Ixxii VELLEIUS PATERCULUS—EPITOME OF LIVY.
Livy is an author who, like all those who form an epoch in
literature, not only exercised a beneficial influence, but also an
injurious one ; for he became an authority, without being a cri-
tical writer. Iloman history was studied from him alone ; and
the early historians sank into almost complete oblivion. The
only known exception of Roman history being written inde-
pendently of Livy, is that of Velleius Paterculus, who began
with the mythical ages, and carried his history down to about
the year of the city, 783. He divided his work into two
books, the first of which ended with the destruction of Car-
thage; but, besides the history of Rome, it also comprised that
of the earliest times of Greece. Unfortunately, the second book
only is extant, and even that is incomplete ; of the first, the
whole of the early history is wanting : a loss which is very much
to be lamented. Velleius is one of those authors who are in
ill repute; and it cannot be denied that he was perverted by a
sad age, in which he lost the independence of his mind: he
cringed before the tyrant Sejanus, but we must not lose sight
of the fact that he was more talented than his contemporaries;
he is in the highest degree intellectual ; his observations are
exceedingly subtle. He is, moreover, completely master of
his theme, and shews himself everywhere as a well-read writer,
who is thoroughly initiated in his subject. He often reminds
us of the writers of the age of Louis XV.
It is not quite certain whether FabiusRusticus did not treat
of the earliest history: in his time, he was perhaps the only
man who could have written on it. All that was henceforth
done in Roman history, consisted in epitomising, of which we
possess several specimens.
There exist ancient tables of contents of all Livy’s books,
those of books 136 and 137 alone being wanting; they served
as a sort of index for those who wished to find certain parts in
the voluminous work. It is possible that they are nothing but
lemmata which were written in the margin, and afterwards
collected. This epitome very unjustly bears the name of
Florus; the author is unknown, and it is certainly nothing
hut the production of some copyist. To us, however, it is
invaluable ; for there are many things of which we should
be ignorant, were it not for this epitome.
The Roman history of Florus, in four books, which was
written in the reign of Trajan, was well known and much
flokus—Eutkopius—orosius—plutarch. Ixxiii
read, but is a very bad piece of composition, though, besides
many utter misconceptions, it contains a few things which are
useful. Floius may have derived his information from Livy;
but there is one passage in which he differs from him, and
from which we may infer that he read other authorities also.
Eutropius evidently followed Livy everywhere; but he is so
wretched an author, that it is hardly possible to believe that
he read Livy : whence I presume that he read only some inter-
mediate work between that of Livy himself and the Epitome.
Orosius seems to have read the same, for he, too, follows Livy
entirely, but gives dates which do not occur in Livy. This is
just in accordance with the ignorance of the man who changed
the names of the consuls into the corresponding dates. That
intermediate work must have been an abridgment, like that
of Trogus Pompeius, by Justin. Orosius’s only object was to
comfort his contemporaries in their condition, by distortions
and sophistries, and by describing the miseries of the early
times. On many points, however, he is very important; but
we must not allow ourselves to be misguided by him.
The influence which Livy exercised upon the Eomans, and
which put an end to all independent treatment of history, did
not extend to the Greeks. The attention of the latter was more
and more directed to Roman history, for they found in it
materials for rhetorical and elegant composition.
When, therefore, the Romans ceased to write their own
history, the Greeks began to undertake the task, though they
did it from a different point of view, and on a more or less
comprehensive plan. Among these I reckon Plutarch, who
wrote under Trajan, although he composed only separate
biographies. He had a definite moral object, and was a man
of a noble and amiable mind ; but he had neither a practical
mind, nor one fit for speculation, but was made for quiet and
cheerful contemplation, similar to Montaigne. He had an
honest dislike for everything vulgar; and with this feeling he
wrote, for himself and his friends, the parallel biographies of
the most distinguished Romans and Greeks. He is just
towards every one ; he loves the Greeks, and esteems the
Romans : whence his biographies are the most delightful read-
ing. But his qualifications as an historian are of an inferior
kind; for he is not a critic, and does not decide between two
conflicting opinions, but sometimes follows the one and some-