At first Antiochos [IV] acted with seriousness, saying that he had no desire for the kingdom of Egypt, despite his extensive military preparations for war, but that he only wished to help in securing the elder Ptolemy [VI] his ancestral rule.1 This was in no way true, and in fact he wanted to intervene in the struggle between the youths and thus gain great favor as a starting point in mastering Egypt without effort.2 But fortune chose to test his plans and deprive him of the reason he had selected, and he was revealed as one of the many rulers who considered nothing more useful than profit.

(1) After the destruction of the Carthaginians,1 Sicily had sixty years of prosperity in every way, but then the Slave War occurred for the following reasons.2 The locals had greatly improved their lives and acquired great wealth, and purchased a large number of slaves. As soon as they were brought in from the slave markets in large groups, marks and brands were placed on their bodies. The young men were used as herdsmen and the others in whatever ways each might be useful. But they were treated harshly in their service, and were provided with scant nourishment and as little clothing as possible. Thus most of them sustained their lives by brigandage, and there was slaughter everywhere, since the brigands were like scattered groups of soldiers.3

Sicily is the most admirable of all islands, since it can contribute greatly to the growth of an empire.

Sertorius1 saw that the onrush of the locals could not be restrained, and acted harshly toward his allies.2 Some he arraigned and put to death, others he put under guard, and he confiscated the property of the wealthiest. He collected a large amount of silver and gold yet did not place it in the common treasury for the war but stored it for himself. He did not pay his soldiers from it, nor share it with the other commanders. He did not hold capital cases with his council or advisors, but heard them himself as the sole judge, passing the sentences. He was unwilling to invite his commanders to his meals and showed no courtesy to his friends. In general, because of the weakening of his position, he became exasperated and acted tyrannically toward everyone.

Delion was a sanctuary not far from Chalkis.1 Because the king had begun the war against the Romans through sacrilege, he was blasphemed by the Hellenes.2 Flamininus,3 spending time at Corinth, called upon all men and gods to witness that the war had been started by the king.4

(1) Neither the poet nor the historian, nor any craftsman using the rules of literary composition, is able completely to please every reader, for human nature, even if reaching the highest level of accomplishment, is never beyond reproach and accepted by everyone.1 Thus Pheidias2 was greatly admired for his production of ivory images, Praxiteles3 combined the emotions of the soul with works in stone, and Apelles4 and Parrhasios5 brought the art of painting to its peak through their experience in mixing colors. Yet none of them was so successful in his work that he could display the result of his ability and be completely free of reproach.

From the time that all human deeds began to be handed down through the records of history, and for the memory of posterity, the greatest war known to us was the Marsic, named after the Marsians.1 It surpassed all previous ones in terms of the bravery of its commanders and the size of its accomplishments.2 The Trojan War and the valor of its heroes were dramatically made known by the most distinguished of poets, Homer, so that their reputation is superior.3 There Europe was fighting against Asia and the greatest continents were earnestly striving for victory. Thus the deeds of the combatants brought it about that for successive people the theaters have been filled with their tragic and mythic achievements.

Hamilkar the Carthaginian, called Barkas, and his son Hannibal were said to have been the greatest of the Carthaginian commanders, not only more so than their predecessors, but also those who came later. By their deeds they greatly increased their native land.

Tusculans 1 offers a multi-faceted refutation of the proposition ‘death is an evil’, accomplished in part through a detailed doxography of a wide range of philosophers of different schools. This survey is far from a jumble of contradictory views, however: Cicero avoids dogmatic insistence on the arguments of any single school and has instead crafted a minimally sectarian protreptic designed to convince readers of any philosophical persuasion that death is not an evil, an approach whose origin he traces back to Socrates’ reflections on death in Plato’s Apology. Furthermore, I argue that this approach amounts to a direct challenge to Cicero’s philosophical rivals, a group of Epicurean authors writing in Latin – including, I speculate, Lucretius – whom Cicero had criticiaed in several prefaces for their narrow-minded dogmatism. In Book 1 Cicero therefore tackles a topic of perennial interest, illustrates how philosophy can and should be written, and attempts to marginalise his Epicurean opponents.

The present volume is a translation and commentary of books 21–40 of Diodoros’ Bibliotheke Historike, the first English version of these books in over half a century. The text used is that of the Budé edition of Paul Goukowsky with some adjustments from the Loeb of Francis Walton and the present author. The ordering and numbering of fragments generally follows that of the Budé text.