Context and Audience Reception

Reading ancient literature within its world

A story about a city's beginnings can also be an argument about what makes that city important. Divine ancestors may give it sacred status; a courageous founder may offer a model of behaviour; conflict within a family may warn against uncontrolled ambition. Cultural context helps us recognise these meanings rather than treating a foundation story simply as a sequence of adventures.

Two useful examples are Livy's History of Rome and Plutarch's Comparison of Theseus and Romulus. Livy looks back at Rome's beginnings from a world in which Rome already possesses an empire. Plutarch, a Greek author living under Roman imperial rule in the late first and early second centuries AD, compares a Greek hero with a Roman founder. Both discuss a distant legendary past, but their judgements also reveal concerns important to their own worlds.

We need to distinguish three things: the society represented in the story, the values expressed by the author, and the possible reactions of an audience. These may overlap, but they are not identical.

Livy: Roman greatness and anxiety about the present

In his preface, Livy calls the Romans the ‘greatest and most powerful people on earth’. This establishes a proud Roman perspective: the history of a small settlement matters because that settlement eventually became an imperial power.

Yet pride does not prevent criticism. Livy describes Rome as burdened by its own greatness and its present power as ‘consuming itself’. He contrasts earlier discipline, modest living and frugality with later greed and excessive pleasure. His account therefore invites readers to ask not just how Rome became powerful, but whether Romans have lost the qualities that made it great.

Livy explicitly explains the practical value of history: readers can choose examples to imitate and shameful behaviour to avoid, both for themselves and for their community. His praise of the past is part of a moral argument about the present. A Roman reader worried about contemporary disorder might find this persuasive. Another reader might share his pride in Rome but question whether the past was really so virtuous.

The preface also distinguishes Livy's interests from those of some readers. He expects many to hurry towards recent events, whereas he welcomes the opportunity to turn away from contemporary troubles. An ancient audience was not a single group with identical interests.

Divine origins: religious meaning without simple certainty

Livy explains that combining divine and human actions makes a city's origins more sacred. Rome's connection with Mars, the god of war, fits the military fame Livy celebrates. Such a connection could encourage pride in Rome's special status, but Livy does not offer it as proven historical evidence. He says that he intends neither to confirm nor deny the earliest traditions.

His account of Rhea Silvia preserves the same tension. She claims that Mars fathered her twins, but Livy suggests that she may either have believed this or considered divine responsibility more honourable. He also describes the twins' survival in terms of divine providence, while reporting an alternative explanation for the she-wolf: Larentia, who raised them, may have had that nickname.

A religiously sympathetic reader might see the twins' survival as evidence of protection and destiny. A more questioning reader could take interest in the human explanation. Neither response requires us to claim that every Roman believed the story literally, or that Livy simply rejected religion.

Religion and political authority in Rome's foundation

The struggle between Numitor and Amulius reveals the importance of family succession. Amulius seizes his brother's throne, kills his nephew and makes Numitor's daughter Rhea Silvia a Vestal Virgin. Livy presents this appointment as an apparent honour concealing a political purpose: preventing her from having children who could threaten Amulius's power. A religious office becomes a means of controlling a rival family.

Religion also helps explain how authority should be established. Romulus and Remus seek an augury because, as twins, neither has a claim based on being older. Remus observes six vultures first from the Aventine; Romulus observes twelve from the Palatine. Their followers disagree over whether priority or number matters more.

This episode shows both the importance of divine approval and the difficulty of interpreting it. Consulting the gods does not remove human rivalry. Livy connects the resulting violence with greed for kingship. A reader could admire the attempt to obtain religious sanction while condemning the ambition that turns disagreement into bloodshed.

The later sacrifices also connect Rome with more than one tradition: Romulus follows Alban ritual for other gods but Greek custom for Hercules, following Evander's instructions. Rome's foundation is presented as involving inherited and shared religious practices, not complete cultural isolation.

Plutarch: judging Greek and Roman heroes together

Plutarch's comparison places Theseus and Romulus within a shared discussion of courage, leadership, family responsibilities and the common good. His Greek background does not mean that he consistently favours Theseus. Instead, he changes the balance according to the quality being assessed.

In chapter 1, Theseus receives praise for choosing danger voluntarily. He could have travelled safely by sea, but confronts villains to help others; he also volunteers to accompany the young people sent to Crete. Romulus's resistance to Amulius, by contrast, is presented as necessary for his own safety. Plutarch's judgement depends on a moral distinction: freely accepting danger for others is more admirable than acting only when personally threatened.

Chapter 4 offers a different measure. Romulus rises from low beginnings and establishes a community for homeless people who need a place as citizens. Theseus combines existing settlements, whereas Romulus creates something new. A reader who values civic achievement and providing a community might therefore favour Romulus, even after accepting Theseus's greater voluntary courage.

The comparison also explores responsible leadership. Chapter 2 criticises both surrendering control and tightening it excessively. Plutarch treats effective rule as a moral balance, rather than assuming that favouring the people or exercising strong authority must always be admirable.

Family, marriage and the limits of the author's judgement

Plutarch assesses heroes through their treatment of relatives as well as their public achievements. In chapter 3, he condemns both Romulus's anger concerning his brother and Theseus's anger concerning his son, but considers Theseus's provocation more understandable. In chapter 5, the balance shifts: Romulus helps his family and restores his grandfather, whereas Theseus's neglect of the instruction about the sail contributes to Aegeus's death. Family responsibility is therefore a standard against which even celebrated heroes can fail.

Marriage, too, is treated as a public matter. Livy's account of Aeneas and Latinus connects a treaty with Aeneas's marriage to Latinus's daughter. The marriage strengthens the alliance and the prospect of permanent settlement. Family relationships and political relationships reinforce one another.

Plutarch's chapter 6 makes a more troubling argument. He condemns Theseus's repeated seizure of women, including Helen while she is still a child, and attributes his actions to lust. He acknowledges Romulus's seizure of approximately eight hundred women as violence and injustice, yet argues that later marriages produced harmony, shared citizenship and shared power. He supports his praise with a claim that marriages remained unbroken for 230 years, before Spurius Carvilius divorced his wife on grounds of childlessness.

These are Plutarch's claims and moral priorities, not proof that the women welcomed their seizure. His argument gives considerable weight to the later success of the community. A reader concerned with civic unity might find that defence convincing; someone focusing on coercion and the women's experiences might reject it. The passage tells us how an author justifies an action, but does not directly record the responses of the women affected.

Building a supported interpretation of audience response

A convincing interpretation moves from a textual detail, to the value or context it involves, to a possible response. For example, Livy's association of Mars with Roman military fame could encourage an audience proud of Rome's victories to welcome the sacred ancestry. However, his refusal to confirm the tradition also leaves space for a questioning response.

Different Greek and Roman readers could likewise respond differently to Plutarch's comparison. A reader attached to Theseus might welcome the praise of his voluntary courage but dislike the criticism of his family conduct. A reader attached to Romulus might welcome his achievement as a founder but find the discussion of Remus uncomfortable. Cultural loyalty could shape a reaction without determining it completely.

Ancient literature is therefore valuable evidence for identities, religious practices and moral arguments. It is not a transparent record of what every ancient person believed. The strongest judgements explain both what a passage reveals and whose perspective it represents.

Context shapes judgement

• Livy: Roman imperial greatness contrasted with contemporary decline; history provides examples to imitate or avoid.
• Plutarch: a Greek author under Roman imperial rule judges Greek and Roman heroes through shared moral standards.
• Separate the legendary setting, the author's perspective and possible audience reactions.

Cultural evidence to recall

• Religion: Mars gives Rome sacred, military ancestry; Livy neither confirms nor denies the earliest traditions.
• Power: Amulius uses Rhea Silvia's Vestal appointment to prevent rival heirs.
• Augury: Remus sees six vultures first; Romulus sees twelve. Disputed interpretation exposes human ambition.
• Family and community: Aeneas's marriage strengthens an alliance; Plutarch assesses founders through family duties and civic achievements.
• Women: Plutarch acknowledges Romulus's violence but defends its later communal consequences. This is his argument, not evidence of consent.

Possible audience responses

• Civic pride could encourage admiration of a city's hero; troubling conduct could challenge it.
• Religious and questioning readers might interpret divine traditions differently.
• Support each proposed reaction with a specific detail and explain the relevant value.
• Possible response is not the same as a documented response.