What do you think?


Cassius Dio
This volume offers an introduction to the life and work of the 3rd-century-AD Greco-Roman senator and historian Cassius Dio, whose work, although imperfectly preserved in 80 books, is of fundamental importance to our understanding of Roman history. It is said that Dio is not one of the best ancient historians and his Roman history, due to its sheer size, is often imprecise and superficial in its analysis. It has also been assumed that there was no political agenda behind the work, and that Dio's principal value to us is as a reliable copyist, who mediated the works of other, and better sources.
This introduction to his life and work offers a different picture. Here, Dio is presented through his Greek cultural lens as a politician with a clear vision for how Roman politics and government should be organized. Carefully selected examples will be the starting points for fresh critical analysis of Dio's work and its legacy, both in antiquity and through to the Enlightenment.
The book assumes no familiarity with Cassius Dio, his writing or context. All text will be translated and suggested further reading will point readers towards avenues for more detailed study.
This introduction to his life and work offers a different picture. Here, Dio is presented through his Greek cultural lens as a politician with a clear vision for how Roman politics and government should be organized. Carefully selected examples will be the starting points for fresh critical analysis of Dio's work and its legacy, both in antiquity and through to the Enlightenment.
The book assumes no familiarity with Cassius Dio, his writing or context. All text will be translated and suggested further reading will point readers towards avenues for more detailed study.
144 pages, Hardcover
Published October 3, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 2, 2021
Cassio Dione, il senatore monarchico. Potremmo riassumerla così.
L'autore vuole dimostrare che la "Storia Romana" di Cassio Dione (di cui si conservano metà circa degli 80 libri) ha una sua visione di fondo che è l'intenzione dell'autore di dimostrare la superiorità (soprattutto) per Roma di un sistema monarchico "temperato" su una democrazia e su un sistema monarchico assoluto.
Il grande merito del libro è che nello spiegare questo illumina la visione filosofica di Cassio Dione: gli uomini cercano costantemente il potere, quindi un sistema "aperto" come quello democratico è inevitabile che termini nel caos. L'unica soluzione è una monarchia di un sovrano "illuminato" che freni gli istinti naturali degli uomini ma che anche non cada nella tirannide. Gli esempi sono Traiano, Adriano, Antonino Pio e Marco Aurelio e, ovviamente, il grande Augusto.
L'unica pecca del libro è nella scarsità di note (potrebbe però risultate un vantaggio) e nel fatto che la parte biografica su Dione stesso è molto scarsa e non sufficientemente inserita nella formazione del pensiero dello scrittore. L'autore Madsen si concentra infatti sui libri "repubblicani" ed "altoimperiali".
Consigliato.
L'autore vuole dimostrare che la "Storia Romana" di Cassio Dione (di cui si conservano metà circa degli 80 libri) ha una sua visione di fondo che è l'intenzione dell'autore di dimostrare la superiorità (soprattutto) per Roma di un sistema monarchico "temperato" su una democrazia e su un sistema monarchico assoluto.
Il grande merito del libro è che nello spiegare questo illumina la visione filosofica di Cassio Dione: gli uomini cercano costantemente il potere, quindi un sistema "aperto" come quello democratico è inevitabile che termini nel caos. L'unica soluzione è una monarchia di un sovrano "illuminato" che freni gli istinti naturali degli uomini ma che anche non cada nella tirannide. Gli esempi sono Traiano, Adriano, Antonino Pio e Marco Aurelio e, ovviamente, il grande Augusto.
L'unica pecca del libro è nella scarsità di note (potrebbe però risultate un vantaggio) e nel fatto che la parte biografica su Dione stesso è molto scarsa e non sufficientemente inserita nella formazione del pensiero dello scrittore. L'autore Madsen si concentra infatti sui libri "repubblicani" ed "altoimperiali".
Consigliato.
June 22, 2022
Madsen's monograph on the ancient historian Cassius Dio is a text that will appeal to academic specialists and classicists, and perhaps to those who have an interest in historiography. As for myself, I was intrigued by the subject as Dio is not as celebrated as other writers of his ilk (i.e. Suetonius, Tacitus) and as an eyewitness to what I consider to be a fascinating time in ancient Roman history, from the rule of Commodus to the regime of Severus Alexander, his history is one I would like to read. Insights into that period as well as attempting to understand Dio's historical methodology, as well as his reception and transmission all have appeal for me as a semi-serious student of Roman history.
That Madsen is successful in creating a meaningful assessment of Dio as an historian is to be commended, and his conclusions regarding Dio's aims, his historiography and his value are all argued with intelligence and a sound understanding of the context. Throughout this study the author outlines a compelling argument as to what Dio achieved with his work and its raison d'etre. The ancient historian, like all of the classical Mediterranean world, did not write his history to try and divine some objective truths. Instead Dio's history is, as Madsen argues, a major study of how ancient Rome was best ruled through a monarchy that worked in unison with the senate. That Dio is both hostile to the limited form of democracy that existed in Republican Rome is pointed out again and again by Madsen, with supporting quotes from Dio's own work. Madsen is most effective in this aspect of his argument.
It might be said, however, that Madxsen does not make enough of the personal investment and (possible) emotional need that Dio experienced which led the ancient historian to be such an advocate of a supportive and collaborative senate. Madsen does make the appropriate observations as to how Dio focuses on that constitutional or political 'bubble' that serves as the historian's field of study. Yet not enough is said of Dio's own motivations. To comment on the moral and political implications of Dio's history is commendable, especially when done in such a clear and intelligent manner. However to not at least attempt to explore Dio's motivations for his attitude as part of his own experiences as a senator is a major gap in this text.
There are other more positive aspects of this book that deserve mention. Its brevity is worthwhile, especially for a semi-learned lay reader such as myself. Madsen also makes a strong argument for how valuable Dio is as an ancient Roman historian for contemporary historians, with some caveats and some insights into where he is stronger and where weaker. There is a desultory discussion of Dio's transmission, including some reference to the epitome of some books made by the Byzantine compiler Xiphilinus, as well as how Dio's work may have been used by later authors. There is some biographical information plus some contextual history that will assist and inform the reader. Madsen makes a major effort to consider how Dio idealises Augustus, and this will benefit those looking at how the first Roman emperor was represented by classical historians.
So who will read this book? Anyone with more than a mild interest in ancient Roman history and classical historiography should find Madsen's text of value. Neophytes may find this book worthy, but I suspect they will need more contextual knowledge first. Academics will possibly find this book a little 'light', however they should still consider it as a useful resource. Outside of these (potential) audiences I would expect Madsen's book will remain unread.
That Madsen is successful in creating a meaningful assessment of Dio as an historian is to be commended, and his conclusions regarding Dio's aims, his historiography and his value are all argued with intelligence and a sound understanding of the context. Throughout this study the author outlines a compelling argument as to what Dio achieved with his work and its raison d'etre. The ancient historian, like all of the classical Mediterranean world, did not write his history to try and divine some objective truths. Instead Dio's history is, as Madsen argues, a major study of how ancient Rome was best ruled through a monarchy that worked in unison with the senate. That Dio is both hostile to the limited form of democracy that existed in Republican Rome is pointed out again and again by Madsen, with supporting quotes from Dio's own work. Madsen is most effective in this aspect of his argument.
It might be said, however, that Madxsen does not make enough of the personal investment and (possible) emotional need that Dio experienced which led the ancient historian to be such an advocate of a supportive and collaborative senate. Madsen does make the appropriate observations as to how Dio focuses on that constitutional or political 'bubble' that serves as the historian's field of study. Yet not enough is said of Dio's own motivations. To comment on the moral and political implications of Dio's history is commendable, especially when done in such a clear and intelligent manner. However to not at least attempt to explore Dio's motivations for his attitude as part of his own experiences as a senator is a major gap in this text.
There are other more positive aspects of this book that deserve mention. Its brevity is worthwhile, especially for a semi-learned lay reader such as myself. Madsen also makes a strong argument for how valuable Dio is as an ancient Roman historian for contemporary historians, with some caveats and some insights into where he is stronger and where weaker. There is a desultory discussion of Dio's transmission, including some reference to the epitome of some books made by the Byzantine compiler Xiphilinus, as well as how Dio's work may have been used by later authors. There is some biographical information plus some contextual history that will assist and inform the reader. Madsen makes a major effort to consider how Dio idealises Augustus, and this will benefit those looking at how the first Roman emperor was represented by classical historians.
So who will read this book? Anyone with more than a mild interest in ancient Roman history and classical historiography should find Madsen's text of value. Neophytes may find this book worthy, but I suspect they will need more contextual knowledge first. Academics will possibly find this book a little 'light', however they should still consider it as a useful resource. Outside of these (potential) audiences I would expect Madsen's book will remain unread.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews



