1The Roman emperors of the Flavian dynasty, especially the last one, Domitian, have their traditional images formed from contemporary or immediately posterior prose works – such as the ones by Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger – still taken as informative or transparent by some historians and classicists. This image has a markedly negative nature; however, in poetic works, contemporary to the emperor, rarely considered in their political views, Statius and Martial unveil a more positive facet of this character, taking us to oppose this portrait to the one proposed by the historiographical tradition. Thus, the intent of this chapter is to analyze the representation of Domitian, contrasting the traditional image surviving in the contemporaneity with the one presented by other authors of the period, observing the rhetorical instruments used to build the imperial persona.

2This study stems from a restlessness about two common statements about the last Flavian emperor¹: on one hand, that Domitian was a bloodthirsty, bellicose, jealous and miserly tyrant, under which only the most abject subservience was the only option of survival; on the other hand, that the frequency with which the praise to the emperor appears in contemporary works is a reflect of the flattery, a shameful practice, indicative of the sovereign’s tyranny, always either commissioned or fake. However, under the light of archeological and numismatic evidence and new hermeneutical approaches to the literary text, the traditional image of many emperors has been modified. Heir to R. Syme’s and K. Waters’ propositions², B. Jones’s book³, which problematizes, for example, the role of the those who surrounded the emperor, is an important mark in the revision of Domitian’s image. This emphasis on the role of the elite and their power relations, in deep connection with the imperial person, has been one of the main notes of the more recent and revisionist studies on the emperors that have received the stamp of bad governors – besides Domitian, Tiberius, Gaius and Nero, for example⁴.

3We argue that the use of rhetorical elements proper to the epideictic genre, both for praise and blame, as prescribed by rhetoric, is geared more towards the construction of either a favorable or an unfavorable image that seems possible than towards the truthfulness of facts⁵. Therefore, all these works have to be studied under the light of rhetoric as a privileged key, and we are part of a recent impetus of reevaluation of the sources considered valid for research, since poetic texts were for a long time considered less worthy of credit than historiographical works, occupying a secondary place when compared to prosaic texts, in a tradition that brings us back to the establishment of History as a science in the 1800s. As such, we advocate not only for the potential of poetry in contrast to other written sources, but also for the use of literature in clarifying past societies’ political history⁶.

4Domitian was the last emperor of the Flavian Dynasty, which rose to power after the civil war in 68-69. The preceding emperor was his older brother, Titus, who was preceded by his father, Vespasian. As an emperor, he governed between 82 and 96, the period that gave him the fame of a tyrant. However, during his fifteen years of government, the third longest up until his rule, the economy was strengthened, military victories were achieved and a cultural and architectonical program was established. Soon after his murder, in 96, and the ascension of his counselor, Nerva, the last of the Flavians, suffered damnatio memoriae, the erasure of his name in all official documents or monuments (Suet., Dom., 17.1-2)⁷. Thus, all work produced after his death exists under the weight of this damnatio.

5What was the reason for the misunderstandings between Domitian and the Senate that enabled the creation of his image as a tyrant, as well as the coup of 96? According to J. Evans⁸, in relation to the senatorial group, the first years of Domitian’s government were amicable. However, to J. Gering⁹, the lack of traditional auctoritas made the emperor search for political aid to strengthen his position, which in fact sped up his collapse even more. The politics of accentuation of his power happened in a few levels, the main one being the monopoly of the main aristocratic dignities, such as the consulate and the perpetual censorship, starting from 84, as well as his attention to the military and praetorians, in opposition to the Senate, which seemed to feel neglected¹⁰. This neglect awoke discontent in part of the senatorial sphere, which responded orchestrating two conspirations: one in 87, and the one led by Saturninus, in 89. The conspiratory threat appears to have hardened the last Flavian’s policies, as the already actively involved and the potential rivals probably faced maiestas trials (Suet., Dom., 10.2-11; Tac., Agr., 44.5; 45.1-2).

6Our intention in this study is not to redeem Domitian, the Roman emperor, but to ascertain how the character’s rhetorical representation was built, since the senatorial sources about the last Flavian unanimously attest his tyranny. Without a doubt, there is no autocratic regime that does not rely on authoritarianism, coercion and centralization as a way of keeping its political position; the powerholder in these cases has few possibilities of conduct that will not be interpreted as tyrannical. Therefore, we do not deny that, even if the rhetorical characterization is amplified, the roots are factual. However, the forging of a negative or positive persona is an important instrument, projected to support objectives and purposes of a political group¹¹. Being a competent emperor and a sagacious administrator, as the revisionists attest for Domitian, does not automatically exempt the possibility of parallel political repression¹², even if it will dampen some of the criticism, as we shall see. What is presented is an incompatibility between the pictures – laudatory in poems, invective in prose – bequeathed to the contemporaneity. This means, strictly speaking, understanding that there are many imperial representations, many Domitians. We will thus seek to discuss the contrasting images found in contemporary and immediately posterior literature, interpreting their reasons according to the political context of the different periods.

Domitian’s inventio in the historiographical tradition

7To interpret the invective construction of Domitian in Roman historiography, it is crucial to understand that, as A. Laird specifies¹³, rhetoric was fundamental in the formation of the art of persuasion received by Latin writers. Thus, it is fundamental for an informed comprehension of the logics of that historiographical text production, which shows the rhetorical effects that permeate the writing of History in many levels¹⁴. Writing any literary genre in Ancient Rome was done by the knowledge and recognition of the rhetorical devices learned through the studying of manuals and the observation of the practices, in the Forum and the Senate, of illustrious model ancestors or valuable contemporaries. In the case of representations of the powerholder, the common place of the tyrant was already largely known since Aristotle (Pol., 1311a2-6; 1313b-1314a), and it is this topos, more than factual truth, that seems to have conformed the representation of some Roman leaders in Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius – and, even before, in Sallust, Livy and Cicero, or later, in Cassius Dio, Velleius Paterculus, and Aurelius Victor, to cite a few examples.

8In the Principate, this commonplace was used in relation to a group of characters that posterity, based on this association, gathered collectively under the stamp of bad emperors: Tiberius, Gaius, Nero, Galba, Domitian, Commodus, Elagabalus, to cite a few. Studies credited the rhetorical creation of the tyrant as a common place¹⁵, in Roman environment, beyond the appearance in Aristotle and Hellenic historiography, to two agencies: the constant place of the topos in Greek theater, popular in Rome, and in the post-Hellenic rhetorical schools¹⁶.

9The common place of the tyrant in school exercises can be observed in the controversies, a kind of school work with judicial theme (Quint., Inst., 2.10.5-7)¹⁷. The concentration of power in the hands of one person was an invitation for the topic to leave the world of the school exercises, especially due to its growing political relevance and renewed interest. J. Dunkle and R. Tabacco show that even if there are no exercises involving the tyrant in its treatise¹⁸, the auctor ad Herennium knew the stock of characteristics for the topos, for he recommends the adjectives tyrannicus and crudelis as adequate to political invective (Rhet. Her., 2.49), in conformity with the ciceronian prescription (Cic., Inu., 1.102) of the topoi of indignatio¹⁹. Previously, the anonymous author (Rhet. Her., 1.8) had already associated crudelitas, superbia and uis which, combined with a few others, such as libido, auaritia and saeuitia, abound in works critical of the behavior of bad governors since the end of the Republic and throughout the whole Empire²⁰. Lastly, in Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria, examples of the tyrant as a stock character in rhetoric are constant (3.5.8-9; 3.6.25-26; 5.10.30-31; 7.1.28; 7.4.21-22; 8.6.52; 9.2.67; 12.1.40-41).

10As we can see, the framework of the epideictic topoi associated to the tyrannical characteristics was not only explicit in Roman rhetoric, but the rhetoric manuals invite us to place these predicates especially in invention, disposition and enunciation, to serve the argument, with clear persuasive means, even proposing the amplification of attributes when necessary, adding color to narratives or speeches, shaping the character as someone one wishes to condemn regardless of historical precision²¹. Thus, it is by these devices that our reading of the historiographers immediately posterior to Domitian’s death is illuminated, since we see the use of these common-places of the tyrannical behavior in the works of Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius. We also believe that understanding how this commonplace is employed in literary genres can help us interpret the uses of epideictic beyond historiography, so that, with this in mind, we do not make the mistake of taking the literary and rhetorical attacks to the tyrants at face value, against which T. Habinek warns²².

11Regardless of the richness of epideictic topics operationalized in Tacitus and Pliny, the most detailed invective representation of the youngest Flavian is offered by Suetonius. In the Vitae, the author presents a significant amount of information about Domitian’s biography, which can be chronologically divided, as the author himself presented them; or thematically, as we propose here, observing the value judgements that point to the function of the text in the imperial context²³. Due to the amount of information, we opted to expose only a few characteristics and comment on them in the order prescribed for epideictic texts in ancient rhetorical treaties, such as the Rhetorica ad Herennium (3.10-15), Cicero’s De Inuentione (1.34-36; 2.32-34; 2.177) and Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria (3.7.10-16; 5.10.23-31).

12The auctor ad Herennium (3.3), when exposing the epideictic genre, establishes that the subject of praise answers to the four cardinal virtues: modestia, fortitudo, prudentia and iustitia. In the treatise, these attributes are divided as relating to the external things, to the body and to the character, and their applicability in laudatory speeches is demonstrated (Rhet. Her., 3.4-6); blame, instead, is reached through the inversion of the topics used to compose praise (Rhet. Her., 3.10). This proposition is in agreement with what Quintilian (Inst., 3.7.10-16) exposes about the design of a praise speech. Therefore, we will follow the order of the virtues, demonstrating how the texts that comment on Domitian follow rhetorical prescriptions, when imputing him with the vicious counterparts of these four virtues, starting with modestia, which is represented inversely as sexual infamy, impulsivity, dissimulation, arrogance, pride and anger.

Modestia in reverse

13In the beginning of his narrative, Suetonius (Dom., 1.1) highlights the extreme poverty in which Domitian would have lived throughout his youth, bringing back the new dynasty’s characteristic enunciated in the Life of Vespasian (1.1), that is, the obscurity associated with their humble origins. This principle corresponds, right at the outset, to the inversion of the topic of praise to the origin, prescribed in the manuals (Rhet. Her., 3.13; Quint., Inst., 3.7.10; 5.10.24), in which one should commendably highlight aspects of one’s birth, upbringing and kinsfolk. With Domitian, there is the affirmation of misery, even though there is proof that contests this poverty²⁴. In the same excerpt, Suetonius states that, either due to the poverty or to the natural impulse towards infamy, the young man was sodomized by Claudius Pollio, and by Nerva, his future successor²⁵, the first appearance of the opposite of another virtue, modestia.

14The Emperor’s youth and his participation in Vitellius and Vespasian’s confrontations are also portrayed in Tacitus (Hist., 3.63-86), as well as his conduct until the restauration of the Principate by his father (Hist., 4.1-89). About his ascension to the urban praetorship, in 70 (Hist., 4.39.2), the indication, which happened during his father’s and brother’s absence, while the tense post-war atmosphere had not completely dissipated yet, supported the young man’s rampant ambition. According to the historian (Hist., 4.85-86), the power was still with Mucianus, while Domitian was excluded from the important decisions made by the generals, even during his supposed leadership in the Lugdunum campaign²⁶. The exclusion, however, forced the prince into conspiratory behavior against his own people, for “Domitian realized that his elders despised his youth, and gave up even the trivial official duties which he had previously undertaken. Looking the picture of innocence and restraint, he shrouded himself in profound reserve and posed as an enthusiastic connoisseur of literature and poetry. The idea was to hide his real character and avoid competing with his brother, whose gentler nature, quite unlike his own, he totally misunderstood” (Tac., Hist., 4.86.2).

15Thus, Suetonius (Dom., 2.1) and Tacitus (Hist., 4.85-86) describe the young Domitian as impulsive, lascivious, arrogant, jealous and immature, with an unmeasured passion for fame, associating external things to instances of his character, criticizing the adulescentium impudentiorum intemperantia, a vicious counterpart of modesty or temperance (see Cic., Off., 2.123; Sall., Catil., 12.2)²⁷. The libidinum intemperantia of youth matches the topoi of invective towards the body (Rhet. Her., 3.14; Quint., Inst., 3.7.12; 5.10.26), emphasized in Suetonius²⁸. Domitian’s appearance during his youth is not mentioned, not even with the objective of dishonor and degradation (Rhet. Her., 3.14). However, in his maturity, he is marked by his big, somber eyes and his deforming baldness, a protruding belly sustained by thin legs and, after a long period of sickness, an unhealthy thinness (Suet., Dom., 18.1-2 : postea caluitio quoque deformis et obesitate uentris et crurum gracilitate, quae tamen ei ualitudine longa remacruerant.). Suetonius thus articulates a corporal description similar to that of other emperors such as Gaius (50.1) and Claudius (30.1-2), using the pattern for the tyrannical face (e.g. Rhet. Her., 4.68; Sen., Const., 2.5.4). Other authors also took advantage of the topic: in Tacitus, the last Flavian’s visage was wild and reddened (Agr., 45.2: saeuus ille uultus et rubor), while Pliny (Pan., 48.4-5) claimed that “menaces and horror were the sentinels at his doors, and the fears alike of admission and rejection; then himself in person, dreadful to see and to meet, with arrogance on his brow and fury in his eye, a womanish pallor spread over his body but a deep flush to match the shameless expression on his face. None dared approach him, mystery, and only emerged from the desert of his solitude to create another” (Obuersabantur foribus horror et minae et par metus admissis et exclusis; ad hoc ipse occursu quoque uisuque terribilis: superbia in fronte, ira in oculis, femineus pallor in corpore, in ore impudentia multo rubore suffusa. Non adire quisquam non adloqui audebat, tenebras semper secretumque captantem, nec umquam ex solitudine sua prodeuntem, nisi ut solitudinem faceret).

16The tyrant’s physical description fabricates an atmosphere of real life²⁹ and was used by the authors according to the topologically exemplary character of classical literature, which offered the possibility to describe Domitian in the worst way possible (Rhet. Her., 3.14).

17Besides these examples of arguments of the external things and body types, it is also possible to find in these works stock elements such as character or mood vices again as the reverse of the four cardinal virtues (Rhet. Her., 3.14-15; Quint., Inst., 3.7.15, 20; 5.10.27-29). When we explored the usage of the external things and body causes, we already saw where most of the epideictic topical arsenal against Domitian focused on, that is, on the attack to the perversion of modesty and the moral virtues that surround it – natura constantiae, pudor, moderatio, continentia, sobrietas and temperantia.

18In his maturity, as the emperor, even if he had some praiseworthy qualities, especially bureaucratic, Domitian is pictured as inconsistent, and the more power he acquired, the more vicious he became (Dom., 3.2). Any allusion to virtue is suspicious³⁰, for any aspect becomes automatically negative when associated to the emperor. It is the case of the youngest Flavian’s love of poetry and literature, which could be considered worthy of praise in other environments (such as Plin., Nat., praef., 5), but becomes a negative element in the biography written by Suetonius (Dom., 2.2), and is marked down as dissimulation of moderation in Tacitus (Hist., 4.86). The dissimulatio (Tac., Agr., 39.1; 42.3), associated to arrogance or falsehood, is also a vicious application of modesty, important topos in the epideictic writings since the Greeks.

19Even though the youngest Flavian is not as present in the Histories, Tacitus’ version of the princeps as a largely dissimulated and jealous ruler is firmly enunciated in the Agricola³¹. If we take Tacitus’ declaration in Ann., 3.65 as the author’s beliefs, History’s main role should be to represent past experiences and pass judgement on events and influential ancestors: his text, his considerations, sine ira et studio (Ann., 1.1.3), “with no anger or interest”, are made to aid in his contemporary’s judgement (clarorum uirorum facta moresque posteris tradere)³². In addition to the prologue (Agr., 1-3) and the epilogue (Agr., 43-46), Domitian is also present at the events after Tacitus’ father in law’s return to the Vrbs, after a period of service in Britain. In this section (Agr., 39.1-45.2), the emperor is jealous of Agricola’s military prowess (5-8; 39.1-3); Domitian shows resistant respect when receiving him (40.3), for he had “prepared his hypocrite’s part, put on a majestic air” (42.2: paratus simulatione, in adrogantiam compositus), involving himself in secret accusations (41.1) and hypocritically accepting Agricola’s resignation, even if at first, he did not even want to appoint him (42.1-2). The historiographer also registers the rumor that the princeps himself had murdered the previous consul (43.2), later faking commotion for the death (43.3), while dragging Rome to a period of terror worse than Nero’s (44.5-45.2)³³. Agricola is a political and public record of nefarious times, amplified in the imperial behavior.

20Immoderation and arrogance can also be seen when the aspirations to divinity attributed to Domitian are criticized. Suetonius (Dom., 13.1-3) states that the Flavian claimed the title of Dominus et Deus, and refers to a supposed law, enforcing all imperial statues and likenesses to be made only in gold or silver, an accusation also found in Pliny’s Panegyric (52.1-6)³⁴. G. Adams points out that this “[…] is indicative of Suetonius’ attempts to substantiate such assertions because a decree to allow only gold and silver statues would have been of the greatest offense. Not only does this illustrate Domitian’s arrogance but also his impiety because of the correlation between gold statues and divinity”³⁵. J. Gering³⁶, when analyzing the historicity of the title of dominus et deus, denies its factuality, showing its absence in epigraphic inscriptions, since, despite the damnatio memoriae, a significant corpus survived, in which Domitian is referred twice as dominus, but never as dominus et deus. Regardless of the veracity of the title, its affirmation in the construction of the emperor’s portrayal in Suetonius is enough to show the absence of pietas, by alleging that the emperor wanted to boast the title: there is an immediate association with adrogantia, insolentia, fastus, besides the tyrannical superbia. Thus, the rhetorical path is clear: to explore the tendencies of certain rulers for an authoritarian (dominatio) or regal (regnum) government, opposed to the traditional aristocratic res publica and the ciuium libertas, a common topic since the republican oratory, especially in the ciceronian argumentation against Sulla, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar or Mark Antony³⁷. The emperor’s portrayal is outlined as an object of absolute terror and hate (Suet., Dom., 14.1: terribilis cunctis et inuisus), from which dementia and furor branch, characteristics equally inverse to the virtues one would expect from the rhetorically constructed ruler.

21The emperor’s madness and foolishness come through in the form of paranoia, registered in the presence of the delatores³⁸ and of trials of betrayal for maiestas in all post-Domitian literature; which leads A. Boyle to consider them topoi of the damnatio that followed the end of the Flavian Principate³⁹. Hence, “he used to say that the lot of princes were most unhappy, since when they discovered a conspiracy, no one believed them unless they had been killed” (Suet., Dom., 21.1: condicionem principum miserrimam aiebat, quibus de coniuratione comperta non crederetur nisi occisis). Pliny exposes the emperor’s dementia (Pan., 33.4):

Demens ille, uerique honoris ignarus, qui crimina maiestatis in arena colligebat, ac se despici et contemni, nisi etiam gladiatores eius ueneraremur, sibi maledici in illis, suam diuinitatem, suum numen uiolari, interpretabatur; quum se idem quod deos [...].

“He was a madman, blind to the true meaning of his position, who used the arena for collecting charges of high treason, who felt himself slighted a scorned if we failed to pay homage to his gladiators, taking any criticism of them to himself and seeing insults to his own godhead and divinity; who deemed himself the equal of the gods yet raised his gladiators to be his equal”.

22Tacitus, in the Annals (4.30), describes the informers, “[...] a breed invented for the national ruin and never adequately curbed even by penalties, were now lured into the field with rewards” ([...] genus hominum publico exitio repertum et ne, poenis quidem umquam satis coercitum, per praemia eliciebatur). In Pliny (Pan., 33-34), the problem of the delatores is an index of the association between Domitian and Nero; and, in Tacitus (Agr., 2), it is the trademark of past slavery. These writers have painted a Domitian that not only does not curb gossiping and spying, but even instigates and makes use of them⁴⁰.

The opposite of fortitudo: cowardice and ambition

23The use of informants, even if common throughout the whole Principate, is operationalized in Domitian’s portrait to reflect mistrust and cowardness, vices opposed to the virtue of fortitudo (Rhet. Her., 3.11; Quint., Inst., 3.7.15; 5.10.28). In Domitian’s case, fear is also associated to the depreciation of his military ability⁴¹. Suetonius (Dom., 1.2), for example, narrates the young man’s escape during the events of the Civil War of 68-69, when Domitian would have cowardly run from the legions loyal to Vitellius, by mingling with a procession of priests of Isis⁴². This act dictates the tone of the narrative throughout the whole biography: the representation of someone unworthy of military prestige for his character and inability. Thus, “his campaigns were undertaken partly without provocation and partly by necessity” (Suet., Dom., 6.1: expeditiones partim sponte suscepit, partim necessario). This also echoes Tacitus’ accusations (Hist., 3.44; 3.74; 3.82) which chronicle Domitian’s coward participation in his father’s rise to power.

24The younger Flavian did not have military experience at the time and was probably more useful to his father as his representative in the besieged Rome, than as a fighter, hostage or martyr. Even so, the topic persists when, in many instances, Domitian’s military defeats are also remembered. The narrative insists that the honors displayed for the triumph over the north frontier were fake (Tac., Agr., 39.1: falsum triumphum), an assertion that appears also in Pliny (Pan., 16.3): “the day will come when the Capitol shall see no masquerade of triumph, the chariots and sham trappings of false victory” (accipiet ergo aliquando Capitolium mimicos currus nec falsae simulacra uictoriae), while “good generalship belonged to the emperor” (Tac., Agr., 39.3: ducis boni imperatoriam uirtutem esse). J. Freitas states that Tacitus’ technique to minimize Domitian’s military deeds is also used by Suetonius when speaking of Gaius (Cal., 43-49) and other emperors⁴³, that is, “[...] the post-Domitianic response to the emperor’s military activity resorts to the sort of topoi used to denigrate the martial undertakings of earlier ‘tyrants’”⁴⁴.

Anti-prudentia: audacity

25The inversion of the virtue of prudentia is built by the Flavian’s detractors mainly in terms of avarice, ambition and rapacity, with little weight put in administrative recklessness when compared to other forms of criticism. Rapacity and ambition are actually justified as the main reason for the hostile relation between Domitian and the Senate, even if this topic is common as part of the portrait of the tyrant since the Republic (e.g. Sall., Catil., 10.4; 11.4). Pliny (Pan., 42.50) and Tacitus (Agr., 44) discursively portray Domitian’s cruelty and anger as results of his avarice, which plundered the property of living and dead, taken by any small accusation (Suet., Dom., 10; 12.1-2). Avarice is always the motivation: he stole not for his use, but only to deprive others (Plin., Pan., 50.2-5) and retain all he could in his hands (Plin., Pan., 41.2). Another criticism is that Domitian would have depleted Rome’s treasury with his immense and unnecessary constructing project (Suet., Dom., 10.1; 12.2; 13.3). The conclusion to the imperial financial issue is just one: the princeps “drained the blood of the commonwealth” (Tac., Agr., 44.5: res publica exhausit).

26However, as initially demonstrated by R. Syme, the accusations of avarice and administrative incompetence are not sustainable: “in his duel with the Senate his rapacity is a weapon, not a cause or motive”⁴⁵. The army’s reduction, accusation of Suetonius (Dom., 12.1-2), due to impoverishment, does not seem to be real: B. Jones defends that Domitian’s affection for military and glorious feats makes this or any discouragement to recruiting unlikely⁴⁶. It is important to have in mind that Domitian’s avarice, as well as his financial politics, were exaggerated and his projects’ extravagance emphasized with the goal of creating a vicious character in the last years of his government⁴⁷, when any positive tone about his constructing project was decreased or erased. This happened with a large part of the register of the buildings Domitian restored, which were appropriated by previous or posterior builders (Suet., Dom., 5.1)⁴⁸. This was done to reiterate a negative bias, which in the historiographical writings would affect even the most commendable aspects of Domitian’s reign: a program of construction so big could not be carried out if the imperial vaults were empty⁴⁹. In discourse, however, the government’s immoderation and injustice, abundant in persecutions for personal gain (Suet., Dom., 12.1-2) are attested, such as Nero (Suet., Ner., 32.1) had previously done⁵⁰.

The unjust ruler: avarice, rapacity, cruelty, savagery

27Domitian’s persecutions are also part of the construction of the inverse of the virtue of iustitia. Suetonius (Dom., 2.3; 3.1-2) in different moments points to the cruelty (crudelitas) and consequent fear begotten by Domitian, especially in the deterioration of the government between 90 and 93: “but he did not continue with this clemency or integrity, although he turned to cruelty more rapidly than to avarice” (Suet., Dom., 10.1: sed neque in clementiae neque in abstinentiae tenore permansit, et tamen aliquanto celerius ad saeuitiam desciuit quam ad cupiditatem). It is not only in Suetonius that Domitian’s rule is a cruel and hostile period to all virtues (Tac., Agr., 1: tam saeua et infesta uirtutibus tempora)⁵¹, in which there was no freedom of speech, for accusations were openly encouraged, the arts were censored, and persecutions, banishments and execution of the opponents – including intellectuals and philosophers – was usual⁵². Other authors also marked this government with saeuitia (e.g. Suet., Dom., 10.3-4, 14.1; Tac., Agr., 3.2; Hist., 4.39.9; 68.5; Plin., Pan., 49.1)⁵³. Pliny (Pan., 48.3; 52.4 and 7) highlights the terror and the many deaths thanks to Domitian’s savagery (saeuitia), in descriptions that echo Suetonius’ (Dom., 11.1) saeuus metu (Dom., 1.3): “his savage cruelty was not only excessive, but also cunning and sudden” (erat autem non solum magnae, sed etiam callidae inopinataeque saeuitiae).

28Tacitus’ portrayal (Agr., 42.3-4) is of a character prone to anger (praeceps in iram), more obscure (obscurior) and irrevocable (inreuocabilior), greedy and arrogant; he finds consonance in Pliny (Pan., 49.1): “Nothing availed him then – not his divinity, nor those secret chambers, those cruel haunts whither he was driven by his fear and pride and hatred of mankind” (longeque tunc illi diuinitas sua, longe arcana illa cubilia saeuique secessus, in quos timore, et superbia, et odio hominum agebatur). Domitian is described in an animalistic way, as a savage beast (immanissima belua), lurking in his lair (uelut quodam specu inclusa), licking the blood of his murdered relatives (Pan., 48.3: propinquorum sanguinem lamberet), for he is a cruel sire (Pan., 52.7: saeuissimus dominus), an impure ruler (Pan., 52.3: incestus princeps), dissimulated even when sharing the table with the senators, while watching them in a detestable manner (49.6). However, as a topical aspect, the ruler’s savagery or ferocity as a tyrant’s rhetorical model already appears with the same words in Cicero (Off., 3.32: figura hominis feritas et immanitas beluae; see also Rep., 2.48; 3.45; Off., 1.57; 3.82) and Livy (29.17.11-12: belua immanis), besides an application in a similar situation in Seneca (Clem., 1.25.1; 26.4). The Flavian’s ferocity (saeuitia) also produces the civil body’s weakness in Tacitus (Agr., 3.1-2), even if later, in better hands, the body could return to life (nunc demum redit animus), for the happiness is increasing under the Nerva-Antonine reign (augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum Nerua Traianus), even if the medication is much slower than the disease (tardiora sunt remedia quam mala)⁵⁴.

29Domitian’s principate, in Pliny’s letters, is marked by the constant fear of speaking in public, for the tyrant could misinterpret anything (e.g. Ep., 3.11.3; 8.14.4; 9.13.21)⁵⁵. This created, in the Plinian discourse, a recurring metaphor associated to the proximity to the lightning bolts thrown by the angry emperor, who could whip them in a heartbeat (Pan., 90.5; Ep., 3.11.3)⁵⁶. This made the just men run or escape (Pan., 48.3), with the fear of being persecuted, humiliated or sent to exile (Ep., 8.14.8). Domitian also constantly figures in unfavorable epistolographic contexts, even if, according to J. Evans, in all the epistolary books, only letter 4.11 offers an attempt at narrative treatment of the imperial crimes, and even then, through a defined historical act, greatly echoing Tacitus’ tone (Agr., 39-45)⁵⁷. The theme is the emperor’s hypocrisy in presenting incestuous behavior (Plin., Ep., 4.11.4-8; Suet., Dom., 1.3; 3.1; 13.1; 22.1) while condemning, along with the other pontifices, the priestess Cornelia to death due to incestum⁵⁸. Still, according to Evans⁵⁹, despite this single event, Pliny’s letters seem to support a more administratively efficient picture of Domitian (Dom., 8.1: diligenter et industrie), rather than the monstrously tyrannical and abusing (Plin., Ep., 4.11.6: immanitate tyranni, licentia domini).

30Domitian’s presence in the Panegyric can seem exiguous at first sight, since Pliny only refers to him directly by name twice. However, E. Ramage mapped around sixty allusions to his figure in the whole discourse⁶⁰; in four of them, associated to Nero (Plin., Pan., 2.6; 54.4; 63.3; 52.1 and 3-5), and in many others associated to Trajan by contrast. This led the author to the finding, to which we subscribe, that the role of the invective in the Plinian discourse is primarily laudatory⁶¹: that is, the text attacks Domitian’s figure, as a way to emphasize, by opposition, Trajan’s virtues. According to B. Johansson⁶², this was instrumentalized when Pliny used the stock vices – cowardness, arrogance, cruelty, avarice and hostility – to give life to his tyrannical model of Domitian, and, to reach this goal, distorting the evidence or amplifying the reality was not a problem, since the objective was the likelihood of the imperial imago. Binomials are operated all the time: Flavian saeuitia or crudelitas against the Nerva-Antonine clementia or iustitia, for example, since the author himself affirms that “no praise is adequate without a comparison” (Pan., 53.1: nihil non parum grate sine comparatione laudatur; cf. 6.2).

31Of course, the intent is also pedagogical and instructive, for the counseling dimension is inherent to laudatory texts (Arstt., Rhet., 1.9.1368a). Considering that oratory has three main objectives: teach (docere), move (mouere) and delight (delectare) (Quint., Inst., 3.5), the orator teaches, through praise of virtues and censorship of vices, how the ideal emperor is, who should govern the Roman people and even the Senate, to whom he speaks. Pliny not only praises Trajan, but the imperial model that catered to the elite to which the orator belonged. Pliny, through encomium, invites Trajan to become a primus inter pares, a restorer of relations between political spheres, between the imperial house and the Senate, consummating the ideal of the ciuilis princeps⁶³. In the speech, he explains how the elites believed that the State’s political cohesion should be established, thus mainly praising that which could include them in this network of power after Domitian’s death⁶⁴. Therefore, Pliny is compelled to instrumentalize rhetorical devices that highlight the theme of his speech: the update of the aetas aurea, the new libertas restituta reivindicated by the Adoptive Emperors project of which Trajan was a part⁶⁵. Something similar happens in Tacitus, for, to A. König⁶⁶, the Agricola is organized to reinforce the fundamental contrasts to the construction of the discourse of a new imperial government in Rome. Like Pliny, Tacitus establishes Domitian’s rule as tyrannical, so that the new dynasty initiated by Nerva and consolidated by Trajan could use this rhetoric of restauration of liberty and integrity, made possible by a benign rule that safeguarded the republican virtues in the imperial frame, at the same time, demonstrating the wishes of part of the aristocracy for a princeps more available to dialogue with the senators and the equestrians⁶⁷.

32Therefore, the use of the rhetoric of restitution of the libertas rei publicae confirms the princeps’ supremacy, while reminding him that the best way of maintaining power came from respecting the Senate, a change desired by this social group and praised by Pliny (Pan., 4.1; 10.3; 53.1-5; 55.7-10; 87.3-5; 90.3), “there is no need now to conceal your love and hatred for fear the one may bring harm, the other profit, when Caesar’s approval and disapproval rests on the same objects as the Senate’s” (Pan., 62.5: non iam dissimulandus est amor ne noceat, non premendum odium ne prosit: eadem Caesar quae senatus probat improbatque). Every rhetorical device and component for literary effect are then placed at the service of praise which, due to Pliny’s oratory skills, tries to delineate the figure of an optimus princeps or an excellent citizen, embodied also in Tacitus’ Agricola⁶⁸, both of them examples of probi mores et anteactae uitae integritas (Quint., Inst., 7.2.33). Both are depositaries of the essential virtues innate or acquired by the good ruler, in contrast to his opponent who embodies all sorts of vices. Of course, we do not interpret the text only as propaganda of the new dynasty, but to decrease the impact of this dimension is to lose sight of the conditions of production that established these discourses as valid.

A possible other

33To read the historiographers’ representation of Domitian against the one that emerges from the works of Statius and Martial, poets contemporary to the last of the Flavians, is a surprising exercise. When we read Statius and Martial, we observe, on one hand, the lack of effective presence of the emperor and the more significative appearance of members of a rich and active social group; on the other hand, the representation of the imperial figure is more positive than the one in the prosaic texts. The image of the emperor more prevalent in the works of the posterity is, in general, built from the historiographical tradition, which leads us to a double reflection: one, on the small importance given to the poetic genres in their relationship with the Empire, and the significance of understanding the genre as part of the constitution of a text; another, on our contemporaneity’s prejudice against praise, despite the privileged place occupied by praise in politics and rhetoric.

34The reason for this contrast between representations of the emperor in poetry and prose can be conjectured. It is important to notice that the poems here analyzed do not write a posteriori like the prose writers, but during the rule; and that lyric⁶⁹ epic and epigrammatic poetry was traditionally used as literary forms that conveyed praise. L. Carvalho demonstrated how the Statian Siluae’s purpose is laudatory, reached through casual pretexts. Regarding Domitian, Statius writes poems that have the Emperor as the center of the praise, even if they have as direct theme other subjects, such as the inauguration of a monument (Silu., 1.1), the celebration of Saturnalia (Silu., 1.6), Domitian’s consulate (Silu., 4.1) or an invitation for a banquet (Silu., 4.2)⁷⁰. Thus, both in the Siluae and in the epic proemia, Statius could praise the emperor as a way of strengthening and enjoying his complex relationship with Domitian – and, in a broadener perspective, with all powerholders, the patrons who figure around his poetry. Something similar happens in Martial, who praises the good emperors, in general, and also Domitian, in particular, in a portion of his epigrammatic production which, however, is not a major portion. This is an innovation by the author, for the epigrammatic genre was used like this since the beginning of the Hellenistic period, as can be seen in the Palatine Anthology (9.572), for example.

35For G. Rosati, Statius “[...] makes use of his dependence on power, and his condition of weakness, as instruments for his professional promotion, cleverly exploiting the act of homage to his own advantage”⁷¹. This consideration can also be extrapolated to Martial. In both authors, the relations of patronage, although asymmetrical, are of mutual bargain, for, although the patron’s authority is recognized, the poet’s is also claimed⁷², as well as his social place, since he has an important voice through his writings. So, the poet has a privileged position in the balance of power, for “he becomes the ‘focus’ that reunites and redefines the [Flavian ideology’s] various points of view”⁷³. In great measure, this is why the imperial natura constantiae, moderatio and temperantia are praised, because they include themselves in the web of patronage. In short, both praise and blame are explained through the relations of power in the literary field at the moment of production of each work. As such, Martial and Statius’ texts use the rhetorical resources within the literary, social and political tensions of Domitian’s government.

36We say rhetorical resources also because poetic texts were composed, in Ancient times, on the same rhetorical framework as prose works; and we are able to observe the same organization and use of rhetorically codified elements used by Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny for the vices, but here with the laudatory bent suggested by the manuals. So, for example, contrary the invective towards the Flavian gens found in prosaic texts, we find praise to ancestry, both in Martial and Statius. The two profess the grandiosity of the family from which Domitian comes⁷⁴: his father and brother were great generals (Mart. 2.2); his divine family (Stat., Silu., 1.1.74 and 94-98; 4.2.57-58; 4.3.19; 5.1.241) descended from Minerva⁷⁵; he deserved a temple equal to Jove’s (see Mart. 9.20; 9.34); “thus long shall the lofty ornament of the Flavian race endure, together with the sun and stars and Roman daylight. Whatever an unconquered hand has founded, belongs to heaven” (Mart. 9.1.8-10: manebit altum Flauiae decus gentis/ cum sole et astris cumque luce Romana./ inuicta quidquid condidit manus, caeli est). His childhood is fully praised, since his first steps, for Jupiter himself had forged him (Mart. 9.20). As we saw, the historians were prolific in condemning his youth in terms of poverty (Suet., Dom., 1.1-2), portraying his actions as futile, ambitious or insignificant (Tac., Hist., 3.63-86; 4.39.2; 4.86.2). For the poets, however, the episode in the Capitol is marked by the teenager’s bravery while defending the city, both in Statius (Theb., 1.21-22) and Martial (9.101.13-16; see also 2.2; 5.5.7)⁷⁶.

37While in the aforementioned authors Domitian’s body is marked by ugliness, paleness, femininity, redness and savagery, in the poems, Domitian’s countenance is calm (Mart. 5.6.9: serenus; 6.10.6: placido […] ore; Stat., Silu., 3.4.17: placida […] fronte) and kind, for he “he is wont to deny nothing to suppliants” (Mart. 5.6.10-11: nil supplicibus solet negare). The same is revealed in Statius (Silu., 4.2.41-43): adjectives such as serenus, placidus and tranquillus mark the imperial brow while dealing with his subordinates or suppliants and deny the accusations of dementia and furor (Suet., Dom., 14.1; 21.1; Plin., Pan., 33.4; Tac., Agr., 42.3-4).

38Another element we circumscribe to the praise of modesty is in the encomium of Domitian’s poetic abilities and artistic inclination. If to Tacitus (Hist., 4.86) and Suetonius (Dom., 2.2), both are heavy with shady intentions, in Martial (5.5.7-8; 8.82) and Statius (Ach., 1.14-19)⁷⁷, they are shown as lack of vanity in relation to the virtues he has. After all, the poems are not subject to praise, but the fact that he does not want glory for writing well; that is, he is worthy of praise not because of the product of his ingenium, but for his modesty, which allows that in his head the twin laurels of poets and generals bloom as rivals (Stat., Ach., 1.15-16: cui geminae florent uatumque ducumque/ certatim laurus).

39Concerning the second virtue, courage (fortitudo), Domitian is praised for his military strength, revealed in victorious campaigns and in triumphs (e.g. Mart. 5.19.3; 6.10.8; 9.101.17; Stat., Theb., 1.17-18; Silu., 1.1.5-7; 26-27; 79-81; 4.2.64-65). Initially, when young, against the Chatti (Mart. 9.101.14); in maturity, victorious over the Sarmatians and the Dacians (Mart. 7.6; 6.10; 8.78.3; 8.11; 9.2.2-4; 9.101.17-20) in the triumph of the High-North (Mart. 8.78.3: Hyperborei […] triumphi), that is, in the limits of the Northern borders of Germania, where the Rhine and the Danube meet⁷⁸. In this episode, his modesty and non-arrogance are also highlighted: “sparingly celebrating triumphs often rejected, he bore victorious a name from the Hyperborean world” (Mart. 9.101.19-20: saepe recusatos parcus duxisse triumphos/ uictor Hyperboreo nomen ab orbe tulit; also Stat., Silu., 3.3.171).

40Statius justifies his reluctance in writing an epic about the imperial feats⁷⁹; in the recusatio of his Thebaid (1.17-20) he summarizes the war fortitudo of the last of the Flavians: “Not yet would I dare / attempt Italian Standards, Northern Triumphs in verse:/ the Rhine twice yoked, the Danube brought under our laws twice,/ or Dacians hurled from the sheer height of their opposition” (quando Itala nondum/ signa nec Arctoos ausim spirare triumphos/ bisque iugo Rhenum, bis adactum legibus Histrum/ et coniurato deiectos uertice Dacos). Due to so many victories, the title of Germanicus is justified (Mart. 8.65.11-12; Stat., Silu., 4.3.154-159) and many other achievements are foreseen (Stat., Silu., 4.1.39-42). This directly contrasts with the cowardice attributed by Pliny (Pan., 49.1) and the unnecessary wars of Suetonius (Dom., 6.1) and Tacitus (Hist., 3.44; 3.74; 3.82), and with the arrogant falsum triumphum of which the imperial historiographers speak (Tac., Agr., 39.1; Plin., Pan., 16.3), another reminder that language is always a construct.

41The most praised cardinal virtue in the poetic works however is the iustitia. Within the semantic field of this virtue, we find clementia, mansuetudo, beneuolentia, beneficentia and liberalitas to the supplicants and other lower social strata (Cic., Off., 2.32; 12)⁸⁰. The clemency and meekness associated to the princeps are well exemplified by “hare and lion cycle” in Martial⁸¹, in which the poet transfers to the lion the virtues that suit Domitian. In these poems, the imperial clemency resides in the lion that does not attack the small hares, but keeps his force to fight greater threats: “How comes it that a greedy lion can spare his captive prey? Ah, but he is said to be yours. Therefore, he can” (Mart. 1.14.5-6: Vnde potest auidus captae leo parcere praedae?/ Sed tamen esse tuus dicitur: ergo potest., see 1.22.3-6). The lion’s clemency and benevolence in Martial allows him to let the helpless victims free; these are the same qualities highlighted by Statius (Silu., 1.1.25-27): “He [Julius Caesar] learns from your expression how much gentler/ you are in war, not being prone to rage / and mayhem even against foreign foes./ You trusted Chatti and Dacians to keep the peace” (discit et e uultu quantum tu mitior armis,/ qui nec in externos facilis saeuire furores/ das Cattis Dacisque fidem; see also Silu., 3.3.167-171). In both authors, cruelty and savagery are exposed in the other, in the barbarian, as one would do in the logic of praise. In prosaic texts, the vices were reallocated to Domitian, cruel and hostile to all virtue, true savage beast, in opposition to the meek, benevolent, magnanimous and clement figure of Trajan, depositary of all virtues.

42Also, the emperor’s liberality, not his avarice, is invoked (Mart. 4.1.8; 4.27; 5.19; 5.60; 6.10; 8.65; 9.63; Stat., Silu., 1.3; 1.4; 1.6.25-27; 3.5.32-33; 4.2). The food distribution in the Septemontialia; the magnificent building project that enabled the spectacles to which Martial dedicates a whole book; the gifts and games offered in the Saeculares or in the Kalends of December, during the Saturnalia; the private improvements granted, such as piped water in the Statian uilla or the dinner invitation in the Flavian palace, the Parrasium: liberalitas as a virtue, to F. Cairolli, “is in the center of the structure of power of which Domitian occupies the highest place. It is the subjects’ supplication that gives the rule to an individual, the godlike divinity, and the attention to these requests is the way of confirming said power”⁸². The imperial munificence and the beneficial disposition lead the poets to paint a scenery of profound freedom and kindness (Stat., Silu., 3.3.150-180; Mart. 5.19.1-6).

43The emperor’s beneficence is praised in association with liberality, for it is attentive to the collective care, since Domitian expanded and improved the neighborhoods and streets, contributing to the public order of symbols and monuments worthy of him, his city and his people (Mart. 7.61.3-4; 9.101.21-22). The derivative morality of his rigid legislation against adultery and castration, as well as his title of Perpetual Censor, are also worthy of praise (Mart. 4.1.7; 6.2.3; 6.4; 6.7; 9.7; Stat., Silu., 4.1.25; 4.8.1-30; 5.2.91-102), since through them he reveres Augustus and the venerable ancestors (Mart. 8.55[56].1; 8.80.1). The contrast between before and now, so present in Pliny and Tacitus associated to Trajan’s empire, is the same rhetorical expedient used by the poets, as the temporal variation highlight Domitian’s greatness, because he brings back the age of the great emperors, by inserting him in the tradition and allowing the poets to generate an aetas aurea, that is, the foundation of a new golden century, of a new era of prosperity and probity thanks to the pietas principis nostri (Quint., Inst., 8.7.9), a moment that sees the great Rome grow with her ruler (Mart. 8.55[56].2: maior cum duce Roma suo), extolled in physical and moral form (Mart. 5.19.5; 9.101.21). For having protected the religion (Mart. 2.91.1; 5.19.4; 9.101.21) and established peace (Mart. 9.101.13-21; Stat., Silu., 5.1.164-165), Domitian is praised as the world’s restitutor and maximum ruler and the poets express their desire for the last Flavian’s government to be eternal (Mart. 4.1.3; 8.2.6; Stat., Silu., 3.4.99-106; Theb., 1.22-33).

44These praises are also directed to Domitian’s prudentia, last of the cardinal virtues, manifested in the good administration praised by the poets. This aspect was shortly praised even by the detractors of the imperial figure, since Suetonius (Dom., 8.1), as we saw, emphasizes the honesty and application of bureaucracy thanks to Domitian’s acting diligenter et industrie. These are clearly opposed to the accusations of administrative imprudence or impoverishment of Rome (Suet., Dom., 10.1; 12.1-2; 13.3; Tac., Agr., 44.5) caused by the last Flavian’s abuse of ownership (Plin., Ep., 4.11.6). Martial and Statius thus project an essentially conservative and hierarchic view of the Roman society where the approach to the provincial administration and the moral legislation, as well as the issue of the imperial character, add value to the Flavian government. The emperor appears in both works, not only present, but propitiating a benevolent and affable environment to the poets. Martial is more worried about the private, while Statius speaks of the public careers more frequently.

Emphasis and Doublespeak

45We sought to show that the poets also followed closely the precepts of the epideictic genre, in ascension during the Flavian period and which reached its pinnacle, perhaps, in the iii and iv century, as the Panegyrici Latini collection suggests. In the poems of these authors, the cardinal virtues are conspicuous and, by reading them according to epideictic rule, we avoid the embarrassment of trying to explain why the praise to Domitian is veiled dissimulation or irony, but the praise to Nerva or Trajan is authentic. The reading of ancient rhetoric gives us assurance that praising is not shameful, but a fundamental part of the structure of certain types of text. Statius and Martial demonstrate, as other authors of the Flavian period, the “laudatory spirit of the time”⁸³, since his poetics of the empire, to cite C. Newland’s designation⁸⁴, appears inside what E. Leach calls the culture of praise⁸⁵. This should not cause surprise: the importance of the epideictic and its systematization in ancient practice and theory is clear. However, even if praise and blame have their place in the rhetoric treatises, xxi century scholars seem to still find theorical problems when leading with the laudatory aspect, frequently interpreting it as doublespeak⁸⁶: adulatory on the surface, but refuting in the core. G. Manuwald and A. Voigt defend that “Quintilian’s contemporary discussion of emphasis (Inst., 9.2.64-67) may serve as one testimony for at least the possibility of this practice under the Flavian emperors. [...] The explicit advantage of this figure is that it allows anyone to speak in circumstances that are unsafe, such as that of open criticism of a tyrant”⁸⁷.

46The issue deserves our attention. We do not deny the existence of this form of criticism that uses the figurae, however the theoretical problem here resides in two other levels. The first one appears in Quintilian (Inst., 9.2.72-78) himself, a few paragraphs before the aforementioned quotation, who mentions that if the figure is used under conditions of tyranny, the overuse of the expedient would make it obvious and, therefore, ineffective to the public and dangerous to the author (9.2.69 and 72; see Rhet. Her., 4.44). Thus, it was circumscribed more to the school space, to the rhetorical exercises, to things that could not be proven, its use binge seen as lack of confidence in the juridical cause itself (9.2.74-5). Besides, Quintilian suggest the traditional direct method of affirmation (9.2.1) to be more advisable, without disguise, for “these circuitous and indirect methods are merely the refuge of weakness” (Quint., Inst., 9.2.78: haec deuerticula et anfractus suffugia sunt infirmitatis). That is, an expert speaker should not use the figure unless aiming at elegance, to give further pleasure and variety to the direct affirmative speak, sporadically, not making it a constant mark of one’s work: this seems to be the case in Statius and Martial, experts in the use of rhetorical devices, verified by their art in keeping themselves afloat in logic of patronage.

47The second problem is the restriction of the hermeneutic problem into oversimplified terms, either conformist/panegyric, or non-conformist/subversive. The study of the works under the light of rhetoric creates a privileged key to the reading of the Roman world, because it qualifies Domitian’s representations as ornatus, that is, weapon, instrument, specific tool inside a generic literary system with persuasive purposes. Thus, it illuminates the artistic use of the imperial representation keeping in mind not only the enunciator’s political and social place, but also the function of the expedient inside the text, and of both the rhetorical elements and the texts themselves inside the rhetoric machinery⁸⁸. So, the structures, the topoi or the repetition of previous models stimulate and direct these writers, since they inform the reader about the literary traditions in which they are inscribed and about how the topical or schematic representations of their own work comment on the change in political conditions. It is what we perceive in the ample use of the semantic fields of virtue and vice both in the prose and poetry works. All the range of expressions connected to the construction of an archetype of optimus princeps or tyrannus, in short, fulfill the same function: they search through the rhetorical epideictic thesaurus to find constitutive elements also for deliberative purposes, for, when praising or criticizing a character, the speaker finds himself in a position that allows him to instruct about the behavior expected from a ruler. In the case of the historians, the criticism towards Domitian reaches the pedagogical function of praise indirectly, by showing examples of vice to the princeps, and directly, when praising the behavior that should be kept or searching for examples of the desired behavior in previous rulers. In the case of the poetry, the pedagogical function of the laudatio and the uituperatio is also direct, for the poet creates an éthos that allows him, when praising the emperor, to advise about what should and should not be done, and indirectly, using many of the exempla available in the mythographic tradition.

48We do not defend a conformist or non-conformist point of view, but a moderate one, rhetorically mediated. We emphasize that opting for a certain verbal system allows for hermeneutical ambiguity, in terms of the ancient emphasis, and actually reveals the multiple possibilities of the meaning of the artistic poiesis, recognizing the certainty that the real meaning of a text or the author’s intentions can never be reached⁸⁹. Statius and Martial’s context was very different from the one after Domitian’s murder and damnatio, in which Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius wrote years later; but the laudatory environment, be it under a tyrannical government or not, was always circumscribed by the rules of patronage and of political power relations. Therefore, praise and literature are manifestations with a strong political force, consistent with each historical moment, even when they try to communicate the (dis)approval of regimes.

49M. Charles defends that the members of the establishment in the imperial period had little choice about how to use imperial epideictic⁹⁰. It was part of the political game to make comparisons with previous governments, either to create a discourse of continuation, typical of dynastic transitions with heirs and orderly processes, or of radical contrast, such as the ones after coups or traumatic transitions. This second case is named by M. Charles, after E. Ramage, as mechanics of predecessor denigration – in Domitian’s case, he was associated as much as possible with Gaius or Nero, creating his representation as a rhetorical tyrant. It is in this tradition that the historiographers include themselves, using rhetorical elements to reiterate contrasts, more discursive than real, between the succeeding emperors. Any ascension to power forced the construction of the predecessor’s memory, in a positive way or not⁹¹. Therefore, we insist that the study of the rhetoric devices inherent to the historiographical texts should not transform them in passive spokespeople for a new emperor, nor simplify the political meaning of the imperial propaganda. As A. König points out about Tacitus, and we extrapolate also to Pliny and Suetonius, the writing of history explores the paradigms and the relations between Senate and emperor, thanks to the chance and the challenge of recalibrating public life after the political expectations of the time, “[...] to make the transition from ‘past’ to ‘present’ and turn some of the new rhetoric into reality, if it can”⁹².

50The contemporary poets should be perceived within a similar frame. The rhetorical dimension of the encomium is abundant in Martial and Statius, following the precepts for the production of laudatory speech and to the use of virtuous tropes according to the auctor ad Herennium, Cicero and Quintilian. In this environment, the stories about Domitian are also highly rhetorical, fitted whenever possible with amplification; however, it is not about flattery, doublespeak or figured speech, it is about the application of the rhetorical machinery, seeking the maintenance of a social place and privileges, and the pedagogical function of praise and bargain of the logics of power. Praise also serves as an important index to uncover the power relations in the political spheres, therefore serving also as a historical source, despite B. Jones’ opinion⁹³. In short, in laudatory poetry we clearly have another Domitian, but we do not want to defend this one or that one as real – they are all rhetorical constructions, appropriate representations for their genres and political situations. What illuminates the reasoning behind a discursive creation is the nexus between political history and rhetoric of praise in ancient history, a privileged vehicle to reexamine and justify all choices that consolidated the construction of a persistent image of Domitian to our contemporaneity.