Describing tiberius and sejanus in the opening

Category: History,
Published: 10.01.2020 | Words: 942 | Views: 273
Download now

Pages: two

Throughout phase 1, Tacitus combines a variety of literary techniques using a variety of contextual factors (such as the death of Germanicus and certain whispers surrounding the underhand methods with which Sejanus rose to power) to characterise both men in a highly unfavorable manner, showing the general corrélation of integrity and moral fibre for the acquisition of electrical power. Indeed, the connotations of wealth and prosperity in the words ‘compositae’ (well ordered) and ‘florentis’ (flourishing) contrast heavily to the subsequently pointed out death of Germanicus, showcasing the fact that Tiberius has benefitted directly from the suffering of others and, simply by extension, characterising him as being a cold, almost heartless determine. The immediate juxtaposition in the phrases ‘Germanici mortem’ (the death of Germanicus) and ‘inter prospera’ (amongst his blessings) serves to further underscore his acceptance of death and suffering as a application for the further attainment of power, emphasising the lack of compassion in both his character and his emperorship.

Need help writing essays?
Free Essays
For only $5.90/page
Order Now

This lack of human empathy is particularly concerning considering Tiberius’s extremely higher level of impact, characterising him as a risky emperor who also, as long as he can benefit, will not likely allow kind-heartedness to interfere with his desired goals. The fact that Germanicus was such a common figure again has implications regarding Tiberius’s character, painting him while an incomer whose interests are independent from those of his subjects. The use of the present participle ‘florentis’ (flourishing) illustrates the continuous progress produced under his rule, as well as, more quietly, the constant putting on his quite immoral group of values, characterising him as being relentlessly self-interested and unsociable to human being suffering.

Indeed, Tactitus’s use of polyptoton in ‘saevire’ and ‘saevientibus’ (cruel) highlights the plethora of malice throughout his inner group of friends, demonstrating the very fact that the immorality that characterises his personal rule has moved beyond his own individuality. This yet again paints him as a careless, borderline tyrannical ruler. Furthermore, the higher level of clearness in the phrase ‘initium et causa’ (beginning and cause) lends a very good sense of certainty and conviction to his subsequent attack for the character of Sejanus, as well as highlighting Sejanus’s direct, manipulative role in events. This effect can be enhanced by simply Tacitius’s use of tricolon in ‘originem, mores, et quo facinore’ (his beginnings, his character and by what crime), constructing, in direct contrast to Sejanus’s own underhand manipulations, a definite and forward argument, once again adding a highly persuasive tone of dedication and certainty. This gives an increased standard of credence to his future characterisation of Sejanus as a highly cunning, manipulative determine, whilst the very fact that the connotations of problem in ‘facinore’ (crime) are placed in this kind of close distance with fundamental, rudimentary elements of his character such as his ‘originem’ (beginnings) and ‘mores’ (character) signifies that crime is known as a fundamental element of his personality.

Furthermore, the use of praeteritio in ‘non sine rumore’ (not with no rumour) subtly plays in rumours that Sejanus prostituted himself sexually in order to gain power. The subtlety of the phrase reflects the scandalous characteristics of the accusations, further adding to the characterisation of Sejanus as underhand and deceitful. This combines with the connotations of crafty and treatment in ‘devinxit’ (tie up) to all over again characterise Sejanus as a unethical exploiter, emphasising, particularly together with the even more connotations of secrecy inside the vague term ‘variis artibus’ (various arts), his specific lack of meaning fibre ” he is barely an amazing leader. Furthermore, the deliberately balanced sentence structure in ‘obscurum adversum alios¦ uni incautum intectumque’ (reserved and aggressive to others¦ unguarded and frank with him alone) brings out a very good sense of contrast, lounging emphasis on the change in Tiberius’s behaviour the moment around Sejanus and once even more highlighting his skill being a manipulator. This kind of contrast is definitely further prolonged by the rapport of ‘alios’ (others) with ‘sibi’ (with him), increasing the characterisation of Sejanus as a both equally highly in a position and underhand manipulator. Simply by extension, Tacitus clearly portrays Tiberius to be at the mercy of Sejanus’s manipulations, subverting his mature position and characterising him as an ultimately poor, gullible number. The double use of variatio here (‘obscurum adversum’, ‘incautum intectumque’) also heightens the sense of contrast, putting emphasis on the strength of each of the inconsistant behaviours, even though the sneaky connotations of ‘sollertia’ (ingenuity) again portray Sejanus being a sly, deceptive character. Certainly, Tacitus’s constant focus on the negative in ‘non tam’ (not just) continues to stress Sejanus’s bad characteristics, merging with the mention of the divine anger in ‘deum’ (gods) to portray him as eventually doomed and fated to fall.

Furthermore, Tacitus’s use of synchosis in ‘sui obtegens¦ alios criminatur’ (concealing for himself¦ an accuser against others) provides a solid sense of balance, bringing out the compare in his actions to properly highlight his hypocrisy ” concealing his own crimes, he easily accuses others of comparable ones. The continuing use of synchosis in ‘palam¦ pudor¦ intus¦ libido’ (openly¦ modesty¦ inwardly¦ lust) once again brings out a strong contrast among Sejanus’s to the outside behaviour fantastic inward goal, once again characterising him being a highly deceitful, manipulative determine. This also demonstrates his ability to change his character to suit the case, characterising him as a successful and experienced manipulator ” he is seldom, if ever, legitimate, underlining the truth that his apparently good qualities in fact hide his pervasive self-interest. The toxic associations of ‘noxiae’ (harmful) stress this underlying malevolence, characterising Sejanus as being a quietly harmful, corrupting affect.