1

HEROISM TRAGEDY FARCETACITUS’ ACCOUNT OF THE DEATHS OF TWO EMPERORS IN AD 69

The Temporal and Geographical Context

Inter Veronam Cremonamque situs est vicus, duabus iam Romanis cladibus notusinfaustusque.

Between Verona and Cremona is the village of Bedriacum andbecause of two Roman disasters is now notorious as unlucky.(Tacitus, Histories, 2.23)

June 9th AD 68 Suicide of NeroSummer AD 68 Galba made slow progress from Tarraco to RomeDecember 1st 68 Vitellius had arrived in Lower GermanyJanuary 1st 69 Vitellius informed of unrest in the legions inUpper GermanyJanuary 2nd Valens saluted Vitellius as ruler in ColoniaJanuary 3rd Vitellius acclaimed emperor by the RhinelegionsJanuary 15th Murder of Galba and Piso in the Forum. Othorecognised as princepsMarch 14th Otho left Rome with a force of about 10 000April 14th First battle at BedriacumApril 16th Otho committed suicideApril 18th Otho’s death announced at RomeOctober 18th Treachery of Caecina (Hist. 3.13)October 24th Second battle at Bedriacum beganOctober 25th Second battle at Bedriacum concluded with thesack of CremonaDecember 21/22 Death of Vitellius (Gemonian Steps)

I: The Heroic Suicide of Otho (April 16th 69)

Sane ante utriusque exitum, quo egregiam Otho famam, Vitelliusflagitiosissimam meruere minus Vitellii ignavae voluptates quamOthonis flagrantissimae libidines timebantur: addiderat huicterrorem atque odium caedes Galbae, contra illi initium bellinemo imputabat. Vitellius ventre et gula sibi inhonestus, Otholuxu saevitia audacia rei publicae existiosior ducebatur.

2

Indeed before the ruin of both, in which Otho gained exceptionalglory Vitellius the greatest disgrace, the stupid pleasures ofVitellius were feared less than the burning desires of Otho. Inaddition to this was fear and hatred for the murder of Galba, onthe other hand nobody ascribed the start of the war toVitellius. Vitellius by overindulgence and gluttony broughtdishonour to himself, Otho by excess, cruelty and pride was morefatal for the state. (Tac. Hist. 2.31)1

The death of Otho after the first battle of Bedriacum on April 16th

AD 69 is surprisingly well attested for what must surely be regardedas a rather minor event in the history of the Roman Empire. With thebattle lost and although defeat not yet a certainty Otho chose toend his life in order, state the sources, to prevent furtherfruitless death and mayhem in this civil war. He is therefore givena hero’s suicide. Yet how accurate are these sources and does Otho’sdeath really deserve to be described as heroic. Is suicide in anyform or fashion truly heroic for in most instances it is or was away to escape from either a current or forthcoming unheroicsituation? Until quite recent times suicide was not regarded asheroic at all. In Greek history suicide is uncommon and whenresorted to poison appears to be the preferred course at least asfar as Themistocles and Demosthenes is concerned. Neither isremembered for their heroic deaths, while even less heroic appearsto have been the failed attempt by another Athenian Demosthenes atSyracuse in 413. No details are recorded but he may have tried tofall on his sword but was foiled and was later executed instead. Inthe Roman world it is a rare phenomenon overall and really only

1 On Tacitus’ perceived bias, see Syme (1958) 205. Tacitus is equally hostile to Otho and Vitellius, Hist. 1.50: ‘Praying for the success of either would be hateful to the gods swearing allegiance to either of them something to hate and that you knew in the war between them he who was the victor would be the worse.’ Tacitus’ negative portrait of both is particularly emphasised when he claims that some of his sources, Hist. 2.37:invenio apud quosdam auctores, said that the troops of the opposing armies, so disgusted by the character and actions of Otho and Vitellius – flagitia ac dedecus - were tempted to come to some sort of armistice and either settle on one of the contenders or demand that the senate chose a ruler. While thehistorian considers that some soldiers believed that this could have been asensible course of action to take, he believes that the troops on the wholewere happy with an undisciplined situation which granted them the freedom to kill and plunder at will. The sources included the history of the elder Pliny, the recollections if not compositions of Vestricius Spurinna and Vipstanus Messalla.

3

becomes evident for a brief time in the late Roman Republic and inthe first century AD. During the rule of the Julio-Claudians suicidebecame a manner of death chosen by members of the governing elite asa way of avoiding damnation of a name and confiscation of propertywhich would have occurred following an execution after convictionfor any serious crime. Yet the literary sources - Martial, Plutarch,Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio – are unanimous in affording Othoa quite glorious end, whereas less than a year beforehand Nero thelast of the Julio-Claudians had committed an undignified suicide.2

The details of Otho’s last hours are worth some detailedexamination. For example, his suicide or should we rather describeit in more neutral terms as ‘death’ seems to have taken place behinda door or some sort of solid screen and so the actual event wentunwitnessed. Tacitus’ notice is interesting for its mix of whatmight be verifiable and the possibly plausible. He said to havetalked with his nephew Salvius Cocceianus and reassured the youngman or boy about the future and that his supreme sacrifice wouldprove beneficial for his supporters and family members (Hist. 2.48).

With evening approaching he satisfied his thirst with a drink ofcold water. Then after two knives had been brought and when hehad carefully tested them he placed one beneath his head. Andafter he ensured that his friends had now set out, he spent aquiet night, and as is confirmed, not without sleep. At dawn hethrew his chest against the iron. Following the sigh of one inthe process of dying, Plotius Firmus, the Praetorian Prefect,the freedmen and slaves entered and discovered a single wound.

Vesperascente die sitim haustu gelidae aquae sedavit. Etexplorato iam profectos amicos, noctem quietam, utqueadfirmatur, non insomnem egit: luce prima in ferrum pectoreincubuit. Ad gemitum morientis ingress liberti servique etPlotius Firmus praetorii praefectus unum vulnus invenere. (Hist.2.49)

2 For Otho’s heroic suicide see for example, Ash (1999) 90: ‘Tacitus’ characterisation of Otho is usually called inconsistent because the emperor’s noble suicide seems too sudden a reversal of his previous personality. Yet from an early point, Tacitus foreshadows Otho’s glorious death’. Cf. Hist. 1.21: ‘a spirited man should die for a reason.’ ‘Tacitus somehow saw the noble suicide as an isolated event that was inexplicable inthe light of Otho’s past conduct,’ Ash (1999) 94; cf. 96: ‘heroic suicide.’

4

Some points need to be analysed. The sound of death is a curiousphrase for how can a single sound bring the entry of such a crowdunless they were waiting outside and had not slept? And there isalso the claim that ‘a single wound’ caused death. The two phrasesare juxtaposed but some interval must surely have occurred betweenthe two if Tacitus is not to be accused of omission through brevity.A single wound to the chest by even the sharpest knife could nothave done the ultimate damage immediately unless a surgeon was thedoer of the deed. So Otho must either have been a really cleverindividual or very lucky and while Tacitus grants him a degree ofrecklessness he does not make any note of intellect (Hist. 1.21.-23).3

Plutarch (Otho, 17.1-3) also refers to Otho drinking water, butexamining not knives but two swords one of which he chose and keptby his side. He sent his servants away and then slept so deeply thathis breathing (perhaps snoring is meant) could be heard by thosenearby. In the early morning he summoned one of his freedmen tolearn whether or not the senators who had accompanied him and whomhe had helped leave his camp in the aftermath of the defeat had infact departed. When he was informed that this was so, he ordered thefreedman to leave in case he was accused of helping his ruler todie. Once alone again he held the sword by two hands facing upwardsand propelled himself down on the point. As he felt the pain he gaveout a single sound which was loud enough for his servants to hearand these responded with the type of ululation associated with deathand funerals. Plutarch’s account is much more dramatic and detailedthan the others and one has to suspect with more dramaticembellishment especially in the manner by which death wasaccomplished.

Suetonius provides a rather fuller account than Tacitus but lessthan Plutarch. With many of the same details as Tacitus it ispossible to suggest the same or a similar source. The cold waterintroduces the episode in all three accounts and perhaps points tosobriety before a decisive action rather than being befuddled bywine or even allowing oneself some courage from drinking thealcohol.

3 Plutarch, Otho, 4.3, describes him the equal of Vitellius in vice andmisconduct which might suggest intelligence; Suetonius, Otho, 12.2, alsoconsidered him hardly a paragon of virtue but that does not preclude somemedical know-how.

5

After he satisfied his thirst with a drink of cold water hesnatched up two knives and when he had examined the sharp edgeof both of these he placed one underneath his pillow, and afterhe had closed the folding doors he slept a deep sleep. And justaround dawn he woke up and he stabbed himself with a single blowunder the left nipple and to those who burst in at his firstsigh one minute concealing the wound the next minute displayingit he died.

Post hoc sedata siti gelidae aquae potione arripuit duospugiones et explorata utriusque acie cum alterum pulvinosubdidisset, foribus adopertis artissimo somno quievit. Et circalucem demum expergefactus uno se traiecit ictu infra laevampapillam irrumpentibusque ad primum gemitum modo celans mododetegens plagam exanimatus …. (Suet. Otho, 11.2)

The display of such an honourable wound might have an appropriateplace and be worthy of praise but it also has an element of farce.As indeed is the theatrical nature of the whole episode of testingfor the better of two sharp implements. Otho should not need to havedone such a thing in a society in which arms were an integral partof being a citizen in the community. A soldier might check hisweapon but would not need to decide between weapons. Otho istherefore surely meant to be seen as never have owned or beenfamiliar with a sword or knife.4 This account however is perhaps alittle more credible than Tacitus’ brief and neutral notice becauseit suggests that there was some delay between the blow and actualdeath since Otho was neither an expert in either martial arts nor ofhuman anatomy. It would be difficult to obtain a guaranteed resultfrom a single thrust. The delay is therefore indicated by Suetoniuseven if it was not as lengthy a time as would appear to haveoccurred in the case of Cato after the battle of Thapsus in 47 BC.Plutarch has the fullest account. After bathing, Cato dined withfriends and drank wine and the talk focussed on philosophicalquestions including one of the Stoic ‘paradoxes’ that the good manalone was free while bad men were all slaves (Plut. Cat. Min. 67.1-2). The party broke up and Cato went to his room and read Plato sawthat his sword was not where he had left it and called a slave tobring it to him. Plutarch says that since the sword was not broughtCato lost his temper and hit the slave at which point his son andother friends arrived and these are said to have pleaded with Cato4 Vitellius carried a knife one of his emblems of office which he tried to surrender to the consul when he first thought of abdication.

6

not to take the course he obviously now intended. Cato respondedmostly to his son whom he gently scolded for treating his father asa madman and that hiding the sword merely left him no weapon todefend himself against Caesar but that with or without a sword hehad chosen suicide (Cat. Min. 68.1-5).5 The young man left in tearsbut two close associates of Cato, named as Demetrius andApollonides, remained and these three continued their discussions inwhich Cato justified and affirmed the action he was about to take.The Greeks also left in tears having no argument to advance againsthis decision (Cat. Min. 70.1). A child probably a slave finallybrought Cato his sword and he drew it out of its sheath and testedthe point which was still sharp, perhaps from recent us. But hecontinued his reading and then slept sufficiently deeply for hisbreathing to be heard by those outside his room. But at aroundmidnight he summoned two of his freedmen, Cleanthes his doctor sothat his fist which he had damaged when he earlier struck the slavecould be bandaged and Butas his agent to check whether all thoseseeking to escape from Caesar had set sail. When he was told thatnearly everyone had by then departed but that there was a stormbrewing which might force they back Cato sent again for furthernews. As the dawn chorus broke he fell asleep again (Cat. Min. 70.4)until Butas returned to inform him that none of those escaping fromthe port had returned. Cato ordered Butas to leave closing the doorafter him unsheathed his sword, and stabbed himself under the chest.Because of his damaged hand he did not possess the strength toinflict a mortal wound and in his agony he fell from the couch andoverturned what Plutarch describes as a geometrical abacus (addingmachine). The slaves ran in followed by his son and other friendsand the physician Cleanthes was summoned who sewed up the wound.Cato seems to have fainted but then came to and seeing the bandagesripped them off and reopened the wound and then died. For a militaryman his aim was less sure than that of the unmilitary Otho but thenhe had hurt his hand hitting his slave!

Dio also covered the death of Cato but to a much lesser extentalthough he states (43.11.6) that he considered him to be the ‘mostdemocratic and strongest minded of all men of his day.’ Thisjudgement follows a brief notice about the manner of his suicidewhich is really rather underplayed: that on the chosen evening hehid a knife under his pillow and then read Plato’s Phaedra, and thatwhen he had finished this work about midnight he took out the knife5 The younger Cato had a reputation for heavy drinking and a foul temper,and Plutarch also he claims he was partly deaf, Cat. Min. 63.5.

7

and ripped open his stomach. He should have died at once from lossof blood but he fell from a low couch on which he had beenreclining. In doing so he alerted those keeping guard including hisson who rushed in and who successfully patched up the wound. Thesetook away the knife and locked the door to his room where he layunconscious but once he came round he tore open the wound again andso died (Dio, 43.11.6). Other than the reference to thephilosophical interest of the subject and that he reopened the self-inflicted wound there is little in common with Plutarch’s accountand may well indicate another less interested source. On the otherhand, Plutarch’s account of Cato’s last hours is detailed and iscontained in one of the longer parallel lives hence there must havebeen a great deal of extant literary material on which to draw, yetthis seemingly passed Dio’s notice.6 The death of Cato and theportrayal of this event is clearly of some importance here since hisreputation is compared to that of Otho by Martial. Hence somedetails from the earlier episode may well have transferredthemselves to the later. However, it should be recognised that manysuch self-inflicted deaths had occurred among the famous in theinterim; and the death of Nero is perhaps another and more obviouscomparable suicide on which to draw.

The suicide of Nero lacks the coverage of Tacitus who may not evenhave narrated this event and was covered by Plutarch although hislife is lost. Still the episode is found in the life of Suetoniusand in the Zonaras epitome of Cassius Dio (63.27.3-28.5). Suetoniusrelates that the revolt of Vindex had been suppressed but that therewas widespread rebellion against Nero (Nero, 66-67) and Galba andbeen recognised by the senate as ruler. The Praetorian Guarddeserted Nero (Nero, 67.1-2) but no attempt initially was made toassassinate him or was there any order for his execution. And soafter some considerable hesitation he left Rome for a villabelonging to his freedman Phaon between the Via Nomentana and ViaSalaria at the fourth milestone.7 Nero was accompanied by thisfreedman and just three other loyal servants including his secretaryEpaphroditus and companion Sporus (Nero, 68.1). As he set out onhorseback an earthquake occurred and he also heard shouts from the6 The biography of the younger Cato is divided into eighty-three sectionwhile the life of Otho, an earlier composition amounts to just eighteen.The main source is likely to have been Livy and possibly Asinius Pollio whowas no admirer of Caesar.7 Suetonius (Nero, 67.3) adds the detail that poison Nero had earlierobtained in the event of precisely such an eventuality was stolen when hispalace was ransacked by its servants just before he quit the city.

8

Praetorian Camp for his death and the acclamation of Galba. As thisgroup neared the villa they left the horses behind and made theirway on foot by an overgrown path and came to the wall at the rear ofthe villa. Phaon suggested that Nero hide in a sandpit while theothers could organise an unobtrusive entry. Nero is supposed to havedeclared that he ‘would not go underground while he still lived’(Nero, 68.3). Suetonius gives some explicit details at this momentstating that while waiting for the right moment to go into the villaunnoticed the emperor kneeled down to take up some water in his handfrom a nearby pool and when he had finished drinking he said ‘Thisis Nero’s cold drink.’

Dum clandestinus ad villam introitus pararetur, aquam exsubiecta lacuna poturus manu hausit et: ‘Haec est’ inquit‘Neronis decocta.’

To enter the villa Nero had to crawl through a narrow passage anddishevelled and exhausted he collapsed on a makeshift bed in a smallroom in the servants’ quarters. Although hungry and again thirsty herefused some offered bread but drank some tepid water.

Fameque et iterum siti interpellante panem quidem sordidumoblatum aspernatus est, aquae autem tepidae aliquantum bibit.Disturbed by hunger and again by thirst, he rejected certain lowquality bread which had been offered to him, but he drank some(a great deal of) warm water. (Suet. Nero, 68.3-4)

Those with him urged Nero to take the obvious course in case he wasarrested and executed publicly and so he ordered that a grave(scrobis) be prepared with the correct measurements. It was duringthese preparations and after water for cleaning the body and woodfor the cremation had been brought that Suetonius writes that Neroconstantly recited the famous phrase (reiterated in Dio) ‘Qualisartifex pereo!’ or ‘Such a master as I perish!’ But death wasfurther delayed when a messenger arrived with the news that Nero wasto be arrested and publicly executed (Nero, 69.1) which prompted himto snatch up two knives and test their points and discard both. Hewas still not prepared to take the final step until he heard thearrival of horsemen. Like Otho he carried no sword and seemsunfamiliar with weapons. But again it is a theatrical element and anaddition to the scene. With the help of Epaphroditus he drove one ofknives into his neck but was still alive when a centurion enteredand put his cloak on the wound as if to bandage up the wound. Nero’s

9

last words were apparently ‘too late’ and ‘this is loyalty.’ Asingle blow therefore to the neck accomplished the suicide, and infact within the vacillating and theatrical character of Nero hardlya death to be ashamed of. However, a couple of points come to mindhere. A knife wound to the front (or indeed back) of the throat waslikely to lead to instantaneous death severing the wind pipe and thevoice box. Nero could hardly have uttered the words given to him bythe biographer. A wound to the side of the neck might conceivablyhave allowed him to retain his speech as he bled to death if anartery was severed. However, the blood is more likely to havedrained internally rather than to the outside and so his throatwould have been blocked. Nero would have choked to death andtherefore the chances of speaking after he had inflicted the wound(especially if Epaphroditus had to finish the task) are remote.Descriptions of Nero universally suggest that he possessed a thickprobably muscular neck so more than one thrust from a knife like astiletto in that area might be needed to prove fatal. (Coin portraitof Nero)

The epitome of Dio’s description of Nero’s death (63.27.2-29.2)begins with identical material to that presented by Suetonius.8 Nerobereft of guards decided to flee on horseback accompanied by Phaeon,Epaphroditus and Sporus and an earthquake occurred, but here thenarrative becomes much more embellished since this naturalphenomenon is described as if all his victims were re-emergingzombie-like to take their revenge. The epitome then has Nero lyinglow in some marsh to avoid being apprehended and wallowing in self-pity. Finally he went to some cave where he ate bread of a quality –presumably poor – that he had never before eaten, and since he wasthirsty also drank water which was possibly not clean but iscredited with the comment that this was ‘his special drink.’ Quitewhy this should have taken place inside a cave is not mentioned andperhaps indicates that he received food and water from someoneliving there. The text has therefore departed from the materialgiven by Suetonius yet retains similar essential elements especiallythe water. Soon after this as result of the senate decree orderinghis capture and sending horsemen in pursuit Nero demanded that hiscompanions kill him but they refused, and with the pursuers close by

8 The history of Byzantine John Zonaras written in the 12 century ADreproduces Dio’s composition for Roman history down to the death ofAlexander Severus in 235. John Xiphilinus wrote his epitome of Romanhistory covering the late Roman Republic down to AD 235 with some breaksand also used Dio’s work about a century earlier than Zonaras.

10

he killed himself first uttering ‘the famous phrase “Oh Zeus what anartist dies in me!”’ The blow was clearly not fatal and the epitomestated that Epaphroditus had to finish him off. He must thereforehave been dead before the horsemen arrived. It is notable that thedeath of Nero seems more reliable in this account and less dramaticbut Zonaras may well have shortened a more elaborate originalnarrative. The drinking water has remained although it seems to addlittle to the account, and there is no detail of the method of deathnor of comparing the knives, and no last conversation with acenturion. All these may have existed in Dio’s history which, if theinitial identical material is any indication accessed the samesource as Suetonius.

This discussion concludes with the epigram of Martial the earliestpiece of evidence, probably circulating in the early 90s andpredating Plutarch’s biography by as much as half a decade.

Cum dubitaret adhuc belli civilis Enyo,Forsitan et posset vincere mollis OthoDamnavit multo staturum sanguine MartemEt fodit certa pectura tota manuSit Cato, dum vivit, sane vel Caesare maior:Dum moritur, numquid maior Othone fuit? (Martial 6.32.5-6)

When Enyo, the goddess of civil war, still hesitatedAnd perhaps tender Otho might be victoriousHe damned a war that should be filled with so much blood And with a steady hand fully pierced his chest It may be that while he was alive Cato was greater even than Caesar,But in the way he died was he at all greater than Otho?

Martial is alone in linking Otho directly with Cato or rather Catowith Otho. In an epigram the joke or message of the poem usuallysatirical or ironic lies in the last line so where is it? Theconnection between the two surely has an ironic or humorous twistrather than simply being delivered as an item of historicalinterest. The text is therefore perhaps not as straightforward as itfirst appears. Is there really praise for Otho here or denigrationof Cato or is there indeed another figure in the background? Thepoint that was being made had to have some resonance with theaudience.9 Surely the underlying point therefore is a joke about9 Murison (1999) 65 considers that Martial viewed ‘Otho’s suicide admiringlyand from a solidly Roman perspective’ whatever that may mean. Ash (1999)

11

Cato’s lack of impact on history since unlike Caesar he was nothingmore than a quasi-legend. The same lack of impact applied to Otho, aruler of no importance whose miniscule claim to fame lay in a sharpknife.

If one tackles the descriptions of the two suicides alongside oneanother the differences emerge. Cato drank wine, talked onphilosophical topics, talked with his son and closest friends mainlyon topics concerned with self-determination and a desire not tosurrender to Caesar. As a soldier he examined the point of hissword, he indeed slept deeply so that he was heard by those outsidehis room, asked whether his friends had departed safely, then as thesun rose with the dawn chorus killed himself. Otho drank water, hadno particular discussions, did not possess the intellect to do so,probably did not know how to use a sword so called instead forknives. He is said to have asked after the welfare of his friends,and he had declared an intention to spare his troops of furtherlosses of life just as Cato was concerned to spare the people ofUtica further suffering. Yet the main features of Otho’s suicide:drinking water, choosing the appropriate weapon, point of death notwitnessed, and a single wound is not modelled on the death of Catoat all. Thus there are one or two overlaps but nothing thatindicates that writers thought explicitly of Cato when they wroteabout Otho. And it is arguable whether Martial’s joke was taken upby any of the later sources who at least make no connection in theirrecord of Otho’s private suicide.

Still Otho died a more honourable death than his friend and mentorNero and that is possibly is what is meant by this mention in thesources from Tacitus to Dio or is what the audience mostappreciated. Suetonius (Otho, 12.1-2) refers to ‘unexpected spirit’and that some of his own troops thought him the ‘bravest of men.’Plutarch (Otho, 18.2) makes almost precisely that point when he saysthat Otho while he lived was no better than Nero but that his deathwas more honourable. It is as well to note that Nero’s death is alsoliberally accompanied with water both cold and tepid, the testing ofthe knives by a man unacquainted with military affairs, but that asingle wound apparently accomplished the deed but that was a delayof some minutes at least before the blow and death. Cassius Dio(Xiphilinus/Zonaras, 63.15) states that Otho seized power through a

85, sees a stronger link between Otho and Cato and that in death the former‘aligns … with the Stoic hero.’ On the whole Ash, 88-89, considers Tacitus’treatment of Otho rather more sympathetic than hostile.

12

ruthless coup but died honourably. He or rather the epitome of theoriginal contains no details other than he seized a knife and killedhimself. Dio may well have devoted greater coverage to Otho’s death.

The positive comments about Otho which pervade the sources with theexception of Dio who was more distant in chronological terms alldate to the Flavian dynasty (Martial; Plutarch) or the period ofTrajan and Hadrian (Tacitus; Suetonius). Flavian propaganda anddeference to Domitian for example must partly explain the praise andthe invention of a heroic suicide. But why Cato when he was an enemyof Divus Iulius? The characters of the rulers Trajan and Hadrian add anadditional aspect to this discussion. Trajan was closely connectedwith the Flavian dynasty and a trusted general of Domitian in the90s, with a consulship in 91. Trajan’s father had served withVespasian in the East and had been rewarded with a consulship in 70.Since Vespasian took his legitimacy from being the heir of Otho andTrajan and Hadrian had no cause to denigrate their predecessors evenif Domitian’s memory might have been damned it is therefore hardlyremarkable that Otho’s brief reign became somewhat protected and themanner of his death be made heroic when it fact it almost certainlywas not comparable to that of Cato.

Yet is a heroic suicide is to be sought then there a good example isto be found in the death of Catiline in 62 BC. This event may nolonger have resonated with an audience of the second century AD butthe manner in which he died more clearly has the elements of aheroic suicide than any discussed so far (Sall Cat. 60-61).Catiline’s conspiracy to seize power in Rome had been revealed inlate 63 by informers who had alerted the consul Cicero and theprotagonist had fled Rome to join his forces in Etruria. His fellowconspirators in Rome had been arrested and executed, and early in 62an army commanded by the C. Antonius, Cicero’s colleague in 63, andhis legate Marcus Petreius caught up with the rebels who had beenmaking their way north with the intention of withdrawing intosouthern Gaul at Pistoia. Catiline and his army were forced to givebattle since with a second army commanded by the ex-praetor Q.Caecilius Metellus Celer (cos. 60) guarding the approaches to the PoValley there was no way of escape. Petreius was effectively thecommander of the army out of Rome since Antonius, suspected ofsympathies with Catiline, declared that on account of an attack ofgout he was not well enough to be present on the battlefield. Thetwo armies faced one another and before they engaged Catiline gave astirring speech to his followers. Catiline was probably heavily

13

outnumbered but many of his troops were disgruntled veterans fromthe civil wars in the 80sand so seasoned fighters whereas the armyof Petreius was probably recently levied and fresh from training.The clash between the two sides was severe and long drawn out.Catiline commanded the centre while his second in command Manliustook the right wing and an unnamed officer from Fiesole was on theleft. Wherever he saw his line in difficulty Catiline raced tosupport his troops bringing with him fresh replacements, and whilein the front line killed many opponents so that he was one and thesame time ‘an exemplary soldier and a fine general’ (Cat. 60).Petreius proved to be equal to any defence put up by his enemy andafter fierce fighting routed the opposite’s right and left wing.Catiline saw that he was now surrounded with just a small number offollowers, but states Sallust, ‘he remembered the nobility of hisbirth and the high public office he had held and so immediatelycharged into the seething mass of his enemies until he was killedfrom multiple wounds.’ The ferocity of the engagement could easilybe gauged later when it was seen that many of Catiline’s troops haddied where they were originally stationed while their general wasfound far to the front of his line of battle among the opposingdead. Sallust claims that he was discovered still breathing and thathis face still had that look of arrogant pride which had been suchan aspect of his character throughout his life.

Catiline could easily be said to have died a really heroic death andthat it was a sort of suicide or at least his actions werepositively suicidal. However, the reader or audience of Sallust’sBellum Catilinae (‘The War of Catiline’) might well have expressed somesurprise at the concluding comments regarding the protagonist seeingthat initially he had been described as having:

… a powerful intellect and great physical strength, but a viciousand depraved mind. From his youth he had delighted in civil war,bloodshed, robbery, and political strife, and as a young adult hespent his time in such pursuits. His mind was daring, cunning andadaptable and he was adept at disguising all his actions. He washighly passionate and longed for the possessions of others and wascarless of his own, he spoke eloquently but lacked wisdom. Hisambition knew no bounds as he constantly sought after things whichwere financially beyond his reach. After the rule of Sulla,Catiline had an overwhelming desire for to do the same thing andto achieve this he was prepared to go to any lengths. (Sallust,Cat. 5.1-2)

14

So in the end should Otho be compared with Nero or Cato or evenCatiline? For many, Nero was as great as Caesar when he lived. Indeath Otho was actually no better than his friend Nero. There aretoo many differences between the suicide of Otho and Cato for thelatter to be the model. Cato like Catiline before him and Antonyafter him were military men and they did not need to test theimplement with which they intended to end their lives. Otho on theother hand like Nero had no experience in war and both perhaps didnot even own a sword. The water imagery surely contrasts with thesoldier’s death as well, and also links Otho to Nero rather than toany real hero. The lack of philosophical discussion is evident withboth Otho and Nero, but the former like Cato asks after the well-being of his friends while Nero was obsessed about only himself.Otho and Nero evidently took longer to die than is related by thesources, for what reason cannot be fathomed. Both Cato and Antonylingered, and it is clear that Nero too took longer to die thanSuetonius recounts. Otho is allowed a rapid demise which is probablynot historical, but which perhaps was meant to fit with his briefperiod as ruler. A grandiloquent death scene was not to be wasted onsuch an insignificant person as Otho, even if grudgingly his deathmight be described as noble. Overall there is more material forOtho’s suicide than could be expected for so slight an individual.The emphasis on regard for him by his troops occupies an inordinatespace in the accounts yet he was no philosopher and seems to havepossessed little intellect. He was in fact a common man whichpossibly made him likeable just as Nero had in fact been popularwith the general population. This is arguably why Tacitus presentshim as by far a greater threat to the state had he lived thanVitellius. Otho was remembered as being no friend of the senatorialelite a perception which has moulded the tradition but that it wasprobably historical rather than fiction.10 Otho was not even a paleimitation of Cato and any attempt to compare the former favourablywith the latter was surely only to be a gross insult to the enemy ofCaesar and indeed any Caesar.

10 No source except Martial links Otho with Cato. Tacitus had theopportunity but uses the comparison elsewhere, Hist. 4.8, in a reportedspeech by Eprius Marcellus who accused Helvidius Priscus of trying toemulate Cato and Brutus. Helvidius did indeed commit suicide and soTacitus’ comments reflect something of hindsight. Suetonius refers to Catoonly in the lives of Caesar and Augustus. Neither Plutarch nor Dio mentionsCato in this context. Plutarch’s lack of interest considering his detailedcoverage of Cato’s death is suggestive.

15

Martial

Cato & Otho

With steadyhand hepierced hischest

Plutarch

-

QuelledmutinyGave awaymoney

Spoke withnephew

Drank alittle water

Tested 2swords

Slept heavilyand heard

Spoke withanonymousfreedman

Fell on sword&Single sighas sword cutin

Lamentationby servantsthen troops

Tacitus

-

Burnedletters, gaveaway somemoneyMutinyquelled

Talked toSalviusCocceianus

Drank water

Tested 2daggers

Said to slept

Stabbedhimself

Dying groansheard.

A singlewoundattested

Suetonius

-

Burnedletters, gaveaway money,quelleddisturbance

Spoke to allwho came

Drank water

Grabbed 2knives

Slept veryheavily

Stabbedhimself underleft nipple

Exhibitedwound tothose whocame in

Cassius Dio

-

Burnedletters, gaveaway money,quelledmutiny

Seized aknife andkilledhimself

Compare Plutarch’s Death of Cato

Talked to son and friendsTalked with Demetrius & ApollonidesSword sent in carried by small childTook out sword from sheath

16

Tested point of swordFinished reading Plato’s Phaedo twiceFell into deep sleep heard outside his roomAbout midnight summoned his doctor and agentCleanthes bandaged inflamed hand, Butas sent to enquire after safetyof friendsButas returned, heavy storm brewingDawn chorusButas came again with news of calm harbour. Ordered to leave andclose the doorStabbed himself with sword Thrust feeble on account of injured hand.Fell & overturned counting machineFriends, son and servants ran inCovered in blood but bloody wound and faintedCleanthes pushed intestines back in and sewed up woundRegained consciousness pushed doctor away and reopened wound anddied

II: A Very Public Death

Unlike death in a dark place or at least in a dim light and in asituation beyond witnesses, Vitellius’ demise should cause noanxiety because of the entirely public nature of the event. Indeedthe death of Vitellius has much in common with the death of hispredecessor Galba since both occurred in a crowded place. However,it is entirely reasonable to view the events which are decribed inthe sourceswith some scepticism since some if not all are equallythe product of literary invention or creation. Vitellius died in theForum or on the Gemonian Steps and so must have been have beenwitnessed by hundreds or even thousands. And therefore the problemof mass or crowd manipulation, not to mention the issue of sourcematerial topical elements and the demands of the genre intrude.

Take for example from opposite ends of the chronological spectrum.First Ammianus Marcellinus (14.7.5-8) and his account of theemperors Constantius II’s Caesar Gallus in AD 350/53 (check).

After this when Gallus was on the point of leaving forHierapolis, ostensibly to take part in the campaign, and thepeople of Antioch came as suppliants to beseech him to save themfrom the fear of famine, which … was then believed imminent, he

17

did not, following the way of rulers whose great powerssometimes cures local problems, organise any provisions orcommand that supplies be brought in from nearby provinces; butto the crowd, which was fearful of extreme needs, he deliveredup Theophilus, the consular governor of Syria, who was standingclose by and constantly reiterating the statement that no onecould be without food if the governor did not wish it. Thesewords stirred up the recklessness of the lowest elements andwhen the lack of food supplies became more acute, impelled byhunger and fury they set alight the grand house of a certainEubulus, a distinguished citizen in his community. Then as ifthe governor had been given to them by an imperial decree theyassaulted him with kicks and blows and trampled him underfootwhen he was half dead (conculcans seminecem laniatu miserando discerpsit)and with terrible mutilation tore him to shreds. After histerrible death each one saw in the other an image of his ownperil and dreaded a fate like that which he had just witnessed.(Ammianus, 14.7.5-8)

Next a passage from Polybius (15.33.1-12) concerned with events inAlexandria in 206 BC and the downfall of Ptolemy VI’s guardian andregent Agathocles and his family and closest supporters at theclimax of a brief but violent episode of civil unrest.

The bloodshed and murders which followed occurred because of thefollowing. One of Agathocles’ followers and sycophants Philocame into the stadium worse for wear because of the wine he hadconsumed. When he saw the popular agitation he said to thosenearby that if Agathocles came out they would regret theiractions as they had done some days before. When these heardPhilo’s comment some began to verbally abuse him, others toactually attack him physically and he tried to defend himselfsome soon ripped his cloak off and others ran him through withtheir spears. Then he was dragged still alive into the centre ofthe stadium where he was finished off and the crowd now turnedits attention to the arrival of others. Not much laterAgathocles was led in in chains, and immediately following hisentry certain individuals ran up and stabbed him out of kindnessnot hatred for they saved him from enduring the fate he reallydeserved. After him Nico was brought in and after him Agathocleawho had been stripped naked and her sisters were also brought inalongside her and all the members of her family. Finally,Oenanthe was dragged from the Thesmophorium and was led into the

18

stadium naked on horseback. All of these were delivered into themob’s hands. Some began to bite them with their teeth, othersstabbed them and others again tried to dig out their eyes.Whenever one of them fell they tore their bodies apart until inthe end they had mutilated them all because the cruelty of theEgyptian people can be great when they are angry. (Pol. 15.33.1-11)

Neither Ammianus nor Polybius nor anyone they knew witnessed theevents which they obtained from other sources and they both composedtheir narratives based on a familiar code that of death in a crowd.The victims were famous yet the record of their death was almostentirely constructed rather than a historical re-enactment.Similarly Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio all of whom relate the death ofVitellius faced this historical event from a chronological distanceand without much or any accurate source. Each once drew ongeneralities and inserted appropriate detail with elaboration tosuit the temperament of the writer. In the aftermath of the second battle at Bedriacum the supporters ofVespasian made slow progress towards Rome because early and severesnow storms had blocked the Apennine passes (Hist. 3.59). Mucianusand Primus were able to cross through the mountains but the advancewas much slower than it would usually have been in November. Theaccumulations of snow in the mountains would usually have madecontact with central Italy difficult by January but this unexpectedintervention by the weather extended Vitellius’ time as emperor andcontributed to his hopes of extracting something positive from therecent defeat. It is possible too that like Otho they hoped to avoidfurther bloodshed since Vitellius still at that point had access tosufficient numbers of troops to mount a last stand against hisopponents but that support for his cause was rapidly declining.However, Vitellius vacillated between organising a defence of Romeand the resignation of his powers for safe retirement. Abdicationwas not allowed him however by his garrison in the city which hadthe most to lose.

As support for Vitellius melted away Antonius Primus leading theFlavian army’s advance guard reached Saxa Rubra no more than 16kilometres (10 miles) north of the city along the Via Flaminia whilein the city itself all order broke down following the murder ofVespasian’s brother and city prefect Flavius Sabinus. DomitianVespasian’s younger son was in hiding and as his safety was in

19

jeopardy Vitellius was persuaded to leave the palace and was carriedby sedan chair to the Aventine Hill (Hist. 2.84) a situation whichallowed the possibility of an escape south. {Galba had also beentaken in a sedan chair on his last journey before his assassination.This is hardly more than coincidence since most wealthy men werecarried rather than choosing to walk.] There was fighting betweenthe troops supporting Vitellius and Vespasian along the northernapproaches to the city by the Milvian Bridge and the PraetorianCamp. There were heavy casualties especially among the defenders whohad little to lose, but on the other hand, the emperor is describedas being in a sort of shell shock, befuddled and in a world of hisown. While the home of his wife allowed some protection for a shorttime his companions and entourage appear to have deserted him sincehe is then said to have wandered alone back to the Domus Aurea,palace of Nero which he only recently vacated. The problem with thenarrative at this point is that there can have been no witnesses toVitellius’ movements in these hours and certainly no motive for hiswanderings other than he was more alone than even Nero had been inhis last hours. Finding no one about Vitellius the silence of theplace and the solitude in which he found himself terrified him (Hist.3.84: terret solitudo et tacentes loci). He opened doors to closed rooms andshuddered at their emptiness (temptat clausa, inhorrescit vacuis) and finallytired or worn out (‘fessus’) by his wandering he found a shamefulhiding place (pudenda latebra). There he was discovered by a tribune ofa cohort a certain Julius Placidus who dragged him out. This ishighly dramatic but of course almost entirely invention except if aJulius Placidus later claimed to have discovered Vitellius and thatthis was recorded by a writer whose composition was available toTacitus. Arguably such a notion is implausible and the entireepisode thus far was therefore one created by Tacitus. It may beentertaining but is tragedy in a narrative rather than history.Tacitus says he was led away with his arms bound up and his clothestorn. He was subjected to verbal abuse and no one pitied him (multisincrepantibus, nullo inlacrimante) because Vitellius was held responsible forthe sacking of the city which was taking place as he was draggedaway (deformitas exitus misericordiam abstulerat – ‘the shameful ruin haddriven away pity’). One of the soldiers from the Rhine legion struckat him in anger but claims Tacitus possibly to kill him before hewas subject to further humiliation out of some memory of kindness.Instead he sliced off the tribune’s ear and was himself killed. [Thetranslation of obvius e Germanicis militibus Vitellium infesto ictu per iram shouldmore likely mean a soldier from one of the German legions ratherthan a German soldier, although Tacitus has earlier emphasised, Hist.

20

2.32, 2.35, the formidable nature of the Batavian troops whom heterms ‘German’. This definition may well also act as a sign of whatis to come with the rebellion of the Batvaians under the leadershipof Civilis. If the tribune was the same Julius Placidus then perhapshe survived and his story was indeed circulated.] Vitellius wasforced to raise his face since the point of a sword was placed underhis chin and so look at those insulting him and also to watch whilehis statues were demolished and to pass by the Lacus Curtius whereGalba had been murdered just eleven months before. The procession ofVitellius along the entire Via Sacra is surely meant to remind thereader of that recent occasion when Galba took exactly the route onthe way to his own death which was another public execution. Itshould be noted that although both might have been reviled by theireventual killers both bore retrieved some dignity at the point ofdeath. When he was dragged to the Gemonian Steps where the body ofVespasian’s brother had recently been left exposed and abused he wasfurther insulted by the tribune, Tacitus notes that Vitelliusresponded with the noble remark that nevertheless he had been histormentors’ ruler. He was then killed as the result of several blowsand his body was left to the savage attention of a mob. (Hist. 2.85).Vitellius therefore might be said to have suffered the very publicdeath that many no doubt especially among the wealthy elite shouldhave wished to inflict on Nero. Yet Vitellius was much less close tothe last Julio-Claudian than Otho whose death while accompanied withmany of the same props to the event as his former friend is relatedas much more dignified. Tacitus’ account of Vitellius’ deathrepresents the earliest existing commentary (Hist. 3.84-86) and isalmost identical in length to that of his coverage of Otho’s suicide(Hist. 2.48-50). Vitellius wandered alone through the palace not longbefore vacated by the man who ordered its construction and so againthere is a pervasive presence of Nero in the last hours of thislatest ruler of Rome. [Both Tacitus (Hist. 2.86) and Suetonius(Vitellius, 18) gives his age as fifty-seven, although he was probablyborn in AD 15 hence fifty-three at his death] Tacitus concludes thisbook of his Histories with the telling statement that the ‘day camerapidly to an end’, that there was chaos in the city but thatDomitian, Vespasian’s son, had come out of hiding and been greetedenthusiastically by the victorious troops of Antonius Primus.

Suetonius’ account is much less extensive than that of Tacitus, yetis more specific in some of its details. Vitellius place of refugeis named as a janitor’s room where he tied a dog to the doorsperhaps to sound an alarm, and barricaded the doors with a bed and a

21

mattress. Nonetheless soldiers soon dragged the unfortunateVitellius from his hiding place and when they asked him who he was,since they did not know him, and whether or not he knew whereVitellius was, the emperor tried to escape by lying. Then when hewas recognised he kept asking that he be placed under guard in someprison or other so that he could relate to Vespasian certain thingsconcerning his rival’s safety. But they tied his arms behind hisback and placed a noose around his neck and tore up his clothesdragged him half naked into the Forum and all along the Via Sacraamong a great verbal onslaught with mocking abuse, his head pulledback by his hair, as was the custom for criminals, and also thepoint of a sword was placed under his chin so that he could not lookdown but that his face was on view to all. Some of the onlookerspelted with mud and filth, others called him an arsonist andglutton, still others made fun of his defective body. Finally at theGemonian Steps he was tortured for a long time and then killed andfrom there his body was dragged by a hook to the Tiber (Suet. Vitellius,16-17). Suetonius seems to have lost interest in his subject andconcludes his account of Vitellius’ death and indeed the entire workwhich is one of the shortest lives quite abruptly.

Dio’s epitome (64.20-21) includes some interesting elements of farcemixed in with the public performance of tragedy. The narrativefollows Tacitus in essential details but seems to give Vitellius amore scheming nature. He disguised himself and hid in a kennel –shades of Diogenes the Cynic – and intended trying to escape to theriver and then take a ship south to Terracina which was still heldby his brother. It is worth noting here Dio appears to have followedSuetonius with the dog connection and embellished it and not Tacituswho may rather have had a toilet or lavatory in mind [If Dio usedTacitus he might have wanted to translate pudendus or shameful ascanis which could also have a similar meaning but that still does notexplain Suetonius’ use of a real live canis]. Vitellius was soondiscovered after the palace was occupied by the troops of AntoniusPrimus and dragged out covered in filth and blood since, claims Dio,he had been bitten by the dogs. This was perhaps his first tormentwith worse to come since the soldiers stripped him and placed thenoose around his neck and then dragged him out of the palace of Neroand along the Via Sacra. The procession towards the Forum followsTacitus in that Vitellius became the butt of crude jokes and theviolence of his captors. Then the German, probably to be identifiedas one of his bodyguard attempted to do Vitellius a favour bykilling him but only manages to wound him and then kills himself.

22

Now that is a useful example of heroic suicide. At the Tullianum atthe foot of the Capitoline Vitellius then is supposed to have said‘And yet I was once your ruler.’ From there he was dragged to theGemonian Steps, killed and beheaded. His head was paraded around thecity. The text has been embellished compared to both Tacitus andSuetonius.

The problem with the historicity of a procession through the Forumis that there was widespread fighting and looting taking placeacross the city so the average citizen would surely not have had thetime or the inclination to participate in this latest death of aruler. The mob referred to may therefore have been mostly enemytroops or that there was no such a great crowd as the accounts claimor that the people encountered along the Via Sacra were from thelower sections of the social hierarchy, namely slaves. The greaterthe crowd the less easy it becomes to find more than the bareoutline of an event since most witnesses will have seen just asnapshot of the event. However, too few witnesses produce the sameproblem as is encountered in the account of a solitary suicide. Thetribune Julius Placidus seems to play a large role in the events asdescribed by Tacitus and there may be some cause here to see in thisperson some personal source available to the historian.Interestingly, he does no figure in the accounts of Suetonius or Diowhich while taking the same general route have probably moreinvented elements to suit the tragedy unfolding around Vitellius.

Compare the ancient accounts:

Tacitus

Taken to wife’s houseon Aventine Hill

Wandered back alone tothe palaceOpened empty rooms

So unnerved that heHid in a sordid place

Discovered by a tribunenamed as JuliusPlacidus

Suetonius

Taken to father’s houseon Aventine, then takenback to palace

Hid in janitor’s room

Tied dog to doorsUsed bed and mattressto block up doors

Denied being Vitellius

Cassius Dio

No mention of Vitellius’actions before:

Purposely went intohiding

Bitten by dogs

23

Attacked by soldier –one of his own - whowas killed

Last words and killedat Gemonian Steps

Asked to be imprisoned– information forVespasian

Dragged along Via Sacra

Tortured at GemonianSteps

Body dragged by hook toTiber

Tried to lie his way out

Dragged along the ViaSacra

A German tried to helpVitellius but woundedhim then killed himself

Last words at theTullianum butkilled at the GemonianStepsBeheaded

Head paraded around city

The accounts of the suicide of Otho and the execution of Vitelliusare equally difficult to accept as they appear in the sources. Theprivate suicide is made public on the one hand and the publicactually become private. There were supposedly no witnesses toOtho’s actions yet a whole assemblage of detail is constructed.There were apparently many witnesses to Vitellius’ death yet thedetails cannot have been easily available and the elements in theaccount are familiar in other such public death episodes. Where thendo heroism, tragedy and farce unite?

In the end this paper is all about the inventiveness or omissionthat takes place in circumstances which could not be verified butwhich were fundamental props to the narrative. How could one have ayear of four emperors if there was no gruesome death to describe andAD 69 is particularly rich in that avenue? The events of this yearprovided Tacitus, one of the great practitioners of the art ofwriting history, with the perfect subject for his composition andfor his genius.

Tacitus’ Histories provides by far the fullest account of the battlesat Bedriacum and as a source this work provides much of the relevantinformation for the hostilities between the supporting armies ofOtho and Vitellius and also more generally for the events in 69

24

leading to the accession of Vespasian. The narrative is however notimpeccably accurate for the historian relied on the information ofother sources some written some oral and some in the tradition ofthe genre. A multiplicity of earlier sources is indicated forexample between Histories, 1.87 and between 2.12 where there seems tobe mostly a repetition of the earlier notice of the decision tolaunch assaults along the coast of Liguria and Narbonensis Gaul.Written material may have been extracted from the history of theelder Pliny although he is not named, while the prominence given toVestricius Spurinna indicates another type of source mostly oral.Then in the death of Vitellius the looming presence of the tribuneJulius Placidus in the narrative an otherwise unknown figuresuggests yet another source, the tribune himself, his descendants oranother writer concerned with this episode (possibly Pliny). Tacituswas a master of providing the dramatic or tragic backdrop to theevents he covers. The tragedy of war and unnecessary death casts agloom over the narrative as is promised at the start of the work butthat there were small shafts of light in this darkness so that theagony of civil strife is not entirely relentless. In this respectthe death of Otho, not by any means really heroic and not quitemodelled on the death of Cato, provides that alleviation. Vitelliustoo while his fate may have been utterly pathetic is allowed somedignity at the end and so even in the death of this most hopless ofrulers there is allowed some spark in the darkness. The laterwriters make less use of the tragedy or are incapable of surpassingTacitus, if they read him, and so fall back on minutiae (Suetonius)and some farce (Dio or Xiphilinus/Zonaras).