This volume, published in CUP's Greek Culture in the Roman World series, collects papers from a 2012 conference on Dionysius and Augustan Rome which seek to understand Dionysius as an author writing between cultures (Greece and Rome) and between genres (criticism and historiography). Richard Hunter and Casper de Jonge's introduction highlights the volume's goals of understanding Dionysius’ criticism and historiography as parts of a single intellectual project, and of situating his work in the world of Augustan Rome. The introduction helpfully contextualises the papers by examining, inter alia, the dialogue between Greek and Roman identity, which it identifies as the main theme of Dionysius’ Antiquities; other contemporary Greek authors active in Rome; and Attic classicism in first-century b.c.e. Rome. The introduction supposes that Dionysius wrote his criticism and historiography for all readers capable of enjoying Greek prose — including a large number of Romans.
The volume proceeds in three sections, which investigate Dionysius and (I) Augustan Rhetoric and Literary Criticism (chs 1–4), (II) Augustan Historiography (chs 5–7) and (III) Augustan Rome (chs 8–10); it closes with an envoi. Richard Hunter (ch. 1) draws primarily on Dionysius’ critiques of Thucydides to identify the assumptions underlying his critical practice. Dionysius’ focus on identifying exemplars for imitation underscores the links between rhetorical and ethical criticism, and the central role criticism played in ancient education. The critic exercises judgement in choosing exempla and is judged in turn. Hunter connects Dionysius’ notion of appropriateness with his flexible notion of truth: a ‘truthful’ speech suits a given situation. These criteria connect the rhetorical world of Athens and contemporary Rome.
Nicolas Wiater develops a nuanced picture of Dionysius’ classicism and its relationship to the Athenian past and a Roman present and future (ch. 2). The gap between, for example, Isocrates’ historical but flawed Athenian audience and his idealised depiction of ancient Athenian identity allows Dionysius to transfer this moral-political ideal, in textual form, to his Augustan Roman present. Dionysius and his readers construct and commune with classical ideals by re-performing and rewriting classical texts.
Harvey Yunis (ch. 3) identifies style as the core of Dionysius’ rhetorical criticism by examining his analysis of Demosthenes. For Dionysius, Demosthenes’ ability to combine elements of the grand style and the simple style into a middle style made him the greatest orator of antiquity. Dionysius’ focus put Demosthenes at the centre of rhetorical education throughout antiquity, and showed the goals of the Augustan age were attainable.
Laura Viidebaum (ch. 4) argues that Dionysius thought Lysias’ charm made him a paragon of style. Dionysius identifies charm (charis) as Lysias’ finest and most important virtue, and notes that it is best apprehended by unreasoning sense-perception. Viidebaum suggests that charm was an important concept in Rome before Dionysius, and that Philodemos had already characterised it as irrational or instinctive (alogos). By focusing on Lysias’ charis and the centrality of ‘instinctive feeling’ (alogos aisthēsis) to appreciating it, Dionysius may have confirmed and pandered to existing Roman tastes.
Stephen Oakley (ch. 5) suggests that Dionysius’ concern with akribeia (‘fullness and precision’) — expressed in programmatic statements in Roman Antiquities — explains the expansiveness of his history as compared to Livy's. Dionysius aimed to treat events consistently: significant events demanded more elaborate treatment. The prevalence of detailed speeches in Antiquities reflects Dionysius’ admiration for the republican practice of settling disputes by discussion, not violence. Although much of the narrative detail in Antiquities was invented, Oakley argues that Dionysius’ accounts probably reflect his sources.
Clemence Schultze (ch. 6) compares the accounts of the deaths of Horatia and Lucretia in Roman Antiquities. The contrast between the behaviour of regal-period and contemporary Romans and the mention of peripeteia link the account of Horatia's death with both epic and tragedy. Dionysius treats Lucretia's death and the move from tyranny to Republic at greater length, and includes speeches to explain the motivations for this constitutional change. Schultze links these stories with the Leges Iuliae and Augustan concerns about family and women.
Matthew Fox (ch. 7) argues that Roman Antiquities includes variant accounts of Rome's foundation to engage readers in the historian's work of reconciling sources and to impel them to construct their own narrative of the city's origin. Dionysius thus presents himself as an outsider and historical critic, not a propagandist for Greece or Rome. According to Fox, Dionysius aims to demonstrate that the Romans behaved as Greeks after the city's foundation, and is not concerned with establishing whether Romans are Greek by ethnic origin.
Chris Pelling (ch. 8) maintains that Dionysius began his history of Rome with its archaiologia — thereby positioning Antiquities as a prequel to Polybius — because they were fundamental to understanding Rome's greatness. Dionysius emphasises continuities: the Republic restored what was best about the monarchy and was not (à la Livy) a sharp break. This mirrors the claim that the Principate restored what was best about the Republic. Dionysius reflects Augustan political discourse without being partisan. Rome's early history mattered because similar issues had arisen and been addressed before.
Daniel Hogg (ch. 9) analyses Dionysius's account of the decemvirate to show that Roman Antiquities reflects first-century Roman events and historiographical thinking. Dionysius highlights the significance of the decemvirate by placing his account in the centre of Antiquities and incorporating a second preface within it. The proscriptions, tyranny, conflict between the orders, and use of metus hostilis to consolidate internal control, which appear in Dionysius's account, prefigure the troubles of the late Republic. Dionysius underscores the Senate's ineffectiveness; the tyranny fails because Roman character overcomes constitutional frailty.
Casper de Jonge (ch. 10) identifies parallels between the criticism of Dionysius and Horace by analysing On Composition and Ars Poetica. The works share common themes including a concern with ‘appropriateness’, the distinction between subject and style, analogies between writing and fine arts, and the difference between ‘beauty’ and ‘attractiveness’. De Jonge spotlights both authors’ emphasis on arranging common words in an artful way. Fragments of Philodemus and Augustus’ own (reported) preferences underscore the importance of composition in late Republican and Augustan Rome.
Joy Connolly's envoi emphasises that Dionysius was part of a larger group of migrants — Latin authors who created ‘Roman’ literature, most of whom were not from Rome. Dionysius’ claim that Rome was Greek suggests that all forms of culture are hybrid and continually in flux. His focus on individual agency in shaping history puts speech at the centre of human action and explains his critical concern with the development of good taste.
The volume highlights the uniqueness of Dionysius’ corpus, demonstrates that his criticism and historiography formed a single intellectual project, and situates Dionysius in the hybrid culture of Augustan Rome. Readers unfamiliar with Dionysius’ criticism might begin section I with Yunis’ chapter on Dionysius’ criticism of Demosthenes. Those interested in historiography must not omit the chapters by Pelling and Hogg in section III. All but two contributions emphasise the moral dimension to Dionysius’ work, including his stress on individual agency (Pelling, Connolly, Fox). Could principles derived from analysing Demosthenes or reading Antiquities be applied in contemporary Rome (Yunis, Pelling) while classical ideals remained forever unattainable (Wiater)? A chapter synthesising Dionysius’ ethical programme would have been an interesting addition. As it is, the volume is a fine examination of his multifaceted oeuvre.
