tallize it is not easy to see. By no possibility could Lavinium be derived from Lavinia, any more than Rome from Romulus. It is possible, of course, that foreign settlers may have established themselves there before the Tiber was opened, and afterwards removed to the new entrepôt. That around a growing city of the kind referred to a miscellaneous population of adventurers and refugees should have gathered is what one could expect from more modern examples. In time, after wealth had accumulated, it would be natural that agriculture should again become prominent, and thus give rise to the prevailing agricultural character of Roman society. For it was not by manufactures that Rome grew, but by the raw products of the soil, for which she served as the great collector and distributor. Again, at a later time, war became the prevailing occupation of the Romans, and the world-conquest which they effected began.

5. Such, or something like it, must have been the nucleus around which crystallized the great mass of fable which was received as the history of Rome. The conflicts of the orders of the state it is not so easy to unravel, because we cannot tell with certainty the real character of patricians, clients, and plebs, and the relations in which they stood to each other. The most probable supposition is that the plebs was composed of alien residents, attracted originally by commercial activities, and afterwards established as landholders in the state, but not of it. On no other supposition can the marked difference between them and the patricians on the one hand and the clients on the other be satisfactorily explained. But their true character, as well as the steps by which they gained a foothold in the state, will probably ever be a mystery. Many indications point to a conquest of the city at an early time by its Etruscan neighbors, and a long occupation, from which the Romans finally succeeded in freeing themselves, living thereafter under an oligarchic republic.

But such a history as this, even if Livy had known it, would

have been but a meagre field for a patriotic rhetorician, and so we have, fortunately perhaps, the received accounts, full of poetry, legend, and materials for national pride.

LIVY'S AUTHORITIES.

6. Naturally Livy's history is none of it the result of original research. His authorities are the historians and antiquaries who had come before him. These are chiefly, especially for the early books contained in this volume:

Q. Fabius Pictor (cited by him as Fabius), who wrote in Greek the story of the Second Punic War, of which he was a contemporary, with an introduction treating of the earliest times, no doubt strongly colored by the family pride of the Fabii.

L. Cincius Alimentus, who covered the same ground, lived about the same time, and also wrote in Greek.

L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cited as Piso), consul 133 B.C., who was, perhaps, the most eminent of the authorities consulted. This author combined with his annals accounts of early customs and institutions.

Valerius Antias, who had written a history of the city from its foundation. It appears to have been less trustworthy, however, than the other works used by Livy, and more highly colored by family pride even than that of Fabius.

C. Licinius Macer, tribune 73 B.C., who wrote as a partisan of the plebs in their conflict with the aristocracy.

Q. Aelius Tubero, contemporary with Cicero and known to us as the opponent of Ligarius, who wrote a history from the earliest times down to the Civil Wars.

For the later books M. Porcius Cato, the censor, L. Caelius Antipater, a contemporary of the Gracchi, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, L. Cornelius Sisenna, praetor 78 B.C., Polybius, the Greek, and many others, contributed materials for our author's

use.

7. In his treatment of these authorities Livy naturally varies much, according to the nature of the events to be narrated.

But in general he seems not to have done as even a rhetorician might do, made a special study of all, and then made an independent account, but to have taken now one and now another to follow for certain events, and then abandoned him for some more attractive authority. The earliest events he has drawn from the more simple accounts of Fabius, Piso, and Tubero. For the next epoch, that of the beginning of the Republic, he has followed Fabius, occasionally diverging to some other annalist.

The change in his sources sometimes leads Livy into inconsistencies. A case of this kind is found in this volume. At Bk. II. chap. 21 he seems to abandon his authorities, and begin chap. 22 from a new source. In doing this he displaces the chronology, giving a new date to the battle of Lake Regillus, and repeating some of the events he has already narrated (cf. 17. 6 and 22. 2).

HIS QUALITIES AS A NARRATOR.

8. If we disregard Livy's faults as a historian, and for many purposes they may well be disregarded, we shall recognize in him a narrator whose skill amply justifies the estimation in which from his own time till now he has been held. His work is a narrative, and its truth or falsity makes no difference in his talent. His power of imagination makes him, as it were, an eyewitness of the scenes and events. He is filled with the most appreciative sympathy for human motives and human actions, especially the more pathetic and the more noble. His moral tone is lofty, without any trace of hypocrisy or cant. If an event or situation is to be depicted, he knows how to seize upon precisely the point of view which will give the most telling effect. The form of narration and the language which he selects, though often careless, are always vivid and forcible, and bring the scenes before us with intense life and animation.

HIS STYLE AND LATINITY.

9. 'Livy's Pictured Page' is a just summary of the character of his works. His style is that of the Augustan age, a little removed from the rigid formalism of Ciceronian Latin; but it is never turgid, affected, nor strained. If we had not already adopted Cicero as the only model, and decided that other writers are less pure, we might well set Livy in that place, and call Cicero and Cæsar antiquated.

The peculiarities of Livy's style, as they affect the beginner, are mostly such as arise from the nature of his work and its purpose. Some, however, belong to the change which was going on in the language generally, and many are at the same time of both classes.

a. As the work deals with matters recorded in earlier annalists, archaisms are often apparently copied from his sources, either intentionally or accidentally, it is hard to say which: e.g., exsignata, I. 20. 5 ; ausim, Praef. 1 ; haud with all parts of speech; alliteration, as in I. 16. 3; and many others.

The lively and vivid representation to the imagination of events in their progress which was Livy's aim produces several effects on his style :

b. A tendency to dramatize, which brings in many words and constructions of common speech, and causes a naïveté of statement adapted to the speakers and actors themselves: e.g., viden tu puerum hunc? I. 39. 3; flexit viam Brutus (senserat enim adventum), I. 60. 1 (here the reason, instead of being formally made subordinate, takes the colloquial form of parenthesis); id mirum quantum profuit, II. 1. II; enimvero non ultra contumeliam pati Romanus posse, II. 45. 11; velle ne scirem ipsi fecerunt, II. 45. 12. Here belongs also the frequent use of adeo, introducing an explanation of what goes before (see I. 9. 5; I. 10. 7).

c. A rapid flow of narrative, which causes many breaks in construction, constructiones ad sensum, omissions of connec

tives (see I. 6. 4), and omissions of words to be supplied from the context, together with a general carelessness of grammar and occasionally a want of perspicuity; e.g., darent, Praef. 13; I. 15. 1; and the indicative for subjunctive in I. 17. 2.

d. His ethical sympathy with the events, and the pressure, as it were, under which the narrative is composed tend to a poetical form of composition, marked

(1) By poetic phraseology; e.g., Romulum Remumque cupido cepit, I. 6. 3. Cf. for a poetic word, I. 9. 6.

(2) By poetic constructions. Cf. the frequent use of the dative (e.g., parentibus, I. 13. 3; praetereuntibus, II. 49. 7).

(3) By the use of highly wrought imagery: see the figure in desidentes, etc., Praef. 9; devolvere retro, I. 47. 5.

Other peculiarities belong to the earliest stage of the changes which distinguish imperial from republican prose,changes which Livy, among the rest, himself helped much to produce. In these his style is marked, not so much by absolute novelties, as by the more frequent use of modes of expression which are more rare in earlier Latin.

e. Thus the use of the perfect participle in agreement to express an abstract idea has its roots deep in the language, but in Livy is so frequent as to be almost a feature of his style: e.g., iram praedae amissae, I. 5. 3.

f. The present participle as a noun (legentium, 'readers'; nocentium, 'the offenders') is not unknown at any period of the language, but in Livy it becomes one of his stock forms of speech.

g. So with adverbial expressions made of a preposition and noun: eg., inter precationem, II. 8. 7; in obsidione et fame, II. 11. 5.

h. So attributive expressions made of a noun and preposition become more frequent in Livy: e.g., omnis repentina atque ex virtute nobilitas, I. 34. 6; loca circa forum, I. 38. 6; area ad aedem, I. 38. 7.

i. The use of adjectives agreeing with subject or object to