The utterances of Claudius were celebrated, or rather notorious. Suetonius, like Tacitus himself, points out that he could be eloquent but that, especially when he spoke impromptu or added unrehearsed remarks to a prepared speech, he revealed that he had no sense of what was appropriate to his dignity as Princeps, or to the time, place and audience. The biographer cruelly collected various examples of his subject's verbal ineptitude.

‘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)

In this article I make three interrelated claims about Chariton's use of ἀγαθὸς δαίμων in connection with the protagonist Chaereas, who is believed to be dead. First, that it reflects a funerary formula peculiar to inscriptions from Caria, and therefore potentially supports the author's declaration to be a native of Aphrodisias in Caria; second, that the use of this funerary formula suggests an awareness of events subsequent to the death of Nero (especially the series of false Neros), which has ramifications (...) for the novel's date, use of imperial history, and ideological thrust; and third, that numismatic evidence from Alexandria supports an association between Chaereas and Nero. (shrink)