The political and administrative requirements of the Roman state during the early years of the Principate demanded an increase in the annual number of consulars. When Augustus finally acted to remedy this situation in 5 b.c., he introduced a system of suffect consuls and thereby increased the number of consuls from the two per annum of the Republic to four. A regular practice became established whereby one or both of the ordinary consuls retired at the end of June to be (...) replaced in office for theremainder of the year by a suffect consul. For the reigns of Gaius and Claudius additional suffects were included in many years and a new pattern can be seen to have emerged. It was usual now for each ordinarius to hold office for the first six months of the year except in some special cases where the ordinarii resigned at the end of two months and their place was taken by a pair of suffects who remained in office for the next four months to serve out the more regular tenure of the ordinary consuls. Under Nero, the innovation of this two-month ordinary consulship was not perpetuated and ordinarii usually remained in office for the full six months. Suffect consulships throughout the period a.d. 38–68 were held for periods of either two, four or six months. The Civil War of a.d. 68/69 and the consequent changes of emperor broke the above pattern. For 69, there are no fewer than sixteen consuls known to have held office during the year. Such confusion, however, would not be unexpected given the startling events of this year. Of considerable importance to students of the early Empire, therefore, is the question of what happened to the system of allocating consulships during a particular year when the state had once again settled itself down to running in routine under the victorious Flavian emperors. The answer to this question will be of particular importance for prosopographers of the early Empire for whom chronology is the backbone of their investigations, since the fasti for the reigns of Vespasian and Titus are notable for the number of years in which the complete list of consuls is lacking. (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)

‘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)