he gives us with startling clearness a glimpse of social and political conditions, but these are only incidental.1 His aim is to narrate events, not to pass judgment on them. And so, although he has given us a thousand pages filled with matter of absorbing interest, and has preserved for us facts and documents of the greatest value which, but for him, would have been wholly lost, he does not reach the first rank of historical writers.

Appian has been severely censured for want of accuracy in details. According to modern canons of criticism, accuracy is the first and indispensable requisite of the historian; but it was not so in the ancient world. General conformity to facts was of course necessary, but in most cases the aim of the ancient writer was to make an interesting book or to furnish a setting for the political ideas or the moral principles which he entertained. Appian was neither better nor worse in this respect than the average historian of the ancient world. He stands on the same plane with Plutarch, Dio Cassius, Suetonius, Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Diodorus Siculus, and Valerius Maximus, all of whom overlapped him here and there. Between himself and Plutarch there is a striking parallelism covering the whole period of the civil wars. In some places they use the same Greek phraseology, and this has led one modern commentator2 to the opinion that their common source here was a Greek, not a Latin, writer, since it would have been very remarkable if, in translating independently from the Latin, they had often used the same Greek words. After examining the passages cited by Dr. Vollgraff, and some that he has not cited, I concur in his opinion.

How far Appian is contradicted in matters of fact by

1 Civil Wars, ii. 19 and 120.

2 Greek Writers of Roman History: Some Reflections upon the Authorities Used by Plutarch and Appianus, by J. C. Vollgraff, Leyden, 1880, pp. 113.

better authorities than himself I have sought to show by footnotes accompanying the text, although I do not assume that I have made a complete census of such passages. better authorities are:

The

I. The works of Cicero, especially the Letters, a historical mine without a parallel in the ancient world and still unexhausted.

II. Polybius, whose extant works, however, overlap those of Appian only in small part. Although Polybius was an eyewitness of the third Punic war, and of the destruction of Carthage, his history of those events and every other account except Appian's, has perished. That Appian drew from Polybius in part is proved by his citation in the Punic wars, Sec. 132.

III. Cæsar's Commentaries, including in this term the writings of Hirtius and of the unknown author or authors of the wars in Africa and Spain.

IV. The works of Sallust.

of Appian's history.

These touch only a small part

V. The works of Livy perhaps. It is open to dispute whether Livy is more to be depended upon than Appian in dealing with facts, but as Livy's works later than the conquest of Macedonia, B.C. 168, have perished, we have little opportunity for comparison, except with the Epitome, or table of contents, of his lost books.

It was the habit of ancient historians to put speeches into the mouths of their leading actors in order to present the ideas that moved peoples, or parties, or factions, and sometimes to deliver the author's moral lectures to mankind.

166

This practice was introduced by Thucydides. It was, says Mr. Gilbert Murray,1 "a fatal legacy to two thousand years of history-writing after him." Appian followed the fashion. The speeches which he delivered in this way are the best

1 Ancient Greek Literature, London, 1897, p. 186.

part of his work in point of style. We feel that here we are listening to the practised debater, the trained pleader of causes in the imperial courts. If we could imagine these speeches to have been made by the men from whose mouths they proceed, we should wonder at the high range of dialectical skill and eloquence that prevailed in those times. We should wonder also that two speakers should show equal cleverness in maintaining opposite opinions so that we can scarcely decide, after reading their arguments, which of them ought to prevail. An excellent example is the conversation between Octavius and Antony.1 The whole debate that followed the assassination of Cæsar is forceful and lifelike, but the best speech in the course of the civil wars is the one ascribed to Cassius shortly before the battle of Philippi. It pleads in the strongest possible terms the expiring cause of the Roman republic, and makes us forget for the moment the detestable crime that Cassius had committed and was about to expiate with his own blood.

8

From what sources Appian drew the materials of his history is a perplexing question. He makes mention of Polybius, Hieronymus,* Cæsar, Augustus," and Asinius Pollio,' as authors, in such a way as to imply that he is quoting from them. He mentions the names of Varro, Fabius Pictor,9 Cassius Hemina,10 and Rutilius Rufus," as authors, but not in terms which imply any use of their works. He refers to two other authors about whom nothing is known; viz. Paulus Claudius and Libo.13 In the absence of any additional clues from the author himself respecting his authorities, resort must be had to the writings of those who preceded 8 C. W. ii. 9; iv. 47.

12

1 C. W. iii. 15-20.

2 C. W. iv. 90-100.

3 Pun. 132.

4 Mithr. 8.

5 Gall. xviii.; C. W. ii. 76, 99.
6 Illyr. 14; C. W. iv. 110, v. 45.
7 C. W. ii. 82.

9 Han. 27. 10 Gall. vi.

11 Sp. 88.

12 Gall. i. 3.
13 C. W. iii. 77.

him. Two monographs on this subject, of comparatively recent date, in addition to that of Vollgraff, will be briefly noticed.1

Dr. Wynne considers only the five books of the Civil Wars. "Not only," he says, "does Appian almost everywhere abstain from indicating his authorities, but a careful comparison of his books on the civil wars with other writers treating the same convinces me that most of the writings that served him as sources have perished, and that any one sedulously comparing Appian's histories with the extant writings of others treating the same events will be almost certainly persuaded that most of them he was either ignorant of, or neglected." He gives us a list of the works which Appian might have consulted for the first book of the Civil Wars, and thinks that he made use of those of Rutilius Rufus and of Posidonius (both in Greek and both lost), and also those of Livy, judging from Appian's general agreement with the Epitome of the latter. He does not believe that Appian drew anything from Cicero or Velleius Paterculus; or from Diodorus Siculus, or Valerius Maximus, for this book.

66

In the second book of the Civil Wars reference is made by Appian to Varro, to Pompey's and Cæsar's letters to the Senate, to Asinius Pollio, to Cæsar's Anti-Cato and to his “ memoranda of the government,” ὑπομνήματα τῆς ἀρχῆς. The references to Varro, and to the two last-mentioned works of Cæsar, are only incidental. They do not imply that anything was drawn from them. Asinius Pollio is mentioned as an authority, as also are the letters of Cæsar and Pompey to the Senate. The oration of Brutus justifying the murder of Cæsar and the funeral oration of Antony are in the

1 De Fide et Auctoritate Appiani, in Bellis Romanorum Civilibus Enarrandis, exploratis fontibus quibus usus esse videtur. Scripsit Dr. I. A. Wynne, Groningen, 1855, p. 129.

Appianus und seine Quellen, by Dr. Emanuel Hannak, Vienna, 1869, p. 184.

second book. Both of these may have been genuine reports of the spoken words. The speech made by Brutus existed in manuscript at one time; for Cicero says that it was sent to him for revision. Dr. Wynne thinks that Appian may have drawn from the works of Tanusius Geminus, which are not now extant. He infers this because Appian makes allusion to a fact which Plutarch also records and for which the latter gives Tanusius as authority. He thinks also that the Memoirs of Augustus may have contributed something to the concluding chapters of this book, since we know that Appian used the Memoirs in other places, and we know from Dio Cassius that they contained the details of Cæsar's last will and testament.2 A large number of passages showing similarity between Appian and the Epitome of Livy are cited by Dr. Wynne together with a few discrepancies; and also some passages in Florus and Orosius drawn from the lost books of Livy which have their parallel in Appian's history, and which lead him to say that after carefully weighing all these passages he concludes that Appian is much indebted to Livy in this book and that he has resorted to him here oftener than in the former one. He thinks that Appian made considerable use of Cæsar's orations and of his Commentaries on the Civil War, but that he used other authorities also, the discrepancies between himself and Cæsar being thus accounted for. He thinks that Appian was not acquainted with the writings of Lucan, or of Suetonius, or of Plutarch.

Among the authorities for the third, fourth, and fifth books of the Civil Wars, in Dr. Wynne's opinion, were the history of Asinius Pollio, the Memoirs of Augustus, and very probably the writings of Messala Corvinus, and possibly those of P. Volumnius (the companion of Brutus at Philippi), from whom Plutarch makes citations which are found also in Appian. The edict of proscription signed by the triumvirs, 2 Dio, xliv. 35.

1 Ad Att. xv. i.