The Style, Method, and Programme of Xiphilinus’ Epitome of Cassius Dio’s Roman History Christopher Mallan I N TERMS OF SCALE ALONE Xiphilinus’ Epitome of Cassius Dio’s Roman History is one of the more ambitious works of middle Byzantine historiography.1 Its historical vision, covering the period from 69 B.C. through A.D. 229, on first inspection, sits uncomfortably with the other works of history written during the eleventh century. Moreover, Xiphilinus’ laborious and uninspired method of composition, which saw him copy and abbreviate large swathes of Dio’s History ver- batim, has meant that he has won few admirers as an author.2 As a result, Xiphilinus has received limited scholarly attention from Roman historians and Byzantinists alike.3 1 The standard edition is U. P. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Historiarum Ro- manarum quae supersunt III (Berlin 1901), who retains the pagination and line numbers of Dindorf. The text is awaiting a new edition, in light of the discovery of a previously uncollated manuscript: B. C. Barmann, “The Mount Athos Epitome of Cassius Dio’s Roman History,” Phoenix 25 (1971) 58–67. Translations of Dio here are Cary’s (Loeb), sometimes adapted. 2 For an illustration of Xiphilinus’ method see F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 195–203. 3 Millar’s comments are typical (Study 2): “Xiphilinus’ work is not so much a précis of Dio as a rather erratic selection from his material, sub- stantially, but not invariably, in Dio’s order and often keeping very close to Dio’s wording. Thus a large amount of material is omitted without trace, some is given in brief, and some, especially where there is a coherent nar- rative or anecdote of some special interest, is reproduced almost in full. Occasionally he adds material or comments of his own, mostly concerned with the history of Christianity. Read as a work in its own right, the ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 2013 Christopher Mallan CHRISTOPHER MALLAN 611 However, changing attitudes towards works once thought of as ‘merely derivative’ in the field of Classical historiography, combined with the ongoing revolution in the reading of Byzan- tine historical texts, invites us to reconsider Xiphilinus’ Epit- ome.4 It is a work not without its interesting features, not least because its author provides something like a programmatic statement governing his selection of material (Xiph. 87.2–5): λέξω δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὅσα ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ νῦν µάλιστα, διὰ τὸ πάµπολυ ἀπηρτῆσθαι τῶν καιρῶν ἐκείνων τὸν καθ᾽ ἡµᾶς βίον καὶ τὸ πολίτευµα µνηµονεύσθαι. I shall relate each and every thing as far as is required, and espe- cially so in the present time, because a great deal of benefit for our way of life and political situation depends on remembering those critical events. Consider the corresponding section of Dio’s text (53.22.1): λέξω δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὅσα ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι µετὰ τῶν ὑπά- των, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἐγένετο, µνηµονεύεσθαι. I shall relate each and every act as calls for mention, together with the names of the consuls under whom they were per- formed. Comparison of these passages reveals Xiphilinus as both plagiarist and innovator. He follows Dio word-for-word (λέξω δὲ καὶ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ὅσα ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι), before deviating drastically from his exemplar. By doing so, he usurps Dio’s ___ Epitome provides only a spasmodic and often barely intelligible narrative.” For studies of individual sections see L. Canfora, “Xifilino e il libro LX di Dione Cassio,” Klio 60 (1978) 403–407; M. Schmidt, “Cassius Dio, Buch LXX. Bemerkungen zur Technik des Epitomators Ioannes Xiphilinos,” Chiron 19 (1989) 55–59; C. T. Ehrhardt, “Dio Cassius Christianised,” Pru- dentia 26 (1994) 26–28. 4 For a sample of some of the directions in classical scholarship in this area see M. Horster and C. Reitz (eds.), Condensing Texts – Condensed Texts (Stuttgart 2010). For a summary of the debate in Byzantine studies see the various positions presented in J. Ljubarski et al., “Quellenforschung and/or Literary Criticism: Narrative Structures in Byzantine Historical Writing,” SymbOslo 73 (1998) 5–73. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 612 XIPHILINUS’ EPITOME OF DIO’S ROMAN HISTORY authorial voice, and reveals here his belief in the usefulness of history, specifically Dio’s History, as a means for understanding his own eleventh century “way of life and political situation.”5 If nothing else, the presence of such a statement of intent must prompt us to think of Xiphilinus as an author in his own right, whom we cannot assume to have had the same authorial agenda as Dio. Hence, the aims of this article are twofold: to position Xiphilinus and his work in their eleventh-century historical and literary contexts; and to define the compositional agenda of his Epitome as revealed by his method of selection and presentation of material drawn from Dio’s Roman History. Intellectual elites, intellectual trends Xiphilinus occupies an ill-defined position in our understand- ing of eleventh-century intellectual life. What little we know of his life and works tends to pale to insignificance when set against the giants of the age—John Mauropous, Constantine (Michael) Psellus, and John Italus. Yet Xiphilinus was very much a product of this world of vibrant scholarly activity and, as a man of letters, was receptive to the literary trends of his age. A survey of his oeuvre shows him to have been a man of catholic interests: aside from the Epitome (a work of secular his- toriography), he wrote a series of fifty-three homilies (written in the style of John Chrysostom), and a menologion dedicated to Alexius I Comnenus, which survives in a Georgian translation.6 Xiphilinus’ works enjoyed a certain degree of popularity throughout the Byzantine Middle Ages, with his Epitome copied regularly. As an author he seems to have acquired a positive reputation, and it is with some surprise that we find the anon- 5 Kaldellis sees this statement correctly as evidence for the Byzantine identification with their Roman political heritage: A. Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge 2007) 47–119, esp. 63 (for Xiphilinus). 6 For a brief summary of Xiphilinus’ works and bibliography see now E. Trapp, “Johannes Xiphilinos der Jüngere,” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 3 (1992) 618–619; cf. K. Ziegler, “Xiphilinos,” RE 9A (1967) 2132–2134. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 CHRISTOPHER MALLAN 613 ymous Georgian translator of the Menologion speak of him as the “philosopher Xiphilinus.”7 In the sole autobiographical note in the Epitome, Xiphilinus identifies himself as the nephew of John (VIII) Xiphilinus the patriarch of Constantinople, and states that he is writing during the reign of Michael VII (87.5–11).8 λέγω γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκέτι ὡς ὁ Δ∆ίων ὁ Προυσαεὺς ὁ επὶ τοῦ Σευή- ρου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τῶν αὐτοκρατόρων γενόµενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Ἰωάννης ὁ Ξιφιλῖνος ἀδελφόπαις ὢν Ἰωάννου τοῦ πατριάρχου, ἐπὶ δὲ Μιχαὴλ αὐτοκράτορος τοῦ Δ∆ούκα τὴν ἐπιτοµὴν ταύτην τῶν πολλῶν βιβλίων τοῦ Δ∆ίωνος συνταττόµενος. I say this no longer as Dio of Prusa [sic] who flourished under the emperors Severus and Alexander, but as John Xiphilinus, being the nephew of John the patriarch, and [who] is putting together this epitome of the many books of Dio under the em- peror Michael Doukas. From this statement we may infer something about Xiphilinus’ background and his connections. We do not know precisely when he was born, although, given his relationship to his uncle who was born around 1010, a date close to 1030 would appear reasonable.9 Xiphilinus’ Menologion presents at least a general terminus post quem of 1081 (the year of Alexius’ accession) for Xiphilinus’ death. The absence of a formal dedication in any of 7 K. Kekelidse, “Ioann Kyeefelen, prodolsatel Semeona Metafraeta,” Christianskij Vostok 1 (1912) 325–347, at 340. Kekelidse’s text (with facing Russian translation) is the only available printed text of the Menologion. 8 P. A. Brunt, “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes,” CQ 30 (1980) 477–494, at 488, conflates the author of the Epitome with his uncle the patriarch; Xiphilinus the epitomator was never patriarch. Similarly, H. J. Scheltema, “Byzantine Law,” in CMH2 IV.2 (1967) 55–77, at 70, identifies him as the grandson of the Patriarch. See N. G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London 1983) 179. 9 For the various dates of the elder Xiphilinus’ birth see M. Gedeon, Πατριαρχικοὶ Πίνακες (Constantinople 1890) 329, who suggests 1006; J. M. Hussey, Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford 1937) 44–45, sug- gests a date between 1010 and 1013. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 614 XIPHILINUS’ EPITOME OF DIO’S ROMAN HISTORY the known manuscripts of the Epitome prevents us from as- serting any secure date for its completion or anything about its intended audience, although the passage quoted seems to have been written early in Michael’s reign, at least before the death of the elder Xiphilinus in 1075. The passage affords a glimpse of Xiphilinus’ self-representation. By highlighting his familial connection with his esteemed uncle, and thus defining himself in relation to his uncle as opposed to any other member of his family, Xiphilinus appears acutely aware of his own social status as a member of an ascendant political family.10 As would be expected of the child from such a family, the younger Xiphilinus was well-educated, and it is possible that he would have attended either (or both) of the schools of law and philosophy established during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachus, which the elder Xiphilinus and Psellus played such integral roles in founding.11 The elder Xiphilinus was one of the foremost men of the age and had friends in high places— intellectually and politically.12 The elder Xiphilinus, like his nephew, wrote widely: aside from writing legal commentaries, he dabbled in hagiography, and as a young man wrote both a vita and a collection of miracles concerning St. Eugenius, a 10 The appearance of another member of the family as patriarch (George II Xiphilinus) in the late twelfth century suggests something of the enduring political importance of the Xiphilini in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. See C. D. Cobham, The Patriarchs of Constantinople (Cambridge 1911) 376. For a summary on the Xiphilini in the period see A. Kazhdan, “Xiphi- linos,” ODB 3 (1991) 2210–2211. 11 The elder Xiphilinus was the first to hold the newly-created position of νοµοφύλαξ at the school of law at Constantinople. For the reopening of the university under Constantine IX see Hussey, Church and Learning 51–72, and M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1024–1204. A Political History2 (London 1997) 63–69. 12 The most conspicuous of these friends was of course Psellus, who wrote and delivered his funeral oration. The elder Xiphilinus was not the only member of the family to have been a friend of Psellus. There survives a letter from Psellus (205) to a certain Constantine Xiphilinus on Aristotle’s works on logic (Sathas, MB V 499–502). ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 CHRISTOPHER MALLAN 615 martyr of the Diocletianic persecution.13 His tenure as patri- arch reveals him to be an adroit political player, and his appar- ent reluctance to accept the post is not reflected in the rigorous manner in which he attended to his duties.14 This elevation to the patriarchate broke a period of self-imposed monastic exile, which had seen him withdraw from the turbulent court of the last years of Constantine IX. The date of the younger Xiphi- linus’ entry into the monastic life is not known, although it would not be too great a speculative leap to link it with his uncle’s. After all, Xiphilinus would have been a man in his late 20’s or perhaps early 30’s at the time of his uncle’s withdrawal from court, and the decision of the younger man may have been born of a similar sense of political expediency. The court of Michael VII appears to have been conducive to the fortunes of eloquent and ambitious men: the final draft of Psellus’ Chronographia was certainly a product of this reign; Michael Attaleiates composed a legal work during this period; and the polymath Symeon Seth produced a work on medicine. History of the more distant past was in vogue as well. Psellus’ Historia Syntomos, which appears to have been composed for Michael VII, presents an immediate precedent for Xiphilinus’ Epitome, in so far as the former indicates a ripening interest in the lives and manners of the early emperors.15 This nostalgia for Roman antiquities is pronounced throughout the works of 13 Trapp, Kirchenlexikon 3 (1992) 617. Cf. S. Efthymiadis, “Byzantine Col- lections of Miracles. A Chronological and Biographical Survey,” SymbOslo 74 (1999) 195–211, at 207. 14 For Xiphilinus’ patriarchate see J. M. Hussey (rev. A. Louth), The Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire (Oxford 2010) 138–140. 15 Ed. W. J. Aerts, Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomos (Berlin 1990). For its authorship and purpose see J. Duffy and E. Papaioannou, “Michael Psellos and the Authorship of the Historia Syntomos: Final Considerations,” in A. Avramea et al. (eds.), Byzantium, State and Society: In Memory of Nikos Oiko- nomides (Athens 2003) 219–229; A. Markopoulos, “From Narrative His- toriography to Historical Biography. New Trends in Byzantine Historical Writing in the 10th–11th Centuries,” BZ 102 (2010) 697–715, at 712–713. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 616 XIPHILINUS’ EPITOME OF DIO’S ROMAN HISTORY the mid-eleventh century,16 with Attaleiates’ digression com- paring of the Romans of the Republic with those of his own age being perhaps the most conspicuous example.17 Indeed, on a superficial level at least, Xiphilinus’ decision to begin his Epitome with Pompey fits into this revival of interest in the Re- public, or more accurately in some of the individuals of the Republic: for (as a rule) Xiphilinus shows little interest in Dio’s constitutional discussions on the republican system. Character and biography interested Xiphilinus more than formal constitutional discussions. For several key authors of the period, historical developments were interpreted as reflections of the emperor’s character.18 Attaleiates is perhaps most ex- plicit in his articulation of these beliefs (14.11, p.86 B.): διὸ καὶ κακίᾳ καὶ ἀρετῇ βασιλικῇ τὰς δυσπραγίας καὶ αὖθις τὰς εὐπραγίας οἱ νουνεχῶς συµβάλλοντες τὰ πράγµατα διεµέ- ριζον. That is why those who think carefully about events made a distinction between things that were done well and things that were done badly, ascribing the former to the emperor’s virtues and the latter, accordingly, to the emperor’s failings. The notion that the value of any particular regime was depen- dent on the moral character of the ruler was hardly a uniquely Byzantine concept, and its roots were firmly classical. Yet there 16 For this revival see P. Magdalino, “Aspects of Twelfth-Century Byzan- tine Kaiserkritik,” Speculum 58 (1983) 326–346, at 343–344; A. Markopou- los, “Roman Antiquarianism: Aspects of the Roman Past in the Middle Byzantine Period,” Proceedings 21st Intern. Congr. Byzantine Studies (Aldershot 2006) 277–297; D. Krallis, Michael Attaleiates and the Politics of Imperial Decline in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Tempe 2012) 52–69, 192–199. 17 Attaleiates 24.1–5, pp.193–198 Bekker (text and transl. A. Kaldellis and D. Krallis, The History [Cambridge (Mass.) 2012]). Note also Attaleiates’ emphasis on Nicephorus Botaneiates’ descent from the republican Scipiones and the Fabii (27.8–12, pp.218–220 B.). For discussion of Attaleiates’ di- gression see Krallis, Michael Attalieates 192–199. 18 Cf. A. Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia (Leiden 1999) 23– 27; C. Holmes, Basil II and the Governance of Empire (Oxford 2005) 30–35, with respect to Psellus’ Chronographia. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 CHRISTOPHER MALLAN 617 is a sense of marked intensification of this assumption in middle Byzantine historiography.19 It may be taken that it was in re- sponse to this trend that Xiphilinus made the decision to em- phasise Dio’s biographical details, ostensibly by transforming Dio’s annalistic history into a series of twenty-five biograph- ically focussed sections from Pompey to Severus Alexander. Certainly, there were compositional benefits to structuring a historical account around central figures such as emperors or leading politicians. Xiphilinus’ task of reducing Dio’s immense history into biographical sections was aided by the fact that such a structure was already present in Dio’s work.20 However, such a focus was consistent with Xiphilinus’ aim to select ma- terial which was relevant to the eleventh-century Byzantine πολίτευµα: a political system which was, at least in the minds of the political elite, centred around the dominant figure of the emperor.21 Content: omissions, retentions, and additions That Xiphilinus followed Dio’s original wording closely has been regarded as perhaps the main saving grace of his work from the perspective of the Roman historian.22 Xiphilinus’ method was by no means unique among historians in the elev- enth century. John Skylitzes, for example, copied the history of Theophanes Continuatus for the reign of Romanus I in a man- 19 R. Scott, “The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Historiography,” in M. Mullett and R. Scott, Byzantium and the Classical Tradition (Birmingham 1981) 61–74, at 69–72; Markopoulos, BZ 102 (2009) 697–715. 20 For Dio’s structure see C. Pelling, “Biographical History? Cassius Dio on the Early Principate,” in M. J. Edwards and S. Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1997) 117–144. Cf. C. Questa, “Tecnica biografica e tecnica annalistica nei ll. LXII–LXIII di Cassio Dione,” StudUrb(B) 31 (1957) 37–53; B. Simons, Cassius Dio und die Römische Republik (Berlin 2009), esp. ch. 5. 21 Note Psellus’ comment (Hist.Synt. 15) on his decision to omit the history of the Republic between the the consulship of A. Sempronius and M. Minucius in 497 B.C. and that of Julius Caesar in 59. 22 Millar, Study 2. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 618 XIPHILINUS’ EPITOME OF DIO’S ROMAN HISTORY ner similar to the way in which Xiphilinus copied Dio. Yet, as has been demonstrated by Holmes, this did not prevent Sky- litzes shaping the text to fit his own authorial agenda by means of omissions and additions.23 Brunt calculated that Xiphilinus omitted over three-quarters of Dio’s text for the imperial period, and an even greater proportion of his republican nar- rative.24 As an extreme illustration, the portion of the Epitome devoted to Pompey, which corresponds to the contents of Books 37–42.3 of Dio, represents a reduction from approxi- mately 69,300 words to around 5050 words.25 How Xiphilinus made these editorial decisions can be approached in different ways. Brunt considered the Epitome from the perspective of a possible geographical bias, and he determined that Xiphilinus showed a predilection for matters pertaining to the eastern lands of the empire.26 When we consider the length of Xiphi- linus’ biographical sections, it is clear that some personalities interested him more than others, not necessarily in proportion with the scale of their treatment in Dio, and this seems to have played a role in Xiphilinus’ selection of material. His selection and omission of Dio’s speeches is also instruc- tive for determining his authorial agenda.27 On the one hand, Xiphilinus shows little interest in the speeches which Dio in- serted into his republican narrative. Given the content and length of these (for example, the speeches debating Pompey’s command against the pirates in 67 B.C., Cicero and Philiscus on exile, Caesar to the mutinous troops at Placentia, Cicero’s invective against Antony, Calenus’ speech against Cicero), this is not necessarily surprising. On the other hand, Xiphilinus 23 C. Holmes, “The Rhetorical Structures of John Skylitzes’ Synopsis Historion,” in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (Aldershot 2003) 187–199, at 188–194. 24 Brunt, CQ 30 (1980) 489. 25 Alternatively, Xiphilinus’ section on Pompey occupies close to ten full pages, whereas the same material takes up 231 pages in Boissevain’s edition. 26 Brunt, CQ 30 (1980) 489–490. 27 Brunt, CQ 30 (1980) 489–490. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644 CHRISTOPHER MALLAN 619 changes tack slightly for the imperial period. Here some of Dio’s speeches are retained. But consider first the omissions. The great set-piece debate in Book 52 between Agrippa and Maecenas, which appraised the merits of democratic and monarchic government, and was so important to Dio’s History, is reduced to a passing comment by Xiphilinus. Likewise, neither Augustus’ speeches to the equites in Book 56 concerning the marriage legislation, nor Tiberius’ eulogy of Augustus later in the same book, found a place in the Epitome.28 The surviving examples of eleventh-century historiography indicate that there was not much of a taste for the sort of long embedded speeches that Dio included in his History, and so Xiphilinus’ decision to omit many may have been a response to this fashion. Moreover, given that the republican sections of the Epitome are some of the most heavily abridged, Dio’s speeches were obvious targets for omission, as they could have been easily removed without interrupting the essential flow of the narrative. Yet this can only be part of the answer, for Xi- philinus preserves several speeches, many of which are quite lengthy: Marcus Aurelius’ speech to the troops before the war against Avidius Cassius; the speeches of Boudica and Suetonius Paulinus; Hadrian’s on imperial succession; Vindex’s speech on the eve of his revolt; Otho’s before the battle of Cremona; the exchange between Octavian and Cleopatra; and the Livia- Augustus dialogue.29 These speeches deal mainly with imperial themes, in par- ticular the behaviour of an emperor.30 As such, they were of as 28 For a full list of the speeches in Dio’s History see E. Schwartz, “Cassius Dio Cocceianus (40),” RE 3 (1899) 1684–1722, at 1718–1719, with Millar’s correction (Study 78 n.1). For a general overview of Dio’s speeches, with a particular focus on his republican speeches, see Millar, “Some Speeches in Cassius Dio,” MusHelv 18 (1962) 11–22. 29 Brunt, CQ 30 (1980) 489, omits the speeches of Otho and Hadrian from his list of speeches preserved by Xiphilinus. 30 Cf. Millar, Study 78–81, on speeches in the imperial books of Dio’s History. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013) 610–644