Roman Historiography
One of the ways to understand a civilization is to explore the way it was writing about itself and how viewed particular events. In this regard, exploration of historiography of specific civilization is self-justified. On the other hand, exploration of historiographic evolution also contributes to comprehension of tendencies in the development of human civilization in general and understanding of how history had evolved since the ancient times. In the framework of all mentioned above, the main aim of the present essay is to follow the evolution of historiography in the Ancient Rome and its contribution to the early scholarship in the field of history writing. It should be also outlined that Roman historiography will be compared to its predecessor - Greek history, as its main influential factor.
In order to understand the evolution of Roman historiography, it is essential to understand the starting point of its development - Greek historiography. Greek historians left their Roman colleagues a variety of forms and ways of history writing, such as biography, ethnographic description (digression), and chronological writings. The main ways of history writing were represented by Herodotus in his wide description of historical events with inclusion of descriptions of additional ethnographical specifics of described cultures1. Another way of describing one event in its political, military and economic complexity and relevance for the contemporary times was represented by Thucydides in The History of Peloponnesian War (431 B.C.)2. Greek historiography had also a number of flaws, on which Roman historians learned. Due to the highly developed individualism of Greek city-states, Greek historiography lacked strong dynamism, “there was no effective approach to writing a universal history of the world”, the emphasis was placed on contemporary events rather than remote past, and there was lack of methodology3.
Although Roman historiography was influenced by Greek culture, it was learning on mistakes of Greeks and making their own. Instead of serving purpose of glorifying separate states, Roman historiography was unified by a single theme – supremacy of Roman civilization over the conquered barbarian nations. Therefore, Roman historiography was a unique phenomenon in the early scholarship, contributing to the future unification of world historiography4. The beginning of Roman history writing started from exploration of origins of the city in the mythological and epic past. The merge of Trojan Aeneas’s story, Romulus and Remus legend and Alba Longa version was the initial stage of history writing represented in work of Sicilian historian Alcimus (300 B.C.)5. This stage of history writing was characterised by lack of accuracy and mystification of the possible origins of the city for political and patriotic purposes.
The initial/legendary stage of history writing can be viewed as the one lacking accuracy and evidential confirmation of the statements. Therefore, serious historiography of Rome can be divided into three stages – period of Republic (509 B.C. – about 146 B.C.), Crises of Republic (146 B.C. – 27 B.C.) and period of Empire (27B.C. – 476 A.D.). The first stage was characterised by Greek influence and also advancement of Roman historiography over the Greek one. While Greeks used “generations as means of creating a rudimentary chronology”, Romans used bloodlines as the founding element of social stratification and long livingness of the society. From historical perspective, it constituted to recording of memories of ancestors and development of family historiography, which latter evolved into the form of annals. The oldest example of which was Annales Maximi (304 B.C.)6.
Another distinctive feature of this period was synchronisation of Greek and Roman historiographic traditions. Timaues placed fall of Troy in 1193 B.C. and founding of Rome only in 814/813 B.C., creating the gap of 400 years, which was filled by Lavinium stating that Alba Longa kings family had evolved during that time7. The synchronisation contributed to writing of the first substantial Roman history in Greek language by Fabius Pictor. The meaning of this work was that it embodied the overall tendency of Roman historiography – Roman past as inspiration for the contemporary generations, meaning of senate, central place of one noble family8. This was the first unified piece of Roman history, but its limitation in influencing contemporary historiography was Greek language in which it was written.
The next step in the evolution of Roman historiography was work by Polybius of Megapolis, who can be praised for critical analysis of Roman history and more serious attitude to the meaning of history. He was one of the first to apply systematic approach to the historiography - he did only describe only events but also their political and societal complexity. He also referred to analytical matters like Regular Circle of Constitutional Revolutions and its influence on history of Rome. He was also praised for the application of unity of period, chronology and sources in history. Just as contemporary historians, he was arguing in favour of accuracy of information rather than its interpretation. Finally, in his work, history was no longer for entertainment of people; it was gaining educative meaning for the contemporary generations in teaching of how to avoid mistakes of the past9.
While the first period was characterised by advancement of new concepts in Roman historiography and its supremacy over the Greek flaws, the second period of republican crisis was characterised by critical and analytical works of various forms. It also showed strengthening of Roman pride in following traditional Roman ways instead of Greek ones, especially in historiography. This phenomenon was partly conditioned by expansion of the empire and lack of dynamism in Roman society. Thus, history became a crucial source of inspiration and model to follow. This contributed to the development of analytical historiography in works of Sallust, who was critically assessing Roman affairs in the time frame of 78-67 B.C. He did not only describe and admired past events, but showed connection between past policies and contemporary failures of the Roman society, and also placed the source of Roman failures inside Roman society, meaning elite 10. The critical analysis developed at this stage contributed to the establishment of connectivity between past, present and future. The present situation was conditioned by past events and its continuation would cause eventual deterioration and possible ruinous outcomes. Thus, the interconnectivity of time was established11. Connection between foreign affairs of the state and internal politics was also the new analytical perspective of the time.
Nostalgia for the past had also a negative implication on the development of historiography, since it triggered spreading of less accurate and adequate forms of historiography like dramatic exposition represented in Codius Antipater’s historical monograph. Although in academic/professional field of historiography, Cicero was arguing for truthfulness of the history, accuracy of the used materials and thoroughness of analysis, spreading of biographies as sources of historical interpretation had quite the opposite effect12. They served personal political aims of the authors and not history or society. The best example was Julius Caesars’ Commentaries and Civil War.
The last period of Roman historiography was characterised by its downfall under the pressure of dictatorship of Empire. In this context, Roman historiography was degrading, while Greek was continuing its development. One of the well-known historians of the time was Livy, whose works were not burnt mainly because, irrespective of his melancholy of the glorious past of Rome, he praised the efforts of ruling Augustus to return that past13. Just as in previous period, the main forms included biographies, chronologies and monographs. The main peculiarity of the time was scarcity of works on methodology and theory of historical writings, just as decrease in the amount of critical and analytical explorations14.
Reference
Breisach Ernst. Historiography: ancient, medieval, and modern. 3rd Edition. Chicago:
Chicago University press, 2007.
