Cassius Dio Research Articles

The Day Commodus Killed a Rhino: Understanding the Roman Games by Jerry Toner

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 203 The Day Commodus Killed a Rhino: Understanding the Roman Games. By Jerry Toner. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2014. Pp. 136. Toner's book is one of the inaugural volumes in Johns Hopkins’s “Witness to Ancient History” series,1 the premise of which is to take a specific day in ancient history, survey the events that led up to it, the day itself, and its effects in subsequent history. In this specific work, Toner organizes the material with a Prologue, “The Rhino Dies,” on the actual killing and six chapters that provide essentially ever-expanding context: Chapter One, “Commodus’s Great Games”; Chapter Two, “When in Commodiana”; Chapter Three, “An Emperor Loves His People”; Chapter Four, “Feeding the Monster”; Chapter Five, “Win the Crowd”; Chapter Six, “How to Be a Roman”; and an Epilogue, “Fighting Back,” on Christian martyrdom and resistance to the games. This is not a scholarly account, nor is it intended to be. The only notes are references to primary sources and they range in number from thirty-five in Chapter Six to none for Chapter Two, which really could benefit from some. The tone of the writing is casual and engaging, more like a written lecture script than an academic book. For example, in Chapter Two, referring to the renaming of months, Toner writes “These measures came into effect from July, sorry, Aurelius, a.d. 192” (28). Toner also writes in the first person singular, clearly distinguishing his opinions and conclusions from ancient judgments in a style that is effective and reminiscent of Lily Ross Taylor’s clear, straightforward prose.2 The book is brief, only 136 pages long including notes and index, and designed deliberately for educating undergraduates, initial graduate students, non-specialists in the field, or interested non-professionals. Not to reveal the ending too early, it does this very well. It provides an excellent discussion of the intersection between the games and politics in ancient Rome based on the example of Commodus and his games of a.d. 192. The Prologue serves effectively to set the stage of the games of a.d. 192, the specific event of the rhino hunt (Toner refers casually throughout to the “rhino”), the character of Commodus, and the eyewitness testimony of Cassius Dio. It also establishes the premise of the book and its attempt to “understand the importance of the games within a wider social context and explain the various different attributes that enabled them to play such a role” (5). Chapter One provides a useful, vivid account of how a set of games was arranged, how it was organized and presented during the course of a day’s events, and how it was paid for. The details of the games are, however, filled out with material from other contexts, in some cases very distant times and places, such as first-century a.d. North African games. I found this fictionalizing of the games useful and even necessary, but also somewhat misleading, since the acknowledgment of this technique is only found at the back of the book under “Suggested Further Reading.” The explanation of this method should have been given in the Prologue. Chapter Two provides a context for the games during the reign of Commodus, outlining the emperor’s parentage (real and rumored), propaganda programs, and tumultuous relationship with the Senate, which is critical given Toner’s reliance on Cassius Dio as a source. The chapter, however, lacks any references to the primary sources. Chapter 1 Since being assigned this review, I have signed a contract to write a book in this same series. As a result this review will focus on this specific volume and not the concept of the series as a whole. 2 Lily Ross Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949). 204 PHOENIX Three explores the interactions between the emperor and the people at the games, starting with examples from Commodus’ games, but providing historical comparanda as well, both successful interactions between the emperor and spectators as well as some notable failures. In addition to the social role of the games, Toner outlines well the political role in giving the crowd a voice...

The cultural dynamics of the term Hellanodikes in Palaiologan Byzantium

AbstractIn ancient Greek literature, Hellanodikai (Ἑλλανοδίκαι) were figures of public authority and high esteem, renown for their fair judgment, overseeing control, and morally transparent life. The characteristics we gather regarding their public role come from a number of historical and other sources, such as Cassius Dio, Lucian, and Pausanias. In the Byzantine era, the term was revived either as a historical gloss contextualizing the position of Hellanodikes (Ἑλλανο- δίκης) in ancient times or as a lexical and grammatical entry. As a contrast to the conventional treatments of this term, Palaiologan scholars proceeded to its unique redeployment. In this article, I argue that Hellanodikes became an epithet of social and cultural significance in Palaiologan Byzantium, a notion embedded within the intellectual peculiarities of this age, especially in contexts of imperial patronage and scholarly apprenticeship.

Cassius Dion et les magistratures de la Républiqueromaine : le discours de Catulus contre la Rogatio Gabinia (36, 31-36)

In book 36 of his Roman History, the Severan historian Cassius Dio devotes a large place to the lex Gabinia, which, in 67 BC, provided Pompey with an extraordinary imperium, in order to crush the overwhelming spreading of piracy in the Mediterranean sea. While dealing with the last contio before the vote, Dio inserts three speeches, the longest being Catulus’one, a vigorous and elaborate defence of the system of republican magistracies. This often neglected text, which reflects adequately the ideas of the optimates aroused against the dangers of such an imperium, is also an interesting piece of Dio’s own political reflection about the history of Rome’s successive regimes : in his opinion, the lex Gabinia was a turning point on the way to monarchy, and so had it to be presented to his readers.

Hadrian’s Adoption Speech in Cassius Dio’s Roman History and the Problems of Imperial Succession

The adoption of Antoninus Pius provided Cassius Dio with the opportunity to insert into his narrative a speech delivered by Hadrian justifying the selection of his successor (69.20.1–5). This article examines the content of the speech and its relationship to Dio’s own thoughts on the mechanics of imperial succession expressed elsewhere in the Roman History . It is argued that the speech articulates Dio’s ideal mode of succession, which sees the promotion of a model civilis princeps , while subtly drawing attention to the problems inherent in a system where an emperor chooses his successor. Furthermore, it is suggested that these views may be read as Dio’s hostile reaction to the practices of his own day.

CALIGULA, INCITATUS, AND THE CONSULSHIP

One of the most famous allegations made against the emperor Caligula was that he had intended to appoint his favourite horse, Incitatus, as consul. While Suetonius and Cassius Dio both preserve this allegation, neither explains the basis for it, what exactly Caligula had said or done to lead those about him to believe that this is what he had intended to do.

THE RAPE OF LUCRETIA IN CASSIUS DIO'SROMAN HISTORY

We are told that when news of Caracalla's death reached Rome a group of senators denounced their former emperor, likening him to all the tyrants of the past who had ruled over them. The senator who recorded these actions, the historian Cassius Dio, does not say which tyrants were listed, but it is likely that such a comprehensive list included the last king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus, and his son Sextus. The senators' actions were doubtless more an act of group catharsis than a private show of loyalty to their new emperor, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. Yet what the scene reveals perhaps most clearly is the Romanexemplatradition in practice.

The British Expedition of Septimius Severus

AbstractArchaeological evidence has emerged over the last half century which helps shed light on the British expedition (a.d.208–11) of the emperor Septimius Severus and his sons, famously but meagrely reported by the historians Cassius Dio and Herodian. Excavation at the Severan supply-base at South Shields, full publication of excavations of the 1960s and 1970s at the fortress of Carpow on the Tay, and more recently at Cramond, and recent work on the indigenous societies encountered by the Romans, all offer new perspectives. The archaeological evidence is reviewed in conjunction with the historical. A critical assessment is made of: (1) the widespread belief that personal or political considerations brought Severus to Britain rather than actual need for military intervention; (2) recent claims that the fortress at Carpow was founded earlier under Commodus (a.d.180s) and abandoned even before the Severan expedition; (3) the widespread assumption that Severus wished to occupy Scotland permanently and thus be the first conqueror of the whole of Britain; (4) the prevailing view that Carpow and Cramond were abandoned and that all Roman activity in Scotland ceased abruptly on Severus’ death in February 211, and that the campaigns brought about a period of peace in third-century Britain.

Publio Ventidio Baso, en los márgenes de la historia y la literatura

Publius Ventidius Bassus, Julius Caesar's protégé and Mark Antony's lieutenant, was celebrated in the first century of our era by many of the most renowned authors of Antiquity: for his proficiency in the leadership of legions against the Parthian invasions, and for his political cunning and fidelity in the revolts that succeeded Caesar’s death. In the early 17th century, Shakespeare found inspiration in historical sources dealing with Ventidius's life and circumstances, recovered his figure dramatically and devoted a scene of Antony and Cleopatra to him. Late in the same century, Dryden reinvented and magnified him for his so-called "imitation of Shakespeare" in All For Love. Publius Ventidius assumes different personae in each of these works: he is a mere incidental note in Plutarch's biography of Mark Antony; Antony's true decision-maker and lieutenant during the Mutina and Perusia wars in Appian's history; the only hero of the Parthian campaign in Cassius Dio's history; a measure of the protagonist's real greatness in Shakespeare's tragedy; and a sign of the clash between the old agonistic generation and the pragmatic youth in Dryden's heroic drama. These historical and fictional recreations will be of utmost interest in the present article.

Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina

In his work On Weights and Measures Epiphanius dated the beginning of the rebuilding of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina to 117 CE, immediately after Hadrian’s accession to the throne, but his chronology is usually ignored or dismissed as a mistake, in favour of the date of 130 CE, based on the narrative of Cassius Dio. However, recent excavations along and under the route of the eastern cardo of Aelia have indicated that preparation works for the infrastructure of the road were carried out in the early 2nd century, which led the excavators to the conclusion that the decision to rebuild Jerusalem was made by Hadrian shortly after he became emperor. This requires re-evaluating Epiphanius’ chronology, which appears to be sound and not in contradiction to the view that Hadrian inaugurated the new city in 130.

L’octroi de la citoyenneté romaine aux Latins: un anachronisme de Cassius Dion

In the fragments about the last Latin war, Cassius Dio depends on an author who probably lived shortly after the Social war and interpreted the history of the Latin war in the light of the events of his own time. Livy too is aware of this source which, however, is used independently by Dio.

Maternal megalomania: Julia Domna and the imperial politics of motherhood

Preface Introduction Julia Domna Who? Carving Out a Niche Severan Dynastic Propaganda and Julia Domna 1. Not Your Momma Problematizing Julia Domna as the Mater Castrorum Women and the Military Faustina the Younger: The Mother of All Mothers of the Camp The Military and the Domus Augusta: All in the Family? Severus and the Mater Castrorum Title Severus, the Military, and Julia Domna About Face! Conclusion 2. Romancing the Romans Julia Domna and the Populus Romanus The Nature of the Sources The Princeps and the Plebs The Roman Populace, Public Demonstrations, and Divine Inspiration Severan Propaganda and the Urban Plebs Roman Matrona, Mother, and Protectress Severus, the Populus Romanus, and the Collegia And Julia Domna? But What Does It All Mean? 3. Mater Senatus, Mater Patriae Julia Domna as Senatorial Savior Natural Rivals: Imperial Women and the Senate Severus's Senate Creating Consensus in the Senate: Wooing, Marginalizing, and Exterminating Negotiating Dynasty: Maternal Megalomania and Senatorial Subversions Julia Domna in Cassius Dio Moderating Maternal Megalomania Conclusion Ideological Crisis On the Dangers of Taking Ideology Too Seriously Appendix A: Hoard Details of the Severan Hoard Analysis Database by Clare Rowan Appendix B: Frequency of Julia Domna Coin Types in Hoards around the Mediterranean Appendix C: Dating the Mater Senatus, Mater Patriae Titles Notes Bibliography Index

THREE TEMPLES IN LIBANIUS AND THE THEODOSIAN CODE

In Libanius' speech For the Temples (Or. 30), sometimes regarded as the crowning work of his career, he refers to an unnamed city in which a great pagan temple had recently been destroyed; the date of the speech is disputed, but must be in the 380 s or early 390 s, near the end of the speaker's life. After deploring the actions of a governor appointed by Theodosius, often identified with the praetorian prefect Maternus Cynegius, Libanius continues (30.44–5): Let no-one think that all this is an accusation against you, Your Majesty. For on the frontier with Persia (πρὸς τοῖς ὁρίοις Περσῶν) there lies in ruins a temple which had no equal, as one may hear from all who saw it, so very large was it and so very large the blocks with which it was built, and it occupied as much space as the city itself. Why, amid the terrors of war, to the benefit of the city's inhabitants, those who took the city gained nothing because of their inability to take the temple as well (τοῖς ἑλοῦσι τὴν πόλιν οὐκ ἔχουσι κἀκεῖνον προσεξελεῖν), since the strength of the walls defied every siege-engine. Besides that, one could mount up to the roof and see a very great part of enemy territory, which gives no small advantage in time of war. I have heard some people disputing which of the two sanctuaries was the greater marvel, this one that has gone, or one that one hopes may never suffer in the same way, and contains Sarapis. But this sanctuary, of such a kind and size, not to mention the secret devices of the ceiling and all the sacred statues made of iron that were hidden in darkness, escaping the sun – it has vanished and is destroyed. Jacques Godefroy (Gothofredus), best known for his edition of the Theodosian Code, also produced the editio princeps of the speech For the Temples, supplying a Latin translation and extensive notes. He hesitated whether to identify the city in question with Apamea in Syria or with Carrhae, ‘urbs superstitione Gentilicia tum referta’, but opted for a third choice: Edessa, the capital of Osrhoene. In doing so he took for granted that a law of the Theodosian Code (16.10.8), in which the emperors order that a pagan temple in Osrhoene remain open, referred to the same temple; I shall argue below that this is incorrect. Opinion continues to be divided, though with a majority favouring Edessa. But this lay some ten or fifteen miles from the border with Persia, whereas Carrhae was directly on it, and is much more likely than Edessa to have had a temple from which one ‘could observe a vast area of enemy country’. The principal deity of Carrhae (Harran) was Sîn, the Moon God, said by some sources to be male, by others to be female. Describing how Caracalla was assassinated while on a pilgrimage to the god, Cassius Dio says that he had ‘set out from Edessa for Carrhae’, and was murdered on the way: according to Herodian, he was staying in Carrhae when he decided to go in advance of his army ‘and to reach the temple of the Moon, whom the local people greatly revere: the temple is a long way from the city [presumably Carrhae], so as to require a (special) journey’. Another emperor to visit the sanctuary was Julian on his march into Babylonia. Theodoret of Cyrrhus alleges that ‘he entered the sanctuary honoured by the impious’ and cut open a human victim, a woman suspended by the hair, in order to obtain an omen of his future victory.

FLORUS AND DIO ON THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE PROVINCES

This paper draws attention to the unprecedented prominence of metaphors of enslavement to Rome in the historical narratives of Florus and Cassius Dio. Following an analysis of the thematic importance of the trope in their respective works, I point to further parallels in Herodian and Justin which suggest that the trope proved particularly productive in both Latin and Greek historiography in the late second and early third centuries CE. The end of the paper considers broader cultural developments that might underlie this phenomenon, notably the proliferation ofdominusas an epithet for the emperor and the ongoing enfranchisement of provincials.

Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography . by Eric Adler (review)

Reviewed by: Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography. by Eric Adler T. P. Wiseman Eric Adler. Valorizing the Barbarians: Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography. Ashley and Peter Larkin Series in Greek and Roman Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2011. Pp. 280. $55.00. ISBN 978-0-292-72628-4. Eric Adler’s book discusses the following texts: Sallust Histories 4.69M (Epistula Mithridatis) and Justin 38.4–7 (speech of Mithridates); Polybius 3.63–64 and Livy 21.40–44 (speeches of P. Scipio and Hannibal); Polybius 15.6–8 and Livy 30.30–31 (speeches of Hannibal and Scipio Africanus); Tacitus Annals 14.35–36 and Cassius Dio 62.3–11 (speeches of Boudica and Suetonius Paulinus). Adler has sensible things to say about all of them; he is a good scholar, scrupulously thorough in citing ancient sources and modern bibliography; he writes well, with only rare lapses into modish phraseology; and yet the reader finishes the book wondering what it has all been about. We are told in the concluding chapter that the authors “possessed the ability to present readers with portraits of Roman imperialism and colonialism that are at least partly negative in their tenor” (164), that “the inclusion of speeches at [End Page 702] least partly critical of Rome’s imperialism was part of a historiographical tradition” (165), that “the appearance of speeches by foreign generals does not necessarily suggest that their authors sympathized with the sentiments they presented” (167), but that “we should not discount the notion that ancient historians of Rome were capable of and interested in portraying their society’s failures” (174). I fi nd it hard to imagine any reader of Polybius, Sallust, Livy, or Tacitus who does not already know this. Part of the problem is that the question to be addressed is never properly formulated. What exactly counts as “valorizing” Mithridates, Hannibal, or Boudica? The verb is evidently not just a fancy title, since Adler also uses it in his introduction (2). I assume it means more than just “recognizing their virtues” (of course the enemy must be worthy of the conflict); but even if it means “accepting the validity of their case,” banal conclusions can hardly be avoided: “Polybius was capable of producing a semi-sympathetic portrayal of Rome’s quintessential enemy” (81); Livy, “though assuredly no maligner of Rome, was hardly an uncritical jingoist” (116); Tacitus’ speech for Boudica “is no dehumanizing portrait from the pen of an unreflective colonizing power” (139). Very true, but who thinks otherwise? Perhaps some people do. Setting his scene in the first paragraph, Adler notes “the dominant view of Roman expansionism and colonialism among contemporary classical scholars,” and it is this: “Rome the reflective, self-conscious power is out; Rome the self-assured maligner of other cultures is in” (1). He has certainly knocked that straw man down, but one wonders whether it was worth the trouble. Such crude schematism is hardly consistent with serious historical inquiry. The ancient authors were not writing for modern postcolonialists. But who were they writing for? Adler takes it for granted that his subject belongs to “the intellectual history of the Greco-Roman elite,” and is “naturally confined to wealthy, well-connected, and educated types” (163) handling “cumbersome copies” of the historians’ texts (79). Would it make a difference if the historians were writing also for public recitation to large audiences? Thucydides took it for granted that history was normally a matter of festival performance (1.22.4); Polybius regularly referred to listeners as well as readers (e.g., 1.13.6, 3.32.10, 9.1.2-5, 18.46.9); Lucian in his essay on how to write history (5, 10, 39) assumed that the writer would address a popular audience as well as a literate readership. In his introductory section headed “Roman reader, modern reader,” Adler rightly draws attention to Livy’s famous eloquence (Quint. Inst. 10.1.101), but thinks it can only have been aimed at the “dramatic audience” within the narrative or “the actual audience of readers” (10). The possibility of history delivered in public performance is mentioned only once and then dismissed (9).1 Without argument...

Zonaras abréviateur de Cassius Dion. À la recherche de la préface perdue de l’Histoire romaine

The Byzantine writer Johannes Zonaras is the author of a universal history, the title of which is Epitome. One of its main sources is Cassius Dio’s Roman History. This paper focuses on some hitherto neglected passages in the preface of the Epitome having possibly been excerpted by Zonaras from the lost preface of the Roman History.

The Legitimization of Elagabalus and Cassius Dio’s Account of the Reign of Macrinus

Cassius Dio 79.1.2–4, in tandem with other literary and material sources, serves as valuable evidence for several significant aspects of Elagabalus’ legitimization campaign. Further analysis suggests that Elagabalus’ legitimization campaign may have influenced Dio’s account of Macrinus’ reign, especially with respect to Dio’s decision to include in his narrative a version of the story of Caracalla’s murder that was unsympathetic to Macrinus.

Cassius Dio on Julia Domna: A Study of the Political and Ethical Functions of Biographical Representation in Dio’s Roman History

AbstractOf the individuals who appear in the closing books of Cassius Dio’sRoman History, there is perhaps none more beguiling than Julia Domna. Dio’s account of the life of Domna is the fullest surviving from antiquity. Yet, Dio’s portrayal of Domna is not a miscellany of facts about the empress, and thus should not be treated as such. Rather, it is a contrived literary portrayal that fulfilled important moralizing functions within the Severan narrative of theRoman History. This article provides an analysis of Dio’s portrayal of Domna. It suggests that Dio shaped his portrayal of Domna to serve two purposes within the text: firstly, to act as a foil to his portrayals of C. Fulvius Plautianus and Caracalla; and, secondly, to explore through the figure of Domna political and ethical themes relevant to Dio’s appraisal of the Severan period.

Dio and Herodian on the Assassination of Caracalla

In their descriptions of the assassination of Caracalla, Cassius Dio and Herodian employed a similar narrative that was hostile to Macrinus and likely developed by his successor, Elagabalus. The differences in their accounts can be traced to each author’s historical views and attitude toward the individuals involved. Dio’s account is affected for the most part by his view that Macrinus overstepped the bounds of his social status. Herodian, on the other hand, has molded his version of the events to conform to a narrative of tyrant-slaying, as in the stories of Harmodius and Aristogeiton and the assassination of Caligula.

Cassius Dio’s Agrippa-Maecenas Debate: An Operational Code Analysis

This article discusses Cassius Dio’s political thought in his Agrippa-Maecenas debate (52.2–40) through the use of a form of content analysis developed by political scientists called “operational code analysis.” It offers a description of operational code analysis, which demonstrates the value of this method to the debate. It then presents an examination of Dio’s operational code, from which one can glean his philosophical and instrumental views on politics. It argues, inter alia , that the Agrippa address is based on the same epistemological foundations as the Maecenean corollary. Further, the article stresses that the Agrippa oration remains consistent with views Dio expresses elsewhere in his history. This suggests that scholars should not discount the efficacy of the Agrippa oration, despite its utopian character.

The Parable of the Seated Augustus: At the Intersection of Imperial History, Rabbinic Midrash, and Roman Art

Historians of the period from the rise of the Severan dynasty to the accession of Diocletian frequently lament their lack of sources, especially once the histories of Cassius Dio and Herodian ran out with Gordian III. Yet the substantial body of literature left behind by the Rabbis of the period—literate, relatively well-off, intellectual, curious, urban, taxpaying, and civically involved Roman citizens—is hardly ever consulted in connection with Roman history, although it includes hundreds of texts about “kings” based on the figure of the emperor. “The Parable of the Seated Augustus” focuses on one such text that provides entry into the interconnected late antique world as it shows provincial religious intellectuals doing their work of biblical exegesis at their most ingenious, to an extent notable even to specialists, while simultaneously reflecting on events and personalities surrounding the reunification of the empire in the late third century through Roman art, and demonstrating a little-known familiarity with this aspect of imperial high culture.