BMCR 2017.12.

15 on the BMCR blog

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2017.12.15

Valérie Fromentin, Estelle Bertrand, Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, Michel

Molin, Gianpaolo Urso (ed.), Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures (2 vols.). Scripta
antiqua, 94. Bordeaux: Ausonius
Éditions, 2016. Pp. 881. ISBN 9782356131751. $881.

Reviewed by Aleksandr Makhlaiuk, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

(makhl@imomi.unn.ru)

[The Table of Contents is listed below.]

By and large, both classicists and ancient historians are creating commentaries on Greek and
Roman texts: the former primarily in order to understand a text itself, with respect to its literary
quality, genre, style, and contextual and intertextual connections; the latter in order to grasp,
through the information elicited from the text, the social, political, and cultural realities of the
past. When they are dealing with such a monumental historical narrative as Cassius
Dio’s Romaika—an indispensable source of information covering almost a thousand years of
Roman history—the close collaboration of these two approaches to the reading of an ancient
text is of particular importance.

The two-volume set Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures is a result of the international research
project Dioneia – Lire Cassius Dion – Cinquante ans après Fergus Millar supported by
l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche in 2011–2015 and carried out under the guidance of
Valérie Fromentin, Estelle Bertrand, Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, and Michel Molin, who,
together with Gianpaolo Urso, are the editors of this large collective work. It has a double aim:
to draw up ‘un bilan du cinquantenaire’ (that is the fifty years since the publication of Fergus
Millar’s famous book on Cassius Dio1) and to open up new approaches to fill the most serious
deficiencies in the modern study of the work, or, in other words, to propose new readings of
Dio’s history in its historical and literary settings. Significantly, in the same year another
collection of essays on Dio as a historian and politician was published, and that volume was the
first of a new series published by Brill that was initiated within an international project
concerning Dio, the Cassius Dio Network (co-founded by Carsten Lange and Jesper Madsen),
and begun at a corresponding conference held in 2014.2 Thus, among the vast Dionean
bibliography,3 these two books, products of competing but complementary enterprises, are the
first collective works specially dedicated to Dio. Representing modern insights into and debates
within in the study of Cassius Dio, they both, along with other important monographs and
commentaries of the last two decades, are witnesses to a second revival of scholarly interest in
Dio’s personality and work, demonstrating the fruitfulness of such multi-faceted research
carried out by teams of leading specialists from around the globe.

Apart from a preface by Fergus Millar, an editors’ introduction, a bibliography, and an index
locorum , Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures contains forty-six contributions (thirty-eight in
French, five in Italian, two in English, and one in German) by thirty authors. Given these large
numbers and the limitations of a short review, there is no way to summarize each contribution,
even in brief. So I will focus on the general structure of the book and point out (with
inescapable selectivity) some novelties and interesting hypotheses.

The two volumes, with sequentially numbered pages, are organized into three parts with inner
subdivisions: “Tradition et réception du texte de l’Histoire romaine”, “Ecrire l’histoire de
Rome sous les Sévères,” and “Cassius Dion, historien du pouvoir.” All the parts, subdivisions,
chapters, and their authors are listed below. The contributors to the first part address, in two
subdivisions, such questions as major stages of the direct transmission of Dio’s text in
comparison with other Greek historians (Valérie Fromentin), the first printed edition of
the Romaika by Robert Estienne (Stephanus) in 1548 (Marion Bellissime), and the fate of Dio’s
history in late-antique and Byzantine literature, including its epitomes, extracts, and
continuations by Peter the Patrician, John of Antioch, Xiphilinus, and Zonaras (five chapters by
Laura Mecella, Umberto Roberto, Bénédicte Berbessou-Broustet, and Marion Bellissime). The
second subdivision will undoubtedly be of particular interest for specialists in textual criticism
and Byzantine historical writing.

The first subdivision of the next part, “La bibliothèque de Dion (sources et modèles)” deals
principally with traditional Quellenforschung. It opens with an essay by Giuseppe Zecchini,
“Cassius Dion et l’historiographie de son temps”, which stresses the originality of Dio’s
historical project as a new comprehensive history of Rome written in Greek and with a
senatorial perspective that was influenced by his contemporary reality and forced him “de nier
la fin de l’histoire et de reprendre le fil rouge de sa narration” (p. 122). The following nine
chapters scrupulously consider the specific sources of Dio’s narrative for specific periods, from
Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and the pre-Livian tradition to the Acta senatus. These,
as far as I can judge, do not give any radically new solutions for long debated problems,
although they add quite illuminating suggestions to many concrete issues and old questions (for
example, Marielle de Franchis contrasts the Dionean and Livian models of writing history and
argues that Dio’s choice of Greek is a result of his deliberate decision to reconnect with the
origins of Roman history, written in Greek by Fabius Pictor [p. 201]). In the final paper of this
section, Michel Molin provides a discerning comparison of the epigraphic and numismatic
evidence with Dio’s treatment of Caracalla, Macrinus, and Elagabalus in 79[78].2.2–
80[79].8.3, as transmitted by the manuscript Vaticanus Graecus 1288.

The eight contributions of the second subdivision, “Les formes de la narration historique”, cast
light on various issues of Dio’s literary technique: John Rich, with a careful attention to detail,
traces annalistic organization and book division in Dio’s fragmentary books 1–35. Evolution of
the annalistic model in Dio’s Julio-Claudian narrative is the subject of Olivier Devillers’ paper.
Marianne Coudry analyzes the portraiture of the eminent political figures in the republican
books, pointing out the originality of Dio in comparison with Plutarch. Dio’s view of historical
time and modes of the chronological references in his late republican and imperial narratives
are investigated in two further chapters by Bertrand, Fromentin, and Coltelloni-Trannoy, and
three final contributions deal with the various rhetorical devices used by the historian
(prosopopoeia, ekphrasis, enargeia), treating them in the light of modern literary criticism and
ancient theories of rhetoric.

The third part of the book, “Cassius Dion, historien du pouvoir”, covering the entire second
volume, includes five subdivisions. In the first, “Cassius Dion, sénateur romain”, Molin
presents two essays that examine Dio’s biography (presenting all available data and a critical
re-assessment of previous hypotheses) and his views of imperial society, and its crisis during
the historian’s own epoch. Michel Christol gives comparative analyses of the careers and
political positions of Dio and two of his outstanding contemporaries, Marius Maximus and
Ulpian. The three essays of the second subdivision, “Dire en grec les choses romaines”,
meticulously investigate Dio’s political vocabulary in his description of republican institutions
and procedures, the relations between the context of utterance and the lexical choices made by
Dio in his account on Caesar (Coudry), and polysemy and the re-semantization of the
terms μοναρχία and δημοκρατία (Bellissime). The contributors to the third subdivision, titled
“Penser la πολιτεία romaine”, propose case-studies to examine how Dio applies the theory of
governmental forms to the rule of Julius Caesar (Chiara Carsana), to the early Principate as it is
described in books 52–59 (Coltelloni-Trannoy), and to imperial legitimacy from the Antonines
to the Severans (Clifford Ando).

The next subdivision, “Fonctionnement et dysfonctionnement institutionnels”, continues the

theme of Dio’s depiction of political institutions, but now focuses on rather narrow aspects and
periods. This two-part contribution is devoted to changes to the imperium militiae in the period
from Pompey to Augustus: Frédéric Hurlet in his essay presents the current state of debate on
this institution, while Bertrand and Coudry pay scrupulous attention to Dio’s attitude to the
question of extraordinary commands, which is inseparable from his reflections on the
governance of the world-wide empire. Such a two-pronged approach to the problem may be
justified, but Hurlet’s paper says almost nothing about Dio and so seems to be at odds with the
general structure of the book. Other papers deal with the senate and magistrates on the eve of
the civil war between Pompey and Caesar (Coudry), senatorial procedures under the Empire
(Coltelloni-Trannoy), and the relationship between the senate and imperial power during the
reign of Tiberius (Marie Platon).

The final subdivision “Rome et son empire” contains six chapters on different topics, such as
Dio’s view of Roman imperialism and the geography of the imperium Romanum (both by
Bertrand), the specifics of the portrayal of the empress Livia among other female figures (Karin
Sion-Jenkis), Dio’s narrative of the imperial eastern campaigns (Giovanni Brizzi), imperial
finances in the light of the Agrippa–Maecenas debate (Jérôme France), and religious issues in
books 50–61 and Julio-Claudian historiography (John Scheid). Here Bertrand’s papers are
worth noting because they raise rather new questions with regard to how Dio perceived Roman
expansion, the imperial form of power (l’“impérialité”), “story-space”, and the specific space
of power. On the other hand, Brizzi’s essay tells us more about various aspects and episodes of
Roman military history (such as guerilla tactics of Rome’s enemies, viri militares, and so on)
than about Dio’s narrative as such, and this is regrettable, since not only is military history in
Dio one of few fields that is not considered in this book, but it is a very rare topic in the
scholarship on Dio as a whole.4

Overall, this is an extremely well-done work, with very wide (although not exhaustive)
thematic coverage, a well-balanced and thoroughly thought-out overall structure (including
multiple cross-references to the other chapters that treat similar matters), and excellent editing
and production quality.5 The vast bibliography will be especially useful because it contains
numerous items in French and Italian that are not always cited in English or German works. It
must be noted, however, that readers would benefit from a list of abbreviations used in the
bibliography. The scholarly level of the individual contributions is in general quite high,
notwithstanding the fact that some of them are of a more descriptive than analytical nature and
add relatively little to a deeper comprehension of Cassius Dio’s methods and views. Certainly,
given the large variety of issues raised in the book, the volumes may and should be read
selectively, depending on the specific areas of the reader’s specialization. One of the great
strengths of Nouvelles Lectures lies not so much in its wide scope as in its detailed case-studies,
which illuminate the originality of the authorial personality of Dio embedded in his narrative.
With perhaps the slight exception of Lachenaud the contributors to the “philological” sections
of the book do not overuse fashionable literary theories and instead seek to take into account
the historical background of Dio’s work and epoch. The authors of the “historical” sections, in
their turn, try not to lose sight of how narrative creates the past. So, the book provides a solid
summary of recent scholarship on Dio and also outlines interesting proposals to
promote Dioneia further. All this makes it a valuable contribution to the study of Roman
imperial historiography.

Table of Contents

Fergus Millar, Préface, p. 9.

Valérie Fromentin, Estelle Bertrand, Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, Michel Molin, Gianpaolo
Urso, Introduction, p. 11.
I. Tradition et réception du texte de l’Histoire romaine
La tradition du texte
Valérie Fromentin, Cassius Dion et les historiens grecs. Contribution à l’histoire comparée des
traditions textuelles, p. 21.
Marion Bellissime, Le Parisinus graecus 1689 et l’édition princeps de l’Histoire romaine de
Cassius Dion, p. 33.
La fortune de Dion dans la littérature tardo-antique et byzantine
Laura Mecella, La ricezione di Cassio Dione alla fine dell’antichità, p. 41.
Umberto Roberto, L’interesse per Cassio Dione in Pietro Patrizio e nella burocrazia palatina
dell’età di Giustiniano, p. 51.
Umberto Roberto, Giovanni di Antiochia e la tradizione di Cassio Dione, p. 69.
Bénédicte Berbessou-Broustet, Xiphilin, abréviateur de Cassius Dion, p. 81.
Marion Bellissime, Bénédicte Berbessou-Broustet, L’Histoire romaine de Zonaras, p. 95.
II. Écrire l’histoire de Rome sous les Sévères
La bibliothèque de Dion (sources et modèles)
Giuseppe Zecchini, Cassius Dion et l’historiographie de son temps, p. 113.
Dominique Briquel, Origines et période royale, p. 125.
Gianpaolo Urso, Cassius Dion témoin de traditions disparues: les premiers siècles de la
République, p. 143.
Éric Foulon, Polybe source de Cassius Dion? Bilan d’une aporie, p. 159.
Valérie Fromentin, Denys d’Halicarnasse, source et modèle de Cassius Dion?, p. 179.
Marielle de Franchis, Tite-Live modèle de Cassius Dion, ou contre-modèle?, p. 191.
Mathilde Simon, L’épisode de Sentinum chez Zonaras à la lumière du parallèle livien, p. 205.
Paul François, Cassius Dion et la troisième décade de Tite-Live, p. 215.
Olivier Devillers, Cassius Dion et les sources prétacitéennes, p. 233.
Cesare Letta, L’uso degli acta senatus nella Storia romana di Cassio Dione, p. 243.
Michel Molin, Cassius Dion et les empereurs de son temps. Pour une confrontation du
manuscrit Vaticanus Graecus 1288 et des autres sources contemporaines, p. 259.
Les formes de la narration historique
John Rich, Annalistic Organization and Book Division in Dio’s Books 1-35, p. 271.
Marianne Coudry, Figures et récit dans les livres républicains (livres 36 à 44), p. 287.
Estelle Bertrand, Marianne Coudry, Valérie Fromentin, Temporalité historique et formes du
récit. Les modalités de l’écriture dans les livres tardo-républicains, p. 303.
Olivier Devillers, Cassius Dion et l’évolution de l’annalistique. Remarques à propos de la
représentation des Julio-Claudiens dans l’Histoire romaine, p. 317.
Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, Les temporalités du récit impérial dans l’Histoire romaine de
Cassius Dion, p. 335.
Marion Bellissime, Fiction et rhétorique dans les prosopopées de l’Histoire romaine: les marges
de liberté de l’historien, p. 363.
Sophie Gotteland, Ἔκφρασις et ἐνάργεια dans l’Histoire romaine: les choix de Cassius Dion, p.
379.
Guy Lachenaud, Récit et discours chez Cassius Dion: frontières, interférences et polyphonie, p.
397.
III. Cassius Dion, historien du pouvoir
Cassius Dion, sénateur romain
Michel Molin, Biographie de l’historien Cassius Dion, p. 431.
Michel Christol, Marius Maximus, Cassius Dion et Ulpien: destins croisés et débats politiques,
p. 447.
Michel Molin, Cassius Dion et la société de son temps, p. 469.
Dire en grec les choses romaines
Marianne Coudry, Institutions et procédures politiques de la République romaine: les choix
lexicaux de Cassius Dion, p. 485.
Marianne Coudry, Contexte d’énonciation et vocabulaire politique: le cas de César , p. 519.
Marion Bellissime, Polysémie, contextualisation, re-sémantisation: à propos de μοναρχία et
de δημοκρατία, p. 529.
Penser la πολιτεία romaine
Chiara Carsana, La teoria delle forme di governo: il punto di vista di Cassio Dione sui poteri di
Cesare, p. 545.
Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, La πολιτεία impériale d’après Cassius Dion (livres 52-59), p. 559.
Clifford Ando, Cassius Dio on Imperial Legitimacy, from the Antonines to the Severans, p.
567.
Fonctionnement et dysfonctionnement institutionnels
Frédéric Hurlet, De Pompée à Auguste: les mutations de l’imperium militiae. 1. Les réalités
institutionnelles, p. 581.
Estelle Bertrand, Marianne Coudry, De Pompée à Auguste: les mutations de l’imperium
militiae. 2. Un traitement particulier dans l’Histoire romaine de Dion, p. 595.
Marianne Coudry, Sénat et magistrats à la veille de la guerre civile entre Pompée et César, p.
609.
Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, Les procédures sénatoriales à l’époque impériale: les choix de
l’historien, p. 625.
Marie Platon, Sénat et pouvoir impérial dans les livres 57 et 58 de l’Histoire romaine de
Cassius Dion, p. 653.
Rome et son empire
Estelle Bertrand, Point de vue de Cassius Dion sur l’impérialisme romain, p. 679.
Estelle Bertrand, L’empire de Cassius Dion: géographie et imperium Romanum dans l’Histoire
romaine, p. 701.
Karin Sion-Jenkis, Frauenfiguren bei Cassius Dio: der Fall der Livia, p. 725.
Giovanni Brizzi, Cassio Dione e le campagne d’Oriente, p. 741.
Jérôme France, Financer l’empire: Agrippa, Mécène et Cassius Dion, p. 773.
John Scheid, Cassius Dion et la religion dans les livres 50-61. Quelques réflexions sur
l’historiographie de l’époque julio-claudienne, p. 787.
Bibliographie, p. 799.
Index des passages de Dion, p. 843.

Notes:

1. F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964).

2. C. H. Lange & J. M. Madsen (eds.), Cassius Dio. Greek Intellectual and Roman
Politician (Leiden; Boston, 2016). Reviewed by Valérie Fromentin in Sehepunkte 17 (2017),
Nr. 9 [15.09.2017] and by Giuseppe Zecchini in Histos 11 (2017), lxxvi–lxxx. This volume in
Brill’s Historiography of Rome and its Empire series will be continued by forthcoming
volumes: C. Burden-Strevens & M. Lindholmer (eds.), Cassius Dio’s Secret History of Early
Rome; J. M. Madsen & C. H. Lange (eds.), Cassius Dio the Historian: Methods and
Approaches; J. Osgood & C. Baron (eds.), Cassius Dio and the Late Republic; C. H. Lange &
A. G. Scott (eds.), Cassius Dio: the Impact of Violence, War, and Civil War.
3. G. Martinelli, L’ultimo secolo di studi su Cassio Dione (Genova, 1999) contains more than
480 items, but by now this figure has probably doubled.
4. One hopes that this topic will be explored in more detail in a forthcoming volume of Brill’s
series edited by Lange and Scott (see above, n. 2).
5. There are very few typos: in Brizzi’s paper, when Boudicca’s revolt is mentioned,
references are given to Book 52 instead of 62 (p. 741 and n. 1); on p. 790
read ἀπεδείχθη for ἀποδείχθη.
Read comments on this review or add a comment on the BMCR blog
Read BMCR About Review for Support
Home Archives Commentaries
Latest Blog BMCR BMCR BMCR

BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010