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, as he often does, such authorities as the Furian
family version of the redemption of the city by the arms of their
progenitor Camillus, instead of by the payment of the agreed ransom,
as modern writers consider proven, while his putting of set speeches
into the mouths of his characters may be described as a conventional
usage of ancient historians, which certainly added to the liveliness
of the narrative and probably was neither intended to be taken
literally nor resulted in deceiving any one.