E-text prepared by Ted Garvin, Linda Cantoni, and the Project Gutenberg
Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net/)
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.