There is already a copious literature comparing Claudius' oration on the admission of the primores Galliae into the Roman Senate with Tacitus’ account of the speech and of the opposition's case in Annals 11. 23–4. Yet the Emperor's own purpose in speaking as he did still needs some illumination. Scholarly concentration on technical points about the citizenship, on Claudius’ antiquarianism and on his debt to Livy has been fruitful, but it has often distracted attention from Claudius’ immediate aim. Meanwhile, Tacitus’ (...) interpretation has been insidious in colouring our view of what course of action the imperial orator was trying to defend before the Senate. (shrink)

This thesis aims to illuminate Seneca’s criticisms of Neronian Rome through a novel exploration of the philosopher’s collection of moral letters – the so-called Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium. Noting the glaring absence of court politics in these letters the thesis identifies themes of dissimulation and veiled criticism, penned by Seneca in a concealed manner to ensure his safety during a time of dire political unrest. The first chapter establishes the cultural context of this collection by examining how they fit in (...) with the practice of elite Roman letter writing. This line of inquiry stems from a longstanding question in the scholarship as to whether the Epistulae Morales are letters in the earnest sense, or merely a literary-philosophical exercise contrived by Seneca. The chapter concludes that the letters can be seen as genuine, exchanged with their addressee. They were, however, also written for the wider senatorial class who are clearly the subject of Seneca’s moral discussions. The second chapter examines the circumstances which preceded the writing of these letters in order to identify points of political tension under Nero’s reign. Drawing on the Neronian books of Tacitus’ Annals and earlier Senecan treatises, this chapter identifies themes of political ideology which shaped the ongoing altercations between senate and emperor during Nero’s rule. With the political tensions identified, the third chapter unearths the underhanded ways in which Seneca criticises Nero’s reign throughout the letters. Additionally, this chapter showcases a range of techniques employed by Seneca to disguise his criticisms in order to maintain deniability and avoid persecution. The fourth and final chapter examines Letters 14 and 18 in detail, illustrating the techniques discussed in the preceding chapter and bringing to light Seneca’s veiled criticisms of Nero’s regime. The pair of case studies demonstrates that Senecan criticisms are present throughout the collection, and are apparent in both letters with overt political themes and those which are, at first glance, seemingly mundane and commonplace. (shrink)

Summary This article, in order to advance the debate about the nature of Roman money, sets out the strongest arguments in favour of the crucial importance of credit-money in the Roman economy. It invokes some texts that were not employed in previous discussions. The article also replies to the chief arguments of those scholars who have more or less maintained the traditional view that all, or almost all, Roman money consisted of coins. The most important question here concerns trust and (...) information: to what extent did Romans know enough about those who owed them money to accept payment in documentary form? On this question, the author takes the ‘optimistic’ view. (shrink)

El artículo pretende caracterizar la actitud vital e intelectual que el historiador latino Tácito adopta ante el escenario político y social existente en la época del Principado. En este contexto, se hace conveniente desarrollar un “arte de navegar” en aguas turbulentas, arte que permite vivir en tiempos difíciles con un cierto grado de dignidad personal al tiempo que sobrellevar el resto de “mala conciencia” que produce tal forma de vida. Por estas razones, los escritos de Tácito no deben ser entendidos (...) como la obra de un estoico republicano convencido o de un nostálgico de las prácticas políticas o de la forma de gobierno republicana sino de algunos de los valores propios de la época republicana como es la libertas dicendi de los senadores. Tácito encuentra en una forma de vida consciente del propio colaboracionismo, a mitad de camino entre el ideal de la integridad a ultranza aunque políticamente ineficaz propio del estoicismo no acomodaticio y el servilismo más ruin determinado exclusivamente por el propio interés individual, la única forma de vida objetiva y subjetivamente satisfactoria. (shrink)

The attention Seneca attracted in his lifetime and succeeding generations not only preserves information about his biography: it also merits interpretation as a cultural phenomenon on its own terms. This paper argues that the life of Seneca achieved exemplary status because it enabled Romans to think through issues critical to the preservation of social order. As a new man who rose to power as the republican noble families were dying out, Seneca posed the question of imperial succession in an acute (...) form. As a member of an imperial elite that was increasingly inclusive in its recruitment strategies, Seneca validated reliance on education and key cultural competencies as markers of elite status and legitimacy. His renown articulates a shift in emphasis within Roman culture from gloria-the old republican ideal based on zero-sum competition for honor-to claritas, or claritudo-distinction for special achievement or characteristics that grants entrée to a collective elite. The specific cultural competencies demonstrated by Seneca and noted by those who spread his renown alert us to practices the Romans especially valued, namely theatricality, the use of writing to display a persona, the mastery of general discourse, and the interpretation of politics in ethical terms. As an exemplum Seneca could be-and was-the target of both praise and blame. The story of his close relationship with Nero and subsequent tragic death placed him among the sacrificial victims Romans seemed to regard as legitimizing a social order based on domination by a well-defined elite. In addition to various of Seneca's writings, this essay considers in particular the Tacitean narrative of his relationship with Nero, Quintilian's analysis of his achievement and influence, and his depiction in Octavia. (shrink)

There is already a copious literature comparing Claudius' oration on the admission of the primores Galliae into the Roman Senate with Tacitus’ account of the speech and of the opposition's case in Annals 11. 23–4. Yet the Emperor's own purpose in speaking as he did still needs some illumination. Scholarly concentration on technical points about the citizenship, on Claudius’ antiquarianism and on his debt to Livy has been fruitful, but it has often distracted attention from Claudius’ immediate aim. Meanwhile, Tacitus’ (...) interpretation has been insidious in colouring our view of what course of action the imperial orator was trying to defend before the Senate. (shrink)

I argue that the prologue of Tacitus' Agricola is at pains to maintain for the work the option to be important or to be inconsequential. The goal of this effort is to anticipate a spectrum of possible receptions: if the work is welcomed by its audiences, it can serve as the first step in a prestigious literary career; if it meets with indifference or hostility, Tacitus' already-existing social self can find protection behind the claims to limited importance. In the first (...) section, I describe the rhetorical strategies through which Tacitus advances this doubled set of claims. In the second, I discuss Agricola's relationship to Sallust's monographs and adduce for comparison Pliny the Younger's career as a Catullan poet; I show that claims to write after the manner of a canonical author directly serve the aim of “keeping options open.”. (shrink)

The demonstration by E. Wölfflin that between the Histories and Annals Tacitus progressed towards a more archaic and artificial style is well known. From the outset Tacitus adhered to the traditional Roman view that history should be composed in an archaic language remote from everyday usage ; but he was apparently at first not fully aware of the possibilities of the archaizing style. New archaisms and artificial usages suggested themselves as he advanced ; and others, which he had used sporadically (...) even early in the Histories, were allowed to oust ordinary alternatives completely. (shrink)

The recognition of the similarities between Roman epic poetry and historiography have led to valuable studies such as Joseph’s analysis of the relationship between Lucan’s Bellum Civile and Tacitus’ Histories. Traces of Lucan’s Bellum Civile can also be observed in Tacitus’ Annals 1 and 2, causing the beginning of Tiberius’ reign to look like a civil war in the making. The charismatic Germanicus sits with a supportive army on the northern frontier, much like Caesar, causing fear for Tiberius at Rome. (...) Germanicus denies his chance to become the next Caesar and march on the city, but he exhibits other similarities with Lucan’s Caesar, including an association with Alexander the Great. Although at some points Germanicus seems to be repeating the past and reliving episodes experienced by Caesar in Bellum Civile, he prevents himself from fully realizing a Caesarian fate and becoming Lucan’s bad tyrant. The similar images, events, and themes presented by both authors create messages that reflect experiences from the authors’ own lives during dangerous times. (shrink)

This article reevaluates the origins of the First Romano-Parthian War to better understand the different perspectives, policies, and objectives of the various Parthian and Roman leaders in the early and middle 50 s that helped forge the great rivalry that emerged between Parthia and Rome. This article breaks from the dominate Rome-centric, anti-Crassus traditions concerning the investigation of the origins of this conflict. Centuries of anti-Crassus propaganda have led most scholars to discount or overlook the critical agency of the Parthians (...) in the conflict and the serious implications of Gabinius’ actions in 56–55, while blaming Crassus for indefensible Roman aggression and greed. The propensity of modern scholarship to villainize and criticize Crassus follows ancient propaganda and stems in part from a lack of understanding of the geopolitical realities that Parthia and Rome faced in the middle 50 s. Further, this article challenges the misguided traditions that, first, describe the Parthians as feeble, passive, and duplicitous in their interactions with foreign powers and, second, that blame the incompetence or weakness of the Parthians’ enemies to explain their actions and successes. Indeed, the Parthians were important, active, and powerful agents in these events, something often obscured or overlooked because of the inherent Roman focus and bias of the Graeco-Roman literary tradition and modern scholarship. (shrink)

Tacitus'Dialogus de oratoribus(c. 100c.e.) may be the most perplexing of the extant Roman dialogues, quite possibly, of the entire Greco-Roman tradition. Despite advances in the rhetorical and literary appreciation of ancient dialogues, this text continues to elude understanding. Oddly, the difficulties stem neither from obscurities of subject matter and presentation nor from any anomalismvis-à-visthe norms of the genre. Six compelling speeches lucidly detail the value, history and development ofeloquentia(‘skilled speech’) from the perspective of the late first and early second centuriesc.e. (...) They provide convincing accounts of rhetoric and its evolution: the social and political efficacy ofeloquentia(Marcus Aper's and Curiatius Maternus' prescriptions on how best to assert oneself with and against the powerful, and the famous yet notoriously tumultuous oratory of the Late Republic), evaluative categories for rhetoric, including the competing discourses that prized renown and canonical status (Vipstanus Messalla's praise of the ancients), or external and absolute aesthetic criteria; and lastly, exemplary instances (e.g. past luminaries) or suitable models for imitation (ancient and modern orators and poets). The richness of these diverse emphases, along with the complex and ambiguous reworking of literary forerunners, not to mention the open-endedness at the work's conclusion, all conspire against the expectation of a uniform message. (shrink)

In a new reading of Tacitus's account of the quarrel between Helvidius Priscus and Eprius Marcellus at Hist. 4.6.3–4.10.1, I show that the historian stages a confrontation between panegyrical and Realpolitik rhetoric about the Principate. Helvidius uses the consensus-rhetoric of panegyric to propose that the senate claim the freedom they theoretically possess in the regime of a civilis princeps. Eprius describes the autocratic “reality” of the Principate in terms of contingency, necessity, and power. Helvidius's panegyrical fantasy runs up against practical (...) limits, but Eprius's hardheaded truisms prove equally problematic for senatorial oratory. The failures of both speeches comment on the necessity of a consciously fictive “public transcript” such as Pliny's Panegyric while pointing to historiography as the proper place for Realpolitik truths. The debate sheds new light on Tacitus's praise of Trajan and Nerva at the beginning of the Histories as a locus for collective senatorial self-fashioning. (shrink)

Tacitus makes much of Tiberius' dependence upon Augustus. This article examines four citations of Augustan precedent which occur in the Annals: 1.77.1–3; 2.37–38.5; 4.37–38.3 and 6.3.1–3. In each case, I explore how the citation of precedent functions within the individual incident that Tacitus narrates, observing the ways in which the meaning of Augustus' dicta are constructed, manipulated and even contested by the individuals Tacitus describes. I conclude by making some suggestions about the role of Tiberius' dependence upon Augustan precedent in (...) the narrative as a whole. (shrink)

The political and administrative requirements of the Roman state during the early years of the Principate demanded an increase in the annual number of consulars. When Augustus finally acted to remedy this situation in 5 b.c., he introduced a system of suffect consuls and thereby increased the number of consuls from the two per annum of the Republic to four. A regular practice became established whereby one or both of the ordinary consuls retired at the end of June to be (...) replaced in office for theremainder of the year by a suffect consul. For the reigns of Gaius and Claudius additional suffects were included in many years and a new pattern can be seen to have emerged. It was usual now for each ordinarius to hold office for the first six months of the year except in some special cases where the ordinarii resigned at the end of two months and their place was taken by a pair of suffects who remained in office for the next four months to serve out the more regular tenure of the ordinary consuls. Under Nero, the innovation of this two-month ordinary consulship was not perpetuated and ordinarii usually remained in office for the full six months. Suffect consulships throughout the period a.d. 38–68 were held for periods of either two, four or six months. The Civil War of a.d. 68/69 and the consequent changes of emperor broke the above pattern. For 69, there are no fewer than sixteen consuls known to have held office during the year. Such confusion, however, would not be unexpected given the startling events of this year. Of considerable importance to students of the early Empire, therefore, is the question of what happened to the system of allocating consulships during a particular year when the state had once again settled itself down to running in routine under the victorious Flavian emperors. The answer to this question will be of particular importance for prosopographers of the early Empire for whom chronology is the backbone of their investigations, since the fasti for the reigns of Vespasian and Titus are notable for the number of years in which the complete list of consuls is lacking. (shrink)

While the relationship between fathers and sons, real or metaphorical, is still a dominant paradigm among classicists, this paper considers the rival contribution of Roman sons-in-law to the processes of collaboration and succession. It discusses the tensions, constraints, and obligations that soceri – generi relationships involved, then claims a significant role for sons-in-law in literary production. A new category is proposed here: “son-in-law literature,” with texts offered as recompense for a wife or her dowry, or as substitute funeral orations. Cicero (...) and Tacitus are two authors for whom the relationship played a key role in shaping realities and fantasies of advancement. The idealized in-law bonds of De Amicitia, Brutus, and De Oratore are set against Cicero's intellectual aspirations and real-life dealings with a challenging son-in-law, while Tacitus' relationship to Agricola can be seen to affect both his historiographical discussions of father–son-in-law relationships and the lessons he drew from them about imperial succession. (shrink)

L’article examine le rôle de la personnalité dans la biographie ancienne et sa relation avec la le concept de personnalité dans la biographie ancienne et sa relation avec la physionomiee les traits somatiques et psychiques héréditaires.

Roman conflict with Parthia in the mid first century for control of Armenia and Domitius Corbulo's exploits in the East, culminating in the Parthian candidate for the throne, Tiridates, receiving his diadem from the hands of the Emperor Nero in Rome, have frequently been studied for what they reveal about military and diplomatic manoeuvres under the later Julio-Claudians. The historiographical investigation of our main source, Tacitus, particularly through comparison with the fragments of Cassius Dio, is also important for the light (...) this sheds on the Roman senator's methods. The intention of this paper is to draw attention to the complexity of Tacitus’ account by indicating his use of multiple and sometimes contradictory viewpoints in his narration of Caesennius Paetus’ unsuccessful Armenian campaign of a.d. 62–63 and to highlight an unrecognized echoing of his predecessor Livy by the historian. The examination of a text that is as elusive as it is allusive will require a careful study of what must have been a debated incident, but, as I hope to show, will give a broader insight into the historian's methods and, perhaps, wider intentions. I begin with an outline of historical events and the sources available to the historian. Next, I present a narratological examination of the text to show how differing viewpoints are highlighted within a contested storyline. I then show how this confusion may appear to be dispelled by a strong plot-line that borrows heavily from Livy, wherein the actions of an older, experienced general are contrasted with those of his subordinate. However, aspects of this account suggest that the tensions within the narrative are not resolved and that this has wider implications for our understanding of the historian and his work. (shrink)

Frontinus appears only once in Tacitus'Agricola, at a moment in the text where Tacitus is filling in some background, sketching a rough history of the Roman occupation of Britain up to the time when Agricola took over as governor of the province. His appearance is brief, and the momentum of the whole section makes it tempting to see him as a mere footnote in the tale of Agricola's life and career. I will argue, however, that Frontinus' role in the text (...) is more significant than that. Indeed, it is my contention that he is closely bound up with – and helps Tacitus and his readers to explore – one of the text's most pressing concerns: namely senatorial conduct, status and identity, in Domitianic and post-Domitianic Rome. (shrink)

In Letter 5.8 Pliny shows that in the post-Domitianic era historia has become an impossible genre, both as a vehicle for conventional moral wisdom and because of the authoritative narrative voice it necessitates. The letter's literary strategies of deferral express these problems even as its content appears to argue positively the merits of historia and compare it with those of oratio. Pliny emphasizes the insufficiency of the narrative “I”, suggesting instead the importance of dialogue as the means both toward the (...) ethical reconstruction of post-tyrannical discourse and the literary fame for which Pliny also hopes. (shrink)

The political and administrative requirements of the Roman state during the early years of the Principate demanded an increase in the annual number of consulars. When Augustus finally acted to remedy this situation in 5 b.c., he introduced a system of suffect consuls and thereby increased the number of consuls from the two per annum of the Republic to four. A regular practice became established whereby one or both of the ordinary consuls retired at the end of June to be (...) replaced in office for theremainder of the year by a suffect consul. For the reigns of Gaius and Claudius additional suffects were included in many years and a new pattern can be seen to have emerged. It was usual now for each ordinarius to hold office for the first six months of the year except in some special cases where the ordinarii resigned at the end of two months and their place was taken by a pair of suffects who remained in office for the next four months to serve out the more regular tenure of the ordinary consuls. Under Nero, the innovation of this two-month ordinary consulship was not perpetuated and ordinarii usually remained in office for the full six months. Suffect consulships throughout the period a.d. 38–68 were held for periods of either two, four or six months. The Civil War of a.d. 68/69 and the consequent changes of emperor broke the above pattern. For 69, there are no fewer than sixteen consuls known to have held office during the year. Such confusion, however, would not be unexpected given the startling events of this year. Of considerable importance to students of the early Empire, therefore, is the question of what happened to the system of allocating consulships during a particular year when the state had once again settled itself down to running in routine under the victorious Flavian emperors. The answer to this question will be of particular importance for prosopographers of the early Empire for whom chronology is the backbone of their investigations, since the fasti for the reigns of Vespasian and Titus are notable for the number of years in which the complete list of consuls is lacking. (shrink)

The demonstration by E. Wölfflin that between the Histories and Annals Tacitus progressed towards a more archaic and artificial style is well known. From the outset Tacitus adhered to the traditional Roman view that history should be composed in an archaic language remote from everyday usage ; but he was apparently at first not fully aware of the possibilities of the archaizing style. New archaisms and artificial usages suggested themselves as he advanced ; and others, which he had used sporadically (...) even early in the Histories, were allowed to oust ordinary alternatives completely. (shrink)