[109] The inscription in Caria, formerly supposed to give P. as praenomen, is now shown to have been misread. [110] The inhabitants of Terni (Interamna) erected a statue to Tacitus as to a fellow-townsman in A.D. 1514. [111] _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1890, p. 621, quoted by Prof. W. M. Ramsay, _The Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 228. [112] One of the speakers in the Dialogue, Curiatius Maternus, was the author of tragedies _Medea_ and _Thyestes_, and of praetextae _Domitius_ and _Cato_ (_Dial._ 2-3). [113] Various attempts have been made, especially in a work published in London, 1878, to prove, of course unsuccessfully, that the _Annals_ were forged in the fifteenth century by the Italian scholar Poggio Bracciolini. [114] Fabius Rusticus, a friend of Seneca, quoted also for the shape of Britain (_Agr._ 10). [115] Cluvius Rufus, governor of Hispania Tarraconensis B.C. 69 (_H._ i. 8). Mommsen considers that he is one of the historians censured in _H._ ii. 101. [116] Roth gives 71, Teuffel 75 at latest. APPENDIX A ON SOME OF THE CHIEF ANCIENT AUTHORITIES FOR THE HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE. 1. JEROME[117] (HIERONYMUS) was born about A.D. 335 at Stridon, on the frontiers of Dalmatia and Pannonia, and died A.D. 420 at the monastery of Bethlehem. His contributions to the history of Roman literature are to be found in his translation of the Chronicle (χρονικοὶ κανόνες) of Eusebius, in which the dates are reckoned from the first year of Abraham (= B.C. 2016 according to his chronology), the point at which Eusebius commenced. On the period between the Trojan War and A.D. 325 Jerome not merely translated the remarks of Eusebius, as he had done in the earlier period, but also added numerous extracts from authorities on Roman history and literature. The source from which he derived nearly all his information on literature is universally admitted to have been the work of Suetonius _De Viris Illustribus_. With the statements in the surviving sections of that treatise the observations of Jerome agree, and there can be no reasonable doubt that he made a similar use of the parts no longer extant. It is a significant fact that the important authors on whom Jerome is silent, _e.g._ Tacitus, Juvenal, and the younger Pliny, are precisely those whom Suetonius, as a contemporary, naturally could not discuss. The statements of Jerome, based as they are on the high authority of Suetonius, may be regarded as in the main trustworthy. Some of them, however, are doubtful, and others manifestly wrong. (_a_) Jerome's plan obliged him to fix every event to a definite year; and this, in many cases, can only be guess-work, for Suetonius, as may be seen from his extant writings, was often vague in his chronology. (_b_) Comparison with the remains of Suetonius shows that Jerome's claim to have made his extracts with care was not always well grounded; _e.g._ his statement that Ennius was a native of Tarentum (see p. 27).