Assignment 01 for ANH301-V

Jean du Plessis

Student number: 34890963

Question 2

Compare and contrast the Oratio Lugdunensis with Tacitus’ account of

Claudius’s admission of Gallic chiefs into the senate. Which is the more fair and

accurate?

In the year 48 AD the senate was discussing the proposal to enlarge the senate. It is

during this discussion that we find the emperor Claudius giving a speech to the

senators of Rome in which he speaks in favour of allowing the Gallia Comata or

Northern Gauls senatorial careers in Rome.

His speech was recorded in the Annals of Tacitus, one of our most valuable literary

sources of Roman history during this period.

An archaeological find was made in 1528 at Lyon that revealed a bronze tablet

with the Acta Senatus version of Claudius’ speech. The Oratio Lugdunensis, as

the tablet is called, gives us the opportunity to compare it with the version of

Tacitus and so provides us with a check for our valuable historian.

Comparing the two versions we find many similarities but also differences.

The speech of Claudius commences in the Oratio Lugdunensis with Claudius

beseeching the Senators not to discard his proposal just because it is simply a

new proposal. “ I beg you first of all not to show the common reaction people

have to new proposals, … ”. Claudius then continues by saying that all

institutions were at a stage new proposals. He mentions the fact that Rome was

once ruled by kings and later by consuls. He goes into a great deal of detail

involving the kings of Rome and their various backgrounds. He also mentions

that through conquest, citizenship spread to the other parts of the empire even to

Gaul.

Looking at the version of Tacitus we find that he does make mention that all

institutions were once new, as the Ortaio Lugdunensis does, but this is only

at the very end of Claudius’ speech where we find it in the very beginning of

that of the Oratio Lugdunensis. It is a similarity in the two texts but it is

more than clear that Tacitus has altered the structure of the speech.

We also find that the speech that Tacitus presents to us does not give the great

detail of the history of the kings as in the Claudian Tablet. Moreover Tacitus’

version make mention of the kings in different light than that of the Claudian

Tablet. Tacitus uses only one king, the very first, King Romulus, the founder of

Rome. He uses him to demonstrate the wisdom that he had by incorporated whole

nations into Romans in matter of days where the Claudian Tablet merely mentions

the kings as a change of institution. Although both versions makes mention of the

kings it cannot be seen as a similarity but a blatant difference.

Tacitus version commences that Claudius wishes to bring excellence to Rome

from any source possible just as his ancestors have done. He mentions Caesars

family and that of other great Romans who were initially not from Rome but

made Rome great.

The differences in the two introductions of the two versions can clearly be seen.

The Claudian Tablet opens with a plead to the senate and naming all the changes

that has taken place throughout the Empire. The version of Tacitus has Claudius

open with his intention of brining excellence to Rome.

After the mention of the change of institution of kings to consuls the Clauadian

Tablet mentions the dictatorial power in the republic and how it came to be. He

tells of the Plebeian Tribunes that serve the common cause of the ordinary citizen.

He also includes the decemvirs, military tribunes and the admittance of plebeians

in the secular and non-secular positions.

All this is excluded in the Tacticus version of the speech. He felt he did not have

to include the development of the empire in the speech. He obviously felt that it

did not carry the thrust of Claudius’ argument and therefore did not play a big role

in his argument. Tactius took the liberty of condensing the speech by excluding

certain parts he felt was irrelevant.

Both versions make reference of expanding the boarders through Italy and beyond.

We find that in the version presented to us by the Oratio Lugdunensis, Claudius tells

how the empire was extended beyond the ocean and in the process of extending the

empire his ancestors made the innovation of granting citizenship and granting the best

men form these colonies and municipalities senatorial careers if they qualified with

the necessary character and wealth. He states: “But in my opinion not even a

provincial should be rejected if they can be of value of the state”

We find similarity in the Tacitus version; Claudius states that as the empire was

extended, the people were incorporated into the Roman Empire by being granted

citizenship and how valuable they proved to the empire. He states how these men

love Rome as much as the original Romans do.

We find that Tacticus in his version of the speech states that Claudius said that by

incorporating the other nations into the empire and the senate it would bring

stability and peace to the empire. This mention of stability we don’t find in the

version of the Claudian Tablet.

Reading further in the version of Tacitus we find another difference in the two

versions. Tacitus’ version has Claudius refer to Athens and Sparta and that their

undoing was that they practiced segregation from their allies and conquered

subjects. He sends out a warning to the senate not to make the same mistake as

the old Greek states. Nowhere in the version of the Claudian Tablet are we

presented with such a strong message. The Claudian Tablet presents us with

Claudius giving all the benefits that can be reaped by taking the Gauls into the

senate but never does he say that it can be the undoing of the Empire or that it

could cause damage.

This I find as a very important point and I cannot see that it would be simply left

out of the Claudian Tablet. If Claudius presented this point to the Senate, it would

have been mentioned in the Acta Senatus and copied into the Oratio

Lugudunensis. Therefore I think Tacitus made it up and included into his version

of the speech and made use of rhetoric skills and liberties and dramatise his

speech.

In the same paragraph Tacitus drives home the point that even the sons of ex-

slaves were admitted to the office and has been practiced in times long past and is

not such a new commodity as believed. This is another argument that cannot be

found in the Oratio Lugudunensis.

The Claudian Tablet next mentions that the senators might argue that a provincial

senator might be found wanting compared to an Italian one. He then continues to

mention some senators who have served Rome honourably, among these some of

his friends. He continues to mentions also some of those senators who acted

shamefully in they eyes of Rome. He tells that these noble young men from Gaul

would no more shame the senate than those who acted honourably for Rome

again naming great senators. He then argues that Rome already have senators

from other parts of Gaul and should now consider the Gallia Comata for they

served his father well by providing him a safe province while he was on campaign

in Germany. It is also during this part that we find that Claudius addressing

himself to make his speech more dramatic.

Comparing this version of he speech with the one written by Tacitus we find that

Tacitus did not merely condenses it as in many other parts of the speech but

completely left it out. Nowhere in the version of Tacitus do we find Claudius

mentioning other senators and their service to Rome, beneficial or not.

There is no mention of Claudius’ father and his campaign and the security provided

by the Northern Gauls. There is no mention of Claudius addressing himself in

Tacitus’ version either.

A strong point that is mentioned in the Claudian Tablet where Claudius states that

Rome has senators from other parts of Gaul and there is no reason why they

should exclude the Northern Gauls. This is omitted in the Tacitus version. Why

does he exclude such a strong and valid point?

Tacitus omits all this. One reason for some of the omitted parts are simply that

Tacitus felt that they have no relevant importance to the speech and that these

omitted sections played no important role in the speech. He thus felt at liberty that

he could exclude theses from his version.

Turning to the parts in the two speeches where Claudius gives the reasons why the

arguments against the admittance of these Gauls into the senatorial order is not

valid we find that the Claudian Tablet does not have as much detail as the version

presented to us by Tacitus. Both versions mention the Gallic resistance and the ten

years of war they offered to Rome. This is in the Claudian Tablet and it mentions

the Gallic resistance against Julius Caesar and straight after this argument

Claudius tells that after the war their loyalty have not swayed for a hundred years.

He backs this up with his father’s campaign in Germany. The Tacitus version is

much more elaborated than the previous. In Tacitus’ version Claudius asked

whether the other nations who serves in the senate and are presently citizens of

Rome did not once wage war against Rome? “ The Senonian Gauls fought

against us, it is objected”. “But did not Italians, Vulsci and Aequi as well?”

Tacitus also mentions several other Allies of Rome that fought against them in

previous wars and some of these wars Rome lost. Therefore the fact that the Gauls

sacked Rome cannot be augmented. These details are all omitted in the Claudian

Tablet. Claudius in the Tacitus version then tells us that the Gauls have now

adopted Roman culture and customs and married into Roman families. He says

that the rich Gauls must now be allow to serve in the Senate so that the riches can

be used for the benefit of Rome. Such an argument can nowhere be found in the

Claudian Tablet.

Tacitus obviously found the reasons why the Gauls should be omitted into the

senate has no validity, a very strong argument because of the elaboration and

detail of it, which is lacking in the Claudian Tablet. In my opinion this is why

he elaborates on this point so much.

In the version of the Claudian Tablet we find Claudius using the argument of

the hundred years the Northern Gauls were loyal to Rome after they were

subdued.

This is totally different in the Tacitus version. The closing argument Claudius

uses is similar to the introduction of the Claudian Tablet were Claudius states

that all institutions were once new proposals. As mentioned above Tacitus

altered the structure of the speech. I believe the reason for this is that Tacitus

again found this a very strong argument and chose to put it at the very end of the

speech and make it part of the closing argument to place more emphasis on it

and make the conclusion of the speech more dramatic.

Comparing the two versions of the speech of Claudius we do find the various

differences in them and similarities. We can safely say that Tacitus did not

merely copy the version of the Acta Senatus but we can be certain that he did

make use of it as a source of information for the writing of his Annals on

Claudius. It is clear that there have been many alterations in the structure and

content of the version presented to us by Tacitus. At the end Tacitus in general

reproduced the speech with great accuracy and the message and attempts of the

speech is unchanged. He merely took the liberty to streamline the speech.

Rhetoric skill still played a big role in historiographer at the time and Tacitus

used this skill to reproduce the speech. To say which one of the two is more fair

and accurate is a rather difficult task. In my opinion I would say that the version

of the Claudian Tablet would be the more fair and accurate. Firstly it is the more

contemporary of the two versions. It was composed between 48-54 AD while

the Annals of Tacitus were completed between 116-118 AD.

Secondly the Claudian Tablet is an authentic version, which was copied from

the Acta Senatus, and therefore it was most probably copied down in the senate

while Claudius made the speech. It is because of this and the fact that Tacitus

assumed the liberty to condense, omit, rearrange and give arguments essentially

his own, that I find the version of the Oratio Lugdunensis more accurate and

fair. In my opinion it is closer to the real speech that Claudius gave to the Senate

in the year 48 AD.

Biography

Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome; Translated by Michael Grant. Revised

edition. Penguin Classics, 1996

A. Tronson and Prof. Ursula Vogel; Ancient History, Study Guide for ANH301-

V (Classical Historiography). University of South Africa 1983