Parallel session 6, panel 2: The Politics of Memory

(Friday 22nd June: 4-5.30pm)

Remembering Domitian: the memoria of the last Flavian in Piny and Tacitus

Martin Szoke (University of Cambridge)

In this paper, I will analyze the role of Domitian in the writings of Pliny and Tacitus and will argue that the two senators create a selective memory of his reign. Using this insight, I will then attempt to deconstruct Tacitus’ and Pliny’s portrayal of Domitian and his reign as a whole. The negative portrayal of the last Flavian emperor in Pliny’s Letters and Panegyricus and Tacitus’ Agricola is usually regarded as senatorial praise (or even propaganda) for the new regime of Nerva and Trajan. However, I will argue that the senators’ portrayal of Domitian is also part of their self-presentation and so must be read in a more nuanced way. First, I will show that the figure of the ‘bad emperor’ serves as a foil not only to the new emperors but also to Pliny and Tacitus themselves. Secondly, I will re-consider the function of this negative portrayal: it is not (only) praise directed towards the new emperor, but aimed at a senatorial audience and intended to distance the authors of the texts themselves from Domitian. Thirdly, I will show how the authors manipulate their memory of Domitian and create a selective image of the last years of his reign. To conclude, I will ask whether we can use the results of my investigation to overcome Domitian’s reputation as a ‘bad emperor’ and form a new, more balanced picture.

Chains, Corruption and Condemnation: The Memory of Cannae in Plautus’ Captivi

Elinor Cosgrave (University of Leeds)

Plautus’ Captivi, is one of the earliest extant Roman sources focussing on captives and provides evidence of shared cultural norms within Mediterranean warfare. The play was performed during the 2^nd century BCE, within living memory of the Battle of Cannae (216 BCE) in which thousands of Romean soldiers were taken prisoner by Hannibal’s army. In this paper, I intend to consider to what extent the memory of the Battle of Cannae impacted upon the representations of captives in Plautus’ Captivi.

Captivi is set in the midst of a fictional conflict between the Greek states of Aetolia and Elis, and centres on two captives: a slave and his master. The captives are bought Hegio, a wealthy Aetolian man whose son has been taken prisoner by the Eleans. Hegio sends the Aetolian slave to arrange the return of his son in exchange for the captive master. Unbeknownst to Hegio, the slave and the master have exchanged places, resulting in much hilarity.

I will begin by summarising the play in question, and outline the capture and subsequent treatment of Roman soldiers, by both the Carthaginian army and Roman senate, after the Battle of Cannae during the Second Punic War. I will outline the expectations of captive-taking as a shared norm within Mediterranean warfare, primarily using the exempla of Marcus Regulus, taken captive during the First Punic War, and the captives taken at Cannae within Latin Literature. The exempla are in contrast to the way in which the recovered captives are treated within the play itself, and this is likely to have been the result of Plautus’ awareness of his audience and their concerns.

Richlin (2018) outlines how Plautus’ audience would have comprised of soldiers and slaves, many of whom would have experienced or witnessed captive-taking first-hand. I will explore how Plautus’ audience understood captive-taking and consider the ways in which Plautus adapted the now-lost Greek original to appeal to the Roman audience, possibly with consideration to those who had been recovered from captivity. Finally, I will show that Plautus’ Captivi is a ‘black comedy’ (Richlin, 2018: 226) which demonstrates, as a result of the memory of Cannae, the Romans’ concern with captivity and presents a more accurate expectation of captive-taking than the aforementioned exempla would suggest.

Bibliography

Gruen, E. 2001. Plautus and The Public Stage. In: Segal, E. (ed). Oxford Readings in Menander, Plautus, and Terence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83-94.

Lowe, J.C.B. 1991. Prisoners, Guards, and Chains in Plautus, Captivi. The American Journal of Philology. Vol. 112/1, pp. 29-44.

Moore, T.J. 1998. The Theater of Plautus. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Rei, A. 1998. Villains, Wives and Slaves in the Comedies of Plautus. In: Joshee, D.R., Murmaghan, S. (eds). Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 92

Richlin, A. 2018. The Ones Who Paid the Butcher’s Bill: Soldiers and War Captives in Roman Comedy. In: Clark, J.H., Turner, B. (eds). Brill’s Companion to Military Defeat in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Leiden: Brill, pp. 213-240.

The “good” memory of the emperor: memoria as a double-edged sword

Martina Russo (University of Warwick)

In this conference I would like to analyse the relevance of memory from an interdisciplinary perspective by focusing on a well-known passage from Seneca’s consolation addressed to Polybius (Ad Pol. 14, 1). In this passage Seneca ostensibly praises Claudius, the extant emperor. As unanimously noted, the flattery in ad Polybium is so grotesque as to be impossible to deny. Ad Polybium goes far beyond its declared purpose of consoling Polybius, embarking instead on a wide-ranging adulatio toward the emperor with the aim of persuading Claudius to recall him to court. However, upon closer examination, it is possible to read between the lines and uncover ambiguity in Seneca’s flattery which suggests some indirect and implicit elements of dissent. Seneca bears a grudge against Claudius and he expresses it in the only way he can: obliquely. Ostensibly, Seneca commends Claudius for his politic and for his persona but by also praising his usual eloquence (adsueta facundia) and excellent memory (tenacissima memoria), Seneca displays his acrimony against the emperor who condemned him to exile. The political critiques brought up in this way are obfuscated by the language of praise and encomium which relate to politics only indirectly. Seneca does the same thing that was required of Polybius at the beginning of the consolation: by making use of ambiguity he conceals – simulat - his bitterness toward the emperor. I suggest that memoria is one of the key-words which uncovers this hidden ambiguity. Behind memoria, Seneca conceals a plurality of meanings. The use of memory by Seneca offers us a relevant example of the double-speak theory proposed by Shadi Bartsch. The concept of memory has a particular relevance in Seneca: his conception of memory can be termed “voluntary”. “Mémoire volontaire” implies that memories can be governed by the will. Apparently, the memory of the emperor is one of the marks which stress Claudius’s exemplarity: thanks to his tenax memoria the emperor rehearses some exempla drawn from Rome's history. Actually, memory is a narrative instrument to point out the obscurity concealed in the figure of the emperor.