¹ Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, 3.6. See von Stackelberg, J., Tacitus in der Romania (Tübingen, 1960), pp. 71f.Google Scholar; Schellhase, K. C., Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought (Chicago-London, 1976), pp. 72ff.Google Scholar; Syme, R., Roman Papers [= RP] (Oxford, 1979), i.472.Google Scholar

² Syme, R., JRS 28 (1938), 223Google Scholar [= RP i.86]. For Syme's other pronouncements on Eprius' words see The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), p. 514Google Scholar; Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), pp. 25f., 109Google Scholar (‘speech of great force and sagacity, conveying the argument for moderation and tolerance’), 187, 209 (‘a statesmanlike defence of neutrals and time-servers’), 547; Ten Studies in Tacitus (Oxford, 1970), pp. 138fGoogle Scholar. (‘a salutary doctrine’).

³ The problem was recognized as early as the seventeenth century: see Milton's response to Salmasius' use of Ann. 6.8.4 as representing (he thought) Tacitus' favourable assessment of monarchy: ‘that expression is not Tacitus’ own, who is an approved writer, and of all other the greatest enemy to tyrants; but Tacitus relates that of M. Terentius…and you cite this passage as if Tacitus had said it himself; you scrape together whatever seems to make for your opinion, either out of ostentation, or out of weakness' (Defensio pro Populo Anglicano, English translation in The Prose Works of John Milton, ed. by John, J. A. St. [London, 1893], i. 129)Google Scholar. For some sound methodology see Suerbaum, W., Gymnasium Beihefte 4 (Heidelberg, 1964), 105–32Google Scholar. The speech of Eprius itself: compare, long ago, Boissier, G., Tacite (Paris, 103), p. 175Google Scholar with de La Ville de Mirmont, H., REA 16 (1904), 117–19Google Scholar and, more recently, Briessmann, A., Tacitus und das flavische Geschichtsbild (Wiesbaden, 1955), p. 97Google Scholar with Chilver, G. E. F., A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories IV and V (Oxford, 1985), p. 29Google Scholar (‘it is difficult to believe that lines 12–15 [i.e. 8.3], put into the mouth of a man for whom T. never had a good word, should be taken seriously in this context’). The most recent assessment is that of Sage, M. M., ANRW II 33.2 (Berlin–New York, 1989), p. 941Google Scholar: ‘the clearest commentary on the limits of senatorial freedom… the subordinate position of the Senate with respect to the emperor is clearly expressed as well as the futility of any real opposition’ (endorsing Briessmann).

⁴ All references in this paper, unless stated otherwise, are to Tacitus' Histories.

⁵ Valerius Asiaticus (see 4.4.3 and Townend, G. B., AJPh 83 [1962], 125–9)Google Scholar. For the impact of the motions put forward by consules designati see Vielberg, M., WüJbb N.F. 14 (1988), 173f.Google Scholar: adsentiendi necessitas (Plin. Paneg. 76.3; Tac. Ann. 3.22.4) was usually felt (note also Dial. 41.4: ‘quid…opus est longis in senatu sententiis, cum optimi cito consentiant’ and esp. Claudius' criticism of the senators: ‘minime enim decorum est, p.c, maiestati huius ordinis hie unum tantummodo consulem designatum descriptam ex relatione consulum ad verbum dicere sententiam, ceteros unum verbum dicere “adsentior”, deinde cum exierint “diximus”’, BGU 611 = Smallwood, E. M., Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero [Oxford, 1967], no. 367Google Scholar, recently discussed by Griffin, M., CQ 40 [1990], 494ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who defends the Claudian authorship of the speech). Eprius, accordingly, reminds the senators that ‘non suam sententiam impugnari, sed consulem designatum censuisse’.

⁶ CR 12 (1962), 198.Google Scholar

⁷ Hermes 113 (1985), 235Google Scholar. See also Brunt, P. A., PBSR 43 (1975), 28.Google Scholar

⁸ For a similar intention of some senators at the beginning of the rule of Galba see 1.4.3: ‘patres laeti, usurpata statim libertate licentius ut erga principem novum et absentem’. In Book 4 Vespasian is away too, but his general will soon come on the scene: ‘tali rerum statu…Mucianus in urbem ingressus cuncta simul in se traxit (4.10.1; in this he acts like an emperor: for the phrase ‘cuncta in se trahere’ see Ann. 1.2.1 on Octavian and 11.5.1 on Claudius; for his pacification of the senate see 4.44f.) and also Domitian is in Rome (note Eprius’ sneer at Helvidius ‘regna praesente Caesare’).

⁹ 4.9. On the importance of the two motions here recorded see Levick, B. in Opposition et résistances à l'Empire d'Auguste à Trajan (Entretiens Hardt 33) (Vandoeuvres–Geneva, 1987), 196f.Google Scholar

¹⁰ 4.40.3. See Birley, art. cit. 198f. Both attempts failed and, characteristically, in both cases the emperor is invoked by the opposite side: ‘ne quid super tanta re principe absente statueretur’ (compare Ann. 2.35.2) and ‘consulendum tali super re principem’.

¹¹ It may even be suggested that the use of imperatoris is not casual: Vespasian is still only an imperator, he should become a princeps and honesti sermones will be of much help in this respect. But, needless to say, imperatoris may well be used for the sake of variety: principem occurs three lines below (compare 1.1.4).

¹² We have no evidence at all about Vespasian's relations with Thrasea and ‘Sentius’ (see next note). As for Barea, Marcia Furnilla, his brother's (Q. Marcius Barea Sura) daughter was the second wife of Titus: ‘cum qua sublata filia divortium fecit’ (Suet. Tit. 4.2). The divorce may be dated to A.D. 65/66 and political reasons (the fall of Barea Soranus and, perhaps, coniuratio Viniciana) are most probable: Townend, G. B., JRS 51 (1961), 57 n. 10Google Scholar; Evans, J. K., CQ 29 (1979), 201CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But I cannot agree with Nichols, J., Vespasian and the Panes Flavianae (Wiesbaden, 1978), p. 24Google Scholar who connects the divorce with the Pisonian conspiracy: Soranus was not involved in the plot.

¹³ Most probably not Cn. Sentius Saturninus, cos. a.d. 41, despite Groag, E., RE II A (1923), 1536fGoogle Scholar. (followed by Nicols, op. cit. 23), although a fine climax would thus be established: cos. 56 – cos. 53 – cos. 41. He is not mentioned after a.d. 43 (when he was in Britain) and does not appear at all in Tacitus. Moreover, his presentation in senatorial historiography of the period, if we can judge from Josephus (note esp. Ant. 19.185 with Timpe, D., Historia 9 [1960], 476Google Scholar – who, however, accepts the identification), makes him rather unlikely to be referred to by Helvidius alongside Thrasea and Soranus. Other proposals, involving the rejection of the MS. reading, are highly speculative (‘Anteio’? – P. Anteius Rufus, see A. Stein, RE II A, 1509).

¹⁴ Compare ‘quos innocentissimos senatus habeat’ with ‘in exitium tot innocentium’: a link is established between Marcellus' victims and the senate's would-be envoys to Vespasian.

¹⁵ See also 85.6: ‘praecipuum est principis opus amicos parare.’

¹⁶ The difference is not diminished by Pliny's assumption that Trajan picks up as his friends those ‘qui invisissimi malo [principi] fuerint’ (45.3), sc. a group of people analogous with that among which, as implied by Helvidius, the friends of Vespasian are to be found. And note that Pliny has nothing to say about quos reformidet.

¹⁷ Tac. Ann. 16.33.2.

¹⁸ (a) 4.42.5: ‘quem [Aquillium Regulum] adhuc quaestorium offendere non audemus, praetorium et consularem ausuri sumus?’ These words (in a speech by Curtius Montanus) are most probably a hint of Regulus' cursus honorum after a.d. 70 (otherwise not attested): see Syme, R., JRS 43 (1953), 161Google Scholar [= RP i.254f.], accepted by Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970), 76Google Scholar. (b) Ann. 4.40.7: ‘datoque tempore vel in contione vel in senatu non reticebo.’ The closing words of Tiberius' letter to Sejanus foreshadow another letter of that emperor, also involving Sejanus, and sent to the senate: the verbosa et grandis epistula (Iuv. 10.71) of a.d. 31 (see Syme, R., The Augustan Aristocracy [Oxford, 1986], p. 170Google Scholar and R. H. Martin and A. J. Woodman ad loc). (c) Ann. 16.26.5 (Thrasea's warning to Arulenus Rusticus): ‘illi initium magistratuum et integra quae supersint. Multum ante secum expenderet quod tali in tempore capessendae rei publicae iter ingrederetur.’ To quote Syme (Tacitus, p. 745), ‘the memory and example of Thrasea Paetus was to prove fatal to Rusticus many years later’. Initium here seems not quite appropriate (the tribuneship is meant). But note that Rusticus was put to death in a.d. 93, just a few months after his consulate (which may be described as finis magistratuum: Cic. Plane. 60): initium foreshadows finis.

Some caution is, however, recommended. Note Otho's advice to his nephew Salvius Cocceianus in 2.48.2: ‘proinde erecto animo capesseret vitam, neu patruum sibi Othonem fuisse aut olivisceretur umquam aut nimium meminisset.’ This looks like foreshadowing in view of Suet. Dom. 10.3 (Cocceianus killed by Domitian ‘quod Othonis imperatoris patrui sui diem natalem celebraverat’) but the same words are preserved in Plut. Otho 16.2 (so must have been recorded by their common source) published, as almost generally accepted, before a.d. 96.

¹⁹ Syme, , Tacitus, p. 670.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Aper stands for all the orators of his type that the century produced’ (Winterbottom, M., JRS 54 [1964], 94)Google Scholar. So also for Marcellus and Vibius. Winterbottom's paper gives a perceptive analysis of that new current in oratory and esp. of Quintilian's appraisal of it.

²¹ On Eprius' amicitia with Vespasian see also Dio (Xiph.) 66.16.3 (φíλους τε αὐτοὺς ν τοîσ μάλστα νομíζων) and most probably 66.12.2 (Exc. Val.).

²² See Townend, art. cit. 54. On his career under Vespasian see CIL x.3853 = ILS 992 and Bradley, K. R., Symb. Osl. 53 (1978), 171–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On his earlier career new light was shed by a Greek inscription from Cyprus published by T. B. Mitford in 1954 (see AE 1956, no. 186; Bradley has some doubts about Mitford's restoration of its text). Remarkably, Vibius' cursus honorum displays a pattern highly similar to that of Eprius (for a different view on Vibius' career see Bosworth, A. B., Ath. 49 [1973], 71ff.Google Scholar: hardly convincing): the proconsulate of Africa in 72/73, the second consulship in March 74 (the identification of L. Iunius Vibius Crispus, PIR ² i.847, seems now firmly established: see Gallivan, P. A., CQ 24 [1974], 306)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Their earlier career was also similar (both were consuls c. 61–62: Syme, , RP iii. 1054f.Google Scholar – and both were informers). Not so their ends (see below).

²³ For timere / timeri as applied to delators see Plin. Paneg. 35.3 (‘timeant quantum timebantur’) and 46.8 (‘nee timent nee timentur’ – thanks to Trajans). Note also 1.81.1 with Plut. Otho 3.5 (Otho's fear).

²⁴ For an attempt at a reconstruction of the affair see Crook, J. A., AJPh 72 (1951), 162–75Google Scholar (contra: P. Rogers, M., Historia 29 [1980], 86–95)Google Scholar. On Caecina's fall see also Suet. Tit. 6.2.

²⁵ Suet. Vesp. 15 (see below). For the date see Syme, Tacitus, pp. 212 and 671 (a.d. 74: but he might have been banished as early as 71 – so Brunt, art. cit. [n. 7], 30). Perhaps the execution took place a little later than Syme suggests: Dial. 5.6 seems to imply that both Eprius (which is obvious) and Helvidius are still alive at the dramatic date of the treatise.

²⁶ See Wirszubski, Ch., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome (Cambridge, 1950), p. 149Google Scholar and esp. Malitz, art. cit. [n. 7], 241ff. Dio's account is accepted by Toynbee, J. M. C., G&R 13 (1944), 53ffGoogle Scholar. and Melmoux, J., Par. d. Pass. 30 (1975), 37ffGoogle Scholar. (Helvidius contrasted with Thrasea). But Dio's final comment is worth quoting: ξ ὡν ππíει ὡθανάτα, καì πολλά πράττων ἓμεττέ ποτε δíκην αὐτν δώσειν. The tone here is similar to that of Eprius' warning.

²⁷ Which is in itself suspected. A clash between Helvidius and the emperor (involving, as here, the tribunes of the people) occurred under Vitellius – and is recorded by both Tacitus (2.91) and Dio himself (65.7.2, Xiph.). Perhaps the latter is responsible for the doublet (note Tacitus' praetor designatus and Dio's στρατηγν δέ τένικατα). See Braithwaite, A. W., C. Suetoni Tranquilli Divus Vespasianus (Oxford, 1927), p. 58.Google Scholar

²⁸ ‘Post adsiduas in se coniurationes ausus sit adfirmare senatui’: the implication here is that (a) Vespasian's statement is made later in his reign (surely not in 71); (b) it was not elicited by any opposition to dynastic succession (unless we give much wider significance to the word ‘coniurationes’). As for Helvidius' opposition towards the emperor's dynastic policy, it was accepted by Birley, A. R., The Ancient Historian and His Materials. Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens (Westmead, 1975), p. 143Google Scholar (‘Vespasian's emotional statement leaves no doubt that Helvidius had spoken strongly in the senate, opposing the designation of Titus as Vespasian's successor’) and Brunt, art. cit. 30. Wirszubski was more cautious (op. cit., pp. 147f.).

²⁹ See Levick, B., Antichthon 16 (1982), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ See Brunt, art. cit. 30 n. 145.

³¹ See also Ios. Bell. 4.596 with Briessmann, op. cit. [n. 3], p. 8.

³² In a similar manner Claudius picks up his advisers' argument about the Gaulish wealth (‘quem ultra honorem residuis nobilium, aut si quis pauper e Latio senator foret? Oppleturos omnia diviies illos’, Ann. 11.23.3f.) and turns it to his own purpose: ‘aurum et opes suas inferant potius quam separati habeant’ (11.24.6; compare CIL xiii. 1668 II, 2f.: ‘bonorum scilicet virorum et locupletium’). And compare ‘imbecillum…et imparem laboribus sexum’ (Ann. 3.33.3) with Valerius Messalinus' response: ‘simul sexum natura invalidum deseri et exponi suo luxu, cupidinibus alienis’ (3.34.5). However, in Eprius' speech the device is used not against a minor point in his antagonist's argument but against the very heart of it.

³³ On the senate's role in condemnations see McAlindon, D., AJPh 77 (1956), 119Google Scholar and Garnsey, P.Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1970), pp. 46f.Google Scholar

³⁴ The idea of the responsibility of the chamber as a whole is found also in Dio 59.16.2 (Gaius' opinion on the condemnations under Tiberius): τοὑς βουλευτάς ατίους τοὑ λέθρου τοîς πλεíστοις αὺτν γεγονότας, τοὺς μν ὅτι κατηγόρησάν σφων, τοὑς δέ ὅτι κατεμαρτὑρησαν, πάντας δ τι κατεψηφíσαντο.

³⁵ There is, undoubtedly, an important difference between iudicium (relating to the consultative function of the senate) and arbitrium (the senate as a decision-making body); for the latter see RG 34.1: ‘rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli.’

³⁶ It is possible that in Helvidius' sententia (the summary of which is marred by the lacuna) the expression of his respect towards the emperor was coupled with an oblique criticism of his generals and esp. Mucianus (to whom much of the chapter is devoted): so Malitz, art. cit. 235. Note the historian's final comment: ‘isque praecipuus illi dies magnae offensae initium et magnae gloriae fuit’.

³⁷ Note that Helvidius' clash with Marcellus is also referred to as altercatio (4.7.1: ‘paulatimque per altercationem ad continuas et infestas orationes provecti sunt’). The word is commonly used to denote a series of exchanges between two senators (Cic. Att. 1.16.8; 4.13.1; Liv. 4.6.1): the implication seems to be that Helvidius treated Vespasian as an ordinary senator. Compare Vitellius' opinion on a clash between Helvidius and himself, quoted in 2.91.3: ‘nihil novi accidisse…quod duo senatores in re publica dissentirent’ (and also Tiberius' words to Q. Haterius, preserved in Suet. Tib. 29).

³⁸ See also Dio (Xiph.) 66.12: στρατηγν δ τηνικατα οὕτε τι πρς τιμἠν το αὐτοκρτορος ἕδρα καì προσέτι καì βλασφημν αὐτòν οὐκ παετο.

³⁹ For a different opinion see Chilver ad loc. (quoting Liv. 43.1.10; 44.18.5). Compare also 3.80.5, ‘mox vocato senatu deliguntur legati ad exercitus’, where deliguntur seems to imply the choice by vote (note Ann. 13.29.1: ‘Augustus senatui permisit deligere praefectos; deinde ambitu suffragiorum suspecto sorte ducebantur ex numero praetorum qui praeessent’).

⁴⁰ See Syme, , Tacitus, p. 334 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Note esp. Veil. 2.89.4: ‘prisca ilia et antiqua rei publicae forma revocata’, although ‘res publica’ should not, perhaps, be conceived as ‘the Republic’ (see Millar, F., JRS 63 [1973], 61ff.)Google Scholar. See further Mackie, N. K. in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Brussels, 1986), iv.302–40.Google Scholar

⁴² For a similarly pessimistic idea (although placed in a somewhat different context) see 4.74.2 (in a speech by Petilius Cerialis): ‘vitia erunt, donee homines, sed neque haec continua et meliorum interventu pensantur’ and note the verb tolerate in the preceding sentence (compare also Ios. Bell. 2.354).

⁴³ As contended by Malitz, art. cit., 235 n. 29. ‘Probably not’, according to Chilver (ad 4.6.7). Paratore, E., Tacito (Milan, 1951), pp. 195fGoogle Scholar. argues for 4.43 (with infestis patribus paralleled by ardentibus patrum animis in that chapter): but no speech (in a strict sense of the word) by Marcellus is there recorded. Most probably the reference is to minax certamen et egregiis utriusque orationibus testatum’ (testatum implies that the speeches remained well-known after i a.d. 69) mentioned in 4.6.2: this would explain why the senators were infesti. There is not much room for a later dating of the altercation (Marcellus went to Asia), unless we assume that it occurred after his coming back (Syme, , Tacitus, p. 212).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Dial. 8.2.

⁴⁶ As Aper says (ibid.), ‘ad has ipsas opes possunt videri eloquentiae beneficio venisse’. Interestingly, both pecunia and eloquentia reappear in another speech of Helvidius, briefly summarized in 4.43.1, and the reference there is (though indirectly) to Marcellus: ‘a laude Cluvii I Run orsus, qui perinde dives et eloquentia clarus nulli umquam sub Nerone periculum facessisset, crimine simul exemploque Eprium urgebat.’ To possess much wealth was regarded as perilous under the principate; one felt constrained to show loyalty towards the emperor, even by means of accusing somebody (‘perdere alios quam periclitari ipsi maluerunt’, 4.42.3). Eloquentia was also a menace: note Tacitus' statement about Iulius Graecinus in Agr. 4.1 (‘studio eloquentiae sapientiaeque notus, iisque ipsis virtutibus iram Gai Caesaris meritus: namque Marcum Silanum accusare iussus et, quia abnuerat, interfectus est’).

⁴⁶ In the Annals (much of the senatorial narrative in the Histories is lost) Vibius is mentioned only once, and somewhat casually (14.28.2): see Syme, Tacitus, p. 743.

⁴⁷ A fragment of Statius' De bello Germanico (preserved in Valla ad Iuv. 4.94: Büchner, K., FrPoetLat, 164)Google Scholar gives a description of his influence under Domitian: ‘potentem signat utrumque/purpura, ter memores implerunt nomine fastos’ (referring to him and Fabricius Veiento). See also Iuv. 4.81–93 (a noteworthy passage).

⁴⁸ See esp. 1.30.2; 55.4; 57,1; 90,2. On Otho's speech see Syme, , Ten Studies, p. 133.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ 1.4.3 with Fuhrmann, M., Philologus 104 (1960), 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ See e.g. 1.19.1; 35.1; 88.2. The criticism of the senate is undoubtedly traceable to Tacitus' sources: compare 1.45.1 (‘alium crederes senatum, alium populum’) with Plut. Galba 28.1 (καì καθάπερ ἅλλοι γεγονóτες ἥ θεν ἅλλων γεγονóτων συνελθóνντες). The emphasis is, however, Tacitus' own (if we can judge from Plutarch).

⁵¹ That is not to say that the senatorial narrative in Book 4 is devoid of any criticism of this body (note, e.g. the bitter remark in 4.44.1: ‘patres coeptatam libertatem, postquam obviam itum, omisere’). But there is a difference between Tacitus' treatment of the senate in Book 4 and in his earlier narrative (notably in Hist. 1).

⁵² Also voted by the senate: see Plin. Ep. 7.19.6 (‘libros…abolitos senatus consulto’).

⁵³ 2.95.3. This is another side to a not infrequently expressed opinion that Tacitus', judgement of Vespasian was generally favourable.