Cincius Contemporary with Fabius was L. Cincius Alimentus, who likewise wrote in Greek. Latin prose had not then been developed into a fit vehicle of literary expression. This writer was a patrician, was praetor in 211 B. C., and having been taken prisoner by Hannibal, had exceptional opportunities to inform himself with regard to the facts of the second Punic war, which was the subject of the more detailed part of his work, though he also began at the foundation of Rome. Piso. L. Calpurnius Piso, consul in 133 B. C., wrote Annales, from the earliest period to his own. He was the first to show a critical spirit, endeavoring to distinguish the historical from the mythical elements in the accounts of the earliest times. Antias. Valerius Antias, a contemporary of Sulla, did more than any one else to falsify Roman history. His Annales, in at least seventy-five books, covered the whole ex- Valerius tent of it down to his own time. Where the story seemed too bare and bald, he adorned it with the fictions of his own imagination. But his work was popular, and was much used as an authority by later writers. Livy, in his earlier books, was often led astray by him, and afterward speaks of him in strong terms of disapprobation. Tubero. The Historiae (in fourteen books) of Q. Aelius Tubero, the accuser of Ligarius, were highly praised by Dionysius for their accuracy. They extended from the landing of Aeneas to the civil war of Pompey and Caesar. These are the names of a few of the best known of the many annalists of the last two centuries of the republic, whose works are known to us by reports of other writers and in a few cases by small fragments of the originals. Early in this period, however, M. Porcius Cato, Anti-annalistic the Censor, who had been the first to write history writers. ཇ་ in Latin, also took the initiative in breaking away from the Cato. annalistic method. In his Origines he omitted the whole period for which the earlier annalists constituted the chief authority. Some years later L. Coelius Antipater (after 120 B. C.) wrote his account of the second Punic war independently of the annalists. He was a man of great culture and Coelius. learning, a friend of C. Gracchus and the younger Scipio and Laelius. Dissatisfied with previous accounts of the war, written entirely from the Roman point of view, in his desire for impartiality he was the first of the Romans to consult the history of Silenus, Hannibal's Greek historiographer, and to compare it with the accounts given by his own country men. And this was not his only merit, for he tried also to introduce a better literary style, and made the innovation of inserting speeches into the course of his narrative, not merely to explain it, but also as a means of giving expression to his own reflections, and the supposed views of the actors in the story. Though there were other writers who decidedly opposed the annalistic method, yet it seems, on the whole, to have retained its popularity with both authors and readers. Besides general histories, there were numerous biographies, memoirs, and monographs, dealing with the careers of indi viduals or with short periods or episodes in the Special works, career of the nation. In fact the catalogue of historical writers in the various departments is surprisingly but no great long. Yet Cicero (De Leg. I. 5) laments "Abest general history. historia litteris nostris," for none of the histories that had then appeared were worthy as literature of a place beside the poetry and oratory that had reached so high a degree of perfection. And though Sallust and Caesar soon afterward published their works, which have been recognized ever since as models of Latin prose, there was even then no great general history in Roman literature. The troublous times of the civil wars were not favorable to the conception and execution of such a work. The proper surroundings and inspiration were to come in the next generation, in the calm after the storm, in the peace and repose of the Augustan age. And when Cicero wrote the words there was a boy growing up to manhood who was to remove forever the cause of his complaint. Livy's birthplace. Titus Livius Patavinus was born in 59 B. C. at Patavium, now Padua, the ancient capital of the Veněti. The city, so tradition said, had been founded by Antenor, the companion of Aeneas. At all events, it was proud of its early relations with Rome, of which it had always been a staunch friend, and notably during the Hannibalic war. But as it lay for the most part "out of the way of wars and in the way of commerce," the city had grown populous and wealthy. In the time of Strabo (Livy's contemporary) it was one of the most important cities of the empire, having 500 citizens of equestrian census, ranking in this respect next to Capua and third in Italy. Yet with all this prosperity the inhabitants were celebrated for their antique virtue and pure morals. The town received Roman citizenship by the lex Julia in 49 B. C., and was incorporated into the Fabian tribe. We do not know when Livy's family had settled at Patavium, but there is evidence that it was a noble family and in easy circumstances. Our author doubtless received the His family education usual for young Romans of rank, and we know that he made a special study of rhetoric and philosophy. The time and circumstances of his removal to the capital are and education. not known, but probably it occurred about the Life at Rome. time of the battle of Actium. While still a young man he was in high favor with Augustus, and a member of the brilliant literary circle that was the chief ornament of his court. He seems to have enjoyed intimate friendship with the family of the Caesars, and even to have had apartments in the palace. He informs us that Augustus took a personal interest in the composition of his history, and perhaps his undertaking was largely due to the influence of the emperor, who had made an epic poet of Vergil almost in spite of himself. Suetonius says it was by the advice of Livy that the young Claudius, afterward emperor, took to writing history. Yet Livy was too candid to be a flatterer, and it was not altogether a jest when Augustus called him a Pompeian; for, while admitting the great qualities of Julius Caesar, he openly questioned whether it would not have been better for the state if he had never been born. Scanty biographical details. About Livy's private life we possess very few details. He had a son, and a daughter who married a rhetorician named L. Magius. He never held office or took any part in politics, but lived a life of scholarly quiet, steadily engaged upon the history that was his life work. We do not know whether his occasional absences from Rome were long continued or whether his residence there was permanent. He may have retired to spend his last years in his native town, for he died there in 17 A. D. In 1413 some workmen making excavations at Padua, discovered a coffin which was thought to contain the bones of the historian, and the city erected a sumptuous tomb in his honor. But subsequent investigation showed that the first belief was erroneous. Livy's earliest writings were philosophical and rhetorical. They have not been preserved. Whether he was actually a teacher of rhetoric is doubtful, but it is evident that he was a master of the art so highly prized by the Romans, and never more so than after free speech had become a thing of the past. First works. Scope of his His great history extended from the landing of Aeneas in Latium to the death of Drusus in 9 B. C. The latter event is hardly important enough to form a fitting close to such a work, and it is possible that the author history. intended to continue it to the death of Augustus, and complete the round number of 150 books. In that case he would have reached the point where Tacitus' Annals begin. The extant books. of the others. Of the entire 142 books, there are extant, exclusive of small fragments of the 91st and 120th, but 35; viz., 1-10 and 21-45, and of these the 41st and 43d are incomplete. No more than these were extant in the Middle Ages, and as no trace of the lost books has been discovered since the seventh century, the often-excited, longcherished hopes of finding them will probably Disappearance never be realized. Tradition, probably with injustice, attributes this irreparable loss to Pope Gregory I. (590-604), who is said to have caused all the copies of Livy he could find to be burned on account of their antichristian character. The missing portions were not only far greater in quantity than what has been preserved, but they possessed greater historical value. By way of compensation we have only the meagre summaries, periochae, as they are called, written by a later hand, and commonly attributed to Florus, because they appear in the MSS. of his works. For some periods these are the only authority that we possess. Date of compo The work seems to have been begun about 27 B. C. (not earlier), when the historian was in his thirty-third year, and it was continued steadily through the rest of his life, more than forty years. The books must sition. have been published in instalments; for the author enjoyed in his lifetime the most extensive fame, as appears from Pliny's story of the man who travelled from Gades to Rome for the sole purpose of seeing his face. But the division |