University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cultural practice, ideology and irony in Tacitus' Claudian Annals

(USC Thesis Other)

Cultural practice, ideology and irony in Tacitus' Claudian Annals

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1 Cultural Practice, Ideology and Irony in Tacitus’ Claudian Annals Joseph Ryan O’Neill December 2015 This dissertation is submitted to the faculty of the University of Southern California Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (CLASSICS) 2 —Table of Contents— Introduction 3-11 I. The Claudian Annals 3-5 II. Image and Reality 5-8 III. Ideology and Cultural Practices in the Claudian Annals 8-11 Chapter 1: Claudius Censorius 12-47 I. Introduction 12-13 II. The Censorship 13-14 III. Refoundations 14-24 IV. Claudius Censorius 25-46 V. Conclusion 46-47 Chapter 2: Marriageability and Marriage: Messalina, Silius, Agrippina 48-101 I. Introduction 48-49 II. Marriageability: Julia Agrippina 40-57 III. Marriageability: C. Silius 58-62 IV. The Wedding of C. Silius and Valeria Messalina 63-86 V. The Marriage of Claudius and Agrippina 86-99 VI. Conclusion 100-101 Chapter 3: Tacitus on the Edges 102-146 I. Introduction 102-105 II. Discordia Ciuilis at the Edges 105-115 III. Roman and Non-Roman Exempla 116-141 IV. Claudius on the Edge 141-145 V. Conclusion 145-146 Chapter 4: Conspiracy Narratives in the Claudian Annals 147- 197 I. Introduction 147-149 II. The Conspiracy of and Against D. Valerius Asiaticus 149-163 III. The Messalinian Conspiracy 163-169 IV. From Domitius to Domination 169-184 V. The Murder of Claudius and the Accession of Nero 184-196 VI. Conclusion 196-197 Conclusion 198-201 Bibliography 202-224 3 —Introduction— I. The Claudian Annals This dissertation is a study of Books 11 and 12 of Tacitus’ Annals. 1 Specifically, it is a study of the narrative organization of the Claudian annals. Tacitus organizes events in Books 11 and 12 by referring to sets of cultural practices and ideologies. In so doing, Tacitus exposes gaps between images projected by the imperial regime and historical reality as Tacitus seems to see it. Book 11 is the first of two extant books narrating the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54 CE). 2 The book begins in mediis rebus in 47 CE and continues through 48, covering the destruction of D. Valerius Asiaticus, Armenian and Parthian affairs, the censorship of Claudius and L. Vitellius and the downfall of Valeria Messalina. 3 Book 12 is complete. It begins with the search for a new wife for Claudius (late in the year 48) and continues through Claudius’ death in 54. The primary focus of Book 12 is the rise of Agrippina and Nero’s supplantation of Britannicus, though Tacitus does recount in some detail events at the edges of the empire (in particular, in Armenia, Parthia, Pontus, Pannonia, Germany and Britain). The Claudian annals provide precious information concerning the reign of Claudius. Additionally, Books 11 and 12 reveal clues about the overall narrative structure of the Annals. Tacitus himself insists that his Annals are different than other histories 1 Translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own, though I would be remiss in not acknowledging my debt to Woodman 2004. 2 Syme (1958: 256) argues for two books for Gaius and four for Claudius, constituting a hexad as with the Tiberian books. See also Martin 1994: 162 and Malloch 2013: 1. 3 Book 11 begins “in the middle” of the book (Martin 1994: 144) and likely would have covered the assumption of the censorship of Claudius and L. Vitellius, the ouatio of A. Plautius for his victories in Britain, the death of Gn. Pompeius Magnus and a possible plot against Claudius to which Dio alludes (60.29.4). See Malloch 2013: 1. 4 written in the past (4.32.1). Rather than write of mighty battles, the glorious deaths of generals and the struggles between consuls and tribunes, Tacitus’ is an inglorius labor, focusing on the ‘gloomy affairs’ of the City: indolent emperors, denunciations, treason trials and other kinds of court intrigue (4.32.3). The Claudian annals provide the opportunity to investigate in detail Tacitus’ focus on ‘gloomy affairs’ and the ways in which he structures his narrative. The Tiberian (1-6) and Neronian (13-16) books have received much attention from scholars but Books 11 and 12 remain underserved. 4 Probably mostly written towards the end of Trajan’s reign (98-117 CE), the Annals speak to a senatorial audience at a time when the aristocratic elite were commanded to be free, a contradiction from which Pliny does not shy: ‘you command us to be free: we will be’ (iubes esse liberos: erimus, Plin. Pan. 66.4). In the Agricola (3.1-2), Tacitus provides a sketch of his intellectual project, stating that he will narrate the reigns of the emperors Nerva and Trajan after he records the famous deeds of his father-in-law, Cn. Julius Agricola. However, when writing his Histories, Tacitus alters this plan. Tacitus announces that he will eschew an account of the 820 years since the founding of the city (which Tacitus claims has been treated by some of the greatest minds). Rather, he will begin his work with the year when Servius Galba (for the second time) and Titus Vinius were consuls (69 CE). Though only the first five books survive, it is likely that the Histories would have treated the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and would have culminated with the reign 4 Furneaux (1896) remains the definitive commentary for Books 1-6. Unfortunately, his commentary on Books 11-16 (1907) is out of print. More recently, Books 1-6 have received close attention (Goodyear 1972; Miller 1992; Martin and Woodman 1989; Martin 2001). The only commentary available for Book 11 is Malloch 2013. Book 12 has not received any attention since Furneaux’s commentary. 5 of the tyrannical Domitian. The central theme of the extant books of the Histories seems to be civil discord, beginning with the civil wars of 69, the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, a series of events that eventually leads to Domitian’s tyranny. Tacitus chooses to remain silent on the reigns of Nerva and Trajan (Hist. 1.1). After the Histories, he turned to the Julio-Claudian emperors, from the death of Augustus through the demise of Nero. Like the Histories, the Annals chronicle the ‘gloomy affairs’ of the City that culminates with a tyrant. In this way, Nero (born Domitius) mirrors Domitianus. The Histories and the Annals are mirror images of one another. Discord of many sorts at the heart of the empire culminates in tyranny and threatens to boil over into open civil war. II. Image and Reality Writing of the Annals as a whole, Ellen O’Gorman argues that Tacitus’ literary project consists of exposing appearances that the imperial regimes project and the “hidden truth” that lies beneath the surface. 5 Tacitus, the senator, is a skeptical historian, a writer who scrutinizes the appearance of things in order to “probe the less evident or hidden causes.” 6 O’Gorman continues, More importantly, the skeptical historian presents his reader with both false appearance and hidden truth, as well as the scrutiny which led him to characterize things in such a manner. 7 The scrutiny of pretense and of hidden truth operates at the level of language. Tacitus does not write openly about the supposed hidden truths behind pretense. Rather, he uses 5 O’Gorman 2000: 2-3. 6 O’Gorman 2000: 3. 7 O’Gorman 2000. 3. Emphasis in the original. 6 ambiguous language to characterize events, forcing readers to draw their own conclusions. In other words, Tacitus’ prose is intentionally ‘difficult’ precisely because sentences and entire passages that beg clarification and interpretation by the reader are “central to Tacitus’ modality of historical and political thought.” 8 In this study, I argue that Tacitus uses not only complex and ambiguous language to convey gaps between pretense and “hidden truth,” but that he juxtaposes image and reality by organizing events according to sets of cultural practices and ideologies. One of the primary gaps between pretense and hidden truth exposed is that of the perceived ineptitude of Claudius. Early in Book 1, Tacitus establishes the paradigm by which the power of the princeps operates. He writes (1.4.1): Igitur uerso ciuitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnis exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare, nulla in praesens formidine, dum Augustus aetate ualidus seque et domum et pacem sustentauit. Therefore, with the constitution of the state overturned, nowhere was untouched the old mores: everyone, since equality was cast aside, looked to the orders of the princeps, with no fear for the present while Augustus had strength in his years to sustain himself, his domus and the peace. 9 Tacitus explains imperial power as flowing from the man, through his household (domus) out to empire at large (pax). This paradigm is supported by Dio, who writes of Claudius (60.3.1): 8 O’Gorman 2000: 1. 9 Status: OLD 8: “the arrangement, constitution, order of a state or other institution.” 7 Τοιοῦτος οὖν δή τις, ὥς γε συνελόντι εἰπεῖν, ὤν, οὐκ ὀλίγα καὶ δεόντως ἔπραττεν, ὁσάκις ἔξω τε τῶν προειρηµένων παθῶν ἐγίγνετο καὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἐκράτει. Although he was just as I described, in general, he did not a few things in the proper way whenever he was without the aforesaid passivity and was master of himself. According to Dio’s account of Claudius’ reign, as well as Suetonius’ characterization of Claudius, Claudius was generally unable to control his body and his emotions, though at some times able to master himself and thereby was capable of making good decisions. Tacitus, however, implies through the use of irony that Claudius is incapable of controlling himself, his household and, thereby, the empire. This leads to a kind of lawlessness that threatens the aristocracy and is mirrored at the edges of the empire and is portrayed as a threat to the pax, a threat corollary to the turmoil in the imperial domus. Claudius expands the economy of imperial power by assuming into the domus Caesaris more and more of the responsibilities of state. 10 This increases the power of domestic functionaries, in particular the imperial freedmen. Claudius’ inability to master his household leads to the perception of freedmen running the empire, a situation intolerable to the senatorial historian. Furthermore, Claudius’ inability to master himself, in particular his passions, but also his body, lead to his being dominated by his wives. Tacitus demonstrates this by counterposing norms of elite self-presentation and the actual behaviors of actors in the imperial domus. Claudius projects images of himself and his 10 See Joshel 1997: 224. Pace Osgood 2011: 19-20. 8 reign that his ‘actual’ behavior belies. Tacitus shows Claudius failing to reproduce the Augustan paradigm. The man has no control over himself, which explains his lack of control over his domus and, thereby, the empire. III. Ideology and Cultural Practices in the Claudian Annals The Annals is primarily a series of binary oppositions. Empire is opposed to Repubic, past to present, Roman to non-Roman. But chief among these, the set of oppositions that governs them all, is that of pretense to “hidden truth.” This dissertation explores the opposition of image and reality in the Claudian annals. Chapter 1 is an investigation into Tacitus’ reliance upon social scripts for Claudius’ performance (or misperformance) of censor. Knowledgeable of the arcane rituals and officia of the censors of old, Claudius is nevertheless ignorant of his own household and is cuckolded by his wife Messalina who, with the consular C. Silius, conspires to overthrow the emperor. The structure of the narrative of Claudius’ censorship is supplied by reference to Tacitus’ readers’ implicit understanding of the role of censor and his duties. Claudius follows the outward forms of the censorship, but they are shown to be devoid of actual meaning. Tacitus reveals Claudius’ censorship as merely a performance that is juxtaposed to Messalina’s misperformance of wife. Meanwhile, he shows that business that was once public has now been subsumed into the imperial house. Res publicae have become res priuatae. Ultimately, Tacitus shows a Claudius incapable of ruling himself, his domus and the empire. Chapter 2 is a study of marriageability, marriage, and sexuality more generally. Tacitus relies on culturally determined practices concerning marriage to point up the 9 misperformance of Claudius as husband and Messalina and Agrippina as wives. Claudius remains ignorant of the affairs of his domus and is therefore shown to be incapable of ruling it and the empire. Tacitus juxtaposes Claudius’ ignorance to his wives’ and freedmen’s misperformance of their socially determined roles and their behind-the-scenes machinations. Messalina and Agrippina are shown to pervert their roles in order to overthrow the princeps. Messalina transfers the imperial regalia to the domus of her lover and then contracts a marriage with him as the first stage in a coup against Claudius. Agrippina acts more subtly, but slowly acquires emblems of power as she maneuvers her son, Domitius, into position to succeed her uncle-husband. Incest is a major theme, as the orchestration of accusations of incest is required to facilitate an incestuous marriage. Incest is also a means to Agrippina’s acquisition of power over the emperor and illicit sex is another tool utilized to position her son into the imperial succession. Chapter 3 investigates Tacitus’ use of non-Roman paradigms. Tacitus makes events at the center of the empire mirror events at the edges, which has the effect of collapsing the polarity between Roman and barbarian. This demonstrates to his audience that the intrigue and dynastic struggles that lead to open conflict among the barbarian nations is likewise afflicting Rome. Furthermore, Tacitus uses his foreign narratives to present positive exempla—Roman and barbarian alike—which serve as foils to Claudius and his court. Additionally, Tacitus provides his readers with negative exempla, which he ties directly to the imperial house. These serve to reinforce the collapsing of the barbarian-Roman polarity, showing that the ills at the frontier afflict the center. Chapter 4 focuses on conspiracy in the imperial domus. Tacitus uses conspiracy narratives to showcase various kinds of discord that is afflicting Rome at its core. 10 Denunciations are the primary means with which the imperial court creates and perpetuates discord among the Roman elite. Likewise, Tacitus characterizes plots against the emperor along similar lines as the denunciations. Tacitus relies upon social scripts inherent in the literary tradition and in cultural practice to characterize his conspiracy narratives. He also alludes to performance types that lend credibility to his accounts whilst theatricalizing events. These structuring elements reveal disconnects between outward signs and the “hidden truths” behind the regime. In sum, this dissertation demonstrates the ways in which allusion to social scripts provide structure to Tacitus’ narrative. Social scripts for the exercise of munia censoria, for marriage, for characterizing positive and negative exempla, and conspiracy narratives all highlight gaps between image and reality under the principate of Claudius and in the Augustan paradigm more broadly. The senatorial historian in many ways was writing to demonstrate his autonomy from the imperial domus, even though he prospered directly at the hands of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian (Hist. 1.1). Tacitus was writing not so much to entertain his readers, but to educate them (Ann. 4.33.2). His historiography provides exempla for his contemporaries (Hist. 1.3.1). However, Tacitus does not merely teach what is honorable and dishonorable, but he teaches his audience about the perils of living under autocracy and provides exempla of how to negotiate social and political life under the principes. 11 He accomplishes this by not only openly criticizing individual principes, but also exposing cracks in the façade of the Augustan system. By exposing the discrepancies between pretense and hidden truth, Tacitus provides a guide for reading 11 Momigliano 1980: 371-372; Joseph 2012: 15. See also Sinclair (1995: 38), who writes that Tacitus does not seek to provide merely a contemplative history but a guide for his audience, as it were, to enhance the chances of advancement politically and socially under the autocracy. 11 history and the regime, and ultimately subtly demonstrates how one can successfully negotiate the perils of the imperial order. 12 —Chapter 1— Claudius Censorius I. Introduction Claudius became censor in 47 CE with L. Vitellius as his colleague. Previous to this, the censorship had been vacant since Augustus and Tiberius occupied the office in 14 CE. 12 Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ assumption of censorial duties is lost, but it is reasonable to assume that it would have been treated in the early parts of Book 11 (which begins in mediis rebus with Messalina’s denunciation of D. Valerius Asiaticus). Tacitus’ narration of Claudius’ censorship highlights gaps between image and reality. Claudius is shown to project an image of a restored Republic and of self-mastery. However, Tacitus juxtaposes accounts of Claudius’ performance of the role of censor to accounts of the machinations behind the scenes of Claudius’ wife and freedmen. These ironic juxtapositions reveal a Claudius who is not actually in control of himself, his domus and, therefore, the empire. There has been much speculation as to why Claudius decided to revive the office of censor, but F. X. Ryan is correct to write that arguments referring to Claudius’ deep conservatism or links with republicanism fail to convince. 13 Tacitus’ narration of Claudius’ censorship simultaneously presents his readers with the Augustan and Domitianic past. That is, Tacitus’ account looks simultaneously back to Augustus and forward to Domitian. Claudius’ censorship and his revitalization of rituals of renewal not only exhibit a structural irony that frames a discourse of contradiction and 12 Strictly speaking, the last censors were L. Munatius Plancus and Paullus Aemilius Lepidus who held the office in 22 BCE. Censors from the imperial family variously held censoria potestas. See Suolahti 1963: 699. 13 Ryan 1993: 612 13 misperformance in Claudius’ Rome, but also evokes themes of recurrent refoundation. In Tacitus’ Rome, the more things change, the more they stay the same. II. The Censorship It is necessary to survey briefly Augustus’ own revival of the office of censor in order to understand more fully its role in the narrative of Claudius’ reign. Augustus assumed the censorship in 28 BCE with Agrippa as his colleague and completed the lustrum for the first time since 70 BCE. 14 It seems that Augustus anticipated holding the censorship for 28 because, although there is no evidence that the Senate had granted special powers, Augustus performed the lectio senatus in 29, reducing the number of senators by about 200. 15 Additionally, pursuant to the lex Saenia, Augustus refreshed the ranks of the patricians. 16 In 22, L. Munatius Plancus and Paullus Aemilius Lepidus were ostensibly elected as censors, but for various reasons were unable to perform the lustrum. So, in 8 BCE, Augustus assumed censoria potestas and performed the lustrum without a colleague. 17 In 14 CE, Augustus and Tiberius together conducted the census and Augustus performed the lustrum three months before his death. He then had Tiberius 14 Censors had been elected in 65, 64, 61, 55, 50 and 41 BCE, but for various reasons the census and lustrum were never carried out (see Soulahti 1963: 698-699). 15 Dio has Augustus holding the censorship in 29 with Agrippa, the year of Augustus’ fifth consulship (52.42.1-4). 16 Mon. Anc. 2.1. Tac. Ann. 11.25.2 17 Augustus and Agrippa had been granted censoria potestas in 28, but each had been consul, thus performing the lustrum in their capacity as consuls according to early republican precedent (see Soulahti 1963: 498-501). In 8, Augustus was not consul, but held the censoria potestas and in that capacity performed the lustrum. Dio claims that the Senate had offered Augustus the position censor perpetuus, an offer that Augustus ostentatiously declined (Dio. 54.2.1). It must be stressed that these are constitutional niceties, that Augustus was the de facto monarch and could through his auctoritas alone (backed up by the legions) perform any duty he saw necessary. And checking the power of the Senate was of paramount importance. 14 repeat the lustrum on the pretext of unfavorable omens (Suet. Aug. 97.1). It is nevertheless apparent that the purpose was to solidify further in the minds of the people and Senate that Tiberius was Augustus’ final choice for successor. 18 This was the last time that the lustrum would be performed and the lectio senatus completed according to republican precedents until Claudius and Vitellius held their censorship. Tiberius and Gaius, though they did not hold the office of censor, undoubtedly adlected senators, while various men were removed from the order as the result of criminal convictions. 19 Claudius’ censorship presents Tacitus’ readers with a constellation of past Roman refoundations. But Tacitus does not limit this connection to the office of censor (about which more will be discussed in detail below). Rather, two other rites concerning refoundation bind Claudius to both the Augustan past and Domitianic future: the celebration of the ludi saeculares in 47, and the expansion of the pomerium in 49 CE. III. Refoundations Augustus produced his Secular Games in 17 BCE. This coincided with the lustrum having been completed and, the previous year, the lectio senatus whereby the number of senators was reduced to near their Sullan levels. 20 The unifying thread running through Augustus’ revisions of the rolls of the Senate, the completion of the lustrum, and the celebration of the Secular Games is refoundation. The Roman Senate and People are 18 On the somewhat tortured Augustan succession, see Chapter 2.3. See also Soulahti 1963: 506. 19 The census really had become obsolete and unnecessary. Elections were not held, taxes not levied against the citizenry, and the army had become professionalized. Soulahti 1963: 507. 20 See CAH 10.2: 93. 15 made anew and Augustus is the new founder. 21 Present at the Secular Games of 17 BCE were Augustus’ grandsons, Gaius and Lucius, whom Augustus adopted that very year, clearly signaling their elevation in the succession. Claudius, too, celebrated the renewal or refoundation of the Roman people in 47 CE (11.11.1): Isdem consulibus ludi saeculares octingentesimo post Romam conditam, quarto et sexagesimo quam Augustus ediderat, spectati sunt. With the same men as consuls, the Secular Games were witnessed, 800 years after the founding of Rome and 64 years since Augustus produced them. The consuls were Claudius and Vitellius, who were also censors that year. The initial mention of their consulship is lost. The reintroduction of the consuls for the year, following an extensive discussion of foreign affairs (11.8-10), situates the focus once again on Rome. Tacitus does not pretend to understand the calculations by which Claudius reckoned it was appropriate to hold the Secular Games. It certainly was not the undeni deciens anni mentioned by Horace (Carm. Saec. 21). The fact of the matter is that Claudius needs no reason to issue his commands. Pretexts are merely niceties. In demurring from a discussion on the reckoning of each saeculum, Tacitus links Claudius to Domitian (11.11.1): 21 According to Suetonius (7), the Senate had earlier debated whether to bestow the name Romulus on Caesar instead of Augustus. 16 utriusque principis rationes praetermitto, satis narratas libris quibus res imperatoris Domitiani composui. nam is quoque edidit ludos saecularis iisque intentius adfui sacerdotio quindecimuirali praeditus ac tunc praetor; quod non iactantia refero sed quia collegio quindecimuirum antiquitus ea cura et magistratus potissimum exequebantur officia caerimoniarum. I am passing over the calculations of either of the principes, which are sufficiently discussed in the books I have written on the affairs of the emperor Domitian, for he too produced the Secular Games, and I was present at and attentive to them, since I at that time had been made a quindecimviral priest and praetor. I am not boasting. Rather, I mention them because the quindecimviral college has been in charge of them since antiquity and it was the responsibility of the praetors to carry out the offices of the ceremonies. Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ Secular Games looks back to Augustus and forward to Domitian. Unfortunately, the books that would have contained the Secular Games of Domitian are lost. However, the direct reference Tacitus makes here to the Histories reassures his readers that he has first hand knowledge of how such calculations are made—the emperor wants games, so they will be produced. But another connection between Claudius and Augustus on the one hand, Domitian on the other is made more subtly. Tacitus’ report of Claudius’ Secular Games is dominated by a reference to L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Tacitus introduces Domitius and 17 has the future emperor command the attention of the plebs in the circus. Britannicus, Claudius’ son and heir, is overshadowed (11.11.2): sedente Claudio circensibus ludis, cum pueri nobiles equis ludicrum Troiae inirent interque eos Britannicus imperatore genitus et L. Domitius adoptione mox in imperium et cognomentum Neronis adscitus, favor plebis acrior in Domitium loco praesagii acceptus est. uulgabaturque adfuisse infantiae eius dracones in modum custodum, fabulosa et externis miraculis adsimulata: nam ipse, haudquaquam sui detractor, unam omnino anguem in cubiculo uisam narrare solitus est. While Claudius was seated in the circus, the upper-class youth were on horseback participating in the Troy Game. Among them were Britannicus, the son of the commander, and L. Domitius, soon to be received by adoption into the command and the cognomen Nero. That the favor of the plebs was stronger for Domitius was taken as prophetic. And it was widely reported that snakes had been present as guards during his infancy, a tale likened to foreign miracles, for he himself, by no means a self-detractor, was accustomed to tell everyone that only one snake had been spotted in his bedroom. Tacitus proleptically introduces Domitius as the successor to Claudius. But Tacitus’ focus on the introduction of Domitius at the Secular Games of 47 CE is not present in other 18 literary accounts. Rather, Domitius’ presence in Tacitus’ narrative foreshadows his ascendancy while looking forward to Domitian’s reign and his own Secular Games. Additionally, Tacitus’ choice to have Domitius debut at the Secular Games recalls Augustus’ invention of the title princeps iuuentutis and the introduction of his heirs and adopted sons Gaius and Lucius at the Troy Game in 14 BCE. In 49 CE, in another act of refoundation, Claudius enlarged the ritual boundary of the city. Tacitus writes (12.23.2): et pomerium urbis auxit Caesar, more prisco, quo iis qui protulere imperium etiam terminos urbis propagare datur. nec tamen duces Romani, quamquam magnis nationibus subactis, usurpauerant nisi L. Sulla et diuus Augustus. And Caesar expanded the ritual boundary of the city. According to ancient tradition, those who had expanded the empire were also allowed to expand the borders of the city. However, although they had subjected great nations, no Roman leader had taken advantage of it except for L. Sulla and Divine Augustus. Gellius writes that anyone who takes land from an enemy nation has the right to expand the ceremonial boundary of the city (NA. 14.3). He continues to report that Servius Tullius, L. Sulla and the Divine Julius expanded the pomerium. 22 Seneca writes that in Sulla’s time, the land taken had to be Italian (Brev. 13.8), but the Historia Augusta 22 See also Dio 43.50. Sulla is reported to have sought the right of expanding the boundary (qui proferundi pomerii titulum quaesiuit, NA. 14.4), likely a demonstration of his nearly absolute grip on power. 19 reports that no emperor may extend the boundary unless he has added barbarian land to the Roman state (pomoerio autem neminem principum licet addere nisi eum qui agri barbarici aliqua parte Romanam rem publicam locupletauerit, Aurel. 21.10). The Historia Augusta makes no mention of Claudius in respect of the pomerium. Although there is no archaeological evidence for the Augustan, Caesarian or Sullan expansions, eight cippi datable to the reign of Claudius confirm that such a realignment did take place. 23 This jumble of literary and archaeological evidence indicates that the expansion of the ceremonial boundary of the city was an important sign of affiliation. Each reference links the story of an expansion with specific historical precedents. So, even if the sources do not agree on who exactly expanded the pomerium and when, the frequent association with the past is indicative of the importance of the gesture in propagandistic terms. The expansion of the ceremonial border is less important than which former expansion the emperor marks out as precedents. In the case of Tacitus’ depiction of Claudius’ expansion, what is of primary importance is that Tacitus is linking Claudius’ action to Augustus, the dictator Sulla, and Romulus—all (re)founders of Rome. In Tacitus’ rendering, Claudius’ extension of the pomerium follows not the annexation of Britain in 43 CE, but the assumption of Judaea and Ituria into the province of Syria (12.23.1). The reference is part of a hodgepodge of notices tacked on at the end of the year 49. Chapter 22 begins: Isdem consulibus. The consuls for the year 49 were reported at the beginning of Chapter 5 with an immediate mention of Claudius and Agrippina (5.1.1). The focus of the beginning of 49 was the imminent marriage of uncle to niece. 24 Tacitus’ juxtaposition of the consular formula and the impending incestuous marriage highlights a gap between outward appearances of state power and its true locus. 23 Platner and Ashby 1929: 392-396; Boatwright 1984; Poe 1984: 58-60, including relevant citations of Zozimus. 24 See below, Chapter 2. 20 This structural irony is repeated at the beginning of Chapter 22. After a long discussion of the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina (12.5-9) and a digression on affairs concerning Parthia and the kingship of Armenia (12.10-21), Tacitus again deploys the consular formula juxtaposed to the machinations of Agrippina (12.22.1): Isdem consulibus atrox odii Agrippina ac Lolliae infensa, quod secum de matrimonio principis certauisset, molitur crimina et accusatorem qui obiceret Chaldaeos, magos interrogatumque Apollinis Clarii oraculum super nuptiis imperatoris. With the same men as consuls, Agrippina, terrible in her hatred and hostile to Lollia because she had contended with her for marriage with the princeps, contrived charges and an accuser who would make accusations that she consulted the Chaldaeans, magicians and the oracle of Apollo Clarius concerning the emperor’s nuptials. Shifting his focus to domestic affairs, Tacitus reminds his audience not only of the virtual obsolescence of the consuls in terms of real political power, but that the agent at the center of the Roman world was the emperor’s wife and niece. In Koestermann’s edition, chapter 22 consists of seventeen lines, fifteen of which concern Agrippina’s plots against Lollia and Claudius’ condemnation of the woman without a trial (inaudita rea, 12.22.2). The last two lines mention the conviction of Cadius Rufus on charges of extortion. The shorter chapter 23 (eleven lines) treats a dispensation allowing senators to visit Narbonese Gaul without the princeps’ permission, the annexation of the Judaeans and 21 Ituraeans into the province of Syria, the restoration of the augury of Salus and finally, the expansion of the pomerium. Although the chapter divisions are not Tacitus’ own, it is apparent that much more ink is devoted to matters concerning the machinations of the imperial domus than to what is ostensibly public business. 25 Tacitus then digresses on the history of the pomerium (12.24.1): Regum in eo ambitio uel gloria uarie uulgata. sed initium condendi, et quod pomerium Romulus posuerit, noscere haud absurdum reor. The self-aggrandizement or glory of kings concerning the act has in one way or another been widely published, but I do not think it silly to examine the beginning of its foundation and what the pomerium was that Romulus laid out. 26 As mentioned above, the act of changing the sacred border of the city came to be of less importance than the promulgation of the deed itself. It is fitting that Tacitus chose the word rex. The only rex mentioned by Tacitus in connection with the enlarging of the pomerium is Romulus. The juxtaposition of reges and the other named duces credited with the expansion of the sacred boundary invites Tacitus’ readers to reflect on the similarities between Romulus, Sulla, Augustus and Claudius—all reges in fact, if not in name. Tacitus traces the original pomerium (12.24.1): 25 Although the public business is now a private affair. On the blurring of distinctions between res publicae and res priuatae under the principate, see below, Chapter 4. 26 The translation of ambitio as ‘self-aggrandizement’ is borrowed from Woodman 2004: 224. 22 igitur a foro boario, ubi aereum tauri simulacrum aspicimus, quia id genus animalium aratro subditur, sulcus designandi oppidi coeptus ut magnam Herculis aram amplecteretur; inde certis spatiis interiecti lapides per ima montis Palatini ad aram Consi, mox curias ueteres, tum ad sacellum Larum. And so, from the Forum Boarium (where we see a bronze statue of a bull, because that species of animal was yoked to the plow) the furrow started as a way of marking out the town that encompassed the great altar of Hercules. From there, stones were placed at regular intervals along the base of the Palatine hill to the altar of Consus, then to the old curiae, from there to the shrine of the Lares. Tacitus takes his readers on a tour of the ancient city, from the Forum Boarium, around the Palatine and through the valley where the Circus Maximus lay. Tacitus surveys the city’s oldest shrines but he collapses symbol and function. Tacitus seems to imply that the bronze statue of a bull stands in the middle of the cattle market because a bull would have pulled the plow used to make the sulcus that demarks the sacred boundary, not because it was a cattle market. 27 It very well may be that the bull statue really did commemorate Romulus’ plowing of the sacred furrow, but the ambiguity of the line invites reflection on outward signs and their purported meanings in a highly visual 27 Tacitus could not be unaware of the function of the Forum Boarium as an active cattle market. Literary and archaeological references abound. See Coarelli 1988, especially 107-109. 23 culture. With the pomerium and the Forum Boarium, like the magistracies of the old Republic, Tacitus highlights the disassociation of function and significance. Tacitus’ mention of the Secular Games of 47 CE and the expansion of the pomerium in 49 share with the primary responsibility of a censor, the completion of the lustrum, the theme of renewal or refoundation. As discussed above, this emphasis on (re)foundation collapses temporality. Romulus, Sulla, Augustus, Claudius, Nero and Domitian all (re)appear as the manifestation of the Roman state and of autocracy. But Claudius’ censorship serves another narrative function. The collapsing of autocrats in Tacitus’ narrative of Claudius’ acts of refoundation simultaneously structures Tacitus’ narrative of public affairs vis-à-vis the machinations and conspiracies of members of the imperial domus. Tacitus juxtaposes reports of Claudius’ censorial acts to often-lurid tales of domestic disorder. Furthermore, Claudius’ censorial duties give him the pretext of intervention into Roman law and the Latin language, interventions that help to highlight a perceived gap between the functioning of the state and Tacitus’ narrative of domestic chaos and imperial mismanagement. As discussed above, the beginning of the year 47 (presumably announced with the consular formula) is lost. Tacitus relates the condemnation of Valerius Asiaticus at Messalina’s instigation and then discusses other denunciations before relating events in Armenia and on the Parthian frontier (11.1-10). Tacitus shifts the focus back to the City by reintroducing the consular formula (Isdem consulibus, 11.11.1) and narrating the celebration of the Secular Games. The proleptic introduction of Domitius leads into a discussion of Messalina’s new lust for C. Silius, but not before Tacitus makes an ironic statement about the people’s adoration of the blood relatives of Germanicus (11.12). 24 Tacitus refers to Domitius as the only surviving male relative of Germanicus. Although it is true that Tacitus specifies male offspring (suboles uirilis)—Domitius is the son of the daughter of Germanicus—Tacitus’ readers will have been aware that Claudius is the brother of the man himself. Tacitus seems to make Claudius, Germanicus’ brother, irrelevant. The people crave a male relative of Germanicus under the reign of a male relative of Germanicus. And so, the Secular Games of 47 CE, the celebration of a new saeculum of the populus Romanus, is dominated by Domitius and juxtaposed to the illicit desires of the emperor’s wife. Tacitus continues for the remainder of Chapter 12 to relate the entrapment of Silius, and how Messalina somehow drove out (exturbare, 11.12.2) Silius’ wedded wife. Tacitus minimizes Silius’ agency by making him the object of Messalina’s will. Somehow, Messalina effects Silius’ divorce from Junia Silana, a nobilis femina (11.12.2). Tacitus does not specify how. However, he assigns a motive: now that Silius is a divorcee Messalina has control over an available adulterer (uacuo adultero poteretur, 11.12.2). Messalina holds the power, not the consul-designate, not even the emperor, who is unaware and therefore unable to intervene. Messalina’s excessive desire trumps the norms of marriage and the traditional auctoritas of a man soon to be of consular rank. In Tacitus’ telling, domestic chaos and wifely machinations dominate an account of what ostensibly would be a narrative of renewal and refoundation. Claudius’ censorship is portrayed as somewhat of a hollow performance, devoid of any real, long-lasting impact. Tacitus’ Claudius is shown not to be fully in command. He appears unable to rule his household and, by implication, the empire. 25 IV. Claudius Censorius Tacitus sets up his narrative of Claudius’ censorial duties by highlighting the affairs of the imperial domus. Accounts of imperial wives and their machinations and misdeeds bookend details of Claudius’ acts of refoundation and his munia censoria. This narrative structure points up the gap between ideal and real. The state appears to function as it always has and the acts of refoundation link Claudius’ reign to that of Augustus and other (re)founders in what seems to be an attempt to set Claudius’ reign apart from those of Tiberius and Gaius. But what distinguishes it is not Claudius’ policies per se, but the dominations of his wives and freedmen and the subsumption of the res publica into the imperial domus. Tacitus moves from Domitius’ popularity (on account of his relation to the princeps’ brother), to pity for Agrippina (on account of Messalina’s savagery), to Messalina’s lusts (for men and for property) to a report of Claudius’ censorial duties. Tacitus lays bare the theme of such contrapositions—Claudius’ ignorance of what was going on in his own household (11.13.1): at Claudius, matrimonii sui ignarus et munia censoria usurpans, theatralem populi lasciuiam seueris edictis increpuit, quod in Publium Pomponium consularem (is carmina scaenae dabat) inque feminas inlustres probra iecerat. But Claudius, oblivious of his own marriage and assuming his censorial duties, railed against the people’s license in the theater in grave edicts because they had hurled foul language at the consular 26 Publius Pomponius (he produced tragedies for the stage) and against respectable ladies. 28 One of the many responsibilities traditionally assigned to the censor is the cura morum. 29 Sexual impropriety and the misperformance of the role of paterfamilias could incur censure. 30 So while Claudius was playing the role of Cato Censorius, his own wife was contriving new forms of adultery and conspiring against the emperor. It is significant that Tacitus reports Claudius’ rebukes of the people’s license in the theater. In the Annals, Rome is a stage on which his characters act (badly or well). It is history theatricalized. 31 Tacitus also highlights the farcical nature of Claudius’ censorship. Ignorant of his wife’s well-known promiscuity, Claudius issues stern (though likely ineffectual) reprimands against the people for hurling abuses at a man of consular rank. Claudius is protecting a senator-cum-tragedian while his wife is butchering men of consular rank. There is a significant gap between the raucous though practically harmless behavior of the people in the theater and the bloodshed happening behind the scenes in the imperial domus. The census, lectio senatus, cura morum and the completion of the lustrum were only parts of the censor’s traditional duties. Additionally, the censors of old were charged with the supervision of monetary policy and the maintenance of the proper spelling of the Latin language. 32 The census, in addition to assisting with the lustrum and the lectio senatus, also allowed for more accurate taxation. This is the origin of a censor’s financial 28 For the tragedies of Pomponius, see Quint. Inst. 8.31. 29 Suolahti 1963: 47 30 See Livy 39.19.5 and Plut. Cat. Mai. 16.1. For the (likely apocryphal) story of Cato the Elder expelling a man from the Senate for embracing his wife in sight of his own daughter, see Plut. Cat. Mai. 17.7. 31 Segal 1973 and Galtier 2011. 32 For the supervision of state economic affairs, see Soulahti 1963: 57. For the consuls and the alphabet, see Ryan 1993: 611. 27 responsibilities. Tacitus mentions legislation carried by Claudius pertaining to private debts (11.13.2): et lege lata saeuitiam creditorum coercuit, ne in morte<m> parentum pecunis filiis familiarum faenori darent. And he carried a law that checked the savagery of creditors, so that they could not lend money at interest to the sons of families against the death of the parents. This notice is part of a larger piece that reports several actions of Claudius carried out as if in his capacity not merely of princeps, but of censor. The next of the munia censoria mentioned by Tacitus is Claudius’ completion of the Aqua Claudia (loc. cit.): fontesque aquarum Simbruinis collibus deductos urbi intulit. He brought sources of water to the city, diverted from the Simbruine hills. Emperors built things. Augustus knew well the propagandistic value of massive public construction projects that presented his ideological program to the people. Augustus’ successors also built and Claudius is no exception. In fact, Claudius is the next prolific builder after Augustus. However, it is helpful to consider the relationship between the censorship and public works in order to understand the structure of Tacitus’ narrative of Claudius’ acts of 47 CE. The supervision of major public works had been in early times the purview of the censors. Livy (1.44) writes that Servius Tullius was the first census-taker at Rome and 28 that he used the funds from the collection of special taxes to build the Servian Wall. Livy ascribes to various censors restoration of the city walls and the construction of public buildings. 33 Appius Claudius Caecus supervised a massive public works program during his censorship (312 BCE), including the Via Appia and the Aqua Appia. 34 Michel Humm argues convincingly that Appius Claudius’ military and tax reforms (dilectus, stipendium and tributum) are tied directly to his munia censoria. 35 However, he misplaces the emphasis of Appius’ building program. Rather than assigning the massive public works to the execution of his munia censoria, an extension of military and fiscal reform, Humm attributes it to “l’Hellénisme d’Appius Claudius Caecus” and claims that he is responsible for a new regime of Hellenistic évergétisme. 36 Humm does grant that Appius Claudius was censor when work began on the uia and the aqua that bear his name. But rather than emphasize the Hellenistic component of agonistic building that adorns the Republic until Augustus monopolizes public works, it is more useful to consider Appius’ reforms as exercised under his authority as censor, whether that office granted him potentia, or if having attained such a high office afforded him sufficient auctoritas to complete such an undertaking. Consideration of the full range of the munia censoria reveals the cohesion of Tacitus’ narration of Claudius’ acts of 47 CE while also giving depth to the contrast between Claudius the censor and Claudius the cuckolded buffoon. Tacitus also mentions religious reforms undertaken by Claudius at this time (11.15). Claudius brought a motion before the Senate regarding the college of the haruspices. He argued before the Senate that the college used to be summoned when the 33 See Soulahti 1963: 57 and Livy 4.8.3, 4.22.7, 6.32.1. 34 Humm 2005: 484 35 Humm 2005: 375 36 Humm 2005: 521 29 res publica was in trouble and that on their advice rituals were restored and maintained more correctly for posterity. It had become more lazily studied because of the public’s indolence and because foreign superstitions were increasingly popular. And so, the Senate passed a resolution concerning the matter, dictating that the pontifices should look into what should be retained and what should be confirmed concerning the haruspices. This notice, a continuation of the narrative of Claudius’ munia censoria, alludes to Claudius’ antiquarian interests and foreshadows the increased attention Tacitus will pay to religious affairs as the ascension of Nero approaches. 37 It is a rather long notice whose conclusion is that Claudius in his capacity as censor induces the Senate to pass a motion dictating that the pontifices look into the practices of the haruspices. In other words, Claudius’ proposal does not appear to get very far. Unlike the shorter notices of the comparatively massive undertakings of building an aqueduct and producing the Secular Games, this relatively long passage actually details very little. Tacitus is highly selective of what he includes in his narration of a year. The fact that wifely infidelities and servile conspiracies as well as long narrations of ineffectual legislating take up so much more narrative space than events of immediate import and cultural interest again exposes Tacitus’ interest in pointing up the gap between image and reality. The representation of deliberation about important institutions is imbued with disproportionate significance that has the function of diminishing any real accomplishments for which Claudius might be responsible, while pointing up the contradictions inherent in the principate. The institutions of the old Republic adorn the autocracy of a princeps who, according to Tacitus’ portrayal, seems to regard them as mere antiquarian curiosities. 37 See below, Chapter 2. 30 Tacitus lists among Claudius’ other munia censoria his intervention into Latin orthography (11.13.2): ac nouas litterarum formas addit uulgauitque, comperto Graecam quoque litteraturam non simul coeptam absolutamque. He also added and promulgated new forms of letters, having learned that even the Greek alphabet was not begun and finished at the same time. Claudius added three letters that were new to the Latin alphabet (nouas…litteras tres, Suet. Claud. 41.3). The most widely attested (and most useful, Quint. 1.7.26) letter was the inverted digamma (Ⅎ). This letter represented the consonantal V, as in AMPLICAℲIT TERMINAℲITQ (CIL VI 31537 = ILS 213) and SALℲIVS, BOℲE and IOℲI (Act. Arv. 47, 54). 38 The second of the Claudian letters resembled the Boeotian letter heta (Ͱ), which represented the sound between V and I. Examples include PRAEF. AEGͰPTI (CIL IV 918 = ILS 210), SATͰR LIBERT. NͰMPHABVS SACRVM INSTITVIT L.A.D.S.F (CIL VI 553 = ILS 3860), and TI. IVLIVS OLͰMPICVS (Gordon 1958: no. 94). 39 The third letter is unattested but was meant to represent the letters BS and PS (Prisc. Gramm. II 33. 3-4). 40 There is much debate about the precise form of the letter for BS and PS. It may have been the antisigma (Ɔ), or a variation of the Locrian and 38 Scheid 1998: 21, 22 39 Malloch 2013: 227-228 40 Malloch 2013: 228 and Oliver 1949: 253-254 31 Arcadian Ψ (Χ or Ж). 41 These letters fell into disuse shortly after Claudius’ death (Tac. Ann. 11.14.3). F. X. Ryan argues convincingly that orthography is a concern of the censors, noting the connection between the maintenance of an accurate list of Senators and the proper spelling of names. 42 His argument hinges on the rhotacization of the medial S in Roman personal names in the fourth century BCE. Appius Claudius Caecus is credited with the invention of the letter R (Dig. 1.2.2.36), and is reported to have changed Valesii to Valerii and Fusii to Furii (Mac. Sat. 3.28) during his censorship in 312 BCE. 43 Ryan argues that rhotacization suggests that Appius Claudius Caecus was the first censor to draw up a list of names and that the Lex Ovinia in practice established a connection between censorial duties and Latin orthography. 44 This explains Tacitus’ inclusion of Claudius’ orthographic innovations along with a list of his other munia censoria. 45 Although the first part of Tacitus’ account of the year 47 CE is lost, it is likely that Tacitus would have begun with Claudius’ assumption of both the censorship and consulship with Vitellius at the beginning of that year. Following his usual pattern, Tacitus would likely have focused on domestic events. It is possible that mention of Claudius’ censorship and consulship would have been followed by an account of the machinations of Messalina and freedmen of the imperial domus, perhaps even the 41 Oliver 1949: 254. 42 Ryan 1993: 612. But he goes too far in trying to establish that Claudius was trying to indicate a link with his distant ancestor, Appius Claudius Caecus when the parallels with the dictator Caesar and Augustus are more apparent. See Levick (1978). 43 See discussion in Ryan 1993: 612 and Humm 2005: 520ff. 44 Ryan 1993: 612 citing Palmer 1970: 258-259. See Varro. Ling. 6.86. 45 Suetonius mentions Claudius’ new letters as part of his rubric on Claudius’ literary efforts (Claud. 41.3) and is otherwise silent regarding Claudius’ censorship. 32 beginning of the denunciation of D. Valerius Asiaticus (11.1-3). 46 The condemnation of Asiaticus precedes accounts of other denunciations (11.4-5) and is followed by an account of the Senate’s attempt to revive the Lex Cincia of 204 BCE (11.5.3). The focus then switches to Armenian affairs (11.8-11), after which Tacitus reintroduces the consuls (isdem consulibus, 11.11.1), discusses the Secular Games and the debut of Domitius Ahenobarbus and Messalina’s new lust for C. Silius (11.11-12). Tacitus’ discussion of Claudius’ munia censoria follows (11.13-15), then a discussion of events in Germany (11.16-21). Tacitus’ account of 47 ends with an alleged attempt on Claudius’ life by Cn. Nonius. The torture of Nonius precedes yet another reintroduction of the consuls (isdem consulibus, 11.22.2) and a discussion of the ‘putting up for sale’ of the quaestorship on the proposal of P. Dolabella (11.22.2-6). 47 It would appear that the account of Claudius’ censorial duties occupies the middle of Tacitus’ narrative of the year 47, around which are arranged a series of oppositions. The condemnation of Asiaticus and others is placed in opposition to failed attempts to reform the courts. A reintroduction of the chief magistrates and censors and an account of the Secular Games stand in opposition to the debut of Domitius and Messalina’s lust for Silius. This introduces Claudius’ munia censoria. The torture of an equestrian precedes another reintroduction of the consuls, which in turn leads to the auctioning off of the quaestorship. This oppositional structure gives shape to Tacitus’ narrative while continuously inviting the reader to reflect critically on the significance of these oppositions. The chief binary opposition exploited by Tacitus seems to be outward 46 This assumption is based on Tacitus’ tendency to juxtapose mention of the eponymous magistrates with the more-or-less private affairs of the imperial domus. See below. 47 donec sententia Dolabellae uelut uenundaretur (11.22.6). 33 appearance versus reality, or how the regime wanted itself to be seen and how it actually behaved. Republican forms are introduced only to be shown that they are devoid of any substance, that the Roman world in fact turns on the emperor within his domus. This opposition structures the Annals as a whole. The reign of Nero is the climax of Tacitus’ narrative, the result, as it were, of the events he relates from the death of Augustus through the principate of Claudius. For Tacitus, then, Claudius represents the last in a chain of mishaps whose result is the emperor Nero. Whereas the opposition of appearance and reality structures the entire Annals, in his narration of Claudius’ reign, the latter’s ignorance of reality is an additional structuring element in Books 11 and 12. Claudius’ censorship is paradigmatic of this opposition of knowing and ignorance. At the cardinal moment in the narration of the year 47 CE, Tacitus writes (11.13.1): At Claudius matrimonii sui ignarus et munia censoria usurpans… But Claudius, ignorant of his own marriage and exercising his censorial duties… Claudius Censorius, the bookish antiquarian who takes delight in presiding over court cases and resurrecting old magistracies and rituals, is portrayed as allowing through his characteristic absentmindedness or carelessness (ignorantia, obliuio, inconsiderantia, neglegentia) the rise of Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, and the inevitable wars of the year 69. 48 Claudius’ ignorance of his domus comes to an abrupt (though temporary) end following Tacitus’ account of his munia censoria. Once he had adlected Gaulish nobles into the Senate, had expelled unworthy members following Augustan 48 Discussed below. See Suet. Claud. 31.1 and 40.1. 34 precedent and refreshed the ranks of the patricians following the Lex Cassia and Lex Saenia, the culmination of his efforts as censor forces an end to this ignorance of Messalina’s misdeeds and leads to another marriage and a different kind of obliviousness. In fact, Tacitus establishes a causal relationship between Claudius and Nero. More precisely, he establishes a causal relationship between Messalina and Agrippina. Tacitus writes that at the conclusion of his censorial duties, Claudius would be forced (adigere) to recognize and punish (noscere, punire) the crimes of his wife Messalina so that he would burn (ut…ardesceret) for an incestuous marriage (11.25.5). Claudius’ intervention into Latin orthography, although plausibly one of a censor’s many responsibilities, also helps to expose another series of contradictions. Claudius’ linguistic innovation is closely related to the theme of Claudius’ acts of refoundation and to legal interventions. The evolution and practice of Roman law cannot be separated from the Latin language. For example, for each cause of action, there was a formula of action. 49 A matter before the court could only proceed according to the precise wording of the formula. The strict reliance on formulae seems to have its origins in the responsa of the uates consulted during times of civic crisis, and other religious utterances. 50 The text of the Twelve Tables has a very rhythmic structure, the apodosis containing the remedy usually containing the future active imperative 51 that closely resembles sententiae troped in the comedies of Plautus that have their origins in sayings attributed to figures like Appius Claudius Caecus and Cato the Elder. 52 That Romans had 49 Nicholas 1962: 20 50 See discussion of carmina in Habinek 2005b: 75-76. 51 If X, let Y be so. E.g., XII Tab. IV.2: Si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto and Tab. VIII.2: Si membrum rup<s>it, ni cum eo pacit, talio esto. 52 See discussion in Habinek 2005b: 44-55. 35 anxiety about the proper pronunciation of religious and legal formulae is revealed in Suetonius’ discussion of Claudius’ supposed speech impediment. In letters Suetonius claims are from the imperial chancery, Augustus frets over Claudius’ ability to correctly recite ritual incantations. If the ritual were to be performed incorrectly, if Claudius were to stutter or mispronounce something, the ritual would have to be repeated from the beginning (Suet. Claud. 4.3). That Tacitus mentions Claudius’ new letters of the alphabet in connection with his censorial duties ought to be present in the minds of his readers when Claudius intervenes in matters of Roman law. It is not as though Claudius’ addition of three letters in itself is significant in terms of his legislative program. Rather, Tacitus’ readers would have been attuned to the connection between language and law. It would have come as no surprise that the princeps who altered the Latin alphabet would be the same princeps who redefines incest. 53 Tacitus signals the significance of the connection between Claudius’ linguistic and legal innovations by way of short digressions. Digressions are rare in the Annals, and in the Claudian annals, the only two relate to the alphabet and the history of the quaestorship. After the notice that Claudius invented and publicized new forms of letters (11.13.2), Tacitus embarks on a digression on the history of the alphabet. He begins with the Egyptians (11.14.1). Tacitus asserts that the Egyptians themselves claimed to be the inventors of letters. Tacitus then claims that the Phoenicians accepted credit for what they merely acquired, and that owing to their deftness at sailing, brought the alphabet to Greece. Here Tacitus digresses further on debates among the Greeks about who can claim 53 See below, Chapter 2 36 the invention of the alphabet (11.14.2). One theory Tacitus reports is that Cadmus had learned the alphabet from the Phoenicians. He also reports that Athenian Cecrops, Theban Linus, and Argive Palamedes are all attributed with discovering the first sixteen Greek letters and that Simonides discovered the rest. Tacitus then claims that the Etruscans learned the alphabet from Corinthian Demaratus and that the Aborigines learned it from Arcadian Evander (11.14.3). Tacitus appears to be attempting to reconcile a number of ancient theories concerning the development of the Greek alphabet. However, in so doing, he is placing Claudius among the exalted and very ancient company of the earliest Egyptians, Cadmus, Cecrops, Linus, Palamedes, Demaratus and Evander. These figures are foundational figures, and by placing Claudius in this category, Tacitus again alludes to the continual (re)foundation of Rome that is a centerpiece of Julio-Claudian ideology. Whereas Augustus may have been a new Romulus, Tacitus appears to make Claudius appear to be akin to Cadmus or Cecrops. 54 However, Tacitus is also signaling to his readers a connection between Claudius’ linguistic and legal innovations. The second digression in the Claudian annals is Tacitus’ brief history of the quaestorship (11.22.2-6). At first glance, this digression appears to justify the power of the princeps to designate magistrates, at least the quaestors, since it had long been the prerogative of the kings and then consuls to appoint quaestors. But on closer inspection, because no mention is made pertaining to the princeps’ designating quaestors, it is apparent that Tacitus has included this digression on the history of the 54 Statius, a younger contemporary of Tacitus, treated the “moral blindness” of Cadmus and his descendants in his Thebaid. A recurring theme in Statius’ treatment of Cadmus’ story is his genealogical and thematic relationship to Oedipus. This is potentially significant, in that Nero is portrayed by Tacitus as a new Oedipus. For ‘moral blindness’, see Keith 2004: 184. 37 quaestorship in order to expose as innovative Dolabella’s suggestion that the production of (very expensive) public gladiator games be a prerequisite for holding the office. This on the one hand looks forward to Claudius’ adlection of the primores of Gaul into the Senate which Tacitus relates in the next chapters (11.23-25). On the other hand, the proposed intervention into the quaestorship again hints at refoundation, linking Claudius with the kings, Brutus, and Sulla. In the process of so relating, Tacitus portrays Claudius constantly invoking the past. However, because it is a rather lengthy digression treating the more distant past, readers are likely to recall the previous such digression, Tacitus’ history of the alphabet. These digressions prompt the reader to reflect on the uses to which history can be put, both by Claudius and other characters in the Annals, as well as the historian himself. Tacitus’ narration of the year 48 CE begins with the consular formula (A. Vitellio L. Vips<t>ano consulibus, 11.23.1). Chapters 23-25 relate the last of Claudius’ munia censoria. The central issue is whether to enroll the primores from Gallia Comata in the Senate. Tacitus frames the narrative as an argument between nativists, who think that membership should be limited to Italians, and the emperor, who argues in favor of inclusion based on precedents from Roman history. Tacitus reports the arguments of the nativists first (11.23). They argued that Italy was not so weak as to not to be able to supply a Senate for its own City and that there was no need to seek for senators among foreign peoples, let along those who had recently been openly hostile to Rome. They invoked the memory of Caesar’s siege at Alesia and the sacking of the Capitol by the Gauls back in 390 BCE (11.23.4). They conceded that they should enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but that ‘they should not sully the insignia of the Fathers, the ornaments of 38 the magistrates (insignia patrum, decora magistratuum ne uulgarent, 11.23.4). Those who oppose the enrollment of the primores of Gallia Comata make a vague reference to the days when native Latin peoples suffered gladly the rule of a Senate of their blood relatives. They proceed to an attack on C. Julius Caesar who had admitted senators from Gaul, likening the inclusion of such men to a Gallic conquest. This is also a veiled attack on Claudius, who was born at Vienne and himself had done what good Gauls do: he captured Rome. 55 The criticism of those against enrolling the primores of Gaul also make reference to the sale of office to the richest men. This hearkens back to Tacitus’ comment on Dolabella’s motion to require gladiator games as a prerequisite for assuming the quaestorship, essentially limiting the office to the very rich or the well-connected. Additionally, the senators in opposition refer not to the auctoritas of the Senate or its constitutional powers, but the outward signs of rank: the insignia patrum and the decora magristratuum. Tacitus focuses not on political power associated with being a member of the Senate, but on the outward signs. Mention of insignia and decora trump that of auctoritas that those signs confer. Claudius’ response (11.24) closely resembles the so-called Lyon tablet, a bronze inscription relating the emperor’s speech to the Senate concerning the enrollment of the primores of Gallia Comata. In both texts, the historian emperor points out that his ancestor Clausus was admitted into the Senate though he was of Sabine origin. He goes on to name other famous men who hail from outside the City: members of the Iulii (from Alba), the Coruncani (from Camerium), the Porcii (from Tusculum) and others. Claudius rebuts arguments that former enemies of Rome should not be enrolled, citing the Vulsci 55 Sen. Apocol. 6.1: [Claudius] natus est Vienna, Gallus germanus, itaque quod Gallum facere oportebat, Romam cepit. (See discussion below, Chapter 4). 39 and Aequi, the Etruscans and Samnites. He then reminds the senators that once only patricians could attain office, but soon plebeian magistrates came, and there followed Latins and other Italians. He concludes with the following sententia (Ann. 11.24.7): omnia, patres conscripti, quae nunc uetustissima creduntur, noua fuere. Everything, conscript fathers, which is believed to be very ancient, was once new. The antiquarian is now arguing for innovation and refoundation. In this speech, Claudius appears rather thoughtful and his speech carries the house. Tacitus then relates how Claudius invoked the Cassian and Saenian laws used by Caesar and Augustus respectively to refresh the ranks of the patricians with men of good standing. He also followed Augustan precedent and allowed each senator to consider his own position (11.25.3). He advised each man to consider his own position and to seek the right of withdrawing himself from the order. ‘Indulgence in that matter would be easy…he would post at the same time those removed from the Senate and those excusing themselves,’ (facilem eius rei ueniam; et motos senatu excusatosque simul propositurum...., 11.25.3). In that way, the ignominy of the senators excusing themselves and those removed forcefully would be softened. These acts of good governance, carried by a productive use of the past, are juxtaposed to the ignominy of Claudius’ domus: Messalina’s wedding to Silius and Claudius’ subsequent incestuous marriage to Agrippina the Younger. 40 The elaboration of Claudius’ munia censoria also sets up a contrast between the exercise of the office of consul and censor regarding the status of the Senate, and the chief event of the year: the conspiracy of C. Silius and Messalina to overthrow Claudius and establish themselves as emperor and empress. 56 This contrast is between outward sign (in the form of political posturing and speech) versus action (the struggle for actual power to rule the empire). The narrative of the former event displays deliberation and shared decision-making, the latter makes no mention of the Fathers, but focuses on the domus Caesaris—consisting primarily of wife and freedmen—and, to a lesser extent, the army. Claudius’ munia censoria regarding membership in the Senate is an example of res publicae, matters concerning public affairs. A coup d’état certainly would be a matter of import for the res publica, but Tacitus does not present the scandal as a story of public affairs. Rather, the entire episode becomes a domestic melodrama that is evocative of the comic stage. Claudius is presented as a befuddled senex who is subject to the whims and wiles of his cunning slave (the freedman Narcissus). Meanwhile, Silius and Messalina’s attempted coup is narrated like a comic lover’s debacle and even includes a mime of the Bacchanalia—another domestic drama that becomes a matter of state import. 57 Tacitus’ use of the consular formula points up gaps between the image of restored republican forms and the reality of power under the principate. The two consuls named, A. Vitellius and L. Vipstanus, hardly figure in the events of the year. Vipstanus is not mentioned at all in the events of 48 apart from his role in nominating Claudius for an extraordinary honor of being hailed pater senatus (11.25.4). Vitellius, who serves as Claudius’ censorial colleague, features only as Messalina’s agent and her advocate in the 56 This is treated in greater detail in Chapter 4. 57 Pagán 2004: 50. See below, Chapter 2. 41 aftermath of Claudius’ discovery of her plot with Silius. Tacitus’ presentation of events implies that the two chief magistrates at Rome, who give their names to the year, have very little to do with the functioning of the Roman state except, as is the case with Vitellius, in connection with the machinations of the emperor’s wife. Just as Tacitus’ use of the annalistic form highlights the disconnect between image and reality, so too does Tacitus’ treatment of the business of the Senate. The composition of the Senate would be of vital importance to the state were the Senate to actually have any real political power. However, under the principate, political authority resides in the domus Caesaris. The enrollment of the primores of Gallia Comata matters primarily in terms of the relationship between center and periphery. Romanized Gaulish nobility can partake in the outward signs of the essentially Roman institution of the Senate. This is key to the de-centering of Italy within the empire, a process begun in earnest by Augustus. On the other hand, the expansion of enrollment in the Senate would have further diluted its influence, especially if a number of those new members owed their honors to the princeps. In his account of this debate, Tacitus does not write about the dignitas or auctoritas of the Senate. Rather, his characters speak only about the outward signs of membership, the insignia patrum and the decora magistratum (11.23.4). The debate in the Senate allows Tacitus to suggest that the functions of the state are no longer the purview of the Senate, but of the imperial household. It in fact shows how enervated the Senate as an institution had become because the makeup of the Senate was the decision of the emperor himself. The debate about whether to enroll Senators from Gaul appears to matter very little in terms of action because Claudius, whether in his capacity of censor or as princeps, will adlect Senators as he chooses, an action that 42 Tacitus immediately proceeds to discuss. Tacitus seems to present the speech as Claudius perpetuating the image of debate and shared power even though his course of action seems predetermined. In other words, the speech points up the discrepancy between the illusion of shared government under a restored or reconfigured republic and the reality of Claudius’ power to effect change as he sees fit. Claudius’ speech in the Senate throws into contrast two conflicting images of the man himself. On the one hand, Claudius, reviled as a fool, lacks control over his speech, body and domus and the empire. However, on the other hand, Claudius was a renowned historian 58 and was capable of delivering prepared speeches well. 59 As discussed above, Claudius’ interest in the history of the alphabet and the munia censoria of the past are part of the historian’s project to call attention to the slippage between outward form and meaning/function. However, these interests, together with his speech, replete with references to Rome’s distant past, throw into sharp relief Claudius’ ignorance of affairs under his own nose. Claudius, it seems, is the living embodiment of Julio-Claudian propaganda—an image of the past sundered from reality. As mentioned above, Tacitus presents the relationship between Messalina and Nero as causal (11.25.5). The sins of Messalina will force (adigere) Claudius to punish her crimes but also will cause him to burn for an incestuous marriage (ut…ardesceret). But Claudius himself neither really punishes nor fully recognizes the crimes of his wife. Her downfall is the result of a freedman’s action as if it had been ordained by the princeps (11.37.2). Claudius’ inability to rule his household leads to his incestuous 58 Suet. Claud. 41; Plin. NH. 7.3. 59 Besides the speech presented above, Suet. Claud. 4.6 presents a letter from Augustus to Livia in which Augustus praises Claudius’ public speaking ability. 43 marriage, the result of which would be the ascension of the tyrannical Nero. The search for Claudius’ new wife will be taken up in the next chapter. At present, let it suffice to say that Tacitus states outright that the competition among the freedmen was over who got to choose a wife for Claudius. Tacitus is diminishing Claudius’ agency in this matter in much the same way as Tacitus portrays Silius lacking agency in his affair with Messalina. The princeps is not truly in command of his domus. The wife chosen for Claudius is his brother Germanicus’ daughter, Agrippina the Younger. From the start, arguments in favor of Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina included mention of Germanicus’ grandson, born of Agrippina’s marriage to Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (12.2.3). Tacitus reports rumors that Agrippina had frequently visited her uncle on the pretext of their familial relationship, seducing him to the point that she already possessed wifely power over the princeps (uxoria potentia). Even before their marriage, Agrippina’s goal was to secure the marriage of her son Domitius to Claudius’ daughter Octavia (12.3.2). This was something that Agrippina could not accomplish without crime (loc. cit): …quia L. Silano desponderat Octauiam Caesar iuuenemque et alia clarum insigni triumphalium et gladiatorii muneris magnificentia protulerat ad studia uulgi. …because Caesar had pledged Octavia to L. Silanus and had brought the young man, who was outstanding in other ways, to the enthusiasm of the people by the triumphal insignia and the magnificence of a gladiatorial show. 44 The marriage of Claudius and Agrippina had not yet taken place, yet Agrippina is depicted as already manipulating the princeps to commit crimes on her behalf. Silanus, a great-great-grandson of Augustus, was promised the hand of the princeps’ daughter and given a debut complete with triumphal insignia and public games. It would be difficult to reverse course, but following the script (as it were) of conspiracy narratives in the Annals, an elaborate crime is concocted in order to eliminate Domitius’ rival (12.4.1). 60 Vitellius, who had shown himself willing to serve as Messalina’s agent in securing Asiaticus’ condemnation and who advocated on her behalf once Claudius had discovered her marriage to C. Silius is now working on behalf of the new wife. He is prouisor dominationum. This can be read in two ways. First, Vitellius is a foreseer of (future) dominations (the dominations of Domitius) in that he is a good reader of Agrippina’s intentions. He is also the provider of (future) dominations, being the man whose influence secures the adoption. Without his orchestrating on Agrippina’s behalf, perhaps criminal accusations would not have been laid against Silanus. Tacitus is overdetermining the rise of Nero and the role that servile people (whether they are actually freedmen or merely slavishly devoted to Agrippina) have in his ascension. Vitellius at once foresees Domitius’ rise and provides for it. In perhaps the greatest example of irony in all of the Annals, the charge that Vitellius, Claudius’ partner in the censorship, contrives against Silanus is that of incest (12.4.2): hinc initium accusationis; fratrumque non incestum, sed incustoditum amorem ad infamiam traxit. et praebebat Caesar 60 Conspiracy narratives in general are treated at length below, Chapter 4. 45 auris, accipiendis aduersus generum suspicionibus caritate filiae promptior. From this was the beginning of his accusation. He associated the brother’s love, which was not incestuous but unguarded, with something infamous. And Caesar lent him his ear, all the readier to listen to accusations against a son-in-law out of affection for his daughter. Tacitus calls Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina incestuous outright (12.5.1). Tacitus reports Vitellius’ accusations in vaguer language: that the love of the brother was ascribed to something that smacks of infamia. But Tacitus tells his audience that the relationship was not incestuous (non incestum), which distinguishes it from Claudius’ marriage, which actually is incestum. Vitellius’ behavior as censor stands opposed to Claudius’, while Silanus’ blithe unawareness resembles that for which Claudius was infamous (12.4.3): at Silanus insidiarum nescius ac forte eo anno praetor, repente per edictum Vitellii ordine senatorio mouetur, quamquam lecto pridem senatu lustroque condito. But Silanus, ignorant of the plots against him and by chance praetor for that year, was quickly removed from the senatorial order by an edict of Vitellius, even though the lectio senatus had just been finalized and the lustrum completed. 46 Vitellius abuses his position as censor, placing a nota against the name of Silanus after the completion of the lectio and the lustrum. Acting in his capacity of censor, Vitellius of his own accord could remove Silanus without the need for a criminal conviction. The appearance of impropriety is all that he apparently needed (an appearance of his own making). Tacitus makes no mention of Claudius’ imposing his veto. The reader is left to make the connection between Silanus’ fate and Claudius’ implicit support of Vitellius’ decision, which itself was based on his incestuous lust for his niece. V. Conclusion Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ tenure as censor reveals gaps between image and reality. Knowledge is juxtaposed to ignorance as Claudius is portrayed as assiduously performing the munia censoria of old while remaining oblivious to affairs unfolding in his own domus. Meanwhile, Tacitus’ Claudius projects an image of a restored Republic while Tacitus simultaneously shows the hollowness of Claudius’ projections by juxtaposing those images to the reality of affairs behind the scenes in the imperial domus. Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ munia censoria do not mask, but rather amplify the autocratic nature of Claudius’ reign and of the principate more generally. Furthermore, rituals of refoundation are hallmarks of Claudius’ censorship. In his portrayal of Claudius, Tacitus highlights links between Claudius and autocratic figures from Rome’s past, such as Romulus, Sulla and Augustus. Tacitus goes even further by associating Claudius with figures like Cadmus and Cecrops by presenting Claudius’ interventions in the Latin alphabet as part of a continuum running from the Egyptians down to Claudius himself. This link with the distant past reflects a similar association between the Julio-Claudian 47 emperors and the Flavians, in particular Domitian. Furthermore, the presentations of Claudius’ acts of refoundation and renewal are ironically juxtaposed to notices of the machinations behind the scenes of freedmen and imperial wives. While Claudius performs his role as (re)founder of Rome, Messalina plots to overthrow her husband while Nero overshadows Britannicus at the Troy Game. Tacitus’ presentation of Claudius the censor shows history to be repeating itself as his account harkens back to founders and re-founders of Rome from Romulus to Augustus while looking ahead to the tyrannies of Nero and Domitian. 48 —Chapter 2— Marriageability and Marriage: Messalina, Silius, Agrippina I. Introduction The focus of this chapter is the corruption of social forms pertaining to marriage in particular, sexuality more generally. First, I investigate Tacitus’ exploitation of social scripts for the contraction of elite marriages. I show how Tacitus relies on his readers’ implicit understandings of these practices only to show his characters putting them to novel and potentially revolutionary uses. Secondly, I look at the way in which weddings are narrated in the Claudian annals. I will show how allusion to the mimic and comic stages masks the revolutionary nature of Messalina’s wedding with Silius. Then I investigate the novel marriage of Claudius and Agrippina, an incestuous marriage that requires a change in Roman law in order for it to be contracted. I show how Tacitus points up the public nature of Messalina and Silius’ union while passing over the wedding of Claudius and Agrippina in silence. Instead, Tacitus chooses to color the latter with the downfall of L. Junius Silanus on a trumped up charge of incest. In both of these instances, the political ambitions of the wife are characterized as primarily sexual in nature. Tacitus, in other words, relies on standard rhetorical practice to conceptualize politically ambitious women. Additionally, I show how Tacitus’ sexualization of relations between the princeps and his wives deprives Claudius of agency and points up his subservience to his womenfolk (and freedmen). 49 Tacitus presents Messalina and Agrippina not merely as historical sketches of actual women, but as figures representing empire: corrupt and all-consuming. 61 Their actions within Tacitus’ narrative invert cultural expectations, which reflects poorly on Claudius. Imperial wives are centerpieces of the imperial domus, therefore they represent the outward face of the domus and by extension they stand as representations of the values of the principate itself. Dominated by his wives, Claudius is shown to be not in control of his domus. This lack of domestic control prefigures his failings (as seen by the senatorial historian) as ruler of the world. The power of imperial women not only mirrors but also undermines Claudius’ power. Messalina and Agrippina represent the excesses of the principate but their power also dislocates Claudius from his position as head of the imperial house and therefore, the empire. Tacitus takes advantage of his readers’ understandings of cultural practices and ideologies only to turn them upside down as a means of opening up lines of criticism of Claudius and the principate more generally. Tacitus exploits his readers’ preconceptions of marriage and sexual norms to expose gaps between appearance and the hidden truth behind the principate. 61 Joshel 1998: 222. 50 II. Marriageability: Julia Agrippina After the fall of Messalina, Tacitus reports that the domus of the princeps was turned upside down (12.1.1): Caede Messalinae conuulsa principis domus, orto apud libertos certamine, quis deligeret uxorem Claudio, caelibis uitae intoleranti et coniugum imperiis obnoxio. 62 With the fall of Messalina, the domus of the princeps was uprooted, with a contest having arisen among the freedmen over who would get to choose a wife for Claudius, unaccustomed as he was of living without a spouse and subservient to the commands of his wives. The opening sentence of Book 12 can be read in two different ways simultaneously. First, the household of the princeps was uprooted because there arose a contest between the freedmen. Secondly, it is possible to read that the death of Messalina uprooted the domus principis. The first reading stresses the role of the freedmen and their dominance in the process of choosing a wife. The second indicates that without a wife to rule, Claudius’ domus is in a state of turmoil. Tacitus seems to be implying that Claudius alone is incapable of ruling himself and his household and that the absence of a wife causes chaos, regardless of whether that wife actually provided any stability to the domus. Tacitus reports that Claudius needs a new wife because of his intolerance of life without a spouse and his subservience to his wives’ commands. Claudius is described as caelibis uitae intoleranti (12.1.1). Caelebs means simply ‘not having a spouse’ and is the 62 The Medicean manuscript reads intonanti, which Muretus reads as into<le>ranti. 51 same word that C. Silius will use to describe himself when proposing to Messalina. 63 Claudius had many sexual outlets. For example, he had concubines, two of whom are named: Cleopatra and Calpurnia (11.30.1). Claudius had already been married three times. Tacitus gives no explanation as to why Claudius was insolens caelibis uitae. However, the second phrase supplies an explanation for the first: coniugum imperiis obnoxius. Since the domus of the princeps had been uprooted by the death of Messalina and by the struggle among the freedmen to choose the next wife, and with Claudius subservient to the commands of his wives, Tacitus implies that the urgent need for Claudius to marry is that a wife is needed to restore order to the domus, something beyond Claudius’ capability. Claudius’ three chief freedmen are summoned to decide for Claudius who will be his new wife. Claudius is unable to choose for himself, and Tacitus remarks that Claudius’ decision varied according to which contestant he had seen or heard about last (12.1.2): ipse huc modo, modo illuc, ut quemque suadentium audierat, promptus, discordantes in consilium uocat ac promere sententiam et adicere rationes iubet. Claudius himself, inclined this way and that, (depending on whichever recommendation he heard most recently), called the quarreling freedmen to a meeting and ordered them to offer their opinions and explain their reasoning. 63 OLD 1. For caelebs and Silius, see 11.26.2. 52 Claudius calls a consilium to help him decide. In the course of the consilium, the marriageable traits of each contestant are revealed. These traits summon Tacitus’ readers’ implicit understanding of what would normally constitute a proper aristocratic match. Claudius, characteristically indecisive, orders the quarrelling freedmen to offer their opinions—this sets the stage for Tacitus’ invoking the cultural norms according to which aristocratic marriages are contracted and will subsequently show how those norms are inverted. Furthermore, the calling of the consilium indicates the importance of the marriage to the Roman state. This lifts the veil from Claudius’ claim to be merely one of the citizens (12.5.2). Contrary to imperial ideology, the exceptionalism of Caesar is laid bare. The qualities of marriageability are identifiable throughout the Latin literary tradition. In making his case that Horace’s laudes maximi of Paulus Fabius Maximus are a comment on his marriageability (Carm. 4.1.13-20), Thomas Habinek argued that there were specific criteria according to which aristocratic marriages were contracted. 64 He notes that these criteria are summarized in the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville. Isidore lists uirtus, genus, pulchritudo and sapientia as desirable trains in a man. 65 He lists pulchritudo, genus, diuitiae and mores as traits desirable in a woman (Etym. 9.7.28-29). 66 Furthermore, Habinek demonstrates that Virgil roots Dido’s desire for Aeneas in his uirtus, gentis honos, uultus and uerba (Aen. 4.3-5) and that Ovid’s Medea’s passion for Jason is kindled by his aetas (that is, good looks), genus and uirtus (Metam. 7.26-28). 67 64 Habinek 1986. 65 Habinek 1986: 410. 66 Habinek 1986: 410. 67 Habinek 1986: 410-411. Tacitus makes youthfulness a synonym for beauty in his discussion of Agrippina’s marriageable traits (12.2.3). 53 He stresses that both Dido and Medea are seeking marriages with their respective men, and “not a fling”. 68 These lists of traits reflect the cases made for marriageability of the women presented to Claudius. As Habinek has pointed out, each is portrayed as excelling the other in beauty, birth, lineage, wealth and artes honestae. 69 Many women burned (exarserant, 12.1.1) for the imperial marriage, but the final three contestants were Lolia Paulina, Aelia Paetina, and Julia Agrippina. Each woman had her freedman champion. Pallas advocated for Agrippina, Narcissus favored Paetina and Callistus supported Paulina. Tacitus writes that the freedmen were taking charge of each woman’s candidacy (fautores aderant, 12.1.2), grooming each in such a way as to make each one the most attractive choice. Success in the contest would yield great rewards for the freedman champion, so each of the three men had a vested interested in pressing their cases. Of particular importance was each candidate’s potential relationship to Claudius’ three children, Britannicus, Antonia and Octavia. Narcissus argued for Aelia Paetina, Claudius’ second wife, on the grounds that she would not look upon Britannicus and Octavia with step-motherly hatred (nouercale odium, 12.2.1), since the two children were half-siblings to her own daughter, Antonia. However, Callistus argued against Paetina on the grounds of the longstanding divorce between her and Claudius, that she would glory in her reinstatement and lord it over Claudius and his household. Furthermore, Callistus proposed that, since Lolia Paulina had no children of her own, she would harbor no resentment of Claudius’ children and would happily assume the role of parent to her stepchildren. However, any argument made on the basis of Claudius’ existing children is ultimately fallacious, since any woman could hope to have a new 68 Habinek 1986: 412. 69 Habinek 1986: 410. 54 child with Claudius, provided that she were young enough. 70 Pallas bucked the line of argument taken by Narcissus and Callistus and argued for Agrippina, precisely because she would introduce into the imperial domus the grandson of Germanicus, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Pallas, however, does not offer Domitius as a rival to Britannicus, but says that a descendant of Augustus would aid the young prince. Later, Pallas would argue for the adoption of Domitius on the grounds that he would ‘place a protective cordon of maturity around the boyhood of Britannicus’ (Britannici pueritiam robore circumdaret, 12.25.1). 71 In other words, Pallas argues that Domitius, rather than be a rival to Britannicus, would actually aid the young prince as Tiberius and the elder Drusus had while Gaius and Lucius Caesar thrived and as Germanicus had aided Tiberius while Drusus the Younger was alive (12.25.1). Tacitus is having Pallas put his own reading of history to use for his own purposes. Tacitus’ readers will already have been aware of the fate of Britannicus and the principate of Nero. Therefore, Tacitus’ use of the verb circumdare is telling. Circumdare means to place around, as in a guard. But the guard placed around Britannicus could imply both a bodyguard for his protection or guards watching over a prisoner. The metaphor is darkly humorous. Domitius will surround Britannicus with a strong guard, ostensibly for his protection, when in fact Domitius will keep Britannicus under guard and will eventually kill him in gruesome fashion. Tacitus’ audience might perceive, based on their previous knowledge of history, that Pallas is selling a naïve Claudius the demise of his own son under the pretense of protecting him. 70 Agrippina specifically is extolled for her ‘unspoiled youth’ and her ‘proven fertility’ (12.2.1). A child between her and Claudius would supersede Britannicus because the former would have been a child directly descended from Augustus. 71 This is an odd metaphor with clear military overtones. It follows Pallas’ instruction that Claudius ‘look after the interests of the state’ (consuleret rei publicae, 12.25.1). Here I have used Woodman’s translation (2004: 224). 55 Whereas Agrippina was Augustus’ great-granddaughter (her grandmother was Augustus’ only child, Julia), Claudius was not of the Julian gens. 72 He was not directly related by blood to Augustus. 73 His membership in the domus Augusti came through his grandmother, the first emperor’s second wife. 74 Furthermore, Claudius had no direct claim to the principate. Tiberius had been adopted by Augustus and was, towards the end of Augustus’ life, de facto co-emperor. Gaius Caesar was the son of the popular Germanicus and had lived with the elderly Tiberius on Capri for six years. Towards the end of his life, Tiberius granted Gaius a quaestorship and made Gaius (along with the ill- starred Gemellus) his heirs. This close association with Tiberius, his officium, his popularity with the people, his descent from the popular Germanicus and Augustus’ granddaughter, plus his having been made heir to the princeps along with Gamellus made Gaius the obvious choice to succeed his great-uncle. And so, the Senate granted Gaius tout court the bundle of powers previously held by Tiberius. Claudius had a more tenuous claim to the principate. Claudius was the grandson of Livia and brother to Germanicus (relationships that Claudius would exploit to their fullest potential after his accession 75 ), but he had been deprived of any sort of public career until his nephew Gaius made him his consular colleague in 37 CE at the age of 45. 76 With no experience as a conquering 72 For the remainder of this dissertation, the younger Julia Agrippina will be referred to as simply Agrippina. Her mother will be referred to as Agrippina the Elder. 73 Claudius was the son of Drusus, Livia’s son and Augustus’ stepson, and Antonia, the daughter of Mark Antony. 74 As T. P. Wiseman (1982: 67) famously noted: “There never was such thing as the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Our modern phrase is a misleading anachronism. It was the Julian dynasty, and Claudius did not belong to it.” 75 Osgood 2011: 47-68, especially 61-62. 76 Claudius did hold some minor priesthoods and other positions, but he was never given experience in warfare, oratory or law, the foundation of a public career. Claudius was 56 general, with no notable career as an orator and advocate, Claudius was known primarily for his disabilities and the fact that he was kept out of the limelight by Augustus and Livia. 77 Therefore, Pallas’ suggestion that Claudius should marry Agrippina “lest she take the brilliancy of the Caesars to another house” (ne…claritudinem Caesarum aliam in domum ferret, 12.2.3), must have been a major selling point for Claudius. By marrying the great-granddaughter of Augustus, Claudius would be aligning himself more closely with the Iulii Caesares. 78 However, despite the facts that would have made Agrippina the most attractive candidate for Claudius politically, Tacitus presents the match in predominantly sexual terms, writing that Agrippina added to her superior marriageability by seducing her uncle (12.3.1). Tacitus highlights Claudius’ inability to govern his passions and grants agency to Agrippina (pellicere). The emperor is the object of Agrippina’s coaxing. Tacitus’ account of the selection of Messalina’s replacement confirms the qualities sought after in a typical aristocratic marriage. Each woman sought to exhibit the nobility of her lineage, her good looks and her wealth (nobilitas, forma, opes, 12.1.1), qualities that demonstrate worthiness of so great a marriage. Pallas’ argument in favor of Agrippina included not only her illustrious lineage, but also her proven fertility (experta fecunditas, 12.2.1) and her unspoiled youth (integra iuuenta, loc. cit). These qualities of a suitable bride are reinforced in the Senate by Vitellius. He said (12.6.1): never enrolled in the Senate, perhaps, as we shall see, one reason for the odium senatorial historians had toward Claudius. 77 See Suet. Claud. 4. 78 Although Tacitus remains silent on this point, it is possible that Claudius took Agrippina as his wife out of self-preservation. Were she to have taken another husband, that man would have a claim to the throne based on his connection with Augustus through Agrippina and her son, Domitius. It is possible, therefore, that Pallas’ warning ‘lest she take the glory of the Caesars to another house’ (12.2.3) refers to this dilemma. 57 …quando maritandum principem cuncti suaderent, deligi oportere feminam nobilitate puerperiis sanctimonia insignem. Since everyone was urging the princeps to marry, it is necessary to choose a woman distinguished in lineage, child bearing and probity. Furthermore, Vitellius states that no one but Agrippina has the necessary qualities (12.6.1): nec diu anquirendum quin Agrippina claritudine generis anteiret; datum ab ea fecunditatis experimentum et congruere artes honestas. It would not take much examination to determine that Agrippina excels in the brilliancy of her lineage, and proof was given of her fertility and she had respectable skills. The search for Messalina’s replacement reveals traits generally sought in an aristocratic marriage. Each contestant is shown to have the appropriate traits, but Agrippina wins out because she excels in her lineage, looks and her proven fertility. However, although the selection of Agrippina was likely dependent on political factors, Tacitus depicts Claudius’ choice as the result of Agrippina’s sexual advances. Tacitus’ account of the search for Claudius’ new bride further reveals Claudius’ inability to govern himself, his domus and the empire. Whether it was sex or politics that led to Claudius’ choice, the decision to marry Agrippina sets the stage for the rise of Nero, the last of the Julio- Claudian emperors and, ultimately, civil war. 58 III. Marriageability: C. Silius Tacitus’ account of the marriageability of Agrippina represents established social norms for the contracting of an aristocratic marriage. Taking a step backward in chronology, we turn to the novel uses to which marriageability is put in the revolutionary engagement of C. Silius and Valeria Messalina. Just as Tacitus invokes cultural norms when narrating the search for Claudius’ new wife, Tacitus relies on his readers’ implicit understanding of what constituted a proper aristocratic match when narrating the disastrous marriage of C. Silius to Messalina. By Tacitus’ account, Silius was good husband material. Tacitus describes him as ‘the most handsome of Roman young men’ (iuuentutis Romanae pulcherrimus, 11.12.2). He was the grandson of P. Silius Nerva (consul for 20 BCE) and himself was consul designate for the year 48 CE. So, Silius had pulchritudo, genus and (assuming he had followed the career typical of Roman aristocrats) he most likely exhibited eloquentia. 79 Nevertheless, Messalina sought to elevate Silius’ already lofty standing (11.12.3): illa non furtim, sed multo comitatu uentitare domum, egressibus adhaerescere, largiri opes honores; postremo, uelut translata iam fortuna, serui liberti paratus principis apud adulterum uisebantur. Messalina, not secretly but with a large escort, frequented his household, clung to him as he came out, and lavished him with wealth and honors. 79 Silius had everything that Claudius lacked: good looks, a distinguished career and an illustrious lineage. This made him not only attractive to Messalina, but an even greater threat to Claudius. 59 Finally, as if the tables had already turned, slaves, freedmen and the trappings of the principate were seen at the house of the adulterer. 80 Tacitus here establishes the affair as a coup (see below, Chapter 4). The signs of power in many ways conferred power, and those emblems of power, and therefore the power of Claudius as princeps, were being moved from one domus to another. 81 Furthermore, the agents of power under the Claudian principate, the slaves and freedmen on whom Claudius relied so very much, were being transferred to the domus of Silius. Messalina seems to be making a princeps of Silius. Additionally, by setting up Silius to be princeps, Messalina was also making Silius an even more suitable match for herself. Silius had good looks, a promising career and a noble lineage. However, he was a private citizen and not the emperor. 82 So, she lavished Silius with honors, perhaps actually making Silius a consul. 83 The wife of the emperor could not take as a spouse someone of a status less than that of an emperor. Therefore, she transferred the signs and agents of power to her lover, not only facilitating a coup, but also raising the status of Silius as equal to that of Claudius. Messalina could then not be considered to have ‘married down.’ The political implications of Messalina’s actions regarding Silius cannot have been lost on Tacitus’ readers. Tacitus writes that Messalina had done these things ‘as if the tables had already turned’ (uelut translata iam fortuna, 11.12.3). I have translated the 80 Malloch (2013: 206) translates paratus as ‘trappings’ citing Tac. Hist. 2.59.2 and TLL x.1.322.70-323.72 81 See Osgood 2011: 47-68 82 Annals 11.31.1: …ut identidem interrogaret [Claudius], an ipse imperii potens, an Silius priuatus esset. 83 honores, as in public offices, would have made Silius not merely a consul-designate, but would have made him a public official as opposed to a priuatus. Dio (60.31.3-4) writes that Messalina had given Silius the most valuable of Claudius’ heirlooms (πάντα τὰ τιµιώτατα τῶν τοῦ Κλαυδίου κειµηλίων) and appointed him consul (ὕπατον…ἀπέφανε). 60 phrase loosely, but it can be unpacked further. The phrase indicates that these actions were undertaken ‘as if the tables had turned’ and Claudius was no longer princeps. However, Tacitus tends to use fortuna as a synonym for social status. 84 So this could mean that Messalina had transferred to Silius’ domus the trappings of power as if his social standing had changed, that is, as if Silius was no longer a priuatus. If we are to take Dio’s notice (60.31.3-4) into account, perhaps Tacitus is referring to the honor bestowed on Silius by Messalina, specifically the consulship. But Tacitus seems to be implying something more. The uelut strongly implies that Tacitus had in mind the paratus principis when he writes of Silius’ change in status. 85 In other words, Messalina had transferred to the domus of Silius the paratus princepis, as well as the slaves and imperial freedmen, as if Silius had already been elevated to the status of princeps. Nevertheless, Tacitus reports this coup specifically in terms of Messalina’s sexual promiscuity. Since the feminine ideal was chastity, women with inappropriate ambitions are portrayed as being sexually immodest. According to Tacitus’ report, Messalina had grown tired of mere adultery and wanted to try new outrages. At this very moment, Silius proposed (11.26.1): Messalina facilitate adulter<i>orum in fastidium uersa, ad incognitas libidines profluebat, cum abrumpi dissimulationem etiam Silius, [siue] fatali uecordia an imminentium periculorum remedium ipsa pericula ratus, urguebat… 84 Malloch (2013: 206), citing Ann. 11.30.2, 4.18.3, 6.6.2 and Hist. 1.15.4, argues that fortuna here specifically means ‘princeps’. 85 For Tacitus’ use of uelut, see Malloch 2013: 206 with references. 61 While Messalina had grown bored with the ease of adultery and drifted toward unheard of lusts, Silius urged an end to all the lies, whether because of some fatal insanity or because he reckoned that the remedy for imminent danger was danger itself… Although outrage and seeking refuge from danger in danger itself were the reasons postulated by Tacitus for such a marriage, he nevertheless has Silius list the traits that would make him an attractive husband to Messalina. The consul-designate and most handsome of Roman youths, a man with a noble lineage and a promising career ahead of him adds that (11.26.2): se caelibem, orbum, nuptiis et adoptando Britannico paratum. he was unwed, childless and prepared for marriage and to adopt Britannicus. Like Medea and Dido, Messalina, despite her reputation, seems uninterested in ‘just a fling’. 86 Silius proposes along lines Tacitus’ readers would expect of an aristocratic engagement. Messalina enhances his desirable traits by bestowing on him the emblems and trappings of the principate. Though Tacitus claims that Messalina is acting out of a desire for even greater outrage than the rather simple act of adultery, marriage would have conferred upon the couple a kind of legitimacy that, had their coup succeeded, would have been the foundation of a new imperial dynasty, with Silius and Messalina as 86 By implicitly adding Messalina to the company of Medea and Dido, Tacitus is assigning to Messalina the role of the tragic woman, presaging her downfall and death. 62 emperor and empress, Britannicus poised to succeed his mother and step-father (assuming that he would not be supplanted by a son born to the newlywed couple). 87 Not only does Tacitus’ reference to Silius’ marriageability indicate the dynastic aspirations of Messalina, it provides a glimpse at social practice in action. Specific, culturally determined traits were sought in an elite marriage. Tacitus exploits his readers’ implicit understanding of these expectations in order to highlight the gaps between outward appearance and reality. The forms of elite marriages are followed, but, ironically, despite all that, Messalina is not available. Messalina, already married to the princeps, accepts a socially suitable match as her new husband. The goal is to replace Claudius as princeps, not merely as husband. Furthermore, Tacitus intensifies the outrage of Messalina’s unlawful marriage by having her and Silius follow culturally determined protocol only to not only affect a change in government, but also out of a desire to be as scandalous as possible. Again, Tacitus conceptualizes feminine ambition in sexual terms. Not only was the marriage of Silius and Messalina an attempted coup d’état, but it was a representation of how the traditional cultural norms of Roman society had become perverted. The forms are just that: forms devoid of meaning. Just as Tacitus portrayed Claudius as a censor of old while being woefully ignorant of the outrages of his own domus, Tacitus presents Silius a suitable match for Messalina while showing their union to be simultaneously a mockery of the institution of marriage and a coup against the government of the day. 87 Tacitus seems to indicate that Britannicus would either be supplanted by the offspring of his mother and Silius, or he would find himself in the shadow of another, more recent heir of Claudius. Like Medea’s children, Messalina’s are doomed, tragic figures. 63 IV. The Wedding of C. Silius and Valeria Messalina Messalina and Silius’ conspiracy against Claudius will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. At present, the focus will be on the wedding of Silius and Messalina as a narrative event. First, I will explore how Tacitus’ narrative of the wedding relies for its structure on aristocratic norms for conducting a wedding ceremony. Next, I will address how depictions of Messalina as the ‘bad wife’ reflect on Claudius. Then, I will discuss the wedding feast and how Tacitus uses allusion to the stage (especially, as we shall see, the mimic and comic stages) to characterize the revolutionary act that the wedding constitutes and the tragicomic results that point up Claudius’ lack of control over himself, his domus, and the empire. Tacitus presents Silius as an ideal marriageable bachelor—rich, distinguished in his career and lineage, and good looking. Messalina is depicted raising the social profile of Silius by transferring to his domus the trappings of imperial power. Messalina has set Silius up to be the next emperor. Tacitus then narrates the wedding itself. He is careful to demonstrate that the wedding was carried out according to established form and conducted in the presence of witnesses. Tacitus writes that (11.27): consulem designatum cum uxore princips praedicta die, adhibitis qui obsignarent, uelut suspiciendorum liberorum causa conuenisse, atque illam audisse auspicum uerba, subisse <flammeum>, sacrificasse apud deos; discubitum inter conuiuas, oscula complexus, noctem denique actam licentia coniugali. 64 a consul-designate came together with the wife of the princeps on an appointed day with those at hand to serve as witnesses, as if for the purpose of begetting legitimate children, and she for her part had heard auspicious words, had taken on the flame colored veil and had sacrificed to the gods; that they reclined together among their guests, that there were hugs and kisses and then, a night spent in marital license. A wedding must take place on a day appropriate for wedding ceremonies and there must be witnesses present, hence Tacitus indicates that the date of the wedding was at least to some degree planned in advance (praedicta dies). 88 In the eyes of the law, intent of the parties was the only thing strictly necessary for a wedding to be contracted (assuming that the parties were each legally free to be married), and so the presence of witnesses was essential, and Tacitus stresses that there were people on hand to serve as witnesses. 89 Later on, when the wedding of Silius and Messalina was revealed to Claudius, the freedman Narcissus would reiterate that the marriage compact was properly witnessed (11.30.2): …nam matrimonium Silii uidit populus et senatus et miles… …for the People and Senate, and the soldiery saw the wedding of Silius… The wedding was no secret. The consent of both parties was seen by all. Tacitus also alludes to the formulaic Senatus Populusque Romanus, and by so doing not only points up the revolutionary act of the wedding (i.e., that the wedding is indeed a major threat to Claudius’ power), but it furthermore hints at the fully public nature of the event. This was 88 Treggiari 1991: 161. 89 Dig. 23.2.1-2, 5; 23.2.12.4. 65 not something done in secret, but like other aristocratic weddings, it was carried out for all to see in the light of day. 90 The appropriate ritual words were uttered, Messalina wore the flame-colored veil, and the couple made sacrifices to the gods. 91 The actions Tacitus lists are likely in the order of a traditional Roman wedding ceremony. 92 The phrase suspiciendorum liberorum causa is reminiscent of formulae for contracting a legal marriage. 93 All of the elements of a Roman wedding are present and Tacitus seems to point up the very public nature of the act. Tacitus’ use of uelut here further testifies to the seriousness of the wedding. Although it may have been somewhat of a mock wedding, the couple took all the right steps as if they were coming together for the purpose of begetting legitimate children. 94 There followed other customary activities: a wedding feast where the couple reclined together and shared kisses and embraces, followed by the consummation of the marriage (licentia coniugalis). 95 The phrase ‘marital license’ indicates that the couple felt 90 This is in sharp contrast to Claudius’ wedding to Agrippina, which (as discussed below) was ostensibly foisted upon Claudius by the Senate and confirmed only by rumor. 91 atque illam audisse asupicum uerba, subisse <flammeum>, ascrificasse apud deos (11.27). I follow Koestermann’s (1960: 218) rendering of the text, citing Urlichs, in reading subisse and adding flammeum. Malloch (2013: 409-410) reads fuisse for subisse and oblises it, not finding Furneaux’s (1891) explanation of fuisse as a word for several parts of the wedding ceremony (crossing the husband’s threshold, taking up the yoke of marriage, putting on the veil, etc.) convincing. 92 See Malloch (2013: 409-410) for a complete discussion. 93 Suet. Diu. Iul. 52.3: liberorum quaerendum causa; Aug. Serm. 9.18: id etiam tabulae [nuptialis] indicant ubi scribitur: liberorum procreandorum causa; Cod. Iust. 5.4.9: si uincinis uel aliis scientinus uxorem liberorum procreandorum causa domi habuisti. See Malloch 2013: 409. 94 OLD 2 95 Licentia coniugali is an unusual phrase and is first attested in Tacitus. Jerome normalizes the term at Epist. 117.9 (Malloch 2013: 410). The noun is cognate with the verb licere and can have negative connotations. For example, Claudius as censor issued ‘stern reprimands’ to the people for their licentia in the theater, in which instance the 66 free to publically acknowledge the sexual nature of their relationship. The ceremony purports to lend legitimacy to Messalina and Silius’ union and therefore justification for a sexual relationship between the two, no matter how unlikely it would have been that the wedding night would have been the first time Messalina and Silius had had sex. Tacitus’ portrayal of her behavior implies that Messalina was quite sexually promiscuous. 96 She forced Silius to divorce his wife so she could have him at her beck and call (11.12.2). She attended his domus on a number of occasions (11.35.1) and Silius himself admitted that he was guilty of a ‘shameful act’ (flagitium) that was known to all (11.27.1). One can only infer that the flagitium was illicit sex with the wife of the Roman emperor. Comprehension of this short list of actions—conuenisse, audisse, subisse, sacrificasse, discubitum inter conuiuas, noctam actam licentia coniugali—relies on Tacitus’ readers’ implicit understanding of how aristocratic marriages were contracted and conducted. Tacitus relies on social scripts to frame his narrative in such a way as to force his readers to contemplate the full implications of the events. Tacitus tends to remain silent about the full implications of things, relying instead on his readers to do the interpretive heavy lifting. Tacitus gives as Messalina’s reason for marrying Silius that she had grown tired of mere adultery (11.26.1): Iam Messalina facilitate adulter<i>orum in fastidium versa ad incognitas libidines profluebat… term designates lewdness generally tolerated in the theater. Here, Tacitus seems to be implying that the wedding provides some cover for Silius and Messalina’s licentiousness. 96 Plin. HN. 10.172; Juv. 6.115-124, 10.329-345. 67 Now Messalina, already bored with the ease of committing adultery was drifting toward hitherto unrecognized lusts… The literary tradition paints Messalina in a very bad light. Juvenal cites her as a paragon of promiscuity in his sixth and his tenth satires. Dio claims that it simply was not enough for Messalina to play the role of adulteress and harlot, but that she prostituted herself and forced ladies of high rank to do likewise and desired to have many husbands (60.31.1- 2). 97 Pliny, in the Historia Naturalis, claims that she beat out the leading prostitutes of Rome in a competition of sexual endurance (10.172). Without commenting on the reality of Messalina’s sexual appetite, that she was depicted as a promiscuous adulteress reinforces Roman conceptions of the ideal wife. The ways in which she is portrayed as misbehaving follow a script, as we shall see with Agrippina, whereby elite men discuss female agency. A good wife does not meddle in politics but remains more-or-less silent. Messalina and Agrippina do not follow the social scripts for the role of the good wife, and their desire for power is reflected in terms of their sexual habits. They are what good wives are not. Public perceptions of the wife were seen to reflect onto the husband. On the one hand, the chastity, fidelity and modesty of the wife lend respectability to the husband (Plin. Pan. 83). 98 On the other hand, the improbity of the wife reflects the husband’s perceived inability to properly rule his domus. 99 Pliny’s panegyric to Trajan gives us a picture of this ideal wife. His presentation of Pompeia Plotina (whom Pliny 97 Dio (60.31.2): καὶ ἐπεθύµησε καὶ ἄνδρας, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τοῦ λόγου, πολλοὺς ἔχειν. …and she desired to have many husbands, that is, men with that very name. 98 See the discussion in Osgood (2011:207) and Kampen (1991: 218-241). 99 Osgood (2011: 210) 68 does not even name), her chastity, modesty, constancy and artes honestae (i.e., her lack of political ambition) yield gloria to her husband. 100 Messalina, after 48 CE, represents the worst aspects of feminine behavior and thus brings dishonor to Claudius himself. That is, even if for some reason the politics of the day necessitated Messalina’s disgrace, thus providing the pretext for her removal, Tacitus and the other sources paint Messalina’s fall from favor in such a way that ultimately reflects badly on Claudius. 101 The example of Plotina shows that the “emperor’s womenfolk could bring to him and his rule a strong sense of morality”. 102 This is the main reason Julius Caesar presents for divorcing his wife Pompeia after the Bona Dea scandal. 103 In portraying Messalina as anything other 100 Plin. Pan. 83: Tibi uxor in decus et gloriam cedit. Quid enim illa sanctius? quid antiquius? Nonne, si Pontifici Maximo deligenda sit coniux, aut hanc, aut similem (ubi est autem similis?) elegerit? Quam illa nihil sibi ex fortuna tua, nisi gaudium, uendicat! quam constanter, non potentiam tuam, sed ipsum te reueretur! Your wife yields for you honor and glory. For what is more holy, more ancient? If a wife had to be chosen for the Pontifex Maximus, would he not choose her or someone similar (however, where is there one similar?)? She claims nothing for herself from your fortune but her own happiness, steadfast in her devotion to you yourself and not to your power. 101 Before 48 CE, Messalina was honored conspicuously in public. There was a statue of herself in the Forum of Augustus and in the provinces, her images appeared on coins, her name on the city gates of Verona and she enjoyed many of the special privileges granted only to Livia, such as the right to be conveyed in a special carriage and to sit among the Vestals during state games (Osgood 2011: 206-207). On coins issued before 48 CE, Messalina is represented as Hope (see Osgood 2011: 207 and Kampen (1991: 218-241). This changed in 48. Tacitus represents this change as a horrific turn to profligacy on Messalina’s part. There are a number of theories as to what happened. Was she about to be put aside for Agrippina? Had she started to scheme in order to get Britannicus on the throne with she and Silius as regents? Perhaps she was sexually promiscuous and her illicit dalliances became publically known? Whatever the reason, Messalina’s reputation suffers after 47 CE and her fortunes rapidly change for the worst. 102 Osgood (2011: 208) 103 Cicero, ad Att, 1.13; Plutarch, Caesar 9-10; Dio. 37.45.2 and Suetonius, Diu. Iul. 6.2 and 74.2. 69 than the wifely ideal, the literary tradition (Tacitus included) comments on Claudius’ lack of control of himself, his household and the empire. Busy with playing the role of censor, Claudius is ignorant of his own domus and unable to control it. Tacitus’ narration of the proposal and wedding is followed by the account of the denunciation to Claudius of Messalina. The news of the wedding caused the imperial domus to shudder (domus principis inhorruerat, 11.28.1). 104 The freedman Narcissus induced two of Claudius’ concubines to denounce Messalina to the emperor. This orchestrated revelation leads to Narcissus being summoned (11.30.2): ‘an discidium’ inquit, ‘tuum nosti? nam matrimonium Silii uidit populus et senatus et miles; ac ni propere agis, tenet urbem maritus.’ Narcissus said, ‘do you know about your divorce? The People and Senate, and the soldiers witnessed the marriage of Silius. Unless you act quickly, the husband holds the city.’ Discidium and matrimonium stand in stark opposition to one another: Claudius’ divorce, Silius’ wedding. Noscere here can mean two things at once. On the one hand, Narcissus simply asks Claudius if he has come to know of his divorce, a divorce that has happened without his consent. On the other hand, Narcissus’ words might be read as ‘do you recognize,’ i.e. ‘do you consent’. Claudius’ consent would be needed for the divorce to be legal. Narcissus also refers to Silius as ‘the husband’. This reinforces the very public nature of the wedding and the very real threat to Claudius’ power. Unless Claudius were 104 Just as Dionysus causes the house of Pentheus to shudder in Euripides’ Bacchae. 70 to act quickly, the husband of Messalina will hold the city. But just who is the husband of Messalina? In a show of good judgment, Claudius inquires about the corn supply and the status of the praetorians (11.31.1). But then he descends into panic as a cacophony of advice is hurled at him from a number of his advisors (11.31.1). The Claudius who had been ignorant of his own domus (isque illi finis inscitiae erga domum suam fuit, 11.25.5) is now made painfully aware of what had been transpiring under his nose and he loses control of himself. 105 As Claudius and his advisors scramble to assert control over the situation, Tacitus embarks on the account of the spectacular wedding banquet. I argue that Tacitus’ mode of discourse here is structured by reference to the stage, be it mimic or comic. I do not suggest that Tacitus is alluding to a specific play. Rather, the way in which Tacitus discusses the wedding feast is evocative of kinds of performances Roman readers would have been familiar with from daily life. These allusions to the stage not only point up the very public and revolutionary nature of Silius and Messalina’s union, but they further contribute to Tacitus’ portrait of Claudius as a foolish cuckold unable to properly govern himself, his domus and the empire. S. K. Dickison has referred to Claudius as the ‘Saturnalicus princeps’. 106 According to Dickison, Tacitus creates a satiric and comical portrayal of Claudius using inversion and in so doing, makes Claudius the figure of the king of Saturnalia, a drunken 105 Much like Augustus, who in the midst of promulgating strict moral legislation discovered his daughter and granddaughter’s illicit behavior. 106 Dickison 1977: 634-635, a phrase borrowed from Sen. Apocol. 8. 71 buffoon subject to the commands of women and slaves. 107 The present analysis of the wedding feast of Silius and Messalina, and Claudius’ reaction to it, contributes to Dickison’s argument by highlighting Tacitus’ reliance on scripts to characterize Claudius as the Saturnalicus princeps, a man who lacks control over his own passions, his household and, subsequently, the empire. As we have seen, Tacitus relies on social scripts pertaining to aristocratic engagements and weddings to structure his account of the search for a new bride for Claudius and the contracting of a marriage between Silius and Messalina. In many instances, however, Tacitus’ characters invert or misperform the scripts. We now move on to an analysis of Tacitus’ reliance on scripts borrowed from, or evocative of, the Roman stage to characterize Messalina’s bacchanalia-themed wedding feast and Claudius’ reaction to it. Although the elements of a coup are present in Tacitus’ rendering of events, he locates Messalina’s desire for power not only in her sexuality, but also in her decadence (luxus). And so, since it was late autumn (adulto autumno), Messalina celebrated a simulacrum uindemiae per domum (11.31.2): At Messalina non alias solutior luxu, adulto autumno simulacrum uindemiae per domum celebrabat. urgeri prela, fluere lacus; et feminae pellibus accinctae adsultabant ut sacrificantes uel insanientes Bacchae; ipsa crine fluxo thyrsum quatiens, iuxtaque Silius hedera uinctus, gerere cothurnos, iacere caput, strepente circum procaci choro. 107 Dickison 1977: 635 72 And Messalina, at no other time more unfettered in her decadence, celebrated a mock vintage throughout the household. Presses were pressed, vats overflowed. Ladies ecstatically danced about girt in animal skins like sacrificing or, if you will, raving Bacchantes. Messalina herself, with her hair flowing down, shaking the thyrsus, and Silius next to her, wreathed in ivy, were wearing buskins and tossing their heads while a wanton chorus wailed around them. Messalina brings the countryside—the usual setting for bacchic revelry—to the imperial domus, complete with presses and vats overflowing with wine. 108 The women attending the feast wear fur pelts. The feminae violently or ecstatically dance about like sacrificing or frenzied Bacchantes. 109 Messalina, her hair flowing, shakes a thyrsus. 110 Silius, nearby, is wreathed (bound) in ivy and wearing the buskins of the tragic stage (cothurni). Tacitus’ use of uinctus to describe Silius constitutes a subtle remark about the power of Messalina. Although he ostensibly initiated the marriage, like Claudius, he is subject to the ambitions of his wife. Meanwhile, the couple toss their heads as a wanton chorus dances around them. At the center of this wedding feast is song and dance: the dancing women, the wailing of the procax chorus, the shaking of heads and thyrsus. 108 The language here is evocative of Varro. Rust. 1.54.2-3. See Malloch 2013: 434. 109 Tacitus uses femina rather than the more general mulier, implying that these Bacchae were otherwise respectable ladies. Malloch 2013: 434. He also rightly points out (2013: 435) that adsultare is a much more forceful verb than salire or saltare. 110 The thyrsus appears repeatedly throughout the Bacchae (25, 80, 495-496), and thyrsum quatiens is evocative of κτυποῦντα θύρσον (Eurip. Bacch. 240), the intertext is likely Catullus’ account of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, during the description of the tapestry featuring Bacchantes (64.254-260). Furthermore, sculpture usually depicts woman of high rank as having their hair done up. That Messalina’s is flowing down is further evidence of the decadence of the revel. 73 Most scholars have pointed to Euripides’ Bacchae as the chief literary reference for this scene and the bacchic overtones of the wedding feast have been discussed at length. 111 But this is problematic. Francesca Santoro L’Hoir argues that Tacitus “garnered some of his rhetorical techniques” from Attic tragedy. 112 She goes on to argue that Attic tragedy serves a fundamental role in structuring the Annals. 113 However, I think this emphasis is misplaced. Based on Cicero and Quintilian’s remarks on the importance of the study of Greek tragedy and the fact that Tacitus was a skilled orator—Pliny wrote that Tacitus spoke σεµνῶς at the bar (Ep. 2. 11.17) while Tacitus himself wrote on the supposed decline of oratory in his Dialogus—it is indeed possible that the Greek tragedians did exercise some influence on Tacitus’ historiography, but only in terms of register and mode of discourse. There is little evidence that the Bacchae of Euripides served as an intertext. 114 However, mime does provide structure to Tacitus’ narrative. Mime was wildly popular during the imperial period and it exerted significant influence over Roman literature. 115 If we are to take literally a dictum of Cicero, Roman mime had its origins in Alexandria (Cic. Pro. Rab. Post. 35). 116 There is some evidence that this is in fact the 111 Vessey 1971: 398-399; Dickison 1977: 644-645; Henrichs 1978: 156-159; Segal 1997: 46-47, 86-87; Santoro-L’Hoir 2006: 235-237; Wiseman 2008: 199; Malloch 2013: 432-437. 112 Santoro L’Hoir 2006: 3 113 Santoro L’Hoir 2006: 3 and passim. 114 But why is the scene bacchic and not some other kind of romp? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Plutarch reports that Marc Antony, Messalina’s great- grandfather, was received as the new Dionysus at Ephesus, complete with women decked out like bacchantes with men dressed as satyrs (Plut. Anton. 24.3). 115 Reynolds 1947: 77-84, Fantham 1989 and Zanobi 2014: 21. 116 Audiebamus Alexandriam, nunc cognoscimus. Illinc omnes praestigiae, illinc, inquam, omnes fallaciae; Omnia denique ab his mimorum argumenta nata sunt. 74 case. We do have fragments of eight mimiambi of Herodas dating to the 3 rd century BCE, which treat themes of fornication, if not adultery. 117 From the imperial period, we have the so-called “Jealous Lady Mime” from Oxyrhynchus, a monologue spoken by a single archimima, perhaps the jealous lady herself (Pap. Oxy. iii. 413). D. Laberius gives us our first traces of mime at Rome, and fornication and adultery seem to be prevalent themes. 118 Valerius Maximus confirms that adultery is the central theme in Roman mime. He reports that the city of Massilia banned mimes outright, quorum argumenta maiore ex parte stuprorum continent actus (Val. Max. 2.6.7). The elder Seneca also testifies that adultery was a major theme of mimes (Controv. 2.4.5). The Christian apologist Minucius Felix rails against the adultery mime, referring to acts of adultery not merely simulated but actually performed, a notion supported by the admittedly dubious Lampridius, who writes that Elagabalus ordered that what is usually simulated in mimicis adulteriis be actually performed. 119 In a fiery sermon from the late 4 th century, St. John Chrysostom shames the hypocrisy of those who look upon the altar of the Blessed Sacrament with the same eyes that have beheld the bed (ἡ κλίνη) of the adultery mime (6.558), implying that the wife’s bedroom within her husband’s domus was the primary scene for mimic performances. 120 Inflamed rhetoric aside, these notices testify to the prevalence of the theme of adultery in mime and the duration of its popularity. We were always hearing about Alexandria, now we know it ourselves. From there comes all trickery, all deceit. Lastly, it is from these people where all the plots of the mimes are born. 117 Panayotakis 2010: 6. 118 Panayotakis 2010: 7. 119 Zanobi 2014: 3-6. 120 Οὐ δέδοικας, ἄνθρωπε, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀφθαλµοῖς καὶ τὴν κλίνην τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας βλέπτων, ἔνθα τὰ µυσαρὰ τελείται τῆς µοιχεῖας δράµατα, καὶ τὴν τράπεζαν ταύτην τὴν ἱεράν, ἔνθα τὰ φρικτὰ τελεῖται µυστήπια; 75 The fourth century CE grammarian Diomedes (quoting a Hellenistic source) identified the main components of mime in general: Spoken word (sermo); imitation (imitatio, mimus dictus, παρὰ τὸ µιµεῖσθαι, quasi solus imitetur); bodily movements (motus); and obscenity from everyday life (factorum et dictorum turpium cum lascivia). 121 Dance was particularly important in mime, as Ovid testifies (AA 1.501- 502). 122 The actors wore masks and women participated as actresses and dancers. So, imitation including broad gestures, song, dance and low-life subject material define Roman mime. Ovid also provides a glimpse of the plot of the typical adultery mime (Trist. 2.497-500): Quid, si scripsissem mimos obscena iocantes, qui semper uetiti crimen amoris habent: in quibus assidue cultus procedit adulter, uerbaque dat stulto callida nupta uiro? What if I had written obscene and jesting mimes That always portray the crime of forbidden love: In which a cultus adulter constantly appears, And the callida nupta deceives her stultus uir? Have you no fear, gentleman, that with the same eyes you behold the bed in the orchestra, where are performed those foul dramas of adultery, and the holy table where the dread mysteries are performed? 121 Panayotakis 2010: 7-8 122 Et plaudas aliquam mimo saltante puellam, Et faueas illi, quisquis agatur amans. And applaud whatever girl dances the mime And favor whomever plays the lover. 76 Roman adultery mime consisted generally of three characters: the clever wife; the husband—whom R. W. Reynolds describes as “fat, stupid, bald-headed and ugly, fit only to be made a mock of by the quick-witted pair of lovers”—and lastly the handsome, cultivated lover played by the archimimus. 123 From what we can tell from fragments and references in literature, Roman mime generally consisted of three acts. In the first act, the husband and wife interact. Usually the husband questions his wife about possible infidelity. She deceives her husband, perhaps assuaging him with sex, and then she concocts some errand for him in order to get him out of the house. The second part is the love scene between the cultus adulter and the adulterous wife. The third act, the climax, was the sudden arrival of the husband, the lover hiding himself somewhere and his subsequent discovery by the husband. Juvenal references the hiding of the lover in mime. He writes (6.41-44): quid fieri non posse putes, si iungitur ulla Vrsidio? si moechorum notissimus olim stulta maritali iam porrigit ora capistro, quem totiens texit perituri cista Latini? What do you think is impossible if someone marries Ursidius? If he, once the most notable of adulterers, now puts his stupid face in the marital muzzle, Whom so often the chest of disappearing Latinus covered up. 123 Reynolds 1947: 80. 77 Latinus seems to be a stock character in mime, the handsome and sophisticated young lover. The scholiast commenting on these lines writes that Ursidius had been ‘the man who is so often discovered by the husband hidden under a chest, as in the mime’ (… qui totiens superveniente marito sub cista celatus est, ut in mimo). 124 Likewise, Tacitus’ adultery mime consists of three main characters and three ‘acts.’ First, Claudius, as the stultus uir, is away from Rome, sacrificing at Ostia. Next, in his absence, the cultus adulter and the callida nupta meet at the husband’s house and commit a spectacular act of adultery by actually wedding one another. There follows a feast with bacchic overtones. Tacitus has his characters act out a musical number with Messalina conducting. The scene is decorated with vats and presses. The women dance about clad in animal skins. Messalina and Silius are likewise costumed and Messalina seems to conduct the whole affair with her thyrsus. Finally, Claduius will suddenly arrive and send the partygoers into a panic. The whole narrative event is characterized by motion with an emphasis on singing and dancing. Tacitus’ readers would likely have recognized this scene as parallel to the adultery mime, which would have encouraged them to think more critically on Claudius as a fool of a husband and thus an incompetent ruler. Furthermore, Tacitus’ audience is left to contemplate the contrast between the somewhat trivial outcome of the adultery mime and the serious and bloody outcome following Messalina and Silius’ performance. Roman comedy is yet another influence on Tacitus’ account of the wedding of Messalina and Silius. Roman comedy is known for its reliance on stock characters and predictable plots. Generally speaking, a young man wants to obtain some thing (a 124 Reynolds 1947: 81 78 woman, a sum of money) and dupes an old man (his father) with the help of a conniving slave. Although many of Plautus’ plays could serve as a model for Tacitus’ account, the focus here will be on Plautus’ Bacchides. An adaptation of Menander’s Δὶς Ἐξαπατῶν, the play is a series of misidentifications and confusion between the two sisters named Bacchis and the two men that love each of the girls. A slave connives and contrives a series of schemes to help both young men obtain their girls and the money needed to secure them. Plautus’ comedy is also an example of how bacchic rites were portrayed in Roman culture. At the outset of the Bacchides, the somewhat timid Pistoclerus gets propositioned by one of the two Bacchises. In response to promises of drink and kisses, the young man replies that her kind of business would not be profitable for himself. She asks him why and he responds (53): Quia, Bacchis, bacchas metuo et bacchanal tuom. Because, Bacchis, I’m scared of Bacchantes and your bacchanalia. Bacchis’ reply (54): Quid est? quid metuis? ne tibi lectus malitiam apud me suadeat? What’s the deal? What are you afraid of? That the couch will seduce you to do naughty things to me? Pistoclerus replies (55): Magis illetum tuom quam lectum metuo. mala tu es bestia. 79 I’m more afraid of the girl on the couch rather than the couch itself. You are a bad beastie. Sex and animal imagery are characteristic of the ‘bacchanal’ Bacchis is proposing. The blending of sex, excessive drink and the commingling of men and women of different statuses is what frightens poor Pistoclerus. It is what Roman society fears in the bacchanalia. 125 This view is supported in the frantic speech of the pedantic paedagogus Lydus (371-372): Bacchides non Bacchides, sed bacchae sunt acerumae. Apage istas a me sorores, quae hominum sorbent sanguinem. Bacchises! These are not girls named Bacchis, but the maddest of bacchantes. To hell with you, you sisters who suck the blood of men. Like Messalina inhians, the Bacchises’ insatiable desire is said to consume men. Never mind that the joke is on Lydus, but the perception of desiring women as wild, uncivilized and dangerous, as insanientes bacchae (Tac. Ann. 11.31.2), is a theme persistent throughout the Roman literary tradition. By alluding to the trope of the dangerous bacchant, Tacitus paints Messalina’s political ambition as insatiable sexual desire. Messalina converts the imperial domus into a mock vintage in the countryside. The internal is made external. The imperial bed is made common. Messalina conducts the bacchanalia with her thyrsus. She is the center of the action, the mistress of the sacrificantes uel insanientes bacchae. Silius, girt, or even 125 S.C. de Bacchanalia: CIL I 2 2. 581 and Livy 39.8-39.16 80 bound (uinctus, 11.31.2), is made her object as Messalina’s wantonness swallows up a consul-designate and all of their associates and threatens to devour the empire itself. This is a vivid inversion of events prior. The wedding, complete with legal formulae and appropriate rituals, was conducted according to established cultural norms. The wedding feast represents chaos. Its bacchic themes evoke fears latent in the Roman cultural consciousness, fears of social and political revolt and the dissolution of boundaries. Tacitus frames Messalina’s marriage to Silius as deadly to the state and the social order while theatricalizing an event the author himself acknowledges as incredible by referring to the wedding as fabulosus (11.27.1), or something one would see on stage. Tacitus writes that he is not ignorant of the fact that it would seem like something for the stage that a consul-designate would openly marry the wife of the princeps. This admission of the stage-like quality of the wedding strengthens the case that Tacitus is presenting the wedding as real and therefore a coup against Claudius. Although Tacitus alludes to the mimic and comic stage to frame his account, although the events seem (uideri, 11.27.1) to be like a fabula, it evidently really did happen. The bacchanalia concludes with the dark comedy of Claudius’ reaction to the crisis and Messalina’s end. Reminiscent of Atellan farce and Roman comedy, role reversal and complex deceptions drive the plot of Claudius’ response. Partygoer Vettius Valens, evocative of Pentheus, playfully scurries up a very tall tree and, asked what he sees, reports seeing a terrible storm blowing in from Ostia (tempestatem ab Ostia atrocem, 11.31.3). This marks the end of the party and the beginning of the slaughter to come as the revelers are hunted down and executed—the third act of the adultery mime is transformed into a tragedy. 81 Not rumor, but messengers (non rumor…sed nuntii, 11.32.1) bring news that Claudius is no longer ignorant of affairs (gnarus) and is returning to Rome searching for vengeance. The partygoers scatter. Messalina hurries to the Lucullan gardens and Silius, concealing his guilt, hides in plain sight in the forum (11.32.1). The panic with which the partygoers depart this way and that stands in stark contrast to the wine, dancing, procax chorus and revelry of the previous chapter—social chaos strangely orchestrated in the form of song and dance. Friends of Messalina and Silius are arrested by centurions. Messalina, deprived of her rationality, seeks to meet her husband (maritus, 11.32.2). Having already traversed the city, from the Palatine to the Lucullan gardens, she heads back toward the Ostian road. 126 Messalina is conveyed in a cart used to haul away garden waste (uihiculo, quo purgamenta hortorum e<x>cipiuntur, 11.32.3). The woman who destroyed a man to obtain the magnificent gardens of Lucullus, wherein Tacitus will stage Messalina’s death, is carried out as compost. The influence of comedy can be seen especially in the interactions between princeps and his freedman, especially Narcissus. Narcissus takes charge of informing Claudius of Messalina’s marriage. He compels two concubines to break the news to Claudius. Tacitus gives us the names of the concubines, Calpurnia and Cleopatra. Naming the two lends credibility to the story, but it also indicates that Tacitus is theatricalizing events. 127 As with Messalina’s bacchanalia, Tacitus relies on the Roman stage to articulate his conception of events. Narcissus is summoned as soon as Cleopatra 126 This is a remarkable trek. Tacitus tells us that Messalina fled from the domus (presumably the imperial palace on the Palatine) to the Lucullan gardens near the Flaminian gate, then back across the city towards the road to Ostia. 127 Calpurnia was the name Julius Caesar’s third and last wife and his adulteress. Cleopatra was Antony’s. Tacitus has Claudius linking himself with luminaries from the past in more ways than one: he playing at once both Caesar and Antony. 82 acknowledges that what Calpurnia had said about the wedding was true. There follows a difficult passage, wherein Tacitus seems to be intentionally ambiguous (11.30.2): is ueniam in praeteritum petens, quod †eicis†, Vettios, Plautios dissimulauisset, nec nunc adulteria obiecturum ait, ne domum seruitia et ceteros fortunae paratus reposceret: frueretur immo his <s>et redderet uxorem rumperetque tabulas nuptiales. 128 He [Narcissus], seeking pardon because he had dissimulated the Vettiuses and the Plautiuses, said he would not even now allege adultery, let alone that he would demand back the domus, the slaves and the other trappings of fortune. Rather, let the other one enjoy these, but he should return the wife and rescind the wedding tablets. 129 Several questions arise from this passage. Who is the subject of reposceret? The antecedent of is in the first line is Narcissus, and he is the subject of dissimulauisset and ait. Therefore, the sense would be that Narcissus is not going to actually accuse Messalina of adultery, but admits to dissimulating regarding Messalina’s alleged lovers, men like Vettius Valens (11.31.3; 11.35.3) and Plautus Laternus (11.36.4) and presents a case as to why one would suspect her of outrages. 130 Then Narcissus says that he would 128 Malloch 2013: 44 oblises eicis, the reading of the Codex Mediceus. Koestermann 1960: 220, following Brotier 1771, reads ei Titos, but deletes ei. Thus, Titii refers to Titus Proculus, a custos of Messalina (11.35.3) and, according to Brotier’s reading, a lover of Messalina. Held 1851:7, Furneaux 1891, Martin 1964: 113, and Goodyear 1965: 317 are skeptical (“rightly” according to Malloch). The reading here is of Malloch’s 2013 text. 129 The existence or supposed existence of a written wedding compact shows the seriousness of the marriage between Messalina and Silius. 130 The plurals are rhetorical, implying that there are more adulterers than simply the two mentioned here and can be understood as ‘people like…’ or the colloquial ‘the likes of.’ 83 not (if it were true) bother with seizing the palace, slaves and other riches, but would nonetheless reclaim his wife and rescind the marriage contract. But if the subject of reposceret were Claudius, as Woodman understands it, it would be a rather stark change of subject and would imply that Claudius had made the decision not to bother with reclaiming his domus, the slaves and the trappings of wealth. 131 Based on the events that follow, the former seems more likely. Therefore, Narcissus is protecting himself by not calling Messalina an adulteress outright, but making the case for adultery nonetheless. The cunning freedman is arguing both sides. He also manipulates the princeps using a bit of reverse psychology—that Claudius should not worry about his domus, the source of his power as princeps, but should simply take back his wife. 132 At this point, Narcissus asks Claudius if he is aware of his divorce and tells him that the husband holds the city (11.30.2). 133 There follows Claudius’ rational inquiries into the corn supply and the praetorians. But things quickly change, as a cacophonous chorus of rival advice inundates the princeps (11.31). As in the adultery mime, Claudius, manipulated by a former slave, is made aware that he has been cuckolded (and many times over at that) and loses control of himself. The power of Narcissus over Claudius only grows. Claudius lacks faith in the prefect of the praetorians, Geta, who had been put into office owing to the influence of 131 Woodman 2004: 210 132 And as events suggest, it appears that Claudius is certainly more interested in the principate than Messalina. 133 But who is the maritus to whom Narcissus is referring? It could be Claudius, the legal husband of Messalina, or it could be Silius. The fact of the matter seems to be that whoever is perceived to be the maritus of Messalina is the man who holds the city. 84 Messalina. 134 So, Narcissus contrives to have himself placed in command of the soldiery (11.33). In an unprecedented move, Claudius transfers command over the Praetorian Guard to a freedman. This is an ironic reversal of the iura liberorum, a phrase used to describe the emperor Vitellius’—the son of the very Vitellius who was with Claudius during this episode—permission for returning exiles to have command over their freedmen once again (Hist. 2.92.5). 135 In other words, instead of the citizens having jurisdiction over freedmen, a freedman has jurisdiction over the soldiery. Perhaps in a nod to the mention of jurisdiction over freedmen during the reign of Vitellius, Tacitus has that emperor’s father ‘close to incomprehension’ (ignaro proprior, 11.35.1) that there was universal obedience to a freedman (omnia liberto oboediebant, loc. cit). 136 Claudius’ vacillation between panic and silence (mirum inter haec silentium Claudi, 11.35.1) refers back to stock characters from Roman comedy. Using Plautus’ Bacchides again as a point of reference, Claudius is reminiscent of Lydus, a slave who easily flies into hysterics, especially when it comes to women (Bacch. 368ff). Not only is Lydus the hand-wringing slave, but he is also the pedantic pedagogus of the young lover Pistoclerus, full of sententiae, yet generally unaware of events unfolding around him. Claudius is portrayed simultaneously like the senex Nicobulus, who throughout the play takes orders from the (often belligerent) slave Chrysalus. Claudius, like the senex from comedy, is subject to the commands of his servant. 134 Or so we are to assume since Agrippina had Geta replaced on account of her attachment to the memory of Messalina and her children (Ann. 12.42.1 and Dio 60.32.6a). 135 Furneaux 1907: 47 136 Translation of ignaro proprior from Woodman 2004: 212 85 Another parallel between Roman comedy and Tacitus’ portrayal of Claudius’ reaction to Messalina’s marriage to Silius is Tacitus’ characterization of Narcissus. Haughty and imperious, Narcissus, like the cunning slave, controls and drives the action. He not only assumes command of the praetorian cohorts, but also orchestrates the ad hoc trial of Messalina’s co-conspirators (11.35.2). Narcissus demanded (poscere) a seat in Claudius’ litter. He kept hounding (instare) Vitellius, censor and man of consular rank, to make his loyalties clear. When the imperial train encountered Messalina, Narcissus shouted her down with recriminations while distracting Claudius with a pile of papers (11.34.3). Narcissus ordered (iubere) that Britannicus and Octavia be taken out of their father’s sight. He also dismissed the Vestal Virgin Vibidia when she had come to intercede on Messalina’s behalf (iret interim uirgo et sacra capesseret, 11.34.3). Narcissus ordered (iubere) that Silius’ house be opened up so that Claudius could see the forbidden images of Silius’ condemned father and the heirlooms of the Nerones and Drusi (11.35.1). Narcissus leads Claudius into the camp of the Praetorians, who had been forewarned by Narcissus about how to behave. Silius and other conspirators were then summarily executed (11.35.3-36). When Claudius ordered that Messalina be brought to him in the morning, Narcissus decided to act to bring about her demise before Claudius could be swayed by the memory of their marriage bed. Without consulting the princeps, Narcissus ordered (denuntiat) that the tribune present proceed with the slaughter of Messalina: such was the imperator’s command (ita imperatorem iubere, 11.37.2). Narcissus’ commands have the weight of an imperial order. Messalina meets an undignified end. In the very gardens she had killed to obtain, she is laid low on the orders of a freedman. 86 The importance of this densely rich episode is the vivid way that Tacitus contrasts social norms and the behavior of Tacitus’ characters. As narrated, the proposals of marriage follow Roman standards of marriageability. The wedding ceremony followed established Roman practices. The bacchic-themed wedding feast alludes to the mimic stage. The aftermath of the wedding reveals inverted roles as the emperor takes orders from a freedman in whose hands were placed the command of the armies. However close Tacitus’ characters tried to cleave to standard practice, their behavior would not have met the expectations established by reference to those practices. These gaps between pretense and ‘hidden truth’ provide spaces for Tacitus’ readers to confront the realities of the principate. The wedding and the coup that it represents disturbs the façade of Claudius’ principate and the social inversions that are usually concealed are laid bare by the chaos. V. The Marriage of Claudius and Agrippina Tacitus moves from the downfall of one wife to the ascension of another. This marriage will bring about the demise of Claudius and the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The marriage will be an incestuous one between uncle and niece, a practice, as we shall see, not only against the law but also sacrilegious. In this section, I show how Tacitus depicts his characters conspicuously avoiding the social scripts pertaining to marriage. Whereas Silius and Messalina had followed ritual protocol for the contracting of a marriage, Tacitus avoids narrating the wedding of Claudius and Agrippina. This points up the exceptionalism of Caesar, a man whose wedding is a matter of public concern and which is ostensibly foisted upon him by the Senate and People. However, it is a public matter hidden behind a veil of silence. Tacitus does not narrate the wedding ceremony in any 87 way. Rather, the focus is on the incestuous nature of the union and the whole event is colored by the downfall of the illustrious L. Junius Silanus, Claudius’ would-be son-in- law who is laid low by a trumped up charge of incest. Claudius’ marriage to his niece Agrippina was foreshadowed at the end of Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ tenure as censor (11.25.5): isque illi finis inscitiae erga domum suam fuit: haud multo post flagitia uxoris noscere ac punire adactus, ut deinde ardesceret in nuptias incestas. And that was the end of Claudius’ ignorance with respect to his own domus. Not long afterwards, he was forced to recognize and punish the crimes of his wife so that he would at last burn for an incestuous marriage. The end of Claudius’ ignorance (inscitia) of his domus leads to the punishment of one wife so that he would burn (ut…ardesceret) for an incestuous marriage, one that would introduce Nero into Claudius’ household and would lead to Claudius’ downfall and the demise of his dynasty. Although Tacitus chose to write that Claudius would recognize (noscere) and punish (punire), Claudius never truly recognizes the extent of what Messalina had done, neither the extent of her adulteries nor the extent of her plot to overthrow him. Rather, Claudius is subject to his freedmen’s machinations and fears for their own safety. Nor does Claudius punish his wife. He refers to her as a pitiable woman (misera, 11.37.2) and orders (iubere) that she be brought to him the next day. But Claudius’ command means nothing as the freedman Narcissus takes it upon himself to destroy Messalina, ordering (denuntiare) a tribune and centurion to slaughter her. Such was the command of the 88 imperator (ita imperatorem iubere). But the commander made no such command. Rather, what he ordered, that Messalina be brought to him in the morning, was ignored and commanding words were put into his mouth by his freedman. Nonetheless, the sequence of events results in his burning for nuptiae incestae. This prompts one to ask whether Claudius actually burned for this marriage. Is Tacitus sexualizing a calculated political maneuver? If so, he further strips Claudius of agency, portraying him as subject to base passions and not political calculation. As mentioned above, Pallas prevailed in the contest over which freedman would get to choose the next wife of the princeps. Agrippina had won out with her beauty, her proven fertility, her wealth and manners, but most of all, Agrippina had the glory of the Caesars coursing through her veins (12.2.3). The only problem was that Agrippina’s father, Germanicus, was the brother of Claudius and the marriage of nieces to uncles was prohibited by law and religion. 137 The consequence of an incestuous marriage is that the marriage is not legally recognized and any children produced from that arrangement would be considered illegitimate. 138 The jurist Gaius, writing in the early second century CE, explains (Gaius 1.64): …si quis nefarias atque incestas nuptias contraxerit, neque uxorem habere uidetur neque liberos. Itaque hi qui ex eo coitu nascuntur matrem quidem habere uidentur, patrem uero non utique; nec ob id in potestate eius sunt, quales sunt ii quos mater uulgo concepit 137 Dig. 23.2.53-55; Gai. Inst. 1.59. Cf. Dig. 23.2.12.4. See also Treggiari 1991: 37-39. Also, were marriage between nieces and uncles not prohibited by law, Claudius would not have to have demanded a change in the law to allow such a union. See Gaius 1.6.2. Cf. Suet. Claud. 26.3. 138 The bearing of legitimate children is the benchmark for proper Roman marriage. See suspiciendorum liberorum causa (11.27) above. 89 …if anyone contracts an unholy and incestuous marriage, he is seen as having neither wife or legitimate children. Therefore, those who are born of such a union are seen to have a mother, but in any case they have no father. Therefore, they are not in his potestas and are like those whose mother conceives promiscuously. Not only are children of incest considered illegitimate, but incestuous marriages are not recognized. Clearly, the law would have to change because not only is an incestuous marriage unable to produce legitimate children, but is considered a religious offence (nefarius). 139 The year 49 CE opens with the consular formula (12.5.1): C. Pompeio Q. Veranio consulibus pactum inter Claudium et Agrippinam matrimonium iam fama, iam amore inlicito firmabatur; necdum celebrare sollemnia nuptiarum audebant, nullo exemplo deductae in domum patrui fratris filiae: quin et incestum; ac, si sperneretur, ne in malum publicum erumperet, metuebatur. With C. Pompeius and Q. Veranius as consuls, the marriage pact between Claudius and Agrippina was already being confirmed by rumor and illicit love. They did not yet dare to celebrate the solemnities of a wedding, since there was no example of a brother’s daughter being brought into the 139 It might be possible that, if Claudius’ marriage to Agrippina was the result of political calculation and not lust, Claudius, knowing that a child produced from an incestuous marriage would arguably be considered illegitimate, was able to supplement his power with the glory of the Iulii Caesares while protecting Britannicus from usurpation. 90 domus of her uncle. Indeed, it was incest. And it was feared that if that fact were spurned, it would erupt into public disaster. By starting his narration of the year with the marriage pact between Claudius and Agrippina, Tacitus implies that it was in fact the most pressing event of 49 CE. The marriage pact, though confirmed through rumor (fama) and illicit love (amor inlicitus), was not yet dared because of the incestuous nature of the union. There was fear of public calamity were this marriage to transpire (ne in malum publicum erumperet, 12.5.1). So, Vitellius took it upon himself to address the Senate on the matter having asked Claudius if he would yield to the orders of the People and the authority of the Senate. Claudius, of course, agreed that he would so yield since he was ‘merely one of the citizens and not immune to consensus’ (ubi ille unum se ciuium et consensui imparem respondit, 12.5.1). Vitellius, having ordered Claudius to remain in the palace, rushes to the curia and demands to be heard first. Vitellius’ opening speech makes the case that it was necessary for Claudius to be free from domestic worries (domestica cura) so that he might focus on ruling the world. Therefore, the Senate must urge Claudius to take a wife, an ally or partner (socia) in prosperity and doubt, to whom Claudius could hand over (tradere) his thoughts and children. Tacitus’ vocabulary foreshadows the dominations to come. Not only would Agrippina be a coniux, but a socia. The primary definition of socius/socia is that of a partner, someone who shares the responsibilities and obligations of another. In some ways, this is what a wife might be expected to do in terms of domestic affairs. However, the military and political sense of socius/socia is not far removed from this 91 context. 140 Furthermore, Claudius is no mere husband, but the emperor of Rome. Therefore, a socia subtly implies that Agrippina would be a partner in rule, not only in domestic life. Furthermore, the res publica is in the process under the Julian and Claudian principes of becoming subsumed into the domus of the princeps. Therefore, the domestic cares of Claudius’ domus are analogous with those of the Roman state. Tacitus also foreshadows the displacement of Claudius’ own children by having Vitellius use the verb tradere to describe their fate. The sense of tradere as in ‘to surrender’, such as what a defeated army would do, or ‘to give up or surrender treacherously, to betray’ is not far below the surface. The reader is left asking whether Claudius is entrusting or betraying his children to Agrippina. 141 The fate of Britannicus, perhaps foreknown by Tacitus’ readers, indicates that Tacitus may have had in mind the latter meaning. Having won the agreement of the Senate, Vitellius begins again, making the case for Agrippina specifically (12.6.1-2). He argues that the Senate must impose marriage on Claudius and Agrippina because she alone meets the appropriate criteria. She alone excels in nobility, fertility, sanctity and respectable skills. Therefore, Vitellius urges that the Senate provide Agrippina as the princeps’ wife. 140 The first appearance of socius in the Annals is a telling example of Tacitus’ understanding of the word. Tacitus refers to M. Agrippa as bonus militia and Augustus’ socius uictoriae (1.3.1). Tiberius is likewise referred to as Augustus’ ‘partner in his labors’ (sociatis laboribus, 1.11.1). Germanicus refers to his legionary soldiers as Tiberius’ ‘partners in so many battles’ (tu tot proeliorum socia, 1.42.3). Elsewhere, he uses it substantively for military allies, such as at 1.7.6, 1.9.5, 1.11.4, 1.36.2, 1.45.2, 1.49.4, 1.51.2, 1.56.1, 1.57.5, 1.79.3, 11.20.1, 12.10.2, 12.13.1, 12.27.1, 12.31, 12.32.12.32.2, inter alia. At 1.62.1, Germanicus is called the ‘ally in the soldiers’ grief’ (praesentibus doloris socius). At 12.15.2, Tacitus speaks of a military alliance with the Aorsi. Only in reference to Agrippina is the word socius/socia applied to a spouse. 141 The multivalent language mirrors that of 12.25.1, where Pallas urges that a ‘protective cordon be placed around the boyhood of Britannicus.’ 92 Vitellius then addresses the question of incest (a word Vitellius conspicuously avoids). Marriages, he argues, between uncles and nieces might be a novelty among Romans, but they are sanctioned by other nations. He also claims that such marriages are not prohibited by any law (neque lege ulla prohibita, 12.6.3). Citing marriages between second cousins, which were once prohibited, Vitellius argues that new customs emerge as are advantageous. 142 This speech was welcomed by a rush of men testifying that were Caesar to not marry his niece, they would act by force (uis). The prayers of the People were for the same. Therefore, Claudius, encouraged by well-wishers, entered the curia and demanded (postulare, 12.7.2) a resolution (decretum, loc. cit.) from the Senate permitting marriages between uncles and nieces, even into the future. Claudius, ‘who had observed the law since his youth’, changed the definition of incest to suit his own purposes and remain in compliance with the law. At the outset of his narration of the year 49 CE, Tacitus juxtaposes the annalistic consular formula (C. Pompeio Q. Veranio consulibus, 12.5.1) with an immediate mention of Claudius and Agrippina. The names of the two consuls are counterbalanced by the names of the emperor and empress-to-be. The chief magistrates of the Republic are contraposed to those in whom real power lay. With this opposition, Tacitus forces his readers to consider the relationship between the two pairs. By leading off with the marriage, Tacitus implies that the normally domestic affair of matrimony was of supreme importance to the state, Caesar being no mere citizen. The marriage ceremony had not taken place, but Claudius and Agrippina were living as if they were already married (cf. Agrippina’s ‘wifely power’ at 12.3.1). Just like the contraposition of consuls and the 142 Messalina and Claudius were second cousins. Theodosius reinstated the ban on marriage between cousins in either 384 or 385 CE. See Treggiari 1991: 38n4. 93 emperor and empress, Tacitus is drawing a contrast between a de facto marriage and one solemnized by appropriate ritual and public acknowledgement. 143 The couple enjoy the benefits of a marriage that they do not recognize publically. The de facto marriage of Claudius and Agrippina belies outward appearances. Fama confirms the hidden truth that lies behind the pretense that Claudius does not dare to contract an incestuous marriage out of a sense of piety and adherence to the law. Claudius’ outward reluctance to go through with the public acknowledgement of his marriage is overcome by Vitellius’ question of whether Claudius would yield to the commands of the People and the authority of the Senate. Claudius replies that he is merely one of the citizens and therefore subject to consensus. But it has been made clear throughout the Annals that the princeps is anything but a mere citizen. In fact, Tacitus’ contraposition of the consuls and Claudius and Agrippina reinforces as much. Although Tacitus indicates that Claudius (and the other principes) are not merely one of the citizens but rather something more, Tacitus still makes Claudius subject to the commands of others. Vitellius, on his way to secure support for Claudius’ incestuous marriage, orders (iubere) Claudius to remain in the palace. The commander does not command but rather is subject to the commands of others. This demonstrates that Claudius, though he is emperor, is not actually in control. Just as he was subject to the commands of his freedman during Messalina’s downfall, here he is subject to orders concerning his own wedding. He will marry Agrippina on the pretext that it was commanded by the Senate although as an autocrat, he obtains what he wills—including a 143 Public acknowledgement of a marriage pact was the primary means of contracting a marriage. The solemnities of a wedding ceremony were secondary to the public declaration. Quint. Inst. 5.11.32. See Treggiari 1991: 54. 94 presumably illegal and nefarious marriage. Despite the fact that Claudius appears to arrange for the Senate’s demand—pretending that the incestuous marriage was foisted upon him—Tacitus depicts the outcome as the result of Pallas and Agrippina’s machinations. Vitellius, who was Claudius’ colleague as censor, uses words to describe Claudius that are meant to appeal to the Senate’s sense of its former prominence and paints Claudius as a paragon of ancient morality. Claudius is of censorial mind, unaccustomed to luxuriousness and a man who has always obeyed the laws. This is in a speech requesting indulgence for a marriage Tacitus describes as incestuous, one that is, according to Tacitus, unprecedented in Roman history. Vitellius claims that the marriage of nieces to uncles was not prohibited by any law (ne lege ulla prohibita, 12.6.3). Yet, as Tacitus makes clear, a change in the law is necessary to make such a union legal. Why does Tacitus have Vitellius say, specifically, that no law forbids the marriage of uncles to nieces when it is necessary for Claudius to demand that the law allow such unions? It seems that Tacitus is commenting on the dichotomy of open and closed, of public and private that is complicated by the Claudian principate. Since under Claudius, state responsibilities are subsumed into the imperial domus, the line between private and public becomes blurred when it concerns the princeps and his household. Claudius can obtain what he wills. Yet he must keep up appearances and yield to the prearranged commands of the Senate. Agrippina allegedly seduced her uncle and became his wife by a manipulation of the law in order to secure power for herself and a position for her son, the future Nero. But her marriage to her uncle is not the first time that Agrippina had been accused of 95 committing incest. While the freedmen were competing over who would get to chose the next uxor principis, Agrippina allegedly started visiting her uncle under the guise of their familial relationship. Tacitus strongly implies that she was seducing her uncle (12.3.1): Praeualuere haec adiuta Agrippinae inlecebris, quae ad eum per speciem necessitudinis crebro uentitando pellicit patruum, ut praelata ceteris et nondum uxor potentia uxoria iam uteretur. These things prevailed, aided by Agrippina’s allurements, who by going to him frequently on the pretext of their familial relationship, she enticed her uncle to the point that she was preferred to the others and though not yet a wife, she already enjoyed the power of a wife. It was presumably acceptable for a grown woman to go privately to her close relations without scandal. However, using the custom to her advantage, she allegedly engaged in illicit behavior. This so that she could obtain the hand of her uncle in matrimony and ultimately secure her own son’s position. Tacitus’ choice of the phrase potentia uxoria points up Claudius’ subservience to his wives’ commands. It also foreshadows Agrippina’s dominations, not only of her husband-uncle, but over Roman affairs. During the reign of Nero, Tacitus, citing the historian Cluvius, alleges that Agrippina had engaged, or at least attempted incest with her son (14.2.1): Tradit Cluuius Agrippinam ardore retinendae potentiae eo usque prouectam, ut medio diei, cum id temporis Nero per uinum et epulas incalesceret, offerret se saepius temulento comptam et incesto paratam. 96 Cluvius reports that Agrippina was so carried away by the burning desire to retain her potential that, in the middle of the day, when Nero was warm with wine and lunch, she offered herself to him often while he was drunk, gussied up and ready for incest. Tacitus also reports lascivious kisses (lasciuia oscula, 14.2.1) and “blandishments that heralded outrage” (praenuntias flagitii blanditas, loc. cit.). 144 Here, as with Messalina, a woman’s desire for power and for domination is contextualized in terms of her sexuality. Agrippina will stop at nothing to maintain her potentia. She will even commit incest, first with her uncle, then with her own son. In both passages cited above, the word potentia appears in close connection with Agrippina’s sexual behavior. Agrippina’s sexuality is narrowly focused and limited to her uncle, son and the freedman Pallas. She sought a place of prominence for herself and her son and she resorted to incest and illicit sex with a freedman to obtain it. The incestuous seductions were attempts to gain influence over principes. The alleged affair with Pallas would have opened up another avenue of power—she would have an influential freedman at her beck and call. Of the difference between Messalina and Agrippina’s sexual promiscuity, Tacitus writes (12.7.3): Versa ex eo ciuitas, et cuncta feminae oboediebant, non per lasciuiam, ut Messalina, rebus Romanis inludenti. adductum et quasi uirile seruitium: palam seueritas ac saepius superbia; nihil domi impudicum, nisi dominationi expediret. 144 Translation from Woodman 2004: 275 97 The result [of the marriage of Claudius and Agrippina] was that the whole state was overturned and there was universal obedience to a woman who did not play around with Roman affairs for sport, like Messalina. It led to a man-like servitude. Openly there was severity and often haughtiness. There was no domestic immorality unless it expedited domination. Messalina’s involvement in politics, like her sexual promiscuity, is described as a game (inludere, lasciuia), something she does for her own amusement. This is nothing like that of Agrippina, whose involvement in politics is man-like and therefore, whose ‘domestic immorality’ was limited to that which would facilitate dominatio. Agrippina’s domination turns the state upside down. In an echo of the universal obedience owed to the freedman Narcissus during the Silius and Messalina crisis, here Tacitus reveals the hidden truth: Agrippina is not merely an uxor, nor even a socia in the rule of Rome, but she is attempting to position herself to have potestas, the power to rule in her own right. As Claudius and Agrippina allegedly engaged in incest, Vitellius concocted an allegation of incest against a man betrothed to Octavia, Claudius’ daughter by Messalina. Agrippina had used her wifely power over Claudius to orchestrate a marriage between Octavia, and Agrippina’s son, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. This arrangement necessitated the breaking of the betrothal of Octavia to L. Silanus. Tacitus said that the breaking of the engagement could not be done ‘without crime’ (sine scelere, 12.3.2) and so it is with crime the deed was accomplished. Vitellius, using his authority as censor (nomine censoris, 12.4.1), denounced Silius for committing incest with his sister, Junia Calvina. Whereas Tacitus stated boldly that the relationship between Agrippina and Claudius was incestum, Tacitus stresses that the relationship between Silanus and Calvina was not 98 incestuous, though unguarded (non incestum, sed incustoditum, 12.4.2). The result was that Silanus was stripped of his praetorship and expelled from the Senate. Vitellius did this even though the lustrum had already been performed. 145 So, with this unproven accusation going around and with the public disgrace of the young man, Claudius was eager to break off the engagement on account of his affection for his daughter. Claudius had been manipulated into forsaking his would-be son-in-law. With the denunciation of Silanus, Octavia was free to become engaged to Domitius. Vitellius’ accusation of incest brings down an illustrious young man. Vitellius, the orchestrator of an incestuous marriage brings down an illustrious young man on a trumped-up charge of incest. On the day of Claudius and Agrippina’s wedding, Silanus committed suicide ‘having prolonged his hope for life right up to that point or whether he chose the day to increase resentment’ (12.8.1). In the Apocolocyntosis, Seneca accuses Claudius of murdering his son-in-law (Apocol. 8; 10). This, on the one hand, emphatically places the blame for the death of Silanus on Claudius himself. On the other hand, it exaggerates for rhetorical purposes the relationship between Claudius and Silanus (as Octavia and Silanus had not yet been married). Seneca’s denunciation of Claudius for Silanus’ murder is ironic in that Silanus’ disgrace made Octavia available for Nero, to whom he had been married about the time of the publication of the Apocolocyntosis. However, Seneca does not mention the name of Octavia, rather he discusses Silanus’ sister, Calvina, whom he says the whole world called Venus but Claudius called Juno (Apocol. 10), thus implying that Claudius had a sexual relationship with the sister, an allegation not reported by Tacitus. Regardless, Seneca’s scorn suggests that it was rather well known that Claudius 145 Therefore, the lectio senatus would have been completed. See above, Chapter 1. 99 was responsible for the disgrace and ultimate death of Silanus and that he was subject to derision for that fact. Tacitus, on the other hand, notes that, to universal derision (inridentibus conctis, 12.8.1), Claudius ordered on his wedding day that expiations be made according to the law of King Tullus in the Grove of Diana. 146 The source of the universal derision was that punishments and propitiations were being sought for incest at the same time as an incestuous marriage was being conducted (12.8.1). Agrippina’s marriageable traits were touted by the freedman Pallas and again by Vitellius. By Tacitus’ account, the engagement of Agrippina and Claudius followed social norms for the contracting of an aristocratic marriage. However, Agrippina was not available. Her relationship with Claudius was incestuous and would have been considered illegitimate barring a change in the law. Tacitus’ contraposition of adherence to cultural norms to the circumvention of those norms belies the pretense of Claudius’ claim to be merely one of the citizens. On the one hand, it reveals the reality behind imperial power—an autocrat can marry whomever he pleases. On the other hand, it highlights the exceptionalism of Caesar. Simply put, the rules do not apply equally to aristocrats and princeps. The marriage of Claudius is a matter of state concern. Agrippina’s lineage, wealth, proven fertility and good looks makes her an ideal match for Claudius despite the illegality of their union. 146 It is unclear to what practice Tacitus is referring. Mommsen (1952: 913n6) identifies the lucus Dianae as that at Aricia, though it is possible that the sanctuary of Diana on the Aventine is meant. See Beard et al. 1998: 3. 100 VI. Conclusion Tacitus references the social scripts for things such as betrothals and weddings in order to point up the hollowness of social forms under the principate. That Silius and Messalina follow socially determined forms for contracting a marriage and follow ritual protocol of the wedding ceremony only highlights the depravity of their union and the daring of their political intrigue. Their wedding is narrated in detail, and is presented as a very public affair. Tacitus alludes to the mimic and comic stages to highlight the very public nature of the affair (and hence the very real threat to Claudius) and to further satirize Claudius as a man incapable of governing himself, let alone his domus. Agrippina’s marriage to Claudius likewise follows social protocol for the elite engagements, but the union is an incestuous one. It is a marriage ostensibly ordered by the Senate and People, but a union that is kept secret for a time out of fear of calamity. In contrast to the wedding of Silius and Messalina, which Tacitus goes to great lengths to report, Claudius’ wedding with Agrippina is passed over in silence. This stresses the secret nature of the union, inasmuch as it is presented as a matter of great state concern, but is indicative of other public business being subsumed into the domus of the emperor. Meanwhile, Messalina and Agrippina’s sexuality stands for their political ambitions. In many ways, Joshel is correct in seeing Tacitus’ Messalina and Agrippina as representations of empire itself—forever gaping after more men, property, and blood. Messalina’s daring is deliberately masked by Tacitus. He renders his account of her attempted coup against Claudius primarily in terms of decadence and sexual promiscuity. Agrippina’s more focused sexuality reflects the narrow focus of her political 101 ambitions. 147 She seduces her uncle, allegedly her son, and the freedman Pallas all for specific political purposes. Tacitus’ sexualization of Messalina and Agrippina’s ambitions characterize Claudius as a man governed by his subservience to his wives’ potentia. Political necessity is portrayed as sexual depravity. The contraposition of social forms and the behaviors of his characters highlights for Tacitus’ readers the gap between the pretense and hidden truth behind the façade of the principate. 147 Joshel 1997: 242. 102 —Chapter 3— Tacitus on the Edges I. Introduction Tacitus writes that no one should compare his Annals with the writings of other Roman historians. ‘Mighty wars, the storming of cities, routed and captured kings’ will not be his subject. Nor will internal matters of old: discordiae between consuls and tribunes, grain laws, the struggles of the orders (4.32.1). Rather, Tacitus’ Annals is a ‘limited and inglorious labor (in arto et inglorius labor, 4.32.2) because (loc. cit.): immota quipped aut modice lacessita pax, maestae urbis res, et princeps proferendi imperi incuriosus erat. peace was unmoved or moderately provoked, affairs of the city were gloomy and the princeps was uninterested in expanding the empire. Although Tacitus writes that he will eschew tales of military glory, nearly half of Tacitus’ attention in the Annals is spent on reporting foreign affairs. In the main, glorious battles and routed kings are not his focus. Rather, Tacitus focuses on internal strife and civil war among barbarian nations. The ‘gloomy affairs’ of the City are reflected at the edges of the empire. Tacitus’ narrations of events at the edges of the empire provide instructions for reading events in the City. Tacitus collapses the polarity of Roman and barbarian by mirroring center and periphery. This provides Tacitus the opportunity to highlight what he seems to perceive as a decadent court and a servile aristocracy, haltered by a fearful, 103 cowardly or indolent emperor. The civil discord that results from court intrigue among foreign peoples mirrors the ills that plague the City as dynastic struggles and the private affairs of the imperial domus become the chief concern of the Roman state. The savagery of court figures such as Suillius, Messalina and Agrippina are reflected at the edges where similar acts of savagery ultimately lead to civil war. Additionally, barbarian kings and Roman generals provide exempla against which Claudius and other court figures can be read. Tacitus uses his foreign narratives to showcase exemplars such as the British king Caratacus and the Roman general Cn. Domitius Corbulo. Their actions reflect poorly on the inaction and cowardice of Claudius and the contemporary aristocracy, who are preoccupied with court intrigue and seruitia. These exemplars, who remind readers of glorious figures from Rome’s past, contrast with negative exempla like the feuding Parthian kings and incompetent and corrupt Romans like Julius Paelignus, whose ineptitude and savagery mirrors that of his mentor, Claudius. Tacitus’ foreign narratives erase difference between barbarian and Roman in order to instruct his audience on the dangers of civil discord, while providing a theater in which to showcase the often- repressed potential of great men, Roman and barbarian alike. Scholars have treated Tacitus’ foreign narratives in several different ways. Syme argued that Tacitus’ Parthian narratives in particular spoke to Tacitus’ contemporaries who were negotiating Trajan’s difficult Parthian campaigns of 114-116 CE. 148 148 Syme 1958: 495-496. This of course hinges on the date of composition of the Annals. Syme (1958: 471-473) argues for a composition date of no earlier than 116 CE. Martin and Woodman (1989: 102-103) argue that the first hexad pre-dates 116, but they do not suggest by how much. Bowersock (1993) argues for a date no later than 109 CE. 104 Keitel writes that the dynastic struggles of eastern kingdoms reveal timeless and unavoidable problems associated with autocracy. 149 McCulloch draws parallels between the court intrigue and treachery of the Parthian court and the imperial domus. 150 Ash argues that Tacitus’ Parthian narratives, especially the excursus of 6.34-35, provide exempla for Tacitus’ contemporary readers—especially regarding the Trajanic campaigns. 151 While these observations are generally correct, I will contribute to the discussion by showing that all foreign affairs are integral to the narrative whole of the Annals and that each provides instructions for reading events at the center by erasing difference between barbarian and Roman, and that exempla of good and bad actors at the periphery help to highlight the moral and political decay that accompanies the Roman autocracy. Foreign and domestic accounts in the Annals are each integral parts of a narrative whole. Though Tacitus is writing in the annalistic tradition, notices of events cannot be separated out and analyzed piecemeal. 152 And though foreign topographies and ethnographies were thought to enliven historical narratives and provide entertainment for the reader—a respite from the forward motion of history—Tacitus’ foreign narratives 149 Keitel 1978: 463. See also Gowing 1990: 319 and Hausmann 2009: 197-198. 150 McCulloch 1984: 59-61. 151 Ash 1999: 114-115. 152 Malloch 2013: 118. Republican annalists narrated events at home and abroad (domi et militae), including events that had no direct bearing on Rome. See Malloch 2013: 117. For the recording of militae et domi gesta, see Sal. Hist. fr. 1.1. For events in the annalistic tradition that have no relation to Rome, see Livy’s account of discord at the Macedonian court (Liv. 40.5-16.3). 105 reflect and amplify the gloomy affairs of the City that are the subject of his literary project (4.33.3, 32.1-2). 153 II. Discordia Ciuilis at the Edges Tacitus writes of civil conflict at the edges of the empire. The effect is to instruct his audience as to the dangers of political savagery and arrogance (saeuitia and superbia). Also, it is palliative. Writing openly of civil discord at the edges alleviates fears of such conflict at Rome, showing that such conflict is in fact avoidable. After Tacitus’ narration of Claudius’ intervention in C. Silius’ motion that the Lex Cincia de donis et muneribus be enforced (11.6-7) in order to curb the influence of informers, Tacitus immediately moves on to Armenian and Parthian affairs (11.8.1-2). Civil war was raging in the Parthian empire. 154 The king Gotarzes, known for his many savageries (plera saeua, 11.8.2), and his brother, Vardanes, each vied for control over the empire. The disruptions of civil war provided the opportunity for Rome to install a client king over the Armenians. Mithridates I was recalled by Claudius and installed with the help of the king of the Iberians, Mithridates’ brother Pharasmanes. 155 Tacitus writes that these events were transpiring ‘at the same time’ (sub idem tempus, 11.8.1) as the 153 On the entertainment value of foreign narratives in Roman historiography, see Tac. Ann. 4.33.3, Ash 1999a: 114 and Malloch 2013: 117. For the instructive value of Tacitus’s writings in general, see Joseph 2012: 15-17 and Foucher 2000: 57-71. 154 Laederich 2001: 179-181. The internal struggles of the Arsacidae are a prominent theme in Roman accounts of Parthian affairs (Malloch 2013: 136). See Tac. Ann. 15.27.2; Hor. Carm. 3.8.19-20; Iust. 41.3.7-9. Amm. 23.6.6. 155 Tacitus’ account of Mithridates I’s detainment by Caesar (Gaius?) is lost. Seneca (Dial. 9.11.12) states that Mithridates I was imprisoned and exiled, but he does not say why. Dio references the imprisonment, but does not elaborate (60.8.1). Several theories have been advanced. See Willrich 1903: 300-301; Balsdon 1934: 199-200; and Barrett 1989: 64. 106 downfall of D. Valerius Asiaticus, Suillius’ savagery in his denunciations and the debates about the Lex Cincia. 156 At the outset, Tacitus implies a parallel between Gotarzes and Suillius, both of whom Tacitus describes as saeuus. 157 Tacitus writes that Parasmanes announced to the Romans that ‘the Parthians were in a state of discord and the high command was in dispute and lesser matters were being dealt with carelessly’ (discordare Parthos summaque imperii ambigua, minora sine cura haberi, 11.8.1). 158 Discordia (and the related verb discordare) is the same word that Tacitus uses for civil war in the opening of Book 1. 159 It is, as we shall see, a word that comes up again in the context of civil war among the varying German and Pannonian nations (11.16.2; 12.28.2; 12.29.1) and among the Britons (12.32.1). 156 Tacitus will use such temporal markers frequently to stress the contemporaneity and relationship between foreign and domestic affairs. 157 Suillius…saeuus (11.5.1); Gotarzes inter pleraque saeua… (11.8.2). 158 Iberia is roughly modern Georgia. See Talbert 2000: 88. For a history of relations between Rome and Iberia during the principate, see Braund 1994: 205-237. 159 Tacitus uses discordare, which is rare in pre-Christian Latin, seven times in his corpus (also at 1.9.4; 1.16.2; 3.40.3; 12.1.2; 12.28.2; Agr. 32.3). C.f. Malloch 2013: 136. He uses it equally in the context of discordia among Romans and barbarians. Tellingly, Tacitus uses this verb in describing the eventuality of monarchy at Rome (1.9.4): multa Antonio, dum interfectores patris ulcisceretur, multa Lepido concessisse. postquam hic socordia senuerit, ille per libidines pessum datus sit, non aliud discordantis patriae remedium fuisse quam <ut> ab uno regeretur. [Octavian] had conceded many things to Antonius while he was taking revenge on the killers of his father, and many things to Lepidus. After the latter had grown old in indolence and the former had hit rock bottom on account of his appetites, there had been no other remedy for the discordia of his fatherland other than that it should be ruled by one man. At 1.16.2, discordare is used in the context of the brewing of mutiny among the Pannonian legions. At 3.40.3, it is used in the context of rebellion among the Gallae. Tacitus uses it at 12.1.2 to describe the strife between Agrippina and Lollia Paulina. 12.28.2 refers to the internal conflicts among the Chatti. In the Agricola (32.3), Tacitus has the British king Galgacus use the word to describe strife and discord among the cities of Gaul and Germany under Roman rule. 107 With civil war dividing the forces of the East (distractis Orientis uiribus, 11.9.1), not only did Rome install Mithridates over the Armenians, but with the might of the Roman soldiery (ui militis Romani), they drove the Parthian satrap Demonax out of Armenia with the help of the Iberian army. Demonax had dared battle against the Romans and was routed. These affairs are juxtaposed to, on the one hand, the savagery of Suillius and Silius’ attempt to check the abuses of accusers, and, on the other hand, Claudius’ performance of the role of censor and his celebrating of the Saecular Games (11.11.1). 160 This juxtaposition creates a contrast between the gloomy affairs in the City and empty social performances at Rome, and the politics and military action that are at play on the frontier of the empire. Additionally, by collapsing the polarity between the savageries of court figures at Rome and those of barbarian kings, Tacitus seems to be offering his audience instruction on the dangers of political savagery and its potential outcomes. Armenia at that time consisted of two parts, Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia. Lesser Armenia had the largest population and was situated along the southeastern edge of the Black Sea. Greater Armenia was geographically larger and contained the Taurus Mountains and was bordered on the north by the kingdom of Iberia, on the east by the Caucasus Mountains and on the south by Media and Seleucia. Lesser Armenia appears to have been the more stable kingdom and was closely allied with Rome. 161 Tacitus writes that Cotys, king of Lesser Armenia, was hesitant about having Mithridates restored to the throne of Greater Armenia, and there is some indication that he himself desired to rule, ‘certain chiefs having turned his way’ (uersis illuc quibusdam 160 For the Secular Games, see Chapter 1. 161 On the geography of the two Armenias, see Hewson 1985: 60-64 and Dabrowa 2003. 108 procerum, 11.9.2). 162 However, he was kept in line by a letter from Caesar (11.9.2). This letter demonstrates that, though Tacitus stresses Claudius’ distractions at Rome, he was nevertheless engaging at some level in foreign affairs. It also reveals the nature of the power that the princeps exercised over client kingdoms, that Cotys was subject to the mandata of the emperor. 163 Tacitus appears to use the installation of Mithridates to the throne of Armenia as pretext for writing on the theme of civil war. Civil war among the Parthians provided the opportunity for Rome to act concerning Armenia. However, Tacitus only devotes 13 lines to the actual installation. The rest of the three chapters are devoted to the wars between Gotarzes and Vardanes. The civil wars on the frontiers and their causes seem to serve as warnings to Tacitus’ audience—and perhaps to Trajan himself—about the dangers of discord between the imperial house and the traditional aristocracy. After his narration of Claudius’ censorial munia, Tacitus shifts his focus to German affairs. Again, the theme is civil war (11.16.1). Interna bella (loc. cit.) have eliminated the nobiles (loc. cit.) of the Cherusci, just as civil discord had exhausted the Roman elite and all rivals to Augustus’ domination (1.2.1). Likewise, as in Parthia, where civil war provided for Roman intervention in Armenia, civil war in Germany provided Rome with the opportunity of installing a friendly king over a German nation. 164 The pro-Roman Italicus was installed over the Cherusci. At first, Italicus was popular and an effective ruler (11.16.2): 162 See also Jos. AJ. 19.338. Gaius Caesar assigned domains in the East to the sons of the murdered Cotys VIII of Thrace (Malloch 2013: 154). 163 Malloch 2013: 154 164 The king, Italicus, was likely born in Italy and was the son of the pro-Roman king Flavus. See Malloch 2013: 244 and 251-252. 109 ac primo laetus Germanis aduentus, atque eo, quod nullis discordiis imbutus pari in omnes studio ageret, celebrari coli, modo comitatem et temperantiam, nulli inuisa, saepius uinolentiam ac libidines, grata barbaris, usurpans. At first, his arrival was welcome by the Germans and, because he was stained by none of the discordiae but acted with equal zeal toward all, he was celebrated and cultivated, practicing sometimes affability and moderation, resented by no one, more often drunkenness and lust, a plus for the barbarians. Italicus was stained by none of the discordiae that had led to the slaughter of the nobiles of the Cherusci. This allowed him to be impartial. He also demonstrated traits common to good rulers: affability and moderation (comitas et temperantia). Comitas indicates ‘friendliness, considerateness, courtesy, graciousness,’ traits that Tacitus finds praiseworthy in great leaders. 165 According to Livy, seueritas balanced by comitas makes a leader successful (Liv. 8.36.5). 166 Germanicus was compared favorably with Tiberius for his comitas (1.33.2) and elsewhere his comitas was praised as one of his chief virtues (1.71.3; 2.55.1; 2.72.2). It was one of the good traits demonstrated by the Parthian ruler Vonones (2.2.4). The Iberian prince Radamistus feigned comitas towards his uncle in order to incite rebellion among the Armenians (12.45.5). The general Corbulo was 165 Comitas: OLD 1a 166 sensit peritus dux quae res uictoriae obstaret: temperandum ingenium suum esse et seueritatem miscendam comitati. The experienced leader knew what things would stand in the way of victory: he must temper his disposition and balance severity with affability. 110 renowned for his comitas and gloria (15.31.1). 167 It could be said that one of Italicus’ virtues was aequitas, another trait praised by Tacitus. 168 He dealt with all parties equally. Italicus is an exemplary figure. Tacitus paints him as a good ruler, but one that is eventually corrupted by absolute power. Some German leaders feared Italicus’ ties to Rome and began fomenting rebellion. The charge was that Italicus was a traitor against the German people, like his father Flavius, who had gathered intelligence for the Romans against the Germans (11.16.3). Therefore, civil war broke out again, and Italicus was victorious. After his victory, he grew haughty because of his good fortune: dein secunda fortuna ad superbiam prolapsus (11.16.3). Italicus was driven into exile, but later restored to power by the Langobardi. A leader’s haughtiness led to civil war, which in turn led to foreign intervention. Thereafter, he afflicted the Cherusci in good times and bad (per laeta per aduersa res Cheruscas adflictabat, loc. cit.). Tacitus reports that during the same time (per idem tempus, 11.18.1) as the Cherusci sought a king from Rome, the Chauci began to raid Lower Germany. The Chauci, unlike other foreign peoples mentioned in the Claudian annals, were not in a state of civil discord. Rather, they were taking advantage of a period of calm among themselves to make incursions into the territory of others. The Chauci, however, were subdued by Cn. Domitius Corbulo (11.19-20) before Claudius, allegedly worried by the success of the general, recalled Corbulo to the Roman side of the Rhine, stopping any 167 It is telling that comitas does not appear in the Neronian annals except this one time in reference to Corbulo. 168 The Parthian king Vologaeses praised his brother Tiridates for his aequitas before installing him as king of Armenia (15.2.3). 111 advancement into German territory. 169 Claudius’ insecurities appeared to have stopped the advancement of Roman territory and quashed the accrual of gloria to a potential rival of the princeps. 170 In contrast to other foreign peoples about whom Tacitus writes, the Chauci are not afflicted by civil war and are able to make military advances. This leads to a more praiseworthy kind of warfare—the advancement of one people at the expense of another. It is a territorial embodiment of a Roman man’s attempt to acquire gloria. This kind of expansionary warfare in turn provides Rome with the opportunity to expand its territory, but the insecure and indolent emperor halts such expansion out of fear that such military action will produce rivals for the throne. Before Tacitus begins discussing affairs in Germany in his narration of the year 50, however, he comments on Agrippina’s desire to display her power to the allies (uim suam sociis quoque nationibus ostentaret, 12.27.1). Tacitus reports that Agrippina successfully settled a colony of veterans at the place of her birth and named it after herself. Tacitus chooses the word uis to describe Agrippina’s power. It is not a constitutional potentia or traditional auctoritas, but a word evocative of violence or brute force, signaling the inappropriateness of Agrippina’s influence. Tacitus writes that she ‘successfully sought’ the settling of the colony (diduci impetrat, 12.27.1). Woodman translates impetrat: “Agrippina…successfully requested…” 171 Tacitus’ word choice is subtly evocative of the legislative process. Impetro means ‘to succeed in one’s application,’ and the word appears in connection with motions placed before the Senate. This subtly draws further attention to the inappropriate (as Tacitus appears to see it) 169 This is the first mention of Cn. Domitius Corbulo in the extant Annals. Ironically, his half-brother was the notorious accuser Suillius (Woodman 2004: 204). 170 The career of Corbulo is discussed below. 171 Woodman 2004: 235. 112 influence and power of the wife of the princeps, that she is able to initiate legislation in her own right. 172 Tacitus’ narration of 50 CE begins with the consular formula and immediately following is a notice of Domitius’ adoption and Agrippina’s illicit affair with the freedman Pallas (12.25.1). Domitius was given the name ‘Nero’ and precedence over Britannicus. Agrippina was augmented with the cognomen “Augusta” (augetur et Agrippina cognomento Augustae, 12.26.1). Tacitus transitions to German affairs by way of reporting Agrippina’s intervention on behalf of the Ubii (12.27.1). 173 At the same time as the adoption of Domitius was being hastened and Agrippina was called Augusta and sought a colony named after herself, the Chatti began raiding their neighbors. 174 The contraposition of Agrippina’s intrigues at court and military affairs in Germany creates a contrast that the reader must interpret. The emperor is silent as his voice is supplanted by 172 See OLD 1b and 1c. Caesar. BC. 1.1: …litteris C. Caesaris consulibus redditis aegere ab his impetratum est summa tribunorum plebis contentione ut in senatu recitarentur; ut uero ex litteris ad senatum referretur, impetrari non putuit. Here the tribunes of the plebs moved with great difficulty to have Caesar’s letter read in the Senate, but they were not successful in moving that the matters contained therein be brought under deliberation. 173 The colony was called Colonia Agrippinensis (modern Köln). According to Dio (48.49.3), the Ubii had sought permission to settle on the Roman side of the Rhine in 38 BCE (Woodman 2004: 225n36). 174 Tacitus characterizes Agrippina as a dux femina, which Santoro-L’Hoir defines as a “femina who acts as a dux to exercise imperium” (1994: 6). Vergil describes Dido as a dux femina (Aen. 1.346). Ginsburg (2006: 112-116) discusses dux femina as a pejorative term and that by describing her as such, Tacitus stresses that the power she wielded was illegitimate. 113 that of his wife. While intrigue concerning the succession preoccupies Rome’s center, the Chatti participate in military activity against their neighbors. 175 Affairs in Britain are far more complex, perhaps owing to the recentness of its annexation. The invasion and annexation of Britain must have been covered in books of the Annals now lost. This makes it difficult to interpret Tacitus’ account in Book 12. Additionally, the substance of his narrative spans a period of five years (47-52 CE). 176 In 47 CE, P. Ostorius Scapula became governor of Britain. 177 Various tribes of the Britons were united in their struggle against Rome, particularly the Iceni, Decangi and Ordovicae, each influenced by the persistence of the Silures. The Britons engaged Rome in a guerilla style campaign and occasionally in open battle until the leader of the united Silures and Ordivicae, Caratacus, was defeated and taken prisoner. Resistance to Rome intensified because the British allies in the north decided that the newly appointed governor would be unfamiliar with the lay of the land and reluctant to engage in battle, especially as winter was approaching. 175 On the relationship between female narratives and Tacitus’ historiography, see O’Gorman 2000: 122-123; 132-138. C.f. Joshel’s interpretation of imperial woman as representative of the voracity of empire. The relationship between Tiberius and Livia is mirrored to an extent by the relationship between Nero and Agrippina. Consequently, Claudius is a new Augustus yet again in the sense that his principate is redirected by his wife’s ambitions for her son. On the influence of mother on adult son, see Dixon 1988: 168-209. 176 Tacitus combines the governorships of P. Ostorius Scapula and A. Didius so as to form a cohesive British narrative. At the end of his British discursus, Tacitus resumes the chronological order of events (12.40.5). 177 For the military career of Ostorius in Britain, see Webster 1958: 49-98. For a narrative history of the Roman invasion and conquest of Britain, see Dudley and Webster 1965. 114 The Brigantes were loyal to Rome, but discordia (12.32.1) broke out among them and they withdrew their troops from the war against the rebellious British tribes. 178 This caused the Romans to retreat, Ostorius choosing to stabilize things among the allies rather than risk venturing further away from the conflict. After some time, the rebellious among the Brigantes were killed and pardon granted to the rest (12.32.2). But civil war broke out again among the Brigantes in 52. The king Venutius divorced his wife, the queen Cartimandua and Venutius and his followers took up arms against his ex-wife and her Roman supporters. The Romans and Cartimandua’s supporters ultimately defeated Venutius and brought an end to rebellion among the Britons. Tacitus will not take up British affairs until he relates the events of 61 CE (14.29-39). Civil discord is at the center of Tacitus’ second narrative of Armenian affairs (12.44). As a deterrent to discordia (12.44.5) at home, the elderly Pharasmanes compels his son, Radamistus, to incite civil discord among the Armenians. The Iberian king was growing concerned about his son’s restlessness and desire for command (12.44.3): is modicum Hiberiae regnum senecta patris detineri ferocius crebriusque iactabat, quam ut cupidinem occultaret. Radamistus’ pronouncements that the modest kingdom of the Iberians was being kept from him by the old age of his father were too bold and frequent to keep his desire a secret. Pharasmanes contrives to have Radamistus feign disaffection with his father and, while being entertained like a son by Mithridates, to incite the nobility to rebellion. Radamistus 178 See Salway 1981: 100-123. For the relationship between the Brigantes and Rome, see Hanson and Campbell 1986: 73-89. 115 feigns discordia (12.44.5) against his father in order to foment rebellion among the Armenians (primores Armeniorum ad res nouas inlicit, loc. cit.). It appears as though the resentment among the Armenians that led to the installation of Mithridates in the first place was still smoldering. The opportunity provided by the supposed state of discordia among the Iberians leads the primores of the Armenians to think that the time was ripe for res nouae. However, the Romans intervene on Mithridates’ behalf and Radamistus and Mithridates enact a truce. Tacitus’ foreign narratives collapse the binary between Roman and barbarian in order to instruct his audience in what kinds of politics and military actions are helpful and harmful. The saeuitia and superbia of foreign leaders reveal a breakdown of good governance and ultimately lead to open civil war. Civil war, in turn, leads to foreign intervention and a disruption of a people’s nobler pursuits. The effect is to instruct his audience about the dangers of savagery and haughtiness: that what happens at the periphery can also happen at the center. Tacitus’ audience will have already known that the culmination of Nero’s tyranny was the civil wars of 68 and 69 CE. So, Tacitus reminds his audience of the accumulated causes of the breakdown of good governance at Rome. This is instructive but it is also palliative. By writing openly of the causes of civil discord among barbarians, and reminding his audience about the excesses of the Julio- Claudian emperors, Tacitus allays fears of the disruptions of civil war by showing that the travesties of discordia ciuilis are avoidable if concord between the ruling class and the imperial house is maintained. 116 III. Roman and Non-Roman Exempla In the Annals, Roman actors at the edges of the empire can serve as either positive or negative exempla. Likewise, non-Romans can serve as models for reading events at Rome. Some foreign kings rise to power, then fall because of the loss of the goodwill of their subjects. These kings serve as negative exempla, their slaughters and overweening parallel acts of savagery and arrogance in the Claudian court. Other kings are positive exempla, serving as foils against which Claudius and his court can be read. What Tacitus is reluctant to say openly about the court, he writes patently about foreign rulers. Foreign kings often fail to produce pretexts for their actions, whereas at Rome, there are frequent gaps between ostensible and ‘real’ truths. The brothers Gotarzes and Vardanes provide us with our first examples of rulers whose haughtiness and savagery resulted in disaffection and civil war. Gotarzes had held the Parthian throne, but his numerous savageries (plera saeua, 11.8.2) led to the summoning of his brother Vardanes (11.8.1-2). 179 The execution of his own brother and that man’s spouse and son are among the many savageries otherwise unreported that lead to civil conflict (11.8.3-4). Messalina, her agents and Agrippina are also accused of committing savage acts. Tacitus ironically juxtaposes sympathy for Agrippina and Messalina’s savagery (11.12.1): 179 Malloch (2013: 138) remarks that the Romans viewed the Parthians as violent and insolent and that their kings are characterized as especially so. Hor. Carm. 3.8.19-20; Iust. 39.1.3; Jos. AJ 18.44. 117 et matri Agrippinae miseratio augebatur ob saeuitiam Messalinae, quae semper infesta et tunc commotior quo minus strueret crimina et accusatores nouo et furori proximo amore distinebatur. 180 And sympathy accrued to [Nero’s] mother, Agrippina, on account of the savagery of Messalina, who was always hostile and at that time was more disturbed, who was held back from heaping up charges and accusers by a new love close to madness. Among the savageries of Messalina that were recently related by Tacitus were the denunciation of D. Valerius Asiaticus (11.1-2), and the destruction of Poppaea (11.2.2) and the brothers Petra (11.4.1). First, she destroys prominent Romans out of lust and/or greed. Secondly, having become inflamed for C. Silius, the two plot to overthrow the regime. Although Agrippina herself is not described as saeua, she drives Claudius to savagery (12.59.1): 180 This passage portends Nero and Agrippina’s rise to power. Tacitus’ use of the verb augere foreshadows Agrippina’s assumption of the name Augusta, the two words being cognate. Tacitus will later make a pun on Augusta using the same verb when the honor was granted to Agrippina (12.26.1): augetur et Agrippina cognomento Augustae. And Agrippina was augmented with the cognomen Augusta. This is a play on the figura etymologica of Ennius (Sk. 154-155): septingenti sunt, paulo plus aut minus, anni augusto augurio postquam incluta condita Roma est. It is seven hundred years, a little more or less, Since famous Rome was founded by august augury. See also Suet. Aug. 7 for the choice of Augustus as Caesar’s name. 118 At Claudius saeuissima quaeque promere adigebatur eiusdem Agrippinae artibus, quae Statilium Taurum opibus inlustrem hortis eius inhians peruertit accusante Tarquitio Prisco. And Claudius was driven to produce the greatest savageries by the arts of that same Agrippina, who, gaping at the gardens of Statilius Taurus, a man illustrious for his wealth, overthrew him on the accusation of Tarquitius Priscus. Like Messalina, Agrippina’s savagery (rather, the savagery to which Agrippina drives Claudius) is expressed in laying false charges in order to obtain another’s wealth or to secure political advantage. Tacitus uses the same phrase to characterize Agrippina’s desire for luxurious gardens as he does to describe Messalina’s. Messalina gapes at gardens (inhians…hortis, 11.1.1), as does Agrippina (hortis…inhians, 12.59.1). The use of inhiare is telling. The sense of inhians is that of these women about to swallow up men in order to obtain their property. 181 In both cases, desire for wealth leads to slaughter, both of Asiaticus and Statilius Taurus. The savagery of Messalina bookends that of Gotarzes and the civil war that his cruelty and slaughter causes. First, there is the slaughter of Asiaticus, Poppaea and the brothers Petra. Then there is the narrative of the Parthian civil war, followed by Messalina’s love for Silius and their coup against Claudius. This juxtaposition of savageries serves to tie together the narratives of foreign and domestic. The periphery mirrors the center as the polarity of barbarian and Roman collapses. 181 Inhio: OLD 1: ‘to open one’s mouth (for food)’. Joshel (1997: 228) writes that inhiare represents “imperial rapacity”. 119 After the account of Claudius’ censorship, Tacitus discusses the Cherusci. As mentioned above, civil war had exhausted the ranks of the nobles and the German nation had to seek a king from Rome. That king was Italicus, descendant of Arminius, the general who led the slaughter of the legions of Varus. Italicus had been given as a hostage to Rome, and at first his recall was welcome. But power corrupted him and he was driven away. In the end, however, Italicus was restored to power by the Langobardi. 182 Thereafter, Italicus ‘remained an affliction on Cheruscan affairs through prosperity and adversity alike’ (per laeta per aduersa res Cheruscas adflictabat, 11.17.3). Tacitus gives as the reason for his banishment Italicus’ superbia (loc. cit.). The word superbia appears only a handful of times in the Claudian annals. Twice it is used rhetorically in indirect speech. The first of these is the rhetorical question asked by those appealing to Claudius regarding the enforcement of the Cincian Law on the awards paid to advocates (11.7.1). Accusers who stand to lose should the Lex Cincia be enforced make a plea to Claudius that the practice of oratory should not be left to those who can afford to do so for free, but that, as some men make a fortune at soldiery, others do so at the bar. They ask Claudius what arrogance (superbia, 11.7.1) would drive advocates to seek eternal fame. The implication being that advocates should work on behalf of their clients as professionals, and not as a means to seek gloria. C. Silus moved to enforce the Lex Cincia in response to savagery of Suillius (saeuus…Suillius, 11.5.1), the chief among Messalina’s accusers. However, the accusers approach Claudius saying that their clients 182 The Langobardi are a tribe of the Suebi located near the Elbe (Strabo 7.1.3). Malloch (2013: 260) remarks that the significance of Tacitus’ mention of the intervention of the Langobardi is to stress that Italicus’ support had dwindled among the Cherusci to the point that foreign intervention was necessary for him to maintain power. Perhaps this is a subtle warning to the Romans of the dangers of internal strife. 120 (those accusing) need subsidium—reinforcements. The unnamed speaker goes on to compare advocacy first to soldiering, then to farming (11.7.1): multos militia, quosdam exercendo agros tolerare uitam: nihil a quoquam expeti, nisi cuius fructus ante prouiderit. Many men sustain their lives by soldiering, others by working the fields. No one strives for anything unless he had seen beforehand its fruits. Two things are happening in this speech. First of all, the connection between soldiering and this particular kind of oratory is being made. Defending the regime through accusations is presented as being akin to serving the regime in a military capacity. That is, accusing appears to be a bulwark against civil war. Secondly, the speech stands as a commentary on the state of oratory, that it is indeed a job like any other and not just the purview of the very wealthy (the wealth of the accusers like Suillius notwithstanding). The implication is that soldiering and farming are admirable pursuits, but so is being a professional accuser. Like farming and soldiery, one accuses for profit. The first sense might have registered particularly with Tacitus’ readers because it was the accusers whom Tacitus accuses of superbia and saeuitia, of causing internal strife at Rome, acting as if there were no other way to avert open civil war. The other hypothetical and rhetorical use of the word superbia appears during Claudius’ freedmen’s discussion regarding Messalina’s replacement. Narcissus favors Aelia Paetina, Claudius’ second wife, but she is rejected by Callistus on the grounds that her reinstatement after her longstanding divorce would make her haughty or arrogant (superba, 12.2.2). This is ironic in that Agrippina will come to be explicitly accused of 121 haughtiness (superbia, 12.7.3) because of her position, heritage and progeny. The very traits that made her a superior choice for Claudius’ hand were responsible for her alleged arrogance and savagery. Tacitus uses superbia in his descriptions of both Messalina and Agrippina. Messalina’s arrogance continues even up to the moment of her death. After the execution of Silius and his supporters, Messalina was holding out in the Lucullian Gardens (11.37.1): Interim Messalina Lucullianis in hortis prolatare uitam, componere preces, nonnulla spe et aliquando ira: tantum inter extrema superbiae gerebat. Meanwhile, Messalina was prolonging her life in the Lucullian Gardens, composing her pleas with some hope and at other times anger: so great was the arrogance she was sustaining in those extreme circumstances. Messalina and Silius attempted a coup against Claudius’ regime. Her savagery—from her denunciations of eminent men to her plot to overthrow Claudius—is evidence of her superbia, a trait that she maintains right up to the moment of her death. Tacitus summarizes Agrippina’ characteristics after the marriage pact between her and Claudius was confirmed by the senate (12.7.3): uersa ex eo ciuitas et cuncta feminae oboediebant, non per lasciuiam, ut Messalina, rebus Romanis inludenti. adductum et quasi uirile seruitium: palam seueritas ac saepius superbia; nihil domi impudicum, nisi dominationi expediret. 122 Because of this, the state was overturned and everyone was obedient to a woman who toyed with Roman affairs, but not for sport like Messalina—it was a strict and manlike servility. There was open severity and, more often, arrogance. There was no domestic immodesty unless it was an expedient to domination. Agrippina demonstrates superbia and toys with Roman affairs, but unlike Messalina, Agrippina is disciplined. Messalina and Agrippina toy with state affairs for ostensibly different reasons, but both demonstrate superbia, a trait that engenders ill will among those subject to it. Superbia is a trait opposite of comitas. Ideal leaders, such as Germanicus and, at least at first, Italicus demonstrate affability, while the bad ones demonstrate arrogance. L. Tarquinius, last of the kings to hold Rome, was given the epithet (or had the cognomen) Superbus. His superbia—his haughtiness, his disdain, his arrogance—led to his downfall and the end of the (first) Roman monarchy. According to Sallust, whose influence on Tacitus has been well documented, 183 superbia inevitably leads to downfall. 184 Messalina’s superbia did lead to her downfall. Agrippina’s fate is favorable at first— Nero becomes princeps. Eventually, however, sour relations with her son lead to her murder. The mad matricide might have been motivated by maternal hatred, but Agrippina’s insistence on sharing rule with him ultimately led him to commit the ‘long contemplated crime’ (14.1.1). 183 Syme 1958: 196-199; 340; 352-356. 184 Sall. Cat. 2.5; 6.7; 10.4; 12.2; 19.4; 23.6; 33.3; 51.14. 123 The paradigm is repeated among the Suebi. The king, Vannius, was placed over the Suebi by the Romans. At first, his reign was welcome, but he soon grew arrogant and his people rebelled (12.29.1): Per idem tempus Vannius, Suebis a Druso Caesare impositus, pellitur regno, prima imperii aetate clarus acceptusque popularibus, mox diuturnitate in superbiam mutatus et odio accolarum, simul domesticis discordiis circumuentus. At the same time, Vannius, imposed over the Suebi by Drusus Caesar, was expelled from his kingdom. In the first stage of his command he was brilliant and accepted by his people. But soon, with the length of his rule he turned to arrogance and was surrounded by the hatred of his neighbors and, likewise, domestic discord. The rebellion was spearheaded by Vibilius, king of the Hermunduri, 185 and Vannius’ nephews Vangio and Sido. 186 In a mirroring of domestic affairs, saeuitia, superbia and internecine intrigue beset a ruler and bring about the end of his reign. Vannius was routed in battle and given refuge in Roman territory. His nephews shared his kingdom, but they too fell victim to the plight of kings (12.30.2): 185 Tacitus reports (Germ. 41) that the Hermunduri were loyal to Rome. See also Dio. 55.10a.2 and Strabo 7.1. For the Hermunduri and other nations of the “free Germans,” see Eck 1985. 186 Tacitus’ picture of Germany seems to be intentionally obfuscated. Geographical and topographical descriptions tend not to be elaborated upon. This has the effect of keeping Germany just out of reach for Tacitus’ audience. Writing of the Germania, Tan (2014: 181) writes: “In place of toponyms, detailed description and ordered encounters we are confronted by a bleak, obtuse landscape. Indeed, many standard features of ancient geographical writing are absent from the text, with the effect that our understanding—our ability to mentally ‘ acquire’ Germania—is consistently restricted.” 124 regnum Vangio ac Sido inter se partiuere, egregia aduersus nos fide, subiectis, incertum suone an seruitii ingenio, dum adipiscerentur dominationes, multa caritate, et maiore odio, postquam adepti sunt. Vangio and Sido shared the kingdom among themselves. Their faith toward us was outstanding. There was much affection from their subjects (it is uncertain whether it was because of their own nature or the nature of servitude itself) while the brothers were acquiring their dominations, but a greater hatred after they had obtained it. Aristocratic disaffection led to the ouster of Vannius and the installation of two kings who grew intolerable over time. The pattern repeats itself. Having deceived and slaughtered his uncle, Mithridates, and that man’s wife and sons, Radamistus held Armenia. 187 Since Mithridates was installed by Rome, the Roman administration of the east was not pleased with Radamistus’ usurpation. But owing to the incompetence of the procurator of Cappadocia, Claudian protégé Julius Paelignus, Rome’s response was bungled and in the confusion, Parthia invaded Armenia. However, a brutal winter forced the withdrawal of the Parthians and Radamistus returned to fill the power vacuum. Upon his arrival, Radamistus was more cruel than ever (truculentior, 12.50.2). His cruelty was such that it overcame what Tacitus describes as the accustomed servitude and natural passivity of the Armenians. The nobles eventually rebelled and 187 Mithridates was married to Pharasmanes’ daughter, hence Mithridates, like Claudius, had a niece-uncle marriage. Radamistus refers (though perfidiously) as socer and parens (12.47.1). It seems as though Tacitus is creating a parallel between Claudius and Mithridates, both of whom will be betrayed by their son-in-law and nephew, Nero and Radamistus respectively. Though Claudius is betrayed through the agency of Agrippina, his wife-niece, it is for the sake of her son. 125 drove Radamistus from his ill-gotten gains. Again, cruelty leads to disruption and civil war, providing the opportunity for foreign intervention. In perhaps an attempt to highlight the savagery of Radamistus, Tacitus relates the attempted murder of his wife, Zenobia. Being pursued by the rebelling Armenians, Zenobia asks that her husband kill her. Tacitus writes of the violence of Radamistus’ love that drove him to such a desperate act (12.51.3). He drew his scimitar and wounded his wife and threw her in a river. The still-breathing Zenobia was washed away only to be rescued and presented to the Parthians, who welcomed her in royal style. No mention is made of the fate of her baby. Radamistus returned to Iberia. This digression (an entire chapter of 18 lines) might be intended to showcase the savagery of the barbarians. 188 Not only do barbarian kings degenerate into cruelty as their reigns mature, but they are capable of the slaughter of their own families. Gotarzes and Radamistus both murder their close relations because of their intense desire to rule. But this kind of slaughter happens at Rome. The same cruelty that Tacitus relates at the edges of the empire occurs at the center. But descriptions of it are cloaked in innuendo and silence. The negative exempla cited above serve as guides for reading Tacitus’ narrative of events at the center. Tacitus’ readers are required to draw conclusions about the juxtaposition of these foreign savageries and those related in the City. 188 However, Tacitus’ portrayal of Zenobia is evocative of positive female exemplars such as Lucretia (Liv. 1.57-60) and, more recently, Arria the Elder, wife of Caecina Paetus (Pliny Ep. 3.16). Tacitus reports that Arria the Younger was trying to follow the example of her famous mother (Ann. 16.34.2). Pliny famously has Arria tell encourage her husband, who was complicit in the failed revolt against Claudius in 42 CE led by Camillus Scribonianus (Pliny Ep. 3.16; 9.19; Dio 60.15-16), to an honorable death by leading by example and saying “non dolet, Paete” (Ep. 3.16). Dio reports the same incident, having Arria say: ἰδοὺ, Παῖτε, οὐκ ἀλγῶ (60.16.7). See Shelton 2014: 15-42 and Skrunk 2015: 50. 126 Though most of Tacitus’ foreign kings exhibit negative traits that can be read onto Claudius and his court, the British king Caratacus provides a positive paradigm for a ruler. Caratacus was king of the Silures, a particularly warlike nation that was among the last to surrender to Roman rule after the revolt of the Iceni, Decangi and a faction of the Brigantes (12.32.2). Most of the tribes of southern Britain had accepted (for the time being) Roman rule except for the Silures and their allies who would not accept the rule of law even though battled down or granted clemency. They were a force the governor, P. Ostorius Scapula, had to face. The Romans marched against the Silures after consolidating their hold on the eastern part of the province by establishing a colony of veterans at Camulodunum (Colchester). 189 Tacitus reports that the Silures were formidable not only because of their ‘own special wildness’ (propria ferocia, 12.33.1), but because of the might of their leader, Caratacus (Carataci vires, loc. cit.), a man who ‘towered over the other leaders of the Britons’ (ceteros Britannorum imperatores praemineret, loc. cit.). Unlike other battle narratives in the Annals, Tacitus vividly depicts the battle and its prelude, even giving Caratacus a speech. 190 In fact, Caratacus will be given two speeches in Book 12, one before the battle against the governor Ostorius and another 189 The colony was not only a deterrent to the Silures, but also a way of enforcing among the allies a sense of ‘duty to law’. This is one of many occasions where Tacitus suggests that the imposition of the rule of law is the duty of the Romans. C.f. Verg. Aen. 6.852- 853): hae tibi erunt artes: pacis imponere morem, parcere subietis et debellare superbos. These will be your arts: to impose the custom of peace, To spare the defeated and battle down the proud. 190 On the paucity of elaborate battle set pieces in the Annals, see Ash 1999: 116-117. See also Tac. Ann. 4.32.1-2. 127 after his capture and presentation at Rome. Tacitus vividly describes the topography of the battle site chosen by the Silures in Ordovican territory and the action of the leaders of the various nations allied with the Silures. Caratacus chose a spot where ‘entry, exit, everything would be unfavorable to us and better for his own men’ (…aditus abscessus, cuncta nobis imporuna et suis in melius essent, 12.33). The place was surrounded by mountains and where there was a gentle slope, Caratacus placed large stones in the manner of palisade (in modum ualli, loc. cit.). In front of all this was a stream of unsure ford (uadum incertum, loc. cit.) and men posted at every defense point. The chiefs of the various nations were encouraging their men. Caratacus was likewise encouraging everyone (12.34): enimuero Caratacus huc illuc uolitans illum diem, illam aciem testabatur aut reciperandae libertatis aut seruitutis aeternae initium fore; uocabatque nomina maiorum, qui dictatorem Caesarem pepulissent, quorum uirtute uacui a securibus et tributis intemerata coniugum et liberorum corpora retinerent. Indeed, Caratacus, flying here and there, was testifying that this was the day, this was the battle that would restore freedom or initiate eternal servitude. And he was calling out the names of ancestors who had beaten back the dictator Caesar, by whose virtue they, free from the axes and tribute, kept the bodies of their wives and children undefiled. Tacitus ascribes agency to Caratacus using active verbs and participles: uolans, testabatur, uocabat. This is important because, as will be shown below, Tacitus denies 128 Claudius agency, referring to actions taken by him in subordinate clauses and in the passive voice with no stated agent. Tacitus is painting a vivid picture of an active, charismatic leader, someone who shines when contrasted with the gloomy picture of events at court. The next chapter begins with Ostorius being dumbstruck by the alacrity of the Silures (obstupefecit ea alacritas ducem Romanum, 12.35.1). It might be inferred from this that enthusiasm was unusual, even among the barbarians in these gloomy times (cf. 4.32.1-2). And again, the British leader proves more active and more charismatic than Claudius, accounts of whom bookend Tacitus’ account of Caratacus’ victory. Claudius contrasts with Caratacus in that in Tacitus’ telling, Caratacus is a man of action and who is in control of himself while Claudius lacks self-control and is dominated by Agrippina. The Roman soldiery was clamoring for battle and exhorting their commander to act. Moved by the ardor of his men, Ostorius reconnoiters and plans his attack. Tacitus then describes the battle in vivid detail (12.35.2-3): tum Ostorius, circumspectis quae impenetrabilia quaeque peruia, ducit infensos amnemque haud difficulter euadit. ubi uentum ad aggerem, dum missilibus certabatur, plus uulnerum in nos et pleraeque caedes oriebantur: postquam facta testudine rudes et informes saxorum compages distractae parque comminus acies, decedere barbari in iuga montium. sed eo quoque inrupere ferentarius gravisque miles, illi telis adsultantes, hi conferto gradu, turbatis contra Britannorum ordinibus, apud quos nulla loricarum galearumue tegmina; et si auxiliaribus resisterent, gladiis ac 129 pilis legionariorum, si huc uerterent, spathis et hastis auxiliarium sternebantur. Then Ostorius, having reconnoitered what was impenetrable and what was passable led his fierce men and with no difficulty crossed the stream. When they came to the rampart, while the battle was being fought with missiles, greater wounds and much slaughter befell our side. When the crude and unshaped structures of rocks were broken after the testudo was formed and the close battle lines were on equal footing, the barbarians fled to the ridges of the mountains. In that place too the light-armed troops and heavy soldiers were bursting through, the former leaping forth with their weapons, the latter with close marching. On the other side, there was disorder among the ranks of the Britons, among whom there was no protection from breastplates or helmets. If they resisted the auxiliaries, they were cut down by the swords and javelins of the legionaries. If they turned from there, they were cut down by the broadswords and spears of the auxiliaries. The Romans were victorious in the end. Caratacus at first had fled to Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, but he was detained and handed over to the Romans, along with his wife, daughter and brothers. Tacitus’ description of this battle is surpassed only by his narration of a battle between the Parthians and an army of Albanians, Iberians and Sarmatians (6.34-35). 191 The elaborate detail with which Tacitus describes the latter 191 See Ash 1999a: 114. 130 conspires “to signpost it as a compelling historical exemplum for contemporaries.” 192 The alacrity of the allied army in their defeat of the stronger Parthian force contrasts with the machinations at the court of Tiberius while providing exempla for Tacitus’ Trajanic audience. Likewise, rather than civil strife and internecine war, the defeat of Caratacus is a glorious victory for Ostorius. In a way, it is a reminder of what the Romans are capable of and recollects the great battles of the past. 193 It is a way of drawing attention to how bad things are at the center. While Claudius is dominated by his freedmen and his new wife, Agrippina, Roman soldiers are winning glory for the empire. Caratacus had managed to spurn the might of Rome for nine years and for that reason his fame was carried through the provinces and into the City itself. Ostorius died in 50 CE, after the defeat of Caratacus and the Silures. Claudius appointed A. Didius to the governorship of Britain. Affairs were not completely in order when Didius arrived and a legion under the command of the prefect Manlius Valens was defeated. Tacitus writes that the Britons exaggerated their account of the battle in order to terrify the newly appointed governor. He for his part, according to Tacitus, exaggerated even more ‘in order that he might be allotted greater praise for settling affairs or, if they held out, a more just indulgence’ (ut maior laus composite uel, si durauisset, iustior uenia tribueretur, 12.40.1). Claudius does something similar, but to different effect (12.36.2): et Caesar, dum suum decus extollit, addidit gloriam uicto. 192 Ash 1999a: 115. 193 It is also a reminder of what kinds of history used to written under the liberty of the old Republic as opposed to the kind of history possible under the principate (res populi Romani memorabantur pari eloquentia ac libertate, Hist. 1.1). 131 And Caesar, while he extolled his own honor added glory to the conquered. In other words, Manlius Valens exaggerated the strength of the enemy in order to increase his glory should he subdue the enemy (and greater leniency should he be defeated) whereas Claudius, in glorifying himself made Caratacus appear the more remarkable. As Claudius extolls his own decus, Caratacus’ gloria increases. Gloria is a loaded term. It accrues to Roman men who have achieved superior honor in a competitive venture. 194 Tacitus ascribes to a foreign king (a defeated one at that) a very Roman virtue. Decus, on the other hand, is a much broader term in the economy of Roman honor. That Tacitus ascribes gloria to the captured Caratacus rather than the emperor further signals that Caratacus is an exemplary figure, a man of action and speech rather than a pawn of women and slaves. Caratacus, unlike Claudius, demonstrates self-mastery. 195 When presented at Rome, while the others in his train comported themselves in such a way that was below their station on account of fear, Caratacus ‘sought mercy with neither downtrodden look nor speech’ (aut uultu aut uerbis misericordiam requirens, 12.36.3). The British king appears to be in complete control of his emotions and body. Having reached the tribunal, he makes his second speech (12.37.1-3): 'Si quanta nobilitas et fortuna mihi fuit, tanta rerum prosperarum moderatio fuisset, amicus potius in hanc urbem quam captus uenissem, neque dedignatus esses claris maioribus ortum, plurimis gentibus imperitantem foedere [in] pacem accipere. praesens sors mea ut mihi 194 Habinek 2000: 266-267. 195 For the association between self-mastery and ideal masculinity, see Gunderson 2000: 97. 132 informis, sic tibi magnifica est. habui equos uiros, arma opes: quid mirum si haec inuitus amisi? nam si uos omnibus imperitare uultis, sequitur ut omnes seruitutem accipiant? si statim deditus traderet, neque mea fortuna neque tua gloria inclaruisset; et supplicium mei obliuio sequeretur: at si incolumem seruaueris, aeternum exemplar clementiae ero.' “If my moderation in prosperity had been equal to my nobility and fortune, I would have come to this city as a friend rather than as a captive, and you would not have disdained to accept in a treaty of peace a man of distinguished ancestors commanding many nations. My present lot, as unseemly as it is for me, is magnificent for you. I had men, horses, arms and wealth; so what if I was unwilling to let go of these things? If you want to command everyone, does it follow that everyone should accept servitude? If I were being handed over having surrendered right away, neither my fortune nor your glory would have become splendid. And punishment is followed by my oblivion. But, if you should preserve me unharmed, I will be an eternal exemplar of your clemency.” This rare example of a speech in oratio recta grants further agency to Caratacus. Whereas others speak in indirect discourse, Caratacus owns his words, which are presented as if they had come straight from his own mouth. He speaks of moderatio, gloria and clementia, words associated with virtuous leaders. It is an example of oratory that exhibits the speaker’s self-mastery. He does not prostrate himself or act in any way 133 unbecoming of his noble birth. Rather, he demonstrates self-mastery and is contrasted to Claudius, who was notorious for his general lack of self-control. As a result of this speech, Claudius granted pardon to Caratacus, his wife and his brothers. Tacitus does not relate the thanks that Caratacus and his family gave to Claudius. Rather, he states that upon being released from their chains, the Britons ‘…venerated Agrippina too, with the same praise and gratitude as they had for the princeps’ (Agrippinam quoque…isdem quibus principem laudibus gratibusque uenerati sunt, 12.37.4). The praise given to Agrippina is explicitly mentioned whereas that given to Claudius is relegated to a subordinate clause. Caratacus and his retinue are made the subject of the sentence, Agrippina is named outright, but Claudius is relegated to the shadows. The structure of this sentence invites Tacitus’ readers to contemplate the relationship not only of Britons and Romans, but also of Agrippina and Claudius. Claudius’ position relative to the captives is also ignored, but Tacitus specifically mentions Agrippina’s location. She is not subordinated to her husband, the princeps. Rather, she is ‘conspicuous’ (conspicua, 12.37.4), seated on her own dais. Agrippina is presented not as subject to her husband, but as his equal, as a dux femina (loc. cit.): nouum sane et moribus ueterum insolitum, feminam signis Romanis praesidere: ipsa semet parti a maioribus suis imperii sociam ferebat. It was indeed a new thing and unknown to the customs of the ancients: that a woman would preside over the Roman standards. But she conducted herself as partner in the command that originated with her ancestors. 134 Tacitus presents Agrippina as commander in her own right. She is paralleled not with female exemplars from the Roman past, but with a female character from Tacitus’ own British narrative: Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes. Cartimandua is queen in her own right of a people closely allied to Rome. She is a dux femina in the literal sense, and militarily successful. Furthermore, Tacitus writes that Agrippina is claiming a right to preside over the Roman standards because of the achievements of her ancestors—mainly Augustus. Nothing else is mentioned about the fate of Caratacus and his family. The Senate praised the capture of the king and rewards were granted to the commanders. But affairs were far from settled. The Silures continued to attack Roman positions and conduct raids. Manlius Valens loses a battle (12.40.1) but A. Didius continues Ostorius’ plans of pacifying the island. At this point, Tacitus ends his account of British affairs and begins his narration of Nero’s assumption of the toga of manhood (12.41.1). Tacitus opens the year 50 CE with the consular formula and an immediate reference to the adoption of the future Nero (12.25.1). Again, references to the chief magistrates of the old republic lead directly to dynastic concerns. Consules is juxtaposed to adoptio, tying together the high office of consul to the rise of Nero. That is, the offices of the old Republic stand in contrast to the realities of the new dispensation, that the private affairs of Caesar’s house are matters of supreme import to the state. The adoption of Domitius and his assumption of the name Nero opens the year, followed by an account of Agrippina’s patronage of the Ubii and then German and British affairs, which closes out the year. 135 While narrating Radamistus’ takeover of Armenia, Tacitus has the occasion of harshly criticizing the procurator of Cappadocia, Julius Paelignus (12.49.1): 196 Erat Cappadociae procurator Iulius Paelignus, ignaui<a> animi et deridiculo corporis iuxta despiciendus, sed Claudio perquam familiaris, cum priuatus olim conuersatione scur<r>arum iners otium oblectaret. Julius Paelignus was the procurator of Cappadocia, despicable for his lazy mentality and for his derided body alike. But the man was a particular intimate of Claudius when, as a private citizen, he delighted himself in idle leisure by associating with buffoons. This friend of the emperor is derided for his laziness and his physique and Tacitus uses this occasion to remind his readers of the days Claudius spend in indolent leisure, associating with low-life people, activities well below the dignity of a princeps. Paelignus is a kind surrogate for Claudius, transfering the buffoonery of the center to the periphery. He is a local foil to the likes of Quadratus, Cassius and Priscus. The troubles in Armenia provide the opportunity to showcase Paelignus’ incompetence, or his treachery; it is unclear which (12.49.1): is Paelignus auxiliis prouincialium contractis tamquam reciperaturus Armeniam, dum socios magis quam hostis praedatur, abscessu suorum et incursantibus barbaris praesidii egens ad Radamistum uenit; donisque 196 Tacitus is our only source for the career of Paelignus. However, Philippe Fabia identifies Dio’s Laelianus (Λαιλιανός, 61.6.6) as Julius Paelingus, “préfet des vigiles et procurateur de Cappadoce”. See Bossier 1898: 94. 136 eius euictus ultro regium insigne sumere cohortatur sumentique adest auctor et satelles. This same Paelignus, having gathered together auxiliaries from the provincials as if to recover Armenia, while he was plundering the allies rather than the enemy, and lacking protection after the departure of his men and with the barbarians attacking, went to Radamistus. Having been overcome by his gifts, he even urged him to assume the insignia of kingship and was present as promoter and satellite at the beginning of his reign. Did Paelignus raid allied territory out of incompetence or greed? The Latin does not mention Paelignus’ motives. The adverb tamquam might imply that the recovery of Armenia was a pretext for Paelignus’ expedition, but it might also prefigure the failure of his enterprise. The readers are forced to supplement the text and draw their own conclusions. The parallel with Claudius is implicitly made and the reader is left to likewise draw her own conclusion about Claudius: does he act out of incompetence, greed or innate savagery? Though Paelignus is Roman, Tacitus’ Armenian narrative provides the opportunity to showcase Paelignus as a negative exemplum. Since Tacitus directly associates Claudius and Paelignus, he makes the connection between Paelignus’ incompetency and Claudius’ inability to govern himself (his passions), his domus his wives and freedmen) and the pax (the empire at large). 137 Cn. Domitius Corbulo, on the other hand, is often portrayed as a charismatic figure and a positive exemplum. 197 Corbulo is lionized in the Neronian annals as an example of seueritas and virtue in a world where it was notoriously difficult to attain military gloria. 198 Corbulo is a foil to the decadent imperator scaenicus (Plin. Pan. 46.4). 199 Successful in Germany and in the East, Corbulo became the object of Nero’s paranoia following the Pisonian conspiracy and was ordered to commit suicide. The general proved to have obtained too much gloria. However, the first mention of Corbulo in the extant Annals is at 11.18 during Tacitus’ discussion of the raiding of Lower Germany by the Chauci in 47 CE. As Malloch points out, Tacitus’ introduction of Corbulo is full of words denoting motion establishing a “tone of war and dynamism that characterises Corbulo and his legateship.” 200 Tacitus’ narrative of Corbulo’s action in Lower Germany begins (11.18.1): Per idem tempus Chauci nulla dissensione domi et morte Sanquinii alacres, dum Corbulo adventat, inferiorem Germaniam incursavere duce Gannasco, qui natione Canninefas, auxiliare stipendium meritus, post transfuga, levibus navigiis praedabundus Gallorum maxime oram vastabat, non ignarus ditis et imbellis esse. 197 For a full account of the mystique surrounding Corbulo in antiquity, see Vervaet 2002: 187-193. He also argues that Corbulo’s career in the East represents a vision of a “proper Roman oriental policy among his contemporaries” and is subsequently a subtle warning to Trajan regarding war with Parthia (1999: 297). 198 Ash 2006: 355. 199 See Geiser 2007. Also, Allison (1997: 25) argues that Germanicus and Corbulo are mirror images of each other, both foils to their respective emperors, by whom Tiberius and Nero are meant. Unexplored is the relationship between Corbulo and Claudius. 200 Malloch 2013: 262. 138 During the same time, the Chauci, with no dissension at home and eager after the death of Sanquinius, raided Lower Germany while Corbulo was on the march, their leader was Gannascus, a Canninefate by nationality, who, after earning auxiliary pay for a long time but later a deserter, was now plundering from light vessels and laying waste the coast of the Gauls in particular, not unaware that they were rich and unwarlike. 201 Aduentat, inursauere, praedabundus, uastabat, alacres all provide forward motion to the narrative, a sharp contrast to the gloomy affairs of the City. Corbulo was successful in checking the Chauci and his successes in Germany made Claudius nervous (11.19.3): cur hostem conciret? aduersa in rem publicam casura: sin prospere egisset, formidolosum paci uirum insignem et ignauo principi praegrauem. igitur Claudius adeo nouam in Germanias vim prohibuit ut referri praesidia cis Rhenum iuberet. Why was he provoking the enemy? A reverse would fall on the state, but if he were to perform successfully, a man of his standing would constitute a threat to peace and a burden to an inactive princeps. Therefore, Claudius prohibited any new violence against the Germans to the extent that he ordered the garrisons to return to this side of the Rhine. 201 Translation adapted from Woodman 2004: 204. 139 Fear of a successful general leads to a cessation of activities that could have expanded the empire. The princeps is referred to as ignauus—lazy or cowardly. 202 Tacitus seems to be commenting on the princeps’ preoccupation with remaining in power at the expense of winning glory for Rome. Claudius’ cowardice or laziness contrasts sharply with Corbulo’s action. This action leads to Corbulo’s campaigns being halted in their tracks. Busily constructing a camp in enemy territory, Corbulo receives a letter from Claudius ordering him to cease action against the Germans. Fearing Claudius’ ire, Corbulo cries beatos quondam duces Romanos (‘happy once were Roman leaders,’ 11.20.1), and signals retreat. This implies that Corbulo laments the days when a general could accrue gloria for himself and expand the territory of the Roman Empire and that in his day, territorial expansion is limited because of the emperor’s fears of men who have attained military success. However, even in the face of this blow from Claudius, Corbulo maintains the discipline of his troops, ordering them to construct a canal (11.20.2). 203 Corbulo, then, stands as a foil to the indolent and cowardly Claudius. A man of action, the figure of Corbulo harkens back to generals of old, men who were able to obtain gloria while expanding the empire. The emperors are too concerned with holding on to their power to allow for great acts from men whose glory might render them rivals to the throne. In depicting Corbulo as a man of action and by highlighting Claudius’ fear, Tacitus reminds his readers of the cost of the quietude of the principate. Like barbarian nations engulfed in civil war, Rome is unable to expand its frontiers and its influence. It 202 Malloch (2013: 288) remarks that “cowardice is a recurrent feature of the ancient representation of Claudius,” citing Ann. 11.31.1, 12.57.2, and 13.6.3; Sen. Apocol. 12.3.5; Jos. AJ. 19.216-20; Suet. Claud. 10.1-2, 35-37; Dio 60.2.6, 60.3.2, and 60.15.4. C.f. Tiberius as incuriosus princeps (Ann. 4.32.2). 203 This is confirmed by Dio 60.36. 140 is mired in dynastic intrigue while the threat of discordia boiling over into open civil war haunts princeps and the aristocracy alike. 204 Regardless of the premature recall of Corbulo, Claudius awards him the triumphal insignia ‘quamuis bellum negauisset’ (11.20.2). The outward signs of triumph trump action in Claudius’ Rome. Positive exemplars, whether foreign or Roman, serve as foils against which court figures and the emperor himself can be read. Caratacus and Corbulo achieve military glory and present themselves in a manner that is becoming to their station. Negative exempla reflect the indolence, savagery and haughtiness at court and show how the accumulation of such behaviors leads to idleness, civil war and foreign intervention. These exempla help Tacitus demonstrate what is helpful and harmful. Exemplars like Corbulo show how a man might achieve glory while negotiating the difficulties posed by the imperial dispensation. His action contrasts sharply with Claudius’ inaction, showcasing Claudius’ agency diminished by fear and indolence. Vardanes and Gotarzes show rulers how not to behave lest their rule disintegrate into civil war. Julius Paelignus reflects the cowardice and corruption of the Claudian court. These exempla, however, are not only instructive, but are palliative. Writing about the causes of civil war among foreign peoples relieves fears in Tacitus’ readership of the kinds of disturbances brought on by the civil wars of 68 and 69. It shows discordia ciuilis as preventable should only members of the elite and the imperial court find common ground and focus their energies away from domestic discord and intrigue. Lastly, exempla show that Romans are still 204 Tacitus seems keenly aware of the tenuous relationship between great generals and the princeps. His Agricola in particular depicts the fraught relationship between Agricola and Domitian. Malloch (2013: 287) argues that Agricola and Domitian’s “uncomfortable relations” serves as a literary backdrop for the relationship between Corbulo and Claudius. 141 capable of achieving great things in spite of the system that hinders the accrual of glory to men outside of the imperial family. IV. Claudius on the Edge Claudius plays a central role in Tacitus’ narrative of domestic affairs although he is often relegated to subordinate clauses or in passive voice constructions. However, Claudius hardly figures in Tacitus’ account of events at the periphery. Claudius is mentioned by name at the outset of Tacitus’ narrative of the installation of Mithridates over the Armenians. This happened ‘on the advice of Claudius’, but this notice is relegated to an ablative absolute clause (monente Claudio, 11.8.1). Mithridates is the subject of the sentence (Mithridates…remeauit, loc. cit.). Tacitus reports that the Parthian satrap of Armenia was routed, but it is not stated by whom Demonax was defeated. The emperor’s power over client kings is hinted at in the following sentence, stating that the king of Lesser Armenia, Cotys, ‘was restrained by a letter from Caesar’ (Cotys…litteris Caesaris coercitus, 11.9.2). Again, Claudius is relegated to the passive voice while the foreign king made the subject of the sentence. Tacitus credits the Roman soldiery for the clearing of pro-Parthian strongholds throughout Armenia, while the Iberians cleared the plains. No mention is made of the commander under whom this action was taken, nor is the imperator, Claudius, mentioned at all (11.9.1). Tacitus as a rule seems to diminish the agency of Claudius. This has the effect of amplifying Tacitus’ picture of Claudius as the subject of his freedmen and wives. Even though Tacitus relates foreign affairs and the importance of foreign matters to Roman administration, he nevertheless integrates them into a narrative whole, showing through diminution the perceived impotence of Claudius. 142 Vibius Marsus, 205 the governor of Syria, is credited with checking the ambitions of Vardanes, who, after negotiating a truce with his brother, Gotarzes, had plans for regaining Armenia for the Parthians (11.10.1). Claudius is given no credit for the success of Marsus’ threats of war, though doubtless he was acting under orders of the princeps. After the appointment of Meherdates to the kingship of Parthia, C. Cassius, now legate of Syria, was appointed to escort Meherdates as far as the Euphrates (12.12.1). 206 Tacitus leaves out the name of the person by whom Cassius was appointed, though, again, it was likely Claudius. Tacitus uses this appointment to praise Cassius, citing his implementation of ‘old-time conventions’ such as exercising his troops and being constantly prepared for battle ‘as if an enemy were attacking’ (ac si hostis ingrueret, 12.12.1). The senatorial historian passes over mention of the princeps, amplifying the praise of the senatorial Cassius, whose name was celebrated throughout the eastern nations (loc. cit.). The event is focalized through senatorial eyes to the diminishment of the agency of the princeps. The case of the prefect Caelius Pollio and the centurion Casperius might be an indication of the flexibility and freedom with which imperial staff could exercise power in the provinces. Though it is true that provincial officials did wield a lot of power, Tacitus diminishes Claudius’ role in events as a way to further link his domestic and 205 C. Vibius Marsus was suffect consul in 17 CE and proconsul of Africa from 27-30. He yielded to Gn. Sentius Saturninus for the governorship of Syria during Tiberius’ reign (Ann. 2.74.1; Woodman 2004: 77n127) and was later implicated in the alleged conspiracy of Albucilla as her lover and accomplice. He was cleared of all charges and rose to prominence again under Gaius and Claudius (Ann. 6. 47.2-48.1). 206 C. Cassius Longinus, suffect consul in 30 CE was the descendant of C. Cassius Longinus, one of the assassins of Julius Caesar. He fought heroically in Syria in the wake of Crassus’ defeat at Carrhae in 53 BCE. He was also a famous jurist (12.12.1) to whom Tacitus attributes a long speech (14.42.2-44.3). 143 foreign narratives. Caelius Pollio was prefect of the stronghold of Gorneae in Armenia. Surrounded by Radamistus’ forces, who are unable to breech the Roman defenses, Caelius is bribed by Radamistus (12.45.3). At first, the centurion Casperius was against the illegal use of money, but pleading the strength and number of enemy forces, Casperius agreed to surrender the stronghold and withdraw to Syria. There he informed the governor Ummidius Quadratus of the state of Armenia. 207 Caelius acts in a way contrary to the praiseworthy Cassius. Like the corrupt freedmen at the imperial court, Caelius succumbs not to military force, but to bribery. That Casperius returns to the governor of Syria to report the events speaks to the tolerance of such behavior under the regime. Like Messalina and Agrippina (along with the imperial freedmen), money and not the currency of gloria determines courses of action. There is no evidence in the Annals that Caelius was ever punished for abandoning his position in exchange for money. There seem to be no consequences for bribery, at court or in the provinces. Caelius Pollio, after the abandonment of Gorneae, urged Mithridates, the pro- Roman client king of Armenia, to come to terms with Radamistus. Since Mithridates was installed by Claudius, this would represent a major reversal in Roman policy. And this was apparently undertaken by a prefect and not in consultation with the governor of Syria nor the emperor. As was discussed above, Radamistus slaughters Mithridates and his sons, a major disgrace for the Romans. Tacitus makes it clear that Ummidius Quadratus was unaware of the machinations of Caelius because Tacitus reports that the governor of Syria learned of the murder of Mithridates and his sons after the fact. Ummidius calls a consilium to debate whether to avenge the death of Mithridates and punish Radamistus 207 C. Vmmidius Quadratus, suffect consul in 40 was governor of Syria from 50-60 CE (Woodman 2004: 233n60). 144 (12.48.1). The decision was to abstain from revenge and to let Radamistus keep his ill- gotten gains (12.48.3). Tacitus gives Claudius no say in the matter. Rather, in order to cover themselves, just as Radamistus was to remain on the Armenian throne, a letter was drafted to Pharasmanes that he should withdraw his son and remove his forces from Armenia. This they did, lest Caesar have different orders (…diuersa Caesar iuberet, 12.48.3). Caesar does not order, rather, double action is taken should Caesar order differently than they had acted. Primary agency lies with Ummidius Quadratus and his consilium and not with Claudius. Tacitus again denies Claudius agency when he narrates the misadventures of the emperor’s intimate, Julius Paelignus. Paelignus defects to Radamistus. In response to this, Helvidius Priscus 208 ‘was sent’ (mittitur, 12.49.2) with a legion to deter further defections and to demonstrate that the behavior of Paelignus was not sanctioned. 209 Before things escalated, however, and having crossed Mount Taurus, Priscus ‘was ordered’ (iubetur, 12.49.2) to return to Syria, lest war break out between Rome and Parthia. It is not made clear who was doing the ordering. Whether it was Claudius or Ummidius who was giving the orders, that person is stripped of his agency. This lends to the narrative the sense of anarchy at the fringes and hints at a lack of a coherent policy regarding the East. This ultimately reflects negatively on Claudius. Tacitus elaborates events at the periphery but he limits Claudius’ involvement. The stripping of Claudius’ agency has the effect of painting the emperor as distracted by court intrigues while subordinates attempt to manage affairs on their own. Claudius’ 208 Likely the tribune of the plebs mentioned at 13.28.3 and son-in-law of Thrasea Paetus (16.28.1; 16.29.1; 16.33.2; 16.35.1). See Woodman 2004: 235n62. 209 By whom it was not sanctioned is not stated. Is it Claudius or the governor of Syria? 145 inaction is contrasted with the actions of his legates, which negatively contrast with accounts of court intrigue and concerns over the imperial succession. V. Conclusion Tacitus’ foreign narratives are integral to the whole of the Annals. Periphery mirrors the center as barbarian kings rise to power under favorable conditions but quickly turn to haughtiness and savagery and lose the goodwill of their people. Furthermore, dynastic intrigue and other forms of civil disaffection lead to the downfall of monarchs and boil over into open civil war. Civil disaffection at the edges reflects the state of civil discord at the heart of the empire, reminding Tacitus’ audience of the consequences of savagery and contracted, unresolved tensions. Although Tacitus reports several Roman successes in the East and in Britain, Claudius’ agency is diminished while some Roman generals are elevated as positive exempla. Intimates of Claudius who act on the fringes do so incompetently and reflect poorly on the emperor. Positive exempla, whether barbarian or Roman, serve as foils to Tacitus’ Claudius. Negative exempla refer the reader back to depictions of Claudius, his wives and his freedmen. In short, domestic and foreign narratives each serve as guides for reading the other. Events at the center shape the reader’s perception of affairs at the edges while events at the edges reinforce and reflect dysfunction and savagery in the City. The two narratives cannot be separated but must be read holistically. Tacitus’ foreign narratives serve two contradictory purposes. On the one hand, by mirroring periphery and center, Tacitus collapses the polarity between Roman and barbarian. The ills that plague German, Pannonian, British, Armenian and other Eastern 146 kings now plague the heart of Rome. Dynastic intrigue overshadows military and political victories abroad. The political order at Rome is upset and resembles more the autocracies of barbarian nations and less the res publica of old and the kinds of history that had been written before: accounts of conquests, glorious battles and struggles between consuls and tribunes. On the other hand, the foreign narratives showcase both positive and negative exempla. Negative exempla such as the Roman Julius Paelignus and the barbarian Radamistus mirror the behaviors of bad actors at Rome, whether it is the emperor’s wives and freedman, or the princeps himself. Positive exemplars, such as Corbulo, Ostorius or the British king Caratacus serve as foils to the emperor and his court reminding Tacitus’ readers of the discipline of old and the victories of towering figures from the Republic. The savagery of Gotarzes mirrors that of Suillius, the haughtiness of Italicus mirrors that of Agrippina. Meanwhile, the dynastic intrigue common to Parthia and Germany now besets Rome. Tacitus reminds his audience that things are not what they used to be while instructing them on the dangers that are possibly in store should tensions within the ruling elite go unresolved. 147 —Chapter 4— Conspiracy Narratives in the Claudian Annals I. Introduction This chapter investigates Tacitus’ use of conspiracy narratives to organize events in Books 11 and 12 of the Annals. To a large extent, Tacitus’ conspiracy narratives entail many of the features outlined in previous chapters that reveal a gap between pretense and ‘hidden truth.’ The common threads of conspiracy narratives are, firstly, the simmering tension between the aristocracy and the imperial family that plagues the center of Rome; and secondly, a rift between outward appearance and behavior. Victoria Pagán has identified typological similarities in conspiracy narratives across the Roman historiographical tradition. In her investigation of Sallust’s account of the Catilinarian conspiracy, Livy’s narrative of the Bacchanalian affair and Tacitus’ depiction of the Pisonian conspiracy, Pagán has identified each author’s use of presuppositions, indirect discourse, internal focalization, temporal displacement, extensive use of delaying techniques and the prominence of women as conduits of knowledge as common to conspiracy narratives. 210 She notes that these effects are common because authors must narrate events that transpire in secret and in enclosed spaces or in the dead of night. Conspiracy narratives reveal the ways in which authors address events that unfold in enclosed, private spaces, events that are by their very nature not fully knowable. 210 Pagán 2004: 22. 148 In addition to formal similarities in conspiracy narratives in Sallust, Livy and Tacitus, Pagán identifies some similarities in content. Pagán focuses on the role of women and foreigners in the revelation or concealment of the conspiracies. I contribute to her study by identifying similarities that recur in conspiracy narratives throughout the Claudian annals. In addition to the role of women and foreigners and the unfolding of events in enclosed spaces, I will look at the role of accusations of sexual misconduct, suborning of troops, and, in some instances, allegations of reliance on astrology and magic. Conspiracy narratives in many ways form the backbone of Tacitean rhetoric. Pagán summarizes the prevalence of conspiracy narratives: Perhaps no other extant Roman historian is as obsessed with conspiracy as Tacitus. From the outset, the Annales would have us believe that Tiberius owed his rise to power to secret machinations. In the first ten chapters alone, Tacitus casts suspicion on the rise of Augustus and the deaths of Lucius, Gaius, Hirtius, and Pansa—all before Tiberius even becomes emperor, thanks to his scheming mother Livia. 211 She goes one to describe the murder of Agrippa Postumus, the mysterious death of Germanicus, Sejanus’ reign of terror, the possible smothering of Tiberius and the poisoning of Claudius. “Treachery, prevarication, dissimulation—such is the subject matter of the Annales.” 212 This treachery, this prevarication and dissimulation recur throughout the Claudian annals. 211 Pagán 2004: 68. 212 Pagán 2004: 68. 149 As I will demonstrate, Tacitus writes of conspiracy according to fixed paradigms, each conspiracy reflecting the others. In so doing, Tacitus exposes gaps between pretense and ‘hidden truth.’ Simultaneously, it is possible to reconstruct social practices and ideologies by investigating the way in which Tacitus exploits his readers’ implicit understanding of certain cultural phenomena in order to construct his conspiracy narratives. II. The Conspiracy Of and Against D. Valerius Asiaticus The first conspiracy investigated here will be that alleged of the consular D. Valerius Asiaticus. Asiaticus was born sometime around 5 BCE at Vienne in Gallia Narbonensis. In 35 CE, he became the first native of Vienne to rise to the consulship. 213 He was an intimate of the emperor Gaius, having married Lollia Saturnia, the sister of Gaius’ third wife. Asiaticus was certainly very wealthy. Tacitus reports that he owned the magnificent gardens of L. Lucullus (11.1.1). Papyri from Egypt suggest that he held vast estates there. 214 According to Dio, Asiaticus resigned from his second consulship of 46 CE, though he was elected for the whole year, as a means of self-preservation: not only was he very wealthy, but he was also politically successful and he wanted to avoid incurring the jealousy of people in a position to cause him harm (Dio. 60.27.2-3). Unfortunately for Asiaticus, his ploy failed. Tacitus cites Messalina’s desire for Asiaticus’ property as the reason for his demise, that she was gaping after (inhians) the Gardens of Lucullus that Asiaticus owned and was making even more magnificent. Along with Asiaticus, Poppaea the Elder was a 213 PIR (1), Berlin 1898, s.n. Valerius no.25 (pp.352ff). 214 P.Mich. inv. 879 v I.13 and P.Lond. III 894. Sijpesteijn 1998. 150 victim of Messalina’s scheming. Because the first half or so of book 11 is lost, we cannot know why precisely Messalina wanted to destroy Poppaea the Elder, but Tacitus does tell us that Messalina believed (credidit) that Valerius Asiaticus had been her lover. An accusation of adultery between the two would have provided Messalina with the pretext for destroying both at the same time. According to Tacitus, Messalina induced Sosibius, Britannicus’ tutor, to warn Claudius per speciem beniuolentiae (11.1.1) to beware the kind of wealth and power available to men like Asiaticus. 215 Sosibius also says that Asiaticus was preparing to make a journey to the legions stationed in Germany. Although this claim is unsubstantiated in the text, conspiracy narratives in the literary tradition condition Claudius, the conspirators, and Tacitus’ readers to accept it as a logical move for a would-be usurper. For example, Cicero and Sallust both tell us that Catiline tried to suborn the Allobroges, a ploy that ultimately failed. Fear of Gauls is encoded in the literary tradition and as recent as the rebellion of Vindex, fears of a Gallic uprising or of disaffected Romans raising an army of Gauls plagued the Roman imagination. Furthermore, Sosibius claims that Asiaticus, as a native of Vienne, had the necessary connections among the local elite there to foment rebellion among the Gauls. So, the fear of Gauls and the fear of a man with too much power condition Claudius and other readers of history to expect such an accusation. Sosibius is laying the groundwork for a fictional conspiracy, the elements of which Tacitus lays out. All the while, the true conspiracy is the conspiracy to invent a conspiracy. Tacitus has Sosibius name Asiaticus as the praecipuum auctorem… interficiendi <C.> Caesaris (11.1.2). This is a claim not supported by the other literary sources. 215 Species can mean pretext and is evocative of the dissimulation common to the Tiberian principate (Malloch 2013: 59). 151 Josephus names the prefects of the Praetorian Guard, Cassius Chaerea and Cornelius Sabinus as the architects of the plot and the first to strike (AJ. 19.1-159). 216 The assassination of Gaius was quite recent history to Claudius, and a story that was by no means kept secret. 217 Tacitus reports that Asiaticus himself boasted in contione populi Romani of his role in the plot (11.1.2). However, Josephus reports Asiaticus as saying in response to allegations that he had participated, ‘would that I had’ (εἴθε γὰρ ἔγωγε, AJ. 19.159), implying that he had in fact not actually participated. 218 Unfortunately, Tacitus’ account of Gaius’ reign is lost. Although it is possible that Tacitus’ account has Asiaticus as a principle actor in Gaius’ assassination, it is more likely, based on his portrayal of Claudius throughout the Annals and lack of confirmation in the other extant sources, that Tacitus is depicting Sosibius manipulating the emperor’s anxieties. Tacitus’ account of Claudius’ reaction to these reports reinforces stereotypes about Claudius as a buffoon. Claudius investigated no further but sent the prefect of the Praetorian Guard at the head of a detachment of troops ‘as if to put down a war’ (tamquam opprimendo bello, 11.1.3). 219 Tacitus and other writers describe Claudius as a man who fails to demonstrate self-mastery and who often fails to deliberate. 220 Suetonius writes that Claudius’ obliuio and inconsiderantia were marveled at by many (Claud. 31.1), and that (40.1): 216 Chaerea and Sabinus are also named by Suetonius as the principal actors in Gaius’ death (Suet. Gaius. 56, 58). See also Dio 59.29.1. 217 Pagán (2004: 6) writes that Josephus was “at liberty to describe the assassination of Caligula in its entirety, precisely because the conspiracy was neither detected nor suppressed.” 218 See also Dio 59.30.1c. 219 Malloch (2013: 54, 64) argues that Tacitus’ mocking tamquam opprimendo bello exonerates Asiaticus of any real plot. Suetonius (Claud. 37) reports that Claudius would exact vengeance against any perceived enemy however insignificant the allegation. 220 For self-mastery, see Gunderson (2000: 61) and Habinek (2005b: 111). 152 sermonis vero rerumque tantam saepe neglegentiam ostendit, ut nec quis nec inter quos, quoue tempore ac loco uerba faceret, scire aut cogitare existimaretur. In fact, he showed such carelessness of speech and action that you would think he neither was aware of, or even cared to whom, or among whom, or at what time or in what place he was speaking. As Hurley rightfully suggests, Suetonius’ mention of Claudius’ ineptitude is an inversion of the so-called eloquence rubrics present in other Lives. 221 This follows a description of the ira and iracundia of Claudius (Claud. 38.1). 222 In the Apocolocyntosis, Claudius is portrayed as quick to punish the slightest perceived insult with death. But he is portrayed as lacking any awareness of the consequences of his actions. The goddess Febris swears to Hercules that Claudius in fact is a Gaul and that in sacking Rome, he had done as a proper Gaul should (Sen. Apocol. 6.1). In response, Claudius, seething with anger, orders that she be dragged off and executed (Sen. Apocol. 6.2). Claudius is portrayed as quick to fly into a fury. He glows white-hot with anger (excandescit). But, his angry commands are followed in heaven as they are on earth. The divine council pays no heed to Claudius (Apocol. 6.2). Claudius is shown as having as little control over his freedmen and others under his power as he has over his own body and emotions. Tacitus’ account of the condemnation of Asiaticus taps into this preexisting characterization of Claudius as unfit for command—impulsive, unmindful and quick to anger. 221 Hurley 2001: 221. 222 Hurley 2001: 217 remarks that Cicero and Seneca distinguish ira and iracundia, the former being the emotion, the latter a character trait (see Cic. Tusc. 4.27 and Sen. Dial. 3.4.1). Cf. Tac. Ann. 11.26 and Dio 60.33.8. 153 Other accounts of Asiaticus’ downfall do not imply the same anxiety on behalf of Claudius. Dio’s account in particular does not hint at any lingering insecurities on Claudius’ part. In fact, Dio presents Claudius as rather well controlled, especially in regards to rumors of disloyalty. Dio reports that, upon hearing that ‘some people’ (τινες) were plotting against him, Claudius responds nonchalantly (Dio. 61.29.4): οὐ τὸν αὐτòν χρὴ τρόπον ψύλλαν τε καὶ θηρίον ἀµύνεσθαι It is not necessary to defend yourself the same way against a flea as a wild beast. Nevertheless, Dio makes no secret of the fact that Messalina was behind the murders of many prominent men, and he names two in particular: Valerius Asiaticus and Cn. Pompeius Magnus. 223 Pompeius was killed, according to Dio, at Messalina’s instigation because she was concerned about his close relationship to Claudius (Pompeius was married to Claudius’ daughter Antonia). Dio’s explanation of Asiaticus’ downfall matches that of Tacitus: Messalina had coveted his property (Dio. 91.29.6a). 224 Claudius does not make inquiries into the accusations Sosibius has made against Asiaticus (11.1.3). The reality is that he does not have to. The power to arrest, like the power to make war, is entirely his discretion as an autocrat. From this premise, it is possible to read further into Tacitus’ comment that Claudius sent troops after Asiaticus tamquam opprimendo bello. On the one hand, to dispatch soldiers as if he were crushing a rebellion just to arrest one man at a dinner party is a comical overreach. However, 223 Dio (60.29.4) links Pompeius with Asiaticus, though the connection may be linked because of Messalina’s role in their destruction (Malloch 2013: 1). 224 There is no mention of Poppaea. 154 having the prerogative to do whatever one chooses is precisely what it means to be an emperor. Tacitus portrays Claudius as inept and lacking self-mastery while also exposing the reality of the power of an autocrat. Asiaticus had no recourse to the Senate. 225 His trial was held in Claudius’ cubiculum in the presence of Messalina herself. 226 As Andrew Riggsby has pointed out, the cubiculum is a space reserved for ‘secret’ activities such as rest, sex (illicit and otherwise), the controlled display of art, murder and suicide, and private business. 227 These are activities that stand opposed to the public. 228 By trying Asiaticus in cubiculo, Claudius is shown to be subsuming otherwise public affairs into his domus. Again we see consul opposed to emperor, the senate to the imperial domus, and due process to a kangaroo court. It represents the removal of power from the forum to the domus Caesaris—the res romana is no longer a res publica, but a res priuata. Once Asiaticus has been brought into Claudius’ cubiculum, another agent of Messalina, P. Rufus Suillius levels specific accusations against Asiaticus: corruptio militum, adulterium, and mollitia corporis. None of the accusations are substantiated and 225 While the senate was the established court for hearing accusations made against senators of maiestas, adultery and other high crimes, delatores could approach the emperor personally, as Suillius does, though the emperor would usually refer the matter to the senate, as Tiberius did with Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 20 CE (Malloch 2013:65). Claudius here chooses not to refer the matter, but denies Asiaticus what would have been perceived by the senatorial class as his right. 226 11.2.1: Messalina coram. Malloch (2014: 66) argues convincingly that the anastrophe of coram highlights the irregularity of a trial in the presence of a woman. This is further evidence that in Claudius’ world, the rule of law is turned on its head. 227 Riggsby 1997: 36-42. 228 Riggsby (1997: 50) argues that there was no expectation of privacy for the Romans, but there was what he calls a ‘norm of publicity’ where ‘public’ affairs were expected to be carried out in the open. The ‘secret activities’ of the cubiculum (sex, rest, murder, suicide, etc.) stand in opposition to activities one would do in public. 155 Tacitus spends no time elaborating on them. They are merely presented as a list in quick succession. It is up to Tacitus’ readers to unpack the accusations. The first charge is of corruptio militum, quos pecunia et stupro in onme flagitium obstrictos (11.2.1). Corruptio itself signals a ‘seduction from loyalty,’ and is commonly used to refer to the bribery of soldiers and judges. 229 Tacitus specifies the means by which the soldiers were so seduced: money and illicit sex. Excessive desire for wealth, sexual malfeasance and conspiracies against the state are closely linked in the Roman imagination since at least the suppression of the Bacchanalia in 186 BCE. 230 A general desire for wealth and indebtedness bind many of Catiline’s followers to his cause (Sal. Cat. 10-11). Cicero, in the second Catilinarian, refers frequently to Catiline’s alleged sexual debauchery. 231 The most comprehensive use of accusations of stuprum in a conspiracy in the extant literature comes from Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae. 232 Here money, from excessive desire for it (auaritia pecuniae, Sal. Cat. 11.1), to indebtedness, to extreme displays of luxuria (subuorsi montes, maria constrata, 13.1), is tied to various forms of sexual degeneracy in a thread that runs through the description of all of Catiline’s adherents. Auaritia and luxuria (12.2) combine with stuprum as a symptom of the general breakdown of old-fashioned mores. This breakdown, according to Sallust, provides opportunities for revolutionaries. Roman uiri allowed themselves to be anally 229 OLD corruptio 1. See also Sal. Hist. 1.91 and Tac. Ann. 2.55, 12.46. For the bribery of judges, see Ascon. Verr. 1.6.15. 230 Pagán 2004: 57. 231 Cic. Cat. 2.7, 9, 10, 25. It is arguable whether Cicero’s references to Antony’s debauchery in the Phillipics are part of a conspiracy narrative. 232 Fantham discusses the history of the term (1991: 269). Naevius (BP. 59-62 W.) uses stuprum to refer to military cowardice, which Warmington translates as ‘disgrace’ (1982: 73). See also Adams 1990: 200-201. 156 penetrated and women auctioned off their pudicitia (13.3). 233 In such a city, Catiline could surround himself with an army of profligates and debauchees (14.1), as well as retired prostitutes (24.3) and the thoroughly Hellenized, multi-talented and well-educated Sempronia, ‘who had often committed many crimes of manly audacity’ (quae multa saepe uirilis audaciae facinora commiserat, 25.1). Cicero also frequently connects avarice and illicit sex with an attempt on the state, most notably in his polemics against Catiline and Antony. 234 In the Annals, Tacitus reports accusations that Cn. Calpurnius Piso had corrupted the soldiers by lavishness (largitio), by favoritism, by removing ueteres centuriones and seueri tribuni, and by allowing desidia in camp, licentia in the towns and permitting the troops to rove about wherever they so chose (2.55.5). When formal charges are laid against Piso in the Senate, one of the charges is that he had corrupted the soldiers (conrupisse), and it was a charge that Piso admitted he could not deny (3.13.2). Tacitus focuses on the character and trial of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso because Piso’s grandson, Gaius Calpurnius Piso orchestrated a conspiracy that serves as a major turning point in his narration of the reign of Nero. 235 The ignoble traits of the grandfather who attempted to disrupt the good governance of a Caesar are contrasted with the noble traits of the grandson who attempted to disrupt the bad governance of a Caesar. Tacitus spends quite a bit of time discussing Piso (the grandfather) and his alleged corrupting of the troops. What is different, however, about accusations against Piso is that they are made openly, are elaborated in the text, and have become part of the historical record (whether they are true or not). The accusation of corruptio militum 233 uiri muliebria pati, mulieres pudicitiam in propatulo habere. 234 Cic. Cat 1. 26; Cat 2. 7, 9, 10, 25 and Phil 2. 44-47. 235 Cf. Pagán 2004: 69. 157 against Asiaticus is entirely ad hoc (and based on Tacitus’ overall portrayal of Asiaticus’ character, it is unlikely that the lacuna in the text would have contained damning details of Asiaticus letting soldiers under his command run amok). It is a serious charge leveled because it is a commonplace in the annals of bad generals. The next accusation is that of adultery with Poppaea the Elder. It is not impossible that Poppaea and Asiaticus had an affair, but there is no mention of it in any other extant source. What is significant, however, is that the two of them are denounced in the same episode. Women often play a prominent role in the Roman conspiracy narratives— especially women who are said to have abandoned their pudicitia. Illicit sex was at the center of fears about the Bacchanalia and the promiscuous Hispala is central to Livy’s narrative of the conspiracy (39.8.8-10). 236 Catiline was said to have committed unspeakable acts with married, noble women and even with a Vestal Virgin (Sal. Cat. 15.1), and the very talented and luxuriously decadent Sempronia is central to Catiline’s plot (25.2). In his depiction of the conflict between Germanicus and Cn. Calpurnius Piso—which he treats as if it were a conspiracy on the part of Piso to kill Germanicus— Tacitus presents the immorality of Plancina, though adultery is not listed as one of her vices, with almost as much detail as Piso’s corruption (3.10-19). Illicit sex is a large component of Tacitus’ narrative of Agrippina the Younger’s role in the reigns of Claudius and Nero. However, Tacitus seems to be anticipating a more imminent plot against Claudius at the hands of an adulterous couple, Messalina and C. Silius. Accusations of corruption of the troops or of a lack of self-control and ability to command, a violent or otherwise checkered past, and accusations of adultery with a 236 Fear of anal penetration of freeborn boys and youths was a factor in the Bachannalian conspiracy (Liv. 39.13.14). 158 prominent married woman are major components of conspiracy narratives. In order to secure a ‘conviction,’ Messalina’s agents chose accusations that, although crimes in their own right, might be excusable by an emperor seeking to demonstrate his clementia. But, when they are presented as a package, the charges trigger fears of a bigger, less forgivable crime: a conspiracy to overthrow the state. The last charge laid against Asiaticus is that of mollitia corporis (11.2.1). 237 Mollis and derived forms imply male femininity and are often used to indicate a man who enjoys receiving anal sex. 238 Scholars of ancient sexualities have long imposed a strict 237 Malloch (2013: 69): “mollitia and adulterium were not mutually exclusive concepts: together they suggest that Asiaticus was ‘out of control’ in his sexual relations with men and women, and by implication politically dangerous.” 238 See Cat. 16; Liv. 33.28.1; Plin. Nat. 28.106; Suet. Calig. 56. See also Priapaea 45, cf Cat. 25. Tacitus more explicitly accuses Suillius’ son of being penetrated, using the phrase ‘passus muliebria’ (11.36.4). For pati muliebria, see also Sal. Cat. 13.3 and Curt. 6.6.8. Pollini (1999: 26) correctly notes that men described as mollis were preferred by some women as lovers (Mart. Epi. 2.62; 10.40). However, in this case, based on Asiaticus’ response, it can be assumed that the latter stands accused of being penetrated and not merely being effeminate. The question of Roman homosexuality is fraught. The modern concept of homosexuality as a sexual identity is not an accurate descriptor of Roman same-sex sexual practice (Foucault 1978: 2:35). For an overview of the discussion of sexuality at Rome, see Habinek 1997: 33-27. One can speak of homosexuality in ancient Rome, but it would be incorrect to speak of homosexuals. To say that, for example, the emperor Hadrian was a homosexual is inaccurate. Based on a remark in the Vita Hadriani (11.7), he was likely bisexual, a term problematic itself. Cantarella (1992) writes of bisexuality as intrinsic to the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. Pollini (1999: 24) argues against the term bisexual in favor of the more accurate term ambisexual. Regardless, among the Romans, sex between adult men of equal social status was socially unacceptable and a man thought to engage in such behavior was subject to social opprobrium. A passage from Plautus summarizes Roman views on acceptable sexual practice (Curculio 35-38): Dum ted apstineas nupta, uidua, uirgine, Iuuentute et pueris liberis, ama quidlibet… While you should stay away from married women, widows, virgins, young men and freeborn boys…love whatever you like. The lex Scatinia from the second century BCE likely prohibited sex between men and freeborn boys. This is doubtless a reaction to the rapid Hellenization of Rome that the so- 159 duality on sexual practice: penetration is an exercise of power while being penetrated is indicative of passivity. 239 This not only pigeonholes diverse human practice but it strips away any agency from those men and women who enjoy having penises put into them. Be that as it may, both Suillius and Asiaticus himself reproduce the sexual ideals of elite Roman masculine self-presentation: enjoying the non-dominative role debases a high- ranking Roman man. 240 This episode is instructive of the ways in which the Romans thought about conspiracies and other forms of illicit behavior. Just as the accusation of adultery against Poppaea casts her in the same light as other immoral women from conspiracy narratives in Roman literature, so too is Asiaticus portrayed in such a way as to appear the opposite of the ideal Roman leader. Tacitus has Messalina’s agents level accusations against Asiaticus that one would expect, based on Sallust’s and Cicero’s depiction of Catiline and Livy’s Bacchants, of a man who is in some way plotting a rebellion. He has foreign connections, ample financial resources, he allegedly has boasted of having killed a Caesar, and now he stands accused of having corrupted Roman soldiers with his bribes and his sex crimes, of having illicit sex with a prominent married woman, and now he stands accused of enjoying a sexual role not consistent with the norms of Roman masculine self-presentation. called Catonian faction resisted. However, it is doubtful that such legislation was effective. See Lex Scatinia, Lilja (1983: 112-121), Cantarella (1992: 106-119) and Williams (1992: 187-191). Likewise, Augustus’ moral legislation (lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the lex Papia Poppaea) was equally ineffective. See Raditsa (1980: 278-339) and Pollini (1999: 28). Sex between adult men doubtless occurred, but was considered unmanly and subject to ridicule. Hence Suillius’ charge and Asiaticus’ response. 239 See Dover 1978. Unfortunately, his scheme has been reproduced in more recent works on homosexuality in the ancient world. See Richlin 1992 and Skinner 2005. 240 On the Roman uir as the impenetrable penetrator, see Walters 1997: 4-29. 160 Tacitus tells us that Asiaticus had stood silent while Suillius hurled these accusations at him. However, when he was accused of mollitia, Asiaticus bursts out (11.2.1): interroga…Suilli, filios tuos: uirum esse me fatebuntur. Ask your own sons, Suillius. They’ll admit I’m a man. Tacitus writes that Asiaticus says this ‘after having conquered his silence’ (uicto silentio, 11.2.1). Tacitus juxtaposes an allegation of mollitia with an act of conquest. Tacitus makes Asiaticus the grammatical subject of the sentence (reus… prorupit) and Suillius and his charges are relegated to a rather lengthy ablative construction. The man subject to Messalina’s plotting is the grammatical subject. Ellen O’Gorman argues that the often-convoluted nature of Tacitus’ prose style is “central to Tacitus’ modality of historical and political thought,” that “Tacitus conveys to his readers his conception of imperial politics by enmeshing them in ambiguous and complicated Latin sentences.” 241 In the condemnation of Valerius Asiaticus, what Tacitus makes unambiguous is that Asiaticus is accused and defends himself. However, the charges against him, the relationship between all of the actors in this conspiracy, is convoluted by syntactically ambiguous constructions that seem to beg for clarification. 242 This supports Pagán’s argument that when narrating conspiracies, authors rely on obfuscation and ambiguity to characterize events that unfold in secret. 243 241 O’Gorman 2000: 1. 242 O’Gorman 2000: 1. 243 Pagán 2004: 22. 161 Sosibius and Suillius, at Messalina’s instigation, conspire against Asiaticus and Poppaea by successfully invoking commonplaces of conspiracy narratives. There is a conspiracy to frame someone for conspiracy. But the conspiracy against Asiaticus nearly comes undone. Dio and Josephus confirm that Asiaticus was nearly acquitted by Claudius. In Tacitus’ narrative, Asiaticus, after rebuffing Suillius by calling attention to his son’s homosexuality, launches into a vigorous defense that brings even Messalina to tears. 244 Before she hurries off to ensure the destruction of Poppaea, Messalina orders Vitellius to make sure that Asiaticus does not slip away (11.2.2). Having reminded Claudius of his long friendship, 245 the respect Asiaticus had for Antonia, Claudius’ mother, and having recounted all of Asiaticus’ services to the state, Vitellius begs Claudius that Asiaticus should be granted free discretion regarding his death (11.3.1). The very clementia (loc. cit) that the accusers tried to avoid ends up being the means to their end. Tacitus does not present Claudius as convinced of Asiaticus’ guilt. Rather, Claudius is too quick to grant a favor, one that nevertheless satisfies the conspirators. Also, Poppaea is dispatched very quickly, without any semblance of a trial. Tacitus merely reports that Messalina hurried off to find men who would drive Poppaea to suicide with threats of prison (11.2.2). Claudius is so oblivious to her demise that Tacitus reports that, several days later, Claudius asks Poppaea’s widower, P. Cornelius Lentulus Scipio, why his wife was not dining with him. 244 Suillius’ son Suillius Caesonius will escape punishment after the downfall of Messalina because his sexual role was that of a woman (11.36.4). 245 commemorata uetustate amicitiae is ambiguous. Is it the friendship between Asiaticus and Claudius, or the friendship between Vitellius and Claudius? I think it is helpful to read both. As a favor to Vitellius, Claudius should let Asiaticus kill himself. Also, since Claudius is an old friend of Asiaticus, he should allow him to kill himself (11.3.1). 162 When Asiaticus returns to his estate (the cause of his demise), he dines with his friends, has a bath and then opens his veins, but not before giving instructions that his pyre be moved somewhere else lest the heat and smoke damage one of the trees (11.3.2). Just as the condemnation of Asiaticus is structured using elements common to conspiracy narratives, so the death of Asiaticus is portrayed in a way that foreshadows the demise of Seneca. 246 The condemnation of Asiaticus harkens back to conspiracy narratives in Livy, Sallust and others, as well as episodes from earlier in the Annals, like the suspicious behavior of Piso. However, the condemnation of Asiaticus also looks ahead in some very important ways. The pairing of Asiaticus and Poppaea in a conspiracy against Claudius anticipates the conspiracy of Silius and Messalina. Furthermore, the Gardens of Lucullus, the estate owned by Asiaticus, is the site of the demise of Messalina (11.37.1). The final stage of Agrippina’s plot to murder Claudius begins with an account of her gaping after a rich man’s luxurious gardens (12.59.1). Other details in the condemnation of Asiaticus look ahead to the reign of Nero. First of all, the condemned Poppaea is the mother of the future wife of Nero. Moreover, prior to marrying the princeps, Poppaea the Younger was married to Rufus Crispinus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard whom Claudius sends to arrest Asiaticus. Asiaticus is arrested at dinner in Baiae, the site of Nero’s conspiracy to kill his mother, Agrippina, whose marriage to Claudius is related later in Book 12. Each of these details taken on their own might simply be coincidence. The Roman elite was a relatively small circle and certain names are bound to surface and resurface. However, 246 On the concept of ‘martyrdom’ and the heroic Stoic suicide, see Griffin (1986: 192- 202) and Habinek (2014: 3-32). For the death of Seneca and the concept of bodily libertas, see Ker (2009: 179-246). 163 taken as a whole, they weave this particular episode with the narrative whole of the Annals. Furthermore, by including such details, Tacitus is supplementing his account of what is truly knowable. As with any res priuata, how can one be certain of what was said? Tacitus fills in the gaps that are left by closed-door meetings and late-night conspiracies with what is plausible based on similar events. Hence Tacitus’ looking forward and looking backward. The gaps in what can be known by Tacitus the historian do not obstruct his narrative because the pieces are largely interchangeable. The arbitrary power of Claudius is like that of Nero, which is like that of Tiberius or of Domitian. Calumnious accusations of conspiracy must resemble other conspiracies. Likewise, the suicides of noble men are characterized as having occurred in much the same way. But this does not make Tacitus’ history any less true. The structure of Tacitus’ narrative, the way that discrete episodes point forwards and backwards, its self-reflexivity and the multiple layers of meaning hidden away in ambiguous syntax conspire to tell more than simply what might have happened. III. The Messalinian Conspiracy Tacitus uses conspiracy narratives to point up the tension between the reality of the princeps’ power, under which the emperor manages the empire as his own domus, and the image of republican forms such as a condemned senator’s recourse to the Senate. Tacitus’ narrative of Valerius Asiaticus’ condemnation presents a case study of the assumption of public affairs into the imperial domus and the friction it causes with members of the senatorial elite. It also reveals the structuring elements of Tacitus’ 164 conspiracy narratives. Another conspiracy narrative that organizes the Claudian annals is that of C. Silius and Messalina to overthrow Claudius and assume the supreme command for themselves. The condemnation of Asiaticus and the conspiracy of Silius and Messalina throw into relief the discrepancy between the ideology of the principate’s restored res publica and the exercise of the princeps’ power because both episodes make matters that are ostensibly public affairs the concerns of actors deep within the domus of the princeps. Additionally, the emperor’s ability to manage his household mirrors his ability to manage the empire, and Tacitus portrays Claudius as having failed at both. Messalina as the bad wife signifies Claudius’ failures to wield power according to the Augustan paradigm. According to Tacitus, Claudius was subject to those who should have been subject to the master of the domus. Imperial wives stand in the Annals as signs of empire. 247 A good wife, properly controlled and virtually mute is subject to the command of her husband. The emperor’s power to manage his wife and the rest of his household mirrors his ability to manage the empire at large. Messalina represents the corruption of the power that is liable to arise out of autocracy. Uncontrolled by Claudius, Messalina erases social distinctions between men and devours them and their property. Her words—not presented in the text—are whispered to agents in interior spaces and these whispers move the narrative as they bring down prominent men (like Asiaticus) and bring about disorder. Joshel’s assessment of the role Messalina’s unchecked desire plays in structuring the Claudian annals seems generally fitting. However, she is not explicit about the ways in which Tacitus’ presentation of Messalina hinges on performances and 247 Joshel 1997: 223, 242. 165 misperformances of the role of wife and mother. Tacitus has Messalina deploy different performances of female agency as required to move the narrative of Claudius’ failure to control himself, his domus, and the empire (1.4.1). The sensationalism of Tacitus’ account of Messalina and Silius’ marriage should not distract from the fact that Tacitus nevertheless reveals a workable conspiracy. 248 Silius lays out his plans to Messalina. He will marry her and adopt Britannicus. The assassination of Claudius is never explicitly mentioned, but it is implied. Silius tells Messalina that (11.26.2): …quippe non eo uentum, ut senectam principis opperire<n>tur. …obviously, they didn’t come to this point to wait out the princeps’ old age. Silius reminds Messalina that their adultery was well-known and that they were already in deep enough trouble that further plans were harmless only to the guiltless (insontibus innoxia consilia) and that those whose crimes were manifest should seek refuge in daring (flagitii manifestis subsidium ab audacia petendum). There were accessories (conscii) at hand. Finally, Silius assures her that, should their plot be successful (loc. cit.): …mansuram eandem Messalinae potentiam, addita securitate, si praeuenirent Claudium, ut insidiis incautum, ita irae properum. 248 Joshel (1997: 229) argues that there is no viable plot evidenced in Tacitus’ account. Rather, she argues that the carelessness and incompetence of Messalina and Silius are representative of the state of the empire under Claudius. To so great an extent does Claudius lack control of the empire that his own household is thrown into confusion by a loose woman and her incompetent lover. 166 …the power entrusted to Messalina would remain the same, but with added security, if they were to get the better of Claudius, who is as oblivious to ambush as he is quick to anger. Additional evidence for the existence of a viable plot against Claudius is included at the very end of the episode when the conspirators are punished. Among the accused stand a number of inlustres equites and a senator. Also accused are Decrius Calpurnianus, prefect of the uigiles, and Sulpicius Rufus, procurator ludi (11.35.3). The uigiles, a combined firefighting and police force might have been somewhat useful in forming a plot against the emperor, but it is unlikely. 249 Rather, Tacitus shows, albeit subtly, that Messalina and Silius were not being as careless as it might seem. 250 Rather, they are acting out a page from history. While Tiberius was in isolation on Capri, Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, is reported to have conspired to make himself princeps. 251 When the plot is eventually revealed to Tiberius, Sejanus is secretly removed as prefect. His replacement is Quintus Naevius Cordus Sutorius Macro, prefect of the uigiles. 252 Tiberius replaced a disloyal Praetorian prefect with one whom he could trust. Messalina and Silius might well have been planning to replace Claudius’ prefect, Rufrius Crispinus, with one loyal to them. 253 249 They were not properly armed and would not have stood a chance against army regulars or the Praetorian Guard. See Reynolds (1926). 250 Pace Joshel (1997): 229. 251 For a conspiracy against Tiberius, see: Tac. Ann. 5.8.1, 5.11.1, 6.3, 6.8.3, 6.8.6, 6.14.1, 6.19.2, 6.23.2; Suet. Tib. 61.1; 75; Vit. 2.3; Juv. Sat. 10.69-72; Sen. De Tranq. 11.11; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 24.160. 252 See Dio 58.8. Also, Bingham (1997), 63. 253 L. Lusius Geta was appointed prefect of the Praetorians in the midst of the crisis. To my knowledge, Tacitus does not mention where Crispinus was while Claudius was at Ostia. If Fabia’s reading of Dio’s Laelianus (61.6.6) as Paelignus is correct, then we have 167 The procurator of the gladiatorial school presumably would have been used to muster a makeshift army of gladiators. In the conspiracy narratives of Catiline, for example, the setting of fires and the arming of gladiators feature prominently. 254 Although Tacitus does not lay out the specific plans of the conspirators against Claudius, he nevertheless presents elements common to conspiracy narratives elsewhere. Tacitus’ narration of the year 48 CE begins with the consular formula (A. Vitellio L. Vips<t>ano consulibus, 11.23.1). Chapters 23-25 treat Claudius’ interaction with the Senate, specifically over the issues of membership. The central issue is whether to enroll the primores from Gallia Comata in the Senate. The elaboration of Claudius’ relationship to the Senate revealed in the discussion regarding the primores of Gallia Comata sets up a contrast between concerns over the makeup of the Senate and the chief event of the year: the conspiracy of C. Silius and Messalina to overthrow Claudius and establish themselves as emperor and empress. This contrast is between appearances (in the form of political posturing and speech) and reality (the struggle for actual power to rule the empire). The narrative of the former event displays deliberation and shared decision-making, the latter makes no mention of the Fathers, but focuses on the domus Caesaris—consisting primarily of wife and freedmen—and, to a lesser extent, the army. Claudius’ interaction with the Senate regarding its membership is an example of res publicae, matters concerning public affairs. A coup d’état certainly would be a matter of import for the res publica, but Tacitus does not present a story of public affairs. Rather, the entire episode is presented as a domestic melodrama that is evocative of the comic and mimic stage. further evidence of the importance of the prefect of the uigiles in the career of ambitious Equites (see Chapter 3, note 195). 254 For the arming of slaves in general, see Cic. Cat. 1.17.27, Cat. 3.8; Sal. Cat. 24, 30, 46, and 50. For gladiators specifically, see Cic. Cat. 1.29 and Cat 2. 7, 9, 19, 24 and 26. 168 Claudius is presented as a befuddled senex who is subject to the whims and wiles of his ‘cunning slave’ (the freedman Narcissus). Meanwhile, Silius and Messalina’s coup is narrated like a comic lover’s debacle and even includes a mime of the Bacchanalia— another plot against the established order from Roman history. 255 Conspiracy narratives highlight a gulf between outward appearance and reality as presented by Tacitus. The conspiracy of Messalina and Silius is no different. A woman’s agency stands as a sign for empire and the corruptibility of absolute power. Secret machinations to change the nature of the state result in secret machinations to preserve the order that invariably changes the order nonetheless. In effect, all attempted coups d’état are successful in that they bring about real, if unanticipated, change. As Tacitus writes, the attempted coup of Messalina not only solidified the importance of freedmen in the imperial bureaucracy, but brought about the (temporary) end of Claudius’ ignorance of the activities in his domus (11.25.5). Tacitus’ narrative of Messalina’s affair with Silius presents a conspiracy lurking behind the more salacious details of the couple’s extraordinary marriage. The elements of a coup d’état are present, though not necessarily highlighted. Messalina’s failed plot and her downfall look back to the beginning of the extant text of Book 11 and the orchestrated downfall of D. Valerius Asiaticus. They also foreshadow the ultimate plot against Claudius—Agrippina the Younger’s conspiracy to put her son Domitius (Nero) on the throne. Asiaticus’ alleged conspiracy shares features common to Tacitus’ description of attempts to overthrow a sitting princeps. Messalina and Silius’ conspiracy is an intermediate tale, one that appropriately follows the Tacitean 255 Pagán 2004: 50. 169 script, but fails. As we shall see, Agrippina’s conspiracy will bear fruit. Her son will be adopted by the princeps and given precedence over Claudius’ son Britannicus. The conspiracy of Messalina and Silius to overthrow Claudius shares similarities of content with other conspiracy narratives in the Annals as well as in Sallust’s Catilinarian conspiracy and Livy’s Bacchanalian affair. In this instance, a woman is the principal actor (Messalina) and the conspiracy is revealed by Claudius’ concubines in the most intimate of settings. Sexual impropriety characterizes the conspiracy throughout as Messalina’s ambition is depicted in the rhetoric of sexual depravity. Messalina and Silius attempt to suborn military and quasi-military figures, such as the prefect of the uigiles. Tacitus implies that they might have attempted to raise a gladiator army with the help of the magister ludi. Fear of ambitious women, sexual misconduct, fear of slave uprisings and the suborning of troops also appear in Sallust’s Catilinarian conspiracy and Livy’s account of the Bacchanalian affair, two events that invite comparison with the string of conspiracies narrated by Tacitus. These commonalities, as we shall see, persist through Tacitus’ characterization of events throughout the Claudian annals. IV: From Domitius to Domination It was not long after Claudius’ marriage to his niece Agrippina (49 CE) that the new uxor principis started to maneuver her son into position to succeed Claudius. The first step was to secure Domitius’ adoption (12.25.1). Tacitus seems to imply that Agrippina was inducing Pallas in some way to advocate on Domitius’ behalf, that Agrippina is acting to achieve her ends in the same way as Messalina had, by manipulating the men capable of influencing Claudius. But Tacitus overdetermines Pallas’ motives to secure the adoption. 170 First, Pallas is a freedman and would be subject to the orders of Agrippina as the mistress of the imperial domus, orders to which Tacitus does not refer at all. Second, Tacitus lists as reasons that bind (obstringere) Pallas to Agrippina both his championing of her marriage to Claudius and their future illicit sexual relationship. According to Tacitus’ version of events, Agrippina’s position depended on Pallas’ intervention (12.2.3). 256 This does not make Pallas obliged to Agrippina in the sense that he owes her a debt of gratitude. Rather, Tacitus is alluding to the fact that Pallas’ very survival depends on the success of Agrippina’s cause. The destruction of Narcissus, who had supported Britannicus, is related as one of the first acts of the principate of Nero (13.1.2). Additionally, Tacitus reports that Pallas would soon be ensnared in an unlawful sexual relationship with Agrippina (mox…inligatus, 12.25.1). But the illicit affair that Tacitus alleges apparently was not a factor at the time of Pallas’ intervention on Domitius’ behalf. The overdetermination of Pallas’ role in the adoption of Domitius is a narrative strategy deployed by Tacitus to delegitimize the reign of Nero. By making the adoption the product of machinations between illicit lovers bound together in mutual obligation rather than the natural result of the marriage itself, Tacitus invites a critical response from his readers about not only the ascension of Nero, but also about Claudian (re)interpretations of Augustan practice and, more generally, the uses to which the past is put. Pallas uses the protection of Britannicus and Augustan precedents to convince Claudius to advance Domitius’ career at the expense of that of his natural son (12.25.1): 256 Barrett 1999: 134-136; Ginsburg 2006: 35 and passim. 171 consuleret rei publicae, Britannici pueritiam robore circumdaret. sic apud diuum Augustum, quamquam nepotibus subnixum, uiguisse priuignos; a Tiberio super propriam stirpem Germanicum adsumptum: se quoque accingeret iuuene partem curarum capessituro. Claudius should attend to the needs of the Commonwealth. He should place a protective cordon of strength around Britannicus’ boyhood. So it was in the house of Augustus. Although he was supported by grandsons, his stepsons thrived. In addition to having his own offspring, Tiberius adopted Germanicus. He too should gird himself with a youth ready to take on part of his responsibilities. 257 Pallas, in short, is proposing that Domitius be elevated so as to serve as his stepbrother’s caretaker, just as Tiberius and Drusus had been elevated while Gaius and Lucius thrived. However, this allusion to Augustan precedent is problematic. Furthermore, Tacitus seems to imply that the decision was not actually Claudius’. Tacitus writes (12.25.2): his euictus triennio maiorem natu Domitium filio anteponit, habita apud senatum oratione in eundem quem a liberto acceperat modum. 257 Woodman (2004: 224), from whom I borrow the phrase “protective cordon,” translates this passage as: “Pallas…was goading Claudius to heed the interests of the state and to place a protective cordon of maturity around the boyhood of Britannicus.” 172 Overcome by these words, Claudius placed Domitius, older by three years, over his son, delivering to the Senate a speech in the manner of that which he had received from the freedman. Tacitus’ rendering of events removes Claudius as the principal actor in the adoption of Domitius, giving agency primarily to Pallas—the libertus bound to the wife of the princeps. This further undermines the legitimacy of Nero’s reign because Tacitus makes the very adoption into the Julio-Claudian family the product of servile and feminine machinations and not Claudius’ own commanding voice. Pallas simplifies this complicated history of Augustan succession. He speaks in parallel language, speech that is understood differently by Claudius and Tacitus’ Trajanic readers. 258 On the one hand, Pallas implies to Claudius that Domitius would serve in the same capacity as Tiberius had, that is, as placeholder for the young Caesars—but a placeholder that would eventually go on to be princeps. On the other hand, by invoking Augustus’ ill-starred grandsons, Tacitus foreshadows the fate of not only Britannicus, but also of Claudius himself. Tacitus resorts to this parallel presentation of events when he narrates the murder of Britannicus (13.15-16). Tacitus relates Britannicus’ death at Nero’s hands using the same structure and narrative elements as his depiction of Claudius’ murder at the hands of Agrippina. Tacitus’ rather macabre allusion also harkens back to rumors presented by Tacitus and others that Augustus and his two grandsons might have been the victims of something sinister. 259 258 For ‘parallel language,’ see Niolet 1980: 345. This concept is borrowed by J. A. Crook in CAH 10.2. 259 For rumors of the poisoning death of Augustus, see Tac. Ann. 1.5.1 and Dio 55.22.2 and 56.30.1. For rumors of the murder of Gaius and Lucius, see Tac. Ann. 1.3.3 and Dio 55.10a. Dio also blames Livia for the death of Marcellus (53.33.4). 173 Pallas’ arguments prevailed and in 50 CE, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was adopted by Claudius and given the name Nero Claudius Caesar (12.26.1). By the same decree, ‘Augusta’ augmented the name of Agrippina. 260 Tacitus further points up Claudius’ problematic relationship with the past by adding as an aside that the adoption of Domitius into the Claudian gens is a novelty in that no Claudian adoptions had ever been recorded and that the bloodline of the patrician Claudii had endured uninterrupted since the time of Attus Clausus (eos…ab Atto Clauso continuos durauisse, 12.25.2). 261 The year 50 begins with the consular formula (C. Antistio M Suillio consulibus, 12.25.1), which is evocative of the so-called annalistic tradition and its republican associations, and therefore points up the discrepancy between constitutional form and the realities of power. 262 It also helps to expose the blurring of the dividing line between public and private. The consular formula immediately precedes a description of the role of Pallas in both the (incestuous) marriage of Agrippina to Claudius and in the rushed adoption of Domitius. Just as with the Messalina and Silius conspiracy, the introduction of the consuls’ names, the evocation of the republican constitution, frames a prolonged narrative about a struggle for power that plays out primarily in the imperial domus and away from the public eye. Tacitus further highlights the topsy-turvy “world in pieces” that Claudius inhabits by having the freedman say to the emperor: consuleret rei publicae 260 augetur et Agrippina cognomento Augustae (12.26.1). See Chapter 3, n.178. 261 Claudius was a noted historian. However, Tacitus frequently portrays Claudius believing in alternative histories when it suited his immediate concerns (see above, Chapter 2.2). 262 Rawson 1991: 1-15; Gildenhard 2003: 93-94. 174 (12.15.1). 263 Consul is cognate with consilium and the verb consulere. 264 Since the consuls were the chief magistrates of the res publica, it is ironic that the freedman Pallas is telling the autocrat Claudius to look out for the best interests of the state, or, in a manner of speaking, to act like a consul of old and sacrifice his son for the good of the res publica. 265 Tacitus’ emphasis on Agrippina’s power (12.27.1) drives the narrative toward its conclusion with the murder of Claudius. The intervening chapters contain descriptions of affairs, foreign and domestic, in all of which Agrippina had some hand. Not only that, but the gradual replacement of Britannicus (and even Claudius) with the newly named Nero dominates Tacitus’ rendering of the events over the next four years (50-54 CE). The securing of Domitius’ adoption resembles other conspiracy narratives in that a servant and a woman, bound by illicit sex, conspire in secret to manipulate Claudius’ fears and his knowledge of history to achieve their revolutionary ends. The year 51 opens with the consular formula. The subject that this introduces is the premature vesting of Nero in the toga uirilis and the honors granted to him (12.41.1). Once again, the juxtaposition of the consular formula and the detailed narrative of private 263 Compare with Vel. Pat. 2.104.1. Augustus says of his adoption of Tiberius: hoc…rei publicae causa facio. See also Suet. Tib. 21.3: praesertim cum et rei p. causa adoptare se eum pro contione iurauerit. For “world in pieces,” see Henderson 1989. 264 OLD: consul and consilium. Compare with OLD: exilium, exulo. 265 Perhaps Tacitus is toying with Pallas’ invocation of history, directing, subtly, Claudius to examples of old like that of T. Manlius Torquatus Imperiosus who executed his son for disobeying orders. It is unlikely that Ennius praises this act in his line preserved by Cicero (Sk.156). Rather, it is a condemnation of unrelenting severity. Pallas, in inducing Claudius to essentially abandon his son, is instructing the emperor to be more like Torquatus, even though his actions brought ill repute and condemnation (Livy 8.12.1). Tacitus does not fail to mention often that Agrippina and her agents were aware of the potential for backlash against setting aside Britannicus too obviously (see especially 12.69.3). 175 affairs of the domus is indicative of Tacitus’ deployment of structural irony to frame the narrative of the true locus of power. At the time, Nero would have been 13. Nero took the toga uirilis early so that he would seem ready for public office. Tacitus’ diction makes it clear that Nero was in no position to actually act as a magistrate of the state. It was only for the sake of appearances (uideri). He was only three years older than Britannicus, whom he was supposed to be supporting. When Tiberius and Drusus had been called in by Augustus to step in for Gaius and Lucius after the death of their father Agrippa, both men were decades older than the two youths. Tacitus also further exposes Pallas’ manipulation of history. Claudius concedes to the honors heaped on Nero on the understanding that he is holding Britannicus’ place. However, Nero is made princeps iuuentutis. Britannicus was not. Gaius was the first princeps iuuentutis, but his younger brother Lucius held that position after an interval of several years. Furthermore, Tacitus again ironically juxtaposes the consular year formula and the appointment to that office of chief magistrate six or so years into the future. And this was the concession of Caesar (Caesar…cessit, 12.41.2), who at that time was himself consul. 266 At public events in the circus, it was made clear to the plebs who was meant to succeed Claudius. Britannicus, three years Nero’s junior, rode past wearing the toga praetexta while Nero followed in triumphal regalia. Tacitus writes (12.41.2).Tribunes and centurions who felt pity for Britannicus were removed either for false reasons (fictae causae) or per speciem honoris (12.41.2). Freedmen of incorruptible loyalty to Claudius (incorupta fides, loc. cit.) were also removed. The conspirators, the ‘party’ of Nero, are manipulating events behind the scenes to their own ends. Invisible and whispering agents 266 Claudius took his fifth consulship for Nero’s debut. Augustus too had taken his seventh and eight consulships for the debuts of Giaus and Lucius respectively. 176 from within the imperial domus control the Roman world. As with other conspiracy narratives, a woman and a freedman manipulate Claudius and interfere with military affairs (the prefect of the Praetorian Guard), not openly, but through secret machinations. Tacitus uses this occasion to relate how Britannicus (a boy of 11) greeted his stepbrother as Domitius, and not Nero. Agrippina complained about this to Claudius, adding that it might erupt into public disaster (civil war?) and that (12.41.3): sperni quippe adoptionem, quaeque censuerint patres, iusserit populus, intra penatis abrogari; ac nisi prauitas tam infensa docentium arceatur, eruptura in publicam perniciem. …the adoption is being spurned and that which the Fathers voted and the People ordered is being abrogated within the household, and unless the distortions of those people teaching hostile things be stopped, it would erupt into public disaster. Tacitus is having Agrippina speak about the imperial succession in language evocative of the republic. 267 It is ironic that Agrippina, conspiring to gain control over the imperial succession, invokes the declarations of the Senate and People. Furthermore, there is little doubt that Agrippina is conjuring the specter of civil war (12.41.3), the recurrence of which represents not only the excesses of the final century of the old system, but also foreshadows the ultimate outcome of Nero’s reign, the civil wars of 69 CE. Claudius was disturbed by these so-called accusations (quasi crimina, 12.41.3) so much so that either exile or death were the penalties inflicted on the best tutors of Britannicus. Agrippina has 267 Cic. Leg. 3.8.9 is representative: …quom senatus decreverit populusue iusserit 177 arranged through secret machinations for the adoption of her son by Claudius and to have the stepson given precedence over Britannicus. This precedence was then demonstrated to the people in the circus in no uncertain terms. Military officers perceived to be sympathetic to Britannicus’ plight were removed for various reasons, and imperial freedmen loyal to Claudius and Britannicus were banished or killed and guards of Agrippina’s choosing were placed over the Commander’s son—all with Claudius’ consent. As with the false allegations against Valerius Asiaticus, and with the plot of Messalina and Silius, so too with Agrippina and Nero does Tacitus expose the actual levers of power as he depicts the machinations of conspirators to secure the supreme command. Agrippina is hatching a conspiracy against Claudius and Britannicus—one that will succeed, as Tacitus’ readers will have already known. Although Agrippina’s plans are unfolding, Tacitus writes that Agrippina did not yet dare her ultimate endeavor (nondum tamen summa moliri Agrippina audebat, 12.42.1). Time appeared to be on Agrippina’s side and the conspiracy would prove successful if she were to bide her time and wait. Whereas Messalina was hasty, Agrippina deliberates carefully. Tacitus reports that her chief concern is the prefecture of the Praetorian Guard. As discussed above, Sejanus took full advantage as prefect in his attempt to wrest control away from Tiberius. Messalina and Silius appear to have been cognizant of the importance of this role in their courting of Decrius Calpurnianus. Agrippina prompts Claudius to appoint Burrus Afranius, whom Tacitus calls ‘a man of outstanding military reputation’ (egregiae militaris famae, 12.42.1). L. Lusius Geta and Rufrius Crispinus, who have been sharing the appointment since Messalina’s plot was discovered, are an impediment to Agrippina’s plans. Agrippina believed that they were 178 mindful of Messalina and bound to her children (quos Messalinae memores et liberis eius deuinctos credebat, 12.42.1). So Agrippina accuses them of splitting loyalties in the cohorts on account of their individual ambition. That is, she is interfering with military affairs. Tacitus describes Burrus as gnarus, aware of whose will it is that he is appointed. Burrus’ awareness of who is actually in control contrasts with the things about which Claudius is ignorant: mainly, the affairs of his domus and, by extension, affairs of the state. After a brief notice about the downfall of Vitellius, which Agrippina was unable to altogether stop, Tacitus reports that there were multa eo anno prodigia (12.43.1). While it is true that the annales maximi were to have contained reports of prodigies, the significance of the proximity of Tacitus’ account of Agrippina’s self-association with the state religion and his reports of multa prodigia cannot be lost on the reader. 268 Tacitus deploys reports of prodigies strategically to frame events in such a way that overdetermines their disastrous outcomes. In other words, Tacitus reports prodigies as foretelling future calamity only to reveal that foretold calamity in the course of his narrative. Tacitus reports that ominous birds settled upon the Capitol. Earthquakes destroyed houses. 269 There was also a scarcity of grain that led to famine, which Tacitus notes was interpreted as prodigious in itself (12.43.1). This report of prodigies foreshadows the ominous signs that Tacitus notes at the outset of 54 CE, and the beginning of his narration of the murder of Claudius (12.64.1). The notice about the 268 Drews 1988: 289; Rawson 1991: 1-15; Frier 1999. Cato. Orig. 4.1; Cic. de Orat. 2.52; Schol. Dan. Aen. 1.378. 269 Upon the death of Messalina, the contest among freedmen over who would get to choose the princeps’ next wife caused the imperial domus to shudder (conuulsa…domus, 12.1.1). 179 famine also reminds readers of a pretext for slaughter while foreshadowing another. The brothers Petra of equestrian rank were denounced (presumably on Messalina’s orders) by Suillius after the condemnation of Asiaticus (11.4.1) on the pretext that one of the brothers had a dream in which Claudius had appeared wearing a wreath of wheat with the ears turned down. The brother had allegedly announced that this dream of his predicted an impending food shortage. As well as demonstrating the nearly perpetual angst in Rome about the supply of grain, the alleged dream alludes to frequent mention in the literary sources of prognostications of Claudius’ demise. In fact, at 11.4, Tacitus offers an alternative to the dream of the wreaths of corn: Claudius had appeared wearing a crown of fading grape leaves, a sign of the emperor’s imminent demise. In the Apocolocyntosis, Seneca has Mercury say to the Fates (Apocol. 3.2): patere mathematicos aliquando uerum dicere, qui illum, ex quo princeps factus est, omnibus annis omnibus mensibus efferunt. Let the astrologers, who have been sending him off every month of every year since he became princeps, be right for once! Tacitus reports that Furius Scribonianus was sent into exile for having consulted the Chaldaeans regarding Claudius’ death (12.52.1). There followed an ineffectual banishment of astrologers from Italy (12.52.3), one that mirrored a similar attempt by Tiberius (2.32.3). Agrippina, too, is mentioned in connection with astrology and the prediction of not only the death of Claudius, but also the ascension of Nero. 270 The consultation of astrologers was a fairly common practice among Romans, but it was a 270 14.9.3. See below, this chapter. 180 criminal offense when inquiries were made about matters concerning the imperial domus. Tacitus generally mentions the practice when it coincides with a plot to overthrow the government of the day. For example, the expulsions of the astrologers and magicians from Italy under Tiberius followed the condemnation of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus for his conspiracy against Tiberius. Tacitus relates the charges and trial of Libo at length, not least of all because Libo’s case marks the beginning of a reign of terror under which seemingly countless notables are condemned for treason by delatores. Several scholars have remarked that Tacitus’ account of the alleged plot and trial of Libo does not match mentions made in other sources. 271 What these commentators have neglected to mention is that Tacitus is establishing a pattern according to which accusations of conspiracy against the princeps—real or calumnious—will be narrated throughout the Annals. Granted, it is not a literal script. Rather, it is a very basic paradigm for narrating conspiracy. 272 Tacitus virtually admits as much (2.27.1): Sub idem tempus e familia Scriboniorum Libo Drusus defertur moliri res nouas. eius negotii initium, ordinem, finem curatius disseram, quia tum primum reperta sunt quae per tot annos rem publicam exedere. About that same time, Libo Drusus from the family of the Scribonii was denounced for undertaking a revolution. I will discuss the beginning of that business, its progression and its 271 Marsh 1926: 291; Syme (1958): I. 400; Rogers 1952: 285; Shotter 1972: 88. 272 Rogers (1952) recognizes general patterns in Tacitus’ narration of treason trials narrowly defined as such. He purposefully avoids discussion of trials in camera, charges that are dropped, or are blatantly calumnious. 181 conclusion carefully because the things were first discovered at that time that would consume the state for so many years. Furneaux suggests that per tot annos implies that fears of conspiracy would consume the state through the reign of Domitian. 273 This is certainly plausible. However, it is not necessary to extend this observation beyond the end of the Annals. Tacitus clearly cannot simply be referring to the Libo affair because it does not last per tot annos. Libo kills himself on the Ides of September of that very year (2.32.2). 274 The ‘things’ that were discovered must be the means for successful denunciations, including boasting of an illustrious lineage, profligacy and debt, sexual malfeasance (whether stuprum or general licentiousness), courting co-conspirators, and lastly, resort to astrology or magic to ascertain either the time of the princeps’ appointed demise or an opportune time for striking. So, the reports of prodigies and treasonous consultations of astrologers look forward to the crimes of Nero and backward to the crimes of Messalina and other informers down through the reign of Tiberius. They tie together two different kinds of supernatural phenomena as a means to comment on the magnitude of the crimes made possible under the emperors. The chaos at the center of the imperial domus is mirrored, not only at the periphery of the empire, but now into the realm of the divine. As the date of Claudius’ death approaches, charges of consulting astrologers and accusations of poisoning abound. Tacitus places anxiety about conspiracy on the wrong agents. Tacitus’ readers would know that astrology and poison would play a role in the transfer of power 273 Furneaux (1896): I, 285. 274 The date is confirmed by an inscription dedicating the Ides of September as a day of thanksgiving. Sherk 28A: 53-54. 182 from Claudius to Nero, but not at the hands of these other actors. He is organizing his narrative according to plots and sub-plots—most turn out to be ineffectual, but they all lead up to and foreshadow the ultimate conspiracy of the Claudian annals: the conspiracy of Agrippina to replace Claudius and Britannicus with Nero and, by extension, herself. The year 53 CE begins with the marriage of Nero and Octavia. While the fifteen- year-old Nero represents communities from the East in matters before the courts, Agrippina is further ensnaring Claudius (12.59.1-2). Claudius was being driven (adigebatur) to savagery by Agrippina’s artes. Gaping after (inhians) the magnificent gardens of Statilius Taurus, she arranged for allegations to be laid against him. Tacitus writes that this Agrippina was the same Agrippina (eadem Agrippina), which implies a contrast between the Agrippina that was encouraging her son to partake in public life and the Agrippina that was ensnaring an otherwise good man for the sake of obtaining his property. 275 In a clear allusion to the misdeeds of Messalina, Tacitus makes Claudius complicit through his slavish devotion to his wife. Again, Tacitus has a wife of Claudius, either directly or indirectly, arrange the condemnation of men for crimes of which she herself is guilty. The denunciation of Taurus parallels that of Asiaticus. The latter was condemned for conspiring against the princeps by a woman who was conspiring against the princeps. The former was denounced at Agrippina’s instigation for resorting to magic concerning the life of a member of the imperial domus and it was implied that he had 275 O’Gorman (2000: 130-131) comments on Tacitus’ use of eadem. Eadem fama (Ann. 1.5) links the ascensions of Augustus and Tiberius. Eadem Agrippina links the two sides of Agrippina, the public image of an aristocratic matrona introducing her son to public life and the reality of the dux femina machinating behind the scenes. See also Woodman 2004: 240. 183 succumbed to poison. But it is Agrippina who is resorting to magic and poison to bring about a revolution. Previous to the condemnation of Statilius Taurus, Vitellius, who had ingratiated himself with Agrippina, was denounced by the senator Junius Lupus. Lupus accused Vitellius of treason (maiestas) and a lust for command (cupido imperii). 276 Tacitus reports that Claudius would have lent his ear to Lupus (praebuisset aures Caesar, 12.42.3) had not Agrippina intervened with threats (minis magis quam precibus, loc. cit.). Rather than Vitellius being sentenced, Claudius forbade Lupus fire and water (aqua et igni interdiceret)! This passage represents a particularly acute example of Tacitus’ use of irony. The guilty accused is vindicated and the guiltless accuser is punished to the fullest extent of the law. But it also makes Agrippina’s cause more urgent. Claudius would have listened to the accusations of Lupus had it not been for Agrippina’s threats (minae). Tacitus reminds his audience that detection of these and other crimes was always possible. Claudius may have found out about Agrippina’s plots just as he had eventually come to know Messalina’s. After the condemnation of Taurus, contrary to the wishes of Agrippina, the accuser, Tarquitius, was driven out of the curia. Earlier, Agrippina attempted to denounce Narcissus but Narcissus shot back at her criticisms of her womanly lack of self-control (impotentia muliebris) and her immodest expectations (nimiae spes, 12.57.2). Agrippina’s power is not as secure as she perhaps would like. This is further impetus for her to strike. Agrippina’s conspiracy to place Nero on the imperial throne mirrors accusations levied against Asiaticus and the actions of Messalina and Silius. A woman and freedmen 276 Cf. Dio. 60.3.6. 184 are the primary actors who propel the narrative. They act in interior spaces and in secret; their actions are reported in often-ambiguous terms. Allegations of sexual misconduct characterize the relationship between Pallas and Agrippina. Agents resort to poison, and there allegations of and recourses to astrology and magic. This prolonged episode continues with the murder of Claudius and the ascension of Nero as princeps. This is the ultimate conspiracy in the Claudian annals and the harbinger of worse affairs to come. V. The Murder of Claudius and the Accession of Nero Tacitus begins the year 54 CE with more reports of prodigies foretelling a change for the worse (mutata res in deterius, 12.64.1). Soldiers’ tents and military standards are stuck by lightning. A swarm of bees infested the pinnacle of the Capitol. 277 There were two- formed human births (biformes hominum partus) and sows born with a hawk’s talons. As with the ill-omened birds (12.43.1), there is an unwelcome crowding at the apex of 277 A possible allusion to Ver. Aen. 7.64-67 where a swarm of bees portends civil war among the Latins (populo magnum portendere bellum, 7.80): huius apes summum densae (mirabile dictu) stridore ingenti liquidum trans aethera vectae obsedere apicem, et pedibus per mutua nexis examen subitum ramo frondente pependit. Marvelous to tell: A thick swarm of bees born through the liquid air With a great buzz settled the high apex of that tree And the swarm on a sudden twined their feet together And hung from the leafy branch. Tacitus in some way may be casting Agrippina as a new Lavinia, the cause of civil war between the Latins and Trojans. However, whereas Lavinia was only passively involved, Agrippina is an active agent in the oncoming civil wars as she machinates to put Nero on the throne whose demise will bring about the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and will usher in civil war. Regardless, Vergil and Tacitus both stress a swarming at the apex of power, a crowding at the top. For Vergil, it is Turnus and Aeneas. For Tacitus, it is Claudius, Britannicus, Nero and Agrippina herself crowding the throne. 185 Rome. ‘Two-formed human births’ could refer either to babies born with two heads or to hermaphrodites. Either were considered serious monstra of divine displeasure. 278 Tacitus also mentions as portentous the numerous deaths of magistrates (12.64.1). To be sure, the demise of one magistrate from every office is remarkable. However, under Claudius (and indeed, all of the principes), not only have men of senatorial rank perished in large numbers, but the constitutional power that comes with the magistracy has diminished. In many ways, the reign of Nero will mark for Tacitus the acme of tyranny among the Julio- Claudians, a tyranny that will buckle and result in civil wars and the year of four emperors. 279 The coming of Nero signifies the ultimate dissolution of the old res publica and the pinnacle of disorder in the domus Caesaris and the Empire. Conspiracy at the center is reflected as chaos in the realm of the supernatural. After the accusations laid against Vitellius by Taurus and the expulsion of Tarquitius from the curia, Claudius threatens his wife and Agrippina panics (12.64.2): sed in praecipuo pauore Agrippina, uocem Claudii, quam temulentus iecerat, fatale sibi ut coniugum flagitia ferret, dein puniret, metuens, agere et celerare statuit… But Agrippina was especially panicked, fearing something Claudius said while drunk about it being his fate to endure the 278 Livy. 27.11.4, Leg. XII. Tab IV; Cicero. Leg. 3.19. See discussion in MacBain 1982. 279 Domitian is likely Nero redux. The tyranny of the former likely reflected that of the latter. Just as Nero represents the climax of the Annals, Domitian would have been the climax of the Histories. In other words, Tacitus’ Nero would likely have anticipated his Domitian. 186 crimes of his wives and then punish them, she was determined to act and fast… Worried that she might meet the same fate as Messalina, Agrippina acts to bring about the demise of Claudius and the ascension of Nero. Her first act is to denounce Lepida, her former rival for Claudius’ hand. The charge against Lepida is that she resorted to magical incantations against Agrippina and that she had loose control over her slaves in Campania. The implication, again, is that Agrippina is denouncing Lepida for the kinds of things she herself is doing. Lepida is accused of resorting to magical incantations, and it is implied that Lepida’s loose control of her slaves is in some way tantamount to her either condoning a slave rebellion or actually raising an army of slaves against the state. 280 Tacitus depicts Agrippina using accusations of conspiracy to mask her own conspiracy, just as Messalina had done. Agrippina’s chance to act occurs when Narcissus—Claudius and Britannicus’ last champion—becomes ill and is forced to retire. 281 Tacitus portrays Agrippina as deliberating about whether to use a fast acting or a slow and wasting poison. She fears too fast a poison, as Claudius’ very sudden demise would arouse suspicions. But a slow poison might occasion reconciliation between Claudius and Britannicus. She settles on a custom formula, one that would cause Claudius to linger, but destroy his mind. Tacitus provides us with the name of the alleged poisoner (12.66.2): deligitur artifex talium uocabulo Locusta, nuper ueneficii damnata et diu inter instrumenta regni habita. 280 Compare with Messalina and Silius’ courting of the magister ludi. 281 Though Narcissus is always represented as serving his own interests. Pallas backed Domitius, Narcissus was backing Britannicus. 187 A practitioner skilled in such things was chosen, a woman named Locusta, recently convicted of poisoning and for a long time reckoned among the tools of autocracy. Agrippina employs a woman named Locust, a recently convicted poisoner. 282 The poisoner’s name is a minor detail that lends credibility to Tacitus’ account without being in any way verifiable. Juvenal refers to a master poisoner named Locusta (Sat. 1.71), but there is no indication that he refers to a specific, historic individual. 283 Tacitus also names the eunuch, Claudius’ food-taster Halotus, who delivers the poisoned food (12.66.2). Was there really a slave named Captured? 284 Did the slave eat the poisoned food and become sick, or was he complicit in the poisoning in such a way that he knew which morsel to eat and which to avoid? 285 Tacitus does not say. Locust and Captured are likely performance types, perhaps allusions to the mimic stage, in the theatricalization of history that 282 In both instances where Locusta is mentioned, the poisoner’s name is modified by the ablative uocabulo or nomine, as if to stress that the poisoner in question is simply called Locusta, but that might not be her real name. It is possible that Locusta is a nomme de guerre, “The Locust”. See Livy 42.2.5 for the locust as a harbinger of divine wrath. 283 That has not stopped modern scholars from stating emphatically that the murderer of Claudius was a certain woman named Locusta. 284 Assuming Halotus is the Latinized ἁλωτός. 285 Tacitus merely says (12.66.2): eius mulieris ingenio paratum uirus, cuius minister e spadonibus fuit Halotus, inferre epulas et explorare gustu solitus. The poison was prepared through the woman’s skill, whose minister was Halotus, one of the eunuchs, accustomed as he was to bring in meals and test taste them. Nothing else is said about Halotus. 188 represents Tacitus’ contribution to Roman literature. 286 Regardless, Tacitus’ inclusion of these names harkens back to conspiracy narratives. Agrippina’s conspiracy to murder Claudius unfolds behind closed doors in enclosed spaces and is facilitated by a woman (Locust) and a slave (Captured). The poison was delivered to Claudius in a dish of mushrooms, or so the writers of Tacitus’ day recall (12.67.1). Tacitus implies that the murder of the princeps is an open secret, one so well known that the dish containing the poison was widely discussed. It is a detail that is not ultimately vital to the tenor of events, but it works in concert with the naming of Locust and Captured to lend the psychological weight of dramatization to the narrative. It is also a comment on the inversion inherent in the new Roman monarchy. Food that should nourish, kills. Additionally, mushrooms are living things that thrive in decay. Like the lizards and beetles on the Ara Pacis, death and disintegration infuse the re-founding of Rome under the Julio-Claudian principes. 287 Rather than being murdered in the open (like Julius Caesar and Gaius had been), Agrippina schemes to have her 286 Compare this to the inclusion of the club-wielding trierarch, Herculeius and the marine centurion Obaritus in Agrippina’s final scene (14.8.4). The mention of a poisoner named Locusta in Juvenal’s first satire should not encourage believe in an actual person (Juv. Sat. 1. 71): occurrit matrona potens, quae molle Calenum porrectura uiro miscet sitiente rubetam instituitque rudes melior Locusta propinquas per famam et populum nigros efferre maritos. An overbearing wife, offering light Calenian wine to her thirsty husband, mixes in toad venom, and like a better Locusta, teaches her less sophisticated neighbors how to bury their blackening husbands amid widespread recollections at what a great man he was. 287 On the polycarpophonic and polytheriotropic themes on the Ara Pacis, see Pollini 2012: 273-275. 189 husband’s food poisoned with the help of a woman and slaves. The ultimately unverifiable act of conspiracy unfolds within the domestic sphere. A timely loosening of the bowels saves Claudius from Agrippina’s choice poison (soluta aluus subuenisse uidebatur, 12.67.1). 288 The ineffectiveness of the poison worries Agrippina, who decides to resort to drastic measures. She induces Claudius’ own doctor, Xenephon, to finish him off and Tacitus relates the story in gruesome detail (12.67.2): igitur exterrita Agrippina et, quando ultima timebantur, spreta praesentium inuidia prouisam iam sibi Xenophontis medici conscientiam adhibet. ille tamquam nisus euomentis adiuuaret, pinnam rapido ueneno inlitam faucibus eius demisisse creditur, haud ignarus summa scelera incipi cum periculo, peragi cum praemio. Agrippina was therefore terrified and, since she feared the ultimate, she rejected the resentment of immediate action and turned to the already provided for complicity of Claudius’ own doctor, Xenophon who, as if helping Claudius to continue vomiting up the poison, is believed to have inserted a feather infused with a fast-acting poison into Claudius’ throat, by no means ignorant that the greatest crimes are begun in moments of danger, but are carried with the promise of rewards. 288 For Claudius’ reputation for drunkenness, see Suet. Claud. 5, 33. 190 Again, the name of the doctor is provided, a man who should bring health, but who instead inflicts harm. And the doctor is a foreigner, whose Greek name begins with the word for stranger. The doctor is, like Burrus, gnarus, knowing of the realities under which he is working. 289 He also acts with dissimulation and treachery—he inserts the feather ‘as if’ to help (tamquam…adiuuaret, 12.67.2). Agrippina will succeed in her efforts because of careful planning. She apparently set aside a uenenum rapidum precisely for this situation. And the complicity of Xenophon was also procured ahead of time. The functionaries of the domus (wife, servants, doctor), the people ideally subject to the command of the princeps-cum-paterfamilias, have a hand in its destruction and with it, the beginning of the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the Augustan pax. These servants and womenfolk are confined to the interior spaces of the imperial domus, the locus classicus for conspiracy. Tacitus’ narrative, as has been argued above, reads forwards and backwards. Tacitus’ account of the murder of Claudius is recalled in detail when Tacitus relates the murder of Britannicus. Tacitus does not precisely foreshadow Britannicus’ poisoning death. Rather, he frames the narrative of Britannicus’ murder along lines very similar to the murder of Claudius, forcing his readers to reflect on the Agrippinian precedent for the Neronian murder. According to Tacitus, Nero turns to a tribune of the a praetorian cohort who has in his charge a certain woman recently convicted for poisoning by the name of Locusta (damnata ueneficii nomine Locusta, 13.15.3), multa scelerum fama. The poison is delivered, but an opening of the bowels saves the victim (tramisitque exsoluta aluo, 13.15.4). Nero grows impatient and decides that his agents are being too cautious 289 Literally haud ignarus. For Burrus, see above and 12.42.2. 191 (securitatem morarentur) and demands immediate action. A fast-acting poison is prepared (13.15.5): promittentibus dein tam praecipitem necem, quam si ferro urgeretur, cubiculum Caesaris iuxta decoquitur uirus cognitis antea uenenis rapidum. After they promised a murder as fast as one brought about by a sword, a poison was concocted next to Caesar’s bedroom which was known through previous poisonings to be fast-acting. Again, the setting of the conspiracy to murder Britannicus, like the murder of his father, is the interior spaces (cubiculum Caesaris) of the imperial domus. Slaves play a crucial role. Again, food is the medium. Agrippina turns out to be the best reader of Tacitus (13.16.4): at Agrippina<e> is pauor, ea consternatio mentis, quamuis uultu premeretur, emicuit, ut perinde ignaram fuisse atque Octauiam sororem Britannici constiterit: quippe sibi supremum auxilium ereptum et parricidii exemplum intellegebat. 290 As for Agrippina, although it was repressed by her facial expression, such was the fear and alarm that flashed forth that it was clear that she had been as ignorant of what was going on as was Octavia, Britannicus’ sister. It was obvious that she 290 Once again, knowing and not knowing are important themes throughout the Claudian annals. 192 understood that her last help had been snatched away from her and there was a precedent for parricide. Tacitus makes it clear that Agrippina recognizes that she had set the precedent for parricide by murdering Claudius. The choice word is parricidium, a word that encompasses not only fratricide (Nero’s murder of Britannicus), nor only of uxoricide (Agrippina’s murder of Claudius), but also matricide, the impending murder of Agrippina at the hands of Nero. 291 It is a moment where the past (the murder of Claudius), the present (the murder of Britannicus), and the future (the murder of Agrippina) form a constellation that allows the reader of history to gain a glimpse of the totality of Julio- Claudian history. 292 The entire narrative of the poisoning of Britannicus mirrors so precisely the poisoning of Claudius that the author does not explicitly mention the connection. That task belongs to the reader. Tacitus is instructing his audience how to read his works. Prayers were being made for the emperor while his death is kept secret by Agrippina (12.68.1): Vocabatur interim senatus uotaque pro incolumitate principis consules et sacerdotes nuncupabant, cum iam exanimis uestibus et fomentis obtegeretur, dum quae res forent firmando Neronis imperio componuntur. 291 Tacitus has Agrippina say to her assassins moments before her demise (14.8.5): non imperatum parricidium. 292 The metaphor of the constellation is a core Benjaminian concept first developed in The Origin of German Tragic Drama (2009: 34) and elaborated upon in the Arcades Project. 193 Meanwhile, the Senate was summoned and the consuls and priests were reciting vows for the salvation of the princeps since, though already dead, he was being covered with clothing and blankets while things were being arranged for the confirmation of Nero’s command. The relics of the republican past are praying for the health of an already-dead autocrat while the new one is being prepped behind the scenes in secret. Tacitus’ use of the circumstantial cum indicates that the magistrates, priests and Senate were praying for Claudius’ preservation because they were deceived about the princeps’ true condition. It is a delaying technique. Claudius’ death announcement was being kept a secret until such time that the confirmation of what had been made apparent through Agrippina’s efforts could be arranged. This involved hiding Britannicus from the sight of the soldiers and other officials. Dissimulating grief, Agrippina held Britannicus in her embrace, thereby detaining him (12.68.2): iam primum Agrippina, uelut dolore uicta et solacia conquirens, tenere amplexu Britannicum, ueram paterni oris effigiem appellare ac uariis artibus demorari, ne cubiculo egrederetur. First of all, Agrippina, as if conquered by grief and needing solace, held Britannicus in her embrace, calling him the true likeness of his father’s face and delaying by various tricks lest he leave his room. 194 Deception and false care characterize conspiracy and the kinds of machinating that transpire behind the closed doors of the Palatium. 293 She likewise kept Octavia and Antonia hidden and sealed the palace with detachments of soldiers. In another reference to the prophecies of the astrologers, Tacitus writes that Agrippina (12.68.3): crebroque uulgabat ire in melius ualetudinem principis, quo miles bona in spe ageret tempusque prosperum ex monitis Chaldaeorum aduentaret. …frequently reported that the princeps’ health was improving in order that the soldiers might be encouraged to hold out hope and that the fortunate time prophesied by the warnings of the Chaldaeans might arrive. Tacitus reports that prophecy later, upon the death of Agrippina on the orders of her son (14.9.3): hunc sui finem multos ante annos crediderat Agrippina contempseratque. nam consulenti super Nerone responderunt Chaldaei fore ut imperaret matremque occideret; atque illa "occidat" inquit, "dum imperet." This was the end that Agrippina many years before had believed yet mocked. For when she was consulting the Chaedaeans about 293 Cf. per speciem beneuolentiae (11.1.1). 195 Nero, they responded that he would rule, but would kill his mother. Agrippina replied “let him kill so long as he rules.” Tacitus makes insinuations about incest between Agrippina and Nero (14.1.2), a crime to which Agrippina had already sunk in her marriage to her father’s brother. This reference suits the beginning of the end of Nero. With the death of Agrippina came the intensification of Nero’s tyranny. However, with the intensification of his tyranny came the hastening of his demise at the hands of assassins—the result of a conspiracy. The death of Claudius and the concealment of his demise comprise the final acts of the conspiracy to place Nero on the throne. Domestic servants bring about his end. The deed is done inside the imperial domus. Agrippina resorts to magic and astrology while contriving allegations of the same against a potential rival. The whole episode unfolds behind a veil of secrecy that Tacitus attempts to overcome resorting to elements common to conspiracy narratives. Lastly, troops are manipulated into saluting Nero imperator while Britannicus and his sisters are confined to the interior spaces of the domus, held back by an Agrippina dissimulating grief. Three days before the Ides of October, Claudius is pronounced dead and the doors of the Palatium are flung open. This is only the second time that the domus Caesaris is not referred to as such, but by the name of the hill on which it stood. 294 It is a telling metonymic slip. The metaphorical domus, the Empire in microcosm discussed above, is turned on its head as parricide becomes the order of the day and the imperator scaenicus (Plin. Pan. 131) turns the performance of power into a literal performance. But the physical domus would itself morph into a metaphor as the Palatine hill and the 294 At 12.5.2, Vitellius orders (iubet) Claudius to remain in the palace (intra Palatium). 196 surrounding neighborhoods—seemingly all of Rome—get swallowed up by Nero’s Domus Aurea. In the company of Burrus, Nero emerges from the Palatium and greets a detachment of troops. Hesitantly they salute him and he is placed in a litter and carried to the camp where he is hailed “Imperator”. Tacitus puts it succinctly (12.69.2): sententiam militum secuta patrum consulta… The decrees of the senate followed the opinions of the soldiers… Agrippina’s end had been achieved. Nero was princeps and Claudius was subsequently deified. VI. Conclusion Tacitus narrates conspiracies, real and contrived, according to very similar lines using specific common elements. Tacitus references the prominence of women and slaves in the concealment or revelation of conspiracy. Allegations of sexual impropriety abound. Foreigners are often involved, whether they be Gauls or foreign slaves. Magic, astrology and poison are means to accomplish devious ends. Lastly, deception and dissimulation characterize the actions of conspiring actors. Conspiracy narratives provide structure to Tacitus’ depiction of the simmering conflict between elite Romans and the imperial domus, and within the imperial household itself. Conspiracy operates just below the surface in secret and conspiracy at the heart of the empire threatens to boil over into open civil war, and reveals the means by which the principate necessarily operates. Tacitus’ conspiracy narratives also establish the 197 foundations for the rise of Nero and the paranoia of his reign, presaging also his downfall and the open civil wars of 69 CE. These civil wars lead to not only a succession of emperors, but they pave the way for the rise of the tyranny of Domitian and the silence of Tacitus concerning the reigns of Nerva and Trajan. In this way, Nero’s rise mirrors Domitian’s, in that the structure of the Annals and Histories mirror one another, that the civil discord that never ended with the ascension of Augustus continued and its result is tyranny and civil war. The senatorial historian writes to instruct as well as entertain. Conspiracy narratives bring to light events that unfold in secret and by their very nature are not entirely knowable. The rhetoric of conspiracy is in some ways palliative. Fears of future conspiracy and the fear of those who participate in the conspiracies are allayed by having them exposed as a unified narrative event. 295 Conspiracy narratives borrow structuring elements from other works of literature (such as Sallust and Livy) to provide a means to narrative continuity. Furthermore, Tacitus relies on conspiracy narratives and constructs them in similar ways throughout the Annals. These narratives help provide instruction to Tacitus’ readers—how to maintain a public career whilst avoiding the ire of the imperial house and becoming the victim of delatores. 295 Pagán 2004: 6. 198 —Conclusion— The Claudian annals are paradigmatic of Tacitus’ use of ironic juxtaposition to expose gaps between images projected by the imperial regime and historical reality as he seems to understand it. To borrow again O’Gorman’s terms, Tacitus presents both “false appearances” and the “hidden truth.” 296 As I hope to have demonstrated, Tacitus frequently contraposes actions that help to structure and support imperial ideology to actions that belie that ideology. Tacitus seems to present pretexts, or “false appearances” because, in O’Gorman’s words: To represent a political regime as one sustained on façade and deception is to make a significant judgment about it, and an understanding of that regime will in part be founded on the logic and structure of the façade. 297 In other words, Tacitus can only attempt to understand the regime by attempting to understand the logic that supports it. By presenting both image and reality as he seems to perceive it, Tacitus invites his readership to contemplate the significance of the discrepancies and the nature and locus of power under the Augustan dispensation. Furthermore, in the Claudian annals, Tacitus uses the gaps between image and reality to point up Claudius’ perceived ineptitude. Tacitus presents a Claudius who is incapable of governing his passions and, if we are to believe Suetonius and Seneca, Claudius was perceived as incapable of governing his own body. Additionally, Claudius, subject to the commands of his wives and freedmen, is shown to be not in control of his household. He fails to rule and is therefore ruled. Throughout the Claudian annals, Tacitus seems to imply that Claudius is incapable of mastering himself, his domus, and 296 O’Gorman 2000: 3. 297 O’Gorman 2000: 3. 199 therefore, is incapable of ruling the empire. It is one of the conclusions of this study that Tacitus uses the ironic juxtaposition of image to reality to organize his criticisms of Claudius specifically, the principate more generally. Tacitus organizes his criticisms of the principate and of Claudius by exposing gaps between the images Claudius projects and what Tacitus seems to believe actually happened. He accomplishes this by making reference to social practices, the performance of which his characters either master or fail to master. Claudius’ performance as censor points up his blithe unawareness of the misdeeds unfolding under his own nose while also demonstrating the hollowness of his performance of the munia of the old Republic. Additionally, rituals of refoundation link Claudius to his predecessors and to Domitian, the emperor whose tyranny likely concluded Tacitus’ Histories in much the same way as the tyrannies of Nero conclude the Annals. Tacitus presents Messalina and Agrippina as both manipulating social norms pertaining to marriage in order to achieve revolutionary ends. Sex is shown to be women’s primary means to act politically and, though Messalina is relegated to the shadows, Agrippina seems to present herself as the epitome of a dux femina, ruler of Rome in her own right. Tacitus’ accounts of events at the edges of the empire offer parallels with events in the City as a way to comment indirectly on the state of disaffection among the ruling classes at Rome. What he does not write patently about actors at the heart of the empire, he writes openly about foreign leaders and domestic woes at the edges of the empire. Lastly, Tacitus uses inter- and intra-textual allusion to conspiracy narratives to organize accounts of denunciations and plots to overthrow Claudius. All in all, Tacitus does not report events willy-nilly, but presents a highly structured narrative that is forever looking in on itself and out to Tacitus’ present. 200 Various characters and behaviors in the Claudian annals reflect back to previous Julio- Claudian emperors and forward to the Flavians. Claudius’ failures reflect those of Augustus, and Nero’s rise and ultimate tyrannical rule reflect the rise and tyranny of Domitian. The death of Britannicus mirrors the death of Claudius, which foreshadows the murder of Agrippina, whose crimes recall those alleged of Livia. The sins of Messalina and Agrippina remind readers of those of the Elder Julia. These constellations provide exempla for Tacitus’ audience that allow them to enhance their “political and social acumen.” 298 Tacitus writes to instruct (4.33.2). By relying on structural irony, Tacitus exposes gaps between image and reality that his readers must interpret. The senatorial order of Tacitus’ day were commanded to be free, a contradiction from which Pliny does not shy (iubes essere liberos, erimus, Plin. Pan. 66.4). The contradiction between autocracy and libertas informs the composition and reception of the Annals and prompts the senator- historian to provide a guide for reading and therefore negotiating the political and social pitfalls of the principate. Tacitus’ readers should not only avoid what is bad and emulate what is good in his account of the Claudian regime (4.33.2), but they should also follow the author’s example. Readers should learn to co-exist with the admittedly necessary autocracy (1.3.1). 299 Yet they could learn to demonstrate their autonomy from the regime by speaking (or writing) carefully. 298 Sinclair 1995: 38. 299 Tacitus writes of the dangers of the uncertainties of the previous dispensation, meaning the civil wars of the Late Republic (1.3.1), arguing that Romans preferred the security afforded by the principate. However, in the Agricola, Tacitus writes that libertas and autocracy are fundamentally opposed (Ag. 3.1.1), until the reign of Nerva. See Percival 1980. 201 The Claudian annals provide clues to the overall structure of the Annals. Tacitus’ contraposition of image to reality during his account of Claudius’ reign help to inform the reader of Tacitus’ overall narrative program. Understanding the way that Tacitus utilizes structural irony opens up interpretive avenues for his readers. More can be written about the “world in pieces” by writing between the lines, using innuendo and allusion to both the literary tradition and to social and cultural scripts to point up the incongruities and contradictions latent in the principate of Claudius and, subsequently, the other emperors. 300 Tacitus’ diachronic study of the ideologies and practices that characterized and supported Claudius’ reign reveal that under the principate, things are not what they appear to be. 300 Henderson 1989. 202 —Bibliography— Adams, J. N. (1982). The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ando, Clifford (2000). Imperial Ideology and the Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ash, Rhiannon (1999a). “An Exemplary Conflict: Tacitus’ Parthian Battle Narrative (Annals 6.34-35).” Phoenix 53.1: 114–35. ——— (1999b). Ordering Anarchy  : Armies and Leaders in Tacitus’ Histories. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press ——— (2006a). “Following in the Footsteps of Lucullus? Tacitus’s Characterisation of Corbulo.” Arethusa 39.2: 355–75. ——— (2006b). Tacitus. Bristol: Bristol Classical. ——— (2007). Tacitus: Histories Book II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Astin, A. E. (2013). “Roman Government and Politics, 200-134 B.C.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by A. E. Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, and R. M. Ogilvie, 2nd ed., 163–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Augoustakis, Antony (2013). Ritual and Religion in Flavian Epic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (1934). The Emperor Gaius (Caligula). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnes, T. D. (1998). “Tacitus and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre.” Phoenix 52: 125–48. 203 Baron, Hans (1966). The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Barrett, Anthony (1990). Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press. Barrett, Anthony (1999). Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bartsch, Shadi (1994). Actors in the Audience  : Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Beacham, Richard (1999). Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press. Beard, Mary (2007). The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Beard, Mary, John North, and S. R. F Price (1998). Religions of Rome. New York: Cambridge University Press. Benario, Herbert (1964). “Tacitus and the Principate.” Classical Journal 60.3: 97-106. ——— (1972a). “Imperium and Capaces Imperii in Tacitus.” American Journal of Philology 93: 14-26. ——— (1972b). “Priam and Galba.” The Classical World 65.5: 146-147. ——— (1973). “‘Isdem Artibus Victus Est’: Tacitus, Annales IV 1, 3, Once Again.” Mnemosyne 26.3: 291-292. ——— (1975). An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens: University of Georgia Press. ——— (1994). “Tacitus and ‘Commotus’ in Annales 13.56.” Historia: Zeitschrift Fur Alte Geschichte 43.2: 252-258. 204 ——— (1995). “Recent Work on Tacitus: 1984-1993.” Classical World 89.2: 89–162. Benario, Herbert W, and Cornelius Tacitus (1983). Tacitus Annals 11 and 12. Lanham: University Press of America. Bendlin, Andreas, Hubert Cancik, Ulrike Egelhaaf, Gudrun Fischer, Christoph Rottler, Jörg Rüpke, Mary Beard, and John North (1993). “Priesthoods in Mediterranean Religions.” Numen 40.1: 82–94. Benjamin, Walter (2002). The Arcades Project. Edited by Rolf Tiedemann. Translated by Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Cambridge: Belknap Press. ——— (2009). The Origin of German Tragic Drama. Translated by John Osborne. Reprint edition. London: Verso. Bingham, Sandra J. (1998). “The Praetorian Guard in the Political and Social Life of Julio- Claudian Rome.” PhD Dissertation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Boatwright, Mary Taliaferro (1984). “Tacitus on Claudius and the Pomerium, Annals 12.23.2- 24.” The Classical Journal 80.1: 36–44. Boissier, Gaston (1898). “Mémoire de M. Philippe Fabia Sur Julius Paelignus, Préfet Des Vigiles et Procurateur de Cappadoce.” Comptes Rendus Des Séances de l’Académie Des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 42.1: 94. Bookbinder, Paul (2010). “‘Wie Es Eigentlich Gewesen’ or Manufactured Historical Memory.” Journal of The Historical Society 10.4: 475–506. Bowersock, G. W (1993). “Tacitus and the Province of Asia.” In Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, edited by T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3-10. 205 Bowman, Alan K., Edward Champlin, and A. W. Lintott (2008). The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyle, A (2003). Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Boston: Brill. ——— (2005). Roman Tragedy. London: Routledge. ——— (2008). Octavia. New York: Oxford University Press. Braund, David (1994). Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruère, Richard T. (1954). “Tacitus and Pliny’s Panegyricus.” Classical Philology 49.3: 161– 79. Brunt, P. A. (1980). “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes.” Classical Quarterly 30.2: 477– 94. Cantarella, Eva (1992). Bisexuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cartledge, Paul (1975). “The Second Thoughts of Augustus on the Res Publica in 28/7 B.C.” Hermathena, 119: 30–40. Chambers, Mortimer (1999). Text & Tradition: Studies in Greek History & Historiography. Claremont: Regina Books. Chartier, Roger (1989). “Le Monde Comme Représentation.” Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 44.6: 1505–20. ——— (1996). On the Edge of the Cliff: History, Language and Practices. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cizek, Eugen (1989). “La Littérature et Les Cercles Culturels et Politiques À L’époque de Trajan.” In ANWR II.33.2, 3–33. Leiden: Walter de Gruyter. 206 Coarelli, Filippo (1988). Il Foro Boario: dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica. Roma: Quasar. ——— (2007). Rome and Environs: An Archaeological Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coates-Stephens, Robert (2004). Porta Maggiore: Monument and Landscape: Archaeology and Topography of the Southern Esquiline from the Late Republican Period to the Present. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Connerton, Paul (1989). How Societies Remember. New York: Cambridge University Press. Conte, Gian (1986). The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cornell, Tim, and Kathryn Lomas (1996). Urban Society in Roman Italy. Hoboken: Routledge. Corrigan, Peter (1993). “A Literary Reading of Tacitus Annals 4,68-70: The Slaying of Titius Sabinus” Rheinisches Museum 136: 330-342. Cram, Robert Vincent (1940). “The Roman Censors.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 51: 71–110. Crook, J. A. (1967). Law and Life of Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ————— (2013). “Political History, 30 B.C. to A.D. 14.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Andrew Lintott, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 70-112. Cunningham, H. J. (1914). “Clavdivs and the Primores Galliae.” The Classical Quarterly 8.2: 132–33. 207 Dąbrowa, Edward (2003). The Roman Near East and Armenia. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press. Develin, R. (1983). “Tacitus and the Techniques of Insidious Suggestion.” Antichthon 17: 64– 95. Dickison, Sheila K. (1977). “Claudius: Saturnalicius Princeps.” Latomus 36.3: 634–47. Dixon, Suzanne (1988). The Roman Mother. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Dover, K. J. (1978). Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Drews, Robert (1988). “Pontiffs, Prodigies, and the Disappearance of the Annales Maximi.” Classical Philology 83.4: 289–99. Dreyfus, Hubert L., Paul Rabinow, and Michel Foucault (1983). Michel Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Drummond, A. (2013). “Rome in the Fifth Century II: The Citizen Community.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, by A. Drummond. Edited by F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 172- 242. Dudley, Donald Reynolds, and Graham Webster (1965). The Roman Conquest of Britain: A.D. 43-57. London: B.T. Batsford. Eagleton, Terry (2010). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell. ——— (2012) The Event of Literature. New Haven: Yale University Press. Eck, Werner (1985). Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert. Köln: Rheinland-Verlag. Edwards, Catharine (1993). The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. New York: Cambridge University Press. 208 Fantham, Elaine (1977). “Censorship, Roman Style.” Classical Views: 41–53. ——— (1989). “Mime: The Missing Link in Roman Literary History.” Classical World 82.3: 153–63. ——— (1996). Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fears, Rufus (1981). “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology.” In ANWAR, II.17.2: 827–948. Feldherr, Andrew (2009). The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, David (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Walter Benjamin. New York: Cambridge University Press. Focardi, Gabriella (1999). “Claudio e Trimalchione: Due Personaggi a Confronto?” Invigilata Lucernis, 21: 149–66. Forsythe, Gary (1994). The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition. Lanham: University Press of America. Foucault, Michel, Donald F Bouchard, and Sherry Simon (1977). Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Foucher, Antoine (2000). Historia proxima poetis: l’influence de la poésie épique sur le style des historiens latins, de Salluste à Ammiens Marcellin. Bruxelles: Latomus. Fowler, H. W. (1905). The Works of Lucian of Samosata: Complete with Exceptions Specified in the Preface. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fowler, R. L. (1987) “The Rhetoric of Desperation.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91: 5–38. 209 Frier, Bruce W. (1979) Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition. Rome: American Academy in Rome. Fulkerson, Laurel (2006). “Staging a Mutiny: Competitive Roleplaying on the Rhine (Annals 1.31-51).” Ramus 35.2: 169–92. Furneaux, Henry (1885). Annalium Libri I-IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Furneaux, Henry, H. F Pelham, and C. D Fisher (1907). Annalium Libri V-XVI. Oxford University Press. Galtier, Fabrice (2011). L’image tragique de l’Histoire chez Tacite: Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et les Annales. Brussels: Latomus. Gardner, R. (1941). “Review of La via Claudia Augusta Altinate.” Journal of Roman Studies 31: 209–13. Garnsey, Peter (1988). Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Garnsey, Peter, and C. R Whittaker (1983). Trade and famine in classical antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Geiser, Melanie (2007). “Personendarstellung bei Tacitus: am Beispiel von Cn. Domitius Corbulo und Servius Sulpicius Galba.” Remscheid: Gardez-Verlag. Gildenhard, Ingo (2003). “The Annalist Before the Annalists: Ennius and His Annales.” In Formen Römischer Geschichtsschreibung von Den Anfängen Bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren, Kontexte. Edited by Ulrich Eigler, Ulrich Gotter, Nino Luraghi, Uwe Walter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 93–114. Gill, Christopher (1990). The Person and the Human Mind  : Issues in Ancient and Modern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. 210 Ginsburg, Judith (1981). Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus. North Stratford: Ayer. ——— (1982). Tacitus and the Annalistic Form: A Study in the Structure of Annales I-VI. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. ——— (2006). Representing Agrippina  : Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. Ginzburg, Carlo (1991). “Représentation: Le Mot, L’idée, La Chose.” Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 46.6 (1991): 1219–1234. Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City: Doubleday. Goldberg, Sander (1995). Epic in Republican Rome. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. ——— (2005). Constructing Literature in the Roman Republic: Poetry and Its Reception. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Goodyear, F. R. D. (1972). The Annals of Tacitus, Books 1-6. Cambridge: University Press. Gowing, Alain M. “Tacitus and the Client Kings.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 120: 315–331. ——— (2005) Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gradel, Ittai (2002). Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. New York: Clarendon Press. Grant, Michael (1975). The Twelve Caesars. New York: Scribner. Griffin, Miriam (1982). “The Lyons Tablet and Tacitean Hindsight.” Classical Quarterly 32.2: 404–18. ——— (1985). Nero  : The End of a Dynasty. New Haven: Yale University Press. ——— (1986). “Philosophy, Cato, and Roman Suicide: II.” Greece & Rome 33.2: 192–202. 211 ——— (1990). “Claudius in Tacitus.” Classical Quarterly 40.2: 482–501. ——— (1992). Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. ——— (1997). “The Senate’s Story.” Journal of Roman Studies 87: 249–63. Gunderson, Erik (2000). Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ——— (2003). Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self. New York: Cambridge University Press. Habinek, Thomas (1986). “The Marriageability of Maximus: Horace, Ode 4.1.13-20.” American Journal of Philology 107.3: 407–16. ——— (1997). The Roman Cultural Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1998). The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ——— (2000). “Seneca’s Renown: ‘Gloria, Claritudo,’ and the Replication of the Roman Elite.” Classical Antiquity 19.2: 264–303. ——— (2005a). “Latin Literature between Text and Practice.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 135.1: 83–89. ——— (2005b). The World of Roman Song: From Ritualized Speech to Social Order. Johns Hopkins University Press. ——— (2014). “Imago Suae Vitae: Seneca’s Life and Career.” In Brill’s Companion to Seneca. Edited by Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil, 3–32. Hall, Edith (2008). New Directions in Ancient Pantomime. New York: Oxford University Press. 212 Hallett, Judith P. and Marilyn B. Skinner (1997). Roman Sexualities. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hanson, W. S, and D. B. Campbell (1986). “The Brigantes: From Clientage to Conquest.” Britannia 17: 73–89. Harris, William V. (2004) Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Hausmann, Michael (2009). Die Leserlenkung durch Tacitus in den Tiberius- und Claudiusbüchern der “Annalen.” Berlin: de Gruyter. Haynes, Holly (2003). The History of Make-Believe: Tacitus on Imperial Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——— (2010). “The Tyrant Lists: Tacitus’ Obituary of Petronius.” American Journal of Philology 131.1: 69–100. Henrichs, Albert (1978). “Greek Maenadism from Olympias to Messalina.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 82: 121–60. Hewson, R. H. (1985). “Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV: The Boundaries of Artaxiad Armenia” Revue des Études Anciennes 19: 55–84. Hinds, Stephen (1998). Allusion and Intertext  : Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. New York: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, Peter (2002). The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Humbert, Michel (1993). “Droit et religion dans la Rome antique.” Mélanges Felix Wubbe  : offerts par ses collègues et ses amis à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire. Paris, 191–206. 213 Humm, Michel (2005). Appius Claudius Caecus: la République accomplie. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome. Jennings, Michael W, and Rodney Livingstone (1999). Walter Benjamin  : Selected Writings 1927 - 1934. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Jocelyn, H. D. (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius: The Fragments. London: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, William A, and Holt N. Parker (2009). Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. New York: Oxford University Press. Joseph, Timothy A. (2012). Tacitus, the Epic Successor Virgil, Lucan, and the Narrative of Civil War in the Histories. Boston: Brill. Joshel, Sandra R. (1997) “Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire: Tacitus’s Messalina.” In Roman Sexualities, edited by Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 221-254. Kaminski, Antoni Z. (1991). “Res Publica, Res Privata.” International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 12.4: 337–51. Keitel, Elizabeth (1978). “The Role of Parthia and Armenia in Tacitus Annals 11 and 12.” American Journal of Philology 99.4: 462–473. ——— (2006). “Sententia and Structure in Tacitus Histories 1.12-49.” Arethusa 39.3: 219–44. Keith, Alison (2004). “Ovid’s Theban Narrative in Statius’ Thebaid.” Hermathena, 177/178: 181–207. Ker, James (2009). The Deaths of Seneca. New York: Oxford University Press. Kierdorf, W. (1996) “Annales Maximi.” Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie Der Antike. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. 214 Kleiner, Diana E. E. (1992). Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Knox, Peter (1998). Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Stuttgart: Teubner. Koestermann, Erich (1963). Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Krostenko, Brian (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kurke, Leslie (2011). Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue, and the Invention of Greek Prose. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Laederich, Pierre (2001). Les limites de l’Empire: les stratégies de l’impérialisme romain dans l’oeuvre de Tacite. Paris: Commission française d’histoire militaire: Institut de stratégie comparée: Economica. Lange, Carsten Hjort (2009). Res Publica Constituta: Actium, Apollo, and the Accomplishment of the Triumviral Assignment. Boston: Brill. Langlands, Rebecca (2006). Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lateiner, Donald (1998). Sardonic Smile: Nonverbal Behavior in Homeric Epic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Leo, Friedrich (1896). Tacitus: Rede zur Feier des Geburtstages seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs. Göttingen: Dieterich. ——— (1913). Geschichte Der Römischen Literatur. Bd. 1. Die Archäische Literatur: Berlin. Levene, D. (2002). Clio and the Poets Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography. Boston  : Brill. 215 ——— (2009). “Warfare in the Annals.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus, edited by A. J Woodman. New York: Cambridge University Press, 225–40. Levick, Barbara (1976). Tiberius The Politician. London: Thames and Hudson. ——— (1978). “Antiquarian or Revolutionary? Claudius Caesar’s Conception of His Principate.” American Journal of Philology 99.1: 79–105. ——— (1990). Claudius. New Haven  ; London: Yale University Press, 1990. Lilja, Saara (1983). Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Luce, T. (1993). Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Malloch, S. J. V. (2013). The Annals of Tacitus: Book 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marincola, John (1997). Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marsh, Frank Burr (1926). “Tacitus and Aristocratic Tradition.” Classical Philology 21.4: 289–310. Martin, Ronald H. (1994). Tacitus. Berkeley: University of California Press. Martin, Ronald H. and A. J Woodman (1989). Annals. Book IV. New York: Cambridge University Press. Matz, Friedrich (1968). Die Dionysischen Sarkophage. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. McKeown, J. C. (1979). “Augustan Elegy and Mime.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 25: 71–84. Meeks, Wayne A. (1983). The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press. 216 Mellor, Ronald (1993). Tacitus. New York: Routledge. ——— (1995). Tacitus: The Classical Heritage. New York: Garland Publishing. ——— (1998). The Historians of Ancient Rome. New York: Routledge. ——— (2011). Tacitus’ Annals. New York: Oxford University Press. Messer, William Stuart (1920). “Mutiny in the Roman Army: The Republic.” Classical Philology 15.22: 158–75. Millar, Fergus (1968). The Roman Empire and Its Neighbours. New York: Delacorte Press. ——— (1984). “State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy.” In Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects. Edited by F. Millar and E. Segal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37-60. ——— (1997). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Miller, N. P. (1959). Annals: Book I. London: Methuen. Mitchell, Th. N. (1971). “Cicero and the Senatus ‘Consultum Ultimum.’” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 20.1: 47–61. Momigliano, A. D. (1937) “Tacitismo.” Enciclopedia Italiana. Roma: Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. ——— (1961). Claudius, the Emperor and His Achievement. Cambridge: Heffer. ——— (1971). The Development of Greek Biography; Four Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ——— (1977). Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Mommsen, Theodor (1887). Römisches Staatsrecht Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer 2,1. Leipzig: Hirzel. 217 ——— (1952). Römisches Staatsrecht. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Morello, Ruth. (2006). “A Correspondence Course in Tyranny: The Cruentae Litterae of Tiberius.” Arethusa 39.2 2: 331–54. Morgan, Llewelyn (1998). “Tacitus, Annals 4.70: An Unappreciated Pun.” Classical Quarterly 48.2: 585–87. Newbold, R. F. (1990). “Nonverbal Communication in Tacitus and Ammianus.” Ancient Society 21: 189–99. Nicholas, Barry (1962). An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nicolet, Claude (1980). The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. Norden, Eduard (1961). Die römische Literatur. Mit Anhang: Die lateinische Literatur im Ubergang vom Altertum zum Mittelalter. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Nousek, Debra (2010). “Echoes of Cicero in Livy’s Bacchanalian Narrative (30.8-19).” Classical Quarterly 60.1: 156–66. Ogilvie, R. M. (1961). “Lustrum Condere.” Journal of Roman Studies 51: 31–39. O’Gorman, Ellen (2000). Irony and Misreading in the Annals of Tacitus. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2006). “Alternate Empires: Tacitus’s Virtual History of the Pisonian Principate.” Arethusa 39.2: 281–301. Oliver, Revilo P. (1949). “The Claudian Letter I.” American Journal of Archaeology 53. 3: 249–57. Ormand, Kirk (2009). Controlling Desires: Sexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome. Westport: Praeger. 218 Osgood, Josiah (2011). Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pagan, Victoria (2004). Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2004. ——— (2012). A Companion to Tacitus. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Palmer, Robert E. A. (1970). The Archaic Community of the Romans. Cambridge University Press. Panayotakis, Costas (2010). Decimus Laberius: The Fragments. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pasquali, Giorgio (1951). Stravaganze quarte e supreme. Venezia: N. Pozza. Pelling, C. (1993). “Tacitus and Germanicus.” In Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, edited by T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman, 59–85. Percival, John (1980). “Tacitus and the Principate.” Greece & Rome 27.2: 119–33. Pigoń, Jakub (2009). The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Poe, Joe Park (1984). “The Secular Games, the Aventine, and the Pomerium in the Campus Martius.” Classical Antiquity 3.1: 57–81. Pollini, John (1999). “The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver.” The Art Bulletin 81.1: 21–52. ——— (2012). From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Pomeroy, Arthur John (2006). “Theatricality in Tacitus’s Histories.” Arethusa 39.2: 171–191. 219 Porter, James I. (2000). Nietzsche and the Philology of the Future. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Potter, D. S. (1999). Literary Texts and the Roman Historian. New York: Routledge. Quint, David (1993). Epic and Empire: Politics and Generic Form from Virgil to Milton. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Raditsa, Leo Ferrero (1980). “Augustus’ Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery.” ANRW II.13: 278-339. Ramsey, J. T (2007). Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae. New York: Oxford University Press. Rawson, Elizabeth. (1979). “L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century B. C.” Classical Quarterly 29.2: 327–46. ——— (1985). Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ——— (1991). Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers. New York: Oxford University Press. Rehak, Paul, and John G. Younger (2006). Imperium and Cosmos Augustus and the Northern Campus Martius. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Reynolds, P. K. Baillie (1926). The Vigiles of Imperial Rome. London: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, R. W. (1946). “The Adultery Mime.” The Classical Quarterly 40. 3: 77–84. Richlin, Amy (1981). “Approaches to the Sources on Adultery at Rome.” Women’s Studies 8.1: 225. ——— (1984). “Invective Against Women in Roman Satire.” Arethusa 17.1. 220 ——— (1992). The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Agression in Roman Humor. New York: Oxford University Press. Rickman, Geoffrey (1980). The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford University Press. Riggsby, Andrew (1997). "'Public' and 'Private' in Roman Culture: the Case of the Cubiculum," Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 36-56. Rochlitz, Rainer (1996). The Disenchantment of Art: The Philosophy of Walter Benjamin. New York: Guilford Press. Rogers, Robert Samuel (1952). “A Tacitean Pattern in Narrating Treason-Trials.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 83: 279–311. Rosada, Guido (2001). La via Claudia Augusta Altinate. Venezia: Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, 2001. Rüpke, Jörg (1996). “Livius, Priesternamen Und Die Annales Maximi.” Klio 75: 155–179. Rutland, Linda W. (1978) “Women as Makers of Kings in Tacitus’ Annals.” Classical World 72.1: 15–29. Rutland, L. W. (1987) “The Tacitean Germanicus: Suggestions for a Re-Evaluation.” Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 130: 153–64. Ryan, F. X. (1993). “Some Observations on the Censorship of Claudius and Vitellius, A.D. 47-48.” American Journal of Philology 114.4: 611–618. Ryberg, Inez Scott (1942). “Tacitus’ Art of Innuendo.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73: 383–404. Sailor, Dylan (2002). Making History: Studies in the Poetics of Tacitean Historiography. ——— (2008). Writing and Empire in Tacitus. New York: Cambridge University Press. 221 Salway, Peter (1981). Roman Britain. New York: Oxford University Press. ——— (2002). The Roman Era: The British Isles, 55 BC-AD 410. New York: Oxford University Press. Santoro L’Hoir, Francesca (1994). “Tacitus and Women’s Usurpation of Power.” Classical World 88.1: 5–25. ——— (2006). Tragedy, Rhetoric, and the Historiography of Tacitus’ Annales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Scarry, Elaine (1985). The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford University Press. Scheid, J. (1998). Comentarii Fratrum Arualum qui supersunt. Les copies épigraphiques des protocols annuels de la Confrérie Arvale (21 AV.-304 AP. J.C). Rome. Schiavone, Aldo (2005). Ius: l’invenzione del diritto in Occidente. Torino: Einaudi. Sciarrino, Enrica (2011). Cato the Censor and the beginnings of Latin prose  : from poetic translation to elite transcription. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Seager, Robin (1972). Tiberius. Berkeley: University of California Press. Segal, C. (1973). “Tacitus and Poetic History: The End of Annals XIII.” Ramus 2: 107–126. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, and Paul Roth (1988). Apocolocyntosis. Bryn Mawr: Thomas Library, Bryn Mawr College. Shelton, Jo-Ann (2013). The Women of Pliny’s Letters. New York: Routledge. Sherk, Robert K. (1988). The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian; Translated Documents of Greece and Rome; v. 6: New York: Cambridge University Press. Shotter, D. (1968). “Tacitus, Germanicus and Tiberius.” Historia 17: 194–214. ——— (1992). Tiberius Caesar. New York: Routledge. 222 Shotter, D. C. A. (1972) “The Trial of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 21.1: 88–98. Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1989) “Another Οὐϲία of D. Valerius Asiaticus in Egypt.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79: 194–96. Sinclair, Patrick (1995). Tacitus the Sententious Historian: A Sociology of Rhetoric in Annales 1-6. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Skinner, Marilyn B. (1983) “Clodia Metelli.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 113: 273–87. Skutsch, Otto (1968). Studia Enniana. London: Athlone Press. ——— (1985). The Annals of Q. Ennius. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Smallwood, Edith Mary (1967). Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius Claudius and Nero. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strunk, Thomas E. (2015). “Collaborators Amongst the Opposition: Deconstructing the Imperial Cursus Honorum.” Arethusa 48.1: 47–58. Suerbaum, Werner (1968). Untersuchungen Zur Selbstdarstellung Älterer Römischer Dichter Livius Andronicus, Naevius, Ennius. Hildesheim: G. Olms. ——— (2002). Die Archaische Literatur: Von Den Anfängen bis Sullas Tod: Die Vorliterarische Periode und Die Zeit von 240 bis 78 v. Chr. München: C.H. Beck. Suolahti, Jaakko (1963). The Roman Censors. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia Syme, Ronald (1958). Tacitus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2002). The Roman Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Tan, Zoë M. (2014). “Subversive Geography in Tacitus’ Germania.” Journal of Roman Studies 104: 181–204. 223 Thomas, Richard F. (1986) “Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 90: 171–198. Todd, Malcolm (1999). Roman Britain. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Toner, J. P. (2009). Popular Culture in Ancient Rome. Malden: Polity. Treggiari, Susan (1991). Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. New York: Oxford University Press. Turpin, William (1994). “Res Gestae 34.1 and the Settlement of 27 B. C.” Classical Quarterly 44.2: 427–37. Ullman, B. L. (1942). “History and Tragedy.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73: 25–53. Vervaet, Frederik Juliaan (1999). “Tacitus, Domitius Corbulo and Traianus’ Bellum Parthicum.” L’Antiquité Classique 68: 289–97. ——— (2002). “Domitius Corbulo and the Senatorial Opposition to the Reign of Nero.” Ancient Society Ancient Society 32: 135–93. ——— (2005) “Domitius Corbulo and the Rise of the Flavian Dynasty.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 52.4: 436–64. Vessey, D. W. T. C. (1971). “Thoughts on Tacitus’ Portrayal of Claudius.” American Journal of Philology 92.3: 385–409. Walters, Brian Channing (2011). “Metaphor, Violence, and the Death of the Roman Republic.” PhD Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Walters, Jonathan (1997). “Invading the Roman Body: Manliness and Impenetrability in Roman Thought.” In Roman Sexualities, edited by Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 29-47. 224 Warmington, E. H. (1982). Remains of Old Latin: In Four Volumes. II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Webb, Ruth (2009). Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Burlington: Ashgate. Webster, Graham (1958). “The Roman Military Advance Under Ostorius Scapula.” Archaeological Journal 115: 49–98. West, David Alexander, and A. J Woodman (1979). Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wiedemann, T. E. J. (2013 a) “From Nero to Vespasian.” In The Cambridge Ancient History,. Edited by Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Andrew Lintott, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256-282. ——— (2013 b). “Tiberius to Nero.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, edited by Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Andrew Lintott, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198–255. Williams, B. M. (1992) “Image and Reality in Tacitus’ Annals.” PhD Dissertation. Monash University. Williams, Craig Arthur (1992). “Homosexuality and the Roman Man: A Study in the Cultural Construction of Sexuality” PhD Dissertation. Yale University. Williams, Kathryn Frances (2009). “Tacitus’ Germanicus and the Principate.” Latomus 68.1: 117–30. Willrich, Hugo (1903) “Caligula.” Klio 3. Wirszubski, Chaim (1950). Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 225 Wiseman, T. P. (1982). “Calpurnius Siculus and the Claudian Civil War.” The Journal of Roman Studies 72: 57–67. ——— (2008). Unwritten Rome. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Woodman, A. J. (1985). “Tacitus and Tiberius: The Alternative Annals: An Inaugural Lecture.” Durham: University of Durham. ——— (1988). Rhetoric in Classical Historiography. London: Routledge, 1988. ——— (1992). Author and Audience in Latin Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press. ——— (1998). Tacitus Reviewed. New York: Clarendon Press. ——— (2004). The Annals. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. ——— (2006a). “Tiberius and the Taste of Power: The Year 33 in Tacitus.” Classical Quarterly 56, no. 01 (2006): 175–89. ——— (2006b). “Mutiny and Madness: Tacitus Annals 1.16-49.” Arethusa 39, no. 2 (2006): 303–29. ——— (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus. New York: Cambridge University Press. Woodman, A. J. and Ronald H. Martin (1996). The Annals of Tacitus: Book 3. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zanobi, Alessandra (2014). Seneca’s Tragedies and the Aesthetics of Pantomime. London: Bloomsbury. Ziegler, Karl-Heinz (1964). Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation is a study of Books 11 and 12 of Tacitus’ Annales. Specifically, it is a study of the narrative organization of the Claudian annals. Tacitus organizes events in Books 11 and 12 by referring to sets of cultural practices and ideologies. In so doing, Tacitus exposes gaps between images projected by the imperial regime and historical reality as Tacitus seems to see it. By opposing images to reality, Tacitus constructs his criticisms of Claudius, ultimately showing him to be incapable of governing himself, his domus and the empire at large.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A culture of sociability: Popular speech in ancient Rome

PDF

Nne (Negro Nonstandard English) Grammatical Items In The Speech Of Negro Elementary School Children As Correlates Of Age, Grade, And Social Status

PDF

Scripted voices: persona and speech in Senecan philosophy

PDF

The moral basement: investigations into ethics and irony in contemporary fiction

PDF

Transatlantic Irish and the racial state

PDF

Cicero's Academica and the foundation of a Roman academy

PDF

The end of Augustan literature: Ovid's Epistulae ex Ponto IV

PDF

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

Writing materials: things in the literature of Flavian rome

PDF

Martial's monumental Epigrams: the semiotics of Martial's poetry on the urban landscape of Flavian Rome

PDF

Intercorporeality: toward a new history of Roman emotion

PDF

"ipsum principem cernere in publico": the visibility of the Roman emperor from 27BCE to 40CE

PDF

Seneca's Medea and the tragic self

PDF

Genre transgression and moral interrogations in early modern English revenge drama

PDF

Categorizing difference: classification, biology, and politics in Aristotelian philosophy

PDF

Nineteenth-century artificial intelligences: thinking machines, mechanized minds, and the Victorian detective

PDF

The monstrous city: urban sprawl, Los Angeles, and the literature of the fantastic

PDF

Prosodic recursion and syntactic cyclicity inside the word

PDF

Gender play and boundary crossing in Posidippus' Hippika: female appropriation of classical horsemanship ideology during the Hellenistic period

PDF

Comparative iIlusions at the syntax-semantics interface

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Neill, Joseph Ryan (author)

Core Title Cultural practice, ideology and irony in Tacitus' Claudian Annals

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Classics

Publication Date 09/09/2015

Defense Date 08/26/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Annales,Annals,Claudius,OAI-PMH Harvest,Tacitus

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Boyle, Anthony J. (committee chair), Habinek, Thomas N. (committee chair), Pollini, John (committee member)

Creator Email joseph.oneill@asu.edu,jroneill@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-177014

Unique identifier UC11274387

Identifier etd-ONeillJose-3888.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-177014 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ONeillJose-3888.pdf

Dmrecord 177014

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights O'Neill, Joseph Ryan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA