« PreviousContinue »
finished master of Latin syntax and of Latin style than Madvig; no one is more competent to tell how the great Roman authors ought to have written. It is possible, however, that they did not always write as well as they ought. They had a share of the same freedom of composition, and the same liability to careless oversight, as our own writers, though in less degree; and we must allow them, perhaps, an occasional solecism. Furthermore-pace tanti viri dixerim
there are cases sometimes where a higher law than formal grammatical regularity rightly asserts itself, and offence itself is glorious. But this by no means in extenuation of the merits of the greatest of living critics, and still less to cast upon him the slightest imputation of narrow pedantry; it is only my excuse for daring sometimes to differ with one who has done more for the emendation of the text of Livy than all other scholars put together. Next to Madvig, I am indebted for my text particularly to the editions of Weissenborn, Hertz, and Alschefski. The grounds of my preference among different readings have, in some of the most important cases, been stated in the notes, so far as the special purposes of this edition seemed to permit.
As regards the forms of words, I have not hesitated, in spite of the objections of sciolists, to adopt for the most part that “new orthography ” which is the old. With Hertz, too, as well as after the great example of Munro in his Lucretius, I have followed the manuscripts to some extent in giving different förons for the same word in different places. Munro contends that such was the practice of the old writers themselves. This course has some advantages in an edition designed for students habituated to the conventional orthography of the grammarians, and is perhaps safest while some questions remain unsolved. It is my conviction, however, that the final result of scholarly investigation in this field will be the adoption of a uniform orthography for each age or each author, with the exception of occasional variation in a few forms, which, like hath and has in English, can be proved to have stood side by side. The convenience of students has been consulted in indicating i consonans and u consonans by the characters so long appropriated to that purpose. Conjectural readings, adopted in the text, are indicated by italics.
In the Notes it has been my aim, as it was in my editions of Horace and Virgil, to give such aid as is most necessary and most useful for students in our colleges and schools. Credit is given to various scholars whose labors have been helpful. Two of these deserve special acknowledgment,—Weissenborn, for his commentary on all the books, and Seeley for his notes on the First. Professor Seeley's “Historical Examination of Book First” deserves the careful study of every scholar. I have appended to this edition the page and a half in which he sums up the result of his examination, trusting that many who read it will be induced to follow its able author in the exhaustive investigation by which he arrives at these conclusions.
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
In passing from secondary to collegiate study the first author to whom the student is introduced is usually Livy, the greatest of Roman historians. It seems fitting, therefore, that this important and interesting work should be equipped with a special vocabulary to smooth, as it were, a few of the rough places in the first reaches of the great highway of Latin Literature. This vocabulary is the principal feature of the present revision. It is hoped that, brief as the treatment is, it will be found adequate to the needs of the student.
The text has not been altered, even the character j being retained in deference to the views of the distinguished editor of the original edition of this series. The notes have undergone careful examination, and the grammatical references have been entirely renewed.
B. W. MITCHELL.
LIVY AND HIS HISTORY OF ROME.
LIVIUS was a few years younger than Virgil and Horace, but older than Propertius and Ovid, with whom he shines in the brilliant constellation of genius which adorns the Augustan age. He was born probably in the year 59 or 57 B. C., at Patavium, now Padua, which in his day was a populous and wealthy city, while famed at the same time for strictness of morals. Livy was probably of an equestrian family; bred and living in that middle rank which is so favorable for the development of character and talent. There is some reason to believe that he was a teacher of rhetoric. He wrote books on philosophy, and also dialogues, partly historical and partly philosophical. He enjoyed the friendship of Augustus, and it was his counsel which induced the emperor's grandson, Claudius, - who was afterwards emperor, to apply his attention to the writing of historical works. An instance of Livy's celebrity is mentioned by Pliny (Epist. ii. 3), who tells us that a Spaniard travelled from Gades to Rome solely for the purpose of seeing the author of the great Roman history, and returned as soon as he had satisfied his curiosity. The historian died in his native city, A. D. 17.
The first decad (or ten books) of Livy's " colossal history" appears to have been written between the years 27 and 20 B. C. The whole work consisted, it has been supposed, of one hundred and forty-two books, covering the whole period froin the foundation of the city till the year 9 B. C.; but Niebubr suggests that the author probably intended to complete fifteen decads, but died before he could accomplish his object. “His purpose in undertaking it was to draw, with all the charms which his artistic skill and delicate taste could give, a completo picture of the history of the Roman people, and of the laudable or blameworthy peculiarities of its prominent personages, that he might inflame the patriotic feelings of his countrymen, and contribute to the instruction and entertainment of the world at large. Livy generally looks at an historical event or character from a moral point of view: he wishes to excite our admiration of the great, love of the good, and
batred of the bad ; he feels a proud pleasure in describing the power of the Romans, or the purity of manners by which they were at first distinguished; and the history of the early ages of the state seems to hare consoled him for the wickedness and wretchedness which he had seen and felt during the civil wars. His conservatism, and habitual admiration of the olden times above the modern, merely because they were the olden times, are exhibited in the early parts of his work, especially in his description of the contests between the patricians and plebeians. Livy's partiality to the patricians may well be blamed; his conservatism, however, never led him to wink at cruelty or baseness, or to conceal or knowingly misstate facts.” Truth he held as a sacred thing. At the same time he was strangely wanting in that careful, laborious research, and that skill in weighing and sifting evidence, which are among the foremost requisites of the historian. He took such materials as came to hand, founding himself especially upon the annalists, contenting himself with purging them of their absurdities, and arranging their best matter in an attractive form. Where they disagreed, he endeavored to decide between them“ with the judgment of a man of sense,” but not by any well-ascertained philosophical principles of historical criticism. “However turbid the current of his information, in no case did he ever dream of ascending to the fountainhead. He never attempted to test the accuracy of the assertions of others by examining ancient monuments, or investigating the antiquities of the various Italian tribes.” He seems, moreover, to have performed his task piecemeal, without taking a broad and comprehensive view of his whole subject. In the history of the kings, he followed Ennius. With Polybius he was unacquainted until after he had reated the first half of the Punic war; throughout the fourth decad, however, he adheres very closely to that "incomparable” authority. of the details of the geography even of his own country, he betrays a singular ignorance, which greatly impairs the value of his narrative.
In a simply literary point of view, however, Livy's composition is almost faultless. His narrative "flows on in a calın but strong current, clear and sparkling but deep and unbroken ; the diction displays richness without heaviness, and simplicity without tameness. Nor is his art as a painter less wonderful. There is a distinctness of outline and a warmth of coloring in all his delineations, whether of living men in action, or of things inanimate, which never fail to call up the whole scene, with all its adjuncts, before our eyes." Upon the whole, looking at the work both in its external and internal characteristics, we may well say to students of Livy, in the words of Niebuhr (Lectures i.