STUDIA DIONEA NOVISSIMA: ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЙ НАРРАТИВ, ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ ПРОШЛОГО И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ КОНТЕКСТЫ «РИМСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ» КАССИЯ ДИОНА (Часть I)

 
Код статьиS032103910015353-1-1
DOI10.31857/S032103910015353-1
Тип публикации Статья
Статус публикации Одобрена к публикации
Авторы
Должность: доцент
Аффилиация: Кафедра истории древнего мира и Средних веков ННГУ им. Н.И. Лобачевского
Адрес: Российская Федерация, г. Нижний Новгород
Должность: Заведующий кафедрой
Аффилиация: Кафедра истории древнего мира и Средних веков ННГУ им. Н.И. Лобачевского
Адрес: Российская Федерация, г. Нижний Новгород
Аннотация

В статье дается общий обзор современного состояния исследований, посвященных Кассию Диону, и подробно рассматривается ряд актуальных тенденций и дискуссионных вопросов в этой области. На рубеже XXI в. произошел настоящий прорыв в изучении труда Диона, что проявилось в значительной диверсификации исследуемых тем и использовании новаторских подходов, в постановке новых вопросов и выработке важных концептуальных обобщений. Этому процессу в значительной степени способствовали международные проекты и широкое академическое сотрудничество, в первую очередь, такие как проект Dioneia (LireCassiusDion: cinquanteansaprèsFergusMillar: bilansetperspectives) и CassiusDioNetwork: CassiusDioBetweenHistoryandPolitics. Эта интенсивная исследовательская работа, нашедшая отражение в появлении новых изданий, переводов и комментариев к «Римской истории» Диона, многочисленных диссертаций и монографий, сделала Кассия Диона гораздо более понятным историком, чем двадцать или даже пять лет назад. Но остается еще немало спорных и недостаточно изученных вопросов, включая понимание автором исторической причинности, особенно его видение человеческой природы как фактора истории. Аналитический обзор текущих исследований по этим вопросам показывает, что Дион рассматривается как автор, который разрабатывал рассматриваемые темы в значительной мере независимо от моделей интерпретации, заимствованных у Фукидида или иных классиков античной исторической мысли. Это подтверждает статус Диона как самобытного историка, предлагающего собственное видение прошлого.

Ключевые словаКассий Дион, «Римская история», греко-римская историография, историческая причинность, человеческая природа, современная историография.
Источник финансированияисследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 20-19-50173.
Получено06.06.2021
Кол-во символов42879
100 руб.
При оформлении подписки на статью или выпуск пользователь получает возможность скачать PDF, оценить публикацию и связаться с автором. Для оформления подписки требуется авторизация.

Оператором распространения коммерческих препринтов является ГАУГН-ПРЕСС

Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной.
1 Introduction. “Still understudied and even poorly understood”?
2 Classics of Graeco-Roman historiography, from Herodotus and Thucydides to Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus, belong to the most read authors equally interesting to philologists and ancient historians. Modern scholars have long ago placed all the ancient historiographers in a certain hierarchy of ranks, classifying some as the first-rate great writers, and others as the second-rate ones. Undoubtedly, the latter, being treated as unoriginal and not so shining talents, are usually paid with far less scholarly attention. And it was among these minor historical writers that Cassius Dio (ca. 163 – after 229 CE), the Roman senator from Bithynian Nicaea, twice consul, who composed the ample Roman History in Greek, was long listed. So it was until recently. However, the turn of the 21st century has witnessed the increasingly changing attitude to Dio as historian and seen explosive upsurge of scholarly interest in his work, with the number of studies soaring dramatically in last years. His opus magnum, in its various aspects and in connection with his times, proved to be very popular, not to say fashionable, research subject in international scholarship.
3 Indeed, in the 19th and for most of the 20th century, Dio was held in quite low esteem by scholars in terms of his style, historical thought and method. This view primarily dates back to pejorative remarks by E. Schwartz in his RE article, where Dio was characterized as inferior to Livy and Tacitus1. Since then our historian was labeled as an mediocre “imitator of Thucydides”, “copyist”, “provincial at Rome”2 . Nevertheless, of his monumental Roman History embracing the events from the legendary Aeneas’s advent to Italy to the reign of Alexander Severus have always been fundamental to Roman studies and definitely belong to the most frequently used sources. Apart from the mere scale of the work, which is unique for Roman historiography, Dio provides the most extensive account of the reign of Augustus and is indispensable for the study of the Late Republic and Pricipate, in particular the times of the Antonines and Severans. Accordingly, until the 1960s, this opus magnum was studied primarily as important bulk of facts of more or less historical value depending on the sources used by the author who, in prevailing opinion, was by no means a critical investigator or original writer and political thinker. Therefore, the main emphasis was made on the traditional Quellenforschung and search for literary models of Dio’s writing, with very rare attemts to find out his political vision3. Neither Dio’s authorial and political personality, nor his intellectual background and the historical (Severan) context of his long-term working, or the cohesiveness of his work as a specific response to contemporary challenges were examined with due attention, in a monograph form. 1. Schwartz 1899, 1719–1720.

2. Millar 2016, 9.

3. See, e.g., Hammond 1932; Bleicken 1962.
4 A landmark step to changing attitudes and radical reappraisal of Dio’s History as original contribution to Graeco-Roman historical writing was reputedly made by Fergus Millar’s doctoral thesis, converted into a monograph and published in 1964. It was this seminal book that worked well in drawing the attention of scholars to Dio as a historiographer and spokesperson for his class and times4, though the eminent British scholar himself could be very critical of the overall quality of Dio’s work, because of its rhetorical dimension or lacking of conscious historical theory5. Therefore, for next decades, studies of Dio’s Roman History were centered at historical commentaries of different portions of the work, primarily late republican and Julio-Claudian books6, while other sections (first of all, those concerning early Rome) remained mostly neglected, with the scholarly efforts continuing to be focused on source criticism7. Nevertheless, the first monographs and dissertations on Dio’s contemporary history and cultural milieu were published8, as well as on speeches in the Roman History9, republican narrative10 and author’s political views as reaction to empire’s growing crisis11. 4. On Millar’s contribution see Fromentin 2021, 23–24.

5. Millar 1964, 171.

6. The commentaries by Humphrey (1976), Berti (1987), Reinhold (1988) and Rich (1990) and Noé 1994 became the first works of that kind after Duckworth’s 1916 commentary on the Book 53. See also Baar 1990; Gowing 1992; Edmondson 1992.

7. Fadinger 1969; Kolb 1972; Zecchini 1978; Manuwald 1979.

8. Bering-Staschewski1981; Gascó 1988.

9. Stekelenburg 1971.

10. Fechner 1986.

11. Espinosa Ruiz 1982 (this book still remains the only all-round monograph on Agrippa-Maecenas debate).
5 These studies contributed largely to the change in scholarly attitudes to Dio. As Reinhold pointed out in the mid-1980s, “it has become clearer and clearer that he was not a mere compiler and epitomator from randomly selected sources, nor a slavish copier of his sources. <…> Dio had his own persona and was motivated by his own general conception of events”12. That trend became especially observable in 1990s. For instance, Hose in his 1994 monograph responded to some of Millar’s arguments and came to a more optimistic conclusion about the conceptual coherency of Dio’s work which, according to the scholar, deserves to be characterized as “Renaissance senatorischer Geschichtsschreibung”13. Another illustrative example is an Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt set of articles14 foreshadowing some directions of the subsequent studies, such as intellectual context of Dio and his cultural identity15, his vision of the transition from Republic to Prinicpate, his treatment of the Roman Empire and imperialism, attitudes to various classes of Roman society, his political vocabulary16 and, of course, his model of ideal state17. These works revealed the literary, philosophical and cultural richness that Dio offers in his opus and produced preconditions for those new historiographic and methodological agendas emerging at the turn of the 21st century and currently reaching their peak. 12. Reinhold 1986, 222.

13. Hose 1994, 356.

14. Ameling 1997; Lintott 1997; Swan 1997; Gowing 1997; Schmidt 1997 (cf. Schmidt 1999); De Blois 1997.

15. Similarly: Ameling 1984, 123–138; Aalder 1986; Swain 1996, 401–408.

16. Freyburger-Galland 1996 and 1997.

17. See De Blois’ 1990s works on Dio’s perception of the Empire and imperial power: De Blois 1995 and 1998.

1. Ameling, W. 1984: Cassius Dio und Bithynien. EA 4, 123–38.

2. Ameling, W. 1997: Griechische Intellektuelle und das Imperium Romanum: Das Beispiel Cassius Dio. ANRW II.34.3, 2472–2496.

3. Andrews, G. 2018: Rethinking the Third Century CE: Contemporary Historiography and Political Narrative. Diss. Cambridge.

4. Baar, M. 1990: Das Bild des Kaisers Tiberius bei Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio. Stuttgart.

5. Bellissime, M. 2013: Édition, traduction et commentaire de Cassius Dion, Histoire romaine, livres 52 et 53. Thèse de doctorat. Université Bordeaux-Montaigne.

6. Berbessou-Broustet, B. 2010: Edition critique, traduction et commentaire historique des livres flaviens de l’“Histoire romaine” de Cassius Dion. Thèse de doctorat. Bordeaux 3.

7. Bering-Staschewski, R.1981: Römische Zeitgeschichte bei Cassius Dio. Bochum.

8. Bertolazzi, R. 2015: The Depiction of Livia and Julia Domna by Cassius Dio: Some Observations”. AAASH 55, 413–432.

9. Bertrand Ecanvil, E.1996: Dion Cassius: Histoire Romaine, 45–47: traduction et commentaire historique. Thèse de doctorat. Paris 4.

10. Bertrand, E. 2008: La bataille de Philippes dans l’Histoire romaine de Dion Cassius: un aperçu du travail de l’historien. In: M.-R. Guelfucci (ed.), Récit et discours historique. Jeux et enjeux de la mise en forme. Besançon, 329–342.

11. Bertrand, E. 2015а: Ethnonymes, toponymes dans l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion: quelques remarques sur la culture géographique de l’historien. In F. Brizay, V. Sarrazin (eds.), Erudition et culture savante, de l’Antiquité à l’epoque modern. Rennes, 37–52.

12. Bertrand, E. 2015b: Cassius Dion et les cycles de l’histoire: du topos littéraire à la réflexion historique. In: E. Bertrand, R. Campatangelo-Soussignan (eds.), Cycles de la Nature, Cycles de l’Histoire. De la découverte des météores à la fin de l’âge d’or. Bordeaux, 163–172.

13. Bertrand E. 2016a: Point de vue de Cassius Dion sur l’imperialisme romain. In: Fromentin et al., 679–699.

14. Bertrand E. 2016b: L’empire de Cassius Dion: géographie et imperium Romanum dans l’Histoire romaine. In: Fromentin et al., 701–724.

15. Bertrand, E. 2019: Imperialism and the Crisis of the Roman Republic: Dio’s View on Late Republican Conquests (Books 36–40). In: Osgood, Baron, 19–35.

16. Bertrand, E., Coudry M., Fromentin V. 2016: Temporalité historique et formes du récit. Le modalités de l’écriture dans les livres tardo-républicains. In: Fromentin et al., 303–316.

17. Biały, K. 2016: Poglądy Kasjusza Diona na sprawy wojskowe w księgach LXXIII–LXXX Historii rzymskiej. In: A. Aksamitowski, R. Gałaj-Dempniak, H. Walczak, A. Wojtaszak (eds.), Wojna – Wojsko – Bezpieczeństwo poprzez stulecia i epoki. Studia i materiały. Szczecin, 267–281.

18. Biały, K. 2018: Severan Books of Cassius Dio’s “Roman History” (LXXIV-LXXX) and their Byzantine Epitomators [Authorial synopsis of the doctoral dissertation]. Studia Europaea Gnesnensia 18, 477–486.

19. Bleicken, J. 1962: Der politische Standpunkt Dios gegenuber der Monarchie. Hermes 90.4, 445–467.

20. Burden-Strevens, C. 2015: Cassius Dio’s Speeches and the Collapse of the Roman Republic. Diss. Glasgow.

21. Burden-Strevens, C. 2016: Fictitious Speeches, Envy, and the Habituation to Authority: Writing the Collapse of the Roman Republic. In: Lange, Madsen, 193–216.

22. Burden-Strevens, C. 2019: Intorduction, In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 1–26.

23. Burden-Strevens, C. 2020: Cassius Dio’s Speeches and the Collapse of the Roman Republic: The Roman History, Books 3–56. Leiden– Boston.

24. Burden-Strevens, C., Lindholmer, M. (eds.) 2019: Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History of Early Rome. Leiden–Boston.

25. Burden-Strevens С., Madsen, J.M., Pistellato, A. (eds.) 2020: Cassius Dio and the Principate. Venice.

26. Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato 2020: Introduction. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato 2020, 7–17.

27. Cassio Dione 1996a: Storia Romana. Vol. 2 (Libri XXXIX–XLIII). Prefazione, introduzione, traduzione e note di G. Norcio. Milano.

28. Cassio Dione 1996b: Storia Romana. Vol. 3 (Libri XLIV–XLVII). Prefazione, introduzione, traduzione e note di G. Norcio. Milano.

29. Cassio Dione 1996c: Storia Romana. Vol. 4 (Libri XLVIII–LI). Prefazione, introduzione, traduzione e note di G. Norcio. Milano.

30. Cassio Dione 1998: Storia Romana. Vol. 5 (Libri LII–LVI). Introduzione di G.a Cresci Marrone; traduzione di A. Stroppa; note di F. Rohr Vio. Milano.

31. Cassio Dione 1999: Storia Romana. Vol. 6. (Libri LVII–LXIII). Introduzione di M. Sordi; traduzione di A. Strappa; note di A. Galimberti. Milano.

32. Cassio Dione 2000: Storia Romana. Vol. 7 (Libri LXIV–LXVII). Introduzione di A. Barzanò; traduzione di A. Stroppa; note di A. Galimberti. Milano.

33. Cassio Dione 2009: Storia Romana. Vol. 8 (LibrI LXVIII–LXXIII). Introduzione di A. Valvo; traduzione di A. Stroppa; note di G. Migliorati. Milano.

34. Cassio Dione 2018: Storia Romana. Vol. 9 (Libri LXXIII–LXXX). Introduzione e note di A. Galimberti; traduzione e note di A. Stroppa. Milano.

35. Cassius Dio 1985–1987: Römische Geschichte, Bde 1–5. Übersetzt von O. Veh, eingeleitet von G. Wirth. Zürich–München.

36. Coltelloni-Trannoy, M 2016: Les temporalités du recít impérial dans l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion. In: Fromentin et al., 335–362.

37. Coltelloni-Trannoy, M. 2018: La géographie dans l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion. In: M. Coltelloni-Tranoy, S. Moret (eds.), Histoire et Géographie chez les auteurs grecs (République et Empire). Paris, 165–184.

38. De Blois, L. 1995: The World a City: Cassius Dio’s View of the Roman Empire. In: L.A. Foresti, A. Barzano, C. Bearzot, L. Prandi, G. Zecchini (eds.), L’ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’occidente. Rome, 359–370.

39. De Blois, L. 1997: Volk und Soldaten bei Cassius Dio. ANRW II.34.3, 2650–2676.

40. De Blois, L. 1998: The Perception of Emperor and Empire in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. AncSoc 29, 267–281.

41. Dion Casio 2004a: Historia Romana, Libros I–XXXV (Fragmentos). Traducción y notas de D. Plácido Suárez. Madrid.

42. Dion Casio 2004b: Historia Romana, Libros XXXVI–XLV. Traducción y notas de J.M. Candau Morón y M.L. Puertas Castañios. Madrid.

43. Dion Casio 2011a: Historia Romana, Libros XLVI–XLIX. Traducción y notas de J.P. Oliver Segura. Madrid.

44. Dion Casio 2011b: Historia Romana, Libros L–LX. Traducción y notas de J.M. Cortés Copete. Madrid.

45. Dion Cassius 1991: Histoire romaine. Livres 50 et 51. Texte, traduction et commentaire par M.-L. Freyburger, J.-M. Roddaz. Paris. (reprint 2002)

46. Dion Cassius1994: Histoire Romaine. Livres 48 et 49. Texte, traduction et commentaire par M.-L. Freyburger, J.-M. Roddaz. Paris. (reprint 2002)

47. Dion Cassius 2002: Histoire romaine. Livres 41 et 42. Texte, traduction et commentaire par M.-L. Freyburger-Galland, F. Hinard, P. Cordier. Paris.

48. Dion Cassius 2008: Histoire romaine. Livres 45 et 46. Texte établi par V. Fromentin, traduit par V. Fromentin et E. Bertrand, commenté par E. Bertrand. Paris.

49. Dion Cassius 2011: Histoire romaine. Livres 38, 39 & 40. Texte, traduction et commentaire par G. Lachenaud, M. Coudry. Paris.

50. Dion Cassius 2014: Histoire romaine. Livre 47. Texte, traduction et commentaire par E. Bertrand et V. Fromentin. Paris.

51. Dion Cassius 2018a: Histoire romaine. Livres 36 et 37. Texte, traduction et commentaire par M. Coudry, G. Lachenaud. Paris.

52. Dion Cassius 2018b: Histoire romaine. Livre 53. Texte, traduction et commentaire par M. Bellissime, F. Hurlet. Paris

53. Dion Cassius 2020: Histoire romaine. Livres 78, 79 et 80. Texte, traduction et commentaire par É. Foulon, M. Molin. Paris.

54. Duckworth H.T.F. 1916: A Commentary on the Fifty-third Book of Dio Cassius' Roman History. Toronto.

55. Edmondson, J. 1992: Dio: the Julio-Claudians. Selections from Books 58–63 of the Roman History of Cassius Dio. London.

56. Fechner, D. 1986: Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dios Sicht der Römischen Republik Hildesheim– Zürich–New York.

57. Fomin, A. 2015: How Dio Wrote History: Dio Cassius’ Intellectual, Historical, and Literary Techniques. Diss. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

58. Fomin, A. 2016: Speeches in Dio Cassius. In: Lange, Madsen, 217–237.

59. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 1996: Δυναστεία chez Dion Cassius. Ktema 21, 23–27.

60. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 1997: Aspects du vocabulaire politique et institutionnel de Dion Cassius. Paris.

61. Fromentin, V. 2021: Cassius Dio Scholarship in the 20th & 21st Centuries. In: Madsen, Lange, 23–59.

62. Gascó, F. 1988: Casio Dión. Sociedad y política en tiempos de los Severos. Madrid.

63. Gowing, A 1992: The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio. Ann Arbor.

64. Gowing, A. M. 1997: Cassius Dio on the Reign of Nero. ANRW II.34.3, 2558–2590.

65. Groot, H. 2008: Zur Bedeutung der öffentlichen Spiele bei Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio. Überlegungen zur Selbstbeschreibung der römischen Gesellschaft. Berlin.

66. Hammond, M. 1932: The Significance of the Speech of Maecenas in Dio Cassius, Book LII. TAPA 63, 88–102.

67. Harrington, J. 1970: Cassius Dio: A Reexamination. Diss. Kentucky.

68. Harrington, D. 1977: Cassius Dio as a Military Historian. Acta Classica 20, 159–165.

69. Hose, M. 1994: Erneuerung der Vergangenheit. Die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio. Stuttgart–Leipzig.

70. Hose, M. 2007: Cassius Dio: A Senator and Historian in the Age of Anxiety. In: J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Chichester, 461–467.

71. Humphrey, J.W. 1976: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Book 59 (Gaius Caligula). Diss. University of British Columbia.

72. Jayat, A. 2021: Édition critique avec traduction et commentaire du livre 43 de l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion. Thèse de doctorat. Bordeaux.

73. Jones, B. 2021: Teuta and Feminine Exemplarity in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. In: Madsen, Lange, 406–425.

74. Kasjusz Dion 2008: Historia rzymska (księgi 41–50). Wstęp, tłum i kom. I. Ptaszek, Kraków.

75. Kasjusz Dion 2011: Księgi flawijskie (Historia rzymska LXV–LXVII). Tłum. M. Kaźmierska, D. Latanowicz-Domecka, red. S. Dworacki, wstęp i kom. L. Mrozewicz, [w:] Fontes Historiae Antiquae XIX, red. L. Mrozewicz, M. Musielak, Poznań 2011.

76. Kasjusz Dion 2017: Historia rzymska, księgi seweriańskie (LXXIII-LXXX). Wstęp, tłumaczenie i komentarz K. Biały. Szczecin.

77. Kemezis, A.M. 2006: The Roman Past in the Age of the Severans. Diss. Michigan.

78. Kemezis, A.M. 2014: Greek narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio, Philostratus and Herodian. Cambridge–New York.

79. Kemezis, A. 2019: Review-Discussion “Taking Stock of Cassius Dio”. Histos 13, 27–50.

80. Kolb, F. 1972: Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta. Bonn.

81. Kordos, J. 2010: Thucydidean Elements in Cassius Dio. AAntHung 50, 249–256.

82. Kuhlmann, P. 2010: Die Maecenas-Rede bei Cassius Dio: Anachronismen und intertextuelle Bezuge. In: D. Pausch (ed.), Stimmen der Geschichte: Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie. Berlin, 109–123.

83. 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 a.M. u. a.

84. Lange, C.H. 2019a: Cassius Dio on Violence, Stasis, and Civil War: The Early Years. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 165–189.

85. Lange, C.Н. 2019b: Cassius Dio on Sextus Pompeius and Late Republican Civil War. In: Osgood, Baron, 236–258.

86. Lange 2021: Cassius Dio on Perusia: A Study in Human Nature During Civil War. In: Madsen, Lange, 336–362.

87. Lange 2022 (forthcoming): Cassius Dio on Civil War: Between History and Theory. In: A. Scott, J.M. Madsen (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Cassius Dio. Leiden–Boston.

88. Lange, C.H., Madsen, J.M. (eds.) 2016: Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician. Leiden–Boston.

89. Lange, C.H., Madsen, J.M. 2016: Between History and Politics. In: Lange, Madsen, 1–12.

90. Lange, C.H., Madsen, J.M. 2019: The Historiography of Rome and Its Empire Series. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, xi–xiv.

91. Lange, C.H., Scott, A.G. (eds.) 2020: Cassius Dio: The Impact of Violence, War, and Civil War. Boston–Leiden.

92. Lange, C.H., Scott, A.G. 2020: Cassius Dio: Between War and Civil War. In: Lange, C.H., Scott, A.G (eds.), Cassius Dio: The Impact of Violence, War, and Civil War. Leiden–Boston, 1–14.

93. Lindholmer, M.O. 2019: Breaking the Idealistic Paradigm: Competition in Dio’s Earlier Republic. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 190–216.

94. Lindholmer, M.O. 2020: Caesar’s Campaigns in Cassius Dio’s Late Republic. In: Lange, Scott, 92–119.

95. Lintott, A.W. 1997: Cassius Dio and the History of the Late Roman Republic. ANRW II.34.3, 2497–2523.

96. Litsch, E. 1893: De Cassio Dione imitatore Thucydidis. Diss. Freyburg.

97. Madsen, J.M. 2020: Cassius Dio. London–New Deli–Sydney.

98. Makhlaiuk, A.V. (ed.) 2011: Cassius Dion Cocceian. Roman history. Books LXIV–LXXX. Commentary and article by A.V. Makhlayuk. St. Petersburg. (reprint 2015) (in Russian)

99. Makhlaiuk, A.V. (ed.) 2014: Cassius Dion Cocceian. Roman history. Books LI–LXXX. Commentary by A.V. Makhlayuk. St. Petersburg. (in Russian)

100. Makhlaiuk, A.V. 2017: Review of: Valérie Fromentin, Estelle Bertrand, Michèle Coltelloni-Trannoy, Michel Molin, Gianpaolo Urso (ed.), Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures (2 vols.). Scripta antiqua, 94. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2016. BMCR. 2017.12.15 (URL: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2017/2017-12-15.html).

101. Mallan, C. 2015: A Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History book 57.1–17.8. Diss. Oxford.

102. Mallan, C.T. 2019: Review of Andrew G. Scott: Emperors and Usurpers. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History Books 79(78)-80(80) (A.D. 217–229), Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018. Sehepunkte 19. Nr.2[15.02.2019] (URL: http://www.sehepunkte.de/2019/02/32064.html).

103. Mallan С.T. 2020: Cassius Dio, Roman history: Books 57 and 58 (the reign of Tiberius). Oxford–New York.

104. Manuwald, B. 1979: Cassius Dio und Augustus: philologische Untersuhungen zu den Büchern 45–56 des dionischen Geschichtswerkes. Wiesbaden.

105. Markov, K.V. 2020: Cassius Dio on Senatorial Activities as a Factor of Political Instability and Civil War. In: Lange, Scott, 241–256.

106. Martinelli, G. 1999: L’ultimo secolo di studi su Cassio Dione. Genova.

107. Martinelli, G. 2002: Nuovi studi su Cassio Dione. Rivista storica dell’antichità 32, 259–270.

108. Massoni, L.B. 2009: Il linguaggio di Cassio Dione: eventi, istituzioni, discorsi. Tesi dottorato. Bologna.

109. Mastrorosa, I.G. 2019: Gender e potere fra tarda Repibblica e alto Imperio: La lettura di Cassio Dione. Giornale Italiano di Filologia 71, 301–333.

110. Migliorati, G. 2003: Cassio Dione e l’impero romano da Nerva ad Antonino Pio: alla luce dei nuovi documenti. Milan.

111. Millar, F. 1964: A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford.

112. Millar, F. 2005: Rome in Greek Culture: Cassius Dio and Ulpian. In: L. Troiani, G. Zecchini (eds.), La cultura storica nei primi due secoli dell’impero romano (Milano, 3–5 giugno 2004). Roma, 17–40.

113. Millar, F. 2016: Preface. In: V. Fromentin et al., 9–10.

114. Montecalvo, M.S. 2014: Cicerone in Cassio Dione. Elementi biografici e fortuna dell’opera. Lecce.

115. Murison, C.L. (1999). Rebellion and Reconstruction: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 64–67 (A.D. 68–96). Oxford.

116. Noé, E. 1994: Commento storico a Cassio Dione LII. Como.

117. Noe C.V. 2020: The ‘Age of Iron and Rust’ in Cassius Dio’s Roman History: Influences from Stoic Philosophy. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 141–164.

118. Pelling, C.B.R. 1997: Biographical History? Cassius Dio on the Early Principate. In: M.J. Edwards, S. Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Oxford, 117–144.

119. Pistellato A. 2020: Δημοκρατεῖσθαι or μοναρχεῖσθαι, That Is the Question: Cassius Dio and the Senatorial Principate. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 115–140.

120. Pitcher, L. 2018: Cassius Dio. In: K.De, Timmerman, E. van Emde Boas (eds.), Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature. Leiden–Boston, 221–235.

121. Platon, M. 2015: Édition des livres 57 et 58 de l”’Histoire romaine” de Dion Cassius: établissement du texte, traduction et commentaire. Thèse. Université Toulouse le Mirail–Toulouse II.

122. Rantala, J. 2016: Dio the Dissident: The Portrait of Severus in the Roman History. In: Lange, Madsen, 159–176.

123. Rees, W. 2011: Cassius Dio, Human Nature, and the Late Roman Republic. Diss. Oxford University.

124. Reinhold, M. 1986: In praise of Cassius Dio. L’antiquité classique 55, 213–222.

125. Reinhold, M. 1988: From Republic to Principate: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History, Books 49–52 (36–29 BC). Atlanta.

126. Reinhold, M. 2002: Human Nature as Cause in Ancient Historiography. In: M. Reinhold, Studies in Classical History and Society. Oxford, 45–53.

127. Rich, J.W. 1990: Cassius Dio, The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9). Warminster, UK.

128. Rich, J.W. 2020: Causation and Morality: Cassius Dio on the Origins of Rome’s External Wars under the Republic. In: Lange, Scott, 65–91.

129. Schmidt, M.G. 1997: Die ‘zeitgeschichtlichen’ Bücher im Werke des Cassius Dio: Von Commodus zu Severus Alexander. ANRW II.34.3, 2591–2649.

130. Schmidt, M.G. 1999: Politische und persönliche Motivation in Dios Zeitgeschichte. In: M. Zimmermann (ed.), Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n.Chr. Stuttgart, 93–117.

131. Schulz, V. 2019: Deconstructing imperial Representation: Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Suetonius on Nero and Domitian. Leiden.

132. Schwartz, Ed. 1899: Cassius Dio. RE 3, 1684–1722.

133. Scott, A.G. 2008: Change and Discontinuity within the Severan Dynasty: The Case of Macrinus. Disse. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

134. Scott, A.G. 2015: Cassius Dio, Caracalla, and the Senate. Klio 97, 157–175.

135. Scott, A.G. 2017a: Cassius Dio’s Julia Domna: Character Development and Narrative Function. TAPA 147, 413–433.

136. Scott, A.G. 2017b: Cassius Dio’s Contemporary History as a Memoir and its Implications for Authorial Identity. Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 17, 1–23.

137. Scott, A.G. 2018: Emperors and Usurpers: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 79(78)-80(80) (A.D. 217–229). Oxford–New York.

138. Scott, A.G. 2020a: Civil War and Governmental Change: From the Achievements of Augustus to the Failures of the Severans. In: Lange, Scott, 334–355.

139. Scott, A.G. 2020b: Misunderstanding History: Past and Present in Cassius Dio’s Contemporary Books. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 165–188.

140. Simons, B. 2009: Cassius Dio und die Römische Republik. Untersuchungen zum Bild des römischen Gemeinwesens in den Büchern 3–35 der „Rhomaika“. Berlin–New York.

141. Sion-Jenkis, K. 2016: Frauenfiguren bei Cassius Dio: der Fall der Livia. In: Fromentin et al., 725–740.

142. Stekelenburg, A. V. Van (1971). De redevoeringen bij Cassius Dio. Diss. Leiden.

143. Swain, S. 1996: Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250. Oxford.

144. Swan, P.M. 1997: How Cassius Dio Composed his Augustan Books: Four Studies. ANRW II.34.3, 2524–2557.

145. Swan, P.M. 2004: The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History, Books 55–56 (9 A.D.–B.C. 14). Oxford.

146. Swan, P.M., Humphrey, J.W. Series Preface. In: Reinhold 1988, ix–xi.

147. Townend, G.B. 1964: Some Rhetorical Battle-Pictures in Dio. Hermes 92.4, 467–482.

148. Urso G. 2005: Cassio Dione e i magistrati. Le origini della republica nei frammenti della Storia romana. Milano.

149. Urso, G. 2013: Cassio Dione e i sovversivi. La crisi della repubblica nei frammenti della Storia romana (XXI–XXX). Milano.

150. Urrutia Muñoz, N.U. 2014: Las formas de la memoria en la historiografía griega del siglo III Romano: Utilización del recuerdo en Dion Casio y Herodiano. Tesis doctoral. Barcelona.

151. Zecchini, G. 1978: Cassio Dione e la guerra gallica di Cesare. Milan.

Система Orphus

Загрузка...
Вверх