INTRODUCTION.

LIFE OF LIVY. Of the life of Titus Livius very few facts are known to us. It is important to recognize this and to guard against the temptation to which many critics have yielded of creating a detailed narrative by loose inferences or by pure imagination. The statements we find will therefore here be considered separately, no attempt being made to weave them together.

The Date of his Birth. In Jerome's Latin translation of the Chronicon of Eusebius there are many additions made by the translator himself referring to Latin literary history. Among these we find it stated that Livy was born in Ol. 180. 2 according to Scaliger's Edition, Ol. 180. 4 according to Mai's Armenian Version. Ritschl (Parerg. Appendix) has shown that the statements contained in these annotations of Jerome's are founded on Suetonius de Viris Illustribus (a work of which the lives of Grammatici, Rhetores, &c. printed in Suetonius' works form a fragment), but that they are often exceedingly untrustworthy inferences from those statements. If therefore Suetonius wrote lives of historians (on which point there has been a controversy between Ritschl and Mommsen) and among these of Livy, and in the life of Livy mentioned in what consulate he was born, Jerome's statement is authoritative; but as we do not know these facts, we can only say that probably or possibly Livy was born in B.C. 59 or 57.

His Place of Birth. This is established on good authority. The poet Statius, in congratulating a contemporary historian, says, 'Orsa Sallusti brevis et Timavi Reddis alumnum,' and we read (Quint. Inst. Órat. 1. 5, 56; 8. 1, 3) that Asinius Polio, Livy's contemporary, found a certain Patavinitas in his style. Martial, too, where he says, 'Censetur Apona Livio suo tellus' (Ep. 1. 62, 3), seems to point to the same part of Italy. Later writers (Sid. Apoll. 2. 189, Symmachus, Ep. 4. 18, and Jerome, in the annotation above mentioned) call him Patavine.

Of the town of Patavium, now Padua, a brief history may be collected

B

from Livy himself. It was one of those towns which ascribed its origin to emigrants from the mysterious Troy (1. 1). The leader of this emigration is supposed to have been Antenor. It resisted the power of the Etruscans (5. 33), and, according to Polybius (2. 23), also that of the invading Gauls1. In B. c. 301 it repelled an invasion of the Spartan Cleonymus. At this time it is described as constantly at war with the neighbouring Gauls. Livy tells us that the spoils of the Spartans had remained in the temple of Juno at Patavium up to the lifetime of men who were living when he wrote, and that an annual sham fight of boats in memory of the battle still took place in the town (10. 2). There was a seditio in the town in B.C. 174, which was instantly quieted on the appearance of the consul (41. 27). For a long time after this we hear little of Patavium, nor do we hear anything of its fortunes in the earlier part of the revolutionary period. How it behaved in the civil wars of Marius and Sulla we do not know, nor which side it took in the conflict between Caesar and the aristocracy. Plutarch relates after Livy, that a certain Caius Cornelius, a friend of the historian, astonished the inhabitants of Patavium by predicting the battle of Pharsalia and the victory of Caesar; but whether the event pleased or grieved them he does not hint by a single word, though W. infers from the passage that the town took the aristocratic side 2. After the death of Caesar in the war of Mutina, we do indeed find Patavium on the side of the senate. In the 12th Philippic (4. 10) we read, 'Et ut omittam reliquas partes Galliae, nam sunt omnes pares, Patavini alios excluserunt, alios ejecerunt missos ab Antonio: pecunia, militibus et, quod maxime deerat, armis nostros duces adjuverunt.' But that it would be delusive to infer from this that the Patavini were aristocratically disposed, will appear when we consider the confusion of political parties at that time. Though Antonius was a Caesarian, he was fighting to annul one of Caesar's acts. The senate was engaged to maintain that act, and Hirtius the consul, who commanded for the senate, was a leading Caesarian.

The question now arises, what was the size and character of the town of Patavium? We have the evidence of Strabo that it was among the most important towns of the Roman world. He places it above. Mediolanum, Verona, and all the other towns of that part of Italy; speaks of its populousness, and the quantity of manufactured articles, particularly articles of dress, that it sent to Rome; and as a proof of the wealth of its inhabitants, mentions that it had been registered as

1 Weissenborn strangely confuses these two statements together. This editor will be referred to for the future as W.

2 In his German edition (Weidmann) the error is corrected,

containing 500 men of equestrian income (5. 1, 7); and in another passage, relating the same thing of Gades, he says, that of no town even in Italy, except Patavium, could the same be said (3. 5, 3). Finally, we read that the inhabitants of Patavium were celebrated for the strictness of their morals (Martial 11. 16, 8); Pliny (Ep. 1. 14) has, 'Nosti loci mores. Serrana tamen Patavinis quoque severitatis exemplum est.'

Facts of Livy's life which are known to us.

1. He had at least two children, a son and a daughter. We know that he had a daughter, because his son-in-law, L. Magius, is mentioned (M. Seneca1 Contr. 10. 2); and that he had a son, because Quintilian quotes a letter of Livy's to his son, which seems to have been published (Inst. Or. 10. 1).

2. He wrote books on philosophy, and also dialogues, partly historical and partly philosophical. This is expressly testified by L. Seneca (Epp. 16. 5, 9): 'Scripsit enim et dialogos quos non magis philosophiae annumerare possis quam historiae et ex professo philosophiam continentes libros.' These half historical, half philosophical dialogues may perhaps have resembled Cicero's Dialogue de Republica: Hertz supposes them to have been of the same character as the λoyoтopiká of Varro.

3. Some circumstances render it probable that he was a professed rhetor or teacher of rhetoric. In the first place, his son-in-law was a rhetor and owed his popularity as such mainly to his connection with Livy. This we learn from M. Seneca (Contr. 10. 2): 'Pertinere autem ad rem non puto quomodo L. Magius gener T. Livii declamaverit, quamvis aliquo tempore suum populum habuit, cum illum homines non in ipsius honorem laudarent, sed in soceri ferrent.' This may mean that Livy's fame as an historian procured honour for his son-in-law's declamations, but it becomes more probable if we regard Magius as a rhetorician formed in Livy's school and expounding his views. Next, that Livy had such views, and that many maxims on rhetoric of which he was the author were in circulation, we know from some allusions to them in M. Seneca and Quintilian. They are as follows (Inst. Or. 8. 2. 18): 'In hoc malum [i. e. obscurity] etiam a quibusdam laboratur; neque id novum vitium est, cum jam apud T. Livium inveniam fuisse praeceptorem aliquem qui discipulos obscurare quae dicerent juberet, Graeco verbo utens, σKÓTLOOV.' Again (Sen. Contr. 9. 26), Titus Livius de oratoribus qui verba antiqua et sordida consectantur et orationis obscuritatem severitatem putant, aiebat, Militiadem rhetorem eleganter dixisse ἐπὶ τὸ λεξικὸν μαίνονται. Again (Contr. 9. 14), 'T. autem Livius tam iniquus Sallustio fuit ut hanc 1 I have used the edition of Bursian, Leipzig, 1857.

ipsam sententiam et tanquam translatam et tanquam corruptam dum transfertur, objiceret Sallustio. Nec hoc amore Thucydidis facit ut illum praeferat; laudat quem non timet et facilius putat posse a se Sallustium vinci si ante a Thucydide vincatur.' Again (Inst. Or. 10. 1. cf. 2. 5. 20), 'Fuerit igitur brevitas illa tutissima, quae est apud Livium in epistola ad filium scripta legendos Demosthenem atque Ciceronem, tum ita ut quisque Demostheni et Ciceroni simillimus.' This last passage makes it probable that Livy's letter to his son was on the subject of rhetoric, and that all these anecdotes and criticisms which are quoted by Seneca and Quintilian from Livy are quoted from this letter.

Putting all these passages together, observing that whenever Livy is referred to it is in connection with literary criticism and the profession of rhetoric, and remarking at the same time the rhetorical elaboration visible in the speeches in which his history abounds, we may consider it highly probable that he was one of that class of teachers of rhetoric who flourished especially in the age in which he lived, and one of whom, Marcus Seneca, is known to us by extant compositions, and has preserved to us the memory of some of his brothers in the profession.

4. He enjoyed great distinction in his lifetime This appears from Pliny (Ep. 2. 3): Nunquamne legisti Gaditanum quendam, Titi Livii nomine gloriaque commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse, statimque ut viderat abisse.' That he was known to Augustus appears from himself (4. 20), and from Tacitus (Ann. 4. 34), 'neque id amicitiae eorum offecit.' We are also told that he recommended the young Claudius, afterwards emperor, to apply himself to historical composition. 'Historiam in adolescentia, hortante T. Livio, Sulpicio vero Flavo etiam adjuvante, aggressus est.' Suet. Claud. 41.

5. He extolled Pompey, Brutus and Cassius, &c. So Tacitus (Ann. 4. 34), T. Livius eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis Gnaeum Pompeium tantis laudibus tulit ut Pompeianum eum Augustus appellaret; neque id amicitiae eorum offecit. Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas, quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insignes viros nominat.' But this fact is transformed into something quite different by Hertz when he says, that as Patavium in the civil war took the republican side, it was natural that Livy should do the same. I have shown above that there is no proof that Patavium took the republican side; neither is there any proof that Livy was a republican further than in admiring the character of some leading republicans. Indeed that he was not a Pompeian is proved by this very passage, for there would have been no point in giving

him the epithet 'Pompeian' if it had expressed the simple fact. It was the policy of Augustus to identify himself, as far as possible, with the senate and to separate his cause from that of his uncle. Livy, in his treatment of Caesar's assassins, seems to have followed closely the fashion of the time. The court-poet Virgil has no word of praise when he speaks of Caesar (Aen. 6. 827–836), but ventures upon a lofty tribute to Cato (Aen. 8. 670). Undoubtedly Livy's heart was with the old republic (this is sufficiently apparent from his history), but he may have been sincerely loyal to the government of Augustus as a necessity; it was in this light that Augustus himself always wished his government to be regarded.

6. M. Seneca, who had the advantage of reading the complete work, remarks that Livy first made it a uniform practice to add a character of each celebrated man to the record of his death, and that these characters were distinguished by a generous fairness. Quoties magni alicujus [viri] mors ab historicis narrata est, toties fere consummatio totius vitae et quasi funebris laudatio redditur. Hoc semel aut iterum a Thucydide factum, item in paucissimis personis usurpatum a Sallustio, T. Livius benignius omnibus magnis viris praestitit: sequentes historici multo id effusius fecerunt. . . . Ut est natura candidissimus omnium magnorum ingeniorum aestimator T. Livius, plenissimum Ciceroni testimonium reddidit' (Suas. 21. 22).

7. Finally, we are told by Jerome that Livy died at Patavium Ol. 199. I, that is, A.D. 17.

I pass to the question of the date of the composition of his history, on which we have only internal evidence. In 1. 19, he says, 'Bis deinde post Numae regnum clausus fuit, semel T. Manlio consule post Punicum primum confectum bellum, iterum quod nostrae aetati dii dederunt ut videremus post bellum Actiacum ab imperatore Caesare Augusto pace terra marique parta.' This passage could not have been written as it stands before B.C. 27, when the title of Augustus was conferred on Octavianus; it could not have been written at all before 29, when the temple of Janus was closed by Octavianus.

But Suetonius says, 'Janum Quirinum. . . terra marique pace parta ter clusit.' Oct. 22. And Dio Cassius says, the second time was after the conquest of the Cantabrians, that is, in B.C. 25. Hence the passage could not have been written later than B. C. 25. The allusion in the preface to the miseries of the age exactly suits this period, which immediately followed a civil war.

On the other hand, the words in 28. 12-'itaque ergo prima Romanis inita provinciarum, quae quidem continentis sint, postrema omnium nostra demum aetate ductu auspicioque Augusti Caesaris perdomita