A: From your reading of Livy’s preface, what is his opinion of the Rome of his day?

(20)

Livy’s opinion of the Rome of his day is negative. During his preface, he makes direct and
indirect criticism of the moral decline he sees in modern rome.

Although the preface begins ostensibly as Livy’s reflection on his own writing, he pointedly
refers to his disdain for modern Rome and his love of the old Rome in each paragraph -
even if only through implication.

For example, in the first paragraph, he complains that too many contemporary historians
think they’re too clever for ‘old fashioned writing styles’, and try to break the mold and be
recognised, while also trying to show off how humble he is by saying that he doesn’t care if
he is remembered or gains a reputation - he just wants his history to help document the
greatness of the history of Rome. Livy is virtue-signalling his ideal for a history writer as a
humble, devout lover of old Rome before anything else, and implying that modern Romans
and historians lack humility or an appreciation for old Rome, and establishes his admiration
for the Rome of old that he perceives to be humble, old-fashioned, and patriotic. In the
second paragraph, he says that Rome has grown impressively in its 700 years but that its
vastness ‘threatens to be its ruin’, and characterises modern History readers as impatient,
only wanting to know about contemporary history. Here Livy dramatically describes modern
Rome as ‘suicidally eating its own resources’. From this it’s clear Livy has a very low opinion
of the character of modern Romans and of modern Rome, but that he admires and is
impressed by the growth that the old Romans managed to create. Interestingly, Livy also
says he’s glad that writing about ancient Rome, because he won’t have to worry about
stepping on the toes of vain, important people, and therefore can write truthfully and without
nervousness. This shows a contempt for modern Roman politicians and writers as vain,
spineless people, and suggests an association of purity and truth in ancient history and
vanity and dishonesty in contemporary times.

Later he says that ‘our defects are unendurable to us - and so are their cures’. This is a
harshly worded and completely damning examination of what Livy views as Rome’s
inevitable, careering descent into immorality. In the concluding paragraphs of the preface,
Livy blames ‘imported riches’ for creating ‘avarice’ in Rome, and says that the pursuit of
self-indulgence is creating ‘personal and universal annihilation’ - another harshly worded
critique of modern Rome. The second last paragraph has a particularly rhetorical section,
where he uses the rhetorical rule of three and dramatic language to contrast the perceived
pureness of old Rome with the immorality of modern Rome. He says that no state has ever
been greater, or been plagued so badly so late on by excess, or been so frugal and
greedless only to become so extravagant. He ends his preface by noting that these opinions
aren’t popular in the Rome of his day, and resolving that while it’s important that he express
his opinions on modern Rome, he’ll keep them contained to the preface, for fear of causing
detriment to the history as a whole. Again, this is Livy establishing himself as an ‘old’ Roman
and showing disdain for modern Rome, as well as (ironically) trying to show his credibility as
an old-school historian, keeping his opinions out of his work for the sake of the truth.
B: From your reading of Class Warfare and Horatius on the Bridge, discuss the
qualities that Livy admires about Rome in the distant past. (30)

Throughout Livy’s history of Rome, he uses stories as opportunities to highlight the

traditional qualities and values he admires in Rome of the distant past. Two stories which
show Livy’s admiration for these qualities are Horatius on the Bridge and Class Warfare.

Horatius on the bridge is primarily a story about patriotism and bravery which also extolls
other traditional Roman values. The opening paints Rome in dire straits: an Etruscan army
from the north of Italy are rapidly approaching after having taken Janiculum, and the people
of Rome are fleeing inside the walls. The sole path of the Etruscans into the city is a bridge
over the Tiber, which, if crossed, would force Rome into a likely disastrous siege. In this
story, the crisis is handled and prevented solely by the actions and leadership of Horatius, an
ordinary Roman guard who shows remarkable bravery and patriotism for Rome by standing
his ground against the Etruscans. This bravery is contrasted by the cowardice of the
‘frightened mob’ of guards who flee inside. Livy clearly admired bravery and patriotism for
Rome and disliked cowardice.

Livy then establishes Horatius as a commander, and espouses the value of strong
leadership, co-operation, and obedience. He tells us in heroic, positive terms how Horatius
grabs two guards and instructs them to destroy the bridge behind him by any means, fire,
steel, or hand, while he himself takes the far end, planning to take on the Etruscan army
single-handed. This shows an appreciation for Horatius’ assertiveness and the two others’
obedience, and again proves his bravery - the destruction of the bridge will likely mean
self-sacrifice. He stands his ground against the tide of javelains that fly towards him,
catching them on his shield, so that even the Etruscans are amazed by his audacity and
remark upon it, further drawing attention to his bravery and patriotic qualities. When they
reach him, they are uneasy to attack him, unsure what will happen. His catching of the
javelains and refusal to yield or run from the Etruscans shows Horatius to be a very brave
and patriotic Roman. When Horatius taunts them, his way of insulting them is by calling them
slaves of kings looking to curb the liberty of others. This is Livy asserting Rome as anti-king
and a defender of liberty and freedom, and again showing his admiration of Horatius’
patriotism.

Furthermore, it’s the traditional quality of committedness to avoiding shame that discourages
the two other guards from leaving him, and even makes them refuse to leave him when he
orders them to. However, Horatius forces them to leave, yet another testament to his
qualities of courage, leadership, and his patriotic love of his Roman brothers. We can also
see here what Livy finds to be the qualities of an exemplary Roman leader, and that he sees
supreme value in the power dynamic of an assertive Roman leader with loyal, obedient
followers. This structure is also emphasised in Class Warfare. That these two stories
exemplify qualities which the emperor at the time, Augustus, would have valued highly as an
autocrat and traditionalist, are not surprising. Given his friendship with Livy and Livy’s
relationship with Augustus’ propaganda efforts, it isn’t surprising their admiration for that
traditional power dynamic and the qualities of obedience under leadership are shown here.
Horatius further exemplifies bravery when he dives into the river - resolute as ever and
giving the Etruscans ‘defiant glances’ - before swimming to the other side, missing missiles
by inches. The final quality that Livy expresses of Horatius is his humility; the state and
private citizens shower him in gifts and a statue is built for him, but he rejects all these and in
a fantastic proof of morality, continues to live his life as an humble, ordinary Roman. It’s also
notable that the Romans donate Horatius their daily food ration, a tremendous selflessness
on their part that shows humility and a lack of greed. This seems to Livy giving us a firsthand
example of the ‘frugality and greedlessness’ of the old Rome which he talks about in his
preface.

Class warfare is another story that shows Livy’s admiration of the qualities of Rome of the
distant past. In Class Warfare, a plebian mob, seeking to protest against the economic crisis
they were suffering, amassed as an army three miles outside the city, near the Sacred
Mount.

The first traditional quality that’s displayed in this story is the civility of the plebeians. They
first consider murdering the consuls, but recognise that it’s illegal and immoral to dissolve an
oath through crime, and instead choose to quietly protest by setting up a fortified camp
outside the city - in modern terms, going on strike, or civil disobedience. They don’t loot or
pillage, instead ‘taking nothing but what they required for their subsistence’ - reminiscent of
Livy’s assertion in the preface that old Romans were not greedy and could manage their
impulses and appetites. The qualities of civility and lack of greed by the plebeians is
remarkable in the face of the economic plight that encouraged their strike in the first place.
This shows Livy’s admiration for the frugality and civility of ordinary Romans, even in times of
serious plight or temptation.

The dissent of the plebeians and the placement of the mob outside Rome created a panic in
the city - everything came to a standstill because there were so many absent from work and
nobody knew what would happen next. Livy notes that a primary fear of those within the city
was that if a foreign army appeared, Rome could easily fall. Given the intense
circumstances, the cool and reasoned reaction that the patricians have to the situation is
somewhat remarkable. Instead of trying to get their way through force, they instead choose
diplomacy, and try to reason with the mob by sending out Menenius Agrippa, a popular
senator and plebeian by birth - a further example of the quality of civility and good
leadership.

Menenius Agrippa manages to persuade the plebeians to negotiate with the patricians by
telling them a metaphorical story about the human body. He says that if they, the hands and
mouth, revolt against the perceived privilege of the stomach, the body (Roman society as a
whole) will grow weak and sick. He says that the hands and mouth will find out that the belly
‘has no idle task to perform and was no more nourished than it nourished the rest’. Livy
describes him as eloquent, and affectionately describes his storytelling to be ‘in the quaint
and uncouth style of that age’ directly saying that old Romans had a good way of telling
stories. Again this is reminiscent of his preface, this time of the line where he complains
about new writers who think they’re too clever for ‘old fashioned writing styles’. It’s the
eloquence and rhetorical skill of the politician Menenius that resolves the situation, showing
an appreciation for famous Roman rhetoricians: Livy clearly admires the educated, civilised
qualities of this old Roman leader.

Agrippa’s speech and the plebian reaction is also crucially telling about what Livy admires
about the rigidity of the class system, and shows how fundamentally important he believes
keeping the old Roman status quo is. The story communicates that it’s completely critical
that the class system stay fixed, and that any discrepancies must be resolved as soon as
possible, for fear that something terrible might happen. Even this seemingly minor dissent
could feasibly be the destruction of Rome. This to me is the strongest example of Livy’s
conservatism in the two stories.

It’s also notable that Livy and the plebeians he writes see nothing untruthful about Agrippa’s
assertion that the belly ‘had no idle task to perform and was no more nourished than it
nourished the rest’. Literally and metaphorically the patricians were more nourished than
them - they enjoyed a better social standing and in general had more money. It’s clear that
Livy admired the acceptance that the ancient plebeians had for this symbiosis idea, simply
accepting that the ‘belly’ was not idle, and was indeed essential to their nourishment. It’s
also understood from this how strongly Livy believes in the obviousness and rigidity of this
idea from how the class system is described as analogous to something as natural as the
human body. The food metaphor also speaks to Livy’s disgust at the perceived greed of
modern Rome.

Livy tells us that after the plebeians were persuaded, ‘steps were taken’ to create a
compromise that would restore harmony in Rome. The Tribune of the People was created,
consisting of five plebeians, which could not be removed or filled by patricians. Livy
describes this as an ideal compromise, reached through negotiations of good faith on both
sides. This shows an admiration of the Rome of old as a considered, methodically,
reasonably run place, with a robust leadership and class system. This is also further proof of
ordinary Romans of the distant past’s ability to civilly engage with their superiors, even when
in disagreement of them.