02-06-2009, 06:09 PM
Right, that's exactly what I refer to as a Renaissance scholar nitpicking some particular Livian point. Notice how they describe him in positive terms. If they find a fault with a passage, it isn't because Livy was a liar but because the passage is corrupt. Etc. Now I know that a skepticism of the Camillan legion doesn't sit well with you, but it nevertheless supports my overall point about pre-Neibuhr criticism, in which the ideal, unmixed Livy is a very good author, worth studying.
As for the Camillan legion itself, it's been giving trouble to people for quite a long time. People have found problems with it for centuries. What I'm drawing the attention to is the contrast between a modern Roman scholar who looks at book VIII and calls Livy a contemptible and sloppy historian, and a Lipsius, or a James Turner, who couldn't agree that Livy was intrinsically flawed, and just called the passage itself corrupt.
Let me draw this parallel further. Let's say you do find a strong corroboration for the Camillan and Servian legions, and you do this while living during James Turner's time: that wouldn't have overturned any opinions he had about Livy's personal character and as a historian (it would've actually confirmed them). If you find this corroboration now, in the modern day, the scholars' reaction will be, "Really? Livy wasn't a liar after all? Why... I'll be..."
As for the Camillan legion itself, it's been giving trouble to people for quite a long time. People have found problems with it for centuries. What I'm drawing the attention to is the contrast between a modern Roman scholar who looks at book VIII and calls Livy a contemptible and sloppy historian, and a Lipsius, or a James Turner, who couldn't agree that Livy was intrinsically flawed, and just called the passage itself corrupt.
Let me draw this parallel further. Let's say you do find a strong corroboration for the Camillan and Servian legions, and you do this while living during James Turner's time: that wouldn't have overturned any opinions he had about Livy's personal character and as a historian (it would've actually confirmed them). If you find this corroboration now, in the modern day, the scholars' reaction will be, "Really? Livy wasn't a liar after all? Why... I'll be..."
Multi viri et feminae philosophiam antiquam conservant.
James S.
James S.