frequently written in Greek as in Latin; and that not only by Greeks, such as, in the first place, Diocles of Peparethus, but likewise by Romans, such as Fabius Pictor, at an early period. From these last sources Dionysius and Livy compiled. The more ancient Roman history given by these authorities rests, therefore, in part, but by no means entirely, on tradition and poetry; still further amplified by the rhetoric style, that of the Greeks more especially. At what epoch the Roman history lays aside the poetic character can hardly be determined with certainty; it may be traced even in some parts of the period extending from the expulsion of the kings to the conquest by the Gauls.--For the purposes of chronology, great importance attaches to the _fasti Romani_, contained partly in inscriptions, (_fasti Capitolini_,) partly in manuscripts. They have been collected and restored by Pighius, Noris Sigonius, etc. in GRAEVII, _Thes. A. R._ vol. xi.; likewise in ALMELOVEEN, _Fast. Rom._ I. II. Amstel. 1705, etc. PIGHII _Annales Romanorum_. Antwerp, 1615, fol. 2 vols. An essay towards a chronological arrangement; it reaches down to Vitellius. The Roman history has been copiously treated of by the moderns in many works besides those on universal ancient history before enumerated, (p. 2.). We shall mention only the more important. ROLLIN, _Histoire Romaine, Depuis la foundation de Rome jusqu' a la bataille d'Actium_. 13 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1823, edit. revue par Letronne. This history, which extends to B. C. 89, has been continued and terminated by CREVIER. Although the critical historian might suggest much that is wanting in this work, it nevertheless contributed to advance the study. ED. FERGUSON, _The History of the Progress and Termination of the Roman Republic_. London, 1783, 4to. On the whole, the best work on the history of the Roman republic; it has superceded the earlier work of GOLDSMITH. P. CH. LEVESQUE, _Histoire de la Republique Romaine_, 3 vols. Paris, 1807. He who would still wish to admire with blind enthusiasm the glory of ancient Rome, had better not read this work. B. G. NIEBUHR, _Roman History_. Rather criticism than history; the author seems to be perpetually endeavouring to overthrow all that has hitherto been admitted. The spirit of acuteness is not always that of truth; and men do not so lightly assent to the existence of a constitution which not only is contrary to the broad view of antiquity--inferences drawn from some insulated passages not being sufficient to overturn what is corroborated by all the others--but likewise, according to the author's own avowal, stands opposed to all analogy in history. But truth gains even where criticism is wrong; and the value of some deep researches will not for that reason be overlooked.--Consult on this subject: # W. WACHSMUTH, _Researches into the more Ancient History of Rome_. Halle, 1819.