The Fragments of the Histories

11

recently contended that Florus owes his memory of both Livy and Lucan in both books of his work to a single source, Seneca the Elder: he contends this, indeed, but has not attempted to demonstrate it more accurately. Let us concede to him that Florus also read Seneca's book; but that he also read and used those other writers, especially Sallust, is beyond doubt. The booklet De Viris Illustribus On Illustrious Men, which was falsely attributed to Aurelius Victor, seemed to Köhler 1) Loc. cit. p. 41. to be excerpted mostly from Livy, but with other authors also employed. Later, others thought it returned to the writers of annals, and Mommsen 2) Hermes I p. 168. established Valerius Antias, and Aldenhoven 3) Hermes V p. 150. established Calpurnius Piso. But Wölfflin 4) "On the Memorial Book of Lucius Ampelius" (diss. Göttingen 1854) p. 40. had more correctly judged beforehand that a biographical writer was the source for both the author of De Viris Illustribus and Ampelius's Liber Memorialis Memorial Book, and had named Hyginus; Mommsen 5) In a certain letter written to H. Jordan, cf. Hermes VI p. 207., returning almost to this opinion, preferred Cornelius Nepos. H. Haupt 6) "Historical questions on the author of De Viris Illustribus" (diss. Würzburg 1876). solved this very difficult question well, showing most acutely that a writer of lives must be established as the source common to Ampelius and this author, and that this writer is Cornelius Nepos; furthermore, he showed that many individual items and several lives were taken from Livy (perhaps he might better name that Livian epitome). I will defend this one thing against Haupt: that Florus was also very often used by both Ampelius and the Pseudo-Aurelius in adorning their accounts. 7) Cf. Wölfflin p. 42; U. Köhler p. 41; Spengel p. 348; Rosenhauer, "On the sources of the book De Viris Illustribus" 1882; but Westerburg loc. cit. p. 49 wrongly posited that traces of Lucan can be distinguished. Incidentally, Wölfflin himself loc. cit. p. 32 proved that Cornelius was also read by Ampelius and used in the lives of foreign men.

It is self-evident that Velleius Paterculus did not return to the annalists themselves. Everyone agrees, following Sauppius 8) "Swiss Museum" I (1837) p. 145., that chapters 1–9 of the first book flowed from the chronicles of Cornelius Nepos;