To begin, my area of research focuses on the image of the Roman witch, and women and magic in the early imperial period. By drawing on early European witch-trials, I hope to be able to establish what cultural and social phenomena were taking place in Rome during the 1st centuries BCE and CE that gave rise to the affiliation of women and dark magic.
In my research, my most difficult – yet also my most intriguing – source has been the Annals of Tacitus. Written as a historical narrative, the Annals’ time-period ranges from 14 – 68 CE, the reign of Tiberius to the reign of Nero. While it has provided modern historians with a crucial understanding of Roman history during the early imperial period, it has also offered a unique lens into a growing theme of affiliating women with dark magic. In the Annals, Tacitus’ main focus is on the political narrative that is taking place. Yet, in as much as this provides, Tacitus also indirectly gives a historical account of the charges of artes magicae laid out against women.
Among such women are Munatia Plancina and Aemilia Lepida. In the former, Plancina is supposedly charged alongside her husband, Piso for the poisoning of Germanicus. While the majority of the focus is on Piso, Tacitus does claim certain charges on Plancina involving dark magic. She is accused of assisting in “black arts” and performing “blasphemous rites and sacrifices” in the death of Germanicus (3.13). She is also affiliated with Martina, a well-known eastern ‘poisoner’. And later on, Tacitus explains that the only witness to prove Plancina’s involvement in Germanicus’ poison – Martina – is herself killed by poison, with the implicit suggestion that it was Plancina who committed this (3.7).
In the case of Lepida, amongst other charges, she is accused of certain artes magicae – such as poisoning, adultery and consulting the Chaldaean astrologers. She is also suspected of having contact with Plancina’s witch-friend, Martina (3.22-24).
What I find most interesting about this source is that it gives us with a unique look at the realistic depiction of women and magic. Our literary evidence has provided us with an abundance of witches – powerful and overtly magical characters that are extremely dangerous – characters such as Medea of Seneca, Canidia of Horace and Erictho of Lucan. However, our legal and historical documents rarely mention accusations of witches or women and magic. Tacitus then offers an exclusive view into a more realistic idea of Roman thoughts on women and magic. Considering this source then begs the question as to whether or not Romans believed in witches and witchcraft to the extent that our literary narratives have suggested. None of the women in his work have been portrayed using obvious or overt methods of magic – a clear dissuasion from their literary counterparts. Having a historical account to compare with the literary accounts of women, witches and magic is thus necessary, as it allows me to interpret the similarities and differences and create a culturally-specific idea of a witch.
Yet in as much as Tacitus’ narrative is beneficial, it is also a problematic. As a historical narrator, many of the events recounted by Tacitus occurred before his time and therefore are based on hearsay. Furthermore, his general bias towards almost all women in positions of power makes his account of their criminal actions of artes magicae less reliable. This is evidenced when we consider that the senatus consultum de Gnaeo Pisone Pater does not even mention any artes magicae that Tacitus attributes to Plancina (Pollard 9). As one of the only sources giving a detailed account about women and magic, it means that my research may never be able to understand nor create an image of the non-fictional Roman witch.
Tacitus’ narrative provides us with much to work with in terms of women and magic and the female witch – the greatest being that he is one of our only sources for real-life situations of women and magic during this period. His work could then speak to a potentially more realistic depiction of a witch, and it highlights many cultural and social themes about women and magic that are taking place during this period. However, his inherent bias and the nature of the ‘historical’ narrative itself are problematic when trying pulling fact from his work. But little else survives in the way of historical documents on women and magic in the early imperial period, and therefore, while remaining wary of Tacitus’ aims, he is a crucial source in my research.
References
Pollard, E. A. “Magic Accusations Against Women in Tacitus’s Annals.” In Daughters of Hecate: Women & Magic in the Ancient World K. B. Stratton & D. S. Kalleres eds. (New York, 2014) 41-70
Tacitus, Cornelius. The Annals of Tacitus, Books 1-6. Trans. Francis F. D. Goodyear. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972.
Looking forward to reading your longer post, but just wanted to say that one of the problems with Tacitus is that for some reason he matches our current cynicism so much that he seems so believable in all instances. I think that’s because we want to think that some one who can make the comments about power that he does, is also skeptical about other issues. But on women he’s terrible. He’s driven by the central issue that the Empress had: she had an important public role with no precursors, and that troubled a lot of elite Roman men, as she didn’t fit into any acceptable historical patterns.