Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:15:50.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Origins of Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

H. Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus is often dismissed as a mere slavish panegyric of Rome, written with no other purpose but to persuade her Greek subjects to acquiesce in her domination. Thus Schwartz, in his Pauly-Wissowa article (v, 934 f.), after describing the work as ‘ein trauriges Dokument dafür, wie tief die geistige Potenz noch mehr als die Bildung der Griechen gesunken war’, accuses Dionysius not only of incompetence as a historian, but also of a lack of the feeling proper to a Greek. Comparing him with Polybius and Posidonius, he writes ‘die tragischen Schmerzen, die jenen echten Hellenen das Begreifen des römischen Primats gekostet hatte, sind dieser kleinen Seele fremd’. He further suggests that Dionysius chose his subject because it was remote from contemporary events and he was not likely to meet much competition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 1-2 , November 1961 , pp. 88 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © H. Hill 1961. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 1, 4–5; 11, 63, 1; 72; v, 8, 1 etc., cf. E. Cary in his Introduction to the Loeb edition, I, p. XIII f.

2 I, 6, 4; II, 11, 3; 19, 2; 34, 3; V, 77, 4; VIII, 80.

3 I, 89, 2; II, 9, 2; 30, 5.

4 Book 1, passim, cf. VII, 70; 72.

5 VI, 72–4. cf. the speech of Romulus in II, 3, 7.

6 II, 18, 2, cf. 11, 22–3; 65, 4; VI, 1, 4.

7 II, 3, 7; IV, 31, 1; 79, 2; VI, 8, 2; 84, 3; VIII, 10, 2; 27, 4; XIV, Exc. 6, 5–6. cf. x, 28, 7–8, Ῥωμαῖοι…βάρβαροι.

8 This notion of Rome as a Greek city was not, of course, invented by Dionysius. It was current at least as early as the fourth century B.C.; cf. Manni, E. in La Parola del Passato XI (1956), 179 f.Google Scholar, Gabba, E. in Riv. Stor. Ital. 71 (1959), 365–9Google Scholar, and their references.

9 Plautus, Bacch. 813; Most. 21, 64, 960; Poen. 603; Truc. 88; cf. Titinius ap. Paul. ex Fest. 235 L.

10 Plautus, Asin. 199.

11 See, e.g., Kienast, Cato der Zensor, 101 f.

12 See, e.g., Plutarch, Cato Mai. 9, 22. Polyb. XXXV, 6.

13 Cicero, Verr. 11, 2, 72; 4, 127. Pis. 70. Sest. 110; 126, etc.

14 Cicero, Prov. Cons. 15. Rab. Post. 36. De Orat. I, 102. Ad Quint. I, 1, 16. et saepe.

15 Jug. 85, 32. cf. Ep. ad Caes. II, 9, 3.

16 VIII, 22, 8. cf. IX, 14, 5; XXVII, 30, 5; XLII, 47, 7.

17 For detailed discussion of the evidence see J. Perret, Les origines de la légende troyenne de Rome, and the review by Momigliano, A. in JRS xxxv (1945), 99 f.Google Scholar

18 See especially Norden, E., Neue jahrb. VII (1901), 249 f.Google Scholar; 313 f.

19 1, 30, 456–493; cf. III, 87.

20 Insidiae occurs five times in this book and dolus eight, cf. Heinze, Virgils epische Technik, 10 and note.

21 III, 121–3, 282–8, 398, 548 f., 588 f.

22 IV, 227–8, 425–6.

23 V, 51–4, 671–2.

24 VI, 88 f., 529–530.

25 I can see no evidence in this passage to support the view of Constans (L'Enéide de Virgile, 227, 265) that Virgil is picturing Greece as Rome's partner.

26 VII, 222 f., 293 f., 723; VIII, 9 f., 127 f., 374 f.; IX, 128 f., 201–3, 598 f., 742; X, 18 f., 88 f., 333–5, 430, 580–3; XI, 255 f.; XII 542 f.

27 XI, 252 f.

28 VII, 733 f. cf. Tacitus, Ann. IV, 67; Saunders, C. in TAPA 71 (1940). 548–551.Google Scholar

29 VII, 371–2, 409 f., 789 f.; IX, 738 f.; XII, 44.

30 VII, 794 f. It must be emphasized that we are not here concerned (as is, e.g., C. Saunders, o.c.) with the problem of the Greek origin of the names of the various warriors, nor (like Anderson, W. S. in TAPA 88 (1957), 17 f.)Google Scholar with the way in which Virgil adapted Greek sources. Our concern is with the impression which Virgil gives of the Greeks.

31 VI, 89, cf. IX, 136 f., 742; XI, 400 f.

32 cf. VI, 778–9, 836 f., 875 f. It is surely perverse to deny the vital importance of this theme in the Aeneid, as do, e.g., Constans (o.c. 261 f.) and Boyancé, (Rev. Ét. Anc. 1943, 275 f.Google Scholar).

33 I, 4. cf. II, 8, 3; III, 10, 4; VII, 70. cf. 1, 9, 4; 11, 15; III, 11, 3–5, where Dionysius claims that Rome's policy of extending her citizenship was liberal and successful.

34 cf. Plutarch, Romulus 9. Juvenal VIII, 272 f.

35 For the same idea cf. III, 10–11.

36 cf. Ovid, Fasti III, 101–2. Cicero, Tusc. 11, 5; IV, 1 f. Ad Quint. I, 1, 28, etc.

37 Virgile 109 f. cf. Constans, o.c., 320 f.

38 v, 730; VIII, 314 f.; IX, 602 f.; X, 86; XI, 45 f.

39 I, 10 f., 60, et passim.

40 I, 57–8, 61, 68 f. Servius, ad Aen. III, 167; VII, 207.

41 III, 94 f., 161 f.; VII, 205 f., 239 f.; VIII, 36 f. In his speech to Evander in VIII, 126 f., it has been suggested that Aeneas is claiming a common ancestry for Greeks and Romans and that this was part of Augustus' propaganda. (See, e.g., W. W. Fowler, Aeneas at the site of Rome, 51 f.). This, if true, would be in conflict with the view taken by Virgil in the passages just quoted. In fact, Aeneas is merely claiming a common divine ancestry for his own family and that of Evander. Note the almost contemptuous parenthesis, ut Grai perhibent, in 1. 135.

42 e.g. I, 467–8; II, 59–72, 579–582; V, 785–795; VII, 286–301, 359–364, 578–9; IX, 128–136; X, 88–93; XI, 768–779. On Virgil's use of Phryx and Phrygius as terms of contempt see Heinze, o.c. (n. 20), 420.

43 IV, 26, 2; cf. III, 10, 3–5; X, 28, 8.