Lindh ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 2018 Mads Ortving Lindholmer Cassius Dio and the “Age of δυναστεία” Mads Ortving Lindholmer OLLOWING THE NARRATIVE of the tumultuous events of the Late Republic and the battle of Actium, Cassius Dio’s Book 52 provides the transition to the Principate. At the start of this important book, Dio presents a periodization of Roman history: “Such were the achievements of the Romans and such their suffering under the kingship and under the Re- public and its periods of irregular power, during a period of seven hundred and twenty-five years. After this they reverted to what was, strictly speaking, a monarchy” (ταῦτα µὲν ἔν τε τῇ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ δηµοκρατίᾳ ταῖς τε δυναστείαις, πέντε τε καὶ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑπτακοσίοις ἔτεσι, καὶ ἔπραξαν οἱ Ῥωµαῖοι καὶ ἔπαθον· ἐκ δὲ τούτου µοναρχεῖσθαι αὖθις ἀκριβῶς ἤρξαντο).1 The meaning of δυναστείαις in this periodization has long puzzled scholars and given rise to misunderstandings of Dio’s narrative. Research on Dio has experienced quantum leaps in recent years as Dio has been transformed from a politically uninter- ested and incompetent historian into a complex political inter- preter who is worth studying in his own right.2 But despite lexical 1 Cass. Dio 52.1.1; transl. adapted from E. Cary, who translates δυνα- στείαις as “the dominion of a few.” For other quoted authors I have likewise used the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise noted. 2 The earlier approach is exemplified in many works but most clearly in F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964), and A. Lintott, “Cassius Dio and the History of the Late Roman Republic,” ANRW II 34.3 (1997) 2497–2523. The contrasting view is championed by W. Rees, Cassius Dio, Human Nature and the Late Roman Republic (diss. Oxford 2011); A. Kemezis, Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans (Cambridge 2014); C. Burden-Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches and the Collapse of the Roman Republic (diss. Glasgow 2015); F 562 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 examinations,3 the role of δυναστεία in Dio’s larger political interpretations remains essentially unstudied and the start of Book 52 still lacks an in-depth examination in spite of its impor- tance for interpretations of Dio’s work. δυναστεία is certainly most common in the Late Republic and Dio undoubtedly used the word to portray this period negatively.4 However, the num- erous occurrences of δυναστεία in Dio’s Late Republic have led scholars to view the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 as a discrete period in Dio’s perception of Roman history, covering most or all of the Late Republic.5 The δυναστεῖαι are thus seen as a historical V. Fromentin et al. (eds.), Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures (Bordeaux 2016); C. H. Lange and J. M. Madsen (eds.), Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician (Leiden 2016); M. Lindholmer, Cassius Dio, Competition and the Decline of the Roman Republic (thesis Glasgow 2016); “Breaking the Idealistic Paradigm: Competition in Dio’s Republic,” in C. Burden-Strevens and M. Lindholmer (eds.), Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History of Early Rome (Leiden forthcoming); “Dio the Deviant: Comparing Dio’s Late Republic and the Parallel Sources,” in C. Baron and J. Osgood (eds.), Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic (Leiden forthcoming); “Exploiting Conventions: Dio’s Late Republic and the An- nalistic Tradition,” in C. H. Lange and J. M. Madsen (eds.), Cassius Dio the Historian: Methods and Approaches (Leiden forthcoming). See however also D. Fechner, Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dios Sicht der Römischen Republik (Hildesheim 1986). 3 M. Freyburger-Galland “ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΙΑ chez Dion Cassius,” Ktema 21 (1996) 23–27, and Aspects du vocabulaire politique et institutionel de Dion Cassius (Paris 1997). 4 Contra K. Sion-Jenkis, Von der Republik zum Prinzipat: Ursachen für den Ver- fassungswandel in Rom im historischen Denken der Antike (Stuttgart 2000) 49–50. That Dio used δυναστεία to characterize the Late Republic is clear even from the 14 highly fragmentary Late Republican books: it is here used 4 times (F 22.73.4, F 24.83.4, F 25.85.3, F 33.107.1), but only 3 times of the earlier Republic, although this period is covered in 19 far better preserved books. 5 P. Cordier, “Dion Cassius et la nature de la ‘monarchie’ césarienne,” in G. Lachenaud and D. Longrée (eds.), Grecs et Romains aux prises avec l’histoire (Rennes 2003) 233; V. Fromentin, “Zonaras abréviateur de Dion Cassius: à la recherche de la préface perdue de l’Histoire Romaine,” Erga-Logoi 1 (2013) 23–39, esp. 38; Kemezis, Greek Narratives 95, 107, all see the δυναστεῖαι as a period, roughly equal to the Late Republic (“à commencer par Marius et Sylla,” Fromentin). Cf. Martin, in Historische Semantik 238: δυναστείαις is an MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 563 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 period comparable to the Regal Period or the Early and Mid- Republic. Furthermore, the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 have fre- quently led scholars to view δυναστεία in Dio as an actual governmental form ruling the Late Republic, which had there- fore ceased to be a δηµοκρατία.6 Challenges to this view have been cursory and scarce7 and even the most recent research on Dio continues the view of the δυναστεῖαι as a discrete period and frequently describes δυναστεία as an actual governmental “Epochenbegriff” referring to the Late Republic. 6 This perspective may have been influenced by the translation of Cary: “Such were the achievements of the Romans and such their suffering under the kingship, under the republic, and under the dominion of a few, during a period of seven hundred and twenty-five years.” Thus δυναστείαις signals a governmental form and a period in Roman history. The highly influential monograph of Millar (A Study 74) views the δυναστεία as a discrete period and as a quasi-governmental form. U. Ruiz, Debate Agrippa-Mecenas en Dion Cassio. Respuesta Senatorial a la Crisis del Imperio Romano en Época Severiana (Madrid 1982), follows Millar and views δυναστεῖαι as a “sistema de gobierno” (67) and an “etapa de la historia de Roma” (64). This position is also dominant in subsequent scholarship: Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 23–27, and Aspects 46–47, 129, 131, asserts that the δυναστεῖαι at 52.1.1 is an “oligar- chie” (117) and that this governmental form covers part or all of the Late Republic. So too C. Carsana, La teoria della “costituzione mista” nell’età imperiale romana (Como 1990) 84, and B. Kuhn-Chen, Geschichtskonzeption griechischer Historiker in 2. und 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu den Werken von Appian, Cassius Dio und Herodian (Frankfurt 2002) 182. 7 Fechner, Untersuchungen 139, was the first to partially challenge this view as he highlights that δυναστεία is not exclusive to the Late Republic. How- ever, he also sees δυναστεία as a governmental form in Dio, namely as a degenerate form of the aristocratic δηµοκρατία. He also argues that the Triumviral period was a δυναστεία and that it was this governmental form, rather than a δηµοκρατία, that the Principate replaced (107, 156–157). Only Sion-Jenkis (Von der Republik 48–50) has more categorically, but briefly, rejected the previous view as she asserts that δυναστεία is not a governmental form and that the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 do not refer exclusively to the Late Republic. However, her assertion that the fragmentary state of Books 1–35 precludes any conclusions on whether δυναστεία was more characteristic of Dio’s Late Republic than of earlier times is untenable. Dio undoubtedly did use δυναστεία more frequently for the Late Republic (n.4 above). 564 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 form ruling Rome during the Late Republic.8 This interpretation of the passage has contributed heavily to the scholarly division of Dio’s Republic into two neat periods, namely an idealized earlier Republic and a contrasting, mal- functioning Late Republic characterized, or even ruled, by δυναστεία. However, this obscures Dio’s distinctive rejection of the idealization of the earlier Republic and the fact that the Late Republic was still unequivocally a δηµοκρατία for Dio. These two elements, in turn, are central to Dio’s sophisticated presen- tation of the Republic as a system of government that was in- herently vulnerable and unworkable. A re-evaluation of 52.1.1 is therefore necessary and important. Furthermore, several as- pects suggest that the common interpretation of this passage. is problematic, especially the fact that Dio writes δυναστείαις in the plural, whereas βασιλείᾳ and δηµοκρατίᾳ are singular. Why would he use the plural if he is referring to a single, well-defined period in the shape of the Late Republic? It is also suggestive that Dio does not keep the ἐν before δυναστείαις and rather writes ἐν τῇ δηµοκρατίᾳ ταῖς τε δυναστείαις. Consequently, δυναστείαις is more closely connected to δηµοκρατίᾳ and be- comes conditional on this word.9 It should also be noted that the 8 See especially C. Carsana, “La teoria della forme di governo: il punto di vista di Cassio Dione sui poteri di Cesare,” in V. Fromentin et al. (eds.), Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures (Bordeaux 2016) 546–548, who treats δυναστεία more in depth, but views the δυναστεῖαι at 52.1.1 as both a historical period and a governmental form “con una sua dimensione istituzionale […] che non è piu la repubblica, ma non è ancora impero” (548). See also the brief men- tions by M. Coudry, “Cassius Dio on Pompey’s Extraordinary Commands,” in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 49; C. H. Lange “Mock the Triumph: Cassius Dio, Triumph and Triumph-like Celebrations,” in Cassius Dio 96 n.15, 114; J. M. Madsen, “Criticising the Benefactors: The Severans and the Return of Dynastic Rule,” in Cassius Dio 46; E. Bertrand “Point de vue de Cassius Dion sur l’imperialisme romain,” in Cassius Dion 683, 695–696, and “De Pompée à Auguste : les mutations de l’imperium militiae 2. Un traitement particulier dans l’Histoire romaine de Dion,” in Cassius Dion 596, 606. These works do not necessarily analyse 52.1.1 but still demonstrate how the problematic in- terpretation of this passage has permeated scholarship. 9 Only Sion-Jenkis, Von der Republik 49–50, has so far viewed the phrasing of the passage in this way. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 565 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 fragmentary state of Dio’s earlier Republic and the survival of a large part of his Late Republic may have had an impact on scholarly impressions of δυναστεία in Dio: if we had all of his earlier Republic, the contrast between this period and the Late Republic in terms of his use of δυναστεία may have appeared less striking. In this article, I will argue that the central passage at 52.1.1 has been misinterpreted: δυναστείαις should not be seen as a discrete period and especially not as a governmental form but rather refers to the numerous malfunctions of the δηµοκρατία throughout its history, which also explains the plural and the missing ἐν. The Late Republic is thus not δυναστεία through and through but rather a δηµοκρατία, albeit a poorly functioning one, which has been plagued by δυναστεῖαι from its inception as the proper workings of the state frequently break down. To support this reading, I will first show how commonly Dio uses δηµοκρατία of the Late Republic at central turning points, dem- onstrating that the idea of δυναστεία as a governmental form is untenable. I will then examine Dio’s use of δυναστεία in the earlier Republic, which undermines the assertion that the δυνα- στεῖαι of 52.1.1 refer only to the Late Republic. Furthermore, Dio’s selective use of δυναστεία in the earlier Republic connects this element intrinsically to equality in government, exceptional commands, and the tribunate as an office. These three elements are of course not exclusively Late Republican and highlight the problematic way in which 52.1.1 has often been interpreted. This re-evaluation of 52.1.1 and δυναστεία more broadly has wide ramifications for our understanding of Dio’s work as a whole: the presence of δυναστεία in his earlier Republic shows that this was not a Late Republican problem, which in turn un- derlines that the Late Republic was a δηµοκρατία. Furthermore, the inclusion of δυναστεία in Dio’s Early and Mid-Republic also shows that this element was inherent in his conception of the δηµοκρατία from the start. This amounts to a distinctive re- jection of the common idealization of these periods and presents the δηµοκρατία as inherently unworkable. This presentation is in turn used by Dio to argue that Augustus’ creation of the 566 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 Principate was necessary, beneficial, and unavoidable. This, however, is only possible if we reject the idea that Augustus’ em- pire merely removed δυναστεῖαι and see the Late Republic as a δηµοκρατία. If there had been a well-functioning δηµοκρατία before the Late Republic and this latter period is seen as δυνα- στεία, it would still be possible to portray Augustus as the mur- derer of liberty seen in Tacitus (Ann. 1.1). δυναστεία is, then, not a closed period but a highly important concept for Dio to denote the malfunctioning of orderly government and is used consis- tently to communicate and strengthen political interpretations. Context First, I will briefly present Dio’s use of δηµοκρατία and δυνα- στεία and offer a translation of 52.1.1. I will then set out how Dio’s predecessors used δυναστεία, in order to highlight his distinctive use of the word. Lastly, I will briefly present his non- Republican use of δυναστεία. While Appian and Polybius generally refrain from using δηµοκρατία about the Roman Re- public, often preferring κοινόν or πολιτεία instead,10 Dio con- sistently uses δηµοκρατία to refer to the Republic.11 Dio does at times use the adjective δηµοκρατικός for positively described rulers who show respect for the Republic (59.3.1) but never uses the noun δηµοκρατία in a similar way. Occasionally he uses δηµοκρατία as a more general term: Agrippa for example talks about the character of δηµοκρατίαι in his famous speech in Book 52 (52.6.1) and Dio also asserts that “if ever there has been a prosperous democracy (δηµοκρατία), it has in any case been at its best for only a brief period” (44.2.3). Thus, δηµοκρατία in Dio can be used as a general term for non-monarchical govern- ments which include the Roman Republic. But, this is rare, and consistent with his general use of δηµοκρατία for the Republic. 10 App. BC 2.111, 120; Polyb. 6.54.4, 6.57.10. The word δηµοκρατία is, however, not completely ignored: e.g. App. 2.107. 11 As asserted by e.g. Freyburger-Galland, Aspects 116; Sion-Jenkis, Von der Republik 43–45. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 567 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 Dio’s use of δυναστεία,12 on the other hand, is more flexible, exactly because it does not refer to a governmental form. δυνα- στεία in Dio is generally personal or characteristic of a small group or dominant faction and is often an ill-defined object of longing rather than an actual possession (e.g. 36.18.1). Im- portantly, however, δυναστεία does consistently have a core meaning in Dio: the word does not necessarily refer to strictly illegal power.13 Rather, it refers to power that is irregular in the sense that it is untraditional or excessive and has generally been obtained by exploiting, forcing, or manipulating the system. Instances of δυναστεία in the Republic are therefore generally the mark of a malfunctioning governmental system. Ultimately, δυναστεία can come to completely dominate the normal func- tioning of government, which explains why for example Dio’s Cicero in 44 B.C. can assert that he could not live under the δυναστεία of Caesar.14 This δυναστεία is not an actual govern- mental form. Rather, Caesar’s excessive and irregular power is here dominating the δηµοκρατία. The use of δυναστεία outlined here may also support trans- lating 52.1.1 as “Such were the achievements of the Romans and such their suffering under the kingship and under the Republic and its periods of irregular power…” This translation eliminates δυναστεῖαι as a period and connects it more closely to δηµο- κρατία, which fits better with Dio’s Greek. The translation also incorporates the plural δυναστείαις and avoids any suggestion that δυναστεία might function as a governmental form. Further- more, “periods” captures how δυναστεία in Dio was not a momentary problem but rather a persistent issue. Lastly, I have chosen to use the rather broad “irregular power” since this ex- pression can encompass both the factional dominance that Dio 12 See e.g. Fechner, Untersuchungen 154–163; Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 23–27, Aspects 127–131; Kemezis, Greek Narratives 107–109. 13 The tribunate for example is connected to δυναστεία, see below. 14 Cass. Dio 45.18.2. This complete dominance of δυναστεία is, however, an extreme situation and Dio’s use of the word in this way is therefore rare. The only parallels are 41.17.3, 45.11.2, 52.6.3. 568 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 connects to δυναστεία and also the excessive power of indi- viduals which he likewise labels δυναστεία. As I argue below, the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 refers to the many different δυναστεῖαι throughout the δηµοκρατία and it is therefore important to use an English expression that can encompass all these different δυναστεῖαι. It is central to note that δυναστεία is a problem in the Prin- cipate as well and not just in the Republic. This underlines how the common view of 52.1.1 has obscured Dio’s continued use of δυναστεία in the imperial period: we should not view this prob- lem as confined to the Late Republic. First, imperial underlings are at times presented as having obtained δυναστεία and Dio uses this as a means of criticizing the emperor.15 This shows an important difference between the δηµοκρατία and the Princi- pate: the former automatically bred δυναστεία, especially after the attainment of empire, while the latter could avoid δυναστεία through wise rulers. Second, Dio in fact several times connects the new Principate of Augustus to δυναστεία (53.17.3, 54.29.3). This could appear surprising as Dio’s preference for monarchy over δηµοκρατία is difficult to doubt.16 However, this does not preclude a critical attitude towards certain aspects of the empire and an awareness that Augustus had essentially been the last standing dynast after the civil wars, with an indomitable δυνα- στεία. Dio’s presentation of Augustus’ power as connected to δυναστεία could also be an attempt to reveal the falsity of the emperor’s claims to Republican continuity. Any significant con- tinuity between the Principate and δηµοκρατία would have seriously undermined Dio’s assertion that the δηµοκρατία as a governmental form was inherently unworkable. 15 This use has been briefly noted by Ruiz, Debate 66–67, and Fechner, Untersuchungen 154–156. See Cass. Dio 76.15.4, also 78.21.2 for the δυναστεία of Theocritus under Caracalla. 16 Only a few works assert that Dio was in fact a Republican. See e.g. R. Ferwer, Die politischen Anschauungen des Cassius Dio (Leipzig 1878); J. Berrigan, “Dio Cassius’ Defense of Democracy,” Classical Bulletin 44 (1968) 42–45; Fechner, Untersuchungen. Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 23, 26–27, Aspects 221–225, briefly supports them. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 569 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 δυναστεία is even portrayed as a problem during Dio’s Regal Period. A passage of Dio with very little context could be from the speeches against the kings at the end of the Regal Period, since the fragment comes from Book 3 which marks the transi- tion to δηµοκρατία: “It is done not merely by the actual men who rule (βασιλευόντων) them, but also by those who share the power (παραδυναστευόντων) with those rulers” (F 12.11). Unless the speaker is referring to some foreign king with no connection to Rome, βασιλευόντων must refer to the Regal Period. The fragment demonstrates that δυναστεία did indeed exist as a problem during the Regal Period as well, and it is thus in- corporated in every period of Dio’s narrative.17 This shows that δυναστεία is a universal problem in Dio’s conception of govern- ment, which provides important contextualization for the dis- cussion of δυναστεία in Dio’s Republic. It is also important to contextualize his use of δυναστεία against the background of earlier writers.18 δυναστεία is nega- tive in Dio and is central to his historical interpretations but he does not see it as a governmental form. His predecessors, how- ever, generally used δυναστεία far less than Dio and did view it as a governmental form: Herodotus does not use δυναστεία, while Thucydides uses it only four times in his entire work, namely to describe the governmental systems of Thebes, Thes- saly, Sparta, and Syracuse.19 Thebes, for example, “had neither an oligarchical constitution in which all the nobles enjoyed equal rights nor a democracy, but that which is most opposed to law and good government and nearest a tyranny—the rule of δυναστεία.”20 Thucydides’ use is paralleled in Xenophon who uses the word only once, to describe a number of cities as ruled 17 Contra Fechner, Untersuchungen 155: “nur während der Königszeit läßt sich ein Beleg [der dynasteia] nicht finden.” 18 On the varying use of δυναστεία by ancient writers see J. Martin, “Dynasteia. Eine begriffs-, verfassungs- und sozialgeschichtliche Skizze,” in R. Koselleck and K. Stierle (eds.), Historische Semantik und Begriffsgeschichte (Stuttgart 1979). 19 Thuc. 3.62.3, 4.78.3, 4.126.2, 6.38.3. 20 Thuc. 3.62.3;. transl. Crawley (adapted). 570 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 by δυναστεία (Hell. 5.4.46). In the development of governments, Plato sees δυναστεία as the very first form of government (Leg. 680B), although he elsewhere takes precautions, and for example calls it an intermediate constitution, πολιτεῖαι µεταξύ (Resp. 544D). Aristotle likewise sees δυναστεία as a governmental form but as a special, degenerate form of oligarchy: “a fourth kind is when the hereditary system just mentioned exists and also the magistrates govern and not the law. This among oligarchies is the form corresponding to tyranny among monarchies […] and indeed oligarchy of this sort has the special name of δυνα- στεία.”21 First, these writers use δυναστεία far less frequently than Dio. Second, it is generally portrayed negatively as a degenerate governmental form in opposition to equality and connected to tyranny. While we might question to what extent δυναστεία is an actual constitution in the technical sense of the word in these authors, it is certainly seen as a form of govern- ment through which a polis can be ruled. This is likewise evident in a number of other writers such as Andocides, Demosthenes, and Isocrates.22 This usage changes with Polybius as δυναστεία becomes in- stead a generally neutral term. Polybius writes for example of the “great rule and δυναστεία” of the Persians and of the δυναστεία over Italy which the Romans regained in the Second Punic War.23 δυναστεία is not included as a governmental form in Book 6 (6.3–4), and Polybius thus breaks with his Greek prede- cessors. Herodian, writing shortly after Dio, adopted Polybius’ more neutral approach in the five instances of δυναστεία in his 21 Arist. Pol. 1292b; transl. Rackham (adapted); see also e.g. 1293a, 1302b, 1303a. 22 Andoc. 2.27; Dem. 10.53; Isoc. Paneg. 39. 23 Polyb. 1.2.2, 3.118.9. See especially A. Erskine, “Expressions of Power in Polybius’ Histories,” in M. Mari and J. Thornton (eds.), Parole in movimento. Linguaggio politico e lessico storiografico nel mondo ellenistico (Pisa 2013) 85–90, who notes that Polybius’ use of δυναστεία is not exclusively neutral. See also Frey- burger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 24; E. Levy, “La tyrannie et son vocabulaire chez Polybe,” Ktema 21 (1996) 43–54, esp. 53. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 571 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 work; but he does use this term as a governmental form since he calls the Republic a δυναστεία.24 Dio thus draws on the negative meaning of δυναστεία, as seen for example in Thucydides and Aristotle, and rejects the more neutral usage of Polybius and Dio’s contemporary Herodian. Dio also rejects the widespread use of δυναστεία as a govern- mental form.25 The importance of δυναστεία in his work is also distinctive: in the other writers, δυναστεία generally plays a minor role in their interpretations of politics or history, whereas Dio employs it in an instrumental fashion as it is fundamental to his narrative and political interpretations.26 One natural ex- planation for Dio’s departure from his Greek predecessors is that he is a Roman historian who has knowledge of the Late Republic and therefore merges δυναστεία with Roman layers of meaning. For example, he might have been influenced by Roman con- ceptions of dominatio as this word is often connected to negative, excessive personal power as is Dio’s δυναστεία. In this con- nection, it is intriguing how the dominatio of Cinna and Sulla in Tacitus (Ann. 1.1.1) parallels the δυναστεία of leading Late Republican politicians in Dio. Likewise, Tacitus’ description of the first reigns of the Principate as dominationibus (13.1.1) has similarities to Dio’s connection between Augustus’ Principate and δυναστεία. This potential merger of traditions merits fur- ther study. 24 Herodian 1.1.4. Besides δυναστεία for the Republic, Herodian uses the word three times for the rule of emperors (1.1.5, 1.1.6, 2.12.5) and once for Zeus’ power after driving out Cronos (1.16.1). 25 Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 27, argues that Dio breaks with Polybius and inserts δυναστεία as a degenerate form of “oligarchie,” by which she must mean Polybius’ ἀριστοκρατία rather than its degenerate form ὀλιγαρχία. 26 Contra Fechner, Untersuchungen 177–178, who argues that Dio follows his Greek predecessors in viewing δυναστεία as a degenerate form of aristocratic government. In this connection, Fechner asserts that the δηµοκρατία in Dio is aristocratic. 572 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 δημοκρατία in the Late Republic Historians have frequently given undue importance to the beginning of Book 52 and ignored other turning points where Dio in no uncertain terms describes the Late Republic as a δηµο- κρατία.27 When we look at these turning points collectively, rather than focusing merely on the start of Book 52, it becomes clear that the Late Republic is undoubtedly still a δηµοκρατία for Dio. After the death of Caesar, Dio in a rare authorial com- ment criticizes the self-styled liberators and then considers the advantages of democracy and monarchy (44.2.2): “Democracy, indeed, has a fair-appearing name […] but its results are seen not to agree at all with its title. Monarchy, on the contrary, has an unpleasant sound, but is a most practical form of government to live under.” If the Late Republic had been a δυναστεία and distinct from δηµοκρατία, it would make no sense for Dio to include these considerations. Furthermore, he could then have levelled a far more severe and powerful criticism at the assassins, namely that they were returning Rome to the regime of δυνα- στεία. Rather, by using the word δηµοκρατία, Dio is criticizing the assassins for not perceiving the true and problematic nature of δηµοκρατία which he has amply demonstrated in his Late Republican narrative. Dio’s portrayal of the Late Republic as a δηµοκρατία is con- tinued immediately hereafter: “for a city, not only so large in itself, but also ruling the finest and the greatest part of the known world […], to practise moderation under a democracy (ἐν δηµο- κρατίᾳ σωφρονῆσαι) is impossible” (44.2.3–4). This assertion would again appear out of place if all the problems of the Late Republic had happened under an unbroken regime of δυνα- στεία rather than a δηµοκρατία. The only reasonable explana- tion for these two uses of δηµοκρατία is that the Late Republic 27 For recent works on Dio’s Late Republic see Rees, Cassius Dio; Burden- Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches, and “Fictitious Speeches, Envy, and the Habituation to Authority: Writing the Collapse of the Roman Republic,” in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 191–216; Coudry, in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 33–50; Lindholmer, Cassius Dio, in Cassius Dio the Historian, and in Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 573 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 with all its flaws was ultimately a δηµοκρατία, despite the power of the dynasts. This is further supported by two references to Rome as a δηµοκρατία in Cicero’s speech against Antony in 44 B.C. (45.31.2, 45.36.2). It should of course be noted that it is natural to have Cicero use an approximation for res publica in his speech. More importantly, the speech is instructively prefaced by the mention of oracles: “all sorts of oracles foreshadowing the downfall of the republic (δηµοκρατίας) were recited” (45.17.6). Oracles and omens should not be discounted by readers of Dio; he frequently views these as significant and they also function as important narrative tools.28 It is therefore instructive that these oracles evidently label Rome a δηµοκρατία in 44 B.C. The battle of Actium, after which 52.1.1 is placed, was certainly an impor- tant turning point for Dio. However, so was Caesar’s death, and the clear labelling of the Late Republic as δηµοκρατία in Dio’s connected excursus and the subsequent narrative should not be underestimated. Furthermore, Dio’s prominent positioning of his excursus, at the beginning of Book 44 and immediately after the death of Caesar, is also significant for the coloring it gives the following narrative. Caesar’s death was essentially the start of a renewed bout of civil wars, and by juxtaposing and comparing µοναρχία and δηµοκρατία at this crucial juncture, Dio portrays the following conflict as one between these two governmental forms. This would of course have been pointless if the δηµοκρα- τία of Rome had ended some time in the mid-second century. Another vital turning point for Dio is the battle of Philippi in 42. In his authorial voice, he asserts that this was the hitherto greatest of all Rome’s battles during civil wars since freedom and democracy (τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ τῆς δηµοκρατίας) were on the line (47.39.1). This is mirrored by the description of the assassins 28 J. Langford, Maternal Megalomania: Julia Domna and the Imperial Politics of Motherhood (Baltimore 2013) 57–63; Burden-Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches 208; Lindholmer, Cassius Dio 46–50, and in Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic. Contra Millar, A Study 77; G. Wirth, “Einleitung,” in O. Veh (ed.), Cassius Dio: Römische Geschichte I (Zurich 1985) 27; A. Gowing, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor 1992) 120; Lintott, ANRW II 34.3 (1997) 2511. 574 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 in the build-up to the battle as “despairing of the Republic” (δηµοκρατίας ἅµα ἀπογνόντες, 47.20.4), and their officers are portrayed as setting “before their men the prizes of liberty and democracy” (τήν τε ἐλευθερίαν καὶ τὴν δηµοκρατίαν, 47.42.3). Embedded focalization, that is, narrating events from the per- spective of the historical characters, might of course play a role. In other words, Dio might be using δηµοκρατία here because that was what the assassins and their officers thought they were fighting for. However, Dio in his authorial voice had already described the Late Republic as a δηµοκρατία and this is again made explicit immediately after the above passage: “And yet I do not say that it was not beneficial for the people to be defeated at that time […] for they were no longer capable of maintaining harmony in the established form of government (πολιτείας). It is, of course, impossible for an unadulterated de- mocracy (δηµοκρατία ἄκρατος) that has grown to so proud an empire to exercise moderation; and so they would later on have undertaken many similar conflicts one after another, and some- day would certainly have been either enslaved or ruined” (47.39.4–5). Dio thus underlines the adverse effects of empire on the Roman δηµοκρατία. He is also clear and explicit in his vocabulary: the πολιτεία of the Romans before Philippi was δηµοκρατία and he even underlines this with ἄκρατος. One should not forget how rarely Dio pauses his narrative to present personal opinions, and these instances are thus highly signifi- cant. He even again includes oracles “which pointed to the downfall of the republic” (δηµοκρατίας, 47.40.7). This battle is thus an absolutely vital turning point, and Dio’s omission of any period of δυναστεῖαι and his assertion that the previous period had been a δηµοκρατία are therefore important. For Dio, the δηµοκρατία appears to end during the Trium- viral period, for, before the battle of Actium, he asserts that “the Roman people had been robbed of their democratic form of government (δηµοκρατίας ἀφῄρητο), but had not become a monarchy in the strict sense of the term” (µοναρχίαν ἀκριβῆ, 50.1.1). This shows again that the Late Republic had been a δηµοκρατία. However, one might be tempted to argue that the Triumviral period is the period of δυναστεῖαι or that Rome’s MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 575 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 government in this period was δυναστεία.29 Dio does assert that the triumvirs aimed for δυναστεία (46.55.2), but this is no differ- ent from leading politicians of the Late Republic, or indeed of earlier periods, as I will show below. It should also be noted that the plural δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1 does not fit with a discreet short period dominated by the δυναστεία of the Second Triumvirate. Most importantly, however, Dio calls the Second Triumvirate both a τριαρχία and an ὀλιγαρχία,30 which shows that this period was not governed by δυναστεία. Yet, these terms are never used in any subsequent periodizations by Dio and it is never presented as an option that Rome should be governed by a τριαρχία or an ὀλιγαρχία. Rather, the τριαρχία or ὀλιγαρχία of the Second Triumvirate marks the complete malfunctioning and breakdown of the δηµοκρατία which, after a short transition period, is replaced by µοναρχία. Dio’s consistent focus on δηµοκρατία and µοναρχία as the two governmental options for Rome, rather than ὀλιγαρχία, τριαρ- χία, or δυναστεία, is evident in the two final turning points to be considered, namely the speeches of Agrippa and Maecenas connected to Augustus’ decision to take power, and the death of Augustus. Augustus’ creation of the Principate is undoubtedly one of the cornerstones of the entire Historia Romana. Dio signals this by devoting a whole book to debating the merits of the two governmental forms at stake, δηµοκρατία and µοναρχία.31 He does mention δυναστεία a few times during the speeches but 29 Fechner, Untersuchungen 107, 156–157, argues that the Triumviral period is ruled by δυναστεία but also notes that Dio calls this period ὀλιγαρχία. He also asserts (137) that 52.1.1 refers at least to the Triumviral period. This latter assertion is repeated by Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 27. 30 Cass. Dio 41.36.1, 48.34.1. Dio also posits that the later triumvirs were aiming for ὀλιγαρχία: 46.55.2 31 The debate of Agrippa and Maecenas is perhaps the most studied part of Dio’s work. See e.g. Millar, A Study 102–118; Berrigan, Classical Bulletin 44 (1968) 42–45; Ruiz, Debate; Fechner, Untersuchungen 71–86; E. Adler, “Cassius Dio’s Agrippa-Maecenas Debate: An Operational Code Analysis,” AJP 133 (2012) 477–520; Burden-Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches 152–157, 167–174. 576 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 never as a πολιτεία or as characteristic of the whole Late Re- public. Rather he includes it when talking about the personal power of ambitious individuals.32 Dio’s Agrippa asserts that “it is a difficult matter to induce this city, which has enjoyed a democratic government (δεδηµοκρατηµένην) for so many years and holds empire over so many people, to consent to become a slave to any one” (52.13.3). Agrippa here explicitly asserts that Rome, also during its Late Republican days of empire, was a δηµοκρατία, and throughout his speech he focuses on the ad- vantages of δηµοκρατίαι.33 Embedded focalization might again play a role but it seems hard to believe that Dio would devote a whole speech only to illustrating Agrippa’s point of view. Maecenas, furthermore, seems to equate the Late Republican civil strife directly with δηµοκρατία. He argues that in monar- chies things are managed in an orderly fashion, and proceeds to enumerate all the problems of Rome’s δηµοκρατία in a way that recalls Dio’s narrative of the Late Republic: there was envy (φθό- νος), rivalry for office (φιλοτιµία), and the well-known problem of strong ambitious individuals striving for primacy (δυνατώ- τεροι τῶν τε πρωτείων ὀρεγόµενοι) and creating internal unrest (52.15.3–4). The reference made to Dio’s Late Republic via vocabulary is clear,34 and Maecenas then asserts that “these are the evils found in every democracy […] and there is no other way to put a stop to them than the way I propose” (52.15.5–6). There is again no mention of an age of δυναστεῖαι, and Mae- cenas is rather connecting many of the problems supposedly associated with this alleged regime to δηµοκρατία. Dio’s highly negative portrayal of the Late Republic is thus not the manifesta- tion of a new governmental form or age of δυναστεία distinct 32 Cass. Dio 52.6.3, 52.13.2, 52.17.3, 52.21.7. 33 He mentions δηµοκρατία seven times in the twelve chapters of his speech that are preserved: 52.6.1, 52.6.5, 52.7.5, 52.9.1, 52.9.2, 52.9.5, 52.13.6. 34 These elements are central to Dio’s Late Republic: φθόνος, Rees, Cassius Dio 30–33; Burden-Strevens, in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 219–226; φιλοτιμία, Rees 15–18; Burden-Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches 92–95. Strong individuals competing: M. Lindholmer, “The Fall of Cassius Dio’s Roman Republic,” in Klio (forthcoming). MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 577 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 from δηµοκρατία but is rather due to the problems associated with any δηµοκρατία that has grown as strong and wealthy as Rome. As Maecenas himself notes, this is a powerful reason for the necessity of Augustus’ Principate and legitimizes this consti- tutional change far more than does a period of δυναστεία. The last important turning point for our present purposes is the death of Augustus. Dio again mentions no period of δυνα- στεῖαι which Augustus is supposed to have ended but rather focuses on how he, as Dio’s Livia had said earlier, guided “so great a city from democracy to monarchy” (ἐκ δηµοκρατίας πρὸς µοναρχίαν, 55.21.4). Tiberius in his speech of course praises Augustus but also plainly echoes Maecenas: “for you [the senators] knew well that a democracy could never accommodate itself to interests so vast, but that the leadership of one man (προστασία δὲ ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς) would be most likely to conserve them, and so refused to return to what was nominally indepen- dence but really factional discord” (στασιασµοὺς, 56.39.5). δηµοκρατία is again portrayed as the period immediately before Augustus seized power and, importantly, is also again depicted as equal to στάσις and internal conflict, due to the influx of wealth as a consequence of empire. This of course is typical thinking in Roman historiography, but it plays a central role in legitimizing Augustus’ creation of the Principate. If he had merely ended the period of δυναστεῖαι, the Republic could still be thought of as an ideal to which the Romans could return. Instead, Dio purposefully portrays the δηµοκρατία as inherently unworkable. This is reemphasized by Dio shortly after Tiberius’ speech when he writes of the “license of democracy” (56.43.4 δηµοκρατικοῦ θράσους, adapted from Cary). Such authorial statements are rare and carry significant weight. Tiberius’ funeral oration and Dio’s own connected comments thus reinforce that there was no regime of δυναστεῖαι and that it was the δηµοκρατία itself that had degenerated. The analysis of these turning points in Dio’s history demon- strates that he never meant 52.1.1 to indicate that there was a governmental form in the shape of δυναστεῖαι or that the δη- µοκρατία was removed by δυναστεῖαι. Rather, δυναστεία and 578 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 its destructive aspects were a problem inherent in the δηµο- κρατία as a governmental form. This identification of the Late Republic with δηµοκρατία also explains the plural at 52.1.1 and the missing ἐν before δυναστείαις which have often been ignored: Dio’s Late Republic was a time of fundamental govern- mental challenges and periods where proper government essen- tially broke down. We can thus view these breakdowns and the other examples of problems where Dio uses the word δυναστεία as a long line of individual δυναστεῖαι that occur more and more frequently during the Late Republic.35 Dio thus uses δυνα- στεῖαι at 52.1.1 not to denote a governmental form but to em- phasize the repeated failures of the δηµοκρατία which allowed the excessive personal power of certain individuals, their δυνα- στεία, to dominate the political landscape. This interpretation of the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 is supported by Dio’s use of δυναστεία in the Late Republic.36 He connects a number of prominent individuals to δυναστεία or to striving for it. Metellus is said to “lust” for δυναστεία (δυναστείας τε ἐρῶν, 36.18.1) when campaigning in Crete, while Pompey earlier had collected soldiers to create a “personal δυναστεία” (δυναστείαν ἰδίαν, F 107). Caesar and Crassus are likewise con- nected to δυναστεία; out of all the leading politicians of Dio’s narrative, only Cato the Younger is not.37 There were thus several δυναστεῖαι co-existing and struggling for domination during the Late Republic. This is further borne out by Dio’s comments on the illegal restoration of the Egyptian King Ptol- emy, arranged by Pompey and Gabinius: “So much power had δυναστεῖαι and abundant wealth as against the decrees of both the people and the Senate (αἵ τε δυναστεῖαι καὶ αἱ τῶν χρη- µάτων περιουσίαι καὶ παρὰ τὰ ψηφίσµατα τά τε τοῦ δήµου καὶ τὰ τῆς βουλῆς ἴσχυσαν).”38 Dio here contrasts the collective, official, and constitutional power of the Roman δηµοκρατία 35 This is also the suggestion of Fechner, Untersuchungen 139. 36 See also e.g. Freyburger-Galland, Ktema 21 (1996) 23–27, and Aspects. 37 Caesar and Crassus: 37.56.5, 41.57.4; Dio’s view of Cato, e.g. 37.57.3. 38 Cass. Dio 39.55.2 (adapted from Cary, who mistakenly, and surprisingly, translates δυναστεία as “official power”). MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 579 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 (represented by the Senate and the people) with the personal, unofficial, and unconstitutional δυναστεῖαι of selfishly am- bitious individuals. Consequently, δυναστεῖαι in this passage are naturally in the plural, which in turn sheds light on Dio’s for- mulation in 52.1.1: there he is referring to the breakdowns in Republican government caused by the δυναστεῖαι of ambitious individuals and attempts to underline their power and influence. This appears to be a rhetorical sleight of hand to further damn the δηµοκρατία at that important juncture of the narrative and to stress its repeated malfunctions. This is not to portray Dio as a mere rhetorician attempting to entertain. Rather, the use of δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1 is a powerful tool to advance a central interpretative point of Dio’s, that the δηµοκρατία of Rome was inherently unworkable. This untenability is not surprising as is clear from Dio’s many assertions, both in speeches and in his authorial voice, that a δηµοκρατία could never be harmonious in an empire the size of Rome’s. Analysis of these turning points demonstrates that the Late Republic was a δηµοκρατία and undermines the theory that δυναστεία was the governmental form of the Late Republic. The analysis also serves to contextualize 52.1.1: the passage should not be viewed in isolation but as one turning point among many where Dio deliberates on the functioning of Rome, and in none of these others do δυναστεῖαι play a prominent role. Thus, the reference in 52.1.1 appears to be to the malfunctions of the δηµοκρατία throughout its history. Furthermore, this presenta- tion of an inherently troubled δηµοκρατία is crucial for Dio’s description of Augustus’ Principate: instead of being Tacitus’ tyrant who exploited the civil wars to impose a despotism on war-weary Rome, Augustus can now be presented as beneficially solving the problems of a δηµοκρατία that is inherently under- mined by empire. δυναστεία in the Early and Mid-Republic In his Early and Mid-Republic, Dio has included a number of 580 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 important instances of δυναστεία.39 These could appear sur- prising since much recent scholarship has argued that Dio’s early Rome is an idealized contrast to the Late Republic.40 This de- cline from Early to Late Republic is typical of ancient Roman historiography, and the two main sources for the earlier Re- public, Dionysius and Livy, clearly idealize the period. However, Dio’s account of this period rejects the idealization and includes unique narrative material in order to create a distinctively nega- tive portrait.41 Mentions of δυναστεία during this supposedly harmonious period are an important part of this rejection, as δυναστεία consequently permeates the δηµοκρατία in its en- tirety.42 Furthermore, these mentions of δυναστεία are con- nected to highly significant elements: the first links δυναστεία to equality in government, the second to exceptional commands, and the last to the office of the tribunes. Through these inter- 39 Contra Martin, in Historische Semantik 238, who argues that δυναστεία is not used for early Rome. 40 Fechner, Untersuchungen 141–143; M. Schettino, “L’histoire archaïque de Rome dans les fragments de Dion Cassius,” in E. Caire and S. Pittia (eds.), Guerre et diplomatie romaines (Aix-en-Provence 2006) 66–68; B. Simons, Cassius Dio und die Römische Republik (Berlin 2009) 304–305; Rees, Cassius Dio 40–54; Kemezis, Greek Narratives 24, 102–106; Burden-Strevens, Cassius Dio’s Speeches 176–177. See however M. Hose, Erneuerung der Vergangenheit: die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio (Stuttgart 1994) 404–405, and Sion- Jenkis, Von der Republik 90–91, who briefly counter this view. See also J. Li- bourel, “An Unusual Annalistic Source Used by Dio Cassius,” AJP 95 (1974) 383–393, who notes Dio’s violent accounts of Early Republican episodes; however, Libourel attributes this to the use of an unknown source and does not explore the importance of these episodes for Dio’s interpretation. For the place of Dio’s earlier Republic in his overall work see Burden-Strevens and Lindholmer, Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History. 41 Libourel, AJP 95 (1974) 383–393; M. Lindholmer, “Breaking the Idealistic Paradigm: Competition in Dio’s Earlier Republic,” in Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History. 42 This break with the idealized tradition of the earlier Republic and the place of δυναστεία herein also nuance Kemezis’ (Greek Narratives 95–111) clear division of Dio’s history into different narrative modes. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 581 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 relations, Dio demonstrates that δυναστεία was a general prob- lem in the Republic. The first instance is in relation to the so-called “second decemvirate” during the Struggle of the Orders. Dio asserts that the first decemvirate performed admirably as “these men held sway each for a day, assuming by turns the dignity of rulership.” However, “ten more chosen anew—for the overthrow of the state, as it almost seemed—came to grief. For they all held sway at once on equal terms” (πάντες γὰρ ἅµα ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἦρχον, 5.18 (Zon.)). Strikingly, Dio has created a clear connection be- tween the equality of the decemvirs and the misfortunes under their rule—a marked contrast to Livy and Dionysius who rather depict the equality as a measure to increase the number of lictors allowed for the decemvirs.43 Then the decemvirs produced two law tables which created disputes and undermined ὁµόνοια, and ultimately the equal decemvirs refused to relinquish power as agreed and descended into δυναστεία: “For the men under arms, eagerly vying with one another (φιλονεικίᾳ) to prevent any success from attending those who held the power (δυνα- στείαν), voluntarily disregarded both the public and their own personal interests while those in the city […] destroyed in some convenient manner many of the more active champions of the populace. As a result no small contention arose between the par- ties” (στάσις οὐ σµικρά, F 23.3). Zonaras’ description preceding this fragment reveals that the men under arms are decemvirs on a military campaign, while “those in the city” are decemvirs left behind. Dio here uses δυναστεία for a completely malfunction- ing government where the decemvirs ruled through their un- constitutional and personal power—a stark contrast to the rule of the first decemvirate which was described as ἀρχή. This in- clusion of δυναστεία, in a fragment of Dio’s own text rather than the excerptor’s, clearly demonstrates that δυναστεία was not only a Late Republican phenomenon but was also part of the earlier Republic. Furthermore, this δυναστεία becomes the direct consequence 43 Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 10.59.3–5; Liv. 3.36. 582 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 of the equality of the decemvirs. This connection between equality and δυναστεία is significant, for Dio’s δηµοκρατία was fundamentally based on equality: ἰσοµοιρία and ἰσονοµία.44 Dio had previously underlined “the inherent disposition of men to quarrel with their equals” (F 7.3) and asserted that “no doubt, it is ordered by Nature that whatever is human shall not submit to be ruled by that which is like it and familiar to it, partly through jealousy, partly through contempt of it” (F 5.12). This inherent instability of equality is thus deep-rooted in Dio’s con- ception of government, and his narrative of the second decem- virate skillfully demonstrates this problem of equality-based governments: he shows that the δυναστεία here is not a singular, anomalous occurrence in the Early and Mid-Republic but is rather the unavoidable result of an equality-based rule. The like- wise equality-based δηµοκρατία was therefore bound to create δυναστεῖαι regardless of the period, which is demonstrated by the presence of this problem across the whole history of the δηµοκρατία. This significantly weakens the argument that the Late Republic was the age of δυναστεία. Dio’s narrative rather suggests that this problem was an inherent part of the δηµοκρα- τία. Another important example of δυναστεία in Dio’s earlier Republic is his description of the young Scipio Africanus and his successes in Spain during the Second Punic War. After winning all the territories south of the Pyrenees, Scipio was preparing for a campaign in Africa which had been entrusted to him. Dio comments: “And he would certainly have accomplished some- thing worthy of his aspirations […] had not the Romans at home, through jealousy (φθόνῳ) and through fear of him, stood in his way. […] … to treat [him in such wise] as would conduce, not to his power and fame (δυναστείαν καὶ δόξαν), but to their own liberty and safety, they dismissed him.”45 This is again from 44 Burden-Strevens, “Introduction,” in Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History. See also Fechner, Untersuchungen 37–39. 45 F 57.54–55 (adapted from Cary). There is a lacuna, indicated by the non-bracketed “…”, while the bracketed “him in such wise” is Cary’s suggestion. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 583 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 Dio’s work rather than an excerptor. It is central that Dio de- scribes Scipio’s personal power as δυναστεία and underlines the Senate’s fear of it and their attempts to inhibit its growth. δυνα- στεία is thus a problem in connection to powerful individuals also in the normally idealized Mid-Republic. It seems instructive that Scipio becomes a locus of δυναστεία: he is the only general in Dio’s surviving Mid-Republic to receive a command that clearly violated mos maiorum as he is given a generalship at only twenty-three (16.9 (Zon.)). Scipio is not legally given the title, but Dio emphasizes that he was de facto the general (16 F 57.40). In the Late Republic, exceptional and ex- traordinary commands which also violate the mos maiorum be- come both the catalysts of δυναστεία for ambitious politicians, such as Pompey and Caesar, and the tools through which these generals augmented and maintained their δυναστεία.46 The use of δυναστεία in connection with Scipio’s exceptional command is thus a noteworthy parallel to the Late Republic and indicates that commands which are contrary to tradition, regardless of the period, were problematically connected to δυναστεία. The cen- tral difference between the two periods, rather than the absence or presence of δυναστεία, is the character of the generals in- volved: Scipio obeys the Senate and naturally returns, whereas Caesar, for example, refuses, which ultimately causes civil war. Despite the important differences, however, the δυναστεία of Scipio also significantly counters the common idealized account of the Middle Republic. This is further supported as the Senate is portrayed as acting “through jealousy” (φθόνῳ, 17 F 57.54) in their opposition to Scipio, an element which has been shown to be a central problem in the Late Republic.47 Through his por- trayal of the Senate as jealous and self-interested, Dio thus further rejects the idealization of the Mid-Republic and blurs the common distinction between this period and the Late Republic. Dio’s narrative significantly deviates from those of the parallel 46 See e.g. Cass. Dio 36.30.3, 41.57.4, 43.25.3. 47 Burden-Strevens, in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 207–214. 584 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 sources, Livy and Polybius, as in both these accounts Scipio’s return is voluntary and natural as his mission in Spain had finished.48 In Livy, Scipio is in fact portrayed negatively and the Senate is right to question him, which Livy incorporates in a speech by Fabius, termed “appropriate to the circumstances […] and backed up by the weight of his character” (28.43). Both Livy and Polybius deflect the blame onto the individual, Scipio, whereas Dio through his use of δυναστεία for Scipio and φθόνος for the senators, portrays Rome negatively as a whole. Dio thus appears to have purposefully rejected the common idealization of the period, and the use of δυναστεία plays a central role in this rejection. It again underlines that Dio viewed δυναστεία as an issue throughout the Republic. δυναστεῖαι were certainly most numerous in the Late Republic but they were a problem in the Early and Mid-Republic as well. The δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 therefore rather evoke the numerous δυναστεῖαι throughout the history of the δηµοκρατία, which in turn demonstrated the un- tenability of this governmental form in Dio’s eyes. A last important example of δυναστεία to be considered is Dio’s description of the creation of the tribunate. After a lengthy narrative of this and a discussion of the problems that the tribunes caused through their excessive power, it is written that: “such was the organization of the δυναστεία of the tribunes” (οὕτω µὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν δηµάρχων δυναστεία συνέστη, 4.15, adapted from Cary). In contrast to the previous examples, we are here reliant on Zonaras’ epitome. However, recent scholar- ship has demonstrated Zonaras to be generally faithful to Dio, often following the latter almost verbatim.49 It thus seems 48 Liv. 28.38; Polyb. 11.33.7–8. On jealousy in Dio’s Middle Republic see also Simons, Cassius Dio 222–240. 49 J. Moscovich, “Historical Compression in Cassius Dio’s Account of the Second Century B.C.,” AncW 8 (1983) 137–143; Simons, Cassius Dio 29–32; Fromentin, Erga-Logoi 1 (2013) 23–26; C. Mallan, “The Rape of Lucretia in Cassius Dio’s Roman History,” CQ 64 (2014) 758–771, esp. 760–762. See also V. Fromentin, “La fiabilité de Zonaras dans les deux premières décades de l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion: le cas des discours,” in Cassius Dio’s For- gotten History. Support for the theory that Zonaras often followed Dio almost MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 585 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 reasonable that Zonaras’ use of the very specific and loaded term δυναστεία in relation to the tribunes actually comes from Dio. This is further supported by the fact that Dio later in his nar- rative twice connects the tribunate to δυναστεία (see below). The narrative of the problems caused by the tribunes is not explicitly tied to any specific period, and some of its elements, such as the abjuration of patrician rank through adoption, sound decidedly Late Republican. One could thus argue that the δυνα- στεία of the tribunes is connected only to the Late Republican excesses. However, some of the trouble caused by tribunes be- fore the above quotation is undoubtedly located in the Early Republic: “For though they [the tribunes] did not immediately secure the title of magistrates, they gained power (ἰσχὺν) beyond all others, defending every one who begged protection and rescuing every one who called upon them not only from private individuals, but from the very magistrates, except the dictators. […] And if ever they saw fit that anything should not be done, they prevented it, whether the person acting were a private citizen or a magistrate” (4.15 (Zon.)). The description of the tribunes as not having gained the title of magistrates excludes the possibility that this refers to the Late Republic, since the tribunes in this period of course were magistrates. But even though this description of the tribunes is evidently set in the Early Republic, they are still described as severely undermining the workings of the state and the power of the magistrates. A further argument that the δυναστεία of the tribunes is not verbatim can be found close to the first instance of δυναστεία in the earlier Republic analyzed here, where we have both Zonaras and a fragment of Dio’s own text. Dio (F 23.3) writes ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς στρατοπέδοις καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἄστει ἐταράχθη (“affairs of camp and state alike were thrown into con- fusion”) and Zonaras (5.18) closely echoes him: πάντα µέντοι ἁπλῶς καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἄστει καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς στρατοπέδοις τετάρακτο (“absolutely all the affairs, however, of state and camp alike were thrown into confusion”). The parallels here are far too close to be incidental: apart from the reversal of the order of the places, Zonaras has copied καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς στρατοπέδοις καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἄστει, while ἐταράχθη and τετάρακτο come from the same verb. The only difference between the two passages is a few rhetorical touches by Zonaras. 586 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 confined to the Late Republic lies in the use of συνέστη. The verb generally means to “combine,” “put together,” or “orga- nize,” and so one could translate the sentence, as I have above, “Such was the organization of the δυναστεία of the tribunes.”50 This would indicate that the δυναστεία of the tribunes was not bound to a particular period but rather enshrined in the very creation of the office. This reading gains further strength from Dio’s description of the restoration of the power of the tribunes in 70 after Sulla had severely curtailed it: “For now that the power of the tribunes (τῶν δηµάρχων δυναστεία) had been re- stored to its ancient status (ἐς τὸ ἀρχαῖον) […], a great many factions and cliques (συστάσεις) were being formed aiming at all the offices” (36.38.2). Dio’s ἀρχαῖον suggests that the δυναστεία of the tribunes predates the Late Republic and is rather a quality inherent in the tribunate which Sulla had merely suspended for a few years. A final example of the connection between the tribunate and δυναστεία is inserted after the death of Caesar. Here Octavian tries to use the office to acquire power: “he undertook to become tribune as a starting point for popular leadership (δηµαγωγίας) and to secure the power (δυναστείας) that would result from it” (45.6.3). No temporal limits are set on this δυναστεία and Dio thereby portrays the δυναστεία of the tribunate as a general quality that could be exploited by dynasts, such as Octavian, for their own good. These two instances of Dio connecting δυνα- στεία to the tribunate as an office and the general meaning of συνέστη in the description of the tribunes show that Dio does not tie their δυναστεία to a single period: he is arguing that the tribunate, through its power to subvert the workings of the state and the magistrates, was inherently a source of δυναστεία throughout the Republic. Dio’s depiction of the tribunate as destructive and connected to δυναστεία from the very beginning is in clear contrast to the 50 Cary’s translation, “Such was the origin of the power (δυναστεία) of the tribunes,” seems to suggest that he saw the δυναστεία as connected to the Late Republic. However, “origin” seems a rather loose translation. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 587 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 parallel sources. In his narrative of the creation of the office, Polybius never portrays the tribunate as overly destructive or linked to δυναστεία but rather depicts the tribunes as a check on the Senate (6.16.4–5). Livy and Dionysius, likewise, are neutral in their description of the creation of the tribunate.51 Dio’s hostile description of the tribunate from its inception there- fore cannot be explained away merely as a trope. Rather, it is a unique and abrupt rejection of the idealizing tradition. In Dio’s eyes, the inherent δυναστεία of the tribunes represents a funda- mental flaw in this governmental form. This connection between the tribunate and δυναστεία shows that the δυναστεῖαι of 52.1.1 do not refer only to the Late Republic. Dio thus rejects the idealization of the Early and Mid-Republic as these periods, like the Late Republic, were threatened by the δυναστεία of the tribunes. In the earlier Republic, Dio skillfully connects δυναστεία to exceptional commands, equality in government, and the trib- unate. None of these elements is exclusively bound to the Late Republic, and the latter two are fundamental parts of the δηµοκρατία as a governmental form. This demonstrates that δυ- ναστεία was an unavoidable part of the δηµοκρατία. Strikingly, it is the people who ultimately resolve the problem of the decem- virs’ δυναστεία as they depose the decemvirs and restore the proper functioning of the δηµοκρατία. The central difference between the Early and the Late Republic is thus not that δυ- ναστεία was confined to the latter period, while the earlier functioned in general harmony. Rather, the people in the Late Republic were controlled by the dynasts, whereas they act in- dependently and as inhibitors of destructive δυναστεία in the Early Republic. δυναστεία is thus present throughout the Re- public but the factors influencing its workings vary depending on the period. δυναστεία is, then, not merely a Late Republican phenom- 51 Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 6.89.3–6.90; Liv. 2.33. On the creation of the trib- unate in Dio and the parallel sources see J. Libourel, Dio Cassius on the Early Roman Republic (diss. UCLA 1968) 90–96. 588 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 enon and the more constricted reading of δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1 as denoting the Late Republic is therefore untenable. Surely, δυναστεῖαι are most common in this period but 52.1.1 refers to the repeated δυναστεῖαι throughout the history of the δηµοκρα- τία. Furthermore, confining δυναστεῖαι to the Late Republic obscures two of Dio’s most central interpretative points. First, his narrative of the Early and Middle Republic and his repeated incorporation of δυναστεία amount to an important rejection of the established historiographical idealization. His frequent re- jection of this idealizing tradition suggests that he was purpose- fully selective in his choice of sources in order to construct a distinctive narrative of the earlier Republic. Second, this nega- tive narrative demonstrates to Dio’s readers that the Late Republic was not a momentary lapse caused by immoral individuals, such as Caesar and Pompey, in an otherwise well- functioning constitution. Rather, the δηµοκρατία contained the seeds of its own destruction from the start, seeds which were nourished to destructive effect by the influx of wealth and power as a consequence of empire. This sets the stage for presenting Augustus, the foundation of Dio’s entire imperial narrative, as a savior figure who relieved the Romans of their inherently un- workable δηµοκρατία. Conclusion Dio conceives of the Late Republic as a δηµοκρατία, as is demonstrated by the numerous turning points where he uses this word for the period. The theory that 52.1.1 refers only to the Late Republic and that this period was even governed by δυναστεία is thus untenable. The atypical use of δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1 has perhaps made scholars focus too narrowly on this passage rather than the numerous other turning points in Dio’s work. δυναστεία is certainly important to Dio in the Late Republic.52 However, it is crucial that Dio also in the Early and Mid-Republic includes striking instances of δυναστεία which are connected to equality in government, the tribunate as an office, and exceptional commands. None of these elements is 52 Contra Sion-Jenkis, Von der Republik 49–50. MADS ORTVING LINDHOLMER 589 ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 exclusively Late Republican and the former two are part of the foundation of the δηµοκρατία itself. Consequently, δυναστεία was an inherent part of the δηµοκρατία in Dio’s eyes. This δυνα- στεία is never allowed to become fundamentally destructive in the Early and Mid-Republic but it is significant that it is present in these normally idealized periods as well. Through the con- sistent use of δυναστεία in all of his Republican narrative, Dio thus presents a highly distinctive and cohesive interpretation of the Republic that has gone largely unappreciated. Dio’s view of the Republic also explains the use of the plural δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1: here he is not referring to the Late Re- public as a period, as has so often been argued, but rather to the numerous instances of δυναστεῖαι that had occurred through- out the entirety of the δηµοκρατία. This in turn explains the missing ἐν: its absence is meant to link δυναστείαις more closely to δηµοκρατίᾳ since these δυναστεῖαι were part of the δη- µοκρατία. The use of δυναστεῖαι in 52.1.1 likewise serves to forcefully condemn the δηµοκρατία at a central juncture of the narrative. Beyond its role in Dio’s political interpretations, the passage of course also has significant rhetorical power, as is demonstrated even today by the many scholars who have over- looked how anomalous it is by focusing too narrowly on this one turning point. Dio’s use of δυναστεία not just in the Late Republic but throughout the Republic as a whole creates an impression of his δηµοκρατία as inherently unstable and vulnerable. Recent scholarship on Dio’s Late Republic has often concentrated on the leading individuals of his narrative,53 and while these works have resulted in many important advances, it is important not to focus excessively on individuals in explaining the fall of Dio’s Republic.54 The continuous presence of δυναστεία throughout 53 E.g. Rees, Cassius Dio, and Coudry, in Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual 33–50. 54 As I have argued elsewhere: in Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History; Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic; “Reading Diachronically: A New Reading of Book 36 of Cassius Dio’s Roman History,” Histos 12 (forthcoming); “The Role of Caesar’s Wars in Dio’s Late Republic,” in C. H. Lange and A. Scott (eds.), Cassius Dio: The Impact of Violence, War, and Civil War (forthcoming). 590 CASSIUS DIO AND THE “AGE OF ΔΥΝΑΣΤΕΊΑ” ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 58 (2018) 561–590 the δηµοκρατία suggests that Dio’s Republic was not ended by a few ambitious individuals. Rather, Dio’s δηµοκρατία was in- herently unworkable and he structures his account of the Roman Republic to support this. This inherent unworkability in turn allows him to portray Augustus’ Principate as unavoidable and necessary since no ideal version of the δηµοκρατία had ever existed to which the Romans might potentially return. Dio thus exhibits a highly distinctive interpretation of the Republic as a whole. He emerges as a sophisticated and complex historian who used δυναστεία as a cornerstone in the different political in- terpretations that permeate the often underestimated Historia Romana.55 September, 2018 University of St. Andrews madsortvinglindholmer@gmail.com 55 I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Christopher Burden-Strevens for helpful comments and suggestions and to Jesper Majbom Madsen for in- viting me to a seminar at which I presented an earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their corrections and comments.