Livy: Hannibal's War. Books 21–30 by J. C. Yardley

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 193 that are "arguably uniquely Roman" Pagan concludes that "[literary and material remains] validate the decision to focus solely on Roman gardens, in Roman literature, as products of a Roman imagination" (3). This confident assertion is recast towards the end of the work in farmore hesitant terms: "it is possible that the Romans did have a particular way of thinking about gardens and it is closely tied to the literary expressions and the literary forms that they developed" (124). Such reticence suggests that Pagan is not completely convinced by her arguments, undermining awork that offers much worth reading. Brock University Katharine T. von Stackelberg Livy: Hannibal's War. Books 21-30. Translated by J. C. Yardley. New York: Oxford University Press. 2006. Pp. xliii, 740. Yardley's Hannibaus War is a welcome addition toOxford World Classics and to the other books of Livy's From theFoundation of Rome already published in the same series (Luce 1998,Yardley 2000). PreviousEnglish translations ofLivy'sThird Decade include Canon W. M. Roberts (Everyman's Library 1912-31), B. O. Foster and Frank Gardner Moore (LoebClassical Library 1949), andAubrey de Selincourt(PenguinClassics 1965). All have merits, but Yardley's text is, in general, both more accurate and more readable, an unusually rare combination worthy of kudos. The volume follows the standard Oxford World's Classics format and includes an Introduction (ix-xxxiii), Select Bibliography (xxxvi-xxxviii), Chronology of Events (xxxix xliii),Maps (xliv-xlviii), ExplanatoryNotes (631-714), Glossary (715-726), and Index (727-740). In addition, there are two appendices. Appendix One lists instances where Yardley's translations differs from Dorey's andWalsh's Teubner edition. Appendix Two details the vexata quaestio ofHannibal's Alpine route. Written by Dexter Hoyos, the introduction offers basic information about Livy (life and work) and provides a historical background for the period covered by the translation, the Second Punic War. While very informative and clear, the introduction suffers from a persistent bias which views Livy as a talented writer but a second-rate historian and political thinker, who is "not very good at source analysis" (xxviii), lacks military competence (xxix), and is too "patriotic" (see, e.g., xxviii) to be entirely reliable. Overall, Livy is a distant second to Polybius, his Greek predecessor and a key source of Livy's Decade. This traditional view espoused by Hoyos seems not to take into account modern critical studies which have begun to challenge these notions and which, tellingly, are completely absent from the "Selected Bibliography." A case in point: Hoyos views Livy's portrayal of the Roman leaders of the period (e.g., Marcellus, Scipio) as straightforwardly positive (Cf. xxv: "Scipio Africanus is almost Livy's perfect hero"), and yet Livy's presentation seems to be more nuanced. Scipio's Alcibiades-like role mAUC 28 (Rodgers) and his many actions which anticipatethoseofRome's first century dynasts(Chaplin) casta darkcloudonLivy's Scipio and problematize his character more than Hoyos allows.1 The same is true forMarcellus. In the early phase of his career, Marcellus isRome's unfailing "sword." After the capture of Syracuse, however, he begins to show signs of moral failings and reckless temeritas that JB. Rodgers, "Great Expeditions: Livy on Thucydides," TAPA 116 (1986) 335-352; J. D. Chaplin, Livy's Exemplary History (Oxford 2000) 97, n. 56. 194 PHOENIX will eventuallyleadhim tohis death andwill bringtheentirestateto thebrink (Carawan, cf. also Jaeger on the spoils of Syracuse).2 A similar pro-Polybian bias and an excessive concern for source hunting can be detected in the otherwise extremely instructive and detailed notes. Livy's version is usually deemed inferior to that of the Greek historian and the result of Livy's misunderstanding and/or careless collation of sources rather than the consequence of a strategy of design (e.g., 30.34; Livy's narrative of the battle of Zama and his negative portrayal ofmercenary troops should possibly be read as reflecting Livy's own bias and concerns about contemporary Roman practice rather than as a sign of his sloppy reading of Polybius). In his "Note on the Text and Translation" (xxxiv) Yardley states that he has attempted "tomake English readable for the Latinless reader, while staying close enough...