Acknowledgments
Therearemanypeoplewithoutwhomthisvolumecouldnothavecomeinto being.ItbeganlifeasaDPhilthesissubmittedtotheUniversityofOxfordin June2012.IamverygratefultoallthemembersofCorpusChristiCollege, especiallyStephenHarrison,formakingmyyearstheresoproductiveand enjoyable.Iwasabletoundertakemygraduatestudiesthankstothegenerous financialsupportoftheClarendonFundandtheMemoriaRomanaProject.It isalsotoKarlGalinskyandfellowmembersoftheMemoriaRomanaProject thatIowethisstudy’stheoreticalunderpinnings;Iamgratefultotheparticipantsinthe2011workshopinRomeforourlivelydiscussionsofcultural memorytheory.
Icontinuedworkontheprojectin2012–13atUniversitätErfurt,supported byaHanseaticScholarshipforBritonsfromtheAlfredToepferStiftung. InErfurt,IamimmenselygratefultoKaiBrodersenforhisintellectual andpracticalsupport,andtoRichardGordon,JörgRüpke,andtheother membersoftheERC-Forschungsprojekt “LivedAncientReligion” forinvaluablyenrichingmyunderstandingofRomanreligion.Iamalsogratefulto ChristianeReitz(UniversitätRostock)andMatthiasPerkamsandMeinolf Vielberg(Friedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJena)fortheirassistanceandhospitalityinGermany.TheDepartmentofClassicsattheUniversityofVirginia alsoprovidedsupportforresearchduringstaysinCharlottesville,especially duringmytimeasaLecturertherein2013–14,andIamgratefultomy alma mater foralwayswelcomingmebackintoitslibrary.Specialthanksaredueto JohnMillerandK.SaraMyers(asformerandcurrentdepartmentchairs), JaneCrawford,andJonMikalson.IalsothankPaulHalliday,J.E.Lendon,and ElizabethMeyerintheCorcoranDepartmentofHistoryfortheirhelpand encouragement.Preparationofthe finalmanuscriptwasmadepossiblebya ResearchGrantsCommitteeAwardfromtheUniversityofAlabamain 2015–17,whichallowedfortraveltoconsultlibraryresourcesinOxford. Manyhavehelpedthisbookachieveitspresentform;anyerrors,ofcourse, remainmyown.RhiannonAshwasanexcellentdoctoralsupervisorwho shapedmythinkingonthe Annals, painstakinglycritiquedmywriting,and supportedmethroughoutmygraduatestudies.IamgratefultoMiriam Griffin,ChristopherPelling,LukePitcher,andTimRoodfortheircomments andsuggestionsatvariousstages,andtoKatherineClarkeandDavidLevene, examinersforthedoctoralviva.Prof.Leveneinparticularprovidednumerous suggestionsforimprovingthethesisthatprovedinvaluableasIrevisedit.Kirk Summersprovidedhelpfulcommentsonseveralofmyrevisedchapters. IamalsogratefultoSalvadorBarteraforfrequentdiscussionsofTacitean
Acknowledgments
matters.AnthonyWoodmanhasinfluencedthisstudyateverystage.Fromhis formativeteachinginRomanhistoriographyduringmyundergraduatedaysat theUniversityofVirginiatoongoingemaildiscussionsofthe finerpointsof Taciteantextualcriticism,myworkhasbenefitedimmeasurablyfromhis guidance;Iamespeciallygratefulthathehasreadtheentiremanuscriptand enrichedthisstudybyhisperspicaciouscomments.(Unfortunately,hiscommentaryon Annals 4appearedtoolatetobeconsideredhere,asdidRhiannon Ash’scommentaryon Annals 15.)
IamalsoextremelygratefultoAnnaClark,theOUP-appointedmentorfor thisproject,forherhelpfulsuggestionsandguidanceasIbroughtthis manuscripttoits finalform.IwouldalsoliketothankGeorginaLeighton andCharlotteLoveridgeatOUP,andthePress’sanonymousreviewerforhis/ hercommentsandsuggestions.
Manyfriendsandfamilymembershavesupportedmeduringthislong process;IamparticularlygratefultoBrittanyMcLaughlin,BettinaReitzJoosse,andLaurenSchwartzman.MyparentsBethandJimShannonhave madethebiggestdifference:withouttheiremotionalandmaterialsupport,this volumewouldcertainlynotexist.Ithankthemforencouragingmyinterestin Classics,andforsomuchmorebesides.Finally,IdedicatethisbooktoConor Henderson,mysoon-to-behusband,whohasseenmethroughthe finalstages ofcompletion,andingeneralmakesmehappierthanIthoughtwaspossible.
K.E.Shannon
April2018
Tuscaloosa,Alabama
1.1.Introduction: Tiberiusperindedivinahumanaqueobtegens
2.1.Introduction:GermanicusandReligiousMemory
3.MemoryandForgettingfromtheDeathofGermanicus totheRiseofSejanus121
3.1.Introduction
3.2.Commemoration,Flattery,Vengeance:Germanicus’ FuneralandPiso’sTrial
3.3.PolicingTraditions:The flamendialis
3.4.TempleAsylum:TheSenateandCulticMemory
3.5.Augusta, fetiales,andtheSenate
4.DivineWrathand Annals 4167
4.1.Introduction
4.2. Fortuna,DivineWrath,andtheRiseofSejanus
4.3.AmnesiaandMemory:TemplesandPriesthoods
4.4.CulticMemory,Augustus’ Deification,andTiberius’ Reputation
4.5.AftermathoftheSpanishTempleRefusal
4.6.Withdrawal,Disaster,andthePerversionofRitual
4.7.Conclusions
5.Fate,Astrology,andtheEndofLife211
5.1.Introduction
5.2.CommemoratingLivia
5.3.RememberingSejanus
5.4.SibyllineBooks:AnAttemptatTradition
5.5.TiberiustheAstrologer
5.6.InterpretingthePhoenix
5.7.CommemoratingAugustus,PredictingCaligula
6.ClaudiusandtheFailureofTradition237
6.1.Introduction:WhatWeHaveLost
6.2.TrialsandCulticMemoryforaNewReign:Claudius theCensor
6.3.MessalinaandtheMisuseofRitual
6.4.RiseofAgrippina:FlatteryandImpiety
6.5.DivineAngerandtheRiseofAgrippinaandNero
6.6.Death,Astrology,andDeification
7.Nero:ANarrativeinProdigies285
7.1.Introduction
7.2.KinMurderandDivineWrathI:Britannicus
7.3.KinMurderandDivineWrathII:Agrippina
7.4.WhenWillNeroBePunished?TheProblemsofProdigies
’sDeathandGrowing adulatio
7.6.TheHorribleYear AD 64
7.7.ImpietyandMisinterpretationinthePisonianConspiracy
7.8.Fortune’sPlaythings
7.9.WrathoftheGods
Abbreviations
Abbreviationstostandardauthorsandtextsareusuallytakenfromthe OxfordClassical Dictionary (rev.3rdedn.).
ACL’Antiquitéclassique
AIONAnnalidell’IstitutouniversitarioorientalediNapoli
AJPAmericanJournalofPhilology
ANRWAufstiegundNiedergangderrömischenWelt
BAGRWBarringtonAtlasoftheGreekandRomanWorld
BICSBulletinoftheInstituteofClassicalStudies
BJBonnerJahrbücherdesRheinischenLandesmuseumsinBonnunddes VereinsvonAltertumsfreundenimRheinlande
C&MClassicaetMediaevalia
CPClassicalPhilology
CILCorpusInscriptionumLatinarum (1863– )
CISAContributidell’Istitutodistoriaanticadell’UniversitàdelSacroCuore
CJClassicalJournal
Cl.Ant.ClassicalAntiquity
CQClassicalQuarterly
G&RGreeceandRome, NS (1954/5– )
IAIranicaantiqua
ILS H.Dessau, InscriptionesLatinaeSelectae (1892–1916)
IRTInscriptionsofRomanTripolitania,byJ.M.ReynoldsandJ.B.WardPerkins,enhancedelectronicreissuebyGabrielBodardandCharlotte Roueché(2009),http://inslib.kcl.ac.uk/irt2009/
Inscr.Ital.InscriptionesItaliae (1931/2– )
JRSJournalofRomanStudies
LCMLiverpoolClassicalMonthly
MDMaterialiediscussioniperl’analisideitesticlassici
OLDOxfordLatinDictionary
REARevuedesétudesanciennes
RELRevuedesétudeslatines
RSCRivistadistudiclassici
SCPPSenatusConsultumdeCn.PisonePatre
SEGSupplementumepigraphicumGraecum (1923– )
x Abbreviations
TAPATransactionsandProceedingsoftheAmericanPhilologicalAssociation
ThesCRAThesaurusCultuumetRituumAntiquorum (2004–14)
TLLThesaurusLinguaeLatinae (1900– )
YClSYaleClassicalStudies
ZPEZeitschriftfürPapyrologieundEpigraphik
Introduction
Religion,Memory,andTacitus
Romanwritersseemtohavepracticallyalwayshadthefearthatvarious aspectsoftheirculturewereindecline.¹M.TerentiusVarro,authorofthe multivolume AntiquitatesRerumDivinarum onRomangodsandcult,² believedthatRome’straditionalrelationshipwithitsgodswasinserious troubleandinneedofintervention,accordingtoAugustine: deoseosdemitacolueritcolendosquecensueritutineoipsooperelitterarum suarumdicatsetimerenepereant,nonincursuhostili,sedciviumneglegentia,de quaillosvelutruinaliberariasedicitetinmemoriabonorumpereiusmodilibros recondiatqueservariutiliorecuraquamMetellusdeincendiosacraVestaliaet AeneasdeTroianoexcidiopenatesliberassepraedicatur.
(Augustine Deciv.D 6.2=Varro ARD fr.2)
(Heworshippedthesesamegodsandthoughttheyoughttobeworshipped,to suchanextentthathesaysinthisveryworkthathefearstheymightperishnot becauseofanenemyinvasion,butduetothenegligenceofhisfellowcitizens;but hesaysthatthegodswouldbefreedbyhimfromthisnegligenceasiffrom destruction,andthatthroughbooksofthissorttheycouldbestoredinthe memoryofgoodmenandpreservedwithaconcernmoreusefulthanthatwith whichMetellusissaidtohaverescuedVesta’ssacredobjectsfrom fireandAeneas tohaveliberatedthePenatesfromthedestructionofTroy.³)
InVarro’sview,itwasasnecessaryforthesereligioustraditionstobe committedtowritingasitwasfortheTrojanPenatesorthePalladiumto besnatchedfromburningbuildings.⁴ Hisemphasisonmemoryisstriking: memoria isconceivedofalmostasaphysicalplace,astorehouse,where
¹ForexamplesinRomanliterature,seeCrawley1971.
²OnVarro’swork,Rawson1985,312–16isstilluseful;seerecentlyvanNuffelen2010;North 2014;Kronenberg2017.
³AlltranslationsfromLatintextsaremyownunlessotherwisestated.
⁴ Onthepassage,seeRawson1985,313–14,andmorerecentlyMacRae2016,53–4; Kronenberg2017,316–19(foradifferentinterpretation).
Romanreligioustraditionscanbeplacedforsafekeepinginaworldmade dangerousnotbywar,butbyanequallythreatening negligentia.Varro’ ssense ofthereligiouscrisishebelievesafflictsRomeispalpable,butitisnotunique tohim.ElizabethRawsonhasnotedthatonefactormotivatinginvestigations ofRomancultpracticeinlateRepublican “antiquarian” literaturewasa “desiretorecordandunderstand(usuallyinordertopreserveorrevive) traditions” thatwerethoughttobeintheprocessofbeingforgotten.⁵
Thisideadidnotgoaway.Inthe Annals,writtensome150yearsafter Varro’ s Antiquitates,Tacitusalsodiscussesdetailsoftraditionalreligious practice,typicallyfromthepointofviewofalterationordecline.Hereports challengesto,orthelossof,traditionalrules,rites,andbuildings,focusingon theinterlockingrolesofemperor,Senate,andpeople.Tacitusneverexplicitly stateswhyheincludesthismaterial,andindeedmaynothaveseenitasa definedcategorywhoseinclusionrequiredjustification.Yetcertainpassages seemtoindicateadesiretomaintainmemoriesofreligioussitesorrituals whentheyarethreatened.WhereasVarrodeploredcitizens’ negligenceasthe causeofthethreat,forTacitusitseemsrathertheentireImperialsystemthat putsRomanreligionatrisk.
0.1RELIGIONANDMEMORY
Thisemphasisontraditionanddeclinelendsitselfwelltoanalysisthrough theoriesaboutwhatscholarsrefertoasculturalmemoryorcollective memory:⁶ theideathatthewayindividualsrememberthepastisdetermined bythesocialframeworkswithinwhichtheylive,andthatasociety’spastisnot anabstractorobjectiveconcept,butisalwaysactivelyconstructedbyits membersinthepresent.Fromthebeginningofculturalmemoryasadiscipline,scholarshaverecognizedreligion’sroleincementingasociety’sidentity andprovidingcontinuitywithitspast.MauriceHalbwachs,thefatherof culturalmemorystudies,alreadyusedtheconceptof “religiousmemory” in his LesCadressociauxdelamémoire (1925), todescribehowareligious communityusesstoriesaboutitsownpast,andritualsthatcommemorate it,inordertodefineitselfasacommunityinthepresent.⁷ Halbwachswas
⁵ Rawson1985,300,andch.20 passim
⁶ Foranintroductiontothe field,seeOlickandRobbins1998;formemory/culturalmemory theoryandRomanculture,seeesp.Walter2004;Gowing2005;Galinsky2014;Galinskyand Lapatin2015;Galinsky2016.
⁷ SeeHalbwachs1992,ch.6, “ReligiousCollectiveMemory” (originallytitled “LaMemoire collectivedesgroupesreligieux”).Halbwachs1992containsEnglishversionsof LesCadres sociauxdelamémoire (1925)andofpartof LaTopographielégendairedesévangilesenterre sainte:Étudedemémoirecollective (1941).ForalucidsummaryofHalbwachs’sideasonreligious memory,seeStroumsa2016,333–4.
speakingofearlyChristianswhosoughttousethememoryofthelifeof Christ,keptaliveviarepeatedre-enactmentinritualssuchastheEucharist andbytheliturgicalcalendaroftheChristianyearthatfollowedtheoutlinesof Christ’slife(birth,death,resurrection),tosetthemselvesapartfromthe contemporarypagansocietyinwhichtheylived.⁸ Forothertheoristsof culturalmemory,asetofreligiousbeliefsandpracticesthatissharedbyan entiresociety(ratherthansimplyasubgroupwithinasociety,aswasthecase withtheearlyChristians)playsanimportantroleinlinkinganentirecivilizationtoitspast.PierreNora,inhisessayintroducingtheclassicthreevolumestudyofwhathecalls “sitesofmemory” (lieuxdemémoire)inFrench culture,identifiedtheChurchasacomponentofFrenchculturalmemorythat isfragmentingandslippingawayinthemodernera.⁹ Onthisinterpretation,a declineinchurchattendancemeansthatthetraditionalRomanCatholicfaith nolongerplaysitsroleindefiningculturalmemory,inactivelylinkingthe Frenchpeopletotheirownpast.
Tobesure,weshouldbecautiousinusingHalbwachs’sandNora’svisions ofhowChristianityhelpsconstructidentitytohelpusunderstandRoman religion,giventhemanyfundamentaldifferencesbetweenancientpaganism andcontemporaryRomanCatholicism(orevenancientChristianity),and betweentheancientRomanEmpireandamodernnation-state.Indeed,the conceptof “areligion” asanidentitygroupdistinctfromotherreligionshad notyetdevelopedbyTacitus’ time.¹⁰ Buttheconceptofreligiousmemory canstillbeusefulforunderstandingpolytheisticancientpagansocieties. JanAssmannhasappliedittoancientEgypt,¹¹andrecentstudieshavesought todothesameforGreekandRomanreligion.¹²Itshouldcomeasnosurprise thatasocietyasinvestedin(nottosayobsessedwith)traditionasancient Romeisparticularlywellsuitedtobeinganalyzedfromtheperspectiveof culturalmemory,anditsreligioussystemisnoexception.
ThefactthatRomanpaganismplacesahighvalueonritualisacommonplace instudiesofRomanreligion,andthisritualconservatismcouldbeconsidered thelinchpinofRomanreligiousmemory.Manytheoristshaveidentifiedritual asakeycomponentofcollectiveorculturalmemory,inthatacommunity’ s regularrepetitionofthesameritualisapowerfulwayofcommemoratingan
⁸ Halbwachs1992,93–9.
⁹ Nora1992,2,9.TheworkofsociologistDanièleHervieu-Légeronsecularizationin modernFrance,whichshedescribesas “acrisisofcollectivememory” (Hervieu-Léger2000, 130),isalsoinfluencedbyNora’sideas(e.g.Hervieu-Léger2000,127–8).
¹⁰ Seee.g.Beardetal.1998,i.42–3;Rüpke2007,5–6;Nongbri2013(esp.26–38,46–64); Morgan2015,264–5.Beard1986,46arguesthat “religion” asaconcept firstemergedinRome withCicero’ s DeDivinatione,butthisisstillafundamentallydifferentuseoftheconceptfrom, forexample,describingChristianityorIslamas “religions.”
¹¹SeeJ.Assmann2006,ch.7;2011,esp.chs.4,6,and7.
¹²Seee.g.DignasandSmith2012;Rüpke2012a;contributionsinGalinskyandLapatin2015 andGalinsky2016,esp.Rüpke2016.
eventorpersonfromitspast(oftentheverydistantpast)andperpetuatingthat memoryoverdecadesorevencenturies.¹³TheChristiancommunitiesdiscussed byHalbwachsandNoramadeextensiveuseofbiblicaltexts,whosestorieswhen continuallyrevisitedinworshipandstudyconnectedbelieverstotheirpast.In contrast,asGuyStroumsahasrecentlyargued,Romanreligionhadnorevealed scriptures,andtherewererelativelyfewwhocouldhavereadsuchbooksevenif theyhadexisted,sinceRomewasonlya “semi-literate” society;instead,regularlyrepeatedritualswereessentialintyingRomanstotheirculticpast.¹⁴ Many ofthemajorfestivalsoftheRomanculticcalendar,theimportantpriesthoodsof thestatecult,andtheritestheyperformed,werethoughttohaveveryancient origins.ManywereascribedtoNuma;somefestivals,suchastheLupercalia, explicitlypreservedmemoriesofthetimeofRome’sfoundation(oreven earlier).¹⁵ Byrepeatedlyobservingthesefestivalsandmaintainingthesepriesthoods,participantsinRomanritualwereinaveryrealwaykeepingalivethe memoryofthecity’smostancientpast,whichplayedafundamentalpartin theircollectiveidentity.Wheneverthespectatorsattheirtwice-yearlyfestivals watchedaSalianpriestdancinginprocessionthroughRomeandheardhim recitingthe CarmenSaliare,preservedinaLatinsoancientastobeunintelligibleatleastbythe firstcentury ;¹⁶ oreveryyearon1MarchwhentheVestal Virginsextinguishedandrekindledthegoddess’ssacred flamethathadbeen carefullytendedfromthetimeNumainauguratedherworship,¹⁷ participants wereusingritualtoenactandembodyaconnectionwiththecity’spast,boththe distantRegalPeriodinwhichtheseritualsallegedlyhadtheirorigin,and theentirestretchoftimesincethen,which(toborrowHervieu-Léger’simage)
¹³e.g.Connerton1989,45: “Allritesarerepetitive,andrepetitionautomaticallyimplies continuitywiththepast”;A.Assmann2008,100,identifyingreligionasanareaofactivecultural memory;J.Assmann2011,42: “Throughregularrepetition,festivalsandritualsensurethe communicationandcontinuanceoftheknowledgethatgivesthegroupitsidentity.” Seealso Nora1992,6–7and passim;Rüpke2012a,139–40on “ritualmemory” (rituelleErinnerung). Rappaport1999,36–7identifies “invariance(moreorless)” asanessentialfeatureofhis definitionofreligion,andalso(32–3)notesthateven “ new ” ritualsareusuallyformedfrom elementsofpreviouslyexistingrituals,andthatattemptstointroducetrulynewritualsarerarely successful.
¹
⁴ Stroumsa2016,335–7.Cf.J.Assmann2011,42: “Inilliteratesocietiesthereisnootherway [butritual]toparticipateintheculturalmemory;” seealso70–6,123–4.Forarecentdiscussion oftheinterplaybetweentextandreligiouspracticeinRome,seeMacRae2016.
¹
⁵ FortheattributionofRome’sfestivalcalendarandmajorpriesthoodstoNuma,seeLivy 1.19–20.FortheLupercalia,thoughttohavebeencelebratedbyRomulusandRemus,seeLivy1.5; Ovid Fast. 2.259–80,381–421.
¹
⁶ OntheritualsforMarsperformedbytheSalii,seeDion.Hal. Ant.Rom. 2.70.1–5;Gordon 1990,188–9;Rüpke1990,24–5;Beardetal.1998,i.43.Fortheunintelligibilityofthe Carmen Saliare inTacitus’ day,seeQuint. Inst. 2.6.40;seerecentlyMacRae2016,48–50forwritten commentariesonthehymn.Seefurther§3.2,pp.123–4.
¹
⁷ SeerecentlyDiLuzio2016,200–1;forNumaasthefounderoftheworshipofVesta,see Ovid Fast. 6.249ff.
wecanconceptualizeasanunbrokenchainofpiousRomanscarefullypreservingandrepeatingthoseritualsdownthecenturies.
AlltheexamplesIhavejustmentionedaredrawnfromtheRomanstatecult andinvolveactors,locations,andofferingschosen,maintained,and financed atstateexpense.ThecloseentanglementofRome’srituallifewithitspolitics, wars,governmentalinstitutions,andsoforthisalsoacommonplaceinthe studyofancient,andparticularlyRoman,religion,¹⁸ andraisesthequestionof howfaritispossibletoseparate “religion” fromotheraspectsofRoman society.Inaworldwherepriesthoodswere filledfromthesamepoolofelite familiesthatprovidedcandidatesforthemagistracies¹⁹ andwhereeverysitting oftheRomanSenateorbattlefoughtbytheRomanarmywasaccompaniedby sacrifice,²⁰ itisreasonabletoaskwhetherreligionwasnotsoembeddedinthe societalfabricthatwecannotreallythinkofitasaseparablecategoryofRoman lifeatall.²¹Thishasimportantimplicationsforthepresentstudyofreligion andmemoryinTacitus.Is “religiousmemory” anydifferentfrom “cultural memory ” or “collectivememory?” Whatmakesaformofmemorydistinctively “religious?” Or,putanotherway,doesthinkingaboutmemoryfroma “religious” angleaddanythingtoourunderstandingofRomanculture,andof Tacitus,thatwecannotgetfrommerelythinkingabout “culturalmemory?” Wherereligiousmemorybecomesaparticularformofmemory,andwhere IbelieveitcanparticularlyhelpusunderstandTacitus’ Annals,isinconsideringwhatweretheparticularperceivedconsequencesoftherepeatedperformanceofancestralrituals.ForRomanritualswerenotsimplyintendedas arenasfortheupperclassestoadvertisetheirpiety,success,orwealth,nor weretheymerelytraditionsthatbroughtthedistantpasttolife(althoughthey performedthosefunctionstoo);Romancultpracticewasalsoavehiclefor maintainingarelationshipwiththegods.Whilethatrelationshipwas,as countlessscholarsofRomanreligionhaverightlypointedout,inextricably boundupwithotherelementsofsociety(government,magistrates,aristocratic competition),thefactthatitinvolvesthegodsmakesitapeculiarelementof
¹⁸ e.g.Liebeschuetz1979,1;Beardetal.1998,43;Rüpke2007,9–10.Thisfacthasalsonot beenlostonnon-classicistsinculturalmemorystudies:cf.Halbwachs1992,100–1n.22on Athenianstatereligion: “Nothingseparatesthestatefromreligion,thecivilprinciplefromthe religiousprinciple.”
¹⁹ Insomecases,thesepriestsperformedfunctionsthatwemodernsmightidentifyas “secular” ratherthan “religious:” seeScheid1984andBeardetal.1998,i.25–6ontherolesof the pontifices
²⁰ SeeRüpke2007,6–7.OnritualsatSenatemeetings,seeGell. NA 14.7.9.Suet. Aug. 35.3and Dio54.30.1bothclaimthatAugustusinstitutedthepracticeofrequiringeachsenatortomakea smallsacrificeofincenseonthealtarofthegodinwhosetemplethemeetingwastakingplace. AmeetingoftheSenatehadtotakeplacewithina templum,aspaceinauguratedbyanaugur (Gell. NA 14.7.7).
²¹e.g.Clark2007,13–14;Rives2013(areviewofRüpke2012b).
societythatdeservesspecialconsideration.IhavebeeninfluencedherebyJörg Rüpke’srecentattempttoformulateadefinitionof “religion” as
thetemporaryandsituationalenlargementoftheenvironment judgedasrelevantbyoneorseveraloftheactors beyondtheunquestionablyplausiblesocial environmentinhabitedbyco-existinghumanswhoareincommunication(and henceobservable).²²
Thatis,whileRomanreligionissoboundupwithotheraspectsofRoman culturethatitisnotpossibletospeakofastrictsacred–seculardichotomy,in actionsinvolvingwhatisnot “unquestionablyplausible” thereisnevertheless somethingsufficientlydifferentfromotheractionsthatwecanconsiderthem tofallintoaspecialcategory.WhatRüpkethinksofas “beyondtheunquestionablyplausible”,Iwillrefertoas “thedivine” or “thesupernatural.”
FortheRomans,asforotherancientsocieties,appropriatelymaintaining thiscommunicationwithanenvironment “beyondtheunquestionablyplausible” hasimportantbearingonthesuccessoftheirsociety:failingtoobserve correctritualpracticeasithadtraditionallybeenmaintanedcouldhaveserious consequencesforthefuture.JanAssmannhasdemonstratedthisprinciple operatinginthereligionofPharaonicEgypt,wherehymnsandcultacts performedinhonorofthesungodwerethoughtnecessaryforensuringthat thesuncontinuedtoriseandset,andthereforethathumanlifewouldcontinue tosurviveandprosper.²³FromaRomanperspective,theconceptofthe pax deorum isimportanthere:ritualshadtobeperformedconsistentlyinorderto putRomeongoodtermswithhergodsandensurethecommunity’ssurvival; anydeparturefromestablishedpractice,itwasthought,couldhavedire consequences.²⁴ Thisiswhere “cultic” or “religiousmemory” addssomething beyond “cultural” or “collectivememory:” itisconnectedtothelongevityofthe community.RomanculticmemorytiesRomansocietynotonlystronglytoits past,whentheritesoriginatedandbecametraditionalthroughrepeated performance,butalsotoitsfuture,whenrepeatedperformanceoftherites willguaranteecontinuationofthedivinefavorthatallowsRometoprosper andsucceed.
²²Rüpke2015,348;RüpkealsopresentedthisdefinitionatalectureIattendedinAarhus, Denmark,on10April2013.Cf.Rüpke2012b,108–9: “Romanreligioncouldbelooselydefined bytheinvolvementofnonhumanactors,superhumangods,whoweresupposedtoforma controllingorganizationabovepeerreview,” asopposedtoinstitutions(suchasvotingassemblies)thatconstituted “apublicmadeupofthosepresent.”
²³J.Assmann2006,139–54,esp.153–4: “Ritualasaformofthoughtisan officiummemoriae, aculticmemoryservicethatdailysetsavaststoreofknowledgeoftheworldinmotion.Its purposeisnotjusttointerprettheworld,buttotakethemeaningithaselicitedandtofeedit backintotheworldtostrengthen,foster,andrejuvenateit,throughliturgicalwordsofcomfort andenactmentoftheritual.”
²⁴ Forthe paxdeorum,seeLinderski2007;Bloch1963,82–3;MacBain1982,1–2;Ando2008, 5–6;Santangelo2011;foraslightlydifferentview,Satterfield2015.
AnimportantpartofRomanculticmemory,therefore,isthepreservationof thedetailsofreligiouspractice.ItsemphasisonritualisanelementofRoman paganreligiousculturethatscholarslongconsideredexcessivelyformalistic anddevoidofemotionalmeaning.²⁵ Makingsurethatfestivalstakeplaceon therightdayorthatsacrificesinvolvethecorrectvictimsslaughteredatthe altarofthecorrectgodmayseemreasonable,butotherprovisionsofRoman ritualmaystrikemodernobserversasbizarre.Isitreallysoimportantthatthe flamenDialis neversetfootoutsidethecityofRome,orthathisparentsbe marriedbytheincreasinglyoutdatedriteof confarreatio?²⁶ Doesthebirthofan intersexbabytrulymeritdrowningthechildatseatoremoveathreattothe community?²⁷ Canthegodsreallydemandthatanentiresetofgamesbe repeatedmerelybecauseapaterfamiliasscourgedhisslaveinthecircusbefore thegameshadevenbegun?²⁸ TheRomananswertoallthesequestions, apparently,wasyes.Keepingtrackofalltheserules,requirements,andprohibitions,orunderstandingthesignssentbythegodstoinformhumansthat theyhadsomehowlapsedinupholdingthese,wasavastundertaking,for whichRome’spriests,priestesses,andotherreligiousspecialistswereresponsible.Theguardingandhandingdownofthisknowledge,perhapswiththe helpofspecialisttextsfocusingonculticinformation,²⁹ wasseenasvitally importanttothecontinuationofRomanreligioustraditions.Thisviewof Romanreligionasknowledge(scientia)hasbeenexplicitlyconnectedby Rüpkewithculturalmemory:thepreservationofancientreligiousdetail,so thatitcanbeacteduponrepeatedlyinthepresentandfuture,isanessential componentofRomanidentity.³⁰
So,inRomanreligion,aculturalmemorythattethersRometoitspast mergeswitharitualsensibilitythatseekstoadherestrictlytoritesastheyhave traditionallybeenperformed,inalltheirbewilderingritualdetail,asameans ofensuringthegods’ protectionanddivinelyguaranteedsuccessforthe communityinthefuture.³¹Thisnotionofthenecessityoftheperpetual repetitionofritualisexemplifiedinapoemofHorace.Amongtheimages
²⁵ Feeney1998,3notesthe “powerfulinertia” ofthisoutdatedscholarlyview,whichhas happilybeenchallengedbymorerecentscholarship(e.g.Hunt2016).
²⁶ Tacitus, Ann. 3.58and4.16.2–3,with§3.3,pp.142–4,and§4.3,pp.177–80andreferences therecited.
²⁷ SeepassagescitedinCh.7n.134.
²⁸ Livy2.36;ontheinterruptionorvitiationofrites,see§2.6,pp.115–16.
²⁹ SeeMacRae2016,esp.ch.2,forhowsuchtextsbuttressed “theclaimthatthisreligious systemhadatraditionalconnectionwiththeearliestperiodofRomanhistory” (50).
³⁰ Rüpke2016(onValeriusMaximus),andcompareJ.Assmann2008,114–15and2011,39 ontheroleofspecialists,suchaspriestsandAfricangriots,inthetransmissionofcultural knowledge.SeealsoAndo2008,13–14(lackingthememorydimension)andGordon1990,198. Cf.J.Assmann2011,165–70onthesimilarmnemonicfunctionofthestrict nomos (listofritual prohibitions)associatedwithanEgyptiantemple.
³¹Cf.Satterfield2015,436: “Findingthe pax [deum]throughritualhelpedtoavertdangerand securesuccess ” and “wasanimportantelementinRomanself-understanding.”
thepoetusestoexpresshiswork’simmortalityisthatoftheinfiniterepetition ofreligiousritual:
nonomnismoriarmultaqueparsmei vitabitLibitinam:usqueegopostera crescamlauderecens,dumCapitolium scandetcumtacitavirginepontifex.
(Hor. Carm. 3.30.6–9)
(Ishallnotentirelydie,andagreatpartofmyself shallescapeLibitina:andIshallcontinuallygrow, freshwithlaterpraise,aslongasthepontiff climbstheCapitolwiththesilentvirgin.)
Horace’svisionofeternityisnottiedsimplytoRomeitself,oreventothe physicalityoftheCapitolineHill,buttotheritualthattakesplacethere,which heimagineswillalwaysendure;asFraenkelsays, “ThefuturelifeofRome withitsunalterableceremoniesistakenforgranted,ifnottotheendofall time,yetforsoimmenseaperiodthatnooneneedstocasthisthought beyondit.”³²Horacedoesnotspecifyasingleoccasionorfestival,butrather, iseconomicallyreferringtoanyandallofthegreatnumberofritualsthatwill berepeatedontheCapitolineanynumberoftimesdownthecenturies.³³Yet alongsidethisindeterminacy,wearealsogivenspecificritualdetail:theVestal Virgin’ssilence,whichalludestotheformula favetelinguis (literally, “be favorablewithyourtongues!”—thatis,avoidwordsofill-omenbykeeping silent)familiarinculticcontexts.Horaceisinterestednotonlythatthe pontifex andtheVestalclimbtheCapitoline,butalsoin how theyclimbthe Capitoline;forhim,Rome’seternityisembeddedinsuchritualdetailsthat mustberememberedandcontinuallyrepeated.
Romanmortals,then,hadtopreserveandenactthememoryoftheirritesso thatthegodswouldensurethatRomewouldcontinuetoexist.Thisisnottosay thattherewasnoroomforalterationsoradditionstoRomanritualpractice; despitetheconservatismdeeplyembeddedinthisasinotheraspectsofRoman culture,Romanscould,anddid,alter,add,orevenabandonrituals.Fromthe perspectiveofculturalmemory,thisdoesnothavetomeananabandonment ofidentity,nordoesitnecessarilyconstituteanoffensetothegodswiththe potentialtoupsetthecosmicorder.Atanytimewhenitmightbeusefultodo so,Romanscould,anddid,privilegemorerecentprecedentoverthemost ancientexampleswhenmakingdecisionsaboutreligiouspractice.³⁴ Despite
³²Fraenkel1957,303.³³NisbetandRudd2004,373.Cf.West2002,263.
³⁴ Ando2008,15: “Romanscouldesteemthepietyoftheirancestorsevenastheyrecognizeda necessitytoactonthebasisofmorerecentevidence....Whenaconflictarose,knowledgeacquired duringtheHannibalicwar,forexample,necessarilytrumpedinformationofhoaryantiquity.”
Romanculticconservatism,thereweresituationsinwhich “older” didnot absolutelymean “better.” Thismalleabilityisnotoutofkeepingwiththeways scholarshavedescribedtheroleofchangeorinnovationinculturalmemory: memoryofthepastisalwaysconstructedinthepresent.³⁵ Societies,just likeindividuals,rememberselectively;sometimesoldpracticescanbedeemphasized,andneweronescometothefore,asthepresentsituationdemands. Culticmemory,justlikeculturalmemoryingeneral,ismalleable,multivalent, andsubjecttoamultitudeofinterpretations.³⁶
ThechangestotheancientpriesthoodoftheArvalBrethren(whichhad existedfromatleastthethirdcentury )³⁷ areagoodexampleofdeparture from,oratleastadditionsto,traditionalculticpracticethatappeartohavebeen unproblematic.Whilethepriesthoodwastraditionallydedicatedtothecultof theobscuregoddessDeaDia,whichtookplaceinagroveoutsideRome,it underwentlargechangeswiththeadventoftheprincipate:ashrineofthe Caesarswasaddedtothesanctuary,andsacrificesforthesafetyoftheemperor wereaddedtoitsculticcalendar,sacrificeswhichprobablydidnottakeplacein thegrove,butratherontheCapitolineHillinRome,andweredirectednotto DeaDiabuttotheCapitolinetriadofJupiter,Juno,andMinerva.³⁸ These alterationstotheArvals’ culticmemory notonlyphysicalchangestotheir sanctuaryandadditionstotheirculticcalendar,butevenanewlocationand differentrecipientsforthesenewsacrifices probablyrepresentanunprecedentedchangewhencomparedwithwhattheBrethrenpracticedduringthe Republic(althoughapaucityofevidencefortheearlierperiodmakesitdifficult tobecertain).Butpresumablythesechangesinthepriests’ ritualpracticewere notthoughtofaspotentiallyjeopardizingthe paxdeorum,ortheywouldnot havebeenmade.Ifanything,theseritesmighthavebeenthoughtofas strengtheningRome’srelationshipwiththegods,byaskingtheirfavorand assistancefortheemperorswhonowplayedsuchanoutsizedroleinthe community’ssuccess.Asweshallsee,thisideawillbeparticularlyimportant ininterpretingTacitus’ Annals, whichchronicletheJulio-Claudianprincipate andthechangesitbringstoRomanstateandsociety,withconcomitantchanges toRomancultpractice.
IhopetohavegivenaclearaccountofwhatImeanbyculticorreligious memory(termswhichIuseinterchangeablyinwhatfollows)whenitcomes tothestudyofRomanreligioningeneral,anditsapplicationtotheworksof Tacitusinparticular.Continuedperformanceofancientritualsandcultacts, withparticularattention(thoughnotnecessarilyanoverlyrigidadherence)
³⁵ Seee.g.Olick2008,159(“Memoryisaprocessandnotathing...something...we do,not something...we have”);A.Assmann2011,19–20;J.Assmann2011,22–3,27–8.
³⁶ SeeHalbwachs1992,86;Rüpke2012a,151: “Culticmemoryisnotobjective” (Kultische Erinnerungistnichtobjectiv).
³⁷ Beardetal.1998,i.194.
³
⁸ Beardetal.1998,i.195–6.TheclassicstudyofthepriesthoodisScheid1990.
tothedetailedrulesandprohibitionsofRomanritualpractice,isbothakey componentofdefiningaRomanidentitythatisstronglylinkedwiththe pastandalsoanecessarypreconditionforRome’scontinuedsuccessand survivalinthefuture.CulticmemoryisanintegralpartofRomancultural orcollectivememory,butatthesametimehasspecialqualitiesofitsownthat makeitadistinct,anddistinctlyimportant,featureofRomanculture.As AnnaClarknotes,
PublicreligionwasnotaseparatesphereofRomansociety:itmightinfact usefullybeconceivedofastheregister,permeatingpubliclife,thatdetermined thetoneofcertainelementsofthevocabulariesofthatpubliclife,broadly understood.Ittherebygrantedthoseelementsapeculiarlyintenseexplanatory force,aparticularresonanceinexplainingandorderingtheworld.³⁹
Asweshallsee,partofmyinterestinanalyzingculticmemoryinthe Annals is inthemomentswhen,andmethodsbywhich,culticmemoryinteractswith otherformsofcommemorationthatdonothaveanobviousritualordivine component.InClark’sterms,whenTacitusinvokesthereligiousregister, howdoesthatshapethetoneofhisobservationsonthenatureofthe principate?AsIshallargue,Tacitus’ religiousmaterial,wheninterpreted fromthepointofviewofculticmemory,notonlyreinforcestheobservations otherscholarshavemadeaboutTacitus’ interpretationoftheprincipate, butfrequentlyalsogoesbeyondmerereinforcementtohelpusunderstand previouslyunappreciatedaspectsofTacitus’ literaryprojectandsocietal commentaryinthe Annals.
0.2TACITUS,PRIESTANDHISTORIAN:TAKING THERELIGIOUSDIMENSIONSERIOUSLY
ScholarshavealreadyobservedthatTacitusisanauthorwithadeepconcern formemory.Typically,suchstudieshavetakentheformofexaminationsof Tacitus’ viewsonrememberingthepast,andondirectorimplicitcomparisons betweenthepastandthepresent(especiallytheRepublicanpastandthe Imperialpresent).SometimesweseeTacitus’ charactersrespondingtotheir ownmemoriesofthepast,aswhenobserversofAugustus’ funeralarestruck bytheirownmemoriesof,orthetalestheyhavebeentoldabout,thedeath/ funeralofCaesar.⁴⁰ Elsewhere,Tacitusinvitesreflectiononthepowerof history-writingtoserveasamemorialofpasteventsandpeople,asinhis
³⁹ Clark2007,255–6.
⁴⁰ Ann. 1.8.6,withGowing2005,28–32.Woodman2002makesagoodcaseforregarding illum diem asareferencetothedaynotofCaesar’sfuneral,butofhisassassination.
accountofthetrialanddeathofthehistorianCremutiusCordus.⁴¹Atstill othermoments,Tacitusisinterestedinshowingushowtheemperorsusetheir subjects’ memoriesofthepasttotheirownadvantage,aswithOtho’sattempts tocapitalizeonNero’spopularity,⁴²orevenattempttocontrolthosememories,aswiththeaforementionedcaseofCremutiusCordus,orinTiberius’ attemptstoshapepopularmemoriesofGermanicus.⁴³
Alloftheseexamples,whilepowerfulanalysesoftheplaceofmemoryin Tacitus’ works,aremoreconcernedwith individual memoriesofthepast thanwithquestionsofculturalmemory.ThepresentstudyaimstodemonstrateanewwayofthinkingaboutmemoryinTacitus,byconsideringwhat anexaminationofculticmemory,withitsparticularemphasesandconcerns, candotorefineourpictureofmemoryinTacitus’ works.Tacitusincludesin the Annals storiesthatinvolvethedetailsofreligiouspracticeandpriestly behavior,prodigiesandtheirexpiation,andruminationsinhisownvoiceand thatofhischaractersontheroleoffateorprovidenceinRomanaffairs.The presenceofthismaterialsuggeststhatTacitusconsidersRome’sculticmemoryanditspotentialconsequencesimportantenoughtohaveaprominent placeinhisaccountoftheJulio-Claudians.
ButthereligiousmaterialinTacitus’ workshastypicallynotbeenconsideredtobeverysignificanttohisoverallliteraryproject.RonaldSyme’ s assessmentofTacitus’ inclusionofprodigies,forexample,seemstohavehad greatinfluenceonsubsequentreadersofTacitus:
TherecordingofomenswasatraditionalfeatureintheannalsoftheRomans, andtheeffectofpremonitorysignsonthemindsandactionsofmenprovideda suitablecommentarytogreatevents.Idlefablesweretobedeprecated,buta seriousauthorhadnorighttoomitawell-authenticatedmanifestation...Not untilthelaterbooksdothe prodigia becomearegularentry.Itwouldbefanciful todiscoveraskepticalhistorian’srelapseintoantiquatedcredulities.Thereasonis plain:astockdeviceintheoldannalistictraditionwhichTacitusneededallthe morebecausehissubjectnowdefiedthefabricandcanonsofthe ‘respublica.’⁴⁴
ForSyme,itismorepalatabletoassumethatTacitusoccasionallyreferredto thegods,theircult,prodigies,fate, fortuna,etc.becausetheywerepartofthe traditionalmaterialoftheRomanhistorian,thantothinkthathewishedto attachsomelargermeaningtothem.GivenTacitus’ generaloutlook,perceived bySymeandmanybeforeandafterhimtobedominatedbyskepticism,irony,
⁴¹ Ann. 4.34–5,withCancik-LindemaierandCancik1987;Moles1998;Gowing2005,26–7; Sailor2008,ch.5;Shannon2012,764–5.
⁴² Hist. 1 passim,withGowing2016,53–4. ⁴³Gowing2016,54–9,andseealso§3.2.
⁴⁴ Syme1958,522–3.Cf.Ginsburg1981,4;Martin1981,218.Onthefactthatprodigiesare morecommonintheClaudianandNeronianbooksofthe Annals thanintheTiberianhexad,see furtherbelow,p.13.SeealsoSyme1958,397,onTacitus’ inclusionofdetailssuchasthe ficus Ruminalis (13.28)orthealtarofHercules(15.41.1): “Suchthingshadaplace,likethereportof ‘prodigia,’ inRomanannals,andanauthor’sbeliefordisbeliefdoesnotcomeintothequestion.”
andevensarcasm,⁴⁵ scholarshaveassumedthatTacitus’ referencestocultic matterswere,ifnotmandatedbythetraditionsofhisgenre,merely “ an opportunityforgloomyandsardoniccomments,” oropportunitiestocriticize thecredulityofthosewhoallowtheirthoughtsandactionstobeexcessively influencedbyreligiousconsiderations.⁴⁶
Morerecently,JasonDaviesandMiriamGriffinhavesoughttopushback againstSyme’sviewofTaciteanreligiousmaterial,⁴⁷ andthisstudyfollows verymuchintheirfootsteps.ReligiousmaterialinTacitusshouldbetaken seriously.Idonotwishtodiscounttheideathatanauthorcanderiveastrong literaryeffectfromdeployingreligiousmaterialthatwastraditionallyincluded inannalistichistory.Asweshallsee,whenTacitusincludessuchmaterial, heiscertainlytryingtoexploittheassumptionsitraisesinhisreaders,but thatneednotmeanthatthesereferencesaremerelypawnsinthegameof genericexpectations.LetusfurtherconsiderSyme’sexampleofprodigies. Tacitusmadeadeliberateauthorialchoiceaboutwhichprodigiestoinclude andwheretoplacethem.TheRomanhistoriographicaltraditionwasstrongly influencedbythe annalesmaximi,inwhichthe pontifexmaximus listed importanteventsoftheyear,especiallyprodigiesrecognizedbytheSenate.⁴⁸ Prodigiesplayaveryimportantpartofthenarrativeandthematicstructuring ofthe AbUrbeCondita ofTacitus’ predecessorLivy.⁴⁹ Tacitus,whilehehints atthattraditionalstructuringofthenarrativeyearaccordingtoprodigyand expiation,isfarfromfollowingitslavishly.⁵⁰ Attheotherendofthespectrum isSallust,whoseextantworksareknownfortheirpaucityofreligiousmaterial andneartotallackofprodigies.⁵¹Thisshowsthatprodigies,whileperhaps
⁴⁵ Syme1958,ch.30(entitled “Thescepticalhistorian”),esp.pp.398(“Theprimequalityof CorneliusTacitusisdistrust”),539(“TheironyofTacituspervadeswholeepisodes...oris compressedintoacurtphrase”),and542(“TheironicalmannerofTacitusderivesitsstrength fromakeenandmaliciousinsight,whichhescarcelytroublestodisguise”).Cf.e.g.Furneaux 1896,36–7ona “satirictendency” inthe Annals;Walker1952,53;Mellor1993,129–30; O’Gorman2000,10–13;OwenandGildenhard2013,27–8.
⁴⁶ Goodyear1972,25–6n.2;cf.Hutchinson1993,240–50.ApartialexceptionisWalker 1952,ch.12,whoattributestoTacituscynicismorskepticisminvariousreligiousmatters,but neverthelessdescribeshimas “amanofstronglyreligioustemperament” (244)who “didnot rejectentirelytheideaofsupernaturaldirection” (245);seealsoFurneaux1896,30.
⁴⁷ Davies2004,ch.4;Griffin2009,169–72.
⁴⁸ Rawson1971;Ginsburg1981,4.Cornell2013,ii.10–31collectsfragmentsofthe annales maximi (withcommentary,Cornell2013,iii.3–12).Historiansperhapsstoppedusingthem directlyasasourcebythetimeofCicero,andtheymayevenhavedisappeared(Frier1979, 274;Drews1988;foraslightlymoremeasuredview,seeRichinCornell2013,i.156–8).
⁴⁹ TheclassicstudyisLevene1993,ofwhichseeesp.p.36: “Weshould...seektoexplain [prodigylists]intermsofhisnarrativestrategy.” SeealsoDavies2004,28–58.
⁵⁰ TheclassicstudyisGinsburg1981,ofwhichseeesp.pp.29–30onprodigies.
⁵¹OnSallust,seeSyme1964,246–8;Scanlon1980,41–7;Levene2006,423(onthelackof prodigies);Rosenblitt2011,406.ThepictureofSallust’sapproachtoreligion,however,might lookverydifferentifallofhisworkshadsurvived.Foranexampleofanotherhistorianwhomay havefeltasSallustdid,seeGell. NA 2.28.4–7onM.PorciusCato: “Itisnotpleasingtowrite aboutwhateverisonthe tabula atthehouseofthepontifexmaximus” (nonlubetscriberequodin
“traditional” forhistoriography,werenotconsideredanessentialelementofthe genre;ifTacitushadwantedtowriteaworkofhistorythatwasentirelydevoid ofreligiousmaterial,hewouldhavehadgoodprecedent.Comparingthe Annals withotherworksabouttheJulio-Claudiansisalsoinstructive.Tacitus’ contemporarySuetoniusincludesmoreprodigiousorominousoccurrencesinhis accountoftheJulio-ClaudiansthanTacitusdoes,⁵²demonstratingthatthe traditionsurroundingtheJulio-Claudianscontainedamultiplicityofpossible omenstoinclude.
Tacitus’ selectionofsuchreports,therefore,beginstolookmorediscerning themoreoneexaminesit.Tacituscertainlyinsertshimselfintoahistoriographicaltradition,butdoesnottaketheextremeofeitherSallustorLivy,and makesaverycarefulselectionamongsttherecordedJulio-Claudianprodigies availabletohim.Furthermore,aconsiderationofwhereinthenarrativethese prodigiesoccuralsosuggestsdeliberateauthorialplanning.Therearemany moreprodigiesintheClaudianandNeronianbooksofthe Annals thaninthe Tiberianhexad.⁵³Whilesweepingpronouncementsshouldbeavoided,given thatwedonotknowhow,orindeedwhether,Tacitushandledprodigiesor otherreligiousmaterialintheportionsofthe Annals thatarenowmissing,⁵⁴ it appearsthatcommunicationsfromthegodswereimportanttothehistorian’ s visionofthelater principes inawaythattheywerenotwhenhewasthinking aboutTiberius.Thatisalsosuggestive;presumablyiftherehadbeennothing moretoTacitus’ inclusionofprodigiesthanadesiretomakehisworklook appropriatelytraditional,theprodigieswouldhavebeenmoreequallydistributedthantheyare.
AdetailofTacitus’ biographyalsolendscredencetothesuggestionthat hisinterestinculticmatterswasmotivatedbymorethantheconventionsof hisgenre:hisconcernwithdetailsaboutpriestlyresponsibilitiesandcult practicehasbeenattributedtohispositionasaquindecimvir,⁵⁵ apriesthood grantedtohimbyDomitianandprobablyheldfortheremainderofTacitus’ life.⁵⁶ Thequindecimviratewasaprestigiousoffice;itisanunusualhonor forTacitustohaveacquiredatsuchayoungage(priortoattainingthe tabulaapudpontificemmaximumest,anallusiontotheprodigyrecordsofthe annalesmaximi) (seeCornell2013,iii.127–9).
⁵²Davies2004,160.Forexample,Tacitusincludesinthe Histories onlytwo ostenta predicting Vespasian’ssuccess,whileSuetoniusreportseleven,althoughhisbiographyofVespasianisquite short(Wardle2012,185–6).OnominousoccurrencesinSuetonius,seeWallace-Hadrill1983, 191–3.
⁵³See§4.2,pp.169–70,§6.1,and§6.5. ⁵⁴ See§6.1.
⁵⁵ e.g.Syme1958,465(onthedigressionsonSarapisandPaphianVenusinthe Histories)and 469–70(onmaterialontheChristiansandtheoracleofApolloatClarosinthe Annals).
⁵⁶ Rüpke2008,646.
consulship)andsignalledtheImperialfavorthatwastobefollowedwith furthermagistracies.⁵⁷ Inadditiontotheculticfunctionsofsuchposts,forthe recipients,theyweremarkersofelitepoliticalstatus,justlikepraetorshipsor consulships.⁵⁸ SymeacknowledgesthatTacitus’ priesthoodmayhaveinformedhisinterestinthingslikeoracles,butalsoseemstobelievethatit wasmainlyimportantforthepoliticaladvantageitconferred.⁵⁹ Butwhen Tacitus,inararemomentofauthorialcommentary,discusseshisowntenure asquindecimvir,hehighlightstheactiveroleitgavehiminsignificantrituals:
IsdemconsulibusludisaecularesoctingentesimopostRomamconditam,quarto etsexagesimo,quamAugustusediderat,spectatisunt.utriusqueprincipisrationes praetermitto,satisnarrataslibris,quibusresimperatorisDomitianicomposui. namisquoqueediditludossaecularisiisqueintentiusadfuisacerdotioquindecimviralipraeditusactuncpraetor;quodnoniactantiareferosedquiacollegio quindecimvirumantiquituseacuraet<ii>magistratuspotissimumexequebantur officiacaerimoniarum.(11.11.1)
(Underthesameconsuls,theSecularGameswerewatched,inthe800thyear sinceRome’sfounding,andthe64thsincetheGameswhichAugustushadgiven. Ipassoverthecalculationsystemsofeach princeps,whicharesufficiently narratedinthebooksinwhichIwroteabouttheaffairsofthecommander Domitian.ForhealsoputonSecularGames,andIwaspresentatthemwith particularkeenness,endowedasIwaswiththequindecimviralpriesthood,and praetoratthattime.ThisImentionnotforthesakeofboasting,butbecausethis hadbeenaconcernforthecollegeofthequindecimvirsfromofold,andthose magistratesinparticularwerecarryingoutthedutiesoftheceremonies.)
Self-referenceofthissortisrareforTacitus;useofthe first-personsingular marksthepassageassignificant,⁶⁰ andweshouldnotoverlookthefactthatitis specificallyinordertoremarkuponhisownpriesthood,andtheauthorityit grantshimasanhistorian,thathedeploysithere.Asbothquindecimvirand praetor,TacitussuggeststhathewasdoublyqualifiedtoassistDomitian.⁶¹
⁵⁷ Syme1958,66;Birley2000,234.ItwasprobablylistedonTacitus’ tombstoneasan importantcomponentofhiscareer(CIL 6.1574;seeBirley2000,235–6).
⁵⁸ SeeBeardetal.1998,i.27–30,103–8;theyassertthatdespitepriests’ involvementin politicallife,thereligiousnatureoftheirofficemustbetakenseriously.SeealsoVárhelyi 2010,57–69.
⁵⁹ Syme1958,65,523.
⁶⁰ SeeSyme1958,534;Pelling2009,152.Woodman2009,38–9arguespersuasivelythat Tacitus’“reference” tohimselfandhisowncareerinactuality “isthefocusandclimaxofthe digression” abouttheSecularGames,notacasewhereTacitus “grudginglyconcede[s]” (Syme 1958,534)detailsabouthisownlife.
⁶¹Iaccepttheinsertionof ii byShaw-Smith1997,whichMalloch2013,187rejects,instead followingNipperdey,1852,9n.16;Furneaux1907,16;andKoestermann1967,49ininterpretingthesentenceassuggestingthat “those quindecimuiri whoheldmagistracieswereselectedby preference(potissimum)fortheperformanceofthedutiesofthereligiousceremonies.” Butthere isnoevidenceforthisoutsideofTacitus.
Praetors,too,wereinvolvedinmaintainingthetraditionalformoftheassociatedrituals(caerimoniae),⁶²butthequindecimvirateisparticularlymeaningfulbecauseofthelongcontinuity(antiquitus)ofthatpriesthood’ sconcern forthegames.Tospeakinanachronisticterms,culticmemory,asreflectedin continuityofreligiouspractice,matteredtoTacitus.Itisalsosignificantthat Tacitus,momentarilyleavingasidethepoliticalproblemsofDomitian’ snotoriousregime,canremarkneutrallyonhiscelebrationoftheSecular Games.⁶³Hedoesnotseemtocriticizethegames neitherthecalculationof theyearwhentheyshouldbeheld,⁶⁴ northeritesthemselves evenas celebratedbythisworstofemperors.Tacitusalsorevealsthatinthe Histories (presumablyinaportionofthetextthathasnowbeenlost),hediscussedhow eachemperorcalculatedthedatefortheSecularGames.Morethanonce,then, Tacitusdiscussedthedetailedexpertknowledgenecessaryforthisfestival,and itislikelythathisownpersonalexperiencewasalsobroughttobearonthe discussioninthe Histories.SuchdetailsarenotconfinedtotheSecularGames oreventhereignofClaudius,asweshallsee.Tacituscombineshisroleas priest,chargedwithpreservingRome’sreligiousritesbycontinuedperformanceduringhisownlifetime,andhisroleashistorian,concernedwith reportingtheseritesinalltheirbewilderingdetail.⁶⁵ Althoughhowthe emperorsreacttosuchreligiousdetailsiscertainlynotinsignificant,Tacitus canalsopreservethemwithoutauthorialcomment.
BothofTacitus’ twinrolesaspriestandhistorian,then,wouldgivehimgood reasonforincludingreligiousmaterialinhisworks.Reportsofprodigiesand observationsonsupernaturalforcessuchasfateandfortunetypicallyfounda placeinthegenreofhistoriography.Furthermore,Tacitus,asamemberofthe quindecemviralcollege thepriesthoodchargedwithinterpretingprodigies withtheaidoftheSibyllinebooks,aswellaswithassistinginthecarryingout ofimportantritualssuchastheSecularGames mighthavehadparticular knowledgeofandinterestintheinterpretationofominousoccurrencesandthe detailsofcultpractice.Butthisneednotmeanthatreligiousmaterialinhis workshasnodeepersignificancethangenericconventionorpersonalinterest: asIshallargue,itplaysacrucialandthusfarunderappreciatedthematicrolein Tacitus’ accountoftheJulio-Claudianprincipate.AsAilsaHunt,buildingon theworkofDenisFeeney,hasrecentlyargued,thewritingandreading
⁶² Caerimoniae designatesreligiousobservancebuthasarangeofmeanings,from “religious taboos” (3.58.1)to “rites,ceremonies” (3.59.2);seeWoodmanandMartin1996,423,425.
⁶³Malloch2013,180–1. ⁶⁴ Syme1958,65.Onthepassage,seefurther§6.2.
⁶⁵ SeeMarincola1997,109–12forexamplesofancienthistorianswhocitepriesthoodsthat theypersonallyholdasgrantingthemaspecialauthorityoraccesstoprivilegedinformation. MacRae2016,55–9notesthatsome(thoughbynomeansall)ofthespecialistreligiousliterature ofthelateRepublicwaswrittenbypriests,suggestingthatpriesthoodcouldgrantasimilar authorityinamoreovertly “theological” genre.
