himself, who perhaps approaches nearer to the critical historian than
any writer of antiquity, and it is Polybius upon whom Livy mainly
relies through his third, fourth, and fifth decades. The works of
Fabius and Cincius are lost. So also are those of the Lacedaemonian
Sosilus and the Sicilian Silanus, who campaigned with Hannibal and
wrote the Carthaginian side of the story; nor is there any evidence
that either Polybius or Livy had access to their writings. Polybius,
then, may be said to be the only reliable source from which Livy could
draw for any of his extant books, and before condemning unqualifiedly
in the cases where he deserts him and harks back to Roman authorities
we must remember that Livy was a strong nationalist, one of a people
who, despite their conquests, were essentially narrow, prejudiced,
egotistical; and, thus 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