Harold sez:
>And here it was I always thought Livy's enduring value
>was in the series of "morality plays" he presents.
A definite touch. Yes, if you're considering Livy in his
sociological context, then yes, it's pretty vital to
consider that his main intent was to encourage virtue via
the rhetorical use of history.
> While he's certainly no Thucydides, the moral content of
>his work has enlightened figures as diverse as Machiavelli
>(who's major work, on republican virtue and the like, takes
>Livy as it's jumping off point) to the American
>Founding Fathers.
Ahh... you're comparing Livy to the wrong Hellene. As far as
I've been able to determine, Machiavelli's work is much more
heavily based on the second cen. BC historian Polybius than Livy.
For instance, check out Polybius's thick discursions on the states
of governance, monarchy/autoarky, democracy/demagogy, and
aristocracy/oligarchy. You can easily see the heavy influence that this
had on Machiavelli's political thought, especially his _Discourses_
(Machiavelli's oft-ignored republican companion to _The Prince_).
Keep in mind that Polybius had only recently been re-discovered
at the time that Machiavelli was writing, and was pretty hot shit.
In fact, I rather think that Polybius plaid as much to the thought
of the Federalists as did Machiavelli.
> I defy any of you to read the story of the tyranny of Decimvirs
>and not be moved, let along enraged.
Well, everybody always says that I'm too cynical and heartless
for my own good. :/
> A work that speak this strongly across millennia is likely to
>have some merit, I would say.
As a rhetorical exercise, doubtless. As history, it's rather
indifferent. As a story, ah! That's where the question comes
in. Is realism necessary for good historical fiction?
> While both certainly subscribe to the Great Man (Men?)
>approach to history, it's not to the complete exclusion of other
>factors.
Mmm. Didn't say that. Said that they over-emphasized it.
>LOGH focuses at least some attention on the men in the ranks, and
>others affected by the grand drama; witness the focus on the planet in
>the Frontier's Liberation episodes.
Yeah, well, I found the whole episode featuring the agri engineer
and the revolting peasants a bit cornball. But then, I've never
been a social history type, or else I wouldn't be watching space
opera, now would I? :)
>Anyway, focusing on the leaders may be currently unpopular, if not
>Politically Incorrect, but in my view it's an entirely valid approach
>to history, and has the added advantages of helping to engage the
>audience (certainly better than a focus on the grey "common man").
I have nothing against personality per se, it's just that I
disapprove of a Plutarch-like reduction of the deeply complex
weave of events (in which everything from an underling, the weather,
social policy, or the quality of troops may decide how any particular
"Great Man" performs) into the will power of a single man. In the
end, I feel, biography only illuminates one man. To use it to
define a nation is damn near blasphemous.
Oh, BTW. Bugger the common man.
Mitch Hagmaier
Quest Labs