How did Roman historians use, and manipulate, the past? What did they seek to accomplish by participating in its re-creation, what tools did they have at their disposal to do so, and which underlying conceptualisations of history can we glimpse behind their efforts? These questions formed the backbone of a conference entitled “Usages of the Past in Roman Historiography”, which took place at Lund University 11–12 January 2018. Inspired by Christina S. Kraus’ 2014 article “Long Ago and Far Away … The Uses of the Past in Tacitus’ Minora”, participants were encouraged to explore late republican and early imperial historiographical texts through the inclusively ambiguous concept “usage of the past”. Welcoming both close readings of specific passages and panoramic discussions of broader issues in the study of Roman historiography, the conference aimed to facilitate debate not only about the literary-rhetorical nature of historiography, i.e. how past textualised events provided a framework within which new historical texts were (consciously or unconsciously) placed and given meaning, but also about conceptualisations of historical change during transformative periods of Roman history, i.e. how portrayals of the past might reveal unstated assumptions about the passing of time and indicate expectations of the future.
The raison d’être of the current volume was to provide participants with the opportunity to develop their arguments further by drawing on the feedback received and discussions begun at the conference; to seek answers to the questions raised and debated, but not – due to the usual constraints of such academic gatherings – given the necessary time to mature through re-reading, re-thinking, and re-phrasing. Moreover, since we felt that certain areas of Roman historical writing were not adequately covered at the conference, two additional scholars were invited to contribute: Christopher Krebs (University of Stanford) has done so with a paper on Julius Caesar’s reworking of Labienus’ report on his campaign along the Seine; Roberto Cristofoli (University of Perugia) with a paper on Velleius Paterculus’ engagement with earlier traditions in his treatment of the Battle of Actium. While the papers of the volume cover a wide range of themes and writers, their shared point of departure from the concept “usage of the past” constitutes its red thread. The following introductory chapter will outline the key themes of the volume, situate it within previous research on usages of the past and/in Roman historiography, and present its papers.1
The editors would like to express their gratitude to a number of people, foundations, and academic institutions without whom/which neither the conference nor this volume would have seen the light of day. Firstly, the financial costs of the conference were shouldered by Thora Ohlssons Stiftelse, Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Sven och Dagmar Saléns Stiftelse, and Harald och Tonny Hagendahls Stiftelse. These also contributed to fund translation and preliminary proof-reading of certain papers for the volume. Secondly, Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen, the editors of Brill’s “Historiography of Rome and its Empire” series, provided invaluable help and guidance in getting the volume ready for publication. Excellent feedback was delivered by the anonymous reader appointed by them. Thirdly, work on the volume was carried out at various academic institutions, each of which deserves a special thanks: while the foundation of the project was laid at the Centre for Languages and Literature at Lund University and major advances were made at the Swedish Institute in Rome, it would not have reached its present, felicitous conclusion were it not for the time and serenity offered by a two-year fellowship at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at Bristol University, courtesy of the Carlsberg Foundation. Fourthly, and finally, heartfelt thanks are due to all those who have taken part in the making of the volume as authors (also for their significant efforts as internal reviewers), proof-readers, translators, artists, and last, but not least, participants at the conference.
Arne Jönsson and Aske Damtoft Poulsen
Some of the papers presented at the conference have been published elsewhere: Ellen O’Gorman’s paper on “Sensing the Republic in Tacitus” has been published as “Conspicuous Absence: Tacitus’ de Re Publica” in Elena Giusti’s and Tom Geue’s (eds.) Unspoken Rome (Cambridge, 2019); Dennis Pausch’s paper on “Livy’s Battle in the Forum between Roman Monuments and Greek Literature” may be found in Kaj Sandberg’s and Christopher Smith’s (eds.) Omnium Annalium Monumenta: Historical Writing and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome (Brill, 2018); and the observations and arguments presented by Edwin Shaw in his paper on “Talking and not talking about Carthage in Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum” are currently finding their way into his forthcoming monograph Sallust and the Fall of the Republic: Historiography and Intellectual Life at Rome, also to be published in Brill’s “Historiography of Rome and its Empire” series.