INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly firom the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fi’om any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing firom left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 3 0 0 North) Z e e b R oad , Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9201713

Self and other in the ‘‘Histories” of Tacitus

McGillicuddy, Susan Parente, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1991

Copyright ©1991 by McGillicuddy, Susan Parente. Aii rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

SELF AND OTHER IN THE HISTORIES OF TACITUS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio state University

By

Susan Parente McGillicuddy, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1991

Dissertation Committee: Approved by C .L . Babcock F.T. Coulson ££

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to my advisor, Dr. Charles L. Babcock, who has constantly guided and inspired me throughout this dissertation. I am also indebted to the other members of my advisory committee, Drs. Dolores M. O'Higgins and Frank T. Coulson, for their insightful comments and suggestions. The warmest thanks are owed to my family, the Parentes, McGillicuddys, et al., for their continued encouragement over the years. Finally, I express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Tom, for his boundless love and patience throughout this endeavor.

iii VITA

February 3, 1960 ...... Born - Walpole, Massachusetts 1982 ...... B.A., College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts 1985 ...... M.A., Department of Classics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Classics Studies in: Greek Literature Latin Literature Greek and Roman Art and Archaeology

XV TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... Ill VITA ...... iv CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. CIVIL W A R ...... 30 Introduction ...... 30 E m u l a t i o n ...... 48 Possession...... 62 R o l e ...... 77 K n o w l e d g e ...... 88 The Principate...... 98 III. GALEA, OTHO, AND VITELLIUS ...... 106 Introduction ...... 106 G a l b a ...... 107 O t h o ...... 132 V i t e l l i u s ...... 160 Significant Others ...... 184 IV. VESPASIAN ...... 216 CONCLUSION ...... 261 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 265 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The intent of this dissertation is to analyze the role of "self" and "other" in the Histories of Tacitus. The historian introduces this concept at the outset of his work when he discusses the deterioration of Roman historiography from republican to imperial times. Tacitus uses the term res populi Romani (1.1.1)^ to refer to the history of the Republic, but it also implies that at this time the state was an actual possession of the people of R o m e . 2 After the battle of Actium, however, complete control of the state was transferred to one individual: omnem potentiam ad unum conferri pacis interfuit (l.l.1).^ Because the res was no longer in the hands of the people, but in those of someone else, it

^The text of the Histories used throughout this dissertation is K. Wellesley (Leipzig, 1989). 2cf. Cicero Rep. 1.25.39: est, igitwr,-inqvtit Afriganag, css publiça rgs populi , , , , ^cf. Annalg i.i.i: , , , Lepidi atqae-Antonii arma in Auaustum cessere. aui cuncta discordiis civilibus f.ggga nomine pringipig sub impgriun. asggpit. became something strange or foreign to them; inscitia rei publicae ut alienae (l.I.l).* From these three citations a sense of increasing "otherness" emerges. The state, which once belonged to the people of Rome, which formed a part of themselves, and which represented themselves, has become under the Empire the possession of another, the emperor. To put it more simply, that which belonged to the "self" has become "other." This contrast and conflict between "self" and "other" grow more pronounced in Tacitus' account of the civils wars of A.D. 69 as individuals attempt to seize the res populi Romani for themselves now that no Julio-Claudians remain to possess it. Before I elaborate on this theme, however, it is necessary first to examine what is meant by "self" and "other," especially for Tacitus and the era in which he is writing. What is the "self?" A line from a song by David Bowie perhaps best expresses the difficulty of both perceiving and defining the "self": "So I turned myself to face me, but I've never caught a glimpse."® According

A. Gerber and A. Greef Lexicon Taciteum (Leipzig, 1903) 63 translate alienae here as "foreign." However, in this instance it seems to convey more than one meaning. Cf. A.D. Leeman "Structure and meaning in the prologues of Tacitus," YClS 23 (1973) 181: ut alienae seems to mean: "as if it were not theirs any more," but perhaps really means: "as it is not theirs any more." The res DODUli Romani is aligna because it is res imperatoria. ®D. Bowie "Changes," on Changes One Bowie (RCA New York, 1976). to M. Rosenberg: "The 'self' stands as a concept foremost in the ranks of confusion."® David Hume acknowledged his difficulty in locating the "self" and defined it as a collection or series of perceptions:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself. I always stumble on some particular perception or other, . . . I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.'

At its most basic level, when one uses the first-person pronoun "I" one is referring to one's "self."® William James has provided what today remains the standard explanation of the "self." Every individual divides his or her world into elements defined as "me" and "not-me," and the "self" is what a person refers to as "me."® One important aspect of the "self" lies in its distinction from anything else. One understands oneself best and in a singular way because one is it.^® One can not be

®M. Rosenberg Conceiving the Self (New York, 1979) 5. ^D. Hume The Philosophical Works, vol.l: A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd. edition, eds. T.H. Green and T. H. Grose (Darmstadt, 1964) 534; see also A.J. Ayer Hume (New York, 1980) 52. ®G.E. Myers Self (New York, 1969) 14. ®W. James The Principles of Psvcholoav (New York, 1899) vol.l, 289. 1®H. Lewis The Self and Immortalitv (New York, 1973) 43. aware of the "self" of another in the same fashion as one is of one's own. The "self" holds an unequaled position and is of primary interest for the individual.^ Of further significance, the "self" can function at the same time as both subject/agent and object.In the sentence "I have blue eyes," the person speaking is discussing an object that is the person's "self. The "self" as object consists of the self-concept, which Rosenberg defines as "the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object."1* According to J. Tedeschi: "The self largely consists of a person's explanations of his or her own b e h a v i o r s . "15 An individual develops a self-theory, an organized system of beliefs, which he or she refers to as the "self." This set of beliefs receives, stores, and interprets experiences, and then guides behavior.1® The "self" is basically the opinion a person has about himself or herself, one's self-perception.

11James, 289. 1^Rosenberg, 6. 1^Rosenberg, 6. 1^Rosenberg, 7. 15j. Tedeschi "Private and public experiences and the self," in Public iSfilf and. Private Self, ed. r.f. Baumeister (New York, 1986) 4. 1^Tedeschi, 3-4. Also included in the concept of the "self,” what is "me," is the notion of possession, what is "mine." W. James elaborates on this idea:

In its widest possible sense, however, a man's Self is the sum total of all that he CAN call his, not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses, and yacht and bank-account.^'

What a person considers as his or hers is strongly tied to that person's identity, how he or she perceives himself or herself. For example, people choose their clothes and cars as a means of self-expression. These same factors that define the "self" today can also be found at work in antiquity. The Stoic precept of self-preservation as innate in all living creatures approaches the notion that the "self" is of primary importance to the individual: principle aeneri animantium omni est a natura tributum. ut se. vitam corpusaue tueatur fPe Off. 1.11). In the Histories of Tacitus we see the "self" functioning as both agent fego. tu, is. aa, etc.) and object (ms, ta, aa, etc.). Mucianus says to Vespasian: "me Vitellio antepono. te mihi" (2.77.1). Mucianus is talking about himself as an object. In so doing he reveals certain perceptions he has about

l^James, 291. himself, namely that he sees himself as superior to Vitellius, but inferior to Vespasian. An example of the importance of possession (meus. tuus, suus. etc. or proprius) for an individual's identity occurs in a description of Otho:

laeto Othone et gloriam in se trahente, tamguam et ipse felix bello et suis ducibus suisque exercitibus rem publicam auxisset (1.79.5).

Here Otho receives the victory won by his soldiers and generals over the Sarmatians as his own. He sees these men as belonging to him, and their actions therefore have a direct bearing on himself. Because the men are his, their glory is his glory, and this in turn contributes to Otho's self-perception, which is now as a victorious emperor. The phrase oloriam in se trahente reveals how Otho appropriates the glory so that it becomes part of himself. The concept of "other" is closely related to the concept of the "self." W. James also expressed his ideas on this subject as follows:

No mind can take the same interest in his neighbor's mg as in his own. The neighbor's me falls together with all the rest of things in one foreign mass, against which his own me stands out in startling relief.^®

James, 289. Whatever Is not oneself belongs under the category of "other." Hence, whenever an individual comes into contact with someone else, whether the latter is one's best friend or a complete stranger from another country, this person is "other" to the individual. In Latin the corresponding word for "other" is alius.19 For example, in the Histories Tacitus generalizes that people tend to view harshly the recent good fortune of others: insita mortalibus natura recentem aliorum felicitatem acribus oculis introspicere (2.20.1). The word alius has another meaning that is associated with the idea of "other": different. For to be "other" is to be different from oneself. An example of this use in the Histories occurs at the death of Galba. Once Galba has been slain, the senate and people of Rome hasten to hail Otho as emperor, while only moments before they had professed their loyalty to Galba. At this sudden change of allegiance, Tacitus remarks that one would believe it was a different senate, a different people: alium crederes senatum. alium populum (1.45.1).2° The senate and people of Rome have become "other," different from wha^ they w©r® before.

l^Another word for "other" is alter. Alter, however, has a limited meaning: "a second," " the other of two," and is therefore not as pertinent to this study. 2°Cf. 2.99.1: lonaa alia proficiscentis ex urbe Germanici exercitus species. The concept of "other" can be extended to include a wider range of meanings and in this regard it is identified with the Latin word alienus. In the above quote by W. James, he calls others "one foreign mass." The various meanings of alienus are similar to our own word "foreign" wherein something foreign can mean "from another nation," "from another person," "not related," "remote," "strange.One can envision concentric circles around an individual to illustrate the various meanings of alienus. The ring closest to the individual signifies "not one's own, belonging to another," as in Tacitus' description of Galba as not seeking others' money: pecuniae alienae non adoetens (1.49.3). As we radiate away from the individual, alienus comes to mean "unconnected by ties of blood, friendship, or business," as in this sentence of Pliny's, which describes the people who, although having no ties to Quadratilla, flock to pay their last respects to her: alienissimi homines in honorem Ouadratillae . . . in theatrum cursitabant (Epu. 7.24.7). At the outer ring alienus signifies "of another state or nation, foreign," as in Tacitus' comment at the beginning of the Histories that there was a general ignorance of the state as if it were something foreign: inssitia-.rei-PMbligae ut .alienae ( i . i. i ). Alienus has

2iTh@[email protected]_of the English Language 2nd. edition (New York, 1987) 749. other meanings derived from the notion of "foreign." For instance, it has the connotation of "unfriendly" or "hostile." An example of this occurs when Tacitus discusses Turullius Cerialis' not unfriendly relationship with Caecina: ille primioilaris et Caecinae haud alienus (2.22.3).22 Alienus can refer to the enemy as in the

phrase aliéna munimenta (3.20.3). The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae provides the following as some of the synonyms for alienuB: fixfesmus., paregrinus, ianotus. remotus. s.@paratuB, avereue, infestae, inimigas,» dixerBus..m general, the concept of "other" refers to that which is not oneself or one's own. It includes what is different, strange, unknown, distant, foreign, and hostile, whatever is somehow outside of oneself, whether it is outside physically or in a more abstract sense. The concept of other, being that which is not oneself, thus arises from the concept of the self. On the other hand, the self can not exist without others. The relationship between self and other is one of interdependence. The self consists primarily of a self- concept, a set of beliefs a person has concerning his or her own behavior. This self-concept, however, is mostly

22cf. 2.74.1: Muclani animus nec Vesnasiano alienus; 4.68.2: Domitianl animum Varo haud alienum.

22Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1900) vol.l, 1567-1581. 10

formed through contact with others. Others act as a social mirror through which the person sees a reflection

of himself or h e r s e l f . ^4 Tedeschi describes the cyclical pattern that occurs when a person interacts with other

p e o p l e . 25 A person behaves in a certain way that is observed and interpreted by others around him or her. The person then perceives and interprets others' reactions to his or her own behavior. From this interpretation the person draws certain conclusions about himself or herself that will in turn affect future behavior. This theory, called "reflected appraisals," emphasizes the important role played by the opinion of others, and contends that people ultimately perceive themselves as others perceive t h e m . 2® Another theory, "social comparisons," claims that a person learns about himself or herself through comparison with o t h e r s . 2? The comparison may be one of better or worse degree, or of same or different. In either theory the importance lies in the fact that the self is formed through contact with others.

24Tedeschi, 5.

25Tedeschi, 5.

2®Rosenberg, 62-7.

2?Rosenberg, 67-70. 11

The Romans did not develop such elaborate theories about the self and its relation to others. Nevertheless, for the Romans the presence of others still serves important functions for the self. Cicero's statement that one learns the propriety of one's behavior from others' reactions is related to the theory of "reflected appraisals":

ex oculorum optutu, superciliorum aut remissione aut contractione, ex maestitia, ex hilaritate, ex risu, ex locutione, ex reticentia, ex contentione vocis, ex summissione, ex ceteris similibus facile iudicabimus, quid eorum apte fiat, quid ab officio naturaque discrepet fPe Off. 1.146).

One important area involving the self and others is imitation. Many scholars contend that the Romans viewed character as static and unchanging throughout life.28 An examination of Quintilian's Inst. Orat. Book 1, however.

28w .H. Alexander "The Tacitean non liauet on Seneca," Calif. Stud, in Class. Phil. 14,8 (1952) 355f.; W.H. Alexander "The 'psychology' of Tacitus," Si 47 (1952) 326-8; B. Walker The Annals of Tacitus (Manchester, 1952) 204-43; F.B. Marsh The Reion of Tiberius (Oxford, 1931; reprint ed. Cambridge, 1959) 14; S.G. Daitz "Tacitus' technique of character portrayal," AJPh 81 (1960) 30-52; F.R.D. Goodyear, ed. The Annals of Tacitus, vol.l (Cambridge, 1972) 37-40; R. Martin Tacitus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981) 105; R. Syme Tacitus (Oxford, 1958) 421: "The way of thought of the ancients was prone to conceive a man's inner nature as something definable and immutable."; R.M. Ogilvie A Commentary on Livv Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965) 463 note to 3.36.1: "Livy's treatment of Appius' character is a good example of the Roman - Stoic - preconception that a man's character cannot change and that he is at twenty what he will be at fifty and that what he is at fifty he must have been at twenty." 12

reveals that this character is formed during childhood, and that the development depends largely on the presence of others. Two elements contribute to the formation of character: the child's own nature and the education he receives: natura cuiusque totum curaaue distat (iQgjLi. Orat. 1.2.4).29 In the Aaricola. for instance, Tacitus comments that as a young boy his father-in-law was saved from a path of wickedness both by his own good and honest nature, as well as by his wholesome surroundings and in particular the nurture of his virtuous mother fAgr. 4.2- 3). According to Quintilian, what we learn as children has the most impact on us.^O A child imitates the behavior of others around him or her without thought to its moral worth, and thus forms certain habits. These habits then develop more permanently to form part of the child's nature: fit ex his consuetude, inde natura (inGt, Orat. 1.2.8).31 Juvenal's Satire 14, which centers

2®For an extensive look at this subject see C. Gill "The question of character-development: Plutarch and Tacitus," GSL 33 (1983) 469-87. 3°Quintilian Inst. Orat. 1.1.5: et natura tenacissimi sumus eorum ouae rudibus animis perceoimus. 31see F.H. Colson, ed. M. Fabii Ouintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber I (Cambridge, 1924) 26, who also cites Cicero De Fin. 5.74: consuetudine quasi alteram quandam naturam effici; Quintilian Inst. Orat. 2.4.17: in_hQg-adstiescat,- huiue @ibi_.r@i_hatiiram .faoiat; Seneca De Prov. 4.15: nihil miserum est, auod in naturam consuetude nerduxit; and Sallust fil 85.9: "mihi. . . . bane. JEacstie-iam-ex [email protected]_naturam vortit»” 13

around the vices children learn from their parents, also illustrates the tremendous influence others have in the development of one's character. Imitation of others, however, does not end with childhood. While a small child imitates indiscriminately, a maturing individual must discern who is most worthy of imitation. Livy expresses the general Roman belief that history provides examples among Rome's ancestors for people either to imitate or eschew:

hoc illud est praecipue in cognitions rerum salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri; inde tibi tuaegue rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu, foedum exitu, quod vites (AUC praef. 10).

The Romans constantly strove to emulate their more illustrious ancestors, to equal if not surpass them in honors, triumphs, and morality. They were always reminded of their predecessors as their images were displayed in the tablinwm, vestibulum. or atrium, and masks of them were born during funeral processions.^3 in

32juvenal Satires 14.1-3: Plurima sunt, Fuscine, et fama digna sinistra et nitidis maculam haesuram figentia rebus, quae monstrant ipsi pueris traduntque parentes. 33polybius Hist. 6.53; U.E. Paoli Rome. Its People Life and Customs, trans. R.D. Macnaghten (New York, 1963) 130; A.G. McKay Houses. Villas and Palaces in the Roman World. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1975) 32-4. 14

the Pro Caelio Cicero conjures up for the courtroom Clodia's renowned ancestor Appius Claudius Caecus to reproach her for imitating her brother's vices and not pursuing a life of virtue like that of her forebears:

"cur te fraterna vitia potius quam bona paterna et avita et usque a nobis cum in viris tum etiam in feminis repetita moverunt?" (Pro caelio 14.34).

Tacitus enjoins the surviving relatives of Agricola to emulate his way of life: admiratione te potius et laudibus et. si natura suooeditet. similitudine calamus fAar. 46.2). Thus, whether in childhood or as an adult, one's self is formed and defined by emulation of others. The emulation of an ancestor involves not only imitation, but comparison as well, for in order to imitate others one must constantly compare oneself to them. Quintilian strongly advocates a public setting over a private one for the education of a young Roman. In his opinion, private education, in which the student learns in an isolated and solitary atmosphere, can prove detrimental. The youth may grow listless. More importantly, he may grow to think too highly of himself since he has no peers with which to compare himself: necesse est enim nimium tribuat sibi aui se nemini comparât (Inst. Orat. 1.2.18). One needs others against 15

whom to measure one's own abilities and weaknesses. For example, Tacitus states that the soldiers of the German armies, after comparing their own might with that of the troops of Gaul in the revolt of Vindex, learn of their own superior strength and thus decide to seek new conflicts;

sed ante helium centurias tantum suas turmasgue noverant; . . . tum adversus Vindicem contractas legiones, segue et Gallias expertae, guaerere rursus arma novasgue discordias (1.51.3).

In the statement made by Mucianus, "me Vitellio antepono. te mihi" (2.77.1), Mucianus perceives himself and his position through a comparison of himself with Vitellius and Vespasian. For the Romans comparison of oneself with others is essential for one's self-perception, for in this way one learns about oneself. Quintilian's remark about the dangers of an education removed from public interaction has further significance for the relationship between self and other. The Romans in general frowned upon a life of solitude and s e c l u s i o n . 34 The life of a Roman male belonging to the

34quintilian Inst. Orat. 1.2.18: ante omnia futurus 9r.afcar..,.gwi in. maxima Geiebritat@_et ia media rei publiGae_iu99 vivendum. eBt.^adsues.sat i a m , a t@nero_non reformidare homines, nsaae ilia eolitaria at velut .mnb£a.t ig a - v.i.t.a-Bfll losooro. 16

aristocratie class was tightly bound up in public life. 35 He was expected to participate in political life and ascend the cursus honoruro. According to P. Veyne; "To be deprived of access to public office and hence to the city's political life was to be less than a man, a person of no account."36 His identity was thus largely determined by his position in society. Indeed the same holds true for the identity of other members of society regardless of age, sex, or social status. When a character is introduced in a historical work, the author almost always provides the person's particular class and titles of honor if any as a means of establishing his or her identity.3? a person in the Roman world identifies himself or herself not only by rank, offices, and titles, but by relations to family members and associates as well, in other words to all others who surround him or her. Tacitus introduces Agricola by providing his ancestors' names together with their titles:

35cicero De Off. 1.57: sed cum omnia ratione animooue lustraris. omnium societatum nulla_estaravior. nulla çarior auam .ea.._.aMae, çum-..rg publica est wni cuigue nostrum. 3®Ariès, p. and Duby, G. , gen. eds. A History of Private Life. 5 vols. (Cambridge MA and London, 1987), vol.l: From Pagan Rome to Bvzantium. ed. P. Veyne, trans. A. Goldhammer, 106. 37por example, 1.43.2: Suloicius Florus e Britannicis cohortibue, nuper a Gaiha çivitat@_donatu&, ot Statius Murcus speculator; 2.91.3: Prisous Hsividius prastor. dssignatus. 17

Gnaeus lulius Agricola, . . . utrumgue avum procuratorem Caesarun habuit, quae eguestris nobilitas est. pater illi lulius Graecinus senatorii ordinis, . . . fAqr. 4.1).

Our word "person" derives from the Latin persona. which originally meant a theatrical mask, then the role in a dramatic performance, one's role in life, and finally the individual himself or herself.^® For the Romans as well as ourselves, a person is largely defined by his or her positions in society. We derive our identity from the various parts we play in relation to others. For the Romans, these roles, such as mother or senator, provide a code of behavior for the individual to follow. For example, if a Roman became a senator, he would not only assume the title of senator, by which he would be identified, but he would most likely adopt the behavior that society deemed appropriate for a senator. Each person, moreover, has many roles, often depending upon the different people with whom he or she interacts. A man could be not merely emperor, but military commander, father, son, friend, political opponent, and priest as well. Tacitus, for example, lists the various roles Helvidius Priscus fulfills; civis senator, maritus

®®For persona as "mask," see Horace Ars 278; as "role in dramatic performance," Terence Eu. 26; as "role in life," Cicero De Off. 3.43; as "individual," Cicero Phil. 2.53. 18

aener amicus (4.5.2). From the many roles each person assumes the self is formed. Tedeschi summarizes this concept:

Whatever else the self is, it is developed in the context of relationships with others . . . Indeed, if one removed the identities of the individual as a parent, sibling, offspring, productive worker, and so on, it is doubtful there would be anything left to refer to as the self.^^

The dependence of the self on others extends even further, beyond life itself, for others ensure the self- preservation of the individual after he or she has left this world. The Romans did express some interest and belief in an afterlife.*0 Tombs were constructed to resemble a house,and in fact one meaning of the word domus is "tomb.Furthermore, the most prized possessions of the deceased were buried along with the body, and sacrifices and libations were offered to the dead.43 Tacitus himself addresses the concept of an afterlife upon recording Agricola's death:

3®Tedeschi, 5.

4Or . Lattimore Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana XL, 1962) 54f. 4^j. Ferguson The Religions of the Roman Empire. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1970) 134. 42£li, 1.1930, 13.2104.7; Statius silv. 5.1.237. 43perguson, 134f. 19

si quis piorum manibus locus, si, ut sapientibus placet, non cum corpora extinguuntur magnae animae, placide quiescas (Â31Zjl 46.1).

This wish for eternal life for Agricola, however, does not imply that Tacitus actually believes in an afterlife. Rather, it represents a formula often used in consolations and epitaphs.In fact, the general belief among Romans about the afterlife leans toward a nihilistic attitude best exemplified by the following epitaph: non fui, fui, memini. non sum, non euro.*5 A person is born, lives, and dies, and that represents the beginning and end of his or her existence. Lucretius, promoting the Epicurean philosophy, is especially adamant about the finite nature of all life fPRN Book 3). Belief in a disembodied soul after death was proposed by various philosophies such as Stoicism. However, R. MacMullen argues:

No one cared greatly that he might gain eternal life if it were not really he that gained it, rather, some animula, some particle ephemerally spun off from the Great Soul, or the like. What was felt to be essential was one's true self, a personality.

4*R.M. Ogilvie and I. Richmond, eds. Cornelii Taciti De Vita Aaricola (Oxford, 1967) 312; Lattimore, 59f. 13, 530; Lattimore, 78f. and especially 84; Ferguson, 135-6. MacMullen Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven CT and London, 1981) 56-7. 20

While some Romans envisioned some form of afterlife, the primary focus and existence of this "true self" was during one's life. In the Histories, Otho, as he contemplates seizing the principate for himself, makes the following remark; mortem omnibus ex natura aeaualem oblivione aoud postero& vel gloria distinaui (1.21.2). The first part of this statement, mortem omnibus ex natura aeaualem. illustrates this general view of death as the terminus of a person. The second half, however, oblivione apud posteros vel gloria distingui. reveals further insight into the Roman view of the afterlife, namely that immortality does indeed exist, but only among the living. Remembrance of the individual by posterity will provide that person with a form of immortality. In other words, the self is preserved through the memory of others. Without others to perform this task, the individual perishes completely. The Romans in fact perpetuated the memory of their ancestors by a strict and elaborate cult of the dead. They especially honored the deceased during a week long festival, the Parentalia.*? Tacitus declares that Agricola will survive the ages through the minds of men and the glory of his deeds:

4?J.M.C. Toynbee Death and Burial in the Roman World. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1971) 61-4. 21

quidquid ex Agricole amavimus, quidquid mirati sumus, manet mansurumque est in animis hominum in aeternitate temponim, fame rerum (Aar. 46.4).

Pliny the Younger expresses the same belief in the dependence on others for the preservation of the self, although not the same confidence in his own success at immortality;

alius aliud: ego beatissimum existimo, qui bonae mansuraeque famae praesumptione perfruitur, certusque posteritatis cum futura gloria vivit. ac mihi nisi praemium aeternitatis ante oculos, pingue illud altumque otium placeat (£iLu 9.3.1).*°

Thus, although the Romans in general view death as the end of the self, others can preserve it through their continual commemoration. So far I have examined the interdependence of self and other. The two concepts are interwoven and the one determines and defines the other. Nevertheless, because self and other are opposite in meaning, a tension exists between the two concepts. To be other is to be different from oneself. One can not know the self of another as

*®See also Sallust fifi 1.3: quo mihi rectius videtur jjpgeni-aviaiL .Yijzidim opibws gloriam auasrerg9t, qwoniam yi.tfl-ipsa qwa frgimur.. brfi.vis sat,, memoriam noetri quam maxume lonaam efficere; and Laelius about Scipio in Cicero D.9_Amiq.j. 102: "n^mo-umquam aniiBg_aat spe maiora susclpiet_aui sibi non illius memoriam ataue imaainem KrAPflnsndam-putet." 22

one does one's own. Consequently, the other person must remain at least a partial unknown. No matter how close a person is to another, that other person is ultimately a stranger. A brother can be included among the things a person considers as one's own, sua. but as another human being, the brother is also other, alienus. as well. The unknown in other people can be somewhat terrifying, for one can never know with absolute certainty what another person is thinking or planning, regardless of the intimacy between the two. Scholars on Tacitus have commented on the historian's fondness for contrasting the apparent actions and words of a person with his real intentions, and for providing more than one possible reason behind a person's actions.*9 These ambiguities reflect the unknown that is inherent in the notion of other. For instance, in the Histories Flavius Sabinus refuses to muster support in Rome for his brother Vespasian. Tacitus provides the following possible reasons for his unwillingness:

haudquaguam erecto animo eas voces accipiebat, invalidas senecta; sed erant qui occultis suspicionibus incesserent, tamquam invidia et aemulatione fortunam fratris moraretur . . . melior interpretatio, mitem virum abhorrere a sanguine et caedibus (3.65.1-2).

49oaitz, 46f.; Martin, 215 and 220f.; Syme, 192; I.S. Ryberg "Tacitus' art of innuendo," TAPA 73 (1942) 383- 404. 23

Here the same action can spring from several differing motives. Perhaps Sabinus' old age has rendered him too weak for the task. Some suspect Sabinus of harboring animosity from a former rivalry with his brother, or more favorably Sabinus has a natural abhorrence of bloodshed.50 As an "other" person, Sabinus' inner thoughts are unknown not only to us, the audience, but to his associates as well. Tacitus, because he places it last, seems to prefer the third reason, yet he does not always indicate his own preference.51 Consequently, Tacitus himself emerges as unknown, "other," to us. By way of summary, the self signifies "me" or "mine." It is basically defined as the sum of a person's perceptions of himself or herself. The counterpart of the self is other. To be other encompasses everything that is not oneself. The concept of other involves what is different, strange, unknown, external, foreign, and hostile. Self and other are interrelated, for the self is defined by others, through imitation of others, through comparison with others, and through the roles

5®K. Gilmartin Wallace "The Flavii Sabini in Tacitus," Historia 36 (1987) 353f. questions the positive tone of melior interpretatio.

51d . Whitehead "Tacitus and the loaded alternative," Latomus 38 (1979) 474-95 and D. Sullivan "Innuendo and the 'weighted alternative' in Tacitus," GI 71 (1976) 312- 26. 24

assumed in contact with others. Others, however, can represent for the individual a terrifying unknown. The focus of this dissertation is the role of self and other in the Histories of Tacitus. This concept of course is not exclusive to Tacitus. The ancient Greeks and Romans, with their fondness for contrasts, were keenly aware of the self-other dichotomy. It surfaces in specific instances throughout ancient literature. In Sophocles' Ajax, Athena presents Ajax to Odysseus as an "other," his enemy, yet Odysseus merely sees one like himself (121-6). The frequently cited line from Terence expresses the notion that despite all the different degrees of alienus in the world, everyone is the same by the very fact of being human: "homo sum; humani nihil a me aiienum put?" fHeautont. 1.25). in Plautus' Rudens the question of possession, what is one's own versus what is another's, comes into play as Daemones argues with his slave Gripus about keeping for himself another's trunk that Gripus hauled from the sea; "aeauom videtur tibi ut eccL._ alienum auod est, meum esse dicam?" (Rudens 1230). In the Aeneid the Etruscan king Mezentius determines that his own horse will die with him since the animal would endure no other as master except himself:

"ultor eris mecum, aut, aperit si nulla viam vis, occumbes pariter; neque enim, fortissime, credo, iussa aliéna pati et dominos dignabere Teucros" (Aen. 10.864-6). 25

The ancient awareness of the concept of self and other stems from the fact that it is basic to the human experience. Consequently it is a recurring theme that underlies many genres of Greek and Roman literature. In the Iliad the contrast between self and other rests ultimately not between Greek and Trojan but between mortals and gods. This theme is brought to light in the final book (II. 24.485f.) where Achilles is led to see in his enemy Priam a resemblance to his own father. The two are united in mourning over the loss of a loved one, while the real distinction, as Achilles himself laments, lies between the mortals who suffer and the immortals who cause suffering but themselves feel no pain fll. 24.524- 6). Not a few Greek tragedies, such as the Oresteia trilogy, Osdipus, Trachiniae. Hiopolytus. Medea. and Bacchae. center around the destruction of a family member, of one's own. Herodotus and his predecessors, the ethnographers and geographers, were inspired to relate strange and exotic lands to their countrymen and explore the difference between other peoples and themselves. In Roman comedy many plots revolve around a mistaken or loss of identity, of one's true self, and are only resolved when this identity is discovered. In Terence's Phormio, for example, Demipho disapproves of his new daughter-in-law until he discovers her true identity as his own niece. Hegio in Plautus' Captlvi 26 unwittingly owns his own son as a slave. In the Aeneid Aeneas is forced to leave his homeland and nearly all that is his in order to find a new home and identity in a strange land. The two major historians who precede Tacitus, Sallust and Livy, also employ the self-other concept. Sallust describes Catiline's financial irresponsibility in terms of self and other: alieni adpetens. sui orofusus (BC 5.4), a phrase that Tacitus himself reworks in his description of Galba: pecuniae alienae non adpetens. suae parous (1.49.3).52 Livy's Hannibal, in order to incite his men to fight more zealously, has his prisoners of war fight one another to the death while his own soldiers, caught up in the excitement, take sides and cheer them on. Hannibal then addresses his soldiers, claiming that if they show the same spirit in their own situation as they did in another's, they will surely win the upcoming battle:

"si, quem animum in alienae sortis exemplo paulo ante habuistis, eundem mox in

52g .e .F. Chilver A Historical Commentarv on Tacitus' Histories I and II (Oxford, 1979) 109; of. Marius' speech fil 85 where he contrasts himself, a novus homo, with others, men of noted ancestry. In 85.4 Marius claims these men can rely on others; he must rely on himself alone: "ad hoc alii si deliauere. vetus nobilitas. maiorwB fortia fagta., cognatorum adfinium ope&*_ multae clientelae. omnia haec praesidio adsunt: mihi sees omnes in memet sitae, auas necesse est et virtute et innocentia tutari: nam alia infirma sunt." 27 aestimanda fortuna vestra habueritis, vicimus, milites” (AUC 21.43.2).

More importantly, the concept of self and other underlies the two historians' view of the development of Roman history. Both Sallust and Livy have a vision of Rome's true self, where strict morality prevails, where men compete honorably for military glory and political achievements, and people are not consumed by a love of money and power.^3 The element of "other,” however, is essential for Rome's true self. Rome needs the metus hostilis in order to maintain this high standard of morality.54 For both Sallust and Livy this true self is a thing of the past. The fall of Rome's great others” signifies the ruin of Rome's self. For Sallust this event occurred in 146 B.C. when Carthage was destroyed.55 For Livy the decline was a gradual process.5® when Rome lost her external/foreign "others,” "otherness” sprang up within Rome herself when, out of avarice and ambition, Romans began to war upon each other. Sallust describes the youth who, corrupted by the recent wealth of Rome,

53sallust fiQ 7; Livy AUC praef. 11. 54t.J. Luce Livv. The Composition of his Historv (Princeton, 1977) 271-2.

55q .C. Earl The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge, 1961) 41f.; see Sallust BQ 9.1-3, 10.1 and Bl 41.1-2. 56Luce, 270f.; see Livy AUC 1.19.4, 2.39.7. 28

think little of their own money and target that of others :

igitur ex divitiis iuventutem luxuria atgue avaritia cum superbia invasere; rapere, consumera, sua parvi pendere, aliéna cupere (fiQ 12.2).

Tacitus continues this theme of conflict between the concepts of self and other in the surviving books of the Histories. The civil wars of A.D. 69 primarily account for this, for the very words "civil war" represent a self (civil) and other (war) conflict. I will shape my discussion on self and other in the Histories of Tacitus around three major points. First of all, civil war for Tacitus entails a confusion, almost a reversal, of the distinction between self and other and of the appropriate relationship between the two. In civil war the self wars upon itself; it treats itself as other. This perversion of self and other is evidenced in four factors of the self-other concept that have been addressed here briefly: emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. My second argument centers around the first three emperors of A.D. 69, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. These three men suffer from the same perversion of self and other. What each perceives as himself and other is faulty, and consequently all three fail in their attempts at Empire. Galba primarily has a distorted view of possession and 29 knowledge, Otho of emulation, and Vitellius of role. Third, the proper state and balance of self and other, together with peace, return to the Roman world through Vespasian when he assumes command. Vespasian possesses knowledge of himself and others sufficient to win and keep the Empire for his own. CHAPTER II CIVIL WAR

Introduction The year A.D. 69, which marks the end of the Julio- Claudian rule, brings about significant changes in the Roman Empire and with these an element of "otherness." According to Tacitus, the secret of empire has now been revealed: evulaato imperii arcano. posse princioem alibi auam Romae fieri (1.4.2). No longer must an emperor originate within Rome itself. Rather, he may rise from some other quarter of the Empire and be chosen by others outside of Rome. Mucianus echoes this sentiment in his description of Vitellius, who has been declared emperor by the soldiers in Germany: "et posse ab exercitu pringipm.fieri ait ipee viteilive documente" (2.76.4). Vespasian's ascent in the East is emphasized in the opening lines of Book 2: struebat iam fortuna in diverse parte-t.errar.um initia caueaegue imperic (2 .1 .1 ). The word diverse. analogous to alienus. reinforces this notion of the external, the different. This sense of

30 31

otherness, moreover, is not confined to the physical location of a new emperor. The year A.D. 69 also introduces a new family to the principate. Under the Julio-Claudians the Empire became a possession, and like an inheritance it was passed down from one family member to the next.l Since the last of the direct line of Julio-Claudians died with Nero, some other family must succeed. In addition, from this year the social class of the new emperor is no longer restricted to those with longstanding roots in the Roman aristocracy. He may rise from some other level of society and from an obscure family. Vespasian, whose family background lacks the prestige of the families of Galba, Otho, and vitellius, is the one who ultimately emerges victorious.^ Thus, the transition to a new family and the potential for change in origin of acclamation, family background, and social status of the orinceps lend a sense of displacement of tradition, of otherness to the year A.D. 69 and to Tacitus' Histories, for he perceives this year as different from, "other" than those preceding it.^ ^Cf. Galba's speech, 1.16.1: "sub Tiberio et Gaio et Claudio ac Nerone unius familiae quasi hereditas fuimus." 2por Vespasian's family background see B.W. Jones The Emperor Titus (London, Sydney and New York, 1984) If.; Syme, 43-4; Suetionius Vesp. 1.2f. ^Tacitus also describes the circumstances surrounding the civil war between Otho and Vitellius as different from preceding conflicts, 1.89.2: nam ex quo 32

Civil war itself, which dominates the year A.D. 69, differs from war with a foreign enemy. In the latter, a domestic force fights a foreign one, and the two opposing sides are fairly distinct: us vs. them, same vs. different, self vs. other. In civil war, however, the two sides consist of the same elements: us vs. us, same vs. same, self vs. self. The distinction between oneself and other, between what is familiar and foreign has become clouded, confused, almost reversed. Civil war entails a perversion of the self-other concept; self and other no longer denote opposite aspects of one's life but the same thing. One's own is now an "other," an enemy; one's enemy is one's own. In the Histories of Tacitus, this perversion of self and other during civil war infects all levels of Roman society, and Tacitus uses terms denoting and synonymous with self and other in striking places to accentuate this. The people of Rome, for example, the plebs as well as the senate, profess themselves as Galba's and eager to exact revenge upon Otho:

tum vero non populus tantum et imperita plebs in plausus et immodica studia, sed equitum divus Augustus res Caesarum composuit. prÆCul_et in_unius sollicitudinem aut decus d o p u Iu s Romanus bellaverat; . . quod rare alias.*. praetorianus urbanusaue miles in aciem deducti. Oriens Qs.g.idfing,aae virium @6t, ... t t. . 33 plerique ac senatorum, . . . ss. Galbae ostentare (1.35.1). Moments later, however, they act entirely like another group of people as they easily transfer their loyalty from Galba to Otho: alium crederes senatum. alium populum (1.45.1). In Plutarch this passage appears at a meeting of the senate ^Galba 28.1), which Tacitus does not recount until 1.47.1.* Tacitus may have inserted it earlier in order to emphasize the speed and ease with which the people changed their allegiance. The repetition of alium as well as Tacitus' statement, guippe eodem die diverse pari certamine postulaturis (1.32.1), in which he juxtaposes "same" (sfldfijn, pari) and "different" (diverse), emphasizes the perverse behavior of the crowd who exhibit the same zeal and support toward men who are enemies. The people of Rome, once belonging to Galba, become other to their own emperor as they strive to belong to another, Otho. Further in the work, the civil strife that erupts between the Corsicans and their procurator Decumus Picarius over which emperor they should support, Otho or Vitellius, results in the assassination of Picarius and his associates (2.16). The Corsicans bring the heads of the deceased to Otho. Tacitus describes the event as follows: capita .V)t hoetium ipsi interfectores ad Othonem *chilver, 103. 34

tulere (2.16.3). The phrase Mt-haS-tlum is significant. The word hostis refers to a foreign or public enemy, while inimicus is limited primarily to a personal foe. Consequently, the term hostis is more foreign, more "other,” than inimicus because hostis refers to an enemy of the entire state, one who is separate from the state while an inimicus is usually someone within the same state. Cicero, for example, tries to increase animosity toward Catiline by referring to him as a public enemy. He calls Catiline and his conspirators personal enemies to the good citizens of Rome and a public enemy to the state: homines bonorum inimicos. hostis patriae fin Cat. 1.33).5 In the above citation from the Histories the Corsicans treat Picarius, their own magistrate, not as a personal enemy but as a public one.® As a further example, while the Vitellian soldiers plunder Italian towns, Tacitus claims that certain townspeople, disguising themselves as soldiers, slay their own personal enemies: et fuere oui inimicos suos specie militum interficerent (2.56.1). The possessive suos shows that these personal enemies are of the same cloth

®Cf. ln...Cat. 1.13: exire_jBX urbe iubet consul hostem. ®Cf. the German legions' attitude toward the Gallic states, 1.51.3: nec socios. ut dim, sed hostes et victos v-ggabant . 35

as the people who killed them; they belong to them.^ By killing under the guise of soldiers their own personal enemies they have in effect treated them as though they were hostes. public enemies. Tacitus' careful choice of words such as ut hostium and inimicos suos reflects the perversion of self and other in civil war whereby Romans treat their own countrymen as public enemies. A further proof of the warping of self and other in civil war and of particular horror to Tacitus and the Romans is the division of members of the same family on opposing sides.^ lulius Gratus serves as prefect in Vitellius' army, while his brother lulius Pronto sides with Otho (2.26.1). Tacitus relates several instances where family members are actually slain on the battlefield.9 in the most brutal example a soldier even rejoices and demands a reward for killing his own brother;

Cf. Cicero In Cat. 1.23: ac. si mihi inimico. ut pr.aedisas., Jfca9,..ganflac&.-via-invidiam,..rectaL-pergg-in axsilium. ^2.45.3: isdem tentoriis alii fratrum. alii proDinauorum vulnera fovebant. *2.88.2: caesus inter alios pater militis. cum fiiium comitaretwr; 3.25.2 : eo notabilior caedes fuit. quia Ciiiue_patr@m_int@rfeGit. 36

celeberrimos auctores habeo, tantam vlctorlbus adversus fas nefasque Inreverentlam fuisse, ut gregarius agues occisum a se proxima acle fratrem professus praemium a ducibus petierit (3.51.1).

The Roman armies in fact particularly succumb to this distortion of the self-other concept. Many of the legions throughout the Empire neglect foreign threats and concentrate their energies instead on fighting one another as they support different men for the title of emperor. Tacitus' frequent use of the word hostes in describing one Roman army's confrontation with another emphasizes the perverse situation in which armies of the same state treat one another like public enemies.Of greater significance not only do armies from opposing factions battle one another, but civil strife erupts within the factions themselves. Soldiers from the same legion fight among themselves or rise up against their own leaders. After the defeat at Cremona, the Othonian legionaries assault Vedius Aquila, legate of the thirteenth legion, and become so unruly that Callus must remind them not to contribute to the enemy's killing by slaying one another: ne super cladem adversae pugnae

lOgeveral examples include: 2.14.1, 15.1, 21.3, 23.1, 23.3, 26.1, 27.1, 3.9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 16.1, 17.1. 37

suismet losi caedibus saevirent (2.44.2).^^ In Vitellius' army, both Valens and Caecina are confronted with rebellious troops:

iurgia primum, mox rixa inter Batavos et legionarios, dum his aut illis studia militum adgregantur, prope in proelium exarsere (1.64.2),

and orta et in castris seditio. auod non universi ducerentur (2.26.1) respectively.^^ The Flavianists also are beset by sedition and begin to attack their officers: leaiones velut tabe infectae Aponium Saturninum Moeslci exercitus leaatum eo atrocius adarediuntur (3.11.1). No faction escapes internal strife. Galba of course is assassinated by his own praetorian troops:

igitur milites Romani, quasi Vologaesum aut Pacorum avito Arsacidarum solio depulsuri ac non imperatorem suum inermem et senem trucidare pergerent (1.40.2).

Although the praetorians have devoted themselves to Otho, Tacitus uses the possessive suum to emphasize their original ties to Galba and hence their perversity in attacking him.

^^Cf. 2.23.2: aeqr^_coercitamleaionem et puanandi ardore usaue ad seditionem proqressam. ^^Cf. 2.27.2: qravis alioquin seditio exarserat; 2.68.1: apud victores orta seditio. ludicro initio, ni numerus caesorum invidiam bello auxisset. 38

In this last passage Tacitus likens the soldiers' charge upon Galba to the overthrow of an eastern potentate. This description belongs to the urbs capta motif wherein ancient writers employed specific stock elements to describe the siege of a foreign city.^^ This motif, moreover, has been extended during the late Republic to depict a state beset by civil war, and especially by Cicero in his political invectives against such public enemies as Catiline, Clodius, and Antonius.^* For instance, Rome complains to Cicero that she will suffer the fate of a sacked city at the hands of Catiline;

"an, cum bello vastabitur Italia, vexabuntur urbes, tecta ardebunt, tum te non existimas invidiae incendio conflagraturum?" (In Cat. 1.29).

Tacitus also describes the devastation of Rome, Italy, and her provinces by Roman armies throughout their many civil wars in terms of this motif:

nec iam recentia saevae pacis exempla, sed repetita bellorum civilium memoria caotam

ISquintilian Inst. Orat. 8.3.67-70; G.M. Paul "Vrbs capta : sketch of an ancient literary motif," Phoenix 36 (1982) 144-55. Keitel "Principate and civil war in the Annals of Tacitus," AJPh 105 (1984) 306-25, who cites Cicero In Cat. 3.24, 4.11, 4.16 and Phil. 3.27, 5.25. 39 totlens suis exercitibus Vrbem. vastitatem Italiae, direptiones provinciarum, . . . (1.50.2)

The urbs capta motif as well as the use of the reflexive (suum. suis) in this passage and the one about the attack on Galba reflect the perversion of self and other in civil war where a state is treated like an enemy by its own armies. The armies of all four emperors in the Histories in fact commit this outrage to their own state. Galba's troops, upon entering Rome, slaughter thousands of unarmed soldiers as well as two men of consular rank:

interfectis cingonio Varrone consuls designate et Petronio Turpiliano consulari: . . . introitus in Vrbem trucidatis tot milibus inermium militum infaustus omine (1 .6 .1- 2).

The armies of the other three emperors, however, inflict even graver damage and destruction upon Roman soil, and in these instances Tacitus often employs the urbs capta motif.17 Otho's praetorian troops, as if on foreign

Cf. 1.2.2: iam vero Italia novis cladibus vel post Ibnqam.sagçulorum eeriem rgpetitis-adfliçta;, hansta aut obruta fecundissima Camoaniae ora;et Vrbs incendiis vastata,. coneumptis antiquiiggiinig-delubris>, ipso Capitoljq qiviwm.manibMB-inffqnsfl. i6cf. 1.26.1: non rei p.qbllca6L.g.ara.,-quam. fo.edar.9 PFinoipie sai eanqHin@_sQbr,ii_p.arabant. l^Keitel, 309-10. 40

shores, plunder the Italian countryside; non Italia adiri nec loca sedesaue patriae videbantur: tamauam externa litora et urbes hostium urere vastare rapere (2.12.2).^^ The fact that the praetorian troops themselves are levied primarily from Italy^® accentuates the destruction of their own. On their march toward Rome, Vitellius and his army ravage towns, colonies, and farms as though they had just conquered enemy territory:

nec coloniae modo aut municipia congestu copiarum, sed ipsi cultures arvaque maturis iam frugibus ut hostile solum vastabantur (2.87.2).20

Antonius Primus dispatches auxiliary troops to pillage the land surrounding Cremona. The booty Tacitus describes as civili: auxiliares cohortes in Cremonensem aqrum missae. ut specie parandarum cooiarum civili oraeda miles imbueretur (3.15.2). Rome itself becomes a captured city as the Flavianists conquer the

l^cf. 1.82.2: postera die velut caota Vrbe clausae domus. rarus per vias p o p u Iu s . maesta Plebs. ^^Chilver, 20 and 177. 20cf. 1.61.1: Fabius Valens allicere vel. si abnuerent. vastare Gallias et Cottianis Alpibus Italiam inr.umpgr.e. , iuseue; 1 .62.1 : iovadendam Italiam, Ogsapandam-.VEhem«• 2.89.1: ipse vitellius a ponte Mulvi insiqni -aqug t-paludatus ..açgin.g.tusqua, .89natum._gt_popuiwm ante. s@_aq@n8.,_quq_minu6_.wt çaptam _Vrb9m..ingr@d@r@tiir.,. amicorum Goneiiio ..dfi.tercitMS. 41

Vltelllanists: ubique lamenta, conclamationes et fortuna captae urbis (4.1.3).^^ Tacitus further accentuates the inversion of self and other in civil war by noting various distortions and unnatural situations that it produces. For example, while everyone's attention is centered around Romans fighting one another as enemies, the actual foreign enemies remain neglected: conversis ad civile bellum animis externa sine cura habebantur (1.79.1). This neglect then incites foreign nations such as the Rhoxolani to wage war and thus to cause more strife for the Romans: eo audentius Rhoxolani. Sarmatica gens . . . maana spe Moesiam inruperant (1.79.1).^^ These foreign peoples seek for their own possession that which belongs to another, the Romans. Arulenus Rusticus, who, serving

Cf. 3.83.2: quantum in luxurioso otio libidinum. auidauid in acerbissima captivitate scelerum. prorsus ut eandem civitatem et furere crederes et lascivire; 3.84.4: Vitellius capta Vrbe; R.T.S. Baxter "Virgil's influence on Tacitus in Book 3 of the Histories." QR 66 (1971) 106, compares 3.84.4 to the fall of Troy in Aen. 2.507, 642f. ^^According to Chilver, 144, the Rhoxolani were not so much excited by civil war as they were merely repeating the previous year's campaigns. Tacitus molds their aggression to suit his theme of the weakening of Rome's frontiers due to civil war. For other instances of uprisings cf. 3.45.1: ea discordia et crebris belli civilis rumoribus Britanni sustulere animos auctore Venusio: 3.46.1: turbata per eosdem dies Germania, et SQCordia ducum. seditione leaionum. externa vi. perfidie gggiali prage .adflicja..Romana rea; 3.47.1: nsg....g e t ar.ag natigneg -silebanfc. 42

as legate, had enjoyed respect from foreign nations, is nearly killed by his own countrymen and near the very walls of Rome:

et ni dato a duce praesidio defensi forent, sacrum etiam inter exteras gentes legatorum ius ante ipsa patriae moenia civilis rabies usque in exitium temerasset (3.80.2).

The town of Cremona had originally been founded as a defense against foreign invaders, only to fall at the hands of the Romans themselves:

propugnaculum adversus Gallos trans Padum agentes et si qua alia vis per Alpes rueret. . . . bellis externis Intacta, civilibus infelix (3.34.1).

The Capitoline suffers a similar fate, which Tacitus describes first as the most mournful and foul crime since the founding of the city: id facinus post conditam Vrbem luGtuosiggimwm faediseimumqua-cei pwblicae-populi...Romani accidit (3.72.1), and then attaches the ironic statement that no foreign enemy is responsible: nullo externo hoste. Civil war thus produces situations wherein individuals and entire communities experience better fortune and safety in their dealings with outside forces as opposed to those with their own countrymen, and Tacitus loses no opportunity of stressing the inherent irony of this. 43

Because such perverse situations spring from civil war, this type of war for Tacitus ranks far worse than foreign wars.^^ Tacitus comments that in civil wars, since the vanquished are fellow citizens who can not be sold for profit, no one may be taken captive, and so most are slain: obstructae straae corporum viae. quo plus caedis fuit; neaue enim civilibus bellis cacti in oraedam vertuntur (2.44.1).2* Furthermore, the Roman soldiers who plunder Italian soil inflict greater damage upon their homeland and fellow countrymen than if they had attacked foreign soil. Tacitus judges the pillaging of Otho's troops as even more horrible because the civilian population does not expect such an attack from its own legions :

eo atrocius, quod nihil usquam provisum adversum metus. pleni agri, apertae domus; occursantes domini iuxta coniuges ac liberos securitate pacis et belli malo circumveniebantur (2.12.2).^° ^Syme, 205; see Plutarch Brutus 12 where Favonius says civil war is worse than tyranny; P. Jal "Tacite et la guerre civile," Information Littéraire 20 (1968) 228-9. 2*Cf. 3.34.2: inritamaue praedam militibus effecerat gonsgnsus Italian, em&tionem laiium mansipiorum aspernantis-î— Qggidi goepere. ^^Chilver, 177 compares this passage to a description of enemy land in Africa, Sallust fix 46.5, which comparison would contribute to the urbs capta motif; For another instance of greater cruelty applied in times of civil strife cf. the animosity between Roscius Coelius and Trebellius Maximus, 1.60.1: accendebat odium eius 44

More importantly, the Roman soldiers' familiarity with their own homeland allows them to loot the choicest locations:

ceterum Italia gravius atgue atrocius quam belle adflictabatur. dispersi per municipia et colonies Vitelliani spoliare rapere, vi et stupris polluere; . . . ipsique milites regionum gnari refertos agros, dites dominos in praedam aut, si repugnatum foret, ad excidium destinabant (2.56.1).

The epigraphical evidence actually indicates a large number of northern Italians serving in the legions during

this p e r i o d . 26 in external wars the enemy represents an unknown. It is different; it is primarily "other." In civil wars, however, one is fighting an "other" who is the same as oneself. The enemy is almost a mirror image of oneself. This similarity entails shared knowledge. One knows the other and therefore is capable of inflicting greater harm than in the case of an unknown enemy. One even behaves more violently towards one's enemy in civil war than in foreign wars. In fact, after the civil wars have ended and the Roman armies turn to an external foe, Civilis, Tacitus remarks that the soldiers

Roscius Coelius leaatus vicensimae leoionis. olim discors. sed occasions civilium armorum atrocius proruperant. 26chilver, 218. 45

now act more moderately toward the enemy: posito civium bello ad externa modestiores (4.72.2). Another aspect of civil war that renders it more destructive than foreign war is the frequency of deserters it fosters: crebris. ut in civili bello. transfuaiis (2.34.1).2? Because the two opposing forces are the same, greater ease and opportunity exist for betraying one's own faction and deserting to another. The heightened potential for desertions leads to an increase in treachery against as well as distrust of one's own. An ambush that Caecina plots near Cremona is betrayed to the Othonianist generals: oroditum id Othonianis ducibus (2.24.3). Accusations of treachery arise among the Othonian troops who, trusting only Otho, suspect all their own generals whenever they are faced with difficulties. They accuse one of their legates, Vedius Aquila, of treason: desertorem oroditoremaue increoant (2.44.1).^® One by one Vitellius' commanders desert him (2.97-8). The legate Valerius Festus, while

2?Jal, 227; of. 1.51.2: paratis utrimque corrnBtQribuff- .fit. per£idia impunita■ 2®cf. 2.41.1: intfirxwptMg...tribmiormn. germo, eoque incertum .f.wit..— ipgidiflg— vgl pcoditianem-an aliqaad hcnegtum congilium coeptaverint; 2 .4 2 .1 : ia..rumQ£.ab expioratcribug Vitellii digpereue, an in ipga Othonie parte geu dele, geu forte gurrexerit, parum compertum. 46

publicly supporting Vitellius, secretly communicates his allegiance to Vespasian:

ac primo Valerius Festus legatus studia provincialium cum fide iuvit; mox nutabat, palam epistulis edictisque Vitellium, occultis nuntiis Vespasianum fovens (2 .98.1).29

The betrayal of Valerius Festus is even more atrocious because he is actually related to Vitellius.^0 Such perfidy is a trait peculiar to barbarians, as Tacitus remarks when the king of the Sedochezi surrenders Anicetus to the Flavianists: fluxa. ut est barbarie, fide cactus Aniceti exitium perfuaas tradidit (3.48.2). Hence, any Roman who commits treachery or perfidy acts like someone foreign, which represents a further reversal of the perception of self and other in civil war.

29cf. 3.60.1: simul conloauia cum Vitellianis decem miliwm epatio dis,tantibMS-et-.proditiq sperabatwr. 3°Chilver, 258-9. 31cf. 3.46.1: perfidia sociali, in reference to the Batavi, Cannanefates, and Treveri; See also G.M. Paul A Historical Commentarv on Sallust's Bellum luaurthinum (Liverpool, 1984) 140 note to 46.3 fgenus Numidarum infidum. inaenio mobili): "Perfidia was a charge the Romans frequently levelled, notably against the Carthaginians . . . but also against many other enemies." He cites fil 56.5, 61.5, 66.2, 88.6, 91.7, 108.3, Cic. Att. 11.7.3, Livy AVC 29.3.13, and Polybius 14.1.4. See also Livy AÏC 21.4.9 on Hannibal: perfidia plus auam Punica. 47

To summarize briefly, civil war signifies for Tacitus a perversion of the self-other concept. The self makes war upon itself; it becomes self-destructive. Instead of other encompassing everything that is not the self, it constitutes the same thing as the self. Civil war results in the Romans treating their own possessions, fellow citizens, city, and country as "other," something foreign to be conquered and pillaged. This confusion of self and other is best illustrated in the behavior of the Roman armies. One Roman army wages war on another. Soldiers rebel against their own commanders and attack their own comrades. Members of the same family fight on opposite sides and even kill one another. Finally, the Roman soldiers treat their own homeland not merely like enemy territory but more brutally than enemy territory. Consequently, the fact that the opponent in civil war is both one's own and the enemy renders civil war much more grievous than war with an external foe. Tacitus brings the perversion of self and other in civil war into focus by his frequent emphasis and juxtaposition of words that designate the self and other as well as the urbs capta motif wherein events of the civil confrontations are depicted in terms suited for foreign wars. This perversion of self and other inherent in civil war springs from a corruption of four major factors. 48

which have been introduced in the previous chapter. These are emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of these four factors, and how a corruption of them signifies a warping of the self-other concept and in essence civil discord, hostility among citizens. On numerous occasions and in particular in the Histories these forms of civil discord ultimately escalate to civil war. Because I intend to examine the four emperors individually and in detail in subsequent chapters, I will limit my examples in this chapter primarily to the minor characters and general groups of people who appear in the Histories.

Emulation Emulation faemulatiol signifies the self attempting to equal if not surpass another. It involves comparison and contrast - measuring oneself against another, as well as imitation - modeling oneself in some way after another. Emulation is synonymous with competition and rivalry (oortamon, simultas. contention. which the Romans always enjoyed throughout their history. Their political and military life centered around rivalry for the various magistracies, for support from clients, for victory in war. T.P. Wiseman comments: 49

This preoccupation with personal achievement and competition for the greatest glory, which stands out as the most conspicuous characteristic of the Roman ruling class in the third century B.C., can be traced right through the history of the middle and late Republic and into the early Empire.

Sallust describes the practice in the early Republic whereby soldiers competed with one another for glory:

sed gloriae maxumum certamen inter ipsos erat; se quisgue hostem ferire, murum ascendere, conspici, dum tale facinus faceret, properabat (BQ 7.6).

Quintilian, in his discussion on the proper education for an orator, highly approves of competition in the classroom. Healthy rivalry with other students affords the individual the opportunity to improve himself. He will constantly strive to surpass his peers:

audiet multa cotidie probari, multa corrigi, proderit alicuius obiurgata desidia, proderit laudata industria, excitabitur laude aemulatio, turpe ducet cedere pari, pulchrum superasse maiores finst. Orat. 1.2.21-22).

Both these passage reveal two important aspects of aemulatio. First of all, the participants begin basically as equals. As soldiers or students they hold the same status. Each participant, however, is trying to ^^T.P. Wiseman "Competition and co-operation," in Roman Political Life 90 B.C. - A.D. 69 . ed. T.P. Wiseman (Exeter, 1985) 4. 50

surpass the others. The importance lies in distinguishing oneself (consoici) from all others by achieving a superior position (superasse). Competition such as this appears in a number of instances in the Histories. For example, the armies of Vespasian and Mucianus both improve their military prowess by rivaling one another:

tres, . . . ipsi Vespasiano legiones erant, exercitae bello; guattuor Mucianus obtinebat in pace, sed aemulatio et proximi exercitus gloria depulerat segnitiam, guantumque illis roboris discrimina et labor, tantum his vigoris addiderat integra guies et inexperti belli ardor (2.4.4).

Further on, Antonius Primus, who is preparing to besiege Cremona, divides the labor among different groups with the intent of creating a competitive atmosphere wherein the more valorous will be singled out, and the different groups will work more productively as they rival one another:

mox vallum portasgue legionibus adtribuit, ut discretus labor fortes ignavosgue distingueret atgue ipsa contentions decoris accenderentur (3.27.1).

The participants in either example hold an equal status as soldiers, but compete in order to attain a superior place in relation to the others. 51

The above two examples illustrate an emulation that is beneficial, for the parties involved improve themselves by vying with others. For the most part, however, the Histories is replete with instances of emulation that has been corrupted. Tacitus generalizes, after describing the hostility that Caecina and his wife experience from the crowd of onlookers, that people tend to view harshly others more fortunate than themselves, yet especially those whom they view as their equals:

insita mortalibus natura recentem aliorum felicitatem acribus oculis introspicere modumque fortunae a nullis magis exigere, quam quos in aequo viderunt (2.20.1).

The crowd of Italians here considers Caecina and his wife as their equals fin aequo). They grow hostile toward these two because they have achieved distinction and comport themselves as superiors by dressing ornately and in the manner of foreigners. The word aemulatio does in fact have a pejorative connotation, one that includes envy and hostility and which is related to the word invidia, eyeing another with ill will as demonstrated in the above passage: acribus oculis introspicere.^^

^^Examples of aemulatio in a pejorative sense include: 3.57.1: municioalem aemulationem bellis giailibws miggehant; Cicero .T.USg..„ 1.44: cupiditatum et aemulationum erimus expertes; Livy MZ£ 26.38.10: aemulationem profecto atgue odium. 52

Emulation thus turns to envy when the one rival who finishes beneath another begrudges that other person the superior position that he or she has attained. T.P. Wiseman remarks: "The invidi were those one had

outstripped in the competition. Herein lies another facet of the self-other concept. When one achieves a superior position, one becomes separate, different from all others. The origin of the word eareaius. apart from the main flock, embodies this notion. One is "other" to everyone else, which affords the opportunity for further division to arise in the forms of hostility and envy. Envy and hostile rivalry preoccupied ancient writers. Cicero, citing Plato, notes its similarity to war among citizens:

miserrima omnino est ambitio honorumgue contentio, de qua praeclare apud eundem est Platonem, "similiter facere eos, qui inter se contenderent, uter potius rem publicam administraret, ut si nautae certarent, quis eorum potissimum gubernaret." idemque praecipit, ut "eos adversarios existimemus, qui arma contra ferant, non eos, qui suo iudicio tueri rem publicam velint," qualis fuit inter P. Africanum et Q. Metellum sine acerbitate dissensio fDe Off. 1.87).

In the De Amicitia. Laelius claims that fierce rivalries often ruin friendships: "auod si oui lonaius in amicitia pr.

contentionein incidissent” (J2s_Mifi. 34). He further remarks that among friends there exists a superiority and inferiority in regard to abilities and distinctions. A delicate balance should be observed wherein the superior friend puts himself on the same level as his inferior lest he create ill feelings in the latter:

"ut igitur ei, qui sunt in amicitiae coniunctionisque necessitudine superiores, exaequare se cum inferioribus debent, sic inferiores non dolere se a suis aut ingenio aut fortuna aut dignitate superari" fPe Amic. 71).35

Lucretius views both the superior and inferior lot as wretched and destructive. The person who achieves distinction is soon felled by invidia:

ad claros hominis voluerunt se atque potentes, ut fundamento stabili fortuna maneret, et placidam possent opulenti degere vitam - nequiquam, quoniam ad summum succedere honorem certantes iter infestum fecere viai, et tamen e summo, quasi fulmen, deicit ictos Invidia interdum contemptim in Tartara taetra - invidia quoniam, ceu fulmine, summa vaporant plerumque et quae sunt aliis magis édita cumque fPRN 5.1120-8).

The envious, on the other hand, are miserable as they see another in the limelight:

35cf. D.a...Amiç, 69: sed_ maximum est in amicitia superiorem. parem esse inferiori. 54 conslmili ration! ab eodem saepe timore macerat invidia. ante oculos ilium esse potentem, ilium aspectari, claro qui incedit honore, ipsi se in tenebris volui caenoque queruntur (DBM 3.74-7).

The civil turmoil of the final years of the Republic was due to just such a corruption of Roman competition. Of Pompey and Caesar E.S. Gruen writes: "Pride and self- image brought the chief protagonists into positions where neither could yield to the other.Florus aptly pinpoints their conflict, that Pompey could endure no equal, Caesar no superior: iam Pomoeio suspectae Caesaris ones et Caesari Pomoeiana dianitas cravisnee ille ferebat parem. nec hie superiorem (2.13.14). As these authors imply, envy, the corruption of emulation, results in friction between citizens. In Tacitus' Histories the year A.D. 69, which is dominated by civil strife, provides abundant examples of envy. It can be found between individuals, between armies, even between entire towns and colonies. An example of envy between individuals can be found when L. Vitellius incites his brother to destroy Blaesus (3.38). Tacitus gives jealousy of Blaesus' more virtuous nature as the reason: ille infensus Blaeso aemulatione orava. auod eum omni ..dfidegore maculoGum egcagia £ama anteibat , ... ^^E.S. Gruen The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1974) 497. 55

(3.38.2). L. Vitellius is envious because Blaesus has distinguished himself by his outstanding reputation, one which he himself can not achieve. His rivalry with Blaesus has become corrupted (praya). In the senatorial debate over the envoy to Vespasian a quarrel between Marcellus Eprius and Helvidius Priscus originates in Eprius' concern that others would be chosen instead of himself: sed Marcelli studium proprius rubor excitabat. ne aliis electis posthabitus crederetur (4.7.1).3? In fact the more illustrious senators prefer that legates be allotted and not elected for the envoy lest they, if selected, incur the envy of those not chosen: et splendidiissimvis .quisque godam-inclinabat metu. invidiae, si ipsi eliaerentur (4.8.5). Neither L. Vitellius nor Eprius can endure another to advance ahead of themselves (sggfiaifl-fama anteibat and aliis electie posthabitus), and so they set out to ruin one of their own peers. One of the most striking examples of civil strife originating in the debasement of aemulatio at the individual level occurs at the assassination of L. Piso

Cf. 1.60: Trebellius seditionem et confusum ordinem disciplinae CoeliQ^_spoliatas_et_inopes leaiones Coelius Igfifaellio .

in Africa (4.48f.)> As Tacitus recounts, during the

reign of Caligula control of the legion there had been

transferred from the proconsul to a legate due to

Caligula's own jealousy of another, Marcus Silanus,

possessing too much authority:

mox C. Caesar, turbidus animi ac Marcum Silanum obtinentero Africam metuens, ablatam proconsuli legionem misso in eam rem legato tradidit (4.48.1).

This increased responsibility of the legate elevated him to a position of similar importance to the proconsul, for the legate and the proconsul achieved an equal status as patrons: aeauatus inter duos beneficiorum numerus (4.48.2). This equality makes them rivals, but the legate, because he is still the inferior, is the more envious :

et mixtis utriusque mandatis discordia quaesita auctaque pravo certamine. legatorum ius adolevit diuturnitate officii, vel quia minoribus maior aemulandi cura (4.48.2).

The result of his envy against another individual (again note the use of pravus) is civil strife (discordia). At the time of this narrative, Valerius Festus is serving as legate, and such is his hostility toward the proconsul L. Piso that he commits an act of murder that is in effect treason by having his own fellow magistrate assassinated. 57

Invidia penetrates the armies as well. In many instances, their feelings of inferiority in comparison with another army or group of people lead them to sedition. For example, the armies in Germany rebel in part because the Gallic peoples boast of their own honors granted by Galba in contrast to the absence of such benefits among the soldiers:

contumacia Gallorum inritati, qui remissam sibi a Galba quartam tributorum partem et publice donates in ignominiam exercitus iactabant (1.51.4).

Furthermore, the legions of Upper Germany compare themselves with those of Lower Germany and find themselves in an inferior position because they transferred their loyalty to Galba later:

nec deerant in exercitu semina discordiae, quod et bello adversus Vindicem universus adfuerat, nec nisi occiso Nerone translatas in Galbam atque in eo ipso sacramento vexillis inferioris Germaniae praeventus erat (1.53.2).

Consequently, they decide to reject Galba as emperor and make their own choice. The Vitellianists who make their way to the armies of Vespasian incite these soldiers to rebellion by boasting of their superiority over them:

namque omnis exercitus flammaverat adrogantia venientium a Vitellio militum, quod truces 58 corpora, horridi sermgne ceteros ut impares Inridebant (2.74.1). ®

Even towns and colonies throughout the Empire fall prey to petty rivalry. In fact, Tacitus generalizes in his account of the war in Judaea that neighboring peoples are by nature hostile to one another: solito inter accolas odio (5.1.2). The rivalry between the people of Lugdunum and Vienna offers a prime example (1.65). These two towns have been involved in a longstanding feud, which has escalated due to the civil war: veterem inter Luadunenses et Viennenses discordiam praximum bellum accenderat (1.65.1). Galba has treated them unequally by taxing the people of Lugdunum while honoring those of Vienna: et Galba reditus Luadunensium occasions irae in fiscum verterat; multus contra in Viennenses honor (1.65.1). Consequently, bitter rivalry and envy between the two resurfaces: unde aemulatio et invidia et une amne discretis conexum odium (1.65.1). This last phrase, which contrasts uno - discretis - conexum. illustrates

Cf. 2.27.2: gohoEtes-Batavbrum, ...t t superbe aaebanjU- at _s.ui.usga@ legionis tantoria aggessissent, gfigr,glt.QS.„a-Sfi-guariadegimangg, ablatam..Naroni. Italian atque gmngmJielli, fgrtunam in ips.Qr.um mana. sitam iactantes: Annals 1.17.6 where Percennius incites the legions in Pannonia to rebellion by complaining of the better pay and station of the praetorians: an praetorias cohortes, auae binos denarios acceoit. auae post sedecim annos oenatibus suis reddantur. plus oericuloruro suscipere? non obtrectari a se urbanas excubias: sibi tamen_apud horridas qentea e gentajaerniis hostem aspiçi» 59

how invidia arises from two groups of essentially the same status. The people of Vienna and Lugdunum share something in common, their location on either side of the river, and as such are similar. Because, however, one has been treated more favorably than another by the emperor, they are driven to mutual hatred. Ironically, although the word discretis belongs grammatically with uno amne. it is really their hatred that divides them. The people of Lugdunum become so envious that they even try to incite the Roman soldiers encamped nearby to destroy Vienna: cuncta illic externa et hostilia coloniam Romanam et partem exercitus et prosperar-Um adversarumaue rerum socios. . . . (1.65.2). The argument they use, depicting the people of Vienna as an actual foreign enemy (externa et hostilia) and themselves as belonging to the Romans (coloniam Romanam and sasiaa), demonstrates how a corruption of emulation results in one treating someone who is similar to oneself as other, as an enemy. Chilver notes that although the war with Vindex could be interpreted as a foreign war because it was fought between Roman and Gallic troops, nevertheless "the palpably tendentious plea here cannot be allowed to refute the view that it was essentially a bellum

^^Chilver, 127; The Lingones also arouse the Roman legionaries to near rebellion by painting a pitiful 60

The towns and colonies in Italy especially succumb to the same envy toward their neighbors. The people of Placentia blame the conflagration of their amphitheatre not on the casualties of war but on a neighboring town with whom they are rivals:

municipale vulgus, pronum ad suspiciones, fraude inlata ignis alimenta credidit a quibusdam e vicinis coloniis invidia et aemulatione, quod nulla in Italia moles tam capax foret (2.21.2).

The towns of Puteoli and Capua, normally jealous of one another, grow even more so during the civil wars as each supports a different emperor:

a quibus municipia coloniaeque impulsae, praecipuo Puteolanorum in Vespasianum studio, contra Capua Vitellio fida, municipalem aemulationem bellis civilibus miscebant (3.57.1).40

Finally, Tacitus comments that in Campania the towns act more hostilely toward one another than toward the pringeps they oppose: discordibus municioiorum animis picture of their own miserable lot in comparison with that of their neighbors as well as of the misfortunes of the soldiers themselves, 1.54.1: leaati eorum . . . modo suas iniurias. modo vicinarum civitatium oraemia. et ubi pronis militum auribus accioiebantur. ipsius exercitus porigyla st ggntumeliae gonqufiggntga .aggendsbant animgg- 40cf. 3.59.1: aregtuG Samnig. Paglignmsgwe.,et -Marsi agmulatignfi... qag.d. .Campania prafi.VGnis6JB.t. ut„in ngyg. gbgegujg ad gungta belli mania agree erant. 61

maais inter semet auaro contumacia adversus principem (4.3.1). The above examples demonstrate how the colonies and municipalities within the Empire constantly compare themselves to others living nearby and this comparison often leads to fierce rivalries. These rivalries are intensified as a result of the larger fighting of the civil wars throughout the Empire, but also these smaller feuds between towns may further inflame the larger events of the civil wars. The civil turmoil that results from a corruption of emulation thus breeds further civil strife. In conclusion, aemulatio has several meanings of significance for the self-other concept. It involves one's imitation of another and one's competition or rivalry with another. In both activities, one constantly compares oneself with another. In rivalry the participants may hold a similar status, but try to become distinct and different by surpassing others. The Romans held aemulatio in high esteem because it spurred people to excel and improve. Aemulatio. however, also has a negative meaning more closely associated with invidia. This occurs when one rival is proven inferior to another and begrudges that other person his or her success. The inferior rival then treats the superior as an enemy and tries to destroy him or her. In the examples cited above from the Histories, bitter rivalry and jealousy between 62

individuals, armies, and entire towns often lead to treachery and sedition. Thus, the corruption of aemulatio signifies a perversion of self and other. Due to envy one treats another who is similar to oneself, but who, because of his or her distinction, is also different, as an actual enemy. In the Histories invidia such as this often leads to civil war.

Possessign Tacitus summarizes the jealousy between Gallic states as a result of comparisons with one another in the opening chapters of his work:

proximae tamen Germanicis exercitibus Galliarum civitates non eodem honore habitae, guaedam etiam finibus ademptis pari dolore commoda aliéna ac suas iniurias metiebantur (1.8 .1).

From this passage one thing becomes apparent about envy; the object of one's envy is usually something another possesses: commoda aliéna. The concept of possession, one's belongings (sua or propria), was introduced in the first chapter as one area that contributes to a definition of the self. Such objects as real estate, livestock, money, clothing, spouse, children, and ancestors are included as part of one's self. A Roman's house often serves as a means of self-expression. Cicero 63

advises his son to inhabit a house suitable to a man of means and influence: dicendum est etiam. aualem hominis honorati et orincipis domum placeat esse._cuiu5 .fini&_est usus fPe Off. 1.138). Authors such as Horace (Sat. 2.6) or Pliny the Younger (Eo. 2.17 and 5.6) write of their property and homes with pride and affection. Horace's Sabine farm with its humble possessions of books and tableware symbolizes his expressed belief in a simple and peaceful way of life. Seneca marvels at the rustic house once inhabited by Scipio Africanus as representative of his strict and disciplined life, and he laments the extravagant accommodations deemed necessary by people of his own day:

pauper sibi videtur ac sordidus, nisi parietes magnis et pretiosis orbibus refulserunt, nisi Alexandria marmora Numidicis crustis distincta sunt fEp. 86.6).

Despite Seneca's complaint, material wealth mattered a great deal to the Romans. Cicero advises his son that accumulating wealth and possessions is not blameworthy as long as no one is wronged: nec vero rei familiaris amplif jgatio nemini noceng vi.tMperanda est., asd fvtgienda semper iniuria est (De Off, 1.25). Tacitus, when describing a character, frequently mentions his or her 64

financial status.Umbricius^ remark in Juvenal's third Satire, est aliauid. auocumaue loco. auQ.C-umaue r.e.gessu./ unius sese dominum fecisse lacertae (SalLi. 3.230-1), clearly illustrates the importance of possession for an individual's identity, even if that possession amounts to the small piece of land a mere lizard might occupy.As further proof of the importance of possessions, a Roman often committed suicide before being convicted so that his property would remain intact and his will valid.*3 A Roman also regularly included the emperor as an heir to this end.*4 Possession is nine-tenths of the law, or as J.A. Crook states: "Perhaps more than with anything else the function of the law is concerned with distinguishing meum from tuum."45 in legal terms the Romans made some

Cf. 2.59.2: m n i a s Blaesus ...... qgnerg-inlMs.tri, 1 argus anim.Q-at...par-Qpibus; 2 .81.1 : Anti9chus-Vfi.t.ustis QPibus, ingens et ssrvientium .csqum ditissimus? 4 .43.1 : fCIuvius Rufus) perinde dives st slogusatia..clarus; 4.55.1: Giassicus nQbilitat@ .opibusqu@_ant@ alios; Ann,. 16.7.1: Cassius ooibus vetustis et gravitate morum. 4^cf. Martial Ep. 11.18 where he complains about the tiny farm he was given. *^J.A. Crook Law and Life of Rome. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1967) 275-6, who cites Ann. 6.29.1. 4*R.S. Rogers "The Roman emperors as heirs and legatees," TAPA 78 (1947) 140-58. 45crook, 139. 65

important distinctions concerning property.^® Certain objects in the Roman world could not be owned by private citizens. These included res reliaiosae (tombs), rss sacrae (temples, altars, dedications to gods), sanctae (walls and gates of cities), what belonged to the community (public roads and buildings), and what belonged to all men (air, harbors, rivers, seas, etc.). objects that were liable to ownership fell under two headings in accordance with an ancient and obsolete form of sale. Some things were res mancioi. which included land, houses, slaves, and certain animals. These objects could be transferred only through two processes: mancipatio - an imaginary sale, and cessio in iure - sale in court. All other belongings, res nec mancioi. were transferred by traditio - delivery from one person to another. The Romans differentiated between possessio. use of an object, and dominium, ownership. Moreover, an individual could gain dominium merely by using the property uncontested for a certain period of time fusucapiol, two years for mangjpi» one year for res nec mancipi. Of special importance, while we may consider other people who are close to us or related to us as "ours" in a figurative sense, a Roman could actually own another 4Gcrook, 139-42; W.W. Buckland Elementary Principles of the Roman Private Law (Cambridge, 1912) 58-119; H.J. Roby Roman Private Law (Cambridge, 1902) vol.l, 407-533. 66

under law. Slaves played a rather ambiguous role in Roman society. Legally they were considered pieces of property, res mancioi. without any rights, but were nonetheless human beings who could eventually obtain their freedom and citizenship, and themselves become quite influential.A large portion of the slave population came from lands outside of Italy.As such they were often a foreign element within a domestic setting, living in close contact with the members of the family. Slaves were included as part of one's domus. which meant not only one's physical house but all the members of the household including one's family.At the head of the household ruled the paterfamilias, the oldest male ascendant, who exercised control over his wife, children,

slaves, freedmen, and material possessions.^0 Legally he had power of life and death not only over his servants, but over his family members as well, although this extreme measure was scarcely used by the time of the *?A. Watson Roman Slave Law (Baltimore and London, 1987) 46-101. ^^A.H. Duff Freedmen in the Earlv Roman Empire (New York, 1958) 1-11. **Cf. 2.48.2: an Vitellium tam immitis animi fore, ut BiT.Qj.ngglvimi tota-domo-ns.-hang qwidem...sibi_qratiam redderet?; also 1.15.2 and Ann. 3.23.1. SOsuckland, 13-57; Roby, 51-169. 67

Empire.51 No family members in potestate could themselves own property. Anything they earned or acquired actually belonged to their paterfamilias. A son in fact had a similar lot as a slave, for like the slave he was granted an allowance, the peculium.52 Women might own property if no male ascendant survived as long as they were assigned a legal guardian, although the position of the guardian grew less prominent and Claudius abolished it for freeborn women.53 Apart from its legal status, one's family played an essential part for a Roman's identity. That which befell one family member affected other members as well. In the Histories. Tacitus recounts the anguish Vitellius' mother, Sextilia, experiences as a result of her family's misfortunes: nec ullis postea fortunae inlecebris aut ambitu civitatis in aaudium evicta domus suae tantum adversa sensit (2.64.2).5* Flavius Sabinus represents to the people of Rome his brother Vespasian in the letter's absence, and for this reason the prominent men of Rome

5^Crook, 107-8 cites Aulus Plautius' domestic trial of his wife (Ann. 13.32.2). 52watson, 46-7.

53e . Cantarella Pandora's Daughters, trans. M.B. Fant (Baltimore and London, 1987) 139. 5*cf. Sextilia's death, 3.67.1. 68

urge Sabinus to take action.Furthermore, one's family included not only the living members but past and future representatives as well. In his speech to Piso, Galba places the adoption in the context of their respective families and ancestors:

"et mihi egregium erat Cn. Pompei et M. Crassi subolem in penates meos adsciscere, et tibi insigne Sulpiciae ac Lutatiae familiae decora nobilitati tuae adiecisse" (1.15.1).

In the Annals. when Tacitus describes the treacherous affair between Livia, the wife of Drusus, and Sejanus, he comments that the enormity of her crime casts shame upon herself, her ancestors, and her descendents:

atque ilia, oui avunculus Augustus, socer Tiberius, ex Druso liberi, segue ac maiores et posteros municipali adultère foedabat (Ann. 4.3.4).

Among family members, whatever pertains to one pertains to others. This mutuality of experiences among family members introduces an important aspect of possession. In legal terms or otherwise, possession by one person of another person entails a certain reciprocity, a sense of

S^Cf. their arguments, 3.64.2: populi mobilem animum et. si ducem se praebuisset_ fSabinual._easdem illas adulafcignsB jacg Jtegpasiano fore , , , , 69

belonging for both sides. A slave belongs to a master, but the latter is his master. A patron has his own clients, the clients their patron. A commander is in charge of soldiers who are referred to as his, as Tacitus says of Antonius Primus: hortatus sues (3.16.2). Nevertheless, the commander is theirs, as this criticism of the German legionaries who mistreat Verginius exemplifies: aeare tamen cohibiti oui exitium consularis et quondam ducis sui flaaitabant (2.68.4).^^ Hence, even though one may own or be in control of another, the relationship is one of interdependence. A general needs his soldiers as much as they need their commander in order to function as a complete army. Otho expresses this relation in a speech to his soldiers: "adeo manifestum est neaue perire nos neaue salvos esse nisi una posse” (1.37.2). Among one's possessions are also included more intangible items. Roman nomenclature consisted of three parts: praenomen - the individual's name, nomen - the name of the gsns./ and cognomen - the family name. A Roman's name was passed down from generation to generation. The family name itself, and not one's flesh and blood, must be kept alive through one's children.

^^Cf. 1.30.2: "leaionum seditio adversus duces sues audita est aliauando." 70

natural or adopted, and even through freedmen who assumed their masters' cognomen. In addition, any titles and honors that a person received became almost pieces of property, which people accumulated and carried with them

to their grave where they were d i s p l a y e d . 5? when a Roman was driven into exile, he lost not only his property, but his titles and distinctions as well.®® Moreover, a Roman magistracy included the title as well as the official power inherent in the title. The magistrate, so to speak, possessed this power (potestas1. A Roman could also be said to possess authority fauctoritas), influence (potential. and force (yijB) over others.®® In the Roman world one could be in possession of such power and influence, but not the title and vice versa. Augustus owed much of his success as emperor to his ability to assume the underlying power of various offices while allowing others to hold the titles.®® In the Histories.

®^Lattimore, 266f. ®®Crook, 272-3; Veyne, 95. ®®Cf. 2.65.1 where Hilarus charges Cluvius Rufus with trying to take control of Spain; Hilarus Caesaris libertus detulerat. tamauam audito Vitellii et Othonis Buingjpattt prppriam ipse potentiam_e.t poBseGsion@m Hispaniarum temotasset; see H.W. Benario An Introduction to Tacitus (Athens GA, 1975) 129f. for potentia as a pejorative term in Tacitus, and Syme, 412f. for ways Tacitus undermines auctoritas in his works. ®®Cf. Augustus Res Gestae 34.3: post id tempus auctoritate omnibus jpragg-titiju-PQ.tsstatig autem. nihilo. 71

Tacitus often mentions the opposite situation. For example, Otho, as he departs to Brixellum before the battle of Cremona, leaves his brother in command. Tacitus states, however, that while Titianus holds this honor, another, Proculus, has the actual control; profecto Brixellum Othone honor imperii_penes Tltianum fratrem. vis ac potestas penes Proculum _praefectum (2.39.1). Pompeius Silvanus of consular rank is the leader of six thousand Dalmatians, but the legate, Annius Bassus actually directs them: ducebat Pompeius Silvanus consularis: vis consiliorum penes Annium _Bassum__leaioni£ leaatum (3.50.2). This incongruity between one person having the title and another the underlying authority represents a perversion of the concept of possession. If possession involves distinguishing that which is one's own (gya) from another's (aliénai. a corruption of possession occurs when one seizes for one's own that which rightfully belongs to another. Tacitus says of the people upon whom Nero bestowed money that when Galba revokes a portion they scarcely have any left because they squandered others' money as lavishly as they did their own: at illis vix decumae super portiones erant. amplius habui auam ceteri oui mihi auoaue in magistratu conleaae fuerunt. 72

isdem eraa aliéna sumptibus auibus sua prodeqerant (1.20.1). Cicero claims that a person who takes possession of more than his allotted portion commits a crime against society:

ex quo, quia suum cuiusque fit eorum, quae nature fuerant communia, quod cuique obtigit, id quisque teneat; e quo si quis sibi appetet, violabit ius humanae societatis (Oe Off. 1.21).

The Latin word that best corresponds to this phenomenon is avaritia - greed, as well as aspects of cupido and aviditas. Many Roman authors viewed avaritia as a plague upon society. Cicero judges greed as one of the worst vices found among officials: nullum iaitur vitium taetrius est. . . . auam avaritia. praesertim in principibus et rem publicam aubernantibus (De__Qf£, 2.77), and as disastrous to friendships: "pestem enim nullam maigrfim-ggffg amicitiie quam in plerisaue pecuniae cupiditatem" fPe Amic. 34) . According to Lucretius, greed incurs civil slaughter: sanguine civili rem confiant, divitiaeque/ gonduplisanfc ayidi., gaedsm saede accumulantes (CfiH 3.70-1).^2 Livy finds avarice as recently vexing to Rome:

Glcf. Cicero De Fin. 1.59f. G2cf. Lucretius DBM 3.59-63. 73 nuper dlvltiae avaritiam et abundantes voluptates deslderium per luxum atque libldinem pereundi perdendlque omnia invexere fAUC praef.l2).

Of all the vices Juvenal claims children learn from their parents, greed is the worst and the one that consumes most of his fourteenth satire (Sat. 14.107f).®^ As many of these authors claim, greed is a form of civil strife. The same holds true in the Histories. Here the Roman armies on a number of occasions exhibit a greed that surpasses loyalty to their emperor and ultimately leads to civil war.®® The praetorian troops, for instance, rebel against Galba primarily because he refuses to pay them a donative:

postquam neque dari donativum sub nomine Galbae promissum neque magnis meritis ac praemiis eundem in pace quem in bello locum . . . intellegit . . . pronus ad novas res . . . (1.5.1).

The soldiers of Vespasian also contemplate revolution because they do not want to be excluded from a share in the rewards:

®^Cf. Livy AUQ praef.ll. ®^J. Ferguson, ed. Juvenal. The Satires (New York, 1979) 315; For other complaints about avaritia cf. Sallust BC 10 and Seneca ESU 75.11: morbi sunt inveterata vitia et dura, ut avaritia. ut ambitio. ®®Plutarch Galba 1.4 claims that the greed of the soldiers was one of the primary causes of the civil wars. 74

ne penes ceteros imperii praemia, penes ipsos tantum servitii nécessitas esset, fréméré miles et vires suas circumspicere (2.6.2).

It is the soldiers' greed for booty that above all drives them to wage war against various peoples throughout Italy and the Empire, against their own leaders, and against one another. Booty actually consists of others or others' property seized for oneself by violent means. In addition, legally, spoils won in war belonged to the state and were then distributed to the soldiers.When the soldiers take the plunder for themselves, they are not merely robbing the vanquished, but the Roman people as well. Tacitus describes a battle instigated by Caecina's soldiers against the Helvetii because the former out of greed seize money belonging to the latter:

initium bello fuit avaritia ac festinatio unaetvicensimae legionis: rapuerant pecuniam missam in stipendium castelli, quod soli Helvetii suis militibus ac stipendiis tuebantur (1.67.1).

The Othonian troops, angry because their latest skirmish produced little booty, sate their greed by attacking the local inhabitants: auippe in acie nihil oraedae. inopes agrestes .gt—viliaL arma; . , . S9d.çalamitajfeibHg-ins.ontiHm G^Roby, 419. 75

exDleta avaritia (2.13.1).G? Valens' soldiers attack him and storm through his headquarters because they believe he has hoarded for himself their spoils:

postquam immissis lictoribus Valens coercere seditionem coeptabat, ipsum invadunt, saxa iaciunt, fugientem sequuntur. spolia Galliarum et Viennensium aurum et pretia laborum suorum occultare clamitantes, direptis sarcinis tabernaculum ducis ipsamque humum pilis et lanceis rimabantur (2.29.1).

This passage illustrates the distortion of self and other in civil war as brought on by greed. The soldiers attack their own leader as if he were an enemy because they want for their own the spoils that are actually the possessions of others, yet these others are really members of their own state. This type of situation also takes place in the Flavian army when the soldiers under Antonius Primus nearly rebel against him in order to sack the Roman citadel of Cremona (3.19-21). Their greed for booty is a strong motivating force and far outweighs any concern for danger: omnisaue caedes et vulnera et sanauis ay.idit.atg praedag-pansabantm: (3 .26.3 ).^^ Their ^^cf. 1.51.4: igitwr-agquanis..Asdaisgug.ag-dgindg, provtt opulgntia givitatibaa. grat, ..,infgnei_gxpw.gnatiQngs urbium,, populationgg. agrorum.-raptus-panatiam hausgrant anim9,-.gggMndwB avaritiam gt adrsgantiam.-pragsipua validiorum vitia; 1 .80.2 : pegsimue.qaisqag. in..fl.gsasiflngm BEaedar.um. ^^cf. 3.30.1: obpggnantibus-.ingitamgntum ob pragdam scat; 3.32.1: exercitus oraeter insitam praedandi cuDidinem vetere odio ad excidium Cremonensium incubuit. 76

eagerness to seize as much of the spoils as possible culminates when the soldiers actually kill one another in their rivalry for various objects:

ubi adulta virgo aut quis forma conspicuus incidisset, vi manibusque rapientium divulsus ipsos postremo direptores in mutuam perniciem agebat. dum pecuniam vel gravia auro templorum dona sibi quisque trahunt, maiore aliorum vi truncabantur (3.33.1).

The phrase sibi auisaue contrasts with aliorum vi. and illustrates how greed divides soldiers from the same army

and causes them to fall upon one a n o t h e r . ^9 Possession in the Roman world encompasses a wide range of meanings. Legally it includes material possessions as well as human beings. Figuratively one's family, name, distinctions, and power can all be numbered among what one considers as one's own. All of these "possessions" lend a person a substantial part of his or her identity, a sense of self, and therefore distinguishing between one's own and another's is important. Avarice constitutes a corruption of this distinction among possessions; it signifies one person taking for his or her own that which rightfully belongs

This army later refuses to wait for reinforcements because they do not want to share the booty with members of their own faction, 3.60.1: ne suas ouidem leaiones appsrigbant.ug, .ut praedae quam peciGulorum sogias. 77

to another. In the Histories the underlying reason for much of the civil strife thus arises from greed, as individuals or groups, such as the armies, attempt to seize more than their fair share.

Role The self was introduced in the first chapter as largely identified by the roles one plays in society. A passage was cited from the Histories in which Tacitus lists the roles performed by Helvidius Priscus: civis senator,-maEifcus-giBner-..amicus, ovingtis vi.taa. offigiis aeaualibus (4.5.2). Tacitus praises Helvidius Priscus for the fulfillment of these roles. This entails maintaining one's self within one's own proper position. A person who achieves this wins great admiration from Tacitus. E. Ciaek expresses this idea:

Tacite se sent obligé de demander à ses personnages de respecter leur persona et il les juge en vertu du cette exigence.'

Tacitus introduces the importance of fulfilling one's roles at the outset of the Histories. The list he provides of fine examples, bona exemola (1.3.1), that

E. Cizek "Sine ira et studio et l'image de l'homme chez Tacite," StudClas 18 (1979) 107f.; E. Cizek "Pour un Tacite nouveau," Latomus 40 (1981) 31. 78

this period in history produced is comprised of the various roles that people performed successfully:

comitatae profugos libères metres, secutae maritos in exilia coniuges; propingui audentes, constantes generi, contumax etiam adversus tormenta servorum fides (1.3.1).

In fact, examples such as mothers defending their sons or slaves their masters can be found scattered throughout the Histories. For instance, Tacitus describes a Ligurian woman who, in order to protect the life of her son, when interrogated by the Othonianist soldiers as to his and her money's whereabouts, showed them her womb:

auxit invidiam praeclaro exemplo femina Ligus, quae filio abdito, cum simul pecuniam occultari milites credidissent eoque per cruciatus interrogarent ubi filium occuleret, uterum ostendens *latere* respondit, nec ullis deinde terroribus aut morte constantiam vocis egregiae mutavit (2.13.2).

Vipstanus Messalla upholds his familial duty by defending his brother Aquilius Regulus:

magnam eo die pietatis eloquentiaeque famam Vipstanus Messalla adeptus est, nondum senatoria aetate, ausus pro fratre Aquilio Regulo deprecari (4.42.1).

On the importance of familial ties in Tacitus see K. Gilmartin Wallace "Kinship terms in Tacitus," Helios 5.2 (1977) 56-9; on friendship see R. Seager "Amicitia in Tacitus and Juvenal," AJAH 2 (1977) 40-50. 79

A Slave tries to protect his master Piso from assassins by pretending to be him: servus eareaio mendacio se Pisonem esse respondit ac statim obtruncatur (4.50.2).?2 In these three instances, Tacitus emphasizes the roles these people continue to uphold despite adversity and danger.73 Just as Tacitus in the introductory chapters equates exemplary behavior with the fulfillment of one's roles, so does he regard the abandonment of one's duties as one of the diseases that infect the people at this time: corrupti in dominos servi, in patronos__liberti; _e_t_auibus deerat inimicus. per amicos oporessi (1.2.3).?4 Plancius Varus, whom Tacitus describes as one of Dolabella's intimate friends, ex intimis Dolabellae amicis T^Cf. Ann. 14.5.3 where Acerronia unwittingly does the same for her mistress Agrippina: verum Acerronia. imorudentia dum se Aaripoinam esse utaue subveniretur matri orinciois clamitat. contis et remis et auae fors obtulerat navalibus telis conficitur. ^^Cf. 2.53.2: interroaatus Othonis libertus causam digressws Aabere sg js.mgrema eivts mandata cegpondit; 2.59.1: wxor eiug fLuGceii Albini) gwm gg percwe&oribye obtulisset. simul interfecta est; Tacitus especially praises Agricola for his perseverance in performing his duties under Domitian, Agr. 42.5: sciant, auibus moris est inlicita mirari. posse etiam sub malis principibus maanos viros esse, obseouiumaue ac modestiam. si induBtria ac— yiaor adsint, eo..laudig excedere, quo plericfue per abrupta. sed in nullum rei publicae usum nisi ambitiosa morte inclaruerunt. 7*Cizek "Sine ira et studio.» 109: In the Annals Tacitus criticizes senators who do not fulfill their roles fAnn. 3.65.2). 80

(2 .63.1 ),75 plots his ruin. When the self abandons its own role and tries to take on that of another, the result is civil turmoil. The most obvious examples of this occur in instances where an imposter surfaces, someone who pretends to be another. A slave or freedman stirs up trouble in Achaea and Asia Minor by pretending to be Nero (2.8).76 A runaway slave named Geta claiming to be Scribonianus Camerinus likewise causes commotion (2.72). The Roman armies as presented in the Histories offer abundant proof of this corruption of the fulfillment of their roles. Their role as soldiers primarily involves obedience to their commanders. Otho admonishes his troops on this theme: "narendo potius. commilitones._auam imperia ducum sciscitando res militares continentur" (1.84.2). In many instances, however, the soldiers act of their own accord. They refuse to obey their commanders. Instead they choose their own leaders and give their own orders. The roles between soldier and general are reversed and the result is rebellion and pandemonium. Otho's troops as they prepare to attack Galba are plagued by this type of sedition. The soldiers neglect military discipline and order: rapta statim arma. 75seager, 41f.: The betrayal of friends is a fregent theme in Tacitus (Ann. 2.27, 11.3, 16.17, 16.32.3). 76cf. 1.2.1; P.A. Gallivan "The false Neros: a re­ examination," Historia 22 (1973) 364-5. 81

sine more et ordine militiae. ut vix prae.tor.ianUS_jawt leaionarius insianibus suis distinqueretuc (1.38.3). The abandonment of their own roles is emphasized by the phrase insianibus suis whereby the different types of soldiers are indistinguishable from one another. Furthermore, they act without orders from their superiors: miscentur auxiliaribus aaleis scutisaue_._nullQ tribunorum centurionumve adhortante. sibi _auisaue_dux_et instigator (1.38.3). Afterwards they even select their own leaders: omnia deinde arbitrio militurn acta: pc.aet

Cf. 2.19.2: provisa parataaue non arma modo. sed obsegvtiviHL-gt-pacfindi.. amar.~ quod soium_iili8. partibus defuit, cum virtutis-haatLpaeniteret; 2.39.1: miles alasÆc.,. qui tamen-iwssa-dagum-int.erpr.9.tari,-guam exsegui mallet; 2 .39.2 : militibug.ut imperatgr..pugnae. adesset poasentibUG. 82

Vitellianist soldiers neglect their military duties: non principle noscere. non servare viailias neaue labore firmeri (2.93.1).^® Among the Flavianists the soldiers on occasion act with more authority than their leaders: nec miles in arbitrio ducum. sed duces militari violentia trahebantur (3.49.2). Valens' perception perhaps best summarizes the behavior of the soldiers during civil war: gnarus civilibus bellis plus militibus auam ducitous_ licere (2.29.3). This passage affords an interesting analysis of the relation between roles and civil war. The soldiers rise up against their leader Valens who is able to escape dressed as a slave. Alfenus Varus, the praefect, responds to the soldiers' uprising by prohibiting them from performing their military tasks:

tum Alfenus Varus praefectus castrorum, deflagrante paulatim seditions, addit consilium, vetitis obire vigilias centurionibus, omisso tubae sono, quo miles ad belli munia cietur (2.29.2).

This in turn causes the soldiers to seek their positions and commander anew:

Cf. 2.94.1: ceterum non ita ducibus induisit Vitellius. ut non plus militi liceret. sibi auisaue miiitiam smnpgere; 2.56.1: obnoxiis ducibus et prohibere non-Ausis. 83 igitur torpere cuncti, circumspectare inter se attoniti et id ipsum, quod nemo regeret, paventes: silentio patientia, postremo precibus ac lacrimis veniam quaerebant (2.29.2).

Varus' apparent submission to the soldiers in order to regain some control illustrates the perversion of roles that takes place in civil war. The soldiers rebel by taking on the role of commander, i.e. making demands. Valens' disguise as a slave represents the loss of his role as leader.Varus in turn deprives the men of their role as soldiers. Without this role they feel a loss of identity because no one is there to lead them, and thus they seek the role of soldier anew. When the soldiers reassume their duty, Valens is able to reassume his role as commander, and thus order is restored. The phrase anarus civilibus bellisPlus_militibus auam ducibus licere refers to Valens' leniency in punishing the soldiers for the uprising, but it also pertains to Alfenus Varus who realized he must seem to yield to the soldiers in order to reestablish military order. Tacitus describes the temperament of the Vitellianists storming the Capitol as follows: vixdum rsqressg in.gaBitglium Martiala.fucens aderat, nullo duce. sibi auisaue auctor (3.71.1). The one phrase

7^cf. 4.36.2: eadem in VoGuiam-parabantur, nisi servili habita-per tsnebrag ignoratHS-egasigset. 84

that symbolizes the behavior of the soldiers who instigate sedition is sibi auisaue. T h i s term implies two things. First, as I have argued above, the soldiers think and act by themselves. They discard their own role and don that of another, a leader. Secondly, they think and act for themselves, for their own benefit. This second interpretation elicits an important aspect of role-playing, namely position, where one should place oneself, physically and figuratively, in relation to others. Often one's role involves putting another's interests first. In the Roman world there exists a hierarchy of obedience and deference to others, obsequium. A soldier should always defer to his commander. Someone playing the role of son should place the interests of his paterfamilias ahead of his own. A freeborn Roman should always come before his slave, but after his patron in importance. Disobedience to one's superior, however, leads to sedition. This type of sedition, according to Otho, is exactly what the Vitellianists desire for their opponents:

Cf. 1.38.3: sibi auisaue dux et instigator; 1.54.2: inde. atrox rumor, adfirmaiitAbug plerisqqe interfec-tos, ag ni. .aibi ipaL.gongulerent, for a. ut_.aoarrimi.. miiitum. .at praesentia conauesti per tenebras et inscitiam ceterorum oooiderentur; 2.94.1 : aibi-quisqufi-milltiam-sumpsaro; 3.19.1: ilia sibi..,.quisaue,-PQgso-gQloniam ,Plano, sitam imBfi.tu oapi. 85 "quid aliud quam seditionem et discordiam optabunt? - ne miles centurioni, ne centurie tribune ebsequatur, at cenfusi pedites equitesque in exitium ruaraus" (1.84.1).

The phrase sibi auisaue in such contexts represents a perversion of role-playing. One does not adhere to one's role by placing another ahead of oneself (obsequiumi, but rather places oneself first above all others. The person's actions are selfish.®^ Cicero argues that self-interest should not preclude the interests of others: sic in vita sibi quemque petere. quod pertineat ad usum. non iniauum est, alteri derioere ius non est fPe Off. 3.42). Pliny the Younger, in a letter to Tacitus, which recounts his escape during the eruption of Vesuvius, contrasts the behavior of their Spanish friend who selfishly tore himself free of danger: non moratus ultra ororioit se effusoaue cursu periculo aufertur (£pj. 6.20.11), and the altruism of his mother and himself who would not consider their own safety while their brother/uncle's fate was as yet uncertain: csspondimvts non oommisswros nos ut de. salute illius incerti nostrae consuleremus (£pa. 6.20.10), and who are more concerned about each other's safety than their own:

®^Keitel, 317f.: self-interest gives rise to stasis; Walker, 77: self-interest is a prominent manifestation of evil in the Annals. 86 turn mater orare hortari lubere, guoquo modo fugerem; posse enim iuvenem, ga et annis et corpore gravem bene morituram, si mihi causa mortis non fuisset. ego contra salvum ma nisi una non futurum; dein manum eius amplexus addere gradum cogo. paret aegre incusatque ga, quod ma moretur fEp. 6.20.12).

The Spaniard neglects his role as a friend by thinking only of himself, while Pliny and his mother continue to fulfill their roles of nephew/son and sister/mother respectively by considering their relatives' predicaments above their own. In the Histories a striking instance of adherence to one's appropriate position in relation to others and its reverse occurs at the death of Piso (1.43). According to Tacitus, Sempronius Densus provides an example of outstanding valor:

insignem ilia die virum Sempronium Densum aetas nostra vidit. centurio is praetoriae cohortis, a Galba custodiae Pisonis additus, stricto pugione occurrens armatis et scelus exprobrans ac modo manu modo voce vertendo in se percussores quamquam vulnerato Pisoni effugium dédit (1.43.1).

Tacitus identifies Densus' role: centurio is oraetoriae cohortis. He also adds that Galba assigned him the duty of protecting Piso: a Galba custodiae Pisonis additus. This duty involves valuing Piso, his superior as Galba's son, before himself. He does so literally, by attracting Piso's assailants to himself, vertendo in se percussores. 87

SO that Piso can escape. Densus' exemplary behavior is further brought into the spotlight by the contrasting actions of Sulpicius Florus and Staius Murcus. For these two Tacitus identifies their military roles as well: s. Britannicis cohortibus and specwlafcOC (1.43.2) respectively. Tacitus also adds that Florus was recently granted citizenship by Galba, nuper a Galba civitate donatus (1.43.2), which, according to Chilver, was probably a personal rather than a general gift,82 and thus indicates a further reason for Florus to be loyal to Galba. Florus and Murcus, however, instead of fulfilling their duty as soldiers in obedience to Galba, turn against him and slay his successor, Piso. The self- sacrifice of Sempronius Densus represents that paradox wherein deference to others, placing another ahead of oneself, results not in ignominy or oblivion but in distinction and honor for the individual, in this instance through Tacitus. To recapitulate, for Tacitus a person should conform to his or her roles in society whether that role be slave, friend, or senator. A corruption of this occurs G^Chilver, 102. 83cf. Messalla's defense of his brother, wherein he wins from Tacitus fame and approval by placing himself in the way of dangers intended for his brother, 4.42.2: iaitur Mseealia n o n . r a u m tueri, g@d periculis fratris semet opponens flexerat auosdam. 88

When someone rejects his or her appropriate role and tries instead to fulfill that of another. The Roman soldiers who frequently instigate rebellions by assuming the role of leader offer abundant proof of this. Furthermore, conforming to one's proper role involves obsequium. placing someone else before oneself in importance. Selfishness, when a person sets himself or herself first above all others, constitutes a distortion of one's role; it is a form of civil discord that often leads to civil war.

Knowledge The Greeks had inscribed over the doorway to the temple of Apollo at Delphi the well-known saying "know thyself." M. Nédoncelle makes the comment that "The notion of otherness arises as an episode of the 'know thyself process."84 Thus knowledge is closely connected to the concept of self and other. A person in coming to know himself or herself by necessity also comes to realize what is other. The concept of knowledge vs. ignorance mirrors that of self vs. other. When something is known, it is familiar; it becomes part of one's own. For example, the former courtiers of Nero align 8*M. Nédoncelle "Otherness and causality," Analecta Husserliana, vol.6, ed. A. Tymieniecka (Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, 1977) 110. 89

themselves with Otho because he is similar to Nero, someone with whom they are familiar: prona in eum aula Neronis ut similem (1.13.4). Vespasian has Britain's support because they know him through his successful command of a legion there:

et Britanniam iam inditus erga Vespasianum favor, quod illic secundae legioni a Claudio praepositus et bello clarus egerat, . . . adiunxit (3.44).°^

On the other hand, ignorance involves a degree of alienation. Something unknown is foreign, strange, other. This is related to the Roman suspicion of anything new; whatever is new is unknown and different. Res novae meant literally revolution. Cato and other staunch supporters of the old republican ideals were fiercely opposed to the newly introduced culture of the Greeks. A novus homo such as Cicero was not warmly received by his fellow senators. Verginius Rufus turned down the title of emperor because his origins were not sufficiently well-known, as Fabius Valens reminds Vitellius: msrit.Q -dMbitasB.e. ,Verginimn-.eqafig.trl..£amiLia, ignoto .Batre.«-i mpacfim, si. rgcepisgeÆ-impfirimB (1 .52.4 ). Tacitus' comment, inscitia rei publicae ut alienae

Cf. 3.43.1: fia_gra.viflr awgtor, quod Paulino patria Fargm m i i i , st-honos.., apud pra.e.tQrianos, qgormn, quondam tribunus fuerat. 90

(1.1.1), demonstrates this relation between ignorance and alienation. Because the people of Rome are no longer familiar with the workings of the republic, it has become foreign to them. The possession of knowledge and wisdom was highly esteemed among the ancient Romans. Individuals often had themselves portrayed clasping writing tools such as a tablet, papyrus, or stylus in order to represent themselves as learned and cultured.^6 The aristocracy sent its sons to Athens to be educated and many Romans employed Greek philosophers to impart wisdom to them. Cicero claims that to excel in knowledge is a fine achievement and to fail in ignorance a disgrace:

omnes enim trahimur et ducimur ad cognitionis et scientiae cupiditatem, in qua excellera pulchrum putamus, labi autem, errare, nescire, decipi et malum et turpe ducimus (DÆ-Q£,£^ 1.18).

Seneca urges his friend Lucilius to exercise his mind as well as his body: auicauid facies, cito redi a corpore animum,-ilium ngctibus ac. diebMs aatsrce; , , ( S s ^ 15.5). Cicero claims that philosophical reason will prevent one from coveting another's belongings:

®®Veyne, 6-7, IBf. 91 atque hoc multo magls efflclt ipsa naturae ratio, quae est lex divina et humana; cui parere qui velit . . . numquam committet, ut alienum appetat et id, quod alteri detraxerit, sibi adsumat (De Off. 3.23).

In regard to the three areas involving self and other addressed above, namely emulation, possession, and role or position, knowledge plays an essential part. An individual needs to know what belongs to him or her and where he or she belongs in comparison with others in order to function successfully in society. In other words, an accurate self-perception and an accurate perception of others are essential. Tacitus records at the outset of the Histories that the armies in Britain alone did not get involved in the civil wars. He provides two possible explanations: either they were distanced and separated from fighting by the ocean or from frequent expeditions they had learned rather to hate the enemy:

in Britannico exercitu nihil irarum. non sane aliae legiones per omnes civilium bellorum motus innocentius egerunt, seu quia procul et Oceano divisae, seu crebris expeditignibus doctae hostem potius odisse (1.9.2).®'

These legions have come to know their proper place as soldiers as well as their true enemies, the tribes in ®^The soldiers in Britain, however, are not always detached from the civil wars as Chilver, 61 notes; see 1.60 and 2.65. 92

Britain, unlike their comrades on the continent who treat one another like enemies. Knowledge, involves power. To be knowledgeable of a situation allows if not control of the situation, at least the possibility for control. For example, the German armies evolve into a formidable force because they have come to know their own might as well as the strength of others:

sed ante bellum centuries tantum suas turmasque noverant; exercitus finibus provinciarum discernebantur: tum adversus Vindicem contractas legiones, segue et Gallias expertae, quaerere rursus arma novasque discordias (1.51.3).

Hucianus is able to mislead his foe into believing he commands a larger force than its actual size because he knows at exactly what pace to proceed: with enough speed so as not to seem hesitant yet slow enough to allow the rumour of his approach to become exaggerated:

Mucianus cum expedita manu, . . . non lento itinere, ne cunctari videretur, neque tamen properans, gliscere famam ipso spatio sinebat, gnarus modicas vires sibi et maiora credi de absentibus (2.83.1).

Mucianus knows the strength of his own force as well as the reaction of others and is therefore able to maximize his situation. Vespasian clearly gains the upper hand by discovering Vitellius' preparations yet keeping his own 93

secret: ita Vitellii paratus noscebantur. Vespasiani consiliorum pleraaue ianota (2.98.2). On the other hand, Ignorance about oneself and others often proves disastrous. Juvenal's Satire 10 springs from the notion that people do not know what is best for themselves and consequently pray for things like wealth and fame from the gods that will ultimately harm themselves. In the Histories Manlius Valens does not realize that Fabius Valens is really hostile to him and plotting against him: secretis eum criminationibus inCamayerat-fabiHG ignarum, et, quo. incautior decioeretur. oalam laudatum (1.64.4). On a number of occasions Tacitus describes battle scenes where the soldiers' ignorance leads to panic and consequently chaos. In a battle fought near Rome between the Vitellianists and Flavianists, the Vitellianists gain the upper hand because they are familiar with the surrounding area while the Flavianists, due to their unfamiliarity, are driven to fear:

pugnatum haud procul Vrbe inter aedificia hortosque et anfractus viarum, quae qnara vitellianis, incomperta hostibus metum fecerant (3.79.2).

As a further example, the Galban legion fighting for Vespasian panics and starts a revolt because the soldiers 94

do not realize that the approaching array is not their eneray but their allies:

forte Galbianae legioni in adverse fronts valli opus cesserat, et visi procul sociorura équités vanara forraidinera ut hostes fecere. rapiuntur arraa raetu proditionis (3.10.1).

The phrase "know thyself" signifies not only an understanding of the self but an acceptance of the self as well. One raust accept one's own limitations in rivalry, possession, and role-playing. A refusal to accept a rival's distinction breeds envy and hostility. Without acceptance of one's own possessions then one becomes greedy and seeks that which belongs to another. When a person rejects his or her own roles, that person attempts to be another. A situation involving Spurinna's troops (2.18-9) offers a perfect example of acceptance/rejection as well as the other aspects of knowledge/ignorance mentioned above.His praetorian troops, unaccustomed to fighting, lack the knowledge of an essential part of any soldier's duty, warfare.

®®Cf. the panic among the Germans, 4.33.3: audito proeiiantium clamore intentes, hostie a terqo .imadunt latiQramgu9._qaam.pro, .numaro tarrocsm £aaiant. aliis a Ngyaesig, allis a Moaontiagg .univergag copias. ad%.@ni8g@ credentibug. ®^K. Wellesley "Suagestio falsi in Tacitus," BbM 103 (1960) 274-6 gives a reconstruction of events. 95

Furthermore, they refuse to accept their proper position of subordination to their superiors:

sed indomitus miles et belli iqnaima correptis signis vexillisque ruere et retinenti duci tela intentare, spretis centurionibus tribunisgue (2.18.2)

The words indomitus and ionarus emphasize these two areas of knowledge in which the soldiers fail. The result of their ignorance and defiance, intensified by the fear of Caecina's possible arrival (2.17.2), is rebellion against their own leaders. Spurinna, on the other hand, takes advantage of the same knowledge as does Fabius Valens, that soldiers have more license than do commanders in civil war (2.29.3).^^ Like Alfenus Varus he pretends to submit to the soldiers in order to regain control:

fit temeritatis alienae comes Spurinna, primo, coactus, mox velle simulans, quo plus auctoritatis inesset consiliis, si seditio mitesceret (2.18.2).

Spurinna's understanding of the quality and disposition of his own troops as well as the status of the enemy permits him to restore himself to his proper place as leader in a position of authority: 9°cf. 2.19.1: pQStquam.in conepgctu,Padus-st .nox adnetebat. vallari castra olacuit. is labor urbano militi insolitus contundit animos; Chilver, 183. G^see above, 82. 96

certum erat Spurlnnae . . . necdvun venlsse Caecinam et, si propinquaret, coercere intra munimenta militem nec tris praetorias cohortes et mille vexillarios cum paucis equitibus veterano exercitui obicere (2.18.1).

In addition, it is the more experienced soldiers who also assist in returning order to the army;

tum vetustissimus quisque castigare credulitatem suam, metum ac discrimen ostendere, si cum exercitu Caecina patentibus campis tam paucas cohortes circumfudisset" (2.19.1)

The soldiers, who do not know or accept their proper role, incite sedition. Spurinna, who understands the natures of his own men and the enemy, is able to reestablish control. Knowledge plays an integral part in the concept of self and other. The opposing pair of knowledge/ignorance can thus be paralleled to that of self/other. The self is what is known and familiar, while other represents what is unknown and strange. An accurate knowledge of oneself as well as of others is essential in competing with others, in maintaining one's possessions, and in fulfilling one's roles. Knowledge further allows one to take some measure of control of a situation. Acceptance should also accompany this knowledge. Ignorance about oneself, one's opponents, possessions, and roles may lead 97

one to envy, greed, and selfishness and hence civil strife.

To summarize, I have tried to show in this chapter that civil war in the Histories entails a distortion of the self-other concept. In civil war the self makes war upon itself; the self becomes other to itself. The distortion, moreover, is brought about by a corruption of four factors of the self-other concept: emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. Emulation, aemulatio. consists of the self rivaling or imitating another. The corruption of this, invidia or envy, occurs when one begrudges another a superior lot. Possession encompasses all that one calls one's own, sua. The misuse of possession surfaces when one seeks for one's own that which belongs to another, avaritia. Third, each person's identity centers around the roles that person is reguired to fulfill in society. A distortion of role-playing occurs when one refuses to fulfill one's own role and especially when one neglects obseguium to others in order to serve oneself. Finally, knowledge and acceptance of oneself are essential. Without this wisdom about oneself and others, an individual would likely succumb to the above three corruptions. All four perversions signify civil discord, when dissension or animosity exists 98

between one citizen and another. On many occasions in the Histories this dissension escalates to civil war.

The Princioate One more area requires discussion in light of these four factors: the principate. If the self-other concept involves distinguishing what is the same from what is different, the principate emerges as the one position in the Empire that is completely different, other, from everything else. This fact has unique ramifications for emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. If the Romans avidly compete for distinction, the position of highest distinction is the principate. Tacitus laments that after Rome's foreign rivals had been subdued, the Romans gradually competed for more and more power until the princeps emerged as the one object for which everyone competes:

sed ubi subacto orbe et aemulis urbibus regibusve excisis secures opes concupiscere vacuum fuit, prima inter patres plebemque certamina exarsere. modo turbulenti tribuni, modo consules praevalidi, et in Vrbe ac foro temptamenta civilium bellorum; mox e plebe infima C. Marius et nobilium saevissimus Lucius Sulla victam armis libertatem in dominationem verterunt. postque Cn. Pompeius occultior, non melior, et numquam postea nisi de principatu quaesitum (2.38.1). 99

Because the emperor holds the highest and ultimate position in Roman society he should have no rival. In other words, if he is determined to stay in power, he should not have anyone equal to himself, one who might compete with him and strive to surpass him. Nero's fear of Corbulo as a potential rival leads him to require such a competent general to commit suicide. The supporters of Vitellius try to dissuade him from surrendering to Vespasian by arguing that Vespasian and his faction would never feel safe unless his rival were eliminated:

sed ubi imperium Vespasianus invaserit, non ipsi, non amicis eius, non denique exercitibus securitatem nisi exstincto aemulo redituram (3.66.2).

Their argument is not unfounded, for after Vitellius' death Mucianus has his son murdered (4.80.1). An emperor does not want others to emulate himself in the sense of being equal to himself, but he does need others to emulate him in the sense of imitation. Imitation can serve as a powerful tool. The one who is imitated in a way transforms another into someone similar to oneself. That other person becomes, so to speak, one's own. Consequently, emulation can be a very useful weapon for an emperor in order to acquire more support and influence, for an emperor stands in a position that is conspicuous and therefore likely to be imitated by 100

others. For instance, Tacitus describes Vespasian interacting with his troops as he prepares for his campaign. Here Vespasian praises the diligent soldiers. The lazier men, however, he inspires by setting an example rather than by coercing them: ipse Vespasianus

fldicfi. .horAari*.. banos laud@, segnes exemplo incitare saeoius ouam coercere (2.82.1). Thus, by imitating Vespasian's conduct, the soldiers would act more diligently and at the same time become more like Vespasian and more under his control. A far less positive result of emulation of one's emperor can be found in the case of Vitellius. Antonius Primus claims that Vitellius' troops have grown soft and decadent because they imitate that type of behavior in their leader: "si quid ardoris ac ferociae miles habuit.

BLp-Binis s.t..ccanisgatipnibwg-fi.t . prinffipis imitatione deteritur" (2.76.5).^^ In fact this deterioration of Vitellius' army has actually taken place. At one point Vitellius dines with Verginius Rufus (2.68.1). Tacitus comments that Vitellius' officers and soldiers, in emulation of their leader, become unruly and act more like a band of revellers:

^^G.G. Mason "The miles in Histories 1-3," 60 (1984) 32-3. 101 legati tribunique ex moribus imperatorum severitatem aemulantur vel tempestivls convivlls gaudent; prolnde miles intentus aut licenter agit, apud Vitellium omnia indisposita temulenta, pervigiliis ac bacchanalibus quam disciplinae et castris propiora (2.68.1).

Thus, the men beneath an emperor imitate him and become like him, and an intelligent leader will recognize what he wants his men to emulate in himself so that they best serve his interests. Tacitus, echoing Sallust (£Q 10-11), claims that greed for power, a trait innate in man, mushroomed when control of the principate was at stake: vetus ac iam pridem insita- mgrtalibus po.tenteiae cupido.. cum imperii magnitudine adolevit eruoitaue (2.38.1). The principate emerges as the ultimate source of contention because the principate is itself the ultimate possession. Augustus earned the title cater patriae.which signals one important aspect of the principate in terms of possession. The emperor fulfills the role of cater. He is not merely the father of a family (paterfamilias), however, but of the entire state. Thus, in a sense the emperor owns the Empire and everyone and everything within it falls under his control. As Seneca writes: gassar- .gmnia eiue privata tantma..ag -saa; -fit uniyacsa-in imperia-sias ..sunt, in patrimgnig propria (Da ^^Augustus Res Gestae 35.1 102

Benef. 7.6.3). The Empire in fact during the reign of the Julio-Claudians was handed down from one family member to the next as if it were an inheritance, as Galba in the Histories remarks: "sub Tiberio et Gaio et Claudio ac Nerone unius familiae quasi hereditasfuimus" (1.16.1). Even when a successor was not related he still inherited the property of his predecessor.^4 Nero, who, after the great fire of A.D. 64, appropriated land in Rome for his own Domus Aurea. clearly illustrates the treatment by emperors of Rome and her dominion as their own property. The Domus Aurea represents the culmination of a process whereby previous emperors had acquired more and more land in Rome on the Palatine and elsewhere for their own private use. The emperor had control over the provinces, the armies, the magistrates, and the revenue of the state. In fact, the distinction between the aerarium - the state treasury, and the fiscus - the emperor's personal revenue, became increasingly hazy as the emperor assumed more and more of the state's financial responsibilities.^5 The principate was Millar "The fiscus in the first two centuries," jl&g 53 (1963) 41; P.A. Brunt "Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990) 139f. B^chilver, 104-5; P.A. Brunt "The fiscus and its development," jIES 56 (1966) 75-91; Millar, 29-42; A.H.M. Jones "The aerarium and the fissaia," 0 B & 40 (1950) 22-9; C.H.V. Sutherland "Aerarium and fiscus during the early Empire," AsIjEH 66 (1945) 151-70; Brunt Roman Imperial Themes. 134-62 and 347-53. 103

esteemed as the ultimate position one could control because it signified possession of all others and all things. The role of princeps is thus unique and distinct from all other roles within the Empire. Formerly all other roles in the Roman world required deference to someone. The emperor, however, defers to no one. On the contrary, all must defer to him, and thus the establishment of his role changed the nature of all other roles. If the Emperor is to maintain his role as well as peace and order throughout the Roman world, everyone within the Empire must place his interests before their own. The place the role of princeps holds in relation to others leads to a further pertinent area: presence. When should the emperor exert or remove his presence in regard to others? An emperor's presence has the effect of calming a disturbance, of restoring order, of imposing his authority. He also provides a role model for his subjects. Images of the emperor on statues, coins, and other works of art serve as a means for the emperor to establish his presence throughout his Empire without actually being there. The emperor's absence, however,

*^cf. 1.1.1: b@ilatum apud amngm-potentiam .ad ,unmn.-ggn£figri-Bagis interfwit. 104

may also prove effective. In Herodotus' Histories (1.96- 100), the historian recounts the rise of the Mede Deioces. This man advanced to a position of authority among his people. In order further to elevate his position, Deioces secluded himself and rarely gave audience to the Medes. The result of his seclusion was to create a distance between himself and his subjects by creating an aura of mystery and awe about himself. He made himself seem different from his subjects. Hence, Deioces utilized absence to his advantage. In the Roman Empire, the princeps likewise may use his absence in order to preserve his authority. For example, Tiberius sends Drusus in his stead to quell the uprising in Pannonia (Annt. 1.24). If Tiberius had gone himself, he would have jeopardized his rule should he prove unsuccessful. Vinius warns Galba of this when the emperor ponders confronting the Othonianists: deniaue gm3di-.wlt£.Q.«-.,si-Eatio sit, eandem mox.façultatem, reqgfigsas.._si paeniteat, in aliéna potegtate (1 .32.2 ). a successful emperor must know when to exert his presence and when his absence is more expedient. Finally, success for an emperor in the above three areas is dependent upon knowledge. An emperor needs to know what others should emulate in himself, what belongs to him, and when his presence is required. More 105

importantly, an emperor needs to possess an accurate understanding of all others who surround him if he intends to stay in power. He must know who is truly his ally and who is his foe. Nero, for example, fails in this regard. In ignorance of the true disposition of Tigillinus, the emperor is eventually betrayed by his own confidant: corrupto ad omne facinus Nerone. auaedam ignar.o.,aus.us,,fTi.gillirmg), aff poetremo eiusdem deserter ac creditor (1.72.1). The same holds true for Tiberius who believed Sejanus was his closest friend, only to discover in him potentially his worst enemy. The princeps holds a unique position within the Empire. Consequently, very few individuals have the ability to fulfill it. The degree to which the four emperors of A.D. 69 succeed or fail in the four factors of emulation, possession, role and knowledge determines also their success or failure as princeps. CHAPTER III GALBA, OTHO, AND VITELLIUS latUTodtiÇLfcjgn I have attempted to show in the preceding chapter that in the Histories civil war entails a distortion of the perception of self and other, and that this distortion can be seen in a corruption of four major factors: emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. The first three emperors of A.D. 69, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who are subject to and causes of these civil wars, suffer from this very perversion of the sense of self and other. Each has a faulty perception of himself, what is his, and what is other. Galba is susceptible to avarice and ignorance, Otho falls prey to rivalry and envy, and Vitellius shirks his role as princeps in order to gratify himself. In turn each of these emperors becomes alienus in regard to both the role and the possession of the principate. Furthermore, the people with whom the emperors surround themselves, whom they would term suos. such as generals, advisors, intimate

106 107

friends, relatives, and freedmen, contribute largely to their alienation, for they too suffer from the same perversions of the self-other concept. They actually prove to be alieni to their emperor. The result of each emperor's failings in regard to himself and his associates is the loss of the principate and his own downfall.

Galba; "alieno imoerio felicior auam suoiLf1,49,21 Galba, like many of the characters in Tacitus' works, embodies both laudable and reproachable characteristics. He seems to display a genuine concern for the state, credo et rei publicae curam subisse (1.13.2). He also upholds some of the stricter virtues belonging to the bygone days of the Republic, and his career in the military and as a magistrate won him praise.1 Nevertheless, Galba also exhibits a number of faults that ultimately lead to his ruin. Most notable are his avarice and ignorance. Galba has a distorted view of possessions. He is unwilling to spend any of his own money to maintain the state. Although his avarice results in an accumulation of wealth, he loses his one ^1.5.2: laudata olim et militari fama celebrata severitas eius . . 1.49.4: dwn vigebat aetae, militari laudfi...apud Q@rmania6_.flor.uitf pro .c.on6ule...Africam moderate, iam senior citeriorem Hisoaniam pari iustitia continuit. 108

primary possession, the principate. Galba's ignorance about the proper use of money is part of a general unawareness of other important aspects of the principate, and one that further contributes to his downfall. In the introductory chapters of the Histories (1.4- 7), Galba appears as one who possesses much, but who in reality has very little. Here Tacitus provides pieces of information about Galba that together form a first impression of his character. This impression, moreover, is generally an unfavorable one.^ Galba's first appearance here actually signifies an absence: sed patres laeti. usuroata statim libertate licentius ut eraa princioem novum et absentem (1.4.3). This absence is further emphasized here by the omission even of Galba's name. The first act taken by Galba that Tacitus mentions is actually a non-act, for it constitutes his refusal both to fulfill a promise made in his name as well as grant a donative to the armies: neque dari donativum sub nomine Galbae promissum (1.5.1). Galba's severe and

^E. Koestermann "Das Charakterbild Galbas bei Tacitus," in Tacitus fWeae der Forschuna 97), ed. V. Pôschl (Darmstadt, 1969) 418-9 maintains that Tacitus exaggerates Galba's faults in 1.5-7 in order to make Otho's uprising understandable; I disagree with Y. Shochat "Tacitus' attitude to Galba," Athenaeum 59 (1981) 202, who claims that this section "serves Tacitus' purpose of improving Galba's image." 109

restrictive way of life, once praised in the past, has developed into a source of irritation:

laudata olim et militari fama celebrata severitas eius angebat aspernantes veterem disciplinam atque ita quattuordecim annis a Nerone adsuefactos, . . . (1.5.2).

The assassinations of Clodius Macer and Fonteius Capito (1.7) reveal how this severity on occasion leans toward brutality.3 This passage also illustrates in Galba a certain lack of authority, for although the death of Macer was accomplished at his bidding, iussu Galbae. Capito was slain by two legates on their own, before they were ordered: anteauam iuberentur (1.7.1).* In addition, Galba's failure to investigate this latter death characterizes him as either irresolute or resigned: Galbam mobilitate inaenii. an ne altius scrutaretur. gwoquo madg-agta^..qnifl mutari ngn. j.g.terant.«. gomprofaflasg (1.7.2)”® Thus, at the beginning of the Histories. Galba is most noted for his absence, avarice, outdated severity, brutality, impotence, and indecisiveness, and the one word that characterizes all of these is negative. ^Koestermann, 418. *Both Suetonius Galba 11 and Plutarch Galba 15.2 make Galba responsible for this act. ®As another example of Galba's resignation of. 1.18.1: contemptorem talium ut fortuitorum. seu auae fato manent, gvtamvis siqnifigafea. n

These qualities are negative not merely because they are presented unfavorably by Tacitus, but in the sense that these traits all represent negations; they constitute a lack or denial of something, of presence, of commitment, of giving, of life, of authority, and of constancy. Galba's arrival in Rome (1.6) serves as the most striking example of both aspects of the word negative. Tacitus describes his journey as slow and bloody: tardum Galbae iter et cruentum (1.6.1). The word tardum reinforces Galba's lack of presence. Galba also displays brutality on this occasion by allowing men to be murdered without any kind of defense.^ Cingonius Varro and Petronius Turpilianus, both of consular rank, are slain without a trial, and thousands of soldiers are slaughtered unarmed:

interfectis Cingonio Varrone consule designate et Petronio Turpiliano consulari: . . . inauditi atque indefensi tamquam innocentes perierant. introitus in Vrbem trucidatis tot milibus inermium militum infaustus omine (1.6 .1- 2).

Galba denies these men not only their life but also their legal rights to a trial. The frequent use of the negative prefix In, such as inauditi. indefensi. ®T. Mommsen "Cornelius Tacitus und Cluvius Rufus," Hermes 4 (1870) 309-10: While Plutarch Galba 15 claims some of the soldiers bared their arms, and thus justified Galba's orders, Tacitus calls them all inermes. Ill

innocentes. inermium. and infaustus. as well as the repetition of this same sound throughout the passage (interfectis. introitus. in Vrbem. indwcta, in Albanos. inaens. and in unum)? reflect both Galba's reprehensible behavior as well as the denial that characterizes this behavior. Just prior to this scene, Tacitus describes Galba as weak, invalidum (1.6.1), a pejorative term, which is likewise a negation of strength. The comment in Galba's obituary perhaps best summarizes this negative aspect of his character: ipsi. medium inaenium. non maais extra vitia auam cum virtutibus (1.49.2). Galba lacks not only vices but virtues as well. Galba lacks one other thing that costs him dearly: knowledge. As I have attempted to show in the previous chapter, ignorance of something renders it unfamiliar and as such, other. While Galba's unawareness is a sign of his innocence, it also inexorably alienates him from the principate. First of all. Galba does not clearly understand his own status as emperor. In response to the demand for a donative. Galba claims that he does not buy his soldiers, but chooses them: legi a se militem. non emi (1.5.2). A few lines above, however, in direct ^N.P. Miller "Tacitus' narrative technique," G&R 24 (1977) 18 notes the alliteration inauditi . . . indefensi f , innocentée. 112

reference to the statement posse principem alibi auam Romae fieri (1.4.2), the opposite situation is provided wherein Galba is described as instated by the legions: apud principem a leaionibus factum (1.5.1). Thus, while Galba believes he chooses the military himself, they actually have chosen him. Furthermore, Galba is unaware of his own failings, especially as perceived by others. Tacitus includes general complaints against Galba's old age, avarice, and strictness:

nec deerant sermones senium atque avaritiam Galbae increpantium. laudata olim et militari fama celebrata severitas eius angebat aspernantes veterem disciplinam (1.5.2).°

His cruelty and inaction in regard to the murders of Clodius Macer and Fonteius Capito incur the hatred of the people: ceterum utraaue caedes sinistre accepta, et inviso semel principi seu bene seu male facta parem invidiam adferebant (1.7.2). Nevertheless, Galba thinks that his old age constitutes his only weakness, and the solution to this resides in choosing a successor. He says as much to Piso: "et audita adoptions desinam videri genex.,.. quod nunc mihi unvtm .obiffitwr” (i.i6.3).* ^cf. 1.7.3: ipga aetag Galbae inrigui aç iagtidio erat.adguetig iuventae Weronig. *cf. 1.14.1: 6fid_galbfl-.-., quQd cemediwa vtniqam £ebafaiL.-...gomi.tia imperii trangigit; i.ie.i: "nang...,eo necessitatis iam pridem ventum est, ut nec mea senectus .ggn£erre.pldg...p9pal.o Romano pogget quam Jaonmn 113

Galba's adoption speech to Piso further reveals his unawareness. Galba in this speech has often been

interpreted as the mouthpiece for T a c i t u s . Despite the fact that he seems to speak knowledgeably about finding a successor in the state and not necessarily in one's family, his words must be taken within the context of the narrative. In this regard his ignorance of the proper choice for successor becomes apparent. As Syme aptly remarks :

He presents in the most convincing form the commonplaces of official eloquence and all the special pleadings of politicians. The facts give the lie - the inept choice of Piso Licinianus to be ruler of Rome. successorem"; of. Plutarch Galba 19.1 and Suetonius Galba 17.1. lOp. Klingner "Die Geschichte Kaiser Othos bei Tacitus," in Tacitus fWeae der Forschuna 97) ed. V. Pôschl (Darmstadt, 1969) 396; E. Courbaud Les Procédés d'Art de Tacite dans les Histoires (Paris, 1918) 210f.; R. Haussier Tacitus und das Historische Bewusstsein (Heidelberg, 1965) 247f.; By contrast Daitz, 45 surmises that these are Galba's own ideas; H. Heubner, ed. 2^ Cornelius Tacitus. Die Historien (Heidelberg, 1963) vol.l, 48; these are not Tacitus' thoughts. ^^Syme, 182; see also T.J. Luce "Tacitus' conception of historical change: the problem of discovering the historian's opinions," in Past Perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, eds. I.S. Hoxon, J.D. Smart, and A.J. Woodman (Cambridge, 1986) 147; "However one judges the emperor's constitutional sentiments, he is culpably blind to his past conduct and present predicament, and has made a calamitous choice in Piso. . . . irony necessarily pervades the whole of what he says." 114

As his misguided choice of Piso demonstrates, Galba is especially ignorant of the true nature of those closest to him. This unawareness in regard to friends and associates is considered by Koesterman to be Galba's most debilitating weakness.Tacitus, in his obituary of Galba, comments that the emperor, whenever he fell among honorable friends and freedmen, exhibited a tolerance that was blameless, but if their natures were base, he was blind to a fault:

amicorum libertorumque, ubi in bonos incidisset, sine reprehensione patiens, si mali forent, usque ad culpam ignarus (1.49.3).

Of course Galba's most serious misperceptions concern his associates Otho and Vitellius who both instigate rebellions against him. He has an inkling that Otho cannot be trusted: credo et rei publicae curam subisse. frustra a Ngcang-translatag. si apud Othonem relinqueretur (1.13.2), but not to the extent that he realizes the danger looming over him. Nor is Galba fully acquainted with what is brewing among the German legions and his hand-picked commander there, Vitellius, whose 1^Koestermann, 417. l^cf. 1.12.3: auippe hiantes in maana fortuna amiçor.um. gupiditatss ipsa., galbas..facilitas intendsbat. cum apud. infirmum st crsdulum ..miners metu st majors praemio peccaretur. 115

ancestry seemed adequate recommendation: donee missu Galbae A. Vitellius aderat. censoris Vitellii ac ter consulis filius; id satis videbatur (1.9.1). Suetonius claims that Galba's appointment of Vitellius is rooted in contempt: ut cuivis evidens sit contemptu maais__auam gratia electum fVit. 7.1). Tacitus' explanation clearly emphasizes Galba's ignorance. A striking example of Galba's misperception of his friends occurs in the debate over a successor (1.13-14). Galba's three closest advisors are Titus Vinius, with whom he shares the consulship, Cornelius Laco, praefect of the praetorian troops, and Icelus, a freedman. Galba rejects Vinius' choice of Otho because he knows of the connections between the two: neaue erat Galbae ianota Othonis ac Titi Vini amicitia (1.13.2). Instead he selects Piso, and for this choice Tacitus gives two possible reasons, Galba's own decision or Laco's insistence, since Laco was secretly a friend of Piso, whose fine reputation would sway Galba:

seu propria electione sive, ut quidam crediderunt, Lacone instante, cui apud Rubellium Plautum exercita cum Pisone amicitia; sed callide ut ianotum fovebat, et prospéra de Pisone fama consilio eius f idem addiderat (1.14.1).

The latter reason, because it is placed last and is the more elaborate, is the one that has the strongest 116

impression upon the reader.Furthermore, the words amicitia and ianotum above echo jgnota and amicitia in 1.13.2, thus establishing the contrast that while Galba shies away from Vinius' choice, nevertheless, because of his ignorance of Laco's real intentions. Galba is somewhat manipulated by him. The juxtaposition of the words Galbae ianota in 1.13.2 further reinforces this unawareness in Galba, for even when he thinks he is in possession of all the important factors he is not. In contrast to Galba's lack of knowledge and his other deficiencies, the one item that Galba does possess is money. Tacitus states in Galba's obituary that he came from a wealthy family: vetus in familia nobilitas. magnae opes (1.49.2).^® Nevertheless, Galba's misuse of money provides further evidence of his alienation from the principate.lG one of the first things we hear about

Oevelin "Tacitus and techniques of insidious suggestion," Antichthon 17 (1983) 88: "The suggestion that he chose Piso himself is not allowed to dominate over the belief that Laco was behind it"; Plutarch Galba 23.1, Suetonius Galba 17, and Dio 64.5 do not mention Laco's influence. l^cf. Plutarch Galba 3.1. l^Koestermann, 416-7 notes the contrast in 1.49.2 between Galba's apparent wealth: vetus in familia nobilitas, maanae ones and his real lack of character: ipsi Bigdim n-ingenium,.- non -magia. extca.._Yitia_guam_Gum virtutibus. 117

Galba is his reputation for avarice.His first concern after choosing a successor is to repossess the money that Nero had lavished on friends: proxima Galbae pecuniae cura (1.20.1). Although this measure seems laudable, the process of recovering the money distances Galba from the people because it instills fear in them: nec remedium in ceteros fuit, sed metus initium. tamauam per artem e.t formidinem sinauli pellerentur omnibus suspectis (1.20.3).^® Tacitus summarizes the emperor's attitude toward money: pecuniae alienae non adoetens. suae parc_us_. publice avarus (1.49.3). This phrase illustrates two facets of the word avaritia: greed, whose focus is the influx of money, and parsimony, a reluctance to allow money to flow out.^^ Tacitus, using the words alienae and suae, sets up a contrast, which implies that Galba is merely parsimonious with his own money and not greedy for that of others. Tacitus, however, adds a further contrast, parous and avarus. which in part negates the

^^1.5; cf. Plutarch Galba 16, Suetonious Galba 12.1, and Dio 64.2.1. l®Mommsen, 309: Tacitus distorts his version by omitting the fact that in the event that the recipients of Nero's gifts were unable to return the money, the new owners of their goods were held responsible (Plutarch S a i b a 16, Suetonius Galba 15). In this case the public would not have been unduly shaken or fearful as Tacitus claims. l^Ferguson Juvenal. The Satires. 315. 118

first contrast. Galba is not merely parsimonious, which was considered a Roman virtue; he is greedy as well.^O Galba covets for his own the money that actually does belong to another, the state. This statement about Galba recalls a judgment made by Sallust about Catiline: alieni adoetens. sui orofusus (££ 5.4). In regard to this comparison, R. Martin comments: "As in many of Tacitus' 'borrowings' from Sallust, the differences are no less important than the similarities."^^ While the comparison seems to be complimentary to Galba and to establish him as the opposite of Catiline (pecuniae alienae non adPÆfcsniS vs. alieni adoetens).2% nevertheless the fact that the comparison is made at all and the addition of oublice avarus imply that Galba's use of money is like Catiline's far from laudable. In Plautus' Aulularia. the senex Euclio finds a pot of gold, and instead of depositing it properly as a dowry for his daughter, he hoards it for himself. The miser, according to D. Konstan, belongs to a group of figures in

ZOjuvenal, Satire 14.107-9 claims avaritia is a vice that looks like a virtue: sponte tamen iuvenes imitantur cetera, solam inviti quoque avaritiam exercera iubentur. fallit enim vitium specie virtutis et umbra. ^^Martin, 251 note 5. ^^Koestermann, 417 note 7. 119

Roman comedy "who withdraw into isolation from their fellow citizens."23 Euclio's avarice causes him to become alienated from society, symbolized in the play by his refusal, out of suspicion of others, to provide water and fire to anyone.2* of course Galba is not a type- character out of a Roman comedy,25 but like Euclio his excessive concern about money and his refusal to invest it in its proper place, the state, likewise alienate him from the people of Rome. The one segment of Roman society that Galba especially alienates by his avaritia is the military. Galba does not realize the reciprocity in his relationship with them. As emperor, the soldiers "belong" to him, but he also needs their support to keep his title. He does not realize he must pay donatives to them in order to maintain this support. Galba refuses to pay the donative that had been promised in his name: nfique., dari.donatixum.SMtz-nQmins-.GalbftS-promiasum (1.5.1).

23d . Konstan Roman Comedy (Ithaca NY and London, 1983) 33.

2^Konstan, 35-6. 25suetonius Q a i b a 13 claims the people chanted venit Onesimus a villa at an Atellan farce attended by Galba; G.W. Mooney, trans. and ed. C. Suetoni Tranauilli. De Vita Caesarmn Libri VII-VIII (New York, 1979) 229 surmises that Onesimus is a type-character from comedy, probably a miser; see Walker, 204-34 on type-characters in Tacitus. 120

After his adoption speech to the soldiers he again omits any reward (1.18.3). In regard to this Tacitus pointedly comments with the exaggerated diminutive quantu1acumaue that with even a little money Galba could have won their support: constat potuisse conciliari animos auantulacumaue parci senis liberalitate (1.18.3). The Germanic troops stationed in Rome, in fact, hesitate to turn against Galba partly because he showed them favor:

Germanica vexilla diu nutavere, invalidis adhuc corporibus et placatis animis, quod eos . . . impensiore cura Galba refovebat" (1.31.3).

Galba's stinginess toward the soldiers results in his loss of them to others like Otho and Vitellius who buy their support and make the soldiers their own. No one robs the soldiers and imoerium from Galba; because of his passive nature he lets others take it, albeit unwittingly. In terms of the self-other concept, a passive individual is not in possession of himself or herself, but allows others to act for and upon him or her. Galba lets others take upon themselves his own responsibilities and decisions. At the outset of the Histories Galba responds to the uprising of the German armies by finding a successor: maturavit ea res consilium Galbae iam oridem de adoptions secum et cum proximis aaitantis (1.12.2). Although, in view of Galba's age and 121

position, choosing a successor is sound strategy, nevertheless, it represents Galba's willingness to pass on his own responsibility to another in the face of conflict. Even in his method of choosing a successor Galba relies too heavily on such others as his advisors Vinius, Laco, and Icelus, as reflected in the balanced phrase secum et cum proximis aaitantis. When the senate decides to send an embassy to the German troops. Galba is given the task of choosing the legates (1.19.2). Tacitus remarks that his method of selection is entirely based on the predilection of the men he nominates:

legati quoque (nam senatus electionem Galbae permiserat) foeda inconstantia nominati excusati substituti, ambitu remanendi aut eundi, ut quemque metus vel spes impulerat" (1.19.2).

The fact that the senate permits fpermiserat) Galba to make the selection clearly shows Galba's passive nature.26 Koestermann notes Galba's passivity in Tacitus' description of the emperor's choice of friends.27 He does not really choose them as chance upon them and endures their faults: ubi in bonos incidisset.

I disagree with Koestermann, 419-21 who claims that this is more a criticism of the leading men than of Galba, and with his general argument that Galba makes decisions independent of his advisors (1.13-14, 34.1). 27Koestermann, 417 note 8. 122

and sine reorehensione patiens (1.49.3).^^ It is noteworthy, moreover, that in the first thirty-one chapters Galba is rarely the subject of a verb. The few sentences in which Galba appears as the subject deal with his handing the imperium to another and thus reinforce his passivity: sed Galba . . . auod__remedium unicum rebatur. comitia imperii transiait (1.14.1).^^ R. Syme argues: "Forbidding but inert. Galba only shows signs of life and interest when money and discipline are concerned."30 We have seen in the first thirty-one chapters that Galba becomes alienated from almost everyone and everything around him. First of all, Galba's negative qualities demonstrate that he does not possess the things that he should as emperor. Galba does not have authority, constancy, presence. His severity and cruelty alienate him from the Roman people who thereupon view him with hostility. Galba does possess money, but his avarice only further estranges him from the people of Rome and especially the armies. Furthermore, Galba does 3®cf. Vinius' influence over Galba in sparing Tigillinus, 1.72.2: apud Galbam Titi Vini potentia YTiaillinus) defensus. praetexentis servatam ab eo filiam. 2*Cf. 1.14.1: pauca praefatus de sua senectute. Eisonem Liginianum açcergiri iubet. 3°Syme, 205. 123

not possess an accurate knowledge of himself, his public image, his friends, in general the entire status of affairs. His passive nature, his willingness to let others assume his duties, further distances him from the principate. Consequently, Galba emerges as an emperor without essential possessions and especially the ultimate possession, the principate. Moreover, to such a degree does Galba's ignorance extend that he does not even realize he has lost it. In one of the defining statements on this princeps . Tacitus paints for us a pathetic picture of Galba, obliviously sacrificing to the gods of an empire that really belongs to another: ignarus interim-G.albA-e.t sagris intentms. fatiqabat alieni iam imperii deos (1.29.1).^^ Galba may still hold the title of princeps , but it is an empty one. The fact that the narrative begins with a description of rebellion in Germany and demand for another emperor reveals that Galba from the outset does not in effect possess the Empire:

paucis post kalendas lanuarias diebus . . . superioris Germanise legiones rupta sacramenti reverentia imperatorem alium flagitavere (1 .12.1).

I would argue the importance of ianarus unlike Koestermann, 421 note 16: "Das ignarus cap. 29,1 muss man, da durch die Situation mit Notwendigkeit bedingt, natürlich aus dem Spiele lassen"; see Miller, 19: "a phrase which both characterizes him and implies the historian's judgement." 124

The real power is in the hands of others, first Vinius, Laco and Icelus: pgtgntia , prinçjpatuB .diviga-irL-TifcjmB ■VinijLim-S.QngHl,em,. Cornelian Laggnem-praetorii ..praefeçtmn (1.13.1); and then Otho and Vitellius. Galba's alienation from the principate culminates in the final moments surrounding his death. Galba becomes even more alienus to all the various groups in Rome to the extent that he loses not only the title of princeps but his own life as well. The climax begins in ch. 32 when the plebs enter the Palatine. Galba once again exhibits his irresolute and passive nature. He is torn between two choices because he relies too heavily on others who are themselves divided: interim Galbam duae sententiae distinebant (1.32.2). It is noteworthy that Galba is the object, not the subject. He is being worked upon by the two opinions his colleagues hold. Tacitus' version appears especially condemnatory of Galba's passivity when compared with Plutarch, who claims that Galba actually planned to meet his foe although Vinius tried to dissuade him fGalba 26.1), and Suetonius, who states that Galba, although most pleaded otherwise, decided to stay inside fGalba 19.1). In the Histories Galba is faced with choosing between his own presence or absence as more expedient for the situation. Titus Vinius promotes absence, that Galba 125

should defend himself within the Palatine (1.32.2). It is ironic that he should appeal to the importance of preserving control of the situation and not letting another take charge: deniaue eundi ultro. si ratio sit, eandem mox facultatem. rearessus. si oaeniteat. in_aliena potestate (1.32.2), for Galba really has no control and another, Otho, has already taken charge. Others, in particular Laco and Icelus, advocate presence, that Galba should confront the enemy (1.33). Galba, as in the case of choosing a successor, again sides with Laco and Icelus by deciding to leave the Palatine. Although Galba decides to let his presence be felt among his adversaries, nevertheless in reality he has opted for absence. For just as Galba found some "other" person to take on his responsibilities by adopting Piso, so now, although he has decided to set out to meet his foe, he dispatches Piso in his stead to the Praetorian barracks, the presumed site of the insurrection: nec diutius Galba cunctatus sneciosiora suadentibus accessit, praemissus tamen in castra Piso (1.34.1).^^ The augur Umbricius predicted that Galba fostered an enemy at home: Galbae haruspex Vmbricius tristia exta et

Cf. 1.29.1: iaitur consultantibus placuit pertemotari animum cohortis. cmae in Palatio stationem agebat._nec per ipsum Galbam. cuius inteora auctoritas maioribus remediis servabatur. 126

instantes insidias ac domesticum hostem praedicit (1.27.1). Galba's overthrow does begin within his very home, but at present the enemy is not Otho. Upon hearing the false rumor that Otho has been slain, everyone, including the senatorial and equestrian classes, break down the doors and charge into the Palatine: refractis Palatii foribus ruere intus (1.35.1). They thereupon overwhelm Galba:

nemo scire et omnes adfirmare, donee inopia veri et consensu errantlum .V.içtua sumpto thorace Galba, inruenti turbae neque aetate neque corpore resistens, sella levaretur (1.35.1).

Both their ignorance of the truth (nemo scire, errantium) as well as Galba's own ignorance (inooia veri) literally conquer him (note the military term victus). Galba's armor is useless against even his own supporters. Galba's position in the sella reflects the state of his rule; he is born in a position of honor, but is unable to control it and is at the mercy of those who bear him. His distinguished but helpless location on the chair is also contrasted with the position of Otho who meanwhile, surrounded by soldiers, is standing on a platform where once Galba's statue stood: in suaaestu. in quo paulo ante aurea Galbae statua fuerat. medium inter siana Othonem vexillis circumdarent (1.36.1). Galba is buffeted back 127

and forth at the whim of the mob: aqebatur hue illuc Galba vario turbae fluctuantis impulsu (1.40.1). The frequency of passive verbs in reference to Galba (levaretur (1.35.1), aaebatur (1.40.1), pr9i9GtU8_,_._, ■». provolutus est (1.41.2)) reveals how little control Galba has of the situation. He is swayed by his supporters and not vice versa to the extent that their actions aggravate his situation. Though seeming to aid Galba, they actually become a hostile influence. In the final chapters on his death and the aftermath. Galba becomes a solitary figure, alienated from and abandoned by almost everyone around him, deprived of his possessions, title, and power. The people who recently professed their loyalty to Galba abandon him in the face of danger. At the onslaught of Othonian troops the mob deserts the forum: desertum fuoa populi forum (1.41.1). The people who are supporting Galba, literally and figuratively, and not Otho's troops, actually cause Galba to topple over: trepidatione ferentiwm Galba proiectue g g.ella,ag-pr9volwtas ss.t (1.41.2). No one is there to help him. In parallel accounts by Suetonius, Plutarch, and Cassius Dio different versions are recorded as to who protects Galba.33 Plutarch (Galba 26.4) and Dio (64.6.4) record 33chilver, 101-2; Miller, 21 claims Tacitus' version is the correct one. 128

that Sempronius Census defends Galba and not Piso as in the Histories.34 Suetonius (Galba 20.1) claims no one protects the emperor, although a detachment from the German army that Galba had recently favored tries to help but arrives too late. This detachment appears earlier in the Histories (1.31.3) and is described as hesitating but ultimately siding with Otho. Tacitus' version (1.43) that Census helps Piso and not Galba and the absence of the Germanic troops at this time accentuate Galba's complete isolation at the end of his life. As further evidence of his isolation, immediately after his assassination, all the people of Rome dismiss any thought of him as they rush over to flatter Otho so zealously that Tacitus remarks that one would believe they were something other than before: alium crederes senatum. alium Bppwlam (i.45.i).3s Galba claims in his adoption speech to Piso that plenty of relatives and intimate friends surround him from whom he could choose a successor: "sed Augustus in domo successorem auaesivit. eao in re publica. non auia oropinauos aut socios belli non habeam. . . ." (1.15.2). Nevertheless, after his death, whereas Piso's wife and

34gee above, 86. 3®Cf. Plutarch Galba 28.1. 129

brother and Vinius' daughter gather their relatives' remains (1.47.2), no member of Galba's family owns up to his body, and he is only spared the disgrace of being left unburied, the fate of an enemy corpse, by one of his slaves :

Galbae corpus diu neglectum et licentia tenebrarum plurimis ludibriis vexatum dispensator Argius e prioribus servis humili sepultura in privatis eius hortis contexit (1.49.1).3°

Again the difference between Tacitus' version and Plutarch's (Galba 28.3), which states that Galba's body is recovered by Priscus Helvidius, further accentuates Galba's isolation in the Histories. Galba has become separate from all others, almost foreign. Tacitus compares the soldiers' descent into the Forum and attack on Galba to the expulsion of a foreign monarch:

igitur milites Romani, quasi Vologaesum aut Pacorum avito Arsacidarum solio depulsuri ac non imperatorem suum inermem et senem trucidare pergerent (1.40.2).

This clearly serves as a criticism of the soldiers' hostility. However, it also shows the degree to which Galba has become estranged from the Roman people and the ^®0n dearth of Galba's kin see R. Syme "Partisans of Galba," Historia 31 (1982) 460 and Syme Tacitus. 206-7. 3?Suetonius Galba 20.2 follows the source of Tacitus. 130

principate, for it is Galba and not the Roman soldiers who is described as foreign.^® In conclusion. Galba loses the principate because he becomes alienated from it. His ignorance is a primary source for this alienation. Due to his unawareness Galba fosters misperceptions about himself as well as others who surround him. These misperceptions render him impotent as a ruler, for without knowledge of others he is incapable of maintaining control of them. Chilver states: "As ruler of the empire in 68 Galba was outdated, . . . for times had changed beyond his understanding."®® Galba's alienation is further enhanced by the fact that he hails from some other time period. Syme calls him an "anachronism."*® His old way of life, although laudable, is alien to what his contemporaries are accustomed, and thus estranges him from them: nocuit antiauus riaor et nimia severitas. oui iam pares non sumus (1.18.3). Although Tacitus may be criticising more the times than Galba,*1 nevertheless it does establish Galba as separate from the people of his day. Galba does not know his own

®®Chilver, 99 notes that this simile does not appear in any other versions. ®®Chilver, 13. *®Syme Tacitus. 204. ^^Shochat, 203; Koestermann, 420. 131

contemporaries nor they him. According to Tacitus they mistake his inertia for wisdom: sed Claritas natalium et metus temporum obtentui. ut. auod seanitia erat. sapientia vocaretur (1.49.3), and the historian concludes that until he is actually in power everyone believed him capable of it: maior orivato visus. dum privatus fuit, et omnium consensu caoax imperii, nisi imoerasset (1.49.4). Galba's lack of knowledge can be considered a deficiency among his possessions. A major cause for Galba's fall is that he has a distorted perspective concerning his possessions. First of all Galba, despite his apparent wealth and position as emperor, possesses very little. He lacks for the most part authority, family, genuine supporters, a loyal army, popular favor, and a safe household, in short, essential elements for maintaining the principate. In his speech at Piso's adoption. Galba advises Piso that the most successful way to reach decisions as emperor is to imagine you had another as ruler:

"utilissimus idem ac brevissimus bonarum malarumque rerum dilectus est cogitare quid aut nolueris sub alio principe aut volueris" (1.16.4).

This statement in a way reflects Galba's mismanagement of the principate. Galba does not really treat the principate as if it were his own possession. He is 132

greedy of the state's money as if it were someone else's. If he did treat it as his, he would be willing to invest his own money to maintain it, but he refuses to do so. This results in his own downfall and in the principate slipping into others' hands. Furthermore, Galba does not assume the principate as his own role. On too many occasions Galba absents himself and lets others undertake his responsibilities and duties. In his summary of Galba's life, Tacitus states that Galba was more fortunate in another's reign than in his own; alieno imoerio felicior auam suo (1.49.2). Ironically, as recounted in the Histories, even his own reign is never really his.

Otho; ”nam-prQximus-ad8titerat,(1,27,1) In the Roman world of competition, numbers played an essential role. Inscriptions abound in which men enumerate their distinctions, the number of times magistracies were held, the number of the enemy slain under the deceased's command, the number of monuments erected. Of greater significance, being best or first at something was the ideal. Hence the importance of superlatives and the number one.*^ T.P. Wiseman remarks:

^^Wiseman, 3f. 133

"It mattered, who was first and who was second,and he cites Suetonius who attributes to Caesar the saying that it would be more difficult to remove him from first to second place than from second to last: difficilius se princioem civitatis a orimo ordine in secundum auam ex secundo in novissimum detrudi (luLi. 29.1). The person who emerges as first ranks head and shoulders above all others. Under the Empire the first place takes on a special significance, for tJtjja number one position in the Roman Empire is the princeps. the word itself deriving from primus. Tacitus recounts in the Histories that on January 15th of A.D. 69, as Galba is sacrificing before the temple of Apollo, the augur Umbricius prophesies doom for the emperor. Otho, however, hears this and interprets it favorably for himself, for, as Tacitus remarks, he stood closest to the emperor: audiente Othone fnam proximus adstiteratl-idsmfi alL-laetum e contrario swig gç>qitatignibua-pr.gi5P9ruin intfiEpr.aiaiite (1.27.1). otho's position here as proximus to the emperor in a sense summarizes his entire relationship with the principate. The driving motivation behind Otho's actions is to become ^^Wiseman, 7. ^^Suetonius Otho 6.2 does not use proximus nor do Plutarch S a i b a 24.3 and Dio 64.5.2f. give the Greek equivalent. 134

number one. In order to achieve this he maneuvers himself into a position as close to the emperor as possible. The word proximus means "nearest" or "next." If the princeps holds the number one position, the number two position, proximus. can be one of two people, either the man who shares the closest intimacy with the emperor or the one designated as successor. Moreover, the position of proximus is itself a superlative. The person who is proximus. however, is also inferior to the princeps. and therefore a prime candidate for invidia. In his pursuit of the prime spot Otho provides the perfect example of aemulatio, and its corruption, invidia. for Otho competes for this position and begrudges others a place preceding him. In addition, despite Otho's endeavors to be number one, Tacitus continuously portrays Otho as second. Otho's association with second place as well as his rivalry and jealousy emerge in his relationships with four different people: Nero, Galba, Piso, and Vitellius. Tacitus first shows us how Otho acted in the past, in his relations with Nero. Otho maneuvered himself into a position of proximus by emulating him. Otho ingratiated himself to Nero by imitating his extravagance: gratug Weroni aemwiatione luxus (1.13.3).*5 *^Cf. Suetonius Otho 2.2 and 3.1 and Plutarch Galba 19.3 135

Furthermore, he grew so intimate with Nero that he not only shared knowledge of the emperor's secret lusts, but even shared the same woman, Poppaea:

eoque Poppaeam Sabinam, principale scortum, ut apud conscium libidinum deposuerat, donee Octaviam uxorem amoliretur. mox suspectum in eadem Poppaea in provinciam Lusitaniam specie legationis seposuit (1.13.3).

The discrepancy between the Histories' account of this affair and that of the Annals has been discussed at length.46 in the Histories. Tacitus implies that Poppaea was first mistress of Nero and only after Nero places her in Otho's care does the latter fall in love with her. In the Annals (13.45-46), Otho is married to Poppaea before Nero becomes enamored of her. While R. Syme claims that in the Annals "Tacitus was later able to correct this error, silently,in my opinion, Tacitus is concerned not so much with upholding an accurate version, as with presenting the version most convincing to the story at hand.4® m each case Tacitus blackens the protagonist,

46chilver, 70f.; G.B. Townend "Traces in Dio Cassius of Cluvius, Aufidius and Pliny," Hermes 89 (1961) 243-8; see also Plutarch Galba 19, Suetonius Otho 3.1, and Dio 61.11. 4^Syme Tacitus. 181 note 1. 4®Townend, 246 claims Tacitus' version in the Annals originates "almost certainly out of his own head" for the purpose of characterization. 136

for in the Annals. Nero steals another's wife, while in the Histories it is Otho who seduces one belonging to another. Both versions, however, emphasize Otho's obsession with moving as close as possible to the emperor in body and spirit to the extent that they share the same

woman.49 Otho thus becomes Nero's r i v a l . ^0 The position of rival, however, is intolerable to an emperor, and so Otho is sent away to Lusitania:

deicitur familiaritate sueta, post congressu et comitatu Otho, et ad postremum, ne in urbe aemulatus ageret, provinciae Lusitaniae praeficitur (Ann. 13.46.3).

Otho's emulation of Nero extends even after Nero's death. In his vying for power with Galba, Otho wants to present himself almost as a second Nero. R. Engel calls him "ein Ebenbild Neros."^^ Galba's old age is contrasted unfavorably with Nero's youth:

See Ann. 13.46.1 where Tacitus gives Otho's ambition as a possible reason for letting Nero share Poppaea: si eadem temina-BStirenteur. id ..quoque. vinculum potentiam ei adiceret. 5°Cf. Suetonius Otho 3.1: nec corrupisse contentus fldea-dilfiElt ri%ai@m quidem Neronem aeguo tuierit animo; Plutarch Galba 19.4. Sip. Engel "Das Charakterbild des Kaisers A. Vitellius bei Tacitus und sein historischer Kern," Athenaeum 55 (1977) 345; Koestermann, 428-9; Klingner, 412. 137 ipsa aetas Galbae inrisui ac fastidio erat adsuetis iuventae Neronis et imperatores forma ac decore corporis, ut est mos vulgi, comparantibus (1.7.3).

Otho, on the other hand, looks and acts more like Galba's predecessor and actually once belonged to Nero's court, and this similarity wins him favor: prona in eum aula Neronis ut similem (1.13.4). Otho's actions often imitate Nero or allude to him in some way. For example, Otho employs some of the same people from Nero's court. He has retained the astrologers whom Poppaea consulted (1.22.2). In his treatment of the soldiers and the money he lavishes on them he evokes his former ruler: vetustissimum auemaue militum nomine vocans ac memoria

Neroniani comitatug.contubernales appe.lI.andQ (1.23.1). He wins the support of the 14th legion because of their loyalty to Nero: unde lonaa illis eraa Neronem fides et erecta in Othonem studia (2.11.1). Otho has statues of Poppaea restored and considers commemorating Nero:

ne tum quidem immemor amorum statuas Poppaeae per senatus consultum reposuit; creditus est etiam de celebranda Neronis memoria agitavisse spe vulgum alliciendi (1.78.2).

Otho becomes associated with Nero to the extent that people erect statues not of Otho but of Nero, and they even call him Nero Otho although he balks somewhat at this title: 138

et fuere qui imagines Neronis proponerent; atque etiam Othoni quibusdam diebus populus et miles, . . . Neroni Othoni adclamavit. ipse in suspenso tenuit, vetandi metu vel agnoscendi pudor (1.78.2). ^

Thus both in Nero's principate and in Otho's own quest and attainment of his own, Otho emulates Nero. In Otho's relations with Nero, his excessive intimacy with the emperor and especially his rivalry for Poppaea result in alienating Nero, and Otho is himself physically alienated by his removal from Rome. Otho responds to this rejection by channeling his energies when the opportunity arises into support of another. Galba. Again, as in his relationship with Nero, Otho strives to develop close ties with Galba to become proximus. He pledges his support for Galba first and is prominent among those fighting for him: primus in partes ■tr.ansgr.eg.&UB, nec. gegnis jB.t..« donee bellum fuit, inter praesentes splendidissimus (1.13.4).^^ In the words ETimia, nec seqnis. inter praesentes. and the superlative splendidissimus we see Otho's intense eagerness to position himself first after G a l b a . ^4 otho has become so

®^Cf. Suetonius Otho 7.1 and Plutarch Otho 3.1-2. ^^Cf. Plutarch Galba 20.2 and Suetonius Otho 4.1. ®4in Plutarch Galba 20.3 Otho lets Vinius be first so as to have the next spot after him. 139

intimate with the emperor that he considers himself and is considered by others as a choice for successor: spem adoptionis statim conceptam acriusin jiies raoiebat (1.13.4), and Vinius pro M. Othone (1.13.2).55 Galba, however, does not appoint Otho as successor, but another, Piso. Otho views Piso as his rival, but one who has achieved the higher status. Otho can not bear to see another in possession of what he considers should be his. While Otho is angry with Galba, he is envious of Piso, in.galbam_.ira_,. in.PisQQem, inyidia (i.21.1 ).56 and his envy consumes him more fiercely. Furthermore, even Otho's freedmen and slaves play upon his envy to goad him into seeking the principate. They taunt him with the delights of empire as belonging to another if he does not seize the opportunity to grasp them for himself:

aulam Neronis et luxus, adulteria matrimonia ceterasque regnorum libidines avido talium, si auderet, ut sua ostentantes, quiescenti ut aliéna exprobrabant (1.22.1).

Otho's envy of Piso contributes to his decision to instigate civil war by overthrowing Galba, and Tacitus

55cf. Suetionius Otho 4.1 and Plutarch Galba 23.3.

56piutarch Galba 23.4 maintains that Otho feared Piso, blamed Galba, and was angry with Vinius, Suetonius Otho 5.1 that he was incited by anger and debt. 140

records how Otho gloats over Piso's death above all others including Galba's:

nullam caedem Otho maiore laetitia excepisse, nullum caput tarn insatiabilibus oculis perlustrasse dicitur, . . . Pisonis inimici et aemuli caede laetari ius fasque credebat (1.44.1).

Otho decides to seek the principate for himself in part because of his envy of another. He also embarks on this undertaking because he realizes that his previous two attempts to become proximus under another's rule failed to lead him to be primus :

praegravem se Neroni fuisse, nec Lusitaniam rursus et alterius exilii honorem exspectandum. suspectum semper invisumque dominantibus qui proximus destinaretur. nocuisse id sibi apud senem principem (1.21.1).

There is a distinction between becoming proximus in the sense of "closest" and proximus in the sense of "next in line," and the one does not necessarily guarantee the other. In Otho's opinion, his nearness to both emperors actually harmed his chances of being appointed successor, and he sees little hope of ingratiating himself with the most recent choice, Piso: maais nociturum apud iuvenem inaenio trucem et lonao exilio efferatum (1.21.1). Otho's judgments in this passage about himself and his relationships with imperial figures exhibit a degree 141

of irony, for what Otho says about Nero, Galba, and Piso is more applicable to himself. He claims that one who is designated as proximus is always hated by his superior; invisumoue dominantibus. but Otho is the one who grows hostile to his superiors: in Pisonem invidia. Otho says of Piso, his rival, that he is a young man, rendered savage by nature and from a long exile: iuvenem ingenio trucem et lonao exilio efferatum. Tacitus, however, has just described Otho as one who excels in times of turmoil: omne in turbido consilium, and Otho, because of his exile inflicted by Nero, turned against this emperor. Thus, Otho perceives others in terms of his own nature and situation. Further insight can be drawn from the

statement: guBpectum semper invis.mnque dominantibwe qui proximus destinaretur. According to Otho, the proximus is the one whose life is in danger, for as one closest to the emperor and next in line, he often incurs the ill will of the emperor. The emperor, however, is also imperiled by the proximus who may seize the opportunity to do him in. In this instance, the one in danger is not Otho, but Galba. The relation between the princeps and the proximus is a double-edged sword, and one who is proximus is both a friend (giuig) and potential foe falienus) to the emperor. 142

To summarize briefly, in the case of Nero and Galba Otho's plan to become number one centered around first becoming number two, proximus. Otho strives for intimacy with Nero by emulating him and with Galba by displaying his most ardent support. In both instances he ultimately fails. Galba's adoption of Piso, however, incites Otho's envy. He can not bear to see one whom he considers his rival elevated to a place he believes should be his. Consequently he decides to seek directly for himself the position of princeps. Although Otho succeeds in eliminating the emperor Galba and his successor and is himself finally hailed as emperor, nevertheless he still is not sole ruler, where he is first above all others. Rather, ironically, he is forced to compete for it anew with yet another rival. Even before Galba is slain, in fact even before Otho is proclaimed emperor, a pretender to the title emerges among the armies in Germany in the person of Vitellius. Thus Otho does not have sole possession of the Empire. This is emphasized in the Histories (1.50) when Tacitus almost immediately switches from the death of Galba to the uprisings in Germany. Furthermore, not only does Tacitus stress that Otho does not possess absolute imperium. but he continuously presents Otho and Vitellius 143

in the same light.5? Tacitus in many instances equates Otho and Vitellius, and thus Otho is not singled out, above all others, but is one of a pair (uteraue). About the Otho-Vitellius conflict in Book 2 G.E.F. Chilver remarks:

Here his information comes primarily from the Othonian side, but he is concerned to depict a conflict between two almost equally undesirable pretenders. °

This equating of Otho and Vitellius appears right from the beginning of their confrontation. Tacitus groups them together and calls them the two worst human beings: duos omnium mortalium impudicitia lonavia luxuria deterrimos (1.50.1). They are both believed to be so vile that no one knows whom to support, and concludes that the worst one will prevail:

nunc pro Othone an pro Vitellio in templa ituros? utrasaue impias preces, utraqus detestanda vota inter duos, quorum bello solum id scires, deteriorem fore qui vicisset (1.50.3).

The anaphora utrasaue . . . utraaue reinforces their similarity.

S?Engel. 365-6. S^G.E.F. Chilver A Historical Commentarv on Tacitus' Histories IV and V . compl. and rev. G.E. Townend (Oxford, 1985) 1. 144

In many situations throughout their civil war, Otho and Vitellius act in a similar manner. For instance, each of them sends letters to the other in an attempt to bribe him:

crebrae interim et muliebribus blandimentis infectae ab Othone ad Vitellium epistulae offerebant pecuniam et gratiam et guemcumgue quietis locum prodigae vitae legisset. paria Vitellius ostentabat, primo mollius, stulta utrimque et indecora simulations, mox quasi rixantes stupra ac flagitia in vicem obiectavere, neuter falso (1.74.1).

Both dispatch spies to the other's headquarters, without success for either side; sed insidiatores ab Othone in Germaniam. a Vitellio in Vrbem missi. utrisaue frustra fuit (1.75.1). Threats are made to one another's family:

vitellius litteras ad Titianum fratrem Othonis composait, exitium ipsi filioque eius minitans, ni incolumes sibi mater ac liberi servarentur. et stetit domus utraque (1.75.2).

Further on, after the people of Corsica assassinate Decumus Pacarius the procurator for forcing them to side with Vitellius, Otho and Vitellius, though different responses are expected, treat the murderers with the same indifference: neque eos aut Otho praemio adfecit aut puniit Vitellius (2.16.3). Both Otho and Vitellius are recognized by their soldiers more for their vices than their virtues: simul Othonem ac Vitellium célébrantes 145

culpantesve uberloribus inter se probris.auamlaudibus stiinulabantur (2.21.4).5* Because of the similarities between Otho and Vitellius, and especially their common vices, no one knows whom to favor or cares who wins. The Gallic states, despising both Vitellius and Otho, ally themselves with the former who poses the nearest danger: Gallis cunctatio exempta: et in Othonem ac Vitellium odium par, ex Vitellio et metus (1.64.1). The provinces out of fear side with whoever's threats loom closest:

primus Othoni fiduciam addidit ex Illyrico nuntius, iurasse in eum Dalmatiae ac Pannoniae et Hoesiae legiones. idem ex Hispania adlatum . . . et statim cognitum est conversam ad Vitellium Hispaniam. ne Aquitania guidem, quamquam ab lulio Cordo in verba Othonis obstricta, diu mansit. nusquam fides aut amor: metu ac necessitate hue illuc mutabantur. eadem formido provinciam Narbonensem ad Vitellium vertit, facili transitu ad proximos et validiores (1.76.1).

The Flavianists await the outcome with little concern as to who emerges victorious:

in bello civili victores victosque numquam solida fide coalescere, nec referre Vitellium an Othonem superstitem fortune faceret (2.7.1).

The armies of the two emperors seem unable to distinguish their real enemy. Often they are beset by ®®Cf. Plutarch Otho 4.3. 146

internal seditions as they fight among themselves and with their leaders rather than with the troops of the

other p r e t e n d e r .GO in fact, like their emperors they too act alike. In Vitellius' camp an uprising starts and the soldiers accuse the praefect, lulius Gratus, of treason, claiming that he is working with his brother, lulius Fronto, who is serving in Otho's camp. Otho's men likewise seize lulius Fronto and accuse him of the same charge, conspiring with his brother in the enemy camp:

orta et in castris seditio, quod non universi ducerentur: vinctus praefectus castrorum lulius Gratus, tamquam fratri apud Othonem militanti proditionem ageret, cum fratrem eius, lulium Frontonem tribunum, othoniani sub eodem crimine vinxissent (2.26.1).

At one point, according to one source, the soldiers on both sides propose to lay down their arms, disgusted by their own leaders:

invenio apud quosdam auctores, pavore belli seu fastidio utriusaue princiois. quorum flagitia ac dedecus apertiore in dies fama noscebantur, dubitasse exercitus, num posito certamine vel ipsi in medium cunsultarent, vel senatui permitterent legere imperatorem (2.37.1).°!

Thus, both pretenders are so equally base that to some extent not even their own men care whom they fight. G°Cf. 2.26-27. G^Klingner, 405. 147

Tacitus' use of utriusque principle above further stresses the equal status between Otho and Vitellius. Otho is not the sole princeps and Vitellius a usurper. In fact, Vitellius was proclaimed before Otho but the latter had the advantage of being in Rome. Tacitus, however, presents both in disposition and status, as though they are, if not exactly the same, at least on equal levels. Tacitus inserts a brief digression about a lawsuit in Rome (2.10). Vibius Crispus has Annius Faustus summoned to court for being an informer, since Faustus had informed on Crispus' brother. Crispus uses his influence to have Faustus convicted. Tacitus comments at the end of this passage that the sentence was unsatisfactory in light of the fact that Crispus had previously been an informer himself, and was thus guilty of the same charges:

guippe ipsum Crispum easdem accusationes cum praemio exercuisse meminerant, nec poena criminis, sed ultor displicebat (2.10.3).

The comparison between Crispus and Faustus constitutes a miniature version of the situation between Otho and Vitellius. Neither one is the hero, where one rights the wrongs of the other. The two are guilty of the same 148

crimes and similar vices, and it differs little as to who wins. The equation of Otho with Vitellius in regard to the principate signifies that Otho, despite his assassination of his predecessor and assumption of the title in Rome, does not really possess it. The principate, moreover, recedes further from his reach for several reasons. The first of these is an inappropriate use of money especially in regard to the armies. The most outstanding trait that emerges is Otho's profligacy. Unlike Galba who refused to spend any of his money on his reign, Otho throughout his appearance in the Histories is constantly disbursing money. In Tacitus' account he never receives monetary support, but rather doles it out continuously. Otho lavishes money primarily in order to buy favor. Otho's method of gaining support for his overthrow of Galba centers around infiltrating the troops in order to bribe them (1.23-25). He even purchases with his own money a piece of property for a soldier in order to win him over;

adeo animosus corruptor, ut Cocceio Proculo speculatori de parte finium cum vicino ambigenti universum vicini agrum sua pecunia emptum done dederit (1.24.2).

Once Otho has succeeded in becoming emperor, he continues to bestow rewards. In fact he reacts to most 149

problems that confront him by granting money or honors. Immediately after Galba's death, the soldiers become unruly and begin to make demands. Otho ends up paying for their furloughs again using his own personal funds: sed Otho. ne vulai laraitione centurionum_animoa averteret. ex fisco suo vacationes annuas exsoluturum promisit (1.46.4). Later on Otho bestows honors and titles to Roman citizens and Roman citizenship to a number of towns and cities (1.77f.). After the soldiers, suspecting a plot against Otho's life, burst into the Palatine while he is dining with some of the aristocracy, Otho reproaches them mildly and then rewards them with money: finis sermonis in eo. ut auina milia nummum singulis militibus numerarentur (1.82.3). By the time Otho leaves Rome, however, his gifts are growing worthless in proportion to the depletion of his p o w e r . ^2 In the end, all that remains is his own life, which he gives as a price for his soldiers' lives: "hunc" inquit "animum. hanc virtutem vestram ultra periculis obicere nimis grande vitae roeae pretium Duto" (2.47.1). Otho thus invests a great deal of his money trying to buy support, especially from the soldiers. All his

Cf. 1.90.1: reliquiae N@r9nianarwm..@9cti9nym_nondym in fiscum conversas revocatis ab exilio concessit. iustissimum_donum et in speciem magnificum. sed festinata iam pridem exactione usu sterile. 150

spending results not in his possession of the troops, but rather in their possession of him and the brunt of the power.Otho has not become their master but their servant. The most conspicuous example occurs when the soldiers place Otho on a platform and surround him with their standards (1.36). Although Otho is positioned in a place of authority, the soldiers are the ones responsible for this elevation. They may swear their loyalty to him, but only in light of his adulation of them; nec deerat

P-tlig-PEiQ.tendens. manus a d o ra re vulgmn, ia06 gGulaj...at e rg omnia serviliter pro dominatione (1.36.3). Tacitus' use of the word vulaus and serviliter clearly emphasizes the depths to which Otho sinks in order to become princeps. After his speech to the soldiers, the latter immediately take control of the situation: miscentur auxiliaribus aaleis scutisaue. nullo tribunorum centurionumve adhortante. sibi auisaue dux et instigator (1.38.3). Ironically, the terms dux et instigator should be used of Otho and not of his soldiers. After Galba's death, the soldiers continue to control the situation by demanding more benefits for themselves and punishments for others (1.45-6). Otho meanwhile fails to restrain them: sed Othoni nondum auctoritas inerat ad prohibenduro scelus: iubere iam poterat (1.45.2). Their wish is his command. G^Klingner, 397f. 151

The soldiers' control over Otho further proves that, despite his attempts and his apparent success, otho is not really first above all others. At one point, the praetorians, fearing a plot has been laid for Otho, burst into the Palatine while Otho is entertaining some of the more prominent members of society®^:

militum impetus ne foribus quidem Palati coercitus, quo minus convivium inrumperent, ostendi sibi Othonem expostulantes, vulnerato lulio Martiale tribune et Vitellio Saturnine praefecto legionis, dum ruentibus obsistunt (1.82.1).

Interestingly enough, this scene recalls in content and language (foribuG/foribwB, Eaiatl/Eaiatii, ostendi sibi/ s.e. . . ostentare, raentifeus/ruexfi ) the passage in which the people of Rome rush into the Palatine in support of Galba: refractis Palatii foribus ruere intus ac se Galbae ostentare (1.35.1). The two scenes display the impotence of each ruler who is unable to control even his own supporters. Otho's retreat onto the couch: donee Otho contra decus imperii toro insistons orecibus et lacrimis aeare cohibuit (1.82.1), resembles Galba's place on the sella: Galba, inruenti turbae neaue aetate neoue coroore résistons, sella levaretur (1.35.2). Both hold an ®*See E. Hohl "Der Prâtorianeraufstand unter Otho," Klio 32 (1939) 307-24. 152

elevated yet helpless position. Otho's lack of authority is further brought into focus by Tacitus' comment that only after the soldiers have been given a monetary reward does Otho dare to enter their camp: tum Otho ingredi castra ausus (1 .82.3).^5 Thus otho, in regard to his money, constantly gives away sua to the extent that he really gives away his own authority to the soldiers. The roles of Otho as emperor and his soldiers have become reversed or so confused as to constitute almost the same thing: modo imperatorem militibus. modo milites imoeratori commendare (1.36.2). E. Keitel has noted the symbiotic relationship between Otho and his troops.Otho's and the soldier's destinies are inextricably bound together as he reminds them: ”.adeQ manif9stwm_agt neque p@rire_no&.n@aue salvos esse nisi una posse” (1.37.2). Although Otho is close to the soldiers and has their loyalty, he does not control them. Otho, however, eventually loses this closeness with his soldiers. Besides his misuse of money, another reason for Otho's loss of the principate is his absence.

I disagree with Hohl, 320: "Das ist nichts anderes als das verspàtete Antrittsgeschenk des neuen Kaisers, das seit dem 15. Januar fâllige Donativ." Keitel "Otho's exhortations in Tacitus' Histories." fi&fi 34 (1987) 74. 153

especially from his troops. At the beginning of his campaign, Otho's presence at the head of his soldiers is strongly felt;

nec illi segne aut corruptum luxu iter, sed lorica ferrea usus ante signa pedes ire, horridus, incomptus famaeque dissimilis (2.11.3).

Yet like Galba he must eventually decide whether to make his presence felt in battle or remove himself from the action and he chooses the latter unwisely. In Otho's council of war before the battle of Bedriacum, the first decision revolves around whether to protract or hasten battle. Suetonius Paulinus advocates delay and gives sound arguments with which Marius Celsus and Annius Callus agree (2.32f.). Otho's brother Titianus and the praefect Proculus advise him to hasten the war, citing auspicious deities:

Otho pronus ad decertandum; frater eius Titianus et praefectus praetorii Proculus, imperitia properantes, fortunam et decs et numen Othonis adesse consiliis, adfore conatibus testabantur (2.33.1).

In Otho's endeavors to be first, he often rushes hastily to act without considering the consequences, as the phrase pronus ad decertandum implies. As we have seen, Otho is Galba's first supporter, and Tacitus emphasizes Otho's tendency to act on the spur of the moment with the 154

words Bcimia, nec seanis. inter praeeentes, and gpsm adoDtionis statim conceptain (1.13.4).^'^ Otho himself claims that the only way to succeed is to seize the

opportunity swiftly: nec cunctatione o p u s , ubi pernieiogior sit qwies quam temeritas (1.21.2).^^ Because Otho tends to act hastily and is most easily influenced by his brother and Proculus, he decides in favor of war. Next they must decide if Otho himself should command the troops in battle. For various reasons they all conclude that Otho should remain at Brixellum (2.33.2). According to Tacitus, however, this constitutes the fatal blow to Otho's side, for the soldiers, mistrusting their commanders, need Otho's presence:

is primus dies Othonianas partes adflixit; . . . et remanentium fractus animus, quando suspecti duces et Otho, cui uni apud militem fides, dum et ipse non nisi militibus credit, imperia ducum in incerto reliquerat (2.33.3).°^

G?see above, 138. Cf. 1.89.3: fuere gwi profiçjgçenti Othoni morae relicfionemcue nondum conditorum ancilium adferrent: aspernatus. est omnem cunctationem ut Neroni auoaue exitiosam; Suetonius Otho 8.3 and 9.1. G^Mommsen, 310 claims Otho's absence was actually already an issue prior to this council of war, but Tacitus mentions it here for the first time in order to make the final battle more impressive. 155

As the battle between the Othonian and Vitellian troops progresses, Otho has less and less command of the situation, especially since he is absent from the action. Just as for Galba the power behind the name of princeps lay in his subordinates' hands, so too does one of Otho's associates, Proculus, exert the most authority: profecto Brixellum Othone honor imperii penes Titianum fratrem. vis aç poteetae peaes. Prggulum-pcaefsctum (2.39.1). Communication between Otho and his troops is hindered because the intermediaries, the generals, are trusted by neither side: apud Othonianos pavidi duces, miles ducibus infensus (2.41.3). Otho meanwhile tries to communicate his orders through letters, with his customary temerity, while his soldiers continue to demand his presence: Othone per litteras flaaitante ut maturarent. militibus ut imperator puanae adesset poscentibus (2.39.2), and Otho increpita ducum.seqnitia.rem in disGrimsn_mitti iubebat. aeaer mora et spei impatiens (2.40). The absent Otho awaits the outcome of the battle at Bedriacum, certain of his plan (2.46.1). The news is bad. Nevertheless, his soldiers try in vain to persuade him to continue to fight: non exspectavit militum ardor vocem imB.erat.oris; bonum habore animum iubebant (2.46.1). Tacitus' use of the word iubebant and the very fact that the soldiers are exhorting their leader Otho and not vice 156

versa illustrate the role reversal between soldier and emperor. Otho desires above all else to be first, to position himself above all others. His previous attempts with Nero and Galba failed. Now he has lost to his rival Vitellius. Tacitus has portrayed Otho and Vitellius as equally base, but he remarks that Otho is able to distinguish himself from Vitellius by the manner of his death:

sane ante utriusque exitium, quo egregiam Otho famam, vitellius flagitiosissimam meruere, minus Vitellii ignavae voluptates quam Othonis flagrantissimae libidines timebantur (2.31.1).'^

Otho's distinction lies in killing himself while he still possesses some power so as to avoid more bloodshed: lit nemo dubitet potuisse renovari bellum atrox luaubre incertum victis et victoribus (2.46.3).?2 Although no longer number one as emperor, Otho, in the speech before ^^Keitel "Otho's exhortations in Tacitus' Histories." 77. ^^R.T. Scott "Religion and philosophy in the Histories of Tacitus," Papers and Monographs of the American Academv in Rome 22 (1968) 90: Otho by his death even distinguishes himself from Nero. ^^Mommsen, 310-2 and Klingner, 407f.: Tacitus omits the account (Plutarch Otho 13) about the decision among Otho's generals after their defeat to restore peace in order to isolate Otho as the only one to display such unselfish concern for the state. 157

his suicide, mentions certain facts that would distinguish him from vitellius and other former emperors.Otho claims to be setting the example of not engaging in civil war more than once:

"civile bellum a Vitellio coepit, et ut de principatu certaremus armis, initium illic fuit: ne plus quam semel certemus, penes me exemplum erit" (2.47.2).

Others may have held power longer, but Otho has relinquished it more bravely than anyone: "alii diutius imperium tenuerint: nemo tarn fortiter reliauerlt" (2.47.2). Finally, Otho claims that after the Julio- Claudians and Servians, he first introduced a new family to the principate: post lulios Claudios Servies se orimum in famlliam-novam imperium-intuligee (2.48.2).?* At the end of his life, Otho, like Galba, is isolated from everyone around him, but his isolation is self-imposed. E. Keitel notes that commanders, when addressing their troops, customarily use the first person plural to express unit y . S h e argues that Otho's final address to his soldiers, wherein he distinguishes himself ?^Scott, 91 notes the similarity in Otho's final speech to the language of epitaphs. ?*Cf. 2.47.3: "praecipuum destinationis meae slocwmsntum habete.-.qwd de nemine. auerpr.” ?®Keitel "Otho's exhortations in Tacitus' Histories." 78 cites Otho's speech in 1.37.2. 158

from them, symbolizes the end of his symbiotic relationship with them: "eoo incolumitatem vestram. vos constantiam meam" (2.47.3). He is now separate from them. His wish to be physically by himself apart from all others symbolizes his attempt to be separate and distinct from others. Otho dismisses all his friends, family, and soldiers who still ardently support him: post quae dimotis omnibus paulum reauievit (2.49.1). His complete isolation is accomplished in his suicide, his killing of himself: Otho se ipse interficeret (2.50.2). This constant focus on the number one is also displayed in Otho's preparations for his death. Here Otho examines two daggers and chooses one. He is found the next morning at first light with one wound:

tum adlatis pugionibus duobus, cum utrumque pertemptasset, alterum capiti subdidit. . . . luce prima in ferrum pectore incubuit. ad gemitum morientis ingressi liberti servique et Plotius Firmus praetorii praefectus unum vulnus invenere (2.49.2).'

Otho succeeds in distinguishing himself by his unselfish suicide.Nevertheless, in his obituary

^^This account seems to have belonged to the original source: cf. Suetonius Otho 11.2 and Plutarch Otho 17. ^^The dignity of Otho's death has been variously interpreted: Syme Tacitus. 205 sees Otho's suicide as noble; B.F. Harris "Tacitus on the death of Otho," 58 (1962) 73f. calls it Stoic and patriotic; by contrast Courbaud, 181: "Le suicide d'Othon ne fut point si 159

Tacitus undercuts his claims by mentioning the assassination of Galba: duobus facinoribus. altero flaqitioGiseimo, altero-agregio, tantundem ap.u

his equal. At the end of his life, Otho succeeds in distinguishing himself by one act of self-sacrifice, but this can only be understood with another act of selfishness. Thus, while Otho seeks to be number one, he remains more associated with the number two.?^ perhaps Otho's own words in the Histories best capture his relationship with the principate:

"quis ad vos processerim, commilitones, dicere non possum, quia nec privatum me vocare sustineo princeps a vobis nominatus, nec principem alio imperante" (1.37.1).

For Otho there was always another also in power.

Vitellius: "omnem infimae plebis rumorem in theatro ut gp.egtatQr.4...in-girco a t fautor adfeg.tavit” .(2,91,2). E. Courbaud argues that Tacitus writes history like a painter whereby he makes his readers visualize the events: "il voit et veut faire voir aux autres."®® The four aspects of self and other have sight as a common trait. Emulation involves the attempt to be conspicuous, to be seen by others. Invidia. itself deriving from video. occurs when one looks with ill intent upon

^®Harris, 76 notes the prominence of antithesis in Tacitus' account of Otho's death. This constant balance between two elements reinforces the emphasis on the number two. ®®Courbaud, 122. 161

another. The sight of another's possessions incites one to covet them for oneself. In regard to role-playing, the aspect of presence involves sight, for one important purpose of presence is to be observed by others. Finally, knowledge entails insight, the ability to perceive and interpret accurately. Of the four emperors who appear in the Histories. Vitellius is associated most with the concept of sight, in particular the Latin word specto and its derivatives. The above quote refers to Vitellius, while emperor in Rome, attending the theatre and other public performances in order to court the favor of the people. Throughout Vitellius' appearance in the Histories. Tacitus emphasizes his fascination with Roman spectacles - gladiatorial shows, drama, chariot races, festivals. Of greater significance, however, during his quest for control of the Empire and his brief reign, Vitellius treats the principate as if he were a spectator at a performance. The role of spectator involves two aspects of the self-other concept. First of all, a spectator is an observer, someone who watches a performance, but who takes almost no part in it. A spectator watches others and at the same time keeps oneself apart from the main events. Thus the role of spectator involves a measure of 162

alienation from the primary action. Secondly one attends a performance as spectator primarily for entertainment, for self-gratification. A spectator therefore is someone whose main intent is to please himself or herself. The character of Vitellius in the Histories conforms to these two facets of the spectator. Vitellius both removes himself from the main events surrounding the principate and seeks primarily to gratify himself. In other words, Vitellius has abandoned his role as emperor and his selfishness represents a distortion of his role. This type of behavior leads to alienation from the principate and ultimately loss of it and his own death. Tacitus provides numerous instances in the Histories in which vitellius exhibits an overriding attraction to various forms of entertainment.®^ R. Martin remarks:

The indolence of Vitellius, coupled with his extravagance and debauchery, is to become almost a leitmotiv of his appearances in the Histories.

As if to set the stage for Vitellius' reign, he receives the news about the revolt of the Upper German legions against Galba while he is dining:

®^Engel, 347; Daitz, 40; of. Suetonius Vit. 10.2 and 13.1 ffor a e4vn4lav*similar portrayal. 1 ®2Martin, 75. 163 aqullifer quartae legionis epulanti Vitellio nuntiat quartam et duoetvicensimam legiones proiectis Galbae imaginibus in senatus ac populi Romani verba iurasse (1.56.2). ^

After Vitellius accepts the challenge to seize power and designates two men, Alienus Caecina and Fabius Valens, to head his campaign, he delays the action by stagnating in sumptuous banquets:

torpebat vitellius et fortunam principatus inerti luxu ac prodigis epulis praesumebat, medio diei temulentus et sagina gravis (1.62.2).

Once he is in power, this preoccupation with entertainment and self-gratification escalates to the ruin of the state:

prorsus, si luxuries temperaret, avaritiam non timeres. epularum foeda et inexplebilis libido: ex Vrbe atque Italia inritamenta gulae gestabantur strepentibus ab utroque mari itineribus; exhausti conviviorum adparatibus principes civitatum; vastabantur ipsae civitates (2.62.1).

As emperor Vitellius concerns himself primarily with the production of gladiatorial shows. Orders are given to the thirteenth legion to build amphitheatres (2.67.2). Vitellius, showing greater concern for public games than public affairs, has his two generals Caecina and Valens sponsor gladiatorial shows at Cremona and Bononia: B^Courbaud, 181f. 164

nam Caecina Cremonae, Valens Bononiae spectaculum gladiatorum edere parabant, numquam ita ad curas intente Vitellio, ut voluptatum oblivisceretur (2.67.2).

Tacitus concludes that the only way to advance in Vitellius' court is to satisfy his cravings for pleasures:

nemo in ilia aula probitate aut industria certavit; unum ad potentiam iter, prodigis epulis et sumptu ganeaque satiare inexplebiles Vitellii libidines (2.95.2).

Vitellius' misuse of money further reveals his self- indulgence and addiction to spectacles. At the outset Vitellius receives a great deal of money, property and supplies. When Vitellius is proclaimed emperor in Germany, the surrounding towns provide arms and money (1.57.2). The soldiers donate some of their possessions to him (1.57.2). Silius' wing pledges their support to Vitellius and even offers as a gift a number of towns (1.70.1). Vitellius, furnished with these offerings should be very wealthy in possessions.Vitellius,

Cf. 2.71.1: exin Bononiae a Fabio Valente gladiatorum, spectaculum ex Vcb@_G.ul.W ; and celebrations for his birthday, 2.95.1: quin et natalem Vitellii diam Ca@oina_a.o .Valons .editis tcta Vrbo vicatim aladiatoribus celebravere. inaenti paratu et ante ilium diem insolito. G^Cf. 1.61.1: inaens viribus opibusaue. 165

however, is financially irresponsible.®® He spends the state's money freely. Tacitus claims that he gives away his own money and lavishes others' without moderation: sine modo, sine iudicio donaret sua. larairetur aliéna (1.52.2). In the civil war with Otho, we see Vitellius pay for the centurions' furloughs with another's money, i.e. the state's: vacationes centurionibus ex fisco numerat (1.58.1). When his chances against Vespasian look terribly grim, Vitellius plunges the state into further financial strain by bestowing treaties, citizenship, and tax exemptions upon various allies and foreign states:

foedera sociis, Latium externis dilargiri; his tribute dimittere, alios immunitatibus iuvare; denigue nulla in posterum cura lacerare imperium (3.55.2).

Vitellius squanders money recklessly and almost exclusively on his own pleasures. Vitellius knows of the limited funds of the state. He responds to this by spending where he should not and cutting back where he should be spending. He reduces the number of soldiers, although he will need their support against Vespasian (2.69.2).®? Vitellus realizes there is a lack of funds

®®Suetonius v it. 7 records his extreme debt. ®?Engel, 355f. 166

to pay the soldiers: conscius sibi instare donativum et deesse pecuniam (2.94.2), yet he does not halt the construction of a stable for his charioteers nor the production of public spectacles:

ipse sola perdendi cura stabula aurigis exstruere, circum gladiatorum ferarumque spectaculis opplere, tamquam in summa abundantia pecuniae inludere (2.94.3).

Vitellius shows little regard for the financial state of the Empire. He treats the state's money as if it were his own expense account and he spends it foolishly for his own self-gratification on temporary pleasures like spectacles, which do not ensure him any future prosperity and stability. Vitellius' use of money, whereby it constantly flows inward toward himself and is only spent on himself, results not in Vitellius possessing all, but in his losing all, especially the principate. More important than Vitellius' interest in spectacles and his financing of them, elements pertaining to the realm of spectacles infiltrate areas of the principate where they do not belong. One important area where this occurs is his army. In imitation of their leader Vitellius' camp hhs the atmosphere belonging more to public games and festivals than to a disciplined regiment: anudJVitel1iumLomnia indisposita. temulenta. perviqiliis ac bacchanalibus_auam disciplinae et castris 167

proDlora (2.68.1). In fact, in this passage, an uprising erupts because two soldiers from two different squadrons engage in a wrestling match, which the rest of the army attends taking sides as spectators:

igitur duobus militibus, altero legionis quintae, altero e Gallis auxiliaribus, per lasciviam ad certamen luctandi accensis, postquam legionarius prociderat, insultante Gallo et iis qui ad spectandum convenerant in studia diductis, erupere legionarii in perniciem auxiliorum (2.68.2).

As vitellius nears Rome ail sorts of entertainers flock about him:

quantoque magis propinquabat, tanto corruptius iter immixtis histrionibus et spadonum gregibus et cetero Neronianae aulae ingenio (2.71.1).

When vitellius finally enters the city, he is accompanied by a throng of actors, charioteers, and other unsavory characters: adareaabantur e plebe flaoitiosa per_obsequia Vitellie coaniti scurrae histriones auriaae (2.87.2). Tacitus further adds to this spectaculum motif by describing Vitellius' distribution of rations to the soldiers like those given to gladiators: singulis ibi militibuB Yiteiiiug paratos cibos ...ut-gladiatoriam gaginaiw dividebat (2.88.1). Finally, according to Mucianus and Antonius Primus, the Vitellian soldiers have grown soft because of their exposure to the various forms of 168

entertainment in Rome: "si quid ardoris ac ferociae miles habuit. popinis et comissationibus et orincipis imitatione deteritwr" (2.76.5), and circo guoque ac theatris et amoenitate Vrbis emollitos (3.2.2). The infiltration of spectacles in unsuitable areas is no more apparent than in the case of Vitellius himself who often acts the part of spectator in military matters and affairs of state. For instance, Hariccus, a religious imposter of the Boii, who is taken captive after leading a revolt in Gaul, is thrown to the wild beasts in the arena (2.61). More importantly, when this fails he is thereupon slain while Vitellius gazes on as spectator:

captus in eo proelio Mariccus; ac mox feris obiectus quia non laniabatur, stolidum vulgus inviolabilem credebat, donee spectante Vitellio interfectus est (2.61).

The episode in which Vitellius is incited to ruin lunius Blaesus (3.38f.) contributes also to his role as a spectator. Vitellius has been seriously ill and whiles away a sleepness night by playing the spectator and gazing out his window.®® From there he espies lights at the house of Blaesus:

®®N.P. Miller and P.V. Jones "Critical appreciations III: Tacitus, Histories 3.38-9," fi&R 25 (1978) 75. 169 gravi corporis morbo aeger Vitellius Servilianis hortis turrim vicino sitam conlucere per noctem crebris luminibus animadvertit (3.38.1).

According to Tacitus, once Vitellius has decided to have Blaesus put to death, he boasts of feasting his eyes on the death of his enemy:

addidit facinori fidem notabili gaudio Blaesum visendo. quin et audita est saevissima Vitellii vox, qua se (ipsa enim verba referam) pavisse oculos spectata inimici morte iactavit (3.39.1)°^

The language here recalls both banquets and spectacles. For Vitellius, gazing upon another's death serves as entertainment, a form of self-gratification. The most grisly example of this form of amusement occurs when vitellius visits the battlefield of Bedriacum (2.70). Here Vitellius, after attending the public games sponsored by Caecina at Cremona, desires to gape at another spectacle, the gory remains on the battlefield:

inde Vitellius Cremonam flexit et spectato munere Caecinae insistera Bedriacensibus campis ac vestigia recentis victoriae lustrare oculis concupivit. foedum atque atrox spacjasqlgm (2.70.1).

K. Wellesley's Teubner Text (Leipzig, 1989) ascribes this saying to Lucius Vitellius. However, Suetonius Vit. 14.2 gives a similar version spoken by Vitellius: velle se dicens pascere oculos. 170

Vitellius is not horrified in the least so as to avert his eyes: at non Vitellius flexit oculos nec tot milia insepultorum civium exhorruit (2.70.4). The word spectaculum. which Tacitus uses to refer to the battlefield, of course echoes spectato munere. the public games, and thus, together with the repetition of flexit. reinforces the notion that to Vitellius, so to speak, all the world is a stage for him to entertain himself as spectator. Vitellius' visit to Bedriacum after the battle has ended illustrates another facet of the spectator: absence. Vitellius, for whom so decisive a battle is fought, is absent from it. Tacitus' portrayal of Vitellius throughout the Histories reveals a man who, as a spectator of his own life, is most noted for his absence from its major events. In fact, Vitellius' presence is missing throughout most of his role in the Histories. He enters the scene in 1.50 and dies at the end of Book 3. Thus a large portion of the narrative devoted to A.D. 69 spans Vitellius' campaigns and reign, yet he himself appears seldom and almost never in battle. He is absent from the entire war with Otho. Once Vitellius decides to claim the principate for himself, he structures his campaign into two major forces headed by Alienus Caecina and Fabius Valens: ingens viribus 171

opibusaue Vitellius duos duces, duo itinera bello destinavlt (1.61.1). Vitellius himself is to follow afterwards: Vitellius . . . tota mole belli secuturus (1.61.2). In Suetonius' version, Vitellius likewise divides his campaign into two forces, but the two forces consist of his own and those sent to confront Otho: compositis Germanicis rebus, oartitus est copias, auas adversus Othonem praemitteret. auasaue ipse perduceret fVit. 9). Tacitus' account clearly depicts Vitellius as further distanced from the fighting. Vitellius is also absent when he is hailed as emperor in Rome, and it is noteworthy that this takes place at a theatre:

Ceriales ludi ex more spectabantur. ut vita cessisse Othonem et a Flavio Sabino praefecto Vrbis quod erat in Vrbe militum Sacramento Vitellii adactum certi auctores in theatrum adtulerunt, Vitellio plausere (2.55.1).

He even delays his arrival into Rome:

Vitellius contemptior in dies segniorque, ad omnes municipiorum villarumque amoenitates resistensg gravi Vrbem agmine petebat (2.87.1).

K. Wellesley "Suaaestio falsi in Tacitus," 286-8: Vitellius travelled 1200mp in 86 days (14mp/day). This is not actually the slow pace Tacitus implies. 172

Vitellius absents himself not only physically but

mentally as well by shirking his d u t i e s . From the beginning of his campaign Vitellius avoids the responsibilities of a general to the extent that his soldiers perform the duties for him; cum tamen ardor et vis militum ultro ducis munia imolebat^ utsi adesset imperator (1.62.2). He does not investigate the murders of the praefects Asinius Pollio, Festus, Scipio, and Albinus and his wife: nihil eorum auae fierent Vitellio anguirentaj-brev i a.wdi.tu qHamvig magna trangibat..-imp.ar. curis gravioribus (2.59.1). Once in Rome, after the threat of Vespasian arises, Vitellius takes no preparatory action but keeps himself hidden from the public eye:

at Vitellius profecto Caecina, cum Fabium Valentem paucis post diebus ad bellum impulisset, curis luxum obtendebat: non parare arma, non adloguio exercitioque militem firmare, non in ore vulgi agere (3.36.1).

Later, Vitellius has so far removed himself from the office of princeps that he almost has to be reminded that he actually is the emperor: tanta torpedo invaserat animum. ut._ si principem eum fuisse ceteri non meminissent. iose oblivisceretur (3.63.2).

9^0n Vitellius' inertia see Engel, 347f.; Dio 65.16. 173

Vitellius' absence and irresponsibility result in a certain ignorance of the major events of his campaign and rule. The character of Galba in the Histories emerges as that of an emperor who is very much unaware (ignarus) of his own situation. The same holds true for Vitellius. For example, Vitellius at first does not even know of his own victory over Otho: interim Vitellius victoriae suae nfig-gius-ut. ad-integrum bellum religvag.. germanigi exercitus vires trahebat (2.57.1).*2 Although this lack of knowledge stems as a consequence of Vitellius' distance, Tacitus' use of the possessive suae emphasizes his absence and ignorance of what is his. The most striking example occurs in Vitellius' visit to the scene of battle at Bedriacum (2.70). Here Vitellius is depicted in religious devotion to the gods of the place, yet quite blind to his own impending doom: laetus ultro glL-.t.am propinquae sortis iqnarue ingtaurabat_aacrum_die loci (2.70.4).93 This passage clearly evokes 1.29.1 in both language (igparus/ianarus. sacrum/sacris. and 93cf. 2.81.1: ianaro adhuc Vitellio celeri navigatigna (Agrippa) properaverat.

9^t . Woodman "Self-imitation and the substance of history," in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, eds. D. West and T. Woodman (Cambridge, 1979) 148: the phrase et erant auos varia fors rerum lacrimaeaue et misericordia subiret is placed just prior for contrast with Vitellius and his impending fall. Woodman compares this scene with Germanicus' visit to the site of Varus' defeat (Ann. l.61f.). 174

dis/deos) and content where Galba is found in a similar situation and state of mind: ianarus interim Galba et sacris intentus fatiaabat alieni iam imperii deos. Both Galba and vitellius have lost the favor of the gods and thus also control of the Empire without even realizing it. A further example of Vitellius' unawareness occurs toward the end of his rule. In a feeble attempt to display some authority in the face of the increasing power of the Flavianists, Vitellius reveals his ignorance of military affairs:

sed praecipuum ipse Vitellius ostentum erat, ignarus militiae, improvidus consilii, guis ordo agminis, quae cura explorandi, quantus urgendo trahendove bello modus (3.56.2).

Furthermore, Vitellius' absence, irresponsibility, and ignorance, stemming from his role as spectator, result in a lack of control over his military operations and his empire. Consequently his advisors and generals exert most if not all of the authority. Vitellius is unable to control his own troops when they demand the destruction of the Helvetii, and they are only quelled by one of the legates, Claudius Cossus:

ne Vitellius quidem verbis et minis temperabat, cum Claudius Cossus, unus e legatis, notae facundiae, . . . militis animum mitigavit (1.69.1). 175

In Vitellius' overthrow of Otho, Caecina and Valens accomplish the feat without any assistance from him. Once Vitellius is in office, Caecina and Valens continue to possess most of the authority: inter discordes Vitellio nihil auctoritatis. munia imperil Caecina ac Valens obibant (2.92.1). Tacitus remarks that if vitellius could have swayed his subordinates as he himself was swayed, no blood would have been shed in the city:

quod si tam facile suorum mentes flexisset Vitellius, quam ipse cesserat, incruentam Vrbem Vespasiani exercitus intrasset (3.66.1).

Further proof of Vitellius' lack of authority occurs toward the end of the war between the Vitellianists and the Flavianists when Valens is killed. According to Tacitus, the Flavian army interprets the death of Valens as the end of the war although Vitellius as yet lives: et Flavianus exercitus immane quanto animo exitium Valentis ut finem belli acceoit (3.62.1).9* To summarize briefly, Vitellius displays an excessive interest in spectacles and other forms of entertainment. He is supposed to fulfill the roles of commander and emperor, but instead plays the role of

**cf. 3.44.1: çapto Valente cwncta ad ..viGtaris-opea conversa. 176

spectator. Vitellius' role as spectator renders him absent, irresponsible, ignorant, and without authority. These failings alienate Vitellius from almost everyone around him and from the principate, and they allow others to act in his stead and assume control. Furthermore, Vitellius' self-indulgence, in which he squanders what is his, creates an even wider gap between himself and the principate. Consequently, vitellius does not have the Empire as a possession. To emphasize Vitellius' alienation from the principate and the Roman people, Tacitus uses terminology appropriate to foreigners to describe him and his faction. Tacitus describes the march of Vitellius and his army and their arrival in Rome as though a foreign enemy were approaching a conquered city. Both Vitellius and his army engage in plunder, violence, and hedonism as befitting foreign peoples: tum iose exercitusaue. ut nullo aemulo. saevitia libidine raotu in externos mores proruperant (2.73).®^ Along the way they plunder the Italian countryside as if it were foreign soil:

nec coloniae modo aut municipia congestu copiarum, sed ipsi cultores arvaque maturis iam frugibus ut hostile solum vastabantur (2.87.2). Cf. 2.70.2: nag-iBinas inhumane pare vias.,. quam grgmQnena.eg-lam:u...r.g.saaue-gonBtrav.erant....gxgtr«gtig altaribuB.. gagei6ga@L vigtimis regiwm_in jngrem. 177

Once in Rome, the German legionaries appear quite alien to the people due to their strange attire, and likewise the crowd looks unfamiliar to them:

nec minus saevum spectaculum erant ipsi, tergis ferarum et ingentibus telis horrentes, cum turbam populi per inscitiam parum vitarent (2.88.3).

Vitellius himself, were he not persuaded otherwise, would have ridden into Rome dressed in the manner of a conquering general:

ipse Vitellius a ponte Mulvi insigni equo, paludatus accinctusque, . . . quo minus ut captain Vrbem ingrederetur, amicorum consilio deterritus: suropta praetexta et composite agmine incessit (2.89.1).

On the following day, Vitellius addresses the Roman senate and people as if they belonged to some other state: pgstera die tamquam apwd alterius civitatig sfinat m n-BaBalmnawe maqnifigam orationem da garnet ipso. oromosit (2 .90.1 ).*6 The scene described at the outset of this discussion on Vitellius depicts Vitellius as a spectator, one who watches others: omnem infimae Plebis rumorem in theatro

BGyiteilius' troops are actually so foreign that once Vitellius has fallen they prefer desertion to barbarian rule rather than obedience to Vespasian, 4.54.1: Yiteliianaa legiones yel externum aervitium quam iiBperatpram Vegpagianmn malle. 178

ut spectator, in circo ut fautor adfectavit (2.91.2). It also shows him as one who is watched by others, for Vitellius attends these performances in order to be seen by others. He is trying to court the favor of the crowd and is therefore concerned with his appearance, how he looks to others. The role of the princeps is perhaps the most observed of all throughout the Empire. Consequently it is susceptible to harsh criticism and frequently instills invidia. the hatred of the people. Galba likewise experienced this animosity. Despite his attempts to be seen by the public in a favorable light, Vitellius on several occasions alienates the Roman people by his actions, especially those acts of c r u e l t y . His murder of the most loyal supporters of Otho incurs the hostility of the Illyrian armies: tum interfecti centuriones promotissimi Othonianorum. unde praecipua in

Vitellium alienatio per Illvricos exercitus (2.60.1). Vitellius' consent to have Dolabella killed is met with the invidia of the people: maana cum invidia novi principatuB, cwiue hpg primvun spegimpn noagsbatur (2.64.1). The finer citizens of Rome find his erection of altars to the shades of Nero on the Campus Martius a

9?Cruelty was one of Vitellius' noted defects; cf. Suetonius Vit. 14; Engel, 347, 357f.; 2.63.1: BSâ Vitellius. adventu fratris @t inr9Pen.tAfaas.-dQminationis maqistris-süpsrbigr et atrocior , . 179

source of invidia; laetum foedissimo ■Cuiaue_apud bonos invidiae fuit, auod exstructis in camno Martio arls inferias Neroni fecisset (2.95.1). Finally, Vitellius, aware himself of the hatred he may incite, decides to have Blaesus secretly poisoned instead of openly killed:

trepidanti inter scelus metumque, ne dilata Blaesi mors maturam perniciem, palam iussa atrocem invidiam ferret, placuit veneno grassari (3.39.1).

Thus vitellius, although absent most of the time, whenever he is visible, continues to create a distance between himself and the Roman people. As emperor Vitellius, although thrust into the limelight, prefers the role of spectator, one who watches from outside. As final disaster looms near in the form of Vespasian, he tries to slink even further out of the spotlight and into the shadows: sed umbraculis hortorum abditwg,. ,t I f. praeterita instantia futara pari obiivione dimiserat (3.36.1).®® Vitellius thus abandons completely his role and duties as emperor. To emphasize this Tacitus notes that while previous emperors were ousted by

Cf. 2.97.1: auxilia tamen e Germania Britanniaaue et..HispaniiB. e^givit./ eegniter et neoeggitatem disgimalang; 3.54.1: at vitellius fractis apud Cremonam rebus nuntios cladis_occultans stulta dissimulatione remsdia patiusjmalorum..quam. mala..,di££erebat. 180

some type of foe, Vitellius surrenders the title of emperor in the midst of his own assembly and soldiers:

in sua contione Vitellius, inter suos milites, prospectantibus etiam feminis, pauca et praesenti maestitiae congruentia locutus - cedere se pacis et rei publicae causa (3.68.2).

Vitellius, like Otho and Galba, finishes his life alienated from everyone around him. More importantly, in the last hours of his life, Vitellius fills the role not of the spectator, but of the performer in the spectacle. The people of Rome attend the final conflict as if they were at a public show: aderat puanantibus spectator populus utaue in ludicro certamine. hos. rursus illos clamore et plausu fovebat (3.83.1). The crowd actually behaves as if they are celebrating a holiday: velut festis diebus id auooue aaudium accederet. exsultabant fruebantur (3.83.3).Meanwhile Vitellius, completely abandoned even by his slaves, has been running about here and there, terrified by his utter solitude yet attempting to hide from his foe:

dein mobilitate ingenii et, quae natura pavoris est, cum omnia metuenti praesentia ^^Baxter, 104-5: This passage is similar to Aen. 2. The Trojans, after accepting the horse, join in celebration only to be attacked during the night. In the Histories, ironically, the celebrating and fighting occur simultaneously. 181 maxime displicerent, in Palatium regreditur vastum desertumgue, dilapsis etiam infimis servitiorum aut occursum eius declinantibus. terret solitude et tacentes loci; temptat clausa, inhorrescit vacuis; fessusque misero errors et pudenda latebra semet occultans • « « (3•84 « 4)«

Eventually he is discovered and dragged out into the open, and Tacitus refers to him as a wretched spectacle mocked by all: vinctae Done teraum manus; laniata veste, foedum spectaculum. ducebatur,_multis increpantibus^ nullo inlacrimante (3.84.5). To complete the spectAC-Vllum motif, Vitellius is now forced to watch his world crumble about him:

Vitellium infestis mucronibus coactum modo erigere os et offerre contumeliis, nunc cadentes statuas suas, plerumque rostra aut Galbae occisi locum contueri. postremo ad Gemonias, ubi corpus Flavii Sabini iacuerat, propulere (3.85).^°°

Tacitus had compared Vitellius hiding in his gardens to listless animals: sed umbraculis hortorum abditus. ut ignava-animalia.« guibus si cibum suggéras, lacent, . . . torpentaue (3.36.1). Coincidentally, Cicero associates beasts with self-indulgence, one of Vitellius' more outstanding traits:

Cf. Suetonius ïife*. 17: ataue etiam mento mucrone gladii .s-Mbrecto., Ht visandam prasbarat. f.açiam nava gummittjsr..e.t. 182 "divitias alii praeponunt, bonam alii valetudinen, alii potentiam, alii honores, multi etiam voluptates. beluarum hoc quidem extremum" fPe Amic. 20).

In the end Vitellius is dragged out into the center of attention and killed just like a wild animal in the arena. Alone, he is forced into the center of the action and is watched by all others, as his combatants decide his fate. Vitellius' appearance in the Histories begins with a mention of his father: censoris Vitellii ac ter consulis filius (1.9.1). Tacitus concludes Vitellius' life also recalling this man. The historian claims that vitellius achieved success not by his own diligence but because he relied on his father's reputation:

patrem illi ** Luceriam; . . . consulatum sacerdotia, nomen locumque inter primores nulla sua industria, sed cuncta patris claritudine adeptus (3.86.1).^°^

This clearly shows a distortion of roles on Vitellius' part whereby he assumes roles that he has not really

Cf. Cicero De Off. 1.105: sed oertinet ad omnem Officii quaegtionem semper .in. promptu habere, quantum natura„liominis-PccMdibug-£.aliqiiisgua-b.elwis antecedat ; illae nihil sentiunt nisi voluptatem ad eamaue feruntur omni-impeta. 102cf. Dio 64.4.2; Engel, 348 note 12: In Suetonius Vit. 3.2 ironically Vitellius' father owes his rise under Tiberius to his son whose physical appearance pleased the emperor. 183

earned. R. Engel, to disprove Tacitus' criticism that Vitellius is power-hungry, claims that vitellius does not really want the principate.1^3 vitellius' preference for the role of spectator, which requires distance and absence from the major events, rather than the role of general or emperor indicates his inability to fulfill these positions.104 As a further perversion of role- playing, vitellius is selfish. His major concern centers around self-indulgence, satisfying his own ephemeral desires. As a result of this distortion, Vitellius becomes alienated from the principate to the extent that he loses it as a possession. Because Vitellius shirks his own responsibilities, others act in his stead and Vitellius wields little if any authority over his troops, generals, and Empire. He is estranged even from his own party, who, as Tacitus summarizes at the end of his life, did not know the man they supported; principatum ei detulere oui iosum non noverant (3.86.1).!^^ Vitellius' mother Sextilia, who refuses any pleasures derived from the principate, seems to be the only one who recognizes

lO^Engel, 350f. l°*Engel, 367-8: Tacitus repeatedly calls Vitellius incapable of being princeps (3.55.2, 56.2, 58.2, 70.4). ^^^Cf. 1.52.2: aimul. aviditate impetrandi ipsa vitia pro virtutibus interpretabantur. 184

Vitellius for what he is and rejects any pretense at grandeur from him:

et pari probitate mater Vitelliorum Sextilia, antiqui moris: dixisse quin etiam ad primas filii sui epistulas ferebatur, non Germanicum a se, sed Vitellium genitum. nec ullis postea fortunae inlecebris aut ambitu civitatis in gaudium evicta domus suae tantum adversa sensit (2.64.2).

Vitellius, unwilling and unable to fulfill the role of princeps. wants to sit back and watch, but as emperor he is watched by all others. As his reign begins to totter, Vitellius tries to avert their gaze and his responsibilities by shrinking into the shadows. In the end, however, as E. Courbaud remarks: "II lui faut ouvrir

les y e u x . vitellius ends his life cast in the role of the fated performer in a spectacle, a role he had observed all his life, but now he is watched by others and also forced to watch the collapse of his world. signifigant-Othgrs. Laelius claims in the De Amicitia that a friend is another self: "verum etiam amicum oui intuetur. tamauam .exemBlflg aliqupd intuetur swi” (Be.Amig.. 23).1°? a good

^Oficourbaud, 182. Cf. Cicero Ds-Amig. 22: "qiiid...dulciM8., guam.habgrg flMigum-omnifl-aadeas-sig. loaai at tggwm? Qm A egaet. tantue fructus in prosoeris rebus, nisi haberes aui illis aeaue 185

friend is someone so similar to oneself that looking at him or her is like looking at an image of oneself. This same idea can be applied to an emperor and those who surround him: his closest friends and advisors, generals, intimate slaves and freedmen, family, and his successor. These people serve as an image of their princeps; they form an extension of himself. They represent him in his absence. Generals represent their emperor on the battlefield. A successor represents the princeps when he is unable to attend or it is inadvisable for him to do so, and extends the emperor's influence into the future. In the Annals (1.24) Tiberius dispatches Drusus, his son and possible successor, in his stead to handle the military uprising in Pannonia. In the Histories Piso is substituted for Galba on several occasions (1.19.2, 29, 34.1). Vespasian leaves Titus to oversee his former campaign in Judaea (5.1). Moreover the relationship between emperor and his nearest and dearest is indicative of the character of both parties. Because such people are extensions of the emperor, they often resemble him and may embody similar traits. By contrast these subordinates also serve as a means of evaluating the emperor himself. They reveal his ability to choose ac tu ipse aauderet? adverses vero ferre difficile esset Bine eg, ..aui il lag qravius. etiam qaam ,tw ferret." 186

wisely, his perception of what is needed for each position, his judgment of character, and his estimation of important qualities. A careful selection of these men is essential for any emperor. Helvidius Priscus notes their importance: nullum maius boni imperii instrumentum quam bonos amicos esse (4.7.3). Because they often hold positions of authority and influence, these subordinates are capable of preserving or ruining their princeps. The three emperors. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, fail in their choice of close associates for two main reasons. First of all, they select men of inferior character. Often the men chosen resemble their emperor in his failings, especially those failings that alienate. Secondly the one characteristic that the majority of associates possesses in all three cases is self-interest. These subordinates serve themselves and not their emperor. Hence they do not fulfill their role as subordinates and allies. Because of their selfishness they are susceptible to bitter rivalries and invidia among themselves. Their disharmony gravely debilitates the authority of their emperor and contributes to his alienation from the principate. R. Syme says of Galba: "A new emperor requires firm allies and useful partisans. Galba was not well 187

served.”^®® Galba's successor Piso, his closest advisors, Laco, Vinius, and Icelus, and several of his appointees embody similar weaknesses as he does. A successor represents another self. He is intended to ensure the continuation of the emperor beyond his grave. Consequently, Galba chooses in Piso a man very similar to himself. Galba promotes the republican traditions of an aristocratic ancestry and strictness, and chooses Piso for these traits;

Piso M. Crasso et Scribonia genitus, nobilis utrimque, vultu habituque moris antiqui, et aestimatione recta severus, deterius interpretantibus tristior habebatur: ea pars morum eius, quo suspectior sollicitis, adoptanti placebat (1.14.2).

As this passage indicates, however, some find Piso too severe. Even Otho, although his opinion is biased, complains to the urban soldiers that Piso too closely resembles Galba in his gloomy demeanor and his greed: "ac ne qua saltern in ■g.wgcessor.e-.galbfts-s.p.gs. esset, agcsrsit ab-.exilio, quern [email protected]_avariiia iudicabat" (1.38.1). Piso, however, differs from Galba in his potential to rule effectively. While Tacitus makes the incisive comment that Galba seemed capable of ^®®Syme "Partisans of Galba," 460. ^®®cf. 1.14.2: et.prospéra de Pisene fama consilio eiuB (Lag-gnis) fidem addiderat. 188

ruling had he not ruled: et omnium consensu caoax imperii, nisi imoerasset (1.49.4), by contrast he says that Piso in his bearing and demeanor indicates that he is capable of ruling more than he wants to: nihil in

vuitw habitugue mutatUBb— qttasi imperarg poseet magis quam vellet (1.17.1). Nevertheless, this statement about Piso is by no means a positive one. Rather it reveals in Piso a negative trait that he shares with Galba: an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibilities of the principate. Piso like Galba does not wish to assume the role of princeps. In fact, Galba's choice of Piso as his successor is quite ruinous to his own cause. Piso like Galba in his old age has little knowledge and connection with the soldiers, the one part of society that needs to be controlled. In the first sentence that Piso utters, he speaks of his own ignorance: "sextus dies agitur. CQimmilitones. ex quo ianarus futuri. . . . Caesar adscitus sum" (1.29.2). Although Piso's ignorance of the future is something we all share, Tacitus' use of the word ignarus clearly echoes the description of Galba a few lines above, ianarus interim Galba (1.29.1), and thus establishes the similarity between the two. Neither the emperor Galba nor his successor possesses an accurate knowledge of the situation. While Galba seems to promote an effective means of choosing a successor through 189

adoption, he himself adopts p o o r l y . The qualities that Galba admires in Piso are ones that he himself possesses and that prove either useless, like noble ancestry, or detrimental, like antiquated severity. Galba praises Piso as younger but more capable than his brother for the position of emperor: "est tibi frater pari nobilitate. natu maior. dianus hac fortuna. nisi tu potior esses" (1.15.2). Echoing this statement in Piso's obituary, Tacitus establishes the real point of comparison between Piso and his brother, namely that Piso only precedes his brother in the time of his death: i|2Sâ diw exul, guadriduo Caesar, properata adoptions ad..ho.g. tantum maiori fratri praelatus est, ut prior occideretur (1.48.1). Of Galba's advisors, Vinius and Laco as well as Icelus have the most influence:

potentia principatus divisa in Titum Vinium consulem. Cornelium Laconem praetorii praefectum; nec minor gratia Icelo Galbae liberto (1.13.1).

They also exhibit the two major flaws of Galba: his avarice and ignorance. According to Otho, both Icelus and Vinius are excessively greedy:

^^°Syme Tacitus. 182. 190 "septem a Neronls fine menses sunt, et iam plus rapuit Icelus quam Polycliti et Vatinii et *Aegialii* petierunt. minore avaritia ac licentia grassatus esset T. Vinius, si ipse imperasset" (1.37.5).

Laco is ignorant. Otho begins his plans to overthrow Galba by buying off the urban troops. He even goes so far as to buy and present as a gift to Cocceius Proculus, a piece of land about which the latter has a dispute with the owner (1.24). Tacitus adds that this transpires due to the idleness and ignorance of the praefect: per GOGordiam praefecti, qu9in-ng.ta...pariter et occulta fallebant (1.24.2). Later on, when rumors of a conspiracy have reached Galba's ears, Laco in ignorance laughs them off: auaedam apud Galbae aures oraefectus Laco elusit. ianarus militarism animorum (1.26.2). Laco as praefect of the praetorian troops should be aware of his soldiers' state of mind, but he is instead ignarus like Galba. Galba's avarice and ignorance alienate him from the Roman people and the principate. His closest advisors contribute to this alienation. Vinius and Laco, unpopular because of their vices, do not benefit Galba but add to his demise:

invalidum senem Titus Vinius et Cornelius Laco, alter deterrimus mortalium, alter 191 Ignavisslmus, odio flagitiorum oneratum contemptu inertiae destruebant (1.6.1).

others whom Galba promotes to positions of power throughout the Empire both resemble and ruin him. For example, Galba selects Hordeonius Flaccus for commander of the legions of upper Germany. This man fails miserably to control the troops, and is described by Tacitus as hindered by his old age and physical ailments and lacking authority;

superior exercitus legatum Hordeonium Flaccum spernebat, senecta ac debilitate pedum invalidum. sine constantia, sine auctoritate (1.9.1).

Tacitus characterizes Galba on several occasions using similar language. He calls him a weak old man: invalidum senem (1.6.1), and refers to his inconstancy: Galbam mbbilitate ingeaii (1 .7 .2), and ipga .Gaibag facilitas (1.12.3). When the uprising in Germany occurs, Flaccus stands by as a helpless and fearful spectator:

spectator flagitii Hordeonius Flaccus consularis legatus aderat, non compescere ruentes, non retinere dubios, non cohortari Vinius has especially incurred the hostility of the people, 1.12.3: ea jam in Titi .Vini-Q.diHm.y.erterat., gwi in digs quanto, po.tenti<2r.«.. .eodsm actu invieior erat. 112 Tampius Flavianus and Pompeius Silvanus, governors of Pannonia and Dalmatia respectively, were old and rich like Galba (2.86.3), and Aponius Saturninus in Moesia was likewise wealthy; see Syme "Partisans of Galba," 464-5. 192 bonos ausus, sed segnis, pavldus et socordla nocens (1.56.1).

After the civil wars have ended and Rome is now engaging civilis in battle, Flaccus proves incompetent in restraining his troops from revolting: et Flaccus multa concedendo nihil aliud effecerat.. auam ut acrius exposcerent auae sciebant neaaturum (4.19.2). Like Galba he relies too heavily on his indecisive advisors and so he emerges as indecisive himself:

Hordeonius adhibitis tribunis centurionibusque consultavit, num obsequium abnuentes vi coerceret; mox insita ignavia et trepidis ministris, quos ambiguus auxiliorum animus et subito dilectu suppletae legiones angebant, statuit continere intra castra militem: dein paenitentia et arguentibus ipsis qui suaserant, . . . (4.19.2).

Flaccus very much resembles Galba; both are old, weak, hated by the soldiers, indecisive, and lacking authority. In Plutarch (Galba 22.5), one of the Germanic officers calls Flaccus the shadow and image of Galba. P.A.L. Greenhalgh remarks: "Flaccus was, like Galba, an old man, disabled by an acute gout and typical of many of Galba's appointments.Flaccus' failure to control his legions mirrors Galba's own loss of command of the armies in the city and throughout the Empire.

lllp .A .L . Greenhalgh The Year of the Four Emperors (London, 1975) 27-8. 193

One trait that is especially typical of Galba's appointments is disloyalty. A few of Galba's supporters, such as Pompeius Longinus: e Galbae amiois. fidus

prinoioi suo (1.31.3), and Marius Celsus: Celsus oonstanter servatae eraa Galbam fidei crimen oonfessus

(1.71.2), remain loyal to him. Many of the men whom Galba promotes to positions of honor, however, end in betraying him. Otho, among the first to support Galba, is the one who plots to overthrow him. Vitellius, another pretender to the prinoipate, owes his position as

leader of the legions in Lower Germany to Galba (1.9.1). Valens and Caeoina are also selected by Galba and also rebel from him in order to side with Vitellius (1.52.3,

53.1).114 Tacitus does not assert but strongly suggests that Vinius has actually conspired with Otho (1.42). The inability of these men to remain loyal to Galba perhaps echoes Galba's own mobilités inaenii. for Galba himself can not grasp firmly any one decision. More importantly, they reveal an emperor who is a very poor judge of character. Galba, who chooses associates that possess his own failings and can not remain loyal to him, emerges as an emperor who does not clearly perceive what is

4syme "Partisans of Galba," 463 notes that Cluvius Rufus likewise sided with Otho and then changed loyalties to Vitellius (1.76.1). 194

necessary in a close ally, and who can not evaluate others' characters accurately. Otho falls into the same trap as Galba of appointing men of base character, and especially those who exhibit his own failings. Otho's associates when he is contesting for power with Galba differ from those in his struggle with Vitellius. A statement made by Tacitus about Otho summarizes the two groups; oui humillimo

çuiflMfi..gr.edwlgg

urgentibus etiam mathematicis, dum novos motus et clarum Othoni annum observatione siderum adfirmant, genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur (1.22.1).

Of special note among these is Ptolemaeus:

multos secreta Poppaeae mathematicos, pessimum principalis matrimonii instrumentum, habuerant: e quibus Ptolemaeus Othoni in Hispania comes, cum superfuturum eum Neroni promisisset, postquam ex eventu fides, coniectura iam et rumore senium Galbae et iuventam Othonis computantium persuaserat fore ut in imperium adscisceretur (1.22.2). 195

Otho employs Mevlus Pudens, a relative of Tigillinus (1.24.1). Onomastus, a freedman, in turn enlists two common soldiers, Barbius Proculus and Veturius, to win over the armies (1.25.1) All of these men resemble Otho in their corruptive methods. Tacitus calls Otho a corruotor (1.24.2) because he bribes the soldiers. Mevius Pudens corrupts the loyalty of the praetorians with money while Galba dines with Otho (1.24.1). Onomastus corrupts Barbius Proculus and Veturius who in turn corrupt the praetorian army:

sed tum e libertis Onomastum future sceleri praefecit, a quo Barbium Proculum tesserarium speculatorum et Veturium optionem eorum eodem perductos, postquam vario sermone callidos audacesque cognovit, pretio et promissis onerat, data pecunia ad pertemptandos plurium animes, suscepere duo manipulares imperium populi Bomani transferendum et transtulerunt (1.25.1).

Otho, however, has also corrupted his own household: intimi libertorum servorumaue. corruptius ctuam in orivata dome habiti (1.22.1). These men actually become a corrupting influence over Otho as they entice Otho to undertake the rebellion by showing him the rich rewards of empire. These men in fact represent a corruption of ^^^Suedius Clemens likewise performs his duties according to bribery and favoritism, 2.12.1: Suedius Clemens ambitioso imperio.regebat, ut advereug modeetiam disciplinae corcuptue, _ita.. proeliorum avidus; Tacitus has already commented that Otho conducts the principate according to favoritism, 1.83.1: ambitioso imoerio. 196

the concept of possession. As slaves, freedmen, and other subordinates, they should be numbered among Otho's "possessions." Instead of Otho controlling them, however, they control and manipulate him. In this regard they resemble Otho's praetorian soldiers who are able to wield too much power over Otho and even assume his role as dux. When Otho is forced to deal with Vitellius his relationship with his subordinates changes. In this situation Otho must appoint commanders over his troops. His choice of Hoschus, a freedman, to take charge of the fleet shows his preference for the lowly. Tacitus comments that Hoschus thus governs men more honorable than himself: curam navium Hoschus libertus retinebat ad observandam honestiorum fidem invitatus (1.87.2). Otho, however also appoints Suetonius Paulinus, Harius Celsus, and Annius Gallus, all of whom possess some merit as leaders: auGtoritatem Paulini, .vigorem-Geigl^atwritatem Galli (1.87.2). These men achieve success in battle for Otho: interea Paulini et Celsi ductu res eareaie aestae (2.24.1). Celsus reverses an ambush laid for his troops at Castores and succeeds in routing the enemy:

anteguam miscerentur acies, terga vertentibus Vitellianis, Celsus doli prudens repressit suos: Vitelliani temere exsurgentes cedente sensim Celso longius secuti ultro in insidias praecipitantur (2.25.1). 197

Paulinus is one of the finer generals of the day^^® and has a reputation as one who delays and plans before acting: cunctator natura et oui cauta potius consilia cum ratione auam prospéra ex casu placèrent (2.25.2). Paulinus' tendency to delay often backfires as at Castores:

ceterum ea ubique formido fuit apud fugientes occursantes, in acie pro vallo, ut deleri cum universe exercitu Caecinam potuisse, ni Suetonius Paulinus receptui cecinisset, utrisque in partibus percrebruerit (2.26.2).

Nevertheless, it is a characteristic that balances Otho's own temerity. Otho, however, mistrusts and fears those with finer natures, bonos metuens treoidabat (2.23.5). F. Klingner argues that Tacitus deliberately confuses the sequence of events surrounding the battle of Castores and the change in command from Celsus and Paulinus to his brother Titianus (2.23-4).In Plutarch (otho 7) the soldiers' complaints about Paulinus' hesitancy after the battle at Castores result in his removal from command. Tacitus, however, places the transferral of command before his description of the battle (2.23.5), and immediately speaks of the successes of Paulinus and

^^^Klingner, 400: Tacitus favors Paulinus because he was Agricola's military instructor in Britain fAgr. 5.1) ll^Klingner, 389f. 198

Celsus: res eqreçriae aestae (2.24.1) in order to give the impression that Otho's decision is unsound. Otho places his trust in two men who are undeserving of their elevated status, his brother Titianus and the praetorian prefect Licinius Proculus. The council of war before Cremona (2.31.2f.) reveals the folly of Otho's preference for these two men. All three generals of merit advise a delay of battle. Suetonius Paulinus offers sound advice for delaying. He claims a protracted war will weaken the Vitellian forces and allow their own reinforcements to arrive from Moesia (2.32). Marius Celsus and Annius Gallus concur (2.33.1). Otho, however, heeds Proculus and Titianus who, with foolish arguments about the favor of the gods, advise him to hasten to war. Tacitus describes them as inexperienced and fawning for Otho's favor:

frater eius Titianus et praefectus praetorii Proculus, imperitia properantes, fortunam et decs et numen Othonis adesse consiliis, adfore conatibus testabantur. ne guis obviam ire sententiae auderet, in adulationem concesserant (2.33.1).

In Plutarch's version fOtho 8), Titianus and Proculus offer more rational reasons for hastening: their armies are excited from recent victory and delay will allow Vitellius to arrive from Gaul. Tacitus thus chooses a version that portrays Otho as rejecting the sounder 199

advice of his more able generals. Otho suspects leaders who helped his cause and favors those most like himself who will ruin it. Consequently, the authority of Paulinus, Celsus (and Gallus) is undermined and rendered invalid: Celsus et Paulinus. cum orudentia eorum nemo uteretur. inani nomine ducum alienae culoae praetendebantur (2.39.1). Galba did not fully realize that his associates were unworthy. Otho, on the other hand, actually prefers men of inferior character over those with ability. In his overthrow of Galba he chooses base men who will corrupt as he does. Against Vitellius, however, his fear and distrust of better men reflect his overriding concern with rivalry and competition, for it is as if he is afraid these men of worth will surpass him. Just as Otho of his own volition ultimately alienates himself from everyone around him, so does he make these fine leaders, who would be sui, alieni. and in so doing he further pushes the principate away from himself. In the case of vitellius, Alienus Caecina and Fabius Valens serve as his primary instigators and advisors. Vitellius also favors his brother L. Vitellius with substantial influence: intererat consiliis frater eius L. Vitellius segue iam adulantibus offerebat (2.54.1). All three prove to be, like Vitellius, very disreputable 200

characters who resemble Vitellius in his faults. First, their cruelty equals that of their emperor. Valens appears early in the Histories as one of the murderers of Capito;

Capitonem in Germania, cum similia coeptaret, Cornelius Aquinus et Fabius Valens legati legionum interfecerant, antequam iuberentur (1.7.1).

Caecina, in his march from Germany into Italy at the beginning of the campaign against Otho, reveals his thirst for blood and booty: plus praedae ac sanguinis Caecina hausit (1.67.1), and Caecina belli avidue proximam auamaue culpam. anteauam paeniteret. ultum ibat (1.67.2).118 L. Vitellius, as well as his wife Triaria, are themselves cruel and also evoke the cruelty of the emperor. They instigate the death of Dolabella: sed ^itelliMs. advfinfen fratrls. .. , ,, euperbicr et _atrccioc occidi Dolabellam iussit (2.63.1). In this instance Triaria is called fierce beyond what is reasonable for a woman as she bullies Flavius Sabinus lest he oppose their plan: canctantsm. super,, tanta .r.a Flavian Sabinum Triaria L, V itellii uxor, ultra feminam., ferox^—tsrrviLt.,.....!.. (2.63.2). L. Vitellius also incites his brother to do

Cf. 2.20.1: at Caecina. velut relicta post Aloes saevitia ac licentia. modesto acnnine per Italiam inceseit. 201

away with Blaesus (3.38f.)« Further in the work, L.

Vitellius so ferociously sacks Tarracina that Tacitus

calls it a slaughter rather than a conflict: inde miles

fld-caedem-mflgig-auam ad pwqnam decwccit (3 .77.1). Tacitus claims that on this occasion Triaria is accused of behaving too savagely for a woman by arming herself with a sword amidst the slaughter:

fuere qui uxorem L. Vitellii Triariam incesserent, tamquam gladio militari cincta inter luctum cladesque expugnatae Tarracinae superbe saeveque egisset (3.77.3).

Valens and Caecina also imitate their emperor Vitellius in their avarice, extravagance, and debauchery. Tacitus presents them both as extremely greedy and brash: sed prgfuBa gupidine insignl.t@meritate Igqati legionmn-Alignus Caecina et fabiug Valens (1.52.3). on his journey from Germany Valens proves he can be bought: sed fama_constans fuit ipsum Valentem maana pecunia emptum (1.66.2). He employs treachery and threats to gain possession of money and land, and when money is unavailable he exacts payment by satisfying his baser cravings :

ipsa itinerum spatia et stativorum mutationes venditante duce, fcedis pactionibus adversus possessores agrorum et magistratus civitatum, adeo minaciter ut Luco . . . faces admoverit. 202 donee pecunia mitigaretur. quotiens pecuniae materia deesset, stuprls et adulteriis exorabatur (1.66.3). ^

Like Vitellius their torpor and self-indulgence increase in proportion to the instability of the emperor's reign. Even in the face of great danger, Valens does not cease from grasping at ephemeral delights:

sed Valens ne in tanto quidem discrimine infamia caruit, quo minus rapere inlicitas voluptates adulteriisque ac stupris polluere hospitum domus crederetur: aderant vis et pecunia et ruentis fortunae novissima libido (3.41.1).120

Caecina likewise succumbs to inertia and luxury:

accedebat hue Caecinae ambitio vetus, torpor recens, nimia fortunae indulgentia soluti in luxum, seu perfidiam meditanti infringere exercitus virtutem inter artes erat (2.99.2).^2i

As this last passage shows, Caecina also displays disloyalty, a trait shared by Vitellius. Just as Vitellius betrays Galba, Caecina not only betrays Galba in favor of Vitellius (1.53), but Vitellius as well in favor of Vespasian (2.99f.). His loyalty, according to Tacitus is cheap: orodito Galba vilem mox fidem ll*Cf. 2.56.2. 3.40.1. ^^^As another example of Caecina's extravagance cf. the ornate attire worn by him and his wife, which is offensive to the people (2.20.1). 203

(2.101.1). Moreover, Caecina is not the only one of Vitellius' supporters who display this trait. Many of them abandon his cause once they see its hopelessnes (2.97-8). Vitellius' main advisors, Caecina, Valens, and L. Vitellius resemble him in their cruelty, greed and self- indulgence, and in Caecina's case disloyalty. These faults in Vitellius on many occasions incur the invidia of the people of Rome. These same faults in Vitellius' subordinates also contribute to this invidia, and therefore these men prove to be more harmful than beneficial to Vitellius' cause. In addition, their ability to indulge in such vices as well as to elicit these same vices in their emperor reveal Vitellius' own inability to control them. The behavior of Vitellius' associates reflects Vitellius' role as spectator whereby he distances himself and allows others to act in his stead. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius all choose primarily associates who are unworthy of their position. Many exhibit the same failings as their emperor. Tacitus says of each emperor that he either can not distinguish good from bad associates or that he actually prefers the latter. Galba is blind toward the failings of his friends: amicorum libertorumaue. ubi in bonos incidisset. 204

sine reprehensions oatiens. si mail forent, usaue ad culpam içrnarus (1.49.3). Otho promotes inferior men to positions of influence: spretis melioribus deterrimi valebant (2.39.1). Vitellius shuns those offering useful advice in favor of those who proffer mere pleasantries:

peritissimis centurionum dissentibus et, si consulerentur, vera dicturis. arcuere eos intimi amicorum Vitellii, ita formatis principis auribus, ut aspernaretur quae utilia, nec guidquam nisi iucundum et laesurum acciperet (3.56.3).

Moreover, these explanations about each emperor's treatment of his advisors illustrate each man's major failing. For Galba it is ignorance, for Otho concern with rivalry and with ensuring his own superior position, and for Vitellius an obsession with pleasures and self- indulgence. Each man's failing thereupon causes him to surround himself with ill-suited advisors who will only contribute to his downfall. For Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, the selection of men to be close associates who are unfit for the role, often because they embody the same failings as their emperor, stands as one major reason why these associates prove to be a hostile influence upon their emperor. The other reason can be found in Galba's speech to Piso. Here Galba claims that the worst poison for a true nature is self-interest: "pessimum veri affectus venenum. sua 205

cuiaue utilltas» (1.15.4). Seneca warns that self- interest harms true friendships:

tunc amicitiae nostrae certiorem fiduciam habere coepissem, illius verae, quam non spes, non timor, non utilitatis suae cura divellit, illius cum qua homines moriuntur, pro qua moriuntur fEp. Mor. 6.2).

This is the one vice that the majority of advisors for Galba, Otho, and Vitellius possess. Each of these advisors has himself and not his emperor or the state as a primary concern. Each therefore rejects his role as subordinate. Consequently bitter rivalries for imperial favor and power erupt among fellow advisors. As an example, in the Annals (16.18) Tigillinus, out of envy of Petronius, plots his ruin. The rivalries among subordinates in turn undermine the authority of their emperor. They can not agree among themselves and often try to eliminate one another. They concentrate their energies on ruining each other in order to further themselves rather than removing the opponents of the emperor. In each emperor's reign at least one instance of rivalry surfaces. This rivalry, ordinarily detrimental, proves especially calamitous in a crisis. In Galba's case two sets of rivalries exist. The first is Otho's jealousy of Piso, which leads Otho to plot an 206

overthrow.122 The primary concern for Vinius, Laco and Icelus is himself and because these men look out only for themselves, they can not agree on any minor issue let alone the choice of successor: hi discordes et rebus

minoribus...gibi awisqu? tendentee, circa consilium eliaendi successoris in duas factiones scindebantur (1.13.1). At the beginning of the narrative, Vinius, Laco and Icelus, not Galba, possess the real power, but due to their self-seeking this power is divided:

potentia pricipatus divisa in Titum Vinium consulem, Cornelium Laconem praetorii praefectum; nec minor gratia Icelo Galbae liberto (1.13.1).

Laco ignores any rumors about uprisings among the praetorian troops because he can not bear to listen to sound advice from others more competent than he:

.gpnsiliigMfi...quflmyig-.eqreqii-...aiiQd-.ngn ipse adCarr e t , inimicus et adversus oeritos oervicax (1.26.2). The factiousness of these three is especially ruinous to Galba at the crucial moment when Galba learns of Otho's revolt. Vinius quarrels with Laco and Icelus over whether Galba should stay or leave the Palatine. Their disagreement is quite hostile: repugnantem huic

122gee above, 139f. 207

sententiae Vinium Laco minaciter invasit (1.33.2). Laco even considers killing Vinius:

agitasse Laco ignaro Galba de occidendo Tito Vinio dicitur, sive ut poena eius animos militum mulceret, seu conscium Othonis credebat, ad postremum vel odio (1.39.2).

Icelus' concern in this debate is only for himself: gtimulan.te_lgglo in publicum exitium (1.33.2). Because these three can not come to an agreement in such an emergency, Galba lacks a unified force of supporters, and because Galba has difficulty in making up his own mind and prefers to let others do it for him, chaos reigns and Galba is defeated. For Otho, himself a rival with Piso and later with Vitellius, there are few rivalries among his subordinates. The one area involving rivalry surrounds the character of Proculus. Proculus has gained Otho's greatest confidence; in him Otho has found his proximus. Proculus, however, is self-seeking. He resembles Otho in that he refuses to accept those more qualified, and so he undermines the abilities of Otho's other commanders:

sed plurima fides Licinio Proculo praetorii praefecto. is urbanae militiae impiger, bellorum insolens, auctoritatem Paulini, vigorem Celsi, maturitatem Galli, ut cuique erat, criminando, quod facillimum factu est, pravus et callidus bonos et modestes anteibat (1.87.2). 208

Because Proculus himself is inept at military affairs, he begrudges and tries to destroy the talents of others despite their usefulness to Otho. Furthermore he hoards excessive power for himself. Titianus has been placed in charge, but it is Proculus who wields all the authority: profeçto-Brixellmn Qttions.,.honor..imperii, penee Titianwm fratrem. vis ac potestas penes Proculum praefectum (2.39.1). His unwillingness to accept the sound advice of others ruins Otho's chances during the final confrontation with the Vitellianists, for while Celsus and Paulinus wisely advise delay, Proculus and Titianus override their opinion so as not to be surpassed:

Celso et Paulino abnuentibus militem itinere fessum, sarcinis gravem obicere hosti non omissuro, quo minus expeditus et vix quattuor milia passuum progressas aut incompositos in agmine aut disperses et vallum molientes adgrederetur, Titianus et Proculus, ubi consiliis vincerentur, ad ius imperii transibant (2.40).

Proculus, like Vinius, Laco and Icelus, does not place his emperor's best interests above his own, even in crucial matters where his service to his emperor is most needed. We have already seen how L. Vitellius' envy of

Blaesus caused Vitellius to have him p o i s o n e d . ^23 The major rivalry and jealousy in Vitellius' faction infect 123g@e above, 54. 209

the two chief commanders caecina and Valens. This rivalry already surfaces in Vitellius' campaign against Otho. After his loss at Placentia Caecina reveals his self-interest and concern not so much with Vitellius' cause as with his own reputation (2.22.3). He is worried that Valens will win all the glory himself due to his own errors in judgment. This concern in turn affects further judgment so that he acts more rashly.From the time they meet up with one another in Italy, Caecina and Valens vie with one another for popularity and control of the two armies:

et quamquam plus virium, props dublicatus legionum auxiliorumque numerus erat Valenti, studia tamen militum in Caecinam inclinabant, super benignitatem animi, qua promptior habebatur, etiam vigors aetatis, proceritate corporis et quodam inani favors, hinc aemulatio ducibus: Caecina ut foedum ac maculosum, ills ut tumidum ac vanum inridebant (2.30.2-3).

At this point, however, their rivalry does not exceed their desire to win. Hence, they temporarily smother their animosity for the common cause of Vitellius, and so

Cf. 2.24.1: flnggbanfc-Cae.ginam■naswiqttam,..omnia g

are able to achieve victory for him: sed condito odio eandem utilitatem fovere (2.30.3). Once in control of Rome, however, they unleash their bitter rivalry and mutual hatred as they compete for favor with Vitellius and for influence. Vitellius meanwhile, as an outsider, has little authority to control them and their contention only further debilitates the little power he does possess:

Priscus Valentis, Sabinus Caecinae gratia pollebant; inter discordes Vitellio nihil auctoritatis. munia imperii Caecina ac Valens obibant, d i m anxii odiis, quae bello et castris male dissimulate pravitas amicorum et fecunda gignendis inimicitiis civitas auxerat, dum ambitu comitatu et immensis salutantium agminibus contendunt comparanturque, variis in hunc aut ilium Vitellii inclinationibus (2.92.1).

The bitter contention between Caecina and Valens culminates in Caecina's desertion to Vespasian. According to Tacitus, contemporary historians explained Caecina's disloyalty as an act of patriotism, consideration for the welfare of others (2.101.1). Tacitus, however, offers his own opinion, that in fact Caecina and Lucilius Bassus desert to Vespasian's faction because of their own lack of loyalty to anyone and because of their envy of others who might advance farther than they: 211 nobis super insitam levitatem et prodito Galba vilem mox fidem aemulatione etiam in%idia.qUS, ne ab aliis apud Vitellium anteirentur, pervertisse ipsum Vitellium videntur (2.101.1).

Caecina betrays Vitellius when the emperor needs him most, and thus ruins any chances for success. Vinius Laco and Icelus, Proculus, Caecina and Valens are by and large self-seeking individuals whose concern for themselves far outweighs any loyalty to their emperor or the state. Hence they do not fulfill their role as subordinates. They especially desire for their own the power that should belong to their superior, and their struggles over this power severely debilitate the stability of their emperor. Their factiousness offers further insight, for it reveals a grave weakness in the three emperors. The fact that the subordinates are able to fight over such power signifies that the emperors themselves do not possess it. Concerning each emperor Tacitus describes the imperium as being in the hands of his a d v i s o r s . 125 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius possess the authority neither to curb their own advisors, nor to hold on to their own imoerium. And the advisors, due to their own factiousness, are unable themselves to hold it.

125por Galba 1.13.1; for Otho 1.45.2; for Vitellius 2.92.1. 212

To recapitulate, an emperor's advisors or successor function as an extension of himself. They represent him. They provide a basis upon which to evaluate him. These associates may resemble their emperor in some way or even complement him. An intelligent emperor would choose advisors who resemble him in virtues and complement him in regard to his failings. This is not the case, however, for the three emperors. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Galba's choice of Piso as succesor proves detrimental because he is inexperienced and he embodies the same concern for nobilitas and severitas. Hordeonius Flaccus is old and weak like Galba. Vinius, like Galba, is both greedy and unpopular with the general public, and Laco's ignorance especially in regard to the army resembles Galba's own ignorance. Otho's advisors serve as a corrupting influence like himself. One of his generals, Suetonius Paulinus, known for his hesitation, would complement otho's own temerity. Otho, however, prefers to consult those more like himself and those undeserving. Vitellius' two chief generals, Caecina and Valens, and his brother L. Vitellius resemble him in their profligacy, cruelty, and disloyalty to a superior. The first three emperors of A.D. 69 fail in their attempts at empire in large part because they choose or let rise to favor men inferior to the status of advisor 213

or general, men who are unfit for the position. Moreover, these men are particularly unfit because they refuse to fulfill their role as advisor by putting their emperor's interests and safety above their own. Consequently, they succumb to self-interest and bitter rivalry among themselves, which ultimately weakens the imperium of their leader. Galba is ruined by the rivalry between Vinius and Laco/Icelus, and by Otho's jealousy of Piso. Otho's chances are hampered by his favoritism of Proculus who undermines others more qualified. Finally, the fierce rivalry between Caecina and Valens leads to Vitellius' demise. In one way or another the advisors display the perversions of the four factors of the self- other concept. They succumb to envy, they are greedy of others' possessions, especially those of their princeps . they do not fulfill their proper roles, and they often lack the knowledge of their own responsibilities and of the havoc their internal strife wreaks on their emperor. The fact that these three emperors put such store in such unworthy subordinates reflects poorly on their ability to judge others accurately. It reveals a perversion of the self-other concept: ignorance, for the emperors lack perceptiveness concerning themselves and what is best for their principate. An emperor's subordinates and associates should be considered as his, suos. In regard 214

to Galba, Otho and vitellius, however, these people are actually alieni. for they do their emperor more harm than good.

In conclusion, the first three emperors of A.D. 69 as recounted in the Histories fail because each embodies a distortion of the self-other concept. Galba is felled by his avarice coupled with ignorance. For Otho it is a perversion of aemulatio. and for Vitellius a distortion of roles. Nevertheless, all four distortions can be found at work in the case of each emperor. While Otho is himself a rival, fierce rivalries do play a part among the subordinates of Galba and Vitellius. In addition, the misuse of money by all three reveals a distortion of possession. For Galba money only flows in and never out, for Otho money only flows out, and for Vitellius both directions apply, but the disbursement is for selfish purposes. Money is not spent correctly for the maintenance of the Empire. Furthermore, none of the three is able to fulfill successfully the role of princeps. Finally, ignorance of what this role entails as well as other factors of the principate contributes to their downfall. They are especially ignorant both of the role of subordinate and of the men they choose to fulfill this role, for none of the three emperors surrounds 215

himself with appropriate advisors and subordinates. These people, who should be working on behalf of their emperor, reject such obsequium and thus their role, and work instead for themselves. On many occasions they end up holding more power than the emperor himself. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius all end their lives alone and isolated, whether through coercion or voluntarily. The principate has become alienus to them; it belongs to another. The question then must be asked: who holds the principate? As a possession, the principate, like a football that is fumbled, now slipping from one player's hands, now deflected off another's, repeatedly tumbles from one pretender to the next. For a moment some of their advisors possess it, but soon it is snatched from their inept hands. From Galba to Vinius and Laco, from there to Otho, his army, then to Vitellius, Caecina and Valens, the Empire finally settles into the hands of Vespasian. In the next chapter I intend to discuss why the principate ultimately rests with him and how he differs from his three predecessors in order to achieve this. CHAPTER IV VESPASIAN

eague cuncta per idoneos ministres suis quaeque locis festinabantur (2.82.1)

Any interpretation of Vespasian's character in the Histories must be incomplete since we do not possess Tacitus' entire account of his rule. Nevertheless, some conclusions can be drawn concerning his appearance in the Histories. Vespasian differs from the previous three emperors by the very fact that he manages to win and also keep the principate. He also differs from them in regard to the four factors of the self-other concept. The reason for Vespasian's success is perhaps best summarized in the above citation that refers to the preparations for his campaign. Vespasian achieves the principate because everything of importance to his victory is allocated to its proper place and everyone functions in their proper roles. He has an accurate knowledge of himself, his own, and others. He has presence and fulfills his roles. In addition, he enlists appropriate supporters and promises

216 217

a suitable successor. Finally, Vespasian holds two crucial elements of overriding importance: the favor of the gods and the Roman Empire itself, which he treats as his own. The principates of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were plagued by a perversion of the self-other concept, which resulted in their own downfalls. With Vespasian the proper relation between self and other together with peace returns to the Empire. The character of Vespasian is not without its flaws. Some, according to Tacitus, believe he and his brother were harboring a bitter rivalry (3.65.1)^ Vespasian's most outstanding failing is his avarice. Tacitus claims he tolerates informants on the wealthy during his campaign and later throughout his reign (2.84.1-2). As emperor he could never quite shake a reputation for being miserly, despite the fact that his efforts to save money stemmed in large part from the state's overwhelming financial troubles.^ These two traits, themselves corruptions of the self-other concept, Vespasian shares with his predecessors, like Galba in his avarice and Otho in his rivalry. Nevertheless, in Vespasian they are not ^He is also said to be quite superstitious (2.78.1). ^Cf. Suetonius Vesp. 16; Dio 66.8.2f; In the surviving books of the Histories Tacitus does not stress Vespasian's avarice. He even claims Vespasian handles successfully the amount of money given as donatives to the soldiers (2.82.2). 218

SO excessive as to consume his efforts and govern his actions completely. For the most part Vespasian displays the positive side of the four factors of self and other presented in Chapter II, and this ensures his success. The most outstanding of these factors in Vespasian is knowledge. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius for various reasons foster misperceptions about themselves and their position as princeps . Vespasian, on the other hand, fairly accurately knows himself, his friends, allies, armies, in other words, all his resources for undertaking the seizure of the principate. Tacitus presents him surveying his advantages:

at Vespasianus bellum armague et procul vei-iuxta sitae vires gircmnspectabat. miles ipsi adeo paratus, ut praeeuntem sacramentum et fausta Vitellio omnia precantem per silentium audierint; Muciani animus nec Vesoasiano alienus et in Titum pronior; praefectus Aegypti Ti. Alexander consilia sociaverat; tertiam legionem, quod de Syria in Moesiam transisset, suam numerabat; ceterae Illyrici legiones secuturae sperabantur (2.74.1).

Vitellius is associated with the verb specto.^ Here we see Vespasian looking around him. While Vitellius is a passive observer whose objective lies almost solely in self-gratification, Vespasian observes his surroundings with a purpose in mind. Vitellius can see only what lies ^Cf. 2.61, 70, 91.2, 3.39.1. 219

in front of him,* Vespasian both near and far (procul vel iuxta sitas vires^, and Tacitus' use of the verb circumspectabat as opposed to simply spectabat emphasizes Vespasian's far-reaching outlook compared with Vitellius' limited vision. Vespasian inspects his situation in order to see what actually belongs to him. He perceives the loyalty of his own troops and calculates as his own fsuam) the support of the third legion and hopefully the legions in Illyria, as well as the assistance of Hucianus fnec Vesoasiano alienus) and Tiberius Alexander (coneilia sociaverat). It is noteworthy that Tacitus uses nec Vesoasiano alienus to describe Mucianus. We have seen that so many of the former three emperors' allies actually prove to be alieni to their own leader. Furthermore, Vespasian, unlike Vitellius, has significant military experience. Mucianus uses this as part of his argument to persuade Vespasian to risk the undertaking: "tua ante omnes exoerientia" (2.76.5) and "nec mihi maior in tua vigilantia oarsimonia saoientia fiducia e s t auam in Vitellii toroere inscitia saevitia" (2.77.3).

Cf. 2.95.3: ipgeL.abmide. ratus, si. [email protected] frueretur. nec in lonaius consultans; The suicide of Agrestis reveals Vitellius' narrow vision (3.54). Agrestis' report about the strength of the enemy and defeat at Cremona is discredited, as if Vitellius can not believe what he has not seen. It is only when Agrestis offers graphic proof, his suicide, that Vitellius is stirred to action. 220

Vespasian is a successful military commander because he understands what this role entails. He knows his appropriate place in regard to his army. A commander who is a successful leader of his troops exhibits two qualities of importance to his role. The first is presence. A general must be visible to his troops to instill order and maintain control. Secondly he must be able to fulfill the role of soldier as well as leader. A commander's visibility in the role of soldier provides his troops with a role model. Among Hannibal's virtues, Livy mentions his manner of dressing as a common soldier and of sleeping on the ground among the guards:

multi saepe militari sagulo opertum humi iacentem inter custodies stationesque militum conspexerunt. vestitus nihil inter aequales excellens: arma atque equi conspiciebantur (AÜC 21.4.7-8).

Tacitus likewise depicts Corbulo dressed in soldier's attire and sharing in the tasks of his troops:

ipse cultu levi, capite intecto, in agmine, in laboribus frequens adesse, laudem strenuis, solacium invalidis, exemplum omnibus ostendere (Ann. 13.35.4).5

®Cf. Tacitus' description of Cerialis, 4.77.2: Cerialis turbidis rebus intrepidus et fuaientes manu retrahens,. intecto cgrppra-prompfcHg. inter tela, feligi tameritata at fortissimi çuiugque adcursu ragiperatvua pontam aiecta manu firmavit» 221

Vespasian fulfills both these qualités. He rides visibly ahead of the army and endures the same hardships as the common soldiers:

Vespasianus acer militiae anteire agmen, locum castris ipse capere, noctu diuque consilio ac, si res posceret, manu hostibus obniti, cibo fortuite, veste habituque vix a gregario milite discrepans (2.5.1).

When preparations are being made for the campaign, Vespasian is present to exhort and incite his men by his example:

ipse Vespasianus adire hortari, bonos laude, segnes exemple incitare saepius quam coercere, vitia magis amicorum quam virtutes dissimulans (2.82.1).

By contrast, Tacitus portrays Otho likewise marching ahead of his troops: nec illi seane aut corruptum luxu iter, esdLiorlGa feccaa uewB ante signa P9deg..ire, herriduBineomBtUB famaegue diasimilis (2 .11.3). Nevertheless, Otho's presence and participation are transitory, and the effect is lost when he is persuaded to remain at Brixellum (2.33.2f.). Otho does not really possess command of his troops. Vespasian's visibility and willingness to take physical part in military affairs bring him support and obedience from those under his command. He becomes one of the soldiers, which in turn results in their becoming his. 222

Although Vespasian's presence before his troops renders him an effective leader, nevertheless, Vespasian is absent from the entire civil war with Vitellius and does not arrive in Rome until somewhat after his victory (4.52). Tacitus says that many of Antonius Primus' actions occurred without Vespasian's knowledge or permission: quae ianara Vesoasiano aut vetita (3.8.2). This passage recalls a description of Vitellius as ignorant of his own victory: interim Vitellius victoriae suae nescius (2.57.1). Vitellius' absence from his own campaign and his ignorance about the events are detrimental. For Vespasian, however, his absence and ignorance work to his advantage. R. Develin comments that Tacitus' description of Galba, ignare Galba (1.39.2), "perhaps excuses him, even if it does refer to one of his faults."® This reveals a further aspect of the concepts absence and ignorance. If one does not participate in or is not aware of an action, one is removed from the blame.? Because Vespasian does not know of or advocate Primus' tactics, which consist primarily

®Develin, 88. ?C.A. Powell "Deum ira, hominum rabies." Latomus 31 (1972) 833-48: Tacitus and Plutarch make the irrational uprisings of the soldiers the main reason for the civil wars. This reason probably originates in the common source, which tried to shift the responsibility away from Vespasian. 223

of civil bloodshed and plunder, he is somewhat distanced from the responsibility and blame.® We will see later Vespasian's wisdom in realizing that Primus, while indispensable in war, could not play a major role in the peace following his victory. Vespasian thus embodies two factors of the self- other concept: knowledge and the ability to fulfill his role as leader. In addition, he has appropriate supporters working on his behalf. Vespasian's predecessors tended to choose and favor advisors and generals unworthy of their station. Galba's choice of Laco as praetorian prefect or Otho's dependence on Proculus illustrates this. Vespasian, on the other hand, generally appoints men who merit their position. Tacitus notes that many appointees, although not all, are elevated to positions of honor for their outstanding reputations :

multos praefecturis et procurationibus, plerosgue senatorii ordinis honore percoluit, eareoios viros et mox summa adeptos; quibusdam fortuna pro virtutibus fuit (2.82.2).

For instance, he sends Virdius Geminus to subdue Anicetus because of Geminus' esteemed military experience: ®I am not suggesting that Vespasian shares no responsibility for the civil war, but that he is somewhat excused from the atrocious crimes committed by Primus. 224

fldventit ea,..res-y.espagiani ,animmn-»t vexillariog e leaionibus ducemaue Vlrdlum Gemlnum spectatae militiae dellaeret (3.48.1). He also employs Petllius Cerialis among his generals because of his illustrious military career: nec iose inalorius militiae. eoaue inter duces adsumptus est (3.59.2).^ Of greater significance, Vespasian accepts the assistance of two men, Licinius Mucianus and Antonius Primus. Each in his own way is crucial to Vespasian's cause. Mucianus is an eloquent speaker and statesman and furthermore works on behalf of Vespasian. Antonius Primus proves a proficient military leader. Neither is without serious faults, but their contribution to Vespasian's success is immeasurable. Also included among Vespasian's "significant others" is a successor. Here too Vespasian offers someone suitable for this role in his son Titus. Tacitus introduces Mucianus as a man of mixed character, exhibiting both positive and negative traits:

luxuria industria, comitate adrogantia, malis bonisque artibus mixtus: nimiae voluptates.

^Cf. the description of Gallus and Cerialis 4.68.1: egregii ducee; K. Wellesley, ed. Cornelius Tacitus. The Histories Book III (Sydney, 1972) 157: Tacitus has a favorable opinion of Cerialis because of the letter's positive relations with Agricole while governing Britain (Aar. 8.2), but in Hist. 4 and 5 Tacitus treats Cerialis "with mingled praise and criticism." 225 cum vaceret; quotlens expedierat, magnae virtutes (1.10.2). ®

Above all Mucianus is a persuasive speaker and skilled statesman: aotior sermone. disoositu provisuaue civilium rerum peritus (2.5.1). So persuasive is Mucianus that he is able to persuade Vespasian himself to seek the principate (2.76f.). This trait in Mucianus is essential, for it is something Vespasian lacks. Hence Mucianus complements Vespasian who is more noted for his military skills.R. Syme argues:

The role of second man to a monarch calls for skill on both sides, and it may depend upon complementary qualities, as Agrippa to Augustus, Mucianus to Vespasian.

Tacitus in fact comments that the combined personalities of Vespasian and Mucianus without their vices would have produced an outstanding disposition for an emperor: egreaium princioatus temoeramentum. si demptis utriusoue vitiis solae virtutes miscerentur (2.5.1). While Otho with his temerity rejected the assistance of his complement, the cunctator Suetonius Paulinus, Vespasian wisely accepts Mucianus' support. Mucianus, for example, ^®Syme Tacitus. 195-6; Syme "The march of Mucianus," Antichton 11 (1977) 89f.: Mucianus is a Sallustian figure whose character is ambiguous; Courbaud, 173-5. l^Daitz, 49. ^^Syme Tacitus. 231. 226

is instrumental in uniting the troops in sworn loyalty to Vespasian:

namque id ipsum opperiens Mucianus alacrem militem in verba Vespasiani adegit. . . . concurrentes et in adulationem effusos adloquitur, satis decorus etiam Graeca facundia, omniumgue quae diceret atque ageret arte quadam ostentator (2.80.2).

As a supporter, Mucianus does resemble Vespasian in certain respects. However, unlike the subordinates of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, who embody similar failings as their emperor, Mucianus shares with Vespasian a positive trait. Like Vespasian, Mucianus possesses a degree of knowledge about himself and the situation at hand. For example, Mucianus realizes the importance of money for a victorious campaign: sed nihil aeaue fatiqabat auam oecuniarum conauisitio: eos esse belli civilis nervos dictitans Mucianus^ . ... (2.84.1).^^ More importantly, Mucianus knows his appropriate role in Vespasian's cause. Tacitus gives him a speech in which he makes a very perceptive comment about a prospective emperor's choice of advisors:

"simul ipse qui suadet considerandus est, adiciatne consilio periculum suum, et, si fortuna coeptis adfuerit, cui summum decus adquiratur" (2.76.1). i^cf. 2.83.1: gnarus-modigas vires eibi et majora orodi. de abeentibue. 227

Mucianus makes two Important points. First Mucianus expresses the idea that an advisor should be willing to risk his own life for the sake of his leader: adiciatne consilio periculum suum. He should commit himself to the cause and endeavor only on behalf of its success. Second, Mucianus claims that one should take into consideration who will receive the highest honor: cui summum decus adauiratur. The greatest glory should of course belong to the emperor, and therefore his advisor should place concern for his own glory after his leader's; he should exhibit obseguium toward his emperor. In both instances the advantage of the one who claims the title of princeps should be the chief priority for anyone beneath him. Advisors such as Vinius, Laco, and Icelus for Galba, Titianus and Proculus for Otho, and Caecina and Valens for Vitellius fail in both these qualities and thus prove ruinous to their emperors. Mucianus, however, asserts that he is this type of advisor. He does not pose a threat as a rival and places Vespasian above himself: "ne tamen Mucianum socium spreveris. auia flemalum ngn experirisi me Vitellio antepono, te mihi"

(2.77.1). He VOWS that he will endure the same dangers as Vespasian, and will only take the glory that Vespasian grants him: 228

"ceterum inter nos non idem prosperarum adversarumque rerum ordo erit; nam si vincimus, honorem, quem dederis, habebo: discrimen ac pericula ex aequo patiemur" (2.77.2).

Tacitus in fact comments at the beginning of the Histories that Mucianus, although quite powerful himself, chooses to pass on the imperium to another rather than seize it for himself:

sed apud subiectos, apud proximos, apud collegas variis inlecebris potens, et cui expeditius fuerit tradere imperium quam obtinere (1.10.2).

Thus, like Vespasian, Mucianus knows himself and his appropriate role. He is perceptive enough to realize that not he but another should rule the Empire, and that it is to his advantage to support another. His deference in turn is to Vespasian's advantage. Some might argue that Mucianus is not as unselfish as he professes,1* and Tacitus offers proof of this in his Histories. He remarks that with the ascent of the likes of Mucianus and Marcellus the state experiences different men rather than different morals:

magna et misera civitas, eodem anno Othonem, Vitellium passa, inter Vinios Fabios, Icelos l^Mucianus is not, as We-lesley Histories Book III. 4, 15 calls him, the "villain." 229 Asiatlcos varia et pudenda sorte agebat, donee successere Mucianus et Marcellus et magis alii homines quam alii mores (2.95.3).

Indeed, he succumbs to failings similar to those of the advisors of the other three emperors. Mucianus displays greed, a trait shared by Vespasian. He exhibits a great willingness to spend his own money on Vespasian's cause, but Tacitus adds that the real reason for his generosity lies in a desire to milk the state later on: propriis qu

caedem eius laetam fuisse Muciano accepimus. ferebant plerique etiam paci consultum dirempta aemulatione inter duos, quorum alter se fratrem imperatoris, alter consortem imperii cogitaret (3.75.2).

Mucianus, however, strives most eagerly to forestall the rapid successes of Antonius Primus. According to Tacitus, he writes Antonius a letter warning him to delay fighting in order to avoid much bloodshed but really with a view to hoarding the glory for himself:

eadem Mucianus crebris epistulis monebat, incruentam et sine luctu victoriam et alia 230 huiusce modi praetexendo, sed gloriae avidus atque omne belli decus sibi retinens (3.8.3).

After Cremona Mucianus again writes to Primus and Varus to try to delay their arrival into Rome:

namque Mucianus tam celeri victoria anxius, et ni praesens Vrbe potiretur, expertem se belli gloriaeque ratus, ad Primum et Varum media scriptitabat, instandum coeptis aut rursus cunctandi utilitates disserens atque ita compositus, ut ex eventu rerum adverse abnueret vel prospéra agnosceret (3.52.2).

He even tries to turn Vespasian against Primus (3.52.3) 15 The rivalry between Mucianus and Antonius Primus continues in Rome after the civil war has ended, for Mucianus fears Primus has too much popularity.^® Eventually Mucianus succeeds in weakening Antonius' power by removing his most supportive troops (4.39.4). In Vespasian's absence, Mucianus thus wields the most force in Rome. Although Domitian's name heads the edicts, Mucianus is in control: eius nomen epistulis edictisaue oraeponebatur. vis penes Mucianum erat . . . (4.39.2). He continues to exert control over Domitian.

Cf. 3.53.3: nec fefellere ea Mucianum; inde graves simultates, gwas AntoniuB.. eoaue imolacabilius nutriebat. ^®cf. 4.39.3: sed praeciDWwe Muçiano metus— e-Primo. Antonio Varoaue Arrio. ouos recentes clarosaue rerum fama ac militum studiis etiam p o p u Iu s fovebat. auia in neminem Ultra agiem saevierant. 231

Mucianus assumes the power of the princeps without also assuming the title:

ille unus ambiri, coli. nec deerat ipse, stipatus armatis, domes hortosque permutans, apparatu incessu excubiis vim principis amplecti, nomen remittere (4.11.1).

Vespasian, at the outset of his campaign evaluates his relationship with Mucianus: Muciani animus nec Vespasiano alienus (2.74.1). Mucianus is not adverse (alieims) to Vespasian, but Tacitus' use of the negative perhaps suggests that Mucianus is not completely in Vespasian's power (suus) either. In fact Tacitus states that Mucianus acts more as an ally, a partner, than an attendant: Mucianus . . . socium maais imperii auam ministrum aaens (2.83.1), thus implying that Mucianus does not perceive himself completely beneath Vespasian's command. Nevertheless, despite Mucianus' rivalry with Antonius and greed for wealth and power, he does not try to undermine Vespasian, but works on his behalf. Mucianus and Vespasian begin as competitors, but put aside their rivalry and strive toward one goal: vicinis provinciarum administrationibus invidia discordes, exitu dsmvun-lfergnis positis odiie in. ,medium.„g.QnajalMere 17cf. 3.75.2: alter (Mucianus) consortem imperii s.o.gijfear.gt. 232

(2.5.2).^® Throughout Vespasian's campaign, Mucianus is portrayed as working toward Vespasian's success. He is instrumental in organizing the preparations as he unites the troops and sees to the financing (2.80-84). He leads an army that, although intended to confront the Vitellianists, controls an uprising in Moesia by the Dacians who take advantage of the absence of Primus' troops (3.46).l* Furthermore, once in Rome he continues to establish order in Vespasian's absence:

tali rerum statu, cum discordia inter patres, ira apud victos, nulla in victoribus auctoritas, non leges, non princeps in civitate essent, Mucianus Vrbem ingressus cuncta simul in se traxit (4.11.1).^

His attempts to thwart Primus, though springing from selfish motives, are nonetheless to Vespasian's advantage, for Primus has acted without Vespasian's

B.W. Jones, 35: this rivalry may be due to the fact that in the winter of A.D. 66/67 Vespasian was put in command of the entire region including Syria until Mucianus' appointment over Syria in Aug./Sept. A.D. 67. disagree with Wellesley Histories Book III. 15: "Tacitus blurs the whole story of the invasions, because to have narrated it fully would have forced him to recognize the value of Mucianus' services to Rome." ^®Syme "The march of Mucianus," 89-90; cf. Mucianus' successful handling of the Vitellianist and Flavianist soldiers rivalling for the praetorian guard (4.46); P.M. Rogers "Titus, Berenice, and Mucianus," Historia 29 (1980) 87f. argues that Mucianus' power in Rome does not preclude subordination to Vespasian. 233

consent and hopes to wield excessive power in Rome. Vespasian, as we shall see, is also of the same opinion concerning Primus. Moreover, Mucianus shows his concern for Vespasian's success by trying to curb Domitian who has alligned himself with Primus (4.80) and whose misdemeanors are becoming increasingly troublesome (4.2.1, 68.1). Thus Mucianus does not vie with his emperor Vespasian. Nor does he appear to rival Vespasian's

successor, T i t u s . Tacitus claims that he is even closer to Titus than to Vespasian: Muciani animus nec Vesoasiano alienus et in Titum pronior (2.74.1). Mucianus himself asserts that were he princeps he would adopt Titus as his heir: "absurdum fuerit non cedere imperio ei. cuius filium adoptaturus essem^ si iPse imperarem" (2.77.1). Unfortunately, we do not know how Tacitus portrays Mucianus and his relations with Titus and Vespasian after Vespasian's return to Rome. The other sources, Suetonius and Dio, do not present any rivalry between Mucianus and Titus. In the surviving books of the Histories Mucianus appears as one who, like Otho, is ambitious for his own advancement. Yet, unlike ^^The rivalry between Mucianus and Titus has been proposed by J. Crook "Titus and Berenice," AJP 72 (1951) 162-75; It has been refuted by B.W. Jones, 87f.; K.H. Waters "The second dynasty of Rome," Phoenix 17 (1963) 212; P.M. Rogers, 86-95. 234

Otho and his relations with Galba, Mucianus knows his place as closest advisor and not potential successor or emperor. P.M. Rogers asserts: "Nothing compels us to doubt the loyalty of Mucianus . . . Antonius Primus is the other important leader for Vespasian's party. Like Mucianus, he combines positive and negative qualities. Tacitus' portrayal is not, as

some have a r g u e d ,^3 entirely negative following the Flavian tradition. Rather, Tacitus appreciates Antonius' contribution to Vespasian's cause^*: labantibus Vitellii rebus Vesoasianum secutus grande momentum addidit (2.86.2). Antonius Primus embodies one quality essential to the success of Vespasian's campaign: auctoritas. Antonius possesses leadership abilities. He has a command of the troops, which any leader must have in order to win and which so many generals and even emperors in the Histories lack.^S First of all, Antonius Primus

22p.M. Rogers, 89. ^^T.A. Dorey "Tacitus' treatment of Antonius Primus," QE 53 (1958) 244. 2*0.0.A. Shotter "Tacitus and Antonius Primus," LCM 2 (1977) 23-7; However, Primus is not completely "the hero of Histories iii," a view presented by Wellesley, Histories Book III, 3f. 2®Mason, 31: "Indeed, the virtual necessity of a leader for effective action by soldiery under most circumstances is thematic in Histories 1-3." (cf. 1.8, 3.18, 3.22, 3.25, 3.55). 235

is a persuasive speaker; sermone promptus (2.86.2). He is able to convince the Flavianists to wage war immediately and under his leadership alone:

haec ac talia flagrans oculis, truci voce, quo latius audiretur . . . ita effudit, ut cautos quoque ac provides permoveret, vulgus et ceteri unum virum ducemque, spreta aliorum segnitia, laudibus ferrent (3.3).

His manner of speaking frankly endears him to the soldiers who believe him loyal and committed to the cause:

hanc sui famam ea statim contione commoverat, qua recitatis Vespasiani epistulis non ut plerique incerta disseruit, hue illuc tracturus interpretationem, prout conduxisset: aperte descendisse in causam videbatur, eoque gravier militibus erat culpae vel gloriae socius (3.3).

He understands the nature of his army and can control them.26

Antonius Primus is one of the few men described in the Histories whom the soldiers obey. When the soldiers mutiny against Tampius Flavianus, only Antonius Primus can return them to order:

obturbatur militum vocibus Aponius, cum loqui coeptaret, fremitu et clamore ceteros aspernantur. uni Antonio apertae militum

26shotter, 24-5 who cites Hist. 3.2, 20, 24. 236 aures; namque et facundia aderat mulcendique vulgum artes et auctoritas (3.10.3).

When further sedition arises amidst his own troops who want to attack Cremona at night, Antonius is able to command their attention although not complete obedience: turn Antonius inserens se manipulis. ubi asDectiL_et auctoritate silentium fecerat. (3.20.1). It is in battle, however, where he proves his competence as a general. Like Vespasian, Primus is able to fulfill the roles of officer and soldier. He makes himself visible in order to instill valor in his own men and fear in the enemy:

nullum in ilia trepidatione Antonius constantis ducis aut fortissimi militis officium omisit. occursare paventibus, retinere cedentes, ubi plurimus labor, unde aliqua spes, consilio manu voce insignis hosti, conspicuus suis (3.17.1).

During the night battle near Cremona, the courage of the soldiers is renewed when at dawn they recognize Antonius Primus, who thereupon incites each of his troops to victory:

igitur Antonius, ubi noscere suos noscique poterat, alios pudore et probris, multos laude et hortatu, omnes spe promissisque accendens, . . . (3.24.1). 237

E. Courbaud cites three passages that prove Tacitus' skill as a military historian (3.1-14, 15-20, 21) . It is no coincidence that these passages describe Antonius Primus in battle. By providing details about the battle scenes Tacitus is best able to portray Antonius' character as an excellent general. Antonius Primus possesses knowledge of military affairs, of his role as leader, of the role of soldiers, and of the nature of his foe. He understands the importance of his presence and of choosing between delay and speed as dependent upon the situation. All this is apparent when he tries to dissuade his men from staging a night attack on Cremona:

non se decus neque pretium eripere tam bene meritis adfirmabat, sed divisa inter exercitum ducesgue munia: militibus cupidinem pugnandi convenire, duces providendo consultando, cunctatione saepius quam temeritate prodesse. ut pro virili portions armis ac manu victoriam iuverit, rations et consilio, propriis ducibus artibus, profuturum; neque enim ambigua esse, quae occurrant, noctem et ignotae situm urbis, intus hostes et cuncta insidiis opportuna (3.20.If.).

Without the auctoritas of Antonius Primus, the Flavianist army and therefore Vespasian, could not have defeated the Vitellian forces so swiftly.^® 2?courbaud, lOlf. ^®0tho, who has a reputation for rejecting outstanding commanders, likewise rejects Antonius' offers, 2.86.2: oraspositus a Galba seotimae leaioni scriptitasse Othoni credebatur. ducem se partibus 238

Antonius Primus, however, does pose a serious threat to the stability of Vespasian's cause. First of all, Antonius moves rapidly into battle without the permission or even knowledge of Vespasian, whose plan entails a slow advance and famine in Rome: quae ignara Vesoasiano aut vetita (3.8.2). Tacitus characterizes Antonius as an instigator: is acerrimus belli concitor (3.2.1). He is clever, opportunistic, greedy, and excels best in times of turmoil:

strenuus manu, sermone promptus, serendae in alios invidiae artifex, discordiis et seditionibus potens, raptor largitor, pace pessimus, bello non spernendus (2.86.2).^^

Of even greater significance and danger for Vespasian, Antonius is hungry for power and glory. He desires power for himself alone, and in his self-interest he resembles the previous emperors' advisors such as Vinius, Laco, and Caecina. For example, due to an uprising in the army (3.11), the two consular generals have to be removed. With their departure, Antonius is left in charge of two legions, and Tacitus adds that according to some sources offerens; a quo neolectus in nullo Othoniani belli usu fuit. ^^Daitz, 42 calls this "one of the most brilliant characterizations of Tacitus"; N.P. Miller "Virgil and Tacitus," £YS 1 (1961-2) 32 : seditionibus potens echoes the description of Drances Aen. 11.340 seditions potens. 239

he started the rebellions himself in order to save for himself alone the fruits of battle:

digressu consularium uni Antonio vis ac potestas in utrumgue exercitum fuit, cedentibus collegis et obversis militum studiis. nec deerant qui crederent utramgue seditionem fraude Antonii coeptam, ut solus bello frueretur (3.11.4).

The sack of Cremona, for which Primus, according to Tacitus, could very probably have born the responsibility (3.28), reveals his thirst for blood and booty and brings invidia upon him.3° Afterward Antonius treats Italy as though it were conquered land, and he prepares a path of power for himself in his every word and deed: ut captam l-taliam p-graalfcagSi .ut saas. legiones çQl9r&j.. omnibwe

Cf. 3.26.3-27.1: omnisaue caedes et vulnera et sanguis aviditate oraedae oensabantur. hue inclinavit AntgniuB .ginqique Yallum-ggrgna iuesit; also 3.32.3. 240

presents the contents of the letter in indirect discourse, and the repetition of the reflexive pronoun se or adjective suus is remarkable:

se Pannonicas legiones in arma egisse, suis stimulis excitos Moesiae duces, see constantia perruptas Alpes, occupatam Italiam, intersaepta Germanorum Raetorumque auxilia. quod discordes dispersasque Vitellii legiones equestri procella, mox peditum vi per diem noctemque fudisset, id pulCherrimum et sui operis. . . . non sa nuntiis neque epistulis, sed manu et armis imperatori suo militare, . . . illis Moesiae pacem, sibi salutem securitatemque Italiae cordi fuisse; suis exhortationibus Gallias Hispaniasque, validissimam terrarum partem, ad Vespasianum conversas (3.53.if).

This passage clearly illustrates that, although his actions are presumably in Vespasian's cause, Antonius Primus thinks primarily of himself and not of his chosen emperor, Vespasian; he is not accustomed to obedience to his superior; obseauii insolens (3.53.1). Antonius' hunger for power continues after the civil war has ended and before Vespasian arrives in Rome.^^ He treats the imperial house as if it were the spoils of war: summa potentiae in Primo Antonio, is pecuniam familiamaue e pgingipig-dojBg..guasi Cremonengem praedam rapere (4 .2.1). While the self-interest among the subordinates of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius ruined these principates, this 31cf. 4.39.3: et ferebatur Antonius Scribonianum Craggum, egregiig.maioribug gfe.fratgrna imagine £alg.entam,-.ad capaggendam rem-pablicam.hQrtatag. 241

is not allowed to happen under Vespasian. Antonias expects to be richly rewarded by Vespasian for his services. After all he did win the war. He is sadly disappointed, however: profectus ad Vespasianum Antonias

non pro spe swa excip-ltHr-.— ....t.,. (4.80.2). Vespasian exhibits sound sense in his treatment of Antonias, for although he recognizes Antonias' great service to him, he does not fully admit him into his confidence. Vespasian not only hears reports of Antonias' conceit and vices, but he also experiences them first hand:

trahebatur in diversa, hinc meritis Antonii, cuius ductu confectum haud dubie bellum erat, inde Huciani epistulis; simul ceteri ut infestum tumidumgue insectabantur, adiunctis prioris vitae criminibus. negue ipse deerat adrogantia provocare offensas, nimius commemorandis guae meruisset (4.80.2-3).

Vespasian realizes that someone like Antonias may be indispensable in war, but will prove detrimental in times of peace. Conseguently, Vespasian treats him civilly but not warmly: unde paulatim levior vilioraue haberi. manente tamen in speciem amicitia (4.80.3). Tacitus concludes, after describing the carnage and plunder that takes place after the fall of Vitellius, that amidst civil turmoil the worst people prevail, but men such as these are unable to complete peace and better men are reguired: 242

duces partium accendendo clvlll bello acres, temperandae victorias impares, quippe inter turbas et discordias pessimo cuique plurima vis, pax et quies bonis artibus indigent (4.1.3).

O.C.A. Shotter remarks: "In Antonius Primus the Flavians

had precisely the man they needed."^2 Antonius' proper place is in battle and not in times of peace: pace pessimus. bello non spernendus (2.86.2). It is as if his proper role is to finish the civil wars for Vespasian. Afterwards, however, in order to effect peace, he must be removed, for he is an instigator whose self-interest undermines any loyalty to Vespasian. It is to Vespasian's credit in the Histories that he can see Antonius accurately and not fall into the trap of previous emperors who placed their trust in men like Antonius who were often ill-suited to receive it. Vespasian has two appropriate allies in Mucianus and Antonius Primus, who, although not exemplary, are complementary to his needs in warfare and crucial to his victory. Vespasian also has an appropriate successor in

^^Shotter, 24. ^^Shotter, 25-6 notes his decline in effectiveness among his troops after Cremona; His behavior also deteriorates, 3.49.1: primttS-AntQuiwg Jisquaqwam pari inno-gentia.. po8.t-gr.emanam. agebat, gatlg-fastmiLbellq-ratus gt-.getgra..ex gacili,.. gew f.eligitag. .in tali inqenio avacitiam. gqperbiam geteraque ocGWlta mala patefecit.. 243

his son Titus. Tacitus presents Titus quite favorably: auantaecumaue fortunae caoax. decor oris cum auadam maiestate (2.1.2). As successor Titus stands for Vespasian himself. When Galba comes into power, Vespasian sends Titus as a representative to pay his respects: Titus Vesoasianus. e ludaea incolumi adhuc gfllba miggwB a patre, causam profectionie officium ar.qa princioem . . . ferebat (2.1.1). Once Vespasian becomes emperor, he assigns Titus his own former task of finishing the war with Judaea: iaitur validissimam exarcituB partem.Tito tradit ad reiigua ludaibi belli perpetranda (4.51.2). Titus even resembles Vespasian in certain respects. Piso resembled Galba in his distance from and ignorance of the military. Titus, however, is similar to Vespasian as a military leader in that he is visible at the head of his soldiers yet is also willing to mingle with them and fight alongside them when necessary:

atque ipse, ut super fortunam crederetur, decorum se promptumque in armis ostendebat, comitate et adloquiis officia provocans ac plerumque in opere, in agmine gregario militi mixtus, incorrupto ducis honore (5.1.1).

Titus, however, is even more suitable than Vespasian, for unlike his father he is a persuasive speaker. He is able to convince Vespasian and even the eloquent Mucianus to 244

put aside their animosity: Titqs orava certamina communi utilitate aboleverat. natura ataue arte compositus. adliciendis etiam Muciani moribus (2.5.2).3* His speech to Vespasian in which he advises his father to temper his anger toward Domitian pleases the emperor: Vesoasianus. haud aeaue Domitiano mitiaatus. auam__Titi_pl&tate qaudens. . . . (4.52.2). Titus thus embodies two complementary traits necessary for an emperor, the diplomacy of Mucianus^s and the military prowess of Vespasian. Nevertheless, Titus is not completely void of faults: laetam voluotatibus adulescentiam eait (2.2.1) and i p & i Tito Roma et ones voluotatesaue ante oculos (5.11.2).^^ Yet like Vespasian he too improves as emperor: suo quam patrie imperio moderatior (2.2 .1). Vespasian has thus surrounded himself with "significant others" who actually benefit his cause and aid substantially in his victory. His predecessors employed men who did not fulfill their roles.

3*Cf. his role as mediator, 2.79: Syria remeans et çoneiligram-interi Magianum a<2_Batr@ii_iiHntius. ^^B.W. Jones, 94 notes the similarity between Mucianus and Titus. ^^Tacitus may also have portrayed Titus as responsible for the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. T.D. Barnes "The fragments of Tacitus' Histories." 2E 72 (1977) 226-7: fr. 2 (Sulpicius Severus Chron. 2.30.6) and fr. 3 (Orosius 7.9.5-6) claim Titus is responsible and probably used Tacitus as their source. 245

Vespasian's subordinates fulfill the roles to which they have been assigned. Mucianus as advisor works on behalf of Vespanian and is instrumental in organizing and solidifying Vespasian's victory. Antonius Primus is one of the few men in the Histories who can consistently fulfill the role of general in the field and hence achieve military victory. Titus as successor is able to represent Vespasian in the letter's absence. Furthermore, as in the case of the other three emperors, Vespasian's subordinates both resemble their emperor and reveal his character, only in a positive sense. Vespasian is most noted for his knowledge. Mucianus, like Vespasian, possesses knowledge in that he realizes his proper role is as advisor and nothing more. The choice of Mucianus as an ally also reveals Vespasian's perceptiveness because he accepts the assistance of one who embodies a trait, diplomacy, which is lacking in himself. Antonius Primus, like Vespasian, has knowledge of and experience in military affairs. Titus also resembles Vespasian in his military prowess, yet is even more qualified for successor in his diplomacy. Unfortunately, Mucianus and Primus do display similar perversions of the self-other concept as did the assistants of the previous three emperors. Mucianus, like Vinius, Laco, Caecina, and Valens, is greedy. 246

Primus, also like these men, is marred by self-interest, which rejects obsequium to a superior. Furthermore, just as fierce rivalries plagued the reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, so does this occur under Vespasian, especially between Mucianus and Primus. While the former rivalries corroded the former principates, however, this is not allowed to happen under Vespasian, and his dealings with these problems further reveal his perceptiveness. The rivalry between Mucianus and Primus is eliminated, in part by Mucianus, who weakens Primus' influence in Rome, and more fully by Vespasian himself, who realizes Primus must remain out of the picture once war has ended. More importantly, the reason for Vespasian's success, despite the failings in these men, resides in Vespasian himself. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius lacked the authority to control the rivalries among their supporters. Vespasian's "significant others," however, are not allowed to exert too much control because he himself is in control. As Jones aptly says of Vespasian: "There is no hint in the ancient sources that anyone other than he was in charge.Thus Vespasian's subordinates reveal a man who has an understanding of who and what is needed both to achieve victory and then to

3?B.W. Jones, 88. 247

maintain peace, and who has the authority to accomplish these objectives. Vespasian thus has as sues a suitable advisor in Mucianus, general in Antonius Primus, and successor in Titus. He also has one other important advantage: the favor of the gods. Divine favor in this discussion can be placed under the category of one's "possessions." For instance, every family had its own household gods. Galba speaks of adopting Piso into his own penates: "et mihi eareaium erat Cn. Pomoei et M. Crassi subolem in oenates meos adsciscere" (1.15.1). R.T. Scott sees a religious tone pervading the Histories. A l t h o u g h Tacitus expresses some skepticism about the validity of portents and prophecies, the role of fate or divine will plays a part in his works.None of the three previous emperors in the Histories appears to have the gods' favor. Ominous portents thunder over Galba.*0 Furthermore, he sacrifices in vain to gods of a state already belonging to another, as if the gods themselves too now belong to another (1.29.1). otho rejects propitiating the gods

38scott, 45f. Walker, 244-57; Miller, "Tacitus' narrative technique," 14-5; Syme, Tacitus. 524 notes Tacitus' hostility toward astrologers (1.22.1) and his skepticism of portents (1.10.3 and 2.78.1). *°1.18.1, 27.1; Scott, 53f. 248

before leaving Rome (1.89.3), which neglect contributes to his downfall.41 At Bedriacum Vitellius sacrifices to the gods of the place unaware of his own impending doom (2.70.4).42 Vespasian, however, has the gods' approval; they favor his cause and therefore Rome is his. Scott argues for the religious significance of the fortune

Flaviana as divine will at w o r k . 43 This probably stems from the Flavian propaganda through which Vespasian attempted to show himself as divinely chosen for emperor.44 Tacitus includes a number of favorable omens

concerning V e s p a s i a n . 45 Vespasian receives a favorable portent in the tree that is rejuvenated on his property (2.78.2). Vespasian is told by a priest at Carmel that any endeavor of his will prove extremely profitable 41scott, 66f. 42cf. 2.91.1: aoud civitatem cuncta interoretantem fvnesti ominie l.Q.c.o...acgfiptmn-es.t«,-q[«od maximum pç>nti£lçatum..adeptm3 Vlt@lliu6_d9..c.a@cimonii8. pubiiçis_.XV Kalgndas..Aiifl^..edixisget, antiqwitue^infaueto die grgmsransi_Al1iansiqas-gladibaa; scott, 93. 43scott, 71f.;see also R. Lattimore "Portents and prophecies in connection with the emperor Vespasian," fil 29 (1934) 448; Miller "Tacitus' narrative technique," 16; Walker, 246: "The career of Vespasian is punctuated by omens which in a vague way mark him out as a man of destiny." (see Aar. 13 and Ann. 16.5). 44powell, 844f.; Lattimore "Portents and prophecies," 441; this fatalism also appears in Dio 66.12.1, Suetonius Vesp. 5 and 25, l ü a i a 9.1; syme Tacitus. 523-4: "The principate, like all things, was assigned by destiny." 45scott, 79f. 249

(2.78.3). Tacitus gives credence to an episode in which Vespasian supposedly cures a blind man and a cripple as if the gods show him favor: multa miracula evenere. auis caelestis favor et auaedam in Vespasianum_lnclinatio numinum ostenderetur (4.81.1), and a Jewish prophecy later reveals divine inclination toward Vespasian (5.13.2). Titus also has the favor of the gods. He receives an extremely favorable prophecy upon his visit to the temple of Paphian Venus in Syria (2.4.1f.). Vespasian at the end of the civil wars possesses the Roman Empire as gua. It belongs to him. When the priest at Carmel prophesies Vespasian's future success, he speaks of it in terms of property, land, a house, slaves:

"quidquid est" inquit, "Vespasiane, quod paras, seu domum exstruere seu prolatare agros sive ampliare servitia, datur tibi magna sedes, ingentes termini, multum hominum" (2.78.3).46

By contrast Umbricius predicted a domesticum hostem for Galba (1.27.1).47 Vespasian gives the war with Judaea to Titus and states that he will tend to things at home: sibi pacem domumoue curae fore (4.52.2). The word domum is significant. Although this term does not refer to an 46suetonius Vesp. 5.6 gives no mention of property in his description of this prophecy. 47suetonius Galba 19.1 and Plutarch Galba 24.2 again do not mention anything pertaining to a house. 250

actual house per se, it shows that Vespasian treats Italy as if it were his homeland, unlike other emperors and generals who plunder Italy like foreign territory,^® It is Vespasian and Mucianus who take care of the Empire by checking the external uprisings during the civil wars. Vespasian appoints Virdius Geminus to subdue Anicetus in Pontus: advertit ea res Vesnasiani animum. ut vexillarios e leaionibus ducemaue Virdium Geminum spectatae militiae deligeret (3.48.1). Mucianus rescues Dacia:

iamque castra legionum excindere parabant, ni Mucianus sextam legionem opposuisset, Cremonensis victorias gnarus, ac ne externa moles utrimgue ingrueret, si Dacus Germanusque diversi inrupissent (3.46.2).

Vespasian treats the Empire as his own possession, and therefore he strives to preserve it and not plunder it. Vespasian thus has achieved the principate as his own possession. He also has assumed it as his own role. The role of emperor is different from any other in the Empire. Consequently, the person who assumes this role must himself act differently than before. K. Wellesley states :

Cf. 4.51.2: Vesoasianus.in Italiam resaue Vrbis intentus; 4.3.4: ceterum.ut.orinceos loauebatur. civilia de se, et rei publigae egreqia. 251 Tacitus inclines towards a static view of human personality, . . . the tendency of success is to reveal the worst in a man's character. ’

Vespasian's three predecessors, once each became emperor, acted differently than before their elevation. The proof that they were not suited to the position is found in the fact that in general they acted worse. Galba seemed capable of ruling until he ruled: capax imperii, nisi imoerasset (1.49.4). Otho seemed to act more moderately, but Tacitus implies his actions are superficial:

Otho interim contra spem omnium non deliciis neque desidia torpescere: dilatae voluptates, dissimulata luxuria et cuncta ad decorem imperii composite, eogue plus formidinis adferebant falsae virtutes et vitia reditura (1.71.1).

vitellius seemed a better choice than Vespasian, to judge from their proconsular performances, but the opposite emerges as true:

quippe integrum illic ac favorabilem proconsu1atum Vitellius, famosum invisumque Vespasianus egerat: proinde socii de imperio utriusque coniectabant, sed experimentum contra fuit (2.97.2).

*9wellesley Histories Book III. 145.

5°cf. 2.11.3: n e s - i m . @@gn@ aut Gorruptum. luxu iter., ggd lorica [email protected] ante, signa pedes..ire,. Aorcidua incQmp-tus _fama@qu@_dissimilis ■ 252

All three had reputations as effective governors or military leaders, but this did not guarantee their proficiency as emperors. Of Vespasian alone does Tacitus assert that he improved once he became emperor: si. ambiqua de .Vespagiang fama. solusaug omnium anfce s.g principum in melius mutatus est (1.50.4). He fits the role; that is his appropriate place. The same is true for Titus who likewise improves upon his accession: suo

Quam.patrie imperio moderatior 2 (. 2 . 1 ). One can not finish a discussion of the Flavians without a word about Domitian. Domitian belongs to the former group of emperors whose behavior worsens upon ascension. Tacitus' antipathy toward Domitian is well k n o w n . Domitian's clandestine escape from the burning Capitol (3.74.1) is only the beginning of the treachery that issues from his reign. While we do not possess Tacitus' account of Domitian's reign, already in these first four books we see that Domitian does not embody the same positive traits as Vespasian and Titus. In fact he represents some perversions of the self-other concept shared by Vespasian's predecessors.

ÀaCi. 39-43; K. von Fritz "Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the problem of the principate," ££ 52 (1957) 73-8; K.H. Waters "The character of Domitian," Phoenix 18 (1964) 49-77; Syme Tacitus. 24f., 210-1; Martin, 46f. 253

First of all, Domitian succumbs to a bitter rivalry

with his brother T i t u s . ^2 when he and Mucianus set out to subdue the Batavian revolt, Domitian is dissuaded by Mucianus from taking charge in any military fashion. Consequently, Domitian apparently sends dispatches to Cerialis to win his support, either, as Tacitus proposes, to instigate war against his father or against his brother: qua coaitatione bellum adversus patrem aaitaverit an ooes viresaue adversus fratrem. in incerto fuit (4.86.1).53 When this fails, Domitian retreats from any imperial administration, in order to conceal his true nature and to avoid the rivalry of his brother whose character Domitian misinterprets:

Domitianus sperni a senioribus iuventam suam cernens modica quoque et usurpata antea munia imperii omittebat, simplicitatis ac modestiae imagine in altitudinem conditus studiumque litterarum et amorem carminum simulans, quo velaret animum et fratris aemulationi subduceret, cuius disparem mitioremque naturam contra interpretabatur (4.86.2).

This passage about Domitian's fear of his brother's rivalry reveals his own ignorance, for unlike his father, Domitian does not accurately perceive those around him.

52b .W. Jones, 118. 53gee Waters "The character of Domitian," 56f. for the improbability of this. 254

Titus is not, as Domitian believes, hostile to him. In fact, Titus shows some brotherly concern for Domitian when he entreats Vespasian not to take too seriously the rumors about Domitian nor be too harsh on him:

Titum, . . . multo apud patrem sermone orasse ferunt, ne criminantium nuntiis temere accenderetur integrumque se ac placabilem filio praestaret (4.52.1).

Domitian's attempt to gather a military force against his father or brother reveals a perversion of roles, for he tries to incite treachery against his own family. Furthermore, in Rome he behaves insolently in his father's absence, abusing his new role as the son of an emperor: nom9n_sademqw@ Caesaris Domitianua_acçep@rat, nondum ad..gucas..intentu&,[email protected]@ adulteriiis filium principle aaebat (4.2.1).5* Mucianus tries to control Domitian, who nevertheless commits outrageous acts:

eius (Domitiani) nomen epistulis edictisque praeponebatur, vis penes Mucianum erat, nisi quod pleraque Domitianus instigantibus amicis aut propria libidine audebat (4.39.2).

Mucianus, wishing to embark on the campaign against the Batavians, is nevertheless fearful of leaving Rome S^waters, "The character of Domitian," 59f. calls these and the following generalizations "lacking in support from concrete evidence." 255

without a ruler and is especially afraid of Domitianus wantonness: nec relinauenda Vrbs sine rectore; et Domitiani indoroitae libidines timebantur (4.68.1). Eventually, Vespasian hears of Domitian's misconduct:

Vespasianus in Italiam resgue Vrbis intentus adversam de Domitiano famam accipit, tamquam terminos aetatis et concessa filio egrederetur (4.51.2).

Domitian thus transgresses the appropriate limits for the young son of an emperor. He does not recognize his proper place, but desires more than is his proper due and that which belongs to others, including his father. Mucianus' concern about Domitian targets not only the young man's misconduct but his associates as well: instigantibus amicis (4.39.2). He tries to thwart Domitian's friendships with Varus: Domitiani animum Varo haud alienum (4.68.2), and with Antonius Primus:

negue Antonium Primum adsciri inter comites a Domitiano passus est, favore militum anxius et superbia viri aegualium guogue, adeo superiorum intolerantis (4.80.1).

Mucianus has Domitian removed from the military campaign because the latter might hinder operations either due to his own rash youth or due to evil instigators:

simul Domitianus Mucianusgue accingebantur, dispari animo, ille spe ac iuventa properus, hie moras nectens, guis flagrantem retineret. 256 ne ferocia aetatis et pravis impulsoribus, si exercitum invasisset, paci belloque maie consuleret (4.68.3).

Hence Domitian in these early books before his reign shows signs of surrounding himself with the wrong type of associates. His ties with Primus, a man deemed unworthy of friendship by his father Vespasian and one who will not endure a superior fviri aeaualium auoaue. adeo superiorum intolerantis). show his folly. Domitianus "significant others" are similar to those of the other three emperors, actually "other." Domitianus character is thus developed in these first four books of the Histories as one that is already susceptible to the perversions of the self-other concept. He is plagued by rivalry, he wants to possess too much power, and he does not fulfill his proper roles. Moreover he does not surround himself with appropriate allies. Domitian is unknowing of others. On the other hand, his secrecy and dissimulation render him unknown to others: et ianotis adhuc moribus crebra oris confusio pro modestia accioiebatur (4.40.1). This unfamiliarity distances him from others, and will only lead to further alienation. When Vespasian hears rumors of Domitianus misconduct in Rome Titus expounds on the importance of an emperor's family. The bond between a man and his friends is not 257

permanent and unbreakable. For one reason or another friends may abandon you. One's family, however, remains throughout prosperity as well as adversity:

non legiones, non classes proinde firma imperii munimenta quam numerum liberorum; nam amicos tempore fortune, cupidinibus aliquando aut erroribus imminui transferri desinere: suum cuique sanguinem indiscretum, sed maxime principibus, quorum prosperis et alii fruantur, adverse ad iunctissimos pertineant (4.52.1).

I have argued that one of the reasons why Vespasian is able to keep the title he has won is that he takes care of the principate as his own property. This treatment of the Empire as one's own possession, however, also proves to be one of the failings of the system. For property is handed down to one's heirs and therefore someone like Domitian can inherit the Empire. This failing was a recognized concern during the Empire. According to Tacitus Galba, by adopting Piso, tried in vain to remedy this defect (1.15). Years later Nerva succeeded in his choice of Trajan. The possibility for someone like Domitian, who embodies perversions of the self-other concept, to rise to power perhaps also springs from the fact that the principate itself represents a perversion of self and other. The man who becomes orinceps controls all others and all things within the Roman world. He endures no 258

rival. He fulfills a role that requires obsequium to none and one that assumes the powers which once belonged to other official roles. These traits constitute a perversion of possession, emulation, and role. E. Keitel claims that for Tacitus the principate represents a continuation of civil war, especially under such tyrants as Tiberius and Nero.®® The internal strife under the principate, where the emperor wars upon his subjects and Roman nobles strive to ruin one another in treason trials, is akin to the self-destruction of the civil wars that produced the principate itself. Just emperors would tend to mitigate this perversion, the more tyrannical, like Domitian who insisted on the title Dominus et Deus. to enhance it. The principate embodies a sense of "otherness" within itself, for it involves acquiring as its own that which once belonged to others. While Vespasian as princeps is able to return peace to the Empire, the fact that the principate itself is to some extent a perversion of the self-other concept provides the opportunity for further perversions in someone like Domitian. Despite the future threat of Domitian in the Histories. it is still possible to conclude that for Tacitus the proper balance between self and other returns ®®Keitel "Principate and civil war," 312f. 259

to the Roman world with Vespasian. The historian presents Vespasian and his faction as largely embodying the positive side of the four factors of the self-other concept. Vespasian has the necessary knowledge. He knows himself, the people who surround him, and the state of his own affairs. He possesses a great deal: resources and experience sufficient for his undertaking, military support, and divine favor. Moreover, he has "significant others" who are actually his and who fulfill their roles. Mucianus as statesman complements him. Antonius Primus has authority as a military commander. Titus, who displays both military and diplomatic skills, is a suitable successor. Tacitus has carefully demonstrated that neither Vespasian nor his supporters are perfect. Mucianus is greedy and envious of Antonius Primus. Antonius Primus, out of self-interest, craves too much power. Yet Vespasian's positive qualities allow him to remove Antonius Primus and thus the rivalry and to exert authority over Mucianus whose greed does not surpass his acceptance of Titus as successor and Vespasian as emperor. Vespasian stands without a serious rival. He obtains the Empire as a possession and he treats it with care as his own. Part of the reason for his success lies in his ability to fulfill the role of princeps. The principates of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were all 260

infected by a corruption of the four factors of the self- other concept (envy, greed, self-interest, and ignorance), and hence by civil war. With Vespasian the proper balance between self and other, at least the balance possible under the Empire, returns, and so does peace. Tacitus mirrors this renewed balance in the structure of the Histories. which resumes its traditional form of yearly divisions between internal (domi) and external (£s2cia) affairs. As the Histories begins, of the four emperors of A.D. 69 Vespasian ironically appears the most alienus to the principate. He is located the farthest from Rome and his family background seems unworthy. By way of contrast. Galba is of noble birth and in the Histories stays only in Rome, yet he ends being quite alienus in regard to the principate. Vespasian obtains the Roman Empire as his, &ua, because he ensures that matters return to their proper place, as Tacitus suggests: suis auaeque locis.^^

Cf. the description of Rome after Antonius' troops are removed from the city, 4.39.4: sic eaesto quidauid ■turfaidum rsdlt Vrbi eua forma. Isgegflwe et munia maqistratuum. CONCLUSION

The concepts of self and other lie at the heart of human experience, for they are a means of understanding one's world. The self refers to what is "me" or "mine," both literally and figuratively, while other encompasses a wide range of meanings from simply "pertaining to another" to "different," "strange," and in the extreme "hostile." Self and other are opposite in meaning yet at the same time interrelated, for they define one another; the one can not exist nor be understood without the other. Every individual divides his or her world into these two realms, and the ancient Romans, like ourselves, often felt the conflicts and tensions that arise between them. I have tried to show in this dissertation that Tacitus incorporates the concepts of self and other in his Histories. The self-other concept forms a theme that flows like an undercurrent throughout the surviving books. This theme especially surfaces where Tacitus juxtaposes terms that signify "self" (ga, suus) and

261 262

"other” (aliUfi/ alienus), or positions them in such a way that the effect is often startling and ironic. In addition, he employs terms that are synonymous with "self" and "other" in the same fashion. The reason for the prominence of this theme can be found in the subject of these first books of the Histories; the civil wars of A.D. 69. Tacitus claims at the beginning of this work that he intends to put forth not only the events of this period but also the causes of these events (1.4.1). His explanation of the causes of the civil wars of A.D. 69 can be interpreted as a distortion of the self-other concept. In civil war the two terms are no longer distinct but become perverted because they embody nearly the same meaning. The self sees its own as other; the self becomes other to itself. Tacitus presents this perversion of the self-other concept inherent in civil war in four important factors: emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. In the Histories perversions of these four factors (envy, greed, self-interest, and ignorance) infiltrate all levels of Roman society: the armies, the aristocracy, the magistrates, the Roman plebs, and the towns and colonies throughout the Empire. They especially infect the highest group within the Empire: the princeps and his faction. For Tacitus the first three emperors of A.D. 263

69, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, embody perversions of the self-other concept. Galba primarily falls prey to ignorance and greed, Otho to envy, and Vitellius to selfishness. In addition, the closest advisors of these three likewise exhibit these same failings, especially self-interest. These perversions signify a form of civil strife, and when they reach the level of the principate the result in the Histories is the downfall of each emperor and civil war. Tacitus, however, does provide a restoration of the proper balance of the self-other concept. This is accomplished in the person of Vespasian, who, together with his faction, embodies the positive traits of emulation, possession, role, and knowledge. Vespasian above all possesses knowledge of himself and others, both friend and foe, and this permits him to win the principate as a possession and fulfill it as a role. Vespasian's achievement of the proper balance between self and other reestablishes peace throughout the Roman world. Vespasian's restoration of this appropriate balance, however, is not such that otherness resides primarily outside of Rome as in the days of the early Republic. For Tacitus the element of otherness is inherent within the principate, for the principate itself represents a 264

perversion of the concepts of self and other. Hence a new princeps. no matter how just, carries with him the seeds of further self-other perversions and civil strife, which may crop up in the future, as in the case of Domitian. In the Histories the civil wars erupt as individuals attempt to gain the principate as their own possession. Vespasian restores peace and at the same time acquires the state as his. Therefore, as long as there is an emperor who controls the state, it will never belong to the Roman people as once it did, but will always be other to them because it is another's: inscitia rei publicae ut alienae (1.1.1). For Tacitus, the element of otherness within the Roman Empire is necessary for peace. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, W.H. "The 'psychology' of Tacitus," 47 (1952) 326-8. "The Tacitean non liquet on Seneca," Calif. Stud,, in Class. Phil. 14, 8 (1952) 269-386. Ariès, P. and Duby, G . , gen. eds. A History of Private Life, 5 vols. (Cambridge HA and London, 1987), vol.l: From Paaan Rome to Bvzantium. ed. P. Veyne, trans. A. Goldhammer. Ayer, A.J. The Concept of a Person (London and New York, 1968). Hume (New York, 1980). Baldwin, B. "Tacitean humour," H£ 90 (1977) 128-44. "Themes, personalities and distortions in Tacitus," Athenaeum 52 (1974) 70-81. "Vespasian and freedom," RFIC 103 (1975) 306-8. "Young and old in imperial Rome," in liis Conflict of Generations in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. S. Bertman (Amsterdam, 1976) 221-33. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Romans and Aliens (London, 1979). Barnes, T.D. "The fragments of Tacitus' Histories." CP 72 (1977) 224-31. Baxter, R.T.s. "Virgil's influence on Tacitus in Book 3 of the Histories." ££ 66 (1971) 93-107. Benario, H.W. An Introduction to Tacitus (Athens GA, 1975). "Priam and Galba," 65 (1972) 146-7.

265 266

Brunt, P.A. "The fiscus and its development," JRS 56 (1966) 75-91. Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990). Buckland W.W. Elementary Principles of the Roman Private Law (Cambridge, 1912). Cantarella, E. Pandora's Daughters, trans. M.B. Fant (Baltimore and London, 1987). Chilver, G.E.F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II (Oxford, 1979). A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories IV _and % compl. and rev. G.B. Townend (Oxford, 1985). Christ, K. "Tacitus und der Principat," Historia 27 (1978) 449-87. Cizek, E. "Pour un Tacite nouveau," Latomus 40 (1981) 21-36. "Sine ira et studio et l'image de l'homme chez Tacite," StudClas 18 (1979) 103-13. Clarke, M.L. Higher Education in the Roman World (Albuquerque, 1971). Colson, F.H., ed. H, Fabii Ouintilianl.Institutionia Oratoriae Liber I (Cambridge, 1924). courbaud, E. Las-Proçédég ,d,^Ar.t„de....Tas.ite dans-lgs Histoires (Paris, 1918). Crook, J.A. Law and Life of Rome. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1967). "Titus and Berenice," AJPh 72 (1951) 162-75. Daitz, S.G. "Tacitus' technique of character portrayal," AJPh 81 (1960) 30-52. Develin, R. "Tacitus and techniques of insidious suggestion," Antichthon 17 (1983) 64-95. Dorey, T.A., ed. Latin Historians (London, 1966). 267

"Tacitus' treatment of Antonias Primus," CE 53 (1958) 244. Drexler, H. "Zur Geschichte Kaiser Othos bei Tacitus und Plutarch," Klio 37 (1959) 153-78. Dudley, D.R. The World of Tacitus (Boston and Toronto, 1968). Duff, A.M. Freedmen in the Earlv Roman Empire (New York, 1958). Earl, D.c. The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge, 1961). Engel, R. "Das Charakterbild des Kaisers A. Vitellius bei Tacitus und sein historischer Kern," Athenaeum 55 (1977) 345-68. Ferguson, J. ed. Juvenal. The Satires (New York, 1979). The Religions of the Roman Empire. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1970). Ferrill, A. "Otho, Vitellius, and the propaganda of Vespasian," Csl 60 (1965) 267-69. Furneaux, H., ed. The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford, 1896). Gallivan, P.A. "The false Neros: a re-examination," Historia 22 (1973) 364-5. Gerber, A. and Greef, A. Lexicon Taciteum (Leipzig, 1903) Gill, C. "The question of character-development: Plutarch and Tacitus," CÛ 33 (1983) 469-87. Gilmartin, K. "A rhetorical figure in Latin historical style: the imaginary second person singular," TAPA 105 (1975) 99-121. Gilmartin Wallace, K. "The Flavii Sabini in Tacitus," Historia 36 (1987) 343-58. "Kinship terms in Tacitus," Helios 5.2 (1977) 56-59. Girod, R. "Amphitheatre et 'show business,'" Caesarodunum 18bis (1983) 41-44. 268 Godolphin, F.R.B. "The source of Plutarch's thesis in the lives of Galba and Otho," AJPh 56 (1935) 324-28. Goodyear, F.R.D., ed. The Annals of Tacitus, vol.l (Cambridge, 1972). Tacitus. Greece and Rome Surveys 4 (Oxford, 1970). Greenhalgh, P.A.L. The Year of the Four Emperors (London, 1975). Gruen, E.S. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1974). Hainsworth, J.B. "The starting-point of Tacitus' Historiae; fear or favour by omission?," G&R 11 (1964) 128-36. Harris, B.F. "Tacitus on the death of Otho," ûl 58 (1962) 73-77. Haussier, R. Tacitus und das Historische Bewusstsein (Heidelberg, 1965). Heubner, H., ed. P. Cornelius Tacitus, die Historien (Heidelberg, 1963). Hohl, E. "Der Prâtorianeraufstand unter Otho," Klio 32 (1939) 307-24. Hume, D. The Philosophical Works. 2nd. edition, eds. T.H. Green and T.H. Grose (Darmstadt, 1964). Jal, P. "Cicéron et la gloire en temps de guerre civile," Mnemosyne 16 (1963) 43-56. "Tacite et la guerre civile," L'Information littéraire 20 (1968) 225-32. James, W. The Principles of Psychology (New York, 1899). Jones, A.H.H. "The aerarium and the fiscus." JES 40 (1950) 22-9. Jones, B.W. The Emperor Titus (London, Sydney and New York, 1984). Keitel, E. "Otho's exhortations in Tacitus' Histories." S&B 34 (1987) 73-82. 269 "Principate and civil war in the Annals of Tacitus," AJPh 105 (1984) 306-25. Klingner, F. "Die Geschichte Kaiser Othos bei Tacitus," in Ia.ci.tMS fWeae der Forschuna 97), ed. V. POschl (Darmstadt, 1969) 389-412. "Tacitus und die Geschichtsschreiber des ersten Jahrhunderts nach Christus," in ROmische Geistes Welt (Munich, 1965) 483-503. Koestermann, E. "Das Charakterbild Galbas bei Tacitus," in TacitMS fWeae der Forschuna 97), ed. V. POschl (Darmstadt, 1969) 413-31. "Der Rückblick Tacitus Historien 1.4-11," Historia 5 (1956) 213-37. Konstan, D. Roman Comedy (Ithaca NY and London, 1983). Laistner, M.L.W. The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1947). Lattimore, R. "Portents and prophecies in connection with the emperor Vespasian," fil 29 (1934) 441-9.. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana XL, 1962). Leeman, A.D. Orationis Ratio (Amsterdam, 1963). "Structure and meaning in the prologues of Tacitus," YClS 23 (1973) 169-208. Levick, B. "Caesar omnia habet; property and politics under the principate," in Opposition et Résistances a ir.Empire d'Auauste à Traian. vol.3, eds. A. Giovannini and D. van Berchem (Genève, 1986) 187-212. Lewis, H. The Self and Immortalitv (New York, 1973). LOfstedt, E. Roman Literarv Portraits (Oxford, 1958) 142-80. Luce, T.J. "Ancient views on the causes of bias in historical writing," ££ 84 (1989) 16-31. 270 "Tacitus' conception of historical change: the problem of discovering the historian's opinion," in Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing, eds. I.S. Moxon, J.D. Smart, and A.J. Woodman (Cambridge, 1986) 143-57. Livv. The Composition of his Historv (Princeton, 1977). MoCullooh, H. "The ill-omened murder of Piso (Tao. Hist. 1.43)," Hermes. 110 (1982) 380-84. McDonald, A.H. "Theme and style in Roman historiography," sIES 65 (1975) 1-10. McKay, A.6. Houses. Villas and Palaces in theRoman World. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1975). MacMullen, R. Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven CT and London, 1981). Malissard, A. "Incendium et ruinae. A propos des villes et des monuments dans les Histoires et les Annales de Tacite," Caesarodonum 18bis (1983) 45-55. Marrou, H.I. A Historv of Education in Antiauitv. trans. G. Lamb (New York, 1956). Marsh, F.B. The Rsign...Of Tiberiwe (oxford, 1931; reprint ed. Cambridge, 1959). Martin, R. Tacitus (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981). "Variatio and the development of Tacitus' style," Eranos 51 (1953) 89-96. Mason, G.G. "The miles in Histories 1-3," 60 (1984) 30-35. Mendel1, C.W. Tacitus, the Man and his Work (New Haven and London, 1957). Millar, F. "The fiscus in the first two centuries," JRS 53 (1963) 29-42. Miller, N.P. " Dramatic speech in Tacitus," AJPh 85 (1964) 279-96. 271 "Tacitus' narrative technique," G&R 24 (1977) 13-22. "Virgil and Tacitus," 1 (1961-2) 25-34. "Virgil and Tacitus again," PVS 18 (1987) 87-106. Miller, N.P. and Jones, P.V. "Critical appreciations III; Tacitus, Histories 3.38-9," fi&E 25 (1978) 70-80. Mommsen, T. "Cornelius Tacitus und Cluvius Rufus," Hermes 4 (1870) 295-325. Mooney, G.W., trans. and ed. C. Suetoni Tranquilli. De Vita.CaQsarum Libri VII-VIII (New York, 1979). Murison, C.L. "Some Vitellian dates: an exercise in methodology," TAPA 109 (1979) 187-97. Myers, G.E. Self (New York, 1969). Nédoncelle, M. "Otherness and causality," in Analecta Husserliana. vol.6, ed. A. Tymieniecka (Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, 1977) 101-11. Nesselhauf, H. "Tacitus und Domitian," Hermes 80 (1952) 222-45. Newbold, R.F. "The vulgus in Tacitus," RhM 119 (1976) 85-92. Ogilvie, R.M. A Commentary on Livv Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965). Ogilvie, R.M. and Richmond, I., eds. Cornelii Taciti De Vita AgriGola (Oxford, i967). Otis, B. "The uniqueness of Latin literature," Arion 6 (1967) 185-206

Paoli, u.E. Romet ltg-.Psoplfi-Life_and Customs, trans. R.D. Macnaghten (New York, 1963). Paul, G.M. A Historical Commentary on Sallust's Bellum lugurthinum (Liverpool, 1984). "Vrbs capta: sketch of an ancient literary motif," Phoenix 36 (1982) 144-55. Powell, c.A. "paum ira, hominum rabies," Latomue 3i (1972) 833-48. 272SÏ72

Reid, J.S. "Tacitus as a historian," JBS 11 (1921) 191-4. Roby, H.J. Roman Private Law (Cambridge, 1902). Rogers, P.M. "Titus, Berenice, and Mucianus," Historia 29 (1980) 86-95. Rogers, R.S. "The Roman emperors as heirs and legatees," TAPA 78 (1947) 140-58. Rose, H.J. Religion in Greece and Rome (New York, 1959). Rosenberg, M. Conceiving the Self (New York, 1979). Ross, D.O., Jr. "The Tacitean Germanicus," YClS 23 (1973) () 209-27. Ryberg, I.S. "Tacitus' art of innuendo," TAPA 73 (1942) 383-404. Scott, R.T. "Religion and philosophy in the Histories of Tacitus," Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 22 (1968). Seager, R. "Amicitia in Tacitus and Juvenal," AJAH 2 (1977) 40-50. Shatzman, I. "Tacitean rumours," Latomus 33 (1974) 549-78. Sherwin-White, AN. The Letters of Plinv. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966). Shochat, Y. "Tacitus' attitude to Galba," Athenaeum 59 (1981) 199-204. "Tacitus' attitude to Otho," Latomus 40 (1981) 365-77. Shotter, D.C.A. "Roman historians and the Roman coinage," ' G&R 25 (1978) 156-68. "The starting-dates of Tacitus' historical works," 17 (1967) 158-63. "Tacitus and Antonius Primus," LCM 2 (1977) 23-7. Sullivan, D. "Innuendo and the 'weighted alternative' in Tacitus," Cil 71 (1976) 312-26. 273 Sumner, G.V. "The career of Titus Vinius," Athenaeum 54 (1976) 430-36. Sutherland, C.H.V. "Aerarium and fiscus during the early Empire," AJPh 66 (1945) 151-70. Switala, W. "A portrait of the effects of political corruption; Tacitus Hist. 2.62-64, 70, 87-90," CjB 55 (1978-79) 45-6. Syme, R. "Juvenal, Pliny, Tacitus," AJPh 100 (1979) 250-78. "The march of Mucianus," Antichthon 11 (1977) 78-92. "Partisans of Galba," Historia 31 (1982) 460-83. Sallust (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964). Tacitus (Oxford, 1958). Ten Studies in Tacitus (Oxford, 1970). Talbert, R.J.A. "Some causes of disorder in A.D. 68-69," AJAH 2 (1977) 69-85. Tedeschi, J. "Private and public experiences and the self," in Public Self and Private Self, ed. R.F. Baumeister (New York, 1986) 1-20. Townend, G.B. "Traces in Dio Cassius of Cluvius, Aufidius and Pliny," Hermes 89 (1961) 227-48. Toynbee, J.M.C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life, gen. ed. H.H. Scullard (Ithaca NY, 1971). Turcan, R. "Tacite et les arts plastiques dans les Histoires." Latomus 44 (1985) 784-804. Ullmann, B.L. "Sine ira et studio." fil 38 (1943) 420-1. von Fritz, K. "Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the problem of the principate," ££ 52 (1957) 73-97. Walker, B. The Annals of Tacitus (Manchester, 1952). "A study in incoherence: the first book of Tacitus' Histories." ££ 71 (1976) 113-118. 274 Waters, K.H. "The second dynasty of Rome," Phoenix 17 (1963) 198-218. "The character of Domitian," Phoenix 18 (1964) 49-77. Watson, A. Roman Slave Law (Baltimore and London, 1987). Wellesley, K., ed. Cornelius Tacitus. The Histories Book I I I (Sydney, 1972). The Long Year; A.D. 69 (London, 1975). "Moonshine in Tacitus," RhM 100 (1957) 244-52. "Suaaestio falsi in Tacitus," E M 103 (1960) 272-88. "What happened on the Capitol in December AD 69?," AJAH 6 (1981) 166-90. Whitehead, D. "Tacitus and the loaded alternative," Latomus 38 (1979) 474-95. Wilkes, J. "Julio-Claudian historians," 65 (1972) 177-92, 196-203. Wiseman, T.P. "Flavians on the Capitol," AJAH 3 (1978) 163-78. "Competition and co-operation," in Roman Political Life 90 B.C. - A.D. 69. ed. T.P. Wiseman (Exeter, 1985) 3-19. Woodman, T. "Self-imitation and the substance of history: Tacitus, Annals 1.61-5 and Histories 2.70, 5.14-15," in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, eds. D. West and T. Woodman (Cambridge, 1979) 143-55.