Livy's Cincinnatus

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is one of the archetypes of the Roman republic, summoned from his farm, he led the armies of Rome into battle, won and then resigned his power. That is the figure that has come down to us but it is not, crucially the figure that Livy handed to his successors. Cincinnatus is a much more complicated and interesting figure in Livy- still according to Livy great- but much more interesting than the figure we have. Our figure is a democratic one at its roots- the citizen who can command as well as the highest politician- Livy's argument is not democratic but aristocratic- he uses the story to exalt nobility and to question the values of his own society. His argument is directed against fortune not against the conception of native virtue.

Understanding Cincinnatus means understanding his career- without that understanding you cannot see what Livy wants us to take from the story he tells. Cincinnatus comes to the fore in Livy's history when his son Caeso was prosecuted by the tribunes for his allegiance to the patrician party in the senate and his violent hatred of the people outside it. Caeso fled Rome to Tusculum and though he may have fought for Rome afterwards, he was in disgrace. Upon his flight, his father Cincinnatus lost his entire estate and 'found a deserted hovel across the river and lived there like a banished man' (III 14). The old senator though did not retire from politics but returned to its frontline when he was elected consul along with Appius Claudius (II). LIvy tells us that he was a controversial choice for Consul: he "began his period of office with a series of speeches in which his castigation of the senate was even more vehement than his attempts to repress the commons". (III 19) He castigated the senate for their weakness, their 'feebleness' (III 19). Cincinnatus's arguments on this occasion against the tribunes are fascinating and I will deal with them at another point, but Livy wants to establish him as a character, curmudgeonly but principled. It is noteworthy that when the Romans join his army, Livy comments that 'authority, both religious and secular, was still a guide to conduct and there was as yet no sign of our modern scepticism which interprets solemn compacts, such as are embodied in an oath or a law, to suit its own convenience' (III 20). Cincinnatus's army marches under ancient virtue and one might see his entire consulship in that manner. Cincinnatus himself embodies the same principle- offered the consulship a second time- indeed forced onto the ballot, he rigged it so that he received no votes (III 21)

I wanted to make that point because it allows us to set the famous incident of Cincinnatus's dictatorship in context. Cincinnatus was not an innocent farmer but a highly partisan political leader- a hammer of the plebs we might say- and a punctilious man for legal precedent and obligation. When Livy tells the story of his dictatorship- that the consuls were defeated and that Cincinnatus was called from his farm to lead Rome's armies and led them to a stunning victory in only fifteen days- we are not to read that as a supplication to the successful spirit of Rome, but rather as an injunction to nobility. (III 26) When Livy says that he wants the 'particular attention of those numerous people who imagine that money is everything in this world' he does not want to tell them that everyone is equal, rather his argument is that money means nothing besides nobility and morality. That the ancient virtues of the Roman patrician will outpace the modern ones of the Roman businessman- this is an argument, familiar to any serious analyst of the enlightenment, about the virtues of aristocracy and commerce. It is significant that Cincinnatus appoints Lucius Tarquitius his master of horse- poor but the best soldier in Rome- the point is being made again in case you didn't get it, that wealth and virtue are not the same (III 27). We have to understand this in the story of Cincinnatus because it is the hinge upon which Livy's history turns- and what we need to see in it is a critique of the contemporary senate that Livy lived with: they could not do this because they have turned from the soil and the sword to luxury and commerce.

And Cincinnatus himself provides the ultimate definition of this himself: he derides the consul Municius sternly,

Until, Lucius Muicius, you learn to behave like a consul and commander, you will act as my lieutenant and take your instructions from me (III 29)

Cincinnatus's point is Livy's: forget money, the real determinant of the ability to command is ancient nobility and stern disciplined morality. The two run together and Livy is using the character of Cincinnatus to provide to modern times an example- a model- to behave like. This is a portrait with a contemporary relevance- Livy is speaking directly to the Augustan senators of Rome- Cincinnatus's words for Municius are meant to come down the century as an injunction to senators who lived hundreds of years later, and to make them reflect on the moral decline that has slain the Republic and left an Empire in its place.

Rome and her surroundings

Attacks on Rome during its first century of Republicanism came through the peoples of the hills- the Aequians and Volscians. An uneasy peace with Veii endured, an alliance with the Latins stabilised that territory but it was the people of the hilly valleys around Latium that caused Rome problems. In 463BC, the two tribes came down from the hills and marched on Rome and her allies. Rome was unable to aid the Hernici in Latium (III 5). She was unable to send troops because in an 'unhealthy season', Roman farmers had fled the invasions and 'disease was increased' says Livy 'by overcrowding'. (III 5). Livy paints a terrifying picture of the interior of Rome at this point

The smell of this motley collection of animals and men was distressing to city folk, who were not accustomed to it; the farmers and yokels, packed as they were into inadequate quarters, suffered no less from heat and lack of sleep, while attendance upon the sick, or mere contact of any time, continually spread the infection. (III 5)

The image here is important- and echoes that of Thucydides about the Athenian plague- but it merely is part of the situation rather than part of Livy's argument. The plague is part of what Livy describes as a situation announced by portents (III 5), in which all Rome had to depend on was 'her tutelary Gods' and 'her fortune' (III 6).

Rather than the situation, what Livy is interested in is Rome's response to the situation. Firstly her senators and all the able bodied men did not abandon Rome to her fate. Plebeian Aediles patrolled the streets (normally a task reserved Livy says for the consuls- both of whom were dying) and young senators guarded the gates. The community came together and came together in the service of the city. (III 6) Furthermore Livy comments that Romans went straight to their Gods to seek help:

The Senate, despairing of human aid, turned to the people and their prayers, bidding them go with their wives and children and supplicate heaven for a remission of their sorrows. It was an official command, but no more than each was impelled to do by his own distress: every shrine was packed; in every temple women lay prostrate, their hair sweeping the floor, praying the angry Gods to grant them pardon and to put an end to the plague (III 7)

As Livy noted it seemed the Gods recognised their prayers (III 7) and the raiding forces withdrew. Livy's moral Romans triumphed in that sense- in their moment of weakness the enemy spontaneously withdrew and their allies came into fight for Rome. Rome was saved therefore possibly by its virtue.

But it was also saved by the vice of its enemies. Livy wants us to see that if the Romans were steadfast and virtuous, then their enemies were not. The Aequi were mere theives and not soldiers (III 6). However Livy implies a sociological point as well as a moral one- we have seen the Romans taking pride in their city and defending it. Let us look for a moment at the Aequi, people of the hills without a city, and the way that Livy describes their progress on Rome.

They were very far, as it turned out, from hoping to capture, or even to get within striking distance of, the city; the mere sight from far away of its hills and houses so effectively extinguished their martial ardour, that with one accord they began to grumble about wasting their time amongst the rotten carcasses of men and cattle in a stricken desert where nothing was to be found worth taking, while they might just as well be turning their attention to the rich and wholesome lands of Tusculum

The Aequi and Volsci lacked the strategical longterm sense of the Romans- they lacked the ability to stand steadfast to their objective but rather strived after short term objectives. Whereas the Romans were soldiers, the Aequi and Volsci were 'theives'. (III 6) I think what Livy gets here particularly, as ever, is the effect of the sights as they approach Rome on the Aequi and Volsci. Whereas the sights in Rome stirred men and women to devotion and to hopeless fidelity to their cause; the Aequi see the hills of Rome and are terrified by their history, they see the carcasses and think to move to Tusculum. It is an indication of the moral and strategical difference in Livy's view between the folk of the hills and city dwellers, the former are feckless, wild, animalistic and undisciplined, the latter are determined, devout and desperate to defend their homes. It is a distinction that we shall come back to, but it is crucial to understand, if we are to understand why Livy believed that Rome survived and eventually conquered these hill folk.

Livy's case is partly that Rome was morally superior and partly that its population were strategically sounder- more determined- the two things run together and for Livy cannot be separated. Both meant that Rome survived the attack of the Aequi- she was saved by her character, as much as their folly in not conquering her was a result of their character. To use a Machiavellian word, and its no surprise that Machiavelli read Livy attentively, the virtu of the people, dependent on the way that they lived, deterimined their future.

Melvyn Bragg

Lord Bragg is an arts journalist and a novel writer of some distinction. He presents what I think is the best program on any Radio or Television station in the world- In our Time where three academics gather with him to discuss a historical, scientific or cultural issue- from the library of Nineveh to Poincare's conjecture. The next series of In Our Time has just started- and I would reccomend it to anyone interested in the issues that this blog raises. Bragg has just done an interview with Mark Lawson- I think it is really interesting. Partly because Bragg describes his feelings about his father's return from the second world war- he describes a world essentially where he had his mother to himself and his father's return disturbed his world. Then he moves on to discussing equally interesting his own struggle with depression and his work with TV and radio- it is really interesting as a vision of late century Britain, from an intelligent person who cares a lot about his world and also about the future- he spends a lot of time saying that his world is not more exciting than the world that twenty year olds like me do, but different. That is a key insight into the way the past is- often not better or worse but different.

What Livy knew

Livy we have already seen had a historical method- he was to some extent a professional historian as far as we can tell. It is worth us trying to understand what Livy's approach to history consisted of. History in the ancient world was often a matter of observation- contemporary history being favoured over what we might call history today- the understanding of events long finished with. Livy of course studied our kind of history and therefore had to understand events in the far distant past. We have seen that Livy used conjectural history as a tool to understand events of the past but it is worth thinking about what else he did in order to form his narratives.

Livy relied as well on the accounts of previous Roman historians. The probability is that they themselves relied upon Roman family and public records, histories from the Greek colonies in the south of Italy and their own predecessors as Roman historians. Occasionally Livy names these predecessors- most of whose work is now lost to us- and therefore allows us to ascertain what his approach to them was. Take for example this passage from Book 3 concerning the campaign against the Aequians who had raided Rome:

In describing events so distant in time, it is difficult to make a precise or trustworthy estimate of the size of the forces engaged or the number of casualties: none the less Valerius of Antium does venture to do so; according to his account Roman losses in the territory of the Hernici amounted to 5,200 killed and those of the Aequian raiders in their engagement with Postumius to 2,400, the rest of them, who fell into Quinctius's trap as they were on their way home with their plunder fared worse, losing no fewer (as Valerius says with punctilious exactitude than 4,230 men (III 5)

There are a couple of things to note here- firstly that Livy was aware of the problem of talking in detail about events in the distant past. Secondly that he used his sources with scepticism- we are warned twice about the accuracy of Valerius of Antium's estimate- firstly in the overall warning about estimates and secondly in the language "none the less", "punctilious exactitude" with which Livy describes Valerius's estimate. Livy's own historical technique appears sceptical of the details of previous approaches- in this case exactly in the way that a modern historian would be. Livy like a modern historian understands that too much detail gives a hint of plausibility but also suggests an elaboration precisely because it is punctiliously exact.

We cannot deny that Livy did not use his sources the way a modern historian would- but we have to understand why. Firstly he did not have access to archaeology and the ability of historians today to reconstruct say the life of Etruscan Rome from the buried remnants of its ancient inhabitants. Secondly he believed that people in general behaved similarly in different epochs- not for Livy the conception of changing worlds of ideas- for him the lessons of ancient Rome were fully applicable in modern Rome but the opposite was also true: the social conflict of the 5th Century BC might be reconstituted from the social conflicts of the 1st Century BC. Livy has his limits in our eyes as a historian- but we ought to also acknowledge his strengths- he was not completely credulous about his sources. They may have vanished but we can see here his scepticism- he also was aware that there were limitations on his knowledge of the darkest corners of Roman history.

A model of certainty

Appius Claudius (I) died "a great man" and thousands attended his funeral. (Livy 2.62) However as Livy makes clear this great man was unable to either solve the social crisis or lead Rome's armies into battle against the Volscians coming down from the hills. Appius's failure should interest us because he represents an archetype, that Livy feels, was unable to cope with Republican politics. Appius was brave and principled- several times Livy shows him standing up to the plebeians, rebuking them to their face and even attempting to arrest their spokesmen: at one point his colleague (Titus Quinctius) in the consulship had to rescue him from the crowd in the forum and the senate convened to calm their colleague down and make sure that he did not risk death through his impetuous hatred of the commons (2.57). As this suggests, Livy's view of Appius is not entirely without nuance- a great man may not be a successful man.

Perhaps this is demonstrated most by Livy's account of Appius's military career. Livy tells us that with appealing symmetry the two consuls were given command of two campaigns- Appius against the Volscians and Titus against the Aequeians. Livy then provides us with parallel and contrasting accounts of their campaign's successes. Appius took his 'savage' temperament to the battlefield- the response of his men was that they grew 'drunk on insubordination' and 'actively desired defeat'. (2.58) After they had been defeated, Livy provides an example of Appius's cruelty- he marched them back into Roman territory and had every man who had betrayed his post, whose unit had fled, who had lost his equipment or his standard, flogged and then beheaded. The rest were decimated (i.e. one in every ten, chosen by lot, was executed). As a contrast Livy develops an account of Quinctius's campaign where 'the consul and his men vied with one another in goodwill on one side and generous consideration on the other' (2.60). On their return to Rome, Quinctius's men summed up the distinction by telling their friends that the senate had given one army a tyrant and the other a father (2.60).

Livy here is directing us to the conclusions that we ought to draw about politics from this episode. Appius's greatness is the root cause of his inability to command, his principles lead him to be unable to compromise with the outside world. As David Runciman at Cambridge might put it: Appius is the most dangerous kind of hypocrite. The man who believes in his own belief so much that he does not recognise that it is his own belief, rather than a societal good. Appius definitely saw no need to recognise the political game of persuasion- his political career was about confrontation and a refusal to care for the beliefs of others. At some points this leads to amazing courage, during his trial and just before his death, Appius stood as a martyr to the cause of senatorial glory. That steadfastness terrified his foes- and they refused to continue the trial, adjourning it indefinitely (2.62). It is what we might call greatness- but it is married to an inability to see other people's point of view when it is right and good to do so. Basically Appius was not a politician- he was a martyr and the garb of a martyr suited him, but in Rome he almost caused a riot and in the field, his inflexible hatred of his own men and their desires caused mutiny, defeat and savagery.

Livy's point is an interesting one- it anchors him as a historian, a student of the changing human nature that can never be fully accommodated in a political system and determines the course of events as much as the general political and ideological framework does. But Livy also here offers us counsel about what kinds of personality thrive in which situations. Appius was a hypocrite of a particular sort- if he was not a fool. The hypocrisy of Appius was the hypocrisy of the martyr, of the great man, but what that great man or martyr was incapable of doing was controlling armies and being a Republican politician, he was capable of impressing even his opponents with his bravery. The example of Appius is interesting- the chances are that Livy's portrait is not historical but derives from scandalous rumour created centuries afterwards about the Claudian family, but what Livy here is doing is deriving out of his created history, principles to understand political nature. Here he does so by observing the way that situation and character can come together- at points a disposition can be useful, at points it cannot. The personality, Livy reminds us, is political- and in order to evaluate politicians, it is necessary to evaluate their strengths of personality.

Appius was able to stand steadfast to his principles in moments of great danger- but unable to understand that compromise, that negotiation are needed when commanding an army or speaking in the forum.

Prosecuting in Democracy

We have seen that Livy believed that tyranny and democracy approached each other in the figure of the demagogue. We have yet to see what the consequences of that for the ordinary citizen- we have seen passion dominating politics in the persona of Tarquin and we have already seen a tyrant refuse to punish a relative for his sin. But what we have yet to see is the wrath of the mob turn on the individual- what we have yet to see is the untrammelled power of the prosecuting wrath of the demagogue, the tyrant- what we have not yet seen is the darkness at the heart of democracy. The creation of the Tribunes of the Plebs brings this aspect of demagoguery (so Livy tells us) to the fore and with a particular ancient tinge.

Titus Menenius was prosecuted for losing his position on the Cremera, Spurius Servilius of failure to command on the Janiculum. (Livy's account is in 2.51, it is worth remembering that while the verdict may be true the record of the trial is definitely Livy's invention: for our purposes analysing Livy's thoughts about the state, this does not matter, but its worth remembering that when I use the past tense here, I am not implying that these things definitely happened). The point of both these prosecutions was to exploit a consequence of the world of the citizen soldier. When military matters as in modern society are divorced from politics, generals are seldom exposed to popular anger: the perceived mishandling of Iraq has not been blamed on Ricardo Sanchez or Tommy Franks but on George Bush- when a conscript army is created then the general's art becomes a matter not merely of public concern but of public policy. This is even truer in a society in which there is no distinction between the military and political roles- we shall find plenty of evidence later in Livy to suggest that this unity of politics and strategy is not neccessarily prudent- but the point here is that in the ancient world the success of a general was seen as a matter of political concern.

When Menenius and Servilius were prosecuted, they were brought to court on the instigation of the tribunes. Considius and Genucius brought Menenius to trial, Caedicius and Statius brought Servilius to the bar. The interest for Livy lies in the fates of the two men and in the way that illustrates the pernicious effects of democratic power and the ways that character influences the viccissitudes of politics. Menenius was bullied and endured a 'bitter humiliation' which resulted in a swift and fatal illness. His death, despite the attempts to intercede of the senate, became a cause for Servilius at his trial. He poured 'anger and contempt' upon the tribunes and the people who had forced Menenius to his 'savage death'. Livy comments that Servilius was saved by his courage and by the fact that Menenius had died. The differing fates of the men reflected that one was prosecuted first and also by their different reactions to the trial: the first reacting by defending himself and therefore seeming more guilty, the second by attacking his accusers and thereby giving the appearance of innocence- its a tactic that politicians even today use well.

But what it illustrates is the way that the mob can force in its wrath, led by tribunes of the people, a man to suicide. The point Livy wants to make is that the judgement of the mob is essentially irrational- the results of these trials were in Livy's view decided by events that had nothing to do with the fact of the matter before the court. It was the carriage of the condemned and the temperature of the times- not guilt and innocence which governed the result. The trials were carried out in an atmosphere of public hysteria, as the tribunes brought out proposals for land reform, and in the aftermath of a war. Failure to fight well was a crime against fellow citizens, furthermore it meant the destruction of a political career: Livy shows how accusations of failures of strategy could devastate careers. Though the substance of the accusations might change, his essential point is about the feeling of the mob- democracy for him cannot be true because like the tyrant a democracy can lead, for Livy, to a show trial where innocence is no defence.

Fame and Women

Rome in those days was free from the petty jealousy of others' success and the men of Rome did not grudge the women their triumph. To preserve the memory of it forever the temple of Fortuna Muliebris was built and consecrated.

This sentence occurs in Livy after Coriolanus had been forced to retreat: the great general had come to the walls of Rome, and his mother and wife convinced him to retreat, the men of Rome realised that the victory was due to the women who had gone to the enemy camp, despite great danger, and told their opponent to withdraw. That's the context of what Livy is saying here- and it is important to recognise that because we are talking about a traditional female role- the suppliant who persuades rather than forces retreat- and we are talking about an example of great courage. I need hardly remind anyone reading this that the consequences for these women could have been severe. Livy is therefore indicating two things in his admiration of these women- firstly that they behaved appropriately- in the way that any Roman matron should, like Lucretia they are serving their country through their example to men- but they are also courageous. Thats the first part of the paragraph- the courage of the women that the men recognise- but actually today I am more interested in the other parts of what Livy writes- the recognition and the form that recognition takes.

Let us start with the recognition of the women. When Livy uses the word triumph, he means something quite precise. Roman Generals of his own day held triumphs to commemorate great victories. In a sense what Livy is saying here is that courage is a public act- it has public ramifications and becomes part of a public story. This fits in with ideas we know Livy would have come into contact with- take for instance the first line of his great predecessor, Herodotus of Hallicarnassus's history (written about 500 years before Livy's). Herodotus says that the purpose of his history is "preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory". Livy would no doubt agree and so would his idealised Romans of the 5th Century, whose virtue Livy demonstrates through the fact that they recognise and preserve courageous acts. Memory here becomes a public virtue.

Not only does memory become a public virtue, it also becomes a religious virtue. They dedicate a temple to remind Romans in the future of the great deeds of Romans in the past. We have come across this concept already- when after the Battle of Lake Regillus the dictator Postumius vowed a temple to Castor. In part such vows are vows of thanks- Postumius's definitely fell into that category. In part also they are vows to memorise the events that the God is being thanked for: note Livy's language here, we are told that the purpose of the temple is to preserve the memory of the incident forever in the minds of men. In marble and paint the pride of the women of Rome is exalted and their position as the guardians of the Republic is proclaimed. Whatever we understand about the purpose of Livy's history we have to understand in this context.

History in the West has been tied to religion since the days of Augustine and Eusebius. I think though we can see in this passage the way that history in the ancient world is a religious as well as a instructive practice. History is religious because it is an art of memory- Livy's history is about the creation and support of good civic memory which both instructs yet also dignifies the characters of history. In this sense, when we read Livy we have to bear in mind that he is paying tribute to and creating a memento of his assumed ancestors. Glory creates the need for a historian to chronicle it- to endeavour to preserve the memory of Achilles and of the women of Rome who went out to petition Coriolanus. If we understand this, I think we get a better idea of one of the things that Livy's history is designed to do- unlike modern histories Livy wants to preserve the past as a religious and moral duty to the inhabitants of that past.

Freedom, Conflict and the State

Coriolanus became a major Shakespearian hero based upon his characterisation in Livy- but the character in Livy is interesting in his own right. He is interesting because the character is involved in a confrontation with the plebeians- a confrontation that takes the form of an argument about freedom. Coriolanus argues that for him to recognise the freedom of the plebs and the powers of the tribune is to make himself a slave (2.34). The plebs on the other hand think that his harsh policy offers them a false choice- a 'choice between death or slavery' (2.34). Coriolanus and the plebs exchange arguments about freedom.

The interest of this exchange lies in these two concepts of freedom. Coriolanus's freedom is his freedom to vindicate his honour- the problem is that his freedom includes the destruction of other people's freedom just to be. In a sense it is an argument that runs up to the present day. The problem is not that freedom is contradictory but that perceptions of freedom can contradict. I can see your freedom to choose as an insult to my position as a free individual- it is that feeling that leads to instability.

What Livy offers us though is not a normative view of the merits of these arguments- my own is pretty clear but Livy steers us away from such simplistic understandings of politics. For Livy the key question is the survival and the structure of the state- not the normative question of who is most free- Rome not Romans are the centre of Livy's attention. In that sense Livy is caught in a quandary and in a sense this is the meaning of Coriolanus's career: what Livy is interested in is whose freedom- the sense of honour that can only be redressed if others are kept down and kept inferior or the sense of freedom which demands equal rights for everyone.

Livy is uncertain- and his uncertainty comes not so much from a moral point of view as from a military one. Because as he points out, what happens is that Coriolanus defects and comes close to destroying the Republic, leading its enemies to the gates of Rome. From Livy's point of view, Coriolanus's victory 'indicated that the strength of Rome lay in her commanders not her armies' (2 38). The issue here is a dual one- Rome cannot afford to lose her commons as they staff her armies- but equally it is the commanders which make the armies special. That is ultimately the issue between Coriolanus and the commons- not an issue of right- but an issue of might- the question for Livy is what kind of freedom can stabilise the republic and because of the tension between the kind of armies Rome needs to levy in order to fight and the kind of commanders who can guarentee victory that puzzle remains problematic.

The issue is similar say to our arguments about homosexual marriage- with the Christians being Coriolanus and the liberals being the commons- but Livy's analysis is very different to ours. Rather than asking which argument is right, he provides us with a historical argument about consequences which presumes that the key issue is the continuation of the state. The heart of the issue here is that Livy cannot decide and by his account (which may be fictional, historians are very cautious about the career of Coriolanus), both the honourable commander and the free commons are indispensible to Rome's defence. The internal history of the republic could be seen as the attempt to reconcile the two in order for the city to survive: an attempt which culminated within Livy's own day with the destruction of the Republic.

Menenius makes his mark

The argument that the state ressembles the human body has a long pedigree: we ourselves perpetuate it by calling Queens and Presidents, heads of state. As an image it is incredibly versatile. One interesting variant is used in Livy to justify oligarchic rule by the senate by Menenius Agrippa- I think it is worth quoting in full before we analyse it:

Long ago when all the members of the human body did not, as now they do, agree together, but had each its own thoughts and the words to express them in, the other parts resetned teh fact that they should have the worry and trouble of providing everything for the belly, which remained idle, surrounded by its ministers, with nothing to do but enjoy the pleasant things they gave it. So the discontented members plotted together that the hand should carry no food to the mouth, that the mouth should take nothing that was offered it, and that the teeth should accept nothing to chew. But alas! while they sought in their resentment to subdue the belly by starvation , they themselves and the whole body wasted away to nothing. By this it was apparant that the belly, too, has no mean service to perform; it receives food indeed; but it also nourishes in its turn the other members, giving back to all parts of the body, through all its veins, the blood it has made by the process of digestion; and upon this blood our life and our health depend (II 33)

The first thing that is fascinating about this is the mechanistic way that it describes the body- as a machine essentially for the processing of food. Notice too that at the centre of that machine is not the heart- which we know pumps the blood around the body- but the belly which in Livy's view does not pump but produces the blood and nourishes it with food. The belly is also for Livy inactive- it does not convert food, it consumes it and transmits it around to other parts of the body. That too establishes a vast difference between how we see ourselves and how Livy saw himself- what for us is a mechanism performing various tasks is for him a mechanism which performs similar but distinctly different tasks. That conception of the body makes his idea of his own individuality very different- for a start what we see as a pump, he does not give any role in the physical process of blood transmission.

Notice too how this effects politics- if our metaphors for politics are bodily then the evolution of how we understand the body changes our understanding of politics. I'm not sure today that we would explicitly connect consumption in the same way to the ability to decide things- Livy did because of what he beleived that the belly did (or he thought it was plausible to do so because that is what he thought the function of the belly was). The metaphors that we use about politics and life are often extensions of the other sciences- the same functions in reverse as well- competition in the animal kingdom is not always conscious! The Livyan world is distinct from ours not just because of Livy's explicitly different moral, religious and political contexts but also because of his scientific and medical context. That provides him and us with the raw material to understand politics and the world through.

The second thing that is so interesting about Menenius's explanation is the way that it perfectly gets the advantages of the division of labour. I have no doubt that this is not a full explanation of the division- seeking for the roots of Adam Smith's philosophy in even Augustan Rome is a futile task of anachronistic idiocy. Rather what I want to draw attention to is the rational basis for an aristocratic government of the world. Essentially what Menenius is saying is not counter intuitive- though of course it may well be deeply incorrect- his argument is that some people are better at making decisions so let them do it. It may look like they make decisions for their own good- but that good filters down to every class of the population and were they not to do that, the state would fail. To some extent Livy agrees with him- afterall Menenius, Livy tells us, died having performed 'great' services for the commonwealth (II 34) and this episode is distinctly mentioned.

What Livy is not is a democrat- and if my last post gave you any such idea then I was wrong- what he is is a believer in constitutional balance. The point of this speech is that it reasserts a moderate position between the aristocratic hauteur of the senate and the mob feelings of the populace- it avoids the trap of oligarchy and that of Athens. In a sense therefore Livy's places this speech by Menenius deliberately at the end of his passage extolling the role of the plebs- he wants to demonstrate that he is no democrat, despite his sympathy for the small farmer in arms.

Social Strife

Livy likes to illuminate his argument about the Roman republic with illustrations. The moment where Livy really gets to the key of why the Plebeians demanded social rights and yet were a free and rational people (as he has told us Rome was). The point about this population though is that they had justifed greivances. Livy takes his starting point from a moment in a crowd: his lense is captured by an old man, with battle scars and who is enslaved by debt (II 23). Through that old man he gives us a moment which exemplifies the way he constructs an argument, he uses moments and particularly visual moments to tell us what he believes about the Republic. This moment he uses to make a point and the point here is about the connection between political obligation and military service. His argument is that this old man- and by extension all old men who have served and suffered- requires both political representation and is owed political obligation.

It is significant that Livy gives us a series of political opportunities for the plebs- whereby we see their real argument. The Patricians are not given any arguments- they just tell us that the Plebeians are a mob and need to be pacified- whilst themselves behaving like a mob. Livy is illustrating for us a fundamental principle that in a Republic those who serve the state militarily deserve the franchise. He puts the best argument for the senate into the mouth of a senatorial moderate- remember here Livy is constructing the speeches of his historical personages and putting them into their mouths- and gives that moderate the speech at the end of the night. The Plebeians acquire through what is effectively a strike from military service the right to elect a tribune to protect themselves from those who demand arrests for debts.

We should be careful about this- firstly that plebs and patricians meant different things as you went back into the past. In my view it is best to think of the class distinction as rough and ready and that is in the history that Livy tells us- which may not be the history that actually happened. Livy's history is conjectural, as he admits. The point about this story is the way that Livy demonstrates the connection of citizenship to military service- his model of republicanism is an extensive one in the circumstances of a free, smallholding community. It is significant that it is a small holder who is the victim of the creditors in this context- men driven off the land rather than soulless city dwellers. Livy's sociology identifies these individuals with the infantry that secures Rome's victories in war- the connection between agriculture, military service and the franchise is in Livy's view the basis for the ideal Roman republic. Even here though Livy's politics is unfailingly realistic- and his realistic judgement of the way that internal dissention can tear the state even to its own destruction is what makes his history so powerful.

On the one side we have a vision of the ideal conjectural republic, on the other the vision of it as a moment in time, rather than a static perfection. Livy may not have known the exact form of the republic- but what I think is so interesting about his descriptions of the first social conflicts in Rome is that Livy is both an idealist and a historian. The idealist identifies the features of the ideal state- the historian suggests in effect that it has never existed and its features have always been in flux.

The Legion

As Rome was threatened by the Volscians, it had to raise forces. Livy tells us that the dictator, appointed to solve the problem, raised ten legions in order to sweep away the Volscian danger (2.30). This is interesting- because it is the first time that I can recall Livy using the word 'legion' in his history. That does not mean that such things did not exist or were not in evolution earlier- nor does it mean that the legions raised by Manlius Valerius were similar formations to the great legions of the late Republic and early empire- indeed we know they were not. But it is important because it marks a change in Roman military history that had wide political repercussions. Early Roman warfare was cavalry warfare- based around the actions of a couple of notable noblemen- later Roman warfare was dominated by the infantry formation- the legion- and followed on Greek precedent with the phalanx of hoplites. The Legion and its ability to change shape, nature and also withstand heavy charges was the mainstay of Roman military success right up into the imperial era. We need to understand this change- and what precisely the legion at this point in the Republic meant for the citizen before we proceed to discussing the social turmoil that ran alongside the Volscian war.

Early Roman fighting I said was cavalry based. If we take Livy's accounts of battles between the Romans and others and look at them with an inquisitive eye, we can see Livy himself indicating this. There are Homeric encounters- particularly notable in this instance is the battle between the Tarquins and their allies and the Republic. Livy tells us that the armies came together along the battleground and that the son of Tarquin, Arruns, spotted Brutus in the front line of the Roman army- he cried 'Avenge O God of Battles this insult to a King' and charged the Roman consul who accepted the challenge and both 'drove clean [their spears] through their adversary's shield deep into his body' (2.7). The Battle of Lake Regillus is similar in type in that it sees great cavalry charges against particular leaders- we Tarquin Superbus (now an old man) charge Postumius the Roman dictator, Aebutius the Master of Horse charge the Tuscan commander Octavius Mamilius, Marcus Valerius was killed attempting to kill one of the younger Tarquins and Titus Herminius killed Mamilius at last. (2.19) Its one of the most exciting accounts of a battle in Livy- but it is all about charges, personal duals and the use and disposal of cavalry forces upon the field. Livy confirms this for us by telling us that the dictator- Postumius- vowed a temple as soon as the battle finished to Castor, one of the Gemini, and an individual associated religiously with horses. (2.21) The accounts of the early Roman battles in Livy therefore support an account of Roman military history that puts cavalry before infantry in the line of Roman development.

However by the time of Lake Regillius, it is already true to say that Roman armies had an infantry component. The army that marched to Lake Regillius was a 'powerful army of combined cavalry and infantry' (2.19)- if we do not hear of the infantry in the battle, their presence testifies to the development of infantry fighting underneath the account of cavalry charges at Regillus and earlier battles. But its only after Regillus, that Livy directly comments on the importance of infantry- and he does so in the context of social strife. I have described the accounts of earlier battles- compare those with their charges and personalised warfare to this account Livy gives us of a battle with the Volscians the year after the battle at Lake Regillus:

Verginus, the Roman commander, bided his time: he instructed his men to ground their spears and wait in silence, until the enemy were upon them. Then they were to be up and at them, using the short sword only, hand to hand. The Volscians had come on at the double, shouting as they came, and persuaded that sheer terror had fixed the Romans to the spot; by the time they were within striking distance they were already tired, and when they found they were met with vigorous opposition and saw the flash of Roman swords, the shock was as great as if they had fallen into an ambush. (Livy 2.30)

That description is so obviously different from how Livy described previous battles. Verginus the commander is not a hero here but a general- the soldiers are disciplined and instructed tactically to do something which they perform. We see no noble charges at other leaders- indeed apart from Verginus there are no other noblemen mentioned. This is a textbook infantry engagement from the classical era- and a textbook example of why infantry formations, strictly commanded and tactically aware, would beat a cavalry charge. By the Volscian invasion we have clear indications from Livy that this is how the Roman army was fighting all engagements- a slightly earlier engagement with the Volscians substantiates that conclusion:

One charge was enough; the enemy fled. The Roman infantry gave chase as far as it could, striking at the fugitives backs and the mounted troops pursued them to their camp, which, in its turn, was soon surrounded. (Livy 2.26)

The key thing here is the second sentence- the passage I have highlighted in bold. You would not use infantry to chase or charge unless they were the mainstay of your army. We are seeing here an army of infantry and light skirmishing cavalry who will follow the enemy's retreat- we are not seeing a classically Homerical army. Somewhere between the battle of Lake Regillus and the war with the Volscians, Livy decided that the way that Rome fought its wars had changed- cavalry had been replaced by infantry as the core Roman fighting force.

And that has consequences for Roman politics. I don't want to dwell on the indirect revolutions possibly caused by this change in Roman warfare. What I want to do is to show that some of the administrative changes that Livy suggests were happening at Rome were to do with this tactical evolution. The Servilian reforms, Livy suggests happened in the mid-sixth century, had divided Romans into classes and we have already seen created for Livy the situation which led to the Republic. It is neccessary to appreciate how these new forces were raised. The social crisis of the 490s reveals in detail what happened in order for the consuls to raise a new legion. The legions that fought the Volscians were adhoc forces raised by the consuls who would declare a need for men to serve. In some cases Livy suggests an edict was passed in the senate or proclaimed by a dictator (2.30), in others the consuls would take their stand on the tribunal and name individuals to serve in the army and call for volunteers (2.27). What we have to recognise is that in both cases- the state was subject to the whim of the populace- an adhoc army could only be raised by a popular government. A citizen was most likely to be engaged in war if summoned by his consul individually- something that could interrupt and even ruin him economically (2.23). Livy's approach suggests therefore that the nature of the legion changed the nature of Roman politics- citizenship became a matter of service within an army and as that grew in importance, so did the importance of the citizen himself by virtue of his service.

The development of the Roman army therefore is crucial in the Roman state. A last word of warning about Livy's history here. Firstly it is neccessary to remember that the legion may have shared a name but probably not a tactical awareness with the legions of the later Republic. Livy may well be transplanting back in time legionary tactics- like the use of the short sword- which were common in his own day. I would also be cautious about Livy's dates here- he himself warns us that chronology in this period is doubtful- but I see no reason particularly given Postumius's temple to critique his wider thesis that Rome's military organisation changed during the sixth and fifth centuries.

It is far more likely that the original legion, rather than being like an Augustan legion, was like a Greek phalanx- and that shouldn't dispel our impression of the social change that was consequent on this development- because we have the example of the Greek city states to verify that the creation of an infantry force, and the dismissal of an aristocratic cavalry force to the margins of warfare, had vast political and social consequences. Both timocratic Sparta and democratic Athens were the creations of the military structure that the use of hoplites enforced. The fact that there were several solutions to this problem, implies that determinism would be wrong- but it is equally wrong to say that the development of an infantry army did not have a large effect upon the state that developed it. To put it simply, the Roman Republic's peculiar history and constitutional form was in part a creation of the legion that defended it.

Dancing Nina

I promised Nina Simone's version of Mr Bojangles here a couple of weeks ago- listen this is beauty in words- she had the most amazing voice of almost any singer I have ever heard and I think this is her song as much as it is Jerry Jeff Walker's who wrote it or Sammy Davis Jr. who popularised it. The pity that she puts into her rendition, the sadness in her voice, the nostalgia- is the kind of thing that only the spoken word can capture. This is beauty captured for all time in a recording. The last movement- Mr Bojangles dance- captures the reason that I love this song as much as any other song I have ever heard. It captures that moment, the moment of performance, the moment of loss. Mr Bojangles really existed- he was a man that Jerry Jeff Walker saw dance in a cell- he wrote this song in his memory- but it exists as a testament to art and things of beauty wherever they live. A thing of beauty is a joy forever, said Keats- the lying poet, thanks to these words and Simone's beautiful delivery of them we get a sense of what we've lost.

Comrades!

Just thought I'd mention two blogs by two friends of mine- Doug and the Organic Viking- both are interesting and thoughtful and both of their blogs are worth reading. Anyway I thought I'd introduce them by providing an examination of two of their posts. The Organic Viking has recently posted what looks like a delicious courgette fritter recipe (she is running the risk of being as bad for me as Welshcakes Limoncello- whose blog I can never read without feeling hungry) however that is not the post of hers I wanted to highlight.

She works on Vikings- and a couple of days ago spent her time in Cafe Nero on King Street in Cambridge working on her thesis and knitting at the same time. One of the things that I think is underrated in working life today is the ability of people to relax and get more out of what they are doing. I know exactly what she was up to- in the sense that what you do as a historian is absorb texts and then try and work out what in that morass of pages is interesting and what provides something that you can work with. Often when you are doing that, changing your surroundings and doing something else whilst you are doing it helps- because it keeps the mind active and also supple. The mind in a sense is a muscle that you need to keep in exercise- one of the things that I wonder about modern jobs in offices is that whilst they provide you with assurance that all your employees are there all the time, I'm not entirely sure that they provide work of the best quality.

Doug on the other hand is a lawyer- a breed not known for their ability to relax and for whom lateral thinking is called all sorts of names (don't worry Doug is the kind of lawyer who can see minature golf courses in ancient monuments!). What Doug provides though is an example of the way that lateral thinking benefits a group of the best entrepreuneurs in the world- the Italian mafia. In times of financial crisis with food prices rising, they have diversified into the smuggling of bread and mozarella. Its interesting to reflect on the capacity of crime to change its nature depending on the law throughout history- people are often after the fast buck whether that's drink in the Great Depression or the corporations of crime that emerged after the second world war. The nature of crime tells us a lot about the society we live within- in a society in which commodity prices are rising, where health and safety laws are proliferating- it was only a matter of time before someone decided to ignore the latter in order to keep the former down: the fact its the latest evolution of the Italian Mafia is merely a testament to their creativity.

Anyway back to Livy!

Publius

by universal consent the greatest soldier and statesman of his day

The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Hamilton, Maddison and Jay wrote under the pseudonym Publius. When they did this, they did it deliberately and they brought to mind the great Roman statesman about whom Livy wrote the comment I quoted above. What is significant is that that statesman- Publius Valerius- was a contemporary of Brutus and a founder of the Roman republic- yet he is often forgotten today, obscured by the fame of Lucius Junius Brutus and the splendour of the immediate resistance to Tarquin. But for Livy and for the authors of the Federalist Publius was equally if not more important: when Plutarch wrote his lives of the Romans and Greeks, he paired Publius with the famous Athenian constitutional lawgiver, Solon. The implication was obvious- Solon's fame remains to this day as the possibly fictional lawgiver of Athenian democracy- to place Publius beside him was to place him in a similar position within the history of the Roman republic. He not Brutus the regicide was the instigator for Plutarch of the successes of Rome.

What about Livy though? The quotation above demonstrates the high esteem with which Livy held Publius. And what I want to do in the rest of this essay is demonstrate that Publius for Livy was an archetype of what a Republican statesman looked like. Brutus was killed soon after Rome was converted from a monarchy. Valerius became sole consul and then served four further times in the supreme office of the Republic. Valerius was important both as a general and as a leglislator. As a leglislator he brought in measures which made it possible for any man to ascend to the consulship, which allowed the people to kill without judgement in court any man who desired to gain the crown and gave people the right of appeal against the magistrate. (II 8) Valerius was responsible for a number of Roman tactical victories when the city was invaded by the King of Clusium: he constructed an ambush in which several Etruscan soldiers died (II 10) and was responsible for driving away the first invasion of the Tarquins and the citizens of Veii (II 6). From Livy, we can derive the impression that Valerius was the most important citizen in Rome for a time: he was consul four out of the six years that he lived after the foundation of the Republic and in one of the years in which he was not consul, his brother Marcus held the honour. (II 15) It is significant as well that Rome created the office of dictator after the death of Valerius- the office was explicitly linked to the defence- and in previous years when under pressure, Rome, Livy tells us, elected Valerius to the consulship. (II 15)

Valerius faced one major crisis that Livy sees fit to explain in his rule of the Republic and this explains a recurrent theme in Roman history. After Brutus's death for a while Valerius was sole consul: Livy tells us that when he was sole consul suspision grew about his motives, people feared that he might desire the crown. 'Rumour' Livy tells us 'had it that he was aiming at the monarchy' (II 7) because he had constructed a great house on the hill at Velia and because he had failed to replace Brutus with another consul. Valerius addressed this by making a speech to the Roman population- tieing in usefully another great theme of Roman history, the importance of oratory- and

dwelt on the good fortune of his colleague who, having set Rome free, had held the highest office in the land and had died fighting for his country at the very peak of his fame, before the breath of envy could tarnish its brightness. 'While I,' he went on 'have outlived my good name. I have survived only to face your accusations and your hate. Once hailed as the liberator of my country, I have sunk in your eyes to the baseness of traitors like the Aquilii and Vitellii. Will you never find in any man merit so tried and tested as to be above suspision? How could I, the bitterest enemy of monarchy, ever have believed I should have faced the charge of covetting a throne? If I lived in the fortress of the capitol itself, could I ever have thought that my own fellow-citizens would be afraid of me? Can my reputation be blown away by so slight a breath? Are the foundations of my honour so insecure that you judge me more by where I live than what I am? No my friends, no house of mine shall threaten your liberties. The Velia shall hold no dangers. I'll build my house on the level- more I'll build it at the very base of the hill so that you can live above me and keep a wary eye on the fellow citizen you mistrust. Houses on the Velia must be reserved for men better to be trusted with Rome's liberty than I. (II 7)

This speech, crafted by Livy rather than Valerius, demonstrates in my opinion the historian's sagacity in that it shows the way that image not reality dominates politics. It is the house on the Velia that infuriates and the consul's destruction of that house led to the recovery of his reputation. But there is more to this than merely that. What Livy is also considering here is a set of problems at the heart of any republic- a set that Livy's own contemporaries had cause to consider deeply.

Valerius stood so high in the state that he overtook any other rival. Eminence and distinguished service made him the priniciple citizen- the title of course that Octavian took rather than King when he became Emperor (hence the fact that historians call the early empire, the Principate). The problem here is simple- that it is easy to make the transition from Valerius to Octavian. Eminence is the enemy of Republics. Something that Livy would have known from the many examples before him in more recent history- Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavian, even perhaps Cicero. That problem of eminence and too much power being attracted by it is one that dominates Roman history as we have it. But Roman history is dominated by another force- also given testament by Valerius's speech and that is the fickle mob (II 6) who had begun to distrust the consul. The problems of the Republic are compounded by the presence of the mob and the man of greatness- we have seen that the one can create tyrants, the second creates Kings and Kings lead inexorably to tyrants. So the history of the Republic was a search for an accomodation- for moderating the passions of the mob through institutional frameworks and accomodating the greatness of individuals within the legal forms of constitutionalism. Livy thus in his first account of Rome's formation offers us in Valerius Publius a model of the problem that politicians created in the Republic. It is interesting to reflect therefore on the choice of Publius by those great readers of Livy, Hamilton, Jay and Maddison as their pseudonym.

A last thing remains to be said about Publius- because of course he was able to diffuse that feeling of suspision and he did not create or seek to create a monarchy- though he did Livy tells us seek popularity (II 8). Publius became known as Publicola- the people's friend- and in a sense that was because he had, in Livy's terms, presented the perfect model of the way a man of eminence should behave. Giving up more than the population wanted in terms of recognition to avoid the fear that he might desire more than they were willing to give- serving and not subjugating the state so that even after his demise the legal forms of republicanism survived to another generation. Whether Livy also means this career as a warning is an interesting question- there is an element in Livy's story that implies Publicola was rare as a man of distinction and true Republican ethics- by Livy's time men of distinction were still available but few had the ethics to turn away from cementing a position of principal citizen into a position as Princeps and Emperor.

Fathers and Sons

Tyrannies for Livy were the regimes of families. When Tarquin was driven from Rome, he appealed to the Etruscan cities for aid on the basis of his children and their new found poverty (2.6), when the untrustworthy young rich Romans rebelled they rebelled to find a regime of friends instead of one of laws (2.2). Livy found that the early history of the republic demonstrated that this regime was different. The character in particular of two of the early consuls- Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius Pulvillus demonstrated that Republican politicians had to separate their private and their public personas.

Let us take these two incidents in which Brutus and Horatius rejected claim of family for that of public duty. Both are interesting- one demonstrates the way that Republican politicians in Livy's view should act, the other the way that they have to act. In the first year of the Republic, as we have already seen, various young noblemen decided to plot against the new regime. They were swiftly found out. Amongst them were two of the sons of Brutus- they were both prosecuted, and then:

The Consuls [including Brutus] took their seats upon the tribunal; the lictors were ordered to carry out their sentence. The prisoners were stripped, flogged and beheaded. Throughout the pitiful scene all eyes were on the father's face where a father's anguish could be seen. (2.6)

Brutus's action in allowing his sons to fall victim to the law is one that we are supposed to admire- the actions of his sons, according to Livy, had 'betray[ed] the entire population of Rome, high and low alike, and all her Gods.' (2.6) Brutus performed the action and demonstrated through performing it that the law rose above his personal feelings, despite his anguish, he executed his sons.

Brutus's example was important in later history- in comparison the second incident I wish to narrate is almost forgotten. However it is almost as important in demonstrating the way that Livy wished to portray the change in Roman history. After Brutus died in battle (which I will deal with elsewhere), Marcus Horatius Pulvillus was appointed consul. Horatius was consul with Publius Valerius. When the two consuls first met, they drew lots as to which would conduct the continuing war against the Tarquins and which would dedicate the temple of Jupiter- Livy leaves us in no doubt that the more prestigous service was the latter. Valerius's family went and told Horatius that his son was dying, Horatius though preferred to continue consecrating the temple- rather than go to seek his son. Public duties came first in Roman republicanism- not merely in terms of ideology but in terms of politics too. The only use for private emotion was an attempt to deceive a consul into losing a prestigous post.

Both of these instances though demonstrate that peculiar Roman quality of stoicism in a particular context- that of family. I think what they really are about is the idea that the state for public officials comes first. In this sense Livy is endorsing an idea which would acheive its full expression centuries later in the work of Machiavelli that the moral world of the statesman and the moral world of the citizen are very different. The priorities of the statesmen are to support the law and carry out his duties- that of the citizen are to enact his private duties. What the case of Brutus demonstrates is that Livy thinks that the first state is morally preferable, what he demonstrates in the case of Horatius is that the magistrate is politically advantaged by adopting the first stance too. In this sense tyranny brings together the private and the public- a tyrant is a man who can afford private passion- whereas a republican has to put the state first whilst he is acting in a civic fashion. This argument is one that will reappear through Livy's history- and if I have not captured it well here- there will be plenty of occasions when we return to it in this commentary.

The establishment of the Roman Republic

My task from now on will be to trace the history in peace and of a free nation, governed by annually elected officers of state and subject not to the caprice of individual men, but to the overarching authority of law. (II.1)

Livy begins his second book with these words, marking the transition from a Kingdom to the Republic. Of course this transition is crucial to Livy's theme- he wants us to observe the Republic at work, its principle and eventually its fall. His enterprise changes its nature with the expulsion of Tarquin- and one can see that very clearly, before the events of 509BC, Livy describes the Roman state by reference to its rulers, afterwards he describes it by reference to the annual consuls. The form of the state changes and therefore the form of Livy's dating- the most essential part of any history- changes- the frame of the work becomes Republican.

Livy's description of this transition is not merely the description of a long awaited revolt. Indeed he tells us that all the Kings of Rome from Romulus to Servius Tullius might have considered themselves the founder of Rome (II.1) and it is Livy's opinion that 'it cannot be doubted that Brutus, who made for himself so great a name by the expulsion of Tarquin, would have done his country the greatest disservice, had he yielded too soon to his passion for liberty and forced the abdication of any of the previous Kings' (II.1). It is worth us asking why this is true- for what it establishes is the basic condition upon which a Republic can be established. Livy's argument is not that Republics are always better than Monarchies or Tyrannies, rather it is that they are better given a precise set of circumstances.

It is important that we understand Livy's meaning here. There are two elements I wish to draw attention to- and both are contained within the quotation I gave above, though Livy clarifies what he means below in the text. The first is that Livy beleived that there could be no republic without a free people. He argues that the 'rabble' that early Rome was composed of would have 'set sail upon the stormy sea of democracy' without the early Kings: and we should recall how close to a tyrant, Livy deems the Democratic leader. The people must be capable therefore of exercising their freedom with deliberation- and this aristocratic concern about republicanism casts a long shadow through Roman and later history. For Livy republicanism must rest on the sure foundation of a patriotism which 'comes slowly and springs from the heart... founded upon true respect for the family and love of the soil'. (II 1) Livy also argues that it took a while for Republicanism to develop fully in Rome- the first consuls for him 'exercised the full powers of Kings' (II 1).

When Livy describes a free people, he does not merely mean a people with the ability to deliberate. He also means that the people are free from domination by others. Brutus, by Livy's account, forced the people of Rome to swear an oath that they would never return the country to kingship (II 1), nobody therefore might fear the reimposition of royal authority. Furthermore the young Republic expelled Collatinus (Lucretia's husband) because he was related to the Tarquins- the entire family were driven out because of the danger of creating a reversionary interest (II 2). That as Brutus put it was an 'insuperable barrier' to liberty, mimicking the French and later Russian revolutionaries, Brutus argued that only the extermination of the royal house might preserve the revolutionary regime (II 2). It is in the opposition to this sentiment that we can descry its full features. The oppositiion to this movement was led, for Livy, by young aristocrats who reasoned that

'under a monarchy there was room for influence and favour; a King could be angry and forgive, he knew the difference between a friend and an enemy. Law, on the other hand, was impersonal and inexorable. Law had no ears. An excellent thing for paupers, it was worse than useless for the great, as it admitted no relaxation or indulgence to a man who ventured beyond the bounds of mediocrity.' (II 3)

These aristocrats were arguing against an equal republic- a republic in which favour and finance could not buy the relaxation of the law. The point about this Livyan construction is that popular freedom goes together with freedom from domination internally and the freedom to be equal. In a state without equality before the law- ie without the capacity to be sure that the rich man and poor man will be judged the same- there is no freedom. Livy beleived that such a state was analogous to tyranny.

This radical attitude towards the creation of a commonwealth through sentiment and towards freedom's identity with authority characterises Livy's commentary on the distinctions between the Roman Republic and the Roman monarchy. He digresses into this analysis in my view to make a point about the way that societies function. It is on the one hand their own fault if they decay into monarchy, but on the other when looking at a society the degree of its freedom can be assessed from the degree of the freedom of the poorest from relying on the favour of the richest both in terms of personal power and law. Livy was no socialist- this is not a socialist manifesto. Rather it is a small farmer's manifesto- calling everyone back to the family and to the soil- Livy is seeking to make an argument for an idyllic arcadian society that probably never existed, but from which Rome's decline can be inferred. There is one element though that we need to deal with in Livy's description of the Republic, and it is as Machiavelli saw much later, the element which makes for instability and that is the Republic's relationship with other Republics and Monarchies. That though takes us into a world Tacitus would have recognised- and the world that Gibbon was later to analyse.

The Rape of Lucretia

'What can be well with a woman who has lost her honour. In your bed, Collatinus, is the impress of another man. My body not only has been violated. My heart is innocent, and death will be my witness. Give me your solemn promise that the adulterer shall be punished- he is Sextus Tarquinius. He it is who last night came as my enemy disguised as my guest, and took his pleasure of me. That pleasure will be my death- and his too, if you are men. ' The promise was given. One after another they tried to console her. They told her she was helpless, and therefore innocent; that he alone was guilty. It was the mind they said that sinned, not the body: without intention there could never be guilt. 'What is due to him,' Lucretia said, 'is for you to decide. As for me I am innocent of fault, but I will take my punishment. Never shall Lucretia provide a precedent for unchaste women to escape what they deserve'. (I.58)

This is one of the most famous pieces of prose in Roman history- it became the centre point for Augustine's argument about virginity in the seige of Rome almost five centuries later. It is important though because Lucretia's suicide sanctifies the rebellion which sweeps away the monarchy in Rome and brings in the Republic. The story is easily told. One night at the seige of Ardea, a group of noblemen including Sextus Tarquin, were boasting of their wives. One of them proposed that they secretly visit their wives that night- all the other wives were found enjoying themselves- but Lucretia was found spinning and working. Sextus fell in love with her and a couple of days later returned to rape her. This is where it becomes interesting- because Lucretia's response to the rape was to summon her father, and her husband and their friend Brutus and deliver the speech I've quoted above. That speech became the model for the image of the virtuous classical and medieval woman in her reaction to rape- Augustine I have quoted citing it, Dante placed Lucretia in the circle of hell reserved for the virtuous pagans and Shakespeare used the text to form the basis of his Rape of Lucrece.

Analysing what Lucretia says reveals a lot about the way that women were viewed in Republican and Imperial Rome. Let us start with the simple point. Lucretia's language and Livy's for that matter during the whole episode of the rape is very visual- you can see the impress on the bed- we all know the sensation of getting into a bed that has been slept in. This vivid kind of language makes the rape more astonishing. But when it used it is used interestingly. I think there are three particular visual images to do with the rape that immediatly come to mind after reading Livy's story. The first is that Sextus puts his hand upon Lucretia's breast in order to wake her. The second is Lucretia's face when Sextus tells her that he is going to rape her- Livy gives a stage direction that her eyes widen in terror. The third is this impress on the bed. What I think is interesting is that none of them have anything to do with the actual rape- Livy is quite coy about the mechanisms of what happens. They are all though metaphors about the invasion of the household- something that Lucretia herself brings up here in the discussion of the guest and the enemy. Sextus has raped her- by invading the space reserved to Lucretia, her husband and her family. Indeed he does worse, because the way that he procures her consent is by threatening the dissolution of that unit- he tells her that he will kill her and leave her naked body next to that of a servant- something that he says and she beleives will destroy her household.

The images are interesting- but they are more interesting when combined with another aspect of what Lucretia and hence Livy is saying here. The problem that Lucretia faces at this point is that she needs to prove that the rape happened- that the household's unity and its hierarchy were fractured not from within but from without. Compare Lucretia to Helen- who it was often said was raped- the doubt remains about Helen because we never are certain that she didn't want to go off with Paris. At least ancient authors were never certain about that issue. Now Lucretia makes that issue absolutely clear. She says the punishment for lack of chastity is death- I have not been chaste- though it was not my own desire- and to prove that I will commit suicide. I will not live to benefit from the incident. By dying Lucretia creates another image which dominates over the image of the desicrated house and that is the image of the woman so intent on virtue that she would rather die than have her reputation stained.

This image of Lucretia is the image of a woman who cares more about her reputation, her household and her husband than herself. It is not neccessarily anything that any Roman woman actually ever said. Historians of the ancient world were fond of constructing the speeches that their characters should have said. Lucretia represents less a real woman than an ideal of how a woman should respond to the rape of a tyrant. For Livy, women ought to respond to that by prioritising their household and their household's possession in them- their honour- over themselves. The subjugation of women to these ideals was the way that patriachal society functioned in Rome: Roman authors mercilessly attacked women who did meet these ideals. Moving back to Lucretia- what we see is a complex exchange of shame going on through the speech. Lucretia's shame is expunged by her blood and as soon as commits suicide, she forces her menfolk through their shame to avenge her murder. Lucretia was prompted originally to succumb to Sextus by the fear of shame (the ultimate ignominy of being presumed an adultress with a slave) and then she prompts her brother, her father and her husband to kill Sextus through the shame of leaving her unavenged.

We see in the death of Lucretia the expression of a sexist culture. As I have said, we cannot be sure that any of these events actually happened. If we dig further though into the sexism of this culture in which Livy wrote and Lucretia died- we find a deep admiration of honour and a deep fear of shame. For women this was connected to the idea that a pure woman maintained a good household: for a woman to be found in bed with a slave violated the idea of purity and also the natural hierarchy of the house, hence Lucretia's fear of that event. Livy wrote as Augustus began to launch a campaign for moral virtue in Roman society. Lucretia's worry that she might be seen as an example to the unchaste- and her unargued case that she might be doubted unless she died- was an example to call back Roman women to their duties to the household and to the state. Lucretia's death though does something else- because it reminds men of what Livy considers their natural duty to protect their womenfolk. Livy is making a final point about tyranny here too: remember why Lucretia was targetted by Sextus- it was because she alone was virtuous and spinning not partying like the wives of Tarquin's sons. The inference is obvious tyranny seeks out and destroys the family unit- it succeeded in Tarquin's sons through the destabilising form of luxury, in Lucretia's case it succeeded through rape and yet its success created in the latter case private tragedy and public civil war.

These attitudes are foreign to our experience. They are also in my view morally wrong. Yet they do tell us something interesting about the Roman world which is why I have seen fit to record them. What this demonstrates I think is a link between the political world and the private world in the mind of the Roman. The world of tyranny was a world in which the passions dominated honour, reputation became less important than desires. Tyranny is the reign of lust and pride. Republicanism rather is the reign of restraint. Tyranny furthermore is the reign of shame- Lucretia's rape is the last in a long line of insults. This is why when Brutus swears to avenge her, it is not on Sextus but upon Tarquin that he vows to take revenge- the issue goes beyond the sexual to the political. (I.58) Indeed one might argue that Lucretia's private tragedy- that of the rape- is not so important to Livy as the public tragedy, the violation of the family unit by a member of the royal family. Livy's attitude to rape is indisputedly sexist: Lucretia does not matter to him, her reputation does.

Tyranny and Poppies: Conjectural History

Accordingly he sent a confidential message to Rome, to ask his father what step he should next take, his power in Gabii, being by God's grace, by this time absolute. Tarquin, I suppose, was not sure of the messager's good faith: in any case, he said not a word to his question, but with a thoughtful air went out into the garden. The man followed him and Tarquin strolling up and down in silence, began knocking off the poppy heads with his stick. The messager at last wearied of putting his question and waiting for the reply, so he returned to Gabii supposing his mission to have failed. He told Sextus what he had said and what he had seen his father do: the king, he declared, whether from anger, or hatred, or natural arrogance, had not uttered a single word. Sextus realised that though his father had not spoken, he had by his action, indirectly expressed his meaning clearly enough; to he proceeded at once to act upon his murderous instructions. All the influential men of Gabii were got rid of (Livy I.54)

Sextus Tarquin might understand the message but do we. Well let us start with the situation. Sextus had arrived in Gabii pretending to be an fugitive from his father- actually he was working as his father's agent. Livy tells us that he had built up his position in Gabii and was slowly becoming their senior military commander not to mention an absolute ruler. Sextus was sending for instructions- and the instructions that he received were in the terms of an image- he was told to cut off the leading men in Gabii so they could not challenge him. As a message to Sextus it works- as a message to Livy's readers, that doesn't tell us much.

Historians have always cast doubt on this story- their main reason is that the same thing happens in a story from Herodotus- a historian writing five hundred years before Livy- who wrote of the tyrant Thrasybulus of Miletus sending a similar message to Periander of Corinth in the same fashion. Herodotus's story is important- because it is obviously the basis for what Livy writes here- and it reflects something very important about Livy and most ancient historian's practice as compared to modern historians. For a modern historian the fact that this story occurs in Livy and occurs in Herodotus makes it likely that one copied the story from the other (directly or indirectly) and suggests that the later story, in Livy, is untrue. For an ancient historian, the simularity suggested exactly the opposite.

We have come across the idea that Tarquin is a tyrant. The point about Herodotus's story is that it illustrated a general principle of how a tyrant governed- a tyrant had to chop the tall heads of his subjects if he were not to be destroyed. For Livy who may well have heard the story from another source (even from the gossip around Rome about Tarquin) the fact that the story was already in Herodotus would have reaffirmed its validity- this is how tyrants behave- rather than calling into question whether the story had been influenced by people reading Herodotus and borrowing from the tyrant of Miletus to describe the tyrant of Rome. Livy assessed his historical characters through a conjecture about the type of character that they were- the type of actions they might perform and made that plausibility his test- this is the type of thing that Tarquin might have done and the fact that other men in the same position had done the same thing in the past, does not call that judgement into question, but reinforces it.

We might deem this invention- it definitely does not meet the standards of historical practice today which is much more cautious about categorising the past in our terms- but in Livy's view it was merely the extension of a type backwards in time. Livy was making a conjecture, depending on the understanding of tyranny he had evolved from his reading, about the way that Tarquin might have behaved and hence presenting to us this story as one that, for him, fitted with the line of Tarquin's character and regime. The other thing that Livy was doing here was making a polemical point about the present day- describing Tarquin as an ideal tyrant and giving Romans a clear illustration about the attitude of the ideal tyrant to his coevals. The point of including the story is that it fits what Livy thinks about Tarquin: it also though provides a graphical illustration of how the Tarquins of the world behave, that Livy wants Romans to take from his history and learn from in the present day.

Reading ancient history, it is often as though the historian collapses time- the modern idea that historical time and attitudes are very different depending upon the period dissolves- and the argument of Livy or Tacitus or Thucydides is that a plausible course of action for a particular type in one era will be so in all others. History is concerned with examining these types. Thus whereas we might well doubt (rightly in my view) that this story has nothing to do with Tarquin and more to do with Romans borrowing from Herodotus: Livy sees the story from Herodotus not as a reason to doubt the tale, but as all the more reason to beleive it. All tyrants are the same and the fact that they do the same thing should not come as a surprise. This is a major and important difference between the way that a modern historian writes history and the way that an ancient historian writes history- and its important to understand when you assess the ancient's veracity, that their idea of historical plausibility may override our stricter notion of historical truth. Ultimately Tarquin for Livy might have done this because he was that type of man- whereas for a modern historian, we need to have a document which tells us that Tarquin did do this.

The two attitudes produce wildly different attitudes to the fact that Herodotus wrote the same story about someone else before hand- for Livy its a sign that tyrants really do behave like this- for us it is an indication to be sceptical- the Roman story could be an echo of Herodotus.

Tom Lehrer on Nuclear Destruction

Chris asks

The Large Hadron Collider didn’t cause the end of the world. But would the end of the world really be worse than one’s own individual death? I mean, one reason why we dread death - if we do at all - is that we leave others behind, we don’t’ find out what happens next. But if we were to perish at the end of the world, these motives would be absent. What I’m asking is: could it be that death is partly a positional bad?

The only thing I can think of to reply with is this video

Tarquin the Proud

Now began the reign of Tarquin Superbus, Tarquin the Proud. His conduct merited the name (Livy I.48)

Tarquin was of course the last king of Rome before the Principate- which was the immediate political context in which Livy wrote his history. Its worth pausing a moment therefore over the way that Livy introduces Tarquin. The sentence above performs a bridging function- between the fall and assassination of Servius Tullius and the introduction of Tarquin's reign. I think it is interesting because it explains what Livy does not like about Tarquin, one of his villains, and it links together two important themes in the history- two ideas that Livy wants us to take from the character of Tarquin. Curiously they are ideas which link the character of the demagogue with that of the tyrant- they link them through the concept of pride. Ultimately everything in Livy about Tarquin comes back to the fact that Tarquin is superbus, he is arrogant and proud.

When Servius Tullius falls, a King that Livy directly tells us had a good reign and with whom true Kingship in Rome came to an end (I. 48), he falls through a popular insurrection. What Livy describes in his fall is the way that Tarquin inspired the population of Rome or a segment of it with passionate hatred of Tullius and that segment then overthrew the old King, in confusion, we are told that Tarquin forced his way into the Senate House and proclaimed himself King, forcing the Romans to choose between their loyalty to their King and their fear of Tarquin. Servius arrived and Livy tells us that a mob battled the population to prevent him from speaking- Tarquin interrupted by seizing the old man and having him assassinated. Leaving Tarquin as the only monarch in Rome. (I.48)

This description of the way that Tarquin destroyed Servius may not be historical- who knows- but it is definitely in accord with the character of the demagogue in classical literature. Livy is telling us that Tarquin inspired irrational and temporary emotion to sweep away his predecessor and have him assassinated. Everything Tarquin does changes the emotional and not the rational situation in which the Roman people found themselves and Livy is keen to restate that what Tarquin did was aided by a mob. (I.48) Tarquin's inner motivation for this move is as irrational- a demagogue does not have reasonable arguments but he has emotional appeals. Tarquin's emotional appeal is based upon the fact that he is the son of the previous King but one (Lucius Tarquin) and that Servius was not. That is his argument in the senate- it is also his argument in his own breast. Tarquin is proud and irrational- and moves the assembly to being irrational. The demagogue is the seed of the tyrant.

One should also recognise that this seeding goes further. In Livy's view what is constant about Tarquin is his refusal to take advice. He tries capital cases 'without consultation', he breaks 'the established tradition of consulting the senate', 'he was his own sole master' and he insults Rome's allies in Latium (I.48-50). The point of this condemnation is to get us to reflect on the fact that Tarquin has not changed. He is still the demagogue but now in control of the resources of the state. The mob he leads has become his private guard instead of just being a segment of the irrational populace. Livy wants us to understand this- because it is the key to understanding the type of character that cannot thrive in any political system. We shall see that Tarquin's lack of counsel precedes his fall- it makes him prioritise his scheming son, Sextus Tarquin, over the virtue of a Roman matron. Tarquin lacks the ability to govern as well as lacking the morality to govern well. His pride precedes his fall in a way that goes beyond a proverb.

The point about this analysis of Tarquin, bringing together the Demagogue and the Tyrant and arguing that both have the same root in the human character is one that is common within classical literature. Livy did not invent it: but the case of Tarquin enables our historian to demonstrate a classic instance of the way that demagogues proceed to tyrants. Though Thucydides might well have agreed with Livy- Cleon did not become a tyrant in Athens. The uncounselled King as a villain is something that endured long after the classical era had ended- Livy's work was still read- and you can find elements of this critique in the civil war arguments about Charles I and vague shadows even in the recent film Downfall about Hitler. The point about Livy's critique though is that it was written at a certain time- and it was written I'd suggest with the characters of Caesar (another populist who rose to the principate), Catiline and others in mind. The warning to Octavian is clear- demagogic tyranny may lead to the throne but it also leads to bad government which leads inevitably to the destruction of that government. Lastly what this passage does is provide a formidable classic account of the distinction between popular and constitional government- the one leads to the rise of the demagogue, the other leads to restraints on him.

Livy's history is about the creation of constitutional government- and that is ultimately why Tarquin is isolated from it, we are told that Servius might well have founded the republic and was the last good king. Tarquin's reign is thus in parenthesis- between the virtuous monarchy and the virtuous Republic.

Gone with the Wind

In an essay on Rudyard Kipling, George Orwell the great English essayist, defined a good bad book. What he meant by that was a book which had manifest flaws- flaws which in any other book or author would drive you to deem it bad- but that the sheer vitality of the work, the bravado of its execution not to mention the virtues of its story telling made you wish to read it again and again and again. There is something of this about the classic American film, Gone with the Wind. Made self consciously by David Selznick, in a formula he would try to repeat for the rest of his career, as a blockbuster- it is over the top, extravagant, probably too long, struggles to maintain a consistant line and yet it is fantastic. It is one of the greatest films ever made- and has as its centre a performance- by Vivian Leigh- of a character both lovable and despicable- that will be and should be remembered so long as film retains its fascination. Put simply her magnetism and ability drives this film on- aided by her two male protagonists- Leslie Howard, doing what Leslie Howard does best- and Clark Gable in a career defining role.

The point of the four hours of Gone with the Wind is simple. We have three main characters, dancing through the civil war, a minuet which reflects the changes in the south. Ashley (played by Howard) is a retiring aristocrat of the South- an intelligent and virtuous representative of the class that had run particularly Virginian politics since the 1700s, and had provided America with her first Presidents (in Washington, Jefferson, Maddison and Monroe- four out of the first five Presidents, the other Adams only had a single term). Rhett Butler is the roue who represents the new South- the South that will recover from the civil war- like Ashley he is intelligent, unlike Ashley he is vicious. And the centre of the cast is Scarlett O'Hara- tied to the land of the South by her family- desperately in love with Ashley despite the fact that he loves his cousin, Melanie Hamilton- and the counterpart in every sense to Butler. She might represent the choice that the south has to make- looking back to Ashley, looking forward to Rhett. By the end of the film, she has made her decision- to leave Ashley, the man she wished to marry but couldn't- and to reconcile herself to her love of Rhett. Its an appealing allegorical interpretation- but there are deeper layers to this particular cinematic onion.

There is something deeper here than the simple allegory that we have just described. Another way of seeing the story is to see it as a less specifically American story- but one about the way that societies in general cope with war. As an account of that subject- you have three reactions to the war. One is that of Ashley. Ashley tells those who think that they will beat the Yankees easily that they will fail but he is content to go down with his civilisation. He knows why that civilisation should go down- because of slavery and beleives that the slaves should be liberated. But he is not cut out for the world of struggle. Second strategy is that of Rhett. Rhett has no roots in the south- and his strategy is to exploit any situation to his own benefit. Canny enough to realise that the south must lose, he does feel the odd pang of conscience and wants to establish roots within the old south. There is an anxiety about where he fits visible in Rhett, but there is also a survival instinct. Neither of those things are shared by him and Ashley. Thirdly there is Scarlett- she is rooted in the south but reaching out to survive as well. She is as unscrupulous as Rhett but as solidly southern as Ashley.

This is a story about survival. The Civil War here is represented, as it was, the first modern war of devastation. It gets just right the fact that to inhabitants of the south the war changed society forever. In the thirties, when the film came out, the war was still within living memory. The children of the characters of the film would have been in the cinemas- one of the children of the war (John Nance Garner) was in the White House when the film came out. This is a film about the impact of the civil war and the way it uprooted people- sent them to madness (Scarlett's father), death (her first husband) and destroyed their lives (Ashley). At this point, as the men left to die in the war, it was women who took over society and provided it with stability- they were left behind and as Scarlett does in this film provided the economic backbone of continuity. Scarlett here sets up a business- is unscrupulous enough to marry new money at various points in order to raise her family from the ground- is a good friend and a bad enemy. She is vicious to those who work for her, fiercely protective of those she loves and singleminded to a fault.

There are blindnesses in this film- race is the major one. I can't think of a single black character who does not buy into the philosophy of their masters and mistresses and who isn't obnoxious. This is a lament about the world that went with the wind- its sympathies are with Ashley like Scarlett's despite the fact that the world is changing and that change is not merely neccessary, it is moral. The South was based on a repulsive institution and you cannot get away from that. I suspect one of the interesting points about the film is that this is the view of the Civil war from the 1930s- it is a film that could not have been made after the civil rights movement. It reminds us though of something worth remembering- in a sense it reminds me of the Woman of Berlin- the costs of even a just war are terrible and often inflicted on the innocent.

Ultimately this film comes back to a simple truth. It is an emotional truth rather than a great philosophical one- which is that a struggle impresses. Scarlett keeps going, keeps struggling and ultimately the film is about her success. From the very bottom of her despair, she never stops, never ceases to work, you cannot but fail to admire that story. Sometimes the characters overact- but that merely strengthens the central point. Vivian Leigh acts here- like in Streetcar named Desire- on the brink of madness and that merely strengthens the character. The point is not subtle- nor is its handling and it works!