Ab urbe condita
"Romulus and Remus, the rape of Lucretia, Horatius at the bridge, the saga of Coriolanus, Cincinnatus called from his farm to save the state - these and many more stories immortalized by Livy in his history of Rome have become part of our cultural heritage." "The historian's huge work consisted of 142 books which trace Rome's history from its foundation in 753 BC to events in Livy's own lifetime (9 BC). Only 35 books survive in their entirety. These first five books cover the period from Rome's beginnings and her first great foreign conquest, the capture of the Etruscan city of Veii, to her first major defeat, the sack of the city by the Gauls in 390 BC. This new translation is based on R.M. Ogilvie's Oxford Classical Text, the best to date."--Jacket.
Stats for nerds
1recommend
5mentions
5people
2016–2023years
20% recommend80% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- It's great seeing Livius getting some attention, and on hackernews of all places.
Ab Urbe Condita is really much more of an epic tale than a proper history book by modern standards, even though, as Deveraux notes, the later bits are probably more or less accurate in the big picture (e.g. the 2nd punic war).
Livius mostly wanted to create a sort of national romantic work with Ab Urbe Condita. He was a republican who wanted to look back to the glory days of the republic, even as Rome became an empire. With his stories, he wanted to create an ideal of Rome to set an example to other Romans. Livius preaches to Romans about Roman justice, cleverness, and honesty. Livius has his own agenda, he does not represent every Roman.
Luckily we have archaelogy and the historical method to help us. I feel like ancient history is trending (at least on the internet). There's hope for more TV shows with more diverse casting.
Great piece, wonderfully researched, I'm excited for the next article in the series.
- I'm not talking about cave paintings. When Livy wrote Ab Urbe Condita, when Chaucer wrote Centerbury Tales, who were they planning to sell the rights too?
Professional/career writing didn't become the default until the middle of the 19th century, when a rise in literacy made it financially viable.
Even as recently as the first half of the 19th century, most of the literary greats were not professional writers.
Leo Tolstoy was a nobleman born into wealth, financially set for life, and wrote purely for the intellectual stimulation. Chekov saw himself first and foremost as a physician, continued to practice with a full patient panel even after he encountered massive success as a writer, and famously said "Medicine is my wife and writing is my mistress." Nathaniel Hawthorne was a low level government bureaucrat throughout his life. Henry David Thoreau alternated between running a pencil factory and being an indigent. And yet no matter their financial situation, no matter their day job, no matter how much or how little income they derived from writing, they all wrote, and they wrote good stuff.
Professionalization of writing in the second half of the 19th century directly coincided with the rise of doggerel and dime novels. The volume of new works went up, but the average quality went down - not up as you suggest. When the financial incentive is central there is a push to optimize for quantity over quality.
- I think society is fine. What is at peril is freedom to admit to be upwardly mobile.
There is a desire to cut down those wanting to fly high. The ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome
[..]The tall poppy syndrome describes aspects of a culture where people of high status are resented, attacked, cut down, strung up or criticised because they have been classified as superior to their peers. The term has been used in cultures of the English-speaking world.[..]
[..]The concept originates from accounts in Herodotus' Histories (Book 5, 92f), Aristotle's Politics (1284a), and Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Book I.
[Periander] had sent a herald to Thrasybulus and inquired in what way he would best and most safely govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander outside the town, and entered into a sown field. As he walked through the wheat, continually asking why the messenger had come to him from Cypselus, he kept cutting off all the tallest ears of wheat which he could see, and throwing them away, until he had destroyed the best and richest part of the crop. Then, after passing through the place and speaking no word of counsel, he sent the herald away. When the herald returned to Cypselus, Periander desired to hear what counsel he brought, but the man said that Thrasybulus had given him none. The herald added that it was a strange man to whom he had been sent, a madman and a destroyer of his own possessions, telling Periander what he had seen Thrasybulus do. Periander, however, understood what had been done, and perceived that Thrasybulus had counselled him to slay those of his townsmen who were outstanding in influence or ability; with that he began to deal with his citizens in an evil manner.
— Herodotus, The Histories, Book 5, 92-f[..]
- The story about the twins being raised by a prostitute (whose name was Acca Larentia, by the way) was already well-known in Roman times.
> Sunt qui Larentiam volgato corpore lupam inter pastores vocatam putent; inde locum fabulae ac miraculo datum.
> Some writers think that Larentia, from her unchaste life, had got the nickname of "She-wolf" amongst the shepherds, and that this was the origin of the marvellous story.
(Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, I.4)
Probably, people just kept using the legend of the she-wolf to symbolize the might of Rome.
- In Livy's defense, he doesn't seem to actually believe in these fairy tales, often packing them in constructs like "it is said" or offering two explanations for things, one the more popular myth and one a more plausible explanation.
Taking into account that Roman historians generally didn't care that much for facts, and that Livy wrote his Ab Urbe Condita because it was commissioned by Octavian (i.e. he was kinda obliged to make the history of Rome look good), he was actually a pretty decent historian.
Doesn't mean I love Livy, though - reading his Latin is an inhumane torture (I hate Latin)
