Translator's Preface
I regret—though I have good ancient precedent—
that my first volume must begin with an explanation
which is at the same time a warning and an apology.
There is at the present no critical edition of the
Fourth Decade. Only a beginning has been made in
the investigation of such questions as the interrelationships of the minor MSS. or their relations to
B, or the
history and character of the lost MSS. like M which
were used by sixteenth-century scholars. All this
must precede a sound critical text. The situation
offers an unusual temptation to conjecture and an
unusual opportunity, in the absence of precise and complete information about the manuscripts, to introduce
subjective changes. Scholars have shown commendable restraint, and I trust that I have at least done no
harm to the text.
We may judge the state of our text by the proper
nouns it contains. There are few proper names in
this volume which are printed as they appear in the
manuscripts; few on which the manuscripts generally
agree. In this respect our text is due mainly to
Sigonius, who employed the various forms in which
the names are found in Livy and external aids to
recover the correct names. I have not sought either
consistency or completeness in recording these facts,
but content myself with a few specimens and a general
reference to Weissenborn-Müller for further details.
It must be granted that not a few local and personal
names are still uncertain.
A critical edition, based on new collations of all the
manuscripts and on studies of their interrelations,
was not to be thought of under existing conditions.
I have therefore made use of the best and most convenient text, that of the latest Weissenborn-Müller
printing (Teubner, 1930). The critical notes are
drawn entirely from secondary sources, such as the
same edition, without personal examination of the
MSS. I have, however, introduced changes of three
kinds: (1) I have restored some readings of
B, and,
less frequently, of
M, without remark. Variations
from the Weissenborn-Müller text, if not reported,
are of this type, and I have not taken advantage of
this to include conjectures of my own; (2) I have
sometimes replaced conjectures with readings of
ς;
these are reported; (3) I have re-punctuated the text
to secure a higher degree of conformity with Anglo-
Saxon practice.
With the exception of proper nouns, already
mentioned, and of certain minor differences (I suspect
that in some of these
B has been misread), I have tried
in the critical notes to indicate all readings which lack
the authority of
B or
M, that is, all readings derived
from
ς or from conjecture. This seems to me
especially important when we consider the probable
relationship of
B ς. It will be seen that the contribution of
ς to the text is large. I have no doubt that
B is more frequently right than we now recognize,
and I shall at least have provided the information
now available regarding the manuscripts. I may add
that my own contribution to the textual criticism of
Livy is negative: I have not replaced readings of
B
with those even of
ς without trying to find an explanation of the text of
B.
The foundation of the text of the Fourth Decade
is
B (Bambergensis
M, IV. 9, s. 11), which is a direct
and faithful descendant of F (Bambergensis Q, IV. 27,
Theol. 99), an uncial fragment containing parts of
Books XXXIII, XXXV and XXXIX; from
F was
derived also, through a lost intermediate, the codex
Spirensis, and from another copy of the same intermediate, the minor MSS. (
ς). A codex Moguntinus,
not descended from
F, and assigned to the ninth
century, was used in sixteenth-century editions,
notably the Moguntina of 1518 and the Frobenianae
of 1531 and 1535. An additional fifth-century fragment, containing a small part of Book XXXIV, and
representing a different tradition, has been found in
Rome (Vaticanus Lat. 10696). The beginning of a
textual criticism of these MSS. was made by Traube
(see the Bibliography; there is a stemma on p. 27),
but relatively little has been done on the manuscripts,
and the details of the interrelations are still uncertain.
I need hardly say that I have tried in the translation
to preserve Livy's meaning and as much of his stylistic
quality as my own limitations and the differences in
our idiom will permit. Livy was no statesman nor
civil servant, and he did not always understand the
institutions he was describing; he was no soldier, and
the semi-technical language of his sources he did not
always understand. In this respect I have been
perhaps unfaithful to my task, for I have used at times
a soldier's language to describe a soldier's actions,
and while searching for the appropriate words I fear
I have been more exact than Livy was. I have
generally Latinized non-Latin proper nouns, except
in those cases where the Greek forms are more
familiar, such as “Delos”; Italian place-names are
modern Italian or ancient Latin, and it would be
mere pedantry to write anything but “Rome” and
“Athens.”
The narrative of the Fourth Decade is not always
easy to follow. Livy did not understand it himself
at every point, and his ignorance of foreign geography
and local topography caused confusion in his descriptions; his lack of acquaintance with warfare made it
hard for him to visualize battle scenes; his sources
were not always in agreement, and Livy had no
efficient protection in the form of tests for credibility.
The artistic form which he selected was an additional
handicap, for he had to transpose into annalistic form,
modified, of course, by geographical, rhetorical and
logical forces, events described by different men,
following different chronological systems, all different
from the calendar of Livy's own time. I have tried
to furnish clues to his sequences, and these clues have
been furnished mainly by Polybius, whom I believe
to have been Livy's principal source.
The maps have been prepared for this Volume by
Mr. Joseph A. Foster of the Department of Classics
of the University of Pittsburgh. It has been our
intention to show on them those sites mentioned by
Livy which can be located with reasonable accuracy
and to omit other geographical and topographical
details. The map of Cynoscephalae is adapted from
the plan in Kromayer (
Antike Schlachtfelder in
Griechenland, II, Karte 4, Berlin, 1907), and my
gratitude is due the publisher, the Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung, for permitting its use.
In the preparation of the Index I have enjoyed the
competent assistance of two former students, Dr.
Mildred Daschbach, of Immaculata Seminary, Washington, D.C., and Dr. Eugene W. Miller, of Thiel
College, Greenville, Pa. To them I express my
thanks, and I acquit them of all responsibility for
imperfections: part of them are my fault, part
Livy's.
I have paid relatively little attention to the
troublesome question of Livy's sources, so violently
debated since the time of Niebuhr. The numerous
papers which belong to this controversy impress me
as admirable in purpose and method, but, to judge
from the contradictory character of their conclusions,
somewhat futile in result. Livy's use of Polybius,
especially for affairs in the East, seems to be universally accepted; I should be inclined to believe
that Livy used Polybius freely in other parts of the
text as well. The manner and extent of Polybius'
use of Roman sources are likewise debatable. Livy's
use of earlier Roman annalists may be assumed,
although we can be less sure of details. I have not
tried to reproduce the attempts of scholars to trace
particular sections to particular annalists: their
results seem from their inconsistency to be too
precarious to warrant my adoption of any one scheme.
The inquirer will find in the Bibliography below
mention of some of the most important discussions,
all of which contain additional references. To these
should be added the standard histories which deal
with the Second Macedonian War and the standard
histories of Latin literature. All supplement the
brief Bibliography which I give.
Probably, as an indication of my own point of view,
I should state briefly my judgment of Livy and his
work. I share with most scholars, I think, the belief
that Livy is greater as a literary artist than as an
historian. I believe further that Livy could have
taken more pains than he did to learn and to state
what happened: he had, I am sure, more tests of
relative credibility than he employed. I recognize
too that he sometimes obscured the truth behind a
curtain of rhetoric. Yet even in his desire to reflect
glory upon Rome or upon individuals whom he
respected and admired, I cannot find signs of
deliberate manipulation of facts to permit more
favourable inferences. And finally—and this is
purely subjective—I seem to see in him a growing
dissatisfaction with the Romans, a growing feeling
that even in the second century Roman character was
degenerating, and that even their most distinguished
men were at times petty, self-centred, and more
considerate of their own advancement than of the
good of Rome. He was appalled, as he says at the
beginning of this volume, by the size of the task that
remained, and, I think, saddened by the character of
the events he had still to describe. It was not easy
to translate, and it was not easy to compose, this
narrative and to remain an optimist regarding Rome.
I would conclude with an expression of my deep
gratitude to the Editors and Publishers of the Loeb
Classical Library for their unchanging helpfulness.
