Dion of Prusa

This paper provides literary contexts for Solon´s speech in Lucian´s Anacharsis. It shows that and how Lucian makes Solon argue like a contemporary in the second century would have done when criticism of athletics even by Romans already had stopped and positive evaluation of Greek athletics was up to date within Greek literature.

The aim of our thesis, which comes within the scope of considering the process of rewriting classic texts in the time period of the second sophistic, is to study the unique importance of Odysseus in the writings of Lucian of Samosata. At first, Odysseus is distinguished from Achilles, a character more monolithic who, even in Homer’s works is constructed in contrast to Odysseus. Moreover, from an isolated quote to intricate references, scattered to create echoes between works seemingly very different, the context in which Odysseus appears is more elaborate and subtler than that of Achilles. Hence, studying and comparing references to both heroes is sufficient to imply Odysseus’ primacy, associated, in Lucian’s works, to a fundamental consideration of the power of words and their appealing strength, as well as the importance of critical thinking in any circumstance.
      A second part is dedicated to a more detailed reading of the works in which prevail the theme of adventure and in which the references to Odysseus, the ultimate adventurer, become part of the whole structure. Thanks to this study, it is possible to understand further the degree to which Lucian takes over completely the Homeric character to transform him into one of his masks, offering a new Odysseus to the future, although he keeps his distances from the character. We can also note how Lucian integrates the epic set phrases and lexicon in the heart of his work, to end up with a poetic prose that belongs to him alone. In fact, it seems at the conclusion of this study that how Lucian uses Odysseus is interconnected with the crucial question for him, of his cultural identity in a world of demanding scholars within which the Syrian orator intends to be acknowledged.

This paper presents the comparison of the literary canons that we read in Quintilian (inst. 10.1) and Dion of Prusa (orat. 18). In particular, the analysis focuses on the presence of Socratics and Xenophon, on the orator’s training by reading and doing rhetorical exercises, and on the portrait of the reader/speaker in the two authors. In this perspective, not only is it possible to highlight their similarities and differences, their common rhetorical and literary background, their chronological and spatial proximity, but also to detect their similarity about the educational purpose and the audience. Finally, it is possible to propose the idea of a closer link between the two works: Quintilian may have wanted to correct and expand the literary canon introduced by Dion, or, conversely, Dion may have suggested a more selected canon in order to fit the new historical context.