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

What made being a Roman emperor so difficult was the fact that each
constituency brought a different set of expectations to bear on their princeps: 12
the ideal emperor of the army was never going to be the ideal emperor of the
senate was never going to be the ideal emperor of the people. Moreover, the
groups were in latent rivalry with one another for access to the emperor and
for his attention, which caused potential problems in those settings – such
as public games – when he interacted with several simultaneously: gestures
of special proximity or favour towards the plebs, for instance, might miff
the ruling élite (and vice versa). Finally, the groupings themselves were not
necessarily homogeneous. At the opening of Annals 16, for instance, Tacitus
reports in disgust that the urban plebs reacted to Nero’s public performance
as cithara player with enthusiasm and delight, yet goes on to note with grim
satisfaction that this (from his point of view) shameful disgrace of imperial
dignity scandalized and saddened those common people who had travelled
to the city from remote places in the countryside where the values of old Italy
were still alive. 13
The relation between the emperor and the senatorial ordo, i.e. the
politically active members of the élite, was especially fraught, and for
various reasons. In comparison with republican times, the aristocracy was
particularly affected by the ‘massive and unprecedented relocation of power
and authority in the Roman world’ brought about by ‘the advent... of the
imperial regime we call the principate.’ 14 Élite Romans experienced – and
had to cope with and negotiate – ‘concrete social and cultural dislocations
... in the face of the emperor’s power – for example, a reduction of the
opportunities and rewards for displaying military prowess, and a perceived
aggravation of certain problems associated with flattery.’ 15 They now
occupied a paradoxical position in the field of power. On the one hand, they
remained rulers of the world: emperor and senators governed the empire
together (with the emperor having exclusive control over the army), in close
interaction with local élites. (The interaction of centre and periphery is one
of the main topics of the first few chapters of the set text.) On the other hand,
they were subordinate to the princeps and had to accommodate his existence
– not least because the emperor put a cap on senatorial rivalry, preventing the
senate from dissolving into suicidal infighting and kicking off civil war. For
12 We owe appreciation of this point to discussions with Ulrich Gotter.
13 Annals 16.4–5.
14 Roller (2001) 6.
15 Roller (2001) 11.