Paper-Dionysius of Halicarnassus

7/27/2019 Paper-Dionysius of Halicarnassus

1/8

1

Dionysius of HalicarnassusNT 945

Hunn Choi

Introduction

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (60 BCE-after 7 BCE; flourished c. 20 BCE), historian, critic

and rhetorician, wrote twenty volumes on Roman history, entitled

(Roman Antiquities), the history of Rome from the mythical period to the beginning of the First

Punic War, which was carefully reseached and written from a pro-Roman standpoint.

Furthermore, he authored several rhetorical treaties, in which he demonstrates his rhetorical

mastery in Attic models: The Art of Rhetoric, a collection of essays on the theory of rhetoric; The

Arrangement of Words, a treatment of the combination of words according to the different styles

of oratory; On Imitation, a fragmentary work on the best models in the different kinds of

literature and the way in which they are to be imitated; Commentaries on the Attic Orators, such

as Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates, and Dinarchus; On the Admirable Style of Demosthenes; and On the

Character of Thucydides.1

In this brief historiographical paper, I will touch upon three aspects of Dionysius

approach in his writing of history: 1) understanding of history, 2) language and style, and 3) use

of speeches.

History

In the time of antiquity, For all the importance that we now assign to these two Greek

masters [Herodotus and Thucydides], history did not enjoy a high stature in the Hellentic world,

in part because the Greeks were philosophically rather less interested in the past per se than in

1Wikipedia, Dionysius of Halicarnassus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus.


2/8

2

the realms of nature, ethics, and the mind.2

However, there are historians like the authors of

Hellenika that followed Thucydides [who] focused, like him, on contemporary or recent history.

The list of later Greek historians includes Ephorus (c. 405-330 B.C.E.), the first writed of

universal history; the memorialist Xenphon (c. 431-c. 352 B.C.E); Theopompus (b. c. 380

B.E.C); Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. c. 20 B.C.E.); and the highly regarded Polybius (c. 200-

118 B.C.E.).3

Dionysius, as a great critic and rhetorician, desired to write good history. Good history

for him does not just record things of the past but records how the events were influenced, what

directed them and what pushed them in the direction they went. History is to seek the causes of

what has happened, the forms of action and the intentions of those who acted, and what

happened by destiny (Ant. Rom. 5.56.1). Like many other ancient writers, he prefaced in his

work with a comment on his effort to come to the truth. Speaking of the responsbility of the

writer of history, he emphasized that truth is the source of both prudence and wisdom (Ant.

Rom. 1.1.2). Historians ought not to merely crave to come to the knowledge of men and to get a

name of some sort or other or deisre to display the wealth of the rhetoric but first of all, to

make choice of noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers, and

then, with great care and pains, to provide themselves with the propoer equipment for the

treatment of their subject (Ant. Rom. 1.2.4, 2).

As Mark Allan Powell rightly points out, Dionysius thought the first task of any

historian should be to choose a good subject of a lofty character that would be truly profitable

2Daniel Woolf, Historiography, in Maryanne Cline Horowitz, ed.,New Dictionary of the History of

Ideas, vol 1, (New York: Charles Scribners & Sons, 2004), xxxvii.3 Ibid.


3/8

3

to its reader.4Dionysius concern was also how a work of history should be structured. He

stresses that the work should begin and end appropriately,5

and it must, like hisRoman

Antiquities, have a specific goal: By this means I engage to prove that [the Romans] were

Greeks and came together from nations not the smallest nor least considerable (Ant. Rom. 1.5.1).

For him, historians were to write with rapidity, omitting information that is not central to the

significant points, as well as with vividness that arouse the readers emotions to compassion or

anger.6

Furthermore, in Dionysius, one discovers numerous incidental and programmatic

statements on the proper function of history. One significant element he frequently underscores

is the necessary of narrating a complete action: as my subject requires not only that a full

account of the way the battle was fought should be given, also that the subsequent tragic events,

which resemble the sudden reversals of fortune seen upon the stage, should be related in no

perfunctory manner. I shall endeavor to give an accurate account of every incident (Ant.

Rom. 3.18.1; cf. 1.5.2-4).7

It is also important to add that Dionysius has biographic sections in

4 Mark Allan Powell, What Are They Saying About Acts? (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991), 81. Powellwrites, Van Unnik thinks Acts fulfills this criterion, for Luke makes it clear that what he reports has

lasting significance for all the earth (1:8; 10:36-42; 13:46-48; 26:26), (ibid., 82).5

Ibid. Also, Powell suggests, Van Unnik thinksLuke passes this point with honors. The book beginswith a commission to the apostles to be witnsses to the ends of the earth (1:8) and then proceeds,sequentially, to trace the progress of the gospel to new areas: Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Antioch, AsiaMinor, Greece, Rome. In this light, the ending, too, is appropriate. We may want to know more about

what happened to Paul after he reached Rome, but Lukes simple report of his preaching there indicatesthat the goals of mission as set for within this work (19:21) have been fulfilled (ibid.)6Ibid. I agree with Powell that Luke does all this in Acts, sometimes to the chargrin of modern critics.He lacks detail concerning the organization of the early church and omits information concerning otherapostles Likewise, the lively appearance of his stories and the skillful variety with which they are told

lead some to believe he is more interested in achieving dramatic effects and pathos than in presenting anaccount of history. Yet van Unnik argues that in these matters Luke is doing precisely what would beexpected of him, as a historian in his own day (ibid.).7

Todd Penner,In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan ApologeticHistoriography (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 162. Penner writes in footnote, Thehistorians task is to examine the hidden reasons for actions and the motives of their agents, and the


4/8

4

his larger history, such as that about Tarquin (Ant. Rom 4.41-85), but his work largely remians a

multivolume history.8

Furthermore, as Keener points out, sometimes historians like Dionysius,

used earlier figures in their narratives to foreshadow later ones.9

Language and Style

It is important to note, as David L. Balch points out, Dionysius does not narrate [his

Roman Antiquities] primarily as a historian, but as a rhetorician. At no time in Greco -Roman

antiquity was history taught as a subject.10

David. L. Mealand also writes, Dionysius is of great

importance for the history of the Greek language. He was not only a historian but also a

stylist.11

In addition to hisRoman Antiquities, as noted earlier, Dionysius wrote several

important works on Greek style.12

Dionysius, known as one of earlier atticizing writers, had long contended for a purist,

Atticist approach to rhetoric, deliberately archaizing his historical narrative with Atticist

style.13

Atticism, a prestige dialect utilizing the old Attic Greek,14

was a rhetorical movement

that began in the first quarter of the first century BC as a classicistic reaction on theory and

feelings in their hearts and to reveal all the mysteries of apparent virtue and undetected vice (Pomp. 6)(ibid.).8 Craig Keener,Acts: An Exegetial Commentary. Introduction and 1:12:47(Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2013), 60. He notes, The Gospel of Luke is a biography when taken by itself, but when fittedinto the larger work of Luke-Acts, it also functions as a biographic part of a larger history, a history that

promises to narrate events (ibid.).9 Ibid., 488.10David L. Balch, The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or PoliticalHistory, Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990): 11.11David L. Mealand, Luke-Acts and the Verbs of Dionysius,Journal for the Study of the NewTestament63 (1995): 65. Ben Witherington thinks that Dionysius more likely subsumed history under alarge rhetorical unbrella, leading to considerable distortion or under the heading of epideitic rhetoric

with the rise of the Second Sophistic in the late first and eaerly second century A.D. (Ben Witherington,26, 29).12 Ibid.13

Keener, 644.14 Ibid., 142. Keener notes, Luke is basically no Atticist in his style and proves uninterested in rhetoricinappropriate to the form of history he is writing.


5/8

5

pragmatism of rhetoric.15

He promoted the Attic revival which began in the first century BCE

So at least two generations before the writing of Luke-Acts we have extensive writings from a

Hellenistic historian committed to a more classical style Dionysius is a vital source of

information insofar as he is a first-century practioner, a historian who aims at a high level of

literary Greek.16

Dionysius was thoroughly immersed in the culture of rhetoric and conceived of

his narratives as exercises in persuasion.17

In On the Ancient Orators, he compares the trends in

rhetoric of an Attic wife, one scorned and insulted, for an Asian mistress. He, sees Asianism as

ignorant and theatrical, a severe misstep that was only corrected after virtuous men of Rome, in

order to stimulate educational development throughout the empire, had the sound jugement to

restore the Attic style.18

Speeches

For Dionysius, speeches changed the course of history. C. Gempf notes, For Dionysius,

the fashioning of speeches is taken to be the test of a real historians ability, that ability being

reckoned in terms of rhetorical style and skill... Artistry was most important, even at the expense

of faithfulness... There can be no doubt that Dionysius composes the speeches he presents in his

15Wikipedia, Atticism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atticism. This may also refer to the wordings

and phrasings typical of this movement, in contrast with various contemporary forms of Greek (bothliteral and vulgar), which continued to evolve in directions guided by the common usages of Hellenistic

Greek, though there were literary writers such as Strabo, Plutarch, and Josephus who intentionallywithdrew from this way of expression (classical Greek) in favor of the common form of GreekExamples were Attic rhetors as well as Plato, Xenophon and Thucydides. Exemples of attic theory and

literature criticism are texts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (ibid.). See also K. S. Sacks, Historiographyin the rhetorical works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus,Athenaeum 61 (1983): 65-87.16 Ibid.17

Keener, 120.18Francisco Lopez, Sounds Carefully Drafted: Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Literary Composion, 9.

See http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/english_theses.


6/8

6

own books in a stereotyped rhetorical fashion.19

Also, according to David E. Aune, Hellenistic

historians, however, found a wealth of discourse material in their sources and were faced with

several options. They could omit them (usually unthinkable), faithfully trascribe them (almost

unthinkable), or modify them. Most (like Dionysius of Halicarnassus) chose the last option.20

Eckhard Plumacher studied the use of speeches in Dionysius Roman Antiquities.21

Dionysius, in order to do justice to his readers expectations, talks about the manner in which the

historian is to write about political events, asserting that they are merely satisfied learning the

bare summary and outcome of the events (Ant. Rom. 1.2). Dionysius mentions one additional

ingredient of history in which in his opinion readers expect in any portrayal of the kind of

cataclysm the end of Peloponnesian Warrepresented for Athens (what speeches that

persuaded them [the Athenians] were delivered at that time and by whom, 1.3).22

He calls

these speeches speeches that persuaded them.23

Plumacher suggests that the readers do not

expect the mere words of arbitrary embellishments, but precisely those speeches of historically

deterministic significance.24

For Dionysius, speeches are to view as part of those causes that are

responsible for certain astonishing and extraordinary deeds, which are not to be excluded.25

Dionysius justifies the use of even excessively lengthy speeches, by adding, for everyone, upon

19C. Gempf, Public Speaking and Published Accounts, in The Books of Acts in Its First-Century Setting,

Vol 1:Ancient Literary Setting, B.W. Winter and A.D. Clarke, eds. [ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans:1993), 270.20Aune suggests, Since Luke wrote about events of the previous generation, it is unlikely that he foundspeeches in written sources. His options were there: 1) to interview those present or (if he was present) to

recall the substane of what was actually spoken, (2) to freely improvise speeches according to theprinciple of appropriateness, or (3) to combine research and memory with free composition. Luke

followed the last route (David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, [Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1987], 123).21Eckhard Plumacher, The Mission Speeches in Acts and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, inJesus and the

Heritage of Israel: Lukes Narrative Claim upon Israels Legacy, David P. Moessner, ed. (Harrisburg, PA:Trinity Press International, 1999), 251-66.22 Plumacher, 255.23

Ibid.24 Ibid., 255-6.25 Ibid., 256.


7/8

7

hearing of extraordinary events, desires to know the cause that produced them (Ant. Rom.

66.1).26

He notes, he decided to include not only a few but all such causes, and he sees it

absolutely necessary to report the speeches (Ant. Rom. 66.3).27

Dionysius criticizes, particularly, Thucydides, that the latter did not always treat with

appropriate care the material critical in portraying certain events. Referring to the speeches

reported by Thucydides, Dionysius charges that the latter takes up nonessentials but omit

essentials.28

Unlike Thucydides, Dionysius emphasizes that he has not omitted anything essential

for the reader, namely, the causes of events, since he considered it absolutely necessary to

include the speeches of the various parties which were ultimately determining the course of

events.29

In addition, for him, inclusion of verbatim is also the essential ingredient of appropriate

historical writing, writing that does not omit the causes of events.30

Conclusion

Had Dionysius seen Luke-Acts, he would view it not as a biograpy or as a nove, but as

ancient history. Stylistically, Luke-Acts, not like Dionysius writing, does not reflect the same

level of Greek. Luke is basically no Atticist in his style.31

Perhaps, as Balch points out,

Dionysius of Halicarnassus would have disdained Luke-Acts as Asian. Heroes in the narrative

are JewsAbraham, Moses, Jesus, Mary, Stephen, Paul, many of whom speak Septuagintal

Greek and are not European, neo-Attic Greeks or Romans who are better morally or politically

26 Ibid.27 Ibid.28 Ibid., 257.29

Ibid.30 Ibid.31 Keener, 142.


8/8

8

more powerful than the barbarians.32

Lastly, the conception and use of speeches in Dionysius is

identical with that of Lukan speeches as factors determining the cause of history.33

32 Balch, Forward, in Penner, xvi.33 Plumacher, 258.

Documents

Paper-Dionysius of Halicarnassus