1. Archilochus, Fragments, 95, 94 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
|
2. Archilochus, Fragments, 95, 94 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
|
3. Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel, 3.27 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 3.27. וַיָּשָׁב אַבְנֵר חֶבְרוֹן וַיַּטֵּהוּ יוֹאָב אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַשַּׁעַר לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בַּשֶּׁלִי וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם הַחֹמֶשׁ וַיָּמָת בְּדַם עֲשָׂה־אֵל אָחִיו׃ | 3.27. And when Avner was returned to Ĥevron, Yo᾽av took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there in the belly, that he died, for the blood of ῾Asa᾽el his brother." |
|
4. Mimnermus of Colophon, Fragments, 14, 13a (7th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)
|
5. Tyrtaeus, Fragments, 5 (7th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)
|
6. Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, 396, 435, 395 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 395. τίνʼ ἀντιτάξεις τῷδε; τίς Προίτου πυλῶν | 395. Whom will you send against him? Who will be capable of standing as our champion at the Proetid gate when its bars are loosened? Eteocles |
|
7. Hecataeus of Miletus, Fragments, f1 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
|
8. Simonides, Fragments, 3, 11 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
|
9. Simonides, Fragments, 3, 11 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
|
10. Euripides, Orestes, 1661, 1660 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 1660. Menelaus, leave Orestes to rule Argos ; go and reign over the Spartan land, keeping it as the dowry of a wife who till this day never ceased causing you innumerable troubles. I will set matters straight between Orestes and the citizens |
|
11. Herodotus, Histories, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.3, 2.132, 2.143, 2.170, 2.171, 2.4, 2.46, 2.47, 2.48, 2.51, 2.61, 2.62, 2.81, 2.86, 2.99, 3.80, 6.43, proem. (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 1.1. The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute. These (they say) came to our seas from the sea which is called Red, and having settled in the country which they still occupy, at once began to make long voyages. Among other places to which they carried Egyptian and Assyrian merchandise, they came to Argos, ,which was at that time preeminent in every way among the people of what is now called Hellas . The Phoenicians came to Argos, and set out their cargo. ,On the fifth or sixth day after their arrival, when their wares were almost all sold, many women came to the shore and among them especially the daughter of the king, whose name was Io (according to Persians and Greeks alike), the daughter of Inachus. ,As these stood about the stern of the ship bargaining for the wares they liked, the Phoenicians incited one another to set upon them. Most of the women escaped: Io and others were seized and thrown into the ship, which then sailed away for Egypt . |
|
12. Plato, Euthydemus, 288b, 283c (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
|
13. Plato, Gorgias, 500c, 500b (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 500b. that there were certain industries, some of which extend only to pleasure, procuring that and no more, and ignorant of better and worse; while others know what is good and what bad. And I placed among those that are concerned with pleasure the habitude, not art, of cookery, and among those concerned with good the art of medicine. Now by the sanctity of friendship, Callicles, do not on your part indulge in jesting with me, or give me random answers against your conviction, or again, take what I say as though I were jesting. For you see |
|
14. Plato, Phaedrus, 276b, 276d, 276a (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 276a. Socrates. Now tell me; is there not another kind of speech, or word, which shows itself to be the legitimate brother of this bastard one, both in the manner of its begetting and in its better and more powerful nature? Phaedrus. What is this word and how is it begotten, as you say? Socrates. The word which is written with intelligence in the mind of the learner, which is able to defend itself and knows to whom it should speak, and before whom to be silent. Phaedrus. You mean the living and breathing word of him who knows, of which the written word may justly be called the image. |
|
15. Plato, Sophist, 251c (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 251c. but must call the good good, and a man man. I fancy, Theaetetus, you often run across people who take such matters seriously; sometimes they are elderly men whose poverty of intellect makes them admire such quibbles, and who think this is a perfect mine of wisdom they have discovered. Theaet. Certainly. Str. Then, to include in our discussion all those who have ever engaged in any talk whatsoever about being |
|
16. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 1.1-1.21, 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.21.1, 1.22.2-1.22.4, 1.23, 1.23.3, 1.23.5, 1.24.1, 1.25.2, 1.73.2, 1.138.3, 2.21, 2.35-2.46, 2.47.3-2.47.54, 2.65, 3.37-3.38, 3.81-3.84, 3.84.2, 4.65.3, 4.108, 5.27-5.28, 5.40-5.41, 5.43-5.44, 5.53-5.54, 5.56-5.57, 5.66, 5.69-5.70, 5.82, 6.15, 6.54-6.59, 8.96 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 1.1.1. Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he could see the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the quarrel; those who delayed doing so at once having it in contemplation. 1.1.3. For though the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more immediately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained, yet the evidences which an inquiry carried as far back as was practicable leads me to trust, all point to the conclusion that there was nothing on a great scale, either in war or in other matters. 1.21.1. On the whole, however, the conclusions I have drawn from the proofs quoted may, I believe, safely be relied on. Assuredly they will not be disturbed either by the lays of a poet displaying the exaggeration of his craft, or by the compositions of the chroniclers that are attractive at truth's expense; the subjects they treat of being out of the reach of evidence, and time having robbed most of them of historical value by enthroning them in the region of legend. Turning from these, we can rest satisfied with having proceeded upon the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity. 1.22.2. And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detailed tests possible. 1.22.3. My conclusions have cost me some labour from the want of coincidence between accounts of the same occurrences by different eye-witnesses, arising sometimes from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue partiality for one side or the other. 1.22.4. The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time. 1.23.3. Old stories of occurrences handed down by tradition, but scantily confirmed by experience, suddenly ceased to be incredible; there were earthquakes of unparalleled extent and violence; eclipses of the sun occurred with a frequency unrecorded in previous history; there were great droughts in sundry places and consequent famines, and that most calamitous and awfully fatal visitation, the plague. All this came upon them with the late war 1.23.5. To the question why they broke the treaty, I answer by placing first an account of their grounds of complaint and points of difference, that no one may ever have to ask the immediate cause which plunged the Hellenes into a war of such magnitude. 1.24.1. The city of Epidamnus stands on the right of the entrance of the Ionic gulf. Its vicinity is inhabited by the Taulantians, an Illyrian people. 1.25.2. So the Epidamnians went to Corinth, and delivered over the colony in obedience to the commands of the oracle. They showed that their founder came from Corinth, and revealed the answer of the god; and they begged them not to allow them to perish, but to assist them. 1.73.2. We need not refer to remote antiquity: there we could appeal to the voice of tradition, but not to the experience of our audience. But to the Median war and contemporary history we must refer, although we are rather tired of continually bringing this subject forward. In our action during that war we ran great risk to obtain certain advantages: you had your share in the solid results, do not try to rob us of all share in the good that the glory may do us. 1.138.3. For Themistocles was a man who exhibited the most indubitable signs of genius; indeed, in this particular he has a claim on our admiration quite extraordinary and unparalleled. By his own native capacity, alike unformed and unsupplemented by study, he was at once the best judge in those sudden crises which admit of little or of no deliberation, and the best prophet of the future, even to its most distant possibilities. An able theoretical expositor of all that came within the sphere of his practice, he was not without the power of passing an adequate judgment in matters in which he had no experience. He could also excellently divine the good and evil which lay hid in the unseen future. In fine, whether we consider the extent of his natural powers, or the slightness of his application, this extraordinary man must be allowed to have surpassed all others in the faculty of intuitively meeting an emergency. 2.47.3. Not many days after their arrival in Attica the plague first began to show itself among the Athenians. It was said that it had broken out in many places previously in the neighborhood of Lemnos and elsewhere; but a pestilence of such extent and mortality was nowhere remembered. 2.47.4. Neither were the physicians at first of any service, ignorant as they were of the proper way to treat it, but they died themselves the most thickly, as they visited the sick most often; nor did any human art succeed any better. Supplications in the temples, divinations, and so forth were found equally futile, till the overwhelming nature of the disaster at last put a stop to them altogether. 3.84.2. In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority; since revenge would not have been set above religion, and gain above justice, had it not been for the fatal power of envy. 4.65.3. Upon their arrival at Athens, the Athenians banished Pythodorus and Sophocles, and fined Eurymedon for having taken bribes to depart when they might have subdued Sicily . |
|
17. Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.4.13-1.4.20, 2.3.24-2.3.49, 3.1.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 1.4.13. When he sailed in, the common crowd of Piraeus and of the city gathered to his ships, filled with wonder and desiring to see the famous Alcibiades. Some of them said that he was the best of the citizens; that he alone was banished without just cause, but rather because he was plotted against by those who had less power than he and spoke less well and ordered their political doings with a view to their own private gain, whereas he was always 407 B.C. advancing the common weal, both by his own means and by the power of the state. 1.4.14. At the time in question, In 415 B.C. , just before the departure of Alcibiades with the Syracusan expedition. they said, he was willing to be brought to trial at once, when the charge had just been made that he had committed sacrilege against the Eleusinian Mysteries; his enemies, however, postponed the trial, which was obviously his right, and then, when he was absent, robbed him of his fatherland; 1.4.15. thereafter, in his exile, helpless as a slave and in danger of his life every day, he was forced to pay court to those whom he hated most The Spartans and the Persians. ; and though he saw those who were dearest to him, his fellow-citizens and kinsmen and all Athens, making mistakes, he was debarred by his banishment from the opportunity of helping them. 1.4.16. It was not the way, they said, of men such as he to desire revolution or a change in government; for under the democracy it had been his fortune to be not only superior to his contemporaries but also not inferior to his elders, while his enemies, on the other hand, were held in precisely the same low estimation after his banishment as before; later, however, when they had gained power, they had slain the best men, and since they alone were left, they were accepted by the citizens merely for the reason that better men were not available. 1.4.17. Others, however, said that Alcibiades alone was responsible for their past troubles, and as for the ills which threatened to befall the state, he alone would probably prove to be the prime cause of them. 1.4.18. Meanwhile Alcibiades, who had come to anchor close to the shore, did not at once disembark, through fear of his enemies; but mounting upon the deck of 407 B.C. his ship, he looked to see whether his friends were present. 1.4.19. But when he sighted his cousin Euryptolemus, the son of Peisianax, and his other relatives and with them his friends, then he disembarked and went up to the city, accompanied by a party who were prepared to quell any attack that anyone might make upon him. 1.4.20. And after he had spoken in his own defence before the Senate and the Assembly, saying that he had not committed sacrilege and that he had been unjustly treated, and after more of the same sort had been said, with no one speaking in opposition because the Assembly would not have tolerated it, he was proclaimed general-in-chief with absolute authority, the people thinking that he was the man to recover for the state its former power; then, as his first act, he led out all his troops and conducted by land the procession From Athens to the temple of Demeter at Eleusis. of the Eleusinian Mysteries, which the Athenians had been conducting by sea on account of the war; 2.3.24. Then when Theramenes arrived, Critias arose and spoke as follows: Gentlemen of the Senate, if anyone among you thinks that more people than is fitting are being put to death, let him reflect that where governments are changed these things always take place; and it is inevitable that those who are changing the government here to an oligarchy should have most numerous enemies, both because the state is the most populous of the Greek states and because the commons have been bred up in a condition of freedom for the longest time. 2.3.25. Now we, believing that for men like ourselves and you democracy is a grievous form of government, and convinced that the commons would never become friendly to the Lacedaemonians, our preservers, while the aristocrats would continue ever faithful to them, for these reasons are establishing, with the approval of the Lacedaemonians, the present form of government. 2.3.26. And if we find anyone opposed to the oligarchy, so far as we have the power we put him out of the way; but in particular we consider it to be right that, if any one of our own number is harming this order of things, he should be punished. 2.3.27. Now in fact we find this man Theramenes trying, by what means he can, to destroy both ourselves and you. As proof that this is true you will discover, if you consider the matter, that no one finds more 404 B.C. fault with the present proceedings than Theramenes here, or offers more opposition when we wish to put some demagogue out of the way. Now if he had held these views from the beginning, he was, to be sure, an enemy, but nevertheless he would not justly be deemed a scoundrel. 2.3.28. In fact, however, he was the very man who took the initiative in the policy of establishing a cordial understanding with the Lacedaemonians; he was the very man who began the overthrow of the democracy, and who urged you most to inflict punishment upon those who were first brought before you for trial; but now, when you and we have manifestly become hateful to the democrats, he no longer approves of what is going on,—just so that he may get on the safe side again, and that we may be punished for what has been done. 2.3.29. Therefore he ought to be punished, not merely as an enemy, but also as a traitor both to you and to ourselves. And treason is a far more dreadful thing than war, inasmuch as it is harder to take precaution against the hidden than against the open danger, and a far more hateful thing, inasmuch as men make peace with enemies and become their trustful friends again, but if they catch a man playing the traitor, they never in any case make peace with that man or trust him thereafter. 2.3.30. Now to let you know that this man’s present doings are nothing new, but that he is, rather, a traitor by nature, I will recall to you his past deeds. This man in the beginning, although he had received honours at the hands of the democracy, was extremely eager, like his father Hagnon, to change the democracy into the oligarchy of the Four Hundred, See note on I. vii. 28. and he was a leader in that government. When, 404 B.C. however, he perceived that some opposition to the oligarchy was gathering, he look the lead again—as champion of the democrats against the oligarchs! That is the reason, you know, why he is nicknamed Buskin : 2.3.31. for as the buskin seems to fit both feet, so he faces both ways. But, Theramenes, the man who deserves to live ought not to be clever at leading his comrades into dangerous undertakings and then, if any hindrance offers itself, to turn around on the instant, but he ought, as one on shipboard, to hold to his task until they come into a fair breeze. Otherwise, how in the world would sailors reach the port for which they are bound, if they should sail in the opposite direction the moment any hindrance offered itself? 2.3.32. It is true, of course, that all sorts of changes in government are attended by loss of life, but you, thanks to your changing sides so easily, share the responsibility, not merely for the slaughter of a large number of oligarchs by the commons, but also for the slaughter of a large number of democrats by the aristocracy. And this Theramenes, you remember, was the man who, although detailed by the generals to pick up the Athenians whose ships were disabled in the battle off Lesbos, See I. vi. 35, vii. 4 ff. failed to do so, and nevertheless was the very one who accused the generals and brought about their death in order that he might save his own life! 2.3.33. Now when a man clearly shows that he is always looking out for his own advantage and taking no thought for honour or his friends, how in the world can it be right to spare him? Ought we not surely, knowing of his previous changes, to take care that he shall not be able to do the same thing to us also? 404 B.C. We therefore arraign him on the charge of plotting against and betraying both ourselves and you. And in proof that what we are thus doing is proper, consider this fact also. 2.3.34. The constitution of the Lacedaemonians is, we know, deemed the best of all constitutions. Now in Lacedaemon if one of the ephors should undertake to find fault with the government and to oppose what was being done instead of yielding to the majority, do you not suppose that he would be regarded, not only by the ephors themselves but also by all the rest of the state, as having merited the severest punishment? Even so you, if you are wise, will not spare this Theramenes, but rather yourselves; for to leave him alive would cause many of those who hold opposite views to yours to cherish high thoughts, while to destroy him would cut off the hopes of them all, both within and without the city. 2.3.35. When Critias had so spoken, he sat down; and Theramenes rose and said: I will mention first, gentlemen, the last thing Critias said against me. He says that I brought about the death of the generals by my accusation. But it was not I, as you know, who began the matter by accusing them; on the contrary, it was they who accused me, by stating that although that duty was assigned me by them, I failed to pick up the unfortunates in the battle off Lesbos. I said in my defence that on account of the storm it was not possible even to sail, much less to pick up the men, and it was decided by the state that my plea was a reasonable one, while the generals were clearly accusing themselves. For though they said it was possible to save the men, they nevertheless sailed away and left them to 404 B.C. perish. 2.3.36. I do not wonder, however, that Critias has misunderstood the matter; for when these events took place, it chanced that he was not here; he was establishing a democracy in Thessaly along with Prometheus, and arming the serfs against their masters. 2.3.37. God forbid that any of the things which he was doing there should come to pass here. I quite agree with him, however, on this point, that if anyone is desirous of deposing you from your office and is making strong those who are plotting against you, it is just for him to incur the severest punishment. But I think you can best judge who it is that is doing this, if you will consider the course which each of us two has taken and is now taking. 2.3.38. Well then, up to the time when you became members of the Senate and magistrates were appointed and the notorious informers were brought to trial, all of us held the same views; but when these Thirty began to arrest men of worth and standing, then I, on my side, began to hold views opposed to theirs. 2.3.39. For when Leon the Salaminian was put to death,—a man of capacity, both actually and by repute,—although he was not guilty of a single act of wrong-doing, I knew that those who were like him would be fearful, and, being fearful, would be enemies of this government. I also knew, when Niceratus, the son of Nicias, was arrested,—a man of wealth who, like his father, had never done anything to curry popular favour,—that those who were like him would become hostile to us. 2.3.40. And further, when Antiphon, who during the war supplied from his own means two fast-sailing triremes, was put to death by us, I knew that all those who had been zealous in 404 B.C. the state’s cause would look upon us with suspicion. I objected, also, when they said that each of us must seize one of the resident aliens; for it was entirely clear that if these men were put to death, the whole body of such aliens would become enemies of the government. 2.3.41. I objected likewise when they took away from the people their arms, because I thought that we ought not to make the state weak; for I saw that, in preserving us, the purpose of the Lacedaemonians had not been that we might become few in number and unable to do them any service; for if this had been what they desired, it was within their power, by keeping up the pressure of famine a little while longer, to leave not a single man alive. 2.3.42. Again, the hiring of guardsmen did not please me, for we might have enlisted in our service an equal number of our own citizens, until we, the rulers, should easily have made ourselves masters of our subjects. And further, when I saw that many in the city were becoming hostile to this government and that many were becoming exiles, it did not seem to me best to banish either Thrasybulus or Anytus or Alcibiades; for I knew that by such measures the opposition would be made strong, if once the commons should acquire capable leaders and if those who wished to be leaders should find a multitude of supporters. 2.3.43. Now would the man who offers openly this sort of admonition be fairly regarded as a well-wisher, or as a traitor? It is not, Critias, the men who prevent one’s making enemies in abundance nor the men who teach one how to gain allies in the greatest numbers,—it is not these, I say, who make one’s enemies strong; but it is much rather those who 404 B.C. unjustly rob others of property and put to death people who are guilty of no wrong, who, I say, make their opponents numerous and betray not only their friends but also themselves, and all to satisfy their covetousness. 2.3.44. And if it is not evident in any other way that what I say is true, look at the matter in this way: do you suppose that Thrasybulus and Anytus and the other exiles would prefer to have us follow here the policy which I am urging by word, or the policy which these men are carrying out in deed? For my part, I fancy that now they believe every spot is full of allies, while if the best element in the state were friendly to us, they would count it difficult even to set foot anywhere in the land! 2.3.45. Again, as to his statement that I have a propensity to be always changing sides, consider these facts also: it was the people itself, as everybody knows, which voted for the government of the Four Hundred, being advised that the Lacedaemonians would trust any form of government sooner than a democracy. 2.3.46. But when the Lacedaemonians did not in the least relax their efforts in prosecuting the war, and Aristoteles, Melanthius, Aristarchus, and their fellow-generals were found to be building a fort on the peninsula, Commanding the harbour of Piraeus. into which they proposed to admit the enemy and so bring the state under the control of themselves and their oligarchical associates,—if I perceived this plan and thwarted it, is that being a traitor to one’s friends? 2.3.47. He dubs me Buskin, because, as he says, I try to fit both parties. But for the man who pleases neither party,—what in the name of the gods should we call him? For you in the days of the democracy 404 B.C. were regarded as the bitterest of all haters of the commons, and under the aristocracy you have shown yourself the bitterest of all haters of the better classes . 2.3.48. But I, Critias, am forever at war with the men who do not think there could be a good democracy until the slaves and those who would sell the state for lack of a shilling should share in the government, and on the other hand I am forever an enemy to those who do not think that a good oligarchy could be established until they should bring the state to the point of being ruled absolutely by a few. But to direct the government in company with those who have the means to be of service, whether with horses or with shields, i.e., could equip themselves at their own expense as horsemen or ( μετ’ ἀσπίδων ) as hoplites. —this plan I regarded as best in former days and I do not change my opinion now. 2.3.49. And if you can mention any instance, Critias, where I joined hands with demagogues or despots and undertook to deprive men of standing of their citizenship, then speak. For if I am found guilty either of doing this thing now or of ever having done it in the past, I admit that I should justly suffer the very uttermost of all penalties and be put to death. 3.1.2. As to how Cyrus collected an army and with this army made the march up country against his brother, Artaxerxes. how the battle At Cunaxa, near Babylon, in the autumn of 401 B.C. was fought, how Cyrus was slain, and how after that the Greeks effected their return in safety to the sea—all this has been written by Themistogenes Unknown except for this reference. It would seem that Xenophon’s own Anabasis was not published at the time when these words were written. the Syracusan. |
|
18. Cicero, Brutus, 29 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
|
19. Cicero, Brutus, 29 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
| 29. huic aetati suppares Alcibiades Critias Critias vulg. : Critas L Theramenes; quibus temporibus quod dicendi genus viguerit ex Thucydidi scriptis, qui ipse tum fuit, intellegi maxime potest. Grandes erant verbis, crebri crebri F2 : crebris L sententiis, compressione compressione L : comprehensione Stangl rerum breves et ob eam ipsam causam interdum subobscuri. | |
|
20. Cicero, De Oratore, 2.36 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
| 2.36. Historia vero testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae, nuntia vetustatis, qua voce alia nisi oratoris immortalitati commendatur? Nam si qua est ars alia, quae verborum aut faciendorum aut legendorum scientiam profiteatur; aut si quisquam dicitur nisi orator formare orationem eamque variare et distinguere quasi quibusdam verborum sententiarumque insignibus; aut si via ulla nisi ab hac una arte traditur aut argumentorum aut sententiarum aut denique discriptionis atque ordinis, fateamur aut hoc, quod haec ars profiteatur, alienum esse aut cum alia aliqua arte esse commune: sed si in hac una est ea ratio atque doctrina, non, si qui aliarum artium bene locuti sunt, eo minus id est huius unius proprium; | |
|
21. Polybius, Histories, 1.2.1, 1.4.1-1.4.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
|
22. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 1.1-1.5 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
| 1.2. 1. In general, then, it is because of that commemoration of goodly deeds which history accords men that some of them have been induced to become the founders of cities, that others have been led to introduce laws which encompass man's social life with security, and that many have aspired to discover new sciences and arts in order to benefit the race of men. And since complete happiness can be attained only through the combination of all these activities, the foremost meed of praise must be awarded to that which more than any other thing is the cause of them, that is, to history.,2. For we must look upon it as constituting the guardian of the high achievements of illustrious men, the witness which testifies to the evil deeds of the wicked, and the benefactor of the entire human race. For if it be true that the myths which are related about Hades, in spite of the fact that their subject-matter is fictitious, contribute greatly to fostering piety and justice among men, how much more must we assume that history, the prophetess of truth, she who is, as it were, the mother-city of philosophy as a whole, is still more potent to equip men's characters for noble living!,3. For all men, by reason of the frailty of our nature, live but an infinitesimal portion of eternity and are dead throughout all subsequent time; and while in the case of those who in their lifetime have done nothing worthy of note, everything which has pertained to them in life also perishes when their bodies die, yet in the case of those who by their virtue have achieved fame, their deeds are remembered for evermore, since they are heralded abroad by history's voice most divine.,4. Now it is an excellent thing, methinks, as all men of understanding must agree, to receive in exchange for mortal labours an immortal fame. In the case of Heracles, for instance, it is generally agreed that during the whole time which he spent among men he submitted to great and continuous labours and perils willingly, in order that he might confer benefits upon the race of men and thereby gain immortality; and likewise in the case of other great and good men, some have attained to heroic honours and others to honours equal to the divine, and all have been thought to be worthy of great praise, since history immortalizes their achievements.,5. For whereas all other memorials abide but a brief time, yet the power of history, which extends over the whole inhabited world, possesses in time, which brings ruin upon all things else, a custodian which ensures its perpetual transmission to posterity. History also contributes to the power of speech, and a nobler thing than that may not easily be found.,6. For it is this that makes the Greeks superior to the barbarians, and the educated to the uneducated, and, furthermore, it is by means of speech alone that one man is able to gain ascendancy over the many; and, in general, the impression made by every measure that is proposed corresponds to the power of the speaker who presents it, and we describe great and human men as "worthy of speech," as though therein they had won the highest prize of excellence.,7. And when speech is resolved into its several kinds, we find that, whereas poetry is more pleasing than profitable, and codes of law punish but do not instruct, and similarly, all the other kinds either contribute nothing to happiness or else contain a harmful element mingled with the beneficial, while some of them actually pervert the truth, history alone, since in it word and fact are in perfect agreement, embraces in its narration all the other qualities as well as that are useful;,8. for it is ever to be seen urging men to justice, denouncing those who are evil, lauding the good, laying up, in a word, for its readers a mighty store of experience. 1.3. 1. Consequently we, observing that writers of history are accorded a merited approbation, were led to feel a like enthusiasm for the subject. But when we turned our attention to the historians before our time, although we approved their purpose without reservation, yet we were far from feeling that their treatises had been composed so as to contribute to human welfare as much as might have been the case.,2. For although the profit which history affords its readers lies in its embracing a vast number and variety of circumstances, yet most writers have recorded no more than isolated wars waged by a single nation or a single state, and but few have undertaken, beginning with the earliest times and coming down to their own day, to record the events connected with all peoples; and of the latter, some have not attached to the several events their own proper dates, and others have passed over the deeds of barbarian peoples; and some, again, have rejected the ancient legends because of the difficulties involved in their treatment, while others have failed to complete the plan to which they had set their hand, their lives having been cut short by fate. And of those who have undertaken this account of all peoples not one has continued his history beyond the Macedonian period.,3. For while some have closed their accounts with the deeds of Philip, others with those of Alexander, and some with the Diadochi or the Epigoni, yet, despite the number and importance of the events subsequent to these and extending even to our own lifetime which have been left neglected, no historian has essayed to treat of them within the compass of a single narrative, because of the magnitude of the undertaking.,4. For this reason, since both the dates of the events and the events themselves lie scattered about in numerous treatises and in divers authors, the knowledge of them becomes difficult for the mind to encompass and for the memory to retain.,5. Consequently, after we had examined the composition of each of these authors' works, we resolved to write a history after a plan which might yield to its readers the greatest benefit and at the same time incommode them the least.,6. For if a man should begin with the most ancient times and record to the best of his ability the affairs of the entire world down to his own day, so far as they have been handed down to memory, as though they were the affairs of some single city, he would obviously have to undertake an immense labour, yet he would have composed a treatise of the utmost value to those who are studiously inclined.,7. For from such a treatise every man will be able readily to take what is of use for his special purpose, drawing as it were from a great fountain.,8. The reason for this is that, in the first place, it is not easy for those who propose to go through the writings of so many historians to procure the books which come to be needed, and, in the second place, that, because the works vary so widely and are so numerous, the recovery of past events becomes extremely difficult of comprehension and of attainment; whereas, on the other hand, the treatise which keeps within the limits of a single narrative and contains a connected account of events facilitates the reading and contains such recovery of the past in a form that is perfectly easy to follow. In general, a history of this nature must be held to surpass all others to the same degree as the whole is more useful than the part and continuity than discontinuity, and, again, as an event whose date has been accurately determined is more useful than one of which it is not known in what period it happened. 1.4. 1. And so we, appreciating that an undertaking of this nature, while most useful, would yet require much labour and time, have been engaged upon it for thirty years, and with much hardship and many dangers we have visited a large portion of both Asia and Europe that we might see with our own eyes all the most important regions and as many others as possible; for many errors have been committed through ignorance of the sites, not only by the common run of historians, but even by some of the highest reputation.,2. As for the resources which have availed us in this undertaking, they have been, first and foremost, that enthusiasm for the work which enables every man to bring to completion the task which seems impossible, and, in the second place, the abundant supply which Rome affords of the materials pertaining to the proposed study.,3. For the supremacy of this city, a supremacy so powerful that it extends to the bounds of the inhabited world, has provided us in the course of our long residence there with copious resources in the most accessible form.,4. For since the city of our origin was Agyrium in Sicily, and by reason of our contact with the Romans in that island we had gained a wide acquaintance with their language, we have acquired an accurate knowledge of all the events connected with this empire from the records which have been carefully preserved among them over a long period of time.,5. Now we have begun our history with the legends of both Greeks and barbarians, after having first investigated to the best of our ability the accounts which each people records of its earliest times.,6. Since my undertaking is now completed, although the volumes are as yet unpublished, I wish to present a brief preliminary outline of the work as a whole. Our first six Books embrace the events and legends previous to the Trojan War, the first three setting forth the antiquities of the barbarians, and the next three almost exclusively those of the Greeks; in the following eleven we have written a universal history of events from the Trojan War to the death of Alexander;,7. and in the succeeding twenty-three Books we have given an orderly account of all subsequent events down to the beginning of the war between the Romans and the Celts, in the course of which the commander, Gaius Julius Caesar, who has been deified because of his deeds, subdued the most numerous and most warlike tribes of the Celts, and advanced the Roman Empire as far as the British Isles. The first events of this war occurred in the first year of the One Hundred and Eightieth Olympiad, when Herodes was archon at Athens. 1.5. 1. As for the periods included in this work, we do not attempt to fix with any strictness the limits of those before the Trojan War, because no trustworthy chronological table covering them has come into our hands: but from the Trojan War we follow Apollodorus of Athens in setting the interval from then to the Return of the Heracleidae as eighty years, from then to the First Olympiad three hundred and twenty-eight years, reckoning the dates by the reigns of the kings of Lacedaemon, and from the First Olympiad to the beginning of the Celtic war, which we have made the end of our history, seven hundred and thirty years; so that our whole treatise of forty Books embraces eleven hundred and thirty-eight years, exclusive of the periods which embrace the events before the Trojan War.,2. We have given at the outset this precise outline, since we desire to inform our readers about the project as a whole, and at the same time to deter those who are accustomed to make their books by compilation, from mutilating works of which they are not the authors. And throughout our entire history it is to be hoped that what we have done well may not be the object of envy, and that the matters wherein our knowledge is defective may receive correction at the hands of more able historians.,3. Now that we have set forth the plan and purpose of our undertaking we shall attempt to make good our promise of such a treatise. |
|
23. Dionysius of Halycarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 1.1-1.8 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
| 1.1. 1. Although it is much against my will to indulge in the explanatory statements usually given in the prefaces to histories, yet I am obliged to prefix to this work some remarks concerning myself. In doing this it is neither my intention to dwell too long on my own praise, which I know would be distasteful to the reader, nor have I the purpose of censuring other historians, as Anaximenes and Theopompus did in the prefaces to their histories, but I shall only show the reasons that induced me to undertake this work and give an accounting of the sources from which I gained the knowledge of the things that I am going to relate.,2. For I am convinced that all who propose to leave such monuments of their minds to posterity as time shall not involve in one common ruin with their bodies, and particularly those who write histories, in which we have the right to assume that Truth, the source of both prudence and wisdom, is enshrined, ought, first of all, to make choice of noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers, and then, with great care and pains, to provide themselves with the proper equipment for the treatment of their subject.,3. For those who base historical works upon deeds inglorious or evil or unworthy of serious study, either because they crave to come to the knowledge of men and to get a name of some sort or other, or because they desire to display the wealth of their rhetoric, are neither admired by posterity for their fame nor praised for their eloquence; rather, they leave this opinion in the minds of all who take up their histories, that they themselves admired lives which were of a piece with the writings they published, since it is a just and a general opinion that a man's words are the images of his mind.,4. Those, on the other hand, who, while making choice of the best subjects, are careless and indolent in compiling their narratives out of such reports as chance to come to their ears gain no praise by reason of that choice; for we do not deem it fitting that the histories of renowned cities and of men who have held supreme power should be written in an offhand or negligent manner. As I believe these considerations to be necessary and of the first importance to historians and as I have taken great care to observe them both, I have felt unwilling either to omit mention of them or to give it any other place than in the preface to my work. 1.2. 1. That I have indeed made choice of a subject noble, lofty and useful to many will not, I think, require any lengthy argument, at least for those who are not utterly unacquainted with universal history. For if anyone turns his attention to the successive supremacies both of cities and of nations, as accounts of them have been handed down from times past, and then, surveying them severally and comparing them together, wishes to determine which of them obtained the widest dominion and both in peace and war performed the most brilliant achievements, he will find that the supremacy of the Romans has far surpassed all those that are recorded from earlier times, not only in the extent of its dominion and in the splendor of its achievements â which no account has as yet worthily celebrated â but also in the length of time during which it has endured down to our day.,2. For the empire of the Assyrians, ancient as it was and running back to legendary times, held sway over only a small part of Asia. That of the Medes, after overthrowing the Assyrian empire and obtaining a still wider dominion, did not hold it long, but was overthrown in the fourth generation. The Persians, who conquered the Medes, did, indeed, finally become masters of almost all Asia; but when they attacked the nations of Europe also, they did not reduce many of them to submission, and they continued in power not much above two hundred years.,3. The Macedonian dominion, which overthrew the might of the Persians, did, in the extent of its sway, exceed all its predecessors, yet even it did not flourish long, but after Alexander's death began to decline; for it was immediately partitioned among many commanders from the time of the Diadochi, and although after their time it was able to go on to the second or third generation, yet it was weakened by its own dissensions and at the last destroyed by the Romans.,4. But even the Macedonian power did not subjugate every country and every sea; for it neither conquered Libya, with the exception of the small portion bordering on Egypt, nor subdued all Europe, but in the North advanced only as far as Thrace and in the West down to the Adriatic Sea. 1.3. 1. Thus we see that the most famous of the earlier supremacies of which history has given us any account, after attaining to so great vigour and might, were overthrown. As for the Greek powers, it is not fitting to compare them to those just mentioned, since they gained neither magnitude of empire nor duration of eminence equal to theirs.,2. For the Athenians ruled only the sea coast, during the space of sixty-eight years, nor did their sway extend even over all that, but only to the part between the Euxine and the Pamphylian seas, when their naval supremacy was at its height. The Lacedaemonians, when masters of the Peloponnesus and the rest of Greece, advanced their rule as far as Macedonia, but were checked by the Thebans before they had held it quite thirty years.,3. But Rome rules every country that is not inaccessible or uninhabited, and she is mistress of every sea, not only of that which lies inside the Pillars of Hercules but also of the Ocean, except that part of it which is not navigable; she is the first and the only State recorded in all time that ever made the risings and the settings of the sun the boundaries of her dominion. Nor has her supremacy been of short duration, but more lasting than that of any other commonwealth or kingdom.,4. For from the very beginning, immediately after her founding, she began to draw to herself the neighbouring nations, which were both numerous and warlike, and continually advanced, subjugating every rival. And it is now seven hundred and forty-five years from her foundation down to the consulship of Claudius Nero, consul for the second time, and of Calpurnius Piso, who were chosen in the one hundred and ninety-third Olympiad.,5. From the time that she mastered the whole of Italy she was emboldened to aspire to govern all mankind, and after driving from off the sea the Carthaginians, whose maritime strength was superior to that of all others, and subduing Macedonia, which until then was reputed to be the most powerful nation on land, she no longer had as rival any nation either barbarian or Greek; and it is now in my day already the seventh generation that she has continued to hold sway over every region of the world, and there is no nation, as I may say, that disputes her universal dominion or protests against being ruled by her.,6. However, to prove my statement that I have neither made choice of the most trivial of subjects nor proposed to treat of mean and insignificant deeds, but am undertaking to write not only about the most illustrious city but also about brilliant achievements to whose like no man could point, I know not what more I need say. 1.4. 1. But before I proceed, I desire to show in a few words that it is not without design and mature premeditation that I have turned to the early part of Rome's history, but that I have well-considered reasons to give for my choice, to forestall the censure of those who, fond of finding fault with everything and not as yet having heard of any of the matters which I am about to make known, may blame me because, in spite of the fact that this city, grown so famous in our days, had very humble and inglorious beginnings, unworthy of historical record, and that it was but a few generations ago, that is, since her overthrow of the Macedonian powers and her success in the Punic wars, that she arrived at distinction and glory, nevertheless, when I was at liberty to choose one of the famous periods in her history for my theme, I turned aside to one so barren of distinction as her antiquarian lore.,2. For to this day almost all the Greeks are ignorant of the early history of Rome and the great majority of them have been imposed upon by sundry false opinions grounded upon stories which chance has brought to their ears and led to believe that, having come upon various vagabonds without house or home and barbarians, and even those not free men, as her founders, she in the course of time arrived at world domination, and this not through reverence for the gods and justice and every other virtue, but through some chance and the injustice of Fortune, which inconsiderately showers her greatest favours upon the most undeserving. And indeed the more malicious are wont to rail openly at Fortune for freely bestowing on the basest of barbarians the blessings of the Greeks.,3. And yet why should I mention men at large, when even some historians have dared to express such views in the writings they have left, taking this method of humouring barbarian kings who detested Rome's supremacy, â princes to whom they were ever servilely devoted and with whom they associated as flatterers, â by presenting them with "histories" which were neither just nor true? 1.5. 1. In order, therefore, to remove these erroneous impressions, as I have called them, from the minds of many and to substitute true ones in their room, I shall in this Book show who the founders of the city were, at what periods the various groups came together and through what turns of fortune they left their native countries.,2. By this means I engage to prove that they were Greeks and came together from nations not the smallest nor least considerable. And beginning with the next Book I shall tell of the deeds they performed immediately after their founding of the city and of the customs and institutions by virtue of which their descendants advanced to so great dominion; and, so far as I am able, I shall omit nothing worthy of being recorded in history, to the end that I may instil in the minds of those who shall then be informed of the truth the fitting conception of this city, â unless they have already assumed an utterly violent and hostile attitude toward it, â and also that they may neither feel indignation at their present subjection, which is grounded on reason (for by an universal law of Nature, which time cannot destroy, it is ordained that superiors shall ever govern their inferiors), nor rail at Fortune for having wantonly bestowed upon an undeserving city a supremacy so great and already of so long continuance,,3. particularly when they shall have learned from my history that Rome from the very beginning, immediately after its founding, produced infinite examples of virtue in men whose superiors, whether for piety or for justice or for life-long self-control or for warlike valour, no city, either Greek or barbarian, has ever produced. This, I say, is what I hope to accomplish, if my readers will but lay aside all resentment; for some such feeling is aroused by a promise of things which run counter to received opinion or excite wonder.,4. And it is a fact that all those Romans who bestowed upon their country so great a dominion are unknown to the Greeks for want of a competent historian. For no accurate history of the Romans written in the Greek language has hitherto appeared, but only very brief and summary epitomes. 1.6. 1. The first historian, so far as I am aware, to touch upon the early period of the Romans was Hieronymus of Cardia, in his work on the Epigoni. After him Timaeus of Sicily related the beginnings of their history in his general history and treated in a separate work the wars with Pyrrhus of Epirus. Besides these, Antigonus, Polybius, Silenus and innumerable other authors devoted themselves to the same themes, though in different ways, each of them recording some few things compiled without accurate investigation on his own part but from reports which chance had brought to his ears.,2. Like to these in all respects are the histories of those Romans, also, who related in Greek the early achievements of the city; the oldest of these writers are Quintus Fabius and Lucius Cincius, who both flourished during the Punic wars. Each of these men related the events at which he himself had been present with great exactness, as being well acquainted with them, but touched only in a summary way upon the early events that followed the founding of the city.,3. For these reasons, therefore, I have determined not to pass over a noble period of history which the older writers left untouched, a period, moreover, the accurate portrayal of which will lead to the following most excellent and just results: In the first place, the brave men who have fulfilled their destiny will gain immortal glory and be extolled by posterity, which things render human nature like unto the divine and prevent men's deeds from perishing together with their bodies.,4. And again, both the present and future descendants of those godlike men will choose, not the pleasantest and easiest of lives, but rather the noblest and most ambitious, when they consider that all who are sprung from an illustrious origin ought to set a high value on themselves and indulge in no pursuit unworthy of their ancestors.,5. And I, who have not turned aside to this work for the sake of flattery, but out of a regard for truth and justice, which ought to be the aim of every history, shall have an opportunity, in the first place, of expressing my attitude of goodwill toward all good men and toward all who take pleasure in the contemplation of great and noble deeds; and, in the second place, of making the most grateful return that I may to the city and other blessings I have enjoyed during my residence in it. 1.7. 1. Having thus given the reason for my choice of subject, I wish now to say something concerning the sources I used while preparing for my task. For it is possible that those who have already read Hieronymus, Timaeus, Polybius, or any of the other historians whom I just now mentioned as having slurred over their work, since they will not have found in those authors many things mentioned by me, will suspect me of inventing them and will demand to know how I came by the knowledge of these particulars. Lest anyone, therefore, should entertain such an opinion of me, it is best that I should state in advance what narratives and records I have used as sources.,2. I arrived in Italy at the very time that Augustus Caesar put an end to the civil war, in the middle of the one hundred and eighty-seventh Olympiad, and having from that time to this present day, a period of twenty-two years, lived at Rome, learned the language of the Romans and acquainted myself with their writings, I have devoted myself during all that time to matters bearing upon my subject.,3. Some information I received orally from men of the greatest learning, with whom I associated; and the rest I gathered from histories written by the approved Roman authors â Porcius Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the Aelii, Gellii and Calpurnii, and many others of note; with these works, which are like the Greek annalistic accounts, as a basis, I set about the writing of my history.,4. So much, then, concerning myself. But it yet remains for me to say something also concerning the history itself â to what periods I limit it, what subjects I describe, and what form I give to the work. 1.8. 1. I begin my history, then, with the most ancient legends, which the historians before me have omitted as a subject difficult to be cleared up with diligent study;,2. and I bring the narrative down to the beginning of the First Punic War, which fell in the third year of the one hundred and twenty-eighth Olympiad. I relate all the foreign wars that the city waged during that period and all the internal seditions with which she was agitated, showing from what causes they sprang and by what methods and by what arguments they were brought to an end. I give an account also of all the forms of government Rome used, both during the monarchy and after its overthrow, and show what was the character of each. I describe the best customs and the most remarkable laws; and, in short, I show the whole life of the ancient Romans.,3. As to the form I give this work, it does not resemble that which the authors who make wars alone their subject have given to their histories, nor that which others who treat of the several forms of government by themselves have adopted, nor is it like the annalistic accounts which the authors of the Atthides have published (for these are monotonous and soon grow tedious to the reader), but it is a combination of every kind, forensic, speculative and narrative, to the intent that it may afford satisfaction both to those who occupy themselves with political debates and to those who are devoted to philosophical speculations, as well as to any who may desire mere undisturbed entertainment in their reading of history.,4. Such things, therefore, will be the subjects of my history and such will be its form. I, the author, am Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the son of Alexander. And at this point I begin. |
|
24. Dionysius of Halycarnassus, On Thucydides, 41 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
|
25. Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 5.40, 6.35-6.42 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
|
26. Livy, History, 39.40, praef. 6 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
|
27. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.14. Upon the whole, a man that will peruse this history, may principally learn from it, that all events succeed well, even to an incredible degree, and the reward of felicity is proposed by God; but then it is to those that follow his will, and do not venture to break his excellent laws: and that so far as men any way apostatize from the accurate observation of them, what was practicable before becomes impracticable; and whatsoever they set about as a good thing is converted into an incurable calamity. 1.14. 3. Noah, when, after the deluge, the earth was resettled in its former condition, set about its cultivation; and when he had planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes in their season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered sacrifice, and feasted |
|
28. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.1, 1.17-1.18, 1.30 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.1. 1. Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; 1.1. For that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it; and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple; Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have opportunity for repentance. 1.1. But still he was not able to exclude Antiochus, for he burnt the towers, and filled up the trenches, and marched on with his army. And as he looked upon taking his revenge on Alexander, for endeavoring to stop him, as a thing of less consequence, he marched directly against the Arabians 1.17. 6. To write concerning the Antiquities of the Jews, who they were [originally], and how they revolted from the Egyptians, and what country they traveled over, and what countries they seized upon afterward, and how they were removed out of them, I think this not to be a fit opportunity, and, on other accounts, also superfluous; and this because many Jews before me have composed the histories of our ancestors very exactly; as have some of the Greeks done it also, and have translated our histories into their own tongue, and have not much mistaken the truth in their histories. 1.17. He also parted the whole nation into five conventions, assigning one portion to Jerusalem, another to Gadara, that another should belong to Amathus, a fourth to Jericho, and to the fifth division was allotted Sepphoris, a city of Galilee. So the people were glad to be thus freed from monarchical government, and were governed for the future by an aristocracy. 1.18. But then, where the writers of these affairs and our prophets leave off, thence shall I take my rise and begin my history. Now, as to what concerns that war which happened in my own time, I will go over it very largely, and with all the diligence I am able; but for what preceded mine own age, that I shall run over briefly. 1.18. 9. But now Cassius, after Crassus, put a stop to the Parthians, who were marching in order to enter Syria. Cassius had fled into that province, and when he had taken possession of the same, he made a hasty march into Judea; and, upon his taking Taricheae, he carried thirty thousand Jews into slavery. He also slew Pitholaus, who had supported the seditious followers of Aristobulus; and it was Antipater who advised him so to do. |
|
29. Josephus Flavius, Life, 86, 85 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
|
30. New Testament, Mark, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 9.5. Peter answered Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. |
|
31. Plutarch, Demetrius, 2, 1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
32. Plutarch, Demosthenes, 2, 1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
33. Plutarch, Dion, 36.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
34. Plutarch, Pericles, 13.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
35. Plutarch, Theseus, 1.1-1.2, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
36. Herodian, History of The Empire After Marcus, 2.15.6-2.15.7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
37. Lucian, How To Write History, 12-13, 39-42, 61, 63, 7, 10 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
38. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 2.57, 6.27 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.57. The Anabasis, with a preface to each separate book but not one to the whole work.Cyropaedia.Hellenica.Memorabilia.Symposium.Oeconomicus.On Horsemanship.On Hunting.On the Duty of a Cavalry General.A Defence of Socrates.On Revenues.Hieron or of Tyranny.Agesilaus.The Constitutions of Athens and Sparta.Demetrius of Magnesia denies that the last of these works is by Xenophon. There is a tradition that he made Thucydides famous by publishing his history, which was unknown, and which he might have appropriated to his own use. By the sweetness of his narrative he earned the name of the Attic Muse. Hence he and Plato were jealous of each other, as will be stated in the chapter on Plato. 6.27. Being asked where in Greece he saw good men, he replied, Good men nowhere, but good boys at Lacedaemon. When one day he was gravely discoursing and nobody attended to him, he began whistling, and as people clustered about him, he reproached them with coming in all seriousness to hear nonsense, but slowly and contemptuously when the theme was serious. He would say that men strive in digging and kicking to outdo one another, but no one strives to become a good man and true. |
|
39. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.2-3.39.4, 3.39.15 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
| 3.39.2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. 3.39.3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. 3.39.4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice. 3.39.15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. |
|
40. Augustine, The City of God, 3.6 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 3.6. I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus' brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born city should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already flourishing. It makes no difference to the question we now discuss, whether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with his own hand; it is a crime which many shamelessly deny, many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject. All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man's wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he who took his brother's life obtained the guardianship of those same gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable with it, because it did not see to its punishment, and thus committed, not fratricide, but parricide, which is worse. For both brothers were the founders of that city, of which the one was by villainy prevented from being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their characteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who re-peopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their maligt arts, they exulted in more abundant honors. |
|
41. Mimnermus, Fragments, 14, 13a
|
