Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus, is an important addition to the fourth book of the Civil Wars. Dr. Wynne thinks that in this book also Appian drew much from Livy, but he cites also several contradictions which exist between the two. He acknowledges that his conclusions are uncertain and unsatisfactory wherever he goes beyond the very few writers whom Appian himself cites.

I cannot agree with Dr. Wynne's conclusions respecting either Cæsar or Livy. I had compared all of the Commentaries on the Civil Wars with the corresponding parts of Appian before Dr. Wynne's treatise fell into my hands, and had formed the opinion that Appian had not used Cæsar as an authority, except perhaps at second hand. I had reached the same conclusion as regards Livy also. Of all the commentators upon Appian's authorities with whom I am familiar, Vollgraff is the most satisfactory. He seeks to show that the sources of both Plutarch and Appian for the civil wars were mainly the writings of Greek, not Latin, authors, whose works have since perished. The illustrations with which he sustains this thesis, all being in the nature of internal evidence, are, to my mind, convincing.

Dr. Wynne concludes his essay by inquiring how much confidence should be reposed in Appian as a historian, and whether the orations and conversations with which his works abound can be considered genuine. His opinion, sustained by a large number of citations, is that Appian was a candid author, and that he aimed to give a true account of the events which he described, but that his work contains many faults which are to be attributed for the most part to the times in which he lived. Also that with a few exceptions, which are named, the speeches are either wholly composed by the author or are partly genuine and partly manufactured, the proportions of the one and the other being indeterminable. Among those that must be considered genuine is the con

versation between Octavius and Lucius Antonius, preceding the surrender of Perusia,1 as the author expressly says that he has translated it from the Memoirs of the former.

Dr. Hannak deals only with the Excerpta. He takes them up seriatim and points out their sources, or what might have been their sources, in earlier writings now extant. For the first and second books he finds Dionysius of Halicarnassus the principal authority, a few passages being found in the pages of Diodorus Siculus. For the third (Samnite) book a few resemblances are found in Dionysius, but the greater number in Livy. In the fourth (Celtic) book Diodorus seems to be the principal authority, with one or two references to Cæsar. The Sicilian excerpta seem to have been mainly derived from Polybius, one being referable to the Epitome of Livy. The few Numidian fragments find striking resemblances in Sallust's Jugurthine War. Dr. Hannak thinks that King Juba's history may have furnished Appian with some of his material here. The Macedonian fragments are referable to Polybius and Livy. It is, of course, an open question whether Appian drew his materials from the sources where these resemblances are found, or from books now lost which were the common sources of Dionysius, Diodorus, and Livy, and of himself. I have compared all of Dr. Hannak's citations without being able to form any decided opinion on this question, except as to Polybius, and here my opinion is based on the fact already mentioned that Polybius is once quoted by Appian as an authority. In the fragmenta of Diodorus are several paragraphs which have a striking resemblance to passages in Appian's Spanish and Hannibalic. books.

There have been two English translations of Appian, more or less complete, before this one, the first by W. B., in 1578, the second by J. D., in 1679. The former is in old English

1 Civil Wars, v. 45, 46.

black-letter, and is not easy to read. It contains the five books of the Civil Wars, followed by a continuation written by the translator himself, bringing the history down to the death of Antony. A second part contains the Preface, the Mithridatic, Spanish, Punic, Syrian, Parthian, and Illyrian wars entire, and the Celtic epitome, and in that order. It does not contain the Hannibalic war. The matter is the same as that contained in the Latin version of Geslen, but not in the same order. As the Illyrian wars had not yet been published in Greek, it follows that W. B. must have translated this book from the Latin version of Candidus. Inspection shows this to be the fact, but it does not show that the remainder was translated from Geslen. I do not know who W. B. was.1

The translation of 1679 was made by a certain John Davies. It was published in folio, and a second edition was issued in 1690, but this seems to have been the unsold portion of the first, as it is identical with it in every particular except the title page. A third edition was published in 1703, but I have never seen a copy of it. It contains the Punic, Syrian, Parthian, Mithridatic, Illyrian, Spanish, and Hannibalic wars and the five books of the Civil Wars. Whatever may be said of Mr. Davies's knowledge of Greek, his use of English was very bad. M. Combes-Dounous, the French translator of the Civil Wars (1808), alludes to the translation of Davies in his preface thus: "While I was engaged in translating this historian, I had occasion to speak of him in the presence of an English lady quite well versed in ancient literature. This lady assured me that there was an English translation of Appian in existence. I begged her to try to procure a copy of it for me on her return to

1 A copy of this extremely rare book is owned by Mr. Wilberforce Eames, Librarian of the Lenox Library, to whose kindness I am indebted for the privilege of examining it.

London. In fact she took the trouble of searching for it in the great bookstore of Lackington, who declared that he knew of this translation, and added that it had been published under the name of the celebrated Dryden, who had had no share in it, but had allowed the obscure author of it to use his name to give his work some reputation and lustre. Lackington had promised to procure a copy of this translation, but the war which has broken out has prevented my gathering the fruit of this promise. Besides, this work must surely be quite rare even in England, since neither Fabricius nor Harles knew anything about it."

The first translation of Appian into a modern language was made by Alexander Braccio into Italian. It was published in two parts, the first at Rome in 1502, and the second at Florence in 1519. This was merely a translation of the Latin version of Candidus, but like its original it was immensely popular and ran through many editions in the course of the two following centuries. Two other Italian translations of parts of Appian were published in the sixteenth century— that of Dolce in 1559, and that of Ruscelli in 1563.

The first French translation was made by Claude de Seyssel, Bishop of Marseilles. This also was made from the Latin version of Candidus. Its subsequent amendment, and its publication in 1544, after the death of Seyssel, are mentioned in Professor Mendelssohn's essay which follows this preface. A second edition was published in 1552, and a third in 1569. The latter contained a translation of the Spanish and Hannibalic books made by Philippe des Avennelles. A new French translation was made by Odet Philippe Desmares and published in 1659. I have never seen this work. J. J. Combes-Dounous, the third French translator, says that Desmares only revamped the French version of Seyssel with the help of the Latin version of

Geslen. Combes-Dounous translated the Civil Wars only, in 1808. This is a scholarly work, abounding in valuable notes. Its only defect consists in using rather more words than are needed to convey the author's meaning. CombesDounous divided the books of the Civil Wars into chapters to avoid the appearance of heaviness, and put chapterheadings over each. Schweighäuser had previously divided the whole of Appian into short sections. I have followed the example of Combes-Dounous as to all the books.

Other translations of Appian in modern tongues are mentioned in the Bibliography.

I have been engaged upon this translation for five years, in the intervals of more pressing occupations, and it has been at all times a pleasure and a recreation. If the work has been fairly well done, I shall consider it worth while to have drawn attention again to an author who has fallen into undeserved neglect. I think that all the precious memorials of antiquity ought to be accessible in English. The fact that any literary work propagated itself for more than a thousand years through the Dark Ages by the toilsome process of copying by hand is pretty good evidence that it is worth reading in a modern tongue. Appian deals with the most momentous events of the ancient world, and his work can never be lost sight of while men continue to take an interest in Roman history.

For

I have adhered to the old fashion of using the names Pompey and Antony, instead of Pompeius and Antonius, in order to avoid confusion with the names of Sextus Pompeius and Lucius Antonius, which are of frequent occurrence. the same reason I have used the name Octavius for the adopted son and heir of Julius Cæsar, although Appian generally gives him the name of Cæsar after the death of the latter. In using the names of the gods in the old mythologies I have employed the Greek ones where they are