© 2015 Andriy Fomin ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HOW DIO WROTE HISTORY: DIO CASSIUS’ INTELLECTUAL, HISTORICAL, AND LITERARY TECHNIQUES by ANDRIY FOMIN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Classics Written under the direction of Sarolta Anna Takács And approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey January 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION How Dio Wrote History: Dio Cassius’ Intellectual, Historical, and Literary Techniques by ANDRIY FOMIN Dissertation director: Sarolta Anna Takács This dissertation explores the process of history-writing by Dio Cassius through comparative literary-historiographic analysis. By examining Dio’s Roman History as an integral historiographic endeavor, the dissertation attempts to reconstruct Dio’s overarching methodology. This task is achieved through the analysis of Dio’s own editorial asides and the comparison of Dio with parallel historical accounts, as well as by means of observing consistent features in Dio’s compositional design. The dissertation addresses such aspects of Dio’s methodology as his critical approach to sources, his principles involved in selection, reworking, and presentation of the historical material, his treatment of variant versions, and his use of literary allusions. A more in-depth discussion is devoted both to the role which dreams, portents, and prodigies, as well as wisdom expressions play in the system of causation developed by Dio, and to the historiography of Dio’s speeches. The dissertation revisits the traditional preconceptions regarding Dio’s extensive reliance on Thucydides, and in particular subjects to a systematic critique the hypothesis that Dio shared a Thucydidean pessimistic view of human nature, perceived as a constant. The dissertation analyzes the multi-step procedure of Dio’s causation and his emphasis on ii retrospective logical analysis of the motivations of influential individuals which determine the outcomes of the historical events. A systematic treatment of the typology, function, and patterns of presentation of speeches in Dio is undertaken in the concluding part of the study. This discussion revisits the traditional dichotomy in interpretation of Dio’s speeches (whether they are just rhetorical set-pieces akin to the progymnasmata of the rhetorical schools or they truly represent the author’s own views) and points toward new interpretative directions which take into consideration other types of intellectual discourse of the period, including those formed by the system of formal rhetorical education. The dissertation draws a portrait of the historical work of Dio Cassius as a mirror of the intellectual and cultural preoccupations of his own time. It treats the Roman History of Dio Cassius as belonging simultaneously to many intellectual orbits: in cultural sense, to both the Greek and the Roman worlds; in generic, linguistic, and literary sense — both to the traditions of classical Attic historiography and to new intellectual trends brought forth by the spirit of the Second Sophistic. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea for this project was conceived in Ukraine, begun in the USA, and completed over many years in different parts of Europe and in the United States. Many people whom I have met in different academic contexts helped me — directly and indirectly — to shape my ideas about this research devoted to investigating the mind of Cassius Dio. I value highly the input of each of them without exception, be it a simple comment or words of encouragement, but it is impossible to mention all their names here. First and foremost, I feel endlessly indebted to my dissertation director, Professor Sarolta Anna Takács, for her insightful ideas, comments, and advice, which challenged me to take intellectual risks, as well as for her unquenchable and contagious optimism and unending support, which guided me through this intellectual journey. I would like to express my warmest gratitude to Professor Thomas J. Figueira, my first reader, who, assisting me during each stage of writing, taught me always to adhere to high standards of scholarship and helped me to refine sharp edges in both expression and scholarly attitudes. Professor Serena Connolly was equally supportive throughout all these years, providing me with guidance as both my reader and graduate director. I am honored to have Professor Ian Rutherford as my outside reader, and I would like to thank him for the valuable comments that he has offered. Needless to say, without the help of all my advisors this project could have hardly been brought to completion, but I am solely responsible for any of the flaws or shortcomings this dissertation may still contain. iv This research has been subsidized by Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Transliteratures Fellowship, 2006-2012), the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Martin Ostwald Fellowship, 2010-2011), the American Research Center in Sofia (Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, 2012-2013), University of Konstanz and the state of Baden- Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg Stipendium, Summer 2012 and 2013). Many people in different ways have contributed to the success of this project. I greatly appreciate the continuous support and encouragement provided by Vice-President Joanna Regulska at Rutgers University. I am thankful to Dr. Eric De Sena at the ARCS, where a good one-third of the dissertation was completed. Professor T. Corey Brennan has shared with me many perceptive ideas, which helped me identify the direction for my research. I would like to extend my thanks to Prof. Cynthia Damon for suggesting constructive comments during a session at the 144th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association in 2013. I cannot omit mentioning my friends, among whom are Mr. Charles A. George, often the first listener and critic of my most daring ideas, Dr. Maxim Polonsky, whose brotherly support is hard to overestimate; also Mr. William G. Wickey, Mr. Kostyantyn Chuyeshov, my unforgettable ASCSA companions, especially Dr. Jeffrey Rop, friends from ARCS year in Bulgaria; my family, friends, and teachers in Ukraine and beyond. And last but not least: I just wish that Professor Valeriya Latysheva, my university ancient history teacher, who back in 1996 first inspired me to think about Dio Cassius as an object for research, could now see the fruit of this endeavor, the seed of which she planted. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract of the Dissertation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ii Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….... vi List of Illustrations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii Note on Translations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ix Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Chapter One: Dio’s Methodology and Methods for Studying Dio……………………………………………….. 21 1.1. Isolating Dio’s Aims and Methods: Types of Evidence…………………………………………………….. 21 1.1.1. Historian’s Original Input: “Value Added” to the Historiographic Tradition……………. 21 1.1.2. Internal Evidence vs. Application of the Comparative Method; Their Limitations……. 32 1.2. Dio and His Sources……………..……………………………………………………………………………………… 40 1.2.1. Dio and the Problem of Quellenforschung………………………………………………………………….. 40 1.2.2. Dio’s Note-Taking Process: Blending or Conflation of Source-Material……………………. 43 1.2.3. Dio’s Method as Commentary………………….…………………………………………………………. 53 1.3. Dio’s Literary and Historical Techniques…………………………………………….…………………………. 57 1.3.1. Speeches in Dio Cassius: Introductory Remarks. Political Analysis vs. Rhetorical Conventions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57 1.3.2. Dio’s Handling of Variant Versions…………………………………………………….…………….…. 69 Chapter Two: The Driving Forces of History in Dio Cassius: Divine and Human Agencies………….. 82 2.1. The Role of the Miraculous in Dio’s Historiography……………………………………………………….. 82 2.1.1. Dreams, Portents, and Prodigies within Explanatory Framework of a Historian ………. 82 2.1.2. Dio’s Religious Beliefs and His Interest in the Miraculous……………………………………... 88 2.1.3. Dio on Portents and Prodigies vs. the Conventions of Annalistic Historiography……… 96 2.2. The Causes of Divine and Human Origination in Dio’s Explanatory System…………………….. 106 2.2.1. The Role of (High-Profile) Individuals in Dio’s Narrative and His Understanding of Historical Progress……………………..………………………………………………………………………………… 106 vi 2.2.2. Narratological Functions of the Divine Agency in Dio…………………………………………… 115 2.2.3. Understanding Unresolved Contradictions in Dio’s Stand on Prodigies and Divination…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 127 Chapter Three: Wisdom Expressions (Gnomai) in Dio Cassius……………………………………………….…… 135 3.1. Universal Wisdom, Human Nature, and Historical Explanations…………………………………….. 135 3.1.1. Gnomai: Ancient and Modern Definitions……………………………………………………………. 135 3.1.2. Thucydidean Influence on Dio’s Use of Maxims…………………………………………………... 143 3.1.3. Maxims in the System of Dio’s Causation………………………………………………………….…. 150 3.2. Functional and Statistical Aspects of Wisdom Expressions in Dio……………………………………. 163 3.2.1. Gnomai as an Instrument for Validation of the Causative Arguments………………………. 163 3.2.2. Gnomai as a Familiar Rhetorical Device………………………………………………………………… 169 3.2.3. Patterns of Gnomai Distribution in the Text………………………………………………………….. 173 Chapter Four: Speeches in Ῥωμαϊκά……………………………………………………………………………………………