Which One is the Historian? A Neglected Problem in the Study of Roman Historiography

Many of the Roman historians whose works survive only in fragments were well-known persons whose lives and careers are fully documented.1 They include such major public figures as Cato the Elder, the dictator Sulla, and the emperor Augustus,2 and famous men of letters such as Cicero, Varro, and Cornelius Nepos.3 For these men the writing of history or autobiography was merely one aspect of their many and multifarious activities. The same is true of other less prominent but nonetheless significant men who added the composition of historical works to their distinguished public achievements – men such as L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (cos. 133 BCE), P. Rutilius Rufus (cos. 105), and L. Cornelius Sisenna (pr. 78).4 At the other extreme are those who are known solely as historians, and are only quoted or referred to as such in our sources. Of their lives and careers we know little or nothing. The historians in this group include L. Cassius Hemina, Cn. Gellius, L. Coelius Antipater, and Q. Claudius Quadrigarius,5 as well as others for whom we do not even have a praenomen: Vennonius, Sempronius Asellio and Valerius Antias.6 As for Fenestella (FRHist 70), who lived in the time of Augustus, we know only his cognomen. But between these two extremes there is a large group of historians whose identity is uncertain. The level of uncertainty differs in each case. At one end of the spectrum we find historians such as L. Cincius Alimentus (FRHist 2), who is almost certainly to be identified with the man of that name who held the praetorship in 210 BCE (Liv. 26.23.1) and appears several times in Livy’s narrative of