^{page 370 note 1} Pliny, , Ep. 9. 19. 5.Google Scholar (Discussed by Syme, R., Tacitus [Oxford 1958], i. 179.)Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 2} ‘Pulso Vindice' is best taken as a purely temporal reference to the situation in which Verginius was claiming to have acted patriotically. (See Brunt, P. A., ‘The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero’, Latomus xviii [1959], 539 and note I.)Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 3} Plutarch, , Galba 6–10Google Scholar; Dio Cassius 63. 22–29; Tac. Hist. 1. 8 et passimGoogle Scholar; Suetonius, , Nero 40–49; id. Galba 9–11.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 4} Tac. Ann. 13. 20Google Scholar; 14. 2. Cf. Hist. 1. 8. 1Google Scholar, where Tacitus expresses admiration for his literary accomplishment. Cf. Townend, G. B., ‘Cluvius Rufus in the “Histories” of Tacitus’, A.J.P. lxxxv (1964), 371, who suggests that Tacitus’ use of Cluvius in the Historiae was ‘very limited’.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 5} Hainsworth, J. B., ‘Verginius and Vindex’, Historia xi (1962), 88.Google Scholar Cf. the same author’s ‘The Starting-point of Tacitus‘ Historiae—Fear or Favour by Omission?’ Greece Rome xi (1964), 128 ff.Google ScholarCf. Townend, G. B., op. cit. 372Google Scholar: ‘Tacitus might even be aware of factual inaccuracies in Cluvius’ account, particularly in the unfavourable version of the part played by Verginius Rufus in 68, which he suppressed altogether.’ Tacitus failed to mention it, solely because it was not relevant to the narrative he had under taken. However, as will be argued below (pp. 377 ff.), Tacitus’ own attitude to Verginius Rufus does not appear favourable, and may well reflect the misgivings of Cluvius.

^{page 370 note 6} See my article ‘The Starting-points of Tacitus’ Historical Works’, C.Q. N.S. xvii (1967), 158 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} Mendell, C. W., Tacitus (Yale, 1957), 19.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 2} The criticism has been variously interpreted; see Hainsworth, J. B., op. cit. 95Google Scholar, who suggests possible reasons for it; he may have (a) impugned the nature of imperium adseruit; (b) revealed Verginius as a supporter of Nero; (c) revealed Verginius as an opponent of Galba in the power struggle;(d) told the truth about Vesontio, revealing Verginius as a bad commander, ‘as Ver ginius’ reply seems to indicate’. Hainsworth also takes pulso Vindice as a later invention on Verginius’ part.

Cf. also R. Syme, op. cit. i. 179; Chilver, G. E. F., ‘The Army in Politics, A.D. 68–70’, J.R.S. xlvii (1957), 32–33Google Scholar; Kraay, C. M., ‘The Coinage of Vindex and Galba, A.D. 68, and the Continuity of the Augustan Princi pate’, Numismatic Chronicle ix (1949), 143Google Scholar, all of whom say that Cluvius exposed Verginius’ fidelity to Nero. Also P. A. Brunt, op. cit. 539 (Cluvius criticized Verginius for his failure to punish his soldiers for insubordination in repeatedly offering him the crown).

This conversation must have taken place fairly soon after the event; Cluvius was a consular in A.D. 41 ( Josephus, A.J. 19. 91), and Syme (op. cit. i. 294) dates his consulate to 39 or 40, saying that he must have then been at least 40 in view of the fact that he was a ‘novus homo’. Cluvius must then have been about 70 in A.D. 69. Thus this is not likely to have been an academic discussion, but one in which the issues were still fresh in the mind.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 3} Tac. Hist. 1. 8. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 4} Ibid. 1. 8. 2–9. I.

^{page 371 note 5} Plutarch, , Galba 10.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 6} Cf. the cases of Antonius Primus and Cornelius Fuscus, below on p. 380.

^{page 371 note 7} Cf. Hainsworth, J. B., op. cit. 96, who says that Verginius underrated the army's role in politics, and did not see that the Senate followed the army, though he does not connect this with Cluvius’ criticism.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 1} Some think that Vindex was a nationalist; e.g. E. G. Hardy in his edition of Plutarch's ‘Galba‘ and ‘Otho’ (London, 1890), 100–1; more recently Syme, R., op. cit. i. 179 and 461–3.Google Scholar Others see his move ment as aimed solely against Nero; e.g. Hainsworth, J. B., op. cit. 86Google Scholar; Brunt, P. A., op. cit. 545Google Scholar; Kraay, C. M., op. cit. 129 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 2} Tac. Hist. 1. 8. 1. Hainsworth, J. B., (G. R. xi [1964], 134) suggests that Tacitus wanted to make Vindex look like Civilis.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 3} Plutarch, , Galba 6. 3Google Scholar; cf. Dio 63. 24. 4 (Xiph.).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 4} Tac. Hist. 1. 51. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 5} Chilver, G. E. F., op. cit. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 6} Tac. Hist. I. 52. 4. Chilver places Mucianus in the same group; he evidently realized the limitations of his position. (Hist. 4. 11. I: vim principis amplecti, nomen remittere ’.)Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 7} Plutarch, , Galba 5. 2.Google ScholarCf. Suetonius, , Galba 10. 1: legaturn se senatus ac populi Romani professus est ’.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 8} Suetonius, , Galba 11Google Scholar; cf. Plutarch, , Galba 7. 2–3.Google Scholar In times of uncertainty, this recourse to the interim government of the senate and people was not unusual (see Suet. Div. Claud. 10Google Scholar; Tac. Hist. I. 56. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 9} Tac. Hist. 2. 74–78Google Scholar (see also Suetonius, , Div. Vesp. 7).Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 10} Plutarch, , Galba 6. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 1} Cf. Tac. Hist. 1. 8. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 2} Brunt, P. A., op. Cit. 540.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 3} Cf. Syme, R., ‘The Colony of Cornelius Fuscus: An Incident in the “Bellum Neronis”,’ A.J.P. lviii (1937), 12Google Scholar—‘Rufus, though his attitude was ambiguous, was not an open enemy of Nero’ (my italics). Cf. Chilver, G. E. F., op. cit. 33, where he refers to Tacitus’ ‘elusive verdict’.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 4} Plutarch, (Galba 10. 3) shows that they were reluctant to accept Galba even after the senate's decree.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 5} Dio, (63. 25. 1)Google Scholar shows that Nero's images were not overthrown until after the battle of Vesontio. Plutarch, , however (Galba 6. 3)Google Scholar, says that after the battle they threatened Verginius-either he must accept the crown, or they would go back to Nero. These differences have clearly arisen through attempts to reconcile the differing attitudes of a general and his army. Plutarch has apparently assumed that because the general was in revolt before Vesontio, it necessarily meant that his troops were also. It is nearer the truth to say that the army at that time had no idea as to the direction of Verginius’ thinking.

^{page 373 note 6} Suetonius, , Nero 47. 1Google Scholar; see Hainsworth, J. B., op. cit. 86. This ‘defection’ must surely refer to the German army's offer of the throne to Verginius.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 7} Tac, . Hist. 1. 89. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 8} Cf. Brunt, P. A., op. cit. 540.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 9} Tac. Hist. 1. 74. 2. Legio I Italica was raised in Italy in 67 for service in the East. Nero diverted its use in 68 towards Vindex and Gaul.Google Scholar

^{page 373 note 10} Dio, (63. 27. 1) and Suetonius (Nero 42. s) show that the entry of Galba alarmed Nero. Apparently knowledge after the event has made Dio credit Nero with knowledge of Verginius’ defection.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 1} Dio 63. 27. I.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} See p. 373, n. 3.

^{page 374 note 3} Dio 63. 24; Plutarch, ,Galba 6. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 4} Tac. Hist. 1. 51.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 5} Plutarch, , Galba 10. 2; Juvenal (Sat. 8. 221 ff.) preserves this tradition:Google Scholar

Quid enim Verginius armis debuit ulcisci magis aut cum Vindice Galba, quod Nero tam saeva crudaque tyrannide fecit ?

^{page 374 note 6} Hainsworth, J. B. (op. cit. 87–88) suggests that this was Tacitus’ intention and a distortion of the truth.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 7} Dio, 63. 24. 2–3. Cf. C. M. Kraay (op. cit. 146) who suggests that Verginius tried to dissuade Vindex from fighting.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 8} Joannes Antiochenus states the terms of the agreement about which Dio (Xiph.) was so guarded; Verginius was to have Gaul, Vindex Spain, and Galba everything else. Hainsworth (op. cit. 94) comments that it would be unwise to credit Joannes with the invention; this, however, is not to say that these terms as stated had the slightest basis in fact. In the first place, the one relating to Verginius looks suspiciously like the ‘Imperium Galliarum’; secondly, it is not likely that Verginius with his insistence on constitutional correctness would have agreed to any division of the Empire without the senate's authority. Also, one must ask why, if Verginius was prepared to accept Galba's hegemony then, he was so reluctant later. Joannes’ version bears every sign of being an invention to fill out this agreement (though the invention is not likely to have been Joannes's own), which, being secret, must have invited the attention and in genuity of every rumour-monger and gullible historian. There is certainly no evidence that Verginius himself ever divulged the terms.

^{page 375 note 1} Brunt, P. A., op. cit. 538.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 2} Hainsworth, (op. cit. 93) has suggested that the siege of Vesontio was a demonstration rather than a serious military operation, which it only hindered by wasting time. However, could not the investiture of Vesontio have been staged in order to get Vindex within talking distance without arousing the suspicions of the German legions?Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 3} Joann, . Antioch. fr. 91 Muell. V. 22–25.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 4} Dio 63. 25. Cf. Plutarch, , Galba 6. 3 (qualified by ).Google ScholarCf. I.L.S. 982, where we find Verginius associated with im perial formulae: ‘Iovi o.m. pro salute et victoria L. Vergini Rufi Pylades saltuar. v.s.’.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 5} Plutarch, , Galba 6. 4Google Scholar; cf. Suetonius, , Galba II.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 6} Plutarch, , Galba 10. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 7} Although it was difficult— says Plutarch, (Galba 10. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 8} See Tac. Hist. 2. 68. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 9} Tac. Hist. 1. 9. 1. On his appointments of Hordeonius Flaccus and Vitellius to the German commands, Tacitus mentions their ranks and qualifications, and comments, ‘id satis videbatur’ (to Galba, that is).Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 10} Ibid. I. 4. 2.

^{page 376 note 1} Tacitus describes this in Hist. i. 8. 2: ‘Abducto Verginio per simulationem amicitiae.’Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 2} Cf. ibid. I. 7. I-2 (deaths of Capito and Macer). It might, of course, be argued that Galba would not have risked antagoniz ing the German army by severely punishing Verginius (though the army did in fact take personally the treatment that Verginius did receive—ibid. i. 8. 2). Cf. Galba's treat ment of the popular Petronius (Plutarch, , Galba 15. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 3} See Brunt, P. A., op. cit. 542.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 4} Tac. Hist. 2.86. 3.Google ScholarCf. Syme, R., A.J.P. lviii (1937), 7 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 5} It is not inconceivable that it might have had the effect of putting Nymphidius Sabinus on the throne of the Caesars.

^{page 376 note 6} Plutarch, , Galba 10. 4.Google ScholarCf. Pliny, , Ep. 2. I. 2Google Scholar: ‘Triginta annis gloriae suae super vixit.’ One is tempted to wonder why Ver ginius should otherwise have retired at this stage. After all, he was only 54 years old in 68, whereas Vespasian was 60, Galba 73, Mucianus 57 or 58. Cf. Townend, G. B., ‘The Reputation of Verginius Rufus’, Latomus XX (1961), 340–1.Google Scholar

^{page 376 note 7} In view of this, it is hardly surprising that Verginius talked little about these events. See Pliny, , Ep. 9. 19. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} Tac. Hist. I. 77. 2.Google Scholar For the allotment of consuls in this year, see Townend, G. B., ‘The Consuls for A.D. 69–70’, A.J.P. lxxxiii (1962), 124. Though Tacitus has said that Verginius was designated ‘proximos menses’, Townend shows that he held office only during March.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} Otho's reading of the situation was not entirely accurate, for the Germany army, now committed to Vitellius, had somewhat hardened its attitude to Verginius (Tac Hist. 2. 68. 4): ‘Manebat admiratio viri et fama, sed oderant ut fastiditi.’ In any case, Otho's move did not have the desired effect.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 3} Ibid. I. 71. Cf. Plutarch, Otho I.1.

^{page 377 note 4} Cf. Syme, R., op. cit. i. 121 and 123.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 5} Tac. Hist. 2. 49. I; 51; 68. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 1} Cf. Plutarch, , Galba 10. 2. Tacitus says of them minitantes orabant.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 2} Tac. Hist. 2. 68. 4.Google Scholar The treatment of Ver ginius by his legionaries reminds one strongly of that afforded to Germanicus during the Rhine mutiny in A.D. 14 (id. Ann. I. 31–49).Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 3} Plutarch, , Otho 18. 3–4.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 4} It is not quite clear whether Plutarch means and to refer to the same troops; they do not, of course the former are Otho's men, the latter the German legions following Vitellius.

^{page 378 note 5} Tacitus, (Hist. 2. 68. 4) tells how the German army felt about what had happened in the previous year. The conflict of emotions in the troops (admiration and hate) figures again when Tacitus describes the army's feeling for Celsus (Hist. 71. 2): ‘eandem virtutem admirantibus, cui irascebantur’.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 6} Plutarch, , Galba 10. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 1} Tac. Hist. 2. 51: ‘Venia statim impetrata’Google Scholar; cf. Plutarch, , Otho 18. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 2} Syme, R., op. cit. ii. 616 (Syme's point is geographical propriety).Google ScholarCf. worth, J. B. Hains, G. R. (1964), 134, who suggests that perhaps Tacitus did not want to display the insincerity of his speech by embarking upon a narrative of 68 in which he would have to criticize Verginius.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 3} Pliny, , Ep. 2. 1. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 4} Tac. Hist. 2. 68. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 1} Tac. Hist. 3. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 2} Ibid. 2. 86. 2.

^{page 380 note 3} Ibid. 3. 12.

^{page 380 note 4} For a discussion of the career of Cornelius Fuscus during this period see Syme, R., A.J.P. lviii (1937), 7 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 1} Plutarch, , Galba 10. 4. How complete was his retirement can be seen from Pliny’s letter to Romanus (Ep. 2. i).Google Scholar