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

exim Claudius Timarchus Cretensis reus agitur, ceteris criminibus ut
solent praevalidi provincialium et opibus nimiis ad iniurias minorum
The main clause – exim Claudius Timarchus Cretensis reus agitur – is
straightforward enough. But then the syntax starts to get difficult. Tacitus
continues, awkwardly, with a nominal ablative absolute, i.e. an ablative
absolute that is missing the participle (in this case the present participle
of esse, which does not exist in Latin): ‘the rest of the charges being...’ The
subsequent ut-clause, too, has its problems. Against standard word order,
Tacitus places the verb at the beginning (solent). The fact that it is in the
indicative helps to clarify the meaning of ut (‘as’). But an infinitive that
would complete the main verb solent is nowhere to be seen. The entire
rest of the ut-clause is taken up by one long subject phrase: praevalidi
provincialium et opibus nimiis ad iniurias minorum elati. The missing
infinitive with the verb soleo is not in itself unusual (it frequently has to
be supplied from context), but here it generates an exceptionally openended
construction:
‘the rest of the charges being such as provincial strongmen tend to...’
Well? What is the infinitive that has gone absent without leave? Two
possible options are accusari (‘tend to be accused of’) or, with a slight
semantic slippage from crimina in the sense of ‘charges’ to crimina in the
sense of ‘crimes’, committere (‘tend to perpetrate’). Since there is a break
after the ut-clause (una vox starts the second main clause), we have to make
up our own minds – or remain studiously and elegantly ambiguous in
our translation, as does Woodman: ‘Next, Claudius Timarchus, a Cretan,
appeared as a defendant on the general charges customary for those
paramount provincials whose elevation to excessive wealth results in
injury to lesser people.’ 69
exim: The temporal marker (‘thereupon’, ‘thereafter’) is typical of
Tacitus’ habit to flag up the generic affiliations of his text, as he purports
to record events in their order of occurrence and gives the impression
(arguably correct) that he used archival data, such as official records of the
senate’s business (the acta senatus) in compiling his Annals. But his formal
commitment to annalistic writing ought not to obscure that he proceeded
selectively and arranged his material in such a way that further meaningful
patterns emerge. The two lawsuits that frame his account of AD 62, each
69 Woodman (2004) 315.