.jpg)
Marcus Velleius Paterculus (/vɛˈliːəs,-ˈleɪəs/;c. 19 BC – c. AD 31) was aRomanhistorian, soldier and senator. His Roman history, written in a highly rhetorical style, covered the period from the end of theTrojan War to AD 30, but is most useful for the period from the death ofCaesar in 44 BC to the death ofAugustus in AD 14.
Few details of Velleius' life are known with certainty; even hispraenomen is uncertain.Priscian, the only ancient author to mention it, calls him "Marcus", but the title page of theeditio princeps, printed in 1520, calls him "Publius", probably due to confusion with a Publius Velleius mentioned inTacitus. Elsewhere, the same volume calls himGaius.[1] Some modern writers use the latter name, based on an inscription found on a milestone atEl Harrouch inAlgeria, once part of RomanNumidia;[2] but the inscription identifies this Gaius Velleius Paterculus aslegatus Augusti, an office that the historian is not known to have held, and it is thought to date from the reigns ofClaudius orNero, by which time he is thought to have been dead.[3] TheGaius Velleius Paterculus referred to may be the same man who wasconsul in AD 60, and aLucius Velleius Paterculus was consul in the following year; but it is not apparent how either of them were related to the historian.[4]
Our remaining information comes from Velleius' own brief description of his life, included in his history. He was born into a nobleCampanian family about 19 BC, although the place of his birth is unknown. He was a great-great-great-grandson of Minatus Magius ofAeculanum inSamnium, who received theRoman franchise for his actions during theSocial War. Several of his ancestors in subsequent generations held importantmagistracies or military commands, including his uncle, Capito, who was a member of theRoman Senate.[5]
As a young man, Velleius served as amilitary tribune in Rome's eastern provinces. In AD 2, he was with the army ofGaius Caesar, and personally witnessed the meeting between the young general andPhraates V ofParthia on the banks of theEuphrates. Two years later, Velleius was a cavalryprefect serving in the command ofTiberius inGermania, having already held the office ofpraefectus castrorum. He continued as a senior member of Tiberius' staff until the future emperor's return to Rome in AD 12. While serving under Tiberius, Velleius was also electedquaestor, an important step on thecursus honorum, filling that office in AD 7.[2][5]
Before his death in AD 14, the emperorAugustus designated Velleius and his brother, Magius Celer, for thepraetorship. The emperor died before thecomitia could be held, and so the two brothers were formally elected under Tiberius, serving their year of office in AD 15. Few other particulars of Velleius' life are known; he dedicated his history toMarcus Vinicius, and from his description of events during the latter's consulship in AD 30, Velleius must still have been alive that year. But Velleius was among the friends ofSejanus, whom he praises in his writing, and as there is no evidence that the historian survived his friend's downfall by any great length of time, it seems likely that he shared his fate.[2][5][6]
The original title of Velleius' history is uncertain. Theeditio princeps on title page styles itP. Vellei Paterculi Historiae Romanae duo volumina ad M. Vinicium cos.[7] ("Publius Velleius Paterculus' two volumes of Roman History to the consul Marcus Vinicius"), but this was probably assigned the work by a copyist, or by one of thegrammarians.[8][5] The work is frequently referred to as a "compendium of Roman history," which has also been used as the title, as have the more abbreviatedHistoriae Romanae, orRoman History, or simplyHistoriae orHistory.[2][5][8]
The work consists of two books, and was apparently conceived as auniversal history.[5] The first covers the period from the aftermath of theTrojan War to the destruction ofCarthage at the end of theThird Punic War, in 146 BC. The volume is missing several portions, including the beginning, and a section following the eighth chapter, which deals with the founding of Rome.[5][9] The second book, which continues the history from the age of theGracchi to the consulship of Marcus Vinicius, in AD 30, is intact.[2][5] It is particularly useful as the only connected narrative of events during this period; the portions ofLivy's history dealing with the late Republic have been lost, and are known only from a brief epitome, while other historians covered only portions of the span.[9] The period from the death ofCaesar to that ofAugustus is especially detailed.[2]
Velleius' subject matter consists largely of historical highlights and character portraits, omitting subtler if equally important details. He draws upon the historical writings ofCato the Elder,Quintus Hortensius,Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus,Cornelius Nepos, andLivy, most of which have been lost.[2] He also devotes some attention to Greek and Roman literature, and records unique details aboutLucius Afranius andLucius Pomponius, but he curiously omits any mention of important literary figures such asPlautus,Horace, andPropertius.[2][10] According to Velleius, the peak of perfection in any literary field is arrived at quickly by the first arrivals. However, this was not an original insight, but a standard view of his time.[11]
Velleius' style is characterized by the showy rhetoric, hyperbole, and exaggerated figures of speech that were typical ofSilver Age Latin. Modern appraisals of his approach and its results vary considerably. In theDictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology,William Smith writes,
In the execution of his work, Velleius has shown great skill and judgment, and has adopted the only plan by which an historical abridgement can be rendered either interesting or instructive. He does not attempt to give a consecutive account of all the events of history; he omits entirely a vast number of facts, and seizes only upon a few of the more prominent occurrences, which he describes at sufficient length to leave them impressed upon the recollection of his hearers. He also exhibits great tact in the manner in which he passes from one subject to another; his reflections are striking and apposite; and his style, which is a close imitation ofSallust's, is characterized by clearness, conciseness, and energy, but at the same time exhibits some of the faults of writers of his age in a fondness for strange and out-of-the-way expressions. As a historian Velleius is entitled to no mean rank; in his narrative he displays impartiality and love of truth, and in his estimate of the characters of the leading actors in Roman history he generally exhibits both discrimination and judgment.[5]
A more critical view appears in the 1911 edition of theEncyclopædia Britannica:
The author is a vain and shallow courtier, and destitute of real historical insight, although generally trustworthy in his statements of individual facts. He may be regarded as a courtly annalist rather than a historian. His knowledge is superficial, his blunders, numerous, his chronology inconsistent. He labours at portrait-painting, but his portraits are daubs... The repetitions, redundancies, and slovenliness of expression which disfigure the work may be partly due to the haste with which (as the author frequently reminds us) it was written. Some blemishes of style, particularly the clumsy and involved structure of his sentences, may perhaps be ascribed to insufficient literary training. The inflated rhetoric, the straining after effect by means of hyperbole, antithesis and epigram, mark the degenerate taste of the Silver Age, of which Paterculus is the earliest example.[2]
In his introduction to Velleius Paterculus, Frederick W. Shipley takes a middle ground:
A compendium of Roman history, hastily compiled by an army officer... could hardly be expected to rise to the level either of great history or great literature. And yet, taken for what it is, a rapid sketch of some ten centuries of history, it is, in spite of its many defects... the most successful and most readable of all the abridgements of Roman history which have come down to us. Abridgements are usually little more than skeletons; but Velleius has succeeded, in spite of the brief compass of his work, in clothing the bare bones with real flesh, and in endowing his compendium with more than a mere shadow of vitality, thanks to his own enthusiastic interest in the human side of the great characters of history... [I]t has certain excellences of its own in the treatment of special subjects, especially the chapters on literary history, in which the author has a genuine if not very critical interest, the chapters on the Roman colonies, and those on the history of the organization of the Roman provinces, and in some of the character portraits of the great figures of Roman history.[9]
Velleius' treatise was not intended as a careful and comprehensive study of history. The author acknowledged as much, and stated his desire to write a more detailed work, which he indicated would give a fuller account of theCivil War, and the campaigns of his patron, Tiberius, but there is no reason to believe that he ever did so.[2] His history does not seem to have been widely known in antiquity. According to the scholiast, he was read byLucan; theChronica ofSulpicius Severus seems to have been modeled on Velleius' history; and he is mentioned by Priscian, but this seems to be the extent of his influence prior to the discovery of a badly damaged manuscript atMurbach Abbey inAlsace in 1515. Although corrupt and since lost, this formed the basis for theeditio princeps published byBeatus Rhenanus in 1520, and a later copy acquired byOrelli.[2][5]
On the sources see
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Velleius Paterculus, Marcus".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
