Speeches in The Histories

14
D. S . L E V E NE
Speeches in the Histories
I
Virtually all ancient historians give a high prominence to speeches. This is
a complex reflection of various related strands of the societies of Greece
and Rome. For one thing, in antiquity persuasion through speeches played
a central political role, and hence speeches needed to be represented as a
significant causal factor in history. But there is a second aspect too: pre-
cisely because of the key political role of oratory, rhetoric was central in the
education of the upper classes from whose ranks historians were invariably
drawn. Hence historians found it very natural to interpret history through
the presentation of speeches that both discussed and putatively influenced
that history, and indeed to insert speeches largely or entirely of their own
composition to illustrate key themes underlying historical events.
Such speeches were often constructed to appear realistic – they were pre-
sented in direct speech and thus strongly mimetic, purporting to represent
the speaker’s actual words. But that formal similarity to real speeches is to
some degree an illusion, for it is surprisingly rare for a political speech that
appears in an historical text genuinely to be something that could actually
have been delivered on the purported occasion. The most obvious point
is that real speeches, such as those published by Demosthenes or Cicero,
tend to be considerably longer than their counterparts in historians. The
latter, though sometimes following a traditional oratorical format in out-
line, are typically far more terse and selective in developing their arguments.
Sometimes the historian tacitly alerts the reader to the process of abridge-
ment by, for example, beginning in indirect speech as if to illustrate the gen-
eral lines of the argument before moving into direct speech for the climax;
but other speeches that are in direct speech throughout are manifestly not
actual representations of reality. This observation does not merely make
the familiar point that ancient historians are not always accurate in their
Thanks to Rhiannon Ash for her useful comments on an earlier draft.
212
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. King's College London, on 01 Oct 2017 at 19:01:04, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Cambridge Collections Onlinehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521874601.016
© Cambridge University Press, 2010
reproduction of speeches (or indeed of other events), but also suggests

something more noteworthy: that an attentive ancient reader, familiar with
actual speeches, would have been aware of the artificiality of their historical
representation.1
All this applies to ancient historiography in general, but speeches in
Tacitus to some degree constitute a special case. Speaking in Tacitus is con-
stantly represented in all sorts of contexts: people are described talking,
persuading or discussing issues. But this is not the same thing as saying
that speeches are constantly represented. Formal speeches in Tacitus are
somewhat rarer than in most of his historical counterparts. While there
are naturally a number of set speeches in his works, often such speeches
are represented only summarily and in indirect speech, or else the speeches
that are represented are closer to conversation than to speeches deliv-
ered to audiences on formal occasions.2 The boundaries of this are fluid.
It is common in historians, as I noted above, to abbreviate speeches to
some degree, and so Tacitus’ own abbreviations are not transgressing any
generic rules; nor is there a precise definition of what constitutes ‘a formal
occasion’ that puts speeches clearly inside or outside the category. Tacitus’
speeches, however, are removed from traditionally formal speeches more
regularly and to a greater degree than those in Thucydides or Sallust, Livy
or Polybius. In place of the regular run of speeches – those delivered in the
course of properly constituted debates in assemblies and senates, gener-
als’ pre-battle speeches to armies or negotations between ambassadors,
for example – Tacitus often, especially in the Annals, represents people
speaking either in a more abridged way or in less traditional contexts.
Thus at the opening of Annals 13, for instance, Nero gives formal speeches
at Claudius’ funeral and to the senate at 13.3–4, but they are presented
only briefly in indirect speech, as are the senatorial debate over Parthia
(13.8.1), the embassies (13.9.1) and Nero’s decree after Britannicus’ death
(13.17.3). Instead one has longer accounts (though still represented in
indirect speech) of the popular gossip of Nero’s capacity to rule (13.6) and
of Agrippina’s quarrel with Nero (13.13–14); the latter in particular is a
complex set of exchanges involving multiple charges, counter-charges and
shifts in approach rather than arguments laid out in the manner of oratory.
In these chapters there is only one direct speech: Agrippina’s self-defence
before Burrus and Seneca, which is presented more formally and at greater
length (13.21.2–5) – but it is delivered on an occasion that has no regular
legal or constitutional standing and whose result is simply to obtain her an
1
Compare the discussion in Laird (1999), esp. 111–15 and 121–52.
2
Ullmann (1927) 18; Miller (1964), also (1975) 54–5.
213
D . S. L e v e n e
interview with the emperor. While it is certainly true that the dominance
of rhetoric and rhetorical training in Roman culture meant that rhetorical
influences could be expected in private as well as public speech, it is rare in
earlier Roman historiography to find so formal a speech in a context that
is directly marked as a private occasion; it is rarer still for this to substitute
for the representation of formal speeches on public occasions.
The obvious explanation for this change in balance from earlier literature
is that it mirrors Tacitus’ picture of the structure of power at Rome: speak-
ing is still represented because of its political effectiveness, but in the con-
text of a world in which political structures have been overturned. There is
less need for him to report public speeches or senatorial debates, since it is
not primarily through such debates that decisions of consequence are being
made (a point that Tacitus famously puts into the mouth of Maternus in
D. 36, 40–1);3 the greater emphasis on private conversations or quasi-judi-
cial but still private hearings marks the fact that power resides more behind
closed doors, rather than being derived from public persuasion. A secondary
point is that speeches presented in such a fashion are – at least potentially –
able to mirror reality more closely than are the unnaturally abbreviated
speeches of most historians. It would after all not be unexpected if speeches
delivered on informal occasions were shorter or less formally structured
than those typically delivered on formal occasions; so, if such speeches in
Tacitus appear short and informal, that simply fits what one would expect,
given the circumstances of their delivery.
But while this goes some way towards explaining the distinctive features
of the Annals, it leaves the Histories now looking anomalous. Speeches in
the Histories appear on the face of things more traditional than do those
in the Annals.4 Even though the surviving work is shorter than the surviv-
ing portion of the Annals, a higher proportion of it consists of substan-
tial set-piece speeches: Book 1 alone contains no fewer than four, one by
Galba (1.15–16), one by Piso (1.29.2–30.3), and two by Otho (1.37.1–38.2,
1.83.2–84.4); there are also shorter reported speeches and discussions, such
as Galba’s formal adoption of Piso (1.18.2), or the debate over how to deal
with Otho’s coup (1.32.2–33.2). One possible explanation for this is that
at the time when he wrote the Histories Tacitus had not yet developed the
distinctive analysis of Roman power that he explores in his later work; a
further, though related, answer would be to suggest that the Histories is
more conventional in its handling of historiographical structure, and it was
3
Compare Dio 53.19.3–4 for the difficulties of writing history under the Empire, where deci-
sions are made in private rather than in public debate.
4
Ullmann (1927) 217–18; Miller (1964) 292–4; Sage (1990) 921.
214
only in the Annals that Tacitus experimented with more radical techniques
to mirror his more radical interpretation of Roman history. But though this
may appear plausible at first sight, a closer reading of the Histories, and the
role that speeches play in it, can lead us to a different conclusion.
II
Let us examine as an example the first speech in the work. Galba’s speech
defending his plan to adopt Piso at H. 1.15–16 is significant, since its posi-
tion and subject matter reveal it as in some ways programmatic for the
whole of the first three books.5 For our purposes we can observe that it
bears more than a passing resemblance to a deliberative speech such as
might have appeared in any earlier historian. It is spoken from a position
of authority, and opens with an exordium of a type recommended in the
rhetorical handbooks (1.15.1), beginning the speech from the persons of
the speaker and the addressee, and the specific situation under which Galba
is speaking;6 it ends with a clearly marked conclusion (1.16.4), in which
he draws the threads of his argument together while denying the necessity
for a long speech. In between he presents a long and carefully reasoned set
of arguments:7 a citation of precedent (1.15.1) to explain why he chooses
to adopt a successor at all; praise of Piso to demonstrate his superiority
to other possible candidates (1.15.3–4), while warning him of the danger
that he will be corrupted through flattery; an explanation of the necessity
to the stability of Rome of maintaining an emperor rather than restoring
the Republic (1.16.1); and arguments why that stability is best ensured by
adoption of a distinguished outsider rather than remaining within a single
dynasty (1.16.2).8
But this speech, apparently conventional in form, is delivered in a strange
context. Whereas in the parallel narratives of Plutarch (Galb. 23.2) and
Suetonius (Galb. 17) the adoption takes place before the soldiers in a contio
or public meeting, in Tacitus that contio is merely a public announcement
of something that has already occurred (1.18.2). The actual adoption had
taken place at what Tacitus refers to as comitia imperii – ‘imperial elections’
(1.14.1). This is a unique and ironic phrase. Under the Republic comitia had
been the assemblies at which elections were held for the annual magistrates,
5
See Keitel (1991) 2775–6; (2006) 220–3.
6
For the topics of exordia in deliberative oratory see e.g. Rhet. Alex. 1436b1–1438a1; Quint.
Inst. 3.8.6–8.
7
Which is not to say the reader is necessarily to accept their validity: for some of the weak-
nesses in Galba’s arguments see Welwei (1995) 359–61; Damon (2003) 136–41.
8
See the analysis of Ullmann (1927) 202–3.
215
D . S. L e v e n e
the properly constituted authorities who were the official possessors of impe-
rium, the legal right of command. Here the comitia are elections in nothing
more than name, and the imperium that is acquired through them gains its
force simply through the emperor’s ability to maintain it. The participants at
this ‘assembly’, and hence the audience for Galba’s speech, are merely four of
Galba’s political associates along with Piso himself. This is not in reality an
unusual situation – upper-class Romans would regularly take decisions after
convening an advisory group of friends – but the sense that Galba is trans-
gressing a traditional boundary is accentuated because Tacitus transfers the
language and formal structure of an official occasion to a private one.
The opening words of the speech draw out precisely that disparity between
form and occasion (1.15.1):
si te priuatus lege curiata apud pontifices, ut moris est, adoptarem, et mihi
egregium erat Cn. Pompei et M. Crassi subolem in penatis meos adsciscere,
et tibi insigne Sulpiciae ac Lutatiae decora nobilitati tuae adiecisse; nunc me
deorum hominumque consensu ad imperium uocatum praeclara indoles tua et
amor patriae impulit ut principatum, de quo maiores nostri armis certabant,
bello adeptus quiescenti offeram.
Were I a private citizen, and were I to adopt you in the presence of the pon-
tiffs by the usual formality of a curial statute, it would be an honour for me
to introduce into my family a descendant of Gnaeus Pompey and of Marcus
Crassus, and for you it would be a distinction to add to your noble ancestry
the glories of the Sulpician and Lutatian houses. As it is, I have been called by
the consent of gods and men to be an emperor. Your distinguished qualities and
your patriotism have persuaded me to offer to you peacefully the throne for
which our ancestors fought on the field of battle, and which I too won by war.
The basic contrast that Galba is drawing here is between the qualities of
ancestry that a private citizen might seek in an adopted son and the personal
qualities that an emperor seeks in adopting an heir. But in the course of
making that contrast he introduces a secondary contrast as well: between the
legal adoption in which a private citizen would engage and that which Galba
is performing here. This point is on the face of things superfluous to Galba’s
main argument, but highlights the occasion for the speech in a way that
draws out its paradoxes. As a private citizen Galba would have adopted Piso
in public through a traditional legal process in front of a properly constituted
group; yet as an emperor choosing his successor he does so privately, by
personal fiat in front of an ad hoc assemblage of a few associates.9 In exactly
9
Haynes (2003) 52. See also Welwei (1995) 356–63 and Haynes (2003) 50–3 for the wider
tension in the speech between Galba’s Republican-sounding language and the imperial
ideology that he is articulating.
216
the same fashion, the form of the speech seems to belong to the traditions of
public Roman oratory, a form which the vital political subject matter of the
speech would appear to warrant – it is after all concerned with the future rule
of the entire empire. Indeed, Galba’s chief point in the speech is that, unlike
the Julio-Claudians, he sought an heir not merely in his own house but with
the entire country to choose from (especially pointed is 1.15.2 Augustus in
domo successorem quaesiuit, ego in re publica, ‘Augustus sought his succes-
sor in his household, I in the state’; cf. also 1.16.1–2). Yet that format and
subject matter seem out of keeping with the privacy and informality of its
occasion and audience.
The other side of the coin is that with the public announcement of the
adoption (1.18.2), which could itself have been the occasion for a represen-
tation of formal oratory, Tacitus emphasises its lack of oratorical form. Not
only does he not give Galba’s words directly, the speech is not even treated
as a traditional oratorical product in outline. It is summarised by Tacitus
in a bare couple of sentences: it is said to be spoken ‘with imperial brevity’
(imperatoria breuitate), and Tacitus adds that Galba failed to include in his
speech any ‘pandering’ (lenocinium)10 or reward; likewise his address to the
senate is said to be ‘a talk no finer or fuller than to the soldiers’ (1.19.1
non comptior … non longior quam apud militem sermo). Cynthia Damon
suggests that ‘imperial brevity’ evokes stereotypes about the taciturnity of
the traditional Roman general,11 but those stereotypes, while they certainly
existed, were not part of the standard historiographical representation of
even idealised Romans. Roman military commanders – including those who
claimed the stereotype applied to them – were rarely represented as eschew-
ing lengthy oratory when oratory was necessary (Livy regularly represents
his central characters from Camillus to Aemilius Paullus as eloquent speak-
ers). Moreover, Tacitus elsewhere implies that oratorical eloquence was a
quality expected of emperors – most famously in his criticism of Nero for
lacking it (A. 13.3.2–3) – and Galba’s actual ‘adoption speech’ a few chap-
ters earlier is not marked by laconicism. ‘Imperial brevity’ as practised by
Galba appears to be a function of the superfluity of the occasion – that is the
way that emperors speak when they are merely transmitting a previous deci-
sion and their audience does not need to be aware of their reasons. When
the real decision was made, it was done with all the traditional verbosity of
the speaking ruler.12
10
In this context the word has specific connotations of rhetorical ornamentation: see Quint.
Inst. 4.2.118, 8 praef. 26, 12.1.30, and cf. TLL s.v. lenocinium I B.3; cf. Morgan (1993)
579.
11
Damon (2003) 143.
12
Cf. Münkel (1959) 62–3, 68.
217
D . S. L e v e n e
But there is one further problem: Galba’s private speech, nominating

Piso as his heir, does not succeed in forestalling Otho’s rebellion. Power
is slipping from Galba’s hands even while he exercises it: merely employ-
ing his authority as emperor in private does not seem to be adequate – he
would have done better to address his arguments to a larger group, always
assuming that he was capable of persuading them. The contrast between
Galba’s private and public oratory might seem to imply that the public has
ceased to be relevant, but Tacitus in his presentation of subsequent events
demonstrates how partial and inadequate that is as an understanding of
power within the Empire – especially since the ‘public’ in this case are not
random Roman citizens, but the troops on whose will imperial authority is
frequently in the Histories shown to rest.13 It had been a deliberate decision
to honour them by choosing the camp rather than the senate or the forum to
announce the adoption (1.17.2): that instinct may have been correct,14 but
the rhetorical execution fails to match it.15 The troops’ response to Galba’s
words is mainly sullen silence – though Tacitus does note that it is primarily
the absence of any promise of money that is angering them (1.18.3): Galba’s
parsimony towards his troops is a leitmotif of his reign.
So the very first speech in the work shows that the existence of the Empire
has caused a fundamental shift in the location of power and hence in the
rhetorical situation envisaged: in this it resembles the Annals more closely
than might have been suspected. The difference from the Annals comes
in the maintenance of the traditions of the representation of Republican
rhetoric – a deliberative speech spoken by an authoritative speaker – within
the new political framework, while simultaneously demonstrating that the
emperor’s attempt to confine himself to that framework is itself to fail to
understand the nature of power at Rome.
This is not a universal pattern in the Histories, in which most extended
speeches are delivered at more formal and structured occasions. Even here,
however, Tacitus challenges the traditional relationship between public
speech and official power in different ways. For example, Otho’s first speech
begins, rather like Galba’s, with a personal reflection on the occasion and
hence on his own authority to speak. But here, instead of assuming his claim
to the throne, he starts by noting the ambiguity of his own position between
emperor and private citizen (1.37.1).16 He owes his claim to be emperor
13
Keitel (1991) 2773 observes that three of the four speeches in Histories 1 are addressed to
the praetorians as the true location of power at Rome. The fourth is Galba’s here, which
Tacitus implies might have been better advised to be addressed to them: cf. Syme (1958a)
155–6.
14
But note Morgan (1993) 578–9 on the insult to the senate that this represented.
15
See Ash (1999a) 24–5.
16
Cf. Keitel (1987) 73–4.
218
to his nomination by the very soldiers whom he is addressing, yet in fact,

were he unambiguously emperor, he would not need to address them at all,
since it is only the rival claimancy of Galba that puts his position in doubt
and demands his further encouragement of his troops. Another example is
Mucianus’ speech to Vespasian at 2.76–7. This is said to be a public speech,
though it follows a number of earlier conversations that they had had in
secret (2.76.1 multos secretosque sermones). But the phrase used to indi-
cate that it was in public – corona coram (‘in the presence of a crowd’) –
highlights once again the oddity of the occasion.17 In a Roman oratorical
context, the corona is not the audience to whom a speech is addressed, but
a crowd of (typically) casual bystanders. And indeed, Mucianus addresses
his speech directly to Vespasian alone, employing precisely the sort of argu-
ments that he (presumably) could equally have used on those earlier private
occasions which Tacitus has informed us about but not described – though
those are said to have been conversations (sermones), a term that implies
something less formal than the speech Mucianus delivers here. On the face
of things this is the reverse of the situation in Book 1 with Galba, who speaks
formally when making the true decision in private and laconically when
reporting it in public; but it pushes at the boundaries of public and private
speech, and their relationship to imperial power, no less than Galba’s did –
for while the formality of the speech fits the public occasion, the ostensibly
public nature of the speech appears to be a facade, since the only named
addressee is Vespasian and the audience appears to be there only to observe
his decision.
Of course here, as elsewhere in Roman historiography, there is also a
constant awareness of another, external audience, namely Tacitus’ readers.
They are not being persuaded to join Vespasian in his campaign, but may
be alert to other elements in the arguments deployed whose implications are
more far-reaching within the wider Tacitean narrative and indeed sometimes
have contemporary overtones. Examples are the role of the army in creat-
ing and maintaining an emperor (2.76.4), or the qualifications of Vespasian
to take the throne and Titus to inherit it – a prominent theme since Galba’s
opening speech, but one which had a particular pertinence in Tacitus’ day,
in the wake of the accession of Trajan, who achieved the throne by adoption
thanks to his personal qualifications and despite his lack of distinguished
ancestry. All ancient historiography contains speeches with such a double
effect. One reason the role of oratory in historiography is often controversial
17
corona coram is Wellesley’s emendation (in his Teubner edition) of the meaningless MS
reading coronam. Other editions emend to coram, the sense of which is similar though
less pointed.
219
D . S. L e v e n e
is that it is difficult to untangle the aspects of speeches that simply serve to

show the speaker’s persuasive techniques at work from those aspects that
explore broader themes that can be understood only within the context of
the narrative. And to the latter, of course, the speaker and the internal audi-
ence have no access.
There is yet one further – and more far-reaching – complexity about this
occasion. The Histories regularly complicates the relationship between the
addressee of the speech, the wider audience of the speech and the success
or otherwise of the speech in persuading. The ostensible point of Mucianus’
speech is to persuade Vespasian to claim the throne – something which of
course Vespasian is shortly to do. Yet the connection in Tacitus between
Mucianus’ persuasion and Vespasian’s decision is far from straightforward.
First he describes at length Vespasian’s desire to be emperor, but also his
hesitation (2.74–5). Tacitus then introduces Mucianus’ speech (2.76.1): ‘his
pauoribus nutantem et alii legati amicique firmabant et Mucianus post mul-
tos secretosque sermones iam et corona coram ita locutus’ (‘While these
anxieties were making Vespasian hesitate, the other generals and his friends
continued to encourage him. At last Mucianus, after many private interviews,
now even addressed him before bystanders, as follows’). The implication
is that Mucianus saw private encouragement as inadequate: what is left
unclear is why. One possibility is that Vespasian is less likely to be able to
back away from his ambitions if challenged in public to act on them, since
he could not admit to the fear of assassination which is a major cause of
his hesitation (2.75); another is that Mucianus is publicly affirming his own
support for Vespasian.18 But a third point is that the bystanders, for all that
they are ostensibly not being addressed, are meant to strengthen his resolve
by adding their encouragement to Mucianus’, which is indeed what hap-
pens (2.78.1). The oddity in this latter passage is that the bystanders add a
further argument that Mucianus has failed to mention – the prophecies and
omens portending Vespasian’s rule – and this indeed seems to be what finally
sways him: Tacitus describes at some length the omens and their effect on
Vespasian, concluding (2.78.4): ‘haud dubia destinatione discessere’ (‘hav-
ing come to a definite decision they departed’).19 Mucianus, in other words,
appears to have been effective in his aim, yet his arguments are presented
as being largely irrelevant to that, except perhaps indirectly through their
encouragement of the bystanders to approach Vespasian with their own
brand of encouragement.
18
So Ash (2007b) ad loc., who notes that Mucianus’ admiration for Titus made him a pos-
sible alternative candidate (2.5.2, 74.1).
19
Cf. Ash (1999a) 129–32 on Tacitus’ characterisation of Vespasian as a commander whose
superstition is uncomfortably close to that of his ignorant troops.
220
So the bystanders, who are not addressed by the speaker, nevertheless seem
to be intrinsic to explaining the speech’s outcome. It is for this reason that
Mucianus’ speech, like others in Tacitus, has an oddly destabilising effect.
The speech is so constructed as to respond systematically to the reasons that
were said to be causing Vespasian to hesitate,20 and some of these arguments
make perfect sense in a speech addressed to Vespasian alone, such as 2.76.3,
where Mucianus responds indirectly to Vespasian’s private fear of assassina-
tion by arguing that Vespasian’s distinction makes him a target for Vitellius
even if he does not claim the throne, or 2.77.1, in which he requests a senior
though not precisely specified position in return for his support. Other
points that Mucianus makes, however, while not irrelevant to Vespasian’s
position, have broader appeal, such as the constant hints at the disasters
that Vitellius as emperor will bring on Rome, and the suggestion that the
Flavian troops are superior enough to the Vitellians to ensure a comfortable
victory. That appeal to a double audience would be unexceptional in other
contexts, but the way Tacitus sets up the occasion of the speech, and the
oblique way in which it achieves its aim, gives an unexpected prominence to
those elements in it that appeal to the bystanders whose presence Mucianus
deliberately sought. And once again, as with Galba, the complex relation-
ship between speaker, speech and addressee points to an analysis of Roman
power where on the surface power resides with a few individuals, yet where
those outside the ruling circles nevertheless play a central role in its acquisi-
tion and maintenance.
This is entirely typical of the Histories: while it contains numerous speeches,
the great majority are speeches which do not have the desired effect on their
audience, or which have an effect on the wrong audience, or which have
an effect for reasons that have little to do with the arguments in them. One
example is the speech of Piso attempting to enlist the support of the troops
for Galba against Otho (1.29–30). This is a speech with a strong ethical focus,
the strongest of any in the surviving work. Yet such effect as it has seems to
have little to do with its ethics, and rather more with the hint that Piso offers
in his final sentence that the troops will be rewarded financially for their
loyalty (1.30.3) – the speech’s rhetoric and its ability to persuade its hearers
appear entirely mismatched. Moreover, even the support Piso achieves as a
consequence is desultory and soon melts away (1.31.1).21
Or one may consider the debate in the senate over the punishment of
the delatores at 4.40–4. This centres on a speech by Curtius Montanus
20
Heubner (1968) 251–2, though his analysis oddly overlooks Mucianus’ response to
Vespasian’s fear of assassination which I discuss in the text.
21
Levene (1999) 208–9.
221
D . S. L e v e n e
attacking the delator Regulus (4.42.2–6). Montanus’ speech is eloquent

and persuasive, moving from an ironic analysis of the brilliance of Regulus’
denunciations to a warning to the senate not to assume that the mild rule of
Vespasian precludes future tyrants: the implication is that Regulus, like the
other delatores, should be treated as an example to deter those who would
act similarly in future.
This speech is presented in a way that, within the usual generic frame-
work of Roman historiography, leads the reader to expect that it will be
effective. It is in response to another speech, albeit one not recounted in full,
and within the usual structure of debates in historians the second speaker
rarely loses. Moreover, in this particular case Tacitus describes the response
in a way that suggests that the speech is successful (4.43.1): ‘tanto cum
adsensu senatus auditus est Montanus ut spem caperet Heluidius posse
etiam Marcellum prosterni’ (‘the senate listened to Montanus’ speech with
such sympathy that Helvidius began to hope that even Marcellus might
be brought down’). In other words, the principle of the condemnation of
Regulus, which formed the heart of Montanus’ argument, seems to have
been accepted, and the hope is that this can be used also against the more
senior prosecutors, above all Eprius Marcellus, who had been a subsidiary
target of Montanus’ speech (4.42.5), and who has been in Helvidius Priscus’
sights since their debate over the approaches to be made to Vespasian at the
start of the book (4.5–8). Tacitus’ description of the senate’s response sup-
ports this interpretation. The conflict between the ‘few good senators’ and
the ‘many bad’ has been a standard theme in Roman historiography since
Sallust;22 but here we find the opposite: the majority are on the side of the
angels (4.43.2), and for once we may reasonably expect right to triumph.
Yet the following chapter reverses these expectations: Domitian and
Mucianus move, albeit in the mildest terms, to have the cases against
the delatores dropped, and the senate instantly caves in (4.44.1), though
Mucianus arranges for the exile of two senators punished for their actions
under Nero (4.44.2–3). The eloquence of Montanus and his ability to per-
suade the senate has proved irrelevant, because there is, as before, another
audience for his speech, namely the Flavians who are actually controlling
the senate: none of his arguments is addressed to that end, and this retro-
spectively changes the significance of what he says. Even when the reader
first encounters his speech, it is not hard to see in his final warning against
future tyrants Tacitus’ covert glance forward to Domitian, but that proves
to have an immediate relevance to its internal audience as well as broader
interest to Tacitus’ readers. Domitian’s actions now turn that into the major
22
See e.g. Sall. Iug. 15.2–3; for later examples see e.g. Livy 42.47.4–9.
222
theme of the speech: in his protection of the delatores he prefigures their

sinister role in his own reign.
There is yet a further twist, because the senators fail to recognise Domitian’s
significance even when he acts. They have, it appears, taken the lesson from
Montanus that the delatores need to be punished, since they resent the fact
that they have escaped punishment (4.44.3). But in their inability to act
on their resentment they prove Montanus right in his accusation of their
pusillanimity (4.42.6), and they have also failed to notice that the greatest
source of danger lies not in the present dominance of Mucianus, the object
of attention throughout the book (4.4.1–2, 11.1, 39.2, 68.1, 85.2), but in
Domitian, who is destined to inherit, as Mucianus himself had implied in his
speech in Book 2 (2.77.1), and whose future role is also repeatedly hinted
at in Book 4;23 yet it is on Mucianus rather than Domitian that their resent-
ment is focused.24 Montanus’ speech looks prescient in its warnings, but
also misjudged and politically impotent, since it is addressed to the wrong
audience and is misunderstood by the audience to whom it is addressed.
Here as before, identifying and addressing the proper audience is crucial to
achieving effective oratory and the power that accompanies that – but here
the crucial addressee is not those outside the imperial circle, but a neglected
member within it.
III
The speeches in the Histories are thus closely bound up with Tacitus’ analy-
sis of imperial power, not merely in their content (although they frequently
raise vital questions about the nature of political authority), but even more
acutely in the complexity of their rhetoric when viewed against the backdrop
of the occasions when they are spoken. It is not simply that the location of
power has shifted since the Republic, though that is certainly part of the
point that Tacitus is making. It is also that the ostensible holders of power
are acting on an illusion of personal authority that they can in fact maintain
only with the support of others. The Histories, even more than the Annals,
shows a world in crisis, in which the illusions on which imperial power rests
are regularly exposed.25 The speeches are essential to that picture, because of
the constant tension between their formal gestures to political and rhetorical
23
Schäfer (1977).
24
Cf. 4.4.1, where the senate likewise criticised Mucianus and failed to recognise the respon-
sibility of the Flavian rulers themselves: on the significance of this passage see Haynes
(2003) 152–5.
25
See Haynes (2003) for an extended and sophisticated analysis of the relationship between
the illusion of power and actual possession of power in the Histories.
223
D . S. L e v e n e
tradition and their need to influence a world where power is maintained in

quite untraditional ways.
F U RT H E R R E A DI NG
Speeches in Tacitus as a whole and the Histories in particular have often been stud-
ied; there are many articles on individual passages and broader studies of their sig-
nificance. The major study of speeches in Roman historiography by Ullmann (1927)
covers Tacitus in detail and is still worth reading, though its methodology is nowa-
days seen as problematic. For more recent scholarship on the role of speeches in
ancient historiography see Miller (1975), Keitel (1986–7), Hansen (1993) and Brock
(1995). Laird (1999) is a fundamental study of the representation of speech in Latin
literature, and at 116–52 he specifically discusses the issues raised by historiography
with particular attention to Tacitus; a narrower approach to some of the same ques-
tions is found in Utard (2004).
On Tacitus in particular, central studies include several on the Histories by
Elizabeth Keitel: (1987), (1991) and (1993). Also relevant are Münkel (1959),
Miller (1964), Adams (1973), Dangel (1989) on Tacitean speeches in general, Levene
(1999) on the speeches in the Histories and Devillers (1994) 195–261 on those in
the Annals. Other studies of particular speeches include Martin (1967), Bastomsky
(1988), Pigoń (1992), Welwei (1995) on the Histories, Miller (1956) and (1968),
Schillinger-Häfele (1965), Griffin (1982a), Ginsburg (1986) and (1993) and Epstein
(1992) on the Annals. Aubrion (1985) and, more briefly, (1991) addresses a num-
ber of wide-ranging issues about the role of rhetoric in Tacitus’ work, including an
extended analysis of his speeches ((1985) 491–678).
224

Speeches in The Histories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Speeches in The Histories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14

Speeches in the Histories

Thanks to Rhiannon Ash for her useful comments on an earlier draft.

reproduction of speeches (or indeed of other events), but also suggests

But there is one further problem: Galba’s private speech, nominating

to his nomination by the very soldiers whom he is addressing, yet in fact,

is that it is difficult to untangle the aspects of speeches that simply serve to

attacking the delator Regulus (4.42.2–6). Montanus’ speech is eloquent

theme of the speech: in his protection of the delatores he prefigures their

tradition and their need to influence a world where power is maintained in

You might also like