thorities is by striking an average (xxvi. 49, 6, 'si aliquis
adsentiri necesse est, media simillima veris sunt'). His irresolution
was noted by Quintilian, ii. 4, 19, 'saepe quaeri solet de tempore, de
loco, quo gesta res dicitur, nonnumquam de persona quoque, sicut
Livius frequentissime dubitat.' This of course has its good side: it
saves him from dogmatizing on uncertain points, and he has a hearty
appreciation of the confusion in his authorities: xxxvii. 34, 5, 'is
ubi et quando et quo casu captus sit, sicut pleraque alia, parum inter
auctores constat.' He recognizes the value of contemporary evidence:
xxii. 7, 4, 'Fabium aequalem temporibus huiusce belli potissimum
auctorem habui'; xxi. 38, 3, 'L. Cincius Alimentus, qui captum se ab
Hannibale scribit, maxime auctor moveret.' Criticism of his
authorities is most conspicuous in the case of Valerius Antias, whom
at first he followed in good faith; he condemns him again and again
for exaggeration and credulity, _e.g._ xxxiii. 10, 8, 'si Valerio qui
credat, omnium rerum immodice numerum augenti'; xxxix. 43, 1,
'Valerius Antias, ut qui nec orationem Catonis legisset et fabulae
tantum sine auctore editae credidisset.' He also recognizes the bias
of Licinius Macer: vii. 9, 5, 'quaesita ea propriae familiae laus
leviorem auctorem Licinium facit.' For the untrustworthiness of family
records, cf. viii. 40, 4, 'vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor
falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum
gestarum honorumque fallenti mendacio trahunt.'

Livy often refers to authorities whom he does not name: 'invenio apud
quosdam,' 'satis constat'; and to tradition: 'fama est,' 'dicitur,'
'fertur,' 'traditur.' Tradition was the sole source for events prior
to the sack of Rome by the Gauls, cf. vi. 12, 2 _sqq._

There is no trace in Livy of any use of original documents.

He constantly resists the temptation to digress from his proper theme:
_e.g._ xxxix. 48, 6, 'cuius belli et causas et ordinem si expromere
velim, immemor sim propositi, quo statui non ultra attingere externa,
nisi qua Romanis cohaererent rebus.'

In spite of his love of truth (xxii. 7, 4, 'nihil haustum ex vano
velim, quo nimis inclinant ferme scribentium animi': cf. Tac. _Ann._
iv. 34, 'fidei praeclarus'), partiality blinds him to the faults of
his own countrymen, and he fails to do justice to opponents like the
Samnites and Carthaginians.

In dealing with the legendary period he admits tha