always succeed even in accurately reproducing the authority he is for
the time following. In the case of Polybius, for instance, he allows
himself great freedom in omitting what strikes him as irrelevant, or
tedious, or uninteresting to his Roman readers, a process in which
much valuable matter disappears. In other cases his desire to give a
vividness and point to what he doubtless considered the rather bald
and dry style of Polybius leads him into absurdities and inaccuracies.
Thus by the treaty with Antiochus (188 B.C.) it was provided that the
Greek communities of Asia Minor "shall settle their mutual differences
by arbitration," and so far Livy correctly transcribes Polybius, but
he adds with a rhetorical flourish, "or, if both parties prefer it, by
war" (xxxviii. 38). Elsewhere his blunders are apparently due to
haste, or ignorance or sheer carelessness; thus, for instance, when
Polybius speaks of the Aetolians assembling at their capital Thermon,
Livy (xxxiii. 35) not only substitutes Thermopylae but gratuitously
informs his readers that here the Pylaean assemblies were held. Thanks
partly to carelessness, partly to mistranslation, he makes sad havoc
(xxxv. 5 seq.) of Polybius's account of the battle of Cynoscephalae.
Finally, Livy cannot be altogether acquitted on the charge of having
here and there modified Polybius in the interests of Rome.
Speeches.
_Style._--Serious as these defects in Livy's method appear if viewed
in the light of modern criticism, it is probable that they were easily
pardoned, if indeed they were ever discovered, by his contemporaries.
For it was on the artistic rather than on the critical side of history
that stress was almost universally laid in antiquity, and the thing
that above all others was expected from the historian was not so much
a scientific investigation and accurate exposition of the truth, as
its skilful presentation in such a form as would charm and interest
the reader. Tried by this standard, Livy deservedly won and held a
place in the very first rank. Asinius Pollio sneered at his
Patavinity, and the emperor Caligula denounced him as verbose, but
with these exceptions the opinion of antiquity was unanimous in
pronouncing him a consummate literary workman. The classical purity of
his style, the eloquence of his speeches, the skill with which he
depicted the play of emotion, and his masterly portraiture of great
men, are all in turn warmly commended, and in our own day we question
if any ancient historian is either more readable or more widely read.
It is true that for us his artistic treatment of history is not
without its drawbacks. The more trained historical sense of modern
times is continually shocked by the obvious untruth of his colouring,
especially in the earlier parts of his history, by the palpable
unreality of many of the speeches, and by the naïveté with which he
omits everything, however important, which he thinks will weary his
readers. But in spite of all this we are forced to acknowledge that,
as a master of what we may perhaps call "narrative history," he has no
superior in antiquity; for, inferior as he is to Thucydides, to
Polybius, and even to Tacitus in philosophic power and breadth of
view, he is at least their equal in the skill with which he tells his
story. He is indeed the prince of chroniclers, and in this respect not
unworthy to be classed even with Herodotus (Quintilian, x. 1. 101).
Nor is anything more remarkable than the way in which Livy's fine
taste and sense of proportion, his true poetic feeling and genuine
enthusiasm, saved him from the besetting faults of the mode of
treatment which he adopted. The most superficial comparison of his
account of the earliest days of Rome with that given by Dionysius
shows from what depths of tediousness he was preserved by these
qualities. Instead of the wearisome prolixity and the misplaced
pedantry which make the latter almost unreadable, we find the old
tales briefly and simply told. Their primitive beauty is not marred by
any attempt to force them into an historical mould, or disguised
beneath an accumulation of the insipid inventions of later times. At
the same time they are not treated as mere tales for children, for
Livy never forgets the dignity that belongs to them as the prelude to
the great epic of Rome, and as consecrated by the faith of
generations. Perhaps an even stronger proof of the skill which enabled
Livy to avoid dangers which were fatal to weaker men is to be found in
his speeches. We cannot indeed regard them, with the ancients, as the
best part of his history, for the majority of them are obviously
unhistorical, and nearly all savour somewhat too much of the
rhetorical schools to be perfectly agreeable to modern taste. To
appreciate them we must take them for what they are, pieces of
declamation, intended either to enliven the course of the narrative,
to place vividly before the reader the feelings and aims of the chief
actors, or more frequently still to enforce some lesson which the
author himself has at heart. The substance, no doubt, of many of them
Livy took from his authorities, but their form is his own, and, in
throwing into them all his own eloquence and enthusiasm, he not only
acted in conformity with the established traditions of his art, but
found a welcome outlet for feelings and ideas which the fall of the
republic had deprived of all other means of expression. To us,
therefore, they are valuable not only for their eloquence, but still
more as giving us our clearest insight into Livy's own sentiments, his
lofty sense of the greatness of Rome, his appreciation of Roman
courage and firmness, and his reverence for the simple virtues of
older times. But, freely as Livy uses this privilege of speechmaking,
his correct taste keeps his rhetoric within reasonable limits. With a
very few exceptions the speeches are dignified in tone, full of life
and have at least a dramatic propriety, while of such incongruous and
laboured absurdities as the speech which Dionysius puts into the mouth
of Romulus, after the rape of the Sabine women, there are no instances
in Livy.
But, if our estimate of the merits of his speeches is moderated by
doubts as to his right to introduce them at all, no such scruples
interfere with our admiration for the skill with which he has drawn
the portraits of the great men who figure in his pages. We may indeed
doubt whether in all cases they are drawn with perfect accuracy and
impartiality, but of their life-like vigour and clearness there can be
no question. With Livy this portrait-painting was a labour of love.
"To all great men," says Seneca, "he gave their due ungrudgingly," but
he is at his best in dealing with those who, like Q. Fabius Maximus,
"the Delayer," were in his eyes the most perfect types of the true
Roman.
The general effect of Livy's narrative is no doubt a little spoilt by
the awkward arrangement, adopted from his authorities, which obliges
him to group the events by years, and thus to disturb their natural
relations and continuity. As the result his history has the appearance
of being rather a series of brilliant pictures loosely strung together
than a coherent narrative. But it is impossible not to admire the
copious variety of thought and language, and the evenly flowing style
which carried him safely through the dreariest periods of his history;
and still more remarkable is the dramatic power he displays when some
great crisis or thrilling episode stirs his blood, such as the sack of
Rome by the Gauls, the battle by the Metaurus and the death of
Hasdrubal.
In style and language Livy represents the best period of Latin prose
writing. He has passed far beyond the bald and meagre diction of the
early chroniclers. In his hands Latin acquired a flexibility and a
richness of vocabulary unknown to it before. If he writes with less
finish and a less perfect rhythm than his favourite model Cicero, he
excels him in the varied structure of his periods, and their
adaptation to the subject-matter. It is true that here and there the
"creamy richness" of his style becomes verbosity, and that he
occasionally draws too freely on his inexhaustible store of epithets,
metaphors and turns of speech; but these faults, which did not escape
the censure even of friendly critics like Quintilian, are
comparatively rare in the extant parts of his work. From the tendency
to use a poetic diction in prose, which was so conspicuous a fault in
the writers of the silver age, Livy is not wholly free. In his earlier
books especially there are numerous phrases and sentences which have
an unmistakably poetic ring, recalling sometimes Ennius and more often
his contemporary Virgil. But in Livy this poetic element is kept
within bounds, and serves only to give warmth and vividness to the
narrative. Similarly, though the influence of rhetoric upon his
language, as well as upon his general treatment, is clearly
perceptible, he has not the perverted love of antithesis, paradox and
laboured word-painting which offends us in Tacitus; and, in spite of
the Venetian richness of his colouring, and the copious flow of his
words, he is on the whole wonderfully natural and simple.
These merits, not less than the high tone and easy grace of his
narrative and the eloquence of his speeches, gave Livy a hold on Roman
readers such as only Cicero and Virgil besides him ever obtained. His
history formed the groundwork of nearly all that was afterwards
written on the subject. Plutarch, writers on rhetoric like the elder
Seneca, moralists like Valerius Maximus, went to Livy for their stock
examples. Florus and Eutropius abridged him; Orosius extracted from
him his proofs of the sinful blindness of the pagan world; and in
every school Livy was firmly established as a text-book for the Roman
youth.
_Text._--The received text of the extant thirty-five books of Livy is
taken from different sources, and no one of our MSS. contains them
all. The MSS. of the first decade, some thirty in number, are with one
exception derived, more or less directly, from a single archetype,
viz., the recension made in the 4th century by the two Nicomachi,
Flavianus and Dexter, and by Victorianus. This is proved in the case
of the older MSS. by written subscriptions to that effect, and in the
case of the rest by internal evidence. Of all these descendants of the
Nicomachean recension, the oldest is the Codex Parisinus of the 10th
century, and the best the Codex Mediceus or Florentinus of the 11th.
An independent value attaches to the ancient palimpsest of Verona, of
which the first complete account was given by Mommsen in _Abhandl. der
preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften_ (1868). It contains the third,
fourth, fifth and fragments of the sixth book, and, according to
Mommsen, whose conclusions are accepted by Madvig (_Emend. Livianae_,
2nd ed., 1877, p. 37), it is derived, not from the Nicomachean
recension, but from an older archetype common to both.
For the third decade our chief authority is the Codex Puteanus, an
uncial MS. of the 5th century, now at Paris. For the fourth we have
two leading MSS.--Codex Bambergensis, 11th century, and the slightly
older Codex Moguntinus, now lost and only known through the Mainz
edition of 1518-1519. What remains of the fifth decade depends on the
5th century Laurishamensis or Vindobonensis from the monastery of
Lorsch, edited at Basel in 1531.
A bibliography of the various editions of Livy, or of all that has
been written upon him, cannot be attempted here. The following may be
consulted for purposes of reference; W. Engelmann, _Scriptores Latini_
(8th ed., by E. Preuss, 1882); J. E. B. Mayor, _Bibliographical Clue
to Latin Literature_ (1875); Teuffel-Schwabe, _History of Roman
Literature_ (Eng. trans.), 256, 257; M. Schanz, _Geschichte der
römischen Litteratur_. ii. 1 (2nd ed., 1899). The best editions of the
complete text are those of W. Weissenborn (1858-1862, containing an
introductory essay on Livy's life and writings; new edition by M.
Müller, 1902), and J. N. Madvig and J. L. Ussing (1863-1873). The only
English translation of any merit is by Philemon Holland (1600).
(H. F. P.; X.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For the fragments of an epitome discovered at Oxyrhynchus see J.
S. Reid in _Classical Review_ (July, 1904); E. Kornemann, _Die neue
Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus_, with text and commentary (Leipzig,
1904); C. H. Moore, "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in relation to
Obsequens and Cassiodorus," in _American Journal of Philology_
(1904), 241.
[2] The various rumours once current of complete copies of Livy in
Constantinople, Chios and elsewhere, are noticed by B. G. Niebuhr,
_Lectures on the History of Rome from the first Punic War_ (ed. L.
Schmitz, 1844), i. 65.
[3] For Livy's debt to Valerius Antias, see A. A. Howard in _Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology_, xvii. (1906), pp. 161 sqq.
LIZARD (Lat. _lacerta_[1]), a name originally referred only to the small
European species of four-legged reptiles, but now applied to a whole
order (_Lacertilia_), which is represented by numerous species in all
temperate and tropical regions. Lizards are reptiles which have a
transverse external anal opening (instead of a longitudinal slit as in
Crocodilians and tortoises) and which have the right and left halves of
the mandibles connected by a sutural symphysis. The majority are
distinguished from snakes by the possession of two pairs of limbs, of
external ear-openings and movable eyelids, but since in not a few of the
burrowing, snake-shaped lizards these characters give way entirely, it
is well-nigh impossible to find a diagnosis which should be absolutely
sufficient for the distinction between lizards and snakes. In such
doubtful cases a number of characters have to be resorted to, and, while
each of these may fail when taken singly, their combination decides the
question. It is certain that the snakes have been evolved as a
specialized branch from some Lacertilian stock, and that both "orders"
are intimately related, but it is significant that it is only through
the degraded members of the lizards that recent representatives of the
two great groups seem to run into each other. Such critical characters
are:--
Lizards. Snakes.
Limbs 2 pairs, 1 or 0. 0 or vestigial hind-limbs.
Ear-opening Usually present. Always absent.
Eyelids Mostly movable. No movable lids.
Tongue Often not retractile. Always bifid and
retractile into itself.
Teeth Pleuro- or acrodont, Acrodont, anchylosed.
not anchylosed.
Mandibles Mostly firmly united Never with suture,
suturally. mostly ligamentous.
Columella cranii Mostly present. Absent.
Mostly with bony arches
across the temporal No bony arches.
region.
Osteoderms common. No bony arches.
No osteoderms.
The lizards and snakes are the two dominant reptilian orders which are
still on the increase in species, though certainly not in size. As a
moderate estimate, the number of recent species of lizards is about
1700. As a group they are cosmopolitan, their northern limit approaching
that of the permanently frozen subsoil, while in the southern hemisphere
the southern point of Patagonia forms the farthest limit. As we approach
the tropics, the variety of forms and the number of individuals
increase, the most specialized and developed forms, and also the most
degraded, being found in the tropics. In the temperate regions they
hibernate. The majority live on broken ground, with or without much
vegetation; many are arboreal and many are true desert animals, while a
few are more or less aquatic; one, the leguan of the Galapagos,
_Amblyrhynchus_, even enters the sea. Some, like the majority of the
geckos, are nocturnal. In adaptation to these varied surroundings they
exhibit great variety in shape, size and structure. Most of these
modifications are restricted to the skin, limbs, tail or tongue. Most
lizards live on animal food, varying from tiny insects and worms to
lizards, snakes, birds and mammals, while others prefer a mixed or an
entirely vegetable diet. Accordingly, the teeth and the whole digestive
tract are modified. But swiftness, the apparatus necessary for climbing,
running and digging, the mechanism of the tongue, the muscles of the
jaws (hence modifications of the cranial arches) stand also in
correlation with the kind of food and with the way in which it has to be
procured. Generally the teeth are conical or pointed, more rarely blunt,
grooved or serrated. They are inserted either on the inner side of the
margin of the jaws (_pleurodonta_) or on the edge of the bones
(_acrodonta_). The tongue is generally beset with more or less scaly or
velvety papillae and has always a well-marked posterior margin, while
the anterior portion may or may not be more or less retractile into the
posterior part.
In many lizards the muscles of the segments of the tail are so loosely
connected and the vertebrae are so weak that the tail easily breaks off.
The severed part retains its muscular irritability for a short time,
wriggling as if it were a living creature. A lizard thus mutilated does
not seem to be much affected, and the lost part is slowly reproduced.
This faculty is of advantage to those lizards which lack other means of
escape when pursued by some other animal, which is satisfied with
capturing the detached member.
The motions of most lizards are executed with great but not enduring
rapidity. With the exception of the chameleon, all drag their body over
the ground, the limbs being wide apart, turned outwards and relatively
to the bulk of the body generally weak. But the limbs show with regard
to development great variation, and an uninterrupted transition from the
most perfect condition of two pairs with five separate clawed toes to
their total disappearance; yet even limbless lizards retain bony
vestiges beneath the skin. The motions of these limbless lizards are
similar to those of snakes, which they resemble in their elongate body.
The eggs are elliptical in shape, both poles being equal, and are
covered with a shell which may be thin and leathery or hard and
calcareous. The number of eggs laid is small in comparison with other
reptiles, rarely exceeding a score, and some like the anolids and the
geckos deposit only one or two. The parents leave the eggs to hatch
where they are deposited, in sand or in mould. Many lizards, however,
retain the eggs in the oviducts until the embryo is fully developed;
these species then bring forth living young and are called
ovo-viviparous by purists. Some lizards possess a considerable amount of
intelligence; they play with each other, become very tame, and act
deliberately according to circumstances. As a rule the Iguanids and
Varans are as bright as the Agamas are dull. Many have the power of
changing colour, a faculty which they share only with various frogs,
toads and fishes. Lizards are not poisonous, with the single exception
of _Heloderma_.
The Lacertilia, or lizards in the wider sense, fall easily into three
natural groups: geckos (q.v.), chameleons (q.v.) and lizards.
I. Suborder, GECKONES. Pleurodont lizards with well-developed limbs;
without temporal bony arches; postthoracic ribs united across the
abdomen. Tongue, thick and broad, slightly nicked anteriorly. With few
exceptions they have amphicoelous vertebrae, the parietal bones remain
separate and they have no eyelids, with very few exceptions.
1. Family, _Geckonidae._--Amphicoelous; parietals separate; clavicles
dilated and with a perforation near the ventral end. Cosmopolitan,
although mainly tropical, with about 270 species (see GECKO).
Nearly all geckos are nocturnal and the pupil contracts into a
vertical slit, except in a few diurnal kinds, e.g. _Phelsuma_ of
islands in the Indian Ocean, and _Lygodactylus_ of Africa.
_Aelurosaurus_ of Borneo and Australia, and _Ptenopus_ of South
Africa, have upper and lower movable eyelids. Whilst the skin is
mostly soft on the back, with little granular tubercles, scales
(except on the belly) are absent, but they are present in
_Homopholis_, in _Geckolepis_ of Madagascar, and most fully developed
in _Teratoscincus scincus_. This peculiar little inhabitant of the
steppes and desert regions of Turkestan and Persia, by rubbing the
imbricating scales upon each other, produces a shrill cricket-like
noise, whilst sitting at night in front of its hole in the ground.
Furthermore it is so thoroughly adapted to running upon the desert
sand that its digits are devoid of adhesive lamellae. The same
beautiful adaptation to the surroundings exists also in _Ptenopus_
(with fringed toes) and _Stenodactylus_, which are likewise
deserticolous. _Aeluronyx_ of Madagascar and Seychelles has cat-like
retractile claws. _Naultinus elegans_ of New Zealand is said to be
viviparous; the others lay but one rather large egg at a time. Many
species have a feeble voice which resembles a repeated click of the
tongue, and their name "gecko" is supposed to be an Indian imitation
of the sound.
2. Family, _Uroplatidae._--Amphicoelous; parietals separate; but the
nasal bones are fused together, and the clavicles are not dilated.
Genus _Uroplates_, with a few species, e.g. _U. fimbriatus_ in
Madagascar.
3. Family, _Eublepharidae._--Procoelous; parietals united; eyelids
functional; clavicles expanded as in the true geckos which they
resemble in other respects. The few genera and species are undoubtedly
a heterogeneous assembly, as indicated by their very scattered
distribution, but they all agree in their decidedly handsome colour
pattern, bands of dark brown to maroon upon a light ground.
_Eublepharis_, with one species each in Panama, Mexico, Texas and
California; two in India. _Coleonyx elegans_ in forests of Central
America and Mexico. _Psilodactylus_ in West Africa.
II. Suborder, CHAMAELEONTES. Acrodont, Old World lizards, with
laterally compressed body, prehensile tail and well developed limbs
with the digits arranged in opposing, grasping bundles of two and
three respectively. The chameleons (q.v.) have many structural
peculiarities.
III. Suborder, LACERTAE. Procoelous vertebrae; ventral portions of the
clavicles not dilated; parietal bones fused into one.
The general appearance is too misleading for the classification of the
Lacertae. E. D. Cope (_Proc. Ac. Philad._, 1864, pp. 224 et seq. and
_Proc. Amer. Ass._ xix., 1871, p. 236, &c.) therefore relied upon more
fundamental characters, notably the presence or absence of osteoderms,
the formation of the skull, the teeth and the tongue. G. A. Boulenger
(_Ann. Nat. Hist._ 5, xiv., 1884, p. 117, &c.) has further improved
upon the then prevailing arrangements, and has elaborated a
classification which, used by himself in the three volumes of the
catalogue of lizards in the British Museum, is followed in the present
article with slight alterations in the order of treatment of the
families. In the following diagnoses of the families preference is
given to such characters as are most easily ascertained.
The 17 "families" fall into 4 or 5 main groups. Presumably the
presence of osteoderms and of complete cranial arches are more archaic
than their absence, just as we conclude that limbless forms have been
evolved from various groups possessed of fully developed limbs.
_Zonuridae_ and _Anguidae_ assume a central position, with _Agamidae_
and _Iguanidae_ as two parallel families (not very different from each
other) of highest development, one in the Old World, the other in
America. _Xenosaurus_ seems to be an offshoot intermediate between the
_Iguanidae_ and the _Anguidae_; a degraded form of latter is perhaps
_Aniella_ of California, whilst _Heloderma_ and _Lanthanotus_ are also
specialized and isolated offshoots. A second group is formed by the
few American _Xantusiidae_, the numerous American _Tejidae_, and the
burrowing, degraded American and African _Amphisbaenidae_. A third
group comprises the cosmopolitan _Scincidae_, the African and Malagasy
_Gerrhosauridae_ which in various features remind us of the
_Anguidae_, and the African and Eurasian _Lacertidae_ which are the
highest members of this group. _Anelytropidae_ and perhaps also
_Dibamidae_ may be degraded Scincoids. The _Varanidae_ stand quite
alone, in many respects the highest of all lizards, with some, quite
superficial, Crocodilian resemblances. Lastly there are the few
_Pygopodidae_ of the Australian region, with still quite obscure
relationship.
Family 1. _Agamidae._--Acrodont; tongue broad and thick, not
protractile; no osteoderms. Old World.