municeps and a descendant of Propertius (Plin. Ep. IV 15. IX 22, 1 sq.). Elegi attributed to Horace were considered spurious by Suetonius. Elegiac adionоTα, such as in obitum Maecenatis, Consolatio ad Liviam de morte Drusi, Elegia ad Valerium Messalam and other poems of the same kind are found in Wernsdorf, poetae lat. min. III and IV; of these the Consolatio was most probably composed by an Italian of the 15th century: see M. Haupt, Epicedium Drusi, cum commentariis, Lips. 1849. 38 pp. 4o. A refutation has been attempted by Adler, Anclam 1851. 4o. A modern fabrication is also the elegiac Cento of an author who calls himself Asinius Cornelius Gallus, in Wernsdorf III p. 183 sqq. In the middle ages (at the very earliest in the time of Theodoric) we have the six elegies of the Etruscan Maximianus, erroneously published under the name of (Cornelius) Gallus by their first editor (Pompon. Gauricus, Ven. 1501. 4o): see Wernsdorf III p. 126 sqq. VI p. 207 sqq.

3. Epithalamia etc. espec. by Statius, Ausonius, Sidonius Apollinaris and Claudian. Centos (poems composed of detached pieces) patched together espec. from lines of Homer and Virgil (Auson. Idyll. XIII praef. Isidor. Orig. I 38, 25), by Hosidius Geta (Medea), Ausonius (cento nuptialis Idyll. XIII), Proba Faltonia (biblical history), Sedulius (de verbi incarnatione), Pomponius (Isid. 1. 1.), Maro the younger (de ecclesia). In a small degree already in Petron. 132, p. 185 Bü. Others are found in Meyer's Latin Anthology, No. 252. 575. 693. Comp. B. Borgen, de centonibus Homericis et Vergilianis etc. Copenh. 1828. 4o. L. Müller, metr. lat. p. 465 sq.

4. The enigmas were an imitation of a Greek custom. A poet of enigmas occurs only in the fourth or fifth century in Symposius, later on in Aldhelmus and Tathvinus (in the 8th century). Latin riddles of this kind were a favourite pastime in the monasteries, and many of these productions survive in mss.: see L. Müller, Jahn's Jahrb. 93 p. 266-272. 565. 95, p. 497.

5. Acrostichs, also imitated from Greek literature, espec. to disguise a name (e. g. of an author), are not foreign even to the older Roman literature; Ennius composed one (Cic. de div. II 54, 111) and later on they became more and more frequent. One on Fortunatus in Renier, Inscr. de l' Alg. 2074. another (Lovella) ib. 2928. Christian ones in de Rossi, Inscr. christ. n. 425 (A. D. 395). 753. 834. See Rhein. Mus. XX p. 138. 457. 634 sq. Philologus XII p. 183 sq.

6. The decay of the form (in language, prosody and metre) begins in the plebeian inscriptions as early as the third century and from then assumes larger dimensions. A glaring instance of this is the inscription of L. Praecilius Fortunatus (Renier 1. 1. 2074). See W. Fröhner, Philologus XIII p. 170 sqq.

30. As was the case in Greek literature, the Romans did not obtain and develope a prose-style until a proportionately late period. Previously all was composed in the Saturnian metre, a form free from difficulty in proportion to its laxity. The first

step towards prose-composition was taken by Appius Claudius (474) in publishing one of his speeches. But as the succeeding writers employed the Greek language, the history of prose does not begin, properly speaking, before Cato Major. For long, however, the written speech remained insignificant by the side of the spoken one, and became its equal only in the time of Cicero when the prose attained to its climax and became the adequate expression of the author's individuality. A rhetorical character remained to it for ever from its origin. In the first century of the Imperial period it begins already to decay, by being mixed with poetical diction and becoming estranged from natural expression. The decay of accidence and syntax begins also about this time. Later on, the plebeian element found admission. And when the influence of provincial writers who were not guided by a native sense of language and who mixed up the diction and style of all periods, became prevalent in literature, the confusion became still greater. The language of literature became more and more different from the living language, and became entirely dependent upon the culture attained by each writer, which continually fell to a lower level. The more the provincial idioms were developed into the Romance languages, the more did Latin become a foreign tongue.

31. For history, as a storehouse of the glorious deeds of their ancestors, to be imitated by present and future generations, the Romans possessed a very ready mind. To the very oldest time belongs the custom of ex officio-chronicles by the Pontifices, annual and monthly registers, the fasti and annales, libri pontificii, commentarii regum, magistratuum, and from the beginning of the Republic the yearly change of the magistrates was an additional stimulus to keep registers of this kind. But the families also had sufficient opportunities of preserving the memory of past events in the custom of keeping family chronicles, in the imagines, later on in the pedigrees, in the laudationes funebres, the ancestral songs during meals. On the other hand it should be confessed that history (as it was generally in antiquity) was with the Romans in a dangerously close connexion with the interests of the state and the family. The desire of finding out historical truth and perpetuating it as such is foreign to the Romans;

the desire of placing their nation, family, party or person in a favorable light was all the stronger. Later on the rhetorical element was added to the further detriment of historical veracity. But even more foreign than historical criticism was historical art to the Roman for a long time. Sallust is the first cultivated historian of the Romans; all previous productions are either mere registers or the materials are undigested, and there is a want of historical style. The oldest historians even preferred writing in Greek, most probably because Latin had not been sufficiently cultivated for historical composition, but no doubt also in order to limit the knowledge of history to the narrow circles of the Patricians.

1. Collections of the fragments of the historians by A. Krause (Vitae et fragmenta hist. vett. rom. Berlin 1833) and (down to Cicero's time) by C. L. Roth in Gerlach's edition of Sallust of the year 1852, p. 249 sqq. A new collection by Reifferscheid is advertised [and the first volume of one by H. Peter has made its appearance, Leipzig, Teubner, 1870].

2. G. J. Vossius, de historicis latinis, Lugd. Bat. 1627. 1651. 4o. Additions to this by J. A. Fabricius, Hamburg 1709. M. Hanke, de Rom. rerum scriptoribus, Lips. 1669. 1675. 4o. H. Ulrici, Characteristics of ancient historiography, Berlin 1833. L. de Closset, essai sur l'historiographie des Romains, Brussels 1849. C. Nipperdey, Contributions to a history of Roman historiography, Philologus VI p. 131-140. F. Althaus, de historiae conscribendae historia, Berlin 1852, p. 49-62. F. D. Gerlach, The historians of the Romans from the earliest times until Orosius, Stuttgart (Hoffmann) 1855. The introductions of the Roman histories of Niebuhr, Wachsmuth, Blum, Schwegler and Mommsen (12 p. 432 sqq.). Essay on the credibility of early Roman history by L. O. Bröcker, Basel 1855, [and the wellknown work of] G. C. Lewis. [See also Dr. Dyer's History of the Kings of Rome.] H. Nissen, critical disquisitions on the sources of the fourth and fifth decades of Livy, Berlin 1863.

3. Pontifices, penes quos scribendae historiae potestas fuit, Vopisc. Tac. 1, 1. For a long time no plebeian, and then no man of unfree birth could undertake the writing of history: L. Voltacilius Pilutus .. primus omnium libertinorum, ut Cornelius Nepos opinatur, scribere historiam exorsus, non nisi ab honestissimo quoque scribi solitam ad id tempus, Suet. rhet. 3. Frequently cases of precedence are referred to, e. g. Liv. VIII 18, 12: memoria ex annalibus repetita.. dictatorem creari placuit. Town-chronicles existed also out of Rome. Liv. VIII 10, 8: inter Romanos Latinosque qui eius pugnae memoriam posteris tradiderunt. In a later period both were united, and in this manner Valerius of Antium becomes a Roman historian.

4. Paedagogic tendencies. Plut. Cato mai. 20: zai ràs iorogías dè συγγράψαι φησὶν αὐτὸς (Cato) ἰδίᾳ χειρὶ καὶ μεγάλοις γράμμασιν ὅπως οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχῃ τῷ παιδὶ πρὸς ἐμπειρίαν τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ πατρίων ὠφελεῖσθαι.

5. Quintilian is so little able to discriminate history and novel as to say X 1, 31: historia est proxima poetis et quodammodo carmen solutum, et scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum. Cic. Brut. 11, 42: quoniam concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut aliquid dicere possint argutius. de leg. I 2, 5: cum sit (historia) opus, ut tibi quidem videri solet, unum hoc oratorium maxime (probably espec. concerning style). Comp. below 32, 2. Ideological in Tac. Agr. 1: apud priores .. celeberrimus quisque ingenio ad prodendam virtutis memoriam, sine gratia aut ambitione, bonae tantum conscientiae pretio ducebatur.

32. Until the end of the second Punic war Rome produced only history and sources of history. When history came to be narrated, its form was naturally like the old annals. Hence the oldest Roman historians are Annalists. There were two generations of these, an older one reaching into the seventh century v. c. and registering in a meagre chronicle-like form, yet with a certain reliability, the events in their annual succession; and a later one writing for a reading public, detailing the historical materials and adorning them in its own fashion. At the head of the older generation stands Q. Fabius Pictor, who was succeeded by L. Cincius Alimentus, C. Acilius and A. Postumius Albinus. All of them dealt summarily with the oldest period and at greater length with contemporary history, all wrote in Greek, as did also the son of the older Africanus. In Pictor and Acilius, however, Latin compositions soon followed. The first who wrote in Latin was Cato in his Origines, who at the same time extended the subject to a history of Italy. His example was followed with regard to the language by L. Cassius Hemina and perhaps also Ser. Fabius Pictor; then by L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (Cens. 621), Fabius Maximus Servilianus, C. Semponius Tuditanus (Cens. 625), L. Scribonius Libo, Vennonius, and Cn. Gellius, of whom, however, the last at least possessed already the diffuseness of the later generation of Annalists. The influence of the Greek style appears in C. Fannius and even more in L. Coelius Antipater; on the other hand Polybius' pragmatical method clearly influenced Sempronius Asellio. In the same time Clodius Licinus and Cn. Aufidius continued in the old direction, the latter even writing again in Greek. In the time of Sulla we meet with several writers of memoirs and autobiographies, viz. M. Aemilius Scaurus, P. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Lutatius Catulus, Sulla himself, and in Greek L. Licinius Lucullus. In the same time the later style of Annals is prominently represented in Q. Claudius

Quadrigarius and the exaggerating Valerius Antias. More respectable was C. Licinius Macer, the last real Annalist, in as much as L. Cornelius Sisenna (praetor 676) adopted in his contemporary history an arrangement more in accordance with the subject-matter than with chronology. Late annalists in the Ciceronian period are Atticus and Q. Tubero. But as late as Tacitus the form of Annals asserted itself, and even many biographies of Emperors were in the form of Annals.

1. Wherever, after the middle of the seventh century, annals are mentioned, histories in the form of Annals are meant: Schwegler, Rom. Hist. I p. 11 sq. 'Annales' denotes chronicles, and historia as a rule a pragmatic account of events witnessed by the writer (Gell. IV 18, 1 sqq. Serv. Aen. I 383) though both were frequently combined, the first part of a historical work consisting of annales, the latter of historia. In this manner either name might be chosen for the same work. H. Nissen, Critical Investigations p. 75 with note. Comp. F. Thiersch, Münchner Gel. Anz. 1848, No. 131 sqq.

2. There was great liberty allowed in using previous writers; subsequent writers copied the works of their predecessors with more or less additional matter and changes, with or without express mention of the name. Generally a writer would found his work on one principal source, changing this according to other sources or individual pleasure. H. Nissen, Critical Invest. p. 77-80. 90. Th. Pluess, New Swiss Museum VI (1866) p. 47 sq.

3. Cic. de or. II 12, 52 sq.: erat historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio. Tac. dial. 22: nulli sensus tarda et inerti structura in morem annalium componantur. Dionys. I, 7: sioì dè (the пqayμarria of the Annalists) ταῖς ἑλληνικαῖς χρονογραφίαις ἐοικυίαι. According to the laws of rethorical style Cic. judges leg. I 2, 6: post annales pontificum maximorum .. si aut ad Fabium aut ad .. Catonem aut ad Pisonem aut ad Fannium aut ad Vennonium venias, quanquam alius alio plus habet virium, tamen quid tam exile quam isti omnes? Fannii autem aetati coniunctus Antipater paulo inflavit vehementius.. sed tamen admonere reliquos potuit ut accuratius scriberent. Ecce autem successere huic Gellius, Clodius, Asellio, nihil ad Coelium, sed potius ad antiquorum languorem et inscitiam. Dionys. Ant. I 7: ἐκ τῶν ἱστοριών .. ἃς οἱ πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐπαινούμενοι Ρωμαίων συνέγραψαν, Πόρκιός τε Κάτων καὶ Φάβιος Μάξιμος καὶ Οὐαλέριος ὁ ̓Αντιεὺς καὶ Λικίννιος Μάκερ, Αϊλιοί τε καὶ Γέλλιοι καὶ Καλπούρνιοι, καὶ ἕτεροι συχνοὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἄνδρες οὐκ ἀφανεῖς. The oldest annalists (Q. Fabius and L. Cincius) are previously mentioned by Dionys. I 6.

3. Mommsen, H. of Rome II. p. 453 sq. L. Kieserling, de rer. rom. scriptoribus quibus T. Livius usus est, Berlin 1858. H. v. d. Bergh, de antiquissimis annalium scriptoribus romanis, Greifsw. 1859. W. Teuffel, in Pauly's R. E. I p. 1018-1020. On the use made of the priestly