Auteur: Urso, Gianpaolo
Titre: Cassius Dio’s Catiline: “A Name Greater Than His Deeds Deserved”
Revue/Collection: In : Osgood, Josiah & Baron, Christophe, Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic (Series: Historiography of Rome and its Empire, Volume 4), 310 p.
Lieu èdition: Leiden-Boston
Éditeur: Brill
Annèe edition: 2019
Pages: 176-196
Mots-clès: Héritage - Fortuna - Legacy, Histoire - Storia - History
Description: This chapter examines how Dio’s account of the Catilinarian conspiracy diverges in many respects from the versions more familiar to us in Cicero and Sallust. The source Dio drew upon, contemporary with the late Republic and civil war period, emphasized the controversies that arose from Cicero’s consulship already in 63. Rather than interpret Dio’s choice not to follow Sallust as a poor decision, Urso calls attention to the “heterodox” details Dio preserves – including the notion of a “conspiracy of Lentulus” and accusations made by Antony in 44–43 that it was Cicero who had made Catiline hostile to the Republic. These are subtle hints that Dio made use of an array of sources, which has often been missed or downplayed by scholars assuming that his account is of less worth than others which survive [Osgood & Baron, 12]. Note : “Dio’s account is radically different from Cicero’s (…). I do not mean to say that we must prefer Dio’s version to Cicero’s. But we can and must rectify Cicero’s testimony through Dio’s. (…) In Dio’s account there is no trace of the Bellum Catilinae. (…) I do not see any evidence of the Catilinarians in Dio either. But scholars have detected similarities between Dio’s chapters on Catiline and Plutarch’s Life of Cicero. These similarities are ultimately due to the derivation from a common source, which could be identified with the main source of Plutarch, Cicero’s Περὶ τῆς ὑπατείας. If this hypothesis is well-founded, behind Dio’s testimony on the year 63 there should be Cicero too: not the Catilinarians, but the lost Περὶ τῆς ὑπατείας”. [Author]
Sigle auteur: Urso 2019
Titre: Cassius Dio’s Catiline: “A Name Greater Than His Deeds Deserved”
Revue/Collection: In : Osgood, Josiah & Baron, Christophe, Cassius Dio and the Late Roman Republic (Series: Historiography of Rome and its Empire, Volume 4), 310 p.
Lieu èdition: Leiden-Boston
Éditeur: Brill
Annèe edition: 2019
Pages: 176-196
Mots-clès: Héritage - Fortuna - Legacy, Histoire - Storia - History
Description: This chapter examines how Dio’s account of the Catilinarian conspiracy diverges in many respects from the versions more familiar to us in Cicero and Sallust. The source Dio drew upon, contemporary with the late Republic and civil war period, emphasized the controversies that arose from Cicero’s consulship already in 63. Rather than interpret Dio’s choice not to follow Sallust as a poor decision, Urso calls attention to the “heterodox” details Dio preserves – including the notion of a “conspiracy of Lentulus” and accusations made by Antony in 44–43 that it was Cicero who had made Catiline hostile to the Republic. These are subtle hints that Dio made use of an array of sources, which has often been missed or downplayed by scholars assuming that his account is of less worth than others which survive [Osgood & Baron, 12]. Note : “Dio’s account is radically different from Cicero’s (…). I do not mean to say that we must prefer Dio’s version to Cicero’s. But we can and must rectify Cicero’s testimony through Dio’s. (…) In Dio’s account there is no trace of the Bellum Catilinae. (…) I do not see any evidence of the Catilinarians in Dio either. But scholars have detected similarities between Dio’s chapters on Catiline and Plutarch’s Life of Cicero. These similarities are ultimately due to the derivation from a common source, which could be identified with the main source of Plutarch, Cicero’s Περὶ τῆς ὑπατείας. If this hypothesis is well-founded, behind Dio’s testimony on the year 63 there should be Cicero too: not the Catilinarians, but the lost Περὶ τῆς ὑπατείας”. [Author]
Sigle auteur: Urso 2019
