chapter 8 Dio Chrysostom as a Local Politician: A Critical Reappraisal

Christopher J. Fuhrmann

“The history of after its annexation [by ] was comparatively uneventful.”1 A.H.M. Jones’ dry comment does not do full justice to the ten- sions and complexities of Greek political life, in Bithynia and beyond, dur- ing the first two centuries ad. The eighty extant orations of Dio Cocceianus “Chrysostom” provide invaluable insight into the turbulent inner workings of Greek communities in the . The past thirty-five years have witnessed some strong scholarship on Dio’s role as a rhetor and littérateur, philosophical commentator, and dispenser of political advice.2 Because Dio’s orations are so rich, his potential as a historical source remains unexhausted. Fortunately, his pronouncements can be compared with those of other Second Sophistic thinkers.3 We can also gauge how he shaped his politi- cal precepts before a variety of audiences in several cities. In evaluating Dio and his political remarks, we have more to work with than the platitudes of a noble visiting philosophe; rather, the many political speeches he delivered in Bithynia abound in details highlighting his own political machinations. This fact is especially true of the civic speeches set in his hometown, ad Olympum (modern ), which are the focus of this brief study.4 In some ways, Dio’s orations make for complicated evidence. In his semi- nal edition and 1898 monograph, von Arnim noted unanswerable questions regarding the nature and origin of Dio’s orations as texts. Some orations may have suffered unauthorized publication by audience members who took

1 A.H.M. Jones (1971) 162. 2 Desideri (1978); C.P. Jones (1978); Moles (1978); Salmeri (1982); Swain (1996) 187–241; Swain (2000); Bekker-Nielsen (2008); on the orations focused upon here, also note Cuvigny (1994). The best modern scholarship on Roman Anatolia has used Dio’s orations to good effect, e.g., Mitchell (1993); Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer (2002); Brélaz (2005); Heller (2006). 3 See below on parallels between Dio Chrysostom’s political thought and Plutarch’s Praecepta gerendae reipublicae. Bowersock (1969) 110–12 highlights the usefulness of comparing Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom; Swain (1996) 187–89 seems more struck by differences between the two. 4 Or. 40, 42–43, 45, 46–48, 51 delivered before the assembly of Prusa; and Or. 49–50 delivered before the council.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283725_0�� 162 Fuhrmann liberties with the text (see Or. 42.4–5). The author himself likely revised most texts for publication, which means we cannot just take it for granted that Dio said exactly what his extant orations say.5 Nevertheless, I think it safe overall to proceed as if most of the texts under discussion here are decent approxi- mations of what was said on a particular occasion, especially when some of this material (despite its self-serving presentation) is not particularly flattering to Dio. While we are largely dependent on the source of controversy himself to describe the complaints he generated, these complaints are so abundant that it is fairly easy to delineate the criticisms into credible patterns of political mal- feasance. Again, the evidence on Prusa and its most famous son is unusually full and not wholly confined to Dio’s orations: the indispensable contemporary correspondence between Pliny and , who exchanged a handful of unflat- tering letters concerning Prusa and Dio, reinforces my critical reassessment.6 So Dio’s political activity can be closely examined, and from different angles. Even though most of our evidence comes from his orations, the results of this scrutiny are damning. If a politician is found to be less than perfect, that is hardly surprising, and I will not be the first person to point out that this man was not a saint. But scholars who touch on Dio’s political activity tend to give him the benefit of the doubt, themselves drawn in, perhaps, by his gold-tongued eloquence.7 At this point, a less charitable approach will better advance our understanding. Contrary to the sympathy he has typically received, a more critical reading of the evidence suggests that as a local politi- cian, Dio Chrysostom was a corrupt, manipulative, and sometimes hypocriti- cal bully. While space does not permit an exhaustive discussion, I begin by sketching Dio’s most consistent and pernicious rhetorical habits in his Prusan orations (already established in his earliest extant political speech, Or. 46).

5 Note the laudable caution of C.P. Jones (2012) 213. 6 Pliny on Prusa: Ep. 10.17a-b (on Prusa’s accounts), 10.23–24 (on Prusa’s wretched public bath; also 10.70–71), 10.58–60 (on Flavius Archippus), 10.81–82 (on Dio). ’ fanciful ren- dering (vs 1.7.486–88) of Dio helped establish his (in reality, questionable) friendship with Trajan. Dio’s family is mentioned in the epigraphic record (ik 39.33 = IPrusa 33, i.e., Corsten 1991), but we are unsure how this evidence is connected to the orator: cf. Salmeri (2000) 89 and Bekker-Nielsen (2008) 140. 7 Swain (1996) 187–88 noted Dio’s attraction to power and enmity, which “somewhat” under- mines his plea for concord in Bithynia, representing “political behaviour Plutarch totally rejects in Political Advice.” Bekker-Nielsen (2008) 119–45 is properly skeptical on most points of Dio’s career, but he, Swain, and others often assume the best about Dio. Moles (2000) 205, cf. 207, despite awareness of Dio’s arrogance, even admits he increasingly sees him as “a fun- damentally good man.”