0520236505.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature In honor of beloved Virgil— “O degli altri poeti onore e lume . .” —Dante, Inferno The publisher gratefully acknowledges the generous contribution provided to this book by Joan Palevsky. The History of Make-Believe The History of Make-Believe Tacitus on Imperial Rome holly haynes University of California Press berkeley los angeles london University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England © 2003 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Haynes, Holly. The history of make-believe : Tacitus on Imperial Rome / Holly Haynes. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–520–23650–5 (Cloth : alk. paper) 1. Tacitus, Cornelius. Historiae. 2. Rome—History—Flavians, 69–96—Historiography. 3. Rome—History—Civil War, 68–69— Historiography. I. Title. DG286 .H39 2003 937’.07’092—dc21 2002154935 Manufactured in the United States of America 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 10987654 321 The paper used in this publication is both acid-free and totally chlorine- free (TCF). It meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).A For V. R. R. But the true record of what happened will give millions of people an untrue impression of what really happened. harold nicholson Contents Acknowledgments xi introduction: belief and make-believe 1 1. an anatomy of make-believe 3 Otho Bids Rome Farewell 4 Fingere/Credere 7 The Empire of the Cave 19 Historiography and Ideology 28 2. nero: the specter of civil war 34 Galba versus Nero 41 The Adoption of Piso 47 Nero and Otho 54 3. power and simulacra: the emperor vitellius 71 The Look of the Principate 75 Impersonations 89 Simulacral Entries...and Exits 103 4. vespasian: the emperor who succeeded 112 Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Religio versus Superstitio 118 Fortuna and Fatum:The Narrative of Superstitio 126 The Miracle at Alexandria 129 5. a civil disturbance: the batavian revolts 148 “Us” versus “Them” 155 Eprius Marcellus and Petilius Cerialis on Libertas at Home and Abroad 163 Batavians Take Out the Roman Trash 171 conclusion 179 Notes 185 References 207 Index 217 Acknowledgments It is a great pleasure to acknowledge all the people who have helped me during the writing of this book. I am a lucky person to know them and to have benefited from their wisdom, tact, insight, and hard work on my be- half. I dedicate whatever is worthwhile in this book to all of them and ac- cept its shortcomings as the mark of my own. Alain Gowing, who set me on my way, had the courage of my convictions even when I didn’t, and gen- tly insisted upon the discipline of scholarly inquiry when I was more in- terested in the thrill of discovery. His approval of a nearly final draft of this manuscript was a proud moment for me. David Levene read several early drafts and gave me a great deal of frank, meticulous feedback, as well as kindly encouragement. His help was invaluable in those difficult early stages. I thank John Henderson and Ellen O’Gorman, for the extensive and thoughtful criticisms that whipped a baggy monster into some kind of shape; John Marincola, for warm support both moral and academic; Alessandro Barchiesi and Sandra Joshel, for their help with early versions of the first chapter; to Sandra, thanks are also due for the great reading ses- sions that introduced me to so many important ideas and were the solace of writing agony. I am grateful to Ben Binstock, for skillful emergency sur- gery in the final stages and a take-no-prisoners style of criticism. With his help I was able to let go of some philosophical dead weight to which I had become too attached. I also owe to him the fabulous Batavians on the dust jacket. Thanks also to Felipe Rojas, for detailed, efficient proofreading and last-minute problem solving; and to Benjamin Sammons, for his thorough and conscientious corrections of typographical errors in the language pas- sages, as well as of my translations. Finally, this book is for Seth Benardete, who showed me that my ideas were something and who always knew all the good lines. xi Introduction Belief and Make-Believe What an involved style! How obscure! I am not a great Latin scholar, but Tacitus’s obscurity displays itself in ten or twelve Italian and French translations that I have read. I, therefore, have concluded that his chief quality is obscurity, that it springs from that which one calls his genius, as well as from his style, and that it is so connected with his manner of expressing himself only because it is in his conception. I have heard people praise him for the fear he awakes in tyrants; he makes them afraid of the people. That is a great mistake, and does the people harm. Am I not right, Monsieur Wieland? But I am interrupting you. We are not here to speak of Tacitus. Look! How well the czar Alexander dances. talleyrand 1: 332 When the emperor Napoleon deflects his interlocutors Goethe and Wieland from the politically tricky subject of Tacitean style, he gives the appearance of a polite conversationalist who has almost forgotten his man- ners.1 Although the elegance of the czar Alexander is a more appropriate subject for party talk, the emperor’s observations, the one about historiog- raphy and the other about a historical figure, have everything in common, both with one another and with the subject of Tacitean historiography as a whole. The stakes of this conversation lie in the relationship between style and content in historiography, as Napoleon finds subversive the way Taci- tus puts the two together: he writes obscurely, and he undermines the power of tyrants. From this sensitive topic, Napoleon moves smoothly along to the style of the dancing czar.This tableau is presumably enhanced by the fact of the czar’s position, although Napoleon calls attention only to his style. Splitting apart form from content, if we may call the historical person and title of the czar “content,” Napoleon downplays the authoritar- ian nature of power by concentrating his interlocutors’ attention upon the pleasant spectacle that power can make of itself. The polish of Napoleon’s own response to this potentially hazardous conversation underlines his assessment of Tacitus. How Napoleon wields his authority—in this case to distract Goethe and Wieland from further in- 1 2 / Introduction quiry—instantiates the authority itself. He embodies what he identifies as a problem in Tacitean historiography: the uncomfortably close bond be- tween style and content. The style of power, as exemplified by the czar’s dancing or Napoleon’s literary ability and conversational ease, bridges the gap between ruler and ruled in the form of ideology: that is, society’s rep- resentation of its relation to a sociopolitical condition. In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the Wizard has power because he looks big and scary, and because people believe he has power. His power is no less real because be- hind the fake, scary front stands an ordinary person—so long as the fiction is maintained. And even when it is undermined, the magic still works for the Tin Woodman, Lion, and Scarecrow because the Wizard reveals to them the power of their belief in him to make changes in themselves. Napoleon understands that Tacitus holds up a mirror to the secret of power, not that he reveals the secret of power. He complains that Tacitus makes tyrants afraid of the people, not that he shows people the truth about tyrants. In other words, Napoleon sees the importance of the people to the construct of power: whatever appearance power has derives in large measure from what its public makes of it. Thus Napoleon’s account of Tac- itus suggests that narrative is history, insofar as it captures ideology in the nexus of style and content. These two form a single entity that gives the reader the experience of making up, and then believing in, the same ideo- logical fictions as the historical actors in the text. Napoleon’s skills as a literary critic, which differ little from his shrewd conversational strategy, encapsulate some of the major questions that the study of historiography raises. How do rhetorical practices contribute to making history meaningful, and what does the rhetorical operation illus- trate about the relationship between past and present realities? The way Tacitean rhetoric makes sense of history clearly provokes Napoleon’s anx- iety about contemporary relationships of power, although the two cultures have different ideas of how history should be studied. Also, Napoleon seems to think that Tacitus’s style bears directly upon his way of thinking, and that it has a direct effect upon the social hierarchy. His unease there- fore originates in his unstated belief that style in historiography plays an important role in shaping attitudes and events in history.2 The significance of the relationship of style to content marks the point of departure for this book, in which I argue that literary analysis, while indispensable to the in- terpretation of historiography, is inadequate unless it incorporates investi- gation into the experience of a lived, historical reality. In his history of ide- ology, Tacitus gives us ample ground for both analysis and investigation. 1 An Anatomy of Make-Believe This chapter introduces the main themes of this book through analysis of passages from the Histories and other parts of the Tacitean corpus. Each passage illustrates a facet of the relationship between Roman beliefs about reality during the early Empire and Tacitus’s representation of those be- liefs.