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 ££<m £<àèA(X^^ Adviser D.M. O'Higgins Department of Classics Copyright by Susan Parente McGillicuddy 1991 To my husband, Tom 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.