Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY
of delicate issues concerning Tiberius' 'exile' at Rhodes is venial enough, and
his panegyric of the emperor at 2.126 was an unavoidable obligation for a
contemporary, though he may genuinely have believed what he says. Again,
his treatment of Sejanus at 2.127—8, ostensibly very favourable, does not
prove him one of Sejanus' adherents. Velleius completed his work at a time of
tension and uncertainty, as his impassioned concluding prayer (2.131) reveals.
Though staunchly loyal to Tiberius and perhaps the more inclined to praise
him as his general popularity waned, he still foresees grave dangers. In the
political situation of A.D. 30 he could be no more explicit. Such is a case for the
defence, not devoid of force. But bias, however plausibly accounted for,
prevents Velleius from judging recent history objectively. And, while panegyric
as such at 2.126 is understandable, the blessings which Tiberius allegedly
effected pass all credence, the more so because much the same has been said
about Augustus at 2.89.3—4. Augustus' last years were indeed troubled, but
honesty, authority, and discipline had not vanished, only to be resuscitated
instantaneously by Tiberius' accession. Revival of lost virtues was or was to
become a commonplace: that is no excuse for a historian. Is Velleius then just
a propagandist for Tiberius? In the strictest sense (if Tiberius' prior approval
is implied), no. Like other retired officers, he probably had the itch to write
and could guess what would be acceptable. Thus he provides good evidence
for various concepts and conventions nowadays comprehended under the
unduly formal rubric 'ideology of the Principate'.
Velleius is much indebted to Livy and Sallust, more to the former, though
he sets great store by brevity (see, e.g., 1.16.1, 2.29.2, 2.124.1). But he achieves
brevity by his handling of material rather than contracted expression or
Sallustian abruptness. He elaborates certain topics, while omitting or summarily
dismissing others, even matters of undeniable importance (e.g. 2.52.3). And,
for all his anxiety about speed, he not only lingers but also digresses: at the
end of Book 1 he actually conjoins two digressions, on colonies and literature.
The latter digression (cf. 2.9), in a work so circumscribed, is rather remarkable.
He says that he is irresistibly fascinated by the brief flowering of great talents,
in Greece and Rome. No doubt he is, and, in finding space for such material,
he displays a refreshingly catholic approach to the study of history. Indeed
one may debate whether this is history at all as the ancients understood it.
Velleius' writing is predictably artificial. He likes verbal point; he employs
many patterns of word and phrase; he partially anticipates Seneca's ingenious
antitheses and Tacitus' unfailing novelty. But he is often pleonastic and sometimes
constructs long periods, after Livy's manner. Emotional and high-flown
passages (e.g. 2.66.3—5) stand near to sections of colourless and skimpy narration.
Velleius' style is not homogeneous.
In writing outline history Velleius had respectable predecessors, such as
640
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008