1. Theentireepitome 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.
1. Theentireepitome 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.
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" (ογκοςis 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 minutiæ. 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 politicalrelations. 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 régime, 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 couldnotbe 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 withdiscussion 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 Romansannalesrather thanhistoriæ. 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,livingin 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, bothgood 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 Æneas 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, hesays, makes here a sheer descent (καταπιπτει) 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 creditedwith the use of Livy, of Cœlius, 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 ('αμιλλαι λογων). About one speech to the book is the average in the earlier portion of the work. The author probably adapted them from rhetoricalμελεται, 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,—isthe speech of Mæcenas 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.
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 Nicæa, historian, born in the times of Alexander son of Mammæa, wrote a Roman History in 80 books (they are divided by decades), a "Persia", "The Getæ", "Journey-signs", "In Trajan's Day", "Life of Arrian the Philosopher".
Dio—called Cassius, surnamed Cocceius (others "Cocceianus"), of Nicæa, historian, born in the times of Alexander son of Mammæa, wrote a Roman History in 80 books (they are divided by decades), a "Persia", "The Getæ", "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 confusedDionwithDeinon. It is certain that he did not write "The Getæ": 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 "IntelligoLibrum de Signis" and translates the title "De Ominibus inter congrediendum." Leonhard Schmitz (in the rather antiquatedSmith) 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 isΔιων 'ο Κασσιος. Now the regular Greek custom is to placethe gentile name, or even the prænomen,afterthe 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 orderprænomen,nomen,cognomen. It is objected, first, that the Greekssometimesfollowed the regular Latin order, and, second, that the Romanssometimesfollowed the regular Greek order (e.g., Cicero, in hisLetters). But the Greek exception cannot here make Dio thenomenand Cassius thecognomen: weknowthat 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 hishabitat, 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 nameDio.
Dio's prænomen is unknown, but he had still another cognomen, Cocceianus, which he derived along with theDiofrom 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 Nicæa 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 quæstor and ædile: Pertinax now, in the year 193, made him prætor (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 theentente cordialebetween ruler and historian did not long endure. Severus grew disappointing to Dio through his severity, visited first upon Niger and later upon Cæsar Clodius Albinus: and Dio came to bepersona non gratato 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 leadsmost scholars to assume that he was consulbeforethe 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 ofconsul 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 ofMacrinus (218). This Macrinus, one of the short-time emperors, gave Dio the post ofcurator 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). Mammæa, 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 Nicæa, 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. Baumgartner.—Über die Quellen des Cassius Dio für die ältere römische 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 über 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 über die Varusschlacht verglichen mit den übrigen Geschichtsquellen.(1880.)
P. Fabia.—Julius Pælignus, préfet 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 für 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 historiæ suæ 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 über die gallischen Kriege Cæsars.(1891.)
J. Melber.—Dio Cassius über die letzten Kämpfe gegen Sext. Pompeius, 36 v. Chr.(1891.) In "Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Klassichen Alterthumswissenschaft, W. v. Christ zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern."
P. Meyer.—De Mæcenatis oratione a Dione ficta.(1891.)
M. Posner.—Quibus auctoribus in bello Hannibalico enarrando usus sit Dio Cassius.(1874.)
E. Schmidt.—Plutarchs Bericht über die Catilinarische Verschwörung in seinem Verhältnis 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-Traiectinæ.(1882.) Pp. 78-95.
A. v. Gutschmid.—SeeKleine Schriften, V, pp. 547-554. (1894.)
J. Will.—Quæ ratio intercedat inter Dionis Cassii de Cæsaris bellis gallicis narrationem et commentarios Cæsaris de bello gallico.(1901.)
Found in Periodicals for the Twenty Years Preceding the Date of the Present Translation (1884-1904).
1884.
—— A review ofR. 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 ofGrohs(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 ofGrohs(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 ofGrohs. (Article cited above. Bursian, Jhrb.)
—— A review ofGrohs. (Do. do.—Litt. Cbl., Jan. 16.)
1887.
—— A review ofC.J. Rockel(De allocutionis usu qualis sit apud Thucydidem, Xenophontem, oratores Atticos,Dionem, Aristidem.). (Jhrb. of I. Müller.)
—— Mention of H. Haupt's Survey in Philol. 44. (Jhrb. of I. Müller.)
Br. Keil.—A criticism ofRockel. (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 Cæsar'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 Prosvêschtscheniia, 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 ofL. Poetsch. (Program. Bei.—träge zur Kritik der KaiserbiographienCassius Dio, Herodian, und Ælius Lampridius auf Grund ihrer Berichte über den Kaiser Commodus Antoninus.—Z. œst. Gymn., 1888, Book 3.)
1889.
Breitung.—A review ofMaisel(Observationes in Cassium Dionem.). (W. Kl. Ph., June 19.)
—— A review ofMaisel. (Do. do.—The Academy, February.)
J. Hilberg.—A review ofMaisel. (Do. do.—Z. œst. Gymn., 1889, Book 3.)
H. Kontos.—Critical note on Dio, XLIX, 12, 2. (ΑΘΗΝΑ, 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 München, 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. (ΑΘΗΝΑ, Vol. 1, parts 3-4.)
—— A review ofE. Cornelius(Quomodo Tacitus historiæ scriptor in hominum memoria versatus sit usque ad renascentes litteras sæc. XIV et XV.—Dio is indirectly involved.). (Jhrb. d. phil. Ver. zu. Berlin, 1889.)
—— A review ofC.J. Rockel. (Title cited under 1887.—Jhrb. of I. Müller.)
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. Pä., Vol. 141, book 3.)
Karl Jacoby.—A review ofMaisel. (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) fromΑΘΗΝΑ. (Rev. d. Et. Gr., Vol. 3, N. 9.)
1891.
Boissevain.—A review ofMelber. (Text edition of Dio, Vol. I.) (B.P.W., Jan. 24.)
Breitung.—A review ofMelber. (Do. do.—W. Kl. Ph., June 24.)
B. Kübler.—A review ofMelber. (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 ofMaisel. (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 ofMelber(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 (Cæsar's Gallic Wars) in Festgruss des kgl. Max.-Gymn. zu München. (Phil. Rundsch., Dec. 5.)
1892.
U. Ph. Boissevain.—On the spellings Callæci—Gallæci, etc. (Mnemos., N.S. Vol. 20, p. 286 ff.)
H. Schiller.—A review ofMeyer(De Mæcenatis oratione a Dione ficta). (B.P.W., Sept. 17.)
1893.
Büttner-Wobst.—An account of Dio in the Cod. Peir. (Berichte der kgl. sächs. 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 ofMelber. (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.). (Archäologisch-Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, 17th year, book 2.)
U. Ph. Boissevain.—A review ofMaisel(Beiträge zur Würdigung der Hdss. des Cassius Dio). (B.P.W., Apr. 13.)
K. Jacoby.—A review ofMaisel. (Do. do.—W. Kl. Ph., July 3.)
Id.—A review ofMelber. (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 ofE. Kyhnitzsch(De contionibus quas Cassius Dio historiæ suæ intexuit, cum Thucydideis comparatis). (Litt. Cbl., Oct. 26.)
1896.
U. Ph. Boissevain.—A review ofE. Kyhnitzsch. (Title just above.—B.P.W., Jan. 18.)
P. Ercole.—A review ofM.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 Pappæa 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 Zonaræque 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 Cæsar's second expedition into Britain. (N. JB. f. Ph. u. Pä., 1896, books 3 and 4.)
—— Dio LIII, 23, compared with inscription discovered at Philæ, 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.—Ofoniusrather thanSophonius(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. Müller, 1897.)
B. Kübler.—A review ofMelber. (Dio, Vol. 2.—Deutsche LZ., March 6.)
Id.—A review ofBoissevain. (Edition of Dio.—B.P.W., May 15.)
—— A mention of three articles byMelber.1.) Der Bericht des Dio Cassius über d. gall.Kriege Cäsars.2.) Des Dio Cassius Bericht über d. Seeschlacht d. D. Brutus geg. d. Veneter.3.) Dio Cassius über d. letzten Kämpfe geg. S. Pompejus, 36 v. Chr.(Jhrb. of I. Müller, 1897.)
—— Mention of a rearrangement favored byBoissevain("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.
Büttner-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. Kübler.—A review ofBoissevain. (Dio, Vol. 2.—B.P.W., Nov. 26 and Dec. 3.)
J. Vahlen.—Varia. (Dio LV, 6 and 7, for date of death of Mæcenas). (Hermes, Vol. 33, part 2.)
1899.
Wilh. Crönert.—-A study of 34 pp. on the transmission of the text of Dio. (Wiener Studien, 1899, book 1.)
K. Jacoby.—A review ofBoissevain. (Dio, Vol. 1.—W. Kl. Ph., March 22.)
1900.
Wilh. Crönert.—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.)
—— Mélanges (including Dio XXXVIII, 50, 4). (Wiener Studien, 22nd year, book 2.)
N. Vulić.—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. Kübler.—A review ofBoissevain. (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 thatΕλισων(Dio LIV, 33) is a corrupt reading forΣτιβαρνα= 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). (ΑΘΗΝΑ, Vol. 15.)
H. Peter.—A review ofG.M. Columba(Cassio Dione e del guerre galliche di Cesare.—B.P.W., Sept. 5).
as conjectured by A. von Gutschmid (Kleine Schriften, V, p. 561).
A. Rome under the Kings (Two Books).Book I, B.C. 753-673.Book II, B.C. 672-510.B. Rome under a Republic (Thirty-nine Books).a.) To the End of the Second Punic War (Fifteen Books.)1.) To the Beginning of the Second Samnite War (Five Books):Book III, B.C. 509.Book IV, B.C. 508-493.Book V, B.C. 493-449.Book VI, B.C. 449-390.Book VII, B.C. 390-326.2.) To the Beginning of the Second Punic War (Five Books):Book VIII, B.C. 326-290.Book IX, B.C. 290-278.Book X, B.C. 277-264.Book XI, B.C. 264-250.Book XII, B.C. 250-219.3.) To the End of the Second Punic War (Five Books):Book XIII, B.C. 219-218.Book XIV, B.C. 218-217.Book XV, B.C. 216-211.Book XVI, B.C. 211-206.Book XVII, B.C. 206-201.b.) From the End of the Second Punic War (Twenty-four Books).1.) To the Death of Gaius Gracchus (Eight Books):Book XVIII, B.C. 200-195.Book XIX, B.C. 195-183.Book XX, B.C. 183-149.Book XXI, B.C. 149-146.Book XXII, B.C. 145-140.Book XXIII, B.C. 139-133.Book XXIV, B.C. 133-124.Book XXV, B.C. 124-121.2.) To the Dictatorship of Sulla (Eight Books):Book XXVI, B.C. 120-106.Book XXVII, B.C. 105-101.Book XXVIII, B.C. 100-91.Book XXIX, B.C. 90-89.Book XXX, B.C. 88 (Happenings at Home).Book XXXI, B.C. 88 (Events Abroad) and 87 (Happenings at Home).Book XXXII, B.C. 87 (Events Abroad)-84.Book XXXIII, B.C. 84-82.3.) To the Battle of Pharsalus (Eight Books):Book XXXIV, B.C. 81-79.Book XXXV, B.C. 78-70.Book XXXVI, B.C. 69-66.Book XXXVII, B.C. 65-60.Book XXXVIII, B.C. 59-58.Book XXXIX, B.C. 57-54 (= a.u. 700) (Happenings at Home).Book XL, B.C. 54 (Events Abroad)-50.Book XLI, B.C. 49-48.C. Rome under Political Factions and under the Monarchy (Thirty-nine Books).a.) To the Death of Augustus (Fifteen Books).1.) To the Triumvirate (Five Books):Book XLII, B.C. 48-47.Book XLIII, B.C. 46-44.Book XLIV, B.C. 44.Book XLV, B.C. 44-43.Book XLVI, B.C. 43.2.) To the Bestowal of the Imperial Title upon Augustus (Five Books):Book XLVII, B.C. 43-42.Book XLVIII, B.C. 42-37.Book XLIX, B.C. 36-33.Book L, B.C. 32-Sept. 2, B.C. 31.Book LI, Sept. 2, B.C. 31-29 (= a.u. 725) (Events Abroad).3.) To the Death of Augustus (Five Books):Book LII, B.C. 29 (Happenings at Home).Book LIII, B.C. 28-23.Book LIV, B.C. 22-10.Book LV, B.C. 9-A.D. 8.Book LVI, A.D. 9-14.b.) From the Death of Augustus (Twenty-four Books).1.) To Vespasian (Eight Books):Book LVII, A.D. 14-25.Book LVIII, A.D. 26-37.Book LIX, A.D. 37-41.Book LX, A.D. 41-46.Book LXI, A.D. 47 (= a.u. 800)-59.Book LXII, A.D. 59-68.Book LXIII, A.D. 68-69Book LXIV, A.D. 69-70.2.) To Commodus (Eight Books):Book LXV, A.D. 70-79.Book LXVI, A.D. 79-81.Book LXVII, A.D. 81-96.Book LXVIII, A.D. 96-117.Book LXIX, A.D. 117-138.Book LXX, A.D. 138-161.Book LXXI, A.D. 161-169.Book LXXII, A.D. 169-180.3.) To Dio's Second Consulate (Eight Books).Book LXXIII, A.D. 180-192.Book LXXIV, A.D. 193.Book LXXV, A.D. 193-197.Book LXXVI, A.D. 197-211.Book LXXVII, A.D. 211-217.Book LXXVIII, A.D. 217-218.Book LXXIX, A.D. 218-222.Book LXXX, A.D. 222-229.
Frag.1VII, 1.—Æneas after the Trojan war came to the Aborigines, who were the former inhabitants of the land wherein Rome has been built and at that time had Latinus, the son of Faunus, as their sovereign. He came ashore at Laurentum, by the mouth of the river Numicius, where in obedience to some oracle he is said to have made preparations to dwell.
The ruler of the land, Latinus, interfered with Æneas's settling in the land, but after a sharp struggle was defeated. Then in accordance with dreams that appeared to both leaders they effected a reconciliation and the king beside permitting Æneas to reside there gave him his daughter Lavinia in marriage. Thereupon Æneas founded a city which he named Lavinium and the country was called Latium and the people there were termed Latins. But the Rutuli who occupied adjoining territory had been previously hostile to the Latins, and now they set out from the city of Ardea with warlike demonstrations. They had the support of no less distinguished a man than Turnus, a relative of Latinus, who had taken a dislike to Latinus because of Lavinia's marriage, for it was to him that the maiden had originally been promised. A battle took place, Turnus and Latinus fell, and Æneas gained the victory and his father-in-law's kingdom as well. After a time, however, the Rutuli secured the Etruscans as allies and marched upon Æneas. They won in this war. Æneas vanished, being seen no more alive or dead, and was honored as a god by theLatins. Hence he has come to be regarded by the Romans as the fountain head of their race and they take pride in being called "Sons of Æneas." The Latin domain fell in direct succession to his son Ascanius who had accompanied his father from home. Æneas had not yet had any child by Lavinia, but left her pregnant. Ascanius was enclosed round about by the enemy, but by night the Latins attacked them and ended both the siege and the war.
As time went on the Latin nation increased in size, and the majority of the people abandoned Lavinium to build another town in a better location. To it they gave the name of Alba from its whiteness and from its length they called it Longa (or, as Greeks would say, "white" and "long").
At the death of Ascanius the Latins gave the preference in the matter of royal power to the son borne to Æneas by Lavinia over the son of Ascanius, their preference being founded on the fact that Latinus was his grandfather. The new king's name was Silvius. Silvius begat Æneas, from Æneas sprang Latinus, and Latinus was succeeded by Pastis. Tiberinus, who came subsequently to be ruler, lost his life by falling into a river called the Albula. This river was renamedTiberfrom him. It flows through Rome and is of great value to the city and in the highest degree useful to the Romans. Amulius, a descendant of Tiberinus, displayed an overweening pride and had the audacity to deify himself, pretending an ability to answer thunder with thunder by mechanical contrivances and to lighten in response to the lightnings and to hurl thunderbolts. He met his end by the overflowof the lake beside which his palace was set, and both he and the palace were submerged in the sudden rush of waters. Aventinus his son perished in warfare.
So far the account concerns Lavinium and the people of Alba. At the beginning of Roman history we see Numitor and Amulius, who were grandsons of Aventinus and descendants of Æneas.
B.C. 672(a.u.82)VII, 6.—When Numa died leaving no successor, Tullus Hostilius was chosen by the people and the senate. He followed in the footsteps of Romulus, and both welcomed combats himself and encouraged the people to do the same. The Albanians having become the victims of a marauding expedition on the part of the the Romans, both sides proceeded into battle; before they came into actual conflict, however, they effected a reconciliation and both races decided to dwell together in one city.Frag. 62but as each clung to his own town and insisted that the other race should remove to it, they failed of their object. next they disputed about the leadership. As neither one would yield it to the other,Frag. 62they arranged to have a contest for the sovereignty. They did not care to fight with entire armies nor yet to let the decision be made by a duel of champions. But there were on both sides brethren born three at a birth, the offspring of twin mothers, of like age and alike in strength: the Roman brethren were called Publihoratii and the Albanian Curiatii. These they set into battle over against one another, paying no heed to their relationship. So they, having armed themselves and having arrayed themselves in opposing files in the vacant space between the camps, called upon the same family gods and cast repeated glances upward at the sun. Having joined issue they fought now in groups, now in pairs. Finally, when two of the Romans had fallen and all of the Albanians had been wounded, the remaining Horatius, because he could not withstand the three at once, even were he unwounded, gave way in order that in pursuing him they might be scattered. And when they had become separated in the pursuit,Frag. 62attacking each onehe despatched them all. Then he was given honors. But because he further killed his sister when she lamented on seeing Horatius carrying the spoils of her cousins, he was tried for murder; and having taken an appeal to the people he was released.
The Albanians now became subjects of the Romans, but later they disregarded the compact; and having been summoned, in their capacity of subjects, to serve as allies, they attempted at the crisis of the battle to desert to the enemy and to join in the attack upon the Romans. They were detected, however, and punished: many (including their leader, Mettius) were put to death, and the rest suffered deportation; their city Alba was razed to the ground, after being deemed for five hundred years the mother city of the Romans.
Frag. 64now against the enemy tullus was thought to be very efficient, but he neglected religion. when, however, a pestilence was incurred and he himself fell sick, he turned aside to a godfearing course.He is said to have reached the end of his life by being consumed by lightning[5]or else as the result of a plot formed by Ancus Marcius, who happened to be (as has been stated) a son of Numa's daughter. He was king of the Romans thirty-two years.
VII, 7.—When Hostilius died, Marcius succeeded to the kingdom, receiving it as a voluntary gift from the Romans. And he was not perfect in his arm, for he was maimed at the joint (or bend), whence he got the title Ancus (bent arm). Though gentle he was compelled toFrag.7change his habitsand he turned his attention to campaigns. For the rest of the Latins, on account of the destruction of Alba and in fear that they themselves might suffer some similar disaster, were angry at the Romans. As long as Tullus survived, they humbled themselves, dreading his reputation for warfare: but thinking that Marcius was easy to attack because of his peaceful disposition, they assailed his territory and pillaged it. He,Frag.7comprehending that peace could be caused by war, attacked the attackers, defended his position, and captured their cities, one of which he razed to the ground, and treated many of the men taken as slaves and transferred many others to Rome. As the Romans grew and land was added to their domain, the neighboring peoples were displeased and set themselves at odds with the Romans. Hence the latter had to overcome the Fidenates by siege, and they damaged the Sabines by falling upon them while scattered and seizing their camp, and by terrifying others they got them to embrace peace even contrary to inclination. After this the life-stint of Marcius was exhausted, when he had ruled for twenty-four years, being a man that paid strict attention to religion according to the manner of his grandfather Numa.
VII, 8.—The sovereignty was now appropriated by Lucius Tarquinius, who was the son of Demaratus a Corinthian, borne to the latter by a native womanafter he had been exiled and had taken up his abode in Tarquinii, an Etruscan city; the boy had been named Lucumo. And though he inherited much wealth from his father, yet, because as an immigrant he was not deemed worthy of the highest offices by the people of Tarquinii, he removed to Rome, changing his appellation along with his city; and he changed his name to Lucius Tarquinius,—from the city in which he dwelt. It is said that as he was journeying to his new home an eagle swooped down and snatched the cap which he had on his head, and after soaring aloft and screaming for some time placed it again exactly upon his head: wherefore he was inspired to hope for no small advancement and eagerly took up his residence in Rome. Hence not long after he was numbered among the foremost men.Frag. 8for by using his wealth quite lavishly and by winning over the nobles through his intelligence and wit he was included among the patricians and in the senate by marcius, was appointed prætor, and was entrusted with the supervision of the king's children and of the kingdom. he showed himself an excellent man, sharing his money with those in need and bestowing his services readily if any one needed him to help. he neither did nor said anything mean to any one. if he received a kindness from persons he made much of the attention, whereas if any offence was offered him, he either disregarded the injury or minimized it and made light of it, and far from making reprisals upon the man that had done the injury, he wouldeven benefit him. thus he came to dominate both marcius himself and his circle, and acquired the reputation of being a sensible and upright man.
But the aforesaid estimate of him did not continue permanently. For at the death of Marcius he behaved in a knavish way to the latter's two sons and made the kingdom his own. The senate and the people were intending to elect the children of Marcius, when Tarquinius made advances to the most influential of the senators;—he had first sent the fatherless boys to some distant point on a hunting expedition:—and by his talk and his efforts he got these men to vote him the kingdom on the understanding that he would restore it to the children when they had attained manhood. And after assuming control of affairs he so disposed the Romans that they should never wish to choose the children in preference to him: the lads he accustomed to indolence and ruined their souls and bodies by a kind of kindness. As he still felt afraid in spite of being so placed, he secured some extra strength for himself in the senate. Those of the populace who felt friendly towards him he enrolled (to the number of about two hundred) among the patricians and the senators, and thus he put both the senate and the people within his own control. He altered his raiment, likewise, to a more magnificent style. It consisted of toga and tunic, purple all over and shot with gold, of a crown of precious stones set in gold, and of ivory sceptre and chair, which were later used by various officials and especially by those that held sway as emperors. He also on theoccasion of a triumph paraded with a four-horse chariot and kept twelve lictors for life.
He would certainly have introduced still other and more numerous innovations, had not Attus Navius prevented him, when he desired to rearrange the tribes: this man was an augur whose equal has never been seen. Tarquinius, angry at his opposition, took measures to abase him and to bring his art into contempt. So, putting into his bosom a whetstone and a razor, he went among the populace having in his mind that the whetstone should be cut by the razor,—a thing that is impossible. He said all that he wished, and when Attus vehemently opposed him, he said, still yielding not a particle: "If you are not opposing me out of quarrelsomeness, but are speaking the truth, answer me in the presence of all these witnesses whether what I have in mind to do shall be performed." Attus, having taken an augury on almost the very spot, replied immediately: "Verily, O King, what you intend shall be fulfilled." "Well, then," said the other, "take this whetstone and cut it through with this razor; this is what I have had in mind to come to pass." Attus at once took the stone and cut it through. Tarquinius, in admiration, heaped various honors upon him, accorded him the privilege of a bronze image, and did not again make any change in the established constitution, but employed Attus as a counselor on all matters.
He fought against the Latins who had revolted, and afterwards against the Sabines, who, aided by the Etruscans as allies, had invaded the Roman country;and he conquered them all. He discovered that one of the priestesses of Vesta, who are required by custom to remain virgins all their life, had been seduced by a man, whereupon he arranged a kind of underground chamber with a long passage, and after placing in it a bed, a light, and a table nearly full of foods, he brought thither the unchaste woman escorted by a procession and having introduced her alive into the room walled it up. From his institution this plan of punishing those of the priestesses that do not keep their virginity has continued to prevail. The men that outrage them have their necks inserted in cloven pillars in the Forum, and then are maltreated naked until they give up the ghost.
However, an attack was made upon Tarquinius by the children of Marcius because he would not yield the sovereignty to them, but instead placed a certain Tullius, borne to him by a slave woman, at the head of them all. This more than anything else displeased the patricians. The young men interested some of the latter class in their cause and formed a plot against the king. They arrayed two men like rustics, equipped with axes and scythes, and made them ready to attack him. So these two, when they did not find Tarquinius in the Forum, went to the royal court (pretending, of course, to have a dispute with each other) and asked for admission to his presence. Their request was granted and they began to make opposing arguments, and while Tarquinius was giving his attention to one of them pleading his cause, the other slew him.
VII, 9.—Such was the end that befell Tarquinius who had ruled for thirty-eight years. By the coöperation of Tanaquil, wife of Tarquinius, Tullius succeeded to the kingdom of Rome. He was the child of a certain woman named Ocrisia, the wife of Spurius Tullius, a Latin; she had been captured in the war and chosen by Tarquinius: she had either become pregnant at home or conceived after her capture; both stories are current. When Tullius had reached boyhood he went to sleep on a chair once in the daytime and a quantity of fire seemed to leap from his head. Tarquinius, seeing it, took an active interest in the child and on his arriving at maturity had him enrolled among the patricians and in the senate.
The murderers of Tarquinius were arrested and his wife and Tullius learned the plan of the plot; but instead of making Tarquinius's death known at once, they took him up and tended him (pretending that he was still alive), and meantime exchanged mutual pledges that Tullius should take the sovereignty but surrender it to Tanaquil's sons when they became men. And when the multitude ran together and raised an outcry, Tanaquil, leaning out of an upper story, said: "Be not afraid. My husband both lives and shall be seen by you shortly. But in order that he may regain health at leisure and that no hindrance to business may arise from his being incapacitated, he entrusts the management of the public weal for the present to Tullius." These were her words and the people not unwillingly accepted Tullius: for he was thought to be an upright man.
So, having been granted the administration of public affairs, he managed them for the most part according to orders supposed to emanate from Tarquinius.Frag.9but when he saw the people obeying him in all points, he brought the assassins of Tarquinius before the senate, though, to be sure, only because of their plot; for he was still pretending that the king was still alive. They were sentenced and put to death, and the sons of Marcius through fear took refuge among the Volsci. Then did Tullius reveal the death of Tarquinius and openly take possession of the kingdom. At first he put forward the children of Tarquinius as his excuse and caused it to be understood that he was the guardian of their royal office, but afterward he proceeded to pay court to the people, believing that he could secure control of the multitude very much more easily than of the patricians. He gave them money, assigned land to each individual, and made preparations to free the slaves and adopt them into tribes. As the nobles were irritated at this, he gave instructions that those liberated should perform some services, in requital, for the men that had liberated them. Now since the patricians were disaffected in the matter of his aspirations and circulated among other sayings one to the effect that no one had chosen him to hold the sovereignty, he gathered the people and harangued them. And by the use of many alluring statements he so disposed them toward himself that they at once voted the kingdom to him outright. He in return bestowed many gifts upon them and enrolled some of them in the senate.These originally in most matters were at a disadvantage as compared with the patricians, but as time went on they shared equally with the patricians in everything save the office of interrex and the priesthoods, and were distinguished from them in no respect except by their shoes. For the shoes of the patricians were made ornate by the addition of straps and the imprint of the letter, which were intended to signify that they were descended from the original hundred men that had been senators. The letter R, they say, either indicates the number of the hundred men referred to or else is used as the initial of the name of the Romans.