heh.

Dec. 15th, 2008 12:10 pm
ricardienne: (heiro)
Sejanus forewarned Tiberius that Drusus would try to poison him. So when Tiberius was offered a cup (poisoned by Sejanus) at a banquet, he passed it on to Drusus, whose subsequent death was taken as proof of his guilt (not of his innocence) on the ground that he had drunk it to commit suicide because Tiberius' refusal to drink showed that his attempt at murder had been detected (Ann. 4.10). That is to say: Tiberius is induced to misunderstand the offer of the cup and to attempt unnecessary self-defense, which, in fact, becomes the apparently unintended murder of Drusus mistakenly seen as suicide for a failed attempt to murder Tiberius by Drusus himself, who is in fact murdered by Sejanus. (Paul Plass 1988 Wit and the Writing of History U-Wisconsin.)


Got it?
ricardienne: (library)
I'm reading Tacitus' Dialogus de Oratoribus (I should be reading Livy, but what the heck, I'm sick: I'll read whomever I want!), and it's making me fall in love with Tacitus all over again. My understanding of it had been confined to two points (apart from the "abnormal style"/"early work" etc. stuff): (1) The "oratory can only exist with the free republic political turmoil" (crossouts in the original, of course) thing, and (2) The business with Maternus and his subversive play.

(2) comes right at the beginning, and it is so much better than I could have believed:

-"Aren't you worried, Maternus, about these malicious rumors, so that you're less in love with the offensiveness of your Cato. Or -- I know -- you've just taken it up again to re-edit, and, once everything that might be liable to prejudiced interpretation is removed, you'll release it again, a better play and a safer one."
-"Oh, you'll read what Maternus owed to himself, and you'll recognize it. And if Cato has left anything out, my Thyestes will say it in an upcoming performance..."

But then, Aper comes in from a completely different angle, and it turns into oratory vs. poetry, and modernity vs. antiquity, and somehow the responsibility of the individual in unpleasant time is completely wound up in all of it. Which is so Tacitean -- even with the style rather different, how could the Renaissance have got it so wrong?

I'm reading out of a reprint 1890's edition, and in the interests of recording the hilarious things old-fashioned commentators had to say, I present this beautiful theory about the development of Tacitus' style, courtesy of Charles Edwin Bennett, who once taught at Cornell University (NB. he uses an obsolete dating where the Dialogus is considered the earliest work by a lot.):
Moreover the period intervening between the composition of the two works (sc. Dialogus and Agricola was occupied by the reign of Domitian, the baneful character of which had made the deepest impression on Tacitus... Under these circumstances, and after so great a lapse of time, his style might well have taken on a different character.

Not to minimize the baneful character of the senatorial experience under Domitian, but "Tacitus was so traumatized by Domitian's reign that he began to write incomprehensibly." The mind boggles, and giggles.
ricardienne: (snail)
Courtesy of Cicero's second Catilinarian: "How can these men endure the Apennines and that hoar-frost and snow? Unless they think perhaps that they will bear winter more easily because they have learnt to dance naked at banquets!" (In the original: "Quo autem pacto illi Apenninum atque illas pruinas ac nivis perferent? Nisi iddcirco se facilius hiemem toleraturos putant, quod nudi in conviviis salter didicerunt!")

So I found that NAXOS has the Globe cd set in their catalog -- my day is made.

And now more Latin-y things. I was poking around Pliny's letters this afternoon, and I found this one, which seems really neat. But I can't find an English translation of Book VII on-line, and I am too lazy to go to the library to check one out. Thereofore, I must translate for myself (oh the horror!):

Book VII, Letter 20 -- original Latin and my translation )

Tomorrow I may have to go and find a good translation; I am very uncertain about a bunch of places, and, well, I am generally sloppy. (If any of you want to correct my mistakes, I'll
"bear reproofs patiently" (and gratefully!))

As I said, I was browsing, and the first couple of sentences caught my eye. I love the idea of Pliny and Tacitus "peer-reviewing" so to speak, each other's work, for one thing. But it's also the friendship that comes through here (and in the other letters I've read (in English) from Pliny to Tacitus). Yes, it is a little overwrought, and perhaps I am a bit too sentimental, but I was getting a fuzzy, happy feeling the entire time I was working on it. I've been thinking a lot about letters, recently, too, and friendship, and whether or not I'm a "good" friend and so on, so it struck a chord there.

Of course this is a letter meant to be read for posterity, and so it doesn't probably reflect reality completely, but it seems to me such a perfect declaration of friendship. Although they do seem to have been close friends, and they were certainly colleagues. I think that's part of it. I really like Tacitus, and I rather like Pliny, and the idea that two writers whom I tend to think of as abstract authors were interacting regularly and in a friendly way is wonderful and amazing. I wish more of the Histories were extant, so I could see how Tacitus incorporated the account Pliny the Elder's death that Pliny gave him, and see whether he included Pliny's smackdown of Bæbius Massa. Damn it -- WHY did the library at Alexandria have to burn?

Profile

ricardienne: (Default)
sigaloenta

October 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 07:50 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios