In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:From Source to Sermo:Narrative Technique in Livy 34.54.4-8Cynthia DamonLivy's predilection for an indirect narrative style is well known. It is most clearly visible when he is adapting a passage from an author who uses a more direct style, Polybius, for example, who frequently pronounces judgment on the events he describes, praising or criticizing military strategies, assessing the importance of political decisions, and so on.1 Livy occasionally reproduces Polybian analyses (...) in his own voice, as when he states that the force of Carpetani that faced Hannibal at the Tagus River would have won if the location had not favored Hannibal (inuicta acies, si aequor dimicaretur campo, 21.5.11; cf. Polybius 3.14.4, ). But more often he makes the same point indirectly, by ascribing the analysis to someone present at the time. Thus the μεγαλοψυχια that Polybius himself praises in Scipio Africanus ("Perhaps even at this early stage of his career it would be right to take note of Scipio's greatness of mind," 10.40.6) is present in Livy's version, too, but is acknowledged by Scipio's contemporaries, not by his historian: sensere etiam barbari magnitudinem animi ("even foreigners perceived his greatness of mind," 27.19.6). Lambert's book on indirect statement in Livy contains an excellent overview of the subject (1946, 46-65). In this paper I examine a single passage, one that is rendered particularly transparent by the chance survival of parallel accounts. In this passage one can see how Livy uses the indirect technique to create a smooth narrative surface over a historical tradition troubled by contradictions of both fact and interpretation.Luce (1977, 140-50), in his discussion of Livy's management of conflicting sources, particularly conflicts of fact, argues that Livy was "at the mercy of his sources" (150). The present paper examines Livy's response to what he treats as a conflict of interpretation, and shows him in creative control. In a nutshell, I will argue that Livy presents the divergent [End Page 251] analyses of different sources as a contemporary debate, sermones pro and con. My aim is to document Livy's independence in constructing both narrative and commentary at 34.54.4-8, and to illustrate one mechanism he uses to control refractory material. In the process we will also learn something about Livy's priorities as a historian.In chapter 54 of book 34 Livy mentions the institution of special seating for senators at public festivals, specifically at the ludi Romani of 194 B.C.: horum aedilium [sc. A. Atilius Serranus L. Scribonius Libo aediles curules] ludos Romanos primum senatus a populo secretus spectauit ("At the ludi Romani of these same aediles, senators were seated apart from the populace for the first time," 34.54.4).2 He had reported this innovation ten chapters earlier, too, in his catalog of the censors' business for 194:gratiam quoque ingentem apud eum ordinem [sc. senatorium] pepererunt, quod ludis Romanis aedilibus curulibus imperarunt ut loca senatoria secernerent a populo; nam antea in promiscuo spectarant.(34.44.5)The censors earned a great deal of gratitude from senators because they instructed the curule aediles to separate senate and populace at the ludi Romani. Before this, the audience had been mixed in the stands.The later notice, 35.54.4, appears amidst the year-end material for 194 (34.54.1-8). Commentators are quick to label the second notice a doublet: between chapters 44 and 54 Livy changed sources, and at 54 he failed to weed out the superfluous information.3But Livy's second passage is much more than a doublet of the first, and gives plentiful evidence of careful composition. To the notice I have already quoted is appended a report of contemporary sermones:praebuitque sermones, sicut omnis nouitas solet, aliis tandem quod multo ante debuerit tributum existimantibus amplissimo ordini, (5) aliis demptum ex dignitate populi quidquid maiestati patrum adiectum esset interpretantibus, et omnia discrimina talia quibus ordines discernerentur et concordiae et libertatis aequae minuendae esse: (6) ad quingentesimum [End Page 252] octauum annum in prosmiscuo spectatum esse; quid repente factum cur immisceri sibi in cauea patres plebem nollent? (7) cur... (shrink)