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

than the more neutral meaning of the singular (‘pleasure’, ‘delight’), the
plural often has the idea of sensual gratification or indulgence.
Rome’s huge population was dependent on corn from
overseas, especially Egypt and Sicily. The populace were concerned that
they be entertained, but even more so (praecipua = greatest, especial)
that they be fed. Ensuring sufficient supply of free or highly subsidized
grain to the urban populace was a major responsibility of the ruling élite,
the designated officer, and, ultimately, the princeps. Neglect or failure
could lead to riots. 135
The people feared that if he was absent, then there might be
shortages in corn supply.
After the plebs’ reaction, Tacitus now tells us how the upper echelons
responded to Nero’s decision to remain in Rome. Their reaction is much
more ambivalent, and their priorities rather different from the people’s
concern with the corn supply and games. They do not wonder whether
he would be better near or far, but where he would be more dreadful
(atrocior), implying of course that wherever he is, far or near (procul
an coram), he is a horrendous prospect. The adjective atrocior is a very
strong one, implying cruelty and savagery.
an introduces an indirect question,
specifying two alternatives (procul or coram); haberetur = to be regarded
as. The subject is Nero; atrocior is a predicative complement.
dehinc, quae natura [sc. est] magnis timoribus, deterius credebant
Being undecided as to whether Nero’s absence or
presence would result in the greater atrocities, they believed that worse
which then actually happened (quod evenerat). Tacitus considers this
psychological reaction a law of nature (cf. quae natura magnis timoribus).
Do you agree?
135 See in general Garnsey (1988).