Dios Rome, Volume 1 | Page 2

progress

toward completion. In spite of the time consumed it seems in retrospect
not far short of presumptuous to have tried in three or four years to put
into acceptable English what Dio spent twelve in writing down. Yet the
task was not quite the same, for half of this historian's books have been
caught up and whirled away in the cyclone of time; and who knows
whether they still possess any resting-place above or beneath the earth?
The text originally chosen as the basis for the translation was that of
Melber, the idea of the translator being that the Teubner edition would
be the most convenient and readily obtainable standard of reference for
any one who wished to compare the Greek and the English. Hence the
numbering of the Fragments is that of Melber (subdivisions are
distinguished by a notation simpler than that of the original "sections").
Since no Teubner volumes beyond the second proved to be
forthcoming, the rest of the work followed the stereotyped Tauchnitz
edition, which also enjoys a large circulation. This text, however,
contained so many cases of corruption and clumsiness that it seemed
best to work over carefully nearly all of the latter portion of the English
and to embody as many as possible of the improvements of Boissevain.
Incidentally Boissevain's interior arrangement of all the later books was
adopted, though it was deemed preferable (for mere readiness of
reference) to adhere to the old external division of books established by
Leunclavius. (Boissevain's changes are, however, indicated.) The
Tauchnitz text with all its inaccuracies endeavors to present a coherent
and readable narrative, and this is something which the exactitude of
Boissevain does not at all times permit. In the translation I have striven
to follow a conservative course, and at some points a straightforward
narrative interlarded with brackets will give evidence of its origin in
Tauchnitz, whereas at others loose, disjointed paragraphs betray the
hand of Boissevain who would not willingly let Xiphilinus and Dio ride
in the same compartment. My main desire through it all has been not so
much to attain a logical unity of form as to present a history which shall
look well and read well in English. For this reason also I have banished
most of the Fragments (which must have only a comparatively limited
interest) to the last volume and have replaced them in my first by
portions of Zonaras (taken from Melber) which have their origin in Dio
and are at the same time clear, comprehensible, and connected.

Should any person object that even so my text does not offer eye and
ear a pellucid field for smooth advance, I must reply that the original is
likewise very far from being a serene and joyous highway; and it has
not appeared to me necessary or desirable to improve upon the form of
Dio's record further than the difference in the genius of the two
languages demanded. I am reminded here of what Francisque Reynard
says regarding the difficulties of Boccaccio, and because of a similarity
in the situation I venture to quote from the preface of his (French)
version of the Decameron:
"Dans son admiration exclusive des anciens, Boccace a pris pour
modèle Cicéron et sa longue période académique, dans laquelle les
incidences se greffent sur les incidences, poursuivant l'idée jusqu'au
bout, et ne la laissant que lorsqu'elle est épuisée, comme le souffle ou
l'attention de celui qui lit.... Aussi le plus souvent sa phraséologie
est-elle fort complexe, et pour suivre le fil de l'idée première, faut-il
apporter une attention soutenue. Ce qui est déjà une difficulté de lecture
dans le texte italien, devient un obstacle très sérieux quand on a à
traduire ces interminables phrases en français moderne, prototype de
précision, de clarté, de logique grammaticale.... Je sais bien qu'il y a un
moyen commode de l'éluder...: c'est de couper les phrases et d'en faire,
d'une seule, deux, trois, quatre, autant qu'il est besoin. Mais à ce jeu on
change notablement la physionomie de l'original, et c'est ce que je ne
puis admettre."
As is Boccaccio to Cicero, so is Cassius Dio, mutatis mutandis, to
Thukydides; and of course the imitator improves upon the model.
Imagine a man who out-Paters Pater when Pater shall be but a memory,
and you begin to secure a vision of the style of this Roman senator,
who accentuates every peculiarity of the tragic historian's packed
periods; and whereas his great predecessor made sentences so long as
to cause mediæval scholars heartily to wish him in the Barathron,
books and all, comes forward six hundred years later marshaling phrase
upon phrase, clause upon clause, till a modern is forced to exclaim:
"What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom?" Now I have dealt
with these complexes in different ways; and