Printable View
I have a question about Livy, and it fits well here, since you guys used him as well.
I recently bought a copy from Penguin Classics about The Early History of Rome, by Livy. It's a really nice book, you should get it as a good bedtime read. My question is, how reliable is Livy?
Discuss. :book:
Livy has to be considered as pretty reliable. If we can't rely on Livy, then we have few other sources to rely on, especially for the early history of Rome.
Obviously, you can throw out specific speeches and such as an invention of Livy. But, the basic narrative is probably accurate.
That said, his account of the time of the kings is questionable, as he was writing hundreds of years after the fact. So, it's unknown what sources or traditions he might have had access to draw opon to write his history. His account of events closer to his own time (i.e. under the Republic) are probably more accurate than not.
The narrative itself is fairly accurate. The details are demonstatably mostly made up, added to which Livy uses anachronisms and he believes in cyclic history, his early history is actually based somewhat on his modern history.
Added to this he was an armchair historian, he had no practical experience of anything. So no, he's not very reliable in many ways but there is truth in his work, truth you can find.
A lot of scholars just throw out the first 5 books of Livy as nonsense, and while they're probably being a bit too harsh (there are a few examples of things that can be supported by other evidence) the very early portion of Livy is not something that should be trusted. Other parts of Livy are a bit better, basically whatever source he was copying at the time determines how good his history is.
Livy is certainly a wonderful read and the basis of many of the civic myths that the Romans cherished about themselves which have come down to us as history, but his pro-Roman partiality in writing about the Carthaginians must be taken into account.
Above all it must be recognized that Livy is not a primary source. He did not witness the events about which he wrote, or speak with eyewitnesses. His accuracy therefore comes down to his diligence as a researcher, and here there is definitely grounds for criticism. In many cases he appears to have not visited the sites of the events he describes and he relied heavily on pro-Roman literature that he seems to have been reluctant to evaluate for its accuracy. Certainly he seems to have been eager to please his audience and not tell them anything that they didn't want to hear.
In this respect Livy is of course hardly unique, even today, and his importance is not to be confused with his accuracy. His style, too, by its very readability, can make hard-core historians a little skeptical. Thucydides' style seems much more objective, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Thucydides was completely impartial. Livy was telling wonderful stories, and stories have come to seem somehow less serious than 'history'.
Not many people today believe that the city of Rome was founded in exactly 753 BC, or that the whole Tarquin-Lucretia-Brutus story is 'true'. Livy probably had no more actual primary souce material for the first 500 years of Rome's history than we do today, and perhaps less as modern archeology has shown us a great deal about early Rome. If he made up all those stories about the Sabine women and so on, how much can we trust his writing in later parts of the book?
Surely, as for a good read, it's really good. I'm reading it like an adventure novel. ~D
Read "The War With Hannibal" and while some of it obviously wandered off into rather fantasy land like areas, it was a very enjoyable read.
Often got impressions of Livy as the characterisitc tourist, with a sunburnt nose and bad straw hat touring round battle sites in spain and getting horribly ripped off by the locals...
He seems the type, doesn't he? :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyM
Naw, he never went anywhere. Just read the analist historians.
Yuck!Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
Anything Livy can do, Polybius can do better ~;)
Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalCarthage
Although Polybius shouldn't be taken at face value either. There is an issue with his account of Hanabal's march on Rome, a case where Livy may have been right.
As to throwing out the first five books, they're slightly more/less accurate that the Iliad, which is to say much of the basic plot, and the rough dates, can be supported. For example, Livy says the Republic was founded in 510 BC, archaeology suggests he's off by about three years or so
A more general problem with historical sources is that their modern-day reputation and influence often depend not so much on their innate quality as on the mere fact that they have survived. Claudius' history of the Carthaginians may have been (probably was) more 'accurate' than Livy's material on Hannibal, but we don't have Claudius and we do have Livy. And of course, Macchiavelli's Discourses on Livy didn't hurt Livy's reputation as an historian either. Still I love reading him, and there is a wonderful scene in I, Claudius where the young Claudius is talking to Livy and Asinus Polio. The two older men ask Claudius to choose between them, and he replies, "Livy writes to persuade men to virtue, and Polio to compel them to truth; and perhaps the two are not irreconciliable."
That, I think, is the best approach. We can love Livy because of his love for the stories he told, as long as we take thm with a grain of salt.
506 is the generally accepted date, though some claim it wasn't until around 475. The date 510 probably ended up being official history because it's the same year in wich the tyrant Hippias was expulsed from Athens, in wich the Romans saw a parallel situation to wich they liked to compare themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Oh, man, so harsh, and a lot of it without much foundation! First of all, the more we discover of ancient Rome, the more we find out just how right and truthful Livy really was, such as the painting of Servius Tullus, the 5th century stone fragment with the name Publicola on it, and others. And furthermore, to suggest that we know now more than Livy did is one of those breathtakingly disagreeable statements that I perhaps don't even know what to say to it first. First of all, many of the ancient monuments that were erected during the Republic were still standing in Livy's time, including the votive statues erected to national heroes; including, I might add, the statue to Horatius Cocles which still stood during 1st century AD; all of the Republican Forum and its ancient temples -- the Temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the temple to Saturn, temple to Hercules, upgraded upon temples that were actually standing since the 6th century BC; the Lacus Curtius obviously; and many many others, reconstructing or rediscovering which would only corroborate Livy's story more and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by oudysseos
Now there are a few small inaccuracies in Livy here and there, but they are due to the nature of his work and at times he admits that no definitive answer can be given on that particular subject, whatever it may be; but as a historian and scholar Livy is one of the greats, especially considering how massively enormous his work was (142 books, each 100 or so modern pages), a fact which should be remembered before rushing to join the trigger-happy ultra-critical crowd. And especially we call him "Livy", not "Titus Livius", because entire generations of Rennaissance boys grew up learning and studying him and becoming great personal friends with the ancient Roman, enough to give him a personal nickname, and being inspired by him to recreate the culture of republic that he was describing. Patrick Henry translated all of Livy by himself, at 15 years of age, studied Livy as the primary inspiration for his oratory (!), and made it a rule to read Livy from cover to cover every year until the end of his life. So please be a little less dismissive with the man who was one of the great fountainheads in the birth of America and rebirth of freedom in the West.
EDIT: Minor corrections.
I think you misunderstand the nature of our criticism. The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Livy's material is really undeniable, being best illustrated in the Carthaginian histories, in which modern authors frequently have to take Polybios over Livy - the man personally lived through and participated in many of the histories he recounted, and traced the steps of many characters he described.
Now, you can't imagine that by acknowledging these errors, fabrications, or guesses we're all despairagement for Livy. His contribution to history is equally undenbiable, and though some of the details involved can be called in to question (indeed complaints are largely regarding details of events or subjects; not the basic outline), it's largely invaluable.
As said, his narrative is pretty much broadly accurate, but in terms of details he is often cloudy, and sometimes downright inaccurate, as certain historians have pointed out. Not to mention that Livy seems quite given to exaggeration and mixing up of events and facts, something ancient historians did quite often.
I loved reading Livy when I was studying Latin, and having read the majority of the classical canon (mostly in translation I admit), Livy and Herodotus are both way at the top of my list. Also, I do not think that Livy's work should be held to the same technical standards that modern histories are. But the guy opening this thread asked specifically about Livy's accuracy, not about the quality of his writing or his relevance in historiography, or his influence on Machiavelli, Gibbon, Tom Paine or my Auntie Jean. So criticisms of his accuracy are, I believe, fair. If you are looking for an up-to-date state-of-the-art history of the early republic, most professionals in the field would probably not send you to Livy first.
VandalCarthage:
And that's precisely the reason for Polybius' value -- he is an earlier contemporary to his events. He was not writing total history, nor did he intend to write about any larger period than the concrete scope of his work. That's why Polybius and Thucydides are completely inadequate for comparison with Livy, and should be compared to someone like Tacitus instead. As far as whole histories go, that of Ephorus didn't survive and that of Diodorus is inferior to Livy, so as a total historian Livy is unsurpassed from antiquity.Quote:
The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Livy's material is really undeniable, being best illustrated in the Carthaginian histories, in which modern authors frequently have to take Polybios over Livy - the man personally lived through and participated in many of the histories he recounted, and traced the steps of many characters he described.
oudysseos
Not just about accuracy, but about Livy's merit as a historian. Hence my reply. You can't compare him to someone like Polybius who lived early enough to be able to speak to Massinissa or to one of Scipio's legates, and then blame Livy for failing to live up to that. Yes, in some matters of detail Polybius can be preferred, but as overall history, a standard neither Polybius nor Thucydides come even close to living up to, the whole of history of Livy is unsurpassed.Quote:
But the guy opening this thread asked specifically about Livy's accuracy, not about the quality of his writing or his relevance in historiography
I'm not interested in what "most professionals in the field" say. Most professionals in the field, if we are going to go by your standard of judgment, would have said that Troy doesn't exist, that names in Homer are fictitious, that Mycenae even if existed was some mud village, and a ton of other such cynical beliefs. They would not have found the actual site of Troy, the grandeur of Mycenae, the letters from Hittites to "Achaeans" and to "Alexander" of "Troia" or anything else, were it not for Schliemann or other intrepid amateur classicists, who had little patience with such cynical ivory-tower beliefs. These men went and collapsed all of what "most professionals in the field" believed, and suffered ridicule from the "professionals" for decades to boot. None of these "professionals in the field" have contributed by making any such great discoveries, have decoded Linear B, or anything else really worthy of merit. So I suggest you check your premises. Most professionals in the field are just stuck-up ivory tower types, who have contributed little other than their own vituperation to the study of history.Quote:
If you are looking for an up-to-date state-of-the-art history of the early republic, most professionals in the field would probably not send you to Livy first.
Classicists maybe, but archaeologists are now generally a different breed. I don't know if we can even say that there were "professionals" in terms of archaeology in Heinrich's day. But yeah, classicists certainly pooh-pooh'd the ideas you are talking about. They can all (classicists and archaeologists and historians) be wrong today still, but the view is a lot more balanced. The ivory-tower philologists certainly still exist though! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsyrow1
This is a massively sweeping generalization (and quite mean-spirited, too) and also completely misses the point about Livy's reliability and accuracy.
But Schliemann will do as well- yes he found important archeological sites, and then proceeded to slash through them in a way that makes historians and archeologists today weep for the lost opportunities destroyed by his brutal methods. He got the dating wrong both at Troy and Mycenae- that famous gold mask? not Agammemnons, or at least hundreds of years too early for the period. It took these useless ivory tower professionals to clean up the mess he left behind and make sense of the things that he found. Yes, of course, it is better that he did find these sites than that they go undiscovered, but he was not a philanthropist and was in that game to become rich and famous.
But nothing that you wrote really applies to the discussion about LIvy anyways. Livy was a wonderful writer, is important to historiography, and is not a primary source for the history of the early republic. He had a pronounced political bias (definitely not a Howard Zinn- and I dare you to accuse him of 'vituperation') and was a little vague on some of those pesky details.
It's shame you're not interested in what people who devote their professional lives to these subjects have to say. They are not always right, but that is very different from being always wrong. Plus, it's rude.
I've found that after reading Livy, or in my case Caesar (been rereading De Bello Gallico), a good modern history such as Egypt, Greece and Rome by Charles Freeman helps put it all into perspective. Also, Freeman is a freelance writer (with massive academic qualifications) who seems not to have too many 'ivory tower' axes to grind. Best of both worlds, eh?
I haven't read that particular book, but I really know of very few modern historical books that have much merit. Most are utterly useless, with rare notable exceptions such as Peter Green's Alexander to Actium (containing some disagreeable things but in whole filled with solid judgment), and Victor Davis Hanson's works in general. But other than for the Hellenistic period, I don't really see why modern histories are even necessary. There's nothing more gripping than Polybius' account of Rome in Punic Wars and 2nd century, and nothing more grand than Livy's monumental description of Rome's rise (as I said, it swept the minds of all Renaissance and Enlightenment readers, including the American Founding Fathers and other great men). Finally, to supplement Roman history, there's Sallust and Plutarch, and Tacitus with Suetonius for completion. For Greek (Classical) history, again more Plutarch, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Diodorus (with Xenophon's Hellenica, and Quintus Curtius' Alexander).
Modern books, then, are usually simply superfluous, in competition with such grand works, although pre-19th century books often had a similar "weighty judgment" as well; but even that has disappeared with the help of modern Classicists. So I really don't find modern books that necessary, although I do keep up to date on the archeological front (which, by the way, vindicates Livy and Homer more and more every day), and sometimes (very infrequently) do find modern Classics histories that aren't sorely lacking in fact, or judgment, or usually both. Peter Green's "Shadow of the Parthenon", for instance, was a very intriguing set of essays.
So anyhow, about Livy -- this modern rabid criticism is just that, merely modern, and it is fueled by useless intellectuals who contribute little except the further disintegration of their once hallowed profession. Call that rude, if you will, but true it is nonetheless.
Your opinion. But that doesn't make it true. I agree with you on some of this, but to say that modern histories or historians are "utterly useless" is just being radical in itself.
Modern historians as apart from archeological discoveries they rely on? I think it's rather clear that they have very little to contribute. All they are left to do, by definition, is regurgitate the same material that's been regurgitated before. There are some historians that, due to precisely the archeological foundation for their work, provide some useful insight, such as studies for economy in the Roman Empire, but like I said useful books such as these, ones that are within the honored old Classics tradition, are very few in between. If one or two books are useful, out of 5,000-6,000 that are published every year, that's not a very good record.
That's just a patently ridiculous claim. You're attacking the institution of modern historical work, while making up your own exceptions? Modern historical interpretations are absolutely necessary to the advancement of classical study. Without qualified organizations of various classical sources, it would be incredibly difficult for anyone (not to mention students or amateur historians) to put their subjects into a recognizable context.
I can pull any number of books off my shelf that provide ample evidence that this is patently not the case. But it all boils down to one's opinion. I'd rather take the opinion of ancient historians and classicists though, when trying to understand the usefullness of current scholarship in those areas. It's like Socrates asking questions of blacksmiths - sure, they may give lots of other useless information, but they did provide good knowledge of the trade they were in. Who should we trust in dealing with ancient history then? People who distrust virtually the whole (99.9997%) of modern scholarship or people who are immersed in it? Even the ones in it are often wrong, or certain individuals in it may be entirely wrong all the time, but throwing it out for some 'true knowledge' that one says almost all other people who constantly research write on the topic today are wrong is just ridiculous.
Numismatics and the historians like Frank Holt who use it have provided the first solid histories we have of the Greco-Baktrian kingdoms. Though countless books are written on Homer each year, current analysis of oral poetry still provides very insightful information on why and how "Homer" or the Homeric tradition composed what he/it did. Historians like W.K. Pritchett even into his 90's still provide incredible insight into and clarity about the mountain paths and minor sites that Pausanias walked and described. Historians who focus on cities and people that have not been as thoroughly dealt with still are able to put together coherent patterns and trends in the way those places dealt with the Greek and Roman world at large - patterns that were ignored or unknown before their work - like Scholten's history of the Aitolian League. Or they are able to summarize and clarify the history of a culture or well known city/state light years better than anyone prior to them has, as Paul Cartledge's work on Sparta easily shows, or Salmon's book on Corinth, or Hammond's work on Macedonia and Epeirus. Virtually anything of substance or merit on the Greeks in the east will have been written in the last three decades. But almost all of this will have to be thrown out according to those who think that only the ancient literature itself or that of archaeologists today is meritorious, save the one in ten-thousand modern works that he will deem 'accurate'.
Take the general public's view of the Spartans. Or even the ardent hobbyist's view of the Spartans. Or the TLC / History Channel viewer's view of the Spartans. Or almost anyone's view (except a very small number of classicists) 50 years ago. They all would have huge gaps and inaccuracies in the understanding of the development of Sparta and the history of the sixth century (which is the most pivotal to them). The gossamer veil that presented the idealized Sparta most of them would and still do see as the real one has been partially lifted thanks to modern historians and classicists and archaeologists. But hey, why not just trust Plutarch's or some 17th century aristocrat's every breath on the matter instead.
Well good, let's take the Spartans for instance. Plutarch alone is certainly far from enough in learning about them: you'd also need to read Xenophon's Spartan Constitution, Herodotus, Thucydides of course, history of Diodorus and Hellenica of Xenophon, things like the the biography of Epaminondas from Nepos, with conjunction with Aristophanes' plays, and even the Politics of Aristotle and chapters from Polybius. By a knowledge of these works you can fairly say you have acquired as accurate an image of Spartans as can be gotten.
I think you're mischaracterizing my views as using history merely to tint my pet peeves in rosey colors, whereas I recommend all of these works for a full and true account of the Spartan people and their institutions. Some writings are partisan, some aren't, some are favorable (properly so), some aren't (properly so). By a knowledge of all of these works, you can say you know what the Spartans were like, to the best of anyone's knowledge. Now tell me, what can modern works possibly add to that, especially since they are completely lacking in that inimitable style that someone like Xenophon writes in, that make history come alive? Western history books used to be useful because they pulled all the threads together from these disparate works, and used their own impressive style and weighty judgment to teach the reader and make the job of learning about Spartans easier. Modern books (past 30-40 years), by contrast, are completely lacking both in style and in substance.
As for ignorance of Spartan institutions, I think you underestimate the knowledge during the Renaissance, and highly overestimate that knowledge today. Again, you assume that all people before the 19th century all had their rose-tinted glasses and were generally ignorant of true history, whereas the reverse is actually true -- I have found that they read all of the works I mentioned above, and going so far as frequently to read them in original. The ignorant uneducated people could tell you who an ephor was. Today, with all of our high-faluting pretensions, nobody knows anything about the Spartans, except a cloistered stuffy group of intellectual academics. By your own admission you say that the general populace is entirely ignorant of anything remotely approaching accurate knowledge of Spartan institutions and history, whereas I have read actual accounts from Renaissance men discussing Spartan ideas in full accuracy and vigor.
That, in a nutshell, would be my response to the rest of the points you raise as well. Paul Cartledge is one of those books that is actually quite decent compared with many of its contemporaries. But even it, though it's not offensive, is nowhere near as good as Plutarch's accounts which show the positive aspect to Sparta, and the accounts of Epaminondas and Pelopidas which show the bad. So although Cartledge is respectable, I would frankly much rather read Life of Pelopidas, and the Spartan Constitution. Etc. There are good books out there, but they are rare beyond imagining, and most modern books on Classics are extremely noxious in both their content and intent. The few books that are respectable, often tread on repeated ground, and their sole merit lies in merely publishing the same old stuff for the new generation, in a glossy cover. And it is the few books among these, that provide actual new and original work which extends our understanding of the ancient world and is accessible by the general reader. And for that they deserve all our commendations. But my point is that the profession of Classics has experienced a collapse beyond recokoning in the last couple of decades, and so I believe my point still stands that contemporary Classics professionals, as a group on the whole, provide mainly nothing more than further collapse of their own profession.
I can't think of any knowledgeable person who I think would claim that Plutarch's Sparta is more accurate than Cartledge's Sparta. Whether Cartledge inspires or titilates the reader as much as Plutarch does is another question, but not the most important one (though I'm not saying it's not important at all). Plutarch takes an extreme point of view on the question/problem of Spartan austerity, and it is one that must be counterbalanced by modern historians' and archaeologists' combined work on the subject. Only a view that takes into account their findings (which range from understanding that Lakonian artistic production did not decline sharply at the end of the archaic period, that foreign currency was not prohibited as some ancient authors claim, that there was less public, equal landholdings and more private ones than has traditionally been presented as the case, etc.) and is more critical than just accepting Plutarch at face value or only in conjunction with the Spartan Constitution, will yield an accurate view. I've personally presented papers on the exaggeration by later authors of events that occurred in seventh century Sparta (the "banishment" of Archilochus). Plutarch (2nd century CE) says Archilochus was turned away from the city gates because of his poetry. That sounds great to Plutarch, fits his need for morally uplifting and corrective stories, and it's terrific for Roman audiences too. But the problem is Archilochus wouldn't have been turned away in the seventh century - even Valerius Maximus in the 1st century CE says it was his books that was turned away (later), not the poet, and he is our earliest source. Not a really big deal, but just an example of Plutarch adapting stories to fit his needs and 'the big picture' better.
Plutarch would have been a big fan of 'truthiness' actually. It feels right, and fits with what we think about these people, so that's more accurate than whatever these mumbly-jumbly historians of today can add to the story or our knowledge! But the problem is that Holt's Baktria is more accurate (if not as fun for some folks) than Tarn's. Cartledge's Sparta is more accurate (if not as "truthy") than Plutarch's. Doesn't mean C. doesn't use Plutarch as evidence though, just that it takes more than that sort of extreme view to get the proper picture. Thankfully Cartledge and Holt, as examples, don't just write for stuffy ivory-towered classicists though - their work is much more accessible and has reached many more people thankfully.
The weird thing is, among most classicists I know, I'm the one that is always taking a position moderately closer to yours. I found a lot of interesting points and a lot I agreed with in Who Killed Homer?, but I also realize it really only applied to a few of the most extreme professors I've had too (Hanson's "Mandarins"). A couple of my previous professors and now one of my current colleagues have pretty radical views on many of these matters - but they're not producing things that are important either. The ones that were really good had very wide ranging knowledge, and the best compiled a definitive work on a Hellenistic Anatolian deity. The kind of thing that might bore you, but that is rock solid in the evidence and view of the god that it presented at the end - and it was one that only existed in fragments prior. I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water (like some of those professors do with Plutarch, and like you do with all modern historians or classicists).
Modern work can consolidate, not only using texts but archeological evidence to back things up and discover everyday aspects classical scholars may not have seen the need to mention but which can make all the difference. I certainly wouldn't advocate not using classical texts, but I often find it useful to have a more modern work at hand (or preferably, more than one!) that can shed more light on an issue through a consolidation of sources and the use of additional research. Frequently, it makes it a lot easier to put old texts into perspective. Admittedly it might not add much new information, but a modern work makes it possible for us who haven't (yet) had any formal training to create a solid foundation from which to try to understand the past without years of experience.
Besides. It has been said that only one in many modern works is useful. Was it truly different in the classical times? Even the greatest works are often fragmentary, but there must have been many, many more works now completely lost which weren't of as high a level.
As Gene Rodenberry once said, "Sure, 90 % of television is crap. 90 % of everything is crap." Not every single one of Aristotle's works or Shakespeare's plays are fantastic. Just being old doesn't make something better.
Teleklos,
I'm a bit surprised you wrote so much against Plutarch re: Sparta, when I in my post have disregarded Plutarch on the very first line (well not disregarded, but showed how much more other than him there is, to Spartan history). I have no argument with you that Plutarch's account is somewhat idealized, although it's not wildly exaggerated (the story with Archilochus being only a stretch, not fabrication), and contains nuggets that cannot be found anywhere else (Life of Pelopidas, the sayings of Spartans, sayings of Spartan women, and sayings of Great Commanders which contains some from Spartan leaders).
But putting Plutarch completely aside, as I suggested we do, on the very first line, there's so much more we can read about the Spartans: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Diodorus, Aristotle, even Old Oligarch (pseudo-Xenophon), Aristophanes, Demosthenes, etc. If we read these works, as accurate and truthful as possible a picture of Spartans will be acquired. Furthermore, their style, judgments, and ancient nearness to their subject matter, make these writers engrossing and their judgments weighty. At best, Cartledge can read derive his views from these, but he cannot derive his views from other than these sources. Archeology can find precious remains of Spartan coinage but cannot explain why we find so few of them, or what accounts for the physical remains of Sparta proper being so pathetic, nor can it believe that these pathetic remains once housed the conquerors of those who built the Parthenon.
So Cartledge will have to base his judgments entirely on the written literature that survived about the Spartans, and derive his answers from those works. To be better, he will have to overcome their style, their arrangement of content, and their antiquity. But I wasn't even talking about Cartledge in my "sweepingly generalizing" post. It is possible for him to produce a work of excellent style and weighty judgment in competition with the ancients, on their own subjects (as Gibbon demonstrated). The point is, that most Classicists today, don't. I'm not even considering Cartledge here, along with VDH, Green, and handful of others. I'm talking about the rest, not "all of classicists" as you characterized it, but merely Classics profession as a whole. They don't translate the Iliad in heroic English style as Alexander Pope did, but publish "Gay Achilles" instead. That's what the profession has come to.
Classicists, although from Petrach's time limited by having to reinvent and retread old ground over and over, used to provide valuable content by summarizing ancient works, providing good ways to learn it, and teaching it to all. We may disagree on our personal experiences, but the classicists I see nowadays are completely opposite of that. My Greek professor is writing a book entitled "Concordia and Discours in Aristophanes' Clouds". The title is not an accident, as the rest of the book (presented before us as a preliminary paper) is equally incomprehensible. And here's the worst part: there are good classicists who still carry themselves with old-fashioned dignity, but they are in retreat, hiding away, defeated and slowly disappearing from modern academic culture (and from Western society as a whole). So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, although I have of course nothing but utter respect for you personally.