Chapter XIV: Front Matter (14)

Such was the written tradition on which Livy mainly relied. We have
next to examine the manner in which he used it, and here we are met at
the outset by the difficulty of determining with exactness what
authorities he is following at any one time; for of the importance of
full and accurate references he has no idea, and often for chapters
together he gives us no clue at all. More often still he contents
himself with such vague phrases as "they say," "the story goes," "some
think," or speaks in general terms of "ancient writers" or "my
authorities." Even where he mentions a writer by name, it is
frequently clear that the writer named is not the one whose lead he is
following at the moment, but that he is noticed incidentally as
differing from Livy's guide for the time being on some point of detail
(compare the references to Piso in the first decade, i. 55, ii. 32,
&c.). It is very rarely that Livy explicitly tells us whom he has
selected as his chief source (e.g. Fabius xxii. 7; Polybius xxxiii.
10). By a careful analysis, however, of those portions of his work
which admit of a comparison with the text of his acknowledged
authorities (e.g. fourth and fifth decades, see H. Nissen,
_Untersuchungen_, Berlin, 1863), and elsewhere by comparing his
version with the known fragments of the various annalists, and with
what we are told of their style and method of treatment, we are able
to form a general idea of his plan of procedure. As to the first
decade, it is generally agreed that in the first and second books, at
any rate, he follows such older and simpler writers as Fabius Pictor
and Calpurnius Piso (the only ones whom he there refers to by name),
to whom, so far as the first book is concerned, Niebuhr (_Lectures_,
p. 33) would add the poet Ennius. With the close of the second book or
the opening of the third we come upon the first traces of the use of
later authors. Valerius Antias[3] is first quoted in iii. 5, and signs
of his handiwork are visible here and there throughout the rest of the
decade (vii. 36, ix. 27, x. 3-5). In the fourth book the principal
authority is apparently Licinius Macer, and for the period following
the sack of Rome by the Gauls Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, whose annals
began at this point in the history. We have besides a single reference
(vii. 3) to the antiquarian Cincius, and two (iv. 23, x. 9) to Q.
Aelius Tubero, one of the last in the list of annalists. Passing to
the third decade, we find ourselves at once confronted by a question
which has been long and fully discussed--the relation between Livy and
Polybius. Did Livy use Polybius at all, and, if so, to what extent?

Polybius.

It is conceded on all hands that Livy in this decade makes
considerable use of other authorities than Polybius (e.g. Fabius xxii.
7; Caelius Antipater xxi. 38, 46, 47, xxii. 31, &c.), that he only
once mentions Polybius (xxx. 45), and that, if he used him, he did so
to a much less extent than in the fourth and fifth decades, and in a
very different manner. It is also agreed that we can detect in Livy's
account of the Hannibalic war two distinct elements, derived
originally, the one from a Roman, the other from a non-Roman source.
But from these generally accepted premises two opposite conclusions
have been drawn. On the one hand, it is maintained (e.g. by Lachmann,
C. Peter, H. Peter, _Hist. Rom. Relliq._) that those parts of Livy's
narrative which point to a non-Roman authority (e.g. Hannibal's
movements prior to his invasion of Italy) are taken by Livy directly
from Polybius, with occasional reference of course to other writers,
and with the omission (as in the later decades) of all matters
uninteresting to Livy or his Roman readers, and the addition of
rhetorical touches and occasional comments. It is urged that Livy, who
in the fourth and fifth decades shows himself so sensible of the great
merits of Polybius, is not likely to have ignored him in the third,
and that his more limited use of him in the latter case is fully
accounted for by the closer connexion of the history with Rome and
Roman affairs, and the comparative excellence of the available Roman
authorities, and, lastly, that the points of agreement with Polybius,
not only in matter but in expression, can only be explained on the
theory that Livy is directly following the great Greek historian. On
the other hand, it is maintained (especially by Schwegler, Nitzsch,
and K. Böttcher) that the extent and nature of Livy's agreement with
Polybius in this part of his work point rather to the use by both of a
common original authority. It is argued that Livy's mode of using his
authorities is tolerably uniform, and that his mode of using Polybius
in particular is known with certainty from the later decades.
Consequently the theory that he used Polybius in the third decade
requires us to assume that in this one instance he departed widely,
and without sufficient reason, from his usual course of procedure.
Moreover, even in the passages where the agreement with Polybius is
most apparent, there are so many discrepancies and divergencies in
detail, and so many unaccountable omissions and additions, as to
render it inconceivable that he had the text of Polybius before him.
But all these are made intelligible if we suppose Livy to have been
here following directly or indirectly the same original sources that
were used by Polybius. The earliest of these original sources was
probably Silenus, with whom may possibly be placed, for books xxi.
xxii., Fabius Pictor. The latter Livy certainly used directly for some
parts of the decade. The former he almost as certainly knew only at
second hand, the intermediate authority being probably Caelius
Antipater. This writer, who confined himself to a history of the
Second Punic War, in seven books, is expressly referred to by Livy
eleven times in the third decade; and in other passages where his name
is not mentioned Livy can be shown to have followed him (e.g. xxii. 5,
49, 50, 51, xxiv. 9). In the latter books of the decade his chief
authority is possibly Valerius Antias.

In the fourth and fifth decades the question of Livy's authorities
presents no great difficulties, and the conclusions arrived at by
Nissen in his masterly _Untersuchungen_ have met with general
acceptance. These may be shortly stated as follows. In the portions of
the history which deal with Greece and the East, Livy follows
Polybius, and these portions are easily distinguishable from the rest
by their superior clearness, accuracy and fulness. On the other hand,
for the history of Italy and western Europe he falls back on Roman
annalists, especially, it seems, on Claudius Quadrigarius and Valerius
Antias--a most unfortunate choice--and from them too he takes the
annalistic mould into which his matter is cast.

Critical method.

Livy's general method of using these authorities was certainly not
such as would be deemed satisfactory in a modern historian. He is
indeed free from the grosser faults of deliberate injustice and
falsification, and he resists that temptation to invent, to which "the
minds of authors are only too much inclined" (xxii. 7). Nor is he
unconscious of the necessity for some kind of criticism. He
distinguishes between rumour and the precise statements of recognized
authorities (cf. xxi. 46, v. 21, vii. 6). The latter he reproduced in
the main faithfully, but with a certain exercise of discretion. Where
they disagreed, he calls attention to the fact, occasionally
pronouncing in favour of one version rather than another (ii. 41, xxi.
46) though often on no adequate grounds, or attempting to reconcile
and explain discrepancies (vi. 12, 38). Where he detects or suspects
the insertion of fabulous matter he has no scruple in saying so. Gross
exaggerations, such as those in which Valerius Antias indulged, he
roundly denounces, and with equal plainness of speech he condemns the
family vanity which had so constantly corrupted and distorted the
truth. "I suppose," he says (viii. 40), "that the record and memorial
of these matters hath been depraved and corrupted by these funeral
orations of praises, ... while every house and family draweth to it
the honour and renown of noble exploits, martial feats and dignities
by any untruth and lie, so it be colourable." The legendary character
of the earliest traditions he frankly admits. "Such things as are
reported either before or at the foundation of the city, more
beautiful and set out with poets' fables than grounded upon pure and
faithful records, I mean neither to aver nor disprove" (_Praef._); and
of the whole history previous to the sack of Rome by the Gauls (390
B.C.) he writes that it was obscure "both in regard of exceeding
antiquity, and also for that in those days there were very few
writings and monuments, the only faithful safeguard and true
remembrancers of deeds past; and, besides, whatsoever was registered
in the commentaries of the priests and in other public or private
records, the same for the most part, when the city was burned,
perished withal." Further than this, however, Livy's criticism does
not go. Where his written authorities are not palpably inconsistent
with each other or with probability he accepts and transcribes their
record without any further inquiry, nor does he ever attempt to get
behind this record in order to discover the original evidence on which
it rested. His acceptance in any particular case of the version given
by an annalist by no means implies that he has by careful inquiry
satisfied himself of its truth. At the most it only presupposes a
comparison with other versions, equally second-hand, but either less
generally accepted or less in harmony with his own views of the
situation; and in many cases the reasons he gives for his preference
of one account over another are eminently unscientific. Livy's
history, then, rests on no foundation of original research or even of
careful verification. It is a compilation, and even as such it leaves
much to be desired. For we cannot credit Livy with having made such a
preliminary survey of his authorities as would enable him to determine
their relations to each other, and fuse their various narratives into
a consistent whole. It is clear, on the contrary, that his circle of
authorities for any one decade was a comparatively small one, that of
these he selected one, and transcribed him with the necessary
embellishments and other slight modifications until impelled by
various reasons to drop him. He then, without warning, takes up
another, whom he follows in the same way. The result is a curious
mosaic, in which pieces of all colours and dates are found side by
side, and in which even the great artistic skill displayed throughout
fails to conceal the lack of internal unity. Thus many of Livy's
inconsistencies are due to his having pieced together two versions,
each of which gave a differently coloured account of the same event.
Mommsen (_Rom. Forschungen_, ii.) has clearly shown that this is what
has happened in his relation of the legal proceedings against the
elder Africanus in book xxxviii.; and in the story of the first
secession, as he tells it, the older version which represented it as
due to political and the later which explained it by economical
grievances are found side by side. Similarly a change from one
authority to another leads him not unfrequently to copy from the
latter statements inconsistent with those he took from the former, to
forget what he has previously said, or to treat as known a fact which
has not been mentioned before (cf. ii. 1, xxxiv. 6, and Weissenborn's
_Introduction_, p. 37). In other cases where the same event has been
placed by different annalists in different years, or where their
versions of it varied, it reappears in Livy as two events. Thus the
four campaigns against the Volsci (ii. 17 seq.) are, as Schwegler
(_R.G._ i. 13) rightly says, simply variations of one single
expedition. Other instances of such "doublettes" are the two single
combats described in xxiii. 46 and xxv. 18, and the two battles at
Baecula in Spain (xxvii. 18 and xxviii. 13). Without doubt, too, much
of the chronological confusion observable throughout Livy is due to
the fact that he follows now one now another authority, heedless of
their differences on this head. Thus he vacillates between the
Catonian and Varronian reckoning of the years of the city, and between
the chronologies of Polybius and the Roman annalists.

To these defects in his method must be added the fact that he does not
always succeed even in accurately reproducing the authority he is for
the time following. In the case of Polybius, for instance, he allows
himself great freedom in omitting what strikes him as irrelevant, or
tedious, or uninteresting to his Roman readers, a process in which
much valuable matter disappears. In other cases his desire to give a
vividness and point to what he doubtless considered the rather bald
and dry style of Polybius leads him into absurdities and inaccuracies.
Thus by the treaty with Antiochus (188 B.C.) it was provided that the
Greek communities of Asia Minor "shall settle their mutual differences
by arbitration," and so far Livy correctly transcribes Polybius, but
he adds with a rhetorical flourish, "or, if both parties prefer it, by
war" (xxxviii. 38). Elsewhere his blunders are apparently due to
haste, or ignorance or sheer carelessness; thus, for instance, when
Polybius speaks of the Aetolians assembling at their capital Thermon,
Livy (xxxiii. 35) not only substitutes Thermopylae but gratuitously
informs his readers that here the Pylaean assemblies were held. Thanks
partly to carelessness, partly to mistranslation, he makes sad havoc
(xxxv. 5 seq.) of Polybius's account of the battle of Cynoscephalae.
Finally, Livy cannot be altogether acquitted on the charge of having
here and there modified Polybius in the interests of Rome.

Speeches.

_Style._--Serious as these defects in Livy's method appear if viewed
in the light of modern criticism, it is probable that they were easily
pardoned, if indeed they were ever discovered, by his contemporaries.
For it was on the artistic rather than on the critical side of history
that stress was almost universally laid in antiquity, and the thing
that above all others was expected from the historian was not so much
a scientific investigation and accurate exposition of the truth, as
its skilful presentation in such a form as would charm and interest
the reader. Tried by this standard, Livy deservedly won and held a
place in the very first rank. Asinius Pollio sneered at his
Patavinity, and the emperor Caligula denounced him as verbose, but
with these exceptions the opinion of antiquity was unanimous in
pronouncing him a consummate literary workman. The classical purity of
his style, the eloquence of his speeches, the skill with which he
depicted the play of emotion, and his masterly portraiture of great
men, are all in turn warmly commended, and in our own day we question
if any ancient historian is either more readable or more widely read.
It is true that for us his artistic treatment of history is not
without its drawbacks. The more trained historical sense of modern
times is continually shocked by the obvious untruth of his colouring,
especially in the earlier parts of his history, by the palpable
unreality of many of the speeches, and by the naïveté with which he
omits everything, however important, which he thinks will weary his
readers. But in spite of all this we are forced to acknowledge that,
as a master of what we may perhaps call "narrative history," he has no
superior in antiquity; for, inferior as he is to Thucydides, to
Polybius, and even to Tacitus in philosophic power and breadth of
view, he is at least their equal in the skill with which he tells his
story. He is indeed the prince of chroniclers, and in this respect not
unworthy to be classed even with Herodotus (Quintilian, x. 1. 101).
Nor is anything more remarkable than the way in which Livy's fine
taste and sense of proportion, his true poetic feeling and genuine
enthusiasm, saved him from the besetting faults of the mode of
treatment which he adopted. The most superficial comparison of his
account of the earliest days of Rome with that given by Dionysius
shows from what depths of tediousness he was preserved by these
qualities. Instead of the wearisome prolixity and the misplaced
pedantry which make the latter almost unreadable, we find the old
tales briefly and simply told. Their primitive beauty is not marred by
any attempt to force them into an historical mould, or disguised
beneath an accumulation of the insipid inventions of later times. At
the same time they are not treated as mere tales for children, for
Livy never forgets the dignity that belongs to them as the prelude to
the great epic of Rome, and as consecrated by the faith of
generations. Perhaps an even stronger proof of the skill which enabled
Livy to avoid dangers which were fatal to weaker men is to be found in
his speeches. We cannot indeed regard them, with the ancients, as the
best part of his history, for the majority of them are obviously
unhistorical, and nearly all savour somewhat too much of the
rhetorical schools to be perfectly agreeable to modern taste. To
appreciate them we must take them for what they are, pieces of
declamation, intended either to enliven the course of the narrative,
to place vividly before the reader the feelings and aims of the chief
actors, or more frequently still to enforce some lesson which the
author himself has at heart. The substance, no doubt, of many of them
Livy took from his authorities, but their form is his own, and, in
throwing into them all his own eloquence and enthusiasm, he not only
acted in conformity with the established traditions of his art, but
found a welcome outlet for feelings and ideas which the fall of the
republic had deprived of all other means of expression. To us,
therefore, they are valuable not only for their eloquence, but still
more as giving us our clearest insight into Livy's own sentiments, his
lofty sense of the greatness of Rome, his appreciation of Roman
courage and firmness, and his reverence for the simple virtues of
older times. But, freely as Livy uses this privilege of speechmaking,
his correct taste keeps his rhetoric within reasonable limits. With a
very few exceptions the speeches are dignified in tone, full of life
and have at least a dramatic propriety, while of such incongruous and
laboured absurdities as the speech which Dionysius puts into the mouth
of Romulus, after the rape of the Sabine women, there are no instances
in Livy.

But, if our estimate of the merits of his speeches is moderated by
doubts as to his right to introduce them at all, no such scruples
interfere with our admiration for the skill with which he has drawn
the portraits of the great men who figure in his pages. We may indeed
doubt whether in all cases they are drawn with perfect accuracy and
impartiality, but of their life-like vigour and clearness there can be
no question. With Livy this portrait-painting was a labour of love.
"To all great men," says Seneca, "he gave their due ungrudgingly," but
he is at his best in dealing with those who, like Q. Fabius Maximus,
"the Delayer," were in his eyes the most perfect types of the true
Roman.

The general effect of Livy's narrative is no doubt a little spoilt by
the awkward arrangement, adopted from his authorities, which obliges
him to group the events by years, and thus to disturb their natural
relations and continuity. As the result his history has the appearance
of being rather a series of brilliant pictures loosely strung together
than a coherent narrative. But it is impossible not to admire the
copious variety of thought and language, and the evenly flowing style
which carried him safely through the dreariest periods of his history;
and still more remarkable is the dramatic power he displays when some
great crisis or thrilling episode stirs his blood, such as the sack of
Rome by the Gauls, the battle by the Metaurus and the death of
Hasdrubal.

In style and language Livy represents the best period of Latin prose
writing. He has passed far beyond the bald and meagre diction of the
early chroniclers. In his hands Latin acquired a flexibility and a
richness of vocabulary unknown to it before. If he writes with less
finish and a less perfect rhythm than his favourite model Cicero, he
excels him in the varied structure of his periods, and their
adaptation 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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the fragments of an epitome discovered at Oxyrhynchus see J.
S. Reid in _Classical Review_ (July, 1904); E. Kornemann, _Die neue
Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus_, with text and commentary (Leipzig,
1904); C. H. Moore, "The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy in relation to
Obsequens and Cassiodorus," in _American Journal of Philology_
(1904), 241.

[2] The various rumours once current of complete copies of Livy in
Constantinople, Chios and elsewhere, are noticed by B. G. Niebuhr,
_Lectures on the History of Rome from the first Punic War_ (ed. L.
Schmitz, 1844), i. 65.

[3] For Livy's debt to Valerius Antias, see A. A. Howard in _Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology_, xvii. (1906), pp. 161 sqq.

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, Acrodont, anchylosed.
not anchylosed.

Mandibles Mostly firmly united Never with suture,
suturally. mostly ligamentous.

Columella cranii Mostly present. Absent.
Mostly with bony arches
across the temporal No bony arches.
region.
Osteoderms common. No bony arches.
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 with other reptiles, rarely exceeding a score, and some like the anolids and the geckos deposit only one or two. The parents leave the eggs to hatch where they are deposited, in sand or in mould. Many lizards, however, retain the eggs in the oviducts until the embryo is fully developed; these species then bring forth living young and are called ovo-viviparous by purists. Some lizards possess a considerable amount of intelligence; they play with each other, become very tame, and act deliberately according to circumstances. As a rule the Iguanids and Varans are as bright as the Agamas are dull. Many have the power of changing colour, a faculty which they share only with various frogs, toads and fishes. Lizards are not poisonous, with the single exception of _Heloderma_.

The Lacertilia, or lizards in the wider sense, fall easily into three
natural groups: geckos (q.v.), chameleons (q.v.) and lizards.

I. Suborder, GECKONES. Pleurodont lizards with well-developed limbs;
without temporal bony arches; postthoracic ribs united across the
abdomen. Tongue, thick and broad, slightly nicked anteriorly. With few
exceptions they have amphicoelous vertebrae, the parietal bones remain
separate and they have no eyelids, with very few exceptions.

1. Family, _Geckonidae._--Amphicoelous; parietals separate; clavicles
dilated and with a perforation near the ventral end. Cosmopolitan,
although mainly tropical, with about 270 species (see GECKO).

Nearly all geckos are nocturnal and the pupil contracts into a
vertical slit, except in a few diurnal kinds, e.g. _Phelsuma_ of
islands in the Indian Ocean, and _Lygodactylus_ of Africa.
_Aelurosaurus_ of Borneo and Australia, and _Ptenopus_ of South
Africa, have upper and lower movable eyelids. Whilst the skin is
mostly soft on the back, with little granular tubercles, scales
(except on the belly) are absent, but they are present in
_Homopholis_, in _Geckolepis_ of Madagascar, and most fully developed
in _Teratoscincus scincus_. This peculiar little inhabitant of the
steppes and desert regions of Turkestan and Persia, by rubbing the
imbricating scales upon each other, produces a shrill cricket-like
noise, whilst sitting at night in front of its hole in the ground.
Furthermore it is so thoroughly adapted to running upon the desert
sand that its digits are devoid of adhesive lamellae. The same
beautiful adaptation to the surroundings exists also in _Ptenopus_
(with fringed toes) and _Stenodactylus_, which are likewise
deserticolous. _Aeluronyx_ of Madagascar and Seychelles has cat-like
retractile claws. _Naultinus elegans_ of New Zealand is said to be
viviparous; the others lay but one rather large egg at a time. Many
species have a feeble voice which resembles a repeated click of the
tongue, and their name "gecko" is supposed to be an Indian imitation
of the sound.

2. Family, _Uroplatidae._--Amphicoelous; parietals separate; but the
nasal bones are fused together, and the clavicles are not dilated.
Genus _Uroplates_, with a few species, e.g. _U. fimbriatus_ in
Madagascar.

3. Family, _Eublepharidae._--Procoelous; parietals united; eyelids
functional; clavicles expanded as in the true geckos which they
resemble in other respects. The few genera and species are undoubtedly
a heterogeneous assembly, as indicated by their very scattered
distribution, but they all agree in their decidedly handsome colour
pattern, bands of dark brown to maroon upon a light ground.
_Eublepharis_, with one species each in Panama, Mexico, Texas and
California; two in India. _Coleonyx elegans_ in forests of Central
America and Mexico. _Psilodactylus_ in West Africa.

II. Suborder, CHAMAELEONTES. Acrodont, Old World lizards, with
laterally compressed body, prehensile tail and well developed limbs
with the digits arranged in opposing, grasping bundles of two and
three respectively. The chameleons (q.v.) have many structural
peculiarities.

III. Suborder, LACERTAE. Procoelous vertebrae; ventral portions of the
clavicles not dilated; parietal bones fused into one.

The general appearance is too misleading for the classification of the
Lacertae. E. D. Cope (_Proc. Ac. Philad._, 1864, pp. 224 et seq. and
_Proc. Amer. Ass._ xix., 1871, p. 236, &c.) therefore relied upon more
fundamental characters, notably the presence or absence of osteoderms,
the formation of the skull, the teeth and the tongue. G. A. Boulenger
(_Ann. Nat. Hist._ 5, xiv., 1884, p. 117, &c.) has further improved
upon the then prevailing arrangements, and has elaborated a
classification which, used by himself in the three volumes of the
catalogue of lizards in the British Museum, is followed in the present
article with slight alterations in the order of treatment of the
families. In the following diagnoses of the families preference is
given to such characters as are most easily ascertained.

The 17 "families" fall into 4 or 5 main groups. Presumably the
presence of osteoderms and of complete cranial arches are more archaic
than their absence, just as we conclude that limbless forms have been
evolved from various groups possessed of fully developed limbs.
_Zonuridae_ and _Anguidae_ assume a central position, with _Agamidae_
and _Iguanidae_ as two parallel families (not very different from each
other) of highest development, one in the Old World, the other in
America. _Xenosaurus_ seems to be an offshoot intermediate between the
_Iguanidae_ and the _Anguidae_; a degraded form of latter is perhaps
_Aniella_ of California, whilst _Heloderma_ and _Lanthanotus_ are also
specialized and isolated offshoots. A second group is formed by the
few American _Xantusiidae_, the numerous American _Tejidae_, and the
burrowing, degraded American and African _Amphisbaenidae_. A third
group comprises the cosmopolitan _Scincidae_, the African and Malagasy
_Gerrhosauridae_ which in various features remind us of the
_Anguidae_, and the African and Eurasian _Lacertidae_ which are the
highest members of this group. _Anelytropidae_ and perhaps also
_Dibamidae_ may be degraded Scincoids. The _Varanidae_ stand quite
alone, in many respects the highest of all lizards, with some, quite
superficial, Crocodilian resemblances. Lastly there are the few
_Pygopodidae_ of the Australian region, with still quite obscure
relationship.

Family 1. _Agamidae._--Acrodont; tongue broad and thick, not
protractile; no osteoderms. Old World.

The agamas have always two pairs of well-developed limbs. The teeth
are usually differentiated into incisors, canines and molars. The skin
is devoid of ossifications, but large and numerous cutaneous spines
are often present, especially on the head and on the tail. The family,
comprising some 200 species, with about 30 genera, shows great
diversity of form; the terrestrial members are mostly flat-bodied, the
arboreal more laterally compressed and often with a very long tail.
Most of them are insectivorous, but a few are almost entirely
vegetable feeders. They are an exclusively Old World family; they are
most numerous in Australia (except New Zealand) and the Indian and
Malay countries; comparatively few live in Africa (none in Madagascar)
and in the countries from Asia Minor to India.

The majority of the ground-agamas, and the most common species of the
plains, deserts or rocky districts of Africa and Asia, belong to the
genera _Stellio_ and _Agama_. Their scales are mixed with larger
prominent spines, which in some species are particularly developed on
the tail, and disposed in whorls. Nearly all travellers in the north
of Africa mention the _Hardhón_ of the Arabs (_Agama stellio_), which
is extremely common, and has drawn upon itself the hatred of the
Mahommedans by its habit of nodding its head, which they interpret as
a mockery of their own movements whilst engaged in prayer. In some of
the Grecian islands they are still called _korkordilos_, just as they
were in the time of Herodotus. _Uromastix_ is one of the largest of
ground-agamas, and likewise found in Africa and Asia. The body is
uniformly covered with granular scales, whilst the short, strong tail
is armed with powerful spines disposed in whorls. The Indian species
(_U. hardwicki_) is mainly herbivorous; the African _U. acanthinurus_
and _U. spinipes_, the Dab of the Arabs, take mixed food.
_Phrynocephalus_ is typical of the steppes and deserts of Asia.
_Ceratophora_ and _Lyriocephalus_ scutatus, the latter remarkable for
its chameleon-like appearance, are Ceylonese. _Calotes_, peculiar to
Indian countries, comprises many species, e.g. _C. ophiomachus_,
generally known as the "bloodsucker" on account of the red colour on
the head and neck displayed during excitement. _Draco_ (see DRAGON) is
Indo-Malayan. _Physignathus_ is known from Australia to Cochin China.

Of the Australian agamas no other genus is so numerously represented
and widely distributed as _Grammatophora_, the species of which grow
to a length of from 8 to 18 in. Their scales are generally rough and
spinous; but otherwise they possess no strikingly distinguishing
peculiarity, unless the loose skin of their throat, which is
transversely folded and capable of inflation, be regarded as such. On
the other hand, two other Australian agamoids have attained some
celebrity by their grotesque appearance, due to the extraordinary
development of their integuments. One (fig. 1) is the frilled lizard
(_Chlamydosaurus kingi_), which is restricted to Queensland and the
north coast, and grows to a length of 3 ft., including the long
tapering tail. It is provided with a frill-like fold of the skin round
the neck, which, when erected, resembles a broad collar. This lizard
when startled rises with the fore-legs off the ground and squats and
runs on its hind-legs. The other lizard is one which most
appropriately has been called _Moloch horridus_. It is covered with
large and small spine-bearing tubercules; the head is small and the
tail short. It is sluggish in its movements, and so harmless that its
armature and (to a casual observer) repulsive appearance are its sole
means of defence. It grows only to a length of 10 in., and is not
uncommon in the flats of South and West Australia.

Family 2. _Iguanidae._--Pleurodont; tongue broad and thick, not
protractile; no osteoderms. America, Madagascar and Fiji Islands.

According to the very varied habits, their external appearance varies
within wide limits, there being amongst the 300 species, with 50
genera, arboreal, terrestrial, burrowing and semi-aquatic forms, and
even one semi-marine kind. All have well-developed limbs. In their
general structure the _Iguanidae_ closely resemble the _Agamidae_,
from which they differ mainly by the pleurodont dentition. Most of
them are insectivorous. Some, especially _Anolis_ and _Polychrus_, can
change colour to a remarkable extent. The family ranges all through
the neotropical region, inclusive of the Galapagos and the Antilles,
into the southern and western states of North America. Remarkable
cases of discontinuous distribution are _Chalarodon_ and _Hoplodon_ in
Madagascar, and _Brachylophus fasciatus_ in the Fiji Islands.
_Conolophus subcristatus_ and _Amblyrhynchus cristatus_ inhabit the
Galapagos; the former feeds upon cactus and leaves, the latter is
semi-marine, diving for the algae which grow below tide-marks. For
_Basiliscus_ see BASILISK; IGUANA is dealt with under its own heading;
allied is _Metopoceros cornutus_ of Hayti. _Polychrus_, the
"chameleon," and _Liolaemus_ are South American; _Ctenosaura_ of
Central America and Mexico resembles the agamoid _Uromastix_.
_Corythophanes_ and _Laemanctus_, with only a few species, are rare
inhabitants of the tropical forests of Central America and Mexico.
_Sauromalus_, _Crotaphytus_, _Callisaurus_, _Holbrookia_, _Uma_, _Uta_
are typical Sonoran genera, some ranging from Oregon through Mexico.
Allied is _Sceloporus_, with about 34 species, the most characteristic
genus of Mexican lizards; only 4 species live in the United States,
and only 3 or 4 are found south of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and are
restricted to Central America. The majority are humivagous, while
others are truly arboreal, e.g. _S. microlepidotus_, a species which,
moreover, has the greatest possible altitudinal range, from the hot
country of southern Oaxaca to the upper tree-line of Citlaltepetl,
about 13,500 ft. elevation; many species are viviparous. _Phrynosoma_,
with about a dozen species, the "horned toads" of California to Texas,
and through Mexico. Some of these comical-looking little creatures are
viviparous, others deposit their eggs in the ground. They are well
concealed by the colour of their upper parts, which in most cases
agrees with the prevailing tone of their surroundings, mostly arid,
stony or sandy localities; the large spikes on the head protect them
from being swallowed by snakes. The enlarged spiny scales scattered
over the back look as if it were sprinkled with the dried husks of
seeds. They are entirely insectivorous, bask on the broiling hot sand
and then can run fast enough; otherwise they are sluggish, dig
themselves into the sand by a peculiar shuffling motion of the fringed
edges of their flattened bodies, and when surprised they feign death.
The statement, persistently repeated (O. P. Hay, _Proc. U.S. Nat.
Mus._ xv., 1892, pp. 375-378), that some, e.g. _P. blainvillei_ of
California, have the power of squirting a blood-red fluid from the
corner of the eye, still requires renewed investigation.

The smallest lizards of this family belong to the genus _Anolis_,
extremely numerous as regards species (more than 100) and individuals
on bushes and trees of tropical America, and especially of the West
Indies. They offer many points of analogy to the humming birds in
their distribution, colours and even disposition. Hundreds may be seen
on a bright day, disporting themselves on trees and fences, and
entering houses. Like the iguanas, they (at least the males) are
provided with a large, expansible dewlap at the throat, which is
brilliantly coloured, and which they display on the slightest
provocation. This appendage is merely a fold of the skin, ornamental
and sexual; it has no cavity in its interior, and has no communication
with the mouth or with the respiratory organs; it is supported by the
posterior horns of the hyoid bone, and can be erected and spread at
the will of the animal. The presence of such dewlaps in lizards is
always a sign of an excitable temper. Many, e.g. _A. carolinensis_,
the "chameleon," can change colour to an extraordinary degree. They
are much fed upon by birds and snakes, and have a fragile tail, easily
reproduced. They bring forth only one large egg at a time, but
probably breed several times during the season.

Family 3. _Xenosauridae._--Pleurodont; solid teeth; anterior part of
tongue slightly emarginate and retractile, and covered with flat
papillae; no osteoderms. Mexico.

The only representative of this family is _Xenosaurus grandis_,
recorded from the mountains of Orizaba, Cordoba and Oaxaca. The
four-footed creature is less than 1 ft. in length; the body is
depressed, covered above with minute granules and tubercles; a
distinct fold of skin extends from the axilla to the groin, reminding
of the similar fold of some _Anguidae_, to which this singular genus
seems to be allied.

Family 4. _Anguidae._--Pleurodont; teeth solid, sometimes
(_Ophiosaurus_) grooved; anterior part of tongue emarginate and
retractile into the posterior portion; osteoderms on the body, and
especially on the head where they are roofing over the temporal fossa;
entirely zoophagous and ovo-viviparous. America, Europe and India.

_Gerrhonotus_, 8 species, in mountainous countries, from British
Columbia to Costa Rica; like _Diploglossus s. Celestus_ of Mexico, the
Antilles and Central America, with well-developed limbs, but with a
lateral fold. _Anguis fragilis_ and two species of _Ophiosaurus_ are
the only members of this family which are not American, and even the
third species of _Ophiosaurus_, _O. ventralis_, lives in the United
States. _Ophiosaurus s. Pseudopus_, the glass-snake, from Morocco and
the Balkan peninsula to Burma and Fokien; also in the U.S.A., with the
limbs reduced to a pair of tiny spikes near the vent, and a lateral
fold along the snake-like body. _Anguis_, with its sole species
fragilis, the slow-worm or blind-worm, is devoid of a lateral fold,
and the limbs are entirely absent. Europe, Algeria and western Asia.

Family 5. _Helodermatidae_, with _Heloderma_ of Arizona and Mexico,
and _Lanthanotus_ of Borneo.--The teeth of _Heloderma_ are recurved,
with slightly swollen bases, loosely attached to the inner edge of the
jaws; each tooth is grooved, and those of the lower jaw are in close
vicinity of the series of labial glands which secrete a poison; the
only instance among lizards.[2] Limbs well developed. Tongue
resembling that of the _Anguidae_. The skin of the upper surface is
granular, with many irregular bony tubercles which give it an ugly
warty look. _H. horridum_ in Mexico, and _H. suspectum_, the gila
monster, in the hot and sandy lowlands of the Gila basin. The animal,
which reaches a length of more than 2 ft., is blackish-brown and
yellow or orange, and on the thick tail these "warning colours" are
arranged in alternate rings. Small animals are probably paralyzed or
killed by the bite, the poison being effective enough to produce
severe symptoms even in man. The Zapotecs, who call the creature
Talachini, and other tribes of Mexico have endowed it with fabulous
properties and fear it more than the most poisonous snakes.
_Lanthanotus corneensis_, of which only a few specimens are known, is
apparently closely allied to _Heloderma_, although the teeth are not
grooved, osteoderms are absent and probably also the poison glands.

Family 6. _Aniellidae._--One genus, _Aniella_, with a few worm- or
snake-shaped species in California, which seem to be degraded forms of
_Anguidae_. The eyes and ears are concealed, the limbs are entirely
absent, body and tail covered with soft, imbricating scales. The
tongue is villose, smooth, bifid anteriorly. The few teeth are
recurved, with swollen bases. The skull is much reduced. Total length
of _A. pulchra_ up to 8 in.

Family 7. _Zonuridae._--Pleurodont; tongue short, villose, scarcely
protractile, feebly nicked at the tip. With osteoderms at least upon
the skull, where they roof in the temporal region. Africa and
Madagascar.

Only 4 genera, with about 15 species. _Zonurus_ of South Africa and
Madagascar has the whole head, neck, back and tail covered with strong
bony scales, the horny covering of which forms sharp spikes,
especially on the tail. They defend themselves by jerking head and
tail sidewards. _Z. giganteus_ reaches 15 in. in length, and is, like
the other members of the family, zoophagous. The other genera live in
southern and in tropical Africa: _Pseudocordylus_, _Platysaurus_ and
_Chamaesaura_; the latter closely approaches the _Anguidae_ by its
snake-shaped body, very long tail and much reduced limbs, which in _C.
macrolepis_ are altogether absent.

Family 8. _Xantusiidae._--Pleurodont; tongue very short and scaly; no
osteoderms; supratemporal fossa roofed over by the cranial bones; eyes
devoid of movable lids; tympanum exposed; femoral pores present; limbs
and tail well developed. American.

_Xantusia_ (so named after Xantus, a Hungarian collector), e.g. _X.
vigilis_ and a few other species from the desert tracts of Nevada and
California to Lower California. _Lepidophyma flavomaculatum_, Central
America; and _Cricosaura typica_ in Cuba.

Family 9. _Tejidae._--Teeth solid, almost acrodont; tongue long and
narrow, deeply bifid, beset with papillae; no osteoderms; scales of
the back very small or quite granular; limbs sometimes reduced.
America.

This large, typically American family comprises more than 100 species
which have been arranged in many genera. Some are entirely arboreal,
dwellers in forests, while others, like _Cnemidophorus_ and _Ameiva_,
are strictly terrestrial, with great running powers; a few dwell below
the surface and are transformed into almost limbless worm-shaped
creatures. The family is essentially neotropical. Of its several dozen
genera only two extend through and beyond Central America: _Ameiva_
into the eastern and western Hot-lands of Mexico, _Cnemidophorus_
(monographed by H. Gadow, _Proc. Zool. Soc._, 1906, pp. 277-375)
through Mexico into the United States, where _C. sexlineatus_, the
"swift," has spread over most of the Union. _Tupinambis teguixin_, the
"teju" of South America and the West Indies, is the largest member of
the family; it reaches a length of a yard, most of which, however,
belongs to the strong, whip-like tail. _Teguixin_ is taken from the
Aztec _teco-ixin_, i.e. rock-lizard, the vernacular name of
_Sceloporus torquatus_ which is one of the _Iguanidae_ misspelt and
misapplied. The tejus frequent forests and plantations and are
carnivorous, eating anything they can overpower. They in turn are much
hunted for the sake of their delicate flesh. They defend themselves
not only with their powerful jaws and sharp claws, but also with
lashing strokes of the long tail. They also use this whip for killing
snakes which they are said to eat. Their long-oval, hard-shelled eggs
are deposited in the ground. They retire into self-dug burrows.
_Cophias_ and _Scolecosaurus_ have very much reduced limbs. In the
genus _Tejus_ the teeth of the adult become molar-like; and in
_Dracaena_ they are transformed into large, oval crushers, indicating
strictly herbivorous habits, while most members of the family live
upon animal food.

Family 10. _Amphisbaenidae._--The body is covered with soft skin,
forming numerous rings with mere vestiges of scales. Worm-shaped,
without limbs, except _Chirotes_ which has short, clawed fore-limbs.
Eyes and ears concealed. Tongue slightly elongated, covered with
scale-like papillae and bifurcating. Tail extremely short. Acrodont or
pleurodont. America, Mediterranean countries, and Africa with the
exception of Madagascar.

_Chirotes canaliculatus_, and two other species; Pacific side of
Mexico and Lower California. With five, four or three claws on the
stout little digging fore-limbs. These pink, worm-like creatures live
in sandy, moist localities, burrowing little tunnels and never
appearing on the surface. _Amphisbaena_ (q.v.). _Rhinëura_ of Florida,
and also known from the Oligocene of South Dakota; _Lepidosternum_ of
South America; and _Anops_ in America and Africa; _Blanus cinereus_,
Mediterranean countries. _Trogonophis_, _Pachycalamus_ and _Agamodon_
of Africa are all acrodont; the other genera are pleurodont. In all
about a dozen genera, with some 60, mostly tropical species.

Family 11. _Scincidae._--Pleurodont. Tongue scaly, feebly nicked in
front. Osteoderms on the head and body. Limbs often reduced.
Cosmopolitan. The temporal region is covered over, as in the
_Lacertidae_ and _Anguidae_, with strongly developed dermal
ossifications. Similar osteoderms underlie the scales of the body and
tail. Femoral pores are absent.

All the skinks seem to be viviparous, and they prefer dry, sandy
ground, in which they burrow and move quickly about in search of their
animal food. This partly subterranean life is correlated with the
frequent reduction of the limbs which, in closely allied forms, show
every stage from fully developed, five-clawed limbs to complete
absence. Some have functional fore-limbs but mere vestiges of
hind-limbs; in others this condition is reversed. In some
deserticolous kinds e.g. _Ablepharus_, the lower eyelid is transformed
into a transparent cover which is fused with the rim of the reduced
upper lid. The same applies to the limbless little _Ophiopsiseps
nasutus_ of Australia. This large family contains about 400 species,
with numerous genera; the greatest diversity in numbers and forms
occurs in the tropical parts of the Old World, especially in the
Australian region, inclusive of many of the Pacific islands. New
Zealand has at least 6 species of _Lygosoma_. America, notably South
America, has comparatively very few skinks.

The skink, which has given the name to the whole family, is a small
lizard (_Scincus officinalis_) of 6 or 8 in. in length, common in arid
districts of North Africa and Syria. A peculiarly wedge-shaped snout,
and toes provided with strong fringes, enable this animal to burrow
rapidly in and under the sand of the desert. In former times large
quantities of it were imported in a dry state into Europe for
officinal purposes, the drug having the reputation of being
efficacious in diseases of the skin and lungs; and even now it may be
found in apothecaries' shops in the south of Europe, country people
regarding it as a powerful aphrodisiac for cattle.