Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:46:59.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Appreciations III: Tacitus, Histories 3.38–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

N. P. Miller  and
P. V. Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following is the third of a series which began in G & R 20 (1973), 38 ff. and 155 ff. and was continued in G & R 21 (1974), 165 ff.

38. Nota per eos dies Iunii Blaesi mors et famosa fuit, de qua sic accepimus. gravi corporis morbo aeger Vitellius Servilianis hortis turrim vicino sitam conlucere per noctem crebris luminibus animadvertit. sciscitani causam apud Caecinam Tuscum epulari multos, praecipuum honore Iunium Blaesum nuntiatur; cetera in maius, de apparatu et solutis in lasciviam animis. nee defuere qui ipsum Tuscum et alios, sed criminosius Blaesum incusarent, quod aegro principe laetos dies ageret. ubi asperatum Vitellium et posse Blaesum perverti satis patuit iis qui principum offensas acriter speculantur, datae L. Vitellio delationis partes. ille infensus Blaeso aemulatione prava, quod eum omni dedecore maculosum egregia fama anteibat, cubiculum imperatoris reserat, filium eius sinu complexus et genibus accidens. causam confusionis quaerenti, non se proprio metu nee sui anxium, sed pro fratre, pro liberis fratris preces lacrimasque attulisse. frustra Vespasianum timeri, quem tot Germanicae legiones, tot provinciae virtute ac fide, tantum denique terrarum ac maris immensis spatiis arceat: in urbe ac sinu cavendum hostem, Iunios Antoniosque avos iactantem, qui se stirpe imperatoria comem ac magnificum militibus ostentet. versas illuc omnium mentis, dum Vitellius amicorum inimicorumque neglegens fovet aemulum principis labores e convivio prospectantem. reddendam pro intempestiva laetitia maestam et funebrem noctem, qua sciat et sentiat vivere Vitellium et imperare et, si quid fato accidat, filium habere.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , April 1978 , pp. 70 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Caecina: see ch. 36.

2. Fabius Valens: see chs. 36, 40, 43.

3. It is clear from Gerber and Greef, Lexicon Taciteum (Hildesheim, 1962)Google Scholar that Tacitus most frequently uses both adjectives in the derogatory sense.

4. Pliny, , Epp. 5.5.3 and 8.12.4.Google Scholar

5. Cf.Hist. 2.37: Ann. 12.67: 14.2: 14.9: 15.38.Google Scholar

6. The style of the sentence makes it very unlikely that the omission of in before vicino is the responsibility of anyone other than Tacitus himself.

7. Conlucere is emphatically placed, an intensive form, and a word mostly found in poetic/descriptive contexts.

8. Cf. Hist. 3.37.2: 78.1, etc.

9. For this meaning of aspero, the Thesaurus cites only Tacitus, Ammianus, and a few late writers. Tacitus so uses the word four times. Cf. Hist. 3.82: Ann. 1.72: 3.12.

10. This construction is occasionally found in Golden Latin, but more often in Tacitus. It combines archaism, accuracy, and novelty.

11. Blaesus was presumably a descendant (son? grandson? nephew?) of the Junius Blaesus of Ann. 1.16 f., who was the last non-member of the imperial family to be awarded the title imperator (Ann. 3.74). His connection with the Antonii is unknown: but Mark Antony, as well as being a rival of Augustus', was also married to his sister Octavia.

12. Cf. Ann. 14.59: 15.67.Google Scholar Tacitus rarely quotes directly: when he does, his reasons are clear (in Ann. 15.67Google Scholar they are specific): we need not therefore doubt that he found the words in a source. They are also attributed to Vitellius by Suetonius (Vit. 14.2Google Scholar), but associated with a different occasion. Which author mistook or misused his source cannot be proven: but Suetonius' collection of scurrilous and quite unspecific gossip (‘one of these’ … ‘two sons’ … ‘a Roman knight’) is unimpressive.

13. Cf. Ann. 5.8: 14.9.Google Scholar

14. For Tacitus' careful selection of candidates for obituary notices in the Annals, see Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), pp. 312–13Google Scholar, and Ten Studies in Tacitus (Oxford, 1970), pp. 79–90Google Scholar (= AJP 1958, 18–31).Google Scholar

15. A version of III was given to the London Classical Association. Keith Sidwell and Frances Corrie are responsible for considerable tightening and improvement of the argument, particularly at the end.