Virgil and Livy were authors of two substantially different works; one is a propagandistic epic in the style of Homer, the other an informed account of the history of Rome. That said, it is interesting to note Virgil's inclusion of short historical stories within the fictional narrative, a fact that allows for a historiographical comparison between him and Livy: that is, what effect they intended their stories to have on the Roman reader. Furthermore, the Aeneid and the Ancient History of Rome both provide insight into the topic of the founding of Rome. That Virgil's historical passages differ drastically from those of Livy is not in doubt, and one might even argue that they are not history at all. However, this essay will attempt to demonstrate, using Sempronio Asellio's point of view, that history could be used to "make men more eager to defend their country, or more reluctant to do evil"[1]. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Virgil's accounts were more than just a list of events that may or may not have happened. Although largely biased and essentially mere islands of history in a sea of ​​fiction, Virgil's view of historical events was destined to have as powerful an effect on the Roman reader as Livy's focused, scholarly documentation. The first hurdle to overcome when talking about history in the context of ancient Rome is what history meant to the ancient Romans. By discovering this, it can be shown that while Virgil was a poet and Livy a historian, they were both equally capable of using history as a tool to strongly influence a Roman reader. In ancient times, history did not correspond to the modern sense of the term, and as a result, the line between reality and fiction of the past would have been much thinner for an ancient Roman. Today, history is a rich academic pursuit intended to provide society with as complete and informed an understanding of the past as possible. It is often taught as a compulsory subject to younger students and continues as an optional subject at all levels of education, providing much of the population with a rudimentary ability to interpret history. In Rome, by contrast, history was not an academic profession in much the same way. Instead, only those with sufficient financial freedom and time on their hands could dedicate themselves to writing history, meaning that most average Romans had to rely on the collective memory of the Empire, something created and supported by public objects, statues, and engravings. . The Romans would not have been able to read Virgil or Livy, contributing to the legends of famous figures such as Aeneas and Romulus, both writers would have had an indirect effect on the Romans' view of the history of their empire as people who did. reading them would have linked the contents of poems and stories to figures or events from the distant past. Both writers enjoyed intimacy with the Emperor and widespread respect,[2] further increasing their capacity for influence, leading to the conclusion that, whether poet or historian, the average Roman would take their contributions to history seriously. The first point of comparison to consider is why each writer decided to present their writing the way they did. This consideration reveals that the intent of the poet and the historian was the same. The traditional values ​​that permeated Rome in the time of both writers included military prestige and pietas – devotion to one's Gods and society. Both Livy and Virgilthey played on these values ​​in an attempt to somehow improve their readers. Early in his prolific series of histories, Livy states: 'The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind... beautiful things to be taken as models, vile things, rotten through and through, to be avoided.' [3] It is clear here that one of the effects he intended to have on the reader was for them to learn from mistakes, and emulate the positive actions of the past, thus improving themselves in the process when considered together with his opinion that the Roman society of his time was plagued by problems[4], it can be postulated that Livy desired his stories to improve Roman society. Virgil's Aeneid also includes similar themes. As a confidant of Augustus, Virgil presumably wrote the epic as an elaborate piece of propaganda and, in doing so, he would have sought to invoke in readers respect for Roman values ​​and society. Darius Phrygian's description of Aeneas paints him as eloquent, courteous, prudent, pious, and charming[5], which means that Virgil had. presented the progenitor of Rome as having a set of honest Roman values, with the intention of having them rekindled in those who read his work. Livy and Virgil might also have sought to improve their societies by making Augustus an emperor to be admired, raising the standard of pietas in Rome. Virgil builds a tacit link between Aeneas and Augustus, founder and re-founder, and if the qualities of Aeneas mentioned above are used in this context, then readers may have been encouraged to consider Augustus equally great. The perfect phrase to use as an example would be "Augustus Caesar... the man who will bring back the golden years to the fields of Latium"[6], and of course Vulcan's depiction of Actium and Augustus' behavior after the battle also features the emperor as pious and powerful[7]. If readers were convinced to follow their emperor with the same zeal as those who in the past followed Aeneas in the great deeds he accomplished, this would serve to strengthen patriotism and respect for Rome and its emperor, promoting social cohesion and development. As stated before, this was the intended purpose of Livy's stories and a similar reference to Augustus can be observed in the phrase 'Augustus Caesar brought peace to the world by land and sea'[8], used in comparison to the comparison Numa Pompilius . These examples serve to demonstrate that both Livy and Virgil presented historical figures to emulate, and then compared the best of them to Augustus for the greatest possible positive impact on society as a whole. After establishing why each book was written, the question of how each writer presented their story reveals a new similarity. This lies in shared trust about the nature of historical figures to develop an account of the past. This can be seen quite clearly in Virgil's procession to the Underworld[9], and indeed throughout Livy's writing. Ogilvie argued that Livy sought to recreate Thucydides' style[10], on the basis that human nature was constant and therefore predictable.[11] For example, he highly praises the aforementioned Sabine king Numa Pompilius[12]. In doing so, he attributed a good reign to a man who was said to be just, wise, and pious. His race would also impact a reader; as a Sabine, he was theoretically a foreigner at the time. Despite this, Livy portrays him as a good king, encouraging acceptance and goodwill towards non-Romans. In contrast, his account of the despotic Tarquin the Proud is far from flattering. By stating that his "brutal and unbridled lust" and "arrogant and tyrannical behavior"[13] were not to be emulated, he was attempting to ward off similar behavior in thehis own company. The list of characters could continue, two others are Lucius Brutus in the role of the republican hero[14] and Appius Claudia in the role of the "heartless tyrant"[15]. Howe also draws attention to some behavioral patterns of Aeneas' character: his devotion to his family and in particular the mercy and tenderness shown at Anchises' funeral games[16]. When Osate approaches death against Entellus, Aeneas restrains the latter's fury and prevents further damage from occurring[17], which Virgil clearly understood as a noble gesture, underlined so as to be repeated. The subsequent quote from Aeneas to Dares: 'surrender to God'[18] also adds a measure of piety, another commendable value. Howe goes on to say that the passages in which Aeneas is presented as having such worthy virtues are "so rich" that "space forbids a mere enumeration of examples of it"[19], serving to demonstrate just how much effort Virgil expended to make Aeneas a character with a great impact on the reader. The Procession of the Underworld also provides some evidence to suggest that Virgil's writings can be considered historical. The characters in this procession are presented as a prophecy for Aeneas, but they would have been history for Virgil's audience. Virgil greets Romulus with grandiose language, «the man who founded Rome in all its glory... whose spirit will rise to the heights of Olympus»[20], thus attempting to invoke a sense of reverence towards such a founder, and a possible desire to see Virgil's words come true by working to improve the Roman Empire. Ancus is said to be "excessively vainglorious, too fond even now of the breath of popular favor"[21]. This is rather difficult to interpret, but a return to Livy's statement that his society was in decline might suggest that Virgil was attempting to warn, using Anchus as an example. Historically, this king was responsible for the rise of the Tarquin kings in allowing Lucumon to gain political importance.[22] If Virgil was implying that Ancus was not politically aware enough, overly comfortable in his position, it is possible that he intended to raise some social awareness in readers by referring to this past mistake. As is now evident, both writers clearly portray characters from the historical story. figures to present contemporary readers with examples to follow or ignore. One aspect in which the two writers certainly differed was their attitude towards the story, but both attitudes may still have created the same effect on the reader. It is clear that, as a poet, Virgil had little interest in sticking to the facts, and indeed, even if the founding myth of Aeneas had been believed, even then there would have been little evidence with which to write an entire book. In contrast, Livy explicitly states that he does not want to make "extravagant claims"[23], and his treatment of Roman myth is refreshingly fleeting, as he moves quickly into more reliable time periods. Consequently, Virgil's epics employed history only if it meant that it could make Rome appear more worthy to a Roman; while Livy employed history for history's sake. However, as Ogilvie states, Titus Livy's historical predecessors were all senators who wrote in the interest of Rome, just like Virgil[24]. Since the works of these men are sources used by Livy, along with his clear love for Rome[25] inevitably influencing his prejudices, the effect of his story may have been strikingly similar to that of Virgil in regards to the creation of patriotism and love for Rome. evident that there were fewer differences between Virgil and Livy than 1971:7