Dio's Rome Volume I Part 1

Dio's Rome.

Volume 1.

by Ca.s.sius Dio.

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 const.i.tuted 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 s.n.a.t.c.h 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 exact.i.tude 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 Ca.s.sius 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 pa.s.sage of any length, and its impossibility simply goes to show what a makes.h.i.+ft 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 cla.s.sical Latin form for persons less well known, as Antonius the grandfather of Mark Antony. To the names of G.o.ds I have given a Latin dress unless a particular G.o.d 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 l.u.s.tre 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 Lords.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sume 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 Lords.h.i.+p in most other Languages, and on most of the Learned Subjects, but might wish they had been a.s.sisted by your Lords.h.i.+p'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 Lords.h.i.+p 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 h.e.l.lenic 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 l.u.s.t 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 grat.i.tude and appreciation for a.s.sistance 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 Ma.s.sachusetts Inst.i.tute of Technology. Likewise I must acknowledge my obligations, in the elucidation of particularly vexed and corrupt pa.s.sages, 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.

Ca.s.sius Dio Cocceia.n.u.s, 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 acc.u.mulation 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 a.s.sert) 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 finis.h.i.+ng 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 sc.r.a.ps 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 pa.s.s, 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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), Vatica.n.u.s A, Parisinus A, and Venetus A (Va) of the first cla.s.s; then Mediceus B of the second cla.s.s; finally, Parisinus B, Escorialensis, Turinensis, Vatica.n.u.s B, and Venetus B, with the mongrel Vesontinus, which occupies a position in this group best designated, perhaps, as 2-1/2.

Vatica.n.u.s A has been copied from Mediceus A, and Parisinus A from Vatica.n.u.s 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 cla.s.s, Mediceus B is a joint product of copying from the two princ.i.p.al MSS. just mentioned.

In the third cla.s.s, 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, Vatica.n.u.s B, and Venetus B are mere offshoots of Parisinus B. The Vesontinus codex is derived partly from Venetus A and partly from some ma.n.u.script of the third cla.s.s.

The parchment ma.n.u.script 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 ill.u.s.trations of this codex see Silvestre (Paleographie Universelle II, plate 7), Tischendorf (cod. Sinait. plate 20) and Boissevain's Ca.s.sius 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. Vatica.n.u.s A (15) I. Parisinus A (17) II. Mediceus B (15) III. Parisinus B (15) III. Venetus B (15) III. Vatica.n.u.s B (15) I. and III. Vesontinus (15) III. Turinensis (16) III. Escorialensis (?) I. Codex Vatica.n.u.s 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 Vatica.n.u.s A and Parisinus B.

Books 37 to 49. Mediceus A.

Books 50 to 54. Vatica.n.u.s 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 pa.s.sages 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 Ca.s.sius 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 Emba.s.sies. 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 ma.n.u.script 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 Halicarna.s.sus, Appian, Dio, John of Antioch, and others.

The _Excerpts Concerning Judgments_ are found in a Vatican ma.n.u.script known as Codex Vatica.n.u.s 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 pa.s.sages do not end with the reign of Alexander Severus, where Dio manifestly ended his history, but continue down to Constantine and (since the ma.n.u.script 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 fas.h.i.+on 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.]