In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES PREFACE 1. His explanation of the image and account of the dispute are so detailed as to make further commentary superfluous. He recollects the palimpsested inscriptions from the Antichità as if on the wall of a museum in tav. 8 of the Lettere (reproduced as the frontispiece of this book). The text of the Lettere is reproduced in Wilton-Ely 1972. 2. P. R. L. Brown 1961; see Chapter 3 below. 3. So he argues in publications from the late 1960’s through the 1980’s. A more nuanced interpretation of the Saturnalia is forthcoming from Cameron. 4. For essays on traditional versus modernist history, see Koselleck 1985a. Hayden White’s essay ‘‘The Burden of History,’’ reprinted in White 1978, remains worthwhile. 5. The classic essays on the subject are H. Bloch 1945 and 1964. 6. Of his many articles I would single out Cameron 1977 and 1984. For a comparable argument, see also O’Donnell 1978. For an attempt to summarize the significance of this train of thought, see the effort by Averil Cameron (1993, 156–157). 7. See e.g. Hunt 1989, 1–22. 8. This subject has been explored from a very different perspective by R. A. Markus (1990), who speaks of ‘‘the creation of the secular.’’ 9. See H. Bloch 1964, Cameron 1977, and Cameron 1984. 1. A PALIMPSEST 1. See most notably H. Bloch 1945 and 1964. For consideration of this, see Chapter 3. 2. The words clarus and inlustris also have implications of rank: both traditionally refer to the nobility, but clari viri were inferior to illustres. See further Chapter 2. 3. For the significance of this odd statement, see Chapter 6. 4. For the metaphor, see again Chapter 6. 5. The antecedent of ‘‘which’’ (quae) here may be either ‘‘correction’’ (emendatio) or ‘‘fate’’ (sortis). For the meaning of the subordinate clause here, see the textual notes in the Appendix and Chapter 6. 6. In the Appendix see the textual notes ad loc. for this phrase. 2. CURSUS AND CAREER 1. Cagnat 1914 contains an excellent general discussion of the Roman cursus. For a more recent discussion, see Calabi-Limentani 1973, 164–167, with the bibliography by Attilio Degrassi, 446–450. 2. Callu 1974; PLRE 1, Flavianus 15; O’Donnell 1978; Vera 1983; Matthews 1989a; Errington 1992. I find two exceptions to my generalization: Grünewald 1992 is concerned more with the rehabilitation of Flavian than with his career; Wytzes 1977 is mostly interested in the religious implications of the text. Cf. now, however, Matthews 1997, 211–213. 3. This interest dates back to Roman antiquity: see Nep. Att. 18.1–4. Much of the traditional research on the cursus was compiled and systematized in the great prosopographical dictionaries of the end of the nineteenth century. Generally on the history of epigraphical interest in the cursus and prosopographical research, see Galsterer 1990, 5–6. 4. Galsterer 1990, 8–9. 5. Galsterer 1990, 1–20, and the preface to Raaflaub and Toher 1990, xiv–xv. 6. Syme 1952, 7. 7. Syme 1952, preface, vii. 8. Syme 1952, preface, vii; cf. Syme’s general comments about prosopography later in the preface. 9. So Cicero complains of factual errors in certain inscriptions: ad Att. 6.1.17. 10. On the rhetorical effect of the list, see White 1980, who is chiefly concerned with medieval Annals. 11. Galsterer 1990, 7. Cf. Syme 1952. 12. Cameron 1985b. 13. Thus O’Donnell 1978, 131 treats some of the ambiguities in the careers of Flavian and his son as ‘‘merely a bit of boasting’’ or ‘‘a bureaucratic nicety of detail.’’ Cf. Errington 1992, 442 n. 15. 14. Other words used for ‘‘magistracy’’ in late antiquity are dignitas and administratio: see Jones 1964, 368, 377–378. 15. The problems and difficulties of the preamble have not been clearly recognized since Borghesi (in De Rossi 1849, 359). 16. The more important of these are conveniently assembled and summarized in PLRE 1, Flavianus 15. 17. The letters addressed to Flavian are chiefly those of the second book of correspondence, Epp. 2.1–91. 18. He may also be the author of a number more: see Honoré 1989b. 19. ‘‘Nickname’’ is a loose and occasionally inaccurate translation of the notion of the signum . Generally on the use of the signum in Late Roman inscriptions, see Kajanto 1966 [i.e. 1967] and Cameron 1995. 20. Cf. Platner 1929, 191; Collini 1944, 282 and 420. 21. Cf. Bloch 1945...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780292799158
Related ISBN
9780292731219
MARC Record
OCLC
55889846
Pages
366
Launched on MUSE
2013-01-01
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.