SLC Thesis Template - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University ...
SLC Thesis Template - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University ...
SLC Thesis Template - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Carthage - as the reason that the two parties should not now declare war (Hist. 3.21-33).<br />
Livy‟s version names the Carthaginian spokesman as Hanno, who emphatically reminds<br />
his fellow Carthaginians that their earlier defeat meant they should not rise in arms<br />
against Rome because they had lost support from the gods (Livy, 21.10.2-13). Hanno<br />
has a second speech in Livy‟s text, but it is much later in the narrative, responding to<br />
Mago‟s report on Hannibal‟s victory at Cannae; it is included here because Silius<br />
Italicus seems to respond to a couple of points in it through his presentation of the first<br />
debate.<br />
Livy‟s Hanno warns everyone that the Romans had not sued for peace despite their<br />
defeat at Cannae, citing the First Punic War as an example of Rome‟s uncompromising<br />
attitude which led them to ultimate victory despite suffering significant defeats: Lutatio<br />
et Postumio consulibus devicti ad Aegatis insulas sumus (Livy, 23.13.4). An angry<br />
Carthaginian reply draws attention, among other things, to Hanno‟s use of the Roman<br />
consular dating system in his speech: audiamus Romanum senatorem in<br />
Carthaginiensium curia (Livy 23.12.7). <strong>The</strong> response may suggest Hanno is pro-Roman<br />
but it may also be an indicator to the reader of the ahistorical nature of Hanno‟s speech.<br />
Silius Italicus represents the first debate at Carthage with direct speeches by two<br />
opposing figures, Hanno and Gestar (Pun. 2.279-326; 2.330-374). In a summation of the<br />
debate before the speeches Silius Italicus refers to knowledge of the ratified treaty from<br />
the First Punic War causing disquiet among some senators (Pun. 2.273-6). Hanno is<br />
introduced as a hereditary foe of Hannibal with familial opposition stretching back to<br />
mythical times (Pun. 2.277). Hanno reminds everyone of their previous defeat off the<br />
Aegetian islands (Pun. 2.310) and argues that it would be folly to embark on war<br />
because the Roman soldier has a spirit that never dies (Pun. 2.315-326). In Gestar‟s<br />
angry reply he asks if there was a Roman soldier sitting in their Senate: Ausonius miles<br />
sedet (Pun. 2.331) which echoes the anonymous Carthaginian reply in Livy querying the<br />
use of the Roman dating system. Silius Italicus presents Hanno arguing that they should<br />
surrender Hannibal for breaking the treaty by attacking Saguntum (Pun. 2.376-7). Thus<br />
Silius Italicus combines the arguments given in each of the historiographical texts for<br />
not going to war and emphatically presents Hannibal as a treaty-breaker. In addition, it<br />
is only in the Punica where the Carthaginians are depicted discussing the „contemporary<br />
issue‟ of Hannibal.<br />
Furthermore, in the Punica, it is Mago, not Hanno, who alludes to the outcome of the<br />
First Punic War in the report on Cannae to the Carthaginian Senate. Mago justifiably<br />
39