Among those who continued Cæsar’s record of his wars, the best writer is Aulus Hirtius. He was one of Cæsar’s lieutenants in Gaul, and was sent by him to Rome as a trusted agent. In 49 B. C. he was with Cæsar in Rome. What share he had in the civil war is not known, but he himself says that he was not present in the Alexandrian and African wars. [Sidenote: Continuations of Cæsar’s Commentaries.] He was prætor, on Cæsar’s nomination, in 46 B. C., and was consul in 43 B. C., when he was killed in the battle of Mutina, fighting against Antony. The only work ascribed to him with certainty is the eighth book of the _Commentaries on the Gallic War_, in which he shows himself far inferior to Cæsar as a writer, but not without some ability. The book is well written, in a style evidently intended to resemble that of Cæsar. Whether the book on the _Alexandrian War_ was written by Hirtius or by Gaius Oppius is uncertain. Oppius was a man of equestrian rank, a supporter and agent of Cæsar at Rome. After Cæsar’s death he attached himself to the party of Octavius, and urged Cicero to do the same. He appears not to have lived long after 44 B. C. The _Alexandrian War_ is written in a style similar to that of the eighth book of the _Gallic War_. The books on the _African War_ and the _Spanish War_ are by unknown authors. The style of the first is tasteless and turgid, while that of the latter is hesitating and crabbed. These books possess a certain literary interest, because they show the immense difference between Cæsar’s literary ability and that of the average Roman of his day. Cæsar’s inimitable _Commentaries_ are the records of their author’s own deeds, written from the point of view of the chief actor in the events narrated. They are not the results of wide historical research, nor do they attempt to give the reader a broad general knowledge of the course of events, with all their causes and consequences. They are not, strictly speaking, history, but a masterly presentation of the material from which history is made. The earlier records of the past by Roman writers, such as Valerius Antias, Cornelius Sisenna, and others (see page 43), were mere annals, deficient alike in careful research and literary finish. The first real historian of Rome was Sallust.