Papers by Phoebe Garrett
The Classical Journal, 2017
The Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2019
The Classical Quarterly
Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars usually begin with a family tree. These family trees are often rh... more Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars usually begin with a family tree. These family trees are often rhetorical, foreshadowing in the ancestors character traits that will be themes of the rest of the Life. This particular rhetorical strategy relies upon an older phenomenon of ‘family identity’—namely, the literary application of similar characteristics to people in the same family—such as the one that tells us that the Claudii are proud and the Domitii Ahenobarbi are ferocious. Gary Farney studied ‘family identity’ as a phenomenon of the Republic. There, it was the association of a family with a certain characteristic, a kind of ‘branding’. It would be perfectly obvious for Suetonius to use the family identities already in use for well-known families, but, as I show here, Suetonius’ selection of ancestors creates different family identities rather than simply using the traditional ones he would have found in other sources. In this study I concentrate on Nero and Tiberius. I focus on these...
Ramus
At the sentence level Suetonius often appears to be neutral, but I argue here that the persuasive... more 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.
Classical Quarterly, 2021
Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars usually begin with a family tree. These family trees are
often rh... more Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars usually begin with a family tree. These family trees are
often rhetorical, foreshadowing in the ancestors character traits that will be themes of
the rest of the Life. This particular rhetorical strategy relies upon an older phenomenon
of ‘family identity’—namely, the literary application of similar characteristics to people in
the same family—such as the one that tells us that the Claudii are proud and the Domitii
Ahenobarbi are ferocious. Gary Farney studied ‘family identity’ as a phenomenon of the
Republic. There, it was the association of a family with a certain characteristic, a kind of
‘branding’. It would be perfectly obvious for Suetonius to use the family identities already
in use for well-known families, but, as I show here, Suetonius’ selection of ancestors
creates different family identities rather than simply using the traditional ones he would
have found in other sources. In this study I concentrate on Nero and Tiberius. I focus
on these two emperors because they are individuals where there is a known family identity
in other sources and they also have the most detailed and elaborate ancestry sections in
Suetonius’ Caesars. Family identity seems to be most interesting to Suetonius when it goes
against expectations, and that is when Suetonius’ family trees are most elaborate.
Classical Quarterly, 2019
Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars contain at least twenty discrete anecdotes about childhood (pueri... more Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars contain at least twenty discrete anecdotes about childhood (pueritia) and youth (iuuenta or adulescentia) spread across the Lives. Some characterize the Caesars by looking forwards (foreshadowing) and others do so by looking backwards (flashbacks). In both foreshadowing and flashback, the childhood anecdote shows continuity with the adult and creates the impression of lifelong consistency of character. The foreshadowing technique is also something other ancient biographers do; the flashback is something that appears to be unique to Suetonius. In this note I briefly consider the stories from childhood and youth that foreshadow character traits and themes of the rest of the Life, and then the flashbacks from the adulthood section of the Life that refer to childhood and youth in order to demonstrate vices of the grown adult. I show that the use of foreshadowing and flashbacks contributes to the appearance of a fully formed character in the child that will be consistent into adulthood, as well as facilitating the rubric system of arranging material by type rather than by time.
Ramus, 2018
At the sentence level Suetonius often appears to be neutral, but I argue here that the persuasive... more 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.
Acta Classica, 2018
At the beginning of the Vitellius occurs a long and unusually inconclusive discussion of the poss... more At the beginning of the Vitellius occurs a long and unusually inconclusive discussion of the possible origins of the Vitellii. Throughout the long passage introducing Vitellius’ family (1.1 2.2), the biographer lays out the terms of reference for his study of a family: are they uetus et nobilis or nouus et obscurus? In the end, Suetonius can’t decide. The topic of the Vitellii receives extended treatment even though it proves nothing about Vitellius’ ancient pedigree. This intriguing opening prompts the reader to wonder what Suetonius sees as the role of this ancestry section. That it remains in the Life, despite its problems, shows that the family’s status is a very important part of the format of a Suetonian Life. By pausing over Suetonius’ Vitellius we can see the careful attention the biographer pays to the gradations of status, including mythical genealogy, nobility, maternal family, origo, patrician or plebeian status, and rank.
Antichthon, 2015
It appears that the beginning of Suetonius’ Divus Iulius is now lost. C.L.
Roth, in 1865, argued ... more It appears that the beginning of Suetonius’ Divus Iulius is now lost. C.L.
Roth, in 1865, argued that the work was acephalous by setting out the four
things that were missing from the Divus Iulius: first, the title of the work;
second, the dedication to Septicius Clarus, which is known to us only from
John Lydus’ sixth-century work De Magistratibus 2.6.4; third, the family
tree of the Caesars; fourth, the beginning of the Divus Iulius with the details
about its Trojan and Alban origins, the origin and name of the Caesars, the
omens of future greatness, his education, and his first offices. These were, as
Roth saw it, all things Suetonius was in the habit of giving in the extant
Lives.1 These things are indeed absent from the text as we have it. It
remains to test whether those things are all really standard inclusions in a
Suetonian introduction.
This paper approaches the lost beginning of the Divus Iulius by comparing
the constructions of Suetonius’ extant openings, in particular the family trees,
with Philemon Holland’s reconstruction of 1606. The comparative study will
consider how the lost part of the Divus Iulius might reflect what Suetonius
includes in other beginnings, and how it might have differed from those others.
The study will also set out the elements that Suetonius appears to have considered
essential to an introduction, thereby bringing into focus the places
where the interests of renaissance authors differed from his own.
Book Reviews by Phoebe Garrett
Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2019
Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2019
Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2015
Uploads
Papers by Phoebe Garrett
often rhetorical, foreshadowing in the ancestors character traits that will be themes of
the rest of the Life. This particular rhetorical strategy relies upon an older phenomenon
of ‘family identity’—namely, the literary application of similar characteristics to people in
the same family—such as the one that tells us that the Claudii are proud and the Domitii
Ahenobarbi are ferocious. Gary Farney studied ‘family identity’ as a phenomenon of the
Republic. There, it was the association of a family with a certain characteristic, a kind of
‘branding’. It would be perfectly obvious for Suetonius to use the family identities already
in use for well-known families, but, as I show here, Suetonius’ selection of ancestors
creates different family identities rather than simply using the traditional ones he would
have found in other sources. In this study I concentrate on Nero and Tiberius. I focus
on these two emperors because they are individuals where there is a known family identity
in other sources and they also have the most detailed and elaborate ancestry sections in
Suetonius’ Caesars. Family identity seems to be most interesting to Suetonius when it goes
against expectations, and that is when Suetonius’ family trees are most elaborate.
Roth, in 1865, argued that the work was acephalous by setting out the four
things that were missing from the Divus Iulius: first, the title of the work;
second, the dedication to Septicius Clarus, which is known to us only from
John Lydus’ sixth-century work De Magistratibus 2.6.4; third, the family
tree of the Caesars; fourth, the beginning of the Divus Iulius with the details
about its Trojan and Alban origins, the origin and name of the Caesars, the
omens of future greatness, his education, and his first offices. These were, as
Roth saw it, all things Suetonius was in the habit of giving in the extant
Lives.1 These things are indeed absent from the text as we have it. It
remains to test whether those things are all really standard inclusions in a
Suetonian introduction.
This paper approaches the lost beginning of the Divus Iulius by comparing
the constructions of Suetonius’ extant openings, in particular the family trees,
with Philemon Holland’s reconstruction of 1606. The comparative study will
consider how the lost part of the Divus Iulius might reflect what Suetonius
includes in other beginnings, and how it might have differed from those others.
The study will also set out the elements that Suetonius appears to have considered
essential to an introduction, thereby bringing into focus the places
where the interests of renaissance authors differed from his own.
Book Reviews by Phoebe Garrett
often rhetorical, foreshadowing in the ancestors character traits that will be themes of
the rest of the Life. This particular rhetorical strategy relies upon an older phenomenon
of ‘family identity’—namely, the literary application of similar characteristics to people in
the same family—such as the one that tells us that the Claudii are proud and the Domitii
Ahenobarbi are ferocious. Gary Farney studied ‘family identity’ as a phenomenon of the
Republic. There, it was the association of a family with a certain characteristic, a kind of
‘branding’. It would be perfectly obvious for Suetonius to use the family identities already
in use for well-known families, but, as I show here, Suetonius’ selection of ancestors
creates different family identities rather than simply using the traditional ones he would
have found in other sources. In this study I concentrate on Nero and Tiberius. I focus
on these two emperors because they are individuals where there is a known family identity
in other sources and they also have the most detailed and elaborate ancestry sections in
Suetonius’ Caesars. Family identity seems to be most interesting to Suetonius when it goes
against expectations, and that is when Suetonius’ family trees are most elaborate.
Roth, in 1865, argued that the work was acephalous by setting out the four
things that were missing from the Divus Iulius: first, the title of the work;
second, the dedication to Septicius Clarus, which is known to us only from
John Lydus’ sixth-century work De Magistratibus 2.6.4; third, the family
tree of the Caesars; fourth, the beginning of the Divus Iulius with the details
about its Trojan and Alban origins, the origin and name of the Caesars, the
omens of future greatness, his education, and his first offices. These were, as
Roth saw it, all things Suetonius was in the habit of giving in the extant
Lives.1 These things are indeed absent from the text as we have it. It
remains to test whether those things are all really standard inclusions in a
Suetonian introduction.
This paper approaches the lost beginning of the Divus Iulius by comparing
the constructions of Suetonius’ extant openings, in particular the family trees,
with Philemon Holland’s reconstruction of 1606. The comparative study will
consider how the lost part of the Divus Iulius might reflect what Suetonius
includes in other beginnings, and how it might have differed from those others.
The study will also set out the elements that Suetonius appears to have considered
essential to an introduction, thereby bringing into focus the places
where the interests of renaissance authors differed from his own.