Livy himself was thought too prolix, and his work was (at the latest in the third century) reduced to a kind of abstract in the shape of tables, used by Obsequens and Cassiodorus, as well as Vopiscus, Eutropius, Sex. Rufus and PseudoIdatius. Other sources were used by Licinianus and L. Ampelius. After the fourth century the influence of Christianity was felt here also. The chronographer of the year 354 gives, besides consular Fasti, also an Easter-table and, with a list of the praefecti urbis, also one of the Roman Bishops and Martyrs. Sulpicius Severus' chronicles (c. 400) contain a summary of biblical and post-biblical history; Orosius' work has a Christian and apologetic purpose; the chronicles begin with Adam. In the 5th and 6th century it was a common custom to copy from one another: thus St. Jerome copied Eusebius, Prosper (A. D. 455) St. Jerome, Victorius (Paschale, A. D. 457) Prosper, Cassiodorus (519) Victorius, Jordanis (551) Cassiodorus, and all so as to continue their predecessors to their own time. Cassiodorus and Jordanis have, however, an independent value, as they employed also other works, and they are, with Gildas the Wise (559), Gregory of Tours (593), Isidor of Seville (628), the last representatives of antiquity in the field of history. A whole century after them the medieval Latin historiography commences in the Monastic Annals, among which those proceeding from the Anglo-Saxon monasteries (e. g. Beda) are the most valuable. Under the influence of these Monasteries in the Empire of the Carlovingians, the works of Paulus Diaconus and Eginhard were composed.

1. Tac. Hist. I 1: postquam bellatum apud Actium .. magna ingenia cessere: simul veritas pluribus modis infracta, primum inscitia reip. ut alienae, mox libidine adsentandi aut rursus odio adversus dominantes. A. I 1: temporibus Augusti dicendis non defuere decora ingenia, donec gliscente adulatione deterrerentur. Tiberii Gaique et Claudii ac Neronis res florentibus ipsis ob metum falsae, postquam occiderant, recentibus odiis compositae sunt. An instance of the latter kind is probably C. Fannius who had related exitus occisorum aut relegatorum a Nerone (Plin. Ep. V 5, 3).

2. Plin. Ep. 5, 3 of C. Fannius: tres libros absolverat subtiles .. atque inter sermonem historiamque medios. According to the ideas of the period (see Quintilian above 31, 5) a historical work required more élan, imagination, eloquentia. Tac. dial. 23: eloquentia Aufidii Bassi aut Servilii Noniani. Agr. 10: quae priores nondum comperta (on Britain's

situm populosque) eloquentia percoluere rerum fide tradentur. Hence the alternative, to resign either eloquentia or veritas and fides. Vopisc. Prob. 2, 7: mihi id animi fuit ut non Sallustios, Livios, Tacitos, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Saturnium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, ceterosque qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. Licinianus writes from a similar point of view: Sallustium non ut historicum puto, sed ut oratorem legendum; nam et tempora reprehendit sua et delicta carpitet contiones ingerit et dat in censum loca, montes, flumina et hoc genus amoena et culta et comparat disserendo. Hence also such judgments as Seneca's N. Q. VII 16, 1 sq.: nec magna molitione detrahenda est auctoritas Ephoro: historicus est. ... Haec in commune de tota natione (of the historians), quae adprobari opus suum et fieri populare non putet posse nisi illud mendacio adsperserit. On the historical compositions of the Frontoniani see Lucian's πῶς δεῖ συγγράφειν τὴν ἱστορίαν.

3. Collections of letters belong to the spontaneous sources of history. Real letters not intended for publication are especially useful as a mirror of the persons and of the period. The writer is there without constraint both in the contents and in the form. Cic. Phil. II 4, 7: quam multa ioca solent esse in epistulis, quae, prolata si sint, inepta videantur! quam multa seria, neque tamen ullo modo divolganda! ad Fam. XI 21, 1: epistulas quotidianis verbis texere solemus. XV 21, 4: ego illas Calvo litteras misi, non plus quam has quas nunc legis existimans exituras. aliter enim scribimus quod eos solos quibus mittimus, aliter quod multos lecturos putamus. Quintil. IX 4, 19: oratio soluta, qualis in sermone et epistulis. Plin. Ep. VI 16, 22: aliud est epistulam, aliud historiam, aliud amico, aliud omnibus scribere. Real letters of this kind by Cato to his son (see 110, 4), and by Cornelia to her son C. Gracchus (see 112, 6) were extant. A very important source of the history of his time is, as is well known, Cicero's correspondence, even in its present incomplete condition. The same holds good of the letters of Pliny the younger, though one can see that they are written with an eye to publication, and also of those of Symmachus and Sidonius Apollinaris; we should here also mention the letters of St. Jerome and espec. Cassiodorus' collection of decrees (Var.). As a mere form the elder Africanus employed the form of a letter in the relation of his achievements addressed to king Philip, and also Scipio Nasica in his account of the campaign against Perseus, in which he had taken part (Plut. Aem. Paul. 15); later on it was employed for almost any subject, e. g. for learned discussions, as in Varro's Epistolae and Epistolicae quaestiones, in Sinnius Capito, Valgius Rufus, Valerius Messala, or for philosophical commentations, e. g. by Seneca. Jurists (e. g. Antistius. Labeo, Ateius Capito) using this form, did so, no doubt, in advice (responsa) concerning disputed points of law. In the Imperial period the writing of letters was treated as a branch of style (comp. Fronto),

and in the schools of rhetors epistolary composition was a favourite theme, generally connected with famous names: in this way many supposititious letters arose, e. g. Horace's epistola prosa oratione quasi commendantis se Maecenati, considered spurious by Suetonius already; so later on the pretended correspondence of Seneca and the Apostle Paul, and perhaps also Lucan's Epistolae ex Campania. Supposititious letters are especially numerous in Greek literature.

=

4. Another important source of history is found in the Inscriptions, the earliest of which date from the sixth century V. C.; they become more numerous in the 7th century, and inscriptions of the Imperial period are found in all the provinces of the Roman Empire in great abundance. Of the old collections we will name here: M. Smetius' Inscriptiones antiquae, Lugd. B. 1588 fol., J. Gruter's Thesaurus Inscriptionum, Heidelb. 1603. 1663. Amst. 1707 fol., Th. Reinesius' Syntagma Inscriptionum antiquarum, Lips. 1682 fol., Muratori's Novus thesaurus veterum inscriptionum, Milan 1739. 4 voll. fol.; of the modern ones J. C. Orelli's Inscriptionum latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio, Zürich 1828. 2 voll., augmented by W. Henzen with a third vol. 1856, and the new and original works of Th. Mommsen: Inscriptiones regni Neapolitani latinae, Lips. 1852. fol. Inscriptiones confoederationis helveticae latinae, Zürich 1854. Inscriptiones latinae antiquissimae ad C. Julii Caesaris mortem = Corpus Inscriptionum latinarum Vol. I, Berlin 1863, fol., and of F. Ritschl: Priscae Latinitatis monumenta epigraphica ad archetyporum fidem exemplis lithographis repraesentata Corpus inscr. lat. Vol. primi tabulae lithographae, Berlin 1862, fol. mag., to which may be added L. Renier's Inscriptions romaines de l'Algérie, Paris 1855 sq. fol. and others. The principle of local arrangement, which will be adopted in the following volumes of the Berlin Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, is also followed in L. M. Jordão's Portugalliae inscriptiones romanae, Vol. 1. Lisbon 1859. fol.; J. W. Chr. Steiner's Codex inscriptionum rom. Rheni, Darmstadt 1837-54, 2 parts, and Codex inscr. rom. Danubii et Rheni, Seligenstadt 1851-62, 4 parts; Th. W. Rappeneggers's Roman Inscriptions in the Grand-Duchy of Bade, Mannheim 1845; J. v. Hefner's The inscriptions and statues of Bavaria under Roman rule, 3rd ed. Munich 1852; Chr. Stälin's History of Wirtemberg, Vol. I; W. Brambach's Corpus inscriptionum rhenanarum, Elberfeld 1865; J. M. Ackner and F. Müller's Roman Inscriptions in Dacia, Vienna 1865, and others. (Inscriptiones latinae in terris Nassov. repertae, Wiesbaden 1854). The Christian Inscriptions of J. B. de Rossi are arranged according to subjects and chronology: Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculo antiquiores, I. Rome 1861. On the method of epigraphic studies comp. W. Henzen, On Latin epigraphic studies in their present condition, in the Allgem. Monatsschr. I (Brunswick 1853) p. 157–184. F. Ritschl, Monumenta epigraphica tria. . commentariis grammaticis illustrata (Berlin 1852. 4o.), in his Enarratio in P. L. M. E. and in numerous treatises, about to be collected in his Opuscula. On the metrical inscriptions see F. Bücheler in Jahn's

Jahrb. LXXVII p. 60-78, and W. Fröhner, in the Philologus XIII p. 165-191. In general see also K. Zell, Manual of Roman Epigraphic, Heidelberg 1850-57. 3 parts.

5. In the Imperial period we have, besides the ordinary historical sources (e. g. the acta), also the ephemerides (diaries), e. g. Aureliani (Vopisc. Aurel. 1, 6), Turduli Gallicani (Vopisc. Prob. 2, 2. comp. 3, 4. 5, 1). Hence may have been derived the small personal details chronicled by these writers, because etiam minora plerique desiderant (Capit. Mar. et Balb. 6, 1). In the earlier parts of the Imperial period biographies of private persons were written by Pliny the Elder, of his friend Pomponius Secundus (Plin. Ep. III 5, 3), by Julius Secundus of Julius Asiaticus (Tac. dial. 14), by Tacitus of Agricola, by Claudius Pollio of his friend Annius (Plin. Ep. VII 21, 5). Of a similar character were the laudes of Paetus Thrasca and Helvidius Priscus by Herennius Senecio and Arulenus Rusticus (Suet. Dom. 10. Plin. Ep. VII 19, 5).

6. On Livy's authority and influence in the later Imperial time see Th. Mommsen, Cassiodorus p. 551 sq., who also observes that the abridgment in question must have prefixed to each year the names of the consuls in the ablative. On the habit of copying from one another see Mommsen 1. 1. p. 565 sq. The extent to which this was thought admissible, is shown by Ausonius concluding his fasti (from the foundation of the City until his own time) with the lines: hactenus adscripsi fastos. Si fors volet, ultra adiciam; si non, qui legis, adicies.

7. The observations on the conclusion of ancient and the beginning of medieval historiography are taken from A. v. Gutschmid, Grenzboten 1863, I p. 341 sq.

8. Fenestella, Messala Corvinus and the historia Papirii are forgeries of the 15th century. Th. Mommsen, Hermes I (1866) p. 135 sq.

34. From the same motives as historiography and in connexion with it, antiquarian learning arose and prospered among the Romans, both as to subjects and language. The study of the latter was due to the practical necessity of fixing in writing the developing sounds of the language. Most writers, however, turned their attention to the mos maiorum i. e. the investigation of the customs and institutions of olden times. Such are Cincius Alimentus, Cato, M. Fulvius Nobilior, Cassius Hemina, C. Sempronius Tuditanus, M. Junius Gracchanus, L. Julius Caesar. After the seventh century, students of the archaic literature became frequent, represented not only by L. Attius and Lucilius, but also by Porcius Licinus, Q. Valerius of Sora, Saevius Nicanor, Aurelius Opilius, Sisenna, Octavius Lampadio, M. Antonius Gnipho, Q. Cosconius, Volcatius Sedigitus, Santra, and above all L. Aelius

Stilo. The Stoic philosopher Crates, who came to Rome in 595 V.C. as ambassador, excited a lasting interest for linguistic studies. Etymology was attempted by some in always resorting to Greek (Hypsicrates), by others in endeavouring to explain everything on the basis of Latin (Varro, Nigidius Figulus, Labeo). In the Ciceronian time, when Rome was recognised as the centre of the whole intellectual life of the Empire and contained all helps to study, these studies reached their highest stage of development in Varro, and besides him. Nigidius Figulus, Sisinnius Capito, Valerius Cato, Atteius Philologus and others. Among the statesmen Caesar himself wrote de analogia, Appius Claudius (cos. 700) de disciplina augurali. In the Augustan time antiquarian investigation was once more zealously cultivated by Julius Hyginus, Verrius Flaccus, M. Valerius Messala, Julius Modestus, Scribonius Aphrodisius, L. Crassitius, Pomponius Marcellus, succeeded by Asconius Pedianus and A. Cornelius Celsus. Celsus' versatility was even surpassed by that of Pliny the Elder, and even in the second century Suetonius, Sulpicius Apollinaris and Fronto, exhibit a varied culture and literary activity. But on the whole it may be said that, since the first century, a school-system with its comparatively limited views. gained ascendancy, and in this department the grammarians became the most important. Thus we have M. Valerius Probus of Berytus, Annaeus Cornutus, Caesius Bassus, Aemilius Asper, Flavius Caper, Q. Remmius Palaemon, Caesellius Vindex, Urbanus, Velius Longus, Nisus; in Hadrian's reign A. Gallius, Terentius Scaurus; under Antonius Pius C. Julius Romanus, Dositheus Magister; in the 3rd century Helenius Acro, Sacerdos and Censorinns, Volcatius, Haterianus. Only about the middle of the fourth century we meet again grammarians of more distinction, most of them authors of manuals (artes), such as Marius Victorinus, Aelius Donatus, Comminianus, Charisius, Diomedes, Probus the younger; Commentators like Ti. Claudius Donatus, Aruntius Celsus, Servius Marius Honoratus, Pomponius Porphyrio; Lexicographers like Festus and Nonius Marcellus. In the fifth century we have Macrobius and Agroecius, and at the commencement of the sixth Priscian. In this department, too, the semblance of variety and stir surpasses the reality, since here also preceding labours were copied to a great extent.