Download Contents

Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
AH4 / F394 – Roman History Option 2.
The Invention of Imperial Rome
31 BC-AD 96
Teachers’ notes by Melvin Cooley, Penelope
J. Goodman and Zahra Newby
Note: These notes should used alongside the lesson plan provided by OCR:
http://www.ocr.org.uk/Data/publications/support_materials/A2_Level_Ancient_Hist
ory_SM_Booklet_Unit_F394.docv.
Note that some sections are fuller than others – this should not be taken as indicating the
various importance of the themes! In particular, sections 4.2 and the Appendix include
original source material which is to be included in a future LACTOR by M.G.L.Cooley.
Contents
1. BOOKS AND RESOURCES
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOURCES
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
4. THEMATIC NOTES
4.1 issues of succession and the establishment of dynasties
4.2 The Imperial Cult
4.3 Art and Architecture: Creating Imperial Rome
4.4 Panem et Circenses
4.5 Administration
4.6 The changing face of Rome
2
3
7
9
9
10
20
21
28
29
APPENDIX: PANEGYRIC AND INVECTIVE
30
-1-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
1. BOOKS AND RESOURCES
General works:
Goodman, M. The Roman World 44BC-AD180 (Routledge, 1997)
A good, solid overview of the Roman empire during the core period covered in
this module. This book is explicitly aimed at new-comers to the subject, and does a good
job of covering the material from the ground up. The emphasis is on the operations of the
Roman state and the individuals involved in the government of the empire, and it
includes both events in Rome and around the empire. Section II on elite politics covers
the history of individual emperors, but chs 9 (mechanics of goevernment in Rome), 12
(image of the emperor), 17 and 18 (City of Rome society and culture) and 29 (religion)
will also be useful. Much of the book is available on Google books here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZ37ALMZZakC.
Others:
H.H. Scullard From the Gracchi to Nero gives a narrative account of the history of the
period (ch.s 11, 13-14)
J.R. Patterson: Political Life in the city of Rome (BCP) (ch.6 is relevant)
P. Bradley: Ancient Rome: using evidence contain numerous charts, maps and sources
E. Salmon History of The Roman World 30 BC – AD 138
C. Wells, The Roman Empire (Fontana)
D. Shotter : Augustus; Tiberius Caesar; Nero
A. Wallace-Hadrill Augustan Rome (BCP)
The World of Rome (CUP)
Alston, R. Aspects of Roman History AD 14-117 (Taylor and Francis, 1998)
On specific issues:
Beard, M. North, J. and Price, S. Religions of Rome 1998, Cambridge University Press.
Coulston, J. & Dodge, H. (eds.) Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City
2000, Oxford University Press – the articles by DeLaine on construction; Mattingley &
Aldrete on the food supply; Walker on Augustus’ building programme and Coleman on
entertainments are especially useful.
On the ways the physical appearance of Rome changed under the emperors see the books
below, esp useful for 4.3 below:
Zanker, P. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus 1998. University Michigan Press.
Favro, D. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome 1996, Cambridge University Press.
Hannestad, N. Roman art and Imperial Policy 1986, Aarhus University Press
Kleiner, D. E. E. Roman Sculpture 1992, Yale University Press. (good as a reference
work for details of individual monuments)
-2-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOURCES
Collections of source material can be found in the following, which often have bief
introductions to the types of material presented. More detailed notes on individual
sources follow below:
Cooley, M. and others The Age of Augustus 2003, LACTOR 17
Dio Cassius, The Roman History: the Age of Augustus (trans.) Scott-Kilvert, I. 1987,
Penguin.
Edmondson, J. Dio: the Julio-Claudians 1992, LACTOR 15.
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (trans.) Graves, R. 1979, Penguin.
Tacitus, Annals (Trans. Grant, M. 1971. Penguin – not on the specified reading but
essential for a narrative account of the events from the accession of Tiberius until AD 66
(the final part of the account is lost as well as a period covering the reign of Gaius and
early years of Claudius).
Another collection of source material which might be useful:
Lewis and Rheinold: Roman Civilisation Vol. 1 and 2
Details of the Sources:
Students need to be aware of the contexts of the different sources. The main literary
sources for the period are the accounts by Suetonius, Tacitus and Cassius Dio. All were
written later than the period they describe (Suetonius and Tacitus early second century
AD, Dio early third) and are affected both by their literary genres (biography or history)
and by the experiences of the writers themselves.
For details of some of the lost sources for this period, see the Appendix.
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (aka Lives of the Caesars)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (born c. AD 69, died after AD 130), was an
equestrian who worked as imperial secretary for the emperors Trajan (AD 98-117) and
Hadrian (AD 17-138). Suetonius was a friend of the senator Pliny the Younger, and may
have served on Pliny’s staff while Pliny was governor in Bithynia. He certainly worked
directly for the emperors Trajan and Hadrian in the AD 110s. The posts which he held
during this period were secretarial ones, involving him in administrative tasks such as
helping to handle the emperor’s correspondence. Thus Suetonius had direct access to the
imperial archives, including documents such as personal letters from the time of Julius
Caesar and Augustus. He drew on this material as he began working on his Lives of the
Caesars, sometimes quoting it directly in his biographies. However, in AD 122, he seems
to have been dismissed by Hadrian from the imperial staff for behaving disrespectfully
towards Hadrian’s wife, Sabina. He continued to publish his Lives, but had now lost his
privileged access to the archives, so that from Nero onwards it is clear that he was
restricted to using publicly-available source material. This material (which he also used
in the earlier Lives) would include senatorial decrees, narrative histories already written
by earlier authors and oral reports.
-3-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Suetonius is a member of the same generation as Pliny and Tacitus, and all three
very much share a similar perspective on the principate. As young men, they had lived
through the tyrannical reign of Domitian (AD 81-96), who had executed large numbers of
senators, encouraged people to report one another for treason, and generally made the
extent of his power and his willingness to abuse it very clear to the Roman aristocracy.
This means that all three authors were very aware of how the institution of the principate
could be abused. On the other hand, all were born a century after the end of the Republic.
The principate was well-established, and it would not have seemed a realistic or even
desirable option to them to dispense with rule by an emperor. Instead, as adults they are
keen to encourage and collaborate with Trajan in his efforts to create a better relationship
between the emperor and the senators / equestrians, in which the emperor is careful to
show respect for these groups, and to allow them to feel that they are playing a
meaningful role in the running of the empire.
In Suetonius’ writing (as in Tacitus’), all this translates into two noticeable traits:
1) a tendency to categorise emperors into ‘good’ sorts (like Trajan) and ‘bad’ sorts (like
Domitian), and 2) a degree to which he is writing his Lives of previous emperors as a sort
of ‘blueprint’ for the current emperor (Trajan) showing how he should and should not
behave. The perspective is very much that of the educated elite, so that emperors who
held treason trials and executed senators / equestrians (Tiberius, Gaius / Caligula,
Claudius, Nero and Domitian) are heavily criticised in all areas of their lives, even if
other evidence suggests that they were popular with the ordinary people, or managed the
provinces successfully. By contrast, those who treated the senatorial and equestrian
orders with respect get a much better deal – e.g. Augustus and Vespasian. Because
Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus dominate our written record for the emperors covered on
this module, it can be very difficult to escape from their ‘good emperors, bad emperors’
perspective in order to get a more rounded view.
It is also important to be aware that Suetonius is writing biography, not history.
The structure of the Lives is very broadly chronological, in that Suetonius usually begins
with his subject’s early life, and ends with their death. But the bulk of each biography is
usually thematic, grouping the emperor’s activity under headings such as building
activity, administration of justice, sexual activities, attitudes towards the games etc (see
Suet, Aug. 9). Suetonius also places greater emphasis on the private lives and
personalities of the emperors than narrative historians like Tacitus and Cassius Dio, but
often from a very ‘gossipy’ perspective – he is quite happy to draw freely on scurrilous
rumours here, especially when it helps to support his portrayal of a ‘bad’ emperor.
Suetonius’ Lives are available in Penguin translation by Robert Graves, revised in
1979. An early 20th-century Loeb translation is also available online here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/home.html
Tacitus
P. Cornelius Tacitus was born c. AD 56 probably in Gaul. He came to Rome by
AD 75 and had a senatorial career under the Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus and
Domitian. He was praetor in 88, consul in 97 and proconsul of Asia in 112-13. While his
most prestigious posts were held under Nerva and Trajan, his career started and was
developed under the Flavians (as he admits in Histories 1.1).
-4-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
For his attitude to the writing of history, see the extracts in the Appendix below.
Like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, Tacitus sees the reigns of earlier emperors
through the lens of his experiences under Domitian. Thus themes such as the origins of
treason trials under Tiberius or the autocracy of Gaius and Nero are given prominence. A
major theme in Tacitus’ writings is the loss of liberty – see further 4.4 below.
Pliny the Younger, Letters
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (born AD 61, died AD 112), was a successful
lawyer and politician. His uncle, Pliny the Elder was a prominent equestrian and military
commander, as well as a prolific author (although only his encyclopedia, the Natural
History, now survives). Pliny the Younger spent time with his uncle during his boyhood,
and witnessed the eruption of Mount Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii in AD 79 from
the naval base at Misenum, where his uncle was commander. After his uncle’s death in
the eruption, Pliny was made his chief heir and adopted posthumously as his son – it was
at this time that he took on the name ‘Plinius’ in addition to his own family name of
‘Caecilius’.
Pliny practised as a lawyer in Rome, and in his twenties made the step up from
the equestrian order (to which his uncle had belonged) into the senatorial order. From this
point onwards his political career was wide-ranging and extremely successful. He
steadily climbed his way through the offices of the cursus honorum (‘path of honour’, or
Roman career ladder), culminating in a consulship in AD 100. Pliny’s Letters contain a
wealth of information on life as a senator, including details such as social customs and
the workings of the patronage system.
It is clear that Pliny intended his Letters for publication, since he refers to the
process of selecting and publishing them in Letters 1.1 at the beginning of the collection.
This means that we are not dealing with a straightforward and un-self-conscious glimpse
into Roman elite life here. We must assume that Pliny has selected, arranged and
probably also polished the letters in order to paint the best possible portrait of himself as
the ideal Roman elite male. As such, the letters provide valuable insights into the
attitudes, priorities and concerns of such a person – but only of such a person as a public
figure, not as a private individual.
Pliny’s Letters are probably best accessed through Betty Radice’s translation for
Penguin Classics. They are also available online at http://www.bartleby.com/9/4/.
Cassius Dio, Roman History
Cassius Dio (born c. AD 160s, died after AD 229) lived a century after Suetonius
and Pliny. In the context of this module, this means that he was looking back on the core
period with hindsight, rather than living through parts of it as they did. His Roman
History was originally 80 books long, and traced the history of Rome from its foundation
to his own day. It is not completely intact – books 61-69 in particular survive only as
epitomes, i.e. shortened ‘Reader’s Digest’-style summaries of Dio’s original text, made
by Byzantine scholars in the 11th and 12th centuries. But they preserve a solid,
chronologically-structured narrative history of our period.
Dio came from a prominent Greek family in the Roman province of BithyniaPontus (i.e. the same one that Pliny had governed a century before). Although ethnically
Greek, he held Roman citizenship, and was thus able to pursue a senatorial career in
-5-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Rome. He was a successful politician, who held the consulship twice and also served as a
provincial governor in Africa, Dalmatia and Upper Pannonia during the AD 220s.
Dio appears to have been a careful historian, who read widely amongst the works
of earlier historians who do not now survive to us, and used them as the sources for his
history. However, he was writing between one and two centuries after our core period,
and this sometimes means that he views it anachronistically. For example, he treats the
institution of the principate as though it had been introduced wholesale by Augustus in 27
BC in the form in which he knew it during the AD 190s to 220s, and does not really
recognise that both Augustus and the Julio-Claudian emperors who succeeded him had to
develop and consolidate their powers gradually through a process of negotiation with the
senate, army and people.
Like Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny, Dio also suffers rather from a ‘good emperors,
bad emperors’ perspective. This is partly something he must have picked up from earlier
written sources, including Tacitus and Suetonius, but also something that was shaped by
his own experience. While Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny had lived through the tyranny of
Domitian and into the much more measured reign of Trajan, Dio has similarly lived
through the tyranny of Commodus and the Civil Wars which followed it, and into the
much more measured reign of Septimius Severus. Again, then, Dio tends to make strong
black-and-white judgements of previous emperors based on how well or badly they
treated the senatorial aristocracy, and is also writing his Roman History partly with the
agenda of creating a blueprint which will help to guide Septimius and his successors
towards what Dio sees as desirable imperial behaviour.
Dio’s work is also strongly influenced by the fact that he was a trained orator: as
for all senators, making polished speeches was an essential element in his career. He
frequently inserts speeches into his narrative – for example on important occasions in the
senate, or when leaders are addressing their troops before a battle. It is important for
students to understand that these are opportunities for Dio to demonstrate his speechwriting skills, not accurate reports of what was actually said by the characters speaking.
In many cases, it is highly unlikely to Dio would have had access to the text of any such
speech as originally delivered – this applies, for example, to Boudicca’s speeches to her
people in book 62, chapters 3-6. Meanwhile, even when he may have been able to read
the original text of a speech (e.g. one delivered in the senate at Rome), it is clear that he
felt free to rework and embellish it in order to create a highly-polished literary product,
reflecting his own attitudes and interests and giving colour to his history.
The entirety of the surviving text of the Roman History is available online in an
out-of-copyright
Loeb
translation
at
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html
For some examples of panegyric and invective in the histories of the emperors, as
well as details on the lost sources, see the Appendix.
-6-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The topic covers the periods of the emperors Augustus to Domitian, but it is likely that
many students will have already taken the AS topic on Augustus. It is assumed that they
will already have a basic familiarity with the emergence of the Principate, and Augustus’
relationships with the senate, equites and people of Rome. For more details, however,
consult the AS Teachers’ Notes on Augustus.
The emperor and the principate
Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 87-92
The system of rule by emperor in Rome is usually called the ‘principate’, based
on the Latin word princeps which the first emperor, Augustus, selected to describe his
unique position in the state. Princeps means ‘leading man’, with the same sort of nuances
as our phrase ‘first among equals’, and this reveals a great deal about the characteristics
of the position. Although in our period, rule by emperor was firmly established, and not
likely to be challenged in itself, individual emperors still had to be careful to show
respect for the trappings of the Republican system, with its emphasis on the sharing of
power amongst the Roman aristocracy, which they had inherited. Above all, this meant
allowing the senators to feel that they were still playing an active role in the government
of the Roman empire. Emperors who failed to do this laid themselves open to criticism,
and could find that their position in power was challenged.
The senate as a body, though, had relatively little power to take direct action
against an emperor whom they disliked, as they did not have any collective control over
the army. The real basis of the emperors’ power (again going back to Augustus) was his
control over the Roman legions, whose members swore an oath of loyalty to the reigning
emperor when they entered the army and knew perfectly well that their regular pay and
retirement pensions depended on him. Most legions were based in the provinces, and
especially along the frontiers, where their job was to ensure the security of the empire,
deal with any rebellions which might occur, and also assist the provincial governor in
what we would view as ‘civilian’ jobs such as building roads or dealing with criminals.
But one particularly important branch of the army was based in Rome – this was the
Praetorian Guard, who had special responsibility for protecting the emperor in his role as
the ultimate commander of the Roman armies.
Challenges to the power of an individual emperor therefore could be mounted by
anyone able to get a substantial portion of the army on their side – especially the
Praetorian Guard. Such people were typically individual senators who had been given the
responsibility of governing a province, and thus had immediate command over the
legions stationed within it (though always under the overall command of the emperor).
Their method of operating was to get their troops to declare them imperator (which
means ‘commander’ and not ‘emperor’ – that is a false friend), and then use armed force
to support a bid for power, ideally culminating in their official recognition as princeps by
the senate in Rome. But such bids generally only occurred if the challenger perceived that
the reigning emperor had already become seriously unpopular with one or more of the
key social groups whose support he needed: the army itself, the ordinary people of Rome,
the aristocracy of Rome (i.e. the senatorial and equestrian orders) or the population of the
provinces. If this had happened, the usurper knew that he had a reasonable chance of
winning people over to his cause, and thus acquiring the necessary armed support and
-7-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
recognition from the senate necessary to become princeps. In our period, this happened in
particular at the end of the reign of Nero and several times during the year of Civil Wars
which followed it.
Emperors who made themselves unpopular could also be challenged closer to
home. In our period, Gaius Caligula, Galba and Domitian were all assassinated – the first
two by members of the Praetorian Guard, and the last by members of the palace
household. In all three cases, this was because they had made themselves widely
unpopular, especially with the aristocratic elite who had suffered widespread and often
arbitrary executions at their hands. Conversely, the status of the Praetorian Guard as the
only armed soldiery in Rome meant that their support could also make emperors –
Claudius was appointed by them after the assassination of Gaius Caligula (Suetonius,
Claudius 10 and Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.1 = LACTOR 15, C1).
A successful emperor therefore needed to work hard at all times to secure the
support of the four key groups: army, people, aristocracy and provincials. Methods of
doing this included:
 For the army – ensuring regular pay, adding cash bonuses whenever possible
and leading victorious military campaigns (always followed by hand-outs of
booty)
 For the ordinary people – generous provision of games, grain, largesse
(handouts of money) and casual labour (mainly in building projects) in Rome.
See e.g. Claudius’ measures to improve the grain supply after rioting during a
food shortage in Rome – Suetonius, Life of Claudius 18-20.
 For the Roman aristocracy – treating them with respect, ensuring that they felt
included in the work of government, demonstrating popularity with the other
key groups, emphasising legitimacy (usually by stressing their connections
with previous emperors).
 For provincial populations – regular travel, preventing corruption in provincial
administration, establishing good infrastructures where necessary (e.g. roads,
aqueducts), funding building projects in provincial cities.
On the other hand, certain behaviour was bound to cause unpopularity. This
included:
 Appearing to be uninterested in or incapable of leading successful military
campaigns. See e.g. Suetonius, Caligula 46 for Gaius’ abortive attempt to
lead a conquest of Britain, and the humiliation suffered by his soldiers as a
result.
 Extravagant spending, especially on the emperor’s personal pleasures rather
than the needs of the people or the state. See e.g. Suetonius, Nero 31 –for
criticism of Nero’s extravagant ‘Golden House’ (Domus Aurea). The converse
of this was that it was important to show interest in and support for the
passions of the Roman people, the plebs. See 4.4 below.
 Showing disdain for the senate, and in particular encouraging an atmosphere
of informants and treason trials. See e.g. Suetonius, Tiberius 61 for Tiberius’
treason trials. Behaving like a god also attracted criticism, particularly because
it was too reminiscent of eastern-style kings. See e.g. Suetonius, Caligula 22.
-8-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96

Allowing the mistreatment of provincial populations: the rebellions of
Boudicca in Britain (AD 60) and the Jewish population in Judaea (AD 66)
were major contributors to Nero’s downfall.
The empire
During the period covered by this module, the Roman empire reached its greatest
physical extent. Large swathes of new territory had been conquered during the century
before the module begins by Republican generals who were keen to outdo one another in
the military arena in order to secure political power and support in Rome. This behaviour
tailed off once the principate was established, but was still going on to some extent
throughout the period covered by the module. Key campaigns include Claudius’ conquest
of Britain (AD 43, followed by further efforts by Vespasian and Domitian to extend
Roman control there). This means that the Romans still think of themselves as
conquering people during this period, and they certainly still idealise the waging of wars,
many of which were commemorated in triumphs and public monuments at Rome. In
practice, though, the empire’s frontiers are gradually stabilising in this era.
4. THEMATIC NOTES
The thematic focus of this option is the way in which the establishment of the
principate transformed the government and the appearance of the city of Rome and its
place as the centre of the Empire with focus on the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius,
Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
4.1 issues of succession and the establishment of dynasties
Under Augustus the Principate had arisen over time as a balance between the autocracy
of one man, and the powers still invested in the senate. The challenge for the future was
to ensure the even handing over of power to one’s successors. This was not always easy,
as can be seen by different dynasties holding power during the period studied here. They
break down into three distinct groups as follows:
The Julio-Claudian emperors (Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius and Nero).
These emperors were all related in some way or other to the first emperor, Augustus –
this was the basis of their legitimacy, and also their popularity (at least until they had
been around long enough to be judged unworthy of his memory!). The family tree was
complex, and the relationships therefore rather convoluted: Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson; Gaius Caligula was his great-grandson; Claudius was his step-grandson and also his
great-nephew; and Nero was his great-great-grandson.
The Civil War emperors (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian). These are
usurpers who took advantage of Nero’s unpopularity to make a series of rival bids for the
principacy. Galba and Vitellius were provincial governors, and hence had control of large
armies, while Vespasian was a military commander sent to deal with the rebellion which
broke out in Judaea in AD 66. These three thus all used their armies to support their bids
for power. The odd one out is Otho, a senatorial candidate appointed after Galba had
been murdered by the Praetorian Guard. However, he had no real support amongst the
army, so did not last long when Vitellius turned up in Rome with troops behind him.
The Flavian dynasty (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian). This group consists of the
last of the Civil War emperors (Vespasian), and his two sons: the elder, but short-lived
-9-
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Titus and his younger brother Domitian. Vespasian held onto power where his rivals had
failed essentially by doing a better job than they had at securing the favour of all the
important groups (people, army, provincials, aristocracy) when he came to power. It also
helped that he had two sons who were already old enough to be put forward into political
life straight away. This meant that Vespasian could present himself as a guarantor of
stability, since his two sons would be the obvious legitimate heirs to power after his
death, so there would be no need for civil wars to determine who would become emperor
after him. The Flavian dynasty came to an end when Domitian proved himself a tyrant
and was assassinated.
Some key things to focus on in the study of the succession:
 Uncertainty over whether the Principate would survive the death of Augustus – he
had taken precautions for the succession (though the lost of his grandsons Gaius
and Lucius Caesar and his son-in-law Agrippa forced him [rather reluctantly,
according to the sources] to choose his step-son Tiberius) but Tacitus’ account of
the transfer of power suggests the possibility that the Republic could have been
restored (Tac. Ann 1.11-13).
 Role of the Army and/or Praetorian Guard – eg accession of Claudius, said to
have been hiding behind a curtain by a member of the Praetorian Guard after the
assassination of Gaius. (Suet. Claud 10; Cassius Dio, Roman History 60.1 =
LACTOR 15, C1); the various routes through which the AD 69 emperors came to
power.
 Court intrigues around the succession – Agrippina securing favour for Nero,
removal of rivals (eg Nero and Britannicus) – lots of juicy gossip in the sourcs
about this, which could be used to think about reliability and where our authors
draw their material from.
 means by which emperors fall from power. Apart from death by natural causes, in
our period Gaius was assassinated by members of the Praetorian Guard (Cassius
Dio, Roman History 59.29-30 = LACTOR 15, B23), Nero committed suicide after
the senate declared him a public enemy (Suet. Nero 49 also LACTOR 15, D8) and
Domitian was killed in a palace intrigue (Suet, Dom 17). It is worth considering
the different responses to imperial deaths among different sections of the
community – eg according to Suetonius (Dom 23) while the plebs were
indifferent about the murder of Domitian, he was greatly mourned by the army bu
the senate were delighted.
4.2 The Imperial Cult
In his (lost) biography, Augustus expressed his delight at the appearance of the comet at
his games in honour of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar being taken by the common
people as a sign of Julius Caesar’s deification (Pliny, NH 2.94 = LACTOR H3).
From shortly after, and throughout his reign, his official title includes the phrase
DIVI FILIUS – ‘Son of the Deified’ (e.g LACTOR H10, H18, H37, H44, J24).
In addition he makes himself a member of all the main priesthoods, including
some which he revived (RG 7.3 = LACTOR A7.3, and L1 for symbols on a coin).
- 10 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
The poets refer to him as a present and future god, even from his time as triumvir
(Virgil, Ecl. 1.6 = LACTOR G1.6; Horace, Odes 1.2.41-52 = LACTOR G21; Ovid, Fasti
4.949-954 = LACTOR H31).
Prayers and sacrifices were made at altars built which were strongly associated
with Augustus: to his divinity (at Rome - LACTOR C10, at Narbonne in Gaul - L17, at
Tarraco in Spain - L18, and at Lugdunum (Lyons) and Cahors in Gaul, the latter with
attendant priests of Augustus - M19, M20, M21).
Divinities were established based around his name: Pax Augusta – Augustan
Peace (- the famous altar - LACTOR, pages 232-4); Concordia Augusta – Augustan
Concord (a temple in the forum, rededicated in AD 10 – LACTOR, pages 244-5).
His genius (roughly ‘divine spirit’) was worshipped at Rome (LACTOR L12,
L13).
TIBERIUS
Tiberius, it is very clear, was personally disinclined to see any expansion of emperorworship. For his attitude, Suetonius, Tiberius 26.1 states quite categorically that he
refused decrees allowing temples, flamines, sacerdotes for himself; and only allowed
statues and portrait-bust of himself to be set up with explicit permission; and then only as
part of the decoration of the temple, not among statues of the gods. Tacitus, Annals 4.378 in the context of Tiberius refusing permission in AD 25 for Further Spain to build a
shrine to Tiberius and Augusta. Tacitus gives Tiberius a speech in which he apologises
for allowing the communities of Asia Minor to start a temple to Tiberius, Augusta, and
the Senate in AD 23 (Tacitus, Annals 4.15.3 and 4.55-6 – Smyrna chosen as the site), and
insists that he is mortal and content with mortal honours. Tacitus goes on to assert that
after this speech, Tiberius continued to reject worship, even in private conversations.
[Tacitus rounds off this section in typically cynical fashion with the statement that many
condemned this attitude as the sign of degeneracy. (But for Martin & Woodman, Tacitus
Annals Book IV it is instead ‘typical of T and especially of his treatment of an emperor
for whom he cannot conceal his reluctant admiration’ page 187 (!))
Several decrees by Tiberius have been preserved. In the first, [EJ 102 = SEG 11.923 =
LACTOR 8.3] the people of Glytheion in Laconia (near Sparta) inscribed a very lengthy
letter which they sent to Tiberius (the start of the letter has been lost) together with
Tiberius’ reply. Their local council had decided in great detail about an annual festival at
the theatre, lasting six days in honour of the imperial family. Performances on each of the
six days would honour Augustus, Tiberius, Julia Augusta, Germanicus, Drusus and the
governor of Achaea. A procession to the temple of Augustus would be accompanied by
‘sacrifice of a bull for the safety of our rulers and gods and for the perpetuity of their
rule’.
Tiberius’ reply acknowledges the honours for Augustus, but says that ‘I myself am
satisfied with more moderate honours suitable for men.’
- 11 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
The sorts of honours paid to Augustus can be seen from an inscription of AD 18 from
Bracciano (Forum Clodii in Etruria, N. Italy) – EJ 101 = ILS 154 = LACTOR 8.4. This
shows that there had been an altar to the numen of Augustus, to which a shrine and statues
(the Caesars and Augusta) are to be added. The festivals are as follows:
Two sacrificial animals on Augustus’ birthday and the previous day.
A bull to be sacrificed on Tiberius’ birthday, with a public banquet (to be
sponsored in perpetuity by a named local bigwig – Q. Cascellius Labeo)
Games for five days from August 15
Cakes and sweet wine distributed to the women from the Temple of the Good
Goddess (Dea Dia)
A similar distribution to mark the initial dedication of the statues, promised for all
time on the anniversary, namely 10 March, the day on which Tiberius was made pontifex
maximus.
It should be noted that these rites are similar to those which we assume were paid by
most Roman families at the tombs of their family members on notable anniversaries. (The
Forum Clodii inscription invites the genii of Augustus and Tiberius with wine and
incense to share the festival, just as wine was poured as an offering to the dead).
What Tiberius thought is not recorded in this instance. The inscriptions actual purpose is
to celebrate and commemorate the piety and generosity of the town council and
especially the generosity of Cascellius.
In the Greek East, either following the precedent set by Augustus (itself modelled on that
set by Hellenistic Kings), or because several cities in the Greek East were technically free
cities, Tiberius allowed himself to be worshipped as a god in his lifetime. A good
example of this comes from an inscription found in Cyprus – EJ 134 = OGIS 583 =
LACTOR 8.5. This stone pedestal presumably originally held a statue of Adrastus who,
the inscription tells us, set up, at his own expense, a temple and statue of Tiberius, and
who is modestly described as a ‘friend of Caesar’, a patriot and model of all virtue, a
gymnasiarch - an important local magistrate, together with his son who was ‘boys’
gymnasiarch’ – a title presumably rather pretentiously modelled on princeps iuventutis.
Adrastus’ dedication also made him hereditary priest of Tiberius for the temple.
CALIGULA
Barrett, Caligula – The Corruption of Power chapter 9 gives a good summary of the
situation before Caligula (though aimed at mitigating his actions) before moving on to
Caligula himself.
We need to be especially careful here in evaluating Caligula’s actions from the available
sources. As well as the general points already made about the too-easy distinction
between good and bad emperors, and the upper-class bias of literary sources, the sources
are particularly susceptible to bias in the case of Caligula. Firstly Tacitus, whose
cynicism and discernment might have led him to eschew the simplistic mad/hybristic
- 12 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
view of Caligula, is lacking because of the complete loss of Annals 7-9. In its place we
have the fascinatingly detailed account of the assassination of Caligula given by Josephus
(see T.P. Wiseman, Death of an Emperor (Exeter UP, 1991) including Appendix 2 for the
convincing case that Jospehus’ main narrative source was the senatorial historian,
Cluvius Rufus, an eyewitness of the events). But this is Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities
19.1-114 1 and the introduction to this digression says ‘[19.1] Gaius’ madness was now
an offence to god and man. He showed it not only in his sacrilegious conduct towards the
Jews in Jerusalem and all the surrounding territory, but also …’ referring to his notorious
plan to convert the Temple in Jerusalem to his own worship, previously explained by
Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.257-309 which attributes Gaius’ death to God’s (i.e.
Jahweh’s) providence (306-309).
Also preserved is another literary source from an Alexandrian Jew. Philo’s Legatio ad
Gaium – Embassy to Gaius is an account of the delegation sent by the Jews of Alexandria
, and led by the aged Philo in AD 39/40. Philo, already an old man at the time of his
embassy, must have written up his account shortly after Gaius’ death. The embassy went
to complain about maltreatment of the Jews of Alexandria by the Greeks, though was in
part ‘overtaken by events’ in news of Gaius wishing to be worshipped at the Temple in
Jerusalem.
After an introduction on the providence of God (1-7), Philo describes the initial optimism
surrounding Gaius’ accession (8-21) dissipated after the murders of Gemellus, Silanus
and Macro (22-77). A long and rhetorical section then describes Gaius likening himself to
various demigods (78-92) and gods (93-113). Philo then presents the Alexandrian Greeks
as using Gaius’ dislike of Jewish religion to attack the Jews in Alexandria (114-139, 162173), making clear that the Jews had previously been content with Roman rule (140-161).
The actual embassy struggles to get a hearing (174-185), having to follow Gaius to the
Bay of Naples, where news comes of Gaius’ statue in the Jerusalem temple. Philo
digresses to describe Gaius’ decree and the reaction, including the sympathetic response
to the Jews of the governor, Petronius (189-260). Agrippa, friend of the imperial family is
then described writing in protest to Gaius, to some effect (261-329).
Finally the distinctly dismissive treatment of the embassy is described (349-373 end).
Gaius clearly did make suggestions connected with his worship that were deeply
offensive to Jews. Given his close acquaintance with Agrippa, it is hard to imagine that
Gaius was ignorant that formulas perfectly acceptable to all other nations in the empire
might have provoked outrage from Jews (compare Augustus’ joke about Herod the Great
not eating pork – LACTOR 17, J16). Quite possibly he was simply showing his authority.
1
(full translation forthcoming in LACTOR 19 (Sept 2010?) web translations at Perseus
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/) and at
(http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant19.html print a translation which
manages consistently to mis-spell the names of both Gaius (Caius!) and his main assassin
Chaerea (Cherea!))
- 13 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Death and deification of Drusilla
Drusilla was the first Roman woman to be deified, though a precedent of sorts had been
set by Livia/Augusta who had been worshipped while alive alongside Tiberius and the
Senate in Asia Minor and whose deification had been suggested by the senate. Tiberius’
rejection, as reported by Tacitus Annals 5.2 was not on the grounds of gender but of her
personal wishes. What makes Drusilla’s case more striking is that she, unlike
Livia/Augusta or Antonia Augusta, was of no political significance whatsoever. She was
deified simply for being the emperor’s sister. Her deification was decreed on 23 Sept, AD
38 which was also the date of official celebrations to mark Augustus’ birthday. (Suet.
Cal. 24.2, Dio 59.11.2-4 = LACTOR 15, page 71). Her ascent to heaven was ‘witnessed’
(Dio 59.11.4: Sen, Apocol. 1.2)
Gaius’ divine pretensions – Dio 59.26.5-27.1 – elaborating on Suetonius, Caligula 52,
though almost all the charges here are essentially concerned with dressing-up as gods
(compare Augustus’ notorious ‘Feast of the Divine Twelve’ – Suet. Aug. 70, and see
Suet. Cal. 52 for the simple fact of dressing-up)
‘Gaius gave orders that a sacred precinct should be consecrated to him in the province of
Asia at Miletus. He said that he had chosen this city because Artemis had already taken
over Ephesus, Augustus Pergamum and Tiberius Smyrna. But the real reason was that he
wanted to take over all for himself the large and exceedingly beautiful temple that the
Milesians were at that time building in honour of Apollo.’ Dio 59.18.1
‘among his other projects were … the completion of Didymaean Apollo’s temple at
Ephesus … (Suet. Cal. 21)
Smallwood 127 = Sherk 43
[Imperator Gaius Ca]esar Germanicus, son [of Germanicus] god Augustus. Those who
were first to be his temple-builders, erected his statue at their own expense when Gnaeus
Vergilius Capito was high priest of the Temple of Gaius Caesar at Miletos for the first
time, and for the third time in Asia, and Tiberius Iulius Menogenes, son of Demetrios the
law-giver, was high priest for the second time, and when Protomachos, son of Glycon
from Iulia was chief-temple-builder, sebastoneos, and speaker in honour of the emperor.
[There follows a list of named individuals from Iulia, Miletos, Pergamon,
Antioch, Cyzicus, Apamea, Laodicea, Caesarea, Adramyttion, Philomelion,
Halicarnassus, Smyrna, Sardis.]
These are the emperor-lovers whose names have been written in an order
determined by lot.
Iulia is the Roman name for Parium on the Sea of Marmara.
In contrast to Dio’s account, the inscription implies a picture of the cities of Asia Minor
competing with themselves to honour Gaius, each district in the province insisting on
sending a ‘temple-builder’ from the district centres, and even having to decide the order
- 14 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
of names and towns by lot. This fits the debate on setting up a temple to honour Tiberius
(or actually, Tiberius, Livia and the Senate), won by Smyrna (Tac. Ann. 4.15, 4.55-56).
The question of Caligula association of himself with the gods through topography is
much more complex. Caligula is said to have encircled the whole city with his palaces
(Pliny NH 36.111). More specifically, Suetonius describes him ‘converting the temple of
Castor and Pollux (Graves in Penguin mis-translates aedes as shrine. In fact aedes is used
as frequently as templum for full-scale temples, such as that of Castor and Pollux, still
partly to be seen today) into the vestibule of his palace. (Suet. Cal. 22.2) and sharing
Jupiter’s home on the Capitol (i.e. the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus)
by building a bridge from palatine to Capitoline and starting to build a new house within
the Capitol precincts - (Suet. Cal. 22.4). Dio (59.28.2-5) agrees, adding that he created an
entrance to the palace right through the middle of the statues, saying later that Claudius
gave their temple back to the Dioscuri (Dio 60.6.8). Archaeology supports, or perhaps
explains, the Castor and Pollux episode: the corner of the Palatine Hill overlooks the
temple. Massive building work by Domitian seems to overlie the remains of a massive
atrium building, with some evidence pointing to Caligula (a fragmentary inscription
possibly naming the ‘SON OF GERMANICUS’) and none ruling out this period. Thus
his new palace may have been built right behind the temple, which could, perhaps
jokingly, have been said to form its vestibule, exactly as Augustus’ Temple of Apollo
formed a public space right in front of his house (venue for the Carmen Saeculare and
embassies (LACTOR 17 L28, M14). T.P. Wiseman suggests that a slope up the Palatine
near the temple could have been intended as the new palace entrance, giving rise to the
vestibule idea. ‘Reading the City: History, Poetry and the Topography of Rome’, JACT 2
(1987).
The bridge to the Capitol is another matter, since it would have had to have been
250m long and 30m high (London’s ‘Wobbly’ Millenium Footbridge is about 330m long,
but only 12m above the river).
[Smallwood 401 = SIG3, 798]
When Gaius Caesar was chief magistrate (hipparch), on the ninth day of Thargelion, on
the proposal of all the magistrates, Aeolus, son of Aeolus of the Oinops tribe, the
secretary of the council, the middle one held under Menophon, put the motion:
The new Sun-god, Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was willing that the
bodyguards of the empire, the kings, should join in lighting up with their own rays the
greatness of his immortality so that it might be even more hallowed. Yet the kings, even
though their sole aim is giving thanks to such a god, cannot find any means of equally
returning the good deeds he has done. The sons of Cotys, Rhoemetalces, Polemon and
Cotys, who were brought up alongside him as his friends, he has restored to the kingdoms
due to them from their fathers and ancestors. These kings, enjoying the unstinting gift of
immortal favour, are in this respect greater than their forbears: for their forbears
succeeded their fathers, but they have become kings by the favour of Gaius Caesar to rule
together with gods such as he. And the favours of the gods are as far different from
human succession as the sun is from darkness or eternal from mortal nature.
- 15 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
So, having become greater than the great and more awe-inspiring than the
brilliant, Rhoemetalces and Polemon have come to our city to join as priests and
worshippers with their mother in celebrating the games of the new goddess Aphrodite
Drusilla. They have come to a land which is not merely friendly, but actually their
fatherland, in that their mother Tryphaena, a daughter of kings and mother of kings,
considers this her fatherland, having set up here her hearth and home, her prosperity in
life, feeling blessed in the unoffending kingdoms of her children. And the people,
overjoyed at their visit, with great eagerness instructed the magistrates to draw up for
them an official welcome through which they could give thanks, in their presence, to their
mother, Tryphaena for the benefactions she has undertaken for this city, and make clear
the esteem in which she is publicly held.
It was resolved by the people that the kings Rhoemetalces, Polemon and Cotys,
and their mother Tryphaena should be praised, and that at their entrance the priests and
priestesses, having opened the sacred precincts and adorned the statues of the gods,
should pray for the eternal preservation of Gaius Caesar and the well-being of the kings.
And that all the people of Cyzicus, demonstrating their loyalty towards them, should
meet with the magistrates and distinguished officials, then meet and greet the kings and
encourage them to regard the city as their fatherland and the authors of every benefit to it.
And that the leader of young men should bring them to meet the kings, and the person in
charge of education should bring the sons of citizens. This decree reveres the Augustus
and honours the kings.
[Smallwood 401 = SIG3, 798]
Tryphaena is Antonia Tryphaena, a great-granddaughter of Mark Antony, the triumvir, from his second
marriage to Antonia Hybrida. She was part of the network of inter-married Roman client rulers. She was
daughter of the Roman client king of Pontus, Polemon Pythodoros and Pythodorida of Pontus. Her
brothers, Zeno or Artaxias III, crowned by Germanicus as king of Armenia in AD 18 (Tac. Ann. 2.56),
ruled until 35 (Tac. Ann. 6.31) and Polemon (II) of Pontus, (ruled AD 37-62). She married Cotys IV of
Thrace. On his father’s death in AD 13, Augustus had divided the kingdom between Cotys and his uncle
Rhescuporis, but dissatisfied with being given the mountainous part, Rhescuporis killed Cotys. Tiberius put
Rhescuporis on trial and he was condemned. Cotys’ sons were granted his kingdom, (Tac. Ann. 2.64-7) but
remained in Rome as part of the household of Antonia Minor, who being the daughter of Mark Antony was
their kinswoman. Antonia’s household included several other future client kings, some the descendents by
other marriages of her father, Mark Antony (see Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta, 1992, page 25 and notes);
and, of course, two future emperors, Gaius and Claudius.
The inscription from Cyzicus (on the South side of the Sea of Marmara, modern NW Turkey) shows the
high hopes and aspirations of the town in claiming to be the fatherland of client kings brought up with
Gaius. The level of adulation of Gaius is still striking, espeically given that they are not addressing him
directly.
Agrippa I (from childhood until AD 23) (Josephus, AJ 18.143, 164-7)
Antiochus IV of Commagene (Dio 59.24.1 (said to be with Agrippa and Gaius)
Pythodoris II of Thrace (IGRR 4.145)
Tigranes V of Armenia (Jos. AJ 18.139; Tac. Ann 6.40 cf RG 27.2)
Ptolemy of Mauretania ( Suet, Cal. 26.1 – another grandson of Antony, - killed by Gaius;
Dio 51.15.6 (Ptolemy’s descent); Sen, de Tranq 11.12)
- 16 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Other – Braund, Rome and \the Friendly King 1984, 9-21, 165-180)
Parthia (Jos JA 18.103; Suet, Cal 19.2 – Gaius drives chariot with Darius, Parthian
hostage son to assist)
CLAUDIUS
Declines worship
Claudius seems, not surprisingly, to have followed the policies of Augustus and Tiberius.
Excellent evidence of this comes in a letter to the people of Alexandria. This arose from
disputes and violence between Greek and Jewish communities there resulting in
embassies (Philo - mentioned above) being sent to Caligula. On his death, both sides will
have renewed petitions to Claudius. Claudius’ reply has been preserved on a papyrus
copy of a letter: P. Lond 1912 = Smallwood 370 = LACTOR 8.27. Though the
preamble from the Roman official in Alexandria refers to ‘our god Caesar’, Claudius
himself, while accepting various honours – celebration of his birthday, erection of statues
to Claudius and family, clearly rejects worship:
‘The appointment of a high priest to me and the building of temples I decline,
since I do not wish to seem arrogant tomy own generation, and consider that sacrifices
and such honours have been given by men of every age only to gods.’ (tr. LACTOR 8)
Possible Worship in Britain
It is possible that Claudius was celebrated as an god in Britain in his lifetime. Certainly
the Temple of Claudius was one of the targets for Boudicca’s revolt in AD 61 (Tac. Ann.
14.31 and possibly the famous Claudius bronze head of Claudius in the British Museum
see
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/b/bronze_hea
d_of_claudius.aspx). Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis 8.3 refers to a temple in Britain, where
barbarians worship him and pray to him as a god. The dramatic context of the
Apocolocyntosis – immediately after Claudius’ death should imply that it was built in his
lifetime – and it is also more likely that a local should wish to show loyalty to the current
emperor than to one held in dubious honour by his successor (see Suet, Cl. 45). If so,
however, Claudius is simply doing the same as Augustus in Gaul (LACTOR 17, M1820) who had a temple at Lugdunum.
Livia
Claudius did however see to the deification of his grandmother, Livia. A temple to
Tiberius, Augusta and the Senate had been allowed in Smyrna (Asia Minor) in AD 23.
Tacitus gives Tiberius a speech in which he apologises for allowing this (Tacitus, Annals
4.15.3). Soon after her death in AD 29 her deification had been proposed by the Senate,
but denied by Tiberius, apparently stating that that had been her preference (Tac. Ann.
5.2; Suet. Tib. 51.2; Dio 58.2.1). She was deified on 17 Jan, AD 42, the anniversary of
her marriage to Augustus Claudius: Suet. Claud. 11.2, Smallwood, Docs 13 (AFA); Dio
60.5.2; Coins – RIC Claudius 101 – very clear legend ‘DIVA AUGUSTA’ web image at
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/livia_coins.html - bottom coin on page). She was
- 17 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
given a statue in Temple of Augustus. Her deification and the accompanying issue of
coins will have reminded people of Claudius’ very close links to Livia/Augusta and
therefore Augustus. He may have felt the need of this, given that he was the first
princeps, or even likely successor not to have been a member of the Julian clan by blood
or adoption.
Claudius’ deification
This took place soon after his death on 13 Oct AD 54 (Tac. Ann. 12.69). It was useful
for Nero to be divi filius, but also dangerous, since Britannicus was also, so the legend
appears only briefly on his coins (RIC Nero 6,7,10). Even at the eulogy, written by
Seneca, delivered by Nero, references to Claudius’ foresight and wisdom were greeted by
laughter (Tac. Ann. 13.3.2). Soon this was to be the official line, as famously in Seneca’s
Apocolocyntosis, (contrast Seneca’s official eulogy – not preserved – and his cringingly
sycophantic attempts to get his exile revoked (Seneca, Consolation to Polybius 12.3-13.4
). Similarly, the Temple to Claudius on the Caelian hill is started by Agrippina,
abandoned by Nero, and podium reused as nymphaeum (See Claridge, Rome) and
completed by Vespasian (Suet. Claud. 45).
Nero
The standard biography of Nero notes, ‘There is little evidence for the notion that Nero
introduced important innovations in ruler cult.’ (M.T. Griffin, Nero, the end of a dynasty,
1984, towards the start of an excellent section on ‘The Notion of a Divine Monarchy –
pages 215-220). He too rejected excessive honours (Tac. Ann. 13.10, 15.74.3).
Colossus
Nero’s Golden House and the associated colossal statue of himself are sometimes
adduced as evidence of divine aspirations. But the statue, on the contemporary and
eyewitness evidence of Pliny was of Nero, only later converted to Sol.
‘But for sheer size, all statue of this sort have been surpassed in our lifetime by
Zenodorus’ Mercury. He produced this over ten years in the settlement of Averni in Gaul
and was paid 40 million sesterces. Once he had given proof of his skill there, the was
summoned to Rome by Nero where he made the colossus, over 100 feet tall, intended as a
statue of the emperor, but now dedicated to the Sun, after condemnation of that princeps’
crimes. In his studio we used to look with wonder not only at the remarkable clay model,
but also at the frame of withes which formed the first stage of the work. That statue
shows that the art of casting bronze has now died out, since Nero would have been
prepared to meet the expense of silver or gold, though Zenodorus was second to none of
the old masters in casting and engraving bronze.’
[Pliny, NH 34.45-6]
The exact reading of the number (given in Roman feet) in the texts is not certain. Possible figures are 90,
106½, 119, 119½ Roman feet (about 3% shorter than the imperial measurement). Suetonius gives the
height as 120 feet. (Suet. Nero 31). Trajan’s column is 128 Roman feet, and was surmounted by a 16 foot
statue of Trajan. Casting a statue in metal involves making an exact model, covering it with a layer of wax
and another layer of clay. The wax was melted and drained away. Molten metal was poured into the gap
and allowed to set. The outer layer of clay could then be broken off leaving the metal statue.
- 18 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
The appearance of Nero with radiate crown on coinage is more plausible evidence of an
association with divinity, since a passage of Lucan’s contemporary Civil War makes the
connection explicit ‘Civil war shall make divi the equals of gods above. Rome shall
decorate their spirits with thunderbolts and radiis and stars, and in their temples shall
swear by their ghosts.’ (Lucan, BC 7.457-9). The type of crown appears for the first time
on Nero (but not the last – Vespasian and Titus used it, presumably without any
overtones of divinity.
All in all, despite increasingly overblown rhetoric in poetry (Calpurnius Siculus,
Eclogues 1 (if Neronian) and Lucan (Civil War 1.33-60 – unless some sort of parody),
praising the emperor as god (this, of course, equally happened under Augustus, but with
more tact and poetic skill), Nero seems not to have greatly extended imperial cult, though
he did follow the example of Caligula in deifying his baby daughter, Octavia Claudia,
who died aged 4 months, and his second wife, Poppaea. (Octavia - Tac. Ann. 15.23.4;
Poppaea - omitted in Tac’s account of Poppaea’s funeral (Ann. 16.6), ref at Tac. Ann.
16.21.2; and coins - RPC 4846 shows both in temples, with DIVA POPPAEA and DIVA
CLAUDIA (Google image search for Diva Poppaea Nero coin currently brings images
from coin shops).
It is important to note that neither Suetonius nor the surviving parts of Tacitus’ Annals
really complain about Nero usurping divine honours. Having lived through Domitian,
who did in prefacing letters with ‘dominus et deus noster hoc fieri iubet ’ – ‘Our master
and god orders this to be done’ (Suet. Dom 13.2). we would have expected them to, as
Suetonius does for Caligula and Domitian.
Flavians
Vespasian’s attitude was clearly far more down to earth, as suited his image. The very
important and famous lex de imperio Vespasiani (googling brings up a page with
excellent photo and traslation into Korean (I presume!) at
www.korea.ac.kr/~lawlec/rom/2.html) shows his general models to be Augustus,
Tiberius, Claudius. Translations (into English!) in LACTOR 8.55, LACTOR 17, H52.
Note however that Vespasian’s famous dying words ‘vae, puto deus fio’ ‘Oh dear, I
think I am becoming a god’ (Suet. Vesp. 23.4, Dio 66.17.2), usually taken (not least by
Suetonius) as the ultimate expression of V’s humour and good sense) have more recently
been taken as a joke against Vesp, parodying the last words vindictively attributed to
Claudius by Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 4.3 ‘vae me, puto, concacavi me’ ‘Oh dear, I think
I’ve shitted myself’ (Vespasian’s fatal fever apparently included diarrhoea). For this idea
of M. Schmidt in ‘Claudius und Vespasian: eine Interpretation des Wortes “vae, puto,
deus fio” in Chiron 18 (1988) 83-9, see most conveniently Levick, Vespasian 197.
Relevant texts: Suetonius, Aug 52 Tib 26, Domitian 13 ‘dominus et deus’
- 19 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
4.3 Art and Architecture: Creating Imperial Rome
According to Suetonius, Augustus boasted ‘I found Rome built of bricks, I leave
her clothed in marble’ (Aug. 28, also in Dio 56.30). While this was something of an
exaggeration (there were already a number of marble monuments adoring the city, in
addition to the traditional terracotta), it was true that previous Republican buildings and
monuments had been set up piecemeal, commemorating various victories. Augustus’
innovation was to institute a vast programme of building and re-building, both in his own
name and through the encouragement of others, which radically transformed the face of
the city. The importance of this programme is shown by his inclusion of it in the Res
Gestae 19-21. For subsequent emperors too, monumental building projects came to be a
key role of the emperor. Suetonius includes a chapter in each of his biographies detailing
what works were commissioned and it is worth looking at these to compare them (Aug
28-30; Tib 47 ‘No magnificent public works marked his reign’; Claudius 20; Nero 16, 31;
Vespasian 8-9; Domitian 5).
It is important, however, to note that not all state monuments were the direct work
of the emperor. Many (especially triumphal arches) were actually voted as honours to the
emperor by the senate, and thus cannot be described as direct statements of the emperor’s
self-representation, though we assume that the designs and details were to his taste.
Building works took a number of different forms: temples to the gods, victory
arches, imperial fora and buildings for entertainment and leisure (theatres, the Flavian
Amphitheatre, bath buildings) as well as more prosaic amenities for the city such as
aqueducts and harbours. The latter showed the emperor’s concern for the good running of
the city, while others asserted Rome’s place as the capital of a great empire, or helped to
facilitate the public spectacles which were a crucial part of the emperor’s relationship
with his public (further 4.4 below). Building in general could also be seen as a good
thing, because of the provision of employment and spur to trade [discussed by DeLaine in
Coulston and Dodge, 2005], though the extravagant projects ascribed to emperors such as
Gaius and Nero were criticised.
One way to approach the architecture of the city is to look at the different types of
buildings set up by the emperors and the sorts of self-image they reflected of the emperor
and the city. Details can be found in Kleiner 1992 as well as more specialist books (esp
Zanker 1998 and Favro 1996 on Augustus).
Temples:
Augustus’ 82 temples, Suetonius draws attention to Temple of Apollo and
Capitoline Jupiter in addition to Forum of Augustus; Ara Pacis (Altar of Peace) shows
Augustus as primus inter pares, but also as heir to Romulus and Aeneas (cf Forum of
Augustus)
Domitian also Temple Capitoline Jupiter (Capitoline particularly vulnerable to
fires)
Public fora
Additions to the Roman Forum and the creation of new imperial fora (which were based
around Temples to individual gods). This started with Julius Caesar (dedicated to Venus
- 20 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Genetrix and completed by Augustus). Forum of Augustus with temple of Mars Ultor,
stressing Augustus as the heir to Romulus and Aeneas;
Vespasian Forum of Peace with art-works looted by Nero in public display (temples etc
as art- galleries showing spoils of empire),
Forum Transitoria dedicated to Domitian’s patron goddess Minerva, later called Forum of
Nerva (Suet, Dom 5)
Victory Monuments
Augustus: Temple of Apollo and Mars Ultor can both be seen as victory
monuments, also Ara Pacis
Arch of Titus: with frieze showing Triumph over Judaea
Buildings for entertainment and leisure:
Augustus: Theatre of Marcellus
Nero’s baths (in association with Greek style Neronia games: Suetonius Nero 12;
Tacitus, Annals 14.20, 47)
Flavian amphitheatre ‘Colosseum’ (nickname after it location near the colossal
statue of Helios previous part of Nero’s Domus Aurea) – part of the Flavian reclaiming of
the city for the people (Cf Forum of Peace)
Domitian: stadium (current Piazza Navona) for his Greek-style Capitoline games
Palaces:
Augustus’ house on the Palatine is modest, but aggrandised by its proximity to
Temple of Apollo (and worth comparing Suetonius Aug 72 with Ovid, Met 1.168-76
which implicitly links Augustus’ house on the Palatine to the palace of Jupiter).
Later emperors expand the palace – Gaius said to have converted the temple of
Castor in the forum into a vestibule (for which there is now some archaeological
evidence). Nero builds Domus Transitoria then lavish Domus Aurea, Domitian an
extensive palace on the Palatine.
Bad building:
Nero’s Domus Aurea – see accounts in Tacitus Annals 15.42 and Suetonius, Nero
31, 39. Cf extravagant projects of Gaius eg bridge at Baiae: Dio 59.17 = LACTOR 15,
B13.
4.4 Panem et Circenses: the relations of the emperors with the senators, equestrians
and ordinary people at Rome
The Principate was a balancing act. Although supreme power lay with the
emperor, many mechanisms of republican government still existed. The senate continued
to meet regularly and to issue Senatus Consulta; the cursus honorum of the senatorial and
equestrian orders continued. Different emperors responded to the challenges of relating to
the various sections of Roman society differently, and our literary sources are coloured
by the fact that they are primarily the views of the senatorial upper classes.
- 21 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
The Senate:
Background:
Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 94-98, 101-104 and 107-110.
In our period, senators were the wealthy educated male elite of the empire. In AD
14, most senators were drawn from either long-established Roman families or the Italian
nobility. They had to own property in excess of 1,000,000 sesterces, and membership of
the senate was hereditary – in other words, the sons of senators were expected to become
senators themselves, but others were debarred.
This system was not effective at maintaining numbers in the senate, though, as the
senatorial families did not reproduce reliably enough to fill all gaps left by deaths or
retirements. So two other means created to allow people to enter order. 1) Someone who
did not belong to the senatorial order given right to wear latus clavus (thick purple stripe
denoting senatorial status) by the emperor, which then gave them right to stand for
magistracies and enter senate. 2) Adlection: practice of emperor nominating someone
who has won his favour to automatic membership of senate, without them needing to
hold a magistracy first. These methods might be used to bring members of the equestrian
order (see below) into the senate, and, increasingly, to bring wealthy provincials into the
senate.
Senators then had to climb a ‘career ladder’ known as the cursus honorum (‘path
of honour), which consisted of a series of magistracies that could only be held when
previous steps on the ladder had been completed. The stages were as follows:
- 22 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Post
Responsibilities
Pre-requisites
Age
Number of officerqualification
holders p.a.
Vigintivir
Junior magistrates Must be sons of 18
20
responsible
for senators
minting
coins,
executing
criminals, judging
legal cases and
overseeing care of
streets
Military
One
of
six Optional
Usually early 6 per legion (of
tribune
assistants to the follow-up
to 20s
which there were
commander of a vigintivirate
normally 28).
legion
Quaestor
Treasurer – often Follow-up
to 24
20
served
in vigintivirate.
provinces
Candidate
enters
senate
proper at this
point
Aedile
In charge of city Optional
After
6
maintenance,
follow-up
to quaestorship
markets
and quaestorship
games in Rome
Tribune of In the Republic, a Optional
After
10
the plebs
defender of the follow-up
to quaestorship
ordinary people; quaestorship
by now largely
ceremonial post
whose
powers
had passed to the
emperor
Praetor
Mainly
Must
have 29
12 under Tiberius;
responsible
for completed
17 or 18 by time of
the administration quaestorship;
Trajan
of justice
ideally
also
aedileship
/
tribunate
Consul
Chief magistrates Must
have 42
2 at any one time,
of Rome in the completed
but 4 per annum
Republic;
now praetorship
(i.e. two pairs)
second only to the
under
Tiberius,
emperor
rising to 8 or 10 by
the end of the first
century AD.
- 23 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
For a well-documented example of an actual senatorial career, see LACTOR 8
no. 96 (an honorific inscription commemorating Pliny the Younger). This includes
almost all of the posts listed above, along with many other optional offices such as
curator of the Tiber and the city sewers which became available once a senator had
reached praetorian or consular rank. As with many such inscriptions, the offices are listed
in reverse order of how important they were considered to be – i.e. the consulship comes
first, because this was still considered the peak of a senatorial career, while the last office
listed (before the contents of Pliny’s will) is a minor legal administrative position.
In Rome, the senate met once a fortnight, held debates and proposed legislation.
Under the emperors, though, the issues they dealt with tended to be those which were
unlikely to be controversial: e.g. the construction of roads, aqueducts, religious matters.
More important issues, such as taxation, foreign relations, military policy, etc. were now
considered chiefly by the imperial court instead – i.e. the emperor, his household and a
select group of senators. ‘Good’ emperors made a point of showing interest in the debate
and opinions of senators; ‘bad’ emperors did not. The senate also acted as a criminal
court for cases of corruption and adultery committed by people within their own social
class and as governors of provinces (for which see Teachers’ notes Ruling the Roman
Empire).
The emperor’s relationship with the senate centred on two main areas: respect for
their privileges and powers, and the use of the senate as a court for trials of its members,
particularly maiestas (treason) trials.
Respect/Freedom of Speech: This is a key theme in the works of Suetonius and Tacitus
and reflects the difficulties emperors after Augustus had in defining the different roles of
emperor and senate. Tiberius, in particular, is shown initially as respecting the senate and
even giving it additional powers by transferring the right to hold elections, but also as
frustrated by the senate’s obsequious behaviour and unwillingness to take any decisions:
Suet, Tib 28-32 describes Tiberius’ respect for the senate while Tacitus, Annals 3.56-7
shows him asking for Drusus to be given tribunician powers, to which the senate
responded with excessive honours. Tiberius is shown as frustrated with his attempts to
give power to the senate, calling them ‘men fit only to be slaves’. Suetonius too traces
later emperor’s relationships with the senate – Claudius’ modesty (Claud 12), contrasting
with Gaius’ denigration (see Gaius 55 on the rumour he planned to award his favourite
horse a consulship).
Maiestas: A key theme in Tacitus’ account of Tiberius is the matter of the maiestas trials
which were held in the senate. These involved accusations of treason against the emperor,
and could be brought by individual prosecutors. Although Tiberius is initially shown
resisting more spurious accusations (Suet Tib 28, Tac, Ann 3.49-51) both Tacitus and
Suetonius suggest that these trials got increasingly prevalent under Tiberius and were
used as an excuse to remove prominent individuals. See Suet Tib 58 which focuses on
cases where ill-treatment of images of Augustus could be used as an accusation of
treason. For Tacitus, the period after the downfall of the emperor’s former right-handman, Sejanus, in AD 32, marked the start of a series of such trials: Tacitus, Annals 6.7f.
- 24 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Tacitus’ attitude to these trials must be considered in the light of his own experiences
under the emperor Domitian, whose use of treason trials and accusers (delatores) to
attack leading senators is described later as a reign of terror (e.g Suetonius, Domitian 1011, see Pliny, Letters 8.14 on the unwilling complicity of senators like him and Tacitus at
the time). The effect of these trials was to remove the senate’s freedom of speech in fear
at possible reprisals. See esp the senate’s reactions to the death of Agrippina under Nero
as an example of this: Tacitus, Annals 14.12 describes the honours granted to Nero in the
aftermath of his mother’s murder. While Tacitus notes that some showed opposition, such
as Thrasea Paetus, he suggests that this did no good and only brought extra danger to the
senator himself.
Equestrians in government and administration
Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 172-4.
The equestrian order (ordo equester) is very much part of the ruling elite of the
empire, but is distinct from and slightly less prestigious than the senatorial order. It has
its roots in the Republic, when equestrians were essentially wealthy citizens who were
not politically active. They were not members of the senate, and tended to involve
themselves in trade and tax collection instead. They were also closely involved in the
army – initially they had literally been ‘knights’ in the sense of cavalry, but by the late
Republic were serving instead as army officers. However, from the Augustan period
onwards, their role in both military and civilian administration increased.
Equestrians were distinguished from the senatorial order partly by wealth – the
property qualification to be a senator was 400,000 sestertii, as compared to 1 million for
a senator. Even if they acquired the necessary wealth, they could not enter the senatorial
order without special dispensation from the emperor, as senatorial status was hereditary –
i.e. you could only become a senator if your father had been one. Entry into the
equestrian order was much more open, though – all that was needed was the 400,000
sestertii and ‘good morals’, i.e. adherence to the Roman state and its values. This meant
that members of local civic elites in Italy and the provinces could readily achieve
equestrian status. Membership carried with it visible privileges (as for the senatorial
order) – e.g. the angustus clavus (narrow purple stripe on the tunic and toga) and seats in
the front rows in the theatre and amphitheatre. In the period covered by this module, all
emperors came from the senatorial order – so another important distinction between
senators and equestrians is that senators could potentially set themselves up as rivals to
the reigning emperors, but equestrians could not.
As for senators, there was a distinct career ladder for equestrians to climb –
generally they tended to hold procuratorships first and then move on prefectures, but
individuals varied, with plenty clearly choosing to specialise in military posts only.
Typical careers are preserved by honorific and funerary inscriptions – examples can be
seen at LACTOR 8, nos. 21-23 (Tiberian period), 37 (Nero’s Praetorian Prefect, Burrus)
70 (Flavian period) and 82-83 (Trajanic period).
Reasons for the increasing use of equestrians during the imperial period are
debated. Some argue that emperors preferred to entrust sensitive positions (e.g. the
command of the Praetorian Guard or the governorship of Egypt (which supplied much of
Rome’s grain)), to them because senators appointed to these positions might potentially
use them as leverage in order to mount a challenge to the emperor’s power. But this isn’t
- 25 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
entirely consistent – senators also commanded the legions and governed most of the
provinces, and could (and did) usurp power on the basis of the military control which this
gave them. The alternative argument is that equestrians were used because the emperors
simply needed a) the political support of the order and b) their military and financial
experience to help them in the vast task of governing the empire.
In terms of their relationship with, and attitude towards the emperor, euqites
should probably be considered alongside senators. Like them, equites could be the
defendants in maiestas trials (eg Clutorius Priscus, executed for a poem celebrating
Drusus’ death in AD 22; Tac Ann 3.49). The two groups shared similar values and could
be united by ties of friendship and Patronage (eg that between Suetonius and Pliny the
Younger, Letters 10.94-5). As with the senatorial class, emperors took pains to ensure the
privileges of the equestrian class were respected, such as the right to good seats in the
theatre, under the Lex Julia Theatricalis, while also distinguishing between the two status
groups in terms of dress and some legal privileges.
Imperial freedmen in government and administration
Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 87-92.
Despite the availability of senators and equestrians to help with the running of the
empire, most emperors also made use of more personal assistants, including members of
their family and their own slaves and freedmen. This seems to have been largely because
these people’s support was simply necessary due to the scale of the task, but some
emperors also appear to have used freedmen for official business because their
relationship with the senate was weak and they could trust their freedmen not to try to
undermine or oppose them. Since the authors of our sources are usually male senators
and equestrians, they are generally hostile towards the political role played by freedmen
and / or female relatives, and tend to emphasise their use as a characteristic of ‘bad’
emperors.
We know that Augustus, the first emperor, made use of slaves and freedmen in his
administration. He left names of those familiar with the distribution of the armies and
financial resources at his death (see Suetonius, Augustus 101.4 – the very last sentence of
this Life), and one freedman named Gaius Julius Gelos was honoured by the civic council
of the Italian city of Veii for the help which he had given them (see LACTOR 8 no. 24).
But Claudius, who had been raised to power by the Praetorian Guard against the will of
the senate, is the classic example of really widespread use of freedmen. An overview of
his use of them, with typical elite hostility, is at Suetonius Claudius 28-29 (where it is
grouped with the influence his wives had over him: ‘Claudius fell so deeply under the
influence of these freedmen and wives that he seemed to be their servant rather than their
emperor’.). Pliny the Younger, Letters 7.29 and 8.6 also reports, again with great
hostility, on the tombstone of one of Claudius’ most prominent freedmen, Pallas, and the
honours and privileges which he had received.
Typical roles played by freedmen included handling the emperor’s
correspondence, managing his archives, writing speeches, and managing his finances.
However, they also occur in other roles. Nero caused offence in the aftermath of
Boudicca’s revolt in Britain by sending a freedman, Polyclitus, to deal with
disagreements between the provincial governor who had defeated her, Suetonius
- 26 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Paulinus, and his recently-appointed procurator, Julius Classicianus (Tacitus Annals
14.38-9).
The People (plebs)
Useful reading on this topic: Goodman 1997: 93-4, 173-5.
Once the imperial family, senators and equestrians have been separated out, the
rest of the population of Rome consisted of the plebs, foreigners and slaves. The plebs
comprised a number of different sub-groups: poor but free-born Romans, middle-class
Romans beneath the property qualification for the equestrian rank and freedmen (liberti)
who became Roman citizens upon manumission.
While in Republican times the plebs had held considerable political power, by the
time of the empire most of their constitutional power had been removed: while they
ratified the selection of magistrates or the passing of some laws, they had little power to
actually choose these. They were, however, still a powerful force with the potential to
cause disruption through riots and anonymous slogans.
Juvenal’s comment in Satire 10.81 that ‘those who once gave power, rods of
office, legions, everything, now restrain themselves and hope anxiously for two things
only, bread and circuses (panem et circenses)’ is much quoted and refers to the
distribution of free grain and to public entertainments. While Juvenal suggests that the
food and entertainments served to replace the mob’s desire for political power, they can
also be seen as the one place where that power did continue to be exerted: Annals 6.13
tells of demands made to the emperor Tiberius in the theatre to control the price of corn,
which almost led to riots. On a more subtle level, lines spoken during theatrical
performances could be taken to refer to current political figures or events, as when a line
spoken by an actor playing a eunuch priest of Cybele was taken to allude to Augustus’
supposed effeminacy (Suet Aug 68).
The emperor was ultimately held responsible for ensuring the adequate provision
of grain. In addition to the distribution of free grain to free male Roman citizens, he was
also held responsible for ensuring a sufficient supply of grain to buy at a reasonable price.
In addition to the disturbances under Tiberius, see also Suetonius, Aug 42; Nero 45
(though Tacitus, Annals 15. 39 says Nero cut the price of corn as relief to those affected
in the Great fire at Rome in AD 64). Claudius’s construction of a new harbour at Ostia
(Suet, Claud. 20; Dio 60.1101-3 = LACTOR 15, C7) should also be seen in the light of
the need to ensure grain supplies (see also Suet, Claud. 18). [For more on the
organisation of the food supply of Rome see Mattingley and Aldrete in Coulston and
Dodge 2005].
The provision of magnificent public entertainments was no less important. Indeed
the games appear in historical and biographical writings as a central area for observation
of the emperor’s conduct. It was essential that an emperor be seen at the games: for his
people, it provided evidence that he shared their pleasures, kept him in touch with their
lives and provided a place where requests could be made of him. For the historians, the
emperor’s behaviour in the circus or arena was indicative of his overall nature as a ruler.
Thus Tiberius’ disinterest in public entertainments (Suet. Tib. 47) echoes his essentially
reclusive nature while the over-enthusiasm of Nero and Caligula could be seen as
- 27 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
symptomatic of their love of excess (Suet. Gaius 54; Nero 11-12, 20-25). Only a ‘good’
emperor, such as Augustus, could really get it right.
It seems clear that emperors were aware of the importance of achieving the
correct balance: Suetonius (Aug. 45) tells us that Augustus always watched the games
intently to avoid the example of Julius Caesar, who had earned hostility by spending the
time reading letters or petitions, while Pliny (Panegyric 51.5) praises the emperor Trajan
for taking down the private box in which Domitian had sat to watch circus games, thus
making himself more accessible to the people. The decision to build an amphitheatre on
the site of Nero’s Domus Aurea was a deliberate act of policy by Vespasian, highlighting
the contrast between the two reigns. As with literary accounts of the building
programmes of the emperors (above 4.3) it is important to note that ‘bad’ emperors could
be criticised for actions which in other contexts may have been applauded. The key
example here is Nero whose love of theatre and chariot racing is attacked as excessive,
even though it may have been popular with the crowd. [For further discussion, esp of
buildings associated with the games, see Coleman in Coulston and Dodge 2005].
4.5 The administration of the city of Rome
During the Republican period much of the administration of the city was down to the
aediles, who took responsibility for the corn supply, maintaining buildings, and other
aspects of urban administration. Under Augustus civic administration was tightened up
(see Suet. Aug 3). The city was divided into fourteen regiones, each one headed by a
praetor, a tribune of the plebs or an aedile; each region contained a number of vici
(neighbourhoods) each one with four vicomagistri, who had religious and administrative
roles. Augustus also established curatores aquarum, to oversee water supply, and
praefectus annonae to take charge of city’s food supply, both reporting directly to
emperor. Tiberius seems to have been the emperor who established a commission to
oversee the Tiber, trying to prevent floods. Claudius (Suet, Claud 25) is credited with
introducing fire brigades at Ostia and Puteoli, both important ports serving Rome.
Some of the major challenges for those running Rome were as follows:
 securing a sufficient supply of food and water (ie grain and aqueducts) – see 4.4
above on grain supply
 maintaining buildings and in particular warding against the dangers of fire and
floods
 maintaining public order
Fire: Rome suffered repeatedly from fires which necessitated regular rebuilding and
repairs (eg Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, rebuilt by both Augustus and Domitian). A
vivid view of life in the city is provided by Juvenal Satire 3 which paints the city as full
of buildings prone to collapse and fire. The most devastating occurred under Nero in AD
64 – according to Tacitus only 4 of Rome’s 14 districts were left unscathed (Annals
15.40). While Nero’s construction of the Domus Aurea after the fire is attacked by
Suetonius and Tacitus, he also took some actions to protect against future fires,
- 28 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
rebuilding the city with fireproof stone and wider streets, and organising better provision
of water and fire-fighting equipment (Tac, Annals 15.43)
Public Order. Rome lacked an official police force, but the emperors could use various
troops to keep order; above all, the Praetorian Guard (imperial bodyguards), the Urban
cohorts and the vigiles, the night watch, who dealt with fires as well as public order.
Various laws were passed to control meetings of collegia, regulate taverns and popinae
(cookshops) and so forth. However there was very little proactive action to solve crime;
with the concentratation rather on keeping the peace.
4.6 The changing face of Rome: the transformation of the social, moral and
religious life of Rome as the capital of the Empire.
The key themes to think about here are
 how the changing population of Rome influenced her culture – eg the arrival of
foreign populations through trade, the admission of provincials to the senate, the
arrival of foreign religions. [Juvenal’s Satires 3 with its xenophobic view of the
ills of city life provides a good starting point for exploration.]
 How the centrality of the emperor impacted on religion, morality and social
organisation.
On religion – Beard, M. North, J. and Price, S. Religions of Rome 1998 is esp useful for
material and discussion. Much of the evidence here is archaeological – consider the
impact of imperial cult on religion, introduction of new religions, aligning of state
religion and the imperial family
On moral life – consider imperial legislation and other actions on moral issues. Augustus’
social legislation to encourage marriage and procreation, harsh ‘old-fashioned’ morality
attributed to Domitian’ attacks on Vestal Virgins, v. his own immorality, as portrayed by
the sources (eg Suet, Dom 8).
On social life – see notes above on emperor’s interactions with various groups among the
population, 4.4.
- 29 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
APPENDIX: PANEGYRIC AND INVECTIVE
(extracts to be included in a forthcoming LACTOR on the Julio-Claudian period by M.
G. L. Cooley)
E1 Tacitus, Annals
The successes and reverses of the ancient Roman people have been recorded by
distinguished historians, and talented authors were not lacking to describe the times of
Augustus, until they were deterred by the growth of flattery. The reigns of Tiberius,
Gaius, Claudius and Nero have all been recounted either during their lifetimes in terms
which fear made false, or after their death when loathing was still fresh.
[Tacitus, Annals 1.1.2]
E2 Tacitus, Histories
After the battle of Actium had been won and all power had been conferred upon one man
in the interest of peace, those great talents ceased. Truth came under attack from many
directions at once: first ignorance because there was no experience of public life; then an
appetite for sycophancy; or hatred of those in power: neither group, the flatterers or the
bitter opponents cared about posterity. But though one can easily shun time-serving
writers, disparagement or spite find a ready audience. Adulation gives rise to the
unpleasant charge of servility; unjust criticism to the false impression of independence.
[Tacitus, Histories 1.1]
E3 Pliny the Elder on the publication of his History
We have written about your father, your brother and you yourself in a proper work, a
history of our own day, continuing Aufidius. Where is this work, you will ask. It is
already finished and kept safely; and anyway I had decided to entrust it to my heir, so that
my lifetime should not be judged to have given anything to ambition.
[Pliny, Natural History, preface 20]
E4 Livy on dangers of contemporary history
‘I shall thus spare myself the anxieties which may well distract the historian of
contemporary events, even if they fail to divert him from the truth.’
[Livy, Preface 5]
E5 Josephus on Nero
But I shall leave off writing more about these matters: for many writers have put together
histories of Nero. Some of these in gratitude for having been well-treated by him
neglected the truth, while others through hatred and enmity towards him have so
shamelessly behaved in a drunken fashion with their lies that they deserve condemnation.
[Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 20.154]
No works or even names of pro-Neronian historians are known.
A brief survey of what we know of some lost historical writing may be appropriate:
Tiberius
- 30 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
Aufidius Bassus: historian, not known to have held public office, terminally ill around
AD 60 (Seneca, Letters 30). Quintilian (10.1.103): ‘Authority was a notable quality of
Aufidius Bassus, a slightly earlier writer [than Servilius Nonianus], especially in his
books of The German War.’ Tacitus, Dialogus 23 also praises his eloquence (and that of
Servilius). Aufidius Bassus also wrote a general history, which includes an account of
Cicero’s murder in 43 BC (preserved by Seneca, Suasoriae 6.18.23). This was a work
famous enough for Pliny the Elder to entitle his historical work a fine Aufidii Bassi - ‘A
Continuation of Aufidius Bassus’ (Pliny, NH preface 20) , but this end-date of Aufidius
Bassus’ history is not known – perhaps AD 31, perhaps later.
See further: Syme, Tacitus, 274-6, 287-9 and 697-700.
Servilius Nonianus: historian, consul AD 35, died AD 59. For Quintilian who heard him
(10.1.102), ‘a man of notable talent, full of clever sayings, but less concise than an
authoritative historian should be.’ Tacitus’ ‘obituary’ (Ann. 14.19) records ‘a famous
man, with distinguished career; a great orator, for a long time in the courts, then in
recording Roman history; a man of discriminating taste. His recitals were popular – on
one occasion attracting the emperor Claudius to drop in, uninvited (Pliny, Letters 1.13.3).
By implication therefore his history covered the reign of Tiberius and quite possibly
Caligula. Suetonius, Tiberius 61.6 refers to an ex-consul who wrote Annals: this may be
Servilius. He was probably a major source for Tacitus writing on Tiberius.
See further: Syme, Tacitus, 274-7, 287-8.
Caligula
Cluvius Rufus: historian, consul before AD 41
Cited by Tacitus, Annals 13.20, 14.2, and Plutarch, Life of Otho, 3, all on matters to do
with Nero; also by Plutarch, Roman Questions 107 referring to an apparent digression on
Roman actors. Even more significant is an anecdote about Verginius Rufus who in AD
68 had put down Julius Vindex’ rebellion:
Pliny the Younger wrote (Letters 9.19.5 trans. Betty Radice:} ‘Only once in my
hearing did Verginius go so far as to make a single reference to what he had done. This
was the occasion when Cluvius said, “You know how an historian must be faithful to
facts, Verginius, so, if you find anything in my histories which is not as you would like it,
please forgive me.” To this he replied, “Don’t you realise, Cluvius, that I did what I did
so that the rest of you should be at liberty to write as you please?”
Cluvius Rufus was required to be Nero’s herald on his tour of Greece (Dio
63.14.3), so can be presumed to have provided a first-hand and hostile account. He had
also witnessed Caligula’s assassination (Jos. JA 18.91f): in fact he is probably the source
for Josephus’ detailed account.
See further: Wiseman, Death of an Emperor, 111-118.
Nero
Tacitus’ sources on Nero
Fabius Rusticus suggests that a letter had been written to Caecina Tuscus, appointing him
as prefect of the praetorian cohort, but that Burrus retained his position through Seneca’s
- 31 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
influence. Pliny and Cluvius report no doubts about Burrus’ loyalty. Fabius is certainly
inclined to favour Seneca whose friendship had greatly helped his career. I shall follow
my sources where they agree, naming them individually where their accounts diverge.’
Tacitus, Annals 13.20
Tacitus’ use of Fabius’ full name implies that he had not been mentioned previously, in contrast to Pliny
(whose German Wars is cited at 1.69) and Cluvius (whose first mention must be in a lost part of the
Annals, most probably that dealing with Caligula). On his sources, the greatest Tacitean scholar remarks,
‘he did not carry out his promise.’ (Syme, Tacitus, 291).
Fabius Rusticus: historian originally from Spain, not known to have held public office.
Tacitus compares his eloquent style to that of Livy (the highest possible praise) and
Fabius may be the historian whom Quintilian (10.1.104) says ‘is still alive and adds to the
glory of our times, a man who deserves to be remembered by future ages; he will be
named one day; we know who he is.’ Tacitus cites Fabius at 14.2 for the less common
version blaming Nero for his incest with his mother; also at 15.61 for a detail relevant to
Seneca’s execution. As Seneca was patron to Fabius we may reasonably suppose that the
whole scene 15.60-4, and many other details about Seneca derive from Fabius’ history.
See further Syme, Tacitus, 289-94.
Pliny the Elder: Gaius Plinius Secundus; AD 23/4 – 79, Roman equestrian, commander
of the fleet at Misenum, in which post he met his death trying to rescue people from the
eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. A phenomenally productive author whose Natural History
survives: an encyclopaedic work in 37 volumes, containing considerably more than the
20,000 facts derived from 2,000 books claimed in his preface (17).
Tacitus cites Pliny three times in his Annals: 1.69 (his German Wars), 13.20 (above), and
15.53 (for a story dismissed as ‘absurd’). Also once at Histories 3.28 regarding the
second battle of Cremona in AD 69. So Pliny’s history, starting wherever Aufidius
Bassus stopped, covered at least part of Claudius, all of Nero, and at least the accession
of Vespasian. From occasional historical references in his Natural History, Pliny the
Elder can be seen to have been hostile to Nero; comparatively indulgent to Claudius
(Syme, Tacitus 292).
See further Syme, Tacitus 60-63,
List of the Pliny the Elder’s books by his nephew
Gaius Pliny to Baebius Macro, Greetings
I am delighted that you have read my uncle’s books so carefully as to wish to have all of
them and ask for a complete list. …
On Throwing the Javelin from Horseback: one volume. He wrote this with both style and
careful research when serving in command of a cavalry squadron.
Biography of Pomponius Secundus: two volumes. This served as a tribute owed to the
memory of a friend who loved him dearly.
German Wars: twenty volumes. Containing accounts of all the wars we have waged
against the Germans. He started this work while serving in Germany, prompted by a
dream: there came to him in his sleep the ghost of Nero Drusus, who, after victories all
- 32 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
over Germany had died there, charging him to preserve his memory and begging him to
free him from undeserved oblivion.
Scholarship: three long volumes, divided into six chapters, in which he provides the
perfect education for an orator right from the cradle.
Grammatical Problems: in eight volumes. He wrote this in the final years of Nero, when
tyranny had made dangerous any literary pursuit of an even slightly more independent or
distinguished genre.
Continuation of Aufidius Bassus: thirty-one volumes.
Natural History: thirty-seven volumes.
[Pliny the Younger, Letters 3.5.1-6]
Pliny’s letter goes on to describe how his uncle managed such a phenomenal output, notably the last two
works, composed between AD 69 and 79, while holding a succession of imperial posts. NB a ‘volume’ or
‘book’ represents what fitted on an ancient scroll – perhaps 40 pages of a modern paperback book.
The consequences are still to be felt in any modern, source-based assessment of the
period. This chapter includes example of literature written by contemporaries, displaying
fear or loathing. Furthermore these sources and others of similar nature provided some of
the primary material for later historians to use and perhaps reconcile: Suetonius’
biographies often appear schizophrenic in trying to reconcile positive and negative views
of an emperor, leading to attempts to assign specific causes: temporal (Nero 27.1; Dom
10.1); abandoning pretence (Tib. 42.1); personal (Sejanus rejected as explanation Tib.
61.1; freedmen and wives Claud. 29.1). Furthermore the historian’s own experiences may
well colour his views: living through Domitian’s reign must surely have influenced
Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger.
Syme, RR 486-489 provides an excellent and brief summary of freedom of speech in the writing of
contemporary history under the Julio-Claudians
E10 Valerius Maximus invokes Tiberius in place of gods/muses
I pray for your help in this enterprise, Caesar, our fatherland’s surest safeguard, into
whose hands the unanimous wish of men and gods has entrusted rule over land and sea.
Your heavenly foresight most generously nurtures the virtues which I shall narrate, and
punishes most severely the vices. For if the orators of old were right to start from Jupiter
the Best and Greatest, if the finest bards took their first lines from some deity, then my
humble work will have recourse all the more properly to your support, since other
divinity is a matter of belief, but yours can be seen, a present help, equal to the star of
your father and grandfather, whose matchless radiance has brought much glory and
renown to our religious worship. The other gods we have received; the Caesars we have
given.
[Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Saying, Preface]
Valerius Maximus has set out the theme of his work, a selection from Rome and elsewhere of memorable
deeds and sayings. He then invokes, not a god or muse, as was traditional, but the emperor Tiberius. The
stars of his father and grandfather refer to the deification of Julius and Augustus, the former secured by the
comet (see LACTOR 17, H3, K44-5), the latter apparently witnessed by a senator (Dio 56.46.2; Suet. Aug.
100.4; parodied by Sen. Apocol. 1.2).
- 33 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
E11 Valerius Maximus inveighs against Sejanus
But why do I pursue these crimes or dwell on others when I see all wrongs surpassed by
the thought of a single act of parricide. So, with the greatest possible indignation, I am
seized by feelings more of righteous anger than of strong reason to tear apart that deed.
For who could find words of deserved execration strong enough to condemn an attempt
to abolish loyal friendship and bury the human race in bloody darkness? Or could you,
perhaps, whose vicious savagery exceeds that of uncivilised barbarians, have seized the
reins of the Roman empire which our leader and parent keeps safe in his hand. Or would
the world have stayed as it is, if you had achieved your mad desire?
Rome captured by the Gauls; the river Cremera stained by the slaughter of three
hundred heroes from a famous family; the day of the Allia; the Scipios crushed in Spain;
Lake Trasimene; Cannae; swords dripping with Roman blood shed in civil wars: all these
catastrophes would have been recreated and surpassed by the insane designs of your
madness.
But the eyes of the gods were watching, the stars kept their power, the altars,
couches of the gods, and temples were strong with divine presence. Nothing charged with
keeping watch over the august life or the fatherland allowed itself to slacken. Above all
the author and guarantor of our safety saw to it with his divine providence that his
excellent benefactions should not buried in the destruction of the whole world.
Therefore peace abides, the laws are upheld, the course of public and private duty
is preserved intact. But the man who tried to subvert all this, breaking the sanctity of
friendship, together with his whole family, has been crushed by the weight of the Roman
people, and even in the underworld, if he is let in there, he suffers the punishment he
deserves.
[Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 9.11 ext 4]
Though not named explicitly, there can be no doubt about the subject of this denunciation. Valerius
Maximus dedicated his work to Tiberius (see XXXX) and elsewhere praises the imperial family. The
passage contains more rhetoric than real information but does convey the feeling of hostility. The episodes
mentioned in the second paragraph refer to some of Rome’s worst military defeats.
Gaius/Caligula did not reign long enough for any significant work of surviving literature
to be dedicate to his praise, and censure is the almost universal response of authors
writing shortly after his death or at a later date. However the work of a Jewish writer,
Philo does serve to give two sides even to Caligula. Philo was a prominent Jew from the
ethnically diverse city of Alexandria who served on a delegation which in AD 40
petitioned Gaius against the introduction of images of the emperor into Jewish
synagogues. He wrote an account in Greek of this Embassy to Gaius.
E11 The world rejoices at Gaius Caligula’s recovery from sickness
III. (15) Accordingly, when the news was spread abroad that he was sick while the
weather was still suitable for navigation … they, forsaking their former life of
delicateness and luxury, now wore mournful faces, and every house and every city
- 34 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
became full of depression and melancholy, their grief being now equal to and
counterbalancing the joy which they experienced a short time before. (16) For every
portion of the habitable world was diseased in his sickness, feeling affected with a more
terrible disease than that which was oppressing Gaius; for his sickness was that of the
body alone, but the universal malady which was oppressing all men every where was one
which attacked the vigour of their souls, their peace, their hopes, their participation in and
enjoyment of all good things; (17) for men began to remember how numerous and how
great are the evils which spring from anarchy, famine, and war, and the destruction of
trees, and devastations, and deprivation of lands, and plundering of money, and the
intolerable fear of slavery and death, which no one can relieve, all which evils appeared
to admit of but one remedy, namely the recovery of Gaius. (18) Accordingly when his
disease began to abate, in a very short time even the men who were living on the very
confines of the empire heard of it and rejoiced, for nothing is swifter than report, and
immediately every city was full of suspense and expectation, being continually eager for
better news, until at length his perfect recovery was announced by fresh arrivals, at which
news they again returned to their original cheerfulness, each thinking the health of Gaius
to be his own salvation; (19) and this feeling pervaded every continent and every island,
for no one can recollect so great and general a joy affecting any one country or any one
nation, at the good health or prosperity of their governor, as now pervaded the whole of
the habitable world at the recovery of Gaius, and at his being able to resume the exercise
of his power and having completely got rid of his sickness. (20) For they all rejoiced,
from ignorance of the truth, like men who are now for the first time beginning to
exchange a wandering and uncivilised mode of life for a social and civilised system, and
instead of dwelling in desert places, and the open air, and the mountain districts, to live in
walled cities, and instead of living without any governor, or protector, or lawgiver, to be
now established under the care of a governor to be a sort of shepherd and leader of a
more domesticated flock. …
[Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 15-20: translation by C. D. Yonge – in the public domain]
One might aptly quote another work of Philo, his, Against Flaccus, attacking A. Avillius Flaccus, governor
of Egypt 32-8 for discriminating against the Jews of Alexandria, and exulting in his execution by Gaius:
‘Perhaps some one may say here: "Do you then, my good man, you who have determined to accuse this
man, bring no accusation whatever against him, but on the contrary, weave long panegyrics in his honour?
Are you not doting and mad?" "I am not mad, my friend, nor am I a downright fool, so as to be unable to
see the consequences of connexion of things. I praise Flaccus, not because it is right to praise an enemy, but
in order to make his wickedness more conspicuous; for pardon is given to a man who does wrong from
ignorance of what is right; but he who does wrong knowingly has no excuse, being already condemned by
the tribunal of his own conscience."’ (Philo, against Flaccus 6-7: translation by C. D. Yonge – in the
public domain). Philo no doubt wishes to make Gaius/Caligula’s crimes seem all the worse in comparison
with the high hopes for his reign. Gaius was 25 at his accession in AD 37; Tiberius was 54 at the start, 77 at
the end of his reign; Augustus died aged 75.
Another interesting passage of Philo is the imagined excuses he suggests people gave
Gaius for the murders of Tiberius Gemellus, Macro and M. Silanus, not wishing to
believe in Gaius’ true character. (Sections 67-73: Gemellus had to be killed as a potential
rival; Macro for arrogantly trying to command the emperor; Silanus for thinking to highly
of his position as ex-father-in-law.)
- 35 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
E12 Gaius shows his true savageness
IV. (22) At all events it was not long before Gaius-who was now looked upon as a
saviour and benefactor, and who was expected to shower down some fresh and
everlasting springs of benefits upon all Asia and Europe, so as to endow the inhabitants
with inalienable happiness and prosperity, both separately to each individual and
generally to the whole state-began, as the proverb has it, at home, and changed into a
ferocity of disposition, or, I should rather say, displayed the savageness which he had
previously overshadowed by pretence and hypocrisy; (23) for he put to death his cousin
who had been left as the partner of his kingdom, and who was in fact a more natural
successor to it than he himself; for he himself was only Tiberius's grandson by adoption,
but the other was so by blood; arguing as a pretext that he had detected him in plotting
against him, though his very age was a sufficient refutation of any such accusation; for
the unhappy victim was only just emerging from boyhood, and beginning to rank among
the youths.
[Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 22-23: translation by C. D. Yonge – in the public domain]
E13 Philo savagely ridicules Gaius’ comparison of himself to the gods
XII. (86) All these beings, O Gaius! were admired on account of the benefits which they
had conferred on mankind, and they are admired for them even up to the present time,
and they were deservedly thought worthy of veneration and of the very highest honours.
But come now, and tell us yourself in what achievement of yours do you pride yourself
and boast yourself as being in the least similar to their actions? (87) Have you imitated
the twin sons of Jupiter in their brotherly affection, that I may begin with that point? Did
you not rather, O hard-hearted and most pitiless of men! inhumanly slaughter your
brother, the joint inheritor of the kingdom with you, even before he had arrived at the full
vigour of manhood, when he was still in early youth. Did you not afterwards banish your
sisters, lest they also should cause you any reasonable apprehension of the deprivation
and loss of your imperial power? (88) Have you imitated Bacchus in any respect? Have
you been an inventor of any new blessings to mankind? Have you filled the whole of the
habitable world with joy as he did? Are all Asia and Europe inadequate to contain the
gifts which have been showered upon mankind by you? (89) No doubt you have invented
new arts and sciences, like a common pest and murderer of your kind, by which you have
changed all pleasant and acceptable things into vexation and sorrow, and have made life
miserable and intolerable to all men everywhere, appropriating to yourself in your
intolerable and insatiable greediness all the good and beautiful things which belonged to
every one else, whether from the east or from any other country of the universe, carrying
off everything from the south, everything from the north, and in requital giving to and
pouring down upon those whom you had plundered every sort of mischievous and
injurious things from your own bitter spirit, everything which is ever engendered in cruel,
and destructive, and envenomed dispositions; these are the reasons why you appeared to
us as a new Bacchus. (90) But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours
- 36 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
and your incessant displays of valour and virtue; you, O most wretched of men! having
filled every continent and every island with good laws, and principles of justice, and
wealth, and comfort, and prosperity, and abundance of other blessings, you, wretched
man, full of all cowardice and iniquity, who have emptied every city of all the things
which can conduce to stability and prosperity, and have made them full of everything
which leads to trouble and confusion, and the most utter misery and desolation. (91) Tell
me then, O Gaius! do you, after having made all these contributions to universal
destruction, do you, I say, seek to acquire immortality in order to make the calamities
which you have heaped upon mankind, not of brief duration and short-lived, but
imperishable and everlasting? But I think, on the contrary, that even if you had previously
appeared to be a god, you would beyond all question have been changed on account of
your evil practices into an ordinary nature, resembling that of common perishable
mortals; for if virtues can make their possessors immortal, then beyond all doubt vices
can make them mortal. (92) Do not, therefore, inscribe your name by the side of that of
the twin sons of Jupiter, those most affectionate of deities, you who have been the
murderer and destruction of your brethren, nor claim a share in the honours of Hercules
or Bacchus, who have benefited human life. You have been the undoer and destroyer of
those good effects which they produced.
[Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 85-92: translation by C. D. Yonge – in the public domain]
In the case of Claudius, we have passages of cringing flattery and of savage hatred from
the pen of the same author, the younger Seneca. The former comes when he hoped that
Claudius would revoke his exile, imposed, it seems in AD 41, for alleged adultery with
Julia Livilla (Dio 60.8.5). The latter, after his return in AD 49 and Claudius’ death in 54
in his Apocolocyntosis, a work parodying Claudius’ official apotheosis. Here are some
highlights or lowlights of each:
E14 Don’t worry. You brother is dead, but the emperor is alive!
Polybius was an important freedman of Claudius, at some time concerned with patronage
(a studiis – Suet. Cl. 28), and at the time of the essay, concerned with petitions (a libellis
– ch. 6.5, though not certainly correct).
While Caesar owns the wide world, you can give no past of yourself either to pleasure or
sorrow or anything else; you owe the whole of yourself to Caesar. And besides, since you
always declare that Caesar is dearer to you than your own life, it is not right for you to
make complaint of Fortune while Caesar is alive. So long as he is alive, your dear ones
are alive – you have lost nothing. Your eyes ought to be not only dry, but even happy; in
him you have all things, he takes the place of all.
[Seneca, To Polybius on Consolation, 7.3-4; Loeb translation]
- 37 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
E15
Not exiled, but preserved by Claudius
And his mercy (clementia) which in the list of his virtues holds chief place, raises the
hope that of these [military triumphs, held in Rome] I also shall not fail to be a spectator.
For he has not cast me down, but when I had been smitten by Fortune and was falling, he
checked my fall, and, using the mitigating power of his divine hand, he let me down
gently when I was plunging to destruction; he besought the senate in my behalf, and not
only gave me my life, but even begged it. …O how blessed is your mercy, Caesar, which
makes exiles live more peacefully under your rule than did princes (principes) recently
under the rule of Gaius!
[Seneca, To Polybius on Consolation, 13.2, 13.4; Loeb translation; See also 12.3-13.4]
E16
Seneca mocks Claudius’ death and deification
And Claudius did indeed gurgle out his life, and from that time ceased even to appear to
live. But he expired while he was listening to some comic actors, so you know that I have
good reason to fear them. These were the final words of his heard among men, after he
had let out a greater sound from that part from which he used to talk more readily: “Oh
dear, I think I’ve soiled myself.” Whether he did so, I don’t know; he certainly did soil
everything else.
It is unnecessary to report what went on afterwards on earth, as you know this extremely
well and there is no danger of the events which produced such public joy being forgotten:
no-one forgets his own good luck. Listen to what happened in heaven: my source will be
responsible for the reliability of this report. A message was brought to Jupiter that there
was a new arrival, someone of good height, very white-haired; that he was making some
sort of threat, for he kept wagging his head; that he was dragging his right foot. The
messenger said he had asked what nationality he was, but that he had made some reply
with a confused noise and an unintelligible voice. The messenger hadn’t understood his
language: he was neither Greek nor Roman nor of any known race. Then Jupiter ordered
Hercules, who had wandered over the whole earth and seemed to be acquainted with all
nations, to go and find out what race of men he belonged to. Then, at his first glimpse,
Hercules was indeed shocked, in that he had not yet seen and feared every sort of
monster. When he saw his build (a shape of an unprecedented type), the unusual manner
of walking, the voice, which was not that of a land animal but similar to the normal cry of
sea beasts, rough and confused, he thought that his thirteenth labour had come to him.
But when he looked more closely it seemed to be some sort of person.
[Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 4-5 (trans. E.C. Othen for J-C LACTOR]
Seneca wrote the official eulogy for Claudius, delivered by Nero (Tac. Ann. 13.3.1)
Finally for Nero we have several panegyrics included in poetry written by members, or aspiring members
of Nero’s court. The most extraordinary of these is part of the proem to Lucan’s Civil War (1.33-66).
- 38 -
Teachers’ notes: Invention of Imperial Rome 31 BC –AD 96
E17
Lucan’s Civil War
Still, if Fate could find no other way for the advent of Nero … even such crimes and such
guilt [of the civil war which will form the grisly and horrific theme of the whole of
Lucan’s epic poem] are not too high a price to pay. Let Pharsalia heap her plains with
dead (etc. etc.) ... yet Rome owes much to civil war, because what was done was done for
you, Caesar.
The poet then goes on to warn Nero that once he is dead and deified, he will be so
weighty and important as a god that he must take great care not to unbalance the whole
heaven
‘But choose not your seat either in the Northern region or where the sultry sky of the
opposing South sinks down: from these quarters your light would look aslant on the city
of Rome. If you lean on any part of boundless space, the axle of the sphere will be
weighed down; maintain therefore the equipoise of heaven by remaining at the centre of
the system.’
Lucan, Civil War, 33-58 (abridged, Loeb translation)
This praise seems so overblown and so out of keeping with the grimness of the rest of the
epic in which Julius Caesar (representing tyranny) is clearly the villain and Pompey the
Great (championing liberty and the republic) the hero, that modern scholars debate
whether it is meant sincerely, the work of a poet, prominent within Nero’s court who
knew how easily he could fall victim to Nero (as he eventually did in AD 65 – Tac. Ann.
15.70-1) or as parody, exposed by the message of the whole of the rest of the poem.
- 39 -