THE CONCEPTION OF HISTORY IN VELLEIUS
This article explores the conception of history in Velleius Paterculus' historiography. It argues that this conception is, against common assumptions, by no means one dimensional court propaganda, but the result of a subtle tension between teleology and unpredictability arising from Tiberian Rome. Approaching Velleius' History from this perspective allows us to deepen our understanding of both the significance of history under Tiberius and the anthropological function and value of (historiographical) narrative as a means of coming to terms with the exposure of human life. he transition from the republic to the principate after a century of turmoil and civil war is usually considered the most crucial breaking point in Roman history a process which is, nevertheless, not least characterised by the protagonists' effort to disguise the change as continuity. The result was a balancing act between continuity and discontinuity and a tension between the past on one side and the present and the future on the other. Velleius Paterculus has usually been read as a splendid example of a blunt court propagandist who refuses to acknowledge any disruption in Roman history through Augustus' reign and whose historiographical work helps to keep up the pretence of continuity and stability. Against these common assumptions, this paper examines Velleius' Historia Romana in order to show that its conception of history is more complex and rooted in the subtle tension between teleology and uncertainty in Tiberian Rome. Approaching Velleius from this angle helps to shed light on the significance of historical narrative as a means of grappling with socio political crisis, with general uncertainty and by extension, the exposure of human life. The argument is divided into three major parts. The first section is based on the observation that the diffuse influence of superhuman forces such as fortuna, fata, felicitas and the gods is more prominent and of greater importance than has commonly been acknowledged. Nevertheless, as I argue in the second section, the eulogistic attitude of Velleius' text cannot be I am particularly grateful to Ingo Gildenhard and Jonas Grethlein who gave this article their constant feedback and kind support. I also owe thanks to John Marincola and the anonymous referees of Histos for their stimulating comments, as well as to the DAAD for enabling a stay at the University of Cambridge where this article was begun. Part of the research has received funding from the European Research Council under European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007 2013) ERC Grant Agreement no. 312321 (AncNar) The text of Velleius is that of Watt (1998) the translations are from Shipley's Loeb edition, adapted as needed. T The Conception of History in Velleius Paterculus' Historia Romana 77 denied. This is trenchantly reflected on both the level of the story and in the narrative composition: the History refuses to acknowledge a breaking point between the old republic and Octavian and, instead, emphasises unbroken continuity and identifies a strong teleological drive in Roman history leading to Augustus and Tiberius. In accordance with this, the narrative form prominently features compositional techniques that initiate a strong teleology and monophony. Roman history is thus conceptualised as a closed space with no room for controversies, uncertainties or open future. I think that this tension is both a product of Tiberian Rome and crucial for our understanding of the History. Therefore, I argue in the last paragraph that Velleius' narrative is an attempt to come to terms with the experience of political, military and ideological fragility in Tiberian Rome and accordingly, that the view of him as a court propagandist falls short of doing justice to his narrative. By this means, the peculiarities involved in writing history under Tiberius are addressed as is also the significance of narrative as a possibility to come to grips with real life experiences. I. Fortune, Fate, Felicities: Unpredictability and Open Future in Tiberian Rome When it comes to explaining the causes of actions, events and developments, fortune plays a leading role in Velleius' History. Fortuna figures prominently in more than seventy situations. This accumulation has stimulated a number 1 As is well known, the praising tone and Velleius' obvious proximity to Tiberius have earned him a reception that was almost exclusively negative until well into the twentieth century, despite Dihle's optimistic article in the RE (1955) Lana (1952) esp. 7, does not want to classify Velleius as a historian, but as a mere propagandist who published his work on the occasion of the anniversary of the reclamation of the standards from the Parthians. Syme (1958) 200 first neglects Velleius' existence altogether, denying that anything has survived 'from the Roman historians who wrote in the hundred and thirty years' between Livy and Tacitus. Klingner (1958) 194 in a similar approach declares that Velleius can easily be dismissed. Later, Syme (1984) refers outright to 'mendacity in Velleius' Even in 2000, Schmitzer (2000) esp. 22, still records that Velleius 'habe nicht spurbar an Renommee gewonnen' and has been seen as 'footnote material' only, while Eder (2005) 15 calls him a 'court historian' But the last years have seen a growing interest in Velleius. The most splendid evidence is Cowan (2011) which not least builds on Woodman's commentaries (1977 and 1983) taking Velleius seriously as a historiographer, and drives forward the interest in Velleius' work that has been stimulated by scholars such as Lana, Sumner, Syme, Hellegouarc'h, Elefante, Schmitzer and Gowing (cf. Cowan (2011a) xiii) 2 For a coherent treatment of explanations in Velleius, see Marincola (2011) Since he highlights Velleius' tendency to see 'the world largely in terms of individual achievements' (136) this article is partially complementary to his by focussing on the role of those forces that cannot be fully influenced by individuals. 3 See Elefante's concordance (1992)