S. 100, Z. 24: statt "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate I" ist "aus den Reden Cicer... more S. 100, Z. 24: statt "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate I" ist "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate" zu lesen.
This article deals with three passages from Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s speeches. In the first of these fragments, Asconius reports that Cicero’s daughter Tullia died after childbirth in the house of her husband P. Lentulus. This version stands in contrast to the communis opinio
in the scholarship (albeit rested on indirect evidence), according to which Tullia passed away at the Tusculan villa of Cicero after she had given birth to her son in Cicero’s house in Rome. Asconius’ testimony is compared with the account of Plutarch (Cic. 41. 7–8) who tells the same story as the commentator of Cicero. The author concludes that the reports of two ancient writers are based on a common source, namely Cicero’s biography composed by Tiro, in which only the place of birth of Tullia’s son, but not the place of her death was given. Based on this information, Asconius and Plutarch independently of each other came to the logical but wrong
conclusion that Tullia died in the house belonged to her ex-husband. In the second passage Asconius mentions that M. Licinius Crassus sat on the jury upon the trial of C. Cornelius de maiestate in 65. In the same year Crassus held the censorship. However, office-holding magistrates
were excluded from juries. Since the trial of Cornelius can be dated to the late spring or the first half of summer, we are to assume that Crassus gave up the office by this time. In the third part of the paper Asconius’ account on the murder of Lucretius Afella is examined. According to Asconius, Afella was killed by a L. Bellienus, whereas Plutarch reports that Afella
was murdered by one of Sulla’s centurions. The identicalness of L. Bellienus and the anonymous centurion mentioned by Plutarch is usually called into doubt in the scholarship, but the author comes to conclusion that the ancient authors write about the same man.
It is well attested in the literary sources that the lex Servilia Glauciae de repetundis passed a... more It is well attested in the literary sources that the lex Servilia Glauciae de repetundis passed at the very end of the second century B.C. introduced comperendinatio, that is, the compulsory division of an extortion trial into two proceedings, separated by an interval. The article aims to demonstrate that, at least after Sulla, this system applied not only to the quaestio perpetua de repetundis, but also to the quaestio perpetua de maiestate. Moreover, it is not impossible that comperendinatio was sometimes prescribed by criminal laws establishing quaestiones extraordinariae.
Der Verfasser übt Kritik am vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz von
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfa... more Der Verfasser übt Kritik am vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz von
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfassung der römischen Republik und der gegenwärtigen demokratischen Staaten gegenübergestellt wird. Es wird bewiesen, dass die Hauptthese Smorchkovs, die römische Republik in der Zeit vom 3. bis zum 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. sei als Demokratie zu betrachten, nicht zutrifft.
The authors analyze Ugo Laffi’s and Francois Hinard’s conception of the “myth of Sulla” and its c... more The authors analyze Ugo Laffi’s and Francois Hinard’s conception of the “myth of Sulla” and its critics by Alexandra Eckert. Laffi attributes the appearance of Sulla’s image as the cruel tyrant (i.e. of the so-called “myth of Sulla”) to Caesar’s dictatorship, while in Hinard’s opinion it happened later, during the Augustan Principate. However, Eckert argues that Sulla had the reputation of a cruel tyrant even in his lifetime. The authors agree with Eckert, but they make important corrections and additions to her argumentation.
It is well known that astonishing diversity and universality are characteristic of Michail Rostov... more It is well known that astonishing diversity and universality are characteristic of Michail Rostovtzeff’s research work. But although he was a man of extraordinarily broad scholarly interests, Rostovtzeff always saw himself primarily as a historian. One of the most important methodological principles by which Rostovtzeff was guided throughout his academic career was a synthetic evaluation of all types of evidence, i.e. literary, epigraphic, papyrological, archaeological and numismatic. For him the main aim of historical study was the most accurate reconstruction of a historical event or phenomenon in all its diversity. On the whole, Rostovtzeff remained faithful to the theoretical and methodological attitudes he took up in his youth until the end of his life, although he further developed and improved his methods over the years. In this respect, emigration from Russia did not play a pivotal role in his scholarly fate, as it is so often claimed in Western historiography.
S. 109, Anm. 48: statt "musste der Prozess innerhalb von fünf Tagen abgeschlossen werden" ist "mu... more S. 109, Anm. 48: statt "musste der Prozess innerhalb von fünf Tagen abgeschlossen werden" ist "musste der Prozess innerhalb von vier Tagen abgeschlossen werden" zu lesen.
In Late Republican Rome a circle of spectators (corona) was an indispensable attribute of every trial, both criminal and private. Corona was composed of friends and clients of the accused, young men studying rhetoric, as well as casual bystanders and simply those looking for entertainment. Those present at the trial were considered to be the representatives of the sovereign Roman people, whose presence should ensure legitimacy of the proceedings and fairness of the verdict. Corona is therefore to be understood as a kind of non-decision-making popular assembly. It was tacitly recognized that the people were allowed to express their opinion and even intervene in the proceedings when they thought the verdict to be unjust. Public consensus on judges’ decision was seen as desirable and important, so the jurors had to take into account the expectations of the audience.
Berechtigungen:
S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von de... more Berechtigungen: S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von dem Suffekt-Konsul 26 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" zu lesen. S. 140 Anm. 18, Z. 2: statt "L. Antistius Veter" ist "L. Antistius Vetus" zu lesen. S. 144, Z. 15: statt "Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" ist "eben Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" zu lesen.
The author examines the aims and methods of the commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus in the mid-first century AD. In the first part of the article a brief sketch of Asconius’ life is given, as far as it can be reconstructed from the vailable evidence. In the second part the author reviews the current discussion on the problem of Asconius’ aims and criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by C. Bishop who assumes that one of the principal intentions of Asconius’ commentary was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. The additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero and comes to conclusion that his appraisal of Cicero’s qualities as orator and statesman is favourable and reverent.
Die historischen Beispiele (exempla) werden in ganz verschiedenen Genres der römischen Literatur,... more Die historischen Beispiele (exempla) werden in ganz verschiedenen Genres der römischen Literatur, einschließlich Reden, sehr breit verwendet. Der Schwerpunkt der Forschung liegt normalerweise auf römischen Beispielen, wohingegen auswärtige historische exempla sich noch nicht hinreichend untersucht gefunden haben. Ziel dieses Aufsatzes ist es, die Fälle der Verwendung von sogenannten „äußeren“ historischen Beispielen in den Gerichts- und politischen Reden Ciceros zu behandeln und ihre Funktionen zu bestimmen.
The author considers two notorious episodes from the Roman history of the second century BC, name... more The author considers two notorious episodes from the Roman history of the second century BC, namely the failed attempts to punish generals Marcus Popillius Laenas and Servius Sulpicius Galba for their severities against dediticii in Liguria and Spain respectively. In historiography both cases are widely associated with the contemporary development of the new criminal procedure de repetundis. But re-examination of the surviving sources makes it clear that Laenas and Galba more likely were prosecuted on a crimen maiestatis charge.
Berechtigungen:
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
... more Berechtigungen:
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
S. 251, Z. 13: statt "who inroduce" ist "who introduced" zu lesen.
The author examines an episode associated with censor Crassus’ proposal in 65 BC to annex the Ptolemaic kingdom, concentrating mainly on the specific content of the debates between proponents and opponents of the annexation. The surviving fragments of Cicero’s speech De rege Alexandrino, as well as the Bobbio scholiast’s commentary on it, make clear that participants in the polemic appealed not only to law, but also to justice. The usage of such argumentation when discussing important foreign policy matters demonstrates once again that Romans of the Late Republic, at least in theory, wanted their wars to be ethically justified; the well-known Roman concept of bellum iustum was not of a purely formal character in that period, as some scholars believe.
The author examines the place of commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. ... more The author examines the place of commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus (1st century AD) in reception of Cicero’s rhetorical legacy in the Early Empire. Several suggestions are made to explain the specific features of Asconius’ work, in particular the fact that it is almost entirely devoted to historical matters, which distinguish it radically from the Latin scholia on Cicero of the later period. The author criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by the American scholar C. Bishop who thinks that one of the principal aims of Asconius was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. In the article the additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view according to that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ view of Cicero as orator and statesman. The conclusion is made that Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero was favourable and reverent. He followed the general laudatory trend that dominated in his time.
The article deals with the evidence on the Egyptian king Ptolemy XII Auletes contained in some Ci... more The article deals with the evidence on the Egyptian king Ptolemy XII Auletes contained in some Cicero’s political and judicial orations: "On the Egyptian king", "The second speech on the agrarian law", "On behalf of Sestius", "On behalf of Caelius". The author analyzes the image of the Egyptian monarch created by Cicero in his speeches and traces the changes in the image depending on the political situation and the specific aims of the Roman orator. Special attention is paid to the oration "On behalf of Rabirius Postumus". The author comes to the conclusion that in this speech Cicero constructed a standard negative image of a Hellenistic king. This image was based on stereotypes shared by his audience and had little to do with historical reality.
The author expresses some thoughts concerning the image of Pericles created by a distinguished Ru... more The author expresses some thoughts concerning the image of Pericles created by a distinguished Russian historian Vladislav Buzeskul (1858–1931) in his works, particularly in his Master’s thesis. Buzeskul’s views of Pericles’ personality and activities are compared with those of some prominent contemporary German scholars, such as M. Duncker, K.J. Beloch etc.
The article deals with the trials of C. Cornelius (tr. pl. 67 BC) which
took place in 66 and 65 B... more The article deals with the trials of C. Cornelius (tr. pl. 67 BC) which took place in 66 and 65 BC. The author connects the political context of those events with activities of Cn. Pompey. To reconstruct the circumstances concerning the trials, he analyzes the extant fragments of two Cicero’s speeches “Pro Cornelio de maiestate” and commentary on them written by Q. Asconius Pedianus in the first century AD.
This is an attempt to consider some controversial aspects concerning the trial of proconsul of Ma... more This is an attempt to consider some controversial aspects concerning the trial of proconsul of Macedonia Gaius Antonius Hybrida in 59 BC and to determine the role of the trial within the framework of political struggle in the Roman Republic of the period.
The author of the article makes an attempt to analyze the political background of the trial of Au... more The author of the article makes an attempt to analyze the political background of the trial of Aulus Gabinius (cos. 58) de maiestate. He considers the prosecution of Gabinius to be an indirect attack against triumvirs and especially against Pompey. The author makes a conclusion that this trial was very similar with some other trials which had been initiated against triumvirs’ partisans in this period.
S. 100, Z. 24: statt "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate I" ist "aus den Reden Cicer... more S. 100, Z. 24: statt "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate I" ist "aus den Reden Ciceros pro Cornelio de maiestate" zu lesen.
This article deals with three passages from Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s speeches. In the first of these fragments, Asconius reports that Cicero’s daughter Tullia died after childbirth in the house of her husband P. Lentulus. This version stands in contrast to the communis opinio
in the scholarship (albeit rested on indirect evidence), according to which Tullia passed away at the Tusculan villa of Cicero after she had given birth to her son in Cicero’s house in Rome. Asconius’ testimony is compared with the account of Plutarch (Cic. 41. 7–8) who tells the same story as the commentator of Cicero. The author concludes that the reports of two ancient writers are based on a common source, namely Cicero’s biography composed by Tiro, in which only the place of birth of Tullia’s son, but not the place of her death was given. Based on this information, Asconius and Plutarch independently of each other came to the logical but wrong
conclusion that Tullia died in the house belonged to her ex-husband. In the second passage Asconius mentions that M. Licinius Crassus sat on the jury upon the trial of C. Cornelius de maiestate in 65. In the same year Crassus held the censorship. However, office-holding magistrates
were excluded from juries. Since the trial of Cornelius can be dated to the late spring or the first half of summer, we are to assume that Crassus gave up the office by this time. In the third part of the paper Asconius’ account on the murder of Lucretius Afella is examined. According to Asconius, Afella was killed by a L. Bellienus, whereas Plutarch reports that Afella
was murdered by one of Sulla’s centurions. The identicalness of L. Bellienus and the anonymous centurion mentioned by Plutarch is usually called into doubt in the scholarship, but the author comes to conclusion that the ancient authors write about the same man.
It is well attested in the literary sources that the lex Servilia Glauciae de repetundis passed a... more It is well attested in the literary sources that the lex Servilia Glauciae de repetundis passed at the very end of the second century B.C. introduced comperendinatio, that is, the compulsory division of an extortion trial into two proceedings, separated by an interval. The article aims to demonstrate that, at least after Sulla, this system applied not only to the quaestio perpetua de repetundis, but also to the quaestio perpetua de maiestate. Moreover, it is not impossible that comperendinatio was sometimes prescribed by criminal laws establishing quaestiones extraordinariae.
Der Verfasser übt Kritik am vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz von
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfa... more Der Verfasser übt Kritik am vor kurzem erschienenen Aufsatz von
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfassung der römischen Republik und der gegenwärtigen demokratischen Staaten gegenübergestellt wird. Es wird bewiesen, dass die Hauptthese Smorchkovs, die römische Republik in der Zeit vom 3. bis zum 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. sei als Demokratie zu betrachten, nicht zutrifft.
The authors analyze Ugo Laffi’s and Francois Hinard’s conception of the “myth of Sulla” and its c... more The authors analyze Ugo Laffi’s and Francois Hinard’s conception of the “myth of Sulla” and its critics by Alexandra Eckert. Laffi attributes the appearance of Sulla’s image as the cruel tyrant (i.e. of the so-called “myth of Sulla”) to Caesar’s dictatorship, while in Hinard’s opinion it happened later, during the Augustan Principate. However, Eckert argues that Sulla had the reputation of a cruel tyrant even in his lifetime. The authors agree with Eckert, but they make important corrections and additions to her argumentation.
It is well known that astonishing diversity and universality are characteristic of Michail Rostov... more It is well known that astonishing diversity and universality are characteristic of Michail Rostovtzeff’s research work. But although he was a man of extraordinarily broad scholarly interests, Rostovtzeff always saw himself primarily as a historian. One of the most important methodological principles by which Rostovtzeff was guided throughout his academic career was a synthetic evaluation of all types of evidence, i.e. literary, epigraphic, papyrological, archaeological and numismatic. For him the main aim of historical study was the most accurate reconstruction of a historical event or phenomenon in all its diversity. On the whole, Rostovtzeff remained faithful to the theoretical and methodological attitudes he took up in his youth until the end of his life, although he further developed and improved his methods over the years. In this respect, emigration from Russia did not play a pivotal role in his scholarly fate, as it is so often claimed in Western historiography.
S. 109, Anm. 48: statt "musste der Prozess innerhalb von fünf Tagen abgeschlossen werden" ist "mu... more S. 109, Anm. 48: statt "musste der Prozess innerhalb von fünf Tagen abgeschlossen werden" ist "musste der Prozess innerhalb von vier Tagen abgeschlossen werden" zu lesen.
In Late Republican Rome a circle of spectators (corona) was an indispensable attribute of every trial, both criminal and private. Corona was composed of friends and clients of the accused, young men studying rhetoric, as well as casual bystanders and simply those looking for entertainment. Those present at the trial were considered to be the representatives of the sovereign Roman people, whose presence should ensure legitimacy of the proceedings and fairness of the verdict. Corona is therefore to be understood as a kind of non-decision-making popular assembly. It was tacitly recognized that the people were allowed to express their opinion and even intervene in the proceedings when they thought the verdict to be unjust. Public consensus on judges’ decision was seen as desirable and important, so the jurors had to take into account the expectations of the audience.
Berechtigungen:
S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von de... more Berechtigungen: S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von dem Suffekt-Konsul 26 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" zu lesen. S. 140 Anm. 18, Z. 2: statt "L. Antistius Veter" ist "L. Antistius Vetus" zu lesen. S. 144, Z. 15: statt "Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" ist "eben Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" zu lesen.
The author examines the aims and methods of the commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus in the mid-first century AD. In the first part of the article a brief sketch of Asconius’ life is given, as far as it can be reconstructed from the vailable evidence. In the second part the author reviews the current discussion on the problem of Asconius’ aims and criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by C. Bishop who assumes that one of the principal intentions of Asconius’ commentary was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. The additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero and comes to conclusion that his appraisal of Cicero’s qualities as orator and statesman is favourable and reverent.
Die historischen Beispiele (exempla) werden in ganz verschiedenen Genres der römischen Literatur,... more Die historischen Beispiele (exempla) werden in ganz verschiedenen Genres der römischen Literatur, einschließlich Reden, sehr breit verwendet. Der Schwerpunkt der Forschung liegt normalerweise auf römischen Beispielen, wohingegen auswärtige historische exempla sich noch nicht hinreichend untersucht gefunden haben. Ziel dieses Aufsatzes ist es, die Fälle der Verwendung von sogenannten „äußeren“ historischen Beispielen in den Gerichts- und politischen Reden Ciceros zu behandeln und ihre Funktionen zu bestimmen.
The author considers two notorious episodes from the Roman history of the second century BC, name... more The author considers two notorious episodes from the Roman history of the second century BC, namely the failed attempts to punish generals Marcus Popillius Laenas and Servius Sulpicius Galba for their severities against dediticii in Liguria and Spain respectively. In historiography both cases are widely associated with the contemporary development of the new criminal procedure de repetundis. But re-examination of the surviving sources makes it clear that Laenas and Galba more likely were prosecuted on a crimen maiestatis charge.
Berechtigungen:
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
... more Berechtigungen:
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
S. 251, Z. 13: statt "who inroduce" ist "who introduced" zu lesen.
The author examines an episode associated with censor Crassus’ proposal in 65 BC to annex the Ptolemaic kingdom, concentrating mainly on the specific content of the debates between proponents and opponents of the annexation. The surviving fragments of Cicero’s speech De rege Alexandrino, as well as the Bobbio scholiast’s commentary on it, make clear that participants in the polemic appealed not only to law, but also to justice. The usage of such argumentation when discussing important foreign policy matters demonstrates once again that Romans of the Late Republic, at least in theory, wanted their wars to be ethically justified; the well-known Roman concept of bellum iustum was not of a purely formal character in that period, as some scholars believe.
The author examines the place of commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. ... more The author examines the place of commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus (1st century AD) in reception of Cicero’s rhetorical legacy in the Early Empire. Several suggestions are made to explain the specific features of Asconius’ work, in particular the fact that it is almost entirely devoted to historical matters, which distinguish it radically from the Latin scholia on Cicero of the later period. The author criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by the American scholar C. Bishop who thinks that one of the principal aims of Asconius was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. In the article the additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view according to that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ view of Cicero as orator and statesman. The conclusion is made that Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero was favourable and reverent. He followed the general laudatory trend that dominated in his time.
The article deals with the evidence on the Egyptian king Ptolemy XII Auletes contained in some Ci... more The article deals with the evidence on the Egyptian king Ptolemy XII Auletes contained in some Cicero’s political and judicial orations: "On the Egyptian king", "The second speech on the agrarian law", "On behalf of Sestius", "On behalf of Caelius". The author analyzes the image of the Egyptian monarch created by Cicero in his speeches and traces the changes in the image depending on the political situation and the specific aims of the Roman orator. Special attention is paid to the oration "On behalf of Rabirius Postumus". The author comes to the conclusion that in this speech Cicero constructed a standard negative image of a Hellenistic king. This image was based on stereotypes shared by his audience and had little to do with historical reality.
The author expresses some thoughts concerning the image of Pericles created by a distinguished Ru... more The author expresses some thoughts concerning the image of Pericles created by a distinguished Russian historian Vladislav Buzeskul (1858–1931) in his works, particularly in his Master’s thesis. Buzeskul’s views of Pericles’ personality and activities are compared with those of some prominent contemporary German scholars, such as M. Duncker, K.J. Beloch etc.
The article deals with the trials of C. Cornelius (tr. pl. 67 BC) which
took place in 66 and 65 B... more The article deals with the trials of C. Cornelius (tr. pl. 67 BC) which took place in 66 and 65 BC. The author connects the political context of those events with activities of Cn. Pompey. To reconstruct the circumstances concerning the trials, he analyzes the extant fragments of two Cicero’s speeches “Pro Cornelio de maiestate” and commentary on them written by Q. Asconius Pedianus in the first century AD.
This is an attempt to consider some controversial aspects concerning the trial of proconsul of Ma... more This is an attempt to consider some controversial aspects concerning the trial of proconsul of Macedonia Gaius Antonius Hybrida in 59 BC and to determine the role of the trial within the framework of political struggle in the Roman Republic of the period.
The author of the article makes an attempt to analyze the political background of the trial of Au... more The author of the article makes an attempt to analyze the political background of the trial of Aulus Gabinius (cos. 58) de maiestate. He considers the prosecution of Gabinius to be an indirect attack against triumvirs and especially against Pompey. The author makes a conclusion that this trial was very similar with some other trials which had been initiated against triumvirs’ partisans in this period.
Первая часть предлагаемой вниманию читателя книги посвящена системе судопроизводства в архаически... more Первая часть предлагаемой вниманию читателя книги посвящена системе судопроизводства в архаических и классических Афинах (VI — кон. IV в. до н. э.). Мы узнаем, как возник и развивался афинский народный суд — гелиэя; какие виды исков существовали в афинской судебной системе; как проходил процесс; как обвиняли и защищались участники тяжб; чем руководствовались
судьи, вынося приговор, и т. д. Во второй части монографии рассказывается о судопроизводстве республиканского Рима: рассматриваются различные виды
римских судов (домашний суд отца семейства, суд магистратов, суд народных собраний, чрезвычайные и постоянные судебные комиссии) и их эволюция; исследуется роль и мотивация основных действующих лиц в судебном процессе (сторона обвинения, сторона защиты, свидетели, зрители).
В качестве примеров авторы разбирают ряд конкретных судебных процессов древности — от широко известных до тех, которые ранее в отечественной литературе не рассматривались. Издание адресовано как специалистам — историкам, юристам, философам, так и всем интересующимся античной историей и историей права.
Uploads
Papers by Vyacheslav Khrustalyov
This article deals with three passages from Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s speeches. In the first of these fragments, Asconius reports that Cicero’s daughter Tullia died after childbirth in the house of her husband P. Lentulus. This version stands in contrast to the communis opinio
in the scholarship (albeit rested on indirect evidence), according to which Tullia passed away at the Tusculan villa of Cicero after she had given birth to her son in Cicero’s house in Rome. Asconius’ testimony is compared with the account of Plutarch (Cic. 41. 7–8) who tells the same story as the commentator of Cicero. The author concludes that the reports of two ancient writers are based on a common source, namely Cicero’s biography composed by Tiro, in which only the place of birth of Tullia’s son, but not the place of her death was given. Based on this information, Asconius and Plutarch independently of each other came to the logical but wrong
conclusion that Tullia died in the house belonged to her ex-husband. In the second passage Asconius mentions that M. Licinius Crassus sat on the jury upon the trial of C. Cornelius de maiestate in 65. In the same year Crassus held the censorship. However, office-holding magistrates
were excluded from juries. Since the trial of Cornelius can be dated to the late spring or the first half of summer, we are to assume that Crassus gave up the office by this time. In the third part of the paper Asconius’ account on the murder of Lucretius Afella is examined. According to Asconius, Afella was killed by a L. Bellienus, whereas Plutarch reports that Afella
was murdered by one of Sulla’s centurions. The identicalness of L. Bellienus and the anonymous centurion mentioned by Plutarch is usually called into doubt in the scholarship, but the author comes to conclusion that the ancient authors write about the same man.
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfassung der römischen Republik und der gegenwärtigen demokratischen Staaten gegenübergestellt wird. Es wird bewiesen, dass die Hauptthese Smorchkovs, die römische Republik in der Zeit vom 3. bis zum 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. sei als Demokratie zu betrachten, nicht zutrifft.
In Late Republican Rome a circle of spectators (corona) was an indispensable attribute of every trial, both criminal and private. Corona was composed of friends and clients of the accused, young men studying rhetoric, as well as casual bystanders and simply those looking for entertainment. Those present at the trial were considered to be the representatives of the sovereign Roman people, whose presence should ensure legitimacy of the proceedings and fairness of the verdict. Corona is therefore to be understood as a kind of non-decision-making popular assembly. It was tacitly recognized that the people were allowed to express their opinion and even intervene in the proceedings when they thought the verdict to be unjust. Public consensus on judges’ decision was seen as desirable and important, so the jurors had to take into account the expectations of the audience.
S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von dem Suffekt-Konsul 26 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" zu lesen.
S. 140 Anm. 18, Z. 2: statt "L. Antistius Veter" ist "L. Antistius Vetus" zu lesen.
S. 144, Z. 15: statt "Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" ist "eben Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" zu lesen.
The author examines the aims and methods of the commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus in the mid-first century AD. In the first part of the article a brief sketch of Asconius’ life is given, as far as it can be reconstructed from the vailable evidence. In the second part the author reviews the current discussion on the problem of Asconius’ aims and criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by C. Bishop who assumes that one of the principal intentions of Asconius’ commentary was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. The additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero and comes to conclusion that his appraisal of Cicero’s qualities as orator and statesman is favourable and reverent.
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
S. 251, Z. 13: statt "who inroduce" ist "who introduced" zu lesen.
The author examines an episode associated with censor Crassus’ proposal in 65 BC to annex the Ptolemaic kingdom, concentrating mainly on the specific content of the debates between proponents and opponents of the annexation. The surviving fragments of Cicero’s speech De rege Alexandrino, as well as the Bobbio scholiast’s commentary on it, make clear that participants in the polemic appealed not only to law, but also to justice. The usage of such argumentation when discussing important foreign policy matters demonstrates once again that Romans of the Late Republic, at least in theory, wanted their wars to be ethically justified; the well-known Roman concept of bellum iustum was not of a purely formal character in that period, as some scholars believe.
Pedianus (1st century AD) in reception of Cicero’s rhetorical legacy in the Early Empire. Several suggestions
are made to explain the specific features of Asconius’ work, in particular the fact that it is almost entirely
devoted to historical matters, which distinguish it radically from the Latin scholia on Cicero of the later period.
The author criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by the American scholar C. Bishop who thinks that one of
the principal aims of Asconius was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. In the article
the additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view according to that Asconius wrote his
work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question
of Asconius’ view of Cicero as orator and statesman. The conclusion is made that Asconius’ attitude towards
Cicero was favourable and reverent. He followed the general laudatory trend that dominated in his time.
took place in 66 and 65 BC. The author connects the political context of those
events with activities of Cn. Pompey. To reconstruct the circumstances concerning
the trials, he analyzes the extant fragments of two Cicero’s speeches “Pro Cornelio
de maiestate” and commentary on them written by Q. Asconius Pedianus in
the first century AD.
This article deals with three passages from Asconius’ commentary on Cicero’s speeches. In the first of these fragments, Asconius reports that Cicero’s daughter Tullia died after childbirth in the house of her husband P. Lentulus. This version stands in contrast to the communis opinio
in the scholarship (albeit rested on indirect evidence), according to which Tullia passed away at the Tusculan villa of Cicero after she had given birth to her son in Cicero’s house in Rome. Asconius’ testimony is compared with the account of Plutarch (Cic. 41. 7–8) who tells the same story as the commentator of Cicero. The author concludes that the reports of two ancient writers are based on a common source, namely Cicero’s biography composed by Tiro, in which only the place of birth of Tullia’s son, but not the place of her death was given. Based on this information, Asconius and Plutarch independently of each other came to the logical but wrong
conclusion that Tullia died in the house belonged to her ex-husband. In the second passage Asconius mentions that M. Licinius Crassus sat on the jury upon the trial of C. Cornelius de maiestate in 65. In the same year Crassus held the censorship. However, office-holding magistrates
were excluded from juries. Since the trial of Cornelius can be dated to the late spring or the first half of summer, we are to assume that Crassus gave up the office by this time. In the third part of the paper Asconius’ account on the murder of Lucretius Afella is examined. According to Asconius, Afella was killed by a L. Bellienus, whereas Plutarch reports that Afella
was murdered by one of Sulla’s centurions. The identicalness of L. Bellienus and the anonymous centurion mentioned by Plutarch is usually called into doubt in the scholarship, but the author comes to conclusion that the ancient authors write about the same man.
A.M. Smorchkov, in dem die Verfassung der römischen Republik und der gegenwärtigen demokratischen Staaten gegenübergestellt wird. Es wird bewiesen, dass die Hauptthese Smorchkovs, die römische Republik in der Zeit vom 3. bis zum 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. sei als Demokratie zu betrachten, nicht zutrifft.
In Late Republican Rome a circle of spectators (corona) was an indispensable attribute of every trial, both criminal and private. Corona was composed of friends and clients of the accused, young men studying rhetoric, as well as casual bystanders and simply those looking for entertainment. Those present at the trial were considered to be the representatives of the sovereign Roman people, whose presence should ensure legitimacy of the proceedings and fairness of the verdict. Corona is therefore to be understood as a kind of non-decision-making popular assembly. It was tacitly recognized that the people were allowed to express their opinion and even intervene in the proceedings when they thought the verdict to be unjust. Public consensus on judges’ decision was seen as desirable and important, so the jurors had to take into account the expectations of the audience.
S. 139, Z. 19-20: statt "von dem Konsul 28 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" ist "von dem Suffekt-Konsul 26 n.Chr., Q. Iunius Blaesus" zu lesen.
S. 140 Anm. 18, Z. 2: statt "L. Antistius Veter" ist "L. Antistius Vetus" zu lesen.
S. 144, Z. 15: statt "Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" ist "eben Ciceros Reputation als großer Redner" zu lesen.
The author examines the aims and methods of the commentary on Cicero’s speeches written by the Roman scholar Q. Asconius Pedianus in the mid-first century AD. In the first part of the article a brief sketch of Asconius’ life is given, as far as it can be reconstructed from the vailable evidence. In the second part the author reviews the current discussion on the problem of Asconius’ aims and criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by C. Bishop who assumes that one of the principal intentions of Asconius’ commentary was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. The additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view that Asconius wrote his work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question of Asconius’ attitude towards Cicero and comes to conclusion that his appraisal of Cicero’s qualities as orator and statesman is favourable and reverent.
S. 249, Z. 13: statt "Crassus' activities" ist "Caesar's activities" zu lesen.
S. 251, Z. 13: statt "who inroduce" ist "who introduced" zu lesen.
The author examines an episode associated with censor Crassus’ proposal in 65 BC to annex the Ptolemaic kingdom, concentrating mainly on the specific content of the debates between proponents and opponents of the annexation. The surviving fragments of Cicero’s speech De rege Alexandrino, as well as the Bobbio scholiast’s commentary on it, make clear that participants in the polemic appealed not only to law, but also to justice. The usage of such argumentation when discussing important foreign policy matters demonstrates once again that Romans of the Late Republic, at least in theory, wanted their wars to be ethically justified; the well-known Roman concept of bellum iustum was not of a purely formal character in that period, as some scholars believe.
Pedianus (1st century AD) in reception of Cicero’s rhetorical legacy in the Early Empire. Several suggestions
are made to explain the specific features of Asconius’ work, in particular the fact that it is almost entirely
devoted to historical matters, which distinguish it radically from the Latin scholia on Cicero of the later period.
The author criticizes the hypothesis posed recently by the American scholar C. Bishop who thinks that one of
the principal aims of Asconius was to defend Cicero’s reputation from attacks of his detractors. In the article
the additional arguments are provided to reinforce the alternative view according to that Asconius wrote his
work as a schoolbook for rhetorical schools. In the final part of the article the author discusses the question
of Asconius’ view of Cicero as orator and statesman. The conclusion is made that Asconius’ attitude towards
Cicero was favourable and reverent. He followed the general laudatory trend that dominated in his time.
took place in 66 and 65 BC. The author connects the political context of those
events with activities of Cn. Pompey. To reconstruct the circumstances concerning
the trials, he analyzes the extant fragments of two Cicero’s speeches “Pro Cornelio
de maiestate” and commentary on them written by Q. Asconius Pedianus in
the first century AD.
судьи, вынося приговор, и т. д. Во второй части монографии рассказывается о судопроизводстве республиканского Рима: рассматриваются различные виды
римских судов (домашний суд отца семейства, суд магистратов, суд народных собраний, чрезвычайные и постоянные судебные комиссии) и их эволюция; исследуется роль и мотивация основных действующих лиц в судебном процессе (сторона обвинения, сторона защиты, свидетели, зрители).
В качестве примеров авторы разбирают ряд конкретных судебных процессов древности — от широко известных до тех, которые ранее в отечественной литературе не рассматривались. Издание адресовано как специалистам — историкам, юристам, философам, так и всем интересующимся античной историей и историей права.