Fromp.G. Walsh S Book

Livy

(fromP.G. Walsh’s book)

D. Swift

Personal background: 59BC – 17 AD

Almost whole life devoted to literary composition
Influenced by Patavium - Patavinitas
Not like Rome – retained strict moral outlook of old
But not a backwater, was thriving , prosperous, Livy educated there
Too dangerous to finish education off in Rome: Civil War
Vagueness of knowledge of Geography, so probably didn’t do Greece or much else, but tries to clarify topography
No military experience, evidenced from ignorance of practical soldiering in texts
Pre-occupied with history and philosophy
Wrote dialogues modelled on Cicero’s
Wholly influenced by Stoic ethics

Politically:

Pro-senatorial
Pro-Republican
Favoured aristocratic form of government
Emphasis on strict morals of great Republican leaders
Well trained in theory of oratory – speech composition

Aburbe condita

Started when he came to Rome c.29BC?
Came to consult sources unavailable in Patavium
A prose epic for a nation at peace, to guide men in their principles of conduct by an appeal to themoresof Republican heroes
142 books: from foundation to 9 BC
averaged over 3 books per year for 40 years
work of unflagging industry
needed to scrutinize at least 3 sources for each book
reconcile them,
translate into Augustan prose
re-write the speeches
life of complete dedication to his writing
little personal speculation, mechanical after a while?
naïve idea? Not enough research? Too immense a task? Thoughts of abandonment?
Yet, clear evidence of a pentad structure – except when events become more complex later on
Major events often reserved for first book in pentad
Book XXX occupied entirely by Hannibalic War
Divided into
Rise of Hannibal
Roman counter-attack

Livy and Augustus:

Renewed hope of Augustus’ reign
Notion of Octavian as second Romulus current in Rome
Augustan writers of the day all looked back in shame and anger at savagery of Civil wars
Rome dominates aburbe condita , as it does Aeneid: pulcherrimarerum
Divinely founded, providentially guided, mission to found paxRomana

Livy as propagandist?

Message simply to recommend the principate?
Divine allusions to Augustus (Romulus, Hercules, Numa)
Tacitus: “after the Battle of Actium impartial history can no longer exist.”
Livy a close friend and frequent visitor to Augustus’ court
But Livy could and did write what he wanted (e.g. praised Pompey….)
No flattering mention of the Emperor anywhere
He acclaims end of civil strife, but seeks no favours from Augustus
Early books of AUC concentrate on
religious observances of early days
important role of chastity (pudicitia)
and actually inspired Augustus’ programme of religious and moral reform
Livy speaks of need but sceptical of immediate achievement

Historiography

Romans concerned to match Greeks in literary elegance rather than scientific accuracy Polybius insisted historiographer needed to serve state actively to get experience, knowledge, judgement
Livy turned it into more academic pursuit
Thucydides
Followed convention of composing speeches in a manner apposite to the occasion –
Polybius disagreed, but Livy was to follow this convention
Believed study of history to be of practical benefit to statesman, as did Polybius
Reflected teaching of the sophists – sceptical about oracles and divine intervention – the gods are absent and irrelevant
Avoided legends of the past (as did Sallust, but not Livy)
Polybius
Believed historian’s job was to discover what was actually said or done “however commonplace”
Concern for truth and serious political treatment
Hellenistic historiography (apart from Polybius)
Declined in standards from Thucydides
Purpose was to charm, divert, edify, preoccupation with the literary
Some aimed at effects similar to tragedy
Popular view that history should have didactic function
Roman historiography
Early trial and experiment
Only records prior to Punic wars were tabulaepontificum, i.e. community chronicals compiled annually by pontifexmaximus
Early Roman historians wrote their history in Greek – to reach a wider audience and impress Greek world with rise of Rome
Cato (2nd century), first to write history in Latin
Influenced by Hellenistic writers and techniques
But also by tradition that history-writing in Latin was in origin official and religious
NB Livy records early legends, underlining the sentimental value of them Tabulaepontificum were venerated, whether true or not
As were old registers and annals, copied faithfully by Livy, supplemented later by senatorial transactions
Later annalists distorted these senatorial records of debates out of patriotism, e.g. to glorify own family
These records still incorporated into Livy’s account – out of reverence for records of early history
Influence of Isocrates:
History should be magister vitae
His tenets are: Lux, brevitas, fides (clarity, brevity, plausibility)
Influence of Cicero – standards Livy sought to attain
Condemns debasement of history in family records
Differentiates between history and encomium
The fabulous should be absent from history – Livy achieves this except in early books, where this is all there is to go on
Historian should analyse motives or intentions so forming the sequence:

consilia, acta, eventus

Livy follows this esp in 4th and 5th decades, prefaces account of decisive action with psychological analysis of motives of participants
illustrious persons’ careers and characters should be analysed, not just their actions (they make history) – central feature of Livy’s work
it is the individual (human qualities), as well as chance and divine intervention which makes history
the causes of important events should be investigated – Livy repeatedly mentions role of the gods in human affairs – in line with his deeply religious interpretation of history
history should have ethical function: Livy very influenced by this - the great heroes of his history symbolize the qualities that made Rome great – plus belief in the practical utility of history for the statesman
Livy rejects mere pleasing and charming of the reader, his work has a more didactic purpose
stresses need for eloquentia –
Livy indebted to “rhetorical” and “tragic” theories of history – occasionally goes in for “set pieces”, digressions on e.g.
topics of antiquarian interest,
manner of death of famous men,
siege and capture of cities
dramatic dialogues
human situations of horror, pathos or romance
composes episodes according to Aristotelian (i.e. episodes have beginning, middle and end) theory of tragedy
recommends annalistic method

Influence of Caesar
Livy learned much from Gallic and Civil Wars commentaries
In description of troop dispositions
Other techniques of military narration
Influence of Sallust
Chose a contemporary theme
Avoided legend
Adopted scientific Thucydidean method, but pre-occupied with ethics, viewing all history in terms of man’s duties to gods and fellow-men.
Used stylistic features antithetical to Cicero and, hence condemned by Livy (e.g. verbal archaism, abrupt brevity of expression)

Scope of the AbUrbe Condita

narrow, because of points above (no social, economic factors etc)
limited to a period largely concerned with wars
to establish position in Italy
and a series of overseas campaigns
and the civil wars resulting in collapse of the Republic
3 types of historical material: general framework of words and deeds
narrative of the campaigns
spoken word
assemblies
conferences
speeches made to troops
annalistic framework (going back to tabulaepontificum)
appointments, state festivals, reports of dreams, prodigies

he still tries to retain rhetorical ideal
sees no need to state that he will write “sine ira et studio” (Tacitus) – has no axe to grind –
but struggles for the impartiality of a Thucydides
– too uncritical patriotism, too Roman bias
political acrimony of last century of Republic, Livy opposed to populares (Caesar)

Religion, Philosophy, Morality

His interest in the past is purely academic?
Evidence for unshakeable belief in the old gods?
1st century intellectuals (Caesar, Cicero, Epicureans etc) questioning crude superstition
Livy shows scepticism too:
Dicitur, ferunt, traditummemoriae, visisunt – phrases which allow him to distance himself from what he is describing

Is it the social value of religion he is interested in? Does he see a symbolic truth in state religion, absurdities and all? Livian pietas.
Cf Ovid’s expeditessedeos
Livy’s Stoic determinism
There is an essential harmony in matter, directed by a material god immanent in it – the man who follows life of virtue, reason, harmony with universe is successful; man who follows vice and greed fails.
Early books stress testing of the Roman people by constraining force (final clauses) His use of fatum , which the gods cannot change, linked with major crises – predestined emergence of Scipio Africanus “fatalis dux”
Fortuna – increasingly worshipped at Rome as state religion declined – to the Stoic, just another manifestation of Intelligence of the world, guiding it to pre-destined end. “luck” or “chance” is sent by the gods.
Prodigies and dreams; included as an appeal to the wisdom of the past? To defend older and better values? Do they possibly express the divine will? Sometimes he’s scathing about them. Are they evidence for a disordered universe? (anathema to Stoics)
Livy encouraged by Stoic dogma to believe Romans were a master race. Undisguised chauvinism in every book. But not in reference to 1st century Rome – very pessimistic about this.
The past as an “Ethical battlefield” Celebration of leaders with qualities such as
Pietas – towards the gods
Fides – towards men
Concordia – civic virtue, struggle of the Orders
Disciplina – deference to authority, both military and civic – subordination of personal desires to the orders of the commander
Prudentia (not temeritas) – foresight, leaving nothing to chance
Ratio (not ferocitas) – reason in politics and war
Clementia – mercy (but only towards those willing to surrender!) Scipio personifies Roman clemency – idealized picture of him – Polybius tells us he ordered slaughter after capture of New Carthage. Livy impersonalises it.
Pudicitia – chastity esp. story of Sophonisba and Scipio’s reproach to Massinissa (Polybius says Scipio was “fond of the fair sex”)
Behind Africanus the authentic tones of Livy the Stoic are audible
Virtus (Romana) – courage, no quality more vital than his in Rome’s rise to power. Sc Livy’s comparison of Rome’s troops with Carthaginian
Dignitas – acting in accordance with one’s status
Gravitas – seriousness Livy excises all the jokes! Leads to pompous sobriety
Frugalitas – without luxury (egCincinatus)
And what happens to leaders who fail to observe some or any of these (tragic concept of history)(According to Livy, Hannibal lost 2nd Punic War mainly because of dangerous relaxation in Capua in 216/5BC…again at odds with Polybius’ account!; “Hannibal never brought in his men from under the open sky”.)

Sense of ordered and intelligible universe which justifies the title of Livy of “philosophic historian”

Characterisation of individuals by the indirect method;-

speeches and remarks made by him
attitudes of contemporaries towards the person, in their speeches and actions
mental reaction of others, or the course of action they adopt in response
sometimes adds brief comment on important persons after their death (sc Scipio, the man who won the Hannibalic War)
comparison and contrast between leaders, esp contrasting foreigners
(e.g. Syphax (lack of good faith) and Masinissa (constantissima fides towards Rome. He is a foreigner with almost all the Roman virtues) One of Livy’s great heroes; “by far the greatest king of his day”
religious
shows forethought and boldness as general
controls passion at Scipio’s command – poisons Sophonisba
valiant

Scipio – Livy’s ideal Roman

Livy takes his side in the dramatic controversies arising out of his policies, concentrates on his moral qualities
from the Stoics point of view, he is a man of fate destined to lead Rome to greatness (cf Virgil’s Aeneas)
but dismisses Scipio’s claims of seeing visions as superstition, even deceit.
Stoicism finds no place for mysticism – Livy prefers to portray Scipio as a man with firm beliefs in traditional religion
accepts his fortune on behalf of the Roman people – this is not chance but Stoic destiny
majestic bearing – his effect on assemblies, armies, foreigners like Masinissa but had no thoughts of kingship
his generalship is praised, Livy embarrassed by Scipio’s duplicity in burning of enemy’s camps in 204/3 – deceit and guile more the Carthaginian way, so invents a reason why Scipio couldn’t ratify the negotiated “peace”
omits what is unedifying in leading Romans

Characterisation of Hannibal

career depicted as classic example of man who trusts initially in fortune
confidence increased by temporary success
in defeat learns his expectations wrongly based
before Zama says he has learnt to trust reason rather than fortune
traditional portrait of him includes vices such as
no fear of the gods – yet seems contradicted at times
no observance of law
but there is no”perfidia plus quam Punica”
Carthaginian cruelty and guile
Tho a character more human and worthy of respect than painted in earlier tradition – as always he looks for moral qualities
Had sense of humour, and humanity
Livy’s assessment of him as a general has limitations (as it does of Scipio), has moral qualities, powers of endurance, bravery, boldness, fine leadership of polytglot army but unable to appreciate his strategic competence etc.

Races and Nations

often gives direct estimate of their qualities
banal, unsubtle, reflecting Roman insularity
esp. Punicafraus, Punica fides
conventional portraits of Italians egCampanians, degenerate; Sabines incorruptible, Volscii fickle etc

“Livy has allowed his pursuit of edifying examples to take precedence over a truthful account. He has sought out examples of vice in order to demonstrate its destructive effect on the individual and the community. It is this conception of history, dominated by idealized heroes and denigrated villains, which is ultimately responsible for the most serious defect in Livy’s work. He has falsified history not by error but by design.”

Livy’s Historical authorities

Livy’s failure to search out and evaluate original documentary evidence
His quotes from ancient documents are he has found in a literary source
Available documentary evidence?
Annals maximi (bare outline of Rome’s history c.80 books gathered from tabulaepontificum, about 115BC)
Librilintei (kept in Temple of Juno Moneta, kept magistrate lists)
Permanent records of senatusconsultu (available in book form in Livy’s day)
Private archives (more detailed accounts of transaction of state affairs)

Livy never consulted any of these directly = unhistorical attitude towards documentary evidence

Willingness to accept the testimony of others = a feature familiar in Roman historiography
Cf Pliny the Younger:

“If my subject is an ancient period already discussed by others, my material will be ready at hand”.

Livy tried to present the research undertaken by others in a more attractive literary setting

His literary sources?

For Books 1-10

ValeriasAntias, has faults of turgidity and exaggeration, but at least consulted original documents and so Livy did well to follow him. Patrician in bias. Particularly used in XXX and following.
Claudius Quadrigarius, ignored the early history of Rome as being unscientific, so started with sack of Rome by the Gauls, down to 82BC, consulted annals maximi, tried for a more interesting and exciting account with essentially turgid material.
LiciniusMacer, Plebeian in bias
AeliusTubero (the main source) wrote on Law as well as history, enthusiastic antiquary, Livy reproduced many of his religious, military and civil procedural formulae.
FabiusPictor, wrote his history in Greek, quoted by Livy on several occasions, heavily influenced the tradition inherited by Livy of being pro-Roman and writing in the annalistic style – patriotically distorted the events of the 2nd Punic War. Polybius noted this. Main source for Roman viewpoint in 2nd Punic War for both Coelius and Polybius
Nb repeated use of utferunt, traditur, proditummemoriae – stressing his dependence on unreliable traditions

Book 30

Coelius Antipater , used as main source for XXI-II, chief source for Spanish affairs for 3rd decade and for Italian campaigns for as long as Hannibal was successful
Polybius – only acknowledged by name once, but Livy shows familiarity with him as early as Book XXI and becomes main authority from XXIV onwards, especially when it concerns Greece or Sicily and the campaign in Africa.
Wrote a history of the period 264-146, in 40 books, main theme was rise of Rome to world domination 220-168
Aimed to write a universal history
More scientific, more rational approach than other of Livy’s sources – tried always to find natural causes for events, downplayed caprice, chance – as does Livy in 4th decade where Polybius is sole source.

Historical Methods

Polybius identified ( and Livy knew of these requirements) 3 duties for any serious historian: he must

Study documents and memoirs and compare them
Personally scrutinize cities and sites, rivers and harbours, physical features of land and sea concerned in his account
Have engaged in political activity

Aburbe condita deficient – geographical errors, factual mistakes on military matters But choice of sources for first decade shows attempt at impartiality (Tubero, Macer and Antias split in their partiality for Populares and Patricians)

3rd Decade

Polybius main source, but also Antias (Livy uses a check source for him, no doubt aware of Antias’ fondness of exaggeration) depicts Roman recovery from a Roman point of view, and Coelius.

4th Decade

Polybius used for events in the East and for details of embassies to Rome from eastern states
Antias prominent in first eight books, Claudius thereafter. Both used as sources for Italian and Western affairs

How does he use these sources?

Requirement 1 Personal scrutiny of documents and memoirs:

Generally he

Uses one source in the description of an event
Introduces to it his own motivation (political, religious, moral)
Reorganizes it to suit own style
Quotes views of others who might differ in interpretation or tally of numbers killed etc.
Allows his main narrative to rest on the factual information of a single authority
Frequently changes main source within a book or even chapter
Often refers to “auctores”, when in fact he’s only consulting an “auctor”
Often summarises at end of a description a different view, without any clear indication of his own judgement
Sometimes mistranslates Polybius’ Greek source ( e.g. thureous – thuros Livy has men defending themselves with “doors” rather than “shields”!)
Sometimes misinterprets whole sentences – and has probably not read it the original closely enough – fatigue??
Sometimes repeats obvious mistakes from the sources, dates of battles, numbers killed etc chronology in general, distortions through family interests
Creates confusion and repetition when passing from one source to another
Sometimes perverts or hides the truth for patriotic or moral reasons eg Scipio Africanus described as man of complete integrity, conduct of Roman troops idealized, defers to earlier members of the Livia gens
Sc Caligula’s judgement that he was “the inaccurate historian” Suet. Cal. 34

Requirment 2 personal scrutiny of places etc: