A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome

Andrew Zissos, Andrew Zissos

• Éditeur: Wiley-Blackwell
• Année: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781118878095
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Literatura
• Sous-sujet: Crítica literaria antigua y clásica

A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome provides a systematic and comprehensive examination of the political, economic, social, and cultural nuances of the Flavian Age (69–96 CE).

• Includes contributions from over two dozen Classical Studies scholars organized into six thematic sections
• Illustrates how economic, social, and cultural forces interacted to create a variety of social worlds within a composite Roman empire
• Concludes with a series of appendices that provide detailed chronological and demographic information and an extensive glossary of terms
• Examines the Flavian Age more broadly and inclusively than ever before incorporating coverage of often neglected groups, such as women and non-Romans within the Empire

PART I
Preliminary

CHAPTER 1
Sources and Evidence

Frédéric Hurlet

Introduction

As one of the “human sciences,” history entails both a method and an object of study. Any study or assessment of the Flavian Age and its emperors must begin with the question of the sources upon which our knowledge of this period rests, and a vetting of those sources according to category. This is an essential prerequisite for all historical research; a synoptic examination of sources also offers a unique occasion to circumscribe the field of investigation by identifying which questions it is possible to answer and, no less importantly, those that are less fruitfully raised because of want of adequate evidence.

The sources used by ancient historians are not immediately intelligible to the general reader today because of their highly technical nature: this begins with, but is by no means limited to, the fact that the languages involved are, principally, Latin and Greek. A conventional division is made between written sources and material sources. The former fall into three main categories: literary, epigraphic, and numismatic; the latter include iconographic and archaeological evidence. Space limitations necessitate a narrowing of focus: this chapter will revolve around the question of imperial power as it is illuminated by written sources. The principal aim will be to highlight the contributions of the most important written documents to our knowledge of the Flavian principate, as well as critical debates they have given rise to, and the challenges that they continue to present. Material sources will be discussed more briefly, with an eye to what they bring to our knowledge of imperial power and its representation.

1 Literary sources

The essential list of literary sources on the Flavian period has not changed recently or even in the last century. The same “classical” authors still provide the point of departure for any research about the Flavians: above all, the Histories of Tacitus and Suetonius’ biographies, with much to be gleaned as well from the Epigrams of Martial and other poetry. But if the sources themselves have not changed of late, critical approaches to them have. Recent studies of Flavian authors have demonstrated that the understanding of literary sources is conditioned by a number of factors that must be taken into account. The first of these is the literary genre to which each work belongs: one should not, for example, treat the testimony of a poem in the same way as that of a biographical or historical account. There were precise generic rules that an author was more or less obliged to follow, and these had an important influence on the essence and tone of a particular treatment of the emperor or members of his family and inner circle. That it was dangerous openly to criticize the reigning princeps was as true for poets as it was for other writers – and here it should not be forgotten that Domitian was known for his passion for poetic composition. Generic convention might further limit the scope for a poet, especially one writing on mythological themes, to address contemporary issues and concerns. But it is also true that there were oblique and figurative modes of expression that allowed for critique of the powerful in encrypted form. It should, moreover, not be forgotten that some expressions of apparently servile praise and adulation of an emperor, such as that found in the Panegyric of Trajan by Pliny the Younger, could serve as a way of delineating the qualities of an ideal ruler, thereby applying protreptic pressure for conformity to those standards.

The second factor to consider in assessing the contribution of literary sources to our knowledge of the Flavian period is the date of their composition. In this regard, an important break occurs in 96 CE, the year of Domitian’s assassination and the advent of a new imperial dynasty. This chronological dividing-line does not merely indicate whether or not a given author was a contemporary witness to the events of the Flavian dynasty. From a political point of view, it marks the beginning of a systematic tendency of authors – including some who had previously expressed positive views – to blacken the principate of Domitian. This denigration served to emphasize by contrast the merits of the new ruling dynasty, and of Nerva and Trajan in particular, presented as the guarantors of a new golden age. Here the crucial question is whether we should follow the prevailing historiographical trend and be wary of these judgments post eventum or, rather afford them a measure of credibility. What is at stake in this debate is nothing less than the merits of attempts to rehabilitate the last Flavian emperor, which began more than a century ago with the work of Stéphane Gsell (1894) and have proliferated in the scholarship of recent decades (Jones 1992; Southern 1997).

The third and final factor to be taken into account in assessing a literary source is what we know of a given author’s life: surviving biographical information often supplies clues as to how writers viewed their world, as well as their relationship to imperial power. Such assessment of the circumstances and conditions of production of particular works allows us better to “decode” the historical testimony they provide. That, broadly speaking, the Greek and Latin sources for the period constitute a literature written by aristocrats for aristocrats is crucial. What follows is a brief overview organized by date of composition and the literary genre.¹

Much like the Augustan Age before it, the Flavian Age sees a rich profusion of Latin poetry. This was evidently encouraged by the new regime – in no small part through Domitian’s creation of new artistic competitions: the quinquennial Capitolia at Rome and the annual festival in honor of Minerva, celebrated at his Alban villa under the name Juvenalia (see CHAPTER 21, LITERARY CULTURE, section 1). Relations between the princeps, especially Domitian, and poets were often marked by mutual interest and a form of reciprocity: the emperor needed poets to broadcast a positive image of his reign, while poets looked to imperial patronage to enhance their social position (for such bestowal of dignity and popularity, see Le Doze 2009). Praise of the princeps and his family in poetry of the Flavian period should not, however, be regarded as naive panegyric. On the question of imperial representation, poetic production has given rise to widely contrasting assessments. It has been regarded both as a court literature in which one cannot expect even the slightest criticism of those in power, and as a subversive literature that expresses criticism in encrypted form. Such monolithic views are to be rejected in favor of more nuanced conceptions permitting us to see even encomiastic poetry as the product of a complex dialogue that casts the poet neither as a mere instrument of “propaganda” nor as an opponent of the imperial regime. The prevailing view today is that encomiastic literature, far from being purely servile, constructs a portrait of imperial power fashioned as an ideal against which the princeps might measure his own conduct and towards which, where failing, might strive (Rosati 2011). It thus becomes a form of communication whereby the laudans – the poet – could transmit an indirect message to the laudatus – the princeps – concerning his conception of imperial power and the manner it was to be exercised. The result is that the poetry of Flavian period tells us a good deal not only about the excesses of Domitian – here we might think of Statius’ description of the colossal statue of Domitian placed in the Forum (Silv. 1.1) – but also about the idealizing notions of the nature and exercise of imperial power that circulated in Flavian Rome.

Epic poetry was very much in vogue during the Flavian period, as the surviving work of Valerius Flaccus, Statius, and Silius Italicus amply attests. These writers well represent the prevailing literary tastes of the age, and Domitian’s reign in particular, through their reworking of mythological and historical subject matter. The subject matter notwithstanding, their poetry is anything but detached from its contemporary context and, without being overtly subversive, it seems to include criticism of the manner in which power was exercised by the last of the Flavian emperors.

The Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus has reached us in incomplete form – it breaks off midway through the eighth book – probably due to the poet’s untimely death around 90 CE.² This epic provides a novel retelling of the well-known myth of Jason and the Argonauts, updated in no small part by recasting the traditional Greek tale along Roman lines. Valerius begins with a flatterin...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• PART I: Preliminary
• PART II: Dynasty
• PART III: Empire
• PART IV: Societies and Cultures
• PART V: Literature
• PART VI: Reception
• APPENDIX 1:
• APPENDIX 2:
• APPENDIX 3:
• APPENDIX 4:
• Glossary of Terms and Expressions
• Index of Passages
• General Index
• End User License Agreement