xliv c. Junius Gracchanus.
very probable. If we Germans, for instance, praise Mascov6
as the first who wrote a history of Germany, we do not thereby
mean to assert that his work possesses everything that is re-
quired of a history of Germany. But it may also be, that
Cicero judged unfavourably of him, because he belonged to a
different political party7, for Macer took an active part in the
restoration of the tribunician power. In the struggles which
were then going on at Eome, every one thought the lesser evil
to be on his own side : some conceived it to lie in the greater
power of the government, and others in the full operation of
popular freedom; just as is now the case in France, where a
calm and unprejudiced spectator cannot join either of the par-
ties unconditionally, or wish to see one gain the upper hand.
In such eiɪcumstances, Cicero may, for a time, have confined
his good wishes to one party, and been anxious to see the other
completely suppressed. I consider the loss of the annals of
Macer greatly to be deplored. Whether the speech of Macer
among the fragments of Sallust’s history was the report of an
actual speech of Macer, or was written by Sallust under his
name, is uncertain: at any rate, the great knowledge of the
early constitution displayed in it, renders it worthy of
Macer, and is not likely to have been possessed by Sallust.
His work is quoted down to the sixteenth book; but of how
many books it consisted is unknown ; he probably began with
the earliest times, and carried the history down to his own
age.
C. Junius Gracchanus, the historian of the Eoman constitu-
tion, derived his name from his friendship with the younger
Gracchus. Both the Gracchi were men of very deep, intense,
and warm feelings, and exercised an inspiring influence upon
eminent persons; it is, therefore, no wonder that young and
enthusiastic men were, as it were, charmed by them. Junius
Gracchanus wrote ahistory of the Eoman constitution, in which
he gave a chronological account of its changes . The work
seems to have been the only one of its kind ; it is often quoted
by Censorinus, Tacitus, Ulpian, and other jurists. He appears
6 His history appeared in 1726 under the title: Gescluchte der Deutschen
bis zu Anfang der Frdnkisehen Monarchie. An English translation of it by
Thomas Lediard appeared in 1738, London, 2 vols. 4to.
7 Cicero, ad Att, i. 4; Plutarch, Cιc. 9; Valer. Max. ix. 12, 7.
8 Compare vohii. p. 10,foil, and note 251.
MINOR HISTORIANS.
xlv
to have followed in his calculations the aera fɪom the expulsion
of the kings, which is adopted in particular by Lydus in his
work “ De Magistratibus," who drew his information from
Gaius’ commentary on the twelve tables. Gaius again derived
his materials from Gracchanus ; for he himself did not possess
the learning of Gracchanus, and where he is left to himself, he
is very often wrong; but his collection is nevertheless extremely
valuable. The sources referred to by Gracchanus were proba-
bly the ancient law-books, and certainly most authentic ones.
I can say, with the fullest conviction, that all his statements
were correct.
There is no quotation from Fenestella referring to the early
times of Borne, whence I infer that he did not wιite the entire
history of Rome.
Among the minor writers on Roman history, there occurs
one Victor, to whom is assigned a work entitled “ Origo gen-
tis Romanae ” ; in it are quoted most of the earlier annalists,
also the annales maximi (even for the arrival of Aeneas), Sex.
Gellius, Domitius, Egnatius, M. Octavius, and many others
whose very names are otherwise unknown. The work was first
published by Andreas Schottus. Considering the resemblance
of the book to that of Fulgentius, to the Scholiast on the Ibis,
and other commentators of the time, who likewise refer to both
known and unknown authors, we might be inclined to consider
it a production of the fifth or sixth century of the Christian era;
but the whole work is a fabrication of modern times; not, in-
deed, written by Schottus himself, but by one of the impostors
who were so numerous about the end of the fifteenth century.
The works ascribed to Messalla, Fenestella (de magistratibus'),
and others in the same collection, were forged at the same
period. The impostor may have become acquainted with
Octavius from the Scholiast on Horace, and have taken Sext.
Gcllius from Dionysius, who says—“I StatewhattheGellii
and others have written.” The quotations from Cato in this
work are contradicted by the most conclusive evidence, which
we possess in Servius and others concerning Cato.
This was the condition of Roman history in the time of Cicero.
After the consulship of Ciccro, while Caesar was in Gaul, Q.
Aelius Tubero, a friend of Cicero, wrote Roman annals, which
were likewise founded Onauthentic documents; though, unless
he has been greatly wronged, he cannot be compared with