Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Saggio su Tucidide. Ed. G. Pavano. Palermo: G. Priulla. 1958. Pp. xliv + 251. Lire 3,000.

1960 ◽  
Vol 80 ◽  
pp. 210-211
Author(s):  
S. F. Bonner
Keyword(s):  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus

Getting Over Athens

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Wiater
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
New Model ◽  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus ◽  
The One

This chapter examines the ambivalent image of Classical Athens in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities. This image reflects a deep-seated ambiguity of Dionysius’ Classicist ideology: on the one hand, there is no question for Dionysius that Athenocentric Hellenicity failed, and that the Roman empire has superseded Athens’ role once and for all as the political and cultural centre of the oikoumene. On the other, Dionysius accepted Rome’s supremacy as legitimate partly because he believed (and wanted his readers to believe) her to be the legitimate heir of Classical Athens and Classical Athenian civic ideology. As a result, Dionysius develops a new model of Hellenicity for Roman Greeks loyal to the new political and cultural centre of Rome. This new model of Greek identity incorporates and builds on Classical Athenian ideals, institutions, and culture, but also supersedes them.

The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Volume II

1942 ◽  
Vol 35 (14) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Edward F. D'Arms ◽  
Earnest Cary ◽  
Earnest Cary
Keyword(s):  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus

WHERE THE GOSPEL TEXT BEGINS: A NON-THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF MARK 1:1

2001 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-127
Author(s):  
N. Clayton Croy
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of Mark ◽  
First Century ◽  
Peloponnesian War ◽  
Theological Interpretation ◽  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus ◽  
The Moment

AbstractDionysius of Halicarnassus, rhetorician and historian in Rome during the waning years of the first century B.C.E., wrote an essay on Thucydides in which he noted that some critics faulted the great historian of the Peloponnesian War for the arrangement (ταξις) of his work. They complained that Thucydides "neither chose the beginning of the history that was needed, nor did he fit it with a suitable ending." These critics insisted that "by no means the least important part of good arrangement was to choose a beginning, prior to which there would be nothing, and to conclude the matter with an ending in which nothing seemed to be lacking" (On Thucydides 10). If we overlook for the moment that Thucydides's history differs significantly in literary terms from the Gospel of Mark, we might find it remarkable how the same criticism has been leveled against the author of the second gospel. The oddity of Mark's ending at 16:8 is well known, but the beginning of Mark is also inauspicious. Does he, like Thucydides, suffer from faulty ταξις? This paper will examine the beginning of Mark's gospel and propose, or in truth, recall and corroborate, a rather pedestrian explanation of its many peculiarities.

III. Language and Stage Action

1984 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 8-11
Keyword(s):  
Fifth Century ◽  
Second Century ◽  
Dio Chrysostom ◽  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus

Although the career of Sophocles overlapped in its earlier years with that of Aeschylus and later on with that of Euripides, it is very hard to avoid over-simplifying the development of fifth-century tragedy into a progression from Aeschylus to Sophocles to Euripides. The same simplification is found amongst ancient critics, for whom Sophocles is ‘the middle one’ in ways which go beyond mere chronology. Thus Dio Chrysostom (first/early-second century A.D.) in his comparison of the three tragedians’ versions of the Philoctetes story says of Sophocles that ‘he seems to stand midway between the two others, since he has neither the ruggedness and simplicity of Aeschylus nor the precision and shrewdness and urbanity of Euripides, yet he produces a poetry that is august and majestic (σϵμνήν δέ τινα καί μϵγαλοπρϵπἢ ποίησιν), highly tragic and euphonious in its phrasing, so that there is the fullest pleasure coupled with sublimity and Stateliness (μϵτἁ ὕψους καί σϵμνότητος)’ Approximately a century earlier the critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus also found a ‘middle’ quality in Sophocles’ style: between the ‘austere’ (Pindar, Aeschylus, Thucydides, etc.) and the ‘smooth’ (Sappho, Euripides, Isocrates, etc.) he located the intermediate, ‘well-blended’ (ϵὔκρατος) mode of composition, including Sophocles as well as Homer, Demosthenes, Plato, and others. Of this intermediate style Dionysius says he is at a loss to decide ‘whether it is produced by excluding the extremes or by blending them’; but it is at any rate clear that it is defined principally by reference to what it is not.

The Greek Origins of the Cacus Myth

1977 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Common Source ◽  
Dionysius Of Halicarnassus

The myth of Hercules and Cacus is related by several Augustan writers: Vergil, Aeneid 8.185–275, Livy 1.7.3, Ovid, Fasti 1.543–86 and 5.643–52, Propertius 4.9.1–20, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.39. These accounts fall naturally into two classes, in which Cacus is represented respectively as a clever rascal and as a superhuman ogre. The former version is found in Livy and Dionysius, and the latter occurs first in Vergil, and then in Ovid and Propertius. Numerous shared details go to show that Livy and Dionysius drew on a common source, and verbal similarities that have been demonstrated between Vergil and Livy evidently establish Vergil's dependence on this same source. It would therefore appear that the ogre-Cacus is Vergil's invention. Certainly there is no evidence for a pre-Vergilian Cacus characterized as an ogre.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document