Originally Posted by Duke Leto

Utterly irrelevant, but I find that Cassius Dio is far more interesting if you pretend he was related to Ronnie Dio.

Originally Posted by Toto

This is misleading. The Christian references are not presented as the words of Cassius Dio, but clearly as a comment from the later editor. No one thinks that Dio Cassius referred to Christians in the section on the Thundering Legion Rain Miracle. The Christian commentators know that he had a pagan explanation for the miracle.

... Quote: When you find Christian interpolations, there is usually a clear motive and pattern: miracles happen, or virgins are martyred, or high status philosophers or statemen admire Christians. Here is the known and acknowledged Christian reference interpolation into the books of Marcus Aurelius ..... Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE) is located at Meditations, 11:3. Here is George Long's English translation: "What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show." There is no admiration here, yet this reference has been interpolated.

Originally Posted by Toto

No, that doesn't make sense. It looks like an ad hoc attempt to support your theory that Christianity dates from the 4th century.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

He doesn't need to. It's common knowledge. And it's not just one source. Herodian I think is another. Lampridius is another.

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Arguments which consist of "sometimes marginal material finds its way into the text, therefore any passage may be inauthentic" leave me cold.

Could someone enlighten me as to where this consensus about this passage comes from?

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I fear that this interesting discussion is getting too far away from the data.

///


Firstly, an epitome is a condensed version of a text. During the Dark Ages, when people were busy doing other things, the lengthier works of Greek historians such as Cassius Dio were condensed, to produce something less interminable. John Xiphilinus produced an epitome of part of the work (from a manuscript damaged at points); John Zonaras did the same for another. These writers wanted to preserve the original, as they wanted to be able to mimic the style of the Greek, and so they quote whole sentences. The abbreviated versions proved popular, and there are apparently quite a few manuscripts of Xiphilinus, or so I learn from the Loeb edition.

Quite a bit of Greek literature has survived in such epitomes; Photius, for instance, made an epitome of the Church History by the Arian Philostorgius. Naturally such epitomes reflect the interests of the compilers. But it seems odd to suppose that they would casually *add* things to them; their interest was rather in transmitting the text, in an abbreviated form.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Please provide the Cassius Dio reference Kent.

Originally Posted by Toto

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/73*.html

Originally Posted by Earnest Cary

About one third of Dio's History has come down to us intact. The extant portions are: (a) Books XXXIV-LX (in large part), continued in eleven Mss.; (b) Book LXXVIII with part of LXXIX (or LXXIX with part of LXXX according to Boissevain's division), preserved in a single Ms.; (c) the Paris fragments describing events of the years 207‑200 B.C., recovered from the binding of a Strabo Ms.

p. xx For our knowledge of the lost portions of Dio's work we have two kinds of sources: (1) Excerpts contained in various Byzantine collections, together with brief quotations made by lexicographers and grammarians; and (2) Epitomes by Zonaras and Xiphilinus, supplemented by occasional citations in other historical writers. The quotations of the first class may be supposed to give, as a rule, the very words of Dio, subject of course to necessary changes in phraseology at the beginning, and sometimes at the end, and to occasional omission elsewhere of portions unessential to the excerptor's purpose. These constitute the Fragments of our author in the strict sense of the term. The Epitomes, on the other hand, while they often repeat entire sentences of Dio verbatim, or nearly so (as may readily be seen by comparing extant portions of the histories with Zonaras or Xiphilinus), must, nevertheless, be regarded as essentially paraphrases. A brief description of these various sources follows:

(1) The Excerpts De Virtutibus et Vitiis (V) are found in a Ms. of the tenth century, the Codex Peirescianus, now in the library of Tours. It was first published in 1634 by Henri de Valois, whence the fragments are sometimes called Excerpta Valesiana, as well as Peiresciana. The collection consists (at present) of quotations from fourteen historians, extending from Herodotus to Malalas. From Dio p. xxithere are 415 excerpts, and the Ms. originally contained still more.

The Excerpts De Sententiis (M) are contained in a Vatican palimpsest (Vaticanus Graecus 73) of the tenth or eleventh century. The Ms. is in very bad condition; numerous leaves were discarded and the others disarranged when the Ms. was used for the second writing. Angelo Mai, who first published the collection in 1826, employed chemical reagents to bring out the letters and even then had to despair of many passages. Since his use of the Ms. the letters have naturallya faded still more, and parts of some leaves have been covered in the work of repair. The excerpts attributed to Dio are drawn from nearly all periods of Roman history, and fall into two groups, the first extending down to 216 B.C., the other from 40 B.C. to the reign of Constantine; between the two portions several leaves, and probably entire quaternions, have been lost from the Ms. That the former set of fragments is taken from Dio none will deny. The later collection, extends much beyond the reign of Alexander Severus, where Dio ended his history; furthermore, the style and diction are considerably different from Dio's own. It is now generally agreed that all the excerpts of this second set were the work of one man, whom Boissevain, following Niebuhr, would identify with Petrus Patricius, a historian of the sixth century. Nevertheless, though not direct p. xxiiquotations from Dio, they are of value in filling out both his account and that of Xiphilinus.

The Excerpts De Legationibus — Embassies (a) of the Foreign Nations to the Romans (UG) and (b) of the Romans to Foreign Nations (UR) — appear in nine Mss., all derived from a Spanish archetype (since destroyed by fire) owned by Juan Paez de Castro in the sixteenth century. First published by Fulvio Orsini in 1582, and hence called Excerpta Ursiniana.

The three collections thus far named are known collectively as the Excerpta Constantiniana. They formed a small part of a great encyclopedia of more than fifty subjects, compiled under the direction of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenetus (A.D. 912‑59). They have recently been reëdited by Boissevain, de Boor, and Büttner-Wobst (Berlin, 1903‑06).

The Florilegium (Flor.) of Maximus the Confessor contains excerpts from various authors, the first of which is Virtue and Vice. Mai first published a number of fragments of Dio from this collection (from a Vatican Ms.), but inserted several which have since been rejected. There are at least six Mss. of the Florilegium containing excerpts from Dio. From one of these (Parisinus 1169, of the fourteenth or fifteenth century) Boissevain adds to the previous fragments No. 55, 31a and 3b23

p. xxiii The short syntactical lexicon (Περὶ Συντάξεως (published in Bekker's Anecdota Graeca (vol. I pp117‑180) contains nearly 140 brief citations from Dio, nearly all of which are assigned to their several books, though unfortunately many of the numbers have been corrupted. On the basis of these citations, compared with the epitomes, von Gutschmid and Boissevain independently attempted to determine the points of division between the lost books of Dio, and reached essentially the same results. Yet in several places the evidence is insufficient to constitute more than a reasonable probability.24

The lexicon of Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, and a few other compilations of like character are also useful in affording occasional citations from Dio, often by book-number.

(2) Zonaras was private secretary to the emperor Alexis I. Comnenus in the early part of the twelfth century; later he retired to a monastery on Mt. Athos and devoted himself to literary labours. Among various works which he left is his Ἐπιτομὴ Ἱστοριῶν, a history of the world, in eighteen books, extending from the creation down to the death of Alexis in 1118. It has been satisfactorily shown that for Books VII‑IX, in which Roman history is carried down from the landing of Aeneas to 146 B.C., his chief source was Dio, supplemented by Plutarch and p. xxiva couple of quotations from Herodotus. We are justified, therefore, in recognizing as an epitome of Dio whatever remains after the exclusion of portions that are derivable from the other two sources. After narrating the destruction of Corinth Zonaras laments that he could find no ancient authorities for the remainder of the republican period; hence it is inferred that Books XXII-XXXV had even then been lost from all the Mss. He resumes his narration with the time of Sulla, and after relying on various lives of Plutarch for a time, finally follows Dio's account once more, beginning with Book XLIV, 3; but for the period subsequent to Domitian's death he used Dio only indirectly, through the epitome of Xiphilinus. Zonaras is therefore of great importance for Books I-XXI, and to a lesser degree for Books XLIV-LXVII, where he occasionally supplements our Mss. of Dio or the epitome of Xiphilinus. There are numerous Mss. of Zonaras, five of which are cited by Boissevain; but for the present edition it has seemed sufficient merely to indicate such readings as have the support of no Ms.

For Books LXI-LXXX our chief authority is Xiphilinus, a monk of Constantinople, who made an abridgement of Books XXXVI-LXXX at the request of the emperor Michael VII. Ducas (1071‑1078). Even in his time Books LXX and LXXI (Boissevain's division), containing the reign of Antoninus Pius p. xxvand the first part of that of Marcus Aurelius, had already perished. He divided his epitome into sections each containing the life of one emperor, and thus is of no authority as regards Dio's divisions; furthermore his task was very carelessly performed. The epitome is found in at least sixteen Mss.; but all the rest are derived from one or the other of two fifteenth century Mss., Vaticanus 145 and Coislinianus 320. Besides these two (abbreviated V and C), we have readings from an unknown Xiphilinus Ms. entered in L´ of Dio to fill various gaps; but the scribe of L´ dealt very freely with such passages.

Ioannes Tzetzes (twelfth century) in his farrago of historical and mythological stories now entitled Chiliads, from the arbitrary division of the work into sections of one thousand verses each, occasionally cites Dio among his various authorities. But he dealt very freely with his material, and it is often difficult to determine exactly how much of Dio underlies his version. The present text omits a few passages printed with some hesitation by Boissevain. Tzetzes also cites Dio a few times in his commentary on Lycophron's Alexandra. Other writers who are similarly of use in supplementing the epitomes are Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica in the twelfth century, famous for his commentary on Homer; Ioannes Antiochenus, a historian of the seventh century; Ioannes Damascenus, an ecclesiastical writer of the eighth century; Ioannes Laurentius p. xxviLydus, of the sixth century, who wrote of the Magistrates of the Roman Republic, and Cedrenus, a historian of the eleventh century.

The present text and division into books are based on Boissevain's edition, which has been courteously placed at the disposal of the Editors by Messrs. Weidmann of Berlin. The departure from his readings are relatively few, but are not always indicated in the critical notes, as it has seemed simpler to take the Ms. reading as the standard, and merely cite such emendations as are adopted in the text. For convenience of reference the traditional divisions of Books LXI-LXXX are given in the margin; and it is by these numbers that passages are cited.

The translation is based on that of H. B. Foster (Troy, N.Y., 1905‑06), the first to appear in English. At the outset it was hoped that his translation would require few changes to bring it into conformity with the Greek text here adopted; but this hope was promptly disappointed, as soon as the task of careful comparison with the original was fairly under way, by the discovery of many errors of a more or less serious nature, as well as of frequent infelicities in the English. So far as has proved possible, his words have been retained; yet the changes found to be either necessary or desirable are so numerous that the editors have decided in favour of the present wording of the title page.

p. xxvii Manuscripts

(a) There are eleven Mss. containing the larger part of Books XXXVI-LX. The two of greatest importance are:—


Laurentianus (or Mediceus) 70, 8 (L), eleventh century, containing XXXVI,18,1-L,6,2.

Marcianus (or Venetus) 395 (M), eleventh century, containing XLIV,35,4-LX,28,3; but numerous leaves and even whole quaternions have been lost.

Of importance for parts of the text where these Mss. fail are also:—


Vaticanus Graecus 144 (V), fifteenth century, containing XXXVI-LIV.

Parisinus 1689 (P), fifteenth century, containing XXXVI-LX. Used by Stephanus in his edition of 1548.

Laurentianus (or Mediceus) 70, 10 (L´), fifteenth century, containing XLII-LX.

It has been conclusively shown by Boissevain that V is a copy of L, made, however, while L was in a completer state than at present; that L´ is in the main a copy of M, but with additions from L; and that P is derived from L for the earlier books and from L´ for the later. The other six Mss., not here specified, are derivatives of P (in one case of P and M) or of V. It is clear, therefore, that only L and M are of value except where passages now lost in one or both appear in the derived Mss. Thus V and P are our only Mss. for XXXVI,1‑17; V takes the place of L for the greater part of L-LIV; and similarly L´ serves instead of M for LII,5,2‑20,4; LX,17,7‑20,2, and LX,22,2‑26,2, being the sole Ms. to give the last two passages. Unfortunately M has several extensive gaps in books LV-LX which cannot be filled out from the later Mss.

p. xxviii (b) The oldest Dio Ms. is now reduced to a few leaves on which are contained LXXVIII,2,2-LXXIX,8,3. This Ms. is:


Vaticanus Graecus 1288 (V´, vellum Ms. of fifth or seventh century, in uncial characters. It teems with errors, many of which, however, were corrected by a second hand, apparently with the aid of another Ms. V´ belonged to Orsini, who published the contents in 1582 (Excerpta Valesiana, pp416‑47).

(c) The Paris fragments.

These are found on five parchment leaves which have been used in patching up a Strabo Ms (Parisinus 1397A). They evidently belonged to a Ms. of Dio written about the eleventh century, and describe events of the years 207‑200 B.C. (Frgs. 57, 53‑60, 63‑71, 76, 81, 83‑86; 58, 1‑6). Haase first published them in the Rheinisches Museum for 1839, pp445‑76.

p. xxix Editions

The more important editions of Dio are the following:—


1548
R. Stephanus. Editio princeps. Books XXXVI-LX. Based on a single Ms., P.

1551
R. Stephanus. Editio princeps of Xiphilinus.

1592
Leunclavius. Included Excerpta Valesiana.

1750‑52
Reimar. 2 vols. Based on new Mss., L and V. Notes of Reimar and various other scholars; historical notes especially valuable. Good life of Dio.

1824‑25
Sturz. 8 vols. Based on Reimar's edition. For the text L was again collated, also L´. Additional notes of Reimar and Reiske. In 1843 a ninth volume was added containing the Excerpts de Sententiis.

1849
Bekker. Superiority of L and M clearly recognized. Valuable for Bekker's emendations.

1890‑94
Melber. Latest Teubner edition. Only 2 vols. published. Zonaras (books VII-IX) first printed in connection with early fragments of Dio. Promptly superseded by the following.

1895‑1901
Boissevain. 3 vols. (Weidmann). A masterly edition, complete, accurate, conservative. Based on new collations of the Mss., usually his own. Fragments of Books I-XXXV assigned to their respective books for first time in an edition and new division of Books LXI-LXXX. Valuable prefaces and appendices containing accurate description of all Mss., complete text of Xiphilinus, critical discussion of Excerpts and similar collections.

Melber, Vol. III (Books 51‑60), 1928.
Boissevain, Vol. IV (Index historicus), 1926. Vol. V (Index Graecitatis), 1931.

Originally Posted by mountainman

There is an ongoing discussion thread about Pseudo-Isidorian (False) Decretals

These evidence massive "additions".

Massive forgery.