Scan barcode
zmb's review
3.0
A bit too annalistic for my tastes. Livy has his moments of dramatic (invented) history, but the interminable war between the classes and skirmishing with the neighbors is quite dry (and probably mostly invented as well). I liked Livy, but at least in this first book he is neither as engaging as Herodotus or discerning as Thucydides, and while those are high standards he doesn't meet them.
emilykatereads's review
3.0
Took forever to get through, and it was incredibly hard to read, but overall a worthwhile book.
My main complaint: too many damn names.
My main complaint: too many damn names.
laurennoel's review
4.0
I actually really like Livy's writing style and I've had to read this work multiple times for various classes. Totally worth reading for anyone interested in the (mytho-history i.e. not actual history the way we understand it) founding of Rome and the early regency and how the Republic was formed.
spacestationtrustfund's review
3.0
Titus Livius, problematic fave.
You really can't go wrong with Aubrey de Sélincourt's translations, in my opinion. He does an excellent job at keeping the original meaning of the Latin (for the most part) while also avoiding falling into the trap of producing an incredibly boring work (I've read Livy in the original Latin, and important to history his writing may be, but entertaining it certainly is not).
Livy himself was an unreliable narrator, as were so many early historians, but to his credit he did acknowledge both a lack of contemporary written records with which to verify information from Rome's beginnings (often straying more into legend and conjecture than admitting that information was unknown) and his own personal biases as a Roman. Without a background in practical military affairs or politics, Livy's reliability regarding these topics is limited (by his own admission), and often basic facts about famous military endeavours or political events are either inaccurate or misleading. Indeed, Livy's unique position amongst Roman historians (i.e., not playing a role in politics) put him at a disadvantage due to his exclusion from the Senate and magistracies, meaning he had no personal experience of how the Roman government functioned, and depriving him of first-hand access to important information such as texts of treaties and laws or written records of Senate meetings. Livy also did not hold any religious position, meaning he did not have access to any of the countless documents and records therein preserved. Livy also frequently misinterpreted several of his primary sources when translating Greek literary writings (a situation certainly familiar to an historian of the modern era).
By no means is Livy on the same level as other early historians such as Herodotus, of whose work perhaps 20% is accurate enough to be useful, but it's worth noting that the intention of his History was not (exclusively) to present the facts as they were understood but rather to serve as political and social propaganda in order to reinforce the Roman belief that Rome was an old and established force in Italy, which would subsequently aid Rome's credentials with the more obviously older dominant cultures in the Mediterranean. This particular motive is perhaps most evident in L.I-V, where Livy purports to give a history of the founding of Rome, repeating the most famous legend (Romulus and Remus), then continues on with the intention of providing biographies of every early Roman king, which he most certainly did not do. However, to his credit, Livy's viewpoint of history was less diluted through the lens of overt political motives than other historians (to an extent), relying more on personal and moral impact.
Unfortunately there is ultimately no way to double-check Livy's accuracy in regards to contemporary or near-contemporary sources; the best option is to rely on archaeological evidence, not anthropological. It's believed that Livy compiled his known sources (Latin and Greek) with oral tradition, as well as other now-lost written record, but it's also predominantly believed that Livy invented much of what he didn't know for sure. The lack of reliable documentary evidence—or, indeed, any documentary evidence—is a major problem with the study of ancient history, in particular that which existed before the widespread written record, or even that which existed prior to the invention of writing. In total Livy wrote 142 books, of which L.XI-XX and L.XLVI-CXLII are lost. The first books, L.I-V, cover the time spanning from the legendary founding of Rome until 386 BCE when Rome was sacked by the Gauls.
You really can't go wrong with Aubrey de Sélincourt's translations, in my opinion. He does an excellent job at keeping the original meaning of the Latin (for the most part) while also avoiding falling into the trap of producing an incredibly boring work (I've read Livy in the original Latin, and important to history his writing may be, but entertaining it certainly is not).
Livy himself was an unreliable narrator, as were so many early historians, but to his credit he did acknowledge both a lack of contemporary written records with which to verify information from Rome's beginnings (often straying more into legend and conjecture than admitting that information was unknown) and his own personal biases as a Roman. Without a background in practical military affairs or politics, Livy's reliability regarding these topics is limited (by his own admission), and often basic facts about famous military endeavours or political events are either inaccurate or misleading. Indeed, Livy's unique position amongst Roman historians (i.e., not playing a role in politics) put him at a disadvantage due to his exclusion from the Senate and magistracies, meaning he had no personal experience of how the Roman government functioned, and depriving him of first-hand access to important information such as texts of treaties and laws or written records of Senate meetings. Livy also did not hold any religious position, meaning he did not have access to any of the countless documents and records therein preserved. Livy also frequently misinterpreted several of his primary sources when translating Greek literary writings (a situation certainly familiar to an historian of the modern era).
By no means is Livy on the same level as other early historians such as Herodotus, of whose work perhaps 20% is accurate enough to be useful, but it's worth noting that the intention of his History was not (exclusively) to present the facts as they were understood but rather to serve as political and social propaganda in order to reinforce the Roman belief that Rome was an old and established force in Italy, which would subsequently aid Rome's credentials with the more obviously older dominant cultures in the Mediterranean. This particular motive is perhaps most evident in L.I-V, where Livy purports to give a history of the founding of Rome, repeating the most famous legend (Romulus and Remus), then continues on with the intention of providing biographies of every early Roman king, which he most certainly did not do. However, to his credit, Livy's viewpoint of history was less diluted through the lens of overt political motives than other historians (to an extent), relying more on personal and moral impact.
Unfortunately there is ultimately no way to double-check Livy's accuracy in regards to contemporary or near-contemporary sources; the best option is to rely on archaeological evidence, not anthropological. It's believed that Livy compiled his known sources (Latin and Greek) with oral tradition, as well as other now-lost written record, but it's also predominantly believed that Livy invented much of what he didn't know for sure. The lack of reliable documentary evidence—or, indeed, any documentary evidence—is a major problem with the study of ancient history, in particular that which existed before the widespread written record, or even that which existed prior to the invention of writing. In total Livy wrote 142 books, of which L.XI-XX and L.XLVI-CXLII are lost. The first books, L.I-V, cover the time spanning from the legendary founding of Rome until 386 BCE when Rome was sacked by the Gauls.
lauren_endnotes's review
4.0
Read for my senior thesis in undergrad - it was good to read these classics.