Roman Historiography

Collection of contributions on the reception of ancient historiography in Early Modern Culture and Intellectual History. 

INDICE
INTRODUZIONE
I. G. Mastrorosa (Università di Firenze)
Oltre ‘riscoperte’, Nachleben e ‘fortuna’: considerazioni introduttive
ARCHETIPI
L. Porciani (Università di Pavia)
La parola orale. Erodoto e la costruzione del discorso politico
M. Lentano (Università di Siena)
L’eredità di Serse. Suasoria retorica e discorso storiografico a Roma
INTERPRETI E MODELLI
S. Gambino Longo (Université de Lyon III)
Erodoto nel Rinascimento: dalla riabilitazione a un nuovo modello storiografico
J.C. Iglesias-Zoido (Universidad de Extremadura-Cáceres)
La ‘actualización’ de los discursos de Tucídides en las antologías renacentistas de contiones: los argumenta del epitafio (2.35-46)
A. Raffarin (Université Paris-Est-Créteil)
D’un antiquaire à l’autre : Varron source et modèle de Flavio Biondo
P. Ponzù Donato (Università di Firenze)
Interpretazione, divulgazione, attualità: Pier Candido Decembrio volgarizzatore di Cesare
I. G. Mastrorosa (Università di Firenze)
Livio e Machiavelli fra passato e presente: tendenze demagogiche, aspirazioni tiranniche e strumenti di tutela della ‘riputazione’
A. Severi (Università di Bologna)
Dalla Roma imperiale alla Bologna principesca: la vocazione attualizzante del commento beroaldiano a Svetonio
L. Claire (Université de Picardie Jules Verne)
Sur quelques évolutions des commentaires aux Annales de Tacite dans les années 1580: Lipse, Muret, Pasquali, Scotti
LABORATORI FIORENTINI
L. Bernard-Pradelle (Université de Limoges)
L’historien en son laboratoire: Leonardo Bruni Aretino (ca. 1370-1444) et le travail sur les sources antiques
V. Pineda (Universidad de Extremadura-Cáceres)
The Memory of the Ancients in the Florentine Genre of epistole e dicerie
CONCLUSIONI
U. Roberto (Università Europea di Roma)
‘Attualizzare il passato’: alcune riflessioni sulla rilettura dei testi antichi tra l’età tardoantica e l’Europa del Rinascimento
ABSTRACTS

Oratory and Roman Historiography in Nicolas Caussin’s Eloquentiae Sacrae et Humanae Parallela (1619) - This paper focusses on the Jesuit Nicholas Caussin’s ‘Eloquentiae Sacrae et Humanae Parallela’ (1619), with a particular analysis of some chapters of ‘De veteri eloquentia’ Book I. In this context we find a gallery of the most illustrious Greek and Roman orators which offers the opportunity to evaluate the author’s method of selecting, classifying and understanding the ancient texts with a marked attention to historiography. In addition to the use of a chronological order, an acknowledgment of Cicero’s authority and stylistic supremacy along with citations from his ‘Brutus’, Caussin’s section regarding Roman orators shows his ability to understand the role of eloquence in the overall political context of ancient Rome, as well as his interest in the figure and works of the historian Sallust. Focalizing on this latter aspect, the second part of the paper underlines how by including the text of the contio attributed by Sallust to the general Gaius Marius, in Book XIII of his ‘Eloquentiae Sacrae et Humanae Parallela’ Caussin added glosses not limited to the rhetorical aspects of the speech. In particular we see how his point of view as a Jesuit contributes to his vision of the general Marius, as a virtuous citizen also embodying values relating to a wisdom of Senecan ascendancy and to a Christian perspective. In this sense, Caussin’s glosses on the ‘contio’ attributed by Sallust to Gaius Marius appear quite different from those composed a half century earlier by Remigio Nannini, who included the same text in his ‘Orationi militari’ highlighting its social-political significance.

This contribution analyses the first of three speeches that according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 4, 71-75), L. Junius Brutus pronounced after the violence suffered by Lucretia, causing the expulsion of the Tarquins. In this circumstance, he spoke in reply to his fellow citizens who had been asked to decide which of the three forms of government they considered best between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy and they had expressed their preference for democracy. In the passage, according to the arguments the historian attributed to him, Brutus suggested a political model where the powers belonging to the monarchic model were transferred to a magistracy as consulship which was double and time-defined, and had to cooperate with the senate and whose decisions would be subject to ratification by the people. On the whole, his discourse seems to reflect the wish for an institutional reorganisation inspired by the theory of mixed constitution, able to preserve the positive aspects of the monarchic model while correcting its defects and on the other hand reconciling the competencies of the monarchic model and the democratic model. Bearing in mind the years in which Dionysius composed his work, we may suppose that through the fiction of the first oratio delivered by Brutus, the historian was trying to give some advice to Octavian Augustus, who meanwhile continued to obtain renewals of his consular office but took care to “transfer the res publica from his own dominion back to the authority of the Senate and the Roman People”, encouraging him to guarantee a form of government able to create harmonious relations between the different state powers.

This particular consideration of Piranesi’s influence is not an exhaustive geography of the haunted wanderings of the artist’s aesthetic ghost. Rather, what follows highlights three aspects of eclecticism in his work—presented in loose chronological order—that seem to have had the most bearing on the conceptualization of stylistic heterogeneity in the architecture of the nineteenth century. These three aspects are those which generate that ‘special essence’ of a Piranesi print, that certain impression of amalgamation derived from a sum total presented as the assembly of diverse fragments. The first of these aspects is Piranesi’s innovative coalescence of various influences, particularly in his early architectural fantasies, which were inspired simultaneously by new developments in scenographic perspective, the contemporaneous capriccio genre, and the older tradition of pictorially reconstructing ancient monuments. The second aspect is his combination of physical fragments, considered through the lens of his Vedute and Diverse Maniere. More specifically, it deals with architectural and sculptural ruins as a concept and as the actual product of assemblage: constructing for the former, collecting and making for the latter. The third is his portrayal of space, namely, the ambivalence between the spatial order of his maps and its dissolution in his Carceri, ending with a consideration of his progression toward abstraction, both geometric and perspectival.

Focusing on a digression included in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities concerning the practice of manumission in Rome during the reign of the king Servius Tullius, this contribution aims to clarify the meaning of the historian’s disapproval of the Roman elite’s tendency to free slaves in their will as an expression of social ostentation, which was increasing in the first decades of the Augustan Principate, and also that of his proposal to scrutinize ex-slaves with the same censorial review used for senators and equestrians. In this light, beyond any interpretation as a rhetorical exercise on the decline of moral habits, the passage can be read as it relates to the debate that flourished until limits governing testamentary manumission were introduced by the Lex Fufia (2 BCE). In particular, considering the Roman Antiquities’ time of composition (ca 7 BCE), we may suppose that Dionysius was offering advice on the subject to specific figures such as his protector, the jurist Aelius Tubero , as well as Octavian Augustus

Besides showing a strong interest in ancient Rome and its institutions, 15th century historiography gives a special place to the theme of the Western Roman Empire’s decline. In this light, some sections of the Laudatio Florentinae urbis and the Historiae Florentini populi by Leonardo Bruni as well as of the Decades by Biondo Flavio deserve mention. Unlike Bruni’s works, where the first cause of Rome’s decline was identified in the rejection of the republican model and the exercise of freedom that had embodied its foundations, Biondo’s treatises reveal the inclination to focus from a more structured perspective on the process which led to the end of ancient Rome’s Empire, without looking for a univocal cause. In general, beyond some parallel points of view between the two authors, such as, among others, a positive evaluation of Theodosius’ reign and the idea that, thanks to Rome’s decline, the conditions that allowed other cities in the Italian peninsula to later increase autonomously were created, Biondo’s considerations more particularly show a longue durée historiographical approach and the tendency to perceive Late Antiquity as an important transition phase as well as to remark the meaningfulness of some crucial historical episodes which characterized it.

The paper focuses on Tacitus’ account of the speech made by Claudius in 48 CE in favour of the admission of the primores of ‘long-haired’ Gaul to the senate, examining arguments used by the historian to clarify the reactions to their request and the reasoning adopted by the emperor to convince the senators to accept it. Besides expressing awareness of the efficacy of the criteria used by Romans to create a supranational imperial order, the passage shows Tacitus’ ability to highlight the political meaningfulness of Claudius’ intervention, making it a model worthy of surviving and being mentioned many centuries later in modern culture. In this vein, the second part of the paper analyzes some 16th and early 17th century references to the emperor’s speech in authors such as Justus Lipsius, Scipione Ammirato, Jean Bodin, Traiano Boccalini, Hugo Grotius. Within their works, also dedicated to examining the birth, development and decline of States, we see that besides recalling an episode occurring many centuries before, some key-intellectuals made utilized the story into a valid exemplum to promote a model of efficacious government favouring integration as a means of consolidating modern states.

While describing the Greco-roman world or what is called classical antiquity (from 8th-5th cent BC), one will never miss out on the deep-rooted institution of slavery. The dominant mode of production in classical Greece, which governed the complex articulation of each local economy and gave its imprint to the whole civilization of the city-state, was that of slavery. This was to be true of Rome as well. The Ancient World as a whole was never continuously or ubiquitously marked by the predominance of slave labour. But its great classical epochs, when the civilization of Antiquity flowered-Greece in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. and Rome from the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D.-were those in which slavery was massive and general, amidst other labour systems.

This paper focuses on the portrait of Miltiades in the sources between 4th cent. B.C. and 1st A.D., thus after Herodotus and before Plutarch and the Second sophistic. After the first paragraph, devoted to an introduction to the issue, the second one considers sources of the 4th century: the orators usually praise Miltiades and therefore they rehabilitate his reputation after he died in disgrace (par. 2.1); then his figure is analysed in authors like Plato, Aristotle (par. 2.2) and Theopompus and Ephorus (par. 2.3). The third paragraph focuses on the sources between 1st cent. B.C. and 1st A.D.: the only Greek-writing author is Diodorus (par. 3.1), but we have a number of Latin sources, like Nepos, Cicero, Seneca the Elder, Valerius Maximus and others (par. 3.2). In the fourth paragraph it is provided a list of rare pieces of information preserved by the sources, concerning the battle of Marathon (par. 4.1), the events after the battle (par. 4.2) and other episodes (par. 4.3): the aim of this section is not to ascertain the reliability of these pieces of news, that is usually very low, but to use them in order to understand which portrait of Miltiades these sources intended to provide. The fifth paragraph offers final remarks and suggests that, notwithstanding Miltiades’ rehabilitation, due both to Cimon’s propaganda and to the new conditions of 4th century Athens, his imagine remains at least partly controversial: criticisms are attested (e.g. by Plato), but also ambivalent judgments, such as that of Nepos, who wrote the only biography of Miltiades.

Si l’on met de côté la première phrase de sa description d’Emporion, au début du livre XXXIV, Tite-Live brosse un tableau cohérent du site de la petite colonie grecque. Il reproduit en substance un texte de Caton relatif au soulèvement indigène de 197. Les indications topographiques de Tite-Live paraissent globalement fiables, à l’exception des dimensions de la ville indigène qui sont certainement surestimées. L’agglomération indigène ne pouvait être située qu’à l’ouest de la ville grecque, probablement dans la partie nord du Turó d’Empúries. Enfin, il convient de bien distinguer le témoignage de Tite-Live de celui de Strabon : ils ne se réfèrent pas au même moment historique et, malgré les apparences, leur mention d’une ville « double » ne recouvre pas la même réalité.

Violence in Roman warfare is certainly not a myth. But until recently, historians have understood violence in terms of their own standards instead of considering the thresholds of Roman sensibilities. Within the framework of the “histoire des representations”, a discussion is made about the discourses that underly the violence in Roman warfare. We aim to reassess the methodological basis of such an analysis by close observation of its vocabulary. By scrutinizing the appearance of the terms uis and βία, we undermine their traditional relevance in war contexts. Then, we apply methods of correspondence analysis on the example of Latin verbs for killing. It reveals their meaning and stresses the strengths and flaws of text analytics, still not much employed in ancient history. In the end, returning to the texts and their contexts is necessary to qualify and refine this technique.

http://annalesdejanua.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=2003

La violence de Rome à la guerre n’est certes pas un mythe. Mais, jusqu’à très récemment, les historiens l’ont davantage évaluée à l’aune de leurs propres normes qu’ils n’ont abordé la question des seuils de sensibilités proprement romains en la matière. Dans le cadre d’une histoire des représentations, l’étude de la violence guerrière romaine implique par conséquent un examen des discours qui la sous-tendent. Cet article a ainsi pour ambition de repenser les fondements méthodologiques d’une telle analyse à travers l’observation serrée du vocabulaire de la violence guerrière. Un examen complet des contextes d’apparition des termes uis et βία permet de relativiser leur pertinence en contexte guerrier. Dès lors, le recours à d’autres méthodes est nécessaire. À travers l’exemple des verbes latins signifiant l’action de tuer, on entend montrer les atouts et les limites de l’analyse factorielle des correspondances, branche de la statistique textuelle encore peu mobilisée en histoire ancienne. Enfin, un retour aux textes et à leurs contextes est une démarche nécessaire afin de nuancer et d’affiner cette technique.

http://annalesdejanua.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=2003

This study offers a synthesis of  the features of  those terms referring to ‘laughter’ in Amianus Marcellinus (their scarce presence; their attribution to Julian’s f igure in several instances;  the implication of  compassion that emanates in the last one) and the evolution of  those terms from Livy, whose influence in some cases is significant.

The paper examines the peculiarities of Cassius Dio’s narrative in Julio-Claudian books of his «Roman History». Dio’s work, as a whole, reveals a remarkable combination of contradictory features, which are specifically mirrored in books LI–LXIII. Here he combines traditional annalistic narration with considerable biographical component, an antiquarian interest for Roman past with actual political allusions of his own time, superficially descriptive account of the events with rather thin penetration into an essence of things and characters of mentioned persons, aristocratic class bias with realness (sometimes even cynicism) of author’s view on the course of history and human nature, multiple rhetorical stamps with genuine dramatics in drawing situations and characters, banality (or even naivety) of many his judgments with originality of offered answers to challenges of time, and so on. Dio’s personality and topical problems of Severan age are directly reflected in the general character and maintenance of the Julio-Claudian books. Because of his own life experience and assiduous study of the beginnings of the Principate, Dio was convinced of possibility to unite monarchical rule and liberty (in its senatorial sense). Especially, Augustus’ example showed how a decent output from the turn of civil wars and an imperial arbitrariness can be found. Hence the historian’s special interest to the first imperial dynasty results.

The genealogy of the Postumii Albini from the second half of the second century BCE onwards is uncertain and debated. This article attempts a new discussion of the evidence. Its main contention is that A. Postumius Albinus, cos. 99, should be distinguished from the homonymous legate, brother of Sp. Postumius Albinus, cos. 110; that the two moneyers A. Postumii Albini were, in all likelihood, not directly related to each other and were probably sons of the last two consuls of the family; and, as a consequence, that at least two lines of descent between the second and the first century BCE can be discerned. On the basis of these results, a new stemma of the ancient patrician family of the Albini is put forward.

The Bellum Judaicum, which is often perceived as one of the most influential texts in Western history after the Bible, describes the history of the Judaean revolt against Rome (AD 66-70). One of the most striking features of this work is that Flavius Josephus, its author, elaborately describes his actions during this conflict. Until recently, scholars have mainly studied these passages to recover Josephus’ life and thinking. His controversial life story — especially his decision to surrender to the Romans through his interpretation of his own dreams and to write about the war in Rome under the protection of the emperor — has resulted in a clear bias of some scholars against this Judaean historian and the intellectual merits of his work. Breaking with this trend, the present study asks how Josephus’ self-characterization can be explained in the literary context of the Bellum and in the historical context of first-century Rome. To this end, it uses Graeco-Roman literary conventions (historiographical, autobiographical, rhetorical) as an interpretative point of departure to investigate Josephus’ presentation of himself as a character.
Fully available via the following link: https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/nl/publications/flavius-josephus-selfcharacterization-in-firstcentury-rome(6ca6cf53-b69d-41cc-a657-11cc0101a1ac).html

Preview of the first two pages. Please email me for a PDF offprint at caillan.davenport@gmail.com

This article offers an explanation as to why Cassius Dio praises aspects of Vitellius' conduct as emperor in his Roman History (65.6-7). Although Dio preserves much of the standard invective against the emperor, he also acknowledges Vitellius' clemency towards his predecessors' supporters, his restrictions on aristocratic participation in gladiatorial combats, and his even-handed treatment of his fellow senators. It is argued that Dio chose to highlight this behaviour because it contrasted positively with the negative examples of emperors during his own lifetime. This conclusion enhances our understanding of Dio's historical methodology, demonstrating that he was able to discriminate between an emperor's character deficiencies and the good aspects of his rule.

This is Gaius Stern's translation of the Roman Revolution of 509 BC when Brutus and Collatinus overthrew Tarquin II.  Livy records the traditional story which historians today suspect is more legend than fact.  The tradition that Rome also then defeated the Etruscans is refuted by a treaty signed by Lars Porsenna king of the Romans and a few other archeological details.  But Romans believed the revolution under Brutus had ended the monarchy and established the Res Publica - the Commonwealth.
  I hope the font TNR is easy to read.  My preview of it looked terrible.

Hannibal's most famous achievement is his crossing of the Alps. Two major historical sources exist for this event, Polybius and Livy. However, reconstruction of the crossing, and indeed any topic concerning the history of the Punic Wars itself, is contentious, due to the discrepancies and contradictions between the available sources. This paper examines significant conflicts between the accounts of Polybius and Pliny.

The characteristic image of the Cuzqueño chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega, known as El Inca (1539-1616), presents us with a turn-of-the-century—even modernista—interpretation of Baroque culture. Best known from the series of portraits by the Cuzqueño artist Francisco González Gamarra, it is to be found in various types wherever the chronicler is commemorated. He appears as a lean, supercilious gentleman in Hapsburg black and Van Dyke beard, readying a quill pen, with only his gold Incan sun medallion for ornament; his gaze is both penetrating and aloof. The image—which contrasts with the more heavily bearded, less intent earlier portraits of him—shares as much with the cool detachment of Belle Epoque artist-dandies (e.g. Whistler, Montesquiou, D’Annunzio) as with the aristocratic Golden Age writers. The portraits commemorate Garcilaso as a foundational Peruvian writer and embodiment of Mestizo identity, translating into his image the combination of Inca and Spanish imperial cultures that he and his works embodied. But it also folds that function into a new, cosmopolitan ethos and aesthetic that responded to contemporary European imperial accommodations between cultures; and it translates Garcilaso’s double vision (honed by imitation of historians of the Roman empire like Tacitus and Plutarch) into one that assimilates new ironies to old and creates a Latin American subject position—a fresh ideal of the all-seeing historian on his chronotopic height—that is both engaged with and observantly external to world realities.

Il liber septimus del ��De Bello Gallico” è occupato dalla narrazione della grande insurrezione dei Galli che fu guidata da Vercingetorige, re della tribù celtica degli Arverni nonché uno dei più grandi nemici di Roma.
L’inizio delle vicende, che vedono protagonista Vercingetorige, si devono rintracciare nell’inverno del 53 a.C., in concomitanza con la fine della sesta campagna militare di Cesare in Gallia  (“Quieta Gallia Caesar ut consistuerat in Italiam ad conventus agendos proficiscitur”).

This paper examines how and why Cassius Dio portrayed Julia Domna in the manner that he did. Dio consistently depicts Julia as foreign and power-hungry, a portrait that appears to be driven by his analysis of the later Severan regime. Julia serves as a link between the two halves of the dynasty, a claim that runs counter to the of cial line of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. The later Severan house, seen by Dio as foreign and dominated by powerful female  figures, informs his portrayal of Julia Domna and shows a continuity of analysis throughout the  nal books of his history.

"Una volta finita la battaglia, allora sì che avresti potuto comprendere con lo sguardo quanto grandi fossero state l’audacia e la forza d’animo nell’esercito di Catilina. Infatti, quasi la stessa posizione che ognuno, da vivo, aveva assunto nello schieramento, anche ora, da morto, la ricopriva con il proprio corpo; e quei pochi, al centro, che la coorte pretoria aveva allontanato, erano caduti poco più in là, e tutti con ferite frontali; Catilina, invece, fu trovato lontano dai suoi, in mezzo ai cadaveri dei nemici, che ancora rantolava, serbando però sul volto la fierezza avuta in vita. Infine, in  tutto quello che era stato il suo esercito, nessun concittadino libero fu catturato, né in battaglia né in fuga: tanto poco tutti avevano risparmiato, alla stessa maniera, la vita propria e quella dei nemici. Né l’esercito del popolo romano aveva ottenuto una vittoria lieta o poco cruenta. I più valorosi, infatti, erano caduti in battaglia o ne erano usciti con gravi ferite; molti, spintisi fuori dall’accampamento per curiosità o brama di saccheggio, rivoltando i cadaveri dei nemici, trovavano chi un amico, chi un ospite, chi un parente; ci fu anche chi trovò nemici personali. Così, per tutto l’esercito, si agitavano la gioia, la tristezza, il lutto e l’allegria." (Sallustio, La congiura di Catilina, 61)

Così lo storico Gaio Sallustio Crispo chiude la narrazione della congiura di Lucio Sergio Catilina; il patrizio, che non era riuscito a sovvertire il governo di Roma, trovò infatti la morte alla testa della sua armata di ribelli, annientata dall’esercito regolare nello scontro all’ultimo sangue combattuto agli inizi del 62 a.C. presso Pistoia.
La vicenda della congiura, tra le più menzionate dell’intera storia antica, ci è stata tramandata principalmente dalla narrazione di Sallustio e dalle orazioni di Marco Tullio Cicerone, il console che la combatté con molta – e, per alcuni, troppa – determinazione. Entrambi gli autori, tratteggiandone il protagonista come uomo depravato e sanguinario, hanno influenzato l’intera tradizione. La critica storica, quindi, persino nei relativamente recenti tentativi di ‘rivalutazione’, si trova a fare i conti con un impianto che nasce con impostazione ‘manichea’.
Anche per questo motivo, gli ingredienti in grado di attirare l’attenzione non sono mai mancati. Un aristocratico, la cui malvagità resta dipinta in immortali ritratti letterari, si era rivolto alla parte più scontenta del popolo per tramare nell’ombra la rovina della maggiore repubblica mai conosciuta. Il tutto, quasi non bastasse, racchiuso in una cornice di orge, scandali e tradimenti, perpetrati da personaggi dediti a vizi di ogni genere. E, ancora, la repressione ciceroniana, avallata dal senato ma irrituale, resa possibile dalla sospensione delle garanzie ‘costituzionali’ del cittadino, difese – nel più noto dibattito senatorio di cui siamo a conoscenza – dal ‘popolare’ Gaio Giulio Cesare e invece sminuite dall’‘ottimate’ Marco Porcio Catone, il futuro ‘Uticense’, eroe repubblicano di ogni tempo.
Pare superfluo accennare alla varietà di letture e di passioni che tale materia ha sollevato. A livello retorico, dare del ‘Catilina’ agli avversari politici divenne da subito, già sulle labbra di Cicerone, un’offesa. Ma il nostro impersonò anche, in virtù della propria vicenda, una figura tragica, e in quanto tale fonte d’ispirazione per artisti e pensatori. La congiura stessa, intesa come tentativo di rovesciare la repubblica, è stata poi fertile terreno d’indagine politica, storiografica e, in tempi più recenti, economica e sociologica.
Chi fu Catilina? Come giunse a progettare e pianificare la sovversione? Quali furono i suoi obiettivi e le sue forze? Quali invece quelli di Cicerone, il grande ed eloquente avversario? Quale la posizione di Cesare? Come Roma e, in seguito, la cultura occidentale, hanno rielaborato l’inquietante vicenda?
A ognuna di queste domande il presente volume proverà a suggerire possibili risposte. Lo farà ripercorrendo la vita di Catilina – assai misteriosa sino alla ‘scoperta’ della congiura –, e ricostruendo le principali direttrici della successiva ‘fortuna’ del personaggio.

Ammianus Marcellinus' Res Gestae holds a prominent position in modern studies of the emperor Julian as the fullest extant narrative of the reign of the last 'pagan' emperor. 'Ammianus' Julian: Narrative and Genre in the Res Gestae' offers a major reinterpretation of the work, which is one of the main narrative sources for the political history of the later Roman Empire, and argues for a re-examination of Ammianus' agenda and methods in narrating the reign of Julian.

Building on recent developments in the application of literary approaches and critical theories to historical texts, Ammianus' presentation of Julian is evaluated by considering the Res Gestae within three interrelated contexts: as a work of Latin historiography, which consciously sets itself within a classical and classicizing generic tradition; in a more immediate literary and political context, as the final contribution by a member of an 'eyewitness' generation to a quarter century of intense debate over Julian's legacy by several authors who had lived through his reign and had been in varying degrees of proximity to Julian himself; and as a narrative text, in which narratorial authority is closely associated with the persona of the narrator, both as an external narrating agent and an occasional participant in the events he relates. This is complemented by a literary survey and a re-analysis of Ammianus' depiction of several key moments in Julian's reign, such as his appointment as Caesar, the battle of Strasbourg in 357AD, his acclamation as Augustus, and the disastrous invasion of Persia in 363AD. It suggests that the Res Gestae presents a Latin-speaking, western audience with an idiosyncratic and 'Romanized' depiction of the philhellene emperor and that, consciously exploiting his position as a Greek writing in Latin and as a contemporary of Julian, Ammianus wished his work to be considered a culminating and definitive account of the man and his life.

Reviews:

N. Greenwood (Religious Studies Review 43.4)

U. Lambrect (H-Net 2016) https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=48416

S. Tougher (Classical Review 68) doi:10.1017/S0009840X1700230X

D. Woods (Acta Classica 59): http://www.casa-kvsa.org.za/AC59-Woods.pdf

This article analyzes Suetonius’ Life of Nero trying to identify some elements that allow associating it with the Roman senatorial historiographical tradition, despite the minor importance given to such link by the modern critique. The primacy conferred to the works of Tacitus as well as the devalorization of Suetonius’ literary style are some of the aspects that contributed to this latter reading.

Virtus and Fortuna are the driving forces of history in Florus' History, which is entirely structured and dedicated to the sequence of wars and battles. The descriptions of battles, based on these principles, form a basic narrative in Florus, and were therefore rightly studied systematically. However, besides specific narrative techniques that are used to construct these battle narratives, I argue in the following that one can also observe developments in these battle narratives throughout Florus' work. As I shall show, parallel to his leitmotif of a growing up of the populus Romanus in four steps that eventually ends in his work with the transition from the third to the fourth stage under Octavian/Augustus, the battle descriptions also change, particularly during and after the civil war period.

At a pivotal moment early in his revolt against Rome, Quintus Sertorius, a key figure in Sallust's fragmentary Histories, is tempted by the opportunity to sail away to the " Isles of the Blessed. " Sallust's few fragments on these islands, when compared to Plutarch's more detailed description, reveal how the Roman historian, by emphasizing their place in the literary tradition rather than in the geography of the known world, constructs a commentary on two " histories " : Sertorius' impossible position in his revolt against Rome, and the tragic political conditions of his own day. The echoes of Sertorius' illusory escape to a utopia in Horace's Epode 16, in stark contrast to Plutarch's rationalizing account, help bring to light both of these histories in Sallust's brief account of this episode. uintus Sertorius has long been a polarizing figure of Roman history, as is demonstrated by the historiographical vicissitudes of his reputation over the centuries. At one extreme stands Theodor Mommsen, who hailed him as one of the greatest, if not the greatest man Rome had produced up to his time, one who in more fortunate circumstances could have become the savior (Regenerator) of his country; Helmut Berve, at the other extreme, declared Sertorius a traitor, a hostis populi Romani, aligned with Rome's other great enemy of the period, Mithridates. 1 * I would like to thank the editor, the anonymous referees and Ben DeSmidt for their valuable criticisms and corrections; a special debt of gratitude is owed to John T. Ramsey, whose acumen and learning greatly improved the article. I would also like to thank the University of Connecticut Humanities Institute for a generous fellowship during which this article was completed. 1 Mommsen (1904) 3.37: " So endigte einer der größten, wo nicht der größte Mann, den Rom bisher hervorgebracht, ein Mann, der unter glücklicheren Umständen vielleicht der Regenerator

Article en ligne : https://journals.openedition.org/pallas/17881

Les historiens grecs et latins de l’époque républicaine et impériale attribuaient le désordre du tissu urbain de Rome à la reconstruction hâtive de la ville après l’incendie gaulois de 390 av. J.-C. Ce récit étiologique conférait à l’infériorité esthétique de l’Vrbs, par rapport aux grandes capitales hellénistiques, une origine glorieuse : la capacité des Romains à surmonter la défaite en reconstruisant leurs foyers sans délai. « Lieu de mémoire » ambivalent, le plan de la Ville doit témoigner de l’ampleur du désastre, tout en participant d’une réécriture de l’histoire dans un sens favorable à Rome. La mémoire littéraire de l’événement peut alors être convoquée pour justifier la politique édilitaire de certains empereurs (Auguste, Vespasien) ou la critiquer (Néron).

According to the Greek and Roman historians of the Late Republic and early Imperial period, Rome’s urban disorder was a consequence of the hasty rebuilding of the City after the Gallic fire in 390 AD. Such an etiological narration conferred a prestigious origin to the Vrbs’ aesthetical inferiority, compared to the great Hellenistic capital cities. The form of the City can therefore be considered as an ambiguous “site of memory”. It reveals both the great scope of the disaster and the Roman ability to bounce back quickly after the defeat. The urban landscape is then an argument in the rewriting of Rome’s history, while the literary memory of the event can be used to justify some emperors’ urban policy (Augustus, Vespasian) or to criticize it (Nero).