Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon; Books 41–50 narrate the Civil War; and Books 51–60 encompass events from Octavian’s victory at Actium and
the start of empire to the death of Claudius. Book 80 ends with Dio’s
retirement from his second consulship and from political life. Dio is flexible in his narrative framework, which has many brief digressions; introductions and conclusions frame emperors’ reigns. Sources for the
treatment of periods before Dio’s own include annals for the earliest
periods, Polybius for the Second Punic War, and Livy for material in Book 36 and onward. Dio does not use Tacitus for Tiberius. He makes
numerous errors and omissions, but he also evinces much independence
of interpretation and capacity to shape his material. His accounts of the regimes witnessed firsthand – those of Septimius and Caracalla – are particularly valuable.
Dio’s speeches are freer inventions than those usually found among the
historians, often long, generally endowed with a dramatic function, and often heavily ironic (Millar 1964: 78–83). The work is in Attic Greek,
266
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
with mixed Greek and Roman elements of style and with frequent verbal
borrowings, especially from Thucydides. Like Thucydides, Dio is alert to discrepancies between appearance and reality, which are made critical and cynical by political experience. If Appian, living under the Antonines, focused on the unity that the empire afforded, Dio much more darkly
sought the complex and difficult style of Thucydides, which was meant to challenge Severan‐period readers and make them analyze things for themselves. Most significantly, Dio is the first Greek historian after Thucydides to take up that author’s pessimistic view of a “human nature” rooted in acquisitiveness, aggression, and fear (e.g., Th. 3.82; 5.105; see Reinhold 1988: 215–16; Millar 1964: 76; Hose 2007: 466–7). Dio cites “human
nature” more often than any other Greek historian, and has fifteen different phrases for it (Reinhold 1988: 216). Many of these reflect the
Thucydidean core views. For example, in the paired speeches by Agrippa
and Maecenas offering advice to Octavian about whether or not to lay
down the principate in 29 bc, Agrippa argues for laying aside the mon-
archy, even though “people believe that it is a part of human nature to dare some violent act, even if it seems greedy” (D.C. 52.2), and Maecenas claims that it is not unseemly for Octavian to remain as monarch: “a
yearning [ epithume ̄ ma] [sc. to rule] is not alien to human nature and the risk is a noble one” (D.C. 52.18); and yet, since “the nature often leads many to transgress the law,” the ruler should “humanely [ anthrōpinōs]
mix kindness with legal strictures” (D.C. 52.34; compare Diodotus in the Mytilenean debate, Th. 2.45–8). Plotting against one in power is also
part of human nature (D.C. 55.14), Livia consoles Augustus – and
she also urges clemency in view of the human tendency to do wrong
(D.C. 55.16 and 21).
Dio in fact tells the story of how he came to write history after he had published a book about the dreams and portents that made Severus hope
for “imperial power” ( autokratora arche ̄ n) and then he himself had a dream in which “a divinity [ daimonion] commanded me to write
history … I then longed to compile a record of everything else that
concerned the Romans” (73[72].23). Dio then says that he considers
Fortune (Tyche) to be his guide in the task – the one sending him dreams, inspiring him – and that he spent ten years collecting materials and twelve years writing. The supernatural plays a crucial role generally in his Roman History, where divine intervention is seen as directing human affairs and much space is given to portents. In this Dio deviates significantly from Thucydides.
Even if Dio is critical of monarchy at times, he looks favorably upon the major transition from republic to monarchy, as only monarchy promised
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
267
stability. He points out that the reports of events to the Senate and the people become rarer after the establishment of the empire; after that time most things were kept silent and concealed, and even if they are made
public, they are distrusted since they are not verifiable. For everything said and done is suspected to be the plans of those continually in power and their associates. (D.C. 53.19)
Dio then declares that his narrative is at the mercy of these dubious public sources, but he promises, in a sad echo of Thucydides’ method (Th.
1.22), to make the best judgment he can on the basis of what is available (Hose 2007: 465). Oddly, this mistrust of sources is mentioned in relation to Augustus’ period, but skeptical concerns are not reiterated for the
events of Dio’s own time (Millar 1964: 172–3). Perhaps Dio is more
confident about his instinct for the truth in an era when he could question witnesses personally.
Even in the case of emperors whom Dio knew directly, he did not hesi-
tate to display their tyrannical folly to the extent that he apologized for its inclusion, lest he be thought a sensationalist (D.C. 73[72].18; Marincola 1997: 91–2) – for instance Commodus’ gladiatorial ventures in the arena (D.C. 73[72].21) and Caracalla’s maniacal imitation of Alexander the
Great (D.C. 78[77].7–8; Millar 1964: 132–3 and 151). One primary
document of critical interest is Dio’s eyewitness report of Septimius
Severus’ speech to the Senate upon his accession (by force, in ad 197), in which he praises the severity of Sulla, Marius, and Augustus and censures the mildness of Pompey and Caesar (D.C. 76[75].7–8; Hose 2007: 461–
2). Dio’s view is generally senator‐centric in that he sees how emperors measured up to senators’ expectations. Again, in the paired speeches of Agrippa and Maecenas that counsel Octavian on the monarchy, the debate
occupies almost all of Book 52 (about 33 pages of English translation).
This is a detailed constitutional analysis airing points in much greater detail than the constitutional debate among Persians in Herodotus’ Book 3
(Millar 1964: 102–18). It is also strongly reminiscent of the paired speeches in Thucydides. The conversation of course relates to Dio’s period and to the empire generally, perhaps not aiming for radical change but aiming to keep core issues of democracy versus monarchy in active consideration.
Dio’s Severan period presented a real difference from Appian’s Antonine era, more emperors coming from the Eastern empire after Elagabalus and
ever more senators coming also from the east. So Dio’s history is meant to instruct this new contingent, to focus on the emperor, and to discuss senatorial concerns at greater length than Appian’s had done (Gowing 1992: 292–4).
268
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
Herodian
Herodian (c. ad 170–240), perhaps from Antioch, was a slightly older
contemporary of Dio. He was an imperial freedman who had “imperial
and public service” of some sort, possibly as a procurator, an imperial administrator (Hdn. 1.2 ; Matthews 2007: 295; Whittaker 1969: xix–
xxviii). It has been suggested that his lack of attention to greater political issues and his concern with court intrigue and fiscal matters indicate
freedman origins, though this view assumes a class stereotype (Whittaker 1969: xxi–xxii). Herodian is the author of A History of the Empire after Marcus in eight books covering the period from the death of Marcus Aurelius to the accession of Gordian III (ad 180–238). Where there is
overlap with Dio’s history, the evidence demonstrates that Herodian was using the work of his predecessor (Whittaker 1969: lxv–lxvii). The entire period of Herodian’s History is synchronous with his own lifetime, as he wrote “events that I myself know/saw [ oida]” (Hdn. 1.1
and 2.15). He writes of Severus, he says, “omitting noting worthy of account or
memory” (Hdn. 2.15). Yet his writing is short on details of names and
places and seems to lack the authority one might find if he had held a
higher position. The eighteenth‐century scholar F. A. Wolf said that
Herodian seems to have been a man “neither bold in judgment nor able
in ingenuity” ( nec iudicio promptus nec acumine pollens: quoted in Whittaker 1969: xxxviii). Yet the History has value as a supplement to sections of Dio’s. His lengthy description of the siege of Aquileia by the forces of Emperor Maximinus is well done, with good reports of the
economy and topography (Hdn. 8.2–6), including the story of the emper-
or’s death and the celebration of victory. The audience may consist mostly of non‐Roman Greek speakers, since Herodian often glosses Roman
practices and institutions; but he aims also to impress the Roman elite with a novel and entertaining narrative (Whittaker 1969: xxviii–xxxi). For Herodian as for Polybius and others, the pleasant and the useful can be combined (Hdn. 1.1).
The preface (Hdn. 1.1) is strongly reminiscent of Thucydides’ pref-
atory chapters (Th. 1.1–24) in several aspects, including its wording.
Common themes are the claim to adhere to truth over style; the value
accorded to long‐term use against temporary fame; bias coming out of
hostility or hatred toward tyrants or a desire for imperial or individual favor; the striving for accuracy and fact checking; and the mentioning
of the occurrence of earthquakes and plagues. Yet the fad of a simpler, Atticist style at this time and the reception of Thucydides over the generations do not point to as strong a Thucydidean intertextuality in
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
269
Herodian as was seen in Dio. One stylistic legacy is the generous use of speeches, thirty‐three in all in the History, most of them in the first four books, perhaps to establish major themes there. For instance, the transition of authority is conveyed through speeches by Marcus on his
deathbed (“rulers inspire their subjects’ minds not by fear of cruelty
but by a yearning for goodness”) and by Commodus to his soldiers and
advisors upon accession (“We must concern ourselves with human
affairs and rule of the world”) (Hdn. 1.4–5). Pithy dialogue for
dramatic effect is more frequent than the lengthy speeches exposing
deeper values, such as Pertinax’s speech to the Senate after being pro-
claimed emperor by the Praetorian Guard: “Freedom does not bring
cheer to the extent that slavery causes grief … You must join me in the joint administration of rule [ arche ̄] as we undertake an aristocracy, and do not endure tyranny” (Hdn. 2.3). Note also the lengthy speech of
Severus to his army to denounce the depravity of his rival Albinus
(Hdn. 3.6).
Herodian’s narrative naturally centers on the successive emperors,
while Marcus Aurelius stands as a paragon of monarchy against whom
later figures are measured, namely an ideal man devoted to education,
kind to subjects, mild in judgment, personally disciplined, militarily
adept, and politically respected by the Senate, as opposed to the cruel and violent tyrant (Hdn. 1.1–4; 2.4; Whittaker 1969: lxxi–lxxxii).
Commodus (ad 180–92) rules by fear and lives by self‐indulgence
(Hdn. 1.6–17). Book 2 chronicles the Year of Five Emperors – ad 193.
Septimius Severus (ad 193–211) is a mixed figure, diligent, brave, and
shrewd but also self‐centered, greedy, and terrifying (Hdn. 3.6–9). For instance, he succeeds Pertinax by pretending to the soldiers “that he
was not aiming at empire [ arche ̄] or striving after power for himself so much as wanting to avenge the murder of so great a king” (Hdn. 2.9).
Geta is kind, mild, good, and humane (Hdn. 4.3), in contrast to the
tyrannical Caracalla (ad 211–17) (Hdn. 4.3–7). Macrinus fails to live up to the standards of Marcus (claiming “mildness,” Hdn. 5.1), and
Elagabalus (ad 218–22) is an Eastern potentate (Hdn. 5.5). Severus
Alexander allows a return to aristocratic values and political virtue, military affairs being his weakness (Hdn. 6.1–9). Herodian echoes
Thucydides 1.1 when he has Alexander see the Persian threat as “the
greatest upheaval” of the Roman empire (Hdn. 6.3). A chaotic period
of five emperors, marked by the breakdown of concord with the Senate
after Severus and up to Gordian III, occupies the rest of the narrative; then there is the reign of Maximinus the Thracian in Book 7 and the
Year of the Six Emperors (ad 238) in Book 8.
270
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
Late Ancient Legacy
Of course the choice of Herodian (about ad 250) as an endpoint of this
overview, just before late antiquity (again, a period with debatable borders), is somewhat arbitrary. Late antiquity is generally considered to begin with the split into an Eastern and a Western empire under Diocletian (r. 286–305), at the end of the crisis of the third century (c. 235–84). We mention very briefly some of the successors to the tradition. A rare
Athenian in the empire was P. Herennius Dexippus, who wrote during
the reign of Aurelian (270–5) a Chronicle (nonextant) running from prehistory to ad 269/70 and modeled on Thucydidean style. Eunapius of
Sardis (c. 345–429) took up Dexippus’ account with a history (also lost) of the years 270–404. The extant ten‐book Ecclesiastical History of the prolific biblical scholar Eusebius of Caesarea (c. ad 260–340) offers the most important contemporary source on Constantine I and a view that
God’s plans direct all history. We also have the New History of Zosimus in six books, written at the end of the fifth century; it briefly surveys the emperors to Diocletian and presents the events of ad 270–410 in greater detail (Lesky 1966: 851–3). Some consider Procopius (c. ad 500–c. 565), with his The Wars of Justinian in eight books (all preserved) and his Secret History (also preserved), to be the last major historian of the ancient world (Cameron 1985). The sixth‐century Ioannes Malalas, author of an
extant Christian Chronography in eighteen books that covers history from Adam to Justinian, and the seventh‐century John of Antioch, writer of a Historical Chronography that goes from Adam to Emperor Phikas (ad 610) and is modeled on Malalas, are major heirs to the universal histories of Ephorus and Diodorus.
Conclusions
Among the historians surveyed in this chapter we can appreciate the rich variety of approaches and topics in play at the height of the Roman
power. We note three trends: Rome‐centered narratives, outsider per-
spectives, and prolific productivity. First, despite the wealth of potential subject matter from the history of the Greeks and other peoples, the
great majority of Greek histories of the period were, not surprisingly, intensely Rome‐centered. Josephus’ writing on the Jews and Appian’s
survey of other ethic groups still measure everything against Rome. We
have seen that Arrian’s Alexander narrative, which seems the exception, offers much of relevance to the empire. Rome from its origins to the
GREEk HistoRians in tHE Roman ERa
271
near present was the topic of Diodorus, Dionysius, Appian, and Dio
Cassius, each seeking to explain and justify to the Greeks and others the remarkable rise and acme of the Roman state. But each of these accounts also contained cautions about virtues and challenges to the rulers and to citizens generally.
Second, these historians allow us to see the spectrum of the opinions
of “the other people” under the empire, even if the views are muted by
some
self‐censorship. Notably the “others” may have Greek language
and culture in common, but their native roots are in several different
regions. Almost by definition, Greek historians had to come from
among non‐native Romans, the exception being Fabius Pictor. Even so,
it is noteworthy that no major Greek historians of the era are natives of mainland Greece or the Aegean islands; they come instead from Sicily or Southern Italy, from the Eastern Mediterranean or Egypt, which were
more intellectually vibrant (and wealthy) at this time. All came from
affluent families that could afford the leisure of education, but most of them also had some pragmatic experience in politics, and some of them
in military matters. All had spent some time in Rome and had contact
with, or at least firsthand observation of, emperors or major leaders of the day: Diodorus of Pompey and Caesar, Nicolaus and Dionysius of
Augustus, Josephus of Vespasian and Trajan, Appian of Hadrian and
Antoninus Pius, Arrian of Hadrian and Trajan, and Dio of Commodus,
Pertinax, and Septimius Severus. Though technically outsiders, they
won favor through their talent and probably their ability to present
Rome to the Greek world in a light that served the Roman elite. And
yet these historians all managed to have intellectually honest and
independent agendas in their works, which presented models of virtue
and vice for the ruling elite of their day.
Finally, the sheer quantity of extant Greek historical texts written in the three centuries from Diodorus to the mid‐third century ad far outnumbers those written in the roughly three centuries from Herodotus to
Polybius. This is due in part to the axiomatic principle that history is written by the victors – or, in this case, the subordinates of the victors who offer different, and mostly supportive, perspectives on the victors’ narrative. The Greek historians had better opportunities (more libraries and schools) and compelling political motives to write voluminous accounts, and the Roman and Greek elite had reasons to preserve and circulate
them. Educated Romans and Greeks certainly read the histories of the
Greek Historiography Page 43
