1. Journal of Ancient History 3 (286)
  2. Monarchy as «True Democracy» in the Works Greek Authors of the Second Sophistic: Irony, Utopia or Ideal?

Monarchy as «True Democracy» in the Works Greek Authors of the Second Sophistic: Irony, Utopia or Ideal?

Markov Konstantin V.

Aelius Aristides, Flavius Philostratus, and Dio Cassius either directly or via their characters call the power of Roman emperors «people’s rule». Modern scholars usually take such utterances as expressing the same concept. The author of the paper tries to prove that they are not so similar to one another as it may seem. Thus, Aelius Aristides in his oration to Rome compares Roman Empire with the «general democracy of old» (ὲν τοῖς ὲπέκεινα πᾶσα δημοκρατία – Or. XXVI. 38), which means for him the political order of Greek poleis before the Roman conquest. In another passage he calls the Empire «democracy» discussing equal rights of Roman citizens (Or. XXVI. 60). Dio Cassius, by the mouth of Maecenas, refers to monarchy as «true democracy» (δημοκρατία ἡ ἀληθής, founded not on universal equality of citizens, but on equality according to dignity (κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν – LII.14. 3–5). Flavius Philostratus uses the term δῆμος (VA.V. 35). According to him, monarchy turns into democracy not by force of the institutional factor, but by force of the subjective one. The very idea of representing Roman monarchic system as people’s rule must have been rooted in the notion (characteristic of the Roman law) that the people delegates supreme power to the princeps. The idea could have become a rhetorical cliché, which constituted the basis for the speculations of all the three authors in question. At the same time, their views are somewhat different, the difference being especially big between Aelius Aristides and Dio Cassius. The former, being a representative of Greek provincial élite, concentrates his thought on the interests of provinces. For the latter, a high rank senator, monarchy as «true democracy» implies a substantial limitation of emperor’s power in favour of oligarchy. These different approaches, which may be discerned through the seeming similarity of the clichés the authors use, show their close connections with the political reality of their time.

Keywords: Aelius Aristides, Flavius Philostratus, Dio Cassius, Second Sophistic, democracy, political thought in the Roman Empire.
References:
  1. Grabar'-Passek M.E. 1969: Filosofskij roman. Filostrat. «Zhizn' Apollonija Tanskogo» // Antichnyj roman. M., 230–256.
  2. Knabe G.S. 1972: Zhizneopisanie Apollonija Tianskogo, βασιλεὺς χρηστός i Kornelij Tacit // VDI. 3, 30–63.
  3. Kudrjavcev O.F. 1991: Renessansnyj gumanizm i «Utopija». M.
  4. Markov K.V. 2004: Consilium principis v koncepcii ideal'noj monarhii Diona Kassija // Studia historica. 4, 121–125.
  5. Markov K.V. 2008: Rech' Agrippy (Dio Cass. LII. 1–13): ritorika i ideologija // Iz istorii antichnogo obshhestva. 11, 134–153.
  6. Markov K.V. 2008: Hronologija raboty Diona Kassija nad «Rimskoj istoriej» // VDI. 2, 142–154.
  7. Markov K.V. 2009: Osobennosti gosudarstvennoj kar'ery Dion a Kassija v 220-e gg. // Iz istorii antichnogo obshhestva. 12, 239–251.
  8. Markov K.V. 2011: Obrazy proshlogo v trudah Flavija Filostrata i problematika istoricheskoj pamjati v izuchenii fenomena Vtoroj sofistiki // Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, 5 (1), 191–197.
  9. Mahlajuk A.V. 2011: Istorik «veka zheleza i rzhavchiny». Kassij Dion i ego «Rimskaja istorija» // Kassij Dion Kokkejan. Rimskaja istorija. Knigi LXIV–LXXX / Per. s drevnegrech. pod red. A.V. Mahlajuka; kommentarii i stat'ja A.V. Mahlajuka. SPb., 372–437.
  10. Mahlajuk A.V., Markov K.V. 2008: Istorik i vyzovy sovremennosti: «Rimskaja istorija» Diona Kassija kak pamjatnik istoricheskoj i politicheskoj mysli III v. n.je. // VDI. 2, 47–55.
  11. Mezherickaja S.I. 2006: Zhizn' i tvorchestvo Jelija Aristida // Jelij Aristid. Svjashhennye rechi. Pohvala Rimu / S.I. Mezherickaja, M.L. Gasparov (red.). M., 167–197.
  12. Panteleev A.D. 2010: Demokratija v neortodoksal'nom hristianstve: opyt gnostikov // Problemy antichnoj demokratii / Je.D. Frolov (red.). SPb., 477–478.
  13. Rabinovich E.G. 1985: «Zhizn' Apollonija Tianskogo» Flavija Filostrata // Flavij Filostrat. Zhizn' Apollonija Tianskogo. M., 217–276.
  14. Smyshljaev A.L. 1990: «Rech' Mecenata» (Dio Cass. LII, 14–40): problemy interpretacii // VDI. 1, 54–66.
  15. Frolov Ye.D. 1969: Monarhicheskaja ideja u Isokrata // Problemy otechestvennoj i vseobshhej istorii. L., 3–20.
  16. Horst K. 2011: Demokratija kak forma pravlenija – k voprosu o politicheskoj funkcii ponjatija demokratii v jepohu imperatorov. Interpretacija rechej Agrippy i Mecenata (Cass. Dio. 52. 1–41) // Narod i demokratija v drevnosti. Doklady Rossijsko-germanskoj nauchnoj konferencii / V.V. Dement'eva (otv. red.). Jaroslavl', 270–286.
  17. Shalimov O.A. 2000: Obraz ideal'nogo pravitelja v Drevnem Rime v seredine I– nachale II veka n.je. M.
  18. Shtaerman E.M. 1957: Krizis rabovladel'cheskogo stroja v zapadnyh provincijah Rimskoj imperii. M.
  19. Elii Aristid 2006: Svjashhennye rechi. Pohvala Rimu / S.I. Mezherickaja, M.L. Gasparov (red.). M.
  20. Ahl F. 1984: The art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome // The American Journal of Philology, 105. 2, 174–208.
  21. Ameling W. 1997: Griechische Intellectuelle und das Imperium Romanum: das Beispel Cassius Dio // ANRW. II. 34. 3, 2472–2496.
  22. Behr C.A. 1994: Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides // ANRW. II. 34. 2, 1140–1233.
  23. Berrigan J.R. 1968: Dio Cassius' Defense of Democracy // Classical Bulletin. 44. 3, 42–45.
  24. Bleicken J. 1962: Der politische Standpunkt Dios gegenüber der Monarchie // Hermes. 90. 4, 445–467.
  25. Bleicken J. 1966: Der Preis des Aelius Aristides auf das Romische Weltreich // Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. 7, 225–277.
  26. Blois L. de. 1984: The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite in the Roman Empire // Historia. 33. 3, 358, 361, 364–370.
  27. Blois L. de.1994: Traditional Virtues and New Spiritual Qualities in the Third Century Views of Empire, Emperorship and Practical Politics // Mnemosyne. 47. 2, 166–175.
  28. Blois L. de. 1998–1999: The perception of emperor and empire in Cassius Dio`s Roman History // AncSoc. 29, 267–281.
  29. Bowersock G. 1969: Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxf.
  30. Bowie E. 2009: Quid Roma Athenis? How far did imperial Greek sophists or philosophers debate the legitimacy of Roman power? // Ordine e sovversione nel mondo greco e romano: ati del convegno internazionale. Cividale del Friuli, 25–27 settembre 2008 / G. Urso (ed.), 223–240.
  31. Canfora L. 2006: Eine kurze Geschichte der Demokratie. Von Athen bis zur europäischen Union. Köln.
  32. Carsana C. 1990: La teoria della «constituzione mista» nell’età imperiale romana (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 13). Como.
  33. Chiron P. 2003: Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré // La parole polémique / J. Dangel, Declercq, M. Murat (eds.). P., 223–254.
  34. Desideri P. 2007: Scrittura pubblica e scritture nascoste // Elio Aristide. A Roma / F. Fontanella  (cur.). Pisa, 3–22.
  35. Escribano M.V. 1999: Estrategias retoricas y pensamiento politico en la Historia Romana de Cassio Dion // AC. 68, 171–190.
  36. Espinosa Ruiz U. 1982: Debate Agrippa-Mecenas en Dion Casio. Respuesta senatorial a la crisis del imperio romano en epoca severiana. Madrid, 471–490.
  37. Espinosa Ruiz U. 1987: El problema de la historicidad en le debate Agrippa-Mecenas de Dion Casio // Gerion. 5, 308–314.
  38. Flinterman J.J. 1993: Politiek, paideia and pythagorisme: Griekse identiteit, voorstellingen rond de verhouding tussen filosofen en alleenheersers en polit. ideeen in de Vita Apollonii van Philostratus.
  39. Fontanella F. 2008: The Encomium on Rome as a Response to Polybius’ Doubts About the Roman Empire // Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the gods / W.V. Harris, B. Holmes (eds.). Leiden, 203–216.
  40. Gabba E. 1955: Sulla «Storia romana» di Cassio Dione // RSI. 67, 289–333.
  41. Hammond M. 1932: The Significance of the Speech of Mecenas in Dio Cassius, Book LII // TAPhA. 63, 88–102.
  42. Hammond M. 1963: Res olim dissociabiles: principatus ac libertas. Liberty under the Early Roman Empire // Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 67, 93–113.
  43. Harrington J. 1970: Cassius Dio: a reexamination. PhD Diss. Lexington.
  44. Heath M. 2003: Pseudo-Dionysius Art of Rhetoric 8–11 // AJP. 124, 81–105.
  45. Hemelrijk A. 2004: Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna. N.Y., 122–126.
  46. Horst C. 2010: Zur politischen Funktion des Demokratiebegriffes in der Kaiserzeit: eine Interpretation der Reden des Agrippa und Maecenas (Cassius Dio 52, 1–41) // Volk und Demokratie im Altertum / T. Schmitt, V.V. Dement’eva (Hrsg.). Ruprecht, 189–208.
  47. Hose M. 1994: Erneuerung der Vergangenheit. Die Historiker in Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio.
  48. Hose M. 2007: Cassius Dio: A senator and Historian in the Age of Anxiety // A companion to Greek and Roman historiography / J. Marincola (ed.). L., 461–467.
  49. Kemezis A.M. 2006: The Roman Past in the Age of the Severans. PhD Diss. University of Michigan.
  50. Krieckhaus A. 2006: Senatorische Familien und ihre Patriae (1./2. Jahrhunderte n. Chr.) // Studien zur Geschichtsforschung des Altertums. 14. Hamburg.
  51. Kuhlmann P. 2010: Die Maecenas-Rede bei Cassius Dio: Anachronismen und intertextuelle Bezüge // Stimmen der Geschichte: Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie / D. Pausch  (Hrsg). B.
  52. Kuhn-Chen B. 2002: Geschichtskonzeptionen griechischer Historiker im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Untersuchungen zu den Werken von Appian, Cassius Dio und Herodian. Frankfurt am Main etc.
  53. Larsen J.A.O. 1945: Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism // Classical Philology. 40, 88–91.
  54. Letta C. 1979: La composizione dell’opera di Cassio Dione: cronologia e sfondo storico-politico // Troiani L., Noe E., Letta C. Ricerche di storiografia greca di eta romana. Pisa, 168–169.
  55. Mennen I. 2011: Power and status in the Roman Empire, AD 193–284. Leiden–Boston.
  56. Meyer P. 1891: De Maecenatis oratione a Dione ficta. Diss. B.
  57. Millar F. 1964: A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxf.
  58. Milazzo A.M. 2007: Dimensione retorica e realtà politica. Dione di Prusa nelle orazioni III, V, VII, VIII. Hildesheim.
  59. Morgan J.R. 2006: Un discours figuré chez Héliodore. «Comment, en disant l’inverse de ce qu’on veut, on peut accomplir ce qu’on veut sans sembler dire l’inverse de ce qu’on veut» // Discours et débats dans l’ancien roman / Pouderon , J. Peigney (eds.).  Lyon.
  60. Näf B. 1998: Die attische Demokratie in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Zu einem Aspekt des Athenbildes und seiner Rezeption // Imperium Romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ / P. Kneissl, V. Losemann (Hrsg.). Stuttgart, 552–570.
  61. Oliver J. 1953: The Ruling Power. The Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides. Philadelphia.
  62. Pavan M. 1962: Sul significato storico dell’«Encomio di Roma» di Elio Aristide // La Parola del Passato. 82, 81–95.
  63. Pernot L. 2008: Aelius Aristides and Rome // Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the gods / W.V. Harris, B. Holmes (ed.). Leiden, 175–202.
  64. Pernot L. 2011: Elogio retorico e potere politico all’epoca della Seconda Sofistica // Dicere Laudes. Elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso, Cividale del Friuli, 23–25 settembre 2010 / G. Urso (cur.). Pisa, 281–298.
  65. Reinhold M. 1988: From Republic to Principate. A Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio Roman History. Books 49–52 (36–29 B.C.). Atlanta.
  66. Roberto U. 2010: Aspetti della riflessione sul governo misto nel pensiero politico romano da Cicerone all’età di Giustiniano // Montesquieu.it: biblioteca elettronica su Montesquieu e dintorni. Bologna, 43–78.
  67. Schirren T. 2009: Irony versus eulogy. The Vita Apollonii as metabiographical fiction // Theios Sophistes: Essays on Flavius Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii / Demoen, D. Praet (eds.). Leiden, 161–186.
  68. Sirago V.A. 1989: La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II sec. // ANRW. II. 33. 1, 36–78.
  69. 50.Sordi M. 2001: Alla ricerca di una «democrazia diversa»: Da Tucidide a Dione // Aevum. 75. 1, 3–8.
  70. Starr Ch.G.Jr. 1952: The Perfect Democracy of the Roman Empire // The American Historical Review. 58, 1–16.
  71. Stertz S.A. 1994: Aelius Aristides’ political ideas // ANRW. II. 34. 2, 1248–1270.
  72. Vannier M.F. 1976: Alius Aristide et la domination romaine d’après le discours»À Rome» // Dialogues d’histoire ancienne. 2, 497–506.
  73. Whitmarsh T. 2001: Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics of Imitation. Oxf.
  74. Whitmarsh T. 2007: Prose, literature and the Severan dynasty // Severan culture / S. Swain, J. Elsner  (eds.). Cambr., 29–52.
  75. Wirszubski Ch. 1950: Liberty as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambr.