Vavius Livy Analysis

Throughout antiquity, monarchs attempted to legitimize their governance in ways that prescribed to societal ways of thinking, the historian Titus Livius, Livy, writes on a period in which this is quite apparent. Livy’s writings suggest that early Rome was a sort of meritocracy; the monarchs were generally selected by the people based on their piety and virtue, their ancestors’ piety or virtue, or their own actions and successes in war. The kings of Rome were not uniform in nature, some kings were Romans, others foreigners; some kings were great conquerors, others pious administrators. However, what the Roman kings did have in common was the justification for their rule stemming from merit, rather than royal lineages. To qualify that, merit …show more content…
Titus Hostilius, a non-royal man, elected by the people as a result of the actions of his ancestors reflected a more combatant style of rule his grandfather being, “Hostilius who had fought so brilliantly at the foot of the Citadel against the Sabines.” Tullus himself proved to be a capable conqueror yet he was weak in terms of piety. In order to prove one’s excellence, Livy makes it clear that piety is a necessity, “no sign from heaven vouchsafed to him, but the anger of Jupiter was roused by the false worship rendered to him, and he burnt up the king.” Tullus is the first example of a Roman king who was not able to prove his excellence and for that crime paid with his life. Tullus is a great example of what can go wrong when a ruler forgets about one of the most important cultural facets of his people, religion. Livy is essentially arguing that since Tullus was annihilated by the Jupiter, he had lost the right to rule, a point that is not too difficult to …show more content…
Firstly, breaking with the tradition of election by the plebs he starts from a poor position for a Roman ruler. By no argument can one find much merit in his actions, the only claim to legitimacy that this Tarquin holds, is the fact that he is related to the elder Tarquin, his actions are criminal and murderous and he goes so far as to act upon the emotions of his wife in the example of a truly weak Roman man. “Lucius Tarquin and the younger Tullia, by a double murder, cleared from their houses the obstacles to a fresh marriage.” The obvious retort to Livy’s condemnation of these murders is the case of Romulus’ fratricide. But Romulus killed Remus to avenge a perceived wrong and out of open competition. While it may seem trivial to justify or classify types of murder the distinction is important to Livy and nowhere might this be more evident than with his quote, “the crown won by villainy was the last that was worn.” A King that could end the entire institution of monarchy in a meritocracy must be by definition, of ill-merit, how else would a society with so much invested in virtue and excellence become so dissociated with the mode of government they had prescribed to for centuries. So while I will not dispute that the younger Tarquin had little right to rule in Livy’s eyes, the fact that his rule was so disastrous that an entire new form of government is