¹ Momigliano, A., ‘Dio of Prusa, the Rhodian “libertas” and the philosophers’, JRS 41 (1951), p.152 (═Quinto Contribute 2 [Rome, 1975], pp. 966 –75; at p. 972); idem, ‘Dio Chrysostomus’, Quarto Contributo (Rome, 1969), pp. 258–60;Google ScholarJones, C.P., ‘The date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration’, Historia 22 (1973), pp.307–8; idem, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Massachusetts-London, 1978), pp. 14–17, 44–5, 123;Google ScholarDesideri, P., Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale Greco nell'impero romano (Messina-Firenze, 1978), pp.138–9;Google ScholarSalmeri, G., La Politico e il Potere Saggio su Dione di Prusa (Catania, 1982), pp.24–6;Google ScholarMoles, J. L., ‘The Career and Conversion of Dio Chrysostom’, JHS 98 (1978), pp.84‘5, 93; idem, ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, PLLS 6 (1990), p. 333;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJones, B.W., ‘Domitian and the exile of Dio of Prusa’, La Parola del Passato 45 (1990), pp.348,Google Scholar 354–7; S. Fein, Die Beziehungen der Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian zu den litterati (Stuttgart, 1994), p. 232. Elizabeth Rawson was more cautious in her posthumously published paper ‘Roman Rulers and the Philosophic Adviser’, in Griffin, M. &Barnes, J. (eds.), Philosophia Togata (Oxford, 1989), at pp.248–9.Google Scholar

² This idea has been canvassed by Jones, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 307; idem, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 44; Desideri, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 109–10; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 84; and B. W. Jones, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 355; but has been rejected by Salmeri, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 92–3.

³ Thus already Emperius in Dio, ed. Arnim, 2.334; and Arnim, H.von, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898), pp.228–31;Google Scholar followed with more or less certainty by Momigliano, art. cit. (n. 1,1969), p. 260; Jones, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 307; idem, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 15,46; Desideri, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 189–91; Salmeri, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 27; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), pp. 84, 93; idem, art. cit. (n. 1, 1990), p. 333; and, presumably, by Dzielska, M., Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History (Rome, 1986), p.44, ‘Domitian suspected Apollonius (sic) of taking part in a plot allegedly prepared against him by the emperor's cousin Flavius Sabinus’, but rejected by B.W.Jones, art. cit. (n. 1), pp. 352–3 (see below n. 33).Google Scholar

⁴ See Russell, D.A.(ed)., Dio Chrysostom. Orations VII, XII, XXXVI(Cambridge, 1992), p.4, n. 4;Google Scholar with Sidebottom, H., review in JRS 84 (1994), p.265.Google Scholar

⁵ V.A. 5.27–38; apparently also referred to at Phil.V.S. 488.

⁶ See, E.L. Bowie, ‘Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality’, ANRW 11.16.2 (1978), pp. 1660–62; and Dzielska, D., op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 43–4(with Bowie's review in JRS 79 [1989], pp. 252–4); as well as Momigliano, art. cit. (n. 1, 1951), p. 152; Jones, op. cit. (n. 1). p. 14; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 83;Google Scholar and Brancacci, A., Rhetorike Philosophousa. Dione Crisostomo nella cultura antica e bizantina (Coll. Elenchos xi, 1985), p. 71;Google Scholar cf.Anderson, G., ‘Apollonius of Tyana as a Novel’, in Reardon, B.P. (ed.), Erotica Antiqua (Bangor, 1977), p. 37; idem, Philostratus. Biography and Belles Lettres in the Third Century A.D. (London, 1986), pp. 129, 178–9, 231; and idem, Sage, Saint and Sophist. Holy men and their associates in the Early Roman Empire (London, New York, 1994), p. 136, n. 31Google Scholar

⁷ Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 83

⁸ Bowie, art. cit. (n. 6), pp. 1668–9; Dzielska, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 43, 49, 55

⁹ V.A. 5.26/Dio, Or. 32.48, 50; cf V.A. 4.21/Dio, Or. 32.58–60.

¹⁰ The acknowledged fact that Philostratus' scene is fiction causes difficulties for those who wish to see Dio as an amicus of Vespasian. Jones (op. cit. [n. 1], p. 14) claimed that even if Dio was not a courtier of the Flavians in A.D. 69 ‘he was to be one soon thereafter’. Jones' contention must rest on the other supposed evidence for Dio as an amicus of Vespasian and Titus which is dealt with below. Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), pp. 83–5 (following a suggestion of Momigliano, art. cit. [n. 1, 1951], pp. 148–9, 152–3), advanced the hypothesis (before seemingly rejecting it) that while V.A. 27–38 is fiction it shows that Philostratus had some knowledge of the general terms of philosophical debate in the early years of Vespasian (and specifically of the republicanism of Helvidius Priscus). Various problems arise. The republicanism of Helvidius is extremely controversial (as Moles recognized). If Helvidius' republicanism is historical, Philostratus' giving republican views to Euphrates may just be an accident (as Moles also acknowledged). If Philostratus' information about the nature of philosophical debate in the early years of Vespasian is both true and authentic, it does not show that Dio was part of that debate (and his stance in the κατ τν ΦιλοσΦων see below, suggests that he was not), and it certainly does not show that Dio was an amicus of Vespasian.

¹¹ In favour of a Trajanic date see now Sidebottom, H.,‘The Date of Dio of Prusa's Rhodian and Alexandrian Orations’, Historia 41 (1992), pp.407–19; also Salmeri, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 97; andGoogle ScholarKindstrand, J.F., ‘The Date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration—;A Reply’, Historia 27(1978), pp.378–83. For a Vespasianic date Jones, art. cit. (n. 1), passim; idem, op. cit. (n.1), pp. 36, 39, 134; Desideri, op. cit. (n.1), pp. 68, 110; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 84.Google Scholar The claim by Barry, W.D. (‘Aristocrats, Orators and the “Mob”: Dio Chrysostom and the world of the Alexandrians’, Historia 42 [1993], pp.82–103) that he has provided support for Jones' dating of the Alexandrian Oration is far from convincing. Barry invents a schema ('Dio was anti-demos pre-exile, but pro-demos post-exile) and then appeals to it (‘the Alexandrian Oration is antidemos, thus it is pre-exile‘). It is particularly unfortunate that the proof Barry adduces (art. cit pp. 99–100) that Dio was pro-demos after his exile is Dio's attitude to the demos in the Euboean Oration: a very strange reading of Or. 7.21–63.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 44, ‘it seems unparalleled for a Greek to be sent with such a message to a city not his own’.

¹³ Cf. Rawson, art. cit. (n. 1), p. 238.

¹⁴ Or. 1.58–84; on which see Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1990), pp. 319–31; and for Dio's use of a ‘Phaedran’ setting for the ’Choice’, Trapp, M. B., ‘Plato's Phaedrus in Second-century Greek Literature’, in Russell, D.A. (ed.), Antonine Literature (Oxford, 1990), pp.143–5. Other examples of Dio being sent to places by divine mandate are Or. 13.9–10; Or. 34.4–5; Or. 38.51.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Von Araim, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 150–51; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 85.

¹⁶ E.g. Philostratus, V.A. 5.29, makes Vespasian explain his reasons for taking power to Apollonius, so that Apollonius can justify his actions to others.

¹⁷ Lemarchand, L., Dion de Pruse. Les oeuvres d'avant l'exil (Paris, 1926), pp.30–32: ‘Mélancomas est l'athléte idéalisé, trop parfait sans doute pour avoir jamais existé’ (at pp.31'2).Google ScholarPoliakoff, M.B. (‘Melancomas, κλμακος and Greek Boxing’, AJPh 108 [1987], pp.511–18) believed a barrier placed to keep boxers in close combat proved Melancomas' style was untenable, but still believed in the boxer's historicity.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Von Arnim, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 143.

¹⁹ Contra Momiglianio, art. cit. (n. 1, 1951), p. 152; and Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 84. Eustathius' oblique reference to Melancomas (1324.48ff. [ad II. 23.286; quoted by Poliakoff, art. cit. [n. 17], p. 512) merely follows Themistius.

²⁰ Suet. Titus 7; Julian, Caes. 311 A.

²¹ Contra Desideri, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 137–9.

²² Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p.93, n. 122

²³ Suet. Titus 1.

²⁴ Jones, op. cit. (n. 1), p.133, c. A.D. 40–50.

²⁵ Or. 18.16.

²⁶ Von Arnim, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 139–40; Momigliano, art. cit. (n. 1, 1969), p. 259; Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 93; idem, art. cit. (n. 1, 1990), p. 333.

²⁷ An attempt to construct a prosopographical link between Dio and the Flavians by way of Dio's possible teacher Musonius would be very suspect (cf. Momigliano, art. cit. [n. 1, 1951], p. 152; Rawson, art. cit. [n. 1], p. 249). Vespasian exiled Musonius, for Titus recalled him (Hieron.Chron. p. 189 Helm). But Themistius' claim that Musonius was an amicus of Titus has rightly been seen as a fiction (Rawson, loc. cit.), which gains little support from the facts that Vespasian was a friend of Barea Soranus (Tac.Hist. 4.7), Soranus a friend of Rubellius Plautus (Tac.Ann. 16.30), and Rubellius Plautus a friend of Musonius (Tac.Ann. 14.59). Dio, anyway, appears as a pupil of Musonius only in a passage of Fronto (2.50 Haines) which should not be pressed too hard (Rawson, art. cit. [n. 1], p. 248, n. 84).

²⁸ PIR ² F355; above (n. 3). That Dio does not name his patron should not surprise. To do so would not have fitted the ironic, even playful tone of the introduction of Oration 13 (see Or. 13.1, where Dio compares his fate, caused by the custom of tyrants, to that caused by Scythian custom which befalls a king/s cupbearers, cooks, and concubines: G.Anderson, ‘The pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Roman Empire’, ANRW II.33.1 [1989], p. 175). While Dio wants to be taken seriously about his conversion to philosophy while in exile, his condemnation of materialism and useless learning, and his exhortation to true education, which is philosophy, his tone in the introduction (Or. 13.1–13) and first section of this work (Or. 13.14–28, where Dio tells the Athenians what he had told other peoples while in exile, which was, more or less, what Socrates had told the Athenians) is light and ironic (see the frequent allusions to Aristophanes, Clouds: Or. 13.14, 19, 23). The tone changes to one of moral earnestness in the final section (Or. 13.29–37), where Dio takes the position of a Greek telling other Greeks the stern way he has upbraided the Romans for their failings (see esp. Or. 13.29–30).

²⁹ Townend, G.B., ‘Some Flavian Connections’, JRS 51 (1961), pp.55–6;Google ScholarJones, B.W., The Emperor Titus (London, Sydney, New York, 1984), pp.2–4;Google Scholarfor Tacitus' subtly condemning portraits of his grandfather and father see Wallace, K.Gilmartin, ‘The Flavii Sabini in Tacitus’, Historia 36 (1987), pp.343–58.Google Scholar

³⁰ PIR ² F426; Phil.V.A. 7.7.

³¹ Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (München, 1970), pp.53–4Google Scholar

³² Murray, O., review in JRS 57 (1967), p.250.Google Scholar

³³ One other candidate appears close enough to the Flavian dynasty: T. Flavius Clemens (PIR ² F240), brother of Sabinus and likewise complete with a dynastic marriage. His wife was Domitilla (PIR2 F418), the daughter of Titus' sister. Clemens was cos. ord. in 95 and killed by Domitian in the same year (Suet. Dom. 15.1). But Clemens cannot have been Dio's patron, for Dio stresses his many years of exile (Or. 40.2, 12; cf. Or. 1.55, where the wise woman must mean that Dio's exile has not long left to run). Similar reasoning seems to tell against the recent identification by B. W. Jones (art. cit. [n 1], pp. 348–57) of M. Arrecinus Clemens as Dio's patron. Arrecinus had had a sister married to Titus (B. W. Jones, op. cit. [n. 29], pp. 18–19), and may have had another married to T. Flavius Sabinus, the father of the Flavius Sabinus in the text (Townend, art. cit. [n. 29], pp. 56–7). But Arrecinus was consul in A.D. 85 and may have been killed much later. Jones seems to think that Dio's exile and Arrecinus' execution took place in A.D. 93 (art. cit. [n. 1], pp. 354, 357, but cf. p. 353, n. 20). If Arrecinus was only exiled, as Jones had previously contended (B. W. Jones and R. Develin, ‘M. Arrecinus Clemens’, Antichthon 10 [1976], p. 83), he cannot have been Dio's patron.

³⁴ Cf. Russell, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 4: ‘a great noble’.

³⁵ Cf. H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto, 1974), pp. 110–15. Part of the Greek culturist attitude was to pretend difficulty with Latin; this was allied to a deliberate imprecision in Greek descriptions of the Roman empire, see Mason, H.J. (‘The Roman Government in Greek sources. The effect of literary theory on the translation of official titles’, Phoenix 24 [1970], pp.150–59): who, however, puts all this down to literary models and thus ignores the cultural and political implications (see below n. 64).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ E.g. Or. 1.44; Or. 13.33; Or. 39.4; and Or. 79.1 if delivered in Rome.

³⁷ Although, as B. W. Jones (art. cit. [n. 1], pp. 351–2) points out, there seems to be no reason to revive the case for Mommsen's candidate Q. Junius Arulenus Rusticus.

³⁸ R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), p. 3.

³⁹ Under Domitian, Martial 8.70, 9.26; under Nero, Tac. Ann. 15.72.1.

⁴⁰ PIR ¹ R133.

⁴¹ Phil.V.S. 512. This Rufus is probably to be identified with L. Verginius Rufus, governor of Germania Superior A.D. 67/8, Eck, W., Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1985), pp.28–9, 231–2.Google Scholar

⁴² PIR ¹ S110. That Dio carried the name Cocceianus is attested by P1.Ep. 10.81.1; 82.2.

⁴³ Syme, op. cit. (n. 38), p. 628

⁴⁴ E. Groag, ‘Prosopagraphische Beiträge’, Jahreshefte 21/22 (1924), p. 425; followed by Syme, op. cit. (n. 38), p.647.

⁴⁵ Possibly the Salii, but cf.Syme, R., ‘The Ummidii’, Historia 17 (1968), pp.80–81 (═ Roman Papers II [Oxford, 1979], pp. 659–93, at pp. 667–8).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Tac. Hist. 2.48, prima iuventa.

⁴⁷ Cos., Suet. Dom. 10; date, Gallivan, P., ‘The Fasti for A.D. 70–96’, CQ 31 (1981), p.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ For Dio's many years of exile, see above (n. 33).

⁴⁹ Probably Claudius, see below n. 63.

⁵⁰ Pasicrates according to Photius, Bibl. 165A, and t he Suda Δ1240.

⁵¹ Or. 41.6;Or. 44.36;Or. 46.2–7. A problem for this theory is that Dio says his father was made a citizen of Apamea, Or. 41.6. Apamea was a Roman colony (Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor [Princeton, 1950], p. 1268, n. 34), and thus Dio′s father should have already held Roman citizenship (F. Vittinghoff, Romische {Colonisation und Burgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar undAugustus [Wiesbaen, 1952], p. 21, n. 3). The idea that Apamea was a ‘double-community’ (A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary [Oxford, 1966], p. 629) seems unlikely (F. Millar, review of Sherwin-White in JRS 58 [1968], p. 222; drawing on L. Teutsch, ‘Gab es “Dopplegameinden” im romischen Africa?’, RIDA 3.8 [1961], pp. 326–7; and accepted by S. Mitchell,‘ Iconium and Ninica. Two Double Communities in Roman Asia Minor’, Historia 28 [1978], p. 436). A solution would be to assume that Dio won citizenship for both himself and his father in A.D. 71, below.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Von Arnim, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 125; E. Berry, ‘ Dio Chrysostom the moral philosopher’, GR 30 (1983), p. 71. But if Dio had been given citizenship by his friend when he was emperor we would have expected Dio to take Nerva′s nomen Cocceius as his nomen rather than adapt it to the cognomen Cocceianus. See below (n. 54)

⁵³ Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p.86, n. 59; the theory is Ewen Bowie′s. See above on the κατ τν ΦιλοςΦων

⁵⁴ Dio thus could have taken all of Salvius′ names, with the exception of the name of the dead emperor Otho, and been styled L. Salvius Cocceianus Dio. Yet doubt is cast on such a conclusion by the existence of a mutilated inscription from Prusa which mentions a Titus Flavius Dio (P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Asie Mineure [Paris, 1870], no. 1113), which could refer to a relative or even Dio himself although obviously the imperial praenomen and nomen and the name Dio are very widespread. O n gaining citizenship in A.D. 71 Dio could have taken the imperial praenomen and nomen and added the cognomen of the patron who instigated his citizenship: Titus Flavius Cocceianus Dio (cf. Sherwin-White, op. cit. [n. 51], p. 676).

⁵⁵ Contra Moles, art. cit. (n. 1, 1978), p. 84, the link s...between Dio and the Flavians are incontrovertible.

⁵⁶ See below on Or. 7.66.

⁵⁷ Rawson, art. cit. (n. 1), pp. 248–9.

⁵⁸ Rawson, art. cit. (n. 1), passim.

⁵⁹ For example, among other inventions, Themistius made Epictetus an amicus of Pius and Marcus (Or. 5.63d). For Epictetus′ real attitudes to being a friend of Caesar see F. Millar, ‘Epictetus and the Imperial Court’, JRS 55 (1965), pp. 141–8. Only‘good’emperors were given posthumous philosophic advisers. Such an association between a ‘bad’ emperor and a philosopher would give too much credit to the ‘bad’ emperor and degrade the philosopher. Fiction about philosophers and ‘bad’ emperors should show the philosopher challenging the tyrant by his free-speech and suffering persecution as a result, cf. above on Apollonius and Domitian. Thus later sources do not dwell on Domitian′s association with Falvius Archippus (PI. Ep. 10.58; 60) or his possible connection with Seras (?)

⁶⁰ Bowie, art. cit. (n. 6), p. 1660. See Dio, Or. 49.7–8 for a Greek philosopher′s view of how the world should be run.

⁶¹ Or. 45.2. It is noteworthy that Dio says Nerva was a friend before the latter′s principate: during which Dio was too ill to visit him.

⁶² Although Dio was acquainted with Trajan, the degree of intimacy perhaps should not be exaggerated. Dio served on at least one embassy to Trajan, on which he possibly delivered (at least one) work On Kingship (Or. 57.11). Dio won benefits for Prusa from Trajan (more counsellors, Or. 44.11; Or. 45.7, 10; cf. Or. 40.14; the status of an assize centre, Or. 40.10, 33; Or. 44.11; both the above produced extra revenues, Or. 48.11; and possibly another source of revenue, Or. 44.11). But Dio was criticized in Prusa for his conduct on the embassy (Or. 45.3) and for its results (Or. 40.13–15; Or. 45.4). Dio failed to win freedom for Prusa (Or. 44.11–12). Only twice in the extant corpus does Dio claim friendship with Trajan, and both times in very guarded terms (Or. 45.3; Or. 47.22; cf. Ovid, Expont. 1.7.21, ‘what acquaintance of the Caesars fails to claim their friendship’, tr. P. Green). Pliny and Trajan′s correspondence betrays no intimacy between emperor and philosopher (PI. Ep. 10.81, 82). The only ancient evidence which does is Philostratus′ fiction (V.S. 488; V.A. 5.27–38). Fein, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 231–6, gives a recent overview of modern scholarly opinions on the relationship of Dio and Trajan. Rawson (art. cit. [n. 1], pp. 250, 256), not cited by Fein, remained sceptical. I hope to return to this topic elsewhere.

⁶³ Or. 41.6; Or. 44.5; Or. 46.3–4. F. Millar (The Emperor in the Roman World(31 B.C.-A.D. 337), 2nd ed. [London, 1992], pp. 481–2) points out that at one point (Or. 46.3) Dio claims that his grandfather won a second fortune from the emperors. But the plural probably is just rhetoric. Dio goes on to talk of the friendship of only one emperor (Or. 46.4). The emperor in question was most likely Claudius (thus von Arnim, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 123). It was very unlikely to have been Nero given Dio′s habitual strong hostility to that emperor (Or. 21.6–10; Or. 31.110, 150; Or. 32.60). Such hostility was not automatic for a Greek. The attitudes of Plutarch (C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome [Oxford, 1971], pp. 18–19, 80), Pausanias (7.17.2), and Philostratus (V.A. 5.41) were ambiguous. With Dio′s grandfather amicus to Claudius (or just possibly an earlier emperor), and Dio′s birth falling in the 40s (above n. 24) the former can offer no support to the historicity of Dio′s claims at Or. 7.66 (below).

⁶⁴ Very few of the Greek elite became senators, let alone intimates of emperors. Down to the end of the second century H. Halfmann (Die Senator en aus dent ost lichen Teil des Imperium Romanian bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. [Gottingen, 1979], pp. 100–206) could only find 150 senators definitely from the east (and another thirty who might have been, ibid., pp. 207–13). Early in the second century the second rank city of Prusa could find at a stroke one hundred extra members of its council. It is far from certain that even Roman citizenship was widespread among the Greek elite by A.D. 212: K. Buraselis, Constitutio Antoniniana (Athens, 1989), pp. 120–48. One must beware of falling into the trap of believing in an undifferentiated Graeco-Roman elite. For a thorough, nuanced discussion of elite Greek feelings towards Rome see S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire (Oxford, 1996); also H. Sidebottom, ‘Herodian′s Historical Methods and Understanding of History’, ANRW11.34A (forthcoming). Recently G. Woolf (‘ Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman East’, PCPhS 40 [1994], 116–43, at 125 ff.) has argued that the marginal role played by material culture in Greek self-definition allowed Greeks to adopt Roman cultural artefacts (esp. gladiatorial games and Roman styles of bathing) without compromising their ‘Greekness’.

⁶⁵ It may be significant that, as Simon Price noted (Rituals and Power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor [Cambridge, 1984], p. 18), scholars studying the Roman empire have tended to adopt the attitudes of members of the Senatorial upper-class, ‘whose social position many have shared or desired’. For the Senatorial class history was primarily politico-military history (Syme, op. cit. [n. 38], pp. 130–56).

⁶⁶ Cf. Ewen Bowie′s argument ("The Importance of Sophists′, YCS 27 [1982], pp. 29–59) that Greek sophists should be studied against a Greek cultural background and not for their sociopolitical links with high-placed Romans. In a recent, provocative article P. A. Brunt (‘The Bubble of the Second Sophistic’, BICS 39 [1994], pp. 25–52) more or less follows Bowie in depreciating the importance of Sophists in Roman history, but goes on to depreciate their importance in the life of the Greek cities and in Greek culture, as well as doubting the very existence of a Greek renaissance.

⁶⁷ P. A. Brunt, ‘Aspects of the Social Thought of Dio Chrysostom and of the Stoics’, PCPhS 19 (1973), pp. 9–34.

⁶⁸ Russell, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 8–9.

⁶⁹ See G. Anderson, Studies in Luciaris comic fiction (Leiden, 1976), pp. 94–8; F. Jouan, ‘Les Themes romanesques dans l′Euboicos de Dion Chrysostome’, REG 90 (1977), pp. 38–46; R. L. Hunter, A Study of Daphnis and Chloe (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 66–7. S. Swain (‘Dio and Lucian’, in J. R. Morgan and R. Stoneman (eds.), Greek Fiction. The Greek Novel in Context [London, 1994], pp. 166–72) plays down the novelistic elements in the narrative, instead finding in the Euboean Oration a novelistic morality.

⁷⁰ Cf. the contrast at Or. 7.80 of rustic weddings and those of the rich. At Or. 7.81 Dio says he has told the preceding tale to illustrate the advantages held by the poor.