Cassius Dio's Agrippa-Maecenas Debate: An Operational Code Analysis

This article discusses Cassius Dio’s political thought in his AgrippaMaecenas debate (52.2–40) through the use of a form of content analysis developed by political scientists called “operational code analysis.” It offers a description of operational code analysis, which demonstrates the value of this method to the debate. It then presents an examination of Dio’s operational code, from which one can glean his philosophical and instrumental views on politics. It argues, inter alia, that the Agrippa address is based on the same epistemological foundations as the Maecenean corollary. Further, the article stresses that the Agrippa oration remains consistent with views Dio expresses elsewhere in his history. This suggests that scholars should not discount the efficacy of the Agrippa oration, despite its utopian character. I. EXPANDING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DEBATE clAssicAl scholArs hAvE long viEwEd cAssius dio’s famous Agrippa-Maecenas debate (52.2–40)1 as the most interesting portion of his Historia Romana.2 As a result, this lengthy dialogue, set in 29 b.c.E., has received more scholarly attention than any other aspect of Dio’s work.3 The debate features Octavian’s advisors counseling disparate courses of action, now that the man who would become Rome’s first emperor 1The book numbers and text of Dio used for this article are from Boissevain 1895–1931. For citations from Books 61–80, the standard numeration appears in parentheses beside Boissevain’s revised numbers. All translations are my own. 2According to Schwartz 1899, 1719, for example, the Maecenas oration in the debate amounts to the only speech in Dio’s history worthy of much attention. 3 Discussions of this debate are legion. See, e.g., Meyer 1891; Jardé 1925, 26–32; Hammond 1932; Gabba 1955, 311–25, and 1962; Bleicken 1962; Millar 1964, 102–18; Berrigan 1968; van Stekelenburg 1971, 110–16; Manuwald 1979, 21–25; McKechnie 1981; Espinosa Ruiz 1982; Zawadzki 1983; Fechner 1986, 71–86; Reinhold 1988, 165–210; Steidle 1988, 203–11; Fishwick 1990; Smyshlyayev 1991; Kuhlmann 2010. Scholars have typically shown greater interest in the Maecenas speech (especially in regard to its specific proposals for political reform) than its Agrippan corollary.