A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

LIVIUS. LIVIUS. 795,them recorded, and this enables the reader who perceive that they are susceptible of -one interpreis biassed by no national prepossessions to draw a tation only, and that if there is any truth in the
correct inference for himself. Occasionally, espe- story, which Niebuhr altogether disbelieves, Pollio
cially in the darker periods, we can scarcely doubt must have intended to censure some provincial
that he indulged in a little wilful blindness, and peculiarities of expression, which we at all events
that when two conflicting traditions were current are in no position to detect, as might have been
he did not very scrupulously weigh the evidence, anticipated, the conjectures collected and examined
but, adopting that which was most gratifying to in the elaborate dissertation of Morhof being alike
his countrymen, passed over the other in silence. frivolous.
He certainly could scarcely have been altogether From what has now been said it will be evident
ignorant that his story with regard to the con- that if our estimate is accurate, Livy must have
clusion of the war with Porsena was not the only been destitute of many qualifications essential in
one entitled to consideration, although he was pro- an historian of the highest class. He was, we
bably unacquainted with the treaty from which fully believe, amiable, honest, and single-minded,
Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. 39; comp. Tacit. lIist. iii. sound in head andwarmin heart, but not endowed
72) extracted the humiliating conditions of the with remarkable acuteness of intellect, nor with
peace, and he must have been aware that there were indefatigable industry. He was as incapable of
good reasons for believing that the evacuation of taking broad, clear, and philosophic views of the
Rome by the Gauls took place under circumstances progress and connection of events, as he was indisvery different from those celebrated in the songs and posed- to prosecute laborious and profound inquiries
funeral orations of the Furian and other patrician at the expense of great personal toil. Although a
clans. mere man of letters, knowing little of the world
The reproaches lavished on the alleged credulity except from books, lie was not a man of deep learnof Livy in the matter of omens and prodigies ing, and indeed was but indifferently versed in
scarcely deserve even a passing comment. No one many ordinary branches of a liberal education.
can regret that he should have registered these Not only was he content -to derive all he knew
curious memorials of superstition, which occupied from secondary streams, but he usually repaired for
so prominent a place in thepopular faith, and. formed his supplies to those which were nearest and most
an engine of such power in the hands of an un- convenient, without being solicitous to ascertain
scrupulous priesthood; nor can any one who has that they were the most pure. The unbounded
read the simple and eloquent observation on this popularity which he has enjoyed must be ascribed
very topic, in the thirteenth-chapter of the forty- partly to the fascinations of his subject, partly to his
third book, consider that either the sentiments or winning candour, but chiefly to. the extraordinary
the conduct of the historian stand in need of further command which be wielded over the resources of
apology or explanation.. (Comp. xxi. 62, xxiv. 10, his native tongue.
44, xxvii. 23.) No manuscript of Livy has yet been discovered
-We must not omit to notice a question which containing all the books now extant. Those which
has been debated with great eagerness,-whether comprise the first and third decades do not extend
Livy had read Dionysius or Dionysius had made further. Of the first and third decades we have
use of Livy, Niebuhr unhesitatingly maintains MSS. as old as the tenthcentury; those of the fourth
that the Archaeologia of Dionysius was published do not ascend higher than the fifteenth century.
before Livy began to compose his Annals, and that The text of the first decade depends entirely ori
the latter received considerable assistance from the one original copy, revised in the fourth century by
former. We must hesitate, however, to -acknow- Flavianus Nicomachus Dexter and Victorianus,
ledge the certainty of this conclusion, unless there from which all the known MSS. of this portion of
are some arguments in reserve more cogent than the work have flowed. Of these the two best are
those brought forward in the Lectures on Roman the Codea Mediceus-or Florentinus of the eleventh
History. For there two reasons only are advanced, century, and the Codex Parisinas, collated by
the one founded upon the opinion which we have Alchefski, of the tenth century, while perhaps
already endeavoured to prove was scarcely tenable, superior to either was the codex made use of by
-that Livy did not commence his task until he Rhenanus, which has now disappeared. The text
had attained the age of fifty; the other founded of the third decade rests upon the Codex Puteanus,
upon the fact that, Dionysius nowhere mentions employed by Gronovius, and which has been proLivy, which, it must be remembered, is counter- nounced less corrupt.than any -MS. of the first.
balanced by - another-fact, namely, that Livy, no- decade. The fourth decade is derived chiefly from
where mentions Dionysius, and that all attempts to the Codex Bambergensis and the Codex Moguntinus,prove plagiarisms or trace allusions have failed;' while the five books of the fifth decade are taken
In reality it is most probable that while both were entirely from the MS. found at Lorsch, hence
engaged in the same pursuit at the same time, each called Codex Laurishamensis, now preserved at
followed his own course independently, and both Vienna.
gave the result of their labours to the world with- The'Editio Princeps of Livy was printed at
out either having been previously acquainted with Rome, in folio by Sweynheym and Pannartz, about
the researches of the other. 1469, under the inspection of Andrew, bishop of
There is yet one topic to which we must advert. Aleria; the second edition also was printed at
We are told by Quintilian twice (i. 5. ~ 56, viii. 1. Rome in folio, by Udalricus Gallus, towards the:
~ 3) that Asinius Pollio had remarked a certain close of the same year or the beginning of 1470;
Patavinity in Livy. Scholars have given them- the third was from the press of Vindelin de Spira,
selves a vast deal of trouble to discover what this fol. Venet. 1470, being the first which bears a
term may indicate, and various hypotheses have date. Of those which followed, the most notable.
been propounded; but any one who will read the are, that of Bernard. Herasmius, fol. Venet. 1491,
words of Quintilian with attention cannot fail to witl. the commentaries of-. M.' Antonius Sabellicus,