(See p. 65)] It was to supply the deficiency thus noted, Dionysius alleged, that he undertook his work, being determined, he says, “not to pass over that beautiful part of the Roman history, which the ancient authors had disregarded.” But “lest some one should entertain the opinion that in introducing matter not found in the authors already mentioned, he resorted to invention,” Dionysius thinks it well to explain how he came by the materials for his history. He says: “I came into Italy immediately after Augustus Cæsar had put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad; and having from that time to this present, that is, twenty-two years, lived at Rome, learned the Roman language and acquainted myself with their writings, I employed all that interval in preparing materials for this work; and some things I received from men of the greatest consideration among them for learning, whose conversation I used; and others I gathered from histories, written by the most approved Roman authors; such as Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the Ælii, Gellii, and Calpurnii, and several others of good note. Supported, therefore, by the authority of these histories, which are like the Greek annals, I undertook this work.” Livy, our other great source for the early traditional history of Rome, unlike Dionysius, does not specifically enlighten us as to the sources of his information; but doubtless they were much the same as those employed by his great contemporary. There was indeed a large company of early annalists and chroniclers, as the note of Dionysius indicates. Among others these names have come down to us: Q. Fabius Pictor and L. Cincius Alimentus, who lived in the time of the Second Punic War and wrote in Greek; the poet Ennius, who wrote annals from the earliest time to his own day; and A. Postumius Albinus and C. Acilius who wrote annals in Greek at about the same period. The original works of all of these, like those of many later historians, have been lost. It appears that the Roman historians were accustomed to call their writings annals if they referred to ancient times, and histories if they described contemporary events. It will be recalled that Tacitus wrote both annals and histories. Necessarily, the works dealing with the early history of Rome were annals. Dionysius, however, termed his work _Archæologia_ instead of annals. Dionysius lived in the latter half of the first century B.C., but he did not attempt to bring his historical records further down than the year 264 B.C.; his intention being to bridge the gap in Roman history preceding the time at which the work of Polybius begins. Livy’s scope was far more comprehensive, as his work covered the period to his own time. In other words it was, using the Roman terminology, annals and history combined. It is curious to note his own estimate of the relative values of these two portions of his work. He says: