Talk:History of Rome (Livy)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

date of founding

DO "most modern scholars" really believe that Rome was founded in 753 BC? Obviously that is the traditional date, and that became the date used in the Roman calendar, but there's obviously no contemporary evidence that would enable anyone to specify so precise a date as that. john k (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It's been recognized since the days of Newton that the reign lengths of the seven traditional kings have been inflated. Also archeologoy has shown that Rome didn't become a real city before c. 600 (which btw would fit the number of kings much better), though the first settlements goes much further back Fornadan (t) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It's an insoluble problem, or at least never has been solved. Archaeology is not precise enough to solve it. Archaeology has shown nothing whatsoever concerning actual events. Whatever you mean by "real city" has nothing to do with the foundation of Rome. All there is, is legend. We'd like to find an inscriptional king list, or an Etruscan bilingual with kingly names on it, or a lost manuscript detailing the history of early Rome, or some new Linear B tablets outlining transactions with a city on the far side of Italy (hither Italy and Thither Italy). So far there is nothing. I propose we write to the government of Italy proposing to reserve the whole city of Rome for archaeological exvacation and move the populace to British Columbia. What I mean is, not every problem has a solution and until solutions appear we just use the traditional date. It is hard to accept I know, especially for moderns who are accustomed to reconciled solutionary data. Sorry, there isn't any. Light is both waves and particles.Dave (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Ab urbe condita libri"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was casting vote: moved to Ab Urbe Condita (book): many readers do not know what "libri" means. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ab Urbe condita → Ab urbe condita libri —

"Ab Urbe condita?" It should be Ab urbe condita but there is another article of that name. I have proposed we change the other article name and when that has been done I propose we move this one. Hm. It may have to be Ab Urbe Condita. Let's bite the bullet and put this right.Dave (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just a had a second thought (terrible strain to do that): let's move this to "Ab urbe condita libri", the actual name of the work. If no one opposes I will move it.Dave (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose When the Latin title is mentioned at all, it is Ab urbe condita; libri is a descriptor, as one might speak of The Two Towers as Lord of the Rings, Books III and IV. But the real solution is to merge with Livy. We know hardly anything of the historian but the work, and conversely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree on all counts. 1) Libri is not a descriptor but is a noun, the main topic. And it is standard in the work in Latin, not just thrown in once in a while. It's an integral part of the Latin title. 2) Yes there is quite a lot on Livy. Just because it isn't in there yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We must not take some Internet statement "there is not a lot on Livy" as any sort of fact. Once someone blurts that out it gets copied all the way around, dozens of sites and articles, but that doesn't make it true. 3) A merger with "Livy" is no solution but a perpetuation of the problem. Once "Livy" is truly addressed the merged article would just have to be split again and then be named something. The current problem is, this article name differs from another by the capitalization of one letter. This is an artificial and incorrect use introduced to make it differ. Urbe should not be initial caps or else condita should be initial caps.Dave (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No more than Tacitus' Histories, which are with equal propriety Historiarum libri quinque. Both forms are pedantry.
      • The Latin language is structured differently from English. What you are calling "pedantry" is actually the way you would say thing in Latin. Here is an example from English: The Egyptian "Book of the Dead." You wouldn't refer to it as "of the dead", which sounds like a rock group, because the main name is "book". In English you could make a noun of the phrase "of the dead": the of the dead. In Latin you can't. Let's take "de Amicitia", a work by Cicero. Understood is a noun on which the phrase hangs. In a lot of cases the noun is not understood but is given explicitly. Here "libri" probably tips the reader off that a long work is about to be read. We could probably argue about this until one of us choked, but the title is not ours to decide. The author or the early copyists actually used "libri", so whether you or I think it is pedantic or not has nothing to do with the proper use of the title. It should be the Latin use when refering to the Latin title. I'll be working on the article now so I may not see this discussion for a while. If you feel it is really significant leave me a message.Dave (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is a misunderstanding; I meant that we know little on Livy apart from his history - which is the case. Livy's style, his lactea ubertas, for example, concerns the history, not the man. But let us see your remodelling - if it relies upon the ancient Vitae, we should insist upon secondary sources foolish enough to believe them - and even so, the encyclopedic information will be a few paragraphs.
      • It's astounding to me that we should allow article names that differ by only a letter. I thought everyone would agree. However, let's go through the process. I'm not in a rush. For my remodelling, I'd like to see that too. It is a question of time - all the articles in this area are stubs or nearly so, so I have to do a lot of supporting work before I can do the work.Dave (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And especially if, as you suggest, this article is a copyvio, the solution is to get rid of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • • Well yes that is one solution but now that this has been brought to our attention would not a better idea be to do the article? We need an article on Livy's History of Rome. I wouldn't just delete it as it now contains supporting material from the Livy article and new supporting material. Let's finish the game. I know "I should talk" because the ball is in my side of the court. Let's see how it comes out then we can see what is best. If you really want to get rid of it I would say, propose a merge. It was already split before I got here, so you would need a proposal, I think. I'm partially indifferent, but I like to look ahead, whereas some people decide based only on what is actually there now. True, you could create a long article of two. Our predecessaor decided not to do that. Whatever we decide now I plan to finish what I'm doing here and then I suppose we will go from there, whatever will be the best then. I didn;t think there would be so much discussion but I see Livy is fairly popular. I suppose people hesitated to take it on.Dave (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • At the moment I'm of a Procedural oppose mindset, based partially on what PMAnderson states here, and partially on the statement "A merger with "Livy" is no solution but a perpetuation of the problem." WP:OR would apply, based on this statement. Wikipedia is here to report, not to attempt to stop "perpetuation of [a] problem.".
        — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't say that I follow your reasoning in any way whatsoever. What has this got to do with original research? There isn't any in here at all and will not be. Moreover, since the problem we are talking about is a formatting and presentational one - whether there should be one or two articles, or again whether article names should be more distinctive than a single capital letter - it certainly is within the realm of Wikipedia editing and we are here to "stop perpetuation of the problem" if the problem is a formatting one that needs to be fixed. And, why are you basing your view on what I or Anderson say and not on the article? Do you have an opinion on the article? I'm going to be working on the article and related articles now so if I do not get back to any of you immediately, be patient. Things are not far enough along now to see the final outcome. However, the matter has been brought up and is under discussion. Later. Ciao.Dave (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book report material

I removed this: "This collection is vital to many descriptions, portrayals, histories and other projects referring to the history of the Kingdom and Republic. Although slightly biased, it contains many references to sources, and does present the general history of Rome in a good writing style which is very understandable and readable. However, the reliability of the work has often been questioned since Titus Livy was a Roman and his account of events seems to glorify the Romans. Even so, the books are invaluable in that they reflect the reactions of the people of ancient Rome to events and their interest in various traditions. Other sources, such as Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars tend to generally agree in their hintings of the periods covered by "History of Rome."

Here are my reasons: first, these views are unsubstantiated. Second, the style is that of a book report, and at the secondary school level. I got nothing at all against secondary schools. I once taught in one. However, this is an encyclopedia and we are not interested in student book report assessments of Livy. Third, this is too trivial to be of encyclopedic interest. I think, if you can't say anything significant, don't take up the space, let someone else do it. If no one steps forward to do it, well, Wikipedia has reached its limitations, nothing in equals nothing out. Trivia are still approximately nothing.Dave (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fragmentary Palimpsest

I thought that writing was too good to be true for Wikipedia. In fact it was copied, cut and paste, from Webster's and I am probably going to find the same thing for most of the rest of it. This confirms my general impression of this being a "phony article" - bibiography that references nothing, otherwise no sources, larded thick with student opinions of the book report type, big discrepancies in style. Why do that? To give the impression that an article gap has been filled? Come to Wikipedia, you can look ANYTHING up, and by the time you finish with us you won't know which end is up, but then your significant other had better things to do with your time anyway than your wasting it on intellectual pursuits. So, I'm taking a hand here. This is on my list. You can't just cut and paste, you have to give credit; ethically, even where the copyright has expired. If you can't follow the ethics, write for some other Internet site. I'm going to rewrite a bit putting the plagiarized source in as a reference.Dave (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Language of the sources

I notice there is a growing number of refs in German. This is an English encyclopedia. Most folks can't read German. No doubt scholars are required to have at least a minimal reading knowledge but most folks are not scholars. I've had to remove references in Hungarian and Chinese because only a minute proportion of the English-speaking population could ever read them. Why is German any different? In principle, it isn't. However is some cases a particular language is critical to the article (Latin, Greek) and more people do know German than, say, Hungarian, German being at least partially in the same language family as English. A lot of the early scholarship on Livy was in fact German. There is no lack of English bibliography. Therefore I am going to leave the German in but I would ask that you keep it to a minimum. If you really want to see German, work on the German Wikipedia. I hear it is pretty good.Dave (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, because your point is otherwise taken, but classical scholars are expected to be fluent (not minimal) in German (also French). Tons of the research can only be found in German. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The recent move to "Ab urbe condita libri"

I notice the move. For whatever it is worth, I approve. A second possibility, which I did not want to mention because my first choice would have been my own suggestion, was the one to which Appleyard actually moved it. It in fact has seniority, as it appeared in an internal link. This is fine. Thanks a lot. Teamwork is almost always better. I'm still plugging through the expansion/update/rework.Dave (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Ab Urbe Condita Libri"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus to move the article. GB fan 13:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Ab Urbe Condita (book) → Ab Urbe Condita Libri – The RM above decided on (book) because "many readers do not know what 'libri' means", which is total nonsense because many readers won't know what "ab urbe condita" means either. The title of the work includes "libri", and including it remove the ungainly (book) addition. Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 68.54.4.162 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is indeed about the book called "Ab Urbe Condita" (with whatever capitalisation – and this matter needs consideration here too). The present title is as valid as any other, and most natural. Compare Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae, which bears the alternative titles Origines, and Etymologiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, and so on. With "Libri" in such titles the topic is obscured for everyone except specialists. Redirects from Ab Urbe Condita Libri and the like (with more capitalisations than just the present redirect Ab urbe condita libri) should certainly be in place, and they should cover all needs. Noetica^Tea? 02:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  The title of the work includes the word "libri". It's not some random addition—it's a part of the title that is sometimes dropped. As for redirects, capitalization does not matter. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  That's just wrong, anon. There is no single "authoritative" title for that work, especially as it is referred to in modern centuries. If there were such touchstones, we would have far fewer RMs. Just look at this Googlebooks search on "ab urbe condita was" (with the was to exclude both libri and almost all usages that have nothing to with the book). It finds the present title in many impeccable sources. I leave it as an exercise for you to do similar searches on "ab urbe condita libri were" and "ab urbe condita libri was", and to report here what you find. Noetica^Tea? 03:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you feel like these results, which are reputable as well, are any less worthwhile than yours, particularly since #s 1, 8 an 9, at least, are not referencing to the work in question. In dead-tree sources, my copy of book 1 states that "The traditional title of the work is Ab urbe condita libri." (page x of the introduction) I do not dispute that the abbreviated title is used in reputable sources, but I argue that using "libri" in the page name both increases accuracy and is a more elegant solution than the ugly (book) addition. 68.54.4.162 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  Anon, I issued a direct challenge, and you did not take it up. It concerned the number of hits for the two competing titles in published English-language sources. The search you present with libri is not to be measured against the searches I offered or proposed. It is not restricted like those (with an added was or were), for a start; and it finds a preponderance of Latin sources, or sources with the title embedded in a Latin context. Applying the restriction I suggest, we get from a Googlesearch on {"ab urbe condita libri was" OR "ab urbe condita libri were"} just 16 hits, most of them quite old. That is what to set against the evidence I presented, which weighs heavily against the proposed move. Noetica^Tea? 10:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Latin title is given here as Titi Livi Ab Urbe condita (Titus Livy's From the Founding of the City). Nothing about libri/book. It seems to be a descriptor and should therefore be translated. Kauffner (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the reason "libri" can be found in Italian scholarly texts in description of "Ab urbe condita (books)," is because "libri" is Italian language for "(books)" not Latin, not part of the title. The searches with "libri" in English are simply cataloguing data - indicating the "libro" to follow, not part of book title. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to "The History of Rome"

Wow.

Years of discussion of moving the page around without anyone bringing up the appropriate policies (WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs), the actual name of the work (The History of Rome), or any research into establishing that. Here's Ngram's top 10 results from "Livy's *": "Livy's history" and "Livy's History" are the 2d and 3d and "Livy's Ab" is nowhere to be seen. It exists but is nowhere near the top result. Libri ab Urbe Condita is the Latin title of the work known in English as Livy's History of Rome even among specialists. Every single English-language source or reference used by this page itself calls it the History of Rome, Roman History, or Livy's History. This article is completely in the wrong place, which is causing related articles (such as Livy's own) to become confused in their own handling: the relevant section of his page is still well-formatted but the lead paragraph now uses the Latin in its running text and an ad hoc WP:OR translation instead of the thing's English name and a link. The page should be moved and the lead sentence should be formatted something along the lines of

The History of Rome (Latin: Ab Urbe Condita) was a monumental work...

or if we're being really persnickety

The History of Rome (Latin:  AB VRBE CONDITA){{refn|group=n|Explanatory footnote about Latin titles and the occasional inclusion of ''libri'' before or after the other words.<ref>With a citation.</ref>}} was a monumental work...

Further, aside from that move, the editors above who were claiming that libri isn't part of the title, is somehow misleading, or is Italian obviously don't know what they're talking about. The Libri was patently part of the title... but so much so (for every Latin work of more than one volume) that it is almost invariably omitted from such titles. [It was a generic descriptor,—"Livy's Books on the History of Rome from the Founding of the City",—not a title as now understood.] As User:Noetica pointed out, the COMMON "USELATIN" name of this work is Ab Urbe Condita tout suite. Every move discussion above was inconclusive or opposed. How did the page get moved to the (even more) wrong title in spite of them? Even if the Latinists win out and y'all avoid using the thing's English name, we should at least be using its proper Latin name. — LlywelynII 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move back to "Ab Urbe Condita (Livy)"

The current title is entirely inappropriate, and doesn't appear to have been the product of any sort of consensus. The actual title in Latin is simply Ab Urbe Condita, to which the number of books is sometimes appended; but the number of books isn't technically part of the title, and if it's not even given then it makes no sense to say libri. Some reasonable alternatives would be:

• "Ab Urbe Condita (book)" or
• "History of Rome (Livy)",

but I prefer the Latin title, as it's likely to be encountered in a great many scholarly citations, is less likely to be confused with a modern work by less knowledgeable readers, and because History of Rome isn't a translation of the Latin title. At the same time, I don't think that From the Founding of the City is a good alternative, because while a literal translation, it's not widely used as the English title; in other words, neither English title is a better alternative than the Latin. Ideally it wouldn't need a disambiguator at all, but since we have a dating system at that page, "(Livy)" or "(Book)" would seem appropriate. I favour "(Livy)", since there could be other works with a similar title, while there's no risk of confusion with the author's name. Comments? P Aculeius (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: after a bit more research, I can't even find authority for the title Ab Urbe Condita. Supposedly Livy called it his Annales. Perhaps "History of Rome" or "History of Rome from the Founding of the City" would be preferable as a standard English title; most English-language sources use an English title, and few if any use Ab Urbe Condita (to say nothing of Annales). P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If English is the most important, I'd have the page moved to "History of Rome (Livy)", as it is commonly referred to as by most English writers (though often his work is referenced as just "Livy, 3.11" with no title included); however, modern Latin writings seem to agree on "Ab Urbe Condita" (CIL and PIR, for example). DGRBM seems to agree on "Ab Urbe Condita", and that is my preference as well, for it is the more popular of the Latin titles and is just as familiar to historians. In fact, this work is the only "Ab Urbe Condita" (to my knowledge), whereas "History of Rome" and "Annales" are recurring titles among Roman authors. With that being said, I have not seen his work referred to as "Ab Urbe Condita" by a single primary source. I believe the title appears beginning in the late 19th century, in the Latin works of Mommsen, but he is only the first that I am aware of. Psychotic Spartan 123 02:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm always on the fence with English/Latin titles. Since I've been using short cites and bibliographic references, I always try to give the Latin title, followed by the common English title or titles, if any, in the bibliography. But in this case I have to say that since Ab Urbe Condita doesn't appear to be the original title, or one used in antiquity, and doesn't exactly correspond with "History of Rome", it should probably be under "History of Rome (Livy)" (since there are several other "Histories of Rome"). I think it's more accurate to say that 19th century scholars were describing it as the "History of Rome ab Urbe Condita", rather than intending to give the work the title of Ab Urbe Condita.

I'm not sure that DGRBM uses that title, at least not consistently. If you look at volume II, p. 791, the article on Livy himself, and the one where the work is described in detail, it says: "The great and only extant work of Livy is a History of Rome, termed by himself Annales (xliii. 13), extending from the founding of the city to the death of Drusus . . ." On page 795 it again refers to "his Annals", but otherwise alludes to the work simply as "Livy". I do not see Ab Urbe Condita mentioned anywhere in the article. It's possible it's used somewhere in DGRBM, but I've been working my way through Roman gentes and individuals mentioned in all three volumes for several weeks, on a daily basis, and I can't remember running across that title, at least not since the beginning of July. The introductions and related material in my Penguin Classics editions of all thirty-five books don't use the title; they refer to it as History of Rome or simply History. Broughton calls it Livy's History or simply "Livy". So at this point "History of Rome (Livy)" seems like the most appropriate title. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't own a physical copy of DGRBM, but on the Perseus website it uses Ab Urbe Condita on the Livy article and as the title of the article regarding the work. It is possible that the title used on the website is not consistent with the original work - and I only scanned the articles when writing my first comment last night, so what I said was based largely on my memory. History of Rome (Livy) is certainly accurate, albeit imperfect considering the inconsistencies among our sources. Ab Urbe Condita is what I've personally referred to it as, and so I may just be biased out of personal preference. Psychotic Spartan 123 17:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been using the archive.org copies, working directly from the scanned copies. You might want to bookmark them! It's nice to be able to see the exact articles in context with no editorial changes, and to be able to flip back and forth through each volume. Currently I have a window with one tab for each volume, plus tabs for Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities and one for the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Plus the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography is also available on this site, although I haven't really referred to it yet. I've left my DGRBM and Harper's on the shelf, both to save wear and tear and because it's actually much more convenient leafing through them on Firefox. I have Broughton (vol. I only, sadly) and Livy next to my chair!

• DGRBM vol. I
• DGRBM vol. II
• DGRBM vol. III
• DGRA
• Harper's DCLA
• DGRG vol. I
• DGRG vol. II
• Plus, LacusCurtius

These are a great online resource! Too bad PW isn't available for free... and in English... P Aculeius (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've bookmarked all of them. Thanks! The links are definitely nice to have. Psychotic Spartan 123 18:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The conversation seems to have gotten sidetracked.

Yes, English is the most important for the English wiki, so there is actually a consensus now to move the thing to its correct placement as discussed at length above? — LlywelynII 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Livy & Varronian Chronology

In a footnote this article asserts that Livy uses "the chronology of Varro" -- which is wrong. Every authority on Livy I have read says the opposite, that he drew on authorities who wrote before Varro. Further, the dates in Ab Urbe Condita fit better with a non-Varronian chronology: there are no Dictator years (as on the Fasti Capitolini); his date for the Battle of the Allia fits 386 BC better than 390 BC; & his date for the founding of Rome & the start of the Republic differ from those Varro gives. Lastly, there is no point to having this footnote in this article -- this assertion is not referenced anywhere else in the article. So I'd like to just remove it if no one objects. -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Noting the chronology he does use is worth mentioning. — LlywelynII 16:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposals for moving this page to Ab urbe condita

Please visit Ab urbe condita and comment on proposals for moving or deleting the page and replacing it with this article.Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Commented there, but for easier reference, see the discussion above. There's no evidence that Livy ever called his history this. The original Latin title is unclear, and the likeliest candidate is Annales. As far as I can tell, Ab Urbe Condita is a modern interpretation, and even if we use it, there's no reason to append libri CXLII to it, any more than to any other Roman literary production conventionally described according to the number of books that originally made it up. The best title for this article would probably be English, "History of Rome (Livy)". P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The title History of Rome (Livy) is unfortunately already occupied, but History of Rome (book) would still be available – that said, (book) is not ideal, given that the work technically consisted of 142 books originally, although these books were originally scrolls that probably contained no more text than a typical modern book chapter. The title Ab Urbe Condita Libri contradicts MOS:CT – it's a title in Latin, not English –, and per the above discussions, libri should not be added. However, since the work is so widely known as Ab urbe condita, the title Ab urbe condita (Livy) is a good solution, and I've therefore moved the article to this title per WP:BOLD. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I, at least, concur with this move. The previous name Ab urbe condita libri was hugely unwieldy; this name deals both with disambiguating AUC-the-epoch while calling it by what most people are probably going to hear it as. Ifly6 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not already occupied. It just redirects here. Yes, as discussed repeatedly above, History of Rome (Livy)'s where the page should be moved to. — LlywelynII 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Summary of the First Book"

I don't really understand what this section (for which I just created a title) is doing in the article. It is a summary of the foundation myths described in the first book, but I think its contents would be better located in the pages of each of these myths. And why only describe these events? was it the beginning of a project to detail all Livy's books?@InformationvsInjustice: T8612 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing information

The article should include the date of the first (Latin) printed edition (editio princeps). This year marks the starting point for the increased reception in (post-classical) European art and literature. (In the Middle Ages, Livy was not read that much, some humanists like Petrarca being rather the exception from the rule.) --2001:A61:360A:F501:6169:C43E:5A78:D5BE (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source? T8612 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Ab urbe condita (Livy) → History of Rome (Livy) – It's been several years since this was last discussed, and while there were one or two attempts to discuss the best title since then, they didn't really resolve the issue. Although the current title is widely used, I couldn't find any evidence that Livy ever called his history Ab Urbe Condita. Yes, it's a history of Rome from the founding of the city, but "From the Founding of the City" doesn't seem to be part of the title—not even a subtitle (Historia Romae ab Urbe Condita would make sense, but there's no evidence that it was Livy's title, and while that might strike people as a practical alternative, it's a bit wordy and translates easily). There is some suggestion that Livy called his history Annales, but that title isn't widely used to refer to Livy today. "History of Rome" seems to be the best alternative, since it describes the topic and is widely used as a title; it would need disambiguation, but so does the current title. It's certainly no less correct than Ab Urbe Condita, and unlike that, it doesn't give readers the false impression that it's what Livy called his work. P Aculeius (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Based on a few crude Google searches, both "Ab urbe condita" and "[The] History of Rome" seem to be in fairly common use. (Ngrams was not of much use here.) If they truly are used about as often, I support the move. Remsense留 19:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know whether you accounted for "Ab urbe condita" being used as an era in Roman chronology. The Romans didn't often date things "AUC", but modern scholars frequently do. Also there may be a lot of internet sources that use "Ab urbe condita" for Livy because we do here, and which would gradually change over if the article title changed. That said, there should also be a fair number of hits for "History of Rome" that don't refer to Livy's history. You may have accounted for all of these, but I thought it was a good idea to mention them in case you hadn't. P Aculeius (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Of course, thank you! I did mentally skip over mentions of the epoch, and tried only to consider results clearly talking about the work. I wouldn't doubt that "History of Rome" is considerably more popular—reading previous discussion, it seems to be. So yes, put me down for a support. Remsense留 22:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support move. Ifly6 (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per this: The best evidence for the title under which Livy's history circulated in antiquity is (or was) preserved in an early 5th century palimpsest, rewritten at the start of the 8th century at the Abbey of Luxeuil. The explicit to Book 5 on folio 274 v. reads <Ti>ti liui <a>b urbe <co>ndita <li>b. V exp. <in>c. lib. VI. Which led me to Zetzel, "The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the Meaning of Emendatio" in Classical Philology 75 (JSTOR 267824), who shows that the original Nicomachaean edition of c. 400 had the title Ab Urbe Condita. Note that Google may not throw up good results if you don't account for the spelling Ab Vrbe Condita. Ogilvie's edition uses this spelling. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Srnec, while discussion has pointed to historical usage, do you feel this point challenges the primary WP:COMMONNAME argument? — Remsense留 01:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  That tells us that one, perhaps two fifth-century manuscripts seem to have used this title. But my understanding is still that Livy, four hundred years earlier, probably called it his Annales—and we're not limited to these titles if they're not predominant today. Annales wouldn't be recognizable today, as people generally associate that title with Tacitus. And Ab Urbe Condita is ambiguous; it needs disambiguation in the title as well. I think English speakers may be more familiar with the English title, History of Rome, simply because most of us can't read it in the original Latin (and I feel guilty that my Latin isn't nearly up to snuff, but there it is), and English-language editions usually use English titles rather than Latin ones. I don't claim that this is invariable, or that it should dictate the outcome in every instance, but I think in this case, where the original title is uncertain, and the current Latin title perhaps neither the original nor the most familar today, the English title is preferable. We would certainly still note the (probable) original and commonly-used alternatives in the lead, or even in a dedicated section of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oxford and Cambridge editions both use Ab Urbe Condita. Wiley's Companion to Livy uses it. Srnec (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't tell us what the original title was, which was the point of your comment. P Aculeius (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Additionally, the listing at Oxford is, "Livy: The History of Rome, Books 21-25 (Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri XXI-XXV)". It gives the English title first, since it expects readers will understand it whether or not they recognize what they're calling it in Latin. The English title is more recognizable. P Aculeius (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. The cover of the book says AUC and it is cited as such. There are many volumes, of course. Translations of sections of Livy have been published under many titles, e.g., The Rise of Rome (books 1–5) and Rome's Italian Wars (6–10). In 2020, Cambridge released book 22, but they kept the expected title: Ab urbe condita. I do not think the current title of this page is obscure or unexpected. My original point was to show why scholars are content to keep this title. If it is mere scholarly convention and not Livy's title, it is still a 1600-year-old convention. Srnec (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Mild oppose. History of Rome is less defining, as there are many other works with that title, and could lead to misrepresenting Livy as a modern author, whereas the Latin title makes it clearer that it is ancient. We have many articles on ancient works that use the Latin title, such as Ars Poetica, De aquaeductu, the Cicero's corpus, etc. Even tough Ab Urbe Condita is not securely attested as the original title, several leading scholars of Livy tend to assume it was by using the AUC title, such as John Briscoe and Stephen Oakley. That said, this is not something I feel strongly about. T8612 (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually there are not "many other works with that title" - you'll see from that page that there were, but Livy is the only one the monks thought worth copying, especially for the Republic. The rest are lost, or summaries of Livy, or just cover parts of the Imperial period. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly had the modern works in mind. T8612 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support and the other recent mentions of the move above should be noted and added to this count as well. Opposes above are well intentioned but greatly mistaken. The WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name of this thing is History of Rome. Ab... doesn't even make it into the ngram wildcard list. The thing is abbreviated Livy, Hist., or Livy, Hist. Rom., and practically never Livy, A.U.C. or AUC. This article has been driving some increased scholarly use of the wrong title, but that's just another reason to fix this already. No shame in it. Parallel Lives was misinforming everyone about the title of that work from 2004 until about 10 minutes ago because the first editors confused Dryden as the original work and no one paid attention to it for the next two decades.
  
  As a side note, we should remove the title gore from the lead and pull up the actual title from where it's currently hidden in the footnotes. We should lead with The History of Rome, also known as Ab Urbe Condita and by other names, ... and then have a #Titles or #Name section to go through the translated meanings and the different variations with cites for the most important bits. — LlywelynII 18:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your reference to increased scholarly use of the wrong title implies that Ab urbe condita is not just not the common English title but the wrong title altogether. Why do you think this? It certainly doesn't originate with Wikipedia editors. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  @LlywelynII: ? Srnec (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commentaries

Does anyone have access to the Briscoe, Oakley, and Ogilvie commentaries on Livy? It doesn't appear that WP:LIBRARY is of any help in this regard. Ifly6 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You have Ogilvie here, and Briscoe's 31-37 on Archive.org. Oakley's commentaries are huge. T8612 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

The article needs a section on the history of the title of the work. How does it come to be known in English as History of Rome? How do we know it was "perhaps originally titled Annales"? Where does Ab urbe condita come from and why is it used by modern editors? Srnec (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)