took long journeys for scientific purposes. He was also a philosopher, philologist, geographer, and historian. Like Panatius, he was a friend of the noted Romans of his time, and was influential in advancing the cause of liberal Stoicism at Rome. His works, like those of his master, were much used by Cicero. He died at the age of eighty-four, about 51 B. C. The names of Scipio, Sulla, and Cicero, which have already occurred, show that Rome is beginning to be the home of Greek literature. BOOK IV GREEK LITERATURE UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE CHAPTER XXXVII FROM AUGUSTUS TO DOMITIAN Divisions of Græco-Roman literature-History-Diodorus Siculus, about 90 to after 21 B. C.-His importance-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 20 B. C.-His history of Rome-His rhetorical works—Cæcilius, about 20 B. C.-The treatise On the Sublime-Strabo, about 60 B. C. to about 20 A. D.-His works and literary character-Josephus, 37 to at least 94 A. D. His works-Philosophy-Sextius and Sotion, about the beginning of the Christian era-Areius Didymus, early first century after ChristThe Tablet of Cebes-Cornutus, 65 A. D.-Musonius, 65 A. D.-Philo the Jew, about 30 a. D. Divisions of the period from Augustus to Justinian. : THE period from the middle of the second century B. C. to the establishment of the empire by Augustus (31 B. c.) is, in literary as in other matters, a period of transition. Greek literature after the establishment of the empire falls naturally into three chronological divisions from Augustus to Domitian, 31 B. C. to 96 A. D.; from Nerva to the beginning of the reign of Constantine, 96 to 323 A. D.; from Constantine to Justinian, 323 to 527 A. D., though the dates. are not to be regarded as marking sharp lines of division. The first period was peculiarly barren. Political events occupied men's thoughts, and the Greeks, who might at other periods have become important in literature, if any such there were, turned their attention to such writing as interested the Romans-that is, to practical matters, history, and philosophy. There was little literary art. The second period is marked by a revival of Greek literature, though poetry was little cultivated. The third period brings the rise of Christianity and the end of ancient literature. Diodorus History, philosophy, grammar, and criticism are the subjects of most of the Greek literature of the earlier empire. The first historian of this period is Diodorus, born about 90 B. C., at Agyrium, in Sicily, and usually called Diodorus Siculus. His great work was a Library (Biblotheca) of History, the result of thirty years of diligent labor, published about 30 B. C. This was a history of the world from the earliest times to Cæsar's conquest of Gaul, in forty books. The first six books were devoted to the mythical period before the Trojan War. Of these we now have the first five and some fragments of the sixth. The next eleven books contained the history of the time between the Trojan War and the death of Alexander, Seven of these are extant, embracing the period from 480 to 323 B. C. The last twenty-three books carried the account from the death of Alexander to the conquest of Gaul. Of these only three books remain, relating to the years from 323 to 302 B. C. Of the forty books of the work fifteen are preserved. Importance of his work. The work is of great importance, because it is now the only source from which we can derive information concerning the history of several important periods. and qualities Diodorus compiled his history with immense diligence from the works of earlier historians, especially Ephorus, Theopompus, and Timæus, and since those earlier works are now lost for the most part, the compilation of Diodorus is invaluable to the historian. It contains the history not only of Greece, but of other countries as well, and mentions not only political events, but also such matters as the births and deaths of poets and artists. Dates are carefully given by Olympiads, Athenian archons, and Roman consuls, and in the comparatively few cases in which false dates are given the fault is undoubtedly not that of Diodorus himself, but of the earlier writer from whom he derives his information, for his great weakness as an historian lies in his lack of critical power and independent judgment. He wished and intended to write a great history, and succeeded in making a useful compilation, doubly useful to us now that the sources from which he drew his information have disappeared. His style is somewhat monotonous, and full of abstract, vague words, as is the style of most of his contemporaries. He has, however, the great merit of clearness, His style. and he avoids the error of introducing numerous oratorical harangues, an error into which many Greek historians fell. Dionysius of sus. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in Asia Minor, came to Rome in the year 30 B. C., and remained there for twentytwo years, in intimate relations with the cultivated aristocrats of the capital, such as Rufus Melitius and Ælius Tubero. During this time. he learned Latin, taught rhetoric and Greek literature, and wrote his Roman Archæology, as well as a number of treatises on subjects connected with his teaching. Whether he left Rome after twenty-two years or not is unknown. The history of Rome. The Roman Archeology was a history of Rome from the beginning to the breaking out of the first Punic War (264 B. C.). It consisted of twenty books, the first eleven of which, ending with the overthrow of the decemvirs in 449 B. C., are preserved, while of the other nine books we have only extracts and frag-. ments. Dionysius pays great attention to the origin of Roman institutions, both political and religious, but he tries to make his account agree with what he saw about him at Rome in his own time. He therefore fails frequently Still he consulted the best to give correct information. authorities, not only Greek historians, such as Polybius and Timæus, but more especially Roman writers, such as Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, and others, and his work possesses great value to us, though it must be used with caution. He is not a critical historian, but rather a rhetor writing history. He cares at least as much for rhetorical display as for historical accuracy, and his presentation of facts and events is further influenced by his theory that history should be used to inculcate piety and morality. His style has little merit. It is correct but monotonous, for even the numerous speeches introduced differ little from the narrative parts, except in being composed in the first and second persons instead of the third. In spite of the time and labor expended upon the history, Dionysius was primarily a teacher of rhetoric, and the history is a series of specimens of what he regards as good writing. In his rhetorical works Dionysius is seen to better advantage, though here also he makes it clear that he is not a great writer or thinker. The works pre Rhetorical works. served to us are: Studies on the Ancient Orators, of which only the first parts, treating of Lysias, Isocrates, and Isæus, are preserved; On Dinarchus, an appendix to the Studies on the Ancient Orators; treatises On the Arrangement of Words, On Demosthenes's Power in Speaking, and On the Character of Thucydides, besides two Letters to Ammaus (on the chronology of the orations of Demosthenes and on peculiarities of Thucydides), and a Letter to Gnæus Pompey, containing, with other matter, criticisms of Plato. In these Dionysius shows great familiarity with the authors treated, and in most respects excellent judgment. He evidently lacks originality, which makes his works all the more valuable to us, as they have preserved for us the teachings of the learned schools of Alexandria and Pergamum, rather than the independent opinion of one man. He opposes the practises of the Asian school of rhet |