Tacitus’ Annals and the death of Germanicus – Uses and abuses of magical plot devices

The account of Germanicus’ death offers a number of valuable insights into the nature of Tacitus’ approach to writing history. It is a key example of how he chooses to draw attention to the political climate in Rome during the time of the early Principate (or at least his interpretation of it), the manner in which he constructs his characters as movers and shakers within his greater narrative, and, most importantly (to me), he identifies the manner in which certain players chose to press their advantage. His (admittedly brief) account of the use of magic and poison in the political realm as tools to dispose of rivals (Tac. Ann.2.69) is of particular interest. Yet, as with everything written by Tacitus, this account may very likely be part of a larger agenda, intended to elucidate his own insinuations of what the greater picture might have been.

Consequently, the use of magic in the death of Germanicus as well as the accusations of such deeds directed against Piso and his associates might be nothing more than mere plot devices. The moral history of Tacitus harks back to Republican values amidst the predominance of Imperial rule, creating a complex construction of the qualities Tacitus associated with Rome’s political systems of Republic and Empire. Christopher Pelling proposes that Tacitus presents Germanicus as an embodiment of the tension that existed in the early Principate – he is a man who does not “fit naturally into the seething jealousies” that emerge under the one-man rule of the emperor, and who remains “distinctively connected to the past” (Pelling, 2012, p. 299). As Germanicus falls victim to the political machinations of his enemies, who did not hesitate to use magic and poison, and subject him to “the worst of deaths” (Tac. Ann. 2.71), Tacitus emphasizes the ruthlessness that had emerged under the new political system. This interpretation of Tacitus’ work as a characterization of the people and the times makes it difficult to assess the extent to which magic was considered to be a real political threat.

Moreover, the motivations of those who allegedly deposited the curse tablets are also not wholly expounded upon in the Annales, as the curses are merely mentioned in addition to the poisoning of Germanicus. It has been suggested that, should Tacitus’ account have some foundation in reality, the curse tablets might have been placed by a “personal enemy,” who wanted to expedite the progression of Germanicus’ illness, rather than being linked to Piso’s conspiracy (Wood, 2000, p. 146). The possibility that the poisoning and the curse tablets themselves were simple inventions of Piso’s own accusers, to further undermine his case, could be considered an alternative option, especially considering the ambiguity surrounding the examination of his body:

“Before cremation, Germanicus’ corpse was exposed naked in the forum of Antioch, the appointed place for the funeral, but there is little agreement on whether it bore indications of poisoning. Views differed according to whether one felt pity for Germanicus and was predisposed to suspicion, or else.” (Tac. Ann. 2.73)

Ultimately, however, Tacitus’ claim that Piso was accused of using “devotiones et venenum” to kill Germanicus (Tac. Ann. 3.13.2) has no foundation in the official documentation drafted in the aftermath of the affair. The Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre, laying out the charges and the outcome of the trial, mentions neither magic, nor poisoning. Whether this omission represents an indicator that the use of magic in Germanicus’ death is based on unsubstantiated rumours (and is potentially a mere invention of Tacitus himself), or that it was simply not deemed necessary to include, given the clear guilt of the perpetrator, Piso, poses a problem. On the one hand, the main literary source, the Annales, places a clear emphasis on magic and poisoning as the cause of Germanicus’ death, while the official state decree makes no mention of it.

The problematic nature of Tacitus as a reliable source (as is to be expected from ancient historians) can be found in his own moral convictions. Moreover, the discrepancies in our ancient sources surrounding this affair provide little insight into what role magic played specifically in a political context. The options are manifold: magic could be considered a viable tool to dispense of political opponents, or it was more the accusation of using magic that could be used to undermine one’s opponent. Maybe it had no real political connotation at all, or it was something that developed over time. Only further research will tell.

Works Cited:

Pelling, C.. (1993). “Tacitus and Germanicus.” In T. J. Luce & A. J. Woodman (Eds.), Tacitus      and the Tacitean Tradition (pp. 59–85). Princeton University Press. Retrieved from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7ztggx.9

Tacitus, C., & Barrett, A. (2008). The annals: The reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (J.          Yardley, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wood, S. E. (2000). Imperial women: A study in public images, 40 BC – AD 68. Leiden: Brill.