首页> 外文学位 >Decus Posteritas Rependit: Reevaluating Cremutius Cordus in Tacitus' 'Annals'
【24h】

Decus Posteritas Rependit: Reevaluating Cremutius Cordus in Tacitus' 'Annals'

机译:公平的后代给出:重新评估Tacitus的“ Annals”中被提起的案件

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

In one of the best known passages in the Annals, Tacitus gives an account of the trial and death of Aulus Cremutius Cordus (A. 4.34-35), a Roman historian documenting the transitional period from the Roman Republic to the Empire. In this account Cordus is given a speech with which he defends a historian's right to praise the enemies of the emperor. The majority of modern scholars have interpreted Tacitus' account as unqualified praise for Cordus, and many have suggested that readers are to understand Cordus as a surrogate for Tacitus' own views on the rights and duties of historians. In this project I attempt to challenge that consensus. I argue that Cordus and Tacitus disagree in their historiographical, political, and even moral principles, and that Tacitus' account of Cordus' trial and death contains criticism of the historian, even while acknowledging his courage. This reading complicates Tacitus' relationship to Cordus and to several other characters in the Annals who, though they die deaths of great renown, effect little change.;To argue for ideological differences between Cordus and Tacitus I take a circuitous first step by examining mentions of Cordus and his historical works in other ancient writers. Modern praise for Cordus has conditioned readers of the Annals to expect that he was universally respected by the ancient authors, but this project shows that opinions about him were divided. This division is epitomized by the differences between the accounts of Suetonius and Seneca the Younger. I argue that Tacitus is closer to Suetonius than Seneca in his feelings towards Cordus; Tacitus and Suetonius both distrust historians with strong partisan (i.e., Republican) beliefs, and Cordus, I show, is yoked by both to such historians. Seneca praises Cordus mainly for his willingness to die for his beliefs, but this very willingness---eagerness even---to die for personal vindication and glory is a quality that Tacitus believes a flaw in several characters in his histories including, I argue, Seneca himself in the account of his suicide (A. 15.62-64). Tacitus' criticism for this quality in Seneca, which Tacitus diagnoses as the readiness to die an "ostentatious death" (ambitiosa mors, Agr. 42.4-5), informs, in my final section, my examination of Tacitus' account of the trial and death of Cordus. Importantly, Tacitus' depiction of Cordus follows directly after a digression in which Tacitus discusses his own historiographical and political views, and I point out that elements of this digression and of the account of Cordus can be compared to show significant differences between the two historians.
机译:在《年鉴》中最著名的一段话中,塔西us描述了罗马历史学家奥卢·克里穆蒂乌斯·科杜斯(Aulus Cremutius Cordus)的死刑(A. 4.34-35),记载了从罗马共和国到帝国的过渡时期。在这种情况下,Cordus发表了演讲,捍卫了历史学家称赞皇帝敌人的权利。大多数现代学者都将塔西account的叙述解释为对科杜斯的无可厚非的赞美,许多学者建议读者将科杜斯理解为塔西us对历史学家的权利和义务的看法的替代。在这个项目中,我试图挑战这种共识。我认为科尔迪斯和塔西图斯在历史,政治甚至道德原则上存在分歧,而且塔西图斯对科尔迪斯的审判和死亡的叙述包含对历史学家的批评,即使他承认他的勇气。这段阅读使塔西us与科尔多斯以及《年鉴》中的其他角色的关系复杂化,尽管他们死于享负盛名的死亡,却影响不大。为了论证科尔多斯与塔西us斯之间的意识形态差异,我迈出了circuit回的第一步,着眼于对Cordus及其其他古代作家的历史著作。现代对Cordus的赞誉使《 Annals》的读者感到期待,认为他受到古代作家的普遍尊敬,但是这个项目表明,对他的看法存在分歧。 Suetonius和Seneca the Younger之间的差异体现了这种分歧。我认为,塔西us对塞杜斯的感受比塞内卡更接近苏埃托尼斯。塔西us(Tacitus)和苏顿纽斯(Suetonius)都对党史学家(即共和党人)的信念不信任,我向科杜斯表示,科杜斯对这两个历史学家都表示敬意。塞内卡赞扬科尔杜斯主要是因为他愿意为自己的信仰而死,但是这种为个人辩护和荣耀而死的意愿-甚至是渴望-是塔西us斯认为自己历史上几个人物都存在缺陷的一种品质。 ,塞内卡本人以自杀为由(A. 15.62-64)。塔西us对塞内卡的这种品质的批评,被塔西as诊断为愿意死于“炫耀性死亡”(ambitiosa mors,Agr。42.4-5),在我的最后一节中介绍了我对塔西us对审判和审判的叙述。科尔多斯之死。重要的是,塔西us对科尔多斯的描述紧接在题外话之后,塔西cit讨论了他自己的史学和政治观点,并且我指出,可以比较这一题外话和科尔多斯的论述,以显示两位历史学家之间的重大差异。

著录项

  • 作者

    Woo, Michael Tae.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Kansas.;

  • 授予单位 University of Kansas.;
  • 学科 Classical literature.;Ancient history.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2017
  • 页码 79 p.
  • 总页数 79
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:54:30

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号