"Civitas secum ipsa discors" (II 23, 1). Political Rhetoric in Livy`s First Pentad, forthcoming (original) (raw)
Related papers
Inside Livy's Mind through his Preface
Ab Urbe Condita remains a riddle as the history of Rome both in its content and its presentation despite the many interpretations. Livy, as its author, has also been enigmatic to his readers over centuries. This paper argues that the riddle of Ab Urbe as a literary work and the enigma of Livy as an author can be solved in understanding the clues to irony in the Preface. Keywords Clues to intentional irony-verbal-situational-structural irony 1 Modern Scholarship on Ab Urbe Condita A survey of modern scholarship on the subject of this paper seems to be out of a purely antiquarian interest for its own sake. Scholars have continued to fault Livy for not measuring up to their expectations of him. P. G. Walsh criticized him for his lack of balance about the past, for presenting the past as credible. 1 T. J. Luce generously complimented Livy for his careful and deliberate artistry and his originality as a thinker as for innovations. Nonetheless, he noted that Livy was verbose and negligent. 2 A. J. Woodman challenged the bizarre common notion that historians of classical times, including Livy, wrote with the same aims as the modern historians. 3 Interestingly, Gary B. Miles concluded, "A major reason for scholarly uncertainty and disagreement [on when the first pentad was written] is that the language of Livy's Preface is vague". 4 Miles blamed Livy's language in the Preface for leaving a small chronological detail unresolved. At least Miles recognized the importance of the language of the Preface. Yet, in the thirty-five references to the Preface in the body of his work, not once did Miles attempt to delve into the problem posed by the language of the Preface and find a solution for it. Jason P. Davis, bewildered at Livy's beliefs and unbeliefs, wrote, "Thus, we are left with something of a dilemma: there are reasons to think that Livy prefers not to accept the traditional Roman position on prodigies, and equally good reasons to think the opposite". 5 Davis seems unaware that the clash between the narrator's and the implied author's views is 1 Walsh 1961, 138-90
Tacitean scholars have noticed allusions to Livy by Tacitus since at least the end of the nineteenth century. Ever since, many works have attempted to identify and explain Tacitus’ interest in Livy’s history of Rome, generally focusing on comparisons regarding how these authors describe military events and Senate debates . The prevalent idea sustains that Tacitus alluded to Livy not only as a means to emulate him, but also to establish a contrast between past and present, demonstrating discontinuities and similarities between the monarchic and Republican past and the Principate . In this sense, Tacitus represented the past under the Principate as well as offered a political interpretation of that regime, establishing his authority as a historian . In this article, I follow this line of analysis, inquiring the dialogue established by Tacitus with Livy’s work about a specific theme: the question of loyalty (fides) within the context of Roman slave society. Although there are many references to slavery in both authors , little has been asked about the possibilities of intertextuality concerning the episodes involving masters and slaves, and freedmen and patrons. The relationship between slavery, manumission and citizenship is a common concern of Livy and Tacitus, even though they wrote at different moments of state regulation of slavery. I wish to point out a probable connection between the way in which Livy describes the origin of manumissio uindicta, through the story of the slave Vindicius, who exposed a conspiracy denouncing his master’s involvement (Liv. 2.4.6-5.10), and how Tacitus told the story of the freedman Milichus, who also denounced his patron because he took part in the Pisonian conspiracy against Nero (Ann., 15.54-55).
nulla unquam res publica maior: Livy, Augustus, and the Foundation of the Roman Republic
This paper uncovers Livy's careful description of the foundation and very history of the res publica. With a focus on the first half of the second book of the Ab Vrbe Condita, it discusses the historian's definition of the Republic herself, the early important magistracies (consul, dictator, and tribune), and his description of key figures, both a hero (Iunius Brutus) and a villain (Coriolanus).
AN UNPARALLELED PARALLEL APPROACH: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ROMULUS IN LIVY'S REPUBLICAN HISTORY
This dissertation explores the idea of Parallelism within Livy's presentation of the Life of Romulus, focusing on three liminal stages : The death of Remus, the rape of the Sabine women, and the death of Romulus. Focus is placed on a detailed comparitive analysis of the work of Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and of the surviving sources (largely fragmentary) which predate Livy's work. Once this is done, the aspects which only seem to apper in Livys work are analysed along side supplimentray modern scholarship on the chapter topics. The conclusions of this research indicate that one of the possible intentions of Livy in writing the early histroy of Rome was to create parallels to the events of his own time, specifically the Roman civil war. This is argued to have been undertaken with the aim of creating an understaning of how these events occured, what could have been done to prevent them form occuring, and the processes which contributed to the conclusion of the civil war.
“The Depiction of Alexander the Great in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita.”
This study investigated a few examples of Livy’s depiction of Alexander in relation to Rome and the narrative of his history. Livy addresses the impact and importance of Alexander in a diverse fashion, sometimes with flattery and other times with insult. His respect for Alexander is palpable. Yet his criticisms can be vicious. The subject of Livy’s history and his own fascination with Alexander lends itself to such inconsistency. The conflicts between Rome and the Hellenistic states created after Alexander’s death, during the late third and second centuries B.C.E., are at the center of Livy’s work. These aspects undoubtedly had an effect on his portrayal of Alexander and offer us a unique perspective on the relationship created by the Romans between Rome and the great Macedonian. This study hopes to illustrate that because of a major part of Livy’s history, namely the rise of Rome to Mediterranean dominance, and because of the political atmosphere in which Livy was writing, namely the complete submission of the Mediterranean basin under Augustan Rome, Livy, despite his generally positive opinion of Alexander, ultimately created scenarios where he portrayed the Romans as superior to the Macedonian king. Louisiana State University HGSA Annual Graduate History Conference, March 2012.