Livy

[edyzmedieval]

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.

[Runyan99]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[QwertyMIDX]

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.

[oudysseos]

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?

[edyzmedieval]

Surely, as for a good read, it's really good. I'm reading it like an adventure novel.

[SigniferOne]

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.

[...] Certainly he seems to have been eager to please his audience and not tell them anything that they didn't want to hear.

[...] 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?

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.

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.