Bartsch S. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian 1994 Cambridge, Mass.

Bartsch S. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian 1994 Cambridge, Mass. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bo D. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus 1974 Turin

Bo D. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus 1974 Turin )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Champion C. Dialogus 5.3-10.8: A Reconsideration of the Character of Marcus Aper Phoenix 1994 48 2 152 163

Champion C. Dialogus 5.3-10.8: A Reconsideration of the Character of Marcus Aper Phoenix 1994 48 2 152 163 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gallia A. Potentes and Potentia in Tacitus’s Dialogus de oratoribus TAPA 2009 139 169 206

Gallia A. Potentes and Potentia in Tacitus’s Dialogus de oratoribus TAPA 2009 139 169 206 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Goldberg S.M. Appreciating Aper: The Defence of Modernity in Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus CQ 1999 49 1 224 237

Goldberg S.M. Appreciating Aper: The Defence of Modernity in Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus CQ 1999 49 1 224 237 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Gudeman A. P. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de oratoribus 1914 Leipzig and Berlin ^²

Gudeman A. P. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de oratoribus 1914 Leipzig and Berlin ^² )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Güngerich R. Heubner H. Kommentar zum Dialogus des Tacitus 1980 Göttingen

Güngerich R. Heubner H. Kommentar zum Dialogus des Tacitus 1980 Göttingen )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Köhnken A. Das Problem der Ironie bei Tacitus MH 1973 30 32 54

Köhnken A. Das Problem der Ironie bei Tacitus MH 1973 30 32 54 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Mayer R. Tacitus. Dialogus de Oratoribus 2001 Cambridge

Mayer R. Tacitus. Dialogus de Oratoribus 2001 Cambridge )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

McNelis C. Dominik W. & Hall J. Grammarians and Rhetoricians A Companion to Roman Rhetoric 2007 Malden, Mass. 285 296

McNelis C. Dominik W. Hall J. Grammarians and Rhetoricians A Companion to Roman Rhetoric 2007 Malden, Mass. 285 296 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Michel A. P. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de oratoribus 1962 Paris

Michel A. P. Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de oratoribus 1962 Paris )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Rutledge S.H. Imperial Inquisitions 2001 London

Rutledge S.H. Imperial Inquisitions 2001 London )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Strunk T.E. Offending the Powerful: Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus and Safe Criticism Mnemosyne 2010 63 2 241 267

Strunk T.E. Offending the Powerful: Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus and Safe Criticism Mnemosyne 2010 63 2 241 267 )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Winterbottom M. Cornelii Taciti Opera Minora 1975 Oxford

Winterbottom M. Cornelii Taciti Opera Minora 1975 Oxford )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See the commentaries of Gudeman (1914) and Michel (1962), who both confine themselves to textual and/or grammatical remarks.

Bo (1974) ad poetis: ‘sc. “criminabor”, nam Aper poetas detrectaverat atque carminum studium prostraverat Materni.’

See Strunk 2010, 250-1 with n. 23 for an overview.

Strunk 2010, 251: “Tacitus’ audience could read the trial language as playful, friendly banter, but they could also read it as an ominous allusion to what happens to those who offend the authorities . . .”.

Güngerich (1980) ad loc. Cf. also Gudeman (1914), who calls the exchange “scherzhafte criminatio” (75) in his discussion of the role of Secundus and the lacuna between Dial. 35 and 36. He, too, does not elaborate on the joke.

See e.g. Champion 1994, 154, 160, 162, Gallia 2009, 177-83, Strunk 2010, 249-57. Goldberg (1999) opposes this interpretation (227-31).

See e.g. Köhnken 1973, Bartsch 1994, 98-125, Goldberg 1999, 235-7, and Strunk 2010. None of them mention the final paragraph of the dialogue.

Bartsch 1994, 115: “. . . Maternus’ praise . . . offers dual meanings to its different audiences, pro- and anti-imperial.”

Cf. Strunk 2010, and the more general suggestions there about Tacitus and doublespeak: “Tacitus’ Dialogus functions as a manual on how to offend the authorities under an autocratic regime.” (265)