xxxvi
L. CASSIUS HEMINA.
Very little of the Origines is extant, but what we have is
excellent. It is said that a philologer once tried to conjure up
spirits in order to obtain from them ancient books which
^were lost; and if such a thing-were possible, the first ancient
work to be asked for would be the Origines of Cato; for if we
had them and the history of Q. Fabius Pictor, we might dis-
pense with all speculations concerning the early history of the
nations of Italy. Cato’s work was the only one of its kind in
the whole range of Roman annals. In reading the descriptions
which Livy gives of the wars against the Aequians and
Volscians, we are extremely wearied by the intolerable same-
ness, which is even increased by his repeating the same things
over again. The same character is generally, though with
great injustice, ascribed to the Roman annalists: but Cato was
anything but monotonous or wearisome.
A very short time after Cato and about the time of the
destruction of Carthage, the history of Rome was written by
L. Cassius Hemina20, from whose work we have historical
quotations in the grammarians. Several writers call him
antiquissimus auctor, a name by which Piso and others are
never mentioned. Prom many of his historical remarks I
conclude that he wrote about Alba according to its ancient
local chronology, and that he synchronised the earlier periods
of Rome with the history of the Greeks, which is a circum-
stance of great importance. He began the history from the
earliest times, and what no other annalist did, he treated of it
before the foundation of Rome, whence we have many state-
ments of his about Siculian towns in Latium. The archaeology
of the towns seems to have been his principal object. There
is only one fragment of some length which gives us some idea
of his style, which is decidedly worse than that of Cato.
The fourth book of his work bore the title Bellum Punicum
posterius^, from which we may infer that the last war against
the Carthaginians had not broken out at the time when he
wrote it. He even mentioned the secular festival of the year
607 according to Varro221 which may indeed have been just
at the end of his work, which, however, I believe consisted of
more than four books, though I admit that the number of
books into which it was divided, was not very great, at least,
20 Compare vol. i p. 271, and vol. ii. p. 8.
21 Priscian, vii.j p. 767. cd. Putsch. 32 Censorinus, De Die Nat. 17.
S. FABIUS PICTOR.
xxxvii
perhaps, five or six. Cassius Hcmina was one of the old
authorities who had derived his information from genuine
sources.23
From this time forward, Roman histories were written by
various persons, but an original treatment of the subject is
henceforth out of the question. The Latin rhetoricians who
now began to spring up, used the books which already existed
as the foundations for their own works and only made addi-
tions from old chronicles which had been neglected by their
predecessors.24 How far this was the case with every particu-
lar writer, cannot indeed be ascertained, but on the whole we
may acquiesce in this view. I do not think it necessary, to
give you a complete list of these writers of the seventh century
or to enter into an examination of their merits; my intention
is merely to furnish you with an outline of the literature of the
history of Rome, and I cannot therefore mention such writers
as are in themselves of little or no importance. To this period
belongs the Fabius Pictor, whom Cicero, as I remarked before,
mentions in the “ De Oratore.” Hc was a learned author,
and his work, entitled “Res Gestae” seems to have been a
very minute history, as he spoke of the capture of Rome by
the Gauls in his fourth book25, but the number of its books is
unknown. No fragment of any length is preserved. His
praenomenwas Servius or perhaps Sextus; for in his “Brutus,”
Cicero speaks of Ser. Fulvius, and then of Ser. Fabius, whom
he calls juris pontificii peritissimus. But the books “ De
Oratore” and “Brutus,” which seem to have such an excellent
text, are corrupt in many small points, which have been
smoothed over by a skilful copyist of the sixteenth century.
Of the “ De Oratore” only a single ancient MS. was found at
Milan, and that is particularly .illegible. With regard to the
“Brutus” we are no better off; for no MS. is older than the
year 1430. Hence no great reliance can be placed on the
names in these books. One Heidelberg MS. has SeriusFabius,
and it is probable that we must read Sextus, the praenomen
ServiusnotoccurringamongtheFabii. It is not impossible
that this Fabius may be the same as the Fabius Maximus
Servilianus, who is mentioned in connection with a fragment
23 Pliny, Hist. Nat. xiii. 13; xxix. 1. w Compare vol. ii. p. 8, foil.
25 Gellius, v. 4.