pansion, because he wished to make his statements as clear as they were capable of being expressed, without ornament or exaggeration. He was brief, because he never wished to say more than was absolutely necessary, and therefore his brevity is the very cause of perspicuity. The mind of Tacitus was, from its thoughtfulness and philosophical character, the very counterpart of that of Thucydides: his brevity was therefore natural and the result of the same causes.

There is one point of view in which Sallust is invaluable as an historian. He had always an object to which he wished all his facts to converge: he brought forward his facts as illustrations and developments of principles. He analyzed and exposed the motives of parties, and the secret springs which actuated the conduct of individuals, and laid bare the inner life of those great actors on the public stage, in the interesting historical scenes which he undertakes to describe.

TROGUS POMPEIUS.

Trogus Pompeius was a voluminous historian of the Augustan age, whose father was private secretary to Julius Cæsar.1 His work was of such vast extent, and embraced so great a variety of subjects, that it has even been termed by Justin, who published a large collection of extracts from it, an Universal History. Its title, however, "Historia Philippice," proves the writer's primary object was the history of the Macedonian monarchy, together with the kingdoms which arose out of it at the death of Alexander; and that all the rest of the information contained in it were digressions into which be was naturally led, and episodes incidentally introduced into the main stream of the history.

For the materials contained in his work, which consisted of forty-four books, he was indebted to the Greek historians, but especially to Theopompus of Chios, from whose principal work he derived the title, "Philippica," as well as the practice of branching out into long and frequent digressions. It is easy to imagine over how vast an area a history of the Macedonian empire was capable of extending. The subjugation of the East 'Justin, xliii. 5.

2 Born B. c. 378.

by the conquests of Alexander naturally made a rapid sketch of the Assyrian, Median, and Persian empires, an appropriate introduction to the work: the connexion of Persia with Greece and Egypt furnished an opportunity of imbodying the records of Greek history, and a description of Egypt and its inhabitants. Once embarked in Greek history, the writer pursued it until it became interwoven, through the interference of Philip, with the affairs of Macedon. Alexander and his successors succeed: the campaigns of Pyrrhus bring the Romans upon the stage; Carthage and Sicily for awhile occupy the scene; and the main body of the work is completed by a sketch of the gradual consolidation of that vast empire, of which subjugated Macedonia became a province. Nor is this all-other less important nations, states, and cities are ever and anon introduced, according as they act their part in the great drama of history.

LIFE OF LIVY-HIS OBJECT IN WRITING HIS HISTORY-ITS SPIRIT AND CHARACTER -LIVY PRECISELY SUITED TO HIS AGE-NOT WILFULLY INACCURATE-HIS POLITICAL BIAS ACCOUNTED FOR-MATERIALS WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE USED-SOURCES OF HIS HISTORY-HIS DEFECTS AS AN HISTORIAN-HIS STYLE-GRAMMARIANSVITRUVIUS POLLIO AN AUGUSTAN WRITER-CONTENTS OF HIS WORK.

T. LIVIUS PATAVINUS (BORN B. C. 59.)

THE biographical records of many great literary men of Rome are most meager and unsatisfactory. Modern critics who have written their lives have drawn largely upon their own imaginations for their materials; whilst all the information to be derived from ancient writers is often comprised in a few vague allusions and notices. Some of these have been misunderstood, and from others unwarrantable deductions have been derived. These observations are particularly applicable to him who is the only illustrious Roman historian in the Augustan age.

Universal tradition assigns to Patavium (Padua) the honour of being the birthplace of Titus Livius; but notwithstanding the general belief, some doubt has been thrown upon the fact by an epigram of Martial.' He came to Rome during the reign of Augustus, where he resided in the enjoyment of the imperial favour and patronage.2 He was a warm and open admirer of the ancient institutions of the country, and esteemed Pompey as one of its greatest heroes; but Augustus, with his usual liberality, did not allow political opinions to interfere with the regard which he entertained for the historian. Livy had a great admiration for oratory, and advised his son to study the writings of Demosthenes and Cicero.3 At his recommendation the stupid Claudius wrote history; and it has even been asserted, though Ep. I. 62. 2 Tac. Ann. iv. 34. Suet. V. Cl. 41.

4

3 Quint. x. i. 39.

2

1

on insufficient authority, that he was his instructor. His fame rapidly spread beyond the limits of Italy, for Pliny the younger relates that an inhabitant of Cadiz came to Rome for the express purpose of seeing him; a fact which St. Jerome expands into an assertion that many noble Gauls and Spaniards were attracted to the capital, far more by the reputation of Livy than by the splendour of the imperial city.

His great work is a history of Rome, which he modestly terms Annals," in one hundred and forty-two books, preceded by a brief but elaborately-written preface,3 and extending from the earliest traditions to the death of Drusus.4 Of this history thirty-five books are extant, which were discovered at different periods. Of the rest we have only dry and meager epitomes, drawn up by some uncertain author, and of these two are lost." Besides his History, Livy is said to have written books which professed to be philosophical, and dialogues, the subjects of which are partly philosophical, and partly historical. Late in life he returned to Patavium, and there died A. D. 18, in the seventyseventh year of his age. He left one son, and one daughter who married L. Magius, a teacher of rhetoric, of no great talent, who owed his reputation principally to his connexion with the historian. Livy had one great object in view in writing his History, namely, to celebrate the glories of his native country, to which he was devotedly attached. He was a patriot: his sympathy was with Pompey, called forth by the disinterestedness of that great man, and perhaps by his sad end, after having so long enjoyed universal popularity. The character of the historian would lead us to suppose that his attachment was personal rather than political, for the general spirit of his work shows that he was a man of pure mind and gentle feelings. He began his great work about nine or ten years before the Christian era, a period singularly favourable for such a design. The passages in which especially he delights to put forth his powers, and on which he dwells

POSITION OF ROME.

1

479 with the greatest zest, show the truth of Quintilian's wellknown criticism, "that he is especially the historian of the af fections, particularly of the softer sensibilities." A lost battle' is misery to him; he trembles at the task of relating it. Nor does he appear to have been a stern republican. He could admire enthusiastically, and describe with spirit, the noble qualities and self-devotion which the old republican freedom fostered; but his object is rather to paint the heroes, and to give graphic representations of the struggles which they maintained in defence of liberty, than to show any love of liberty in the abstract, or a predilection for any particular form of constitution. To Livy political struggles were no more than subjects for picturesque delineations, the moral of which was the elevation of national grandeur, just as successful foreign wars were the records of national glory. Hence he is a biographer quite as much as an historian: he anatomizes the moral nature of his heroes, and shows their inner man, and the motive springs of their noble exploits. This gives to his narratives the charm of an historical romance, and makes up for the want of accurate research and political observation. His characters stand before us objectively, like epic heroes; and thus he is "the Homer of the Roman people," whilst the charm of his narratives makes him the "Herodotus of Roman historians."

Rome was now the mistress of the world: her struggles with foreign nations had been rewarded with universal dominion; so that when the Roman empire was spoken of, no title less comprehensive than "the world" (orbis) would satisfy the national vanity. The horrors of civil war had ceased, and were succeeded by an amnesty of its bitter feuds and bloody animosities. Liberty indeed had perished, but the people were no longer fit for the enjoyment of it; and it was exchanged for a mild and paternal rule, under which all the refinements of civilization were encouraged, and its subjects could enjoy undisturbed the blessings of peace and security.

Rome, therefore, had rest and breathing-time to look back into the past-to trace the successive steps by which that mar

Inst. Or. x. 1.