RomanArmyTalk

Pages: 1 2

Ave
Nice to be back after a long while!
My question regarding Regulus is this: The story regarding his going back to Rome as a Carthaginian prisoner in order to negotiate terms and encouraging the Senate to continue the war and then nobly going back to Carthage to face death by execution is not found in either Polybius or Diodorus. So what is the origin of this story and how credible is it? Thanks in advance.

Your suspicions are well founded.The 'legend' of Regulus' heroism is just that. It likely originated as a 'family tradition'.High ranking officers were frequently exchanged between Rome and Carthage, or ransomed, but Regulus seems to have died in captivity in somewhat mysterious circumstances (probably of disease) and it has been suggested that the story was a family cover-up to exonerate Regulus' widow, who on hearing of her husband's death, and believing it to be from neglect, apparently had two Carthaginian prisoners in the custody of the family tortured to death in revenge ( c.f. Diodorus XXIII.16 for a story of Regulus tortured and killed;XXIV.12 for the widow's revenge)
The 'legend' version is recorded by Later poets (Horace Odes 3.5, and Regulus' heroism is praised in Silius Italicus Punic War lengthy poem).
Another Roman tradition also has it that Xanthippus the Spartan mercenary who was the architect of the Punic victory, suffered drowning or attempted drowning on his way home. Polybius (XXXVI.2-3) has him return home, but knew of 'another story', likely the 'drowning' version.( referred to in Diodorus XXIII.16; Zonaras VIII.13: and Silius Italicus' poem, as well as other later writers).
The book of Daniel (XI,7-9) records PtolemyIII of Egypt appointing a 'Xanthippus' as governor of a newly won province some ten years later, and it would be nice to think this was the same man........ Smile

Quote:Your suspicions are well founded.The 'legend' of Regulus' heroism is just that.

The truth is that we really don't know what happened either way. It would be as unlikely to assume a non-event. Polybius doesn't state it, but he doesn't state a lot of things, and his book is pocked with very large lacunae, even in the first 6 books which survived more than the others. If Horace stated it that means the story had currency at least by 1st century BC.

Also if memory serves me correctly, there was a play written about Regulus either by Accius or Pacuvius. Now what "material" do you think they would've had to work with? One doesn't pick a pedestrian person and write a play about him.

Quote:and it has been suggested that the story was a family cover-up to exonerate Regulus' widow, who on hearing of her husband's death, and believing it to be from neglect, apparently had two Carthaginian prisoners in the custody of the family tortured to death in revenge ( c.f. Diodorus XXIII.16 for a story of Regulus tortured and killed;XXIV.12 for the widow's revenge)

If we're not trusting Diodorus about Regulus, why are we trusting him him about Regulus' wife?

Some Greeks had been eager at accusing Romans of every infamy and barbarism (exactly which it was that prompted Dionysius to write his reply).

Quote:If we're not trusting Diodorus about Regulus, why are we trusting him him about Regulus' wife?

If you are asking this question, I'd guess you haven't actually looked at the sources I've referred to. Diodorus XXIII.16 (which refers to the torture and execution of Regulus, but not the 'heroic legend') is a fragment preserved in Tzetzes poetry, hence second hand. It is highly inaccurate and obviously distorted, referring to the Carthaginians as 'Sicels' throughout, has the battle of Bagradas taking place at Lilybaeum in Sicily instead of near Carthage etc :roll: , and has Xanthippus drowned. It is a clearly jumbled dramatised mish-mash of the story, as is obvious to any reader. Tzetzes may have made up the 'torture' part himself, because in Diodorus XXIV.12 (also a fragment, but this time direct, not second hand) we have Regulus dying, so his widow believes, "of neglect".

Significantly, none of the historians writing about the first Punic war even mentions the 'legendary Regulus' story, it only appears in Horace ( and is referred to in Silius Italicus), who refers to it in a poem praising Augustus as 'the new Jove', and comparing him to legendary heroes of old, such as Regulus. Horace's purpose is to laud the supposed virtues of Romans, provide an example to Rome's youth etc.
It does not even make any pretence of being history and is obviously what it is - a moralistic fairy tale.It belongs in the same category as the heroic legend of 'Horatius at the bridge'

Quote:If Horace stated it that means the story had currency at least by 1st century BC.

Horace is not 'stating' fact/history, but rather waxing lyrical about supposed Roman ( and Augustus's) virtues....just read exactly what we have in Polybius, Diodorus and Horace, and it becomes abundantly obvious what is probable truth and what is obvious legend. Contrary to your suggestion, it is not a case of choosing between two alternate and equally likely versions of History. Horace's poetic story most probably had it's origins in the 'family traditions' of the powerful Atilii gens /clan. This is not simply my opinion but the commonly accepted view.

Quote:One doesn't pick a pedestrian person and write a play about him.

I don't think it is in dispute that Regulus was a famous historical person, but again a play is not history, nor meant to be....plays and poems serve a different purpose. Remember what Polybius wrote about the purpose of History!! :wink:

Quote:Tzetzes may have made up the 'torture' part himself

Not at all. Considering it being mentioned in other sources, it is far more likely that Diodorus, immersed in the cultural atmosphere of his time, spoke about it himself.

Quote:Significantly, none of the historians writing about the first Punic war even mentions the 'legendary Regulus' story

This isn't true. Valerius Maximus mentions the incident:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5imDC6 ... =3#PPA6,M1

Notably, the specificity and certainty with which he recounts the story strongly brings to mind an impression of some historical account behind the work. Throughout his work Maximus never quotes poets as accepted historical fact, so there must clearly be historians behind it.

Quote:Horace is not 'stating' fact/history, but rather waxing lyrical about supposed Roman ( and Augustus's) virtues....

And yet waxing lyrical has never meant manufacturing stories out of thin air. Even your example about Horatius goes straight to this, because here was a man and a story that everyone believe existed. Just imagine how here would be a well-known consul who won one 1st Punic War battle and lost another one, yet here would come Horace and manufacture a completely fake appendage story about some sort of return and supposed heroics. There's not a single instance of such an action in all of Latin poetry, and Horace's mention indicates that the story was current and commonly accepted to have credence. I'm not saying that the story was true (just as with Horatius), only that in 1st century BC everybody believed it.

Quote:Paullus Scipio wrote:Tzetzes may have made up the 'torture' part himself.

Quote: Not at all. Considering it being mentioned in other sources, it is far more likely that Diodorus, immersed in the cultural atmosphere of his time, spoke about it himself

That must be very doubtful, given that Tzetzes refers to 'Sicels' incorrectly for Carthaginians, a mistake Diodorus Siculus (Sicilian) could not possibly make, and similarly, knowing the history of his own country in detail, as proven by his work, he could not possibly have placed the battle of Bagradas in Sicily instead of Africa!!
It is clear that Tzetzes has grossly distorted what Diodorus actually wrote, very probably including the lurid details of Regulus' execution....

Quote:This isn't true. Valerius Maximus mentions the incident:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5imDC6 ... =3#PPA6,M1

Notably, the specificity and certainty with which he recounts the story strongly brings to mind an impression of some historical account behind the work.

Valerius Maximus and his 'Memorable Tales' is hardly history!! This is just more of the same morality tales that lie behind Horace's odes, it was intended as a sourcebook for writers and orators and as a guidebook for living a moral life. Valerius' "thousand tales" are arranged thematically in ninety-one chapters that cover nearly every aspect of life in the Roman world, including wide-ranging topics such as military discipline, child rearing, women, lawyers, etc.... and the importance of being duly respectful of the Gods and the proper observance of rites, which is the section where reference is made to the 'Regulus legend'.

Quote:so there must clearly be historians behind it.

I don't believe that logically follows, and is an assumption. As I said, most scholars accept/aver that the Tale probably originated in the 'family traditions' of the Atilii ( as other tales originated in Roman family tradition, especially those that passed for history before the History of Rome was written).

Quote:I'm not saying that the story was true (just as with Horatius), only that in 1st century BC everybody believed it.

Ah, so we seem to agree on the likely credibility of the Tale as being unlikely to the point of legendary, which was the original question. I would also suggest that not 'everyone' believed it to be so, more likely just 'many' ( and more, perhaps, knew it to be untrue.)
In the first century BC "everyone/many" believed in the Gods, and properly propitiating them, Heroic Myths of Romulus and Remus, Horatius, Regulus et al etc but that does not make such obvious stories/Myths true.

Quote:

Quote: In the first century BC "everyone/many" believed in the Gods, and properly propitiating them, Heroic Myths of Romulus and Remus, Horatius, Regulus et al etc but that does not make such obvious stories/Myths true.

Nor does it make them untrue. Strangely enough, half a millenium before the first histories of Rome came to be written, it turns out that a Roman history based solely on the fasti and family memorials isn't completely fabricated! I mean finding things like a gigantic, precisely 750s BC palace on the Palatine, and the name of P. Valerius Publicola inscribed on a stone tablet.

I'm not saying it is necessarily true, but I'm not saying that it's all just a lie either, as those terrible cynics Niebuhr and Mommsen once posited. That family memorials didn't have everything 100% accurately does not mean that they had everything 100% falsely.

The bottom line is that we just don't know what the facts are behind the Regulus story, and supposing that it's automatically false is just as wrong as supposing that it's true. There are strong facts counter-balancing your skeptical anaylsis. People like Valerius Maximus and Horace simply didn't take stories from some parochial family and extoll them to the level of national Roman virtue. Even if the story came out of some family memorial, the take-home message is that it was commonly accepted as a common Roman history, and it is from that source that Horace and Maximus took it up. If Accius or Pacuvius wrote a play about Regulus, it means this "common knowledge" extended as far back as the 2nd century BC.

Roman historiography had a history of vicious criticism that lampooned exaggerated/unhistorical heroics; yet this story slides into common store of Roman culture effortlessly and without venality.

So all in all, the situation is very complicated and there are conflicting facts on all sides. It would simply be inaccurate to wave it away as automatically untrue and that being the end of story. If nothing else, it fits in with the stories of Roman virtue that have little historical skepticism, so we can say that at least it was unexceptional if nothing else. If the story of Regulus was found among the Mongols or among the Assyrians then everyone would have a second look with good reason.

I agree the situation is a little complicated. Such is the frustration of Classical History :roll: But one cannot help wondering why historians like Diodorus and Polybius, always so meticulous in other things, would have left out such an important story.

Quote:
Paullus Scipio:1qe8bjdt Wrote:In the first century BC "everyone/many" believed in the Gods, and properly propitiating them, Heroic Myths of Romulus and Remus, Horatius, Regulus et al etc but that does not make such obvious stories/Myths true.

Nor does it make them untrue. Strangely enough, half a millenium before the first histories of Rome came to be written, it turns out that a Roman history based solely on the fasti and family memorials isn't completely fabricated! I mean finding things like a gigantic, precisely 750s BC palace on the Palatine, and the name of P. Valerius Publicola inscribed on a stone tablet.
Here we are once more in agreement...many myths are built from or contain a kernel of truth/actual history. Archeology often supports some part of a shrouded mystery tale and verifies it. However, in this case the likely kernel of truth is simply that Regulus died in captivity in Carthage, and one unreliable and demonstrably incorrect second-hand fragment of Diodorus has a lurid account of his death, whilst a more reliable part says he was believed to have died "of neglect". There is no historical trace or evidence for the 'legendary' version, and no evidence for any 'peace mission/embassy that Regulus could have been involved in

I'm not saying it is necessarily true, but I'm not saying that it's all just a lie either, as those terrible cynics Niebuhr and Mommsen once posited. That family memorials didn't have everything 100% accurately does not mean that they had everything 100% falsely.
Isn't this just the old 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence argument?

The bottom line is that we just don't know what the facts are behind the Regulus story, and supposing that it's automatically false is just as wrong as supposing that it's true.
Like I always say, evidence is weighed, not counted. If such a Tale existed in Polybius's day it would be all but incredible if he made no reference to it ( even allowing lacunae in the texts). Diodorus wrote in the first century BC, but alas survives only in fragments for this part, some second-hand as we have seen, but he too makes no reference to the 'legend' so since he likely knew of it, he must have rejected it, reporting only the versions ( if the Tzetzes fragment is really him) he thought likely ( so clearly not everyone in the first Century BC believed the 'legend')
Against the lack of reference in our surviving histories, we simply have the Morality tales of Valerius Maximus and Horace, which don't even ring true in themselves. Indeed the story of Roman prisoners returning to Carthaginian captivity rather than break their oath ( or being forced to by stern Rome) is almost a literary 'topos' - see similar tales told after Cannae for example.
There are strong facts counter-balancing your skeptical anaylsis.
What 'facts' are you referring to here, beyond the one that such a legend existed? I am unable to find any reference to Regulus in the tragedies of Pacuvius, whose 13 surviving fragmentary works all relate to Greek Myths or Homeric themes, and similarly with Accius .
People like Valerius Maximus and Horace simply didn't take stories from some parochial family and extoll them to the level of national Roman virtue.
....but didn't "national Roman virtue" consist of just that? .....embellished tales of the supposed virtue of the ancestors of Patrician families? Fathers who execute sons for disobeying a military order, Horatius, Romulus and Remus, tales of death before breaking an oath? Tales which were more epical rather than factual?
Even if the story came out of some family memorial, the take-home message is that it was commonly accepted as a common Roman history,
...as we have seen, it doesn't appear as if Diodorus, writing mid first century BC accepted the 'legend' story, and Polybius apparently wasn't aware of it, so one cannot say 'common' as in commonly accepted either in the second or first centuries BC...
and it is from that source that Horace and Maximus took it up. If Accius or Pacuvius wrote a play about Regulus,
If?...so this is another supposition, then. Accius may have a written a poetical history of Rome, like Ennius or Silius, but since it doesn't survive we have no idea if Regulus was even mentioned....and in any event, it will have been no more 'history' than those poets either.
it means this "common knowledge" extended as far back as the 2nd century BC.
Polybius (c.203 BC-120 BC)was more or less contemporary with Pacuvius(c.220-130) and Accius (c.170-86BC), yet no mention of the legend, and Diodorus who flourished mid-first century BC doesn't mention it either so certainly not 'common knowledge', or if it was, as historians they didn't believe it, and there is AFIK, no evidence that either Pacuvius or Accius wrote a play/Tragedy about Regulus, and judging by use of the word "if", you seem not to know of any evidence either....

Roman historiography had a history of vicious criticism that lampooned exaggerated/unhistorical heroics; yet this story slides into common store of Roman culture effortlessly and without venality.

So all in all, the situation is very complicated and there are conflicting facts on all sides.
Hardly! We do have sufficient reported evidence in our histories to weigh in on the veracity of this legend, and the evidence weighs heavily against the story having any basis in fact. Where are the 'facts' that point toward this Moral tale, as we have seen, almost a 'topos', having even a grain of truth beyond what we find in our histories, namely that he died in captivity?
It would simply be inaccurate to wave it away as automatically untrue and that being the end of story. If nothing else, it fits in with the stories of Roman virtue that have little historical skepticism, so we can say that at least it was unexceptional if nothing else. If the story of Regulus was found among the Mongols or among the Assyrians then everyone would have a second look with good reason.
Perhaps, but there are many who are skeptical of all these stories of the virtues of the stern old Romans of yore, a clear 'topos' in Roman literature.
Clearly we differ on our respective views of the probability of there being any truth in the 'Regulus legend', so I will just say to readers, look at the sources referred to and make up your own minds! :wink: D

Regarding 'historians' mentioning Regulus, the entire narrative does seem to have been in Livy as well...

The Periochae for Book 18 notes:

"In Africa, [Marcus] Atilius Regulus killed a serpent of portentous dimensions, and suffered great losses among his soldiers. But although he had fought successfully against the Carthaginians in several battles, the Senate did not send him a successor. He complained in a letter to the Senate, in which he compared his request to a piece of land that had been left by its workers. In the person of Regulus, Fortuna wanted to to give an example of both sides of fate: he was defeated and captured by Xanthippus, a Spartan leader that had been invited by the Carthaginians to support them. After this, the Roman commanders pursued the war successfully on land and sea, although the effects were spoiled by shipwreck of the fleet.

Tiberius Coruncanius was the first plebeian to be made pontifex maximus.

The censors Manius Valerius Maximus and Publius Sempronius Sophus edited the list of senators, and removed sixteen members from the Senate. The lustrum ceremony was performed and 297,797 citizens were registered.

The Carthaginians sent Regulus to the Senate to conduct peace negotiations or (if he could not obtain peace) the exchange of prisoners. Although he was bound by an oath to return to Carthage if he did not obtain the exchange, he advised the Senate against both proposals. When he returned to imprisonment, he was executed by the Carthaginians."

And while the Periochae are clearly not the same as having Livy's actual text, they do follow the surviving books reasonably closely suggesting that Livy did in fact spend an entire book almost exclusively on the Regulus narrative. Again Livy is a relatively late source (200 years after the fact) but the length and depth of the narrative does suggest a very strong tradition for the Regulus narrative in the later Latin annalists, and clearly by the 1st century BC. Not conclusive proof of Regulus' return after capture etc... but pretty solid evidence!

As for it's absence in Polybius, while this might indicate the story was relatively late in origin (more than one scholar has suggested this), it might also simply be the result of Polybius' purpose in writing. He was not writing a universal history of Rome but a treatise on the rise of Rome, and as such he doesn't mention a lot of things!

Quote:And while the Periochae are clearly not the same as having Livy's actual text, they do follow the surviving books reasonably closely suggesting that Livy did in fact spend an entire book almost exclusively on the Regulus narrative. Again Livy is a relatively late source (200 years after the fact) but the length and depth of the narrative does suggest a very strong tradition for the Regulus narrative in the later Latin annalists, and clearly by the 1st century BC. Not conclusive proof of Regulus' return after capture etc... but pretty solid evidence!

As for it's absence in Polybius, while this might indicate the story was relatively late in origin (more than one scholar has suggested this), it might also simply be the result of Polybius' purpose in writing. He was not writing a universal history of Rome but a treatise on the rise of Rome, and as such he doesn't mention a lot of things!
Regarding 'historians' mentioning Regulus, the entire narrative does seem to have been in Livy as well...

These points are meritorious, and well put and I would not doubt that a version of the 'Regulus legend' was referred to in Livy, drawing on Annalists and other traditional Roman sources such as family histories rather than earlier historians such as Polybius, but, signifantly this version of the tale seems to include fable-like religious portents/omens such as the slaying of a giant serpent, hinting that the ultimate source is a similar/same embroidered/fanciful tale to the source Horace may have used, with his emphasis on religion. As I have conceded previously, I would agree with you that by Horace and Livy's time(59 BC-17AD), the 'Regulus legend' existed, but it should be remembered that not only Polybius, but Diodorus too, writing just before Horace and Livy, makes no mention of it.

Significantly also, putting together all these clues referred to in this thread points to the 'legend' having originated much later, and almost certainly from a 'family tradition', or possibly a late annalist, a conclusion shared by many scholars, as you point out.

As I said earlier, the clues to this conundrum are all there, and it will be for the reader to weigh them up for him/herself, and reach their own conclusion.... Smile

D lol:

I would agree that the absence of the Regulus narrative from both Polybius and Diodorus is troublesome... but Regulus isn't the only figure from the middle Republic left out of their accounts. For instance the narrative surrounding Camillus is also left out by both authors...

Now it is entirely likely that we may be dealing with a similar situation, where a figure developed a large mythic cycle during the 'expansion' of Roman history which occurred in the 2nd century BC under the annalists... but isn't it also possible that Cornell was right when he noted that, given the nature of their accounts, very little can be legitimately inferred from the absence of information in the works of Polybius and Diodorus? Maybe it was their choice of focus, or simply the predominantly Greek sources they used, that caused them to leave out these figures and their stories?

But either way, when it comes down to tricky bits of historiography like this I think you're ultimately right that "it will be for the reader to weigh them up for him/herself, and reach their own conclusion...."

I would agree that it is unlikely to be co-incidence that 'rationalist' Greek historians shy away from the more fabled characters of Roman legend/history; where the characters, such as Romulus, Horatius,Camillus and Regulus may have been or were real but their exploits were more legendary.......

Unsurprising in the light of Polybius' avowed purpose of history Sad

II.56)

"A historical author should not try to thrill his readers by such exaggerated pictures, nor should he, like a tragic poet, try to imagine the probable utterances of his characters or reckon up all the consequences probably incidental to the occurrences with which he deals, but simply record what really happened and what really was said, however commonplace. 11 For the object of tragedy is not the same as that of history but quite the opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm his audience for the moment by the plausibility of the words he puts into his characters' mouths, but it is the task of the historian to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the speeches he narrates, 12 since in the one case it is the probable that takes precedence, even if it be untrue, in the other it is the truth, the purpose being to confer benefit on learners." ( translation courtesy Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius site)

Perhaps they ignored the story for because they saw it for what it was, purely family propaganda?
Not because it was a total fabrication, but because it was too polarized for use as a historical source?

or reading Paullus above..much what you said? :oops:

Quote:Unsurprising in the light of Polybius' avowed purpose of historyII.56)

"A historical author should not try to thrill his readers by such exaggerated pictures, nor should he, like a tragic poet, try to imagine the probable utterances of his characters or reckon up all the consequences probably incidental to the occurrences with which he deals, but simply record what really happened and what really was said

So given Polybius' attitude, and stance, how do you square his recording of the 10 prisoners of Hannibal, his eulogy of Fabius, and other notables? Indeed Polybius' history may be seen as chock-full of Roman virtues (in which Scipio is just a tiny, tiny piece).

Again a double-standard ought to be avoided. If we praise the 'rationalistic' Polybius for 'ignoring' the Regulus story as being untrue, then we should consider the story of the 10 prisoners as of very likely veracity.

No matter how we dice it, Romans simply had a record for precisely the sort of behavior that the Regulus story described.

Pages: 1 2

Gladius Hispaniensis

Paullus Scipio

SigniferOne

Paullus Scipio

SigniferOne

Paullus Scipio

SigniferOne

Gladius Hispaniensis

Paullus Scipio

jespah2000

Paullus Scipio

jespah2000

Paullus Scipio

Gaius Julius Caesar

SigniferOne