Ab Urbe Condita (book) - Livy's Sources

Livy's Sources

For the first decade, Livy perused the works of a group of historians in or near his own times, who, rightly or wrongly, have been called "the annalists." Some twelve historians in this category are named by Livy in Book I as sources on the monarchy. In order of time interval backward from Livy they are: Gaius Licinius Macer, Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, Gnaius Gellius, Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus (consul 129 BC), Lucius Cassius Hemina, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, Aulus Postumius Albinus (consul 151 BC), Gaius Acilius Glabrio, Marcus Porcius Cato, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Quintus Fabius Pictor. Elsewhere he mentions Sempronius Asellio. Macer, the latest of these, died in 66 BCE. Fabius, the earliest, fought in the Gallic War of 225 BCE.

Livy's sources were by no means confined to the annalists. Other historians of his times mention documents still extant then dating as far back as the kingship: treaties between Servius Tullius and the Latins; Lucius Tarquinius Superbus and Gabii; three between Rome and Carthage; Cassius and the Latins, 493 BC, which was engraved in bronze. In addition the Pontifex Maximus kept the Annales Maximi (yearly events) on display in his house, the censors kept the Commentarii Censorum, the praetors kept their own records, the Commentarii Pontificum and Libri Augurales were available as well as all the laws on stone or brass; the fasti (list of magistrates) and the Libri Lintei, historical records kept in the temple of Juno Moneta.

Nevertheless the accounts of Rome's early history are for the most part contradictory and therefore suspect (in this view). Seeley says, "It is when Livy's account is compared with the accounts of other writers that we become aware of the utter uncertainty which prevailed among the Romans themselves .... The traditional history, as a whole, must be rejected ...." As Livy stated that he used what he found without passing judgement on his sources (which is not quite true, as he does on occasion pass judgement), attacks on the credibility of Livy typically begin with the annalists. Opinions vary. T.J. Cornell presumes that Livy relied on "unscrupulous annalists" who "did not hesitate to invent a series of face-saving victories." Furthermore, "The annalists of the first century BC are thus seen principally as entertainers...." Cornell does not follow this view consistently, as he is willing to accept Livy as history for the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. A more positive view of the same limitations was stated by Howard:

The annalists were not modern historians, and not one of them is absolutely free from the faults attributed to Antias. That any of them, even Antias, deliberately falsified history is extremely improbable, but they were nearly all strong partisans, and of two conflicting stories it was most natural for them to choose the one which was most flattering to the Romans, or even to their own political party, and, as the principle of historical writing even in the time of Quintilian was stated to be that history was closely akin to poetry and was written to tell a story, not to prove it, we may safely assume that all writers were prone to choose the account which was most interesting and which required the least work in verification.

For the third decade, Livy followed the account of the Greek historian, Polybius, as did the historical accounts of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Polybius had access to Greek sources in the eastern Mediterranean, outside the local Roman traditions.