Search Results

The creation of cultural identity through historical memory often involves as much forgetting as remembering. The process of forgetting through selection is usually hidden. This chapter focuses on occasions when ancient writers were surprisingly open about it, directly recording attempts to ‘lose’ inconvenient portions of the past through enforced forgetfulness. The ancient writer's record may operate as a simple challenge, bringing the forgotten back into prominence by reminding readers that it had — or could have — disappeared (Cremutius Cordus in Tacitus, Annals 4.34-35 is an obvious example). But sometimes ancient historians acted in another way, in a process parallel to that of damnatio memoriae: reinforcing the significance of forgetting by recording and commenting on the fact that the forgetting has taken place. Both versions are key to understanding the Romans' own account of their creation of a present identity from a careful combination of memory, selection, and oblivion.

This chapter briefly discusses the nature of historical writing in Rome, including its complex relationship with rhetoric and didactic purposes, and challenges some current views on these points. The central questions of this study are addressed: a) why was virtus so important to the Roman historians? and b) what role does political change play in the (re)definition of the concept of virtus and also in the development of its expression in practice? It also discusses how and why the Roman historians, who saw historiography as an account of the life and mores [cf. Livy, Praef. 9] of the Roman people through time, made morality a valid category for explaining their past, and why, therefore, the analysis of the concept of virtus through their narratives is a sound way of approaching Roman historical writing.

‘Ground’ is adapted from the term in cognitive grammar for the set-up of a conversation. In Roman philosophical works the basic grounds are populated by Romans, to whom treatises are addressed and letters written, and who participate in dialogues; the Greek and general material is given Roman settings. History is not usually addressed to anyone, and the Roman material is presented with some elements of distance over identity. Historical works have a spatial structure, in which Rome forms the centre of the spatial viewpoint. Speeches form an inset ground; Roman historians deploy the Greek idea inventively. Real Roman occasions are at the heart of oratory, but the reality is complicated by fictional grounds, by publication, and by the role of rhetoric. The handling of space transfers but differs from that found in Athenian oratory.

This chapter demonstrates that the process of historical mythmaking about Arminius began as early as in Augustan Rome. Ancient historians and poets interpreted the scanty facts concerning Varus’ defeat to present a coherent and meaningful picture. This process began with Tacitus, who called Arminius “doubtless the liberator of Germany.” Modern German historians, e.g. Theodor Mommsen, continued the tradition until a strictly fact-based approach, culminating in the studies by Dieter Timpe and increasingly supported by archaeological evidence, stripped away all legendary and patriotic accretions. Nevertheless, political debates about the importance and meaning of Arminius’ victory for the Romans and for German history are continuing.

The conclusion emphasizes how the historians discussed throughout the book responded intellectually to one another and established a sort of dialogue among themselves. The investigation of the development of Roman historiography in an integrated manner aims at a more vital and comprehensive approach to Roman cultural and intellectual history

This chapter considers Horace's autobiographies and his engagement with Roman historians. It suggests that the actual words which Horace describes himself closely parallel the descriptions given of Cn. Flavius, the aedile of 304 BC, particularly the description by historian L. Calpurnius Piso, whose longest fragment is devoted to Flavius.