The Character of Domitian

Waters, K. H.

doi:10.2307/1086912

Cited by 110 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet we know that this is the title by which Pliny addressed Trajan in many of his letters and one Trajan shared with his predecessor, Domitian. 32 Dominus, and its cognates in Tacitus, are consistently negative. Again, the implication of Tacitus' treatment of Tiberius' refusal was that, had the refusal been sincere, it would have been a laudable action.…”

Section: Illmentioning

confidence: 97%

Trajan and Tacitus' Audience: Reader Reception of Annals 1-2

Rutledge

1998

Ramus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his monumental work on Tacitus, Syme suggested that Tacitus made veiled criticisms directed against Hadrian in the Annals; subsequent scholars have not always accepted his suggestion. Yet those scholars who are sceptical of Syme's argument have not yet, on the whole, taken up the question of the reception of Tacitus' work by his contemporaries; this is a peculiar gap, when one considers the politically charged nature of Tacitus' Annals, which places under a miscroscope not only individual emperors, but the institution of the principate itself. It is, therefore, the intent of this essay to examine the audience's reception of Tacitus' Annals within the work's historical and cultural context: for Tacitus' audience (which I assume to consist primarily of elite males of senatorial and equestrian status), an understanding of the past about which he writes was made meaningful in part, I should like to suggest, by the present. Such an approach results in an open-ended understanding of the work, and decentralises it from its author in favour of the audience. The end result is a text which simultaneously questions even as it reaffirms Trajan as princeps.

show abstract

Section: Illmentioning

confidence: 97%

Trajan and Tacitus' Audience: Reader Reception of Annals 1-2

Rutledge

1998

Ramus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…in recent years, however, scholars have begun to question the presentation of Domitian in many of the literary sources and have attempted to rehabilitate his image. although studies by Milburn (1945), Pleket (1961) and Water (1964) began to question the traditional depiction of Domitian, the works of B. Jones (1979; 1992) and Thompson (1984;1990: 95-115) have played a particularly important role in advocating a reassessment of the sources. These scholars have alleged a strong bias in the historical sources against Domitian for the benefit of the subsequent rulers.…”

Section: Imperialmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation

Naylor

2009

Currents in Biblical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of the relationship of the Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation has occupied the attention of scholars throughout the past one hundred years. During this time, major shifts have taken place both in the assessment of the Roman Imperial Cult in the context of the Roman Empire and in the interpretation of its role with respect to the book of Revelation. This article surveys and assesses these trends. It begins with a discussion of studies on the Roman Imperial Cult from the standpoint of classical studies. Next, texts within Revelation typically cited as indicating a response to emperor worship are introduced. The third and final section focuses upon studies on Revelation, with particular focus given to interpretive approaches, Christology, and the question of persecution under Domitian.

show abstract

“…Waters: The Character of Domitian. "Phoenix" 1964, 18, s. 49-77. "Wieki Stare i Nowe" 2019, t. 14 (19), s. 281-284 ISSN 2353-9739 DOI 10.31261/WSN.2019…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rządy pod znakiem walki o sukcesję [rec. John D. Grainger: Nerwa i problem sukcesji w Rzymie w latach 96—99. Tłum. W. Brillowski. Oświęcim 2017]

Ścigała¹

2019

WSN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nerwa i problem sukcesji w Rzymie w latach 96-99. Tłum. W. Brillowski. Oświęcim 2017]Śmierć Domicjana we wrześniu 96 roku stanowiła niewątpliwie jedno z bardziej przełomowych wydarzeń w dziejach Cesarstwa Rzymskiego 1 . Mimo że autorzy antyczni zamieścili w swych utworach relacje z zamachu na życie cesarza, epizod ten pozostawia wiele wątpliwości. Jednym z głównych problemów jest wskazanie osób biorących udział w spisku 2 . Wśród nich miał prawdopodobnie znajdować się tytułowy bohater opracowania Johna D. Graingera 3 -Nerwa, późniejszy cesarz, wówczas jeszcze uchodzący za przeciętnego i niegotowego do funkcji, jaką przyszło mu pełnić. Mimo że nie cieszył się on sympatią senatorów, którzy patrzyli na niego przez pryzmat jego udziału w zamachu na życie cesarza 4 , ten starszy (mający już wówczas sześćdziesiąt sześć lat) obywatel rzymski ostatecznie został doceniony do tego stopnia, że zdecydowano się oddać mu władzę. Był tym, którego potrzebowano, aby przywrócić równowagę w państwie po niefortunnych rządach Domicjana 5 . 1 Por. zmiany, jakie przyniosły państwu rządy Flawiuszy: L. Mrozewicz: Imperium rzymskie w okresie panowania Flawiuszy. Główne kierunki rozwoju i zagrożenia. W: Studia Flaviana. Red. L. Mrozewicz. Poznań 2010, s. 9-39; Idem: Roman Empire during the reign of the Flavians. Principal trends of development and threats. Warszawa 2010. 2 Dokładny przebieg wydarzeń relacjonują Swetoniusz (Suet., Dom. 16) oraz Kasjusz Dion (Cass. Dio 67.15). Zob. także A.W. Collins: The palace revolution: the assassination of Domitian and the accession of Nerva.

show abstract

The Character of Domitian

Cited by 110 publications

References 0 publications

Trajan and Tacitus' Audience: Reader Reception of Annals 1-2

Trajan and Tacitus' Audience: Reader Reception of Annals 1-2

The Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation

Rządy pod znakiem walki o sukcesję [rec. John D. Grainger: Nerwa i problem sukcesji w Rzymie w latach 96—99. Tłum. W. Brillowski. Oświęcim 2017]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About