correspondence between Vitellius and Otho)

48, with Plut. Oth. 17 (the last evening of Otho's life
and Tac i 72 with Plut. Oth. 2 (the death of Tiga!
linus). Mere personal anecdotes

, like that about Canus (Plut. Gall. 16), repulsive details like the mutilation of Galba's head (Plut. Gall. 37)

, and in probable statements like that of Cluvius Rufus about the Spanish diplomata, are all omitted in Tacitan who indeed in one or two cases in his desire to be brief has left out essential points which Piutarch supplies (conf. Plut. Galb. 16 and Oth, 4 ad fin and 10) But while Plutarch is probably a more faithful repeater of what his authority said, he is also much more si

accurate than Tacitus. Instances of this are (1) such
in expression as töv Esportiw olkov (Gall

. 3, 3);
2) the statement that Galba was related to Livia
ugusta (Galó. 3, 7); (3) the mistake about Sem-
onius Densus, who, according to Plutarch, defended
alba, not Piso (Galb. 26); (4) the placing of the
atiny at Ostia instead of the Praetorian camp
th 3); (5) the assertion that Cremona was in the
session of the Othonians instead of the Vitellias
1.7); (6) the mention of Asiaticus as a freedman

alba (Galb. 20); (7) the statement that the father
iso was killed by Nero instead of Claudius Call
(8) the incorrect definition of 'optio' and 'tesen
s' (Galb

. 24, 2); besides a number of minor
and one or two instances of mistranslation
the Latin (Call
. 23, 12 and Oth

, 12, 941

literas prai

[ocr errors]

τους πρια:

Galo. 5, 17. άμα των πυθέσθαι Ner. 47. τα περί Γάλβω ανέτρεψε την denti sibi redditas concerpsi τράπεζα».

mensam subvertit. Galo. 7, 19. τω δ' απελευ Galb. 14. libertus Icelu θέρω δακτυλίους τε χρυσούς έδωκε paullo ante anulis aureise και Μαρκιανός ο "Ικελος ήδη Marciani cognomine ornatus καλούμενος-.

θαίο. 15, 26, σημεία τω Galb. 12. aquilam et sigr τάγματα και χώραν αιτούντες. pertinacius flagitantes.

Galb. 16, 3. The anecdote Galb. 12. about Canus. Galo. 16, 13.

Galb. 15. si quid ... de μένους παρ' αυτών και λαβόντας natum olim vondidissent, at ότιoύν ανεζήτει και παρ' εκείνων ferretur emptoribus. εξέπραττε. Galb. 17, 21. επεπλήχθη Galb. 4.

pro Tigellir (ο δήμος) διαγράμματα του αυτο- etiam 8aevitiae populum edici κράτορος.

increpuit. Galb. 19, 4. μή μόνον διά

Galb. 17. despectui esi το γήρας αλλά και διά την απαι. non tam senectam suam qua δίαν καταφρονούμενος.

orbitatem ratus. Galo. 19, 27. Έλθούσης Oth. 3. adeo dilexit ut i δε παρ' αυτόν ως γαμετής ουκ rivalem quidem Nerone. ηγάπα μετέχων, αλλ' ήσχαλλε eoquo tulerit animo. μεταδιδούς.

Gali. 23, 20. μηδε τότε Gal6. 17. ne tunc qu δωρεάς αυτούς δοθείσης.

dem donativi alla mentioi

facta. . Oth. 3, 3. τοις δε πολλούς Οικ. 7. ab infima piel χαριζόμενος ουκ έφευγε το πρώ- appellatus Nero nullum ind

Νέρων προσαγορεύεσθαι... clam rocusantis dedit : imm Κλούβιος δε Ρούφος εις Ίβηρίαν ut quidam tradiderunt, etia φησί κομισθήναι διπλώματα ... diplomatibus primisque epis

[ocr errors]

od roll Népwros Oerdo "Broua ulis suis ad quosdam provin. τροσγεγραμμένον έχοντα τω του ciarum praesides Neronis cog"Odwros.

nomen adiecit.

Of similar resemblances between Suetonius and Tacitus we may note the following:


SUETONIUS. i. 24. de parte finium cum Oth. 4. Cuidam etiam de vicino ambigenti universum parte finium cum vicino liti., vicini agrum sua pecunia emp. ganti totum agrum redemit tum dono dederit.

emancipavitque. i. 22. urgentibus etiam Oth. 4. Spem cepit ex ad. inathematicis, e quibus Ptole. firmatione Seleuci mathemaeus Othoni in Hispania matici qui quum eum olim comes cum superfuturum eum superstitem Neroni fore spo. Neroni promisisset, postquam pondisset, tunc ultro inopinaex eventu fides, persuaserat tus advenerat, imperaturum fore ut in imperium adscis. quoque brevi repromittens. ceretur.

1. 41. Extremam eius vocem, Galb. 20. Sunt qui tradunt varie prodidere : alii suppli. proclamasse eum quid agitis, citer interrogasse quid mali commilitones ? ego vester sum meruisset, paucos dies exsol. et vos mei, donativum etiam vendo donativo deprecatum; pollicitam: plures autem proplures obtulisse ultro per diderunt obtulisse uitro iugu. cussoribus iugulum : agerent lum et ut hoc agerent ac ac ferirent, si ita e re publica ferirent quando ita videretur videretur.

hortatum. • i. 31. Germanica vexilla Galb. 20. Omnes sprevisse diu nutavere, invalidis adhuc nuntium excepta Germanici. corporibus et placatis animis, anorum vexillatione : hi ob quod 608 ... longa naviga. recens meritum quod se aegros tione aegros impensiore cara et invalidos magno opore fovis. Galba refovebat.

set, eto.

ii. 48. libellos epistulasque Oth 20. Quidquid deinde studio erga se aut in Vitellium epistularum erat, ne cui peri. contumeliis insignes abolet ; culo aut noxae apud victorem ✓ pecunias distribuit parce nec forent incremavit, divisit et ut periturus.

pecunias domesticis ex copia praesenti.

With regard to Dio Cassius a very few words may suffice. Close resemblances to Plutarch in cases where Tacitus and Suetonius are silent are extremely few. The following perhaps deserves notice


Dio Cassius. Galb 29. ούχ εαυτώ τα 1xiv. 2. νομίζων ουκ ειληφέναι πράγματα λαμβάνειν, , αλλά την αρχή, αλλά μάλλον δεδoσθαι μάλλον εαυτόν οιόμενος δίδοναι εαυτόν. . τοις πράγμασιν. .

There are, however, a number of very close resemblances between Suetonius and Dio Cassius which seem to show that whatever other authorities, and he certainly had others for this part of his history, the latter may have used, Suetonius was at any rate in his hands.

The general result of the foregoing inquiry may therefore be summarised thus. The authority used by Plutarch and Tacitus in his account of Galba and Otho was a writer of the Flavian period, who may

with a good deal of probability be identified with Pliny the elder. The same authority was also used by Suetonius, who however supplemented it for the more personal and anecdotal parts of his Lives by some other sources perhaps not entirely literary, while

Dio Cassius employed Suetonius certainly and other authorities as well, among whom Tacitus and Plutarch may possibly be included.


An important crisis in the history of the empire is reached in the failure of the Julio-Claudian line of emperors. Hitherto the position of the princeps had heen, though not technically hereditary, still practically confined to the members of a single family, and the election of the new emperor had taken place at Rome with a certain amount of constitutional form, not always quite independently of the wishes of the city soldiery, as the election of Claudius proves, but still without violence or bloodshed, and cortainly without the direct interference of the armies on the frontiers. In all these respects the death of Nero marks an epoch. Family dynasties after this time occur only at intervals and exceptionally, the praetorian cohorts frequently use the power afforded by their position at Rome, and above all the secret was discovered "posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri," a consequence of which was the frequent election of an emperor by one of the great frontier armies, a practice which was always liable to occasion, and

"Tac. Hist. i. 16, “sub Tiberio et Caio et Claudio unius familiae quasi hereditas fuimus."

* Suet. Claud. 10.

« ForrigeFortsett »