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

a delegate would then convey to Rome and announce in the senate. The
practice has republican roots. At in Verrem 2.2.13, for example, Cicero notes
that from all of Sicily only Messana sent a legate to Rome to praise Verres
for his provincial administration (and this legate, Heius, combined praise
with demands to have the personal property that Verres had stolen from him
returned). Given that ex-governors had to give an account of their term in
office, such votes of thanks could come in handy – apart from offering a neat
opportunity for aristocratic self-promotion. Votes, of course, can be bought
or manipulated, and this is the form of corruption at issue here.
20.2 quam occasionem Paetus Thrasea ad bonum publicum vertens,
quam
is a connecting relative (= eam). The subordinate postquam-clause, seemingly
introduced as a mere afterthought, again allows Tacitus to underscore
Roman priorities by way of syntax: just as with the ablative absolute ceteris
criminibus and the incomplete ut-solent clause in the previous sentence, the
construction conveys the sense that those matters of most urgent and direct
concern to the provincials do not hold anyone’s attention at Rome. By reporting
the verdict on the defendant (note that Timarchus is not mentioned by name
again – he is just ‘reus’) in a postponed subordinate clause, Tacitus gives the
impression that Paetus dispatched briskly and dismissively with the case
at hand. One could argue that the pluperfect with postquam here ‘implies
not only temporal precedence, but a logical relationship’; 76 and that is true
insofar as the wider reflections to follow presuppose the satisfactory closure
of the specific case at issue. But Paetus (and Tacitus) very much focus on the
general principles that ought to define the Roman approach to imperial rule
rather than the particular crimes of the provincial Timarchus or the plight of
the Cretans. There is, then, arguably no logical relationship in place. Rather,
the punishment imposed on the culprit – the main concern from the point of
view of the provincials – is quickly glossed over on the way to Paetus’ main
concern, the behavioural standards of Rome’s ruling élite.
Tacitus here reverses his names, from the usual Thrasea
Paetus to Paetus Thrasea. We may wonder why. Are we simply dealing with a
further instance of variatio, which is such a hallmark of his style, keeping his
prose distinctive, unpredictable and interesting? Or is Tacitus perhaps making
an oblique point that under the principate matters are not as they ought to
76 Miller (1973) 70 and 64.