xxvi
Q. FABIUS PICTOR.
contradictions in ancient authors respecting the literary men of
the sixth century.
After the second Punic war, there were several Romans who
wrote the history of their country in the Greek language.
After the Macedonian period, the Greeks, in their historical
works, began to dra w attention also to the more distant nations ;
and this circumstance stirred up able men in those nations, who
understood Greek, to write in that language the history of
their own country, that it might be read by the Greeks. In
southern Italy the Greek language had long been established.
It would not be advisable indeed to assert that the Lucanian
Ofellus was really the author of the works ascribed to him ;
but there must have been some reason for attributing them to
him ; and Aristoxenus, to whom all the existing accounts on
this subject must be traced, knew that these people wrote
Greek. The towns of Campania, Apulia, and other parts of
southern Italy had Greek inscriptions and coins. The Alex-
andrian grammarians read Oscan accounts of Italy, but we must
not believe that they were books written in Oscan; they were
Greek books. In regard to Boman history, we have to mention
especially Q. Fabius Pictor19 and L. Cincius Alimentus, both
belonging to very noble families. Q. Fabius was of a patrician
gons and had once been sent on an embassy to Delphi ; he was
a grcat-gi andson of C. Fabius Pictor, who had painted the
temple of Salus ; this painting, probably representing the vic-
tory of the consul Junius over the Aequians, continued to
exist down to the time of the Emperor Claudius. Even that
C. Fabius Pictor must have been familiar with the language
and manners of the Greeks; for, according to Eoman notions,
painting was not a suitable occupation for a patrician. His
son who was sent as ambassador to Alexandria, must likewise
have been acquainted with Greek. The object of Fabius, the
historian, was no doubt to counteract the contempt with which
the Greeks regarded the Eomans. He therefore wrote the
history of Eome from its beginning. Whether he spoke of
Æneas we cannot ascertain, but we have ample evidence of
the manner in which he treated of the primordia urbis, of Eo-
nιulus and Bemus.20 Of the earliest times, he gave, according
19 Fabius wrote the history of his country 250 years after IIerodotus: so
much, then, is the historical literature of the Romans later than that of the
Greeks.—N. 20 Dionys. i. 79.
Q. FABIUS PICTOR.
xxvii
to Dionysius, only a brief outline ; but as he advanced nearer
the age in which he lived, his account became more minute.21
This last feature he had in common with nearly all the Roman
historians, except Cn. Gellius and Valerius Antias, who fol-
lowed the opposite principle. Cato alone observed the right
proportion. Fabius’ real subject, however, was the second Punic
war, with which he was contemporary ; but he had likewise
given a detailed account of the first war with the Carthaginians.
We learn from Polybius22 that he shewed great partiality to
his countrymen and endeavoured to justify them in every thing ;
and when a man like Polybius passes such a censure, we may
readily believe him. An indulgent treatment of one’s country
is just enough; but it was more than indulgence when he at-
tempted to justify his Romans on every occasion.23 The first
history of the first Punic war had been written by Philinus of
Agrigentum, and in a spirit very hostile to Rome, on account
of the destruction of his own native city. Fabius now wrote in
the opposite spirit, and perhaps exagg<. rated in the opposite di-
rection. He probably carried his work to the end of the second
Punic war, though there is nothing to prove this, for most of
the quotations from his work, refer to the earliest period of
Roman history.
The title of his work is nowhere mentioned, nor do we know
into how many books it was divided, though it was held in an
unusually high degree of estimation, and is very often referred
to by Polybius, Livy, Diodorus Siculus, and Dionysius. We
may be sure that we also possess a great Inanythingsborrowcd
from him, without acknowledgment. It is clear and certain
that Diodorus, like Fabius, placed the foundation of Rome in
01. 8.1. Diodorus, it is true, contains only very meagre notices
of Roman history in the several years, and they differ widely
from Livy’s statements; but they are by no means contemptible,
and he can have derived them only from Fabius or Timaeus,
though the former is more probable, on account of the agree-
ment which I have just mentioned. Appian, who gave an
account of the second Punic war very different from that of
Livy, mentions Q. Fabius as the ambassador sent to Delphi.24
Appian knew little of Latin, and was not much of an investi-
21 Dionys. i.6. 22 i∙14, iii.8, 9. 23 Vol. ii. p. 8.
24 vii.27, His words arc: η δe βoυλη Kolvrov μ⅛v Φaβιov, τbv συyyρaφea tλv8o
τωv epγωvf eιs ∆eλφous eτre^uτre. Compare Piutarch, Fabt Max, 18, l√ivy, xxh. 57.