The History of the Roman Republic. Abridged from the History by Professor Mommsen. By C. Bryans and F. J. R. Hendy

Preface

. Probablt few whose duty it is to teach Roman history in schools will deny that some such work as the present has too long been needed. It is for men thus eugaged to judge whether this book meets their need. It would be alike impertinent and superfluous to dilate on the merits of Professor Mommsen's history : those merits have won recognition from all qualified judges, and have long established his position as the prince of Roman historians. Unfortunately the size of his history is beyond the compass of ordinary schoolboys; nay, possibly, others besides schoolboys have shrunk from attempting so formidable a task. Our abridgment of his history must of necessity give but a feeble and inadequate idea of the original ; but something will have been accomplished if we have given some conception, however faint, of that original, and have induced fresh inquirers to read for themselves those pages so bright with wisdom and imagination.

There has been no attempt to hold the balance between Professor Mommsen and his rival Ihne, nor to answer the criticisms of Professor Freeman. Such efforts, even if we had the ability to make them, would be manifestly out of place in such a work as this. Occasionally, indeed, conflicting views have been indicated in a note ; and the authorities have been studied, but our text contains the views of Professor Mommsen. Whatever merits may belong to this work should be ascribed to another; we must be held responsible for its defects. Our object has been to present the salient points clearly, and as far as possible to escape dulness, the Nemesis of the abridger. Consequently we have tried to avoid writing down to a boy's level, a process invariably b VI

PREFACE.

. resented by the boy himself. Inverted commas indicate that the passage is directly taken from the original. The requirements of space have necessitated the omission of a special chapter on Literature, Art, Religion, Economy, etc. ; nor have we thought it wise to insert a few maps or illustrations of coins, works of art, etc. An atlas is really indispensable, and one is, we believe, shortly to be pub lished specially designed to illustrate this period. We have to express our great indebtedness to Professor Dickson for allowing us to make free use of his translation, the merits of which it would be difficult to overpraise. Our gratitude is also due to Mr. Fowler, of Lincoln College, Oxford, and to Mr. Matheson, of New College, Oxford. The former kindly revised the proof sheets of the chapter on Autho rities, and gave valuable suggestions.

The latter was good enough to revise all the proof sheets of the history, in the preparation of which we often found much assist ance from his very useful " Outline of Roman History." We have also to thank Mr. H. E. Goldschmidt, of Fettes College, Edinburgh, for a careful revision of a large portion of the proofs. While our history was in the press the third volume of Professor Mommsen's " Romisches Staatsrecht " appeared. Where possible, we have added references to it in our lists of authorities. At the close of each chapter we have subjoined, where possible, a list of the chief authorities for the statements therein contained, but a few remarks on the character of such authorities will not be out of place. Modern criticism has rudely shattered the romantic legends of the origin and regal period of Rome, legends given us in one form or another by all the ancient writers whose works are still preserved.

Any reconstruction of the ruined fabric must necessarily rest in the main upon conjecture, and, however great be the probability of such conjecture, absolute certainty is impossible. Not only does darkness envelop the regal period of Rome, but we have to move with great caution through the confused accounts of the triumphs abroad and conflicts at home which marked Rome's career during the first centuries of the republic. The reason of this is plain : no records except of the most meagre kind were at first preserved by the Romans, and the earliest writer of Roman history did not live until the time of the second Punic war, or five hundred years after the foundation of the city. Our inquiry into the sources of Roman history naturally falls into two divisions : firstly, as to what were the authorities of the Roman writers themselves ; secondly, as to what weight must be attached to the writers whose works have come down to us.

Among the earliest records preserved at Rome were (1) the annales pontificii and the annales pontificum maximi. The first-mentioned, although mainly devoted to the various religious forms and ceremonies, doubtless contained mention of historical events, while the annales THE SOURCES OF ROMAN HISTORY. maximi contained a bare statement, by the pontifex maximus, of the chief events of the year and the names of the chief magistrates ; and this statement was publicly exhibited every year. (2) In imitation of the records kept by the priest colleges, arose at a later time commentarii, or notes, kept by the chief officers of the state, e.g. by the consuls and quaestors, and also the tabulae censoriae or lists of the censors. These were known under the wider term of libri magistratuum, a special division of which is men tioned by Livy (iv. 13, etc.), under the name of libri lintei, or books written on linen.

(3) The pontifices also arranged calendars or fasti con taining the days set apart for the transaction of business (dies fasti), in which were also enumerated the feasts, games, markets, sacrifices, etc., and to which were gradually added the anniversaries of disasters and other brief notices of historical events. (4) The name of fasti was subsequently given to lists of years containing {a) the names of the chief magis trates (fasti consulares), (6) the triumphs held in each year (fasti triumphales), and (c) the names of the priests (fasti sacerdotales). Of these, the first-named, called Fasti Capitolini from the fact that they are now pre served in the Capitol, are the most important, and con tain the names of the successive consuls, censors, dic tators, and magistri equitum. (5) In addition to the above-mentioned state documents, which were in the keeping of the magistrates, there existed private memorials and family chronicles of various kinds.

Some were in writing, and no doubt contained gross exaggerations in glorification of particular houses. To these belong the imagines or ancestral busts with the attached inscriptions (elogia),the funeral eulogies (lauda tionesfunebres), the songs (neniae) sung during funeral processions or at funeral banquets, and the inscriptions on votive presents, pillars, and tombs. (6) The most important legal monument is that of the Twelve Tables, which were graven on iron and set up in the Forum, and were, in Livy's words, "sons omnis pnblici privatique iuris." The original probably perished in the burning of Rome by the Gauls, but was either replaced by copies preserved by the pontifices or was restored from memory. We may add to this section the so-called leges regiae, which, though purporting to give decrees and decisions of the kings chiefly on religious matters, were really a collection of old laws, set down in writing at a period later than the Twelve Tables.

(7) Another source of information consisted of various treaties of alliance. Dionysius mentions (a) an apocryphal treaty between Romulus and the Veientines (ii. 55), (&) one between Tullus Hostilius and the Sabines (iii. 33), (c) one between Servius Tullius and the Latins (iv. 26), {d) one between Tarquinius (? Superbus) and Gabii (iv. 58). Polybius (iii. 22-26) gives an account of three ancient treaties between Rome and Carthage, Pliny (N. H. xxxiv. 14) mentions the treaty with Porsena, Cicero (pro Balbo, 23) mentions the treaty of alliance with the Latins in 493 B.C., and Livy (iv. 7) mentions the treaty made with Ardea, 410 B.C. To these may be added mention by Festus * (p. 318) of the first tribunician law, 493 B.C., and the mention by Livy (iii. 31) and by Dio nysius (x. 32) of the Italian law De Aventino Publicando in 456 b.c. Such, then, were the sources open to the earliest Roman annalists.

We may now turn to them. Our first list will give those writers whose works embraced the early history of Rome but which have perished, with the exception of a few fragments. f (1) Q. Fabius Pictor, born about 254 B.C., served in the Celtic war of 225 B.C., and wrote probably in Greek. (2) L. Cincius Alimentus, praetor 210 B.C., and taken prisoner by Hannibal, wrote * Festus' work is merely an abridgment of the lost work of M. Verrius Flaccus, a freedman of the Augustine age. t For the student of Roman history, Hermann Peter's " Histori covum Romanorum Fragmenta " is invaluable. On the general question of the sources of Homan history we may refer to Teuffel's " History of Eoman Literature," Professor Seeley's " Introduction to the First Book of Livy," and more especially to the " Quellenkunde der Edmisehen Geschichte," by M. Schmitz, and the instructive criticism by C. Peter, in his " Zur Kritik der Quellen der Aelteren Romischen Geschichte."

Cf. also Schwegler, E. G. i., c. 1, 2, 19, of whose work Mr. Fowler writes, " I have always thought it the greatest masterpiece of detailed, clear, and rational criticism I have ever read." X in Greek. (3) Gaius Acilius, flourished about 155 B.C., a senator, wrote in Greek. (4) Aulus Postumius Albinus, consul 151 B.C., one of the commissioners sent to settle the province of Greece, wrote in Greek. (5) Omitting the poetical description by Gaius Naevius (264-194 B.C.) of the first Punic war, and by Quintus Ennius (239-169 B.C.) of the history of Rome from the earliest times down to 172 B.C.), we now come to the first historians who wrote in Latin prose. Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 b.c), author of the Origines, is the first. (6) Lucius Cassius Hemina, flourished 146 B.C. (7) Lucius Calpurnius Piso, consul in 133 B.C. (8) Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus, consul in 129 B.C. (9) Cneius Gellius, flourished about 100 B.C. (10) Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius, flourished about 90 B.C ; his history began at the capture of Rome by the Gauls.

(11) Valerius Antias, about 70 B.C. (12) Gaius Licinius Macer, tribune in 73 B.C. All these writers preceded Livy, and in most cases are cited by him as authorities. The other historians previous to Livy, such as Gaius Fannius (consul in 122 B.C.), Lucius Coelius Antipater, born in 170 B.C., Lucius Cornelius Sisenna (120-67 B.C.), wrote on special and later periods ; while statesmen, such as M. Aemilius Scaurus (consul, 115-107 B.C.), Q. Lutatius Catulus (consul 102 B.C.), and Sulla the dictator, did not disdain to write memoirs in self-defence. We may now give a second list of those writers on the early period of Rome, whose works are in part still extant. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (70-8 B.C.), of whose " Roman Antiquities " we possess nine complete books, and Titus Livius (59-17 B.C.) stand practically alone.

Other writers, e.g. M. Velleius Paterculus (born about 19 B.C.), Plutarch (a.d. 46-120), Julius Florus (about a.d. 70-150), Aulus Gellius (a.d. 125-175), Diodorus Siculus, Appian (about a.d. 130), and Dio Cassius (a.d. 155-230), all throw more or less light on the early history ; but practically our in formation is drawn from the works of Livy and Dionysius * Unfortunately, the latter's history, written as it was for Greeks and avowedly written to please the reader rather than inform posterity, is disfigured by contradictions and * On the relation of Livy (a) to the Roman annalists, (6) to Dionysms, the student is referred to the remarkably instructive analysis by C. Peter, in his above-mentioned work, pp 55-82 rhetorical exaggeration. Difficulties are left unsolved, and the superficial knowledge displayed throughout shows that Dionysius was content with setting down the varying statements of Roman annalists without attempting to reconcile their contradictions.

Livy, on the other hand, has the great advantage of being well acquainted with Roman traditions, and is thus able to blend with pictur esque language the colour of the Roman life and thought. Nor was he wantingin judgment, although incapable of scientific criticism. Tet the narrative of Rome as pre sented by him in the first decade, cannot be regarded as serious history, built up as it is of the jejune records preserved by the magistrates and of the absurd exaggera tions and pure fictions preserved in family documents and embellished by family annalists. We do not, in truth, reach real historical ground until the first Punic war, and that we owe to the great work of Polybius. Our know ledge of the interval between the end of the first decade of Livy and the beginning of the history of Polybius {i.e. 293-264 B.C.) is due to passages in Dionysius, Appian, Plutarch, and Dio Cassius, but these extracts are either confused and bare notices, or fabulous anecdotes in illus tration of the Roman virtues.

Polybius (208-127 B.C.) covers the ground extending from 264-146 B.C. Unfortu nately, we only possess in completeness his books down to 216 B.C., but the fragments of the remaining books are many and precious, and the influence he exerted on all suc ceeding historians was specially valuable in the interests of truth. To quote Professor Mommsen, " Polybius is not an attractive author ; but as truth and truthfulness are of more value than all ornament and elegance, no other author of antiquity perhaps can be named to whom we are indebted for so much real instruction. His books are like the sun in the field of Roman history ; at the point where they begin the veil of mist which still envelops the Samnite and Pyrrhic war is raised, and at the point where they end a new and, if possible, still more vexatious twilight begins."

A comparison of passages describing the same events shows that Livy made free use of the writings of Polybius,* but even where the resemblance is * On this point, ride C. Peter, in his above-mentioned work, pp. 82-99. THE SOURCES OF ROMAN HISTORY. closest we can detect signs of other sources used by Livy, and unfortunately his love of rhetorical embellishment and his carelessness as to historical connection often obscured and perverted the more straightforward accounts of Polybius. To Livy we have .to turn for a detailed account of Roman history for the years 216-167 B.C., although we can often correct his statement by the copious fragments of Polybius. From 167 B.C. onwards we depend upon Appian, Plutarch, and Sallust's Jugurthine war. The books of Appian which have come down to us contain notices of the regal period, a history of Spain and of the second Punic war, a history of Libya down to the destruction of Carthage, a history of Syria and Parthia, the war with Mithradates, and a history of the civil strife from the Gracchi down to the death of Sextus Pompeius in 35 B.C. His carelessness and inaccuracy, his tendency to sacrifice truth to petty jealousy and party spirit, lessen the value of his work.* Sallust, however, had the great advantage over Appian and similar writers of being a Roman and well versed in the politics of his time.

He shows a freedom from party prejudice and a sense of historical truth, and his work is not merely instructive with regard to the Jugurthine war, but throws valuable light On the inner circumstances of that period. From the beginning of the Social War (91-88 B.C.), the mass of contemporary material which in one form or another must have been available for later writers is continually increasing. For the Sullan period, from the Social War to the death of the dictator (91-78 B.C.), we rely chiefly on Plutarch's Lives of the chief actors on the political stage; but there are other works of various worth. Of the writers already mentioned, Claudius Quadrigarius treated of Sulla's campaign in Greece; the work of Valerius Antias extended as far as the time of Sulla; that of Sisenna embraced the Social War.

They appear to have written at great length, and to have incor porated speeches and letters in their works. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there were (1) published speeches, political and forensic, such as those of L. Licinius Crassus (consul 95 b.c), of Q. Scaevola (consul 95 B c ), * Cf. C. Peter, pp. 127-138. of C. Julius Caesar Strabo (killed 87 B.C.) ; (2) Memoirs. Sulla (ob. 78 B.C.) wrote an autobiography which was completed after his death by his freedman Epicadus, and which was largely used by Plutarch. Lucius Lucullus (ob. 57 B.C.) wrote a history of the Social War in Greek. C. Piso narrated the war between Sulla and Marius. L. Voltacilius Pilutus, a freedman, wrote an account of the doings of Cn. Pompeius, the triumvir, and of the father of Pompeius, probably during the lifetime of the former.

Of still extant authorities the following are the most important. (1) Plutarch (lived probably from the reign of Claudius to Trajan or Hadrian). Twenty-three lives of Romans survive, few of which, those of Marius, Sulla, Lucullus, and Sertorius, fall under this period. For later times we have the lives of Crassus, Pompeius, Caesar, Cato minor, Cicero, Antonius, and Brutus. Plutarch writes with good sense and wide knowledge, but his aim is biography, not history : hence important events are often lightly touched, while trivialities characteristic of the men are dwelt upon ; and as a Greek he is often defective in acquaintance with Roman institutions. He used contemporary authorities largely, though his own knowledge of Latin was slight, and he often reveals his sources ; of 250 writers quoted by him 80 are wholly or partially lost.

(2) Appian. (3) The epitomes of Livy, attributed to Florus, which survive of all the lost books except 136 and 137, and are valuable for the main points. (4) The compendia of several epitomists of late date have come down to us, based largely, sometimes exclusively, upon Livy. They are careful and accurate, and often contain useful information not found elsewhere, but are marked by a strong Roman bias. Such are the works of (Amiaeus ?) Florus (flor. 2nd cent, a.d.), Eutropius and Rufus Festus (4th cent. a.d.). (5) Justinus (date uncer tain) who made a collection of extracts from the Historiae Philippicae of Trogus Pompeius (flor. 20 B.C.), apparently a sound and solid work, based upon Greek sources; Justinus is tho chief authority for the earlier years of Mithradates. For the next eight years (78-70 B.C.), to the overthrow of the Sullan constitution, we rely chiefly upon Plutarch, Appian, the epitomes of Livy, Justinus, Dio Cassius, THE SOURCES OF ROMAN HISTORY. some valuable fragments of the histories of Sallust dealing with the Sertorian war and the outbreak of Lepidus, and the recently discovered fragments of Granius Licinianus.

When we come to what may conveniently be called the Ciceronian period (70-40 B.C.) the conditions are changed, A, mass of contemporary material — letters, speeches, memoirs — is still extant, though much has perished, and the modern historian is in a position, if not to write history from the original sources, at least to criticise with effect the compositions of ancient writers. At the same time, the spread of culture in Rome and Italy brought with it a facility in composition which resulted in a multitude of historical works ; and if all this mass of literature is the work of partisans, on the other hand we have the advantage of possessing the views of both sides. We will now give some account, first of the contempo rary records whether lost or extant, secondly of the later histories treating of this period, which survive.

(1) Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 b.c ) is the most voluminous and on the whole the most valuable writer of the period. Advocate and partisan as he was, the naivete and volubility of his character make him peculiarly useful as a historical witness. Of his speeches, private and public, fifty-seven survive, besides fragments of twenty more, and throw light, not only on the political situation in all its constant varia tions, but on many other points, such as the working of the Sullan laws, and of the numerous changes which followed rapidly on the death of Sulla, on the social condition of Italy, and the provincial administration. Incomparably more valuable than even the speeches are the letters, 864 in number, including ninety addressed to Cicero, and ex tending from 68 to 43 b.c. It is hardly too much to say that they are an inexhaustible storehouse of contemporary history, such as exists for no other period ancient or modern.

A memoir of the year of his consulship is unfortunately lost. His voluminous philosophical and rhetorical writings contain valuable information on a great variety of sub jects, especially on the Roman law and constitution, for which the De Republica and De Legibus are peculiarly valuable. With Cicero should be mentioned his faithful freedman, friend, and editor, M. Tullius Tiro, who edited the speeches and letters, and wrote a life of his patron and also developed a system of stenography (notae Tironianae). (2) There were also published speeches by Q. Hortensius Hortalus (114-50 B.C.), Pompeius Magnus, C, Scribonius Curio (killed 49 B.C.), M. Coelius Rufus (killed 48 B.C.), M. Junius Brutus (ob. 42 B.C.), C. Licinius Calvus (ob. ante 47 B.C.), and others. (3) Of historical com positions the most important in the earlier portion of this period, down to 63 B.C., were the annals of T. Pomponius Atticus (109-32 B.C.), a compendium of Roman history from the earliest time, giving special attention to the history of the great Roman families ; he also wrote an account of Cicero's consulship, and a large number of letters.

There were also historical compositions by Hortensius the orator, by Lucius Lucceius, a corre spondent of Cicero's, and by Lucius Tubero, a friend and brother-in-law of Cicero, of which almost nothing is known. (4) In the later half of the Ciceronian period, from 63 B.C. to the outbreak of the civil war, the most important author is C. Julius Caesar (102-44 B.C.). His speeches, letters, and the " Anticato " (a political pamphlet in answer to Cicero's panegyric on Cato Uticensis) are all lost ; but there are extant (a) Commentarii de Bello Gallico in seven books, which is at once a military report, a history, and an apologia. " It is," says Mommsen,* " evidently designed to justify as well as possible before the public the formally unconstitutional enterprise of Caesar in conquering a great country, and constantly increasing his army for that object, without instructions from the competent authority."

It was published in 51 B.C., when the storm was imminent. The work is very valuable for the condition of Gaul, Germany, and Britain, and also for the Roman military system and camp life. (6) The Bellum Civile, in three books, is a much less careful work ; it extends to the beginning of the Alexandrine war in 47 B.C., and has equally a political ' purpose. (5) After Caesar's death the histories of the Gallic and of the civil war were continued by his friends. The eighth book of the Gallic war and the Bellum Alexandrinum are generally ascribed to Aulus Hirtius (killed 43 B.C.); the Bellum Africanum and Bellum Hispanicum are by other and un known hands. (6) Other friends of Caesar who treated * Vol. iv., p. 605. of his life were C. Oppius (to whom the continuations of Caesar's Bellum Civile are by some ascribed, and who also wrote lives of Scipio As ricanns the elder and other famous Romans), and L. Cornelius Balbus of Gades.

(7) Cornelius Nepos (circ. 94-24 B.C.), besides other works, wrote lives of Cato the elder and of Cicero, both lost. Some of the works already mentioned were written under the influence of the mighty struggle which preceded the extinction of the republic: those which still remain are nearly all directed to political objects, and are strongly affected by the passion and turmoil of the time. (8) Gaius Sallustius Crispus (87-34 B.C.), who has been mentioned above, wrote, besides his Jugurthine war, an account of the conspiracy of Catiline, to justify the demo cratic party, " on which in fact the Roman monarchy was based, and to clear Caesar's memory from the blackest stain that rested on it." * His Historiae were written as a continuation of Sisenna, and extended over the twelve years from 78 B.C. onwards : only fragments, together with some letters and speeches extracted from the history, survive.

(9) Q. Aelius Tubero (flor. circ. 46 B.C.) wrote a history of Rome extending to his own time. (10) As evidence of the feeling about Caesar in some literary circles at Rome, and as an example of the warfare of literature which raged alongside of the political struggle, the attacks of the poet Catullus (87-54 B.C.) on Caesar and his friend Mamurra are worth mention. (11) Pam phlets in prose and verse were continually published on either side ; M. Varro, C. Scribonius Curio, and Aulus Caecina wrote against Caesar. Funeral orations (lauda tiones) were used for the same purpose. The death of Cato, and even of his daughter, called forth a regular literature of its own ; Cicero and Marcus Brutus were the most famous of his champions, while on the other side Aulus Hirtius, Metellus Scipio, even Caesar himself and, later, Augustus deigned to enter the lists.

(12) From 59 B.C. onwards the minutes of the senate (acta senatus) and the chief events of the day (acta populi or acta diurna) were regularly published as a sort of official gazette: none of the latter survive. (13) Inscriptions. Only two of great importance belong to this period, con- * Mommsen, iv. 184, note. taining fragments of the Lex Rubria (Corp. Inscrr. Lat. I. 205) and of the Lex Julia Municipalis (C. I. L. I. 206). For others, on private or local matters, see Corp. Inscrr., especially No. I. 573-626 ; and for one containing a frag ment of Sulla's law De XX Q (uaestoribus), ib. I. 202.* There are also bullets used in sieges <rith rude inscriptions (ib. I. 644-705), tesserae (ib. I. 717-827), bricks (ib. I. p. 202), epitaphs (ib. I. 1256). Where contemporary material is so abundant later historians are less important, and may be merely enumerated.

(1) The most valuable is Dio Cassius Cocceianus (circ. a.d. 155-229), whose history extended from Aeneas to a.d. 229, and is extant from the wars of Lucullus to a.d. 10. It is written with great knowledge and judgment ; fragments of the earlier and a compendium of the later portions are extant. (2) C. Suetonius Tranquillus (a.d. 75-160) wrote Lives of the Caesars from C. Julius Caesar to Domitian. The work is intelligent, honest, and rich in information, and is based upon valuable contemporary records of all kinds. (3) Tacitus is continually uses ul for the history of the last generation of the republic, especially on constitutional and legal points. (4) Velleius Pater culus (19 B.C. to A.D. 31) wrote a compendium of universal history ; Memnon (not later than the Antonines), a histoi-y of Heraclea in Pontus, which survives in copious extracts by Photius, and is useful for Pontic affairs ; Granius Licinianus (temp, the Antonines), annals, of which fragments relating to 163 B.C. and to 78 b.c. have recently been discovered.

(5) Orosius (flor. first half 5th cent.), Historiarum adversus Paganos, libb. vii., — a religious polemic of no value when unsupported. The following works upon special subjects often throw light incidentally upon history, and may be consulted passim as occasion requires. The order is approximately chronological. (1) M. Terentius Varro (116-28 B.C.), De Re Rustica and De Lingua Latina ; unfortunately, all that remain, besides fragments, of the works of the most learned of the Romans ; but his writings, especially the Antiquitatum Libri, were very largely drawn upon by later antiquarians * For legal fragments Bruns' Fontes Juris Romani Antiqui may he consulted, as more convenient and accessible than the Corpus Iiiscriptiomvm. and grammarians, such as those mentioned (12) to (15). In the reign of Augustus, Fenestella, Sinnius Capito, and Verrius Flaccus should be mentioned as antiquarians who wrote under Varro's influence and on similar topics, and who furnished a vast amount of information upon which later writings are based.

Flaccus survives in an abridg ment by Festus. (2) With Varro may be conveniently mentioned two other writers on agriculture ; M. Porcius Cato (234-149 B.C.), the most valuable of the three, and Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (1st cent, a.d.), De Re Rustica — a work much less valuable than Varro's. (3) Strabo (temp. Augustus and Tiberius), a voluminous work on Universal Geography. (4) Gaius Plinius Secundus (major) (a.d. 23-79), Naturalis Historia — an encyclopedia of the scientific knowledge of his time. (5) Vitruvius Pollio (temp. Augustus), De Architectura. (6) Q. Asconius Pedianus (2 B.C. to a.d. 83), commentaries on some speeches of Cicero — valuable especially for consti tutional points. (7) Valerius Maximus (temp, the early Caesars), De Factis Dictisque Memorabilibus — contains much unique information.

(8) Sex. Julius Frontinus (praetor a.d. 70), Strategematica Libb. iv., on military science with many anecdotes of great commanders ; and De Aqueductibus Urbis Romanae. (9) M. Fabius Quintili anus (a.d. 40-118), De Institutione Oratoria Libb. xii., including a brief history of Roman literature in book x. (10) Gaius (circ. the Antonines), Institutes, in four books ; probably the earliest systematic work on Roman jurisprudence. (11) With Gaius should be mentioned the works executed under the auspices of the Emperor Justi nian (a.d. 527-565)': {a) the New Code, superseding all previous codes ; (6) Pandecta or Digesta, a compilation of all the valuable matter of preceding jurists ; (c) the Institutes, based chiefly upon Gaius. (12) Aulus Gellius (temp, the Antonines), Noctes Atticae, a miscellany, con taining information on all manner of subjects and numerous extracts from Roman writers.