Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/808

Rh 794 LI VI US. destruction of the capital by the Vitellians, (Sueton. Vesp. 8 ; Tacit. Bist. iii. 71.) The inquiry with regard to the authorities whom he actually did follow would be simple had these authorities been preserved, or had they been regu- larly referred to as the work advanced. But un- fortunately not one of the writers employed by Livy in his first decade has descended to us entire or nearly entire, and he seldom gives any indica- tion of the sources from whence his statements are derived, except in those cases where he encoun- tered inexplicable contradictions or palpable blun- ders. The first five books contain very few allusions to preceding historians, but a considerable number of fragments relating to this period have been pre- served by Dionysius, Plutarch, and the gramma- rians. On the other hand, scarcely any fragments have been preserved relating to the period embraced by the five last books of this decade ; but here we find frequent notices of preceding historians. We are thus enabled to decide with considerable cer- tainty that he depended chiefly upon Ennius, Fabius Pictor, Cincius Alimentus, and Calpurnius Piso ; and to these must be added, after the com- mencement of the Gallic war, Claudius Quadrigarius ; while he occasionally, but with less confidence, made use of Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, and Aelius Tubero. We can discern no traces of Sul- picius Galba, nor of Scribonius Libo, nor of Cassius Hemina, nor of Sempronius Tuditanus, who were not altogether destitute of weight: we need not lament that he passed over Postumius Albinus and Cn. Gellius, to the latter of whom especially Dio- nysius was indebted for a load of trash ; but it must ever be a source of regret that he should have neglected the Annals and Antiquities of Varro, as well as the Origines of Cato, works from which he might have obtained stores of knowledge upon those departments of constitutional history in which he is conspicuously defective. From the com- mencement of the third decade he reposes upon a much more firm sup'port. Polybius now becomes the guide whom, for the most part, he follows closely and almost exclusively. Occasionally indeed he quits him for a time, in order to make room for those representations of particular occurrences by the Latin annalists which he deemed likely to be more palatable to his readers ; but he quickly re- turns to the beaten path, and treads steadily in the footsteps of the Greek. It will be seen from these remarks that when Livy professes to give the testimony of all pre- ceding authors {omnes atictores), these words must be intended to denote those only which happened to be before him at the moment, and must not by any means be understood to imply that he had con- sulted every author accessible, nor even such as were most deserving of credit. And not only does he fail to consult all the authors to whom he might have resorted with advantage, but he does not avail himself in the most judicious manner of the aid of those in whom he reposed trust. He does not seem at any time to have taken a broad and comprehensive view of his subject, but to have performed his task piecemeal. A small section was taken in hand, different accounts were compared, and the most plausible was adopted ; the same system was adhered to in the succeeding portions, so that each considered by itself, without reference to the rest, was executed with care ; but the wit- nesses who were rejected in one place were ad- LIVIUS. mitted in another, without sufficient attention being paid to the dependence and the connection of the events. Hence the immerous contradictions and inconsistencies which have been detected by sharp- eyed critics like Perizonius and Glareanus ; and although these seldom affect materially the leading incidents, yet by their frequent recurrence they shake our faith in the trustworthiness of the whole. Other mistakes also are found in abundance, arising from his want of anything like practical knowledge of the world, from his never having acquired even the elements of the military art, of jurisprudence, or of political economy, and above all, from his singular ignorance of geography. It is well known that his account of the disaster at the Caudine Forks, of the march of Hannibal into Etruria, of the engagement on the Thrasymene Lake, and of the passage of the Alps by the Carthaginians, do not tally with the natural features of the regions in question, and yet the whole of these were within the limits or on the borders of Italy, and the localities might all have been visited within the space of a few weeks. Wiiile we fully acknowledge the justice of the censures directed against Livy on the score of these and other deficiencies, we cannot admit that his general good faith has ever been impugned with any show of justice. We are assured (Tacit. Ann. iv. 34) that he was fair and liberal upon matters of contemporary history, where, from his position about court, he had the greatest temptation to flatter those in power by depreciating their former adver- saries ; we know that he did not scruple to pay a high tribute to the talents and patriotism of such men as Cassius and Brutus, that his character of Cicero is a high eulogium, and that he spoke so warmly of the unsuccessful leader in the great civil war, that he was sportively styled a Pompeian by Augustus, who to his honour did not look coldly on the historian in consequence of his boldness and candour. It is true that in recounting the domestic strife which agitated the republic for nearly two cen- turies, he represents the plebeians and their leaders in the most unfavourable light ; and whilst he at times almost allows that they were struggling for their just rights against the oppression of the pa- tricians, he contrives to render their proceedings odious. This arose, not from any wish to pervert the truth, but from ignorance of the exact relation of the contending parties, combined with a lively remembrance of the convulsions which he witnessed in his youth, or had heard of from those who were still alive when he had grown up to manhood. It is manifest that throughout he never can separate in his own mind the spirited plebeians of the infant commonwealth, composed of the noblest and best blood of the various neighbouring states subjugated by Rome, from the base and venal rabble which thronged the forum in the days of Mariiis and Cicero ; while in like manner he confounds those bold and honest tribunes, who were the champions of liberty, with such men as Saturninus or Sulpicius, Clodius or Vatinius. There is also perceptible a strong but not unnatural disposition to elevate the justice, mo- deration, and valour of his own countrymen in all their dealings with foreign powers, and on tho same principle to gloss over their deeds of oppression and treachery, and to explain away their defeats- But although he unquestionably attempts to put a favourable construction upon adverse facts, he does not warp or distort tlie facts themselves as he found