to the subject-matter. It is true that here and there the “creamy richness” of his style becomes verbosity, and that he occasionally draws too freely on his inexhaustible store of epithets, metaphors and turns of speech; but these faults, which did not escape the censure even of friendly critics like Quintilian, are comparatively rare in the extant parts of his work. From the tendency to use a poetic diction in prose, which was so conspicuous a fault in the writers of the silver age, Livy is not wholly free. In his earlier books especially there are numerous phrases and sentences which have an unmistakably poetic ring, recalling sometimes Ennius and more often his contemporary Virgil. But in Livy this poetic element is kept within bounds, and serves only to give warmth and vividness to the narrative. Similarly, though the influence of rhetoric upon his language, as well as upon his general treatment, is clearly perceptible, he has not the perverted love of antithesis, paradox and laboured word-painting which offends us in Tacitus; and, in spite of the Venetian richness of his colouring, and the copious flow of his words, he is on the whole wonderfully natural and simple.
These merits, not less than the high tone and easy grace of his narrative and the eloquence of his speeches, gave Livy a hold on Roman readers such as only Cicero and Virgil besides him ever obtained. His history formed the groundwork of nearly all that was afterwards written on the subject. Plutarch, writers on rhetoric like the elder Seneca, moralists like Valerius Maximus, went to Livy for their stock examples. Florus and Eutropius abridged him; Orosius extracted from him his proofs of the sinful blindness of the pagan world; and in every school Livy was firmly established as a text-book for the Roman youth.
Text.—The received text of the extant thirty-five books of Livy is taken from different sources, and no one of our MSS. contains them all. The MSS. of the first decade, some thirty in number, are with one exception derived, more or less directly, from a single archetype, viz., the recension made in the 4th century by the two Nicomachi, Flavianus and Dexter, and by Victorianus. This is proved in the case of the older MSS. by written subscriptions to that effect, and in the case of the rest by internal evidence. Of all these descendants of the Nicomachean recension, the oldest is the Codex Parisinus of the 10th century, and the best the Codex Mediceus or Florentinus of the 11th. An independent value attaches to the ancient palimpsest of Verona, of which the first complete account was given by Mommsen in Abhandl. der preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften (1868). It contains the third, fourth, fifth and fragments of the sixth book, and, according to Mommsen, whose conclusions are accepted by Madvig (Emend. Livianae, 2nd ed., 1877, p. 37), it is derived, not from the Nicomachean recension, but from an older archetype common to both.
For the third decade our chief authority is the Codex Puteanus, an uncial MS. of the 5th century, now at Paris. For the fourth we have two leading MSS.—Codex Bambergensis, 11th century, and the slightly older Codex Moguntinus, now lost and only known through the Mainz edition of 1518–1519. What remains of the fifth decade depends on the 5th century Laurishamensis or Vindobonensis from the monastery of Lorsch, edited at Basel in 1531.
A bibliography of the various editions of Livy, or of all that has been written upon him, cannot be attempted here. The following may be consulted for purposes of reference; W. Engelmann, Scriptores Latini (8th ed., by E. Preuss, 1882); J. E. B. Mayor, Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature (1875); Teuffel-Schwabe, History of Roman Literature (Eng. trans.), 256, 257; M. Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur, ii. 1 (2nd ed., 1899). The best editions of the complete text are those of W. Weissenborn (1858–1862, containing an introductory essay on Livy’s life and writings; new edition by M. Müller, 1902), and J. N. Madvig and J. L. Ussing (1863–1873). The only English translation of any merit is by Philemon Holland (1600). (H. F. P.; X.)
LIZARD (Lat. lacerta[1]), a name originally referred only to the small European species of four-legged reptiles, but now applied to a whole order (Lacertilia), which is represented by numerous species in all temperate and tropical regions. Lizards are reptiles which have a transverse external anal opening (instead of a longitudinal slit as in Crocodilians and tortoises) and which have the right and left halves of the mandibles connected by a sutural symphysis. The majority are distinguished from snakes by the possession of two pairs of limbs, of external ear-openings and movable eyelids, but since in not a few of the burrowing, snake-shaped lizards these characters give way entirely, it is well-nigh impossible to find a diagnosis which should be absolutely sufficient for the distinction between lizards and snakes. In such doubtful cases a number of characters have to be resorted to, and, while each of these may fail when taken singly, their combination decides the question. It is certain that the snakes have been evolved as a specialized branch from some Lacertilian stock, and that both “orders” are intimately related, but it is significant that it is only through the degraded members of the lizards that recent representatives of the two great groups seem to run into each other. Such critical characters are:—
| Lizards. | Snakes. | |
| Limbs | 2 pairs, 1 or 0. | 0 or vestigial hind-limbs. |
| Ear-opening | Usually present. | Always absent. |
| Eyelids | Mostly movable. | No movable lids. |
| Tongue | Often not retractile. | Always bifid and retractile into itself. |
| Teeth | Pleuro- or acrodont, not anchylosed. | Acrodont, anchylosed. |
| Mandibles | Mostly firmly united suturally. | Never with suture, mostly ligamentous. |
| Columella cranii | Mostly present. | Absent. |
| Mostly with bony arches across | ||
| the temporal region. | No bony arches. | |
| Osteoderms common. | No osteoderms. |
The lizards and snakes are the two dominant reptilian orders which are still on the increase in species, though certainly not in size. As a moderate estimate, the number of recent species of lizards is about 1700. As a group they are cosmopolitan, their northern limit approaching that of the permanently frozen subsoil, while in the southern hemisphere the southern point of Patagonia forms the farthest limit. As we approach the tropics, the variety of forms and the number of individuals increase, the most specialized and developed forms, and also the most degraded, being found in the tropics. In the temperate regions they hibernate. The majority live on broken ground, with or without much vegetation; many are arboreal and many are true desert animals, while a few are more or less aquatic; one, the leguan of the Galapagos, Amblyrhynchus, even enters the sea. Some, like the majority of the geckos, are nocturnal. In adaptation to these varied surroundings they exhibit great variety in shape, size and structure. Most of these modifications are restricted to the skin, limbs, tail or tongue. Most lizards live on animal food, varying from tiny insects and worms to lizards, snakes, birds and mammals, while others prefer a mixed or an entirely vegetable diet. Accordingly, the teeth and the whole digestive tract are modified. But swiftness, the apparatus necessary for climbing, running and digging, the mechanism of the tongue, the muscles of the jaws (hence modifications of the cranial arches) stand also in correlation with the kind of food and with the way in which it has to be procured. Generally the teeth are conical or pointed, more rarely blunt, grooved or serrated. They are inserted either on the inner side of the margin of the jaws (pleurodonta) or on the edge of the bones (acrodonta). The tongue is generally beset with more or less scaly or velvety papillae and has always a well-marked posterior margin, while the anterior portion may or may not be more or less retractile into the posterior part.
In many lizards the muscles of the segments of the tail are so loosely connected and the vertebrae are so weak that the tail easily breaks off. The severed part retains its muscular irritability for a short time, wriggling as if it were a living creature. A lizard thus mutilated does not seem to be much affected, and the lost part is slowly reproduced. This faculty is of advantage to those lizards which lack other means of escape when pursued by some other animal, which is satisfied with capturing the detached member.
The motions of most lizards are executed with great but not enduring rapidity. With the exception of the chameleon, all drag their body over the ground, the limbs being wide apart, turned outwards and relatively to the bulk of the body generally weak. But the limbs show with regard to development great variation, and an uninterrupted transition from the most perfect condition of two pairs with five separate clawed toes to their total disappearance; yet even limbless lizards retain bony vestiges beneath the skin. The motions of these limbless lizards are similar to those of snakes, which they resemble in their elongate body.
The eggs are elliptical in shape, both poles being equal, and are covered with a shell which may be thin and leathery or hard and calcareous. The number of eggs laid is small in comparison
