¹ The following abbreviations are used for works frequently cited: Lana = Lana, I., Velleio Patercolo o della Propaganda (Torino, 1952)Google Scholar; McGonagle = McGonagle, D. J., ‘Rhetoric and Biography in Velleius Paterculus’ (diss., The Ohio State University, 1970)Google Scholar; Portalupi, edn. = Paterculus, Velleius, Storia Romana, ed. with comm. by Portalupi, F. (Torino, 1967)Google Scholar; Sumner = Sumner, G. V., ‘The Truth about Velleius Paterculus: Prolegomena’, HSCP 74 (1970), 257–97Google Scholar; Woodman, edn. = Paterculus, Velleius, The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131), ed. with comm. by Woodman, A. J. (Cambridge, 1977)Google Scholar; Woodman, ‘Questions’ = Woodman, A. J., ‘Questions of Date, Genre, and Style in Velleius: Some Literary Answers’, CQ 25 (1975), 272–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Velleius is cited from the Teubner text of C. Stegmann (second edition, Stuttgart, 1933) through 2.93 and from A. J. Woodman's edition from 2.94–131. Stegmann's orthography, however, is maintained throughout. In citations the book number is given only for Book 1 and for the first 18 chapters of Book 2. Fragments of the Roman historians are cited from Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (Stuttgart, vol. 1 ² (1914), vol. 2 (1906)Google Scholar; both rpt. 1967).

² Sumner, 280. On the title, see Woodman, edn. p. 95.

³ Stuttgart (1933).

⁴ cf. e.g. Livy, praef.; Sallust, B.C. 1–4, B.J. 1–5.3; Cato, Origines fr. 1–3P; see Sumner, 281.

⁵ Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions (Stockholm, 1964), p. 67 and n. 10Google Scholar; see Coelius Antipater fr. IP; Woodman, edn. p. 127, n. on 101.3; Woodman, ‘Questions', 275; Paladini, M. L., ‘Studi su Velleio Patercolo’, Acme 6 (1953), 447Google Scholar.

⁶ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 284–5; Sumner, 281.

⁷ For later promises of brevity in prefaces, cf. Eutropius, praef.; Sulpicius Severus, 1.1; Festus, 1.

⁸ Contemporary comments like these no doubt refer to Livy and the voluminous historians of the later Republic. On Velleius' brief history as a reaction to such works, see below p. 169. For a later example of a promise of usefulness in a preface, cf. the preface to Ampelius' Liber memorialis.

⁹ Brozek, M., ‘de Vellei Paterculi opusculo mutilato’, Eos 52 (1962), 125Google Scholar.

¹⁰ One might argue that the trials of these heroes set Aeneas' labours in context (on Aeneas, see below, p. 164). The argument, however, seems fragile: why mention such a variety of men, especially Phidippus?

¹¹ Laistner, M. L. W. (The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley, 1947Google Scholar, rpt. 1971, Sather Classical Lectures vol. 21), p. 108) confidently says, ‘The first section, after a few introductory chapters on Greece, sketches Roman history down to 146 b.c.’ McGonagle (p. 26) says that Velleius wrote a ‘compendium of Roman history’. Woodman (edn. p. 42) refers to Velleius' work as a ‘summary history of Rome’ (cf., however, edn. p. 95, where Woodman says that Velleius' history belongs to ‘the genre of the summary universal history’ and accepts Bothe's suggestion of ‘Historiarum ad M. Vinicium consulem’ as the best title). Sauppe, H. (‘M. Velleius Paterculus’, Schweizerisches Museum 1 (1837)Google Scholar = Ausgewaehlte Schriften (Berlin, 1896), p. 47Google Scholar) recognized long before that the title Historia Romana was too confining for Velleius' work, but he did not go far enough. Lipsius and Bothe in their editions both felt that Historia Romana was too restrictive. For a thorough discussion of the title, see Woodman, edn. p. 95. Sumner (282) discusses the question very briefly but very suggestively.

¹² Sumner (282) emphasizes the importance of this fragment.

¹³ Homer, 1.5; Hesiod, 1.7; authors of the earlier Republic, 2.9; of the later Republic and early Empire, 36.

¹⁴ The dating technique is, admittedly, used only for important events (cf., e.g., 49.1).

¹⁵ Vossius thought that ‘raptus virginum Sabinarum’ might be a marginal gloss which became incorporated into the text.

¹⁶ Sumner (282) emphasizes the non-Roman material at the beginning of the history.

¹⁷ Lana (p. 164) and Portalupi (edn. p. xii) refer to Velleius' work as a universal history, by which they mean that it included both Roman and non-Roman material. They provide no arguments to support this, however, nor do they attempt to describe how Velleius migh have worked with his non-Roman material. Cf. Sumner, 282.

¹⁸ See Earl, D. C., The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 41 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Sumner (282) says, ‘By the time he [Velleius] reaches the second century and we are again able to see what he is doing, Rome dominates the stage. In the nature of things that was inevitable.’ Although agreeing on the inevitability of Rome's domination of the stage, I would suggest that Velleius interwove the two strands of Greek and Roman history until Rome finally did come to dominate, and that Carthage and Corinth represent the point at which the two strands finally fuse.

²⁰ If Livy's history were divided into two sections of 71 books each, the disparity between the times covered in the two halves would be even greater than in Velleius' two books. 1–71 reach from Aeneas to 91 b.c., 72–142 cover the 82 years between 91 and 9. Valerius Antias moved from the origins of Rome to Mancinus by Book 22; by Book 75 he had reached only 91. Claudius Quadrigarius, who probably began with the sack of Rome by the Gauls, reached 146 by Book 8 and 99 by Book 13, but in the next ten books he covered only about 17 years.

²¹ Velleius also alludes to a future work of his own which will be a regular history of a larger size (48.5; 96.3; 99.3; 103.4; 114.4; 119.1). This future work has exercised numerous scholars. The best discussion is that of Woodman, ‘Questions’, 287–8.

²² Compared to Livy's books, Velleius' second book is extremely long. For a handy chart of the length of Livy's books, see Stadter, P. A., ‘The Structure of Livy's History’, Historia 21 (1972), 304–5Google Scholar.

²³ Woodman (‘Questions’, 286 n. 4) discusses Nepos, Atticus, Varro, and Ateius Philologus very briefly.

²⁴ Peter, (HRR 2.xxxviii)Google Scholar suggests that Varro's Annales may have supplemented or amended the works of Nepos and Atticus (on whom see below pp. 167–8). I do not think that necessary or probable.

²⁵ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 286 n. 4.

²⁶ The title Chronica does not prove conclusively that it was only a chronological work; see Woodman, ‘Questions’, 284 n. 4, on breviaria and chronica.

²⁷ Orator 34.120: Cognoscat [the orator] etiam rerum gestarum et memoriae veteris ordinem, maxime scilicet nostrae civitatis, sed etiam imperiosorum populorum et regum inlustrium; quam laborem nobis Attici nostri levavit labor, qui conservatis notatisque temporibus, nihil cum inlustre praetermitteret, annorum septingentorum memoriam uno libro conligavit(cf. Brutus 3.4).

²⁸ Peter, , HRR 2.xxiiii–xxvGoogle Scholar; Muenzer, F., ‘Atticus als Geschichtschreiber’, Hermes 40 (1905), 84–5Google Scholar; Hirschfeld, O., ‘Velleius Paterculus and Atticus’, Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1913), pp. 778–9Google Scholar.

²⁹ Fr. 5P discusses the playwright Livius Andronicus. This, of course, is not conclusive. Livy, who has no interest in literary history except for the digression on the origin of drama (7.2), also mentions Andronicus (27.37.13). Presumably Atticus also mentioned Greek literary figures.

³⁰ A. H. McDonald, OCD ² s.v. Thallus.

³¹ In some cases there is simply too little known about an author even to speculate: C. Sulpicius Galba, the grandfather of the emperor, apparently wrote an abridgement ofa universal history (Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, vol. 2C (Berlin, 1926), p. 295)Google Scholar. But only two fragments survive. How long was it? How much did it include?

³² Woodman (‘Questions’, 284–5) examines Orosius, Festus, Florus, Sulpicius Severus, and Eutropius and then extrapolates a tradition backward, citing such similarities as emphasis on brevity and the works' scope in time. Orosius, who wrote about 400 years after Velleius, produced a work which is far longer than that of our historian and explicitly a Christian polemic. The work of Festus, written about 350 years after Velleius’ history, is hardly a history at all. It is only 495 lines long in the latest edition (The Breviarium of Festus, A Critical Edition with Historical Commentary by Eadie, J. W. (London, 1967)Google Scholar); the first half is devoted to the acquisition of the provinces and the second half to Rome's wars with Parthia. Florus, who at least wrote within a century of Velleius, records Rome's wars. He is solely concerned withRome. Sulpicius Severus, whose history stretches to a.d. 400, makes no bones about presenting a summary of the early books of the Old Testament. Eutropius, writing about 350 years after Velleius, produceda work which, although not even half as long as Velleius', does survey a long span of Roman history. The subject, however, is only Roman history. The works of these authors cannot be said to prove the existence of a tradition that predates Velleius and to which he belongs.

³³ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 286.

³⁴ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 285–6. Woodman comments (‘Questions’, 286 n. 5), ‘The apparently recent popularity in epitomes is a useful parallel’, and cites as examples the epitomes of Dionysius, Livy, Fenestella, and Vibius Maximus. As Woodman carefully cautions (ibid.), however, questions about how the last three of these works should be dated make the situation less than completely clear. The dates of the epitomes of Livy are unclear; Martial 14.190 proves that at least one existed by the poet's time. The date of the epitom of Fenestella is also unclear, while Vibius Maximus was a contemporary of Statius and is thus too lateto prove ‘recent popularity’.

³⁵ Lana (pp. 199–205), followed by Portalupi (edn. p. xviii), suggests that Velleius chose the form of the universal history as a response to anti-Roman universal histories like that of Pompeius Trogus. Yet, as Lana admits, there were other universal histories which were not anti-Roman (notably those of Diodorus and Nicolaus of Damascus). That Velleius wouldshow such subtlety seems to me unlikely.

³⁶ See e.g. Sumner, 284–5. Woodman, ‘Questions’,275–82, is particularly good, arguing for a date in the mid twenties and hence not contending that time pressed Velleius.

³⁷ ‘Questions’, 275–7

³⁸ E.g. Sumner, 284–5. Woodman (‘Questions’, 278–84) discusses the words in ancient literary criticism and concludes that, ‘Thus “speed” and “brevity” are simply technical ways of describing the selection of material or the pruning down of subject matter, and Velleius’ references to precisely these two features of his work need not imply fast writing in the literal sense at all. He might very well be claiming for his work a quality which was recommended in the handbooks of historiography’ (280). Although the words are clearly important in ancient literary criticism, and although Velleius may be using them to claim recommended virtues, I think that there may be an even simpler solution (see below).

³⁹ cf. 1.16.1; 29.2; 38.1; 52.3; 55.1; 86.1; 89.1; 99.4; 103.4.

⁴⁰ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 294.

⁴¹ Steffen, H. J. (‘Die Regierung des Tiberius in der Darstellung des Velleius Paterculus’ (diss., Kiel, 1954), p. 2)Google Scholar suggests the hypothesis that Velleius' history happened to be completed just as Vinicius' consulship was announced in 29 and that Velleius then inserted the appropriate references (my thanks to CQ's referee for providing a photostat of this material). Paladini (op. cit. in n. 5 above, 447) contends, I think correctly, that the desire to pay literary homage to Vinicius was only a pretext for writing the history. Apostrophe of a patron is very unusual in Roman historical writing if not unique to Velleius at this time. One might note that Lucretius would presumably have written his poem Memmius or no Memmius. Jodry, C. (‘L'utilisation des documents militaires chez Velleius Paterculus’, REL 29 (1951), 271)Google Scholar says that he sees no reason that Velleius could not have begun before 29, perhaps on his retirement from active military service in a.d. 14/15, but no arguments are provided (followed by Portalupi, edn. xvi, without argumentation). Lana (p. 299) says without argument that Velleius may have begun before 29.

⁴² Sumner, 284 and n. 145; followed by Woodman, ‘Questions’, 282 n. 1.

⁴³ Cf. 1.5.1: ‘Clarissimum deinde Homeri inluxit ingenium’. Yet one would expect Velleius to date an event as important as the beginning of the Olympic Games more precisely than by deinde. This, however, does not affect my point: Velleius may have had a precise indication of the date and then later substituted the reference to Vinicius. See n. 44 below.

⁴⁴ Consider 1.8.2: ‘hoc sacrum eodem loco instituisse fertur abhinc annos ferme MCCL Atreus, cum Pelopi patri funebres ludos faceret, quo quidem in ludicro omnisque generis certaminum Hercules victor extitit.’ This passage cuts both ways: it proposes an alternative to the date suggested in 1.8.1 and an alternative to the founder suggested in the sentence before Vinicius is mentioned. In any case, the passage could have been added later.

⁴⁵ Woodman, ‘Questions’, 282 n. 1.

⁴⁶ So Woodman, ‘Questions’, 281–2.

⁴⁷ For the parallels, see McGonagle, pp. 35 ff.

⁴⁸ E.g. Tiberius' generosity with the use of his bathtub (114.2) or the story of the old German crossing the Elbe to see Tiberius close at hand (107.1–2).

⁴⁹ Velleius' history does contain carefully crafted passages (see Woodman, A. J.'s discussion of 2.85.2–5, ‘Actium in Velleius’, Latomus 25 (1966), 564–6)Google Scholar, but it also contains some extremely awkward writing (e.g. 2.18). Bonner, S. F., Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Berkeley, 1949), p. 160Google Scholar, points out 2.18.4–6 as poor writing, and Woodman in the article just cited, p. 564, admits that that passage is ‘hardly exemplary’. The clumsiness of which Velleius was capable on occasion isbest seen by examining the whole of 2.18.

⁵⁰ 1.14.1 and 38.1, quoted above p. 163. Lana (p. 288) says bluntly that Velleius was not concerned with truth, utilitas, the edification of the reader, or conveying information. Such a view is not supported by the text and is directly refuted by the statements which introduce the two long digressions.

⁵¹ Portalupi (edn., p. xxiv) contends without argument that Velleius includes literature because he felt it was ‘a vital manifestation of the vitality of a people’. It is possible that literature is included under the influence of a source which discussed it. Yet if the source was a chronological table, presumably the authors would not have been grouped as theyare in Velleius but rather placed at the times appropriate to the individual authors. In any case, Velleius chose to include literary history whether it was in his sources or not.

⁵² See McGonagle, pp. 35 ff.

⁵³ For rhetorical influences in Velleius, see, in addition to the works cited in note 54 below, Castiglioni, L., ‘Alcune osservazioni a Velleio Patercolo’, RAL 7 (1931), 269–73Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ 6 and 7. See Woodman, A. J., ‘Velleius Paterculus’, in Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, ed. Dorey, T. A. (Boston, 1975), p. 11Google Scholar; Lana, p. 282.

⁵⁵ Woodman, ‘Velleius Paterculus’ (above, n. 54), p. 10 and n. 40.

⁵⁶ Paladini, op. cit. (above, n. 5), 454.

⁵⁷ Sumner (276–8) suggests that Velleius throws special emphasis on Thrace and hypothesizes that Velleius may have served there under Pomponius Flaccus and that he may indeed be the P. Vellaeus of Tac, Ann. 3.39, who commanded in Thrace in a.d. 21. This is possible, but, as Sumner recognizes, not subject to proof.

⁵⁸ The phrase is Sumner's (282), although he does not discuss the question in detail.

⁵⁹ I would like to thank Professors T. J. Luce and E. J. Champlin and Classical Quarterly's referee for invaluable advice and criticism in the preparation of this paper.