Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79)

by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

  [4] ἔφησε, δυεῖν ὄντων κακῶν, ὧν ἀνάγκη θάτερον ἄκοντας ὑπομεῖναι, τοῦτ᾽ αὐτῷ δοκεῖν εἶναι λυσιτελέστερον, τὸ συγχωρῆσαι τῷ δήμῳ τὴν βουλὴν παρασπάσαί τι τοῦ κόσμου τῆς πατρίου πολιτείας μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις [p. 209] τε καὶ πολεμίοις καταγέλαστον ποιῆσαι τὴν πόλιν.

  [4] and he declared that, there being two evils to one or the other of which they were bound to submit unwillingly, it seemed to him to be more expedient that the senate should permit the people to usurp a portion of the orderly constitution of the fathers rather than make the commonwealth a laughing-stock to other nations and to its enemies.

  [5] ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν τὴν δοκιμασθεῖσαν ὑπὸ τῶν παραγενηθέντων ἐν τῷ κατ᾽ οἰκίαν συνεδρίῳ γνώμην εἰσέφερεν, ἣν εἰσηγήσατο Κλαύδιος, ὥσπερ ἔφην, ἀντὶ τῶν ὑπάτων χιλιάρχους ἀποδειχθῆναι, τρεῖς μὲν ἐκ τῶν πατρικίων, τρεῖς δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν δημοτικῶν, ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντας ὑπατικήν: ὅταν δὲ τελῶσιν οὗτοι τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ καθήκῃ νέας ἀρχὰς ἀποδείκνυσθαι, τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὸν δῆμον αὖθις συνελθόντας διαγνῶναι, πότερον ὑπάτους ἢ χιλιάρχους βούλονται παραλαβεῖν τὴν ἀρχήν. ὅ τι δ᾽ ἂν ἅπασι δόξῃ ψῆφον ἐπενέγκασι, τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι κύριον. ἐπιτελεῖσθαι δὲ τὸ προβούλευμα καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτόν.

  [5] Having said this, he offered the motion which had been approved by those who had been present at the meeting held in a private house, the motion made by Claudius, as I related, to the effect that, instead of consuls, military tribunes should be appointed, three from the patricians and three from the plebeians, these to have consular authority; that after they had completed the term of their magistracy and it was time to appear the new magistrates, the senate and people should again assemble and decide whether they wished consuls or military tribunes to assume the office, and that whichever course met with the approval of all the voters should prevail; moreover, that the preliminary decree should be passed each year.

  [1] ταύτην ἀποδειξαμένου τὴν γνώμην Γενυκίου πολὺς ἐξ ἁπάντων ἔπαινος ἐγίνετο, καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἀνιστάμενοι μικροῦ δεῖν πάντες ταῦτα συνεχώρουν κράτιστα εἶναι. γράφεται δὴ τὸ προβούλευμα ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπάτων, καὶ λαβόντες αὐτὸ μετὰ πολλῆς χαρᾶς οἱ δήμαρχοι προῆλθον εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν. ἔπειτα καλέσαντες τὸ πλῆθος εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, πολλοὺς διέθεντο τῆς βουλῆς ἐπαίνους, καὶ παραγγέλλειν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκέλευον τοῖς ἐθέλουσι τῶν δημοτικῶν ἅμα τοῖς πατρικίοις.

  [61.1] This motion of Genucius was received with general applause, and almost all who rose up after him conceded that this was the best course. The preliminary decree was accordingly drawn up by order of the consuls; and the tribunes, receiving it with great joy, proceeded to the Forum. Then they called an assembly of the people, and after giving much praise to the senate, urged such of the plebeians as cared to do so to stand for this magistracy together with the patricians.

  [2] οὕτω δ᾽ ἄρα κοῦφόν τι πρᾶγμά ἐστιν ἐπιθυμία δίχα λόγου γινομένη καὶ ταχὺ μεταπῖπτον ἐπὶ θάτερα μέρη, μάλιστα δ᾽ ἡ τῶν ὄχλων, ὥσθ᾽ οἱ περὶ παντὸς ποιούμενοι τέως τῆς ἀρχῆς μεταλαβεῖν καί, εἰ μὴ δοθείη τοῦτ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν πατρικίων, ἢ καταλείψοντες τὴν [p. 210] πόλιν ὡς πρότερον, ἢ διὰ τῶν ὅπλων αὐτὸ ληψόμενοι, ἐπειδὴ τὸ συγχώρημα ἔλαβον, ἀπέστησαν εὐθὺς τῆς ἐπιθυμίας καὶ τὰς σπουδὰς ἐπὶ θάτερον μετέβαλον.

  [2] But such a fickle thing, it seems, is desire apart from reason and so quickly does it veer the other way, particularly in the case of the masses, that those who hitherto had regarded it as a matter of supreme importance to have a share in the magistracy and, if this were not granted to them by the patricians, were ready either to abandon the city, as they had done before, or to seize the privilege by force of arms, now, when they had obtained the concession, promptly relinquished their desire for it and transferred their enthusiasm in the opposite direction.

  [3] πολλῶν γέ τοι δημοτικῶν παραγγελλόντων τὴν χιλιαρχίαν καὶ κατεσπουδασμένας ποιουμένων τὰς δεήσεις, οὐδένα τῆς τιμῆς ταύτης ἄξιον εἶναι ὑπέλαβον, ἀλλὰ γενόμενοι τῆς ψήφου κύριοι τοὺς ἐκ τῶν πατρικίων μετιόντας αὐτὴν ἄνδρας ἐπιφανεῖς χιλιάρχους ἀποδεικνύουσιν, Αὖλον Σεμπρώνιον Ἀτρατῖνον καὶ Λεύκιον Ἀτίλιον Λοῦσκον καὶ Τίτον Κλύλιον Σικελόν.

  [3] At any rate, though many plebeians stood for the military tribuneship and used the most earnest solicitations to obtain it, the people thought none of them worthy of this honour but, when they came to give their votes, chose the patrician candidates, men of distinction, namely Aulus Sempronius Atratinus, Lucius Atilius Luscus and Titus Cloelius Siculus.

  [1] οὗτοι παραλαμβάνουσι πρῶτοι τὴν ἀνθύπατον ἀρχὴν κατὰ τὸν τρίτον ἐνιαυτὸν τῆς ὀγδοηκοστῆς καὶ τετάρτης ὀλυμπιάδος ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Διφίλου. μετασχόντες δ᾽ αὐτῆς ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ τρεῖς μόνον ἡμέρας ἀποτίθενται κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον ἐθισμὸν ἑκούσιοι, θεοπέμπτων τινῶν σημείων κωλυτηρίων αὐτοῖς τοῦ

  [62.1] These men were the first to assume the proconsular power, in the third year of the eighty-fourth Olympiad, when Diphilus was archon at Athens. But after holding it for only seventy-three days they voluntarily resigned it, in accordance with the ancient custom, when some heaven-sent omens occurred to prevent their continuing to conduct the public business.

  [2] πράττειν τὰ κοινὰ γενομένων. τούτων δὲ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἀπειπαμένων ἡ βουλὴ συνελθοῦσα μεσοβασιλεῖς ἀποδείκνυσι. καὶ ἐκεῖνοι προειπόντες ἀρχαιρέσια καὶ τῷ δήμῳ τὴν διάγνωσιν ἀποδιδόντες, εἴτε βούλεται χιλιάρχους εἴτε ὑπάτους ἀποδεῖξαι, κρίναντος αὐτοῦ μένειν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐθισμοῖς, ἀπέδοσαν τοῖς βουλομένοις τῶν πατρικίων μετιέναι τὴν ὕπατον ἀρχήν: καὶ γίνονται πάλιν ἐκ τῶν πατρικίων ὕπατοι Λεύκιος Παπίριος Μογιλλᾶνος καὶ Λεύκιος Σεμπρώνιος Ἀτρατῖνος, ἑνὸς [p. 211]

  [2] After these men had abdicated their power, the senate met and chose interreges, who, having appointed a day for the election of magistrates, left the decision to the people whether they desired to choose military tribunes or consuls; and the people having decided to abide by their original customs, they gave leave to such of the patricians as so desired to stand for the consulship. Two of the patricians were again elected consuls,
Lucius Papirius Mugillanus and Lucius Sempronius Atratinus, brother to one of the men who had resigned the military tribuneship.

  [3] τῶν ἀποθεμένων τὴν χιλιαρχίαν ἀδελφός. αὗται δύο κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ἀρχαὶ Ῥωμαίων αἱ τὸ μέγιστον ἔχουσαι κράτος ἐγένοντο: πλὴν οὐκ ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς Ῥωμαικαῖς χρονογραφίαις ἀμφότεραι φέρονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν αἷς μὲν οἱ χιλίαρχοι μόνον, ἐν αἷς δ᾽ οἱ ὕπατοι, ἐν οὐ πολλαῖς δ᾽ ἀμφότεροι, αἷς ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἄνευ λογισμοῦ συγκατατιθέμεθα, πιστεύοντες δὲ ταῖς ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν τε καὶ ἀποθέτων βίβλων μαρτυρίαις.

  [3] These two magistracies, both invested with the supreme power, governed the Romans in the course of the same year. However, both are not recorded in all the Roman annals, but in some the military tribunes only, in others the consuls, and in a few both of them. I agree with the last group, not without reason, but relying on the testimony of the sacred and secret books.

  [4] ἄλλο μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν ἐπὶ τῆς τούτων ἀρχῆς οὔτε πολεμικὸν οὔτε πολιτικὸν ἔργον ἱστορίας ἄξιον ἐπράχθη, συνθῆκαι δὲ πρὸς τὴν Ἀρδεατῶν πόλιν ἐγένοντο περὶ φιλίας τε καὶ συμμαχίας: ἐπρεσβεύσαντο γὰρ ἀποτιθέμενοι τὰ περὶ τῆς χώρας ἐγκλήματα παρακαλοῦντες φίλοι Ῥωμαίων γενέσθαι καὶ σύμμαχοι. ταύτας τὰς συνθήκας τὸ τῶν ὑπάτων ἀρχεῖον ἐπεκύρωσε.

  [4] No event, either military or civil, worthy of the notice of history happened during their magistracy, except a treaty of friendship and alliance entered into with the Ardeates; for these, dropping their complaints about the disputed territory, had sent ambassadors, asking to be admitted among the friends and allies of the Romans. This treaty was ratified by the consuls.

  [1] τῷ δ᾽ ἑξῆς ἐνιαυτῷ πάλιν ὑπάτους ψηφισαμένου τοῦ δήμου κατασταθῆναι παραλαμβάνουσι τὴν ὕπατον ἀρχὴν τῇ διχομήνιδι τοῦ Δεκεμβρίου μηνὸς Μάρκος Γεγάνιος Μακερῖνος τὸ δεύτερον καὶ Τίτος Κοίντιος Καπιτωλῖνος τὸ πέμπτον.

  [63.1] The following year, the people having voted that consuls should again be appointed, Marcus Geganius Macerinus (for the second time) and Titus Quintius Capitolinus (for the fifth time) entered upon the consulship on the ides of December.

  [2] οὗτοι διδάξαντες τὴν βουλήν, ὅτι πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα πράγματα διὰ τὰς συνεχεῖς τῶν ὑπάτων στρατείας ἠμελημένα παρεῖται, πάντων δ᾽ ἀναγκαιότατον τὸ περὶ τὰς τιμήσεις τῶν βίων νόμιμον, ἐξ ὧν ὅ τ᾽ ἀριθμὸς τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν στρατεύσιμον ἡλικίαν ἐγινώσκετο καὶ τῶν χρημάτων τὸ πλῆθος, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔδει τὰς εἰς τὸν πόλεμον εἰσφορὰς ἕκαστον τελεῖν, οὐδεμιᾶς τιμήσεως ἐντὸς ἑπτακαίδεκα [p. 212] ἐτῶν γενομένης ἀπὸ τῆς Λευκίου Κορνηλίου καὶ Κοίντου Φαβίου ὑπατείας: ὥστε καταλιπεῖν οἱ πονηρότατοί τε καὶ ἀσελγέστατοι Ῥωμαίων, ἀλλὰ τόπον μεταλαμβάνειν, ἐν ᾧ περίεστι ζῆν αὐτοῖς, ὡς προῄρηνται.

  [2] These men pointed out to the senate that many things had been overlooked and neglected by reason of the continuous military expeditions of the consuls, and particularly the most essential matter of all, the custom relating to the census, by which the number of such as were of military age was ascertained, together with the amount of their fortunes, in proportion to which every man was to pay his contributions for war. There had been no census for seventeen years, since the consulship of Lucius Cornelius and Quintus Fabius, so that . . . the basest and most licentious of the Romans shall leave (be left?), but remove to some place in which they may live as they have elected to live.

  The Biography

  Relief found in Neumagen near Trier: a teacher with three discipuli, c. AD 185. In Rome Dionysius was a teacher of rhetoric, most likely giving private lessons; in one of his treatises addressed to a pupil he refers to ‘our daily exercises.’

  INTRODUCTION TO DIONYSIUS by Earnest Cary

  CONTENTS

  LIFE OF DIONYSIUS

  THE ROMAN ANTIQUITIES

  SCRIPTA RHETORICA

  MANUSCRIPTS

  EDITIONS

  TRANSLATIONS

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  SIGLA

  LIFE OF DIONYSIUS

  THE few facts known about the life of Dionysius are virtually all given us by the author himself. At the close of the preface to the Roman Antiquities (chap. 8) he announces himself as Dionysius, the son of Alexander, and a native of Halicarnassus. He also informs us (chap. 7) that he had come to Italy at the time when Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war in the middle of the 187th Olympiad (late in 30 B.C. or in 29), and that he had spent the following twenty-two years in acquainting himself with the language and the literature of the Romans, in gathering his materials, and in writing his History. The preface is dated (chap. 3) in the consulship of Nero and Piso (7 B.C.), and the first part, at least, of the work must have been published at that time. It is generally assumed that the entire History appeared then; but in Book VII. (70, 2) Dionysius refers to Book I. as having been already published. This leaves it an open question in how many instalments and at what intervals he issued the work. We do not know the exact date of his birth; but two casual statements in the History enable us to fix it within certain limits. He cites the disastrous campaign of Crassus against the Parthians as an event of his own lifetime (ii. 6, 4); and in describing the erection of the original Capitol he states that the new edifice, ‘built in the days of our fathers,’ stood on the same foundations as the old (iv. 61, 4). The first of these passages shows that he was born at least as early as 53, and perhaps as early as 54 or 55, since the reference may very well be to the whole Parthian expedition. The second allusion is more indefinite. The new Capitol, begun by Sulla shortly after the burning of the old structure in 83, was formally dedicated by Catulus in 69; nevertheless, as late as the beginning of 62 Caesar, in bringing charges of embezzlement against Catulus, claimed that many parts of the temple were still but half finished and accordingly wished to have Pompey entrusted with the completion of the work. We do not know how much justification there was for Caesar’s action, though it is evident that it was primarily a political move; in any case, he was unsuccessful, and Catulus’ name remained on the pediment of the temple. Whether Dionysius knew of Caesar’s charges or attached any importance to them we can only conjecture. Egger, taking these charges seriously, argued that Dionysius must have been born after 63; yet it is just as natural to believe that the historian dated the temple by the official dedication. The two passages, then, give as extreme limits for the date of Dionysius’ birth 69 and 53, with some possibility of the narrower limits of 62 and 55. Modern scholars have generally assumed a date between 60 and 55, from the feeling that Dionysius must have been a fairly young man when he came to Rome and undertook to master a new language and literature. The only other reference in an ancient author to the time when Dionysius lived is even more indefinite than those just quoted. Strabo (ca. 63 B.C. — ca. 21 A.D.), in speaking of Halicarnassus, names, as authors who claimed that city as their birthplace, Herodotus, Heracleitus the poet, and, ‘in our time,’ Dionysius the historian (xiv. 2, 16).

  Halicarnassus had declined greatly i
n importance after the time of Maussolus, and finally suffered grievously at the hands of the pirates not far from the time when Dionysius was born. It was given a new lease of life by Quintus Cicero while he was serving as governor of Asia (61-58), if we may believe the enthusiastic tribute paid him by his brother. Such was the city in which Dionysius apparently spent his youth and early manhood. Whether he composed any of his rhetorical treatises while still residing there is uncertain; but it is generally held that they were all written at Rome.

  In Rome Dionysius was a teacher of rhetoric, probably giving private lessons; in one of his treatises addressed to a pupil he refers to ‘our daily exercises.’ From these shorter works, which took the form of letters addressed to friends, patrons or pupils, we learn the names of a number of his friends and associates; but unfortunately they are, with one or two exceptions, otherwise unknown to us. Aelius Tubcro may have been the historian and jurist who was consul in 11 B.C., the same historian who is praised in the Antiquities (i. 80, 1). Melitius Rufus, a pupil, and his father, whom Dionysius calls a most valued friend, were evidently Romans. Cn. Pompcius Geminus may well have been a Greek, in spite of his name; Ammaeus also was probably a Greek, and so almost certainly were Demetrius and Zeno. Caecilius of Calacte, who is styled a dear friend, was a rhetorician and historian of whom a good deal is known In the introduction to the History (chap. 7) Dionysius states that he gained some of his information orally from most learned men (Romans by implication) with whom he came in contact. It would be interesting indeed to know the names of some of these men and how intimately he associated with them; but, with the possible exception of Aelius Tubero, he nowhere names a contemporary Roman author, although he pays tribute to the many excellent works that were being produced in his day, — histories, speeches and philosophical treatises, — by both Romans and Greeks. From the circumstance that he gives particular credit to the ruling classes of Rome for the recent purification of literary taste, Roberts suggests that he may have been ‘influenced more directly... by the Roman men of affairs with whom (or with whose sons) his vocation brought him into contact than by any Roman man of letters.’ One avowed purpose in writing his History was to make a grateful return to Rome for the education and other advantages he had enjoyed there; and this certainly suggests that he felt he had been made welcome in Rome.