604 
tained nothing more than an account of 
the public festivals, the names of the an- 
nual magistrates, and the principal oc- 
currences of the times. It is here guess- 
ed, rather than proved, also, that it was 
on cloth the chief priest was "accustomed 
to inscribe the pontifical annals, which 
were consecrated to the preservation of 
prodigies, and whatsoever concerned re- 
ligion. 
After this, our author begins, in confor- 
mity with his avowed intentions, to deubt 
the authenticity of whatever might be 
supposed to confirm the ideas hitherto 
prevalent, respecting the antiquity of the 
Romans, 
“But it little concerns us,” adds he, 
*‘ to know what were the historical mo- 
numents of the Romans, until the period 
of the invasion of Rome by the Gauls. 
These ferocious conquerors destroyed the 
greater part of the city by fire, and Titus 
Livius informs us, that hearly all the 
knowledge consigned in the commenta- 
ries of the Pontiffs, and other public and 
private monuments,- were consumed. 
Another historian, (Clodius, apyd Plu- 
tarchum in Numa, initio.) tells us, that 
this loss was general, and-he regards as 
forgeries all the writings of that kind, 
which some pretended to have at 
served. 
“ But the monuments thus destroyed, 
appear to have belonged only to the times 
of the republic, or at most to those of the 
Jast kings. How then is it possible for us 
to expect any certainty relative to the 
foundation of Rome, and_ the, epochs 
which followed it, when Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus assures us, that the ancient 
Romans did not possess a single historian, 
not even one of those who recount the 
fables which supply the place of history 
among so many nations. We also read 
In Plutarch, that Fabius Pictor, the ear- 
liest of the Romans who pretended to 
write history, had chiefly followed Di- 
ocles of Perapethus, and that this Dio- 
cles was the first who treated of the 
foundation of Rome. But did this Greek 
historian, who is only know by -means 
of Plutarch, live during an epoch saffi- 
ciently near to the foundation of Rome, 
to have received a traditional account 
worthy of being relied on? No, assuredly 
not, tor the Greeks themselves had- not 
any historians before the conclusion of 
the sixth century, anterior to our era, 
The truth is, that Diocles is scarcely 
more ancient than the first Roman his- 
torian, and that he Gould not write ahove 
forty or fifty years before Fabius, 
Retrospect of French Literature— History. 
‘“ From the time of the burning of the 
city, until the descent of | Pyrrhus into 
Italy, in the year 280 before our epoch, 
the Romans continued to neglect their 
annals. We learn this from Livy, who 
sometimes complains of the silence, some- 
-times of the discordancy of the annalists, 
who were often unable to. 
names of the annual magistrates. 
“The Romans descended from illus- 
trious families, preserved most religiously 
the memoirs of their particular houses, 
and it appears thatthis usage commenced 
wt an early period of the republic. If 
these memoirs had been honestly drawn 
tell the 
.up, they would have presented precious 
materials for history, at least subsequently 
to the retreat of the Gauls. But beimg 
dictated hy vanity, and replete with un- 
truths, they were better calculated to 
mislead than to enlighten historians. 
The genealogies were no less deceitful. 
Four distinct houses. pretended to spring 
from the four sons of Numa, although it is 
probable that not one of these princes 
ever existed. The Julian family affected 
to be descended from Julus, the offspring - 
of Kneas, and traced their origin to: the 
commerce of Venus with Anchises. 
~“ Tt was therefore from memoirs, des- 
titute of authenticity, that Fabius pre- 
tended to compose the early annals of his 
country. He, however, had the sagacity 
to write, in general,with brevity, although 
he entered more into detail respecting 
the epochs approaching to his own time. 
He is to be considered as an authority,. 
only as far back as the times of the war 
with the Tarentines, and with Pyrrhus. 
“‘At.this epoch commences the authentic 
history of the Romans, and we read with 
still greater confidence the account of 
the Punic wars, because it is supported 
by the authority of Polybius, a soldier 
and a statesman. He had been the pre- 
ceptor of Scipio, and was the friend both 
of that illustrious Roman and of Lelius, 
who might have furnished him with ex- 
cellent memoirs relative to these events. 
“< The assistance of Titus Livius inter- 
venes between the war against Antiochus, 
king of Syria, and the conquest of Persia 
by the Macedonians. After this we are 
to recur to Plutarch, a writer who has | 
but little of the ‘aritie in him, but who 
had good authors to follow. Without 
him, we shouid know but little concerning 
the two brothers, Tiberius and Caius 
Gracchus. 
“< "The history of the Jugurthine war, 
by Sallust, is also a precious monument. 
This great painter presents us with a hor- 
rible 
