Page images
PDF
EPUB

Suetonius is evidently not dependent on Tacitus for his account. The close similarities in fact, and in turns of expression then can only be explained by the use of one literary source by both.23 The conclusions to be drawn from this proof are important. Tacitus has evidently used a speech found in a literary source, doubtless a history, as a basis for the speech he presents in the Annals. He has moreover made his speech agree closely in substance, in the main arguments advanced, with the speech of his source. Such a method of procedure seems hardly conceivable except on the supposition that Tacitus was in a position to know that his literary source gave in substance at least the speech as actually delivered in the senate. Tacitus knew as well as anyone that writers put purely fictitious speeches in the mouths of their characters. It is not likely that he would closely adhere to a literary speech whose genuineness he suspected. Did he perhaps have a reliable means of checking up his source? The Acta Senatus were at his disposal. To the problem here suggested I shall return in another connection.

One other instance of parallel between Tacitus and Suetonius must be noticed. It is particularly important because it is the sole passage of any length in the Annals quoted in the actual wording of the original. Annals v1, 6, and Tiberius 67, 1, both give the opening lines of a letter of Tiberius to the senate.24 Now the passage quoted is of precisely the same length in both, and, with an unimportant exception,25 of precisely the same wording. Both authors interpret the passage as showing that Tiberius felt that his deeds were a burden to his soul. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from these facts are that Suetonius copied Tacitus, or that both copied one and the same literary source. As Fabia believes, the quotation of exactly the same passage, no more no

"A common source is not to be rejected because Tacitus states that there was one imitator of Claudius, while Suetonius mentions two. One of the two was a freedman, and such an instance might very well "not count" with Tacitus.

"Suetonius introduces the quotation with: Postremo semet ipse pertaesus tali epistulae principio tantum non summam malorum suorum professus. Tacitus gives: Insigne visum est earum Caesaris litterarum initium; nam his verbis exorsus est.

Tacitus has: perire me cotidie. Suetonius has; cotidie perire. The variation may be due to an error by Suetonius, or possibly Tacitus, or to a copyist's error in either work.

less, could hardly be a chance. Furthermore Fabia believes that they both copy a common source.27 But certainly Fabia can find nothing decisive in these passages taken by themselves to prove his point. He considers them an illustration of the fact that the writers do often use a common source.2 28 He believes that Suetonius copies Tacitus.

It is known that Tacitus made it a rule to put in his own words speeches or remarks (and letters are in the same category) which he reported, and furthermore that he did not quote speeches already published.29 If, then, he is here quoting a passage already brought before the public, he is disregarding his own rule. Now in Suetonius the passage in question is an isolated bit used along with other passages in one of his rubrics. It does not occur in a narrative. But in Tacitus it is a part of the narrative. Tacitus gives the circumstances under which it was written, and in chapter 5 he gives us the whole letter in substance and in indirect quotation.30 By some means then he knew the whole letter. Did he find in a literary source part of the letter in substance, and only one sentence actually quoted? And did he then also give the letter in substance,

"Fabia, pp. 328-329. G. G. Ramsay, in his translation of the Annals, p. 366 and note, has failed to see this point. He thinks that "the letter must have been officially preserved, and that both writers had access to it." He would make a distinction between the comment of Suetonius and Tacitus, stating that Suetonius interprets the passage as an expression of despair and helplessness"; but he has not noticed that chapter 66 and part of 67 are dealing with Tiberius' shameful deeds and crimes.

[ocr errors]

"Furneaux, in his note on this passage in the Annals, is in doubt about the relationship of Tacitus and Suetonius, and believes that Tacitus may have copied an earlier historian. Clason, Tacitus Und Suetonius (1870), p. 53, apparently takes the untenable position that Tacitus and Suetonius copy different sources. A. Kurti, Zur Quellenfrage des Tacitus (1910), p. 22, states that the quotation is not genuine. Since he offers no proof, his assertion deserves no further attention.

23 Fabia believes that the expression visum est shows that Tacitus was quoting a literary work; that, if the quotation were independent, a mihi would have been added, or the verb be put in the present, videtur. This is slight proof. The expression might mean that it seemed so at the time. This is the view of G. G. Ramsay in his translation, p. 365. See A., xm, 43: brevius visum, etc.; also H., 1, 56: id sacramentum inane visum. Other references might be given. Possibly mihi is to be understood. See H., 1, 4: repetendum videtur qualis status, etc.

" A., XV, 63 end; and 67.

"It is possible that the beginning of chapter 7 also belongs to this letter.

and also see fit to quote again the same quoted sentence? It may be noted further that in Tacitus' narrative there are no circumstances given which demand a literary work as source. It seems likely then that Tacitus used here a primary source, probably the Acta Senatus.31

In such case it is evident that Suetonius copied Tacitus, and evidently believed that Tacitus gave the actual wording of the letter. Suppose now that both copied a common literary source. It develops then that both believed that their source gave them Tiberius' actual words. Therefore in any case, whether Tacitus used here a literary source only, or a primary source, or a literary source plus a primary source, it seems certain that he has not made up the letter out of whole cloth.32

The University of North Carolina.

[ocr errors]

31 Just below this passage, in chapter 8, Tacitus may have used the Acta. This passage will be taken up later, in comparing Cassius Dio with Tacitus, Of course there is the possibility that Tacitus invented the letter, and that Suetonius copied him. Against this supposition is the general belief that Tacitus can be trusted to be giving facts in a passage which he introduces and comments on as in this case. Then too Suetonius would very probably have had opportunity to check up Tacitus' statement, if he believed it necessary. It is unfortunate that it has never been proved decisively whether or not Suetonius used Tacitus for any kind of information. On a priori grounds one would expect that Suetonius would have used Tacitus, whom he must have known by reputation, and possibly personally through Pliny. Many passages in which their accounts are alike, but have a common source, have led some scholars to the conclusion that all accounts which are similar depend on common sources. Perhaps some of these passages indicate Suetonius' dependence on Tacitus. Annals, 1, 6, and Tiberius, 22, contain statements for the most part word for word alike. The same is true of Annals, 1, 72 end, and Tiberius, 58, 1. While it is quite probable that Tacitus would closely copy quoted remarks, it seems almost impossible that he would copy word for word such long statements of fact given by a literary source. On the other hand such copying might be expected of Suetonius in his patchwork biographies. The slight differences in the wording can not be explained better by assuming a common source. No such correspondences can be shown in passages where a common source was surely used. In the Histories, it must be admitted, correspondences in wording based on a common source can be found, though they are not so striking. For example Histories, 1, 49, has expressions very like those of Galba, 20, 2; but Suetonius is independent of Tacitus.

Histories, II, 79, and Vespasian, 6, 3 present a remarkable likeness. One

expression particularly is significant. In Tacitus it reads: exercitus ... apud ipsum iurasset. In Suetonius: exercitus . . . apud ipsum iuravit. Now the regular expression, classical and post-classical, is iuro with in verba and the genitive of the person concerned. This is also the regular expression of Tacitus and of Suetonius. See Galba, 11; 16; Otho, 8; Vitellius, 15. Annals, 1, 7; Histories, 1, 56; II, 16; IV, 60. In fact Suetonius has no other expression except once in nomen suum, Claudius, 10. Tacitus has iurasse in eum, Histories, 1, 76; and iuravere alone, Histories, II, 81. The expression under consideration is then irregular, an irregularity which might well be original with Tacitus; but can not here have been so with Suetonius. He, in referring to this same occurrence in Vitellius, 15, 1, uses the regular expression: pars in absentis, pars in praesentis Vespasiani verba iurarunt, to indicate the presence of Vespasian when the oath was taken. If both writers were copying a common source it is reasonable to expect that one of them at least would have altered the unusual expression. The similarity here points to a copying of Tacitus by Suetonius.

On somewhat the same lines a comparison between Histories, 1, 41, and Galba, 20, 1 may be made. Tacitus states: plures (prodidere) obtulisse ultro percussoribus iugulum. Suetonius: plures autem prodiderunt optulisse ultro iugulum. There are further likenesses, but especially striking is the use of ultro by both of them. The obtulisse gives the meaning without the additional adverb. Have both writers seen fit to take over this unessential word from a common source? Plutarch, Galba, 27 did not consider a corresponding adverb necessary. It seems likely that Suetonius copied Tacitus. Fabia, pp. 148-150, thinks that all three used one common source for this general section, because to some extent the citations are the same, and Plutarch and Suetonius both complete Tacitus' account at the same point. But this he over-emphasizes, and he fails to note that there are obvious differences in fact on the point about which they complement Tacitus' account.

In Annals, XIV, 16 Tacitus, writing of Nero's poetry, tells us that Nero had assistance in the composition of his poems. The opinion is evidently based on his source, and on his own acquaintance with Nero's poems. Now Suetonius knows of this opinion, he cites it, and absolutely contradicts it in Nero, 52: nec, ut quidam putant, aliena pro suis edidit. He goes further, as a writer well might do who is in possession of new evidence which will disprove a prevailing view of his time, to inform his readers that copies of Nero's poems in Nero's handwriting which have come into his hands, disprove the assertion that Nero was assisted and prove independent work. It looks very much as if he had Tacitus' account before him.

4

PINDAR, O., VIII, 53 FF.

BY CHARLES E. WHITMORE

The eighth Olympian ode contains a peculiarly obstinate passage, not yet satisfactorily explained: I mean that beginning at line 53, and forming a transition from the myth to the closing portion. Many scholars have declined to analyze it, on the ground that the peculiar abruptness in which the difficulty lies is sufficiently accounted for by assuming that the ode was hastily written to be sung at Olympia immediately after the victory. This assumption, initiated by Boeckh, has remained the orthodox view, championed by Christ, who regards the chief stumbling-block, line 53, as an inept piece of filling, and perpetuated of late by Sir John Sandys 1 and by Fraccaroli in his revised translation. Elements for framing a correcter view have been in print for over twenty years; it is therefore worth while, by reviving and slightly extending them, to seek an interpretation which shall yield a coherent and intelligible train of thought.

1

Even if we grant that the ode was sung at Olympia, it is hard to see how the brief interval between the gaining of the victory and its celebration the same night could have sufficed for the composition of so long a piece and its preparation by a chorus. It is conceivable that an ambitious family, confident of the success of its member contending in the games, might proclaim that confidence by commissioning an ode in advance; but in that case it is undeniable that the poet might have received notice long enough ahead to allow him leisure for the task. Furthermore, the possibility of subsequent revision, which would remove blemishes distasteful alike to a conscientious poet and to patrons disposed to demand his best work, cannot be excluded. On either showing, the need for haste disappears. But was the ode really sung at Olympia? Drachmann's careful study has shown that we have no knowledge of any occasion on which an ode so extensive as the one under discussion could fittingly have been performed there. Its form, with four full

3

'Pindar (Loeb Classical Library), p. 82.

• Pindaro, Le odi e i frammenti (Milan, 1914), I, p. 309. Moderne Pindarfortolkning, pp. 167 ff., especially pp. 174-6.

344

« PreviousContinue »