 |
DIO'S ROME
An Historical Narrative Originally Composed in Greek During the Reigns of Septimius Severus, Geta and Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus and Alexander Severus: And Now Presented in English Form
by
HERBERT BALDWIN FOSTER,
A.B. (Harvard), Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins), Acting Professor of Greek in Lehigh University
FIRST VOLUME
Gleanings from the Lost Books
I. The Epitome of Books 1-21 arranged by Ioannes Zonaras, Soldier and Secretary, in the Monastery of Mt. Athos, about 1130 A.D.
II. Fragments of Books 22-35.
Troy New York Pafraets Book Company 1905 Copyright 1905 Pafraets Book Company Troy New York
_To
My Friend Teacher and Inspirer
Mr. Gildersleeve of Baltimore
Who Has Won to the Age of Greek Lore even as to the Youth of Greek Life
I Offer a Redundant Tribute_
VOLUME CONTENTS
PAGE
Concerning the Translation vii
Concerning the Original 1
(a) The Writing 3
(b) The Writer 33
A Select List of Dissertations on Dio 43
Magazine Articles and Notes on Dio (1884-1904) 49
Plan of the Entire Work (as Conjectured by A. von Gutschmid) 61
An Epitome of the Lost Books 1-21 (by Ioannes Zonaras) 67
Fragments of Books 22-35 (from various sources) 329
Fragment LXXIII 331
Fragment LXXIV 332
Fragment LXXV 332
Fragment LXXVI 333
Fragment LXXVII 333
Fragment LXXVIII 334
Fragment LXXIX 335
Fragment LXXX 335
Fragment LXXXI 336
Fragment LXXXII 337
Fragment LXXXIII 339
Fragment LXXXIV 340
Fragment LXXXV 341
Fragment LXXXVI 342
Fragment LXXXVII 342
Fragment LXXXVIII 345
Fragment LXXXIX 345
Fragment XC 346
Fragment XCI 346
Fragment XCII 347
Fragment XCIII 349
Fragment XCIV 349
Fragment XCV 350
Fragment XCVI 352
Fragment XCVII 353
Fragment XCVIII 353
Fragment XCIX 354
Fragment C 354
Fragment CI 357
Fragment CII 359
Fragment CIII 359
Fragment CIV 360
Fragment CV 361
Fragment CVI 366
Fragment CVII 366
Fragment CVIII 368
CONCERNING THE TRANSLATION
Cassius Dio, one of the three original sources for Roman history to be found in Greek literature, has been accessible these many years to the reader of German, of French, and even of Italian, but never before has he been clothed complete in English dress. In the Harvard College Library is deposited the fruit of a slight effort in that direction, a diminutive volume dated two centuries back, the title page of which (agog with queer italics) reads as follows:
THE
HISTORY
OF
DION CASSIUS
ABBRIDG'D BY XIPHILIN
CONTAINING
The most considerable Passages under the Roman emperors from the time of Pompey the Great, to the Reign of Alexander Severus.
* * * * *
In Two Volumes
* * * * *
Done from the Greek, by Mr. Manning
* * * * *
Tametsi haudquaquam par gloria sequatur Scriptorem, & Authorem rerum, tamen in primis arduum videtur res gestas scribere. Salust.
* * * * *
London: Printed for A. and J. Churchill, in Paternoster Row, 1704.
Four hundred and seven small pages, over and above the Epistle Dedicatory, are contained in Volume One. Really, however, this is not the true Dio at all, but merely his shadow, seized and distorted to satisfy the ideas of his epitomizer, the monk Xiphilinus, who was separated from him by a thousand years in the flesh and another thousand in the spirit. Of the little specimens here and there translated for this man's or that man's convenience no mention need here be made. Hence, practically speaking, Dio now for the first time emerges in his impressive stature before the English-speaking public after there has elapsed since his own day a period twice as long as then constituted the extent of that history which was his theme.
The present version, begun while I was serving as Acting Professor of Greek at St. Stephen's College, Annandale, N.Y., has been carried forward during such intervals of leisure as I could snatch from an overflowing schedule at the University of South Dakota. It has been my companion on many journeys and six states have witnessed its progress toward completion. In spite of the time consumed it seems in retrospect not far short of presumptuous to have tried in three or four years to put into acceptable English what Dio spent twelve in writing down. Yet the task was not quite the same, for half of this historian's books have been caught up and whirled away in the cyclone of time; and who knows whether they still possess any resting-place above or beneath the earth?
The text originally chosen as the basis for the translation was that of Melber, the idea of the translator being that the Teubner edition would be the most convenient and readily obtainable standard of reference for any one who wished to compare the Greek and the English. Hence the numbering of the Fragments is that of Melber (subdivisions are distinguished by a notation simpler than that of the original "sections"). Since no Teubner volumes beyond the second proved to be forthcoming, the rest of the work followed the stereotyped Tauchnitz edition, which also enjoys a large circulation. This text, however, contained so many cases of corruption and clumsiness that it seemed best to work over carefully nearly all of the latter portion of the English and to embody as many as possible of the improvements of Boissevain. Incidentally Boissevain's interior arrangement of all the later books was adopted, though it was deemed preferable (for mere readiness of reference) to adhere to the old external division of books established by Leunclavius. (Boissevain's changes are, however, indicated.) The Tauchnitz text with all its inaccuracies endeavors to present a coherent and readable narrative, and this is something which the exactitude of Boissevain does not at all times permit. In the translation I have striven to follow a conservative course, and at some points a straightforward narrative interlarded with brackets will give evidence of its origin in Tauchnitz, whereas at others loose, disjointed paragraphs betray the hand of Boissevain who would not willingly let Xiphilinus and Dio ride in the same compartment. My main desire through it all has been not so much to attain a logical unity of form as to present a history which shall look well and read well in English. For this reason also I have banished most of the Fragments (which must have only a comparatively limited interest) to the last volume and have replaced them in my first by portions of Zonaras (taken from Melber) which have their origin in Dio and are at the same time clear, comprehensible, and connected.
Should any person object that even so my text does not offer eye and ear a pellucid field for smooth advance, I must reply that the original is likewise very far from being a serene and joyous highway; and it has not appeared to me necessary or desirable to improve upon the form of Dio's record further than the difference in the genius of the two languages demanded. I am reminded here of what Francisque Reynard says regarding the difficulties of Boccaccio, and because of a similarity in the situation I venture to quote from the preface of his (French) version of the Decameron:
"Dans son admiration exclusive des anciens, Boccace a pris pour modele Ciceron et sa longue periode academique, dans laquelle les incidences se greffent sur les incidences, poursuivant l'idee jusqu'au bout, et ne la laissant que lorsqu'elle est epuisee, comme le souffle ou l'attention de celui qui lit.... Aussi le plus souvent sa phraseologie est-elle fort complexe, et pour suivre le fil de l'idee premiere, faut-il apporter une attention soutenue. Ce qui est deja une difficulte de lecture dans le texte italien, devient un obstacle tres serieux quand on a a traduire ces interminables phrases en francais moderne, prototype de precision, de clarte, de logique grammaticale.... Je sais bien qu'il y a un moyen commode de l'eluder...: c'est de couper les phrases et d'en faire, d'une seule, deux, trois, quatre, autant qu'il est besoin. Mais a ce jeu on change notablement la physionomie de l'original, et c'est ce que je ne puis admettre."
As is Boccaccio to Cicero, so is Cassius Dio, mutatis mutandis, to Thukydides; and of course the imitator improves upon the model. Imagine a man who out-Paters Pater when Pater shall be but a memory, and you begin to secure a vision of the style of this Roman senator, who accentuates every peculiarity of the tragic historian's packed periods; and whereas his great predecessor made sentences so long as to cause mediaeval scholars heartily to wish him in the Barathron, books and all, comes forward six hundred years later marshaling phrase upon phrase, clause upon clause, till a modern is forced to exclaim: "What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom?" Now I have dealt with these complexes in different ways; and sometimes I have cleft and hacked and wrenched them out of all semblance of their original shape, and sometimes I have hauled them almost entire, like a cable, tangled with particles, out of the sea-bed of departed days.
This principle of inconsistency which I have pursued in varying the rendering of long sentences, periodic or loose, according to external modifying conditions, may be observed also in certain other features of the book. For I have felt obliged to allow inconsistency of letter in the hope of approaching a consistency of spirit. I suppose that the ideal plan to follow in a translation would be to let a given English word represent a given Greek word, so that "beautiful" should occur as many times in the English version as [Greek: kalos] in the original, and "strength" as many times as [Greek: rhome]. Such a scheme, however, is not feasible in a passage of any length, and its impossibility simply goes to show what a makeshift translation is and always has been, after all. Therefore single Greek words will be found reproduced by various English terms, but with that color which seems best adapted to the context.
Again, in spelling I have chosen a method not unknown to recent historians, which consists in anglicising familiar proper names that are household words, like Antony, Catiline, etc., but keeping the classical Latin form for persons less well known, as Antonius the grandfather of Mark Antony. To the names of gods I have given a Latin dress unless a particular god happened to be named by a Greek on Greek soil. Similarly in geographical or topographical designations the translator of Dio must needs confront a more difficult situation than did Dio himself. Greek reduces all names to its own basis. In English one must often select from the Latin form, Greek form, Native form, or Anglicised form. Since Dio lived in Italy and was to all intents and purposes a Roman I decided to make the Latin form the standard, and admit rarely the Anglicised form, less often the Greek, and least often the Native. As to the minutiae of spelling I need scarcely say that I have been tremendously aided by Boissevain's exhaustive studies, briefly summarized in his notes. This painstaking care, for which he feels almost obliged to apologize, will lend a permanent lustre to his invaluable work.
That many errors must have crept into an undertaking of this magnitude I have only too vivid forebodings, and this in spite of no inconsiderable efforts of mine to avoid them: herein I can but beg the clemency of my readers and judges and hope that such faults may be found to be mostly of a minor character. And perhaps I can do no better than to make common cause at once with Mr. Francis Manning whose book I recently mentioned; for, in his Epistle Dedicatory "To The Right Honourable CHARLES Earl of Orrery", he voices as well as possible the feelings with which I write on the dedication page the name of Professor Gildersleeve:
"Your Lordship will forgive me for detaining you thus long with relation to the Work I have made bold to present you with in our own Tongue. How well it is perform'd, I must leave entirely to my Readers. I assume nothing to myself but an endeavour to make my Author speak intelligible English. I shall only add what my Subject leads me to, and what for my Reader's sake I ought to mention: That as there are but few Authors that can present any Book to your Lordship in most other Languages, and on most of the Learned Subjects, but might wish they had been assisted by your Lordship's Skill and Knowledge therein, as well as Patronage and Protection; so the Translator of this Greek Historian in particular must lament, that notwithstanding all his Industry and Pains, he is faln infinitely short of that great Judgment, Nicety and Criticism in the Greek Language, which your Lordship has in your Writings made appear to the World."
* * * * *
Dio has long served as a source to writers treating topics of greater or less length in Roman history. He is now presented entire to the casual reader: his veracious narrative must ever continue to interest the historical student, who may correct him by others or others by him, the ecclesiastic, to whom is here offered so graphic a picture of the conditions surrounding early Christianity, and the literary man, who finds the limpid stream of Hellenic diction far from its source grow turbid and turgid in turning the mill wheels for this dealer in [Greek: onkos]. Dio's faults are patent, but his excellencies, fortunately, are patent, too; and the world may rejoice that in an age of lust and bloodshed this serious-minded magistrate bethought him to record with religious exactness what he believed to be the truth respecting the Kingdom, the Republic, and the Empire of Rome even to his own day.
I desire in conclusion to express especial gratitude and appreciation for assistance and suggestions to Professor C.W.E. Miller of Johns Hopkins University, Professors J.H. Wright and A.A. Howard of Harvard University, and to Mr. A.T. Robinson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Likewise I must acknowledge my obligations, in the elucidation of particularly vexed and corrupt passages, to the illuminative comments of Sturz, or Wagner, or Gros, or Boissee, or all combined. Additional thanks are due to many others who have helped or shall yet help to make Dio in English a success.
HERBERT BALDWIN FOSTER.
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA, June, 1905.
CONCERNING THE ORIGINAL.
A.—THE WRITING.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman senator and praetor, when about forty years of age delivered himself of a pamphlet describing the dreams and omens that had led the general Septimius Severus to hope for the imperial office which he actually secured. One evening there came to the author a note of thanks from the prince; and the temporary satisfaction of the recipient was continued in his dreams, wherein his guiding angel seemed to urge him to write a detailed account of the reign of the unworthy Commodus (Book Seventy-two), just ended. Once again did Dio glow beneath the imperial felicitations and those of the public. Inoculated with the bacillus of publication and animated by a strong desire for immortality,—a wish happily realized,—he undertook the prodigious task of giving to the world a complete account of Roman events from the beginning to so late a date as Fortune might vouchsafe. Forthwith he began the accumulation of materials, a task in which ten active years (A.D. 200 to 210) were utilized. The actual labor of composition, continued for twelve years more at intervals of respite from duties of state, brought him in his narrative to the inception of the reign of his original patron, the first Severus.—All the foregoing facts are given us as Dio's own statement, in what is at present the twenty-third chapter of the seventy-second book, by that painter in miniature, Ioannes Xiphilinus.
It was now the year A.D. 223, Dio was either consul for the first time (as some assert) or had the consular office behind him, the world was richer by the loss of Elagabalus, and Alexander Severus reigned in his stead. Under this emperor the remaining books (Seventy-three to Eighty, inclusive) must have been composed, for Dio puts the finishing touches on his history in 229. Since by that time he was nearly eighty years of age and since he has written of no reign subsequent to Alexander's, we may conclude that he did not survive his master, who died in 235. The sum total of his efforts, then, as he left it, consisted of eighty books, covering a period from 1064 B.C. to 229 A.D. At present there are extant of that number complete only Books Thirty-six to Sixty inclusive, treating the events of the years 68 B.C. to 47 A.D. The last twenty books, Sixty-one to Eighty, appear in fairly reliable excerpts and epitomes, but for the first thirty-five books we are dependent upon the merest scraps and fragments. How and by what steps this great work disintegrated, and in what form it has been preserved to modern times, this it is to be our next business to trace.
It seems that Dio's work had no immediate influence, but "Time brings roses", and in the Byzantine age we find that he had come to be regarded as the canonical example of the way in which Roman History should be written. Before this desirable result, however, had been brought to pass, Books Twenty-two to Thirty-five inclusive had disappeared. These gave the events of the years from the destruction of Carthage and Corinth (in the middle of the second century B.C.) to the activity of Lucullus in 69. A like fate befell Books Seventy and Seventy-one at an early date. The first twenty-one books and the last forty-five (save the two above noted) seem to have been extant in their original forms at least as late as the twelfth century. Which end of the already syncopated composition was the first to go the way of all flesh (and parchment, too,) it would not be an easy matter to determine. It is regarded by most scholars as certain that Ioannes Zonaras, who lived in the twelfth century, had the first twenty-one and the last forty-five for his epitomes. Hultsch, to be sure, advances the opinion[1] that Books One to Twenty-one had by that time fallen into a condensed form, the only one accessible; but the majority of scholars are against him. After Zonaras's day both One to Twenty-one and Sixty-one to Eighty suffer the corruption of moth and of worm.
[Footnote 1: Iahni Annales, vol. 141, p. 290 sqq.]
The world has, then, in this twentieth century, those entire books of Dio which have already been mentioned,—Thirty-six to Sixty,—and something more. Let us first consider, accordingly, the condition in which this intact remnant has come down to the immediate present, and afterward the sources on which we have to depend for a knowledge of the lost portion.
There are eleven manuscripts for this torso of Roman History, taking their names from the library of final deposit, but they are not all, by any means, of equal value. First come Mediceus A (referred to in this book as Ma), Vaticanus A, Parisinus A, and Venetus A (Va) of the first class; then Mediceus B of the second class; finally, Parisinus B, Escorialensis, Turinensis, Vaticanus B, and Venetus B, with the mongrel Vesontinus, which occupies a position in this group best designated, perhaps, as 2-1/2.
Vaticanus A has been copied from Mediceus A, and Parisinus A from Vaticanus A, so that they are practically one with their archetype. Venetus A is of equal age and authority with Mediceus A. One can not now get back of these two codices. There is none of remoter date for Dio save the parchment Cod. Vat. 1288, containing most of Books Seventy-eight and Seventy-nine,—a portion of the work for the moment not under discussion. Coming to the second class, Mediceus B is a joint product of copying from the two principal MSS. just mentioned. In the third class, Parisinus B is a copy of Mediceus B with a little at the opening taken from Mediceus A. This was the version selected as a guide by Robert Estienne in the first important edition of Dio ever published (A.D. 1548). All the rest, Escorialensis, Turinensis, Vaticanus B, and Venetus B are mere offshoots of Parisinus B. The Vesontinus codex is derived partly from Venetus A and partly from some manuscript of the third class.
The parchment manuscript to which allusion was made above is only some three centuries later than the time of Dio himself. It covers the ground from Book 78, 2, 2, to 79, 8, 3 inclusive (ordinary division). It belonged to Orsini, and after his death (A.D. 1600) became the property of the Vatican Library. It is square in shape and consists of thirteen leaves, each containing three columns of uncials. In spite of its age it is fairly overflowing with errors of every sort, many of which have been emended by an unknown corrector who also wrote in uncials; this same corrector would appear to have added the last leaf. And there are a few additions in minuscules by a still later hand. The leaves are very thin and in some places the ink has completely faded, showing only the impression of the pen. For specimen illustrations of this codex see Silvestre (Paleographie Universelle II, plate 7), Tischendorf (cod. Sinait. plate 20) and Boissevain's Cassius Dio (Vol. III).
The dates of these codices (centuries indicated by Arabic numerals) are about as follows:
I. Mediceus A-Ma- (11) I. Venetus A-Va- (11) I. Vaticanus A (15) I. Parisinus A (17) II. Mediceus B (15) III. Parisinus B (15) III. Venetus B (15) III. Vaticanus B (15) I. and III. Vesontinus (15) III. Turinensis (16) III. Escorialensis (?) I. Codex Vaticanus graecus No. 1288 (5-6).
Mediceus A contains practically Books Thirty-six to Fifty-four, and Venetus A Books Forty-one to Sixty (two "decades"). As they are both the oldest copies extant and the sources of all the others, modern editors would confine themselves to them exclusively but for the fact that in each some gaps are found. In Mediceus A, for instance, two quaternions (sixteen leaves) are lacking at the start, Leaf 7 is gone from the third quaternion, Leaves 1 and 8 from the fourth; from the thirty-first (now Quaternion 29) Leaf 1 has been cut, from the thirty-third and last Leaf 5 has disappeared. Likewise in Venetus A there are some gaps, especially near the end, in Book Sixty, where three leaves are missing. Hence (without stopping to take up gaps and breaks in detail) it may be said that the general plan pursued at the present day is to adopt a reading drawn for each book from the following sources respectively:
Book 36. Mediceus A, with lacuna of chapters 3-19 incl., supplied by the mutual corrections of Vaticanus A and Parisinus B.
Books 37 to 49. Mediceus A.
Books 50 to 54. Vaticanus A (vice Mediceus A).
Books 55 to 59. Venetus A.
Book 60. Venetus A, except chapter 17, sections 7 to 20, and chapter 22, section 3, to chapter 26, section 2,—two passages supplied by Mediceus B.
What knowledge has the world of the first thirty-five books of Dio's Roman History? To such a question answer must be made that of this whole section the merest glimpse can be had. It is here that we encounter the name of Zonaras, concerning whom some information will now be in order. Ioannes Zonaras was an official of the Byzantine Court who came into prominence under Alexis I. Comnenus in the early part of the twelfth century. For a time he acted as both commander of the body-guard and first private secretary to Alexis, but in the succeeding reign,—that of Calo-Ioannes,—he retired to the monastery of Mt. Athos, where he devoted himself to literary labors until his death, which is said to have occurred at the advanced age of eighty-eight. He was the author of numerous works, such as a Lexicon of Words Old and New, an Exposition of the Apostolic and Patristic Canons, an Argument Directed Against the Marriage of Two Nephews to the Same Woman, etc.; but our special interest lies in his [Greek: Chronikon] (Chronicon), a history of the world in eighteen books, from the creation to 1118 A.D.,—this last being the date of the demise of Alexis. The earlier portions of this work are drawn from Josephus; for Roman History he uses largely Cassius Dio; Plutarch, Eusebius, Appian also figure. But it has already been stated that Books Twenty-two to Thirty-five perished at an indefinitely early date; hence it follows that Zonaras has only Books One to Twenty-one at hand to use for his account of early Rome; besides these he has later employed Books Forty-four to Eighty. Consequently it is possible to get many of the facts related to Dio, and in some cases his exact words, by reading Books VII to XII of this [Greek: Chronikon] or [Greek: Epitome Historion] by Zonaras. It is Books VII, VIII, and IX especially which follow Books One to Twenty-one of Dio.
Parallel with this account of Zonaras and extending beyond it, even to the extent of throwing a wire of communication across the yawning time-chasm represented by Books Twenty-two to Thirty-five, are certain excerpts and epitomes found in various odd corners and strangely preserved to the present moment. These are: Excerpts Concerning Virtues and Vices; Excerpts Concerning Judgments; Excerpts Concerning Embassies. The so-called "Planudean Excerpts" which used to be admitted to editions are rejected on good authority[2] by Melber, whom I have followed. I shall attempt only a brief mention of those excerpts, to show their pertinence.
[Footnote 2: Mommsen (Hermes VI, pp. 82-89); Haupt (Hermes XIV, pp. 36-64, and XV, p. 160); Boissevain (Program, Rotterdam, 1884).]
The Excerpts Concerning Virtues and Vices exist in a manuscript of the tenth century at the library of Tours, originally brought from the island of Cyprus and sold to Nicolas Claude Fabre de Peiresc, who lived from 1580 to 1637. Apparently it is a collection made at the order of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus. It was first published at Paris by Henri de Valois in 1634. The collection consists of quotations from Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Nicolas Damascenus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian, Dio, John of Antioch, and others.
The Excerpts Concerning Judgments are found in a Vatican manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus Rescriptus Graecus, N. 73. Angelo Mai first published the collection at Rome in 1826. They consist of many narrative fragments extending over the field of Roman History from early to late times, but fall into two parts: between these two parts there is a gap of six or more pages. That the former set of fragments is taken directly from Dio all scholars are ready to allow. In regard to the latter set there have been, and perhaps still are, diverse opinions. The trouble is that on the one hand these passages do not end with the reign of Alexander Severus, where Dio manifestly ended his history, but continue down to Constantine and (since the manuscript has lost some sheets at the close) possibly much farther: and on the other hand the style and diction differ considerably from Dio's own. It was once the fashion to say that as many of the fragments as come before the reign of Valerian (A.D. 253)[3] came from Dio's composition, but that the remainder were written by an unknown author. Now, however, it is generally agreed that all the excerpts of the second set were the work of one man, whether John of Antioch, or Peter Patricius, or some third individual. Still, though not direct quotations from Dio, they are regarded as of value in filling out both his account and that of Xiphilinus. The words are different, but the facts remain undoubtedly true.
[Footnote 3: This would give Dio a considerably longer life than is commonly allowed him.]
The Excerpts Concerning Embassies are contained in somewhat less than a dozen manuscripts, all of which prove to have sprung from a Spanish archetype (since destroyed by fire) that Juan Paez de Castro owned in the sixteenth century. Many of the copies were made by Andreas Darmarius. The first publisher of these selections was Fulvio Orsini (= Ursinus), who brought them out at Antwerp in 1582. As their name indicates, they are accounts of embassies sent either by the Romans to foreign tribes or by foreign tribes to the Romans. Some of them are taken from Cassius Dio; hence their importance here.
Now it was the custom of the earlier editors to arrange the (early) fragments of Dio according to the groups from which they were taken: (1) the so-called Fragmenta Valesia (pickings from grammarians, lexicographers, scholiasts), edited by the same Henri de Valois above mentioned; (2) the Fragmenta Peiresciana (= Excerpts Concerning Virtues and Vices); (3) the Fragmenta Ursina (= Excerpts Concerning Embassies); and finally, in the edition of Sturz[4] (4) Excerpta Vaticana (= Excerpts Concerning Judgments and the now rejected "Planudean Excerpts"). The above grouping has been abandoned and a strictly chronological order followed in all the later editions, including Bekker, Dindorf, Melber, Boissevain.
[Footnote 4: See p. 22.]
The body of Fragments preceding Book Thirty-six cites, in addition to the collections mentioned, the following works or authors:
Anecdota Graeca of Immanuel Bekker (1785-1871), a scholar of vast attainments and profound learning in classical literature. These Anecdota are excerpts made from various Greek manuscripts found in the course of travels extending through France, Italy, England, and Germany. There were three volumes, appearing from 1814 to 1821.
Antonio Melissa.—A Greek monk living between 700 and 1100 A.D. He collected two books of quotations from early Christian Fathers (one hundred and seventy-six titles) on the general subject of Virtues and Vices.
Arsenius.—Archbishop of Monembasia: age of the Revival of Learning.
Cedrenus.—A Greek monk of the eleventh century who compiled a historical work ([Greek: Synopsis historion]) the scope of which extended from the creation to 1057 A.D. He gives no evidence of historical knowledge or the critical sense, but rather of great credulity and a fondness for legends. His treatise is, moreover, largely plagiarized from the Annals of Ioannes Scylitzes Curopalates.
Cramer, J.A.—An Oxford scholar who published two collections of excerpts (similar to those of Bekker) between 1835 and 1841. The collection referred to in our text had its source in manuscripts of the Royal Library in Paris. It was in three octavo volumes.
Etymologicum Magnum.—A lexicon of uncertain date, after Photius (886 A.D.) and before Eustathius. This dictionary contains many valuable citations from lost Greek works. First edition, Venice, 1499.
Eustathius.—Archbishop of Thessalonica and the most learned man of his age (latter half of the twelfth century). His most important composition is his Commentary on Homer's Iliad and Odyssey in which he quotes vast numbers of authors unknown to us now except by name. First edition, Rome, 1542-1550.
Glossary of C. Labbaeus, the editor of Ancient Glosses of Law Terms, published in Paris, 1606.
John of Antioch.—Author of a work called "Chronological History from Adam" quoted in the Excerpts Concerning Virtues and Vices (vid. supra). Internal evidence indicates that the book was written after 610 and before 900 A.D.
John of Damascus.—A voluminous ecclesiastical writer belonging to the reigns of Leo Isauricus and Constantine VII. (approximately from 700 to 750 A.D.). He was an opponent of the iconoclastic movement. The best edition of his works was published at Paris in 1712. The passage cited in our Fragments is from [Greek: peri Drakonton], a mutilated essay on dragons standing between a "Dialogue Between a Saracen and a Christian" and a "Discussion of the Holy Trinity."
John Laurentius Lydus.—A Byzantine writer, born at Philadelphia (the city of Revelation, III, 7), in 490 A.D. Although he was famed during his lifetime as a poet, all his verses have perished. The work cited in our Fragments,—"Concerning the Offices of the Roman Republic, in Three Books,"—had a curious history. For centuries it was regarded as lost, but about 1785 nine tenths of it was discovered by De Villoison in a MS. in the suburbs of Constantinople. It was published in Paris, 1811.—Laurentius in the course of his career held important political posts and received two important literary appointments from the Emperor Justinian I.
Suidas.—A lexicographer of the tenth century, composer of the most comprehensive Greek dictionary of early times. It is a manual at once of language and of antiquities. Inestimable as its value is, the workmanship is careless and uneven. The arrangement is alphabetical.
John Tzetzes.—A Greek grammarian of the twelfth century. His learning was great but scarcely equaled his self-conceit, as repeatedly displayed in passages of his works. Many of his writings are still extant. One of these is called Chiliades (or Thousands), a name bestowed by its first editor, who divided the work into sections of one thousand lines each. The subject-matter consists of the most miscellaneous historical or mythological narratives or anecdotes, absolutely without connection. Tzetzes copied these accounts from upward of four hundred writers,—one of them being Cassius Dio. The Chiliades is written in the so-called Versus politicus, or "political verse," which is really not verse at all, but a kind of decadent doggerel.—A minor treatise by the same author is the Exegesis of the Iliad of Homer, published by Hermann (Leipzig, 1812).
Isaac Tzetzes, who has attracted less attention than his brother John, is best known as the author of a commentary on the Cassandra of Lycophron (a poem of 1474 iambic verses by a post-classical tragedian, about 285 B.C., embodying the warnings of the royal prophetess and couched in appropriately incomprehensible expressions). It was hardly worth all the care that Tzetzes lavished upon it. From manuscript evidence and various claims of John Tzetzes it seems that John worked over, improved, and enlarged the commentary of his brother. Isaac's name, however, still remains associated with this particular exposition.
We are now at length placed in a position to consider the condition of the ultimate portion of the work, i.e., the last twenty books, Sixty-one to Eighty inclusive. In general it may be said that for this section of the history we are thrown back upon an epitome of Ioannes Xiphilinus, who lived about fifty years earlier than the Ioannes Zonaras recently under discussion. To this general statement there are two important exceptions. First, even as early as Xiphilinus wrote (eleventh century) nearly two books of this last portion had perished. Book Seventy, containing the reign of Antoninus Pius, was entirely gone save a few miserable chapters, and Book Seventy-one had suffered the same fate in its beginning, so that our account of the renowned Marcus Aurelius begins practically with the year 172 instead of 161. The gap thus created has been partially filled by extracts of every conceivable quality and merit, from Suidas, from John of Antioch, even from Asinius Quadratus. This on the side of loss: on the side of gain there are numerous little excerpts (just as in the case of the early books) that may serve to fill crevices or cover scars, and above all there exists a parchment manuscript, known as Vaticanus 1288, older than Mediceus A, older than Venetus A, and containing Books Seventy-eight and Seventy-nine probably very much as Dio wrote them, save that the account is mutilated at beginning and end.
Boissevain concludes (by comparing the Table of Contents found with a remark of Photius) that this particular piece of salvage was originally Books Seventy-nine and Eighty (instead of Seventy-eight and Seventy-nine), that Book Eighty of Dio was really what is now commonly called Seventy-nine and Eighty, and that the so-called Book Eighty (of only five chapters) was but a kind of epilogue to the whole work. Whatever we may decide respecting the merits of his argument, the important fact is that here for a short distance we have Dio's original narrative, as in Books Thirty-six to Sixty, and are no longer obliged to depend upon epitomes.
A word of explanation about Xiphilinus must come next. This Xiphilinus was a native of Trapezos (Trebizond) and became a monk at Constantinople. Here, at the behest of Michael VII. Ducas (1071-1078) he made an abridgment of Books Thirty-six to Eighty of Dio; thus it is his version of the lost books Sixty-one to Eighty on which we are compelled to rely. His task was accomplished with an even greater degree of carelessness than is customary in such compositions, and it may be said that his ability or, at least, his good will is not nearly so great as that of Zonaras. Yet he is largely a pis aller for the would-be reader of Cassius Dio.
Whereas the original was divided arbitrarily into books, Xiphilinus divided his condensation into "sections," each containing the life of one emperor. Readers must further note that the present division of Books Seventy-one to Eighty dates only from Leunclavius (1592, first edition) and is not necessarily correct. Improvements in arrangement by Boissevain (latest editor of Dio entire) are indicated in the present translation, though for convenience of reference the old headlines are still retained.
Before speaking of the editions through which Dio's Roman History has passed it seems desirable to summarize briefly the condition of the whole as explained in the preceding pages. Here is a bird's-eye view of the whole situation.
Books 1-21 exist in Zonaras and various fragments. " 22-35 exist in fragments only. " 36-54 exist in Dio's own words, and are found in universally approved MSS. " 54-60 exist in generally approved MSS. " 60-69 exist in Xiphilinus and excerpts. Book 70 exists in fragments only. Books 71-77 exist in Xiphilinus and excerpts. " 78, 79 exist in Dio's own words (oldest MS). Book 80 exists in Xiphilinus.
EDITIONS.
A brief list of important editions of this author is appended; the order is chronological.
1. N. Leonicenus.—Italian translation of Books 35 to 60. Venice, 1533. Free, and with many errors.
2. R. Stephanus.—Greek text of Books 35 to 60. Paris, 1548. Work well done, but based on a poor MS.
3. Xylander.—Latin translation of Books 35 to 60, with a brief Latin index. Basle, 1557. This version was made from No. 2.
4. Baldelli.—Italian translation of Books 35 to 60. Venice, 1562.
5. H. Stephanus.—A second edition of No. 2 with Latin translation of No. 2 added. A few corrections have been made and the Latin index is a little fuller. Paris, 1591.
6. Leunclavius.—A second edition of No. 3, somewhat emended, and with Books 61 to 80 (Xiphilinus) added; also containing Orsini's Excerpts Concerning Embassies (in Greek and Latin), notes of Leunclavius, and a still fuller Latin index. Frankfurt, 1592.
7. Leunclavius.—Posthumous edition. Text of Dio and of Xiphilinus (the latter from Nero to Alexander Severus). Corrections of R. Stephanus in Dio proper, and of Xylander in both Dio and Xiphilinus, notes of Leunclavius on Dio, and notes of Orsini on Excerpts Concerning Embassies. Same Latin index as in No. 6. Hanover, 1606.
8. REIMAR. (Important. All previous editions are taken from codex Parisinus B. Reimar, assisted by Gronovius (father and son) and by Quirinus, employed Mediceus A (the standard codex) together with Vaticanus A and Vaticanus B.) Text of Dio and Xiphilinus (Books 36 to 80), the Xylander-Leunclavius Latin version, the Excerpts Concerning Virtues and Vices, and fragments collected from various sources by Henri de Valois. Reimar used not only the three MSS. mentioned above, but three copies of previous editions,—one of No. 2 (with notes of Turnebus and others), one of No. 5 (with, notes of Oddey), and one of No. 7 (with notes of an unknown individual of much learning, cited by Reimar and in this edition as N). Finally he gathered all possible emendations from as many as fourteen scholars who had suggested improvements in the text. Hamburg, 1750.
9. J.A. Wagner.—German translation in five volumes. Frankfurt, 1783.
10. Penzel.—German translation with notes. Four volumes. Leipzig, 1786-1818.
11. Morellius.—Fragments of Dio, with new readings of the same. Emphasizes the importance of codex Venetus A and has some remarks on Venetus B. Published in 1793.
12. Sturz.—New edition of Dio based on No. 8, improved by a new collation of the Medicean manuscripts and with collation of the codex Turinensis, besides emendations gathered from many new sources. Eight volumes. Leipzig, 1824-5. (Volume IX in 1843, containing Mai's Excerpts Concerning Judgments.)
13. Tauchnitz text.—Stereotyped edition, four volumes, Leipzig, 1829. New impression, Leipzig, 1870-77. (Originally used as a basis for the present translation after Book Fifty: later, wholesale revisions were undertaken to make the English for the most part conform to the text of Boissevain.)
14. Tafel.—German translation, three volumes. Stuttgart, 1831-1844.
15. J. Bekker.—Dio entire. (With new collation of the old MS. containing most of Books Seventy-eight and Seventy-nine, and with many new and brilliant conjectural emendations by the editor.) Two volumes. Leipzig, 1849.
16. Gros-Boissee.—French translation together with the Greek text and copious notes. (With new collation of the Vatican, Medicean, and Venetian codices, besides use of Parisinus A and Vesontinus; manuscripts of the Fragments, especially the Tours manuscript (concerning Virtues and Vices) have been carefully gone over.) Ten volumes. Gros edited the first four; Boissee the last six. Paris, 1845-1870.
17. Dindorf.—Teubner text. Dindorf was the first to perceive the relation of the manuscripts and their respective values. He used Herwerden's new collation of the Vatican palimpsest containing Excerpts Concerning Judgments. From making fuller notes and emendations he was prevented by untimely death. Five volumes. Leipzig, 1863-1865.
18. Melber.—Teubner text, being a new recension of Dindorf, with numerous additions. To consist of five volumes. Leipzig, from 1890. The first two volumes, all that were available, have been used for this translation.
19. Boissevain.—The most modern, accurate, and artistic edition of Dio. The editor is very conservative in the matter of manuscript tradition. He personally read in Italy many of the MSS., and had the aid of numerous friends at home and abroad in collating MSS., besides the help of a few in the suggestion of new readings. In the later portion of the text he makes a new division of books, and essays also to assign the early fragments to their respective books. Three volumes. Berlin, 1895, 1898, 1901. Vol. I, pp. 359 + cxxvi; Vol. II, pp. 690 + xxxi; Vol. III, pp. 800 + xviii. The second volume contains two phototype facsimiles of pages of the Laurentian and Marcian MSS., and the third volume three similar specimens of the Codex Vaticanus. In the appendix of the last volume are found, in the order named, the following aids to the study of Dio.
1. The entire epitome of Xiphilinus (Books 36-80).
2. Vatican Excerpts of Peter Patricius (Nos. 1-38), compared with Dio's wording.
3. Vatican Excerpts of Peter Patricius (Nos. 156-191), containing that portion of the Historia Augusta which is subsequent to Dio's narrative.
4. Excerpts by John of Antioch, taken from Dio.
5. The "Salmasian Excerpts."
6. Some "Constantinian Excerpts," compared with Dio.
7. The account of Dio given by Photius and by Suidas.
8. Table of Fragments.
Boissevain's invaluable emendations and interpretations have been liberally used by the present translator, and some of his changes of arrangement have been accepted outright, others only indicated.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NARRATIVE.
The atmosphere of Dio's Roman History is serious to a degree. Its author never loses sight of the fact that by his labor he is conferring a substantial benefit upon mankind, and he follows, moreover, a particular historical theory, popular at the time, which allows little chance for sportiveness or wit. Just as the early French drama could concern itself only with personages of noble or royal rank, so Dio's ideal compels him for the most part to restrict himself to the large transactions of governments or rulers and to diminish the consideration that idiosyncrasies of private life or points of antiquarian interest might otherwise seem to claim. The name of this ideal is "Dignity" ([Greek: onkos] is the Greek), a principle of construction which is opposed to a narration adorned with details. However much it may have been overworked at times, its influence was certainly healthful, for it demanded that the material be handled in organic masses to prevent the reader from being lost in a confused mass of minutiae. Racy gossip and old wives' tales are to be replaced by philosophic reflection and pictures of temperament. Instead of mere lists of anecdotes there must be a careful survey of political relations. Names, numbers, and exact dates may often be dispensed with. Still, amid all this, there is enough humor of situation in the gigantic tale and enough latitude of speech on the part of the acting personages to prevent monotony and to render intellectual scintillations of the compiler comparatively unnecessary. Occasionally, for the sake of sharper focus on the portrait of some leader, Dio will introduce this or that trivial incident and may perhaps feel called upon immediately, under the strictness of his self-imposed regime, to apologize or justify himself.
The style of the original is rendered somewhat difficult by a conscious imitation of the involved sentence-unit found in Thukydides (though reminiscences of Herodotos and Demosthenes also abound) but gives an effect of solidity that is symmetrical with both the method and the man. Moreover, one may assert of it what Matthew Arnold declared could not be said regarding Homer's style, that it rises and falls with the matter it treats, so that at every climax we may be sure of finding the charm of vividness and at many intermediate points the merit of grace. It is a long course that our historian, pressed by official cares, has to cover, and he accomplishes his difficult task with creditable zeal: finally, when his Thousand Years of Rome is done, he compares himself to a warrior helped by a protecting deity from the scene of conflict. Surely it must have been one of the major battles of his energetic life to wrest from the formless void this orderly record of actions and events embroidered with discussion of the motives for those actions and the causes of such events.
Dio has apparently equipped himself extremely well for his undertaking. A fragment edited by Mai (see Fragment I) seems to make him say that he has read every available book upon the subject; and, like Thukydides, he is critical, he is eclectic, and often supports his statements by the citation or introduction of documentary testimony. His superstition is debasing and repellent, but works harm only in limited spheres, and it is counterbalanced by the fact that he had been a part of many events recounted and had held high governmental offices, enjoying a career which furnished him with standards by which to judge the likelihood of allegations regarding earlier periods of Rome,—that, in a word, he was no mere carpet-knight of History. He is honestly conscientious in his use of language, attempting to give the preference to standard phrases and words of classical Greek over corrupt idioms and expressions of a decadent tongue; it is this very conscientiousness, of course, which leads him to adopt so much elaborate syntax from bygone masters of style. Finally,—the point in which, I think, Dio has come nearest to the gloomy Athenian,—something of the matter-of-fact directness of Thukydides is perceptible in this Roman History. The operator unrolls before us the long panorama of wars and plots and bribes and murders: his pictures speak, but he himself seldom interjects a word. Sometimes the lack of comment seems almost brutal, but what need to darken the torture-chamber in the House of Hades?
There are two ways of writing history. One is to observe a strictly chronological order, describing together only such events as took place in a single year or reign; and the other, to give all in one place and in one narration the story of a single great movement, though it should cover several years and a fraction,—or, again, to sketch the condition of affairs in one province, or valley, or peninsula for so long a time as the story of such a region seems to possess unity of development. The first kind of writing takes the year or the reign as its standard, whereas the second uses the matter under discussion or some part of the earth in the same way: and they may accordingly be called, one, the chronological method, and the other, the pragmato-geographical. The difference between the two is well illustrated by the varying ways in which modern works on Greek history treat the affairs of Sicily.
The first plan is that which Dio follows, and his work would have been called by the Romans annales rather than historiae. The method has its advantages, one of which is, or should be, that the reader knows just how far he has progressed; he can compare the relative significance of events happening at the same time in widely separated lands: he is, as it were, living in the past, and receives from week to week or month to month reports of the world's doings in all quarters. On the other hand, this plan lacks dramatic force; there are sub-climaces and one grand climax: and the interest is apt to flag through being obliged to divide itself among many districts. The same results, both good and bad, are observable in Thukydides, whom Dio follows in constructive theory as well as style. It has already been said that our historian sacrifices sharpness of dates to the Onkos, depending, doubtless, on his chronological arrangements to make good the loss. Usually it does so, but occasionally confusion arises. Whether because he noticed this or not, he begins at the opening of the fifty-first book to be accurate in his dates, generally stating the exact day. Rarely, Dio lets his interest run away with him and mixes the two economies.
If we read the pages closely, we find that by Dio's own statement his work falls properly into three parts. The first consists of the first fifty-one books, from the landing of AEneas to the establishment of the empire by Octavianus. Up to that time, Dio says (in LIII, 19), political action had been taken openly, after discussion in the senate and before the people. Everybody knew the facts, and in case any authors distorted them, the public records were open for any one to consult. After that time, however, the rulers commonly kept their acts and discussions secret; and their censored accounts, when made public, were naturally looked upon by the man in the street with doubt and suspicion. Hence, from this point, says the historian, a radical difference must inevitably be found in the character of his account.
The second portion, opening with Book Fifty-two, ends at the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 B.C.). In LXXI, 36, 4 Dio admits that the old splendor ended with Marcus and was not renewed. His history, he says, makes here a sheer descent ([Greek: katapiptei]) from the golden to the iron age. It fades, as it were, into the light of common day in a double sense: for the events succeeding this reign Dio himself was able to observe as an intelligent eyewitness.
The third section, then, extends from the beginning of Book Seventy-two to the end of the work. Here Dio breaks away oftener than before from his servility to the Dignity of History, only to display a far more contemptible servility to his imperial masters. According to his own account he stood by and passively allowed atrocities to be multiplied about him, nor does he venture to express any forceful indignation at the performance of such deeds. Had he protested, the world's knowledge of Rome's degenerate tyrants would undoubtedly have been less complete than it now is; and Dio was quite enough of an egotist to believe that his own life and work were of paramount importance. If we compare him unfavorably with Epictetus, we must remember that the latter was obscure enough to be ignored.
In both the second and the third parts, that is to say throughout the entire imperial period, Dio is conceded to have committed an error in his point of view by making the relations of the emperor to the senate the leading idea in his narrative and subordinating other events to that relation. Senator as he was, he naturally magnified its importance, and in an impartial estimate of his account one must allow for personal bias.
Our historian's sources for the earlier part of his work are not positively known. He has been credited with the use of Livy, of Coelius, of Appian, and of Dionysios of Halicarnassos, but the traces are not definite enough to warrant any dogmatic assertion. Perhaps he knew Tacitus and perhaps Suetonius: the portrait of Tiberius is especially good and was probably obtained from an author of merit. But there were in existence a great multitude of books inferior or now forgotten besides the works of the authors above mentioned; and Dio's History in general shows no greater evidence of having been drawn from writers whom we know than from others whom we do not know.
We have already noticed Dio's similarity to Thukydides in style, arrangement, and emotional attitude. There remains one more bond of brotherhood,—the speeches. Just as the sombre story of the Peloponnesian conflict has for a prominent feature the pleas and counterpleas of contending parties, together with a few independent orations, so this Roman History is filled with public utterances of famous men, either singly or in pairs. Dio evinces considerable fondness for these wordy combats ([Greek: hamillai logon]). About one speech to the book is the average in the earlier portion of the work. The author probably adapted them from rhetorical [Greek: meletai], or essays, then in existence. He was himself a finished product of the rhetorical schools and was inclined to give their output the greatest publicity. The most interesting of these efforts,—some go so far as to say the only one of real interest,—is the speech of Maecenas in favor of the establishment of monarchy by Augustus: this argument undoubtedly sets forth Dio's own views on government. Like the rival deliverance of Agrippa it shows traces of having undergone a revision of the first draught, and it is more than probable that the two did not assume their present shape until the time of Alexander Severus.
B.—THE WRITER.
Suidas, the lexicographer of the tenth century, who is profitable for so many things, has this entry under "Dio":
Dio—called Cassius, surnamed Cocceius (others "Cocceianus"), of Nicaea, historian, born in the times of Alexander son of Mammaea, wrote a Roman History in 80 books (they are divided by decades), a "Persia", "The Getae", "Journey-signs", "In Trajan's Day", "Life of Arrian the Philosopher".
Photius, an influential Patriarch of Constantinople and belonging to the ninth century, has in his "Bibliotheca" a much longer notice, which, however, contains almost nothing that a reader will not find in Dio's own record. This is about the extent of the information afforded us by antiquity, and modern biographers usually fall back upon the author's own remarks regarding himself, as found scattered through his Roman History. Such personal references were for the first time carefully collected, systematically arranged, and discussed in the edition of Reimar; subsequently the same matter was reprinted in the fifth volume of the Dindorf Teubner text.
Just a word first in regard to the lost works with which Suidas credits Dio. He probably never wrote the "Persia": perhaps it belonged to Dio of Colophon, or possibly Suidas has confused Dion with Deinon. It is certain that he did not write "The Getae": this composition was by his maternal grandfather, Dio of Prusa, and was the fruit of exile. "Journey-signs" or "Itineraries" is an enigmatic title, and the more cautious scholars forbear to venture an opinion upon its significance. Bernhardy, editor of Suidas, says "Intelligo Librum de Signis" and translates the title "De Ominibus inter congrediendum." Leonhard Schmitz (in the rather antiquated Smith) thinks it means "Itineraries" and that Dio Chrysostom very likely wrote it, because he traveled considerably. Concerning "In Trajan's Day" two opinions may be mentioned,—one, that the attribution of such a title to Dio is a mistake (for, if true, he would have mentioned it in his larger work): the other, that its substance was incorporated in the larger work, and that it thereby lost its identity and importance. The "Life of Arrian" is probably a fact. Arrian was a fellow-countryman of Dio's and had a somewhat similar character and career. It may be true, as Christ surmises, that this biography was a youthful task or an essay of leisure, hastily thrown off in the midst of other enterprises.
Coming to Dio's personality we have at the outset to decide how his name shall be written. We must make sure of his proper designation before we presume to talk about him. The choice lies between Dio Cassius and Cassius Dio, and the former is the popular form of the name, if it be permissible to speak of Dio at all as a "popular" writer. The facts in the case, however, are simple. The Greek arrangement is [Greek: Dion ho Kassios]. Now the regular Greek custom is to place the gentile name, or even the praenomen, after the cognomen: but the regular Latin custom (and after all Dio has more of the Roman in his makeup than of the Greek) is to observe the order praenomen, nomen, cognomen. It is objected, first, that the Greeks sometimes followed the regular Latin order, and, second, that the Romans sometimes followed the regular Greek order (e.g., Cicero, in his Letters). But the Greek exception cannot here make Dio the nomen and Cassius the cognomen: we know that the historian belonged to the gens Cassia (his father was Cassius Apronianus) and that he took Dio as cognomen from his grandfather, Dio Chrysostom. And the Latin exception simply offers us the alternative of following a common usage or an uncommon usage. The real question is whether Dio should be regarded rather as Greek or as Roman. To be logical, we must say either Dion Kassios or Cassius Dio. Considering the historian's times and his habitat, not merely his birthplace and literary dialect, I must prefer Cassius Dio as his official appellation. Yet, because the opposite arrangement has the sanction of usage, I deem it desirable to employ as often as possible the unvexed single name Dio.
Dio's praenomen is unknown, but he had still another cognomen, Cocceianus, which he derived along with the Dio from his maternal grandfather. The latter, known as Dio of Prusa from his birthplace in Bithynia, is renowned for his speeches, which contain perhaps more philosophy than oratory and won for him from posterity the title of Chrysostom,—"Golden Mouth." Dio of Prusa was exiled by the tyrant Domitian, but recalled and showered with favors by the emperor Cocceius Nerva (96-98 A.D.); from this patron he took the cognomen mentioned, Cocceianus, which he handed down to his illustrious grandson.
Besides this distinguished ancestor on his mother's side Dio the historian had a father, Cassius Apronianus, of no mean importance. He was a Roman senator and had been governor of Dalmatia and Cilicia; to the latter post Dio bore his father company (Books 49, 36; 69, 1; 72, 7). The date of the historian's birth is determined approximately as somewhere from 150 to 162 A.D., that is, during the last part of the reign of Antoninus Pius or at the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The town where he first saw the light was Nicaea in Bithynia.
The careful education which the youth must have had is evident, of course, in his work. After the trip to Cilicia already referred to Dio came to Rome, probably not for the first time, arriving there early in the reign of Commodus (Book 72, 4). This monster was overthrown in 192 A.D.; before his death Dio was a senator (Book 72, 16): in other words, he was by that time above the minimum age, twenty-five years, required for admission to full senatorial standing; and thus we gain some scanty light respecting the date of his birth. Under Commodus he had held no higher offices than those of quaestor and aedile: Pertinax now, in the year 193, made him praetor (Book 73, 12). Directly came the death of Pertinax, as likewise of his successor Julianus, and the accession of him whom Dio proudly hailed as the "Second Augustus,"—Septimius Severus. The new emperor exerted a great influence upon Dio's political views. He pretended that the gods had brought him forward, as they had Augustus, especially for his work. The proofs of Heaven's graciousness to this latest sovereign were probably by him delivered to Dio, who undertook to compile them into a little book and appears to have believed them all; Severus, indeed, had been remarkably successful at the outset. Before long Dio had begun his great work, which he doubtless intended to bring to a triumphant conclusion amid the golden years of the new prince of peace.
Unfortunately the entente cordiale between ruler and historian did not long endure. Severus grew disappointing to Dio through his severity, visited first upon Niger and later upon Caesar Clodius Albinus: and Dio came to be persona non grata to Severus for this reason among others, that the emperor changed his mind completely about Commodus, and since he had begun to revere, if not to imitate him, what Dio had written concerning his predecessor could be no longer palatable. The estrangement seems to be marked by the fact that until Severus's death Dio went abroad on no important military or diplomatic mission, but remained constantly in Italy. He was sometimes in Rome, but more commonly resided at his country-seat in Capua (Book 76, 2). In a very vague Passage in Book 76, 16 Dio speaks of finding "when I was consul" three thousand indictments for adultery inscribed on the records. This leads most scholars to assume that he was consul before the death of Severus. Reimar thought differently, and produces arguments to support his view. I do not deem many of the passages which he cites entirely apposite, and yet some of the points urged are important. I can only say that the impression left in my mind by a rapid reading of the Greek is that Dio was consul while Severus reigned; if such be the case, he probably held the rank of consul suffectus ("honorary" or "substitute"). All who refuse to admit that he could have obtained so high an office at that time place the date of his first consulship anywhere from 219 to 223 A.D. because of his own statement that in 224 he was appointed to the (regularly proconsular) governorship of Africa.
The son of Severus, Caracalla or Antoninus, drew Dio from his homekeeping and took him with him on an eastern expedition in 216, so that our historian passed the winter of 216-217 as a member of Caracalla's retinue at Nicomedea (Book 77, 17 and 18) and joined there in the annual celebration of the Saturnalia (Book 78, 8). Dio takes occasion to deplore the emperor's bestial behavior as well as the considerable pecuniary outlay to which he was personally subjected, but at the same time he evidently did not allow his convictions to become indiscreetly audible. Much farther than Nicomedea Dio cannot have accompanied his master; for he did not go to the Parthian war, presently undertaken, and he was not present either at Caracalla's death (217) or at the overthrow of Macrinus (218). This Macrinus, one of the short-time emperors, gave Dio the post of curator ad corrigendum statum civitatium, with administrative powers over the cities of Pergamum and Smyrna (Book 79, 7), and his appointee remained in active service during much of the reign of Elagabalus,—possibly, indeed, until the accession of Alexander Severus (see Book 78, 18, end). Mammaea, the mother of the new sovereign, surrounded her son with skilled helpers of proved value, and it was possibly due to her wisdom that Dio was first sent to manage the proconsulate of Africa, and, on his return, to govern the imperial provinces of Dalmatia and Upper Pannonia. Somewhat later, in the year 229, he became consul for the second time, consul ordinarius, as colleague of Alexander himself. But Dio's disciplinary measures in Pannonia had rendered him unpopular with the pampered Pretorians, and heeding at once his own safety and the emperor's request he remained most of the time outside of Rome. This state of affairs was not wholly satisfactory, and it is not surprising that after a short time Dio complained of a bad foot and asked leave to betake himself to Nicaea, his native place.
Here we must leave him. Whether his death came soon or late after 229 A.D. is a matter of some uncertainty. It would be difficult to make a more complete record out of the available material, save to say that from two casual references it is inferred that Dio had a wife and children, and that in his career he often, sometimes with imperial assistance, tried cases in court.
A LIST OF THE MORE RECENT DISSERTATIONS
ON
CASSIUS DIO.
A. Baumgartner.—Ueber die Quellen des Cassius Dio fuer die aeltere roemische Geschichte. (1880.)
F. Beckurts.—Zur Quellenkritik des Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio. (1880.)
J. Bergmans.—Die Quellen der Vita Tiberii (Buch 57 der Historia Romana) des Cassius Dio. (1903.)
Breitung.—Bemerkungen ueber die Quellen des Dio Cassius LXVI-LXIX. (1882.)
H. Christensen.—De fontibus a Cassio Dione in Vita Neronis enarranda adhibitis. (1871.)
A. Deppe.—Des Dio Cassius Bericht ueber die Varusschlacht verglichen mit den uebrigen Geschichtsquellen. (1880.)
P. Fabia.—Julius Paelignus, prefet des vigiles et procurateur de Cappadoce (Tacite, Ann. XII, 49; Dion Cassius LXI, 6, 6). (1898.)
R. Ferwer.—Die politischen Anschauungen des Cassius Dio. (1878.)
J.G. Fischer.—De fontibus et auctoritate Cassii Dionis. (1870.)
H. Grohs.—Der Wert des Geschichtswerkes des Cassius Dio als Quelle fuer die Geschichte der Jahre 49-44 v. Chr. (1884.)
G. Heimbach.—Quid et quantum Cassius Dio in historia conscribenda inde a libro XI usque ad librum XLVII e Livio desumpserit. (1878.)
F.K. Hertlein.—Conjecturen zu griechischen Prosaikern. (1873.)
D.G. Ielgersma.—De fide et auctoritate Dionis Cassii Cocceiani. (1879.)
E. Kyhnitzsch.—De contionibus, quas Cassius Dio historiae suae intexuit, cum Thucydideis comparatis. (1894.)
E. Litsch.—De Cassio Dione imitatore Thucydidis. (1893.)
Madvig.—Adversaria Critica. (1884.)
J. Maisel.—Observationes in Cassium Dionem. (1888.)
J. Melber.—Der Bericht des Dio Cassius ueber die gallischen Kriege Caesars. (1891.)
J. Melber.—Dio Cassius ueber die letzten Kaempfe gegen Sext. Pompeius, 36 v. Chr. (1891.) In "Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Klassichen Alterthumswissenschaft, W. v. Christ zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schuelern."
P. Meyer.—De Maecenatis oratione a Dione ficta. (1891.)
M. Posner.—Quibus auctoribus in bello Hannibalico enarrando usus sit Dio Cassius. (1874.)
E. Schmidt.—Plutarchs Bericht ueber die Catilinarische Verschwoerung in seinem Verhaeltnis zu Sallust, Livius und Dio. (1885.)
G. Sickel.—De fontibus a Cassio Dione in conscribendis rebus inde a Tiberio usque ad mortem Vitelii gestis adhibitis. (1876.)
D.R. Stuart.—The attitude of Dio Cassius towards epigraphic sources. (1904.)—In "Roman Historical Sources," etc., pp. 101-147.
H. van Herwerden.—Lectiones Rheno-Traiectinae. (1882.) Pp. 78-95.
A. v. Gutschmid.—See Kleine Schriften, V, pp. 547-554. (1894.)
J. Will.—Quae ratio intercedat inter Dionis Cassii de Caesaris bellis gallicis narrationem et commentarios Caesaris de bello gallico. (1901.)
A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL ARTICLES
ON
CASSIUS DIO
Found in Periodicals for the Twenty Years Preceding the Date of the Present Translation (1884-1904).
1884.
—— A review of R. Ferwer. (Die politischen Anschauungen des Cassius Dio.) (Bursian, Jhrb.)
H. HAUPT.—Dio Cassius. (Yearly Review, continued.) (Rh. Mus., Book 4.)
K. SCHENKL.—A general review of the advance made in the study of Dio from 1873 to 1884. (Bursian, Jhrb. pp. 277-8; and also pp. 186-194 for 1883.)
1885.
U. PH. BOISSEVAIN.—De Cassii Dionis libris manuscriptis (with author's stemma). (Mnemos., Vol. 13, Part 3. Also see Note on p. 456 of Part 4, same volume.)
H. HAUPT.—A review of Grohs (Der Wert des Geschichtswerkes des Cassius Dio als Quelle der Jahre 49-44 V.C.). (Philolog. Anzeiger.)
Id.—Dio Cassius. (Yearly Review, continued.) (Philol., Vol. 44, Book 1 and Book 3.)
H. SCHILLER.—A review of Grohs (same article). (B.P.W., Feb. 21.)
—— A review of U. Ph. Boissevain. (Program. On the Fragments of Cassius Dio.) (Bursian, Jhrb.)
1886.
S.A. NABER.—Emendations in Dio XLII, 34, and XXXVI, 49. (Mnemos., N.S. 14, pp. 93 and 94.)
—— Mention of Haupt's Survey in Philol. 44. (See above. Bursian, Jhrb.)
—— A review of Grohs. (Article cited above. Bursian, Jhrb.)
—— A review of Grohs. (Do. do.—Litt. Cbl., Jan. 16.)
1887.
—— A review of C.J. Rockel (De allocutionis usu qualis sit apud Thucydidem, Xenophontem, oratores Atticos, Dionem, Aristidem.). (Jhrb. of I. Mueller.)
—— Mention of H. Haupt's Survey in Philol. 44. (Jhrb. of I. Mueller.)
BR. KEIL.—A criticism of Rockel. (Article above cited. W. Kl. Ph., May 4.)
W.F. ALLEN.—The Monetary Crisis in Rome, A.D. 33. (Containing citations from Dio. Tr. A. Ph. A., Vol. 18.)
E.G. SIHLER.—The Tradition of Caesar's Gallic Wars from Cicero to Orosius. (Containing citations from Dio. Tr. A. Ph. A., Vol. 18.)
LIATYSCHEV.—(An article containing citations from Dio that contribute to a knowledge of the location of the city of Olbia.—Journal Ministerstva Narodnavo Prosveschtscheniia, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4.)
1888.
W.F. ALLEN.—Lex Curiata de Imperio. (Containing citations from Dio XXXIX, 19 and elsewhere.—Tr. A. Ph. A., Vol. 19.)
S.A. NABER.—Critical observations. (Including Dio XLVI, 15; LI, 14; LV, 10; LXIX, 28; LXXVI, 14; LXXVII, 4. Mnemos., Vol. 16, part 1.)
—— A review of L. Poetsch. (Program. Bei.—traege zur Kritik der Kaiserbiographien Cassius Dio, Herodian, und AElius Lampridius auf Grund ihrer Berichte ueber den Kaiser Commodus Antoninus.—Z. oest. Gymn., 1888, Book 3.)
1889.
BREITUNG.—A review of Maisel (Observationes in Cassium Dionem.). (W. Kl. Ph., June 19.)
—— A review of Maisel. (Do. do.—The Academy, February.)
J. HILBERG.—A review of Maisel. (Do. do.—Z. oest. Gymn., 1889, Book 3.)
H. KONTOS.—Critical note on Dio, XLIX, 12, 2. ([Greek: ATHENA], Vol. 1, parts 3-4.)
MELBER.—Contribution to a new order of the Fragments in Cassius Dio. (Sitzb. d. philos.-philolog. u. hist. d. k. B. Akademie d. Wiss. zu Muenchen, Feb. 9.)
NAUCK.—Analecta Critica. (Proposition to restore six fragments of Cassius Dio to Dio Chrysostom.—Hermes, Vol. 24, part 3.)
ALEX RIESE.—Die Sueben (based upon Dio). (Rh. Mus., Vol. 44, part 3.)
SP. VASIS.—Passage of Dio applied to correct conclusions of Willems on Cic. ad Att. 5, 4, 2. ([Greek: ATHENA], Vol. 1, parts 3-4.)
—— A review of E. Cornelius (Quomodo Tacitus historiae scriptor in hominum memoria versatus sit usque ad renascentes litteras saec. XIV et XV.—Dio is indirectly involved.). (Jhrb. d. phil. Ver. zu. Berlin, 1889.)
—— A review of C.J. Rockel. (Title cited under 1887.—Jhrb. of I. Mueller.)
1890.
U. PH. BOISSEVAIN.—A misplaced fragment of Dio (LXXV, 9, 6). (Hermes, Vol. 25, part 3.)
TH. HULTZSCH.—On Dio Cassius (relative to early alteration of the text). (N. JB. f. Ph. u. Pae., Vol. 141, book 3.)
KARL JACOBY.—A review of Maisel. (Title cited under 1889.—B.P.W., Feb. 15.)
MELBER.—Regarding the chronological relocation of several fragments of Dio. (Bl. f. d. Bayer. Gymn., Vol. 26, books 6 and 7.)
—— A citation of the Kontos note (see above) from [Greek: ATHENA]. (Rev. d. Et. Gr., Vol. 3, N. 9.)
1891.
BOISSEVAIN.—A review of Melber. (Text edition of Dio, Vol. I.) (B.P.W., Jan. 24.)
BREITUNG.—A review of Melber. (Do. do.—W. Kl. Ph., June 24.)
B. KUEBLER.—A review of Melber. (Do. do.—Deutsche LZ., Nov. 28.)
Id.—Five conjectures in the (earlier portion of) text of Dio. (Rh. Mus., Vol. 46, part 2.)
MELBER.—A review of Maisel. (Title cited under 1889.—Bl. f. d. Bayer. Gymn., Vol. 27, books 6 and 7.)
Id.—A correction in Zonaras, IX, 5. (Bl. f. d. Bayer. Gymn., Vol. 27, book 1.)
G.M. RUSHFORTH.—A review of Melber (Dio, Vol. 1). (Cl. Rev., Vol. 5, Nos. 1 and 2.)
C. WACHSMUTH.—The pentad arrangement in Dio and others. (Rh. Mus., Vol. 46, part 2.)
—— Mention of an article on Dio (Caesar's Gallic Wars) in Festgruss des kgl. Max.-Gymn. zu Muenchen. (Phil. Rundsch., Dec. 5.)
1892.
U. PH. BOISSEVAIN.—On the spellings Callaeci—Gallaeci, etc. (Mnemos., N.S. Vol. 20, p. 286 ff.)
H. SCHILLER.—A review of Meyer (De Maecenatis oratione a Dione ficta). (B.P.W., Sept. 17.)
1893.
BUETTNER-WOBST.—An account of Dio in the Cod. Peir. (Berichte der kgl. saechs. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch., part 3.)
C.G. COBET.—Emendations. (Mnemos. N.S., Vol. 21, p. 395.)
B. HEISTERBERGK.—An emendation in XLVIII, 12. (Philol., Vol. 50, part 4.)
J.J.H.—An emendation of LXVII, 12. (Mnemos., Vol. 21, part 4.)
MAISEL.—A review of Melber. (Dio, Vol. 1.—Phil. Rundsch., March 4.)
S.A. NABER.—Four emendations. (Mnemos., Vol. 21, part 4.)
1894.
K. BURESCH.—A comment on Dio, LIV, 30, 3. (W. Kl. Ph., Jan. 24.)
1895.
AD. BAUER.—Dio's account of the war in Dalmatia and Pannonia (6-9 A.D.). (Archaeologisch-Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, 17th year, book 2.)
U. PH. BOISSEVAIN.—A review of Maisel (Beitraege zur Wuerdigung der Hdss. des Cassius Dio). (B.P.W., Apr. 13.)
K. JACOBY.—A review of Maisel. (Do. do.—W. Kl. Ph., July 3.)
Id.—A review of Melber. (Dio, Vol. 2.—Ibid.)
TH. MOMMSEN.—The miracle of the rain on the column of Marcus Aurelius. (Dio as a source.) (Hermes, Vol. 30, part 1.)
—— A review of E. Kyhnitzsch (De contionibus quas Cassius Dio historiae suae intexuit, cum Thucydideis comparatis). (Litt. Cbl., Oct. 26.)
1896.
U. PH. BOISSEVAIN.—A review of E. Kyhnitzsch. (Title just above.—B.P.W., Jan. 18.)
P. ERCOLE.—A review of M.A. Micallela (La Fonte di Dione Cassio per le guerre galliche di Cesare). (Riv. di. Fil. e d'Istr. Class., 25th year, part 1.)
PH. FABIA.—The statement of Dio about Nero and Pappaea shown to be parallel with that of Tacitus (Hist. I, 13). (Rev. de Phil., de Litt., et d'Hist. anciennes, Vol. 20, part 1.)
K. KUIPER.—De Cassii Dionis Zonaraeque historiis epistula critica ad Ursulum Philippum Boissevain. (Mnemos., N.S. Vol. 24.)
B. NIESE.—Dio's contributions to the history of the war against Pyrrhus. (Hermes, Vol. 31, part 4.)
F. VOGEL.—Dio worthless for facts regarding Caesar's second expedition into Britain. (N. JB. f. Ph. u. Pae., 1896, books 3 and 4.)
—— Dio LIII, 23, compared with inscription discovered at Philae, Egypt. (Philol., Vol. 55, part 1.)
1897.
D. DETLEFSEN.—Dio LIV, 32, as a sample of ancient knowledge in regard to the North Sea. (Hermes, Vol. 32, part 2.)
PH. FABIA.—Ofonius rather than Sophonius (Dio MSS.) for the gentile name of Tigillinus. (Rev. de Phil., de Litt., et d'Hist. anciennes, Vol. 21, book 3.)
P. GAROFOLO.—A citation of Dio. (Jhrb. of I. Mueller, 1897.)
B. KUEBLER.—A review of Melber. (Dio, Vol. 2.—Deutsche LZ., March 6.)
Id.—A review of Boissevain. (Edition of Dio.—B.P.W., May 15.)
—— A mention of three articles by Melber. 1.) Der Bericht des Dio Cassius ueber d. gall. Kriege Caesars.
2.) Des Dio Cassius Bericht ueber d. Seeschlacht d. D. Brutus geg. d. Veneter. 3.) Dio Cassius ueber d. letzten Kaempfe geg. S. Pompejus, 36 v. Chr. (Jhrb. of I. Mueller, 1897.)
—— Mention of a rearrangement favored by Boissevain ("Ein verschobenes Fragment des Cassius Dio") who holds that a certain fragment, old style LXXV, 9, 6, properly belongs to the year 116 A.D. and to Trajan's expedition against the Parthians.
1898.
BUETTNER-WOBST.—Dio corrected in regard to an episode in the siege of Ambracia, 189 B.C. (Philol., Vol. 57, part 3.)
PH. FABIA.—An emendation and a change of order in Dio, LXI, 6, 6. (Rev. de Phil., de Litt., et d'Hist. anciennes, 1898, book 2.)
J. KROMAYER.—Studies in the Second Triumvirate (Dio as a source). (Hermes, Vol. 33, part 1.)
B. KUEBLER.—A review of Boissevain. (Dio, Vol. 2.—B.P.W., Nov. 26 and Dec. 3.)
J. VAHLEN.—Varia. (Dio LV, 6 and 7, for date of death of Maecenas). (Hermes, Vol. 33, part 2.)
1899.
WILH. CROENERT.—-A study of 34 pp. on the transmission of the text of Dio. (Wiener Studien, 1899, book 1.)
K. JACOBY.—A review of Boissevain. (Dio, Vol. 1.—W. Kl. Ph., March 22.)
1900.
WILH. CROENERT.—Criticism of Boissevain. (Rev. Crit., July 2.)
C. ROBERT.—On Dio LV, 10. (Hermes, Vol. 25, No. 4.)
—— On Dio XLVII, 17, 1. (Archiv. f. Papyrusforschung u. verw. Geb., vol. 2, book 1.)
—— Observationes. (Philol., Vol. 59, No. 2.)
—— Melanges (including Dio XXXVIII, 50, 4). (Wiener Studien, 22nd year, book 2.)
N. VULIC.—A note on Cassius Dio, XXXVIII, 50, 4. (Wiener Studien, 22nd year, book 2, p. 314.)
1901.
C. JULLIAN.—Dio's account of the surrender of Vercingetorix compared with others. (Rev. des Et. Anc., Vol. 3, No. 2.)
H. ST. SEDIMAYER.—Apocolocyntosis, i.e. Apotheosis per Satiram (Dio, LX, 35). (Wiener Studien, I, pp. 181-192.)
1902.
B. KUEBLER.—A review of Boissevain. (Dio, Vol. 3.—B.P.W., Dec. 20.)
—— Reference to portraiture in Dio. (Philol., Vol. 61, No. 3.)
—— Record of a new coin bearing the name of L. Munatius Plancus (cp. Dio XLVI, 50). (Numismat. Zeitschr., Vol. 34.)
1903.
A. BOMER.—An opinion to the effect that [Greek: Elison] (Dio LIV, 33) is a corrupt reading for [Greek: Stibarna] = Stever. (N. JB. f. d. kl. Alt., Gesch., u. deut. Lit., 6th year, part 3.)
S.B. COUGEAS.—An account of a new MS. of Xiphilinus (No. 812 of the Iberian monastery on Mt. Athos. It is incomplete and ends at L, 11, 3 of Dio). ([Greek: ATHENA], Vol. 15.)
H. PETER.—A review of G.M. Columba (Cassio Dione e del guerre galliche di Cesare.—B.P.W., Sept. 5).
THE ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT
of
DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY
as conjectured by A. von Gutschmid (Kleine Schriften, V, p. 561).
A. Rome under the Kings (Two Books). Book I, B.C. 753-673. Book II, B.C. 672-510.
B. Rome under a Republic (Thirty-nine Books).
a.) To the End of the Second Punic War (Fifteen Books.)
1.) To the Beginning of the Second Samnite War (Five Books): Book III, B.C. 509. Book IV, B.C. 508-493. Book V, B.C. 493-449. Book VI, B.C. 449-390. Book VII, B.C. 390-326.
2.) To the Beginning of the Second Punic War (Five Books): Book VIII, B.C. 326-290. Book IX, B.C. 290-278. Book X, B.C. 277-264. Book XI, B.C. 264-250. Book XII, B.C. 250-219.
3.) To the End of the Second Punic War (Five Books): Book XIII, B.C. 219-218. Book XIV, B.C. 218-217. Book XV, B.C. 216-211. Book XVI, B.C. 211-206. Book XVII, B.C. 206-201.
b.) From the End of the Second Punic War (Twenty-four Books).
1.) To the Death of Gaius Gracchus (Eight Books): Book XVIII, B.C. 200-195. Book XIX, B.C. 195-183. Book XX, B.C. 183-149. Book XXI, B.C. 149-146. Book XXII, B.C. 145-140. Book XXIII, B.C. 139-133. Book XXIV, B.C. 133-124. Book XXV, B.C. 124-121.
2.) To the Dictatorship of Sulla (Eight Books): Book XXVI, B.C. 120-106. Book XXVII, B.C. 105-101. Book XXVIII, B.C. 100-91. Book XXIX, B.C. 90-89. Book XXX, B.C. 88 (Happenings at Home). Book XXXI, B.C. 88 (Events Abroad) and 87 (Happenings at Home). Book XXXII, B.C. 87 (Events Abroad)-84. Book XXXIII, B.C. 84-82.
3.) To the Battle of Pharsalus (Eight Books): Book XXXIV, B.C. 81-79. Book XXXV, B.C. 78-70. Book XXXVI, B.C. 69-66. Book XXXVII, B.C. 65-60. Book XXXVIII, B.C. 59-58. Book XXXIX, B.C. 57-54 (= a.u. 700) (Happenings at Home). Book XL, B.C. 54 (Events Abroad)-50. Book XLI, B.C. 49-48.
C. Rome under Political Factions and under the Monarchy (Thirty-nine Books).
a.) To the Death of Augustus (Fifteen Books).
1.) To the Triumvirate (Five Books): Book XLII, B.C. 48-47. Book XLIII, B.C. 46-44. Book XLIV, B.C. 44. Book XLV, B.C. 44-43. Book XLVI, B.C. 43.
2.) To the Bestowal of the Imperial Title upon Augustus (Five Books): Book XLVII, B.C. 43-42. Book XLVIII, B.C. 42-37. Book XLIX, B.C. 36-33. Book L, B.C. 32-Sept. 2, B.C. 31. Book LI, Sept. 2, B.C. 31-29 (= a.u. 725) (Events Abroad).
3.) To the Death of Augustus (Five Books): Book LII, B.C. 29 (Happenings at Home). Book LIII, B.C. 28-23. Book LIV, B.C. 22-10. Book LV, B.C. 9-A.D. 8. Book LVI, A.D. 9-14.
b.) From the Death of Augustus (Twenty-four Books).
1.) To Vespasian (Eight Books): Book LVII, A.D. 14-25. Book LVIII, A.D. 26-37. Book LIX, A.D. 37-41. Book LX, A.D. 41-46. Book LXI, A.D. 47 (= a.u. 800)-59. Book LXII, A.D. 59-68. Book LXIII, A.D. 68-69 Book LXIV, A.D. 69-70.
2.) To Commodus (Eight Books): Book LXV, A.D. 70-79. Book LXVI, A.D. 79-81. Book LXVII, A.D. 81-96. Book LXVIII, A.D. 96-117. Book LXIX, A.D. 117-138. Book LXX, A.D. 138-161. Book LXXI, A.D. 161-169. Book LXXII, A.D. 169-180.
3.) To Dio's Second Consulate (Eight Books). Book LXXIII, A.D. 180-192. Book LXXIV, A.D. 193. Book LXXV, A.D. 193-197. Book LXXVI, A.D. 197-211. Book LXXVII, A.D. 211-217. Book LXXVIII, A.D. 217-218. Book LXXIX, A.D. 218-222. Book LXXX, A.D. 222-229.
AN EPITOME
of
THE LOST BOOKS I-XXI OF DIO
as found in the
CHRONICON
of
IOANNES ZONARAS.
(BOOK 1, BOISSEVAIN.)
[Sidenote: FRAG. 1] VII, 1.—AEneas after the Trojan war came to the Aborigines, who were the former inhabitants of the land wherein Rome has been built and at that time had Latinus, the son of Faunus, as their sovereign. He came ashore at Laurentum, by the mouth of the river Numicius, where in obedience to some oracle he is said to have made preparations to dwell.
The ruler of the land, Latinus, interfered with AEneas's settling in the land, but after a sharp struggle was defeated. Then in accordance with dreams that appeared to both leaders they effected a reconciliation and the king beside permitting AEneas to reside there gave him his daughter Lavinia in marriage. Thereupon AEneas founded a city which he named Lavinium and the country was called Latium and the people there were termed Latins. But the Rutuli who occupied adjoining territory had been previously hostile to the Latins, and now they set out from the city of Ardea with warlike demonstrations. They had the support of no less distinguished a man than Turnus, a relative of Latinus, who had taken a dislike to Latinus because of Lavinia's marriage, for it was to him that the maiden had originally been promised. A battle took place, Turnus and Latinus fell, and AEneas gained the victory and his father-in-law's kingdom as well. After a time, however, the Rutuli secured the Etruscans as allies and marched upon AEneas. They won in this war. AEneas vanished, being seen no more alive or dead, and was honored as a god by the Latins. Hence he has come to be regarded by the Romans as the fountain head of their race and they take pride in being called "Sons of AEneas." The Latin domain fell in direct succession to his son Ascanius who had accompanied his father from home. AEneas had not yet had any child by Lavinia, but left her pregnant. Ascanius was enclosed round about by the enemy, but by night the Latins attacked them and ended both the siege and the war.
As time went on the Latin nation increased in size, and the majority of the people abandoned Lavinium to build another town in a better location. To it they gave the name of Alba from its whiteness and from its length they called it Longa (or, as Greeks would say, "white" and "long").
At the death of Ascanius the Latins gave the preference in the matter of royal power to the son borne to AEneas by Lavinia over the son of Ascanius, their preference being founded on the fact that Latinus was his grandfather. The new king's name was Silvius. Silvius begat AEneas, from AEneas sprang Latinus, and Latinus was succeeded by Pastis. Tiberinus, who came subsequently to be ruler, lost his life by falling into a river called the Albula. This river was renamed Tiber from him. It flows through Rome and is of great value to the city and in the highest degree useful to the Romans. Amulius, a descendant of Tiberinus, displayed an overweening pride and had the audacity to deify himself, pretending an ability to answer thunder with thunder by mechanical contrivances and to lighten in response to the lightnings and to hurl thunderbolts. He met his end by the overflow of the lake beside which his palace was set, and both he and the palace were submerged in the sudden rush of waters. Aventinus his son perished in warfare. |
|
