No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Italicus and Claudius: Tacitus, Annales xi 16-17
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
The fortuitous survival of ILS 212 provides an important control against the historical technique of Tacitus. But elucidation of the Emperor’s speech to the Senate in the light of external epigraphic evidence has tended to overshadow the normal internal correspondences of Tacitean narrative. Significantly, only a few pages prior to the memorable event of 48, we find in the German digression of 47 superficial and deep reflections by the historian on the admission of the Gauls to the Senate, and on the Princeps responsible for that step.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1975
References
1 ILS 212 = CIL xiii 1668.
2 For the implications, see Miller, N.P., ‘The Claudian tablet and Tacitus: a reconsideration’, Rh.Mus. 99 (1956), 315,Google Scholar and for Tacitus’ use of Claudius’ speeches, Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1963), pp. 703–10.Google Scholar
3 Ann. xi 23–4. References to secondary literature on ILS 212 have been kept to a minimum, nor has the ground of verbal comparisons with Tacitus been retrodden.
4 Furneaux, H., The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford, 2nd ed. 1907), Vol. 2 on Ann. xi 16–17,Google Scholar and Koestermann, E., Cornelius Tacitus Annalen (Heidelberg, 1967), Vol. 3, ad loc.,Google Scholar have not drawn much attention to these verbal correspondences.
5 xi 16. 1; cf. ii 2. 1: post finem Phraatis et sequentium regum ob internas caedes, vi 31. 2: interfectis ab Artabano plerisque aut nondum adultis. The considerable and revealing verbal echoes with the passages on the Parthian kingdom have been reserved for the notes. The cumulative effect of these passages suggests that Tacitus had a common approach or technique in treating these fratricidal kingdoms.
6 May we find in it a slight against the Julio-Claudian dynasty? The destruction of the heirs in Rome is emphasized: i 6 (Agrippa Postumus), iv 8–11 (Drusus), vi 23–4 (the younger Drusus, and note his slander, nurum filiumque fratris et nepotes domumque omnem caedibus complevisset, ib. 24. 2), (cf. v 3–4: Nero Caesar). In 47 Claudius has only one heir, Britannicus: Nero effectively replaced him in 50 (xii 25), and later killed him (xiii 16); Agrippina had destroyed M. Iunius Silanus (xiii 1).
7 Furheaux, op.cit., on xi 16. 1, remarks that Arminius’ son must not have survived; cf. i 58–9 — the promise of i 58. 6 is not fulfilled.
8 The request: Cheruscorum gens regent Roma petivit, xi 16. 1; cf. ii 1. 1: (Parthi) qui petitum Roma acceptumque regem; ii 2. 2: petitum alio ex orbe regem; xii 10. 1: legati Parthorum ad expetendum … Meherdaten; xii 11. 1: petitum ab eo. The arrival of embassies tends also to produce the same phrasing: ii 2. 1; vi 31. 1; XV 24. 1–2.
9 In contrast to earlier recorded appointees in the East: cf. ii 1 (Vonones), vi 31. 2 (Phraates), vi 32 (Tiridates), and for nec obsidem (xi 16. 1), cf. obses (ii 1. 2). See also xii 11. 2 f. for emphasis on Meherdates’ ‘Romanness’.
10 Externum imperium (this will be revived at xi 16. 3: omnibus externis); cf. ii 2. 1: nova imperia (Vonones’), where nova, like externus elsewhere, does not entirely lose its connotation of ‘Outlandish’; thus, ii 2. 4: ignotae Parthis virtutes, nova vitia (cf. xii 11. 2). The ambivalence of these words often makes it difficult to confine the meaning in a particular context.
11 Cf. ii 2. 1: accepere barbari laetantes; this is followed in Parthia by similar disillusionment.
12 On drink, cf. Germ. 22. 2.
13 See Collingwood, R.G., The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946), pp. 42–4.Google Scholar
14 xi 16. 2, cf. i 58. 3, where factio is used as a term of abuse against Arminius by an enemy.
15 Thus Tacitus intrudes to judge Arminius hau d dubie Germaniae liberator (ii 88. 2). The opponents of Italicus are politically not so far removed from Arminius.
16 xi 16. 3: adeo neminem isdem in terris ortum (answering Romae ortum, 16. 1, and cf. vi 31. 2: quia neminem gentis Arsacidarum summae rei imponere poterant) qui principem locum impleat (cf. iv 38. 1: locum principem impleam, the words of Tiberius). This use of princeps comes very close to the formal title. The example is perhaps too slight to support a direct allusion (so too with xi 17. 3: adstrepebat huic alacre vulgus and i 18. 1: adstrepebat vulgus).
17 Cf. ii 910, and Pelham’s note on exploratoris in Furneaux2, op.cit., at xi 16. 3. Flavus and his son enjoyed citizenship, and Italicus had not been a hostage in Rome. Segestes, Arminius’ father-in-law, was also well treated (i 58. 5).
18 For Arminius, see i, ii, passim. His dispute with Flavus (ii 9-10) evidences political slogans close to those used against Italicus. There appears to be some notion of a continuing, fairly well defined factional conflict in Germany.
19 Arminius’ taunt in ii 10. 1.
20 The Parthians have very similar objections to Vonones, ii 2.
21 Cf. ii 2. 1: Caesar (Augustus) auxitque opibus and vi 31. 2: auctore opus (of Tiberius), again suggesting deliberate policy; xi 17. 3: opibus refectus.
22 Cf. also i 59. 6: flagitiosae servitutis (Arminius describing the path of Segestes); ii 2. 2: tot per annos servitutem perpessum (the Parthian dissidents on Vonones).
23 Cf. i 59. 6: gloriae ac libertatis (Arminius’ claim), and ii 88. 2: liberator … Germaniae (Tacitus on Arminius); ii 44. 2: Arminium pro libertate.
24 Aside from the peculiarly Roman phraseology (which attests to the emotional, not cultural, force), we might note the Tacitean concern for libertas and servitium, dominating themes of the Ann. : i 1. 1; 2.1; 4. 1–2; 7. 1 — thus strongly established at the outset. Cf. xi 23. 3 (captivitas).
25 The words used for the arrival of ambassadors seeking a king, for example, are naturally limited by circumstances, but Tacitus, by the position of the statement and by the actual words used, reveals that he has a ‘formula’ in mind, which focuses our interests on particular historically similar events.
26 xi 17. 1. Similarly of the Parthians, ii 2. 1: qui Vononem … accirent; xi 24. 2: in senatum accitos.
27 Cf. Germ. 20. 4–5, for the importance of kinsmen, and particularly of patrui and avunculi.
28 Furneaux2, op.cit., on xi 17. 2, remarks (p. 23): ‘This acquiescence appears to be overstated.’ Considering the attack on Varus and the troubles since, the claim would appear to have rather more rhetorical and legal than real basis to it.
29 He characterizes his opponents as privatim degeneres, xi 17. 2; cf. ii 2. 2: degen-eravisse Porthos. Overt Republicanism can appear fraudulent at Rome: see Suet. Claudius 10, Gaius 60, Jos. AJ xix 251–2. Cf. the language of Hist, iv 73. 3 (and see Koestermann, op.cit., on Ann. xi 17. 2), to which add Hist, i 16. 4 and Ann. xii 11. 2.
30 xi 17. 3, cf. 16. 2.
31 ii 45. 2, albeit attributed to imitation of the Roman model.
32 Again, in the Parthian digression: quae secunda adversum … (vi 31. 1).
33 Cf. above on ii 2. 1; vi 31. 2.
34 Aside from the juxtaposition of secunda adversum in vi 31. 1, the statement of xi 17. 3: per laeta per adversa is more closely paralleled in Germ. 36. 3: tracti ruina Cheruscorum et Posi, contermina gens, adversarum rerum ex aequo sodi sunt, cum in secundis minores fuissent. From Ann. xi 16. 2 add conterminos populos. It seems that Tacitus worked either from a common draft, or from his earlier Germania directly.
35 Cf. vi 31. 1: mox superbiam in nos, saevitiam in populares sumpsit. See ILS 212, col. i 24–7, on Tarquinius.
36 Last seen in ii 45 f., allies of the Cherusci in a furious internecine war. There they had supported Arminius, defecting from their own king. Tacitus, in ii 44. 2, comments on the rivalry between royal and popular forms of government in Germany: sed Maroboduum regis nomen invisum apud populares, Arminium pro libertate bellantem favor habebat — again evincing a conscious Roman bias in its terminology. The Langobardi have reverted to a rex in 47.
37 Similar language had been used of Artabanus in vi 31. 1. Parthian and Armenian rulers are generally presented in a bad light.
38 xi 24. 1: statim contra disseruit — the Emperor rejects the arguments given in private (apud principem, 23. 2), and does the same before the Senate, at a session which the narrative presents as following immediately. See Furneaux2, op.cit. ad loc. on statim. For compressed narrative of a battle, cf. ii 3 (Parthia).
39 This debate is much discussed, especially for Tacitus’ sources. See Liechtenhan, E., ‘Quelques réflexions sur la Table Claudienne et Tac, Ann. XI, 23 et 24’, REL 24 (1946), 200–9,Google Scholar suggesting that Tacitus drew his arguments from Claudius' speech, rather than from records of the private consilium. Fabia, P., La Table Claudienne de Lyon (Lyons, 1929), p. 5,Google Scholar argued that the decree was probably passed in the Senate without opposition (as was within Claudius’ power): against the view of Münzer, F., ‘Die Verhandlungen über das lus honorum der Gallier’ (in Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigstem Geburtstage [Berlin, 1903], pp. 34 ff.),Google Scholar proposing that the opposition forced a modification of the law. Rebuffat-Emmanuel, D., ‘Un étruscologue victime de son temps: l’Empereur Claude’, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences humaines d’Aix 43 (1967), 210 (n.6) ff.,Google Scholar in a pro-Claudian account, actually argues that ILS 212 was recorded ‘live’ and that it was delivered ex tempore.
40 Cf. Koestermann, op.cit. ad loc. and Agr. 32. 3, Hist, i 4. 1.
41 Cf. ILS 212, col. i 9 f.: supervenere alieni et quidem externi; xi 24. 4 alienigenis (Claudius generally makes great play with civitas and alieni in his speech).
42 For the generalizing force of this description of Italicus, emphasizing his foreign-ness, see Furneaux2, op.cit., on xi 16. 3: alimonia. From the Parthian episodes, cf. ii 1. 1: (Vononem) externum aspernabantur, ii 2. 2: alio ex orbe and hostium artibus infectum; for servitium see i 59. 6, ii 2. 2.
43 Claudius himself removes senators for paupertas (see xi 25. 3: some must have been in this category; cf. Tiberius, ii 48; Nero, xiii 34. 1). For some of the anomalies of Claudius’ reign, see the statistics of S. de Laet, De Samenstelling van den romeinschen Senaat (Antwerp, 1941), pp. 251 ff.
44 See Suet. Claudius 10. 4. Claudius responds in xii 24. 6, and cf. opes earlier.
45 Observe, too, that it is divus lulius, not Caesar dictator; for this discretion may have been responsible (the Dictator: i 8. 6; ii 41. 1; iii 62. 2; iv 34. 4; vi 16. 1; xi 25. 2; xii 34; xiii 3. 2; xiv 9. 1; divus: i 42. 3; iii 6. 2; xvi 22. 3). Tact was lost upon Claudius: cf. xi 25. 2: dictator Caesar, in the Emperor’s own mouth, and this may be a deliberate device of Tacitus, for ILS 212, col. ii 33 has divom lulium. See also Quinn, K., Latin Explorations (London, 1969), p. 128 n.2.Google Scholar
46 ILS 212, col. i 8–27 has features of the events of Liv. i, ii.
47 Op.cit. p. 624.
48 About 34 Teubner lines to his opponents’ 16. It is the nearest we come to the long-windedness of ILS 212. Discussion of the speech is limited to its general trends, since its content often takes us far from the concern of this paper.
49 Cf. Liv. ii 16. 4 f.; and Ann. xii 25. 2 for interest in the gens at Rome.
50 Can Tacitus not resist the irony of Claudius’ ignorance of Messalina (see xi 26 ff.)? But quies abroad is a genuine concern: see Corbulo’s recall, xi 19, and Claudius’ policy, xii 11. 3.
51 See Syme, op. cit. p. 708.
52 Tacitus has suppressed the antiquarian aside of ILS 212, col. i 8–27, but substituted other material. The references to Claudius’ scholarly interests are often not complimentary: see xi 11; 13. 2–14; 15; 22. 2–6; xii 13. 3; 23 (cf. 24); 61. But the attacks are usually by implication.
53 The most notorious example is the marriage to Agrippina, xii 5–8: see 5. 1: nullo exemplo, and especially 6. 3: morem accommodari, prout conducat, et fore hoc quoque in iis quae mox usurpentur, which is almost a parody of xi 24. 7: inveterascet hoc quoque, et quod hodie exemplis tuemur, inter exempta erit. And there are xi 13. 2–14 (the alphabet), 22. 2–6 (the quaestorship), xii 60. 2–4 (the important allocation of power to freedmen). Other examples hinge upon the almost paradoxical effect of the Emperor’s antiquarianism, so that revival of obsolete ancient practices appears innovatory.
54 The superlative can be neutral: cf. ii 2. 1: vetustissimum liberorum eius, vi 31. 1: liberorum suorum veterrimum (both Parthian, and therefore of independent interest).
55 Ann. iii 55 strongly asserts the beneficial effect of novi.
56 Opinions on Tacitus’ technique tend to follow views on Claudius. Prominent supporter is Carcopino, J., ‘La Table Claudienne de Lyon’, Journal des Savants 1930, 69–81, 116–28;Google ScholarILS 212 gets high praise (pp. 122, 127 f., e.g.), against Tacitus (pp. 117, 120). Another is Wellesley, K., ‘Can you trust Tacitus?’, Greece and Rome 1 (1954), 13–33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Scramuzza, V.M., The Emperor Claudius (Cambridge, Mass., 1940)Google Scholar (criticized for this tendency by Momigliano, A., JRS 32 (1942), 125–7;Google Scholar the letter’s monograph, Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement2 [Cambridge, 1961], is more balanced); and Vittinghoff, F., ‘Zur Rede des Kaisers Claudius über die Aufnahme von “Galliern” in den römischen Senat’, Hermes 83 (1954), 348–71.Google ScholarMiller, N.P., Rh.Mus. 99 (1956), 304’15,Google Scholar rightly concentrates on ancient historical technique, not modern practices; Carney, T.F., ‘The changing picture of Claudius’, Acta Classica 3 (1960), 99–104,Google Scholar urges caution in the praise of Claudius. See further Koestermann, op.cit., at xi 24. 1 (pp. 76–7).
57 Cf. Liechtenhan, REL 24 (1946), 208 f.: enough of Claudius’ style is preserved to allow us to judge him (insofar as Tacitus’ own style permits). The resultant inconsistency is small.
58 The Parthian parallels have been kept in the background. That this too was an area of interest is attested by xii 11, where Claudius lectures the Parthians on his policy. For the tone, cf. Hist, i 16. 4; iv 73. 3.
59 Limited to the leaders in Germany and Parthia, xi 16 and xii 11.