NIEBUHR ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANNALS AND HISTORY. (From the Rheinisches Museum.) It is well known that the definition of these two titles of historical works is one of the lexicographical problems which Gellius (v, 18.) has attempted to solve with more learning than thought. He may have been led to it by dipping in Verrius Flaccus, yet it is certainly no excess of refinement to conjecture that the inducement to it was sup- plied by the occurrences of his own day. From the manner in which he speaks of Fronto (xix. 8.) we are led to presume that he was no longer living when his warmhearted pupil set about expanding and trimming up his extracts into his amusing essays. If so, Lucius Verus had already returned from the Parthian war : consequently the flood of historical works which that war occasioned had already burst forth. It is impossible that Latin writers should not have had their full share in them: and of these some may have given the title of Annals^ others that of Histories^ to their works, without any cause known either to themselves or to their readers. But neither do I see any reason for doubting that Gellius had the writings of Tacitus in his eye : for as to his making no quotations from them, this resulted from the nature and contents of the Nodes AtticcE. It is possible that the two works of Tacitus which bear the abovementioned titles may have occasioned the inquiry : what the distinction was which they were meant to denote ; and it followed from the nature of his studies, that he searched for the opinions of others on the words, without investigating the meaning of Tacitus.
