Marcus Lepidus, Capax Imperii

The theme ‘capax imperii', immortalized by Tacitus’ verdict on the Emperor Galba, runs through his writings, and imparts a unity to the record of conspiracies and civil wars. It emerges quickly in the Annals. Augustus, so an anecdote alleges, discussed the matter when his end was near, and made play with the names of three men. M. Lepidus, he said, had the capacity but no desire; Asinius Gallus was eager but not good enough; Arruntius, however, was not unworthy and might make a bid. Moreover, according to; Tacitus, some versions named Cn. Piso instead of Arruntius. There it might rest, a happy invention, or at least an unverifiable report, did not the story raise a problem of historical identity. Who was the Lepidus whom the dying Princeps rated so highly, Marcus or Manius ? The Codex Mediceus has ‘M. Lepidum’: all modern editors alter the praenomen and read ‘M'. Lepidum’. This passage is only the beginning of the trouble. Two Aemilii Lepidi of consular standing recur in the Annals and annoy the conscientious reader. They are not at all easy to keep apart, despite the operations of scholars since Justus Lipsius. Those operations have been considerable. Following Lipsius' lead, Borghesi and Nipperdey evolved a doctrine about the two Lepidi which won rapid and general acceptance, with hardly a murmur of dissent anywhere, and it now stands canonical both in editions of Tacitus and in the works of reference. It involved an alteration of the manuscript reading, easy and trivial to all appearance—the substitution of the abbreviated praenomen M'. for M. That change was made, not only in the passage in Book I about the ‘capaces imperii’, but in seven other, places, no less. In consequence Marcus Lepidus dwindles miserably and is all but blotted out, whereas Manius is augmented and exalted. The time has come to challenge the legitimacy of the procedure, and to look at the results.