Suetonius and the uiri illustres of Pliny the Younger

Gibson, Roy K.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697106.003.0011

Cited by 53 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11.The fragments were edited by Reifferscheid (1860); see Power (2014b) on the ‘Famous Courtesans’; on the DVI , see Kaster (1995) and (2016) and Gibson (2014). For rubric in the fragments, see Townend (1967), 85.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

STRUCTURE AND PERSUASION IN SUETONIUS’DE VITA CAESARVM

Garrett

2018

Ramus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the sentence level Suetonius often appears to be neutral, but I argue here that the persuasive force in the arrangement of his material creates a portrait that is absolutely not neutral. As David Wardle put it in a 2016 review, ‘Anyone who reads Suetonius without regard to the careful structures within which the biographer places his material can produce almost any picture.’ Yet these ‘careful structures’ are a mystery known only to the initiated. This paper lays out the complex and varied ways in which Suetonius uses structure, specifically the ‘rubric system’ of arranging his material under subheadings and those subheadings in sequences, in the hope that with this knowledge we see more accurately what ‘picture’ the biographer creates.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

STRUCTURE AND PERSUASION IN SUETONIUS’DE VITA CAESARVM

Garrett

2018

Ramus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whitton 2012: 347; Rutledge 2014: xiii; pace Benario, 2012: 103, whose view that Pliny's opinion echoes ‘the response of the reading public to the work’ is unconvincing. Suetonius’ estimation of literature differed from Pliny's on several points, not the least important of which was the biographer's favouring of earlier eras; see Gibson 2014.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whitton 2012: 347; Rutledge 2014: xiii; pace Benario, 2012: 103, whose view that Pliny's opinion echoes 'the response of the reading public to the work' is unconvincing. Suetonius' estimation of literature differed from Pliny's on several points, not the least important of which was the biographer's favouring of earlier eras; see Gibson 2014. Even Townend's delicate argument for more implicit engagement with Tacitus must have a basis on which to build; otherwise, the belief that Suetonius read him would be nothing more than a priori assumption: 'he simply must have read Tacitus', 'surely he read Tacitus', 'of course he did, if Pliny did', and so on.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Suetonius' Tacitus

Power¹

2014

J. Rom. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the relationship of Tacitus to his younger contemporary Suetonius, challenging the view that Suetonius wrote a ‘supplement’ to the historian. Scholarly focus on this pair has led to the widespread belief that Suetonius had read Tacitus’ Annals, which is unsupported by the evidence. The prevailing consensus that the biographer may at times be subtly criticizing the historian persists in commentaries on Suetonius’ Caesars. It is argued that where their two accounts appear to meet, Suetonius is better seen as responding to the earlier common source or sources, or distinguishing himself from the conventions of historiography at large.

show abstract

Introduction

Gibson,

Whitton

2024

The Cambridge Critical Guide to Latin Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suetonius and the uiri illustres of Pliny the Younger

Cited by 53 publications

References 0 publications

STRUCTURE AND PERSUASION IN SUETONIUS’DE VITA CAESARVM

STRUCTURE AND PERSUASION IN SUETONIUS’DE VITA CAESARVM

Suetonius' Tacitus

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About