PROFESSOR SEELEY'S LIV Y.

The First Decade of Livy, by Mr. Seeley, was, if we remember right, one of the earliest announcements of the Clarendon Press Series. If any reader should be disposed to think this slender volume, containing somewhat less than two hundred pages, and dealing with the first book of the Decade only, an inadequate ending to several years of waiting, we may assure him that he is mistaken. Professor Seeley's work is, it is true, small in bulk, but then it is pure gold. We have never seen a volume of any- thing like equal size into which more has been compressed, which has represented more of industrious research, of ingenuity, and of felicitous conjecture, and above all—for this is most needed in dealing with such a mass of confused fragmentary materials, and such a variety of contending theories—more of calm and philosophical judgment. That Professor Seeley has settled all or indeed most of the obscure questions of early Roman history would be too much to say, but that he has made some things so clear that for the future scholars will be practically agreed upon them is a very moderate statement of the result of his labours. In dealing with this subject he succeeds, as our readers will be aware, to a reaction in favour of what may be called the " believing " theory. When Dr. Dyer asserted that the destructive critics had gone a great deal too far in dealing with early Roman history, he doubtless commanded much sympathy—more, perhaps, of sympathy than of deliberate consent —with his views. The argument which he set himself to contro- vert had been discredited by exaggerated applications. Writers whose learning and ingenuity were not accompanied by an equal development of judgment and taste had pushed it to an extreme which it was easy to convert into a reductio ad absurdum. Some of the tests which it was held lawful to apply to the Roman legends were quite capable of ' dissolving undoubted historical facts. When the very names of the Kings disappeared from Roman his- tory it was evident that scepticism had passed its proper limits, and that a writer who stated the opposite side of the question was doing a valuable service. Still the great fact on which scepticism relied remained practically untouched, the fact that there is nothing like any contemporary history of the early ages of Rome. This must not, indeed, be allowed to discredit such broad outlines of historical fact as tradition may reasonably be believed capable of preserving, but it does tell with fatal effect on the authenticity of the details. Dr. Dyer, indeed, has laboured to prove that there were, and even in fairly considerable numbers, contemporary or nearly contemporary documents on which the historians of a later time built their narratives. Most readers will agree with Pro- fessor Seeley in thinking that he has not made out his case, that the utmost that he has established is that there may have been more of these documents than the sceptical school believes. "If," says Professor Seeley, "the documents themselves were meagre, the evidence about the documents is more meagre still," unless, indeed, we find an exception to this statement in Livy's own words, which certainly do not favour the theory of belief,—" Et quod parvae et rarae per eadem tempora literae f Imre, una custodia fidelis memorise rerum gestarum ; et quod, etiamsi quae in commentariis Pontificum alas que publicis privatis

* Limb Books1.-.E. Irith Introduction, Historical Examination, and Notes. By J. B. Seeley, M.A., Professor of Modern History, Cambridge. Book L Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1871. •

que erant monimentis, incensa urbe pleraeque interiere." And then, as Professor Seeley points out, there is the question of im- probabilities and inconsistencies. The improbabilities have been too much dwelt upon; as he rightly remarks, "what is probable or improbable in a state of society so different from our own it is hard for us to decide." Some writers, for instance, have thought that the long reigns .attributed to the kings were decidedly im-

probable. Yet Captain Richard Burton has proved satisfactorily that in a country where long reigns would seem to be at least equally improbable, the African kingdom of Dahomey, seven successive sovereigns actually reigned for a longer period than has been attributed to the seven Kings of Rome. But the incon- sistencies remain. As it is tersely put in the preface, "the early

history of Rome is so full of them, that if we had the best reasons for believing it we should not know what to believe."

Still, on the whole, we may say that Professor Seeley's work is constructive. He says :—" Is it, then, possible to know anything about the early history of Rome ? Nothing, I think, from the history-books taken alone, and about that part of the history which deals with particular persons, nothing from any other source. But concerning the relations of the Romans to other nations and other Italian tribes, the growth of the State, the time and mode of the introduction into it of the different arts which constitute civiliza- tion, the development of its political, religious, and legal ideas, we may gather sufficient information to form an outline history." He points out six sources of information available for this purpose : —physical geography, comparative philology, comparative mytho- logy, comparative law, archwology, and the later history of Rome.

The last of these only be feels to be within the scope of his subject, and he avails himself of it with singular sagacity and skill. We

might be inclined to question the statement that "nothing can be known about that part of the history which deals with particular persons," which seems, indeed, to go beyond the views elsewhere expressed in the "Historical Examination," but that the method proposed is perfectly sound is beyond all question. The chapters in which it is carried out have almost the interest- of a romance. Readers who have not kept up their know- ledge to the latest point will find some of their received ideas

shaken. Among such will be the distinction, now become almost a common-place in the mouths of teachers, between populus and plebs. On this matter Professor Seeley accepts Madvig's view, that Niebuhr's speculations about Livy's uses of populus as describ- ing the patrician as opposed to the plebeian part of the people are entirely without foundation (" prorsus sine ullo argumento fin- guntur"). Another loss will be the notion that the constitution of Servius Tullius was a timocracy, founded on the idea "that pro- perty was a guarantee of patriotism." We find this put by our editor with characteristic simplicity and force :—

" If we examine the system, we shall find that this result was acci- dental. The classification was originally planned with a purely military view. The classes are arranged according to the armour they carry ; the heavy-armoured are first, not because precedence is given to the rich, but because they are most exposed to the enemy's attack. But the plainest proof is the position of the carpenters, trumpeters, and horn-blowers in the system. It was evidently no political consideration, that gave it to them, but their necessary attendance upon an army in, the field."

The convenient account of the three tribes, the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, as representing respectively Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan elements in Rome, vanishes at the same time, though

the tribal division itself remains one of the fundamental facts of Roman history. But whatever his losses, the reader cannot but- feel that his gain has been very great, that he has got, at all events, several points of firm footing. We cannot do better, by way of

showing what these points are, than by quoting part of Professor Seeley's summary of results :—

" We see a number of gentes' or clans living apparently in local districts or pagi ' side by aide. They bear for the most part the names afterwards conspicuous in Roman history as the names of the great patrician houses. They are divided into three great tribes.. They regard themselves as connected both with the Latins and with the Sabines. Where several sacred places are near together—the Are Maxima of Hercules, the sacred place of Faunas Lupercus on the Pala- tine, the temple of Quirinns on the Quirinal-.-a town springs up. To this the clans resort for festivals, markets, and for common deliberation.. The clans are an exclusive body, and are in possession of various priest- hoods and religious privileges. Though we are told of a great Sabine, clan—the Claudian—being admitted among them, they do not as a rule admit strangers into their body."

Then comes an account of the political institutions of this commu- nity,—the king, the senatus,' the quaestors ' or law officers; of

its religion, and of its army, "which consists principally of cavalry chosen in equal numbers from the three tribes"

:- "In this primitive constitution a great reform takes place. In con- sequence of a great population having grown up outside the clans, an army is formed from the whole community, each citizen being ranked according to his property, and required to provide himself with corre- sponding arms. This army consists mainly of infantry arrayed in phalanx. The army so constituted is regarded as a national assembly, and when the will of the nation is to be expressed, a single vote is given to each century of the army. In order to make the property- register, a new local classification is required. Four local city tribes are established. At some unknown time, but possibly at the same time, the outside population is admitted into the clans, into the three tribes, and into the comitia cnriata. But the original clans continue to regard themselves as being the only true clans. A national temple of unprecedented magnificence is built on the Capitoline hill. A foreign eacred book is acquired, which introduces a Greek element into the religion of the country. Finally, a revolution takes place, and the king for life is superseded by two magistrates holding power only for a year."

It would not be right to leave without a word of notice that part of the editor's work which consists in the criticism and interpreta- tion of the text. It must suffice to say that we have found it, as far as our examination has reached, characterised by the same subtlety and the same careful judgment that we have found else- where in the volume. With one specimen of Professor Seeley's

annotation, we shall conclude our notice of what is a really great contribution to history and scholarship, one well worthy of the two Universities with which by a happy combination of circum- stances it is connected. The passage occurs in the proposal of Collations to the young Tarquins that they should decide the question of the superiority of their respective wives by going to see what they were doing. The words are, "Id cuique spectatissi- mum sit, quod necopinato viri adventu occurrent oculis ":—

" 11. Id enique spectatissimum sit. Most of the editors and histor- ians pass over this singular expression. I find an attempt at interpre- tation in Dr. Dyer, who gives, There can be no better proof than what shall meet our eyes on so unexpected a call,' and in Freund's school edition, who gives, Let that be for each the thing most noticeable,' i.e., most convincing. Ingerslev, in his Dictionary, refers to the passage, and translates spectatissimum " most trustworthy.' Lemaire simply says it refers to ingenium,' without explaining how in that case • quod occurrent ocalis ' is to be explained. All these explanations refer ' cuique ' to the husbands, which makes ' viri ' entirely superfluous and out of place. All too, except the last, put a strain upon the mean- ing of 'apectatissimum: Freund's meaning would more naturally be expressed by id spectet praecipue quisque ;' Ingerslev's by id maxim° sit cuique indicio.' It seems to me that the ' viri ' shows that cuique ' refers to the wives. Nor can I give any meaning but that of 'testing' to spectare ' here. The expression spectatisaima foemina ' would be just in place : below we have apectata castitas.' I believe that Livy has transferred the word from the person to the action, as we have 'ip7u /hen c'Elmyear' ;firs Acia.Xou dgiipazora for Invol,96r0;, Zsdpaxiiro;. The expression would then be equivalent to sit specta- tissima qiuteque secundum id quod,' dm. It would be loose, but not unnatural, writing."