Comments on Reading from Day 3
There is a lot to unpack here.
What is think I found most interesting was getting the chance to see the same events from different perspectives and different writing styles. Livy, born centuries after the events he writes about, is still part of the culture as a Roman man. Polybius, a contemporary of his writings, is an outsider to at least some of the culture. He even states so himself in 6.11 (”I am fully conscious that to those who actually live under this constitution I shall appear to give an inadequate account of it by the omission of certain details.”). I find this statement allows amazing because it shows a recognition that there are parts of a culture only those raise/living within it will understand. As that section is about the Roman government and its structure, it was interesting to see how an outsider viewed the political structure. By the end, Polybius says that it is a form of mutual dependence (the Senate and magistrates cannot “rule” without being elected by the people and the people cannot have a country without the Senate controlling business). I wonder what the reactions to these words were? Surely there were some Roman that could agree with this statement and others who disagreed. Did the “people” side of the argument feel they had more or less power than Polybius implied? What about the Senate? Some of the Senate probably thought they had all the power (and all things considered, that’s a fair point to make), but on the other hand, the people may have thought they certainly had power over the Senate. After all, they voted those men into office.
From the standpoint of writing style alone, Polybius is very to-the-point (At least in the sections we read). It was almost like reading Livy’s Periochae again in some places; events are just reported within the dramatization that Livy likes (and just a few days ago, I thought Livy was very to-the-point). Livy is attempting to do two things at once, it seems; inform the reader about the history of their culture (as he wrote for a Roman audience) and provide moral examples. These moral stories (at least the ones we have read) all have an element of emotional interest. Who’s side should you be on? I think this is at least a little apparent when Livy turns to describe Hannibal. Livy has some form of cognitive dissonance as he describes Hannibal as a very self-controlled man (a trait Livy shows is the crowning trait of a Roman man), but also a deceitful cruel man. Amusingly, there seems to be this tacked on thought right at the end, where Livy essentially tries to neutralize his argument by saying that Hannibal was a good commander. Livy recognizes that Hannibal shows some traits that are valued by Romans, but he is the ultimate enemy of that time period; Livy can’t appear to like the man.
As one last final point, I would like to comment on the Fabius Pictor, the common ground between Livy and Polybius. Both use him as a source for their own histories (Polybius was even his contemporary). I wish we had his writings to show their common information, but I found this footnote on Perseus.Tufts to be absolutely fascinating! Livy’s use of this text also implies that it survive some 150 years. I think I talked a little about Livy’s sources in my last post too; now I know who wrote one of Livy’s sources, but it doesn’t exist (that is so frustrating). Maybe it will miraculously reappear like Catullus’ poems did.
