Matthew Lupu, Florida State University
In this paper, I will demonstrate that Cassius Dio made numerous references to Plato throughout his Roman History. I will focus my examination on books 52-56 in which Dio offers his summary and evaluation of Augustus’ words and deeds as a statesman. Perhaps it was because of Millar’s insistence that Dio “believed all philosophers to be fraudulent” modern scholarship on the philosophical underpinnings of Dio’s monumental work is comparatively underdeveloped.
While the studies of Dio are currently enjoying a period of renewed scholarly attention (Asirvatham, Kemezis, Lange & Scott, Madsen & Lange), there is only one work which directly addresses Platonic influence on Dio (Khun-Chen), and one that examines him as a Stoic (Noe). Noe summarizes the situation, “Surely Dio could have been inspired by different philosophical schools, and the point is that we can learn a lot about the political elite of the 3rd century by trying to understand the philosophical basis of their political and historical arguments.”
If Dio’s historical analysis is based in his philosophical paideia, then we have necessarily been missing much of what he has to say. For example, Dio’s comparison of granting unrestricted personal freedom for everyone to giving a sword to a child or a madman (52.14.2), signals, I will argue, Republic 1.331c, where Socrates disproves Cephalus’ initial definition of justice as “paying back that which is taken” (καὶ τὸ ἀποδιδόναι ἄν τίς τι παρά του λάβῃ). References that Dio makes to Augustus such as his description as a man “well lived, well ordered, good at war, but peaceful, not outrageous nor money hungry” (κόσμιον εὐβίοτον εὐπόλεμον εἰρηναῖον ὄντα, ὅταν μήθ᾽ ὑβρίζῃς τι μήτε πλεονεκτῇς) echoes the language that Plato uses to describe the philosopher king. In the above example, Augustus displays one of Plato’s essential characteristics of the philosopher king (κόσμιος) and is remarkable because he has neither of the main qualities of the tyrant (ὕβρις, πλεονέκτης). These qualities can be found throughout Dio’s History just as they can be found in the contemporary literature of the Second Sophistic in reference to ideal kingship. For example, they show up in the kingship literature of Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides’ encomium to Rome, Plutarch’s assessments of Lycurgus and Nerva, as well as in contemporary summaries of Plato by Apuleius, and Albinus.
The Platonic theory of forms possess explanatory power. The closer an object is to its form, the better that object must necessarily be. This is also true of rulers, when comparing them to their perfect form, as well as for complex systems, like the Roman Empire. Dio then, seems to be holding up the ideal form of not only the monarch, but the entirety of the governmental apparatus as his measuring stick to compare with the facts of history. That Augustus’ actions or thoughts do not perfectly conform to the ideal is to be expected. The great question for Dio seems to be how close he came.