By this author

Studia Dionea novissima: Historical Narrative, Interpretations of the Past and Political Contexts of Cassius Dio’s “Roman History”. Part I

Issue 3 from 26.09.2022

This article provides a general overview of the current state of research on Cassius Dio and focuses on some current trends and issues of debate in the field. The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a real breakthrough in Dio scholarship, which has greatly advanced in many respects through increasing diversification of research topics, innovative approaches, posing new questions and producing important conceptual generalizations. International projects and wide academic collaborations, above all the Dioneia project (Lire Cassius Dion: cinquante ans après Fergus Millar: bilans et perspectives) and the Cassius Dio Network: Cassius Dio, Between History and Politics, have contributed greatly to this process. This intensive academic activity has resulted in new editions, translations and commentaries of Dio’s Roman History, numerous dissertations and monographs, which make Cassius Dio a much better understood historian than twenty or even five years ago. But there are still not a few issues of controversy and debate, including the historian’s approach to causation, particularly his vision of human nature as a factor of history. An analytical survey of the ongoing studies of that issue shows that Dio is treated as an author who independently elaborated on the themes he dealt with, without being entirely dependent on the interpretative models derived from Thucydides or elsewhere. This supports the status of Dio as a historian with his own voice.

171 3

Studia Dionea novissima: Historical Narrative, Interpretations of the Past and Political Contexts of Cassius Dio’s “Roman History”. Part II.

Issue 4 from 23.12.2022

The article, continuing the overview of current Cassius Dio scholarship, focuses on the debates surrounding issues of narrative modes and patterns of his Roman History, including the role of various speeches in their dramatic context, the correlation between annalistic and biographical techniques, Dio’s treatment of Roman public institutions and especially their evolution within the transition from the Republic to Principate. The discussions concerning Dio’s political and literary career, his political thinking, and the constitutional debate in Book 52 also are under consideration. The present survey demonstrates that modern scholars have completely abandoned the outdated preconception of Dio as a ‘copyist’ or a ‘compiler’. Currently, this historian is treated as an author who had a distinct narrative strategy, elaborated the structure of his work and made deliberate choices between historiographic methods and techniques. Recent studies show, on the one hand, the diversity of methodological agendas applied to different parts of Dio’s work, and on the other hand, a number of recurrent themes and issues. The majority of these elements of consistency belong to the sphere of the author’s political agenda, with the entire conceptual framework of Dio’s narrative being closely connected to the demonstration of paradigms of proper political leadership.

152 3