The Historians' History of the World 05

Of inscriptions on various monuments and on coins and medals there is no dearth. But these are by no means so comprehensive in their scope as were some of the inscriptions of the early Egyptian and Assyrian monarchs; and speaking broadly, it may be said that the entire epigraphic and numismatic testimony as to the history of Rome—particularly for the earlier period—amounts to no more than incidental references, and would leave us with but a vague knowledge of the subject, were it unsupported by more extensive records.

The more extensive records in question are, of course, the manuscripts of books. From a rather early day there was no dearth of writers in Rome, and among these the historians, or, as they more generally termed themselves, the annalists, were fully represented. Indeed, this class of writers appears to have held almost complete possession of the field in the early day. In the later Augustan age, though votaries of polite literature had fuller representation, yet the historians, with Livy at their head, still took front rank among writers of prose. No original manuscripts of any of these writers have come down to us; indeed, no manuscripts of the classical period whatever have been preserved, except a few fragments in Egypt and the collection at Herculaneum just mentioned. Our copies of the Roman historians date from the Middle Ages, and few of them are intact. The works of the early annalists and chroniclers have disappeared almost entirely. Doubtless they were regarded as having little utility after such great master-builders as Dionysius and Livy had used them in the construction of their great works. Many of the writers of a later period fared not much better; and even the greatest of all have come down to us in a damaged condition. Livy himself is represented among extant manuscripts by only about one-fifth of his original history—to say nothing of his other writings, which have perished altogether. Dionysius has been no more fortunate, as only the earliest portion of his work is preserved.

Dionysius himself has left us a list of the early authorities upon whom he drew. His comment on his predecessors is interesting; after noting that “no accurate history of the Romans, written in the Greek language, has hitherto appeared, but only small accounts and short epitomes,” he criticises these synopses as follows:

“Hieronymus Cardianus (the first author I know of upon this subject) has given a cursory account of the Roman antiquities in his history of the Epigoni. After him, Timæus, the Sicilian, treated of antiquities in his universal history, and placed in a separate work the wars of the Romans with Pyrrhus of Epirus. Besides these, Antigonus, Polybius, Silenus, and innumerable other authors have attempted this same subject, though in a different manner; each of whom has written some things concerning the Romans, which they have compiled from common reports without any diligence or accuracy. Like to these in all respects are the histories, which some Romans also have published in Greek, concerning the ancient transactions of their own nation; of whom the most ancient are Quintus Fabius, and Lucius Cincius, who both flourished during the Punic wars: each of these has related the actions, at which he himself was present, with great exactness, as being well acquainted with them, but has given a summary account of those early events that happened soon after the building of the city.”

Treachery of Tarpeia (Sixth Year of Rome)

(See p. 65)

It was to supply the deficiency thus noted, Dionysius alleged, that he undertook his work, being determined, he says, “not to pass over that beautiful part of the Roman history, which the ancient authors had disregarded.” But “lest some one should entertain the opinion that in introducing matter not found in the authors already mentioned, he resorted to invention,” Dionysius thinks it well to explain how he came by the materials for his history. He says:

“I came into Italy immediately after Augustus Cæsar had put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad; and having from that time to this present, that is, twenty-two years, lived at Rome, learned the Roman language and acquainted myself with their writings, I employed all that interval in preparing materials for this work; and some things I received from men of the greatest consideration among them for learning, whose conversation I used; and others I gathered from histories, written by the most approved Roman authors; such as Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the Ælii, Gellii, and Calpurnii, and several others of good note. Supported, therefore, by the authority of these histories, which are like the Greek annals, I undertook this work.”