chapter four

OTHO’S EXEMPLARY RESPONSE

There is an outlier to the Histories’ rhythm of regressive repetition. Tacitus’ Otho, the revolutionary who rises up to overthrow Galba in Histories 1, is no untarnished hero. But in the rich account of the emperor’s suicide at Histories 2.46–49, Tacitus presents Otho as a corrective respondent to the repetitive civil wars of the surrounding narrative, as the one voice opposing the trope of repetition’s hold on the Histories. And, as we shall see later in this short concluding chapter, in Otho’s death-scene Tacitus again employs a cluster of epic allusions in order to underline his point. In Chapter 3 I considered the programmatic force of Tacitus’ words at 2.46.3, which come just after the Othonians’ loss at Cremona I: nemo dubitet potuisse renouari bellum atrox lugubre incertum uictis et uictoribus (“No one would doubt that the war could have been renewed—gloomy, lamentable, and uncertain for the vanquished and the victors alike”). This line, which prepares us for the “rematch” at Cremona II, caps of a chapter (2.46) in which Otho’s soldiers and his praetorian prefect Plotius Firmus vehemently urge him to press on and continue the war against Vitellius. But Otho resolutely refuses. Prior to their pleas, in fact, Tacitus had already informed us of the emperor’s constancy and resolve in his plan of action: opperiebatur Otho nuntium pugnae nequaquam trepidus et consilii certus (2.46.1: “Otho awaited news of the battle not at all afraid and certain of a plan”). We learn of that plan in 2.47, where Tacitus crafts for Otho a point-by- point rebuttal to his supporters’ demands to renew the war.1 So, the troops bid the emperor to be of good spirit (bonum haberet animum iubebant, 2.46.1), and Plotius tells him that the greater spirit endures adversity rather than eeing it (maiore animo tolerari aduersa quam relinqui, 2.46.2). Otho redirects the focus to their spirits, by saying that the endangerment of their spirit and courage (hunc … animum, hanc uirtutem uestram, 2.47.1)2 is too

1 As Keitel (1987) 77–78 discusses. And as she notes, the motifs addressed here are missing from Otho’s speech at Plutarch, Otho 15.3–6, where there is also no equivalent to Plotius’ speech. 2 The full sentence, the  rst of Otho’s speech, reads: ‘hunc’ inquit ‘animum, hanc uirtutem uestram ultra periculis obicere nimis grande uitae meae pretium puto’ (2.47.1). 154 chapter four great a price to pay for his life. He then wills their spirit for battle to die with him, while they themselves survive: eat hic mecum animus, tamquam perituri pro me fueritis, sed este superstites (2.47.3—“May this spirit of yours die with me, just as if you were about to die for my sake—but live on as survivors”). In addition, while Plotius encourages the defeated emperor not to avoid (relinqui, 2.46.2) adversity, Otho asserts that relinquishing his o ce is precisely the right thing to do: alii diutius imperium tenuerint: nemo tam fortiter reliquerit (2.47.2: “Others may have held power for more time; no one will have put it down so bravely”). Plotius also tells Otho that the brave and the energetic stick to their hopes, even against fortune (fortes et strenuos etiam contra fortunam insistere spei, 2.46.2). To this assertion as well Otho responds directly and assuredly: quanto plus spei ostenditis, si uiuere placeret, tanto pulchrior mors erit. experti in uicem sumus ego ac fortuna (2.47.1: “The more hope you show for me, if I were to choose to live, the more noble will my death be. Fortune and I have had our turn with each other”). Furthermore, in response to the soldiers’ vow to face the  nality of death for his sake (ipsos extrema passuros ausurosque, 2.46.1), and Plotius’ charge of cowardice (timidos et ignauos ad desperationem formidine properare, 2.46.2), Otho authoritatively rebuts: plura de extremis loqui pars ignauiae est (2.47.3—“To say a lot about the  nality of death is a marker of cowardice”). Otho refuses to reengage, and to subject these armies to more blood- shed. And with a few of his statements Tacitus appears to fashion an Otho acutely, even metatextually, aware of the repetitive dynamics of the wars that surround him in the Histories. His supporters’ will to renew the con- ict is clear: note again Tacitus’ judgment at 2.46.3 (nemo dubitet potuisse renouari bellum), as well the troops’ highlighting of fresh, new forces (super- esse adhuc nouas uires) at 2.46.1. Otho’s stance is sharply opposed to this (2.47.2): ciuile bellum a Vitellio coepit, et ut de principatu certaremus armis, initium illic fuit: ne plus quam semel certemus, penes me exemplum erit; hinc Oth- onem posteritas aestimet. The civil war began with Vitellius, and with him was the start of our armed  ght for the principate. To  ght no more than once—this will be my example. From this act let posterity judge Otho. There is more than a little disingenuousness in Otho’s  rst claim here. At Histories 2.31.1 Tacitus states that “no one was charging [Vitellius] with starting the war” (illi initium belli nemo imputabat). Indeed, Vitellius had revolted from Galba and been declared emperor at the year’s beginning,