Translator's Preface

AT the beginning of the Middle Ages there were extant three copies of the Third Decade, though two of these1 contained only the second half, Books XXVI.-XXX. The incomplete manuscripts subsequently disappeared, but we still have the one that included the whole Decade, and is known as the Puteanus (= Codex Parisinus 5730 = P).

This famous codex was revised (in the sixth century) at Abellinum (the modern Avellino), near Naples, as appears from the subscription after several of the books: recognobi (for recognovi) abellini. Precisely when or where the book was originally written is not known, but it is now assigned to the fifth century. Early in the Carolingian period it came into the possession of the abbey library at Corbie in Picardy, where many copies of it were made.2 In the second half of the sixteenth century it was acquired by Claude Dupuy (Claudius Puteanus), a jurisconsult and book-collector of Paris, whose son Jacques bequeathed it, along with the rest of his ancient manuscripts, to the King; and since 1657 it has been one of the treasures of the [p. viii] Bibliothèque nationale. In 1907 the Department of Manuscripts of this library issued a facsimile reproduction of the Puteanus, considerably reduced in size.3 The manuscript is a large quarto containing 470 leaves of fine parchment, measuring 235 X 278 millimetres. The writing is in the uncial character. There are two columns to the page, of 26 lines each. Originally there were 65 gatherings of 8 leaves each, except gatherings 43 and 45, which had 6 each. Of these gatherings 1, 2, 4 and 64 have been lost, as well as leaves 2-7 of the 3rd, and the following sections of the text are consequently missing:

  • XXI. i. 1. (in parte)—xx. 8 (auro cu-).
  • xxi. 13. (Carthagini)—xxix. 6 (adfirmantes in).
  • xxx. 11. (posse Poenus)—xli. 13 (vobis et).
  • XXX. xxx. 14. (ceteris)—xxxvii. 3 (haberent domitos).
  • xxxviii. 2. (-niensibus)—xlv. 7 (ceperunt).

The scribe who wrote the Puteanus made a large number of corrections (distinguished in the critical notes by the symbol P1) of his own text as he proceeded with the task of transcription. Many others are due to a second hand (P2), and a very few to a third (P3). From the forms of the letters employed and the colour of the ink it is almost always possible to refer these corrections to their respective scribes. The corrections were not derived from other manuscripts than P's exemplar, but originated with the scribes themselves,4 and the manuscript is not interpolated.

[p. ix] Of the other manuscripts now existing which have the text of Books XXI.-XXV. there is none which is not (directly or through one or more intermediaries) derived from P, and none, therefore, which possesses any value for establishing the text of these books, except for those passages at the beginning of Book XXI. where the evidence of P has been destroyed by the mutilation of the manuscript. To supply the place of the missing leaves editors avail themselves of two later codices, the Colbertinus and the Mediceus.

The Colbertinus (= Parisinus 5731= C) is a minuscule manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century, and is thought to be a direct copy of the Puteanus.

The Mediceus (=Mediceus Laurentianus LXIII. 20 = M) is also a minuscule manuscript and was written in the eleventh century. It was formerly believed to have been copied from the Vaticanus Reginensis 762 (=R),5 and inasmuch as this MS. was copied from P—late in the eighth century or early in the ninth6 —it would be superfluous to cite the readings of M, were it not that the first and last parts of R are wanting and its existing text begins at XXII. vi. 5 (veluti caeci) and ends at XXX. v. 7 (continua complexes), and all that comes between is found in P itself. R is therefore of no use in constituting the text,7 but M, if a copy of R, would [p. x] be a valuable witness (at second hand) to the text of P at the beginning and the end of the Third Decade, where both P and R are defective. Within recent years the statement that R was M's exemplar has been called in question,8 but at the same time it has been shown that the scribe of M—whatever his exemplar may have been—had access to the Puteanus, whose text he often reproduced, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, where the scribe of R had departed from it.9 Since, therefore, M is directly in the tradition of the Puteanus, it must continue to be given consideration—along with C—by the editor of Livy, whose business it is to reconstruct, as far as possible, the text which was contained on the missing leaves of P.

The Puteanus then and, where the Puteanus is defective, the Colbertinus and the Mediceus are the MSS. on which editors found the text of Books XXI.-XXV. The text of this volume (XXI. and XXII.) is based chiefly on the apparatus in the critical edition of August Luchs, Berlin, 1888, supplemented by the appendices to Rossbach's revision (1921.10) of the Weissenborn-Müller edition (with [p. xi] German notes) of XXI., and to the Weissenborn- Müller edition of XXII. (1905.9), and here and there by notes and suggestions from other sources. I have aimed to inform the reader in the footnotes at every point where the reading in the text is not found either in P or—where P is wanting—in M or C, except in a few places where the correction seemed obvious and certain. The spelling conforms to that adopted (from the Oxford edition of Books I.-X. by Conway and Walters) for Volumes I.-IV. For the punctuation I must myself assume the responsibility, and hope it may prove more helpful to English and American readers than the German system, which has too often made its way into classical texts edited primarily for use elsewhere than in Germany.

In the brief Bibliography I have listed a few of the multitude of books and articles useful for the understanding of Livy. My choice has been guided by two considerations: I wished first to put the reader who is beginning the study of Livy into touch with some of the recent work on his history, and more especially the Third Decade, and the various questions as to sources, style, antiquities, etc. arising in connection with it; and secondly, to list the books that have been of most assistance to me in preparing my own text and translation. To this general acknowledgment I would add a special word of appreciation of the help I have received from the various English translations and editions, from one or another of which I have sometimes borrowed a phrase or turn of expression.

To Messrs. H. Wagner and E. Debes, of Leipzig, I am very grateful for their courteous permission to continue to adapt for the Loeb Livy the series of [p. xii] maps and plans in the Kromayer-Veith Schlachten- Atlas zur antiken Kriegsgeschichte. Thanks to the learned labours of Professor Kromayer and the generosity of his publishers, the present edition of Books XXI. and XXII. may fairly boast of being better equipped in this respect than any of its elders. It is perhaps unnecessary to remind the reader that these maps were drawn to represent the facts, so far as ascertainable by a critical study of all the ancient sources and their modern interpreters and by examination of the ground itself, and may therefore sometimes be at variance with Livy's conception of the facts. A brief summary of the evidence for the conclusions adopted will be found in the letter-press accompanying the maps in the Schlachten-Atlas; it is presented at greater length in the Antike Schlachtfelder of the same authors.

B. O. F.

Stanford University, May 15, 1929.

Tile third volume of the Oxford Livy (XXI.- XXV.), edited by the late Professor Walters and Professor Conway, whose preface is dated August 13, 1928, was published in August, 1929, after this volume had been passed for the press. Professor Conway now says (p. vii.) that it can be shown that M was copied directly from P.

[p. xiii]

1 The Spirensis and the Turin palimpsest. Something will be said of these two MSS. in the preface to Vol. VII (Books XXVI.-XXVII.).

2 Traube, Bamberger Fragmente, p. 16.

3 The title-page is not dated. I am indebted to the brief introduction by H[enri] O[mont] for the description of the book.

4 Luchs, Praef. (1888) v.-vi.

5 Luchs, Prolegomena to edition of 1879, p. lviii.

6 Rand and Howe argue plausibly for a date prior to the coming of Alcuin to Tours in 796.

7 R is nevertheless interesting (1) as providing a means of tracing the vicissitudes of a Latin text in the process of transcription from an uncial MS. of the fifth century into the early Caroline minuscule, and (2) as being a striking landmark in the history of eighth and ninth century calligraphy and the Scriptorium of Tours. In the former aspect it has been studied minutely by F. W. Shipley and in the latter by E. K. Rand and George Howe (see Bibliography).

8 F. W. Shipley (Studies, p. 475) holds that Luchs's statement of the relationship between R and M needs modification; and R. S. Conway (The Sources of the Text, etc., p. 11) declares that evidence has been collected which shows quite certainly that M was not copied from R or C.

9 Shipley p. 416 ff.; Conway, ibid.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: