![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think, in the contest of amazingly oblivious stupidity among emperors, Vitellius has to win. (There are only a few more days in which such potshots can be gleefully taken, but whoever is prone to compare Bush to Nero or Caligula should reconsider.) First, he makes a proclamation about the religious ceremonies for a day that has been in auspicious for centuries. Merely stupid, I suppose. But then:
I am still trying to work out what is going on at the end of that. Roughly: (1) V. tries to use his own disagreement the Only Principled Senator of the Neronian Age as an example of normal senatorial disagreement. It is ludicrous because to brag about opposing Thrasea Paetus is to brag about being an unprincipled syncophant.
(2) V. is invoking the context of (at least one of his instances of) disagreement with Thrasea -- the case of whether or not to execute the entire household of slaves in case of murder (annals 14.49). Th. was on the more liberal side here, and V. is claiming to have been more strict and more committed to the mos maiorum, by virtue of having disagreed on the side of strictness with Thrasea Paetus, he of the unpleasant "schoolmasterly sternness." It is ludicrous because it is a gross twisting of what is most inappropriate for a senator (syncophancy, what V. actually displayed) into what is appropriate(?) (rigid refusal to compromise on matters of law).
(3) While the second group appears to miss the point, they do get that someone with whom Vitellius disagreed must be quite a paragon of principle, given how depraved V. is.
(4) Nero is the big elephant in the curia, here. Because Thrasea's proper counterpart is Nero, to match Priscus and V. now.
It happened that Helvidius Priscus the Praetor-designate made a proposal against his wishes. Vitellius, at first quite upset, nevertheless called for nothing more than the tribunes of plebs as an aid to his scorned power. Then, with his friends trying to soften him, as they feared that his anger was deeper, he answered that it was nothing unusual that two senators in a republic should disagree: he himself had been accustomed to speak against even Thrasea [Paetus]. Many mocked the effrontery of this emulation [aemulatio]; others were pleased by the very fact that he had not chosen one of the most powerful men, but Thrasea, for an exemplar of true glory.
I am still trying to work out what is going on at the end of that. Roughly: (1) V. tries to use his own disagreement the Only Principled Senator of the Neronian Age as an example of normal senatorial disagreement. It is ludicrous because to brag about opposing Thrasea Paetus is to brag about being an unprincipled syncophant.
(2) V. is invoking the context of (at least one of his instances of) disagreement with Thrasea -- the case of whether or not to execute the entire household of slaves in case of murder (annals 14.49). Th. was on the more liberal side here, and V. is claiming to have been more strict and more committed to the mos maiorum, by virtue of having disagreed on the side of strictness with Thrasea Paetus, he of the unpleasant "schoolmasterly sternness." It is ludicrous because it is a gross twisting of what is most inappropriate for a senator (syncophancy, what V. actually displayed) into what is appropriate(?) (rigid refusal to compromise on matters of law).
(3) While the second group appears to miss the point, they do get that someone with whom Vitellius disagreed must be quite a paragon of principle, given how depraved V. is.
(4) Nero is the big elephant in the curia, here. Because Thrasea's proper counterpart is Nero, to match Priscus and V. now.
