The success of Kenneth Wellesley’s account of the Year of the Four Emperors, published in 1975, the same year as Peter Greenhalgh’s work on the same subject,1 and again in a second edition by the Bristol Classical Press in 1989, was guaranteed. The work was based on twin foundations, rather rare in combination, of a well-written, exciting narrative and sound, meticulous scholarship, the product of many years of detailed study both of the period and of the text. Wellesley also published an edition of Tacitus’ text; the Penguin translation of the Histories; a scholarly commentary on the third book; and a number of articles dealing with the Year and with Tacitus’ treatment of it.2
The merits of the book were seen at once; the comments of M. A. R. Colledge in the Classical Review3 must have drawn a large number of potential readers to it, and his comments remain valid. He found the book remarkable and went on to explain why. His reasons were not very different from those that I have already mentioned, but they were elaborated. Above all, Colledge praised the literary merit of the work, including its structure – its departure from the order of Tacitus’ narrative to make the reader wait for Vitellius’ gruesome, pathetic death. Indeed, Tacitus ended his third book not at the precise end of the year 69 but with the fall of Rome to the Flavian forces and Vitellius’ death and, in the very last chapter of all, the emergence of the sinister new Caesar Domitian on to centre stage as he is conducted by the soldiery into his father’s house.4 Wellesley, committed to 69, carries his reader on a little into the first days of the new régime.5 Both approaches are valid, that of Tacitus with his sweeping history of twenty-seven years, ending with the death of that same Domitian, that of Wellesley with the dramatic slice of that history that he gives us, a monograph in another Roman style, not far removed from Sallust’s Catiline, which ends in its turn by looking foward to the consulships, and the reigns, of Vespasian and Titus.
But M. A. R. Colledge concentrated most on what he called the fine style, telling phrase, the wit, and the splendid sweep of the narrative; it was ‘convincing, informed, dramatic, and above all authoritative’. ‘Wellesley manages to make the reader feel… that he is witnessing the events as they actually unfold, amongst men and women whom he understands only too well.’ Then there was Wellesley’s insight and attention to detail, over such matters as the time of a moonrise, and on whose faces it shone,6 which made it possible for him to correct Tacitus and other sources ‘from his own knowledge of human psychology and his intimate acquaintance with the political and topographical setting’. ‘He has not forgotten even those whom the civil wars did not touch.’7 There was special praise for Wellesley’s vividness: he was an enthusiastic virtuoso of the military narrative, and Colledge noted that the detailed descriptions of the fighting near Bedriacum and the two battles of Cremona that followed must have been made possible by personal reconnaissance. Wellesley’s choice of plates was also warmly received.
One regret of the reviewer was the want of a Bibliography; an attempt is made here to mention relevant works that have appeared in the time that has passed since the second edition of the book came out. In that edition, published in 1989 by the Bristol Classical Press, Wellesley drew attention in his Preface8 to editions and commentaries that had appeared since the first, including the fourth and fifth volumes of Heubner’s commentary and the first volume of Chilver’s, covering Histories I and II, as well as to the Teubner text of 1978.9 Although he did not name individual studies in the Preface, some were alluded to in the Additional Notes.10
In the quarter of a century since the book first came out, and even in the past decade or so, both discovery and especially the reinterpretation of ancient authors have stimulated new writing; the period of crisis is exceptional in the detailed attention it received from ancient authors, much of whose work has survived – not only Tacitus’ Histories but Suetonius’ Lives of Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian; Josephus’ Jewish War, Plutarch’s biographies of Galba and Otho; and Cassius Dio’s Roman History, in its fragmentary and excerpted form. These written works, their sources and interrelationships invite reassessment and raise innumerable issues. Changes have taken place in two interrelated areas, historical and historiographical As to the first, archaeological and epigraphical discoveries and interpretations, and the interpretation of coinage, make an obvious impact;11 the rethinking of texts is part of a slower, less perceptible process.
Any development that challenges the received status of ancient historical narrative will have particularly marked effects on the twelve months with which Wellesley was concerned, for although there are other sources than the third book of Tacitus’ Histories to take into account they are prime for length and detail; in closeness to the events they are beaten only by Josephus and Plutarch;12 in historical and literary mastery they are supreme, and accordingly they have received the greatest share of scholarly attention. Tacitus’ art has continued to be scrutinized and reinterpreted. In addition the history of the period itself, as well as its interpretation by ancient historians, has continued to excite interest in the final years of the last century, even as hopes faded that such conflicts would disappear from modern experience. On the contrary civil war and nationalist struggles continue and become a characteristic feature of the last decade, to be put alongside the convulsions of 68–70 and show them in an ever new light. It is evidence of the potential hold of the subject on a wider public that it has very recently become a main theme in a novel by Allan Massie, in which an erudite and remote Tacitus is supplied with information by a disillusioned secondary (fictional) player.13
To begin with Tacitus in translation, there is the World’s Classics version of the Histories by W. H. Fyfe, revised and edited by D. S. Levene.14 Then, editions and commentaries on Tacitus and his fellow writers that have appeared since 1989: pride of place must go to C. L. Murison’s commentary on Dio,15 which tackles the patchy and heterogeneous text with determination and tells the reader all he or she wanted to know about the fragments and epitomes. Both Murison and D. C A. Shotter have brought out editions of the lives of the failed contenders.16
Although they are distinct in form from commentaries proper, works of interpretation seek, like them, to display the intended meaning of authors as clearly as may be, and to subject them to critical scrutiny. Two years after Wellesley published the second edition of The Long Year, C. L. Murison offered a fresh evaluation of Tacitus’ account, avowedly pragmatic and non-literary.17 One of the most recent works of this kind devoted to the Histories in general offers interpretation at a particularly high level: it is R. Ash’s Ordering Anarchy.18 Its special value lies first in the depth of the analysis the author brings on earlier Civil War narrative, such as that of Julius Caesar, to display the distinct personalities of the Tacitean armies, and, using Flavian epic, shows how Tacitus characterizes the forces of 69, besides examining his portraits of the main individual actors concerned, notably Antonius Primus. Beyond that the author offers the historical conclusions that have to be drawn from and in spite of the slant of the narrative.
There have also been a number of studies of particular aspects of the ancient authors’ works: on the landscape of civil war by E. O’Gorman;19 on good and bad generals in Tacitus by M. Meulder;20 on ‘Foedum Spectaculum and related motifs’ by E. Keitel;21 on Tacitus and monuments by A. Rouveret;22 on the opening of the Histories by T. Cole;23 on Galba’s speech by K.-W. Welwei;24 on the death of Galba in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Plutarch by S. Frangoulidis;25 on Tacitus’ Otho by C. A. Perkins;26 on Otho’s exhortation, by E. Keitel;27 on the decline of Vitellius’ army by R. Funari;28Rome in 69 by Catherine Edwards;29 the death of Vitellius in Tacitus by D. S. Levene.30 And on detailed points M. G. Morgan has contributed a wealth of papers.31
The biographies of Suetonius and Plutarch have also attracted attention independently of Tacitus: L. Braun has written on the two emperors dealt with by both of them;32 Suetonius’ Life of Galba has also attracted attention in its own right, from D. T. Benediktson,33 and the Vitellius from J. W. Burke;34 R. E. Ash has contributed a study of irrationality in the Plutarch biographies.35 The enquiry into the sources of the extant ‘authorities’ still continues on foundations laid a century ago by Philippe Fabia36 and built on by G. B. Townend, some of whose conclusions on Suetonius and Cluvius Rufus have been examined in turn by D. Wardle.37
Recent works that can be described as historical rather than historio-graphical must begin with T. E. J. Wiedemann’s contribution, which he describes as political history, to the tenth volume of the new Cambridge Ancient History.38 On the military side they also include a passage in C. G. Starr’s short book on the influence of sea power,39 but Wiedemann, again partially redressing an undue emphasis on military factors in the ancient sources which he notes as followed by Greenhalgh and Wellesley, has also written on a political aspect of the reign of Vitellius.40 An article by C. L. Murison has elucidated some dates in the year 69,41 and his book has thrown light on some controversies about the failed contenders.42 My Vespasian, dealing with 68–70 in three chapters as an episode in a longer period,43 is dependent both on his analysis of the Civil Wars and on other works of Wellesley. Galba’s pietas has received attention from P. Kragelund,44 and on Galba’s own post-mortem rehabilitation M. Zimmermann has made a valuable contribution.45 With a view to what was to come and what is so clearly foreshadowed by Tacitus, P. Southern has devoted a chapter of his study of Domitian to the ‘Bellum Iovis’.46
Not all the Roman world was convulsed in 69. Necessarily there was a lull in the Jewish War, and Wellesley’s references to it are sporadic, but interest in the War and in Judaea generally has not declined.47 The outbreak on the Rhine that was to lead to the creation of the ‘Imperium Galliarum’ only began in 69, to reveal its true nature in the following year, when Vespasian had been recognized as Emperor. But what was its true nature? Wellesley48 described Civilis’ revolt as ‘a tribal uprising’, but the controversy rumbles on. Only four years before the second edition of Wellesley’s book there appeared a vigorous defence of Civilis by R. Urban,49but when in 1990 P. A. Brunt republished his twin papers on the Fall of Nero and on Tacitus on the Batavian Revolt he admitted changes only in points of detail – of which some were prompted by the private criticisms made by Kenneth Wellesley;50 and C. L. Murison is willing to believe that problems raised by Tacitus’ account ‘can be and have been explained away’ by Wellesley and Greenhalgh.51 Brunt carried the war into the enemy camp by suggesting ‘the intensity and perversity of modern scholarly attacks on Tacitus as constituting in themselves a historiographic puzzle’ – to which he offers solutions. A view more sympathetic to that of Urban has now been put forward by T. E. J. Wiedemann, who sees Civilis as renegotiating the relationship of power with the centre.52
Beyond individual bibliographical items there have been the well-known changes in thinking about history to be taken into account. M. A. R. Colledge noted that Wellesley’s aim was ‘to provide a plain narrative’, making the important asssumption that ‘Roman politicians and leaders were no less open to cool reason than we … this assumption, which is merely an act of faith, seems not infrequently to suggest verdicts and solutions different from those of Tacitus’.53 More subtle than individual theory is the change that has come over historical thinking in this country and elsewhere over the past quarter of a century. History has been assimilated to literature and indeed to historiography; history is text, and monuments are ‘read’.54
Such developments may seem to have antiquated the narrative form of analysis; in particular, the principles and praxis of E. Flaig deserve close scrutiny.55 But the nub of the matter is not the methodology but the quality of the analyst. Wellesley’s acumen and sensitivity to the text made him uniquely well qualified to interpret Tacitus and the other sources for the Year of the Four Emperors. The depth of the scepticism expressed above is shown by passages from early articles:
In these few examples chosen from a single book, we have tried to trace the influence of style, inattention, misunderstanding and prejudice upon Tacitus’ presentation of the events of history…. In matters of factual accuracy which can be tested Tacitus earns our esteem as an honest reporter not guilty of intentional suppressio veri. The other, and more dangerous device of the advocate must often be suspected. When he permits himself the clever antithesis or telling epigram, when omission causes reasonable perplexity, when motives are attributed and the emotional temperature rises, it is time to be asking questions.56
Again, and on the other hand:
The literature on the year of the Four Emperors was immense, in Greek and Latin. The reduction of many conflicting versions to a single, highly readable account demanded enormous skill and the slight inadequacies in the telling of the tale which we have noticed are venial in the eyes of the general reader. Never again, as far as we can judge, was Tacitus able to rise so brilliantly to the level of his theme in choiceness of language, effectiveness of structure and vigour of impact.57
At the end of that sentence at least Wellesley seems happily to have lighted on words that might well be used of his own book.
Notes
1 P. A. L. Greenhalgh, The Year of the Four Emperors (London, 1975). The Long Year subsequently appeared in the USA (Boulder, Colorado, 1976).
2 P. Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt, in S. Borszak et K. Wellesley, eds; 2.1.Historiarum libri ed. K. Wellesley (Teubner, Leipzig, 1989); Tacitus, the Histories: A new translation (Harmondsworth, 1964, repr. with bibliography 1972, 1986, and with revisions 1992); Cornelius Tacitus, The Histories Book iii, ed. with Text, Introduction and Commentary (Sydney, 1972); articles: ‘Three historical puzzles in Histories 3’, CQ N.S. 6 (1956) 211–14; ‘Moonshine in Tacitus’, RhM 100 (1957) 244–52; ‘Suggestio falsi in Tacitus’, RhM 103 1960) 272–88; ‘In Defence of the Leiden Tacitus’, RhM 110 (1967) 210–24; Tacitus as a military historian’, in T. A. Dorey, ed., Tacitus (London, 1969) 63–97; A major crux in Tacitus: Histories 2.40’, JRS 61 (1971) 28–51; ‘What happened on the Capitol in December A.D. 69?’, A/AH 6 (1981) [1984] 166–90; review of E. Aubrion, Rhétorique et histoire chez Tacite (Metz, 1985), in Gnomon 59 (1987) 45of.; Tacitus’ “Histories”: a textual survey 1939–1989’, Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. röm. Welt 2, 22, 3 (1991) 1651–85 (with bibl.).
3 M. A. R. Colledge, ‘A.D. 69’, CR N.S. 27 (1977) 226–8; cf. C. L. Murison in Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. röm. Welt 2, 33, 3 (1991) 1689, crediting Wellesley with trying ‘subtly (and painlessly) to address many of the problems which confront the student of the period’.
4 Tac, Hist. 3, 86. The break in Dio comes with Domitian being presented to the soldiers (but by Mucianus), 65, 22, 2.
5 Tac, Hist. 4, 11.
6 147f.
7 216.
8 p. xii.
9 P.Cornelius Tacitus. Die Historien. Kommentar IV von H. Heubner, und V. von H. Heubner und W Fauth, Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu gr. und lat. Schriftellern (Heidelberg, 1976, 1982); G. E. F. Chilver, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories I and II (Oxford, 1979) (vol. 2, covering Books 4 and 5 and completed and revised by G. B. Townend, 1985, dealt only with the last ten days of the year, but is worth mentioning here; P.Cornelii Taciti libri qui supersunt. 2.1. Historiarum libri, ed. H. Heubner (Teubner, Stuttgart, 1978).
10 223–7. D. Baatz, ‘Ein Katapult der Legio IV Macedonia aus Cremona’. Rom. Mitt. 87 (1980) 283–99; P. A. Brunt, ‘Lex de imperio Vespasiani’ JRS 67 (1977) 95–116; E. Fabricotti, Galba (Rome, 1976); B. H. Isaac and I. Roll, ‘A Milestone of A.D. 69 from Judaea’, JRS 66 (1976) 15–19; B. M. Levick, ‘Verginius Rufus and the Four Emperors’, RhM 128 (1985) 318–46; F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977; see now 2nd edn, 1991); R. Syme, ‘The March of Mucianus’, Antichthon II (1977) 78–92 (= RP 3, 998–1013); K. G. Wallace, ‘The Flavii Sabini in Tacitus’, Historia 36 (1987) 343–58; G. Walser, Summus Poeninus: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Grossen St. Bernhard – Passes in rom. Zeit. Hist. Einzehchr. 46 (Wiesbaden, 1984).
11 For fresh archaeological approaches see, e.g., T. Blagg and M. Millett, eds, The Early Roman Empire in the West (Oxford, 1990); and, for the ‘Lex de imperio Vespasiani’, see A. Pabst in W Dahlheim et al., eds, Xenia: Festschr. R.Werner, Konst. Althist. Vortrage u. Forsch. 22 (Constance, 1989), 125–148 (bibl. 141 n.7). E. P. Nicolas, De Néron a Vespasien: Études et perspectives historiques suivies de I’analyse du Catalogue et de la reproduction des monnaies ‘oppositionelles connues des années 67 à 70 (2 vols, Paris, 1979) is older than Wellesley’s second edition but may be consulted for coin issues.
12 For the date of Plutarch’s Lives of the Caesars (before 93?) see C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford, 1971) 72f.
13 Allan Massie, Nero’s Heirs (London, 1999). Lindsey Davis, The Course of Honour (London, 1997) touches on the theme.
14 W. H. Fyfe (tr.) and D. S. Levene (rev. and ed.), Tacitus: The Histories (Oxford, 1997).
15 C. L. Murison, Rebellion and Reconstruction, Galba to Domitian: an Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 64–67 (AD 68–96). Vol. 9: Amer. Phil. Assoc. Monogr. 37 (Atlanta, 1999).
16 C. L. Murison, Suetonius Galba, Otho, Vitellius, edited with introduction and notes (Bristol Classical Press, London, 1992) (this work is dedicated to Wellesley); D. Shotter, Suetonius, Lives of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, edited with introduction and commentary (Warminster, 1993).
17 C. L. Murison, ‘The historical value of Tacitus’ “Histories’“, Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. rom. Welt 2, 33, 3 (1991) 1686–1713.
18 R. Ash, Ordering Anarchy: Armies and Leaders in Tacitus’ Histories (London, 1999).
19 E. O’Gorman, ‘Shifting Ground: Lucan, Tacitus and the Landscape of Civil War’, Hermathena 158 (1995) 117–31.
20 M. Meulder, ‘Bons et mauvais géné raux chez Tacite’, Revue Beige de Phil, et d’Hist. 73 (1995) 75–89.
21 E. Keitel, ‘Foedum spectaculum and related motifs in Tacitus’ Histories’, RhM 135 (1996) 342–51.
22 A. Rouveret, Tacite et les Monuments’, Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. röm. Welt 2.33.4 (1991) 3051-99.
23 T Cole, ‘lnitium mihi operis Servius Galba iterum T. Vinius consules …’, Yale Class. Stud. 29 (1992) 231–45.
24 K.W Welwei, ‘Verdeckte Systemkritik der Galbarede des Tacitus’, Gymnasium 102 (1995) 353–63
25 S. Frangoulidis, Tacitus (Histories I, 40–43), Plutarch (Galba 26–27) and Suetonius (Galba 18–20) on the Death of Galba’, Favonius 3 (1991) 1–10.
26 C. A. Perkins, Tacitus on Otho’, Latomus 52 (1993) 848–55.
27 E. Keitel, ‘Otho’s Exhortations in Tacitus’ Histories’, Gr. and R. 36 (1987) 73–82.
28 R. Funari, ‘Degradazione morale e luxuria nell exercito di Vitellio (Tacito Hist. II). Modelli e Sviluppi narrativi’, Athenaeum 80 (1992) 133–58.
29 C. Edwards, Writing Rome (London, 1996) 68–95.
30 D. S. Levene, ‘Pity, Fear, and the Historical Audience: Tacitus on the Fall of Vitellius’, in S. Braund and C. Gill, eds, The Passions in Roman Thought and Literature (Cambridge, 1997) 128–49.
31 M. G. Morgan, ‘An Heir of Tragedy: Tacitus Histories 2.59.3’, CP 86 (1991) 128–43; ‘Dispositions for Disaster: Tacitus Histories 1.31’, Eranos 90 (1992) 55–62; ‘The Smell of Victory: Vitellius at Bedriacum. Tacitus Histories 2.70’, Class. Philology 87 (1992) 14–29; ‘The Three Minor Pretenders in Tacitus Histories 2’, Latomus 52 (1993) 769–96; Two Omens in Tacitus Histories 2.50.2 and 1.62.2–3’, RhM 136 (1993) 321–9; ‘The Unity of Tacitus Histories 1, 12–20’, Athenaeum 81 (1993) 567–86; ‘Rogues’ March: Caecina and Valens in Tacitus Histories 1.61–70’, MH 51 (1994) 103–25; Tacitus Histories 2.83–84: Content and Positioning’, Class. Philology 90 (1994) 166–75; ‘A Lugubrious Prospect: Tacitus Histories 1.40’, CQ 44 (1994) 236–44; ‘Vespasian’s Fears of Assassination: Tacitus Histories 2.74–75’, Philologus 138 (1994) 118–28; ‘Tacitus Histories 2.7.1’, Hermes 123 (1995) 335–40; ‘Vespasian and the Omens in Tacitus Histories 2.78’, Phoen. 50 (1996) 41–55; ‘Cremona in AD 69. Two notes on Tacitus’ Narrative Technique’, Athenaeum 84 (1996) 381–403.
32 L. Braun, ‘Galba und Otho bei Plutarch und Sueton’, Hermes 120 (1992) 90–102.
33 D. T. Benediktson, ‘Structure and Fate in Suetonius’ Life of Galba’; Class. Journ. 92 (1997) 167–93.
34 ]. W. Burke, ‘Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius’ Vitellius’, Histos 2 (1998).
35 R. E. Ash, ‘Severed Heads: Individual portraits and irrational forces in Plutarch’s Galba and Otho’, in J. M. Mossman, ed., Plutarch and his Intellectual World: Essays on Plutarch (London, 1997) 189–214.
36 Ph. Fabia, Sources de Tacite dans les Histoires et les Annales (Paris, 1893).
37 D. Wardle, ‘Cluvius Rufus and Suetonius’, Hermes 120 (1992) 466–82, reconsidering G. B. Townend, ‘Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus’, AJP 84 (1964) 337–77.
38 CAH210: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D.69 (Cambridge, 1996) 265–82.
39 C. G. Starr, The Influence of Sea Power on Ancient History (Oxford and New York, 1989). 75.
40 T E. J. Wiedemann, ‘Valerius Asiaticus and the Regime of Vitellius’, Philologus 143 (999) 323–35 (criticism of Greenhalgh and Wellesley at n.I).
41 C. L. Murison, ‘Some Vitellian Dates: an Exercise in Methodology’, TAPA 109 (1979) 187–97.
42 C. L. Murison, Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies. Spudasmata 52 (Hildesheim, 1993).
43 B. Levick, Vespasian (London and New York, 1999), chapter 4f. and 8.
44 P. Kragelund, ‘Galbas’s pietas, Nero’s Victims and the Mausoleum of Augustus’, Historian (1998) 152–73.
45 M. Zimmermann, ‘Die restitutio honorum Galbas’, Historia 44 (1995) 556–82.
46 P. Southern, Domitian, Tragic Tyrant (London and New York, 1997) 13–33; cf also E. Schäfer, ‘Domitians Antizipation im vierten Historienbuch des Tacitus’, Hermes 105 (1977) 455–72.
47 E.g., J.J. Price, Jerusalem under Siege: the Collapse of the Jewish State, 66–70 C.E. (Leiden, etc., 1992).
48 170.
49 R. Urban, Der ‘Bataverausfstand’ und die Erhebung des lulius Classicus. Trier hist. Forsch. 8 (Trier, 1985).
50 P. A. Brunt, The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero’, Latomus 18 (1959) 531–59; Tacitus on the Batavian Revolt’, Latomus (1960) 494–517 = Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990) chapters 2 and 3, 9–52; addenda 481–7, with special nn. on Hist. 2, 97 and 4, 13.
51 Murison 1991 (n.3), 1707–9, referring to The Long Year 172–8. In particular, he commends Tacitus’ accuracy over details, vindicated by Wellesley’s reconstruction of the battles of Rigodulum and Trier, which was based on inspection of the sites.
52 T. E. J. Wiedemann, ‘Emperors, Usurpers and Bandits: the Power of the Centre and the Power of the Provinces in the Politics of the Principate’, in Federazioni e federalismo nelVEuropa antica (Bergamo, 21–25 sett. 1992), ed. L. Aigner Foresti et al. (Milan, 1994) 425–434, esp. 427–30.
53 P. xi.
54 See A. Cameron, ed., History as Text: the Writing of Ancient History (London, 1989); see 1 n. 1 for basic bibliography.
55 E. Flaig, Den Kaiser herausfordern: die Usurpation im röm. Reich. Hist. Stud. 7 (Frankfurt a. M. and New York, 1992).
56 1960 (n.2), 288.
57 1981 (n.2), 189.