Immagini della pagina
[ocr errors]

Die Hauptpunkte der Livianischen Syntax, Berlin, 1872, and for grammatical writing, especially in the use of substantives and adverbs, to the seventh ed. of Fried. Nägelsbach's Lateinische Stilistik. On literary points I have derived much aid from Teuffel's Hist. of Rom. Lit., 2 vols., 1873. Other works which I have found helpful in preparing the commentary are mentioned in the Preface to my edition of Bk. XXI.


March 19, 1888.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Livy's lost second decade (XI.—xx.) embraced the history of the First Punic War. The third decade (XXI. -xxx.), extending from B.C. 219–201, includes the Second Punic War, on which the following authors, in addition to Livy, are our main authorities : Polybius B.C. 167, Silius Italicus A. D. 77, Appian A. D. 140, Dio Cassius (frags.) A.D. 180, Zonaras A.D. 1118, besides the biographical notices of Nepos B. C. 44 and of Plutarch A.D. 80, and the epitomes of Florus A.D. 115, Eutropius A. D. 361, and Orosius A. D. 416. From this it follows that all contemporary documents have perished, Polybius not having been born till probably B.C. 204. The Romans of Livy's day were uncritical and did not require a statement of authorities for his facts, but rather the pleasure of an attractive style. Hence Livy does not often inform us on what proofs his accounts are based. But Nep. Hann. 13, f. states that many wrote about

1 Peter in his admirable col- V. Antias 237, Calp. Piso 320, lection of fragments, cited below, Tubero 311. Ennius in his Angives all that remains. Fabius nals bk. 7 began second Punic P. p. 5, Cincius A. 40, Acilius 44, War, as Naevius wrote a poem Cato 51, Hemina 95, Caelius A. on first Punic War. 147, Claudius Quadrigarius 205,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

this war, while he singles out two Greeks who were in Hannibal's camp, Silenus and Sosilus the Lacedaemonian (who taught Hannibal Greek), as also Philinus, who accompanied Hannibal, and was as favourable to the Carthaginians as Fabius was to the Romans. Livy refers to Silenus 26, 49, 3, and Cicero Div. 1, 24 praises him, saying diligentissime res Hannibalis persecutus est. They are both quoted by Polybius, who (3, 20, 5), however, censures Sosilus for his credulity. Other contemporaries of the war were Fabius Pictor (whose valuable history is cited by Polybius, Dionysius and Livy; cf. 22, 7, 4; cf. ib. 57, 5), and Cincius Alimentus, whom our author likewise consulted (21, 38, 3). Cato (B.C. 201) in the 4th and 5th Bks of his Origines related the history of the First and Second Punic Wars; but Livy does not quote that work, nor yet the history of Hemina, who related the Second Punic War in his 4th Bk. Livy, however, recognises the value of the Annals of Calpurnius Piso and those of Acilius, translated by Claudius (Quadrigarius ?), 25, 39, m. But the authors most frequently cited by Livy are Caelius Antipater? (cf. 21, 38, 7), and Valerius Antias (35 times), Caelius' chief authority being Silenus, as in the case of the dream (21, 22, 6, cf. Cic.'s quotation from Caelius).

Livy quotes Caelius eleven times in the third decade, and he undoubtedly followed him in 22, 5, 8; 3, 11 (Cic. Div. 1, 35); 6, 1; ch. 49; 50, 11; 51, 2' The great question in dispute is whether Livy directly used Polybius' work. Lachmann, Peter and others maintain that he did; Nitzsch and others that he did not.

[ocr errors]

1 For Epitome made by Brutus, XXI.—XXX., cf. H. Peter, H. R. R., cf. Cic. Att. 13, 8.

p. ccxxx. To those cited above 2 For the sources from which he adds Chaereas, Philinus and Liv. derived his materials for Ennius.

On the one hand it may be urged that the Greek historian is only once named (30, 45, 4)-Polybius haudquaquam spernendus auctor. But it is certain that in the next two decades Livy follows him closely, so that it seems unlikely that Livy should have overlooked his important third book on the Hannibalic War. Besides, we find remarkable coincidences in language as well as subjectmatter between the two. Of course our author having to treat in this decade so much on home, as opposed to foreign, affairs would naturally recur most frequently to the Roman Annalists, whereas in the fourth and fifth decades his attention was directed much more to the affairs of Greece and the East. Unquestionably, as I have tried to show in my notes on Bks xxi. and xxII., the treatment of the Hannibalic War is based on two distinct sources, one foreign the other Roman. But notwithstanding the discrepancies, which might easily arise from confusing the two, it seems perfectly clear to my mind, on comparing the language of Livy with that of Polybius', that the foreign authority was Polybius. Nitzsch and others, however, explain the obvious agreement between the Greek and the Roman by the fact that they are both following common authorities, which in the case of Bks XXI. and XXII. would be Fabius Pictor and Silenus, through the medium of Caelius Antipater", while for 23–30 Livy's authority was probably Valerius Antias.

1 Cf. Liv. XXII. 1, 3.2.3, 1–3; accurate than that of Polyb. and 5–10. 4, 1; 3—4; 6—7.5, 3. 6, taken from one well acquainted 5–12. 7, 1; 5—7 with Pol. 3, with the spot, i.e. Antipater. 77--85.

The inhabitants still point to a 2 Cf. Hermann Peter Hist. part near the village of Tuoro, Rom. Rel., p. ccxxv (n).

thus corroborating Livy. Peter 3 Cf. Peter, 1.c. ccxxvIII., who enumerates the passages due to regards Livy's description of the Antipater. battle of Trasumennus as more


Cf. Hübner, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen ü. d. Röm. Lit. The student of Livy would do well to read Niebuhr's Hist. of Rome, Lect. 8, Vol. 1., 53-70, for an interesting discussion of the whole subject. Livy, he says, quotes the Annals of Fabius, Val. Antias, and Tubero, but he doubts whether he had read Cato's Origines, or used Quadrigarius for the period following the burning of Rome by the Gauls. “With Polybius he was unacquainted until after he had begun writing the Second Punic War, for had he known the incomparable critical and authentic account which Polybius gives of the war, he would not in the first period of it have used Caelius Antipater who wrote the history of it ex professo, and who, although his narratives were written in a beautiful style, was wretched historian. The whole description of the siege of Saguntum is probably taken from Caelius Antipater. During this period he does not seem to have made use even of Cincius Alimentus.” He adds that from the time of Philip of Macedon and throughout the fourth decade Livy simply translates Polybius into Latin'. After touching upon Livy's high literary merits Niebuhr notices, among other defects, that his list of nations who revolted immediately after Cannae is "exceedingly incorrect, for it contains nations which did not revolt till several years later. He shews his want of criticism in the manner in which he relates at the beginning of the Second Punic War the tales of the siege of Saguntum and the passage of Hannibal across the Alps.” (On this point he observes (1, 170) that Gen. Melville has proved


nis opi

But H. Peter, 1.c. LXXXVI. (n.) esse. 'he supporters of says, Mihi persuasum est, Poly- nion are cited by C. Peter, Über bium a Livio etiam in libro xxi die Quellen des xxI U. XXII Buches et xxii adhibitum et magnam par- des Liv. p. 1. tem in sermonem Latinum versum

« IndietroContinua »