ac. _Ann._ iv. 34, above).

(_f_) Book cxxi., according to the oldest MS. of the Periochae, was
published after the death of Augustus; so doubtless were the remaining
Books (A.D. 14-17).

A work of such compass, and occupying so many years of the author's
life, would naturally be published in sections. This _a priori_ view
is corroborated by several considerations: (_a_) There are separate
prefaces to various sections (vi. 1; xxi. 1; xxxi. 1); (_b_) Livy's
style was censured[70] by Asinius Pollio, who died A.D. 5; (_c_)
Augustus was acquainted with Livy's sympathetic treatment of Pompeius
(see above); (_d_) Livy had great fame in his lifetime: Pliny, _Ep._
ii. 3, 8, 'Numquamne legisti Gaditanum quemdam T. Livi nomine
gloriaque commotum ad visendum eum ab ultimo terrarum orbe venisse
statimque ut viderat abisse?'

The historians from whom Livy derived his materials, and whom he
himself mentions are: _Fabius Pictor_ (i. 44, 2, etc.). Livy refers to
him six times, but it may be questioned whether he used him at
first-hand. More probably he took his opinions on the authority of
later annalists like Macer, Antias, and Tubero. _Cincius Alimentus_
(xxi. 38, 3): the Cincius quoted in vii. 3, 7, may be the same, or an
antiquarian of the Ciceronian or Augustan age; _Cato_ (xxxiv. 15, 9);
_Calpurnius Piso_ (xxv. 39, 15); _Coelius Antipater_ (xxix. 25, 3);
_Claudius Quadrigarius_ (vi. 42, 5, etc.); _Valerius Antias_, quoted
thirty-five times--far more frequently than any other authority;
_Licinius Macer_; _Aelius Tubero_ (iv. 23, 1); _Clodius Licinus_
(xxix. 22, 10); _Rutilius_ (xxxix. 52, 1); _Polybius_; _Silenus_
(xxvi. 49, 3), a Greek, whose account of the Second Punic War was
favourable to the Carthaginians.

A criticism of Livy's use of these sources is impossible, except in
the case of Polybius, all the others having perished. His tone in
alluding to the Greek historian is remarkable for its coldness: xxx.
45, 5, 'Polybius haudquaquam spernendus auctor'; cf. xxxiii. 10, 8.
Although Polybius is not mentioned till Book xxx., he was undoubtedly
used throughout the third decade, as well as in the fourth and fifth.
Livy follows him very closely. Where Livy differs from Polybius he is
probably following the account of Coelius Antipater, who is his
leading authority for the Second Punic War.

Livy is not careful to reconcile his sources, and so frequently
contradicts himself. His way of explaining a discrepancy between his
au