Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T13:50:20.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philology at the Imperial Court*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Margarethe Billerbeck
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In contrast to philosophy the study of language and literature always enjoyed in Rome an unqualified esteem. For experiments such as Plato undertook with Dion in Sicily a Roman would scarcely have had much sympathy. We recall too how disappointed and irritatedthe rhetorician Fronto was when his illustrious pupil Marcus Aurelius was converted to philosophy: ‘May the immortal gods forbid,’ he wrote years later to the emperor, ‘that the Comitium, the Rostra, and the tribunals, which resounded to the speeches of Cato, Gracchus, and Cicero, should fall silent in this very age of ours, that the whole world, which was eloquent when you received it, should through you lose its powers of speech!… [For if] someone should write using the language of the dialecticians, he would describe a Jupiter who sighs, or rather coughs, not one who thunders.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 191 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. It is not surprising that Cicero passes over in silence the failure of the attempt, although he mentions Plato's political influence on Dio (Off. 1.155; De orat. 3.139).

2. Fronto, , ed. van den Hout (Leipzig, 1988), p. 140 ‘<ne di> immortales seirint comitium et rostra ettribunalia Catonis et Gracchi et Ciceronis orationibus celebrata hoc potissimum saeculo conticiscere, orbem terrae, quem vocalem acceperis, mutum a te fieri…’ p. 143Google Scholar ‘dialecticorum verbis scribat, suspirantem, tussientem immo Iovem scripserit, non tonantem.’.

3. Suet. Nero 52 ‘a philosophia eum mater avertit monens imperaturo contrariam esse’.

4. Cf. Tac. Agr.2.2; Suet., Vesp. 15Google Scholar, Dom.10.3; Dio Cass. 65.13.2 and 67.13.3 On the philosophical opposition to the emperor see further MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, Mass.2, 1975), pp. 46–94Google Scholar.

5. Cf. Fronto p. 138 van den Hout. See further Millar, F. M., The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977), pp. 203–7Google Scholar, and especially Champlin, E., Fronto and Antonine Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), pp. 118–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Suet., Dom. 2.2Google Scholar ‘simulavit et ipse mire modestiam in primisque poeticae studium, tam insuetum antea sibi quam postea spretum et abiectum, recitavitque etiam publice’ similarly Tac., Hist. 4.86.2Google Scholar. On the alleged poetic inclination of the young Domitian see Bardon, H., Les Empereurs et les Lettreslatines d'Auguste à Hadrien (Paris, 1940, 2 1968), pp. 280–83Google Scholar; Coleman, K. M., ‘The Emperor Domitian and Literature’, ANRW 2.32.5 (1986), 3088–91Google Scholar.

7. Suet., Dom. 20Google Scholar; on which see Coleman (n. 6), 3095–7.

8. This cultural policy also found expression in the Capitoline and Alban contests, which the emperor founded and, in the case of the former, presided over in Greek costume; cf. Suet., Dom. 4.4Google Scholar.

9. Suet., Dom. 20Google Scholar ‘cuiusdam caput varietate capilli subrutilum et incanum perfusam nivem mulso dixit’. On the other hand, the comparison is appropriate in Martial 14.127.1 ‘turbato Canusina simillima mulso’ (a wool cloak of Canusium, reddish brown like turbidmead).

10. In the following we shall be concerned with selected examples; for a recent comprehensive treatment of the fragments see André, J.M., ‘Mécéne écrivain’, ANRW 2.30.3 (1983), 1765–87Google Scholar.

11. Sen., Epist. 114.5Google Scholar(= fr. 11 Lunderstedt).

12. On which see Kappelmacher, A., RE 14.1 (1928), 222Google Scholar.

13. Cited in Hense, O. (ed.), L. Annaei Senecae ad Lucilium epistularum moralium quae supersum (Leipzig, 2 1914), p. 548Google Scholar.

14. Die antike Kunstprosa(Darmstadt, 6 1971), p. 294, n. 1Google Scholar.

15. Varro, L.6.54 ‘quod sacrificio quodam fanatur’, where the verb means ‘dedicate’, ‘devote’. The sense implied here is, however, found in the use of the adjective fanaticus, which is regularly used of the ecstatic behaviour of the galli; cf. e.g. Liv. 37.9.9, 38.18.9, 39.13.12, as well as Quint. Inst. 11.3.71.

16. Cf. Fulg., Serm. ant. 46Google Scholar ‘nictare enim dicimus cinnum facere’. On the ablative cinno (construed with crispat) see Norden (n. 14), p. 293, n. 6, who, however, conjectures cincinno.

17. As Norden (n. 14), p. 294, saw, the two cola tenuisve…molam and focum…investiunt belong together.

18. Cf. Norden (n. 14), p. 294, n. 4.

19. Sen., Epist. 114.1Google Scholar ‘quod apud Graecos in proverbium cessit: talis hominibus fuit oratio qualis vita’ see Otto, , Sprichwörter, p. 257 (s.v. oratio)Google Scholar.

20. Sen., Epist. 114.4Google Scholar ‘eloquentiam ebrii hominis involutam et errantem et licentiae plenam’.

21. Sen, Epist. 114.7Google Scholar ‘verba tam inprobe structa, tam neglegenter abiecta, tam contra consuetudinem omnium posita’.

22. Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum fr. 4 Büchner (p. 133) ‘debilem facito manu, debilem pede coxo, /tuber adstrue gibberum, lubricos quate dentes:/vita dum superest, bene est. hanc mihi vel acut/si sedeam cruce sustine –∪–∪∪––'. On the popular element in the language of this poem seeKappelmacher (n. 12), 226f.

23. Sen., Epist. 101.13Google Scholar ‘ista carminis effeminati turpitudo’.

24. Suet., Aug. 86.2Google Scholar ‘in primis Maecenatem suum, cuius myrobrechis, ut ait, cincinnos usque quaque persequitur et imitando per iocum irridet’.

25. Macr. Sat. 2.4.12, ed. Willis, J. (Leipzig, 2 1970)Google Scholar ‘vale mi ebenum Medulliae, ebur ex Etruria, lasar Arretinum, adamas Supernas, Tiberinum margaritum, Cilniorum smaragde, iaspi Iguvinorum, berulle Porsenae, carbunculum Hadriae, Ϊνα συντέμω πάντα μάλαγμα moecharum’. A commentary on the fragment has been published by Gelsomino, R., RhM 101 (1958), 147– 52Google Scholar, whose constitution of the text is now, however, out of date. Mάλαγμα is a medical term (on the use in Latin of such words in-μα see Meo, C. de, Lingue technice del latino [Bologna, 2 1986], p. 226)Google Scholar and designates a compress for fomenting hard places.

26. Cf. Dio Cass. 54.19.3; see Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 2 1960), pp. 277 and 342Google Scholar.

27. Macr., Sat. 2.4.12Google Scholar.

28. Suet., Aug. 86.1Google Scholar.

29. Suet., Aug. 88.1Google Scholar.

30. Suet., Aug. 86.2Google Scholar.

31. Sen., Epist. 114.10f.Google Scholar

32. Suet., Aug. 86.1Google Scholar.

33. Cf. Hor. Ars 259–62 and 270–72 (on which see Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry. The ‘Ars Poetica’ [Cambridge, 1971], pp. 307 and 497f.)Google Scholar.

34. Cf. Hor., Epist.2.1.18–89, esp. 34–49 and 63–75Google Scholar. See further Brink, C. O., Horace on Poetry. Epistles Book 2 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 83 ffGoogle Scholar.

35. Suet., Aug. 86.2Google Scholar.

36. Suet., Aug. 87.1Google Scholar.

37. Sen., Epist.97.10 ‘omne tempus Clodios, non omne Catones feret’Google Scholar.

38. Val. Max. 2.10.8 ‘effecit, ut quisquis sanctum et egregium civem significare velit sub nomine Catonis definiat’.

39. Iuv. 2.40 ‘tertius e caelo cecidit Cato’.

40. Suet., Aug. 87.2Google Scholar.

41. On which see Leumann, , Laut–und Formenlehre, p. 75Google Scholar.

42. Suet., Aug. 87.2Google Scholar.

43. Suet., Aug. 87.2Google Scholar. Whether this witty neologism is to be connected with the comparison in Catullus 67.21. ‘languidior tenera cui pendens sicula beta’ remains an open question; see, however, Adams, J. N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982), p. 26Google Scholar.

44. Leumann, M., Kleine Schriften (Zürich/Stuttgart, 1959), pp. 156–70, esp. 166Google Scholar.

45. Suet., Aug. 89.1Google Scholar.

46. See further Gelsomino, R., Maiall 11 (1959), 120–31Google Scholar.

47. On which see Goodyear, F. R. D., ‘Tiberius and Gaius: their Influence and Views on Literature’, ANRW 2.32.1 (1984), 603–6Google Scholar.

48. Suet., Tib. 32.2Google Scholar.

49. Suet., Tib. 56Google Scholar.

50. Suet., Tib. 70.3Google Scholar; on which see Cichorius, C., Römische Studien (Leipzig/Berlin, 1922), pp. 347fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51. Sen., Epist.88.6–8Google Scholar; on which see Stückelberger, A., Senecas 88. Brief (Heidelberg, 1965), pp. 71 and 107ffGoogle Scholar.

52. Suet., Tib. 70.1Google Scholar.

53. Suet., Tib.70.2Google Scholar; on which see Goodyear (n. 47), 606.

54. Suet., Tib. 71.1Google Scholar; Dio Cass.57.17.1–2.

55. Cf., however, Plin., Nat. 8.135Google Scholar; Suet., Tib. 30Google Scholar.

56. Suet., Tib. 70.1Google Scholar.

57. Tac., Ann. 4.9.1Google Scholar ‘ad vana et totiens inrisa revolutus, de reddenda re publica’.

58. On the date of the embassy see Zetzel, J. E. G., Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity (New York, 1981), p. 256, n. 1Google Scholar.

59. On which see Zetzel (n. 58), pp. 10–12.

60. Suet., Gramm. 1.2Google Scholar ‘Graecos interpretabantur, aut si quid ipsi Latine conposuissent praelegebant’.

61. Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), p.3Google Scholar.

62. Sklaven und Freigelassene als Grammatiker und Philologen im antiken Rom, Forschungen zurantiken Sklaverei 10 (Wiesbaden, 1979)Google Scholar.

63. Tac., Ann. 6.46.1Google Scholar.

64. Suet., Claud. 2.1; 3.2Google Scholar.

65. Suet., Claud. 4.5fGoogle Scholar. Following the epoch-making book of Momigliano, A., L'opera dell'Imperatore Claudio (Firenze,1932)Google Scholar = Engl., . edition, Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement (Cambridge, 1934, 2 1961)Google Scholar there has been no lack of attempts to rehabilitate Claudius and to modify the negative portrait of him given by Tacitus and Suetonius; for a summary of recent work see Huzar, E., ‘Claudius–the Erudite Emperor’, ANRW 2.32.1 (1984), 611–50Google Scholar. Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), pp. 436–8Google Scholar, rightly remains sceptical as does Steidle, W., Sueton und die antike Biographie, Zetemata 1 (Miinchen, 2 1963), pp. 97–101Google Scholar. Cf. alsonow Mottershead, J., Suetonius: Claudius edited with Introduction and Commentary (Bristol, 1986), pp. xivf.Google Scholar: ‘However, despite efforts to rehabilitate Claudius, it would be wrong to dismiss all that is unfavourable as the product of senatorial acrimony. One must regard some of the Suetonian anecdotes with caution and scepticism but in broad outline his portrayal ofClaudius is realistic’.

66. Suet., Claud.41.3Google Scholar; see Leumann, , Laut–und Formenlehre, p. 12 (§ 10).Google Scholar.

67. It is unlikely that Claudius' invention, or rather adaptation, was inspired by an attempt to avoid the confusion of x with ps as in the vulgarixi for ipsi; cf. Suet., Aug. 88Google Scholar.

68. Tac., Ann. 11.14.3Google Scholar; Suet., Claud. 41.3Google Scholar.

69. Suet., Claud. 41Google Scholar; on which see Huzar (n. 65), 621–6.

70. Suet., Claud. 38.3Google Scholar; see Mottershead (n. 65), pp. 130f.

71. The literature on this inscription is extensive; reference should be made esp. to Vittinghoff, F., Hermes 82 (1954), 348–71Google Scholar, Griffin, M. T., CQ n.s. 32 (1982), 404–18, and Huzar (n. 65), 627–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. Together with the attempt to rehabilitate the emperor there is a tendency in modern historical research to deny the existence of these stylistic features in the Claudian documents; cf. e.g. (on the Anauni edict) Schillinger-Häfele, U., Hermes 95 (1967), 353–65Google Scholar. Vittinghoff (n. 71), 359, and esp. 362, judges them more critically. That the personality of a ruler can infact also find expression in official documents has been shown in the case of Marcus Aurelius and others; see Williams, W., JRS 66 (1976), 78–82Google Scholar.

73. Cf. col. i 9–27 Dessau.

74. Col. ii 15–17 Dessau ‘ut dirum nomen latronis taceam, et odi illud palaestricum prodigium, quod ante in domum consulatum intulit, quam colonia sua solidum civitatis Romanae benificium consecuta est’.

75. Cf. Tac., Ann.11.1–3Google Scholar.

76. The way Claudius interrupts himself is nothing less than ludicrous (so, rightly, Vittinghoff [n. 71], 362) and goes far beyond the rhetorical figure of aposiopesis.

11. Suet., Claud. 42.1Google Scholar.

78. Sen, Apoc. 5.4Google Scholar ‘gaudet esse illic philologos homines’.