Roman Antiquities, Volume IV: Books 6.49–7

by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Earnest Cary (Translator)

Dionysius of Halicarnassus was born before 53 BCE and went to Italy before 29 BCE. He taught rhetoric in Rome while studying the Latin language, collecting material for a history of Rome, and writing. His Roman Antiquities began to appear in 7 BCE. Dionysius states that his objects in writing history were to please lovers of noble deeds and to repay the benefits he had enjoyed in Rome. But he wrote also to reconcile Greeks to Roman rule. Of the 20 books of Roman Antiquities (from the earliest times to 264 BCE) we have the first 9 complete; most of 10 and 11; and later extracts and an epitome of the whole. Dionysius studied the best available literary sources (mainly annalistic and other historians) and possibly some public documents. His work and that of Livy are our only continuous and detailed independent narratives of early Roman history.

Dionysius was author also of essays on literature covering rhetoric, Greek oratory, Thucydides, and how to imitate the best models in literature.

The Loeb Classical Library publishes a two-volume edition of the critical essays; the edition of Roman Antiquities is in seven volumes.

Genres: History

400 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1943

About the author

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Greek: Διονύσιος Ἀλεξάνδρου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς, Dionúsios Alexándrou Halikarnasseús, "Dionysios son of Alexandros of Halikarnassos"; c. 60 BC – after 7 BC) was a Greek historian and teacher of rhetoric, who flourished during the reign of Caesar Augustus. His literary style was Atticistic — imitating Classical Attic Greek in its prime.

Dionysius' opinion of the necessity of a promotion of paideia within education, from true knowledge of Classical sources, endured for centuries in a form integral to the identity of the Greek elite.

Reviews

[Olivier Goossens · Rating 4 out of 5]

The work gives interesting insights in the functioning of the Roman Republic and how the Plebeian offices of the tribunes and aediles came to be. Dionysios discusses this episode of Roman history through numerous -sometimes tediously long- speeches by the foremost politicians of that time. However, he later justifies this method of historiography by pointing out how all these changes in the Roman constitution did not come about through armed force but rather through the power of the word. Not a single swing of the sword nor throw of the javelin played a role in this transformative period. Dionysios finds this perhaps so intriguing due to the fact that this contrasted sharply with the time in which he lived. The author of the Roman Antiquities was in fact active during the Late Republic and the Early Empire: a day and age during which bloody civil wars dictated the course of the Republic. Will I read more of this Greek historian after this book? Absolutely. Until our next meeting, my dear Dionysios.

[Lukerik · Rating 3 out of 5]

494 – 491 BC: from the first secessio plebis to the exile of Coriolanus.

The first third of this book is incredibly boring. I dropped off to sleep several times. It consists of a series of ultra-long speeches, first debates in the Senate and then the negotiations with the plebs. There’s a reader/writer agreement whereby Dionysius can make up as many speeches as he likes and we credit him with having written a history and not a novel. In return he has to be interesting. He is breaking that compact here. No-one needs to read the minutiae of negotiations when the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

But it’s worth pushing through as things do pick up. Once the plebs return to the city the rest of the book deals with the fallout. It’s a fascinating picture of a troubled city attempting to come to some sort of balance of power. I found the parallels with recent British history quite astounding. Required reading for all members of a trades union. I’ve not read Shakespeare’s play so can’t comment on what he does with the legend of Coriolanus, but I understand parallels have recently been found with fascists. I was put in mind several times of inverse parallels with the fascist movement in Britain today, but with the impetus coming from the aristocracy rather than the people.