Magic as an Element of Political Debate in the Historiography and Imperial Biography of the 1st -5th Centuries AD

1.1.1 On pollutae caerimoniae and prodigia

The three out of the twelve¹⁵ presupposed books of the Histories are devoted to the description of AD 69, the “Year of the Four Emperors”, a fact which has often been found surprising¹⁶. Putting aside the matter of proportions¹⁷, I believe the fact that Tacitus chose to start his first major historical work with this particular year is telling us that he either found it to be of paramount importance or chose to present it as such in order to lay down the principles of his historical thinking and his perspective on the principate and the nature of imperial power.

Tacitus has been called by Haynes (2003: 19) a “critic of ideology” who, following in Plato’s footsteps, believes this very ideology to be history; “no alternative vision of an external reality exists in his texts”. As in the Cave, the public (“the prisoners”) see nothing but the shadows, “to which they apply the speech of the puppeteers, erroneously, since it is only an echo and is not related to the action of the shadows at all”. The subject matter of history is not the assembly of objective facts, nor even the minutely and consistently described components of the facts’ ideological image; it is “the process of image-making itself”. The most important question Tacitus attempts to answer is not what happened, but how what happened was seen by those who witnessed it¹⁸. If Haynes is right, then what we might find in the first three books of the Histories is not merely a description of what amounts to a civil war or a careful analysis of how this year has shown the weaknesses of the principate as a political model, torn by the struggle between two opposing concepts of imperial power: the traditional one based on “ancient” Roman values and the “eastern”, or perhaps “Hellenistic” one, based on novel cults, astrology and even magic. What we may find instead is the description of these two models expressed in the language which might have been used by the ideology-makers themselves. While it is not the purpose of the present study to investigate the overall ideology and vision of history presented in Tacitus’ work, I believe a more careful analysis of these three books and the language used therein may bring us some insight fundamental to the understanding of the role of magic and astrology in both the Histories and the Annals.

The introductory paragraph of book 1 contains some of the usual prefatory topoi, including the subject matter and scope of the work, as well as the writer’s credentials and purpose, yet none of them are introduced in a straightforward manner. The sense needs to be deduced from Tacitus’ critic of other authors and subjects¹⁹. The facts relayed directly made the historical truth in other (purposely unmentioned) works damaged beyond repair (infracta)²⁰. It can be inferred that Tacitus does not want to repeat this mistake; a bit further on he adds that those who profess uncorrupted fidelity must speak with no love and no hatred²¹. If neither the direct facts, nor a positive or negative interpretation of them is to be presented by a historian, one wonders what is supposed to be the subject of history. Tacitus does not say, at least not in this paragraph. Yet the next two passages are devoted to “negative” and “positive” events of the era, painted in broad strokes (the length of the “positive” paragraph, 1.3, is roughly half of the “negative” one)²². This “table of contents”, among other things, introduces two themes that will reoccur throughout his work and are of a particular importance for this study: pollutae caerimoniae, magna adulteria (on the negative side) and caelo terraque prodigia et fulminum monitus et futurum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta (on the positive side).

The metonymical sense of caerimoniae is “religious rites, ceremonies, or observances” (OLD 3). In singular, it also signifies either “sanctity”, or “reverence (for the gods) as shown by acts of worship” (OLD 2). Tacitus uses all these meanings throughout his work. Yet the plural, employed in the preface, seems to be of particular importance. In Hist. 2.91 Vitellius, on becoming a pontifex maximus, issues an edict that a public religious ceremony (caerimoniae publicae) is to be held on the day which for centuries has been considered as infaustus, unlucky. Tacitus calls him completely ignorant of any human and divine law²³, nor are there any among his entourage (freedmen and private friends) who can advise him, so he acts as among drunken fools²⁴. Though the word pollutae is not used here, it is hinted that this was a sacrilege.

It is curious to note that the day in question was XV Kalendas Augustas (18th July). The word Augustus/a appears in two preceding passages: in 2.89, where Vitellius mounts the Capitol and bestows there the title of Augusta on his mother, and in 2.90, where Vitellius himself is gifted with the name of Augustus by vulgus, the mob of Roman people who neither care nor are able to distinguish truth from falsehood: they behave as they were taught to behave, shouting the common-phrase flatteries at whoever is indicated to them. I believe this sequence of mentioning Augusta/us three times in a row is not accidental. This is an indictment on the imperial system: the emperor is firmly ruled by a woman (in this case, the mother)²⁵, he himself rules over ignorant populace (both the lower and upper classes)²⁶ and ancient order (both religious and political, as these were firmly linked) is forgotten, causing enormous confusion, with no new order truly established and enforced. The fundaments of the new imperial order laid down by Augustus seem to crumble once the Julio-Claudian dynasty ended. The model represented by both Otho and Vitellius who try to follow in Nero’s footsteps²⁷ is not sustainable. It seems public religion (including the system of omens and lucky/ unlucky days) is one of the aspects that required a reform – whatever existed before, became polluted.

Caerimoniae are used two more times in the extant text of the Histories. In 2.3 they refer to the sacred rites of Paphian Venus, in 4.83 to the cult of Serapis in Alexandria. Both are connected to Vespasian and his ascent to power and will be investigated in more detail in the following section. Suffice it to say at the moment that both cults were established by local kings (Aerias or Cinyras in Paphos, Ptolemy Soter in Alexandria), in both cases external, foreign religious authorities were consulted on the form of the rites (in Cyprus the reformer was Tamiras of Cilicia, who introduced the local art of divination, in Alexandria it was Timotheus, an Athenian from the family of the Eumolpidae who were holding hereditary high offices in the mysteries of Eleusis; said Timotheus introduced the cult of Father Dis, based on Ptolemy’s prophetic dream), in both cases the rites were taken over in due course by the locals (in Paphos, the descendants of king Cinyras, in Alexandria, the Egyptian priests²⁸) and in both cases there is some uncertainty in Tacitus’ times about origins of some rites or even the whole cult (the form of the cult statue in Paphos and the manifold rival theories on Serapis’ origin) . Additionally, it is worth to remember these two passages are the only aetiological excurses on the cult of gods in the whole (extant) Histories²⁹. I believe they foreshadow the religious innovations introduced by the Flavians (foreign cults incorporated into the official religious system of Rome to support the power of the dynasty). Moreover, it seems to me that the usage of the word caerimoniae is not accidental. Both the local cults examined have been “polluted” with the passage of centuries, so that they no longer exist in their original form and much of knowledge relating to them is lost. This brings to mind pollutae caerimoniae of the preface.

Looking back to 1.3, pollutae caerimoniae is followed by magna adulteria. This is generally thought to depict the story of the Vestal Virgins: by having sexual intercourse (adulteria) despite their vows of chastity they have committed a sacrilege or “polluted the rites”. This is undoubtedly a correct reading, yet Tacitus is a master of double entendre. I have already shown above how significant the phrase pollutae caerimoniae is: it indicates the lamentable state of the current religion and, viewed in the context of the further passages I have analyzed, foreshadows the religious change under the Flavians. I believe that the addition of magna adulteria further strengthens this effect. Adulteria in general means “adultery” (and that is the meaning Tacitus always chooses³⁰), occasionally “immodesty”. There is also another meaning: ingrafting, inoculating (of plants, e.g. Manil. 5.266; also in the work of Tacitus’ friend, Pliny the Elder: Hist. Nat. 7.2). Finally, there exists a metaphorical sense “adulteration, modification”³¹. Thus the second possible translation of the phrase is “polluted rites, great religious alterations”, with the added sense of a foreign cult being “grafted” onto Roman religion, thus forming a new “plant” bearing better “fruit”.

While we have only three instances of caerimoniae in the Histories, the word appears with much greater frequency in the Annals (16 occurrences). In 1.54, there is a sense of religious change, with the new collegium of Augustales created by Tiberius (he himself, Drusus, Claudius and Germanicus are among the members) for the imperial cult of gens Iulia. As in the Histories, the emperor uses new rites as a basis of imperial power. Let us consider the remaining examples: 1.72, where Tiberius apparently disapproves of Germanicus participating in a funeral and thus contaminating himself; 3.58. where Tiberius postpones an enquiry into flamen Dialis’ complaint, who appeals to be granted the same freedom of departing Italy as other Flamen priests enjoy – again, Tiberius is against religious change, though in 3.59 he has no scruples to modify the ceremonies already established to celebrate the granting of tribunitial power to Drusus (criticizing most vehemently the alterations from Roman tradition, i.e. the gold lettering); in 3.60 he sorts out the laws regarding the right of asylum in the Greek cities, again fighting against religious deterioration (often based on superstitio); in 3.61 the delegation from Ephesus states that the Romans have always protected their ceremonies; in 3.71 Tiberius is associated with the investigation in the placement of the temple of Equestrian Fortune and ascertaining that the city of Rome helds supreme jurisdiction over the religious matters of the whole Italy; in 4.16 Tiberius offers his view on why there are currently issues with finding a replacement for flamen Dialis (the flamen’s wife was removed from the jurisdiction of her father) and makes a new law (the wife is still to remain under the power of pater familias); in the same passage, he employs monetary persuasion (by granting two million sesterces to the new Vestal, Cornelia) to make the senators more eager to perform religious offices (promptior animus foret ad capessendas caerimonias); in 4.36 the city of Cyzicus in Phrygia is charged with neglecting the Augustan cult (incuria caerimonibus divi Augusti); in 4.55 Tiberius refuses Ephesus and Miletus the honour of rising a temple for him (the Asiatic cities decided so in 23 A.D, see Ann. 4.15) as they are already well-established centers of the cult (caerimoniae) of Apollo and Diana; in 4.64 a bust of Tiberius is the only thing left unscathed by a raging fire on the Caelian Hill and it is deemed (by the senate) worthy to increase the religious significance of the place where the gods had shown the emperor such a favour (augendam caerimoniam loco, in quo tantum in principem honorem di ostenderint)³²; in 6.12 Tiberius criticizes the actions of Caninius Gallus, one of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis responsible for the Sibylline books and foreign cults, who, via a young plebeian tribune Quintilianus, proposed to the senate the addition of another Sibylline book to the official collection, which notion was passed over without the emperor’s knowledge (and without adherence to the rules set out by Augustus; as one of the quindecemviri, Gallus should have been aware of the existing religious rules, scientiae caerimoniarum) and had to be revoked by Tiberius and passed over for further investigation by all the quindecemviri. It becomes evident that under Tiberius the word caerimoniae is used mostly to emphasize Roman religious tradition in its Augustan version. Tiberius definitely has no qualms about modifying certain aspects of the cults, but whatever he does is done as a continuation of Augustus’ work and can be written into the frames set by the true builder of the new imperial regime. He does not feel any need for innovation.

There are four more instances of caerimoniae present in the extant Claudian and Neronian books; a definite diminution of frequency can be noted. In 11.11, in reference to the Secular Games organized by Claudius, Tacitus makes a rare comment about himself, admitting that at the time of ludi saeculares organized by Domitian he was a praetor and a member of quindecemviri and thus learned in the religious rituals (officia caerimoniarum). In here Tacitus tells his readership explicitly of his knowledge of Roman religion, establishing himself as an authority. He also mentions the manner of calculating the time of the Ludi, though he does not go into any details, saying he already discussed this in the Domitian books (sadly lost). We know from elsewhere that Claudius adopted a more ancient way of calculating the time of the games (i.e. counting 100 years as a saeculum, instead of a Sibylline saeculum introduced by Augustus). It seems that, contrary to Tiberius, Claudius wanted to revert to the religious rituals closer to their “ancient” form, not those reinvented by Augustus. The next instance of caerimoniae seems to confirm this: in 11.15 Claudius wants to establish a collegium of haruspices, so that this ancient art is not lost. Their advice, Claudius says to the senate, was often used to renew religious ceremonies, making them more similar to how they were practiced in the past; thus, the rites could be cleaned of changes introduced by negligence and foreign superstitions (externae superstitiones).

The last two instances of caerimoniae refer to breaking the sacred rules. The first such infraction (14.22) is committed by Nero himself when he bathes in a sacred spring (aqua Marcia) and thus commits a sacrilege. Curiously, the man who built the aqueduct and the spring, Quintus Marcius Rex, was an ancestor of Julius Caesar³³. The aqueduct was rebuilt and enlarged by Augustus³⁴. Tacitus attributes Nero’s deed to his passion for luxury (nimia luxus cupido), but the spring was probably associated in Roman minds with the founders of the imperial dynasty. Nero is not only committing a sacrilege, but also disdaining what was built by the founders of the new regime. The whole passage in which Nero’s bath is described begins with the appearance of a comet, portending the change of kingship (in the opinion of the crowd; de quo vulgi opinio est, tamquam mutationem regnis portendat). The rumours indicate even a certain man (Rubellius Plautus) with Julian blood in his veins as a possible successor and they gain momentum when a flash of lightning disturbs one of Nero’s dinners in his countryside villa Sublaqueum, in the vicinity of Simbruine lakes. As we learn from Tacitus himself, the emperor Claudius built a new aqueduct, bringing the water down from the Simbruine hills (Ann. 11.13). Nero promptly advises Rubellius Plautus to retire to his family estates in Asia and then takes his bath in the sacred spring. Viewed in this context, this is not solely a sacrilege, but rather an act of defiance, a declaration of what the emperor thinks about the rumors of his pending demise. Nonetheless, Tacitus quips, the emperor’s resulting illness surely proved the anger of the gods at such an action.

The second instance under the reign of Nero does not relate to the emperor himself, but to Thrasea Paetus, through the voice of his accuser, Marcellus, who postulates that Thrasea, by distancing himself from the public life, has committed treason and openly became a public enemy, who defies the institutions and rites of the ancestors (16.28)³⁵. Let us look more closely at Thrasea’s sins. He spoke against luxury (Ann. 13, 49, the matter of gladiatorial games organized by the Syracusans), one of the favourite indulgencies of Nero (referred to in the previous caerimoniae passage, 14.22). He denied Nero adulation when it was announced that his and Minerva’s golden statues were to be erected in the curia and that Agrippina’s birthday was to be announced as unlucky (14.12)³⁶, leaving the senate building. He postulated clemency in a treason trial for crimen laesae maiestatis (14.48, prosecution of Antistius Sosianus). He spoke once again against adulatio during the trial of Claudius Timarchus (15.9, see Rudich 1993:76–8 and the explanation of Thrasea’s “theory of small deeds”, i.e. “the belief that if vices on the periphery of public life are eliminated, there is hope of some improvement in the center”). After this incident, Thrasea seemingly disappeared from public life. In 15.23 Nero gave him a formal warning (forbidding him to participate in the congratulatory deputation of the senate upon the birth of Nero’s daughter); in the same passage we learn that Nero reconciled with Thrasea (or so the emperor claimed), an action which prompted Seneca to congratulate him. Then there is silence and Thrasea’s name is not mentioned until his trial. It seems that all Thrasea’s infractions were presented by Tacitus as “minor deeds”; his prosecutors pointed at his distance from public life and silence as his main faults and proofs that while he stopped loving his country long ago, at that time he does not even deign to look at it (ea civitate, cuius caritatem olim, nunc et aspectum exuisset). This phrase seems strangely reminiscent of Thrasea’s conduct towards Nero: at first, he did not show him any love, later he did not even want to look upon him. It seems Tacitus may point here to Nero’s whimsical need to be adored. Thrasea’s crime was the fact that he never worshipped or praised Nero. Nero’s reaction was extreme and irrational (a death sentence), as irrational as was his reaction to the rumour about the lightning at Sublaqueum (desecrating the holy spring). It seems the word caerimoniae bears no direct reference to Nero’s religious policy – yet it is linked with Nero’s two defining qualities: the love of luxury and the desire for the adulatio of his own person, as if he were a living god. Perhaps therein is hidden the veiled reference to Nero’s agenda: he considers himself a god. In this light, his bath is no sacrilege and Thrasea’s crime is of a religious nature (a refusal to adore a god).

Let me now return to the “positive paragraph” of the “table of contents” mentioned in Tacitus’ preface, wherein there is contained the following phrase: caelo terraque prodigia et fulminum monitus et futurum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta (1.3). Much has been written about prodigies in Tacitus. Syme believes that they were a staple element of annalistic history and hence their presence in Tacitus’ Histories and Annals; he explained their intensification in the latter books by the author’s need to counterbalance the progressing deviation from the former political system³⁷. Yet the prodigies figure prominently in the preface to Histories as one of the subjects to be discussed. Why are they mentioned here? As I said before, they are a natural conclusion to what is written earlier in the paragraph: calamities evoked a noble (in accordance with the ideals of the Republic) response from the citizens (e.g. wives following husbands into exile or slaves defying torture and staying loyal to their masters) and gods (prodigies on the skies and earth, the warning strikes of thunderbolts and prophesies of the future – no less a traditional response from the times of the Republic). Tacitus seems to trace here the signs of old Republican mentality, morals, and religion, which could be still seen despite the turbulent times. He indicates that the human reactions were restricted to the private sphere (faithfulness between family members, courage of an individual when faced with death). Perhaps this is a hint that there is also where the traditional signs from gods were increasingly belonging. The prodigies were no longer properly expiated; in fact, they were often thoroughly ignored by the ruling emperors³⁸. It seems that Tacitus hints here that Rome was changing; there remained but traces of the old Republican beliefs and moral values, no longer upheld by the state. This theme is developed further in the next books of the Histories: after the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the state, including the state religion, is being reimagined. Eastern cults and religious practices take an increasingly central stage in the imperial propaganda.

There is another important point that should be considered regarding the presence of prodigia in Tacitus’ preface. The word prodigium is used sparingly in both Histories (5 times, including the already discussed occurrence in the preface) and Annals (6 times). I believe it is worth to have a closer look and see in which contexts it comes up. The first occurrence after the preface is in 1.86. Otho is still in power, yet Vitellius is already gathering forces to march on Rome. He even sends his spies to the city³⁹ to learn where lay the sentiments of different parties. The atmosphere in the senate is tense, Rome is gripped by terror of the uncertain future. In this precise moment Tacitus places one of the longer continuous descriptions of prodigies in his extant work, filling with it the whole paragraph 1.86. He relays the rumors spread by various people (diversis auctoribus vulgata) and comments that, apart from what he mentions, many other reports were made of things which in more simple ages were observed even in peace, but currently are noticed only in times of fear⁴⁰. The prodigies that Tacitus actually mentions are: in the vestibule of the Capitol goddess Victory let the reins of her chariot fall from her hands; a being larger than a human ran out of Juno’s temple; the statue of Divus Iulius turned from west to east in broad daylight; an ox spoke in Etruria and animals gave birth to strange offspring. Majority of these are the standard staple of prodigies, yet in the very middle Tacitus smuggles a tidbit about the future of the imperial power: the shift will happen from the West to the East. He hints that the new emperor will not come with the armies from Germany, but those from the Eastern provinces, yet he does not link it anywhere with the name of Vespasian, in contrast with how Suetonius reports the same sign⁴¹. The prodigia are firmly linked with Vitellius and with the fear his coming evokes.

The remaining three instances of prodigium occur in relation to two revolts, one in the West, in Germany, by Civilis⁴², the other in the East, in Judaea, by the Jews. In 4.26 an unusual draught caused the level of water to drop significantly in Rhine so that it became unnavigable, hampering the food supply for the Roman army and enabling the Germans to ford the river, if unprotected. Thus more soldiers, on much reduced rations, had to be stationed along the river. In such a situation the legionaries interpreted what in the time of peace would have been considered a natural phenomenon as a prodigium and a sign of gods’ wrath⁴³. The wording alludes clearly to 1.86 (in pace… nunc/ in pace… tunc). The second “Western” occurrence is placed in the speech of Vocula (4.58), the commander of Legio XX Primigenia, stationed in Lower Germany and loyal to Vitellius. The situation at that moment is precarious: Vitellius suffered a military defeat that clearly destroyed his chances to gain imperial power; Vespasian is already marching on Italy; Civilis reveals that he fights for independence, not for Vespasian – after the murder of Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus at the hands of his own soldiers, the Gallic tribes along the upper Rhine and Moses, led by Julius Sabinus, join the Batavian revolt. The leaders of the Gallic auxiliary forces, Classicus and Tutor, abandon Vocula, leading their forces away from the body of the army and fortifying themselves nearby. Vocula understands the gravity of the situation, but instead of running away he faces the soldiers and gives them his last speech. He calls their future act of treason (i.e. following Civilis and Classicus and supporting them in their invasion of Italy) a prodigium. The sense is primarily a “monstrous, unnatural crime”. Yet here I believe it is also an allusion to the previous “prodigy” of the Batavian revolt. The army would turn here against Rome which it used to defend, as the rivers, which also used to defend the Roman territory, turned against the Empire in 4.26. We should also keep in mind the fact that the very revolt of the Batavians and Civilis occurred because Vitellius took the troops from the borders to march on Rome: the protector turned against what he used to protect, exposing the state to external danger.

Finally, prodigia are mentioned in 5.13, this time in the East. Titus is holding Jerusalem under siege. After two initial years of conquest, led by Vespasian, majority of the land was in Roman control; Titus was sent to finish the work after the situation in Italy stabilized. In the intervening year (5.12) the population of the city, overflowing with refugee rebels from all over Judea, engaged in bitter internal struggles: three separate sections were led by Simon (holding most of the walls), John (holding major part of the inner city) and Eleazar (holding the temple). John, by subterfuge, slew Eleazar; then, faced with forces of Titus, he united with Simon. It might be worth noting that this internal struggle took place in the same year as the civil strife in Rome and that there were as well three main contestants for power (in Rome we had of course Galba, Otho and Vitellius), one of which was, according to Tacitus⁴⁴, murdered by the proponents of another faction (as was Galba, by the Praetorian Guard, on the instigation of Otho).

In this moment evenerant prodigia. Contending armies can be seen in the skies, weapons glowing reddishly and a sudden fire from the clouds that illuminates the temple. Of course, knowing the fate of Jerusalem, these signs are easy to interpret. I believe though that they also bring us again to what was happening in Rome: civil strife (the hosts and the bloody arms) and burning of the Capitol (Hist. 3.71). The burning of Capitol is one of the events mentioned in the preface to the Histories: ipso Capitolio civium manibus incenso (1.2), which gives us a hint that it is an important theme. Note here that Capitol burned while Vitellius’ supporters were defending themselves from the Flavians. Tacitus says that it is uncertain who actually started the fire, the defenders or the attackers, though the most common view lays the blame on the defenders: hic ambigitur, ignem tectis obpugnatores iniecerint, an obsessi, quae crebrior fama, dum nitentis ac progressos depellunt (Hist. 3.71). Further on he mentions that the Capitol burned with its doors closed, undefended and not pillaged (clausis foribus indefensum et indireptum conflagravit, Hist. 3.71). Sadly, we do not have the description of the Temple destruction in the extant text of Tacitus; it might have been interesting to see if there were any allusions to the Capitol. Yet other surviving accounts all tell us that it was the attackers who destroyed the Temple. Josephus says that this happened against Titus’ orders (Ant. 6.128; 6.241). Sulpicius Severus, writing in early 5th century, quite the opposite (Chron. 2.30.6-8). It has been argued⁴⁵ that Sulpicius based his account on the lost books of Tacitus. Be that as it may, involuntary or intentionally the Romans (attackers) destroyed the Temple. This may be read as an allusion: another temple (the Capitol) was also destroyed by its attackers; as we have seen, Tacitus distanced himself from the prevalent opinion who laid the blame on the Vitellians (crebrior fama)⁴⁶; perhaps here he obliquely hints at his true views on the matter.

After these three prodigia, Tacitus gives us another, perhaps more surprising one: the doors of the Temple open on their own account and a superhuman voice cries excedere deos; at that moment there is heard a great stir of those who leave⁴⁷. It is curious that he uses here a plural form of deus, despite the fact that he was perfectly aware Judaism was a monotheistic religion (he says that explicitly himself, several passages earlier: Iudaei mente sola unumque numen intellegunt, 5.5). At first glance, the phrase brings to mind the Roman practice of evocatio, i.e. ritual summoning of the enemies’ gods and bringing them over to the Romans’ side, which disappeared with the end of the Republic⁴⁸. It has been a sure sign of a city’s downfall in Roman literature, most importantly in Vergil, Aen. 2.351 (excessere omnes… Di). It has been argued (Heubner 1994, comment on 5.13) that by analogy to Vergil Tacitus used the plural to introduce the trope “the departure of the gods equals the destruction of the city”, a view developed further by Heynes: “the gods are plural here because Tacitus prefigures that destruction and the enfolding of the Jewish God within the structure of Roman religio and its gods, in the manner of the evocatio ritual” (2003:143)⁴⁹. Heynes uses this passage in her argumentation that Tacitus presents the beginning of Vespasian’s reign as a turning point in Roman ideology, a shift from the Republican religio (where “power invested in secular and religious authority is fragmented, and the gods can be invoked either as symbols of individual civic functions, or as universal or rhetorical ideals”, 2003:146; no one needs to actually believe in them) to Imperial superstitio (where divinization of a mortal man, an emperor, is part of the state agenda and needs to be believed by the citizens in order to endow the said emperor with power). I will return to this point further in my study; for the time being let me say that I fully agree. Yet in this particular expression (excedere deos) I would not disregard the Vergilian allusion: it is a further link between the Temple of Jerusalem and the Roman Capitol (after all, Rome was the new Troy, as per the Aeneid and the Augustan propaganda). Perhaps the plural is used as an allusion: the old gods who used to be the fundament of the state (quibus imperium hoc steterat, Aen. 2.351) are, with the advent of the Flavians, leaving the Capitol as well.

There might be additional reason behind Tacitus’ usage of plural deos. I believe evocatio is another link between this passage and the prodigium in 4.26 wherein the rivers who used to defend the empire turn against it: stealing the favour of tutelary deities was actually the purpose of the Republican ritual. Of particular note is the phrase in Civilis’ exhortatory speech to his troops in 5.17: Rhenum et Germaniae deos in aspectu; quorum numine capesserent pugnam. He indicates that the Batavians are now protected not only by the gods of Germania, but also of Rhine, which implies that the deity of Rhine changed sides⁵⁰. The plural form of deos is used both in Civilis’ speech and the “speech” given by the inhuman voice in 5.13 (excedere deos).

The Jews do not interpret prodigia as the Romans would. They see only evidence of their own ancient prophecies being realized, i.e. that men coming from Judaea will rule the world (Dan. 2.44). Ironically, this is exactly what happened, though the men in question were Vespasian and Titus. This is what Tacitus points out himself (quae ambages Vespasianum ac Titum praedixerat, 5.13), adding a comment that the common people, as is the way of human desire (cupido), interpreted these great fates in their own favour and could not be made to see the truth even by adversity⁵¹. Let us compare this fragment with several other passages from the Histories: 1) 1.22 cupidine ingenii humani libentius obscura credenda, of Otho, willing to believe the astrologers that tell him he will become an emperor; 2) 2.2 illum cupido incessit adeundi visendique templum Paphiae Veneris, of Titus, seeking knowledge of his future; 3) 4.82 altior inde Vespasiano cupido adeundi sacram sedem ut super rebus imperii consuleret, of Vespasian, wanting to learn if he will become emperor. It seems cupido is routinely associated with the personal belief in superstitio as a basis for imperial power. While it fails Otho (who turns to astrologers, as certain emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty did), it does not fail the Flavians, who turn to Eastern cults.

Incidentally, solely four times in the Histories Tacitus uses prodigus, a word which phonetically resembles prodigium, though it is derived from an entirely different root⁵². In Hist. 1.62 Tacitus mentions that Vitellius behaves as if he were already an emperor (fortunam principatus praesumebat), feasting lazily (inerti luxu ac prodigis epulis). A very similar phrase is used in Hist. 2.95: prodigis epulis et sumptu ganeaque (lavish feasts and expensive gluttony); again the phrase is associated with power – it is the only way to rise in the emperor’s court (unum ad potentiam iter). Between these two passages (Vitellius seeking power and having obtained it), there is another, “transitory” mention: Otho sends Vitellius numerous letters, trying to stop his revolt and offering him money, grace and any resting place he chooses for spending his profligate life (prodigae vitae; 1.74). As we can see, all these passages are associated with Vitellius and power. The fourth fragment in the Histories is a bit more problematic: it describes inopi iuventa senex prodigus (1.76), a prodigal old man after a youth of poverty. It does not refer directly to Vitellius, but to Manlius Valens, the legate of Legio I Italica, who sided with Vitellius in his revolt (1.59), yet never enjoyed his favor due to secret charges (secretis criminationibus) made against him by Fabius Valens, another commander supporting the Vitellian revolt (1.64). While it is not a direct reference to Vitellius, it is used to describe someone within the circle of his supporters, with a hint of the power struggle lurking in the background. Suprisingly, another confirmation of the close ties between Vitellius and the word prodigus in Tacitus’ narration can be found in the Annals. The word is used there only once (2.48), when Tiberius ejects from the senate several “profligates” whose spendthrift ways impoverished them to such a degree that their wealth was no longer sufficient for a senatorial rank (prodigos et ob flagitia egentis): among them there is Quintus Vitellius, the brother of Lucius Vitellius and the uncle of the future emperor Aulus Vitellius⁵³. Again, we can see here a connection with power (though this time senatorial, not imperial). The fact that every single reoccurrence of this word throughout the extant historical works of Tacitus relates, in a more or less oblique way, to Vitellius is surely significant. Another curious fact to be noted is that in Hist. 2.95, in the very same passage that contains one of the prodigus occurences, an important reference is made to the connection between Vitellius and Nero: he erects altars on the Campus Martius and orders a public sacrificial ceremony to the shades of Nero, conducted by the Augustales, a collegium of priests established under Tiberius for the Julian family⁵⁴.

As we can see, all the prodigium occurrences in Historiae refer or allude to Vitellius (or Vitellians and the burning of the Capitol), in a more or less oblique manner. Even the phonetically similar prodigus serves the same function. To complete the picture, I shall briefly investigate the occurrences of this word in the Annals.