xlviii
DIODORUS SICULUS.
Augustus, the history of the Boman republic was closed like
the temple of Janus. Every one had now gained the full
conviction that no remedy could be expected from the forms
of the law, but that it was necessary to keep the state together
from without like a mass of heterogeneous things ; and this con-
viction had, of course, its influence upon the historians of the
age, for after such events history appears in quite a different
light, and is written in a different manner. During this period
there appeared many historians, just as had been the case in
Greece after the fall of the Athenian state. After the death of
Caesar, Diodorus Siculus wrote his work, hut on such a plan,
that the history of Bome formed only a secondary part of it.
It is not improbable that Timaeus too, in his history of Italy
and Sicily, had interwoven that of Eome, but only for the very
early times. Diodorus entertained the idea which could occur
to no one but a person devoid of judgment, of writing the
whole of ancient history in a synchronistic form, at first in
masses, and afterwards year by year down to the consulship of
Caesar, when he entered upon his Gallic war. He concluded
his work with the period previous to the outbreak of the civil
war in order to avoid taking in his account the side of either
party. This was, however, a suitable epoch, as he probably
composed his work before the termination of the disturbances.
From his introduction it is evident that he wrote his history
after Caesar’s death, for he there mentions that event, and calls
Caesar Divus. Scaliger hit upon the unfortunate idea of in-
ferring from a passage (i.68), that Diodorus did not write till
the year 746, and consequently left unwritten the history of the
fifty years immediately preceding his own time. This opinion
passed from Scaliger into the work of Vossius “ De Historicis
Graecis et Latinis,” and thence into Fabricius’ uBibliotheca
Graeca.” The passage states of the Olympiads, that they were
a period of four years, called by the Eomans bisseætum ; hence
Scaliger infers, that he could not have written before the year
746, because in that year Augustus fixed the intercalation
every four years. This interpretation is highly ingenious ; but
the passage is an interpolation, as has been observed by
some of the earlier commentators, and by ail the later ones, so
that Wesseling even removed it from the text. The expression
χpovo<; for year, which there occurs, is modern Greek, just as
tempus is used in the sense of annus after the fifth century.
DIONYSIUS OF HALICABNASSUS. χliχ
Diodorus is an interpolated author; the falsifications were
made at the time of the revival of letters, when MSS. were
greatly in request and were dearly paid for. They consist
chiefly of omissions. From the eleventh down to the twentieth
book there are sometimes Fasti which do not agree at all
with our Fasti; and it is often impossible to identify the names
which occur in them. His accounts of the earliest times were
probably taken from Fabius; where Polybius began, he seems
to have used him also down to the year 608 ; he may, more-
over, have availed himself of Posidonius, Rutilius, Sulla, and
LucuIIus.
We now come to the two great historians, who simultaneously
composed their works on Roman history. In the introduction
to his work, Dionysius gives a full account of himself and of
the time at which he wrote. FIe came to Rome after the end
of the civil war between Augustus and Antony, and remained
there twenty-two years, which he spent in preparing his work.
It was published in the year 743, according to Cato (745 ac-
cording to Varro)16, for it is evident that the passage to which
I allude, is not to be understood of the time when he began
writing, but of the time when he wrote his introduction and
prefixed it to his work. He calls himself a son of Alexander
of Halicarnassus, and he came to Rome in the capacity of a
rhetorician. His rhetorical works, which belong to an earlier
period than his history, surpass all others of the kind in excel-
lence, with the exception of those of Aristotle : they are full of
the most exquisite remarks and criticisms, the opinions of an
amiable man of refined judgment, and we have therefore the more
reason to lament that the texts are so much corrupted. I be-
lieve that it is Dionysius whom Strabo17 mentions under the
name of Caecilius; for if he obtained the Roman franchise, he
must also have received the name of a Roman gens.18 A Cae-
cilius is mentioned in the lives of the ten orators which are
ascribed to Plutarch1», and some have been of opinion that this
is the same Caecilius who was quaestor under Verres in Sicily
and afterwards wanted to come forward as his accuser; but I
suspect that the Caecilius in the lives of the ten orators is
16 Dionys. ɪ. 7. 17 V p. 352, ed. Alm.
lβ Atticus too is mentioned under the name of Caecilius (Sueton. Tiber, c. 7),
but this occurs seldom; and it is not likely that he should be meant. — N.
19P 8'I2, E. Compare Plutarch, Demosth. 3.
VOL.I. e