No description available.

This thesis is a historical and historiographical commentary on Book 57 (Chs. 1-17.8) of Cassius Dio's Roman History. It comprises two sections, an Introduction followed by the Commentary itself. The introduction is sub-divided into three chapters. The first of these introductory chapters (The Roman Historian at Work) presents a discussion of the historical material available for Dio's Tiberian narrative, and a discussion of the factors which were instrumental in Dio's writing and shaping his narrative of the reign of Tiberius. The second chapter (Dio on Tiberius) is an analysis of Dio's portrayal of Tiberius and of the historian’s understanding of Tiberius in the historical context of the early Principate. These chapters are followed by some brief Notes on the Text of Book 57, which considers the manuscript tradition of Book 57, and comments on portrayal of the reign of Tiberius in the Dionian tradition, and in particular the Excerpta Constantiniana, Xiphilinus, and Zonaras. The second part of the thesis, the commentary, presents an analysis of Dio's narrative from both historical and historiographical perspectives.

This thesis considers the geographical and chronological forms of ‘mirroring’ that offer a way of reading 'Annals' 1-6. It looks at how Tacitus’ depictions of non-Romans reflect back on Rome, and at the echoes of Rome’s past and future that can be discerned within his description of Tiberius’ principate. After an introduction that discusses key thematic and methodological questions, Chapter 1 shows that Tiberius’ accession and the Pannonian and German mutinies described in 'Annals' 1 echo Tacitus’ account in 'Histories' 1 of events of AD 69. Moreover, when the Romans attempt to conquer Germany, the Germans’ resistance to this and to other efforts to rule them shows up Roman responses to civil war and autocracy. Chapter 2 begins by examining potential similarities between Roman and both Parthian and Armenian history, and then focuses on Germanicus’ voyage in the east, recounted in 'Annals' 2. His actions associate him with many late republican and early imperial Roman figures, which suggests that there are continuities between those two eras. Chapter 3 extends this theme by discussing the echoes of Sallust and Caesar in the central books of the Tiberian hexad. Intertexts with Sallust’s 'Bellum Catilinae' especially hint that earlier civil conflicts are about to be replayed in some form, as the appearance of Sejanus, the ‘new Catiline’, confirms. Chapter 4 further considers Tacitus’ inferences about the overlap between republican and imperial history, and then examines anti-Roman revolts in 'Annals' 2, 3 and 4. Foreign rebels’ relative success in attempting to reclaim their freedom correlates with their distance from Rome, and this has clear implications for the status of Roman 'libertas' under Tiberius. Finally, the outbreak of ‘civil war within the principate’, and indeed within the imperial house, is analysed. Chapter 5 traces the continuation of this ‘civil war’, and proposes that the last book of the Tiberian hexad again looks directly to 69, as well as to the excesses of other Julio-Claudians. It also considers Tacitus’ account of Roman intervention in Parthia: this episode confirms imperial Rome’s propensity for autocracy and civil war. There follows a short conclusion in which some speculation is offered about how some of the themes discussed in this thesis with reference to the Tiberian hexad may have been represented in the lost central books of the 'Annals'.

Há uma leitura particular da identidade no mundo romano, entre tantas possíveis, que deriva da tradição historiográfica latina. Os historiadores romanos criaram um discurso específico do passado, que buscava uma uniformidade, mas também demonstrava suas peculiaridades distintas de acordo com as circunstâncias de suas próprias realidades. Pretendemos aqui discutir o caso de dois deles, Tito Lívio e Tácito, para compreendermos o que eles entendiam por \"ser romano\", baseado nas premissas da interação entre o gênero historiográfico e os contextos contemporâneos dos autores. As dificuldades ao reconstruir este segundo tópico são um tema comum nos estudos sobre Tito Lívio e Tácito, concentrando-se principalmente na relação deles com os imperadores, mas aqui tencionamos fazer uma relação desse ponto com as singularidades das suas reconstruções do passado, que eram baseadas num conjunto relativamente regular de regras da narrativa. Os novos caminhos nos estudos sobre identidades no mundo antigo trazem interessantes leituras para esse problema, pois ajudam a renovar a análise de, no recorte que escolhemos, quatro dos principais conceitos que definem a identidade romana em Tito Lívio e Tácito: concordia, pietas, fides e mos maiorum. Finalmente, tanto o processo de reconstrução do passado através de uma memória compartilhada e regulada quanto a busca constante de padrões morais fixos revelam, em última instância, as mudanças pelas quais passa a cidade de Roma no desenvolvimento do principado, de forma que essa identidade romana acaba por fazer da própria cidade um símbolo. Há uma leitura particular da identidade no mundo romano, entre tantas possíveis, que deriva da tradição historiográfica latina. Os historiadores romanos criaram um discurso específico do passado, que buscava uma uniformidade, mas também demonstrava suas peculiaridades distintas de acordo com as circunstâncias de suas próprias realidades. Pretendemos aqui discutir o caso de dois deles, Tito Lívio e Tácito, para compreendermos o que eles entendiam por \"ser romano\", baseado nas premissas da interação entre o gênero historiográfico e os contextos contemporâneos dos autores. As dificuldades ao reconstruir este segundo tópico são um tema comum nos estudos sobre Tito Lívio e Tácito, concentrando-se principalmente na relação deles com os imperadores, mas aqui tencionamos fazer uma relação desse ponto com as singularidades das suas reconstruções do passado, que eram baseadas num conjunto relativamente regular de regras da narrativa. Os novos caminhos nos estudos sobre identidades no mundo antigo trazem interessantes leituras para esse problema, pois ajudam a renovar a análise de, no recorte que escolhemos, quatro dos principais conceitos que definem a identidade romana em Tito Lívio e Tácito: concordia, pietas, fides e mos maiorum. Finalmente, tanto o processo de reconstrução do passado através de uma memória compartilhada e regulada quanto a busca constante de padrões morais fixos revelam, em última instância, as mudanças pelas quais passa a cidade de Roma no desenvolvimento do principado, de forma que essa identidade romana acaba por fazer da própria cidade um símbolo. / There is one particular reading of identity in the Roman world, among many possible others, that derives from the tradition of Latin historiography. Roman historians have created a specific discourse on the past, aiming at uniformity but also showing their distinctive peculiarities due to the circumstances of their own times. We aim here to discuss the case of two of them, Livy and Tacitus, with a goal to understand their views on what \"being Roman\" meant, based on the premises of the interplay between the historiographical genre and the authors\' contemporary contexts. The difficulties when trying to reconstruct this second topic are a standard issue in the studies about Livy and Tacitus, focusing primarily on their relationship with the emperors, but here we intend to make a connection of this issue with the singularities of their reconstructions of the past, which were based on a fairly regular set of writing rules. The new trends on the question of identities in the Ancient world add to this inquiry, helping to refresh the analysis of, as we chose, four concepts that help to define the Roman identity in Livy and Tacitus: concordia, pietas, fides and mos maiorum. In the end, both the process of reconstruction of the past through a shared and regulated memory and the constant call for a fixed set of moral standards ultimately reveal the changes that the city of Rome goes through under the development of the Principate, so that this Roman identity end up making a symbol out of the city itself.

Há uma leitura particular da identidade no mundo romano, entre tantas possíveis, que deriva da tradição historiográfica latina. Os historiadores romanos criaram um discurso específico do passado, que buscava uma uniformidade, mas também demonstrava suas peculiaridades distintas de acordo com as circunstâncias de suas próprias realidades. Pretendemos aqui discutir o caso de dois deles, Tito Lívio e Tácito, para compreendermos o que eles entendiam por \"ser romano\", baseado nas premissas da interação entre o gênero historiográfico e os contextos contemporâneos dos autores. As dificuldades ao reconstruir este segundo tópico são um tema comum nos estudos sobre Tito Lívio e Tácito, concentrando-se principalmente na relação deles com os imperadores, mas aqui tencionamos fazer uma relação desse ponto com as singularidades das suas reconstruções do passado, que eram baseadas num conjunto relativamente regular de regras da narrativa. Os novos caminhos nos estudos sobre identidades no mundo antigo trazem interessantes leituras para esse problema, pois ajudam a renovar a análise de, no recorte que escolhemos, quatro dos principais conceitos que definem a identidade romana em Tito Lívio e Tácito: concordia, pietas, fides e mos maiorum. Finalmente, tanto o processo de reconstrução do passado através de uma memória compartilhada e regulada quanto a busca constante de padrões morais fixos revelam, em última instância, as mudanças pelas quais passa a cidade de Roma no desenvolvimento do principado, de forma que essa identidade romana acaba por fazer da própria cidade um símbolo. Há uma leitura particular da identidade no mundo romano, entre tantas possíveis, que deriva da tradição historiográfica latina. Os historiadores romanos criaram um discurso específico do passado, que buscava uma uniformidade, mas também demonstrava suas peculiaridades distintas de acordo com as circunstâncias de suas próprias realidades. Pretendemos aqui discutir o caso de dois deles, Tito Lívio e Tácito, para compreendermos o que eles entendiam por \"ser romano\", baseado nas premissas da interação entre o gênero historiográfico e os contextos contemporâneos dos autores. As dificuldades ao reconstruir este segundo tópico são um tema comum nos estudos sobre Tito Lívio e Tácito, concentrando-se principalmente na relação deles com os imperadores, mas aqui tencionamos fazer uma relação desse ponto com as singularidades das suas reconstruções do passado, que eram baseadas num conjunto relativamente regular de regras da narrativa. Os novos caminhos nos estudos sobre identidades no mundo antigo trazem interessantes leituras para esse problema, pois ajudam a renovar a análise de, no recorte que escolhemos, quatro dos principais conceitos que definem a identidade romana em Tito Lívio e Tácito: concordia, pietas, fides e mos maiorum. Finalmente, tanto o processo de reconstrução do passado através de uma memória compartilhada e regulada quanto a busca constante de padrões morais fixos revelam, em última instância, as mudanças pelas quais passa a cidade de Roma no desenvolvimento do principado, de forma que essa identidade romana acaba por fazer da própria cidade um símbolo. / There is one particular reading of identity in the Roman world, among many possible others, that derives from the tradition of Latin historiography. Roman historians have created a specific discourse on the past, aiming at uniformity but also showing their distinctive peculiarities due to the circumstances of their own times. We aim here to discuss the case of two of them, Livy and Tacitus, with a goal to understand their views on what \"being Roman\" meant, based on the premises of the interplay between the historiographical genre and the authors\' contemporary contexts. The difficulties when trying to reconstruct this second topic are a standard issue in the studies about Livy and Tacitus, focusing primarily on their relationship with the emperors, but here we intend to make a connection of this issue with the singularities of their reconstructions of the past, which were based on a fairly regular set of writing rules. The new trends on the question of identities in the Ancient world add to this inquiry, helping to refresh the analysis of, as we chose, four concepts that help to define the Roman identity in Livy and Tacitus: concordia, pietas, fides and mos maiorum. In the end, both the process of reconstruction of the past through a shared and regulated memory and the constant call for a fixed set of moral standards ultimately reveal the changes that the city of Rome goes through under the development of the Principate, so that this Roman identity end up making a symbol out of the city itself.

Cette thèse s’intéresse aux historiens classicisants de langue grecque de l’Antiquité tardive. Elle développe une analyse sociale de ces historiens et de leurs écrits. Son objectif principal est de souligner les interactions entre l’écriture de l’histoire, vu comme une pratique sociale, et la société romaine tardo-antique. La première partie dresse la biographie des historiens, d’Eunape de Sardes à Théophylacte Simocatta. Le profil social de ces historiens y est défini, et une attention particulière est portée aux liens entre activité littéraire et carrière professionnelle. La seconde partie étudie plus spécifiquement les élites provinciales tardo-antiques, groupe auquel appartiennent en majorité nos historiens. Elle explique pourquoi pratiquement tous les historiens étaient des avocats et comment ces derniers en venaient à écrire de l’histoire. La dernière partie analyse les fondements sociaux de l’histoire. Elle souligne ce que l’histoire devait à l’éducation tardo-antique et montre comment les vertus de l’historien reflétaient les vertus sociales attendues d’un membre de l’élite tardo-antique. / The main objective of this dissertation is to offer a social analysis of the classicizing historians of late antiquity. It aims to underline the interactions between history-writing and society. The first part presents the biographies of late antique classicising historians, from Eunapius of Sardis to Theophylact Simocatta. It describes the social profile of those historians, while insisting on the interactions between professional career and literary endeavours. The second part explains why most historians were lawyers and analyzes the place history-writing occupies in their social life. The third part deals with the social foundations of history writing. It focuses on the role of rhetorical education in the formation of future historians and shows how the virtues of the historian mirrored the social virtues of late antique elites.

Ziel der Arbeit war es, im Vergleich zu anderen literarischen Stadtbildern und dem materiellen Rom der mittleren Kaiserzeit das spezifisch taciteische Rombild herauszuarbeiten, das im Kontext der trajanischen Zeit im Zuge einer spezifischen Vergangenheits- und somit Erinnerungskonstruktion ein subjektives Romerlebnis widerspiegelt, welches exemplarisch ein wichtiges Zeugnis des damaligen Werte- und Normensystems darstellt. Dabei wurde konkret der Frage nachgegangen, wie die Stadt Rom, ihre urbanen Räume und Einzeltopographien in den beiden historiographischen Texten des Tacitus wahrgenommen, dargestellt, semantisiert und schließlich funktionalisiert werden. In beiden historiographischen Werken des Tacitus erscheint die Stadt Rom kaum als monumentaler physischer Raum („Anschauungsraum“). In diesem Sinne erscheint das Bild der Stadt sehr selektiv. In zentralen Passagen der Historien nimmt die Stadt Rom und ihre zentralen Räume, darunter vor allem das Forum Romanum, das Kapitol und der Palatin, einen zentralen Stellenwert mit memoralisierender Funktion ein. Besonders auffallend an diesen Passagen ist zudem der Umgang mit früheren Narrativen (v. a. Livius), indem alte Raumsemantiken zu etwas Neuem transformiert werden. Hierdurch entstehen neue literarische monumenta, die den Leser nicht nur an die schreckenerregenden Ereignisse des Bürgerkriegs aus dem Jahr 69 n. Chr. erinnern, sondern zugleich eine mahnende und somit didaktische Funktion aufweisen. In den Annalen erscheinen die Stadt Rom und ihre urbanen Räume weniger explizit. Erst in den Claudius- und Nerobüchern nehmen die topographischen Bezüge zu, wobei verstärkt das urbs-capta-Motiv zum Vorschein kommt. Die Stadt erscheint als „Aktionsraum“, in dem der moralische Niedergang seinen Höhepunkt erreicht. Die Stadt der Kaiserzeit wird zu einer „Heterotopie“ transformiert, die Tacitus dem Rom der Frühzeit entgegensetzt. / The aim of this project was to elucidate the specific Tacitean representation of the urbs Roma in comparison to other literary representations and the material Rome of the Tacitean age which as part of a specific construction of past and memory reflects a subjective “Romerlebnis” that exemplifies important aspects of former values and norms. In particular, the investigation focused on how Tacitus perceives, presents, connotes and functionalizes the city, its urban spaces and topographies. In both historiographical works of Tacitus, the city of Rome appears hardly as a monumental and physical space (“Anschauungsraum”). The image of the urbs appears therefore extremely selective. In pivotal passages of the Histories, Rome and its central urban spaces, most notably the Forum Romanum, the Capitol and the Palatine, form a central part in the narrative with a highly memorializing function. In these passages it is especially striking, how Tacitus reacts to former narratives (esp. Livy) by transforming their semantics of space into something new. In doing so, he creates new literary monumenta that do not only remind the reader of the horrible events of Civil war from 69 AD, likewise they act as reminder since they also imply didactic and moralizing effects. In the extant texts of the Annals, the city of Rome and its urban spaces appear less explicitly, and less dramatically than in the extant texts of the Histories. Whereas in the Tiberian narrative, the city – as the emperor – does not seem to be present at all, topographical references increase in the Claudian and especially in the Neronian narrative in which the urbs-capta motive becomes particularly obvious. The city appears as an “Aktionsraum“, a space of action, in which moral decline reaches its peak. Rome is transformed into a “Heterotopie“, that Tacitus contrasts with the idealized Rome from the early period.

Le genre de la chronique, inauguré, chez les chrétiens latinophones, par saint Jérôme (qui, lui-même, traduisit et compléta, vers 380, les Canons chronologiques d'Eusèbe de Césarée), a longtemps été tenu, du moins en France, et malgré son foisonnement remarquable, comme une forme historiographique tout à fait mineure, dont les notations laconiques apportaient peu à notre connaissance des événements et de leur perception par les contemporains. Pourtant, les trois premiers continuateurs de Jérôme : Prosper d'Aquitaine, l'"Anonyme gaulois de 452", et l'évêque galicien Hydace, révèlent, à l'analyse, une conscience aiguë des transformations majeures qui affectent l'Occident romain au Ve siècle, prélude à l'émergence des "royaumes barbares". Le présent travail tente de réévaluer l'intérêt de telles sources : tout en examinant la structure et les caractères de leurs chroniques respectives, il s'attache, plus globalement, à approfondir la réflexion sur le sens que ces auteurs donnèrent à leur époque, à la croisée de l'Antiquité finissante et du très haut Moyen Age. L'étude s'appuie sur des textes revus, avec traductions françaises intégrales et inédites. / The chronicle genre, initiated among Latin-speaking Christians by Saint Jerome (who translated and supplemented Eusebius of Caesarea's Chronological Canons, ca. 380 CE), has been regarded for a long time – at least in France, and despite its remarkable flowering – as a very minor form of historiography : its laconic notes are thought to be of meagre interest for our knowledge of events and how contemporaries understood them. However, the first three continuators of Jerome : Prosper of Aquitaine, the "Gallic Anonymous of 452", and the Galician bishop Hydatius, as a matter of fact, reveal an acute sense of the major transformations affecting the Roman West in the fifth century – that is, the dawn of the "Barbarian Kingdoms". This work attempts to offer a reappraisal of this kind of sources : while discussing the structure and characteristics of each chronicle, it is more generally aimed to investigate more thoroughly the significance these authors attached to their own time, at the crossroads between later Antiquity and the earlier Middle Ages. The study is based on revised texts, with fresh and unabridged translations into French.

Cette étude explore dans une perspective comparative la présentation historique et l’interprétation philosophique de la décadence de la res publica chez Salluste et Tite Live. Dans la première partie, il est montré que Salluste et Tite-Live sont les premiers auteurs à avoir choisi comme thème central de leur récit le progrès et la décadence d’une cité. À travers un examen précis des étapes de la décadence chez les deux auteurs, nous remarquons que Tite-Live apporte constamment des corrections à la théorie de Salluste. Le schéma d’aucun des deux historiens ne se conforme à une vision cyclique ou linéaire du temps. La représentation biologique de la cité montre aussi que les hommes sont les seuls responsables pour la maladie de la décadence. Or, la reprise du progrès, selon une conception cyclique et la guérison du corps de l’État sont évoquées comme perspectives seulement par Tite-Live. La deuxième partie est consacrée aux causes de la maladie de la décadence, et la troisième à la guérison de la res publica. Trois facteurs sont examinés en détail : les facteurs « divins », le metus hostilis et la nature humaine. Tite-Live renverse l’analyse de plus en plus pessimiste de Salluste, et réintroduit l’homme en tant que facteur principal de l’histoire et comme responsable de la décadence. Dans la troisième partie, leur vision différente de l’avenir de Rome est mise en lumière, à travers l’étude de la position politique et de la fonction exemplaire de l’œuvre des deux historiens. Il en ressort que Tite-Live adopte les catégories sallustéennes d’analyse, mais conçoit sa propre présentation et interprétation de la décadence en réponse à son devancier, dont il renverse les théories. / This study explores in a comparative perspective the historical presentation and the philosophical interpretation of the decadence of the res publica in Sallust and Livy. In the first part, it is shown that Sallust and Livy are the first authors who have chosen the progress and decline of a State as the central theme of their works. Through a precise examination of the stages of decadence in both writers, we observe that Livy constantly proposes corrections to Sallust’s theory. Neither author’s pattern conforms to a cyclical or a linear vision of time. The organicist representation of the body politic also shows that men are solely responsible for the disease of decadence in both authors. However, the resumption of progress according to a cyclical conception and the healing of the body of the State are considered as potential prospects only by Livy. The second part is devoted to the causes of the disease of decadence, and the third one to the healing of the res publica. Three factors are discussed in detail: the "divine" factors, the metus hostilis and the human nature. Livy reverses the increasingly pessimistic analysis of Sallust, and reintroduces man as the most important factor in history and as responsible for the decadence. In the third part, their different view of the future of Rome is brought into focus, through the study of the political position and the exemplary function of the two historians’ works. It is concluded that Livy adopts Sallustian categories of analysis, but he conceives his own presentation and interpretation of the decadence in response to his predecessor, whose theories he challenges.

L’œuvre de Tite-Live propose une histoire de la Res publica romaine depuis sa naissance jusqu’au tournant du premier siècle av. J.-C. où, selon les termes de l’auteur, « l’État se détruit sous l’effet de ses propres forces ». Au sortir d’une période de guerres civiles qui bouleversa en profondeur les repères politiques et sociaux, il s’agit pour l’historien de redéfinir l’identité politique de Rome en puisant dans les grands exemples du passé, à une époque où Auguste, en ramenant la paix, propose aussi, avec le Principat, un nouveau modèle d’exercice du pouvoir. Cette étude propose de relire l’Ab Vrbe condita comme une réflexion sur le pouvoir, un « discours », à une époque de profondes mutations. Retraçant le passé de la ville, l’historien exprime une pensée politique cohérente à travers ses commentaires, ses choix narratifs, et les discours qu’il attribue à différents personnages historiques. Celle-ci est le plus souvent proche de celle de Cicéron qui, du De Republica au De Officiis, offrait un cadre philosophique à la réflexion sur les institutions et les devoirs de l’homme d’État. Mais Tite-Live se la réapproprie en l’enrichissant des préoccupations politiques de son époque. Son récit de l’histoire de Rome s’inscrit principalement dans une défense de la libertas du peuple romain menacée par l’émergence d’un pouvoir personnel. Dans chaque situation, l’historien insiste sur les rapports complexes du dirigeant avec les institutions de la cité et le peuple de Rome. Par la mise en relation des exempla et des discours, Tite-Live propose un modèle de gouvernement unifié et cohérent fondé sur les vertus des dirigeants du passé et les valeurs collectives du peuple romain. / Livy’s body of work presents a history of the Roman Res publica from its beginnings to the turn of the first century. Civil wars had then deeply shaken the political and socials benchmarks and, while Augustus, after bringing peace back, was trying to impose a new political model with the Principate, it was the historian’s role to redefine Rome’s political identity through the use of well-known examples from the past. Livy’s From the Founding of the City may thus be read as a discourse about Roman power in a period of deep political change. The historian, as he tells the story of the city’s past, makes comments, narrative choices, and inserts into the historical figures’ speeches general remarks which help in many ways to grasp his political thinking. Most of the time, this thoughts are close to what can be read in Cicero’s political treatises. Cicero’s De Republica and De Officiis actually offered a philosophical frame of reference to political thinking, concerning the state institutions and the duties of state leaders. However, Livy develops his own theory and adds to Cicero’s political thought considerations on issues specific to his own time. Livy mainly defends the libertas of the Roman people against the emergence of personal power. In each and every situation, Livy sheds light on the complex relationships between the leaders and the state institutions and between the leaders and the Roman people. Linking exempla and speeches, Livy suggests a stable and coherent leadership model based upon the virtues of past political leaders and the collective principles of the Roman people.