Only two ancient historians have written comprehensive histories of Rome that survive in more than fragments, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both working in the years after Augustus came to power. Of the original twenty books of Dionysius' Roman Antiquities, which covered the history of Rome from pre-history to the beginning of the First Punic War, we have the first ten, substantial parts of the eleventh and fragments of the rest. But although Dionysius has been well received for his works of literary criticism, his historical work has been comparatively neglected. There are two recent commentaries on selected portions of the Antiquities, but only one commentary for a complete book, an unpublished dissertation commentary for Book I. A French translation with notes exists for Books 1 and 2, but the notes, though useful, are intended for the general reader, not the scholarly community. Dionysius' history, which parallels the work of his greater contemporary Livy, deserves more attention, hence this dissertation, a scholarly commentary on Book II of the Roman Antiquities covering the reigns of Romulus and Numa, the first two kings of Rome. The purpose of this dissertation is, simply stated, to give a scholarly explanation of the text, to elucidate matters of interest to a careful reader. The method used (again, simply stated) was to carefully read the text and ask the basic question: what does this passage mean? Other questions followed. The result is primarily an explication of antiquarian, historical and historiographical matters; textual and linguistic matters were rarely considered. The antiquarian and historical explications are useful for promoting a further understanding of early Roman history. But the examination of Dionysius' historiography shows other points of interest which include the following: Dionysius is adept at thematic development, for example of realistic narrative detail in contrast to Livy's artistic idealization of the Roman experience; in important ways he exhibits a historiography that differs from Livy's, as when he portrays early Rome as cautious, moderate and somewhat defensive in contrast to Livy's confident and aggressive city on the way to fulfilling a pre-ordained glory. The book contains numerous evidences of Augustan influence, and includes Dionysius' thoughts on the use of myth in historical writing. The most significant discovery is that the entire book is the most comprehensive description we have in antiquity of an actual, not theoretical, constitution as Dionysius understood and presented it; that Dionysius thought of the Roman constitution as the creation of Rome's first two kings, who based it upon Socratic virtues; and that he describes a working constitution as no other writer of antiquity did, integrating the virtues into an enduring system of laws and customs that goes beyond a mere rehearsal of ordinances in place at any given time. It is hoped that this commentary will prompt further research and insight into the historical and literary world in which Dionysius worked.

Denys d'Halicarnasse affirme dans son oeuvre historique l'origine grecque des institutions romaines. Cette perspectivre, très nettement idéalisante, est le fruit de ses réflexions sur la politique et sur l'histoire. Elle porte également la marque de la période augustéenne, dans laquelle s'inscrit l'auteur. A travers l'étude de la présentation dionysienne des institutions romaines, des hommes qui les font vivre, des valeurs morales qui les sous-tendent, cette recherche pose la question des objectifs politiques et culturels poursuivis par l'historien d'Halicarnasse dans un monde en devenir. Les efforts qu'il déploie pour réduire les différences entre Rome et le monde grec font de lui l'un des premiers penseurs d'un Empire gréco-romain unifié. In his historic work Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts the Greek origin of the Roman institutions. This strongly idealizing position is derived from his thinking on politics and history and is also influenced by the Augustan era. Through the study of dionysian presentation of Roman institutions, of men who make them live and moral values which underlie them, this research aims to explain the political and cultural purposes of the work. By his efforts to reduce differences between Rome and the Greek world , Dionysius appears as one of the first thinkers of an unified Graeco-Roman Empire.

This dissertation discusses the interaction of mythology and power in the Roman Republic and early Principate. It identifies a mythological paradigm that has not been recognized in previous scholarship ("pairs") and traces the use of this paradigm by Roman writers of the second and first centuries BCE. It argues that pair stories problematize the relationship between Roman elite ambition and the Republic's political ideals of equality and cooperation among magistrates. It further argues that these stories evolve over the course of the two centuries under discussion, from tales that are relatively optimistic about the potential of reconciling the tension between individual ambition and elite collegiality to tales that are extremely pessimistic. This evolution is tied to the political turmoil visible at Rome in this period. Several stories are identified as pair stories. The first and most well-attested is the foundation myth of the city, which is discussed at length in chapters two through six. In chapters seven and eight, the pattern is established through the analysis of Amulius and Numitor, Brutus and Collatinus, and the men known as affectatores regni. The historical development of these tales is discussed as thoroughly as possible. The argument throughout is that narratives from second-century writers depict pairs as representatives of productive rivalry. This rivalry encourages the elite to achieve beneficial results for the city, and can be set aside for the public good. Such depictions become less prevalent by the later first century, when the pair narratives instead tend to illustrate destructive competition. This destruction must be understood in the context of its times; the third quarter of the first century BCE saw the establishment of Rome's first monarchy in centuries. It is under the Principate that the tales again become clearly different: competition disappears. Soon afterwards, so does the use of these stories as a tool to think with.

Modern rhetoric takes many influences from the classical era, but aural components of rhetoric are not often included in rhetorical education. This paper examines the techniques used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his essay On Literary Composition, where he explored the components of arrangement of words in clauses for greatest impact when read and spoken aloud. Dionysius utilized meter and aesthetic placement of words to create work that was technically skilled and appealing to the listener or reader. Dionysius built on ideas from rhetoricians of 4th and 5th century BCE Athens for his definition of style. His writing on style is compared with the work of Demosthenes and Aristotle among others. While many of his techniques and examples are specifically focused on Attic Greek, we can still use the concepts to improve modern written and especially spoken rhetoric. Spoken rhetoric on television and the internet in particular provides a venue to exercise the lessons of precisely planned wording and control of sounds through word placement.

This dissertation discusses the interaction of mythology and power in the Roman Republic and early Principate. It identifies a mythological paradigm that has not been recognized in previous scholarship ("pairs") and traces the use of this paradigm by Roman writers of the second and first centuries BCE. It argues that pair stories problematize the relationship between Roman elite ambition and the Republic's political ideals of equality and cooperation among magistrates. It further argues that these stories evolve over the course of the two centuries under discussion, from tales that are relatively optimistic about the potential of reconciling the tension between individual ambition and elite collegiality to tales that are extremely pessimistic. This evolution is tied to the political turmoil visible at Rome in this period. Several stories are identified as pair stories. The first and most well-attested is the foundation myth of the city, which is discussed at length in chapters two through six. In chapters seven and eight, the pattern is established through the analysis of Amulius and Numitor, Brutus and Collatinus, and the men known as affectatores regni. The historical development of these tales is discussed as thoroughly as possible. The argument throughout is that narratives from second-century writers depict pairs as representatives of productive rivalry. This rivalry encourages the elite to achieve beneficial results for the city, and can be set aside for the public good. Such depictions become less prevalent by the later first century, when the pair narratives instead tend to illustrate destructive competition. This destruction must be understood in the context of its times; the third quarter of the first century BCE saw the establishment of Rome's first monarchy in centuries. It is under the Principate that the tales again become clearly different: competition disappears. Soon afterwards, so does the use of these stories as a tool to think with.

This is a study of how late Republican and early Imperial authors recast different elements of episodes from the Struggle of the Orders (509-287 BCE) based on the events and circumstances of their own times and their authorial aims. The study is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on portrayals of Sp. Cassius’ third consulship in 486 BCE, when he sought to pass a lex agraria. Part II examines the treatments of Sp. Maelius’ private frumentary distributions, which purportedly occurred in 439 BCE. Both episodes seem to have been treated briefly by earlier sources; the main thread of the stories centred around Cassius’ and Maelius’ desire to acquire regnum, which led to their suppressions and deaths. Over time, the stories evolved and became more detailed. Elements were exaggerated, added, or omitted, which often spoke to what was happening during the time at which a certain author was writing. By means of a comparison of the primary sources I examine the contemporary Roman historical realities contained within our surviving narratives on the patricio-plebeian conflicts of the early period. Late Republican authors frequently recast the patrician-plebeian struggle in the context of the recent political conflicts between optimates and populares, using the political idiom of their own times to describe the Struggle of the Orders. Cassius and Maelius became embedded in the political controversy surrounding the suppression of men (reportedly) seeking kingship by the state that began with the institution of the SCU and continued long into the first century BCE. I analyze the changes that take place in the accounts of Cicero, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, our main sources on the episodes involving Cassius and Maelius. Different authors reinterpret, emphasize, and omit various elements of the events of 486 and 439 BCE. A single author might, as is the case with Cicero, reimagine the episodes differently at different times based on his immediate aims. While the ways by which the sources reimagine elements of these episodes has led to harsh criticisms of these authors, especially Livy and Dionysius, I argue that our sources were engaging with the material at their disposal and shaping it in ways that were acceptable to ancient audiences. This historical interpretation helped the Romans to make sense of their own past and derive meaning from it, which, in turn, helped them to engage with and make sense of their present. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

This thesis examines the relationship between speech and action in Dionysius' Antiquitates Romanae. It consists of five main chapters, an introduction and a conclusion. In the introduction I establish the status quaestionis and consider different modes of presenting discourse. Chapter 2 is an intertextual analysis of Dionysius' first preface, AR I.1-8, exploring Dionysius' engagement with his Greek and Roman predecessors. I take one modern theory, concerning Dionysius apparent 'idealisation' of the Roman past, in order to examine the relationship between the Antiquities and Dionysius' rhetorical works. In the four chapters that follow, I trace the changing texture of narrative across the Antiquities, sinking shafts at moments to examine closely what is going on. First (ch. 3), I analyse speech in the Regal Period, focusing on the story of Lucretia and Brutus (AR IV.64-85), and the way that Herodotean allusion meshes with intratextual devices to narrate the fluctuations of the Regal Period. Chapter 4 is a paired reading of (4a) the story of Coriolanus' trial (VII.21-66) and (4b) the story of Coriolanus' encounter with his mother (VII.39-62). Ch. 4a concentrates on Thucydides and Isocrates, and how Coriolanus' trial binds the Greek literary past to the first-century Roman present. In 4b, I examine how Dionysius manages the shift between high politics and family relationships. Chapter 5, on the decemvirate (X.50-XI.44), explores again Roman tyranny, this time in a Republican frame; the power of the senate is consequently in point here. Chapter 6, on AR XIV-XX, probes the questions of Greek and Roman ethnicity and the individual which had arisen in the earlier chapters. In the conclusion I consider the precise question of Dionysius' Augustanism, relating it to Dionysius' apparent status in Rome.

Den här uppsatsen undersöker de olika sätt på vilka romarna beskrivs behandla sina fiender under den tidiga Romerska republiken (509–290 f.Kr). Med avstamp i Edward Saids post-koloniala teori om framställningen av den Andre, och Erich Gruens arbete om representation under antiken, analyseras beskrivningar av de öden Roms många fiender led som står att återfinnas i Livius, Diodorus Siculus, och Dionysios från Halikarnassos historiska verk om den unga Romerska republiken. I enlighet med uppsatsens hermeneutiska metod är analysen uppdelad i två delar, vilka behandlar uppror och krig mot utländska stater, respektive. De exempel som går att återfinna i källmaterialet förstås också som delar i en helhet, och de undersöks dels i sin egna kontext och jämförs med andra exempel i det stora sammanhanget. De romerska segrarna analyseras för att se hur källorna beskriver de erövrades öden, både materiellt och rent kroppsligt, och uppsatsen undersöker hur dessa framställs, och om källmaterialet representerar olika etniska gruppers behandling på olika sätt.Undersökningen visar att källorna, varken för sig själva eller sedda som en helhet, inte framställer det som att romarna hade tydliga och konsekventa riktlinjer för hur besegrade folk behandlades, men att vissa mönster ändå kan urskönjas, särskilt när det kommer till hur folkgrupper som gjorde uppror mot om behandlades. Olika folkslags etniska härkomst framställs inte som avgörande för hur de behandlades av Rom, trots källornas stundtals nedsättande kommenterar om sådana folkslag. Undersökningen visar att latinare, efter större uppror, kunde visas viss barmhärtighet, men källorna beskriver även hur latinska städer vid tillfällen utplånades tillsammans med deras befolkning av romarna, och även hur andra folkslag kunde skonas, och det blir tydligt att källmaterialets representation inte framställer någon etnicitet, vare sig besläktad med romarna själva eller helt avlägsen, som en garant mot romersk brutalitet.

A study of the cultural and ideological effects of Roman citizenship on Greeks living in the first three centuries AD. The ramifications of the extension of citizenship to these Greeks illustrates that ideas such as 'culture' and 'identity' are not static terms, but constructions of a particular social milieu at any given point in time. Roman citizenship functioned as a kind of ideological apparatus that, when given to a non-Roman, questioned that individual's native identity. This thesis addresses, via an examination of four sources, all of whom were Greeks with Roman citizenship - Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, Ulpian, the minters of eastern civic coins - the extent to which one could remain 'Greek' while participating in one of the most Roman institutions of the Empire. Utilizing these sources with the aid of a number of theoretical bases (notably Louis Althusser and Pierre Bourdieu), this study attempts to come to a conclusion about the nature of 'Romanness' in the ancient world.