Are the sources of the most ancient Roman history, before ever an
historical literature had arisen in Rome, worthy of credit? In former
times a simple honest belief was prevalent concerning this point; it
would have been considered as audacity and as a crime, if any one had
doubted of the Roman history, especially that which Livy drew and set
forth from the sources at his command. It is now quite incomprehensible
to us to what a degree very ingenious men, like Scaliger, who had far
more knowledge than we, received without any hesitation the details
of ancient history, deeming, for instance, the lists of the kings
of Sicyon to be quite as authentic as those of the kings of France.
This state of literary innocence lasted as long as all education was
purely philological, and derived from books only. In the seventeenth
century, when in England, France, and Germany, a new era commenced
for the civilization of mankind, many began to be startled at the
contradictions which some individuals might have remarked before
them, but had imposed on themselves silence upon the subject,--as for
instance the Roman Valla, the discovery of whose grave is one of the
most pleasing remembrances of my life, and Glareanus, who thereby
irritated the ingenious Sigonius, a man, however, who had not the least
idea of historical criticism. The Italians were for some time a-head of
the rest of Europe, then the French followed, and shortly afterwards,
the Germans. As early as towards the end of the sixteenth century lived
Pighius, a native of the province of Cleves, who had original ideas
with regard to historical criticism, but who has commenced much and
finished nothing. Then followed Perizonius’ able criticism, and then
the sceptical works of Bayle and Beaufort. It was not possible in the
eighteenth century to receive the Roman history with the same credulity
as in the sixteenth, since the sphere of the human mind had been so
much enlarged during the seventeenth. People wanted to comprehend what
had happened, and how it had come to pass, and so they could no more
believe in the Roman history as they found it. O that Perizonius had
gone on with the work which he had begun, and had formed the conviction
that he must arrive at an historical result, without which belief no
man can advance and succeed;--or, that others had proceeded in his
track! But he was wanting in self-confidence, and others set themselves
to the work with less comprehensive powers. Beaufort, a clever man, but
whose studies had not been sufficiently comprehensive, forms at this
time an epoch; but his literary and personal imperfections caused him
to root up the tares with the wheat. Already before had Pouilly, in the
‘Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et des belles lettres,’ set
forth the same opinions, but quite crudely. It was the time of that
extreme scepticism which Bayle had given birth to, and Freret had
confirmed. Beaufort did not feel the necessity of a good groundwork of
scientific knowledge; nevertheless he held a prominent place in his
time, and exercised a marked influence upon Hooke and Fergusson, who
were not capable of any deep inquiry. Yet it is remarkable that those
points which Beaufort had left untouched caused scruple to no one.
People made difficulties about the seven kings, the chronology, and
other matters of the kind; but they would believe without knowing why,
and repudiate what had a very good foundation. Such a state of things
must be followed by a regular sound criticism, or there is an end of
science.
Properly speaking, Livy himself to a great extent is liable to the
censure of having made the earlier Roman history fall into disrepute;
not merely because he sets forth much contradictory matter, but because
he says himself in the beginning of the sixth book, that a new era
commenced with the burning of the city by the Gauls, in which the
records of the earlier times had been destroyed. This is only half true.
That in the earliest times the use of letters was already known among
the Romans, and that authors might therefore have existed dating from
the remotest periods, cannot be gainsayed, as we still have coins of
Sybaris, the destruction of which is generally set down as having taken
place four years before the expulsion of the kings. If the Greeks in
Italy had letters, why should not the Romans have had them likewise?
A common and easy use of them is not to be thought of previous to the
introduction of the Egyptian papyrus;[1] but that writing was used in
Rome very early is shown by the census, which required very extensive
book-keeping. It is beyond a doubt, that before the burning by the
Gauls a written law existed, the composition of which is attributed to
L. Papirius under Tarquinius Superbus (according to others, Tarquinius
Priscus). When Livy therefore says, _per illa tempora litteræ raræ
erant_, this is only partly correct. Authors there were at that time
none at all (by which appellation I designate those who write with
a view of being read by a public). And when moreover he says of
written literature, (_litteræ_), _una custodia fidelis memoriæ rerum
gestarum_, he goes too far. We have parallels in the German and other
histories. Among the Greeks, Polybius mentions the Chronographies,
and Toichographies, Annals especially in the temples. Corresponding
to these are our Annales Bertiniani, Fuldenses, and others, which
commence from the seventh century, and go on through the period of the
Carlovingians. They are composed of unconnected lines under the heads
of the years of the different reigns, and at the side of the yearly
dates the events are marked in the briefest manner, for instance,
_Saxones debellati_. These annals also were mostly kept in churches;
besides the names of the emperors, those of the bishops are usually
found. After the chronicles of the empire, those of the towns arose.
Thus it was among nations who in every respect were most different.
Among ourselves also, family events are even now still frequently noted
in our Bibles. Such annotations are most ancient, and it may safely be
supposed that they existed in Rome likewise in very great numbers. When
magistrates were introduced who changed every year, it became necessary
to note down their names for the Fasti; for no document had legal
validity unless the accurate date was affixed to it. In these Fasti
they had without doubt an era _a regibus exactis_, the consuls being at
the same time registered, and the principal events put down.
To these annals belong the _Annales Maximi_, more rarely called
_Annales Pontificum_, an authentic and more comprehensive arrangement
of annals, the object of which was to record every thing that was to be
preserved for public memory. Cicero, de Oratore II, 12. and Servius ad
Virg. Æn. I, 373, state that the chief pontiff wrote the most important
events on an album which was exhibited at his residence, where probably
many may have copied it, as we know of Cn. Flavius who exhibited a copy
of the Fasti in the Forum. An album is a whitewashed tablet (a proof of
the difficulty of the material), on this the transcript of the public
documents was painted, as for example, the _Edictum Prætorium_ and
others. Now Cicero states, that the noting down of the annals had been
made _ab initio rerum Romanarum_ to the pontificate of P. Mucius; from
which people wanted to conclude that the Romans in his time had had
authentic annals which had gone on without interruption from the first
beginning of the state. But this is by no means what Cicero says, he
merely states that the noting down of events had been a usage observed
from the first; that the annals had been preserved entire in his time,
he does not mention any where. Vopiscus mentions, that they had been
kept _ad excessu Romuli_, beginning therefore with Numa; but this is
only the opinion of an illiterate man. The pontificate was referred to
Numa, and so was therefore also the institution of the annals.
We may say with certainty, that the annals of the pontiffs for the
earlier times were afterwards restored, although the belief in their
genuineness might be generally received. The pontiffs were conservators
of the law and of the chronology, and of course therefore also of
history. But even if the original annals had only existed as far back
as the expulsion of the kings, those most irreconcilable contradictions
which we now find would have been impossible. Would not Fabius and
others have found them out? Livy himself says, that the old records of
history had perished in the Gallic conflagration. This may particularly
refer to the _Annales Pontificum_; at that time not even the twelve
tables were rescued, now could these _Alba_ have been saved? The fact
alone, that they were not found farther back induced Livy to make
conclusions which were too sweeping. The chief pontiff lived below in
the town, so that although the _Annales Maximi_ were destroyed, yet
many other annals (of private persons living perhaps in the Capitol,
and others) might have been preserved. Thus in China, the old books
were destroyed by the command of the Emperor, and those now preserved
were restored from the memory of aged men, and the supplements of the
astronomers with regard to the eclipses of the sun and the moon. And in
the same manner, the Sibylline books, after the destruction in Sylla’s
time, were made up again by collation from all quarters. According to
a Jewish tradition, this applies also to some books of Holy Scripture
which were restored after the destruction of the temple. In this manner
we may also explain what is recorded concerning the fabled infinite
antiquity of the Egyptians. The eighteenth dynasty of Manetho is
historical. Before it the Hyksos were reigning, under whom old records
are stated to have been lost. And yet we are told, that before this,
seventeen more dynasties had existed, reference being made to such lost
annals. Before Champollion’s invention of the reading of hieroglyphics,
one wanted to repudiate as unhistorical every thing down to the time
of Psammitichus, whereas we now know, that the age of the Hyksos forms
the boundary of real history, and that every thing previous to it has
been supplied afterwards. In like manner, the _Annales Maximi_ may
have been restored for the time anterior to the burning by the Gauls.
A striking proof that the authentic _Annales Pontificum_ were not
preserved beyond the destruction of the city by the Gauls is afforded
by the passage in Cic. R. P. I, 16, where the eclipse of the sun, which
took place fifteen years before the Gallic conflagration, is spoken of.
This eclipse, which was seen at Gades, was mentioned in the _Annales
Pontificum_ as an extraordinary phenomenon, and put in connexion
with the passage of the Gauls over the Alps which took place nearly
about the same time. Now Cicero states, that from this eclipse all
the preceding ones had been calculated backwards up to the time when
Romulus was snatched away from the earth.
Servius states of these annals that they had been divided into eighty
books. It is to be remarked, however, that this passage of the
Scholion is not found in the Codex Fuldensis, but only in several
other manuscripts, the trustworthiness of which is indeed rather
doubtful; yet it is not to be understood, how any one could have told
stories precisely on this subject. Cicero, in the introduction to the
books _De legibus_, says moreover concerning the _Annales Maximi_,
_quibus nihil potest esse jucundius_, which is quite enigmatical. The
manuscripts of the books _De legibus_ have all of them in the fifteenth
century, from the year 1420, been copied from one single manuscript.
Ursinus conjectures instead of _jucundius_, _jejunius_, which indeed
has much in its favour; others propose _incomtius_. A first-rate
author, however, may sometimes easily venture upon an expression
which puzzles and distracts us; and thus Cicero may have written in
this passage _jucundius_, merely in order to designate the enjoyment
which historical records of such high antiquity afford, owing to their
credibility. At least we should not be justified in altering the word.
We may form a distinct idea of these annals from the passages which
Livy has quoted from them at the end of the tenth book, especially
where he mentions the election of the magistrates, and in the third and
fourth decades. As it seems, Livy’s copy only began with the year 460
A. U. C., otherwise he would have certainly made an earlier use of it.
One point is still to be mentioned, Diomedes (III, 480) states, that
the _res gestæ populi Romani_ are (in the present tense) noted down
by the pontiffs and scribes. Now authors like him are to be taken _cum
grano salis_, but he is of some weight in so far as he had no desire
to deceive, and he might have known it after all. When therefore
Cicero states that the Annales had been written only as far down as
to P. Mucius, a distinction must perhaps be made. In the times of
P. Mucius, it may have been deemed superfluous to continue them any
longer, the later _acta diurna_ may about this time have commenced,--a
sort of town gazette, which also contained the acts of the senate.
The farther development of these _acta diurna_ (afterwards _diurnale_,
_journal_) together with the rise of literature is probably the cause
of the _Annales Pontificum_ having ceased. Yet similar annals may
have been continued privately. The infinitely important fragment of a
chronicle of Rome, by a monk of the name of Benedict, who belonged to
the monastery of Soracte, discovered by Pertz,[2] contains at the time
of Pope John the Eighth, annotations made quite in the old language of
the annals concerning the _Ostenta_, which at that time were seen in
Rome and the environs; that the lightning had struck the city wall;
that there had been a shower of stones; and such like entries. In many
monasteries the Annals of St. Jerome were continued. Every year the
most remarkable events were inserted, as when an Emperor ascended the
throne, &c. In this manner the expression of Diomedes may be justified.
These different annals were the only books of history from the earliest
times which have been preserved among the Romans. All others mentioned
by Livy, _libri magistratuum_, _libri legum_, &c. are Fasti, of which
there were certainly a great number dating from the commencement of the
Republic, the like of which we have still in the _Fasti Capitolini_ and
_Triumphales_, incomplete, even frequently falsified. These Fasti,
which are still to be seen on the Capitol, where Augustus set them up,
and which originated with Varro or Atticus,--the so-called Capitoline
Fasti which formerly stood in the Curia Julia--contained only at the
side of some detached yearly dates some memorable events. The Triumphal
Fasti, which stood in the same edifice in a different place, had
certainly existed from very early times. Every triumph was marked down
in them, and very likely with more detail than was done in those which
are preserved. The statements of Livy concerning the booty which had
been made, are undoubtedly always taken from these Triumphal Fasti; but
it is very remarkable that they are first found the year after that in
which his extracts from the _Annales Pontificum_ commence.
Another source of information concerning the earliest Roman history are
the _Commentarii Pontificum_. They were a collection of law cases from
the old public and ceremonial law, together with the decisions of the
pontiffs in cases which came under their jurisdiction, similar to the
decisions of the lawyers in the pandects. This mass was the groundwork
from which those who studied the laws deduced the general principles.
The Sunnah, which is the Mahomedan code of law, and the Talmud are
quite corresponding to it in form. An abstract principle is never laid
down: there is nothing but an enumeration of decisions in particular
cases. We find the same in the Pentateuch in the discussions concerning
the inheritance of females. With reference to the case of _judicium
perduellionis_, it is stated how Horatius had slain his sister. But
the groundwork of those books is nevertheless made at a different time
from that which is given out in it. What we know must date from a later
time, indeed still a very remote one for us, anterior to the rise of
Roman historical writing, yet not so old as they themselves would have
us believe.
The same was the case with the _Libri Pontificum_ and _Libri
Augurales_. From them the historians quote the declarations of war in
that definite formula which Ancus is said first to have introduced.
The forms of surrender, the formula _fœderis feriendi_, the appeals to
the people, were according to Cicero likewise entered in them. From
these books history has been enriched as much as if they had contained
authentic historical facts.
Another source of the annalists were the _laudationes funebres_, spoken
of by Livy and by Cicero in Brutus, from which latter it comes out,
that very old specimens, dating as far back as from the times before
the war of Pyrrhus, were in existence. They were kept in the Atrium,
near the images of the ancestors (_imagines_). They were speeches in
commemoration of a deceased person, delivered in the forum by the
nearest kinsman, at first quite simple and unpretending. According to
Cicero, they always returned to the family and the ancestors, that is
to say, the descent of the deceased was traced from the first fathers
of the race. But Cicero and Livy both complain of the falsifications
which crept from these panegyrics into Roman history. The Romans, in
fact, notwithstanding all the veracity which they otherwise possessed,
had an extraordinary vanity with regard to political and family
relations, deeming themselves bound in duty to extol their state and
their families. For this reason forged victories and triumphs are
contained in those _laudationes_.
This was the material when the first historians arose. They had
besides, it is true, many laws and other documentary records; but
these were a buried treasure noticed by few only. On the whole, the
Romans were too careless and negligent to make use of such sources.
A remarkable example of it is afforded by Livy, who, among other
things, contents himself with stating, that he had heard from Augustus
that there existed a certain inscription in the temple of Jupiter
Feretrius,[3] without ever thinking of looking himself at it in the
Capitol, where he certainly must have been often enough.
The Annals, many of which, as may have been seen, were preserved in
later times, form one source of history, of which it cannot be stated
at all how early it could have commenced. But this is only the skeleton
of history. Besides these there is a living traditionary history. It
consists of narrations which pass from the father to the children, and
may be very circumstantial;--others are propagated partly by word of
mouth, partly in writing, and these are the poetical traditions. Here
is a field on which it will never be possible to agree, whilst looking
only to one side of the question. I am convinced that great part of the
early Roman history has been handed down in songs; that is to say, all
that has life in it, all that has pith and meaning, and coherence. This
is to me as evident a truth as any in the world. To these belongs the
history of Romulus, that of Tarquinius Priscus, down to the battle near
the lake Regillus, and others. The passages in Varro, and a fragment of
Cato in Cicero, purporting that the Romans sang the achievements of the
ancients to the flute, speak distinctly to the fact. Three inscriptions
on the tombs of the Scipios are poetical, as I have shown in my Roman
history. Such is moreover the story of Coriolanus, of Curtius, and
others. Besides this there are without any doubt preserved in Livy
detached lines from the lay of Tullius Hostilius and the Horatii. With
regard to others we have not indeed any thing to bring forward, but we
may here appeal to the general experience of mankind.[4]
It matters not in the least, whether the old legends were still in
existence at the time when the historians wrote their works, or whether
they were in verse or in prose. We may find a parallel illustration in
our own (German) literature, and refer to the manifold changes which
our epic poems had to undergo. The song of Hildebrand and Hadubrand,
which Eckard has edited, and W. Grimm has commented upon, is of much
more ancient date than the times of Charles the Great; in the tenth
century there existed a Latin version of it. We are acquainted with
the ‘Nibelungen’ only in that form in which they have been composed in
the thirteenth century. How many phases may there not have occurred
in the interval between? Then we have the much tamer version of the
same subject in the ‘Book of Heroes;’ and at last that in prose of
‘Siegfried,’ which for some centuries has been in an ever renewed
form in the hands of the people. Now if the ‘Nibelungen’ and all
the information concerning them had been lost, and some ingenious
critic recognised in ‘Siegfried’ the old poem, it would be exactly
the same case as in the Roman history. The quotation of some verses
from the ‘Nibelungen’ in Aventinus,[5] would then stand quite on the
same footing as the three verses cited by Livy in the story of the
Horatii. Such lays go for a long time side by side with history. Saxo
Grammaticus has tried to change the Danish Saga into history, and on
that account he cannot be brought into agreement with the statements
of the Chronicles. Just so is it in Grecian history. Rhianus, in his
poem on Messene, which he undoubtedly composed from old popular songs,
is utterly at variance with the list of Spartan kings which Pausanias
found in the old records, and with the facts which are mentioned in
the contemporary strains of Tyrtæus. Then comes the time long before
a literature exists, when men who have a true vocation write history;
as, for instance, the author of the excellent Chronicle of Cologne.
In this chronicle, which partly dates from the fifteenth century,
and which might be made beautifully complete from the archives of
Cologne, we find the poem of Gotfrid Hagen on the feud of the bishops,
paraphrased in prose, yet with some traces of the rhyme remaining.
(Here then is another example of the continual alteration of the form
of old poems.) Yet if we compare this with what is stated by that very
chronicle on the same subject, perhaps from church books, they can by
no means be reconciled with each other. The same thing happened in the
Russian Chronicles, which were continued from the time of Nestor, a
monk of the eleventh century, down to a much later period, as I myself
can testify from a copy in my own possession. The authors of these,
as well as the writer of the Chronicle of Cologne, did not live in a
literary age, and their works therefore vanished, as they did not write
for the public at large. Similar chronicles had without doubt arisen
in Rome also before the literature of history commenced; that is to
say, before authors wrote for the Greek public, as Fabius, M. Cincius,
C. Acilius did. History as a branch of literature only began when the
Romans wished to make themselves known to the Greeks. Those who were
not Greeks were everywhere keenly alive to the contempt which they had
to suffer from the Greeks.
Cicero and Livy say that by the orations in praise of the dead history
had been made fabulous. There can be no doubt of this; yet, for all
that, those discourses were not a mere tissue of fables, but they were
mostly documents of a very early period. This ancient time may be dated
from the expulsion of the kings, that is to say, twenty-eight years
before the passage of Xerxes over the Hellespont. How many literary
documents of the Greeks have we not of that date? Thus in the case
of the seven consulships of the Fabii, as they are told in Livy and
Dionysius, in the case of the battle with the Veientines, of the story
of Q. Fabius Maximus (in the last book of the first decade of Livy),
the relations seem to be taken from such and similar documents; unless
we choose to suppose that these stories had been fabricated with such
astonishing accuracy of detail. It even seems that Fabius Maximus
himself has written his own history, that at least a number of records
were at hand in the accomplished Fabian family, and were carefully
preserved. Of this intellectual cultivation among the Fabii, we have
many proofs before us. C. Fabius Pictor, a hundred years before the war
of Hannibal, created a work of art of the highest beauty; the historian
wrote in Greek without being ever reproached with barbarisms in his
style.
In composing history, men consulted the annals of the pontiffs, wrote
out in good faith what was found in them, and put in what they found
in the lays wherever they thought it would best suit, little caring
whether it closely tallied or not. These different pieces were probably
joined together with a greater accuracy than was done in the Chronicle
of Cologne. Few only, Fabius possibly, or what is more likely, Cincius
Alimentus and M. Licinius Macer first made use also of the documents
in the Capitol and the old law books. The brazen law tables may have
indeed been taken away by the Gauls, but there still existed other
sources of law. The whole of the earlier constitution seems to have
been described in the _Commentarii Pontificum_ in law cases, from
which Gracchanus took it. The groundwork of these notices is extremely
worthy of credit. The march and progress of the constitution from the
establishment of the Republic may be completely traced in it, with an
accuracy much greater than has hitherto been possible with regard to
considerable portions of medieval history.
One ought to take care not to consider the Romans previous to the time
when they learned from the Greeks as barbarians. A people which in the
age of the kings built those wonderful sewers; which a hundred years
before the Punic wars produced the she-wolf of the Capitol; which
possessed a painter like C. Fabius Pictor; which made a sarcophagus
like that of Scipio Barbatus, takes certainly a high stand in mental
cultivation. And such we must deem their written literature to have
been, not composed in Greek forms, but endowed with beauties peculiarly
its own. The grammarians knew still the moral maxims of Appius Claudius
Cæcus, Cicero still read a speech of the same person against Pyrrhus.
Where such writings were kept, many others also must have still existed.
The earliest work which we know of as a contemporary history is the
first Punic war of Cn. Nævius, who had himself served in that contest.
If concerning this greatest of all ancient wars, we had more positive
accounts, such as we possess of the second Punic war, it would be
better appreciated. That Nævius wrote this war in the Saturnian
rhythm, that he wrote it as a poem, is characteristic of the age, a
proof that ancient history was at that time familiar to the Romans
in a poetical form. So it was in the oldest historical literature
of the Germans with the feud of the bishops by Gotfrid Hagen, and
with the poetical history of the conquest of Livonia by the Teutonic
knights (which is as yet unprinted); for before the thirteenth century
at least no history was written in German prose. The year in which
Nævius first brought out a play on the stage is undecided. It was
somewhere about the year 520; two passages in Gellius concerning it
are contradictory.[6] Whether that piece, however, was the first that
he had written, or whether he composed his great work yet earlier, is
not mentioned by any one. Nævius was a Campanian, and it may safely
be presumed that at Capua there was already a greater movement in
literature than there was in Rome at the same time. The poem consisted
of seven books. According to Suetonius, it was originally written
_continente sermone_, but was divided by C. Octavius Lampadius into
books, and probably also into single verses. This poem, to judge
from the fragments still extant of it, was by no means deficient in
poetical merit. Perhaps Servius had not read Nævius at all; he only
seems to have known from older commentators that Virgil had borrowed
from him the argument of his first book. Nævius treated in it of the
destruction of Troy, of Dido, and Æneas. It is very natural to surmise
that he also derived already the rivalry between Rome and Carthage from
the faithlessness of Æneas.[7] Yet it was hardly an elaborate Roman
history. It is known that Nævius by some libellous verses against the
Metelli was brought into great troubles, and that he is said to have
been thrown into prison. But it is enigmatical how a Roman citizen
could have been thrown into prison for the publication of a _liber
famosus_. He is said to have written two plays, whilst there. This is
scarcely to be understood, when one has seen those frightful dungeons
at Rome, into which no ray of light ever finds its way, and which the
ancients themselves declared to be the Gates of Death. The facts may
have happened in the following manner. Nævius was a Campanian, and
the Campanians lost in the war of Hannibal all the benefits of their
rights as citizens. Nævius, who was now friendless and helpless, must
as a Campanian have been _noxæ deditus_ to the Metelli, and have been
confined, not in the public prison, but in the house of the Metelli, in
a dungeon such as the Romans frequently had in their own houses for
the confinement of debtors. Just as incorrect is the statement in the
Chronicon of St. Jerome, that Nævius had died in the year of Cato’s
era, 547 (according to Varro 549), at Utica; for as Utica was attached
during the war of Hannibal to the party of Carthage, he would even as a
_transfuga_ have been very badly received there. According to Cicero,
Varro placed the death of Nævius at a later period than others did.
There existed therefore at that time already some uncertainty about it.
After the second Punic war, there arose several authors who wrote in
the Greek language. After the Macedonian period, the Greeks began in
their histories to direct their attention to the remoter nations also.
This encouraged able men among such nations, who understood Greek, to
write the history of their people, in order to be read by the Greeks.
In Southern Italy, the Greek language had been long introduced. To
maintain that the Lucanian Ocellus had really written the works
attributed to him might scarcely be advisable; but some reason must
nevertheless have existed for placing the authorship of them to his
account, and Aristoxenus, to whom all the statements which are extant
concerning this point are to be referred, was aware that these people
wrote in Greek. In Campania, Apulia, and elsewhere, the native towns
had Greek inscriptions and coins. The Alexandrine grammarians read
Oscan histories of Italy; but these books were by no means written
in the Oscan, but in the Greek language. With regard to the Roman
history, there are particularly to be mentioned Q. Fabius Pictor,[8]
and Cincius Alimentus, both of them very high-born Romans. The former,
being of patrician family, had been sent as ambassador to Delphi. He
was great-grandson of that C. Fabius Pictor, who painted the temple
of Salus, a work of art which was preserved until the times of the
emperor Claudius, and was most probably a battle piece representing
the victory of Consul Junius over the Æqui. To him already we must
give credit for having been familiar with the Greek language and
manners, as the practice of painting, according to genuine Roman views,
would not have been seemly for a patrician. His son was ambassador
to Alexandria, and consequently likewise acquainted with Greek. The
object of the historian Fabius was without doubt to combat the odious
and unfair notions of the Greeks respecting the Romans. He therefore
wrote the Roman history from the beginning,--whether from the arrival
of Æneas we know not, but most likely from the _primordia urbis_. He
described, as Dionysius states, the earlier times κεφαλαιωδῶς, those
which were nearer to his own more circumstantially, a feature which he
has in common with almost all the Roman historians except Cn. Gellius
and Valerius Antias, who do just the contrary. Cato alone kept an even
balance. The real subject of Fabius was the war of Hannibal; but his
account of the first Punic war was also detailed. From Polybius we see,
that he endeavoured in every possible way to justify his own people;
that writer even taxes him with partiality for the Romans. The first
history of the first Punic war had been written by Philinus, a native
of Agrigentum, who was more highly exasperated against the Romans,
on account of the destruction of the town of his birth. In direct
opposition to him, Fabius in his writings now perhaps exaggerated in
favour of the other side. Probably he wrote as far down as to the
end of the second Punic war, although we have no evidence in proof,
as most of the quotations from him refer to the very earliest times
of Roman history. The title of his book we know not; nor do we find
it mentioned anywhere, in spite of the frequent quotations, into how
many books it was divided. The work was held in exceedingly high
estimation, he is very often quoted by Livy and likewise by Polybius,
and Diodorus Siculus; but surely we have many things from him where we
do not read his name mentioned. It is evident and certain that Diodorus
took Ol. 8, 1. to be the date of the building of Rome, just as Fabius
did. Now Diodorus in the several years contains notices concerning
Roman history, which are very much at variance with the statements of
Livy, but which, although indeed very scanty, are by no means to be
despised. These he can only have taken from Fabius or Timæus; but the
former is more likely on account of the accordance just alluded to.
Appian, on the occasion of the embassy to Delphi, mentions Fabius, ὃς
τόνδε τὸν πόλεμον ξυνέγραψε; and he too certainly has borrowed from
him. Appian was very little conversant with Latin, and had not the
least research; where Dionysius of Halicarnassus went before him he
closely followed his track, just as Zonaras did with regard to Dio
Cassius. Fabius Pictor had likewise written in Greek, (Dion. Hal.
V proœm.), so that Appian could read him. Now he also agrees in a
remarkable manner with Zonaras, who follows in the wake of Dio Cassius,
whose keen glance recognised Fabius as the best authority. We owe
therefore to Fabius an immense debt of gratitude for the most precious
and invaluable information. And certainly the careful language used
concerning the earlier constitution by Dio Cassius, who consistently
calls populus δῆμος, and _plebs_ ὅμιλος or πλῆθος, is derived from
Fabius. Thus Fabius not only is the father of Roman history, but in him
also is found the highest and most perfect knowledge of the ancient
constitution. Censorious people have railed at the idea that we in the
nineteenth century should pretend to understand the Roman constitution
better than Livy and Dionysius did; yet we do not presume to understand
it differently from the consular Dio Cassius, and Q. Fabius from whom
he has borrowed.
With reference to Fabius, there is great and insurmountable difficulty
belonging to literary history in the manner in which Cicero de
Divinat. I, 21 speaks of him, where he mentions _somnium Æneæ ex
Numerii Fabii Pictoris græcis annalibus_. This Numerius Fabius Pictor
reappears in no other place. The prænomen of Quintus Fabius Pictor is
a point quite settled, as it occurs in too many authors; but at that
period several wrote in Greek, so that there may possibly have been
also a Numerius Fabius Pictor. Cn. Aufidius, whom Cicero speaks of,
is likewise quite unknown. As it happens, the books _De Divinatione_
have only come down to us in bad manuscripts, which are all derived
from one single copy now lost, yet we should certainly not be warranted
in supposing this prænomen in particular to be falsified. Yet in his
treatise De Orat. II, 12 and in the beginning of the first book De
Legibus, Cicero speaks of a certain Pictor as of a Latin author of
Annals, and places him between Cato and Piso. This person is also
quoted by no one else; but Gellius V, 4, cites _Annales Fabii_ without
any cognomen. A writer of the name of Pictor,[9] _de Jure Pontificio_,
is met with in Macrobius; but these books are foreign to history.
Perhaps Cicero made a mistake. There was another annalist, Fabius
Maximus Servilianus, who was an author of note according to Dionysius,
who mentions him after Cato. Servius also cites him. He lived just
in the period between Cato and Piso. His book was entitled _Q. Fabii
Annales_. Cicero had an extreme dislike to the old annalists, he had
in all probability hardly read any besides Cato, at least not since
his youth. Now in all likelihood he calls that Fabius erroneously
Pictor. In dictating especially, such a mistake may occur. That Cicero
was little versed in Roman history is proved by the delusion to which
he recurs more than once, that Decius the grandson had sacrificed
himself like his grandfather and his father.[10] Cicero is particularly
incorrect sometimes with regard to the prænomens, as for instance,
contrary to every other writer, he calls the father of Virginia Decimus
Virginius. The prænomen Numerius was moreover very common in the
Fabian family, so that it might have been more familiar to Cicero.
Lastly, Diodorus mentions the same dream of Æneas, which Cicero treats
of in other places, as being taken from Q. Fabius (Diod. fragm. ap.
Syncell.). In Korte’s edition of Sallust, the fragments of Fabius
Pictor are thrown together with those of Fabius Servilianus.
Contemporary with Fabius was the other Roman, of whom we know from
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, that he wrote the Roman history in
Greek; and it is a very instructive fact, in forming an idea of
these accounts, that without Dionysius we should not have known that
Cincius had written the Roman history in Greek. From Livy we should
only have been able to gather that he had written about the war of
Hannibal. He was a senator and prætor in the second Punic war, and
was made a prisoner in the beginning of the struggle. We see on this
occasion, that he must have been a very distinguished personage; as
the Roman laws were very strict in that war against those who allowed
themselves to be made prisoners, and he nevertheless attained to high
and honourable offices. He relates, that Hannibal had entered into
conversation with him, and given him an account of his passage over
the Alps; a proof as well of his personal consequence, as of the
circumstance that he could speak Greek, since Hannibal in the beginning
of the war did not yet speak Latin. He is called by Livy _Maximus
Auctor_, and his statement cited by the latter as decisive. His works
_De Potestate Consulum_, and on the Roman Calendar, he wrote in Latin;
as to his identity there cannot be the least doubt. From Dionysius we
see that he had peculiar views with regard to Roman antiquities. He
made researches concerning the monuments of ancient times, even in
Etruria, thereby forming an exception to the most of the Romans. What
Dionysius has taken from him, cannot be known for certain. A fragment
of his in Festus, throws especial light on the relations between the
Romans and Latins.
Likewise in Greek, only a little later (after 570), C. Acilius writes
Roman annals down to the war with Antiochus. He is quoted for the Myth
of Romulus; and by Dionysius with reference to the restoration of the
sewers. His work was translated into Latin by a certain Claudius; he
too seems to have been a very estimable writer.
Some more Romans afterwards wrote in Greek; it is, however, uncertain,
whether the whole of the history, or merely memoirs of their time.
There are mentioned A. Postumius Albinus, a contemporary of the elder
Cato (about 600); and Cn. Aufidius, a contemporary of Cicero in his
youth.
It was soon afterwards, towards the beginning of the war with Perseus,
that Q. Ennius composed his Annals. The denomination of annals is
a strange one, quite ill suited to a poem. Ennius was by far too
poetical to write down history year by year. His poem was the first
real imitation of the Greek model: the earlier ones of Nævius were
still in the old lyric style. We are able to gain a general view of
the work in the fragments; if the older quotations were only somewhat
more trustworthy in the numbers, the whole of its argument might be
restored. So much is certain, that the oldest times of the Trojan
arrival and of the kings were contained in the three first books; and
the quotation may also be pretty sure, that the war of Pyrrhus had been
the subject of the fifth book.[11] He occupied himself little with
the domestic struggles; and would probably speak of the wars only,
according to the notions of epic poetry which were then entertained.
The 225 years between were therefore contained in one book; the wars
against the Samnites perhaps only in a slight sketch. The first Punic
war, as Cicero tells us, he altogether left out, because Nævius had
sung it; that of Hannibal he treated with the utmost prolixity, so that
it must have begun already in the seventh book, and have been still
continuing in the twelfth. In the thirteenth book, the subject was the
war with Antiochus; in the fifteenth, the Istrian; so that the last six
books only extended over twenty-four years. There were in all eighteen
books. Of Scipio, and of M. Fulvius Nobilior, he sung the praises with
peculiar richness of detail. The latter he accompanies into the Ætolian
war. He was born in 513, according to Cato’s chronology, and died 583,
continuing his poem almost to the time of his death.
The sources of Ennius for the earliest times were the _Annales Maximi_;
for the times of the kings, the old lays, and the _Commentarii
Pontificum_; in the middle times, Timæus, Hieronymus, Fabius; in the
last years, he was a cotemporary. He is to be blamed for his vanity,
since he placed himself on a level with Homer; and for his bad
hexameters. One cannot but be annoyed at his speaking in a disparaging
tone of the old poems. On the other hand, however, there are fragments
extant of his, which bespeak a true poetical spirit. He had some
similarity to Klopstock, who like him despised the ancient forms,
without knowing the Greek ones sufficiently to distinguish himself in
them. It may be presumed that it was he from whom Livy took his noble
description of the time of the kings.
As to the assertion, that the division of his books had originated with
Q. Vargunteius, a positive denial may be given to it. Suetonius only
states, that Vargunteius had critically reviewed the books of Ennius,
as Lampadio did Nævius.
The fragments of Ennius have been collected by several; with much
minuteness by Hieronymus Columna, at the end of the sixteenth
century, accompanied by a commentary which, although prolix, is very
instructive. Some verses in it are taken from Claudius Sacerdos,
who is still lying in manuscript at Vienna.[12] Soon after him, a
Netherlander, Paul Merula, edited them anew in a different order, and
with many additions. Among the latter there are some verses which
Columna had overlooked. But Merula says that he had a great number of
verses from L. Calpurnius Piso _De Continentia Veterum Poetarum_, in
which the older poets were compared with those of his own time (that of
Pliny), and the latter also among themselves; that the manuscript was
in the library of S. Victor in Paris; that he was however afraid of its
not being safe there. This is altogether strange. Another statement is
that the manuscript had been bound together with a copy of Lucan, and
had afterwards been cut out. Indeed such a copy of Lucan exists still
in Paris, where Bekker has seen it; yet this proves very little after
all. It is possible that in this Merula has committed a fraud, which is
quite in the manner of his time. The detached verses which he quotes
from Nævius and Ennius, are to my belief suspicious without exception.
Those from Nævius are decidedly spurious; for in their case, he was
ignorant of the rhythm. The verses of Ennius are hexameters; but they
nowhere bear the stamp of genuineness, like his other fragments. Why
has not Merula copied and edited that MS., if indeed he entertained any
misgivings that it might be purloined?
Not long after the time of Ennius, whom we rightly reckon among the
Roman historians, Roman history began to be written in Latin prose;
and the first work of this kind was the most important which has
ever been composed on the history of ancient Italy, viz. the Origines
of the elder Cato. They show that Cato had indeed found out the only
right way of treating Roman history. He wrote not the history of the
Romans only, but also that of Italy. As he described the widening the
Roman sway in Italy, he seems to have told the history of each Italic
people separately. We know from Nepos the plan of his seven books.
In the first, there was the history of the kings; in the second and
third, the subjugation of Italy; in the fourth book, the first, and in
the fifth, the second Punic war; in the sixth and seventh, the later
wars down to the time with which he concluded. Cato was a great man
in every respect, he rose far above his age. Of his work we have many
detached quotations; but of real extracts we have only one in Gellius,
viz. the passage of the Tribune Q. Cædicius, which is from the second
Punic war, and consequently belongs to the fourth book. It shows Cato’s
peculiar manner of writing; and we understand from it why Cicero, who
on the whole vacillates between praise and censure with regard to Cato,
distinguishes him above all his contemporaries. He wrote about the year
600. In Livy there is a strange anachronism in the discussions about
the _lex Oppia_, when, in the year 561, the tribune cites against Cato
his Origines. But so slavish was formerly the belief in Livy, that
the most positive information was less considered than that passage.
Gerh. Jo. Vossius is the first who points out that Livy was here most
likely rather speaking himself. What we have from the work of Cato is
unfortunately very little, but all of it excellent. This book and that
of Fabius are by far the most important accounts which we might wish
for Roman history. His work stands alone in the whole collection of
Roman annals.
A short time after Cato, about the time of the destruction of Carthage,
the history of Rome was written by L. Cassius Hemina, of whose work we
have historical quotations in the Grammarians. Several writers call
him _antiquissimus auctor_, which is not said of Piso and others. He
had concerning Alba still the old native chronology: the earlier times
of Rome he made to synchronize with Grecian history. He began from the
very earliest times; and, what was indeed quite different from all the
annalists, from before the foundation of the city. One finds of him
several things concerning the Sicilian towns in Latium; from whence
it would appear that the archæology of the towns was his principal
object. As to his style we may form an idea of it from a single larger
fragment: it is worse than that of Cato. The fourth book, according to
Priscian, had for its title _Bellum Punicum Posterior_; consequently
at the time when he wrote the third war had not yet begun. The secular
festival, 607 according to Varro, he has indeed mentioned; yet it may
have been quite at the end of his work. We must not, however, believe
that his history consisted of four books only; as the whole of the
fourth was taken up by the second Punic war, and thus there must have
been at the very least five or six of them.
From that time, history was written repeatedly, and therefore no
original way of treating the subject is any more to be thought of.
The _Rhetores Latini_ have surely made use of the books which then
existed, and have besides consulted the ancient annals. How far this
may have been the case with each of them in particular is indeed no
more to be decided; but on the whole we shall not be mistaken in this
supposition. It is in this time that the Fabius Pictor is to be placed,
whom Cicero mentions in his work--de Oratore. He was a learned writer:
his work entitled _Res Gestæ_, seems to have been very diffuse, as it
mentions the burning of the city by the Gauls in the fourth book; yet
the number of the books is unknown. No fragment of any import has been
preserved of it. His name was Servius, or perhaps Sextus; for in the
Brutus of Cicero Ser. Fulvius, and then Ser. Fabius is spoken of, whom
he terms _juris pontificii peritissimus_. Yet the books de Oratore and
Brutus, which seem to have such an excellent text, are corrupted in
many little passages, which a clever copyist of the sixteenth century
furbished up. Of the books de Oratore, only one old manuscript has
been found in Milan, which is particularly indistinct. The Brutus
does not fare better: none of the manuscripts date higher than 1430.
There is therefore much doubt about the names in these books. A MS.
at Heidelberg has Serius Fabius, and it is probable that it ought to
be Sextus, as the prænomen Servius is unheard of in the family of the
Fabii. Perhaps this Pictor is the same as he who in a fragment quoted
is called Fabius Maximus Servilianus, since he at least belonged to
that time. The fragment refers to the arrival of Æneas.
Here I also mention the tedious Cn. Gellius, a credulous, uncritical,
and second-rate writer. The time when he lived is uncertain. Vossius
conjectures that he is the very same against whom Cato the Censor made
a speech; but we have fragments of his which do not seem to tally with
such an early period. Much rather should he be placed in the second
half of the seventh century; partly on account of his style, and partly
because he already criticizes, and tries to make the improbabilities
of the old tradition more credible by small but dishonest alterations.
The numbers of his books, as they were quoted, betoken an immense
prolixity. Charisius cites the ninety-seventh book, and that distinctly
written in full letters in the Neapolitan original Codex. Other
citations do not go beyond the thirtieth book.
Cicero mentions after Pictor an annalist, Vennonius, of whom we have
only one passage in Dionysius, referring to the history of the kings.
He therefore most likely wrote annals from the building of the city. In
that fragment, he shows himself to be a man without judgment; which
also corresponds with Cicero’s unfavourable opinion of his manner of
writing.
An author whose period we cannot fix with certainty, is L. Calpurnius
Piso Frugi Censorius, an opponent of C. Gracchus, a supporter of the
aristocratical party, but an honest one. The time of his censorship
occurs between the tribunates of the two Gracchi, and he may have
written his history not long afterwards. He has quite a peculiar
character. He wished to bring the old historical matter, which his
predecessors unconcernedly rendered just as they found it in ancient
poems and Fasti, into the consistency of an actual possibility, and
thus to fashion out a true history by cutting off the improbabilities.
He finds, for instance, that Tarquinius Superbus could not possibly
have been the son of Tarquinius Priscus; and so without any further
ado, he makes him at once his grandson. He is also startled at the
fact of Tarpeia’s having had a tomb on the Capitol; not considering
that she was a Sabine heroine to whom such a tomb had been erected
on the Capitol,[13] as Tatius had a monument on another hill. He is
therefore the original author of all those falsifications,--a sad prosy
undertaking which Cn. Gellius also has entered into. That magnificent
story of Curtius he explains thus, that a warrior with his charger had
been swallowed up in a gulf on the same spot, which could only have
happened when Romulus and Tatius were waging war against each other;
and that Curtius must therefore have been a Sabine general. It does not
occur to him, that a whole army cannot find a footing in a place where
the general sinks down. In the same spirit, it has once been attempted
to change the northern Sagas into history; and there were people who
affected to see in the struggle of the Nibelungen an historical war
of the Burgundians. A similar course was adopted forty or fifty years
ago with regard to the interpretation of the New Testament. The title
of Piso’s book was _Annales_. He was a plodding man; for it is to be
seen that he has made use of sources like the Fasti and such like. The
number of his books is undecided. In his third book, he treats of Cn.
Flavius (450); in the seventh, of the year 516. He came down to his own
times, since he mentions the Secular Games of the year 607.
In the course of the same century, several historical books were
written. I do not, however, mean to speak here of those who merely
composed a history of their own time, but of such only who wrote the
entire Roman history. Among these, there were in Cicero’s youth,
about the period when the books _ad Herennium_ were written, 680, or
rather about the date of Cicero’s consulship, two who wrote a general
Roman history, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, and Q. Valerius Antias. Both
of them, according to Velleius, are later than Cœlius Antipater and
than the older contemporaries of Sisenna. They wrote after the time
of Sylla. Quadrigarius belongs to those authors who, in later times,
after the restoration of the older literature, were frequently read.
He forms, as did Cassius Hemina, an exception to the general rule,
according to which the annalists commenced from the building of the
city. Whilst the latter went yet much farther back than this, Claudius
began his history with the destruction of the city by the Gauls. We
have of him some considerable fragments from which this is evident.
For, in the numerous fragments of his first book, much is told of the
Gallic war; likewise the beginning of the war against the Samnites,--we
have even the battle near Caudium; one of them alludes to the end of
the third Samnite war; and all this not cursorily. As therefore he
comprehended in it a period so ample and rich in incidents, he could
not have had room for the older history. Another argument for our
assertion, is a statement of Plutarch, that a certain Clodius (Kλώδιος)
said that nothing whatever could be grounded upon the older Roman
accounts; as owing to the calamitous invasion, the old documents had
been destroyed, and all that remained was merely the production of
family vanity. In the second, or third book, he speaks of Pyrrhus; in
the fifth and sixth, of Hannibal; in the eighth, of Tiberius Gracchus
the father; in the thirteenth, of Metellus; in the nineteenth, of
Marius: there are quotations from him as far as the twenty-third book.
His history was brought down to about the time of Cicero’s consulship.
Fragments, in which we may clearly recognise the unwieldiness of
language of these old annalists in general, in whose writings regularly
constructed periods[14] are not yet at all to be thought of, are found
in Gellius; and they fully justify Cicero’s opinion with regard to
the old writers. The Chronicles of Cologne and Limburg are for the
most part much better written. Little was therefore read of Roman
prose writers before Sallust and Livy. Gellius finds the old writers
pleasant; which may be accounted for by the fact that the taste of his
time was completely palled, so that it now betook itself to highly
spiced dishes, and then to ice. Let only the fragment of Claudius
in Gellius[15] be consulted. The golden age of Roman literature was
certainly under Augustus, as that of the French was in the days of
Louis XIV.; but precisely because this was its first blossom, the
thoughts and ideas were more simple, the language more calm, and in
some respects having greater breadth and fulness. Afterwards spirit
rather, and wit, were called forth into existence; every thing was
required to be expressed, and was expressed, in more terse, polished,
and pointed language. Thus the time down to Tacitus was like the age
of Louis XV. in France. But now, when the Romans carried every thing
to the highest pitch, this manner of thinking and writing was also
overstrained: it was still to be made more and more pointed, more
polished, and more witty; and then they reached that extreme which
borders very closely upon what is absolutely spiritless and insipid.
At this period lived Gellius, a very clever man, who was so tired of
this tendency of his age, that he had no more feeling for the better
literature preceding it, and turned to the earliest times, in which he
found a relish.
Valerius Antias is of all the Roman historians certainly the most
untrue, the only one who can be directly taxed with falsehood. Livy
says of him, _adeo mentiendi nullus modus est_, and _si Valerio Antiati
credere libet_. He knows the most circumstantial details of the old
times, and is always inclined to exaggerate without bounds, especially
with regard to numbers. His fictions have a character quite different
from the older ones. The numbers of the latter are not at all meant
to deceive any one; they merely mention a number (e. g. sexcenti,
μύριοι, _ter centum tonat ore deus_ in Virgil,) in order to denote an
indefinite quantity. This poetical mingling of what is definite with
what is seemingly indefinite, every where pervades the Roman legends.
Thus the thirty Sabine maidens are in fact no definite number, but
an equivalent to _many_. Valerius Antias, for his part, has five
hundred and forty-seven. Thus he has written an immense huge work,
in the latter portion of which especially he becomes quite prolix;
nevertheless he has not been able to compose a circumstantial and
lively narrative, but has drily recorded the detached incidents. He
is cited as far as the seventy-fifth book. In the second, he mentions
Numa; and in the twelfth, the tribune Tib. Gracchus. Fragments, from
which we might judge of his style, are not extant.
One might be inclined to take this Valerius for a _gentilis_ of the
Maximi and Poplicolæ. He might have been so in the widest sense; but
he did not belong to the gens of the patrician Valerii. In the war of
Hannibal, one meets with a L. Valerius Antias, who probably was a
citizen of Antium. From him our annalist may have descended.
It is strange, that although Livy himself repeatedly acknowledges the
untrustworthiness of Valerius Antias, there are nevertheless in his own
first book some passages which he can only have taken from him.
All these authors had still something old-fashioned in their manner,
and stood in the same relation to the later ones as the German writers
in the beginning of the eighteenth century did to those who came out at
the time of the seven years’ war.
Towards the end of the seventh century, after all these authors, who
were very much of the same cast, there appeared C. Licinius Macer,--the
father of the orator and poet Calvus, who flourished at the same period
as Catullus, about the year 700,--a distinguished and original writer.
His tribunate dates about 680, before Pompey’s first consulate. Of
the character of his works, we may form a sufficient estimate from
the quotations in Livy and Dionysius. He did what only two before
him had done; he wrote history from documents, and may have retained
much belonging to those times, which the later writers have left out,
because it did not agree with the idea which they had formed, and with
the generally received statements in the Fasti and elsewhere. Pliny
frequently mentions him among his sources; and certainly the treaty of
Porsena with the Romans, which we read in Pliny, was taken from him. In
the introduction to the books _de Legibus_, Cicero speaks unfavourably
of him; and he may have partly been justified in asserting that as an
author he had by no means deserved the praise which is due to him as a
critic. When we Germans praise Mascov[16] as the first who has written
a history of Germany, we do not mean by it to assert that his work was
a perfect history. Yet Cicero perhaps gave an unfavourable judgment
for this reason also, that Macer and he belonged to different political
parties; Macer having had a considerable share in the restoration of
the tribunician power. The State had at that time lost its soundness,
and was in that condition, in which people see the lesser evil to be on
one of the two sides, very much as is now the case in France (1828).
The loss of the history of Macer is very highly to be regretted.
A speech in the fragments of Sallust’s History shows an accurate
knowledge of the old constitution, which Sallust cannot be given
credit for. He is quoted to the sixteenth book. How many books he has
written is undecided: he may have begun from the earliest times, and he
probably went on as far as his own.
An historian of the old constitution is Junius Gracchanus, a friend
of C. Gracchus, which accounts for his cognomen. Gracchus exercised a
marked influence upon many, and especially on younger men. Both of the
brothers were men of a deeply earnest heart. Gracchanus has written the
history of the constitution; and, quoting the yearly dates, has given
a description of the changes which it had undergone. He is often cited
in the law books, in Ulpian, in Censorinus, in Tacitus, and elsewhere.
The era of the beginning of the consulship, which is particularly used
by Lydus _de Magistratibus_, who has derived it from Gaius’ commentary
on the twelve tables, originates undeniably with Gracchanus.[17] He has
drawn from the most authentic sources, and is deserving of unlimited
confidence, as I can assert with the firmest conviction.
Of Fenestella nothing is quoted that refers to the earlier ages: it
seems therefore that he did not treat of Roman history in its full
extent.
Among the _Scriptores Minores Rerum Romanarum_, there is a book, _Origo
Gentis Romanæ_, attributed to Victor. In this most of the earlier
annalists are quoted; also the _Annales Maximi_ (even for the settling
of Æneas), Sextus Gellius, Domitius, Egnatius, M. Octavius; and authors
besides, who occur nowhere else. Andreas Schottus has first edited it.
From the similarity of the book to the writings of Fulgentius, of the
Scholiast on Ibis, and other commentators of the time, who likewise
cite known and unknown writers, one might be induced to place the
author in the same period, namely, the fifth or sixth century. But
the whole of the book is a fabrication of more modern times; not by
Schottus himself, but by a forger, of whom indeed there were so many
towards the end of the fifteenth century. Messala also, Fenestella
_De Magistratibus_, and others in that collection, date from the same
period. Octavius may have been got at second hand by the author from
the Scholiast of Horace; and Sextus Gellius from Dionysius, who says,
“I write, what the Gellii and others have written.” The quotations from
Cato in this book are in direct contradiction to the most positive
evidence which we have with regard to Cato in Servius and others.
This was the state of Roman history in the time of Cicero. During
Cæsar’s stay in Gaul, Q. Ælius Tubero, a friend of Cicero, wrote the
Roman annals anew. He was with Q. Cicero as legate in Asia; he belonged
to the party of the Optimates, and was a very honest man. Livy cites
his history from the earliest times. What is quoted of him, gives an
impression of his respectability as a historian; though it is evident
from it, that he no longer knew the old style of language, and that he
did not see the difference between the institutions of his own day and
those of primitive times. He too made use of documents; but he was not
to be compared with Macer in importance, unless he has been wronged by
those who are our authorities.
Atticus’ annals seem to have been only tables; but a very valuable
work. Quotations, however, from them we read nowhere; so that we may
infer, that in all likelihood there were many such books of which we
know nothing.[18]
In that introduction of wondrous beauty to his books _De Legibus_,
Cicero speaks of having been asked to write the Roman history, as
a duty the fulfilment of which his country expected from him. He
expresses himself on the subject in such a manner, as clearly to show
that he would certainly have liked the work, but that indeed he had
never thought of it in right earnest. Had he done so, we may, without
losing sight of the reverence due to so great a man, assert, that he
would have taken upon himself a task for which he was quite unsuited.
From the books _De Republica_, we see with how incredibly little
previous reading he set about the description of the constitution. He
seems not to have made any use of Gracchanus; but to have derived his
knowledge chiefly from Polybius, and perhaps from Atticus. His proper
calling was that of a statesman, and not of a scholar.
Many authors are yet to be mentioned; Antipater, Fannius, Polybius,
Posidonius, Rutilius, Lucullus, Scaurus, and others, part of whom have
written in Greek.[19]
Sallust found the Roman history in a neglected state; he expresses
himself to that effect in his Catiline, and says, that it would be a
task for a man, who had the capacity for writing it. And he would have
had the capacity; but the Romans had no more a Roman history than we
have a German one. Sallust was a busy practical man, who would not, and
could not devote his life to the immense preparatory studies, which
were required for it. He therefore wisely chose to write detached parts
of Roman history, which were perhaps intended at a future period to
form a whole. Thus he wrote the history of Jugurtha, in which it was
his main object to point out to his readers the reaction in favour
of the crushed popular party against the aristocrats, who had so
shamefully abused their victory. He therefore is careful to show how
Rome then in every respect was full of rottenness within. His histories
began from the time after Sylla’s death, and described the revolution
against Sylla’s ill-judged counter-revolution, and the struggle of
Sertorius. Catiline’s conspiracy is to prove, what consummate ruffians,
after all, those partisans of Sylla were, who called themselves the
_optimates_, the _boni_.
Between the time of Jugurtha and the consulate of Lepidus, the
historical work of Sisenna formed the connecting link. With this
Sallust no doubt was satisfied; otherwise he would have treated also of
that period.
The great change in the Roman world under Augustus had taken place;
the history of the republic was brought to a close. It was believed
that nothing more was to be hoped from constitutional forms and their
development, but that the great mass of the state was to be kept
together by outward force. After such a catastrophe, history appears
altogether in a different light, and is written in a different spirit.
In these times, just as in Greece after the downfall of the Athenian
state, many historians come forth before the public. After Cæsar’s
death, Diodorus Siculus wrote, to whom the Roman history is merely
a secondary affair. It is probable, that Timæus also in his history
of Italy and Sicily had interwoven the Roman one; though not beyond
a very early period. Diodorus had the idea, which none but a prosaic
mind could have conceived, of writing the whole of ancient history in
synchronistical order; first in large periods, and then year by year,
down to the consulate of Cæsar, when the latter commenced the Gallic
war. He concludes before the civil war, in order to avoid the offence,
which he might have given by his narration to one or the other of the
two parties. And it was besides a very convenient break; as in all
probability he wrote his work before the conclusion of the troubles.
That he composed his history after the death of Cæsar, is evident from
the introduction, in which he mentions that event, and calls Cæsar
_Divus_. Scaliger had the unfortunate idea of arguing from the passage
I, 68 that Diodorus had written as late as 746, that therefore he had
left off fifty years before his own time. This opinion passed from
Scaliger into the work of Vossius _De Historicis Græcis et Latinis_,
and from the latter into the _Bibliotheca Græca_ of Fabricius. That
passage states concerning the Olympiads, that these were a period
of four years which the Romans called _bissextum_; and from this
Scaliger infers, that he could not have written before 746, because at
that time Augustus had fixed the _intercalatio_ at four years. This
interpretation is most ingenious; but the passage is an interpolation,
as some of the earlier and all the later commentators have remarked,
so that Wesseling entirely expunges it from the text. The term χρόνος
for year, which occurs there, is modern Greek; just as _tempus_ instead
of _annus_ is met with after the fifth century. Diodorus is an author
whose writings have been falsified. These forgeries were made in the
age of the restoration of literature, when manuscripts were much sought
after, and dearly paid for. There are for the most part omissions; and
from the eleventh to the twentieth book he now and then gives fasti,
which do not in the least agree with those which we have. The names in
them are often not to be recognised at all. All his accounts of the
earliest times he probably had from Fabius. Where Polybius begins, he
may have made use of him down to the year 608; and he may also have had
Posidonius, Rutilius, Sylla and Lucullus.
We now come to the two great authors, who were contemporary writers of
Roman history. Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his introduction gives
a full account of his circumstances and his works. He came to Rome
after the conclusion of the civil wars, and published his history, 743
according to Cato, (745 according to Varro). He calls himself the son
of Alexander of Halicarnassus, and was a rhetorician. His rhetorical
writings belong to the earlier time of his life. These are of all the
Greek rhetorical works the most excellent, those of Aristotle alone
excepted. They are full of fine remarks, and are the produce of an
amiable mind and an exquisite taste: it is only a pity that they should
have been handed down in such a corrupt state. He is very likely to be
the same person whom Strabo[20] mentions under the name of Cæcilius.
We cannot wonder at this; for if he obtained the Roman citizenship, he
was obliged to assume the name of a Roman _gens_. It can hardly mean
Atticus, who indeed, but extremely seldom, is called by the name of
Cæcilius. In the lives also of the ten orators, which are found among
Plutarch’s Biographies, the name of Cæcilius occurs, which some took to
be that of the quæstor Cæcilius, who was in Sicily under Verres, but
which seems likewise to mean Dionysius; for all that is quoted of him
we find in Dionysius. It is true, that the facts, which we now read in
Dionysius, may also have been contained in others; yet the supposition,
which we have put forth, is a very probable one, as indeed Josephus
also is frequently called Flavius.