Classics - New Brunswick

Recently, efforts have been made to characterize Cassius Dio's history of the reign of Caracalla as reflective of the experiences of a marginalized senator, rather than of the senate as a whole. A re-evaluation of Dio's account suggests that Dio's version of events should remain the most valuable literary source for this period. Dio maintained a consistent view of the principate throughout his contemporary history, and his depiction of Caracalla as hostile toward the senate is supported by other sources. Finally, a survey of Dio's political career shows that he evaluated each emperor in his contemporary history through the example of the ideal emperor, Marcus Aurelius, not according to the favor (or lack thereof) he experienced under each ruler.

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.

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.

A number of aphorisms in Plutarch's Laconian Apophthegms contain a similar verbal formulation indicating death in battle. This formulation can be traced back to Thucydides, and was likely descriptive of expected Spartan behavior from the time of Thermopylae. Its employment in the Apophthegms, masking personal and civic shortcomings, reveals both an insistence on maintaining this behavioral directive and the social anxiety surrounding its maintenance.

This paper examines the application of a specific phrase, namely μαχόμενον ἀποθανεῖν (to die fighting), throughout the works of Xenophon. As the majority of applications occur in the Hellenica, and specifically in a Spartan context, I assess the import of its usage, arguing that Xenophon applies the phrase when he wishes judgments, primarily negative, of both Spartan valor and leadership to be made. This finding has implications for Xenophon's view of Spartan hegemony more broadly.

Plutarch's Laconian apophthegms present an image of Spartan courage that can be traced to fifth century Sparta. This ideology of courage has four main aspects: willingness to die in battle; the interchangeability of Spartan citizens; the role of Spartan women as the arbiters of masculine behavior; and the role of Spartan education in developing courage. Contrary to the general view of Plutarch's Laconian apophthegms, this theme has not been heavily distorted by fourth and third century philosophy. It is likely that the Spartans were the developers of these aphorisms and that the syssition provided a venue for their development.

Despite positioning himself as a contemporary eyewitness and heir to Thucydides, Herodian has generally been judged to be a poor historian prone to the use of compression , formulaic scenes, and even free invention. This paper examines Herodian's application of a specific plot type to conspiracies against the emperor by praetorian prefects. The use of this plot type reveals something of Herodian's understanding of history and historical methodology, while also serving an important narrative function in his text. Keywords Herodian – ancient historiography – Severan dynasty – Cassius Dio – Historia Augusta – third century AD

The epitome of Cassius Dio's book 77[76] contains a description of various celebrations that took place in 202–4 CE. The lack of clarity in this passage has led scholars to attribute certain spectacles to the wrong celebrations and to posit various hypotheses about the nature of the epitome of this section of Dio's history. This paper suggests that Dio intentionally conflated the celebrations of these years into one passage, which functions as part of his narrative of the rise and fall of Plautianus and calls into question the public image of the house of Septimius Severus at this time.

This paper examines how and why Cassius Dio portrayed Julia Domna in the manner that he did. Dio consistently depicts Julia as foreign and power-hungry, a portrait that appears to be driven by his analysis of the later Severan regime. Julia serves as a link between the two halves of the dynasty, a claim that runs counter to the of cial line of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. The later Severan house, seen by Dio as foreign and dominated by powerful female  figures, informs his portrayal of Julia Domna and shows a continuity of analysis throughout the  nal books of his history.

Writing in the first half of the third century CE, Cassius Dio, a Roman senator of Bithynian origin, composed an eighty-book history of Rome, from the founding of the city until about 229 CE.  The final portion of this work, specifically books 73(72)-80(80), provides an account of the reign of Commodus up to the accession and early part of the reign of Alexander Severus.  Dio was an eyewitness to this a period, and he explains that this section will be full of his own observations of events and will even record information that might not otherwise be worthy of inclusion, except for the fact that he himself was witness to it.  Dio, as a Roman senator, also plays a secondary role in this section of his history, as the author frequently discusses positions that he held, his interactions with emperors, and his presence in the senate.

Strikingly, the work ends not with some event of importance to Roman history or with the end of a particular reign, but rather with Cassius Dio's own retirement from public life.  The uniqueness of this endpoint is enhanced by the closing words of the work, which were not Dio's own, but rather a quotation from the eleventh book of Homer's Iliad.  In this passage, which Dio says was sent to him in a dream, Hector is removed from the battlefield and saved from the destruction of war by Zeus.  This quotation brings both a personal and menacing sense to the end of the history.  Dio appears to implicitly compare himself to Hector, and if the lines from Homer mentioned only some monumental struggle, we might assume that Dio was simply relieved to have completed such a grand work under the protection of the gods.  The slaughter, blood, and din of battle, however, give us the impression that Dio is thankful to distance himself from the subject matter, specifically the final eight books of his history.  The reader of books 73(72)-80(80) would hardly be surprised by this quotation.  Dio calls this period one of iron and rust, describing it as generally devoid of any positive aspects and characterized by turmoil and instability. 

The personal nature of both the end of the work and the contemporary portion as a whole begs further analysis.  Commentators on Dio's contemporary history have observed that this section reads like a memoir and have suggested that Dio serves as a sort of alternative to the debased world in which he lives.  Others, however, have noted a more pessimistic aspect of the function of Dio's character in his text.  Dio's political survival through this period, especially with his final reference to Hector's departure from the battlefield, on the surface suggests that he be viewed as a valorous hero under the protection of the gods.  Dio's history, on the other hand, is a highly critical narrative of his own era and can therefore be read as a reflection on his participation in the political life of this period, as well as a corrective to it.  The memoir-like nature of the text suggests that Dio carved out for himself a dual identity, as both senator and then annalist, participant and then critic.  Through this identity, Dio attempts to claim authority as a historian.

At the heart of Cassius Dio's Roman History was the charting of changes in government from the early kings to the monarchy established by Augustus, with particular emphasis on the decline of the Republic and the transition to monarchy. Throughout Dio's analysis we observe certain individuals who serve as examples to be emulated or avoided. In Dio's own age, emperors generally misunderstood or misinterpreted, willingly or unwillingly, these examples from the past. These failures allow us to consider Dio's understanding of the function of historiography and his ideas about the utility of his own work. While this may lead us to the negative conclusion that Dio believed all forms of government eventually degenerate, it also leaves open the possibility that Dio considered the writing of history, and thus the guarantee of a proper understanding of the past, to have positive, transformative consequences for Rome's monarchy.