Tacitus, Annals, 15.20­-23, 33­-45. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary, 2013a

The construction – a conditional sequence – is the same (though note that
Sallust uses a present counterfactual). And both authors trace a similar
trajectory from positive beginnings to eventual decline. Syme suggests
that the Sallustian idiom lends support to Thrasea Paetus’ mission to
‘recall ancient dignity in an oration defending the honour of the senatorial
order.’ 87 To reinforce the Sallustian ring of the phrase, Thrasea for once
even suspends his dislike of connectives and uses a rare atque.
Thrasea abbreviates: metu
repetundarum stands for metu pecuniarum repetundarum or metu quaestionis
repetundarum. pecuniae repetundae was a technical legal term meaning ‘the
recovery of extorted money’, but pecuniae is often omitted. The quaestio de
repetundis (the Roman extortion court) was the first permanent criminal
court or tribunal in Rome, established in 149 BC by the lex Calpurnia
(mentioned above) to try cases of extortion by provincial governors.
Thrasea’s (blatantly disingenuous) claim that these courts had defeated
officials’ greed is stressed by the vivid verb infracta ... est and by the
position of avaritia inside the components of the verb – a design that
seems to enact the crushing of the greed.
In fine style, Thrasea
finishes with a succinct summary of his proposal: ban votes of thanks
(the ablative absolute vetita ... actione replaces a conditional clause) and
corruption will end (the future here follows the same confident logic as
regentur above).
Chapter 22
senatum pro praetoribus proue consulibus grates, neu quis ea legatione
magno adsensu celebrata [sc. est] The ellipsis of est gives the
impression of a pithy parallelism, with two phrases in which an attribute
(magno, celebrata) is followed by a noun (adsensu, sententia). The use of
87 Syme (1958) 354.