6 (frags. 56 57). Chassignet finds events from the years 197 169 very likely i n Book 7 (frags. 62 63 and 68), the Achaean war, and war versus the Lusitanian Viriathus in Book 8 (frags. 69 and 70), and the battle of Numantia in 133 in Book 9 (frag. 76). Book 13 recorded the end of the second century and the beginning of the first (f rag. 77), while Book 18 included the siege of Grumentum in the Social Wars (frag. 81). Book 19 covered the siege of Piraeus by Sulla (frags. 82a and 82b), the election of Marius to his seventh consulate (frag. 83), and such events as battle at Sacriportum and taking of Praeneste (frag. 85). What the remaining books contained is obscure, although a hypothesis poses the death of Sulla as a possible endpoint of the history. 232 Equally unclear is the date of publication; a date post Sulla is all that is certai Quadrigarius; their literary styles are not the same. Contra Wi seman 1979: 117 (and note 29) 229 There are few exceptions; two are found in frag. 48 (= Prisc. Inst 6, p. 232 H) and frag. 72 (= Diom. 1, p. 383 K), both of which name his work h istoriae 230 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 13 75; Peter 1914: 205 237 (96 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 112 167 (97 fragments) 231 Badian 1966:18 does not rule out the possibility of a twenty fourth book in which he proposes Quadrigarius continued to ab out 70. 232 E.g. Zimmerer 1937: 8. Chassignet 2004: XXVIII declares the suggestion unverifiable.

PAGE 95

95 is more certain; he devotes only nine books to the years from 390 to 133, a span of about two hundred and sixty years. The remaining twelve books cover a shorter period, the years 133 to circa 80, at corres pondingly greater length. Quadrigarius devoted more space to his own time, and in doing so passed quickly over key periods of Roman history, such as the Punic Wars, and important events such as the trial of the Scipios. 233 Moreover, the paucity of fragments, most of them peculiar words and word choices, conventions of such, b ut he avoids the traditional starting point of the foundation of Rome; Quadrigarius began his history with the sack of Rome by the Gauls in 390. That much is fairly clear; at least six fragments associated with his telling of that event are all placed by Gellius in Q. Claudio primo Annali (frags. 1 6). Why Quadrigarius chose to begin with 390 is not as clear cut. If the author of these annals can be identified with the Clodius of Plutarch in Numa 1.1 who commented on the untrustworthy nature of source ma terial prior to the sack of Rome in 390, Numa 1.1, a certain Clodius, author of Elenchos Chronon argued that all records of Roman history were lost when the Gauls sacked the city. Furt hermore, this Clodius contends, those ancient records which now tell of that time prior to the sack are mere forgeries, made up to please particular persons by inserting them among the noble families where they did not belong. 234 not the only one to assert the loss of the pre 390 sources. Livy (6.1.1 2) later also maintained that many of the sources pre dating 390 ( quae in commentariis pontificum aliisque publicis 233 history without purpose. 234 Plut. Num 1.1 3.

PAGE 96

96 privatisque erant ) were lost in the burning of the city. 235 s Clodius and Q. Claudius Quadrigarius were the same man, Quadrigarius might have written a similar introduction to his history. 236 A proem to his history does not, however, survive. In one Quadrigarius perhaps stated that he found his sources for the rega l years and early Republic less than credible. 237 Claudius Quadrigarius is indeed the only annalist who did not begin ab urbe condita If Quadrigarius can be associated with Clodius, such a stance towards questionable sources would provide insight into his methodology of writing history that he conducted research and evaluated sources, rather than merely compiling information. 238 Moreover, a rejection of those annal s before his. An annalistic form revised, and sources well considered, then provide function and purpose for his history. 390 material might have been a debate in the first century about the authen ticity of ancient records. Cicero ( Brut 62) and Livy (8.40.4 records, but more over the possible contamination and tampering of early records by plebeians 235 Whether those sources included the pontifical chronicle is not known; Livy said only pleraeque : 122 123 notes that the pontifical chronicle (later famously published as the annales maximi ) is in fact AR 7.1.6), thereby suggesting that the annales maximi were being referenced here. 236 Frier 1979/1999: 122 1 the Elenchos Chronon years. 237 So Frier 1979/1999: 123 ts with modern estimations of the importance of the annales maximi in the annalistic tradition. See further Rawson 1971 and Drews 1988. 238 Among those most in favor of this argument is Frier 1975: 92 95.

PAGE 97

97 with political hopes. Funeral eulogies, laudationes quamquam his laudationibus historia rerum nostrarum est facta mendosior; multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt: f alsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus. (Cic Brut. 62) Livy similarly expresses unease with laudationes: uitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallente mendacio trahunt; inde certe et singulorum gesta et publica monumenta rerum confusa. The resulting (and purposeful) confusion is seen not only in histori es of individuals but also, Livy complains, in the accounts of public events. Moreover, the debate over authenticity of historical records in the first century also reflected tensions between patricians and plebeians, as well as optimates and populares the years before 390 and implied denunciation of the tainted sources may constitute support of the patrician class as well. 239 A refutation of plebeian aspiratio ns would root the non senatorial Quadrigarius on the side of the optimates during the contentious years at the beginning of the first century. Fragment 80 (= Gell. NA 1.7.9) supposes a dedicatee at the beginning of book eighteen who belonged to the patric ian class. 240 Timpe draws attention to the term bonitas in that fragment, which he describes as a virtue possessed by a patron ( Patronstugend ). Such a reading posits Quadrigarius as a client to an unknown patrician, very possibly from the Claudii, 239 Frier 1975: 153 sees a patrician bent in Quadrig arius, as does Timpe 1979: 110. 240 and party politics in the Republic.

PAGE 98

98 and supp orts the hypothesis that Quadrigarius found early records untenable and even uncongenial. 241 With doubt cast on the authenticity of records, even the ancient ones including the pontifical chronicles, first century annalists, including Quadrigarius, relied le ss on these sources, and turned more to their more reliable older counterparts, the annalists before them, and their veteres annales 242 Their traditions were deemed more reliable than questionable ancient sources. In fact, the annales maximi are not once cited in the fragments of the annalists of the first century (nor are they named in Livy). 243 Therefore, first century annalists turned to different documentary sources to support the annalistic tradition. One of those sources is the libri lintei of Licini us Macer, to whom we will turn shortly. some material from earlier annalists, among them Acilius, according to Livy 25.39.11, in which a Claudius, probably Quadriga rius, is said to have translated the Greek books of Acilius into Latin. Additionally, like the other annalists of his century, Claudius bolstered his narrative with reference to documentation. 244 His non senatorial origin, however, might have made access t o such material more difficult than for his predecessors. 245 241 For example, Walsh 1961: 120 wonders if Claudius was displeased with the anti Claudian characte r of the early tradition. More strongly, Wiseman 1979: 57 76 demonstrates the existence of a pro Claudian tradition; while Quadrigarius is not named as author, and is indeed too early, Wiseman suspects, he surely would have participated in the shaping of that tradition. 242 Frier 1979/1999: 158 159. Liv. 10.9.12 calls Piso uetustior annalium auctor ; see also Liv. 4.20.8. Chassignet 2004: XXXII cites Bredehorn 1968: 91 92, who also believed Quadrigarius troubled about the veracity of his sources, and posed the acta of the Senate as a documentary source. 243 Frier 1979/1999: 152. 244 Frier 1979/1999: 150. 245 Chassignet 2004: XXXIII.

PAGE 99

99 attention. It regularly won him praise from the ancients. Gellius NA 9.13.4 commended his narrative of Manlius Torquatus (frag. 10b), calling it purissime atque inlustrissime simplicique et incompta orationis antiquae suavitate 246 In the same place Gellius remarked that the philosopher Favorinus also found the passage on Manlius moving, and declared that his mind was stirred by no less emotion than if he had been witnessing the event firsthand. Gellius ( NA 14.1.4) additionally has a character in his work identify Quadrigarius as optumus et sincerissimus scriptor wooden tower in Piraeus (frag. 82a). 247 NA 13.29. In a cum multis mortalibus versus the phrase cum multis hominibus man iudicii elegantissimi whose language is modesti atque puri ac prope Quadrigarius is extensive; forty them. Fronto deemed his writing lepide 248 Livy certainly used Quadrigarius and thereby conferred on him a certain fame. Twelve of 249 In the first decade of Livy, Quadrigarius is a chief source for Livy, who cites him four times in the second pentad. Quadrigarius appears once by name in the third decade (frag. 37 = Liv. 25.39.11 17), and in the fourth decade shows up seven times (frags. 62 68). Quadrigarius is not cited explicitly in the fifth decade. These fragments provide sou War. Livy primarily cites Quadrigarius (calling him Claudius) for casualty figures (e.g., frags. 246 Frag. 10b = Gell. NA 9.13.4 19. 247 Frag. 82a = Gell. NA 15.1.6. 248 Fronto, Ep ., p. 134, van den Hout. 249 Frags. 10a, 14, 18, 34, 57, and 62 68.

PAGE 100

100 62 64), yet casts doubt on his numbers by including figures proposed by othe r annalists such as In 6.42.4 5 (frag. 10a), for example, Livy is troubled by the fact that Quadrigarius placed the hand to hand battle of T. Manlius against an unnamed Gaul in the year 367. Displaying distrust in Quadrigarius, Livy announces his inclination to believe other accounts that date the event six years later. That instance was not the only time Livy registered apprehension with this source. In at least four of the twelve fragments in Livy, Livy himself openly discloses misgivings about When Livy relies on Quadrigarius, he does not always name his source. 250 For example, the story of Titus Manlius Torquatus, whose date from Quadrigarius Livy had rejected in 6.42, heavily from Quadrigarius f or his account. Elsewhere, however, Quadrigarius appears to take a back seat to Valerius Antias when Livy uses them both. 251 Quadrigarius remained an important but suspect source for Livy. Estimations of Quadrigarius vary significantly among modern scholars as well. Moderns exaggerated casualty figures, and discovered nothing original in Quadrigarius nor any profound 250 Walsh 1961: 114 137. Refer also to Chassignet 2004: XXXIV XXXV and footnote 173, for further citations on Livy and Quadrigarius, includin g Klotz 1940: 24 78. 251 See Walsh 1961: 133 134 and further citations there. Klotz 1940: 42 in particular cites Quadrigarius as secondary to Antias.

PAGE 101

101 principled objective. 252 what Quadrigarius wrote was less successful than how he wrote. 253 Some modern scholars fault him for manipulating the facts, f or being excessively patriotic, and for being uncritical. Others are less harsh; Timpe, in particular, sees him as a product of his age. According to Timpe, Claudius was less a historian and more a man of letters. 254 Valerius Antias The first century annal ist Valerius Antias shares many similarities with Q. Claudius cognomen suggests an affiliation with or an origin in Antium, and through that a status as a municipalis He held no offices nor had a military career. There survives no real evidence of a connection with the gens Valeria but, on the model of Quadrigarius, Antias could have had a client relationship with some branch of that family, since his history elevated the Valerian family in many instances. 255 When Antias lived and published his history is likewise uncertain. He does not appear in ( Leg 1.6 case of Quadrigarius, is of litt le help; Antias follows Quadrigarius, but since Fronto grouped 252 nave or ind Quadrigarius any social or factional bias. Henderson 1957: 83, however, sees Quadrigarius as a supporter of the populares in her reading of frag. 56 (= Gell. NA 2.2.13) in w hich the imperium of the consul is superior because it derives from the people ( imperium quod populi esset ). Frier 1979/1999, Walsh 1961, and Timpe 1979 all find a patrician tone to Quadrigarius. 253 Leeman 1963: 80 81 found the art of inventio more develo ped in the later annalists than elocutio 254 Chassignet 2004: XXXVII, and Timpe 1979: 103 105. 255 St udies (and biographies): Mnzer 1891: 54 71; Mnzer 1897; Peter 1914: CCCV CCCXXXIII; Volkmann 1948: 2313 2340; Walsh 1961: 115 151; Badian 1966: 21; Cloud 1977; Frier 1979/1999: 188 189 and 150 152; Timpe 1979; Wiseman 1979: 112 117; von Albrecht 1997: 3 85 386; Wiseman 1998: 75 89; Chassignet 2001; Forsythe 2002; Beck and Walter 2004: 168 171; and Chassignet 2004: LXIII LXXV.

PAGE 102

102 Roman historians more by style and less by chronology, such a marking adds little. 256 Velleius Paterculus (2.9.6) describes both Quadrigarius and Antias as contemporaries of Sisenna. Fragment 6 5, the last datable fragment, provides a terminus post quem of 91. 257 258 Newer arguments for the publication of Antias, however posit a later date, a terminus post quem of 66, and s ome range as late as 46. Through a close reading of Livy (4.23.1 3), in which Livy cites Antias, Licinius Macer, and Q. Tubero, it seems likely that Antias was writing about the year 464, after Macer and before Tubero. Macer, whom we will consider later, committed suicide in 66 after being prosecuted for maladministration; his history was probably not finished at his death (Livy, for example, uses Macer only in his first decade), and published shortly after. 259 Tubero likely wrote towards the end of Caesar third band in 45. 260 Antias thus was working on his history between 66 and 46. 261 That Cicero does not mention him in his de Legibus senatorial historians may also explain his 256 Fronto Ep ., p. 134, van den Hout. 257 Frag. 65 = Plin. HN r Lucius Crassus (who died in 91; see Cic. De or. 3.1) 258 E.g., Peter 1914: CCLXXXV; Volkmann 1943: 2313; Walsh 1961: 115; Ogilvie 1965: 12; Badian 1966: 35; Timpe 1979: 97; Oakley 1997: 89. 259 Forsythe 2002: 101. 260 Q. Aelius Tubero frag. 4 (= Dion. Ant. Rom 80.1 3). See also Forsythe 2002: 101. 261 Forsythe 2002: 102 opts for a broader frame of 70 to 40, and Wiseman 1979: 121 goes as far culmination for the vein of Clau dian contempt Antias exhibited and the politically polar opposite of the Valerii who were always constitutional. Chassignet 2001 and Cloud 1977 both agree with a later date. Chassignet 2001: 63 proposes a publication date of 52 50. Cloud 1977: 225 227 p roposes a very late date; he calls Antias a Caesarian author, and even has him writing in the 30s.

PAGE 103

103 absence. 262 And in the Brutus incl between 52 and 46 Cicero read Antias. And while a late date for the publication puts Antias beyond the parameters of this dissertation, the lingering uncertainty over the late publication mandates the discussion of Antias here. Moreover, Antias remains regularly grouped with the 263 seven fragments. 264 These witness to a history that treated Rome from its origin (frags. 1 14) down to the first century in at least seventy five books (frag. 64). 265 Its considerable size dwarfs all of the histories of the fragmentary historians, annalists or otherwise, except for Cn. Gellius. 266 In addition to the founding of the city and the period of the kings, fragments treat the early years of the Republic (frags. 18 22), the Punic Wars (frags. 23 31), and the second century (frags. 32 64). 267 Recent scholarship has assisted in clarifying uncertainties regardin datable fragment that also includes an indication of the book in which it belonged. 268 This fragment, cited by Aulus Gellius 6.9.12 as falling in Book 22, appears to allude to the quaestorship of Tiberius Gracchus in 136, suggesting that Antias covered the years from 136 262 Chassignet 2004: LXV, and in particular, Badian 1966: 20. 263 264 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 104 1 50; Peter 1914: 238 275 (66 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 172 240 (67 fragments). 265 Frag. 63 (= Gell. NA 6.9.17). 266 Chassignet 2004: LXIX points out that compared to Livy, this number of books does not need to be treated as extraordinary. 267 Chassign et 2004: LXVIII lays out the scheme. 268 seven fragments, only these indicate book citations: frags. 7 8, 9b, 15 17, and 58 63.

PAGE 104

104 down to 91 in some fifty three books. 269 Such a degree of attention paid to contemporary times is unprecedented. In view of this fact, Mnzer presented a startling statistic the ratio between time spent on the ancient epoch versus modern times comes to 1/4 in Livy and 1/30 in Antias. 270 Fragment 58, however, now is seen as referring not to 136 but rather to the peace treaty after Caudine Forks in 321. 271 2 would then have reached the year 321 rather than the year 136, meaning that the remaining fifty three books covered a longer span of time and devoted less time to the more contemporary period. This scenario seems more reasonable because no other annalis t devoted so many books to present time. Other fragments, once difficult to place, have found homes now. 272 Fragment 61 (= Gell. NA 6.9.9) is reported by Gellius to have been excerpted from Book 45, and alludes to a trial of perduellio and a day arranged f or an assembly by the praetor M. Marcius. Because the praenomen Marcus was rare in the Marcii family, and the only known praetor with such a name was M. Marcius Ralla who served in 204, fragment 61 allows us then to assume that Antias treated the year 204 in Book 269 MRR I: 485 prefers a date of 137. Forsythe 2002: 105 106 disagrees with a date of 136/7 for frag. 58, and affirms instead that the fragment alludes to peace after Caudine Forks in 321. Thus Forsythe finds a more plausible disposition of material across the seventy five books, wit h fifty three books treating over two hundred twenty years. Another hypothesis, less successful, posed by incorrect, and they correctly belong in books XV and XXV. P fourth book, however, makes such an identification difficult. That two different sources, Gellius and Priscian, both speak of books numbering in the seventies provides some certainty. 270 Mnzer 1897: 479. Chassignet 2004: L greater emphasis on the conte mporary period than Livy. Cato, however, as Chassignet 2004: LXXI challenges, devoted four out of seven books to contemporary times. 271 Forsythe 2002: 104 105. 272 See primarily Forsythe 2002: 104 108 (on seven different fragments) and Wiseman 1998: 75 89.

PAGE 105

105 45. 273 Fragment 62 (= Prisc. Inst 9, p. 489 H) cites a seventy fourth book, and is generally interpreted as referring to a ritual purification ceremony dating to 120. Fragment 63, from Book 75, traditionally has been associated with Q. Marcius Re 274 Roman history on a scale much like Cn. Gellius had done in the second century. More interestingly, in their handling of the third and s econd centuries, Antias is much like Livy in his own extensive annals. There is little doubt that Antias wrote in the annalistic form. Only six fragments preserve a title to his work; two use the title Annales two Historia and two Historiae 275 Five ins tances of its title survive in Gellius who used all three variations without differentiation. One explanation the form of annales and the more recent per iod in the form of historia 276 Yet Gellius used the title annales historia of Romulus. 277 the descrip tion historia as part of the distrust in annalistic sources in the late Republic which Quadrigarius had perceived. 278 Additionally, the infamy of certain works called annales such as the cacata charta the annales of Volusius, and others, might have impart ed a less than desirable association with the title. 279 In terms of form, as an annalist, Antias preserved annalistic 273 Mnzer 1897: 470, and Forsythe 2002: 104. 274 Peter 1914: 274, and Forsythe 2002: 104. 275 Annales : frags. 17 (= Prisc. Inst 7, p. 347 H) and 61 (= Gell. NA 6.9.9); Historia : frags. 3 (= Gell. NA 7.7.6) and 22 (= Gell. NA 3.8.1 4); Historiae : frags. 58 (= Gell. NA 6.9.12) and 63 (= Gell. NA 6.9.17). 276 Chassignet 2004: LXXI. 277 Respectively referring to frag. 61 and frag. 3. 278 Frier 1979/1999: 218. 279 Catullus 36: annales Volusi, cacata charta ; Frier 1979/1999: 218.

PAGE 106

106 traditions such as beginning ab urbe condita treating the early years of Rome, proceeding chronologically from beginning to end, providing etymologies and etiologies (e.g., frags. 1 3), names of magistrates (e.g., frag. 20) and details of res internae and externae Whereas Gellius was fond of Quadrigarius and preserved almost half of his fragments, he is less sanguine about Antias. Gellius did not charm Gellius or the other grammarians as previous annalists had. In fact, the grammarians are silent on Antias. Antias rather was known to the ancients, and primarily to Livy, for content invenuste ). 280 Plutarch, Dionysus, and Pliny the Elder, for example, used his work. 281 Livy, of course, constitutes our major source for Antias, preserving thirty istory seventy five books long, Antias offered much (and recent) material to his successors. 282 Antias appears, mentioned by name and thus both credited and culpable, in the first, third, fourth, and fifth decades of Livy, and even in the Periochae 283 In the third decade, Livy follows Antias on the campaigning in Italy after Cannae, alongside Coelius Antipater, and more extensively at the end of the decade (five times in Book 39). In the fourth and fifth decades, Liv y used Antias for details on western affairs and Italian 280 Fronto Ep ., p. 134, van den Hou t. Leeman 1963: 81 281 E.g., Plutarch: frags 5, 9a, and 13; Dionysius: frag. 4; Pliny the Elder: frags. 9b, 12, 16, 65, and 67 These direct citations of Antias by name are only part of the use of Antias by these historians. See further Chassignet 2004: LXXIV and Peter 1914: CCCXXVI. 282 See Klotz 1940: 278 280; Walsh 1961: 121 122, 127, 133 153; Wiseman 1979: 113 118, and Oakle y 1997: 89 90. 283 First decade: frags. 20 and 21; third decade: frags. 24 25, 27 31; fourth decade; frags. 32 37, 39 50; fifth decade: frags. 40, and 51 55; and Periochae : frag. 64.

PAGE 107

107 the v 5), Livy is unable to discern reliable figures for hostages (and more) after the sacking of New Carthage, and is forced to offer ion with his historical sources is evident in his proclamation in fragment 25, adeo nullus mentiendi modus est directed more at Antias than his Greek source. Further, Livy finds no agreement among his sources for amount of money taken, and finally, perha ps exasperatedly, settles for suggesting that figures halfway between two extremes are closest to the truth ( si aliquis adsentiri necesse est, media simillima ueri sunt ). 284 Elsewhere, Livy accused Antias of lying (frag. 10), expressed uncertainty with his source (frag. 20), and accused Antias of making things up impudenter (frag. 30). three books encompassing a mere forty years, indeed the sheer volume of the history has produced suspicion that he filled out those years by inventing, stretching, and even falsifying casualty figures, though trustworthy casualty figures are not oriously difficult to come by. 285 Antias additionally employed the rhetorical method of inventio including plausible, if not verifiably true, material to elaborate on a story. The training of a historian in Rome, even a non senatorial one such as Antias, would have included a study of rhetoric, and thus the addition of narrative for ornamentation would not have been viewed as unusual. And yet Cicero, that lover of ornamentation and history with style, also declared that the one base rule of history writin g 284 Liv. 26.49.6, which immediately follows upon frag. 25 but is not includ ed in the fragment. 285 Not all have found Antias guilty of exaggeration. LaRoche 1977, 1984, and 1988 examines

PAGE 108

108 was not to lie, to tell the truth. 286 287 of documents and facts (even undocume nted consulships). In his tale of the burning of the books of Numa, for example, Antias cited a Senate document that ordered the burning (frag. 16= Plin. HN (3.4 5 ), a fictitious prorogation appears to have been derived from Antias as well. 288 gens Valeria with whom he might have had a client relationship. Thus, for example, he created a senatorial an cestor for himself, L. Valerius Antias, who held a post during the Second Punic War. He invented at least one consulship for the Valerius who was present when the Magna Mater statue was received in Rome. 289 He may even have been the author of the version of the same story in which not Quinta Claudia, but Valeria, greeted the goddess on her arrival in Rome. 290 Moreover, elements of the Valerian tradition surface in key moments of early Roman history from the treaty between Romulus and the Sabines to Coriolanus in 488. Traced first by Mnzer in 1891, Valerius Antias appears responsible for the highlighting of the Valerian gens which is found in a variety of authors including Plutarch, Dionysius, and 286 Cic. De or. 2.62: Nam quis nescit primam esse historiae legem, ne quid falsi dicere audeat 287 Badian 1966: 21. 288 Forsythe 2002: 110. 289 See Liv. 29.11.3; 29.11.8, 29.14.5; and 30.23.5. On fictitious consulships of Marcus Valerius Laevinus and legates in the Valerian tradition, see Wiseman 1979: 57 61 and 114 15, as well as his no tes there. Broughton 1952 I: 277 notes one consulship for Laevinus in 210. 290 In the hostile Claudian tradition, pro Valerian passages, actions and deeds often are present. On the Valerian tradition, and its corollary, this hostile Claudian tradition, se e sources in the next note. For a tabular view of the ups and downs of the Claudian and Valerian families in the 60s and 50s, when Wiseman sees Antias still writing, see Wiseman 1979: 132.

PAGE 109

109 Livy. 291 function and purpose for his work, which would have been published not too long after Claudius Quadrigarius, at most 30 years. If Antias is indeed the author or keeper of the hostile Claudian tradition and pro Valerian tradition, his work can be viewed le ss as a literary exercise and more as a politically charged attempt at magnifying the historical importance of one family and even historical validity. In the for credibility, validity and ulti mately for gain, personal and public. annales thus makes perfect sense. The annalistic form by convention kept Rome at the center, but could also track the efforts of individuals and families on behalf of tha the same time showcase the enduring legacy and contributions made by specific families across a long stretch of time. Yet this is not to say that either Quadrigarius or Antias wrote a history that was a biography of a family; both men amply displayed a broader Roman patriotism throughout their works. The annalistic form provided a means to write of Roman history, to provide a full and ample narrative, and contextualize contributions within a larger scheme. If we can say that Antias, in particular, wrote to praise a family, the annalistic form is appropriate and effective because it allows a longitudinal study rather than the compact period a monograph would necessitate. The portrait of an enduring family in an enduring Rome would sit well with a Roman audience. The annalistic form added gravitas Further the use of a traditional and authoritative format itself provided credibility to two historians who came from a non senatorial background. 291 de Gente Valeria (Berlin) was follow ed by his article in 1897, and more recently reaffirmed by Wiseman 1979: 113 139 and especially Wiseman 1998: 75 89, who examines twelve appearances of the Valerian family in early Republican history, and finds the hand of Antias in each.

PAGE 110

110 Licin ius Macer Licinius Macer, on the contrary, had no such need to assert credibility. From a distinguished plebeian family, Licinius Macer was the first senator since the second century to write a history of Rome ab urbe condita in the annalistic form. Fath er of the poet and orator Calvus and descendant of the public serving Licinii, Macer was triumvir monetalis in 84, quaestor at an unknown date, tribune of the plebs in 73, praetor in 68, and provincial governor the next year. In 66 he was prosecuted for e xtortion in his administration of his province (Cic. Att 1.4.2), and shortly after being found guilty (though defended by Licinius Crassus), he committed suicide (Val. Max. 9.12.7). 292 six fragments r emain from a work that numbered at least sixteen books. 293 The extent of each book is unclear; allusions to the to do with the foundation of Rome and the rega l period, and Book 2, cited by Priscian (frag. 21), alludes to Pyrrhus. Livy does not mention Macer after the year 299 (frag. 20). 294 Fragment 23 in citation of interest in the regal years, it is unlikely that he covered Roman history from the regal years to 272 in just one book. Though Macer was an orator as well, Cicero faults him for his loquacitas and thus it is scarcely likely that Macer raced through early Republican history in just one book, 292 Studies (and b iographies): Peter 1914: CCCL CCCLXV; Mnzer 1926: 419 435; Ogilvie 1958, Frier 1975; Frier 1979/1999: 153 158; Hodgkinson 1997; Walt 1997; Beck and Walter 2004: 314 317; and Chassignet 2004: L LXIII. On his offices, see Broughton 1952 II: 110 and 138. 293 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 89 103; Peter 1914: 298 307 (25 fragments); Walt 1997: 196 211 (26 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 318 345 (26 fragments). Frag. 23 (= Prisc. Inst 10, p. 525H) cites a sixteenth book. 294 Frag. 20 = Liv. 10.9.10 11.

PAGE 111

111 though Cicero did not speak of the content or scope of the work. 295 Yet, a cursory attention to the early years could suggest an arrangem ent in which Macer devoted most of the remaining books to his own period. If, however, Macer did treat the later years of the Republic, the fact s new documentary sources. 296 annales form. All references to his history title it Annales with the exception of one in Macrobius, who uses the term historia 297 history (as only annalists had done) and regal period, listed triumphs and military events, and recorded regularly the magistrates of each year (e.g., frags. 14 18). An antiquarian interest is unmistakable in the Romulean fragments in which he displayed an inter est in early institutions (e.g., frag. 7 on the establishment of the dictatorship). 298 Intentional statements regarding his choice of form do not survive: no proem, prelude or His sour ces, however, suggest not only a reason why he adopted the annales form, but motivations behind his writing. A senator with presumably better access to documentation than his contemporaries Quadrigarius and Antias, Licinius Macer discovered the so called libri lintei 295 Cic. L eg. 1.6 7. The paucity of historical fragments of Macer inhibits a sure estimation of his style; the grammarians show little interest in him. Only seven out of twenty six fragments are found in the grammarians. Leeman 1963: 82 83 therefore does not judg loquacitas is one poets, including Catullus, who favored an d followed Hellenistic models and examples. On Licinius Macer as an orator, see Cic. Brut Malcovati 1979: 357 358. 296 118 and Chassignet 2004: LV LVI (who notes that after book twenty Livy chiefly followed Polybius). 297 Citations of the title annales : frags. 8, 9, 22, 23. In frag. 26 (= Ioann. Malal. Chron 7, p. 179 180 Dind [= p. 285 287 Migne]) Macer is called a chronographos Macrobius alone uses historia in frag. 2 (= Macrob. Sat 1.10.17). 298 Walt 1997: 169 183 finds antiquarianism a central feature; frag. 7 = Dion. Ant. Rom 5.74.4.

PAGE 112

112 the linen books, in the Temple of Juno Moneta. 299 As triumvir monetalis Macer had access to the temple where he found preserved on linen lists of senior magistrates. No one had seen them or used them before. The surviving fragments of Macer do not tell us about the books; we do not know how they came to the temple, how they were preserved, or why the information on them sometimes diverged from other sources. 300 Nowhere but Livy and once in Dionysius are the linen books mentioned. 301 Macer beli eved them authentic, and against the backdrop of debate and concern over the veracity of other earlier sources such as the annales maximi and the annalistic tradition itself (as evidenced by Quadrigarius), he used this new source to provide credibility for skepticism, yet his use of the linen books suggests that his history of Rome was to be more trustworthy. In this case, form plus source can suggest purpose and function on ce again. Livy cites Macer seven times in the first decade; three of these citations include a reference to both the linen books and Macer. 302 A fourth mention (Liv. 4.13.7) does not name Macer but refers only to the linen books. According to Livy (4.20.8) the linen books were libri magistratuum Moneta, which was dedicated in 344 (Liv. 7.28.6). Around 270, the temple became home to the Roman mint, probably not out of any cult rea sons but due merely to the location of the temple on 299 On the libri lintei see Ogilvie 1958, Palmer 1970, Frier 1975, Frier 1979/1999: 153 158, and Sailor 2006. Hodgkinson 1997: 23 34 traces the scholarship on them from Niebuhr in 1811 through Mommsen, Soltau, Mnzer, Klotz, Ogilvie, Badian, Frier, Wiseman, and Oakley, noting that early skepticism of the libri lintei monograph on Macer was not available to Hodgkinson. Walt also accepts the libri 300 Walt 1997: 83 84 (and Frier 1975: 88) recognizes the sacredness of the linen books; their eligious context. Meadows and Williams 2001 see instead a connection with the censors. 301 Dion. Ant. Rom 4.2. References in Livy are discussed in the following paragraph. 302 Frags. 14, 15, and 16.

PAGE 113

113 the arx. 303 The linen books contained a list of magistrates; surviving references to the linen books record only magistrates within the period 444 428. 304 Presumably the list carried on down e. Whether the linen books actually date to the fifth century or were a later copy is unclear; difficulties include the question of the preservation of the linen material itself. 305 Possibly the linen books were a copy placed in the temple after its dedicat ion, and thus date to 344, or after its conversion to a mint. the books are cited in Livy. The signal characteristic about the linen books is their independence from and yet support of the annalistic tradition. In each case in Livy, the linen books are notable in that they augment in some manner the annalistic tradition and pontifical records. For example, in Livy 4.7.10 12 (= frag. 14), Macer provided the names of t he consules suffecti of 444, elected to replace the previous consular tribunes who had been forced to abdicate; these same consules suffecti in 444 also served to ratify a treaty made with Ardea. Yet these men do not appear in any other annalist before Ma cer, nor does the treaty with Ardea. A closer study, however, reveals that Macer sought to integrate his new material into the annalistic tradition and the traditional lists and not to reject that tradition. When the names from his linen books did not co incide with the names supplied by the fasti Macer created a compromise position. 306 303 Thomsen 1961: 291. For a recent survey on the temple itself, its topographic location, and its connection to the mint and why the libri lintei were placed there, see Meadows and Williams 2001. Meadows and Williams posit that a complex of buildings in the northwest end of the Forum and on the Capitoline, co brought together the creation, production and storage of coins and measures and weights, and libri lintei mor es of Rome, in addition to their regular assessment of wealth, they propose, might not preclude the keeping of other documents such as the libri lintei 304 Frier 1975: 88. 305 Frier 1975: 88 and Frier 1979/1999: 155. 306 The specifics of this argument can be found at Frier 1975: 88 90.

PAGE 114

114 Elsewhere in Livy, the linen books and the veteres annales work in tandem and the one confirms the other (e.g., frag. 16= Liv. 4.20.8). The libri lintei acted as an indepe ndent source confirming and attesting to the accuracy of the pontifical chronicle and the annalistic tradition they supported. 307 cted the reliability of the annalistic tradition, and, as we have noted, began his history with the sack of Rome in 390. Macer, conversely, started his history ab urbe condita and found a new documentary source to supplement and moreover guarantee the ac curacy and credibility of the very sources Quadrigarius had faulted. In the first century, Rome would benefit from a history, written by a senator, which drew its material from a new source that confirmed the veracity of the older material. 308 In addition, Macer surely was Clodius) charged plebeian families with tampering of historical sources and inserting themselves an Licinii, who had, in fact, held Macer would have wanted to set the record straight, as it were, for his family and for the plebeians. 309 He did this by employ ing a new source for his history and, further, by singing the 307 Not all are sanguine about the authenticity of the libri lintei ; see Chassignet 2004: LIX, note uncertainty in Livy 4.23.3 ( L icinio libros haud dubie sequi linteos placet: Tubero incertus veri est ) is concerned more with their reliability and less their authenticity; cf. Ogilvie 1958: 46. 308 Macer also drew on a literary source, the annals of Cn. Gellius, with whom he is asso ciated three times (frag. 10, 12 13) as preserved in Dionysius. Macer may have used Gellius because of his lengthy description of early Rome. As noted in Chapter 2, Cn. Gellius covered a mere two hundred some years in twelve books. 309 Frier 1975: 95. O n pre 390 magistracies of the Licinii, see Broughton 1952 I: 15 (year 493, two Licinii as tribunes of the plebs) and I: 24 (year 481, Sp. Licinius as tribune of the plebs). Frier 1975: 95 even suggests that Macer ended his history in 287, and thus his wor k dramatically

PAGE 115

115 praises of the Licinii. Livy (7.9.3) indeed criticizes him for doing just that: propriae familiae laus leuiorem auctorem Licinium facit 310 more clearly displayed outside the annals in his actions versus the Sullan restrictions on tribunician potestas and in his speeches, one of which Sallust ( Hist 3.48) purports to preserve. Whether or not this speech, which has Macer emphatically advocate plebeian rights, correctly characterizes Macer is unknown. The not an inspiring presence but excellent at arranging and organizing a speech ( Brut. 238). Sallust has Mace r begin his speech ( Hist 3.48 Maur.) with a notice that he did not have enough time to elaborate on the past (great) history of the plebs. Macer continues with a vehement attack on the servitium 311 Additionally, f ragments of two actual speeches, one the Oratio pro Tuscis and another against Rabirius, manifest sympathy with ideas of the populares championing and populares supporting, is not wholly untrue. 312 differed from other histories in that it treated and emphasized plebeian accomplishments during the Struggle of the Orders. 310 animum spirat 311 On Sallust and Macer, see Earl 1961: 107 108; Syme 1964: 200 201 207, 209; Ogilvie 1965: 7 12, and Frier 1975: 95. 312 Chassignet 2004: LII LIII. Peter 1914: 307 includes a fragment from the speech on behalf of the Etruscans in his collected fragments of Licinius Macer (frag. 26 Peter = Prisc. Inst 10, p. 532 H). B oth Beck and Walter 2004 and Chassignet 2004 exclude this speech fragment from their editions of the fragments of his annales See instead Malcovati 1979: 357 358 for the speech fragments. Henderson 1957: 85 sees in all the Sullan annalists, Macer includ popularis orthodoxy of the seventies an ideal supremacy of the People, with no detriment to s consistent with the portrayal of Macer in Sallust, and that the historian very likely shared those same beliefs. Hodgkinson 1997: 1 6 summarizes the scholarship. Walt 1997, while not rejecting the view of Macer as a popularis rightly confines her stud y of the historian to the fragments themselves. She argues, correctly, that the fragments do not attest to a historian protecting the rights of plebeians but rather

PAGE 116

116 The salutary combination of a new source and a cause to champion provided clear motives tell the story of Rome (and his gens ) from its beginnings with accura cy. The annalistic form, rooted in Rome, traditional and proper, was the correct form for the senator Macer. Well received by the historians Livy and Dionysius ( Ant. Rom. 1.7.3) and used by others including Macrobius and the author of Origo Gentis Romana e 313 The annalists of the first century, Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, and Licinius Macer, produced different annales each with a specific motivation. Quadrigarius, the first annalist in two generations to use the form, wrote a history of Rome which began in 390 the early years, and throughout his history elevated the Valerian gens with which he might have had a client relationship. Licinius Macer, the only senator of the three, and probably writing between Quadrigarius and Antias, bettered them by doing more in covering more time, employing a new source, and extolling his gens He wrote a history that he believed was based on accurate sources, the linen books, which upheld the annalistic tradition and the pontifical chronicles, and demonstrate a historian who was interested in antiquarianism and the establishment of inst itutions and rituals. That aspect of Macer is not, however, under attack here. Her position but perhaps more so for the modern historian. Certainly Roman h istorians, from Fabius Pictor on (and especially Cato and certainly the authors of the commentarii ) wrote at least with their not equivocally depict him as a raging defender of plebeian popularis stance which his political activities had demonstrated. Hodgkinson 1997: 35 44 treats the breadth of populares Moreover, Hodgkinson 1997: 57 65 notes the political agitation of earlier members of the Licinii gens some of whom also served in the tribunate, and sees in the m a long standing commitment to support of the plebs. 313

PAGE 117

117 further praised his family. Since those Licinii had held positions in early Rome, Macer chose to begin ab urbe condita A c ursory glance at the existence of three annalists working across about three decades in the first century would assume that they duplicated each other. Yet these three annalists found unique motivations for using the annalistic form. Whether they wrote o long time service to Rome or the use of a new source or rejection of others, the annales were the preferred medium for each historian. In the first century, just before Livy produced his annals of Rome, the annals which would re nder obsolete all others, historians had revivified the traditional form.

PAGE 118

118 CHAPTER 5 INNOVATORS: WRITERS OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, RES GESTAE MONOGRAPHS, COMMENTARII In the second and first centuries, the Romans practiced other types of historiography a longside annales During the second century, while some wrote annals in Greek and some in Latin, historians such as G. Fannius, Sempronius Asellio, Cato, and L. Coelius Antipater judged the annalistic form as deficient, and took up different forms, contem porary histories, res gestae and monographs, as alternative means of both preserving and shaping history. In the first century, the historians M. Aemilius Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Lutatius Catulus and Sulla took up another new form, commentarii an d L. Cornelius Sisenna wrote contemporary history. Against the backdrop of mid to late Republican Rome, these historians chose a variety of new As we have seen, the Romans viewed annals differently from other form s of history, in content, form, and style. Among later sources, Isidore claimed that inter historiam autem et annales hoc interest, quod historia est eorum temporum quae vidimus, annales vero sunt eorum annorum quos aetas nostra non novit (Isid. Etym 1.4 4.4). Servius auctus and Verrius Flaccus, also late, commented similarly. 314 Aulus Gellius, too, distinguished between the two, annales and historia proposing that a nnals contained the history of a period not experienced by the author, while historia on the other hand, was about events in which the narrator participated. 315 The ancients also perceived a difference in style. Annales recorded events in chronological sequence, normally ab urbe condita usually focusing more on the early years and beginnings, in narrative fashion but without elaboration and connections. Historia meant contemporary history, while res gestae which briefly sketched the origins of Rome and focused on current events, fell 314 Servius auct. ad Aen I.373 and Verrius Flaccus in Gell. NA 5.18.2. 315 Gell. NA 5.18.1.

PAGE 119

119 in between annales and historia Monographs treated one t opic. The forms differed from annales in that they focused on a shorter period of time, emphasized the mechanisms of cause and effect, and aimed for literary polish. The above mentioned historians pursued these goals by turning their backs on the annalis tic format. Their perceptions of the advantages of these different forms survive in some cases, particularly in the words of Asellio, Cato, and Sisenna. Caius Fannius A certain Caius Fannius wrote a history sometime around the last quarter of the second century; his identity is unclear. 316 In the Brutus, Cicero distinguishes between C. Fannius, son of Caius, and C. Fannius, son of Marcus. 317 The former, according to Cicero, was a tribune of the plebs and consul (in 122); the latter was the son in law of Lae lius and the author of the Annales Cicero appears to have misrepresented these men; current scholarship holds that C. Fannius, son of Marcus, was all three: the son in law of Laelius, the consul of 122, and also the annalist. 318 Fannius thus held a privi leged position in Roman society. Connected to Laelius, consul in 140, and to the so called Scipionic circle that included Polybius, he was encouraged to study under Panaetius, the Stoic philosopher, by his father in law. 319 Connected also to Tiberius 316 Studies (and biogra phies): Peter 1914: CXCIII CXCIX; Bardon 1952: Badian 1966: 14 15; von Albrecht 1997: 379 380; Beck and Walter 2001: 340 341; Suerbaum 2002: 425 427; and Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII XL. 317 Cic. Brut 99 100. 318 On the complexities of this identification, see Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII XXV, especially footnote 150, which concisely lays out the ancient texts and modern interpretations. later became consul) the son of Marcus in Att 16.13a, yet in the Brutus he calls him the son of in law (in Amic. 3 and Brut 100, and in Att 12.5b.3). The existence of a Caius Fannius who served as part of a senatorial commi ssion to Crete in 113 appears to have confused Cicero. The consul of 122 was indeed the son of Marcus, as shown in an inscription found in 1851 ( CIL I 1 560 = I 2 658 = VI, 1, 306 = ILLRP 269). Cicero corrected his mistake in ad Att 12.5b.3, calling the son in law of Laelius the historian. As in de Amicitia and the Somnium Scipionis 319 Cic. Brut 101.

PAGE 120

120 Gracc hus with whom he participated in the assault on Carthage in 146, Fannius received backing from Gracchan supporters during his campaign for the consulship in 122. 320 Indeed Fannius was elected primarily due to the backing of Caius Gracchus. In the year Fann ius acted as consul (with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus as co consul), Caius Gracchus was tribune. In his program of reform, Caius Gracchus proposed to offer citizenship to the Latins and Latin status to the Italian allies. Ultimately this plan destroyed the collaboration between Fannius and Gracchus; Fannius de sociis et nomine Latino 321 Cicero called this speech sane et bonam et nobilem ( Brut 99), and even labe led it the best of its time. 322 Annales is of particular importance because its scope was markedly different from those of the annalists before him. Nine fragments remain. 323 Four fragments specifically title Fannius Annales 324 The few fragments with identified 325 To have been accorded the title Annales by the ancients, the work must have provided at least an overview of the foundation of Rome, regal period, and early Republic in keeping with annalistic 320 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4.5. Fannius was also praetor, though the date is uncertain. It is usually dated sometime between 133 and 127 (cf. Broughton 1952 I: 509, footnote 2.). 321 Fragments of this speech are collected in Malcovati 1979: 142 144. 322 Cic. Brut 100: oratio autem vel optima esset illo quidem tempore orati onum omnium 323 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 44 47; Peter 1914: 139 141 collects 9 as well; Beck and Walter 2001: 342 346 include eight fragments, excluding the fragment deriving from Cic. Att 12.5.3 which refers to an epitome of Fannius made by Brutus 324 Frags. 1, 2, 3, 5. 325 Fragments treating grammatical issues: frags. 2, 3, and 8. Badian 1966: 14 notes that all 1999/2003: XXXVII holds that lack of eviden ce does not mean Fannius limited his work to the Gracchan period.

PAGE 121

121 tradition, though none of that now remains. 326 The length of the history is not known. The only indications of books in the fragments are two references to an eighth boo k, both of which that point. 327 Drepanum, might suggest, however, that in Book 8 Fann ius might have been examining the First Punic War or at least the site of that naval disaster of 249 and later victorious siege of 241. Later fragments referring to the Gracchan age show that his history continued to his present time. h contemporary events marks him as a non traditional annalist and more of a contemporary historian. Indeed Fannius recalls Cato, who several decades earlier had dispensed with writing about the early period of Roman history, and moved on to topics of more interest to him. For Fannius, contemporary history, and especially the Gracchi, with whom he fragments (frags. 4, 5, 6, and 7) describe events and/or people dating to the Gracchan age, three other fragments are preserved only for diction, and the remaining two fragments speak of Two of the four fragments relating to contemporary period (frags. 4 and 5) mention Tiberius G racchus by name. Fragment 4 (=Plut. Ti. Gracch. that he himself was right behind Tiberius as he scaled the walls. Fannius p raises his friend, and the Plutarchean practice of depicting his protagonists as larger than life, mostly through the use 326 327 Frag. 2 = Charisiu s Gramm. I, p. 158B, and frag. 3 = Schol. Veron. Ad Verg. Aen. 3.707.

PAGE 122

122 of stories and anecdotes such as th is. Fragment 5 offers less regarding the specific content in Brut 81), Cicero tells us that Fannius preserved a speech of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, and many other speeches, including on e against Tiberius Gracchus. 328 This fragment, unfortunately, contains no value judgment of with the Gracchi. Elsewhere Cicero ( Brut 101) offers some information allowing a cursory regarding his role in the turbulent years of the Gracchi. They do not substantiate an about face life rejection of the Gracchi, nor, on the other hand, do the fragments prove he was a Gracchan partisan. 329 Significantly, fragment 1 ark that men grow wiser in their old age; if this fell in the preface of the and an indication of the aims and intentions of his history. More importantly with Brutus 81 suggests that his history by including speeches of his key figures. Such additions suggest that Fannius was fam iliar with this convention of Greek historiography. It may also suggest that Fannius was 328 Frag. 5 (= Cic. Brut 81): Q. Metellus, is cuius quattuor filii consulares fuerunt, in primis est habitus eloquens, qui pro L. Cotta dixit accusante Africano; cuius et aliae sunt orat ions et contra Ti. Gracchum exposita est in C. Fanni Annalibus. 329 The debate on the relationship between Fannius and the Gracchi is rich. Bardon 1952: 106 107 particularly argues that Fannius was a supporter of the Gracchi, and that position is clear in his history. See contra, Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIX, who finds in the remaining fragments no clear indication of his position either way. On the fragments proving Fannius to be a partisan of the Gracchi, start with Badian 1966: 14, who sees Fannius as w riting the first account of the victorious enemies of the Gracchi and thus beginning the tradition hostile to them.

PAGE 123

123 influenced by his contemporary, the Greek historian Polybius, who was friendly with many of called Scipionic circ le would have brought in law, Fannius. During the second century, while Romans worked out their own ways to write history, Polybius was surely one of the great infl uences. When Polybius lived and wrote in Rome, from 168 until his death in 120, he must have known the work of contemporary Roman annalists, including Cassius Hemina, L. Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, and the writers of Greek annals, A. Postumius Albinus and Gaius Acilius. With the exception of his acidic words on of the other Roman annalists of the period. His influence is hard to gauge, due chiefly to t he paucity of fragments of these historians. Yet in the case of Fannius, the non traditional annalist, speeches in his history, much as Polybius had. Sallust 330 Fannius did not completely transform the annalistic form; in the first century, annalistic historians would return to the model of addressing the regal period more fully. while technically not the first monograph in Roman history, but more a contemporary history, it set the stage for the alternative forms, particularly the monograph form, taken up s oon after by Coelius Antipater who will be discussed below. 330 Sall. Hist 1. 4 Maur. Cic. Att 12.5b (= frag. 9) discusses the epitome made by Brutus.

PAGE 124

124 Sempronius Asellio Around the same time as Fannius, Sempronius Asellio similarly wrote a kind of history, called res gestae which fell somewhere between annalistic history and pure contemporar y history. Von Albrecht calls Asellio the founder of this genre. 331 well known. 332 His birth and death dates are unknown, although a birth date may be estimated from the fact that he served at Numantia in 134/133 under Scipi o Aemilianus as a military tribune. 333 He was perhaps born around 160. A possible connection with Scipio Aemilianus suggests that he too might have been part of, or connected in some way, with the so called Scipionic circle. 334 Its influence, particularly t which he laid out the differences in forms between annales and historia important both for the observations he made about history, and for his philosophy of history which he e statements surviving in the fragmentary historians. With Asellio, finally, perceptions of form are explicitly declared. Only fifteen fragments of Asellio are extant of a wo rk that comprised fourteen books. 335 Aulus Gellius calls it res gestae but also historia. 336 Charisius, Nonius, Priscian, and Servius 331 von Albrecht 1997: 361. 332 Studies (and biog raphies): Peter 1914: CCXLII CCXLV; Bardon 1952: 113 115; Badian 1966: 17 18; von Albrecht 1997: 380 381; Suerbaum 2002: 435 437; Chassignet 1999/2003: LIV LVII; Beck and Walter 2004: 84 86. On the gens see Badian 1968. 333 Frag. 7 (= Gell. NA 2.13.1 4). 334 On Scipio Aemilianus, see Astin 1967. 335 Editions: Chassignet 1999/2003: 84 89; Peter 1914: 179 184 (14 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 87 99 (15 fragments). A variant in a manuscript of frag. 11 from Charisius (= Gramm II, p. 254B) uses the number X discredit that reading and suggest XI instead. Their argument posits that the last datable event in Asellio (frag.11 regarding the death of Drusus in 91) occurs in Book XIV. If Asellio did write XL books, then he would have to have covered the years after 91 in another twenty six books. See Bardon 1952: 114 and Chassignet 1999/2003: LVI. 336 Res gestae : in frags. 7, 11, and 12; historia in frag. 6.

PAGE 125

125 auctus describe his work as historiae 337 work annales Asellio him self seems to have called it res gestae 338 The last datable event in the surviving fragments (frag. 12) refers to the death of Drusus in 91. Publication probably occurred shortly after. Of those fifteen fragments, very few need concern us. The majority recounts grammatical usages which Gellius found of interest (e.g., frags. 4 and 5). One fragment details an etymology on Norica castella historiographical form contained in two frag ments preserved by Gellius in a section typical of Noctes Atticae It considers the meaning of the word historia in particular versus annales and understandin g of history. It is worthwhile looking at it again for another purpose: that of reading NA 5.18.7 8): issent, et eos, qui res gestas a Romanis perscribere conati essent, omnium rerum hoc interfuit. Annales libri tantummodo, quod factum quoque anno gestum sit, ea demonstrabant, id est quasi qui diarium scribunt, quam Graeci ephemerida vocant. Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset, id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent, Asellio defined annales as books that merely recount and record events which happen each year, much like what the Greeks would call a diary. Such a historiographic aim was not sufficient for Asellio, who believed it was not enough only to report what happened, but also to show for what purpose and with what plan these things were done. Here Asellio recalls Polybius who had 337 Historia in Charisius: frag. 13; Nonius frags. 3 and 5; Priscian frag. 4, and Servius auctus in frag. 15. 338 Frag. 1 (= Gell. NA 5.18.7 8).

PAGE 126

126 urged the sam e approach in his own history of Rome. A history which provided interpretations of the past as well as reason, purpose, cause and effect of that past was for Asellio satis He would do more than just list; in claiming his use of this methodology, Asellio sought to separate himself from other historians. Aulus Gellius preserved further comments of Asellio on the difference between historia and annales in the same section (frag. 2 = Gell. NA 5.18.9), also quoted here again: "Nam neque alacriores" inquit "a d rempublicam defendundam neque segniores ad rem perperam faciundam annales libri commovere quicquam possunt. Scribere autem, bellum initum quo consule et quo confectum sit et quis triumphans introierit, et eo libro, quae in bello gesta sint, non praedicar e autem interea quid senatus decreverit aut quae lex rogatiove lata sit, neque quibus consiliis ea gesta sint, iterare: id fabulas Asellio now moved beyond the question of historiographic form and content to th e question of the purpose and function of writing history. In his eyes, annalistic writing was stories; Asellio wanted his readers to use history, and not view it as entertainment. The goal of docere Finally, Asellio declared that to write about under whose consulship a war began and ended and who entered the city having been awarded a triumph, and in this book to write of what things were done in what war, but not to mention what the senate decreed and what law or proposal was introduced, nor to recount with what plans things were done this then was to write fabulas stories f or children, and not to write history. Asellio concerned himself with investigation, and

PAGE 127

127 not entertainment. Asellio viewed history as a guide for moral life and action, not so much in the manner of Polybius but instead of Isocrates. 339 With the exception of Cato, Asellio is the first Roman historian whose observations on form, content, and purpose of history writing survive. His perceptive remarks on the differences between writing annals and writing history are now part of the discourse on historiographi c form. no ancient historian cites him, but Cicero includes him in a list with Cn. Gellius and Claudius Quadrigarius. 340 Grammarians on the whole have preserved Asellio for us. Nonetheless, Asellio is significant in demonstrating that what, according to Asellio, passed as annalistic writing at his time, roughly 120 90, consisted chiefly of recorded events with little elaboration or interpretation of these, and at least he and Cato saw deficiencies in that sort of history. An acquaintance with to reject and surpass writers of annales odology appears to that history. Porcius Cato Censorius And what about Cato? Cato properly belongs to this chapter on alternative forms of history writing, since he was the first Roman historian explicitly to find fault with the annalistic form. In the fourth book of the Origines Cato railed against annales claiming they concentrated on recording how often grain was expensive, and how often eclipses obscured th e sun or moon. 341 339 On Isocrates and history, see the fundamental work of Welles 1966. In his concern for history for statesmen. 340 Cic. Leg. 1.6. 341 Frag. IV, 1 (= Gell. NA 2. 28.6). As usual in this dissertation, all fragments derive from

PAGE 128

128 Cato instead composed a history that related more than the foundation of Rome. Annalists had history was markedly different for his insistence on grounding Roman history in its imperium (Italy) and including foreign history, even while he continued to exhibit the patriotism which is a hallmark of Roman historians. man, and orator, Cato championed Rome and cautioned her as well from the time of his first political position as military tribune in Sicily in 214 until his death in 149. His most famous post as censor in 184 has shaped much of his reputation, rightly so. He rebuked Rome and feared his children, he himself spoke Greek, and his literary works bear the hallmark of both Greek models and a Greek education. 342 Creator of Latin prose, first to write Roman history in Latin, Cato the Elder produced a broadly ranging variety of works in all of which Livy found eloquence. 343 These include his collected speeches, perhaps over 150 of them; two unpublished works, one a history f education, the other a notebook of treatments for illnesses; writings to his adopted son Marcus Porcius Cato Licinianus, including the ad Filium which provided books on separate topics again De agricu ltura De re militari and one on civil law; 342 On Cato and his relationship to Greece see Astin 1978: 157 Studies: Astin 1978. 343 Liv. 39.40.7.

PAGE 129

129 Carmen de moribus ; a collection of sayings; and the Origines a history of Rome. 344 Only the De agricultura survives at length. Cato was not the first to write the history of Rome, but those before him had done s o in Greek. Cato was also not the first to write in Latin, but those who wrote in Latin before him writer of prose after him are vast. A brief survey of his hi storical work is thus in order. 345 The Origines consisted of seven books. 346 The first treated Aeneas and foundational stories of Rome up through the period of the kings. Books 2 and 3 treated foundational stories of other Italian cities; Book 4, with a new preface, dealt with the First Punic War, Book 5 covered belonging in Book 2 was written after 168; the last datable fragment of the whole work relates an event from 347 Only about one hundred and thirty five fragments survive, coming from all seven books. 348 Questions of composition and structure abound. Nonetheless, those fragments can tell us much about the form, content, and style of the Origines trivial matters such as corn prices and eclipses, which served as a preface for Book 4, was probably prompted by the writings of Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus, which he might have 344 Astin 1978: 182 Albrecht 1997: 394 396. In Brut. 65 Cicero claimed to know and have read over 150 speeches. 345 This dissertation focuses on the lesser known historians of the Roman Republic, and thus Cato, who enjoys an extensive bibliography, will receive a less than sa tisfying amount of attention. The intent here is merely to provide some evidence of his influence on the other fragmentary historians. 346 Badian 1966: 7. The reconstruction here of books and content is his. 347 Frag. VII, 1. The outline of the contents o f each book derives from Nepos Cato 3.3. 348 Editions: Chassignet 1986/2002: 1 56 collects 135 fragments; Peter 1914: 55 97 has 125 fragments plus an additional eighteen uncertain fragments.

PAGE 130

130 considered unsatisfactory. 349 Cato also broke with the custom of glorifying Roman individuals by purposely omitting the names of leaders ( duces ). 350 Furthermore, Cato not only threw out the content common to annales and omitted the names of leaders but also rejected the strictly chronological format. Cornelius Nepos informs us of the manner in which Cato told his stories of the deeds of the kings, the origins of the Italian cities, and the First and Second Punic Wars: atque haec omnia capitulatim sunt dicta Some have argued that capitulatim essentially means in summary fashion, along the lines of kephalaiodos used by Polybius, while others have suggested that Nepos means that Cato ordered his books by topic (geographically) rath er than by year. 351 In either case, Cato was not an annalist. Cato is, however, an excellent example of the interaction between prose and poetry in Rome and indeed the development of literature in general. Despising the material from the pontifical chroni cles, later to be published as the annales maximi Cato nonetheless was influenced by a form of annales the Annales of Ennius. 352 borrowed from both Greek historiographical pro se conventions and Latin poetry. In fact, Cato 349 Or igines was written in two stages, with Books 1 3 as one part on foundations, and then Books 4 7 on the history of the Republic. Astin 1978: 219 calls the two stage hypothesis unsatisfactory, and merely an attempt to explain the disjunctions between the fi rst three books and the rest. We have no direct of course, know his quibbles with writing annals in Greek and his words for A. Postumius Albinus, whom he faulted for his poor Greek, but more for his shoddiness in general. 350 Nepos Cato atque horum bellorum duces non nominavit, sed sine nominibus res notavit 351 term to XVI summarizes the two polar positions. 352 446 and Sciarrino 2006:466 469.

PAGE 131

131 may have begun his work with a hexameter echo. 353 354 Unlike the Greek annalists before him, Cato wrote This foundational material in Books 2 and 3 mirrored the foundational stories of Rome found in the annalists and even in Cato, but there was surely no such treatment of Italian cities in other Latin histories at thi s time. On the other hand, the genre of foundation stories was not unknown to the Romans; not a Roman creation but a element of Greek historiography, the recounting of ktiseis was important there, and almost a genre itself. 355 nstrates this influence of Hellenistic historiography. In fact, this title provides evidence for the supposition that the first three books were written as a unit, and the following books a later addition. More importantly, the inclusion of ktiseis in C rooted in the context of both Greek and Roman historiography. Following the conventions of done in Greek prose and Ennius an d Naevius in Latin verse. 356 Annalists would continue to write foundation stories throughout the period of the Republic. Following conventions of Greek historiography, Cato included speeches. What was innovative, however, in Cato was the inclusion of his own speeches. In doing so Cato brought to the forefront one of the central aspects of later history writing in the form of the commentarii that is the memorializing and justifying of self in political autobiographical history. 353 Cardinali 1987. 354 Goldberg 2006: 444. 355 So Astin 1978: 227 228 on the genre of ktise is and its influence on Cato. 356 In fact, Fabius Pictor is very likely the source for Cato for the foundational stories. See Astin 1978: 224.

PAGE 132

132 In many other ways, howev Romans would write history. No later historians included speeches of his own in their works (perhaps because none served in politics at quite the same level). Nor did subsequent Roman historians historian would include the early history of other Italian cities. Cato was exceptional. But one cannot discount the tremendous influence of Cato on Roman historiography. In addition to the political and autobiographical flavor which would become commonplace for commentarii First Punic War in Book 4, for example, prepared the way for the mono graph form of Coelius Antipater. His perspective on history and the writing of history from a senatorial point of view solidified one of the most important aspects of historiography in Rome that history writing was done by men with experience. Moreover, an old man ( senex ) that the leisure of famous and great men ought to be no less subject to account than their activities. For Cat o, history writing filled that leisure time, and became an activity which was useful, and not emphasis on the moral value of history would accompany almost every history written by a Roman after him, especially in the works of men such as Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Asellio, and Livy and Sallust much later. The moral value he accorded to history was part and parcel of the function Cato assigned to history. Cato b and by his suppression of names of leaders, by his inclusion of plural foundations, Cato honored accomplishments as the efforts of many and promote a didactic goal to their works.

PAGE 133

133 By founding Latin prose, Cato created a vocabulary and style for Latin historiography. While his fragments are often short or paraphrases, nevertheless, the quality of his literary style is ap experimentation in still developing Latin prose. 357 historiography, however, was writing Roman history in Latin. Lucius Coelius Antipater During the second century another historiographical innovation occurred the creation of the Roman historical monograph by L. Coelius Antipater. Older than Sisenna and a contemporary of Fannius (cos. 122), Coelius was born between 180 and 170. 358 About his family little is known; although his Greek cognomen hints at freedman status, neither he nor his father was one. Coelius appears not to have held any political posts, and thus broke the historiographical tradition that had only clarissimi viri men experienced in politics and military matters, writing history. 359 Chronologically, he is the first historian not to be a politician. In that sense, Coelius was an innovator too, and model for many later professional historians who also played no role in Roman politics. Historiography up to this point had belonged to the senatorial elite. Coelius was, however, not completely disconnected from Roman politics. He was a 357 von Albrecht 1997: 397 399. Cicero, in Leg. 1.6 7, groups Cato with other historians whose style he calls exi lis Elsewhere in De or. 2. 53 and Brut. brevitas (Sall. Hist 1. 4 Maur.) and called him disertissimus For a caref ul look at representative 91. 358 Vell. 2.9.6: Vestutior Sisenna fuit Coelius ; Cic. Leg. 1.6: Fannii autem aetati coniunctus Coelius Antipater Studies (and biographies): Gensel 1900: 185 194; Peter 1914: CCXI CCXXXVII; Bardon 1952: 102 103; Badian 1966: 15 17; Herrmann 1979; von Albrecht 1997: 381 383; Suerbaum 2002: 430 435; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLI XLIX; and Beck and Walter 2004: 35 39. 359 Chassignet 1999/2003: XLII.

PAGE 134

134 rhetorician and an orator; he was friendly with, and a teacher of, L. Crassus, one o f the great 360 He wrote one work of great significance because it is the first work of history in Latin which took on the treatment of one limited topic rather than all of Roman history ab urbe condita His t sixty eight fragments of this work are extant today. 361 ed by three different names: historia annales and Bellum Punicum 362 annales is understandable due to the chronological outline Coelius retained, yet fragments and testimony reveal no evidence of any material or stories from the wo rk which date outside of the Second Punic War. year period of the Hannibalic war, 218 201. Its content, as revealed in surviving fragments, drew upon sources such as Fabius Pictor and Silenus, the Greek histor ian who accompanied Hannibal and drew up the Carthaginian history of the same war. 363 364 He consciously made use of the varied sources available to him, including laudationes at least in the story of the death of the consul M. Claudius Marcellus in 208 in fragment 36 (= Liv. 27.27.11 4). Livy provides some information 360 Cic. De or. 2.54. 361 Editions: Chass ignet 1999/2003: 50 70; Peter 1914: 158 177 (67 fragments); Herrmann 1979: 17 44 (67 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 40 83 (67 fragments). 362 The work is described as historia in Aulus Gellius (frag. 27), Charisius (frags. 10, 12, 16, 24, 25), Festus (fra g. 66), Priscian (frag. 22), Servius auctus (frags. 59 and 61), and Schol. Leidens. (frag. 52). Nonius alone uses annales in frags. 8, 9, 23, 37, 45, 48, and 50 53. Cicero calls it Bellum Punicum just once in frag. 2. 363 Pictor as a source for Coelius, frag. 57 (= Cic. Div. (= Cic. Div. 1.49). 364 Frag. 27 (= Gell. NA .10. 24); cf. Macrob. Sat 1.4.26.

PAGE 135

135 sequences for the death of Marcellus; one account was the traditional ver sion, one from the laudatio established. Thus, in Coelius we see explicit attention to research and sources, an uncommon ion to research is signal; previous historians such as Fabius Pictor through Sempronius Asellio drew upon their own experiences in the political or military affairs of Rome. Their own auctoritas gave weight to their works. 365 Lacking that, Coelius endeavor ed to impose authority on his work through careful research. In historia being based on the Greek word for inquiry), and brings to mind his contemporary, Polybius. Whi le many fragments (thirty six out of sixty eight) survive because of the by now familiar interest of the grammarians in linguistic usages, extant fragments offer detail regarding s Maximus dictator, 366 Other details include the dream of Hannibal (the devastation of Italy), the battle at Lake Trasimene, and the battle of Cannae, all from Book 1 and bon mot to Hannibal in Book 2. 367 Fragmen ts one through twenty five (plus frag. into Italy via the Alps down to Trasimene. 368 Fragments from Book 2 (frags. 26 28, 31 32, 34 gard to Carthage in 216 211. 369 Other allusions to books place the expedition of Scipio to Africa in Book 6, and in Book 7 the capture in 203 of Syphax, former 365 On auctoritas as a purposeful goal of writing history see Fornara 1983: 47 90. See also Marincola 1997: 14 1, especially pages 133 366 6), Q. Fabius dictator in frag. 21 (= Liv. 11). 367 Respectively, frag. 11; frags. 20a and 20b; frag. 21; frag. 22; frag. 27. 368 Herrmann 1979: 46 47. 369 Herrmann 1979: 47.

PAGE 136

136 ally of Rome. 370 t operations. 371 Brutus made an epitome of it. 372 Hadrian thought more hi ghly of him than of Sallust. 373 Plutarch, Pliny, and Fronto all used or knew his work. 374 Valerius Maximus titled him certus Romanae historiae auctor 375 Cicero cited Coelius extensively, particularly on dreams, in de Divinatione 376 Though the monograph form i tself was new to Rome, it was common in Greek, particularly Hellenistic, historiography, and Coelius found there his model. 377 In Rome, the Bellum Punicum addressed the same time period as Coelius but did so in ve rse form. Hellenistic historiography favored monographs which focused on a central theme and could support a vivid narrative full of drama and tension. 378 Silenus, for example, wrote a counterpart to Coelius which centered on the character of Hannibal; oth ers wrote of Alexander the Great. Coelius in turn concentrated on Scipio Africanus but also 370 capture. 371 132, and Luce 1977: 178 179. 372 Cic. Att. 13.8. 373 SHA Hadr 16.6. 374 Plutarch follows Coelius in several cases, for example on the death of Flaminius due to neglect of religion in Fab 4 (frag. 20); Pliny does many times as well, e.g., frag. 13 (= Plin. HN 3.132), and Fronto too, e .g., Ep. ad Caes ., p. 132 van den Hout. See also Herrmann 1979: 2 53, von Albrecht 1997: 383 and Chassignet 1999/2003: XLVII. Herrmann 1979: 53 argues that Silius Italicus, Appian, and Dio Cassius also follow Coelius at times in their own narratives. 375 V al. Max. 1.7.6 (echo of frag. 58 from Cic. Div. 1.56). 376 Frag. 11 (= Cic. Div. 1.49), frag. 20 (= Cic. Div. 1.77 78), frag. 41 (= Cic. Div. 1.48), frag. 57 (= Cic. Div. 1.55), and frag. 58 (= Cic. Div. 1.56). 377 On Hellenistic historiography and monograph s, see Verdin 1990. 378 Histories were dramatic, even sensational narratives. O 1960, and Wiseman 1979: 3 8 and 27 40.

PAGE 137

137 emphasized Hannibal and his forces. 379 sources (even impartial in his use of Silenus) marks him as different f rom those historians produced by Rome up to that point. The first professional historian in Rome, Coelius was also the first to explicitly pay attention to the literary style of his history. 380 While Coelius might recall Polybius in the emphasis he placed on his own research, the Roman was not only interested in events and their cause or moral lessons to be absorbed, but also interested in the stylistic merits of his work, as well a rhetorician in second century Rome might be and as many Hellenistic histori ans were. 381 382 Several times over, and often at length, in de Legibus, Brutus Orator and de Oratore, Cicero spoke of Coelius, at times praising him faintly, at other tim es calling him the best historian Rome had yet seen. In Orator 229 230, Cicero criticized Coelius for remarks in his preface in which he promised not to transpose words (hyperbaton) for the sake of rhythm unless necessary. about the preface do not tell us whether Coelius continued on and addressed his choice of form. Cicero explicitly finds fault with him for his naivet, his belief in transparency, and his ignorance of the custom that neither speakers nor authors in his t ime used the plea of necessity. Worse, says Cicero, was that if Coelius found it necessary to use transposition, he nevertheless did not need to confess it. Furthermore, continues Cicero, Coelius did indeed transpose words. He also justified himself to Lucius Aelius, the dedicatee of the 379 380 usua lly very brief excerpts without context; Cicero and Livy do not provide any direct quotations from Coelius. Professional historian here means one whose chief occupation was writing history; the other historians had written history as an avocation. 381 Leem opus oratorium 382 set against other historians, see Leeman 1963: 74 76.

PAGE 138

138 work, in hopes of his indulgence, and failed to round off his sentences neatly. Cicero condemns his style for faults from which other writers, such as the Asiatics, also suffered. Cicero does not mince words. Elsewhe re, however, Coelius and his style come off better. In de Oratore interlocutor Antonius marked Coelius as different and superior to men such as Cato, Pictor, and Piso who wrote simple records of facts and events without ornamentation. Those writers vir optimus who added a maiorem sonum vocis to history writing. Coelius was the ornator rerum Yet Coelius here, too, had his failings no diversity of refle ctions to set off his narrative, no marshalling of words or smooth flow of style to polish off his work. 383 Rather, Coelius was homo neque doctus and even neque maxime aptus ad dicendum Catulus, at least he was better than Crassus, was a principal interlocutor in de Oratore In Brutus 102, Coelius is luculentus for his times, and a man well educated in the law. Lastly, in de Legibus 1.6, Cicero commends Coelius w ho inflavit vehementius and demonstrated some strengths, although his works were agrestis and horridas and lacked polish and practice. 384 Coelius, at least, made clear to those who came after him that they should write with care. What Cicero was looking for in Roman historiography was some nicer conflation of style and form, and Coelius was the first to show concern for this aspect of history writing. 383 Leeman 1963: 74 75. 384 These judgments may well r eproduce rivalry among Antonius, Catulus and Crassus, who were political competitors in these years.

PAGE 139

139 Coelius often, however, demonstrated a lack of restraint. His numbers are exaggerated, the pictures he p aints larger than life, the dreams and portents emotional. 385 He elaborated to evoke tension even where the facts may not have supported him. Livy says that most Greek and Latin pt for Coelius alone who depicted it as beset by both all sorts of terrors from the sea and sky and a storm that make for the shore unarmed haud secus quam nau fragos 386 387 Yet, techniques, or at least principles. Additionally, these elements were not missing in Hellenistic historiography, and Co provided the legitimacy to use an exuberant style; the Asiatic style which Cicero found fault with was embraced by Hellenistic historians, thus allowing Coelius to add speeches and dreams an d Ennium studiose aemulatus suggests that Coelius paid attention to poetic practices too. 388 Coelius secured a place in Roman historiography as the first to emphasize stylistic concerns and the first to explici tly address those concerns in a historical work. 389 Moreover, Coelius inaugurated a historiographical form new to Rome, the monograph, which would become one more option for Romans in which to record, create, write, and present their history. 385 Leeman 1963: 75. An example of this lack of restraint is found in, e.g., his description of Italy when Scipio headed off to Italy in frag. 46 (= Liv. 2 9.25.1 4). 386 Frag. 47 (= Liv. 29.27.13 15). 387 388 Fronto Ep ., p. 56 van den Hout. 389 In, e.g., frags. 2 and 36.

PAGE 140

140 Yet another di fferent sort of history writing grew up at the end of the second century. Its impetus was neither the desire to treat a single period of Roman history, as monographs did, nor yet to discuss contemporary history, nor to examine Rome ab urbe condita as the annalists did; rather, its motivation was the need to legitimize and justify public actions, usually political and military ones. Commentarii are thus on the edges of history writing, perhaps closer to autobiography and biography than traditional historie s. 390 Since the form offered an alternative way of recording history in Rome, however, it deserves attention, and it also can offer a further and deeper understanding of the context of the years from 133 to 80, a period of individual men with great ambition and appetites for power. Commentarii were private journals of sorts, even memoirs. 391 commentarii were like notebooks, a place for jotting down the raw material that could later be written up more formally. 392 Commentarii provided sou rces for history, rather than finished pieces, although that was often just pretence. Sometimes the form is likened to the Greek hypomnemata organized materials kept by generals during campaigns, Alexander the Great, for example, as well as by rulers. T he form offered a venue to explain actions, and in Roman hands, to continue to influence the political landscape. It was a form of public history. Moreover, it provided a means to create a permanent memory of an individual. Memorializing was not unique to the autobiographical literary form in Rome. Busts and images of ancestors were honored, statues of great men were erected in public places, sponsorship of public buildings allowed an outlet for publicity as well, inscriptions publicly extolled accompli shments, and 390 K raus 2005: 254 calls history, biography, and autobiography genera proxima On memoirs and autobiography, see Riggsby 2007. 391 On the commentarius form, see Bmer 1953; Gelzer 1963; and von Albrecht 1997: 412 413, and more generally on memoirs and Roman pe rception of history, see Bates 1983. 392 Cic. Brut commentarii was to furnish others with material with which to write history.

PAGE 141

141 portraiture became individualistic. But none of those well kept traditions, even inscriptions, offered written narrative commentarii did. In the years from the Gracchi to Sulla, prominent men used the commentarii form, transforming it from notebook to literary work. These men perhaps included Caius Gracchus, as well as the dictator Sulla, author of a substantial autobiography, and in between, M. Aemilius Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, and Q. Lutatius Catulus. All held the consulship, yet all four of these men faced difficulties in their careers. 393 Little survives from their commentarii in some cases far less than the slim collections of the fragments of earlier historians. In this case, even more necessarily, the thin information regarding t heir commentarii needs to be joined with their context so that a clearer view of their perceptions of the merits and deficiencies of this historical form might be coaxed out. f a knew of its existence. 394 Marcus Aemilius Scaurus More remains of the commentarii written by Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, born around 162 in an impoverished patric ian family, who became the most influential politician of his years. Proud and immensely powerful, Scaurus was instrumental in using the form to serve more than a storage house for historical materials. Sufficiently egotistical to write memoirs of his ow n life, he told the story of his political activities in his work. M. Aemilius Scaurus undertook the cursus 393 Riggsby 2007: 270. 394 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8 and Cic. Div. 1.18.36 and 2.19.62. C and praised his grandeur, wisdom, and weightiness in his discourses (Cic. Brut 125 126). The

PAGE 142

142 honorum as a novus homo and enjoyed great success. 395 In fact he became the most powerful senator of his time, and was princeps senatus for over tw enty five years. Cicero claimed that by 396 He began his career in military service in Spain, was quaestor in Sardinia in 125, curule aedile in 122, praetor in Africa in 119, consul in 115, author of both a sumptuary law and one on freedmen in that year, victorious over the Ligurians, Taurians and Carnians in his consulship year as well, censor in 109, and curator annonae in 104. Scaurus also served in 112 on the senatorial commission which dealt with struggle for power between Jugurtha and his brother in North Africa, and he helped to broker a peace with Jugurtha in 111. 397 Today only seven fragments of that work remain. 398 Extant fragments demonstrate that the work was called de vita sua and that it was three books long. 399 Addressed to Lucius Fufidius, 400 Preserved by grammarians, the skimpy fragments which survive speak mostly to particular stylistic choices by Scaurus; little by way of content can be deduced. Nonetheless, two fragments are of interest. They reveal a man who was self made despite the difficult financial straits of his early life (frag.1), and a man who instilled and insisted upon discipline in his army 395 2004: LXXXVIII calls his 396 Cic. Font 24. 397 Studies (and biographies): Klebs 1893: 584 588; Badian 1966: 23; Bates 1986; Suerbaum 2002: 440 443; and Chassignet 2004: LXXXVIII XC. Epigraphical notices: CIL 2 p. 49 = Degras si, Inscr. Ital XIII, I, p. 85; CIL 2 p. 150 = Degrassi, Inscr. Ital XIII, 1, p. 274 275. 398 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 161 163, and Peter 1914: 185 186 (7 fragments). Beck and Walter do not include the authors of commentarii in their volumes on the ear ly historians, except for P. Rutilius Rufus, who is included because he also wrote a history. 399 Cic. Brut 400 known.

PAGE 143

143 (frag. 7). 401 Brutus 112 informs us more generally about the work. He calls utiles and in a comparison to the life and education of Cyrus Scauri laudibus account, de vita sua was a self quos nemo legit) preferring to read Cyrus even though it was less appropriate for Roman customs and commentarii might have been compelling reading during the lifetime of Scaurus, and it might have exerted an influence on was gone, however, his panegyric no longer carried great weight. Publius Rutilius Rufus The same fate did not befall the commentarii of the same period, written by Publius Rutilius Rufus, whose career overlapped (and threatened) that of Scaurus. Born arou nd 154, he was military tribune at Numantia in 133 under Scipio Aemilius, and legate under Q. Metellus in 109 107 during the war against Jugurtha. In between military actions, he undertook a career as orator and lawyer in Rome, served as praetor in 118, a nd ran unsuccessfully in 115 for consul against M. Aemilius Scaurus whom he accused of ambitus and who in return prosecuted him. He served finally as consul in 105, and undertook military reforms out of the urgency due to war with the Cimbri and Teutones. In Asia in 94, he governed the province as legate of Scaevola, alienated the Senate at home, and was prosecuted in 92 by a coalition of Marius and equites under res repetundae when he returned. 402 Found guilty, Rutilius left the city in exile and took 401 Frag. 1 = Val. Max. 4.4.11. Frag. 7 = Frontin. Str 4.3.13. 402 proposed 92, and contra Kallet Marx 1990: 128 129, who argues for an earlier date between 94 and 92

PAGE 144

144 up residence in Smyrna. At home the optimates the quaestiones perpetuae 403 A student of the Stoic Panaetius, Rutilius wrote a history of Rome in Greek and a commentarius in Latin. 404 In exile, Rutilius occupied his leisure time in appropriate literary pursuit, writing Roman history, just as Cato had filled his leisure time. He also recorded and justified his own political activities, as M. Aemilius Scaurus had done late in his life too. His wr History in Greek highlighted the depth of his education and erudition. Rutilius moved in Roman literary society with Laelius, Panaetius, Poseidonius and Lucilius, along with Q. Aelius Tubero and Caius Fannius 405 His History was written in Greek for his Greek reading audience in Smyrna, his home during exile. A few fragments, possibly eight, remain, and these suggest a history which recounted contemporary events, which by this point had become a favorite form of history writing. Although Athenaeus and Plutarch knew this work, little with certainty is known of its content. 406 A current theory holds that this Greek history could have been a translation or adaptation of his autobiography. 407 403 Studies (and biographies): Mnzer 1914: 1269 1280; Suerbaum 2002: 443 447; Peter 1914: CCLIV CCLVIII; Hendrickson 1933; Beck and Walter 2004: 100 102; Chassignet 2004: X XVI and XCIV Marx 1990. Cic ero Brut 115 Rutilius colored his view. Badian 1957: 34 70. 404 Badian 1966: 23 echoes Cic. De or. 405 Cha ssignet 2004: XIII; Suerbaum 2002: 443. 406 Athen. 4.66, p. 168D; Plut. Pomp 37.3 (= Rutilius Rufus Hist History : Chassignet 2004: 1 5; Peter 1914: 187 188 (4 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 103 108 (7 fragments). 407 E.g ., Badian 1966: 24.

PAGE 145

145 de vita sua is similarly not well known, but was, nonetheless, influential. Written in Latin, rather than Greek, and thereby aimed at an audience at home in Rome, it filled at least five books. 408 Nine fragments survive; as usual, the majority of these concern gra mmatical choices of the author, and thus grammarians preserve most of the fragments, with Charisius recording six of them. 409 Disappointed by his exile, Rutilius used the commentarii form to attack enemies: fragment 1 from Book 1 disparages Q. Pompeius (cos 141), and fragment 13 denounces Marius who had played a role in exiling him, along with L. Valerius commentarius form was its overtly apologetic tone. According to all reports, Rutilius was a man of integrity, tris tus et severus in his style of speaking. 410 His works, both the History and de vita sua became sources for Cicero, Sallust, and Plutarch, particularly their accounts of Marius, Pompey and Q. Metellus. 411 While few fragments survive, that he was read and use d by authors such as Sallust, Plutarch, Cicero and Livy underscores his significance in shaping the history of his own period. biography. In the preface to the Agrico la, de vita sua and Scaurus as representative of works produced in a time when it was permissible to write biography to record examples of virtue. Tacitus remarked ( Agric 1.2 3) that many considered it a mark of the honest conf idence in integrity, and not merely culpable arrogance, for men of action to become their 408 Frags. 5 and 6 mention a fifth book; no other fragment mentions a later volume. 409 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 164 169; Peter 1914: 189 190 (9 fragments) 410 Cicero Brut 113. A fuller picture of Rutilius (and Scaurus) appears in Cic Brut. 113 in his discussion of their oratorical abilities. Scaurus and Rutilius were by nature vehemens et acer with Rutilius representative of the Stoic style of oratory, and Scaurus representative of the old school. Cicero met Rutilius in Smyrna i n 78, and later recounted a conversation with him in Brut. 85; this discussion focuses on a story Rutilius repeated to Cicero demonstrating the oratorical skills of Laelius and Galba in particular, whom Rutilius had known well. 411 Badian 1966: 24 25; Suerba um 2002: 447; Chassignet 2004: XCVI.

PAGE 146

146 own biographers. Tacitus mentioned that Rutilius and Scaurus were instances of such. Moreover, both men, Tacitus claimed, were not censured for doing so, nor was the truth of their narrative questioned. 412 Embittered himself, Tacitus sought to justify his desire to transmit to 413 Ironically, the commentarius form as political autobiography was rar ely free of self writing of two forms of history neatly highlights the disparity between the two. The commentarius in his hands, and especially Sulla to come, served more as political apologia than history. Quintus Lutatius C atulus Q. Lutatius Catulus, b. 150, and a near contemporary of Scaurus and Rutilius, similarly utilized different historical forms, writing a Communis Historia and de consulatu suo et de rebus gestis as well as speeches and even poetry. 414 Like Scaurus and Rutilius, Catulus was deeply involved in Roman political and military matters. A member of a noble family, he was connected by marriage to the best families; he married a sister of Caepio (cos. 106). He ran unsuccessfully three times for consul, ultimat ely winning in 102 through the aid of Marius. 415 He was defeated by the Cimbri on the Adige, but rebounded to defeat the Cimbri at the momentous battle of Vercellae with the aid of both Marius and Sulla in 101. Catulus and Marius 412 Tac. Agric 1.2 3: Sed apud priores ut agere digna memoratu pronum magisque in aperto erat, ita celeberrimus quisque ingenio ad prodendam virtutis memoriam sine gratia aut ambitione bonae tantum conscientiae pretio d ucebantur. Ac plerique suam ipsi vitam narrare fiduciam potius morum quam adrogantiam arbitrati sunt, nec id Rutilio et Scauro citra fidem aut obtrectationi fuit: adeo virtutes isdem temporibus optime aestimantur, quibus facillime gignuntur. On the prefac e to the Agricola see Sailor 2004: 139 177. 413 Tac. Agric 1.4: saeva et infesta virtutibus tempora 414 Studies (and biographies): Mnzer 1927: 2072 2079, Peter 1914: CCLXII CCLXIV; Suerbaum 2002: 447 453; Bardon 1950: 145 164; Bardon 1952: 115 124 and C hassignet 2004: XVI the identification of the author, and more. Chassignet 2004: XIX XXII provides a bibliography for recent scholarship on these issues which concern us less than the forms Catulus chose to use. 415 Broughton 1952 I: 567. Broughton believes that he also served as praetor, probably by 109.

PAGE 147

147 were awarded a triumph for their success, but when Marius received more credit, Catulus withdrew his friendship, and became one of his significant enemies. In 87 Catulus stood against suici 416 Catulus was a learned man, more so than Scaurus and Rutilius, at least in the range of his interests. 417 Two epigrams are all that survive of his poetry; speeches survive as well, inclu ding a funerary oration on his mother Popillia. 418 That speech is remarkable in that it was the first funeral speech delivered in Rome for a woman. 419 encompassed at least four books and which considered the history of Rome from its origins, including the settlement of Aeneas at Lavinium. 420 The title, Communis Historia could have indicated a more general history, since fragments discuss more than the origins of Rome. 421 His history was appreciated by the antiquarians, including Varro and the author of the Origo Gentis who preserve many of the fragments. 422 Catulus himself was interested in antiquarianism. His fragments cover some of the same stories and material contained in the early annalists. 416 Marius, who had much to defend and justify, and time to do it in, did not apparently write a commentarius 417 Cic. Brut 132 calls him eruditus 418 78; his speeches in Malcovati 1979: 218. 419 Cic. De or. 2.44. 420 Comm. Hist .: Chassignet 2004: 6 12; Peter 1914: 192 194 (7 fragments). The settlement of Aeneas at Lavinium comes from frag. 5 of his history, and not from his commentarius 421 E.g., frag. 11 on the foundation of Naples. Peter 1914: CCLXVII sees it as a general history, but Bardon 1952: 122 sees it as a work unifying the Ita lian world with the Greek world. 422 Ps. Aurelius Victor OGR preserves frags. 2, 4, and 5 Comm. Hist

PAGE 148

148 Catulus also wrote an autobiographical work in the form similar to the one used by both Scaurus and Rutilius. Cicero called it liber de consulatu et de rebus gestis 423 Not only is the content of this work little known, but the form i tself as well. Only three fragments survive. 424 commentarius and work as Catuli li tterae 425 Nevertheless, the work exhibited elements characteristic of political autobiography, among these its apologetic tone, first person voice, and treatment of only personal experiences. 426 No Latin author preserves Catulus; the three fragments extant (not Brutus that incorrupta sermonis integritas and that this work was written in the clear, lucid style Xenophon was known for. Nonetheless, this smooth Brutus admits in Brutus 133 that he did not know the book at all, never mind not having read it, and Cicero claimed it was no better kno wn than the three books of Scaurus (which Brutus also did not know). Such a joining of the two, however, lends support to the claim that Catulus and Scaurus shared a similar form. The works shared an apologetic note. The surviving fragments of Catulus events from 102 423 Cicero Brut 424 liber de consulatu : Ch assignet 2004: 170 171; Peter 1914: 191 192. 425 Fronto Ep. p. 124 van den Hout. 426 Suerbaum 2002: 450.

PAGE 149

149 even accusing Marius of malice towards him became part of a t radition hostile to Marius. 427 Catulus, in his account, performed better. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Lastly, the use of the commentarii as political apology flourished in the hands of Sulla. 428 429 Though few f ragments of his commentarius remain today, it is apparent that Sulla used the form in the same manner as Scaurus, Rutilius, and Catulus did with an eye to explanation, justification, and legitimization. d chiefly by Plutarch in his life of the hypomnemata historia res gestae and even praxeis 430 Twenty three fragments are extant from a work that included at least twenty two books. 431 Seventeen fragments come from Plutarch. The size of the work indicates that Sulla must have begun writing it before his retirement from politics; indeed no other commentarius competes with it for sheer length or size. Topics covered by Sulla included h is participation in the war against the Cimbri, his defeat in his first campaign for praetor, the his own death. 432 Where 427 Frag. 1 (= Plut. Mar 25.6 8). Chassignet 2004: XCVII. A number of scholars believe that oirs; these include Peter 1914: CCLXVI and Bardon 1952: 120. Marasco 1984: 83 for Catulus. 428 The Commentarii of Julius Caesar fall outside the temporal span of this work. 429 Studies (and biographies) of Sull a, see Frhlich 1900: 1522 1566; Keveaney 1982; and commentarius see Peter 1914: CCLXX CCLXXX; Valgiglio 1975, Pascucci 1975, Lewis 1991, Scholz 2003 and Chassignet 2004: XCIX CIV. 430 The term hypomnemata is used in f rags. 11 14, 17 18, and 23 by Plutarch; Cicero uses historia in frag. 9, Aulus Gellius prefers the title libri rerum gestarum in frags. 2 and 3, and Plutarch uses praxeis in frag. 1. 431 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 172 184; Peter 1914: 195 204 (21 fragments) Frag. 23 tells us of the length of the work. 432 Frags. 4 6; 7; 9 10; 12; 14 18; 20 21; and 23, respectively.

PAGE 150

150 commentarii is not always clear Sulla wrote his work in Latin and a freedman, L. Cornelius Epicadus, reworked it, in Greek. 433 Two fragments indicate something of the structure of the work. Fragment 17 (= Plut. Sull 17.1 4) records that Sulla wrote of victory at Chaeroneia in 86 in his tenth book. This means that Sulla covered the last years of his life, i.e., the civil war, proscriptions, and dictatorship, in twelve more books. Fragment 23 (= Plut. Sull 37 .1 commentarii form are twofold and complementary. material t his volumes to his friend, Lucullus, a man of great culture and later great wealth, was done so in ange it better. 434 Lucullus, have been wishful thinking in the manner that Cicero hoped his friend Lucceius would write his history, or more a realistic nod to the h aste with which Sulla composed his work. He would have written twenty two volumes extraordinarily quickly, and such speed compelled him merely to collect notes, records, and reminiscences. Any long narrative, deep explication or polished speech would hav e been nearly impossible, though he granted some periods of his career more coverage, particularly his last years. 435 Such a lengthy work compiled in a short time implies a work true to the original notion of commentarii notes of sorts in which to gather ma terial for a fuller history. 433 Suet. Gram 12.1 2. Debate flourishes about this; some say Sulla wrote his commentarius originally in Greek, and his Greek freedman recast i t, presumably also in Greek. Others, such as comments about the memoir. I find her argument more convincing. See Chassignet 2004: C CI. 434 Frag.1 (= Plut. Luc 1.4 ). 435 Lewis 1991: 511.

PAGE 151

151 Yet, in the manner of his contemporaries, Sulla used the autobiographical form for more; his own words demonstrate that he intended his autobiography to present and perpetuate his perception of his actions, and within that, to manifest as overarching theme for his life his felix character. 436 His purpose, which was not unique to his autobiography but shared by each author of commentarii in this period, was to shape the image of himself which would become part of He would instruct others of his accomplishments and leave a legacy at the same the war against Mithridates (87 80). On the charge that Sulla might have been favoring certain enemies over others, Plutarch declared that Sulla in his own memoirs argued that his favors were perfectly innocent. 437 actions and his career very likely imitated not only the commentarii as produced by Scaurus (whose widow Sulla had married) and Rutilius but also the deep set Roman tradition of the laudatio funebris cursus honorum and res gestae as well as lineage, ancestry, and attendant virtues. 438 The work included his cursus honorum can be deduced from the details known by Velleius preserved mention of an ancestor of Sulla, P. Cornelius, the flamen dialis of the third century, in 436 work was, in fact, a literary exercise characterizing Sulla felicitas 437 Frag. 18 (= Plut. Sull 23.1 5). 438 On the laudatio funebris see Crawford 1941, Kierdorf 1 980, Wiseman 1994: 1 36, and Suerbaum 2002: 518 523. Pliny ( HN 35.8), Cicero ( Brut 62), and Livy (8.11.4) all speak to the untrustworthy character of the laudatio

PAGE 152

152 a verbatim quotation. 439 The inclusion of material such as this in Sul coverage was accorded to his lineage and ancestry. 440 And so the form of the political estors. The success of the political autobiography in the early first century needs be set in context. Few Roman historians from this time period wrote in any other form. Sisenna was probably at work writing a contemporary history. Annalistic historiog raphy had earlier ceased; Antias and Valerius had yet to publish. Scaurus, Rutilius, Catulus and Sulla represented factiones which dominated Rome after the Gracchan period. In a linear step, their version of history was a further point along a line of hi poli ticians inserted himself into his history, and paved the way for history which included autobiography. Moreover, autobiography in political life was not unknown to the Romans. Recording of achievements by means of speeches, orations, laudatory inscription s, memoirs (such as the hypomnemata of Alexander the Great and the apologia of Aratus of Sicyon), and the plastic arts had been done by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Hellenistic kings, and more recently, even Hannibal himself. 441 Romans similarly co mmitted to posterity accounts of their accomplishments and virtues by both literary and non literary means. The laudatio funebris delivered at the funeral provided a biography of an exalted man; these funerary speeches were 439 Vell. 2.17.2, and frag. 2 (= Gell. NA 1.12.15 16). 440 Lewis 1991: 512 514, contra Sul lan scholars who propose that Sulla passed quickly over his parentage, education and formative years, writing little if any on those topics. 441 For a general overview of autobiography in the ancient world see Misch 1950. On see Liv. 28.46 and Polyb. 3.33.

PAGE 153

153 likely preserved in family arch while the laudatio praised an individual, it did so in the context of the family, the fundamental unit of Roman society, and thus took place within a private context. Funerary inscriptions, epitaphs in both prose and poetry, and honorary (and political) inscriptions, however, advanced the concept of recording the deeds of an individual in public. The rhetoric of a laudatio and the intimate context were absent from these inscriptions, but the intention of presenting an account res gestae was the same. The vowing of temples, the names on public buildings, as well as triumphal processions, commemorated and immortalized the achievements of distinguished families of Rome. 442 Autobiography was not far removed in intent from these means: all looked to achieve the same end: some form of immortality. Indeed historiography in Rome itself was tied up with the urge to memorialize and meld, and promote, patrician families and national history. L ucius Cornelius Sisenna The period which produced these commentarii of Scaurus, Rutilius, Catulus and Sulla was one of great energy, frenetic politicking, and ambitious men. It was not, however, the home to great history writing, with the exception of the work done by L. Cornelius Sisenna. Termed by h. 443 442 On Roman chronicling of res gestae by means of laudationes buildings, processions, and art, see Misch 1950: 208 230. 443 Rawson 1991: 363. Badian 1962: 212 notes his recognition as the greatest historian of the age; cf Cicero, below, in comments from Brutus

PAGE 154

154 L. Cornelius Sisenna was descended remotely from an Etruscan family, and his family had held citizenship for several generations. 444 Born around 118, his political career consisted of possible quaestorship in 89, praetorship (both urbanus et peregrinu s ) in 78, and possible pro praetorship in Sicily in 77. 445 His oratorical career included the defense of Verres with Hortensius in 70; additionally he had a brief military career as legate under Pompey in charge of Macedon and Greece in the pirate campaign of 67, during which he died. 446 He might have been an Epicurean, poet, and translator. 447 Historiae 82, and perhaps to 448 One hundred and forty four fragments are extant, from a w ork of at least twenty three books. 449 Fronto calls his style longinque 450 While fragments 1 3 of Sisenna relate 444 Studies (and biographies): Niese 1901: 1512 1513; Peter 1914: CCCXXXIV CCCXLIX; Badian 1962a; Badian 1962; Rawson 1991: 363 388; Beck and Walter 2004: 241 245; Chassignet 2004: XXXVIII XLIX. 445 On his offices, s ee Badian 1964: 430; on participation in Social War, see Plut. Luc I.7; on praetorship, see CIL I 2 2, 589 = ILLRP 513, and Broughton 1952 II: 86 (who tentatively calls etorian praetorship, see Rawson 1991: 372. Broughton 1952 II: 90 thinks Sisenna might have been governor of Sicily instead. 446 Rawson 1991: 367 368; Chassignet 2004: XL XLI; and Broughton 1952 II: 148. For 307. Cicero did not know his speeches directly, suggesting that Sisenna did not publish them. On Sisenna in Macedon and Greece, see Dio 36. 1. Bardon 1952: 255 calls him a soldier (and thereby explains t he number of battle scenes). 447 Sisenna may have had a literary career beyond historian. Some scholars propose that he translated the Milesian stories of Aristides; see Chassignet 2004: XLII. Rawson 1991: 369 371 is dead set against an identification of Sisenna, the translator of the Milesian tales, with Sisenna the historian. The passage from Ovid ( Trist. 2.443 list of Latin authors, but these are mostly poets, not historians. Cic. Div. 1.99 notes influenc e on Sisenna by an unnamed Epicurean. That would make Sisenna the only historian we know who was an Epicurean. 448 Vell. 2.9.5 calls it opus belli civilis Sullanique Frag. 134 provides a possible endpoint of 82. The title Historiae is witnessed in many 16. 449 Editions: Chassignet 2004: 50 88; Peter 1914: 276 297 (143 fragments); Barabino 1967: 67 239 (144 fragments); Beck and Walter 2004: 247 313 (144 fragments). Frag. 134, dating to the year 82, is t he last fragment to record a book. 450 Fronto Ep ., p. 132 van den Hout.

PAGE 155

155 to the early years of Roman history (possibly from a prooemium ), the other extant fragments center on the social and civil wars. 451 Book 1 (frags 5 and 6) related troubles in 91 during the tribunate of Drusus, Book 2 (frags. 8 9) further covered the year 91, Book 3 (frag. 10) addressed the end of 91 and the beginning of 90, and Book 4 treated events of 90 and 89. 452 Publication probably occurred af commentarii as well as his own experiences in Italy. 453 His sources are, however, not as clear as his probable aim for his history. Sallust, who begrudgingly admired him, called him op tume et diligentissume omnium 454 Sisenna openly displayed political interests throughout his work. Trials, speeches, a favoring of the optimates, are all part of his history; many politi cal trials appear to be those under the Varian law, approved in late 91 or early 90 at the beginning of the Social War, and used by the equites for political gain. 455 451 Nonius, perhaps mistakenly, once titles the work ab urbe condita and this title has been explained as perhaps pertaining to a prooemium which undertook a cursory look at the origins of Rome. Others suggest the title belongs to an excursus either on the model of archeologia such as Thucydides wrote or as an embedded section of the Historiae. e, see Chassignet 2004: XLIII. Rawson 1991: 388, among others, find the notion of a prooemium in the style of Thucydides taken up by Sisenna to be untenable, and considers virtually impossible a connection 04: XLIII argues for a prooemium which utilized early legends as an effort towards Sullan propaganda. No proem survives. 452 Frags. 5 and 6 make up Book 2; Book 3 appears in frag. 10. Chassignet 2004: XLVII argues that Book 4 included the end of the year 90 and 89, yet others believe that it treated only 89 with only references to 90; see her footnote 232. 453 Rawson 1991: 375 and Badian 1966: 25. Sisenna gains and loses authority depending on 1964: 427 sees him in Rome. 454 Sall. Iug 95. 2: L. Sisenna, optume et diligentissume omnium, qui eas res (sc. Sullae res ) dixere persecutus, parum mihi libero ore locutus videtur. 455 Rawson 1991: 366. On the lex Varia ls under the Varian law see Calboli 1975: 160 218; Calboli echoes Barabino in finding references in the slim fragments to trials of e.g., M. Aemilius Scaurus (e.g., frags. 13, 15, 22, and 51).

PAGE 156

156 Two fragments support this. Fragment 134 might echo his admiration of Sulla: multi populi, plurimae contiones dictaturam omnibus animis et studiis suffragaverunt. 456 Elsewhere, Sisenna speaks of his opinion that wicked and bold men have always worked aga inst the honors and fortunes huius ordinis presumably the senatorial class. 457 Fragments also point out other interests, such as an interest in military matters; these show careful knowledge of topography, siege engines and machines (e.g., frags. 19 and 4 4), and military and naval terms (e.g., frags. 78, 79, 80). 458 Sisenna found his way into Sallust, and Livy; Varro and Tacitus knew him as well. 459 survives to demo nstrate how and why he discussed Sisenna. 460 inusitata verba 461 Nonius alone preserves 123 out of 144 fragments. Sisenna created a writing style full of archaisms, military terms, analogies, neologisms, adverbs ending in im 462 his history entertained as well as informed. Sallust admired him, and chose to begin his history where Sisen na left off. Though Cicero does not mention him in de Oratore (presumably in order 456 156 160. 457 Frag. 96 = Nonius, p. 153, 1L. On Sisenna and the optimate (too simplistic a term) see equally Rawson 1991: 366 367 and Badian 1966: 27. 458 On topography, see Rawson 1991: 372. 459 Rawson 1991: 364. Cf. also Chassignet 2004: XLIX. Liv. Per. 62 uses him, Tacitus Hist 3.51 cites him, and Sallust Hist 1.4 Maur mentions Sisenna. 460 Gell. NA 16.9.5. 461 Badian 1966: 26, drawing on Cic. Brut 259 260 462 Leeman 1963: 85. Briscoe 2005: 71 72 provides a list of wor ds appearing for the first or ending in im and supplies a list of these too. Lebek 1970: 58 argues that Sisenna does not archaize.

PAGE 157

157 to preserve the authenticity of its dramatic date), in the de Legibus he declared Sisenna the best (and indeed room for a better historian himself). 463 Cicero found a puerile view ( in historia puerile quidam consectatur ), as well as a desire to imitate Cleitarchus, the Hellenistic historian and chief example of the style of so ca lled tragic history. Dismissive of Cleitarchus, Cicero also evaluation of Sisenna. In Brutus doct us devoted to his studies, bene Latine loquens yet not industrious. On the other hand, in his history writing, Cicero marked him first again of all historians. Once again, Cicero left room for a better historian (and a better style) who would remedy ho w far current historiography was a summo 464 In turbulent and unsettling times, Sisenna chose to write in a dramatic style suiting his topic in the manner of tragic history as fashioned by Cleitarchus, the historian of Alexander the Great. His history woul 465 Other accoun t. 466 Sisenna appeared skeptical of dreams and portents; fragment 3 has Aeneas die next because of influence from an unnamed Epicurean, believed no credence sho uld be given to dreams. Yet Cicero also notes, in fragment 5, that Sisenna included portents of statues sweating 463 Cic. Leg. 1.7. 464 Cic. B rut 228. 465 Rawson 1991: 379, and Barabino 1967: 138. 466 Rawson 1991: 378 380.

PAGE 158

158 and blood flowing and shields eaten by mice at the beginning of the Marsic War. 467 Stylistically, these enrich his work, though tragic history was not the only branch of history to use portents and dreams; earlier annalists as well as Coelius had done so as well and portents were part of the topos belief archaism, neologisms, analogies, and alliteration, as well as technical terms. 468 Sisenna simil arly demonstrated concern for historiographical form. Both implicitly and explicitly, Sisenna offered an opinion about form. His work was entitled Historiae consistently, and following on the heels annale s and historia the title suggests that Sisenna carefully chose a historiographical form defined as interested in reasons and causes rather than one which merely related events and deeds. 469 an interest and awareness of new forms available to Roman historians. Like Coelius, he undertook a history of a particular set of events, avoiding a history ab urbe condita Sisenna 470 Continuati 467 Frag. 3 (on Aeneas) = Nonius, p. 185, 11 L. Frag. 5 (= Cic. Div. 1. 99) demonstrates ust prior to the fragment: Quod quidem somnium Sisenna cum disputavisset mirifice ad verbum cum re convenisse, tum insolenter, credo ab Epicureo aliquo inductus, disputat somniis credi non oportere. 468 386. 469 Sempronius Asellio frag. 1. 470 Sempronius Asellio frag. 12.

PAGE 159

159 was, however, the first in Roman historiography. 471 And in a compliment to Sisenna, Sallust chose to begin his history where Sisenna had left off. 472 Moreover, Sisenna structured his history not rigidly by chronology but rather by theme or topic. Gellius preserved a verbatim quotation from Sisenna (from Book 1, according to Nonius): nos una aestate in Asia et Graecia gesta litteris idcirco continentia mandavimus, ne vellicatim aut saltuatim scribendo lectorum animos impediremus. 473 Not only did Sisenna group material by theme but by geography as well (as Cato had done). This ordering of his material categorizes Sisenna as more than an annalist; he was a writer of historia and one w ho claimed to pay attention to style. In content, style, and form, Sisenna was a remarkable historian for the period. historian, shaping content through attention t o both style and form. Alternative forms of writing history flourished in the second century in Rome alongside annales Their use of alternative forms demonstrates many things: their awareness of Roman and Greek historiography, an educated audience, an int ellectual and social atmosphere in both second and first century Rome, and a charged political climate. In these times they used specific historiographical forms to shape perceptions of Rome and themselves. Authors of these histories declared their inten tions, found the annalistic format lacking in some way, and turned to different forms, forms more amenable for what they envisioned the purpose of their particular history of Rome. 471 Rawson 1991: 373. 472 Sall. Hist compliment to Sisenna by beginning where he ended, see McGushin 1992: 69 7 1. 473 Frag. 129 (= Gell. NA 12.15.2). Nonius prefaced this quotation in a section on the word saltuatim with it source in Book 1, Nonius, p.. 247, 7L. That the writing of history included an hodology, can be seen later, in, e.g., Plin. Ep 1.1: collegi non servato temporis ordine neque enim historiam componebam

PAGE 160

160 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION During the Roman Republic, Roman historians employe d a number of forms to write their histories: annales res gestae contemporary history, monographs, and commentarii Set in the context of political and military growth and literary development, Roman historians recorded, discovered, shaped and understoo d the rise of Rome by trying out a variety of historiographical The Roman fragmentary historians used these different forms to provide structure to their unique histories of Rome. These histories, produced in the peri od from 240 to 63, do not, however, survive intact. From the annalist Fabius Pictor, writing at the end of the Second Punic Republican period are preserved on ly in fragments. In the case of some of these authors, a great example, one hundred and forty at least twenty three books. On the other hand, only four fragments survive of the history penned by the Hellenophile and senator A. Postumius Albinus. Paucity of fragments and lack of sure biographical information seriously impede an examination of these author s. Nevertheless, fragmentary works such as these cannot be overlooked in favor of only the more substantial histories of Rome which follow. These incomplete histories both created and shaped Roman historiography and Roman history. No real preface for any prose prefaces makes no mention of the fragmentary historians of the Republic. 474 Missing from their histories at least from their fragments are the introductions crucial to understanding 474 Janson 1964.

PAGE 161

161 S allust, Livy, and Tacitus. Whether the topoi, which regularly filled the prefaces of later Roman and earlier Greek historians, found a place in a preface of one of the fragmentary historians is not known. 475 Perhaps Roman Republican historians, aware of th eir historiographical predecessors and trained in rhetoric, prepared prefaces, stand alone or integrated, for their works but none survives. Did they consider and address topoi such as laudatio historiae reason for choice of subject, and their own attitu des towards history? Reasons for and authorial estimations of particular historiographical forms are, thus, not easy to determine; few explicit motives and fewer intentional statements survive in their meager fragments. Hence the difficulty of this study an account of how Roman historians used these forms, why they did so, and their own estimations of them. My work has been concerned with accompanying rejec motivation, demonstrates to some extent what goals he aimed for, what part that history played in the Roman cultural context, and how the author viewed history. Of the many histori ans examined in this work, only a mere handful of statements survive which allow a glimpse at choices they made regarding historiographical form. Cato manifested a displeasure with the traditional content of annales which appear to be primarily events he deemed trivial Sempronius Asellio, at greater length, distinguished works that were annales from those of res gestae the latter being the work of a better historian, or so he intimated. Further remarks by Asellio, who noted the lack of inspiration ann ales imparted to their readers, are the only such surviving remarks regarding the purpose of history by a fragmentary historian. 475 On these topoi in prefaces of later Roman historians, see Janson 1964: 66 67.

PAGE 162

162 significance of style, if not content and form, in a history. L. Cornelius Sisenna promised not to confuse his readers by jumping around a narrative, presumably by working more thematically and less chronologically. A. Postumius Albinus pleaded for leniency when he chose to write his annals in Greek, a language he believed was conventional for annales but one in which he was arrange his commentarius Others left less obvious indications about thei r choice of form. Estimations have to be dug out from the remaining fragments and joined with contexts before we can say anything about a particular historian and form. Sometimes we are reduced to speculation speculation founded on a close reading of the fragments and an understanding of context, literary, cultural, and political. That is what I have tried to do. In sum, the evidence from the works of Roman historians from the years 240 63, rejects the picture of historiography in the Roman Republic as u niformly annalistic. It also questions the perception that Roman historiography prior to the second half of the first century was poorly conceived. Towards the end of the Second Punic War, Roman history began to take form in Fabius Pictor and Cincius Al imentus. Cicero ( Div. Graeci annales ; Dionysius concurred ( Ant. Rom. 1.6.2). Near contemporaries, Pictor and Alimentus wrote in ab urbe condita including, as well, stories relating to R historiography thus began in the Greek language, shaped by Greek conventions, but structured around a native format: the chronological material found in sources such as t he annual records posted by the priests. How much these authors used the lists later to be published as the annales

PAGE 163

163 maximi has been debated; more clear is the evidence in their fragments that these early authors gitudinal, chronological sweep. The works of Pictor and Cincius, both senators, included etymologies, etiologies, the establishment of institutions and customs, names of magistrates, material such as family or personal accomplishments, and praise of Rome. These components and their senatorial perspective would regularly appear in the Roman historians who followed them. From neither of these first Roman historians do we have any fragment announcing programmatic intent or a thoughtful exposition regarding h istoriographical form, much less the hoped for preface or proem. Indeed such introductions would be well received by us without them, however, we can nevertheless justly suppose that Pictor and Cincius Alimentus both saw their histories as ultimately usef ul: they were the first Romans to write a history of Rome in utility literary, narra tive, readable treatments of historical records. Thus these two historians established the practice for annalists to come. Some forty years later two other senatorial Romans produced histories of Rome similar to those of Pictor and Cincius Alimentius. A. Postumius Albinus and Gaius Acilius wrote in Greek, their choice of language both these authors demonstrated a literary context in which Hellenistic culture and l iterature continued to find an audience in the first half of second century Rome, as it however, suggest a literary culture in which Roman authors need not be ver sed in Greek to such

PAGE 164

164 a degree, and this may be a harbinger of things to come, as Roman authors would look to create their own models and forms in both prose and poetry. While Hellenistic culture and literature would remain a potent influence in Rome for ge nerations to come, by mid second century historiography in Rome had begun to change. The Origines preserve a programmatic statement not only ab out the content of his work, but form too. When Cato scorned the mundane material (i.e., grain prices and eclipses) that he found in the annales, he implied that in the first half of the second century, historians largely focused on those events preserved in the pontifical chronicles. 476 His explicitly historiographic statement manifested a deep concern; for Cato both the form and the content of annales were deficient. His work brought to Rome a new kind of history one that offered foundation stories beyon promised a narrative not bound to strict chronology. For him, history had a purpose beyond merely recording and memorializing the past. He would showcase Rome, her humble magistrates, and he r collective past, against a larger world. ab urbe condita nor to histories which continued to proceed chronologically, list magistracies, and so on. The second century, in fact, was t he context for a number of annalistic histories. These were produced by senators such as L. Cassius Hemina, L. Calpurnius Piso, Sempronius Tuditanus, and Cn. Gellius. These men saw in the annalistic format a surprising flexibility for emphasizing or priv ileging particular interests. Hemina and Tuditanus, for example, showed less interest in political or military concerns and more interest in, respectively, religious affairs and antiquarianism. In their 476 Cato frag. IV, 1.

PAGE 165

165 hands, annalistic form did not mean that they were restricted to equal rigid and sequential examinations of a particular prescribed set of topics, though it might have needed a senator as homo mere litterosus ). Lucius Calpurnius Piso (cos. 133) returned to political and military matters, and in his examination of the secession of the plebs in 494 and the election of tribunes by the comitia tributa manifested an important aspect and function of Roman historiography the desire to read and represen t present politics in their predecessors, a means of understanding the present by reading the past, a function regularly associated with history and the writing of history. He seems to have emphasized the now common sentiment that we better understand the present if we can know the past. Cn. Gellius, writing sometime later than these three, wrote in chronological fashion at great length. He, perhaps most strongly, rejected the Catonian form of historiography. If Cato had t to have overlooked the mundane, incidental, and trivial, From none of these four do we have a preface or programmatic statements; again, no introduction with authorial intent survives, and n o explicit comment about form is part of their surviving corpus. But what each did with his history showcased a commitment to writing of Rome ab urbe condita including pre history, foundational stories, etymologies, and etiologies. Within that annalisti form and its common content, and in doing so demonstrated a certain engagement with the historiographic process whether that be contrariness, independence, or even merely imitation of predecessors. These four persisted in the annalistic form even when the powerful voice of Cato argued against it.

PAGE 166

166 What these Romans may have seen in the ann alistic form, beyond its structure, its flexibility, and its nod to native traditions, was that a work of annales reviewed the past, allowed a better understanding of the present, but at the same time looked forward. An annalistic structure, by virtue of its insistence on a yearly chronicle, always presupposed another year to endure into the future. The rhetorical force of the annalistic form was about the f uture, as well as the past. Its relentless structure compelled an author forward. In that second century, others beyond Cato employed alternative historiographical forms. This made historiography in the second century part of a rich literary culture in w hich historians considered form (and content) as part of the purpose in their writing. Set against this backdrop, history writing in this period looks to have been part of a lively discourse. How to write history in the second century? Cato criticized t he stuff of annals, several historians ignored his criticisms, writing annales for their own purpose, and still others followed his lead to use new forms, such as Sempronius Asellio, Fannius to a certain degree, Coelius Antipater, and even Sisenna in the f history in the second century. His determination to write differently from his predecessors supplies one lens through which to see historians deliberating about their craf t. annales his work appeared to focus on more contemporary events. Consul in 122 and son in law of Laelius, his privileged position in Rome underscores key elements of historiography in the second century politi cal experience and a senatorial perspective but Fannius, through his contact with the Scipionic circle, included a new element: an interest in literature. Sempronius Asellio was similarly marked; his connection with the so called Scipionic circle likewise brought him into a group that would have encouraged

PAGE 167

167 between historiographical forms are our best evidence for debate and development in Roman historiography in the second century. Soon after Asellio, Coelius Antipater also took up a form which was decidedly not annalistic; he embraced a monograph form to tell the story of the Hannibalic War. Importantly, Coelius left indications of a careful evaluation of sources. He also broke free of another tradition associated with historiography in Rome. He was not a senator, historian. Lacking that senatorial perspective might have freed him from the obligation to trace to a narrative of one significant event. In the first century, other forms flourished too, such as the commentarii of M. Aemilius Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Lutatius Catulus, and Sulla, and the contemporary history of Sisenna. Here too the annalistic form endured, in the works of Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, and Licinius Macer. In their commentarii Scaurus and Rufus paraded their accomplishments, and justified their actions. Catulus similarly took up a defense of his life, and his own res gestae Sisenna wrote almost a monograph, focusing on the Social War, and continuing Asellio. At the same time, Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius provided families of the Val erii and Claudii. History written ab urbe condita allowed great scope for demonstrating enduring contributions by the noble families. In Macer, on the other hand, we see a focus on sources in addition to content. In his search for an accurate account of Rome, he found new more credible sources, he hoped, and trusted in them. Macer is outstanding for his

PAGE 168

168 evaluation of sources, something not always visible in the other historians. As in the second century, the historians of this time overlap closely; the authors of the commentarii wrote their works and participated in Roman politics at the very same time during which Quadrigarius and Antias wrote their annales and did not participate in politics. The death dates of Licinius Macer and L. Cornelius Sisenna fall about a year apart, a few years prior to the consulship of Cicero. The production of so many histories, some written very closely together, implies a competition for authority arti culated or not, a work of history could repudiate, or intend to repudiate, the histories written before them. Roman authors asserted autonomy and truth or a different perspective in the production of each new history. What the fragmentary historians wrot e about is not my primary topic, but what they did write narratives of humble origins, glory days, and accounts of great men in turn reflected and shaped values (usually of the privileged elite) and participated in creating a national identity, which was, in turn, renegotiated in each new history. As a genre and discipline, historiography in the Roman Republic was many things. Historiography grew in emerging and even competing forms; it was undertaken by both professional and amateur; both the ruling eli te (e.g., Cato) and the lower born (e.g., Valerius Antias) engaged with it; it was both a literary and nonliterary practice; it used forms which would become canonical and those which would fade away; it was both structured and fluid; it asserted autonomy and yet was beholden to custom. Censorship of sorts, or perhaps inhibition, Historiography still belonged primarily to men of the senatorial class; through history writing often after a career was over they could continue to pursue a claim to auctoritas In contrast to poetry, the problematic association of literature with the lowly born does not rise

PAGE 169

169 here. Unlike poetry, those Romans who wrote these histories were native born, upper class. Nor are there Roman historians whose work was the result of patronage; no Ennius is among the fragmentary historians, though possibly Quadrigarius and Antias were attached to some noble families (and Polybius a Greek historian). No record traces any real patronage of historians, either undertaken by private individuals or state sponsored. History writing was not always literature a literary salon of historians, formal or informal, either in the second or first century, did not exist. Creating a text and creating literature did not always go hand in hand, as Cicero made quite clear. No evidence of literary training survives for most of the historians, though some, like Catulus and Cato, wrote more than history, and others, like Fannius and Asellio, were f riendly with the Scipionic circle. Most held the highest office possible in the Republic. Some were orators too. History writing was not a profession for most; unlike the poets of the third and second centuries, these historians did not make a living, n or usually need to, through their writing. In general, the fragmentary historians were not theoretical historians. 477 They did not pose a problem, trace its development, track the institutions and customs that supported it in order to understand a general theme. More empirically minded, these historians collected material, even data as it were, but did not venture beyond to examine larger, more generic issues. Polybius did, of course, in his examination of how and why Rome rose. Asellio might have come close. addressed it. So too Sisenna on the Social War. The others, however, do not appear to have examined, for instance, larger matters such as the nature of the r elationships between those in 477 On theory an d ancient history, see Cameron 1990, Morley 1999, 2000, and 2004. Recent examinations of the fruitful intersections of theory and ancient historiography can be found in Bentley 1997 and Munslow 2000. More generally on history and theory see White 1984 an d 1987.

PAGE 170

170 power (e.g., Rome, patricians, families) versus those not (provinces, plebeians, slaves). They did not, at least in the surviving fragments, look for connections and patterns or shape their narrative around a particular theme Nor did they leave us explicit accounts of their conceptions of history, their models, or what they perceived the functions of history to be. Equally, they left no patent look at their assumptions and methodologies. They were not regularly skilled (or concerned) with using sources and rarely left any indication of evaluation of sources (with the exception of Coelius Antipater, Claudius Quadrigarius, perhaps, and Licinius Macer); the redible or compromised evidence. The stylistic qualities of their histories are not admired by our sources; one can hardly claim them as practitioners of literature. They possessed a stronger interest in representation of narrative than in interpretation of narrative. Asellio implicitly acknowledged the use of this approach when he chided historians for merely telling stories to children rather than asking questions. The historians did not often articulate an understanding about the construction of hist orical knowledge. How they perceived their role in creating that knowledge is on the whole not apparent. Many of the historians were primarily memorializers. History was not conceived by them as a force for change or a way to predict the future. Histor iography was one means by which to remember and record. In the Republican period there were many ways in which to immortalize, whether in literature (prose and poetry), monumenta or in the arts. The fragmentary historians offered one traditional way, em ploying various forms within the genre for the writing of history. As a repository of memory, annales could supplement fasti monographs could celebrate achievements of particular period, commentarii could laud individual men. If the fragmentary historia ns did not explicitly speak of their conceptions of the purpose of history and the creation

PAGE 171

171 of historical knowledge, their use of suitable historiographical forms represents their best theoretical practice. While this paints a rather unfavorable picture of the fragmentary historians, it is important to counterbalance this with an acknowledgment of their contributions to Roman historiography. Too often the view of Roman historiography prior to the second half of the first century and the master works of Sal lust, Caesar, Cornelius Nepos and Livy casts the early historians as uniform, deficient, and lacking care for historiography itself. Moreover they are portrayed as liars, entertainers, or just missing style. As evident from the previous paragraphs, these statements indeed do have their basis. This is not an attempt to wholly rehabilitate them. Nevertheless the fragmentary historians of the Republic as an entity ought to be recognized at least for their occasionally explicit and more often implicit inter est in form. Their (few) intentional statements and the employment of disparate forms demonstrate both a concern about the form and a knowledge of options. The words of Cato, Asellio, Sisenna, and Postumius Albinus on form, and the methodologies of Coeli us Antipater, Quadrigarius and Macer tell us of thoughtful prose form, also somehow reflects thought about what history can do. They wrote history for diff erent purposes, some more selfish than others. Indeed some wrote history as senators because that was an appropriate use of leisure time or a way to preserve auctoritas and a certain social standing. Certainly others wrote history to entertain. They did not, however, unthinkingly write only annals. Rather, collectively, these fragmentary historians tried out a variety of historiographical forms and made conscious choices suitable for the functions they assigned to their history of Rome, and to the functi ons they assigned to history per se In doing so, these historians shaped the forms which would later be taken up and used by more well known and

PAGE 172

172 widely read and more carefully transmitted Romans such as Sallust, Caesar, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, and the lat Histories produced more lasting versions of Roman annals, and Varro titled a work after Sisenna. 478 The very multitude of historiographical forms and their practitioners across two hundred years in the Roman Republic counterbalances the impression that historiography in Rome was largely a desert. Roman historiography, in the years 240 63, may not have pleased Cicero, may be found at fault by us in a variety of areas, but at least we can say that history writing form, at least, and by a few was a process carefully considered, rhetorically charged, engaged in with purpose, and broadly conceived. Histori ography, we could say, was not entirely in bad hands. 478 Logistorici or Sisenna vel historia See Varr. Logist P. 256 Riese ( ap Gell. NA 16.9.5).

PAGE 173

173 APPENDIX CATALOGUE OF FRAGMENTARY ROMAN HISTORIANS This catalogue contains authors of historical works produced in the years between end of the First Punic War (240) and the consulship of Cicero (63 ). They are arranged chronologically. Each author is presented with bibliographic information in this order: first are the surviving fragments in the major editions (by page number and not fragment number). Significant testimonia from primary sources t less to a political or military career) and which are not included in the fragments are listed next. The testimonia are in chronological order. Entries from RE follow, along with references to magistracies in MRR by page number (and not year). Lastly, secondary studies on the author as a historian follow in chronological order, page numbers supplied when necessary. The selective bibliography of secondary sources contains only those works that offer extended treatment of the author or are considered canonical. Fabius Pictor Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 5 39; Peter 1914: 112 116 (Latin fragments); FGrH no. 809; Frier 1970: 152 225; Beck and Walter 2001: 62 136; Chassignet 1996/2003: 16 54. Testimo nia : Polyb. 39.1 5; Cic. De or. 2.51; Leg. 1.6; Dion. Ant. Rom 1.6.2; Liv. 22.57.5; Plin. HN 71; Plut. Fab. 18.3; Eutr. 3.5; Oros. 4.13.6. RE : Mnzer, RE VI, 2 (1909), 1836 1841, Fabius no. 126. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 1914: LXIX C; Gelzer 1933/1964; Ge lzer 1934/1964; Bung 1950; Alfldi 1965: 123 175; Badian 1966: 2 6; Frier 1970: 114 143; Timpe 1972: 938 969; Manganaro 1974: 389 409; Frier 1979: 227 254, 322 323; Verbrugghe 1981: 236 238; Meister 1990: 145 148; Momigliano 1990: 80 108; Petzold 1993; Wis eman 1995; Carulli 1996; von Albrecht 1997: 299 301; Beck and Walter 2001: 55 61; Suerbaum 2002: 359 370; Chassignet 1996/2003: LIV LXXIII. Floruit : second half 3 rd century. Lucius Cincius Alimentus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 40 43; FGrH no. 810; Frier 1970: 226 237; Beck and Walter 2001: 139 147; Chassignet 1996/2003: 54 59. Testimonia : Dion. Ant. Rom 1.6.2; Liv. 26. 23.1; 26.28.3; 26.28.11; 27.5.1; 27.7.12; 27.8.16; 27.25.14; 27.26.5; 27.28.13; 27.29.1 6; 30.37.3 6. RE : Mnzer and Cichorius, RE III, 2 (1899 ), 2556 2557, Cincius no. 5. MRR : none. Studies : Hertz 1842; Peter 1914: CI CXVI; Bardon 1952: 30 31; Heurgon 1964; Badian 1966: 6; Frier 1970: 143 151; Frier 1979: 206 207; Verbrugghe 1982; Meister 1990: 148 9; von Albrecht 1997: 302; Beck and Walter 20 01: 137 138; Suerbaum 2002: 370 372; Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIII LXXIX. Floruit : end of 3 rd century; praetor 210.

PAGE 174

174 Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 55 97; Chassignet 1986/2002: 1 56. Testimonia (major) : Cic. Brut 66; 89; 294; Cato 3, 38; De or. 2.51; Leg. 1.6; Tusc 1.3; Sall. Hist 1.4 Maur; Nep. Cato 3.3; Liv. 34.15.9; 45.25.2; Plut. Cat. Mai RE : Gelzer and Helm, RE XXII, 1 (1953), 108 165, M. Porcius no. 9. MRR I: 307, 327, 330, 339, 354, 374. Studies : Peter 1914: CXXVII CLXIV; Ch assignet 1986/2002: VII XXX; Suerbaum 2002: 380 418; Suerbaum 2004 (comprehensive bibliography, 1900 1999). Floruit : 234 149. Aulus Postumius Albinus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 53; Peter 1914: 53 54 (Latin fragments); FGrH no. 812; Frier 1970: 273 279; Beck a nd Walter 2001: 228 231; Chassignet 1996/2003: 59 61. Testimonia : Polyb. 33.13.4; 34.1.10 11; Cic. Att 13.32.3; Brut. 81; Liv. 45.4.7; 45.28.11; Plut. Cat. Mai 12.6. RE : Mnzer, RE XXII, 1 (1953), 90 908, Postumius no. 31. MRR I: 448, 450, 454. Studies : Peter 1914: CXXIV CXXVI; Bardon 1952: 70 73; Badian 1966: 6 7; Frier 1970: 246 267; Frier 1979: 207 208; Meister 1990: 149; von Albrecht 1997:303; Suerbaum 2002: 372 374; Chassignet 1996/2003: LXXIX LXXXV. Floruit : mid 2 nd century, praetor 155, cos. 151. Gaius Acilius Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 49 52; FGrH no. 813; Frier 1970: 280 295; Beck and Walter 2001: 234 241; Chassignet 1996/2003: 62 65. Testimonia : Liv. Per 53; Plut. Cat. Mai 22.5; Gell. NA 6.14.9. RE : Kleb, RE I, 1 (1893), 250 251, Acilius no. 4. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 1914: CXXI CXXIII; Bardon 1952: 70 71; Badian 1966: 6 7; Frier 1970: 267 272; Frier 1979: 208 209 and 249 50; Meister 1990: 148 149; von Albrecht 1997: 302; Beck and Walter 2001: 232 233; Suerbaum 2002: 375 376; Chassignet 1996/20 03: LXXXVI LXXXVIII. Floruit : mid 2 nd century; served in Senate 155. Lucius Cassius Hemina Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 98 111; Santini 1995: 72 105; Beck and Walter 2001: 246 281; Chassignet 1999/2003: 2 16. Testimonia : none. RE : Cichorius, RE III, 2 (1899), 1723 1725, Cassius no. 47. MRR : none. Studies : Martha 1903: 108 113; Peter 1914: CLXV CLXXIII; Bardon 1952: 73 77; Rawson 1976: 690 702; Forsythe 1990; von Albrecht 1994: 304 305; Santini 1995: 11 70;

PAGE 175

175 Chassignet 1998; Beck and Walter 2001: 242 245; Suerba um 2002: 418 421; Chassignet 1999/2003: IX XVI. Floruit : mid 2 nd century. Lucius Calpurnius Piso Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 120 138; Forsythe 1994: 409 426; Beck and Walter 2001: 286 329; Chassignet 1999/2003: 18 39. Testimonia : Lucil. Sat 20.3; Cic. Brut 1 06; De or. 2.53; Leg. 1.6; Caecin 17 18; Verr 2.3.195; 2.4.56; Off. 2.75; Tusc 3.48; Font 39; Liv. 9.44.1 4; Val. Max. 2.7.9; 4.3.10; 2.7.9; Vell. 2.2.2; Tac. Ann 15.20.3; Frontin. Str. 4.1.26; Oros. 5.9.6. RE : Cichorius and Mnzer, RE III, 1 (1897), 1392 5, Calpurnius no. 96. MRR : I: 459, 483, 492, 523. Studies : Peter 1914: CLXXXI CXCII; Bardon 1952: 103 105; Forsythe 1984; Rawson 1991: 257 267; Baudou 1993; Forsythe 1994; v. Albrecht 1997: 905; Forsythe 2000: 8 10; Beck and Walter 2001:282 285; Suerb aum 2002: 421 425; Chassignet 1999/2003: XIX XXVIII. Floruit : tribune 149, cos. 133, censor 120. Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 117 118; Chassignet 1999/2003: 17. Testimonia : Dion. Ant. Rom I.7. 3; Liv. Per 53.3; 54.7; Val. Max. 2. 7.11. RE : Mnzer, RE VI, 2 (1955), 1811 1814, Fabius no. 115. MRR I: 474, 477, 480. Studies : Peter 1914: CLXXVII CLXXVIII; Pepe 1975:95 108; Chassignet 1999/2003: XVI XIX. Floruit : mid to late 2 nd century, cos. 142. Sempronius Asellio Fragmenta : Peter 191 4: 179 184; Chassignet 1999/2003: 84 89; Beck and Walter 2004: 87 99. Testimonia : Cic. Leg. 1.6; Charis. GL. 1,195, 18f.K. RE : Klotz, RE II, A, 2 (1923), 1362 1363, Sempronius no. 16. MRR I: 491. Studies : Peter 1914: CCXLII CCXLV; Bardon 1952: 113 115; B adian 1966: 17 18; Badian 1968: 1 6; von Albrecht 1997: 380 81; Suerbaum 2002: 435 437; Chassignet 1999/2003: LIV LVII; Beck and Walter 2004: 84 86. Floruit : late 2 nd to early 1 st century, trib. mil. 133. Sempronius Tuditanus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 143 14 7; Beck and Walter 2001: 331 339; Chassignet 1999/2003: 40 43. Testimonia : Cic. Att. 13.33.3; 13.4.1; 13.30.2; 13.32.3; Cic. Brut 95; Liv. Per 59.20; Pliny HN 3.129; App. Ill 10; M. Messala de auspiciis ap. Gell. NA 13.15.4; Macrob. Sat. 1.13.21.

PAGE 176

176 RE : M nzer, RE II A, 2 (1923), 1441 1443, Sempronius no. 92. MRR : I: 470, 489 490, 504. Studies : Cichorius 1902: 588 595; Peter 1914: CCI CCIII; Bardon 1952: 105 106; von Albrecht 1997: 380; Forsythe 2000: 10 11; Beck and Walter 2001: 330; Chassignet 1999/2003: XXVIII XXXIII. Floruit : late 2 nd to early 1 st century, cos. 129. Vennonius Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 142; Chassignet 1999/2003: 48 49. Testimonia : Cic. Leg. 1.6; Att 12.3.1. RE : Gundel, RE VIII, 1A (1955), 790, Vennonius no. 1. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 191 4: CC; Bardon 1952: 108; Badian 1966: 18; Suerbaum 2002: 430; Chassignet 1999/2003: XL XLI. Floruit : late 2 nd century, contemporary of Fannius and Antipater. Caius Fannius Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 139 141; Beck and Walter 2001: 342 346; Chassignet 1999/200 3: 44 47. Testimonia : Cic. Brut 99 101; Att 12.5b.3; 16.13a; Amic. 3; 7; Sall. Hist 1.4 Maur. RE : Mnzer, RE VI, 2 (1909), 1987 1991, Fannius no. 7. MRR I: 516. Studies : Peter 1914: CXCIII CXCIX; Bardon 1952: Badian 1966: 14 15; Cassola 1983: 86 96; vo n Albrecht 1997: 379 380; Beck and Walter 2001: 340 341; Suerbaum 2002: 425 427; Chassignet 1999/2003: XXXIII XL. Floruit : cos. 122. Lucius Coelius Antipater Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 158 177; Herrmann 1979: 17 44; Chassignet 1999/2003: 50 70; Beck and Walte r 2004: 40 83. Testimonia : Cic. Brut 102; De or. 2.52 54; Att. 13.8; Leg. 1.6; Orat. 229 230; Val. Max. 1.7.6; Fronto p. 57 van den Hout; S.H.A. Hadr 16.6. RE : Gensel, RE IV, 1 (1900), 185 194, Coelius no. 7. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 1914: CCXI CCXXXVII ; Bardon 1952: 102 103; Badian 1966: 15 17; Herrmann 1979; von Albrecht 1997: 381 383; Suerbaum 2002: 430 435; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLI XLIX; and Beck and Walter 2004: 35 39. Floruit : late 2 nd century, contemporary of Fannius.

PAGE 177

177 Cnaeus Gellius Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 148 157; Beck and Walter 2001: 349 367; Chassignet 1999/2003: 71 83. Testimonia : Cic. Leg. 1.6; Div. 1.55. RE : Mnzer, RE VII, 1 (1910), 998 1000, Gellius no. 4. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 1914: CCIV CCX; Bardon 1952: 77 80; Badian 1966: 11 13; Rawson 1976: 713 717; Wiseman 1979: 20 23; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Walt 1997: 85 87; Beck and Walter 2001: 347 348; Suerbaum 2002: 429 430; Chassignet 1999/2003: XLIX LIV. Floruit : contemporary of Fannius and Antipater. Marcus Aemilius Scaurus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 185 186; Chassignet 2004: 161 163. Testimonia : Cic. Brut 112; Sest 101; Sall. Iug 25.4; Plut. Fort. Rom 4.138c; Suet. Vir. Ill 11; 72.3;Val. Max. 3.2.18; 3.7.8; 5.8.4; 6.5.5; 8.5.2; Tac. Agr 1.2 3; Frontin. Str 4.1.13; Quint. Inst 5.1 2.10. RE : Klebs RE I, 1 (1893), 584 588, Aemilus no. 140. MRR I: 517, 519, 526, 531. Studies : Pais 1901: 51 60; Peter 1914: CCXLVII CCL; Bardon 1952: 109; Henderson 1958; Badian 1966: 23; G. Flammini 1977: 37 47; Bates 1983: 121 162; Bates 1986; von Albrec ht 1997: 383; Suerbam 2002: 441 442; Chassignet 2004: LXXXVIII XC. Floruit : cos. 115, d. 89. Publius Rutilius Rufus Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 187 188 ( Hist .) and 189 190 ( de vita sua) ; FGrH 815; Beck and Walter 2004: 103 108 ( Hist. ); Chassignet 2004: 1 5 ( Hi st .) and 164 169 ( de vita sua ). Testimonia : Cic. Brut 113; De or. 1.227 231; Tac. Agric 1.2 3. RE : Mnzer RE I, A, 1 (1914), 1269 1280, Rutilius no. 34. MRR I: 494, 527, 547, 549, 552, 555. Studies : Peter 1914: CCLIV CCLXI; Hendrickson 1933; Bardon 1952: 110 113; Badian 1966: 23 25; Bates 1983: 163 205; Kallet Marx 1990; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Suerbaum 2002: 443 447; Beck and Walter 2004: 100 102; Chassignet 2004: X XVI and XCIV XCVI. Floruit : b. 160, cos. 105, exile after 94. Quintus Lutatius Catulus F ragmenta : Peter 1914: 191 192 ( de consulatu ) and Peter 1914: 192 194 ( Hist. ); and Chassignet 2004: 170 171 ( de consulatu ) and Chassignet 2004: 6 12 ( Hist .). Testimonia : Cic. Arch 6; Brut 112; 132; De or. 2. 28, 2.44, 3.194; Tusc 5.56; Fronto Ep. p.124, van den Hout; Plut. Mar 25.6; Suet. Gramm 3. 5B. RE : Mnzer, RE XIII, 2 (1927), 2072 2082, Lutatius no. 7. MRR I: 567

PAGE 178

178 Studies : Peter 1914: CCLXII CCLXIV; Bardon 1950: 145 164; Bardon 1952: 115 124; Bates 1983: 206 225; von Albrecht 1997: 383; Suerbaum 20 02: 447 453; and Chassignet 2004: XVI XIX. Floruit : cos. 102, d. 87. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 195 204 and Chassignet 2004: 172 184. Testimonia : Sall. Iug 95.3; Suet. Gramm. 12.1 2. RE : F. Frhlich, RE IV, 1 (1900), 1522 1566, L. Cor nelius no. 392. MRR II: 14; 39, 66, 74, 79. Studies : Peter 1914: CCLXX CCLXXX; Bardon 1952: 149 157; Badian 1966: 25; Bates 1983: 226 313; Lewis 1991; Brennan 1992; Suerbaum 2002: 453 456; Chassignet 2004: XCIX CIV. Floruit : 138 79. Q. Claudius Quadrigari us Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 205 237; Beck and Walter 2004: 112 167; Chassignet 2004: 13 49. Testimonia : Cic. Leg. 1.6 7; Plut. Num. 1.1 (Klodius); Gell. NA 9.13.4; Fronto ap Gell.13.29.2; Fronto Ep p. 134, van den Hout. RE : Niese RE II, 2 (1898), 2859, Cla udius no. 308. MRR : none Studies : Peter 1914: CCLXXXV CCCIV; Zimmerer 1937; Klotz 1942; Walsh 1961: 110 137; Badian 1966: 18 21; Frier 1979: 122 126; Timpe 1979; Bastian 1983; von Albrecht 1989: 86 101; von Albrecht 1997: 385; Beck and Walter 2004: 109 111 ; Chassignet 2004: XXIII XXXVIII. Floruit : 1 st quarter 1 st century. Valerius Antias Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 238 275; Beck and Walter 2004: 172 240; Chassignet 2004: 104 150. Testimonia : Dion. Ant. Rom 1.7.3; Vell. 2.9.6; Fronto Ep p. 134, van den Hout. R E : Volkmann, RE VII A (1948), 2313 2320, Valerius no. 98. MRR : none. Studies : Mnzer 1891: 54 71; Mnzer 1897; Peter 1914: CCCV CCCXXXIII; Walsh 1961: 115 151; Badian 1966: 21; Cloud 1977; LaRoche 1977; Frier 1979: 188 189 and 150 152; Timpe 1979: Wisema n 1979: 112 117; LaRoche 1984; LaRoche 1988; von Albrecht 1997: 385 386; Wiseman 1998: 75 89; Chassignet 2001; Forsythe 2002; Beck and Walter 2004: 168 171; and Chassignet 2004: LXIII LXXV. Floruit : 1 st quarter 1 st century.

PAGE 179

179 Lucius Cornelius Sisenna Fragm enta : Peter 1914: 276 297; Barabino 1967: 67 239; Beck and Walter 2004: 247 313; Chassignet 2004: 50 88. Testimonia : Cic. Brut 228; 259 260; Leg. 1.2.6, 1.7; Sall. Iug 95.2; Vell. 2.9.5; Tac. Dial 23.2; Fronto Ep 132 Van den Hout. RE : Niese, RE IV (190 1), 1512 1513, Cornelius no. 374. MRR : none. Studies : Peter 1914: CCCXXXIV CCCXLIX; Bardon 1952: 251; Candiloro 1963; Leeman 1963: 83 86; Badian 1966: 25 26; Barabino 1967; Rawson 1979/1991; Fornara 1983: 70 71; Sensal 1997; von Albrecht 1997: 311 312; Bec k and Walter 2004: 241 245; Chassignet 2004: XXXVIII XLIX. Floruit : praetor 78, d. 67. Licinius Macer Fragmenta : Peter 1914: 298 307; Walt 1997: 196 211; Beck and Walter 2004: 318 345; Chassignet 2004: 89 103. Testimonia : Cic. Brut 238; Leg. 1.6 7; Dion. Ant. Rom 1.7.3; Sall. Hist 3.48 Maur. RE : F. Mnzer, RE XIII, I (1926), 419 428, Licinius no. 112. MRR II: 110, 138. Studies : Peter 1914: CCCL CCCLXV; Ogilvie 1958, Badian 1966: 22; Frier 1975; Frier 1979: 153 158; Hodgkinson 1997; von Albrecht 1997: 38 7 388; Walt 1997; Beck and Walter 2004: 314 317; and Chassignet 2004: L LXIII. Floruit : trib. 73, praetor 68, d. 66.

PAGE 180

180 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, M.C. 1990. Trials of the late Roman Republic, 149 B.C. to 50 B.C Toronto. Alfldi, A. 1971. Early Rome and the Latins Ann Arbor. Astin, A.E. 1967. Scipio Aemilianus Oxford. ______. 1978. Cato the Censor Oxford. Astin, A.E., Walbank, F. W., Fredericksen, M.W., and Oglivie, R.M., eds. 1989. Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. Vol. 8 of The Cambridge Ancient History 2 nd edition. Cambridge. JRS 52: 47 61. Reprinted in Studies in Greek and Roman History 1964. 206 234. Athenaeum XLII: 422 431. ______. 1964. Studies in Gree k and Roman History Oxford. ed., Latin Historians London.1 38. PACA 11: 1 6. econd Century CQ 47: 158 64. Historiae Studi Noniani. Eds. G. Barabino and F. Bertini. Genoa. 67 251. LEC 1 8: 145 164. ______. 1952. La Litterature latine inconnue Paris. Barchiesi, M. 1962. Nevio epico: Storia interpretazione edizione critica dei Frammenti del primo epos latino Padua. Bastian, S. 1983. Lexikon in Q. Claud ium Quadrigarium Hildesheim. Bates, R. 1983. Memoirs and the Perception of History in the Roman Republic Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Rex in Senatu PAPhS 130: 251 288

PAGE 181

181 Beard, M. and Crawford, M. H. 1985. Rome in the Late Republic: Problems and Interpretations Ithaca, NY. Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S. 1998. Religions of Rome 2 Vols. Cambridge. Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage London. Beck, H 2005. Revi ew of Martine Chassignet, BMCR 2005.05.01 ______ A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Malden, MA. 2 59 265. Beck, H. and Walter, U. 2001. Die frhen rmischen Historiker I von Fabius Pictor bis Cn. Gellius. Darmstadt. ______ 2004. Die frhen rmischen Historiker II, von Coelius Antipater bis Pomponius Atticus. Darmstadt. Beebee, T. 1994. The Ideo logy of Genre University Park, PA. Beloch, K.J. 1926. Rmische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Kriege Berlin. Bentley, M., ed. 1997. Companion to Historiography. London. RhM LXXIII: 306 321. Marx, eds., A Companion to the Roman Republic Malden, MA. 29 50. Boatwright, M., Gargola, D. and Talbert, R. 2004. The Romans from Village to Empire O xford. Bothius, A., and Ward Perkins, J. B. 1970. Etruscan and Roman Architecture Hammondsworth. SO 29: 34 53. Caes Hermes 81: 210 250. Historia 2: 189 209. Boyle, A J, and Freudenberg, K. 2002. "Satires of Rome: Threatening Poses from Lucilius to Juvenal." TLS 5177: 32.

PAGE 182

182 Bradley, K. 1989. Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 B.C. 70 B.C. Bloomington, IN. Braund, S. H. 1992. Roman Verse Satire Oxford. Bredehorn, U. 1968. Senatsakten in der Republikanische Annalistik. Unterschungen ber den rmischen Sena t bei den annalistischen Vorgngen des Livius unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der romischen Ostpolitik zwischen 205 und 171 v. Chr. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Marburg. Chiron 22: 103 158. Reinhardt, M. Lapidge, and J. Adams, eds., Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose Oxford. 53 72. Broughton, T.R.S. and Patterson, M.L. 195 1 2 (vol. I II), 1986 (III). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic New York and Atlanta. Brunt, P.A. 1971. Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic New York and London. Philas Charin: Misce llanea di studi classici in onore di E. Manni Rome. 309 340. CQ n.s. 30: 477 494. ______. 1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays Oxford. ______. 1993. Studies in Greek History and Thought Oxford. RhM LXIII: 321 328. Bugh, G., ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to the Hellenistic World Cambridge. Cameron, A., ed. 1990. History as Text: The Writing of Ancient H istory Chapel Hill. SCO 37: 205 15. Atti del Frammenti (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974) Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 151 221. Punica Arethusa 39: 569 593.

PAGE 183

183 Vichiana n.s. XII: 86 96. Chassignet, M. 1986/2002. Caton, Les Origines: texte etabli, traduit et commente Paris. ______ 1996/2003. L'annalistique Romaine ancienne. Paris ______ LEC LXVI: 321 335. ______ 1999/2003. L'annalistique Romaine Paris. ______ Annales des Valerius Antias sont CEA 37: 55 63. ______ 2004. L'annalistique Romaine politique Paris. I, 2: 2248 2255. ______ RE III, 2: 1723 172 5. ______ WS XXIV: 588 595. RE III, 1: 1392 5. Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus Ithaca. LCM 2: 225 227. Coffey, M. 1989. Roman Satire London. Conte, G. B. 1994. Latin Literature: A History Baltimore. Translated by J.B. Solodow. Raafla ub ed., Social Struggles in Archaic Rome Berkeley. 52 76. D. Smart, A. J. Woodman, eds., Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing Camb ridge. 67 86. ______. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome London and New York. Courtney, E. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets Oxford.

PAGE 184

184 ______. 1999. Archaic Latin Prose Atlanta. Crawford, M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage London. ______. 1978. The R oman Republic Cambridge, MA. ______. 1983. Sources for Ancient History Cambridge. ______. 1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, Italy and the Mediterranean Economy London. Laudatio Funebris CJ 37.1: 17 27. Crook J. A., Lintott, A., and Rawson, E., eds. 1994. The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 9. Cambridge. Miller, C. Damon, and K. S. Myers, eds., Vertis in Usum: Studies in Honor of Edward Courtney Leipzig. 1 23. Dorey, T.A., ed. 1966. Latin Historians London. Dowd, G., Stevenson, L., and Strong, J., eds. 2006. Genre Matters Bristol. Annales Maximi CPh 83: 289 299. Duckworth, G. E. 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy, a Study in Popular Entertainment Princeton. Earl, D. C. 1961. The Political Thought of Sallust Cambridge. Edwards, C. 1996. Writing Rome: Textual Approaches to the City Cambridg e. Eigler, U., Gotter, U., Luraghi, N., Walter, U., and Berneder, H., eds. 2003. Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. Erasmo, M. 2004. Roman Tragedy Austin. Fantham, E., Foley, H., Kampen, N., Pomeroy, S., and Shapiro, H., eds. 1994. Women in the Classical World Oxford. Fantham, E. 1996. Roman Literary Culture from Cicero to Apuleius Baltimore. CJ 92.4: 373 3 83.

PAGE 185

185 Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. 196 212. Flach, D. 1992. Einfuhrung in die r mische Geschichtsschreibung Darmstadt. AFLM X: 37 47. Fabulae praetextae in Context: When were Plays on Contemporary CQ 45: 170 190. In U. Eigler et al., eds. Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. 39 52. ______. ed. 2004. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic Cambridge. Fornara, C.W. 1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome Berkeley. Forsythe, G. 1984. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. ____ Lex Calpurnia AW 17: 109 119. Phoenix 44: 326 344. ______. 1994. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tra dition Lanham, MD. ______ 1999. Livy and Early Rome: A Study in Historical Method and Judgment Stuttgart. ______ The Roman Middle Republic: Politics, Religion, and Historiog raphy c.400 133 B.C. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae. Vol. 23. Rome. 1 11. ______ and E.W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes, Studies in Constitutions, Colonies and Military Powe r in the Ancient World Leiden. 99 112. ______. 2005. A Critical History of Early Rome: from Prehistory to the First Punic War Berkeley. AHR 32.2: 232 240.

PAGE 186

186 Frier, B. W. 1970. Roman Historiograph y from the Annales Maximi to Cato Censorius Ph.D. Dissertation. Princeton University. consules suffecti TAPA 79 97. ______. 1979/1999. Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalisti c Tradition Rome. Reprint Ann Arbor. RE IV, 1: 1522 1566. Frow, J. 2006. Genre London. JRS 71: 50 62. Sources for Ancient History Cambridge. 1 79. ______. 1991. Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome Berkeley. Hermes 68: 129 166 = Kleine Schriften III. Wiesbaden 51 92. Hermes 69: 46 55 = Kleine Schriften III: 93 103. Wiesbaden. ______ 1962 64. Kleine Schriften Vols. I III. Wiesbaden. Kleine Schri ften II. Wiesbaden. 307 335. ______. 1969. The Roman Nobility Oxford. Translated by R. Seager. RE IV, 1:185 194. At (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974) Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 13 60. A nnales Eigler et al., eds., Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. 93 114. Goldberg, S. 1995. Epic in Republican Rome Oxford. ______. 2005. Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and its Reception Cambridge. Arethusa 39: 427 447.

PAGE 187

187 Goldsworthy, A. 1996. The Roman Army at War, 100 B.C. A.D. 200 Oxford. ______. 2000. The Punic Wars London. Gowing, A. 2005. Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture Cambridge. Lex Varia JRS 55.5: 59 73. ______. 1974/1995. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic Berkeley. ______. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Com ing of Rome Berkeley. ______. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome Ithaca. RE VIII, A: 790. Autobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical Princeton. 28 48. Habinek, T. N. 1998. The politics of Latin literature: writing, identity, and empire in ancient Rome Princeton. Handley, E.W. 1968. Menander and Plautus: A Study in Comparison London. Hpke, N. 1915. C Semproni Gracchi Oratoris Romani Fragmenta Collecta et Illustrata Munich. Harris, W.V. 1979. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327 70 B.C. Oxford. ______. ed. 1984. The Imperialism of Mid Republican Rome Rome. Harrison, S., ed. 2005. A Co mpanion to Latin Literature Malden, Ma. Baltimore. CJ 53. 5: 194 206. Henderson, J. 1998. Fighting for Rome: Poe ts and Caesars, History and Civil War Cambridge. Potestas Regia JRS 47.5: 82 87. CP 28.3: 153 175. Herrmann, W. 1979. Die Historien des Coelius Antipater: Fragm. u. Ko mmentar. Meisenheim.

PAGE 188

188 Athenaeum XLII: 432 437. Hertz, M. 1842. De Luciis Cinciis Berlin. Hodgkinson, M. 1997. C. Licinius Macer and the historiography of the early republic Ph.D. Dissertat ion. University of Exeter. Holford Strevens, L. 2003. Aulus Gellius, An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement. Oxford. Rothestein and R. Morstein Marx, eds., A Companion to the Roman Republic Malden, MA. 478 495. Hornblower, S., ed. 1994. Greek Historiography Oxford. Jacoby, F. 1949. Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Ancient Athens Oxford. Jones, C. P. 1971. Plutarch and Rome Oxford. Kallet Phoenix 44.2: 122 139. Kaster, R. A. 1997. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity Berkeley. Keaveney A. 1982. Sulla: The Last Republican London. Kenney, E. J. 1977. Lucretius Oxford. Kenney, E.J., and Clausen W.V. eds. 1982. The Cambridge History of Classical Literature : Volume Two : Latin Literature Cambridge. Kierdorf, W. 1980. Laudatio Funebris Interpretationen u. Unters. zur Entwicklung d. rm. Leichenrede. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain. K RE I, 1: 250 251. RE I, 1: 584 588. Kleiner, D. and Matheson, S. 1996. I Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome New Haven, CT. Klotz, A. 1940. Livius und seine Vorgnger Stuttgart. ______ RhM 91: 268 285. Knoche, U. 1975. Roman Satire Bloomington, IN. Translated by E. Ramage.

PAGE 189

189 Kraus, C.S. and Woodman, A.J. 1997. Latin Historians Greece and Rome: New Surveys in the Classics. Oxford. Kra us, C.S., ed. 1999. The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts Leiden. A Companion to Latin Literature Malden, MA. 241 256. Lacey, W. and Wilson, B. 1970. Respublica: Roman Society and Politics according to Cicero Oxford. Historia 26: 358 368. ptured in Battle in Books 1 C & M 35: 93 104. in Battle in Books XX Latomus 47: 758 771. Sitzungsberichte der deutschen. Akademie der Wissenschaften. zu Berlin Klasse fuer Sprache, Literatur und Kunst 7: 3 16. ______. 1960. Rmische Religionsgeschichte Munich. Lazenby, J.F. 1978. Warminster. ______. 1996. The First Punic War: A Military History London. Lebek, W. 1970. Verba Prisca Gttingen. Leeman, A.D. 1963. Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers Amsterda m. Leo, F. 1913. Geschichte der rmischen Literatur I: Die archaische Literatur Berlin. Levene, D. S., and Nelis, D.P. 2002. Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography Leiden. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Malden, MA. 275 289. Hermes 102: 90 109.

PAGE 190

190 ______ Athenaeum 79: 509 519. Luce, T. J. 1977. Livy: The Composition of His History Princeton Malcovati, E. 1979. Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae Padua. romenion e PP 29: 389 409. Manuwald, G. 2001. Fabulae praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Rmer Mnich. GFF VII: 75 84. Mari ncola, J. 1997. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography Cambridge. Kraus ed., The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Te xts Leiden. 281 323. ______, ed. 2007. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Malden, MA. (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974) Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 493 527. Maurenbrecher, B. 1893. C. Sallustii Crispi Historiarum Reliquiae 2 Vols. Stuttgart. May, J. M. and Wisse, J. 2001. Cicero: O n the Ideal Orator Oxford. Fifty Years of Classical Scholarship Ed. M. Platnauer. Oxford. 384 412. JRS 65: 1 10. McGushin, P. 1992. Sallust. The Histories Oxford. JRS 91: 27 49. Mellor, R. 1999. The Roman Historians London. Misch, G. 1950. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity W estport, CT. Momigliano, A. 1966. Studies in Historiography London.

PAGE 191

191 ______. 1977. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography Oxford. ______ The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Berkeley. 80 108. ______. ed. 1990. The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography Berkeley. NH III.129: The Roman Use of Stades and the Elogium of C. Philologus 117: 29 48. Morley, N. 1999. Writing Ancient History Ithaca. ______. 2000. Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches London. ______. 2004. Theories, Models and Concepts in Ancient History London. Moxon, I.S., Smart, J.D. and Woodman, A.J. 1986. Past Persp ectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing Cambridge. Munslow, A. 2000. The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies. London. Mnzer, F. 1891. De Gente Valeria Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Berlin. Hermes 32: 469 474. ______ RE III, 2: 2556 2557. RE VI, 2: 1836 1841. RE VI, 2: 1987 1991. ______ RE VII, 1: 998 1000. ______ RE II, 1, 1; 1269 1280. ______ RE II A, 2: 1441 1443. ______ RE XIII, 1: 419 428. RE XIII, 2: 2072 2082. ______ RE XXII, 1: 903 908. RE VI, 2: 1811 1814.

PAGE 192

192 Nicolet, C. 1980. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome Berkeley. Translated by P. S. Falla. Niese, B. 1898. RE I I, 2: 28. RE IV: 1512 1513. Oakley, S.P. 1997. A Commentary on Livy: Books VI X. Vol. 1: Introduction and Book VI Oxford. Ogilvie, R. M. 1958. "Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei." JRS 48: 40 46. ______. 1 965. A Commentary on Livy Books 1 5 Oxford. ______. 1980. Roman Literature and Society Sussex. ______. 1981. Review of B. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition JRS 71: 199 201. Olney, J., ed. 1980. Au tobiography: Essays Theoretical and Critical Princeton. Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Classe. di Scienze Morali, Storiche, e Filologiche Ser. 5, X: 51 60. Pais, E. 1918. Dalle Guerre Puniche a Cesare Augusto. 2 Vols Rome. Palmer, R. 1970. The Archaic Community of the Romans. Cambridge. ., eds., Atti (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974) Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S B no. 1. Urbino. 233 296. Exam AJP 117 (4): 585 617. In S. Boldrini et al ., eds., (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974) Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLI X N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 283 296. Atti del Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974 ). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 95 108. Peter, H. 1870. Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta Leipzig.

PAGE 193

193 ______. 1914. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. 2 Volumes. Leipzig. Reprint Stuttgart. Petzold, K. E. 1999. Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtsschreib ung: Kleine Schriften zur griechischen und rmischen Geschichte Stuttgart. Potter, D. 1999. Literary Texts and the Roman Historian London. Poucet, J. 1985. Les Origines de Rome. Tradition et histoire Brussels. Quinn, K. 1972. Catullus: An Interpret ation London. Annales Maximi CQ 65 n.s. 21: 158 169. JRS 62: 33 45. Latomus 35:4 689 717. Reprinted in E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers 1991. London. 245 271. CQ 29: 327 346. Reprinted in E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers 1991. L ondon. 363 388. ______. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic Baltimore. ______. 1991. Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers London. Reinhardt, T., Lapidge, M. and Adams, J., eds. 2005. Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose Oxfo rd. et al eds., Purposes of History. Leuven. 73 81. Richardson, J. S. 1976. Roman Provincial Administration, 227 B.C. to A.D. 117 London. ______. 1986. Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218 82 B.C. Cambridge. Lex Calpurnia de Repetundis JRS 77: 1 12. Richardson, L., Jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome Baltimore. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Malden, MA. 266 274. Ross, D. 1969. Style and Tradition in Catullus Cambridge, MA.

PAGE 194

194 Rothstein, N. and Morstein Marx, R., eds. 2006. A Companion to the Roman Repu blic Malden, MA. annales maximi Klio 75: 155 179. ______ Fasti Arethusa 39.3: 489 512. CA 23.1: 139 177. TAPA 136.2: 329 388. Santini, Carlo. 1995. I Frammenti di L. Cassio Emina: Introduzione, Testo, Traduzione e Commento Pisa. commentarii eine literarischen Rechtfertigung. Zu Wesen und Eigler et al., eds., Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kont exte Darmstadt. 172 195. Arethusa 39.3: 449 469. Scullard, H.H. 1980. A History of the Roman World, 753 146 B.C. London. Seager, R., ed. 1969. The Crisis of the Roman Republic: Studies in Political and Social History Cambridge. Seager, R. 1994. "Sulla." In J.A. Crook, A. Lintott and E. Rawson, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 9. Cambridge. 165 207. Segal, C. 1990. Lucretius on Death and Anxiety : Poetry and Philosophy in De Rerum Natura Princeton. U. Eigler et al., eds., Formen rmi scher Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. 157 171. Shatzman, I. 1975. Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics Brussels. Sherwin White, A.N. 1973. Roman Citizenship Oxford. Skutsch, O. 1968. Studia Enniana London.

PAGE 195

195 ______. 1985. Annales (of Ennius). Oxford. Slater, N. 1985. Plautus in Performance: The Theatre of the Mind Princeton. Helios 22.2: 149 177. Stadter, P 1965. Cambridge, MA. Stockton, D. 1979. The Gracchi Oxford. RFIC 91: 440 458. ______. 1964. Bellum Punicum Teubner: L eipzig. Suerbaum, W., ed. 2002. Handbuch der Lateinischen Literature der Antike: Erster Band: Die Archaische Literature von den Anfngen bis Sullas Tod Munich. ______. 2004. Cato Censorius in der Forschung des 20. Jahrhunderts. Eine kommentierte chro nologische Bibliographie fr 1900 1999 nebst systematischen Hinweisen und einer Darstellung des Schriftstellers M. Porcius Cato (234 149 v. Chr). Hildesheim Sumner, G.V. 1972. Toronto. Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution Oxford. HSCP 64: 27 87. ______. 1964. Sallust Berkeley. Thomsen, R. 1961. Early Roman Coinage III Copenhagen. ANRW 1. 2: 928 969. A&A 25: 97 119. Memoria Mller eds., Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikat ion, Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewusstein Tbingen. 277 299. In U. Eigler et al. eds., Formen rmischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfngen bis Liviu s: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte Darmstadt. 287 316.

PAGE 196

196 ______. 2007. Antike Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zur Historiographie Darmstadt. Treggiari, S. 2002. Roman Social History London and New York. TAPA 73: 25 53. eds., (Urbino 9 11 maggio 1974 ). Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e let teratura XLIX N.S. B no. 1. Urbino. 245 281. van den Hout, M. 1988. M. Cornelius Fronto Epistulae Leipzig. Verbrugghe, G. P. 1979/80. "Three Notes on Fabius Pictor and his History." In E. Manni, ed., Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di E. Manni Rome. 2157 2173. Historia 30: 236 238. Philologus 126: 316 323. Annales on the Meaning of An Philologus 133: 192 230. Verdin, H. 1990 Purposes of history: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2 nd Centuries B.C. Louvain. Bellum Histricum ed., D isiecti Membra Poetae, studi di poesia latin in frammenti Vol. 1. Foggia, Italy. 35 59. Supplementband XVIII: 454 457. von Albrecht, M. 1997. A History of Roman L iterature from Livius Andronicus to Boethius with Special Regard to Its Influence on World Literature Vol. 1, revised by the author and G. Schmeling, translated with assistance of Frances and Kevin Newman. Vol. 2, revised by G. Schmeling and the author, t ranslated with the assistance of Ruth R. Caston and Francis R. Schwartz. Leiden. ______. 1989. Masters of Roman Prose Leeds. Translated by N. Adkin. Walbank, F. W. 1957 1959. A Historical Commentary on Polybius Oxford. ______ Historia 9: 216 234.

PAGE 197

197 ______ 1972. Polybius Berkeley. Walbank, F.W., Astin, A.E., Fredericksen, M.W., Oglivie, R.M., and Drummond, A., eds. 1989. The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 7, Part 2. Cambridge. Walsh, P. G. 1961. Livy. His Histor ical Aims and Methods Cambridge. Walt, S. 1997. Der Historiker C. Licinius Macer: Einleitung, Fragmente Kommentar Stuttgart and Leipzig. Walter, U. 2004. Memoria und res publica: Zur Geschichtskultur im Republikanischen Rom Frankfurt. Ward Perkins, J. B. 1977. Roman Architecture. New York. Warmington, E.H. 1961. Remains of Old Latin Vols. I IV Cambridge. Warren. J. 1998. The Past and its Presenters. An Introduction to Issues in Historiography London. The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in honor of Harry Caplan Ithaca. 3 25. West, D. 1969. The Imagery and Poetry of Lucretius Edinburgh. Wheeler, A. L. 1934. Catullus and the Traditions of Ancie nt Poetry Berkeley. History and Theory 23.1: 1 33. ______. 1987. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation Baltimore. Wiseman, T.P. 1969. Catullan Questions Leicester. ______ 1974. Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays Leicester. ______. 1979. Leicester. History 66: 375 393. LCM 8: 20 22. ______ 1985. Catullus and His World. A Reappraisal. Cambridge.

PAGE 198

198 ______. 1987. Roman Studies: Literary and Historical Liverpool. iseman, eds., Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World Austin, TX. 122 146. ______. 1994. Historiography and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture Exeter. ______. 1995. Remus: A Roman Myth Cambridge. ______. 1998. Roman Drama and Roman History Exeter. Annales D. S. Levene and D. P. Nelis eds., Clio and the Poets: Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography Leiden. 331 362. ______ 2002b. Review of Gesine Manuwald, Fabulae praetex tae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Rmer. BMCR 2002.06.13. ______ A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography Malden, MA. 67 75. Woodman, A.J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classica l Historiography London. Wright, J. 1974. Dancing in Chains: The Stylistic Unity of the Comoedia Palliata Rome. Zimmerer, M. 1937. Der Annalist Qu. Claudius Quadrigarius Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Munich.

PAGE 199

199 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Trudy Harri ngton Becker was born in Fall River, Massachusetts. The oldest of seven children, Trudy grew up in Boston where she graduated from Boston Latin School, the oldest public high school in the United States. She earned a B.A. in classical studies and histor y from the College of the Holy Cross in 1983. She received an M.A. in classics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1985 and an M.A. in history from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in 1990. After comp leting her M.A. in history, Trudy joined the faculty at Virginia Tech in 1991 as an instructor in the humanities program, which would eventually become part of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies. She also became part of the classical studies prog ram, teaching introductory classes in Greek and Roman civilization and persuading many students to become classical studies majors and minors. In addition, Trudy has taught many ancient history courses for the History Department across the last decade. I n 2008 Trudy was promoted to Senior received many awards for her teaching excellence, including the university wide Alumni Award for Teaching Excellence in 2007. Tru dy is an avid proponent of education abroad; currently she co San Vitale, Switzerland, and she regularly leads short summer programs to Rome. Trudy and her husband, And y Becker, associate professor in classical studies at Virginia Tech, have three children: Matt and Tim (18 year old twins) and Trudy (age 14).


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101202_AAAABD INGEST_TIME 2010-12-02T12:12:56Z PACKAGE UFE0022409_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25755 DFID F20101202_AAATEF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH becker_g_Page_064.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c72c8df80dcea4c7175363043d4acd36
SHA-1
52c64c9ff9683fef334c325e6ffd88cbe4dfa1fe
5700 F20101202_AAATDR becker_g_Page_197thm.jpg
5edbc038cc8732ab44210ac9717d32c5
02fbcf7b333fd0a12fe20976b7d70b845fa4441f
2477 F20101202_AAASYL becker_g_Page_092.txt
468f1851b4b487e040465199ff3d7fd0
d2e58d4428a9a39e28a8caed55c161f063f4194d
2078 F20101202_AAASXW becker_g_Page_057.txt
180c1672d8ccd0fa29111e6d30c6662c
502eee032317d0dfd86334ce9c844e5a8d6a517c
80696 F20101202_AAARUU becker_g_Page_056.jpg
6a3f41f30e1711106b0fc60a6774ab6f
9b419ffcaee47b44ecc3877a890445665094c6fc
1053954 F20101202_AAASBD becker_g_Page_091.tif
2ae883d63ee2741b87f946cea85c78a3
91afba96ed275b0e08a8a076780e69fbfcaaa154
78307 F20101202_AAASAP becker_g_Page_047.jpg
0d8e00e385514065c98f4ebc0fecf752
a078fc83e97b32ce826ae4cb97f2602307049b00
6266 F20101202_AAARVJ becker_g_Page_126thm.jpg
9c07a87ba65dc07d1af835be649995a1
6ecd8c7f0f47b9007f856f494690c657c5f72063
26272 F20101202_AAATEG becker_g_Page_129.QC.jpg
40e6f624022e677fc3a9f61ae518d992
b28017b40db6cc075947e2d3d8e58e71e7e33bcb
3162 F20101202_AAATDS becker_g_Page_002.QC.jpg
3344a01c09344aef9911b732d47a399f
ad480033675228ea6fb6842a4d8d7cae88ce969a
2506 F20101202_AAASZA becker_g_Page_113.txt
48879695c7b8766dbe30064a0f45b668
9d5cb79991b878b8a2487dacfa27004a43992cab
2548 F20101202_AAASYM becker_g_Page_093.txt
6bfa6eb5b8833dbec4a6649cae0b779b
14f7b884312c4ddd2be2351bd93e78804b10e064
2187 F20101202_AAASXX becker_g_Page_059.txt
fff1a787cd3c2518ea0b0933d596c827
b99edba903c08a7941531939b895c3ddd24ce705
55711 F20101202_AAARUV becker_g_Page_170.pro
8168bf6fb8a5cb283ae236e714b5fce7
3178650f97603d3c0e4ff8798dc89699a0bef6b7
F20101202_AAASBE becker_g_Page_080.tif
9534e5e94bc943e4357c1e13c01a3163
9c4a6a88067ef72746ac427e76522f01134a8767
74346 F20101202_AAASAQ becker_g_Page_028.jpg
196062ca61ba688573b3de7628a68836
a4992c4dae5d08ed80710633402fac278023438e
81302 F20101202_AAARVK becker_g_Page_150.jpg
b3da5b0a61993bcd7f5c649bff697c53
7f6862e005a3a326e9e19b382e0e6213268145e1
27076 F20101202_AAATEH becker_g_Page_053.QC.jpg
aa41e53c2f5a3bac4575403ecec86cbf
e75af372d1606b35f79b40d42c4df1fdcd08b6e4
7272 F20101202_AAATDT becker_g_Page_014thm.jpg
9af4f5239cbc3144441b8d11fed47227
4739f31750a72514fda62593b13efcd0a205a92d
2724 F20101202_AAASZB becker_g_Page_115.txt
4425a7d169482fd403d7eddadb703ce8
a56187d85ff3b490a83250748ddcf581fd643ba4
2177 F20101202_AAASXY becker_g_Page_061.txt
35820a467439b8a5152082b1d09d5d03
c43daf3de55ce58604dc448e829314398ef0605f
F20101202_AAARUW becker_g_Page_127.tif
a11a547da0428d4c20b3c9e9f8f2365b
9c666a507be26b5164a7bcf4ec5cf1316da96fb0
48907 F20101202_AAASBF becker_g_Page_009.pro
d04cd17bffa2a4d7c1609ba3ec441e72
1b42311d1c616446f7aa9d92f36a13d881a55e7c
11400 F20101202_AAASAR becker_g_Page_004.QC.jpg
614a4ae564a582c5177641719cca5fba
e0c081ae31fe24e32370beb24eb76b415e6fb40c
24272 F20101202_AAATEI becker_g_Page_103.QC.jpg
003247521fd5dbd4337e10179571f901
6d225b6d48a927802118ec796d7f5da745b49e15
6317 F20101202_AAATDU becker_g_Page_193thm.jpg
2b56f37db2bce9debc75086948a78cf6
9674a967a65b698ec4cbdee873789e7564d5ec3f
752 F20101202_AAASZC becker_g_Page_117.txt
68c6e78abbf299b12da3f399d4b2cb55
5500bf5058e3f35452113b4c05844c9f1b901fcd
2159 F20101202_AAASYN becker_g_Page_095.txt
ad4113c72d91f09adcb1814fe1bd0dcc
bf6fa0c89c449cab31df0e4031e8bc8e766f6c61
F20101202_AAASXZ becker_g_Page_064.txt
09e80d1cbe5b911ef4e7bbb56a6ad94b
5556a2f9e9c7908f3f80af1491f33fa14f0e1018
56805 F20101202_AAARUX becker_g_Page_105.pro
5a3937a6c21b2cee68c46660b389b742
bd7610d8d530d15efa0504b3f71da0cafd47491e
96779 F20101202_AAASBG becker_g_Page_173.jpg
e14852d7763de795e3fa2c514bb1bec3
ee121364ef2a9b481f5f1ce45973d753c030c10c
27425 F20101202_AAARWA becker_g_Page_062.QC.jpg
3b6512d26d79415073e5a89884145fc3
0fe93fbc661ad4f74ebc52f540ff117f287d4459
F20101202_AAASAS becker_g_Page_075.tif
80148e967524ac35d4c51baf0fae291b
f36d419374be2c9847c6764217a4926599c34f89
2103 F20101202_AAARVL becker_g_Page_082.txt
ede97a1bbe646849b4b4c99dcaae4ed1
3a601dead3d48da4178df026e9560349c8a09123
6725 F20101202_AAATEJ becker_g_Page_163thm.jpg
00f8cf689ddaef4057d53c347655af82
c7c79fb2d56c23b467cdb035ff105a518b0da004
6996 F20101202_AAATDV becker_g_Page_144thm.jpg
6ccdad8077fa8d56ba9227a9aead274b
979663154582b1cbb21aaa91aa8a1036cd9e6723
2166 F20101202_AAASZD becker_g_Page_118.txt
992730a8ae7207adac5eb9d496df3bdd
1f28841029b80f312f1641d3e7a92ed1319f4c1c
2421 F20101202_AAASYO becker_g_Page_096.txt
064a329c2c31ffd6c9dc2b01e913f725
dcf18148ab17dd3bb698cd34301af9c110b404b9
7295 F20101202_AAARUY becker_g_Page_137thm.jpg
388c37140f382ede9a0b9609531b8cf8
6a28c41a6c6aea59edd1c8605363fec0c3d71fab
62377 F20101202_AAASBH becker_g_Page_184.jpg
b5739a3872dcd8517c8e07ca4ed06c48
ced587e3fb4d6ad663373cc1e33f8ba88334a159
F20101202_AAARWB becker_g_Page_076.tif
0dcbb6b3f20ce611a2f151b44ecf2b07
93cc4a7dd10f33f0cca3f9d79011e8b327e654e2
71466 F20101202_AAASAT becker_g_Page_116.pro
acb742dab7561990a2f80cdb531a001d
d908ba815b1814b908e91045ebda3ba93d1e316c
7000 F20101202_AAARVM becker_g_Page_127thm.jpg
7cd64b45fe76a234119f10602d2713dd
2e70d2a877721ba1a07ee2074bb160c7948cd04c
6748 F20101202_AAATEK becker_g_Page_130thm.jpg
481a33b0bad537ac09ff98e4d7c46704
9a8a898dfde8271a96594600f383a61874a22fc2
25913 F20101202_AAATDW becker_g_Page_046.QC.jpg
662fc931bb1be2842b71a0315d45c24b
1dec642c103ea29f9ed640a0923c8880b361be8f
2362 F20101202_AAASZE becker_g_Page_120.txt
08bd7ff16fc96ce608673340282033ce
24a710386528492b1dc8f49aa487f804eea415aa
2183 F20101202_AAASYP becker_g_Page_098.txt
31671d9007cf209b54268de05ae9ad99
528935a6b42fc7b74b3d32d344ca205be3e14ade
25397 F20101202_AAARUZ becker_g_Page_099.QC.jpg
6c21cbc15582683eb09c8f5c69930668
a7e92ca693ffa9492eb98e8c1357945dc1df4124
25138 F20101202_AAASBI becker_g_Page_148.QC.jpg
ddebe6086ba44a1c130589d3e2502d1c
d23878ef619650733244bed5e95e83229f4ea396
1593 F20101202_AAARWC becker_g_Page_091.txt
23f52083d9491e55e50dbfa8ff94a9ce
778fa55facba8429bc350a4b7def0555858bf332
25712 F20101202_AAASAU becker_g_Page_010.QC.jpg
46a5361b8ef21ded0542311508651bb1
8368ca4a66709f66e93769a7dae2eda8f1eca386
456 F20101202_AAARVN becker_g_Page_001.txt
e5e065604976000735349f86c4de3963
275157891c68481a83e930d1ad7c0b192e04107e
7244 F20101202_AAATEL becker_g_Page_106thm.jpg
3c01940edccef9d3f8431136793b61f1
c8d777cf24102ea2ee5a73b5dc02cc10a702b9b7
2278 F20101202_AAASZF becker_g_Page_121.txt
ed064f93342a5540683bf070b0af4261
ed0b3bbde20c213b309b46032bf4154ea01832ce
2153 F20101202_AAASYQ becker_g_Page_099.txt
3e3596f0866303b87344552b23c1de97
4ef02f9a2f4ae4ed121755fe1f7232cece6d44c6
F20101202_AAASBJ becker_g_Page_009.tif
2ecc5acb63ff5f1b712eeb430c7b7dc6
cfc1c00d799a37cfa4b8641862ff81ea3475582f
6020 F20101202_AAARWD becker_g_Page_195thm.jpg
2e50875086e1d00e8147bcd49372cabb
72bbc1f0f5a6e40c773189300f6d01b852068f44
6900 F20101202_AAARVO becker_g_Page_055thm.jpg
0730c836f4da6da5b92ea75cb219bd1e
346a5217fabfed08ff99cc327a42a98a2c80c729
6584 F20101202_AAATFA becker_g_Page_098thm.jpg
69ce92bf1a23342317f6b316b67233df
38b6643c9b91a74c9de8fd6c825bc0b6156f99ca
7017 F20101202_AAATEM becker_g_Page_134thm.jpg
234542dd56b3b974c0ab071b79673acf
231a4401931e4a13858e76447043f93c7a8c5963
21781 F20101202_AAATDX becker_g_Page_187.QC.jpg
b3067a58adb007ddcfe66634417efe4b
8d8efa4d8dbb25d90d4999c2da2dc11d3cfa9022
2564 F20101202_AAASZG becker_g_Page_122.txt
33d6da00a3204e99a8ee44073f62af9c
7e53ea887aceafb9945a56a5dae497955ad22e77
2677 F20101202_AAASYR becker_g_Page_101.txt
638d730da488996556bfd2c323cbadaa
73bf392a5e8fb644f068f287f116fc32459edee9
6798 F20101202_AAASBK becker_g_Page_018thm.jpg
88ea5724666877d0288a0422605e9fbb
906f382a7540cdaf511116dae22b159f23b4a9b3
81926 F20101202_AAARWE becker_g_Page_159.jpg
437e22cc3283a93ff5b5ff489c0bd1db
bb9da651cfb632b483f958be34e8bb21e230a7a9
121836 F20101202_AAASAV becker_g_Page_177.jp2
93b190f1cbe9a9830020e131391ca6a4
c437b6fae78a05dd701b322c56030900cce88738
53720 F20101202_AAARVP becker_g_Page_044.pro
805df542b131a3746694dc025affb6a9
2d86c41f8dff97a202ae38b003c973b4a89c41b0
29012 F20101202_AAATFB becker_g_Page_069.QC.jpg
ec65528da6bbe9871ebed08a90b5b1f7
2cd3703f848378f7bf77ac98c99fdcfd2e66e618
3511 F20101202_AAATEN becker_g_Page_004thm.jpg
f1e07a7c83c2a6915de8b215a2a19365
beee490a7143317e53367305f37daef1c9275e39
29285 F20101202_AAATDY becker_g_Page_116.QC.jpg
4a807edc77350fd3cce450ece93df0f5
f2ab96cdf12a2c527922565e0667d3c60ac6ef85
2492 F20101202_AAASZH becker_g_Page_124.txt
c91e8dd225c55f18c085da0bae64683f
665e1034eedaa193b04dcf227543f9395b624080
2468 F20101202_AAASYS becker_g_Page_102.txt
61c7246f013c6839358c54c803482e38
13ea5b26fcc25c19f2ef310ce2be69cff6078c4d
F20101202_AAASBL becker_g_Page_047.tif
6b0609f89c6c03bb0abffdf7f5861b12
3286b686382c7e9c6ce5025b42e4f3b84f168577
6529 F20101202_AAARWF becker_g_Page_192thm.jpg
98d3d0a094dd26ddaa3ba06121248473
d51b602699466cb3267f718cc8008fa04d06d8a5
63581 F20101202_AAASAW becker_g_Page_180.jpg
8d7fc4331ea81923ccd9e8ab63d993cb
7aa68e1118af7e1eeb5958fb36f5c5f312cc7ae2
124694 F20101202_AAARVQ becker_g_Page_133.jp2
931ac1bc6202b4610ad8596f705dd6c1
15134163631feadbecd357ba353fd3bc624a945a
27286 F20101202_AAATFC becker_g_Page_088.QC.jpg
adc0852d4a425a7504a92d47eb023db7
c41a479308cf8744f914d191f16b377bf413ca8e
22876 F20101202_AAATEO becker_g_Page_192.QC.jpg
4b013cfc765d0147eee626a77a3ecb52
f4b32c90163e6fb9f212d4ad393feb0108a11806
7218 F20101202_AAATDZ becker_g_Page_015thm.jpg
6aca113e6a0160bf969f31f4e98b97a3
0babede49cbfe148ac3318953819bf3807b27f2e
2181 F20101202_AAASZI becker_g_Page_125.txt
f8de9240ae671a3190586bb850597281
93f462103b6c1d0c222cefcc65c76b2e76903357
2123 F20101202_AAASYT becker_g_Page_103.txt
8e00fe4247b44c22e5335a3693569c2b
444d11e51f56fe382ce4870a88ca29fb6c36deeb
6660 F20101202_AAASBM becker_g_Page_105thm.jpg
5acd8aa2abc06f4ea3a7ab32a7abbce1
d934215911556715c95996d593ee6b425248dcff
7043 F20101202_AAARWG becker_g_Page_142thm.jpg
5d1bb8c0100e3a6f585bc9ce6c367946
65ff8bb39ade0709269ca1a3dcf3621ce848d348
F20101202_AAASAX becker_g_Page_194.tif
21a4cf4cfbf3cbdc02c7d75cd8986f6b
1fa39a1d1764d3816981f43f60c6a12572c692df
61626 F20101202_AAARVR becker_g_Page_062.pro
f40bdefb4f484fc9b95c2484679f2fff
e0000ea4415b722640c58a6335b4ed5593f87a07
25322 F20101202_AAASCA becker_g_Page_151.QC.jpg
b210349136d9e850682a2f5852ea3d5c
4fdb6033af947a02bb12b6e9ce1314010cdedf49
5992 F20101202_AAATFD becker_g_Page_081thm.jpg
dae3c86497ecf3ff9ce769754b7b3dc4
0573664513a536c7607abefbc38904204adf0bc6
25344 F20101202_AAATEP becker_g_Page_051.QC.jpg
35bb5ac902d59aec76c39230fba7f6d0
dfcdfd6f803eca39251ea2a8f371b2ef0c21c911
2017 F20101202_AAASZJ becker_g_Page_126.txt
e6b55213fad098f9aac2f5bde0167ae3
34c9e82563697bda49142eb3f24706e963182bd7
2675 F20101202_AAASYU becker_g_Page_104.txt
4fbadcd964e49c98ea60f3705d0d3038
d74da05e46888d85a3837ea4cf72a4f77b7abf36
27942 F20101202_AAASBN becker_g_Page_137.QC.jpg
6eaa33efe983568e3c1d4307f724f7f5
2db841fc6ac39c45f8b9d1a8e5390e0e6c357b74
122108 F20101202_AAARWH becker_g_Page_056.jp2
777fdb02471d0c3a748bb6242fed5c59
e9dcb627b301847befd1088ecc536f2ff9442dc5
26942 F20101202_AAASAY becker_g_Page_014.QC.jpg
4825cb2bf539bb60abb4602975e74761
1779c8bb2e88ef6b7b6bfd98bb77b4de523fb76f
2036 F20101202_AAARVS becker_g_Page_141.txt
af1388c76f757f70b8638d6b03ab7ff3
1cb54a6ad2afa1041e83b037b3e882255151964d
103006 F20101202_AAASCB becker_g_Page_128.jp2
f993a722cee73dde7db78e5f3843cee8
ad02e60eaf35bd72f1aeb4153cb3eec098b16037
24999 F20101202_AAATFE becker_g_Page_107.QC.jpg
480bc96e0c0fe2f9b1b0cf721b5ff02d
74554b2be4bae7d450585549d0f3e1f53a0d3511
7146 F20101202_AAATEQ becker_g_Page_053thm.jpg
c6b8e95e5e323dcf736847f907dfc629
a5f7053506d438e3bc27de51e8d60c6584a5b2a1
2231 F20101202_AAASZK becker_g_Page_127.txt
be55d54a778e4f569a8eee954107a229
2698b24ba2137a24547f2c48cbd02c193e4ea5aa
2212 F20101202_AAASYV becker_g_Page_105.txt
84b23a1f6315cbccf71363feacb5c0ba
4b74da0824859a1e44bf0a9d9f36577dc0705c95
117711 F20101202_AAASBO becker_g_Page_022.jp2
fdcee1a89dd8a49f885e67afe12bf57b
4eb1eebdd41d921d890de990250e2e185f6962a4
2180 F20101202_AAARWI becker_g_Page_170.txt
a935980a271c42db91d8309d82cf8dfc
22c72feff5a47d1000fb2e1af88a5b25f7323dad
2035 F20101202_AAASAZ becker_g_Page_163.txt
aa04e2acebbb24e8f924a870b61f8d52
6834b8f767641f15657d9bd9afbb1518f0c3cd2d
67660 F20101202_AAARVT becker_g_Page_198.jp2
903d65de2e50e985b889e1359e3a5372
8eea0f462c9b0bee8f764d062aefa04494c270f7
24021 F20101202_AAASCC becker_g_Page_123.QC.jpg
cbe3452296fea22204a71a6813dda7cd
cfd51bd2260049a75735b0a35870b83e8f8df15d
7311 F20101202_AAATFF becker_g_Page_104thm.jpg
569f45ab64a3a767b9fc5c272a8bb3b8
5e1de27d1b47875ee2701930cbc9244f705c303f
27427 F20101202_AAATER becker_g_Page_049.QC.jpg
86f3c955226abd2119525d18b705fa29
91370119a9431115f130a24f731537d2377124bf
1890 F20101202_AAASZL becker_g_Page_128.txt
44b5cf0c9e08791e7fafdc491c202ef2
54b8dced00555535f88eaa22a716301c65bedcc3
2497 F20101202_AAASYW becker_g_Page_106.txt
6ad09000037059c187d2dba6f3c19ad2
06bd5ba4dab561158ea716043e12e3939f1b105e
112581 F20101202_AAASBP becker_g_Page_164.jp2
af083d54d163a20c6d7044e58f51f05e
3df40da70708ea5b0de633afe2f464c2afbad792
F20101202_AAARWJ becker_g_Page_125.tif
4b4af1b6ffcb7cec27d0818f720f5d1b
e7542b5d30a43eaa85eead95b0dc1131e935438c
40099 F20101202_AAARVU becker_g_Page_091.pro
31030948b0cbb739e38ad04dce5abce4
c66ee4a70ad598abb29233a61f6c0419c5fd82af
92654 F20101202_AAASCD becker_g_Page_068.jpg
cf0cb686b1d8d58c84a22f0fb1bfb470
204270e97ca5ccca5fe70fb5f1ab47e18557fad7
7171 F20101202_AAATFG becker_g_Page_011thm.jpg
e167f5a7d4f6b4b548e21b7e0427cb39
0357789b356bcfa7c410c347a06dff5402a0ce1e
7095 F20101202_AAATES becker_g_Page_071thm.jpg
06372e71549898f69a907b38cfcbc326
3cbaf60041e6e49d571e850657a91213c31419c2
2044 F20101202_AAASZM becker_g_Page_131.txt
8bc5ea2b0392b2fb4a62975587f0344e
b4a3c9531724c303a5097235fc2497ee5b01bab7
2315 F20101202_AAASYX becker_g_Page_110.txt
b54a34e3fce6ebe440ff9de5d8ac3785
f71319ef5d137bc075437fb1b2e80936ba8b920c
24247 F20101202_AAASBQ becker_g_Page_175.QC.jpg
e3311f5ca18aaa95739366511b5ec5dd
98c58fa24cc8bc969d010ff8ce69fc34da7b306c
23136 F20101202_AAARWK becker_g_Page_160.QC.jpg
24b60a3ccbaeb5b90e4609d8647b1e68
876a0321e07d33be7b7c4d4a9bb91e6c13aa4a92
31392 F20101202_AAARVV becker_g_Page_117.jpg
0cbf02f7022f55f27d6f6cdabee81f5c
6ecd57429e55030c7ee11c308c1f4d6a0e181fd1
F20101202_AAASCE becker_g_Page_016.tif
657790823cae647a45b59c22ac196279
5ca33987644159d35be32e36b19a949ab99a375a
6811 F20101202_AAATFH becker_g_Page_039thm.jpg
0baeb3fac0d851baadd819e9dcf0e46a
1cc2292f470be510e9534a5478adc7fef30d8dd4
6787 F20101202_AAATET becker_g_Page_080thm.jpg
56c31159702e1c0057299f26803dac7c
f8c12d353b2a4a5986f517d61f3b0a114c9828c7
2308 F20101202_AAASZN becker_g_Page_135.txt
3a37ccbe1b36080567d111815eef8077
04b12f2b6524078636cfd186ac45a5d75475f56a
2695 F20101202_AAASYY becker_g_Page_111.txt
4939648bd2f95c52f6371797c249651c
1254e904a0bbfe69c8fd68d66358cb4391b831eb
F20101202_AAASBR becker_g_Page_096.tif
b5fbbe0cc795751cbf49a44432d1ab79
08b5910be48363f8e5b521d38b60389f1853f808
F20101202_AAARWL becker_g_Page_151.tif
f810c00c6610ba481dfb6c7c5776ab09
3da70f7542343255e70787950a5c4a9afd1da5b8
F20101202_AAARVW becker_g_Page_033.tif
6525e451e85db4525479cc00864017c6
6a870e48d250aa5c4a28ef5d5f5099f91017ef01
2245 F20101202_AAASCF becker_g_Page_109.txt
66fe1566827d27aa67c749ad0aaf5cd0
86161f2bdfa0f081cc58b84d71a0bb95ef5b8edd
25514 F20101202_AAATFI becker_g_Page_019.QC.jpg
12b69a8edfaca40d3181f9bbb96d8d42
0832829db4a6233958207e0c2908eff423d817f6
6614 F20101202_AAATEU becker_g_Page_086thm.jpg
b9df3bcea4b3c47e169e0d326db1b695
7354d909b052e39a2a69a15eec6022d9b43a2bb7
2479 F20101202_AAASYZ becker_g_Page_112.txt
c3adf942a589f84da7a6ad35fc2f6c23
c31931449a8685382c8fea2170cf75dcd6d8d160
26477 F20101202_AAASBS becker_g_Page_016.QC.jpg
cc620d78e22863a38f138ac4721cb5c5
ee84141b86d1ede56417a8256f918b9b7d9a382a
27650 F20101202_AAARVX becker_g_Page_106.QC.jpg
d2be9e437d67e032d35949382f74f0c3
0c31eabf1251ef5dfa8dd2c067a8781527144804
106002 F20101202_AAASCG becker_g_Page_043.jp2
3814cc21c95cf43e3c42474ca54cdc76
37930307cc85e75982b7e7665500347caba79442
6994 F20101202_AAARXA becker_g_Page_161thm.jpg
a5f385b0d0d976736419c8b545fc5ce5
95d43687ebdf6940989fd732db137d8e4bc8b94d
27441 F20101202_AAATFJ becker_g_Page_094.QC.jpg
2ae41171a43af538a19fb81c3cd740bc
22ec2f3f7c0a3c51352ea77e29c2c61f48c37b7c
27289 F20101202_AAATEV becker_g_Page_102.QC.jpg
c7705c27abb36d9863ac1fcf13a5add7
fc260fb89499a4e800d93876794eb1fd6f109c3e
2597 F20101202_AAASZO becker_g_Page_136.txt
486966c95b6a295603c8600f69173e6c
1191abb52140785faa2b86977723f5b45db3af54
61876 F20101202_AAASBT becker_g_Page_060.pro
9b7cfa9b04c101dffecb57295f20c873
1757955af067356e13c7a479fac996cffda2e0dc
F20101202_AAARWM becker_g_Page_137.tif
ed178ac29c34e11e75d336091d7a0b14
dfd66adc3ff36f45eacdbb24de03626c2a3fedfa
F20101202_AAARVY becker_g_Page_187.tif
04232db2d0362cf39ba9f23872d4eb26
8b232ebc81c61e70d2199ecfe05d693100d66a66
21000 F20101202_AAASCH becker_g_Page_188.QC.jpg
724fa64984d7fa22159fc18594dafda1
e296cca83a01e02679e448c3fac9051953ad5dda
24711 F20101202_AAARXB becker_g_Page_001.jp2
17819df831fa5b605e8e865c11ae8434
12d1daaf3b395624f88e1855781052f1324603ff
6678 F20101202_AAATFK becker_g_Page_030thm.jpg
3e94a7d5405622a0d497ce1edf85b8b8
8d9a9e2f164cd921a6c31a05f8b60d6c3a8dff6a
25518 F20101202_AAATEW becker_g_Page_048.QC.jpg
db60ea99f23ee0b21dbe7efa086daba2
0dd2366efb875008e85dcd040b9d73490e6b69ac
1886 F20101202_AAASZP becker_g_Page_138.txt
3afc680e2ed7a7e7050965d905d9f7ec
6afd955ded246cdd12c3fcf2e24439c341aaaa7b
68142 F20101202_AAASBU becker_g_Page_181.jpg
ead236b3ac43b15ec87fad3d6f605134
02cae8774b530019f2237057503f3a299a4e790d
6954 F20101202_AAARWN becker_g_Page_061thm.jpg
1ce737632c1b33b4bb44e21fb9c70cc3
97b924a4fdeb3a0adadac21e6c129c6f74fa8662
25236 F20101202_AAARVZ becker_g_Page_018.QC.jpg
da9215319142040c260c934195d2f23a
ee07ff61bfeab5683bff033c2b9844c25682c700
1997 F20101202_AAASCI becker_g_Page_148.txt
9c2c053e5129aca34e96f34bbfed686a
2bbdb297829307cc1ff577bed076b154ed671d66
71427 F20101202_AAARXC becker_g_Page_123.jpg
d942dabdf798676daa4d41e254f10bee
b08da3eced0a985ddec3cf19292f067283462fab
6236 F20101202_AAATFL becker_g_Page_007thm.jpg
7923f665b090941c6c45efe42955d787
4100cdddea98015285fc10fc9248468092190efc
28224 F20101202_AAATEX becker_g_Page_111.QC.jpg
5960b9d2283521235e2e911ec5cef714
9773eb56582cd5ecb2c55c16f71ecb688548c6eb
2338 F20101202_AAASZQ becker_g_Page_142.txt
ddc07f340c6c2ef111f8807ef42e6e5a
b8c3228674a8a80eb21cfe5f4ff6fda1da0035dd
2116 F20101202_AAASBV becker_g_Page_185.txt
fec415d2681141d0a94a59e46e7b7236
b7e101f0a2305f57114bec5a54797664b40574f7
F20101202_AAARWO becker_g_Page_040.tif
726377e80a311497f5952bf826f90241
196aa62f39359a7a71e83be5abb3a95ee173aaf2
2037 F20101202_AAASCJ becker_g_Page_079.txt
3f320f3a5302894946a9841db788753d
dd2b98c81c8e4c57dadadc44e8ddc7098078cda7
25786 F20101202_AAARXD becker_g_Page_134.QC.jpg
3abb7b65534b46aebff7ea6cc094270a
0300b19e690550a2a891ae1309a54c2dbfbd7d5c
7239 F20101202_AAATGA becker_g_Page_094thm.jpg
28fd8f378fb514d51cd3415fe03682da
3f587412ae69979382c74b6cd7b4318a4ef76a83
24306 F20101202_AAATFM becker_g_Page_073.QC.jpg
8fa647fba802c9914518846e752937ae
c247ed386205c0f9cd7c5e57c8008fc210656fd5
2388 F20101202_AAASZR becker_g_Page_144.txt
4ab95a2c80e6e0d2250f011a90c2f233
48b287dc45a9dbc5e0e4af7b233d6ff2be4565eb
65622 F20101202_AAARWP becker_g_Page_145.pro
4409a99af779a36949c9a4eac7b6af0f
79271fa289a42af701c855d667206bbf691e5e01
1758 F20101202_AAASCK becker_g_Page_187.txt
2e1b0564fab2be90ac749031134d6224
763fd07db064c050254c08e479a24b8c292c2ec3
1623 F20101202_AAARXE becker_g_Page_191.txt
57a1c906aa86334913eac9a56f399975
b6ab6c5821ad379272b13396b864684103becf7d
25999 F20101202_AAATGB becker_g_Page_166.QC.jpg
bbeff847725e31f8d78ae666ba93c499
254b49be185c6faf9ba9305ba27e9bd2c29d7edd
20090 F20101202_AAATFN becker_g_Page_183.QC.jpg
a5c31aef9d8bb70073d0da757d458a02
73b662ca318d33cb39075cd39727cb8879ab53ff
25048 F20101202_AAATEY becker_g_Page_118.QC.jpg
c40950a00008f667a2ec71e2159bd254
6ac906040fb56a1d2e5aa7b71488592811ee063e
2176 F20101202_AAASZS becker_g_Page_147.txt
cc5cf1dcc2c86585d1bd79398e68d9e4
c94eca4713d2c5a5f0954d1daf9277031dbd49d2
2030 F20101202_AAASBW becker_g_Page_157.txt
7bd393311f7a4bb2d75b5e64361107f8
b49ac1dbf385ec08f80ca2b5f473717383e8c8b3
75848 F20101202_AAARWQ becker_g_Page_139.jpg
dd34069fa06078bd5417747ddd0f907f
d303e1bf87b4f2e1e35095cdeed574537d0127df
2163 F20101202_AAASCL becker_g_Page_032.txt
8292f83ab694e756848d71d6612525e8
75584607d5bae018284aef54b40aacd074b5d9cc
F20101202_AAARXF becker_g_Page_150.tif
8782f6233b36f43bfd8a18458f1c0f14
4c20638318bdfe5bb2a0fdff58cc241eb68471d4
6842 F20101202_AAATGC becker_g_Page_125thm.jpg
5699e4604d721ca5eaac49c52ff027d5
40bb236b2ef227d0a44441b3f2d05aa49309b2ba
6390 F20101202_AAATFO becker_g_Page_009thm.jpg
414cbe433d6900db50deda95e811ed1c
4eeeb968632aad5bae25a25a5633557e4e0f626d
6915 F20101202_AAATEZ becker_g_Page_082thm.jpg
614bf11a35bf0526587a1edc5d783daf
9f762fd913dac26d2b34ed0b0485cec3fa83a9d3
2574 F20101202_AAASZT becker_g_Page_149.txt
0f8db55e8f1a22b8e27a1c258878f90f
86d4e0d742bc9c858e854aab486b62c8af4d0a73
63613 F20101202_AAASBX becker_g_Page_124.pro
ae76e1478fecdcfb6ac4cb313ba49bbc
c83d4813b379f69e60508496eb15ea7da79d449f
24366 F20101202_AAARWR becker_g_Page_079.QC.jpg
7515fb4269a9b2af100725cf9ca6a91a
3299c669fc0584ab1fdfe5ade58757f12fac42b0
F20101202_AAASDA becker_g_Page_013.tif
c4821f908046e3423444870a98c46476
c68a95e33ee5505a6b20ae23ff85152022ac85be
F20101202_AAASCM becker_g_Page_041.tif
89f7b4c5bbd0dfba9d96dc17f052a12e
6cf20763448306c14fcaf2653b0e0a9362955873
22593 F20101202_AAARXG becker_g_Page_126.QC.jpg
1364bfbb61d017dc8aba25f15cabaff3
79a45a7ce231c27c9f741e62a55be3d91448361c
25832 F20101202_AAATGD becker_g_Page_032.QC.jpg
9796322d858a224a229bbb55c366d61c
9a47eb08bc88ce28c8f80a798e6b7f24bda67256
7016 F20101202_AAATFP becker_g_Page_047thm.jpg
b12874d03a96f8cade3b88a7e3e3a36c
bc805fa5a20f221edeb990f270cc2b858dda234b
F20101202_AAASZU becker_g_Page_151.txt
1967e03f0f6ddec9a492432439e65ca1
2a4750705e82a8210be701080ab079a8b7657b34
73726 F20101202_AAARWS becker_g_Page_163.jpg
b337e8aea1001716ee978931c68651fb
f0915b1cdadc3e7529dce924a6c16b9151513bbc
1972 F20101202_AAASDB becker_g_Page_189.txt
7e251de269f27fe4e80c6c0498e0a946
5e56602a972ea3ab8638aaddd9755fcf18f20154
F20101202_AAASCN becker_g_Page_157.tif
bb77f342b3e7a2a62afedefcf5162c39
dce416ea3393f3c5b16c4e3ad751a17b18cebbe2
104731 F20101202_AAARXH becker_g_Page_153.jp2
5e30ee6b276192fbd6df94b79a37b2e9
9b1ab2d1e65910d8c620fe9be0132cd51ab7c8a9
F20101202_AAASBY becker_g_Page_053.tif
f86692e97264ad65c20f877322fd77de
4e5f739173c7a48ac08e9d8d08892b35ca0ad039
24109 F20101202_AAATGE becker_g_Page_054.QC.jpg
d947aca27a0b3b5b162e578179723bfa
95199daffe57e600c22a0592bdc41b046901d605
6815 F20101202_AAATFQ becker_g_Page_045thm.jpg
6f72838e7b702f32d1555f20a6d9f9ce
6b2a98537db579668fd72f183c97d080acf636cc
1956 F20101202_AAASZV becker_g_Page_153.txt
8d3612a7f67074d2f7de20e0e55d0803
872b1d1ba2d1559a53e89a17c1595f1858a02c33
7049 F20101202_AAARWT becker_g_Page_060thm.jpg
8cadbffcb3a524aa0dcdf1e0647003f7
afbc813556a9d6c2bea35a0a1dea06a1dc6d588d
1947 F20101202_AAASDC becker_g_Page_123.txt
584d1b1e471b44d09a21b3a2c1da3e60
fe085f4a80e03349e4b24897fa6df5b787b91ed0
3038 F20101202_AAASCO becker_g_Page_154.txt
da3e28101258a31d3c2aa698632620f7
423e5ea058d521a3b9ca26688310923ff8208d8f
62314 F20101202_AAARXI becker_g_Page_094.pro
fd692abb508c59fe39fddbddb3f930d1
8ed064515d0c64604e0aee404cb012a44e9a3fd8
117442 F20101202_AAASBZ becker_g_Page_175.jp2
f8af57fff7c7c28e27a5ad3e3b7583ee
2168db3145229f8d98f41ae99e8329186c1456e8
6949 F20101202_AAATGF becker_g_Page_108thm.jpg
c4a04d95ff06990419662d469683ce58
0a17f624832df6161262ebe985ed39a16de62a3d
6503 F20101202_AAATFR becker_g_Page_139thm.jpg
5a4bc6f427adb9ac9bd0c3d0e7c1de98
e21500d913e51f62deb2f992fe606f36abd5fe26
2092 F20101202_AAASZW becker_g_Page_158.txt
c4f89c2133479fa92b28f59af28af6b5
ee8d557515e7557cb48178ff5d13de6c050b5382
25787 F20101202_AAARWU becker_g_Page_029.QC.jpg
5cd4f2eb874effc9cc378e37567af29b
6ad965f97789a529c9ac9853e1198b547efc7e10
54348 F20101202_AAASDD becker_g_Page_139.pro
ed23df2a936d83d75fd9683e1bdf238e
6d488713e15e086a25c5f81ffa59ac601f46245f
40821 F20101202_AAASCP becker_g_Page_197.pro
a997f56cd1a130c39bd9f262754402d8
42b7d21e4d033c0a3680d6db62d57f5fef59309c
79905 F20101202_AAARXJ becker_g_Page_010.jpg
34998b908c4696f18d7c0fea4a7e9578
e92e2e7a7613d6b924b083edb836c33b1c4e8ab5
1450 F20101202_AAATGG becker_g_Page_002thm.jpg
075e2a6dcd575590bdb53eac80a54a73
b3abd14794ae378f7f254622c223182e072e84ac
26053 F20101202_AAATFS becker_g_Page_022.QC.jpg
f1acf99cb0e0752c1a675bbbb28a388f
ab9b9d0d6d303dfb94c316ce19441d8d7db79cf6
2049 F20101202_AAASZX becker_g_Page_160.txt
1c7b048aec33a05f9147bc3c433e2918
d4958de31a15fe09ab4c2cd6f5117a22ba8ec07f
24333 F20101202_AAARWV becker_g_Page_164.QC.jpg
7eda7ee01e252cf624460edb28e0dc06
3e821c67439ab7afb3bde36f5621fc38d5abb59a
26713 F20101202_AAASDE becker_g_Page_135.QC.jpg
342d828a62c81374bed9e806269acb1a
a4dbf97166f83775684415176fa577d845c218b8
114466 F20101202_AAASCQ becker_g_Page_192.jp2
aceef89ca7f26c596a0e021c53262369
a3683ab7e6c41954097c62a387479f03bf440a43
87450 F20101202_AAARXK becker_g_Page_011.jpg
c73b90a45b848cc26ffb519b57838f59
1b4204c95c3752eec754684d89ea5d07dfd0ec27
26287 F20101202_AAATGH becker_g_Page_078.QC.jpg
e93da19adeadca40a98d78c84d42d925
b6c4c6e0b099b30fe701b19443a3334b5d75165f
23062 F20101202_AAATFT becker_g_Page_138.QC.jpg
e14b6f5e77db2182e70c33dc744d58b3
c2167f8a9b2bd224cfedf75bf47f89e9cb21da94
2033 F20101202_AAASZY becker_g_Page_162.txt
a3be193e018965faca4ef01086d00f69
71ea94328376ba2f5258d2980833768830335c96
110462 F20101202_AAARWW becker_g_Page_157.jp2
91ea05539da356298eabe65954e815a0
5857e19de110daeda2086b0f2690d069c30720a7
5631 F20101202_AAASDF becker_g_Page_183thm.jpg
bda62613bd3c34c22a143aec01d0690f
b1845dda9751414fd0bdd73b0cdb3b09f83dcac1
52329 F20101202_AAASCR becker_g_Page_030.pro
c7d14a64f8a080edcbadfa652919d950
504981ae7ca8d679aa1c92c94d25a6104c9e1d8e
57973 F20101202_AAARXL becker_g_Page_014.pro
0e3f33822a3b9a24b2fed745821b56b7
65c5603387022815565402f5362e38414312b507
6341 F20101202_AAATGI becker_g_Page_185thm.jpg
1e35e7b51bbfce70eb3643c01c48729c
05c0083f2376317e4f51269b3f8f027764117e6c
6635 F20101202_AAATFU becker_g_Page_097thm.jpg
f631247c1fe2dc0544489e03c416c3ac
0e89e120183851929facaa93c90354b7252b80dc
2229 F20101202_AAASZZ becker_g_Page_166.txt
570fe856f9a3f2492a025f28bbc7f20d
717caf42e7eb06b6b0692e624187f3063987c58a
23649 F20101202_AAARWX becker_g_Page_162.QC.jpg
0a88edf18ef50d64af3b39feb12f156e
8de249447f578acfd9687b9542b4aef97decae4c
28387 F20101202_AAASDG becker_g_Page_031.QC.jpg
ada0f6465f06ed1890727d1e9a3d5385
d55b74e8028ba934f5c12d8bfd4c2ec6085a1322
F20101202_AAARYA becker_g_Page_119.tif
f395f7ddbd160c39e5101f2a6a7d4fa2
25238cf4a2e76fda5194c45485fa9b7a64b9e49a
92834 F20101202_AAASCS becker_g_Page_119.jpg
15c60c370f82769b7e632526f5b66b05
d5983fcd7a3828c193f7430fd3433360713d4b07
159303 F20101202_AAARXM becker_g_Page_033.jp2
e9739def7bf51b961eaed56f3d3db6e8
a9ca2fe8e9d8f6e81deba682af144dbd5d13971d
27178 F20101202_AAATGJ becker_g_Page_015.QC.jpg
f0dbbe6e4d6629669365f3949482602d
a3083510ce5f84e4ffe05636108ae27239d8a04a
7485 F20101202_AAATFV becker_g_Page_154thm.jpg
a68c850ff33ca5f998cf7eb13504aef2
c709c47ba554dacc37e67844250921a197252650
127839 F20101202_AAARWY becker_g_Page_140.jp2
9b44ef0401bb506d8120e99f600d4324
aef95afaf83f5666af026b7db751bd1bdf31ea48
66508 F20101202_AAASDH becker_g_Page_050.pro
93711b98b6831d3216115ccef5aaca67
4b789aaa0336f8b232b9bf4f0b76ef8ab85ade4f
2131 F20101202_AAARYB becker_g_Page_139.txt
642505589816cb1d55b6db2e9afc8e68
80a759038017cb4628b9948f4f679e17aa7ca071
65449 F20101202_AAASCT becker_g_Page_093.pro
48a3fd7da2b8855a0e686acfa23034e7
00e8260a51e35d09a5e62179d688a1445adda3e0
6327 F20101202_AAATGK becker_g_Page_181thm.jpg
c2d3d2849e8e7068d6760dce358c33d8
a35797cf1b2e6260436ad8badb93d0cfd1c309b7
5935 F20101202_AAATFW becker_g_Page_043thm.jpg
405c34c27adbeb399bf2dc98ec263cf9
53b7545d35c8183d4e7511c6239e89f2a748246f
6885 F20101202_AAARWZ becker_g_Page_088thm.jpg
44464bbbbed442c3fefa3b4f764f7289
b93dcabb402e64ef5a1ebc63a913b47152487ba2
22279 F20101202_AAASDI becker_g_Page_186.QC.jpg
a6ec5bb854409252645a29309f016a3a
d959e2553887b1a382b35ecb0eca4c6078515755
2394 F20101202_AAARYC becker_g_Page_129.txt
ae5e0c6c35397780c3e896bad7f4f392
27d66f99bb53429a3922de6b597435ba8e99ba9f
26390 F20101202_AAASCU becker_g_Page_096.QC.jpg
6eb4fdd8d07386cae560d29e4ee18537
de44acf3028ff89dc437a938cbef897efd1d5e5f
F20101202_AAARXN becker_g_Page_117.tif
457f9ff71b2b70da1ff7787903584450
e06f176c0551d62155ad9bced7dc0c8421d75aea
6471 F20101202_AAATGL becker_g_Page_182thm.jpg
17fbf6a8b257fae78e5a83014b3007ee
b919e2e3c0b54a97b58e1ad1633db869c6cb9205
22714 F20101202_AAATFX becker_g_Page_081.QC.jpg
84a36be4a4d483261e5d1aa06ba09c5d
5887c347f2b951ac886152278b7bf61eb4c77024
24380 F20101202_AAASDJ becker_g_Page_042.QC.jpg
2dc690ac45af744fa022331da0c2bd22
7698431b3f4eb303eaf57cc1b0814d3d18bdf9b4
60614 F20101202_AAARYD becker_g_Page_108.pro
f8de8a488d7ccaaf120ad4ce4beeec12
5a9c00db60508d4e25c5bbcdb7f3f10a3751ee8d
21946 F20101202_AAASCV becker_g_Page_193.QC.jpg
5b625038bf0f1842ff98fb89500be9d7
45b5a74fac77f39424d255e0bf4d7b1c92502a81
58924 F20101202_AAARXO becker_g_Page_091.jpg
6c43b886009e16e92ee88b7ab5ff0614
2f67660613e1147d869e539c683963284bac982c
6315 F20101202_AAATHA becker_g_Page_090thm.jpg
63a60d39ddce43133a9be7b7210b70c7
b153eaeed4084b93843dc831dedae88f45fbaa0a
6988 F20101202_AAATGM becker_g_Page_019thm.jpg
109f52e16b456a54de4ef53195b375ab
7aa1bbef83182ede83884f8d60e81ba39fda655f
6559 F20101202_AAATFY becker_g_Page_141thm.jpg
9a40aaac061a408ca41b35937ae49485
4865438751483aa8182cedc0e17a91b5ef945f33
86331 F20101202_AAASDK becker_g_Page_094.jpg
bb7bf52190390a4f4ac3146d0ab83121
a3bbf42d6abf20a965ec242c6d09ff039139650b
2390 F20101202_AAARYE becker_g_Page_060.txt
bf796142ec1d9d54c41d7d3dd548f212
18cd8b5d15c48e110b8cd24667a35b5591e4f7a1
2282 F20101202_AAASCW becker_g_Page_021.txt
59f345a177d9808ae077ad313c58c1eb
1d0905cacba656e12b9a701463a3fe8e6cd54413
112795 F20101202_AAARXP becker_g_Page_030.jp2
ff90bc92790764b5d41e14fbda0f5508
a07f5cad4c960d3327c97f5d1f3481f96354e5f0
25404 F20101202_AAATHB becker_g_Page_083.QC.jpg
f044f12a881173dd05b1fbf0ba44c9dc
8cb849ebd0b3308bb625efb6a876821bf57e7cb9
26368 F20101202_AAATGN becker_g_Page_109.QC.jpg
aa9654b4db3a5ea449b52fef3cefc838
592b0e71eb14b616c58ada5280b8ba93759a5f76
F20101202_AAASDL becker_g_Page_143.tif
9cc62a24911d5d006112923a9f1f43d4
87eb39eda77a132ef06af7d37929793d2b6e066b
56570 F20101202_AAARYF becker_g_Page_132.pro
b8f47ef8a30006e985693c89845a7a43
3cfe8cfe7d2fe9b56c5efa88357cbbb27c6920e6
68130 F20101202_AAARXQ becker_g_Page_146.pro
020aa4e3f939429b2f48f488cfcc5b28
5de5381c72667852376cbd1bb76a43683237deed
6759 F20101202_AAATHC becker_g_Page_035thm.jpg
006c7b76ad70a04e6ee5ee69060128ef
f411bbfb48d13d63f63f38804a0ec46503bc51c0
7651 F20101202_AAATGO becker_g_Page_068thm.jpg
2aa9f9feb6a0d60f0591e7de834a70ba
1d49f5ba01360bf60b50f5db4b6b0b0c4a3208a8
25604 F20101202_AAATFZ becker_g_Page_039.QC.jpg
f02b0bd6da1bea0425be756cf24176d9
d1279a5fa762e779bafe9569de7755dd73dfa118
3925 F20101202_AAASDM becker_g_Page_008thm.jpg
52a31a210ded181fdf91a17b6e2fa048
1b76f24f379e594cd7482d42aaba6c441d8171bb
77711 F20101202_AAARYG becker_g_Page_095.jpg
6a7f4ba89bc57efeeba94bfe9a18224a
586738a0113397782163154182d9d45fde8f1843
23766 F20101202_AAASCX becker_g_Page_098.QC.jpg
8795376002c3e6816b379456c2aa5af0
70dd8223ddff5e1073ea89d2cd5a2e3f748bd1af
118275 F20101202_AAARXR becker_g_Page_020.jp2
059c0c29dd39b2ed015a69fc503a31ab
64e2c9cd59694b4ab9a569af0ce5509db23a6c75
54969 F20101202_AAASEA becker_g_Page_064.pro
d7da70516c5a0242e7666510525f50f8
0597ca877581f68d33a7c83ea534c10598060482
23686 F20101202_AAATHD becker_g_Page_163.QC.jpg
7137f2457e5c65c66b00db159b651eea
ab8c3b296b6dfd5fac43a5e84d204ebe13019e1a
7416 F20101202_AAATGP becker_g_Page_074thm.jpg
e74afb531464959707a446508c004e0c
5d5da72a901b61d487617588beb80ccb7483f491
24700 F20101202_AAASDN becker_g_Page_059.QC.jpg
b1366c9be6c391f9014e3c576392dfae
7342d6ce30722887f4e87a7c73169d7634c96f24
70 F20101202_AAARYH becker_g_Page_003.txt
525a4cd76a2d029cb7a451adc7b1b78f
d0f35eff2e9fbe406c14dcccbd83a9929ad394e1
25919 F20101202_AAASCY becker_g_Page_067.QC.jpg
ceee9f4fe86dd98bfb4a418ef99eb275
25881cf5d940835c220e134eac9b10691f90e953
75337 F20101202_AAARXS becker_g_Page_082.jpg
04f5c848bb79437552a3c0fc9fd8219f
5297fb22c5801b120893026fbbf99717e15bae00
28559 F20101202_AAASEB becker_g_Page_104.QC.jpg
ab4c88e7a66f7c0b4aef854bda0970a3
77aeda53df1fe843eca684f4f2a9ce6a8b1519b3
11998 F20101202_AAATHE becker_g_Page_006.QC.jpg
7af8678c64eb95da465ded8d8c2d87f9
b856bd57c55de9279572b76d8995582141f10331
7303 F20101202_AAATGQ becker_g_Page_114thm.jpg
ab15e57cdbde3a76c84227eff9e9275a
140e28f722463b655e63b8e62a182bf909ba53ae
63976 F20101202_AAASDO becker_g_Page_102.pro
6bf5eaf6010295c6c5eaf7969d4df70c
0c07354017c340180864c95d421df338ad5df1c0
24483 F20101202_AAARYI becker_g_Page_125.QC.jpg
59e3423eafcf74da502c5d0272d08306
e1a816ae1781cb68706d92f4013c1dee54894043
F20101202_AAASCZ becker_g_Page_144.tif
a946135834cc7a12e4361b7253ccba35
99409383e586c505da2ababea85eca2e486f7997
F20101202_AAARXT becker_g_Page_027.tif
09f8fdf31da3ba942ad5c00ec8eab20b
bf0cf976c5e72294009c8232c4c767c2bc5dab85
57511 F20101202_AAASEC becker_g_Page_023.pro
72fed3f73845d8a1c8be34bfbedb8004
9c6618dd88d8fd696d1bfec3adac7af8b88d1440
6840 F20101202_AAATHF becker_g_Page_083thm.jpg
8bb4b128d348f1c68ff4f45ee0500376
d58f333aec2b3001765df7d1aa090a4c6d051562
6707 F20101202_AAATGR becker_g_Page_076thm.jpg
149f28f5feaef7d11d9d1098fb5db530
2fda407a02b56c5b246a7ee1f9fe6726ecad1925
F20101202_AAASDP becker_g_Page_097.tif
c3a6a86a80038f6f5c25485484a5fdd8
082da8dad3ec961afca98b4af2d8892f44cd6d49
7101 F20101202_AAARYJ becker_g_Page_048thm.jpg
da10b33f7d4a2e5fbe59c1d590ef387b
c689316fa4cefcbdd77c53d8685371af6634b055
24979 F20101202_AAARXU becker_g_Page_035.QC.jpg
82b06be6aa8d640cb567d04e81512cd5
a528d945b7d3bf81a762e0ef7c23c2511a4ced83
2300 F20101202_AAASED becker_g_Page_150.txt
7e92504c9e044a44676262c3c9e7f304
5efe856d8f41d61c7590ed801950a9d8f4c4e4a8
7326 F20101202_AAATHG becker_g_Page_115thm.jpg
dc7f582cb89d546a7b6a826627362375
fc5c222b5794b99f8b57207d7196a91f8b87762b
26732 F20101202_AAATGS becker_g_Page_113.QC.jpg
c422a9f8d2a736f1eda8594a9e8af895
877c8c0f32655fdd208bf1c45d22b23c3fb3b20c
124611 F20101202_AAASDQ becker_g_Page_159.jp2
c5205630aab44677f5ceafb556f1a6d7
06f4e1783b207afc78f7ecb0a47a420315e2ce07
6583 F20101202_AAARYK becker_g_Page_175thm.jpg
7fd10c363e35df0dd607ef8a5a2371b5
616fb7070a6150335f5b59e13be52cd3292f215a
43288 F20101202_AAARXV becker_g_Page_187.pro
5646a80b6bb13766fdeb973f1856c140
b07a097f9f28d91455431c743b1613c24ba36e4d
29926 F20101202_AAASEE becker_g_Page_085.QC.jpg
be12623170061e113de635c299a8fb71
5a17a2fa0d463b6f833662ec3bd4d70cef9312aa
6634 F20101202_AAATHH becker_g_Page_103thm.jpg
12e680ae881309980aeb9e58ce60f549
208ac023ee516133a929312bec183cc67dac7af7
26531 F20101202_AAATGT becker_g_Page_150.QC.jpg
37473abf228daf044fac90cbbaf59847
502e584b83b33a461bdcc615a1191599184c4f33
2168 F20101202_AAASDR becker_g_Page_143.txt
70795e63d5c502c8dbde6b48517e7504
91b8d16965242ebffa6db3030c080d0a1c4c1e77
95531 F20101202_AAARYL becker_g_Page_180.jp2
3c8d6ea19df1e3a20d5539074c7056de
23658d2bd941fa12e0aad894cf4ec63a928e07fb
2284 F20101202_AAARXW becker_g_Page_067.txt
2a55d6b2e6d8040c92efc7bed8e07672
5e403834a96403e4401c8c1315e3b93c06f0655a
137384 F20101202_AAASEF becker_g_Page_114.jp2
941f0b53deaf62e7edc9f22392dd3e8e
fe9608f3cf15a4ff216f747b32fe303fb708e5f7
20066 F20101202_AAATHI becker_g_Page_180.QC.jpg
d0e34cc4ed9642dfa6606cd32269a25a
325b427d958792846326ff16f851f981b7f749f7
6749 F20101202_AAATGU becker_g_Page_107thm.jpg
a934a28c998969ec2a2c2c277e919420
8822d063a6fbdb67903869c747d0591038e55cb3
6451 F20101202_AAARZA becker_g_Page_177thm.jpg
e477176d96e980e3a4bf711f38035efe
8418eeded776b45615b8a14a4f63f16858b0de5c
7140 F20101202_AAASDS becker_g_Page_169thm.jpg
90d1174430b6aad2ef91f3d5a3cd78a6
041927d435662ac9a668f3052e4e8620d248c8e9
7170 F20101202_AAARYM becker_g_Page_049thm.jpg
8b79ee4d76fd11fe7bf99480339e3915
00f1c31815af60e97159f7b10a1858a8344055cb
F20101202_AAARXX becker_g_Page_133.tif
d7ef54cf418506c036cc626fb204f680
1c220479ee74435ea0a9cbf27e93f2d56556df4f
105797 F20101202_AAASEG becker_g_Page_154.jpg
3d6d674c5d4cbc9f841894b072f24c86
4c5a69317f25a34bef652234d737f392bfd57d7d
25778 F20101202_AAATHJ becker_g_Page_047.QC.jpg
1576968f49aee74c1b2c3bae6665e979
ef225a238d2829412c310de2671ed4778830139b
27618 F20101202_AAATGV becker_g_Page_093.QC.jpg
31dbb1ddc540f7abf9e0eae0384504e3
6a79767294a85bd4776c340e3051b1ea927fd41b
F20101202_AAARZB becker_g_Page_166.tif
27cf2b89d6d772dfa80cc7dbd121ce5b
e255a757ba231a5286f34f64e0e6f8a83b651cc7
23566 F20101202_AAASDT becker_g_Page_009.QC.jpg
005c43a842862dbcbdb03d9cf54feddb
6f26e0b0763a28a6f193e21d19febc373e93c038
25765 F20101202_AAARYN becker_g_Page_080.QC.jpg
c907eea0cf9565358b1fa357c18fd6cc
1dfc96067515e5ee57ece7046a79c860f144d70a
F20101202_AAARXY becker_g_Page_085.tif
2415ced23a0f327cb6dabdfa0acc8658
dccf0bf9c5dada34c46fa52833ddd2f789c6552a
2133 F20101202_AAASEH becker_g_Page_165.txt
470ded2c1059cb64eb70f2c83e778fad
33b9289f2cdd7c00ec827d6061e9e9663095bc7a
26301 F20101202_AAATHK becker_g_Page_056.QC.jpg
98a520bea1e3cd783e7e10937f7603e4
583b641b6c950181a1c047df201d1098096130e4
7793 F20101202_AAATGW becker_g_Page_033thm.jpg
d0b150b847692d49a43183f88124292a
305ea79b168d5ee5ce20ff288ccf6e256d5da8cd
54981 F20101202_AAARZC becker_g_Page_032.pro
1507e5333ad964c952d32da1287adb4a
ce38b697aecc57d6b196a1686cc62e7a1666caaf
122556 F20101202_AAASDU becker_g_Page_110.jp2
84ea7171365bbf912a252b3314e468c5
338c7c0b9eb71d7c4d023f457c6f8f848406b3a2
113606 F20101202_AAARXZ becker_g_Page_054.jp2
94b4a30d70bc941b460e3fa71b6b3dec
dc6e0c8a65fb85f3dde0b7edf0323ada8b2f21a6
7136 F20101202_AAASEI becker_g_Page_016thm.jpg
545cb324df2bf122b93a0c3290da419f
9a01d85404a14db6bbb028e32879fda3f35fe1fc
7122 F20101202_AAATHL becker_g_Page_056thm.jpg
9f95f729d5e3507451b41b76a2a64cb2
67991729979c44f9b39f1015596cc2ba83e43144
26141 F20101202_AAATGX becker_g_Page_124.QC.jpg
fa0a5f997d5b92ac83843ac920e43f8d
7f514c78a4ff171fe408f2fc173fa7c856af9fe6
42662 F20101202_AAARZD becker_g_Page_188.pro
423a401f680243642fd00146106e4f10
d1429659a2c752d8c856e2af003470c1ea910679
6825 F20101202_AAASDV becker_g_Page_034thm.jpg
726104910662778aa9bb95767493f098
f8d491d5546b7dba18107241522826b0c022b845
F20101202_AAARYO becker_g_Page_124thm.jpg
6af6f71909bfe8b75879ae7a937da8ca
ac094ea54dd2acbb492d3ab0534c0febe68d75ca
55747 F20101202_AAASEJ becker_g_Page_061.pro
5495f5f2a5d85e6111a8e258966ca95c
e534083adbbb2559de13cd61543ecbfac09c6e7e
26443 F20101202_AAATIA becker_g_Page_012.QC.jpg
7c60bc43829f27d41cb6ba626eac8856
da2dfb10dcef2df83fffee0ec8b45ebd6f1432a8
7259 F20101202_AAATHM becker_g_Page_146thm.jpg
8b7d7adf09d2cbe1de5cdba4848de473
4ee3d342a58f1e44f08dc3042e00a5df0e67e9bd
7135 F20101202_AAATGY becker_g_Page_062thm.jpg
ace00af5881019cf886eb98fcf5bc76a
4c3a83ef2ac6c87dc992227470af85c940f6e190
7019 F20101202_AAARZE becker_g_Page_135thm.jpg
ef9ec6a55502ef05b3fa279130694d15
0c3becdc8f600bc712df8b781794dba54eb3c032
97015 F20101202_AAASDW becker_g_Page_084.jpg
c298634b75b446f61d29cf3955e46524
d15842d271aec1f86f27f0d3c6e505653670b784
49005 F20101202_AAARYP becker_g_Page_123.pro
b646e18f4cab993cf7945d97f346cf32
48a6e2bde92f59b742075d2eb35bdebf1f163cb5
120203 F20101202_AAASEK becker_g_Page_067.jp2
00bbc253d1ffd9c1af917c03cf0e750a
2263e5839c45110375cb99392b9db625e246719d
25078 F20101202_AAATIB becker_g_Page_082.QC.jpg
87922fdd83f1267c055b0f8fd014f20d
8c952dc336e3022e9fd705dce86a665c8df67d90
6823 F20101202_AAATHN becker_g_Page_075thm.jpg
04165c1fe4368b46701be1020e44f9b9
507c44ba7f5cf53b2fae14b3bf85a6733ae3e994
7103 F20101202_AAATGZ becker_g_Page_095thm.jpg
5f576cfc32d1e4f4920bea571db706c2
de68c7ec7996f6bfda8ce421e78e5a08d6ff2f64
3019 F20101202_AAARZF becker_g_Page_006.txt
25f98952f97cf28dbb3cadb586e14b45
8fa0dbdd43744376be1afb5ac156ac28c8ad01b4
7618 F20101202_AAASDX becker_g_Page_069thm.jpg
ceb4f7d6f70aec362dd6cb18e5bbabd5
9a176ca982e6f1b8e8481ae9dbaa36367dae4bf0
110919 F20101202_AAARYQ becker_g_Page_025.jp2
d479ed586c5a1ff07da056488e53a3a6
f7f53556a51cb99f82abf2ff21fc2670f34b1e4a
2274 F20101202_AAASEL becker_g_Page_056.txt
46e2fef1c21f0ae04663f34fb52d4814
be32dec0abfe6c2d2b4cbc3eba503fba29abdb12
25461 F20101202_AAATIC becker_g_Page_027.QC.jpg
fc4225abb38fb2087d0312c9e12e682c
6f764254b56f2cbe97ce696bddd39564aae6a2c2
27541 F20101202_AAATHO becker_g_Page_084.QC.jpg
715075df927a6a31a71ceda337e15010
63fe3b495ff967d72bdcb99fccd19a4555458621
69232 F20101202_AAARZG becker_g_Page_173.pro
7e683d322926895988b6ba2b1310edf7
522dfd74633dacbc03a189a79316d883d5f886e2
57413 F20101202_AAARYR becker_g_Page_038.pro
bb323e911aff72d0293fd8c43f2d58f7
2a727c56dd1d6fbaab8ba84ba8c50cef02ff5b19
42626 F20101202_AAASFA becker_g_Page_184.pro
0c713275f8e3ffac4499225775fa1dbf
bd2ad9be7fc5e2869f7abb3495a2a36e47237094
81991 F20101202_AAASEM becker_g_Page_134.jpg
87038a97af94ef6cea1bac5dd1bf3bde
3ba494f554f6713532fe7d9722428ebb9814c51c
7230 F20101202_AAATID becker_g_Page_013thm.jpg
77673c03bfbd33c276616dfa09abc686
7a86db81971b6711248a285ae01a1f3cf24b7310
6930 F20101202_AAATHP becker_g_Page_166thm.jpg
f4501c603b93e1f796f42f15af455a0e
04687948826243922b4c4b60821fd209bc40243e
F20101202_AAARZH becker_g_Page_039.tif
1945eb01e6c3a6ffb4f46b168a7212fe
b59d7a75ca372aec386d5610b8b41f8965b7ae8b
45428 F20101202_AAASDY becker_g_Page_198.jpg
1d0df1677d4201ec2c48f2658ca60ed5
080044ed3f27887e31456291cea86d9502cd7565
6880 F20101202_AAARYS becker_g_Page_022thm.jpg
a4f6ea5f5d60c76b7effe8db92c79140
a82fe2e88704da61369467f055198418db4ec019
51829 F20101202_AAASFB becker_g_Page_057.pro
ae67bb8dad0a153317c9d15063275c83
c8fccff8754df5d96e0df653f7e2348ca61464f8
25608 F20101202_AAASEN becker_g_Page_040.QC.jpg
272bed93b2371296caa8b1ccf44179be
6235878b2dd92f4f4192676ea48007a1438090ba
6410 F20101202_AAATIE becker_g_Page_189thm.jpg
b12a7333278f609c65fd91d17a1e44d5
319d9c9cf9b6f20178bec6f84793b03d43b22a68
F20101202_AAATHQ becker_g_Page_010thm.jpg
e9c4ab79dd7145acac855438dda9ad63
8a9af375e1d508fdebf5c8f3e2e6f0f84f03c28b
87145 F20101202_AAARZI becker_g_Page_091.jp2
23ba7b0cb6699988fdfd397f0e9cc614
96ba4a1a5bbd689623f6d0d72e5fb8981431c5bd
2345 F20101202_AAASDZ becker_g_Page_058.txt
faf23daac46038fa5255b0a4954f28da
172c66acc36c90395608f1447671eaeb6d8acd1e
F20101202_AAARYT becker_g_Page_161.txt
b3efe737057e481e6240d7dd0a0cb22d
77422ac905faf451681f0e821f38d1039fd38ac0
2127 F20101202_AAASFC becker_g_Page_097.txt
f877815c33a6416aa6d1405b36200abf
b72c371c750b735e3610c5e3960ee805ab590f30
120512 F20101202_AAASEO becker_g_Page_086.jp2
94c5c8ed3714cd6a2454ec775b5bac0d
9b8735df3fd783a527019d81dcec36c4cbbf2923
27040 F20101202_AAATIF becker_g_Page_074.QC.jpg
df6a960d730ee50d2fd432d19a52b642
139e1dc2bb38e8627c8233362206311dd10f0bac
7279 F20101202_AAATHR becker_g_Page_031thm.jpg
2b84bf695c3fcc56613c63899f82a21c
4e0d548410a19404d0172dd99ac275e34b307d2d
74834 F20101202_AAARZJ becker_g_Page_035.jpg
035ff18f94750d8335bd1687bb943dae
e1d129e68a2e03f929de83bf4e91eb61de0bb2c0
F20101202_AAARYU becker_g_Page_192.tif
9a2a71ca6c3b6d53aab7f546b4036702
f044c5c31f620c80cfb0d509ddbd34d2d971312f
79820 F20101202_AAASFD becker_g_Page_023.jpg
5c1f3dfda63508bc0cb7715c1d4aef89
9cb29e632f69eb3e0610abc6c4ddf3d7c574c4b8
F20101202_AAASEP becker_g_Page_034.tif
d65a6e14c27b6a9fd6992dbf6bc9db03
d3bbf44ad694bde15389ac54362453203407ba24
26963 F20101202_AAATIG becker_g_Page_077.QC.jpg
cd1bcbe6cf96b404df778c6f9bfc8195
bf87abaf9c7eb56c2cd27a2ecdce5e8efefa32a6
25172 F20101202_AAATHS becker_g_Page_020.QC.jpg
57cd27b6813902f2a4a03ab436ceedf8
615bd8417615f96e4e6c385fde8fa8875cb77955
6652 F20101202_AAARZK becker_g_Page_162thm.jpg
70870300e5dcaeef38b4b7c9349f6b31
4d18830418ca4c003fc08dd24829e40eb69d5806
96026 F20101202_AAARYV becker_g_Page_183.jp2
c7dd8e88c6b9154dec3964b5313e47c4
7bbbfd319d35e24f7f434bc523f121a6e0913e25
F20101202_AAASFE becker_g_Page_056.tif
62b4fef2eb5232f97c93063edea3e502
59a6ad35f4888a5962e2ca029638282dc085afda
71857 F20101202_AAASEQ becker_g_Page_090.jpg
5b902f8f39838f7de321fafa4535882d
7c1ecd91f612d43069608488d9c1e6c2855bbaa1
23648 F20101202_AAATIH becker_g_Page_153.QC.jpg
59adcfdb6377c8475717f6d9dcdcf3c9
b419b89f8545284ebd1b70fde2e7cd4d0215bdcd
6294 F20101202_AAATHT becker_g_Page_187thm.jpg
770d972e1f0dc02f85627504526e5295
b185bc3fa741b40b98cbd2c15dbedce5ba5a3507
F20101202_AAARZL becker_g_Page_171.tif
9de799b0cb7d7d5489fcbe92f8049380
7c047f676403b4b9e67ec9331fd777c6c1dc6f74
F20101202_AAARYW becker_g_Page_188.tif
6c4c248f8db28e1b0d36dd4cc31dd4e7
0ee254b7a0d7be13c73e63acb4a7c7c4914ae7f8
55668 F20101202_AAASFF becker_g_Page_168.pro
fd36cde2ca6cb087b45a184da4415d8f
89ca6442acb5a07de891750c6200d11dbfde41f8
7439 F20101202_AAASER becker_g_Page_140thm.jpg
2d539146d78faaacc573d792965b84ba
ab1c3e1550b72d1488a922129bfb5f5b9c33a0ee
7163 F20101202_AAATII becker_g_Page_077thm.jpg
9bc1a35d139f0d2a4bb8d0c01e53454d
27977e8b0b39e0533fa37a819252d2c458609798
7417 F20101202_AAATHU becker_g_Page_111thm.jpg
1cc4236f92f4553e8338a40551f8392d
f0afb36ecbd9d98206cae4470c17cb8852f91ecf
F20101202_AAARZM becker_g_Page_015.tif
337f7d6769b9cbc1f35b6e9b6ded8da8
9490cf0c7c839b273696e455256d0a251177bcac
F20101202_AAARYX becker_g_Page_191.tif
d6033a6b38bd0a90fdc1717bd4d611d9
3da33a8cef331bce04a8aed6b4827e69ad579c66
F20101202_AAASFG becker_g_Page_031.txt
73984f9a0d880ee956b9332342fcfb30
f5684db0ad2eb5d2e7cbe4149d03b4b100f5b14c
7154 F20101202_AAASES becker_g_Page_119thm.jpg
32fee9a21cacab7c27ddebee23aec359
61b124c72bfb86ea2065f3b7a1a61a5b8d42a347
23965 F20101202_AAATIJ becker_g_Page_157.QC.jpg
16820595c78a745d86b2652cee30f24e
395c9a7daa5fbe4f7d273f5eccd96692ac2b137a
25758 F20101202_AAATHV becker_g_Page_108.QC.jpg
d511436584907ba9f09115277685ce28
5ee8d51f4f2869fcbc0d5f1a1af55fa6dc212e49
F20101202_AAARZN becker_g_Page_181.tif
b0ffc0f5380bc8a8197bc34013727bb1
05baacd4052b3362de0102a17612fedc10de9e01
2330 F20101202_AAARYY becker_g_Page_071.txt
4c82beb90b9465bd711c46a95c1590f8
0bca5758dbd842ba7be5edc2cd9d712a2ca9a3bc
25155 F20101202_AAASFH becker_g_Page_143.QC.jpg
4b3609e81f921dc171da91a09396387d
f7db5a417dc440528ee1850aa6d7f616d09c9d55
78165 F20101202_AAASET becker_g_Page_167.jpg
e8bed9123cd5638431dcaa711fd05423
ab860fd8eec55b12d5869aedf113fc0621e60cc4
7113 F20101202_AAATIK becker_g_Page_101thm.jpg
f81374d95fd29858e596c4c7e7dcadcb
7bf43517c653c1bfa8ad779a103f9dcb003ea2cc
26343 F20101202_AAATHW becker_g_Page_121.QC.jpg
366718e5304d60119a3c16ee85f26c4e
b1a113737ce2dc2c454fad9edcb0c215e01f6f16
2349 F20101202_AAARZO becker_g_Page_074.txt
1e0cf4751e3a3b41da524f3dc8b48cf7
c6931983018f779eab3a87c6ef013d6ebd364711
7047 F20101202_AAARYZ becker_g_Page_167thm.jpg
fd06ce704e768adb814f65c3af4a5ca0
d4f62fce4436757ecd859dacb1b55cc3e13109ef
7068 F20101202_AAASFI becker_g_Page_063thm.jpg
a61d8af35eb0a79920d26b073ae8fd60
ac698c390ed20a9cc74c45d52f0b6aa59f5f1d48
1752 F20101202_AAASEU becker_g_Page_184.txt
6b6a5719ee4e8c37521c92b778db3719
7202b7c21d042033f2433858a2443e21356bb38f
3229 F20101202_AAATIL becker_g_Page_117thm.jpg
16fb66810f50293df52568e22fb2fc3e
33891fc4c3ee14052b7db612f1f240d7f77a8065
25414 F20101202_AAATHX becker_g_Page_165.QC.jpg
20165253c8abccf4804b4190c688e178
a63e5b6b04826cec8cb51dcf0f8571be5d97fde8
13970 F20101202_AAASFJ becker_g_Page_198.QC.jpg
654080263bac1575bfdb092035f753b6
628da6ccc4e95fb013b5204cb7184743c6e3e3a8
2142 F20101202_AAASEV becker_g_Page_107.txt
267e32e9befa7ce66a57c79edcf5c8a0
241f8e276058bbe11874880801d5da1fc9ee901b
24820 F20101202_AAATJA becker_g_Page_030.QC.jpg
9c8b55ae02b28df102e72c26c220e69f
d075b40cc3dbe8dbcae0fc10b80e4e30dc7262ca
F20101202_AAATIM becker_g_Page_122thm.jpg
ce19287802bd4f606677b7c5c23a58b3
7fce89b3df0fea168651a580380a74a6776df9b2
6696 F20101202_AAATHY becker_g_Page_148thm.jpg
a3804b6c6cd49aff491d6386a79894e7
73e883c65f31e63a4a1d0f09e03f063a1e8d3a99
2460 F20101202_AAARZP becker_g_Page_075.txt
2dbff261a4abc92603b1309bb08043c2
2b36207c3fa8109b2ff57f349c248ace8f362380
25877 F20101202_AAASFK becker_g_Page_092.QC.jpg
4b07a0a448f5022ceff5a7bd2713c362
515c43f0c149bb52803e0db3f7479bbfa3455195
84529 F20101202_AAASEW becker_g_Page_191.jp2
0ddf22ac9d7dfc081fefc1ecb1015aa1
1c3a08cbd69bc28b7aaf13caab74f266cd6d2b67
26476 F20101202_AAATJB becker_g_Page_132.QC.jpg
f3de342fbf5b034da3f20cdedd2d75aa
12fcdfaf46c6835cc7c88b2c3f621c8b5743bcc7
25972 F20101202_AAATIN becker_g_Page_110.QC.jpg
8cfb7ede750c77bc3cde614045b29666
6a6c8c9174911ad856c57084811d992346dc5e2f
25265 F20101202_AAATHZ becker_g_Page_052.QC.jpg
bbadeaa9b4a3135703c90cf12d8c31de
71669948a3278b34104e982a80aa9bb4ae743e32
6907 F20101202_AAARZQ becker_g_Page_026thm.jpg
36203d840e0dc7d98f4a9e58abb25928
811bbe2ff23851210d36b2f4d6e5ccd2d3d26d9c
2355 F20101202_AAASFL becker_g_Page_077.txt
7704e10ebdbea4c2a50d311e3685f488
bed28f27b2abecfd80dcc791bdb862e1f3e12ba8
1913 F20101202_AAASEX becker_g_Page_036.txt
7c6d80084c36da7ce935d399baa8de82
040b051c7b309b38ccec7a3a8463fa54f13a3b7e
4019 F20101202_AAATJC becker_g_Page_179thm.jpg
b01518a79de553fa365840641d5c2d0f
9cf2dc1632b741c5fb251a445fad464e4c1bf39d
6877 F20101202_AAATIO becker_g_Page_084thm.jpg
63854fddfbe7edbce27e49a6c134765e
42e675b25bfd18f6108b9ea2b7f6cb8618ada5c8
2927 F20101202_AAARZR becker_g_Page_065thm.jpg
1b39005536fb64cf1a6929b3ebccbfb6
725006c1e430dc6cfbb667d94854466dfac37468
228582 F20101202_AAASGA UFE0022409_00001.mets FULL
f88f6e44b5d6747ad42103274da910e2
642c940371fb2c1365c7e1bee9f6d70ce3a8c1ce
F20101202_AAASFM becker_g_Page_003.tif
499b7cfbbd412e426aadb065e732420b
d30d93cae7dbb1827dd9fe9ccef5db2656dfa6f9
F20101202_AAASEY becker_g_Page_098.tif
c644d7e7a32223ebc36ac1a8cd3422de
e4b0be4554682629f509d8edd8a1928dbd16973a
5911 F20101202_AAATJD becker_g_Page_184thm.jpg
b873361120c4a4a49ac187415feb11b8
f3963822b837595583599d76378361aa040bb79d
27472 F20101202_AAATIP becker_g_Page_146.QC.jpg
c7b89b46a3b842e43c030b936093d13f
f3e8747117a8ab0e24d5fd106e5a7e47868b143a
120558 F20101202_AAARZS becker_g_Page_132.jp2
ba7b0e09b7e559a510504f9989576f45
0258eda0f93f42784371d8285e30aa31977c732b
2583 F20101202_AAASFN becker_g_Page_084.txt
6bd002e76e0b1036661d83108f7bc185
688065d80292c44c862fbec01fdfa559044140b1
6349 F20101202_AAATJE becker_g_Page_186thm.jpg
8a987175d27014ac42b4f7fbba6e4f5d
69ca34952c374729921ba8c3026ba373bf1799cb
7072 F20101202_AAATIQ becker_g_Page_040thm.jpg
32c3807d56e14c963d8d3e94cd4ae9be
32331409f7ce35d27f6a3fd28f815e845a633fe8
78109 F20101202_AAARZT becker_g_Page_171.jpg
fb6b6e4f199960b8559225d1cd17be9e
4f6a6a6b0f2016c5b21aa913e071d4199a4a18fa
F20101202_AAASFO becker_g_Page_081.txt
c6623605f4102f8a2137e817faa27358
2f4e6506972369d9cb84d1a765670ba975cdeafa
55443 F20101202_AAASEZ becker_g_Page_047.pro
c5c8e9e55e490cd4f922a4c466f5ef99
77b0d42006ba89f7713411093e50380d55809b9b
19016 F20101202_AAATJF becker_g_Page_191.QC.jpg
031c60d69eb5fe63b180a3ad0a0c8651
579cba7eba59249ec3f11491429e60308ac8254c
28074 F20101202_AAATIR becker_g_Page_149.QC.jpg
8182990fa89ee84f15e1904060846794
ed159a8882977a8e0d5bbac94396f9a08cfef6cd
F20101202_AAARZU becker_g_Page_061.tif
0420099b765c6422b64aafbb05305bd7
27e0902703dcf68cb8e0edd381badf3de74cfd3f
35298 F20101202_AAASGD becker_g_Page_004.jpg
771448fb0ce1afc920de8456b2b4b652
b8fb88ad345f920baf06769b6ab911d01b50dcdc
55416 F20101202_AAASFP becker_g_Page_167.pro
736d5d79795f6fe04919cd21f51ef413
b2e1a7f0c662ef353dd54de6315e0a60f8262284
6596 F20101202_AAATIS becker_g_Page_123thm.jpg
857e7596d7398ee6203ea538380658cc
7da775e13d8ee4ef348b2dd1883b50df7fdb01ca
26861 F20101202_AAARZV becker_g_Page_063.QC.jpg
1949e51cadc6e86f1dc3f2b84b0f5c6b
aca98b04b71b7db7af5d10dfaa4f3b7c9f2a78ee
51226 F20101202_AAASGE becker_g_Page_006.jpg
0a3059d2288f73c767dde4ed3209d781
034951b3caf8b71df19de49933adda6d9e89114d
25359 F20101202_AAASFQ becker_g_Page_127.QC.jpg
ada247998c31ae64230dee46fa2da0f6
ed2547e0d016b91ee5fcef75729e5cb2cddf187e
6844 F20101202_AAATIT becker_g_Page_131thm.jpg
f4612b82017c8a698ce0d0f4542045bc
5bdcb2a88d9bccfe2e66e59727f4268667890720
88093 F20101202_AAARZW becker_g_Page_075.jpg
c2d2dabbebb9c09697e949f4f0b3fd1d
2a44f02ca632406fa7989a709200c1c347b888b4
70148 F20101202_AAASGF becker_g_Page_007.jpg
70131481d4cc87dc3147fe126916b63a
9ac9e933e44f61a6730d3072b38d67786a11e065
6903 F20101202_AAASFR becker_g_Page_032thm.jpg
a5d523d51226e758a215b29d25437c25
262452f0c7b9b806ee1f8d71b381a5a1adfd3ac4
6997 F20101202_AAATIU becker_g_Page_151thm.jpg
f5c4d1fa7b7ac2b2ede135ba5abe737a
91a4af03c4495bff8306ed9fd2ee6e0773fa53f5
75301 F20101202_AAARZX becker_g_Page_103.jpg
0c7a9f9c17dd06f4df8da935972ff5db
50e146ce3202108b58b933ee7501ac1dde017987
39429 F20101202_AAASGG becker_g_Page_008.jpg
5bd192e5147e334d7bf76cbaa5a26694
1e33fb9467bbf2a7716ce92c27ad2f8c5d373de8
122054 F20101202_AAASFS becker_g_Page_169.jp2
8b46981d973221e15c6d29eaadf0fb3a
edb2266960c6d3e2b222e8e9dcc7c5dfe86003f5
26989 F20101202_AAATIV becker_g_Page_173.QC.jpg
3cfbfcf5589d10e3644216e9dffd00fe
0cec15416adc7ab095fe7a8f77f2bc2cd1cd076c
71356 F20101202_AAASGH becker_g_Page_009.jpg
da8cb7d00d8cfbd7051e9e9625df47d8
ada15a9b4f2839aaae1c43185cbd73ea3d2d0087
97842 F20101202_AAASFT becker_g_Page_184.jp2
37ffa39c9b52923687db60d94aba7449
37d5b409adeac27e1208565b82a948e2a5c5bd37
160194 F20101202_AAARZY becker_g_Page_154.jp2
1d9e4523a88071fe35b5fc63f91d29f2
3e4b829a45a13b3c0b60fc9232d82356df178e4b
6126 F20101202_AAATIW becker_g_Page_153thm.jpg
22d266dc0032c22b1da16e608f1dc1ca
a8333c7ef94aff133776f5303985f88056e38062
81577 F20101202_AAASGI becker_g_Page_012.jpg
2e228604d5153b31112e763a3e25d748
c33db99220448d147103447310e2846e36110ace
F20101202_AAASFU becker_g_Page_145.tif
b3449faa859d02fecc880d1e50ce9c9b
bf2445beafc59b14d4c619bac13979713442334b
102493 F20101202_AAARZZ becker_g_Page_176.jp2
ceb1c2fd694d8dc33baa037d9201973c
f3cf4511bf226d2f0824c2526b001ba7ed5253ab
296175 F20101202_AAATIX UFE0022409_00001.xml
4a769668d1a8a261ae291d0dd164848b
fb9458325072f97d5bdd07b03c2f931152b2342a
84538 F20101202_AAASGJ becker_g_Page_015.jpg
12142fd9a21cf2a2d61e2fe22646450d
41a164490d38c3e70cec869e77a03a332dc5ac97
131481 F20101202_AAASFV becker_g_Page_113.jp2
45f134335b539bca1e192fba96aab9ea
76179cb0bdadffbf25e670bf589b38f02a31c7e5
2968 F20101202_AAATIY becker_g_Page_003.QC.jpg
4a1e58afc7d4b3bf66740a34d0190eb4
bee7f6eca31952df38a046a62cec36a526ed8755
81268 F20101202_AAASGK becker_g_Page_016.jpg
6f3a6fdb6741b369f7a464755a897014
29a50ee49f7f3465603c733bd5206099eddf3ee0
6538 F20101202_AAASFW becker_g_Page_037thm.jpg
d4d62c6b511747f173deb8c9ff190372
9711fd3ced3e7db3c07aac8dab4eac23b29e53c4
3321 F20101202_AAATIZ becker_g_Page_006thm.jpg
84f628a14e81d8007ab5c2a518691deb
374ebbb6c6db072db3ebf8ae9bf854cf42af4a93
80077 F20101202_AAASGL becker_g_Page_017.jpg
9c56f37a8d1d8da01a64ccf694d79ef0
60e7d3c2b960a8295e6263a33bb8fca9f62827fc
5514 F20101202_AAASFX becker_g_Page_091thm.jpg
0643491c5ad2543968ce8bff70354311
3ee657cd09f2123beaf8f666a1c0b1abf982945c
79251 F20101202_AAASGM becker_g_Page_020.jpg
4bc1b607b9f83309723598d7229612c2
77101525bfb6a79db53dadcd7d0b5efb150267e9
22510 F20101202_AAASFY becker_g_Page_036.QC.jpg
d05443b4dfa1eb2803b768097b714131
98408232c6c06e4790000d00a680bf2de06cbd27
79375 F20101202_AAASHA becker_g_Page_045.jpg
b7a51cbd8f3bc1b6e27ee74646cec3d2
3ae8176eb571c5495630c5cc61fda22f289251f6
78654 F20101202_AAASGN becker_g_Page_022.jpg
8a55941d874286aeba7459597193fd49
4c5105805dcaa31e683ab047a2a249f209cf7786
57469 F20101202_AAASFZ becker_g_Page_012.pro
a9e6ca77d379caca357f4bfefea29b49
13eae3921fbb28fad57b5b8dc30a4ac873a9aab1
82522 F20101202_AAASHB becker_g_Page_046.jpg
54466cd290f68e3eb45a324255124cf2
e96eb6191ab9a24cc5749d0bfe480f34052fc3b1
86563 F20101202_AAASGO becker_g_Page_024.jpg
53a50edd6a527c12286768b701299851
1b63d4ce80650af0679efae1c05330f422c084b9
86982 F20101202_AAASHC becker_g_Page_049.jpg
536becf2d3d7f706fdfc4f2c6335b860
6d1379a52a663cbf84a2f608fe4d9bb3a7cdf8e9
73591 F20101202_AAASGP becker_g_Page_025.jpg
353b94f56294152af30cda3b62921c5f
705b5a5abe84f30a07543e8abd44762009354e0c
90042 F20101202_AAASHD becker_g_Page_050.jpg
ea3fa55be37baec43927c8039c4db25e
922c3cac7fdb509f228f29a39f1597962cf81f03
75563 F20101202_AAASGQ becker_g_Page_026.jpg
d051d9f4a4a7bc1a0466f826b9feb80d
73f971c0a0abcdef8ede1d670dfaf3ec438a7984
77334 F20101202_AAASHE becker_g_Page_051.jpg
8f92838a062af3b4c826a00dd05ae746
d8aae7ea8cb03230e5cc01599977ece4381856e8
79507 F20101202_AAASGR becker_g_Page_027.jpg
63021bbd6f66e5544b406d7ef3a10969
9c507433558a92a3096710dc77f98e75018abbe7
77555 F20101202_AAASHF becker_g_Page_052.jpg
9dbf1f0ab9c6c0b3e0871ba686d96261
f5819bf736aa5e7bcc2f3b0cda459766194df2b9
76983 F20101202_AAASGS becker_g_Page_029.jpg
35d80766055e862a988e87b7ecabf667
1fd9dc467aee3e7b297c0f3d26868b24d98f5481
86029 F20101202_AAASHG becker_g_Page_053.jpg
efafac8c6693301ebbe6608e9110bdd2
cdf468003f1056ce67408a43f31816d7c852bad8
95320 F20101202_AAASGT becker_g_Page_031.jpg
3eb6c3821872eb894c70afcf635e9a70
44b9ab57b0c831ccce156004c8769ba73836b58b
76390 F20101202_AAASHH becker_g_Page_054.jpg
1e48cb2cdbc9106dffb7305fb8f3592b
350cecb2ee3ef8e0c90dd4ea112c92f3de6ce4d8
106029 F20101202_AAASGU becker_g_Page_033.jpg
d8d50e42c83cfbb12d5b0ac5f66ca89e
ac2c0f99d5be88c87a3bca6b445e2a8e0e2d0a57
73758 F20101202_AAASHI becker_g_Page_057.jpg
e62a99dd61654381c4be1a02bf2c09c0
791869d305280c924a69ffe6136c3c4f8e7bc7b5
77071 F20101202_AAASGV becker_g_Page_034.jpg
cdee87b6360f5fd081f11e9c3c0c6b3a
a6862230153b53389b88d15cbcbbe7fd88df788d
85327 F20101202_AAASHJ becker_g_Page_058.jpg
fb8aa5d4b20d1d0d39ea8457c15152ab
0bfd00ca32ab26fc54b7491208871cf293a15ca7
77783 F20101202_AAASHK becker_g_Page_059.jpg
9763737434446ff72428ca9ee29ab6c9
131f7d64335b80471ac0a8280673cc9ae91b9dc7
69229 F20101202_AAASGW becker_g_Page_036.jpg
087f2228db5016c4a9029399a304467e
3586f96c8dfea2bcfef1a1606a883b8fc1a35938
85427 F20101202_AAASHL becker_g_Page_060.jpg
3cc6155aa15e00a15de133e6874dbd1e
a1ff94aaa48e74884149fac2887f2ea62fe95380
75799 F20101202_AAASGX becker_g_Page_037.jpg
607b7101cf61c3a80c01cb9fbc4b5fe6
c389282fac1dba6147ec132d9b1215e73ac09f66
85475 F20101202_AAASIA becker_g_Page_087.jpg
e54b3cc112a3467526cce7b1798568b0
8e736f4040bace26a900e65516893992bbae90d9
86904 F20101202_AAASHM becker_g_Page_063.jpg
3bc6ae701699cbce001def6160b67996
b8c2d2b35d8e05af4bdcaac761dd4a5015376283
82071 F20101202_AAASGY becker_g_Page_039.jpg
f706e3bb1ebf4bf3dd2572f7535109be
a2349ce0ece9f569572012c50597b043adc88307
90267 F20101202_AAASIB becker_g_Page_088.jpg
2135fda7afac65eeb8f961bef886e3ad
ad5bf4a5beff6e0d4b3f0385425a6eaa68938360
78060 F20101202_AAASHN becker_g_Page_064.jpg
5e61425ffadb145099397b6babecbe59
8c26052b6aa5204f819d6d10897f218dc753b153
84633 F20101202_AAASGZ becker_g_Page_041.jpg
7795addec1b2b587ba91b4c4034d1350
a626ebebce8eeb0d7eedf6eaf707656ef5d9eac4
88919 F20101202_AAASIC becker_g_Page_089.jpg
d56f346639f07bef23056793b96eeaf1
405e21e855ae0f292fb06ae4e75ff0d3f935c874
29466 F20101202_AAASHO becker_g_Page_065.jpg
d852183fc227752eef165faf411e6316
261d92f55fdfa20f555262a7f8e07fb1ae9578d7
90078 F20101202_AAASID becker_g_Page_093.jpg
04acb2ffc067d057d8b767f5e1dc988c
7ab7006b17d2cac09431975dc7aa2810e6927a5c
79901 F20101202_AAASHP becker_g_Page_067.jpg
f1f42f85551773e8288751a2c60254ed
d058ee26207858c70521f218b3de31a15cdb888f
86090 F20101202_AAASIE becker_g_Page_096.jpg
4118bb20bbd27694766311db929c02af
02a42cf83d1ee57f2eacd674fe7646f5459be8e4
99554 F20101202_AAASHQ becker_g_Page_069.jpg
2e28de7afc14768d30e1cc1022b2cb1e
a6ab1d51422e9bf0615e3c4f7d104a53fb0916c3
76055 F20101202_AAASIF becker_g_Page_097.jpg
260865e0ebe5e24f2f395720a763d7d9
9266778b9d09578d09039478952987b319ba287e
83782 F20101202_AAASHR becker_g_Page_070.jpg
f6c88c4426be6d73205990f484684e0c
b086f48564ee50d8e5956dd3020c15764baf86a0
77447 F20101202_AAASIG becker_g_Page_098.jpg
a31fb5e3507fe046a3c3993a9628c036
9df4a8836c2d4c48a5a4628f80f65d8ddb510f7c
83234 F20101202_AAASHS becker_g_Page_071.jpg
649cea04b657a5fe2732bec9ddc95662
a2484db8254b7460242bbfc9efc8659f034e1ab0
93067 F20101202_AAASIH becker_g_Page_101.jpg
b4aa280fe729466361de8a3cdf856505
ce307e320e0e8d6d431a2da8bffb3e042c4a8e46
77727 F20101202_AAASHT becker_g_Page_072.jpg
d3752c84a4cfd497efdbf14eb1a2db13
cb6712bf933fcfa276ebc1ea578f7bac015a4f07
78848 F20101202_AAASII becker_g_Page_105.jpg
0ef3f7342c980c2fa84ebdcb91568183
5f428723303fe7597ad6d05d612335e747b0d025
77960 F20101202_AAASHU becker_g_Page_073.jpg
8480cb045ab12f2f3074996af26c4eaa
165c69b7f82aa067123a643671aa515f0820d62e
76438 F20101202_AAASIJ becker_g_Page_107.jpg
c215adbd4f65cee70c08faaf32426bbb
dcf92bf1cfd90776459bd6e9cf6e35f3cf99e635
84200 F20101202_AAASHV becker_g_Page_074.jpg
e68c563f1a1f625ffc3d24451a0bcb8c
59cc7262b9b637d1a7e64589ceeff635d2d5e951
83762 F20101202_AAASIK becker_g_Page_108.jpg
9ff90222bbedd83f8f68e1d5299d1424
82d3c2004f99f4badf42239f42913da12447f8f4
79785 F20101202_AAASHW becker_g_Page_076.jpg
4f56e1987d0c56e8cc43c9ecbb3ab1ff
6de6cdc5de138e35e44682bb6ac5d42715f399cd
81133 F20101202_AAASIL becker_g_Page_109.jpg
63b9bc2f58d32ccc361e24a809b3ae7b
de90b0a48ae67e761676966c6a008cdd71946bcf
84527 F20101202_AAASHX becker_g_Page_077.jpg
aacb0011f57240b73c25f71a14041d4c
c225e9f7c1b71afa7838a0b41bc4330eaf2c891f
83235 F20101202_AAASIM becker_g_Page_110.jpg
c14be59d1e0c61f5297aa56f106c3e7b
fcfdc0ef8a3ab0691e382c967753f49074244cfa
81356 F20101202_AAASHY becker_g_Page_078.jpg
40bb2b88b9a5d09b3949faf5621293b9
17f0532902dfa943b54f6926db6a365f3cae1e9c
87711 F20101202_AAASJA becker_g_Page_137.jpg
5a3a6d935f82de400c0a2d26cadd8be0
8af6450764a126a06068435f1cc758a05f18ad40
93275 F20101202_AAASIN becker_g_Page_111.jpg
cd5ac281f9f78a88d94ff6e436248832
dceb81e06838c6610180fa38f4d657c61bf206a6
76757 F20101202_AAASHZ becker_g_Page_083.jpg
d2bdb8d7b66f4803638511ef4057e5fb
fc235db8b7a23e0cf65c9ece2207c41ff929e64d
69111 F20101202_AAASJB becker_g_Page_138.jpg
8f8e1b3dd393d99c4f3a6d612f9faa53
59a8acc5a2fb8569d911acb4b27ebaf145a486d2
87825 F20101202_AAASIO becker_g_Page_112.jpg
f095adc60a52b729150357b7d9a374aa
4b7fe784abad67417b36bac771348b8cd38c72c8
83859 F20101202_AAASJC becker_g_Page_140.jpg
d67c63c9f8fd022c99c101b4f1a95f98
ad41f62d4fd5e80be2090e735bcdda17fa39f778
87365 F20101202_AAASIP becker_g_Page_113.jpg
c58445a7b79bff1f633a97a95f17c256
3c43211d972e5f937f579d52e6c2fc67a93cbf3f
77839 F20101202_AAASJD becker_g_Page_143.jpg
caeae645ca7d1ea7e1e75bae7b2294cf
90c039c1d9965775ca35704e702d01c3442a8f69
96277 F20101202_AAASIQ becker_g_Page_115.jpg
78581d4f9e824faa448b92e6ed6092b3
22912e85d09d0ac8ab201a60b74bee965379b0dd
78738 F20101202_AAASJE becker_g_Page_148.jpg
380b886fc89db66970ed82c0bf9cce1d
b029c3660d7e88dcef7f3afb840c3efc90406e1a
78127 F20101202_AAASIR becker_g_Page_118.jpg
cd1f0206cbf11fcb4430bf97c5eaf794
609e423424ceda2c3465153544eb8146fcd1bc7e
89526 F20101202_AAASJF becker_g_Page_149.jpg
3618d495c50f5f9a3bceb429314dfd09
1ddefed0d73e8e77ff4f5d5cd575e1261b0dcb05
81778 F20101202_AAASIS becker_g_Page_121.jpg
2bfd48f9dc663c0fa7a54a670950de07
4e78d13419299d45b8a2484c36081b8f810879cf
78802 F20101202_AAASJG becker_g_Page_151.jpg
e57375b47d64bbee7e47cd7be3c20a73
7888ac886a3e2e6ac31209488cd4178a95b39e3c
88890 F20101202_AAASIT becker_g_Page_122.jpg
9dea8e9f9478efe8d9237b6f6ed7a2c9
3d1f2850072e3c93d331667ccb09dcb36d8dfa80
82560 F20101202_AAASJH becker_g_Page_152.jpg
34056fcb4ee47508e7b0efc286f8a0a1
d03dbddd6fae58f62681ab66ca78224acb4ec200
87737 F20101202_AAASIU becker_g_Page_124.jpg
a2427af4edefc194322ce8186b9e0b53
b956d5dc20f7b4cd76f8a4cdb7cc6f17faa3e56b
70725 F20101202_AAASJI becker_g_Page_153.jpg
a2efb3781ad5bcfff1e182c544dbc3a9
25704d95c03f5926c79e1ec014624b6301243c9d
75070 F20101202_AAASIV becker_g_Page_125.jpg
76e74ac913dc2e2f61164619d19a72ca
4782c8b874019fb2b53b96461c25995eae72e4fe
98871 F20101202_AAASJJ becker_g_Page_155.jpg
a6134c8600f3e1623b739e4cdf0c529f
cbc80e4632234685a3cf66361942d7122d4af4cb
84319 F20101202_AAASIW becker_g_Page_129.jpg
b3c4c761db93b8b070c8607cd6e7d8ab
f217e74fe28d9e86b922840ec1f4c991171a3f92
82187 F20101202_AAASJK becker_g_Page_156.jpg
1dc02fbd910dfa03137d24ea86ec29f9
4588c026b9e3c7d4a72eda57e47c3856e6bfe510
85863 F20101202_AAASIX becker_g_Page_130.jpg
3d45408e3e4ea7d3d32e9343e7e0f625
e1002143ae892f982bdb3db995ebb3312d3dc319
73282 F20101202_AAASJL becker_g_Page_157.jpg
300d941cb4b317a3d9bebe78fdce4917
aa55371893050fde0ba77683d3877c53a75813da
79938 F20101202_AAASIY becker_g_Page_132.jpg
4ea8b3fc751e22c1d0621e15f9f99bdc
f3a85047c6fdfe745bf62370cc83bbd0d3d0d9fd
62319 F20101202_AAASKA becker_g_Page_183.jpg
4be0516c4a54ba4147b2249ae80cc411
2acf6cc9a70cda9fb32051d8b56c674c4e44d4b2
71486 F20101202_AAASJM becker_g_Page_160.jpg
6dd535e61560afda13c09a29c8570b59
b73866985ddb8edecf45c448db18eabc21c5e72d
90656 F20101202_AAASIZ becker_g_Page_136.jpg
ba3f8d5b13b1578a595e26f70f030b2a
889064282a25b119d25e968f1fc46eb30879048e
75433 F20101202_AAASKB becker_g_Page_185.jpg
fc023ed32d7b6633eee388cf853f4828
b486ddf8ec2891aadee88b6c0a2b03c6f95c27d3
78742 F20101202_AAASJN becker_g_Page_161.jpg
ed7ac2859c7b1224736b905c2c7884dc
934632c31e2cbc0753fade0aef3bf5aa45f5d407
71587 F20101202_AAASKC becker_g_Page_186.jpg
71327a8273db2d6862f842e4ebe81761
a14234a6c88da511ad6ef56da0ccc9ca87b1148f
72539 F20101202_AAASJO becker_g_Page_162.jpg
f01ad25ab2cfd89a5ec6f8b41bdaee0b
34e5383671d385da5f8f25811bf794260ef3a65a
64386 F20101202_AAASKD becker_g_Page_188.jpg
05e16b0a376f7c816d5aa9da9a6f90e1
7f7ea8b6c024dfec61bfbb19095f8afc266237d3
75263 F20101202_AAASJP becker_g_Page_164.jpg
5ce8cd1202d93074acfa155979519d57
d07749282d7bb39b9fe10770e5368f3cf2470ee3
72222 F20101202_AAASKE becker_g_Page_190.jpg
b24355dcc3fd630120a5442a0e4e7be4
21e5d45a0658b326b1ed254732b346aeda9c45fc
77438 F20101202_AAASJQ becker_g_Page_165.jpg
2aedc74f8fd4756b080ed556566daf65
773225eef5c7bb8f82ba24ee6cf2b3ea8aab51b2
72516 F20101202_AAASKF becker_g_Page_192.jpg
9e13b8a2044f63b731cda3acbdea8057
7d4d8b8ff2fa7781a531f1bfd32686ccbc737a4c
78509 F20101202_AAASJR becker_g_Page_166.jpg
434998108176f82fa67e9fc4686b6702
139ede58f7d372d768966c32cdb4b8b17395c2f3
68638 F20101202_AAASKG becker_g_Page_193.jpg
84472399d9dcc9f271b7b187c808fde4
e2e7a5d2f78b2191b90e3ec2327fc35ec68f7ee5
80953 F20101202_AAASJS becker_g_Page_169.jpg
a32586267f2d2a20a8633a0283c6c3a5
ef279909895b00bf53580711cf009975f4c0cdb3
72899 F20101202_AAASKH becker_g_Page_194.jpg
8cf25ad368d7061343c02907327191b4
5c6705b021e487b32512093dbafd8fb3e4738aa0
77829 F20101202_AAASJT becker_g_Page_170.jpg
c0699199265b3a07c9cf9c2adfbf5d1a
2d9cb2ec5839dabdd48022f83a090457d375cd58
75083 F20101202_AAASKI becker_g_Page_196.jpg
110b5abfd529f95fa12500afc44bd341
865d19d76cb47935bfebc6c3f4d5510b84f9ca19
43403 F20101202_AAASJU becker_g_Page_172.jpg
b52602c7385f09128dd71f9e06db256f
63160b26dd2e3e40a93eef027a88fa2c39fecf9b
60500 F20101202_AAASKJ becker_g_Page_197.jpg
b4ec61628aec0cc827c531fd91fbe184
acfff3b61bdc06bd05ed009aa1626f1d42d53af3
80591 F20101202_AAASJV becker_g_Page_174.jpg
f9543bf516bce508723dba01c7d27dea
11855924f3a4eef2bddedeb71b6e896a9a6daa6c
68152 F20101202_AAASKK becker_g_Page_199.jpg
f8daf82ad37d42215557900c8d326bb9
ad5cfab40d84cc20fc3dc30db6678618ed04b054
70230 F20101202_AAASJW becker_g_Page_176.jpg
4b766a2083942cd028f37598d8afae1f
d9c1d4e615da71952e89e6d9278eef60c2ca3f1b
6133 F20101202_AAASKL becker_g_Page_002.jp2
6bd7bdd7ba52395cb97cbaf9d11211b1
ab61d752f05adc06a6d1cdd1fbea2403e8683368
84026 F20101202_AAASJX becker_g_Page_177.jpg
ae85bc3f7f43504b9498ee70fa2d06aa
2a1a74d9b93d81a1298c8f1c38dce470f6759aef
128037 F20101202_AAASLA becker_g_Page_024.jp2
e3f369a7d4af4d7873a3297b2d2bcefc
367678763cfaa0f645f4faf3247cef8e6d7b024f
4128 F20101202_AAASKM becker_g_Page_003.jp2
5de7f0d19390299e3bd6db774955992e
4486e53fcb8527b24306a7a26ee405ca187645b4
49991 F20101202_AAASJY becker_g_Page_179.jpg
b4195056e1d76b3b80a7da2ba1d3516e
b1389adb218148e62f87595c4a9d8519ebfd4666
114720 F20101202_AAASLB becker_g_Page_029.jp2
431947c6a25ab079a909c884db6b4934
def1924194950704423a2b5ca8de4267110e49f5
46545 F20101202_AAASKN becker_g_Page_004.jp2
5792546a9b604575cf10a92fa7d514d1
a55e484a214c37e6f8953f53737aef11a113b50e
76273 F20101202_AAASJZ becker_g_Page_182.jpg
96fb2108c9316f2466ffb7c1fe4a06d8
f8e4c9608643b14e64c474584e897e6ad76e9e28
F20101202_AAARIA becker_g_Page_019.tif
ba70927c0bb1368ce0a51e8eee2fccee
4b60786d4ea825f37de974bc8a47c2ce3e474415
144289 F20101202_AAASLC becker_g_Page_031.jp2
bc6052eced324ad5ae685172b0b0832e
262d1655784a07d7940c79f96622bbcb585d10c7
127784 F20101202_AAARHM becker_g_Page_062.jp2
a9100b9baee1acf2c1ff59ffc658aeb4
31bfbed0f71fdf1c8840804f6a633bb511c94761
1051981 F20101202_AAASKO becker_g_Page_005.jp2
1c0be57b3aa7882c08f76ab0346cb76a
535020e3bb1337f5d6af7c4ab9eb3f778cd7003f
6716 F20101202_AAARIB becker_g_Page_157thm.jpg
3b05e17ce36d5c82524c10d3e99241d8
522ef7c4fb58643486d0dbdac863675672a3a0df
116732 F20101202_AAASLD becker_g_Page_032.jp2
b4fa2c250b1ef594aee73e0de6307900
5dd12747ddc189f529c18484594d1352547d2f21
2391 F20101202_AAARHN becker_g_Page_041.txt
3f72dcaf24dad51f7d78252c202220f7
11c6d4e784a80000fe7d9075ec16b425c97c748d
1051983 F20101202_AAASKP becker_g_Page_006.jp2
b6e3af2a3dfdaf4fe0f3ed25a4b79c63
9229705d2e35e6d1531c59aa9091705e9afe03f6
7594 F20101202_AAARIC becker_g_Page_085thm.jpg
f734b5093562b8a0b2847f909424604f
977b55b7b37ccdd00df1676bf4d30467563d3485
113188 F20101202_AAASLE becker_g_Page_035.jp2
9d33f0fc7764b6c60d3ab445042568d4
fe89853a26bc7cb720b42ea79c3f2f67aff8b8cf
F20101202_AAARHO becker_g_Page_068.tif
f13f136de1e8eb4c8a32d5f784f5b7e3
cb9eb7a4bb118d3a770d4a33f323e7933cee6fae
55485 F20101202_AAASKQ becker_g_Page_008.jp2
0e53b4717b5508e16f0dd05fe12b3815
f1fa024d0169a3f6ec5b0a9b115906aa699417b8
113944 F20101202_AAARID becker_g_Page_018.jp2
ca10cef3bd018e2ca8c58caf98c23c4a
152fb0ed8b761efcf225b40cae54ae952efa8488
102834 F20101202_AAASLF becker_g_Page_036.jp2
b2570439e2da0e9b1549d466baf73459
9fe6424b6c63486a68e126ed52657c515c1c7997
F20101202_AAARHP becker_g_Page_093.tif
bf3be88dc79b42b253c902b2d6f68e6b
313dc1890d8d1ab71e053226717e6a9946758053
118132 F20101202_AAASKR becker_g_Page_010.jp2
b7fe6471ba82064fb312bc61cb77cff8
ba3890dd9de5b22b3ed9ced9c770c8a7061f9010
118808 F20101202_AAARIE becker_g_Page_166.jp2
d665de4fe613991f7891f8ea31469a4b
1c4be3af63f5daa1490d24224812fbe1b60b9b9c
110817 F20101202_AAASLG becker_g_Page_037.jp2
e5be75acaa4271e01eaa84dccc2b96b0
0c157389c921c939d8519fd0bd10836db8ab05a7
51827 F20101202_AAARHQ becker_g_Page_131.pro
eeffe03b2b603fd9ab3f34db0ed6c3ac
15eac155033e502489a154b3b14af5c132d8a21e
118770 F20101202_AAASKS becker_g_Page_013.jp2
8a66aa3b00b26a971cebd066c3a2daaf
ec39ba137f28d77d377c37905d0ae978a23e4589
61686 F20101202_AAARIF becker_g_Page_087.pro
0d887e9262f852374b8c65ba7b4c591d
4752b6822fce8187d48c4ce5acae772a1ac6a338
121986 F20101202_AAASLH becker_g_Page_038.jp2
b08b772ff31f5ed78f1dcaec4ddda42b
72b171435d0557635a3b512937210697ce83e51e
65696 F20101202_AAARHR becker_g_Page_149.pro
704b85158d0175f6cefb295f67eab276
c7709457a968797e663cd0d8280eb8822c864241
122485 F20101202_AAASKT becker_g_Page_014.jp2
82eb8011816478044d9105e48879dcaf
1bb8bb1349b57351de87eb7a8fb042ece279cc5e
77887 F20101202_AAARIG becker_g_Page_032.jpg
375b730b46a431f7277ee203ccb6d585
b38fe76f51a9ec569875ac4584baa3c05e6b2298
118535 F20101202_AAASLI becker_g_Page_040.jp2
ca4f1f77355f0a67b12b0f7d2e930e35
8bdcd97bc2c12cb65f9384d117b05af775f2b450
468 F20101202_AAARHS becker_g_Page_003.pro
b2b2a68490c2ba62ec5aa2c0608608a1
9cb608365dc70aa5b71d83602c8db50ae9643e9a
128565 F20101202_AAASKU becker_g_Page_015.jp2
688bd6ca110a196163bdb31aee686066
d20f8a481c034c83655928c0f93662d495f8aa95
58269 F20101202_AAARIH becker_g_Page_027.pro
d510149f9d68b131a475a47bb5217399
0088b5265b596fe166611cc23bd7817b2354b128
118827 F20101202_AAASLJ becker_g_Page_042.jp2
107fbbe3f12a83efd4c2dedcaf5e648f
d9b09e76ca9b2835620e1da3c4ff64cbd04d4d5b
24293 F20101202_AAARHT becker_g_Page_131.QC.jpg
b75e1ba94019196b5069c31275134f69
72e4d79601a6d5962c24faebd156b2aac2e614d4
121045 F20101202_AAASKV becker_g_Page_016.jp2
3b6fe5d7cee1f27581a15c5a2d2eecd9
034da28e6dc4ae6937837542620fac4204fd4154
113532 F20101202_AAASLK becker_g_Page_044.jp2
eacd060070696c264114eb574bbfbf76
2ec1d4b70a9d4cab86d3f00936f872cc768d7640
26718 F20101202_AAARHU becker_g_Page_152.QC.jpg
426725f77ac0cb1b6c59afce82ca032d
b621b82efdc2feffdeb447d6e9949708f5e279be
120753 F20101202_AAASKW becker_g_Page_017.jp2
8aba4cb824e5c5782d2570b0d0bfbccb
2d14b1032d7ccd1ade0e131505cd947ac7921920
50353 F20101202_AAARII becker_g_Page_185.pro
2c8fa1e0003db6aee8be75a7e021e86b
89d904c804a552eafc0303aba11e672c797fdaa7
39465 F20101202_AAASMA becker_g_Page_065.jp2
5e9b9c64b3678203c57e9e45194e08a8
3376059eb72eebf19e3a6421819c408f4cf980ac
125888 F20101202_AAASLL becker_g_Page_046.jp2
3071aedf3c3fd06d952964b772c52776
a8c1d0734ffd67004825ab520a1a419dbdd4a511
F20101202_AAARHV becker_g_Page_024.tif
9038d274be572d65f52994d0c4bfe25d
0636cd11e5faa1fa3f32de1697607e1ddee9f395
121321 F20101202_AAASKX becker_g_Page_019.jp2
fc576c3c9e6611fb9aaab58638199ca9
395309c7a123ce7c12acee72c973f437c320a6aa
120225 F20101202_AAARIJ becker_g_Page_027.jp2
17fa4b96e08ab8aa6227138026a45942
055f77b7c6b892e1a8a56bce36301578bf753f77
119977 F20101202_AAASLM becker_g_Page_047.jp2
04caadf97d50fd6da779891476471265
9f81aefa6156f2fdf1224cdba604ffe040ea1d01
55609 F20101202_AAARHW becker_g_Page_022.pro
8c90276379633d90bc499bfe7ae5b4c9
a1e37b62ba36586fb69c4c1ca97cde0630a562c3
121475 F20101202_AAASKY becker_g_Page_021.jp2
2c7a7d43447978538ec3834703fcf17f
2f85ce4f25a202a2ffc9a904c118cab4ab303472
48765 F20101202_AAARIK becker_g_Page_186.pro
c5180cd90c8034003d35917ce8b26958
b2f02153920fc498fd790ba6dee22a387db61a4f
140436 F20101202_AAASMB becker_g_Page_068.jp2
49514b11b1b6802f663ddfca4e260032
3b3632aab498742ac0bf55265b642b9dbe027abc
117128 F20101202_AAASLN becker_g_Page_048.jp2
73812fcff822451e209784bf17c39207
aba3d41d7fcfe6ebbacc911b828d196a43d0745b
26843 F20101202_AAARHX becker_g_Page_071.QC.jpg
ba61b3a1d83df040dff518cc9a491022
8e3299e03b792431a9ce4cb7960513b7f9db4c0c
121771 F20101202_AAASKZ becker_g_Page_023.jp2
0d6940c503afaefedc8ff8973396ab95
9bcabb09b825fb9d284c8e5e8a7c730b5754552b
63538 F20101202_AAARIL becker_g_Page_049.pro
2cf80b04fcdeb266153a3c57e1b570ff
d32a3d1f9d3ca01303d6fd0bccaf8a2459c10b3d
149112 F20101202_AAASMC becker_g_Page_069.jp2
33bbf7be02f4653ced577d13df1008be
1a44ab7531cdeb2eb2500e73626b8f4c0855ac39
132323 F20101202_AAASLO becker_g_Page_049.jp2
4b02cd36241b21f6458ef5472ed92865
1c514c1d9283fb996328460b50e66ef8a889a2cf
2210 F20101202_AAARHY becker_g_Page_016.txt
012dfc4303c8bb8da642444afecd1846
58103fdb2207510be0cb706bb2d80a1c73403dfb
F20101202_AAARJA becker_g_Page_160.tif
6d936db902cec99eff16d3524d0f5d96
b1bf00099c8e26e88143ecf439d208cdf0ef2bcb
56509 F20101202_AAARIM becker_g_Page_017.pro
b9bf3a122e4f5f1f396f2b1751aff5c2
934ff42b5e9c1d78b62b61b1bc07e92364086449
125137 F20101202_AAASMD becker_g_Page_071.jp2
763d261c7bdf3191b1d54acf1169ad3b
aea4d0bc83871e2b5aa19b8ea8e52940df89ab31
135721 F20101202_AAASLP becker_g_Page_050.jp2
ca65775ad0e554c0d22cf2a5597ca753
a5cde07088b295eb7f8870775dbf1168e9df869b
F20101202_AAARHZ becker_g_Page_118.tif
363522ec9859ea97a69f065a61bc414f
1f7a61ffcf72288eac2c1d32df4d0ac140bd9936
130241 F20101202_AAARJB becker_g_Page_096.jp2
2943ef348dfc9e8d4f11c480a49be4b3
bc2f6ab570bea8009e98dc365676fb4b217096d0
F20101202_AAARIN becker_g_Page_008.tif
bb59f33ab82ad8593c0750ab3e813eeb
1db2566d0372d53203d4b1baaf326af593e576ab
115983 F20101202_AAASME becker_g_Page_072.jp2
832d0da8bfbba62ded1db19c7a952bbe
5a9e9f96aa5df6adf9df123f33ba884c8444accc
116271 F20101202_AAASLQ becker_g_Page_051.jp2
ae46301b233e072127d7b5a1e4322296
ba08a356e70882898ca026830c87e718a87b6908
2354 F20101202_AAARJC becker_g_Page_108.txt
5d0a049854c147435e19e8a33ec17f0a
36aed39f3dddc2e57427406da04ca47f97691549
87751 F20101202_AAARIO becker_g_Page_102.jpg
b629130e8048735aa1718f868b6d42f5
54f7878783a48c8ec8904966eb9ba2f55440ade2
126789 F20101202_AAASMF becker_g_Page_074.jp2
54f61192ef96b5aebb990a0af846935e
dfeb55bf090b658df1efa70585fc990b99df976a
131946 F20101202_AAASLR becker_g_Page_053.jp2
6711a5c122bdd1f49c8fbb7f46056f91
6235c869d9a73f3fd36c63c986649ede2114eac8
64242 F20101202_AAARJD becker_g_Page_112.pro
63be8184d2570e83025e27df9c151a91
7ac7386e25c7d7097beb37efe72584ca86e5584b
F20101202_AAARIP becker_g_Page_190thm.jpg
424ef44541df177e722626c600f3e702
6db5b00a7dc0c092dc7232c5c0478a421ddc47bf
120223 F20101202_AAASMG becker_g_Page_076.jp2
4a4318cac1c7180671d0b3e6c0f7a504
8eecf2b6c8437b5c8f101ad118b5b7d5fc4c829a
125952 F20101202_AAASLS becker_g_Page_055.jp2
307f6c5f3c394e38bc7e8137e2c53091
d1eb01a55e556e661a7c3a9579b477e0cc8bad2f
6953 F20101202_AAARJE becker_g_Page_052thm.jpg
d4b4e20d841d4637ce0b57a762307d5f
c7e0361ebd79507162e635ba285ac9d949b857f8
F20101202_AAARIQ becker_g_Page_138.tif
239f869e344c1622c6abafcba31a4d46
853cbe4b8e86f97ff161a16f2f4346ce49ed3b77
127470 F20101202_AAASMH becker_g_Page_077.jp2
fcd0372ef3ac48167dd38248fcb94b4b
90d063762353b417d69f262323b84aed1e36990e
109221 F20101202_AAASLT becker_g_Page_057.jp2
7e064c02d90263ea5aa22bf96246f948
496b1d4d9ca87086a88f5004399404c3f7396110
24267 F20101202_AAARJF becker_g_Page_097.QC.jpg
3465da25351855f76d87e9cbac915545
20d9815aa2efe8e89a8f94b4b7af735934b77a9b
30047 F20101202_AAARIR becker_g_Page_154.QC.jpg
50983874dfc715bad5f323c51cd61335
80aa1e43e57155eb5c39c6e62acd1650cb1df347
123029 F20101202_AAASMI becker_g_Page_078.jp2
646bff5bcef6b116153ed9833d202b4c
0a14d41f8c1ae3f0a65a2fcceacbc655929ee512
126773 F20101202_AAASLU becker_g_Page_058.jp2
7003d1b717b95e91c8ba04530657c36c
382ce4e7f2bf99d38c4d7b3517d3a94c9671a5ae
2342 F20101202_AAARJG becker_g_Page_140.txt
4cdf8d181b232920d4020d0caa64b080
0bc800109b31bcb6c70b54fa2bf630fa530fff67
56811 F20101202_AAARIS becker_g_Page_066.pro
3ce3042153b59b34f939a8ca51a50c62
c358775cb088d9362152b8ff7333b185e14c30b5
108420 F20101202_AAASMJ becker_g_Page_079.jp2
eb59b35979fb6d91a0cf05541e7c1e4f
8d7277265c1cad0931f8c5d5e265efa283a9f2a7
115805 F20101202_AAASLV becker_g_Page_059.jp2
4342830a14e4773bf4f245470b114c3a
6e365cd414aaeaf06776e50431c7ed70aa1f2d39
26543 F20101202_AAARJH becker_g_Page_120.QC.jpg
f24d4ffde389513b68441d1485321d65
c3e800cb14222adbf9c7436fd99e68e66340dfec
6516 F20101202_AAARIT becker_g_Page_158thm.jpg
692d0a27bd6cc621bd90efeb9d4578da
5b7a9879bf79288de235d7cd913a6ce0a034b5bd
117703 F20101202_AAASMK becker_g_Page_083.jp2
8548dcaf80d2c55871efd6a277d26a9c
69e033e1f1f38b7918563a62d0b6b5081ef76250
128283 F20101202_AAASLW becker_g_Page_060.jp2
4f2f0b30dcc381d2f787d84adc03076d
32a4eedcb2657f091294547bfef49afb16da2d49
26758 F20101202_AAARJI becker_g_Page_075.QC.jpg
db979dacf70f6b4d76147f424f10ec7d
1b708c8d3134e84a90a7aca134ed0eefe64c0a73
124953 F20101202_AAARIU becker_g_Page_142.jp2
c2469cd26d23e9f6067ec90b6e248c7b
ab302fb920bbcb39ea20bf1aa7045717cebacf8b
42711 F20101202_AAASNA becker_g_Page_117.jp2
867b657c7d2d8e43da25c7bcfb45bc9a
5f2886c5bd7951c4a78e76776668c0bbd79d7101
1051964 F20101202_AAASML becker_g_Page_084.jp2
d277e7befeb6e1f53c60fbdf095855f6
8abf2b4ac334eeb5a125e2cac1d440ca402398c9
118678 F20101202_AAASLX becker_g_Page_061.jp2
1d652a5e044fbae67f88dcbb6efd267b
b4398fdd877c6c049dd56c580ec40af6c9aa00b1
27664 F20101202_AAARJJ becker_g_Page_122.QC.jpg
4b18526775807381c30ffaad56b46d0a
fd3f28febdd7f6a6491210adca0fae5f8b3885df
26225 F20101202_AAARIV becker_g_Page_130.QC.jpg
fce2985a27af972bf617e40b82bc50f9
29a79ac04b7f0eb7314f289749e69c80ca8a72d1
126723 F20101202_AAASNB becker_g_Page_120.jp2
d4e3f9299581d72c0c39f7022b3b0980
ce99a78581cedeb757b724c04082718f90d25e30
155882 F20101202_AAASMM becker_g_Page_085.jp2
b2fe36e21aa72cfbcd36053e9be21552
5da28d462dc7fb6e733368d131fcfdd7e10efc0e
131176 F20101202_AAASLY becker_g_Page_063.jp2
3d2220b2adf854e54c63c9d833b94966
2a64b73ba37d98c58706ceb24d7cb00aa0660cc1
7005 F20101202_AAARJK becker_g_Page_041thm.jpg
fcb2db7fa7a20c8c25d9717f5b239bf7
b31655dc1ae3a3fdcd896ced72f651a27308ff88
2409 F20101202_AAARIW becker_g_Page_094.txt
22cdf1677bf0e9ee4e8946488b99b11d
42d8833a082d4af642bb9f9f2685e8922f5cf3fa
136933 F20101202_AAASMN becker_g_Page_088.jp2
2f003d4beca63cf8018023adf34f1f9d
fed99be8162a8f45accc4931685e0a868235e50c
117284 F20101202_AAASLZ becker_g_Page_064.jp2
53e380ac8685d3ded3914111dd57d2e0
e870d4f07e707c18afe81bd535aec131a32dc84a
52389 F20101202_AAARJL becker_g_Page_035.pro
b7b600d193937b0815c8320e13f1edae
222c7944397c0a0f1bcfec1c177c951d3c5790e0
82856 F20101202_AAARIX becker_g_Page_055.jpg
4aa4d9c2ac75e1d615465424a497edcd
cb7dcbba4dfddf4ed2187474a40b60640189107e
122169 F20101202_AAASNC becker_g_Page_121.jp2
6032e390fbb9a653ca4419e688c73cec
1939fdeee4f2322d4805083bcf1cee4ec0fd7364
132080 F20101202_AAASMO becker_g_Page_089.jp2
7a1a4513da2cb370bc4124bfee070665
94d791049a40a1892dd1ee579ee037fdef1ffd44
58368 F20101202_AAARKA becker_g_Page_021.pro
fdaa9f6073fb5a57ff4d2afc94a1bc4a
0dafde43926a1275adbf2006522579dc1b6487f7
F20101202_AAARJM becker_g_Page_045.tif
e6c0fecfb046ff54d8466a89f3d64cd8
14fb0e3e2a91aa3f7b749ecb80fbed7b3f192f17
26902 F20101202_AAARIY becker_g_Page_060.QC.jpg
d28f4cd2ee3e38ea878754b4e9844e41
08f33bc8eed412be9185226842a49105e6d6c3d6
104265 F20101202_AAASND becker_g_Page_123.jp2
0be0d01d4e7fa570a1459a7e1becb02e
26e88a71804170d6c9532e043b81e167f539de60
107021 F20101202_AAASMP becker_g_Page_090.jp2
946224c0f012d481417bb99ffad6441c
27f4f7b417ab3f243c069081c9de374af3610879
2175 F20101202_AAARKB becker_g_Page_044.txt
00ffda48ba7f7e630d0e34f4b9f50a1f
d2a71212e4639e7588208d827f58c2ba95525f08
55768 F20101202_AAARJN becker_g_Page_042.pro
918e001fb9da821cc5bf3021d5d9ca8b
8f7ac83d603a6660f31467529dace80df36718f5
2140 F20101202_AAARIZ becker_g_Page_034.txt
9bae87c4910e62a9ac3bf884389b18db
600b7a12c32ac1544deafb85baed60dd533911ca
131171 F20101202_AAASNE becker_g_Page_124.jp2
bc739bb77e63a7694839abbfe476b178
afd5e0e249774623383bc375103caa6d6a84d5d9
127704 F20101202_AAASMQ becker_g_Page_092.jp2
947621737fb9c905db69636603056a6d
b72ac67c8765ce3c8e5967210ad9708cfa89024f
2258 F20101202_AAARKC becker_g_Page_078.txt
ecda8f5c6c6fdf844b02b1b26092afca
656528c7f463eccecdf2abac4f32e4d07b02e994
80912 F20101202_AAARJO becker_g_Page_175.jpg
61ff5a89819e787fe617dddd99ae2a4f
5d8af2419e8c81ba6b83c7248a299bc41a6652de
114644 F20101202_AAASNF becker_g_Page_125.jp2
f2b1a6f2a8e286ead4a6c5b81cbec8f4
922ec33b3216ebf93e6568609da0a00f120b5238
136155 F20101202_AAASMR becker_g_Page_093.jp2
5e7822e28003f4d81d3baaa78972d6eb
f4eb59e1fbb07bb19f7e6b708d9bc74f42420635
61211 F20101202_AAARKD becker_g_Page_055.pro
49cec5fa43636c0a56bcc17c01b10ac4
f344788aa9b274c41cbbdc423c5d767c2597bc6c
7151 F20101202_AAARJP becker_g_Page_012thm.jpg
be5ed4732c98da37f9f51e49174ef9e6
6853b4c835adb28ab214c12b89bf931b5a9ca94d
105453 F20101202_AAASNG becker_g_Page_126.jp2
1e7a639269557e56113ef3c9124ccec8
8ec8b1d2b8d087fd0ccd146ebd6988e0fde7de77
130217 F20101202_AAASMS becker_g_Page_094.jp2
ea0f3e20fb2c710f33ca6c19720830ed
987b4133bbb78fd6ebb00be2b5fa15077207cc98
70803 F20101202_AAARKE becker_g_Page_189.jpg
2551ba332d8ce3ad65e5770ba875bcc6
da5877189fe126e7b75e0d80a7319c227c36f847
F20101202_AAARJQ becker_g_Page_087.txt
ae2f701061584ba0f471d84488abc7d6
5a47609041ff087fbeb21156ff342f501e7f707f
117786 F20101202_AAASNH becker_g_Page_127.jp2
4ce58c9e1e7cbc1a7b4cb1becb786251
1423a7490a6651c5fd20ef06bc63f413213a3cbf
116527 F20101202_AAASMT becker_g_Page_098.jp2
51696f3a8ecc6a5c0241fc78408c0dd9
fdf38367775279a18f5b187a11bb3ad71767ddcc
79099 F20101202_AAARKF becker_g_Page_013.jpg
c90985342c0558357cb94c659dafdd29
8a534138bf77ad10b66c395253d011b19118c5db
26750 F20101202_AAARJR becker_g_Page_169.QC.jpg
b2d75e984b99bd647bbf4e7c0065399d
4519b655eb1a86de59336022f0b4de832c291d13
127544 F20101202_AAASNI becker_g_Page_129.jp2
3d0df929dd2d39bc510c7dc58ce94568
56a7aa3232c2880636ca9d607e50b54314d28db4
117975 F20101202_AAASMU becker_g_Page_099.jp2
06c35f7198280bbeba47070bd01deb14
fa1226f579f961a2444dcd78bf927d25566cdad6
25478 F20101202_AAARKG becker_g_Page_066.QC.jpg
394673ee7bd9bb4fd75a5f44a87bf6f7
456f124353df6275b792c44c7c1d212616818edb
2135 F20101202_AAARJS becker_g_Page_182.txt
3ce35fe57f7f0d9b6646ab8a50d36838
eaa755ed068724089fadd6f383fd59e010bd655a
129550 F20101202_AAASNJ becker_g_Page_130.jp2
e72180aa496d4b6e78308f59f1114480
55f97b654775c58c1a284c486e6a14776a83c52a
116274 F20101202_AAASMV becker_g_Page_100.jp2
6746a7ad9a4de3474a8604f748b2d1f7
1f45d2967c7c57e8cf45a9512e276b97df02e266
7401 F20101202_AAARKH becker_g_Page_050thm.jpg
b7843cb25efab73fb617e38097f19e83
1edd19c701f6d15d284807bd136f8c367e90b871
71177 F20101202_AAARJT becker_g_Page_141.jpg
54d15db9b8c7b82d4ab1fe2aa8dd164e
4c14d0150720a4f005cb570bdd289e2e711cc1a1
110067 F20101202_AAASNK becker_g_Page_131.jp2
dc97e99d560685ab25ff7c157647f39d
0ea226115cdd3895844b77f518f1435bc8d0e9d9
141574 F20101202_AAASMW becker_g_Page_101.jp2
c29b3c95319fa8d1469f7c36def80fc8
b84c2ca65838e54e555242f90a7043347fde6819
1051962 F20101202_AAARKI becker_g_Page_148.jp2
746660091a14bf75b092de7dca9fecf4
eb80c18e4ab99540856e9dd251655bc8363e89f0
2174 F20101202_AAARJU becker_g_Page_045.txt
9faec2326412e4c71f1a0dfb3ddfea80
ece82d7e7950c5ccfd5a54820455680995309c39
114520 F20101202_AAASOA becker_g_Page_158.jp2
09d0495595af1f89a6787a44254f363a
a00877ff2760e0a522ba40b32f928c5796a0b4e9
124108 F20101202_AAASNL becker_g_Page_135.jp2
e08ff8c34ebbe735ead75b6d93ed0aa5
3c1752cc3a005daa14910b6170dc8ed1615cb49f
125051 F20101202_AAASMX becker_g_Page_108.jp2
46139f8037be4c32163fce6c3687e46f
6f6e7763aa8366df87cce0846d67ca0580c7656d
114603 F20101202_AAARKJ becker_g_Page_196.jp2
f61a9c40324d629de06d252871f22c60
eb13807252a71e165d2a4a3d6f158a06cbb832d4
119244 F20101202_AAARJV becker_g_Page_066.jp2
0ce9cf7b71c5124aaa9227b0654802c2
fdda0b20e73b9b93c1c88027543c95bb687a9b79
118616 F20101202_AAASOB becker_g_Page_161.jp2
614732884209e6e481ca2f3d19a6c25f
4e5f322fe3f799ec680757f4c950fae153be271a
136756 F20101202_AAASNM becker_g_Page_136.jp2
569aa11bc3ea1c3c18de49a438e3c9e0
c3fb59ec5975671cc4674570cae69d86963503e5
121146 F20101202_AAASMY becker_g_Page_109.jp2
ebaefd997cbfd0932714d51f8ebc47ac
7e44cef3115243f7269aa3294ce39f357c4fdf17
F20101202_AAARKK becker_g_Page_130.tif
d42d957a7721464f2985523d683aa2d9
8c2ddbe8275c0668fc35338370cd8036194f5dde
F20101202_AAARJW becker_g_Page_061.jpg
fb93f927b23a8c39d5c126b18eda0c75
190df986b0d7b5ea114321182322e1faaacf84cf
111704 F20101202_AAASOC becker_g_Page_162.jp2
980af555b6769eea0e1ab84af2f4af38
f40da6cd163a5cdc86889d9eee863813070ddb94
130067 F20101202_AAASNN becker_g_Page_137.jp2
d3c8462bc5f5b1257b7ec80d1fc70b33
dbf8a40170356ff9c14d77b9ab6fbc4170b93c02
142716 F20101202_AAASMZ becker_g_Page_111.jp2
da8062fff913c8337053e88a44bc9ac9
fcd2865503f5a52919e2d5703e0dcf41f4aef130
74900 F20101202_AAARKL becker_g_Page_158.jpg
aa7532464032ac6bfe06d8d893e7c5a3
5c08ec9681a76cbf342b9ff3827bc4104a00179a
77157 F20101202_AAARJX becker_g_Page_048.jpg
89039a4a971dd2ac4373af8fae64a3fa
aeab04e129eaefd740646e741aac61322ca49bca
52301 F20101202_AAARLA becker_g_Page_028.pro
173c2e99667bad2d9cabae9e1b11e251
13b1bcc9015ec0cc9ee9b4bef472fbe51e2fa00b
104211 F20101202_AAASNO becker_g_Page_138.jp2
a606f82b2ecda5594511f8ce000ac2e0
8804b4739f1a75a7e8589be9182d38d7650f15c1
114184 F20101202_AAARKM becker_g_Page_080.jp2
1efc51a0501f6d67668eefdac31a97c8
e1cc782aebdf2abb6c650f32a9b333f754f755b1
73598 F20101202_AAARJY becker_g_Page_006.pro
ef0cd9ecf9a5d9f6361e3f8c3c6ab22c
f4e5c5bfd34ae34b5aca3b009b6a2298ba70ad79
111049 F20101202_AAASOD becker_g_Page_163.jp2
47e339138caadf1b2abb6cde4d8355d8
5866ceca07c6de455efe24b7bca7604b3ea763e5
115069 F20101202_AAASNP becker_g_Page_139.jp2
60eb3f675453f1f79cb0513740c39819
ce9c120627d8515696e248ce1271738fd9193082
78429 F20101202_AAARKN becker_g_Page_127.jpg
89f00be5f9284c3cb3e566e1f739ef3d
2a9d00a7d2c0681fc7860ac7908c0c7ecbccb3f2
7286 F20101202_AAARJZ becker_g_Page_156thm.jpg
5ced4800940193764fee1e8c61e93c66
6c9636dce240860dfb4c69a7e2680823cd6ace46
55679 F20101202_AAARLB becker_g_Page_151.pro
ec290f93747b659b5a6ac4bbca26bae4
2a3f5c0dde5362bcf8ae114892e9b61bb3e34eb8
116269 F20101202_AAASOE becker_g_Page_165.jp2
f1063b990aaa0fce00b5434141bf61ba
3f4ecc3153e4a04b49bb6711c1053598e4ad4415
116048 F20101202_AAASNQ becker_g_Page_143.jp2
9efc2a4c71f3096d038c6c22458d0e85
3c0437cc48d26a1df35490590f44759af53bdbe0
58047 F20101202_AAARKO becker_g_Page_056.pro
a3b1305059f14fd8ed78d1ce2fe2b7ae
a5ae4d718fb4fb26bf2abd4c4b2e2387d656bb1b
133587 F20101202_AAARLC becker_g_Page_011.jp2
427b72790449668e6819132a6f423a43
f46ea75ad3cbf5b93d891a8b8156bf5f7027b14d
118409 F20101202_AAASOF becker_g_Page_170.jp2
908cfdb63718636fcf349a99a6ac9f6b
87222d256e24cc642e844f002fe7e83381cefd7e
127815 F20101202_AAASNR becker_g_Page_144.jp2
fe95deea7ab4757eb480083dc06595cb
881239774bf9981157e8a7188c58f35b5efc931a
106835 F20101202_AAARKP becker_g_Page_009.jp2
f7cd837496cc14adc37d0c87d28ffac1
57447500326178245ece41d5477f2648d4273fea
79424 F20101202_AAARLD becker_g_Page_019.jpg
bc32f49e526549bc40d57037bccdcca1
0bc87575765208025b6c9e60f52341cd3f0d7161
117937 F20101202_AAASOG becker_g_Page_171.jp2
21c1f44be8bf16e585f0845cf278e6c4
0d134ffc57b696598d388cac7d0ec6e10edf49fb
133062 F20101202_AAASNS becker_g_Page_145.jp2
21a857f4b16154c58081c0535e6c5575
f272e7092082edf9d7fa8d74cd90154a5a32ae41
1814 F20101202_AAARKQ becker_g_Page_180.txt
9e052271722c6ff9972a3fa8ae9c8d12
e3769d32382cd606fe1468eb5c6a062ed203752a
46169 F20101202_AAARLE becker_g_Page_181.pro
5535a053f45c59bdb20b1440c2264caf
a0ac1834c90a11d20f593a0fa839e46078b7ec22
122187 F20101202_AAASOH becker_g_Page_174.jp2
e839e338f4a541505d71b61d8104faa9
f7d5046b0d4a6d5ab0b19d242cf65119a0ad74ab
143219 F20101202_AAASNT becker_g_Page_146.jp2
37b1263c4ecbd0199832a17aa7f6485c
dd95c9cab5fd1e683e21ad74294e68ccd3675877
6029 F20101202_AAARKR becker_g_Page_188thm.jpg
a876855dc17d251329a6eff92efc46bb
59a73952c8448399d265470690d4d80d7a543d63
145112 F20101202_AAARLF becker_g_Page_115.jp2
35a6c126b6a2154e8919df3eb74f77be
e84559a205a45f3a3c49d24d33002ff5b8e383d5
109875 F20101202_AAASOI becker_g_Page_178.jp2
195fa80bf6df1bea8d416216be6cb384
da12425bbfcd649ae526b7af930a27f4fa8df60e
136575 F20101202_AAASNU becker_g_Page_149.jp2
59eb88a69d775e76dc7071b913261af3
3f6570e5d90f935d6e8fb6820c239bf80a04cbe3
113750 F20101202_AAARKS becker_g_Page_082.jp2
634190d46409f9cf645c65c90506c69e
79c732ac912ba7fca85276591c941496b6fb6397
27607 F20101202_AAARLG becker_g_Page_136.QC.jpg
f8b0649094f2cec356d9564157b2e72a
d2d93e7327eeead3dec31d57279d96fbc5c8f7b0
69494 F20101202_AAASOJ becker_g_Page_179.jp2
59eade61a8ba86cfcb17e0887717b41f
ccc5f6b5b82245ccb217b072ddc9b834e3e63b11
121903 F20101202_AAASNV becker_g_Page_150.jp2
fd60c144e47089751d182c3f2e893040
e1b6948cb403744409122ec3297cf93f66486ade
7225 F20101202_AAARKT becker_g_Page_112thm.jpg
71da1529ba4ce33bc5894b518d61da6a
8113c19ebb66039dfbe45ef6b046ba1779e10f6a
52739 F20101202_AAARLH becker_g_Page_054.pro
7862a90c00fdecdfe10b4a98b88cc63c
0b64408c20e87969b9cd3425c3ee5514e4d2ec3a
105442 F20101202_AAASOK becker_g_Page_181.jp2
68d6f7ccd8f7efc7426a5d815dceb7aa
dca2e878b0fe6b32d71886d2d76a42220265eb3a
119160 F20101202_AAASNW becker_g_Page_151.jp2
517ea50b45941ed7d84e7a928dbd8a68
94bfb8153745132e6d4eeee0fb532a57a03f0712
F20101202_AAARKU becker_g_Page_133.txt
488bde925661268adec3f2988fd3abde
1684ba23a03d9eac22d48b84a2d76cf760b4558a
25745 F20101202_AAARLI becker_g_Page_168.QC.jpg
1ef6a17a01b3b167f42ee5c338e2c442
a3239284c3c0d47f189b4903e2b1f209f89863b0
F20101202_AAASPA becker_g_Page_020.tif
b73e2ff2026ec7d66004d04dff910bed
08a2dd92ce5eb64581cc3dd58570f414cc976927
115967 F20101202_AAASOL becker_g_Page_182.jp2
874ba239c7149f99035de3f825e09d9d
7cf8075068e49ddecdb056d682fadb323fc5a613
123485 F20101202_AAASNX becker_g_Page_152.jp2
0cb17bb415e059aa0870ea910f4c50c3
64759587f7c30d89d69a91ff6d22ee8996dfb888
F20101202_AAARKV becker_g_Page_105.tif
10058525f1c47bcee467c211c1c5cb46
f62ee938b67b4f6bdee9d7029a2351d406fb03c9
26686 F20101202_AAARLJ becker_g_Page_144.QC.jpg
f5ea60dd08339aa4a38477525850435d
e8f8004ca881e378a6243acff481262fd8f14c0a
F20101202_AAASPB becker_g_Page_021.tif
b58dffb5ea2c94762e0ae3e10cf6c961
b606c54097679af87938025516b5c177a3488d96
114179 F20101202_AAASOM becker_g_Page_185.jp2
3dc091e6898204268ef7cd35e48dfc66
9915dd2a879af66e9af6532a1a2eee77a37ffc49
149256 F20101202_AAASNY becker_g_Page_155.jp2
143211dc6c9c4b368bae6be547bcb670
1b94e2c6fa88436a22e2d92d537d05aa856097bb
82252 F20101202_AAARKW becker_g_Page_133.jpg
059351feb2786bf3109e320c6ad97043
b24edc91e8993f025b350452a95a8f17b1ceeb55
2004 F20101202_AAARLK becker_g_Page_009.txt
3bced6975f10ff780d25ccb8b4f2c276
a9aa093031740fb734c8797cc922bb260bf3d82b
F20101202_AAASPC becker_g_Page_023.tif
3eaccb8667abb0c9290658393f41fa47
12bf26a1a89602c55f8115882c1ddc36b9b21cbd
108630 F20101202_AAASON becker_g_Page_186.jp2
34a1f79466db59d19466dad736bec727
a926c4512bfe3f7167347c5c0c4d8d27c5098894
127152 F20101202_AAASNZ becker_g_Page_156.jp2
128fe7f4b86c154aac2630a53d873e09
3d26357fc31d7cfbb0effc897ccaad9a34925d18
24613 F20101202_AAARKX becker_g_Page_028.QC.jpg
5955c29bc1aee002be4eaf2f6aedbefc
3c7a6b1a7367bd97da68fe406cc4c55e70ecffa1
74270 F20101202_AAARMA becker_g_Page_005.jpg
c877a6fae54da07fa138d47086d32202
59fa40303311a779e82e777d839c341331368e2f
92631 F20101202_AAARLL becker_g_Page_146.jpg
4c11aecf4ef6981ff18a8946fe0750c7
675b99b27cb8b4040b5c9b217fd61bd1e9615401
F20101202_AAASPD becker_g_Page_025.tif
326a232efcc19fb18dfe15f05db10e2c
6215b2a166b14af31e6125475c0de129c7d42179
101240 F20101202_AAASOO becker_g_Page_187.jp2
f001063ca5660df17ab6eb4493ac3c40
889897e7711435937889737876ed9ff63cc01a03
144678 F20101202_AAARKY becker_g_Page_116.jp2
cf9f2ee7a91d68b78ce87b373d54b7ff
55a072e5d484423004db0b284320802a87ee9e16
28826 F20101202_AAARMB becker_g_Page_155.QC.jpg
f53543d8872b9514522968b17fecdd94
54786ff985de8a24ac3aab2e57c07c5d63cf8fc1
F20101202_AAARLM becker_g_Page_190.tif
495840d6e743fbba6350c5d80a204606
5daf5ac504c42edd2cfc608aad8b88207efc649b
97168 F20101202_AAASOP becker_g_Page_188.jp2
d23c8a31aafd2079cf12f2cf16cb82c3
b4a124ea911aed27a6238122eaf65a215cf9c118
7209 F20101202_AAARKZ becker_g_Page_064thm.jpg
9c38971f156c5e1fa7e5388d47e42067
7738a868662d66df23121fdd67380a2870474696
117648 F20101202_AAARLN becker_g_Page_168.jp2
b4dce77f4e5cbe0007bd102e4cfaa0f9
848962b8451e250bdbe1230cd188c2e74eb6788d
F20101202_AAASPE becker_g_Page_026.tif
1e971642b821bbd554a6fba8e6a591cb
c8ee00aff4c568302952c6909f53db41f4acac1b
110506 F20101202_AAASOQ becker_g_Page_190.jp2
0b61e6109770e64bc9fe2e0337a86bf8
10aa4943319288f66c0963a8e504a0d9e2ac1f56
98722 F20101202_AAARMC becker_g_Page_199.jp2
89e15ab8e1e698d482c67c68d3573ba0
47317ca7c72141605654c5a6c5732dfdcb95c6e5
75075 F20101202_AAARLO becker_g_Page_030.jpg
5cd770169a8dd3cbec619ede4332159a
0ea7aab85c33b9aefbed7040d7bc5bad478a2162
F20101202_AAASPF becker_g_Page_028.tif
1fb13d5f04408d82622582bc6902a651
0d29b3e11804d5de4de4c0f88a7968bb5fac831a
110431 F20101202_AAASOR becker_g_Page_194.jp2
379e2f5f9ffde87bdaac167d47c6b352
61f909c9430c9d298c6fd83395f811fffadff8a0
1781 F20101202_AAARMD becker_g_Page_183.txt
c40176dcf48c9fc5137cb5c0502fa03a
4d75307a944cd5fb2a262a9e94d01436178d4f0a
F20101202_AAARLP becker_g_Page_152thm.jpg
136dddc839ba2e1112a2222160b54558
b96cfd061729dc6225217b41e9ac232e8fac36a2
F20101202_AAASPG becker_g_Page_029.tif
a7a0ab0614f4919263cca87c236e212a
f9a9af4c2aaa2c96ab5c47f36d742b5e9051e947
F20101202_AAASOS becker_g_Page_001.tif
eea02e9e8bfa840ef3c58e221b977927
46b24159044d6c85939b0cbc9b703561a4c9b718
6922 F20101202_AAARME becker_g_Page_046thm.jpg
68ca85c1cb174cfb1208e639cc9403b4
7859b40d4e81afd22bc9083e581693b8558d93c3
57646 F20101202_AAARLQ becker_g_Page_191.jpg
f31aea811017888d1f416d9161f36bed
8309ffbe98bc80942f52add3ed82e46ee7aa9b7c
F20101202_AAASPH becker_g_Page_030.tif
415b241d1b8e9b06b800bbd0e5efd1aa
050afc5a2241a9c09e5048b3011813ccbd44aed5
F20101202_AAASOT becker_g_Page_002.tif
a28dde29c887b5c4cf4ff18576b3bcae
0d8e1668f60bd95f354bd544ba0d6fbbb2445a53
F20101202_AAARMF becker_g_Page_175.tif
6267261b11d851539e4171065aaacaea
16e12efc40b9c3ebf8b90a7c877278f3cbeede2f
F20101202_AAARLR becker_g_Page_121.tif
7191c61f1d4e165af619709468909a09
f00f531fa6d4535da8b25c82ad74647666df6729
F20101202_AAASPI becker_g_Page_031.tif
ef42c9ae126cf2490a98cf1a2f743c3d
5ed6fcb4837ad92cbad0e374ac2723456233c867
F20101202_AAASOU becker_g_Page_004.tif
03a14c23724b4aae702975aa331f98e6
cba425fd00ed9c8f59709036fef901c1e446063d
91586 F20101202_AAARMG becker_g_Page_114.jpg
57df58052d7918225ccad46015e082a5
3c6e374d93f34915efa9f3101a267a6017fdd657
25314 F20101202_AAARLS becker_g_Page_072.QC.jpg
df0e8773b1d9e3cd3444fc733a4edc0f
1eda4dfbb7592c50be3df3f036ef0665931e58f6
F20101202_AAASPJ becker_g_Page_032.tif
14500c15a299d78e4ace413d5e999495
e09e2524d08992b52163758e3bcffe4e4430c437
25271604 F20101202_AAASOV becker_g_Page_005.tif
99014cd68de61b7acde43d5f391ecd0b
17c0350734d40ab87cf967e0a140c6d15b4c624e
61050 F20101202_AAARMH becker_g_Page_120.pro
909042ccab097af5df52b29fc7cbe84a
ca5c3dc88da5cee3dc99a656efe7e02021997cb9
6791 F20101202_AAARLT becker_g_Page_020thm.jpg
a7ac42226374b6eeba4556d4cd973207
b568e8205346ee5fda0f89597702dc9af4dd4901
F20101202_AAASPK becker_g_Page_035.tif
36d942123bd8015e1f55b875eb01fc0c
ac74bd56455d63477830301a69d110fdaa666462
F20101202_AAASOW becker_g_Page_007.tif
daf1d628b820aeac6aa48165a13cd195
e3aa396f39aa45ee572e7736b3baebfbc71dc4ef
26916 F20101202_AAARMI becker_g_Page_011.QC.jpg
2852f07bd11e7e59d972acb92402b3b8
44b9e710729e8c09bd8fb37fb14d39ad95eb4239
2335 F20101202_AAARLU becker_g_Page_134.txt
c7f3f2b1cbe2b3083c8587646e1455d6
75380b3dcd26314f3a92f7d9e5fbc16c0730884f
F20101202_AAASQA becker_g_Page_063.tif
ac8fd34490abe4b10a056450a6fea08a
ce5a8f6d964a76e31a82fb16c4155ed3bd3b0d0a
F20101202_AAASPL becker_g_Page_037.tif
7fdda41719dce26892f37fbbb159586c
9a422f23c80885873ca474331ee59fea1d921bcc
F20101202_AAASOX becker_g_Page_010.tif
473e2a3fd54f4eff90221fb905d90408
51d47df6edb8e898cbf8a85e6abe2bf62d0f3d63
F20101202_AAARMJ becker_g_Page_048.tif
0671e96d326768f8831a8ba84779bf7d
d395006647bd0cf888186ac42833821248f7e883
10260 F20101202_AAARLV becker_g_Page_117.QC.jpg
bcde786ec693e7a31955587bdedf31fa
7678087cc6f52c1bf6d0197fcef3c5af5a62ecf1
F20101202_AAASQB becker_g_Page_064.tif
ab85a394de504de68ffa86bd45c361cd
8c81446576141716e8b4be94872e046773f80079
F20101202_AAASPM becker_g_Page_042.tif
e27130a23eae9d6d7801c45213ed43cc
0466d3cb27ba3476a2ab56d05ff5bec64a2a6211
F20101202_AAASOY becker_g_Page_011.tif
d9dc72a30eaef3950fe3d4387ab42227
6fe4cc7372fecb6c895699ccc9276b77367769e9
F20101202_AAARMK becker_g_Page_024.txt
9cb8fed819c2e3e2c33af18f6d1befc9
8d7d07994eb15caf09ae4ac8644b27c417788654
54762 F20101202_AAARLW becker_g_Page_099.pro
a8ac560bbc83bc74ce3fc59c5f4d5b13
ba1d04d16d20cd49343f9ffd58ee19a16a7b1900
F20101202_AAASQC becker_g_Page_067.tif
f7d47b072ba30ce88365d61eba953911
115c062493261d45fc61f09d7e9fe954dc2f5c1e
F20101202_AAASPN becker_g_Page_043.tif
67efbcbf9fc7fddddd56f3a35eb3d3cb
fc3386290b074783e82c4c8085c8d722bb0811f1
F20101202_AAASOZ becker_g_Page_017.tif
ac7c8c2186232dc48c286f7332c969bb
3d99421e1806459fd5f1fdb9ae7ee909b634e41f
68626 F20101202_AAARNA becker_g_Page_128.jpg
f56a9f3b071f52353b4852f7a9af71c4
ecbd0f2de165dc17afd12a8c8be9f71a39cd5793
51814 F20101202_AAARML becker_g_Page_025.pro
4769baab1728b47a78ce8bbab9f7d9c2
0abff90cea603ec0d9e29bc1278794bf742d378f
F20101202_AAARLX becker_g_Page_052.txt
3d216dab80c9ef700cfedbb1a5ba9302
12e5d25eba98d681e40d5d55a7998ce53cd3bf82
F20101202_AAASQD becker_g_Page_069.tif
4af321926564d0c26a943d891b48cc17
9101860cb101fa98801c411843c83de2668f68f4
F20101202_AAASPO becker_g_Page_044.tif
6fbf5b09c76bce0739bbf5dfda5acd41
810c9bb91e4758c3da42957f0927e4776dce4454
22650 F20101202_AAARNB becker_g_Page_001.jpg
ce492a5af58ef82a0a4fc257e5ea6cf3
476c97112f09d0f4b9eb025151c9f9c3ebdbb072
F20101202_AAARMM becker_g_Page_071.tif
2622b7247f29294e190025a0c93f79a8
0e545325080b9d0b4a76854a203af342a4a8d64c
60507 F20101202_AAARLY becker_g_Page_058.pro
15d669bb0bf71c4d96d7cdbccf0adf81
b71cc0a32f3d5492b106c5d6b36b83796219be27
F20101202_AAASQE becker_g_Page_070.tif
2a2d71be610ee8b3ba01bc979d1c9b52
bd68dd9aa0df48f5a5a9d4c54c14a8cfc050285c
F20101202_AAASPP becker_g_Page_046.tif
9fa169f36c21ae6561e4515e6f9bc06e
861df08e0e043169e57103d253a83a505c0ec5b5
25338 F20101202_AAARNC becker_g_Page_038.QC.jpg
fd3ca7b97c9b0f79964c2212d06108d4
9882cd60eb65216bc73d7954678a0e5bf7203432
F20101202_AAARMN becker_g_Page_063.txt
3913e9f24b4edff8d33971c0d4688ac7
d73cf0d6ffde5701c1750b5286a63c1b67c4f295
139743 F20101202_AAARLZ becker_g_Page_119.jp2
c36282a9c810788e4d06a9910a4e003d
467d0bafddb104f76aa0f60f6706fdde269f5e16
F20101202_AAASPQ becker_g_Page_049.tif
4abe8f82b8a15f95cddc7fc691a60e80
03b704e33f63dd4541e86efe76c8cbc8ead284fe
1925 F20101202_AAARMO becker_g_Page_195.txt
59b685c72c82d276bc1afcd59a6abfb8
ab573fe62f0d54199659601982d782dd47cbf8d5
F20101202_AAASQF becker_g_Page_072.tif
f841c0927bb4896e2fe86a1c7b9286c0
8bdc65bc0b356279a650ee638c590fe7e3135935
F20101202_AAASPR becker_g_Page_050.tif
0208ef5fc6888f22985e80b1ad045391
4a085319df92b5f4fb3b79872c606dc6cd673061
76708 F20101202_AAARND becker_g_Page_080.jpg
2294bc7d35d15959b0e05d56f8ac3e21
cc3753eef8687c8a948d503edb00638febfae7f6
F20101202_AAARMP becker_g_Page_054.tif
2e5db246dfaf525c32fd42a4d5a71aa2
004f689a9b432bb0fa836fd7acc903f6796e3689
F20101202_AAASQG becker_g_Page_073.tif
022fce1c847aca384c847d553c8ea6f2
7cd878ee6e6fe8814eefe06d1ae082517113e8f3
F20101202_AAASPS becker_g_Page_051.tif
9543347fc9abf18adb559ac8e004e788
e795e0432be0be598e3ae43dc66c53a7572771c3
68846 F20101202_AAARNE becker_g_Page_119.pro
32162702d2db382ad5293669439e94c3
4853db1f8823bd7dcc692039b84199896b984578
25379 F20101202_AAARMQ becker_g_Page_159.QC.jpg
6e8d35c90235df6fee02db8812bd6679
3bc8b1358401fec92db1b710bce38af9ec00be43
F20101202_AAASQH becker_g_Page_074.tif
04440e46a8c0fd0e7a62523b590737b9
7c3025421abf61390e9e25e6b43ec826e7807d7c
F20101202_AAASPT becker_g_Page_052.tif
6f2ee1d99d7252c06770822847803102
16c0aec7ac9f26d0031b79f3be75f25b5746eb1e
23559 F20101202_AAARMR becker_g_Page_090.QC.jpg
3f343a72949b8ad1d75e03a8c2627308
22ebd423baba6c2501485ef57e2fd99880a0b033
72771 F20101202_AAARNF becker_g_Page_079.jpg
78816b968e307db98a15329a9e8b5a35
0a9a1abc6c051e30bad1068eaed59be6d8785f68
F20101202_AAASQI becker_g_Page_077.tif
087a565639781505e3323a5316e128f0
deea442c9ff842ec8aebd850c89a214ce560bb80
F20101202_AAASPU becker_g_Page_055.tif
32c4f3ddeef3b9b91ac59dbf8bc73002
2314e0792dba0b78d5050844ffc2c67fe6497fb6
7132 F20101202_AAARMS becker_g_Page_132thm.jpg
af406d5fab9d486b21c9a0b7049aab0a
5499261cb6cc6ae1c3d1efb9ae906650453947af
127770 F20101202_AAARNG becker_g_Page_041.jp2
2aa396b44f49265d7aa25b2ae096d1a1
0c5cb0db5458b0f2f475647081973f1aa7d076be
F20101202_AAASQJ becker_g_Page_078.tif
2fd80ba31c8397facffca9c986867dd3
0934527f889c05bcd730867b8e2c05d033b6d818
F20101202_AAASPV becker_g_Page_057.tif
2996ffa33541e5a5a80ec4bd66f5d1d7
efb61d1ec75febfa4958b80f63b306d7f1419e8d
2219 F20101202_AAARMT becker_g_Page_132.txt
d62293f650f1ff7a5ef0f4a036cfde07
ea9dac88469846703ad6a05160ddc540ca734b57
107613 F20101202_AAARNH becker_g_Page_141.jp2
8625b6dcc1c3a88545bee0f0e7cfc33f
597da6aa0e41e1ee10d8bde50f036c7f307de6bb
F20101202_AAASQK becker_g_Page_079.tif
51e0cc6cfea57676ba8e4c4f3dcc1faa
6d086d39b331ccaba9ee79222c31579914b917d2
F20101202_AAASPW becker_g_Page_058.tif
17e75461afdb56ff1f7ac02806a1e9b9
e1bc3fc5a8e12954674ab900e8384f790d57b941
7008 F20101202_AAARMU becker_g_Page_096thm.jpg
5be76ee76e323c039d48fa0e80fedc6c
048725298c2155c10e3466bfe9f4fabe18780c69
1319 F20101202_AAARNI becker_g_Page_179.txt
ed0a779866ab557bdbe98228e481b116
65606ffe908d7f642eb31dc2b12b962a7c1db3ff
F20101202_AAASRA becker_g_Page_110.tif
81ca7ac01c9c957afe3a37d0669d985c
2da46605c3322dc1b20e55dbe7c6492fd199988d
8423998 F20101202_AAASQL becker_g_Page_081.tif
44c4adccf02f31b39b4e9c7cab311ed7
21daf660742f8ac62bf2c26140541d34a70ef5f6
F20101202_AAASPX becker_g_Page_059.tif
a85128ecd6d03fc91670b430be7449ed
9710934cc1cb963ed94fdb754c7171b8b60653e6
24703 F20101202_AAARMV becker_g_Page_025.QC.jpg
9028e6a0ad3d992a65118d78b97d1255
232389382aa49a3a241063372fdbfed867cdb5ee
62864 F20101202_AAARNJ becker_g_Page_075.pro
221b7d8af86f87e51e9018b5835a6db9
98ebdd9c41f31c6f88ed9f838d4296a7f8e11fa0
F20101202_AAASRB becker_g_Page_111.tif
d768cf147a0f81cf23f834495dc93be8
ba38c3a50cad9cb6058a46c8988677cc8ec2a587
F20101202_AAASQM becker_g_Page_082.tif
a41318c1fd5ece2833d2ecab4f6ee132
bb169ff08997dd8525b40d9da14a5ee3f6a01e67
F20101202_AAASPY becker_g_Page_060.tif
db6c585079a714787599b523dceb3664
4b6f1212c15995244931d446c4e10f24d8eecd60
F20101202_AAARMW becker_g_Page_186.tif
b0b7bd7fb1436d0be628252171fce584
bf1b9d32f083b2ad33c5a3fb6a5968ebf50c637e
1051961 F20101202_AAARNK becker_g_Page_081.jp2
cf8b1efc096c348b00d66bc170ba1ba8
93efda166b249566a4dc3a991ab12674c04acde5
F20101202_AAASRC becker_g_Page_112.tif
d68f7105a7aee890d6ba3c42a6d8f5ec
9d5b3cd0f4e1a110301f67944f76199cb34490fc
F20101202_AAASQN becker_g_Page_084.tif
13c43c1c07960b8b84c472984f3d8061
e5af3e01b21376a2ad8b8cf07159c116d1dde646
F20101202_AAASPZ becker_g_Page_062.tif
395c06ea6ef314d9f00d1af7692b42f8
e254edc939fb281cf2e9d3ef236646283a371c39
58201 F20101202_AAARMX becker_g_Page_121.pro
1baaa6d89da5a99527b06d534631a02a
ad839d24c2d7a3d7fab263d49cfa45034fea874c
81041 F20101202_AAAROA becker_g_Page_086.jpg
15fcfd41b8faee51aec3cd070de9d434
082bafd0b9a592af891961dfd1211e1621125d93
18071 F20101202_AAARNL becker_g_Page_005.QC.jpg
a3753c4cde9596a1241ef2e027c1e0e0
227d2f6766c44dceb12e443ba99050b3fc5b6068
F20101202_AAASRD becker_g_Page_113.tif
e1d908cdd1501d4599b4203231b5a7dd
2e8f107a2350fdeb3c6995517229c58997eb640f
F20101202_AAASQO becker_g_Page_086.tif
2285d47916e6e9d858fabce1419e4b03
a39c9071fff5373a56dc1423303231813937d77d
103952 F20101202_AAARMY becker_g_Page_007.jp2
7c19a5cb296dcf880522f82caf7ea942
caf88e80ac3e680244f90eaf63c5d3479ba40cf9
F20101202_AAAROB becker_g_Page_140.tif
69c89de74d42e6a138057d9cfbef826c
03762e1ea93d48547c24059a993a27ecf992a6b8
2050 F20101202_AAARNM becker_g_Page_025.txt
9437442f24fba023c0200d91b0d99937
27626a1fb4dcae97c4eb64ea163add09b7d087fa
F20101202_AAASRE becker_g_Page_114.tif
ef2a04635c4f46ba1ee3970abc026007
ac5677dc0413cfd94f54c89a8d886171d8529149
F20101202_AAASQP becker_g_Page_089.tif
d6ebb2cd370703355617e99f22a27f93
2f1c73394bb490f13fb48cf31d4f191c7165b01f
108539 F20101202_AAARMZ becker_g_Page_189.jp2
676fdbae0a49c1a79ebc4e08ecf0bad0
c45a587038952eb932f12686be374b05cc629c29
F20101202_AAAROC becker_g_Page_148.tif
567dbb6d135287b37555ec7c66fda616
b0ef33016ea0876c60d65d9d2c586f22a495c581
112338 F20101202_AAARNN becker_g_Page_097.jp2
02734d9f2fe6409730b26335e365e25e
4fbb2e95fda4d2ad4efc307ba992c705f5a0b864
F20101202_AAASRF becker_g_Page_115.tif
bec712f6ff2c2c7e98d333c02e6a1378
abe94c62e2a375efb99b5a63c1fecc62df58af2e
F20101202_AAASQQ becker_g_Page_090.tif
bd90f80ac285784466c4929694429b5f
cf5d2fcc34e8fec97971c6fad516ff276cb51477
2453 F20101202_AAAROD becker_g_Page_137.txt
844676e3e8705aae6e4abf4ab6e32dc3
aa23a6ba265d4070aeac9e47a24511f6c3fae70f
133322 F20101202_AAARNO becker_g_Page_112.jp2
83f9750e1596c898fd273068bcecc49a
6ab813e0b75e06b3ac24659b742c57ea7467ebe5
F20101202_AAASQR becker_g_Page_094.tif
ec4e6590868165d612a7dd59e9cd57e1
67ec1965617bb8dd249cef1d4b68fc42c3a5371c
64966 F20101202_AAARNP becker_g_Page_011.pro
0c8c04646e2762be2d5d544257840fdb
5341a783c28501ecddc9103ec5968653e2299c69
F20101202_AAASRG becker_g_Page_116.tif
8f70e502f259d4ba9cebb2415fbdfa42
94cbe505fa2ae04b4ebb123e3c33c279aa179a05
F20101202_AAASQS becker_g_Page_095.tif
ac89d9a333eb484dec95713259b5da22
550bbc492fefe9e284df36b2df5840052a2df974
87103 F20101202_AAAROE becker_g_Page_106.jpg
f799aa92e54eedfc60971673392e3dad
3eda01b7872cd4caddef06794eadf1bac79de61d
F20101202_AAARNQ becker_g_Page_012.tif
43707741c2334ddccd34f49d0be75846
a393dffd31bee6f14ee4c07b5d37f15572f15ec8
F20101202_AAASRH becker_g_Page_120.tif
5aae3eec02f80ac831c9b50b2223de64
cc2d9ffb8d621cca4c58b6001a262117fb65d3de
F20101202_AAASQT becker_g_Page_099.tif
6b3abdd9f2fdb10f350d210be053b5aa
7e295bc4b532776da0dae07eea7561f13b0b53fb
96527 F20101202_AAAROF becker_g_Page_116.jpg
2562da65c36bafc7183e1f1711d5a1ef
e48b0a4dfe2a443779589e681e5b40f30441377b
117126 F20101202_AAARNR becker_g_Page_073.jp2
ad7bda9146468b80d0408590cee8f190
20dea91bb4693c3c92e8621ab24e13ba147cd4bc
F20101202_AAASRI becker_g_Page_122.tif
aac5ee973a6db30c671be666a447d478
e67101de84979eb4b20f29b04c3ac488381d7e8a
F20101202_AAASQU becker_g_Page_100.tif
d20fa417bcf6698aa233a1e1b42dc2df
0958bf8fdf58941dceef44a292d1dfad254b344d
F20101202_AAAROG becker_g_Page_036.tif
a2bfa1dbe97a826e1c5b9681430b9d97
7a107be6cbcb89bf3be633f9ab749f791a763174
2347 F20101202_AAARNS becker_g_Page_156.txt
8ce99421365adba071b501ce72880fa5
9d9626ec047934d883e7ddad3c863fec07890cd9
F20101202_AAASRJ becker_g_Page_123.tif
c3dbad0ec76560d877be47453e1775de
6385cd5f969a4495f5bf6a270b577903613076bb
F20101202_AAASQV becker_g_Page_101.tif
17289a3acf3c0ef39c90a54786673366
a109504dd432602a7cd3bfbd46f53d5ce1974909
108774 F20101202_AAAROH becker_g_Page_160.jp2
a2412973647223006afc596ba5493dd6
9eb8d3acd2238d6115378cef247a6937279964ac
F20101202_AAARNT becker_g_Page_153.tif
0fdab06c16346dfe46139c796b5af52f
ad77979ca58466df633ee3a6410d859944a57d2a
F20101202_AAASRK becker_g_Page_124.tif
42d24a49a09d0c6c96d5f60214b9aad3
01456ab10afba8dcd88c5e7cad19282e4ac37cf0
F20101202_AAASQW becker_g_Page_103.tif
7c37877271043303e0fed0343ec42db1
4bd1be80a40553f2995dd17efda8b733ef33d4f6
27387 F20101202_AAAROI becker_g_Page_024.QC.jpg
b413d7581ca1b551b8c0818a8fb53532
7324bf434ebc1e8a47e63dd2774e7ba09d5c3019
7178 F20101202_AAARNU becker_g_Page_145thm.jpg
76469755835d6390663226235ba69da1
95f3bb82e96aad1728b6823311d8f1fa0525900a
F20101202_AAASSA becker_g_Page_162.tif
4e327ed08de973e623e703297a98e490
1452031ff6fcc9f81c7019ba9cfc705af30b7eae
F20101202_AAASRL becker_g_Page_128.tif
5e26fcd39b6392716f2cd6d0a117c770
1e3059bb2938a68c0d8783c5d43655f91c8f4182
F20101202_AAASQX becker_g_Page_106.tif
4aa2469f36ec67ab4a536e6532910693
3f243650f9afa0e63cacdcd040d091e52da4e43c
79694 F20101202_AAAROJ becker_g_Page_066.jpg
95b3f921b13b91275379266046e5f95f
0c6cf7e8854f53d164f437cf14f74ab5bb848bdb
2653 F20101202_AAARNV becker_g_Page_146.txt
4c441b2e8e4387215880530df4ce64c3
e434f1d9ee55c321bfb0bca02da0ce90fa093482
F20101202_AAASSB becker_g_Page_164.tif
0b1c0d8a3dd79ba95383a5abc6c52c7c
6296e9a3254c48398687f44d55587f546fcdcc40
F20101202_AAASRM becker_g_Page_131.tif
3e9321907a3c1a57d20475c05d6fc77b
5a33f20e16ec6c5fb3e05d81ab70be72731afd3c
F20101202_AAASQY becker_g_Page_107.tif
3a8906ee5c67e6caae99ce9b10535c93
b1988df592d05292bf3e7faa01abd543d5a38756
88383 F20101202_AAAROK becker_g_Page_145.jpg
e150729de04d78de0cfe59b99d141b4f
b24978a8f85e9569a32cfbf0fc61f8e891d2a7aa
125200 F20101202_AAARNW becker_g_Page_134.jp2
c4be50662c08be6f587369f12359597b
8e341ef748312be5274c2b2c725aca001159080a
F20101202_AAASSC becker_g_Page_167.tif
2e53c7e99968ed1ef71cd0ce397cade2
7d4a0609965a92a4d1a2dfab3920d5173a33564c
F20101202_AAASRN becker_g_Page_134.tif
6ae957cd1c1e1b3bb933eecf22572d28
fdcd8ccc8c5f7a5506d6bc759b7aa988d058b469
F20101202_AAASQZ becker_g_Page_109.tif
d0d8cbf1f6e510c8e24d5864442bf55f
a14eccb5e15fa83301d507636bc54f33dc940a79
2244 F20101202_AAARPA becker_g_Page_012.txt
5bcc6894434847c1daab87e9631aaa57
192cde4dfc53b9e9a1e00d6af6f09cd12d1c37f2
F20101202_AAAROL becker_g_Page_087.tif
6bfcf6b49e554cdaacf3e2806e80f391
e105048dac26cd5aa94940d591f791726d009577
6779 F20101202_AAARNX becker_g_Page_100thm.jpg
ce23e91209f88559cc7f523923f2282f
b402aff1b671ca38692d9b3af6491d72bc30864b
F20101202_AAASSD becker_g_Page_168.tif
66c84b16f661784e5bff987fe53eba60
e50218dce0a8390b122dff819cc3913ec0e97e1f
F20101202_AAASRO becker_g_Page_135.tif
75fd17cb9439ecfb7db059ef5232d567
c0ad678ee48286e9659031bbd0bbced41a5d1bf3
F20101202_AAARPB becker_g_Page_104.tif
dae0462ec402f5e255a3f066c65af1a7
ec88c170e9a0c64f1d2db9f145c3c4bc8a93fa33
76729 F20101202_AAAROM becker_g_Page_018.jpg
294529e23a6aa0081dfa4ff79fe354af
6428acc44c81309c826ee11029a5243aead3f675
2965 F20101202_AAARNY becker_g_Page_033.txt
a76a7207cdfbaee25dbddabb7bf05762
3a1ad153382c5aab483a2d4f8f49789944049f35
F20101202_AAASSE becker_g_Page_169.tif
40cacd8dd961ae2d1655849591ed2bdd
584a5b943992dc896880d0122e7c756aa2d12308
F20101202_AAASRP becker_g_Page_136.tif
c91b656057f454a97b92a7a33dce6014
d9f69dd7ca8f8c11839b9d82a109bdeead334f6e
5165 F20101202_AAARPC becker_g_Page_005thm.jpg
9fa89e8bebb5a841e9c75a6219622fb2
6616e80bc603db77a773ee66719bc795fd81b1d7
83998 F20101202_AAARON becker_g_Page_120.jpg
9d9add840bef2487a728f29c33abf525
86803c65139805e1db0a2e0197547f36fcababb4
9282 F20101202_AAARNZ becker_g_Page_003.jpg
f5104ec1526996971f32e10951a7a6e0
45b2b614ccb969aa193e65063d42daf016d77df4
F20101202_AAASSF becker_g_Page_170.tif
8975f4f5a2d43f2bc81b52aac220a1fc
480496ad0dd4cf9872d0c3f1ab14ba0393fbea9a
F20101202_AAASRQ becker_g_Page_142.tif
e4c09d48620b0dcef1c6abef31cd6042
e89e34aaf1a78308c7d64a38b3ebecdbebb3d71d
F20101202_AAARPD becker_g_Page_022.txt
9ac1637faaedf82525554da14b3f2f57
c2ad30d242595936750f57a4bc67f407d6b17cdf
2612 F20101202_AAAROO becker_g_Page_114.txt
1f0cf05e7d145854b7cfb09e39d03457
52ac8cc9f1bf3575eafabae5d7572006cd8132c6
F20101202_AAASSG becker_g_Page_176.tif
ea4989e8fb7c3228c537b6aaad61d416
0f1038f65ba413771acf812cdbe986d966650b24
F20101202_AAASRR becker_g_Page_146.tif
9477365fac546c146ecef8c9aa72e5f8
1405acbf89eb04e2683692fc1e57be23ea34ff0e
F20101202_AAARPE becker_g_Page_065.tif
d20ff7787d50f4ace44deb32f87b5a48
da283cf5055ef311894aec69a0e86041608b88ce
115580 F20101202_AAAROP becker_g_Page_103.jp2
17d2ad54e46203dead12a41919173cae
b589d1ab2018c9e80ad2c3af081fa1e33c5f81ee
F20101202_AAASRS becker_g_Page_147.tif
fd6a5da2e8dff5d43826dcd639f38872
65ab4427785fe3aca5688cae9c091e76057ecd91
82563 F20101202_AAAROQ becker_g_Page_014.jpg
2dc56c7674dc1de5c9332891ec35eb9b
01af852408f6603a9b35a968601eca57bb022992
F20101202_AAASSH becker_g_Page_177.tif
f71e49b90975c455da4804529b7e606d
38bed59bf079da3215db1230bb825a93e34e5827
F20101202_AAASRT becker_g_Page_152.tif
5a2794be251c72f2f7ffd0ec65d7bad8
3233a148946fe606098b57b8e07539d203dd60f6
82906 F20101202_AAARPF becker_g_Page_142.jpg
f4cdc1d77afb5c70f56e1d0de790f62a
5aad9fe43877ebea9dea58392be9e8615dfb7284
78560 F20101202_AAAROR becker_g_Page_042.jpg
24501067ae26567a3f48d14f643f1b88
055ec11dfe950aaa7cd00d4ba36e3307cbc679a7
F20101202_AAASSI becker_g_Page_178.tif
bf1709faece6a83670b975c57affe331
e7542c93158711c50cf3f7c35cb99bb71748e2e8
F20101202_AAASRU becker_g_Page_154.tif
aa84a99a51b4872bc18dce67050e3bcd
c1896c08b6bdda578c91c22bdbcaa8e3cd1990a6
60081 F20101202_AAARPG becker_g_Page_140.pro
8f83618cfefb9f11990fcb1d5b7105e3
1f53efbc51e468393d9f76914314f9239cd42b40
131447 F20101202_AAAROS becker_g_Page_102.jp2
6b6f472f9080c9d41d3bdd7bb47d66a1
5272f724c3256a7d49b9b553ec1c03117e4e5d36
F20101202_AAASSJ becker_g_Page_179.tif
716d69a256dec07d150ea6ceabb98637
e4b23cdc2939dcc9ad91a4e02fffc2c770b06a31
F20101202_AAASRV becker_g_Page_155.tif
d85e61504ac183a2b7dbe8f55f35fe72
ae3273814fb8bf9d7aab9d99ae230dd2a89771ef
52845 F20101202_AAARPH becker_g_Page_192.pro
52fe2a3b3ec5a33006a18c365847f62e
d02ceb191f351b5f0eb1f18a1745236af822b8c9
6794 F20101202_AAAROT becker_g_Page_133thm.jpg
606cd56c04c3712c71a072eea7f77dcf
ea498ccd6cf0af4e72e57d9149ea7d7afae863fb
F20101202_AAASSK becker_g_Page_182.tif
b244dd9375e77861aea196cae84e04d9
5ec2edec9036e4295a38181b773d638a3de04a28
F20101202_AAASRW becker_g_Page_156.tif
ef7c5a06a98eb9425caf78cf95faa8a0
5ffc5541e249668e0240841330080d4bdc358dda
56135 F20101202_AAARPI becker_g_Page_059.pro
a8a6ec8f9f7d8805475e0f37c05bc2fe
0e156f181190b42d58bd7ded116b2460ab495dbb
77868 F20101202_AAAROU becker_g_Page_168.jpg
22c0238a03f662aace11da751f1cb7bd
ec136e79260493635adfb896344dda91dc524560
55100 F20101202_AAASTA becker_g_Page_013.pro
89e75cbfb0d1a36945755a6d3345788d
7b738fda3c8ae4a6ed661ea6570227ed7732d732
F20101202_AAASSL becker_g_Page_183.tif
78ab0e46ea4f8ef10f2dc2dfc3d828fc
a9c7d7a44d6cc47b3fe3c3aec1e4603e211d447d
F20101202_AAASRX becker_g_Page_158.tif
d7ae9d5be9a98282c65af4c6f535cbdd
73425eb322731f97e0a43825b56651396f8b7a16
7039 F20101202_AAARPJ becker_g_Page_113thm.jpg
79e7fdac6b5ae16a54ce9fde7947632d
008eafa2904cabb29512c37dcaff9a13269d085c
79346 F20101202_AAAROV becker_g_Page_038.jpg
b9c3722634136c012012cc3b2abce491
d2acee9daf2b2263ab61f6566a884530e5df3ea2
60616 F20101202_AAASTB becker_g_Page_015.pro
7c34a239e23916c6fe3be64a37e9f5c4
e2b061d41f775bb84e1fb3ef08dec7ad636d589d
F20101202_AAASSM becker_g_Page_184.tif
9ab460812cc84fbc1891c4dbc05d1866
fe205c82e7a87df1e5f7e667f9f044595a537d99
F20101202_AAASRY becker_g_Page_159.tif
b1a131d8d9b0bbef9a65d7af45e0f39e
5fe7b325ad8394c8685a0f0f2cddc604dfce9932
22857 F20101202_AAARPK becker_g_Page_190.QC.jpg
edc8ca6c07b8ddfd868fb548ae8a70ab
0b825d8d732960de0ba516e2e04718537fdd445a
28097 F20101202_AAAROW becker_g_Page_114.QC.jpg
d3a81213e5b2d6af4f11a63a9f6ee516
2f79f36fd78463fe077a740d50e61f195131655f
53480 F20101202_AAASTC becker_g_Page_018.pro
841f0c89563025e804f790ddafe9259a
9576ff4123ff50ee42f71164f624c32154a3f120
F20101202_AAASSN becker_g_Page_185.tif
b6da7911c601cf22fa6bb04e4c73d28f
c65f2da226e923ba954e6f5acbe7e8d3033124ba
F20101202_AAASRZ becker_g_Page_161.tif
1ad6eac065a4c67bf980fa420bffbeb9
7d46cdc435ffc2edcdb0402fc9de813c4c619cc4
23976 F20101202_AAARPL becker_g_Page_174.QC.jpg
971bf2d31fe9a7f7a36aeba200daa212
7f4a8502a0e96843f2689825b8f9e9c0a14fc176
115924 F20101202_AAAROX becker_g_Page_147.jp2
b52a6fa6a73823c7568ffddd818a3e5a
81401b6913814e536f1046202906b5efceffacd7
51289 F20101202_AAARQA becker_g_Page_037.pro
94b98166f45bf0cb2721d0b9e393573a
36f0ee33b49ce2f52a9c5cea803421189b09cfee
56742 F20101202_AAASTD becker_g_Page_019.pro
5de2f255e0404a8a5caf9fcc03e9ddef
222ac728717038322813f082fd6afda1592488aa
F20101202_AAASSO becker_g_Page_189.tif
ce0965bb7e063b0cfb2a56eb904d7eff
cc9ccd374f6b9b28df32a3ea4897978920d25dd6
7079 F20101202_AAARPM becker_g_Page_029thm.jpg
caa363a77e5736cb66aea89e3d8221fd
50e3d780a08ad8bb9807e796fec0d8fe1c961457
49791 F20101202_AAAROY becker_g_Page_160.pro
4226ea56cb6e099b0c4c6cad79c24e96
6c4f21b4d4304d2778b1f80bf799c296c0cf099f
76292 F20101202_AAARQB becker_g_Page_178.jpg
39e5e19ba4ae8557c696a3a12f54a267
43b0cb9f76084bb78eb25ff7e457b5cef65bafb2
54852 F20101202_AAASTE becker_g_Page_020.pro
9bc36c65444389a90de5b49c2c1599ae
8ed0bcd25aa1387794c159b57cc2cb0fe85167a2
F20101202_AAASSP becker_g_Page_193.tif
61778cc6cdff8170b84a4dd742c9d538
8d19fe4d2c3f72911e2eda88322ec39eab931755
58760 F20101202_AAARPN becker_g_Page_152.pro
10360c71d93b990943ac79f209465f74
d7adcfd94973f10d4b9c1dc0a115668d539afaef
77859 F20101202_AAAROZ becker_g_Page_099.jpg
cf517e9c5593dd719ed845d890978447
c95c30194496cb624e3ed14af358c4aac44ed2db
144600 F20101202_AAARQC becker_g_Page_104.jp2
a63a8e4ee855b7cf52485f0c90bf5137
d87f8f08bfc9d1f9f58a83bffae5a01b04fb0a8e
61893 F20101202_AAASTF becker_g_Page_024.pro
57e4ed7326f6a19392bfda8ecede07e7
8fe2bc570bf169124047654d1dcb914a8ae6920b
F20101202_AAASSQ becker_g_Page_196.tif
c8de07aa8dd5ef995583f62ede6b59d3
0843ba11d68bfb0c00d395f8ca065cca5fd42889
2146 F20101202_AAARPO becker_g_Page_029.txt
2a5758b6619ce682be5e52aaa429fd6d
79174b65a5aa9d8e72cef140121de9ed78fdd099
85553 F20101202_AAARQD becker_g_Page_144.jpg
12fe597d15558bb3cd21354f72e2f6de
592b8ebf21da0d0eb94a3b682435ec5d5dc67f73
52999 F20101202_AAASTG becker_g_Page_026.pro
ce94e1e0deae65cc77864f09a7039e59
2287ed0d388fdbdea26567b15503f36f9bdd4cb2
F20101202_AAASSR becker_g_Page_198.tif
67cf5c062ca50fca6093b204ccaa03b1
4f86bc1aa299bc3e8d25522b10d39e846bfe845f
49769 F20101202_AAARPP becker_g_Page_126.pro
3f21157338c65f24b3e3151d55b1a026
315164138cd2c72cf5c1f50514719f284bba600b
F20101202_AAARQE becker_g_Page_010.txt
c5132161f6be7251284e10d3f3502080
8046819587a12e874562db5defa32eaddb48c3b7
54669 F20101202_AAASTH becker_g_Page_029.pro
f57a6ca6eeea7e83f15dfaae25df080c
b903573ce85de08ca79e684f5014a59ed625f6e3
F20101202_AAASSS becker_g_Page_199.tif
d2df2b06dcb01b8d12774723d12db655
6494f6fb7bdd2cc898bdc5b29806ac1b4fdfa91a
7364 F20101202_AAARPQ becker_g_Page_058thm.jpg
2bba2940e14da4f708ee7cabde8dd3ba
f7ce6b5529846ae6c84d2ab193a866880140adb9
82236 F20101202_AAARQF becker_g_Page_135.jpg
522163ce47cebe10d5b179716b0868dd
1be320f18c647214988c971312dd21d59ac77cd8
8140 F20101202_AAASST becker_g_Page_001.pro
b715d8edb4653d9a42483f193c3c9d45
6ea36cf640d31d4a4fbfbb6b63eb365487870559
67844 F20101202_AAARPR becker_g_Page_114.pro
7b6ce7049678e8d1f9dcc21bef04cdc8
961f81e2534a1b1d075e2ecc4ef2782579867338
69563 F20101202_AAASTI becker_g_Page_031.pro
61482b961d0363edd32b903b55b63535
54617573a7043cd3caccad14ed80a2dd9d2c42bb
1120 F20101202_AAASSU becker_g_Page_002.pro
26025afdf591128023fe5da98a88f60f
cbb1468ea80b32b80e2fbaf0381e7b04af9682e1
2807 F20101202_AAARPS becker_g_Page_155.txt
96779655a03e9d21c3288d0d7c1e90cc
1cbe37b50e39cce4cf04e5a368636c10ebc31fb1
20596 F20101202_AAARQG becker_g_Page_184.QC.jpg
0bcc7195a56e9f596885c53c20bfdbe4
2afb2158c17ce064bf81e6351c0da54debb015ee
77177 F20101202_AAASTJ becker_g_Page_033.pro
5804670af40a614c2886462bea4ade1d
37791a89cfb1add2b474699b3694595d1347f9dc
20363 F20101202_AAASSV becker_g_Page_004.pro
46fc5051da395c7f49d302b3614d2b1b
0dd5c3fa5579e4f78f8c39aaed9134ae9e4b0cb1
3640 F20101202_AAARPT becker_g_Page_005.txt
38c5233971a74899d078979d93643521
f29ba3f473c11e92c238941610a05abda8e3ff5c
54352 F20101202_AAARQH becker_g_Page_040.pro
8cb1c8fb208b0715a11493086b9e3b30
0f9fa93b4ba8175cf8bd444e1065630b79b6fe1c
54392 F20101202_AAASTK becker_g_Page_034.pro
2d9492105bba45aae7038c1b17f47f63
097e39b62d18b5a5aca453a6f2f476df67eebe08
90592 F20101202_AAASSW becker_g_Page_005.pro
7e7d7028241b8cd899eadf02e5b2f348
082392475f62de2ccde24c422c1293d61bb94fcc
26259 F20101202_AAARPU becker_g_Page_017.QC.jpg
3bd3a9ca853cb5c2dd01609ddf7c3f6b
9ccee0e5bf15247ffffdc1f43a749761ec0d9cc6
1282 F20101202_AAARQI becker_g_Page_003thm.jpg
42cd61256367db4b6a78d4e402c0eb9d
e12e3647bad87d6a5721c09a96cd572dd77086dd
55065 F20101202_AAASUA becker_g_Page_072.pro
93dd7353758690eda23e1760904c6412
41960d9dc7d48b2cfc6499434b8a35f57c93718a
48319 F20101202_AAASTL becker_g_Page_036.pro
dcdbf3384723333f305cf70e593360a6
8cf6477d8235c5e802367a4e861784eafb462aaf
47383 F20101202_AAASSX becker_g_Page_007.pro
c66ed366161f4a07c3a1c22a46024d39
80fee27fe4b46ad7f52e3b48a12e603ef5654838
F20101202_AAARPV becker_g_Page_007.txt
ca5e4f969282a69fdb477fcd94b59a18
d845d91cdc468fb39c9d627da28b93adedb37b2d
F20101202_AAARQJ becker_g_Page_129.tif
61d22e82382881bd40f8663b16f2a122
b5e2a467ed19ec7a2b179c29fd73c06f14fcc6e1
60172 F20101202_AAASUB becker_g_Page_074.pro
4820d841f8142d30bc18945d33e3ec1e
83b3eea9d7a43be9ae7978eb4e7d28568315ba3b
58114 F20101202_AAASTM becker_g_Page_039.pro
8d62663fd6b88e631fde527387e14f43
22be6af187ba880024a9636b8d2bfa30bf44e392
24498 F20101202_AAASSY becker_g_Page_008.pro
4929f5a190a800b55cd96298b800d78e
97fa27e585cd904f91028570f807d8efb555e856
85620 F20101202_AAARPW becker_g_Page_092.jpg
f32674d0f1984a73a8ebed668a519563
c4ffc2bac6b23c43a48377ae856240013887478b
24128 F20101202_AAARQK becker_g_Page_139.QC.jpg
7dacd0707a593e86cfbe47591c26c3a4
918b6d079a5b6086fab14c633fd2ceab350ef81c
60491 F20101202_AAASUC becker_g_Page_077.pro
a9f155681bbf60b968d71d955dd8755f
95ea1d8a6e7d09ac83c8e8559ab344e99713fb73
60601 F20101202_AAASTN becker_g_Page_041.pro
98497f38536e36803d389c56c45544ef
bdca553bfd25e9d3cef3c007a5e56b1393b2db37
55588 F20101202_AAASSZ becker_g_Page_010.pro
be625b68159a1cec32387e00abbf0ff5
48dbb791467407b7613e3aadeddcf24d908ba571
2267 F20101202_AAARPX becker_g_Page_027.txt
de26e22c4870d76c49f5b5a73984a7df
9551ad438828e436b0b28f165ba8eb057c2041cb
116921 F20101202_AAARRA becker_g_Page_118.jp2
3fcc04e33e89dee87f85fc24e5ec9569
80d68b1ed15f9293194303647e86e4fb78da57e0
6723 F20101202_AAARQL becker_g_Page_173thm.jpg
15574d6302332c0ac8cb74211373c141
cea8ea2ce6b09bb2263b3a0d969c2c438dc46bdd
57943 F20101202_AAASUD becker_g_Page_078.pro
9a4001c9ba51726383f29df512882767
f0c105a2d580d6487feaf0a7e90ea54c77066e0b
49947 F20101202_AAASTO becker_g_Page_043.pro
9c58f98d655bf4e403a90e1171eed6e0
6c8a937076e27d6e6ffca1e507714dc54ada79e9
68409 F20101202_AAARPY becker_g_Page_101.pro
d6c0fa1941521d11af3353fe3861ff0c
5e8c6d383bf14a2c033ea74f22043a2be1811bf2
F20101202_AAARRB becker_g_Page_165.tif
44228e09095d5a9c9a140b152b57d4d4
0ad954776391273371ec04402829a689e0cb2db0
56471 F20101202_AAARQM becker_g_Page_016.pro
4c630fa2f171c7cb1954c1183eaa0826
f7756a4cd4d82cd390988affb8f2700b72912b52
51470 F20101202_AAASUE becker_g_Page_079.pro
966207c9ae2396577cda1972612d41ad
70a04205697cd08ac92fcc34247c37d3e9e664ab
55291 F20101202_AAASTP becker_g_Page_045.pro
3048d950936740f7e2ccf9b475e39369
90a54c04a65fbf378b20f5e76d77b34f3101c7c0
7089 F20101202_AAARPZ becker_g_Page_120thm.jpg
7066ee02773360164190c2e33839a14f
34ca9db415f19def72e0bcd49a5333357637a510
24919 F20101202_AAARRC becker_g_Page_147.QC.jpg
fb138a8879f14f0ed7025d1f65718000
43e729a0ba80c0e7b7522fa5b0aa76536ce35464
F20101202_AAARQN becker_g_Page_038.tif
50d97967ea7ddcb23693f0012a00a070
8f3055dc90810ca97cb4499d2fa00716628bf711
54610 F20101202_AAASUF becker_g_Page_080.pro
87dee3a9c1e7ffe298c62644cf287f6e
30fdab32035bc59e4776e3727c682f8f67f2dda6
59908 F20101202_AAASTQ becker_g_Page_046.pro
e9f9bd3f6763d84e42ef73f1d0794d50
27a8bbf6a3e99ff8969f5eda1812be1babd719cc
50718 F20101202_AAARRD becker_g_Page_178.pro
99faae7fbb06bfdce4ffddf937f361e2
19ce276db593e3f0adf5cfec1cb918238b91f7e9
F20101202_AAARQO becker_g_Page_022.tif
ad922cff7febb0617af9e279bc374081
51d0fd6f02eef9b174f615c85dc99b4d4e6b3279
2169 F20101202_AAATAA becker_g_Page_167.txt
5a89f82bc7d5d0854fd2f694ef4c5c13
0f2832a7d2ae833d42a5b197c4e3281aa289971e
53404 F20101202_AAASUG becker_g_Page_082.pro
009e7b38aeb5e51eb655aece25d8ab51
9ac2f3940dcf933175087ed99c5a72f59aa8d756
54745 F20101202_AAASTR becker_g_Page_048.pro
6c7c8c0e48fd063bc2abcbffc9658f17
5ddc7f8a8215b991939671f25fdcf909e00e908e
2222 F20101202_AAARRE becker_g_Page_019.txt
7da2bbf677c6c4a59d65dd96cb9a3044
3e039caa208b71aef1c726b381f8013a10b5ad62
F20101202_AAARQP becker_g_Page_141.tif
67db60ab5ef847aad2d921d805b8c1d9
bd38d9e671c2344ec229d27eca8367e44ee84c8e
2193 F20101202_AAATAB becker_g_Page_168.txt
b5afa415c6bca4c6573372fe5b77f1a8
83f861a5418c4af6e72d6db5229b275faa3f5469
54800 F20101202_AAASUH becker_g_Page_083.pro
79d47cb726993dcb8a812f10a7dca1ff
86e8305e7e92a6bc1966ba16f8959ce5ff487f35
64276 F20101202_AAASTS becker_g_Page_053.pro
bf6b150ebd8949549cdaf6612a73af4b
ec95cc40465a9cbd404788d322b7688495a5bab8
85091 F20101202_AAARRF becker_g_Page_062.jpg
199e1e3ce2341c8685959d537fb73da1
a1cc95a3228ca195ec272cefea6d07f4a959a599
6867 F20101202_AAARQQ becker_g_Page_099thm.jpg
f67990f74661ece418b96888848526ee
4c92db435cd7ae21ca53a03c1b0ab7ed431adf80
F20101202_AAATAC becker_g_Page_169.txt
a18ddaf98ba18d1959f95fb910a85225
805c195846e49dc431aacb99d09aef948744fcf2
66039 F20101202_AAASUI becker_g_Page_084.pro
db46bc92966d0ae4cb1aa5367611461c
808a7d24ad7a496b6c1b754e2ecbd715670b0a43
61690 F20101202_AAASTT becker_g_Page_063.pro
1d376856d1827f61204532a2f776113f
61809d3e3b5300a918ad601b18850a85568b6d20
F20101202_AAARRG becker_g_Page_036thm.jpg
b02e48654aee519a6e26abbec8f29381
2e1edf46069b3557c87545578b40d1afd5776cf6
26592 F20101202_AAARQR becker_g_Page_021.QC.jpg
a9196154ef98e70a645de60501357808
90ead2de51b68c725f85f2fadf80ca50fba84f45
2178 F20101202_AAATAD becker_g_Page_171.txt
76c8a088f69950c26845232b6389cf5e
a1bbc3700cf91032e37f44f78a4a54cfdc5a0e02
16668 F20101202_AAASTU becker_g_Page_065.pro
ebfbd26433ea9cb04052076a6305ed60
c9807349a491d84f7b8aee65ed4680aa3396c95a
2456 F20101202_AAARQS becker_g_Page_049.txt
8e465f85c97ce94688ad29853e105963
7055630f9b3c28de745a76b0f9409ae008049700
1133 F20101202_AAATAE becker_g_Page_172.txt
ea49347517c8d2441e43c17ee73a9027
431f2e7105cb552ca199214b1995516fed7c1b28
76493 F20101202_AAASUJ becker_g_Page_085.pro
83343e2c4a0d6a2169065593a1358234
20bdf32a578c6c993426588d0e298a704b104a1b
57848 F20101202_AAASTV becker_g_Page_067.pro
4ca641aca7e56327845e8307c95b2253
7a9c32ead1e5f26065636308f8c50af476057538
F20101202_AAARRH becker_g_Page_006.tif
df5d519c91bf64d7e91a257991e171be
087d9cc081130ab91e5ef197652d015ff7b248dd
F20101202_AAARQT becker_g_Page_174.tif
228cbd145bd78d187f0c9e03e3cbb156
24bb839b5ecc645e7f596d9f18594bbbc25419b6
2854 F20101202_AAATAF becker_g_Page_173.txt
4479f03f56574d8a4e889779d7a2e7f2
8657b1bd834a21ac824323dee2a43bac29f13db2
66276 F20101202_AAASUK becker_g_Page_088.pro
bdf0c75efa6e782fc48f1b3bb4ea2063
7b37a56c548f26881ab29c5cf2910741fef70847
67935 F20101202_AAASTW becker_g_Page_068.pro
445369137503153a0d91f1fc5b6d7fd9
5a64fcf04a59ef30b5dd1d52f1f8db35c61d211c
6080 F20101202_AAARRI becker_g_Page_128thm.jpg
40ff5863ef6b0411344f2ed9cb8f9a76
a21db63c175a400c9873ab4439f7f7700f01f468
69678 F20101202_AAARQU becker_g_Page_126.jpg
05bb5bdefbd562433b904d1975c84e64
8acf65168bc27d4dc8a4071d9fb9d6b9dcf3ecdd
2413 F20101202_AAATAG becker_g_Page_174.txt
7fac77a01d8b113c892257b5f82c7a5c
b70ae184b3959820220e41adc3b45ac63088c1ef
70998 F20101202_AAASVA becker_g_Page_115.pro
0f91aab3ffb4175c99f7850549927ef3
6c4bfa313428b51a64a9fea2af7df63045ceee42
64825 F20101202_AAASUL becker_g_Page_089.pro
a1a60877967b88c01c60b19c75cb2da8
676baeb99c91e5110953aa75efdf4d14ca56cc53
73471 F20101202_AAASTX becker_g_Page_069.pro
ee6d3c613e9523865a4aa1b46f42fb75
61ab35ea2c0da2f5bbb621649605ca4adee1e515
F20101202_AAARRJ becker_g_Page_197.tif
e3fc7c68b87573039154769db7097c5b
a7282f72bee739ca5724b4877ce6170c7e19dd3b
F20101202_AAARQV becker_g_Page_170thm.jpg
f97e21fb0fcceeb52791bd0f99d14656
d46ea05c8ecbd35f9f498045377c12aa6305db8d
2045 F20101202_AAATAH becker_g_Page_176.txt
22ababcbfbb3338094a2a30e3f9fc298
18c8c338bfd33608b82a643116a912ebea8cb61b
18736 F20101202_AAASVB becker_g_Page_117.pro
9dfde44f83bbf93dbfbafe39b197b00d
91768af7b08b9f7747d587df70bbcdcc11e774b2
49931 F20101202_AAASUM becker_g_Page_090.pro
3a7bbab5dff4c007f449ab18d90ef6a4
90758a77e669a44122533c35163f3e12eba989f1
60788 F20101202_AAASTY becker_g_Page_070.pro
8b4365941511677f9d2e7de25d325010
94f93edfe269019cb642f624dd7e17d7b743b1f2
2382 F20101202_AAARRK becker_g_Page_175.txt
3d7a50e3faeb837d2970d3c3f962b51a
516dedf71d23a73b4588ddbb0cd8084f2786c870
117366 F20101202_AAARQW becker_g_Page_052.jp2
dca1f6818c393004635ffb9c0d093300
8642c8c19bc477bc0a1dcc2c1940e347561eeaa8
F20101202_AAATAI becker_g_Page_177.txt
567ff480097291fe8f9aaf2053373e1c
e608e9bb8eb06e0fabec2b98a37d080ad651f1ea
53339 F20101202_AAASVC becker_g_Page_118.pro
3dcd30d790c1fd9123fb7e03a906f8a8
2ed851de04f909208dc955892f3966dc6ee56001
62580 F20101202_AAASUN becker_g_Page_092.pro
488b75f38a3fd90748652b47d1e3cea6
fd4c7cc2a42667e73a10597d32879ad4c8f99a98
59559 F20101202_AAASTZ becker_g_Page_071.pro
f48205f8c9f2f900f95c9cb6456e5d1c
08f81ec9f5582ae3df10779972b081a96af264fd
75858 F20101202_AAARSA becker_g_Page_044.jpg
7d447f60119f73db8ea055634a520185
3c4a3d32fc4620bc2e1fb70f298af7b785267e09
65139 F20101202_AAARRL becker_g_Page_187.jpg
e69f1aa7ef4fa12a8985270004d7f6eb
a1d3ffcd2dc24ebac2f2741f68aa516bc1686b71
F20101202_AAARQX becker_g_Page_018.tif
6d57f70fc23f0a123e88d6d89b2fad15
6c9f77a8cbad86bfefc5061b9eba248587fe757f
2154 F20101202_AAATAJ becker_g_Page_178.txt
21716f6deac7498ae88f08772d9c0601
b4642a1299f6df3aed83230a616d4434594a30a5
66465 F20101202_AAASVD becker_g_Page_122.pro
3c514836ae64f95352a988919424f2bb
fc5257460d7641519e9affa5a37d0fc004ca46b5
55012 F20101202_AAASUO becker_g_Page_095.pro
76fac48e11a87455de26ed27806a992c
3d48a0d3749172fd77b2a906ce87cd24472f23a5
2692 F20101202_AAARSB becker_g_Page_119.txt
ac2f9efb1395b1178ee548a30fbcd065
a5b302d2a0b2f1f53680cd6d82daf0871aeb8940
6785 F20101202_AAARRM becker_g_Page_057thm.jpg
5d1de4d213c683a202f299230761ee9b
a2aac45439e548f47ba6460ed3ceaeb8c1206a14
95726 F20101202_AAARQY becker_g_Page_104.jpg
18d17c1e2234fe0712b2fecb561de836
0cb695333cc5cc46a8c5ba7fed7628d50e7caea4
1902 F20101202_AAATAK becker_g_Page_181.txt
9342199f1f631a7e8bf4efdbb6c807e8
900712a1158c205db17532f0c86e46427dec4ebc
54260 F20101202_AAASVE becker_g_Page_125.pro
0297e055ec52ec8de8118947fb9adaa0
f22ac297c1a53cdd62adafed211763d908197b4c
F20101202_AAASUP becker_g_Page_096.pro
4b1a1e269c1a0d3a7a2c31464c2be7de
09afcfba8bbd8e9974114ebcdfe83e44fe5ca0a2
22991 F20101202_AAARSC becker_g_Page_141.QC.jpg
97594fe7037aaaef8e727848e566b368
51541f88b65b7d74e17f6cff2c7faf00d29b1090
47712 F20101202_AAARRN becker_g_Page_189.pro
ed2983a34aac2772740270ff7b4bacb3
9ff8b8585a0310b0ce71eaf5a3d719cb10fd7d3e
2299 F20101202_AAARQZ becker_g_Page_159.txt
e47ed3a05c0e0ea2ddc0bd6940b489b9
e341308225bf9a9db659405f09f9e5ce87554727
F20101202_AAATAL becker_g_Page_186.txt
21355e635f8cb794682e4b76a54c192e
14fad4e7a4b610e192a0d26180921b9a9310ff7d
56221 F20101202_AAASVF becker_g_Page_127.pro
d1c820aecbc55f803ee9cc5c4fcaa6b6
75d12693ad641b344e7992f83c79dfac3c00bfca
56049 F20101202_AAASUQ becker_g_Page_098.pro
9d3f44fc113dd24782bbfb6a0d190e21
d56fd34237d649c63c825dec5b93df371dfac965
2757 F20101202_AAARRO becker_g_Page_116.txt
f9db4c75354240f87b1e49fb224b7da0
43e5fde2ac3c7b31051b052004003dfa22f80e90
6819 F20101202_AAARSD becker_g_Page_051thm.jpg
164f83410776443a6d604873671666ec
6d02608fd48b856229cf17478e712cdf0533fc9d
24126 F20101202_AAATBA becker_g_Page_177.QC.jpg
628e27416d582ea6410dccfa0843459d
10a916540a869ecb77be775ba382f5a39d827925
1732 F20101202_AAATAM becker_g_Page_188.txt
3fc0028ea5e6f61e38264e9456b51741
a746fa6a67d46d8b75180eb25e58bce5f1a0286a
47599 F20101202_AAASVG becker_g_Page_128.pro
dc76058ff9eab9b10413e3a91b075340
c48410b5bdff259735f48bd516ca03da759f724d
54481 F20101202_AAASUR becker_g_Page_100.pro
60206ed0a135b397ef7f94a6e37860dd
2aaace14a57b690fa21f50bfe3fbd405feefb079
25194 F20101202_AAARRP becker_g_Page_100.QC.jpg
22e5cf2e596bb3fb0892659d357648ff
cd7f16aecca896b878d16252c6e277edfa1292d5
37612 F20101202_AAARSE becker_g_Page_191.pro
50a9110b3560236ea8d06d8517f84a50
003ff5157c517ba16f3367f8cd4039069ecd41a0
25394 F20101202_AAATBB becker_g_Page_105.QC.jpg
d6bfae60545e00aaea968d7ccc71aa44
f001dc2e4a7a1112154c56c5dbccc383efd59460
2021 F20101202_AAATAN becker_g_Page_190.txt
5e612cb5aa7fad78baa3452b0d56b360
e81f948b990f0c232112be781f83fb888d03704f
61624 F20101202_AAASVH becker_g_Page_129.pro
c273946272e9d8ebf5f5a8e9d60854b6
4990880156c0221d2249ef7d08434b93fee8bf8c
F20101202_AAASUS becker_g_Page_103.pro
d65d51ca004c8d3eec418085ca438c07
78c3fe257d0dd5fd405491455e7af9ed42682fd5
117038 F20101202_AAARRQ becker_g_Page_095.jp2
45ccded3eca99f210f859429095fd170
ff9139e418f32c9461daf143029b27d2a8604306
62330 F20101202_AAARSF becker_g_Page_172.jp2
a043773b6bb2abad44446eceac7b2799
c8117cf86ee894aacd5f54d77842d84ee4d8d227
6719 F20101202_AAATBC becker_g_Page_072thm.jpg
03a59b95931f2837ee936a79dfcec254
a45d8de39bb8471e6f81bc4f1c26ac2a9842cf2b
2171 F20101202_AAATAO becker_g_Page_192.txt
466aa728150fd1e1bb56e4765cf1ba80
3a5b2caba121fdc266e4a913d10581f2062df655
61938 F20101202_AAASVI becker_g_Page_130.pro
fdd389afd03a983171aeb7075d647408
8620ce72b38d9174a94e43d71e8912eed7309a48
69400 F20101202_AAASUT becker_g_Page_104.pro
2062d16140713b4056730662f5a63465
9c31c82e29c0795f7c5d6e52a84686e8a3060630
111365 F20101202_AAARRR becker_g_Page_028.jp2
5d3e5fa8a1086ea39682fc8f54d5096b
b0e9fb2b6faa09b86fb59a0b674fcdea8ab9c09e
77601 F20101202_AAARSG becker_g_Page_147.jpg
9a360314d92da526d1a2c435183e8760
1103b303cfa31f1e0e5519b2e0045a86490f6778
7088 F20101202_AAATBD becker_g_Page_017thm.jpg
f6f69e9b03af6c9c2fb03c455ed20b7c
0f3f1a5df7bf29a3f81119d69f86d08e934a3d60
1965 F20101202_AAATAP becker_g_Page_193.txt
1acdb2d716ba09a29a2d808c86c3a251
f81b4be206ead7da9d5fca15180fd6ce9539bc48
59685 F20101202_AAASVJ becker_g_Page_133.pro
7f08fd9ec0511b5ed9118cab3640ba65
af0da0cb455322b26afff54bedac16339a0f3c23
64502 F20101202_AAASUU becker_g_Page_106.pro
f8e43b07ae70256d0706f5425d095018
97ce18d330835d89b3b04c6b52d9712d6d70fb88
6828 F20101202_AAARRS becker_g_Page_147thm.jpg
3d0484bb9a9cd00631c5fb282168112a
0930c00d35cdf5b8de47373846bec9d8e07d4efa
122607 F20101202_AAARSH becker_g_Page_012.jp2
5edcd200cb5347b4fc7b278b7db4dd03
644c63337355a15ba60bf661619d0f4c23e86651
24028 F20101202_AAATBE becker_g_Page_044.QC.jpg
4501697c7d6e07e00b692a192d8f4505
902e27796046db219095e2ad194aaaea21e15a87
2034 F20101202_AAATAQ becker_g_Page_194.txt
3f5f19544d975b1f3a899a65cd06fa09
a3f7f249414670372ff61c2b02fab38fbb048145
54350 F20101202_AAASUV becker_g_Page_107.pro
2b8f06e8c957c9e802c7752c41ab82f6
94d2aecf0a1921b96ff6f1ed83e2785e6cef3569
F20101202_AAARRT becker_g_Page_149.tif
c2374b865e4a7926ea79057d373a1564
43dc6bd1974dd4c8f976292e1fdcf98997cf10d0
26883 F20101202_AAATBF becker_g_Page_058.QC.jpg
2db624458d8d8b371c100942504035b0
79a6263b26fd0a44b4096cb793884d8715261bb8
F20101202_AAATAR becker_g_Page_196.txt
d99fd9d3d85e4e7744d90fa5e206866d
174215d4d800e40b6a3a0c0cb8f95ef81204e978
60252 F20101202_AAASVK becker_g_Page_134.pro
c646903f23a80bdc7677ab9c68b74286
468054229971d3bdf29d3bd9d9c35c538872c7a3
57419 F20101202_AAASUW becker_g_Page_109.pro
790e76a98cdfcd70ac4e42fb92288855
5ff922907f0466f9764ba2abe7227e04e75b4b21
128345 F20101202_AAARRU becker_g_Page_087.jp2
23f0a0198de6746bf79dc62c2df24de1
be57b9e939710eed7f28ca884f1afbf169eb0b52
118117 F20101202_AAARSI becker_g_Page_167.jp2
ac247779207bbf97c19479969a5f9bf0
ceb6d7cab410b73d6a84f9dcef6d9b29a3d54b18
22487 F20101202_AAATBG becker_g_Page_196.QC.jpg
2062b519c5688e429027dd68680a86dc
4bd64df898a4d71af8d3f583b20bd70207a89e83
1706 F20101202_AAATAS becker_g_Page_197.txt
f8dfc27afe40a23887a32500b223a09b
42a3d44a34354708acc09082ad2e465b3869d282
59081 F20101202_AAASWA becker_g_Page_159.pro
d8f12dac9bfbceeda90bd989ff3fd857
75a50aae25649c0213a1e3841252ab759ff94471
59211 F20101202_AAASVL becker_g_Page_135.pro
6db381c9462ace307c8e1845bbd824d7
6e0ee81b2734b8497db3cfcdd1b67148e5fbc75e
58427 F20101202_AAASUX becker_g_Page_110.pro
2b3a1d227ab4927c5e8106aabf4e7861
1f561397469de85c9a956202efa8f76b9a91067d
128273 F20101202_AAARRV becker_g_Page_070.jp2
af9561a99ca930a04e5b565beddc5233
6602928a5d5166048bbafaded9ca6ba89ea2d753
21535 F20101202_AAARSJ becker_g_Page_181.QC.jpg
697434e26d6b78967883952fdc485cf1
a61b0957e546f63f9c88d877018ca867d08bd0bf
22456 F20101202_AAATBH becker_g_Page_189.QC.jpg
dfbf10f6b1aea31220d6862021ed640d
033332e8230438dccff8f53cf849185ae13fe2a0
1213 F20101202_AAATAT becker_g_Page_198.txt
d3e9d9616eb9ba6de5c33dd3289b195a
21df11c40d298bde2d087b74628b932605419c52
55505 F20101202_AAASWB becker_g_Page_161.pro
1d4e7a6242eb9110d9cf3f6b902a7000
b18c69965082e0952051a38e64980dd43cf61d30
67440 F20101202_AAASVM becker_g_Page_136.pro
0d45324a5faf2dd40819b8899fd4227d
ac4a4da892c7af73627dfcbbd5b25bb934e915ab
69762 F20101202_AAASUY becker_g_Page_111.pro
beeec2d460ab520eb159e1f014327549
2ab6ea983d78de6e44db65858ebba66113e07cba
2236 F20101202_AAARRW becker_g_Page_038.txt
9092a710bef0480228287ea580bc735d
1620a0363bebd352145d345e9c04b4d3ef4f0f0f
F20101202_AAARSK becker_g_Page_195.tif
08a5d6001c922755f2792849a2b2e9f8
0ea2a82a7d638520d9a017867beef22d9eac52bc
6910 F20101202_AAATBI becker_g_Page_165thm.jpg
2100e5e72dae9836e6d853c931c64ce7
a009d94bb4479c4537ea8daed1c36d79e0603c4c
51671 F20101202_AAASWC becker_g_Page_163.pro
17593b493a8fff43dfb2b2e8aa61c860
55120aafcd32e2174676f24cd09291174c86ac6e
47528 F20101202_AAASVN becker_g_Page_138.pro
6a505e525bf38e0e811e8d16579d2de7
c8928fa21a1c5018bd6e23a67ab02eea42e12b82
64841 F20101202_AAASUZ becker_g_Page_113.pro
caf96c198179effd10d78f10b8afcc85
986531bc7ed68e9fb0b636b25679f96107ba029f
112827 F20101202_AAARRX becker_g_Page_026.jp2
4857b8fe9bd466749eb29e29a9cbd0bb
ed44dab73ceead6e67b055d5750e44420327f63f
6052 F20101202_AAARTA becker_g_Page_178thm.jpg
06b8891a687701cc8a6167768c54c650
0a4dcc7475e770273b5b4941b80cf389b48e0488
53083 F20101202_AAARSL becker_g_Page_097.pro
4682df0ad0f2c2ab2ac9a6d7d2ba745a
b57816b8557e0114f4b22975b302d0d1f83ef21c
6984 F20101202_AAATBJ becker_g_Page_102thm.jpg
cbbe4ead4592137eefab689db48210ee
067e5f99ab9a1342b975139a3d73b62bd6377f5b
1833 F20101202_AAATAU becker_g_Page_199.txt
e40b13312f8b7526966f31af37145be6
b00dc5d5de03637bc0cca2437a6fef2083c8fb0f
52853 F20101202_AAASWD becker_g_Page_164.pro
a9ff69e0a51414d28e2e57222f45224c
b62e795ad377fe61347c8efca21d35d9cd7b29ef
F20101202_AAASVO becker_g_Page_141.pro
2a542d0ba62613806de5cdc7d6a6d106
bcf6e7da34d87a3cd39e5b228cf9860f2762202b
24935 F20101202_AAARRY becker_g_Page_076.QC.jpg
e007b8d3a39b87241061c974433cd11e
8e1efa78fe2c7108c57a5aad1b78fc0e31b42aae
F20101202_AAARTB becker_g_Page_108.tif
5ab887becf80f0e6a07f1aad8bfb99ab
666bed3a86cc7826dcaf3fe12143ea17cd5a5214
6291 F20101202_AAARSM becker_g_Page_054thm.jpg
4fa4f7ca64a0c7878f9a7f63570786fd
b3e67114f0910de45b69a321d9f733f2bcc568e4
F20101202_AAATBK becker_g_Page_025thm.jpg
a317079f98614a3b1f87bc649758f49f
614d7e4cb5fab0d85e1e63d006942776a4701679
F20101202_AAATAV becker_g_Page_001thm.jpg
a5f44a03d7c4581ca4fba3a216bea36b
d95beaa3a421fe29cba6affb8028460882995800
54341 F20101202_AAASWE becker_g_Page_165.pro
4f8020f4bc6214678dd966f717a235d7
d1159eb8df7964e33bfbefe041923eb0f2df7f04
60566 F20101202_AAASVP becker_g_Page_142.pro
75ea8a211120680f55ebff8df3b19a72
908e0dfe4a00e09b5232af890292d2e8b7965e15
2386 F20101202_AAARRZ becker_g_Page_130.txt
7c3f15f44d11fd40709238815b1e7d2d
e40f46e6ab085d19ec98b1fcf6b06e40a9a4c140
2172 F20101202_AAARTC becker_g_Page_013.txt
2581b2224faf48cb35a6b284a98ce61d
2c076e0204ac5e6f60fec2fe2d1aed698c094716
115982 F20101202_AAARSN becker_g_Page_107.jp2
e2034c33653a4bae6d848e352a399e75
e7e984ed0185af3521b2c17de8587f2345da90c6
25738 F20101202_AAATBL becker_g_Page_034.QC.jpg
9cb23b7882a9333434ca2d8f9c537c4f
87d2b77efd766f6e6636d47ae558fcb36b493e8a
21931 F20101202_AAATAW becker_g_Page_043.QC.jpg
9fb3ac0d28fb4fb1648711f5e5d8d7fb
ccb361c66b10f638005e2f6415becd2fcb2a55a6
56683 F20101202_AAASWF becker_g_Page_166.pro
03e07b2b7beb3e0721ff82f836d5b3f9
9d301504b174a8e230d9ad49e6e52b75cb2b2f21
54629 F20101202_AAASVQ becker_g_Page_143.pro
9d645860ae7a4c473c64e8fea83da421
c0d4a751c60ccb7657876c78d81f9fd8290e16f0
57702 F20101202_AAARTD becker_g_Page_076.pro
9ef38f8a0134027fa3994958d1e5028d
1caf10e37e06b33ad11dd735ccb2c2d75f23cfc9
2106 F20101202_AAARSO becker_g_Page_018.txt
dd46f9c54f55334013b6dd2938d073dc
e3c7e204d4b22f20c96216c7c743acb4d612b161
7161 F20101202_AAATCA becker_g_Page_089thm.jpg
efaa67ddbb8dda80c87623bfa26bd276
76e71dd36cf686f315b2f8df431d891eae394f00
24083 F20101202_AAATBM becker_g_Page_037.QC.jpg
cf67fff78a97f048ae7bdd73bd5bedf9
ba13a3d178b9df0d66aa5190d38de27f38150799
F20101202_AAATAX becker_g_Page_042thm.jpg
6b4a72b92c344ee0d6d341cdb8470148
35819109947e827cf4fdbe86e8cc864ee60d9655
58134 F20101202_AAASWG becker_g_Page_169.pro
e32a515d0707d4a355b964757939b1ef
37c0902caf50b96a7dd082d413741f1ba5fe39a3
55930 F20101202_AAASVR becker_g_Page_147.pro
42d9348b118460e6f7a3ce8365ed1d93
afb30210670306187b5d71462e3fb2abe3a283b8
77552 F20101202_AAARTE becker_g_Page_040.jpg
a24299b6e7ada0577386f61b959f7a88
e723903cb5357ccc5d36d81e58d00cef83da1362
6804 F20101202_AAARSP becker_g_Page_038thm.jpg
7d2724066b36646ea5a450d9876523ab
c74bb385cde59b57fa86b5f33b5ae1bd0f3b0f1f
22191 F20101202_AAATCB becker_g_Page_007.QC.jpg
cb7c33f30f6e476674b13cdd23aa0ed8
2d53ef765390da8392748f8621567b17aecd334a
F20101202_AAATBN becker_g_Page_059thm.jpg
335dddba5711ff83343dd8f3d465b170
08dca52f30bb4e458da944bb01b12c435500be14
28336 F20101202_AAATAY becker_g_Page_115.QC.jpg
e71c88c2ee06ed41a12658785a4bcb8f
e3ba1fc3e978bc49e0b8e0069b3f2d10a9a5557b
55661 F20101202_AAASWH becker_g_Page_171.pro
f1e8a1409fb5dd23a7fd563284d569cf
08595cd2340fd9e8e12c4b29869714becb75df8d
50412 F20101202_AAASVS becker_g_Page_148.pro
7c01cd9e0f9df40108007757d2c96a02
111570952024f7a18bb68fe6ec8b2ac3e71b5f8d
59223 F20101202_AAARTF becker_g_Page_086.pro
051caa8bfc7e77d54a24b04541571b73
ba45fb4747653d773b516581a34320fd425efe1c
2085 F20101202_AAARSQ becker_g_Page_164.txt
893c31a66fccefe6a7d60e6c58b07da3
53c9ebe8c6fed0251d52d868d89fe200e68ea962
25548 F20101202_AAATCC becker_g_Page_171.QC.jpg
0ac99bf968ad8cf39c574b9a0278fe8d
cfd69a8fca3428d0eeddcc9bed23f685c08d86a2
6528 F20101202_AAATBO becker_g_Page_044thm.jpg
b4365067145465c0428d88342508f768
d60923395f222e1e63d6863ed93a7bdff34e63a9
26419 F20101202_AAATAZ becker_g_Page_023.QC.jpg
2494e020558754cffabfef939e15c2e1
5c49de90038f54028fdb77e13a5176ba2005e70d
27252 F20101202_AAASWI becker_g_Page_172.pro
8f886a2171cf09b2aef758e5f82031be
fabb6954e2bcd740b2028c13a8edf9eca7122af6
58994 F20101202_AAASVT becker_g_Page_150.pro
828cdbe72384013d9589ee172180371f
b3ba55eca00063c65901744579e4fe0053401a2c
F20101202_AAARTG becker_g_Page_092.tif
7b8a7af3db2c8abd3694fbedb47137bc
11fbac8da7635d68bcde057378df2252cc799b19
F20101202_AAARSR becker_g_Page_139.tif
83456d9216cd33f01045c9cacb3be39e
85c6726193b1a6c96ae65b5fdb8582e19b3d99bb
6968 F20101202_AAATCD becker_g_Page_129thm.jpg
9d84e507fec919e3935a9a3064f48019
f3e5eb617062e902af584ab755588d17d204467f
7050 F20101202_AAATBP becker_g_Page_092thm.jpg
b69ce9c8a3c95c3cdae0165afd2a8c41
549a217eec92dd1b223a6390928fcefd19fae222
57088 F20101202_AAASWJ becker_g_Page_174.pro
ab706ff8e433a912b40db2dab3ec8f0d
3f6376452bdda518017ccc7290f3a8fc2fc408c7
48756 F20101202_AAASVU becker_g_Page_153.pro
f40949cfe6d4b3ce7e031048671be91c
20d3945e8282027ed4582849b07b071e0e448483
2565 F20101202_AAARTH becker_g_Page_088.txt
8857c38cc9d0816751eb8fc234dad71e
696468c3b7ff8c8de0de5b718ab95e4430e077ba
144101 F20101202_AAARSS becker_g_Page_173.jp2
077d6f494336ad7532fb1034b3eef71c
1f70d04ca41c8639082268e21bc493bc778d7f39
4209 F20101202_AAATCE becker_g_Page_172thm.jpg
6eca37dcebfa91a67d8a7335d7df05cd
1f2214d240c61dc2d9862b10bbec45a79689c3b2
27400 F20101202_AAATBQ becker_g_Page_101.QC.jpg
d823703bd782ab16c0e4fedebb892dd7
8ed03d4f1287ee99116c449cfb1f590d5717c05c
55798 F20101202_AAASWK becker_g_Page_175.pro
f6ce88a17001829ff68edb6e1f06c8fa
389440518d7be1e6abdbc5ff46f8e58e5408e449
78865 F20101202_AAASVV becker_g_Page_154.pro
b8147c91700ca22bef89b1cb95ccf102
7c47e91ec5ca3a908b3a648cbe72ad3245caebe6
20010 F20101202_AAARTI becker_g_Page_197.QC.jpg
7f636cd34b0c556451d6c5ccb14ae493
854dd675e2b037f33f4e090136f6de9e5f81242e
2145 F20101202_AAARST becker_g_Page_083.txt
fe655dc4827af74ebf8a5d495c0985fc
1907517235a74455557b2493328b665b011b98e2
24100 F20101202_AAATCF becker_g_Page_158.QC.jpg
173108f4ecb6c0cb0da547968fa0e66c
486bd54819a6d0144db0349dffbd3629c598bcee
25627 F20101202_AAATBR becker_g_Page_095.QC.jpg
524e4b77b0eb0eff7ccb1b84fbbe10e6
2937e8583f5d84152207de5221a3e863aae08ef6
73112 F20101202_AAASVW becker_g_Page_155.pro
48f122ba04f3395297c8acfe158134cb
2df4952f3626bb2f9ce14b4255f7b174464336c6
F20101202_AAARSU becker_g_Page_173.tif
ad49ef1e080a8058c1c5f4e295be14ef
737cf2694c438f28c307ad963b0fcdbb793a95a8
4334 F20101202_AAATCG becker_g_Page_198thm.jpg
5e41eaddda5a7c1c244bdbe349fcf383
cdccbe76c22749fbe7c9e2d58551b95e7f26315c
6809 F20101202_AAATBS becker_g_Page_073thm.jpg
78c5ef0a674a266f7d46931c71edf59b
13cf1612ef07d4317fd27fd77f292c5db1b58408
976 F20101202_AAASXA becker_g_Page_008.txt
db94dfc7b2516b139dbeda053f490162
7e5f976113b2ccce7c7921a75b447c4a6e179539
47130 F20101202_AAASWL becker_g_Page_176.pro
3e6f5e4e0986ea87cba3ee18bc9f0cf4
444073c086ec69484edc33bbc2d8e40125ce5321
60403 F20101202_AAASVX becker_g_Page_156.pro
d768b5ffd2bd6cb5e06c178ab1682294
f2d37b586d98579f444921252f21dfd5376d216c
2352 F20101202_AAARTJ becker_g_Page_015.txt
bdd1a8ab911519c4fc6e2718703b9792
ec249a489044a6ffaf06577256c41c8711032d56
22584 F20101202_AAARSV becker_g_Page_128.QC.jpg
85f445f2ad840377d852fd3b6e814db2
4084d13ce547cda389b80c0dbc1ea1411fea9e5d
30915 F20101202_AAATCH becker_g_Page_033.QC.jpg
7d4686cffcdb980d0c1a63235bd0cff4
0297b6de0eab0bbd906088983d45b31d144c921d
10019 F20101202_AAATBT becker_g_Page_065.QC.jpg
b1e7afc299bc8cd565858f0b9803efec
982a7f2f15259c8f97c05fa2c26413d2f57c9025
2503 F20101202_AAASXB becker_g_Page_011.txt
f355a190a2bd07e5bc7f1704fa5b37c9
6b5a77fbe07966f594991661edc1a733d0fe1a0e
58550 F20101202_AAASWM becker_g_Page_177.pro
6fb49f29b44649e716cdd637af2218a9
8ee38be886b1b51e5133949974596d61148776ec
51217 F20101202_AAASVY becker_g_Page_157.pro
07c445fa4911366070ba5551d545927e
d23c23fb046cb3799b2f2398aa4590aa879d3369
F20101202_AAARTK becker_g_Page_066.tif
c5dbefa1bb47e05f12fd6a18b29b9efe
d52d67eab5da4b70d2165292d84c04d7ec361c4d
5306 F20101202_AAARSW becker_g_Page_191thm.jpg
cf8af88474a9b27e4b0d9c8b4c764ced
5b7eb4865b17a819a5418e04d7963baf379e0146
5582 F20101202_AAATCI becker_g_Page_176thm.jpg
93fe29dc2f08421938e6da91c7ebc85e
25ffc961362d6ba567e113bea272dcae00b213b4
27667 F20101202_AAATBU becker_g_Page_112.QC.jpg
ac9be322355705cfea6f4f8cfa2d2225
aa4b0f8e5f6cbba7e95aa97dbda425af9cc3eb5e
F20101202_AAASXC becker_g_Page_014.txt
9e613e2c75b8f2e83d86e49ec68584e6
4ad8a17749ffaa8d7de32f59eab6f50fa29560f5
31277 F20101202_AAASWN becker_g_Page_179.pro
ca893efd64d2c18fef01da8899729438
7cc3ca8ca888157cfcf227aedec383b59fb56343
53627 F20101202_AAASVZ becker_g_Page_158.pro
841c1d277a90facb64dac583e530896b
a7ab462c2170f3a6f14d7f1edf185326f20dac97
F20101202_AAARUA becker_g_Page_163.tif
8a583591e062c0a924e77f6564e1ecc0
8d037128bd52896081693b0a2f0cff5f6907e8e3
55069 F20101202_AAARTL becker_g_Page_052.pro
1d6c2c252ba6e371ca18095ae56a2919
b83850a531adaf8bee8f685f13f4b278b29ef6fb
F20101202_AAARSX becker_g_Page_083.tif
307cf67910e592146817ce88f8a8ec5e
2e575e4066292b849e7b0e35d2a7f33540d145ae
6351 F20101202_AAATCJ becker_g_Page_138thm.jpg
7b034417966225e4d586213cd3423eae
d13808133a6c9bed8e13d275da965017defd0f33
F20101202_AAASXD becker_g_Page_017.txt
8bea96119ea97300e3573bc2be32d868
45672783def5e8baf91f53dcb1318358521b73a6
42410 F20101202_AAASWO becker_g_Page_180.pro
b8cbc428cd478452837bd774a1c5691f
caa16fa14171e2a69a2e70611283a6fa9977b7b2
123842 F20101202_AAARUB becker_g_Page_039.jp2
06cdb0fd2dd3facfb683e13fdc277d4b
d3af5634c607f60d32634ce49aa446636459097a
22981 F20101202_AAARTM becker_g_Page_178.QC.jpg
cd8525313646cd6992ba134a29fcd384
43f663622648c35e4554fd4445cc348ce3a6634e
25841 F20101202_AAARSY becker_g_Page_045.QC.jpg
d2e4a91445435c64806d7963795fb21d
bfd5152214ec58408179b18709d20abc15fb7a50
7042 F20101202_AAATCK becker_g_Page_143thm.jpg
7b414cc33e0e0303092234571806f15b
734888ab26e2d6c0191febf169a1aad8ff148da3
6821 F20101202_AAATBV becker_g_Page_159thm.jpg
adbc9abb302c59fd80a01d27dcd0ac74
a1133aeabe83e278c59ad30bc56e484fdf6800ab
2151 F20101202_AAASXE becker_g_Page_020.txt
bac8f5c883ab748dc4a47dc30a6756ac
93c643757c7334311efdd2ba4219e3e11cda59f2
52119 F20101202_AAASWP becker_g_Page_182.pro
e229babb55f70d56235f3cdf2f614d81
f47a1c9287160266461b1ec56b313c37d8a4e3d9
106668 F20101202_AAARUC becker_g_Page_195.jp2
7f96100376656e27d00e274bcaee788b
a8e3c442deefb39e387ed1fdee873d28caa3c038
73900 F20101202_AAARTN becker_g_Page_131.jpg
d29308b61b355e44b2374f0cca5ed658
0be8ba7a78c1997d1c7217dacd2babf3968d5851
117575 F20101202_AAARSZ becker_g_Page_034.jp2
dfbf129fdc7f01ad1c53b4081a8bed6a
a03b3480f646529738d1265d8eecc87195001903
7273 F20101202_AAATCL becker_g_Page_121thm.jpg
efed688a2b3d912ec9d864d174ebf697
e6161467408071cb2d782ee29400238d978ba0e6
25333 F20101202_AAATBW becker_g_Page_133.QC.jpg
975da0184f2443ae3a51bbca148a559b
24f003735c6ef69be0989e0f54294f67a9df6675
2255 F20101202_AAASXF becker_g_Page_023.txt
fb3426a2830049a628fd226ffabe0f84
e10ff18d9a5f9fbf953414953f3b2aaf82c3c510
42641 F20101202_AAASWQ becker_g_Page_183.pro
6c7ba9c6c4827ea90e54bb57a3374b9c
d9b7261211421eed590f5b86f0b267ce7e5679fa
63401 F20101202_AAARUD becker_g_Page_137.pro
10e59648d01eddd7582a36f7fdca265f
a1735a403a5eb8166f833156e1557e27eb802ad7
928809 F20101202_AAARTO becker_g.pdf
29bbb81532b4f54ab5bc7fba330d1337
607e9a45302de552bfe3361d52846ed201641741
19902 F20101202_AAATDA becker_g_Page_091.QC.jpg
4ea846fb2ee97e0bd59aaa8e26d36b0f
152d5feb0e40fe3eaf6c55b49167379eae848994
27527 F20101202_AAATCM becker_g_Page_089.QC.jpg
e25376e6a22cc984f5694ce42d2c2437
fb7fb0c477ae14d8f4a18c831b979d98f4c6cebe
23886 F20101202_AAATBX becker_g_Page_182.QC.jpg
659810b846b8f1cae7e89de693743d43
feddf1faa749a6e798513db0d517a50f024a9967
2091 F20101202_AAASXG becker_g_Page_026.txt
45f681565f4167bd6dd752d922bd22b3
3930fab8a2983a8cee6c325c0af4ddfc86e26b3d
49417 F20101202_AAASWR becker_g_Page_190.pro
43d7a1d9c067b228b7b5cf0310eb2afc
ffb59af72cab30c9e61093108c7a26dac6be7336
69617 F20101202_AAARUE becker_g_Page_043.jpg
1ea54a2b627e89efe93be65e638d4dc2
fdf5308117d9ae201af332cbd217520ec94066b6
7090 F20101202_AAARTP becker_g_Page_023thm.jpg
bf4d8416612fe082d7bae1e172f23281
403d1bef9d7d5849796181485bb11da73aaa4c23
26449 F20101202_AAATDB becker_g_Page_156.QC.jpg
1e29b94a3c151a67542606ca3e188fd5
bc93373ceae92ab75c7bcdc54625d7a3464c5a45
7002 F20101202_AAATCN becker_g_Page_109thm.jpg
cd143cc0b2e5aca5755579e5bade0b3d
ed9ade77ea90ae781849860dd6ebca19be4916a4
6905 F20101202_AAATBY becker_g_Page_087thm.jpg
bc3f4ed85f80da2bda1059e618d618a4
ed123752a192b7d3b3cee2da2b1bf3222f4d0a31
2066 F20101202_AAASXH becker_g_Page_028.txt
b824f8ff08ada51d3f9e1abf6a7f2c7a
e8ab24ec99f05d2654ac6e5e1409acdebba2bd44
47494 F20101202_AAASWS becker_g_Page_193.pro
8e51bea11fbfb1228a367b62f6b27e21
021ce33a835a0ae4166bd2da8454f4e0142e3725
130224 F20101202_AAARUF becker_g_Page_075.jp2
3ad668f005f3d58fceade4ed376a8a98
ef0cd6e24e7f8c379e36f2675ce85b1df62e9afa
81052 F20101202_AAARTQ becker_g_Page_021.jpg
58ccebe4