The birth of Roman history

When Romans began writing about their history they were influenced by contemporary issues. Let me give you a few reasons why this might be true.

Though the Roman Republic dates back to 510BCE, it was much later before conflicts with other states, including Greece, Carthage and Macedon, would influence their culture. One aspect of this influence, particularly through regular contact with Greece who by the time of the Pyrrhic War (280-275 BCE) had a well developed sense of their own identity, was the recognition of the need to protect and project a strong sense of what being Roman actually meant. The strongest power in the Mediterranean needed some means to define itself to its own citizens and others. To do this, Romans, individually, had to create a body of work that glorified their past and exemplified their values. This could be one reason why the development of the writing of Roman history found its origin in the middle of the second century BCE – a need to record the greatness of the Republic, and later the Empire. Of course the general lack of writing (and reading) skills could also account for the virtual lack of written Roman history before that time.

So, if Roman historiography wasn’t necessarily borne out of an academic desire to record past events, how likely were those Roman writers of history to be influenced by the need to meet some other, non-academic, objective through their work? There is evidence that some writers of Roman history were influenced in their writing by their own perspective on Rome and even Rome’s perspective on them writing about Rome.

Let’s start by looking at some work by Sallust who lived between 86 and 34 BCE. It’s important to know a little about Sallust’s background before considering his work. He was a Quaestor and a Tribute but was expelled from the Senate in 52 BCE. He went on to become Governor of Africa Nova but was believed guilty of extortion and only Caesar’s intervention saved him from prosecution.(Though he does suggest his retirement was deliberate, ‘I had determined to pass the remainder of my days unconnected with public life). He then retired from public life to concentrate on writing. He was undoubtedly indebted to Caesar. It’s inconceivable that Sallust’s view of recent Roman history wasn’t tainted by his own personal position and the treatment he had received from his peers. He had held high office, twice, and had twice been removed. He had always put himself forward as being anti-aristocracy yet his behaviour as governor suggests he had abused his power and wealth in the way of the very aristocrats whose rule he sought to see ended. We therefore have to question Sallust’s impartiality when he writes about events and people who oppose his view.

In his first published work, The Conspiracy of Cataline, he declares his mind to be, ‘uninfluenced by hope, fear, or political partisanship’. Admittedly he does treat Cicero unnaturally fairly considering they had actively opposed one another during Sallust’s political career. However, it is his account of Caesar’s actions that lay open the question of his impartiality. According to Sallust, on the question of the guilt of Lentulus and others, Caesar delivers a long speech proposing a humanitarian approach and warning against unconstitutional action. Cato’s equally long response convinces the Senate that execution is the appropriate action. In this way Sallust portrays Caesar’s statesmanlike qualities and ensures that any remaining Cataline supporters are aware who should be blamed for the death of the prisoners. It’s not surprising that Sallust should show support for Caesar in this way. After all it was Caesar who supported Sallust during his political career and saved him from prosecution over the Africa Nova affair. Indeed, later in this story Sallust praises Caesar for his generosity, munificence, humanity and benevolence, among others.

While Sallust’s account of Cataline’s conspiracy was, almost, contemporary and he would have personally known many of the characters involved, his record of the Jugurthine war was written more than 60 years after the event. It may be natural to anticipate a greater degree of impartiality here and though he does cover the facts well, his invective remarks concerning the ruling classes remain obvious. In his introduction he makes a direct reference to the ineffectiveness of some members of the senate, ‘…more good will arise to the state from my retirement, than from the busy efforts of others.’ His vitriol is not restricted to his own views which flow clearly from the introduction. In his reports of a number of speeches given by Marius, both before and after his election as consul, he invariably includes lengthy attacks on the aristocracy. Sallust’s account of the war was published in 41-40 BCE, a few years after the murder of Caesar. He quite clearly uses the writing of history to reflect on and attack the classes of Roman citizen he blames for unrest in Rome at the time of the war and later for the murder of Caesar.

Horace was a very different type of Roman historian. While well educated, he never enjoyed the political success of Sallust but his relative wealth and ability to write poetry brought him into contact with important people of his time including Augustus. While Horace’s poetry was written for performance, the clear delineation between fiction and non-fiction we know today was not so easy to define in those days. Horace referenced known historical events, people and facts. To contemporary Roman society, Horace was writing about history – albeit what appears now to be a strange mixture of fact and belief. Horace writes his history with a message – not just a catalogue of events. Horace’s Odes were written from 23-13 BCE, corresponding broadly with the rule of Augustus. Reading his Ode 3.6, we can see that he makes reference to great generations of Romans who have developed and protected their state. He contrasts this with what he sees as a general decline in standards through the loose behaviour of women – granting favours when lamps are removed – the complicity of their husbands and the neglect of religion, ‘the temples and crumbling shrines of the Gods’. These references in the poem display broad support for legislation introduced by Augustus around that time. This legislation sought to promote a return to traditional values through the outlawing of sex outside marriage (for women). Augustus also introduced a programme of restoring temples throughout Rome. In this poem, Horace uses lessons from history to support the actions of Rome’s current ruler.

But perhaps one of the most blatant examples of historical writing being used to glorify a contemporary leader can be found in Virgil’s Aeneid. Like Horace, Virgil’s career spans the turbulence of the fall of the Republic and the ‘election’ of Augustus as emperor. Indeed, Augustus was known to be a patron to Virgil. The Aeneid follows the same general style and themes as earlier work by Homer. It concerns Aeneis, a Trojan hero, in his adventures across Asia and northern Africa before settling in Rome. Virgil’s poem is mythical, though it does include references to real people and places. There are a number of episodes in the poem that mix mythology with reality. For example when Aeneis meets his father, Anchises, in Hades, Anchises introduces his son to his and Rome’s future. Anchises points out Augustus in a long line of illustrious leaders of Rome and refers to him as, ‘son of a god’. In this way, Virgil makes a clear blood link between Augustus and Romulus, seen as one of the traditional founders of Rome, and himself the son of Mars. And just as Romulus (and his brother Remus) created a new city, Augustus with his various reforms was creating a new Rome, free from the decline and decadence which had brought it to its knees.

One other example where Virgil ‘uses’ history to justify later events, can be found in the episode where Dido, queen of Carthage, falls upon Aeneis’ sword and kills herself. Her grief and suicide, caused by Aeneis’ departure for Rome is cited by Virgil as the catalyst for the Punic wars. Of course the Punic wars came some 1,000 years after the events depicted in Virgil’s poem and had more to do with Rome’s need to secure its trading position than revenge for a spurned queen.

These are just a few example of how the writing of Roman history would take on contemporary themes and indeed be used to glorify contemporary leaders and justify their behaviour. This is not to say that Roman historians (and poets) are exclusively guilty of subverting the truth. As already mentioned, Sallust’s work for example contains a great deal of hard facts. The feature that makes Roman history stand out in this way is that virtually all history was written by politicians or those close to them, which is only natural since they are the best educated. Modern historical writings by political figures frequently suffer from similar flaws.