Livy on Virtus, Fortuna and Roman Pietas during the Gallic Invasion

Rob Young, M.A., J.D. 1

Introduction

Unique among the Roman historians up to the early empire, Titus Livy’s

annalistic Ab Urbe Condita Libri portrays Rome as an irresistible force which resulted

from the union of fortuna and the virtus of its people. Livy claims that Roman success 2

was based on the observance of pietas, or religious duty, affording to the gods their due. 3

Where proper pietas was observed, fortuna was sure to follow. Where it was not

properly observed, disaster loomed for the Romans. This paper describes Livy’s portrayal

of the quid pro quo between the Romans and their gods as it is set out in Book Five of

Livy’s history. More precisely, this paper focuses upon Livy’s narrative surrounding the

first Gallic invasion of Rome and how it is sculpted into a dichotomous structure,

showing the Romans gravitating between foolhardiness on the one hand and splendid

virtue on the other. In the same way, this paper will show how Livy portrayed the gods

with two natures, one being wrathful and ready to punish the Romans for the slightest

misstep, while the other being compassionate, embracing the Romans when they

display genuine acts of devotion and piety.

1 Adjunct Lecturer, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Department of Religious Studies. 2 Gian Biagio Conte, Latin Literature, trans. Joseph B. Solodow (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1994), 367. 3 Ronald Mellor, The Roman Historians (London: Routledge, 1999),57.

The organization of this paper advances these claims in four sections. Section

one introduces the fundamental framework for Roman cultic activity. Section two

outlines the background of Livy’s narrative of the Gallic War. Section three provides an

outline of Livy’s dichotomous representation of the acts of the gods and the Romans.

Finally, section four provides an analysis of the text, outlining Livy’s purpose to provide

a dichotomous portrayal of both the Romans and their gods and his thesis that virtus

leads to fortuna.

Section One: The Fundamentals of Roman Cultic Acts

Roman religious practices have been described as orthopraxic, that is, that there

was a quid pro quo presumed between the gods and men, where appropriate religious

rites and practices could bring the Romans into a proper relation with the gods, which

in turn obligated the gods to dispense their blessings. Known as the pax deorum, this 4

equilibrium between appropriate rite and dispensation of blessing was maintained

through three media, namely prayer, sacrifice, and divination. The proper formula for 5

utilizing prayer, sacrifice, and divination was loosely codified as the ius divinum. 6

Occasionally, despite its efficacy on many other occasions, the employment of ius

divinum did not lead to the desired result. This was usually interpreted as the result of a

god or god’s displeasure which would find expression through divine prodigies.

4 See generally Clifford Ando, The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). Ritual acts could also work toward ends other than orthopraxy, like the establishment of private or public identity, the formulation of discourse with the gods, bringing healing or purification, or toward the end of developing belief. 5 R.M. Ogilvie, The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1968), 23. 6 Ogilvie, 23.

Prodigies were extraordinary occurrences, sent or caused by the gods, which might

involve the broadcast of heavenly voices, geological anomalies, lightning, or strange

behavior in the natural world. The Roman state, ever interested in divining the will of 7

the gods, set forth particular criteria to enable state cultic officials to determine what

qualified as a prodigy. As Vert Rosenberger has stated, the formal inquiry process was

initiated and began when

a sign was reported to a magistrate, usually a consul or a praetor (nuntiatio). Then the magistrate carried the sign to the senate (relatio), in some cases using witnesses. If the senate accepted the sign, it became a prodigium and was noted on the whitened board of the pontifex maximus. The state thus publicly accepted the sign, and the new pair of consuls at the beginning of the year would see to its expiation. In the meantime, the senate ordered religious specialists-pontifices, decemviri, or haruspices-to find the correct expiatory rite for the prodigium. . .by inspecting their secret books. Again the senate was free to accept or to refuse the proposed rite.

8

When an anomalous event was determined to be a prodigy, the ritualistic formula was

adjusted to propitiate the displeased god or gods. This process of cult ritual innovation

was known as expiation. Once a prodigy was expiated, then the ius deorum would then 9

be brought into line with divine expectations, the cultic rites appropriately adjusted by

the changes brought about by the expiation. It was only through this method that the

pax romana could once again be established and once again allow Rome to receive the

blessing of the gods.

Section Two: The Background of the Gallic War

7 Ogilve, 58­59. 8 Veit Rosenberger, “The Gallic Disaster,” The Classical World, 96, no. 4 (Summer, 2003), 365­373, 369. 9 Rosenberger, 369.

Livy provides a solid background by which one may fully appreciate the story of

the Gallic migration and the ensuing war with Rome. According to Livy, the Gallic

migration that took place during the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Marcus

Manlius. This migration was instigated by the Celts, whose king, Ambigatus, troubled 10

by a burgeoning Gallic population, commissioned his two nephews, Bellovesus and

Sergovesus, to seek out a new homeland designated by signs from the gods. After 11

consultation with the gods, Ambigatus directed Sergvesus north to the “. . .Hercynian

uplands of South Germany while Bellovesus was granted the much pleasanter road into

Italy.” An initial wave of Gauls came to settle in the area near Milan while a subsequent 12

wave made up of Cenomanni tribe and led by one Etitovius, settled near Verona. Yet a 13

third wave, this time made up of the Boii and Lingones tribes, settled in an area

occupied by the Etruscans just across the Poe river. The last tribe that Livy was to 14

describe composed of the Senones descended to the area near the city of Clusium. It 15

was to the leaders of this final wave that the Romans sent an ill- mannered delegation to

express to the Gauls the Roman state’s displeasure. Ultimately, this delegation 16

succeeded in amplifying an already tense situation and before long, the delegation

precipitated war by attacking a Gallic chieftain. The Gauls ended up sacking Clusium 17

and then, following the routing of a Roman force that had been sent to address the

10 Livy, The Early History of Roman, trans. Aubrey De Selincourt (London: Penguin Books, 1960), 5:34. 11 Livy, 5:34. 12 Livy, 5:34. 13 Livy, 5:34. 14 Livy, 5:34. 15 Livy, 5:34. 16 Livy, 5:36. 17 Livy, 5:36.

Gallic aggression, proceeded to an undefended Rome. Rome was soon overrun by the 18

Gallic tribesmen who burned and pillaged the city, forcing the able bodied inhabitants

to assemble at the last remaining stronghold, the Capital citadel, where the Romans,

with considerable exertion were able to ultimately force the conflict into a stalemate. 19

Section Three: Livy’s Portrayal of Roman Cultic Activity

Livy begins his narrative melodramatically with the story of a prodigious voice,

heard in the stillness of the night, announcing that the Gauls were coming to Rome. 20

Considering that by Livy’s own admission the voice was heard only by an unimportant

plebeian, it seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill. But stretching and

puffing up what would appear to most to be a perfectly forgettable detail to begin to

establish crisis for the Roman state is precisely Livy’s strategy. Claiming not only that

the voice was a divine warning, Livy also indicates that the voice was a prodigy which

required no interpretation: all that was necessary was direct and authoritative action. 21

It is at this point that Livy deepens the crisis by showing the profound indifference of

the Romans to the gods’ warning. Rather than heed the express warning and make

necessary ritual adjustments---for the gods were clearly not pleased if they would allow

yet another marauding host attack Rome--- Livy claims the Romans ignored the report.

He then further compounds the apparent danger to the Romans by noting that Rome

was now essentially defenseless, having earlier indicted one of their most capable

fighting men, Marcus Furius Camillus, who then went into exile and sought divine

18 Livy, 5:36­5:39. 19 Livy 5:46­5:51. 20 Livy, 5:32. 21 Livy, 5:32.

retribution for Rome’s ungrateful attitude. Thus in a few short moves, Livy has created 22

the equivalent of a religious- turned-political tsunami, one that the Romans, if they were

properly exercising pietas, should have anticipated. As things were, they did not

anticipate the impending disaster, failed to undertake preparations for defense, and

allowed the Gallic tidal wave to crash upon the Roman shore unimpeded with

devastating effect.

Livy next amplifies the tension further through his portrayal of Rome’s second

misstep: the provocative acts of the Roman embassy to the Gauls. As Livy explains it,

once insulted by the embassy’s rejection of their terms for peace and outraged through

the embassy’s killing of one of their chieftains, the Gauls spared no time in taking the

offensive against Rome. Much like the first dramatic buildup, Livy contrasts the fury of 23

the Gauls with the passivity of the Roman commanders, who evidenced little concern,

taking “. . . no precautions—no regular defensive position had been chosen, [and] no

fortifications had been prepared to give shelter in case of need.” As was the case earlier, 24

Livy shows that the Romans, compounding military error with religious error, failed to

consult the auspices, proceeding “. . . without sign from the flight of birds or the entrails

of beasts—the very gods, to say nothing of men, forgotten.” Thus, by Chapter 38, Livy 25

shows a Roman people who not only had incited the Gauls to all-out war but they had

also slighted the gods, not only ignoring their prodigious warnings but out-rightly

failing to take measure of the gods’ will. In the height of arrogance, the Romans act

22 Livy, 5:32. 23 Livy, 5:38. 24 Livy, 5:38. 25 Livy, 5:38.

apathetically, taking for granted that no matter how indifferent they acted, the gods

would ensure that the Romans would prevail over their enemies.

After overcoming very brief and ineffectual resistance from the Romans, the

Gallic horde found itself through the gates of a deserted Rome. Both the Roman state

cult and army had failed its people. The relationship between the Romans and their gods

was now so compromised, according to Livy, that doom (which had been foreshadowed

in Chapter 32) seemed the inevitable outcome. Enhancing this conclusion is Livy’s brush

stroke portrayal of the city of Rome over-ridden by the Gauls, where “. . .now here, now

there , the yells of triumph, women’s screams or the crying of children, the roar of

flames or the long rumbling crash of falling masonry.” The state cultic apparatus, 26

having initially failed to placate the gods, was now as equally desperate and shattered as

the city which was its home. The ancient worship of Quirinus, the ancient god of the

Sabines, and of Vesta, whose temple kept the eternal flame, were preparing for the end:

[T] he priest of Quirinus and the Vestal Virgins, careless of their personal belongings, were discussing the fate of the sacred objects in their care. . . The best course, they thought, would be to store them in jars and bury them in the shrine near the priest’s house. . . the rest of them they managed between them to carry along the road that leads to the pile-bridge to the Janiculum.

27

Just when all seems to be lost, Livy injects into his narrative a reversal of course and

fortune. Doom and absolute destruction is supplanted by hope brought about by

individual actors demonstrating their pietas and selflessly acting in ways the damaged

state cult could not. As Livy writes of one instance, witnessing the priest and Vestal

26 Livy, 5:41 27 Livy, 5:40; Lesley Adkins & Roy Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (New York: Facts on File, 1994), 269; 273.

Virgins retreating to the capital with their sacred baggage in hand is “. . .a man of

humble birth named Albinus, who was driving his wife and family in a cart, amongst the

rabble of other non-combatants escaping from the city.” Livy continues, stating that 28

Even at such a moment Albinius could remember the difference between what was due to God and what to man, and feeling it to be an impious thing that he and his family should be seen driving while priestesses of the state toiled along on foot carrying the nation’s sacred emblems, he told his wife to get out of the cart with her little boys, took up the Vestals and their burden instead, and drove them to their destination in Caere.”

29

Further acts of piety were to follow. According to Livy, all the remaining able bodied

citizens capable of bearing arms withdrew, with “. . . into the fortress on the Capital;

from that stronghold, properly armed and provisioned, it was their intention to make a

last stand for themselves, for their gods and for the Roman name.” That conditions 30

were dire is indicated by the actions of the priest and priestesses of Vesta who were

ordered to remove their sacred emblems so that they would not be defiled by the

bloodshed and burning. Yet despite the dire circumstances, Livy portrays yet another 31

selfless act, this time the acts of members of the surviving patrician class, assembled in

full regalia, to offer themselves as living sacrifices:

It was the wish of those who had held the highest office to dress for death in the outward signs of such rank as they enjoyed or service they had rendered in the days of their former fortunes. . . they took their seats, each in the courtyard of his house, on the ivory-inlaid chairs of the curile magistrates, having first—we are told—repeated after Marcus Folius the Pontifex Maximus a solemn vow to offer themselves as a sacrifice for their country and the Roman people.

32

28 Livy, 5:40 29 Livy, 5:40 30 Livy 5:41 31 Livy, 5:39. 32 Livy, 5:41.

An equally remarkable act, however, was the heroic and dutiful religious procession of

Caius Fabius Dorsuo. According the Livy,

There used to be an annual sacrifice on the Quirinal and the duty of celebrating it belonged to the family of the Fabii. Determined not to allow the ceremony to lapse, Caius Fabius Dorsuo risked his life to perform it; wearing a toga girt up in ceremonial fashion and carrying the sacred vessels, he made his way down the slope of the Capital and through enemy pickets, ignoring challenges and threats, to the Quirinal, where with due solemnity, omitting nothing, he performed the rite, and with the same firm step, the same resolute face, returned by the same way to his companions on the Capitol, sure that the gods would favor one who had not neglected to serve them even for the fear of death. The Gauls did nothing to stop him; perhaps they were too astonished by his incredible audacity, perhaps even touched (for the religious sentiment is strong in them) by a sort of awe.

33

Disregarding personal safety, Fabius discharges his duty to the gods to the

astonishment of the enemy. While this and other acts of individual piety were not to

bring an immediate end to the hostilities--for the Roman people had to endure

additional suffering brought about by pestilence and starvation—a near armistice,

where Gallic terms were rejected by the Dictator Camillus, led to a series of unexpected

victories which eventually annihilated the enemy. 34

Livy’s conclusion of Book Five shows the Roman people as virtuous as they were

impious before the invasion and the gods being as equally forgiving as they were earlier

the catalysts for destruction. Camillus, according to Livy, immediately after his triumph,

procured a decree from the Senate authorizing that “. . . all sacred buildings having been

33 Livy, 5:46. 34 Livy, 5:49.

in the possession of the enemy, should be restored and purified.” He also recognized 35

the people of Caere for their acts of providing the Roman priests and sacred objects

asylum during the Gallic hostilities. Most importantly, he authorized Capitoline Games

“. . . to celebrate the preservation in a time of peril, by Jupiter Greatest and Best, of his

own temple and of the Citadel of Rome.” 36

Section Four: Analysis

As Rsenberger has noted, when other ancient authors are consulted, much of

Livy’s narrative of the Gallic invasion appears to be constructed. Not only does it 37

appear that Rome was actually not destroyed during the invasion—the burnt layer

traditionally ascribed to the destruction of the Gauls dating several centuries before the

invasion—but there also appears reason to question the number of casualties. 38

Accuracy, however, is not Livy’s main interest. For that, we fortunately still have other

more or less reliable sources including Polybius, Pompeius Trogus, Diodorus Siculus,

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian and Dio Cassius . 39

Rather, Livy has other motives for telling his story. As one author has noted,

being “. . . [a]nxious to palliate the defeat that followed [the Gallic invasion], Roman

historians have endeavored to throw the blame either on circumstances, such as lack of

time, or on their commanders who had not the wit to make the dispositions which the

danger demanded.” Livy, in his contrived arrangement of the factual circumstances, 40

35 Livy, 5:49. 36 Livy, 5:49. 37 Rosenberger, 364. 38 Rosenberger, 364; L. Homo, “The Gallic Wars of Rome “ in The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. S.A.Cook, F.E. Adcock and M.P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1954), 555. 39 Homo, 554­555. 40 Homo, 363.

participates in the former categorization. Camillus’ voice is the voice of Livy who, in

moralizing tones, pronounces judgment upon the recklessness of Roman impiety.

Rome’s disaster was the result of a particular circumstance, the circumstance of the

Roman people having turned away from the gods who had previously made Rome an

irresistible force. At the same time Livy casts judgment, he also points to the inherent

virtue of the Romans, who, despite the evil of the time, remembered their religion, and

sought the protection of the gods on the Capitol. It was through the individual acts of

pietas, from the assistance to the Vestals provided by Albinius to the self-sacrifice of the

patricians to the procession of Dorsuo, that the gods were moved to give the Romans

back their city, “restor[ing]. . .victory and the old martial glory [the Romans] had

forfeited”. The gods of Livy are jealous gods and grant no indulgence to those who 41

ignore them or take their blessings for granted.

Conclusion

Thus it can be seen that Livy’s narrative in the Ab Urbe Condita Libri should not

so much be taken as a literal account of the events surrounding the Gallic invasion as it

should be a form of moral admonition and warning. Livy contrives events to create

dichotomies with respect to the actions of men and the actions of the gods, both good

and bad. In the end, Livy’s use of the Gallic invasion is a device whose main point was so

eloquently phrased by Camillus in his speech to the Romans: Finally, in Book 5:51, Livy

puts a speech in the mouth of Camillus which encapsulates the entire thesis of Livy,

Evil times came—and then we remembered our religion: we sought the protection of our gods on the Capitol, by the seat of Jupiter Greatest and Best; having lost all we possessed, we buried our holy things, or took them away to

41 Livy, 5:51.

other towns, where no enemy would see them; though abandoned by gods and men, we never ceased to worship. Therefore it is that heaven has given us back our city and restored to us victory and the old martial glory we had forfeited, turning the horror of defeat and death upon the enemy who, in his blind avarice for gold, was disloyal to his compact and his plighted word.

42

In short, virtus and fortuna precede hand in hand. Those who remember the gods, who

demonstrate their virtus through pietas will not only triumph over evil times but will

also be restored to victory and martial glory.

42 Livy, 5:51.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Livy, The Early History of Roman. Translated by Aubrey De Selincourt. London: Penguin Books, 1960.

Secondary Sources

Ando, Clifford. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

Boatwright, Mart T., Daniel J. Gargola & Richard J.A. Talbert, The Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Conte, Gian Biagio. Latin Literature. Translated by Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Adkins, Lesley & Roy Adkins. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. New York: Facts on File, 1994.

Homo, L. “The Gallic Wars of Rome “ in The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by S.A.Cook, F.E. Adcock and M.P. Charlesworth, 554-580. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Mellor, Ronald. The Roman Historians. London: Routledge, 1999. Ogilvie, R.M.. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1968. Rose, H.J.. Handbook of Latin Literature. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1960.