The paper discusses the picture of the emperor Vitellius as drawn by Tacitus in Books 1-3 of the Histories. Particular attention has been given to those passages where Vitellius is, either explicitly or implicitly, contrasted with his own soldiers. In general, he is portrayed as a passive character who has been forced by his men to usurp the throne and begin the civil war. The contrast between the emperor and his soldiers is maintained throuhgout the Vitellian books, notably in the (...) account of his visit to the battlefield at Bedriacum (2.70) and in the narrative of the Vitellians’ last fight in Rome and the emperor’s capture and death (3.84-85). (shrink)

‘E veramente quella sentenzia di Cornelio Tacito è aurea, che dice: che gli uomini hanno ad onorare le cose passate e ad ubbidire alle presenti, e debbono desiderare i buoni principi, e communque ei si sieno fatti, tolleragli’ – so Niccolò Machiavelli in 1531. Some four hundred years later a young Oxford scholar remarked: ‘that bad man, Eprius Marcellus, could have turned out a fine speech on the necessity for monarchy and tolerance, if we believe Tacitus – “ulteriora mirari, praesentia (...) sequi; bonos imperatores voto expetere, qualescumque tolerare” ’. It may be asked, however, to what extent the opinions of Eprius Marcellus can be regarded as those of Tacitus himself; this is, beyond doubt, a part of a major question, i.e. to what extent the utterances of historical personalities can be seen as a means of conveying Tacitus' own judgements. It is not my intention here to deal with this large problem; rather, I think it useful to look more closely at the Tacitean passage as a whole: not only the speech of Marcellus but also that of Helvidius as well as the historical context of the affair. It is to be hoped that such examination will render the quest for the historian's own opinions a little less difficult. (shrink)