„Crudelitatis odio in crudelitatem ruitis“. Livy’s Concept of Life and History

„Crudelitatis odio in crudelitatem ruitis“.
Livy’s Concept of Life and History
TOIVO VILJAMAA
‚Hatred of cruelty is driving you headlong into cruelty‘.1 When I quote
these words from the Roman historian Livy, I do not mean that his view
of life and history was so totally pessimistic as the words might imply, that
there would be no escape from cruelty if it exists – and in the ancient world
there was, of course, plenty of brutality, violence, and cruelty.2 I rather
want to concentrate on the moral and political ideology behind these words
and on Livy’s rhetoric in expressing his moral message. Therefore, I would
like to emphasize that the sentence is meaningful also in isolation without
the context where it occurs in the historian’s text. – The actual context
from which the words are extracted is the story about the Decemvirs, first
loved by people then hated, from its final stage when after the secession
of the plebs the envoys of the Roman senate Valerius and Horatius were
trying to temper the anger of the plebs and to restrain them from too
severe punishments of the cruel decemvirs (the piebeians bad threatened
to burn them alive, vivosque igni concrematuros minabantur, 3.53.5) . – In
the general content of Livy’s history the quoted words present us with two
different types of people or different mental attitudes which are brought
into conflict and both charged with cruelty:3 on one side cruelty is caused
by the vicious character (Libido and superbia)4 of the tyrannical rulers who
are naturally hated because of the Romans‘ inherent odium regum; on
the other side cruelty is the result of the commons‘ emotional attitude
1 Livy 3.53.7; English translation by B . O . Foster (The Loeb Class. Library).
2 For the phenomena of cruelty in the Roman world and for the Romans‘ attitude to
them, A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968), pp. 35 tr.
3 Cf. Sallust, Catil. 51.12: a/ia alii􀁡 licentia e􀁡t, and 51.14: quae apud alio􀁡 iracundia
dicitur, ea in imperio superbia atque crudelita􀁡 appellatur.
4 Cf. e. g. Livy 3.44.4: Appiu􀅏 amore amen􀁡 . . . ad crudelem superbamque vim animum
convertit.
41
( misericordia, ira, temeritas, and cupido libertatis) . 5 This kind of conflict
is in fact typical of uncivilized or barbarian societies.6
My principal concern is not with historical facts and events, i. e. with
the information on matters that is contained in a historical work. As a
philologist I can rather say that I have read ancient historical works much
in the same way I think they have been read through centuries. The range
of interest of ancient historians is limited mainly to political history, and
they often tend to explain human actions and politics largely in moral
terms. Also the modern reader easily reads the works of ancient historians
as moral lessons, he learns prima.rily to know irrational historical
processes, philosophical and religious tendencies and, above all, mental
attitudes rather than factual information. My approach to the question
about Livy’s view of life and history is therefore based on the following
considerations. Firstly, Livy’s history is connected with historiographical
tradition and as such it reflects both the contemporary preoccupations
and the attitudes familiar from history books. The elements of traditional
belief, also comprising preconceived opinions about the nature of cruelty,
were incorporated in the familiar stories and in the history books, which
were read by boys of educated farnilies. The historian could rely on the fact
that the information as told in those stories had made a strong impression
on the minds of the youth of his time. Secondly, history is not merely a
series of interpreted situations of the pa.st. The historian also has an aim
or aims, he sees that the past events have a meaning for his own time,
he collects past information according to his purpose and he makes moral
judgements. Thus, for instance, when the historian says that some persons
5 Livy 3.37.2. The piebeians had a greedy Iust for liberty: avide ruendo ad libertatem;
Cf. also 3.50.7: Verginiu$ . . . mi3ericordia $e in $peciem crudelitati$ lap$Um.
6 I agree with Cynthia Farrar, The Origins of Democratic Thinking (Cambridge 1988),
pp. 30-35, in her interpretation of Aeschylus‘ Supp/iant$1 that „barbarian society, … ,
provides no means for the reconciliation of personal freedom with political authority“.
Barbarians are accustomed to be ruled by force, civilized states are ruled by persuasion
and consent. Cf. Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-Definition through
Tragedy (Oxford 1989), particularly pp. 190 fi. Nicolo Machiavelli’s interpretation of
Livy’s story of the Decemvirate illustrates very weil the way how Livy is understood
by posterity. According to Machiavelli the birth of tyranny has two reasons „da troppo
desiderio del popolo, d’essere Iibero, e da troppo desiderio de‘ nobili, di comandare“,
Nicolo Machiavelli, Discorsi, libro 1.40 (Nicole> Machiavelli tutte Je opere a cura di Mario
Martelli, Firenze 1971, p. 124).
42
or some actions in the past were ‚cruel‘, the saying of this contains sub jective
attitudes. Cruelty in itself is a negative concept and to speak about
it always contains negative moral judgements, and the morals behind the
accusation of cruelty are described either with vices ( superbia, saevitia,
iniustitia, luxuria, and avaritia) or with virtues ( clementia, iustitia, and
parsimonia) correlative to the vices.7 Thirdly, history is written for posterity,
it is written because historia docet; and posterity has also used it
in this way. From generation to generation, the attitudes, ideas, thoughts
and prejudices present in ancient historical works have been handed down
as moral lessons. Therefore in a historical work it is important to know
how the historian combines the details of past information with his general
ideas.
Livy’s historical and political aims as well as his relation to philosophy
and religion are much studied subjects, in fact, more studied than
his attitude to social phenomena. The historical aims are most frequently
treated in the light of his Preface, in the light of the speeches and charactersketches
included in the narrative, or on the basis of the choice of certain
key words. 8 Students of Livy almost unanimously admit that he is not a
good historian, if a good historian is defined as a competent researcher of
past facts and of the evidence provided by good authorities, nor if a good
historian is defined as a skillful interpreter of individual events to recognize
patterns of evolution.9 But he is rather a master of his craft as a literary
artist, and particularly he has the imaginative insight to relive the experiences
of the past and to record them memorably. In other words, he has
7 The philosopher Seneca (de dem. 2.4.1-3) defines crudelitas as an excessive severity
in avenging or an atrocity of mind in executing punishments: crudelitas nihil aliud
est quam atrocitas animi in ezigendis poenis; . . . sit crudelitas inc/inatio animi ad
asperiom. He also makes a difference between cruelty and pure savagery, i. e. taking
pleasure in human sufferings, even though the latter too is often termed cruel: non esse
hanc crudelitatem, sed feritatem, cui voluptati saevitia est.
8 In regard to Livy’s historical aims I would like to recommend Patrick Walsh’s excellent
article „Livy and his Aims of ‚historia‘: An Analysis of the third Decade“, in: Aufstieg
und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 30.2 (Berlin & New York 1982), pp. 1058-1074;
for Livy’s person and the reliability of the sources in explaining his person, Ronald
Syme, Livy and Augustus, in: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64 (1959), pp. 27-
87 (Roman Papers, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, pp. 400-454).
9 In Walsh’s opinion, op. cit. p. 1058, amongst ancient historians Tacitus approxirnates
rnost closely the ideal.
43
an ability to clothe the hard core of past history into words and to express
his political and moral ideology by his rhetoric.10 Livy has been successful
in what he seems to be promising in his Preface (Praef. IO): „What is particularly
beneficial and fruitful in a knowledge of history is to contemplate
examples of every pattern set out in a memorable record ( omnis te exempli
documenta in inlustri posita monumento tueri).“ 11 Livy is not chießy
interested in the evolution of political institutions; for him history is – or
he means it to be – in the Ciceronian phrase, the magistra vitae, it teaches
how to live. In other words, history is essentially a description of how
earlier individuals, peoples and states confronted particular situations,12
recorded in such a way that the reader may benefit by applying the results
as lessons to his own life, as a citizen and as a private person: inde tibi
tuaeque rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu
quod vites (Praef. 11).
In this way Livy is alsQJoften used and appreciated. Livy has a conservative
stand of mind. This means that a part of his religion consists of the
respect of tradition. Not that the actual things that are symptoms of some
superhuman powers ought to be believed as such, but because they represent
the belief on traditional conduct of our fathers and of our ancestors.
They have the value of being respected. They give people the feeling of
belonging somewhere in the world where every natural phenomenon cannot
be explained rationally.13 When studying Livy merely on the linguistic
and stylistic point of view, I have been able, as many others, to recognize
certain recurrent patterns of linguistic expression in his narrative. It is
thus possible or even obvious, that the recurrence of certain formulaic expressions
is not only the matter of language and style but it also reveals
1° For the superstructure of historiography, that is, the rhetorical elaboration of historical
notices, A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London & Sydney
1988), pp. 83 ff.
11 fllustre monumentum: to sing glorious deeds of men (klea andron) is naturally an old
topic in historiography appearing already in Herodotus‘ Preface; see F. W. Walbank,
History and Tragedy, Historia 9 (1960), pp. 216-234.
12 Cf. Liv. 45,23,14 (from the speech of the Rhodian Astymedes): Tam civitatium
quam singulorum hominum more$ $Unt; gente& quoque aliae ira.cundae, aliae audace$,
quaedam timidae, in vinum, in venerem proniores aliae sunt.
13 See 43.13.1: Ceterum et mihi vetustas re3 scribenti nescio quo pacto antiquus fit
animus, et quaedam religio tenet, quae illi prudentissimi viri publice suscipienda censuerint,
ea pro indigna habere, quae in meo$ annales referam.
44
patterns of the meaning and content of the narrative work. Livy says in
his Preface that he asks „each reader to scrutinize keenly what kind of life
and morals people had, through which men and by what policies, in peace
and war, the empire was founded and extended“ (Praef. 9): Ad illa mihi
pro se quisque intendat animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros
quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit.
I find this statement most important for understanding those linguistic
devices by which Livy constructs the tension between different episodes in
the course of the narrative. The historian lays emphasis on specific physical
and moral values in individuals and in communities and in this way he
moulds individuals and communities to certain definite types. As a consequence
of this typicalization only a few words or expressions are needed
to remind the reader of certain types and characters. Referring repeatedly
to the same characteristics and repeatedly using similar expressions
the historian is able to underline just those themes which he sees most
important.
The story of the first representatives of the gens Appia Claudia excellently
exemplifies the way in which Livy constructs above the chronological
structure another to establish the plan of historical lawfulness: Sequitur aliud
in urbe nefas ab libidine ortum, haud minus foedo eventu 14 quam quod
per stuprum caedemque Lucretiae urbe regnoque Tarquinios expulerat, ut
non finis solum idem decemviris qui regibus sed causa etiam eadem imperii
amittendi esset. Ap. Claudium virginis plebeiae stuprandae Iibido cepit . . .
(3.44.1-2). The content of the legend of the rape of Lucretia causing
the fall of the Tarquins and the end of the tyrannical rule of the kings
is repeated in the story of Verginia, whose chastity was violated by the
decemvir Appius Claudius. As in the case of Lucretia, the violation of
Verginia led to the fall of the tyrannical rule, and to a restoration of liberty.
In this plan of historical lawfulness Appü Claudü represent not only
extreme animosity towards the common people but also tyranny. They are
made comparable to foreign enemies who in the civilized imagination of
Livy’s time were luxurious, emotional, cruel, and therefore dangerous, like
oriental despots, tyrants of Greek cities, or to Hannibal whose inhuman
cruelty15 had become notorious. In Livy’s words, Hannibal was „naturally
inclined to greed and cruelty, his temperament favoured despoiling what
14 Cf. Praef. 10: inde foedum inceptu foedum ezitu quod viteJ.
15 21.4.9: haJ tantaJ viri virtuteJ ingentia vitia aequabant: inhumana crudelitas, per-
45
he was unable to protect, in order to leave desolated lands to the enemy.
That policy was shameful in the beginning, and especially so in the outcome16
… For not only were those who suffered undeserved treatment
alienated, but all the rest as well“ {26.38.3). No wonder that in Livy’s
narrative there are three cases where the words crudelis or crudelitas most
frequently occur: in connection with the Appii Claudii, with Hannibal and
with Philip, the king of Macedon.17
Livy has been read by many people, prominent or humble, during
centuries after Livy, and especially in the times of the Renaissance and
the Enlightenment. Of course, it was Livy’s object-matter that made him
significant for posterity. His account of the growth of Rome, of the struggle
between classes which set in danger the existence of the state but was again
and again resolved in an accord, was studied carefully by later politicians
an theorists in the hope of finding answers to the problems of their own
time. So, for instance, Nicolo Machiavelli follows Livy’s precept in his letter
„Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati“ .18 He translates
into his ltalian Livy’s account (8.13-14) about the treatment of the Latini.
In Camillus‘ opinion, there were two ways to ensure a lasting peace:
pacem vobis, quod ad Latinos attinet, parare in perpetuum vel saeviendo
vel ignoscendo potestis (8.13.14); either cruelty { vultis crudeliter consulere,
8.13.15) or forgiveness and kindness {in fact augere rem Romanam victos
in civitatem accipiendo, 8.13.16). The senators, however, followed Carnillus‘
advice using those both methods, giving to each as it merits ( ut pro
merito cuiusque statuerentur, 8.14.1). This was one of the most illustrious
cases when the Roman people showed its virtue of clemency, parcere
fidia plu$ quam Punica; and for Philip, king of Macedon, 31.31.17: cuiuJ libidinem
inhumaniorem prope quam crudelitatem voJ . . . melitu noJtü; cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.5.115.
16 Note Livy’s language; also here the exampleis termed „foedum“ both in the beginning
and in the outcome, as in the case of Appius Claudius (above) and as Livy had defined
his purpose (Praef. 10). Cf. similar language in 1.48.7: Foedum inhumanumque JceluJ
(the cruel murder of Servius Tullius); malo regni princpi io JimileJ propediem ezitu$
$equerentur (the reign of Tarquinius Superbus).
17 There are 39 occurrences of the word crudelita$ in Livy; 6 are connected with the
story of Appius Claudius and Verginia; 4 with Hannibal and 9 with king Philip of Macedon;
four times crudelitaJ is mentioned as a mark of military severity; other contexts
where Livy often uses the word crudelita$ are descriptions of avarice and luxury of the
provincial magistrates.
18 Scritti politici minori, op. cit., pp. 13-16.
46
subiectos et debellare superbos (Verg. Aen. 6.853). Clementia, the arbitrary
mercy shown by a superior to an inferior, then became an important quality
of the Caesars and princes.19 Machiavelli concludes accordingly: „Io ho
sentito dire ehe la istoria e la maestra delle azioni nostre, e massime de‘
principi, e il mondo fu sempre ad un modo abitato da uomini ehe hanno
avuto sempre le medesime passioni, e sempre fu chi serve e chi comanda; e
chi serve mal volentieri e chi serve volentieri; e chi si ribella ed e ripreso.“
Machiavelli’s interpretation of Livy is idealistic, first in the sense that
he examines Livy’s history for the solution to problems of his own time
(how to treat the rebellious populations of his time) ; secondly his view
of life is dualistic; he sees the world as black and white, and cites Livy
to support this view. I think that Machiavelli’s interpretation of LivY. is
correct:20 that we can take lessons from the past presupposes the belief
that human race has always been the same and men have always lived in
the same way, and that there have always been good and bad, and also
there have always been those who are destined to command and those
destined to obey.
We can take another lesson from Livy. Now it is not the question
of how the Romans should treat the rebellious neighbours; on the contrary,
the question is how the Samnites should treat the Roman army
captured in the Caudine Forks, and the wise Herennius gives his advice
to his fellow-countrymen (9,3,1-13): . . . is ubi accepit inter duos saltus
clausos esse exercitus Romanos, consultus ab nuntio filii censuit omnes
inde quam primum inviolatos dimittendos. quae ubi spreta sententia est
iterumque eodem remeante nuntio consulebatur, censuit ad unum omnes
interficiendos . . . . priore se consilio, quod optimum duceret, cum potentissimo
populo per ingens beneficium perpetuam firmare pacem amicitiamque;
altero consilio in multas aetates, quibus amissis duobus exercitibus haud
19 Cf. Sen. de dem. 1,3,1: Nullum tarnen clementia ez omnibu3 magis quam regem et
principem decet.
2° For Livy and Machiavelli, J. H. Whitfield, Machiavelli’s Use of Livy, in: T. A. Dorey
(ed.), Livy (London 1971), pp. 73-96; W. S. Anderson, LiVY and Machiavelli, The Classical
Journal 53 (1957-58), pp. 232-235 says that Machiavelli fully accepted the approach
to history as lesson, but that he also misunderstood Livy believing more in practical
examples and results accounted in history books than in moral values which were important
for Livy. But the vision of dualistic world, about the good which the reader
should imitate and the bad which he should avoid, is similar both in Livy and in his
interpreter, Machiavelli.
47
facile receptura vires Romana res esset, bellum differre; tertium nullum
consilium esse. In Herennius‘ opinion there were only two ways to handle
the situation – either let the Romans go unharmed or kill all the Roman
army, either beneficium or poena. 21 There was no third way, no compromise.
We know from what follows in the narrative that the Samnites did
not accept the good advice of Herennius – for the fortune of Rome and for
the their own misfortune. Next year they could perceive that instead of
their domineering peace they were confronted with the renewal of a most
bitter war.
Now I shall take up my theme about Livy’s concept of life asking what
he means by life, by vita, which is given so prominent place in his discussion
of usefulness of history: (Praef. 9) Ad illa mihi pro se quisque intendat
animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint. Livy asks „each reader to scrutinize
keenly what kind of life and morals people had“ . We can probably understand
the general meaning of life but it is diffi.cult to give clear definitions.
Life is often determined by birth or by death. Vita can refer to the life
of people, or to the circumstances where people live, or to the way how
people and individual are confronted with particular situations. Maybe
Vita is part of a historical process. Also it has a beginning and an end:
birth, youth, adult and old age, and dea.th. – lt can be argued on the basis
of Livy’s Preface and on the basis of certain linguistic expressions in the
course of his narrative that he bad a kind of biological concept of Rome’s
history. The story of Rome, which in this case is the same as history, is a
life or a series of lives:22 (Praef. 9) labante deinde paulatim disciplina velut
desidentis primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi
sint, turn ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec tempora quibus nec vitia
nostra nec remedia pati possumus perventum est; (Praef. 1 1 ) Ceterum
aut me amor negotii suscepti fallit, aut nulla res publica nec maior nec
sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit, nec in quam civitatem tam serae
avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint, nec ubi tantus ac tam diu paupertati ac
parsimoniae honos fuerit: adeo quanto rerum minus, tanto minus cupid-
21 Cf. 8.13.17: .seu poena .seu beneficio, 26.49.8: populi Romani . . . , qui beneficio quam
metu obligare homine.s malit.
22 Cf. G. B . Miles, The Cycle of Roman History in Livy’s First Pentad, American
Journal of Philology 107 (1986), pp. 1-33; F. W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley &. London
1972), pp. 130 ff.
48
itatis erat. Nuper divitiae avaritiam et abundantes voluptates desiderium
per luxum atque libidinem pereundi perdendique omnia invexere.
In his Preface Livy conceives of Roman history in terms of decline23 ,
from the activity and vitality of the early Republic to the degenerate and
self-destructive Rome of his day. There is a clear pessimism in his view
about the future of Rome. Rome has reacbed tbe point wbere she cannot
endure neither her vices nor tbeir remedies. Wbat are the remedia whicb
were incapable of being sustained? Presumably tbey were order and concord,
i. e. tbe acceptance of centralized government24, or, as it has been
often argued, the reference is to Augustus‘ legislation for moral reform.25
But the pessimism can be caused by tbe fact tbat Livy saw in Rome symptoms
of diseases of oldness, diseases of declining years. In admitting tbe
evils of greed ( avaritia), extravagance (luxuria) and lust ( Iibido) the Romans
bad at last been overcome by typical mental diseases. This view is
by no means a new one; usually, as in Sallust, avaritia and luxuria are coupled
witb another explanation; tbe removal of metus hostilis. Tbe fear of
enemies, tbe menace of barbarian races, thougb not mentioned in the Preface,
is a prominent and frequently occurring motive in Livy’s narrative.
Tbus the empbasis of tbe Preface on the destructive effects of tbe capital
diseases of greed and luxury seems to suggest that Rome had reached a
final condition from which there can be no recovery. Tbe Romans had
accepted internally wbat they bad hated in foreign races; tbey had let
tbe barbarian nature immigrate in tbeir own community ( . . . avaritia luxuriaque
immigraverint).26 It is wortb noticing tbat tbougb Livy usually
accepts tbe Romans‘ plundering of captured cities he also often remarks
that the wealth formed the seed of decay. 27 In the books of the third and
fourtb decade the accounts about cruelties of Roman magistrates, about
23 See R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965), pp. 23-29.
24 See Woodman, op. cit. pp. 133-134, who points out that on two other occasions
when Livy uses the remedy metaphor (3.20.8 and 22.8.5) the context is that of the
dictatorship; cf. also Tac. ann. 1.9.4: non aliud di$cordanti$ patriae remedium fui&$e
quam ut ab uno regeretur.
25 For different explanations, see e. g. Woodman, op. cit. 128 ff.
26 T. J. Luce, Livy: the Composition of his History (Princeton 1977), p. 273, calls
attention to the anti-Hellenism of Cato the Eider, and accordingly, emphasizes the
association of the Romans‘ luxury with foreign influences.
27 See E. Burck, Die römische Expansion im Urteil des Livius, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang
der römischen Welt li 30.2 (Berlin & New York 1982), pp. 1 179-1180 and n. 75.
49
their avarice, luxury, and lust, become more numerous. Thus, for instance,
in the beginning of book 42 there is a series of episodes describing highhanded
actions of degenerated Roman magistrates: Postumins arrogance
at Praeneste (42.1.7-12), Fulvius‘ sacrilege at the temple of Juno Lacinia
(42.3.1-1 1 ) , and M. Popilius‘ selling the people of the Statellates into slavery
(42.7.3 – 9.6). Particularly, the last action was in Livy’s words an
example of „extreme cruelty“ and established „the worst possible precedent
and a warning“ for everyone in the future: atrox res visa senatui,
Statellates, . . . , deditos in fidem populi Romani omni ultimae crudelitatis
exemplo laceratos ac deZetos esse, . . . , ne quis umquam se postea dedere
auderet, pessimo exemplo venisse ( 42.8.5).
I return now to the memorable records, illustria monumenta, and to
Livy’s linguistic means in accounting them. A careful reading of Livy’s narrative,
particularly his early books, shows that there is a certain schematism
in Livy’s langnage when he introduces records of new events or decisive
actions. So it would be interesting to study how this recurrence
of certain patterns of linguistic expression combines with his intention of
making individual records memorable. By use of stereotypical linguistic
constructions, such as forte, cum-, ne-, and ni ( „by chance, suddenly, at
the very moment, if not“)-clauses, the historian seems to suggest the operation
of an impersonal power.28 This superhuman power operates firstly
using individual persons and incidents of their lives, and secondly confronting
the Romans with continuous difficulties: external races challenge
Rome’s supremacy; but her virtues are also tested with domestic difficulties,
discord between the orders and epidemic diseases. 29 Livy’s methods of
depicting Roman difficulties and victories, and his methods of accounting
remarkable events introducing them by intervention of individuals, these
can be argued to be only verbal devices which belong to the tradition of
rhetorical historiography. But rhetoric is not without purpose; on the contrary,
these linguistic devices reveal the writer’s attitudes, and they lead
us into a definite philosophical direction, in the Stoic determinism.30 In
Livy’s narrative personal experiences and simple details of domestic life
28 On Livy’s linguistic means in depicting Rome’s predetermined fate, P. G. Walsh,
Livy and Stoicism, American Journal of Philology 79 (1958), pp. 355-375.
29 On descriptions of plagues in the ancient historiography, see Woodman, op. cit.,
pp. 32 ff.
30 Maybe there is no need to refer to the Stoics here, see Lintott, op. cit. p. 36: „the
50
are used to reveal the predestined fate of Rome. Also minor incidents of
personal life are made serve a higher end, the destiny of Rome (for instance
6.34.5: parva, ut plerumque solet, rem ingentem moliundi causa
intervenit). 31 Life as such, as the Stoics argued, belongs to the group of
the indifferentia. 32 This fatalism is conspicuous at the very beginning of
the Story of Rome ( 1 .3.10 – 4. 3) :33 ‚Yet violence proved more potent than
a father’s wishes or respect of seniority. Amulius drove out his brother
and ruled in his stead. Adding crime to crime ( addit sceleri scelus)3\ he
destroyed Numitor’s male issue; and Rhea Silvia, his brother’s daughter,
he appointed a Vestal under pretence of honouring her, and consigning
her to perpetual virginity, deprived her of the hope of children. . . . But
the Fates were resolved, as I suppose, upon the founding of this great city,
and the beginning of the mightiest of empires, next after the Heaven ( Sed
debebatur, ut opinor, fatis tantae origo urbis maximique secundum deorum
opes imperii principium) . The Vestal was ravished, and having given birth
to twin sons, named Mars as the father of her doubtful offspring, whether
actually so believing, or because it seemed less wrong if a god were the
author of the fault. But neither gods nor men protected the mother herself
or her hab es from the king’s cruelty ( Sed nec di nec homines aut ipsam
aut stirpem a crudelitate regia vindicant) ; the priestess he ordered to be
manacled and cast into prison, the children to be committed to the river.‘
For the purpose of our present theme of cruelty, it is interesting to notice
that both the institution of the Vestals and the birth of Rome’s conditor,
ethical standards common to the hellenized Mediterranean world did not place such a
high value on human existence.“
31 Cf. Tac. ann. 4.32.5: illa primo a3pectu levia e:z: quü magnarum 3aepe rerum motus
oriuntur.
32 A very striking example is the story about the Minor Fabia, the younger daughter
of M. Fabius Ambustus (6.34.5 ff). This little episode, a piece of domestic life, in fact
the ri3u3 3orori3 which made the Minor Fabia feel ashamed of her plebeian husband,
started an important process which ended in the revolutionary Lege3 Liciniae Se:z:tiae.
The laws prescribed among other things that the consular power sbould be divided
between the patricians and the plebeians.
33 Also in the case of the king Servius Thllius, the necessity of fate is contrasted with
human purposes (1.42.2; 1 .46.3).
34 For cumulating crimes, cf. 1.47.1 (Thllia, Servius‘ daughter: iam enim ab 3celere ad
aliud 3pectare mulier scelu3) i 3.43.1 and 3.44.1 (the Decemvirs).
51
Romulus, appear as consequences of human crudelitas; or more precisely,
it is not the human cruelty but the regal cruelty wbich is given prominence.
The following example is remarkable because it in a narrative manner
shows how the predestined fate of Rome is set to be fulfilled. It is the
story of the usurer L. Papirius who in bis lust and cruelty violated the
chastity of bis young debtor. The story repeats the essential details of the
stories of Lucretia and Verginia. The common people bad gained a kind
of ‚political‘ liberty on the expulsion of the tyrannical kings caused by the
rape of Lucretia. Then liberty was restored after the fall of the Decemvirs‘
tyrannical rule. The incident that gave rise to tbis revolution had been the
violation of Verginia’s chastity. Now the plebs was assured of ‚personal‘
liberty as well. There was a kind of new beginning of liberty, as Livy says
(8.28.1-5): ‚In that year (326 B.C.) the liberty ofthe Roman plebs had as it
were a new beginning ( velut aliud initium libertatis): for men ceased to be
imprisoned for debt. The change in the law was occasioned by the notable
lust and cruelty of a single usurer (ob unius feneratoris simul libidinem
simul crudelitatem insignem), Ludus Papirius, … He sought to violate the
chastity of Gaius Publilius, who had given bimself for a debt owed by bis
father. The debtor’s youth and beauty inßame the creditor’s heart to lust
and contumely. When Papirius did not succeed, he at last bad the young
debtor stripped and scourged. … The boy, all mangled with the stripes,
broke forth into the street, crying out upon the money-lender’s lust and
cruelty.‘
My last series of memorable examples consists of three episodes or
developments of events – two of them are quite long stories. In all these
examples the setting of the situation is similar, but the conclusions of the
process differ. In all cases it is the question of military discipline, and
also cruelty and harshness are involved. Roman military discipline was
certainly brutal, and thus there are in Livy’s narrative many other cases
which according to our modern ethical standards could be Iahelied cruel for
a better reason, but Livy’s purpose is idealistic; the violation of supreme
power and its consequences are at issue.
The first example is the well-known story about Manlius and his son.
The son ignored the prohibitive orders of bis father and opened the battle
against the enemy. He was punished to death by bis father ( 8. 7 .1-17). The
progress of events was initiated by an intervention of unexpected superhuman
powers ( 8.7.1: Forte inter ceteros turmarum praefectos . . . T. Manlius
consulis filius super castra hostium cum suis turmalibus evasit, ita ut vix
52
teli iactu ab statione proxima abesset). The young Manlius thus became
a victim both of his fierce mind and Rome’s fate (8.7.8: Movet ferocem
animum iuvenis seu ira seu detractandi certaminis pudor seu inexsuperabilis
vis fati.) . Although this event had the result which was notorious
by its cruelty ( 4.29.6: occupaturus insignem titulum crudelitatis), in Livy’s
words, the consul acted right when ordering his son to death because the
punishment was to be a sad but beneficial example to the following generations
(8.7.15-17: Quandoque . . . disciplinam militarem, qua stetit ad hanc
diem Romana 1·es soluisti, . . . ; triste exemplum sed in posterum salubre
erimus).
The account of the controversy between the dictator L . Papirius Cursor
and his magister equitum Q. Fabius repeats the content of the Manlian
story (8,30,4 ff.). The magister equitum, tempted by an opportunity for
a successful action, fought the enemies against the orders of his general.
Fabius‘ motives are described by Livy in similar terms as the motives of
Manlius‘ son; the difference is that here the emphasis lies on human reasons
( Q. Fabius . . . seu ferox adulescens indignitate accensus quod omnia
in dictatore viderentur reposita seu occasione bene gerendae rei inductus,
. . . acie cum Samnitibus conflixit) . The dictator’s demand that Q. Fabius
be punished to death for his disobedience raised a long process and the
whole people rose in the defence of the magist er equitum. The dictator was
blamed for invidia, superbia, and crudelitas. At last he made a comprom.
ise, he left Fabius at the people’s mercy: (8.35.6) Vive, Q. Fabi, felicior
hoc consensu civitatis ad tuendum te quam qua paulo ante insultabas victoria;
vive, . . . ; populo Romano, cui vitam debes, nihil maius praestiteris
quam si hic tibi dies satis documenti dederit ut bello ac pace pati legitima
imperia possis. The dictator’s words sound like „the only you have left
is to live . . . there is nothing more“ . The near future proved that the
compromise was an unfortunate decision.
The third case is the confrontation between the wise and conservative
Fabius Gunetator and the war-enthusiast hazardous Minucius; the pair
which is often compared with the Athenian pair of Nicias and Cleon.35
– But the comparison holds only partially, because the outcome of the
situation in Livy is totally different: his solution is an idealistic one. – The
struggle between the two led into the situation that the war-leadership
was divided between the two – to Hannibal’s good fortune. But at a
35 See Walsh, Livy and his Aims of ‚historia‘, p. 1067.
53
critical phase, Cunctator displays bis military skill and even braveness,
when coming to the rescue of Minucius. Temerity was surpassed by fortune
and by the virtue of expedience.36 Minucius‘ mind was changed; he had
found his place: „I have often heard, soldiers, that the man is pre-emiment
who bimself knows what to do, second is the man who follows good advice;
but the person who cannot either decide for bimself or obey another is
last in intelligence.“37 Minucius confesses that he owes bis being to bis
parents but bis welfare to the man who is born to command: (22.30.3-
4) ‚Parentibus ‚ inquit ‚meis, dictator, quibus te modo nomine, quod fando
possum, aequavi, vitam tantum debeo, tibi cum meam salutem tum omnium
horum. ‚
In conclusion I shall return to the sharp dualism illustrated by the
advice of the Samnite Herennius that there is no third way, no compromise.
The example of Minucius shows that the beneficial concord, moderation,
the middle way, is not a compromise between right and wrong, but it is the
ability of finding one’s own life-style to make right decisions and perform
right actions, wbich are consistent with one’s temperament, with his life,
wbich is destined by bis birth and by bis mental and physical abilities. lt
is easy to see to which philosopbical direction tbis interpretation leads us.
lt is the so-called Panaetian humanism which in fact is in harmony with
the Roman upper-class ideology. Tbis view of life and history, of life and
mankind has its positive values, if it leads us to the respect of diversity,
to the respect of different temperaments. But it has its negative side, too,
because it tends to explain social phenomena in terms of mentalities, i. e.
inclinations of mind, and ultimately in terms of virtues and vices to which
different temperaments are thought to be liable by their very nature. In
tbis Roman context the Latin word crudelitas, as used by Livy, is a term for
a conceptual category determining the cruelty of an act not so much by the
character of the act and its consequences but by the character of the doer. 38
36 22.29.1-2 Tum FabiuJ primo clamore paventium audito, dein conJpecta procul turbata
acie ‚lta eJt‘ inquit; ’non celeriuJ quam timui deprendit fortuna temeritatem.
Fabio aequatuJ imperio Hannibalem et virtute et fortuna Juperiorem videt . .. 6. PoenuJ
receptui cecinit, palam ferente Hannibale ab Je Minucium, u ab Fabio victum.
37 22.29.7-11 MinuciuJ … ‚Saepe ego, ‚ inquit, ‚audivi, militeJ, eum primum eJJe
virum, qui ipJe conJulat, quid in rem Jit, Jecundum eum, qui bene monenti oboediat;
qui nec ipJe conJulere nec alteri parere Jciat, eum eztremi ingeni eJJe.
38 Cf. Seneca’s definition, above note 7.
54
Thus social conßicts, when explained at that level, can lead to insoluble
clashes between mental attitudes. The only solution, therefore, seems to
be that diversity becomes inequality. Similarly, in relations between people
who are of different origin or different culture, xenophobia, the fear of a
foreign or unknown culture, and chauvinism, declaring the superiority of
one’s own culture, are rooted in this mentalistic interpretation of man and
his actions.
55
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GERHARD JARITZ
SONDERBAND II
CRUDELITAS
The Politics of Cruelty
in the Ancient and Medieval World
Proceedings of the International Conference
Turku {Finland), May 1991
Edited by
Toivo Viljamaa, Asko Timonen
and Christian Krötzl
Krems 1992
Front page illustration: Martyrdom of Saint Barbara (detail),
Friedrich Pacher, Tyrolian, 1480-1490,
Neustift (Novacella), South Tyrol (Italy), Stiftsgalerie
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 1094 05 9
Herausgeber: Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen
Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems, Österreich – Druck:
KOPITU Ges. m. b. H., Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10, A-1050 Wien.
Contents
Preface 7
Andrew LINTOTT (Oxford): Cruelty in the Political Life
of the Ancient World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Maarit KAIMIO (Helsinki): Violence in Greek Tragedy 28
Toivo VILJAMAA (Thrku): „Crudelitatis odio in crudelitatem
ruitis“ . Livy’s Concept of Life and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Katarüna MUSTAKALLIO (Helsinki): The „crimen incesti“
of the Vestal Virgins and the Prodigious Pestilence
Asko TIMONEN (Thrku): Criticism ofDefense. The Blam-
56
ing of „Crudelitas“ in the „Historia Augusta“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Christer BRUUN (Helsinki): Water as a Cruel Element in
the Roman World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4
Luigi de ANNA (Thrku): Elogio della crudelta. Aspetti
della violenza nel mondo antico e medievale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Greti DINKOVA-BRUUN (Helsinki): Cruelty and the Medieval
Intellectual: The Case of Peter Abelard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Christian KRÖTZL (Tampere): „Crudeliter affiicta“ . Zur
Darstellung von Gewalt und Grausamkeit in mittelalterlichen
Mirakelberichten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5
Thomas LINDKVIST (Uppsala) : The Politics of Violence
and the Transition from Viking Age to Medieval Scandinavia
Alain DUCELLIER (Toulouse): Byzance, Juge Cruel dans
un Environnement Cruel? Notes sur le „Musulman cruel“
dans l’Empire byzantin entre Vlleme et XIIlerne siedes
Asko TIMONEN (Turku): Select Bibliography
6
139
148
181
Preface
The present volume is a collection of the papers read at the conference
which was held in May 1991 at the University of Turku on the theme
The Politics of Cruelty in the A ncient and Medieval World. The general
aim of the conference was to advance interdisciplinary and international
collaboration in the fields of humanistic studies and particularly to bring
together scholars who have common interests in the study of our past.
The choice of the subject of cruelty naturally resulted from different study
projects concerning the political and social history of late antiquity and
the Middle Ages – the Roman imperial propaganda, the conß.ict between
paganism and christianity, the history of the Vandals, the Byzantine empires,
the Medieval miracle stories, to name some of them. Perhaps also
contemporary events had an influence on the idea that cruelty could be
the theme which conveniently would unite those various interests. And
the idea emerged irrespective of considerations whether or not we should
search for models in the Ancient World or join those who, as it seems to
have been a fashion, insist on investigating what we have common with
the Middle Ages.
One might argue – and for a good reason indeed – that cruelty is
a subject for anthropologists and psychologists, not for philologists and
historians. Where does the student of history find reliable criteria for
defining the notion of cruelty in order to judge the men of the past and their
actions, to charge with cruelty not only individuals but also nations and
even ages („the crudelitas imperatorum“ , „the Dark Ages“ , „the violence of
the Vikings“, „the cruel Muslims“ )? Is it not so that the only possibility is
to adapt our modern sensibilities to the past and to use our own prejudices
in making judgements about others? The prejudices – yes, but this is just
what makes the theme interesting for the historian because our prejudices
– our conception of cruelty, for instance – are part of the heritage of past
centuries. The events of our own day – maybe more clearly than ever – have
demonstrated that we live in a historical world. When we investigate the
history of the concept of cruelty we, as it were, Iook ourselves at a mirror
and learn to understand ourselves better. The concept of cruelty has two
sides. It is a subjective concept used to define and describe those persons
7
and those acts that according to the user of the term are negative, harmful,
humiliating, harsh, inhumane, primitive and unnatural; in everyday life
it is associated with religious habits – with crude remnants of primitive
religion, it is associated with passion, an uncontrolled mental state, or with
violence and with the exercise of power without justice. On the other hand
the term is used to classify people by their ethical and social habits, to
accuse, to invalidate and injure others; therefore the accusation of cruelty
refers to basic features of ancient and also Medieval thought, to the fear of
anything foreign, to the aggressive curiosity to define and subsume others
simply by their otherness.
Such were the considerations wich gave inspiration for arranging the
„cruelty“ -seminar. The conference was accommodated by the Archipelago
Institute of the University of Turku, in the island Seili („Soul island“) , in
an environment of quiet beauty of the remote island and sad memories of
the centuries when people attacked by a cruel fate, lepers or mentally ill,
were banished there from the civilized community.
The conference was organized by the Department of Classics of the
University of Turku in collaboration with the Departments of Cultural
History and Italian language and culture of the same university. It is a
pleasure to us to be able to thank here all those who helped to make the
congress possible. We would like especially to express our gratitude to
Luigi de Anna and Hannu Laaksonen for their assistance in preparing and
carrying out the practical arrangements. The financial assistance given by
the Finnish Academy and by the Turku University Foundation was also
indispensable. Finally, we close by expressing our gratitude to Gerhard
Jaritz, the editor of the Medium Aevum Quotidianum for the Gesellschaft
fü r Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, for his kind COoperation
and for accepting this collection of papers to be published as a
supplement to the series of the studies on the Medieval everyday life. One
of the starting-points for organizing the „cruelty“ -conference was the firm
conviction that the Graeco-Roman Antiquity did not end with the beginning
of the Middle Ages, but these two eras form a continuum in many
respects, and the continuity was felt not only in the literary culture, in the
Greek and Latin languages which were still used, but also in the political,
social and religious structures of the Middle Ages. We think that this
continuity is amply demonstrated by the studies of the present volume.
Department of Classics, University of Turku, Finland
8