Tacitus and the Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre

Bibliographic Data

ID9386830
AuthorsRichard J A Talbert (corresponding author)
Year1999
Volume120
Issue1
Pages89-97
Publication date1999-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe American Journal of Philology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-9475 • E-ISSN: 1086-3168
PublisherJohns Hopkins University Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1353/ajp.1999.0013
OpenAlexW2052760859
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited16

Tacitus and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre Richard J. A. Talbert When our seminar organizers generously invited me to contribute a paper on a topic of my choice, it was a surprise to learn that no discussion of the relationship between Tacitus and the SCPP had already been proposed. This relationship is, after all, one of the most rewarding aspects stemming from the discovery of the document, though inevitably in the limited space available here it will be feasible to explore only two or three dimensions of it. In my abstract, formulated far in advance, I proposed to discuss: 1. The contribution, if any, which the SCPP makes to our understanding of Tacitus’ use of the acta senatus 2. The placing of the trial episode in Tacitus’ narrative: in particular, if he has deliberately distorted the chronology of a.d. 20, how is our estimate of him as a historian affected, if at all? 3. The ways in which Tacitus’ selection and focus of material compare with the SCPP. By the date the seminar convened, however, it was evident that I had no more than cautionary words to contribute about the acta senatus. We still need to establish their precise format, and the SCPP seems to be no help in this regard. In my book (Talbert 1984) I had argued that Tacitus did make extensive use of the acta, 1 and the discovery of the SCPP certainly has done nothing to alter that conviction. At the same time I grant that, even with the SCPP, we still lack proof of this extensive use. Indeed the sheer celebrity of Piso’s case surely diminishes the likelihood of such proof from the SCPP, because it is clear that for this particular episode there was an exceptional range of sources available. Tacitus makes a point of demonstrating how he exploited the range, seeking out evidence of appearances by Antonia (3.3.3), for example, and citing remarks that he recalled seniores making (3.16.1). I should [End Page 89] hesitate to join Werner Eck and Harriet Flower in stating unequivocally that—to use the latter’s words (1997, 709)—“Tacitus’ main source [for the trial] is the acta senatus.” But equally I could not support a claim that the acta senatus made no contribution to his account, either directly, or through one or more intermediaries. To move on to the character of Tacitus’ account and its placing within his narrative of the year 20, it is clear that much can hinge on when during the year the trial is reckoned to have taken place. Frankly, I am no longer convinced either by Eck’s view, or by my own modification of it introduced at the Capri meeting in 1994 and kindly noted by him in the definitive first edition. 2 In brief, Eck dates the trial by taking the day that the SCPP was passed (10 December), and then immediately working back according to the intervals cited by Tacitus (3.13.1). At the outset two days were assigned to the prosecution of Piso, and then—after a six-day interval—his defense was to have three (this is the standard ratio of time for each side). In the event, it was after the first or second day of those three that Piso committed suicide. Thereafter, in Eck’s view, the trial was continued and concluded with a minimum of delay, although the only further indication of time offered by Tacitus (3.17.3) is that Plancina’s case took up two days. On this reckoning Eck can fairly maintain that the trial proceedings began somewhere between 28 and 30 November, and concluded with the SCPP on 10 December. At the Capri meeting I cautiously raised various concerns with this timetable. 3 For present purposes only the main one matters, namely that an extraordinary amount of pleading, testifying, proposing, and drafting will have to have been concentrated within an uncomfortably tight time frame. Consequently, I argued for pushing the start of the proceedings farther back into November by some days to permit a less hectic pace. Eck was evidently not persuaded, and perhaps this is of little consequence because clearly

Art · Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History · Classical Antiquity Studies · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOI