Tacitus, Annals, 15.20-23, 33-45. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary, 2013a
Tacitus, Annals, 15.20-23, 33-45. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary, 2013a
Tacitus, Annals, 15.20-23, 33-45. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary, 2013a
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
It would be misleading... to conceptualize the emperor as an omnipotent<br />
monarch capable of dominating his far-flung empire. The structural<br />
limitations to the practical power of Roman emperors were simply too<br />
great. Aristocratic competitors could be very dangerous, especially those<br />
in comm<strong>and</strong> of legions stationed in the periphery. From such potential<br />
pretenders to the throne the threat of usurpation could never be extinguished<br />
entirely. Less acute but more constant pressure came from those groups<br />
<strong>with</strong>in Roman imperial society that were capable of meaningful collective<br />
action in the public sphere. Especially significant were the senate, the plebs<br />
urbana of Rome, <strong>and</strong> the legionary armies. With these influential collectivities<br />
the emperor was in constant dialogue, both real <strong>and</strong> symbolic, interacting<br />
<strong>with</strong> each in a highly prescribed manner calculated to elicit the public<br />
displays of consensus, or ‘acceptance’, upon which imperial legitimacy<br />
ultimately rested. 10<br />
In addition to the social groups identified by Noreña, we should recognize<br />
the imperial family <strong>and</strong> the court, its personnel, <strong>and</strong> its social dynamics as<br />
major factors in how power worked during the principate. Relatives <strong>with</strong><br />
‘dynastic’ credentials joined ambitious aristocrats as potential pretenders to<br />
the throne. 11 (Nero kills off in cold blood one such, Junius Torquatus Silanus,<br />
in our set text: see <strong>Annals</strong> 15.35 <strong>and</strong> Section 5 below.) The daily proximity to<br />
the emperor turned female figures of the court (mothers, wives, mistresses)<br />
into potential power brokers but also potential victims of imperial whim:<br />
Agrippina <strong>and</strong> Poppaea are prime examples of both in <strong>Tacitus</strong>’ Nero-narrative.<br />
The same is true of the emperor’s closest advisors <strong>and</strong> high-ranking members<br />
of his staff, frequently highly skilled (<strong>and</strong> highly loyal) freedmen. Senatorial<br />
sources tend to look askance at such – from a republican point of view –<br />
‘interlopers’ in the Roman field of power. Neither women nor freedmen<br />
shared in political decision-making in republican times, but now could<br />
wield greater influence than many a distinguished senator, simply because<br />
they had easy access to, <strong>and</strong> the ear of, the emperor. The same goes for the<br />
prefect of the Praetorian Guard, the bodyguard of the emperor <strong>and</strong> the most<br />
significant military presence in the city of Rome.<br />
10 The distinction between ‘real’ <strong>and</strong> ‘symbolic’ Noreña draws here is perhaps unhelpful<br />
– since symbolic interactions were very real as well. Presumably, though, he means to<br />
distinguish between interactions that happened face-to-face or had a material dimension<br />
<strong>and</strong> those that happened via symbolic gestures or other media of communication (coins,<br />
religious worship etc.). Some forms of interaction, such as the donative to the soldiers on<br />
special occasions, had both a material <strong>and</strong> a symbolic value.<br />
11 The Roman principate was not a hereditary monarchy: the potential for usurpation<br />
defined the political system, even though succession frequently followed dynastic<br />
principles. See further Bert Lott (2012).
Change language