Historiography, the study of how humans have recorded history, is a science that can tell us a lot about the environment of the past. This is certainly true in the case of Roman historians and history. The methods of the various historians help to understand the state of mind they were writing in, and the influence their work had on others. Roman history grew from an infancy of conflicting origin stories with heavy Etruscan and Greek influence, into its own uniquely Roman style. While it could be argued that when Rome faded as an empire, so too did its historiography, that would not do justice to the lasting importance of the works of the Roman historians, or their place in the development of Western civilization. Men such as Polybius, Titus Livius (Livy), and Publius Cornelius Tacitus, all played a role in shaping not only Roman history, but also Western Civilization. While Roman historiography diminished greatly following the collapse of Rome, without the early historians, much of Rome’s history would be lost to the modern scholar and researcher. Roman historians left a lasting contribution to history and future historians through their surviving works and historiography.

The fall of Rome ended many things in the world, including Roman historiography, which certainly faded in importance.[1] One reason for this decline was the rise in Christian historiography, which focused on a broader view of humanity, and was frankly in conflict with Roman historiography, which did not coincide with the Christian faith.[2] The conflict between Rome and Christianity was a result of two main factors, Romans belief that Christianity was the main cause of Rome’s decline, and the fact that Christian teachings were in direct opposition to Rome’s so-called pagan beliefs.[3] This conflict eventually faded as Rome authorized Christianity as a faith, and Christians ironically accepted the Roman Empire as the instrument of God.[4] While Christian historiography gradually became dominant, Roman historiography never completely vanished.

Roman historiography grew from scattered and unconnected elements into a system, recorded by priests, that tracked the days in which sacred law allowed business and court proceedings and days they did not.[5] Later, around 304 BCE, these records were collected and displayed, and began to include the names of high officials and important dates.[6] This was an example of history writing that focused on important people and events, and an early example of chronological order of events. As occurred in numerous aspects of Rome’s history, a Greek influence is present.

The Greeks heavily influenced Roman historiography, which the Romans copied in large measure. One element the Romans used was altering their historical accounts into a narrative style.[7] This change allowed for greater appeal and ease of reading. This change gave rise to a series of Roman historians arose who each added something to Roman historiography. An examination of three of these historians will illustrate this growth, beginning with Polybius.

Polybius (ca. 200 – 118 BCE), was a Greek historian, among other things, from the city of Megalopolis and he became one of the great chroniclers of Rome. Polybius wrote during Rome’s rise to power and as a result, he focused on Rome’s ascension to greatness.[8] Polybius felt that in order to be qualified to write history, one needed to possess both military and political experience, two traits he possessed.[9] In discussing history, Polybius stated, “…there is no better corrective of human behavior than knowledge of past events.”[10] With this in mind, Polybius set out to expand history writing from simply describing events of the past, to questioning past events, such as why Rome triumphed, where other powers had failed.[11] He tended to focus on the chronological order of events and the forces at work, such as fate and the role of humanity, in his historical accounts.[12]

To accomplish this, Polybius wrote in a narrative style that held fairly close to his main line of thought, but he was not disinclined to insert digressions if they assisted the narrative flow.[13] At times, these digressions would detract from his argument, particularly some of the early translations. While modern translations have smoothed out some of the difficulty in following Polybius’ work, he did tend to write as thoughts came into his mind, thus disrupting his narrative flow as mentioned.[14] Polybius’ work is also of note because he was outspoken about a great many events of his day, such as Rome’s political system, and he wrote quite a bit about the art of history writing itself.[15] These elements of his style helped to preserve his work as an important contribution to Roman historiography.

Polybius candidly questioned other historian’s methods, such as not closely questioning informants and not interviewing as many people involved with events as possible.[16] In other words, examining the sources used in historical writing. He was not, however unrealistic and clearly saw that Rome would eventually decline, for Polybius felt that all cultures grew, gained prominence, aged and eventually faded to be replaced by a new, stronger culture.[17] These approaches to history writing are some of the reasons that his Histories have given the modern world a wealth of information about Rome. His history of Rome survived, thanks to Byzantine scholars, to influence many later historians such as Leonardo Bruni who wrote a history of the First Punic War in 1409 CE based on Polybius’ works.[18] Polybius’ Histories were also persuasive in their time, including influencing the second historian discussed here, Livy.[19]

Titus Livius (ca. 59 BCE – 17 CE), known as Livy, came from a town in Northern Italy called Patavium.[20] Livy became one of the most distinguished historians of the Roman Republic due to his exceptional story-telling ability.[21] He was, however, decidedly uncritical of his sources and prone to use exaggerated and even fictional embellishments to highlight the old-fashioned values he admired.[22] While the later elements can certainly diminish Livy’s work, his histories survived relatively intact and thus offer an example of the continued growth of Roman historiography.

One example of the continued progression of Roman historiography is the many sources that Livy utilized which included such previous historians as Valerius Antias, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Polybius.[23] Livy became more popular than the historians before him did, but one element that showed a marked growth in Roman historiography is that Livy was the first historian who had never held public office.[24] In this way, he was perhaps, the first true historian, a scholar who was neither politician nor general.

Indeed, Livy devoted his entire life to writing the one hundred forty-two book History of Rome, which chronicled Rome up to 9 BCE.[25] This detachment from politics and the military, coupled with Livy’s philosophical studies, gave him a unique view of history and a focus on the people of Rome.[26] This differed from Polybius in that while Polybius attempted to keep the role of humanity in mind while writing, Livy focused more closely on the actual people who influenced events. This was not the only element that separated Livy from Polybius.

Livy, unlike Polybius, focused on the transition from the Rome of the past to the modern Rome of his time.[27] The citizens of Rome were keenly interested in the historical transition from the past to the present, and how it came about, something Livy focused upon. Many citizens viewed the old Rome as an idealized version of the Republic, one where fortitude and self-reliance helped Rome achieve greatness.[28] In a break with past historians, Livy felt it was the Roman people that made the Republic great and not the constitutional arrangement of the government that Polybius focused upon.[29]

The fact that Livy’s work remains highly regarded as an exceptional account of Roman history, speaks to the importance and lasting quality of Roman historiography. Livy expanded the role of historian, and as Polybius before him, he began to see flaws in Rome. In the first book of his history he states of Rome that, “the might of an imperial people is beginning to work its ruin.”[30] Here he tends to echo and build upon the more critical examination of Rome and its history, an important element for more objective histories. This is a theme picked up by other historians, including the third under examination here, Tacitus.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55 CE – 117 CE), was an excellent writer, public speaker, and senator, although his objectivity has been called into question.[31] While his work, The Annals, contains some misrepresentations, it remains a vital source for the period from Augustus to Nero.[32] As mentioned, Tacitus continued the theme of decadence and decline that so many before him had done. This element to his writing came about from personal observations that led to his dismay at the state of Rome. Tacitus had lived through the turmoil of the four-emperor year, 69 CE, and the harsh rule of Domitian and Nero.[33] These elements had jaded Tacitus and resulted in his cynical history of Rome.[34] Despite this, Tacitus himself felt he approached history objectively yet he demonstrated little restraint in criticizing other historians.

In Book I of his Annals, Tacitus states of previous historians that their histories, “were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred.”[35] He goes on to state that his history is, “without either bitterness or partiality.”[36] Tacitus may have thought this, but his inflammatory language tends to suggest otherwise. In speaking of Nero, he described him as being, “like a despot’s minister over his satellites.”[37] He also described Nero’s very poor treatment of his wife Octavia, stating that Nero, “did not repent of his outrage.”[38] Tacitus was trying to show that Nero was the same in all walks of his life, a despot over the people, and a tyrant to his spouse. While many historians describe Nero in similar terms, Tacitus’ word choice does not reflect the lack of bitterness or partiality he espoused.

Tacitus certainly had his own view on issues, but his works read as lively accounts, and remain important today. Biased or not, they offer a glimpse into the contemporary mindset of an ancient historian. They also demonstrate the development of historiography into a more clinical style, while retaining a narrative format. Like Polybius and Livy, Tacitus is still widely utilized today as a source on Ancient Rome.

The collapse of Rome brought about a decline in Roman historiography, however, the Roman historians who compiled their works preserved valuable accounts of Roman history for modern historians. Later historians such as Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) and Adrian Goldsworthy (1969- ) utilized the works of the ancient historians for their own works on Rome. Historians writing shortly after Tacitus, such as Ammianus Marcellinus (330-390), who continued Tacitus’ histories up to the year 378 CE, also demonstrate the influence of the three Roman historians discussed here, including.[39]

These historians left a legacy of historiography and a wealth of valuable information as to the development of history writing as a science. Polybius, Livy, and Tacitus stand as but three examples of this progression, Polybius’ political and relatively unemotional approach in its narrative style led to Livy, and his focus on people and the heavy use of sources. These in turn led to the judicial approach of Tacitus as he relied on government documents to a great degree. Before, in-between, and after these men, other Roman historians added their own thoughts on Rome, and together, a picture of Rome emerged. This picture shapes our modern understanding of the Roman world. Coupled with archeological evidence, we are able to piece together a picture of Rome that details its art, culture, science, and way of life. This began from the work of the ancient historians, like Polybius, Livy, and Tacitus. Through them Roman historiography emerged and survived.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Third. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Howell, Martha, and Walter Prevenier. From Reliable Sources, An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

Le Glay, Marcel, Jean-Louis Voisin, and Yann Le Bohec. A History of Rome. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome, Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundation. London: Penguin Books, 2002.

Polybius. The Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. The Annals of Tacitus. Franklin Canter: The Franklin Library, 1982.

[1] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 76.

[2] Ibid., 76-77.

[3] Ibid., 80.

[4] Ibid., 84.

[5] Ibid., 42-43.

[6] Ibid., 43.

[7] Ibid., 38 and 44.

[8] Ibid., 46.

[9] Polybius, The Histories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), ix.

[10] Ibid., 3.

[11] Breisach, Historiography, 44.

[12] Ibid., 48.

[13] Ibid., 44

[14] Polybius, The Histories, xxxviii.

[15] Ibid., xxi.

[16] Ibid., xxii.

[17] Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources, An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 123.

[18] Polybius, The Histories, xxxiv.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Marcel Le Glay, et. al., A History of Rome (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 514.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Breisach, Historiography, 63.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Titus Livius, The Early History of Rome, Books I-V of The History of Rome from Its Foundation (London: Penguin Books, 2002), 1

[26] Ibid., 2.

[27] Breisach, Historiography, 63.

[28] Ibid., 64.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Livius, The Early History of Rome, 29.

[31] Le Glay, et. al., A History of Rome, 146.

[32] Ibid., 147.

[33] Breisach, Historiography, 67.

[34] Ibid., 68.

[35]Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals of Tacitus (Franklin Canter: The Franklin Library, 1982), 5.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 320.

[38] Ibid., 321.

[39] Ibid., 74.