{"title":"Teoria politica e scrittura storiografica nei ‘libri imperiali’ della Storia Romana di Cassio Dione","authors":"M. Bono","doi":"10.30687/978-88-6969-472-1/002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates to what extent the emergence of the princeps shapes Dio’s narrative. The best fitting passages for investigating this topic are the so called “anectodical-biographical sections”, which cannot be utterly dismissed as pieces of imperial biography: it would be better to consider those sections as devoted to the evaluation of the emperor’s praxis of government on a very concrete (rather that moralistic) ground. These narrative proceedings betray the existence of a well-structured framework lying beneath the work’s building in terms of political thought. In fact, Dio develops a consistent perspective about the relationship he expected between the princeps and the senate, fashioned, to my mind, by the princeps civilis model. This paradigm is sustained by a very classical political theory, although remoulded: the ‘mixed constitution’ theory.","PeriodicalId":303800,"journal":{"name":"Lexis Supplements","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lexis Supplements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-472-1/002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper investigates to what extent the emergence of the princeps shapes Dio’s narrative. The best fitting passages for investigating this topic are the so called “anectodical-biographical sections”, which cannot be utterly dismissed as pieces of imperial biography: it would be better to consider those sections as devoted to the evaluation of the emperor’s praxis of government on a very concrete (rather that moralistic) ground. These narrative proceedings betray the existence of a well-structured framework lying beneath the work’s building in terms of political thought. In fact, Dio develops a consistent perspective about the relationship he expected between the princeps and the senate, fashioned, to my mind, by the princeps civilis model. This paradigm is sustained by a very classical political theory, although remoulded: the ‘mixed constitution’ theory.