1. Kraus, C., ‘No Second Troy: Topoi and Refoundation in Livy, Book V, TAPA 124 (1994), 267–89Google Scholar. Recent studies have focused on the recurrence of significant places in historiographical narration and their symbolic meaning in ancient imagination. See for example Griffe, M., ‘L'Espace de Rome dans le Livre I de l'Histoire de Tite-Live’ in Arts et Légendes d'Espaces: Figures de Voyage et Rhetoriques du Monde, edd. Jacob, C. and Lestringant, F. (Paris, 1981), 111–22Google Scholar; Jaeger, M., Livy's Written Rome (Ann Arbor, 1997)Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., ‘Illusion and Reality in Latin Topographical Writing’, G&R 32 (1985), 197–208Google Scholar; Leach, E. W., The Rhetoric of Space: Literary and Artistic Representations of Landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome (Princeton, 1988)Google Scholar; Nicolet, C., Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Ann Arbor, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar); for a similar interest in oratory see Vasaly, A., Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1993Google Scholar).

2. Kraus, , op. cit., 270Google Scholar.

3. For the relevance of these two key moments in Livy see also Serres, M., Rome: The Book of Foundations (Stanford, 1991), 38Google Scholar. The symbolic significance of the destruction of a city in the ancient rhetoric of war is analysed by Purcell, N., ‘On the Sacking of Carthage and Corinth’ in Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, edd. Innes, D., Hine, H., and Pelling, C. (Oxford, 1995), 133–59Google Scholar.

4. Kraus, , op. cit., 282 ff.Google Scholar

5. Livy 6.1.1–3. The deeds of the Romans from the founding of the city of Rome to its Capture (Quae ab condita urbe Roma ad captam) … I have set forth in five books … From now on a clearer and more reliable military and political history shall be set forth from he second beginning of the city (ab secunda origine) which has been reborn, as if from the old roots, more luxuriantly and fruitfully.

6. Kraus, , op. cit., 282Google Scholar.

7. Livy 24.9.7.

8. Plut, . Marc. 9.4Google Scholar. Cf. also Poseidonius, , FGrH 87 Fr. 42 abGoogle Scholar; Plut, . Fab. 19.3Google Scholar.

9. For this event of Marcellus' career, Livy is not available. Klotz, A., ‘Die Quellen der plutarchischen Lebensbeschreibung des Marcellus’, RhM 83 (1934), 289–316Google Scholar, judging from the later Livianic tradition in Orosius, Eutropius, and the periochae, believed that Livy's version included most of the positive elements in Plutarch's account.

10. Livy 23.16.15–16. Cf. also Livy 23.30.19; Cic, . Brutus 3.12Google Scholar; Virg, . Am. 6.857Google Scholar; Silius Italicus 12.166ff.; Claudianus, , Bell. Goth. 138ff.Google Scholar; Val. Max. 4.1.7. For an opposite view see Plut, . Comp. Pelop. et Marc. 1.4–5Google Scholar, who reports the negative judgment of Polybius, who denies that Hannibal was ever defeated in war in Italy. For a similar opinion see also Diod. 29.19. For Marcellus’ first campaign against Hannibal (216–214) it is generally agreed that Livy changes iver from Coelius Antipater to Valerius Antias. Klotz, A., Livius und seine Vorgänger (Stuttgart, 1941 ), ii. 158Google Scholar suggested that Livy turned to Antias chiefly to show Marcellus' early successes in a brighter light. For the positive characterization of Marcellus in Livy until the capture of Syracuse see the detailed article of Carawan, E., ‘The Tragic History of Marcellus and Livy's Characterization’, CJ 80 (1984–1985), 131–41Google Scholar.

11. For Livy's problematic chronology of Marcellus’ Sicilian expedition see De Sanctis, G., Storia del Romani (Turin, 1916), iii.2.330–6Google Scholar and Beloch, K. J., Romische Geschichte (Berlin, 1926), iv.2.278–80Google Scholar.

12. Livy 25.24.2.

13. For a detailed account of these events see Polyb. 7.2–5; 8.3–7; 8.37; Livy 24.4–7; 24.21–39; 25.23–4.10; Zonaras, 9.5; Tzetzes, , Hist. 2.103–49Google Scholar; Plut, . Marc. 14–18Google Scholar; Appian, , Sic. 3–5Google Scholar.

14. Zonaras, Tzetzes, and Appian do not report the incident. The text of Polybius is more problematic. His narration of the events in 8.37 presents, as noted by Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1957–1979)Google Scholar, ad loc., compression and summarization by an excerptor who concludes the account rather abruptly. Nevertheless Polybius' bias against Marcellus, due to his close relation with the Scipiones, hardly would have allowed this characterization of Marcellus. Cf. Croizat, N., Tite-Live. Histoire Romaine. Livre XXV (Paris, 1992), xxiiGoogle Scholar, who doubts that the episode of the tears of Marcellus was found in the Greek historian: ‘on a montré que Polybe était plutôt hostile au général romain. En tout cas, l'anecdote des pleurs de Marcellus sur la ville …, paraît bien étrangére au prosaïsme de Polybe.’ On Polybius' bias against Marcellus see Mönzer, F., RE III 2738Google Scholar. See also Cassola, F., I Gruppi Politici Romani ml III Secolo A.C. (Trieste, 1962), especially 326–30Google Scholar. De Sanctis, , op. cit., 386–7Google Scholar, further notices that the description of the assault of Syracuse, related by Polybius in 8.3–7, is in order to show the tactical inadequacy of the attackers and Marcellus.

15. Among other writers the incident is only reported by later sources, Plut, . Marc. 19.1Google Scholar, Augustine, , Civ. Dei I.6.iii.14Google Scholar; Silius Italicus 14.665–78.

16. On the topic see also Burck, E., ‘The Third Decade’ in Livy, ed. Dorey, T. A. (London, 1971), 21–46Google Scholar.

17. Cf. Livy 1.10.1; 1.29.5; 3.58.6; 5.30.4; 6.3.4; 21.12.4; 23.20.5; 38.14.14. Cf. for a similar usage Caes, . BG 1.39.4Google Scholar; 1.20.1; 7.38.1; Sallust, , BJ 58.5Google Scholar; 62.1; 71.5; 107.3; 82.2; Tacitus, , Ann. 1.22Google Scholar; 12.47; Hist. 3.58.

18. Plut, . Pyrrh. 34.4Google Scholar.

19. Polyb. 8.20.10.

20. The incident has received much attention. See Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), 282–7Google Scholar, for a summary of views.

21. The Polybian fragment of the episode (38.21) is badly mutilated in the beginning and reported by an excerptor and there is no reference to tears. Since they are instead reported by Appian (Lib. 132) and Diodorus (32.24), whose source was Polybius, most surely they were also mentioned in Polybius. On the topic see Astin, op. cit., 283. There are different opinions on when the incident occurs. Walbank, op. cit. (1957–79), ad loc., opts for Appian's account and believes that the episode took place when, on Scipio's orders, the area between the market place and the Byrsa was set alight and the fire spread widely. Astin, op. cit., 283–4 has argued that the incident took place some days later, when Carthage was ceremonially destroyed.

22. On the topic see Walbank, F. W., ‘Polybius and the Roman State’, GRBS 5 (1964), 239–60Google Scholar; Brink, C. O.–Walbank, F. W., ‘The Construction of the Sixth Book of Polybius’, CQ 4 (1954), 97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford, 1981), 104Google Scholar.

23. On the topic see also de Romilly, J., The Rise and Fall of States according to Greek Authors (Ann Arbor, 1977), 6Google Scholar.

24. See Walbank, , op. cit. (1964), 254Google Scholar; Henrichs, A., ‘Graecia Capta: Roman Views of Greek Culture’, HSCP 97 (1995), 243–61Google Scholar.

25. Plut, . Marc. 1.2Google Scholar.

26. On Livy's predilection for indirect characterization see among others P, G. Walsh, Livy. His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), 82ff.Google Scholar; Burck, , op. cit., 32ff.Google Scholar

27. II. 24.507 ff.

28. Purcell, , op. cit., 138Google Scholar; Hornblower, , op. cit., 104ff.Google Scholar

29. In Perioch. 112.9 it is reported that Livy describes a similar incident at another turning point of Roman history, as Caesar wept over the death of Pompey. The episode is not narrated in Caesar, BC 103–6 but is reported in Plut, . Pomp. 80.5Google Scholar. Octavian too was said to have wept at the news of Antony's death in Plut, . Ant. 78.2Google Scholar. On the passage see Hornblower, , op. cit., 104Google Scholar.

30. Livy 45.4.2—3. The account of the embassy is lost in Polybius and Diodorus, so we do not know whether it was present there. In Plutarch, the incident is not reported, but, in his account, Aemilius Paullus sheds tears as he encounters Perseus (Aemil. 26.9).

31. On the topic see Hornblower, , op. cit., 105ff.Google Scholar

32. Polyb. 39.8.5.

33. On the structure of Livy's history divided into pentads and decades see Stadter, P., ‘The Structure of Livy's History, Historia 21 (1972), 287–307Google Scholar, especially 291 for the end of the pentad in book 45. Cf. also Walsh, , op. cit., 5–8Google Scholar.

34. Livy 45.9.2–7. Similarly Polybius (29.21.1–6) cites the wise and prophetic words of Demetrius of Phaleron who, when Alexander destroyed the Persian Empire, pondered on the mutability of fortune, and foresaw a similar destiny for the Macedonian Empire.

35. Polyb. 3.1–3.

36. See Burck, , op. cit., 24Google Scholar; Stadter, , op. cit., 290Google Scholar; Walsh, , op. cit., 173Google Scholar.

37. Cic, . Verr. 4.52Google Scholar.

38. Livy, , Praef. 9Google Scholar ‘… rather let each reader pay keen attention to the following things: what the life and customs were, through what men and by what arts, at home and abroad, our imperium was both created and increased. Next let him, in thought, follow what was at first, with the gradual collapse of discipline, a subsidence as it were of morals, then mark how they slipped more and more, and then began to move with headlong impetus, until we have reached the present times, in which we can endure neither our vices nor their cure’ (‘ad ilia mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit; labante deinde paulatim disciplina velut dissidentes primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, turn ire coeperint praecipites, donee ad haec tempora, quibus nee vitia nostra nee remedia pati possumus perventum est’).

39. For this idea which is also central to many Greek historians, see de Romilly, , op. cit., 17Google Scholar.

40. Livy 26.32.4. On this passage see also Jaeger, , op. cit., 129 ff.Google Scholar

41. Manlius Torquatus refers most certainly to the temple of Honos and Virtus which was located near the Porta Capena.

42. This is a leading idea in Livy's work. The Roman people have shown great strength until they have fallen victims of corrupting influences from abroad. Cf. Livy, , Praef. 11–12Google Scholar. On the topic see Feldherr, A., Spectacle and Society in Livy's History (Berkeley, 1998), 37–50Google Scholar.

43. The idea is a novelty of the Livian narration. Polybius (9.10) criticizes Roman behaviour on two counts. The Syracusan plunder could contribute nothing to the aggrandizement of Rome but its sight is likely to inspire jealousy and hatred in those from whom it has been taken. See Walbank, , op. cit. (1957–1979)Google Scholar, ad loc. For Polybius, the plunder of Syracuse mainly undermined Roman authority; for Livy it weakened Roman character. See Carawan, , op. cit., 137Google Scholar; Jaeger, , op. cit., 128–9Google Scholar.

44. The importance of the plunder of Syracuse in Livy's narrative is highlighted by Livy's speakers who repeatedly mention the spoils of Syracuse as an important turning-point in Roman history. Cf. Cato's, speech against the repeal of the Lex Oppia (34.4.3–4)Google Scholar. After castigating the diverse vices, avarice and luxury, and every sort of libidinous temptation that was infecting Rome from Greece and the East, Cato calls to mind the spoils of Syracuse: ‘They are dangers, believe me, those statues which have been brought into the city from Syracuse. For now I hear far too many people praising and marvelling at the ornaments of Corinth and Athens and laughing at the terracotta antefixes of our Roman gods’ (‘infesta, mihi credite, signa ab Syracusis illata sunt huic urbi. lam nimis multos audio Corinthi et Athenarum ornamenta laudantes mirantesque et antefixa fictilia deorum Romanorum ridentes’). For Cato's ideas reflecting Livy's own see Pollitt, J., ‘The Impact of Greek Art on Rome’, TAPA 108 (1978), 155–74Google Scholar. On the topic see also Luce, T. J., Livy: the Composition of His History (Princeton, 1977), 251–3Google Scholar, who has argued that the speech of Cato recalls precisely the language of Livy's preface. On the verb mirorsee also Jaeger, , op. cit., 130ff.Google Scholar

45. On this behaviour perceived as un-Roman, see Henrichs, , op. cit., 251Google Scholar.

46. Livy 27.26.14–27.1.

47. Cf. Livy 27.27.11. Cf. also 27.33.11. On the topic see also Carawan, , op. cit, 137–41Google Scholar who has shown that the fall of Syracuse, in Livy's account, signals a peripaty in the remarkable military career and in the character of Marcellus. From this point on, his character shows signs of moral failing. See also Jaeger, , op. cit, 127Google Scholar.

48. On this passage see also Jaeger, , op. cit., 130Google Scholar who notices how Livy juxtaposes, in his narration, the shield of Marcius and the temple of Honos and Virtus. As Livy presents it, the shield commemorates a victory achieved through exemplary behaviour. The shield of Marcius thus commemorates the Romans' ability to preserve themselves intact, while the spoils of Syracuse represent Romans falling under the influence of a conquered enemy.

49. See n. 39.