hus remembering, we must marvel that he so fully
recognises the merit of his unprejudiced guide and wanders as little
as he does. All told, it is quite certain that he has dealt more
fairly by Hannibal than have Alison and other English historians by
Napoleon. His unreliability consists rather in his conclusions than in
his facts, and it is unquestioned that through all the pages of
the third decade he has so told the story of the man most hated by
Rome--the deadliest enemy she had ever encountered--that the reader
can not fail to feel the greatness of Hannibal dominating every
chapter.

Referring again to the criticisms made so lavishly upon Livy's story
of the earlier centuries, it is well to recall the contention of the
hard-headed Scotchman Ferguson, that with all our critical acumen we
have found no sure ground to rest upon until we reach the second Punic
war. Niebuhr, on the other hand, whose German temperament is alike
prone to delve or to theorize, is disposed to think--with considerable
generosity to our abilities, it appears to me--that we may yet evolve
a fairly true history of Rome from the foundation of the commonwealth.
As to the times of the kings, it is admitted that we know nothing,
while from the founding of the commonwealth to the second Punic war
the field may be described as, at the best, but a battle-ground for
rival theories.

The ancient historian had, as a rule, little to do with such
considerations or controversies. In the lack of solid evidence he had
only to write down the accepted story of the origin of things, as
drawn from the lips of poetry, legend, or tradition, and it was
for Livy to write thus or not at all. Even here the honesty of his
intention is apparent. For much of his early history he does not claim
more than is claimed for it by many of his modern critics, while time
and again he pauses to express a doubt as to the credibility of some
incident. A notable instance of this is found in his criticism of
those stories most dear to the Roman heart--the stories of the birth
and apotheosis of Romulus. On the other hand, if he has given free
life to many beautiful legends that were undoubtedly current and
believed for centuries, is it heresy to avow that these as such seem
to me of more true value to the antiquary than if they had been
subjected at their historical inception to the critical and
theoretical methods of to-day? I can not hold Livy quite unpardonable
even when following,