THE WRITINGS OF GERARD JOHANNES VOSSIUS

Book 1 of The Deeds Done as cited in Gellius, book 5, chapter 18.
Gellius, book 5, chapter 18.

The first opinion is that of Sempronius Asellio, for whom history and annals are distinguished. In a history, famous events were recorded along with their causes, the intentions behind them, and how the thing was carried out. In annals, famous events were included, but only the year and the names of those involved were set forth. In the same way, if the matters were not famous, they belonged to the daily acts (called a daily journal original: ἐφημερίδα (ephēmerida) by the Greeks, and a diary by Sempronius Asellio), rather than to history or annals. Tacitus writes in the thirteenth book of his Annals: In the consulship of Nero for the second time and Lucius Piso, few things worthy of memory occurred; unless one wishes to fill volumes by praising the foundations and beams with which the Emperor had built the massive amphitheater in the Field of Mars. It has been found to be in keeping with the dignity of the Roman people to entrust illustrious matters to the annals, and such trivialities to the daily acts.

b Book On the Meaning of Words in Gellius, book 5, chapter 18.
c In the commentary on book 1 of the Aeneid, on the verse: "And he silences our annals."
d In the Etymologies, chapters 40 and 43.
e An eyewitness.
f Book 1.
g On History, dialogue 2.
h In.
i To see.
k On the Sects.
l Volume 1, page 6 of the Aldine edition.
m Page 746 of the Henri Estienne edition.

The second opinion is that of Verrius Flaccus, Servius, and Isidore. To them, history is properly the narration of things done where the writer was an eyewitness original: αὐτόπτης (autoptēs), or could have seen them. These are the kinds of things that one receives from those who were present at the events. Thucydides writes that he followed this practice. According to these authors, his books can properly be called historical because history differs from annals in this way: annals can report things that happened before our time, but history cannot. Many people go to defend this opinion, including Francesco Patrizzi. They argue that history original: ἱστορία (historia) is named from into original: εἰς (eis) and to see original: ὁρᾷν (horān), so that it properly denotes an inspection or eyewitness observation original: αὐτοψίαν (autopsian). However, it is clear enough from what we said before that they are mistaken about the etymology. Nevertheless, we know from Galen's work On the Sects that "history" is sometimes used narrowly to apply only to those things we have learned by personal observation. He tells the Empiricists that whatever they have observed at some point is called a "noticing." A large collection of these is called an "accumulation." The memory of things they have seen frequently in the same way is called an "autopsy." Where they have learned these same things from others, it is called "history." The words of Galen are: Such an accumulation was called an autopsy by them, being a certain memory of things seen many times and in the same way. They also named this same thing experience. But they called history the reporting of it. For this same thing is an autopsy to the one who observed it, but to the one who learns what was observed, it is history. Therefore, Plutarch joins the words "history" and "sight" in his book On the Obsolescence of Oracles. He says: He himself sailed for the sake of history and the sight of the king's procession. The great Turnebus translates this as: He himself, for the sake of knowing and seeing.