English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Livy’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, ε μbν κ παρατÀêεως ναγκÀσθησαν ï ΚαρøηδÞνιïι διακινδυνεàειν, μïλïγïυμÛνως iν ττÜθησαν). But more often he makes the same point indirectly, by ascribing the analysis to someone present at the time. Thus the μεγαλïψυøÝα 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

From Source to Sermo: Narrative Technique in Livy 34.54.4-8