The division into decades is first mentioned about the close of the fifth century, and is prob ably the work of copyists. The entire work con sisted of 142 books, of which 35 are extant, the first (to n.c. 293). third. fourth, and half of the fifth decade (n.c. 218-217). We have a few frag ments obtained from such writers as Servius, Valerins Maximus. and Saint Augustine. and a page or so from book 91. preserved in a Vatican palimpsest. We have also from some unknown author epitomes. perioclac or argument°, of all the books except 136 and 137. The epitomes show that the last year recorded was n.c. 9. and this seems to indicate that Livy did not finish his his tory, as the event of that year, the death of Dnisus. was not of sufficient importance to form the conclusion of a great work, and there is some probability that the entire work would have con tained 150 books and recorded events up to A.D. 14, the date of the death of Augustus. The title of the work was probably At) Urbe Condita as this is given in the best :MSS. and by the gram marians, but it is true that Livy began with .Eneas. and also that he speaks loosely of his gunnies (43, 13, 2). In his preface, however, he declares that he wrote from the beginning of the city, and Pliny, in Ills preface to the Natural His tory, repeats this statement. Again, the term oanoles is general in its application, and, if Livy had used it as a title. Servius, who discussed the word in its relation to historic'•, would have re ferred to the fact.
To appreciate Livy's greatness we must con sider the character of the writinrts of his pred ecessors in this field, for, with the exception of Sallust, Roman historians before Livy were nar rators of facts and recorders of events, mere an nalists. Livy, following the methods of his pred ecessors, built upon the foundation laid by them, and used with entire freedom, and evidently with out a suspicion of plagiarism, the work of earlier historians. Ile relied upon the great Greek his torian Polybius, and, judging from the fragments of the latter's account of the _Macedonian Nvar., Livy took his information directly, omitting Greek references and polemical notes, and sup plementing what could not be readily understood by the Romans. In the account of the Second Punic War he probably used Polybius, al though Cadius Antipater was his leading au thority for this period. Livy speaks very coldly Polybius, and in fact not at all until book 30, although he bad used his work through the third decade. lle relied upon Valerius Antias in the first decade, lint later on condemned him for his exaggerations and unreliability. Livy also used many other writers, such as Quadri7arius, Calpurnius Piso, and Silenus, a Greek who wrote in a pro-Carthaginian spirit.
When Livy's authorities disagreed, he did not endeavor to discover the truth. but followed his own fancy or struck an average. Sometimes he stands for the majority, or for the earliest and most probable account, or. influenced by his sym pathies. recognizes the pro-Roman or most pic turesque or impressive views, aiming all the time at the effective story. His history is not of value. then, as a critical work, falling below that of Polybius in this respect : but when we consider his patriotism and the charm of his style. we can understand Niebuhr's declaration that his history is a 'colossal masterpiece.' He was the national historian just as Vergil was the national poet. Livy accomplished the purpose of a great historian, although he was not an investigator, a quality, however, which Taine has declared to he requisite for an historian. In his celebrated preface he makes clear that he purposes to tell the story of the Roman people, and to tell it more effectively than it had been told before.
desiring to impress his readers with the lessons to be drawn from the history of Rome in its progress to its culmination. and to draw his own eyes away from the evils of his time. He declares that what happened before the founda tion of the city is more like a fable, and yet he would neither indorse nor condemn it. Thus Livy may not have believed in _Eneas or Romu lus or Numa, but he did not think it his part to examine into the matter critically, for he in tended to write not a critical but an ethical his to•y of Rome. It is in his style that Livy stands preeminent. Although the great prose writer of the Augustan age, he does not follow the rhetorical style of Cicero. but, influenced by the diction of Vergil, he invented a new style, based on that of Cicero, hut expanded and made mobile ht- the nse of poetic words and phrases. He may be termed the first writer of Silver Latinity. It may be that this peculiarity in language and style brought upon him the charge of Potarinitos—from Patorium (Padua), Livy's birthplace—made by Asinius Palo, and men tioned by Quintilian. 1, 5, 56. and 8, 1. 3, who, however, does not make clear what this charge implied. It may refer to his general style or to his use of provincialisms or to his free and en thusiastic way of speaking. at variance perhaps with the dignified restraint of Rome. Consult: Wiedmann, Dc Patarinitote Lirii (Gorlitz, 1S48-54); :Moritz Haupt, Oposculo, ii.
In his early books he shows the influence of the subject-matter upon his style, but when he reaches the account of the Second Punic War, and gives a description, for example. of the visit of the Roman embassy to Carthage, and when he describes the Macedonian wars, he writes in a most brilliant and masterly way. His speeches are, perhaps. artistically the most perfect of any thing he has written. They arc given with no intention of reproducing the words of the speaker, but reflect the character of the indi vidual. and describe his position and motives.
The tilitio prineeps of LiN y appeared at Rome in 1469. but books 33 and 40 -l5 are omitted. The first critical edition is that of Gronovius (Leyden, 16451. Some of the great editions are by Drakenborch (7 vols., Amsterdam, 1738-46), edited by Bekker and Basehig Berlin. 1829) ; by and Ussing (Copenhagen, 1S61 et seq. and 1886 et seq.), a critical edition: by Luchs, a fine critical edition of books 26-30 (Ber lin, 1879), and of books 21-25 (Berlin. 1888). The most important modern edition, with notes, is that by Weissenborn and Minter ( Berlin. 18117 85). There are a number of good editi( ns of separate portions. Book 1 by Seeley (oxford. 1876) ; 2 and 3 by Stephenson (London. I850 1; 4 by Stephenson (London. 1590) ; 5 by Whibley (London, 1890), and Ity Prenderville i London, 1890. first edition) : 5-7 by Cluer and Matheson (London. 18S1) : 7 and S by latterbacher (Leip zig, 1889-90) : 21-22 by Lord (Boston, 1891) : 1, 21, and 22 by Westeott (Boston. 15911: 21-25 by A. Harcourt (Paris, 15:4(i) ; 26 30 by Riemann (Paris, ISS9) : 1, 21, 22, Greenough and Peck (Boston, 1900). On the language, consult Pie mann, Etudes stir lit longue la arnountire ch Tip• Lire (Paris, 18S-11. A lexicon is in course of preparation by Ffigner, beginning 1894.
Tronslittions.—The entire ma rk is translated into Elizabethan English by Philei ion Holland (London, 1600) : books 21-25 are translated by Church and Brodrilib (2)1 ed., London. (s90) the entire work is translated into German by Klaiber and Teuffel (2.1 ed. Stuttgart, 1854-561.