STUDIA DIONEA NOVISSIMA: HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PAST AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS OF CASSIUS DIO’S “ROMAN HISTORY” (Part II)

 
PIIS032103910015355-3-1
DOI10.31857/S032103910015355-3
Publication type Article
Status Approved
Authors
Occupation: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Department of Ancient and Medieval History, Lobachevsky National Research State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Address: Russian Federation, Nizhny Novgorod
Occupation: Chair
Affiliation: Department of Ancient and Medieval History, Lobachevsky National Research State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Address: Russian Federation, Nizhny Novgorod
Abstract

The article, continuing the overview of current Cassius Dio scholarship, focuses on the disputable issues of narrative modes and patterns of his <em >Roman History, including the role of various speeches in their dramatic context, the correlation between annalistic and biographical techniques, Dio’s treatment of Roman public institutions and, especially, their evolution within the transition from Republic to Principate. The discussions concerning Dio’s political and literary career, his political thinking, Book 52 constitutional debates also are under consideration. The present survey demonstrates that modern scholars have completely abandoned the outdated preconception of Dio as a ‘copyist’ or a ‘compiler’. Currently, our historian is treated as an author who had a distinct narrative strategy, elaborated on the structure of his work and made his deliberate choice between historiographic methods and techniques. Recent studies show, on the one hand, the diversity of the methodological agendas applied to different parts of Dio’s work, and, on the other hand, a number of recurrent themes and issues. The majority of these elements of consistency belong to the sphere of the author’s political agendas, with his entire conceptual framework of Dio’s narrative being closely connected to the demonstration of proper political leadership paradigms.

KeywordsCassius Dio, Roman History, Graeco-Roman historiography, historical causation, historical narrative, historiographic methods and techniques, political agendas, Cassius Dio scholarship.
AcknowledgmentThe reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-19-50173.
Received06.06.2021
Number of characters77418
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной
1 Historical narrative
2 Narrative modes and patterns
3 A body of recent scholarship has looked at Dio’s narrative in terms of its literary and rhetorical characteristics. The Roman History is recognized to be a literary construct reflecting the author’s version of the Empire and its past. Such an approach provided fruitful ground for exploring diverse forms of Dio’s narrative discourse: political, ideological, cultural. Particular attention has been paid to peculiarities of Dio’s methods and historiographic approaches, the narrative structuring, in particular the annalistic and biographical techniques and the speeches deployment principles. А survey of the recent scholarship on these issues is represented below.
4 Modern scholarship has found Dio’s methodological agendas to be closely linked to his take on human nature, as well as his overall understanding of history. For instance, Hose explains the impact of Thucydides’ paradigm upon the Roman History by Dio’s inability “to establish rudimentary ‘teleological’ principles such as those found in Herodotus, Polybius, or Diodorus. It is thus understandable that in searching for another model of historiography he lit upon Thucydides”1. As said in Part 1 of the article, the Thucydidean paradigm is more detectable in the republican section of Dio’s work rather than in the imperial one. Obviously, Dio could have different methodological agendas for different parts of his work or switch methods according to the plot itself. As Rich rightly notes, sometimes “he was the cynical student of Machtpolitik, sometimes the political moralist, ready with edifying sentiments or models for conduct”2. The question which arises here is to what extend such a diversity of Dio’s narrative techniques did depend on his sources. Did he simply follow from one material to another one? For decades the positive answer to this question remained quite common among scholars, with Dio being regarded as a “one-sorce historian”. Recent studies have challenged this traditional view. A number of case-studies have revealed various thematic and interpretative differences between Dio’s materials and the parallel narratives and other sources on the Regal period3, Second Punic War4, Late Republic5, Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods6 or the Severans7. As a historian of his own right, Dio elaborates on all these topics and in some cases offers independent information. 1. Hose 2007, 464.

2. Rich 1990, 14.

3. Briquel 2016; Fromentin 2016.

4. Simon 2016.

5. Simons 2009, Baron 2019.

6. Devillers 2016a.

7. Molin 2016c.
5 A detailed analysis of compositional and methodological particularities of different parts of Dio’s work has been carried out by Kemezis who undertook a rare attempt to comprehend Dio’s extensive work as a literary whole8. Based on narratology approaches applied primarily to modern fiction9, he employs “narrative world” concept in order to reveal and explore the intrinsic conceptual integrity of Dio’s narrative, though admitting that different parts of it might have their independent functions. According to Kemezis, Dio re-imagined the history of Rome and created his own version of the Roman Empire as a stage for the historical process10. Methodologically, the study of Dio’s “narrative world” implies that the text should not always be taken at face value, sometimes subtexts and hints should be identified, while the main aim is to define the general principles of the construction and functioning of the narrative. Therefore, Kemezis advocates for making assumptions, formulating generalized explanatory models, and providing general assessments without delving into rhetorical analysis in each particular case11. The basic premise for such an approach is that the ancient texts were designed for readers capable of understanding “narrative worlds”, because neither in the time of the Severans, nor in our days, people perceive the world of the text and reality as identical12. Unfortunately, Kemezis does not refer to concrete examples of such reflection in ancient times. Therefore, it’s tempting to inquire about the correlation between ostensibly conscious and purposeful construction of the “narrative world” and the genre specifics. In fact, many Greek and Roman historians expressed their commitment to aleteia13 and believed that accurate and trustworthy account of the past events distinguished history from poetry which was based on fiction (e.g., Polyb. 1.14.5–6, 2. 56.12; Arist. Poet. 9.1451b.1; Luc. Hist. conscr. 8–9). Another issue closely linked to the previous one is the relationship between the individual author’s creativity and the literary trends of his times. In this regard Burden-Strevens rightly points to Kemezis’s selectiveness in dealing with the massive modern scholarship on the Second Sophistic14. 8. Kemezis 2014, 10.

9. A concise introduction to Dio in narratological perspective see Hidber 2004.

10. Kemizis 2014, 11.

11. Kemezis 2014, 11, 14.

12. Kemezis 2014, 14.

13. Dio is not an exception in this respect: 1.1.2.

14. Burden-Strevens 2016a, xi.
6 In comparison with the previous historiography, the novelty of Dio’s work, according to Kemezis, is the creation of an original compositional structure of the narrative, covering several historical epochs. Dio’s “narrative world” is not static. It changes at different historical stages defined by Dio in his comments on the periodization of the history of Rome (52.1.1; 72[71].36.4): early and middle Republic, Late Republic, Principate, contemporary period. These periods are associated by Kemezis with different types of narrative, i.e. “narrative modes”, such as republic, dynasteia, principate and the “eyewitness” mode15. The first two modes are distinguished in accordance with the periodization of the history of Rome in the opening chapter to Book 52. The identification of two other modes within the imperial period is based on Dio’s famous reference to the “realm of iron and rust” which replaced the kingdom of gold after the death of Marcus Aurelius (72[71].36.4); and his pledge to describe the contemporary events in more detail and more carefully, since he was a witness to them (72.18.4). Importantly, such a narrative structuring is never mentioned by Dio. It has been reconstructed by Kemezis, albeit tentatively, as the author himself acknowledges16. He concludes: “Each of the four discernible modes – Republic, dynasteiai, Principate and contemporary – functions as its own domain within the overall story world. Each has its own modalities or rules for what sorts of events are knowable and worth telling, for what sorts of motivations and possibilities for action characters have and for what is the nature of the Roman commonwealth and its relationship to individuals. Literary techniques also differ greatly; each mode has its own way of deploying speeches, digressions, narrative asides, vivid or emotive descriptive passages and so forth”17. Consequently, different elements of Dio’s narrative – for example the speeches – might have a different meaning and function in each mode. 15. Kemezis 2014, 98.

16. Kemezis 2014, 109.

17. Kemezis 2014, 98.

1. Aalders, G.J.D. 1986: Cassius Dio and the Greek World. Mnemosyne 39.3–4, 282–304.

2. Adler, E. 2008: Boudicca’s Speeches in Tacitus and Dio. Classical World 101.2, 173–195.

3. Adler, E. 2012: Cassius Dio’s Agrippa-Maecenas Debate: An Operational Code Analysis. AJPh 133.3, 477–520.

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

5. André, J.M. (1967) Mécène essai de biographie spirituelle, Paris.

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

7. Asirvatham, S.R. 2020: Cassius Dio, Ὁμόνοια, and Civil War. In: Lange, Scott, 289–312.

8. Avallone, R. 1962: Mecenate. Naples.

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

10. Barnes, T.D. (1984). The Composition of Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Phoenix 38/3, 240–255.

11. Baron, C. 2019: Wrinkles in Time: Chronological Ruptures in Cassius Dio’s Narrative of the Late Republic. In: Osgood, Baron, 50–71.

12. Bellissime, M. 2016: Polysémie, contextualization, re-sémantisation: à propos de μοναρχία et de δημοκρατία. In: Fromentin et al., 529–544.

13. 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.

14. Bertrand, E. 2015: 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.

15. Bertrand, E. 2020: Cassius Dio and the Roman Empire: the Impact of the Severan Wars on Dio’s Narrative. In: Lange, Scott, 120–137.

16. Bertrand E., Coudry M. 2016: De Pompée à Auguste: les mutations de l’imperium militiae. 2. Un traitement particulier dans l’Histoire romaine de Dion. In: Fromentin et al., 595–608.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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

21. Bono, M. 2019: Riflessioni sulla lacuna nel dibattito Agrippa–Mecenate (Dio 52.13.7–14.1). Athenaeum 107, 479–502.

22. Bono, M. 2020: Teoria politica e scrittura storiografica nei ‘libri imperiali’ della Storia Romana di Cassio Dione. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 39–66.

23. Bowersock, G. 1965: [Rev.] Millar F. A Study of Cassius Dio. Gnomon 37, 469–474.

24. Briquel, D. 2016: Origines et période royale. In: Fromentin et al., 125–142.

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

26. Burden-Strevens, C. 2015b: Ein völlig romanisierter Mann? Identity, Identification, and Integration in the ’Roman History’ of Cassius Dio and in Arrian. In: S. Roselaar (ed.), Processes of Cultural Change and Integration in the Roman World. Leiden–Boston, 287–306.

27. Burden-Strevens, C. 2016a: Review-Discussion. Historical Knowledge and Historiographical Narratives in the Severan Period (Review of Kemezis A., Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio, Philostratus and Herodian, 2014). Histos 10, 9–18.

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

29. Burden-Strevens, C. 2018: Reconstructing Republican Oratory in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. In: C. Gray et al. (eds.), Reading Republican Oratory: Reconstructions, Contexts, Receptions. Oxford, 117–143.

30. Burden-Strevens, C. 2019: The Republican Dictatorship: an Imperial Perspective. In: Osgood, Baron, 36–49.

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

32. Burden-Strevens, C. (2022): The Agrippa-Maecenas Debate. In: A. Scott, J.M. Madsen (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Cassius Dio. Leiden–Boston, forthcoming.

33. Burden-Strevens, C., Lindholmer, M. (eds.) 2018: Cassius Dio’s Forgotten History of Early Rome. Leiden–Boston.

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

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

36. Carsana, C. 1990: La teoria della “constituzione mista” nell’età imperiale romana. Como.

37. Carsana, C. 2016: La teoria delle forme di governo: il punto di vista di Cassio Dione sui poteri di Cesare. In: Fromentin et al., 545–558.

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

39. Coltelloni-Trannoy, M. 2016b: La πολιτεία imperial d’après Cassius Dion (livres 52–59). In: Fromentin et al., 559–566.

40. Coltelloni-Trannoy, M. 2016c: Les procédures sénatoriales à l’époque impériale: les choix de l’historien. In: Fromentin et al., 625–652.

41. Coudry, M. 2016a: Figures et récit dans les livres républicains (livres 36 à 44). In: Fromentin et al., 287–301.

42. Coudry, M. 2016b: Institutions et procédures politiques de la République romaine: les choix lexicaux de Cassius Dion. In: Fromentin et al., 485–518.

43. Coudry, M. 2016c: Sénat et magistrats à la vielle de la guerre civile. In: Fromentin et al., 519–528.

44. Coudry, M. 2019a: The ‘Great Men’ of the Middle Republic in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 126–164.

45. Coudry, M. 2019b: Electoral Bribery and the Challenge to the Authority of the Senate: Two Aspects of Dio’s View of the Late Roman Republic (Books 36–40). In: Osgood, Baron, 36–49.

46. Cresci Marrone, G. 2016: La politica al bivio. Il dibattito Agrippa-Mecenate in Cassio Dione. In: G. Negri, A. Valvo (eds.), Studi su Augusto: in occasione del XX centenario della morte. Turin, 55–76.

47. Dalla Rosa, A. 2019: Augusto δημοκρατικός: il commentarius ex quo lex Papia Poppaea lata est, Cassio Dione e la politica augustea del consenso. In: A. Heller, C. Müller, A. Suspène (eds.), Philorômaios kai philhellén. Hommages à Jean-Louis Ferrary. Genève, 153–171.

48. Davenport, C., Mallan, C. 2014: Hadrian’s adoption speech in Cassius Dio’s Roman History and the problems of imperial succession. AJPh 135.4, 637–668.

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

50. Devillers, O. 2016a: Cassius Dion et les sources prétacitéennes. In: Fromentin et al., 233–242.

51. Devillers, O. 2016b: Cassius Dion et l’évolution de l’annalistique. Remarques à propos de le representation des Julio-Claudiens dans l’Histoire romaine. In: Fromentin et al., 317–334.

52. Eisman, M.M. 1977: Dio and Josephus: Parallel Analyses. Latomus 36/3, 657–673.

53. Escribano, M.V. 1999: Estrategias retoricas y pensamiento politico en la Historia Romana de Cassio Dion. AC. 68, 171–190.

54. Espinosa Ruiz, U. 1982: Debate Agrippa-Mecenas en Dion Casio. Respuesta senatorial a la crisis del imperio romano en epoca Severiana. Madrid.

55. Espinosa Ruiz, U. 1987: El problema de la historicidad en le debate Agrippa-Mecenas de Dion Casio. Gerion 5, 308–314.

56. Fadinger, V. 1969: Die Begründung des Prinzipats. Quellenkritische und staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio und der Parallelüberlieferung. Berlin.

57. Favuzzi, A. 1990: Retorica e storia in Cassio Dione LII,17,3–4. Annali dell’Univ. degli studi di Bari 33, 147–158.

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

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

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

61. France, J. 2016: Financer l’empire: Agrippa, Mécène et Cassius Dion. In: Fromentin et al., 773–786.

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

63. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 2013: Dion Cassius, un Gréco-romain du IIe siècle. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 9, 77–90.

64. Fromentin, V. 2016: Denys d’Halicarnasse, source et modèle de Cassius Dion? In: Fromentin et al., 179–190.

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

66. Gabba, E. 1955: Sulla Storia Romana di Cassio Dione. Rivista Storica Italiana 67, 289–333.

67. Garnsey, A. 1967: Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Quaestiones in the Severan Age. JRS 57, 56–60.

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

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

70. Gowing, A. M. 1998: Greek Advice for a Roman Senator: Cassius Dio and the Dialogue between Philiscus and Cicero (38.18–29). Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 10, 373–390.

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

72. Havener, W. 2020: “A Warlike Man”: Cassius Dio’s Perception and Interpretation of the Imperial Military persona. In: Lange, Scott, 138–164.

73. Hidber, T. 2004: Cassius Dio. In: de Jong, I. et al. (eds.) Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature: Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1. Leiden–Boston, 187–199.

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

75. 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.

76. Horst, C. 2010: Zur politischen Funktion des Demokratiebegriffes in der Kaiserzeit: eine Interpretation der Reden des Agrippa und Maecenas (Cassius Dio 52, 1–41). In: T. Schmitt, V.V. Dement’eva (eds.), Volk und Demokratie im Altertum. Gottingen, 189–208.

77. Imrie, A. 2020: The War Comes Home: Rome and Romans during Civil Conflict in the Roman History. In: Lange, Scott, 165–191.

78. Jones, B. 2016: Cassius Dio: Pepaideumenos and Politician on Kingship. In: Lange, Madsen, 297–315.

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

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

81. Kemezis, A. 2016: Dio, Caesar and the Vesontio Mutineers (38.34–47): A Rhetoric of Lies. In: Lange, Madsen, 238–257.

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. Lachenaud, G. 2016: Récit et discours chez Cassius Dion: frontières, interférences et polyphonie. In: Fromentin et al., 397–415.

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

86. Lange, C.H. (2020): Talking Heads: the Rostra as a Conspicuous Civil War Monument. In: C.H. Lange, A.G. Scott (eds.), Cassius Dio: The Impact of Violence, War, and Civil War. Boston–Leiden, 192–218.

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

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

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

90. Letta, C. 1979: La composizione dell’opera di Cassio Dione: cronologia e sfondo storico-politico. In: L. Troiani et al. Ricerche di storiografia greca di eta romana. Pisa, 117–189.

91. Letta, C. 2019: La carriera politica di Cassio Dione e la genesi della sua Storia Romana. SCO 65.2, 163–180.

92. Lindholmer, M.O. 2018a: Cassius Dio and the Age of δυναστεία. GRBS 58, 561–590.

93. Lindholmer, M.O. 2018b: Reading Diachronically: A New Reading of Book 36 of Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Histos 12, 139–168.

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

95. Lindholmer, M.O. 2019b: The Fall of Cassius Dio’s Roman Republic. Klio 101.2, 473–504.

96. Lindholmer, M.O. 2020: Cassius Dio’s Ideal Government and the Imperial Senate. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 67–94.

97. Lindholmer, M.O. 2021: The Time of Composition of Cassius Dio’s Roman History: A Reconsideration. Klio 103/1 (forthcoming).

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

99. Madsen, J.M. 2016: Criticising the Benefactors: The Severans and the Return of Dynastic Rule. In: Lange, Madsen, 136–159.

100. Madsen, J.M. 2019: Like Father Like Son: the Differences in How Dio Tells the Story of Julius Caesar and His More Successful Son. In: Osgood, Baron, 259–282.

101. Madsen J.M. 2020: Reconstructing the Principate: Dio and the Flavians. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 95–114.

102. Mallan, C. 2014: The Rape of Lucretia in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. CQ 64.2, 758–771.

103. Mallan, C. 2016: Parrhesia in Cassius Dio. In: Lange, Madsen, 258–275.

104. Markov, K.V. 2008: Towards the Chronology of Cassius Dio’s Roman History. Vestnik drevney istorii [Journal of Ancient History] 2, 142–154.

105. Марков К.В. К вопросу о хронологии работы Диона Кассия над «Римской историей», ВДИ 2, 142–154.

106. Markov, K.V. 2013: The Concepts of ‘Democracy’ and ‘Tyranny’ in the Speech of Agrippa in Cassius Dio 52.1–13: Conventional Rhetoric or Political Theory? In: A. Mehl, A.V. Makhlayuk, O.L. Gabelko (eds.), Ruthenia classica aetatis novae: A Collection of Works by Russian Scholars in Greek and Roman History. Stuttgart, 215–231.

107. Markov, K.V. 2016: Towards the peculiarities of Cassius Dio’s public career in 220s. Vestnik of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod 3, 57–62.

108. Markov, K.V. 2019: Towards the Conceptualization of Cassius Dio’s Narration of the Early Career of Octavian. In: Osgood, Baron, 282–298.

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

110. Markov, K.V. 2021: Cassius Dio’s Periodization of Roman History and his Methodological Agendas. In: Madsen, Lange, 109–129.

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

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

113. Mastrorosa, I.G. 2014: Octavien à la veille d’Actium chez Dion Cassius (L.24–30): Haranger les troupes en diffamant l’adversaire. Exercises de rhétorique 3, 1–13.

114. Mastrorosa, I.G. 2017: Oratory and Political Debate in the Last Decades of the Roman Republic: Cassius Dio’s Reconstruction (with Some Notes from Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari). In: J.C. Iglesias-Zoido, V. Pineda (eds.), Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times. Rearranging the Tesserae, Leiden–Boston, 319–338.

115. Meyer, P. 1891. De Maecenatis oratione a Dione ficta. Diss. Berlin.

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

117. 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.

118. Molin, M. 2016a: Cassius Dion et les empereurs de son temps. Pour une confrontation du manuscrit Vaticanus Graecus 1288 et des autres sources contemporaines. In: Fromentin et al., 259–270.

119. Molin, M. 2016b: Biographie de l’historien Cassius Dion. In: Fromentin et al., 431–446.

120. Molin, M. 2016c: Cassius Dion et la société de son temps. In: Fromentin et al., 469–482.

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

122. 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.

123. Osgood, J. 2020: “If You Do Wrong, You Will Be King!”: the Civil War Victor in Cassius Dio. In: Lange, Scott, 313–389.

124. 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.

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

126. Platon, M. 2016: Sénat et pouvoir impérial dans les livres 57 et 58 de l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion Rome et son empire. In: Fromentin et al., 653–678.

127. Questa, C. 1957: Tecnica biographica e tecnica annalistica nei libri LIII–LXIII di Cassio Dione. StudUrb 31, 37–53.

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

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

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

131. Rich, J. W. 1989: Dio on Augustus. In: A. Cameron (ed.), History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. London, 86–110.

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

133. Rich, J.W. 2016: Annalistic organization and book division in Dio’s Books 1–35. In: Fromentin et al., 271–286.

134. Rich, J.W. 2019: Speech in Cassius Dio’s Roman History, Books 1–35. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 217–284.

135. Rich, J.W. 2020: Appian, Cassius Dio and Seneca the Elder. In: M.C. Scappaticcio (ed.), Seneca the Elder and his Rediscovered 'Historiae ab initio bellorum civilium: New Perspectives on Early-Imperial Roman Historiography. Berlin, 329–354.

136. Schettino, M.T. 2001: Cassio Dione e le guerre civili di età severiana. Gerion 19, 533–558.

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

138. Schulz, V. 2016: Historiography and Panegyric: The Deconstruction of Imperial Representation in Cassius Dio’s Roman History. In: Lange, Madsen, 276–296.

139. Schulz, V. 2019a: Defining the Good Ruler: Early Kings as Proto-Imperial Figures in Cassius Dio. In: Burden-Strevens, Lindholmer, 311–332.

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

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

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

143. 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.

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

145. Simon, M. 2016: L’épisode de Sentinum chez Zonaras à la lumière du parallèle livien. In: Fromentin et al., 205–214.

146. 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.

147. Simons, B. 2012: Cassius Dio und die Katastrophen von 9. n.Chr. und 53 v.Chr. Gymnasium 119.6, 571–596.

148. Smyshlyayev, A.L. 1990: The Speech of Maecenas (Dio Cass. LII, 14–40): Problems of Interpretation”, VDI 1, 54–66. (In Russian)

149. Smyshlyaev, A. 1991: Maecenas’ Speech (Dio Cass. LII.14–40): Problems of Interpretation. Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Philologica 2 Graecolatina Pragensia 13, 137–155.

150. Sordi, M. 2000: Le date di composizione dell’opera di Dione Cassio. Papyrologica Lupiensia 9, 391–395.

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

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

153. Vrind G. De Cassii Dionis vocabulis quae ad ius publicum pertinent. PhD. Diss. Hague, 1923.

154. Urso, G. 2020: ‘Ritorno alla monarchia’, tra Cesare e Augusto: le origini del principato in Cassio Dione. In: Burden-Strevens, Madsen, Pistellato, 19–38.

155. 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.

156. Zawadzki, R. 1983: Konzeption der römischen Staatsverfassung in der politischen Doktrin des Cassius Dio. Zur Interpretation des LII. Buches der Römischen Geschichte von Cassius Dio. Analecta Cracoviensia 15, 271–318.

157. Zecchini, G. 2016: Cassius Dion et l’historiographie de son temps. In: Fromentin et al., 113–124.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up