Thrasea!

[ricardienne]

I finally found a bigger image of the Bronnikov "Death of Thrasea" painting:




I am still unsure which of the two seated women is Arria and which is Fannia, since neither the appearance nor the attitude of either seems more plausible for a wife than for a daughter. I suspect that the standing men in the main group are Helvidius, Rusticus, and Caecilianus (again not clear which is which, though I think the one in the bordered toga must be either Helvidius or Rusticus, and that Helvidius must be either that one or the one in the yellow cloak.

One thing that Bronnikov interestingly picked up is the gender of the Thrasea-group. Tacitus sets this scene amid a "illustrium virorum feminarumque coetus frequens", and the crowd in the background appears to have 4 women and 5 men (of course, 2 of the 4 women are in visible distress (plus Arria and Fannia in the foreground), whereas the men appear to be taking it rather more manfully. But there is that one woman who seems to be part of the otherwise male discussion. One thing that interests me is the role that seems to be given to women in accounts of "the opposition" in this period, and it's nice that it's shown here.

ALSO: An 18th century German play about Thrasea. Practice my Deutsch and be amused by adaptations of Tacitus at the same time!

Comments

[achyvi.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the one kneeling is the daughter? It seems like in older books (not Roman old, but a couple hundred years old), if a woman were to have a head near someone's lap, it's the daughter getting "caresses" or some such thing from her father, while the wife is more aloof.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Oh, good theory! (I was also thinking that the woman in purple has an extra layer, and hence might be considered to be more of a matron. But the daughter was married, too at this point.)

Also, I'm now even more confused, because I don't think that any of the possible candidates for Stern Guy in the Purple-Bordered Toga would have been qualified to wear the toga praetextata at this moment: Rusticus is a tribune, and although quaestors are permitted to wear the broad-border during their term of office, Helvidius wasn't currently a quaestor. We know absolutely nothing about Domitius Caecilianus except that he was a close friend, but I imagine that if he had held office, T. would have mentioned it. So Helvidius is probably the best guess for Purple-Border (standing, per your suggestion, behind his wife)

[achyvi.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much of a classical education the painter had? If he had only a cursory one (or didn't pay attention, I guess), maybe he unintentionally decided to take liberties with the toga coloration. Or, perhaps he thought that since quaestors were permitted to wear the broad-border, why wouldn't he wear it? Everyone wants to be the cool kid! Your rationalization makes sense, though, regardless.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

I mean, I would really like to know! It seems to me that this isn't a super-obvious scene to dramatize. The figures are a little bit more obscure, and things like Death of Seneca (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=death+of+cato&ix=sea&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1050&bih=628&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=qTaCT8DaLqra0QGF5e2cCA#um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=death+of+seneca&oq=death+of+seneca&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1g-S4g-mS1&aql=&gs_l=img.3..0j0i5j0i24l4j0i5i24.48921l49423l0l49551l6l6l0l0l0l0l120l484l5j1l6l0.frgbld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=30d71bb2f37276db&biw=1050&bih=628) or even the Death of Cato (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=death+of+cato&ix=sea&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1050&bih=628&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=qTaCT8DaLqra0QGF5e2cCA) (fun fact: Cato Uticensis is still beating out Cato from Hunger Games for the first page of google images) would be more familiar "philosopher dies in the name of liberty" scenes. It's also kind of interesting, I suppose, that he chose to do the moment when the emperor's command was brought, and not the death scene itself (which is highly dramatic and affecting. Thrasea withdraws with just Demetrius the Philosopher and his son-in-law Helvdius, then calls the official who brought the command over as he opens his veins to witness "the libation to Jupiter Liberator. Pay attention, young man! Since -- Gods forbid it -- I fear you have been born into an age where it will be helpful to be fortified with examples of constancy." Then the text breaks off. I find it quite wonderful that (a thing which is usually overlooked by commentators) Thrasea doesn't address his last words to Helvidius but to the quaestor who brought the message; that is, to the representative of the autocrat, to the man who is figuring out a way to survive by being (probably reluctantly) complicit in tyranny.)

At any rate, it's hard trying to get into the painter's head! Was he thinking that the man who was currently holding office (Rusticus) should be wearing the senatorial toga, or that the man who had held the higher office (Helvidius), should be, even if he wasn't currently holding it?

[achyvi.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the painter was feeling like someone was trying to take him down, or something like that, and that's why he found this scene more compelling?

I think your second option sounds likely.... If he didn't have the encyclopedic knowledge that you do (<3), he may have thought that whoever was higher had the fancier toga all the time. Or! Perhaps he decided that, even though he knew the senatorial toga was assigned incorrectly, it would be easier for the audience to understand who was who in the scene because of the said misunderstanding of status.