塔西佗《历史》中的童话和残酷的事实

IF 0.9 2区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
L. Spielberg
{"title":"塔西佗《历史》中的童话和残酷的事实","authors":"L. Spielberg","doi":"10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a new reading of Tacitus's account of the quarrel between Helvidius Priscus and Eprius Marcellus at Hist. 4.6.3–4.10.1, I show that the historian stages a confrontation between panegyrical and Realpolitik rhetoric about the Principate. Helvidius uses the consensus-rhetoric of panegyric to propose that the senate claim the freedom they theoretically possess in the regime of a civilis princeps. Eprius describes the autocratic “reality” of the Principate in terms of contingency, necessity, and power. Helvidius's panegyrical fantasy runs up against practical limits, but Eprius's hardheaded truisms prove equally problematic for senatorial oratory. The failures of both speeches comment on the necessity of a consciously fictive “public transcript” such as Pliny's Panegyric while pointing to historiography as the proper place for Realpolitik truths. The debate sheds new light on Tacitus's praise of Trajan and Nerva at the beginning of the Histories as a locus for collective senatorial self-fashioning.","PeriodicalId":45164,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fairy Tales and Hard Truths in Tacitus's Histories 4.6–10\",\"authors\":\"L. Spielberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a new reading of Tacitus's account of the quarrel between Helvidius Priscus and Eprius Marcellus at Hist. 4.6.3–4.10.1, I show that the historian stages a confrontation between panegyrical and Realpolitik rhetoric about the Principate. Helvidius uses the consensus-rhetoric of panegyric to propose that the senate claim the freedom they theoretically possess in the regime of a civilis princeps. Eprius describes the autocratic “reality” of the Principate in terms of contingency, necessity, and power. Helvidius's panegyrical fantasy runs up against practical limits, but Eprius's hardheaded truisms prove equally problematic for senatorial oratory. The failures of both speeches comment on the necessity of a consciously fictive “public transcript” such as Pliny's Panegyric while pointing to historiography as the proper place for Realpolitik truths. The debate sheds new light on Tacitus's praise of Trajan and Nerva at the beginning of the Histories as a locus for collective senatorial self-fashioning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/CA.2019.38.1.141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在塔西陀对赫尔维迪乌斯·普里库斯和埃普利乌斯·马塞勒斯在Hist的争吵的新解读中。4.6.3–4.10.1,我展示了历史学家在关于Principate的泛基督教和现实政治修辞之间进行的对抗。Helvidius使用panegyric的共识修辞,提出参议院主张他们在文明王子政权中理论上拥有的自由。Eprius从偶然性、必要性和权力的角度描述了君主专制的“现实”。海尔维迪乌斯的泛史诗般的幻想遇到了实际的限制,但埃普里乌斯的顽固真理对参议院的演讲来说同样有问题。两次演讲的失败都评论了有意识地虚构“公共记录”的必要性,如普林尼的《帕内格里克》,同时指出史学是现实政治真理的恰当场所。这场辩论为塔西陀在《历史》一开始对图拉真和涅尔瓦的赞扬提供了新的线索,认为这是参议院集体自我塑造的场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fairy Tales and Hard Truths in Tacitus's Histories 4.6–10
In a new reading of Tacitus's account of the quarrel between Helvidius Priscus and Eprius Marcellus at Hist. 4.6.3–4.10.1, I show that the historian stages a confrontation between panegyrical and Realpolitik rhetoric about the Principate. Helvidius uses the consensus-rhetoric of panegyric to propose that the senate claim the freedom they theoretically possess in the regime of a civilis princeps. Eprius describes the autocratic “reality” of the Principate in terms of contingency, necessity, and power. Helvidius's panegyrical fantasy runs up against practical limits, but Eprius's hardheaded truisms prove equally problematic for senatorial oratory. The failures of both speeches comment on the necessity of a consciously fictive “public transcript” such as Pliny's Panegyric while pointing to historiography as the proper place for Realpolitik truths. The debate sheds new light on Tacitus's praise of Trajan and Nerva at the beginning of the Histories as a locus for collective senatorial self-fashioning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信