ROMAN Rome added no original contributions to historiography. As in all other phases of its culture, Rome here followed the model set up the Greeks. While there were distinguished Roman historians, none equalled Thucydides or Polybius for careful adherence to critical method and only Livy and Tacitus approached the best of the stylists among Greek historians.
The immediate dependence of the Roman historiography on the Greek is evident from the fact that down to the 2d century ac. all the Roman historical literature was even written in Greek. These early historical works in Greek were chiefly 'Annals) of which the first and most famous were those of Fabitis Pictor (c. 250 a.c.). The first Roman historicll litera ture in Latin was the (Origines) of Cato the Censor (c. 234-149 B.c.), in which he narrated the history of Rome interpreted according to his notorious bucolic and aristocratic prejudices. The first real historian among the Romans in point of time was that leader of all Romans in ablity, Julius Caesar (100-44 Generally accurate and always clear, forceful and direct in his style, Canes apologies for his public career — the 'Commentaries' and the 'Civil War' were the best historical memoirs produced in the ancient world and rank well with those of any period. A more systematic historian was Sallust (c. 86-34 ac.) the Roman disciple of Thucydides. His chief work, a history of Rome from 78 to 67 B.C. has never been re covered, but from his monographs on the 'Conspiracy of Catillne and the (Jugurthine War> one can appreciate his vigorous and graphic style and hispower in the analysis of personalites and social forces, but he was not able wholly to conceal his pessimism with re gard to the future of the Roman state in the last years of the Republic. The great national history of Rome was that of Livy (59 a.c.-17 A.D.). His work was a massive epic of the growth of the Roman world-state. While he had a general appreciation of the value of accuracy of statement, he subordinated this element to that of perfection of style, and the Greek °Rhetoricians) rather than Thucydides were his model. The great literary merit if Livy's historyts ministry to •the national R vanity of the Romans and their cult of modern admirers, and its great popularity with the humanists have given it a position in his toriography higher than its purely historical value would warrant. A less successful ex ample of the Roman historical writing of the rhetorical school was the history of Rome under the early empire by Velleius Paterculus in the period of Tiberius. The last of the major Roman historians was Tacitus (c. 55 120 A.n.). Like Polybius, he was a man of action, and, being an ardent admirer of the aristocratic Republic, his view of contemporary Roman society was even more pessimistic than that of Sallust. While he wrote with great
vigor, had rare power of portraying personali ties and was generally accurate, the subjective moralizing element in his writings, while add ing to their literary reputation, greatly reduced their historical value. To him and to Juvenal is primarily due that notorious and venerable myth of the °moral causes° for the decline of the Roman Empire, which was later revived and elaborated with such deplorable results by Kingsley. In addition to his historical works — the 'Annals,' the 'Histories) and the biography of Agricola, dealing with Roman his tory in the 1st century of the Christian era. the 'Germania) was one of the earliest excursions into the field of descriptive soci ology. Being the only extensive source of information regarding the institutions of the Germans of that time, the °Germania* has ac quired a great importance in later years. It has been the most controverted historical docu ment in existence, excepting only the Penta teuch and the Synoptic Gospels. Recovered in the period of the humanists and brought before the learned public by Poggio, Enoc of Ascoli, and Conrad Celtis, it has been the centre of his torical conflict between the modern Teutonist and Galilean historians, as much as Alsace Lorraine has been the pivotal point in the polit ical and military rivalry of their respective national States. More than this, the tendency of Tacitus to idealize the early Germans at the expense of the Romans originated that humor ous but disastrous perversion of the interpreta tion of the °invasions° which culminated in the vagaries of Charles Kingsley's °The Roman and the Teuton.* The last Roman historian of any repute, unless it be the vague figure that Kornemann has endeavored to reconstruct, was Suetonius (75-160 A.D.), the erudite secretary of Hadrian. His diffuse 'Lives of the Caesars,' while reliable in its description of public affairs, was one of the earliest examples of historical °muckraking° and °scandal mongering.° His chief significance in historiography lies in the fact that be became the model in Style and arrangement for the historical biography of the period of humanism. Though the Roman historians were not original and were always more or less under the spell of the Greek °Rhetoricians,° Roman historiography was incomparably higher in the sphere of reliability than the type Which was to succeed it and was to bring historical writing back under the spell of mythology and religious prejudices from which it had escaped with Hecataus of Miletus eight centuries earlier.