Ripensando Tacito (e Ronald Syme): Storia e storiografia. Edited by MARIA
ANTONIETTA GIUA. Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2007. Pp. 231. Paper, €18.00. ISBN
978–884672023–8.
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Forum Online Exclusive 2009.01.03
The rationale of this slender volume is presented on the back cover. The
first sentence reads, “The volume collects the contributions of an
international meeting at the University of Florence, November 30—December
1, 2006, dealing with historical and historiographical aspects of
Tacitus’ works and his greatest 20th-century interpreter Sir Ronald
Syme” (my translation). This is an intriguing approach, yet a reading
leads to some disappointment.
There are twelve papers, divided into four triads: “Tacito e Ronald
Syme”; “Questioni di metodo”; “Fra storia e storiografia”; and
“Conquista e gestione dell’impero.” Only the first deals with the
relationship Tacitus–Syme, and only the second paper, by Giua herself,
treats the subject with any depth. It can essentially be said of most of
the other papers that they could have been delivered and published in any
context, and Syme generally appears only in footnotes. Here too appear some
difficulties, since the Italian scholars tend to cite Sir Ronald’s great
work in the Italian translation, which has far more pages than the
original. References are therefore useless for readers who have Tacitus at
their sides.
Another peculiarity, for an international conference discussing Syme, is
the absence of any Anglo-Saxon participants, the people who likely knew
Syme longest and most intimately, his students and colleagues in Great
Britain and the United States. There are nine Italians represented here,
three French scholars (two of whom collaborated on one paper), and one
German, whose text is presented in Italian. All papers are in and of
themselves interesting, although Dieter Timpe’s is an updated version of
a piece published only a few years ago in German.
The most intriguing and valuable of all, to me, is Giua’s “Osservazioni
sul Tacitus di Ronald Syme.” Her leitmotif is that Tacitus and Syme
shared a basic pessimism, and that over the years the two became almost one
being. She offers a good discussion of the origin and development of
Syme’s book, but does not mention (if indeed she is aware of it) the
steady increase in its coverage and size. Before 1950, Syme had planned 15
chapters. In 1952, the number had risen to 36, a year later to 40, in 1954
to 44. (This information privately from Sir Ronald.) The book appeared in
1958 with 45 chapters and 95 Appendixes, which themselves offer a detailed
outline for study of Tacitus.
The first contribution, “Syme e Tacito: qualche ricordo,” by Emilio
Gabba, very brief and really a eulogy, mentions the relationship between
Syme and himself, one of the surviving reviewers of Syme’s book, a
half-century or so later. Both Tacitus and Syme wrote of the end of
republican Rome and the growing influence of provinces and provincials. It
was for long commonly known that Syme’s intended first book dealt with
the provincial at Rome. As time passed, that was largely absorbed into The
Roman Revolution and Tacitus; indeed, the last section of the latter bears
the heading “THE NEW ROMANS.” Nonetheless, the publication of the
original manuscript in 1999, entitled The Provincial at Rome, by Anthony
Birley, was a signal event for Symeians.
The third paper in the first section is by J. Direz, “Capax imperii, un
fil rouge de Tacite à Syme,” discusses the leitmotif of capax imperii,
which played such an important role in Syme’s interpretation. Tacitus is
the only ancient author to use this expression. The concept depends upon
high birth as well as personal abilities.
The three papers of the second triad deal with aspects of Tacitus’
approach to history. M. Pani, “L’innovazione tacitiana: una rivoluzione
a metà,” emphasizes one of Tacitus’ great introductions into the
writing of history, introspicere. The historian must not only seek the
apparent truth, but reveal the dissimulatio of the times. Consideration of
rumores is important. His chief concern is the state, above all the state
ruled by one man. M. Ducos, “Portée et signification des questions
juridiques dans les Annales de Tacite,” emphasizes Tacitus’ interest in
laws, their application and the evolution of justice. Tacitus’
originality lies in inserting juridical problems into an analysis of the
principate, and of justice, as is particularly apparent in the importance
given jurists. Yet institutions are fragile when faced by the overwhelming
power of the emperor. C. Franco, “Dal documento al racconto: i libri
claudiani,” discusses Syme’s insistence upon Tacitus’ use of the acta
and other documentary material in these books. There is often a contrast
between senatorial meetings and the consilium principis. Claudius’ own
(now lost) works also come into play.
Triad three comprises papers differing greatly from each other. G. Firpo,
“Antioco IV di Siria e l’onolatria nell’ ‘Archaeologia giudaica’
di Tacito (Hist. V 2–13),” gives particular attention to 5.8.2, the
attempt by Antiochus IV to transform the Jews and the episode of the Jews
being saved by the appearance of asses. Tacitus is unimpressed by this
story. O. Devillers and F. Hurlet, “La portée des impostures dans les
Annales de Tacite: la légitimité impériale à l’épreuve,” discuss
the ”pseudos” of the Julio-Claudian era: Agrippa Postumus,
Germanicus’ son Drusus, the Neros. Tacitus devotes more attention to
imposture than does any other ancient author, and is most concerned with
the question of dynastic legitimacy. B. Scardigli, “Corbulone e dintorni
(Tac., Ann. XV 15),” notes that the chapter appears to contain
incongruities, such as the construction of the bridge and the various terms
of capitulation. These in all likelihood came from Corbulo’s Memoirs.
Up to this point, the volume contains no discussion of Tacitus’ minor
works. But the first paper in the final collection of three essays
partially remedies that omission. This paper, which I found very
interesting, is by C. Gabrielli, “Insularità e impero
nell’Agricola.” The author discusses the cultural presuppositions
concerning the perception of Britain and its conquest, its island nature,
and the impact of new conquests, above all political consequences and
ethno-geographic understanding. The Agricola shows a cultural model,
center-civilization/periphery-barbarism, of the representation of space and
of humanity. I. Mastrorosa, “Politica suntuaria ed economia imperiale in
un intervento di Tiberio (Tac., Ann. III 52–55),” closely examines
Tacitus’ treatment of the equilibrium between politics and the economy,
with particular attention to Tiberius’ intervention in the crisis of AD
22. D. Timpe, “L’insurrezione dei Batavi nell’interpretazione di
Tacito,” again discusses the Batavi, Civilis and other prime participants
in the great uprising against Rome, one of the most significant parts of
the surviving Historiae.
All the papers in the collection are worth reading, but on the whole it
disappoints. When I saw the title, I rejoiced. But there is too little
Syme, and nothing that can be called a bahnbrechende Arbeit. Readers
unfamiliar with the person, character and achievements of Sir Ronald will
do better to read the appreciations of him, such as F. Millar, “Style
Abides,” JRS 71 (1981) 144–52; A.M. Devine, “Sir Ronald Syme
(1903–1989): A Roman Post Mortem,” AncW 20 (1989) 67–75; M.T.
Griffin, “Sir Ronald Syme 1903–1989,” JRS 80 (1990) xi–xiv; K.
Christ, “Ronald Syme,” in Neue Profile der Alten Geschichte (Darmstadt,
1990) 188–247; G. Alföldy, “Two Principes: Augustus and Sir Ronald
Syme,” Athenaeum 81 (1993) 101–22; and G.W. Bowersock, “Ronald Syme,
1903–1989,” PBA 84 (1994) 539–63.
HERBERT W. BENARIO
Emory University
[log in to unmask]
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serv by sending an email
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE
|