The fame of a representative of ancient historiography does not always correspond to the real contribution he made to the development of historical thought. This observation is fully true of Titus Livy, who already eclipsed all his predecessors in ancient times, and in modern times has become the object of both excessive admiration and equally immoderate criticism.

For Italian humanists, Livia was a witness to the heroic past of their fragmented and oppressed homeland, an unquestionable authority on everything related to the glorious Roman history. Although N. Machiavelli makes some comments about Livy, they relate to the political views of the historian, and not to the reliability of the facts presented by him1 . Later, the criticism of Livy's reports about the early times of Rome developed a skeptical trend, presented in the works of the Dutch and French historians J. Peritsonius, S. Beauchard and L. de Beaufort .2 In their time (the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century), it was a sign of good form to reject the existence of the earliest Roman kings and first consuls - all that was considered an immutable truth in the Renaissance. The historical-critical method of the classic bourgeois historiography B. Niebuhr was also formed in the process of studying Titus Livy and trying to identify the sources of his information about Roman antiquity. At the same time, Niebuhr reproached Livy not so much for being too trusting and uncritical when describing the most ancient history of Rome, but for the fact that the latter was confident that the Gallic fire of 390 BC destroyed all Roman monuments of early times .3 These monuments - folk songs and ancestral traditions - Niebuhr thought he had found in Livy's work, and thus placed him in the position of a man who did not know what treasures he possessed. The famous French philosopher and historian of the 19th century, I. Taine, in his essay, based on the image of the great historian-orator, as he considered Livy, outlined the program of positivist historiography .4 In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, attacks on Livy from hypercritical positions were renewed. The factual material contained in the first ten books of his work was declared unreliable. In particular, all the Roman kings were considered fictitious .5 But soon the archaeological evidence of-

1 N. Machiavelli. The Sovereign and Reasonings on the first three books of Titus Livy. St. Petersburg, 1869.

2 A. Momigliano. Perisonius, Niebuhr and the Character of Early Roman Tradition. "Journal of Roman Studies", 1957, N 47, p. 101 f.

3 B. G. Niebuhr. Historische und philologische Vortrage, 1 Abt. Bd. I. B. 1846, S. 2 folg.

4 H. Taine. Essai stir Tite-Live. P. 1856 (Russian translation by E. I. Guerrier. M. 1890).

5 A. F. Enman. The legend of the Roman kings. Its origin and development. St. Petersburg, 11896; E. Pais. Storia di Roma. Torino. 1898.

page 103

krytius rehabilitated, at least partially, the famous Roman historian. "Moderate criticism" prevailed in anti-Russian studies. A prominent Italian historian, G. De Sanctis, showed that the critical methods used by his compatriot Ettore Pais and his followers were unacceptable .6 The historicity of the Roman kings Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Anca Marcia was confirmed by the fact that their family names are found in the list of consuls of the early republic. Inscriptions on Etruscan tombs confirmed Livy's version of Etruscan rule in Rome and the existence of the Tarquinian kings and Queen Tanaquil. The content of Livy's books on the first centuries of the Roman Republic was evaluated in a new way. In contrast to the opinion of the German historian T. Mommsen, who believed that Diodorus of Sicily preserved the most accurate and reliable information about this era, preference was given to Livy, and in particular to his list of consuls .7 In contrast to the researchers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, who almost exclusively dealt with grammatical and stylistic issues and sources of Livy , 8 in subsequent years, there was an interest in the religious, social and political views of the historian. And if before Livy was seen as a compiler who robbed the younger annalists and literarily processed the material borrowed from them, then later they began to see him as a propagandist of the principate, boldly manipulating facts to assert ideas that were beneficial to the new political regime. In this connection, Livy's dependence on Hellenistic historiography was denied, and the content of his work was determined solely by the tasks of "national and ethical renewal of the Roman people" .9 A different point of view is shared by French and English scholars, who are not inclined to see Libya as a blind exponent of Augustus ' ideas, noting his commitment to Republican ideals and dependence on the Hellenistic tradition .10 Unfortunately, there is almost no research written from a Marxist perspective on this whole range of issues.

In the general works of Soviet historians devoted to ancient Rome and Roman literature, there are more or less substantial sections and chapters in which Livy is characterized as a historian and writer. A special place among them is occupied by the work of S. L. Utchenko, which highlights two areas in ancient historiography - scientific and artistic - didactic. Polybius is recognized as a typical representative of the former, and Livy is recognized as a typical representative of the latter. Livy is characterized as a "historian-artist", "historian-playwright", who sets himself the task of teaching and educating on the examples of history 11 .

The life of the historian, known in detail, could shed light on many questions of his work. However, information about Libya is extremely scarce. Judging by his writing style, there is a lot of biog data-

6 G. De Sanctis. Storia di Romani. Vol. I. Torino. 1907. De Sanctis and his students also revived the" song theory " of B. Niebuhr, giving new arguments in favor of the fact that the annalists had folklore material at their disposal.

7 T. R. Brougton. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Oxford. 1960.

8 The classic examples of this" Quellenforschung " are the works of N. I. Radzig. The beginning of the Roman Chronicle, Moscow, 1903; H. Nissen. Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Quellen der vierten und funften Decade des Livius. R. 1863; W. Soltau Livius Geschichtswerk, seine Composition und seine Quellen. Leipzig. 1897; U Kahrstedt Die Annalistik von Livius. B. 1913; A. Кlotz. Livius. "Realenzyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft", XIII, S. 816 - 852.

9 E. Burсk. Livius als augusteischer Historiker. "Die Welt als Geschichte" Bd I B. 1935, S. 446; W. Weber. Princeps. Studien zur Geschichte des Augustus. B. 1936.

10 B. Jumeau. Tit Live et l'historiographie hellenistique. "Revue des etude anciennes", 1936. Vol. 38,N 1, pp. 63 - 68; P. G. Walsch. Livy. His Historical Views and Methods. Cambridge. 1970, p. 46.

11 S. L. Utchenko. Roman historiography and Roman historians. "Historians of Rome", Moscow, 1970.

page 104

The Rafi order should have been contained in books describing contemporary events in Libya. But the last of the surviving books refers to 167 BC, that is, it is more than 100 years away from the birth of the historian. The loss of subsequent books has deprived us of information about Livy's social status, his parents, teachers, time of moving to Rome, and much more. His letters, which were still read by Quintilian, have not been preserved .12 Only from the words of Seneca is it known that Livy had works of historical and philosophical content (in the form of dialogue) and purely philosophical writings .

Like many other prominent Roman writers, Livy could not call himself a native Roman. He was born in the municipality of Patavia (now Padua) in 59 BC14 . The Patawians were descendants of the Veneti, who had lost their language and culture by the time of the historian's life. Patavia was not only a significant city in Cisalpine Gaul, but also one of the most ancient urban centers of the Apennine Peninsula. Its foundation was attributed to the Trojan Antenor, who supposedly migrated to Italy at the same time as another Trojan, Aeneas, but settled on its Adriatic coast .15 The parallelism of the mythical destinies of Patavia and Rome was a point of particular pride for the Patavians and the reason for their interest in what the Romans called origines, that is, the beginnings of statehood. 16 And although, of course, this problem could be in the field of view of everyone, the contemporaries of Augustus should have paid more attention to the work written by a native of the "mythical twin city" of Rome.

No less important in Livy's decision to take up history was his social position. We know that Patavia was the most important municipality in Northern Italy, and there were 500 Roman horsemen in Augustus ' time, more than in any other city in Italy, with the exception of Rome. [17 ] Rich Patawians must have been extremely negative about civil wars, which not only threatened their well-being, but also destroyed its social basis. The Patawians were men who had come out of the turmoil of civil wars with flying colors and maintained their power over their slaves without outside help. Livy's social position allows us to see him as coming from a family rich enough to provide him with an excellent education and inspire him with a lifelong hatred of all kinds of changes in public life.

No better than the biography of a historian, we know the creative history of his work. Based on the references in the first book (I. 19. 3) 18 to the dates of Augustus ' closing of the temple of Janus, it is concluded that the final revision of the first book dates back to 27-25 BC. 19 The presence, along with the general introduction to the entire work, of a brief preface to the second book suggests that this book, which covers the events of the royal period (753-510 BC), was published separately.-

12 Quint., X, 1, 39; XI, 5, 20.

13 Sen. Ep., 100. 9.

14 This date is given by the late historian Hieronymus (Hieronym. Chron. anno 1958 - Messala Corvinus orator nascitur et T. Livius). About place of birth: Quint., I, 5, 56; Asconius in Corn. 68 and indirect information from the work of Livy himself: I, 1, 1-3; X, 2, 4-15; XII, 27, 1 sl.

15 Verg. Aen., I, 247; Plin N. H., III, 130; Strabo, V. 1, 4; XIII, 1, 53.

16 It is noteworthy that Titus Livy begins his story with the story of Aeneas and Antenorus, thus adding the fate of his native Patavia to the history of Rome (I, 1, 1); cp. R. M. Ogilvie. A Commentary on Livy. Books 1 - 5. Oxford. 1965, p. 35

17 Strabo., I, 5, 3.

18 Here and below, all footnotes to Livy's work are given in the text.

19 The German researcher K. Cichorius suggested that before Livy published the first books, their public reading took place (K. Cichorius. Einneuer Historiker und die Anfange von Livius schriltstellerscher Tatigkeit. "Romische Studien". Leipzig. 1922, S. 261 - 269).

page 105

but from others, and only then did the historian continue his studies. Book I was followed by books II-V, covering the history of the Roman Republic before the capture of Rome by the Gauls (509-390 BC). This is evident from the preface to Book VI, where the five preceding books are mentioned (VI, I). The subsequent material of Livy, apparently, had blocks-pentateuchs. VI-X books covered an entire century, which was affected by the Samnite wars, as well as the wars with the Etruscans, Gauls and Umbrians (390-293 BC). The second decade that has not come down to us, judging by the epitomes (extracts of later authors), was divided into two pentateuchs: the struggle with Tarentum and Pyrrhus; I Punic War. In describing the war with Hannibal, to which books XXI-XXX are devoted, Livia follows the same principle of the Pentateuch. The first includes Hannibal's successes, the second his defeats. Books XXXI-XLV were respectively divided into tr. and pentateuchs. The first covered the war with Philip and events in Greece before Antiochus entered the war, the second covered the war with Antiochus in Greece and Asia, the third covered the Third Macedonian War and the triumph of Aemilius Paslus over Perseus. In describing the era of the Libyan civil Wars, the author abandons the form of the Pentateuch and singles out 8 books as a special corpus .20 The entire Roman history up to 9 BC was described by Livy in 142 books, of which only 35 survive.

Such a large amount of work was only possible for a person for whom the study of history was a life's work, and not a temporary hobby. Indeed, Livy was the first Roman professional historian. Unlike his predecessors, G. Sallust Crispus and Asinius Pollio, not to mention the younger annalists, Livy never appeared in the political arena. He did not command the army, was not the governor of the province, did not carry out diplomatic assignments. History and only history was his vocation, a field of activity in which his understanding of politics, knowledge of military affairs and diplomacy could manifest themselves. This was in full accordance with the spirit of the regime created by Augustus.

From the indications of ancient authors, we know that Augustus patronized Livy. Tacitus refers to their relationship with the word "friendship"21 . Livy's proximity to the imperial house is indirectly indicated by the fact that he recommended Augustus ' relative Claudius to study history .22 Perhaps Augustus was aware of Livy's work, followed its progress, and was familiar with its results. This can be inferred from Livy's own account of Augustus ' communication to him of the contents of an unknown inscription on a linen carapace from the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (IV, 20) .23 At the same time, it is known that Augustus called Livy a "Pompeian." 24 This should not be taken as a political accusation, since Pompey was considered a fighter for the republic, and Augustus attributed to himself the revival of the republic. But after the death of Augustus and the establishment of the terrorist regime of Tiberius and Caligula, the Republican sympathies expressed in Livy's work may have seemed dangerous. Apparently, this is why Caligula ordered the removal of Livy's books from libraries, accusing the long-dead historian of verbosity and carelessness.

Livy's work completes the development of Roman historiography of the Republican era and embodies its most characteristic features. Like his predecessors, he writes Roman history. Other peoples and Rome's place in world history do not interest him. This is a central feature of Roman historiography (starting with the annals of the ancient Pontifices-

20 P. Jal. La Guerre civile a Rome. P. 1963, p. 24

21 Tac. Ann., IV, 34, 3.

22 Suet. Claud., 41, 1.

23 H. Dessau. Livius und Augustus. "Hermes", 1906, Bd. 41 N 1 S. 142

24 Tac. Ann., IV, 34, 3.

page 106

records of notable events in the city of Rome)25 . Rome's neighbors could only be mentioned in so far as they dared to attack Rome or were forced to make an alliance with it, and Italy is present as the backdrop against which the story of Rome's rise unfolds. In reporting on the arrival of Aeneas about the Etruscans (I, 2, 5), Livy does not have a correct idea of either the time of Etruscan rule or the boundaries of Etruscan possessions. The customs of the same Etruscans, Samnites, and other peoples of Italy attract Livy's attention only because they were accepted by the Romans. This is reflected in the difference between the successor of the Roman annalistics and the Greek historian, for example, Herodotus, who showed an interest in the life and religion of the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians and many other peoples and was confident in the cultural priority of the "barbarians".

Livy's Roman history is primarily a political one. The change of kings and consuls, wars with neighbors-this is its main content. What is new to Libya in comparison with its predecessors is numerous details of a religious and cultural - historical nature, but they primarily concern the Roman people.

The starting point for Livy's account of Roman history is the foundation of Rome. This is a tradition of Roman historiography, which even Tacitus could not ignore, who set out to tell about the reign of Augustus ' successors. In the opening chapter of his work, he briefly describes the Roman destinies since the time of the kings. But for Livy, the most ancient history of Rome is not just a starting point, but also an era where he rests his soul from "the spectacle of disasters that our generation has witnessed for so many years "(Praefatio, 5). Livy means civil wars. Such an assessment of them may not seem unexpected. The civil wars were officially condemned, despite the fact that thanks to them Augustus eliminated his rivals and came to power. In condemning civil wars, Augustus not only proclaimed himself a peacemaker, but also declared amnesty to those participants in civil wars who fought against him.

Livy's interest in the early days of Rome was not so much due to a desire to forget the disasters of the recent past, but rather to certain political motives, which the historian preferred not to dwell on .26 These motives can be identified by analyzing the legislation of Augustus and literary monuments of his time. The appeal to the distant past corresponded to the Princeps ' restoration policy and his desire to put the political upheaval he had accomplished in traditional, native Roman forms. The new regime, having destroyed the republic and replaced it with the sole authority of the princeps, made extensive use of republican terminology to disguise its monarchical nature. And in a document summarizing the results of many years of rule, Augustus calls himself the restorer of the freedom of the Roman Republic. Hence Livy's reference to the early epochs of Roman statehood, the birth of " freedom."

Livy's work is important not only as the most complete collection of facts about the political and cultural history of Rome. It is of interest as an ideological document of the epoch. Like Virgil's Aeneid, it is a monument to the time of Augustus, which is most clearly seen when analyzing the religious, philosophical and moral views of the historian. Livy was not an original thinker, and it is impossible to speak of his

25 U. Knoche. Das Historische Geschehen in der Auffassung der alteren romischen Geschichtsschreiber. B. 1957, S. 242.

26 Allusions to them are found in the preface, which speaks of the desire for physical and moral improvement of the Roman people, and in IV, 20, 7, where the historian calls Augustus " the founder and restorer of all temples."

page 107

contribution to a particular philosophical system. We can only talk about the degree of influence on it of any philosophical trend. First of all, it shows a certain dependence on stoicism in the form that developed in the II-I centuries BC in the works of Panetius and Posidonius. Abandoning the rigor and uncompromising nature of ancient Stoia, these philosophers brought stoicism closer to the needs of the Roman state and emphasized the problems of ethics and morality. The influence of stoicism can be explained by the praise of the high moral qualities of the ancient Romans contained in the preface to the history of Livy and the criticism of the vices that lead states to decline. These are exactly the vices that the Stoics condemned: greed, effeminacy, lust for luxury, ambition. But what is most revealing about Livy's connection with Stoicism is his understanding of traditional Roman religion and worship.

There is no consensus in the scientific literature regarding the historian's religious views. Some researchers emphasize Livy's skeptical rationalism and interpret his interest in religious ceremonial as purely academic .27 Others, on the contrary, considered him a staunch supporter of the old religion .28 The existence of such contradictory opinions is in itself an indication of the complexity of the problem of Livy's religiosity.

Already in the preface, which sets out the author's instructions and the purpose of the work, the historian considered it necessary to characterize his attitude to religion. He emphasizes that legends and strict history should ideally be separated from each other, and their confusion is more appropriate for poets than for historians (Praefatio, 7). But at the same time, he believes that the application of this rationalistic principle to ancient history is impractical, and promises neither to confirm nor refute the legends. Along with this, Livy gives a peculiar argument in favor of tolerating the Romans ' desire to ascribe their origin to the gods:" The military glory of the Roman people is such that if they call Mars itself their ancestor and the father of their ancestor, the tribes of men will bear this with the same indifference with which they bear the power of Rome " (Praefatio, 7).. This is the argument of someone who knows that the legend of the divine origin of the Romans is beneficial to them, since it requires submission from their subjects. Once they have submitted to the power of Roman weapons, they have no choice but to accept any incredible legend for reality. All this reasoning shows that Livy was far from the old naive belief in the gods.

This is also indicated by the way many ancient traditions were transmitted to them. Thus, when Livy reports the death of Aeneas, who, according to legend, was after his death ranked among the gods and named Jupiter the ancestor, he expresses doubts about "whether he should be called a man or a god" (I, 2, 6). In describing the divine origin of the twins (I, 4, 1 - 3), Livy omits the details of the legend known to Ennius and Fabius Pictor concerning the appearance of Mars in the form of a cloud and its combination with the Vestal Virgin. He also ignores the rationalistic explanation that an unknown passerby or a disguised Amulius approached her, and gives the floor to the Vestal virgin herself, who declared Mars the father of twins. At the same time, the historian does not exclude the possibility that the Vestal could have named God as the culprit of her pregnancy and because it was more honorable for her (I, 4, 1).

Livy's account of the deification of Romulus is also more rationalistic than that of other authors. In Ennius, as far as we can judge from Cicero's account of his version, Mars descended during the solar eclipse and the resulting darkness.

27 J. Bayet. Bude edition, Livius I. P. 1940, p. XXXIX.

28 G. Stubler. Die Religiositat des Livius. Stuttgart - B. 1941.

page 108

to earth and took his son to heaven 29 . Livy does not mention the eclipse and describes only the bad weather, the disappearance of Romulus and his acceptance into the number of celestials. At the same time, as in the case of the birth of twins, the historian refers to the testimony of an eyewitness, a certain Proculus, who met Romulus in his new capacity and conveyed his words that he became a god and took care of the future of Rome (I, 40, 3). Livy hints that Proculus, as well as the son of the Roman emperor, was born in Rome. like the Vestal virgin, there may have been special reasons for explaining Romulus ' disappearance in a supernatural way, and in this case he is fully responsible for such a transfer of the legend.

Proculus is also known to Livy's predecessors. According to Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, he reports that Romulus became the god Quirinus and demanded the foundation of the temple. [30 ] Livy omits these details in order to emphasize the main point - Romulus was a god and the son of god. Without expressing the slightest doubt about the divinity of Romulus, Livy sees Proculus ' account of his meeting with Romulus as a fiction intended to calm the people, confused by rumors about the murder of Romulus by hostile senators. Unlike Dionysius, Livy is far from describing Romulus ' appearance or linking him to Quirinus. All these details don't matter to him at all.

In the Libyan version of the ancient legend of Romulus, we can easily find features inspired by reflections on contemporary events and political conditions in Libya. Romulus ' murder of Remus is interpreted in the spirit of the negative attitude of contemporaries to fratricidal civil wars. Like Romulus, Augustus was, according to official propaganda, a god and son of god, that is, deified after Caesar's death. Like Romulus, he was considered the founder of Rome, who provided his people with greatness and power over other peoples. If we can speak of Livy's religiosity, then it is rather a commitment to the cult of emperors introduced at this time, a consciousness, from the point of view of the ruling class, of the need to deify the bearers of supreme power, rather than a belief in their divine essence. At the same time, there is such an important feature, from the point of view of a contemporary, as the achievement with the help of religion of calming the people, who are inclined to explain their misfortunes by the actions of senators who, in the case of Caesar, are really guilty of killing "god".

Livy's understanding of the current situation was no less pronounced in his assessment of the second Roman king, Numa Pompilius. Numa's personality embodies such features of Augustus ' policy as the latter's desire for peace, for the rule of law and moral revival of Roman society, the foundations of which were undermined by civil wars. Contemporaries should have recognized Augustus in the very first words of Numa's story as a ruler who re-founded the city that was created by military force with the help of law and laws (I, 19, 1). The mention of Augustus ' name in the chapter on Numa in connection with the closing of the temple of Janus is all the more significant (I, 19, 3). Here Livy's assessment of the legend of Numa's closeness to the nymph Egeria is of particular interest: "But since, without inventing a miracle, it was impossible to put this fear into the hearts of people, he pretended that he had meetings at night with the nymph Egeria; according to her advice, he established the most pleasing rites for the gods and appointed special priests for each god" (I, 19, 5).

Here we are again confronted with an educated person's skeptical attitude towards popular beliefs, and at the same time with an understanding of the tasks of religion as a means to curb the "ignorant crowd". This conclusion is not contradicted by the historian's obvious interest in ancient religious customs and cult remnants. Like Terence Varro and other Roman antiquarian authors, Livy Schi-

29 Cic. Derep., I, 64. Cp. PIut. Rom., 27, 6; 28, 3.

30 Cic. Derep., II, 20; Dionys. II, 83, 4.

page 109

He considered them the most valuable and reliable evidence of antiquity, resorting to them in the reconstruction of the ancient history of the Roman people. He preserved some fragments of priestly texts, for example, the formula of initiation to the gods (VIII, 9, 4), a passage from the priestly incantation (1, 18, 9). When reporting certain festivals and ceremonies, Livy often points to their origin. Thus, the presence of a neighboring tribe, the Equiculi, of a college of fecials (priests responsible for declaring war and making peace) suggests to Livy that the Romans borrowed this religious institution (I, 32, 5).

Prior to the Second Punic War, Livy occasionally and regularly lists phenomena that were considered an expression of the will of the gods and required sacrifices or other religious ceremonies .31 Is it possible to recognize the interest in prodigies (miraculous phenomena) as evidence of Livy's religiosity? The historian himself answers this question as follows: "I know very well that, in consequence of the same disregard that leads us at present to disbelieve in the omens of the gods, auspices (omens) are not announced to the public and are not recorded in the annals. On the contrary, when I write about ancient events, I do not know how the ancient way of thinking arises in me, and I consider it as a sin to admit that it is unworthy to enter into my own chronicle what reasonable people did publicly" (XLIII, 13, 1-2).

The juxtaposition of his own attitude to religion, his disregard for it, suggests that Livy allowed for the possibility that the will of the gods was expressed in the auspices. But he justifies their introduction to his narrative with the desire to convey the spirit of the time. Interest in prodigia is due to the importance of their place in the life of the Roman people. Prodigies are used to characterize the moral state of Roman society and show the everyday situation. At the same time, Livy very often explains prodigium as natural phenomena to which the crowd, due to an anxious state or a tendency to superstition, attributed religious significance. Thus, the plague, interpreted as a consequence of the wrath of the gods, was actually caused by a sharp change in climate (V, 13, 2). The same disease "in the absence of other visible causes of distress was recognized by the majority as a punishment for the execution of Manlius "(VI, 20, 11). Listing a number of prodigies, Livy exclaims: "In Cumae-this is the extent to which empty superstition confuses the gods even in the most insignificant cases-in the temple of Jupiter, mice gnawed gold" (XXVIII, 23, 2. Cf. similar reservations: XXI, 62, 1; XXIV, 6, 2; XXVIII, 11, 1; XXIX, 14, 2).

In another case, prodigies are interpreted as the result of the credulity of the crowd: "The news received from various places regarding signs aroused new religious doubts in the minds of people. They believed that crows not only stripped but even ate the gold on the Capitoline Temple, that in Antium mice gnawed the golden wreath, all the fields around Capua were covered with a mass of locusts, and it was not clear where it came from "(XXX, 3, 6). The crowd's view of imaginary religious phenomena and the historian's attitude towards them did not reflect on the they match. The historian acts as a critic of these phenomena, although he is not always able to correctly explain the natural meaning of a phenomenon that seemed miraculous to the crowd.

Livy sees religion as an effective means to curb the ignorant crowd. But at the same time, he does not reject the existence of a "higher power" (fatum, fors, fortuna, necessitas). This is where the historian's dependence on stoicism, with its providentialism and fatalism, is most evident. The story of the dishonored Vestal virgin's naive attempt to attribute her disgrace to a connection with Mars is preceded by the following remark:-

31 V. F. Stiftar. On prodigies in Titus Livy. "Hermes", 1913, vol. XIII.

page 110

However, it seems to me that fate determined both the birth of such a great city and the foundation of a power second only to that of the gods (I, 4, 1). Commenting on the marriage of Servius Tullius to the daughter of Tarquinius, Livy believes that this was determined by fate (I, 42, 2). In another episode related to the murder of his son by Manlius Torquatus, he also sees the irresistible force of fate (VIII, 7, 8). The fate that governs the human race is also mentioned in connection with the Battle of Cannes (XXV, 6, 6).

In all these cases, it may not be a rhetorical use of the words fatum or fata, but rather Livy's understanding of fate as the determining factor of human life. This is also partly evidenced by his use of the term fortuna. Fortuna Livia bears little resemblance to the ancient Roman deity Fors-Fortuna. And at the same time, it often differs from the understanding of fate as a blind, not controlled by man lot, which we meet in the works of Sallust, Caesar, Cicero. Fortune in Livy is often synonymous with divine power. In this sense, it approaches fatum and reveals the same belonging to stoic determinism. But there is also another interpretation of fortune - chance, happiness, with which the valor (virtus) of a person is compared. In this sense, virtus and fortuna-the conflict between a person's capabilities, his spiritual and physical power, and the circumstances that oppose him-are not considered as something insurmountable. A bold man can make fortune serve him, as evidenced by the proverb "fortis fortuna adjuvat" (fate helps the bold), twice quoted by Livy (VIII, 29, 5; XXXIV, 37, 4), and other similar statements in his work (IV, 37, 7-cf. V, 40, 1; VI, 30, 6; XXI, 41, 7, etc.).

The philosophical, moral and political tendencies of labor are most clearly reflected in the portraits of historical figures created by Livy. They personify the whole set of moral virtues from modern political propaganda and criticize the vices of society in the poetry and philosophical literature of the civil war era. Unlike Polybius, 32 he does not find out the reasons that lead to the rise and fall of certain historical figures. Livy is interested in personality not as a product of circumstances and epoch, but as the embodiment of certain qualities that are important models for all epochs. This is most clearly reflected in Livy's unhistorical approach to his tasks.

As a rule, Livii does not give outstanding personalities detailed author's ratings. He uses a method of indirect characterization that goes back to Thucydides, Xeiophon, and ultimately Greek tragedy .33 The reader gets acquainted with the historical character by the speeches put into his mouth, by the assessments given to him by his contemporaries, and, finally, by the line of his behavior in the relevant situation. But at the same time, when reporting on the death of an outstanding person, Livy gives a brief summary: indicates the length of his life, lists the positions held and the main result of his activities. Thus, Camillus and Fabius Maximus are described as saviors of the state, and Scipio Africanus - as a man who won the war with Hannibal. According to Seneca, this method of concluding characterization was developed by Thucydides and applied by Sallust to a few persons, and by Livy to all great men .34
32 A. I. Nemirovsky. Polybius as a historian. Voprosy Istorii, 1974, No. 6.

33 The German scholar Ivo Bruns noted that there are two approaches to the assessment of personality in ancient historiography: the first is subjectivist, when the historian openly gives his own characterization of the character, and indirect, when this characteristic is revealed on historical material (J. Bruns. Die Personlichkeit in der Geschichtsschreibung der Alten. R. 1898).

34 Sen. Suas., VI, 21.

page 111

Livy often resorts to the method of comparative characterization of prominent individuals developed by Hellenistic historiography. But in using this technique, he is far from Polybius ' inherent subtlety in motivating the behavior of his characters. And here the goal is reflected-the creation of a work that exalts the Roman people. The criterion for a comparative assessment of all outstanding foreigners is their attitude to Rome. Thus, two Sicilians - Hieron and Hyeronymus-are characterized according to their political position: the former as a kind and wise ruler, and the latter, because of his defection to Hannibal after Cannae, as a tyrant and a monster (XXI, 50, 8; XXII, 37; XXIV, 4). Livy even forgets to say that the "blood monster" was 15 years old and that he only ruled for 13 months. And, of course, it does not explain the reasons for Hieronymus ' hostility to Rome. The two Numidians, Syphax and Masipissa, are also affected primarily by the assessment of their political position. The highest merit of Masinissa is his "constant loyalty" to Rome, and the main disadvantage of Syphax is the lack of the same loyalty (XXVIII, 17, 6). Livy does not have enough words of praise to exalt Masinissa. It celebrates his religiosity, prudence, courage, and rare valor (XXVIII, 35, 8; XXIX, 39, 9; 32, 12; 29, 5).

From this straightforwardness and one-sidedness, Libya departs only by painting a portrait of the great opponent of Rome, Hannibal. In his portrayal, Hannibal is a complex, tragic figure. He was elevated to the top by fortune and learned from his own example the impermanence of human happiness. Meeting Scipio before the Battle of Zama, Hannibal compares his situation to that of Rome after Cannae and concludes in the spirit of stoic philosophy: "Least of all (should be) trusting great happiness "(XXX, 30). Considering the fate of Hannibal as an example of the changeability of fortune, Livy simultaneously paints Hannibal as a man who deserved his troubles by his own behavior: he has no fear of the gods, loyalty to the word, he is deceitful, cruel, ready to commit any crime to achieve his goal (XXI, 4, 9; 45, 8; 21, 9; XXI, 57, 14; XXIV, 45, 13; XXVI, 38, 3). This negative assessment of Hannibal is influenced by the Roman tradition that existed during the Second Punic War and consisted in not thinking about the moral and philosophical side of the activities of their opponents. In painting the last days of Hannibal, Livy forgets, however, all his real or imaginary crimes and portrays him as a victim of treachery (XXIII, 19, 16; XXXIX, 51, 12). In Livy's description of Hannibal, there is no understanding of his greatness as a general. This was due to the historian's lack of military experience, and hence his interest in military history as such.

To a large extent, his characteristics of the great Roman opponents and conquerors of Hannibal have the same drawbacks. In the first place among them is Livy Scipio Africanus. Just like Hannibal, he is a favorite of fortune, but this is not his personal happiness, but the fortune of the Roman people. The main feature of Scipio is his patriotism, which manifested itself at the most tragic moment for his homeland. The first mention of Scipio dates back to the Battle of Tipina, where O'Neill fought as a young man under the command of his consul father. In reporting the rescue of the young Scipio's father, Livy suggests that there is another version, according to which the consul's savior was a Ligurian slave. Rejecting this version, Livy notes that he should prefer the former not only because it is accepted by the majority of authors, but also because it speaks about the loyalty of the son (XXI, 46, 10). In this remark is the whole of Libya, with its approach to history from the standpoint of its moral value, with its disregard for the truth. The loyalty of a son is more important educationally than the loyalty of a barbarian slave, and this is enough for the historian

page 112

I stopped at it, not bothering to investigate where the truth was. Scipio's patriotism is emphasized by the introduction of a dramatic episode-his revelation of the intention of the desperate Roman nobility to leave Italy after Cannae (XXII, 53, 13) - and especially by describing his behavior during negotiations with Antiochus (XXXVII, 36). In the latter case, Livy, borrowing facts from Polybius 35, gives them a patriotic tinge. The moralizing approach is also reflected in Livy's assessment of Scipio's activities as a general. First of all, this was shown in the description of one of Scipio's most brilliant victories - the burning of the Numidian camp, the location of which was previously determined by scouts playing the role of diplomats. In order to save his hero from the accusation of treachery, Livy invents that the Numidians made unfair demands during the negotiations (XXX, 7) 36 .

Scipio, as Livy portrays him, loses the features of a real person and becomes the embodiment of all imaginable virtues. The main one is charity (dementia). It manifested itself in his attitude towards his enemies - the release of his nephew Masinissa (XXVI, 19, 2), his compassion for the Spaniards of Indibiligus and Mandovium (XXVIII, 34, 3), and his cordial reception of the ambassadors of Greek and Asiatic cities (XXXVII, 34). Characteristically, Livy omits Scipio's weakness for women, noted by Polybius, and emphasizes his generosity towards the captive given to him by soldiers in Spain. In order to exalt his favorite, Livy compares the nobility of his soul and mercy with the uncompromising nature of Lucius, the general's brother (XXXVII, 6 c.).

Mercy was the least characteristic of the conquering people whose history Livy wrote. He himself gave many examples of the cruel treatment of the Romans not only with the conquered peoples, but even with their closest relatives. Charity is not a real quality, but rather an ideal that has emerged in the minds of people who have experienced the most brutal internecine wars. Adopted by the political propaganda of the time of Augustus, mercy became a justification for political amnesties, forgetfulness of the mutual crimes of warring political groups and individuals, one of the most important foundations of the "Roman world". At the same time, it was an element of a new policy towards the Roman provinces, formerly considered the "prey of the Roman people", but now considered as a necessary part of the political organism, like the hands feeding the stomach in the old parable of the Plebeians and patricians. Describing the past, Augustus ' contemporaries gave this quality to mythical and real heroes, and the ideal citizen of political propaganda - Augustus was reflected as if in mirrors in the images of Aeneas, Romulus, Camillus, Scipio Africanus and many similar stilted heroes of the Roman Republican past.

The result of this modernization, as we would call it, was a distorted portrayal of actual Roman politics and historical figures. Livy rejects everything compromising in the behavior of the conqueror of Greece, Quinctius Flamininus, and paints him as a sincere champion of Greek freedom. Even for one of the most brutal Roman generals, Marcellus, there are excuses. He is said to have given orders at the siege of Syracuse not to harm the freeborn and to take care of the preservation of Archimedes ' life (XXV, 31, 7; XXV, 25, 7).The accusation of Marcellus by the Sicilians of cruelty is mentioned in passing, but a large speech is made in his defense (XXVI, 32, 8).

The main character of the historical narrative in Livy is the Roman people. His highest qualities are embodied in the state, to which he utters a real panegyric: "However, either a partiality for

35 Pol., XXI, 15.

36 Cp. Pol., XIV, 1 sl.

page 113

Either this fact itself misleads me, or indeed there has never been a greater state, a more pious one, a richer one in good examples, where avarice and luxury have penetrated so late, where poverty and frugality have been so long and highly honored" (Praefatio, 11). Speaking of the terrible defeat at Cannes, Livy remarks:: "No nation could have escaped destruction under such grievous circumstances "(XXII, 54, 10). If a stranger behaves nobly, then, according to Livy, he is more like the Romans than his own people (V, 28, 3).When a stranger shows deception and cunning, he does not act like a Roman (I, 53, 4). Describing the brutal massacre of the Albanians 'leader Mettus Fufetius, who was torn apart by horses, Livy concludes:" For the first time and for the last time, the Romans used this method of execution, which was not very consistent with the laws of humanity; otherwise, we can safely say that no nation imposed milder punishments" (I, 28,11). The greatness of the Roman people is revealed, in addition to these far from objective assessments, in comparison with other peoples who do not possess its qualities. Livy portrays the Carthaginians as savage and cruel, and gives many examples of "Punic lies" and "Punic infidelity" (XXVI, 17, 16; XXI, 4, 9; XXVI, 6, 12, etc.); the Gauls are a frivolous and savage people, more like animals than people (V, 44 6; VII, 24, 5; V, 4, 1-3; VIII, 14, 9; X, 10, 12; X, 28, 3; XXII, 2, 4; XXVII, 48, 16; XXVIII, 17); the Greek talkers (VIII, 22, 8; XXXI, 14, 12; XXXVII, 49, 2-3); the Campanians are a people who have degenerated due to luxury (VII, 29, 5; VII, 31, 6; IX, 6, 5; XXIII, 8, 6). Only the Germans are given a relatively high rating by the historian (Perioch, CIV).

When in the preface Livy promises to describe the deeds of the "leading people of the earth", it is quite necessary to take it literally. Populus Romanus, if we put the meaning of "mass of the people" in these words, occupies a third place in the work of the historian. In the interpretation of Livy, as well as other Roman authors, history was made by representatives of the nobility, and only they were its true heroes. To their steadfastness, courage, foresight, and other qualities the Roman people owed what they had become-a conqueror, a ruler. The history of the Roman people is a record of the deeds of their leaders. The mass of the people deserves mention only in connection with the need to describe the difficulties that outstanding people have to overcome in implementing the plans for the exaltation of the Roman state. The resistance of the people to the plans of their leaders is usually portrayed by Libya as a factor that hinders the solution of the tasks facing the state. But in some cases, the historian shows the reasons for the discord between the people and their leaders. Here, the historiography is penetrated by a line that goes back to the Gracchi and other representatives of the populars, who emphasized the injustice of the fact that the fruits of the victories won by the popular mass are used by noble generals.

Livy's praise of "freedom" (as well as Polybius ' praise of "democracy") does not give grounds to consider him a follower of democratic ideals. By "freedom" he meant obeying the laws of the republic and the customs of our ancestors, and in this respect his understanding is no different from Polybius 'interpretation of democracy as a state" in which it is established by primordial custom to honor the gods, cherish parents, honor elders, obey the laws, if the decisive power belongs to the decisions of the popular majority"37 . When it comes to the masses of the people, the aristocratic sympathies and prejudices of the historian are fully revealed. Noting the change in the attitude of the people to Valery Poplicola, Livia writes:: "Such is the nature of the crowd, it either servilely serves, or haughtily dominates, and the freedom of,

87 Pol., VI, 4, 5.

page 114

occupying the middle ground between slavery and tyranny, it knows neither how to receive it moderately, nor how to use it moderately "(XXIV, 25, 8). Livy's anti-democracy is reflected in his negative attitude towards the plebeians and the tribunes of the people, and in the negative assessments of politicians and generals nominated by the People's Assembly in defiance of the Senate. Gaius Flaminius and Terentius Varro are portrayed as the perpetrators of the defeats at Lake Trasimene and Cannae, while the representatives of the Senate group are portrayed as the saviours of Rome and true heroes.

Livy did not have the task of investigating the true history of early Rome. Therefore, he did not refer to the primary sources, to those inscriptions and ancient acts that in his time could still be found in state archives and temples. He was satisfied with the work of his annalist predecessors. He based his entire presentation on them, trying to ensure that it was lively, colorful and devoid of contradictions. With such an approach to the tasks of the essay, it is difficult to expect that Livy could in any way find out the laws of the historical process. Not to mention the economic development that he completely ignores, we will not even find in him an assessment of the role of the Roman state as a historical factor.

In his work, Polybius formulated the requirements that a scholar-historian must meet: he must carefully study documents and memories, personally get acquainted with the theater of military operations, with cities, villages, harbors, and, finally, have military, political and diplomatic experience. 38 It is a mistake to approach Livy with these criteria, since his work was not a scientific, but a historical and literary work, and he himself was not a research historian, but a historical writer. Livy's goal was to create a work that could have an emotional impact on readers, feed their feelings rather than their minds. The contrast between scientific and narrative history is most clearly revealed when comparing the descriptions of the same episodes in Polybius and Livy.

In describing Flamininus ' proclamation of the liberation of the Greeks, Polybius describes the confusion and disbelief that seized the audience, all the more understandable because the words of the herald were not heard by many .39 Livy omits the last essential detail and gives a picture of the general enthusiasm of the Greeks at the news of the realization of their age-old dream (XXXIII, 32, 6 cf.). In describing Hannibal's descent from the Alps to Italy, Polybius confines himself to a brief account of the difficulties that the Carthaginians had to overcome. 40 Livy, on the other hand, turns this event into an episode full of drama. From the cliff, Hannibal sees Italy, a country he has long aspired to and long dreamed of conquering ,and addresses the warriors with an inspired speech (XXI, 30). When describing the outstanding victories of the Roman army and its terrible defeats, Livy never forgets to reproduce the emotional reaction of the inhabitants of Rome, their enthusiasm and inhuman horror, guided by purely artistic goals. These are his descriptions of the Roman reaction to the Carthaginian crossing of the Alps (XXI, 32, 7), the news of the defeat at Lake Trasimene (XXII, 6, 9), and the victory at Metal (XXVII, 50, 7). The same purpose is served by frequent descriptions of triumphs as mass scenes crowning a victorious war, or religious ceremonies in which the masses participate.

The choice of military episodes is also related to the desire to make the greatest impression on the reader. The story of the siege of Saguntum and Abydos is replete with details and details that add nothing.-

38 Ibid., XII, 28, 4.

39 Ibid., XVIII, 40, 6.

40 Ibid., III, 54.

page 115

They do not lead to an understanding of the military or political significance of these events, but in a figurative form they reveal the state of mind of the besieged, their despair, determination to survive, etc. (XXI, 14, 1; XXVIII, 23). Often, instead of showing the clash of two armies, Livy depicts a battle between two generals, which determines the military superiority of a particular nation .41 Not only does Augustus's love of gladiatorial combat show up here, but he also understands that a duel scene can sometimes have a more dramatic effect than a description of battles.

In the history of Libya, following Cicero, he sees a special kind of oratory, which differs from its other genres only in that it is based not on the facts of modern political life or everyday life, but on historical material. Political figures and military leaders become orators competing in eloquence, and history itself becomes a kind of judicial process in which the listener or reader is given the role of arbiter .43 At the same time, it depends on the historian how logically and skillfully this or that commander "conducts his business", because no authentic speeches of them have been preserved.

Of course, this conventional form is not an invention of Roman historiography. It is a transfer of the theory and practice of Greek historians to the Roman soil. In the writings of Thucydides and Polybius, we find no less political speeches than in Livy, and in most cases these speeches are also fictitious. But this fact did not prevent Thucydides and Polybius from taking the source seriously and analyzing the causes of events in sufficient depth. Livy, like his Roman predecessors, took only the external form of Greek historiography and failed to preserve its seriousness and depth.

Livy died three years after passing away on August 44 . His work has survived for thousands of years and remains one of the monuments of this time, along with Virgil's Aeneid 45 . It was a work that fully met the pretensions to pomp and grandeur of the age. But from the point of view of subsequent generations, it was a product of a time of disappointed hopes. Just as Augustus did not give Rome any lasting external peace or internal tranquility, Livy did not create a work that could have a moral impact on his contemporaries and earn the high praise of subsequent generations. We hear exclamations of surprise at the enormity of Livy's work, his brilliant style, and even his excellent personal qualities .46 But no one admires the depth and subtlety of Livy's understanding of history. And this is quite natural. Livy was an official historian, and the ideas of his work, created for the needs of the political regime of Augustus, generally did not differ from the ideas and assessments of the head of state. Having skillfully described the advantages of Roman military discipline in comparison with the chaotic and discordant nature of barbarian hordes (for example, V, 44; XXXVIII, 17), the historian was powerless to introduce any semblance of Roman order into his work. It does not have the discipline of thought that so fascinates us when we read the works of Thucydides or Polybius. In the presentation of Libya's history

41 The battle of Manlius Torquatus and Gaul (VII, 10), the duel of the Campanian Badius and the Roman Crispin (XXV, 18).

42 Cic. De leg., I, 5. On Livy's adoration of Cicero and advice to his son to study him, see Quint., II, 5, 20; X, I, 39.

43 R. Ullmann. La technique des discours dans Salluste, T. Liv., Tacite. Oslo. 1927. A study by R. Ullman found that Livy's speeches occupy a smaller place in the narrative than Thucydides ' - 12% versus 24%, but this is an average percentage. Most of the speeches are in the XXVII and XXXIII books (Ibid., p. XVIII).

44 Hieronim. Chron., 2033.

45 For a comprehensive comparison of the works of Livy and Virgil, see A. Santoro. I problemi della composizione delli Eneide Livio fonte di Virgilio. Napoli - R. 1947.

46 Quint., X, 1, 101; II, 5, 1 (Sen. Suas., 6, 21; Sen. dial., V, 20, 6).

page 116

Rome appears to us as a jumble of facts, the important side by side with the insignificant, declamation replaces research.

Livy's shortcomings are those of Roman historiography, which, even at its best, did not rise to the heights achieved by Thucydides and Polybius. The Roman minor annalistics, to which Livy was directly attached, lost the naivete and ingenuousness that distinguished the annals of St. Fabius Pictor, and acquired the verbosity and swagger characteristic of Theopompus, Timaeus, and other luminaries of Greek rhetorical historiography. Being proud of Polybismus and making extensive use of the factual material of his work, Cicero and the Roman historians of the first century BC proved to be extremely unreceptive students. The lessons of writing history taught by Polybius were poorly understood by them. The reason for this is the fundamental principles from which they proceeded when creating their works.

page 117

Permanent link to this publication: