Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/754

 730 L I V Y movements prior to his invasion of Italy) are taken by Livy directly from Polybius, with occasional reference of course to other writers, and with the omission (as in the later decades) of all matters un interesting to Livy or his Roman readers, and the addition of rhetorical touches and occasional comments. It is urged that Livy, who in the fourth and fifth decades shows himself so sensible of the great merits of Polybius, is not likely to have ignored him in the third, and that his more limited use of him in the latter case is fully accounted for by the closer connexion of the history with Home and Roman affairs, and the comparative excellence of the available Roman authorities, and, lastly, that the points of agree ment with Polybius, not only in matter but in expression, can only be explained on the theory that Livy is directly following the great Greek historian. On the other hand, it is maintained (especially by Schwegler, Kitzsch, and K. Bottcher) that the extent and nature oi Livy s agreement with Polybius in this part of his work point rather to the use by both of a common original authority. It is argued that Livy s mode of using his authorities is tolerably uniform, and that his mode of using Polybius in particular is known with certainty from the later decades. Consequently the theory that he used Polybius in the third decade requires us to assume that in this one instance he departed widely, and without sufficient reason, from his usual course of procedure. _ Moreover, even in the passages where the agreement with Polybius is most apparent, there are so many discrepancies and divergencies in detail, and so many unaccountable omissions and additions, as to render it inconceivable that he had the text of Polybius before him. But all these are made intelligible if we suppose Livy to have been here following directly or indirectly the same original sources that were used by Polybius. The earliest of these original sources was probably Silenus, with whom may possibly be placed, for books xxi., xxii., Fabius Pictor. The latter Livy certainly used directly for some parts of the decade. The former he almost as certainly knew only at second hand, the intermediate authority being prob ably Caelius Antipater. This writer, who confined himself to a history of the Second Punic War, in seven books, is expressly referred to by Livy eleven times in the third decade ; and in other passages where his name is not mentioned Livy can be shown to have followed him (e.g., xxii. 5, 49, 50, 51 ; xxiv. 9). In the latter books of the decade his chief authority is possibly Valerius Antias. In the fourth and fifth decades the question of Livy s authorities presents no great diificulties, and the conclusions arrived at by Nissen in his masterly Untcrsuchungen have met with general acceptance. These may be shortly stated as follows. In the portions of the history which deal with Greece and the East, Livy follows Polybius, and these portions are easily distinguishable from the rest by their superior clearness, accuracy, and fulness. On the other hand, for the history of Italy and western Europe he falls back on Roman annalists, especially, it seems, on Claudius Quadrigarius and Valerius Antias, a most unfortunate choice, and from them too he takes the annalistic mould into which his matter is cast. Livy s general method of using these authorities was certainly not such as would be deemed satisfactory in a modern historian. He is indeed free from the grosser faults of deliberate injustice and falsification, and he resists that temptation to invent to which &quot; the minds of authors are only too much inclined &quot; (xxii. 7). Nor is he unconscious of the necessity for some kind of criticism. He distin guishes between rumour and the precise statements of recognized authorities (cf. xxi. 46, v. 21, vii. 6). The latter he reproduced in the main faithfully, but with a certain exercise of discretion. Where they disagreed, he calls attention to the fact, occasionally pronouncing in favour of one version rather than another (ii. 41, xxi. 46), though often on no adequate grounds, or attempting to reconcile and explain discrepancies (vi. 12, 38). Where he detects or suspects the insertion of fabulous matter he has no scruple in saying so (e.g., ii. 7, v. 21, &quot;inseritur huic loco fabula&quot;). Gross exaggerations, such as those in which Valerius Antias indulged, he roundly denounces (xxxvi. 38, &quot;in augendo numero non alius intemperantior&quot;), and with equal plainness of speech he condemns the family vanity which had so constantly corrupted and distorted the truth. &quot;I suppose,&quot; he says (viii. 40), &quot;that the record and memorial of these matters hath been depraved and corrupted by these funeral orations of praises, .... while every house and family draweth to it the honour and renown of noble exploits, martial feats, and dignities by any untruth and lie, so it be colourable &quot; _ The legendary character of the earliest traditions he iranldy admits. &quot;Such things as are reported either before or at the foundation of the city, more beautified and set out with poets- fables than grounded upon pure and faithful records, I mean neither to aver nor disprove&quot; (Prof.) ; and of the whole history previous to the sack of Lome by the Gauls (390 B.C.) he writes that it was obscure both in regard of exceeding antiquity, and also for that ys 1&amp;gt;e Were Very few wr itings and monuments, the i,,, , only faithful safeguard and true remembrancers of deeds past and besides, whatsoever was legistered in the commentaries of the priests and in other public or private records, the same for the most part, when the city was burned, perished withal.&quot; Further than this, however, Livy s criticism does not go. Where his written authorities are not palpably inconsistent with each other or with probability he accepts and transcribes their record without any further inquiry, nor does he ever attempt to get behind this re cord in order to discover the original evidence on which it rested. His acceptance in any particular case of the version given by an annalist by no means implies that he has by careful inquiry satis fied himself of its truth. At the most it only presupposes a com parison with other versions, equally second hand, but either less generally accepted or less in harmony with his own views of the situation ; and in many cases the reasons he gives for his prefer ence of one account over another are eminently unscientific (e.g., xxvi. 49, &quot; media simillima veris &quot;). Livy s history, then, rests on no foundation of original research or even of careful verification. It is a compilation, and even as such it leaves much to be desired. For we cannot credit Livy with having made such a preliminary survey of his authorities as would enable him to determine their relations to each other, and fuse their various narratives into a con sistent whole. It is clear, on the contrary, that his circle of authorities for any one decade was a comparatively small one, that of these he selected one, and transcribed him with the necessary embellishments and other slight modifications until impelled by various reasons to drop him. He then, without warning, takes up another, whom he follows in the same way. The result is a curious mosaic, in which pieces of all colours and dates are found side by side, and in which even the great artistic skill displayed through out fails to conceal the lack of internal unity. Thus many of Livy s inconsistencies are due to his having pieced together two versions, each of which gave a differently coloured account of the same event. Mommsen has clearly shown that this is what has happened in his relation of the legal proceedings against the elder Africanus in book xxxviii. (Horn. Forschungcn, ii.) ; and in the story of the first secession, as he tells it, the older version which represented it as due to political and the later which explained it by economical grievances are found side by side. Similarly a change from one authority to another leads him not unfrequently to copy from the latter statements inconsistent with those he took from the former, to forget what he has previously said, or to treat as known a fact which has not been mentioned before (cf. ii. 1, xxxiv. 6, and Weissenborn s Introduction, p. 37). In other cases where the same event has been placed by different annalists in different years, or where their versions of it varied, it reappears in Livy as two events. Thus the four campaigns against the Volsci (ii. 17 sq.) are, as Schwegler (K G.,i. 13) rightly says, simply variations of one single expedition. Other instances of such &quot;doublettes&quot; are the two single combats described in xxiii. 46 and xxv. 18, and the two battles at Baecula in Spain (xxvii. 17 and xxviii. 12). Without doubt too much of the chronological confusion observable throughout Livy is due to the fact that he follows now one now another authority, heedless of their differences on this head. Thus he vacillates between the Catonian and Varronian reckoning of the years of the city, and between the chronologies of Polybius and the I Roman annalists. To these defects in his method must be added the fact that he I does not always succeed even in accurately reproducing the authority he is for the time following. In the case of Polybius, for instance, he allows himself great freedom in omitting what strikes him as irrelevant, or tedious, or uninteresting to his Roman readers, a process in which much valuable matter disappears. In other cases his desire to give a vividness and point to what he doubtless considered the rather bald and dry style of Polybius leads him into absurdities and inaccuracies. Thus by the treaty with Antiochus j (188 B.C.) it was provided that the Greek communities of Asia Minor &quot;shall settle their mutual differences by arbitration,&quot; and so far Livy correctly transcribes Polybius, but he adds with a rhetorical flourish, &quot;or, if both parties prefer it, by war&quot; (xxxviii. 38). Elsewhere his blunders are apparently due to haste, or ignorance, or sheer carelessness ; thus, for instance, when Polybius speaks of the ^Etolians assembling at their capital Thermon, Livy (xxxiii. 35) not only substitutes Thermopylae, but gratuitously informs his readers that here the Pylrean assemblies were held. Thanks partly to carelessness, partly to mistranslation, lie makes sad havoc (xxxv. 5 sq. ) of Polybius s account of the battle of Cynoscephalne, while in xxxviii. 7 he mistakes Bvpeovs (&quot;shields&quot;) for 6vpas (&quot;doors&quot;), and makes nonsense of the passage accordingly. Finally, Livy cannot be altogether acquitted on the charge of having here and there modified Polybius in the interests of Rome, as when he gives an air of magnanimous moderation to the spoliation of Ambracia (189 B.C.), by adding, after describing the carrying away of all statues, bronzes, and pictures, &quot;nihil praterea tactum violatumve &quot; (xxxviii. 9, comp. xlv. 19 ; and Nissen, [filters., p. 31). Serious as these defects in Livy s method appear if viewed in the light of modern criticism, it is probable that they were easily pardoned, if indeed they were ever