The death of Germanicus in 19AD, as described by Tacitus in his Annales, highlights the problematic dynamic within Rome’s elite body that had become prevalent with the establishment of the Principate and the rise of an imperial dynasty. With the powers of the emperor lacking a clearly delineated framework, members of the senatorial class and others in the upper echelons of the roman political machine (including the emperor’s own relatives) had to adapt to the new status-quo (Talbert, 1996, p.331-333). Political maneuvering, the forming of alliances and the realization of higher offices were now all inextricably linked to the autocratic one-man rule of the emperor, a person who must neither be challenged nor outdone (Talbert, 1996, p.335-337). Tacitus, whose moral history harks back to Republican values amidst the predominance of Imperial rule, portrays Germanicus as an individual who fails to recognize the danger of his own success in the face of Tiberius’ suspicious nature (Tac. Ann. 2.72; Cass. Dio. Rom. Hist.57.19 ). Indeed, 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.
It is this use of magic in the political realm of the Roman Empire that I hope to explore more fully in my paper. However, the question of what could be considered magic (especially when distinguishing it from religion), or what defines political is a task undertaken by many, most of whom have presented different results, given that both ancient and modern scholars see “magic [as] largely a rhetorical category rather than an analytical one” (Kevin Henry Crow, 339). In the case of Tacitus’ account, both categories are clearly determined. On the one hand the actors are primarily concerned with the preservation of their offices and the powers associated with them. Tiberius is visibly concerned with threats to his position as emperor while Piso can either be seen to act under Tiberius’ instructions, out of his own aspirations for power. Cassius Dio, who provides a similar version of Germanicus’ death in his Roman History, also places particular emphasis on the political threat of Germanicus’ rise to the authority of his adoptive father (Cass. Dio. Rom. Hist.57.19). In the case of magic, Tacitus (and Dio for that matter) goes about clearly outlining the means which caused Germanicus’ death:
The cruel virulence of the disease was intensified by the patient’s belief that Piso had given him poison; and it is a fact that explorations in the floor and walls brought to light the remains of human bodies, spells, curses, leaden tablets engraved with the name Germanicus, charred and blood-smeared ashes, and others of the implements of witchcraft (malefica) by which it is believed the living soul can be devoted to the powers of the grave. (Tac. Ann. 2.69)
Consequently, the use of magic in the death of Germanicus as well as the rumours and accusations of such deeds directed against Piso and his associates reinforce Pliny the Elder’s statement that there is truly “no one who does not fear to be spell-bound by curse tablets” (Pliny Nat. 28.4.19). If Tacitus’ account is accurate, the allegations against Piso (and the suspicions surrounding Tiberius’ own involvement) were serious enough that the emperor himself laid the charges in order to proceed with the trial as swiftly as possible (Dio, Rom. Hist. 57.18.10). 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 [Republican] past” (Pelling, 2012, p. 299). His demise through magic and poison mirrors the dangerous and impious mindset that began to permeate through the highest levels of the Roman state, as open competition gave way to the deviousness of Imperial rule.
However, as with all literary sources, the authenticity of Tacitus’ account is questionable. The actors, their motivations, and even the discovery of magical utensils are more a reflection of Tacitus’ own moral agenda and interpretation of the events than a proper historical account. 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.
In order to understand whether magic was indeed used in a political context, the different possibilities within the narrative have to be explored – including the authenticity of the narrative itself.
Concerning the depositors of the curse tablets, their identity is never explained. While Piso is accused as the main perpetrator, the motivations of those who allegedly placed the curse tablets are not wholly expounded upon in the Annales, as the maleficae 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)
Moreover, archaeological evidence gives rise to further problems. The Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre, offers nothing that would support Tacitus’ claim that Piso was accused of using “devotiones et venenum” to kill Germanicus (Tac. Ann. 3.13.2). The decree, which lays out the charges and the outcome of the trial against Piso, 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, 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 – “an allegation of magic, it is not” (Hoffman, 2002, p. 150).
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. At any rate, that Tacitus chose to include magic in his narrative is telltale of its perceived influence, even among the elite.
Works Cited:
Crow, Kevin Henry. “Maleficia Aut Beneficia: The Roman Legal Tradition and Late Antique and Early Medieval Attitudes concerning Magic and Divination.” PhD diss., University of Kentucky, 2001. Accessed March 20, 2016.
Hoffman, Christopher Andrew. “The Idea of Magic in Roman Law” PhD diss., University of Berkeley, 2002. Accessed March 20, 2016.
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
Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, John Bostock. The Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Nat.+toc
Tacitus, C., & Barrett, A. (2008). The annals: The reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (J. Yardley, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talbert, Richard. “The Senate and Senatorial and Equestrian Posts.” In Cambridge Ancient History 10 Vol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. 324-343. Web.
Wood, S. E. (2000). Imperial women: A study in public images, 40 BC – AD 68. Leiden: Brill.