Luke Patient
[email protected]
Classics Department
University of Arizona
Narratology and the End of Monarchy in AVC 1
I. The section of the narrative text to be considered (AVC 1.59.1, 6-11):
1.
Brutus illis luctu occupatis cultrum ex volnere Lucretiae extractum, manantem cruore prae se tenens, "Per hunc"
inquit "castissimum ante regiam iniuriam sanguinem iuro, vosque, di, testes facio me L. Tarquinium Superbum
cum scelerata coniuge et omni liberorum stirpe ferro igni quacumque dehinc vi possim exsecuturum, nec illos
nec alium quemquam regnare Romae passurum."
…
Vbi eo ventum est, quacumque incedit armata multitudo, pavorem ac tumultum facit; rursus ubi anteire
primores civitatis vident, quidquid sit haud temere esse rentur. Nec minorem motum animorum Romae tam
atrox res facit quam Collatiae fecerat; ergo ex omnibus locis urbis in forum curritur. Quo simul ventum est,
praeco ad tribunum celerum, in quo tum magistratu forte Brutus erat, populum advocavit. Ibi oratio habita
nequaquam eius pectoris ingeniique quod simulatum ad eam diem fuerat, de vi ac libidine Sex. Tarquini, de
stupro infando Lucretiae et miserabili caede, de orbitate Tricipitini cui morte filiae causa mortis indignior
ac miserabilior esset. Addita superbia ipsius regis miseriaeque et labores plebis in fossas cloacasque
exhauriendas demersae; Romanos homines, victores omnium circa populorum, opifices ac lapicidas pro
bellatoribus factos. Indigna Ser. Tulli regis memorata caedes et inuecta corpori patris nefando vehiculo
filia, invocatique ultores parentum di. His atrocioribusque, credo, aliis, quae praesens rerum indignitas
haudquaquam relatu scriptoribus facilia subicit, memoratis, incensam multitudinem perpulit ut imperium
regi abrogaret exsulesque esse iuberet L. Tarquinium cum coniuge ac liberis.
“While the others were absorbed in grief, Brutus holding the dagger extracted from Lucretia’s wound in
front of him, while it was still dripping with gore, said, ‘By this blood—most chaste before the royal
outrage—I swear, and I make ye gods witnesses that I will hunt down Lucius Tarquinius Superbus along
with his crime-laden wife and all of his offspring with iron, fire, and what-violence-soever I am
additionally able, nor will I allow those nor anyone else to be king in Rome.’
…
“When they arrived there [sc. to Rome], wherever the armed crowd proceeds, it causes fear and
disturbance. Further, when they see that leaders of the state proceed at its head, they judge that whatever
may be afoot, it is surely not at random. So heinous a matter causes no less disturbance of soul at Rome
than it had caused at Collatia; thus there is a racing from all sectors of the city into the Forum. And as soon
as they arrived there, a herald called the people to the tribune of the Celeres, which office Brutus then by
chance was occupying. There a speech was given not at all in that spirit and character which had been
pretended up to that day, a speech about the lustful violence of Sextus Tarquinius, about the unholy rape of
Lucretia and the pitiable slaughter, about the bereavement of Tricipitinus for whom the cause of death was
less worthy and more pitiable than his daughter’s death itself. The pride of the king himself was added, as
were the sufferings and toils of the plebs, since it had been sunk down into the excavation of ditches and
sewers—the Roman men, victors over all the surrounding peoples, had been made into workmen and
quarriers instead of warriors. The undeserved slaughter of King Servius Tullius was mentioned, as was the
daughter’s riding over the body of her father in an unholy chariot, and the gods were invoked as the
avengers of parents. By mentioning these things and others even more atrocious (which, though in no way
easy for writers to relate, the indignity of first-hand experience produces) he drove the enraged crowd to
abrogate the power of the King and to command Lucius Tarquinius along with his wife and children to
become exiles.”
II. Why narratology and Livy? The study of historiography vs. the study of history (Chaplin 2009: 3-4):
2.
“Though it can be argued that ancient historians were interested in creating an explanatory account that would model the
past ‘as it really was’, in Leopold von Ranke’s famous description of what a historian should aim for (‘wie es eigentlich
gewesen’), it is also clear that there is a mismatch between ancient and contemporary understandings of such inherently
difficult concepts as ‘truth’ and ‘reality’. The view of Livy that has predominated until relatively recently tends to
conflate ancient and modern understandings, and expects from Livy (and other ancient historians) the same positivist
approaches and values held by many modern historians.”
III. What is narratology?
3.
“Narratology is the theory of narrative texts. A theory is a systematic set of generalized statements about a particular
segment of reality.” (Bal 1985: 3)
IV. The “events” and “actors” of the “fabula”
•
•
•
•
Brutus vows to get rid of the king.
He gathers a crowd in public.
He gives a speech which enrages the crowd.
The crowd abrogates the king’s power and banishes his family.
V. Transformation of the fabula into “story”
•
•
•
•
•
Actors become characters by taking on idiosyncratic characteristics (e.g. Brutus, Tarquinius)
Locations become places by the same process (e.g. Rome, the Forum)
Events are sequenced and allotted space in the story in proportion to the “absolute” timeline of the fabula (e.g. the speech)
The events are presented from a certain point of view, or focalized (e.g. the perspective of the crowd, the ‘objective’ POV)
Relationships of symbolic and allusive nature arise in the story at this level
A. Taken together, these transformations shape the reader’s attitude toward the events and actors of the fabula
VI. The story becomes a “text”
•
•
•
•
The narrator: “that agent which utters the linguistic signs which constitute the text.” (Bal 120)
Through description, the narrator controls the reader’s access to the motivation of the characters.
Explanation in the personal language situation (e.g. Brutus’ vow)
Explanation in the impersonal language situation (e.g. Brutus’ speech)
VII. Pulling it all together. The allusive function of Brutus’ speech.
A. Situating Brutus’ speech in the fabula: the event of the speech is causally connected to the banishment of the king, which
is, in turn, the fulfillment of his earlier vow. The speech is thus the key event of this episode.
B. At the story level, what is crucial is the alignment of the crowd with the character, Brutus, over against the character,
Tarquinius. This, in turn, depends on the character, ‘the crowd,’ which is characterized by a reluctance towards revolutionary
action.
C. At the textual level, then, the key question facing the narrator is how to explain the motivation of the crowd to banish the
king. The narrator chooses to explain this in an impersonal language situation that is even more impersonal than normal
indirect speech. Why?
i. The alignment of the points of the speech with prior episodes in book I
• the force and lust of Tarquinius
• the rape and death of Lucretia
• the grief of Tricipitinus
• the superbia of Tarquinius
• the degradation of the people
• the illegitimate killing of Servius Tullius
• the impious behavior of Tullia
ii. Further motivation
• the invocation of the gods, aligning them with the speech-giver [Brutus] against Tarquinius
• the intrusion of the narrator’s voice
Conclusion: Since we are denied the immediacy of the experience of the plebs, Livy explains their motivation through an
alternative, allusive strategy. This strategy has the effect of tapping into whatever feelings and opinions the reader has
experienced during the narration of the earlier episodes. In a sense, Livy has done his work in advance, and here simply
evokes the reader’s experience of the earlier episodes all at once. Since these episodes comprise the bulk of the narrative, the
reader experiences a sort of symphonic crescendo as all the earlier melodies are unified and the inevitable outcome results.
Bibliography
Bal, M. 1985. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Chaplin, J. D. and C. S. Kraus, eds. 2009. Livy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Luce, T. J. [repr. of 1965 article in TAPA]. “Design and Structure in Livy 5.32-55.” In Chaplin and
Kraus 2009: 148-187.
Rich, J. [repr. of 1996 article in Histos]. “Structuring Roman History: The Consular Year and the Roman
Historical Tradition.” In Chaplin and Kraus: 118-147.
Stadter, P. A. [repr. of 1972 article in Historia]. “The Structure of Livy’s History.” In Chaplin and Kraus
2009: 91-117.
Feldherr, A., ed. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Batstone, W. W. 2009. “Postmodern Historiographical Theory and the Roman Historians.” In Feldherr
2009: 24-40.
Lendon, J. E. 2009. “Historians Without History: Against Roman Historiography.” In Feldherr 2009: 4162.
Jaeger, M. 1999. “Guiding Metaphor and Narrative Point of View in Livy’s Ab Vrbe Condita,” in C. S. Kraus,
ed., The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Leiden: Brill. 169-196.
Kraus, C. S. 1998. “Repetition and Empire in the Ab urbe condita,” in P. Knox and C. Foss, eds., Style and
Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. 264-283.
Levene, D. S. 2010. Livy on the Hannibalic War. New York: Oxford University Press.
Onega, S. and J. A. G. Landa, eds. 1996. Narratology: An Introduction. New York: Longman Publishing.
Tsitsiou-Chelidoni, C. 2009. “History Beyond Literature: Interpreting the ‘Internally Focalized’ Narrative in
Livy’s Ab urbe condita,” in J. Grethlein and A. Rengakos, eds., Narratology and Interpretation: The Content of
Narrative Form in Ancient Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 527-554.