Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:19:16.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hellenized Romans and Barbarized Greeks. Reading the End of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2010

Irene Peirano
Irene Peirano
Affiliation:
Yale University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Antiquitates Romanae, Dionysius of Halicarnassus presents the Romans as a nation of Greeks. Throughout his narrative, Dionysius shows how the Romans have surpassed other Greek nations in the quintessentially Greek areas of morality and conduct. However, this assessment of Rome's cultural and ethnic identity proves to be much more nuanced when read side by side with the narrative of the concluding books of the Antiquitates Romanae, a largely unexplored section of the work dealing with the war between the Romans and Pyrrhus. The culturally-based definition of Roman ‘Greekness’ is accompanied, particularly in the last portion of the narrative, by a troubling awareness of its inherent instability as the Romans increasingly display the tendencies which eventually caused the ‘barbarization’ of Greece.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 100 , November 2010 , pp. 32 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2010. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gabba, E., Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome (1991)Google Scholar remains a fundamental study of the AR and of Dionysius’ relation to his sources. Vanotti, G., L’altro Enea. La testimonianza di Dionigi di Alicarnasso (1995)Google Scholar focuses on Dionysius’ relation to Virgil; Luce, T. J., ‘Livy and Dionysius’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8 (1995), 225–39Google Scholar, is a fundamental study of the relationship between Dionysius’ account of Rome's origin and Livy's; important observations on their relationship are also found in Burck, E., Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius (1964)Google Scholar and Musti, D., Tendenze nella storiografia romana e greca su Roma arcaica: studi su Livio e Dionigi di Alicarnasso (1970)Google Scholar.

2 Schettino, M., Tradizione annalistica e tradizione ellenistica su Pirro in Dionigi (A.R. XIX-XX) (1991)Google Scholar is the only comprehensive study of the end of the AR.

3 Recently, Fox, M., Roman Historical Myths. The Regal Period in Augustan Literature (1996)Google Scholar; Schultze, C. E., ‘Authority, originality and competence in the Roman Archaeology of Dionysius of Halicarnassos’, Histos 4 (2002)Google Scholar; Luraghi, N., ‘Dionysios von Halikarnassos zwischen Griechen und Römern’, in Eigler, U., Gotter, U., Luraghi, N. and Walter, U. (eds), Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius. Gattungen – Autoren – Kontexte (2003), 268–86Google Scholar, and Dench, E., Romulus' Asylum. Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian (2005)Google Scholar confront from different angles the issue of authorial persona and audience.

4 Dionysius advertises his work as an account of ‘the whole ancient life of the city’ (1.8.3: ὅλον … τὸν ἀρχαῖον βίον τῆς πόλεως). Though he denounces the Greek khronika as monotonous (1.8.2), Dionysius earlier said that he used the Roman annalistic writers as his main model: ἀπ’ ἐκείνων ὁρμώμενος τῶν πραγματειῶν (εἰσὶ δὲ ταῖς Ἑλληνικαῖς χρονογραφίαις ἐοικυῖαι), τότε ἐπεχείρησα τῇ γραφῇ, ‘using as a basis these works [i.e. the annalistic writers], which are similar to the Greek annalistic accounts, I set out to write’ (1.7.3). Text of Dionysius’ AR is from Jacoby's edition.

5 Standard editions are K. Jacoby's Teubner (1885–1905), largely dependent on A. Kiessling's Teubner (1860–70), and E. Cary's Loeb (1937), whose text is based on Jacoby's but frequently departs from it. There is a new edition of the fragments of Books 14–20 edited by Pittia, S., Rome et la conquête de l’Italie aux IVe et IIIe s. avant J.-C. Denys d’Halicarnasse (2002a)Google Scholar. For discussion of the manuscript tradition see the papers by V. Fromentin, R. Mouren and S. Pittia in Pittia, S. (ed.) Fragments d’historiens grecs: autour de Denys d’Halicarnasse (2002b)Google Scholar. See also, Roos, A. G., ‘De fragmentis nonnullis e Dionysii Halicarnassensis Antiquitatum Romanarum libris postremis’, Mnemosyne 38 (1910), 281–90Google Scholar.

6 AR 1.8.2: καταβιβάζω δὲ τὴν διήγησιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ πρώτου Φοινικικοῦ πολέμου τὴν γενομένην ἐνιαυτῷ τρίτῳ τῆς ὀγδόης καὶ εἰκοστῆς ἐπὶ ταῖς ἑκατὸν ὀλυμπιάσιν. ‘I bring the narrative down to the beginning of the First Punic War which fell in the third year of the 128th Olympiad’. On Dionysius’ chronology, see Schultze, C. E., ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Roman chronology’, PCPS 41 (1995), 192–214Google Scholar.

7 For this strategy of self-presentation in historiography, see Marincola, J., Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 237–57. Cf. Xen., Hell. 1.1 (μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα) in relation to Thucydides; Polyb. epilogue 19, in relation to Timaeus’ work.

8 Aside from Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus, most of the sources for this period are fragmentary: Dio Books 9–10, Appian Book 7.8–10 (Samnitica); Diodorus Siculus Book 22. Livy Books 12 and 13 survive only in summaries. For the references to Pyrrhus in Memnon of Heraclea and Pompeius Trogus (Just., Epit. 16–18, 23–5), see now Yarrow, L. M., Historiography at the End of the Republic. Provincial Perspectives on Roman Rule (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 142 and 148. Timaeus and Hieronymus had both written monographs on the Pyrrhic War but only fragments survive. On Hieronymus and Pyrrhus, see Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia (1981)Google Scholar, at 248–50. On Timaeus, see Momigliano, A., ‘Atene nel III secolo a.C. e la scoperta di Roma nelle storie di Timeo di Tauromenio’, Rivista Storica Italiana 71 (1959), 529–56Google Scholar, repr. in Terzo contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Tomo primo (1966), 23–53; Vattuone, R., La sapienza d’Occidente: il pensiero storico di Timeo di Tauromenio (1991)Google Scholar and Feeney, D., Caesar's Calendar. Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History (2007)Google Scholar, at 92–100.

9 Lefkowitz, M. R., ‘Pyrrhus’ negotiations with the Romans: 280–279 b.c.’, HSCP 64 (1959), 147–77Google Scholar, is the most comprehensive attempt at sorting out the evidence. Skutsch, O., The Annals of Q. Ennius (1985)Google Scholar, at 348, defines Lefkowitz’ paper as the ‘most penetrating and objective examination of the evidence’ but adds that he cannot agree with her conclusions.

10 For the chronology, see Franke, P. R., ‘Pyrrhus’ in CAH 7.2 (1989), 456–85Google Scholar, at 470. Dionysius arranged his narrative chronologically, with each book encompassing a given number of years. Books typically open at the start of the year with an indication of the consuls (or king for the regal period) correlated with references to the Olympiad system: Schultze, op. cit. (n. 6), 193–4. When a book begins in the middle (and not at the inception) of the year, Dionysius duly notes that, as in the case of Book 5 which starts with the instauration of Rome's first consuls after the overthrow of the monarchy ‘four months before the year was over’ (5.1.2). It is therefore very likely that Book 19 ended with the last events of the year 280 b.c. and Book 20 began with the narrative of the year 279 b.c.

11 While the manuscript tradition offers no evidence for the order of the narrative, on the analogy of Livy's Periochae (12.7) where the story of Decius is mentioned at the time of Pyrrhus’ crossing into Italy, Pittia believes that the Decius fragments should be placed before the narrative of the events of Ausculum: Pittia, op. cit. (n. 5, 2002b), 195–6, and see Pittia, op. cit. (n. 5, 2002a), 406–7. Typically, the order of fragments in AR is established on the basis of the chronology of the events narrated as known from other sources, as well as occasionally (but not in this case) by the order of the excerpts in the Ambrosian epitome. One of the difficulties in establishing the order of this sequence lies in the fact that the chronology of this episode is extremely muddled: see Schettino, op. cit. (n. 2), 53–9, and Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Volume 1. Books 1–6 (1957)Google Scholar, at 52–3 ad 1.7.6–13. While other sources place the garrisoning of Rhegium at a time closer to Pyrrhus’ invasion around 280 b.c. (Polyb. 1.7.7; Diod. Sic. 22.1.2–3; Livy, Per. 12.7), Dionysius is alone in dating the creation of the garrison to Fabricius’ consulship (282 b.c.). Dionysius is also unique in positing a first punishment of the Roman garrison at the hands of Fabricius, followed by the conventional account of the reduction of the city in 270 b.c. (AR 20.16; cf. Diod. Sic. 22.1.2–3; Livy, Per. 15.2; Dio 9.40.7–9; Oros. 4.3.4–5), though the actual date of Fabricius’ punishment in Dionysius and therefore its relative placement within the book remains unclear: Pittia, op. cit. (n. 5, 2002b), 414, 417–18. In the absence of firmer evidence, any solution for the respective order of these episodes remains speculative.

12 Fowler, D. P., ‘First thoughts on closure: problems and prospects’, MD 22 (1989), 75–122Google Scholar; Roberts, D. H.Dunn, F. M. and Fowler, D. P. (eds), Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (1997)Google Scholar. On the end in classical historiography, see Marincola, J. ‘Concluding narratives: looking to the end in Classical historiography’, Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 12 (2005), 285–320Google Scholar.

13 Smith, B. Herrnstein, Poetic Closure. A Study of How Poems End (1968)Google Scholar, at 2, defines closure as the ‘sense of stable conclusiveness, finality, or “clinch”’ which we experience when the end point of a sequence of events is reached.

14 On historiography in the rhetorical works of Dionysius, see Sacks, K. S., ‘Historiography in the rhetorical works of Dionysius of Halicarnasus’, Athenaeum 41 (1982), 65–87Google Scholar.

15 Pomp. 3.2: πρῶτόν τε καὶ σχεδὸν ἀναγκαιότατον ἔργον ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τοῖς γράφουσιν πᾶσιν ἱστορίας ὑπόθεσιν ἐκλέξασθαι καλὴν καὶ κεχαρισμένην τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις. ‘The first, and one might say the most necessary task for writers of any kind of history is to select a noble subject which will please the readers’. Text and translations of Dionysius’ rhetorical works are from Usher, S., Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Critical Essays. Vol. 1–2 (1974)Google Scholar.

16 Pomp. 3.9: ὁ δὲ Θουκυδίδης ἀρχὴν μὲν ἐποιήσατο ἀφ’ ἧς ἤρξατο κακῶς πράττειν τὸ Ἑλληνικόν. ‘Thucydides made his beginning at the point where Greek affairs started to decline.’

17 Lausberg, H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (1998), 434–5Google Scholar. See Aristotle, Rhet. 1419b, Quint. 6.11 and Rhet. Her. 2.47.

18 Discussion of the problem in Fantham, E., ‘Dic si quid potes de sexto annali: the literary legacy of Ennius' Pyrrhic War’, Arethusa 39 (2006), 549–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 551–5. See also T. J. Cornell review of Skutsch (1985), JRS 76 (1986), 244–59, at 246–50; Skutsch, O. and Cornell, T. J., ‘Book 6 of Ennius' Annals’, CQ 37 (1987), 512–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Ennius, Ann. 164 (Skutsch): ‘quis potis ingentis oras evolvere belli?’ ‘who can unroll the mighty scrolls of war?’ See Suerbaum, W., ‘Der Pyrrhos-Krieg in Ennius Annales vi im Lichte der Ersten Ennius-Papyri aus Herculaneum’, ZPE 106 (1995), 31–52Google Scholar, at 34–5.

20 Mossman, J., ‘Taxis ou barbaros: Greek and Roman in Plutarch's Pyrrhus’, CQ 55 (2005), 498–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 501.

21 Plut., Pyrrh. 16.7: καὶ κατιδὼν τάξιν τε καὶ φυλακὰς καὶ κόσμον αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς στρατοπεδείας, ἐθαύμασε καὶ τῶν φίλων προσαγορεύσας τὸν ἐγγυτάτω „τάξις μέν’ εἶπεν „ὦ Μεγάκλεις αὕτη τῶν βαρβάρων οὐ βάρβαρος. ‘Having observed their discipline, their sentinels, their order, and the arrangement of their camp, he was amazed, and said to the friend who was closest to him: “Megakles, the discipline of these barbarians is not barbarous”.’

22 Paus. 1.11.7: Ῥωμαίοις δὲ οὐδένα Πύρρου πρότερον πολεμήσαντα ἴσμεν Ἕλληνα. ‘We do not know of any Greek waging war against the Romans prior to Pyrrhus.’

23 AR 19.9.1 (Pyrrhus’ first message to the Romans): πεπύσθαι μὲν εἰκός σε παρ’ ἑτέρων, ὅτι πάρειμι μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως Ταραντίνοις τε καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἰταλιώταις ἐπικαλεσαμένοις βοηθήσων. καὶ μηδὲ ταῦτα ἀγνοεῖν, τίνων τε ἀνδρῶν ἀπόγονός εἰμι. AR 19.9.2 (Romans’ reply): οἰόμενος δή σε τούτων ἕκαστον ἐπιλογιζόμενον μὴ περιμένειν, ἕως ἔργῳ καὶ πείρᾳ μάθῃς τὴν κατὰ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἡμῶν ἀρετήν. AR 19.10.2 (Romans’ message to Pyrrhus after they intercept one of his spies): ὧν δ’ οὔτε τὴν δύναμιν ἐξήτακεν οὔτε τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐπέγνωκε, τούτων ὡς φαύλων καὶ μηδενὸς ἀξίων καταφρονεῖν, ἀνοήτου μοι φαίνεται τρόπου τεκμήριον εἶναι.

24 On the history of the period, see Franke, op. cit. (n. 10); Raaflaub, K. A.Richards, J. D. and Samons, L. J. II, ‘Rome, Italy and Appius Claudius Caecus before the Pyrrhic Wars’, in Hackens, T., Holloway, N. D., Holloway, R. R. and Moucharte, N. (eds), The Age of Pyrrhus (1992), 13–50Google Scholar; Cornell, T. J., The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (1995)Google Scholar, at 363–4.

25 Livy 7.29.1: ‘Maiora iam hinc bella et uiribus hostium et uel longinquitate regionum uel temporum spatio quibus bellatum est dicentur.’ ‘Greater wars must now be related, greater in respect both of enemy forces and of the extent of country over which they were waged and of the length of time of the conflicts.’

26 Livy 7.29.1: ‘Namque eo anno aduersus Samnites, gentem opibus armisque ualidam, mota arma; Samnitium bellum ancipiti Marte gestum Pyrrhus hostis, Pyrrhum Poeni secuti. Quanta rerum moles. Quotiens in extrema periculorum uentum, ut in hanc magnitudinem quae uix sustinetur erigi imperium posset.’ ‘For in that year weapons were drawn against the Samnites, a people strong in arms and in resources; and the Samnite war, which was waged with varying fortune, was followed by the war with Pyrrhus, and that again by the war with the Carthaginians. How great a series of events! How often the extremity of danger was incurred, in order that our empire might be exalted to its present greatness, which can hardly be maintained!’

27 Polyb. 1.6.6: τότε πρῶτον ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ μέρη τῆς Ἰταλίας ὥρμησαν, οὐχ ὡς ὑπὲρ ὀθνείων, ἐπὶ δὲ τὸ πλεῖον ὡς ὑπὲρ ἰδίων ἤδη καὶ καθηκόντων σφίσι πολεμήσοντες. ‘And they now for the first time attacked the rest of Italy not as if it were a foreign country, but as if they were fighting for what was rightfully already their own.’ On Polybius’ interpretation, see Walbank, op. cit. (n. 11), 51–2 ad loc.; Harris, W. V., War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (1979)Google Scholar, at 107–17, and Walbank, F. W., Polybius (1972)Google Scholar, at 161. Cf. Polyb. 2.20.8–10.

28 See Bickerman, E. J., ‘Origines gentium’, CP 46 (1952), 65–81Google Scholar, and Momigliano, A., Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the importance of the concept of common blood in the creation of Hellenic identity, see Hall, J. M., Hellenicity. Between Ethnicity and Culture (2002)Google Scholar.

29 For the history of the idea of the Romans as Greeks, see Gabba, E., ‘Il Latino come dialetto greco’ in Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (1963), 188–94Google Scholar, and further Hartog, F., ‘Rome et la Grèce: les choix de Denys d’Halicarnasse’, in Saïd, S. (ed.), Hellenismos. Quelques jalons pour une histoire de l’identité greque. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg (1991), 149–67Google Scholar; Dench, op. cit. (n. 3), 234–64. The idea is already found in the fourth century b.c. in the writings of Heracleides of Pontus (fr. 102 Wehrli). For a discussion of the Aeneas legend and its chronology, see Horsfall, N., ‘Some problems in the Aeneas legend’, CQ 29 (1979), 372–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 For discussion of these competing accounts of Roman origins, see Gruen, E. S., Culture and Identity in Republican Rome (1992), at 6–51Google Scholar.

31 1.57–8. This idea is already found in Varro: cf. Servius ad Aen. 3.167, 7.207. This view is in contrast to Virgil's account which makes Dardanus a native of Italy.

32 AR 1.89.1: ὥστε θαρρῶν ἤδη τις ἀποφαινέσθω πολλὰ χαίρειν φράσας τοῖς βαρβάρων καὶ δραπετῶν καὶ ἀνεστίων ἀνθρώπων καταφυγὴν τὴν Ῥώμην ποιοῦσιν Ἑλλάδα πόλιν αὐτήν. ‘Hence let the reader forsake the views of those who make Rome a haven for barbarians, fugitives and vagabonds, and let him confidently declare it to be a Greek city.’

33 See Luraghi, op. cit. (n. 3), at 277–81, and Hill, H., ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the origins of Rome’, JRS 51 (1961), 88–93Google Scholar, at 88–9.

34 AR 7.71.1: ἐγὼ δ’, ἵνα μή τις ἀσθενῆ τὴν πίστιν εἶναι ταύτην ὑπολάβῃ [εἴτε] κατ’ ἐκείνην τὴν ἀπίθανον ὑπόληψιν, ὅτι παντὸς τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ κρατήσαντες ἀσμένως ἂν τὰ κρείττω μετέμαθον ἔθη τῶν ἐπιχωρίων ὑπεριδόντες, ἐξ ἐκείνου ποιήσομαι τοῦ χρόνου τὴν τέκμαρσιν, ὅτ’ οὔπω τὴν τῆς Ἑλλάδος εἶχον ἡγεμονίαν οὐδὲ ἄλλην διαπόντιον οὐδεμίαν ἀρχήν. ‘But for my part, lest anyone should consider this weak evidence, according to the implausible assumption that after conquering the whole Greek world, the Romans would gladly have scorned their own customs and taken up better ones instead, I shall adduce my proof from the time when they did not as yet possess the supremacy over Greece or power over any other country beyond sea.’ On this account of Greek origin and on the ludi magni digression in general, see Schultze, C. E., ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Greek origins and Roman games (AR 7.70–73)’, in Bell, S. and Davies, G. (eds), Games and Festivals in Classical Antiquity (2004), 93–105Google Scholar.

35 These customs include foot-races in the nude (7.72.2–4); playing the aulos and barbiton (7.72.5–9); jesting (7.72.10–2); sacrifice (7.72.15–16).

36 7.72.2 (foot-races in the nude): τοῦτο καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ τὸ ἔθος ἐν Ῥώμῃ διέμενεν, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγίνετο παρ’ Ἕλλησιν; 7.72.5 (playing the aulos and barbiton): ὧν παρὰ μὲν Ἕλλησιν ἐκλέλοιπεν ἡ χρῆσις ἐπ’ ἐμοῦ πάτριος οὖσα· παρὰ δὲ Ῥωμαίοις ἐν ἁπάσαις φυλάττεται ταῖς ἀρχαίαις θυηπολίαις.

37 On the so-called constitution of Romulus, see Gabba, E., ‘La costituzione di Romolo’, Athenaeum 38 (1960), 175–225Google Scholar, and Balsdon, J. P. V. D., ‘Dionysius on Romulus: a political pamphlet?’, JRS 61 (1971), 18–27Google Scholar.

38 On the theory of a Spartan origin of Rome's institutions, see Gabba, op. cit. (n. 37), 185–6. The Senate is also described as a hellenikon ethos (2.12.3), on the model of the Greek gerousia.

39 On the theme of Roman superiority, see Schultze, C., ‘Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his audience’ in Moxon, I. S., Smart, J. D. and Woodman, A. J. (eds), Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (1986), 121–41Google Scholar, at 130–3.

40 AR 2.16–17. On Dionysius’ approach to Roman citizenship, see Poma, G., ‘Dionigi d’Alicarnasso e la cittadinanza romana’, MEFRA 101 (1989), 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. the Alban debate in Book 3, especially AR 3.11.4–5, in which Dionysius argues that Rome's philantropia, which includes her generosity towards colonies and foreigners, makes her superior and more successful than Athens: Fox, op. cit. (n. 3), 82–92.

41 On clientela, see Poma, G., ‘Schiavi e schiavitù in Dionigi di Alicarnasso’, Rivista storica dell’ antichità 11 (1981), 69–101Google Scholar.

42 Hall, op. cit. (n. 28), at 172–228. The locus classicus for this way of conceiving Hellenicity is Isocrates, Paneg. 50. Whitmarsh, T., Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics of Imitation (2001), at 1–38Google Scholar, traces the role of culture in the formation of Greek identity under the Roman Empire but many of his remarks also apply to Dionysius’ age.

43 This way of theorizing Hellenization in Rome as a process of cultural appropriation is in no way limited to Dionysius: see Woolf, G., ‘Becoming Roman, staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman East’, PCPS 40 (1994), 116–43Google Scholar, at 116–25, and Champion, C. B., Cultural Politics in Polybius' Histories (2004)Google Scholar with reference to Polybius.

44 On Ancient Orators 2–3, on which see Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (1996), at 17–42Google Scholar.

45 This strategy of presenting the Romans as barbarians is typical of Greek political discourse of the third and second centuries b.c.: cf. Polybius 5.104.1; 9.37.6; and Livy 29.12–15.

46 See, for example, Xerxes in Herodotus 7.103 and 105. On the theme of laughter as hybris in Greek literature, see Lateiner, D., ‘No laughing matter: a literary tactic in Herodotus’, TAPA 107 (1977), 173–82Google Scholar.

47 AR 1.46.2 (Aeneas after the fall of Troy): λογισμὸν δὲ τὸν εἰκότα περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος λαμβάνων, ὡς ἀμήχανον εἴη πρᾶγμα σῶσαι πόλιν, ἧς τὰ πλείω ἤδη ἐκρατεῖτο, εἰς νοῦν βάλλεται τοῦ μὲν τείχους ἐρήμου παραχωρῆσαι τοῖς πολεμίοις, τὰ δὲ σώματα αὐτὰ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τὰ πατρῷα καὶ χρήματα ὁπόσα φέρειν δύναιτο διασώσασθαι; AR 9.9.8 (consul talking about the Thyrrenians’ lack of regard for the Romans): ἔπειτα δέον αὐτοὺς σὺν εὐλαβείᾳ καὶ λογισμῷ σώφρονι πράττειν ἕκαστα, ἐνθυμουμένους, πρὸς οἵους ἄνδρας [καὶ πολὺ ἀλκιμωτέρους αὐτῶν] ὁ κίνδυνος ἔσται, θρασέως καὶ ἀπερισκέπτως ἐπὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα χωροῦσιν, ὡς ἄμαχοί τινες καὶ ὡς ἡμῶν καταπεπληγότων αὐτούς. On the importance of logismos in the formation of Greek identity, see Champion, op. cit. (n. 43), 255–9.

48 AR 1.4.1: Ὅτι δ’ οὐκ ἄνευ λογισμοῦ καὶ προνοίας ἔμφρονος ἐπὶ τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν ἱστορουμένων περὶ αὐτῆς ἐτραπόμην, ἀλλ’ ἔχων εὐλογίστους ἀποδοῦναι τῆς προαιρέσεως αἰτίας ὀλίγα βούλομαι προειπεῖν. ‘I desire to show in a few words that it is not without a plan and forethought that I have turned to the early part of Rome's history, but that I have well thought out reasons for my choice.’

49 For this conventional representation, see Purcell, N., ‘South Italy in the fourth century’, in CAH 6 (1994), 381–403Google Scholar, at 389. The sources focus in particular on luxurious banquets: Plat., Ep. 7.326b-c; Ath. 12.518c. On this view of Greeks as luxurious and effeminate, see Edwards, C., The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (1993), at 92–7Google Scholar, and Griffin, J., Latin Poets and Roman Life (1985), 1–31Google Scholar.

50 For the refusal to listen to advice as a mark of tyrannical behaviour, see Lattimore, R., ‘The wise adviser in Herodotus’, CP 34 (1939), 24–35Google Scholar.

51 On this point, see Martin, P. M., ‘Rome, cité grecque dressée contre les barbares, d’après les excerpta des Denys d’Halicarnasse’, Pallas 53 (2000), 147–58Google Scholar.

52 The Romanization of Southern Italy was sometimes described as ‘barbarization’: see Bowersock, G. W., ‘The barbarism of the Greeks’, HSCP 97 (1995), 3–14Google Scholar. The term ‘barbarized through and through’ (ἐκβεβαρβαρῶσθαι) applied to Southern Italy appears in Aristoxenus (fr. 124 Wehrli) and Strabo 6.1.253.

53 AR 19.13.3: φιλίαν μὲν οὐ βουλόμενοι συνάψαι πρὸς ἐμέ, is interpreted as a reference to Cineas’ mission: Schettino, op. cit. (n. 2), 40.

54 Fabricius is quoted in ancient sources as an exemplum of the frugality and incorruptibility of early Romans: Cicero, Pro Cael. 39; Horace, Od. 1.12.40; and Valerius Maximus 4.3.6. On this episode, see Crouzet, S., ‘Les excerpta de Denys d’Halicarnasse, un reflet de l’idéologie romaine du 1er siècle av. J.-C.’, Pallas 53 (2000), 159–72Google Scholar, at 162–6.

55 For this complex portrayal of Roman anti-heroes, see Wilkins, A. T., Villain or Hero: Sallust's Portrayal of Catiline (1994)Google Scholar on Catiline and Rossi, A., ‘Parallel lives: Hannibal and Scipio in Livy's Third Decade’, TAPA 134.2 (2004), 359–81Google Scholar, on Hannibal. Pyrrhus was already portrayed as a mixed character in Ennius: Cicero, for example, expresses his admiration for the king when he introduces a quotation from his reply to the Roman offer of negotiation in Ennius' Annales (Skutsch 183–90) as ‘illa praeclara’ (De off. 1.38.1).

56 In Book 11, which deals with the fall of the second decemvirate, Dionysius puts in the mouth of the uncle of one of the decemviri an invitation to them to renounce the tyrannical behaviour into which they have descended. There again, we find a strong link between personal and political freedom, as the uncle encourages the decemviri to follow the example of their ancestors, none of whom ‘aimed at despotic power or became a slave to the most shameful pleasures of the body’ (AR 11.13.3: τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων οὐδεὶς ἐπεθύμησεν ἐξουσίας δεσποτικῆς οὐδὲ ταῖς ἐπονειδίστοις τοῦ σώματος ἐδούλευσεν ἡδοναῖς).

57 On Dionysius’ narrative interventions in condemnation of Rome's moral decadence, see Sordi, M., ‘La costitutzione di Romolo e le critiche di Dionigi di Alicarnasso alla Roma del suo tempo’, Pallas 39 (1993), 111–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (1965), at 131–2Google Scholar.

58 Dionysius’ comments focus on several areas where the Romans exhibit behaviour unworthy of their ancestors. In Book 2, for example, he comments on the lack of respect for auspices characteristic of contemporary Romans (AR 2.6.2; cf. 8.37.3). In Book 4, he comments on the crimes of slaves against their masters (4.24.4); in Book 7, his focus is on the contrast between the obedience displayed by former young Romans towards their elders, and their present disrespectful attitude (7.47.1).

59 cf. Polybius 6.4.2. For this positive view of kings as just and benign and on Roman perception of kingship in general, see Rawson, E., ‘Caesar's heritage: Hellenistic kings and their Roman equals’, JRS 64 (1975), 148–59Google Scholar. This positive assessment of kingship is shared by Dionysius in AR 2.12.4 (Romulus’ constitution), where the Senate is described as a ‘council of kings’ and once again a contrast is drawn between the benevolence of the early kings and the authadeia of their contemporary counterparts.

60 On Dionysius’ view of dictatorship, see Gabba, E., ‘Dionigi e la dittatura a Roma’ in Gabba, E. (ed.), ria Corda., Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano (1983), 215–28Google Scholar.

61 Schettino, op. cit. (n. 2), at 42, points to the similarities between Fabricius’ speech and Dio's narrative of the death of Cato (43.10–13) to prove that Dionysius is relying on a lost source from the Caesarean period. Hill, op. cit. (n. 33), sees Dionysius as an anti-Augustan writer, an idea which is vehemently criticized by Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 57), at 131–2.

62 Hall, E., Inventing the Barbarian. Greek Self-definition Through Tragedy (1989)Google Scholar, at 13–17 and 154–9. See also Cartledge, P., The Greeks (1993)Google Scholar, at 36–62, and Loraux, N., The Invention of Athens: the Funeral Oration in the Classical City (1986; 1st edn in French, 1981), at 172–220Google Scholar, on the practice of praising democracy.

63 Plut., Pyrrh. 8.1. See further Franke, op. cit. (n. 10), at 458; Smith, R. R. R., Hellenistic Royal Portraits (1988), at 64–6Google Scholar; Stewart, A., Faces of Power. Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (1993), at 284–6Google Scholar. On Plutarch's construction of Pyrrhus as an Alexander manqué, see Mossman, J., ‘Plutarch, Pyrrhus, and Alexander’, in Stadter, P. A. (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (1992), 90–108Google Scholar.

64 Livy 9.17–19, on which see Morello, R., ‘Livy's Alexander digression (9.17–19): counterfactuals and apologetics’, JRS 92 (2002), 62–85Google Scholar, and Oakley, S. P., A Commentary on Livy. Books 6–10 vol. 2 (2005), at 184–206Google Scholar. Plutarch has Appius Caecus refer to the same imagined scenario in his famous speech of 280 b.c. against a reconciliation with Pyrrhus: Pyrrh. 19 (ORF 2–4), and see Morello, op. cit., at 65–6. Cf. AR 1.3–4, a discussion of Rome in relation to other empires, including Alexander's.

65 On Alexander's modelling of himself as a second Achilles, see Stewart, op. cit. (n. 63), at 78–86.

66 Franke, op. cit (n. 10), at 163–5. On Pyrrhus as a second Achilles, see Hornblower, op. cit. (n. 8), 195; Lévêque, P., Pyrrhos (1957), 250–8Google Scholar. Cf. Plut., Pyrrh. 7.4. On the interplay between Achilles’ son, Neoptolemos, also known as Pyrrhus, and Pyrrhus of Epirus in the Aeneid, see Quint, D., ‘“Aeacidae Pyrrhi”: patterns of myth and history in Aeneid 1–6’ in Breed, B., Damon, C. and Rossi, A. (eds), Citizens of Discord. Rome and its Civil Wars (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

67 Paus. 1.12.1: ταῦτα λεγόντων τῶν πρέσβεων μνήμη τὸν Πύρρον τῆς ἁλώσεως ἐσῆλθε τῆς Ἰλίου, καί οἱ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἤλπιζε χωρήσειν πολεμοῦντι• στρατεύειν γὰρ ἐπὶ Τρώων ἀποίκους Ἀχιλλέως ὢν ἀπόγονος. ‘When the ambassadors had thus spoken, Pyrrhus remembered the capture of Troy, and he hoped that the same outcome would await his campaign; for he was a descendant of Achilles making war upon a colony of Trojans.’

68 Perret, J., Les origins de la légende troyenne de Rome (1942)Google Scholar argued that it was Pyrrhus who invented the legend of the Romans’ descent from the Trojans. Yet the connection between Rome and Troy is mentioned well before Pyrrhus’ time: see Cornell, op. cit. (n. 24), at 64–5, for discussion. Recently, Erskine, A., Troy Between Greece and Rome (2001), at 157–61Google Scholar, casts doubt on Pausanias’ statement, arguing instead that Pyrrhus’ emulation of Achilles is connected to his desire to be seen as a second Alexander.

69 Some discussion in Martin, op. cit. (n. 51), n. 9.

70 Claudius Quadrigarius, HRR 40–1; Valerius Antias, HRR 21; Livy 24.45.3; 39.51.11; 42.47.6; Valerius Maximus 6.5.1; Tacitus, Ann. 2.88.1; Plut., Pyrrh. 21; Schettino, op. cit. (n. 2), at 60 n. 1.

71 In Dionysius, Latinus is the son of Heracles and king of the Aborigines (1.44.3) who are themselves descendants of the Arcadians who came to Italy with Oenotrus (1.11.2). Dionysius says that the Aborigines began to be known as Latins under King Latinus (1.9.3–4): Vanotti, op. cit. (n. 1), 212–13. The dialogue between Ilioneus and Latinus in Aen. 7.195–273 is the equivalent in Virgil of this scene. For the relationship between the two scenes, see Vanotti, op. cit. (n. 1), at 218–19. The encounter was already narrated by Naevius (fr. 23 Morel).

72 AR 1.57.4: ἐγνωκότι δὲ αὐτῷ ταῦτα λέγει τις ἐπιστὰς καθ’ ὕπνον ἐπιχώριος δαίμων δέχεσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας τῇ χώρᾳ συνοίκους. ‘But when he had reached this decision, a certain divinity of the place appeared to him in his sleep and told him to accept the Greeks into his land’; 1.58.5: Ἀλλ’ ἔγωγε εὔνοιάν τε πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν γένος ἔχω. ‘But I have a goodwill towards the whole Greek race.’

73 AR 20.2.2: οἱ δὲ ὁπότε τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μάθοιεν εἰς ἀντίπαλα καθισταμένους, ἐπὶ δόρυ κλίναντες καὶ δι’ ἀλλήλων ἐξελίξαντες περιεδίνουν τοὺς ἵππους αὖθις ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον. ‘The Greeks, whenever they perceived that the Romans were equals in combat, would swerve to the right and manoeuvering past one another, would turn around their horses once again to the front.’

74 Orosius quotes an epigram which eloquently summarizes Pyrrhus’ difficulty. It is purportedly dedicated by Pyrrhus in the temple of Jupiter at Tarentum and believed to be a quotation taken by Orosius from Ennius' Annales: ‘qui antehac / invicti fuere viri, pater Optume Olympi, / hos ego vi pugna vici victusque sum ab isdem’ (Ennius Ann. 180–2 Skutsch).

75 See above p. 41, AR 1.5.3: οὔτ’ εὐσεβεστέρους οὔτε δικαιοτέρους οὔτε σωφροσύνῃ πλείονι παρὰ πάντα τὸν βίον χρησαμένους οὐδέ γε τὰ πολέμια κρείττους ἀγωνιστὰς οὐδεμία πόλις ἤνεγκεν οὔτε Ἑλλὰς οὔτε βάρβαρος.

76 Aujac, G., Denys d’Halicarnasse Opuscules Rhétoriques tome 5 (1992)Google Scholar, index ὑπόθεσις.

77 Sallust, Cat. 10–11.1; Jug. 41; Hist. 1.11. For Polybius' assessment of the causes of Roman decline, see Walbank, F. W., ‘The idea of decline in Polybius’ in Koselleck, S. and Widmer, P. (eds), Niedergang: Studien zu einem geschichtlichen Thema (1980), 41–58Google Scholar, repr. in Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World (2002), 193–211. Livy's position is more complex: see Rossi, op. cit. (n. 55), at 377–8. On Roman views of Roman decline in general, see Lintott, A. W., ‘Imperial expansion and moral decline in the Roman Republic’, Historia 21.4 (1972), 626–38Google Scholar.

78 Luraghi, op. cit. (n. 3), at 280–1, explains Dionysius’ reluctance to fully adopt the moralistic stance typical of Roman historians as the result of his status as a political and cultural outsider.

79 For discussion of the chronology of this episode and its relative placement within the book, see n. 11. If the episode of Decius was the first major event of Book 20, as Pittia, op. cit. (n. 5), has argued, and not part of the narrative of the aftermath of Ausculum, the corrupt tendencies of the Romans, which this story highlights, would acquire even greater emphasis within the structure of the narrative.

80 AR 20.4.8: Δέκιος δὲ ἀντὶ φρουράρχου τύραννος ἐγεγόνει τῆς Ῥηγίνων πόλεως.

81 AR 20.5.5: οὗτοι δὲ παρακρουσάμενοι τοὺς φυλάττοντας ἢ χρήμασιν ὠνησάμενοι τὸ μὴ μεθ’ ὕβρεως ἀποθανεῖν ἑαυτοὺς διεχειρίσαντο. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις. ‘These men [Decius and his secretary], having tricked the guards or bribed them with money so as not to die a shameful death, made away with themselves. So much on this subject.’

82 Another fragment from Book 20 (20.6) mentions the corrupting influence of the gold of a king but it does not give us any clues as to where in the narrative it originally belonged. On the theme, see Horace, Odes 3.16.9–15 and see Nisbet, R. G. M. and Rudd, N., A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book 3 (2004), 104–5Google Scholarad 3.13–14 and 14–15. On the importance of bribery in Sallust, see Paul, G. M., A Historical Commentary on Sallust's Bellum Jugurthinum (1984), 261–3.Google Scholar