SCS-1: HYBRID: "famaeque dissimilis": Image Management, Perception, and Reality in Tacitus’ Histories 

Madness and its depiction are ubiquitous subjects in Ancient Greek and Roman literature. Madness as a metaphor for the chaos of civil war is well documented as a trope of Latin poetry (Hershkowitz, Fratantuono). Metaphorical “madness” and its relation to military discipline in Tacitus’ Annales has also been treated and a distinct pattern has been revealed (Woodman). However, the motif of madness has not been extensively studied in Tacitus’ Histories.

A close analysis of Tacitus’ use of the word praetexo reveals that he often uses this term metaphorically to indicate lying (“pretext”), unlike other previous and contemporary authors, all of whom primarily, although not exclusively, use praetexo in its non-metaphorical definition to describe decorated cloth.

The uncanny nature of civil war fills the Roman historical corpus, where many authors emphasize the perverse nature of friends and family turning against each other. Ancient historiography is not only used to document events, but also to provide a fuller narrative tale to these events. Edward Bispham notes that Tacitus’ narrative style does not permit us to separate fact from fiction. In other words, we cannot discern historical truth from narrative details, as authors manipulate those details to create framework for historical events and characters.

This paper will examine Tacitus’ depiction of imperial brothers, such as Crassus Scribonianus, Otho Titianus, Lucius Vitellius, and Flavius Sabinus, within the Histories, demonstrating that not only does each brother’s character decline as the narrative unfolds, but that their actions precipitate some of the largest and most significant events throughout the work(cf. Wallace).

During the tumultuous events of 69 CE, the men vying to fill the void of power clearly worked to posture themselves as the best leaders. In Tacitus’ Histories, two pairs of generals, Caecina and Valens. as well as Mucianus and Antonius, are key cogs in imperial power struggles. By examining their individual triumphs, how they manage their personal images, and their inability to share authority with their partner, this paper analyzes how Tacitus purposely uses the dynamic characterization of these generals to reveal the failings of leadership during civil war.

Otho has been linked closely with Nero, primarily since the two were close friends during the latter’s reign. In the Histories, Tacitus presents Otho as dissolute, wanton, otiose, a revival of Nero’s emperorship. Yet Tacitus’ description of Otho’s actions as emperor is incongruent with the oft-repeated disparagements of his character. In this paper, I argue that Tacitus is constantly setting readers’ expectations of Otho’s character against their actual perceptions.