Lactea Ubertas: What's Milky about Livy?

Lactea Ubertas: What's Milky about Livy?Author(s): Steve HaysSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Dec., 1986 - Jan., 1987), pp. 107-116Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297864 .

Accessed: 26/09/2013 18:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.63.180.147 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:39:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297864?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


LACTEA UBERTAS: WHAT'S MILKY ABOUT LIVY?

Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberiI iocundoque suco potest. verum et ipsa sic est legenda, ut sciamus, plerasque eius virtutes oratori esse vitandas. . . . itaque, ut dixi, neque illa Sallustiana brevitas, qua nihil apud aures vacuas atque eruditas potest esse perfectius, apud occupatum variis cogitationibus iudicem et saepius ineruditum captanda nobis est, neque illa Livi lactea ubertas satis docebit eum, qui non speciem expositionis, sed fidem quaerit. (Institutio Oratoria 10.1.31-32)

Quintilian's famous phrase "that milky richness of Livy's" is traditionally read as a vague and probably erroneous generalization about Livy's style. I shall argue to the contrary that the phrase is a meaningful assertion, and that, in fact, it provides a very sensible view of Livy's role in the educational curriculum.

My task will be two-fold. First, I shall "flesh out" what is meant by ubertas. Second, I shall deal with lactea: surely lactea ubertas means "an ubertas which is like that of milk, " but just what kind of ubertas does milk have? Or, more accurately, "What kind of ubertas would educators of Quintilian's day have thought milk had?"

Ubertas is usually rendered "richness," a translation which I do not propose to improve upon. I would, however, emphasize that it maintained its original agricultural sense even when it was used in technical discussions about oratory. We must recall, that is, that Quintilian had in mind the nutritive or productive qualities of "richness" ("the richest bottomland in the county") suggested by the Latin rather than qualities of taste or texture which the English "rich" might suggest to us ("the richest fudge I ever ate").

My treatment of the second task will vary considerably from the traditional explanation. The handbook answer to the question "What sort of richness does milk have?" is based on the physical properties of milk: creamy smoothness and fluidity.2 Eminent Livy scholars have challenged the accuracy of "smooth" and "fluid" as descriptions of Livy's prose,3 but I am unaware of

'Uberi is Spalding's emendation of the MSS. The emendation is surely correct, and is apparently based on a hypothesis that the inscrutable moveri of GHV is a corruption resulting from a doubling of the m of quodam: (m) + uberi > muberi > moveri). A later copyist can scarcely be faulted for having hypothesized molli (PW), apparently based on his memory of mollius alant" (2.4.5).

2H. J. Rose understands it as "rich, smooth, free from turbulence" (A Handbook of Latin Literature3 [London 1961] 300). Duff calls it a "rich style . . . flowing . .. avoid<ing> the abruptness of Thucydides's Greek and Sallust's Latin" (J. Wight Duff, A Literary History of Rome from the Origins to the Close of the Golden Age3 [New York 1953] 480).

3So, R. M. Ogilvie: "Quintilian characterized his style as possessing a 'milky richness' . . . which might be thought to imply the measured pace of a Gibbon, but, in fact, Livy is remarkable for the extreme range of styles which he uses in his narrative in order to achieve variety"

107



108 STEVE HAYS

anyone who has denied that smoothness and fluidity are the qualities of milk which Quintilian had in mind when he wrote lactea ubertas. That interpretation ought to be reconsidered, though. It is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, because it is based on the instinctive reaction which modern readers have to the phrase rather than on a study of the qualities which ancient authors associated with milk. To the best of my knowledge, no Classical author uses lactea to connote "smooth-flowing. "4 Secondly, the traditional interpretation fails to persuade because if the passage is read in that way, Quintilian is caught in an extraordinarily vague and probably wrong statement within his own field of expertise. Not that Quintilian can't "nod." But since there is another reading of lac/lactea which was demonstrably in common use among first- century educators (including Quintilian), and which would make excellent sense in the passage, it seems perverse to follow the traditional interpretation.

Lactea in a metaphorical sense is an unfamiliar idea in modern English, and one's mind naturally jumps first to the tactile and visual qualities of milk. But metaphorical uses frequently (more frequently for the ancients than for us, I think) depend on qualities which are not tactile or visible. Aureus, for example, in a phrase such as aureusfulgor means "a sheen like that we see on gold. " The metaphor is based on physical properties. But what of Lucretius' aurea dicta? The sayings are not golden because they look or feel like gold, but because they are as precious as gold. And what about Martial's plumbea vina (10.49) in a gold cup? Is it grey wine, or heavy wine? No. It's cheap wine, worthless wine, for lead is thought of as worthless-especially in contexts where it is opposed to gold.

I shall argue for a similar reading of lactea, substantiated by many relevant texts-most of them dealing with education-in which "milk" is used as a metaphor. In none of those passages does the author isolate the whiteness, smoothness, or fluidity of milk. Rather, in each case the quality of milk which is focused on is that it is the appropriate nutrition for infants. Educators used the metaphor when speaking of studies which were appropriate "nourishment" for "babies," i.e., students in the elementary stages of whatever

(Cambridge History of Classical Literature II, p. 464). A. H. McDonald calls lactea into question with a literary flourish. He notes that the ubertas which Quintilian praises is one of the virtues of the periodic style and was associated in Roman thought with amplitudo and dignitas. "Yet lactea-" he continues, "the word is suspect." And then he quotes the couplet "They write a verse, as smooth as soft as cream;/in which there is no torrent, nor scarce streame" ("The Style of

Livy," JRS 47 (1957) 164). McDonald's close connection of ubertas with the periodic style is based on Gellius, A .N. 6.14, a passage which offers a highly-schematized treatment of oratorical

styles. For several reasons scholars should beware of making Gellius' use of ubertas the cornerstone of their interpretation of Quintilian: 1) Gellius is primarily a literary figure, while

Quintilian's field is oratory; 2) Gellius writes considerably later than Quintilian; 3) we have available a superior interpretive aid in Cicero's oratorical works, which contain many uses of the term and which we know were major sources for Quintilian. Primary dependency on Gellius

might tend to restrict one's view of ubertas to clausular construction and result in an excessively narrow understanding of the term.

4The earliest possible use of lactea as "smooth-flowing " is in Jerome, who is clearly dependent on Quintilian's phrase. But, in fact, Jerome only drops the phrase without explanation, and so his

understanding of lactea cannot be determined: "Ad Titum Livium lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantem visendum de ultimo terrarum orbe venisse Gaditanum quendam legimus" (Ep. 53.1.3).



LIvy's LACTEA UBERTAS 109

discipline was under discussion. I shall argue, then, that by lactea ubertas Quintilian means that Livy had an ubertas which was like milk in that it was best suited for nourishing students in the earlier stages of the rhetorical curriculum.

Uber, Ubertas. The noun uber has primary reference, of course, to physical things: women's breasts and animals' udders as sources of milk; the productivity of rich land; and sometimes, by extension, the abundant produce of the land. The adjective uber (abundant, copious) can refer either to land, plants, etc., as "productive" or to their produce as "abundant." Thus, the abstract noun ubertas can refer eith'er to the quality of "fertility" or "productivity" of the land, etc., or to the "abundance" of the produce itself.

Quintilian was not inventing a metaphor when he applied uber- to oratory. The word group had frequently been used by Cicero. Sometimes Cicero applies it to an ingenium which is "fertile" for producing good oratory,s and to those topics which inherently allow free scope to the orator's abilities.6 Most frequently in Cicero's oratorical works, however, the term refers to oratorical style or to a specific speech which is judged uber because of its style.7

What does Cicero mean, though, when he calls a style uber? He regularly conjoins uber- to words indicating fullness of detail or variety: copia, plenus, ornatus, and others.8 And, he regularly contrasts uber- with words which suggest a lack of detail or variety: pressus, contractus, and others.9 Cicero asserts, for example, that Plato is uber in contrast with the Stoics, whose oratory is astrictior ... aliquantoque contractior than the ears of the populace demand (Brutus 120). Anyone who has read extensively from the Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta and from Plato knows what Cicero is talking about. Whereas Chrysippus and Zeno stick to the facts (their style brings to a modem mind such adjectives as "dry," "technical," "dense"), Plato includes much more than the bare argument. He is "richer, " "fuller. " He uses far more words than Chrysippus does, and by means of those additional words he adds elements of humor and diversion and produces a slower, more amplified treatment of his topic. The result of this slower, fuller treatment is that Plato secures the goodwill of the reader and makes his points more clearly and persuasively, whereas Chrysippus frequently sounds like an uncongenial bookworm, and the reader may be left confused with regard to his meaning.

Cicero makes a similar contrast between Scaevola and Crassus, who opposed one another in an inheritance case (Brutus 197-98). Scaevola argued a powerful de iure case. His speech was skillful, knowledgeable, to the point, succinct, and oratorically very nicely worded (cum periter et scienter, tum ita breviter et presse et satis ornate et pereleganter). Crassus, though, argued de

sDe Orat. 1.113; 3.57. Orator 15. Brutus 125. 6De Orat. 1.195; 2.319; 2.346. Orator 48. Brutus 332. Topica 65. 7De Orat. 1.50; 1.84; 1.190; 2.93; 2.96; 3.70. Orator 39; 46; 91; 117; cf. 15. Brutus 31; 44; 120;

198. De Optimo Genere Orat. 9. 8De Orat. 1.50; 1.113; 1.190; 2.346; 3.70. Orator 15; 39; 46; 48; 117. Brutus 44; 125. De

Fin. 3.19. 9De Orat. 1.50; 2.96. Orat. 117. Brutus 120.



110 STEVE HAYS

aequo and employed a different style. He took his time. He argued plainly. He used narrative and many illustrations. He included a variety of amusing allusions. Crassus, of course, won the case because he kept the attention and won the favor of the jury. He was easier and more fun to listen to. "The trained critic," says Cicero, "would have recognized at once that <Scaevola could have used> a richer and more ornate style of speech (uberius dicendi genus et ornatius)."

Uberius clearly refers not only or even primarily to the structure of individual clauses, but to the fullness with which the speech as a whole is developed. An uber treatment is "full," "abundant, " almost "fat. " Uber- is the metaphor of a man thinking of agricultural realities. It expresses the judgment of a man who perceives in one speech the likeness of a scrawny, withered vine: its fruit is there, but unattractive and probably underdeveloped, starkly prominent among a scant, pale leafage. In another speech he perceives the likeness of a full, luxuriant, well-tended vine whose plump, juicy fruit seems even more beautiful for the lush leaves which surround it. The latter speech is uber. It grows rich and full from the fertile mind of a well-cultivated and intelligent man. It does not merely rush through the logical course of its argument, but rather employs a range of oratorical skills in order to hold the attention of the audience, produce enjoyment, and make its argument clear and comprehensible.

Cicero's use of uber- in oratorical criticism made it an accepted technical term for later writers. Quintilian's contemporary Tacitus contrasts ubertas with brevitas (Dial. 23.24) and pairs it with plenus (Dial. 18.10; Ann. 12.60.4). It is scarcely surprising, then, that Quintilian uses uber- in oratorical contexts, though one gets the feeling that he uses it less frequently and more self-consciously as a metaphor (and a stale one) than Cicero did. The trope within which it usually functions is, he notes, a commonplace: "As the soil is improved and rendered more fertile (uberior) by cultivation, so is the mind by education" (8.3.75). 10 Otherwise, though, his usage is the same as Cicero's. Uber- can apply to the "fertile" mind of the orator"1 or to "fertile" topics which lend themselves to brilliant and powerful oratory.12 It can also describe a style of writing. In these contexts uber- appears in conjunction with fertilis (12.10.25) and is contrasted with a dry and compressed (siccum ... contractum; 11.1.32) style.

It appears, then, that Quintilian uses uber- with the same sense that Cicero and other writers on oratory did. It is that "full" quality of a speech which engages the interest and goodwill of the audience, which makes the speech pleasant and enjoyable, and prevents its being merely a stale recitation of facts or arguments. Quintilian is aware (as was Cicero) that judges have many things on their minds. It is unreasonable to expect that an orator can keep their attention and persuade them without good illustrations, without skillful

1oAll citations from Quintilian are from the Institute. I have made free use of the translation of H. E. Butler in the Loeb, sometimes retaining his exact words, at other times adapting them.

1110.1.109; 10.3.2; 12.2.23. 122.4.24; 3.1.3; 3.11.25; 4.1.59; 12.2.20; cf. 3.7.13.



LivY'S LACTEA UBERTAS 111

character drawing, without humor and digressions, without exciting turns of phrase and variations of emotional intensity. These features mark the difference between a dry, dense, sterile speech, and a rich, fertile, ornamented speech.

Ubertas in the curriculum. So much, then, for ubertas as a quality of speeches. Now we turn to Quintilian's view of how students can be equipped to produce oratory which is appropriately uber.

In an important passage (2.4.1-9) Quintilian discusses a dilemma faced by the teacher of oratory. In his attempts to cultivate in boys a proper style for forensic narrative, he must attempt to deter them not only from the aridity of everyday speech but also from the excessive luxuriance which comes from an ill-advised imitation of poetic license (2.4.3). In this passage Quintilian's focus is rather on the exercises which the boy produces than on the readings which inspire them, but the discussion nonetheless calls to our attention a difficult choice which the teacher had to make. He might choose to expose his students only to appropriate forensic speeches of skillful orators, but then his students would tend to speak without imagination and versatility. Their speeches might be proper and according to form, but predictable and dull as well. Or, he might choose to encourage his students to read widely and to let their readings inform their speeches. In that case, however, he might find his students employing a highly emotional tragic style on a mundane subject, or slipping into metre, or using other devices appropriate to the literary genre in which they were found, but ridiculously inappropriate to forensic oratory. It is in the context of such a dilemma that the question of the role of ubertas in the curriculum arises.

In other passages also Quintilian comments on the dangers of a "rich" curriculum. There is, he says, considerable temptation for the orator to take so much delight in the ornamental aspects of his speech that he loses sight of the issues which lie at the heart of the case (3.11.25). "Richness" can devolve into inappropriate luxuriance. Students must be warned against such oratorical decadence. They must be cautioned to use ornament sparingly (4.1.59).

And yet, though Quintilian recognizes the danger of abuse of "richness," he considers that that danger is to be chosen in the training of the young orator rather than the danger of providing him too little nourishment and so leaving him without the resources necessary for "rich" oratory. In the young, he judges, excessively "rich" elements are tolerable, even those which run the risk of being inappropriately exuberant (uberiora paulo et paene periclitantia feruntur). The risk of an uber style is preferable to a dry, dense, cautious style, which in a young speaker appears to be an affectation of severity (11.1.32). Arid instruction (magister aridus), he declares, will stunt the growth of a young orator just as dry soil stunts the growth of a young plant (non minus quam teneris adhuc plantis siccum et sine umore ullo solum). The student nurtured on arid instruction will be afraid to rise above the level of everyday speech (2.4.9). It is better, then, to risk luxuriance in a young orator than sterility. "Facile remedium est ubertati; sterilia nullo labore vincuntur" (2.4.6).

As part of a "rich" curriculum he cautiously encourages participation in declamatory exercises, which provide a more bounteous (laetior) diet for



112 STEVE HAYS

eloquence than does rigorous forensic oratory. He goes on to urge "for the same reason" that young orators "occasionally write exercises using the richness of history (ubertas historiae)" (10.5.15). Quintilian insists that the student understand that not all of this historical ubertas can be transferred into forensic oratory. He notes that historical writing is designed for enjoyable narrative, not for immediate persuasion, and it therefore makes greater use of unusual words and freer use of tropes than can be allowed in the courtroom (10.1.31). Consequently the orator must avoid some of these features which are marks of distinction in a historian. Still, an orator's style can be benefitted by cautious use of historical "richness," particularly in digressions. In the crucial details of the case, though, a less pleasant, more terse style is required. In those matters "what we need is not the massive muscles of the athlete (pleasant richness), but the wiry sinews of the soldier (effective concision)" (10.1.32).

So, Quintilian throws in his lot with those (including Cicero, of course) who would offer the young orator a broad literary education. His conviction is that, if students are properly cautioned against turning forensic oratory into a poetry audition or an inappropriate recitation of Roman glories, the exposure to a wide range of excellent authors will make them more versatile, imaginative, and successful orators. Their speeches will have some meat on their bones. They will be full, healthily plump-uber.

The "nourishment" trope. As mentioned above, Quintilian specifically notes that uber is often an element of the "cultivation of the mind" trope (8.3.75). It is also frequently a part of a similar trope according to which education is viewed as a process of "nourishment." This latter trope is as much a commonplace as the former, and since it is a commonplace Quintilian slips into it and out of it easily, touching on it, alluding to it, not needing to develop it in detail very often. It may be helpful to see how the "education as nourishment" trope, developed rather fully, functions in the context of the

question of appropriate curriculum. In 2.4.6, a passage already discussed for its importance in understanding ubertas, Quintilian notes that "the more attractive studies" (iucundior disciplina), although they may lead to excessive "richness" (ubertas) and "fatness" in the student, are nonetheless a more suitable nutriment than dry, unpleasant readings. The teacher of boys should, then, as a nurse, provide softer food (more nutricum alant mollius) and so allow the student to "take his fill of, as it were, the milk of pleasant study" (satiari velut quodam iucundioris disciplinae lacte). This diet may result in some "plumpness" of the body, but as the years pass so will the plumpness. "Such plumpness (plenius corpus) gives hope of strength, whereas a child who is fully formed in every limb is likely to grow up stunted. " So, in 2.4.6 ubertas functions within the extended metaphor of education as nutrition.

Even in passages where the trope is not worked out in detail, it often

provides the framework for understanding uber-. Thus, in several passages already noted, uber- is combined with the notion of "nourishment. " Declama- tory exercises provide a "more bounteous diet" (pabulo laetiore) than does forensic oratory, and "for the same reason" the student should practice the "richness" (ubertas) of history (10.5.15). Historical style is like the "massive muscles" of the athlete, whereas oratorical style is like the "wiry sinews" of the soldier (10.1.33).



Livy-s LACTEA UBERTAS 113

To these should be added another instance of the metaphor applied to history which has not yet been mentioned. In our passage, 10.1.31, Quintilian claims that history contains a "rich and pleasant juice" (uberi iocundoque suco) which can nourish (alere) the future orator. These individual metaphors should be understood within the context of the commonplace of "nourishing the mind" worked out in 2.4.6. When read in this fashion ubertas (at least in contexts dealing with the curriculum) suggests a part of the diet which moderns might identify with sugars, starches, and carbohydrates, as opposed to protein. Taken to excess it can produce lazy, unproductive obesity, but taken wisely it produces healthy, full-bodied strength.

Lactea. This study of Quintilian's use of uber-, especially in contexts dealing with curriculum and the process of education, has brought into focus the trope of "education as nourishment" as the framework within which uber- is to be interpreted, and has, incidentally, done the same for lactea. In 2.4.6 the fully developed trope urged that teachers nourish boys with "the milk of the more enjoyable study" (iucundioris disciplinae lacte). Here milk is no symbol for smoothness. Livy's history is "milky" or "like milk" inasmuch as it is appropriate for those who are like babies, i.e., those not far advanced in their oratorical studies.'3

The metaphor of milk is a standard component of the common trope of "education as nutrition." In addition to the two occurrences already mentioned in Quintilian (2.4.6 and 10.1.32), it is also found in 1.1.21, where again it is applied to the early stages of the process of oratorical education: "Studies, like men, have their infancy, and as the training of the body which is destined to grow to fullness of strength begins while the child is in his cradle and sucking his mother's milk (a lacte cunisque), so even the man who is destined to rise to the heights of eloquence was once a squalling babe, tried to speak in stammering accents, and was puzzled by the shapes of letters."

The same trope, including the reference to milk, is found also in Greek authors of the first century in contexts dealing with educational development. Two instances occur in Heraclitus Homericus' Homeric Allegories, 14 and two different authors in the New Testament employ it-Saint Paul in I Cor. 3.215 and the author of Hebrews in 5.1216-as do later Christian authors dependent

13The combination of lactl and uberl in a non-metaphorical sense is found in Lucretius 5.885, where it graphically shows the literal scene on which the metaphorical sense depends-a baby drawing its first nutrition from its mother's breast. (Cf. 1.258 and Pliny Nat. 22.82, 27.82.)

14In Homeric Allegories 1.5 he likens the words of Homer, which even babies grow up hearing, to the milk they drink (ydaxxT

inorto, i). And later, in a passage in which he traces the benefits

which people receive from Homer at all the stages of their lives, he notes that very young children (VitLOL ratbt6eg) receive the benefit of Homer's wisdom, "milk from a nurse, as it were" (76.3). (Allegories d'Homere, ed. E Buffibre, Paris: Bud6, 1962.)

1s "And I, brethren, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly, as to babies (virtLOL) in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, for you were not up to it. " (My translation.)

16 "Although you ought by this time to be teachers, you again need someone to teach you the rudimentary principles of God's sayings. You are now in need of milk and not of solid nourishment. For everyone who partakes of milk is without experience in the word of righteousness. He is a baby (virtLog). But solid nourishment is appropriate for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil." (My translation.)



114 STEVE HAYS

on the New Testament.17 In the Christian material, of course, the metaphor is applied not to those who are "babies" in oratory, but to those who are "babies" in Christ. The cumulative weight of this evidence ought not to be ignored. "Milk" is commonly used in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century in educational contexts, and it never serves as an example of smoothness or fluidity. It always suggests a curriculum appropriate for "babies"-those in the early stages of a given discipline.

The Context: Inst. 10.1.31-32. And yet, even though both lactea and ubertas are standard elements of the trope, we should beware of forcing this interpretation of lactea into our context. Does it really fit? Are there any clues which the first-century reader would have noticed and which would have led him to this interpretation? My judgment is that the trope was so automatic to educators that in a discussion of appropriate reading materials the phrase would have been interpreted as I suggest even if there were no further development of the trope in the passage. But in fact language evocative of the trope is sprinkled throughout the passage. And it is not just language which might in some authors function within the trope. It is the very cluster of terms which we have already seen Quintilian use in 2.4.5-6. These are the words which Quintilian himself uses when he develops the trope of education as nutrition, and prominent among them is lac/. In both passages the context is a discussion of the contribution which the reading of historical narrative can have on the development of the orator. The passages pursue somewhat different aspects of the question of "nourishing" the student, but the general topic is the same, and in both the language of education as nourishment permeates the discussion. Note the parallels.

2.4.5-6

(I am aware of the dangers of imitating the poetic aspects of history, and that mature oratory [oratorio perfecta] cannot be expected in boys. Still,) [5] "I advise that teachers too, like nurses, be sure to provide softer food (mollius alant) for still undeveloped minds and to allow them to take their fill of what might be called the "milk" (quodam lacte) of the more attractive (iucundioris) studies.. . [6] (Excessive) richness (ubertas) is easily cured.

10.1.31-32.

[31] "History can nourish (alere) the orator with what might be called a rich and pleasant 'juice,' (quodam uberi iocundoque suco)." The orator must, however, avoid certain virtues of history which would be oratorical vices. [32] Sallust's brevitas (and nothing could be more mature [perfectius]) would be inappropriate in a courtroom. So would Livy's milky (=appropriate for the "baby" student) richness (lactea ubertas).

17E.g., Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.23: yaXax•• bb•ELg X6yot.



Livyvs LACTEA UBERTAS 115

The trope is clearly in Quintilian's mind in both passages. And although the elements of the trope are most in evidence in section 31 of 10.1, lactea ubertas in section 32 is surely to be heard as a continuation of the trope. Livy's ubertas is the same abundant "richness" which we have seen elsewhere in the trope, including uberi . . . suco in 31. Livy's ubertas is balanced against Sallust's brevitas. 18 And lactea as a characteristic of Livy's ubertas, if it refers to its appropriateness for "baby" students, is perfectly balanced against the description of Sallust's brevitas, which is "completely mature" (qua nihil . . potest esse perfectius)19 and is said to be wonderful "for hearers who are erudite and at their leisure. "

I conclude, then, that illa20 lactea ubertas Livi is an assertion that students at the elementary levels of the oratorical curriculum can obtain from reading Livy the sort of supplementary information and stylistic skills which keep their speeches from being bare bones. They will encounter unusual words, rhythmic prose structures, notable tropes, other ornamental features, and a general fullness of style which are the components of ubertas. And they will encounter them in an author who will prove enjoyable and engaging, and thus suitable to their youth.

Livy in Quintilian's curriculum. As is apparent from 10.1.32 the historians on whom Quintilian depends in his curriculum are Sallust and Livy. Each, as he points out, is excellent, but in different ways. According to the interpretation which I have offered, 10.1.32 shows Quintilian's belief that Livy is more appropriate for boys whereas Sallust is more appropriate reading for "erudite" men. That interpretation would be considerably corroborated if we could verify that this was indeed Quintilian's appraisal of the two historians. And, in fact, we can. In 2.5.19, directly addressing the question of which authors should be read by students, he writes: "Some have recommended authors of inferior merit on the ground that they were easier to understand. Others on the contrary would select the more florid school of writers on the ground that they are likely to provide the nourishment best suited to the minds of the young (ut ad alenda primarum aetatum ingenia magis accommodatum). For my part I would have them read the best authors from the very beginning and never leave them, choosing those, however, who are simplest and most intelligible. For instance, when prescribing for boys, I should give Livy the preference over Sallust; for although the latter is the greater historian, one requires to be well advanced in one's studies to appreciate him properly. "

'TIhcitus, too, uses brevitas as the opposite of ubertas (Dial. 23.24). '9Cf. 2.4.4: nam in pueris oratio perfecta nec exigi nec sperari potest. 201 would suggest in passing that illa does not mean "that well-known" (as it is usually

translated). Cicero, in discussions of how orators can be benefitted by the study of other disciplines occasionally uses ille to mean "belonging to that field," i.e., referring to a characteristic feature of a discipline other than oratory. I think sure examples of this usage are found in de Orat. 1.54 ("sine illa scientia" "without that sort of knowledge which is appropriate to <philosophy> ") and 3.141 ("<Aristoteles> ornavit et illustravit doctrinam illam omnem rerumque cognitionem cum orationis exercitatione coniunxit.") Less convincing, perhaps, are de Orat. 1.42 ("ab illo fonte et capite Socrate") and 3.184 ("illa poetarum <metrica>"). I take Quintilian's use of illa to mean Livy's ubertas, "proper to that field <of history but inappropriate for the orator>."



116 STEVE HAYS

Once again the discussion of curriculum employs the trope of "education as nutrition. " This time, though, Quintilian's judgment on Livy is offered in plain language: "when prescribing for boys, I should give Livy the preference over Sallust. " It is the same judgment he gives in 10.1.32 and for the same reasons-if the interpretation of lactea ubertas which I have offered is correct. I conclude that reading lactea as emphasizing the appropriateness of Livy's ubertas for younger students gives a sensible meaning which is structurally appropriate in its specific context and consonant with the thought of its author in the wider context.

For purposes of recapitulation and clarification, I conclude with an English paraphrase of Quintilian's statement.

History can nourish the orator, for it contains, as it were, a rich and delightful juice. But the orator must read history with an awareness that many historical virtues are oratorical vices. . . Thus, as I have said, we must not strive after the concision of a historian, as it is found in Sallust. For even though no prose can be more perfectly mature for a well-educated listener whose mind is at leisure, we must speak to a judge whose mind is engaged with many other thoughts and who may well be uneducated. Nor will Livy's richly fertile historical narrative, which provides such excellent nourishment for the beginner in oratory, provide satisfactory evidence to a judge. The judge's goal, after all, is not to be impressed by the beauty of a presentation, but to be convinced by its argument.21

STEVE HAYS Ohio University Athens, OH

211 am extremely grateful to Professors David Armstrong, Gareth Morgan, and Paul Murphy, who read an early draft of this paper and made many helpful suggestions. I have also benefitted from the wise criticisms of the anonymous referees.

I discovered Franz Quadlbauer's fine article too late to incorporate it into this discussion. Had I read it earlier I might have paid more attention to the relationship between candidus and lactea, but I think my basic argument would not have been altered. F Quadlbauer, "Livi Lactea Ubertas: Bemerkungen zu einer quintilianischen Formel and ibrer Nachwirkung," pp. 347-65, in Livius: Werk und Rezeption (Festschrift fiir Erich Burck zum 80. Geburtstag), edd. Eckard Lef6vre and Eckart Olshausen (Munich: Beck, 1983).



Documents

Lactea Ubertas: What's Milky about Livy?