Page images
PDF
EPUB

of Saguntum. As the Roman ambassadors, sent to demand satisfaction and a cessation of hostilities against their ally, met with a rebuff both in Hannibal's camp and at Carthage, the war was formally declared. Hannibal, having made his preparations, set out in the spring of 218 B.C. from New Carthage to invade Italy by way of Gaul and the Alps, an undertaking of which the Romans evidently had not the slightest suspicion. It is the details of this memorable and fateful invasion that form the subject of the Third Decade of Livy's work.

DEFECTIVE ACCOUNTS OF THE SECOND PUNIC WAR.

8. The events contained in this Decade ought naturally to be more accurately presented than those in the earlier extant books. Contemporary historians had recorded the events, and documents of all sorts must have been preserved which would enable a modern historian to attain a considerable degree of certainty in regard to his subject. But the same causes which had served to confuse and obscure the earlier history continued, though in a less degree, to produce their natural effect in the later periods. The art of historical investigation, the colorless and unbiased presentation of facts, the writing of history for history's sake, were, even in the time of the Second Punic War, new and undeveloped. The same family pride, the same political and patriotic bias, the same human tendency to exaggeration and misrepresentation, continued to be active. At the best, even eye-witnesses of facts are untrustworthy, and what passes under the name of contemporary history is always open to suspicion.

LIVY'S HISTORY OF THE WAR.

9. The sources from which Livy could draw for his history were thus tainted from the start. They were numerous, but discordant, and nothing but the most exquisite historical sense could make even a consistent, much less a trustworthy, narrative

from them. But of this historical sense Livy was almost totally destitute; nor did he, for the most part, apparently feel the want of it. His main design was to produce, by force of rhetorical skill, a readable and interesting narrative of the growth of the great empire. Although, in general, he desired to make his picture a true one, and is often troubled with qualms about details, yet he was in the main content to follow accredited authorities, now trusting himself to one and now to another, as suited his purpose, without minding, perhaps without noticing, the inconsistencies into which he was led.

LIVY'S AUTHORITIES.

10. The most important source of Livy's Third Decade was unquestionably the great universal history of Polybius. This author was a native of Greece, but he came to Rome in his maturity, in B.C. 167. He was an intimate friend of Scipio Africanus the Younger and of most of the great men of Rome in his time. Impartial, and endowed with a true historical spirit, Polybius came nearer to being a historian in the modern sense than any ancient writer, not even excepting Thucydides. He treats fully of the Hannibalic war, and is our best authority for its characters and events.

The works of the Romans who before Livy had written of this period exist for us only in meager and scattered quotations. Q. Fabius Pictor ('longe antiquissimus auctor') incorporated in his annals a contemporary history of the war. That his judgments were warped by his partisanship toward his kinsman Fabius Cunctator may well be believed. His work was in Greek, but a Latin translation or edition appears to have been accessible in Livy's time.

L. Cincius Alimentus, who was prætor in 211 B.C., wrote in Greek on the same subject. He was taken captive by Hannibal, and had conversed with him on the incidents of the war.

Livy mentions as a source of information a certain C. Acilius,

a contemporary of Cato, whose work was translated into Latin by one Claudius (perhaps Claudius Quadrigarius).

Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, a contemporary of Sulla, was another annalist whose work included this period.

Valerius Antias, an annalist of about the same time, treated his subject with such freedom and imagination as often to falsify history. Even Livy speaks with bitterness of his untrustworthiness.

A little later, C. Licinius Macer, father of the orator and poet Calvus, and Q. Aelius Tubero, the accuser of Ligarius, had also published histories including this period.

All these writers except Polybius composed their works in the annalistic form, beginning with the earliest times and following the course of events year by year.

L. Coelius Antipater wrote of the Second Punic War in an independent manner. He drew also from foreign authorities, as from Silenus, a Greek, who was a companion of Hannibal on some of his expeditions and wrote in his interest. Antipater lived in the age of the Gracchi, was a teacher and friend of the great orator Crassus, and, apparently, dedicated his history to the younger Lælius.

The Origines, the great work of the elder Cato (234-149 B.C.), also included this period; but there is no evidence that Livy used it in his Third Decade.

It does not appear that Livy made use of the Roman History of his contemporary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, nor of the great historical epic of Ennius, the Annales.

LIVY'S TREATMENT OF HISTORICAL PROBLEMS.

II. On many disputed points no information of decisive value can be gained from Livy. A striking example of this is the question which has caused the most discussion in modern times, namely, by what pass Hannibal crossed the Alps. Livy hardly has a definite view himself, except of the most general

character, and apparently knew little of the topography of the region. The question can probably never be settled. We can only use our author for the general features of the narrative, not for its precise details. This edition has not, therefore, attempted to decide in regard to the actual facts, but only to make clear what Livy's own views were in reference to disputed points. The task of answering these doubtful questions belongs to the historian, and not to the editor. Livy's work must be judged by literary and not historical standards, and, so judged, it will always remain a noble specimen of brilliant and generally clear presentation, and a model of narrative style.

TITI LIVI

AB VRBE CONDITA

LIBER XXI.

In parte operis mei licet mihi praefari, quod in 1 principio summae totius professi plerique sunt rerum scriptores, bellum maxime omnium memorabile quae umquam gesta sint, me scripturum, quod Hannibale

REMARKABLE CHARACTER OF THE

SECOND PUNIC War.

1. In parte: i.e. at the beginning of the Third Decade, which treats of the Second Punic War (see Intr. 7). The whole sentence is a good example of the force given in Latin by the order of words: the part is opposed to the whole work, and is the most emphatic idea of all; the propriety (licet) is emphasized as opposed to the impropriety of putting such a preface to his whole work, and the possible impropriety of this usage in other historians; the idea of a preface (praefari) becomes emphatic as opposed to his treatment of the general subject. If we had not the preceding still more emphatic words, Livy might say, 'Let me say by way of preface, before I begin the subject.' -principio: opposed to parte. summae, body; i.e. the entirety of the work. totius: agreeing with summae. professi: the emphasis implies that the claim was not always well founded; cf. the

[ocr errors]

emphasis on licet. - - rerum: with or without gestarum, the regular word for historical material. — bellum: the emphasis is borrowed (quoted) from the direct discourse: 'the subject of my book is a war,' etc.maxime omnium, etc.: the order, seemingly artificial, is determined by the constant collocation of the words in a partitive construction. umquam: on account of the negative idea almost always present in comparative constructions; cf. the use of ne in clauses in French after comparisons. quod: i.e. id (bellum) quod; the want of an article in Latin allows the author to vacillate in his mind between a war,' as we should understand the first part of the sentence, and 'the war,' the real antecedent of quod. This usage well illustrates the Latin want of an article; not only did the Romans not have any, but they did not think any except in special cases, when they supplied its place by different devices. Hannibale, etc.: the emphasis marks the sec

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »