Livy Biography

Dromo's Den

Livy Biography

LIVY, (59 B.C.-17 A.D.). The great Roman Historian, Titus Livins, is without a history, for we have no ancient biography of him, and very little information about him is obtained either from his own writings or from allusions in other authors. He was born at Patavium (Padua), the chief city of Venetia, in 59 B.C. (a date given in St. Jerome's Chronicle of Eusebius), consequently at the beginning of the most important. period of Roman history, for Cæsar had just obtained the government of Gaul. The place and period of his birth had great influence upon his career. Padua was a city of considerable importance, with a traditional history going back to Antenor, and Livy, a Paduan at heart, felt deep sympathy with the municipalities which preserved the old independent spirit of Italy; nevertheless he was in a larger sense a Roman and recognized the advantage of association with a people who had conquered the early enemies of his native town, and who were his fellow citizens, the Paduans having long possessed the Roman franchise. On the evidence of some inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, v, 2865, 2975) and of the general aristocratic spirit of his writings there is reason to believe that he belonged to a noble family; the fact that he was able to devote all his time at Rome to writing proves, further, that he had ample means. He undoubtedly received thorough training in philosophy, rhetoric, and literature, and was well versed in the Greek language and Greek literature.

When Cæsar was slain and Cicero gave voice to his Philippics, Livy was 15 years of age. He was familiar, then, with the great struggle for liberty, and with all the events of that stirring time and in consequence was a republican. He came to Rome about 31 B.C., the year of the battle of Actium, and there he resided until shortly before his death. Although he formed a friendship with Augustus (whom, however, he mentions only twice, once to give a date and once to prove a fact), he admired Brutus and Cassius, nevertheless, and dared to say that it was a question whether or not Cæsar had been of service to his country. Augustus called him a Pompeian, perhaps in a spirit of pleasantry, as the purpose and aim of the historian must have been satisfactory to him; for while Livy idealized the Republic, he was entirely satisfied with the existing Imperial government.

Suetonius (Claudius, 41) remarks that Livy advised the future Emperor Claudius to write history, and that Caligula (Caligula, 34) called him a verbose and negligent historian. Caligula's accusation was undoubtedly due to Livy's evident ignorance of military detail and of Roman law, which resulted in errors in his description of wars and of constitutional changes. He, however, had a great reputation in his own day, of which he himself was cognizant; for he is said to have declared that he had obtained sufficient glory, but continued writing because he should miss the employment. Pliny the Younger, Epistlcs, ii, 3, tells a pleasing tale of a Spaniard who came all the way from Gades (Cadiz) to see Livy, and having seen him went home content. After the accession of Tiberius, Livy returned to Padua, where he died in 17 A.D. In the letters of Seneca (100, 9) there is a reference to dialogues, half philosophical and half rhetorical, by Livy, and Quintilian (x, 1, 39) and Seneca the Elder mention a letter addressed to his son, in which he urged him to study the speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero; but these have disappeared. His history of Rome was begun early in his life, for in book i, 19, we have a reference to the fact that the temple of Janus had been shut twice since the time of Numa--once after the First Punic War, and again after the battle of Actium; the third closing occurred in 25 B.C., so that the writing of the first book must fall between 29 and 25 B.C., and as Livy also uses here the title Augustus, which was conferred in January, 27 B.C., we may place the date about 26 B.C. In ix, 18, there is no reference to the recovery by Augustus of Crassus's standards in a passage where such reference would have been natural had Livy been writing the ninth book as late as 20 B.C. There is also evidence that the work did not appear as a whole, but in sections which contained a varying number of books. Certain passages are clearly prefaces to new parts of the history, e.g., at the beginning of books vi, xxi, and xxxi. It is noticeable that book v ends with the burning of Rome by the Gauls, so that book vi begins a new epoch; also book xvi begins the First Punic War, and book xxi the Second Punic War. These facts have led to a theory of a publication by decades or semidecades, but it is doubtful if Livy held to this arrangement, for in the best manuscripts we find that books cix-cxvi are treated in one periocha, or summary, under the title Bellum civile.

The division into decades is first mentioned about the close of the fifth century and is probably the work of copyists. The entire work consisted of 142 books, of which 35 are extant, the first (to 293 B.C.), third, fourth, and half of the fifth decade (218-217 B.C.). We have a few fragments obtained from such writers as Servius, Valerius Maximus, and St. Augustine, and a page or so from book xci, preserved in a Vatican palimpsest; this fragment was discovered in 1772. We have also from some unknown authors epitomes, periochæ or argumenta, of all the books except cxxxvi and cxxxvii. Some fragments of an epitome previously unknown were discovered by Grenfell and Hunt at Oxyrhynchus: for these, see Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv (London, 1904); Kornemann, Die neue-Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus (Leipzig, 1904), an edition with commentary; C. H. Moore, "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in Relation to Obsequens and Cassiodorus," in Americana Journal of Philology, vol. xxv (New York, 1904). The epitomes show that the last year recorded was 9 B.C., and this seems to indicate that Livy did not finish his history, as the event of that year, the death of Drusus, was not of sufficient importance to form the conclusion of a great work. The title of the work was probably Ab Urbe Condita Libri, as this is given in the best manuscripts and by the grammarians, but it is true that Livy began with Æneas, and also that he speaks loosely of his Annales (43, 13, 2). In his preface, however, he declares that he wrote from the beginning of the city, and Pliny, in his preface to the Natural History, repeats this statement. Again, the term annales is general in its application, and, if Livy had used it as a title, Servius, who discussed the word in its relation to historiæ, would have referred to the fact.

To appreciate Livy's greatness we must consider the character of the writings of his predecessors in this field, for, with the exception of Sallust, Roman historians before Livy were narrators of facts and recorders of events, mere annalists. (See ANNALS.) Livy, following the methods of his predecessors, built upon the foundation laid by them, and used with entire freedom, and evidently without a suspicion of plagiarism, the work of earlier historians. He relied largely upon the great Greek historian Polybius (q.v.); judging from the fragments of the latter's account of the Macedonian wars, we may say that Livy took his information directly, omitting Greek references and polemical notes, and supplementing what could not be readily understood by the Romans. In the account of the Second Punic war he probably used Polybius, although the Roman annalist Cælius Antipater was his leading authority for this period. Livy speaks very coldly of Polybius, and in fact not at all until book xxx, although he had used his work through the third decade. He relied upon Valerius Antias in the first decade, but later on condemned him for his exaggerations and unreliability. Livy also used many other writers, such. as Quadrigarius, Calpurnius Piso, and Silenus, a Greek who wrote in a pro-Carthaginian spirit.

When Livy's authorities disagreed, he did not seek to sift their statements, as a contemporary modern historian would, but followed his own fancy or struck an average, or followed the most popular current account. Sometimes he stands for the view represented by the majority of the authorities, or for the earliest and most probable account, or, influenced by his sympathies, recognizes the pro-Roman or most picturesque or impressive views, aiming all the time at the effective story. That he had no desire to tell the truth, as Macaulay declared, is itself most untrue: see some sound remarks in Henry Nettleship, Lectures and Essays: Second Series, pp. 18-19 (Oxford, 1895), and M. H. Morgan, Addresses and Essays, pp. 13-18 (New York, 1910). Livy was by nature, beyond question, candid and truth-loving. His history is not of value as a critical work, falling below that of Polybius in this respect; but when we consider his patriotism and the charm of his style, we can understand Niebuhr's declaration that his history is a "colossal masterpiece." He was the national historian just as Vergil was the rational poet. Livy accomplished the purpose of a great historian, although in not being an investigator he lacked a quality which Taine has declared to be requisite for an historian. In his celebrated preface he makes clear that he purposes to tell the story of the Roman people, and to tell it more effectively than it had been told before, with the aim of impressing his readers with the lessons to be drawn from the history of Rome in its progress to its culmination, and of drawing his own eyes away from the evils of his time. He declares that what happened before the foundation of the city he would neither indorse nor condemn. Thus, Livy may not have believed in Æncas or Romulus or Numa, but he did not think it his part to examine into the matter critically, for he intended to write not a critical but an ethical history of Rome. It is in his style that Livy stands preeminent. Although he is the great prose writer of the Augustan age, he does not follow the rhetorical style of Cicero, but, influenced by the diction of Vergil, he invented a new style, based on that of Cicero, but expanded and made mobile by the use of poetic words and phrases. He may be termed the first writer of Silver Latinity. It may be that this peculiarity in language and style brought upon him the charge of Patavinitas--from Patavium (Padua), Livy's birthplace--made by Asinius Pollio, and mentioned by Quintilian, 1, 5, 56, and 8, 1, 3, who, however, does not make clear what this charge implied. It may refer to his general style or to his use of provincialisms or to his free and enthusiastic way of speaking, at variance perhaps with the dignified restraint of Rome. Consult: Wiedmann, De Patavinitate Livii (Görlitz, 1848-54); Moritz Haupt, Opuscula, vol. ii (Leipzig, 1876); G. L. Hendrickson, "A Witticism of Asinius Pollio," in American Journal of Philology, vol. xxxvi (Baltimore, 1915). On Livy's style in general, consult the "Einleitung" to the edition by Weissenborn and Müller (Berlin, 1885); Henry Nettleship, Lectures and Essays: Second Series, pp. 108-110 (Oxford, 1895); Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa (new ed., Leipzig, 1909).

In his early books he shows the influence of the subject matter upon his style, e.g., in his use of various archaisms, but when be reaches the account of the Second Punic War, and gives a description, e.g., of the visit of the Roman embassy to Carthage, and when he describes the Macedonian wars, he writes in a most brilliant and masterly way. His speeches are, perhaps, artistically the most perfect parts of his writings. They are given with no intention of reproducing the words of the speaker, but reflect the character of the individual, and describe his position and motives, as understood by Livy.

The New International Encyclopaedia, Vol. XIV (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1920) 251-253.