The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The
Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
TACITUS THE TRAGEDIAN. (F.) GaltierL'image tragique de l'Histoire chez Tacite. Étude des schèmes tragiques dans lesHistoires et lesAnnales. (Collection Latomus 333.) Pp. 344.Brussels:Éditions Latomus,2011. Paper, €53. ISBN:978-2-87031-274-2. Kyle Khellaf The Classical Review / Volume 64 / Issue 01 / April 2014, pp 151 - 153 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X1300276X, Published online: 20 March 2014
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X1300276X How to cite this article: Kyle Khellaf (2014). The Classical Review, 64, pp 151-153 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X1300276X Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 130.132.173.92 on 08 Oct 2014
151
T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W
a further layer of allusion which gives voice to the generic shift away from the world of epic towards the social world of the Siluae. In keeping with the spirit of the Classical Literature and Society series in which it appears, this book will appeal to a wide range of audiences. There is much here to interest the scholar of Flavian poetry as well as those approaching the poetry of Statius for the first time. Trinity College, Dublin
ADAM MARSHALL
[email protected]
TACITUS THE TRAGEDIAN G A L T I E R ( F . ) L’image tragique de l’Histoire chez Tacite. Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et les Annales. (Collection Latomus 333.) Pp. 344. Brussels: Éditions Latomus, 2011. Paper, E53. ISBN: 978-2-87031-274-2. doi:10.1017/S0009840X1300276X
G.’s book demonstrates how Tacitus composed his opera maiora according to tragic typologies. Although the topic is not new, as G. indicates (citing F. Leo, Tacitus [1896], p. 13), the past two decades have seen a resurgence in studies devoted to Tacitean ‘tragedy’. Other scholars have focused on theatricality and the role of the spectator in Tacitus (A.J. Woodman, ‘Amateur Dramatics at the Court of Nero’, in T.J. Luce and A.J. Woodman [edd.], Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition [1993], pp. 104–28; S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience [1994]; A. Pomeroy, Arethusa 39 [2006], 171–91) or on the historian’s use of tragic language and imagery (Woodman [1993]; F. Santoro L’Hoir, Tragedy, Rhetoric, and the Historiography of Tacitus’ Annales [2006]). What distinguishes G.’s approach is that it is primarily structural-thematic. His intention is threefold: to highlight the role of the dramatic mise en scène within the historian’s larger narratives; to underscore the frequent incorporation of motifs from Greek and Roman tragedy (often according to Aristotelian and Roman rhetorical precepts of dramatisation); and to elucidate the tragic conception of human violence which, according to the Tacitean Weltanschauung, results in a rift between the human and the divine. Part 1 presents an excellent overview of the development of Roman historiography as a genre alongside drama, epic poetry and rhetoric. If it were not already clear from the outset of the book (the first sentence reads, ‘Comment saisir la forme d’une oeuvre littéraire et à quoi la reconnaître?’), G. has positioned himself squarely in the ‘literary historiography’ camp. G. stresses the role played by fabulae praetextae and early Latin epic in shaping Rome’s perception of her past. He subsequently examines the impact of Tacitus’ predecessors, essentially seeing Ciceronian historical principles (as per Fam. 5.12), Livian dramatisation and Sallustian pessimism holding sway. G.’s most persuasive inference in this section is that Hellenistic historiographical writing and Late Republican/Early Imperial politics jointly shaped Roman history’s focus on the individual (pp. 20–1): that is, the Hellenistic concern for commemorating illustrious men found a good match in Rome’s new leaders who required literary representation. In Section 2, G. examines Tacitus’ narrative composition and arrangement, with an eye to the dramatisation of dynastic conflict, the utilisation of Aristotelian parameters and the visualisation of the tragic. Methodologically, he follows P. Ricoeur in viewing the historiographic narrative as a ‘mise en intrigue’ – i.e. l’histoire dans l’Histoire – whereby the
The Classical Review 64.1 151–153 © The Classical Association (2014)
152
T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W
récit restructures the actual order of events. G. uses the ‘modèle actantiel’ of A. Ubersfeld (Lire le théâtre [1982]) for the two types of triangular conflict he sees as central to the opera maiora: the first, in which the subject is directly thwarted by an opponent, and the second, wherein both subject and opponent compete for the same desired object. G. provides convincing illustrations of both types (pp. 72–5). He then convincingly details the ways in which Tacitus’ narratives embody Aristotelian tragic principles, such as the setting of the plot among relations (en tais filiais, Poet. 1453b18–19) and the use of peripeteia, anagnōrisis and pathos (1452b8–12). Here, G. gives the salient example of the son who, after unknowingly killing his father during the night battle at Cremona, recognises and bemoans his deed (Hist. 3.25, p. 93). The section closes with a breakdown of the many features with which Tacitus constructs his mise en scène always with an eye to evoking a scene rather than describing it outright. These include the use of decor and symbolic spaces; the detailing of costume and props; the application of enargeia, evidentia and the spectaculum; and the contrasting usage of screams and silences (pp. 122–3) – the latter too often omitted from scholarly analyses. Part 3 shifts to a study of the Tacitean personae, paying particular attention to the figure of the tyrant who holds centre stage in the opera maiora. After situating the persona in Roman paradigms of public display, G. examines the cases of Nero and Tiberius: the conflict between an outward approval of freedom (species libertatis) and the concealed authority of the princeps; the difference between Tiberius’ dissimulation and Nero’s creation of a public image for himself; and the language of feigned adulation by the senatorial class. G. then considers the subordinate roles of the satelles and the victim, whom he sees as reflecting the malign characteristics of tyrants, often driving them to further violent acts, or occasionally acting as checks on such transgressions. In each instance, Tacitus’ characters serve as symbolic figures who take on specific traits in order to fit the dictates of the récit. G. follows up with a comparative analysis of the Tacitean emperor and the tyrant in Graeco-Roman tragedy. The final section scrutinises Tacitus’ representation of violence as a unifying factor in a tragic framework, which G. views as shedding light on the ambiguity of man’s condition and breaking down the mechanisms that unite Rome with her gods. The violence that emerges has its origin in a pattern of repeated dynastic rivalries between figures whose imperial legitimacy is always in question. G. offers an erudite analysis of the manner in which Tacitus presents divine providence weighing down upon Rome’s destiny: each individual tragic action becomes metonymic for Rome’s moral decline and has broader ramifications for the community’s rapport with the divine. G. then analyses tragic temporality in Tacitus’ narratives, following the model of J. de Romilly (Le temps dans la tragédie grecque [1971]). The section concludes by tracing ‘Tacitus’ tragic vision’ to ‘the ambiguities of a man’ (p. 284) torn between assisting the new Roman state through his writings and cynically revealing the crises and cruelties brought about by the principate. On the whole, this belated analysis of the role of the author leaves an uneven impression in a work that has heretofore focused solely on the narratives. A few additional points of contention ought to be noted alongside the strengths of the book. First, G.’s preference for citing evidence from ancient treatises over the extant tragedies themselves left much additional evidence to be desired (the lacunose nature of early Roman tragedy notwithstanding, there was ample opportunity to make greater use of Seneca and the Greek tragedians). Indeed, G.’s most convincing observations were those based on direct comparanda. For example, the celebrated scene of Agrippina’s arrival at Brundisium with the ashes of Germanicus (Ann. 3.1) is read meticulously alongside Hercules Oetaeus 1761–3 and Plut. Demetr. 53, all three of which feature a similar use of the urn (pp. 133–4). Second, the presentation of the main argument was at times
T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W
153
interrupted by tangential discussions (e.g. Tacitean ambiguity, even if it involves rewriting history, is not exclusively tragic, and does not require extensive treatment, pp. 170–3). This had a kaleidoscopic effect, even if many of these diffractions offered wonderful insights (noteworthy in this regard was G.’s frequent inclusion of evidence from later receptions of the opera maiora – Racine’s Britannicus, p. 7; paintings by West, Turner, Poussin, David, et al., p. 133; and the Mémoires of Saint-Simon, p. 154). Such observations certainly merit further studies of their own. Finally, there were a few bibliographic omissions, most notably Pomeroy (2006), J. Ginsburg (Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus [1981]) in Section 2, and D. Sailor (Writing and Empire in Tacitus [2008]) at the end of Section 4. Translations were excellent and editorial oversights rare. I spotted only four: the last sentence on p. 45 is not punctuated; the phrase λέχις δεινή on p. 102 should read λέξις δεινή; M. Gwyn Morgan’s name in the note on p. 117 is misspelled; and C. W. Mendell’s monograph cited on p. 334 was published in New Haven, not ‘New Heaven’ (after all, a few of us have yet to arrive). Τhe work is a meaningful addition to studies of tragedy in ancient historiography and offers provocative insights for those interested in Tacitus the writer, tragic receptions and generic interactions in Graeco-Roman literature. Yale University
KYLE KHELLAF
[email protected]
CONSPIRACY THEORY P A G Á N ( V . E . ) Conspiracy Theory in Latin Literature. Foreword by Mark Fenster. Pp. xvi + 182. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2012. Cased, US$55. ISBN: 978-0-292-73972-7. doi:10.1017/S0009840X13002771
This volume is P.’s second foray into the murky waters of conspiracy in Rome. But whereas her first book, Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (2004), dealt with how authors narrated the arcana of conspiratorial activity, this book turns rather to the less tractable question of conspiracy theory, the fear that something or someone is out there, and aiming to get you. P. argues, in brief, that the writings of Juvenal, Tacitus and Suetonius together constitute a golden age of conspiracy theory at Rome, an age ushered in by the succession of Hadrian, the suspicious circumstances of whose adoption and accession were already co-opted by Syme as underlying Tacitus’ Annales 1 (R. Syme, Tacitus [1958], p. 481, quoted on p. 120). P. argues further that conspiracy theory ‘tells us a great deal about the range of responses to aporia, knowledge, and the shadowy zone between fact and fabrication’ (p. 3). This is also, in P.’s view, a more democratic reading practice, because conspiracy theory can reveal, albeit often as unfounded conjecture, the fissures caused by disparities in knowledge between those in and out of power. Conspiracy theory is thus an attempt to rationalise the unknown, and this book sets out ‘to question this latent conspiracism in Latin literature and interrogate its possible ramifications’ (p. 13). In exploring the recesses of such fears, and their narrative representations, the book takes its place alongside – though it is not identical with – such works as S. Bartsch’s Actors in the Audience, which adumbrates the double-speak, secrecy and duplicity that characterised the height of Roman autocracy. As it happens, this volume has also come out at a historically opportune moment when, at least in the United States, suspicion of
The Classical Review 64.1 153–155 © The Classical Association (2014)
